HomeMy WebLinkAbout050597 PC AgendaTEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION
May 5, 1997, 6.'00 PM
43200 Business Park Drive, Council Chambers
Temecula, CA 92390
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairman Fahey
ROLL CALL:
Fahey, Miller, Slaven, Soltysiak and Webster
PUBLIC COMMENTS
A ~olal of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address the commissioners on items that are
not listed on the Agenda: Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the
Commissioners about an item not listed on the Agenda, a pink "Request to Speak" form should be filled out
and ~ed with the Commission Secretary.
When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name and address.
For all other agenda items a "Request to Speak" form must be ~ed with the Planning Secretary before
Comnfission gets to that item. There is a three (3) minute time limit for individual speakers.
COMMISSION BUSINESS
1. Approval of Agenda
2. Approval of Minutes from:
a. April 7, 1997
b. April 21, 1997
3. Director's Hearing Case Update
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Environmental Action:
Planner:
Recommendation:
Planning Application No. PA97-0033 (Tentative Tract Map No. 28503)
Bramalea California LLC
North of the intersection of La Serena Way and Promenade Chardonnay
/4111~ withill V'lLlage B of the Temeku Hills Specific Plan No. 199 (formerly
Margarita Village)
To sobdivide 16.4 acres into 33 residential lots with a minimum lot size of
7,200 sq. ft.
Negative Declaration
Carole Douahoe
Approval
5. Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Environmental Action:
Planner:
Recommendation:
Planning Application No. PA97-0030 (Amendment and Restatement to
Development Agreement No. 5)
Bramalea California, LLC
West of Butlerfield Stage Road, south of La Serena Way, North of Rancho
California Road and east of Meadows Parkway
Amendment and Restatement to Development Agreement No. 5 to reduce
the Public Facility Fee paid on the remaining undeveloped pareels in the
Chardonnay Hills Subdivision
Adoption of a Negative Declaration
Matthew Fagan
Approval
Case No.:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Environmental Action:
Planner:
Engineer:
Recommendation:
Planning Application No. PA97-0007 (Development Plan)
Temecula One Properties
South Side of Avenida Alvarado, west of Diaz Road
To construct and operate a 17,021 square foot industrial warehouse and
office building for Superior Wholesale Tire Company
Negative Declaration
Cardie Donahoe
Larry Cooley
Approval
Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Environmental Action:
Planner:
Recommendation:
PA95-0127 (Sign Ordinance)
City of Temeeula
Citywide
Adoption of a Comprehensive Sign Ordinance
Exempt from lhe Requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) Pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3).
Saied Naaseh
Recommend the City Council Approve
PLANNING MANAGERS REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION
OTHER BUSINESS
Next meeting: May 19, 1997 - Regular Planning Commission meeting
ADJOURNMENT
RESIDENTIAL ACCESS
INLAND EMPIRE
ORANGE CO
LA CO
CENTRAL VALLEY
SACRAMENTO
BAY
CALIFORNIA CODES
SOUTH
CENTRAL
NORTH
MINI EDUCATION WEEK
MODESTO(Daryl Willey)
CTI CALENDAR
'9%'98
SANDIEGO-June 10, 11, 12
FRESNO
ORANGEx,LA CO'S
BAY AREA(San Jose)
EDUCATION WEEK
RIVERSIDE-OCTOBER
CONCORD-NOVEMBER
ATC-20 Dates
June 10, 11, 12
June 24,25,26
August 26,27,28
September 9, 10, 11
Access(lsam)
Access(Don)
ITEM #2
MINUTES FROM
APRIL 7, 1997
MINUTES OF A REGULAR 1VIk"~.TINC,
OF ~ CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
AP~H. 7, 1997
A regular meeting of the City of Temecula Planning Commission was called to order on Monday, April 7, 1997,
6:01 P.M., a~ the City of Temecula Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. Co-
Chairman Slaven presiding.
PRESENT: Miller, Slaven, Soltysiak, Webster
ABSENT: Fahey
Also present were Community Development Director Gary Thornhill, Principal Engineer Ron Parks, Assistant
City Attorney Rubin D. Weiner, Planning Manager Debbie Ubnoske, Senior Planner Dave Hogan, Associate
Planner Matthew Fagan, Assistant Engineer Larry Cooley and Minute Clerk Pat Kelley.
PUBLIC COMMKNTS
Co-Chairman Slaven called for public comments on non-agenda items. There were no requests to spe3k.
COMMISSION BUS1N~,SS
~.. Approval of Agenda
Co-Chairman Slaven requested Item 5 be heard after Item 6 as the proponents, who were from out of
town, had not arrived.
It was moved by Commissioner Miller, and seconded by Commissioner Webster, to approve the agenda
as amended.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Miller, Slaven, Soltysiak, Webster
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey
Chairman Fahey arrived at 6:03 P.M.
2. Approval of March 17. 1997 Minutes
It was moved by Commissioner Miller, and seconded by Commissioner Webster, to approve the minutes
of March 17, 1997, with the following amendments:
Page 3, last paragraph, add Commissioner Soltysiak requested clarification that other developers would
not be subsidizing this developer's infm~trnctore cost.
R:\PLANCO~4\MINUTES\1997\4-7-97.WPD 5/1/97 vgw i
PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 7, 1997
Page 5, second paragraph, "Commissioner Soltysiak asked to see the proposed grading..."
The motion carried as follows:
AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Miller, Slaven, Soltysiak, Webster, Fahey
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
DIRECTOR'S HEARING UPDATE
Planning Manager Debbie Ubnoske stated she was available to answer any questions. There were none.
Best Western Freeway Sign (PA97-0065)
Senior Planner Dave Hogan presented the staff report.
Commissioner Webster asked if the applicant had received any tree trimming from Caltrans. Mr. Hogan
replied the applicant started with Caltrans, but Caltrans only approves selective tree thinning and the trees
need to be topped.
Commissioner Slaven asked if the trees have reached full maturity, and if there are other areas on t~
property to locate a lower sign. Ms. Ubnoske stated Caltrans say the trees have reached full matul
however, the City's landscaper says they can grow higher. Mr. Hogan stated the property is borders,,
by trees and there is no other viable location alternative.
Commissioner Slaven commented that since the trees along the freeway will continue to gmw, increasing
the sign height will not solve the problem on a long-term basis.
Chairman Fahey suggested freeway oriented signage would be an appropriate item for discussion at the
tentative April 29, 1997, joint City Council/Planning Commission meeting.
Commissioner Webster stated he did not believe it was necessary to wait for the joint meeting to decide
this particular matter as the outcome from that meeting will not change the decision made tonight.
Commissioner Miller expressed his concern over other requests for higher signs and stated he Cannot
support a sign higher than Burger King's 40' sign.
It was moved by Commissioner Slaven, and seconded by Chairman Fahey, to continue the item until after
the joint City Council/Planning Commission meeting and to have freeway oriented signs added to that
agenda.
Chairman Fahey stated an understanding is necessary of how the City wants the landscape along the
freeway to appear; for example, is it City policy to ensure businesses are clearly visible, or to 1'
greenscape along the freeway. Mr. Hogan stated staff has begun to look at signing and landscaping
a compatible basis so they work together.
R:\PLANCOMM\MINUTES\1997\4-7-97.WPD 5/1/97 v~w 2
PL~d~NIN0 COIOflSSION APRIL 7, 1997
The motion carried as follows:
AYF.& 4
NOES: 1
ABSENT: 0
COMMISSIONERS: Miller, Slaven, Soltysiak, Fahey
COMMISSIONERS: Webster
COMMISSIONERS None
6. Planning Application No. PA96-0345 - (Development Plan. Palomar Village Shopping Center~
Commissioner Webster stated although his residence is in the adjacent area, he is beyond the conflict of
an interest limit.
Assistant City Attorney Weiner asked Commissioner Slaven to confirm she does not have any
predisposition regarding how the grounds mentioned in her letter of March 25, 1997, may come out in
this hearing. Commissioner Slaven stated she would make her decision solely based on the evidence
presented in the hearing.
Senior Planner Dave Hogan presented the staff report.
Commissioner Webster asked if the requested uses are permitted or conditionally permitted. Mr. Hogan
replied they are permitted uses.
Commissioner Weber asked if a signal is planned for the Margarita Road/Yukon intersection. Assistant
Engineer Larry Cooley answered no signal is scheduled at this time because the intersection does not meet
warrants - trip counts for Margarita Road, just north of Rancho California Road, were 13,500 dally as
of July 1996. Principal Engineer Ron Parks stated the maximum allowable is approximately 20,000 per
day.
Commissioner Slaven questioned if the tanker tracks can safely enter and exit the facility from Yukon.
Mr. Cooley stated the turning radii at the intersection can accommodate a tanker truck and Yukon was
originally approved as a commercial collector street.
Commissioner Miller questioned whether the loaded weight of 23 service tankers monthly will overstress
the street. Mr. Cooley replied he does not feel this is a concern.
Commissioner Slaven stated landscaping and driveway access will displace parking spaces and question
the depth from the driveway property line to the landscaping area. Mr. Hogan answered it is about 15'.
Chairman Fahey opened the public hearing at 6:45 P.M.
Larry Markham, 41750 Winchester Road, representing the applicant S&L Oil, JV, stated the applicant
remains in concurrence with the Conditions of Approval as modified at the March 13, 1997 Directors'
heating. He provided additional detail regarding lighting (1/4-foot candle at the sidewalk, and sufficient
for the Police Depamnent) and landscaping. He suggested the shrubs be moved to the outside of the
buffer wall, and said the applicant is willing to make a right-turn exit only at the car wash to eliminate
stop sign problems. Mr. Markham stated the applicant continues to request @ 24-hour operation for the
gas station.
R:\PLANC(~x~\MINUTES\1997\4-7-97.WPD 5/1/97
PLlx.,NNING
~PRIL 7, 1997
Commissioner Slaven asked if new trees were pined for the north side of the property. Mr. Marlcj.
replied five (5) or six (6) 24" box London Plain, trees, and pines, and shrubbery, are pined along the
wail or ben. Mr. Markham suggested Condition 6F be modified to put the landscape buffer outside the
wail.
Commissioner Slaven asked if the beight of the canopy could be lowered. Mr. Markham stated lowering
the canopy could restrict RV service.
Commissioner Slaven questioned the need for the service station to operate 24 hours a day. Mr.
Markham replied competing stations are presently open 24 hours.
Joanne Boggein, 30591 Hollyberry Lane, representing the Village Homeowners Association, stated when
driving a full size van, she has problems pulling onto Yukon with cars parked on both sides and
questioned a tanker being able to make the move safely. She presented photos of businesses in the
Palomar Center and Temecula illustrating tile roofs and small signage and requested any slanting or
visible portion of the buildings be tile rather than metal. Ms. noggein stated the Long Valley Wash could
be a victim of ha~'~rdous spills and runoff and asked if Shell or the developer would post bonds for
damages and health h.7~rds to clean up the wash. She mentioned this is the first service station in a
residential area.
Barbara Michael, 30300 Chumhill Court, representing the Village Homeowners Association, spoke in
opposition to the project due to the increase in noise and light levels.
Jim Contopulos, 42075 Humber Drive, representing the Village Homeowners Association, spoke in
opposition to the project due to excess lighting created by a 24-hour operation.
David Michael, 30300 Chumhill Court, representing the Village Homeowners Association, spoke in
opposition to the project because of an increase in traffic, noise, and lighting in the area. However, if
the project is approved, he recummended the applicant pay half of the cost for a signal at Yukon and
Margarita Road. He stated only one meeting was held with the homeowners and all attendees were
opposed to the project.
Sharon Mayberry, 42055 Kaffirboom Court, spoke in opposition to the project due to an increase in
accidents and the safety of children on Yukon.
Curtis Schen, 42136 Teatree Court, representing KFC and a Village Grove property owner, spoke in
favor of the project and stated the restaurant manager is very conscientious and has addressed concerns
raised by homeowners.
Commissioner Slaven asked if it is anticipated that most of the customers will be drive-thin ones. Mr.
Schen replied the business is geared for drive-thin traffic and he does not anticipate many dining room
customers as they only have two (2) booths and seating for two at a counter.
Commissioner Slaven expressed concern about customers crossing the drive-thin lane since a majo, .
of the parking is on the west side. Mr. Schen replied KFC believes their customers will be from the gas
station rather than the Center. He suggested signage might be helpful.
R:\PLANCO~M\MINUTES\1997\4-7-97.WPD 5/1/97 vgw 4
PLI~INING COIOIISSION ~PRIL 7, 1997
Frank Villirilli, 30371 Red River Circle, spoke in opposition to the project because of odors, accidents,
and trailer truck noise.
Peter Ruthbun, 24399 Avenida Musico, Mun'ieta, representing the Village Homeowners Association,
expressed concern the project is not meeting discharge requirements. He said rather than going into an
appmved concrete or underground system; the proposed storm drain system has been incorporated into
the area's green belt. Mr. Ruthbun ~ated that most car washes do not meet OSHA noise pollution
requirements at significant distances from the blower/dryer assembly.
Michelle Dawn, 41880 Humher, spoke in opposition to the pmposai because of the loss of parking spaces
and increased traffic.
Gus Friedel, 42140 Teatree, spoke in opposition to the project due to landscaping restrictions in the
Village Grove CC&Rs, which homeowners Will prevent use of landscape material to block out noise.
Kathaxine Lara, 42162 Sweet Shade Lane, stated opposition to the pmposai because increased traffic will
adversely affect those who like to walk/jog/ran in the area.
Mike Helfrich, 42144 Teatree Court, spoke in opposition to the project.
Don Harper, 42020 Teatree Court, spoke in opposition.
Debra Prentice, 30445 Shenandoah Court, spoke in opposition to the project because there is nothing to
advance the village center concept; to the contrary, it creates additional vehicular traffic.
In response to the concerns raised, Mr. Markham reiterated; 1) The traffic generated by this facility will
be below the 5 % ailowahle range of additional impact. 2) The center has paid about $55,000 in traffic
mitigation fees which should pay for half of a signal at Yukon and Margarita Road. 3) He said double
wall tanks with censoring devices which tie into HAZMAT will he installed and HAZMAT holds the
developer liable for any haTardous spills. 4) The applicant offers to put in a chamber catch basin, which
is an anticipated future municipai/industriai best management practice for EPDS. 5) The car wash has
a clarifier system which basically recirculates the water; Eastern Water District will monitor for any
violadons. 6) Mr. Markham stated the planned tanker access is along Margarita Road onto Yukon, but
a routing through the center is possible. He accepted the condition that no light spillage shall occur
beyond the property line. He provided staff with a car wash acoustic study showing the dryer end, the
noisiest area, will have a decibel reading of less than 75 at 30 feet. The developer will accept a condition
that noise generated by the car wash will not exceed ambient noise levels for Margarita and Rancho
Caiifomia Roads. Mr. Markham stated a complete pedestrian walking system around the site has been
provided, and Lucky's has appreved the project. He added the metal roof was dictated by staff to match
existing buildings and the developer is neutral on style and open to modification. Mr. Markham
mentioned the nine (9) existing trees along Yukon will be retained (the diseased ones replaced) and five
(5) additional ones at about 20' spacing are planned, as well as some on Margarita Road.
Commissioner Slaven asked how HAZMAT and the fire department were notified of baT~rdous leaks.
Mr. Markham explained an automatic alarm system, with a dedicated phone line to HAZMAT, issues
such a warning.
R:\PLANCCll~I\MINUTES\1997\4o7-97.WPD 5/1/97 vcJw 5
Pt~qNIN~ COIGIISSION
APRIL 7, 1997
Chairman Fahey questioned the impact if the car wash was not part of the project. Mr. Markham rep.
the applicant typically has a car wash facility with his stations and the project would probably not go
without the car wash.
Commissioner Miller asked how much noise will be heard by a neighbor 100 yards from the car wash.
Mr. Markham replied the noise will be below the ambient noise of Margarita Road, and he will accept
a condition the car wash shall not be within 200' of a residential zone.
Commissioner Soltysiak questioned timing of gasoline deliveries. Mr. Markham replied deliveries in a
peak season occur about 23 times a month and typically in the evening, but can be tailored to whatever
is required.
Commissioner Miller asked if a right-out-only tom from the car wash wouldn't make traffic worst because
traffic is then forced to exit on Yukon. Mr. 'Markham stated he did not see exits from the car wash as
a major coneera.
Chairman Fahey called for a recess at 8:18 P.M. The meeting was reconvened at 8:29 P.M.
Commissioner Webster asked why Mr. Michael only received a copy of the general plan. Ms. Ubnoske
stated, staff reviewed traffic and noise impacts and determined the project is consistent with the General
Plan' s traffic study, which was done for the entire city. Mr. Hogan stated a negative declaration w~
appmved by the County when the Center was built; staff reviewed the General Plan EIR which addr
impacts. He also advised that Mr. Michael will be given a copy of the initial study.
Chairman Fahey stated her thoughts are: this use is allowed at this location; the developer has attempted
to mitigate any adverse effects; she and she would support the project with the following additions: no
lights spill past the property lines; tankers to come thru the center at a time having the least traffic impact
(staff to determine); a chambered basin is to be installed; The car wash acoustic impact will not exceed
ambient standards; staff directed to determine if it is possible to lower the canopy height; operating hours
shall be 6AM to midnight; and increase the size of trees on Yukon, with a majority being evergreen.
Commissioner Webster stated a tile roof is inappropriate as the other buildings have metal roofs; and
shrubs should be placed outside the wail.
Commissioner Slaven said her comments are: The design is not in the best interest of the community or
people living in the vicinity; she supports the lighting/noise-impacting-homes arguments; and are not
certain the guarantees are enforceable; The existing landscape was put in to mitigate noise, but according
to residents doeso't; The design does not allow for ease of use; is not pedestrian friendly; does not include
any of the village concept ideas; and should not be a 24-hour operation.
Commissioner Soltysiak stated his thoughts are: the project is consistent with the General Plan; internal
traffic congestion relates to Lucky's, and the Lucky's and Albertson Centers being built to the south
should relieve this area; 24" boxed trees shall he required; architecture consistent with center;
installation of a catch basin.
R:\PLANCOMM\MINUTES\1997\4-7-97.~PD 5/1/97 vgw 6
pTaed4NIN2 COMMISSION XPRIL 7, 1997
Commissioner Miller said a gas station will meet the auto needs, homeowners and he supports the project
as it in compliance with zoning.
Mr. Markham reiterated the applicant is agreeable to amended conditions except for the hours of
operation as the station works most efficiently on a 24-hour basis, with maintenance, upkeep and cleaning
being performed in the early hours.
Chairman Fahey stated she cannot support a 24-hour operation based on the noise impacts on the
surrounding areas.
It was moved by Commissioner Slaven to deny Planning Application PA96-0345 based on the best interest
of the people in the area due to negative impacts to their health, safety and welfare, and because the
hours of operation exceed midnight. The motion died for lack of a second.
It was moved by Commissioner Miller, and seconded by Commissioner Soltysiak, to approve Planning
Application PA96-0345 as previously conditioned at the March 13, 1997 Planning Director meeting and
as augmented tonight--i.e, no light spills past the property lines; installation of a special catch basin;
acoustic impact not to exceed ambient parameters; canopy height to be as low as possible and still
accommodate vehicles; trees to be 24" box, of an evergreen majority, along the property's perimeter;
shrubs to be located outside the wall; if a left-torn lane from Margarita Road into the Center is
established, the fuel trucks must utilize that entrance; establish hours of fuel delivery to minimize noise
impact; -- and staff direction to retorn at the April 21, 1997 Planning Commission meeting with a
resolution containing the findings.
The motion failed as follows:
AYES: 2
NOES: 3
ABSTAIN: 0
COMMISSIONERS: Miller, Soltysiak
COMMISSIONERS: Slaven, Webster, Fahey
COMMISSIONERS None
It was moved by Commissioner Webster, seconded by Commissioner Miller, to approve Planning
Application PA96-0345 as previously stated in Commissioner Miller's motion with the amendment that
the service station's hours of operation will be 5:00 A.M. to midnight.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES: 3
NOES: 2
ABSTAIN: 0
COMMISSIONERS: Miller, Webster, Fahcy
COMMISSIONERS: Slaven, Soltysiak
COMMISSIONERS None
Forest City Workshop (Mall PrOject-Winchester/Ynez/Margarita Roads)
Community Development Director Gary Thornhill presented a summary of the project' s background.
Associate Planner Matthew Fagan presented the staff report.
R:\PIj~NCO~\MINUTES\1997\4-7-97.WPD 5/1/97 v~w 7
PL~dqNING COMMISSION APRIL 7o 1997
Chairman Fahey questioned the review of the environmental impact report. Mr. Fagan stated the pro~
appears to be consistent with the parameters of the EIR.
Colm Macken, representing Forest City Development, stated the power center elevations will be ready
by June 2, 1997, and it is hoped elevations of the anchor stores will also be ready at that time.
Jim Heller, KA Architects, Cleveland, stated the anchor depaxi~uent stores will do their own designs as
they will own the buildings, but will work with Forest City to develop an integrated design scheme. Mr.
Heller explained the site plan.
Tom Groover explained the design study model illus'Wales patios, landscaping, and activity space (footbail
field-size) for special community and tenant events. He also displayed the proposed materials and colors;
explained how each major courtyard will have a different theme, and how building fronts/backs will be
designed to resemble a main street, with each tenant having an opportunity to customize their individual
entrance.
Phil Milsap, Mason Design, provided overall landscaping information and stated the landscaping is based
on the approved Specific Plan.
Mr. Macken stated the power center is an integral part and economically makes the development work.
He said it will extend to North General Kearny Road, which is larger than previously shown, and will
have the same architectural features as the front of the mall. Mr. Macken mentioned an approved
plan should be ready by the June 2, 1997 hearing.
Commissioner Webster stated he had provided written comments to staff; and would like to see the same
coloring rendition shown tonight for the department stores and back of the cinema. He expressed concern
the activity space may not be large enough, after all the shown amenities are in place; with the grading
at two levels, it appears a lot of asphalt will be visible when driving along Ynez Road; and he requested
a variety of large trees in the parking area Mr. Heller replied the slopes are mild, but in the hours before
the mall is open, asphalt will be seen, which they will try to mitigate with landscaping.
Mr. Hellcr stated a detailed urban trail plan will be dcvcloped.
Commissioner Soltysiak inquired if there would be any circulation problems with every parking aisle
entering the ring road. Mr. Heller stated Forest City has successfully utilized this design for the last 12
to 15 years and have never experienced any problems with turning, and it is a design mandated by all
three anchors. The ring road is four lanes, two through lanes and two with turning movements, with
speed limits and stops at the major entrances and ring road intersections. Mr. Heller mentioned it is
planned to have final approval of the site plan by the anchors in the next three (3) weeks.
Mr. Macken stated the traffw engineer, Bob Davis, will be at the next meeting to answer all traffic related
questions.
Commissioner Soltysiak asked about the service entries. Mr. Heller replied each department store
have three (3) or four (4) receiving docks which will have screening walls and landscaping.
R:\PLANCON~4\MINUTES\1997\4-7-97.WPD 5/~/97 v~ 8
PT,~qNING COMHISSION
~PRIL 7, 1997
Commissioner Slaven questioned the possibility of designing a power center which will meet the
developer's goals and have an alignment other than all in one row. Mr. Macken answered a power center
must have 26-27% coverage to make the center efficient and economical, but the elevations will show a
separately configured center at the June 2, 1997 meeting.
Commissioner Slaven asked how Forest City dealt with corporate colors and signage. Mr. Macken
replied sign criteria is included in the CC&Rs.
Commissioner Miller stated he feels the Winchester/Ynez comer needs a more elaborate treatment and
asked if any thought had been given to having a bridge over Ynez Road or a promenade so people could
walk fmm one center to another. Mr. Macken responded sidewalks are not developed until the users are
set. Mr. Heller stated there is sidewalk development along each entrance and around the islands to the
interior, but no bridge has been considered.
Commissioner Miller reiterated a broader plant palette is needed and the landscape plan should spell out
on center rather than interconnecting circles. Mr. Heller stated detailed botanical sheets, at 16 scale in
some cases, will specify all plants, numbers, location and centering.
Chairman Fahey stated she was concerned about: the height of the buildings and the decorative featores
of the mall because there a~e homes that will acquire this mall as pan of their view; she questioned the
contribution of the tower; said making the anchors more interesting would be appreciated; and circulation
works better with multiple exits.
Commissioner Miller commented the tower seems like an interesting feature that is probably designed to
be viewed from the freeway. Mr. Macken stated the tower idea is to get visibility to the entertainment
area.
Mr. Fagan asked for any comments regarding the entrances. Commissioner Slaven stated she thought
staff was going in the right direction.
Commissioner Slaven requested the mall be the only matter on the June 2 agenda and copies of the
material be received as soon as possible.
Chairman Fahey suggested staff also provide the Commissioners with the old WallMan plans because it
was for the same location.
Mr. Fagan summarized the following schedule for the project: April 17 - formal submittal; May 8 -
Development Committee review; May 15 - resubmittal; middle of May - final submittal.
PLANNING MANAGER'S I~RPORT
Ms. Ubnoske stated she will confirm the April 29, 1997 joint City Council/Planning Commission meeting date.
R:\PLANCO~\MINUTES\1997\4-7-97.WpD 5/1/97 v~w 9
PLi~rNING COMHIsxSION APEIt 7, 1997
PLANN1NC COI~[t~SION DI,~CUSSION
Commissioner Miller asked about the s~tus of gcRing the Unocai station into compli~mce.
It w~s moved by Commissioner Slavcn, ~md seconded by Cornmissioncr Wcbsu~r, xo Mjoum the meeting at 10:25
PM. The motion was unanimously carried.
The next mcc~ng will be held April 21, 1997, s16:00 P.M. ~f the Tcmccula City Hail Council Chambers, 43200
Business Park Drive, Tcmecula, Caiiforn~a.
Linda Fahcy, Chairman
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
R:\PLANCOMM\MINUTES\1997\4-7-97.WPD 5/1/97 vgw
MINUTES FROM
AP]~IL 21, 1997
IVIINUTES OF A REGULAR MRR. TING
OF Tn'g. CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
APRIL 21, 1997
A regular meeting of the City of Temecula Planning Commission was called to order on Monday, April 21,
1997, 6:02 P.M., at the City of Temecula Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California.
Chairman Fahey presiding.
PRESENT: Fahey, Miller, Slaven, Soltysiak, Webster,
ABSENT: None
Also present were Principal Engineer Ron Parks, Assistant City Attorney Mike Estrada, Planning Manager
Debbie Ubnoske, Senior Planner Dave Hogan, Associate Planner Saied Naaseh, and Minute Clerk Pat Kelley.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Chairman Fahey called for public comments on non-agenda items. There were no requests to speak.
COMMISSION BUSINESS
Approval of/M/enda
Chairman Fahey requested Items 2 and 3 be moved to the beginning of the agenda.
It was moved by Commissioner Slaven, and seconded by Commissioner Miller, to approve the agenda
as amended.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Miller, Slaven, Soltysiak, Webster, Fahey
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
Planning Application PA97-0033 (Tentative Tract Map No. 28503)
Planning Application PA97-0030 (Amendment and Restatement to Development
Agreement No. 5)
Senior Planner Dave Hogan recommended continuation due to mapping inconsistencies.
It was moved by Commissioner Slaven, and seconded by Commissioner Miller, to continue Planning
Application PA97-0033 (Tentative Tract Map No. 28503) and Planning Application PA97-0030
(Amendment and Restatement to Development Agreement No. 5) to May 5, 1997.
R:\PLANCC~4\MINUTE~\1997\4-21-97.WPD 5/1/97 v~w 1
PT,MqNING COIOIISSION APRIL 23., 1997
The motion carried as follows:
AYES: 5
NOES: 0
ABSENT: 0
COMMISSIONERS: Miller, Slaven, Soltysiak, Webster, Fahey
COMMISSIONERS: None
COMMISSIONERS: None
1A. Resolution Approving Shell Station PA96-0345
Senior Planner Dave Hogan presented the staff report.
Commissioner Webster commented it is his understanding there was not a condition to limit hours of fuel
delivery at the April 7, 1997 meeting.
Larry Markham, 41750 Winchester Road, representing the applicant S&L Oil, JV, recalled that applicant
agreed to work out hours of delivery with staff, and would prefer 5:00 A.M. to midnight. Commissioner
Miller stated 5:00 A.M. to midnight was acceptable to him.
Commissioner Miller also noted Condition 8G. should read "Trees shall be predominantly..."
It was moved by Chairman Fahey, and seconded by Commissioner Miller, to approve the resolution far
Planning Application PA96-0345, Shell Gas Station, with the amended Condition 4 "All fuel deliv~
shall be between the hours of 5:00 a,m. to Midnight."
The motion carried as follows:
AYES: 4
NOES: 1
ABSENT: 0
COMMISSIONERS: Miller, Soltysiak, Webster, Fahey
COMMISSIONERS: Slaven
COMMISSIONERS: None
Commissioner Miller noted Condition 7a. requires roof-mounted equipment screened from public view,
but due to the area's topography, one house looks down on the project and it is impossible to totally
screen the equipment.
