HomeMy WebLinkAbout050201 PC AgendaIn compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this
meeting, please contact the office of the City Clerk (909) 694-6~d'!,. Notification 48 hours prior to a meeting will
enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to that meeting [28 CFR
35.102.35.104 ADA Title II]
AGENDA
TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION
AN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
43200 BUSINESS PARK DRIVE
MAY 2, 2001 - 6:00 P.M.
Next in Order:
Resolution: No. 2001-010
CALL TO ORDER:
Flag Salute:
Commissioner Chiniaeff
Roll Call:
Chiniaeff, Mathewson, Telesio, Webster and Chairman Guerriero
PUBLIC COMMENTS
A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public may address the Commission
on items that are listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes each.
If you desire to speak to the Commission about an item not on the Agenda, a pink
"Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the Commission Secretary.
When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name for the record.
For all other agenda items a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the
Commission Secretary prior to the Commission addressing that item. There is a three
(3) minute time limit for individual speakers.
CONSENT CALENDAR
NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC
All matters listed under Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and all will
be enacted by one roll call vote. There will be no discussion of these items unless
Members of the Planning Commission request specific items be removed from the
Consent Calendar for separate action.
A.qenda
RECOMMENDATION:
1.1 Approve the Agenda of May 2, 2001
R:~PLANCOMM~Agendas~2001 ~5-2-01 .doc
1
2 Minutes
RECOMMENDATION:
2.1 Approve the minutes from March 7, 2001
COMMISSION BUSINESS
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
Any person may submit written comments to the Planning Commission before a public
hearing or may appear and be heard in support of or in opposition to the approval of
the project(s) at the time of hearing. If you challenge any of the projects in court, you
may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public
hearing or in written correspondences delivered to the Commission Secretary at, or
prior to, the public hearing.
3
Plannin.q Application 00-0421 (Chan.qe of Zone) and PA00-0422 (General Plan Amendment)
To approve a General Plan Amendment to chan.qe the Land Use DesiRnation from
Nei.qhborhood Commercial (NC) to Community Commercial (CC) and Open Space (OS). To
approve a Chan.qe of Zone to chan.qe the zoning from and Nei.qhborhood Commercial (NC)
to Community Commercial (CC) and Open Space Conservation (OS-C) located at the
southeast corner of Butterfield Sta.qe Road and Hi.qhway 79 South and identified as
Assessors Parcel Numbers 952-200-002, 011, 012 and 013. - Patty Anders, Associate
Planner.
RECOMMENDATION:
3.1 Approve a Negative Declaration for Planning Application PA00-0421 and PA00-0422;
and;
3.2 Adopt Resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2001-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE A
RESOLUTION ENTITLED "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-0422
(GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT) TO AMEND THE GENERAL PLAN LAND
USE MAP FOR THE CITY OF TEMECULA FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED
ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD AND
HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH, ALSO KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 952-
200-002, 011,012 AND 013", AND ADOPT AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED "AN
ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-0421 (CHANGE OF ZONE)
TO AMEND THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP FOR THE CITY OF TEMECULA
FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF
BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD AND HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH, ALSO KNOWN AS
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NOS. 952-200-002, 011,012 AND 013"
R:\PLANCOMM~Agendas~2001~5-2-01 .doc
2
4
Plannin.q Application No. PA01-0033 (Development Plan) - Hank's Hardware - a
Development Plan application to desi.qn, construct and operate a 19,710 hardware arid
lumber store, with a partial second-story storage area ~, 41731 Enterprise Circle South, 1
block west of Jefferson Avenue and 1 block south of Winchester Road - Michael McCoy,
5
Project Planner.
RECOMMENDATION:
4.1 Adopt a Notice of Exemption for PA01-0033 pursuant to Section 15332 of the California
Environmental Quality Act Guidelines;
4.2 Adopt a Resolution Entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 200t-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA0t-0033
(DEVELOPMENT PLAN), TO CONSTRUCT AND OPERATE A 19,710
SQUARE FOOT BUILDING SUPPLY AND HOME IMPROVEMENT
COMMERCIAL BUILDING ON 1.2 ACRES LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE
OF ENTERPRISE CIRCLE SOUTH AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL
NO. 909-270-023.
Planninq Application No. PA01-0147 (Variance) to desi,qn and construction of a 230 square
foot room addition to a sin.qle-family residence that will encroach 7 feet into the required 15-
foot exterior side yard set back corner side yard setback located ~,, 30464 Bo.qart Place
(APN 919-461-009) - Rick Rush, Project Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
5.1 Adopt a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. PA01-0147 pursuant to
Section 15305 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines;
5.2 Adopt a Resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2001-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 01-0147 A
VARIANCE TO PERMIT A 230 SQUARE FOOT ROOM ADDITION TO
ENCROACH 7 FEET INTO TIlE REQUIRED 15- FOOT EXTERIOR SIDE YARD
SETBACK, LOCATED AT 30464 BOGART PLACE, KNOWN AS
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 919-461-009.
Plannin.q Application No.01-0026 (Conditional Use Permit) - Extended Stay America - to
desi.qn and construct a 46,623 square foot hotel buildinR on a 1.86-acre lot and th=
installation of a 12-foot in diameter dish antenna located ~,, the northeast corner of Jefferso,,
and Overland (APN 910-310-014 and 910-310-002). - Rick Rush, Project Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
6.1 Adopt a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. PA01-0026 pursuant to
Section 15332 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines;
6.2 Adopt a Resolution entitled:
R:~PLANCOMM~Agendas~2001 ~5-2-01 .doc
3
7
Or,
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2001-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 01-0026 A
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR A 46,623
SQUARE FOOT HOTEL BUILDING (EXTENDED STAY AMERICA) AND THE
INSTALLATION OF A TWELVE-FOOT DIAMETER GROUND-MOUNTED DISH
ANTENNA ON A 1.86 ACRE LOT LOCATED AT THE NORHTEAST CORNER
OF OVERLAND AND JEFFERSON, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.
910-310-014 AND 9t 0-310-002.
Plannin.q Application No. 00-0272 (Extension of Time Appeal) to appeal the Director of
Plannin.q's Decision to approve Planning Application No. PA00-0272, an Extension of Time
for Vested Tentative Tract No. 23143 located ~, the southwest corner of Paula Road and
Butterfield Stage Road (known as Crowne Hill). - Thomas Thornsle¥, Associate Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
7.1 Adopt a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. 00-0272 (Extension of Time)
based on the Determination of Consistency with a project for which an Environmental
Impact Report (EIR) was previously certified pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section
15162 - Subsequent EIR's and Negative Declarations;
7.2 Adopt a Resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2001-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA DENYING THE APPEAL OF PLANNING APPLICATION NO.
PA00-0272 (EXTENSION OF TIME-APPEAL), UPHOLDING THE DIRECTOR
OF PLANNING'S DECISION TO APPROVE PLANNING APPLICATION NO.
PA00-0272 THE FIFTH AND FINAL EXTENSION OF TIME FOR VESTED
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP No. 23143 FOR THE REMAINING 696 SINGLE
FAMILY LOTS AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF PAULA ROAD AND
BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCELS NO.
952-020-009, -012, -013, -015, -016, & -020 AND 952-030-012, -013, & -014.
7.3 Adopt a Resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 2001-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA APPROVING THE APPEAL OF PLANNING APPLICATION NO.
PA00-0272 (EXTENSION OF TIME-APPEAL), AMENDING THE DIRECTOR OF
PLANNING'S APPROVAL AS CONDITIONED FOR PLANNING APPLICATION
NO. PA00-0272, THE FIFTH AND FINAL EXTENSION OF TIME FOR VESTED
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 23143, FOR THE REMAINING 696 SINGLE
FAMILY LOTS AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF PAULA ROAD AND
BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCELS NO.
952-020-009, -012, -013, -015, -0t6, & -020 AN D 952-030-012, -013, & -014.
R:\PLANCOMM~Agendas~2001 ~5-2-01 .doc
4
COMMISSIONER'S REPORTS
PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT
.ADJOURNMENT
Next Regular Meeting: May 16, 2001, Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
R:~PLANCOMM~Agendas~001 ~5-2-01 .doc
5
ITEM #2
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
MARCH 7, 2001
CALL TO ORDER
The City of Temecula Planning Commission convened in a regular meeting at 6:00 P.M.,
on Wednesday March 7, 2001, in the City Council Chambers of Temecula City Hall,
43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California.
ALLEGIANCE
The audience was led in the Flag salute by Chairman Guemero.
ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Chiniaeff, Mathewson, Telesio,
Chairman Guerdero.
Absent:
Also Present:
PUBLIC COMMENTS
No comments.
CONSENT CALENDAR
1 A,qenda
RECOMMENDATION:
Commissioner Webster.
Director of Planning Ubnoske,
Deputy Director of Public Works Parks,
Attorney Curley,
Senior Planner Hazen,
Associate Planner Thomsley,
Assistant Planner Preisendanz, and
Minute Clerk Hansen.
and
2
1.1 Approve the Agenda of March 7, 2001.
Minutes
RECOMMENDATION:
2.1 Approve the minutes of January 3, 2001
MOTION: Commissioner Chiniaeff moved to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1,
and 2. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Mathewson and voice vote reflected
approval with the exception of Commissioner Webster who was absent.
3 Plannin.q Application No. 00-0452 (Third Extension of Time) for Vesting Tentative
Tract Map 25004 located at the north of Nicolas Road, east of Seraphina Road and
south of Murdeta Hot Spdnqs Road - Rolfe Praisendanz, Assistant Planner.
RECOMMENDATION:
3.1 Adopt a Resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2001-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. 00-0452 A THIRD EXTENSION OF
TIME FOR VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT 25004.
This Agenda Item was withdrawn.
COMMISSION BUSINESS
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
4
Plannin,q Application 00-0427 (Development Plan) Davcon Development Inc. to
desi,qn and construct two adioininq industrial buildin,qs on two separate lots with the
buildin.q on lot 6 totalin,q 18,787 square feet on 1.08 acres, and the buildin,q on lot 7
totalin.q 16,381 square feet on 1.01 acres located on the south side of the Winchester
Road west of Diaz Road across from Rancho California Water District (RCWD) [APN
909-310-006 (Lot 6) & 909-310-007 (Lot 7)]. - Thomas Thomsley, Associate Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
4.1 Adopt a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. PA00-0427 pursuant
to Section 15332 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines.
4.2 Adopt a Resolution entitled:
R:~laNCObtMXminutesx200 ] x3-7-01 .doc
2
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2001-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. 00-0427 - A DEVELOPMENT PLAN
FOR THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF TWO
ADJOINING INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS ON TWO
SEPARATE LOTS WITH THE BUILDING ON LOT 6
TOTALING 18,787 SQUARE FEET ON t.08 ACRES,
AND THE BUILDING ON LOT 7 TOTALING 16,381
SQUARE FEET ON 1.01 ACRES, LOCATED ON THE
SOUTH SIDE OF THE WINCHESTER ROAD, WEST OF
DIAZ ROAD, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO'S.
909-310-006 (LOT 6) & 909-310-007 (LOT 7).
Via overhead maps, Associate Planner Thomsley presented the staff report (of record),
highlighting the location, the building sizes, the access, the landscaping, the loading
dock area, and the building elevations; noted staff's recommendation to add additional
accenting on the sides of the building; for Commissioner Mathewson, specified the
location of the loading docks, and the four mil-up doom; relayed that the rendering does
not reflect the additional landscaping the project had been conditioned to add; for
Commissioner Chiniaeff, noted the restrictions included in Condition No. 5 (regarding
any outside wall-mounted lighting); for Chairman Guerriero, relayed that this project was
seen by the Planning Commission in 1996, noting that the plan and layout had not been
modified, advising that staff had initially relayed to the applicant that having the loading
docks visible was not consistent with the intent of the Design Guidelines, while relaying
that the City's Development Code does allow for the docks to be located on the sides of
a building if they can be screened, or if there was not an alternative site layout feasible,
noting that after further review, staff was of the opinion that the doors would not be
noticeable; relayed that staff did not request a line-of-site diagram, providing additional
information regarding the view from the street; noted that the replaced trees would be
15-gallon minimum size; and relayed that there were no revised elevations reflecting the
recommended additional architectural relief on the east and west elevations, clarifying
staff's recommendation to add either a relief color, or a texture variation.
Mr. David Wakefield, representing the applicant, noted that most of the proximate
properties in the Westside Business Park on one-acre lots were configured in the same
way; relayed the difficulties with the site layouts in conjunction with the lot sizes; with
respect to the east and west elevations, noted the applicant's desire to add additional
glass to accent both sides of the building which would enhance those elevations; with
respect to Commissioner Chiniaefrs queries regarding outside lighting, noted that there
would be free-standing lights posts in front of the buildings, relaying the plan to add few
wall-packs (which would meet the City standards) in this area due to the great distance;
for Commissioner Telesio, provided additional information regarding the loading dock
area; and relayed that each building would have unique features differentiating the two
buildings.
R:~pla.NCOMM~inut~2001 x3-7-01 .doc 3
Commissioner Chiniaeff noted his concern with the view from Winchester Road, noting
his recommendation to have no wall-packs (lighting) on the front of the building.
For Commissioner Chiniaeff, Mr. Wakefield relayed a willingness to add a window on
both sides of the building on the window band at the truck dock elevations.
Commissioner Chiniaeff recommended, additionally, that there be trees on the sides of
the truck docks large enough to somewhat screen the trucks sitting in the wells. In
response, the applicant's representative relayed agreement.
For Commissioner Mathewson, Associate Planner Thomsley provided additional
information regarding the proposed landscaping plan.
Commissioner Mathewson recommended upsizing the three purple leaf plum trees in
front of the dock. In response, the applicant relayed agreement to this recommendation.
For Commissioner Telesio, Mr. Wakefield clarified the truck access to the ramp.
Chairman Guerriero relayed his concem with trucks backing up on the street, noting his
opposition to the location of the ramps, recommending relocating the ramps to the back
of the building unless there was assurance that this area would be screened, and a line-
of-sight diagram was provided; and noted a desire for a revised elevation plan with the
added windows in place.
In response to Chairman Guerriero, Mr. Wakefield advised that relocating the truck
docks at the rear of the site was nearly impossible. Chairman Guerriero reiterated a
desire for a line-of-site diagram.
For Chairman Guerfiero, Mr. Phil Lewis, the applicant, relayed that most of the shipping
was conducted via UPS or FedEx, advising that there would be truck deliveries every
one-two months, providing additional information regarding the type of business
occupying the building, noting that last year there were approximately two large truck
deliveries. In response, Chairman Guerdero relayed that in light of the proposed loading
dock, it would be his supposition that there would be truck deliveries.
Since the applicant relayed that there would be minimal truck deliveries (i.e.,
approximately two a year), Commissioner Mathewson queried why there were proposed
loading docks. In response, Mr. Lewis noted that the inclusion of the docks aided in
making the building more functional, relaying that there would be no need for a forklift
with the docks.
