HomeMy WebLinkAbout030496 PC AgendaC.~L TO ORDER:
ROLL C,&LL:
PUBLIC C01~t1~1TS
TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION
March 4, 1996, 6:00 PM
Rancho California Water District's
~oard Room
42135 Winchester Road
Temecula, CA 92390
Vice Chair Fahey
Fahey, Miller, 31aven, .Webster
A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address the commi~..io~ 'on items that
ere not listed on the .~genda;..-Speakers ere limited to three (3) minutes each,..If ~ou d~Sire to. spea~ to
.the Commission~::~bout an item ~:listed on the Agenda, a pink "Rellue~ to Speak".Yornt"should be
filed out and ~le~!i~ith the Co~on Secretary, . · .... · .......
When you ere Called to speak, please COme forward ~nd stale. voU~ '~Wne and address,
For all other agenda items a "Request.to S~k~ form must be ~ed with the Planning Secretary before
.............. I .....
COMMI,~,~IOIV BUSINA'S$
Appru,'ul uf Agenda
OutIs of Office - Rich Solt.~slak
Aplminh'nenl or a Ne,,q, Clmirpmon
ApprOval ur Mhiulen from the No,m~mher 6, 1995 Plapaalng Cammi~iun Meeting
I*Lani,'rree Spefies List
· %plmi,ilmeqt ur a Representative ~lr the ,%ign Ordjqaqix, Cummiltep
· Xppointmeut uf a Reprmemative for the Joinl TemeculalMurrieta Traffic Committee
Director's Hearing Case Update Report
Approval of Alcohol License for:
1. Hogg Wild (PA96-000D
2. Sports Grill (PA95-0123)
R:%WIMa~aVG~et,ANCDMM%A01DeDAS~I-4J~ 7J~9/~6 ~lw 1
PUBLIC
Case No:
Applicant:
Location;
Proposal:
Environmental Action:
Planner:
Recommendation:
Planning Application No. 9z~0125
City of Temecula
All property within the Sphere of Influence
Annexation Guidelines for the City of Temecula
Not a Project per Section 21065 of the California Environmental Quality
Act
Saied Naaseh
Recommend Approval'
Case No: Planning Applleation No. PA95-0140, (Rancho Baptist Church)
Applicant: Rancho Baptist Church
Location: 29775 Santiago Road
Proposal: Revise conditions of approval for Plot Plan No. 625 to allow te~l~r~y
modular buildings to become permanent and to allow additional modular
.............. bgildings to be used for classrooms . · .....' ..... ""'
Environn!~l{~ Action: F.~pt ...' ... i .........
Planner: i'- .. · "' ."'
Case No: Pinnni~g AppliCation No; PAgS-0LtS, Conditional Use Permit, (Shell
i'. Station)'
I.A~catiou. Northeast ~,~.~rn..:T Of 't'n~ R.ad and S(:lana wa.v
Propo.~ah To construct a gas station, a 3,~00 ~quare foot mini-ma; ke:. and a 1,080
self-service gas rotion na a previously graded, vacant p;ir,:el within an
exi.~ting r. eighN~rho4xl :omm,rc3al c.'nger.
Env,ronmcnwa] Aaion: Proposed N.-.g.,li~.e Declaration
Pla.~ner; Craig Rx:iz
R=':~:mm:ndaion: Approve
12.
Clt~ie
Applicant:
Localion:
Prol~)sa]
Environmental Action:
Planner:
Recommendation:
Planning Appliealion No. 96-01127 (Zoning Amendment, Specific
Plan)
Bramalea California. In:. :rod CCL Ccnsffuction. Inc.
North of Ran:ho Calift,rnta RO',K!, emit of Meadows Parkway, south of
La Serena Way and w~sc of Buner~eld Stage Road
Amendment to Planrang .A. re,,,~ ~, 10, i I and 12 ol'Spo,:ific Iqan No. 199
Margas ira Village m in:r~ase the m:,x.nutn square ftNlt,'tge Of housing
size:,
None
Matthew Fagan
Recommend Approval
Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Environmental Action:
Planner:
Recommendation:
Planning Application No. PA96-0003 (Tentative Tract No. 28309)
BA Properties, Inc., c/o Realty Management Advisors
South of Nicolas Road, east of Villa Valencia and west of Via Lobo
A forty-six (46) lot residential subdivision of 11.2 acres
Mitigated Negative Declaration
Matthew Fagan
Approval
R:%~VOUq,ANCO~O~AOnqDAS~.~6 2/29~ v~v 2
Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Planning Application No. PA96-0019 (Zoning Amendment, Specific
Plan) and Planning Application No. PA96-0020 (General Plan
Amendment)
McMillen Project Services, Inc.
North of Panclio California Road, east of Margarita Road, South of La
Serena Way and west of Meadows Parkway
Amend Specific..Plan No. 199 (Margarita Village), removing the
Retirement Oriented Housing Restriction and an Amendment to the City
of Temecula General Plan Land Use Map from High Density Residential
to Medium Density Residential for Planning Areas No. 38 and 40 of
Environmental Action:
Planner:
Recommendation: Recommend Approval
Specific Plan No. 199
None
Matthew Fagan
lS. Case No: Planning Applleatlon
....... · ..........COnditional Use Pennlt: PA94-0061), planning ~ppllenfi0n'No,
...~!~::"' P~25 (Revised Permit-Westside. Specific Plan~- -P.4~954}003),
-~ii, p~ing Application No. PAg.6-0q2~ (Rev~ Pernii~-Tentafive Tract
:: '::~u~',~.~,..',i:;;~p No. 28011: PAge0004) - Old. Town' Redevelopment Project
Applicant: City of:Temecul~ · . .......
Location: A sectk~.n.:of Old 'To~n.Tem~ula generally bounded by Second Street to
i'..'-. the 5Ou~h, ~utr~e~a Creek to the west, Moreno Road to the north and
i .. '.' · .......Interstat~i!l~i~.._s~ ......
Pro|x}sal: I)clction of a p~Riou of Con,lition of Approval No. 44 of Planning
Apph,:ation No. 94.00~! (M~ster CoMkional Use Pe. mlil ): a portion of
Condition of At, pr,val h'o. 38 of Planning App|ica~on ~o. 95-0003
(westside Spe~ifi: I>l.',n~; a p~r:ion of Con~L:ion of Ap.l:t oval No. 83 and
Condition of Apprcr,'at No. 32 of Phmnir. g Appli:~tion No. PA95-0004
fTentative Tra~ Map No. 28011} pertaining m ziming of improvements.
Environmentla A~,on. None
Pla,-,ner: Matthew Fagnn
R~commend.,,ien: Rewmm,-nd AppwvvJ
FI,.'~NNING DIR/[.TOR'S REPORT
PI.ANNING COMMIS.~ION DISCU.~SION
()TIlleR BUSINI'~S
Next meeting: Mareh 18, 1996 - Regular Planning Commission meeting
ADJOURNMENT
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
March 4, 1996
Planning Application No. PA96-0024 (Revised Permit-Master Conditional Use Permit:
PA94-0061 ), Planning Application No. PA96-0025 (ReviSed Permit-Westside Specific
Plan: PA95-0003), Planning Application No. PA96-0026 (Revised Permit-Tentative
Tract Map No. 28011: PA95-0004) - Old Town Redevelopment Project
Prepared By: Steve Cresswell, Principal Engineer Matthew Fagan, Associate Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Department Staff recommends the Planning
Commission:
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
PROPOSAL:
ADOPT Resolution No. 96- recommending approval of
Planning Applications No. PA96-0024, PA96-0025 and
PA96-0026 pertaining to interchange improvements to
Rancho California Road and Interstate 15 based upon the
Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report;
LOCATION:
ADOPT Resolution No. 96- recommending approval of
Planning Application No. PA96-0026 pertaining to the
timing of recordation of a final subdivision map and
issuance of a grading permit, based upon the Analysis and
Findings contained in the Staff Report; and
RECOMMEND Approval of Planning Applications No.
PA96-0024, PA96-0025 and PA96-0026, subject to the
attached Conditions of Approval.
City of Temecula
Deletion of a portion of Condition of Approval No. 44 of Planning
Application No. 94-0061 (Master Conditional Use Permit); a
portion of Condition of Approval No. 38 of Planning Application
No. 95-0003 (Westside Specific Plan); a portion of Condition of
Approval No. 83 and Condition of Approval No. 32 of Planning
Application No. PA95-0004 (Tentative Tract Map No. 28011)
pertaining to timing of improvements
Generally located west of Interstate 15, north of First
Street/Santiago Road, east of the City's. Western Border and
south of Rancho California Road
The Winchester Road/l-15 interchange and Route 79(S)/1-15 interchange will be under
construction at approximately the same time. Depending on the impacts from these
projects, it may not be desirable to have all three interchanges under construction
simultaneously.
The impact from traffic occurs on Saturday peak hours. The applicant has submitted
a proposal to divert traffic to the Route 79(S)/F15 interchange. That will help alleviate
this condition (reference Attachment No. 4). Staff recommends that the mitigation
enumerated in this letter be included as a condition of approval for the project.,
The City is currently processing improvement plans for the Rancho California Road/I-15
interchange and would prefer to control the timing of these improvements without
having the construction of interim improvements interfering with the City's capital
project.
Indications from Caltrans show a preference to have the ultimate improvements
constructed by the City and not disrupt traffic due to construction more than once.
The City currently has a project underway to interconnect the signals at the I-15 ramps
and along Jefferson, Ynez, Winchester and Rancho California Roads. This signal
interconnect will help improve service at the overcrossings.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Planning Application No. PA95-0031 (Environmental Impact Report) was prepared for the Old
Town Entertainment Project and was certified by the City of Temecula City Council in July,
1995. According to Section 21166 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), no
subsequent or supplemental environmental impact report is required for the project unless one
or more of the following events occurs: substantial changes are proposed in the project which
will require major revisions of the EIR; substantial changes occur with respect to circumstance
under which the project is being undertaken which will require major revisions in the EIR; or,
new information, which was not known at the time of the EIR was certified and complete
becomes available. None of these situations have occurred; therefore, no further
environmental analysis is required.
SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS
Since the City Council approval of the Project, Staff has had numerous meetings with the
applicant and his representatives to discuss a variety of issues related to the project. Staff
has recently determined that conditions of approval for the project relating to submittal of the
grading plan prior to the recordation of the final map and the timing of improvements to the
Rancho California/Interstate 15 interchange could present potential problems to the Project as
well as impact current City capital improvement projects. Staff is recommending more
flexibility be allowed for the specific timing of these issues.
FINDINGS
Planning Application No. PA96-0024 (Revised Permit-Master Conditional Use Permit:
PA94~0061 ), Planning Application No. PA96-0025 (Revised Permit-Westside Specific
Plan: PA95-0003), Planning Application No. PA96-0026 (Revised Permit-Tentative
R:~STAFFRFr\OTRP-R~V,PC 2128196 vgw 4
The basis for this request is to allow grading of the arena and the hotel site concurrent with
the grading of the Western Bypass and the First Street extension. This will facilitate balancing
of the cut and fill of all three sites and minimize any export or import of soil material. It will
also reduce overall grading costs due to economies of scale of the work and avoid having to
move the soil material more than once by having to temporarily stockpile it.
Recommendation: Issue No. 1
Staff has reviewed this request and recommends deletion of this ci~ndition for the following
reasons:
All three sites will be graded concurrently maximizing the balance of cut and fill.for the
sites.
Import and export will be reduced thereby reducing the impact from trucks on local
streets.
3. Overall project costs will be reduced due to the economy of scale,
Grading may commence while the map is being processed which will assist the
applicant with the overall timing for completion of the project.
Grading will be able to proceed during the dry weather season minimizing potential
impacts from sedimentation from storm water runoff,
It is desirable to complete the grading prior to placing asphalt on the Western Bypass
and First Street minimizing the impact to these newly constructed streets.
Issue No, 2:
This issue pertains to the deletion of a portion of Condition of Approval No, 44 of Planning
Application No, 94-0061 (Master Conditional Use Permit); a portion of Condition of Approval
No. 38 of Planning ApplicatiOn No. 95-0003 (Westside Specific Plan); and a portion of
Condition of Approval. No, 83 of Planning Application No, PA95-0004 (Tentative Tract Map
No. 28011 ) regarding interim improvements to the Rancho California Road/I-15 overcrossing,
The applicant was conditioned to provide interim improvements consisting of widening the
existing ramps to the north and south on-ramps and re-striping of Rancho California Road to
provide additional lanes,
The City is currently designing ultimate improvements which includes the ramp widening, loop
on-ramps, bridge widening and re-striping.
The purpose of this condition was to alleviate peak hour traffic on Saturdays between the
hours of 1:00 p,m, and 2:00 p,m, only, Peak hour weekdays are not significantly impacted
by operation of the Entertainment Center which operates at off peak hours,
Recommendation: Issue No. 2
Staff recommends deletion of this portion of the condition(s) for the following reasons:
R:\STAFFRPT\OTRP-REV.PC 2/28196 vgw 3
Tract Map No. 28011: PA95-0004)are consistent with the City's General Plan. The
findings made for the original approval still apply for the revised project.
The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the public health or
general welfare of the community. Mitigation measures originally approved for the
project will remain in effect for this project, Conditions of approval added to the
project will serve to further mitigate any impacts from this project.
The proposal will not have an adverse effect on surrounding property, because the use
does not represent a significant change to the present or previously planned land use
of the area.
The site is suitable to accommodate the proposed land use in terms of the size and
shape of the lot configuration, circulation patterns, access, and intensity of use due to
the fact that the proposed development complies with the standards of the City's
General Plan, Ordinance No. 460 and Ordinance No. 348.
Attachments:
PC Resolution - Blue Page 6
A. Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 10
PC Resolution - Blue Page 13
Letter from Fluor Daniel dated February 12, 1996 - Blue Page 16
Letter from TZBG dated February 14, 1996- Blue Page 17
R:~STAI~RPT~OTR~-RBV.PC 2/28/96 mr 5
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
PC RESOLUTION NO.
3. The proposal will not have an adverse effect on surrounding property, because
the use does not represent a significant change to the present or previously planned land use of the area.
4. The site is suitable to accommodate the proposed land use in terms of the size and
shape of the lot configuration, circulation patterns, access, and intensity of use due to the fact that the
proposed development complies with the standards of the City's General Plan, Ordinance No. 460 and
Ordinance No. 348.
Section 3. Environmental Compliance. Planning Application No. PA95-0031 (Environmental
Impact Report) was prepared for the Old Town Ente4't~inment Project and was c~rti~ed by the City of
Temecula City Council in July, 1995. According to Section 21166 of the' California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA), no subsequent or supplemental environmental impact report is required for the
project urdess one or more of the following events occurs: substantial changes are proposed in the project
which will require major revisions of the EIR; substantial changes occur with respect to circumstance
under which the project is being undertaken which will require major revisions in the EIR; or, new
information, which was not known at the time of the EIR was certified and complete becomes available.
None of these situations have occurred; therefore, no further environmental analysis is required.
Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission heraby recommends
approval of Planning Applications No. PA96-0024, PA96-0025 and PA96-0026 subject to the following
conditions:
A. Exhibit A, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference and made a part
hereof.
R:X$TAFFRPTXOTRP-~V.I}C 2f2g/96 mf ~
ATTACHMENT NO, 1
PC RF-~OLUTION NO. 96-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA DELIfi'iNG A PORTION OF CONDITION
OF APPROVAL NO. 4,$ OF PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 9,~
0061 (MAb'r,%R CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT), A PORTION OF
CONDrrlON OF APPROVAL NO. 38 OF .PLANNeqG
APPLICATION NO. 9~0003 ~!DE SPECIFIC PLAN); AND
A PORTION OF CONDITION OF APPROVAL NO. 8~ OF
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA95-0004 (TENTATIVE TRACT
MAP NO. 28011) PERTAINING TO THE TIMING OF
IMPROVEMENTS TO THE INTk;RCHANGE AT RANClIO
CALIFORNIA ROAD AND INTERSTATE IS
WHEREAS, the City ffTemecula filed Planning Applications No. PA96-0024, PA96-002S and
PA96-0026 in accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Riverside County Land Use and
Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference;
WHEREAS, Planning Applications No. PA96-0024, PA96-0025 and PA96-0026 were processed
in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commition considered Planning Applications No. PA96-0024, PA96-
0025 and PA96-0026 on March 4, 1996, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which
time interested persons had an opportunity to testi~ either in support or in opposition;
WHEREAS, at the public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments,
if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, the Commission considered all facts relating to Planning
Applications No. PA96-0024, PA96-002S and PA96-0026;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct.
Section 2. Findings. The Planning Commission, in recommending approval of Planning
Applications No. PA964)024, PA96-0025 and PA96-0026 makes the following findings:
1. Planning Application No. PA96-0024 (Revised Permit-Master Conditional Use
Permit: PA94-0061), Planning Application No. PA96-0025 (Revised Permit-Westside Specific Plan:
PA95-0003), Planning Application No. PA96-0026 (Revised Permit-Tentative Tract Map No. 28011:
PA95-0004) are consistent with the City's General Plan. The findings made for the original approval sffil
apply for the revised project.
2. The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the public health
or general welfare ofthe community. Mitigation measure~ originally approved for the project will remain
in effect for this project. Conditions of approval added to the projea will serve to further mitigate any
impacts from this project.
R:~TAFFRFBOTItP-REV.I~ 2/2886 mf 7
Section S. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 4th day of March, 1996.
CHAIRMAN
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing R~solution was duly adopted by the Planning
Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 4th day of March, 1996
by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
NOES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
DEBBIE UBNOSKE
SECRETARY
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Planning Application No. PA96-0024 (Revised Permi t-Master Conditional Use Permit: PA94-
0061), Planning Application No. PA96-0025 (Revised Permit-Westside Specific Plan: PA95-
0003), Planning Application No. PA96-0026 (Revised Permit-Tentative Tract Map No. 28011:
PA95-0004) - Old Town Redevelopmeat Project
Project Description: Deletion of a portion of Condition of Approval No, 44 of Planning
Application No. 94-0061 (Master Conditional Use Permi0, a Portion of Condition of
Approval No. 38 of Planning Application No. 95-0003 (Westside Specific Plan); and a
Portion of Condition of Approval No. 83 of Planning Application No. PA95-0004 (Tentative
Tract Map No. 28011) Pertaining to the Timing of Improve~nents to the Interchange at
Rancho California Road and Interstate 15
Approval Date:
Expiration Date:
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
General Requirements
The developer/applicant shall indemnify, protect, defend, and hold harmless, the City and any
agency or instrumentality thereof, and/or any of its officers, employees and agents from any and
all claims, actions, or proceedings agsin.~t the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, or
any of its officers, employees and agents, to attack, set aside, void, annul, or seek monetary
damages resulting from an approval of the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof,
advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body including actions approved by the voters of the
City, concerning the Planning Application No. PA96-0024 (Revised Permit-Master Conditional
Use Permit: PA94-0061), Planning Application No. PA96-0025 (Revised Permit-Westside
Specific Plan: PA95-0003), Planning Application No. PA96-0026 (Revised Permit-Tentative Tract
Map No. 28011: PA95-0004), which action is brought within the appropriate statute of I imitations
period and Public Resources Code, Division 13, Chapter 4 (Section 21000 et sea., including but
not by the way of limitations Section 21152 and 21167). City shall promp~y notify the
developer/applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding brought within this time period. City
shall further cooperate fully in the defense of the action. Should the City fail to either promp~y
notify or cooperate fully, developer/applicant shall not, thereafter be responsible to indemnify,
defend, protect, or hold harmless the City, any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its
officers, employees, or agents.
All signage visible from Interstate 15 shall direct patrons of the Old Town Entertninment
Complex to the 1-15/SR 79 South interchange.
All parking will be located off of the Western Bypass or accessible from the Western Bypass.
Preferred parking or valet parking will from the Western Bypass.
4. No traffic shall be directed through Old Town toward Rancho California Road.
5. All exiting ~raffic shall be directed south on the Western Bypass on SR79/I-15.
EXHIBIT A
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
R:~STAPFRPnOTRP-R~V.FC ~ZS86 ~ 10
Prior to the Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy
Signage shall be placed at the intersection of Front Street and the Western Bypass directing
patrons to parking off of the Western Bypass.
All brochures will have maps and parking instructions will direct patrons to SR79 South/Interstate
15 interchange until such time that either the improvements to Rancho California RoadFI-15 or
Overland Road overpass are completed.
A request to Caltrans for project signage on 1-15 will be fnitiated. Th9 signs will serve tO direct
patrons to the SR79/I-15 exit.
R:XSTAFHH"BOTIU'-REV.pC ~s~ mf 12
ATI'ACHMENT NO. 2
PC RESOLUTION NO. 96-
Section 3. Environmental Compliance. Planning Application No. PA95-0031 (Environmental
Impact Report) was prepared for the Old Town Entensinment Project and was certified by the City of
Temecula City Council in July, 1995. According to Section 21166 of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA), no subsequent or supplemental environmental impact report is required for the
project unless one or more of the following events occurs: substantial changes are proposed in the project
which will require major revisions of the EIR; substantial changes occur with respect to circumstance
under which the project is being undertaken which will require major revisions in the EIR; or, new
information, which was not known at the time of the EIR was certified and complete becomes available.
None of these situations have occurred; therefore, no further environmental analysis is requited.
Section 4. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 4th day of March, 1996.
CHAIRMAN
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning
Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 4th day of March, 1996
by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
DEBBIE UBNOSKE
SECRETARY
R:XSTAFFRPTXOTRP-R~V.~' .'lt28t~ mf '] 5
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
PC RESOLUTION NO. 96-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA DELETING CONDITION OF APPROVAL
NO. 32 OF PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 95-0003 (YVKVrSIDE
SPECIFIC PLAN) PERTAINING TO TIMING FOR THE
RECORDATION OF A FINAL ~jBDM SION MAP AND ~
ISSUANCE OF A GRADING PERMIT
WHEREAS, The City of Temecula fried Planning Application No. PA96-0026 (Revised Permit)
in accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Riverside County Land Use and Subdivision
Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference;
WHEREAS, Planning Application No. PA96-0026 (Revised Permit) was processed in the time
and manner prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered Manning Application No. PA96-0026 (Revised
Permit) on March 4, 1996, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time interested
persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or in opposition;
WHEREAS, at the public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments,
if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, the Commission considered all facts relating to Pining
Application No. PA96-0026 (Revised Pemit);
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct.
Section 2. Findings, The Planning Commission, in recommending approval of Planning
Application No. PA96-0026 (Revised Permit) makes the following findings:
1. Planning Application No. PA96-0026 (Revised Permit-Tentative Tract Map No.
28011: PA95-0004) is consistent with the City's General Plan. The findings made for the original
approval still apply for the revised project.
2. The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the public health
or general welfare of the community. Mitigation measures originally approved for the project will remain
in effect for this project. Conditions of approval added to the project will serve to further mitigate any
impacts from this project.
3. The proposal will not have an adverse effect on surrounding property, because
the use does not represent a significant change to the present or previously planned land use of the area.
4. The site is suitable to accommodate the proposed land use in terms of the size and
shape of the lot configuration, circulation patterns, access, and intensity of use due to the fact that the
proposed development complies with the standards of the City's General Plan, Ordinance No. 460 and
Ordinance No. 348.
R:~TAFFRFrXOTRP-REV.[~C 2/28/96 mf 14
**
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
L~,'I'I'~R FROM FLUOR DANIEL DATED FEBRUARY 12, 1996
FLUOR DANIEL
Fluor Daniel, inc
3333 Michelson Drive, Irvine CA 92730
(714) 975-2000
RECEIVED
F E g 6 1996
OIlY OF TEIvF-CULA
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
February 12, 1996
John LeWay
Project Manager
T.Z.B.G. Inc.
43513 Ridge Park Dr.
Temecula, CA 92590
Modification to Tentative Tract Map #28011 Conditions of Approval
DearJohn;
In order for Fluor Daniel to be able to perform the eady subdivision grading of the Hotel
and Arena site of the Tentative Tract Map #28011, the condition of approval number 32
needs to be deleted. Deletion of this condition will permit Fluor Daniel to be able to
grade the site at the same time as the Westem Bypass and First St. are being graded,
which will facilitate the cut and fill balancing of all three sites.
Fluor Daniel will submit rough grading plans for review and approval based upon the
approved site plan. All mitigation measures associated with the grading operations will
be in place as required by the Conditions of Approval and Mitigation Monitoring
program. Any other submittals necessary to begin grading operations or safeguards
normally required for eady subdivision grading of a site will be met per the Conditions.
Please follow up with the City of Temecula to make sure that this request to delete
Condition of Approval number 32 to Tentative Tract Map #28011 is on the agenda for
the March 4, 1996 Planning Commission meeting. You can cell me at (714) 975-6876 if
you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Tom Shimmin
Project Director
cc: Steve Cresswell, City of Temecula
JTS
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
Lv.,-l-rl~;R FROM TZBG DATED FEBRUARY 14, 1996
R:~qTAFFRY~OTRP-REV.FC 2J2g196 mf 17
February 14, 1996
FEB I 6 1996
Ron Bradley
City of Temecula
Temecula, CA 92590
Dear Ron:
Per your request, the following is a list of items the Old Town Temecula Entertainment Compiex
project will do to mitigate traffic concerns ai~er removal of the Condition of Approval for the
Rancho California Road/I- 15 work:
All signage visible from the fleeway will direct patrons of the Old Town
Entertainment Complex to the I-15/SR79 South Interchange.
There will be signage at the Western Bypass and Front Street intersection direction
patrons to go up the Western Bypass, to get to the parking.' ' '
All parking will be_located off the Western Bypass or accessible from the Western
Bypass. Preferred parking or valet parking will be from the Western Bypass down
First Street. No traffic will be directed through Old Town towards Rancho
California Road.
All exiting traffic will be directed south on the Western Bypass on SR79/I-15.
All brochures that have maps and parking instructions that come with tickets will
direct patrons to SK79 South/I- 15 interchange.
A request to CalTrans for project signage on 1-15 will be initiated. This request
will be for signs directin~ patrons to the SR79 South/I-15 exit.
ny questions, please feel free to call me or John LeWay.
. v Buffman _.
A TZBG. Inc. Venture
ITEM #2
OATH OF OFFICE
RICH SOLTYSIAK
ITEM #3
APPOINTMENT OF A NEW CHAIRPERSON
ITEM #4
MINUTES FROM
NOVEMBER 6, 199~
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 6, 1995
A regular meeting of the City of Temecula Planning Commission was called to order
on Monday, November 6, 1995, 6:00 P.M., at the Rancho California Water District
Board Room, 42135 Winchester Road, Temecula, California. Chairman Steve Ford
presiding.
PRESENT: Miller, Fahey, Ford, Webster
ABSENT: Slaven
Also present were Planning Manager Debbie Ubnoske, Assistant City Attorney Greg
Diaz, Senior Planner John Meyer, Principal Engineer Steve Cresswell.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Chairman Ford called for public comments on non-agenda items. There were no
requests to speak.
COMMISSION BUSINESS
1. ADoroval of Aqenda
It was moved by Commissioner Fahey and seconded by Commissioner Webster to
approve the agenda.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES: 4
NOES: 0
ABSENT: 1
DIRECTOR'S UPDATE
2.
COMMISSIONERS: Miller, Fahey, Ford, Webster
COMMISSIONERS: None
COMMISSIONERS: Slaven
Planning Manager Debbie Ubnoske stated she was available to answer
questions on any item submitted in the written report. There were no
questions from the Commission.
Approval of Minutes
3.1 Minutes of June 5, 1995
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
NOVEMBER 6. 199S
It was moved by Commissioner Fahey and seconded by Commissioner
Webster to approve the minutes of June 5, 1995 with the following
modifications: Page 3 - Item 4 PA95-0034 (Plot Plan) after Mitiaation
on the traffic study and the Transportation Easement. add the
following:
The motion carried as follows:
AYES:
3 COMMISSIONERS: Ford, Fahey, Webster
NOES:
0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: I COMMISSIONERS: Slaven
ABSTAIN I COMMISSIONERS: Miller
3.2 Minutes of July 17.1995
It was moved by Commissioner Fahey and seconded by Commissioner
Webster to approve the minutes of July 17, 1995 as written.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES:
4 COMMISSIONERS: Miller, Ford, Fahey, Webster
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: I COMMISSIONERS: Slaven
3.3 Minutes of August 7. 1995
It was moved by Commissioner Fahey and seconded by Commissioner
Webster to approve the minutes of August 7, 1995, with the
following modifications: 1) Insert F~hev and delete BLair where it
appears. 2) Page 5 - change sentence to read that "Commissioner
Miller recommended the installation of a pedestrian walkway starting
at "E" Street to "A" Street" and 3) On page 5 - PA 95-0015 -
Tentative Tract MaD insert action taken as follows: "It was moved by
Commissioner Slaven and seconded by Commissioner Webster to
continue the tentative tract map PA 95-0015 to the next Planning
Commission Meeting of August 21, 1995."
The motion carried as follows:
PLANNING COM]V[ffiSION ]VEET!~G
AYES: 4
NOES: 0
ABSENT: I
NOVEMBER 6. 1995
COMMISSIONERS: Miller, Ford, Fahey, Webster
COMMISSIONERS: None
COMMISSIONERS: Slaven
3.4 Minutes of August 21. 1995
It was moved by Commissioner Miller and seconded by Commissioner
Fahey to approve the minutes of August 21, 1995, withthe following .
modification: On page 6 - change the number 5 to 4
COMMISSIONERS on the action taken.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES:
4 COMMISSIONERS: Miller, Ford, Fahey, Webster
NOES:
0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: I COMMISSIONERS: Slaven
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
4. PA 95-0097 (Public Use Permit)
Assistant Planner Matthew Fagen presented the staff report and cited
the rationale for selection of this location for the ABC Preschool. Staff
recommended adoption of the negative declaration and the Planning
Application 95-0097.
Commissioner Miller expressed concern with the design as submitted
making the east drive way the only way in and the west driveway the
only way out.
Commissioner Ford expressed concern that cars might park in the
street and requested the street width. Engineer Cresswell responded
this is a three-lane street, which has ample space for street parking.
Commissioner Webster requested the results of the traffic study and
what impact increased traffic would have on Solana Way. He also
wondered if a crosswalk and sidewalks were needed.
Commissioner Fahey expressed her support for the installation of the
proposed traffic signal prior to the opening of the preschool.
Chairman Ford opened the Public Hearing at 6:30 P.M.
P:\WIMBERVO~IIO~5.1~ ~ ~ ~
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
NOVEMBER 6. 1995
Malinda Smith, Owner of ABC Preschool, thanked the staff for all the
assistance she received during the planning process. She stated that
she was in agreement with the design of the driveways.
Commissioner Fahey expressed concern with the shortage of parking
spaces during activities at the pre-school. Ms. Smith responded that
all age group activities are not held on the same day or hour and they
would continue to be scheduled in this manner.
Commissioner Ford recommended that parking for employees be
restricted to the rear of the school. He also requested a' specific time
for outside play be conditioned. Ms. Smith responded that she was in
agreement to restrict employee parking to the rear and that 6:00 P.M.
would be an acceptable time to end outdoor play.
Chairman Ford closed the Public Hearing at 6:45 P.M.
Commissioner Webster expressed concern on the alignment of the
west driveway and recommended that it be aligned with Ryecrest
Street in order to be able to form a standard 4-way stop at this
intersection.
Commissioner Fahey expressed her hesitation on approval for this
project due to the configuration of the driveway.
Commissioner Slaven arrived at 6:50 P.M.
Chairman Ford called for a straw vote to approve installation of a four-
way stop at Solana Way and Ryecrest. The following verbal poll was
taken: Ford - No; Fahey - No; Miller - No; Webster - Yes, The
consensus was not to install a four-way stop at that location.
Chairman Ford recommended a Condition of approval for additional
lighting to be installed in the school parking lot. Planning Manager
Ubonske responded that this will be conditioned for the Building
Department to review.
Chairman Ford called for a straw vote to condition the installation of
the proposed traffic light prior to the opening of the preschool. The
following verbal straw vote was taken: Miller - No; Ford - No; Fahey -
Yes; Webster - No. The consensus was not to delay the project with
a condition requiring installation of the traffic signal prior to the
opening of the school.
Ms. Smith expressed opposition to the realignment of the driveway,
however, she will abide by the direction of the Commission.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
NOVF, M~F_,R 6. 1995
It was moved by Commissioner Fahey and seconded by Commissioner Ford to
approve the Public Use Permit for ABC Preschool to include re-alignment of the
driveway.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES:
3 COMMISSIONERS:
Miller, Ford, Fahey
NOES: I COMMISSIONERS: Webster ,
ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSTAIN: I COMMISSIONERS: Slaven
5. PA95-0088 {Plot Plan)
Planner Craig Ruiz presented the staff report. Staff recommended
adoption of the negative declaration.
Chairman Ford opened the Public Hearing at 7:15 P.M.
Scott Scaling, representing Lusardi Construction, explained that the
building has not yet been designed and also the landscaping project
has yet to be addressed by Corporate Headquarters.
Commissioner Slaven asked how many employees would be working
at this site. Mr. Scaling responded that 25-30 employees would be
working in this building.
Chairman Ford closed the Public Hearing at 7:22 P.M.
Commissioner Webster recommended that environmental concerns
such as working with dust and dirt be enforced during construction of
the building.
Commissioner Slaven expressed concern with the increased traffic
generated to and from this site and is concerned with the
accumulation of traffic volume from all new projects. Planning
Manager Ubonske responded that this has been reviewed and
analyzed, and reported that all new sites being considered have to be
consistent with the general plan.
A motion was made by Commissioner Fahey and seconded by Commissioner Miller
to approve the PA95-0088 Plot Plan.
P:\WIMBERVO~II0695.l~C 2/28/96 vlw 5
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 6. 1995
The motion carried as follows:
AYES:
4 COMMISSIONERS: Miller, Ford, Fahey, Webster
NOES:
0 COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: I COMMISSIONERS: Slaven
6. PA95-0096 (Plot Plan)
Assistant Planner Craig Ruiz presented the staff report and explained
that the Old Town Local Review Board has approved the demolition of
a 6,600 square foot commercial building in Old Town. It has been
brought before the Commission to request a certification of
appropriateness. Staff recommended approval.
Commissioner Ford asked if this would disturb the Fifth Street
alignment in relation to the sewer line through Old Town. Assistant
Planner Ruiz responded that it would not.
Chairman Ford opened the Public Hearing at 7:40 P.M.
Tom Leevers, representing the applicant, detailed the proposal and
presented two modifications to the plan: 1 ) to demolish the north
structural wall due to flood control and 2) amend to state simulated
wood will be used in place of concrete as walkway.
Chairman Ford closed the Public Hearing at 7:52 P.M.
It was moved by Commissioner Fahey and seconded by Commissioner Slaven to
approve the negative declaration to demolish the building, certification of
appropriateness, and to grant authority for the Planning Director to hear and
approve any modifications to the plan. The motion was unanimously carried.
The motion carries as follows:
AYES:
4 COMMISSIONERS: Miller, Ford, Fahey, Webster
NOES:
0 COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Slaven
PLANNING MANAGER'S REPORT
None given.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 6. 1995
PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Commissioner Miller expressed a need for a joint workshop with the
City Council to hear the Council's opinions on density in the outlying
areas, including annexation and the status of developing annexation
policies. Director of Community Services Gary Thornhill responded
that if a workshop is proposed, a Specific agenda needs to be
developed prior to scheduling of the workshop.
It was moved by Commissioner Slaven and seconded by Commissioner Fahey to
adjourn the meeting at 8:15 P.M. The motion was unanimously carried.
The next meeting will be held December 4, 1995 at 6:00 p.m. at the Rancho
California Water District Board Room, 42135 Winchester Road, Temecula,
California.
Steve Ford Secretary
P:~WIMBBRVO~II~.PC 2/2~s~ vZw 7
ITEM #5
PLANT. LIST
Source: Riverside County ~
k~asd~l & Csmmm~ Nam~
A~:~cis mclsnorylon
Blsd:k Ant*is
Ams~alus cmlHorui:a
p~l:~rmlnt
Aroi~a juH~rissi=
Brs~bychiton sr,,~,rifolius
Au,~r~a~ ]:*same Tru
Brs~hy:hilon populncus
Boxtic Tree
C,m, llist~mon ri~idus
W~pLE[
C, docr.~lrus
Hor~m~l Tree
tiv. Co. KC Jo/Wst R3v. Co.
Guide ClstaZoey Native Native
4,5,6 2
S, 6 2
5,6 2
5.6 2
4,5.6 2
5,6 2 X
A.I] 3
3.4.
5,6 2
5, 6
4,5,6 2-3
4.5,6 2 '
5, 6 2-3
3. 5, 6 2-3 X X
4,5, 6 2-3
4,5,6 3
lmmsrh
1
Cr~'~cr_~ 21 ~- Plm~
Cslr~ atlastim
r'~k. mdmodara
DmodarC. glar
Caamuia salqua
Carob
C.a~dium floridran
Blue Pato Verde
f"'k-UU,~5~,~ hurd'lis
kl~lit~ranean Fan Palm
F}o~ Silk TrM
Smoke Tree
C2npr-~_-,y'~paris ieytandfi
lc~eagn,,, -nguRifolia
Ruffian Olive
F~-iobotrya deflexa
F. rlobowya japonica
LDquat
E171hea armata
M,"'~""'?a Blue
Gu~dalupe Palan
F.~:alyplus mmaldultusis
River R~ Gm
Ea::lyptus Ziobulus 'Campas'
Dwarf Blue Gum
Bushy Yate
liv. Co.
3.5.6
4.5.6
3, 40
3. 4,
All
4.5.6
5.6
4.6
4,5.6
3. 4.
5,6
3, 4.
S. 6
3,4.
S, 6
2
KC
Cetmg~,
2-3
2-3
2
1-2
2
2-3
1
2-3
2
2-3
' ~-3
2
2
2
2
2
Netiw
X
~tmar~
Ksrdy m 12 - IS
!tatdytolT-99
lisrc~' to 14 · 18
degrees F.
BiS Frui''a Eunlypms
E~ualypm~ nicbolil
Nicbors Wilks~-Lemfed Peppermira
Eun~.pms nipbopldb
~uczl~pzus po.~'anlbemos
Dollar Gum
EusaP~tus pu~'enalema
S~vcr Mountain Gum
Desert or Swamp Gum
Eucaypzus sidcroxylon
Pink ~nbzrk
Emn~lyptus s~dero~lon "Rosea"
Rc~ honkark
A=nraliaa Willow
Crinko biloba
;~hi&nhair Tree
3, 4,
5.6
3, 4.
3.4.
5, 6
3.4,
~.6
5, 6
5, 6
3.4,
~,6
3.4,
5, 6
4,5.6
KC
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
'1
24
24
X
X
i~marks
Hsrdy to 14 - 18
derrses F.
Hardy to 8 - 12
deFees F.
Hardy to 12 - I$
~k'Zrees F.
Hardy m 0 - lO
aleFees F.
Har~y to )4 - 18
deFecs F.
Hardy to l.~ - 2~
defers F,
Hardy to 12 - 18
deFecs F.
Hardy to 10 - 15
degrees F.
Hardy to 10 - 15
d~rrm F.
tardy to 12 - 15
de/nes F,
D-'iduous
3
~1 & Commoe Nemm
All
4. S. 6
4,~,6
5,6
5,6
4
4.5.6
3, 4,
3, 4,
5,6
4.6
KC
2
2
2-3
2-3
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
2-3
2-3
2
X
X
X
Native
X
Deciduous
Mny Frc~z~
4
Pmus halepensis
Aleppo Pine
Pinus torr.eyana
Torrey Pine
laisu~ia vera
]si~a6o Nui
Pinoqsorum rbombLfoHum
0nee-,d--d Pi~sporum
Pl-,--,as an=ilolla
LmNion Plane Tree
l'opulus iremen,r,
l'rmopL~ chi~,~,4e
r'hneau Mesquite
t 4
4,5,6
4,5,6
3,5, 6
4,5.6
All
3, 4o
5, 6
3.4,
Cmelm'y
2
2
2
2-3
2
1-2
2
2-3
24
2
'2
2
2-3
2
2-3
2
rle~Wl'st
Net.iw
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Netivt
X
X
X
Remarks
5
~ 21 ~ lqus)
BiZ Cone
Oum.~us agmitollm
Cn~z l.;we Oak
Oum~'us r.l~sol~s
Live Oak
Blue Oak
M~sa Oak
Oue~us ila
Holly Oak
Ou,c,,, kelioZ~ii
C..alifornia Blar. k Oak
Quer~us ioknazm
Valley Oak
Cork Oak
Ouernzs wisliznii
lmm~-rior Live Oak
!ulu Barkthorn
~,:Ezk:an E]derbcn~
~-.=-binm toolie
C.~fornlm P~er Tre~
liv.
Gelde
3,, 4,
5,6
4,5,6
3.5,6
4,5.6
A.1]
5,6
3.4,
S. 6
5.6
5,6
S, 6
4,~.6
tC
Cmagsfy
2
1-2
2
2-3
2
'2
2
2
2
2
X'
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Native
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
~,marks
W,.-k;,~gu~n. ia robusta
Mc~:an Fan Patm
Sa~'leaf Zzlkova
Z~ZyphL~ juju~
f~-~sc Jujube
Guidt
4,6
5, 6
4,~.6
3,4,
$,6
2, 3,
4,5,6
3,4,
5,6
KC
2
3
2-3
2-3
2
2
3
2
X
X
X
7
(LA~C)E SHXUBS II - ~0 ft)
Iotasial & Camsmere Names
~,eet .aurora
Acsc~: ion;ifofia
,~Lue'y Golden
,~zc~, pod:~oli:
Pc&r] Acs:i:
A4enosmma spa;sifulium
Re~ Shank
Arc%ost--phylos Slnduk~a
Etrrwoc~ M-----~a
l~acch&ris pDz~s,-is
· Bacchafisvimbu
I.,AJtGE ~BX. UtS 11 - J0 IL
Iv. ~ gC i4'Wst iv.
GUide ' ~ Native Ns, tiw
4,5,6 2
4,5.6 2
4,5,6 2
3, 4,
5,6 2 X X
5, 6 2
4.5,6 2
5,6 2
~,6 I X X
2,5,6 I X X
2.,5,6 J. X X
S, 6 2 X
S, 6 2 X X
4, 6 2-3
~, 6 1-2
4, S, 6 2
4, 5, 6 2-3
Troubled ~s~th
C~lorosis in 2oue 1~
Ca,m~,k,,, '~sy }tit',---*
C~$xuothus 'Sier~, Blue'
Ca-~dium Doridum
Blue PuIo Verde
Moun~ M~o~y
~us k~o~us
~rl-~ Mouu:~a M~o~uy
M~i,~an~n Fan
a~,:~opm liaeem
Smoke Tree
1~a u ~ us puA~-,e~s
F, ijoa mBowiu,
Pina~ple C~Jva
Fr~Cmus ~.ipelah
Footh~l Ash
my. Ca.
4, S, 6
5,6
S, 6
3,4,
S, 6
A~
3, 4,
3,4,
5, 6
3,4,
4. S, 6
3,4,
c, 6
3, 4;
4,5,6
3,4
KC
9
2-3
2-3
1-2
2
l
1
2
2
.1
2
2
2
2-3
I
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
4, ~, 6
5, 6
4,~.6
2. S, 6
3, 4.
5.6
2,~,6
3. 4.
S. 6
3. 4,
~, 6
3. 4.
4.5.6
4. 5, 6
10
KC
C~qoe7
I
1-2
1-2
2
1-2
2
2-3
3
2
2
3
3
14
2
3
1
2
X
X .
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
m-mar~s
No S~mmcr 'Wal~,r
No Summer
Red Bcr~u in
Ni2 Small Trr, e.
W;11
CLAROE SHRU~S 2~ - 20 ~)
tancca
hurina
Laurel Sumac
Bush
S~mbu~s me=ica~s
Ye~ B~s
T~ ~
Um~u~ ~fom~
~e~a Bay
Vauquc~ia mHfomi~
, 6
S. 6
5.6
3, 4.
5.6
S, 6
4.~,6
3.4,
4,~,6
4.~,6
4,5,6
4,5,6
11
lc
2
2
1
2
2
1-2
2-3
2
I-2
I-2
1-2
2-3
2
2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
~mart~
In~fzrs MB~tcr
May Frccze
(1.,~R(:iE ~T31}~ 11 - 2O fz)
aJv. C.~ KC b/W~t wlv. C~-
314~
m-roll.ks
12
{MBIUM SHRLraS 4 - I0 ~-)
MI3)fUM Skiy. CllS 4 - l0
Fai~7 Du.ngr
Csmmthus n'us~olius
Hoary-Lg4f Czanothus
~J~e~b. UZ e'~twP~tUZ
Carpleaf
C,~:~othu~ intqerrimus
~anotbus °Joyce Coulter'
3,.4,
All
3, 4,
5.6
3, 4,
3.4,
5,6
5,6
2,5,6
4.5.6
4,5,6
KC
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2-3-
1
2
1
2
2-3
Native
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Riv. Ce.
Native
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
13
0.t~_t~fL~ SZ4RURS 4.10
Cmno~us ,.,.parpus
Pod ~msomus
Camotbus"q~ytark'
Dslu puk:hra
Dslca spinosa
Sasoke Tree
De~dromecon rilida
Bush Monkey Fkser
F:~b. ium fas~uomm
Pride of Madeira
Jr jr. Co.
G,dide
5,6
4.'~.6
4,5,6
4,5,6
3, 4.
2
2-3
2-3
3
2-3
2
3
3
2-3
2-3
I-2
1..2
2
2
Naive
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
14
(MEDrIJI~ SHRUBS 4 - 10 h.)