Planning Application No. PA97-0057 - (Extension of Time)
Senior Planner Dave Hogan presented the staff report.
Commissioner Webster questioned how many and how often had complaints been received. Planning
Manager Debbie Ubnoske answered she received one or two phone calls, primarily from one person,
every two to three weeks, and then that caller had someone else call.
Commissioner Webster asked how it was determined the trucks originated from the Temecula ,c
Company and not from the construction of Walcott Lane. Ms. Ubnoske replied the tracks had N~,
County Sand identification.
R:\PLANCOMM\MINUTES\1997\4-21-97.WPD 5/1/97 vqw 2
pTaed~NIN~ COHI~ISSION
APRIL 21. 1997
Commissioner Slavcn inquired about the time of year the complaims were received. Ms. Ubnoske
answered in the rainy season. Commissioner Slaven stated people in that area take Leifer Road during
the rainy season due to the flooding of Nicholas Road.
Commissioner Soltysiak asked if the complaints were b~ausc the tracks were operating outside normal
hours and if there was any follow-up on the complaints. Ms. Ubnoskc replied the complaints were that
the trucks were operating earlier than set forth in the Conditions of Approval; she did not send a staff
person out to investigate, but sent two letters, and Mr. Roripaugh responded he was aware of the
Conditions of Appmvai and none of his driven should have been on Leifer Road.
Commissioner Slaven asked if the City has any recourse to enforce approved Conditions of Approval.
Assistant City Attorney Mike Estrada summarized the procedure once staff is notified of a violation '-
violation is verified, applicant given time to correct, and if violations continue, the matter comes to the
Commission for determination of the violation of the entitlement.
Commissioner Slaven questioned whether or not any financial impact precedent has occurred in Temecula.
Ms. Ubnoske raplied the Planning Department can issue citations, but have not been done so and this is
a topic for the joint City Council/Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Estrada reported an administrative
penalty ordinance is being drafted and if adopted, will allow the City to impose financial penalties for
violations.
~,hairman Fahey opened the public bearing at 6:32 PM.
Jack Roripaugh, P.O. Box 2, stated one of his trucks went on Leifer Road when Nicholas Road was
washed out, and he believes there are also Leifer Road residents with backhoes and tractors plus others
who use that road when Nicholas Road is washed out.
Chairman Fahey asked how much sand remains to be removed. Mr. Roripaugh replied there are 7,000
cubic yards, which should take about 90 days to remove as each truck holds 20 cubic yards.
Larry Markham, 41750 Wiocbester Road, Suite L, representing Jack Roripaugh, applicant, suggested two
new conditions be added to the 90-day extension: 1) "No Thru Truck Route" signs placed on Leifer Road
at applicants' expense; 2) property gates locked at the times the permit specifies.
Chairman Fahey closed the public comment section at 6:43 PM.
Commissioner Slaven stated since the petition supporting Mr. Roripaugh is signed by 20 area
homeowners, there is the possibility that trucks other than Mr. Roripaugh's are using Leifer Road and
with erecting the proposed signage, does not see any problem with the extension.
Chairman Fahey asked staffs opinion regarding the signage and locking the property. Ms. Ubnoske
stated the existing sign ordinance does not contain any provision for this type of sign, but a condition to
lock the gates could be imposed. Mr. Hogan mentioned the original Conditions of Approval allowed five
(5) trips/day. Therefore, Mr. Roripaugh would need 105 calendar days to remove 7,000 cubic yards,
which will make the ending date August 4, 1997.
R: \PLANCC~4\MINUTES\1997\4-21-97.WPD 5/1/97 vgw 3
Pt~I'IN~ COHNISSION APRIL 21, 1997
It was moved by Commissioner Miller, and seconded by Commissioner Slaven, to approve Plato,
Application PA97-0057 for a one hundred and five (105) day extension of time for Minor Conditional
Use Permit No. PA96-0065 with an expiration date of August 4, 1997 (or date determined by Staff to
be correct for 105 working days), with the approved Conditions of Approval amended by the additional
condition requiring the gates to the sand loading area be locked between 7 AM and 4 PM.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Miller, Slaven, Soltysiak, Webster, Fahey
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS None
5. Planning Application PA95-0127 (Sign Ordinance
Assistant Planner Saied Naaseh presented the staff report.
Commissioner Slaven commented that after this ordinance is approved, a non-conforming sign inventory
will be completed, and then further discussions will be held on the issue.
Commissioner Miller expressed concern over handpainted signs being allowed.
Commissioner Slaven asked why banners for multi-family rentals were only allowed during the t
quarter. Mr. Naaseh replied the apartments are a permanent facility, and the apartment owners statea ,,
flags could not be permanent, they wanted them for the third quarter -- their busiest time.
Commissioner Slaven asked the difference between a pole and a pylon sign. Mr. Naaseh answered a pole
sign is a sign structure supported by a single metal pole, and a pylon sign is supported by one (1) or two
(2) structures, not metal poles, that have some architectoral aesthetic elements.
Commissioner Slaven asked why "Land Lord" was added under Directional Signs Structures: Operation.
Mr. Naaseh answered because renting of ap~uhnents was added for direetional signs.
Chairman Fahey reopened the public hearing at 7:12 PM.
Bob Kirkpatrick, 27740 Jefferson Avenue, representing the Teroecula Valley Economic Development
Corporation, stated the city needs to retain the "business friendly" label and limiting freeway signage to
seven (7) acre parcels are too restrictive and will send a negative message to business. He also spoke
about the adverse effect created for many existing buildings by allowing only one wall-mounted freeway
identification sign as major tenants demand and need signage.
Chairman Fahey invited Mr. Kirkpatrick to return with his comments regarding the non-conforming sign
issue when it comes before the Commission.
R:\PI~NCOF~4\MINUTES\1997\4-21-97.WPD 5/1/97 vgw 4
PIANNING COMMISSION
APRIL 21o 1997
Fred Grimes, 37211 Jefferson Avenue, Suite 103, representing CDM WestMar, stated his opposition to
prohibiting wail mounted freeway signs for multi-tenants and to the seven (7) acre center minimum for
multi-tenant freeway signs because if it was not for the freeway, centers would not be developed and
tenants would not come.
Mark Esperson, 27311 Jefferson, Suite 103, representing CDM WestMar and other area retail
developments, spoke in opposition of not ailowing freeway signage, even if some are grand lathered,
because tenants come and go, yet the project, built to take advantage of freeway signing, remains. He
asked that sign standards be adopted so there would be very nice signs. Mr. Esperson is adamantly
opposed to the seven (7) acre minimum as a three (3) acre shopping center could be 30,000+ square feet.
He stated the notice from the Planning Depaxhnent concerning the ordinance was misleading.
Commissioner Slaven asked his thoughts regarding the effect of sign pollution on the community's
sppoarance. Mr. Esperson replied the City could promote and enforce sign standards, but should ailow
business people to take advantage of the freeway, a major asset to Temecula.
Larry Markham, 41750 Winchester, Suite L, representing Jack Raymond and others, spoke in opposition
to the acreage requirement and soggested good signing be encouraged and sign limitation; i.e., one
freestanding sign with multi tenants rather than each building with a sign, and asked if a commerciai
center definition could be included.
Lillian Justice, 2372 Recorda Cove, spoke in favor of the ordinance as businesses will find creative and
useful ways to conform to the Commission's signage requirements.
Cynthia Arocha, 44535 Bedford Court, stated the notice she received regarding the sign ordinance was
misleading. Ms. Arocha agreed tasteful signage is necessary, but smail businesses cannot be successful
without freeway signing.
Chairman Fahey closed the public comment section at 7:49 PM.
Chairman Fahey cailed a recess at 7:50 PM. The meeting was reconvened at 8:00 PM.
17.28.010 - Purpose and Intent
Chairman Fahey, and Commissioners Webster and Miller stated the "...and noncommercial off-premise
signs..." is confusing. Mr. Estrada stated off-premise could be deleted.
First paragraph - 3rd line - Commissioner Miller said instead of "...maintenance of ail signs." it should
be "... maintenance of City of Temecula signs."
Second paragraph - 1st line and 4th line - Commissioner Miller suggested rewording to be "It is the goai
of the City..." and "in achieving the goal."
R: \PLANCO~\MINUTES\1997\4-21-97 .WPD 5/1/97 vgw 5
PLKNNIN~ COIOflSSION ~PRIL 21, 1997
17.28.030 - Sign Permits
Co)(2) Commissioner Miller asked the meaning of "accepted standards of quality for professional graphic
artists." Mr. Estrada stated the intent is to ensure signs are of the highest standards; suggested it could
be replaced with "highest standards of quality" which gives staff flexibility in reviewing signs that may
be technically correct, but sloppily done.
It was the consensus of the Commission for staff to develop better language.
17.28.040 - Prohibited Signs
(d) Bunting - Commissioner Slaven asked what kind of a sign program would allow bunting as she thinks
it should be prohibited as there is nothing tasteful about bunting. Mr. Naaseh stated allowing bunting
under a sign program is a compromise and is generally requested by auto dealers and will be considered
on a case-by-case basis.
It was the consensus of the Commission to leave (d) as written. Mr. Estrada suggested having a cross
reference to make it clear.
(s) Vehicle signs - Commissioner Miller expressed concem that he found nothing in the ordinance that
prohibits permanently parked vehicle signing. Mr. Hogan said the sign ordinance may not be the pron~r
vehicle to address this issue, other than prohibiting all vehicle signing. He stated staff is interestt
exploring options on how to regulate permanently parked vehicles, and Mr. Estrada said other codes v,,,l
be reviewed to determine the most effective way to address this matter.
(O Window signs - Commissioner Miller requested prohibiting window signs occupying more than ten
(10) percent of a window area and not allowing handpainted signs. Commissioner Webster does not want
menus prohibited in windows. Commissioner Webster asked how this prohibition would work for holiday
decorations. Mr. Naaseh stated holiday decorations are not considered signs.
It was the consensus of the Commission to prohibit window signs in more than 10% of window area, and
for staff to clarify the wording to prohibit painted window signs plus discourage day glow colored
manufactured signs.
17.28.050 - Exempt Signs
(h) - Commissioner Webster expressed concern that it is clearly stated holiday decorations are allowed.
Mr. Estrada suggested a cross reference to make it clear they are not prohibited.
17.28.070 - General Requirements for Permanent Signs
(3) e. - Chairman Fahey ~at~ visible freeway signing is a major concem of business and the Commission
can work on having tasteful signs. Commissioner Slaven stated there is no way to "ensure" visibility
by having 45' signs. Mr. Estrada suggested eliminate the word "ensuring" or de-emphasize it by u~ o
authorizing or permitting.
R:\PLANCO~\MINUTES\1997\4-21-97.WPD 5/1/97 vcJ~ 6
P~qLNNING COHI'[IS8ION
XPRIL 21o 1997
Chairman Fahey stated there is concem that using tree heights to justify sign height is not appropriate and
suggested staff work on wording and develop standards that would not have one sign after another or be
tacky/nondescript. Ms. Ubnoske commented tl~ due to the potential mature height of the trees, 45' will
probably be the standard sign height; but signs can be offset for visual aesthetics. Chairman Fahey
suggested consideration of incentives (like the Old Town Specific Plan incentives) to get desirable
freeway signing.
It was the consensus of the Commission for staff to work on these issues and return with
recommendations/solutions after the entire sign ordinance package has been addressed.
It was moved by Commissioner Slaven, and seconded by Commissioner Miller, to continue the public
hearing of PA95-0127, Sign Ordinance, to May 5, 1997, beginning with 17.28.070 (4) Design.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES: 5
NOES: 0
ABSTAIN: 0
COMMISSIONERS: Miller, Slaven, Soltysiak, Webster, Fahcy
COMMISSIONERS: None
COMMISSIONERS None
PLANNING MANAGER'S I~F,,PO RT
vls. Ubnoske stated she had nothing to report.
PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Commissioner Webster asked for an update on the Johnson Ranch property as he wondered how their proposed
land use map compared to their previous plan. Ms. Ubnoske said a Notice of Preparation for an EIR had been
received, but she has not had an opportunity to review it.
Chairman Fahey asked when the signal light at Margarita Road and Solana Way was going to be installed as it
was supposed to have been in by the opening of the child care center.
It was moved by Commissioner Miller, and seconded by Commissioner Slaven, to adjourn the meeting at 9:05
PM. The motion was.unanimously carried.
The next meeting will be held May 5, 1997, at 6:00 P.M. at the Temecula City Hall Council Chambers, 43200
Business Park Drive, Temecula, California.
Linda Fahey, Chairman
R:\PLANCO~4\MINUTES\1997\4-21-97.h~D 5/1/97 vgw 7
Debbic Ubnoskc, Secretary
ITEM #3
TO: ' ' '
FROM: Ze~b~e~Z~~'ng Manager
DATE: May 5, 1997
SUBJECT: Direetor's Heating Case Update
Following are the Planning DirecWr's Agenda items for April, 1997.
c~o.'..i :.:.'..: :. :~'."" '.:' '.
April 24 PA97-0048 Development Plsn, Product Jennings D. Pierce
Review for Vineyard Crest
Subdivision
· · Action
Approvcd
Attachments: 1. Action Agenda - Blue Page 2
R:~DIRI-IBAR~MF~MO\6-~-96.DH 4/29/97 klb I
ATTACIIMF~NT NO. 1
ACTION AGENDA
ACTION AGENDA
TEMECULA DIRECTOR*S I~F~ARING
REGULAR lVI~I~.TING
APRIL 24, 1997 1:30 PM
TEMECULA CITY t[AI~I, MAI]~ CONFERENCE ROOM
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92390
CALL TO ORDER:
Dave Hogan, Senior Planner
PUBLIC COMlV~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 Serdor Planner about an item not listed on the
Agenda, a pink "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed 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 fried with the Senior
Planner before that item is heard. There is a three (3) minute time limit for individual
speakers.
PUBLIC HE~ARING
Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Environmental Action:
Case Planner:
Recommendation:
ACTION:
Planning Application No. PA97-0048 (Development Plan -
Product Review)
Jennings D. Pierce, Jr.
North of Rancho California Road, east of Meadows Parkway, on
Merlot Crest
Product Review for the Vineyard Crest subdivision
Categorical Exemption - Class 5 Minor Alteration in Land Use
Limitations
Carole K. Donahoe
Approval
APPROVED
ADJOURNMENT
ITEM #4
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
MEMORANDUM
2;Z:,2%...........
May 5, 1997
Planning Application No. PA97-0033 (Tentative Tract Map No. 28503)
Prepared by:
Carole K. Donahoe, Project Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Department Staff recommends the Planning Commission:
ADOPT Resolution No. 97- approving PA97-0033 (Tentative Tract Map No.
28503, Amended No. 1), based upon the Analysis and Findings contained in the
Staff Report; and
APPROVE Planning Application No. PA97-0033 (Tentative Tract Map No. 28503,
Amended No. 1), subject to the attached Conditions of Approval.
BACKGROUND
Tentative Tract Map No. 28503 is a resubmittal of Tentative Tract Map No. 21302 which was
approved by Riverside County in 1988. The map received three extensions of time from the
City and was also subject to the automatic 24-month State extension in 1993. However,
Tentative Tract Map No. 21302 expired November 8, 1995.
The applicant formally submitted Planning Application No. PA97-0033 on February 7, 1997.
It was the identical map that had previously expired. The project was noticed for hearing at
the April 21, 1997 Planning Commission meeting. However, prior to the meeting it was
determined that Planning Area 2 was significantly smaller than the Specific Plan indicated. As
a result, the Commission continued the case until May 5, 1997 to allow staff additional time
to revisit compliance with the requirements of Specific Plan No. 199 Temeku Hills (formerly
Margarita Village).
ANALYSIS
Densitv
The Specific Plan calls for low density residential development in Planning Area 2, with a
density range of 0.4 to 2 dwelling units per acre. Planning Area 3 calls for medium density
residential with a range of 2 to 5 dwelling units per acre.
R:~Vt~33p~9'7.pc2 4/30~7 ed I
With the construction of Rancho Elementary School and La Serena Way, the amount of acreage
covered by the map has decreased in size. In order to comply with the density ranges required
by the Temeku Hills Specific Plan, the applicant has had to redesign the map, reducing the
number of lots from 37 to 33.
Tentative Tract Map No. 28503 Amended No. I is summarized as follows:
Description Planning Area 2 Planning Area 3 Total
Net Acreage 12.55 ac 2.86 ac 15.41 ac
MWD Easement
.96 ac
Total Acreage 13.51 ac 2.86 ac 16.37 ac
Dwelling Units 27 lots 6 lots 33 lots
Density 2 du/ac 2.10 du/ac 2 du/ac
Additionally, Amendment No. 2 of the Specific Plan states the following:
"Planning Areas 2 and 3 (shall) have a 7,200 square foot minimum, but lots in these
areas (shall) average in excess of 12, 350 square feet."
The smallest lot proposed in the project is 7,204 square feet; the largest lot is 20,841 square
feet. The average of all the lots both in the low density Planning Area 2 and the medium
density Planning Area 3 falls below the 12,350 square foot requirement. However, there are
unique characteristics of the project site, and the applicant proposes that four acres be left as
open space which borders every lot in the subdivision. With the addition of the four acres of
open space to adjacent property, the largest lot changes to 32,654 square feet and the
average lot size is 15,538 square feet, well over the 12,350 requirement. However, staff
requested that the open space areas be designated as separate lots, rather than as easements
upon each individual lot. Staff felt that common ownership would facilitate uniform and
consistent maintenance by the homeowners' association. Staff recommends that the
Commission determine that the applicant has met the intent of the Specific Plan.
Specific Plan No. 199 is currently in the process of its third amendment. Staff feels it may be
appropriate to add a provision in the amendment that, within Planning Area 2 and 3, the
average lot size may include portions of the site left in open space.
Resl~onse to Noticing
Correspondence from Patricia and David Rittenhouse, adjacent property owners to the east,
was received subsequent to the preparation of the April 21, 1997 Commission packet. It is
dated April 14, 1997 and is attached to this report. Staff also received a telephone call April
21, 1997 from Jim Stead, 31445 Avenida del Reposo, a resident of Meadowview. Mr. Stead
was concerned that the project was designed in excess of 2 to 3 dwelling units per acre.
Following the redesign of the map, staff spoke with Diana Stead.
All other concerns and issues having been reviewed within the Staff Report dated April 21,
1997 which is attached.
FINDINGS
The proposed land division and the design or improvement of the project is consistent
with the City's General Plan and Specific Plan No. 199, and the site 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). The Specific Plan calls for
Low Density Residential (0.4 to 2 dwelling units per acre) in Planning Area 2 and
Medium Density Residential (2-5 dwelling units per acre). The project proposes thirty-
three (33) residential parcels on 15.41 net acres. Density within that portion depicted
as Planning Area 2 of Specific Plan No. 199 is 2 dwelling units per acre. Density within
that portion depicted as Planning Area 3 is 2.10 dwelling units per acre. This is
consistent with the General Plan Land Use designations and the Specific Plan density
ranges for maximum density on 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 project will not
individually or cumulatively have an adverse effect on wildlife resources, as defined in
Section 711.2 of the Fish and Game Code.
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 Ran, Development Code, Specific Plan No. 199, 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
conforms to standards within these documents.
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 La Serena Way,
and will not obstruct any easements.
Planning Application No. PA97-0033 (Tentative Tract Map No. 28503, Amended No. 1 )
as proposed, conforms to the logical development of the 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
Staff Report dated April 21, 1997 - Blue Page 21
Correspondence dated April 14, 1997 - Blue Page 22
R:%staffq>t~33pa97.pc2 4/30/97
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
PC RESOLUTION NO. 97-
ATrACHMENT NO. 1
PC RESOLUTION NO. 97-__
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. PA97-0033 (TENTATIVE TRACT MAP
NO. 28503, AMENDED NO. 1) TO SUBDIVIDE A 15.41 NET
ACRE PARCEL INTO THIRTY-TIt~EE (33) PARCELS
LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF LA SERENA WAY,
BETWEEN MEADOWS PARKWAY AND BUTTERFIELD
STAGE ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL
NOS. 953-050-003 AND 953-050-012
~, Bramalea, LII2 fled Planning Application No. PA97-0033 (Tentative Tract
Map No. 28503, Amended No. 1) in accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan,
Development Code, and Subdivision Ordinances;
WHEREAS, Planning Application No. PA97-0033 (Tentative Tract Map No. 28503,
Amended No. 1) was processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, Planning Application No. PA97-0033 (Tentative Tract Map No. 28503) was
scheduled for hearing on April 21, 1997, and the Planning Commission considered Planning
Application No. PA97-0033 (Tentative Tract Map No. 28503, Amended No. 1) on May 5, 1997
at a duly noticed public hearing and continued 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 May 5, 1997 public heating, 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. PA97-0033 (Tentative Tract Map No. 28503,
Amended No. 1);
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA DOES RP-~OLVE, 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, to wit:
1. The proposed land division and the design or improvement of the project
is consistent with the City's General Plan and Specific Plan No. 199, and the site 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). The Specific Plan calls for Low
Density Residential (0.4 to 2 dwelling units per acre) in Planning Area 2 and Medium Density
Residential (2-5 dwelling units per acre). The project proposes thirty-three (33) residential
parcels on 15.41 net acres. Density within that portion depicted as Planning Area 2 of Specific
Plan No. 199 is 2 dwelling units per acre. Density within that portion depicted as Planning Area
3 is 2.10 dwelling units per acre. This is consistent with the General Plan Land Use
designations and the Specific Plan density ranges for maximum density on the site.
2. 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 project will not individually or
cumulatively have an adverse effect on wildlife resources, as defined in Section 711.2 of the
Fish and Game Code.
3. 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, Specific Plan No. 199,
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 conforms to standards within these documents.
4. 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,
properiy within the proposed land division. The project will take access from La Serena Way,
and will not obstruct any easements.
5. Planning Application No. PA97-0033 (Tentative Tract Map No. 28503,
Amended No. 1) as proposed, conforms to the logical development of its proposed site, and is
compatible wiffi the health, safety and welfare of the community.
Section 3. As conditioned pursuant to Sec~on 4, Planning Application No. PA97-0033
(Tentative Tract Map No. 28503, Amended No. 1) as proposed, conforms to the logical
development of its proposed site, and is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the
community.
Section 4. F~nvironmental Compliance. Environmental impacts were assessed in
Environmental Impact Report No. 202 for Specific Plan No. 199 and was certified by the County
Board of Supervisors. Amendment No. 2 of the Specific Plan was adopted in April 1996. No
substantial changes are proposed in the project which would require revisions to the previous EIR.
No substantial changes occur with P,,spect to circumstances under which the project is undertaken.
No new information, which was not known at the time of the EIR was certified and complete has
become available. Staff therefore determines that no further environmental analysis is required,
in accordance with Section 15 162 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
R:Xslaffrpt'331pa97.pc2 4r30/97 ed 7
Section 5. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby
approves Planning Application No. PA97-0033 (Tentative Tract Map No. 28503, Amended No.
1) to subdivide a 15.41 net acre parcel into thirty-three (33) parcels located on the north side of
La Serena Way, between M~dows Parkway and Butterfield Stage Road, and known as Assessor' s
Parcel No. 953-050-003 and 953-050-012, subject to conditions listed in Exhibit A, attached
hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference and made a part hereof.
Section 6. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOFrED this 5th day of May, 1997.
Linda Fahey, Chairman
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning
Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 5th day of May,
1997 by the following vote of the Commission:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
NOES:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
R:X~fffq~tX3~,a97.F.2 4~3o/e~ cd 8
EXHIBIT A
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Planning Application No. PA97-0033 {Tentative Tract Map 28503, Amended No. 1)
Project Description:
Assessor's Parcel No.:
Approval Date:
Expiration Date:
A residential subdivision of a 15.41 net acre parcel into 33
lots
953-050-003 and 953-050-012
May 5, 1997
May 5, 1999
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Within Forty-Eight (48) Hours of the Approval of this Project
The applicant/developer shall deliver to the Planning Department a cashier's check or
money order made 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 Exemption
required under Public Resources Code Section 21108(b) and California Code of
Regulations Section 15075. If within said forty-eight (48) hour period the
applicant/developer has not delivered to the Planning department the check as required
above, the approval for the project granted shall be void by reason of failure of
condition.
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. PA97-0033 (Tentative Tract Map No. 28503, Amended No. 1) which action is
brought within the appropriate statute of limitations period and Public Resources Code,
Division 13, Chapter 4 (Section 21000 et sen., 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.
R:\slaffspt~33pe97.pc2 4r3o/9'/c4t 10
4. If subdivision phasing is proposed, the applicant shall submit a phasing plan to the
Planning Manager for approval.
5. The tentative subdivision shall comply with all requirements of Specific Plan No. 199
and its amendments.
6. Within fifteen (15) days from the date of approval of this application, the applicant shall
submit a revised exhibit for Tentative Tract Map No. 28503, Amended No. I that
corrects the map's Statistical Data General information as follows for review and
approval:
a. Renumber all lots to reflect 33 single family lots and 4 open space lots.
1) Recalculate densities by parcel or Planning Area.
2) Recalculate parcel area and areas for easements, streets, and open space.
3) Recalculate earthwork quantities as necessary.
Prior to Issuance of Grading Permits
7. The applicant shall submit a copy of the Rough Grading plans to the Planning Director
for approval.
8. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 8.24 of the Temecula
Municipal Code.
9. The applicant shall submit conceptual landscape plans to the Planning Department for
review and approval. The plans shall be consistent with City standards and Specific
Plan No. 199 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:
a. Landscaping on all slope areas and common areas.
b. Front yard landscaping.
c. The height, location and the materials for all walls and fences shall be designed
in accordance with Specific Plan Design Guidelines for 'Community Walls and
Fences."
d. Landscaping along La Serena Way shall matchup to street landscaping already
installed on the south side of La Serena Way.
Prior to Recordation of the Final Map
10. The applicant shall submit the following to the Planning Director for approval:
a. A copy of the Final Map
R:~x~lFr~t~33pa97,pc2 4/30/9/
b. A copy of the Rough Grading Plans
c. A copy of the Environmental Constraint Sheet (ECS) with the following notes:
1) 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.
d. 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
11. 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.
12. The applicant shall submit the following to the Planning Director for approval:
a. 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:
1 ) 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.
c. Precise grading plans consistent with the approved rough grading plans including
all structural setback measurements.
d. The Temporary Use Permit application for a Model Home Complex (if applicable)
which includes the following:
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
Site Plan with off-street parking
Construction Landscape Plans
Fencing Plans
Building Elevations
Floor Plans
Materials and Colors Board
A Development Plan shall be submitted and approved by the Planning Director
for the housing product.
13.
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.
14.
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.
Prior to Issuance of Occupancy Permits
15. Front yard and slope landscaping within individual lots shall be completed for inspection.
16.
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.
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
The Department of Public Works recommends the following Conditions of Approval for this
project. Unless stated otherwise, all conditions shall be completed by the Developer at no cost
to any Government Agency.
General Requirements
17.
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.
18.
A Grading Permit for rough grading shall be obtained from the Department of Public
Works prior to commencement of any construction outside of the City-maintained road
right-of-way.
19.
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.
20.
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.
Prior to Approval of the Final Map, unless other timing is indicated, the Developer shall
complete the following or have plans submitted and approved, subdivision improvement
agreements executed and securities posted:
21.
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
22.
Rancho California Water District
Eastern Municipal Water District
Metropolitan Water 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
The Developer shall construct the following public improvements to City of Temecula
General Ran standards unless otherwise noted. Plans shall be reviewed and approved
by the Department of Public Works:
Improve La Serena Way (Secondary Highway Standards - 68'/88' R/W) per City
Standard No. 102 to include dedication of half-width street right-of-way,
installation of half-width street improvements, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk,
street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not
limited to water and sewer).
All proposed interior streets shall be improved to Local Road Standards (60' R/W)
per City Standard No. 104 to include dedication of full-width street right-of-way,
installation of full-width street improvements, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk,
street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not
limited to water and sewer).
All street improvement design shall provide adequate right-of-way and pavement
transitions per CaI-Trans standards for transition to existing street sections.
Unless otherwise approved the following minimum criteria shall be observed in
the design of the street improvement plans:
Street centerline grades shall be 0.5% minimum over P.C.C. and 1.00%
minimum over A.C. paving.
f. Driveways shall conform to the applicable City Standard Nos. 207 and 208.
Street lights shall be installed along the public streets shall be designed in
accordance with Ordinance No. 461.
Concrete sidewalks shall be constructed in accordance with City Standard Nos.
400 and 401.
Design of street improvements shall extend a minimum of 300 feet beyond the
project boundaries to ensure adequate continuity of design with adjoining
properties.
23.
24.
25.
j. Minimum centerline radii shall be in accordance with City Standard No. 113.
k. The minimum lot frontages along the cul-de-sacs and knuckles shall be 35 feet.
Standard cul-de-sacs, offset cul-de-sacs and knuckles shall be constructed
throughout the land division.