Commissioner Chiniaeff queded whether the off-loading of the trucks could occur closer
to the street, in response, Mr. Lewis noted that the offices were located in this area.
Additional discussion ensued regarding relocating the truck ramps.
Commissioner Mathewson suggested adding extensive trelliswork above and over the
loading dock that could be tied into a wall covered with vines in order to screen the
docks.
R:~plaNCOMlvl~ninut ¢sk2001 k3-7-01 .d~
4
Commissioner Telesio cladfied that even if there were few deliveries, there was concern
regarding the view of the door and the ramp on each side of the building, reiterating
Commissioner Mathewson's query regarding the proposal to include loading docks with
the minimal need for truck deliveries. In response, Mr. Wakefield relayed that truck
docks were a cdtical need for these types of buildings even for future tenants, noting that
ultimately on each side of the building there would be potential development, relaying
that once this development occurs the visibility would be extremely limited; and advised
that a larger landscape buffer could be provided at the street.
Commissioner Telesio concurred with Commissioner Chiniaeff's suggestion that the
ramps be moved up, and that the trucks back in from the rear. Commissioner Chiniaeff
provided additional information regarding his recommendation to revise the ramp
location.
Chairman Guerriero recommended that the applicant work with staff regarding the
Planning Commission's recommendations, and that the project be brought back to the
Commission at a future meeting.
The PlanninR Commission relayed the followinR closin,q remarks:
Commissioner Chiniaeff reiterated his recommendation for no wall-packs (lighting) to
be located on the front of the building; and recommended that the applicant investigate
relocating the ramps.
Commissioner Mathewson relayed a desire for information regarding why the loading
docks could not be located in the back, or why the loading ramp design could not be
reversed on the side of the building; and recommended that if the docks could not be
relocated, that there be adequate screening, upsizing the landscaping in front of the
docks.
Commissioner Telesio concurred with the previous recommendations; and noted that
he would support either locating the loading docks on the side if the ramps were
reversed (as recommended by Commissioner Chiniaeff), or if the docks were relocated
to the rear.
MOTION: Commissioner Chiniaeff moved to continue this item to the March 28, 2001
Planning Commission meeting in order for the applicant to address the concerns
outlined by the by the Planning Commission. The motion was seconded by
Commissioner Mathewson and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of
Commissioner Webster who was absent.
COMMISSIONER'S REPORTS
Commissioner Telesio relayed regret due to missing the last two meetings,
noting that it was good to be back.
For Commissioner Mathewson, Senior Planner Hazen updated the Planning
Commission regarding the Cosco use, noting that he had received a firm
commitment that the sign contractor would begin sandblasting the signs on
March 24=; and advised that the City's Landscape Engineer has reviewed and
approved the landscape enhancements being done on site,
R:~plaNCO~inutcs~001 x3-7-01 .doc
In response to Commissioner Chiniaeff, Director of Planning Ubnoske updated
the Planning Commission regarding the Bel Villaggio Project appeal, noting that
after further investigation, Project Planner Naaseh discovered that the
Development Agreement for the mall also covered this project, noting that this
data was forwarded to the City Attorney, relaying that the information addressed
what issues would be appealable; advised that the item had been pulled from the
City Council Agenda on March 6, 2001, relaying that there still was a potential for
the project to be appealed, but that it was not likely, advising that Councilman
Naggar's concems were based on traffic and the cumulative impacts.
Chairman Guerdero noted that at a National Convention he attended a couple of
years ago there had been a two-hour session that addressed the cumulative
impact section that was added to CEQA, advising that the attorneys had relayed
that this issue was within a gray area, and subject to legal challenge; and queded
where the City stood with respect to cumulative impacts.
Attorney Curley confirmed that the issues related to cumulative impacts were in
the gray area; and noted that additional information could be provided to the
Planning Commission regarding this matter.
Chairman Guerriero noted that in the General Plan and other City documents
there was a strong emphasis in maintaining the natural terrain of properties,
relaying that it would not be his desire for future projects to grade down the
existing rolling hills.
PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT
Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that at the March 28, 2001 Planning
Commission meeting, the Roripaugh Land Use Plan would be presented to the
Commission in order for the applicant to gather input.
Director of Planning Ubnoske advised that the American Planning Association
(APA) was conducting a tour of Brea's downtown area on the 17t~ which was a
Saturday, noting that it would be extremely informative; encouraged the Planning
Commissioners to attend, and to let her know if there was interest in taking this
tour; and for Chairman Guerfiero, noted that the City could provide transportation
via the van or carpooling. Attorney Cudey provided information regarding the
process of developing Old Town Brea.
Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that she had numerous shirt samples,
requesting the Planning Commission make a decision on the type of shirt desired
in order for the shirts to be ready for the upcoming conference.
Per a previous Commission request, Director of Planning Ubnoske noted that
she had data for the Planning Commission regarding the scope of work for the
General Plan consultants.
R:XplaNCOMlVlXminutesX2001 k3-7-01 .doc
6
ADJOURNMENT
At 6:59 P.M. Chairman Guerriero formally adjourned this meeting to the next regular
adiourned meeting to be held on Wednesday~ March 28~ 2001 at 6:00 P.M., in the City
Council Chambem, 43200 Business Park Ddve, Temecula.
Ron Guerriero,
Chairman
Debbie Ubnoske,
Director of Planning
R:~olaNCOMM~inutes~.001 ~3.7-01 .doc
7
ITEM #3
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
May 2, 2001
Planning Application No. PA00-0421 (Change of Zone) and
PA00-0422 (General Plan Amendment)
Prepared By: Patty Anders, Associate Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Department Staff recommends the Planning
Commission:
APPROVE a Negative Declaration for Planning Application PA00-0421 and PA00-
0422; and,
2. ADOPT Resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2001-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL
APPROVE A RESOLUTION ENTITLED "A RESOLUTION OF THE
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-0422 (GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT) TO AMEND THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP
FOR THE CITY OF TEMECULA FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED
ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF BU'I-TERFIELD STAGE ROAD
AND HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH, ALSO KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S
PARCEL NO. 952-200-002, 011,012 AND 0t 3", AND ADOPT AN
ORDINANCE ENTITLED "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. 00-042t (CHANGE OF ZONE) TO AMEND THE
OFFICIAL ZONING MAP FOR THE CITY OF TEMECULA FOR THE
PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF
BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD AND HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH, ALSO
KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NOS. 952-200-002, 0tl, 012
AND 013"
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
Butterfield Station LLC/Ronald McRay and Tom Jerele
PROPOSAL:
To approve a General Plan Amendment to change the Land Use
Designation from Neighborhood Commemial (NC) to Community
Commemial (CC) and Open Space (OS). To approve a Change of
Zone to change the zoning from and Neighborhood Cornmemial
(NC) to Community Commercial (CC) and Open Space
Conservation (OS-C)
R:~g P A~00-0421 & 422~pC Staff Report.doc
1
LOCATION:
The southeast comer of Butterfield Stage Road and Highway 79
South and identified as Assessors Parcel Numbers 952-200-002,
011,012 and 013.
EXISTING GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION: Neighborhood Commercial (NC)
EXISTING ZONING:
Neighborhood Commercial (NC)
SURROUNDING ZONING:
North:
East:
South:
West:
Community Commercial (CC)
Rural Residential (RR)
Specific Plan (SP)
Highway Tourist Core (HTC)
EXISTING LAND USE:
Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USE:
PROPOSED GENERAL
PLAN DESIGNATIONS:
North: Residential/Retail
East: Vacant
South: Temecula Creek/Residential
West: Vacant
Community Commercial (CC) and Open Space (OS)
PROPOSED ZONING:
Community Commercial (CC) and Conservation (OS-C)
PROJECT AREA
20.33 acres
BACKGROUND
The application was submitted on October 17, 2000. The project went to Development Review
Committee on February 8, 2001 and was deemed complete at the end of March 2001. The
application is a request to change the Land Use Designation and Zoning on the property located at
the southeast comer of Butterfield Stage Road and Highway 79 South from Neighborhood
Commercial (NC) to Community Commercial (CC) and Open Space (OS).
DISCUSSION
Land Use
The subject site is approximately 20.33 acres with a 325' Flood Control easement across the
southern portion of the site for Temecula Creek. The Flood Control easement is approximately 8.46
acres and is not able to be developed. Pursuant to the Temecula Creek Channel Study dated May
25, 1995, approved by the Riverside County Flood Control District, the high flow elevation point is
1,108 feet and will not allow buildings to be built at or south of this point. The top of the current
stream bank is located at approximately the 1,112-elevation line. Therefore, staff is proposing that
the area south of the 1,112-elevation line be re-designated and rezoned to Open Space
Conservation (OS-C) and the area north of the 1,112-elevation line be rezoned to Community
Commercial. The General Plan Land Use Designation for the Flood Control Easement would be OS
(Open Space).
R:~ P A~00-0421 & 422~K:; Staff Report.doc
2
In addition, there is a building setback line pureuant to the Envirenmental Constreints Sheet (ECS)
that is north of the 1,108 foot elevation line which further limits the buildable area of the site.
Although the area between the 1,112 elevation and the building setback line cannot have structures,
this area can be utilized for parking and landscaping; therefore, this area will also be rezoned to
Community Commercial.
In terms of land use compatibility, the proposed zoning and land use map amendments will result in
more compatible land Uses as there is existing Community Commercial property across the
highway, and the subject site is currently adjacent to HTC (Highway Tourist Commercial) zoned
property to the west and urban residential uses to the south. The permitted uses of the CC zoning
are very similar to the permitted uses of the HTC zoning. Therefore, compatible development is
anticipated. It is also anticipated that the future Community Commercial development will meet the
needs of the local residents, including the residential development to the south and north.
There is a R.C.W.D. pump station adjacent to the northwest comer of the subject site that is not
subject to the proposed Zone Change and General Plan Amendment. There is also a 12'
equestrian treil easement that runs parellel to the southern property line in the Open Space portion
of the site.
Traffic Impacts
The original Generel Plan analyzed the entire site (20.33 acres) as being developed as
Neighborhood Commercial. However, upon specific site analysis, it has been determined that
approximately 42% (8.46 acres) of the site does not have the potential to be developed due to a
flood control easement on the southern portion of the site.
in addition, the applicant submitted a traffic analysis dated March 14, 2001, which reviewed the
traffic impacts of the existing zoning of Neighborhood Commercial (NC) compared to the proposed
zoning of Community Commercial (CC). The City's traffic engineer reviewed the report and agreed
with the conclusion that the proposed change in zoning and land use would not result in an increase
in vehicle trips based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers formulas as identified in the traffic
analysis. The report indicated that the traffic generation of both zoning classifications is the same.
It is the Floor Area Ratio (FAR), not the zoning classification, that would affect the change in the
traffic volumes. The target FAR for Neighborhood Commercial is 25% and the target FAR for
Community Commercial is 30%. The City's traffic engineer also indicated that Community
Commercial zoned property is typically developed as canters which facilitates more multiple
destination trips and is excepted to result in a further reduction in the number of overell vehicle tdps.
Therefore, due to the environmental constraints on the parcel and the future commercial center
development, the traffic impacts of the proposed Zone Change and General Plan Amendments are
determined to be less than what was originally anticipated in the traffic analysis contained in the
General Plan EIR under the existing zoning and land use designation of Neighborhood Commercial.
Access to the site is provided by Abobe Springs Road, a reserved street right-of-way accessed from
Butterfield Stage Road that is not constructed at the time. Based upon the type and layout of the
future development, this road is likely to be relocated or modified at the time of development review.
Community Input
Staff received one phone call from a nearby resident opposing the application. His objection was
that the general plan and zone change would allow additional large size users and feels there ara
enough large businesses in the area.
R:~J P At00-0421 & 422~pC Staff Report.doc
3
Conclusion
In conclusion, staff believes that the proposed General Plan Amendment and Zone Change will
result in less traffic impacts than what was originally anticipated in the General Plan EIR, even with
the potential for larger users due to approximately 42% of the site being non-developable and the
traffic analysis determination that the trip generation rate is the same for both the existing
Neighborhood Commercial and the proposed Community Commercial zoning classifications. In
addition, Community Commercial centers usually facilitate more multiple destination tdps within a
center which is expected to result in a reduction in the actual number of tdps.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
An Initial Environmental Study was prepared for this project to determine if the proposed changes
would result in any environmental impacts or any impacts beyond those identified in the Final
Environmental Impact Report for the City General Plan. The Initial Study indicated that overall, the
proposed General Plan Amendment would not result in impacts beyond those originally anticipated
for the City General Plan. As a result, these potential increases are not considered significant and
staff recommends that a Negative Declaration be adopted.
FINDINGS
To recommend approval of the General Plan Amendment and Zone Change, the Planning
Commission must make the following findings:
The amendments are compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community. The
proposed amendments meet the goals and policies of the General Plan, and are consistent
with the anticipated impacts of the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the General
Plan and the guidelines of the Development Code. Any future development of the site will
be subject to the Cites General Plan, Development Code and Design Guidelines to ensure
the public health, safety and welfare of the community is maintained when the site is
developed.
The amendments are compatible with the existing and surrounding uses. There is a small
amount of existing retail uses across Highway 79. Additionally, the permitted uses of the
proposed Community Commercial zoning and land uses are similar to the adjacently zoned
property of Highway Tourist Commercial. Therefore, the proposed amendments will be
compatible with the existing and future uses in the surrounding area.
The proposed zoning and land use map amendments will not conflict with the existing
zoning or land uses and will result in more compatible potential land uses as there is existing
Community Commercial property across the highway, and the subject site is currently
adjacent to HTC (Highway Toudst Commercial) zoned property to the west and the urban
residential uses to the south. Future Community Commercial development is anticipated to
meet the needs for the local residents, including the residential development to the south
and north. Therefore, the proposed amendments will result in compatible development
which is a goal of the General Plan.
R:~ P A~00-0421 & 422~pC Staff Report.doc
4
Attachments:
3.
4.
5.
PC Resolutions No. 01- - Blue Page 6
Exhibit A - CC Resolution No. 01- - Blue Page 10
Exhibit B - CC Ordinance No. 01- - Blue Page 12
Initial Environmental Study- Blue Page 18
Traffic Analysis dated March 14, 2001 - Blue Page 19
Biological Assessments - Blue Page 20
Exhibits - Blue Page 21
A. Location Map
B. Existing General Plan Map
C. Existing Zoning Map
D. Proposed General Plan
E. Proposed Zoning Map
R:~g P A~00-0421 & 422~oC Staff Report.doc
5
ATTACHMENT NO. t
PC RESOLUTION NO. 01-
R:~ P A~00-0421 & 422',pC Staff Report.doc
6
Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning
Commission on this 2nd day of May 2001.