~ a, Ct---,~n Nxmm
ls~d Busb-S~a~ Dngo:
I.r, ucopbyfium "White Gou~"
l,zu~byllum Irma. tens
Tats Range~
l,~u~pb~um zyt~pbylium
Lnpinus ab~on~
S~er Ls~pine
M~onia aqui~olium
C~egon Crrgpe
Mahonla :evinii
Nk'~n Mabo~ia
Na~dlna cknnenica
Heavenly Bamboo
Nerium o|e. aDdet 'little Reef'
6
4,5,6
4.5.6
3,4,6
3.4
3,4.
3. 4.
S, 6
3, 4,
S, 6
3,4,
KC
Cstq~
1
2
1
2
2
2
-2
2
2
3
2
3
Native
X
X
X
X
X
X
Native
X
X
X
Rcma~
15
0~z~n.~ Sm~X;BS 4 - a0 ~)
ku~sl&CommoaNsdms
Ncrmm o~sm~ ~
I'iumpomm u~ira
Tobira
PSumbap
~ P|umbaZo
Pyracuth: :pa~es
Fb'ctbm':
!~uzluus cal~ornh
R.bu hur~s~'
LAurel Sumac
i~d't~s lureurn
Ks'ks mmguiniua g]uLinosum
Kbes~
Fsksl,-~xtering Gameberry
Mtt~i~
4. S. 6
3. 4
3. ~,
gC
2-3
2
2
l
2-3
2-~
2
1-2
2
NsOv~
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
'X
X
:X
X
X
X
X
X
Prefm Milder
C~aIc.
Sparingly
May ~reeze
16
SItRUBS
Bush
Tlx'.vcth pcruvina
Tri,t.J:sostcma Luztum
Wooly Blue Curls
Wer. rinZ~ rosmarin~fornfis
Woodw=.rd~a fimbr~ta
G~,',t t"k=;, Fer'D
Xyksma a~ng,~szum
Yw.a gioriosa
5panlsb Dar~-r
Ym giorlom 'Vsrlep,,,°
Yss~a pendub Zlauca
0 41
3. 4.
5.6
2.5,6
3.4.6
3,4,
4.5,6
3. 4,
5,6
4
5.6
6
5,6
3, 4;
~, 6
3, 4,
S, 6
4,5,6
KC
CateV.y
l
2
1
1-2
2
4
2-3
2-3
:2-3
3
Native
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
R~v.C~.
Native
X
X
X
X
17
I X X
Rem~rk~
18
SMAXJ..G'KIr. UBSI-3f',.
Riv. C~. EC
4. S, 6 2
All 3 X
4, $, 6 2-3
4, $, 6 2-3
4.5,6
~.3,
4,$,6 1 X
4,$,6 1-2
3, 4,
$, 6
3.4,
$.6 2
$,6 2 X
~.6 2 X
$,6 2
· ~,6 2 X
5,6 2 X
$,6 2
1,2
.~,6 2 X
19
Riv. C.c.
Nat.;,vc
X
X
A,,'mcria maritianz
..fl. rte=x~sjJ ca~orn/c~
C.~f~"~a Sagebrush
~ caucasiu
Saver Sprudcr
Ane=:~isia I:~::~:gtphala
Sa,~cl,hDJ Sage
Bacchar~ paub/-Ls 'Tw;m Peaks'
P..jv. Co.
Guide
L2
5,6
3. 4,
5.6
3,4
3,4,
4,5.6
3,4,6
3,4,6
3, 4
4, S, 6
2
2
2
3
2
3
2
2
3
.I
2
2
2
2-3
x
X
X
X
X
X
X
Fr--,~ back.. but
2O
~ &
Carins Inndillon 'Turtle'
Ns~ Plum
Cassia srmmisioida
Cassia
C. ssia odorira
C,~rmel Cr2noxhus
Ceanoth~s g~isius bo~nu~
~c1 ~r ~nolhus
~thm ~cc Pomz'
~us
~te R~
~tus n~olius
~cl~
4.5.6
4,5,6
4.5.6
4, S. 6
5.6
.~, 6
4,5, 6
4,~,6
4,.~. 6
3
3
2-3
2-3
2-3
2-3
2
2-3
.2-3
2-3
2-3
2
2
Native
X
X
Riv. r'~.
Nstive
P-cm,v. rks
21
(mkt,¢LSatgT. mSl-3~)
Boolzlml a, r~ Ntmm
Cd:xonca.~rr n'tngcstu$
DaJu gre~i~
Dtsylirion wbeelcri
Desert
Diph~.u punkeus
Bed Mcmke'y Flower
Dr)~pt=r~
Amum
Ea-.lh fari~ma
l)esen BritSebusb
Santa Caw. Is.land Buck'e,bu%
Br~onum
Ca!~on~a Buckwbca~
ErioS~nm ;,_. ~. d · ,,m
S~. C. atberine's Lace
Esiapb~um amferfilbrum
Golde~ Yarrvw
F~s:ia amclioides
Blue M~Euerite
Pay. Ca.
Guide
4.5.6
4,5,6
5,6
All
3,4
AJ
4,6
2,5,6
AX
3,4,
4.5.6
KC
2
2
2
2-3
2-3
2
3
.1
24
3-~
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Remarks
22
(SMA1,LSHRU'BSI-3fL)
Jtmipcrus qxcics
Juniper
Kinkjells cordlfolia
Hun l~af Pentstemo-
Knlphofia mxria (Pffunial)
Red Hot Poker
Lwand~ls ugustifolia
F..ur~ l..~u~er
Fre=~ Lsvender
Lnptoda~km nlifornicum
giv. Co.
Guide
S, 6 '
S, 6 .
All
All
3, 4,
~,6
5,6
2..5,6
1,2
~,6
4,
4,1,6
5, 6
4,5,6
5.6
KC
CazeV:,ry
3
2
2
24
3
3
2
2
2-3
2
2
2
2
2
2
Native
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Native
X
Remarks
Need~ Shade
Needs Shade
I:)set tt Rabbit
Rrpellan%
~ all sofia,
Doslon aontrol
but
(SMAI.~ SHF, T. TBS 1 * 3 ~.)
perume
P~I Blue FIg
Bi~ Blue L~ Tud
r'~-ph-.,~ Hone~udde
Lotus be~beksrtl
Parmt's
M3q~on~n ptnd~olinm
Nen-ium t~udc~ 'Psfi-' ~
]ssrry's Nofinm
OemoLben --i--',ureusls (pasmslal)
Pjv.~.
Guide
3, 4,
4
4,5,6
e, 6
All
All
4,5,6
4,5,6
e, 6
5,6
4, 5, 6
2
2
3
2
3
1
3
2-3
2*3
.2-3
3
2*3
2-3
I
2*3
x
X
X
P, cmazks
Avenges 2 ft. LS~
24
~ SI~T.,TB5 3 - 3
ikauicaJ ~, C-=~,.-~ Namm
4~ttm frtttizomam
Frmewsy Daisy (Afrir. a~
Fotmta~n
lmcnt.~znaon cc~trant]~fotius
Pcntstcmon gh',-i-iodes
Ga~d~ Pent.~tcmon
Pczatxtcmo~ bzteropbyllus
Pcnm~non
S:bomT Pentr~emon
~l,rbaclcr's Dwarf
PyTt-n-t~a ~ecies
l~aphiolcpis in~ca 'CLara"
Indian Mawlborn 'Clara°
R. aphiolq:~i~ indiu *Pink ~ady'
Indian Hswt3mom ?ink Lady'
3.4.
5,6
3.4,
3,4.
5,6
3.4,
3,4,
5,6
KC
Catqofy
2-3
2-3
3-2
1-2
1-2
2
1
l
3
2
2
2
Nat,iv~
X
X
X
X
X
iUv. Co.
Nntive
X
X
X
i~.cub
Rcqulres mine shade
25
(~,tA.I~n.IXU'BS l -3 ~.)
r--'~ezy Cmrik
Trldsom~ma tanstom
~Vooly Blue Curls
Westria~ nmm.-bi~ormis
X~mn. cnnZesunn
Our Lord's Candle
ZsDchncr:.a
f~ol;fr~ja
Stir. Co.
Ouide
3.4,
3. 41o
2,5,6
2. S. 6
41.5.6
4. S. 6
S. 6
6
3.41.
S, 6
2. 3.
4.5.6
5. 6
KC
2
1-2
2
2
l
l
2-3
2
2
2
2-3
l
2-3
'I
So~m
Nstivt
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Riv.~ck
X
X
X
X
26
(v~-~)
Campsis rudiGtns
Knraroo V',,,e
C, cl.k-~um L-.znpe~irnu
C. uob Jessamine
Keck~e. lla cordl, foliz
Heart l.~sf
L~ni~era s'~bs~iata
('hspa~ral HoneS~uckl~
PsrLbenoc~sus zri~uspida'-
Bcston Ivy
Rosa bsn. ksiac
Ban~ P.c,s~
SalLuum ja.nninoides
Potato Vb~e
Tezm~rla mpemsis
Vills
Riv. Co.
Guide'
'~,6
4.6
S, 6
S, 6
2,5,6
A.~
5.6
4,5,6
All'
KC
3
2-3
3
3
3
2
3
3
2
2
3
Nszive
X
X
X
Riv. Cn.
Na0ve
X
X
X
Rczn,=ks
W~ fr~:z,c
Sus to shade
Deciduous, Shade
Deciduous, Fasz
Deciduous
27
TLT/,.F GRASS
4.5,6
Cmqofy
2
2-3
2-]
4
28
{BEDDING
BoLmii~ .t, C,_,,~,~ N&mcs
Aregrin mt~zima
Sea Pink
Soa~ i~ Summer
itiv. Co. KC
Gsside Casepry
3
3
All
may va~
w/spies :2-3
C. miE~rc~a FandLqora
Lobulsrh ,~-dfima (annul)
~.zz Abssum
Lupi~us u~us (a~uzl)
{:~nothcrt balandial (paz~nig)
Evening l¥.mmse
Ponu~.a pd~orz
..~-b~um bellurn
?-luc-cF,~ G'rsss
A~ 3
All 3
S, 6 ' 2
A~ 2-3
3, 4.
5,6 2
Nati~
X
X
~.~.
Ns~c
X
Rcn~rk~
Annuals &'
pacnnials
yrJk~w to red
gompa~'~e~s
Summer Only
i~z~nm2&3
Summer
29
(GROLTh'D COVERS)
G]~OLTm) ~
i~v. CA KC
Guide
A~ 3 X
5,6 2 X
5.6 2 X
5,6 2
5.6 2 X
5,6 2 X
5.6 2
5.6 2 X
5.6 2
5, 6 2 X
5,6 2
5.6 2 X
All 2
5.6 3
5,6 1
4,5,6 I
Ns~ve
X
3O
(GROUND COV'r, RS)
Bozsninl & Canmort Names
i~scchxrls *C~ntrm';l?'
t"-*~,tbus Zris'us borlzontslis
Carreel Creeper CaBotbus
C~anothus *Yankee Point'
/hhc Refit. rose
Conromulus mareram
Bush Morning Glory
Ccm,~o~vulus mmuritanicus
Mc,n~g G~ory
F, dolonu.m far.,ioalatum
Frayaria ~
Ornamental Stnw~rry
Hcfia~themum nummuta~um
hand Alumroot
Heucbcra sanguru
Asmn's Beard
Riv. C~.
3.4,6
3.4.6
$.6 -
All
~.6
4.$.6
4,~,6
4,5,6
a~,6
3, 4.
a~,6
KC
2
2
· 2
2-3
2~
3
2
2
2
3
1-2
3
2
3
3
3
So~vs~
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Riv. C~.
Nat/re
Rnur~
Sun to shade
Some shade i~ ,nnes I1
& 13
Needs Shade
Needs Shade
31
Ju~
KC
~teps~
3
2-3
2-3
3
2
2
]
2
2
2
2
32
Nativ~
X
X
X
X
NatWe
~.cma~ks
Re, quires some shade
(GROUND
v.n.b~ rislda
Riv, ~. KC: So/Wn Riv. C~.
O~d: Category Native Native
0 40
.3,4,
~, 6
2 X X
2*:],
2-3
33
ITEM #6
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Planning Commission
Debbie Ubnoske, Planning Manager
March 4, 1996
Appointment of a Representative to Sign Ordinance Committee
Prepared By:
Saied Naaseh, Associate Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission appoint one
member to serve as the Planning Commission's representative to
the sign ordinance committee to assist staff in developing a sign
ordinance.
BACKGROUND
The City adopted its new General Plan and Development Code in 1993 and 1995,
respectively. The next major development control that needs to be updated is a sign
ordinance. On February 13, 1996, the City Council agreed to appoint a sign committee to
assist staff in preparing City's new Sign Ordinance. The following is a list of the make up of
the committee members:
O
O
O
O
O
O
One City Council member;
One Planning Commissioner;
Three representatives from local businesses;
One commercial property manager or realtor;
One representative from the Chamber of Commerce; and
Five interested residents of the City who are appointed by the
Council and do not have significant local business affiliations.
The Council appointed Councilman Steve Ford as the Council's representative on the
Committee. The purpose of this report is to request the Planning Commission appoint one
member to this committee.
DISCUSSION
The committee represents the entire community, to provide direction for and comments on the
future sign ordinance. The Committee would work with Community Development Department
staff on a proposed ordinance before it is presented to, and considered by, the Commission
and Council. The composition of the Committee reflects the wider community, not just local
business interests. This process is similar to the approach used to create the Development
Code. The appointed member will have to be available for regularly scheduled meetings.
Staff will be contacting the appointed member to schedule the meetlegs later on this month.
ITEM #7
API}OINTMF-ANT OF A REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE
JOINT TEMECULA/MURRIETA TRAFFIC COMMITTEE
ITEM #8
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Planning Commission
Debbie Ubnoske, Planning Manager
March 4, 1996
Director's Hearing Case Update
The following cases were approved at Planning Director's Hearings in February 1996:
February 1, 1996
February 22, 1996
PA95-0123 · Minor Conditional Use Permit (Sports Grille)
PA95-0124 · Child Care Center, Ynez Road south of Solana Way
PA95-0092 · Transit Depot, NEC of Front and 6th Streets
Attachment:
1. Action Agendas - Blue Page 2
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
ACTION AGENDAS
R:\DIRHEAR\MEMO\34-96.DH 2/20/96 klb 2
ACTION AGENDA
TEMECULA DIRECTOR~S HEARING
REGULAR MEETENG
FEBRUARY 1, 1996 1:30 PM
TEMECULA CITY HALL MAIN CONFERENCE ROOM
43174 Business Park Drive ..
Temecula, CA 92390
CALL TO ORDER:
John Meyer, Senior Planner
PUBLIC COIVIM~,NTS
A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address to the Senior
Planner on items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3)
minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Senior Planner about an item not listed on
the Agenda, a pink "Request to Speak" form should be ~led out and fried with the
Senior Planner.
When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name and address.
For aH other agenda items a "Request to Speak" form must be fried with the Senior
Planner before that item is heard. Them is a three (3) minute time limit for individual
speakers.
PUBLIC HEARING
Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Environmental Action:
Case Planner:
Recommendation:
ACTION:
ADJOURNMENT
PA.95-0123 (Minor Conditional Use Permit
Gordon Duncan
27470 Jefferson Avenue, Suites 2 & 3
Sports Grille with sale of beer and wine
Exempt from CEQA per Section 15301(a)
Stephen Brown
Approval
APPROVED
R:\DIRHEAR\AGF. NDA\2-1-96.AGN 2/20/96 klb ]
ACTION AGENDA
TEMECULA DIRECTOR'S HEARING
REGULAR MEETING
FEBRUARY 22, 1996 1:30 PM
TEMECULA CITY HALL MAIN CONFERENCE ROOM
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92390
CALL TO ORDER:
Debbie Ubnoske, Planning Manager
PUBLIC COMMENTS
A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address to the Senior
Planner on items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3)
minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Senior Planner about an item not listed on
the Agenda, a pink "Request to Speak" form should be ~led out and fried with the
Senior Planner.
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 f'ded with the Senior
Planner before that item is heard. There is a three (3) minute time limit for individual
speakers.
PUBLIC HEARING
ITEM NO. 1
Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Environmental Action:
Case Planner:
Recommendation:
ACTION:
PA95-0124
Robert Orsi
Ynez Road, 900 feet south of Solana Way
Child Care Center
Negative Declaration
Stephen Brown
Approval
APPROVED
R:~DIRHFAR~AGENDA\2-22-96.AGN 2/22/96 klb ]
ITEM NO. 2
Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Environmental Action:
Case Planner:
Recommendation:
ACTION:
PA95-0092
Ed Dool
Northeast comer of Front and 6th Streets
Construction of a 1860 square foot building to include the
operation of a passenger terminal for Greyhound buses and wine
tour operations which are be'mg transferred from 41920 Sixth
Street. The proposal includes 4 bus spaces and a 1140 square foot
area within the proposed building which may be used for various
uses consistent with the Old Town Specific Plan.
Negative Declaration
Saied Naaseh
Approval
APPROVED
R:~DIRHEARXAGENDA\2-22-96,AGN 2/22196 klb 2
ITEM #9
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
March 4, 1996
Planning Application No. 95-0125
Prepared By: Salad Naaseh, Associate Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Department Staff recommends the Planning'
Commission:
ADOPT Resolution No. __ recommending approval
of PA95-0125, the City's Annexation Guidelines
Checklist, based upon the Analysis and Findings
contained in the Staff Report.
BACKGROUND
To discuss the proposed Annexation Guidelines, the Planning Commission held a Workshop
on February 5, 1996. This Workshop was a result of City Council direction to prepare
guidelines to evaluate annexation proposals. At this Workshop, the Commission provided
direction to staff on a number of issues which are addressed in this Staff Report.
Annexation projects individually and cumulatively could have a great impact on the City in
terms of future population of the City and the required municipal services needed for these
projects.
The intent of the Annexation Guidelines is to allow the Planning Commission and the City
Council to make informed decisions on annexation requests. These Guidelines will enable
the Planning Commission and the City Council to weigh the advantages and disadvantages
of annexation requests and to make decisions that are consistent with the General Plan and
in the best interest of the City. These guidelines are based on the General Plan's
Annexation Goals and Policies.
DISCUSSION
This section provides an analysis of the issues discussed by the Commission. These
issues included:
The role of the Priority Map (Criteria No. 2).
Projects that are subject to the High Quality Employment Opportunities (Criteria No.
7).
Projects that are within Assessment Districts (Criteria No.5).
Development Agreement fees (Criteria No. 1 ).
The relationship between the proposed Guidelines and the General Plan.
R:~rAFFRFI'~ANNEX.I~C 2/28/96 ~ 1
Priority MaD
Due to the Commission's concerns, staff has re-evaluated the Priority Map introduced at
the workshop. The Commission directed staff to provide an alternative to the previously
proposed Annexation Priority Map. Several options were discussed. One alternative
consisted of a map identifying the different sections of the Sphere without identifying the
priorities among them. Another alternative was to identify the different sections of the
Sphere of Influence and prioritize them as high, medium, and low.
The General Plan Growth Management Element includes a policy which encourages setting
priorities for growth areas (Policy 2.6). In staff's opinion, if the Commission and Council
want to pro-actively influence the future development of the Sphere of Influence, the City
needs to prioritize the annexation areas. The advantage of taking a pro-aCtive role is that it
can help to increase the control of our Sphere of Influence. One of the disadvantages of
pro-active annexation is the potential for negative short-term fiscal impact on the City.
Another drawback is that many property owners may not wish to become part of the City.
The Commission also asked whether the Priority Map controlled the Checklist. The Priority
Map is a part of the Checklist and does not override the Checklist. If a project is
consistent with the Annexation Priority Map, it simply receives a "Yes"; if it is not, it
receives a "No". Just like all the other criteria in the Checklist, a "No" in this column does
not automatically stop the City from further analyzing the annexation proposal.
The new Priority Map includes three categories of high, medium, and low priority (refer to
Attachment 7). In order to establish the priority areas for the annexation areas, staff
referred back to the General Plan. The Land Use Element of the General Plan indicates that
it is the City's desire to annex areas prior to, or concurrent with, project approvals in order
to exercise control over the use, quality and design of development, as well as ensure the
adequacy of public facilities and amenities (Goal No. 7). Moreover, Policy No. 7.1 indicates
that the City should annex lands to the City that can be developed in accordance with the
General Plan and can be adequately served by public facilities and utility services.
Therefore, the General Plan makes it clear that the high priority areas for annexation should
be those areas with no entitlements. At this time, these areas include the Johnson Ranch
and Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plans, some areas within the French Valley Area, the
escarpment area to the west of the City Limits, and the Rainbow Canyon and Pechanga
Creek areas to the southwest of the City Limits: Staff then recommends that the
Redhawk, Vail Ranch, Silverhawk, Rancho Bella Vista, and the French Valley Specific Plans
become the medium priority areas. The rest of French Valley would then become the low
priority areas.
Proiects with HiQh Quality Emolovment Oooortunities
The Commission had concerns with the term "significant high quality employment" in
Criteria No. 7. Staff's intent with this criteria was to differentiate between projects that
provide high paying professional jobs associated with industrial and corporate parks and
the entry level jobs associated with neighborhood commercial retail projects. Staff is
recommending a minor change that would make this criteria a better tool to evaluate
annexation proposals. Therefore, the following language is recommended to replace the
original proposal with the added phrase shown in bold:
The proposal includes industrial and/or office designated areas and will bring
high quality employment opportunities to the residents of Temecula.
This modification eliminates a negative mark for projects that are primarily residential with
limited retail development. Such proposals would receive an N/A for this criteria.
Proiects with Assessment Districts
The Commission directed staff to combine two criteria that dealt with assessment districts.
The Commission felt that as long as Assessment Districts were financially solvent, they
were not undesirable. Staff agrees with the Commission and is proposing Criteria NO. 5
with the following language:
The proposal is within a proposed or existing Assessment
DiStrict that is financially solvent.
Development Agreement Fees
The Commission expressed concern regarding Criteria No. 1. This criteria states the
willingness of the developer/owner to enter into a Development Agreement. One of the
benefits of entering into a Development Agreement for the City is the ability to obtain
Development Agreement fees from the developer. The Commission had a question
regarding this fee and the difference between Development Impact and Development
Agreement fees.
There are generally two types of fiscal impacts to the City: capital cost impacts and
operating cost impacts. Development Impact fees relate to mitigating the direct capital
cost impacts of the project. Capital costs relate to the expense of constructing fire
stations, police stations, libraries, and purchasing fire trucks, patrol cars (refer to Criteria
No. 10). Operating costs refer to the cost to operate a fire station, police station, or
library. These cost include salaries, supplies, utilities, etc (refer to Criteria No. 9).
The only mechanism to offset operating cost impacts associated with new development
projects is to enter into a Development Agreement and collect a Development Agreement
fee. Furthermore, a Development Agreement fee can also be collected by the City simply
in exchange for giving the developer entitlements for a certain amount of time as specified
in the Development Agreement.
For existing developments, City-wide assessments are the only way to mitigate the
operating cost impacts. It should be mentioned that new assessments would have to be
approved through an election before they can be imposed by the City if the residents are
not currently paying for these services.
The Relationship between the Goals and Policies of the General Plan and the Annexation
Checklist
The Commission was concerned about the relationship between the Checklist and General
Plan. The Checklist was developed using the General Plan Goals and Policies which are
included in Attachment No. 3. Staff has referenced each criteria in the checklist with the
policy numbers from the applicable General Plan Element to show the relationship of each
criteria to the General Plan. These references appear at the end of each criteria and are
shown in italics. While the checklist may include some criteria not specifically referenced
in the General Plan, the additional criteria complement the stated goals of the General Plan.
The Checklist has been designed to implement the General Plan.
CONCLUSION
By law, the City is not required to annex any land within the Sphere of Influence; therefore,
annexations become policy decisions for the City Council. In staff's opinion, if long term
control of the Sphere of Influence is desired, the City should take a pro-active role in
annexations.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
This project does not require an environmental analysis since it is not considered a project
pursuant to Section 21065 of the California Environmental Quality Act.
Attachments:
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
PC Resolution - Blue Page 5
The Annexation Guidelines Checklist - Blue Page 15
General Plan Goals and Policies Regarding Annexations - Blue Page 22
The Steps in the Annexation Process - Blue Page 31
Specific Plans within the Sphere of Influence - Blue Page 38
Planning Commission Workshop Staff Report, February 5, 1996 - Blue Page 39
Priority Map - Blue Page 40
~:%S'r.aFFe.FBaNNEX.rC 2/28/96 ,,p 4
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
RESOLUTION NO. 96-
R:~ST~.I~C 2r~/96 viw 5
ATTACHMENT NO, 1
PC RESOLUTION NO. 96-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR THE
CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY
COUNCIL ADOPT RESOLUTION 96- FOR ADOPTION OF
THE ANNEXATION GUIDELINES CHECKLIST. .
WHEREAS, State Planning and Zoning Law requires a City to adopt a
General Plan; and,
WHEREAS, State Planning and Zoning Law states that a local General Plan. may
contain issues the local government deems necessary and appropriate to address local
concerns; and,
WHEREAS, The City adopted its General Plan on November 9, 1993; and,
WHEREAS, The General Plan contains numerous policies on the subject of
annexation; and,
WHEREAS, The proposed Annexation Guidelines Checklist is consistent with the
adopted General Plan for the City; and,
WHEREAS, This Ordinance complies with all the applicable requirements of State
law and local ordinances; and,
WHEREAS, notice of the proposed Ordinance was posted at City Hall, County
Library, Rancho California Branch, the Community Center, and the Temecula Valley
Chamber of Commerce; and,
WHEREAS, A public meeting was conducted on March 4, 1996, at which time
interested persons had. an opportunity to testify either in support or opposition.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1, That the above recitations are true and correct.
Section 2, ~
A. The Planning Commission in recommending approval of Planning Application
No. PA95-0125 ( The City's Annexation Guidelines Checklist), makes the following
findings, to wit:
1. The Checklist implements the General Plan and its policies.
2. The Checklist is a useful tool for the Planning Commission and the
City Council to make informed decisions on annexation proposals,
The Checklist summarizes the fiscal impacts of annexation proposals.
The Checklist implements the Parks and Recreation Master Plan.
The Checklist helps to prioritize annexations.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 4th day of March, 1996.
CHAIRMAN
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning
Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 4th day of
March, 1996 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
NOES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
DEBBIE UBNOSKE
SECRETARY
ATTACHMENT A
THE ANNEXATION GUIDELINES CHECKLIST
I-
X
M.i
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
THE ANNEXATION GUIDELINES CHECKLIST
R:~STA~.IsC 2/28/96 vgw 15
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
GENERAL PLAN GOALS AND POLICIES REGARDING ANNEXATIONS
~:~m~'rv~mx.~c ~,s/,~ ,,F 22
Does
Yes.
1.
the General Plan contain annexation oo81s and POlicies?
The General Plan states that:
The General Plan Study Area includes some 34 square miles of unincorporated
territory. Within this area, are approximately nine proposed specific plans, that
when developed, will have a direct impact on the City in terms of traffic, noise, the
demand for community facilities, the demand for employment and commercial
activities, and other impacts.
It is the City's desire to annex areas within the Sphere of Influence prior to or
concurrent with project approvals, in order to exercise control over the use, quality
and design of development, as well as ensure the adequacy of public facilities and
amenities.
The City intends to utilize the General Plan to review development and annexation
proposals within these unincorporated areas.
The City shall adopt procedures governing the prezoning of areas to be annexed to
the City. These procedures shall be included in the Development Code. Criteria for
prezoning shall consider existing land uses, if any, on the site to be annexed;
existing County zoning on the site and surrounding area; existing circulation
patterns; and environmental conditions on the site and surrounding area. Prezoning
is subject to the same requirements applicable to zoning in the City including the
requirement for consistency with the General Plan.
The City has a great opportunity to shape the open spaces of development annexing
to the City. The challenge facing Temecula is to create a multipurpose open space
system that does not solely consist of the unusable spaces leftover from
development, but maintains viable agriculture lands outside the City, preserves
wildlife habitats, maximizes water resources, and secures recreational, historic and
cultural resources. The City will benefit from connection with the open spaces
ensured through ownership by federal and state government, such as the Cleveland
National Forest, the U.S. Bureau of LandManagement and the California State
University at San DiegO.
Fiscal Viability of projects need to be verified by:
Requiring new development to pay for its share of capital and operating
costs not mat by General Fund revenues generated directly by the project.
Utilizing the comprehensive fiscal impact model on an ongoing basis to
monitor both General Fund and Community Service District Fund fiscal
impacts as development information becomes available.
Formulating land use mitigation strategies for projected deficits to
incorporate a balance of land uses that will provide sufficient revenue to
cover new costs.
~wrA~env~ec.ec ~ ,~ 23
Defining financing techniques that will assist in funding recurring costs in
addition to funding one-time capital improvements, allocating the impacts
equitably between new and existing development.
e. Evaluating fiscal impacts of future annexations on an ongoing basis.
Evaluating long-term effects of proposed City sales tax rebates to large
retailers.
Further, the General Plan provides the following specific Goals and Policies that relate to
eRnexatiorls-
Goal 7 of the Land Use Element
Orderly annexation and
development of unincorporated
areas within Temecula's Sphere of
Influence.
Discussion
The unincorporated area in the City's northern Sphere
of Influence is largely proposed for development
through specific plans. The City has an opportunity to
control land use, phasing of development, project
design, and infrastructure improvements by annexing
these properties prior to approval by Riverside County.
The intent is to ensure that. future annexations are a
beneficial addition to the City.
7.1
Policy
Annex lands to the City that can be developed in
accordance with the General Plan and can be
adequately served by public facilities and utility
services.
7.2
Policy
Require proposed annexations to be evaluated
using the City's Fiscal Impact Model and Traffic
Impact Model.
7.3
Policy
Evaluate the land use pattern and
intensity/density of proposed annexations in
terms of:
1. The Village Centers designations on the Land Use Plan.
The linkage of open space and trails to adjacent
developments.
The compatibility of the annexation to adjacent uses in
the City.
The demonstrated need for additional housing,
industrial, commercial and other uses.
R:xSTAFFRPTLANNEX.PC 2/28/96 vgw 24
Goal 8 of the Land Use Bement
A City which is compatible and
coordinated with regional land use
patterns.
Discussion
Temecula is a leader in the region in terms of its
commercial uses, job base, and quality of residential
development. The land use decisions the City makes
will have direct and indirect impacts on surrounding
communities (and visa versa). Through inter-
governmental coordination,-the City can properly
address regional land use issues to achieve a
coordinated regional land use pattern. The Growth
Management Element contains more specific policies'
related to regional coordination and growth
management.
8.1 Policy
Provide a pattern of land uses that maintain and
enhance the viability of neighboring communities
including the City of Murrieta, and the counties
of Riverside and San Diego, through compatible
uses and linkages.
8.2 Policy
Provide a system of open space that is
coordinated with regional open space uses to
comprehensively address the management and
conservation resources.
Goal 6 of the Growth Management Element
A water and
wastewater
infrastructure
system that supports
existing and future
development in the
Study Area.
Discussion
Water availability is a critical determinant in Southern
California's future growth and development. By
working closely with the Rancho California Water
District and Eastern Municipal Water District in
developing supply options; conservation techniques,
including the use of reclaimed water; and development
monitoring systems, the City can ensure that
development does not outpace the long-term availability
of water. Close coordination with Eastern Municipal
Water District in the timely expansion of wastewater
treatment facilities is equally important to the
community's well-being.
~,:~k~-r~a~x,~c 2/2s/~ ~ 25
6.3 Policy
Coordinate with the water and wastewater
districts when considering General Plan
amendments, annexations, or development
agreements, in order to assist the districts in
planning for adequate capacity to accommodate
future growth.
Goal 2 of the Growth Management Element
Orderly and efficient
patterns of growth
. within Temecula that
enhance the quality
of life for residents.
Discussion
The Growth Management Strategy contained in the
Growth Management Element is intended to be the
framework for a future Growth Management Program
(GMP). This GMP should be designed to influence
adequacy of public facilities and services in relation to
the location, phasing, type, quality and intensity of new
development and redevelopmont. It should also take
into consideration the existing communities and
resources of Temecula, the Sphere of Influence, and
Environmental Study Area. All the policies of this
Element, in essence, support this goal.
2.1 Policy
Prepare and implement a Growth Management
Program for Temecula.
2.2 Policy
Ensure that phasing of public facilities and
services occur in such a way that new
development is adequately supported as it
develops.
2.3 Policy
Establish and maintain level of service standards
in order to document adequacy requirements.
2.4 Policy
Encourage development of Village Centers, as
defined in the Land Use and Community Design
Elements to reduce public service costs and
environmental impacts through compatible land
use relationships, and efficient circulation and
open space systems.
2.5 Policy
Encourage new development that helps to create
and maintain a balance between jobs and
housing opportunities.
2.6 Policy
2.7 Policy
2.8 Policy
Goal 7 of the Growth
Discussion
7.3 Policy
Establish priority growth areas within the City
and Sphere of Influence where near-term
urbanization will be encouraged.
Discourage the use of assessment districts that
promote urban sprawl and premature
urbanization in rural and agricultural areas.
Coordinate the Growth Management Program
with the Congestion Management Program-as
necessary.
Management Element
An effective, safe
and environmentally
compatible flood
control system.
As urbanization increases, so does the potential for
disruption caused by flooding and inadequate flood
control facilities. Local and regional flood control
facilities need to be comprehensively planned to protect
existing areas and future development from flood
hazards. As urban and suburban development
increases, runoff increases by replacing permeable
surfaces with pavement and structures. The potential
of overloading existing drainage facilities is a concern
that must be addressed comprehensively in the Study
Area.
Develop master drainage plans, when
appropriate, for the Sphere of Influence, in
conjunction with the Flood Control District.
Goal I of the Open Space/Conservation Element A high quality parks
and recreation
system that meets
the varying
recreational needs of
residents.
Discussion
A quality parks and recreation system is a high priority
for both the City and Temecula residents.
Implementation of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan
is a critical first step in achieving this goal. The Parks
and Recreation Master Plan strives to attain a balance
between quantitative and qualitative levels of service.
This balance involves providing an acceptable amount
of useable parkland, in close proximity to residents, as
well as the appropriate type and number of facilities to
R:~ST~FR~T~X,~2r~,F 27
meet the recreation needs and desires of residents. The
City's parks and recreation facilities are supplemented
by other local and regional facilities, which may be
influenced and fostered through inter-governmental
cooperation.
Policy 1.3
Require developers of residential projects greater than
fifty dwelling units to dedicate land based on the park
acre standard of five (5) acres of usable parkland to one
thousand (1,000) population, or the payment of in-lieu
fees in accordance with the Parks and Recreation
Master Plan.
Policy 1.6
Encourage the enhancement and preservation of
significant natural features, including riparian areas,
rock outcroppings, sensitive habitat areas and
' viewpoints through park design and site development.
Policy 1.10 Maximize pedestrian and bicycle access to existing and
new parks as an alternative to automobile access.
Goal 3 of the Open Space/Conservation Element Conservation of
important biological
habitats and
protection of plant
and animal species
of concern, wildlife
movement corridors,
and general
biodiversity.
Discussion
The interrelationship between the built and natural
environments has a strong influence on the character
and quality of life in Temecula. The permanent
dedication of open space within the Study Area should
be to conserve resources of significance, as well as to
provide recreational opportunities, and to ensure viable
ecological connections between significant natural
areas. The preservation of natural resources helps to
preserve biological diversity; provide passive recreation
and educational opportunities; facilitate the
maintenance of natural, life-sustaining systems; and
provide residents with the opportunity to observe
wildlife in natural environs. Wildlife corridors can exist
in conjunction with recreation trails and other open
space uses. This multil~le function leverages the
protection of species of concern by simultaneously
providing open space and meeting recreational needs.
The intent of this goal is to identify, preserve and
properly manage natural resources within and adjacent
to the community.
Policy 3.1
Policy 3.2
Policy 3.3
Policy 3.7
Goal 5 of the
Discussion
Policy 5.1
Require development proposals to identify significant
biological resources and provide mitigation, including
the use of adequate buffering; selective preservation;
the provision of replacement habitats; the use of
sensitive site planning techniques including wildlife
corridor/recreaTional trails; and other appropriate
measures.
Work with State, regional and non-profit agencies and
organizations to preserve and enhance significant.
biological resources on publicly owned lands.
Coordinate with the County of Riverside and other
relevant agencies in the adoption and implementation Of
the Riverside County Multi-Species Habitat
Conservation Plan.
Maintain and enhance the resources of the Temecula
Creek, Santa Margarita River, Pechanga Creek and other
waterways to the ensure the long-term viability of the
habitat, wildlife, and wildlife movement corridors.
Open Space/Conservation Element
Conservation of
open space areas for
a balance of
recreation, scenic
enjoyment, and
protection of natural
resources and
features.
The natural features of the Study Area provide a scenic
setting for the community. Topographical features such
as the western ridgeline, hillsides in the northern Study
Area, and natural drainage courses should be protected
from insensitive development. The environmental
resources of the Santa Margarita River should also be
protected from insensitive activities upstream. Public
views to these areas should also be maintained to the
extent possible. The City's built environment contains
parkways and slopes along roadways which function as
an open apace amenity. These corridors should be well
landscaped and maintained. The linkage of open space
corridors to parks and regional recreation opportunities
serves to tie the community together, as well as
encourage bicycling, hiking, and equestrian activities.
Such linkages simultaneously encourages other
environmental benefits by using the same pathways for
wildlife connections.
Pursue the conservation of the western and southern
ridgelines, the Santa Margarita River, slopes in the
Policy 5.2
Policy 5.3
Policy 5.8
Policy 5.10
Policy 5.11
Policy 5.12
Sphere of influence, and other important landforms and
historic landscape features through the development
review process and as a condition of project approval.
Identify significant viewsheds to proposed projects that
may be preserved through the dedication of open space
or the use of sensitive grading, site design and building
techniques.
Encourage the use of Clustered development and other
site planning techniques to maximize the preservation of
open space.
Require adequate open space in new development for
both passive and active recreation.
Require the connection of open space and recreation
areas to adjacent developments and publicly owned
recreation areas where appropriate.
Study the feasibility of establishing a System of
Transferable Development Credits, in conjunction with
the County, to conserve open space or agricultural
USES.
Incorporate seismic hazard safety zones into valley-wide
open space and park systems.
R:%ST,a,I~Vdm~.~C 2728~ vSw 30
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
THE STEPS IN THE ANNEXATION PROCESS
P~:',ST~.PC 7,~,~g~ vS'w 3 1
What are the steps in the annexation orocess?
The annexation process initiates at the City, after the City approves the annexation
resolution, LAFC0 takes action on the annexation, after that the City becomes the
Conducting Authority, and finally the proposal goes back to LAFC0 for finalization. The
process may be initiated at LAFC0; however, LAFCO can not take action on the
annexation proposal until the City has pre-zoned the property, approved the Plan of
Services and the environmental documents, To simplify this document, only the first
scenario is discussed in detail below: :
a. THE INITIAL CITY PROCESSING
Applicant files an application with the City requesting annexation to
the City and the Temecula Community Services District (TCSD) this
includes a prezoning application and a copy of a Fiscal Impact Report.
ii. Staff reviews the application for:
(1) Consistency with the General Plan
(2) Consistency with the Annexation Guidelines
(3) Contiguity with the City Limits
(4) Consistency of the applicant's Fiscal Impact Report with the
General Plan Fiscal Model
iii. City staff prepares the following:
(1)
(2)
(3)
The Plan of Services
The environmental documents in compliance with CEQA
A public hearing notice at least 15 days prior to the hearing
The Planning Commission conducts a public hearing and makes a
recommendation to the City Council.
The City Council conducts a public hearing and approves the
annexation by adopting an ordinance pre-zoning the property and
adopts a resolution which includes:
(1)
(2)
(3)
The Plan of Services
The environmental documents
The Property Tax Agreement with the County if there is no
Master Property Tax Agreement
vi.
The Temecula Community Services District Board adopts a resolution
to annex and serve the annexation proposal.
vii.
The City Clerk submits a certified copy of the resolutions along with
the pre-zoning ordinance to LAFCO.
Ce
LAFCO APPROVAL PROCESS
LAFCO proceedings are initiated on the date a petition or resolution of
application is accepted for filing by LAFCO's Executive Officer issuing
a certificate of filing.
ii.
Immediately after receiving an application and before issuing a
certificate of filing, the Executive Officer shall give mailed notice that
the application has been received to each interested agency and each
subject agency. Within thirty days, the Executive Officer shall
determine if the application is complete. The failure to provide a
property tax exchange agreement would be grounds for a finding that
the application is incomplete and would delay the proceedings.~
iii.
Upon issuing a certificate filing, LAFCO schedules and conducts a
Public Hearing on the annexation request and approves or denies the
request. However, no public hearing is required if 100% of the
property owners within the annexation territory consent to the
annexation.
CITY AS THE CONDUCTING AUTHORITY
After LAFCO has adopted a resolution approving the annexation, the
proposal is turned over to the City as conducting authority to implement the
LAFCO resolution. The City's role at this point becomes ministerial with the
exception of detachments. The City Council has only the discretion to
disapprove detachments. For annexations, however, the City Council does
not have discretion to disapprove the proposal or submit it to an election.
For annexations, the City Council schedules and conducts a public hearing to
determine the number of protests filed by the landowners or registered
voters within the annexation area. (If the City fails or refuses to initiate
proceedings hold a public hearing within 60 days, the Board of Supervisors is
required to complete the proceedings). Any protests filed shall state whether
it is made by a landowner or registered voter. Protests maybe in writing or
oral. At the hearing the City Council summarizes the LAFCO resolution and
hears all oral and written protests. At the conclusion of the hearing the City
Council must determine the number of written protests and, within 30 days
of the close of the hearing, adopt a resolution specifying its findings on the
protests and stating its decision on any matters within its discretion.
After adopting a resolution approving the annexation, the City Clerk must
submit a certified copy of the resolution to LAFCO, for a determination as
whether the City resolution is in compliance, then LAFCO must prepare and
execute a certificate of completion and record it with the County Recorder.
~There is a 30 day window during which the County and the City must negotiate a
properly tax agreement. If no agreement is reached, the Revenue and Taxation Section 99
mandates that the annexation proposal is terminated.
The Executive Officer then issues a statement of boundary change and sends
the same to the State Board of EQualization, the County Assessor and
Auditor. A statement is also sent to the Secretary of State.
i. Proceedings for uninhabited and inhabited are described below:
(1)
For uninhabited annexations (11 or less registered voters
residing within the annexation territory) only landowner
protests are applicable and an election is not an option. In
such annexations the City Council must:
(a)
Terminate annexation oroceedinas if the landowners.
owning 50 percent or more of the assessed value of
land in the annexation territory file protests with the
City, or
(b) Order the annexation oroceedinos,
(2)
For inhabited annexations (12 or more registered voters
residing within the annexation territory) The City Council must
take the following actions:
(a)
Terminate the annexation oroceedinos if 50% or more
of the registered voters residing in the annexation
territory file protests.
(b)
Order the annexation oroceedinos subject to a majority
election if:
(i)
At least 25% but less than 50% of the
registered voters residing in the annexation
territory file written protests, or
(ii)
At least 25% of the number of owners of land,
who also own at least 25% of the assessed
value of land within the annexation territory file
written protests.
The election shall be held according to the following:
(iii)
Hold an election within the annexation territory if
the election is required by the virtue of a 25%
protest
(iv)
Hold an election within the annexation territory
and the City if the assessed value or the number
of registered voters in the annexation territory is
50% or more of that in the City. In such a case
separate elections are held in the territory to be
annexed and in the annexing city and the
annexation proposal must be 8pproved by a
majority of the voters both in the territory to be
annexed and in the annexing city.
(c)
Adoot A Resolution, If the annexation is ordered
subject to confirmation of the voters, the City Council
resolution approving the annexation shall also:
(i)
Call, provide for, and give notice of a special
election or elections upon 'that question
(ii)
Designate the effected territory within which the
special election or elections shall be held
(iii) Fix a date of the election
(iv)
Provide for the question or questions to be
submitted to the voters
(v) Designate precincts and polling places
(vi)
State any terms or conditions applicable to the
annexation, as specified by LAFCO
(vii) State the vote required for confirmation of the
annexation
(viii)
Contain any other matters necessary to call,
provide for, and give notice of the special
election or elections and to provide for the
conduct and the canvass of returns of the
election, as determined by the City Council
In addition the following needs to be on the Resolution:
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
Approval of the Plan of Services
Approval of the environmental documents
Approval of Property Tax Agreement with the County if
there is no Master Property Tax Agreement
At the conclusion of the hearing the City Council must
determine the number of written protests and, within
30 days of the close of the hearing, adopt a resolution
specifying its findings on the protests and stating its
decision on any matters within its discretion. After
adopting a resolution approving the annexation, the City
Clerk must submit a certified copy of the resolution to
LAFCO, for a determination as whether the City
resolution is in compliance, then LAFCO must prepare
and execute a certificate of completion and record it
R:~I'~.I,C 2/28/S6 yaw 35
(h)
(i)
with the County Recorder. The Executive Officer then
issues a statement of boundary change and sends the
same to the State Board of Equalization, the County
Assessor and Auditor. A statement is also sent to the
Secretary of State.
Election Procedures. The City Clerk conducts the
election and must give notice of the election in the
manner specified in Government Code Sections 57130
and 57131. Pursuant to Section 57131,the notice of
election must contain all the matters required in the City
Council resolution listed above. Notice shall also be
provided to the LAFCO Executive Officer who must
draft an impartial analysis to be included in the. voter's
materials and submit the analysis for LAFCO approval.