Land divisions creating cut or fill slopes adjacent to the streets shall provide
erosion control, clear space and slope easements as approved by the Public
Works Department.
n. All reverse curves shall include a 100-foot minimum tangent section.
o. All street and driveway centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees.
All units shall be provided with zero clearance garage doors and garage door
openers if the driveway is less than 18 feet in depth from back of sidewalk.
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.
All concentrated drainage directed towards the public street shall be conveyed
through curb outlets per City Standard No. 301.
All utility systems including gas, electric, telephone, water, sewer, and cable Tv
shall be provided underground. Easements shall be provided as required where
adequate right-of-way does not exist for installation of the facilities. All utilities
shall be designed and constructed in accordance with City Codes and the utility
provider.
A construction area Traffic Control Plan shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer
and reviewed by the Department of Public Works for any disruption to traffic circulation
as required by the Department of Public Works.
Relinquish and waive right of access to and from La Serena Way on the Final Map with
the exception of proposed interior street and gated MWD maintenance road as
approved by the Department of Public Works.
Corner property line cut off for vehicular sight distance and installation of pedestrian
facilities shall be provided at all street intersections in accordance with Riverside County
Standard No. 805.
26. All easements and/or right-of-way dedications shall be offered for dedication to the
public or other appropriate agency and shall continue in force until the City accepts or
abandons such offers. All dedications shall be free from all encumbrances as approved
by the Department of Public Works.
27. 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 City Council approval of the final map, the Developer shall make an application
for reapportionment of any assessments with appropriate regulatory agency.
R:~$t~fftptL'13pa97.1n2 4/30/f7 ¢¢1 15
28. Any delinquent property taxes shall be paid.
29. An Environmental Constraints Sheet (ECS) shall be prepared in conjunction with the
parcel\final map to delineate identified environmental concerns and shall be recorded
with the map. 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. Development Fee Impact Fee deferrals.
b. Geotechnical hazards identified in the project's geotechnical report.
c. Archeological resources found on the site.
30. 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.
31. 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.
32. A copy of the grading and improvement plans, along with supporting hydrologic and
hydraulic calculations shall be submitted to the Metropolitan Water District (MWD) for
approval prior to recordation of the final map or the issuance of any permit. A permit
from MWD is required for work within their Right-of-Way.
33. All utility systems including gas, electric, telephone, water, sewer, and cable TV shall
be provided for underground, with easements provided as required, and designed and
constructed in accordance with City Codes and the utility provider. Telephone, cable
TV, and/or security systems shall be pre-wired in the residence.
34. The Developer shall notify the City's cable TV Franchises of the Intent to Develop.
Conduit shall be installed to cable TV Standards at time of street improvements.
Prior to Issuance of Grading Permits
35. 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
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
A Grading Ran shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer in accordance with City
of Temecula standards and approved by the Department of Public Works prior to
commencement of any grading. The plan shall incorporate adequate erosion control
measures to protect the site and adjoining properties from damage due to erosion.
A Soils Report shall be prepared by a registered Civil or 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 preliminary pavement sections.
A Geotechnical Report shall be prepared by a registered engineer or engineering
geologist and submitted to the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan
check. The report shall address special study zones and identify any geotechnical
hazards for the site including location of faults and potential for liquefaction. The report
shall include recommendations to mitigate the impact of ground shaking and
liquefaction.
A Drainage Study shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and submitted to the
Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The study shall identify
storm water runoff quantities expected from the development of this site and upstream
of the site. It shall identify all existing or proposed off-site or on-site, public or private,
drainage facilities intended to discharge this runoff. Runoff shall be conveyed to an
adequate outfall capable of receiving the storm water runoff without damage to public
or private property. The study shall include a capacity analysis verifying the adequacy
of all facilities. Any upgrading or upsizing of drainage facilities necessary to convey the
storm water runoff shall be provided as part of development of this project. The basis
for analysis and design shall be a storm with a recurrence interval of one hundred years.
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.
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.
A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The charge shall equal the prevailing Area
Drainage Plan fee rate multiplied by the area of new development. The charge is
payable to the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District prior to
issuance of any permit. If the full Area Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge has
already been credited to this property, no new charge needs to be paid.
The Developer shall obtain letters of approval or easements for any off-site work
performed on adjoining properties. The letters or easements shall be in a format as
directed by the Department of Public Works.
All lot drainage shall be directed to the driveway by side yard drainage swales
independent of any other lot.
R:~taffrpt~13ps97.pc2 4/30/97
Prior to Issuance of Building Permits
45. The Final Map shall be approved and recorded.
46.
A Precise Grading Plan shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review
and approval. The building pad shall be certified by a registered Civil Engineer for
location and elevation, and the Soils Engineer shall issue a Final Soils Report addressing
compaction and site conditions.
47.
Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the Uniform Building Code,
the approved grading plan, the conditions of the grading permit, City Grading Standards
and accepted grading construction practices. The final grading plan shall be in
substantial conformance with the approved rough grading plan.
48.
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; laLO_Y. jl;L~[ 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
49.
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
50.
All necessary certifications and clearances from engineers, utility companies and public
agencies shall be submitted as required by the Department of Public Works.
51.
All improvements shall be constructed and completed per the approved plans and City
standards to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works.
52.
The existing improvements shall be reviewed. Any appurtenance damaged or broken due
to the construction operations of this project shall be repaired or removed and replaced
to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works.
4/30/97 d ]. 8
COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT
The Temecula Community Services District has reviewed the aforementioned tentative map and
conditions the project as follows:
General Requirements:
53. All slopes, common open space and parkway landscaping shall be maintained by the
Home Owners' Association.
54. Street Lighting Energy Fees shall be paid in conformance with TCSD standards upon
request for installation of the street lights within the project.
Prior to Recordation of the Find Map:
55. The developer shall satisfy the City's park land dedication requirement (Quimby) through
the payment of an in-lieu fee equivalent to the dedication of .43 acres of land. The fee
shall be calculated by multiplying the required amount of park land by the City's then
current appraised land valuations as established by the City Manager.
56. A 10' wide equestrian trail easement, adjacent to the existing MWD right-of-way, shall
be offered for dedication to the City on the final map.
57. Prior to recordation of the final map, the property owner(s) shall comply with the TCSD
application and dedication process to transfer extended street light maintenance services
into the appropriate service level.
Prior to Issuance of Certificates of Occupancy:
58. The developer shall provide adequate disclosure to future property owners of the
existence of the Temecula Community Services District, Temecula Parks Tax, and the
annual levy of the rates and charges for street lighting and refuse/recycling services.
59. The developer shall submit the most current list of Assessor's Parcel Number assigned
to the final project.
BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT
60. Comply with applicable provisions of the 1994 edition of the California Building,
Plumbing and Mechanical Codes; 1993 National Electrical Code; California
Administrative Code, Title 24 Energy and Disabled Access Regulations and the Temecula
Municipal Code.
61. Obtain street addressing for all proposed buildings prior to submittal for plan review.
62. Provide electrical plan including loan calcs and panel schedule, plumbing schematic and
mechanical plan for plan review.
R:\st~ffrpt~33par/.pc2 4/30/97 cd ].9
63.
Prior to building permit issuance, approval must be obtained from the Water District,
Sanitation District, Public Works Department, Fire Department, Planning Department and
Building Department.
64°
Based on submitted documents, the occupancy classification of the proposed use shall
be R-3, U-1.
65.
Truss calculations that are stamped by the engineer of record, the truss manufacturers
engineer, are required for plan review submittal.
OTHER AGENCIES
66.
The applicant shall comply with the environmental health recommendations outlined in
the Riverside County Health Department's transmittal dated February 25, 1997, a copy
of which is attached.
67.
The applicant shall comply with the fire improvement recommendations outlined in the
Fire Department's transmittal dated March 18, 1997, a copy of which is attached.
68.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the Rancho California
Water District transmittal dated February 25, 1997, a copy of which is attached.
69.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the Eastern
Information Center Department of Anthropology's transmittal dated February 13, 1997,
a copy of which is attached.
70.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the Riverside County
Flood Control and Water Conservation District's transmittal dated April 7, 1997, a copy
of which is attached.
have read, understand and accept the above Conditions of Approval.
Applicant Name
R:~.~m~.~.r.2 4~0m ~ 20
ITr, mdm.,/altoally ZS. 199/' ¶OztTm -- Per
FEB-25-97 TUE 11:16 fit P. D2
DEPARTMEIer OF ENVIRONMENTAL HF, _d
25,
City ofT~ pla~dng ~mnt
P.O- ~ 9033
Tem~tda, CA 92599
RE: TENTA-i'aVE TRACT MAP-NO. PA97-0033: BEING A SUBDIVISION OF A PORTION
OF PARCEL 1 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 22$S4, AS SHOWN BY MAP ON FILE IN BOOK 147
OF PAR~ ~ AT PAG]~ 94 THROUGH 98, RECORDS OF RIVEKswE COUNTY,
1. Thc Dcpm'tm~t of Environmental Heal~} h~e wviewed Tcntmive Trot Map No. PA97-0033 and
John M. Fannhlg,
406S Cotmty'Cimle Dfive eRivmside, CA92G030PhoneO100) 358..5316 e FAX (90 9) 358-5017
(Maing Address - P.O. Box 7600 · Rlvendde, CA 92513..74N)0)
~ Two
A~m: C~'ole
~mskPRlOlt,o~l~x~dssionof~l~fmslmsp.
City of T~ The ptims droll show ltg inln'nal pipe diameter, location ofmsnholes,
v, ofiles, ]pipe m,4 joint specifcaHom sad the size of the sewers at the joactlon of the new system to
daeexistings~atem. Asinileplstindicslinglocstionofsew~iim~andwa~atinesshsllbes
sew~ district with the following c~di~cMion: 'I ~'rtifI flust the dmign of the smv~ syslmn in
Tract Map No. PA97-0033 is in accotdanee with the sewet~sl~n expamioa plsm of the Eastern
Municipal W__d~__ Di,Vai"~ and that the waste ~ stature is ulequm~ at thts ttme to tam thg
snsici~wsses~omthel~Tts~Maf. The plam must b~ submitt~l to thg City of
Temecula'sOffi~to~-vigwstlassttwowtt, ks l~RIOR to the zmlumt for the ~txndstion of the
h will be ne~sssry for financial ~ to tm c~mpie, ely t~nsligsd PRIOR ,o xecordntlon of
the nns~ map.
6. R w~T b~ umsssry ~o~ the sm2y~on ptoeeedi-~ Io b~ compk~y fumLi~ PRTOR ~o ~he
m:cn'dstlonofthefmdmap.
March 18, 1997
TO: Planning Department
ATTN: Carole Donahoe
RE: PA97-0033
Tract 28503
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 fife 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 ~andard fire hydrants (6"x4"x2 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 furnish one copy of the water plans to the Fire Department for
review. Plans shall be signed by a registered civil engineer, containing a Fire Department
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.
The required water system, including fire hydrants, shall be inslalled and accepted by the
appropriate water agency prior to any combustible building materials being placed on the
job site.
Blue dot reflectors shall be mounted in private streets and driveways to indicate location
of fire hydrants. They Shall be mounted in the middle of the street directly in line with
fire hydrant.
All buildings shall be consU'ucted with fire retardant roofing materials as desc. rib~l in The
Uniform Building Code. Any wood shingles or shakes shall be a Class *B" rating and
Shah be approvod by the fire department prior to installation.
Prior to recordafion of the final map, the developer shall pay to the City of Temeeula, the
sum of $400.00 per lo~/unit, as mitigation for fife protection impacts. Should the
developer choose to defer the lime 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
building permit.
All queslions regarding the meaning of these conditions shall be referred to the Fire Depamnent
Planning and engineering section (909)693-3974.
Laura Cabral
Fire Safety Specialist
February 25, 1997
Ms. Carole Donahoe, Case Planner
City of Temecula
Planning Department
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590-3606
SUBJECT: WATER AVAILABILITY
TRACT MAP 28503
Dear Ms. Donahoe:
Please be advised that the above-referenced property is located within
the boundaries of Rancho Califomia Water District (RCWD). Water
service, therefore, would be available upon completion of financial
arrangements between RCWD and the property owner.
If fire protection is required, customer will need to contact RCVVD 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 an Engineering Services
Representative at this office.
Sincerely,
RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT
Steve Brannon, P.E.
Development Engineering Manager
97/SB:eb036/F012JFEF
C: Laurie Williams, Engineering Services Supervisor
CALIFORNIA
HISTORICAL
RESOURCES
INFORMATION
SYSTEM
MONO
INto
Eastem Information Center
Department of Anthropology
University of California
Riverside, CA 92521-0418
Phone (909) 787-5745
Fax (909) 787-5409
CULTURAL I RSOURCE I RVIEW
DATE: P'.~. I,.~/
l~: Case Transmittal Reference Designation:
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 cultoral resources:
The proposed projec~ area has not been sun, eyed for oulmral resourcex and uentains or is adjacent to known cultoral
rosouroe(I). A }qtal¢ [ study is rccommcnded,
Baled upon exis~n2 d~ta the proposed project area Ms the poenthd for comlnln2 cultural r~ourcu. A Phue I study
is recommended,
Phase I cultoral resource study. (MF #
) identified one or more eultuml resources.
The project area contains, or has the possibility of containing, cultural resources. However, due to the nature of the
project or prior dam recovery studies, an adveru~ effect On ;ultuml resources is not anticipated. Further study is net
k'/' A Phue I cultural resouroe study (M F # ,.I~'7"7 ) identified no cultural resoureea. Further study is not re, commended.
There is · low probability of cultural resources. Further study is not recommended.
If~durimg~nstructi~n~cu~tur~reseurcc~re~ne~untarcd~wt~rksh~u~dheha~tad~rdivert~dintheimmadiatcareawhiin
· qualified aroheeologist evaluates the finds and makes rccommendatiotm.
Due to the archaeological sensitivity of the at~a, earthmoving during constnaction should he monitorrot by · profo·slonel
archaeologist.
The submission of a cultural resource managetricot rrpo~ is recommended following guide|inca for Archaeological
Resource Management RepolU prepared by the California 0 f~cc of Historic Pruervation, Preservation Planning Balletin
dl(a), December 1989.
Phase I
Phase il
Phase ill
Phase IV
Records search and field survey
Testing lEviStrata resource signSfie·nee; propose mitigation mmurml for "slgnifieant* sites.]
Mitigation [Data r~covery by e. xcavation, preservation in place, or · combination of the two. I
Moidtor earthmoving activitiu
COMMENTS:
If you have any questions, please contact us.
Eastern Information Center
IBICUqMkeI%T·ANSldlT
DAVID P. ZAPPE
General Manager-Chief Engineer
RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL
AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
City of Temecula
Plannin Department
43200 ~usiness Park Ddve
Temecula, California 92590
Attention: ("~, PDL-E, 'DO kl.~x-x. orc..,
Ladies and Gentlemen:
Re:
1995 MARKET STREET
RIVERSIDE, CA 92501
909/275-1200
By
The District does not normally recommend conditions for land divisions or other lend use cases in incorporated cities.
The District also does not plen check city land use cases, or provide State Division of Reel Estate letters or other flood
hazard reports for such cases. District comments/recommendations for such cases are normally limited to items of
specific interest to the District including District Mastor Draina · Plan facilities, other regional flood control and
draina e facilities which could be considered a logical componenPor extension of a master plan system, and District
Area ~?&inage Plan fees (deveiopmant mitigation fees). In addition, information of a general nature is provided.
The Distdct has not reviewed the roposed project in detail and the following checked comments do not in any wa
constitute or imply District a rov~or endorsement of the proposed project w~th respect to flood hazard, public heal~
and safty or any other su~Plssue:
'~eT~is project would not be impacted by District Master Drainage Plan facilities nor are other facilities of reg ona
interest proposed.
This project involves District Master Plan tecilities. The District will accept ownership of such facilities on
wdtten request of the City. Facilities must be constructed to District standards, and Disthct p an check and
inspection will be required for District acceptance. Plan check, inspection and administrative fees will be
required.
This project proposes channels, storm drains 36 inches or targer in diemater, or other facilities that could be
considered regional in nature and/or a logical extension of the adopted
Master Drainage Plan. The District would consider acceptin ownership of such facilities on written request
of the C' . Facilities must be constructed to District standa~qs and Disthct plan check and inspection w be
requi~e~6r District acceptance. P an check, nspact on and administrative fees will be required.
/ Drain P,en wh h d.inag.,cab. __to the
This project is located within the limits of the District's i"~.~'c/. C.f~ tf-~c.u~V.~.t,~ Area
Districa~or C' rior to final ap roval of the pro'ect, or in t~ee case of a rcel map or subdivision prior to
r.ordatio. tge ,.a, map. to bebe at the reto i. e; at tima of recorda,on or if
deferred, at the time of issuance of the actual permit.'
GENERAL INFORMATION
This project may require a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination S stem (NPDES) permit from the Stete Water
Resources Control Board. Clearance for grading, recordation, or other ~al approval Should not be given until the City
has determined that the project has been granted a permit or is shown to be exempt.
If this pro'ect involves a Federal Emergen.cy Management Agency (FEMA mapped flood p a n, then the C ty should
require ~{~e applicant to rovide all stuffies, calculations, plans and oA~her reformation roqu red to meet FEMA
requirements, and Should t~rther require that the applicant obtain a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) pdor
to grading, recordation or other final approval of the project, and a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) pdor to occupancy.
If a natural watercourse or mapped flood plein is im acted by this project the City should require the a licant to
obtain a Section 160111603 A reemant from the C;~ifomia Department o~ Fish and Game and a Clean P~:ter Act
Section 404 Permit fTOm the U.~. Army Corps of En ineers, or wdtten correspondence from these agencies indicating
the project is exempt from these requiromants. A~lean Water Act Section 401 Water Qua ity Certification may be
required from the local California Regional Water Quality Control Board pdor to issuance of the Corps 404 permit.
Very truly yours,
STUART E. MCKIBBIN
Senior Civil Engineer
Date: 4-7- ~7
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
APRIL 21, 1997
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
OI?I61N,4L
April 21, 1997
Planning Application No. PA97-0033 (Tentative Tract Map No. 28503)
Prepared By: Carole Donahoe, Project Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Department Staff recommends the Planning
Commission:
ADOPT Resolution No. 97-__ approving PA97-0033, based upon the Analysis
and Findings contained in the Staff Report; and
APPROVE Planning Application No. PA97-0033, subject to the attached
Conditions of Approval.
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
Bramalea California, LLC
REPRESENTATIVE:
Brian D. Johnson, Lennar Homes
PROPOSAL:
A thirty-seven (37) lot residential subdivision of 16.4 acres
LOCATION:
North side of La Serena Way, between Butterfield Stage Road and
Meadows Parkway
EXISTING ZONING:
SP (Specific Plan No. 199 - Temeku Hills): designated as 31
dwelling units of low density (0.4-2 du/ac) and 6 dwelling units of
medium density (2-5 du/ac)), for a combined total of 37 dwelling
units
SURROUNDING ZONING:
North:
South:
East:
West:
VL (Very Low Density Residential, 0.2-0.4 dwelling
units per acre)
SP (Medium Density Residential, 2-5 dwelling units
per acre)
LM (Low-Medium Density Residential, 3-6 dwelling
units per acre)
SP (Elementary School)
PROPOSED ZONING:
Not requested
GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION:
LM (Low-Medium Density Residential, 3-6 dwelling units per acre)
EXISTING LAND USE:
Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
North:
South:
East:
West:
Single-Family Residential
Single-Family Residential
Single-Family Residential
Rancho Elementary School
PROJECT STATISTICS
Total Area:
Number of Lots:
Project Density:
Earthwork Amount:
Cut:
Fill:
16.4 acres
37
2.25 dwelling units per acre
96,589 cubic yards
93,276 cubic yards
BACKGROUND
Planning Application No. PA97-0033 (Tentative Tract Map No. 28503) was formally submitted
to the Planning Department on February 7, 1997. A Development Review Committee (DRC)
meeting was held on February 27, 1997. Planning Application No. PA97-0033 was deemed
complete on March 26, 1997.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project is a resubmittal of Tentative Tract Map No. 23102, which was approved by the
Riverside County Board of Supervisors November 8, 1988. The City subsequently approved
three extensions of time. The map was also subject to the State emergency amendment to the
Subdivision Map Act in September 1993 which gave it an additional automatic 24-month
extension. However, Tentative Tract Map No. 23102 expired on November 8, 1995.
Site Design & Access
Lot sizes were designed to comply with a minimum of 7,200 square feet. The smallest lot is
7,204 square feet, and the largest is 20,841 square feet. Because of site topography, only 7
of the 37 lots are smaller than 8,000 square feet, while 16 lots are over 10,000 square feet.
Staff had concerns about the accessibility and useability of lot//20, and requested the
applicant to plot a residential envelope on the site. The plotting of Plan 2, a 2,867 square foot,
two-story, five-bedroom, 3-car garage home, depicted in Exhibit E, was reviewed and accepted
by the Public Works and Planning Department staff. The applicant proposes to construct the
same product currently under construction in Chardonnay Hills, known as "Country Walk."
The proposed subdivision takes access from La Serena Way, and is designed with four cul-de-
sacs, one crossing the Metropolitan Water District (MWD) easement that traverses the site.
The slopes around the site are proposed to be left as open space. The applicant proposes that
these numbered open space lots will be maintained by the Chardonnay Hills Home Owners
Association.
R:~STAFFRFf~3PA97.PC 4/16/97 klb 2
Area ComDatibility
The proposed subdivision is a portion of Specific Plan No. 199, Temeku Hills, a master planned
community of neighborhood villages on 1,399 acres, which includes a golf course with
clubhouse, a recreation center, park sites, elementary schools, a church, school administration
headquarters, post office, commercial and residential uses. The project complies with the
requirements of Planning Areas 2 and 3 established for the site, and is therefore compatible
with development occurring within the Specific Plan. The project's large lot sizes provide a
transition from the Specific Plan subdivisions to the Meadowview development on its north
boundary.
The Specific Ran also calls for a landscape buffer adjacent to Rancho Elementary School, and
an equestrian trail on the Metropolitan Water District easement. Because the project proposes
an open space lot along the west boundary with the school site, staff believes the project
provides a suitable buffer and meets the intent of the Specific Plan design. A ten foot
equestrian trail shall be noted on the final map.
Parkwav Landscaoing on La Serena Way
Temecula Community Services District (TCSD) has conditioned the project to include parkway
maintenance within the areas under the responsibility of the home owners association. TCSD
does not currently maintain parkways within Chardonnay Hills, and has determined that it
would not be fiscally responsible nor appropriate to do so for this project.
ResDonse from Meadowview Community Association
President Kathy Hoagland responded on behalf of the Meadowview Community Association to
the City's noticing of the project. Her letter dated February 24, 1997 (see Attachment 3)
includes concerns regarding the lack of transition to smaller lot sizes, future maintenance of the
slopes on the project site, and construction activity noise.
Transition issues were a major concern addressed by the Specific Plan as a whole. Planning
Areas 2 and 3 of that Plan, which comprise this project site, were designed to provide the
buffer between large lot and smaller lot development. As noted earlier in this report, the project
complies with the requirements for these Planning Areas. Slopes are proposed to be maintained
by the Chardonnay Hills Home Owners Association. Construction activity at the site will be
limited to those hours and conditions as specified within Ordinance No. 94-21, namely, 6:30
a.m. to 6:30 p.m. Monday through Friday, and 7:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. Saturday. No
construction activity shall be permitted on Sunday or holidays.
ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY
The project is consistent with the SP (Specific Plan) zoning on the site. The General Plan
designation is LM (Low-Medium Density Residential, 3-6 dwelling units per acre. At an overall
density of 2.25 dwelling units per acre, the project falls below the density range.
ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE
Environmental impacts were assessed in Environmental Impact Report No. 202 for Specific Plan
No. 199 and was certified by the County Board of Supervisors. Amendment No. 2 of the
Specific Plan was adopted in April 1996. No substantial changes are proposed in the project
which would require revisions to the previous EIR. No substantial changes occur with respect
to circumstances under which the project is undertaken. No new information, which was not
known at the time of the EIR was certified and complete has become available. Staff therefore
determines that no further environmental analysis is required, in accordance with Section
15162 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
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 conforms 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 the site 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). The project proposes thirty-seven (37)
residential parcels on 16.4 acres for a density of 2.25 units per acre. This is consistent
with the General Plan Land Use designation for maximum density on 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 project will not
individually or cumulatively have an adverse effect on wildlife resources, as defined in
Section 711.2 of the Fish and Game Code.
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 conforms
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 La Serena Way,
and will not obstruct any easements.
Planning Application No. PA97-0033 as proposed, conforms to the logical development
of the proposed site, and is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the
community.
R:~TAP'FRPT~3PAr/.I~C 4/16/r/ILtb 4
Attachments:
PC Resolution - Blue Page 6
A. Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 10
Exhibits - Blue Page 22
A. Vicinity Map
B. Zoning Map
C. General Plan Map
D. Tentative Tract Map
E. Lot No. 20 Plotting of House Plan 2
Meadowview Community Association Correspondence Dated February 24, 1997 - Blue
Page 23
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
EXHIBITS
CITY OF TEMECULA
To C~o~
N
PROJECT
CASE NO. - PA97-0033
EXHIBIT- A VICINITY MAP
~LANNING COMMISSION DATE -April 21, 1997
R:~staff~33pa97
CITY OF TEMECULA
SP
EXHIBIT B - ZONING MAP
DESIGNATION - SP (Specific Plan No. 199 - Temeku Hills)
OS
EXHIBIT C - GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION - LM (LOW MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL 3-6 DU PER ACRE)
CASE NO. - PA97-0033
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE -April 21, 1997
CITY OF TEMECULA
GRADFc, D// '~\ '\.,.
/ / \
/ / .....~- \ '-,, ~_:,-~-_'_~-'--',
/ "-,,
/
// \
/"-~/ \
Z
CASE NO. - PA97-0033
EXHIBIT- D TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 28503
LANNING COMMISSION DATE -April 21, 1997
R:~taffrpt~3pa97
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO. - PA97-0033
EXHIBIT - E LOT NO. 20 PLOTTING OF HOUSE PLAN z
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE- April 21, 1997
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
MEADOWVIEW COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION CORRESPONDENCE
DATED FEBRUARY 24, 1997
P~Vaff~t~331~97 23
Meadowview Community Association
FebD~ry 24, 1997
City of Temecula
Plalning Department
43200 Business Park Dr.
Temecula, Ca 92590
Attention: Carole Donahoe
Re.: Planning Application PA97-0033
The MeadowivewBoard of Directors appreciates ~e oppor~]nity to
review the propos~] tentative t~actmap 6f Planning A~plication
No. PA97-0033.
The hcme. s adjacent to Mead~iew are on substantially smaller lots
than the Meadowview Community Association end offer no transition
other than the steep escurpmant at the edge of this project.
Meadowview CEity Association is concerned about future main-
tenance of the steep slopes on lots 6,7,8 and especially open
space, lot 38. Will there be a homeowners association for slope
maintenance? If not, how will the slopes be maintained? Also,
the impacted homeowners are concerned about noise and request that
construction activity not be permitted on lots 6 through 19, inclusive
and lot 38 prior to 7:00 am or after 6:00 pm Monday through Friday
(including landscape abEL/or earth moving), before 8:00 am Or after
5:00 pm on Saturdays or an~lime Sundays.
~ you again for the opportunity to review and curetent on this
project.
n',~lL'' ' Board of Directors
· ,
P.O. Box 788 · Temecula, California 9Z593 · (909) 676-44Z9 · Fax (909) 695-2409
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
CORRESPONDENCE DATED APRIL 14, 1997
R:XataffrptX33pa97.pc2 4~29/97 ed ~22
ITEM #5
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
Planning Commissio
Debbie Ubnoske~l~anning Manager
DATE: May 5, 1997
SUBJECT:
Planning Application No. PA97-0030 - Amendment and Restatement of
Development Agreement No. 5 for portions of TM 23100, TM 23101, TM 23103
and TPM 28503 proposed (formerly TPM 23102), within Specific Plan No. 199
Prepared By: Matthew Fagan, Associate Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Department Staff recommends the Planning
Commission:
ADOPT the Negative Declaration for Planning Application
No. PA97-0030; and
ADOPT Resolution No. 97-__ recommending approval of
Planning Application No. PA97-0030 to the City Council,
based upon the Analysis and Findings contained in the
Staff Report and subject to the attached conditions of
approval.
BACKGROUND
This item was continued at the April 21, 1997 Planning Commission hearing. The number of
lots covered under the proposed Amendment and Restatement of Development Agreement No.
5 was related to Planning Application No. PA97-0033 (Tentative Tract Map No. 28503). There
were inconsistencies between the project density and the densities identified in the Margarita
Village Specific Plan. Therefore, Staff recommended Planning Application No. PA97-0033 be
continued while the density issues be rectified. Four parcels have been deleted from Planning
Application No. PA97-0033 (Tentative Tract Map No. 28503); thereby making it consistent
with the Margarita Village Specific Plan. The total number of lots covered under the proposed
Amendment and Restatement to Development Agreement No. 5 has been decreased from 309
to 305.