Ron Guerriero, Chairperson
ATTEST:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
[SEAL]
I, Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary of the Temecula Planning Commission, do hereby certify that
PC Resolution No. 01- was duly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at
a regular meeting thereof, held on the 2n~ day of May, 2001 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
pLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
pLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
R:~J P A~00-0421 & 422~oC Staff RepoR.doc 9
EXHIBIT A
DRAFT CC RESOLUTION NO. 01-__
R:~J P A~00-0421 & 422~pC Staff Report.doc 10
EXHIBIT A
DRAFT CC RESOLUTION NO. 01-
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-0421
(CHANGE OF ZONE) TO AMEND THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP
FOR THE CITY OF TEMECULA FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED
ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD
AND HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH, ALSO KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S
PARCEL NOS. 952-200-002, 0t t, 0'12 AND 013.
WHEREAS, the City of Temecula initiated Planning Application No. 00-0422 in accordance
with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code;
WHEREAS, Planning Application No. 00-0422 was processed including, but not limited to
public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, notice of the proposed Resolution was posted at City Hall, Temecula Library,
Pujol Street Community Center, and the Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application No. 00-0422 on May
2, 2001, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and
interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support or opposition to this matter;
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing and after due consideration of the
testimony, the Commission recommended approval of Planning Application No. 00-0422;
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing pertaining to Planning Application
No. 00-0422 on ,2001, at which time interested persons had opportunity
to, and did testify either in support or opposition to Planning Application No. 00-0422;
WHEREAS, the City Council received a copy of the Commission proceedings and Staff
Report regarding Planning Application No. 00-0422;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE,
DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section t. That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby incorporated by
reference.
Section 2. Findin.qs The City Council, in approving Planning Application No. 00-0422
(General Plan Amendment) hereby makes the following findings:
A. The amendment is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community.
The proposed amendment meets the goals and policies of the General Plan, and is
consistent with the anticipated impacts of the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
for the General Plan and the guidelines of the Development Code. Any future
development of the site will be subject to the City's General Plan, Development Code
and Design Guidelines to ensure the public health, safety and welfare of the
community is maintained when the site is developed.
R:~g P A~00-0421 & 47.2~pC Staff Report.doc 11
The amendment is compatible with the existing and surrounding uses. There is a
small amount of existing retail uses across Highway 79. Additionally, the permitted
uses of the proposed Community Commercial zoning and land uses are similar to the
adjacently zoned property of Highway Tourist Commercial. Therefore, the proposed
amendment will be compatible with the existing and future uses in the surrounding
area.
The proposed land use map amendment will not conflict with the existing zoning or
land uses and will result in more compatible potential land uses as the subject site is
currently adjacent to HTC (Highway Toudst Commercial) zoned property to the west
and the urban residential uses to the south. Future Community Commercial
development is anticipated to meet the needs for the local residents, including the
residential development to the south and north. Therefore, the proposed amendment
will result in compatible development which is a goal of the General Plan.
Section 3. Amendment To The General Plan Land Use Map: The City Council hereby
amends the General Plan Land Use Map for the City of Temecula for the parcels identified as APNs
952-200-002, 011,012 and 013 to change the Land Use Designation for the northerly portion of the
site from Neighborhood Commercial (NC) to Community Commercial (CC) and the southerly portion
(from approximately elevation 1,112 southerly) of the site from Neighborhood Commercial (NC) to
Open Space (OS).
Section 4. Environmental Compliance. An Initial Environmental Study was prepared for this
project to determine if the proposed changes would result in any environmental impacts beyond
those impacts identified in the Final Environmental Impact Report for the City General Plan. The
Initial Study indicated that overall, the proposed General Plan Amendment will not result in impacts
beyond those originally anticipated for the City General Plan. As a result, the City Council
determines that the potential impacts of this change was adequately addressed by the Final
Environmental Impact Report for the City General Plan and that no further environmental analysis is
required.
Section 5. Severability The City Council hereby declares that the provisions of this
Resolution are severable and if for any reason a court of competent jurisdiction shall hold any
sentence, paragraph, or section of this Resolution to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the
validity of the remaining parts of this Resolution.
Section 6. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resolution.
Section 7. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED, by the City Council of the City of
Temecula this th day of ,2001.
ATTEST:
Jeff Comerchero, Mayor
Susan W. Jones, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
[SEAL]
R:~ P A~00-0421 & 422~pC Staff Report,doc
12
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) ss
CITY OF TEMECULA
I, Susan W. Jones, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing
Resolution No. 01-__ was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at
a regular meeting thereof, held on the day of ,2001 by the following
vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNClLMEMBERS:
COUNClLMEMBERS:
Susan W. Jones, CMC/AAt:
City Clerk
R:~g P A~)0-0421 & 422~pC Staff Report.doc 13
EXHIBIT B
DRAFT CC ORDINANCE NO. 01-._
R:~g P A~00-0421 & 422~oC Staff Report.doc
14
EXHIBIT B
DRAFT CC ORDINANCE NO. 01-
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CI'FY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-0421
(CHANGE OF ZONE) TO AMEND THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP
FOR THE CITY OF TEMECULA FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED
ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD
AND HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH, ALSO KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S
PARCEL NOS. 952-200-002, 011,012 AND 013"
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DOES
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The Butterfleld Station LLC/Ronald McRay and Tom Jerele filed Planning
Application No. PA00-0421 in accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development
Code. Public hearings have been held before the Planning Commission and City Council of the City
of Temecula, State of California, pursuant to the Planning and Zoning laws of the State of California,
and the City Code of the City of Temecula.
Section 2. Notice of Adoption. Within 10 days after the adoption hereof, the City Clerk of
the City of Temecula shall certify to the adoption of this ordinance and cause it to be posted in at
least three public places in the City.
Section 3. Amendment To The Official ZoninR Map for the City of Temecula: The City
Council hereby amends the Official Zoning Map for the City of Temecula for the parcels identified as
APNs 952-200-002, 011,012 and 013 to change the zoning for the northerly portion of the site from
Neighborhood Commercial (NC) to Community Commercial (CC) and the southerly portion (from
approximately elevation 1,112) of the site from Neighborhood Commercial (NC) to Conservation
(OS-C).
Section 4. Environmental Compliance. An Initial Environmental Study was prepared for
this project to determine if the proposed changes would result in any environmental impacts beyond
those impacts identified in the Final Environmental Impact Report for the City General Plan. The
Initial Study indicated that overall, the proposed General Plan Amendment will not result in impacts
beyond those originally anticipated for the City General Plan. As a result, the City Council
determines that the potential impacts of this change was adequately addressed by the Final
Environmental Impact Report for the City General Plan and that no further environmental analysis is
required.
Section 5. FindinRs. The City Council, in approving Planning Application No. PA00-0421
(Change of Zone) hereby makes the following findings:
The Change of Zone is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the
community. Any future development of the site will be subject to the City's General
Plan, Development Code and Design Guidelines to ensure the public health, safety
and welfare of the community is maintained when the site is developed.
B. The Change of Zone is compatible with the existing and surrounding uses. There is a
small amount of existing retail uses across Highway 79. Additionally, the permitted
uses of the proposed Community Commercial zoning and land uses are similar to the
R:~g P A~00-0421 & 422~oC Staff Report.doc
15
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
Susan W. Jones, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
R:~g P A~00-0421 & 422~pC Staff Report.doc
17
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
INITIAL STUDY
R:~g P A~0q3421 & 422~pC Staff Report,doc
18
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.
Aesthetics Mineral Resources
Agricultural Resoumes Population and Housing Noise
Air Quality Population and Housing
Biological Resources, Water Public Services
Cultural Resources Recreation
Geologic Problems Transportation/Traffic
Hazards and Hazardous Materials Utilities and Service Systems
Hydrology and Water Quality
Land Use Planning None
Determination
(To be completed by the lead agency)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
X I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant impact on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the
project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required
I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially
significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has
been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards,
and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as
described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant impact" or
"potentfally significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is
required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately
in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b)
have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE
DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the
3roposed p.r. oject, n ~thin~ further is required.
Signature
Date
Debbie Ubnoske, Director of Planninq
Printed name
City of Temecula
R:\G P A\00-0421 & 422\EA.doc
2
1. AESTHETICS. Would the project: _~1
-- ~ Than
Potentially Significant Wrd~ Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact
a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a X
scenic vista?
b. Substantially damage scenic resoumes, X
including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcropping, and historic building within a
state scenic highway?
c. Substantially degrade the existing visual X
character or quality of the site and its
surroundings?
d. Create a new source of substantial light or X
glare which would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?
Comments:
1, all No Impact. This project will have a less than significant impact than that analyzed in the
original EIR for the City's General Plan because approximately 42% of the site is within
flood control easement which precludes development within the easement. As a result, no
additional impacts have been identified.
2. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural .resource.sl
significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural ~
Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department o
Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland.
Would the project:
Less Than
Potentially Significant WithLess Than
Significant Impact Mitigation Significant No Impact
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Incorporated Impact
a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, X
or Farmland of Statewide Importance
(Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared
pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California
Resoumes Agency, to non-agricultural use?
b. Conflict with the existing zoning for X
agricultural use, or a Williamson Act
contract?
c. Involve other changes in the existing X
environment which, due to their location or
nature, could result in conversion of
farmland, to non-agricultural use?
Comments:
2. all No Impact. The project will not result in. The project site is not proposing to convert prime
farmland, unique farmland, or farmland of statewide importance; conflict with existin
zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract; or changes in the existing
R:~G P A'~00-0421 & 422'~-A.d(x;
3
environment which will result in conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use. The existing
zoning does not allow agricultural use, nor will the proposed zoning. The project is simply a
change of zone and general plan amendment from Neighborhood Commercial to
Community Commercial which will allow similar larger commercial uses. The future
development is anticipated to help serve the needs of the existing community. As a result,
no significant effects are anticipated from this project.
3. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable quality
management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following
determinations. Would the project:
Issues and Supporting Information Sources ~.~o~,.t.~ Impact
a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of X
the applicable air quality plan?
b. Violate any air quality standard or contribute X
substantially to an existing or projected air
quality violation?
c. Result in a cumulatively considerable net X
increase of any criteria pollutant for which
the project region is non-attainment under
an applicable federal or state ambient air
quality standard (including releasing
emissions which exceed quantitative
thresholds for ozone precursors?
d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial X
pollutant concentrations?
e. Create objectionable odors affecting a X
substantial number of people?
Comments:
3.all No Impact. The proposed General Plan and Zoning amendment does not represent a
change in vehicle trips, which is the major source of air pollution in the southwest portion of
Riverside County. The applicant submitted a traffic analyses determined that pursuant to
the Institute of Transportation Engineers formulas, there would be no net change from the
existing zoning classification to the proposed zoning classification. The report determined
that the ratio per building square footage (per 1,000 sq. ft.) would be lower with a larger
sized building that is permitted in the proposed CC classification. In addition, the proposed
General Plan Amendment and zone change would result in less vehicle trips as was
originally envisioned in the EiR for the General Plan as almost half (approximately 42%) of
the site that is zoned Neighborhood Commercial is un-developable due to the flood plain
easement that prohibits development within the easement. As a result, this project
represents an insignificant change from the impacts addressed in the original EIR for the
City General Plan.
R:\G P A\00-0421 & 422'~F-.A.doc
4
4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the project: ·
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Incorporated impact
a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either X
directly or through habitat modifications, on
any species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status species in local or
regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by
the California Department of Fish and Game
or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any X
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional
~31ans, policies, regulations or by the
California Department of Fish and Game or
US Fish and Wildlife Service?
c. Have a substantial adverse effect of federally X
protected wetlands as defined by Section 404
of the Clean Water Act (including, but not
limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.)
through direct removal, filing, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
d. Interfere substantially with the movement of X l
any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife
species or with established native resident or
migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use
of native wildlife nursery sites?
e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances X
protecting biological resources, such as a
i tree preservation policy or ordinance?
f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted X
habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan, or other
approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
Comments:
4. all No Impact. The proposed project is a General Plan Amendment and zone change only.
No development is proposed as part of this project and will be analyzed at the time a
development application is submitted. Two separate biological assessments were
conducted on the subject site. On March 18, 1998, a Phase I Quino Checkerspot Butterfly
was conducted and in February, 2001, an updated Quino assessment was conducted.
Both assessments concluded the site has no habitat to protect based on the conservation
strategies and goals contained in the Interim General Survey Protocols and Mitigation
Guidelines for the Endangered Quino Checkerspot Butterfly (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service;
November 4, 1997). As a result, the project is expected to result in no change in the
impact to biologic impacts.
R:\G P A\00-0421 & 422~EA.doc
5
' 5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
Less Than
PotenfialJy Significant wiFn Less Than
Significant Impact Mitigation Significant NO Impact
Issues and Supporting Information Sources [ncoi3:~orated Impact
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the X
significance of a historical resource as
defined in Section 1506.57
b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the X
significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to Section 1506.57
c. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique X
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature?
! d. Disturb any human remains, including X
those interred outside of formal
cemeteries?
Comments:
5.a-d. No Impact. This project does not represent a change from the impacts addressed in the
original EIR for the City General Plan. As a result, no additional impacts have been
identified.
6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project?
Less Than
Potentially Significant With Le&s Than
Significant Impact Mitigation Significant No Impact
Issues and Supporting Information Sources ~nco~t~ ~mpact
a. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss,
injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as X
delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologist for the area or based on
other substantial evidence of a known fault?
Refer to Division of Mines and Geology
Special Publication 42.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? X
iii)Seismic-related ground failure, including X
liquefaction?
iv) Landslides? X
b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss X
of topsoil?
c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is X
unstable, or that would become unstable as
a result of the project, and potentially result
in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in X
Table 1801-B of the Uniform Building Code
R:\G P A\00-0421 & 422~EA.dOC
6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project? ~
Less Than
Potentially Significant Wi~ Less Than
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Inconparated Impact
(1994), creating substantial risks to life or
property?
e. Have soil incapable of adequately X
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative waste water disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the
disposal of waste water?
Comments:
6.all No ImpacL This project does not represent a change from the impacts addressed in the
original EIR for the City General Plan. As a result, no additional impacts have been
identified.
7. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project:
[.ess Than
Pntentially Significant Less Than
Significant With Significant No Impact
Issues and Supporting Information Sources tmpact Mitigation Impact
incorporated
a. Create a significant hazard to the public or X
the environment through the routine
transportation, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials?
b. Create a significant hazard to the public or X
the environment through reasonably
foreseeable upset and accident conditions
involving the release of hazardous materials
into the environment?
c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, X
substances, or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one-quarter mile
of an existing or proposed school?
d. Be located on a site which is included on a X
list of hazardous materials sites compiled
pursuant to Government Code Section
65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a
significant hazard to the public or the
environment?
e. For a project located within an airport land X
use plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles or a public airport
or public use airport, would the project result
in a safety hazard for people residing or
work'm inthe ro'ect area? _
f. For a project within the vicinity of a private X
airstrip, would the project result in a safety
R:\G P A~00-0421 & 422\EA.doc
hazard for people residing or working in the
r~ct area? ~
Impair implementation of or physically
nterfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation
31an? ~
Expose people or structures to a significant
risk or loss, injury or death involving wildland
fires, including where wildlands are adjacent
to urbanized areas or where residences are
intermixed with wildlands?