LAFCO may make such modifications to the analysis as
it deems appropriate.
ResuVts of the Election. After the election is held on the
question of confirming an annexation, the City Council
must, within 30 days of the canvass of the election,
declare by resolution the total number of votes cast in
the election and the number of votes for and against
confirming the annexation. If the annexation is
approved by a majority of votes cast, the City Council
must also adopt a resolution confirming its previous
resolution which ordered The annexation subject to
election.
If a majority of the votes cast are against confirming the
annexation, the City Council must adopt a resolution
terminating the proposed annexation. Either a
resolution confirming or terminating the proposed
annexation must be filed with the LAFCO Executive
Officer.
Resolution Contents. Order the annexation without an
election if the protests are insufficient to satisfy the
criteria a or b above. In this case, the City Council shall
adopt a resolution ordering the annexation and
containing the following information:
(i)
A statement that the action is being taken
pursuant to the Cortese-Knox Local Government
Reorganization Act of 1985.
(ii)
A statement of the type of the change or
reorganization being acted on (i.e. annexation)
(iii) A description of the exterior boundaries of the
territory for the annexation approved by LAFCO
(iv)
All the terms and conditions upon the annexation
as approved by LAFC0
(v) The reasons for the annexation
(vi)
A statement as to whether the regular county
assessment roll Or another assessment roll will
be used for taxes and assessments in the
annexed territory
(vii)
A statement that the annexed territory will or
will not be taxed for existing general bonded
indebtedness of any agency whose boundaries
are changed
(viii) Any other matter which the City Council deems
material to the annexation
FINAL LAFC0 ACTION
LAFCO prepares the Certificate of Completion and records it with the
County Recorder.
ii. LAFCO issues a Statement of Boundary Change.
iii. Annexation is complete.
R:~TAI~RPTL~EX.I'~ 2/28/96 ~ 37
ATTACHMENT NO. 5
SPECIFIC PLANS WITHIN THE SPHERE OF INFLUENCE
R:\STAI~RFI~K.I}C 2/28]96 v~ 38
SPECIFIC PI ,AN OVERLAY
Approved Specific Plan
Areas
i~{:.~~ Proposed Specific Plan
, Areas
General Plan Program
PLANNING
CENTER
FIGURE 2-5
CITY OF TEIMZECULA Land Use Element
Legend for Specific Plan Overlay
Figure 2-5 (Continued)
APPROVED SPECIFIC PLAN AREAS
A. Winchester Mesa
B. Rancho Spa and Country Club
C. Warm Springs
D. Silverhawk
E. Mountain View
F. Margarita Village
G. Rancho Highlands
H. Paloma del Sol
I. Vail Ranch
J. Redhawk
J.1. RoriVau~h Hills
FUTURE SPECIFIC PLAN AREAS~
BL Winchester 1800
L. Quinta Do Lago
M. Murrieta Springs #1
N. Borel A/rpark
O. Crown Valley Village
P. Hot Springs Village
Q. Johnson Ranch
R. Roripaugh 800
S. Winchester Hills
T. Winchester Meadows Business Park
U. Temecula Regional Center
v. Campos Verdes
W. Old Town
X. Unnamed Specitie Plan
Y. Unnamed Specific Plan
Z~7_~Z3. Unnamed Specific Plan,,
AA_ Murdy Ranch
LOCATION
Environmental Study Area
Environmental Study Area
Environmental Study Area
Sphere of Influence
Sphere of Irtfiuencc
City of Temccula
City of Temccula
City of Temecula
Sphere of Influence
S here of Influence
~J?~of Temecula
LOCATION
Sphcre of Influence
Sphere of Influence
Sphere of Influence
Sphere of Influence
Sphere of Influence
Environmental Study Area
Sphere of Influence
City of Temecula
City of Tmecula
City of Temecula
City of Temecula
City of Temecula
City of Temecula
City of Temecula
City of Temecula
City of Temecula
The names of the Future Specific Plan Arias are subject to change.
TEM-01~IGI'.t.ND.USB · Dat:: November 9, t993 Page 2-36
ATTACHMENT NO. 6
PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP STAFF REPORT
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
MEMORANDUM
Planning Commission
Debbie Ubnoske, Planning Manager
February 5, 1996
A Workshop on Annexation Guidelines
Prepared By:
Saied Naaseh, Associate Planner
RECOMMENDATION: Provide direction to staff on the proposed Annexation Guidelines.
BACKGROUND
The City Council has directed staff to prepare guidelines to evaluate annexation proposals.
The need for these guidelines is the result of the complex issues involving a number of large
annexation proposals such as Johnson Ranch, Roripaugh Ranch, and Silverhawk (Pulte
Homes). These projects individually and cumulatively could have a great impact on the City
in terms of future population of the City and the required municipal services needed for these
projects.
Staff contacted other Cities to learn how other local governments reviewed annexation
proposals. However, staff has found that no other City in California has adopted detailed
annexation guidelines. As a result, the task of creating these guidelines has proved to be very
challenging. On one hand, the guidelines need to be specific and rigid to allow careful
considerations of annexation proposals, but on the other hand, the guidelines need to be
general and flexible to allow them to be used for different types of annexation proposals.
The intent of the Annexation Guidelines is to allow the Planning Commission and the City
Council to make informed decisions on annexation requests. These guidelines will enable the
Planning Commission and the City Council to weigh the advantages and disadvantages of
annexation requests, to make decisions that are consistent with the General Plan and are in
the best interest of the City. These guidelines are based on the General Plan's annexation
Goals and Policies which are included as Attachment 2.
In order to provide a better understanding of the annexation process Attachment 3 has been
included for the Commission's information. In addition, the following provides answers to a
few annexation questions.
DISCUSSION
What is an annexation?
Annexation is the process of adding new land area into an existing city or special district, such
as the Temecula Community Services District, with a resulting change in the boundaries of
that local agency.
Are there different Woes of annexations?
Yes, there are two types of annexations:
Uninhabited annexations (11 or less registered voters residing within the
annexation territory)
Inhabited annexations (12 or more registered voters residing within the
annexation territory)
Who can initiate annexations?
A proposal for annexation of territory to a city is initiated by application to the Local Agency
Formation Commission (LAFCO) either by a Resolution of Application adopted by the City
Council for City initiated annexations or a petition signed by either of the following for property
owner initiated annexations:
Not less than 5 percent of the number of registered voters residing within the
territory proposed to be annexed as shown on the County Register of Voters;
Not less than 5 percent of the number of owners of land within the territory
proposed to be annexed who also own 5 percent of the assessed value of land
within the territory as show on the last equalized roll.
Prior to the adoption of an annexation resolution, the City Council must conduct a noticed
public hearing. Notice of the public hearing must be published at least 15 days prior to the
date of the hearing.
Does the state law reQulate annexations?
Yes, the Cortese-Knox Local Government Reorganization Act of 1985, revised 1989,
Government Code Section, 56000et. sea., establishes regulations for annexations and other
reorganizations. This Act is essentially pro-annexation and generally limits the City's role in
the process to that of a "Conducting Authority" to hear and count protests to the annexation
from the residents and the property owners in the territory proposed to be annexed.
Can the City StOO unwanted annexation ProPose|s?
Yes, once the City has decided that an annexation project is not in the best interest of the
City, unwanted annexations may be stopped in two ways.
The most legally defensible manner to stop an annexation is by rescinding the adopted Master
Property Tax Agreement with the County. This Agreement allows all annexations to take
place by identifying the portion of the property tax that the City would receive from the
County on all annexations. A Property Tax Agreement is required by LAFCO prior to deeming
the annexation application complete. LAFCO cannot proceed with the annexation process
when the application is not deemed complete. Without the Master Property Tax Agreement,
the City would not be able to annex properties to the City. In order for the City to approve
future annexation proposals, an Individual Property Tax Agreement or a Master Property ,Tax
Agreement needs to be renegotiated with the County.
There are advantages and disadvantages associated with rescinding the City's existing Master
Property Tax Agreement. The biggest advantage is that the City would be in a strong position
if the City were opposed to an annexation proposal, since LAFCO cannot approve an
annexation without a Property Tax Agreement. The disadvantages are that the City would
have to negotiate a separate Property Tax Agreement for each individual annexation proposal
with the County or adopt a Master Property Tax Agreement. This could be a very time
consuming process and, as a result, the City could lose the applicant's interest to annex to
the City. Another disadvantage is that the County may ask for more concessions from the
City in order to agree to future tax agreements with the City, These concessions could include
a bigger share of the property tax for the County and a share of other taxes collected by the
City after the annexation such as sales tax.
The second method the City can use to stop an annexation is by not approving the Plan of
Services or the Pre-Zoning Ordinance, both of which are required by LAFCO before the
annexation application is deemed complete. LAFCO would not be able to proceed with the
annexation process if the application is deemed incomplete. There is no case law on this
issue. However, it is the City Attorney's opinion that this may not be the best legally
defensible approach to stop annexations because a court could order the City to prepare a Plan
o.f Services or to pre-zone the property, or allow the applicant to prepare and submit the Plan
of Services.
How does the Annexation Guidelines Checklist work?
The proposed guidelines have been prepared in a checklist format to allow a quick review of
the benefits and drawbacks of any proposed annexation (refer to Attachment 1 ). Several
categories of criteria have been created which appear at the top of each table. The categories
include:
· General
· Infrastructure
· Fiscal
· Land Use
P~TAFFRPT~A~NEX.ODL 2F28~ m 3
· Parks and Recreation
Each table contains several criteria followed by the possible benefit(s) of each to the City. For
each new annexation proposal, staff would complete the tables with check marks in
appropriate spaces. A project with many "Yes"es could be a good candidate for annexation,
on the other hand, a project with many "No"s is perhaps not a very good candidate for
annexation. It should be noted that each criteria has a different weight and more "Yes"as
than "No"s does not necessarily mean that the project should be annexed to the City. If a
criteria does not apply to a particular project, the N/A box will be checked.
Staff also recommends against a scoring system that assigns score~ for different criteria.
While this approach may appear to be objective, it can provide highly subjective or misleading
results.
CONCLUSION
Staff is proposing the adoption of the Annexation Guidelines Checklist. We feel this approach
is both comprehensive in scope and provides appropriate flexibility.
Attachments:
Annexation Guidelines Checklist and the Annexation Priority Map - Blue Page 5
General Plan Goals and Policies Regarding Annexations - Blue Page 11
The Steps in the Annexation Process - Blue Page 16
R:~TAEB~'I%MO1EX.ODL 2/28/96 m 4
Attachment No. 1
The Annexation Guidelines Checklist
I-
X
Attachment No, 2
General Plan Goals and Policies Regarding Annexations
n:~rA~.FnASUEX.CmL ~S~ ,, 11
Does
Yes.
1.
the General Plan contain annexation ooals and oolicies?
The General Plan states that:
The General Plan Study Area includes some 34 square miles of unincorporated territory. Within
this area, are approximately nine proposed specific plans, that when developed, will have a direct
impact on the City in terms of traffic, noise, the demand for community facilities, the demand for
employment end commercial activities, and other impacts.
It is the City's desire to annex areas within 'the Sphere of Influence prior to or concurrent with
project approvals, in order to exercise control over the use, quality and design of development, as
well as ensure the adequacy of public facilities and amenities.
The City intends to utilize the General Plan to review development and annexation proposals
within these unincorporated areas.
The City shall adopt procedures governing the prezoning of areas to be annexed to the City.
These procedures shall be included in the Development Code. Criteria for prezoning shall consider
existing land uses, if any, on the site to be annexed; existing County zoning on the site and
surrounding area; existing circulation patterns; and environmental conditions on the site and
surrounding area. Prezoning is subject to the same requirements applicable to zoning in the City
including the requirement for consistency with the General Plan.
The City has a great opportunity to shape the open spaces of development annexing to the City.
The challenge facing Temecula is to create a multipurpose open space system that does not solel,'
consist of the unusable spaces leftover from development, but maintains viable agriculture lands
outside the City, preserves wildlife habitats, maximizes water resources, and secures recreational,
historic and cultural resources. The City will benefit from connection with the open spaces
ensured through ownership by federal and state government, such as the Cleveland National
Forest, the U.S. Bureau of Land Management and the California State University at San Diego.
Fiscal Viability of projects need to be verified by:
Requiring new development to pay for its share of capital and operating costs not met by
General Fund revenues generated directly by the project.
Utilizing the comprehensive fiscal impact model on an ongoing basis to monitor both
General Fund and Community Service District Fund fiscal impacts as development
information becomes available.
Formulating land use mitigation strategies for projected deficits to incorporate a balance of
land uses that will provide sufficient revenue to cover new costs.
Defining financing techniques that will assist in funding recurring costs in addition to
funding one-time capital improvements, allocating the impacts equitably between new and
existing development.
R:wr~r~n~x.ooL ~r~6 = 12
Evaluating fiscal impacts of future annexations on an ongoing basis.
f. Evaluating long-term effects of proposed City sales tax rebates to large retailers.
Further, the General Plan provides the following specific Goals and Policies that relate to annexations:
Goal 7 of the Land Use Element Orderly annexation and development of
unincorporated areas within Temecula's Sphere
of Influence.
Discussion The unincorporated area in the City's northern Sphere of Influence is
largely proposed for development through specific plans. The City
has an opportunity to control land use, phasing of development,
project design, and infrastructure improvements by annexing these
properties prior to approval by Riverside County. The intent is to
ensure that future annexations are a beneficial addition to the City.
7.1 Policy
Annex lands to the City that can be developed in accordance
with the General Plan and can be adequately served by public
facilities and utility services.
7.2 Policy
Require proposed annexations to be evaluated using the City's
Fiscal Impact Model and Traffic Impact Model.
7.3 Policy
Evaluate the land use pattern and intensity/density of proposed
annexations in terms of:
1. The Village Centers designations on the Land Use Plan.
2. The linkage of open space and trails to adjacent developments.
3. The compatibility of the annexation to adjacent uses in the City.
The demonstrated need for additional housing, industrial, commercial
and other uses.
Goal 8 of the Land Use Element A City which is compatible and coordinated with
regional land use patterns.
Discussion
Temecula is a leader in the region in terms of its commercial uses, job
base, and quality of residential development. The land use decisions
the City makes will have direct and indirect impacts on surrounding
communities (and visa versa). Through inter-governmental
coordination, the City can properly address regional land use issues to
achieve a coordinated regional land use pattern. The Growth
Management Element contains more specific policies related to
regional coordination and growth management.
R:~'rAFF~F~ANN~C.ODL 2/28/~6 m 13
8.1 Policy
Provide a pattern of land uses that maintain and enhance the
viabiiity of neighboring communities including the City of
Murrieta, and the counties of Riverside and San Diego, through
compatible uses and linkages.
8.2 Policy Provide a system of open space that is coordinated with
regional open space uses to comprehensively address the
management and conservation resources.
Goal 6 of the Growth Management Element A water and wastewater
infrastructure system that supports
existing and future development in
the Study Area.
Discussion
Water availability is a critical determinant in Southern California's
future growth and development. By working closely with the Rancho
California Water District and Eastern Municipal Water District in
developing supply options; conservation techniques, including the use
of reclaimed water; and development monitoring systems, the City
Can ensure that development does not outpace the long-term
availability of water. Close coordination with Eastern Municipal Water
District in the timely expansion of wastewater treatment facilities is
equally important to the community's well-being.
6.3 Policy
Coordinate with the water and wastewater districts when
considering General Plan amendments, annexations, or
development agreements, in order to assist the districts in
planning for adequate capacity to accommodate future growth.
Goal 2 of the Growth Management Element
Orderly and efficient patterns of
growth within Temecula that
enhance the quality of life for
residents.
Discussion
The Growth Management Strategy contained in the Growth
Management Element is intended to be the framework for a future
Growth Management Program (GMP). This GMP should be designed
to influence adequacy of public facilities and services in relation to the
location, phasing, type, quality and intensity of new development and
redevelopment. It should also take into consideration the existing
communities and resources of Temecula, the Sphere of Influence, and
Environmental Study Area. All the policies of this Element, in
essence, support this goal.
2.1 Policy
Prepare and implement a Growth Management Program for
Temecula.
R:'iSTA~,ODL 2/28/96 m 14
2.2 Policy
Ensure that phasing of public facilities and services occur in
such a way that new development is adequately supported as
it develops.
2.3 Policy
Establish and maintain level of service standards in order to
document adequacy requirements.
2.4 Policy
Encourage development of Village Centers, as defined in the
Land Use. and Community Design Elements to reduce' public
service costs and environmental impacts through compatible
land use relationships, and efficient circulation and open space
systems.
2.5 Policy
Encourage new development that helps to create and maintain
a balance between jobs and housing opportunities.
2.6 Policy
2.7 Policy
Establish priority growth areas within the City and Sphere of
Influence where near-term urbanization will be encouraged.
Discourage the use of assessment districts that promote urban
sprawl and premature urbanization in rural and agricultural
areas,
2.8 Policy
Coordinate the Growth Management Program with the
Congestion Management Program as necessary.
Goal 7 of the Growth Management Element
An effective, safe and
environmentally compatible flood
control system.
Discussion
As urbanization increases, so does the potential for disruption caused
by flooding and inadequate flood control facilities. Local and regional
flood control facilities need to be comprehensively planned to protect
existing areas and future development from flood hazards. As urban
and suburban development increases, runoff increases by replacing
permeable surfaces with pavement and structures. The potential of
overloading existing drainage facilities is a concern that must be
addressed comprehensively in the Study Area.
7.3 Policy
Develop master drainage plans, when appropriate, for the
Sphere of Influence, in conjunction with the Flood Control
District.
R:~T~.ODL 2/21/~ m 1~
Attachment No. 3
The Steps in the Annexation Process
R:~T~.ODL 2r~ m 16
What are the steos in the annexation process?
The annexation process initiates at the City, after the City approves the annexation
resolution, LAFCO takes action on the annexation, after that the City becomes the
Conducting Authority, and finally the proposal goes back to LAFCO for finalization. The
process may be initiated at LAFCO; however, LAFCO can not take action on the
annexation proposal until the City has pre-zoned the property, approved the Plan of
Services and the environmental documents. To simplify this document, only the first
scenario is discussed in detail below:
a. THE INITIAL CITY PROCESSING
Applicant files an application with the City requesting annexation to-
the City and the Temecula Community Services District (TCSD) this
includes a prezoning application and a copy of a Fiscal Impact Report.
ii. Staff reviews the application for:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
Consistency with the General Plan
Consistency with the Annexation Guidelines
Contiguity with the City Limits
Consistency of the applicant's Fiscal Impact Report with the
General Plan Fiscal Model
iii. City staff prepares the following:
(1)
(2)
(3)
The Plan of Services
The environmental documents in compliance with CEQA
A public hearing notice at least 15 days prior to the hearing
The Planning Commission conducts a public hearing and makes a
recommendation to the City Council.
The City Council conducts a public hearing and approves the
annexation by adopting an ordinance pre-zoning the property and
adopts a resolution which includes:
(1)
(2)
(3)
The Plan of Services
The environmental documents
The Property Tax Agreement with the County if there is no
Master Property Tax Agreement
vi.
The Temecula Community Services District Board adopts a resolution
to annex and serve the annexation proposal.
vii.
The City Clerk submits a certified copy of the resolutions along with
the pre-zoning ordinance to LAFC0.
LAFCO APPROVAL PROCESS
LAFCO proceedings are initiated on the date a petition or resolution of
application is accepted for filing by LAFCO's Executive Officer issuing
a certificate of filing.
ii.
Immediately after receiving an application and before issuing a
certificate of filing, the Executive Officer shall give mailed notice that
the application has been received to each interested agency and each
subject agency. Within thirty days, the Executi.ve Officer shall
determine if the application is complete. The failure to provide a
property tax exchange agreement would be grounds for a finding that
the application is incomplete and would delay the proceedings?
iii.
Upon issuing a certificate filing, LAFCO schedules and conducts a
Public Hearing on the annexation request .and approves or denies the
request. However, no public hearing is required if 100% of the
property owners within the annexation territory consent to the
annexation.
CITY AS THE CONDUCTING AUTHORITY
After LAFCO has adopted a resolution approving the annexation, the
proposal is turned over to the City as conducting authority to implement the
LAFCO resolution. The City's role at this point becomes ministerial with the
exception of detachments. The City Council has only the discretion to
disapprove detachments. For annexations, however, the City Council does
not have discretion to disapprove the proposal or submit it to an election.
For annexations, the City Council schedules and conducts a public hearing to
determine the number of protests filed by the landowners or registered
voters within the annexation area. (if the City fails or refuses to initiate
proceedings hold a public hearing within 60 days, the Board of Supervisors is
required to complete the proceedings). Any protests filed shall state whether
it is made by a landowner or registered voter. Protests maybe in writing or
oral. At the hearing the City Council summarizes the LAFCO resolution and
hears all oral and written protests. At the conclusion of the hearing the City
Council must determine the number of written protests and, within 30 days
of the close of the hearing, adopt a resolution specifying its findings on the
protests and stating its decision on any matters within its discretion.
'There is a 30 day window during which ~e County and the City must negotiate a
property tax agreement. If no agreement is reached, the Revenue and Taxation Section 99
mandates that the annexation proposal is terminated.
R:~STAFFRPT~ANNEX.ODL 2z2S/~ m
After adopting a resolution approving the annexation, the City Clerk must
submit a certified copy of the resolution to LAFCO, for a determination as
whether the City resolution is in compliance, then LAFCO must prepare and
execute a certificate of completion and record it with the County Recorder.
The Executive Officer then issues a statement of boundary change and sends
the same to the State Board of Equalization, the County Assessor and
Auditor, A statement is also sent to the Secretary of State.
i. Proceedings for uninhabited and inhabited are described below:.
(1)
For uninhabited annexations (11 or less registered voters
residing within the annexation territory) only landowner
protests are applicable and an election is not an option. In
such annexations the City Council must:
(a)
Terminate annexation oroceedinas if the landowners
owning 50 percent or more of the assessed value of
land in the annexation territory file protests with the
City, or
(b) Order the annexation oroceedinQs.
(2)
For inhabited annexations (12 or more registered voters
residing within the annexation territory) The City Council must
take the following actions:
(a)
Terminate the annexation oroceedinos if 50% or more
of the registered voters residing in the annexation
territory file protests.
(b)
Order the annexation oroceedinas subject to a majority
election if:
Ill
At least 25% but less than 50% of the
registered voters residing in the annexation
territory file written protests, or
(ii)
At least 25% of the number of owners of land,
who also own at least 25% of the assessed
value of land within the annexation territory file
written protests.
~:wr~m,r~,r~.onL ~r~ m 19
The election shall be held according to the following:
(iii)
Hold an election within the annexation territory if
the election is required by the virtue of a 25%
protest
(iv)
Hold an election within the annexation territory
and the City if the assessed value or the number
of registered voters in the annexation territory is
50% or more of that in the City. In such a-case
separate elections are held in the territory to be
annexed and in the annexing city and the
annexation proposal must be approved by a
majority of the voters both in the territory to be
annexed and in the annexing city.
(c)
Adopt A Resolution. If the annexation is ordered
subject to confirmation of the voters, the City Council
resolution approving the annexation shall also:
(i)
Call, provide for, and give notice of a special
election or elections upon that question
(ii)
Designate the affected territory within which the
special election or elections shall be held
(iii) Fix a date of the election
(iv)
Provide for the question or questions to be
submitted to the voters
(v) Designate precincts and polling places
(vi)
State any terms or conditions applicable to the
annexation, as specified by LAFCO
(vii)
State the vote required for confirmation of the
annexation
(viii)
Contain any other matters necessary to call,
provide for, and give notice of the special
election or elections and to provide for the
conduct and the canvass of returns of the
election, as determined by the City Council
In addition the following needs to be on the Resolution:
2/28/96
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(h)
(i)
Approval of the Ran of Services
Approval of the environmental documents
Approval of Property Tax Agreement with the County if
there is no Master Property Tax Agreement
At the conclusion of the hearing the City Council must
determine the number of written protests and, within
30 days of the close of the hearing, adopt a resolution
specifying its findings on the protests and stating its
decision on any matters within its discretion. After
adopting a resolution approving the annexation, the City
Clerk must submit a certified copy of the resolution to
LAFCO, for a determination as whether the City
resolution is in compliance, then LAFCO must prepare
and execute a certificate of completion and record it
with the County Recorder..The Executive Officer then
issues a statement of boundary change and sends the
same to the State Board of Equalization, the County
Assessor and Auditor. A statement is also sent to the
Secretary of State.
Election Procedures. The City Clerk conducts the
election and must give notice of the election in the
manner specified in Government Code Sections 57130
and 57131. Pursuant to Section 57131, the notice of
election must contain all the matters required in the City
Council resolution listed above. Notice shall also be
provided to the LAFCO Executive Officer who must
draft an impartial analysis to be included in the voter's
materials and submit the analysis for LAFCO approval.
LAFCO may make such modifications to the analysis as
it deems appropriate.
Results of the Election. After the election is held on the
question of confirming an annexation, the City Council
must, within 30 days of the canvass of the election,
declare by resolution the total number of votes cast in
the election and the number of votes for and against
confirming the annexation. If the annexation is
approved by a majority of votes cast, the City Council
must also adopt a resolution confirming its previous
resolution which ordered the annexation subject to
election.
If a majority of the votes cast are against confirming the
annexation, the City Council must adopt a resolution
terminating the proposed annexation. Either a
resolution confirming or terminating the proposed
R:L~T~.ODL 2/28/96 m 21
annexation must be filed with the LAFCO Executive
Officer.
Resolution Contents. Order the annexation without an
election if the protests are insufficient to satisfy the
criteria a or b above. In this case, the City Council shall
adopt a resolution ordering the annexation and
containing the following information:
(i)
A statement that the action is being taken
pursuant to the Cortese-Knox Local Government
Reorganization Act of 1985.
(ii)
A statement of the type of the change or
reorganization being acted on (i.e. annexation)
(iii)
A description of the exterior boundaries of the
territory for the annexation approved by LAFCO
(iv)
All the terms and conditions upon the annexation
as approved by LAFCO
(v) The reasons for the annexation
(vi)
A statement as to whether the regular county
assessment roll or another assessment roll will
be used for taxes and assessments in the
annexed territory
(vii)
A statement that the annexed territory will or
will not be taxed for existing general bonded
indebtedness of any agency whose boundaries
are changed
(viii) Any other matter which the City Council deems
material to the annexation
FINAL LAFCO ACTION
LAFCO prepares the Certificate of Completion and records it with the
County Recorder.
ii. LAFCO issues a Statement of Boundary Change.
iii. Annexation is complete.
ATTACHMENT NO. 7
PRIORITY MAP
R:XSTAITRPTXANNEX.PC 2/28/96 vpv 40
ANNEXATION PRIORITY MAP
Environmental Study Area X i ~
HIGH ~
MEDIUM ~!
of Influence
of Temecula
Sphere of
~ he City of
TEMECULA
General Plan Program
NNIi~IG
ITEM #10
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
MarCh 4, 1996
Planning Application No.: PA95-0140,
Second Revision to Public Use Permit N0. 625
Rancho Baptist Church - Santiago Road
Prepared By: Craig D. Ruiz, Assistant Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Department Staff recommends the Planning
Commission:
ADOPT Resolution No. 96- al~proving PA95-0140,
Second Revision to Public Use Permit No. 625, based
upon the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff
Report; and
APPROVE Planning Application No. PA95-0140, Second
Revision to Public Use Permit No. 625, subject to the
attached Conditions of Approval.
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
Rancho Baptist Church
REPRESENTATIVE:
William York
PROPOSAL:
Revise conditions of approval to Plot Plan No. 625 to
allow three temporary modular buildings to become
permanent and to allow three additional modular buildings
to be used for classrooms
LOCATION:
29775 Santiago Road
EXISTING ZONING:
SP (Specific Plan)
SURROUNDING ZONING:
North: SP (Specific Plan)
South: VL (Very Low Residential)
East: SP (Specific Plan)
West: SP (Specific Plan)
EXISTING LAND USE:
Church
R:%STAI~RPT~I40PA95.1*C 2J28~96 yaw 1
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
BACKGROUND
North: Residential
South: Residential
East: Church
West: Day Care Center
Public Use Permit No. 625 and Variance 1512 were approved on August 16, 1988 by the
Riverside County Board of Supervisors. The Permit allowed for a church and related structures
totaling 19,250 square feet. The approved variance relieved the project from the requirement
of constructing a block wall along the property lines adjacent to the residential uses. Chain
link was approved as an alternative.
On May 20, 1991, Revised Public Use Permit No. 625 was brought before the Planning
Commission to request the addition of three modular buildings as temporary classroom
facilities. The City of Temecula Planning Commission approved this addition with the
stipulation that the church was to remove the three temporary trailers within 36 months of the
approval of the Revised Permit (May 20, 1994). In addition, the applicant was to construct
a permanent block wall on the south side of the property adjacent to the residential uses, also
within 36 months of the approval of the Revised Permit.
On January 20, 1994 the Planning Department received a complaint from a neighbor whose
property abuts the church on the southwest side regarding the lack of a block wall. On May
2, 1994, staff met with the Church's representative to discuss the conditions of approval.
As an alternative to the wall, the Church proposed placing slats in the existing chain link fence
and adding additional landscaping to further screen the parking lot from adjacent property
owners.
Because staff and the applicant were unable to resolve this issue, staff sought direction from
the Commission at their August 1, 1994 meeting. It was the Commission's direction that the
church should not be granted additional relief from the conditions of approval. It was the
Commission's further direction that the conditions be enforced.
ANALYSIS
At the DRC meeting on January 18, 1996, the applicant was informed that staff would not
support their request, due to the absence of the wall. On January 29, 1996, the Church's
representative received a building permit to allow for construction of the wall. While the wall
is not complete, the applicant has informed staff that it will be completed within the next 30-
60 days, weather permitting.
With regards to the addition of a three modular buildings, staff does not believe the buildings
will impact the surrounding properties. The buildings, both existing and proposed, are located
approximately 400 feet from Santiago Road. In addition, the buildings will be screened from
public view by either parking lot landscaping, the existing sanctuary or by structures on the
adjacent property to the west (see Exhibit A). The buildings will not be visible to residences
to the south due to the construction of the wall, the elevation difference between the
properties and the distance between the residences and the structures. The properties to the
east and west, a church and preschool, should not be impacted due to the fact that they are
similar uses.
The applicant has begun work on the wall, and anticipates completion in a timely manner, In
addition, staff feels that the modular units will not impact surrounding properties. Conditions
of Approval require that the building of the wail must be complete prior to the placement of
any new modular building on the site or the issuance of any new permits (see Condition of
Approval No.3). For all of these reasons, staff supports the applicant's proposal.
FINDINGS
Planning Application No. 95-040, Public Use Permit is consistent with the City's
General Plan due to the fact that the proposed addition to the church center
consistent with the General Plan Land Use designation of Public Institutional.
The proposed project is consistent with Ordinance No. 348 since it meets all .the
requirements of Ordinance No. 348.
The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the public health or
general welfare of the community due to the fact that the project meets the criteria
prescribed under Ordinance No. 348, Sections 9.10 and 18.29.
The proposal will not have an adverse effect on surrounding property, because the use
does not represent a significant change to the present or planned land use of the area
and the use is compatible with the surrounding residential and public uses.
The proposed use or action complies with State planning and zoning laws due to the
fact that the proposed use complies with Ordinance No. 348 and the action complies
with State Planning Laws.
The site is suitable to accommodate the proposed land use in terms of the size and
shape of the lot configuration, circulation patterns, access, and intensity of use due to
the fact that the proposed development complies with the standards of Ordinance No.
348.
The project has acceptable access to a dedicated right-of-way which is open to, and
useable by, vehicular traffic due to the fact that the interior circulation is suitable and
connects with Santiago Road.
The design of the project and the type of improvements are such that they are not in
conflict with easements for access through or use of the property within the proposed
project as represented on the site plan.
Attachments:
Resolution No. 96- - Blue Page 4
A. Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 8
Planning Commission Minutes - May 20, 1991 & August 1, 1994- Blue Page 11
Public Comment Letter - Blue Page 12
R:~TAFI~,FI~I40PAg$,!~ 2/25f96 vlw 3
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
RESOLUTION NO. 96-
ATFACHMENT NO. 1
PC liFFOLUTION NO. 96-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION
NO. PAgS-0140, SECOND REVISION TO PUBLIC USE PERMIT
NO. 625, TO REVISE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TO ALLOW
THE ADDITION OF THREE MODULAR BUILDINGS AND TO
ALLOW THREE TEMPORARY MODULAR BUILDINGS TO
BECOME PERMANENT TO BE USED AS CLASSROOMS
LOCATED AT 29775 SANTIAGO ROAD AND KNOWN AS
ASSF. SSOR'S PARCEL NO. 922-130-017
~, Rancho Baptist Church filed planning Application No. PA95-0140 in accordance
with the City of Temecula General Plan and Riverside County Land Use Ordinances, which the City has
adopted by reference;
WI-IEREAS, Planning Application No. PA95-0140 was processed in the time and manner
prescribed by State and local law;
WI-W~REAS, the Planning Commission considered Hanning Application No. PA95-0140 on
March 4, 1996, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time interested persons
had an opportunity to testif~t either in support or in opposition;
WHEREAS, at tho public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments,
if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, the Commission considered all facts relating to Planning
Application No. PAgS-0140;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct.
Section 2. ~ That the Temecula Planning Commission hereby makes the following
findings:
A. Pursuant to Section 18.29, no Public Use Permit may be approved unless the
applicant demonstrates the proposed use will not be detrimental to the health safety and welfare of the
community, and further, that any Public Use Permit appwved shall be subject to such conditions as shall
be necessary to protea the health, safety and general welfare of the community.
B. The Planning Commission, in approving Planning Application No. PA95-0140,
makes the following findings, to wit:
p]anning Application No. 95-040, Public Use Permit is consistent with the City's General Plan
due to the fact that the proposed addition to the church center is consistent with the General Plan
Land Use designation of Public Institutional.
R:'~TAIq~Fr~I40PA~j.PC 1F/,~/9~ v~w 5
The proposed project is consistent with Ordinance No. 348 since it meets all the requirements of
Ordinance No. 348.
The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the public health or general
welfare of the community due to the fact that the project meets the criteria prescribed under
Ordinance No. 348, Sections 9.10 and 18.29.
The proposal will not have an adverse effect on surrounding property, because the use does not
represent a significant change to the present or planned land use of the area and the use is
compatible with the surrounding residential and public uses.
The proposed use or action complies with State planning and zoning laws due to the fact that the
proposed use complies with Ordinance No. 348 and the action complies with State Planning
Laws.
The site is suitable to accommodate the proposed land use in terms of the size and shape of the
lot configuration, circulation patterns, access, and intensity of use due to the fact that the
proposed development complies with the standards of Ordinance No. 348.
The project has acceptable access to a dedicated right-of-way which is open to, and useable by,
vehicular traffic due to the fact that the interior circulation is suitable and connects with Santiago
Road.
The design of the project and the type of improvements are such that they are not in conflict with
easements for access through or use of the property within the proposed project as represented
on the site plan.
As conditioned pursuant to Section 4, Planing Application No. PA95-0140,
Second Revision to Public Use Permit No 625, as proposed, is compatible with the
health, safety and welfare of the community.
Section 3. Environmental Compliance. An Initial Environmental Assessment prepared for this
project indicates that project is determined to exempt for the requirements of the California Environmental
Quality Act per Section 15303.
Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby approves
Planning Application No. PA95-0140 to revise the conditions of approval for Public Use Permit No. 625
to allow the eddkion of three modular buildings and to allow three temporary modular buildings to
become permanent to be used as classrooms located 29775 at Santiago Road and known as Assessor's
Parcel No. 922-130-017, and subject to the following conditions:
A. Exhibit A, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference and made a pan
hereof.
Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPfE;D this 4th day of March, 1996.
'CHIN
R:~TAFFRIr~I40PAg$.I~C 2f2~96 vlw 6
I IIE~ERY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the planning
Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 4th day of March, 1996,
by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
DEBBIE UBNOSKE
SECRETARY
R:~STAFFRP~I~t(]PA94j.PC 2~8/96 ~w 7
ATTACHMENT A
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
R:~STAFFRFrXI40PA9~.PC 2f28/96 vg~ ~
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Planning Application No. PAg~01,i0, Second Revision to Public Use Permit No. 625
Project Description: To revise the conditions of approval for Public Use Permit No. 625
to allow the addition of three modular buildings and to allow three temporary modular
buildings to become permanent to be uSed as classrooms
Assessor's Parcel No.: 922-130-017
Approval Date: March 4, 1996
Expiration Date: March 4, 1997
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
General Requirements
The use hereby permitted by the approval of planning Application No. 95-0140, Second Revision
to Public Use Permit No. 625, to revise the conditions of approval to allow the addition of three
modular buildings and to allow three temporary modular buildings to become permanent to be
used as classrooms
The developer/applicant shall indemnify, protect, defend, and hold harmless, the City and any
agency or instrumentality thereof, and/or any of its officers, employees and agents from any and
all claims, actions, or proceedings agairmt the City, or any agency or instrumentality tharcof, or
any of its officers, employees and agents, W attack, set aside, void, annul, or seek monetary
damages resulting from an approval of the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof,
advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body including actions approved by the voters of the
City, concerning the Second Revision to Public Use Permit No. 625, which action is brought
within the appropriate statute of limitations period and Public Resources Code, Division 13,
Chapter 4 (Seaion 21000 et sco., including but not by the way of limitations Section 21152 and
21167). City shall pwmptly notify the developer/applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding
brought within this time period. City shall further cooperate fully in the defense of the action.
Should the City fail to either prompfiy notify or cooperate fully, developer/applicant shall not,
thereafter be responsible w indemnify, defend, protect, or hold harmless the City, any agency
or instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers, employees, or agents.
No additional structures shall be placed upon the site, nor shall any permits be granted until such
time the wall along the southerly property line is completed and approved to the satisfaction of
the planning Director and Chief Building Official.
Planning Application No. PA95-0140, shall comply with all Conditions of approval ~r the
underlying Public Use Permit No. 625 and Revised Public Use Permit No. 625 unless
superseded by these Conditions of Approval.
This approval shall be used within one (1) year of the 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 parind which is therealtar diligenfiy pursued to completion, .or
the beginning of substantial utilization contemplated by this approval.
k~STAFFRFI~I4OPA~S.PC 2/28~ ~ 9
6. The development of the premises shall conform substantially with Exhibit "A" approved with
planning Application No. PA95-0140, or as mended by these conditions.
7. Elevations shall conform substantially with exhibit "B", or as mended by these conditions.
8. Colors and materials used shall conform substantially with Exhibit "C" or as amended by these
conditions.
Prior to the Issuance of Occupancy Permits
9. All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use allowed by
this permit.
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
No new conditions.
DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING AND SA~I~TXr
10.
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
Disabled access regulations and the Temecula Municipal Code (1994 editions due for adoption
by December 199~).
11.
Submit at time of plan review, complete exterior site lighting plan in compliance with Ordinance
No. 655 for the regulation of light pollution.
12.
Obtain all building plan and permit approvals prior to the commencement of any construction
work.
13.
All buildings and facilities must comply with applicable disabled access regulations (California
Disable Access Regulations effective April 1, 1994).
14.
Restroom fixtures, number and type, shall be in accordance with the provisions of the 1991
edition of the Uniform Plumbing Code, Appendix C.
15.
Modular buildings shall be approved and permitted for their intended use by the State of
California, Department of Housing and Community Development.
OTHER DEPARTMENTS
16.
Fire protection shall be provided in accordance with the appropriate section of Ordinance No. 546
and the County Fire Warden's transmittat dated February 14, 1996, a copy of which is attached.
I have read, understand and accept the above Conditions of Approval.
Applicant Name
R:X$TAFFRF~I40PA95.PC 2t7,8/96 vg,; ~ 0
City of Temecula
43174 Business Park Dnve· Temecula, California 92590
(909) 694-6444 · Fax (909) 694-1999
February 14, 1996
TO:
~rrN:
RE:
PLANNING DEPARTNm-~
CRAIG RUIZ
PA95-0140
With respect to the conditions of approval for the above mferencext plot plan, the
Department recommends the following firg protection measures be provided in accordance with
Temecula Ordinances and/or recognized fire protection standards:
1. The existing water mains and fire hydrants will provide sufficient fire protection for the
proposed land division.
2. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the developer shall pay $.25 per square foot
as mitigation for fire protection impacts.
3.. Prior to the issuance of buffcling permits, the applicant/developer shall be responsible to
submit a plan check fee of $582.00 to the City of Temecula.
THE FOI .1 OWING CONDITIONS MUST BE MET PRIOR TO OCCUPANCY.
4. Install panic hardware and exit signs as per chapter 33 of the Uniform Building Code.
Low level exit signs shall also be provided, where exit signs are required by section
3314(a).
5. Install portable fire extinguishers with a minimum rating of 2A10BC. Contact a certified
extinguisher company for proper placement.
6. · Prior to final inspection of any building, the applicant shall prepare and submit to the
Fire Depathaent for approval, a site plan designating required fire lanes with appropriate
lane painting and or signs.
7. Street address shall be posted, in a visible location, minimum 12 inches in height, on the
street side of the building with a contrasting background.
8. All buildings shall be constructed with fire retardant roofing materials as described in
The Uniform Building Code. Any wood shingles or shakes shall be a Class "B" rating
and shall be approved by the fn'e department prior to installation.
9. The existing shed in fn'e department turnaround shall be relocated prior to the issuance
of any building permits.
10. Final conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed in the Bufffling and
Safety Offxce.
11. Please contact the Fire Department for a final inspection prior to occupancy.
All questions regarding the meaning of these conditions shall be referred to the Fire Departmere
Planning and engineering section (909)694-6439.
RAYMOND H. REGIS
Chief Fire Department Planner
Laura Cabral
Fire Safety Specialist
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
FROM MAY :10, 1991 AND AUGUST 1, 1994
R:~TAFFRF~I40PA9~.PC 2/28/96
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 20, 1991
GARY THORNHILL requested that a motion be made to continue Item 14
to the meeting of June 3, 1991.
COMMISSINER FORD moved to continue Item No. 14 to the regular
Planning Commission meeting of June 3, 1991, seconded by
COMMISSIONER FAREY.-
AYES: 5
COMMISSIONERS:
Blair, Fahey, Ford,
Hoagland, Chiniaeff
NOES: 0
COMMISSIONERS: None
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
10. PUBLIC USE PERMIT NO. 625 (REV.)
10.1
Request to allow Rancho Baptist Church three (3) On. Site
Temporary Trailers. Located at 29775 Santiago Road,
Temecula.
OLIVER MUJICA provided the staff report.
CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF opened the public hearing at 6:15
P.M.
JIM CARPENTER, Pastor, Rancho Baptist Church, 30933
Loma Linda Road, Temecula, provided a brief history
of the church.
JERRY TEDDER, 37797 Calle De Lobo, Murrieta, provided
background on the development of the church and the
phasing of construction.
DAVID CARPENTER, 41169 Vintage Circle, Temecula,
representing Rancho Baptist Church, requested that
Condition of Approval No. 14 be waived.
RICHARD SKAGGS, 29497 Rancho California Road, #675,
Temecula, requested clarification of where the proposed
improvements were going in at the church site and added
that he had no problem with the proposal.
BARBARA HUGHES, 44278 Cabo Street, Temecula, spoke
against the approval of the temporary trailers due to
insufficient screening between her property and the
church grounds.
BOB HINZ, 44264 Cabo Street, Temecula, spoke against
the appproval of the temporary trailers, also due to
PCMIN5/20/91 -2- MAY 24, 1991
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MAY 20, 1991
insufficient screening between the residential property
and the church.
STEVE JIANNINO advised the Commission that when the
original Public Use Permit was approved, a Variance
was approved deleting the requirement for a screen
wall for the entire project.
COMMISSIONER FORD suggested to the applicant that
temporary screening be placed and permanent screening
be in place prior to phase 2 construction, with Planning
staff working out the details with the applicant.
DAVID CIIRIBTIAN stated that they would be willing to
work that out with staff.
GARY THORNHILL added that the project could be
conditioned to have a permanent screen wall in place
prior to occupancy of the phase two structure.
JOHN CAVANAUGH advised the Commission, as well as the
applicant, that if the applicant wishes to contest the
amount of the development fee (Condition No. 14), they
may do so, by appealing the imposition of the fee at
the City Council level.
COMMIBSIONER FAHEY moved to close the public hearing
at 6:50 P.M. and Adopt Resolution 91-(next} approving
Public Use Permit No. 625 (rev.), subject to the
Conditions of Approval as submitted by staff, modifying
condition No. 14 as presented by the Assistant City
Attorney and adding a condition requiring that the
temporary trailers. be painted to match the existing
building! a maximum of 36 months approval on the use
of the temporary trailers, and temporary screening
of the chain link fence to include wooden slats and
landscaping, with the construction of a block wall
with construction of Phase Two, seconded by COMMISSIONER
BLAIR.
After Commission discussion, COMMISSIONER FAHEY amended
her motion to require the temporary screening of the
chain link fence be in place prior to occupancy of the
trailers and the permanent block wall be constructed
within 36 months of approval of the pUP, seconded by
COMMISSIONER BLAIR.
AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Ford,
Hoagland, Chiniaeff
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
PCMINS/20/91 -3- MAY 24, 1991
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
AUGUST 1, 1994
A regular meeting of the City of Temecula Planning Commission was called to order on
Monday, August 1, 1994, 6:08 P.M., at the Rancho California Water District's Board
Room, 42135 Winchester Road, Temecula, California. Chairman Steve Ford presiding.