Attachments:
3.
4.
5.
PC Resolution No. 97- - Blue Page 2
A. Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 6
Ordinance No. 97-__ - Blue Page 8
Planning Commission Staff Report (April 21, 1997) - Blue Page 13
Proposed Amendment and Restatement of Development - Blue Page 14
Exhibit - Blue Page 15
R:'~TAFFRF~30PA97.FC2 4/30/97 mf 1
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
PC RESOLUTION NO. 97-
ATrACI-I1VIENT N0. 1
PC RESOLUTION NO. 97-
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMIVIISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL BY
THE CITY COUNCIL OF AMRNDIVIENT AND
RF-qTATEMENT OF DEVELOPMENT AGREEM~NT NO. 5
BETWREN TH'R CITY OF TE1VIECULA AND BRAMALEA
CALIFORNIA, LLC FOR FORTIONS OF TRACT MAPS NO.
23100, 23101, 23103 AND TPM 28503 PROPOSED
(FORMERLY TPM 23102), WITHIN SPECIFIC PLAN NO.
199 (PLANNING APPL/CATION NO. PA97-0030)
THR PLANNING COMMISSION OF ~ CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY
RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula has received an
application from Bramalea California, LLC for an Amendment and Restatement of Development
Agreement No. 5, Specific Plan No. 199, "Margarita Village," Planning Application No. PA97-
0030, (hereinafter "Development Agreement"); and,
WIlERE/kS, the Planning Commission held a noticed public hearing on April 21, 1997,
on the issue of recommending approval or denial of the Development Agreement; and,
WgEREAS, the Planning Commission continued Planning Application No. PA97-0030
at the public heaxing on April 21, 1997 to May 5, 1997; and,
WHERFAS, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application No. PA97-0030
on May 5, 1997, on the issue of recommending approval or denial of the Development
Agreement.
NOW, THRREFORE, ~ PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA DOES FIND AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt and
approve the Ordinance approving the Development Agreement, Attachments "A" and "B",
respectively, attached hemto and incoxporated herein by this reference, subject to the Conditions
of Approval attached hereto as Attachment "C" and incorporated herein by this reference as set
forth in full herein.
Section 2. That in recommending adoption by the City Council of an Ordinance approving
the Development Agreement, the Planning Commission hereby makes the following findings:
R:~TAFFRFr~0PA97.PC2 4/29/97 mr 3
(a) The Development Agreement is consistent with the objectives, policies,
general land uses, and programs specified in the City of Temecula's General Plan in that the
Development Agreement makes reasonable provision for the use of certain real property for
residential development and is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Designation of Low-
Medium Density Residential; and,
(b) The project subject to the Development Agreement is compatible with the uses
authorized in, and the regulations prescribed for, the Specific Plan Zone district in which the
Property subject to the Development Agreement is located, and that this Development Agreement
is consistent with good planning practices by providing for the opportunity to develop the Property
consistent with the General Plan; and,
(c) The Development Agreement is in conformity with the public convenience,
general welfare, and good land use practice 'because it makes reasonable provision for a balance
of land uses compatible with the remainder of the City; and,
(d) The Development Agreement will not be detrimental to the health, safety,
or general welfare because it provides adequate assurances for the pwtection thereof; and,
(e) Notice of the public hearing before the Planning Commission was published
in a newspaper of general circulation at least ten (10) days before the Planning Commission public
hearing, and mailed or delivered at least ten (10) days prior to the heating to the project applicant
and to each agency expected to provide water, sewer, schools, police protection, and fire
protection, and to all property owners within six hundred feet (600') of the property as shown on
the latest equalized assessment roll; and,
(f) Notice of the public hearing before the Planning Commission included the
date, time, and place of the public hearing, the identity of the hearing body, a general explanation
of the matter to be considered, a general description and text or diagram of the location of the real
property that is the subject of the hearing, and of the need to exhaust administrative remedies;
and,
(g) The Development Agreement complies with the goals and objectives of the
Circulation Element of the General Plan and the traffic impacts of the development over the period
of the Development Agreement will be substantially mitigated by the mitigation measures and
conditions of approval imposed; and,
(h) The Development Agreement complies with requirements of the zoning
district in which the applicant proposes to develop in that the Low-Medium Density Residential
is consistent with the Low-Medium Residential General Plan Land lJse Designation; and,
R:~STAFFRFl*~0PA97.1~2 4/29197 mf 4
(i) The benefits that will accrue to the people of the City of Temecula from this
legislation and this Development Agreement are as follows:
City and Owner acknowledge that development of the Project will result in the
1. Generation of municipal revenue;
2. Construction of public infrastructure facilities;
3. Acceleration of both the timely development of subject property as well as
the payment of municipal revenue;
4. Enhancement of quality of life for surrounding residents with the timely
development through the elimination of dust and nuisance of partially improved lots;
5. Payment of Public Facility Fees (fire, library, traffic signal mitigation,
development and RSA); and,
Section 3. The Secretary of the Planning Commission shall cause this Resolution to
be transmitted to the City Council for further proceedings in accordance with State law.
Seetion 4. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 5th day of May, 1997.
Linda Fahey, Chairman
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning
Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 5th day of May,
1997, by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
EXHIBIT A
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Planning Application No. PA97-0030 (Development Agreement)
Project Description: An Amendment and Restatement of Development Agreement No.
5 for TM 23100, TM 23101, 23103 end TPM 28503 (proposed - formerly TPM 23102),
within Specific Plan No. 199
Approval Date:
Expiration Date:
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Within Forty-Bght (48) Hours of the Approval of this Project
The applicant/developer shall deliver to the Planning Department a cashier's check or
money order made 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 with a DeMinimus Finding required under Public Resources Code Section
21108(b) and California Code of Regulations Section 15075. If within said forty-eight
(48) hour period the applicant/developer has not delivered to the Planning Department
the check as required above, the approval for the project granted shall be void by reason
of failure of condition, Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c).
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 Planning Application
No. PA97-0030 (Development Agreement) which action is brought within the
appropriate statute of limitations period and Public Resources Code, Division 13, Chapter
4 (Section 21000 et see., 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.
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
ORDINANCE NO. 97-
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
ORDINANCE NO. 9% _
AN ORDINANCE OF ~ CITY COUNCIL OF TI-IE CITY
OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA APPROVING AN
AIVIENDMENT AND ]H~.qTATElVIENT OF DEVELOPlVIRNT
AGREEMENT NO. S BETWRi~I THE CITY OF TEMECULA
AND BRAMALE& CAI.WORNIA, IJC FOR TM 23100, 23103
AND TPM 28503, WITHIN SPECWIC PLAN NO. 199
(PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0030)
WHEREAS, Section 65864 et a~l. of the Government Code of the State of California and
Temecula City Resolution No. 91-52 authorize the execution of agreements establishing and
maintaining requirements applicable to the development of real property; and,
WHEREAS, in accordance with the procedure specified in said Resolution, Bramaiea
California, LLC has filed with the City of Temecula an application for a Development Agreement
which reflects an amendment and restatement of existing County Development Agreement No.
5 (hereinafter "this Agreement"), of a residential housing suMivision on its property for Tracts
23100, 23101, 23103 and 28503 (305 lots), heroinafter the "Subject Property" which application
has been reviewed and accepted for filing by the Community Development Director; and,
WHEREAS, notice of the City's intention to consider adoption of this Agreement with
Bramalea California, LLC has been duly given in the form and manner required by law, and the
Planning Commission and City Council of said City have each conducted public hearings on April
21, 1997 and May 5, 1997 (Planning Commission), and (City Council) at
which time it heard and considered all evidence relevant and material to said subject.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES ORDAIN AS
FOLLOWS:
Section 1. FINDINGS. The City Council hereby finds and determines, with respect
to this Agreement by and between the City of Temecula and Bramalea California, LLC, that it:
A. Is consistent with the objectives, policies, general land uses, and programs specified
in the City of Temecula's 6eneral Plan in that this Agreement makes reasonable provision for the
use of certain ~al property for residential ~velopment consistent with the 6eneral Plan' s land use
designation of Low-Medium Density Residential;
B. Is compatible with the uses authorized in, and the regulations prescribed for, the
land use district in which the Subject Property referred to herein is located as this Agreement
provides for residential development pursuant to a Specific Plan;
R:k~'fAFFRFI~0PA97.PC2 4/29/97 m~ 9
C. Is in conformity with the public convenience, general welfare, and good land use
practice because it makes reasonable provision for a balance of land uses compatible with the
remainder of the City;
D. Will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare because it provides
adequate assurances for the protection thereof;
E. Notice of the public hearing before the Planning Commission was published in a
newspaper of general circulation at least ten (10) days before the Planning Commission public
hearing, and mailed or delivered at least ten (10) days prior to the hearing to the project applicant
and to each agency expected to provide water, sewer, schools, police protection, and fire
protection, and to all property owners within six hundred feet (600') of the property as shown on
the latest equalized assessment roll;
F. Notice of the public hearing before the Planning Commission included the date,
time, and place of the public hearing, the identity of the hearing body, a general explanation of
the matter to be considered, a general description in text or diagram of the location of the real
property that is the subject of the hearing, and of the need to exhaust administrative remedies;
G. Notice of the public hearing before the City Council was published in a newspaper
of general circulation at least ten (10) days prior to the City Council public hearing, mailed at least
ten (i0) days prior to the heating to the pwject applicant, to each agency expected to provide
water, sewer, schools, police protection, and fire protection, and to all property owners within
six hundred feet (600') of the property as shown on the latest equalized assessment roll;
H. Notice of the City Council hearing included the date, the time, and place of the
public hearing, the identity of the hearing body, the general explanation of the matter to be
considered, a general description in text or by diagram of the location of the Property that is the
subject of the heating, and the notice of the need to exhaust administrative remedies;
I. City Council approved this Agreement by Ordinance based upon evidence and
findings of the Planning Commission and new evidence presented at its hearing on this
Agreement, giving its reasons therefor and setting their relationship between this Agreement and
the General Plan;
J. The benefits that will accrue to the people of the City of Temecula from this
legislation and this Agreement are as follows:
1. Generation of municipal revenue;
2. Construction of public infrastructure facilities;
3. Acceleration of both the timely development of subject property as well as
the payment of municipal revenue;
R:~TAFFRPT~OPA97.PC2 4/29/~7 mf l0
4. Enhancement of quality of life for surrounding residents with the timely
development through the elimination of dust and nuisance of partially improved lots; and
5. Payment of Public Fac'~ity Fees (fire, library, traffic signal mitigation,
development and RSA).
Section 2. APPROVAL. This Agreement, attached hereto and incorporated here'm by
this reference as Attachment '1" is hereby approved. The Mayor is authorized and directed to
evidence such approval by executing this Agreement for, and in the name of, the City of
Temecula; and the City Clerk is directed to attest thereto; provided, however, that this Agreement
shall not be executed by the City until this Ordinance takes effect and the City has received from
the applicant two executed originals of said Agreement.
Section 3. SEVERABIIJTY. The City Council hereby declares that the provisions of
this Ordinance are severable and if for any reason a court of competent jurisdiction shall hold any
sentence, paragraph, or section of this Ordinance to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the
validity of the remaining pans of this Ordinance.
Section 4. NOTICE OF ADOPTION. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of
this Ordinance and shall cause the same to be posted as required by law.
Section 5. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its
passage. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance. The City Clerk shall
publish a summaxy of this Ordinance and a certified copy of the full text of this Ordinance shall
be posted in the office of the City Clerk at least five days prior to the adoption of this Ordinance.
Within 15 days from adoption of this Ordinance, the City Clerk shall publish a summary of this
Ordinance, together with the names of the Councilmembers voting for and against the Ordinance,
and post the ~ne in the office of the City Clerk.
R:X~TAFFRFrX30PA~7.PC~ 4/29/97 mf I 1
Section 6. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOFFED this day of , 1997.
Patricia Birdsall, Mayor
ATTEST:
June S. Greek, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney
STATE OF CALIYORNIA)
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE)
CITY OF TEMECULA)
I, June S. Greek, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing
Ordinance No. __ was duly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a regular meeting
of the City Council on the day of ,199_, and that thereafter, said Ordinance
was duly adopted and passed at a regular meeting of the City Council on the day of
199_, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOF~:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
June S. Greek, City Clerk
R:',STAFFRPTI30pA97.PC2 4/29197mf 12
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
APRIL 22, 1997
R:~TAi~RPT~0pA97.PC2 4/29/97 mf 13
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
ORIGINAL
April 21, 1997
Planning Application No. PA97-0030
Amendment and Restatement of Devdopmant Agreement No. 5 for portions of TM 23100,
TM 23101, TM 23103 and TPM 28503 proposed {formerly TPM 23102), within Specific
Plan No. 199
Prepared By: Matthew Fagan, Associate Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Department Staff recommends the Planning
Commission:
ADOPT the Negative Declaration for Planning Application
No. PA97-0030; and
ADOPT Resolution No. 97- recommending approval of
Planning Application No. PA97-0030 to the City Council,
based upon the Analysis and Findings contained in the
Staff Report and subject to the attached conditions of
approval.
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
Bramalea California, LLC
REPRESENTATIVE:
Brian Johnson
PROPOSAL:
A Request for Approval of an Amendment and Restatement of
Development Agreement No. 5 for portions of TM 23100, TM
23101. TM 23103 and TPM 28503 (proposed - formerly TPM
23102), within Specific Plan No. 199
LOCATION:
West of Butterfield Stage Road, north of Rancho California Road,
east of Meadows Parkway (existing and future) adjacent to La
Serena Way
EXISTING ZONING:
SP (Specific Plan)
SURROUNDING ZONING: North:
South:
East:
West:
VL (Very Low Density Residential, .2-.4 dwelling
units per acre) and LM (Low Medium Density
Residential, 3-6 dwelling units per acre)
SP (Specific Plan)
County of Riverside (A-1-10, R-R)
SP (Specific Plan), LM (Low Medium Density
Residential, 3-6 dwelling units per acre), PI (Public
Institutional)
PROPOSED ZONING: N/A
GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION:
Low Medium Density Residential (3 to 6 dwelling units per acre)
EXISTING LAND USE:
Vacant
SURROUNDING
LAND USES:
North:
South:
East:
West:
Single Family ResidencesNacant
Single Family Residences
Single Family Residences/Wineries/Vacant
Single Family Residences/Elementary School/Vacant
PROJECT STATISTICS
Number of Lots:
Existing Development Agreement Fee:
Proposed Development Agreement Fee:
Three hundred-nine (309)
$ 5,472.00/Unit
$3,590.O0/Unit
BACKGROUND
On November 7, 1988, Development Agreement No. 5 was executed by the County of
Riverside for the Margarita Village Specific Plan (S.P. 199) which included Tracts 23100,
23101, 23102 and 23103. Bramalea California, LLC has approached the City to execute an
Amendment and Restatement of this Development Agreement to reduce the Development
Agreement fees.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Amended and Re-Stated Development Agreement ('Agreement") has a duration period of
ten (10) years and applies to Tracts 23100, 23101, 23103 and 28503. The Agreement will
cover three hundred nine (309) single-family lots. The terms of the Agreement allow for an
Interim Public Facilities Fee of $3,590.00 per unit to be paid for the first five (5) years of the
Agreement. After this period, the developer will either continue to pay the Interim Public
Facility Fee of $3,590.00 or such other Public Facilities Fee adopted by the City for other
residential projects.
ANALYSIS
The existing Development Agreement No. 5 fee includes the following fees:
Public Facilities Fee
Regional Parkland Fee
Habitat Conservation Fee
Public Services Offset Fee
$2,420.00
$447.00
$332.00
$2.273.00
Total Development Agreement Fee $5,472.00
As a result of the reduction in the Development Agreement Fee, the City will receive
$1,109,310.00 (309 lots at $3,590.00 per lot), which might otherwise have not been received
due to the project being unable to develop at the higher impact fee.
Tentative Tract MU No. 28503 (R-qning Anolication No. PA97-0033)
The proposed Amendment and Restatement to Development Agreement No. 5 includes 309
lots. Thirty-seven (37) of these lots are within Tentative Tract Map No. 28503 (Planning
Application No. PA97-0033); which is to be considered by the Planning Commission on the
same evening as this item. Tentative Parcel Map No. 23102 (TPM 23102) was previously
approved at this same location; however the map expired in 1995. Outside of some minor
modifications, Tentative Tract Map No. 28503 (Planning Application No. PA97-0033) is
essentially the same map as TPM 23102. It is the intent of the Amendment and Restatement
to Development Agreement No. 5 to include the area within Tentative Tract Map No. 28503
(Planning Application No. PA97-0033).
EXISTING ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION
This project is consistent with the General Plan since the General Plan currently designates the
site as Low Medium Density Residential and the approved development project which is
implemented by this Development Agreement is consistent with this designation. This project
is consistent with Specific Plan No. 199, since the development project which is implemented
by this Development Agreement meets all the requirements of this Specific Plan.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
A Initial Study was prepared for this project and it revealed no significant impacts. Therefore,
Staff recommends adoption of a Negative Declaration.
SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS
The Amended and Re-Stated Development Agreement ("Agreement") has a duration period of
ten (10) years and applies to Tracts 23100, 23101, 23103 and TPM 28503 proposed (formerly
TPM 23102). The Agreement will cover three hundred nine (309) single-family lots. The terms
of the Agreement allow for an Interim Public Facilities Fee of $3,590.00 per unit to be paid for
the first five (5) years of the Agreement. After this period, the developer will either continue
to pay the Interim Public Facility Fee of $3,590.00 or such other Public Facilities Fee adopted
by the City for other residential projects. As a result of the reduction in the Development
Agreement Fee, the City will receive $1,109,310.00 which might otherwise have not been
received due to the project being unable to develop at the higher impact fee.
FINDINGS
The Amendment and Restatement of Development Agreement No. 5 is consistent with
the objectives, policies, general land uses, and programs specified in the City of
Temecula's General Plan in that the Development Agreement makes reasonable provision
for the use of certain real property for residential development and is consistent with the
General Plan Land Use Designation of Low Medium Density Residential.
The Amendment and Restatement of Development Agreement No. 5 is compatible with
the uses authorized in, and the regulations prescribed for, the land use district in which
the Property subject to the Development Agreement is located as the Development
Agreement provides for single family homes. This Development Agreement is consistent
with good planning practices by providing for the opportunity to develop the Property
consistent with the General Plan.
The Amendment and Restatement of Development Agreement No. 5 is in conformity
with the public convenience, general welfare, and good land use practice because it
makes reasonable provision for a balance of housing opportunities compatible with the
remainder of the City.
m
The Amendment and Restatement of Development Agreement No. 5 will not be
detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare because it provides adequate
assurances for the protection thereof.
Notice of the public hearing before the Planning Commission was published in a
newspaper of general circulation at least ten (10) days before the Planning Commission
public hearing, and mailed or delivered at least ten (10) days prior to the hearing to the
project applicant and to each agency expected to provide water, sewer, schools, police
protection, and fire protection, and to all property owners within six hundred feet (600')
of the property as shown on the latest equalized assessment roll.
Notice of the public hearing before the Planning Commission included the date, time,
and place of the public hearing, the identity of the hearing body, a general explanation
of the matter to be considered, a general description and text or by diagram of the
location of the real property that is the subject of the hearing, and of the need to
exhaust administrative remedies.
R:~TAFFRPfL~)PA97.1~CI 4/16/97 mf 4
The Amendment and Restatement of Development Agreement No. 5 complies with the
goals and objectives of the Circulation Element of the General Plan. The traffic impacts
of the development over the period of the Development Agreement will be substantially
mitigated by the mitigation measures and conditions of approval imposed.
The Amendment and Restatement of Development Agreement No. 5 complies with
requirements of the zoning district in which the applicant proposes to develop in that
the Specific Plan zoning of Low Medium Density Residential is consistent with the Low
Medium Density Residential General Plan Land Use Designation.
The benefits that will accrue to the people of the City of Temecula from this legislation
and this Amendment and Restatement of Development Agreement No. 5 are as follows:
City and Owner acknowledge that development of the Project will result in:
a. Generation of municipal revenue;
b. Construction of public infrastructure facilities;
Enhancement of the quality of life; including residential opportunities for present
and future residents of the City;
The opportunity for an adjacent residential-commercial project creating
significant job opportunities, sales tax and ad valorem tax revenues for the City;
e. Payment of Public Facilities Fees (fire and traffic signal mitigation); and,
Participation in special assessment districts to finance City and regional
infrastructure improvements.
Attachments:
PC Resolution No. 97-__- Blue Page 6
A. Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 10
Ordinance No. 97- - Blue Page 12
Initial Environmental Study - Blue Page 17
Proposed Amendment and Restatement of Development Agreement No. 5 -
Blue Page 27
Exhibits - Blue Page 28
A. Vicinity Map
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
PC RESOLUTION NO. 97-
EXHIBIT A
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
R:%STAFF~pA97.PCI 4/14/97m~r l0
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
ORDINANCE N0. 97-__
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY
CITY OF TEMECULA
Environmental Checklist
1. Project Title:
I,~ad Agency Name and Address:
Contact Person and Phon~ Number:
Project Location:
Project Sponsor's Nam~ and Address:
General Plan Designation:
Zoning:
Description of Project:
Surrounding Lamd Uses and S~ting:
0thor public agencies whose approval
planning Application No. PA97-0030 (Amendment and
Rest~tffa-nt of IX'velopmmt Agreement No. 5 for portions
of TM 23100, TM 23101 and TM 23103)
City of T~mecula, 43200 Business Park Drive, Tcm~ala,
CA 92590
Matthew Fagan, Associat~ Plam~r (909) 694-6400
C. nmerally located west of Buttertield Stage Koad, north of
Rancho California Road, ~ast of Me,~dows Parkway
(existing and future) adjacent m La S~rena Way
Bramal~a California, LLC
23333 Avenida la Caza
Coto ~ Cs~s, CA 92679
LM (Lowam Density R~sidential - 3-6 dwelling units
per acre) and VL (Very-low Density 1LL'sidential - .2-.4
dwelling units per acre)
SP (Margarita Village Specific Plan)
Anmndment and L-'statemant of Development Agreement
No. 5 f~ portions of Sp~c'ffic Plan 199 (Margreta Vffiag~
Spec'~ic Plan)
Singl~ family r~sidenc~ to the no~h, south, east and west
None
R:~TAFFRFr~PA97.PCI 4/14~7 mf 1~
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY A~'FECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one
impact that is a "Potentially Si_~ni~cent Impact" as ind~cau:d by the checklist on the following pages.
Land Use and planning
Population and Housing
Geologic Problems
Water
Air Q,alii},
Trensportation/Circulation
Biological Resources
[ ] HA,~rds
[ ] Noise
[ ] Public Services
[ ] Utilities and Service Systems
[ ] Aesthetics
[ ] Cultural Resources
[ ] Recreation
[ ] Mandatory Findings of Significan~
DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a si~~nificant on the environment, and a NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared,
Signam
Printed Name
Date
R:~TAFFRP~30PA~7.PC1 4114/97 aft 19
ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES
sisnm~
NO
1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:
a. Conflict with general plan designation or z~ing?
b. Conflict ~dth applicable environmental plans or policies
sdoptai by aga~cics with jurisdiction ove~' the projm?
c. Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity?
soils or fannlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses?
e. Disrupt or divide the physical artang~n~t of an eftabli~h~d
community (including low-income or min(wity coflmllality)?
2, POPULATION AND HOUSING, Would be proposul:
~ Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population
projects?
b. Inducesubstanfialgwwthmanareaeith,'rctir¢ctlyor
indirectly (e.g. ~hruugh project in an undeveloped area
or extension of major infrastructure)?
c. Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing?
3, GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS, Would the proposal mull
in or expo, e people to potential impam involving.'?
a. Faultrupture?
b. Seismic ground shaking?
c. Seismic ground faihue, including liquefaction?
d. Seiche, tstmami, or volcanic hazard?
e. Landallde~ or mudflows?
f. Erosi~, c.h~ge~ in topography or urntable soft c~nditi~ns
fr~n ~avmion, grading or fill?
g. Subsidehoe tithe land?
h. Expansive soils?
I. Unique geologio or physical features?
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[1
[1
[1
[1
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[1
[1
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
R:~TAPFRKU~A97.PCl ~l~s~ ~ 20
sisnln~t
NO
4. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, 0¢ the
rate snd mount of surface nmofi'?
b. Exposure of people or propmy to water related hn,-~,rds
such as flooding?
Discharge into surface waters or oth~ alteration of surface
water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen ~
tu:-bidity)?
d. Changes in the mount of surface wate~ in any water
body?
c. Changes in currents, or the course or cllrection ofwate~
movements?
Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through
direct additions c~ withdrawals, or through intakepriori
of an aqtlifea' by ctlts of excavations or throllgh SllbStanfal
loss af goundwate~ recharge capability?
g. Altered direction or rite of flow of groundwater?
I. Substantial reduction in the amount of Foundwate~
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?
b, Bxposc sensitive receptors to pollits?
c. Alter air movcmcnt~ moisture or temperature, or cause
any change in climate?
d. Create objectionable odon?
TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION.
Would the proposal ruult in:
s. lncrcasc vehicle trips or ffaffic congestion?
b. Havards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves
or dange~'ous intersection or incompatible uses)?
[1
[3
[]
[1
[1
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[1
[]
[]
[]
[]
(]
()
[3
()
[]
[]
[]
[]
[l
[1
[]
[]
[l
[]
[]
[]
[3
[1
[1
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[1
[3
R:XSTAFFRPT~0pA97.PCl 4/14t97 mf
Pee~fially
No
c. lnsdcqualecmergcncyaccessora~ccsstonc~by~ses?
d. Insufficient paildug capacily on-site or c~-sitc?
e. Hazardsc~bsmcrsforpcdesU'~crbicyclists?
£ Cotffiicts with sdoptcd policies supporting alternative
lranspo~atinn (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
g. Rail, waXcfbomc or alrn'affic impacts?
7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal
result in impms to:
(including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals
and birds)?
b. Locally designated species (e.g. heritage U'ecs)?
coastal habitat, eU:.)?
cL Weftand habitat (e.~ marsh, ripman and vernal pool)?
e. Wildlifedispersalormigratic~comdors?
8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES.
Would the proposal:
b. Use non-ruxewsl resources in a wssteful and inefficia3t
c. Result in ~c loss of availability of a known mineral resource
of the State?
9, HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
subst~ccs (including, but not limited to: oil, pestjokes,
b. Possibleinte~wencewithanemergcncyrespomephm
c. The ercaticn of any health haTm~t c~ pob:nfial health
hazard?
[]
[]
[]
[1
[]
[1
[]
[1
[1
[1
[]
[]
[]
[]
[1
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
NO
d. Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health
bnTmrds?
e. increase fire hm-~ in areas with fl~mrnable brush,
10. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a. Increase in existing noise levcls?
b. Bxposureofpeopletoscverenoisclevcls?
11. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the propesaJ have an effect
upon, or mult in a need for new or altered Ioverment
eerviees in any of the following areas:
a. Fire prot~cti~m?
b. Police protection?
c. Schools?
d. Maintenance of public facilities, including wads?
e. Othe~ governmental services?
12. I~TILI'IIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the
proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies,
or substantial alterations to the following utilities:
Pov~ or natural gas?
b. Communications systems?
c. Local or regiona~ wator treatment or distributi~m
facilities?
d. Sewc~ or septic tanks?
e. Storm wat~' dr. in. Se?
£ Solid waste disposal?
g. Loci or reginnal wate~ supplies?
13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a, A,ffectaacenicvistaoracenichi~way?
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[1
[1
[1
[1
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[1
[]
[]
[]
[1
[1
[1
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
R:'~ST.~f~0PA4YT.P,~I ,UI~U97 mf 23
ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES
No
b. Have a dcmonsWablc negative acsthctic eff~t?
c. ere_-_*- tight or glarc?
14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
a. Disturb palc~mtological resources7 [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
b. Disturb archaeological resources? [ ] [ ] [ ]
c. Affect historical resources? [ ] [ ] [ ] IX]
d. Have the potential to cause a physical changc which would
aifcct uniquc ethnic cultural vahcs?
e. Restrict cxisting rcligious or sacrcd uses within the potential
impact area?
15. RECREATION. Would the proposal:
b. Affcct existing n:creational opportunities?
[]
16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIflCANCL
[]
[]
[]
Does the proj~t have thc potential to degrade the quality
of the mvironmcmt, subsUmthlly rcducc ~,c habitat of a
tO drop below 8elf-81L~l~minin~ levels, threateft to elimln~e
a plant or animal community, reduce the number d x~lriot
the rnng~ of a rare c¢ endangered plant o~ animal or eliminnt~
important examples of the major periods of California history
[]
b. Does the Foj~ct have th~ potential to achieve short-term, to the
dis,gdvanta~ of ling-re'm, mvimmcntal goals? [ ]
[]
[]
Does thc project have impacts that area individually
limited, but cumulatively c,,~4erable? ("Cumulatively
considcrable' ~ that the incremental effects of a
projectar~comiderablewhamviewedin~mggti~with
the dfe~s dpast projells, the effects ofotlgr ourre~
projects, and the e~eCts of probable future proires).