Comments:
7.all No Impact. This project does not represent a change from the impacts addressed in the
original EIR for the City General Plan. As a result, no additional impacts have been
identified.
8. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project:
Less Than
Potentially Signiticant With LeSS Titan
Significant Mitigation Significant No impact
issues and Supporting Information Sources impact Inco~x)rated Impact
a. Violate any water quality standards or waste X
discharge requirements? X
b. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater
recharge such that there would be a net deficit
n aquifer volume or a lowering of the local
groundwater table level (e.g., the production
rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to
~ level which would not support existing land
uses or planned uses for which permits have
been granted)? X
c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern
of the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a
manner which would result in substantial
erosion or siltation on- or off-site? X
d. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern
of the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river, or
substantially increase the rate or amount of
sudace runoff in a manner that would result in
flooding on- or off-site? X
e. Create or contribute runoff water, which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
storm water drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of polluted
runoff? X
f. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? X
g. Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard
area as mapped on a federal Flood H~?~rd
R:\G P A\00-0421 & 422~EA.d~C
8
8. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project:
Less Than I
Potentially Signirm, a~ Wiff3 Less Than
Significant MifigalJon Significant No In~act
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Impact Incorporated Impact
Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or
other flood hazard delineation map?
h. Place structures within a 100~year flood hazard X
area which would impede or redirect flood
flows?
~. Expose people or structures to a significant risk X
of loss, injury or death involving flooding,
including flooding as a result of the failure of a
levee or dam?
. J. Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? X
Comments:
8. all This project does not represent a change from the impacts addressed in the original EIR for
the City General Plan. The project is located adjacent to the Temecula Creek and these
impacts were reviewed with the City's General Plan Environmental Impact Report. As with
all development adjacent to the Creek, it will require additional individual environmental
analysis and will be conditioned to comply with all flood proofing standards at the time of
development. As a result, no additional impacts have been identified.
9. Land Use and Planning. Would the project:
Less Than
Potentially Significant With Less Than
Significant MifJgafion Significant No Impact
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Impact Incorporated Impact
a. Physically divide an established
community? X
b. Conflict with applicable land use plan, X
policy, or regulation of an agency with
jurisdiction over the project (including, but
not limited to the general plan, specific
plan, local coastal program, or zoning
ordinance) adopted for the purpose of
avoiding or mitigation an environmental
effect?
c. Conflict with any applicable habitat X
conservation plan or natural community
conservation plan?
Comments:
9. a. No Impact. The project will not disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community (including Iow-income or minority community. As stated above, the
subject site is vacant property, and as a consequence, no significant effects are anticipated
as a result of this project.
R:\G P A\00-0421 & 422\EA.doc
9
9. b. No Impact. The project is a change of zone and a general plan amendment to change the
property from Neighborhood Commercial to Community Commercial. The proposed zoning
and land use amendments will not conflict with the existing zoning or land use, but will
result in more compatible potential land uses as the subject site is currently adjacent to
HTC (Highway Tourist Commercial) to the west and VL (Very Low Density Residential)
zoned property. The proposed Community Commercial zoning and land use allows uses
that are very similar with the uses permitted to the property to the west which is zoned
Highway Tourist. Therefore, the proposed zone change would result in more compatible
land uses than the current zoning of Neighborhood Commercial and is expected to result in
the provision of improved commercial support for future residents in this area. As a result,
the environmental impacts associated with this project are expected to be similar or less
than what was originally anticipated in the Environmental Impact Report for the City
General Plan.
9. c. No Impact. The proposed zone change and general plan amendment will not conflict with
any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan as the
subject site is not covered by any such plan.
10. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
I LesS Than
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant With Significant No Impact
issues and Supporting Information Sources impact Mitigation Impact
Incoq3orated
a. Result in the loss of availability of a known X
mineral resource that would be of value to the
region and the residents of the state?
b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally- X
important mineral resource recovery site
delineated on a local general plan, specific
plan or other land use plan?
Comments:
lO.a.b. No Impact. This project does not represent a change from the impacts addressed in the
original EIR for the City General Plan. As a result, no additional impacts have been
identified.
11. NOISE. Would the project result in:
Less Than
Potentially Significant with Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact
Issues and Supporting Information Sources impact Incorporated Impact
a. Exposure of people to severe noise levels in X
excess of standards established in the local
general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable
standards of other agencies? X
b. Exposure of persons to or generation of
excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
R:\G P A\00-0421 & 422'~..A.doc
10
11. NOISE. Would the project result in:
~ Less Than
issues and Supporting Information Sources impact Incorporated Impact
C. A substantial permanent increase in ambient X
noise levels in the project vicinity above levels
existing without the project?
d. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in X
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
above levels existing without the project?
e. For a project located within an airport land use X
31an or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport or
~ublic use airport, would the project expose
people residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
f. For a project within the vicinity of a private X
airstrip, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
Comments:
1 1 .all No Impact. Due to the flood control easement which precludes approximately 42% of the
site from being developed, it is anticipated that the noise impact will be slightly less than
that which was originally addressed in the EIR for the City General Plan.
12. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project:
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Impact Inco~orated Impact
a. Induce substantial population growth in an area, X
either directly (for example, by proposing new
homes and businesses) or indirectly (for
example, through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
b. Displace substantial numbers of existing X
housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
c. Displace substantial numbers of people, X
necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
Comments:
12.a. No Impact. This project does not represent a change from the impacts addressed in the
original EIR for the City General Plan. As a result, no additional impacts have been
identified.
R:\G P A\00-0421 & 422\EA.doc
11
13. 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:
Issues and Supporting Information Sources L~ Inco~)oratecl impact
a. Would the project result in substantial adverse X
physical impacts associates with the provisions
of new or physically altered governmental
facilities, need for new or physically altered
governmental facilities, the construction of which
could cause significant environmental impacts,
in order to maintain acceptable service ratios,
response times or other performance objectives
for any of the public services? X
b. Fire protection? X
c. Police protection? X
d. Schools?
e. Parks? X
f. Other public facilities? X
Comments:
13.all No Impact. 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.
14. RECREATION. Would the project:
Less Than
Potentially Significant With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Impact Incorporateci Impact
a. Would the project increase the use of X
existing neighborhood and regional parks or
other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated?
b. Does the project include recreational X
facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities which
might have an adverse physical effect on the
environment?
Comments:
14.all No Impact. The project will not impact or increase in demand for neighborhood or regional
parks or other recreational facilities or affect the quality or quantity of existing recreational
resources or opportunities. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
R:\G P A\00-0421 & 422\EA.doc
12
15. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project:
Issues and Supporting Information Sources ~rn~act Incorporated Impact
a. Cause an increase in traffic, which is X
substantial in relation to the existing traffic
load and capacity of the street system (i.e.,
result in a substantial increase in either the
number of vehicle trips, the volume to
capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at
intersections?
b. Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a X
level of service standard established by the
county congestion management agency for
designated roads or highways?
c. Result in a change in air traffic patterns, X
including either an increase in traffic levels or
a change in location that results in substantial
safety risks?
d. Substantially increase hazards due to a · X
design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
e. Result in inadecj_uate emergency access? X
f. Result in inade uate arkin ca aci ? X"
g. Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or X
programs supporting alternative
transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle
racks?
Comments:
15.all No ImpacL The proposed General Plan and Zoning amendment does not represent a
change in the number of vehicle trips. The applicant has submitted a traffic analysis which
reviewed the traffic impacts of the existing zoning of Neighborhood Commercial (NC) and
the proposed zoning of Community Commercial (CC). The City's traffic engineer reviewed
has the report and determined, there would be no net change from the existing zoning
classification to the proposed zoning classification. The report did determine that the ratio
of vehicle trip per building square footage would be lower with the larger sized buildings
that are permitted in the proposed CC classification. The report concluded a difference in
ADTs was based on the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) per zoning, not the different zoning
classifications being analyzed. For example, the existing target FAR for the NC is 25%
with a maximum FAR of 40%, whereas the CC target FAR is 30% with a maximum FAR of
100%. However, the original General Plan analyzed the entire site as being developed as
NC and with the specific site analysis, it was determined that approximately 42% of the site
does not have the potential to be developed due to the flood control easement on the
southern portion of the site. Therefore, the traffic impact with the proposed zone change
and General Plan Amendment will be less than what was originally anticipated in the
General Plan EIR under the existing zoning and land use designation of Neighborhood
Commercial.
R:\G P A\00-0421 & 422~EA.doc
13
16. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project:
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less Ti,an
Significant With Mitigation Significant NO Impact
Issues and Supporting Information Sources tmpact Incorporated Impact
a. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements X
of the applicable Regional Water Quality
Control Board? X
b. Require or result in the construction of new
water or wastewater treatment facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
c. Require or result in the construction of new
storm water drainage facilities or expansion X
of existing facilities, the construction of
which could cause significant environmental
effects? X
d. Have sufficient water supplies available to
serve the project from existing entitlements
and resources, or are new or expanded
entitlements needed?
, e. Result in a determination by the wastewater X
treatment provider which serves or may
serve the project that it has adequate
capacity to serve the project's projected
demand in addition to the provider's
existing commitments? X
f. Be served by a landfill with sufficient
permitted capacity to accommodate the
proiect's solid waste disposal needs?
g. Comply with federal, state, and local X
statutes and regulations related to solid
waste?
Comments:
16.all No Impact, The project does not represent a change in the water supplies, drainage or
solid waste facilities from the impacts addressed in the original EIR for the City General
Plan. As a result, no additional impacts have been identified.
R:\G P A\00-0421 & 422\EA,~cc
14
17. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
Issues and Supporting Information Sources ~mpa~t Incorporated
a. Does the project have the potential to X
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
3rehistory?
b. Does the project have impacts that are X
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in
connection with the effects of past projects,
the effects of other current projects, and the
effects__~'~)robable f ut u re.r_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_e_pr__ojects ?
c. Does the project have environmen~'~ffects - ---- X'~
which will cause substantial adverse effects
on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
Comments:
17.a. No Impact.. The project is a zone change and general plan amendment and will determine
what type of uses will be permitted and the corresponding development standards. Two
biological assessments were conducted on the subject site. On Mamh 18, 1998, a Phase I
Quino Checkerspot Butterfly was conducted and in February, 2001, an updated Quino
assessment was conducted. Both assessments concluded the site has no habitat to
protect based on the conservation strategies and goals contained in the Interim General
Survey Protocols and Mitigation Guidelines for the Endangered Quino Checkerspot butterfly
(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; November 4, 1997). Therefore it does not have the
potential to degrade the quality of the environment on site or in the vicinity of the project or ·
will not substantially reduce the habitat of fish or wildlife. Moreover,
17.b.c. No Impact. The proposed project will not have impacts that are individually limited or
cumulatively considerable or not have environmental effects which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. The potential cumulative
impacts for the proposed project have been analyzed in the original EIR for the City's
General Plan. Impacts generated by the future proposed development on the subject site
will be less than what was anticipated at build-out and analyzed in the General Plan
because approximately 42% of the site is encumbered with a flood control easement which
precludes development within the easement.
R:\G P A\00-0421 & 422~,EA,d~3c
15
18. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering,
3rogram EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in
an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). in this case a discussion
should identify the following on attached sheets.
a. Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for
review.
b. Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which affects from the above checklist were within
the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal
standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based
on the earlier analysis.
c. Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation
Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from
the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the
project.
18.a.
18.b.
18.c.
The City's General Plan and Final Environment Impact Report were used as a referenced
source in preparing this Initial Study. The General Plan EIR was also referenced in the
adoption of the Old Town Specific Plan.
There were no earlier impacts which affected this project.
A Mitigation Monitoring Program has not been prepared for this project as the impacts are
either the same as or less than that which was originally analyzed in the General Plan EIR;
therefore, no additional mitigation measures are required.
SOURCES
City of Temecula General Plan.
City of Temecuia General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report.
R:\G P A\00-0421 & 422'tEA.cioc
16
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
R:~j P A~D0-0421 & 422~oC Staff Report.doc
19
engineering
group, inc.
March 14, 2001
h,i '-I)(~rh~li(m I)l.m~qnX * mdfic engineering
,l~ i)u',li~ ,il / air c ualitv studies
Mr. Ron McRae
MCRAE GROUP OF COMPANIES
8800 N. Gainey Center Dr., Suite 255
Scottsdale, AZ 85258
Subject:
Trip Generation Analysis for Southeast Corner (SEC) of Butterfield
Stage Road and SR-79, City of Temecula
Dear Mr. McRae:
INTRODUCTION
RK ENGINEERING GROUP, INC. has completed a trip generation analysis for the
southeast corner (SEC) of Butterfield Stage Road at SR-79 in the City of Temecula.
The purpose of this study is to evaluate the trip generation for the general plan
amendment and zone change for the property from neighborhood to community
commercial. Also, the study has evaluated the actual usable parcel area within the
project in comparison to the entire property.
The proposed development is located at the southeast corner (SEC) of Butterfield Stage
Road and SR-79 in the City of Temecula (Exhibit A.) The parcel map for the project is
shown in Exhibit B. The entire parcel map includes 20.33 acres, however, only 11.87
acres of the site are usable as a result of the constraints of Temecula Creek. The
usable are of the site is significantly less than the gross acreage of the property,
therefore, the trip generation potential of the property with the general plan amendment
and re-zoning would be significantly less than the current general plan designation and
zoning based upon the entire acreage of the property.
.FINDINGS
The following findings have been determined for existing and future conditions:
Based upon entire gross acreage of the property, the existing general plan
designation and zoning for the property would allow up to 15,374 trip ends per day
with 340 vehicles per hour during the AM peak hour and 1,445 vehicles per hour
during the PM peak hour. Based upon the entire gross acreage of the property, the
proposed zoning would generate 12,776 trip ends per day with 287 vehicles per hour
during the AM peak hour and 1,196 vehicles per hour during the PM peak hour.
1301 dove street, suite 37(
newport beach, california 9266{
tel 949.474.0809 fax 949.474.090;
http:l/www.rken§ineer, con
EXHIBIT A
LOCATION
LA PAZ ST.
JEDEDIAH SMITH RD.
REDHAWKPKWY.
MARGARITA RD.
SITE
NIGHTHAVVK PASS
PASS ~'
EL CHIMISAL RD.
REDHAVVK PIONY.
N
2
~ enginee, ring
group, ~nc.