PRESENT: 3
ABSENT: 2
COMMISSIONERS: Fahey, Hoegland, Ford
COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Salyer
Also present were Planning Director Gary Thornhill, Assistant City Attorney Greg Diaz and
Senior Planner Debbie Ubnoske.
PUBLIC COMMENT
None
COMMISSION BUSINESS
1. ADoroyal Of Aaenda
It was moved by Commissioner Fahey, seconded by Commissioner Hoegland to
approve the agenda.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES: 3 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey, Hoegland, Ford
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: 2 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Salyer
Staff Direction on Public Use Permit No. 625 Revised - Rancho Baotist Church
Senior Planner Debbie Ubnoske presented the staff report. She explained the
applicant is currently in violation and a minor change must be filed to amend the
condition of approval to give the applicant some additional time to construct the
block wall. She said if the Commission does not approve the extension of time, the
church would be cited for non-compliance and the applicant would be told to
construct the block wall and follow through with the Conditions of Approval.
Commissioner Hoegland said he feels the applicant should construct the wall.
Gary Thornhill said the City would follow the normal procedure for zoning violations
if they do not satisfy their conditions of approval.
09123194
PCMINOa/O1/94
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
AUGUST 1, 1994
Commissioner Fahey said she is not in favor of granting an extension of time to the
applicant.
Chairman Ford said he would like to see the applicant construct the wall with a time
schedule. He clarified the Commission's direction would be to enforce the public
use permit.
Review Capital Improvement Proqram (CIP), for Consistency with the General Plan
Senior Planner John Meyer presented the staff report.
It was moved by Commissioner Hoagland, seconded by Commissioner Fahey to
approve staff recommendation and Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 94-
27 "A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR THE CITY OF
TEMECULA DETERMINING THAT THE CITY OF TEMECULA'S 1994-1995 CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM IS CONSISTENT WITH THE ADOPTED CITY GENERAL
PLAN"
The motion carried as follows:
AYES: 3 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey, Hoagland, Ford
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: 2 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Salyer
Direct Staff to Deny PA94-0063 for A Forty-One Foot Six Inch (41 '6"0) Hiqh. One
Hundred Twenty-Two (122) Square Foot Freestandina Freeway Oriented Sian for
Toyota of Temecula Valley
Assistant Planner Matthew Fagan presented the staff report.
It was moved by Commissioner Hoagland, seconded by Commissioner Fahey to
direct staff to deny Planning Application No. 94-0063 for a forty-one foot six inch
(41 '6"] high, one hundred twenty-two (122) square foot freestanding freeway
oriented sign for Toyota of Temecula Valley
Chairman Ford asked if the applicant's existing sign was removed and this sign
placed, would staff view the request differently.
Assistant Planner Matthew Fagan said yes.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES: 3 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey, Hoagland, Ford
PCMIN08/01/94 2 09123194
ATTACHMENT NO.
PUBLIC COMMENT
R:~'rAFFRPT~I40PA95.PC ~ ~ '[ 2
CITY OF TEMECULA
[ t
CASE NO. -
EXIHRIT -
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE -
VICINITY MAP
R:XSTAFFRPT~I40PA9S.PC 2/28/96
CITY OF TEMECULA
VL
EXHIBIT B - ZONING MAP
~r)ESIGNATION -
"I
z',,,."
"XIHBIT C - GENERAL PLAN
L ~SIGNATION -
ITEM #11
STAFF REPORT ~ PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
March 4, 1996
Planning Application No,: PA95-0138, Conditional Use Permit
Shell Station - Ynez Road
Prepared By: Craig D, Ruiz, Assistant Planner.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Department Staff recommends the Planning
Commission:
1. ADOPT the Negative Declaration for PA95-0138,
Conditional Use Permit; and
ADOPT Resolution No. 96- approving of PA95-0138,
Conditional Use Permit based upon the Analysis and
Findings contained in the Staff Report; and
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPROVE Planning Application No. PA95-0138,
Conditional Use Permit, subject to the attached Conditions
of Approval.
APPLICANT:
Terraton Corl3.
REPRESENTATIVE:
Larry Markham
PROPOSAL:
To construct a gas station with a 1,080 square foot self
service car wash and a 3,500 square foot mini-market.
LOCATION:
NortheaSterly corner of Ynez Road and Solana Way
EXISTING ZONING:
CC
(Community Commercial)
SURROUNDING ZONING:
North:
South:
East:
West:
SC (Service Commercial)
CC (Community Commercial)
CC (Community Commercial)
SC (Service Commercial)
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Community Commercial
EXISTING LAND USE:
Vacarlt
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
North:
South:
East:
West:
Vacant
Vacant
Retail Commercial Shopping Center.
Automobile Dealerships
R:~TAI~RPT%I38PAg~,PC 2/2~/9~ ~w 1
PROJECT STATISTICS
Total Area
Net
Total Site Area
Building Area
Landscape Area
Paved Area
Parking Required
Parking Provided
Standard
Handicap
Landscaping Required
Landscaping Provided
Building Height
.89 acres (42,253 square feet)
19.6% (8,292 square feet}
21.7% (9,172 square feet)
58.7% (24,788 square feet)
19
19
18
1
20%
21.7% (9,172 square feet)
24'4"
BACKGROUND
Planning Application No. PA95-0138 was formally submitted to the Planning Department on
December 19, 1995. A Development Review Committee (DRC) meeting was held on January
11,1996. Planning Application No. PA95-0138 was deemed complete on February 1,1996.
Because the project was deemed complete prior to the adoption of the Development Code, the
project has been reviewed against the standards of Ordinance No. 348.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The gas station project will consist of three structures. The largest structure is the 3,712
square foot canopy over the gas pumps. The canopy will be approximately 18 feet height.
The next largest structure will be the 3,500 square foot mini-market. The mini-market will
include the sale of beer and wine. Lastly, attached to the market will be a 1,080 square foot
self service car wash.
ANALYSIS
Area Compatibility
The project site is a previously graded, vacant parcel of land. The parcel is within an existing
neighborhood shopping center. The surrounding uses include retail uses to the east,
automobile dealerships to the west, a proposed automobile dealership to the north, and vacant
land to the south. Within the existing center, there are primarily retail businesses, including
a restaurant and a mini-market that currently sell alcohol. Because the site is located along
a commercial corridor, and is not in immediate proximity to residences, staff feels that
proposed project, with the attached conditions of approval, is compatible with the surrounding
8rea.
Architecture
As stated above, the project is located in an existing commercial shopping center. In general,
the building elevations, colors and materials match the existing center. However, staff feels
that there are a two issues to be resolved regarding the building design.
R:~TAFFRFI~I381~A95.l~ 2/29/96 vgw ~
First, the southerly building elevation contains a roof-access ladder. Staff has included s
condition of approval requiring that the ladder be located within the building (Condition of
Approval No. 6). The applicant has agreed to this condition and the building elevations will
be revised prior to the applicant submitting for building permits.
The second issue is the flat roof that is found on the proposed canopy structure. During the
DRC meeting, staff requested the canopy be given a full tile roof, to match the existing center.
Staff believes the station will be better integrated into the center with the tile canopy. The
City has consistently approved service stations with similar Canopies. The applicant has
stated that cornice detail provided on the canopy is sufficient 'architectural detail. Therefore,
staff has added Condition of Approval No. 14 that requires the tile roof be included as a part
of the canopy design. Should the Commission not concur with staff's recommendation, the
condition may be deleted.
Landscaping
The applicant's proposed Conceptual Landscape Plan has been coordinated to match the
existing landscaping within and around the center. The proposal will also replace any existing
dying or damaged landscaping. The City's Landscape Architect has made a recommendation
that has not been included on the proposed plans. It has been recommended that landscaping
be included adjacent to the building on the west and east sides. These areas contain large
expanses of concrete paving. Staff feels that the added landscaping will help soften these
areas and that there is sufficient room to include it. Therefore, staff has added Condition of
Approval No. 15 that requires the inclusion of the recommended landscaping. Should the
Commission not concur with staff's recommendation, the condition may be deleted.
Circulation/Traffic
The center currently has access from both Solana Way and from Motor Car Parkway in
accordance with the approved Parcel Map. In conjunction with this project, the applicant is
proposing a left turn movement into the center. Staff recommends a right-in/right-out
driveway on Solana Way, between Motor Car Parkway and Ynez Road, due to its proximity
to the intersection of Solana Way and Ynez Road. The vehicle stacking requirements for the
westbound traffic from Solana' Way onto southbound Ynez Road requires a length of dual left
turn lanes that will not permit a left turn movement into the center. If the left turn lanes are
decreased, the Level of Service (LOS) at this intersection during peak hours, will fall below our
acceptable level. Staff can support the driveway with a right-in/right-out movement
contingent upon City Council approval to vacate the restricted access provision on the
approved parcel map. In addition, the property owner will need an encroachment permit form
the Department of Public Works.
The applicant has also discussed with staff the addition of a left turn pocket along Ynez Road,
into the project site. This improvement would require the reconfiguration of the existing
median on Ynez Road. Staff has requested that the applicant's traffic engineer provide an
analysis of the proposed turning lane. However, the analysis was not supplied in time to be
included within the staff report and is therefore not a part of the proposal. Should the
applicant proceed with this improvement at a later date, the proposal would either be reviewed
by the Traffic and Safety Commissions or approved administratively. This determination will
be made by the Director of Public Works.
Site Plan
The proposed site plan shows an existing and proposed easterly property line. The new
property line will provide for a 20 foot set-back from the proposed canopy structure. The
current set-back would require the structure to be equipped with fire sprinklers. The 20 foot
set-back will relieve the applicant from this requirement. Therefore, Condition of Approval No.
17 has been added to require the submittal of the Lot Line Adjustment, prior to the issuance
of a building permit.
EXISTING ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION
The existing Zoning and General Plan Land Use Designation is Community Commercial. The
proposed use is conditionally permitted within the zoning designation. Thus, with the attached
and recommended conditions of approval, staff feels that the project is consistent with zoning
and General Plan designations.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
An Initial Environmental Study was prepared for this project. Potential significant effects
include the transportation, storage and use of hazardous materials, and aesthetic
considerations, The hazardous materials concerns will be mitigated through the conditions of
approval of the Fire Department and the requirements of the Environmental Health Department.
The aesthetic concerns, the development of vacant land, will be mitigated through the
proposed design and the conditions for the project. It is staff's opinion that all potential
significant impacts have been adequately mitigated. Therefore, staff recommends that a
Negative Declaration be granted for this project.
SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS
As stated above, it is staff's opinion that the proposed use is compatible with the surrounding
uses. It is also staff's opinion that the proposed buildings and structure, will be compatible
with the existing shopping center. Therefore, it is staff's recommendation that the proposed
project, subject to the attached Conditions of Approval, be approved by the Commission.
FINDINGS
The proposed use conforms to all General Plan requirements and with all applicable
requirements of state law and City ordinances. The project is consistent with the types
of developments within the General Plan Land Use designation of Community
Commercial (CC). In addition, the project is permitted with the approval of a
conditional use permit.
The site is suitable to accommodate the proposed land use in terms of the size and
shape of the lot configuration, circulation patterns, access, and intensity of use due to
the fact that the proposed development complies with the standards of Ordinance No.
348.
The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the public health or
welfare due to the fact that the Conditions of Approval include measures which will
ensure that public health and welfare will be maintained.
R:~TAFFRl~I38PA95.FC 2/2S/~ vgw 4
The project is compatible with surrounding land uses. The harmony in scale, bulk,
height, intensity, and coverage creates a compatible physical relationship with adjoining
properties due to the fact that the proposed development is compatible with current
surrounding development and Ordinance No. 348.
The project has acceptable access to a dedicated right-of-way which is open to, and
useable by, vehicular traffic due to the fact that the interior circulation is suitable and
connects with Ynez Road and Solana Way.
The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the built or natural
environment as determined in the initial study performed for this project due to the fact
that the Conditions of Approval provide for the necessary mitigation for the project.
The design of the project and the type of improvements are such that they are not in
conflict with easements for access through or use of the property within the proposed
project as represented on the site plan.
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, due to the fact that the project is consistent with all City and State
requirements.
The proposed use or action complies with all other requirements of state law and local
ordinances. The proposed use complies with California Governmental Code Section
65360, Section 18.28 (Conditional Use Permit) of Ordinance No. 348.
10.
Said findings are supported by maps, exhibits and environmental documents associated
with these applications and herein incorporated by reference.
Attachments:
PC Resolution ~ Blue Page 6
A. Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 10
Initial Study - Blue Page 19
Exhibits - Blue Page 20
A. Vicinity Map
B. Zoning Map
C. Site Plan
D. Elevations
R:'~TAPP~I38PA95.1*C 2/2S/96 ~ 5
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
PC RESOLUTION NO. 96-
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
PC RESOLUTION NO. 96-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO.
PA95-0138 TO CONSTRUCT A GAS STATION, 3,500 SQUARE
FOOT MINI MARKET WITH CONCURRENT SALES OF BEER AND
WINE AND AN 1,080 SQUARE FOOT CAR WASH ON A PARCEL
CONTAINING 1.58 ACRES LOCATED AT THE NORTHEASTERLY
CORNER OF YNEZ ROAD AND 80LANA WAY AND KNOWN AS
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 921-680-006
WHEREAS, Terraton Corporation filed Planning Application No. PA95-0138 in
accordance with the City of Temecule General Plan end Ordinance No. 348, which the City
has adopted by reference;
WHEREAS, Planning Application No. PA95-0138 was processed in the time and
manner prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application No. PA95-0138
on March 4, 1996, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time
interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or in opposition;
WHEREAS, at the public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and
arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, the Commission considered all facts
relating to Planning Application No. PA95-0138;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES
RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct.
Section 2. Findines. The Planning Commission, in approving Planning Application No.
PA95-0138 makes the following findings:
A. Pursuant to Ordinance No. 348, Section 18.28, no Conditional Use Permit may
be approved unless the following findings can be made:
1. The proposed use must conform to all the General Plan requirements and
with all applicable requirements of state law and City ordinances.
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.
B. The Planning Commission, in approving proposed Planning Application No.
PA95-0138, makes the following specific findings, to wit:
R:~ST~t38PA9~.PC 2/28/96 vlw 7
1. The proposed use conforms to all General Plan requirements and with all
applicable requirements of state law and City ordinances. The project is consistent with the
types of developments within the General Plan Land Use designation of Community
Commercial (CC). In addition, the project is permitted with the approval of a conditional usa
permit.
2. The site is suitable to accommodate the proposed land use in terms of
the size and shape of the lot configuration, circulation patterns, access, and intensity of use
due to the fact that the proposed development complies with the standards of Ordinance No.
348.
3. The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the
public health or welfare due to the fact that the Conditions of Approval include measures
which will ensure that public health and welfare will be maintained.
4. The project is compatible with surrounding land uses. The harmony in
scale, bulk, height, intensity, and coverage creates a compatible physical relationship with
adjoining properties due to the fact that the proposed development is compatible with current
surrounding development and Ordinance No. 348.
5. The project has acceptable access to a dedicated right-of-way which is
open to, and useable by, vehicular traffic due to the fact that the interior circulation is suitable
and connects with Ynez Road and Solana Way.
6. The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the built
or natural environment as determined in the initial study performed for this project due to the
fact that the Conditions of Approval provide for the necessary mitigation for the project.
7. The design of the project and the type of improvements are such that
they are not in conflict with easements for access through or use of the property within the
proposed project as represented on the site plan.
8. 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, due
to the fact that the project is consistent with all City and State requirements.
9. The proposed use or action complies with all other requirements of state
law and local ordinances. The proposed use complies with California Governmental Code
Section 65360, Section 18.28 (Conditional Use Permit) of Ordinance No. 348.
10. Said findings are supported by maps, exhibits and environmental
documents associated with these applications and herein incorporated by reference.
C. As conditioned pursuant to Section 4, Planning Application No. PA95-0138 as
proposed, conforms to the logical development of its proposed site, and is compatible with the
present and future development of the surrounding property.
P,:~TAFFRPT~I38PA95.PC 2/28/96 vg~ 8
Section 3. Environmental Comoliance, An Initial Study prepared for this project
indicates that although the proposed project could have a significant impact on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures
described in the Conditions of Approval have been added to the project, and a Negative
Declaration, therefore, is hereby granted.
Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecuia Planning Commission hereby
approves Planning Application No. PA95-0138 to construct a gas station with an 1,080
square foot self service car wash and a 3,500 square foot mini-market, located on the
northeasterly corner of Ynez Road and Solana Way and known as Assessor's Parcel No. 921 -
380-006, subject to the following conditions:
A. Exhibit A, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference and made
e part hereof.
Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 4th day of March, 1996.
CHAIRMAN
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning
Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 4th day of
March, 1996, by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
DEBBIE UBNOSKE
SECRETARY
~STAFFP~I38pA95.PC 2~/96 ~w 9
ATTACHMENT A
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
R:~STAFFRFF%I38PA9~.PC 7./'~/~M vgw 10
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Planning Application No. PA95-0138- Conditional Use Permit
Project Description: To construct a gas station with an ! ,080 square foot self service
car wash and a 3,500 square foot mini-market
Assessor'a Parcel No.: 921-380-006
Approval Date: March 4, 1996
Expiration Date: March 4, 1998
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Within Forty-Eight (48) Hours of the Approval of the Project
The applicant/developer shall deliver to the Planning Department a cashier's check or
money order payable to the County Clerk in the amount of Seventy-Eight Dollars
($78.00) County administrative fee to enable the City to file the Notice of
Determination required under Public Resources Code Section 21152 and California
Code of Regulations Section 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 voided by reason of failure
of condition.
General Requirements
The developer/applicant shall indemnify, protect, defend, and hold harmless, the City
and any agency or instrumentality thereof, and/or any of its officers, employees and
agents from any and all claims, actions, or proceedings against the City, or any agency
or instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers, employees and agents, to attack, set
aside, void, annul, or seek monetary damages resulting from an approval of the City,
or any agency or instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal board or legislative
body including actions approved by the voters of the City, concerning the Conditional
Use Permit which action is brought within the appropriate statute of limitations period
and Public Resources Code, Division 13, Chapter 4 (Section 21000 et seo., including
but not by the way of limitations Section 21152 and 21167). City shall promptly
notify the developer/applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding brought within this
time period. City shall further cooperate fully in the defense of the action. Should the
City fail to either promptly notify or cooperate fully, developer/applicant shall not,
thereafter be responsible to indemnify, defend, protect, or hold harmless the City, any
agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers, employees, or agents.
This approval shall be used within two (2) years of the approval date; otherwise, it
shall become null and void. By use is meant the beginning of substantial construction
contemplated by this approval within the two (2) year period which is thereafter
diligently pursued to completion, or the beginning of substantial utilization
contemplated by this approval.
R:~,~TAFFl~I38PA93.PC 2/28/9~ vgv~ 'J 1
The development of the premises shall conform substantially with Exhibit "A" approved
with Planning Application No, PA95-0138, or as amended by these conditions.
The building elevations shall conform substantially with Exhibit "B" approved with
Planning Application No. PA95-0138, or as amended by these conditions.
The building elevations shall be revised to remove the roof-access ladder from the
southerly elevation and be located within the building.
Colors and materials used shall conform substantially with Exhibit(s) marked
or as amended by these conditions. (color elevations and material board).
Materials
Roof- 18" Clay Mission Tile F-3
Walls - Stucco X-17
Colors
Brick Red
Misty
8. The building signage shall conform substantially with Exhibit "C" approved with
Planning Application No. PA95-0138, or as amended by these conditions.
9. A minimum of 19 parking spaces shall be provided.
10. A minimum of 1 handicapped parking space shall be provided.
11. Four Class II bicycle racks shall be provided.
12. The maintenance of all landscaped areas shall be the responsibility of the developer.
13. 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. Colors and materials shall
match the proposed building.
14. Prior to submitting for a building permit, the proposed elevations shall be revised to
included a tile roof on the canopy structure, consistent with the buildings in the
existing center.
15. Prior to submitting for construction landscape approval, the plans shall be revised to
included landscaping along the east and west building elevations, as recommended by
the City's Landscape Architect.
Prior to the Issuance of Grading Permits
16. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Ordinance No. 663 by paying the
appropriate fee set forth in that ordinance. Should Ordinance No. 663 be superseded
by the provisions of a Habitat Conservation Plan prior to the payment of the fee
required by Ordinance No. 663, the applicant shall pay the fee required by the Habitat
Conservation plan as implemented by County ordinance or resolution
Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits
R:~STAFFRFI~138PA95.PC 2/2gl96 viw 12
17. The applicant shall apply and receive approval for a Lot Line Adjustment consistent
with that shown on Exhibit A.
18.
A receipt or clearance letter from the Temecula Valley School District shall be
submitted to the Planning Department to ensure the payment or exemption from School
Mitigation Fees.
19.
Three (3) copies of Construction Landscaping and Irrigation Plans shall be submitted
to the Planning Department for approval and shall be accompanied by the appropriate
filing fee. The location, number, genus, species, and container size of the plants shall
be shown. These plans shall be consistent with the Water Efficient Ordinance. The
cover page shall identify the total square footage of the landscaped area for the site.
Prior to the Issuance of Occupancy Permits
20.
All required landscape planting and irrigation shall have been installed and be in a
condition acceptable to the Director of Planning. The plants shall be healthy and free
of weeds, disease, or pests. The irrigation system shall be properly constructed and
in good working order.
21.
Performance securities, in amounts to be determined by the Director of Planning to
guarantee the installation of plantinge, walls, and fences in accordance with the
approved plan, and adequate maintenance of the Planting for one year, shall be filed
with the Department of Planning.
22.
Each parking space reserved for the handicapped shall be identified by e permanently
affixed reflectorized sign constructed of porcelain on steel, beaded text or equal,
displaying the International Symbol of Accessibility. The sign shall not be smaller than
70 square inches in area and shall be centered at the interior end of the parking space
at a minimum height if 80 inches from the bottom of the sign to the parking space
finished grade, or centered at a minimum height of 36 inches from the parking space
finished grade, ground, or sidewalk. A sign shall also be posted in a conspicuous
place, at each entrance to the off-street parking facility, not less than 17 inches by 22
inches, clearly and conspicuously stating the following:
"Unauthorized vehicles not displaying distinguishing placards or
license plates issued for physically handicapped persons may be
towed away at owner's expense. Towed vehicles may be
reclaimed at or by telephone
In addition to the above requirements, the surface of each parking place shall have a
surface identification sign duplicating the Symbol of Accessibility in blue paint of at
least 3 square feet in size.
23.
All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use
allowed by this permit.
R:~STAPPRPT~I38PA9~.PC 2~8~96 vgw 13
BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT
24.
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.
25.
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 Disabled access regulations and the Temecula Municipal
Code (1994 editions due for adoption by December 1995).
26.
Submit at time of plan review, complete exterior site lighting plan in compliance v~ith
Ordinance No. 655 for the regulation of light pollution.
27. Obtain street addressing for all proposed buildings prior to submittal for plan review.
28.
All buildings and facilities must comply with applicable disabled access regulations
{California Disable Access Regulations effective April 1, 1994).
29.
Provide house electrical meter provisions for power for the operation of exterior lighting
and fire alarm systems.
30.
Restroom fixtures, number and type, shall be in accordance with the provisions of the
1991 edition of the Uniform Plumbing Code, Appendix C.
31.
Provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on plans
submitted for plan review.
32.
Provide electrical plan including load calcs and panel schedule, plumbing schematic and
mechanical plan for plan review.
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
The Department of Public Works recommends the following Conditions of Approval for this
project. All conditions shall be completed by the Developer at no cost to any Government
Agency. Questions regarding the true meaning of the conditions shall be referred to the
appropriate staff person of the Department of Public Works.
It is understood that the Developer 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.
General Requirements
33.
A Grading Permit for precise grading, including all onsite flat work and improvements,
shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to commencement of any
construction outside of the City-maintained road right-of-way.
R:~STAFFRPT~I38pA95.PC 2/28/96 vgw 14
34.
35,
36.
An Encroachment Permit shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior
to commencement of any construction within an existing or proposed City
right-of-way.
All improvement plans, grading plans, landscape and irrigation plans shall be
coordinated for consistency with adjacent projects and existing improvements
contiguous to the site and shall be submitted on standard 24" x 36" City of Temecula
mylars.
The proposed access from Parcel 5 to Solana Way shall be restricted to rigl~t !n/~ight
out only.
Prior to Issuance of a Grading Permit
37,
38.
39.
40.
41,
42.
A precise grading plan shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer anti shall be
reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works. The grading plan shall
include all necessary erosion control measures needed to adequately protect adjacent
public and private property.
As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive
written clearance from the following agencies:
San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board
Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District
Planning Department
Department of Public Works
A Soils Report shall be prepared by a registered Soils or Civil Engineer and submitted
to the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The report shall
address all soils conditions of the site, and provide recommendations for the
construction of engineered structures and pavement sections.
The Developer shall have a Drainage Study prepared by a registered Civil Engineer in
accordance with City Standards identifying storm water runoff expected from this site
and upstream of this site. The study shall identify all existing or proposed public or
private drainage facilities intended to discharge this runoff. The study shall also
analyze and identify impacts to downstream properties and provide specific
recommendations to protect the properties and mitigate any impacts. Any upgrading
or upsizing of downstream facilities, including acquisition of drainage or access
easements necessary to make required improvements, shall be provided by the
Developer.
Graded but undeveloped land shall be stabilized from erosion to the satisfaction of the
Director of Public Works.
The Developer shall post security and enter into an agreement guaranteeing the grading
and erosion control improvements in conformance with applicable City Standards and
subject to approval by the Department of Public Works.
R:%STA~l~J~I~I38PA95-PC I vlw 15
43. The Developer shall comply with all constraints which may be shown upon an
Environmental Constraint Sheet (ECS) recorded with any underlying maps related to the
subject property.
44. Permanent landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department
and the Department of Public Works for review and approval.
45. The Developer shall obtain any necessary letters of approval or slope easements for
offsite work performed on adjacent properties as directed by the Department of Public
Works. '
46. An Area Drainage Plan fee shall be paid to the Riverside County Flood Control and
Water Conservation District prior to issuance of any permit.
47. The Developer shall obtain an easement for ingress and egress over the adjacent
property.
48. The Developer shall obtain an offsite letter of permission to grade in a format
satisfactory to the Director of Public Works.
Prior to Issuance of a Building Permit
49. The driveway for Parcel 5 is approved contingent upon City Council approval of the
vacation of abutters rights of access to this parcel. Prior to issuance of a building
permit, the abutters rights of access shall be vacated.
50. Improvement plans and/or precise grading plans shall conform to applicable City
Standards subject to approval by the Department of Public Works. An Encroachment
Permit will be required for any work performed within the City right-of-way. The
following design criteria shall be observed:
a. Flowline grades shall be 0.5% minimum over P.C.C. and 1.00% minimum over
A.C. paving.
b. Driveways shall conform to the applicable City of Temecula Standard No. 207A.
c. All street and driveway centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees or as
approved by the Department of Public Works.
d. Public Street improvement plans shall include plan and profile showing existing
topography, utilities, proposed centerline, top of curb and flowline grades as
directed by the Department of Public Works.
e. Landscaping shall be limited in the corner cut-off area of all intersections and
adjacent to driveways to provide for maximum sight distance and visibility.
P.:'tS'FAFFRPT~I38pA95.PC 2/7.8/96 ~,w 16
51.
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 and subject to approval by the Department of Public
Works.
Street improvements, which may include, but not limited to: pavement, curb
and gutter, drive approach, signing, and striping as appropriate
Storm drain facilities
Sewer and domestic water systems
d. Erosion control and slope protection
52.
The building pad shall be certified to have been substantially constructed in accordance
with the approved Precise Grading Plan by a registered Civil Engineer, and the Soils
Engineer shall issue a Final Soils Report addressing compaction and site conditions.
53.
The Developer shall deposit with the Engineering Department a cash sum as
established per acre as mitigation for traffic signal impact.
54.
The 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 the Developer requests its building permit 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 the Developer. Concurrently, with executing this
Agreement, the Developer shall secure payment of the Public Facility fee. The amount
of the security shall be $2.00 per square foot, not to exceed el O,O00. The 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, the 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; erovided that the Developer is not waiving its right to protest the
reasonableness of any traffic impact fee, and the amount thereof.
Prior to Issuance of · Certificate of Occupancy
55.
As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive
written clearance from the following agencies:
Rancho California Water District
Eastern Municipal Water District
Department of Public Works
56.
All necessary certifications and clearances from engineers, utility companies and public
agencies shall be submitted as required by the Department of Public Works.
~TAFFRFr%I381~A95.FC 2/28/96 vlw I 7
57.
All public improvements shall be constructed and completed per the approved plans
and City standards to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works.
58.
The existing improvements shall be reviewed. Any appurtenance damaged or broken
shall be repaired or removed and replaced to the satisfaction of the Department of
Public Works.
OTHER AGENCIES
59.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations contained in the Riverside
County Health Department's transmittal dated January 1 O, 1996, a copy of
which is attached.
60.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Rancho
California Water District's transmittal dated January 25, 1996, a copy of which
is attached.
61.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Eastern
Municipal Water District's transmittal dated January 17, 1996, a copy of which
is attached.
62.
Fire protection shall be provided in accordance with the appropriate section of
Ordinance No. 546 and the County Fire Warden's transmittal dated January 11,
1996, a copy of which is attached.
I have read, understand and accept the above Conditions of Approval.
Applicant Name
R:WFAFI~FI~I38pA95.PC ~ vlw 18
TO:
FROM:
RE:
County of Riverside
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
RECEIVED
12
............
DATE: January 10, 1996
CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING DEPARTMENT
ATTN: Craig Ruiz
b~GREGOR DELLENBACH, Environmental Health Specialist IV
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. PA95-0138
The Department of Environmental Health has reviewed the Conditional Use Permit No.
PA95-0138 and has no objections. Sanitary sewer and water services may be available in
this area.
PRIOR TO ANY PLAN CHECK SUBMITTAL, for health clearance, the following
items are required:
a) "Will-serve" letters from the appropriate water agency.
b)
Three complete sets of plans for each food establishment will be submitted,
including a fixture schedule, a finish schedule, and a plumbing schedule in order to
ensure compliance with the California Uniform Retail Food Facilities Law. For
specific reference, please contact Food Facility Plan examiners at (909) 358-5172.
c) A clearance letter from the Hazardous Services Materials Management Branch (909)
358-5055 will be required indicating that the project has been cleared for:
i) Underground storage tanks, Ordinance # 617.4.
ii) Hazardous Waste Generator Services, Ordinance # 6 15.3.
iii)
Emergency Response Plans Disclosure (in accordance with Ordinance #
651.2 .).
iv) Waste reduction management.
3. Waste Regulation Branch (Waste Collection/LEA).
GD:dr
(909) 275-8980
NOTE:
Any current additional requirements not covered, can be applicable at time of
Building Plan review for final Department of Environmental Health clearance.
lhncho
Water
January25, 1996
Mr. Craig Ruiz, Assistant Planner
City of Temecula
Planning Department
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590-3606
SUBJECT:
Water Availability, PA95-0138
Parcel Map 23354, Parcel 6
APN 921-680-011
Dear Mr. Ruiz:
Please be advised that the above-referenced property is located within the
boundaries of Rancho California Water District (RCWD). Water service,
therefore, would be available upon completion of financial arrangements
between RCWD and the property owner.
Water availability would be contingent upon the property owner signing an
Agency Agreement which assigns water management rights, if any, to RCWD.
If you have any questions, please contact Janice Johnson.
Sincerely,
RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT
_., _~_..~ -.
Laurie Willjams
Engineering Services Manager
wp96~W:JJ:eb020-1/F186
co: Janice Johnson, Engineering Sewices Representative
Municipal ater District
Mr. Craig Ruiz
City of Temecula
Planning Department
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
January I7, 1996
SUBJECT: PM 23354, PA 95-0138, Gas Station Mini-Market, Car Wash,
Ynez Road.
Dear Mr. Craig:
We have reviewed the materials transmitted by your office which
describe the subject project. Our comments are outlined below:
General
It is our understanding the subject project is proposal to
consEruct an approximate 3,500 sf. mini-market/gas station and
1,080 sf. self-service car wash, located at the northeasterly
corner of Ynez Road and Solana Way in Temecula (APN 921-680-011).
The subject project is located within the District's sanitary sewer
service area, however, it must be understood the available service
capabilities of the District's systems are continually changing due
to the occurrence of development within the District and programs
of systems improvement. As such, the provision of service will be
based on the timing of the subject project, the status of the
District's permit to operate, and the service agreement between the
District and the developer of the subject project.
Reclaimed Water
The District encourages the beneficial use of reclaimed water for
landscape irrigation and other uses in accordance with Title 22 of
the California Administrative Code and Eastern Municipal Water
District Ordinance No. 68. The design Of irrigation systems for
Mail to: Post Office Box 8300 San Jacinto, California 92581-8300 Telephone (909) 925-7676 Fax (909) 929-0257
Main Office: 2045 S. San Jacinto Avenue, San Jacinto Customer Service / Engineering Annex: 440 E. Oakland Avenue. Hemet, CA
Operations & Maintenance Center: 2270 Trumble Road, Perris, CA 92~71 Telephone (909) 928-3777 Fax (909) 928-6177
Mr. Craig Ruiz
City of Temecula
PM 23354
January 17, 1996
Page 2
subject project landscaped areas must consider the District's water
budget criteria and landscape irrigation guidelines. Water budget
and landscape irrigation guidelines may be ,obtained from, the
District's Customer Service Department.
The developer must submit information which describes the subject
project's irrigation water/potential reclaimed water demand to the
District's Customer Service Department for review. At the time of
the District's review, a District determination will be made
regarding requirements for reclaimed water use and/or reclaimed
water system improvements.
Sanitary Sewer
The subject project is considered tributary to the District's
Temecula Valley Regional Water Reclamation Facility (TVRWRF).
The nearest existing TVRWRF system sanitary sewer facilities to the
subject project are as follows:
8-inch diameter gravity sewers aligned along project in Motor
Car Parkway and Ynez Road.
[] 12-inch diameter gravity sanitary sewer in Solana Way.
Other Issues
The applicant shall coordinate with Ms. Cindy Crompton of the
District's Customer service Department (909) 766-1822 for
determination of appropriate fees, connection requirements and
Source .Control information/industrial Waste application. "One-
Stop" processing shall be coordinated through Ms. Judith Conacher
(909) 766-1810, ext. 4409.
Should you have any questions regarding these comments, please feel
free to contact this office at (909) 766-1810, ext. 4468.
Sincerely,
~~ Cre~wCIPAL WATER DISTRICT
Senior Customer Service Engineer
KLC/cz
kB 95-1037
(wp-ntwk-PM23354.wpd)
(909) 694-6444 - Fax (909) 694-1999
Janua~ 11, 1996
TO:
~rlN:
RE:
PLANNING D]EPART!VF~-NT
CRAIG RUIZ
PA95 -0138
With respect to the conditions of approval for the above referenced plot plan, the Fire
Department recommends the following fn'e protection measures be provided in accordance with
Temecula Ordinances and/or recognized fire protection standards:
The fire Department is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or
construction of all commercial building using the procedures established in Ordinance
546. A fire flow of 2500 GPM for a 2 hour duration at 20 PSI residual operating
pressure must be available before any combustible material is placed on the job site.
A combination of on-site and off-site super fire hydrants (6"x4"x2-2 1/1"), will be
located no less than 25 feet or more than 165 feet from any portion of the building as
measured along approved .vehicular travelways. The required fire flow shall be available
from any adjacent hydrant(s) in the system.
Applicant/developer shall furnish one copy of the water plans to the Fire Department for
review. Plans shall be signed by a registered civil engineer, coyraining a Fire
Department approval signature block, and shall conform to hydrant type, location,
spacing and minimum fkre flow. Once the plans axe signed by the local water company,
the originals shall be presented to the Fire Department for signature.
The required water system, including fire hydrants, shall be installed and accepted by the
appropriate water agency prior to any combustible building materials being phced on the
job site.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the developer shall pay $.25 per square foot
as mitigation for fire protection impacts.
6, Prior to the issuance of buffcling l~rmits, the applicant/developer shall be responsible to
submit a plan check fee of $582.00 to the City of Temecula.
THE FOI .1 .OWING CONDITIONS MUST BE MET PRIOR TO OCCUPANCY.
7. In lieu of fire sprinkler requirements, building(s) must be area separated into square foot
compartments appmved by the fire department, as per the Uniform Building Code. A
two hour wall shall be installed between mini man and car wash.
8. All exit doors shall be openable without the use of key or special knowledge or effort.
9. Install portable fire extinguishers with a minimum rating of 2A10BC. Contact a cerdfied
extinguisher company for proper placement.
10. Applicant/developer shall be responsible for obtaining underground and aboveground tank
permits from both the County Health and Fire Depathaents.
11. Blue dot reflectors shall be mounted in private streets and driveways to indicate location
of fire hydrants. They shall be mounted in the middle of the street directly in line with
fLre hydrant.
12. Prior to final inspection of any building, the applicant shall prepare and submit to the
Fire Department for approval, a site plan designating required fn'e lanes with appropriate
lane painting and or signs.
13. Street address shall be posted, in a visible location, minimum 12 inches in height, on the
street side of the building with a contrasting background.
14. Applicant/developer shall be responsible to provide or show there exists conditions set
forth by the Fire Department.
15-. Final conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed in the Building and
Safety Office.
16. Please contact the Fire Department for a final inspection prior to occupancy.
All questions regarding the meaning of these conditions shall be referred to the Fire Depzutment
Planning and engineering section (909)694-6439.
RAYMOND H. REGIS
Chief Fire Department Planner
Laura Cabrid
Fire Safety Specialist
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
INITIAL STUDY
P,:~STAFFRr~135PA95.PC 2/28/96 ~,w 19
CITY OF TEMECULA
Environmental Checklist
m
Project Title:
Planning Application No. PA95-0138, Conditional Use
Permit
Lead Agency Name and Address:
City of Temecula Planning Dept.
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
Contact Person and
Phone Number:
Craig Ruiz (909) 694-6400
Project Location:
26680 Ynez Road
Project Sponsor's Name
and Address:
Nick Goyal
Terraton Corporation
P.O. Box 2159
Escondido, CA 92033
General Plan Designation:
Zoning:
Service Commercial
Service Commercial
Description of Project: The Conditional Use Permit will allow for the development of a gas
station, a 3,500 square foot mini market, and a 1,080 self-service gas station. This site is
a previously graded, vacant parcel within an existing neighborhood commercial center.
Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Surrounding uses include general retail businesses to
the east, automobile dea!erships to the north and west, and vacant land to the south.
Other public agencies whose approval is required: (e.g. permits, financing approval or
participation agreement.) Riverside County Fire Department, Riverside County Health
Department, Rancho California Water District, Eastern Municipal Water District, Temecula
Valley Unified School District, Temecula Police Department, Southern California Gas Co.,
Southern California Edison, and General Telephone
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at
least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the
following pages.
Land Use and Planning
Population and Housing
Geologic Problems
Water
Air Quality
Transportation/Circulation
Biological Resources
Energy and Mineral Resources
Hazards
Noise
Public Services
Utilities and Service Systems
Aesthetics
Cultural Resources
Recreation
Mandatory Findings of Significance
DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
[]
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant on the environment, and a
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
[XJ
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 an attached sheet have been added to the project, A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be
prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required,
[]
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at
least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to
applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the
earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant
impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated," An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed,
[]
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 all potentially significant effects
(a) have been analyzed adequately in a earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (b)
have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation
measures that are imposed upon the proposed project,
CraiQ D. Ruiz
Printed Name
February 13, 1996
Date
For
Issues and Supporting Information Sources
1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:
a. Conflict with general plan designation or
zoning? (1, F2-1, p.2-17)
b. Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction
over the project? (2)
c. Be incompatible with existing land use in the
vicinity? (1, F2-1, p.2-17)
d. Affect agricultural resources or operations
(e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts
from incompatible land uses)? (1, F5-4, p.5-
17)
e. Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of
an established community (including low-
income or minority community)? ( )
2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would be proposal:
a. Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projects? (1, T4-2a, p.4-5)
b. Induce substantial growth in an area either
directly or indirectly (e.g. through proiect in an
undeveloped area or extension of major
infrastructure)? (1, T4-2a, p.4-5)
c. Displace existing housing, especially
affordable housing? (1, F2-1, p.2-17)
3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result
in or expose people to potential impacts involving?
a. Fault rupture? (1, F7-1, p.7-6)
b. Seismic ground shaking? (1, F7-1, p.7-6)
c. Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction?
(1, F7-2, p.7-9)
d. Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? ( )
e. Landslides or mudflows? (2, pgs. 65-70)
f. Erosion, changes in topography or unstable
soil conditions form excavation, grading or fill?
(2, pgs. 65-70)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Lees Than
Significant
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
R:\RU]ZC~STAFFRFI'~138PA95.l~5 1/30/96 cdr 4
Issues and Supporting Information Sources
Subsidence of the land? (1, F7-2, p. 7-9)
Expansive soils? (2, pgs 65-70)
Unique geologic or physical features? (2, pgs
65-70)
4. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
Changes in absorption rates, drainage
patterns, or the rate and mount of surface
runoff? ( )
Exposure of people or property to water
related hazards such as flooding? (1, F7-3, p.
7-10 & 1, F7-4, p. 7-12)
Cm
Discharge into surface waters or other
alteration of surface water quality (e.g.
temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)?
0
d. Changes in the amount of surface water in
any water body? ( )
e. Changes in currents, or the course or direction
of water movements? ( )
Change in the quantity of ground waters,
either through direct additions or withdrawals,
or through interception of an aquifer by cuts
or excavations or through substantial loss of
groundwater recharge capability? (-)
g. Altered direction or rate of flow of
groundwater? ( )
h. Impacts to groundwater quality? ( )
Substantial reduction in the amount of
groundwater otherwise available for public
water supplies? ( )
5. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
Violate any air quality standard or contribute
to an existing or projected air quality
violation? (2, pgs. 70-92)
b. Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? ( )
Potentially
Significant
Impact
~tenzl~ly
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Cm
d. Create objectionable odors? ( )
TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION.
Would the proposal result in:
a.
b.
POtentially
Issues and Supporting Information Sources significant
Alter air movement, moisture or temperature,
or cause any change in climate? ( )
Increase vehicle trips or traffic congestion?
(2, PGS 201-139}
Hazards to safety from design features (e.g.
sharp curves or dangerous intersection or
incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? ( )
c. Inadequate emergency access or access to
nearby uses? ( )
d. Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-
site? ( )
e. Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or
bicyclists? ( )
f. Conflicts with adopted policies supporting
alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)? ( )
g. Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? ( )
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal
result in impacts to:
a. Endangered, threatened or rare species or
their habitats (including but not limited to
plants, fish, insects, animals and birds)? (1,
F5-3, p. 5-15)
b. Locally designated species (e.g. heritage
trees)? (1, F5~3, p. 5-15)
c. Locally designated natural communities (e.g.
oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (1, F5-3, p.
5-15)
d. Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and
vernal pool)? (1, F5-3, p. 5-15)
e. Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (1,
F5-3, p. 5-15)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
R:~RUIZC\STAFFRFI~138pA95JF, S 1/30/96 cdr 6
Issues and :Supporting Informatjon Sources
8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES.
Would the proposal:
a. Conflict with adopted energy conservation
plans? ( )
b. Use non-renewal resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner? ( )
c. Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of future value
to the region and the residents of the State?
( )
9. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a. A risk of accidental explosion or release of
hazardous substances (including, but not
limited to: oil, pesticides, chemical or
radiation)? ( )
b. Possible interference with an emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
( )
c. The creation of any health hazard or potential
health hazard? ( )
d. Exposure of people to existing sources of
potential health hazards? ( )
e. Increase fire hazard in areas with fiammable
brush, grass, or trees? ( )
10. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a. Increase in existing noise levels? (
b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels?
( )
11. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an
effect upon, or result in a need for new or
altered government services in any of the
following areas:
a. Fire protection? ( )
b. Police protection? ( )
c. Schools? ( )
Potenticily
Significant
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X'
Issues and Supporting Information Sources
d. Maintenance of public facilities, including
roads? ( )
e. Other governmental services? ( )
12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the
proposal result in a need for new systems
or supplies, or substantial alterations
to the following utilities:
a. Power or natural gas? ( )
b. Communications systems? (
c. Local or regional water treatment or
distribution facilities? ( )
Sewer or septic tanks? ( )
Storm water drainage? ( )
Solid waste disposal? ( )
Local or regional water supplies? (
13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a, Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? (
b. Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic
effect? ( )
c. Create light or glare? ( )
14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a. Disturb paleontological resources? ( )
b. Disturb archaeological resources? ( )
c. Affect historical resources? ( )
d. Have the potential to cause a physical change
which would affect unique ethnic cultural
values? ( )
e. Restrict existing religious or sacred uses
within the potential impact area? ( )
15. RECREATION. Would the proposal:
Potentially
$ignfficant
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Issues and Supporting :Information Sources
Increase the demand for neighborhood or
regional parks or other recreational facilities?
( )
b. Affect existing recreational opportunities?
( )
Sig~ifk}ant
x
x
Issues and Supporting Information Sources
16. 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 community, reduce
the number of restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory?
Does the project have the potential to achieve
short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term,
environmental goals?
Does the project have impacts that area
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? (" Cumulatively considerable"
means that eh incremental effects of a project
are considerable when viewed in connection
with the effects of past projects, the effects
of other current projects, and the effects of
probable future projects).
Does the project have environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects
on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Potentially
$igni~eant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact
X
X
X
X
SOURCE LIST
1 - City of Temecula General Plan
2 - City of Temecula General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report
R:',R~\STAFI:rRIq~I38PAgS.I~S 1/30196 odr
Discussion of the Environmental Impacts
Land Use and Plannine
1 .e. The project will not disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community
(including low-income or minority community). The project is in an existing commercial
center. There is no established residential community (including low-income or minority
community) at this site.