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[)
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
cL
a:~s'r,u, nw~^,7.~cx 4/w9~ ~r 24
17. EAIH,IE, RANALYSES.
Envm3mmmtal Imp~t Report No. 202. Imp~ts were adequately addressed.
SOURCES
1. City of Temeculs G~m~sl Plan.
2. CityofTeancculaGcncr~PlanFinslEnvironm~tallmp~ctRcpo~
R:~ST~A97.1~CI 4/14/97 mf 25
DISCUSSION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
The project is an Amendment and Restatement of Development Agreement No. S for portions of
Specific Plan No. 199 (Margarita Village). The main amendment to the Development Agreement
is reducing the amount of the payment of Public Facility Fees to the City of Temecula. The
Amendment and Restatement of Development Agreement No. 5 will not create any impacts upon
the environment. The overall project (Specific Plan No. 199 - Margarita Village) was analyzed in
Environmental Impact Pepon No. 202. Any mitigation measures recommended in EIK No. 202
will remain applicable to the project. Further, mitigation measures are contained in the conditions
of approval for TM_23100, TM23101, TM 23103 and any subsequent extensions of time and/or
rephasing of these projects.
R:~r,.a~oo~^97.~ci vlv97 at 26
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
PROPOSED AMENDMENT AND RESTATEMENT
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 5
~S'r. AlUqU'm'~301,Ar/.L,,Ci .UI4frY7 m,i' 27
ATTACHMENT NO. 5
EXHIBITS
R:~TAFF~r~^97.~ 4/14~r 28
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
PROPOSED AMENDMENT AND RESTATEMENT
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 5
R:~TAFFRFX'x30PA97.PC2 4/29/97 mf
RECORDED AT THE REQUEST OF
WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO
City Clerk
City of Temecula
P.O. Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
(Space Above Line For Recorder's Use)
AMENDMENT AND RESTATEMENT OF DEVELOPMENT
AGREEMENT
SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 199
PLANNING AREAS 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA 97-0030
"MARGARITA VILLAGE"
BRAMALEA CALIFORNIA, LLC
AMENDMENT AND RESTATEMENT OF DEVELOPMENT
AGREEMENT
BETWEEN CITY OF TEMECULA
and
BRAMALEA CALIFORNIA, LLC
This Amendment and Restatement of Development Agreement
("Agreement") is entered into by and among the City ofTemecula, a California
Municipal Corporation ("City") and Bramalea California, LLC, a California
Limited Liability Company ("Owner"):
RECITALS
A. Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65864, seq.
("Development Agreement Statutes"), Kaiser Development Company a California
Corporation and others and the County of Riverside, California ("County")
entered into Development Agreement No. 5 recorded in the Official Records of
Riverside County,"California on Novamber 7, 1988, as Instrument No. 325515
("Development Agreement No. 5").
B. Development Agreement No. 5 encompasses a project formerly
located within County approved Specific Plan No. 199 known as "Margarita
Village", a mixed use subdivision, (the "Original Project"), to be developed on
property which came within the municipal boundaries of the City when the City
incorporated on December 1, 1989. This Agreement encompasses only a portion
of the Original Project, a residential development located in a portion of Planning
Areas 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the "Project"). The balance of the Original
Project covered by Development Agreement No. 5 not included within Planning
Areas 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 is not amended or impacted by this
Agreement.
C. Pursuant to the provisions of the Development Agreement Statutes,
the City became the successor-in-interest to the County under Development
Agreement No. 5 upon incorporation of the City. Pursuant to Owner obtaining
title to the Project as r~eorded in the Official Records of Riverside County,
California on June 17, 1996 as Inslxument No. 221922, and pursuant to the
provisions of Development Agreemeat No. 5, Owner became successor-in-interest
to the "Owner'' described in Development Agreement No. 5.
-I-
D. Pursuant to Section 65868 of the Development Agreement Statutes,
the City and Owner propose to restate and amend Development Agreement No. 5
to substitute this Agreement for Development Agreement No. 5, but only to the
extent Development Agreement No. 5 pertains t0 the Project.
E. Pursuant and subject to the Development Agreement Statutes, the
City's police powers and City Resolution No. 91-52, City is authorized to enter
into binding agreements with persons having legal or equitable interest in real
property located within the City's municipal boundaries or sphere of influence
thereby establishing the conditions under which such property may be developed
in the City.
F. By entering into this Agreement, City shall bind future Members of
the City Council of City by the obligations specified herein and further limit the
future exercise of certain governmental and proprietary powers of Members of the
City Council. Likewise, Owner shall bind its successors in interest to the
obligations specified in the Agreement.
G. The terms and conditions of this Agreement have undergone
extensive review by the staff of the City, the Planning Commission of the City, and
the City Council of City and have been found to be fair, just, and reasonable.
H. City finds and determines that it will be in the best interest of its
citizens and the public health, safety and welfare will be served by entering into
this Agreement.
I. All of the procedures and requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act relevant to this Agreement have been met.
J. Riverside County Ordinance No. 659, as adopted by the City,
establishes public facilities impact fees for residential development within City
CRSA Fees"). City requires these revenues to mitigate the impact of
development. City requires RSA Fees from development of the Property in order
to complete capital projects to mitigate the impact of the Project.
K. Development Agreement No. 5 provided for public facilities and
services impact fees ("County Development Agreement Fees") higher than the
RSA Fees. These higher fees, particularly during the present economic situation,
unduly discourage and delay development and thereby prevent City from ever
receiving the County Development Agreement Fees or RSA Fees. Consequently,
-2-
the City is willing to reduce the County Development Agreement Fees for
residential development in the Project to a level comparable to the RSA Fees.
L. City and Owner acknowledge that development of the Project will
result in the generation of municipal revenue, for public infrastructure facilities
and the enhancement of the quality of life, including recreation facilities for
present and future residents of the City. The benefits to the City and Owner
contemplated by development of the Project include:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
completion of vacant lots in Project;
payment of signal mitigation fees;
payment of library fees;
payment of park fees
M. The City and Owner acknowledge that due to the present economic
situation, none of these benefits to the City are possible unless the Project proceeds
with development.
N. City Council of City has approved this Agreement by Ordinance No.
adopted on , and effective on ("Effective
Date"). On the Effective Date, Development Agreement No. 5 shall bc terminated
and of no further force and effect as to the Project only, having been replaced by
this Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE in consideration of the above Recitals and of the
mutual covenants hereinafter contained and for other good and valuable
consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged and
incorporated herein, the parties agree:
1. Definitions. In this Agreement, unless the context otherwise
requires, the following words and phrases shall have the meaning set forth below:
1. I "City" is the City of Temecula.
1.2 "City Public Facility Fee" is an mount to be established by
Ordinance of City.
1.3 "County" is the County of Riverside.
-3-
1.4 "County Development Agreement Fee" means the County
public facilities and services mitigation fee set forth in Section 4.2 of Development
Agreement No. 5.
1.5 "Development Exaction" means any requirement of City in
connection with or pursuant to any Land Use Regulation or Existing Development
Approval for the dedication of land, the construction of improvements or public
facilities, or the payment of fees in order to lessen, offset, mitigate or compensate
for the impacts of development on the environment or other public interests.
1.6 "Development Plan" means the Existing Development
Approvals..
1.7 "Effective Date" means the date upon which the Ordinance
approving this Agreement becomes effective. Absent a referendum challenge,
such date is thirty (30) days following the date the City Council adopted such
Ordinance.
1.8 "Existing Development Approval(s)" means those certain
development approvals relating to the Property in effect as of the effective date of
this Agreement, including, without limitation, the "Existing Development
Approvals" listed in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this
reference, which were approved by the County.
1.9 "Existing Land Use Regulations" means those Land Use
Regulations listed on Exhibit B, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this
reference, which are a matter of public record on the Effective Date of this
Agreement.
1.10 "Financing District" means a Community Facilities District
formed pursuant to the Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982 (California
Government Code Section 53311 et seq., as amended); an assessment district
formed pursuant to Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 (California Street and
Highways Code Section 22500 et seq. as amended); a special assessment district
formed pursuant to the Improvement Act of 1911 (California Streets and Highway
Code Section 10102, as amended); or any other special assessment district existing
pursuant to Sate law formed for the purpose of financing the cost of public
improvements, facilities, services and/or public facilities fees within a specific
geographical area of the City.
-4-
1.11 "Hazardous Substance" shall include, without limitation, any
fiammable explosives, radioactive materials, asbestos, polychlorinated biphenyis,
chemicals known to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity, substances described in
Civil Code Section 2929.5 (e) (2), as it now exists or as subsequently amended,
pollutants, contaminants, hazardous wastes, toxic substances or related materials.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, "Hazardous Substances" shall not include
substances customarily used in developing, operating or maintaining developments
similar to the Project, provided all such substances are used, stored, and disposed
of in accordance with all applicable laws.
1.12 "Interim Public Facilities Fee" means the fees set forth in
Section 12.2 of this Agreement.
1.13 "Land Use Regulations" means all ordinances, resolutions,
codes, rules, regulations, and official policies of City, governing the development
and use of land including without limitation: the permitted use of land; the density
or intensity of use; subdivision requirements; the maximum height and size of
proposed buildings; the provisions for reservation or dedication of land for public
purposes; and the design, improvement, and construction standards and
specifications applicable to the development of the Property. "Land Use
Regulations" does not include any County or City ordinance, resolution, code,
rule, regulation, or official policy, governing:
(a) The conduct of businesses, professions, and occupations;
(b) Taxes and assessments;
(c) The control and abatement of nuisances;
(d) The granting of encroachment permits and the conveyance of
rights and interest which provide for the use of or the entry upon public property;
(e) The exercise of the power of eminent domain.
1.14 "Owner" mcans Bramalea California, LLC, a California
Limited Liability Company, and any successor in interest to Bramalea California,
LLC.
1.15 "Project" is the development of the Property in accordance
with the Development Plan.
-5-
1.16 "Property" is the real property described in Exhibit C,
attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
1.17 "RSA Fee" means the fee established by County Ordinance
No. 659, adopted by City by Ordinance No. 90.04.
1.18 "Subsequent Development Approvals" means all
development approvals required subsequent to the Effective Date in connection
with development of the Property.
1.19 "Subsequent Land Use Regulation" means any Land Use
Regulation applicable to the Property adopted and effective after the Effective
Date of this Agreement.
2. Interest of Owner. Owner represents that it has the fee title interest
in the Property and that all other persons holding legal or equitable interest in the
Property are to be bound by this Agreement.
3. Exhibits. The following documents referred to in this Agreement are
attached hereto, incorporated herein, and made a pan hereof by this reference:
Exhibit Designation
A.
B.
C.
D.
Description
Existing Development Approvals
Existing Land Use Regulations
Legal Description of the Property
Notice From Mortgagee
4. Term.
4.1 The term of this Agreement shall commence on the Effective
Date and shall extend for a period often (10) years thereafter, unless this
Agreement is terminated, modified or extended by circumstances set forth in this
Agreement or by mutual consent of the parties hereto.
4.2 This Agreement shall terminate and be of no force and effect
upon the occurrence of the entry of a final judgment or issuance of the final order
aRer exhaustion of any appeals, directed against the City as a result of any lawsuit
filed against directing the City to set aside, withdraw, or abrogate the approval by
the City Council of City of this AgreemenL
-6-
5. Assignment.
5.1 Right to Assign. The Owner shall have the right to sell,
transfer, or assign the Property in whole or in part (provided that no such partial
transfer shall violate the Subdivision Map Act, Government Code Section 66410,
et seq.. or Riverside County Ordinance No. 460, as the same was incorporated by
reference into the Temecula Municipal Code by Ordinance No. 90-04,) to any
person, partnership, joint venture, firm, or corporation at any time during the term
of this Agreement; provided, however, that any such sale, transfer, or assignment
shall include the assignment and assumption of the rights, duties, and obligations
arising under or ~rom this Agreement and be made in strict compliance with the
following conditions precedent:
(a) No sale, transfer, or assignment of any right or interest under
this Agreement shall be made unless made together with the sale, transfer, or
assignment of all or a pan of the Property. Owner agrees to provide specific notice
of this Agreement, including the record or document number, where a true and
correct copy of this Agreement may be obtained fi'om the Riverside County
Recorder, in any grant deed or other document purporting to transfer the title or an
interest in the Property during the term of this Agreement or any extension thereof.
(b) Concurrent with any such sale, transfer, or assignment, or
within fifteen (15) business days thereafter, the Owner shall notify City, in writing,
of such sale, transfer, or assignment and shall provide City with an executed
agreement, in a form reasonably acceptable to the City Attorney, by the purchaser,
transferee, or assignee and providing therein that the purchaser, transferee, or
assignee unconditionally assumes all the duties and obligations of the Owner under
this Agreement.
Any sale, transfer, or assignment not made in strict compliance with
the foregoing conditions shall constituted a default by the Owner under this
Agreement. Notwithstanding the failure of any purchaser, transferee, or assignee
to execute the agreement required by Paragraph (b) of this Subsection, the burdens
of this Agreement shall be binding upon such purchaser, transferee, or assignee,
but the benefits or this Agreement shall not inure to such purchaser, Iransferee, or
assignee until and unless such agreement is executed.
5.2 Release of Transferrin~ Owner. Notwithstanding any sale,
transfer, or assignment, a transferring Owner shall continue to be obligated under
this Agreement unless such transferring Owner is given a release in writing by
-7-
City, which release shall be provided by City upon the full satisfaction by such
transferring Owner of ALL of the following conditions:
(a) The Transferring Owner no longer has a legal interest in all or
any part of the Property except as a beneficiary under a deed of trust.
(b) The Owner is not then in default under this Agreement.
(c) The Owner or purchaser has provided City with the notice and
executed agreement required under Paragraph (b) of Subsection 5.1 above.
(d) The purchaser, transferee, or assignee has provided City with
security equivalent to any security previously provided by the Transferring Owner
to secure performance of its obligations hereunder.
(e) The Transferring Owner has reimbursed City for any and all
City costs associated with Owner's transfer of all or a portion of the Property.
5.3 Termination of Agreement with Respect to Individual Lots
upon Sale to Public and Completion of Construction. Notwithstanding Subsection
5. I, or any other provisions of this Agreement, this Agreement shall terminate with
respect to any lot and such lot shall be released and no longer be subject to this
Agreement without the execution or recordation of any further document upon
satisfaction of both of the following conditions:
(a) The lot has been finally subdivided and individually (and not
in "bulk") sold or leased (for a period longer than one year) to a member of the
public or other ultimate user; and
(b) A Certificate of Occupancy has been issued for a building on
a lot, and the fees set forth in this Agreement have been paid.
5.4 Subsequent Assignment. Any subsequent sale, transfer, or
assignment after an initial sale, transfer, or assignment shall be made only in
accordance with and subje~:t to the terms and conditions of this Section.
6. Mortgagee Protection. The parties hereto agree that this Agreement
shall not prevent or limit Owner, in any manner, at Owner's sole discretion, fi'om
encumbering the Property or any portion thereof or any improvement thereon by
any mortgage, deed ofh-ust, or other security device securing financing with
-8-
respect to the Property. City acknowledges that the lenders providing such
financing may require certain Agreement interpretations and modifications and
agrees upon request, from time to time, to meet with the Owner and
representatives of such lenders to negotiate in good faith any such requested
interpretation or modification. City will not unreasonably withhold its consent to
any such requested interpretation or modification provided such interpretation or
modification is consistent with the intent and purposes of this Agreement. Owner
shall reimburse City for any and all of City's reasonable costs associated with the
negotiations, interpretations, and modifications within thirty (30) days of receipt of
an invoice from City.
Any Mortgagee of the Property shall be entitled to the following
rights and privileges:
(a) Neither entering into this Agreement nor a breach of this
Agreement shall defeat, render invalid, diminish, or impair the lien of any
mortgage on the Property made in good faith and for value, unless otherwise
required by law.
(b) The Mortgagee of any mortgage or deed of trust encumbering
the Property, or any part thereof, which Mortgagee has submitted a request in
writing, in the form as attached hereto as Exhibit D, attached hereto and
incorporated herein by this reference, to the City in the manner specified herein for
giving notices, shall be entitled to receive written notification from City of any
default by the Owner in the performance of the Owner's obligations under this
Agreement.
(c) If City timely receives a request from a Mortgagee, in the
form set forth on Exhibit D, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this
reference, requesting a copy of any notice of default given to the Owner under the
terms of this Agreement, City shall endeavor to provide a copy of that notice of
default to the Mortgagee within ten I0 days of sending the notice of default to the
Owner. The Mortgagee shall have the right, but not the obligation, to cure the
default during the remaining cure period allowed such party under this Agreement.
City shall have no liability for damages or otherwise to Owner, Owner's
successor, or to any Mortgagee or successor thereof for the failure to provide such
notice.
(d) Any Mortgagee who comes into possession of the Property, or
any part thereof, pursuant to foreclosure of the mortgage or deed of trust, or deed
-9-
in lieu of such foreclosure, shall take the Property, or part thereof, subject to the
terms of this Agreement. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement
to the contrary, no Mortgagee shall have an obligation or duty under this
Agreement to perform any of the Owner's obligations or other affu'mative
covenants of the Owner hereunder, or to guarantee such performance, provided
however, that to the extent that any covenant to be performed by Owner is a
condition precedent to the performance of a covenant by City, the performance
thereof shall continue to be a condition precedent to City's performance hereunder,
and further provided that any sale, transfer or assignment by any Mortgagee in
possession shall be subject to the provisions of Section 5.1 of this Agreement. The
term of the Agreement shall not be extended based on the fact that a Mortgagee
holds title to the Property for all or any .part of the term of this Agreement.
(e) Any Mortgagee who comes into possession of the Property, or
any portion thereof, pursuant to subsection (d) above and who elects not to assume
the obligations of the Owner set forth herein shall not be entitled to any rights to
develop which have or may have vested as a result of this Agreement.
7. Bindin~ Effect of A~reement. The burdens of this Agreement bind
and the benefits of the Agreement inure to the successors-in-interest to the parties
to it in accordance with the provisions of and subject to the limitations of this
Agreement.
8. Proiect as a Private Undertaking/Relationship of Parties. It is
specifically understood and agreed by and between the parties hereto that the
development of the Project is a private development, that neither party is an
independent contracting entity with respect to the terms, covenants, and conditions
contained in this Agreement. No partnership, joint venture, or other association of
any kind is formed by this Agreement. The only relationship between City and
Owner is that of a government entity regulating the development of private
property and the owner of such property.
9. Changes in Project. No change, modification, revision, or alteration
of Existing Development Approvals may be made without the prior approval of the
City. City may expand the permitted uses for the Property without amending this
Agreement so long as Owner or Owner's successor retains his/her/their existing
entitlements.
10. Timing of Development. The parties acknowledgc that Owner
cannot at this time predict whcn, or the rate at which thc Property will bc
- 10-
developed. Such decisions depend upon numerous factors which are not within
the control of Owner, such as market orientation and demand, interest rates,
absorption, completion and other similar factors. Since the California Supreme
Court held in Pardee Construction Co. v. City of Camarilio, 37 Cal.3d 465 (1984),
that the failure of the parties therein to provide for the timing of development
resulted in a later adopted initiative restricting the timing of development to prevail
over such parties, it is the parties intent to cure the deficiency by acknowledging
and providing that the Owner shall have the right to develop the property in such
order, at such rate, and at such times as the Owner deems appropriate within the
exercise of its subjective business judgment, subject only to any timing or phasing
requirements se forth in the Development Plan.
1 I. Indenmitv and Cost of Litigation.
11.1 Hold Harmless. Owner agrees to and shall hold City, its
officers, employees, agents, and representatives harmless from liability for damage
or claims for damage for personal injury including death and claims for property
damage which may arise from the direct or indirect operations of the Owner or
those of its contractor, subcontractor, employee, agents, or other person acting on
its behalf which relate to the Project, regardless of whether or not City prepared,
supplied, or approved plans or specifications for the Project. This indemnification
requirement shall survive the termination or expiration of this Agreement.
11.2 County Litigation Concerning Agreement. In the event the
County seeks to challenge the right of City and Owner to enter into this Agreement
or to terminate Development Agreement No. 5, and institutes an action, suit, or
proceeding to challenge this Agreement or invalidate and/or enjoin the
enforcement of this Agreement or the termination of Development Agreement No.
5, City and Owner agree to cooperate and participate in a joint defense in any
action against the parties, their officers, employees, and agents, from and against
any and all such obligations, liability, suit, claim, loss, judgment, or lien resulting
from such action (s) brought by County, (but excluding actions to expunge any lis
pendens) and to share the costs associated with attorneys fees and costs that the
parties may incur as the result of any such action or lawsuit to challenge City
and/or Owner's legal authority to enter into this Agreement and/or terminate
Development Agreement No. 5. If the County action is against all impacted
developments for which the City has lowered the otherwise applicable County
fees, then Owner's defense costs herein shall be its pro rata share among all
impacted landowners based on a ratio of contribution of the total units owned by
Owner which are subject to this Agreement compared to the total number of units
-11-
within the City in which City has lowered the County fees and which are included
in such legal challenge. If the County action is only against Owner with respect to
this Agreement, then Owner's defense costs shall be one-hundred percent (100%)
of the attomeys fees and costs for defense of the litigation. City and Owner shall
mutually agree on legal counsel to be retained to defend any such action(s) brought
by the County as herein provided. City and Owner each reserve the right to
withdraw from the defense of the County litigation in the event the County
prevails at the trial level and there is an appeal. If either party withdraws after the
trial and there is an appeal, the remaining party shall pay all the costs and fees
associated with the appeal.
11.3 County Litigation Conceming A~reement - Damages. In the
event the County prevails in any legal action or other proceeding to challenge, set
aside, or enjoin the enforcement of this Agreement and the amendment of
Development Agreement No. 5, damages (including the difference in the amount
of any Interim Public Facilities Fee paid by Owner to City pursuant to the terms of
this Agreement and the amount of the County Development Agreement Fee) shall
be the responsibility of Owner. To the extent Owner has paid Interim Public
Facilities Fees to City which are adjudicated to lawfully belong to the County, City
shall pay such sums to County and Owner shall be liable for the payment of the
difference between the County Development Agreement Fee reduced by the
amount paid by the City.
11.4 County Prevails in Litigation - Severability. In the event the
County prevails at the trial court level against the City or the Owner as described
in Section 11.2 of this Agreement, the amount of the Interim Public Facilities Fee
or the City Public Facilities Fee, as the case may be, shall revert to the amount of
the County Development Agreement Fee in effect at the time of entry of the final
judgment in favor of the County, or such lesser amount as determined by the court.
In the event this Agreement is held to be invalid or unenforceable by a trial court
of comPetent jurisdiction, the provisions set forth in Sections 12.2 and 12.3 of this
Agreement shall no longer be enforceable and from the date of the final judgment
or ruling of invalidity, Owner shall thereafter pay the County Development
Agreement Fee as provided in Section 4.2 of Development Agreement No. 5, or
such lesser amount as determined by the court. All other provisions of this
Agreement shall remain valid and enforceable notwithstanding the ruling of
invalidity.
11.5 Third Party Litigation Concerning A~remcnt. Owncr shall
indcamify, protect, defend, at its expense- including attomcy's fees; and hold
- 12-
harmless City, its officers, employees, or agents against any loss, cost expense,
claim, or counter-claim, complaint, or proceeding to attack, set aside, void, or
annul the approval of this Agreement or the approval of any permit granted
pursuant to this Agreement brought by a third party other than the County. City
shall promptly notify Owner of any such claim, action, or proceeding and City
shall cooperate in the defense. If City fails to promptly notify Owner of any such
claim, action, or proceeding, or if City fails to cooperate in the defense, Owner
shall not thereafter be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless City.
City may in its discretion participate in the defense of any such claim, action, or
proceeding.
11.6 Environmental Assurances. Owner shall indemnify, protect,
defend with counsel approved by City, and hold harmless City, its officers,
employees, agents, assigns, and any successor or successors to City's interest from
and against all claims, actual damages (including but not limited to special and
consequential damages), natural resources damages, punitive damages, injuries,
costs, response, remediation, and removal costs, losses, demands, debts, liens,
liabilities, causes of action, suits, legal or administrative proceedings, interests,
fines, charges, penalties and expenses (including but not limited to attorneys' and
expert witness fees and costs incurred in connection with defending against any of
the foregoing or in enfoming this indemnity) of any kind whatsoever paid,
incurred, or suffered by, or asserted against, City or its officers, employees, or
agents arising from or attributable to any repair, cleanup, or detoxifieation, or
preparation and implementation of any removal, remedial, response, closure, or
other plan ( regardless of whether undertaken due to governmental action )
concerning a Hazardous Substance or hazardous wastes at any place within the
property which is the subject of this Agreement. The foregoing indemnity extends
beyond the term of this Agreement and is intended to operate as an agreement
pursuant to Section 107(e) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act, CCERCLA"), 42 U.S.C. Section 9667(e), and
California Health and Safety Code Section 25364, and their successor statutes, to
insure, protect, hold harmless, and indemnify City fxom liability.
11.7 Release. Except for nondamage remedies, Owner, for itself,
its successors and assignees, hereby releases the City, its officers, agents,and
employees from any and all claims, demands, actions, or suits of any kind or
nature arising out of any liabili~ known or unknown, present or future, including,
but not limited to, any claim or hhbility, based or asserted, pursuant to Article I,
Section 19 of the California Constitution, the FiRh Amendment of the United
States Constitution, or any other law or ordinance which seeks to impose any other
- 13-
liability or damage, whatsoever, upon the City because it entered into this
Agreement or because of the terms of this Agreement.
11.8 Reservation of Ri~,hts. With respect to Sections 11.1 through
11.7 herein, City reserves the fight to either (1) approve the attorney(s) which
Owner selects, hires, or otherwise engages to defend City hereunder, which
approval shall not be unreasonably withheld, or (2) conduct its own defense,
provided, however, the Owner shall reimburse City forthwith for any and all
reasonable expenses incurred for such defense, including attomey's fees, upon
billing and accounting therefor.
11.9 Survival. The provisions of this Section 11.1 to 11.9,
inclusive, shall survive the termination of this Agreement.
12. Public Benefits, Public Improvements and Facilities.
12.1 Intent. The parties acknowledge and agree that this
Agreement confers private benefits on the Owner which should be balanced by
commensurate public benefits. Accordingly, the p0xties intend to provide
consideration to the public to balance the private benefits conferred on the Owner
by providing more fully for the satisfaction of the public needs resulting from
development of the Project.
12.2 Interim Public Facilities Fee.
(a) In lieu of the County Development Agreement Fee, RSA Fee
or City Public Facility Fee, for a period of five (5) years commencing on the
Effective Date, Owner shall pay an Interim Public Facilities Fee of Three
Thousand Five Hundred and Ninety Dollars ($3,590.00) per dwelling unit
inclusive of Street Improvement Fees, Traffic Signalization Fees, Fire
Protection Fees, Parks and Recreation Fees and Library Fees. The Interim
Public Facilities Fee shall be paid as provided in Section 12.3 below. At the
conclusion of the five (5) year period, Owner shall either continue to pay the
Interim Public Facilities Fee of Three. Thousand. Five. Hundred and Ninety Dollars
($3,590.00) per dwelling or such other public facilities fee as the City has then
enacted and applied to residential development projects in the City. Owner
expressly acknowledges the existence and holding in the case of Kaufxnan and
Broad Central Valley. Inc. v. City of Medesto. (1994), 25 Cal.App.4th 1577, as it
applies to later adopted fees, Owner hereby waives for hintself, and for any
successor thcreto, the right to challenge thc validity or amount of any such other
- 14-
public facilities fees which are enacted and applied to residential development
projects in the City. Such waiver applies to the Project after the first five (5) years
of this Agreement. Owner acknowledges and agrees that City would not have
entered into this Agreement if its application or operation would limit in any way
the City's ability to develop and apply a Comprehensive Public Facilities Fee
Program to this Project following the first five (5) years of the term of this
Agreement. Owner further acknowledges and agrees that the waiver provided
herein applies not only to this Agreement, but to any rights Owner may have under
any vesting map filed and deemed complete under the vesting maps statutes,
Government Code Section 66498.1 .et seq.. Finally, Owner agrees that the
institution of any legal action by Owner, or any successor thereof, to challenge the
validity, amount, or application of any public facilities fee after the first five (5)
years of this Agreement, including paying such fees "under protest" pursuant to
Government Code Section 66020 et seq., shall constitute a material breach and
default under this Agreement entitling the City to summary termination hereof.
(b) The fees required by paragraph (a) shall be adjusted annually
during the term of this Agreement on the anniversary of the Effective Date in
accordance with the changes in the Consumer Price Index for All Urban
Consumers in the Los Angeles-Anaheim-Riverside Area (hereinafter CPI)
published monthly by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. The annual adjustment
shall be calculated in the following manner:
(i) Divide the CPI for month and year of the Effective
Date into the CPI for the month immediately preceding the anniversary in which
the fees are to be adjusted.