EXHIBIT B
PARCEL MAP
3
N
enginegring _ _
group, inc.
Based upon the proposed general plan designation and zoning and the usable area
of the site, the project would generate up to 9,040 trip ends per day with 208
vehicles per hour during the AM peak hour and 839 vehicles per hour during the PM
peak hour.
From a trip generation standpoint, the general plan amendment and re-zoning will
result in fewer trips generated for the property than the current designation and
zoning. Trip generation is further reduced substantially considering that the usable
area represents only 58% of the entire parcel.
LAND USE ASSUMPTION
Land use assumptions for the project have been obtained from Land R Us Realty and
are shown in Table 1. Three basic alternatives are evaluated as follows:
a) The entire parcel map with its existing zoning (neighborhood commercial)
b) The entire parcel map with the proposed zoning (community commercial)
c) Usable parcel with the proposed zoning (community commercial)
;~)~ !rip g.e. neratio..n analysis has been performed for a range of floor area rat os (25% t~,~
~o) [or me existing zoning. The floor ar,ea ratio for the proposed zon ng (communi~
commercial) has been based upon the City s target percentage of 30%. The calculation~'
of building square footage within each of the three alternatives is included in Appendix
TRIP GENERATION
Trip generation represents the amount of trips that are produced and attracted by a
development. Trip generation has been based upon ITE (Institute of Transportation
Engineers) Trip Generation Manual 6th Edition, 1997. Trip generation rates are based
upon the shopping center rate (Trip Code 820).
A summary of the trip generation rates used in this study are included in Table 2, Tdp
generation rates are a function of the size of the development and are calculated based
upon the equations given in the ITE Trip Generation Manual.
A summary of the tdp generation for the project is included in Table 3. The existing
general plan designation and zoning neighborhood commercial would generate 11,364
trip ends per day with 257 vehicles per hour during the AM peak hour and 1,060
vehicles per hour dudng the PM peak hour with a floor area ratio of 25%. The
neighborhood commemial would generate a maximum of 15,374 trip ends per day with
304 vehicles per hour dudng the AM peak hour and 1,445 vehicles per hour durin(
PM peak hour with a floor area ratio of 40%. The proposed zoning, considering
entire pamel, would generate 12,776 tdp ends per day with 287 vehicles per hour durin
4
TABLE 1
LAND USE ALTERNATIVES
FLOOR AREA
ALTERNATIVE SIZE (ACRES) LAND USE RATIO QUANTITY (TSF)~
Entire Parcel w/ Neighborhood 0.25 221.394
Existing Zoning 20.33 Commercial 0.40 354.23
Entire Parcel w/ Community
Proposed Zoning 20.33 Commercial 0.30 265.672
Usable Parcel w/ Community
Proposed Zoning 11.87 Commercial 0.30 155.117
~ TSF = Thousand Square Feet of Building
j:/rktableslrk195th
JN:1430-01-01
5
TABLE 2
TRIP GENERATION RATES~
PEAK HOUR
AM PM
LAND USE UNITS2 IN I OUT IN I OUT DAILY
Neighborhood
Commercial
221.394 TSF) TSF 0.71 0.45 2.30 2.49 51.33
Neighborhood
Commercial
354.230 TSF) TSF 0.58 0.37 1.96 2.12 43.40
Community
Commercial
(265.672 TSF) TSF 0.66 0.42 2.16 2.34 48.09
Community
Commercial
(354.230 TSF) TSF 0.82 0.52 2.60 2.81 58.28
Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation, Sixth Edition, 1997, Land
Category 820.
2 TSF = Thousand Square Feet
i:/rktables/rk195tb
JN:1430-01-O1 6
TABLE 3
PROJECT TRIP GENERATION
PEAK HOUR
AM OUT I IN PM
LAND USE QUANTITY UNITS~ IN I I
OUT
DAILY
Entire Parcel w/
--xisting 221.394 TSF 157 100 509 551 11,364
~leighborhood
3ommercial 354.230 TSF 205 131 694 751 15,374
Entire Parcel w/
~roposed
.~ommunity
Commercial 265.672 TSF 175 112 574 622 12,776
Usable Parcel w/
Proposed
Community
Commercial 155.117 TSF 127 81 403 436 9,040
~ TSF = Thousand Square Feet
j:/rktables/rk195th
JN:1430-O1-01 '7
the AM peak hour and 1,196 vehicles per hour during the PM peak hour with a floor
area ratio of 30%. Realistically, the trip generation will be considerably less since the
developable parcel represents only 58% of the entire gross area. As a result of that, the
proposed zoning, based upon the usable parcel, would generate 9,040 trip ends per day
with 208 vehicles per hour during the AM peak hour and 839 vehicles per hour during
the PM peak hour.
As can be seen by the above calculations, the proposed community commercial site
based upon the usable parcel would generate significantly fewer trips than the allowable
neighborhood commercial site on the entire parcel.
It is anticipated that the City of Temecula Traffic Model has incorporated the higher tdp
generation, since it's based upon gross acreage as opposed to usable acreage of the
site. Therefore, the proposed general plan amendment and zone change should not
have a significant impact and, if anything, have less impact than currently analyzed in
the City's Traffic Model.
CONCLUSIONS
RK ENGINEERING GROUP, INC. has completed a trip generation study for
proposed southeast corner (SEC) of Butterfield Stage Road at SR-79. The
general plan amendment and zone change from neighborhood commercial to
community commercial would result in fewer trips being generated considering the
maximum intensity of development with the neighborhood commercial and expected
usable area of the site with the community commercial designation.
RK ENGINEERING GROUP, INC. appreciates this opportunity to work with the MCRAE
GROUP OF COMPANIES, INC. If you have any questions regarding this or need
further review, please give me a call at (949) 474-0809.
Sincerely,
Robert Kahn, P E
Principal
RK:wg/195
JN:1430-01-01
Attachments
xc: Mr. Thomas R. Jerele, Sr.
8
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
BIOLOGICAL ASSESMENTS
R:~g P A~00-0421 & 422~pC S~ff Report.doc
20
PRINCIPE AND ASSOCIATES
CONSULTING BIOLOGISTS
PMB 113
40485-D Murrieta Hot Springs Road
Murrieta, Califomia 92563-6406
(909) 677-95t4
(909) 600-0608 Fax
March 5, 2001
Ms. Patty Anders,
Project Planner
CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING DEPARTMENT
43200 Business Park Drive
Post Office Box 9033
Temecula, California 92589-9033
Subject:
APNs 952-200-002, 011,012, and 013
Quino Checkerspot Butterfly Site Assessment
Dear Patty,
Principe and Associates was hired to conduct a Quino Checkerspot Butterfly (Euphyd/yas editha
quino) Site Assessment on approximately 18 acres of land located at the southeast comer of
the intersection of Butterfleld Stage Road and State Highway 79, South in the easternmost
portion of the City. This site assessment was initiated as part of the proposed Change of
Zone's (PA 00-0421) and General Plan Amendment's (PA 00-0422) environmental review
process.
A QCB Site Assessment involves conducting one or more complete visual and walk-over field
surveys to determine if a site contains early life history stage QCB habitat (larval foodplants)
and/or adult QCB habitat (nectar plants, hilltops, ddge lines, rocky outcrops, and/or areas
containing host plants). The host plants that QCB larvae feed upon are usually Dwarf plantain
(Plantago erecta) and Owl's clover (Castilleja exse~ta). Dwarl= plantain emerges in February and
blooms until May; Owl's clover emerges in March and blooms until May. These native annual
plants normally grow around meadows, native grasslands or less-disturbed non-native
grasslands, vemal pools, and lake margins, but can also be found in open areas of sage
scrub, chaparral and sparse native woodlands. Optimal habitat contains iow levels of invasive,
non-native grasses and forbs, and soil with a cryptogamic crust.
Ms. Patty Anders
March 5, 2001
Page 2
Field surveys were conducted in February 2001. Site surface vegetation consists of Non-
Native Grassland and Southern Ripadan Forest. Invasive, non-native grasses and weeds
cover the upland portion of the site. Brome grasses, Mustard, Russian thistle, and filarees
dominate. The dpafian forest growing along this portion of Temecula Creek is characterized
by a fairly dense mix of Cottonwood and willow trees, and Mule Fat shrubs. The nature of the
vegetation growing on the site has remained the same since I first conducted a survey there on
March 18, 1998 (for a Phase I Quino Checkerspot Butterfly Study). Pdor to 1998, the site was
dry-crop farmed.
The majority of the site no longer contains any natural or remnant inclusions of native
vegetation. There are no fallow sections, unplowed areas and/or rock outcrops. This area is
an in-fill parcel largely dominated by non-native vegetation. Therefore, it is considered to be
an excluded area. Temecula Creek, although not included in any future project's development
plans, is also considered to be an excluded area (closed-canopy dpadan area).
The site is not located within Quino Checkerspot Butterfly Proposed Cdtical Habitat
designated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for Unit 2, Southwest - Southwest
County.
Based on the conservation strategies and goals contained in the Interim General Survey
Protocols and Mitigation Guidelines for the Endangered Quino Checkerspot Butterfly (U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service; November 4, 1997), the site has no habitat to protect. Therefore,
the proposed project will not have a direct adverse impact on the Quino checkerspot butterfly.
Adult butterfly surveys are not recommended in this case.
Thank you for your attention to the above-mentioned matters. If you have any questions or
comments, then please call me at (909) 677-9514.
Sincerely,
PRINCIPE AND ASSOCIATES
Paul A. Principe
Principal
PAP/jh
attachments:
7.5' USGS Topographic Map
Q. C. Butterfly Habitat Map
Quino Checkerspot Butterfly Proposed Critical Habitat Map
Site Assessment Map
Site Photographs
PRINCIPE AND ASSOCIATES
CONSULTING BIOLOGISTS
PMB 113
40485-D Murrieta Hot Springs Road
Murrieta, Califomia 92563-6406
(909) 677-9514
(909) 600-0608 Fax
March 2, 2001
Ms. Patty Anders,
Project Planner
CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING DEPARTMENT
43200 Business Park Drive
Post Office Box 9033
Temecula, California 92589-9033
Subject:
APNs 952-200-002, 0tt, 012, and 013
Sensitive Species Habitat Assessment
Dear Patty,
Principe and Associates was hired to conduct field surveys of approximately 18 acres
of land located at the southeast corner of the intersection of Butterfield Stage Road and
State Highway 79, South in the easternmost portion of the City. The purpose of the
field surveys was to evaluate the development that results from a proposed Change of
Zone (PA 00-0421) and General Plan Amendment (PA 00-0422) on the project site for
impacts on the Coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila calffomica califomica), Burrowing
OWl (Athene cunicularia) and Stephens' kangaroo rat (Dip~lomys stephensi).
The site was surveyed in February 2001. Site topography includes Temecula Creek
and an adjacent upland area. The upland area is situated over the north bank of the
creek. It is rolling to fiat-lying, and interrupted by a few elongate drainage swales that
parallel the creek (typical overbank depositional profile). It has been somewhat altered
by years of plowing and discing. Temecula Creek is incised an average of ten feet
below this upland area. The north bank of the creek slopes down into its wide
floodplain in the southern portion of the site. It also was altered for the construction of
the Butterfield Stage Road bridge.
Ms. Patty Anders
March 2, 2001
Page 2
Land uses surrounding the site include Big Horse Feed & Farm Supply located to the
north (across State Highway 79, South), Temecula Creek and a recently graded area to
the south, small single-family ranches and pastureland to the east, and an area being
graded to the west (across Butterfleld Stage Road). Butterfield Stage Pump Station &
Well #126 is located in the northwest comer of the site (offsite).
Site surface vegetation consists of Non-Native Grassland and Southern Riparian
Forest. Invasive, non-native grasses and weeds cover the fiat-lying portion of the site
after discing has taken place. As the site is disced every six months, vegetation is only
present on the site for short intervals of time. It is never permitted to get overgrown for
fire prevention purposes. Brome grasses, Mustard, Russian thistle, and fllarees
dominate. The riparian forest growing along this portion of Temecula Creek is
characterized by a fairly dense mix of Cottonwood and willow trees, and Mule fat
shrubs. Some of the riparian forest has been previously removed in the southwest
corner of the site for the construction of the Butterfield Stage Road bddge.
The onsite vegetation is not providing habitat for any of the three species being
evaluated. There is no potential for gnatcatchers to occur at the site due to the
absence of any required Riversidian Sage Scrub habitat. And, there is little or no
potential for Burrowing owls and/or SKR to occur at the site because of prolonged and
frequent discing of the site surface and its vegetation. Since conducting my first survey
on this site on March 18, 1998, the site has been disced five times (and will be disced
again after the rain stops). Before the property was purchased by the current owner
(around 1998), the site was dry-crop farmed. The discing frequency over the past few
years is high enough that even typical opportunistic species such as California ground
squirrels and Botta's pocket gophers cannot establish populations that would attract
Burrowing owls to the site. And, the discing would have ddven any resident owls away
a long time ago. Frequent discing would also have a similar effect on SKR, as they
usually modify and occupy the existing burrows of other animals. During the recent
field surveys, burrows of any species were not discovered at the site.
The site appears to have no potential value for long-term conservation for Coastal
California gnatcatchers, Burrowing owls, and/or Stephens' kangaroo rats. Therefore,
any future project will not have a direct adverse impact on these species or on a
sensitive resource such as Riversidian Sage Scrub. The site is however located within
the Stephens' Kangaroo Rat Fee Area. The' project will then be assessed a fee based
on the fee structure currently in effect at the City of Temecula.
Andem
March 2, 2001
Page 3
On this site, Temecula Creek qualifies as a jurisdictional wetland and Waters of the
U.S. However, as Temecula Creek will not be affected by any future project proposed
at this site, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and/or California Department of Fish and
Game permits will not be required.
Thank you for your attention to the above-mentioned matters. If you have any
questions, please call me at (909) 677-9514.
Sincerely,
PRINClPE AND ASSOCIATES
Paul A. Principe
~dncipal
PAP/ih
attachments:
Location Map
Vegetation Map
Gnatcatcher Habitat Map
Site Photographs
ATTACHMENT NO. $
EXHIBITS
R:~J P ^~00-0421 & 422~C Staff Report.doc
21
CITY OFTEMECULA
ect Site
CASE NUMBER: PA00-0421 (Change of Zone) & PA00-0422 (General Plan Amendment)
EXHIBIT- A
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - MAY 2001 LOCATION MAP
CITY OFTEMECULA
EXHIBIT D - PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION
CASE NUMBER PA00-0421 (Change of Zone) & PA00-0422 (General Plan Amendment)
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - MAY 2, 2001
EXHIBIT C - ZONING MAP
CASE NUMBER: PA00-0421 (Change of Zone) & PA00-0422 (General Plan Amendment)
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - MAY 2, 2001
ITEM #4
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
May 2, 2001
Planning Application No. PA01-0033 (Development Plan) - Hank's Hardware
Prepared By: Michael McCoy, Project Planner
RECOMMENDATION: The Community Development Department - Planning Division Staff
recommends the Planning Commission:
ADOPT a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. PA01-0033 pursuant to
Section 15332 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines.