Geologic Problems
3.a.b.e.
Any development of the site will expose people and property to. earthquake hazards since
the project is located in Southern California, an area which is seismically active. Any
potential impacts will be mitigated through building construction which is consistent with
Uniform Building Code standards. Information contained in the City of Temecula General
Plan Environmental Impact Report (certified November 9, 1993) states that the project will
not expose people or property to geologic hazards such as landslides or mudslides. No
known landslides are located on the site or proximate to the site. The same is true for
mudslides. There is no potential for ground failure and liquefaction in this area.
3.d.
The project will not expose people to a seiche, tsunami or volcanic hazard. The project is
not located in an area where any of these hazards could occur.
3.f.
The project will have a less than significant impact from erosion, changes in topography,
grading or fill. The site has been previously graded and will therefore require minimal grading
for the project. Increased wind and water erosion of soils both on and off-site may occur
during the construction phase of the project and the project may result in changes in
siltation, deposition or erosion. Erosion control techniques will be included as a condition
of approval for the project. In the long-run, hardscape and landscaping will serve as
permanent erosion control for the project. Since the amount of grading will be the minimum
necessary for the realization of the project, modification to topography and ground surface
relief features will not be considered significant. Potential unstable soil conditions from
excavation, grading or fill will be mitigated through the use of landscaping and proper
compaction of the soils.
Water
4,a,
The project will result in changes to absorption rates, drainage patterns and the rate and
amount of surface runoff. Previously permeable ground will be rendered impervious by
construction of buildings, accompanying hardscape and driveways. While absorption rates
and surface runoff will change, any potential impacts can be mitigated through site design.
Drainage conveyances will be required for the project to safely and adequately handle the
runoff which will be created.
4.c.
The project may have a potentially significant effect on discharges into surface waters and
alteration of surface water quality, Prior to issuance of a grading permit for the project, the
developer will be required to comply with the requirements of the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the State Water Resources Control Board,
No grading shall be permitted until an NPDES Notice of Intent has been filed or the project
is shown to be exempt, By complying with the NPDES requirements, any potential impacts
can be mitigated to a level less than significant, Therefore, no significant impacts' are
anticipated as a result of this project,
R:\RUIZCXSTAPPRPT~13SpA95.1~S 1/30/96 cdr 1]
4.d.e.
The project will not result in a change in the amount of surface water in any waterbody,
impact currents, or to the course or direction of water movements. No major waterbodies
are located in the subject project area.
4.f-h.
The project will not result in a change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct
additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or
through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability. No changes will occur in the
quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions, withdrawals, or through
interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations. Further, the project will not result in an
altered direction or rate of flow of groundwaters or in impacts to groundWater quality,
Construction on the site will not be at depths sufficient to have a significant impact on
ground waters,
4.i.
The project will not result in a substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater water
otherwise available for public water supplies. Water service currently exists .at the project
site. Additional water service will need to be provided by Rancho California Water District
(RCWD). This is typically provided upon completion of financial arrangements between
RCWD and the property owner. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this
project.
Air Quality
5.b.
The project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants. There are no sensitive
receptors in proximity to the project.
5,c.
The project will not alter air movement, moisture or temperature, or cause any change in
climate. The limited scale of the project precludes it from creating any significant impacts
on the environment in this area.
5.d.
The project will create objectional odors during the construction phase of the project. These
impacts will be of short duration and are not considered significant.
Transportation/Circulation
6,a.
The project will result in a less than significant increase in vehicle trips and may add to traffic
congestion. It is anticipated that the project have a less than five (5) percent increase to the
nearest intersection (Solana Way and Ynez Road) during peak travel hour. The applicant will
be required to pay traffic signal mitigation fees and public facility fees as conditions of
approval for the project, No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project,
6.b.c.
The project will not result in hazards to safety from design features. The project is in-fill
within an existing center. Further, the project is designed to current City standards and does
not propose any hazards to safety from design features.
6.d.
6.e.
The project will provide the required number of parking as required by Ordinance No. 348.
The project will not result in hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists. A sidewalk
exist on the site along Solaria Way and Ynez Road, Hazards or barriers to bicyclists have
not been identified as part of the project.
6.g.
The project will not result in impacts to rail, waterborne or air. traffic since none exists
currently in the immediate proximity of the project,
R:LRUT2C~STAFFRPT~I38PA95.~S 1/30/96 ~r 12
Bioloaical Resources
7,a.
The project will not result in an impact to endangered, threatened or rare species or their
habitats, including, but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals and birds. The project site
has been previously graded and is located adjacent to a commercial shopping center.
Currently, there are no native species of plants, no unique, rare, threatened or endangered
species of plants, no native vegetation on or adjacent to the site. Further, there is no
indication that any wildlife species e~ist at this location. The project will not reduce the
number of species, provide a barrier to the migration of animals or deteriorate existing
habitat. The project site is located within the Stephen's Kangaroo Rat Habitat Fee Area.
Habitat Conservation fees will be required to mitigate the effect of cumulative impacts to the
species. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
7.b.
The project will not result in an impact to locally designated species. Locally designated
species are protected in the Old Town Temecula Specific Plan; however, they are not
protected elsewhere in the City. Since this project is not located in Old Town, no significant
impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
7.8.
The project will not result in an impact to wildlife dispersal or migration corridors. The
project site does not serve as part of a migration corridor.
Enerov and Mineral Resources
B.a.
The project will not impact and/or conflict with adopted energy conservation plans. The
project will be reviewed for compliance with all applicable laws pertaining to energy
conservation during the plan check stage. No permits will be issued unless the project is
found to be consistent with these applicable laws.
8.b.
The project will result in a less than significant impact for the use of non-renewable
resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner. While there will be an increase in the rate
of use of any natural resource and in the depletion of nonrenewable resource(s) (construction
materials, fuels for the daily operation, asphalt, lumber) and the subsequent depletion of
these non-renewable natural resources. Due to the scale of the proposed development,
these impacts are not seen as significant.
8.c.
The project will not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would
be of future value to the region and the residents of the State. No known mineral resource
that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State are located at this
project site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
Hazards
All gas stations have the potential to result in a risk of explosion, or the release of any
hazardous substances in the event of an accident or upset conditions. The project will be
conditioned to comply with the requirements of the Riverside County Department of
Environmental Health and the Riverside County Fire Department as to the use, storage and
transportation of such hazardous materials. The requirements of these agencies will reduce
any impacts below a level of significance.
9.b.
The project will not interfere with an emergency response plan or an emergency evaluation
plan. The subject site is not located in an area which could impact an emergency response
R:~,UIZ~STAlq:RPTXI38PA95jt~ 1/30/96
plan. The project will take access from a maintained street and will therefore not impede any
emergency response or emergency evacuation plans.
9.d.
The project will not expose people to existing sources of potential health hazards. No health
hazards are known to be within proximity of the project.
g.e.
The project will not result in an increase to fire hazard in an area with flammable brush,
grass, or trees. The project is not located within or proximate to a fire hazard area.
Noise
10.a.
The proposal will result in increases to existing noise levels. The site is currently vacant and
any development of the land would result in increases to noise levels during construction
phases as well as increases to noise in the area over the long run. The project site is located
within a commercial corridor. There are no sensitive receptors located in the area.
10.b.
The project may expose people to severe noise levels and vibrations during the
development/construction phase (short run). Construction machinery is capable of producing
noise in the range of 100+ DBA at 100 feet which is considered very annoying and can
cause hearing damage from steady 8-hour exposure. This source of noise will be of short
duration and therefore will not be considered significant.
Public Services
11 .a,b.
The project will have a less than significant impact upon, or result in a need for new or
altered fire or police protection. The project will incrementally increase the need for fire and
police protection; however, it will contribute its fair share to the maintenance of service
provision from these entities.
11.c,
The project will have a less than significant impact upon, or result in a need for new or
altered school facilities. The project will not cause significant numbers of people to relocate
to the City of Temecula and therefore will not result in a need for new or altered school
facilities.
11.d.
The project will have a less than significant impact for the maintenance of public facilities,
including roads. Funding for maintenance of roads is derived from the Gasoline Tax which
is distributed to the City of Temecula from the State of California. Impacts to current and
future needs for maintenance of roads as a result of development of the site will be
incremental, however, they will not be considered significant. The Gasoline Tax is sufficient
to cover any of the proposed expenses.
11.e.
The project will not have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental
services. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
Utilities and Service Systems
12.a.
The project will not result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations
to power or natural gas. These systems are currently being delivered to the site.
'12.b.
The project will not result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations
to communication systems (reference response No. 12.a.).
12.c. The project will have a less than significant effect in the need for new systems or supplies,
or substantial alterations to local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities.
12.d.
The project will not result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations
to sanitary sewer systems or septic tanks. While the project will have an incremental impact
upon existing systems, the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the City's General
Plan states: "both EMWD and RCWD have indicated an ability to supply as much water as
is required in their services areas (p. 39)." The FEIR further states: "implementation of the
proposed General Plan would not significantly impact wastewater services (p. 40)." Since
the project is consistent with the City's General Plan, no.significant impacts are anticipated
as a result of this project. There are no septic tanks on site or proximate to the site.
12.e.
The proposal will result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to
storm water drainage. The project is in-fill, and will need to provide some additional on-site
drainage systems. The drainage system will be required as a condition of approval for the
project and will tie into the existing system.
12.f.
The proposal will not result in a need for new systems or substantial alterations to solid
waste disposal systems. Any potential impacts from solid waste created by this
development can be mitigated through participation in any Source Reduction and Recycling
Programs which are implemented by the City.
12.g.
The project will not result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations
to local or regional water supplies. Reference response 12.d.
Aesthetics
13,a.
The project will not affect a scenic vista or scenic highway. The project is in-fill and is not
located in a area where there is a scenic vista. Further, the City does not have any
designated scenic highways.
13.b. The project is an infill in nature and will not have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect.
13.c.
The project will have a potentially significant impact from light and glare. The project will
produce and result in light/glare as all development of this nature results in new light
sources. All light and glare has the potential to impact the Mount Palomar Observatory. The
project will be conditioned to be consistent with Ordinance No. 655 (Ordinance Regulating
Light Pollution).
Cultural Resources
14.d.
The project will not have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique
ethnic cultural values. None exist at the site or are proximate to the site. No significant
impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
14.e.
The project will not restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area.
No religious or sacred uses exist at the site or are proximate to the site. No significant
impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
R:~RUIZC~TAI:I~P,F~131pA95.EB 1/30/96
Recreation
15.a,b. The proposal will not result in impacts to the quality or quantity of existing recreational
resources or opportunities. The project will not cause significant numbers of people to
relocate to the City of Temecula and therefore will not result in impacts to the quality or
quantity of existing recreational resources or opportunities.
oz ~ E
E
0
ATTACHMENT N0.3
EXHIBITS
R:L~T,~I38PAg~.IaC 2/28/96
CITY OF TEMECULA
L
L
CASE NO. - PA95-0138
EXHIBIT- L-"~ACm~,~ 3~
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE -
IB3tCli ~, 1996
VICINITY MAP
CITY OF TEMECULA
/
EXHIBIT B - ZONING MAP
DESIGNATION -
p ('
\ :.) BP
EXHIBIT C - GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION -
os <'
~ ! w. '%~.~ /
\
/M
CC
LM
CITY OF TEMECULA
tU
CASE NO. - r~,95-oz38
EXHIBIT- ~..~c!~ 3c
pLANNING COMMISSION DATE -
1996
SITE PLAN
CITY OF TEMECULA
SOUTH ELEVATION
ENTRY ELEVATION
CASE NO. - ~'AgS-0~.38
EXHIBIT- A~"~ACItI,~;k~ 3])
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE -
ELEVATIONS
ITEM #12
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
March 4, 1996
Planning Application No. PA96-0027 (Specific Plan No. 199 - Zoning Amendment)
Prepared By: Matthew Fagan, AssoCiate Plann.er
RECOMMENDATION:
1.
2.
The Ranning
Commission:
Department Staff recommends the Planning
ADOPT Resolution No. 96-.. recommending approval of PA96-0027 based
upon the Analysis end Findings contained in the Staff Report; and
APPROVE Planning Application No. 96-0027,subject to the attached Conditions
of Approval.
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
Bramalea California, Inc. and CCL Construction, Inc.
REPRESENTATIVE:
Bramalea California, Inc.: Emile Haddad
CCL Construction, Inc.: Charlie Kluger
PROPOSAL:
Amendment to Planning Areas No. 6, 1 O, 11 and 12 of Specific
Plan No. 199 - Margarita Village to increase housing square
footage to a maximum of from 2,100and 2,600to 3,200square
feet
LOCATION:
North of Rancho California Road, east of Meadows Parkway,
south of La Serena Way, and west of Butterfield Stage Road
PROJECT STATISTICS
Existins Housing Sizes
Proposed Housina Sizes
1,500- 2,600 square feet (Planning Areas 10, 11, 12)
1,200- 2,100 square feet (Planning Area 6)
1,500 - 3,200 square feet
1,500 - 3,200 square feet
BACKGROUND
Planning Application No. PA96-0027 was formally submitted to the Planning Department on
February 16, 1996. Because of the limited scale of the changes to the Specific Plan text, no
Development Review Committee (DRC) meeting was held for this project.
R:~b'T~A96.IaC ?./28/9~ ~'w
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project is a request to expand the range of allowable square footage for housing types in
Planning Areas 6, 10, 11 and 12 of Specific Plan No. 199 - Margarita Village (reference
Attachment No. 2).
ANALYSIS
The applicant is requesting that Specific Plan No. 199 be amended to allow a greater range
of housing sizes in the subject Planning Areas. The applicant states: "market feedback
indicates a demand for a bigger home" (reference Attachment No. 4). The maximum square
footage allowed in Planning Area No. 6 is 2, 1 O0 square feet and the maximum square footage
allowed in Planning Areas 10, 11 and 12 is 2,600 square feet. The Amendment would allow
up to 3,200 square foot houses in these Planning Areas. Staff can support the increase
because it allows greater flexibility for the developer and does not increase the density in the
Planning Areas. The applicant has submitted an exhibit which shows the existing
development and where proposed development will be located. Staff will review the siting of
the houses to assure that they are compatible with the existing houses in terms of color,
materials and scale. This review will be accomplished through the model home complex
application which has been submitted for Staff review.
EXISTING ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION
The existing zoning for the project site is SP (Specific Plan). The current General Plan
designation for the project site is LM - Low-Medium Density Residential (3-6 dwelling units per
acre). The applicant is not proposing any change to the density of the project. The project
is consistent with the existing zoning and General Plan Designation.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Environmental Impact Report No. 202 was prepared for Specific Plan No. 199 and was
certified by the County Board of Supervisors. It has been eight (8) years since the
environmental analysis was performed for this project. It is Staff's opinion that due to the
limited scope of the proposed Zoning Amendment, there will be no affect on the previous
analysis. According to Section 21166 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), no
subsequent or supplemental environmental impact report is required for the project unless one
or more of the following events occurs: substantial changes are proposed in the project which
will require major revisions of the EIR; substantial changes occur with respect to circumstance
under which the project is being undertaken which will require major revisions in the EIR; or,
new information, which was not known at the time of the EIR was certified and complete
becomes available. None of these situations has occurred; therefore, no further environmental
analysis is required.
SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS
The applicant is requesting that Specific Plan No. 199 be amended to allow a greater range
of housing sizes in Planning Areas 6, 10, 11 and 12. The project is consistent with the City's
General Plan and existing zoning. No additional environmental review is required for this
project.
FINDINGS
Planning Application No. 96-0027 (Specific Plan No. 199 - Zoning Amendment), as
proposed, is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community.
Planning Application No. 96-0027 (Specific Plan No. 199 - Zoning Amendment)
inconsistent with the City's General Plan, due to the fact that the subject request is in
substantial conformance with Specific Plan No. 199 - Margarita Village.
The project is compatible with surrounding land Uses. The project consists' of an
increase in the maximum square footage of single-family residences in an area that is
comprised of a variety of sizes of single-family residences.
The proposal will not have an adverse effect on surrounding property, because it does
not represent a significant change to the planned land use of the area, due to the fact
that the proposed land use is consistent with the overall concept of Specific Plan No.
199.
The changes proposed in the approved Specific Plan are minor and do not increase the
impacts associated with the development or the overall intensity of the development
as analyzed in Environmental Impact Report 202. The mitigation measures prepared
for this Environmental Impact Report (EIR) will be applied to this project.
Attachments:
PC Resolution - Blue Page 4
A. Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 8
Proposed Specific Plan Text Amendment - Blue Page 10
Exhibits - Blue Page 11
A. Vicinity Map
B. Zoning Map
C. General Plan Map
D. Existing and Proposed Development
Letter From Applicant Dated February 14, 1996- Blue Page 12
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
RESOLUTION NO. 96-
ATrACHME-NT NO. 1
RESOLUTION NO.
A RF-qOLUTION OF ~ PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL
OF PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA96-0027 (SPECIFIC
PLAN NO. 199 - ZONING AMF_.NDlV!I~NT) ON PROPERTY
LOCATED NORTH OF RANClIO CALIFORNIA ROAD,
EAST OF MEADOWS PARKWAY, SOUTH OF LA SERENA
WAY, WEST OF BU'ITERF~FJ-r} STAGE ROAD AND
KNOWN AS PLANNING AREAS 6, 10, 11, AND 12 OF
SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 199 (MARGARITA VILLAGE)
Wi~RF~AS, Bramalea California, Inc. and CCL Construction, Inc. filed Planning
Application No. PA96-0027 (Specific Plan No. 199 - Zoning Amendment) in accordance with
the City of Temecula General Plan and Riverside County Land Use and Subdivision Ordinances,
which the City has adopted by reference;
W/W-REAS, Planning Application No. PA96-0027 (Specific Plan No. 199 - Zoning
Amendment) was processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application No. PA96-0027
(Specific Plan No. 199 - Zoning Amendment) on March 4, 1996, at a duly noticed public
hearing as prescribed by law, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify
either in support or in opposition;
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and
arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, the Commission considered all facts
relating to Planning Application No. PA96-0027 (Specific Plan No. 199 - Zoning Amendment);
NOW, TItEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF ~ CITY OF
TEMECULA DOES liF-qOLVE, DETFAIMINE AND ORDER AS FOI-II)WS:
Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct.
Section 2.
A. The Planning Commission in recommending approval of Planning Application No.
PA96-0027 (Specific Plan No. 199 - Zoning Amendment), makes the following findings, to wit:
1. Planning Application No. PA96-0027 (Specific Plan No. 199 - Zoning
Amendment), as proposed, is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community.
2. Planning Application No. PA96-0027 (Specific Plan No. 199 - Zoning
Amendmen0 inconsistent with the City's General Plan, due to the fact'that the subject request
is in substantial conformance with Specific Plan No. 199 - Margarita Village.
R:~T~A96.1~ 2/~/96 ~ 5
3. The project is compatible with surrounding land uses. The project consists
of an expansion to the maximum square footage of single-family residences in an area that is
comprised of a variety of sizes of single-family residences.
4. The proposal will not have an adverse effect on surrounding property,
because it does not represent a significant change to the planned land use of the area, due to the
fact that the proposed land use is consistent with the overall concept of Specific Plan No. 199.
S. The changes proposed in the approved Specific Plan are minor and do not
increase the impacts associated with the development or the overall intensity of the development
as analyzed in Environmental Impact Report 202. The mitigation measures prepared for this
Environmental Impact Report (HR) will be applied to this project.
Section 3. Environmental Compliance. Environmental Impact Report No. 202 was
prepared for Specific Plan No. 199 and was certified by the County Board of Supervisors. It
has been eight (8) years since the environmental analysis was performed for this project. It is
Staffs opinion that due to the limited scope of the proposed Zoning Amendment, there will be
no affect on the previous analysis. According to Section 21166 of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA), no subsequent or supplemental environmental impact report is required for
the project unless one or more of the following events occurs: substantial changes are proposed
in the project which will require major revisions of the EIR; substantial changes occur with
respect to circumstance under which the project is being undertaken which will require major
revisions in the E/R; or, new information, which was not known at the time of the EIR was
certified and complete becomes available. None of these situations has occurred; therefore, no
further environmental analysis is required.
Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby
recommends approval of Planning Application No. PA96-0027, (Specific Plan No. 199 - Zoning
Amendment) on property located north of Rancho California Road, east of Meadows Parkway,
south of La Serena Way, and west of Butterfield Stage Road and known as Planning Areas 6,
10, 11, and 12 of Specific Plan No. 199 (Margaxita Village) subject to the following conditions:
A. Exhibit A, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference and made
a part hereof.
R:'~ST,~AgG.PC 2~28~ ~w 6
Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 4th day of March, 1996.
CHAIRMAN
I ItF~REBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution Was duly adopted by the Planning
Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 4th day of March,
1996 by the following vote of the Commission:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
NOES:
PLANNING COMlv~SSIONERS:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
DEBBIE UBNOSKE
SECRETARY
R:~STAFFRFrX27PA96.PC 2/28/96 vgw 7
EXIHBIT A
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
planning Application No. PA96-0027 (Specific Plan No. 199 - Zoning Amendment)
Project Description: Amendment to Planning Areas No. 6, 10, 11 and 12 of Specific
Plan No. 199 - Margarlta Village to increase housing square footage to a max4mnm
of from 2,100 and 2,600 to 3,200 square feet
Approval Date:
Expiration Date:
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
General Requirements
The developer/applicant shall indemnify, protect, defend, and hold harmless, the City and
any agency or instrumentality thereof, and/or any of its officers, employees and agents
from any and all claims, actions, or proceedings against the City, or any agency or
instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers, employees and agents, to attack, set aside,
void, annul, or seek monetaxy damages resulting from an approval of the City, or any
agency or instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body
including actions approved by the voters of the City, concerning the Planning Application
No. PA96-0027 (Zoning Amendment - Specific Plan No. 199) which action is brought
within the appropriate statute of limitations period and Public Resources Code, Division
13, Chapter 4 (Section 21000 et sea_., including but not by the way of limitations Section
21152 and 21167). City shall promptly notify the developer/applicant of any cla~ra,
action, or proceeding brought within this time period. City shall further cooperate fully
in the defense of the action. Should the City fail to either promp~y notify or cooperate
fully, developer/applicant shall not, thereafter be responsible to indemnify, defend,
protect, or hold harmless the City, any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its
officers, employees, or agents.
The applicant shall comply with all underlying conditions of approval for Specific Plan
No. 199, and its amendments, unless superseded by these conditions of approval.
3. Specific Plan Text Amendments shall conform with Attachment No. 2.
Within Thirty (30) Days Prom the Second Reading of The Ordinance Approving the
Amendment
4. The applicant shall submit the Amended Specific Plan text to the Platoling Department.
R:~TAFFR_wrL~PA96.1~ ~28/96 v$~ 9
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
PROPOSED SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT
R:~T~A~.PC 2/28/~ viw 't 0
S. Village "B" Architectural Guidelines
a. Introduction
Village "B" shall contain two basic architectural motifs
and a third custom area adjacent to the Vineyards on the
eastern boundary of the property. Because the two neigh-
borhoods .will comprise the majority of Village "B", these
guidelines will predominantly address those areas.
The basic architectural themes for Village "B" will be
Spanish, Mediterranean, and French Manor. Planning Areas
2, 3, 8 and 10/11/12 will have a combination of Mediterra-
nean and French elevation styles. Planning Areas 4 and 6
will have a combination of Spanish and Mediterranean eleva-
tions. The Custom homes in Planning Areas 7 and 9 shall
combine all three elevation styles; French, Spanish and
Mediterranean. This is a natural combination of styles for
the Rancho California area and will provide a variety of
elevations as well as giving each development area a sepa-
rate character. The Mediterranean style will provide the
blend between the various planning areas and the Spanish
and French will provide the necessary accent to keep the
visual interest within the projects. All design elements
used in Village "B" should work together to achieve a sense
of neighborhood identity.
b. Buitdinc Mass, Form and Scale
Village "B" shall include a range of dwelling unit sizes in
proportion to the size of the project. There shall also be
a variety of elevation types per plan throughout the pro-
ject. A sense of neighborhood will be accomplished by
manipulating the building mass, form, and scale within each
planning area.
The homes in P~anning AreaS'2, 3, 8 ]L~x~R shall
range in size'from 1500 sq. ft. to approximately 2600
sq. ft. and a minimum of five (5) floor plans shall be
provided.
The homes in Planning Area~ 4m~l~k~xsha!l range im size
from 1200 sq. ft. to approximately 2!00 sq. ft. ~ith a
minimum of five'(5) floor plans.
o The Custom homes in Planning Areas 7 and 9 shall have a
minimum of 1800 sq. ft. of living area.
o The structures will consist of one and two story eleva-
tions with the one story elements being used at front
setbacks and at corner lot configurations.
o The homes in Planning Areas 10/11/12 shall range in size
from 1500 sq. ft. to approximately 3200 sq. ft. and ~
minimum of three (3) floor plans shall be provided.
o The homes in Planning Area 6 shall range in size from
1500 sq. ft. to approximately 3200' sq. ft. with a
mimimum of three (3) floor plans.
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
EXHIBITS
R:~STAI~J~'%27PA96.PC 2/28/~j~ vgw 11
CITY OF TEMECULA
i,4A,o
) MH 102 0U
CA Rn
MH
M
1o5 C~J
CASE NO. - PA96-0027 (SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 199 - ZONING AMENDMENT)
EXHIBIT- A VICINITY MAP
r~LANNING COMMISSION DATE - MARCH 4, 1996
R:\STAFFRIrI~27PA96.PC 2/27/96 mf
CITY OF TEMECULA
EXHIBIT B - ZONING MAP
DESIGNATION - SP (SPECIFIC PLAN)
EXHIBIT C - GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION - LM (LOW-MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL}
CASE NO. - PA96-0027 (SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 199 - ZONING AMENDMENT)
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE- MARCH 4, 1996
VL
LM
NC
\
R:\STAFl:RPT\27PA96.PC 2/27/96 mf
Gtf /'tti'DONN,4Y rill-l.-
TIZME'GUIM, C, ALII"OI('NIiI
Lot__s
II~Orchard Vacant Production Lots
Orchard Inventory Homes
X Orchard Closed Homes
~/O~chard Models
~ Vineyard Vacant Production Lots
IllVineyard lnvel~tory llomes
III Vineyard Closed Homes
t#~ Vineyard Models
IIIII Models Parking Lot
Closed Chateau and Vintage Product
· ,,.,~- Graded Lots
~ Raw Lots
/ Bramak;a Vacant Lois
.'~/.' Recreation Center
Streets
Unpaved
Paved - Uncapp~zd
Paved - Cal~pcd
/
EXf,!fBBT. 1..I)
CX~S E #. P. IFIC, -ooz~
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
LETTER FROM APPLICANT DATED FEBRUARY 14, 1996
February 14, 1996
Mr. Mathew Fagan
City of Temecula
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
Re: Chardonnay Hills
Dear Mathew:
Thank you for meeting with us last Monday to discuss our future plans and for your
continuous assistance on the Chardonnay Hills community.
Before I discuss our future plans, let me give you a brief history of this community as well
as the status of Bramalea. The Chardonnay Hills community was started under the ownership of
Marlborough Development Corporation, a subsidary of Bramalea California, Inc. The community
was opened in 1989 offering two products known as Chateau and Vintage with sizes ranging from
1,520 to 2,795 square feet. Approximately 130 homes were built between 1989 and 1993 when
the lender chose to stop funding. By the end of 1993, Bramalea purchased the project from
Marlborough and approximately 160 homesites out of the remaining 475 homesites were put into
a partnership with CCL Development with Bramalea acting as the general partner. During 1994
two new down-sized products were developed. The Orchards and Vineyards range in size from
1,265 to 2,479 square feet. During this process, Brarnalea gave up four custom lots in Tract
23103-1 to build an additional recreation center since the original recreation center is located in
an ungraded portion of the project and as a result of the market condition was delayed beyond our
originally anticipated completion date. It is worth mentioning that the second recreation center,
which is now complete, is fully amenitized and was planned at Brarnalea's sole discretion to
accommodate the existing homeowners and help our marketing efforts.
As you are aware, in early 1995 and because of its parent's financial situation, Bramalea
California Inc. had to file Chapter -11 and in order not the make the new project (Orchards and
Vineyards) suffer, Bramalea turned over its general partnership interest to CCL Development who
has carried through with the construction of the community. Bramalea is in the process of filing a
plan of reorganization in the bankruptcy court and is expected to emerge out of bankruptcy soon
under a new owner. Lennar Homes, Inc. is going to be the owner of the company and all future
development will be done under Lennar's name.
Mr. Mathew Fagan
February 14, 1996
Page Two
Lermar is the seventh largest home builder in the United States based in Florida.
Bramalea's acquisition will be Lermar's first entry into California.
We are currently in plan check for new models ranging in size between 2,500 and 3,200
square feet which would be built on the remaining, or a portion of the remaining 315 homesites.
The good news is that the market feedback indicat~ a demand for a bigger home which means
that the median price is being pushed up. Our plan is to start models by the first part of April.
We are also submitting a request to amend the language in the Specific Plan to allow the
construction of homes up to 3,200 square feet within Village "B" of the Santa Margarita Specific
Plan.
Please note that as a result of the future development, additional utilities will be installed,
streets will be construct, and slopes will be landscaped, which will reduce the erosion problem
that has haunted us for the past few years. It will also provide a more fully developed community.
I have attached a colored exhibit indicating the status of the construction within the
community. We are very excited about the new models and are looking forward to a fresh start.
Again, thank you for y~ur ,' p.
Sin el
~u~ ~sdident
EKH:db
Enclosure
ITEM
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
March 4, 1996
Planning Application No. PA96-0003 (Tentative Tract Map No. 28309)
Prepared By: Matthew Fagan, Associate Planner
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Department Staff recommends the
Commission:
Plann!ng
ADOPT the Mitigated Negative Declaration for PA96-0003;
ADOPT the Mitigation Monitoring Program for PA96-0003;
ADOPT Resolution No. 96- approving PA96-0003, based upon the Analysis
and Findings contained in the Staff Report; and
APPROVE Planning Application No. PA96-0003, subject to the attached
Conditions of Approval.
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
PROPOSAL:
LOCATION:
EXISTING ZONING:
SURROUNDING ZONING:
PROPOSED ZONING:
GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION:
BA Properties Inc., c/o Realty Management Advisors
RBF & Associates
A forty-six (46) lot residential subdivision of 11.2 acres
SOuth of Nicolas Road, east of Villa Valencia and west of Via
Lobo
LM (Low-Medium Density Residential, 3-6 dwelling units per acre)
North:
South:
East:
West:
LM (Low-Medium Density Residential, 3-6 dwelling
units per acre)
LM (Low-Medium Density Residential, 3-6 dwelling
units per acre)
LM (Low-Medium Density Residential, 3-6 dwelling
units per acre)
LM (Low-Medium Density Residential, 3-6 dwelling
units per acre)
Not requested
LM (Low-Medium Density Residential, 3-6 dwelling units per acre)
EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
North:
South:
East:
West:
Santa Gertrudis Creek, Single-Family Residential
Single-Family Residential
Single-Family Residential
Single-Family Residential
PROJECT STATISTICS
Total Area:
Number of Lots:
Project Density:
Earthwork Amount:
Cut:
Import:
11.2 acres
46
4.09 dwelling units per acre
2,000 cubic yards
57,000 cubic yards
BACKGROUND
Planning Application No. PA96-0003 (Tentative Tract Map No. 28309) was formally submitted
to the Planning Department on January 3, 1996. A Development Review Committee (DRC)
meeting was held on January 18, 1996. Planning Application No. PA96-0003 was deemed
complete on February 8, 1996.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project is a forty-six (46) lot residential subdivision on 11.2 acres. A rose farm (Rancho
Roses) used to be located on the project site. The business ceased operations and remaining
concrete slabs were removed after an abatement process on the property. The project is in-
fill, with single family residences located immediately to the east, west and south. The
improved Santa Gertrudis Creek is to the north, with single-family residences to the north of
the Creek.
ANALYSIS
Site Desicln & Area Coml3atibilitv
The proposed subdivision is well designed and laid out in a rather straight-forward manner.
Access will be from Nicolas and Milano Roads. Milano Road will be the main street through
the project and will have three (3) cul-de-sacs off of the street. Homes will not front Nicolas
Road, as access will be restricted as a condition of approval for the map. Lot sizes range from
7,200 square feet to 12,746 square feet in size. These lot sizes are compatible with
surrounding development,
R:~STAFFRPT~3PA96,PC 2128/96 klb 2
Landscaping
The conditions of approval require that landscaping along Nicolas Road be consistent with the
existing street scape conditions in the area. The Nicolas Road landscape plan will be required
prior to the issuance of a grading permit, and the entire frontage of Nicolas Road landscaping
shall be installed prior to the first occupancy of the project.
Nicolas Road is classified as a Arterial Highway in the City of Temecula General Plan
Circulation Element. The Arterial Highway roadway cross sedtion from the General Plan calls
for a fourteen (14) foot wide landscaped median. The project has been conditioned for the
landscape median from the intersection of Villa Valencia and Nicolas Road, east for the entire
frontage of the project. The applicant will improve the entire median from site frontage to
center-line, and the City will reimburse the applicant for half of the improvements.
Grading and DrainaGe
Currently, the site is relatively flat. The applicant is proposing to import approximately 57,000
cubic yards of fill material to raise the elevation of the project site. This will make the project
similar in elevation to the surrounding residences, and raise the project out of the identified
flood plain. The applicant has stated that the importing of fill material will also help with site
drainage. Site drainage will be primarily from the east to the west. A retaining wall will be
at the rear property line of lots 1-7. All drainage from these lots will be to the west.
Circulation/Traffic
A Focused Traffic Analysis was prepared for the project (dated December 22, 1995 by Robert
KahneJohn Kain & Associates, Inc.). Based upon the analysis contained in the Report, the
project will be consistent with the Goals contained in the City's General Plan Circulation Plan.
Level of service at affected intersections will be "B" or better during peak hours.
ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY
The zoning for the project site 'is LM (Low-Medium Density Residential, 3-6 dwelling units per
· acre). The General Plan Land Use Designation for the site is also LM. The project is
consistent with the zoning and General Plan.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
An Initial Study has been prepared for this project. The Initial Study determined that although
the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, these effects are not
considered to be significant due to mitigation measures contained in the project design and
in the Conditions of Approval for the project. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission
adopt a Negative Declaration and approve the Mitigation Monitoring Program for the project,
SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS
The project has been reviewed for conformance with the City's General Plan, Development
Code, Subdivision and Landscaping Ordinances. The project is consistent with these
documents and conditions of approval have been placed on the project accordingly to assure
that the development will occur to City Standards.
FINDINGS
The proposed land division and the design or improvement of the project is consistent
with the City's General Plan and is physically suitable for the type and density of
development. The General Plan Land Use designation for the site is Low-Medium
Residential (3-6 dwelling units per acre), with a target density of 4.5 dwelling units per
acre). The project proposes forty-six (46) residential parcels on 11.23 acres for a
density of 4.1 units per acre. This is consistent with the General Plan Land Use
designation for the site.
The design of the proposed land division or proposed improvements are not likely to
cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or
wildlife or their habitat. There is no fish wildlife or habitat on the project site, and the
project will not affect any fish wildlife or habitat off-site,
The design of the proposed land division or the type of improvements are not likely to
cause serious public health problems. The project has been reviewed for conformance
with the City's General Plan, Development Code, Subdivision and Landscaping
Ordinances. The project is consistent with these documents and conditions of approval
have been placed on the project accordingly to assure that the development will occur
to City Standards,
The design of the proposed land division or the type of improvements will not conflict
with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through, or use of, property
within the proposed land division. The project will take access from Nicolas Road,
Milano Road and Villa Valencia, and will not obstruct any easements.
Planning Application No. PA96-0003as proposed, conforms to the logical development
of its proposed site, and is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the
community.
Attachments:
PC Resolution - Blue Page 5
A. Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 9
Initial Study - Blue Page 21
Mitigation Monitoring Program - Blue Page 42
Exhibits - Blue Page 62
A. Vicinity Map
B. Zoning Map
C. General Plan Map
D. Tentative Tract Map
R:\STAFFRPT\3PA96.l?C 2/28196 klb
4
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
PC RESOLUTION NO. 96-
R:\STA]~]~PjPT~3PA96.PC 2/28/~6 ]db 5
ATTACHMENT NO. l
PC RESOLUTION NO. 96-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. PA96-0003 TO SUBDIVIDE A 11.23
ACRE PARCEL INTO FORTY-SIX (46) PARCELS
LOCATED SOUTH OF NICOLAS ROAD, EAST OF VILLA
VALENCIA AND WEST OF VIA LOBO AND KNOWN AS
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 919-360-039
WHEREAS, BA Properties, Inc., c/o Realty Management Advisors fried Planning
Application No. PA96-0003 in accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Riverside
County Land Use and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference;
WHEREAS, Planning Application No. PA96-0003 was processed in the time and manner
prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application No. PA96-0003
on March 4, 1996, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time
interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or in opposition;
WHEREAS, at the public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and
arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all facts
relating to Planning Application No. PA96-0003;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct.
Section 2. Findings. That the Temecula Planning Commission hereby makes the
following findings, to wit:
1. The proposed land division and the design or improvement of the project
is consistent with the City's General Plan and is physically suitable for the type and density of
development. The General Plan Land Use designation for the site is Low-Medium Residential
(3-6 dweLLing units per acre), with a target density of 4.5 dwelling units per acre). The project
proposes forty-six (46) residential parcels on 11.23 acres for a density of 4.1 units per acre.
This is consistent with the General Plan Land Use designation for the site.
R:\STAFFRPT\3PA96.PC 2/28/96 klb 6
Section 6. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 4th day of March, 1996.
CHAIRMAN
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning
Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 4th day of March,
1996 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
NOES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
DEBBIE UBNOSKE
SECRETARY
R:\STAFFRP'B3PA96.PC 2/28/96 klb 8
EXHIBIT A
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
R:\STAFFRFF~3pA96.PC 2/28/96 klb 9
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 archaeologist shall be chosen by the developer and approved by the
Planning Director for consultation and comment on the proposed grading with respect
to potential archaeological impacts. Should the archaeologist find potential is high for
impact to significant resources, a meeting between the archaeologist, Planning
Director, and grading contractor prior to the commencement of grading operations and
the excavation and grading contractor shall be arranged. When necessary, the
archaeologist or representative shall have the authority to temporarily divert, redirect
or halt grading activity to allow recovery of fossils.
The applicant shall submit conceptual landscape plans to the Planning Department for
review and approval. The plans shall be consistent with City standards including
automatic irrigation for all landscaped areas and complete screening of all ground
mounted equipment from the view of the public from streets and adjacent property
including:
All landscaping excluding Temecula Community Services District (TCSD)
maintained areas and front yard landscaping which shall include, but may not
be limited to private slopes and common areas,
Tree, shrub, vine and groundcover planting to screen perimeter walls adjacent
to a Nicolas Road. Said plantings shall be consistent with the existing
landscaping adjacent to the project along Nioolas Road,
c. The height, location and the following materials for all walls and fences:
Decorative block for the perimeter of the project adjacent to a public
right-of-way (sixty-six feet or larger) and the side yards for corner lots.
ii.
Wrought iron or decorative block and wrought iron combination to take
advantage of views for side and rear yards.
iii.
Wood fencing shall be used for all side and rear yard fencing when not
restricted by i and ii above.
The applicant shall demonstrate by submittal of a written report that all mitigation
measures identified in the Mitigation Monitoring Program have been satisfied for this
stage of the development.
Prior to Recordation of the Final Map
9. The applicant shall submit the following to the Planning Director for approval:
A copy of the Final Map
R:\STAFFRPT\3PA96.PC 2/28/96 klb 11
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Planning Application No. 96-0003 (Tentative Tract Map No. 28309)
Project Description:
Assessor's Parcel No.:
Approval Date:
Expiration Date:
A residential subdivision of an 11.2 acre parcel into 46
parcels
919-360-039
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
General Requirements
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.
The developer/applicant shall indemnify, protect, defend, and hold harmless, the City
and any agency or instrumentality thereof, and/or any of its officers, employees and
agents from any and all claims, actions, or proceedings against the City, or any agency
or instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers, employees and agents, to attack, set
aside, void, annul, or seek monetary damages resulting from an approval of the City,
or any agency or instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal board or legislative
body including actions approved by the voters of the City, concerning Planning
Application No. PA96-0003 (Tentative Tract Map No. 28309) which action is brought
within the appropriate statute of limitations period and Public Resources Code, Division
13, Chapter 4 (Section 21000 et seq., including but not by the way of limitations
Section 21152 and 21167). City shall promptly notify the developer/applicant of any
claim, action, or proceeding brought within this time period. City shall further
cooperate fully in the defense of the action. Should the City fail to either promptly
notify or cooperate fully, developer/applicant shall not, thereafter be responsible to
indemnify, defend, protect, or hold harmless the City, any agency or instrumentality
thereof, or any of its officers, employees, or agents.
m
If subdivision phasing is proposed, the applicant shall submit a phasing plan to the
Planning Director for approval.
Prior to Issuance of Grading Permits
The applicant shall submit a copy of the Rough Grading plans to the Planning Director
for approval.
R:\STAFFRPI~PAg~.PC 2/28/96 kJb 10
vi. Materials and Colors Board
A Development Plan shall be submitted and approved by the Planning Director
for the housing product.
12.
The applicant shall submit an acoustical analysis to the Planning Department for
approval. The analysis shall be submitted prior to the issuance of the first building
permit for the project. The analysis shall contain recommendations to ensure that noise
levels do not exceed 65dBA for exterior and 45dBA for interior noise levels.
13.
Roof-mounted mechanical equipment shall not be permitted within the subdivision,
however solar equipment or any other energy saving devices shall be permitted with
Planning Director approval.
14.
The applicant shall demonstrate by a written report that all mitigation measures
identified in the Mitigation Monitoring Program have been satisfied for this stage of the
development.
Prior to Issuance of Occupancy Permits
15.
The applicant shall install the entire landscape frontage of Nicolas Road prior to the first
certificate of occupancy of the project.
16.
If deemed necessary by the Planning Director, the applicant shall provide additional
landscaping to effectively screen various components of the project.
17.
Front yard and slope landscaping within individual lots shall be completed for
inspection.
18.
All the Conditions of Approval shall be complied with to the satisfaction of the
Directors of Planning, Public Works, Community Services and Building and Safety.
19.
The applicant shall demonstrate by a written report that all mitigation measures
identified in the Mitigation Monitoring Program have been satisfied for this stage of the
development.
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
The Department of Public Works recommends the following Conditions of Approval for this
project. All conditions shall be completed by the Developer at no cost to any Government
Agency. Questions regarding the true meaning of the conditions shall be referred to the
appropriate staff person of the Department of Public Works.
General Requirements
20.
It is understood that the Developer correctly shows 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.
R:\STAFFRl~T\3PA96.PC 2/28/96 klb 13
A copy of the Rough Grading Plans
A copy of the Environmental Constraint Sheet (ECS) with the following notes:
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, Ordinance No. 655.
ii. This project is within a 100 year flood hazard zone.
iii. This project is within a liquefaction hazard zone.
The applicant shall submit a copy of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions
(CC&R's) for review and approval by the Planning Department, Public Works
Department and the City Attorney.
Prior to Issuance of Building Permits
10.
The applicant shall submit a receipt or clearance letter from the Temecula Valley School
District to the Planning Department to ensure the payment or exemption from School
Mitigation fees.
11. The applicant shall submit the following to the Planning Director for approval:
Construction landscape plans consistent with the City standards and the
approved Conceptual Landscape Plans including automatic irrigation for all
landscaped areas and complete screening of all ground mounted equipment
from the view of the public from streets and adjacent property for:
Front yards and slopes within individual lots prior to issuance of building
permits for any lot(s).
b. Wall and fence plans consistent with the Conceptual Landscape Plans.
Cm
Precise grading plans consistent with the approved rough grading plans
including all structural setback measurements.
The Temporary Use Permit application for a Model Home Complex (if applicable)
which includes the following:
Site Plan with off-street parking
Construction Landscape Plans
Fencing Plans
Building Elevations
Floor Plans
R:\STAFFRPT\3PA96.1~C 2/28/96 klb I 2
28.
29.
30.
d. Sewer and domestic water systems.
e. Undergrounding of proposed utility distribution lines.
Relinquish and waive right of access to and from Nicolas Road on the Final Map with
the exception of street access, substantially as shown on the approved tentative map.
Improvement plans, including but not limited to, streets, parkway trees, street lig.hts,
driveways, drive aisles, mailbox locations, street centerline monuments, drainage
facilities and paving shall be prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer and approved by
the Department of Public Works. Final plans (and profiles on streets) shall show the
location of existing utility facilities and easements as directed by the Department of
Public Works.
Improvement plans, rough and/or precise grading plans shall conform to applicable City
of Temecula Standards subject to the approval by the Department of Public Works.
The following design criteria shall be observed:
Flowline grades shall be 0.5% minimum over P.C.C. and 1.00% minimum over
A.C. paving.
b. Driveways shall conform to the applicable City Standard No. 207.
Street lights shall be installed along the public streets adjoining the site in
accordance with Ordinance No, 461 and shall be shown on the improvement
plans as directed by the Department of Public Works.
Concrete sidewalks shall be constructed along public street frontages in
accordance with City Standard Nos. 400 and 401.