(ii) Multiply the quotient obtained by the calculation in
sub-paragraph (i) above times the fees.
(iii) The result of the multiplication obtained in sub-
paragraph (ii) above shall constitute the fees payable during the succeeding year.
If the CPI specified herein is discontinued or revised during the term
of this Agreement, such other government index or computation with which it is
replaced shall be used in order to obtain substantially the same result as would
have been obtained if the CPI had not been discontinued.
In no event shall the fees be less than the fees set forth in paragraph
(a) of this Section 12.2.
-15-
12.3 Timing. Collection of any and all Interim Public Facilities
Fees and/or City Public Facilities Fees, if any, required to be paid by Owner
pursuant to this Agreement shall be deferred until such time as a certificate of
occupancy has been obtained for the first production home built on the Property.
Thereafter, the Interim Public Facilities Fees and/or City Public Facilities Fees, if
any, shall be paid at the time issuance of building permits for each residential unit
constructed on the Property. Collection of any and all Interim Public Facilities
Fees and/or City Public Facilities Fees paid by the Owner for all home units paid
prior to adoption of the Agreement in surplus to those fees contained herein shall
be credited to Owner.
12.4 Other Anplicable Fees.
(a) Owner shall also pay all other customary and typical
development exactions, for a project of this size and nature, in existence as of the
Effective Date and throughout the term of this Agreement, not included in the
Interim Public Facilities Fee, pursuant to provisions of City ordinances and
resolutions in existence when paid.
(b) The parties hereto agree that to the extent the applicable Steven's
Kangaroo Rat and drainage fees have not been paid prior to the execution of this
Agreement by both parties, those fees remain applicable to the Project.
12.5 Public Works. If Owner is required by this Agreement or any
other obligation, to construct any public works facilities which will be dedicated to
City or any other public agency upon completion, and if required by applicable
laws to do so, Owner shall perform such work in the same manner and subject to
the same requirements as would be applicable to City or such other public agency
should it have undertaken such conswuction.
13. Reservation of Authority.
13.1 Limitations, Reservations, and Exceptions, Notwithstanding
any other provision of the Agreement, the following Subsequent Land Use
Regulations shall apply to the development of the Property:
(a) Processing fees and charges imposed by City to cover the
estimated actual costs to City of processing applications for Subsequent
Development Approvals.
- 16-
(b) Procedural regulations relating to hearing bodies, petitions,
applications, notices, findings, records, hearings, reports, recommendations,
appeals, and any other matter of procedure.
(c) Regulations imposing Development Exaction's; provided,
however, that no such subsequently adopted Development Exaction's shall be
applicable to development of the Property unless such Development Exaction's are
applied uniformly to development throughout the City.
(d) Regulations governing construction standards and
specifications including without limitation, the City's Building Code, Plumbing
Code, Mechanical Code, Electrical Code, and Fire Code.
(e) Regulations which are NOT in conflict with the Development
Plan. Any regulation, whether adopted by initiative or otherwise, limiting the rate
or timing of development of the Property shall be deemed to conflict with the
Development Plan and shall therefore not be applicable to the development of the
Property.
(f) Regulations which are in conflict with the Development Plan,
provided Owner has given written consent to the application of such regulations to
development of the Property.
13.2 Subsequent Develonment Approvals. This Agreement shall
not prevent City, in acting on Subsequent Development Approvals, from applying
the Subsequent Land Use Regulations which do not conflict with the Development
Plan, nor shall this Agreement prevent City from denying or conditionally
approving any Subsequent Development Approval on the basis of the Existing or
Subsequent Land Use Regulations not in conflict with the Development Plan.
13.3 Modification or Suspension by State or Federal Law. In the
event that State or Federal laws or regulations enacted after the Effective Date of
this Agreement prevent or preclude compliance with one or more of the provisions
of this Agreement, such provisions of this Agreement shall be modified or
suspended as may be necessary to comply with such State or Federal laws or
regulations. In that event, however, this Agreement shall remain in full force and
effect to the extent it is not inconsistent with such laws or regulations and to the
extent such laws or regulations do not render such remaining provisions
impractical to enforce.
- 17-
13.4 Retaliation by Other Public Agencies. It is acknowledged by
the parties that other public agencies not within the control of City possess
authority to regulate aspects of the development Of the Property separately from or
jointly with City and this Agreement does not limit the authority of such other
public agencies.
13.5 Tentative Tract Map Extension. Pursuant to the provisions of
Section 66452.6 of the Government Code, the tentative subdivision map(s) or
tentative parcel map(s) (vested or regular) approved as a part of implementing the
Development Plan shall be extended to expire at the end of the term of this
Agreement.
13.6 Vestin~ Tentative Maps. If any tentative or final subdivision
map, or tentative or final parcel map, heretofore or hereafter approved in
connection with the development of the Property, is a vesting map under the
Subdivision Map Act (Government Code Section 66410, et seq.) and Riverside
County Ordinance No. 460, as the same were incorporated by reference into the
Temecula Municipal code by Ordinance No. 90-04, and if this Agreement is
determined by a final judgment to be invalid or unenforceable insofar as it grants a
vested right to develop to the Owner, then and to that extent the rights, obligations,
and protections afforded the Owner and City respectively, under the laws and
ordinances applicable m vesting maps shall supersede provisions of this
Agreement. Except as set forth immediately above, development of the Property
shall occur only as provided in this Agreement, and the provisions in this
Agreement shall be controlling over conflicting provisions of law or ordinances
concerning vesting maps.
14. Development of the Property. Vesting. Termination of Development
Agreement No. 5
14.1 Rights to Develop. Subject to the terms of this Agreement,
including payment of the Interim Public Facilities Fee, the Owner shall have a
vested right to develop the Property in accordance with, and to the extent of the
Development Plan. The Project shall remain subject to all Subsequent
Development Approvals required to complete the Project as contemplated by the
Development Plan. Except as otherwise provided in this Agreement, the permitted
uses of the Property, the density and intensity of use, the maximum height and siz~
of proposed buildings, and provisions for reservation and dedication of land for
- 18-
public purposes shall be those set forth in the Development Plan. In exchange for
the vested right to develop pursuant to this Agreement, Owner expressly waives
for himself and for any successor thereto, the right to challenge or contest the
validity of any condition of appruval attached to .any entitlement which is a part of
the Development Plan.
14.2 Effect of Agreement on Land Use Regulations. Except as
otherwise provided under the terms of this Agreement, including the payment of
the Interim Public Facilities Fee, the rules, regulations, and official policies
governing permitted uses of the Property, the density and intensity of nse of the
Property, the maximum height size of proposed buildings, and the design,
improvement and construction standards and specifications applicable to
development of the Property shall be Existing Land Use Regulations. City shall
exercise its lawful reasonable discretion in eouneetion with Subsequent
Development Approvals in accordance with the Development Plan, and as
provided by this Agreement including, but not limited to, payment of the Interim
Public Facilities Fee and/or the City Public Facilities Fee, as the case may be. City
shall accept for processing, review, and action all applications for Subsequent
Development Approvals, and such applications shall be processed in the normal
manner for processing such matters. City may, at the request of Owner, contract
for planning and engineering consultant services to expedite the review and
processing of Subsequent Development Approvals, the cost of which shall be
borne by Owner.
14.3 Changes and Agreements. The parties acknowledge that
refinement and further development of the Project will require Subsequent
Development Approvals and may demonstrate that changes are appropriate and
mutually desirable in the Existing Development approvals. In the event the Owner
finds that a change in the Existing Development Approvals is necessary or
appropriate, the Owner shall apply for a Subsequent Development Approval to
effectuate such change. If approved, any such change in the Existing Development
Approvals shall be incorporated herein as addendum to this Agreement and may be
further changed from time to time as provided in this Section. Owner, shall,
within thirty (30) days of written demand by City, reimburse City for any and all
reasonable costs, associated with any amendment or change to this Agreement that
is initiated by Owner or Ownees successor - without regard to the outcome of the
request for amendment or change to this Agreement. Unless otherwise required by
law, as determined in City's reasonable discretion, a change to the Existing
Development Approvals shall be deemed "minor" and not require an amendment
to this Agreement pwvided such a change does not:
- 19-
(a) Alter the permitted uses of the Property as a whole, except as
provided in Section 9 hereof; or,
(b) Increase the density or intensity of use of the Property as a
whole; or,
(C)
Increase the maximum height and size of permitted buildings;
(d) Delete a requirement for the reservation or dedication of land
for public purposes within the Property as a whole; or,
(e) Constitute a project requiring a subsequent or a supplemental
Environmental Impact Report pursuant to Section 21166 of the Public Resources
Code.
14.4 Minimum Unit Size. Owner agrees that the units to be
constructed on the Property shall be a minimum of two thousand (2,000) square
feet in size.
14.5 Termination of Development A~reement No. 5. Both City
and Owner agree that on the Effective Date of this Agreement, Development
Agreement No. 5 shall be terminated and of no further fome or effect as to this
Project only, having been replaced by this Agreement.
15. Periodic Review of Compliance with A~reement.
(a) Pursuant to City Resolution No. 91-52, as it may be
subsequently mended, City shall review this Agreement at least once during every
twelve (12) month period from the Effective Date of this Agreement. The Owner
or successor shall reimburse City for the reasonable and necessary costs of this
review, within thirty (30) days of written demand from City.
(b) During each periodic review by City, the Owner is required to
demonstrate good faith compliance with the terms of this Agreement. The Owner
agrees to fumish such evidence of good faith compliance as City in the exercise of
its discretion may require.
- 20 -
16. Financing District. Upon the request of Owner, the parties shall
cooperate in exploring the use of special assessment dislxicts and other similar
Financing Districts for the financing of the construction, improvement, or
acquisition of public infrastructure, facilities, lands, and improvements to serve the
Project and its residents, whether located within or outside the Property. It is
acknowledged that nothing contained in this Agreement shall be construed as
requiring City or City Council to form such a dislxict or to issue or sell bonds.
17. Agreement or Cancellation of Agreement. This Agreement may be
amended or canoeled in whole or in part only by mutual consent of the parties and
in the manner provided for in Government Code Sections 65868. If an amendment
is requested by the Owner or its successor, the Owner/successor agrees to pay City
any Development Agreement processing fee then in existence as established by
City Council Resolution, or if no such fee is established, to reimburse City for the
actual and reasonably necessary costs of reviewing and processing the Agreement
within thirty (30) days of written demand from City -- without regard to City's
action on such amendment.
18. Enforcement. Unless amended or canceled as herein provided, this
Agreement is enforceable by any party to it, notwithstanding a change in the
applicable general or specific plan, zoning, subdivision, or building regulations
adopted by the City.
19. Events of Default. Owner is in default under this Agreement upon
the happening of one or more of the following events or conditions:
(a) Ifa warranty, representation, or statement made or fumished
by Owner to City is false or proves to have been false in any material respect when
it was made;
(b) More than fon'y~~ve (45) days have passed since City's
making of a written request to Owner for payment or reimbursement for a fee or
service authorized or agreed to pursuant to this Agreement.
(c) A finding and determination by City that upon the basis of
substantial evidence the Owner has not complied in good faith with one or more at
the terms or conditions of this Agreement.
-21 -
20. Procedure Upon Default.
(a) Upon the occurrence of an event of default, City may
terminate or modify this Agreement in accordance with the procedure adopted by
the City.
(b) City does not waive any claim of defect in performance by
Owner implied if on periodic review the City does not propose to modify or
terminate this Agreement.
(c)
a third person.
Non-performance shall not be excused because of a failure of
(d) Non-performance shall be excused only when it is prevented
or delayed by acts of God or an emergency declared by Governor.
(e) All other remedies at law or equity which are not otherwise
provided for in this Agreement or in City's regulations governing development
agreements are available to the parties to pursue in the event there is a breach.
2 I. Remedies. In general, each of the parties hereto may pursue any
remedy at law or equity available for the breach of any provision of this
Agreement, except that City, and its officers, employees and agents, shall not be
liable in damages to Owner or to any assignee, transferee of Owner, or any other
person, and Owner covenants not to sue for claim any damages for breach of that
Agreement by City. It is acknowledged by the parties that City would not have
entered into this Agreement if it were to be liable in damages under or with respect
to this Agreement or the application thereof. Owner, for himself or any successor
thereto, expressly waives the fight to seek damages against the City or any officer,
employee or agent thereof, for any default or breach of this Agreement.
22. Attomev's Fees and Costs. If legal action by either party is brought
because of breach of this Agreement or to enforce a provision of this Agreement,
the prevailing party is entitled to reasonable attorneys fees and court costs.
23. Notices. All notices required or provided for under this Agreement
shall be in writing and delivered in person or sent by certified mail postage prepaid
and presumed delivered upon actual re~ipt by personal delivery or within three
- 22 -
(3) days following deposit thereof in United States Mail. Notice required to be
given to City shall be addressed as follows:
To City:
City of Temecula
P.O. Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
Arm: City Clerk
With a copy to:
Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney
Richards, Watson & Gershon
A Professional Corporation
333 So. Hope Street, 38th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071-1469
Notices required to be given to Owner shall be addressed as follows:
To Owner:
Bramalea California, LLC
23333 Avenida la Caza
Coto de Caza, CA 92679
ATTN: Emile Hadda, Senior Vice President
A party may change the address by giving notice in writing to the other party in the
manner provided for herein, and thereaRer notices shall be addressed and
transmitted to the new address.
24. Cooperation. City agrees that it shall accept for processing and
promptly take action on all applications, provided they are in a proper form and
acceptable for required processing for discretionary permits, tract or parcel maps,
or other land use entitlement for development of the Project in accordance with the
provisions of this Agreement. City shall cooperate with Owner in providing
expeditious review of any such applications, permits, or land use entitlement and,
upon request and payment of any costs and/or extra fees associated therewith by
Owner, City shall assign to the Project planner(s), building inspector(s), and/or
other staff personnel as required to insure the timely processing and completion of
the Project.
25. Miscellaneous Provisions.
25.1 Recordation of Am'eement. This Agreement and any
amendment or cancellation thereof shall be recorded with the County Recorder by
- 23 -
the City Clerk within the period required by Section 65868.5 of the Government
Code.
25.2 Entire Agreement. This Agreement sets forth and contains
the entire understanding and agreement of the parties, and there are no oral or
written representations, understandings or ancillary covenants, undertakings or
agreements which are not contained or expressly referred to herein. No testimony
or evidence of any such representations, understandings or covenants snail be
admissible in any proceeding of any kind or nature to interpret or determine the
terms or conditions of this Agreement.
25.3 Severability. If any term, provision, covenant or condition of
this Agreement shall be determined invalid, void or unenforceable, the remainder
of this Agreement shall not be affected thereby to the extent such remaining
provisions are not rendered impractical to perform taking into consideration the
purposes of this Agreement. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the provision of the
Public Benefits set forth in Section 4 of this Agreement, including the payment of
the fees set forth therein, are essential elements of this Agreement and City would
not have entered into this Agreement but for such provisions, and therefore in the
event such provisions are determined to be invalid, void or unenforeeable, this
entire Agreement shall be null and void and of no force and effect whatsoever.
25.4 Interpretation and Govemin~ Law. This Agreement and any
dispute arising hereunder shall be governed and interpreted in accordance with the
laws of the State of California. This Agreement shall be construed as a whole
according to its fair language and common meaning to achieve the objectives and
purposes of the parties hereto, and the rule of construction to the effect that
ambiguities are to be resolved against the drafting party shall not be employed in
interpreting this Agreement, all parties having been represented by counsel in the
negotiation and preparation hereof.
25.5 Section Headings. All section headings and subheadings are
inserted for convenience only and shall not affect any construction or
interpretation of this Agreement.
25.6 Singular and Plural. As used herein, the singular of any word
includes the plural.
25.7 Joint and Several Obligations. If at any time during the term
of this Agreement the Property is owned, in whole or in part, by more than one
Owner, all obligations of such Owners under this Agreement shall be joint end
several, and the default of any such Owner shall be the default of all such Owners.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, no Owner of a single lot which has been finally
subdivided and sold to such Owner as a member of the general public or otherwise
as an ultimate user shall have any obligation under this Agreement except as
provided under Section 4 hereof.
25.8 Time of Essence. Time is of the essence in the performance
of the provisions of this Agreement as to which time is an element.
25.9 Waiver. Failure by a party to insist upon the strict
performance of any of the provisions of this Agreement by the other party, or the
failure by a party to exercise its rights upon the default of the other party, shall not
constitute a waiver of such party's right to insist end demend strict complience by
the other party with the terms of this Agreement thereafter.
25.10 No Third Party Beneficiaries. This Agreement is made end
entered into for the sole protection end benefit of the parties end their successors
end assigns. No other person shall have eny right of action based upon eny
provision of this Agreement.
25.11 Force Maieurc. Neither party shall be deemed to be in default
where failure or delay in performonce of eny of its obligations under this
Agreement is caused by floods, earthquakes, other Acts of God, rites, wars, riots or
similar hostilities, strikes end other labor difficulties beyond the party's control,
(including the party's employment force), government regulations, court actions
(such as restraining orders or injunctions), or other causes beyond the party's
control. If eny such events shall occur, the term of this Agreement end the time for
performance by either party of any of its obligations hereunder may be extended
by the written agreement of the parties for the period of time that such events
prevented such performonce, provided that the term of this Agreement shall not be
extended under any circumstances for more then five (5) years.
25.12 Mutual Covenents. The covenants contained herein are
mutual coyorients end also constitute conditions to the concurrent or subsequent
performonce by the party benefited thereby of the covenents to be performed
hereunder by such bene~ted party.
25.13 Suocessors in Interest. The burdens of this Agreement shall
be binding upon, and the benefits of this Agreement shall inure to, all successors in
o 25 -
interest to the parties to this Agreement. All provisions of this Agreement shall be
enforceable as equitable servitudes and constitute covenants rmming with the land.
Each covenant to do or refrain ~'om doing some act hereunder with regard to
development of the Property: (a) is for the benefit of and is a burden upon every
portion of the Property; (b) runs with the Property and each portion thereof; and (c)
is binding upon each party and each successor in interest during ownership of the
Property or any portion thereof.
25.14 Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed by the parties
in counterparts, which counterparts shall be construed together and have the same
effect as if all of the parties had executed the same instrument.
25.15 Jurisdiction and Venue. Any action at law or in equity arising
under this Agreement or brought by an party hereto for the purpose of enfoming,
construing or determining the validity of any provision of this Agreement shall be
filed and tried in the Superior Court of the County of Riverside, State of
California, and the parties hemto waive all provisions of law providing for the
filing, removal or change ofvenue to any other court.
25.16 Further Actions and Instruments. Each of the parties shall
cooperate with and provide reasonable assistance to the other to the extent
contemplated hereunder in the performance of all obligations under this
Agreement and the satisfaction of the conditions of this Agreement. Upon the
request of either party at any time, the other party shall promptly execute, with
acknowledgment or affidavit if reasonably required, and file or record such
required instruments and writings and take any actions as may be reasonably
necessary under the terms of this Agreement to carry out the intent and to fulfill
the provisions of this Agreement or to evidence or consummate the transactions
contemplated by this Agreement.
25.17 Eminent Domain. No provision of this Agreement shall be
construed to limit or restrict the exercise by City of its power of eminent domain.
25.18 Agent for Service of Process. In the event owner is not a
resident of the State of Califoruia or it is an association, partnership or joint
venture without a member, partner or joint venmrer resident of the State of
California, or it is a foreign corporation, then in any such event, Owner shall file
with the Planning Director, upon its execution of this Agreement, a designation of
a natural person residing in the State of Califoruia, giving his or her name,
residence and business addresses, as its agent for the purpose of service of process
- 26 -
in any court action arising out of or based upon this Agreement, and the delivery to
such agent of a copy of any process in any such action shall constitute valid
service upon Owner. If for any reason service of such process upon such agent is
not feasible, then in such event Owner may be personally served with such process
out of this County and such service shall constitUte valid service upon owner.
Owner is amenable to the process so served, submits to the jurisdiction of the
Court so obtained and waives any and all objections and protests thereto.
26. Authority to Execute. Each party hereto expressly warrants and
represents that he/she/they has/have the authority to execute this Agreement on
behalf of his/her/their corporation, partnership, business entity, or governmental
entity and warrants and represents that he/she/they has/have the authority to bind
his/her/their entity to the performance of its obligations hereunder.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF this Agreement has been executed by the authorized
representatives of the parties hereto.
"City"
City of Temecula
Attest:
By:
Karel F. Lindemans, Mayor
June S. Greek, City Clerk
Approved as to form:
Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney
[Notary Required]
"Owner"
Bramalea California, LLC, a California
Limited Liability Company
By: Bramalea California Inc., Manager
By:
Emile K. Haddad
Senior Vice President
- 27 -
ALL PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT
State of California )
County of )
On
appeared
,1996, before me,
, personally
[]
[]
personally known to me -OR-
proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence be the person(s) whose
names(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to
me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their signature(s) on the
instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s)
act executed the instrument.
Wimess my hand and official seal.
SIGNATURE OF NOTARY
CAPACITY CLAIIvIED
BY SIGNER
D
El
INDIVIDUAL(S)
OFFICER(S) (TITLE[S]):
[1
[]
D
D
[]
[]
PARTNER(S)
ATTORNEY-IN-FACT
TRUSTEE(S)
SUBSCRIBING WITNESS
GUARDIAN/CONSERVATOR
OTHER:
Chairperson
SIGNER IS REPRESENTING:
Name of person(s) or entity(ies)
- 28 -
EXHIBIT A
EXISTING DEVELOPMENT APPROVALS
General Plan - Low-Medium Density Residential
Specific Plan - County of Riverside Ordinance No. 460, Specific Plan No. 199
(Margarita Village)
Plannin~ Application No. - PA94-0078, PA94-0079 and PA94-0080
Land Divisions -
Final Tract Map No. 23100-1
Final Tract Map No. 23101-2
Tentative Tract Map No. 23100
Tentative Tract Map No. 23101
Tentative Tract Map No. 23103
Tentative Tract Map No. 28503
EXHIBIT B
EXISTING LAND USE REGULATIONS
General Plan Land Use designation is Low-Medium Density Residential.
Specific Plan 199 (Margarita Village)
EXHIBIT C
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
THE LAND IS SITUATED IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF
RIVERSIDE, CITY OF TEMECULA AND IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
PARCEL A:
LOTS 35 THROUGH 38, INCLUSIVE, 60 THROUGH 63, INCLUSIVE, AND
LOT 75 OF TRACT 23100-1, AS SHOWN BY MAP ON FILE IN BOOK 214
PAGES 5 THROUGH 11 OF MAPS, RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY,
CALIFORNIA;
EXCEPTING THEREFROM ALL MINERAL, OIL AND GAS RIGHTS
BELOW THE DEPTH OF 500.00 FEET BELOW THE SURFACE OF SAD
LAND WITHOUT THE RIGHT OF SURFACE ENTRY AS RESERVED BY
KAISER DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, IN
DEED RECORDED NOVEMBER 13, 1987 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 326397 OF
OFFICIAL RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.
PARCELB
LOTS 8 THROUGH 55, INCLUSIVE, AND LOT 109, ALL OF TRACT No. 23101~2,
IN THE CITY OF TEMECULA. COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF
CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN PER MAP ON FILE IN BOOK 228 OF MAPS. PAGES 15
THROUGH 21, INCLUSIVE. OF OFFICIAL RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY,
CALIFORNIA;
EXCEPTING THEREFROM ALL MINERAL, OIL. AND GAS RIGHTS BELOW THE
DEPTH OF 500.00 FEET BELOW THE SURFACE OF SAID LAND WITHOUT THE
RIGHT OF SURFACE ENTRY, AS RESERVED BY KAISER DEVELOPMENT
COMPANY, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, IN DEED RECORDED NOVEMBER
13, 1987. AS INSTRUMENT No. 326397, OF OFFICIAL RECORDS OF SAID
COUNTY, AND AS DEEDED TO MIDLAND INVESTMENT CORPORATION IN
DOCUMENT RECORDED APRIL 15, 1988, AS INSTRUMENT No. 99500, OF
OFFICIAL RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY.
C-I
CHARDONNAY HILLS
PARCEL C
PARCEL I OF PARCEL MAP No. 22554, IN THE C1TY OF TEMECULA, COUNTY
OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN PER MAP ON FILE IN
BOOK 147 OF PARCEL MAPS, PAGES 94 THROUGH 98, INCLUSIVE, OF
OFFICIAL RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA;
TOGETHER WITH A PORTION OF THE PROPERTY, IN THE CITY OF
TEMECULA, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED IN
"PARCEL A" OF THE DOCUMENT RECORDED MARCH 25, 1970, AS
INSTRUMENT No. 27617 (SAID INSTRUMENT BEING REFERENCED AS
"INSTRUMENT No. 27167" IN THE HEREINBELOW-MENTIONED DEED), OF
OFFICIAL RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, SAID PORTION
BEING ALL THAT PROPERTY CONVEYED BY DEED RECORDED MAY 11, 1994.
AS INSTRUMENT No. 193985, OF OFFICIAL RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY;
TOGETHER WITH A PORTION OF THE PROPERTY, IN THE CITY OF
TEMECULA, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED IN
THE DOCUMENT RECORDED APRIL 11, 1989, AS INSTRUMENT No. 113880, OF
OFFICIAL RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, SAID PORTION
BEING ALL THAT PROPERTY CONVEYED BY DEED RECORDED APRIL 23,
1990, AS INSTRUMENT No. 146747, OF Ot-t'ICIAL RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY;
EXCEPTING THEREFROM ALL OF TRACT No. 23100-1, AS SHOWN PER MAP
ON FILE IN BOOK 214 OF MAPS, PAGES 5 THROUGH l l, INCLUSIVE, OF
OFFICIAL RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY;
ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM ALL OF TRACT No. 23100-2, AS SHOWN PER
MAP ON FILE IN BOOK 214 OF MAPS, PAGES 12 THROUGH 15, INCLUSIVE, OF
OFFICIAL RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY;
ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM ALL OF TRACT No. 23100-3, AS SHOWN PER
MAP ON FILE IN BOOK 222 OF MAPS, PAGES 44 THROUGH 49, INCLUSIVE OF
OFFICIAL RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY;
ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM ALL OF TRACT No. 23101-I, AS SHOWN PER
MAP ON FILE IN BOOK 218 OF MAPS, PAGES 31 THROUGH 34, INCLUSIVE, OF
Ot-t-xCIAL RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY;
C-2
CHARDONNAY HILLS
ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM ALL OF TRACT No. 23101-2, AS SHOWN PER
MAP ON FILE IN BOOK 228 OF MAPS, PAGES 15 THROUGH 21, INCLUSWE, OF
OFFICIAL RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY;
ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM ALL OF TRACT No. 23100-4, AS SHOWN PER
MAP ON FILE IN BOOK 249 OF MAPS, PAGES 57 THROUGH 60, INCLUSIVE, OF
OFFICIAL RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY;
ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM ALL OF TRACT No. 23101-3, AS SHOWN PER
MAP ON FILE IN BOOK 249 OF MAPS, PAGES 61 AND 62, OF OFFICIAL
RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY;
ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM ALL OF TRACT No. 23103-1, AS SHOWN PER
MAP ON FILE IN BOOK 252 OF MAPS, PAGES 29 THROUGH 31, INCLUSIVE, OF
OFFICIAL RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY;
ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM THOSE PORTIONS CONVEYED BY DEEDS
RECORDED NOVEMBER 17, 1989, AS INSTRUMENT Nos. 403924, 403925,
403926, AND 403927, ALL OF OFFICIAL RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY;
ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM THOSE PORTIONS CONVEYED BY DEEDS
RECORDED OCTOBER 13, 1994, AS INSTRUMENT Nos. 394940, 394941, AND
394942, ALL OF OFFICIAL RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY;
ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION CONVEYED IN "PARCEL A"
OF THE GRANT DEED TO THE METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA RECORDED DECEMBER 13, 1967, AS INSTRUMENT
No. 109720, OF OFFICIAL RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY;
ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM ALL MINERAL, OIL, AND GAS RIGHTS
BELOW THE DEPTH OF 500.00 FEET BELOW THE SURFACE OF SAID LAND
WITHOUT THE RIGHT OF SURFACE ENTRY, AS RESERVED BY KAISER
DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, IN DEED
RECORDED NOVEMBER 13, 1987. AS INSTRUMENT No. 326397, OF OFFICIAL
RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY, AND AS DEEDED TO MIDLAND INVESTMENT
CORPORATION IN DOCUMENT RECORDED APRIL 15, 1988, AS INSTRUMENT
No. 99500, OF OFFICIAL RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY.