ADOPT a Resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2001-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA01.0033
(DEVELOPMENT PLAN), TO CONSTRUCT AND OPERATE A 19,710
SQUARE FOOT BUILDING SUPPLY AND HOME IMPROVEMENT
COMMERCIAL BUILDING ON 1.2 ACRES LOCATED ON THE NORTH
SIDE OF ENTERPRISE CIRCLE SOUTH AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S
PARCEL NO. 909-270-023.
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
Hank Homsveld
REPRESENTATIVE: James Horecka
PROPOSAL:
LOCATION:
EXISTING ZONING:
SURROUNDING ZONING:
Development Plan application to design, construct and operate a 19,710
hardware and lumber store, with a partial second-story storage area.
41731 Enterprise Circle South, 1 block west of Jefferson Avenue and 1
block south of Winchester Road.
SC (Service Commercial)
North: SC
South: SC
East: SC
West: SC
PROPOSED ZONING: SC
R:~D P~2001~PA01-0033 Hank's Hardware + Lumber~STAFFRPT Draft #1.PC.doc
1
GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION: SC
EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
North: Vacant
South: Commercial
East: Commercial
West: Vacant
PUBLIC INPUT: To date, staff has received no public input on this application.
PROJECT STATISTICS
Site Area:
43,373 square feet net (0.996 acres)
51,619 square feet gross (1.185 acres)
Building Area:
(gross floor area)
Two-story building height:
12,997 square feet - first story
6,713 square feet - second story
29 feet high
Landscaped Area:
Parking/Paved/Hardscape:
Lot Coverage/Floor Area Ratio:
8,675 square feet (20% of site)
21,517 square feet (49.6% of site)
30%/38%
Parkinq Required:
Home Improvement Center use:
Mezzanine storage use:
Total Required Parking:
26 spaces (1 space/500-sq, ft. gross floor area)
6.71 spaces (1 space/1000-sq, ft. gross floor area)
33 spaces (includes 2 handicap spaces)
Parkinq Provided:
Standard Spaces:
Handicap Spaces:
Parallel vehicle
loading spaces:
Motorcycle spaces:
Bicycle spaces:
Total Vehicle Parking:
28
2
4
2
4 (Class II racks)
34 spaces (excluding bicycle spaces)
BACKGROUND
The applicant proposes to expand his existing hardware supply business by constructing a new
building and lumber supply center to the immediate north of his current facility..The proposed
project was previously reviewed at a pre-application review meeting on August 23, 2000. The
applicant subsequently submitted a development plan application on January 16, 2001 and a
Development Review Committee (DRC) meeting was held on February 15, 2001 to review the
current proposal. The proposed project was deemed complete on April 19, 2001.
R:~D p~2001~PA01-0033 Hank's Hardware + Lumber~STAFFRPT Draft #1,PC.doc
2
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposal is for the design, construction and operation of a 19,710 square foot tilt-up concrete
hardware and lumber supply home improvement facility on a 1.1-acre vacant parcel located on the
north side of Enterprise Circle South (41731 Enterprise Circle South). The proposed commercial
building will serve as an expansion of the existing Hank's Hardware store to the immediate south of
the project site with greater emphasis on home improvement materials, such as hardwoods,
moldings, doors, windows, tools, special order items and other miscellaneous items to serve both
private homeowners and building industry contractors. The building will also feature a second story
storage "mezzanine" area of approximately 6,700 square feet. Although Hank's is intended to be
the primary building occupant, the building is designed to accommodate up to four potential lease
occupants.
SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENT
The project site is located on Enterprise Circle South, which is a loop road that takes access off of
Winchester Road in two locations (east and west of the project site). The subject site is located to
the west of two single-story 6,000 square foot twin tilt-up concrete buildings recently constructed
and occupied. Farmer Boy's restaurant is to the adjacent northeast and a vacant undeveloped
parcel is to the adjacent north fronting on Winchester Road. On the opposite side of Enterprise
Circle South facing the project site are other commercial buildings, including the existing Hank's
Hardware store, and to the west of the project site is a vacant undeveloped parcel and other
commercial buildings nearby.
ANALYSIS
Site Desi.qn
The project is located on the north side of Enterprise Circle South. The building is located
approximately 86 feet from the front property line, and 5 feet and 30 feet from the respective side
property lines. The building is setback approximately 25 feet from the rear property line, which in
effect, is the centedine of an access easement that serves the rear of all of the parcels on that
block. The store will have two customer entdes in the front, and a customer pick-up area at the rear
of the building. Supplies will be transferred into customer vehicles bdefly parked in the parallel
loading zones along the rear of the building. A double bin concrete trash enclosure with solid metal
gates is placed on the northwest rear comer against the building. An employee lunch/break area
with a permanent table and benches is provided between the two front entrances. The design of
the site is compatible with existing development in the area.
Access and Circulation
Access to the site will be from a single 24-wide ddveway at the east end of the frontage, and an
exit-only driveway along the westerly end of the lot. Access to the rear of the lot will from a two-way
ddve extending along the east side of the building, and the Fire Department has determined that
adequate emergency access can be provided. A 25-foot wide reciprocal access easement exists
along the rear of the lot, and once it is fully paved, will enable secondary access to the rear of all
buildings on the block (functioning much like an alley).
A total of 33 parking spaces are required and 34 spaces (excluding bicycle) have been provided.
The front parking lot will contain 30 parking spaces, and 4 spaces will be located in the rear of the
building. In addition, a 10' x 25' truck loading space will be located in the rear.
R:~D P~2001~OA01-0033 Hank's Hardware + Lumber~STAFFRPT Draft #1.PC.doc
3
The proposed building will be constructed of tilt-up concrete with projecting covered entry porticos,
rear building offsets, and painted reveal lines (as conditioned). The front of the building features
twin porticos with scored plaster walls supported by columns. A recessed flanking element with a
standing-seam dark green metal roof element on each side will also be supported with concrete
vertical columns. Each entrance features a thirteen foot wide decorative paved walkway leading
from the parking lot to the building entry way.
The concrete walls will blend two shades of gray and the canopy entrance structures will be white.
The entire building is highlighted with % inch by 1% inch reveal lines creating large square patterns
in the walls. Staff is recommending that the reveal lines be painted in a dark shade that
complements the gray shades of the tilt-up walls to add visual interest and help to break up the
building wall mass.
The rear elevation will feature four roll-up doore painted to match the walls. Slight offsets to the wall
will occur along the center portion of the building to help break-up the wall and create a landscape
pocket. Until the lot to the rear of the site is developed, the loading doors will be visible from
Winchester Street. Staff has added a condition that if feasible, a temporary 8 foot-high chain-link
fence with screening material be constructed along the northerly edge of the access easement
(which is technically on the other property). At the time of this writing, staff is attempting to ascertain
whether the property owner will consent to the fence being located along his edge of the easement.
_LandscaDin_q
Twenty percent (20%) of the site has been landscaped which is consistent with the 20% minimum-
landscaping requirement of the SC (Service Commercial) zone. In the front of the lot, a 20 foot-wide
bermed landscape planter along the sidewalk will feature a variety of shrubs and tree species that
includes Fern Pine and London Plane. The project provides a 5 foot wide landscape planter along
the east and west sides of the building and along the entire east property line. The rear inset of the
building has a 38-foot long and 5 foot wide planter between the four roll-up loading doors,
The front 3:1 landscaped berm and shade trees similar to Hank's Hardware across the street
should effectively screen most of the parking lot when viewed to the front of the project site. The
two driveways have a good complement of landscaping on each side to make a more pleasant
entry statement, that includes Fern Pine trees along the west side of the parking lot and building to
the rear. The front entry ways of the building have generous landscape coverage up to the parking
lot that includes Fern Pine and Flowering Pear trees and a variety of shrubs that front onto the
parking area.
Floor Area Ratio Increase:
The total square footage of this building results in a gross floor area ratio (FAR) of approximately
0.38, while the Development Code specifies a target ratio of 0.30 FAR. The increased FAR is due
to the storage mezzanine and will not directly effect the intensity of the use or demand for parking.
As provided by Section 17.08.050, the FAR can be as high as 1.5 if one of the following criteria is
met:
1. The project includes use(s) which provide outstanding and exceptional benefits to the
City with respect to the employment, fiscal, social and economic needs of the
community.
R:~D p',2001'~A01-0033 Hank's Hardware + Lumbe~STAFFRPT Draft #1.PC.doc
4
2. The project provides exceptional architectural and landscape design amenities which
reflect an attractive image and character for the city.
The project provides enhanced public facilities that are needed by the city, beyond those
required mitigation impact measures.
Attached are letters from the applicant and project architect outlining how they believe they qualify
for the additional .08 FAR increase. Staff has reviewed their request and concurs with the
comments relating to the potential tax revenue benefits and hidng of additional employees that
could benefit the economic well being of the community. Staff would also consider the architectural
quality of the building to be on par with the finer examples of building design in the area and will
help set a higher standard for tilt-up construction. Considering the limited increase of .08% over the
target ratio for this project, the building can easily meet the cdteda for an FAR increase and staff
recommends approval of the slightly higher FAR.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
A Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. PA01-0033 can be made pursuant to the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15332, Class 32 In-fill. Section
15332 applies to in-fill development project on sites that: are less than five (5) acres and
substantially surrounded by urban uses; consistent with the applicable general plan designation
and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning; have no value as habitat
for endangered, rare or threatened species; and that can be adequately served utilities and public
services. The site meets all of the criteria noted above and will not result in any significant effects
relating to traffic, noise air quality or water quality, and is already served by all required utilities and
public services.
GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING CONSISTENCY
The SC Service Commercial General Plan designation is intended for retail commercial uses that
typically require extensive floor area, such as building material and lumber supply merchants, as
well as home improvement stores, which may include incidental warehouse floor area. The (SC)
Service Commercial zoning code designation lists building material sales and hardware stores as
permitted land uses with the approval of a development plan pursuant to Chapter 17.05 of the
Development Code. The project as proposed, meets all minimum standards of and is consistent
with the General Plan, Development Code and the Design Guidelines,
SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS
FINDINGS (Code Section 17.05.010F)
The proposed use is consistent with the land use designation and policies for Service
Commercial (SC) development in the City of Temecula General Plan, as well as the
development standards for the Service Commercial (SC) zoning district contained in the
City's Development Code. All infrastructure is available to serve the site and the building is
found to be physically suitable for the type and density of commercial development
proposed. The project as conditioned is also consistent with other applicable requirements
of State Law and local ordinance, including the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA), the City- wide Design Guidelines, and fire and building codes.
R:~D P~0{31~F'A01-0033 Hank's Hardware + Lumber~STAFFRPT Draft #1.PC.doc
5
The overall development of the land will not adversely impact the public health, safety, and
general welfare of the community. The Development Plan for the project has been reviewed
by City Departments and outside agencies whose responsibility it is to ensure protection. All
aspects of construction will be inspected by the City for compliance with applicable Building
Codes.
The design of the proposed improvements is not likely to cause substantial environmental
damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. There are no
known fish, wildlife or habitat on the project site, and the project will not affect any fish,
wildlife or habitat off-site. The site is surrounded by development and is an infill 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.
Attachments:
PC Resolution - Blue Page 7
Exhibit A: Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 11
Exhibits - Blue Page 22
A. Vicinity Map
B. Zoning Map
C. General Plan Maps
D. Site Plan
E. Elevations
F. Floor Plans
G. Landscape Plan
H, Grading Plan
R:~D P~2001~PA01-0033 Hank's Hardware + Lumbe~STAFFRPT Draft #1.PC.doc
6
ATTACHMENT NO. t
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2001-
R:~D P~2001~PA01-0033 Hank's Hardware + Lumber~STAFFRPT [:)raft #1.PC.doc
7
PC RESOLUTION NO. 01-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. 01-0033 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN), TO
CONSTRUCT AND OPERATE A 19,710 SQUARE FOOT
BUILDING SUPPLY AND HOME IMPROVEMENT
COMMERCIAL BUILDING ON 1.2 ACRES, LOCATED ON
THE NORTH SIDE OF ENTERPRISE CIRCLE SOUTH, AND
KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 909-270.023.
WHEREAS, Hank Hornsveld filed P arming Application No. 01-0033 (the "Application") in a
manner m accord with the City of Temecula General Plan, Development Code and Subdivision
Ordinance;
WHEREAS, the Application was processed including, but not limited to public notice, in the
time and manner prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, at a regular meeting, considered the Application on
May 2, 2001, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and
interested persons had an opportunity to, and did, testify either in support or opposition to this
matter;
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission headngs and after due consideration of
the testimony, the Commission approved the Application subject to and based upon the findings set
forth hereunder;
WHEREAS, ail legal preconditions to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby incorporated
by reference.
Section 2. Findin.qs. That the Planning Commission, in approving the Application,
hereby recommends the following findings as required in Section 17.05.010 of the Temecula
Municipal Code.
A. The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan for Temecula and with
all applicable requirements of state law and other ordinances of the City. The subject site is
designated for Service Commercial uses by the General Plan. The SC Service Commercial
General Plan designation is intended for retail commercial uses that typically require extensive floor
area, such as building material and lumber supply merchants, as well as home improvement stores,
which may include incidental warehouse floor area. The (SC) Service Commercial zoning code
designation lists building matedal sales and hardware stores as permitted land uses with the
approval of a development plan pursuant to Chapter 17.05 of the Development Code. The project
as proposed, meets all minimum standards of and is consistent with the General Plan,
Development Code and the Design Guidelines.
R:~D P~001~PA01-O033 ank s Hardware + Lumber~STAFFRPT Draft #1.PC.doc
H '
8
verall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public
sB~ aTnhdeg~neral welfare. The design of the project has been reviewed for consistency
health, fety
with the Temecula Development Code, which regulations are placed upon projects in order to
protect the public health, safety and general welfare of the citizenry. Review has been conducted by
the Fire Department, Building Department, Planning Department and the Department of Public
Works, and these entities have conditioned the project to operate in compliance with applicable
codes and regulations. Emergency vehicle access is provided by the project.
Section 3. Environmental Compliance. The Planning Commission of the City of Temecula
has determined that the project qualifies as an in-fill development in accordance with the conditions
as set forth in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15332, as
follows:
e ro.ect is consistent with the applicable General Plan designati°n °f SC Service
A. Th p J ........ o~,.,,,,-, ,~ ~ as well as the app cable zoning designation
Commerca and a app ceo e ~=-=,o - ,=,, r- ....
and regulations of the SC Service Commercial zone.
e ro osed development occurs within the city limits on a project site of no
B.. Th p .p~c .... flail" surrounded by urban uses. The project site is 1.2 acres, and
more than r~ve acres suu~u=-, y
existing businesses are to the south and east. Adjacent to the east are two single-story 6,000
square foot twin tilt-up concrete buildings only recently constructed and occupied. Farmer Boy's
restaurant is adjacent to the northeast and a vacant undeveloped parcel is adjacent to the north
fronting on Winchester Road. On the opposite side of Enterprise Circle South facing the project
site are other commercial buildings, including the existing Hank's Hardware store, and to the
west of the project site is a vacant undeveloped parcel as well as other commercial buildings
nearby.