Improvement plans shall extend 300 feet beyond the project boundaries or as
otherwise approved by the Department of Public Works.
Minimum centerline radii shall be in accordance with City Standard No. 113 or
as otherwise approved by the Department of Public Works.
All reverse curves shall include a 100-foot minimum tangent section or as
otherwise 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.
Landscaping shall be limited in the corner cut-off area of all intersections and
adjacent to driveways to provide for minimum sight distance and visibility.
j,
All concentrated drainage directed towards the public street shall be conveyed
through undersidewalk drains.
31. Corner property line cut off shall be required per Riverside County Standard No. 805.
R:\STAFFRPT\3PA96.PC 2/28196 klb 15
21.
A Grading Permit for either rough or precise grading, including all onsite flat work and
improvements, shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to
commencement of any construction outside of the City-maintained road right-of-way.
22.
23.
An Encroachment Permit shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior
to commencement of any construction within an existing or proposed City
right-of-way.
All improvement plans, grading plans, landscape and 'irrigation plans shall be
coordinated for consistency with adjacent projects and existing improvements
contiguous to the site and shall be submitted on standard 24" x 36" City of Temecula
mylars.
24.
Pursuant to Section 66493 of the Subdivision Map Act, any subdivision which is part
of an existing Assessment District must comply with the requirements of said section.
Prior to Recordation of Final Map
25. Any delinquent property taxes shall be paid.
26.
As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive
written clearance from the following agencies:
San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board
Rancho California Water District
Eastern Municipal Water District
Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District
City of Temecula Fire Bureau
Planning Department
Department of Public Works
Riverside County Health Department
Cable TV Franchise
Community Services District
General Telephone
Southern California Edison Company
Southern California Gas Company
27.
The Developer shall construct or post security and enter into an agreement
guaranteeing the construction of the following public improvements within 18 months
in conformance with applicable City Standards and subject to approval by the
Department of Public Works.
Street improvements, which may include, but are not limited to: pavement,
curb and gutter, sidewalks, drive approaches, street lights, striping and signing
as appropriate,
b. Storm drain facilities.
c. Erosion control and slope protection.
R:\STAFFRPT~3PA96,]~C 2/28/96 klb 14
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
All lot drainage shall be directed to the driveway by side yard drainage swales
independent of any other lot.
The Developer shall comply with all constraints which may be shown upon an
Environmental Constraint Sheet (ECS) recorded with any underlying maps related to the
subject property.
The Developer must comply with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. No
grading shall be permitted until an NPDES Notice of Intent (NOI) has been filed or the
project is shown to be exempt.
As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive
written clearance from the following agencies:
San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board
Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District
Planning Department
Department of Public Works
A Soils Report shall be prepared by a registered Soils Engineer and submitted to the
Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The report shall
address all soils conditions of the site, and provide recommendations for the
construction of engineered structures and pavement sections.
The Developer shall have a Drainage Study prepared by a registered Civil Engineer in
accordance with City Standards identifying storm water runoff expected from this site
and upstream of this site. The study shall identify all existing or proposed public or
private drainage facilities intended to discharge this runoff. The study shall also
analyze and identify impacts to downstream properties and provide specific
recommendations to protect the properties and mitigate any impacts. Any upgrading
or upsizing of downstream facilities, including acquisition of drainage or access
easements necessary'to make required improvements, shall be provided by the
Developer.
Graded but undeveloped land shall be stabilized from erosion to the satisfaction of the
Director of Public Works.
The Developer shall post security and enter into an agreement guaranteeing the grading
and erosion control improvements in conformance with applicable City Standards and
subject to approval by the Department of Public Works.
An Area Drainage Plan fee shall be paid to the Riverside County Flood Control and
Water Conservation District.
The Developer shall obtain any necessary letters of approval or easements for any
offsite work performed on adjacent properties as directed by the Department of Public
Works at no cost to any agency.
R:~STAFFRPT\3PA96.PC 2/28/96 Idb 17
32.
A Signing and Striping plan, as required, shall be designed by a registered Civil
Engineer and approved by the Department of Public Works and included in the street
improvement plans.
33.
A construction area Traffic Control Plan shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer
and approved by the Department of Public Works for any street closure and detour or
other disruption to traffic circulation as required by the Department of Public Works.
34. All driveways shall be located a minimum of two (2) feet from the side prol~erty line.
35.
All utility systems including gas, electric, telephone, water, sewer, and cable TV shall
be provided for underground, with easements provided as required, designed and
constructed in accordance with City Codes and the utility provider.
36. All utilities, except electrical lines rated 33kv or greater, shall be installed underground.
37.
Easements, when required for roadway slopes, landscape easements, drainage
facilities, utilities, etc., shall be shown on the final map if they are located within the
land division boundary. All offers of dedication and conveyances shall be submitted
for review and recorded as directed by the Department of Public Works. On-site
drainage facilities located outside of road right-of-way shall be contained within
drainage easements and 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,"
38.
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 following information shall be on the
ECS:
a. The delineation of the area within the 100-year floodplain.
b. Special Study Zones.
39.
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.
40.
The Developer shall deposit with the Department of Public Works a cash sum as
established, per lot, as mitigation towards traffic signal impacts. Should the Developer
choose to defer the time of payment of traffic signal mitigation fee, he may enter into
a written agreement with the City deferring said payment to the time of issuance of a
building permit.
Prior to Issuance of Grading Permits
41,
A Grading Plan shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and shall be reviewed
and approved by the Department of Public Works. The grading plan shall include all
necessary erosion control measures needed to adequately protect adjacent pub(ic and
private property.
R:\STAFFRPT~3PA96.PC 2/28/96 klb 16
58.
The Developer shall provide "stop" controls at the intersection of local streets with
arterial streets as directed by the Department of Public Works.
59.
The existing improvements shall be reviewed. Any appurtenance damaged or broken
shall be repaired or removed and replaced to the satisfaction of the Department of
Public Works.
60. All improvements shall be constructed and completed per the approved plans and City
standards to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works.
:
COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT
General Requirements
61.
The developer, or his assignee, shall be responsible for the parkway landscaping
adjacent to Nicolas Road until such time as those responsibilities are accepted by the
TCSD.
62.
The proposed TCSD landscape maintenance area adjacent to Nicolas Road shall not
extend beyond the curb return on Street "D". All perimeter walls, interior slopes,
drainage structures and entry monumentation shall be constructed outside of the
proposed TCSD area and maintained by the property owner or an established Home
Owners' Association (HOA).
63.
Construction of the parkway landscaping on Nicolas Road shall commence pursuant
to a pre-job meeting with the developer and the TCSD Maintenance Superintendent.
Failure to comply with the TCSD review and inspection process may preclude the
acceptance of this area into the TCSD maintenance program.
Prior to Recordation of the Final Map
64,
The applicant shall satisfy the City's park land dedication requirement (Quimby) through
the payment of an in-lieu fee equivalent to the dedication of .60 acres of land. The fee
shall be calculated by multiplying the required amount of park land by the City's then
current appraised land valuation as established by the City Manager.
65.
Landscape construction drawings for the parkway landscaping along Nicolas Road shall
be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Services.
66.
The subdivider shall post security and enter into an agreement to improve the parkway
landscaping along Nicolas Road.
67.
The parkway landscaping on Nicolas Road shall be identified as a landscape
maintenance easement and offered for dedication to the City on the final map.
Prior to the Issuance of Certificates of Occupancy
68.
Prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy, the applicant or his assignee,
shall file an application and pay the appropriate fees for the dedication of arterial and
residential street lights into the maintenance program.
R:\STAFFRPT\3PA96,PC 2/28/96 klb 19
52.
The site is in an area identified on the Flood Insurance Rate Map as Flood Zone A. This
project shall comply with Chapter 15, Section 15.12 of the City Municipal Code which
may include obtaining a Letter Of Map Revision from FEMA. A Flood Plain
Development Permit shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review
and approval,
Prior to Issuance of Building Permits
53. Install full width landscaped and irrigated traffic safety island on Nicolas Road fr.om the
easterly project boundary to Villa Venecia, as may be required by the Department of
Public Works. The Developer shall install the island across the site's frontage to
centerline at their cost. The remaining portions to be installed shall be reimbursed.by
the City.
54.
The building pad shall be certified to have been substantially constructed in accordance
with the approved Precise Grading Plan by a registered Civil Engineer, and the Soils
Engineer shall issue a Final Soils Report addressing compaction and site conditions.
55.
The 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 the Developer requests its building permit 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 the Developer. Concurrently, with executing this
Agreement, the Developer shall secure payment of the Public Facility fee. The amount
of the security shall be ~;2.00 per square foot, not to exceed $10,000. The 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, the 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 the Developer is not waiving its right to protest the
reasonableness of any traffic impact fee, and the amount thereof.
Prior to Issuance of Certificates of Occupancy
56.
As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive
written clearance from the following agencies:
Rancho California Water District
Eastern Municipal Water District
Department of Public Works
57.
Asphaltic emulsion (fog seal) shall be applied only as directed by the Department of
Public Works at a rate of 0.05 gallon per square yard. Asphalt emulsion shall conform
to Section Nos. 37, 39, and 94 of the State Standard Specifications.
January 10, 1996
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ,, HEALTH SERVICES AGENCY
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALT
City of Temecula Platruing Department
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
ATTN: Matthew Fagan:
RE: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 28309 (PA96-0003):
PARCELS 1 AND 2 OF PARCEL MAP 5732.
(46 LOTS)
PORTIONS OF
Dear Gentlemen:
The Department of Environmental Health has reviewed Tentative Tract Map No. 28309
and recommends:
A water system shall be installed according to plans and specifications as approved by the
water company and the Health Department. Permanent prints of the plans of the water
system shall be submitted in lriplicate, with a minimum scale not less than one inch
equals 200 feet, along with the original drawing to the City of Temecula. The prints shall
show the internal pipe diameter, location of valves and fire hydrants; pipe and joint
specifications, and the size of the main at the junction of the new system to the existing
system. The plans shall comply in all respects with Div. 5, Part 1, Chapter 7 of the
California Health and Safety Code, California Administrative Code, Title 11, Chapter 16,
and General Order No. 103 of the Public Utilities Commission of the State of California,
when applicable. The plans shall be signed by a registered engineer and water company
with the following certification: "I certify that the design of the water system in Tract
Map No. 28309 is in accordance with the water system expansion plans of the Rancho
California Water District and that the water services, storage, and distribution system will
be adequate to provide water service to such Tract Map". This certification does not
constitute a guarantee that it will supply water to such Tract Map at any specific
quantities, flows or pressures for fire protection or any other purpose. This certification
shall be signed by a responsible official of the water company. The plans must be
submitted to the City of Temecula's Office to review at least two weeks prior to the
request for the recordation of the final map.
This subdivision has a statement from Raneho California Water District agreeing to serve
domestic water to each and every lot in the subdivision on demand providing satisfactory
financial arrangements are completed with the subdivider. It will be necessary for
financial arrangements to be made prior to the recordation of the final map.
John M. Fanning, Director
4065 County Circle Drive · Riverside, CA 92503 · Phone (909) 358-5316 · FAX (909) 358-5017
(Mailing Address - P.O, Box 7600 · Riverside, CA 92513-7600)
69. Prior to issuance of the first certificate of occupancy, the applicant or his assignee shall
submit the most current list of Assessods Parcel Numbers assigned to the final project.
OTHER AGENCIES
70.
The applicant shall comply with the environmental health recommendations outlined
in the Riverside County Health Department's transmittal dated January 10, 1996, a
copy of which is attached.
71.
The applicant shall comply with the fire improvement recommendations outlined in the
County of Riverside Fire Department's letter dated February 13, 1996, a copy of which
is attached.
72.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the Eastern Municipal
Water District transmittal dated January 11, 1996, a copy of which is attached.
73.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the Rancho California
Water District transmittal dated February 15, 1996, a copy of which is attached.
74.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the Eastern
Information Center Department of Anthropology's transmittal dated January 8, 1996,
a copy of which is attached.
I have read, understand and accept the above Conditions of Approval.
Applicant Name
R:\STAFFRPT~3PA96.PC 2128196 klb 20
(9091 69~-~6444 · Fax (909)
February 13, 1996
TO:
ATrN:
P,E:
PLANNING DEPARTMI~,NT
MATfl-i~W FAGAN
PA96-0003
PARCEL MAP 28309
With respect to the conditions of approval for the above referenced plan, the Fire Department
recommends the following fire protection measures be provided in accordance with City of
Temecula Ordinances and/or recognized fLre protection standards:
Provide or show there exists a water system capable of delivering 1000 GPM for a 2
hour duration at 20 PSI residual operating pressure, which must be available before any
combustible material is placed on the job site.
Approved standard fire hydrants (6"x4"x2 1/2") shall be located at alternate street
intersections and spaced not more than 330.feet apart in any direction with no portion of
any lot frontage more than 165 fee from a fn'e hydrant.
Approved standard fire hydrants (6"x4x2 1/2") shall be located at each street intersection
and spaced not more than 330 feet apart in any direction with no portion of any lot
frontage more than 165 feet from a hydrant.
Applicant/developer shall ftimish one copy of the water plans to the Fire Depa~'tment for
review. Plans shall be signed by a registered civil engineer, containing a Fire
Departmere approval signature block, and shall conform to hydrant type, location,
spacing and minimum fire flow. Once the plans are signed by the local water company,
the originals shall be presented to the Fire Department for signature.
Blue dot reflectors shall be mounted in private streets and driveways to indicate location
of fire hydrants. They shall be mounted in the middle of the street directly in line with
ftre hydrant.
City of Teraecula Planning Dept.
Page Two
Attn: Matthew Fagan
January 10, 1996
This subdivision is within the Eastern Municipal Water District and shall be connected to
the sewers of the District. The sewer system shall be installed according to plans and
specifications as approved by the District, the City of Temecula and the Health
Department. Permanent prints of the plans of the sewer system shall be ~ubmitted in
triplicate, along with the original drawing, to the City of Temecula. The prints shall show ·
the intemal pipe diameter, location of manholes, complete profiles, pipe and'joint
specifications and the size of the sewers at the junction of the new system to the existing
system. A single plat indicafmg location of sewer lines and waterlines shall be a portion
of the sewage plans and profiles. The plans shall be signed by a registered engineer and
the sewer district with the following certification: "I certify that the design of the sewer
system in Tract Map No. 28309 is in accordance with the sewer system expansion plans
of the Eastern Municipal Water District and that the waste disposal system is adequate at
this time to treat the anticipated wastes ~'om the proposed Tract Map". The plans must
be submitted to the City of Temecula's Office to review at least two weeks prior to the
request for the recordation of the fmal map.
It will be necessary for financial arrangements to be completely fmalized prior to
recordation of the final map.
Sincerely,
Gr~go~r Dellenbach, Environmental Health Specialist IV
GD:dr
(909) 275-8980
E st,:rn 2 unicipal
Mr. Matthew Fagan
City of Temecula
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
.1', 1996
RECEIVED
jAN 2 9/998
..........
SLTBJECT: Tentative Tract Map 28309, Forty-six (46) Lot Tract,
Located Southerly of Nicolas Road.
Dear Mr. Fagan:
We have reviewed the materials transmitted by your office which
describe the subject project. Our comments are outlined below:
General
It is our understanding the subject project is proposal to
subdivide an approximate 11.23 acre parcel into 46 residential
lots, located on the south side of Nicolas Road, easterly of Villa
Venecia, identified as Tentative Tract Map 28309.
The subject project is located within the District's sanitary sewer
service area, however, it must be understood the available service
capabilities of the District's systems are continually changing due
to the occurrence of development within the District and programs
of systems improvement. As such., the provision of services will be
based on the timing of the subject project, the status of the
District's permit to operate, and the service agreement between the
District and the developer of the subject project.
Reclaimed Water
The District encourages the beneficial use of reclaimed water for
landscape irrigation and other uses in accordance with Title 22 of
the California Administrative Code and Eastern Municipal Water
District Ordinance No. 68. The design of irrigation systems for
subject project landscaped areas must consider the District's water
budget criteria and landscape irrigation guidelines. Water budget
and landscape irrigation guidelines may be obtained from the
District's Customer Service Department.
Mail to: Post Office Box 8300 San Jacinto, California 92581-8300 Telephone (909) 925-7676 Fax (909) 929-0257
Main Office: 2045 S. San Jacinto Avenue, San Jacinto Customer Service / Engineering Annex: 440 E. Oakland Avenue, Hemet, CA
Operations & Maintenance Center: 2270 Trumble Road, Pertis, CA 92571 Telephone (909) 928-3777 Fax (909) 928-6177
All buildings shall be constructed with f'n'e rest roofing materials as described in
The Uniform Building Code. Any wood shingles or shakes shall be a Class "B" rating
and S~hall be approved by the fire department prior to installation.
Prior to recordation of the final map, the developer shall pay to the City of Temecula,
the sum of $400.00 per lot/unit, as mitigation for fire protection impacts. Should the
developer choose to defer the time of payment, he/she may enter into a written
agreement with the City of Temecula deferring said payment to the time of issuance of
the first bu~ding permit.
Applicant/developer shall be responsible to provide or show them exists conditions set
forth by the Fire Department.
All questions regarding the meaning of these conditions shall be referred to the Fire Department
Planning and engineering section (909)694.6439.
RAYMOND H. REGIS
Chief Fire Department Planner
Laura Cabral
Fire Safety Specialist
February 15, 1996 By
Ran ;
Water
Michael R. MeMillan
Mr. Matthew Fagan, Assistant Pfarmer
City of Temecula
Planning Department
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590-3606
SUBJECT:
Water Availability
Tentative Tract Map 28309
Case No. PA96-0003
Dear Mr. Fagan:
,John F. Hennigar
Linda M Fregoso
Please be advised that the aboveLreferenced 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 properly owner. In addition, developer will be required to
construct on-site facilities to serve each proposed lot.
If fire protection is required, customer will need to contact RCWD for fees and
requirements.
Water availability would be contingent upon the property owner signing an Agency
Agreement which assigns water management rights, if any, to RCWD.
If you have any questions, please contact Janice Johnson.
Sincerely,
RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT
~-,._~,.\
Laurie Williams
Engineering Services Manager
wp96\LW:IJ:ebO47/F012/FEG
cc: Janice Johnson. Engineering Services Representative
Mr. Matthew Fagan
TTM 28309
january 11, 1996
Page 2
The developer must submit information which describes the subject
project's irrigation water/potential reclaimed water demand to the
District's Customer Service Department for review. At the time of
the District's review, a District determinati.on will be made
regarding requirements for reclaimed water use and/or reclaimed
water system improvements.
Sanitary Sewer
The subject project is considered tributary to the District's
Temecula Valley Regional Water Reclamation Facility (TVRWRF).
The nearest existing TVRWRF system sanitary sewer facilities to the
subject project are as follows:
21-inch diameter gravity sanitary sewer aligned in Nicolas
Road along the project frontage.
8-inch diameter gravity sanitary sewer aligned in Millano Road
to the west of the project.
Other Issues
The applicant shall coordinate with Ms. Judith Conacher of the
District's Customer Service Department (909) 766-1810, ext. 4409
for "One-Stop" process tracking and determination of fees and
processing requirements. Sewer design shall be coordinated through
Mr. Victor Barreto of the District's Subdivision Department at
(909) 766-1860.
Should you have any questions regarding these comments, please feel
free to contact this office at (909) 766-1810, ext. 4468.
Sincerely,
EASTERN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT
Kevin L. Crew
Senior Customer Service Engineer
KLC/cz
AB 96-116
(wp-ntwk-ttm28309.wpd)
CALIFORNIA
tilSTORICAL
RESOURCES
INFORMATION
YSTEM
MoNo
RIVER.SIDE
Eastern Information Center
Department of Anthropolog_y
University of Califor,
Riverside, CA 92521-04
Phone (909) 787-5745
Fax (909) 787-5409
CULTURAL RESOURCE PIgVIEW
DATE: ~'~/,/.
RE: Case Transmittal Reference Designation: ~/~ ~/&-~.~ ~/r7' 2g3~?)
Records at the Eastern Information Center of the California Historical Resources Information System have
been reviewed to determine if this project would adversely affect prehistoric or historic cultural resources:
The proposed proj¢ct area has not been surveyed for cultural resoure~ and Contains or is adjacent tO known cultural
resource(s). A Phase I study is recommended.
_~Based upon existing data the proposed project area has the potential for containing cultural resources. A Phase I study
is recommended.
A Phase I cultural resource study (MF//
) identified one or more cultural resources.
The project area contains, or has the possibility of containing, cultural resources. However, due to the nature of the
project or prior data recovery studies, an adverse effect on cultural rr. sources is not anticipated. Further study is not
recommended.
A Phase 1 cultural ~source study (MF #
) identified no cultural resources. Further study is not recommended.
There is a low probability of cultural resources. Further study is not recommended.
If, during construction, cultural resources are cncountered, work should be halted or diverted in the immediate area while
a qualified archaeologist evaluates the finds and makes recommendations.
Due to the archaeological sensitivity of the area, earthmoving during construction should be monitored by a professional
archaeologist.
. ~/Thc submission of a cultural resource management report is recommended following guidelines for Archaeological
Resource Management Reports prepared by the California Office of Historic Preservation, Preservation Planning Bulletin
4(a), December 1989.
t/Phase I Records s~arch and field survey
Phase II Testing [Evaluate resource significance; propose mitigation rneasut~es for "significant" sites.]
Phase Ill Mitigation [Data rc~eovery by excavation, preservation in place, or a combination of the two.]
Phase IV Monitor earthmoving activities
COMMENTS:
If you have any questions, please contact us.
Eastern Information Center
CALIFORNIA
HISTORICAL
RESOURCES
INFORMATION
SYSTEM
MoNo
INYo
RIVERSIDE
Eastern Information Center
Department of Anthropology
University of California
Riverside, CA 92521-0418
Phone (909) 787-5745
Fax (909) 787-5409
Matthew Fagan
City of Temecula
Planning Department
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
January 8, 1996
~ JAN I1 !' 1~96 i~
Case No.:
Applicant:
PA96-0003 (TT 28309)
BA Properties, Inc.
c/o Realty Management Advisors
Dear Mr. Fagan:
Please find enclosed our comments for one project transmittal as requested by the Planning
Department. If you have any questions, please contact the Eastern Information Center at
(909) 787-5745 and specify the case number and the date on which we submitted our com-
ments.
PA 96-0003/TT 28309 .............................. January 18, 1996
Sincerely,
Uyen Doan
Information Officer
Enclosure(s)
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY
R:\STAFFRPT~3PA96.PC 2/28/~ kro 2 1
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at
least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checMist on the
following pages.
[ ] Land Use and Planning [X] Hazards
[ ] Population and Housing [X] Noise
IX] Geologic Problems [ ] Public Services
[ ] Water [ ] Utilities and Service Systems
[ ] Air Quality [ ] Aesthetics
J I Transportation/Circulation [X] Cultural Resources
[ j Biological Resources [ ] Recreation
[ ] Energy and Mineral Resources [ ] Mandatory Findings of Significance
DETERMINATION
On the
[ ]
IX]
[]
[]
basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant 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 an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be
prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at
least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to
applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the
earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant
impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
R:\STAFFRPT\3PA96.~C 2128/96 klb 23
CITY OF TEMECULA
Environmental Checklist
2.
3.
4.
5.
10.
Project Title:
Planning Application No. PA96-0003
(Tentative Tract Map. No. 28309)
Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Temecula
43174 Business Park Drive, Temecula, CA 92590
Contact Person
and Phone Number:
Matthew Fagan, (909) 694-6400
Project Location:
South of Nicolas Road, east of Villa Valencia and west of
Via Lobo
Project Sponsor's Name/Address:
SA Properties, Inc., c/o Realty Management AdvisOrs
4350 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 300
San Diego, CA 92122
Attn: William D. Kennedy
General Plan Designation:
LM (Low-Medium Density Residential, 3-6 dwelling units
per acre)
Zoning:
LM (Low-Medium Density Residential, 3-6 dwelling units
per acre)
Description of Project:
A forty-six (46) lot residential subdivision on 11.2 acres.
Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The project is surrounded by single-family residences
to the south, east and west. Nicolas Road is fully improved to the immediate north. North
of Nicolas Road is Santa Gertrudis Creek, which is a concrete lined channel. North of the
Creek are single-family residences.
Other public agencies whose approval is required: Riverside County Fire Department,
Riverside County Health Department, Temecula Police Department, Eastern Municipal Water
District, Rancho California Water District, Southern California Gas Company, Southern
California Edison Company, General Telephone Company, and Riverside Transit Agency.
R:\STAI:FRPT~3PA96.PC 2/28/96 klb 22
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
Issues and Supporting Information Sources
1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:
a. Conflict with general plan designation or
zoning? (Source 1, Figure 2-1, Page 2-17)
Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction
over the project? ( )
c. Be incompatible with existing land use in the
vicinity? (Source 1, Figure 2-1, Page 2-17)
Affect agricultural resources or operations
(e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts
from incompatible land uses)? (Source 1,
Figure 5-4, Page 5-17)
Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of
an established community (including low-
income or minority community)? ( )
2. POPULATION AND HOUSING, Would be proposal:
a. Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projects? ( )
Induce substantial growth in an area either
directly or indirectly (e.g. through project in an
undeveloped area or extension of major
infrastructure)? ( )
c. Displace existing housing, especially '
affordable housing? (')
GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result
in or expose people to potential impacts involving?
a. Fault rupture? (Source 1 Figure 7-1, Page 7-
6)
b. Seismic ground shaking?
c. Seismic ground faiture, including liquefaction?
( )
d. Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? ( )
e. Landslides or mudflows? ( )
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
X
Less Than
Significant
Impact
X
No
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
R:\STAFFRY'j2~3PA96.PC 2/28/96 klb 25
[]
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 all potentially significant effects
(a) have been analyzed adequately in a earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (b)
have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation
measures that are imposed upon the proposed project.
Date
For
R:\STAFFRI~B3PA96.PC 2/28/96 klb 24
Issues and Supporting Information Sources
b. Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? ( )
c, Alter air movement, moisture or temperature,
or cause any change in climate? ( )
d. Create objectionable odors? ( )
TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION.
Would the proposal result in:
a. Increase vehicle trips or traffic congestion?
( )
Hazards to safety from design features (e.g.
sharp curves or dangerous intersection or
incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? (
Inadequate emergency access or access to
nearby uses? ( )
Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-
site? ( )
Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or
bicyclists? ( )
Conflicts with adopted policies supporting
alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)? ( )
g. Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? ( )
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal
result in impacts to:
Endangered, threatened or rare species or
their habitats (including but not limited to
plants, fish, insects, animals and birds)? (
b. Locally designated species (e.g. heritage
trees)? ( )
Cm
Locally designated natural communities (e.g,
oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (Source 1,
Figure 5-3, Page 5-15)
Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and
vernal pool)? (Source 1, Figure 5-3, Page 5-
15)
e. Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? ( )
Potentiarly
Significant
impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact
X
X.
impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
R:\STAFFRPT',3PA96.PC 2/28/96 klb 27
Issues and Supporting Information Sources
f. Erosion, changes in topography or unstable
soil conditions form excavation, grading or fill?
( )
g. SUbsidence of the land? (Source 1, Figure 7-
2, Page 7-8)
h. Expansive soils? ( )
i. Unique geologic or physical features? ( )
4. WATER, Would the proposal result in:
a. Changes in absorption rates, drainage
patterns, or the rate and mount of surface
runoff? ( )
b, Exposure of people or property to water
related hazards such as flooding? ( )
c. Discharge into surface waters or other
alteration of surface water quality (e.g.
temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)?
( )
d. Changes in the amount of surface water in
any water body? ( )
e. Changes in currents, or the course or direction
of water movements? ( )
f. Change in the quantity of ground waters,
either through direct additions or withdrawals,
or through interception of an aquifer by cuts
or excavations or through substantial loss of
groundwater recharge capability? ( )
g. Altered direction or rate of flow of
groundwater? ( )
h. Impacts to groundwater quality? ( )
i. Substantial reduction in the amount of
groundwater otherwise available for public
water supplies? ( )
5. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a. Violate any air quality standard or contribute
to an existing or projected air quality
violation? ( )
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Untess Less Than
Mitigation Significant
Incorporated Impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
No
Impect
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
R:\STAPFRjPT~3PA96,PC 2/28196 klb 26
Issues and SupPorting Information Sources
d. Maintenance of public facilities, including
roads? ( )
e. Other governmental services? ( )
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
X
No
Impact
X
R:\STAFFRPT~3PA96.PC 2/28/96 klb 29
Issues and Supporting Information Sources
ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES.
Would the proposal:
a. Conflict with adopted energy conservation
plans7 ( )
b. Use non-renewal resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner? ( )
c. Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of future value
to the region and the residents of the State?
( )
HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a. A risk of accidental explosion or release of
hazardous substances (including, but not
limited to: oil, pesticides, chemical or
radiation)? ( )
b. Possible interference with an emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan7
( )
c. The creation of any health hazard or potential
health hazard7 ( )
d. Exposure of people to existing sources of
potential health hazards? ( )
e. Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable
brush, grass, or trees7 ( )
10. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a. Increase in existing noise levels? ( )
b.
Exposure of people to severe noise levels?
( )
11. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an
effect upon, or result in a need for new or
altered government services in any of the
following areas:
a. Fire protection? ( )
b. Police protection? ( )
c, Schools? ( )
: ::: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
SignifiGant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporatad
Lass Than
Significant
impact
X
X
X
X
No
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
R:\STAFFRFT~3PA96.PC 2/28/96 I~b 28
Issues and Supporting Information Sources
16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a. Does the project have the potential to degrade X
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 community, reduce
the number of restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory?
b. Does the project have the potential to achieve X
short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term,
environmental goals?
c. Does the project have impacts that area X
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in
connection with the effects of past projects,
the effects of other current projects, and the
effects of probable future projects).
d. Does the project have environmental effects X
which will cause substantial adverse effects
on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
17. EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA
process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative
declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the
following on attached sheets.
a. Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for
review.
Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which affects from the above check list
were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to
applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by
mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
Ce
Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation
Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined
from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific
conditions for the project.
R:\STAFFRPTX.3PA96.pC 2128/96 Idb 3 1
Issues and Supporting Information Sources
12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the
proposal result in a need for new systems
or supplies, or substantial alterations
to the following utilities:
a. Power or natural gas? ( )
b. Communications systems? ( )
c. Local or regional water treatment or
distribution facilities? ( )
d. Sewer or septic tanks? ( )
e. Storm water drainage? ( )
f. Solid waste disposal? ( )
g. Local or regional water supplies? (
13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a. Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? (
b. Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic
effect? ( )
c. Create light or glare? ( )
14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a.
Disturb paleontological resources? (Source 1,
Figure 5-7, Page 5-22)
b. Disturb archaeological [esources? ( )
c. Affect historical resources? ( )
d. Have the potential to cause a physical change
which would affect unique ethnic cultural
values? ( )
e. Restrict existing religious or sacred uses
within the potential impact area? ( )
15. RECREATION. Would the proposal:
Increase the demand for neighborhood or
regional parks or other recreational facilities?
( )
b. Affect existing recreational opportunities?
( )
POtentially
Significant
Impact
POtentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporeted
X
Less Than
Significant
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
No
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
R:\STAFFRPT',3PA96.FC 2/28/96 klb 30
DISCUSSION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Land Use and Plannine
1.b.
The project will not conflict with applicable environmental plans or polices adopted by
agencies with jurisdiction over the project. The project is consistent with the City's General
Plan Land Use Designation of LM (Low Medium Density Residential, 3-6 dwelling units per
acre). Impacts from all General Plan Land Use Designations were analyzed in the
Environmental Impact Report for (EIR) the General Plan. Agencies with jurisdiction within
the City commented on the scope of the analysis contained in the EIR and how the land uses
would impact their particular agency. Mitigation measures approved with the EIR will be
applied to this project. Further, all agencies with jurisdiction over the project are also being
given the opportunity to comment on the project and it is anticipated that they will make the
appropriate comments as to how the project relates to their specific environmental plans or
polices. The project is in-fill and there will be limited, if any environmental effects on
environmental plans or polices adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project. No
significant effects are anticipated as a result of this project.
1.e,
The project will not disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community
(including low-income or minority community). The project is in-fill single-family residential
development surrounded by single-family residences. There is no established residential
community (including low-income or minority community) at this site. No significant effects
are anticipated as a result of this project.
Population and Housinq
2,a,
The project will not cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections. The
project is in-fill single-family residential development which is consistent with the City's
General Plan Land Use Designation of Low-Medium Density Residential. Since the project
is consistent with the City's General Plan, and does not exceed the target density for Low
Medium Density Residential, it will not be a significant contributor to population growth
which will cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections. No significant
effects are anticipated as a result of this project.
2.b.
The project will not induce substantial growth in the area either directly or indirectly. The
project is in-fill development and is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Designation
of Low Medium Density Residential. The project will cause people to relocate to or within
Temecula; however, due to its limited scale, it will not induce substantial growth in the area.
No significant effects are anticipated as a result of this project.
2.c,
The project will not displace housing, especially affordable housing. The project site is
vacant; therefore no housing will be displaced. No significant effects are anticipated as a
result of this project.
Geoloqic Problems
3.b,c,h.
The project may have a significant impact on people involving seismic ground shaking,
seismic ground failure, liquefaction and expansive soils. The project is located in Southern
California, an area which is seismically active. Any potentially significant impacts will be
mitigated through building construction which is consistent with Uniform Building Code
R:'xSTAFFRPT~3PA96.PC 2128/96 Idb 33
SOURCE LIST
1 - City of Temecula General Plan
2 - City of Temecula General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report
R:\STAFFRPT~3PA96.PC 2/21g/96 k/b 32
Letter, the project is not located within the 100 year flood boundary. No significant impacts
are anticipated as a result of this project,
4.c,
The project may have a potentially significant effect on discharges into surface waters and
alteration of surface water quality. Prior to issuance of a grading permit for the project, the
developer will be required to comply with the requirements of the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the State Water Resources Control Board.
No grading shall be permitted until an NPDES Notice of Intent~ has' been filed or the .project
is shown to be exempt. By complying with the NPDES requirements, any potential impacts
can be mitigated to a level less than significant. Therefore, no significant impacts are
anticipated as a result of this project.
4.d.
The project will have a less than significant impact in a change in the amount of surface
water in any waterbody. Additional surface runoff will occur because previously permeable
ground will be rendered impervious by construction of buildings, accompanying hardscape
and driveways. Surface drainage will be channelled to Nicolas Road and the existing
development to the west. Ultimately, drainage empties into the Santa Gertrudis Creek. Due
to the limited scale of the project, the additional amount of drainage into the Creek will not
considered significant. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
4,e.
The project will not impact currents, or to the course or direction of water movements.
Reference response 4.d. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
4.f-h.
The project will not result in a change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct
additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or
through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability. No changes will occur in the
quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions, withdrawals, or through
interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations. Further, the project will not result in an
altered direction or rate of flow of groundwaters or in impacts to groundwater quality.
Construction on the site will not be at depths sufficient to have a significant impact on
ground waters. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
4.i.
The project will not result in a substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater water
otherwise available for public water supplies. According to information contained in the Final
Environmental Impact Report for the City of Temecula General Plan, "Rancho California
Water District indicate that they can accommodate additional water demands." Water
service currently exists in the immediate proximity to the project. Water service will need
to be provided by Rancho California Water District (RCWD). This is typically provided upon
completion of financial arrangements between RCWD and the property owner. No significant
impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
Air Quality
The project will not violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected
air quality violation. The project (46 lots/potential units) is below the threshold for
potentially significant air quality impact (166 units) established by South Coast Air Quality
Management District (Page 6-10, Table 6-2 of the South Coast Air Quality Management
CEQA Air Quality Handbook). No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this
project.
R:\STAFFIIPT\3PA96.PC 2/28/96 klb 35
standards. Further, preliminary soil reports are required as part of the application submittal
and will be used to determine appropriate conditions of approval. The soils reports will also
contain recommendations for the compaction of the soil which will serve to mitigate any
potentially significant impacts from seismic ground shaking, seismic ground failure,
liquefaction and expansive soils. No significant effects are anticipated as a result of this
project.
3.d.
The project will not expose people to a seiche, tsunami or volcanic hazard. The project is
not located in an area where any of these hazards coul~J occur. No significant effects are
anticipated as a result of this project.
3,e.
The project will not expose people to landslides or mudflows. The Final Environmental
Impact for the City of Temecula General Plan has not identified any known landslides or
mudslides located on the site or proximate to the site. No significant impacts are anticipated
as a result of this project.
3.f.
The project will have a less than significant impact from erosion, changes in topography,
grading or fill. Increased wind and water erosion of soils both on and off-site may occur
during the construction phase of the project and the project may result in changes in
siltation, deposition or erosion. Erosion control techniques will be included as a condition
of approval for the project. In the long-run, hardscape and landscaping will serve as
permanent erosion control for the project. The project will result in a change to the site
topography and ground surface relief features from fill material which will be imported to the
site for the project. Grading will be necessary for the realization of this project. Since the
amount of grading will be the minimum necessary for the realization of the project,
modification to topography and ground surface relief features will not be considered
significant. Potential unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading or fill will be mitigated
through the use of landscaping and proper compaction of the soils. No impacts are
anticipated as a result of this project.
3.i.
The project will not impact unique geologic or physical features. No unique geologic features
or physical features exist on the site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of
this project.
Water
4.8,
The project will result in changes to absorption rates, drainage patterns and the rate and
amount of surface runoff. Previously permeable ground will be rendered impervious by
construction of buildings, accompanying hardscape and driveways. While absorption rates
and surface runoff will change, any potential impacts can be mitigated through site design.
Drainage conveyances will be required for the project to safely and adequately handle runoff
which is created. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
4.b.
The project will not expose people or property related hazards such as flooding. According
to Figure 7-4 of the Final Environmental Impact Report for the City of Temecula General Plan,
the project is not located in a dam inundation area. A portion of the project has been
identified to be within the 100 year flood boundary of the Santa Gertrudis Creek. The
applicant has provided a Letter of Map Revision to Staff pertaining to the location of the
floodway boundary due to improvements to the Santa Gertrudis Creek. Based upon the
R:\STAFFRPTX3pA96.PC 2/28/96 Idb 34
plans in the near future for such service. Dial-a-ride services'~emain available in Temecula
for the elderly and disabled residents of the community." No significant impacts are
anticipated as a result of this project.
6.g.
The project will not result in impacts to rail, waterborne or air traffic since none exists
currently in the immediate proximity of the project. No significant impacts are anticipated
as a result of this project.
Biotoaical Resources
7.a,
The project will not result in an impact to endangered, threatened or rare species or their
habitats, including, but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals and birds. The project site
has been previously been used by a nursery (Rancho Roses) and soil remediation performed
after the use ceased operations. There are no native species of plants, no unique, rare,
threatened or endangered species of plants, no native vegetation on or adjacent to the site.
Further, there is no indication that any wildlife species exist at this location. The project will
not reduce the number of species, provide a barrier to the migration of animals or deteriorate
existing habitat. The project site is located within the Stephen's Kangaroo Rat Habitat Fee
Area. Habitat Conservation fees will be required to mitigate the effect of cumulative impacts
to the species. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
7.b.
The project will not result in an impact to locally designated species. Locally designated
species are protected in the Old Town Temecula Specific Plan; however, they are not
protected elsewhere in the City. Since this project is not located in Old Town, no significant
impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
7.e,
The project will not result in an impact to wildlife dispersal or migration corridors. The
project site does not serve as part of a migration corridor. It is in-fill single-family residential
development, surrounded by single-family residences. No significant impacts are anticipated
as a result of this project.
EnerQv and Mineral Resources
The project will not impact and/or conflict with adopted energy conservation plans. The
project will be reviewed for compliance with all applicable laws pertaining to energy
conservation during the plan check stage. No permits will be issued unless the project is
found to be consistent with these applicable laws. No significant impacts are anticipated as
a result of this project.
8.b.
The project will result in a less than significant impact for the use of non-renewable
resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner. While there will be an increase in the rate
of use of any natural resource and in the depletion of nonrenewable resource(s) (construction
materials, fuels for the daily operation, asphalt, lumber) and the subsequent depletion of
these non-renewable natural resources. Due to the scale of the proposed development,
these impacts are not seen as significant.
8,c,
The project will not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would
be of future value to the region and the residents of the State. No known mineral. resOurce
that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State are located at this
project site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
R:\STAFFRPT\3PA96.]~C 2/28196 klb 37
5.b.
The project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants. There are no significant
pollutants in proximity to the project. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of
this project.
The project will not alter air movement, moisture or temperature, or cause any change in
climate. The limited scale of the project precludes it from creating any significant impacts
on the environment in this area. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this
project.
5.d.
The project will create objectional odors during the construction phase of the project, These
impacts will be of short duration and are not considered significant.
Transportation/Circulation
6.8,
The project will result in a less than significant increase in vehicle trips; however it will add
to traffic congestion. The Focused Traffic Analysis prepared for the project (dated December
22, 1995 by Robert Kahn®John Kain & Associates, Inc.) states: "for opening year traffic
conditions with the project, the study area intersections (Winchester and Nicolas & N.
General Kearney and Nicolas), are projected to operate at Level of Service "B" or better
during peak hours." Goal I of the City of Temecula General Plan Circulation Element is:
"Strive to maintain a Level of Service "D" or better at all intersections within the City during
peak hours and Level of Service "C" during non-peak hours." This Goal is achieved during
the peak hour and it can be reasoned that the off-peak traffic will also be achieved (based
upon distribution of trips for single-family residential uses). The applicant will be required
to pay traffic signal mitigation fees and public facility fees as conditions of approval for the
project. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
6.b.
The project will not result in hazards to safety from design features. The project is designed
to current City standards and does not propose any hazards to safety from design features.
No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
The project will not result in inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses. The
project is in-fill single-family development, surrounded by single-family residences. The
project is designed to current City standards and has adequate emergency access. The
project does not provide direct access to nearby uses; therefore, it will not impact access
to nearby uses. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
6.d.
The project will have sufficient parking capacity on-site. The City of Temecula Development
Code requires two (2) enclosed parking spaces for single-family residences (Table 17.24(e)).
A Development Plan will be required for the single-family dwelling units (houses) and the Plan
will not be approved, nor a building permit issued until this requirement has been met. No
significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
6,e.
The project will not result in hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists. Hazards or
barriers to bicyclists have not been included as part of the project. No significant impacts
are anticipated as a result of this project.
6.f.
The project will not result in conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation. The project was transmitted to the Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) and their
response states: "The site is not currently served by fixed-route services and there are no
R:\STAFFRPT\3PA96.PC 2/28/96 klb 36
analysis shall be performed prior to the issuance of building permits and mitigation measures
will be included in the final siting and design of the residences. No significant impacts are
anticipated as a result of this project.
Public Services
11 .a,b.
The project will have a less than significant impact upon, or result in a need for new or
altered fire or police protection. The project will incrementally increase the need for fire and
police protection; however, it will contribute its fair share to the maintenance ,of service
provision from these entities. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this
project.
11.c.
The project will have a less than significant impact upon, or result in a need for new or
altered school facilities. The project will not cause significant numbers of people to relocate
within or to the City of Temecula and therefore will not result in a need for new or altered
school facilities. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
11.d.
The project will have a less than significant impact for the maintenance of public facilities,
including roads. Funding for maintenance of roads is derived from the Gasoline Tax which
is distributed to the City of Temecula from the State of California. Impacts to current and
future needs for maintenance of roads as a result of development of the site will be
incremental, however, they will not be considered significant. The Gasoline Tax is sufficient
to cover any of the proposed expenses.
11.e.
The project will not have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental
services. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
Utilities and Service Systems
12.a.
The project will not result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations
to power or natural gas. These systems are currently being delivered to the site. No
significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
12.b.
The project wilt not result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations
to communication systems (reference response No. 12oa.). No significant impacts are
anticipated as a result of this project.
12.c. The project will have a less than significant effect in the need for new systems or supplies,
or substantial alterations to local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities.
12.d.
The project will not result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations
to sanitary sewer systems or septic tanks. While the project will have an incremental impact
upon existing systems, the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the City's General
Plan states: "both EMWD and RCWD have indicated an ability to supply as much water as
is required in their services areas (p. 39)." The FEIR further states: "implementation of the
proposed General Plan would not significantly impact wastewater services (p. 40)." Since
the project is consistent with the City's General Plan, no significant impacts are anticipated
as a result of this project. There are no septic tanks on site or proximate to the site. No
significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
R:\STAFFRPT\3PA96.PC 2128/96 klb 39
Hazards
The project will not result in a risk of explosion, or the release of any hazardous substances
in the event of an accident or upset conditions since none are proposed in the request. The
same is true for the use, storage, transport or disposal of any hazardous or toxic materials.
Large quantities of these types of substances are not generally associated with residential
uses. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
9.b.
The project will not interfere with an emergency response plan or an emergency evaluation'
plan. The subject site is not located in an area which could impact an emergency response
plan. The project will take access from a maintained street and will therefore not impede any
emergency response or emergency evacuation plans. No significant impacts are anticipated
as a result of this project.
9.c,
The project will not result in the creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard.
The project will be reviewed for compliance with all applicable health laws during the plan
check stage. No permits will be issued unless the project is found to be consistent with
these applicable laws. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
9.d.
The project will not expose people to existing sources of potential health hazards. No health
hazards are known to be within proximity of the project. No significant impacts are
anticipated as a result of this project.
9.e.
The project will not result in an increase to fire hazard in an area with flammable brush,
grass, or trees. The project is in-fill single-family residential development, surrounded by
single-family residences. The project is not located within or proximate to a fire hazard area.
No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project,
Noise
10.a.