C-3
CHARDONNAY HILLS
PARCEL D
TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 28503 BEING A SUBDIVISION OF THE FOLLOWING:
PORTION OF PARCEL ! OF PARCEL MAP NO. 22554. AS SHOWN BY MAP ON
FILE IN BOOK 147 PAGE(S) 94 THROUGH 98, INCLUSIVE, OF PARCEL MAPS,
RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. SAID PARCEL BEING MORE
PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT THE NORTHEASTERLY TERMINUS OF THAT CERTAIN
COURSE SHOWN ON SAID PARCEL MAP ON THE CENTERLINE OF "LA
SERENA WAY'' DESCRIBED ON SAD PARCEL MAP AS "NORTH 71° 08' 38"
EAST 1124.10 FEET';
THENCE ALONG SAID CERTERLINE SOUTH 71° 08' 38" WEST 1124.10 FEET TO
THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE, CONCAVE SOUTHERLY, HAVING A
RADIUS OF 2000.00 FEET;
THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID CENTERLINE WESTERLY ALONG SAID
CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 7° 40' 53" AN ARC DISTANCE OF
268.13 FEET TO AN ANGLE POINT IN THE BOUNDARY OF SAID PARCEL 1;
THENCE LEAVING SAID CENTERLINE NON-TANGENT PROM SAID CURVE
ALONG SAID BOUNDARY OF PARCEL I NORTH 26° 32' 15" WEST 472. l0 FEET;
THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID BOUNDARY THE FOLLOWING SEVEN
COURSES NORTH 63° 49' 07" EAST 112.13 FEET, NORTH 58° 41' 1 I" EAST 389.65
FEET, NORTH 47° 43' 00" EAST 150.14 FEET, NORTH 40° 12' 06" EAST 149.88
FEET, NORTH 31° 13' 28" EAST 149.82 FEET, NORTH 22° 38' 36" EAST 141.22
FEET. AND SOUTH 47° 40' 42" EAST 1012.35 FEET TO THE POINT OF
BEGIIqNING;
EXCEPTIlqG THEREFROM THAT PORTION LYING WITHIN THE FEE GRANT TO
THE METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA PER
GRANT DEED RECORDED ON DECEMBER 13, 1967 AS INSTRUMENT No.
109720 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA;
C-4
LEQEiVD
PARCEL
PARCEL
PARCEL
PARCEL
CHARDONNAY HILLS
TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA
PARCEL EXHIBIT
EXHIBIT D
REQUEST FOR NOTICE OF DEFAULT UNDER DEVELOPMENT
AGREEMENT
Development Agreement:
Amendment and Restatement
of Development Agreement
Specific Plan No. 180, Rancho Highlands
Planning Application No.
Date:
To.'
City of Clerk and Planning Director, City of Temecula
Pursuant to Section 6(b) and (c) of the above-referenced Amendment
and Restatement of Development Agreement, request is hereby made by
as Mortgagee for the property (or portion thereof) to receive
copies of any Notice of Default issued by City against Owner in accordance with
the terms and conditions of such Amendment and Restatement of Development
Agreement. Copies of any such Notices should be mailed to the following
address:
(Mortgagee)
(Person/Department)
(Address)
(City/State/Zip)
(Telephone No.)
A copy of this Notice should be filed with the project file to insure proper and
timely notice is given. Under the terms of the Amendment and Restatement of
Development Agreement, as Mortgagee is entitled to reeeive
copies of any Notice of Default within ten (10} days of sending any such Notice
to Owner. Failure to send any such Notice may have serious legal
consequences for the City.
This request is to remain in effect until revoked by as
Mortgagee or the Amendment and Restatement of Development Agreement is
Terminated.
The person executing this document on behalf of the Mortgagee warrants and
represents that the entity he/she represents is a bona fide Mortgagee of the property
and is entitled to receive copies of Notices of Default under the Amendment and
Restatement of Development Agreement.
The undersigned declares the above information is true and correct under the
penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California.
Dated: ,1996
Mortgagee
By:
(signature)
Its:
(printed name)
(title)
[Notary required]
This Notice is to be sent m both the City Clerk and Planning Director for the City
of Temecula at P.O. Box 9033, Temecula, Ca 925989-9033 or such other location
as Temeeula City Hall may be located in the future.
ATTACHMENT NO. 5
EXHIBIT
R:,,~rAm. rr~pA~7.~.c~ 4/29/97 ~f
CITY OF TEMECULA
I PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0030 (DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT)
'XHIBIT - A VICINITY MAP
II PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - MAY 5, 1997
ITEM #6
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
May 5, 1997
Planning Application No.: PA97-0007 (Development Plan)
Prepared By: Carole K. Donahoe, Project Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Department Staff recommends the Planning
Commission:
ADOPT the Negative Declaration for Planning Application
No. PA97-0007;
ADOPT the Mitigation Monitoring Program for Planning
Application No. PA97-0007;
ADOPT Resolution No. 97-__ Recommending Approval of
Planning Application No. PA97-0007 based upon the
Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report and
subject to the attached Conditions of Approval.
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
Temecula One Properties
REPRESENTATIVE:
W. Dean Davidson, Architect
PROPOSAL:
To construct and operate a single-story 17,021 square
foot industrial warehouse and office building for Superior
Wholesale Tire Company
LOCATION:
South side of Avenida AIvarado, west of Diaz Road
EXISTING ZONING:
LI (Light Industrial)
SURROUNDING ZONING:
North:
South:
East:
West:
LI (Light Industrial)
PI (Public/Institutional)
LI (Light Industrial)
LI (Light Industrial)
PROPOSED ZONING:
Not requested
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: BP (Business Park)
EXISTING LAND USE:
Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
North:
South:
East:
West:
BW/IPInternational
Eastern MunicipalWater District Sewage Treatment Plant
Vacant
Vacant
PROJECT STATISTICS
Total Area:
Total Site Area:
Building Footprint Area:
Landscape Area:
Paved Area:
Parking Required:
Parking Provided:
Building Height:
1.18 acre gross/1 acre net (43,560 square feet)
17,021 square feet (39% of net)
9,454 square feet (22% of net)
17,085 square feet (39% of net)
20 vehicle spaces, 4 bicycle spaces, 0 motorcycle spaces
23 vehicle spaces, 4 bicycle spaces, 0 motorcycle spaces
24 feet
BACKGROUND
The applicant, Mr. Alan Young, and his representative W. Dean Davidson, architect, attended
a p~e-application meeting for this proposal on December 18, 1996. A formal application was
submitted to the Planning Department on January 9, 1997, and a Development Review
Committee meeting was held for the project on January 23, 1997. The project was deemed
complete on April 1, 1997.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project is the design, construction and operation of an industrial office and warehouse
facility for the Superior Wholesale Tire Company. The proposed building is single-story, with
15,909 square feet devoted to warehouse uses and an employee lounge, and 1,112 square feet
for office uses. According to Mr. Young, Superior Wholesale Tire Company operates similar
facilities in other Southern California locations.
ANALYSIS
Site Design
The project will take access from a shared driveway off Avertida Alvarado. Parking lots for both
customers and employees are proposed for the west side of the building and separated from
each other by a 5.5-foot planter in front of a 6-foot security and screen wall, proposed to be
constructed of concrete block with stucco overlay to match the building. The main loading
dock and an additional roll up door are located on the west side of the building and are
completely screened from the public way by the proposed solid block wall. There is an another
roll up door located at the rear of the building which faces the adjacent sewage treatment plant.
An employee outdoor patio area is proposed adjacent to the lunch room. No outdoor storage
of materials or equipment is proposed.
Architecture
The design of the building affords the opportunity for enhanced architectural features on the
east side and front of the building, the most visible sides of the project. The architect has
proposed a series of building indents and large triangular planting areas that break up the
expanse of building on the east side. The building frontage also has a broken building line and
portico that showcases the front office windows, accent tile and reveal.
The building colors are varying shades of grey, from basic walls in 'Gray Harbor", lower walls
in "Natural Gray," reveal accents and doors in "Foggy Road," and smoked glass of 'Solar Gray."
Frames are black, and the tile provides highlights of a purple eggplant color. The architect has
offered glass windows at two levels, and has wrapped them and other accents around the
building sides visible from Avertida Alvarado. At the request of staff, the applicant has
relocated the mechanical equipment from the roof to ground level on the east side of the
building with an enclosure that matches the building.
Landscaping
The project proposes landscaping on 22% of the net site area consistent with the LI (Light
Industrial) zone minimum requirement of 20%. The project is conditioned to blend and provide
continuity with existing street plantings, and to provide erosion control plantings on the slope.
Staff recommends that the project provide a mix of evergreen and deciduous tree species on
the east side of the project because it is very visible due to the slope at this location. Shade
trees are scattered throughout the project area, particularly along the front parking lot and
employee lunch area.
EXISTING ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION
Existing zoning for the site is LI (Light Industrial). Office/warehouse uses are permitted with
the approval of a development plan pursuant to Chapter 17.05 of the Development Code. The
General Plan Land Use designation for the site is BP (Business Park). The project is consistent
with this designation.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
An Initial Study has been prepared for this project which 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. Any potentially significant impacts will be mitigated.
SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS
The project is in compliance with the City's Development Code and General Plan, and is
compatible with existing and proposed uses in the area. The site design addresses the unique
location of the site and its particular impact upon the viewshed from Avenida Alvarado and
other public streets. The applicant has been responsive to issues and concerns raised by staff
and has modified the site design, architecture and landscaping to address these concerns.
R:~TAFFRPT~Tptr/.I~C 4/30/97 ckd 3
FINDINGS
The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan for Temecula and with all
applicable requirements of State Law. The project is consistent with all City Ordinances
including: the City's Development Code, Ordinance No. 655 (Mt. Palomar Lighting
Ordinance), and the City's Water Efficient Landscaping provisions.
The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health,
safety, and general welfare. The project as proposed complies with all City Ordinances
and meets the standards adopted by the City of Temecula designed for the protection
of the public health, safety and welfare.
An Initial Study was prepared for the project and it has 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 added to the project.
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 disturbed and graded, and streetscape installed on site. 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 any
indication that any wildlife species exist, or that the site serves as a migration corridor.
A DeMinimus impact finding can be made for this project.
Attachments:
PC Resolution - Blue Page 5
A. Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 8
Initial Study - Blue Page 17
Mitigation Monitoring Program - Blue Page 18
Exhibits - Blue Page 19
A. Vicinity Map
B. General Plan Map
C Zoning Map
D. Site Plan
E. Elevations
F. Floor Plan
G. Landscape Plan
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
PC RESOLUTION NO. 97-
4/30/97 dd 5
PC RESOLUTION NO. 97-
A RESOLUTION OF TWE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. PA974MM)7 (DEVELOPMV~NT PLAN) TO
CONSTRUCT AND OPERATE A 17,021 SQUARE FOOT
INDUSTRIAL OFFICE AND WAREHOUSE FACILITY ON
A PARCEL CONTAINING 1.18 ACRES LOCATED ON THE
SOUTH SIDE OF AVENIDA ALVARADO WEST OF DIAZ
ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 909-
290-002
WHEREAS, Temecula One Properties filed Planning Application No. PA97-0007
(Development Plan) in accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development
Cede;
WHEREAS, Planning Application No. PA97-0007 (Development Plan) was processed
in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application No. PA97-0007
(Development Plan) on May 5, 1997, 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 heating, 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. PA97-0007 (Development Plan);
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMIRSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct.
Section 2. ~ The Planning Commission, in approving Planning Application No.
PA97-0007 (Development Plan) makes the following findings, to wit:
A. The proposed use is in conformanee with the General Plan for Temeatla and
with all applicable requirements of State Law and other ordinances of the City. The project is
consistent with all City Ordinances including: the City' s Development Code, Ordinance No. 655
OVlt. Palomar Lighting Ordinance), and the City's Water Efficient Landscaping provisions.
B. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the
public health, safety, and general welfare. The project as proposed complies with all City
Ordinances and meets the standards adopted by the City of Temecula designed for the protection
of the public health, safety and welfare.
C. An Initial Study was prepared for the project and it has 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 added to the project.
D. 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
pwject site has been previously disturbed and graded, and streetscape installed on site. 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 any indication that any wildlife species
exist, or that the site serves as a migration corridor. A DeMinimus impact finding can be made
for this project.
Section 3. F. nvironmen~al Conlplianee. 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 Temecula Planning Commission hereby approves
Planning Application No. PA97-0007 (Development Plan) to construct operate a 16,990 square
foot industrial office and warehouse facility located on the south side of Avenida Alvarado, west
of Diaz Road and known as Assesser's Parcel No. 909-290-002 subject to Exhibit A, attached
hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference and made a part hereof.
Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 5th day of May, 1997.
Linda Fahey, Chairman
I ItEREBY 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 5th day of May,
1997 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
EXHIBIT A
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Planning Application No. PA97-0007 (Development Plan)
Project Description: A Devdopmant Plan to construct and operate a 17,021 square foot
industrial office and warehouse facility for Superior Wholesale Tire Company
Assessor's Parcel No.: 909-290-002
Approval Date:
Expiration Date:
May 5, 1997
May 5, 1999
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Within Forty-Eight (48} Hours of the Approval of this Project
The applicant/developer shall deliver to the Planning Department a cashier's check or
money order made payable to the County Clerl< in the amount of Seventy-Eight Dollars
($78.00) County administrative fee, to enable the City to file the Notice of
Determination with a DeMinimus Finding required under Public Resources Code Section
21108(b) and California Code of Regulations Section 15075. If within said forty-eight
(48) hour period the applicant/developer has not delivered to the Planning Department
the check as required above, the approval for the project granted shall be void by reason
of failure of condition, Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c).
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 Planning Application
No. PA97-0007 (Development Ran). City shall promptly notify the developer/applicant
of any claim, action, or proceeding for which indemnification is sought and shall further
cooperate fully in the defense of the action.
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.
The development of the premises shall conform substantially with Exhibit D - Site Plan,
approved with Planning Application No. PA97-0007, or as amended by these conditions.
R:~TAFFRFl~7pa97.PC 4r3o/97 ¢kd 9
Wheel stops shall be installed to ensure that a minimum four foot wide sidewalk
width is maintained where vehicles may overhand adjacent sidewalks.
A minimum of four (4) bicycle spaces shall be provided. Bicycle spaces shall be
installed in a manner which allows adequate area for access. General space
allowances shall include a two (2) foot width and a six (6) foot length per bicycle
and a five (5) foot maneuvering space behind the bicycle. The spaces shall be
located on a hard, dust-free surface, preferably asphalt or concrete slab. Racks
shall be located so as to not create an obstruction to pedestrian movement.
Within fifteen (15) days of approval of the development plan, the applicant shall
submit a revised site plan showing the square footage of buildings and
landscaping approved by Planning Application No. PA97-0007.
Building construction shall conform substantially with Exhibit E - Elevations, Exhibit F -
Floor Plans, and Exhibit H (Color Elevations), or as amended by these conditions.
a. Roof-mounted equipment is not proposed for the building.
Landscaping shall conform substantially with Exhibit G, or as amended by these
conditions.
Tree species proposed for the east side of the building shall be a mix of
evergreen and deciduous trees.
Street trees shall be planted at a rate of one tree per thirty feet (30') of street
frontage. Landscaping plans shall identify all trees in conformance with this
requirement.
The applicant is to ensure that mature plantings do not interfere with utility lines
and traffic sight lines.
Colors and materials used shall conform substantially with Exhibit I (Color and Materials
Board) or as amended by these conditions.
Concrete (building base)
Concrete (building lower wall)
Reveal accents, exterior door
Glass
Ceramic tile accents
Aluminum Frame
Colors
Dunn-Edwards//DE 1074 L1 Gray Harbor
Dunn-Edwards//DE 1072 L1 Natural Gray
Dunn-Edwards//DE 1070 M2 Foggy Road
1/4 inch Solar Grey
Dal//DH-87
Black Anodized
Prior to the Issuance of Grading Permits
The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 8°24 of the Temecula
Municipal Code.
P,:~qTAFFRPT~Tpa97.~C 4/30/97 e,,kd 10
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 the Issuance of Building Permits
10. A Consistency Check fee shall be paid.
11.
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.
12.
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.
13.
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 the Issuance of Occupancy Permits
14. An application for signage shall be submitted and approved by the Planning Manager.
15.
All landscaped areas shall be planted in accordance with approved landscape, irrigation,
and shading plans.
16.
All required landscape planting and irrigation shall have been installed and be in a
condition acceptable to the Planning Manager. The plants shall be healthy and free of
weeds, disease, or pests. The irrigation system shall be properly constructed and in
good working order.
17.
All required landscape planting and irrigation shall be maintained in a condition
acceptable to the Planning Manager throughout the life of the project. The plants shall
be healthy and free of weeds, disease, or pests. The irrigation system shall be in good
working order.
18.
Each parking space reserved for the handicapped shall be identified by a permanently
affixed reflectorized sign constructed of porcelain on steel, beaded text or equal,
displaying the International Symbol of Accessibility. The sign shall not be smaller than
70 square inches in area and shall be centered at the interior end of the parking space
at a minimum height if 80 inches from the bottom of the sign to the parking space
finished grade, or centered at a minimum height of 36 inches from the parking space
finished grade, ground, or sidewalk. A sign shall also be posted in a conspicuous place,
at each entrance to the off-street parking facility, not less than 17 inches by 22 inches,
clearly and conspicuously stating the following:
4/30/97
"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.
19.
Performance securities, in amounts to be determined by the Planning Manager to
guarantee the installation of plantings, walls, and fences in accordance with the
approved plan, and adequate maintenance of the Planting for one year, shall be filed
with the Department of Planning.
20.
All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use
allowed by this permit.
21.
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.
BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT
22.
Comply with applicable provisions of the 1994 edition of the California Building,
Plumbing and Mechanical Codes; 1993 National Electrical Code; California
Administrative Code, Title 24 Energy and Disabled Access Regulations and the Temecula
Municipal Code.
23.
All buildings and facilities must comply with applicable disabled access regulations and
must be fully detailed for plan check submittal. (California Disabled Access Regulations
effective April 1, 1994).
24. Provide disabled access from the public way to the main entrance of the building.
25. Provide van accessible parking located as close as possible to the main entry.
26. Show path of accessibility from parking to furthest point of improvement.
27.
Provide an approved precise grading plan for plan check submittal to check for handicap
accessibility. Include enlarged area for disabled parking and building access.
28.
Submit at time of plan review, complete exterior site lighting plans in compliance with
Ordinance No. 655 for the regulation of light pollution.
29.
Provide house electrical meter provisions for power for the operation of exterior lighting
and fire alarm systems.
30.
Provide electrical plan including load calcs and panel schedule, plumbing schematic and
mechanical plan for plan review.
R:~STAFFRFBTpa97.1~C 4130/97 eid 12
31.
Prior to building permit issuance, approval must be obtained from the Water District,
Sanitation District, Public Works Department, Fire Department, Planning Department and
Building Department.
32.
Based on submitted documents, the occupancy classification of the proposed use shall
be B, F-1.
33.
Restroom fixtures, number and type, shall be in accordance with the provisions of the
1994 edition of the Uniform Plumbing Code, Appendix C.
34.
Provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on plans
submitted for plan review.
35.
Truss calculations that are stamped by the engineer of record, the truss manufacturer's
engineer, and that have been plan checked and stamped by the plan check agency and
the City are required before sheet and shear inspection.
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
Unless otherwise noted, all conditions shall be completed by the Developer at no cost to any
Government Agency. 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 will subject the project to further review and may require revision.
General Requirements
36.
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.
37.
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.
38.
All pertinent 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 Temecuta mylars.
39.
Graded but undeveloped land shall be stabilized from erosion to the satisfaction of the
Director of Public Works.
Prior to Issuance of a Grading Permit
40.
A Precise 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
public and private property.
41.
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:'~TAFFP,~7pa97.1~C 4/30/97 ckd 13
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47,
48.
49.
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.
A Geological Report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and submitted
to the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The report shall
address special study zones and the geological conditions of the site, and shall provide
recommendations to mitigate the impact of ground shaking and liquefaction.
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 (NOD 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:
Planning Department
Department of Public Works
Eastern Municipal Water District
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.
Permanent landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department
and the Department of Public Works for review and approval.
An Area Drainage Plan fee shall be paid to the Riverside County Flood Control and Water
Conservation District prior to issuance of any permit.
Precise grading plans shall conform to applicable City of Temecula Standards subject to
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 of Temecula Standard No. 207A.
Concrete sidewalks and ramps shall be constructed along public street frontages
in accordance with City of Temecula Standard Nos. 400 and 401.
d. All street and driveway centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees.
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.
R:XSTAFFRPTXTpa~7.1*C 4/30/97 ckd 14
f. All concentrated drainage directed towards the public street shall be piped or
conveyed through curb outlets.
Prior to Issuance of a Building Permit
50.
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.
51.
The Developer shall ensure that an public easement has been recorded as necessary for
construction of sidewalk and utilities fronting Avenida AIvarado.
52.
The Developer shall deposit with the Engineering Department a cash sum as established
per acre as mitigation for traffic signal impact.
53.
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; ~ that the Developer is not waiving its right to protest the
reasonableness of any traffic impact fee, and the amount thereof.
54.
The Developer shall record a written offer to participate in, and wave all rights to object
to the formation of an Assessment District, a Community Facilities District, or a Bridge
and Major Thoroughfare Fee District for the construction of the proposed Western
Bypass Corridor in accordance with the General Plan. The form of the offer shall be
subject to the approval of the City Engineer and City Attorney.
Prior to Issuance of a 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
R:XSTAFFRF~?pLqT.PC 4/30/97 ckd I 5
56.
The Developer shall construct the following public improvements in conformance with
applicable City Standards, the approved Precise Grading Plan and subject to approval
by the Department of Public Works.
a. Sidewalk along the entire property frontage.
bo Curb Outlets
c. Commercial Driveway Approach
57.
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
58°
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the County of
Riverside Flood Control and Water Conservation District transmittal dated February 4,
1997, a copy of which is attached.
59.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Rancho California
Water District's transmittal dated January 22, 1997, a copy of which is attached.
60.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Eastern
Information Center's transmittal dated January 31, 1997, a copy of which is attached.
61.
The applicant shall comply with the conditions of approval as submitted by the Fire
Department, a copy of their transmittal dated April 28, 1997 is attached.
62.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations of the Police Department in their
transmittal dated January 29, 1997, a copy of which is attached.
It:~TAI~,PT~7pa97.1~C 4/30/97 ckd 16
DAVID P. ZAPPE
Gcncr~l Ma.ager-Chicl' Engineer
City of Temecula
Plannin Department
43200 ~usiness Park Drive
Temecula, California 92590
Attention: C~ROI.F. ~.
Ladies and Gentlemen:
The D~ d~ not no~l~ ~mmnd ~ndj~ns ~r land d~iions or offier i~ u~ ~ses in inco~rat~ ciges.
~e Dis~ also
h~a~ m~ ~r such ~ses. Dis~ commen~recommnda~ons ~r su~ ~s am no~ally lim~ to items of
sp~c interest to the Djffi~ incl~ing Djs~t Master Dmina · Plan ~cili~es, offier m ional flood ~n~l and
dmina ~dl~s whi~ ~ ~ ~nside~ a I~i~l ~m~n~or e~ens~n of a mslr b~an system, and Dis~ct
Area ~inage Plan ~s (deve~pment mi~ga~on ~s). In addi~on, info~n of a general na~re is prov~.
~e Dis~ct has not mview~
~nst~ute ~ i~ Djs~ a m~or endo~emnt of ~e pm~ pm~ ~ffi ms~ ~ ~ h~a~. public ~a~
and safe~ or any other su~ssue:
/~is pm~ w~ not ~ im~d by Dis~ct Mas~r Drainage P~n ~1~ nor am o~r ~lit~s of ~nal
intemst ~s~.
This proje~ invo~ Djffi~ Master Plan ~lit~s. ~e Dis~ will a~e t ownedhip of such ~lies on
wd~en request of ~ Ci~. Fadli~es must ~ ~ns~ to Di~ sln~ffis and Dis~ plan ch~ a~
insp~tion will
required.
~is p~
~ns~e~ mg~nal in n~m a~l~ a Iogi~l e~ens~n of ~ adopted
Master Dmina~ Pin. ~e D~ wou~ ~nsider a~n o~hip of su~ ~lffies on ~n r~uest
of ~e C' . F~I~ must
requirement Dis~ a~p~n~. Plan ch~k, ins~on and adminis~We ~s ~11 ~ r~ui~.
/ This proje~ is I~t~ ~ffiin ~e lim~ of
re~ffia~on
de~d. at ~e ~me of issuan~ of ~e a~ual permit.
GENE~L INFOR~ON
This project may ~uim a Nat~nal Pollulnt Discharge Elimina~n S stem (NPDES) ~ ~m the St~ Water
Re~u~C~. C~m~rgmffi~,~a~,oroffi~l~ishou~n~given ~C~
unffi
has dete~in~ ~at the p~ has ~n granted a ~it or is sh~n to ~ exempt.
If ~is pro' involves a F~eml Eme~en~ Managerant Agen~ (FE~) reaped ~ plain ~en ~e Ci~ s~u~
require ~appli~nt to r~ all stud~s, ~la~ons, plans and other mfo~on ~ui~ to m~t FEMA
r~uimmn~, and shou~ ~ ~uim ~t ~e appl~nt ob~in a Con~nal Le~ of ~p R~is~n (CLOMR) pdor
~ grading, ~a~on or o~ final appm~l of ~e pm~ a~ a Le~er ~ ~p Rev~n (LOMR) p~r to ~pan~.
If a natural wate~ume or
ob~in a ~on 1601/1603 A r~mnt ~om the C~mia ~pa~mnt o~ Fish and Gain and a Clean ~ir A~
S~on 4~ Pe~ hm ~e U.~. ~ Co~s of E inure, or ~n ~s~nden~ ~ ~ agen~es ~d~ng
the proj~ is exempt ~om ~e~ ~uimments. ~an Water A~ ~c~on 401 Water Qual~ Ceffifi~on my be
require~ hm the Io~t Cali~mia Reg~nal Water Quali~ Control Boaffi prior to issuan~ of ~e Coffis 4~ ~it.
Senior Civil Engineer
Water
John F. HenNaear
Phillip L. Forbes
C. Michael Cowett
Janua~ 22,1997
Ms. Carole Donahoe
Case Planner
City of Temecula
Planning Department
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590-3606
SUBJECT:
WATER AVAILABILITY
PARCEL 2 OF PARCEL MAP 21382
APN 909-290,002
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0007
Dear Ms. Donahoe:
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.
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 dghts, if any,
to RCWD.
If you have any questions, please contact an Engineering Services
Representative at this office.
Sincerely,
RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT
Steve Brannon, P.E.
Development Engineering Manager
971SB:eb014/F012/FEF
C: Laurie Williams, Engineering Services Supervisor
CALIFORNIA
HISTORICAL
RESOURCES
INFORMATION
SYSTEM
Eastern Information Center
Department of Anthropology
University of California
Riverside, CA 92521-43418
Phone (909) 787-5745
Fax (909) 787-5409
CULTURAL RESOURCE REVIEW
DATE: :y'~N. ..=// /997
RE: Case Transmittal Reference Designation:
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 project area has not t~j~n surveyed for cultural resourcas 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 [ study
is recommended.
A Phase 1 cultural rcsouroe study (MF #
) identified one or moro 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 resources is not anticipated. Further study is not
recommended.
V// A Phase I cultural rosouroc study (MF # ,Z2/4 ) identified no cultural resources. Further study is not recommended.
There is a low probability of cultural resources. Further study is not recommended.
~lf, during construction, cultural resources arc encountered, work should be halted or diverted in the immediate area while
a quailfled archaeologist evaluates the finds and makes recommendations.
Due to the archaeological sensitivity of the area, earthmoving during construction should be monitorui by a professional
archaeolog~t.
The submission of a cultural resource management report is recommended following guidelines for Archa~logical
Resource Management R,~orts prepared by the California Office of Histonc Preservation, Preservation planning Bulletin
4(a), December 1989.
Phase I
Phase ii
Phase ill
Phase IV
Records search and field survey
Testing [Evaluate resource significance; propose mitigation measures for *significant" sites.1
Mitigation [Data recovery by excavation, preservation in place, or a combination of the two.[
Monitor firthmoving activities
COMMENTS:
If you have any questions, please cc~ntact us.
Eastern Information Center
City of Temecula
43200 Business Park Drive - PO Box 9033 - Temecula, California 92589-9033
(909) 69~1-6439
FAX (909) 694-6478
April 28, 1997
TO:
ATr:
RE:
Planning Department
Carole Donahoe
PA97-0007
Superior Wholesale Tire
With respect to the conditions of approval for the above referenced development plan, the Fire
Depamnent recommends the following fire protection measures be provided in accordance with
the City of 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 City of
Temecuh Ordinances and recogn~_~_ fire protection standards. A fire flow of 1750
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 vehicsdar 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, containing a Fire
Department appwval 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.
The required water syy. em, including fire hydrants, shall be installed and accepted by the
appropri~t~ waU~ agency prior to any combustible building materials being placed on the
job site.
Prior to the issuance of building p~ukits, the developer shall pay $.25 per square foot as
mitigation for fn'e protection impacts.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant/developer shall be responsible to
submit a plan check fee of $582.00 to the City of Temecuh.
THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS MUST BE MET PRIOR TO OCCUPANCY.
Install a complete fire sprinkler system in all buildings. The post indicator valve and fire
department connection shall be located to the front of the building, within 50 feet of a
hydrant, and a minimum of 25 feet from the building(s). A statement that the building
will be automatically fire sprinkled must be included on the title page of the building
plans.
Install a supendsed wn~-~ow monitoring fire ahnn system. Plans shall be submitted to
the Fire Department for approval prior to installation.
9. Tire storage shall be in accordance with NFPA 231D.
10.
Knox Key lock boxes shall be installed on all buildings/suites. If building/suite requires
I4~r<ious M~t~hl Reporting {Material Safety Data Sheets) the Knox HAZ MAT Data
and key storage cabinets shall be inst~lled. If building/suites are protected by a fire or
burglar alarm system, the boxes will require "Tamper* monitoring. Plans shall be
submitted to the Fire Department for approval prior to installation.
11. All exit doors shall be openable without the use of key or special knowledge or effort.
12.
Occupancy separation wails will be required as per the Uniform Building Code, Section
302.4.
13.
14.
15.
Install portable fire extinguishers with a minimum rating of 2AIOBC. Contact a certified
extinguisher company for proper placement.
R is pwhibited to use/process or store any materials in this occupancy that would classify
it as an "H" occupancy per Chapter 3 of the Uniform Building Code.
Blue dot reflectors shall be mounted in private s~eets and driveways to indicate location
of fire hydnnts. They shah be mounted in the middle of the streeX directly in line with
fire hydrant.
16. Prior to final inspection of any building, the applicant shall prepare and submit to the
Fire Depax'hl~ent for approval, a sit~ plan designating required fire lanes with appropriate
lane painting and or signs.
17. 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.
18. Final conditions wffi be addressed when building plans are reviewed in the Bttilding and
Safety Office.
19. 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 Department
Planning and engineering section (909)693-3974.
Laura Cabral
Fire Safety Specialist
January29,1997
'Ptanning Application No. PA97-0007
Superior Whoresale Twe Company
Case Planner: Carols Donshoe
I have reviewed the plans and have no objection to the placement or layout of the
project. Reoommend the following conditions be placed on it:
1. NI hedges end planters on the project shall be maintained eta height no
greater than thirty-six (36) inohes. Any hedges surrounding the warehouse area
will be maintained below the window line or thirty-six {36) inches, whichever IS
lower.
2. NI parking iota, driveways, truck dock well and pedestrain walkways shall
be illuminated with · minimum maintained one (1) foot-candle of light st ground
level, evenly disperse, egminatlng a~ shadows. Aft exterior lighting fkxturee shag
be vandal resistant. All exterior fighting shag be controlled by photooells, timers,
or other means to prevent aleactivation by unauthorized persons.
3- All exterior doors shag have their own vandal resistant fight fixture or wall
pack type installed above. The doors shall be illuminated with a minimum
maintained one (q) candle of fight at ground level, evenly dispersed.
4. Any public telephones located on the exterior of the building shed be placed
in a wag lighted, highly viable area, and installed with a "Call Out Only' feature To
deter loitering.
5. All doors, windows, locking mechanisms, hinges. end other miscellaneous
hardware shall be of commerical or institutional grade.
6. All concrete perimeter wells shall be covered with a gruffill resistant coating
or type painting TO dete~ vandalism.
If you have any questions or conceals, please call me at the Temecule Police
Station.
Officer Lynn Fenerie Sr.
Crime Prevention Officer
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY
R:XSTAFI~,FI'XTpa97.1~C 4/29/97 drdl 17
City of Temecula
Planning Department
Agency Distribution List
PROJECT: Planning Application No. PA97-0007 (Development Plan)
DISTRIBUTION DATE: 4/15/97-5/5/97 CASE PLANNER: Carole Donahoe
CITY OF TEMECULA:
Building & Safety ....................(X)
Fire Department ......................(X)
Sheriff .............................(X)
Parks & Recreation (TCSD) ............( )
Planning, Advance ....................( )
Public Works ........................(X)
....... ()
STATE:
Caltrans ............................ ( )
Fish & Game ........................ ( )
Mines & Geology ..................... ( )
Regional Water Quality Control Bd .......( )
State Clearinghouse ...................( )
State Clearinghouse (10 Copies) .........( )
Water Resources ..................... ( )
...... ()
FEDERAL:
Army Corps of Engineers ...............
Fish and Wildlife Service ...............
)
)
)
)
REGIONAL:
Air Quality Management District .........
SCAG ..............................
Western Riverside COG ...............
CITY OF MURRIETA:
Planning ............................ ( )
RIVERSIDE COUNTY:
Airport Land Use Commission .......... ( )
Engineer ............................ ( )
Hood Control ........................ (X)
Health Department .................... (X)
Parks and Recreation .................. ( )
Planning Depa~ht~ent .................. ( )
Habitat Conservation Agency (RCHCA) ... ( )
Riverside Transit Agency ...............( )
...... ()
UTILITY:
Eastern Municipal Water District ........ (X)
Inland Valley Cablevision .............. (X)
Rancho CA Water District, Will Serve .... (X)
Southern California Gas ................ (X)
Southern California Edison ............. (X)
Metropolitan Water District ............. ( )
OTHER:
Pechanga Indian Reservation ............ ( )
Eastern Information Center ............. ( )
Local Agency Formation Comm ......... ( )
Dean Davidson ....................... (X)
Homeowners' Association .............. ( )
R:x~eqaX7PA97.PND ckd
City of Temecula
Planning Department
PROJECT:
APPLICANT:
LOCATION:
DESCRIPTION:
Notice of Proposed Negative Declaration
Planning Application No. PA97-0007 (Development Plan)
Temecula One Properties
South side of Avenida Alvaratio, west of Diaz Road
A 17,021 square foot industrial/office/warehouse building for Superior Wholesale
Tire Company
The City of Temecula intends to adopt a Negative Declaration for the project described above. Based upon
the information contained in the attached Initial Environmental Study and pursuant to the requirements of
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); it has been determined that this project as proposed,
revised or mitigated will not have a significant impact upon the environment. As a result, the Planning
Commission intends to adopt a Negative Declaration for this project.
The mitigation measures required to reduce or mitigate the impacts of this project on the environment are
included in the project design and will be included in the Mitigation Monitoring Program which will be
considered by the Planning Commission.
The Comment Period for this proposed Negative Declaration is April 15, 1997 to May 5, 1997. Written
comments and responses to this notice should be addressed to the contact person listed below at the
following address: City of Temecula, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, CA 92590.
The public notice of the intent to adopt this Negative Declaration is provided through:
X__ The Local Newspaper. X__ Posting the Site. X_.. Notice to Adjacent Property Owners.
If you need additional information or have any questions concerning this project, please contact Carole
Donahoe, Project Planner at (909) 694-6400.
Prepared by: ;~?./~L/~Jm~re)/,-,~/gf./A./~, 3 Carole K. Donahoe, Project Planner
(Signa (Name and Title)
R:\CeqaXTPA97.PND ckd
CITY OF TEMECULA
Environmental Checklist
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
10.
Project Title:
Lead Agency Name & Address:
Contact Person & Phone No.:
Project Location:
Project Sponsor Name & Address:
General Plan Designation:
Zoning:
Description of Project:
Surrounding Land Uses & Setting:
Other public agencies whose
approval is required:
Planning Application No. PA97-0007
(Development Plan)
City of Temecula, 43200 Business Park Drive,
Temecula, CA 92590
Carole Donahoe, Project Planner
(909) 694-6400
South side of Avenida Alvarado, west of Diaz Road
Temecula One Properties, 4800 Corbin Avenue,
Tarzana, CA 91356
Business Park (BP)
Light Industrial (LI)
To construct and operate a 17,021 square foot
industrial warehouse and office building for Superior
Wholesale Tire Company
The project is located in a area that has been
previously graded, street improvements and utilities
have been installed and water and sewer are
available at the site. Similar
industrial/warehouse/office buildings have already
been constructed adjacent and in close proximity to
the project site.
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, and General
Telephone Company.
R:%CEOA\7PA97. EA ckd
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 [ ] Hazards
[ ] Population and Housing [ ] Noise
[ X ] Geologic Problems [ ] Public Services
[ X ] Water [ ] Utilities and Service Systems
[ ] Air Quality [ X ] Aesthetics
[ ] Transportation/Circulation [ ] Cultural Resources
[ ] Biological Resources [ ] Recreation
[ ] Energy and Mineral Resoumes [ ] Mandatory Findings of
Significance
DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a signfficant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described
on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will
be propared.
Signature
Name: Carole K. Donahoe
I~or:
City of Temecuta
R:\CEOA~7PA97.EA ckd
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:
a. Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
(Source 1, Figure 2-1, Page 2-17)
Ce
Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction
over the project?
Be incompatible with existing land use in the
vicinity? (Source 1, Figure 2-1, Page 2-17)
Affect agricultural resoumes 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 projections?
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 failure, including liquefaction?
d. Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard?
e. Landslides or mudflows?
Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions form excavation, grading or fill?
Subsidence of the land?
X
x
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
R:\CEOA\7PA97.EA ckd
Issues and Supporting Information Sources
h. Expansive soils?
I. Unique geologic or physical features?
WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a. 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? (Source 2, Figure 13,
Page 95 and Soume 2, Figure 30, Page 190)
Discharge into surface waters or other alteration
of surface water quality (e.g. temperature,
dissolved oxygen or turbidity)?
Changes in the amount of surface water in any
water body?
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?
AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a. Violate any air quality standard or contribute to
an existing or projected air quality violation?
(Soume 3, Page 6-11, Table 6-2)
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:
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
x
X
X
X
X
R:\CEOA\7PA97.EACkd
Issues and Supporting Information Sources
a. Increase vehicle trips or traffic congestion?
b. 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 barriem for pedestrians or bicyclists?
X
X
X
X
X
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:
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)?
X
X
X
X
c. Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)?
d. Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal
pool)?
e. Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors?
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:
X
X
X
X
X
X
R:\CEOA~7PA97.EA ckd
Issues and Supporting Information Sources
A risk of accidental explosion or release of
hazardous substances (including, but not limited
to: oil, pesticides, chemical or radiation)?
Possible interference with an emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
The creation of any health hazard or potential
health hazard?
Exposure of people to existing sources of
potential health hazards?
Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable
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?
d. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads?
e. Other governmental services?
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
R:\CEOA\7PA97.F~ ckd
Issues and Supporling lnfommlion 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? (Source 2, Page 39)
d. Sewer or septic tanks? (Source 2, Page 40)
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 2,
Figure 55, Page 280)
b. Disturb archaeological resources? (Source 2,
Figure 56, Page 283)
c. Affect historical resources? (Source 2, Page
281 )
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:
a. Increase the demand for neighborhood or
regional parks or other recreational facilities?
b. Affect existing recreational opportunities?
16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
R:%CEOA\7PA97.F~,ckd
Issues and Supporting Information Sources
a. 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?
b. Does the project have the potential to achieve
short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term,
environmental goals?
c. Does the project have impacts that area
individually limited, but cumulativety
considerable? CCumulatively 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
which will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly?.
17. EARLIER ANALYSES. None.
X
X
X
X
SOURCE LIST
1 - City of Temecula General Plan
2 - City of Temecula General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report
3 - South Coast Air Quality Management CEQA Air Quality Handbook
R:\CEOA\7PA97.EA ckd
DISCUSSION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Land Use and Planninq
1.a,b,c.
The project will not conflict with the general plan designation or zoning, applicable
environmental plans or polices adopted by agencies with judsdiction over the project, nor
be incompatible with existing land uses in the vicinity. The project is consistent with the
City's General Plan Land Use Designation of BP (Business Park) and the zoning of L1
(Light Industrial). Impacts from all General Plan Land Use Designations were analyzed
in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for 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 projest relates to their specific
environmental plans or polices. The project site has been previously graded and services
have been extended into the area. There will be limited, if any environmental effects on
environmental plans or polices adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project.
Similar industrial/warehouse/office buildings have already been constructed in the area.
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 an
industrial/office/warehouse use in an area surrounded by land that is planned to be
developed with similar uses. 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 Housing
The project will not cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections.
The project is an industrial/office/warehouse use which is consistent with the City's
General Plan Land Use Designation of Business Park. Since the project is consistent with
the City's General Plan, and does not exceed the floor area ratio for Business Park, 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 consistent with the General Plan Land Use Designation of Business Park. 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. The surrounding area is already
developed and infrastructure is available to the site. 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.
Gecloaic Problems
3.b,c,g,h.
The project will have a less than significant impact on people involving seismic
ground shaking; however, there may be a potentially significant impact from seismic
3.d.
3.e.
3.f.
3.1.
Water
4.a.
4.c.
ground failure, liquefaction, subsidence 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 standards. Further, soil reports are required prior to grading
and recommendations contained in this report are followed dudng construction. 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, subsidence and expansive soils. After mitigation
measures are performed, no significant effects are anticipated as a result of this
project.
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. No significant effects
are anticipated as a resuit of this project.
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.
The project will have a less than significant impact from erosion, changes in topography,
grading or fill. The site has been previously graded and the project does not propose
significant grading beyond that which has already taken place, Increased wind and water
erosion of soils both on and off-site may occur dudng 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. After
mitigation measures are performed, no impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
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.
The project will result in changes to absorption rates, drainage patterns and the rate and
amount of surface runoff; however, these changes are considered less than significant,
Previously permeable ground will be rendered impervious by construction of buildings,
accompanying hardscape and driveways. While absorption rates and surface runoff will
change, potential impacts shall be mitigated through site design. Drainage conveyances
will be required for the project to safely and adequately handle runoff which is created.
After mitigation measures are performed, no signfficant impacts are anticipated as a result
of this project.
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 Resoumes Control
Board. No grading shall be permitted until an NPDES Notice of Intent has been filed or
R:\CEQA\7PA97.EA ekd
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.
4.d,e.
The project will have a less than significant impact in a change in the amount of surface
water in any waterbody or impact currents, or to the course or direction of water
movements. Additional surface runoff will occur because previously permeable ground will
be rendered impervious by construction of buildings, accompanying hardscape and
driveways. Surface drainage wilt be channeled to Avenida Alvarado. Due to the limited
scale of the project, the additional amount of drainage will not be considered significant.
No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
4.f,g,h.
The project will have a less than significant change in the quantity and quality 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.
Ljmited changes will occur in the quantity and quality of ground waters; however, due to
the minor scale of the project, it will not be considered significant. Further, 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.
4.1.
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 Distdct indicate that they can accommodate additional water demands."
Water service currently exists in the immediate proximityto the project and will 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.a.
The project will not violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected
air quality violation. The project's 17,021 square feet of industrial/office/warehouse use
is below the threshold for potentially significant air quality impact (276,000 square feet)
established by South Coast Air Quality Management District. No significant impacts are
anticipated as a result of this project.
5.b.
The project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants. The project occupants would
not be considered sensitive receptors, nor will the project generate significant pollutants.
No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this 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. 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.a.
The project will result in a less than significant increase in vehicle tdps; however it will add
to traffic congestion. The project is similar in nature and size to several adjacent
developments which contribute less than a five percent (5%) increase in existing volumes
R:\CEOAX7PA97.EA ckd
dudng the AM peak hour and PM peak hour time frames to the intersection of Diaz Road
and Avenida AIvarado. No further traffic studies were required for this project. The
applicant will be required to pay traffic signal mitigation fees and public facility fees as
conditions of approval for the project. Affer mitigation measures are performed, 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.
6.c.
The project will not result in inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses. The
project is a industrial/office/warehouse use in an area with existing and planned similar
uses. The project is designed to current City standards and has adequate emergency
access. The project does not provide direct access to nearby uses nor obstruct standard
access to nearby uses. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
6.d.
The project has been designed with sufficient parking capacity on-site for both vehicles
and bicycles, The project will be conditioned to construct in accordance with Exhibits
submitted during land use review. Off-site parking will not be impacted. No significant
impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
6.e.
The project will not result in hazards or barriem for pedestrians or bicyclists. Hazards or
barriers to bicyclists have not been included as part of the project, which pedestrian and
bicycle path of travel has been provided. 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 provides bicycle racks onsite and non-vehicular access to the
site. 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.
Bioloqical 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. 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 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,c.
The project will not result in an impact to locally designated species or locally designated
natural communities. 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, and since there are no locally designated species on site, no
significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
R:\CEOA\7PA97.~A ckd
7.d.
The project will not result in an impact to wetland habitat. There is no wetland habitat on-
site or within proximity to the site. No signfficant impacts are anticipated as a result of this
pro jest.
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. No significant impacts are
anticipated as a result of this project.
Enerav and Mineral Resoumes
8.a.
The proiect 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 to the use of non-renewable
resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner. There will be an increase in the rate of use
of natural resources and in the depletion of nonrenewable resource(s) (construction
matedais, fuels for the daily operation, asphalt, lumber). However, due to the scale of the
proposed development, these impacts are not seen as signfficant.
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 resoume
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
9,a.
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 will not be associated with
this use. The Department of Environmental Health has reviewed the project and has no
objections. The applicant must receive their clearance prior to any plan check submittal.
This applies to storage and use of hazardous materials. No signfficant impacts are
anticipated as a result of this projest.
9.b.
The project will not interfere with an emergency response plan or an emergency
evacuation 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 h~7~rds are known to be within proximity of the project, nor is the project expected
to generate health hazards. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this
project.
R:\CEOA\7PA97.EA ckd
9.e.
The project will not result in an increase to fire h~=rd in an area with ~ammable brush,
grass, or trees. The project is a industrial/office/warehouse development in an area of
existing and future similar uses. 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 a less than significant increase 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 existing and proposed
uses in the area. No significant noise impacts are anticipated as a result of this project in
either the short or long-term.
10.b.
The project may expose people to severe noise levels during the
development/construction phase. 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. However, this source of noise from
development of the project will be of short duration and therefore will not be considered
significant. There will be no long-term exposure of people to noise. 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. The cumulative effect from the project will be mitigated through
the payment of applicable School Fees. No signfficant 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 and the payment of the
Pubtic Facility Fee by the applicant. 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,b.
The project will not result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations
to power, natural gas or communications. These systems are currently being delivered in
proximity to the site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
R:\CEOAX7PA97,EA ckd
12.c,d.
The project will not result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations
to local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities or sanitary sewer systems or
septic tanks. While the project will have an incremental impact upon existing systems, the
Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) forthe 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." The FEIR further states: "implementation of the proposed General Plan
would not significantly impact wastewater services." 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.
12.e.
The proposal will result in a less than significant need for new systems or supplies, or
substantial alterations to storm water drainage. The project 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 solid waste created by this
development can be mitigated through participation in any Source 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 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 a
industrial/office/warehouse use in an area of existing and proposed similar uses.
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). After mitigation measures are in place, no significant impacts
are anticipated as a result of this project.
Cultural Resources
14.a.
The project will not have an impact on paleontological resources. The site has been
disturbed from prior grading activity. The Eastern Information Center of the University of
California at Riverside has reviewed the project and a Phase I cultural rasouroe study
identffied no cultural resources. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this
project.
14.b,c,d The project will not disturb archaeological resources nor affect historical or unique ethnic
resources or values. The Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the City's General
R:XCEQAX7PA97.EA ckd
Plan does not identify the site as being within an sensitive archaeological area. The site
is not listed an identified historical site in the inventory contained in the FEIR. 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.
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 resoumes or opportunities: No significant impacts are anticipated as a result
of this project.
R:\CEQA\7PA97. EA ckd
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
E
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
EXHIBITS
R:~STAFPRP~7!~a97.PC 4/29/97 c3ul 19
CITY OF TEMECULA
PROJECT SITE
r It
I II
NORTH
CASE NO. - PA97-0007
EXHIBIT - A
LANNING COMMISSION DATE - MAY 5, 1997
VICINITY MAP
R:\STAFFRPT~Tpa97.PC 4/'2,8/~7 ckd
CITY OF TEMECULA
P
CC
BP
BP H
M
BP
PROJECT Sn'E
BP
OS
r'/
<
P > BP
BP
OS
CC
CC
/-
CASE NO. - PA97-0007
EXHIBIT- B
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - MAY 5, 1997
GENERAL PLAN MAP
R:~STAFFRPT~7pa97.I'C 4/28/97 ckd
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO. - PA97-0007
EXHIBIT - c
'LANNING COMMISSION DATE - MAY 5, 1997
ZONING MAP
R:~STAFFRPTX7pa97.PC 4/'28/97 ckd
CITY OF TEMECULA
I ~'~
W. DEAN DAVID8ON
CASE NO. - PA97-0007
EXHIBIT - D
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - MAY 5, 1997
SITE PLAN
R:~STAFFRFI~7pa97.PC 4/28/97 ckd
tl
CITY OF TEMECULA
8C~'7H B.EVATK~N
,/
CASE NO. - PA97-0007
EXHIBIT- E
LANNING COMMISSION DATE - MAY 5, 1997
ELEVATIONS
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO. - PA97-0007
EXHIBIT - F
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - MAY 5, 1997
FLOOR PLAN
R:'xSTAFFRPT~7pa97.PC 4/28/97 ckd
I
CITY OF TEMECULA
AVE/iDA ALVAFIADO
CASE NO. - PA97-0007
EXHIBIT - G
LANNING COMMISSION DATE - MAY 5, 1997
LANDSCAPE PLAN
ITEM #7
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
May 5, 1997
Planning Application No. PA95-0127
Comprehensive Sign Ordinance
Prepared By: Saied Naaseh, Associate Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Department Staff recommends the Planning
Commission continue the discussion of the Sign Ordinance.
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
City of Temecula
PROPOSAL:
A Request to Recommend Approval of a Comprehensive Sign Ordinance
LOCATION: Citywide
BACKGROUND
This item was continued by the Planning Commission from the April 21, 1997 meeting. At
that meeting, Planning Commission took public testimony, initiated the discussion of the Sign
Ordinance and recommended a number of changes to the Ordinance. Some of these changes
will require further staff analysis and will be presented to the Commission as soon as the
analysis by staff is complete. The items to be researched by staff include: stricter requirements
for vehicle signs and the height of freeway signs in relation to ever growing landscaping. The
changes recommended by the Commission will ultimately be incorporated into a redlined
Ordinance prior to the final action by the Commission.
DISCUSSION
At the last meeting, the Commission stopped their discussion on Page 12, Section 17.28.070
(a) (4). The discussion of the Planning Commission included prohibiting painted window signs,
exploring other means than the Sign Ordinance to prohibit certain vehicle signs, reducing the
permitted area for Window Signs to less than 10% of the window area, and the height of
freeway signs in relation to the ever growing landscaping. The members of the public
requested the Planning Commission to ensure adequate signage for multi tenant office buildings
and adequate freeway signage for small commercial centers along the freeway. In addition,
creating an aesthetically pleasing community through appropriate sign regulations will make
Temecula an inviting place for businesses to relocate.
Staff recommends the Ranning Commission continue the discussion of the Ordinance, until the
entire Ordinance is discussed by the Commission.
Attachments: 1. April 21, 1997 Planning Commission Staff Report - Blue Page 2
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
APRIL 21, 1997 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
April 21, 1997
Planning Application No. PA95-0127
Comprehensive Sign Ordinance
Prepared By: Saied Naaseh, Associate Planner
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Department Staff recommends
Commission adopt PC Resolution No. 97-
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
PROPOSAL:
LOCATION:
BACKGROUND
This item was continued off-calendar from the February 12, 1997.
the Planning
City of Temecula
A Request to recommend approval of a Comprehensive Sign Ordinance
Citywide
At that meeting staff
requested Planning Commission's direction on six issues regarding the Sign Ordinance. The
following summarizes the Ranning Commission's direction on these issues:
Non-Conforming Signs
The Planning Commission determined that all legal non-conforming signs should be permitted
to exist without starting any amortization period until a sign inventory has been completed.
After the inventory, the Ordinance will be amended to add provisions relating to the removal
of non-conforming signs, refer to Section 17.28,960.
Uniform Real Estate Signs
The Planning Commission determined that real estate signs do not need to follow a uniform
design standard. As a result, this provision has been deleted from the Ordinance.
Placement of Freestanding Signs either Parallel or Per30endicular to Streets
The Planning Commission determined that most signs should be placed perpendicular to the
street; but that the Ordinance needs to be flexible to permit other orientations. As a result,
changes have been made to Section 17.28,070 (a) (1) d.
Minimum Size of Centers for Permitting Freestanding Freewav Oriented Signs
The Planning Commission was split on this issue and requested staff to provide information
regarding undeveloped parcels along the freeway. This information is discussed in more detail
later in the Staff Report in the Discussion Section.
Minimum Letter Sizes for Multi Tenant Signs
The Planning Commission determined that five inch (5") minimum letter sizes with ten inch
(10") panels and one panel per line should ensure the visibility of the tenants on multi tenant
signs. This has been addressed in Sections 17.28.230 (a) (5), (6), and (7).
Multi Tenant Signs in Industrial Districts
The Planning Commission determined that multi tenant signs are appropriate for industrial
districts and directed staff to bring back the standards for these signs for the Commission's
review. This is also discussed later in the Staff Report in the Discussion Section.
DISCUSSION
The first time the Planning Commission reviewed the proposed Sign Ordinance was in October
21, 1996. Since that time, the ordinance has been modified substantially as a result of Sign
Committee, Comment Group, and City Attorney recommendations. As a result, staff has
included a redline/strike out version of the current Ordinance in Attachment 2. This version
shows only the major changes to the original ordinance and does not include minor grammatical
modifications. In this Ordinance, the new language is shown as ~ and deleted
language as ~!~ (shadow). In addition, Attachment 1, Exhibit A includes the most up to
date version of the Ordinance that is being recommended for approval by the Sign Committee
and staff,
Permitting Multi-Tenant Signs in Industrial Districts
At the previous meeting, the Commission stated that multi tenant signs in industrial districts
should be allowed and requested that staff develop standards for these signs. Staff has
evaluated some of the existing signage and recommends the following standards:
Each center shall be allowed one multi tenant sign. However, if the center has more
than one street frontage, one multi tenant sign per street frontage shall be allowed.
Maximum sign structure height shall be 6 feet.
Maximum sign area shall be 20 square feet.
The center name may be added to multi tenant signs but the total sign area including
the center name shall not exceed 20 square feet.
The maximum number of signs per panel shall be one.
The minimum panel width shall be 5 inches.
The minimum letter size shall be 3 inches.
Minimum Size of Centers for Permitting Freestanding Freeway Oriented Signs
The Planing Commission requested staff to provide vacant parcel and existing center sizes along
the freeway. This information is provided in Attachment 3 along with the frontage for each
parcel. Staff continues to recommend a minimum 7 acres for centers in order to permit multi
tenant signs. The following represents the acreage of the existing centers adjacent to the
freeway that are between 3 and 7 acres:
#5 Carl's Jr. and Kragen Center
//36 Tony Romas
#72 Mini Mart, Around a Buck
Winchester and Ynez 3.52 Acres
Jefferson south of Winchester 4.56 Acres
South Front Street 4.48 Acres
The following represents the individual vacant parcels between 3 and 7 acres that could be
developed as centers:
#3
#16
West of Ynez north of Gold's Gym 6.5 Acres
West of Ynez between the car dealers and Tower Plaza 4.5 Acres
Attachment 4 includes correspondence from the Chamber of Commerce supporting Mr. Fred
Grimes's position on the six remaining issues discussed in the previous Planning Commission
hearing. Mr. Grimes was a member of the Comment Group and the Chamber of Commerce had
a representative on the Sign Committee to represent the interests of the Chamber.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
The Planning Commission hereby determines that the provisions of this Ordinance will have no
effect on the environment and the proposed Ordinance is therefore exempt from requirements
of the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Section 15061 (b) (3). This section
indicates that, where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity
in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to the
provisions of CEQA.
GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY
This project is consistent with the General Plan since the General Plan implementation program
requires the City to adopt sign standards for residential, commercial, and industrial areas.
Through the adoption of this Ordinance, General Plan goals relating to the urban design and
community character are being fulfilled.
FINDINGS
Adoption of the Ordinance would:
1. Provide for effective business signage;
Assure that signs are compatible with the character of their surroundings and the
community as a whole;
Preserve and improve the appearance of the City as a place to live, work, trade, do
business and visit;
Protect the City from the blighting influence of excessive signage so as to preserve and
enhance the economic base of the City and safeguard property values within the City;
Assure that signs are appropriate to the type of activity to which they pertain;
Regulate signs so as to avoid increasing the hazards to motorists and pedestriar~s caused
by distracting signage;
Recognize that the eventual elimination of existing signs that are not in conformity with
the provisions of this Chapter requires further analysis of the existing signs in the City.
Attachments:
PC Resolution No. 97- - Blue Page 5
Exhibit A - Ordinance No. 97- - Blue Page 9
Redlined Copy of the Sign Ordinance - Blue Page 10
Inventory of Vacant Parcels and Existing Center Sizes - Blue Page 11
Chamber of Commerce Correspondence - Blue Page 12