C. The project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare °r threatened species' The
site has been previously disturbed and utilities have already been brought to the area to service the
site.
D. Approval of the pr°ject w°uld n°t result in any significant effects relating t° traffic' n°ise'
air quality, or water quality. The proposed commercial use shall be required to comply with the
Performance and Environmental Standards of the Temecula Development Code which restrict
such nuisances such as noise, air or water pollutants. The amount of traffic generated by the
project is not anticipated to exceed those anticipated for the uses at this site. The project exceeds
the target floor area ratio by .08, which was used to determine traffic impacts at the site. The
amount of excess over the target would not substantially increase traffic to a significant level.
E. The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services. The
Rancho California Water District has indicated that water service is available. The Riverside County
Department of Environmental Health has no objections to the project, and the Gas Company
reviewed the proposal and had no comments at this time.
Section 4. Conditions. The Planning Commission of the City of Temecula hereby
conditionally approves the Application for all of the foregoing reasons and subject to the project
specific conditions set forth on Exhibit A, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference
together with any and all other necessary conditions that may be deemed necessary.
R:~D P~001~PA01-0033 Hank's Hardware + Lumber~STAFFRPT 9Draft #1.PC.doc
Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Plannin§
Commission this second day of May 2001.
ATTEST:
Ron Guerriero, Chairman
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
[SEAL]
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTYOF RIVERSIDE ) ss
CITY OF TEMECULA )
I, Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary of the Temecula Planning Commission, do hereby certify that
PC Resolution No, 01- was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City
of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the second day of May, 2001, by the following
vote:
AYES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
NOES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
ABSTAIN:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
R:~) P~001~PA01-O033 Hank's Hardware + Lurnber~STAFFRPT Draft #1.PC.doc
10
EXHIBIT A
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
R:~D P~2001~PA01-O033 Hank's Hardware + Lumber~STAFFRPT Draft #1.PC.doc
11
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Planning Application No. PA01-0033 (Development Plan)
Project Description: The design and construction of a 19,710 square foot commercial (tilt-up
concrete) building on a 1.2 gross acre lot located on the north side of
Enterprise Circle South, west of Jefferson Avenue and South of Winchester
Road.
Assessor's Parcel No.:
Approval Date:
Expiration Date:
909-270-023
May 2, 2001
May 2, 2003
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Within Forty-Eight (48) Hours of the Approval of this Project
The applicant shall deliver to the Community Development Department - Planning Division a cashier's
check or money order made payable to the County Clerk in the amount of Seventy-Eight Dollars
($78.00) for the County administrative fee, to enable the City to file the Notice of Determination with a
DeMinimus Finding for the Mitigated or Negative Declaration 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 has not delivered to the Community Development Department - Planning Division 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 applicant and owner of the real property subject to this condition shall hereby agree to indemnify,
protect, hold harmless, and defend with Legal Counsel of the City's own selection, the City shall be deemed
for purposes of this condition, to include any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its elected or
appointed officials, officers, employees, consultants, contractors, legal counsel, and agents from any and all
claims, actions, awards, judgements, or proceedings against the City to attack, set aside, void, annul, seek
monetary damages resulting, directly or indirectly, from any action in furtherance of and the approval of the
City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body including
actions approved by the voters of the City, concerning the Planning Application. City shall promptly notify
the both the applicant and landowner of any claim, action, or proceeding to which this condition is applicable
and shall further cooperate fully in the defense of the action. The City reserves its right to take any and all
action the City deems to be in the best interest of the City and its citizens in regards to such defense.
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 front of the building shall not be used for the outdoor storage of materials unless approved by the
Planning Department.
The development of the premises shall conform substantially to Exhibit "E" (Site Plan), approved with
Planning Application No. 01-0033, or as amended by these conditions.
R:~D P~2001~PA01-0033 Hank's Hardware + LumBeASTAFFRPT Draft #1.PC.doc
13
Building elevations shall conform substantially to the approved to Exhibit "F" (Elevation
amended by these conditions. All mechanical and roof equipment shall be screened from publi
architectural features integrated into the design of the structures.
Landscaping shall conform substantially with the approved Conceptual Landscape Plan, Exhibit "H", or as
amended by these conditions. Landscaping installed for the project shall be cont nuously maintained t.o th.e
satisfaction of the Planning Manager and the Development Code. If it is determined that the landscaping ~s
not being maintained, the Planning Manager shall have the authority to require the property owner to bring
the landscaping into conformance with the approved landscape plan. The continued maintenance of all
landscaped areas shall be the responsibility of the developer or any successors in interest. Additionally, the
following criteria must be met prior to development of the project:
a. Provide one broad canopy type tree per every four parking spaces. The pear trees originally planned
for the front entry ways shall be replaced by broad canopy London Plane trees or another
acceptable broad canopy type tree closer to the edge of the parking area to provide more effective
shade coverage. The pear trees can replace an equal number of trees along the west and east
sides of the project site to maintain tree varieties.
The colors and materials used for this industrial building shall conform substantially to the approved color
and material board, or as amended by these conditions.
Colo[
Material
Concrete wails
Accent Trim
Office front and windows
Man doors & Overhead doors
Sandblasted Finish
Frazee AC115N Tomatilio
Libby Owens Ford, Bronze Vision Glass
Frazee 8784D, Blackthorn
Prior to
9.
10.
11.
the Issuance of Grading Permits
The applicant shall submit to the Planning Department for permanent filing two (2) 8" X 10" glossy
photographic color prints each of the Color and Materials Board and the colored architectural Elevations. All
labels on the Color and Materials Board and Elevations shall be readable on the photographic prints.
The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 8.24 of the Temecula Municipal Code (Habitat
Conservation) by paying the appropriate fee set forth in that ordinance or by providing documented
evidence that the fees have already been paid.
The applicant shall sign both copies of the final conditions of approval that will be provided by the
Community Development Department- Planning Division staff, and return one signed set to the Community
Development Department - Planning Division for their files.
Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits
12. A Consistency Check fee shall be paid per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule.
13. Three (3) copies of Construction Landscaping and Irrigation Plans shall be submitted to the Planning
Department for approval. The location, number, genus, species, and container size of the plants shall be
shown. These plans shall be consistent with the Water Efficient Ordinance and conform substantially to the
approved Exhibit ~F" Conceptual Landscape Plan or as amended by these conditions. The cover page',
identify the total square footage of the landscaped area for the site. The plans shall be accompanied I;
following items:
R;~D P~001~PA01-0033 Hank's Hard, ware + Lurnber~STAFFRPT Draft #1.PC.doc
14
a. Appropriate filing fee (per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule at time of submittal).
b. One (1) copy of the approved grading plan.
c. Water usage calculations per Chapter 17.32 of the Development Code (Water Efficient Ordinance).
d. Total cost estimate of plantings and irrigation (in accordance with the approved plan).
Prior to the Issuance of Occupancy Permits
14.
15.
The applicant shall install an eight-foot high view-obscuring chain link fence of higher quality matedal upon
the adjacent north property pamel 22 until such time that that adjacent parcel is developed so that the
building's loading area will be more effectively screened from Winchester Road to the north of the project
site. The applicant shall provide written authorization from the property owner of adjacent parcel 22 that give
him permission to install the view-obscuring fence upon his property.
Separate building permit applications for the installation of signage shall be submitted in conformance with
City Ordinances, Design Guidelines, and Development Code.
16.
17.
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.
Performance securities, in amounts to be determined by the Planning Manager, to guarantee the
maintenance of the plantings, in accordance with the approved construction landscape and irrigation plans,
shall be filed with the Community Development Department - Planning Division for one year from final
certificate of occupancy. Affer that year, if the landscaping and irrigation system have been maintained in a
condition satisfactory to the Planning Manager, the bond shall be released.
Each parking space reserved for the handicapped shall be identified by a permanently affixed reflectorized
sign constructed of porcelain on steel, beaded text or equal, displaying the International Symbol of
Accessibility. The sign shall not be smaller than 70 square inches in area and shall be centered at the
interior end of the parking space at a minimum height if 80 inches from the bottom of the sign to the parking
space finished grade, or centered at a minimum height of 36 inches from the parking space finished grade,
ground, or sidewalk. A sign shall also be posted in a conspicuous place, at each entrance to the off-street
parking facility, not less than 17 inches by 22 inches, clearly and conspicuously stating the following:
"Unauthorized vehicles parked in designated accessible spaces not displaying
distinguishing placards or license plates issued for persons with disabilities may be
towed away at owner's expense. Towed vehicles may be reclaimed by telephoning
909 696-3000."
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.
BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT
19.
Comply with applicable provisions of ~he 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.
20.
Submit at time of plan review, a complete exterior site lighting plans showing compliance with Ordinance
No. 655 for the regulation of light pollution. All street lights and other outdoor lighting shall be shown on
electrical plans submitted to the Department of Building and Safety. Any outside lighting shall be hooded
and directed so as not to shine directly upon adjoining property or public rights-of-way.
R:~D P~2001~PA01-O033 Hank's Hardware + Lumber~STAFFRPT Draft #1,PC.doc
15
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
A receipt or clearance letter from the Temecula Valley School Distdct shall be submitted to the Buildir
Safety Department to ensure the payment or exemption from School Mitigation Fees.
Obtain all building plan and permit approvals pdor to commencement of any construction work.
The Occupancy classification of the proposed buildings shall be B/S-I/F-1.
Obtain street addressing for all proposed buildings pdor to submittal for plan review.
Ail building and facilities must comply with applicable disabled access regulations. Provide all details on
plans. (California Disabled Access Regulations effective April 1, 1998)
provide disabled access from the public way to the main entrance of the building.
provide van accessible parking located as close as possible to the main entry.
Show path of accessibility from parking to furthest point of improvement.
Provide house electrical meter provisions for power for the operation of extedor lighting, fire alarm systems.
Restroom fixtures, number and type, to be in accordance with the provisions of the 1994 edition of the
Uniform Plumbing Code, Appendix C.
Provide an approved automatic fire sprinkler system.
Provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on plans submitted for
review.
Provide electrical plan including load calculations and panel schedule, plumbing schematic and mechanical
plan for plan review.
Truss calculations that are stamped by the engineer of record and the truss manufacturer engineer are
required for plan review submittal.
Provide precise grading plan for plan check submittal to check for handicap accessibility.
A pre-construction meeting is required with the building inspector prior to the start of the building
construction.
Trash enclosures, patio covers, light standard and any block wails require separate approvals and
permits.
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 site plan all existing and proposed property lines,
easements, traveled ways, improvement constraints and drainage courses, and their omission may require the
project to be resubmitted for further review and revision.
R:'~D p~2001',PA01-0033 Hank's Hardware + Lumbe~STAFFRPT Draft #1.P 1C~doc
39.
40.
Prior
41.
42.
43.
45.
46.
47,
48.
Requirements
A Grading Permit for either rough and/or precise grading, including all on-site fiat work and improvements,
shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to commencement of any construction outside
of the City-maintained street right-of-way.
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.
Ail grading 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 Ternecula mylars.
to Issuance of a Grading Permit
A Grading Plan shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and shall be reviewed and approved bythe
Department of Public Works. The grading plan shall include all necessary erosion control measures
needed to adequately protect adjacent public and private property.
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 Soil Report shall be prepared by a registered Soil or Civil Engineer and submitted to the Director of the
Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The report shall address all soils conditions
of the site, and provide recommendations for the construction of engineered structures and pavement
sections.
The Developer must comply with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. No grading shall be permitted until an
NPDES Notice of Intent (NOI) has been filed or the project is shown to be exempt.
As deemed necessary by the Director of 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
The Developer shall comply with all constraints which may be shown upon an Environmental Constraint
Sheet (ECS) recorded with any underlying maps related to the subject property.
The Developer shall obtain any necessary letters of approval or slope easements for off-site work performed
on adjacent properties as directed by the Department of Public Works.
A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The Area Drainage Plan fee is payable to the Riverside County
Flood Control and Water Conservation District by either cashier's check or money order, prior to issuance of
permits, based on the prevailing area drainage plan fee. If the full Area Drainage Plan fee or mitigation
charge has already been credited to this property, no new charge needs to be paid.
R:~D P~001~PA01-0033 Hank's Hardware + Lumber~STAFFRPT Draft #1.PC,doc
17
49.
The site is in an area identified on the Flood Insurance Rate Map as Flood Zone AE. This project
comply with Chapter 15, Section 15.12 of the City Municipal Code which may include obtaining a
Map Revision from FEMA. A Flood Plain Development Permit shall be submitted to the Departme
Public Works for review and approval.
Prior to
50.
51.
52.
53.
4.
Issuance of a Building Pem~it
Improvement plans and/or precise grading plans shall conform to applicable City of Temecula Standards
subject to approval by the Director of the Department of Public Works. The following design criteria shall be
observed:
a. Flowline grades shall be 0.5% minimum over P.C.C. and 1.00% minimum over A.C. paving.
b. Driveway shall conform to the applicable City of Temecuia Standard No. 207A.
c. Streetiights shall be installed along Diaz Road adjoining the site in accordance with City of
Temecula Standard No. 800.
d. Concrete sidewalks and ramps shall be constructed along public street frontages in accordance with
City of Temecula Standard Nos. 400 and 401.
e. All street and driveway centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees.
f. 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.
The Developer shall construct the following public improvements to City of Temecula General Plan
standards unless otherwise noted. Plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of the Department
of Public Works:
a. Improve Diaz Road (Major Highway Standards - 100' R/W) to include installation of sidewa
b. Improve Rancho Way (Principal Collector Highway Standards - 78' R/W) to include installation
of sidewalk, drainage facility, and utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer).
c. Access ramp at the intersection of Diaz Road and Rancho Way.
d. The Developer shall design and construct or provide a cash deposit for half width raised
landscape median on Diaz Road (Major Highway Standards o 100' PJW) along property frontage.
Plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works.
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 Soil Engineer shall issue a Final Soil Report
addressing compaction and site conditions.
The Developer shall pay to the City the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee as required by, and in
accordance with, Chapter 15.06 of the Temecula Municipal Code and all Resolutions implementing
Chapter 15.06.
The Developer shall record a written offer to participate in, and waive 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.
R:',D P~001~PA01-0033 Hank's Hardware + Lumber~STAFFRPT Draft #1.PC.doc
18
=suance of a Certificate of Occupancy
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 Distdct
· Department of Public Works
56.