The proposal will result in increases to existing noise levels. The site is currently vacant and
development of the land logically will result in increases to noise levels during construction
phases as well as increases to noise in the area over the long run. Long term noise
generated by this project would be similar to the existing single-family residences in the area.
No significant noise impacts are anticipated as a result of this project in either the short or
long run.
10.b.
The project may expose people to severe noise levels and vibrations during the
development/construction phase (short run). Construction machinery is capable of producing
noise in the range of 100 + DBA at 100 feet which is considered very annoying and can
cause hearing damage from steady 8-hour exposure. This source of noise will be of short
duration and therefore will not be considered significant. The exposure to severe vibrations
will be of short duration and will also not be considered significant. Long-term exposure of
people from noise from Nicolas Road may occur; however it can be mitigated to a level less
than significant. Table 16 of the City's General Plan states that the Community Noise
Equivalent Level (CNEL), 100 feet from the centerline of Nicolas is 64ol CNEL at City
buildout. There is the potential for noise impacts to all of the lots adjacent to Nicolas Road;
however, none of the interior lots of the project will be affected. Table 8-4 (Land Use with
Noise Standards) establishes an interior standard of 45CNEL and an exterior Standard of
65CNEL. A noise analysis will be required as a condition of approval for the project. This
R:\STAFFRlfl~3PA96.PC 2/:28/96 Ub 38
14.e.
The project will not restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area.
No religious or sacred uses exist at the site or are proximate to the site. No significant
impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
Recreation
15.a,b.
The project will have a less than significant impact or increase in demand for neighborhood
or regional parks or other recreational facilities. The project will not cause significant
numbers of people to relocate within or to the City of Temecula. However, it will result in
an incremental impact or in an increase in demand for neighborhood or regional parks or
other recreational facilities. The same is true for the quality or quantity of existing
recreational resources or opportunities. Payment of Quimby Fees will be required for this
project and will be paid prior to the recordation of the final map. This will serve to mitigate
any impacts from the project on existing and future park facilities. No significant impacts
are anticipated as a result of this project.
R:\STAFFRPT\3PA96.PC 2/28/96 klb 41
12.e.
The proposal will result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to
storm water drainage. The project is in-fill, and will need to provide some additional on-site
drainage systems. The drainage system will be required as a condition of approval for the
project and will tie into the existing system. No significant impacts are anticipated as a
result of this project.
12.f.
The proposal will not result in a need for new systems or substantial alterations to solid
waste disposal systems. Any potential impacts from ~olid waste created by this
development can be mitigated through participation in any SoiJrce Reduction and Recycling
Programs which are implemented by the City. No significant impacts are anticipated as a
result of this project.
12.g.
The project will not result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations
to local or regional water supplies. Reference response 12.d. No significant impacts are
anticipated as a result of this project.
Aesthetics
13.a.
The project will not affect a scenic vista or scenic highway. The project is in-fill and is not
located in a area where there is a scenic vista. Further, the City does not have any
designated scenic highways. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this
project.
13,b.
The project will not have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect. The project is in-fill and
is consistent with adjacent single-family residential development. No significant impacts are
anticipated as a result of this project.
13.c.
The project will have a potentially significant impact from light and glare. The project will
produce and result in light/glare as all development of this nature results in new light
sources. All light and glare has the potential to impact the Mount Palomar Observatory. The
project will be conditioned to be consistent with Ordinance No. 655 (Ordinance Regulating
Light Pollution), No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
Cultural Resources
14.b,c.
The project will have a less than significant impact on archaeological and historical
resources. The site has been disturbed from the removal of foundations that remained after
the rose farm ceased operations. According to the transmittal from University of California
Riverside Eastern Information Center, the project site has not been surveyed for these
resources. Based upon the fact that the site has been disturbed, and that it is in-fill
development, it is unlikely that resources will be affected by the project. However, the
project will be conditioned to perform Class 1 Survey (which consists of records search and
field survey) prior to the issuance of a grading permit. No significant impacts are anticipated
as a result of this project.
14.d.
The project will not have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique
ethnic cultural values. Reference response 14.b,c. No significant impacts are anticipated
as a result of this project.
R:\STAFFlLl~\3PA96.PC 2/28/96 klb 40
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
R:\STAFFRFI~3PA96.PC 2/28/96 IrJb 42
Z
,~
z ~ ~ ~)
Z
0
0
<
.<
~u u ~
0
< <
z ~ ~
< <
< < <
z ~ ~
< < <
OZ
SO
< <
< < <
< <
Z
Z
0 0
~ ~ z ~
~ ~ z
~ ~ z ~
Z
O~
< < <
~ ~ z
Z
0
< < <
~ z ~
< < <
~ z ~
< < <
< < <
< < < <
z ~ ~ z
Z
<
< ~
~ z
< <
< <
.<
.< < <
z ~ ~
Z
Z~
OZ
.~o
~:~ <
Z
< <
< <
.<
~ ~ z z ~ z
~ z ~ ~ z
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
EXHIBITS
R:\STAFFRPT\3PA96.PC 2/28/96 klb 62
CITY OF TEMECULA
SITE
EXHIBIT B - ZONING MAP
DESIGNATION - LM (LOW MI~;i}IUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL 3-6 DU PER ACRE)
./
M
./~,,j~ ./""x.,/---- LM
vL
/-,,..~ ·
/ '7 .
EXHIBIT C - GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION - LM (LOW MKnIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL 3-6 DU PER ACRE)
CASE NO. - PA96-0003
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - MARCH 3, 1996
R:\STAFFRPT~3pA96.PC 2114196 klb
CITY OF TEMECULA
~a.¢,.~o9
'TRAC,'T
CASE NO. - PA96-4)003
EXHIBIT- A
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - MARCH 4, 199~
VICINITY MAP
R:\STAFFRFTBPA96.PC 2/14/96 rib
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO. - PA96-0003
EXHIRIT - D TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 28309
°LANNING COMMISSION DATE - MARCH 3, 1996
R:\FORlVIS\STAFFP~'r.PC 2123196 klb
ITEM//14
PROJECT STATISTICS
Total Area - Village "A": 472 acres.
Existing Dwelling Units Allowed: 2,000
Proposed Number of Dwelling Units: 1,666
BACKGROUND
Specific Plan No, 199 - Margarita Village was approved by the County Board of SupervisOrs
in 1988. Vesting Tentative Tract Maps (VTTM 23371, ~/I I M 23372 and V'I'rM 23373) were
originally approved in 1988 for Village "A" of Specific Plan No. 199. Village "A" comprises
the "Temeku" portion of the Specific Plan end was approved as "Retirement Oriented
Housing." The final map for VTTM 23371 has been divided into fifteen phases. Five (5) of
the phases have been recorded. Based upon Staff's research, V I I M 23371 expired in 1995.
Both VTTM 23372 and VTTM 23373 have three one year extensions of time granted by the
City of Temecula. There has been litigation on this project for several years and subsequently,
the project was put on hold. Due to this litigation, VTTM 23372 and VTTM 23373 have been
granted an extension of time and both maps will expire in 1998. Since all underlying maps
are Vesting Tentative Tract Maps they have approved residential products.
The subject applications were submitted to the Planning Department on February 7, 1996.
Because of limited scale of the changes to the project, no Development Review Committee
(DRC) meeting was held.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Plannine APPlication NO. PA96-0019 (Specific Plan No. 199 - Zonina Amendment)
The Zoning Amendment proposes the removal of the "Retirement Oriented Housing"
restriction. Further, the Amendment proposes that language contained in the Specific Plan
zoning for Planning Areas No. 38 and 40 be deleted and replaced with standards and uses that
would be compatible with Medium Density Residential Uses (reference Attachment No. 4).
Lastly, language in the Specific Plan is being modified to reflect the City of Temecula, not
Riverside County.
Plannin~l Aoolication NO. PA96-0020 (General Plan Amendment)
An Amendment to the City of Temecula General Plan Land Use Map from High Density
Residential (13-20 dwelling units per acre) to Medium Density Residential (7-12 dwelling units
per acre) for Planning Areas No. 38 and 40 of Specific Plan No. 199.
ANALYSIS
Removal of the "Retirement Oriented Housina" Restriction
The applicant is requesting that the "Retirement Oriented Housing" restriction be removed.
This restriction was included on the project as part of the overall plan for Margarite Village.
Staff met with the applicant prior to their purchase of the property and expressed that the City
would support the removal of the age restriction. The removal of the age restriction is also
R:~TAFFRFfXIgPA96.1~C 2/2g~6 vg.w 2
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
March 4, 1996
Planning Application No. PA96-0019 (Specific Plan No. 199 - Zoning Amendment)
Planning Application No. PA96-0020 (General Plan Amendment) - "Temeku"
Prepared By: Matthew Fagan, Associate Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Department Staff recommends the. Planning
Commission:
ADOPT Resolution No. 96- recommending approval of
PA96-0019 (Specific Plan No. 199 - Zoning Amendment)
based upon the Analysis and Findings contained in the
Staff Report, subject to the attached conditions of
approval; and
ADOPT Resolution No. 96- recommending approval of
PA96-0020 (General Plan Amendment) based upon the
Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report.
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
McMillen Project Services, Inc.
REPRESENTATIVE:
T&B
PROPOSAL:
Amendment to Specific Plan No. 199 (Margarita Village)
removing the Retirement Oriented Housing Restriction; changing
the land use designation from very-high density residential to
medium-high density residential for Planning Areas No. 38 and
40; providing amended development standards for these Planning
Areas and replacing references to Riverside County in the text;
and an amendment to the City of Temecula General Plan Land
Use Map from High Density Residential to Medium Density
Residential for Planning Areas No. 38 and 40 of Specific Plan No.
199
LOCATION:
North of Rancho California Road, east of Margarita Road, South
of La Serena Way and west of Meadows Parkway
EXISTING ZONING:
Specific Plan
Residential for Planning Areas No. 38 and 40 of Specific Plan No. 199.
FINDINGS
Plannino Application NO. PA96-0019 (Soecific Plan No. 199- ZoninQ Amendment)
Planning Application No. PA96-0019 (Specific Plan No. 199 - Zoning Amendment), as
proposed, is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community.
Planning Application No. PA96-0019 (Specific Plan No. 199 - Zoning Amendment) is
consistent with the City's General Plan, due to the fact that the subject request is in
substantial conformance with Specific Plan No. 199 - Margarita Village.
The project is compatible with surrounding land uses. The project consists of the
removal of the Retirement Oriented Housing Restriction on Village "A" of Specific Plan
No. 199 - Margarita Village. Ultimate development of the site will be residential
development in an area that is comprised of a variety of sizes of residences.
The proposal will not have an adverse effect on surrounding property, because it does
not represent a significant change to the planned land use of the area, due to the fact
that the proposed land use is consistent with the overall concept of Specific Plan No.
199.
The changes proposed in the approved Specific Plan are minor and do not increase the
impacts associated with the development or the overall intensity of the development
as analyzed in Environmental Impact Report 202. The mitigation measures prepared
for this Environmental Impact Report (EIR) will be applied to this project.
Plannine AoDlication No. PA96-0020 (General Plan Amendment)
Planning Application No. PA96-0020 (General Plan Amendment), as proposed, is
compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community.
Planning Application No. PA96-0020 (General Plan Amendment) is consistent with the
City's General Plan, due to the fact that the subject request is in substantial
conformance with Specific Plan No. 199 - Margarita Village,
The project is compatible with surrounding land uses. The project consists of the an
amendment to the General Plan Land Use Plan for Planning Areas No. 38 and 40 of
Specific Plan No. 199 - Margarita Village from High Density Residential to Medium
Density Residential. Ultimate development of the site will be residential development
in an area that is comprised of a variety of sizes of residences.
The proposal will not have an adverse effect on surrounding property, because it does
not represent a significant change to the planned land use of the area, due to the fact
that the proposed land use is consistent with the overall concept of Specific Plan No.
199.
5. The changes proposed in the approved Specific Plan are minor and do not increase the
a condition of purchase between parties and must be fulfilled prior to escrow closing for the
purchase of the property by McMillen Project Services, Inc.
Traffic
The applicant has conducted a focused traffic analysis to determine the overall effect to traffic
from changes to the originally approved project (reference Attachment No. 5). Traffic
generated by the retirement component of the Plan is less than that of non-retirement. The
analysis concludes that the reduction in density plus the removal of the age restriction would
result in less traffic generation and less traffic impact than is currently contemplated in the
General Plan Circulation Element,
Effect of General Plan Amendment on the Citv's Housine Element
The City of Temecula's Housing Element was certified by the State of California when the
General Plan was adopted in 1993. Changes to the Land Use Map may result in potential
changes to the approved Housing Element. With a reduction in density in Planning Areas No.
38 and 40, the potential exists to effect the City's Housing Element.
EXISTING ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION
Current zoning of the project site is SP (Specific Plan). The project is not requesting to change
this designation. The General Plan Land Use Designation for Planning Areas No. 38 and 40
is currently High Density Residential (13-20 dwelling units per acre). Planning Application No.
PA96-0020 is · request to change the designation to Medium Density Residential (7-12
dwelling units per acre).
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Environmental Impact Report No. 202 was prepared for Specific Plan No. 199 and was
certified by the County Board of Supervisors. It has been eight (8) years since the
environmental analysis was performed for this project. It is Staff's opinion that due to the
limited scope of the proposed Zoning Amendment, there will be no effect on the previous
analysis. According to Section 21166 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), no
subsequent or supplemental environmental impact report is required for the project unless one
or more of the following events occurs: substantial changes are proposed in the project which
will require major revisions of the EIR; substantial changes occur with respect to circumstance
under which the project is being undertaken which will require major revisions in the EIR; or,
new information, which was not known at the time of the EIR was certified and complete
becomes available. None of these situations have occurred; therefore, no further
environmental analysis is required.
SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS
The project is a proposal to amend Specific Plan No. 199 (Margarita Village) removing the
Retirement Oriented Housing Restriction; changing the land use designation from very high
density residential to medium-high density residential for Planning Areas No. 38 and 40;
providing amended development standards for these Planning Areas and replacing references
to Riverside County in the text. The project also proposes an Amendment to the City of
Temecula General Plan Land Use Map from High Density Residential to Medium Density
impacts associated with the development or the overall intensity of the development
as analyzed in Environmental Impact Report 202, The mitigation measures prepared
for this Environmental Impact Report (EIR) will be applied to this project.
Attachments:
3.
4.
5,
6.
PC Resolution - Blue Page 6
A. Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 10
PC Resolution - Blue Page 12
Proposed Specific Plan Text Changes - Blue Page 16
Proposed Specific Plan Ordinance Changes - Blue Page 17
Traffic Letter from Wilbur Smith Associates - Blue Page 18
Exhibits - Blue Page 19
A. Vicinity Map
B. Zoning Map
C. General Plan Map
D. Existing Specific Plan Land Use
E. Proposed Specific Plan Land Use
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
RESOLUTION NO. 96-
R:~TAFFRP~19PA96.PC 2/2~/96 vlw 6
3. The project is compatible with surrounding land uses. The project consists
of the removal of the Retirement Oriented Housing Restriction on Village *A* of Specific Plan
No. 199 - Margarita Village. Ultimate development of the site will be residential development
in an area that is comprised of a variety of s'~es of residences.
4. The proposal will not have an adverse effect on surrounding property,
because it does not represent a significant change to the planned land use of the area, due to the
fact that the proposed land use is consistent with the overall concept of Specific Plan No. 199.
5. The changes proposed in the approved Specific Plim are minor and do not
increase the impacts associated with the development or the overall intensity of the development
as analyzed in Environmental Impact Report 202. The mitigation measures prepared for this
Environmental Impact Report 0ilR) will be applied to this project.
Section 3. Environmental Compliance. Environmental Impact Report No. 202 was
prepared for Specific Plan No. 199 and was certified by the County Board of Supervisors. It
has been eight (8) years since the environmental analysis was performed for this project. It is
Staffs opinion that due to the limited scope of the proposed Zoning Amendment, there will be
no effect on the previous analysis. According to Section 21166 of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA), no subsequent or supplemental environmental impact report is required for
the project unless one or more of the following events occurs: substantial changes are proposed
in the project which will require major revisions of the EIR; substantial changes occur with
respect to circumstance under which the project is being undertaken which will require major
revisions in the EIR; or, new information, which was not known at the time of the EIR was
certified and complete becomes available. None of these situations have occurred; therefore,
no further environmental analysis is required.
Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby
recommends approval of Planning Application No. PA96-0019 (Specific Plan No. 199 - Zoning
Amendment) on property generally located north of Rancho California Road, east of Margarita
Road, south of La Serena Way and west of Meadows Parkway, subject to the following
conditions:
A. Exhibit A, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference and made
a part hereof.
R:~STAFFRP~19pA~6.PC 2/28196 v~v 8
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
RESOLI.rrION NO. 96-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL
OF PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA96-0019 (SPECIFIC
PLAN NO. 199 - ZONING AMENDMENT) ON PROPERTY
GENERALLY LOCATED NORTH OF RANCHO
CALIFORNIA ROAD, EAST OF MARGARITA ROAD,
SOUTH OF LA SERENA WAY AND WEST OF MEADOWS
PARKWAY
WHEREAS, McMillen Project Services, Inc. filed Planning Application No. P A96-0019
(Specific Plan No. 199 - Zoning Amendment) in accordance with the City of Temecula General
Plan and Riverside County Land Use and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted
by reference;
WF/EREAS, Planning Application No. PA96-0019 (Specific Plan No. 199 - Zoning
Amendmeno was processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law;
WIq~REAS, the Harming Commission considered Planning Application No, PA96-0019
(Specific Plan No. 199 - Zoning Amendment) on March 4, 1996, at a duly noticed public
hearing as prescribed by law, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify
either in support or in opposition;
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and
arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, the Commission considered all facts
relating to Planning Application No. PA96-0019 (Specific Plan No. 199 - Zoning Amendment);
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct.
Section 2. ~
A. The Planning Commission in recommending approval of Planning Application No.
PA96-0019 (Specific Plan No. 199 - Zoning Amendment), makes the following findings, to wit:
1. Planning Application No. PA96-0019 (Specific Plan No. 199 - Zoning
Amendment), as proposed, is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community.
2. Planning Application No. PA96-0019 (Specific Plan No. 199 - Zoning
Amendmen0 is consistent with the City's General Plan, due to the fact that the subject request
is in substantial conformante with Specific Plan No. 199 - Margaxita Village.
Section ~. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOFrED this 4th day of March, 19~6.
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was du~y adopted by the Planning
Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 4th day of March,
1996 by the following vote of the Commission:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
NOES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
DEBBIE UBNOSKE
SECRETARY
~WFAFFRPTxI9pA96.PC 2/28/9~ q~v 9
EXtIIBIT A
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
R:~TAFFRF~I9PA96.PC 2/28/96
CITY OF TEIVIECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
planning Application No. PA96-0019 (Specific Plan No. 199 - Zonln~ Amendment)
Project Description: Amend Specific Plan No. 199 (Margarita Village), removing
the Retirement Oriented Housing Restriction from Village s A s
Approval Date:
Expiration Date:
PLANNING DEPARTIVIENT
General Requirements
The developer/applicant shall indemnify, protect, defend, and hold harmless, the City and
any agency or instrumentality thereof, and/or any of its officers, employees and agents
from any and all claims, actions, or proceedings against the City, or any agency or
instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers, employees and agents, to attack, set aside,
void, annul, or seek monetary damages resulting from an approval of the City, or any
agency or instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body
including actions approved by the voters of the City, concerning the Planning Application
No. PA96-0019 (Zoning Amendment - Specific Plan No. 199) which action is brought
within the appropriate statute of limitations period and Public Resources Code, Division
13, Chapter 4 (Section 21000 et sea., including but not by the way of limitations Section
21152 and 21167). City shall promp~y notify the developer/applicant of any claim,
action, or proceeding brought within this time period. City shall further cooperate fully
in the defense of the action. Should the City fail to either promptly notify or cooperate
fully, developer/applicant shall not, thereafter be responsible to indemnify, defend,
protect, or hold harmless the City, any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its
officers, employees, or agents.
The applicant shall comply with all underlying conditions of approval for Specific Plan
No. 199, and its amendments, unless superseded by these conditions of approval.
3. The amendment to the Specific Plan text shall conform with Attachment No. 3.
4. The amendment to the Specific Plan Ordinance shall conform with Attachment No. 4.
Within Thirty (30) Days From the Second Reading of The Ordinance Approving the
Amendment
5. The applicant shall submit the Amended Specific Plan text to the Planning Department.
R:~TAFPRPT~I9PA96.PC 2/28/96
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
RESOLUTION NO. 96-
R:~TAFFP, P~I9PA96.PC 2/28/96 vgw 12
2. Planning Application No. PA96-0020 (General Plan AmendmenO is
consistent with the City's General Plan, due to the fact that the subject request is in substantial
conformante with Specific Plan No. 199 - Margarita Village.
3. The project is compatible with surrounding land uses. The project consists
of an amendment to the General Plan Land Use Plan for Planning Areas No. 38 and 40 of
Specific Plan No. 199 - Margarita Village from High Density Residential to Medium Density
Residential. Ultimate development of the site will be residential development in an area that is
comprised of a variety of sizes of residences.'
4. The proposal will not have an adverse effect on surrounding property,
because it does not represent a significant change to the planned land use of the area, due to the
fact that the proposed land use is consistent with the overall concept of Specific Plan No. 199.
5. The changes proposed in the approved Specific Plan are minor and do not
increase the impacts associated with the development or the overall intensity of the development
as analyzed in Environmental Impact Report 202. The mitigation measures prepared for this
Environmental Impact Report (F/R) will be applied to this project.
Section 3. Environmental Compliance. Environmental Impact Report No. 202 was
prepared for Specific Plan No. 199 and was certified by the County Board of Supervisors. It
has been eight (8) years since the environmental analysis was performed for this project. It is
Staffs opinion that due to the limited scope of the proposed Zoning Amendment, there will be
no effect on the previous analysis. According to Section 21166 of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA), no subsequent or supplemental environmental impact report is required for
the project unless one or more of the following events occurs: substantial changes are proposed
in the project which w'ffi require major revisions of the EIR; substantial changes occur with
respect to circumstance under which the project is being undertaken which will require major
revisions in the EIR; or, new information, which was not known at the time of the EIR was
certified and complete becomes available. None of these situations have occurred; therefore,
no further environmental analysis is required.
R:~T~I9PA96.PC 2/28/96
ATrACHlvffiNT NO. 2
RF_~OLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL
OFPLANNING APPLICATIONNO. PA96-0020, CHANGING
THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION ON
PLANNING AREAS NO. 38 AND 40 OF SPECIFIC PLAN
NO. 199 FROM HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (1320
DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) TO MF-IHUM DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL (7-12 DWF-LLING UNITS PER ACRE) ON
PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED NORTH OF RANCHO
CALIFORNIA ROAD, EAST OF MARGARITA ROAD,
SOUTH OF LA SERENA WAY AND WEST OF MEADOWS
PARKWAY
WHEREAS, McMillen Project Services, Inc. filed Planning Application No. PA96-0020
(General Plan Amendment) in accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Riverside
County Land Use and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference;
WHEREAS, Planning Application No. PA96-0020 (General Plan Amendment) was
processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application No. PA96-(K)20
(General Plan Amendment) on March 4, 1996, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed
by law, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or in
opposition;
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and
arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, the Commission considered all facts
relating to Planning Application No. PA96-0020 (General Plan Amendment);
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct.
Section 2. ~
A. The Planning Commission in recommending approval of planning Application No.
PA96-0020 (General Plan Amendment), makes the following findings, to wit:
I. Planning Application No. PA96-0020 (General Plan Amendmen0,
as proposed, is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community.
]k~TAFFRF~I9PAg~.PC 1l~g/~ vlw ~ 3
Section 4. PASSF-D, APPROVED AND ADOFFED this 4th day of March, 1996.
CHAIRMAN
I J:FF. RI~.By CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning
Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, h~'ld on the 4th day of March,
1996 by the following vote of the Commission:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
NOES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
DEBBIE UBNOSKE
SECRETARY
l~:~TAFFRF~I9pA96.1~ 2r~8/9~ ~ '~ ~
A'ITACHMENT NO. 3
PROPOSED SPECIFIC PLAN TEXT CHANGES
R:~TAFFRPT~I9PAg~.PC 2F28/9~ ~ '[ ~
Page 14, Fifth Paragraph. A~.ti,,g ,:~ a ,illage ,.,.,,~. fo, the. Ranch~ VilI.~s,.~
CumlBdfiit3,, it i~ anticipated Mm$~ita Villag~ ~ill be a pOpulatiOn hub f~, Randtu Villag~
Rand~u Callful aia as a whole, including ~3id~atial a~d ~,npluym~nt uses. Cuttti.u~d phased
de~dupm~ut uf ~hct ~dt~itly ~a~allt Ot latched Fu, tiO,l~ Of th~ Randtu Villag~ Platm~d
Cummunity ~ill i~huda~ furthai roball u~, a~umpaui~d b~ population 3~u~th i. tile
dc~lupm~at g~iiod Bum I980-2000. La,,d ua.~ ~;thi. Ra.d~u Villag.~ m~ ~,~F~tcd tu
ill phaa~ 3u that Fu~ulation will alsu S~ at a ~casonabl~
Page 15. Second Paragraph. The land use plan for MARGARITA VILLAGE conforms to the
Vill~ Concept ~f d~dop.,~.t as F,~a~d i~, ~¢ Rauch~ Villag~ NI;~) Planland rises
identified in Land Use Element of ~e Ci~ of Temecula ~neml Plan. The la,,d us~
coinblue3 tcaidc~tial, ~Omm~t~ial qaasi-~blic, og~. spa~ mid t~x~atloli u~ wlthi.
cu,,,p, ~l~ca~i, ~ G, colalion. publl. hGllti~s, lag a~h ubtug, phasillg, and maitlt~t~an~c pl u$t
The ma5o, ity of the site features a "~get" to~l of 2,381 4,~7 uniu of faily-o~ented residential
uses, p, u~ided ~aghodt the oute~ purlions ~thc pi~p~,ty in low, medium, medium-high and
high densities (~ 2.9 d~ac overall). Reti~,,,~,a o, ica~d houM.$ i~ .o,i~hh at.d aremid a golf
~uut~c i. the ,,o~tl~t~,~ p~t of ~,c gaupcaty, with a "t&g~t' rural of 2,000 d. {u~cx.ll d~sity
uf 7.1 da/a~). Two commercial sites, two element~ schools, a church site, a school
adminiswation sire, a post office site, ~ee neighborhood p~g ad a ,~[h~,,,~fit recreation center
are also proposed as pm of the masmr plan. (See Figure II-3a, Specific Land Use Plan/.
Page 15. Fifth Paragraph. To reflect anticipated marketing needs and public demand by
providing a diversity of housing types and locations which will be marketable within
C.lif,,..ia the City of Temecula.
Page 18. First Paragraph. To provide land uses that extend and are consistent with ongoing
development in the m ha. ,.u, ,. ,if Raneho Call f,.,, .i,:City of Ternecula and which comply with the
land use designations and policies in the City's General Plan, whi~.h
R,~.~.ho Vill.~;~.~ Polie. y Plan.
Page 18. Second Paragraph. To provide detached and attached, high-quality housing to service
family, m&k,.t ,at~ a broad market segment including but not limited to fu'st-time, move-up,
growing family, and retirement buyers.
Page 18, Seventh Paragraph. To provide an aesthetic and functional open space system that
responds to site conditions in its configuration and to anticipated demands of existing and future
Ra,ld,o Calif,,,,,ia City of Temecula residents.
Page 18. Eighth Paragraph. The Margarita Village project was originally processed thyough
Riverside County and was adopted by the Board of Supervisors prior to incorporation of the City
ofTemecula. A~ a,,,m~cd .~tl, County of Ri~.,~ide st,~ff. Eenvironmental information ....
Page 21. Fourth Paragraph. Reflect anticipated marketing needs and public demand by
providing a range of housing types which will be marketable within the developing economic
profile of the Cuunty of Ri ~ ¢.~ ~id=, i. taa~ ti,.ula~ Rand~o Califo, ,,iaCity of Temecula.
Page 22. First Paragraph. incorporate projected regional circulation requirements as indicated
in the Riv,., ~id~. County Mast~ Plan of I IighwaysCirculation Element of the City of Temecula
General Plan.
MARGARITA VILLAGE - PROPOSED SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2
Page A-2
Proposed Specific Plan Changes R E C E l V E O
FE8 0 7
The following is a description of all the text and ~aphic changes that would be req~.i.n..o.r.d.e..r.t9 delete
the requirement for retirement-oriented housing in MARGARITA VILLAGE and update the Specific Plan
document accordingly. For clarity, we have also changed all "County" references to "City of Temecula."
Italicized text indicates commentary by T&.B. Normal text indicates text quoted directly from the adopted
MARGARITA VILLAGE Specific Plan, while redline text (i.e.. rodline) indicates proposed text additions and
strikeout text (i.e.. ~i~ ik,.,,.~t) indicates proposed text deletions.
Page 2. Retirement Area (Village "A"). Change the heading to read.' b. Village "A. ;' Also,
change the text under item "b." to read as follows: "Village 'A' is planned to provide a variety
of housing types which will appeal to various segments of the housing market including but not
limited to first-time home buyera, move-up families, empty-nesters, and retirees.
Page 11.11Rancho California and Rancho Villages Relationship. The MARGARITA VILLAGE
project site is located on 1.399.1 acres in the h~..ut of RAjl~ho Califojnla..u, cmin~,~pu~at~d
97,500-,~,c plmm,.d ~.u~,uwhlity in ~,,. ~outh,.,~.~,u ~.~.,,~., ofRi ~c. sid~ Coui, tyCity of Temecula
in Riverside County, California. The City of Temecula encompasses approximately 26 square
miles, and its Sphere of lnfluence covers another 24 square miles. The City was incorporated on
December I, 1989. Extending along both sides of Interstate 15. Ra,~eh,, Callfo..i. Temecula is
located within five miles of the Riverside-San Diego County line and approximately 20 miles
from the Riverside-Orange County line. (See Figure ILl, Site Location.) It is bounded on the
west by the coastal Santa Ana Mountains separating Orange from Riverside County and on the
south by the Santa Margarita and Aqua Tibia Mountains which separates Rancho Calif6, ,,i.~ .~,,d
th,. ~,~udi,,~; v'-', ti,.,,,~ of Ri ...,~i& County the City of Temecula from San Diego County. The
.~,..City is located about 75 miles south of Los Angeles and 55 miles north of San Diego.
Pages 11 & 14. Various sections of Ran,.ho C.dif'c,,.d.the City are being developed for urban
use. including the villagd~..b.. ,.~ area encompassing MARGARITA VILLAGE. (See Figure 11-2.
Vicinity Map). This ,illage ,.ore i~ ~..n~.-O,hpa~t.d b)' d~., Raheho VillAge PlAm,,.d ,.~,,~,,wh~ity,
~, hlch is d~si~,a,.d fu~ .~ix~d uaban a.~d uF~u ~pa~c u~ in th~ hc~t uf Ran~hu Califol~ia. The
~ot,~ i.~lu~s ~sidcntial ~ ia c~hy-oi i~.~d villag~ at,d ]uw density ~eas, ~m~.~t ~ial
alld light induShial c6ll~t~ along maim tuu~s. ~d a~ti~ultmal land a~d ~.~a~on~ ~at~ in
oatly i.~ ~. Cu~ently, develo~d uses wi~in ~,.~ho Villa~, ~ a whole, ~e vicini~ of ~e
projectsira include residential. commerci~ and indus~al uses. The M~g&it~ Village Spc~ifi~
Plan p~OF~t ty i~ Fosltion~d to ~ ,~ .~ a villag~ u~ u~ba~ ~utc B~ th~ &,~luVi~g ~umma.xity as
ELgure II-1. Vicinity Map. This exhibit will be revised to eliminate the "Rancho California"
call-out.
Page 14. Second Paragraph. The site itself is rimmed by Margarita Road on the west. La Serena
Way to the north, proposed Butterfield Stage Road on the east, and the easterly extension of
Rancho Vista Road (u,ad~, ~.~,.~h~ctiou) on the south. The site can also be accessed via South
General Kearny and Rancho California Roads. running east-west through the site. The property
is a mile and a half east of the I-15/Rancho California Road Interchange;:.. 12 miles west of Vail
Lake; 4 miles north of the east-west extension of Highway 79; and 8 miles south of Lake Skinner.
1VIARGARITA VILLAGE - PROPOSED SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2
Page A- 1
use in the neighboring La Serena and Meadowview developments. (See Figure II-2. Vicinity
Map.) Medium low density sections south of Rancho California Road and north of Rancho Vista
Road are intended to be compatible with adjacent residential land uses and the school uses located
south of the project site, These Planning Areas will provide a range of housing, from custom
single family lots to multi-f...ily .tt.~.h~-d small lot single family units. The lowest densities
provided in areas along the site's eastern boundary are planned to buffer Cat,.gu,~ III (Rtural-)
land uses east of Butterfield Stage Road.
Page 30. First Paragraph. This paragraph will be deleted in its entireD'.
Page 30. Second Paragraph. Village 'A' in the southwestern portion of the project 'site will
contain 1.666 of the 4,047 dwelling units planned on-site. The residential development in Village
'A' will consist of a The. ,~-..aind,.~ of th,. h~,u~ing, 2.000 dwelllag u.it~ u. 470 a~.~.~ ~ ill
,.ont.~i.~.d iath,. centralized, self-contained, security-oriented ~.ti,,..,~..t ,~.~ neighborhood ~ ~lich
offers attached and detached units clustered around an 18-hole golf course. (S~.~. Fisal~ II-5.
R~.ticc,.~.,tt Area Illu~t..ti~...) The x~ii~...a~,il 472-acre village ,.~,...mfit~, will also offer
recreation opportunities at the clubhouse/recreation facility. Village 'A' Th,.
~.um,uufil;-y iS designed for compatibility with the Heritage Mobilehome Park now located on a
"Not a Part" parcel in the northwestern corner of the project site. If th,. hou~iilg m,uk~.t
it ~ill .or ~u~'l~uxt CCtiC~,~.nt artits, ..hkct ~at~. ~.~i&.utial use *ill b~- p~x:,pos~.d iu the.
~.ti~,..~..t acca, with ~i.~ilo~ den~iti~.~ .h~d the. ~m.~. m,~i.~um d~,~.lli.g a.it ~.Ohnt. 2,000. (Ill thi~
~ ~'~.t, a SpcGfi~ Pla. A.~ad.~.t .,~ b~ ~qai~d.)
Pe_.age_.3~ The y~uposcd xeti,~,.cnt co...dnlt:, at Village 'A' ~ MARGARITA VILLAGE will
combine residential and recreation uses in a~ development which is i.dcp~.d~nt li~i.g
cn~i, omllc~t for sc,~io~ Gti~.~. The ~ommu,~ity will b~ planned and operated to create a true
"sense of ~omum,dty" nei~borh~d" ~r sc,,io, s ~ng a sc~.,~ liE~t~I~ in an aesthetic.
socially-oriented seuing. Atta~l~d
apm h~e~lB ut ~undomi~lium~ wi~i d~.sitie~ uFtu 20
i. ~ious ~a~ d fl~ co.u.anit]. Earl, aFm hn~lt ~ill ~a~,~ a di.iug &ld li.i.s morn, kitd~c.,
bath a,~d ~.t~.,pot&y
plam~cd a~ eOti~cgai~ ~m~ f~Gliti~, ~.~iti~S ma~ ~a~h 30 da/a~. Lower density auached
housing will be provided bY eight-plex, six-plex, Bur-plex, ~-plex ~d duplex products. Single
f~ily houses offering vmed floor plans will be available ~ patio home or convention~ single
hmily detached products in all Planning Areas. The ~eti~,.~.t ~o,...auity village will focus
around the golf course and hcilities at the activiW or recreation center. Re~ea~onal
oOppomnities ~so will be available outdoors at a swimming pool and spa. The activity center
will serve as an nei~borhood educational and social hub, offering a v~e~ of recreational
social facilities. such
~a~d ,uo..~. A di.,ing ~Olll/l~3ta~tallt &~& Ol ~a~Al ~f¢ may bc located at th~ ~.[~, tu solve
uummd~ity ~=~idcnts. A uummd~llty admi~i~hatiOl~ma~k~ti~g Of~uC ~ill b~ louatud insld~ the
gatcd uommunlt), and 24-huut ~uumity a~d "visi~t ~u~uuidfi~" sui vluu$ ~ill bc pluGdud.
Maximum Units
As noted in Table II-1, Project Summary. a maximum number of dwelling units has been
assigned to each Planning Area within MARGARITA VILLAGEthe. Foa.ily and R~.ti,~.,.~.,lt
That number is based on a target density for each Planning Area. Based on Co~.,~ty ,., it~.fia, a A
range is given for each Planning Area based on the maximum proposed number of dwelling units
NIARGARITA VILLAGE - PROPOSED SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2
Page A-4
Page 22. Second Paragraph. Create a safe and attractive community that will be an asset to
Ri ~crsldc County .~.d th,. R,m,.ho Califo.da ,.,,,,u.anlty the City of Temecula. Sound structural
design practices and energy conservation measures will be encouraged.
Page 22. Third Para~,mph. The Margarita Village project is primarily residential in nature. an
extension of existing and planned development occurring in Ra.,.ho Califo, .in the City to the
north. south, and west. Specific uses proposed on the 1,339. l-acre site include: residential
(f,m,ily a.d rcti,,.,n,.nt u,.it~), commercial, open space slopes, a golf course with club-
houseA eli~ .......i recreation center, park sites, elementary schools, a church. a school administra-
tion headquarters, a post office, and major roads that frame the project site. (See Table II-i,
Project Summary and Figure 1I-3, Specific Land Use Plan.)
Page 22. Sixth Paragraph. and Page 27. The western Village Core area along Margarita Road.
is proposed north-south. in an oblong shape between South General Kearny and Rancho Vista
Roads. It contains village support uses, including a public park site in the northwestern corner
east of Margarita Road, and higher density family (medium and medium-low density) a,;d
,,.Liar. racist Juulti-f.u.il~ &,,~it.y neighborhoods along that arterial. As noted in Section II.A.I.,
a major commercial use is planned just west of Margarita Road across from the site, at Rancho
California Road, tying in with this Village Core created in Margarita Village. A middle school
site is also planned in this development area west of Margarita Road. In addition, an eastern
Village Core within Planning Area B is identified just south of La Serena Way in the eastern half
of the site. The eastern Village Core lies in the middle of the site, at the intersection of Rancho
California Road and th,. u,,a~.~d not~,-sou~, ,~,utc i. that ~a~.a. Meadows Parkway (just south
of the conceptual core shown in Planning Area B). This area contains two commercial centers,
located to serve MARGAR1TA VILLAG~ residents ef the. t...tlx~.tm. nt a.d f,~dly ~,.~id,..tial a~cas.
The centers are located bctw'ec,l ~c tcti~.~.~.ut ~.o.uw~aity a.d luw and .,,~diu.Mow dcnsity
~.scsat the. intersection of Raneho~:C..alifornia Road and Meadows Parkway. The 7.0-acre
commercial site on the northwestern comer of the intersection will be accessible to residents of
file ~.G.,.m~.,,t co.aml.ity Village 'A' without entering the public roadway system. The central
portion of MARGARITA VILLAGE is formed by a ,,~ti.,..,,h,t family-oriented residential community,
containing a range of detached and attached housing types. Th,.
i. 17ig~.. 1I-5, Reti,~.m,.,t A/ca Ill,.shati,,.. Medium and medium-low density family-oriented
units are located along the southern edge of the site, between Rancho California and Rancho
Vista Roads. The ,~th~m,~nt ,.o...~mdt.~ ,esidential;development inVillage 'A' is situated around
a golf course, which features a number of lakes and watercourses throughout.
Page 23. Table II-1. Project Summary. This table has been revised,' see attached revised Table
II-1.
Pages 24-25. Table II-2. Detailed Land Use Summary. This table has been revised; see
attached revised Table 11-2 (2 pages total).
Page 28. Figure II-5. Retirement Area Illustrative. This figure will be deleted.
Page 29. Second Paragraph. As indicated in Table II-1, Project Summary and in Table II-2,
Detailed Land Use Summary that follows, there are 2.31t 14,047 dwelling units d
h~,u~i.g on 622.C, 896.7 acres. Densities in residential areas east, south, and west of
,~ti~,.,.,.,,t hhb Village 'A' range from Low (.04-2 du/ac) to High (8-14 du/ac) use. The lower
density residential areas in the northeastern sector are planned to blend with existing residential
MARGARITA VILLAGE - PROPOSED SPECIHC PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2
Page A-3
Pedestrian walkways adjacent to roadways will extend from th,..Gghbud,,.,od ,cti~,.m,.,xt Village
'A' and multi-family housing to the neighboring commercial sites at the corner of Rancho
California Road and Ka;~,., Meadows Parkway. (Please see Section e., Major Collector Road and
Public Facilities System.) Additional ,.l~bh~,asc, ,'~stau.mt, and t~.tall shop~ recreational facilities
will be contained within the recreation cente~ ~,f th,~ t~.ti~,..,,.,tt ~-,,..t,unlty in Village 'A.'
Page 38. Fourth Paragraph. A 141.0-acre golf course is planned in the center of tl,k.
,~,tm.iui. i~, Village 'A.' offering recreational opportunities and scenic vistas for residents ,,f
c~ti~,.,u~.nt ,.~tt..daity. A clubhouse/recreation center will be located near the ,.ai.
project entry off of Ranch California Road. This facility. will serve as an activity hub for
t,.tit c.,~.nt ec, t.,.a.it.y neighborhood residents and may include facilities 'such as a pool. spa.
cabana. Feadlng ~'oolns, ~-atd tuvm~, ~.zaft room~, exercise facilities, kitchen facilities. and other
passive and active recreational uses a c,.,ff,.e shop.
Page 38. Fifth Paragraph. Delete reference to Figure H-5, Retirement Area Illustrative.
Page 40. Second Paragraph. Where attached housing types (higher densities) are planned-in
the. f.u,fily and ~eti~t, tnt, at-ot it, uly..d &6l$, private recreation facilities and common open space will
be provided as required, in addition to community and neighborhood open space uses described
above.
Page 40. Fifth Paragraph. Change reference from the "Rancho California Community" to the
"Ci .ty of Temecula. "
Page 41. Change reference from "KaL~er Parkway" to "Meadows Parkway." This change will
be reflected throughout the Specific Plan document in both text and graphics.
Page 41. Second Paragraph. A regional equestrian trail is master-planned along the MV/D
easement through the Margarita Village site. This trail will be implemented as shown on Figure
H-7, Open Space and Recreation Plan. Because access to t/t,. ~th~.~.~.nt co.t~.,~,~ity Village "A"
will be controlled, the equestrian trail will parallel d~,..tajo~ tt,.,~d~-~t, uth ,.,.d Meadows Parkway
and Rancho California Road around th~ ~eti~..,~.at ,.o~,,,...ity Village "A'. A linkage to the east
will also be provided along Rancho California Road.
Page 49. Third Paragraph. Two elementary schools are proposed on the project site on La
Serena Way (Planning Area i) and south of Rancho Vista Road in Planning Area 18. A site has
also been reserved for use as a middle school west .of Margarita Road. These schools will serve
fat,dly ,u~.as in MARGARrrA VILLAGE and m-surrounding residential areas, as well. The middle
school...
Page 49. Fifth Paragraph. The 2,3gi 4,047 dwelling unit, ,,u.~-ti,,.,,,,.ut (f,,t,,il3,) pot tioti uf
t'~ MARGARITA VILLAGE project will be phased over a 7-year period, in response to market
demands, according to a logical and orderly extension of roadways, public utilities and
infrastructure on- and off-site (within the first seven years). as well as an assumed rate of market
absorption.
Page 50. Fourth Paragraph. The total specific Plan shall be developed with a maximum of
4,3fl I 4,047 d.u. on 1,399.1 acres, pursuant to Figure II-3, Specific Land Use Plan.
NIARGARITA VILLAGE - PROPOSED SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2
Page A-6
relative to the Planning Areas' .acreage. The number of dwelling units actually constructed may
fluctaate but will not exceed ~he maximum for any given area of the project.
Page 32. Second Paragraph. Varied housing types in the, h.til.v-~,~i~.nt~d ,~,.a Village 'B' and
Village 'C' will include apartments and condominiums, patio homes, conventional single family
detached and custom single family lots. The. ,..ti~,.,..t area Village 'A' will contain patio homes,
detached single family units, duplexes, 4-, 6- and 8-plex structures. These housing types will be
distributed throughout the planning areas, as shown in Table 11-3, Housing Types. and Figure II-
3, Specific Land Use Plan. A description of each housing type is given below:...
Page 33. Table II-3. Housing Types. This table has been revised; see attached revised'Table
II-3.
Page 34. Fourth Paragraph. Along with varying densities of single family housing, E~duplexes
(2 attached dwelling units with a common side wall), are proposed along with 4-plexes ¢4
attached du), 6-plexes (6 attached du) and 8-plexes (8 attached du) in the ,..ti,~-m,.,,t vVillage
"A". The Riv,.,~id,. CouutyCity of Temeeula Zoning Ordinance will be observed for minimum
standards relating to signage, landscaping, parking, etc. Restrictions and standards in this
Specific Plan will achieve results beyond those minimum standards in order to achieve the desired
project image.
Page 35. Figure 1I-6. Entry & Roadway Hierarchy Plan. Revise Figure 11-6 would be revised
to eliminate the Major and Minor Retirement Entries and redesignate these locations on the
exhibit as Minor and Secondary Project Entries. respectively.
Page 36. Second Paragraph. The ccticc.~,.at ,.,,ma.~,fity Village 'A' will operate as a self-
contained unit with controlled access. All internal roadways may be private and therefore may
be maintained by a Master Homeowners Association. All roads will be build in accordance with
C,~,.Ey City of Temecula standards and guidelines. All common facilities within this area will
be maintained in a similar manner. In some areas, subassociations may be formed.
Page 36. Sixth Paragraph. Neighborhood parks totaling 25 acres will be located within the
service area of the R,h,,.h,., Callf o, ,,i.-T,.,.,.eula V,dley S~,,n t~ Park Ass~,,.i,~tioa sect i.~
C,~lif~,,.i,~, fo, ,.,~i,,te.an,.c a,,d ,,Fctafio,, TemeayalaCommunity Services Dislrict CFCSD).
l.,mk and t~.t~.ation di~hi~.t .,ay c,,.,,t.ally b~ cstabliM,,.d i. th,. R,~,cho Calif,.,,.ia at,.a,
this ~.a~e ~,,.,uld assu,.~. the. t~p,~.~ible tolc fo, thi~ p,~blic h~.ility .)
Page 37. Third Paragraph. All public project roadways outside ~,,- ,,.ti,,.,n~.at ~.omnmuity of
Village 'A' will be designed and constructed to standards acceptable to the C,,,,.iy City of
Temecula and will therefore be entered into the C~,~,,,ty' City's system of roads for operation and
maintenance. All roadways within th,. ccti, c,.~c. at eo,.m~.ityVillage 'A' will be designed and
constructed to C,,~.~y City private road standards, and may be privately owned and maintained.
Page 37. Fourth Paragraph. It is anticipated that the population of MARGARITA VILLAGE will
be served by two retail commercial centers totaling 13.2 acres at the intersection of Rancho
California Road and K. aise, Meadows Parkway. (See Figure II-3, Specific Land Use Plan.)
Planning Areas 19 (6.2 ac) and 39 (7.5 ac) contain these commercial uses which form the center
of the minor eastern Village Core. Most of the commercial uses proposed will be convenience
retail, and the site at the northwestern corner of the intersection will be accessible to residents of
th~ adja,.cnt ~,.ti,,.m,.,,t ,.,,..,,u.ity Village 'A' without entering the public roadway system.
~TVIARGARITA VILLAGE - PROPOSED SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2
Page A-5
Page 134. Fourth Paragraph. A Maj,,, R~.ti,,.,.,..t Minor Project Entry landscape treatment is
proposed at the intersection of the local access road and Rancho California Road.
Page 135. First Paragraph. Planning Area 36 in Village 'A,' as illustrated in Figure 11-29, shall
contain solely R=ti~,-.,,..t Commu.ity Medium High Density Residential housing. A maximum
Page 135. Fourth Paragraph. A Maj~,, Reti,~:.,,.at Minor Project Entry landscape treatment is
proposed at the intersection of the local access road and Rancho California Road.
Page 136. First Paragraph. Ag~. Rc~hi~.tioas. The, ~,~,,.,,.,.k~, c. onditio,,~ mid t~tt lctiv.~
tile dcvelup.,~,,t ,.ay t~qui~ that each pct m&l~,tt ,cMd~,,t it, ~a~l, dwcllin~ u.it shall b~ 55
of age Ot
Page 137. First Paragraph. Planning Area 37 in Village 'A,' as illustrated in Figure II-30. shall
contain solely R,Ai,~z.,,.,,t Co.,muulty Medium Density Residential housing. A maximum of.
Page 137. Fifth Paragraph. A major recreation and activity center is planned in Village 'A'
adjacent to Planning Area 37 to serve hh,~ Village 'A' residents uf the. rcti~.,~..t ,.om.,~,.ity. A
variety of facilities are planned; the center may include tennis courts, lc,.tu,c halls, a swimming
pool, and di,ii~$ other recreational facilities.
Page 137. Sixth Paragraph. A Ma.i,, Rctirem,,nt Minor Project Entry landscape treatment is
planned at the entrance to Planning Area 38 on Rancho California Road. (See Figures 111-22 &
II1-23.) A Minor Rctl,em~.nt Secondary Project Entry landscape treatment is planned along
K-ms'erMeadoWs Parkway. (See Figures I1/-24 & 111-25.)
Page 139. Figure II-30. This exhibit shall be revised to delete the references to "Retirement
Community "for Planning Areas 37, and 41. In addition, the reference to "Kaiser Parkway" on
this exhibit shall be changed to read "Meadows Parkway." Also, the reference to the "Minor
Retirement Ent~" shah be changed to read "Secondary Project Entry," and the reference to
"Major Retirement Entry" shall be revised to read "Minor Project Entry."
Page 140. First Paragraph. Planning Area 38 in Village 'A,' as illustrated in Figure 1I~30, shall
contain sole> R,Ah,.,,,,.nt Medium High Density Residential housing. A maximum of 341]174
dwelling units are planned at a target density of approximately 15.9 8.0 d.u./ac (Density Range
14-20 5-8 du/ac) This Planning Area will be designated for ;'~,~ Medium High Density
Residential development on approximately 21.8 acres.
Page 140. Fifth Paragraph. A major recreation and activity center is planned in Village 'A"
adjacent to Planning Area 37 to serve r,h~. Village 'A' residents of th~ ,~-ti,,.,,,~at ,.~,.m,,mity. A
variety of facilities are planned; the center may include tennis courts. lc,.t~, c halls, a swimming
pool. and di,li,,~ other recreational facilities.
Page 140. Sixth Paragraph. A Ma. io~ R~.tix~.,,,,.nt Minor Project Entry landscape treatment is
planned at the entrance to Planning Area 38 on Rancho California Road. (See Figures Ili-22 &
III-23.) A Mino, R,.ti,c,.,.~t Secondary Project Entry landscape treatment is planned along
K.i~,., Meadows Parkway. (See Figures 111-24 & III~25.)
MARGARITA VILLAGE - PROPOSED SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2
Page A-8
Pages 52-55. Tables II-4 through 11-7. These tables have been revised to delete references to
retirement housing. The revised tables are attached to this letter.
Page 57. Fifth Paragraph. A master property owners association or some type of benefit
assessment district will be established to operate and maintain all open space and recreation
facilities. The ,~.ti,~..,,~,lt ~eighborhood recreation center in Village 'A' and other recreation
centers in higher density areas may also require homeowners associations.
Page 57. Seventh Paragraph. The subdivider shall comply with the street improvement
recommendations outlined by the Cou,~ta< ,.,f Ri~,..~id~ City of Temecula Public V~orksR~,ad
DepartmenL
· Page 58. Eighth Paragraph. Phase I shall be developed with a maximum of 1,225 1,216 units.
· Page 58. Tenth Paragraph. Phase III shall be developed with a maximum of 1269 949 units.
Page 58. Eleventh Paragraph. Phase IV shall be developed with a maximum of I,C, GG 995
units.
Page 58. Final Paragraph. The total number of dwelling units in family ,rod
,.,,mbi...d Margarita Village will not exceed 4.301 4.047 du.
Pages 59-61. References to Family Planning Areas and Retirement Planning Areas shall be
revised to read jointly as "Residential Areas."
Page 130. First Paragraph. Planning Area 33 in Village 'A,' as illustrated in Figure 11-29, shall
contain solely R~.th,.,~,.,,t Cu~m..,anity Medium~High Density Residential housing. A maximum
Page 130. Fourth Paragraph. A Mi~.,.,~ RcG,.m,.at Secondary Project Entry landscape
treatment is proposed at the entrance into this Planning Area from Margarita Road.
Page 131. Figure II-29. This exhibit shall be revised to delete all references to "Retirement
Community." Also, the reference to the "Minor Retirement Entry" shah be changed to read
"Secondary Project Entry," and the reference to "Major Retirement Entry" shall be revised to
read "Minor Project Entry."
Page 132. First Paragraph. Planning Area 34 in Village 'A,' as illustrated in Figure 11-29, shall
contain solely Rc. ti,~m,.at C,-,.~,.unita, Medium High Density Residential housing. A maximum
Page 132. Seventh Paragraph. Ar, e R,.~t,i,.tion~. Th,. co~c,,a.h, ,.~,.ditions a.d ,,.~ui,.ti,~.,
f,~ the. dcvc. lu~,,.,.,,t :,~a: ,~.qui~,. that ca~.h p,..~ma. li~.nt ~.~i',.L~it ill C.,lCh d,*,~.lli.~ u.lt shall bc 55
yCat~ Of a~;~. Oh Ovbt.
Page 134. First Paragraph. Planning Area 35 in Village 'A.' as illustrated in Figure 11-29. shall
contain solely Rcti~,.,.~..t Co,.....dty Medium High Density Residential housing. A maximum
of...
MARGARITA VILLAGE - PROPOSED SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2
Page A-7
th~ dc~clop,,,¢.lt .,ay ,~quh~ that each
Page 147. First Paragraph. Planning Area 42 in Village 'A,' as illustrated in Figure 1I-31. shall
contain solely Rcti~c,.~.at Cou....it> Medium High Density Residential housing. A maximum
Page 148. Figure II-31. The reference to "Kaiser Parkway" on this exhibit shall be changed
to read "Meadows Parkway." Also, the reference to the "Minor Retirement EntD'" shall be
changed to read "Secondary Project Entry." Finally, all ~:ef~rences to "Residential Community"'
shall be deleted from the exhibit.
Page 149. First Paragraph. Planning Area 43 in Village 'A,' as illustrated in Figure II-31. shall
contain solely Rcti~,..,~.at Co.,,n..it;, Medium High Density Residential housing. A maximum
of...
Page 149. Eighth Paragraph. Age Rest, lotions. The cov~.na.t.,, ~.~,.difio.s aad t~-~t,i,.tio.,~
the dcvclop,n~.t may ,~qui,~ ~,~ ~a~ls Fc,,,,a.~.t ~i~.t in cadl dwclli,,S u,,it shall b~ 55
of a~ v, o~t.
Page 151. First Paragraph. Planning Area 44 in Village 'A,' as illustrated in Figure 11-3 t, shall
contain solely Rctlcc..,,..t Coa...h,iry Medium High Density Residential housing. A maximum
Page 151. Fourth Paragraph. A Mi.~,, R~ti~,..,=ntSecondary Project Entry landscape treatment
is proposed at the entrance to Planning Area 44 on La Serena Way. (See Figures 111-24-111-25.)
Page 152. First Paragraph. Change "retirement community residents" to read "Village 'A'
residents..
Page 153. First Paragraph. Planning Area 46, as depicted in Figure II-31 A, will be dexzoted to
141.0 acres of Golf Course, offering recreational opportunities and scenic vistas for residents of
the. t~.ti~.mc. txt COnllhu.ity it: Village 'A.'.
Page 153. Fourth Paragraph. A major recreation an activity center is planned in Village 'A"
adjacent to Planning Area 37 to serve a,~ VilIage 'A' residents uf th,. ,,.ti,,.,,,,.nt cO,..,daity. A
variety of facilities are planned; the center may include tennis courts, lc,.k.,,. halls, a swimming
pool, and di.i.~ other recreational facilities.
Page 154. Figure II-31A. Change "Kaiser Parkway" to read "Meadows Parkway.'
Page 204. Second Paragraph. Village 'A' is located northwest of the intersection of Rancho
California Road and K.i~ Meadows Parkway, a.d is planacd as a ,~tit~,a~.,,t co,,.m~nity.
Village 'B' is ...Village 'A' is planned as a ,~ti,~-a,,-,,t xccreation-oriented community containing
a variety of housing types and densities organized around a central 18-hole golf course facility.
Page 204. Fourth Paragraph. Village 'A' is proposed by The. B~ic Cu, Fotatio,x as a gated
~.ti~ c.,~.nt ~-ummu.ity neighborhood containing approximately 2,C,C,C 1,666 attached and detached
MARGARITA VILLAGE - PROPOSED SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2
Page A- 10
Page 141. Second Paragraph. A,~ R~.~.tivn~: Thc ~o,~.,a,,at~, ~u~d~tio.~ and ~h~t~w~ ~
th~ dC~ClOF~.~at ~.a~ ~Cqui~ that ~a~l~ g~am&a~.[ ~Md~.t i. ~a~h d~cllh,~ ..it sh~ll b~ 55 ~
uf a~ o, ~ ,~,. Nor m issu~ce of building ~ for Planning Am 38, ~e City shall ~view
~d approve ~e housing prMuct(s) proposed ud ~e sire pl~ layout.
Pa~e I42. All references to "Kaiser Parkway" on this page shall be changed to read "Meadows
Parkway."
Page 143. First Paragraph. Planning Area 40 in Village 'A,' as illustrated in Figure II-30, shall
contain sole3, R,.ti,,.,,,,.,,t Co,,,.,,,,.it:,V~,y Medium High Density Residential hodsing. A
maximum of 237 77 dwelling units are planned at a target density of approximately _-25 8.0 d.u./aC
(Density Range 14-20+ 5-8 du/ac). This Planning Area will be designated for Very Medium
High Density Residential development on approximately 9.6 acres.
Page 143. Third Paragraph. Access into Planning Area 40 will be provided for an access road
to the south which connects to IC~a,~,Meadows Parkway.
Page 143. Fifth Paragraph. A major recreation and activity center is planned in Village 'A"
adjacent to Planning Area 37 to serve al~ Village 'A' residents of th~ rctitc.,,~.t co,,m,,mlt.v. A
variety of facilities are planned; the center may include tennis courts, lc,Am~ h,~lls, a swimming
pool, and di.i,,s other recreational facilities.
Page 143, Sixth Paragraph. A Ma.j,,, Reth,~.,,.at Minor Project Entry landscape treatment is
planned at the enwance to Planning Area 38 on Rannho California Road. (See Figures III-22 &
111-23.) A Minor R,~ti,,~.,,mt Secondary Project Entry landscape treatment is planned along
Kaise, Meadows Parkway. (See Figures II1-24 & 111-25.)
Page 144. Second Paragraph. Ag~. Rest.,ictlu.~. The ~.~,echants, ~.ondltiono a.d t~.~hi~.tions
for the d'c,cluFm,.nt may ,eqhi,~. th.t each pc..,a,,~,,t t~i&ut in ~a~lt dwelling unit M,all b~ 55
ycm~ of age o, ~,~,. Such a t~Shi~un, if agplicd ~ ~,~ ~tlt~.:~,R ,illa~, may ~ ap~y ~
aV~u,,~,,h i,, ads H~,,,i,,s ~.. ~or mhsu~ceOfbu~g:~ for Pl~ffing~, ~e
Ci~ shd m~ew ~dappmve ~e ho~hg pm~(s)pmposd~ud ~e:si~ pl~ layout.
Page 145. First Paragraph. Planning Area 41 in Village 'A,' as illustrated in Figure II-30, shall
contain solely Re~c~,,,.nt Commonalty Medium Hlgh Density R~Sidential housing. A maximum
Page 145. Third Paragraph. Access into Planning Area 41 will be provided from
Meadows Parkway and a local access road to the south. (See Figure H-30.)
Page 145. Fourth Paragraph. A major recreation and activity center is planned in Village 'A"
adjacent to Planning Area 37 to serve ili~ Village 'A' residents of th~ ,~.ti,~.,~.t ~ommuuity. A
variety of facilities are planned; the center may include tennis courts, le~t,~,,~ h,dl~, a swimming
pool, and di,li,.$ other recreational facilities.
Page 145. Fifth Paragraph. A M,~.~,,, Retit~m,~.t Minor Project Entry landscape treatment is
planned at the entrance to Planning Area 38 on Rancho California Road. (See Figures III-22 &
1II-23.) A Mi.,,, R~ti,,..,.xt Secondary Project Entry landscape treatment is pianned along
Kai~, Meadows Parkway. (See Figures III-24 & III-25.)
MARGARITA VILLAGE - PROPOSED SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2
Page A-9
LAND
USE DENSITY
(APPROX.)
Residential
High 14.4 AC 11.0 DU/AC
Residential
Medium High 310.8 Ac 6.1 DU/AC
Residential
Medium 533.5 AC 3.7 DU/AC
Residential
Low 38.0 AC 1.3 DU/AC
Subtotals - Housing 896.7 AC 4.5 DU/AC
Commercial 13,7 AC
Parks 25.0 AC
Golf Course & 141.0 AC
Club House
Slopes/Drainage 186.0 Ac
Facilities
TABLE II-1
PROJECT SUMMARY
ACRES 'TAnGET
DENSITY
RANGE
8-14 DU/AC
5-8 DU/AC
2-5 DU/AC
0.4-2 DU/AC
1VIAXIMUM
DWELLING
UNITS
158 DU
1,885 DU
1,954 DU
50 DU
4,047DU
Elementary 23.0 AC
Schools
School 11.0 Ac
Administration
Church Site 5.3 AC
Post Office 5.0 AC
NOT
APPLICABLE
Utility 31.6 AC
Easements
Major Roads 60.8 AC
GRAND TOTALS 1,399.1 AC
2.9 DU/AC
4,047 DU
'The Target Density for each Planning Area within a particular residential density category varies and is
represented on Table II-2. The Target Density as provided in this Table is an average, considenng all Planning
.~,;c..,~ ,~ithln a residential category. It is shown to provide an approximate density for each residential category.
MARGARITA VILLAGE - PROPOSED SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2
Page A-12
dwelling units. An 18-hole golf course will contain a clubhouse and several lakes and
watercourses. In addition, thei'e will be a 7-acre commercial site. In conceiving a design theme
for Village 'A,' contemporary Mediterranean and Spanish themes have been selected. All
landscaping, paving, and architecture should strongly reflect these motifs.
Page 242. Figure IIl-17. Change "Kaiser Parkway Street Scene" in Tree Legend to read
"Meadows Parkway Street Scene." Also, relabel exhibit to read "Meadows Park~'ay. " instead
of "Kaiser Parkway." All references to "Kaiser Parkway" in the text and exhibits in the
Landscaping Guidelines shall be change to read "Meadows Parkway."
Page 250. Figure III-18. Delete "Retirement Community" call-out.
Page 251. Figure III-19. Delete "Retirement Community" call-out.
Page 253. Figure III-20. Delete "Retirement Community" call-out.
Page 255. Second Paragraph. Pc, Cc~h,jt.v of Ri ,ctsi&. Ordl,m~,~., Eeach residential lot shall
receive a minimum of one (1), fifteen (15) gallon size street tree planted in the right-of-way. In
addition ....
Pages 239-327. All references to "County standards," "County of Riverside landscape
standards, "and "County of Riverside parking standards" shah be changed to "Ci.ty standards."
"City of Temecula landscape standards," and "City of Temecula parking standards,"
respectively.
Page 270. Figure III-28. Change "Kaiser Parkway Street Scene" in Tree Legend to read
"Meadows Parkway Street Scene." Also, relabel exhibit to read "Meadows Parkway," instead
of "Kaiser Parkway." All references to "Kaiser Parkway" in the text and exhibits in the
Landscaping Guidelines shall be change to read "Meadows Parkway."
Page 279. Third Paragraph. IX., Co'uj,ty of Ri ,,.,M&, OLdil,.mce, F~ach residential lot shall
receive a minimum of one (1), fifteen (15) gallon size street tre,.i .la,, planted in the fight-of-way.
In addition ....
Page 294. Figure 'III-39 through Page 299. Figure ITI-44. Change "Kaiser Parkway Street
Scene" in Tree Legend to read "Meadows Parkway Street Scene." Also, relabel exhibit to read
"Meadows Parkway," instead of "Kaiser Parkway." All references to "Kaiser Parkway" in the
text and exhibits in the Landscaping Guidelines shall be change to read "Meadows Parkway."
Page 310. Third Paragraph. IX.~ Cc~uut> of Riv~id~ O~di,mm.~., Eeach residential lot shall
receive a minimum of one (1), fifteen (15) gallon size street tree~ .la,~ planted in the right-of-way.
In addition ....
Page 314. Fourth Paragriph. Th,. &sign of
~',.iM'otc6 th~ lathe, Ra.~ho Calif~lia th,.~,~atic id,~.tlt.~.
MARGARITA VILLAGE - PROPOSED SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2
Page A- 11
TABLE II-2
DETAILED LAND USE SUMMARY
(CONT/NUED~
PLANNING ~ LAND ACREAGE TARGET DENSITY
AREA USE D~srrY (DU/AC) RANGE (DU/AC)
SUBTOTALS - RESIDENTIAL 896,7 4.5 DU/AC
19 Commercial 6.2
36 Coramercial 7.5
5 Park l 1.5
18 School/Park 14.3
38 Park 9.2
46 Golf Course/Club House 141.0
Recreation
NOT
--- Slopes/Drainage Facilities 186.0 APPLICABLE
I Elementary School 13.0
28 School Administration 11.0
31 Church Site 5.3
32a Post Office Site 5.0
-- Utility Easement~ 31.6
--- Major Roads 60.8
GRAND TOTALS 1,399.1 2.9 DU/AC
NOT
APPLICABLE
MAXIMUM
DWELLINGS
4.047
NOT
APPLfCABLE
4,047
MARGARITA VILLAGE- PROPOSED SPECIFIC PLANAMENDMENT NO.2
Page A-14
PLANN~G
Aria
3
6
7
8
9
10.11.12
13
15
16
17
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
29
30
32
33
34
35
36
37
~8
40
.41
TABLE 11-2
DETAILED LAND USE SUMhIARY
SUBTOTALS - RF.~IDENTIAL
LAND ACRFAGE TARGIft'
USE DF, NSITY (DU/AC)
Low Residential 16.0 19 OLI/AC
Medium Residential 2.2 2.7 DU/AC
Medium Residential I 1.0 .4.6 DU/AC
Medium Residential 53.0 .4.0 OO/AC
Low Residential 12.0 1.0 DIMAC
Medium Residential 21.0 3.6 DU/AC
Low Residential ]0.0 0.7 DU/AC
Medium Residential 52.8 .4.1 DU/AC
Medium Residential 47.4 2.3 DU/AC
Medium Residential 38. [ 4.6 DU/AC
Medium Residential 80.9 2.8 DU/AC
Medium Residential 59.5 3.1 DU/AC
Medium Residential 34..4 3. ] DU/AC
Medium Residential 12. l 4.5 DU/AC
Medium High Residential 10.3 5.4 DU/AC
Medium Residential 10.9 3.7 DU/AC
Medium Residential I0.2 4.5 DU/AC
Medium High Residential 16.9 5.4 DU/AC
Medium Residential 10.9 3.7 DU/AC
Medium Residential 23.5 .4.5 DU/AC
Medium Residential 8. ] 4.4 DU/AC
Medium Residential 33.8 4.0 DU/AC
Medium High Residential 33.4 5.2 DU/AC
High Residential 14.4 1 1.0 DU/AC
Medium High Residential 16.0 5.1 DU/AC
Medium High Residential 14.7 6.8 DU/AC
Medium High Residential 66. I 5.50U/,~C
Medium High Residential 7.5 8.0 DU/AC
Medium Residential 23.7 4.6 DU/AC
Medium High Residential 21.8 8.0 DU/AC
Medium High Residential 9.6 8.0 DU/AC
Medium High Residential 30.5 7.7 DU/AC
Medium High Residential 15.2 5.7 DU/AC
Medium High Residential 14.3 7. ] DU/AC
Medium High Residential 5.4.5 5.3 DU/AC
896.7 4.5 DU/AC
DIgNSITY
RANGE (DU/ACI
0.-t-2 DU/AC
2-5 DU/AC
Z-5 DU/AC
2-5 DU/AC
0.4-2 DU/AC '
2-5 DU/AC
0.4-2 DU/,:C
2-5 DU/AC
2-5 DU/AC
2-5 DU/AC
2-5 DU/AC
2-5 DU/AC
2-5 DU/AC
2-5 DU/AC
5-8 DU/AC
2-5 DU/AC
2-5 DU/AC
5-8 DU/AC
2-5 DU/AC
2-5 DU/AC
2-5 DU/AC
2-5 DU/AC
5-8 DU/AC
8-14DU/AC
5-8 DU/AC
5-8 DU/AC
5-8 Dtd~AC
5-8 DU/AC
2-5 DU/AC
'L8 DU/AC
5-8 DU/AC
5-8 DU/AC
5-8 DU/AC
5-2 DU/AC
5-8 DU/AC
MAXn, ItJIVl
DWELLINGS
6
5I
212
12
76
7
- 215
I O0
255
183
108
54
62
40
91
40
105
36
136
173
158
82
100
356
62
I07
174
77
232
83
102
291
4.047
PLANNING
AREAS
26
27
29
30
32
35
36
37
42
SUBTOTAL
TABLE II-4
PHASE I SUMMARY
LAND USE
DENSITY
Medium Residential (2-5 du/ac)
Medium Residential (2-5 du/ac)
Medium Residential (2-5 du/ac)
Medium High Residential (5-8 du/ac)
High Residential (8-14 du/ac)
Medium High Residential (5-8 du/ac
Medium High Residential (5-8 du/ac
Medium Residential (2-5 du/ac)
Medium High Residential (5-8 du/ac
31
32A
TOTALS
OTHER LAND USES
--- Golf Course/Clubhouse/Recreation
Center
28 School Administration
Church
Post Office
ACREAGE
23.5 AC
8.1 AC
33.8 AC
' 33.4 AC
14.4 AC
66.1 AC
7.5 AC
23.7 AC
15.2 AC
225.7 AC
141.0 AC
11.0 AC
5.3 AC
5.0 AC
388.0 AC
MAXIMUM
DWELLING UNITS
105 DU
36 DU
136 DU
173 DU
158 DU
356DU
62DU
107 DU
83 DU
1216 DU
1216 DU
MARGARITA VILLAGE - PROPOSED SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2
Page A-16
DENSITY
High
Residential
(8 - 14 DU/AC)
Medium High
Residential
(5-8 DU/~,C)
Medium
Residential
(2-5 DU/AC)
Low
Residential
(0.4-2 DU/AC)
TABLE II-3
HOUSING TYPES
HOUSING
TYPE
Townhouses and Condominiums
Single Family Detached, Patio Homes,
Duplexes, Triplexes, 4-Plexes, 6-Plexes and
8-Plexes
Single Family Detached and Patio Homes
Custom Single Family Lots (e.g., lots ranging in
size from 10,000 sq. ft. to larger than one acre)
and Single Family Detached Homes
GRAND TOTAL
PLANNING AREA
DWELLING UNIT
TOTALS
158 DU
1.885 DU
1,954 DU
50 DU
4,047 DU
MARGARITA VILLAGE - PROPOSED SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2
Page A-15
PLANNING
AREAS
6
13
14
38
40
4I
SUBTOTAL
OTHER LAND USES
39
5
TOTALS
TABLE II-6
PHASE Ill SUMMARY
LAND USE
DENSITY
Medium Residential (2-5 du/ac)
Medium Residential (2-5 du/ac)
Medium Residential (2-5 du/ac)
Medium Residential (2-5 du/ac)
Medium High Residential (5-8 du/ac)
Medium High Residential (5-8 du/ac)
Medium High Residential (5-8 du/ac)
ACREAGE
26.5 AC
21.0 AC
47.4 AC
38.1 AC
21.8 AC
9.6 AC
30.5 AC
194.9 AC
MAXIMUM
DWELLING UNITS
106 DU
76 DU
109 DU
175 DU
174 DU
77 DU
232 DU
949 DU
Commercial 7.5 AC "-
Park 11.5 AC ---
213.9 AC 949 DU
MARGARITA VILLAGE - PROPOSED SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2
Page A48
PLANNING
AREAS
4
6
10,11,12
20
21
22
23
24
25
33
34
SUBTOTAL
OTHER LAND USES
45 ~ Park
TOTALS
TABLE II-5
PHASE H SUMMARY
LAND USE MAXIMUM
DENSITY DWELLING UNITS
Medium Residential (2-5 du/ac) 11.0 AC 51 DU
Medium Residential (2-5 du/ac) 26.5 Ac 106 DU
Medium Residential (2-5 du/ac) 52.8 AC 215 DU
Medium Residential (2-5 du/ac) 12.1 :AC 54 DU.
Medium High Residential (5-8 du/ac) I0.3 AC 62 DU
Medium Residential (2-5 du/ac) 10.9 AC 40 DU
Medium Residential (2-5 du/ac) 10.2 AC 46 DU
Medium High Residential (5-8 du/ac) 16.9 AC 91 DU
Medium Residential (2-5 du/ac) 10.9 AC 40 DU
Medium High Residential (5-8 du/ac) 16.0 AC 82 DU
Medium High Residential (5-8 du/ac) 14.7 AC 100 DU
192.3 AC 887 DU
ACREAGE
9.2 AC ---
201.5 AC 887 DU
MARGARITA VILLAGE - PROPOSED SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2
Page A-17
PLANNING
AREAS
2
3
7
9
15
16
17
43
44
SUBTOTAL
19
18
TOTALS
TABLE H-7
PHASE IV SUMMARY
LAND USE
DENSITY
Low Residential (0.4-2 du/ac)
Medium Residential (2-5 du/ac)
Low Residential (0.4-2 du/ac)
I~.ow Residential (0.4-2 du/ac)
Medium Residential (2-5 du/ac)
Medium Residential (2-5 du/ac)
Medium Residential (2-5 du/ac)
Medium High Residential (5-8 du/ac)
Medium High Residential (5-8 du/ac)
OTH]tR LAND USES
Elementary School
Commercial
Elementary School/Park
ACREAGE
16.0 AC
2.2 AC
12.0 AC
'10.0 AC
80.9 AC
59.5 AC
34.4 AC
14.3 AC
54.5 AC
283.8 AC
13.0 AC
6.2 AC
14.3 AC
317.3 AC
MAXIlVlUM
DWELLING UNITS
31 DU
6 DU
12 DU
7Du
255 DU
183 DU
108 DU
102 DU
291 DU
995 DU
995 DU
MARGARITA VILLAGE - PROPOSED SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2
Page A-19
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
PROPOSED SPECIFIC PLAN ORDINANCE CHANGES
P~rAFFRPT~I9pA9~.PC 2/28/96 ~gw ~ 7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
I0
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
average depth of eighty feet (80'). Tha~ portion of a lot
used for access on ~flag" lots shall have a minimum width
of twenty feet (20').
C. All buildL~ws =nd st~u~tu~=o sh~ll n~L e~eed
fv~ty £==L (40 )
fly= f==L (75'
siv~s uf 3ecti~ 10.34 of Ordinance No. 340. The minimum
frontage of a lot shall. be forty feet (40') ~e~cept that lots
fronting on knuckles~r cul-de-sacs may Save a minimum
frontage of thirty feet (30').
D. The front yard shall be not less than ten feet
(10'), measured from the existing street line or from any
future street line as shown on any Specific Plan of High-
ways, whichever is nearer the proposed structure.
E. Side yards on interior and through lots shall be
not less than five feet (5') in width. Side yards on comer
or reversed corner lots shall be not less than ten feet
(10') from the existing street line or from any future
street line as shQwn on any Specific Plan of Highways,
whichever is nearer the proposed structure, upon which the
main building sides, except that where the lot is less than
fifty feet (50') wide, the yard need not exceed twenty
percent (20%) of the width of the lot.
F. Chimneys and fireplaces shall be allowed to
encroach into side yards a maximum of two feet (2'). No
other structural encroachments shall be permitted in the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
13
t4
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
.7
28
The SP Zone standards for Planning Area 38 of Specific Plan No.
199 as contained in Ordinance No. 348.2922 shall be deleted and
replaced as follows:
11. Plannina Area 38.
(1) The uses permitted in Planning Area 38of Specific Plan
No. 199 shall be the same as those uses permitted in Article
VIII, ~ectiv~ 0.1 VI, Section 6.1 of Ordinance No. 348. In
addition, the permitted uses identified under Section 0.1{a)
6.1(a) shall also include noncommercial community association
recreation and assembly buildings and facilities and churches.
(2) The development standards for Planning Area 38 of
Specific Plan No. 199 shall be the same as those standards
identified in Article VIII, 3e~tiv~, 0.2 VI, Section 6.2 of
Ordinance No. 348, except
forth in Article VIII,
6.2(b), (c), (d), and (e)(1),
replaced by the' following:
A. Lot area shall not be less than three thousand
five hm~d~=d (3,500) four thousand (4,000) square feet. The
minimum lot area shall be determined by excluding that
portion of a lot that is used solely for access to the
that the development standards set
3ectl~n 8.2(~), (d) ~,d (f) VI, Section
(2), and (4) shall be deleted and
portion of a lot used as a building site.
B. No lot ~hall 1 .......... L1 ..... i~L~ (GO) p ...... L ~f
it~ n~t a~ea c~vered with Luildi,~ o~ st~uctu~=~. The
minimum average width of that portion of a lot to be used
as a building site shall be forty feet (40') with a minimum
-l-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
I1
12
13
14
15
I6
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
The SP Zone standards for Planning Area 40 of Specific Plan No.
contained in Ordinance No. 348.2922
follows:
nn. Plannina Area 40.
(i)
No. 199 shall
VIII
addition, the
199 as
shall be deleted and replaced as
The uses permitted in Planning Area 40 of Specific' Plan
be the same as those uses permitted in Article
0.1 VI, Section 6.1 of Ordinance No. 348. In
permitted uses identified under Section G.l(a)
6.1(a) shall also include noncommercial community association
recreation and assembly buildings and facilities and churches.
(2) The development standards for Planning Area 40 of
Specific Plan No. 199 shall be the same as those standards
identified in Article VIII, S=~ti~ 0.2 VI, Section 6.2 of
development standards set
forth in Article VIII, S=~ti~ 0.2(a), (d) and (f) VI, Section
6.2 (b), (c), (d), and (e)(1), (2), and (4) shall be deleted and
replaced by the following:
A. .'Lot area shall not be less than LI~== LL~sa~d
fly= L~d~=d (3,500) four thousand (4,000) square feet. The
minimum lot area shall be determined by excluding that
portion of a lot that is used solely for access to the
Ordinance No. 348, except that the
portion of a lot used as a building site.
B. N~ lot sh=ll La~e m~re than si~t~ (60) F=~ellt ~f
i~ ~=t a~ea ~vered ~iLl~ building~ ~r ~tru~tu .... The
minimum average width of that portion of a lot to be used
as a building site shall be forty feet (40') with a minimum
-4-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
,7
28
front, side or rear yard except as provided for in Section
18.19 of Ordinance No. 348.
In addition, the following standards shall also apply:
AA. The 1.i~i~.~. avela~e width uf th=L ~olti .... f a
lvL t~ b~ ~oed as a L~ildia9 siC= ~Lall Le thirty eight f=et
(30') with ~ ~.lnim~. a~=~a~e depth uf =i~L~ five feet (65').
TL=t F~tl~ vf ~ l~t used for =~=~ ~ "fl~" l~ts ~L=ll
h~e .... i.L.~a ~idLh of L .... L~ f==L (20').
BB.
eiwhL
~1 de ~avs .... z have ....
CC. AA. Interior side yards may be reduced to
accommodate zero lot line or common wall situations, except
that in no case shall the reduction in the side yard reduce
the required separation between detached structures below
ten feet (10).
DD.
f~unt,
10.19
(3)
shall be the same as those requirements
vIII VI of Ordinance No. 348.
~==~ w~ sid= z~d except =~ F~u~lded fo~ l~ 3e~Ll~.
~£ 0~dinan~= N~. 340.
Except as provided above, all other zoning requirements
identified in Article
-3-
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23'
24
25
26
27
28
front, side or rear yard except as provided for in Section
18.19 of Ordinance No. 348.
In addition, the following standards shall also apply:
AA. The minimuu~ aqe~a~= wldLh vf LL=L Fo~ti~ ~f a
lot tu be used as a buildin~ sit= ~1~=11 b~ thirty =i~ht feet
(30') wlLh . ,.i,~iK(~..ve~age de~th uf ~i~L~ fly= /==t (GS').
TL~L p~ti~n uf a i~L u~=d f~r access ~n "flag" luCs sl~=ll
have a mini ...... ~idth ~f twenty feet (20').
BB. The I~tini,.ma frontage uf a l~t shall be thi~L~
eight feet (30'), except that l~Ls f .... Li**~ ,~** h,a~kles wr
cul de ~au~ ~.a~ Lave a ~inin,m. f~u~,ta~= uf LLi~L~ feet (30).
CC. AA. Interior side yards may be reduced to
accommodate zero lot line or common wall situations, except
that in no case shall the reduction in the side yard reduce
the required separation between detached structures.
DD. Chi~a~eys =~,d fi~e~l~=~ ~hall be ~ll~d L~
e~=~l, L,to ~id= ~=~d~ ~ maximran ~f L~o feet (2'). Nu
~thel stlu~tu~al en~rua~lu~=nL~ ~1,~11 L= p ..... itted in the
fruit, leaz ul side yard eA~ept ~ p~uvld=d f~ i** 3=~Civ~
1O.lD ~f O~dinan~e No. 340.
(3) Except as provided above, all other zoning requirements
shall be the same as those requirements identified in Article
VIII VI of Ordinance No. 348.
-6-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
average depth of eighty feet (80'). That portion of a lot
used for access on ~flag' lots shall have a minimum width
of twenty feet (20').
C. All L~ildL,~ ~,d ~L~tu~e~ shall hot e~eed
£v~L~ £e=t (40')
fly= feet (7Z') is s~e~ifi~all~ p=~mlLL=d uhde~
si~no ~f 3=~Ci~n 10.34 ~£ 0~ainan~= N~. 340. The minimum
~rontage of a lot shal~ be forty feet (40') e~cept that lots
~ronting on knuckles~or cul-de-sacs may ~ave a minimum
frontage of thirty feet (30').
D. The front yard shall be not less than ten feet
(10'), measured from the existing street line or from any
future street line as shown on any Specific Plan of High-
ways, whichever is nearer the proposed structure.
E. Side yards on interior and through lots shall be
not less than five feet (5') in width.
or reversed corner lots shall be not
(10') from the existing street line
Side yards on comer
less than ten feet
or from any future
street line as shown on any Specific Plan of Highways,
whichever is nearer the proposed structure, upon which the
main building sides, except that where the lot is less than
fifty feet (50') wide, the yard need not exceed twenty
(20%) of the width of the lot.
Chimneys and fireplaces shall
percent
F.
encroach into side yards a maximum of two feet
other structural
be allowed to
(2'). No
in the
encroachments shall be permitted
-5-
ATTACHMENT NO. 5
TRAFFIC LETI'ER FROM WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES
R:XSTAFFRPT~lgPA96,PC 2/28/96
FROM WSA-~Anahe~m Offtce T-~21 P. 32
WILBUR
SMITH
ASSOCIATES
ENGINEERS · PLANNiR5
2300 F.. KAltLLA AVE., SUIT,C 275 * ANAHiIM. C~, 02ao6.e,047 ,, (714) g78-8 t TO, FAX (71~) qTS-1109
February27, 1996
Mr. Jim Hunter
McMillin Development Inc.
2727 Hoover Avenue
National City, CA 91950
Subject: Margarita Village Specific Plan Amendment No. 2
Dear Mr. Hunter:
~ requested by Csaba Ko and Batty Burneli, Wilbur Smith Associates (WSA) has analyzed
vehicle trip generation impacts of Specific Plan .~t-nendment No. 2 which essentially proposes
the replacement of 2,000 retirement-oriented h<>using units with 1,666 single-family housing
units. The portion of Margarita Village which is affected by this change is the area bounded
by Ranthe California Road, Margarita Road, La Serena Way, and Meadows Parkway.
It is important to note that a significant port/on of Margarita Village has already been
developed. It is our understanding that most of the tracts which have already been
developed were built at a density which/s somewhat lower than is approved in the curready
adopted specific plan, Additionally, the 10 vehicle trips per dwellirtg unit trip rate 'used in
the original traffic study for single family residential dwelling units is a high average rate
based on trip rate information available today. Current trip rate irfformation shows that
residential trip rates are inverseiy l~roportional to housing density. The higher the density
of dwelling units, the lower the :rip rate per dwel!ing unit. The average trip rate for
retirement housing has also increased in recent years. Daily trip generation rates used in
the City of Temecula General Plan Circulation Element Traffic Model (OPCETM) reflect
these current trends.
The most relevant approach ;c> evaluating traffic impacts associated with land use changes
within the City of Temecula, is a comparison of the proposed land use change relative to
assumptions used in the City's GPCETM. The long renge planning of Circulation Element
IMPm. OYEf-OWNtD COMPANY
Exhibit A
General Plan Circulation Element
Traffic Model
Margarita Village Specific Plan TAZ's
Residential Trip Generation Summary
Dwelling
TAZ U n its
331 53
348 and 942 793
826
405
1824
349 10
636
363 720
364 335
366 169
4._9.9
373 475
376 85
952 5OG
Total 4256
WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES
Daily
Density Trip Rate
Medium 10.0
Daily
Trips
530
Medium 10.0 7,930
Medium Hfgh 8.0 5,008
Very High 8.0 2,430
15,3~
Very Low 12.0
Medium 10.0
M-~di,~i,m High 8.0
Medium 10.0
Medium 10.0
Low 10.0
Meaium 10,0
Medium 10.0
MeCijm 10.0
120
6L360
6.480
960
3,350
1,690
490
2,180
750
850
5,000
39,468
Mr. l~rn Hunter
F~bruary 27, 1996
Page 3
Should you have any questions concerning this submitta], pl:ase feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
WILBUR S~[ITI-I ASSOCIATES
Robert A. Davis
Principal Transportation Planner
Attachments
cc:
Cs~ba Ko
Ba~ Burnell
FES 27 '96 i4:52 TO 989 676 47~8 FROM WSA--Anenelm Office T-82i F. SG
Exhibit B
Proposed Margarita Village
Specific Plan Amendment No. 2
Residential Trip Generation Summary
TAZ
331
348 and 942
Dwelling
Units
31
37
107
1559
1666
Density
Low
Medium
Medium
Medium High
Daily
Trip Rate
lo.o
10.0
10.0
8.0
349
19 LOw
554 Medium
573
10.0
10.0
363
158 High
364
136 Medium
173 Medium High
309
10.0
8.0
366
284 MeCium
10.0
373
439 Medium
10.0
376
108 Medium
10.0
952
173 Medium
301 Medium High
474
10.0
8.0
Total 4047
Daily
Trips
31o
370
1,070
12.472
13.542
190
5,540..
5,730
1,106
1,360
1.384
2,744
2,840
4,380
1,080
1,730
2,408
4,138
35,930
WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES
ATrACHM~-NT NO. 6
EXHIBITS
R:~TAFFRFI~I9PA96.PC .~28/9~ vgw ~ 9
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO. - PA96-0019 AND PA96-0020
v. XHrRIT - A
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - MARCH 4, 1996
VICINITY MAP
R:\FAGANlvlXREPORTSHg&20pA.~C 2/27/96 mf
CITY OF TEMECULA
ING
MARCH 4~996~' "" """"'~'~ L-t~AfNG-ES,~/
CITY OF TEMECULA
IG
M
36 ou
PLANNING
AREA
NO 38
CASE NO. - PA96-0020
~.xt-tmrr- D EXISTING SPECIFIC PLAN
· 'LANNING COMMISSION DATE - MARCH 4, 1996
R:\FAGANM~I~EPORTS\Ig&20pA.PC 2/27196 mf
ITEM//15
BACKGROUND
On June 5, 1995 the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council approve the
Old Town Redevelopment Project ("Project") and certify the Environmental Impact Report for
the Project. The City Council approved the Project at their June 13, 1995 meeting. Since the
City Council approval of the Project, Staff has had numerous meetings with the applicant and
his representatives to discuss a variety of issues related to the project. Staff has recently
determined that conditions of approval for the project relating to submittal of the grading plan
prior to the recordation of the final map and the timing of improvements to the Rancho
California/Interstate 15 interchange could present potential problems .to the Project as well as
impact current City capital improvement projects. Staff is recommending more flexibility be
allowed for the specific timing of these items and is recommending the changes to the
conditions of approval as discussed below.
ANALYSIS
Coordination of the Old Town Temecula Entertainment Complex with The Zev Buffman Group,
Inc. (TZBG), has raised several issues pertaining to two of the Conditions of Approval for the
project.
These issues impact timing of construction of the project. They are:
Issue No. 1:
Condition of Approval No. 32 of Planning Application No. 95-0004 (Tentative
Tract Map No. 28011 )which reads: "Tract Map No. 28011 shall be recorded
prior to the issuance of any permits;" and
Issue No. 2:
A portion of Condition of Approval No. 74 of Planning Application No. 94-0061
(Master Conditional Use Permit), a portion of Condition of Approval No. 38 of
Planning Application No. 95-0003 (Westside Specific Plan), a portion of
Condition No. 83 of Planning Application No. PA95-0004(Tentative Tract Map
No. 28011) which reads: "Page 40 of the study states that "at the Rancho
California Road/Interstate 15 (1-15) north ramps, on the westbound intersection
approach, widen and/or re-stripe Rancho California Road to provide one through
lane aligned with the (evenl~ual) separate left turn lane at the I-15 south on-
ramp, one through lane, one optional through/right turn lane, and one right turn
lane. In order to accommodate two lanes of right turning traffic onto the I-15
north on-ramp, widening and/or restriping may be required just north of Rancho
California Road; these two lanes should merge into one lane, however, prior to
intersecting the mainline of I-15 north".
The following language was added at the Planning Commission hearing: "Similar
widening and/or restriping shall be provided on the eastbound intersection
approach at the Rancho California Road/interstate 15 south ramp."
issue No. 1
The applicant has provided a letter (dated February 12, 1996), regarding deletion of condition
of approval No. 32 of Planning Application No. PA95-0003 regarding filing of the final map
prior to issuance of any permit (reference Attachment No. 3).
R:~rAFFRP~OTRP-REV.I~C 2/28/96 mf 2