All public improvements, shall be constructed and completed per the approved plans and City standards to
the satisfaction cf the Director of the Department of Public Works.
57.
The existing improvements shall be reviewed. Any appurtenance damaged or broken shall be repaired or
removed and replaced to the satisfaction of the Director of the Department of Public Works.
FIRE DEPARTMENT
The Fire Department recommends the following fire protection measures be provided in accordance with the City of
Temecula Ordinances and/or recognized fire protection standards:
58.
Final fire and life safety conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed by the Fire
Prevention Bureau. These conditions will be based on occupancy, use, the Uniform Building Code (UBC),
Uniform Fire Code (UFC), and related codes which are in force at the time of building plan submittal.
59.
The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or construction of all
commercial buildings per UFC Appendix III.A, Table A-Ill-A-1. The developer shall provide for this project, a
water system capable of delivering 1500 GPM at 20 PSI residual operating pressure, plus an assumed
sprinkler demand of 1850 GPM for a total fire flow of 3350 GPM with a 3 hour duration. The required fire
flow may be adjusted during the approval process to reflect changes in design, construction type, or
automatic fire protection measures as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau. The Fire Flow as given
above has taken into account all information as provided. (UFC 903.2, Appendix III.A)
60.
The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set minimum fire hydrant distances per UFC Appendix III.B, Table
A-III-B-1. A combination of on-site and off-site super fire hydrants (6" x 4" x 2-2 D" outlets) shall be located
on Fire Department access roads and adjacent public streets. Hydrants shall be spaced at 400 feet apart
and shall be located no more than 225 feet from any point on the street or Fire Department access read(s)
frontage to a hydrant. ,The required fire flow shall be available from any adjacent hydrant(s) in the system.
The upgrade of existing fire hydrants may be required. (UFC 903.2, 903.4.2, and Appendix Ill-B)
61.
As required by the Uniform Fire Code, when any portion of the building(s) is in excess of 150 feet from a
water supply on a public street, on site fire hydrants are required. For this project on site fire hydrants are
required. (UFC 903.2)
62.
Prior to building final, all locations where structures are to be built shall have approved Fire Department
vehicle access roads to within 150 feet to any portion of the facility or any portion of an exterior wall of the
building(s). Fire Department access roads shall be an all weather surface designed for 70,000 lbs. GVVV
with a minimum AC thickness of .25 feet. ( UFC sec 902 and Ord 95-15)
63.
Fire Department vehicle access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than twenty-four (24)
feet and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than thirteen (13) feet six (6) inches. (UFC 902.2.2.1
and Ord. 95-15)
R:~D P~2001~PA01-0033 Hank's Hardware + Lumber~STAFFRPT Draft #1.PC.doc
19
64. Pdor to building construction, dead end roadways and streets in excess of one hundred and fifty (150)
which have not been completed shall have a turnaround capable of accommodating fire apparatus.
902.2.2.4)
65. Pdor to issuance of building permits, the developer shall furnish one copy of the water system plans to the
Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation. Plans shall be: signed by a registered civil
engineer; contain a Fire Prevention Bureau approval signature block; and conform to hydrant type, location,
spacing and minimum fire flow standards. After the plans are signed by the local water company, the
originals shall be presented to the Fire Prevention Bureau for signatures. The required water system
including fire hydrants shall be installed and accepted by the appropriate water agency prior to any
combustible building materials being placed on an individual lot. (UFC 8704.3,901.2.2.2 and National Fire
Protection Association 24 1-4.1)
66. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, "Blue Reflective Markers" shall be installed
to identify fire hydrant locations. (UFC 901.4.3}
67. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, all commercial buildings shall display street
numbers in a prominent location on the street side of the building. The numerals shall be minimum twelve
(12) inches in height for buildings and six (6) inches for suite identification on a contrasting background. In
strip centers, businesses shall post the suite address on the rear door(s). (UFC 901.4.4 and Ord 95-15)
68. Prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy or building final, based on square footage and type of
construction, occupancy or use, the developer shall install a fire sprinkler system. Fire sprinkler plans shall
be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation. (UFC Article 10, UBC Chapter 9
and Ord 95-15)
69. Pdor to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy or building final, based on a requirement for monitorin
sprinkler system, occupancy or use, the developer shall install an fire alarm system monitored
approved Underwriters Laboratory listed central station. Plans shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention
Bureau for approval prior to installation. (UFC Article 10)
70.
71.
72~
Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, a "Knox-Box" shall be provided. The
Knox-Box shall be installed a minimum of six (6) feet in height and be located to the dght side of the main
entrance door. The Knox-Box shall be supervised by the alarm system. (UFC 902.4)
All manual and electronic gates on required Fire Department access roads or gates obstructing Fire
Department building access shall be provided with the Knox Rapid entry system for emergency access by
firefighting personnel. (UFC 902.4)
Pdor to the building final, speculative buildings capable of housing high-piled combustible stock, shall be
designed with the following fire protection and life safety features: an automatic fire sprinkler system(s)
designed for a specific commodity class and storage arrangement, hose stations, alarm systems, smoke
vents, draft curtains, Fire Department access doors and Fire department access roads. Buildings housing
high-piled combustible stock shall comply with the provisions Uniform Fire Code Article 81 and all applicable
National Fire Protection Association standards. (UFC Article 81)
OTHER AGENCIES
73. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the County of Riverside Department of
Environmental Health's transmittal dated February 8, 2001, a copy of which is attached.
R:~D p~001~PA01-0033 Hank's Hardware + Lumbe~STAFFRPT Draft #1.PC.doc
20
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Rancho Califomia Water District's
transmittal dated February 6, 200.1, a copy of which is attached.
75.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the UCR Information Center letter dated
February 14, 2001, a copy of which is attached.
By placing my signature below, I confirm that I have read, I understand, and I accept all the above mentioned
Conditions of Approval. I further understand that the property shall be maintained in conformance with these
conditions of approval and that any changes I may wish to make to the project shall be subject to Planning
Department approval.
Applicant's Signature
Date
Name printed
R:~D P~2001~PA01-0033 Hank's Hardware + Lumber~STAFFRPT Draft #1.PC.doc
21
~UNTY OF RIVERSIDE. HEATH SERVICES AGENCY
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALT~
February 8, 2001
City of Temecula
P.O. Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
Attention: Michael McCoy
RE: PA01-0033
Dear Mr. McCoy:
The Department of Environmental Health has reviewed the proposed home improvement
center and has no objections. The project will be on sanitary sewer and an approved
piped water source. Prior to any building approvals," will-serve" letters for water and
sewer shall be required.
If you have any questions regarding this letter, please call this office at (909) 955-8980.
Sincerely,
Supervising EHS
Local Entorcement Agency * Rd. Bo>: i280. Riverside. CA 92502-t280 ' {909~ 955-8982 * FAX (909~ 78i-9653 ' 4080 Lemon St~eai. 9th Floor. Riverside. CA 92501
L~d Use and Water Engineering ..O. Box 1206 Riverside CA ~2502-1206 909 955-898f. E~X C0~, 955-890,, * 4080 Lemon S~zeet 2nd Floor. Riverside, CA 92501
February 6, 2001
Michael McCoy, Case Planner
City of Temecula
Planning Department
43200 Business Park Drive
Post Office Box 9033
Temeeula, CA 92589-9033
SUBJECT:
WATER AVAILABILITY
PARCEL NO. 16 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 19582-1
APN 909-270-023
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA01-033
HANK'S HARDWARE AND LUMBER
Dear Mr. McCoy:
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, the customer will need to contact RCWD for fees and
requirements.
Water availability would be contingent upon the property owner signing an
Agency Agreement that assigns water management rights, if any, to RCWD.
~c~ you should have any questions, please contact an Engineering Services
Representative at this office.
Sincerely,
RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT
Steve Brannon, P.E.
Development Engineering Manager
0 BSB:at036~FO 12 -T3~:CF
FEB 7 ?-001
~ALIFORNIA
HISTORICAL
~E$OURCES
INFORMATION
~YSTEM
Eastern Information Center
Deperimerff of ,~hropo~ogy
Unh~ty of Ca~omm
Riverside, CA g2521-O418
Phone (9~) 787-574~
Fax ~30g) 787-54Og
February 14, 2001
TO: Michael McCoy
City of Temecula Planning Department
RE: Cultural Resource Review
Case: PA01-0033 (Hank's Hardware and Lumber)
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 been surveyed for cultural resources and contains or is adjacent to
known cultural resource(s). A Phase I study is recommended.
Based upon existing data the proposed project ares has the potential for containing cultural resources.
A Phase I study is recommended.
A Phase I cultural resource study (MF #
identified one or more cultural resources.
The project area contains, or has the possibility of containing, cultural resources. However, due to the
nature of the project or prior data recovery studies, en adverse effect on cultural resources is not
anticipated. Further study ia not recommended.
t~Phase I cu. ltural resource study (MF #2277 [pert of larger project]) identified no cultural resources within
e project Ooundarias. Further study is not recommended.
There is a Iow probability of cultural resources. Further study is not recommended.
If, during construction, cultural resources are encountered, work should be halted or diverted in the
immediate area while a qualified archaeologist evaluates the finds end makes recommendations.
Due to the archaeological sensitivity of the area, earthmoving during construction should be monitored
by a professional archaeologist.
The submission of e cultural resource management report iS recommended following guJdellnes for
Archaeological Resource Management Reports prepared by the California Office of Historic Preservation,
Preservation Planning Bulletin 4(aJ, December 1989.
Phase I Records search and field survey
Phase Ii Testing [Evaluate resource significance; propose mitigation measures for 'significant" sites.]
Phase III Mitigation [Data recovery by excavation, preservation in place, or a combination of the two.]
Phase IV Monitor earthmoving activities
COMMENTS:
If you have any questions, please contact us.
Eastern Information Center
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
EXHIBITS
R:~) P~001~PA01-0033 Hank's Hardware + Lumber~STAFFRPT Draft #1.PC.doc
22
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO. - Planning Application No. 01-0033 (Development Plan) - Hank's Hardware
EXHIBIT - A
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - May 2, 2001 VICINITY MAP
R:~D P12.001~PA01-0033 Hank's Hardware + Lumber~STAFFRPT Draft #1.PC.doc
14
CITY OF TEMECULA
EXHIBIT B -
DESIGNATION - SC Service Com~ercial
ZONING MAP
~OOOO00000~
~OO000000~
~O000000,
>OO000
)OO00~
~OO00
>O00(
:,OO0¢
~000,
>O00(
~OC
EXHIBIT C -
DESIGNATION - SC Service Commercial
GENERAL PLAN MAPS
CASE NO. - Planning Application No. 01-0033 (Development Plan) - Hank's Hardware
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - May 2, 200t
R:~D p~2001~PA01 ~0033 Hank's Hardware + Lumbe~STAFFRPT Draft #1.PC.doc
15
CITY OF TEMECULA
SITE PLAN KEY NOTES
PARCEL
i
CASE NO. - Planning Application No. 01-0033 (Development Plan) - Hank's Hardware
EXHIBIT- D
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - May 2, 2001 SITE PLAN
R:UD P~2001~PA01-0033 ank s Hardware + Lumber~STAFFRPT Draft #1.PC.croc
H
16
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO. - Planning Application No. 01-0033 (Development Plan) - Hank's Hardware
EXHIBIT - E ELEVATIONS
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - May 2, 200t
R:ND P~2001NPA01-0033 Hank's Hardware + Lumber~STAFFRPT Draft #1.PC.doc
17
CITY OF TEMECULA
!!
CASE NO. - Planning Application No. 01-0033 (Development Plan) - Hank's Hardware
EXHIBIT - F
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - May 2, 2001 FLOOR PLANS
R:~D P~2001~PA01-0033 Hank's Hardware + Lumber~STAFFRPT Draft #1,PC.doc
18
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO. - Planning Application No. 01-0033 (Development Plan) - Hank's Hardware
EXHIBIT - G LANDSCAPE PLAN
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - May 2, 2001
R:~D P~2001~PA01-0033 Hank's Hardware + Lumber~STAFFRPT Draft #1.PC.doc
19
CITY OF TEMECULA
PARCEL 23
?~' ........ PARCEL 16 '",
'1
.PARCEL 15
PAt{CEt. 17
CASE NO. - Planning Application No. 01-0033 (Development Plan) - Hank's Hardware
EXHIBIT - H
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - May 2, 2001 GRADING PLAN
R:~D P~2001~PA01-O033 Hank's Hardware + Lumber~STAFFRPT Draft #1.PC.doc
20
ITEM #5
STAFF REPORT-PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
May 2, 2001
Planning Application No. 01-0147
(Variance)
Prepared By: Rick Rush, Project Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
The Community Development Department - Planning Division Staff
recommends the Planning Commission:
ADOPT a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. PA01-
0147 pursuant to Section 15305 of the California Environmental
Quality Act Guidelines.
2. ADOPT a Resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2001-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 01-
0147 A VARIANCE TO PERMIT A 230 SQUARE FOOT ROOM
ADDITION TO ENCROACH 7 FEET INTO THE REQUIRED 15-
FOOT EXTERIOR SIDE YARD SETBACK, LOCATED AT 30464
BOGART PLACE, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 919-
461-009.
APPLICATIONINFORMATiON
APPLICANT:
PROPOSAL:
LOCATION:
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION:
EXISTING ZONING:
SURROUNDING ZONING:
EXISTING LAND USE:
Rick Ford, 30464 Bogart Place, Temecula, CA 92591
Design and construction of a 230 square foot room addition
to a single-family residence that will encroach 7 feet into the
required 15-foot exterior side yard set back corner side yard
setback.
30464 Bogart Place (APN 919-461-009).
LM (Low Medium Density Residential)
LM (Low Medium Density Residential)
North: LM (Low Medium Density Residential)
South: LM (Low Medium Density Residential)
East: LM (Low Medium Density Residential)
West: LM (Low Medium Density Residential)
Single Family Residence
R:~VAriance~01-0147 Rick FordLStaff report 147pa01.doc
1
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
North: Single Family Residence
South: Single Family Residence
East: Single Family Residence
West: Single Family Residence
PROJECT STATISTICS
Total Area:
Existing Building Area
Proposed Building Area
6,758 square feet
1,700 square feet
1,900 square feet
(.15 acre)
25.1%
28.1%
BACKGROUND
The application was submitted to the Planning Department on March 26 and the project was
deemed complete on April 15, 2001.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant is requesting a Variance for the design and construction of a 230 square foot room
addition that will encroach 7 feet into the ~xterior side yard setback. The applicant is requesting the
variance to accommodate a permanently handicapped family member who will be living with him
long term, and who is solely dependent on the applicant for housing support. The residence is a two
story single-family residence, with all of the bedrooms on the second floor. Granting the variance
will allow the applicant to build a ground level bedroom that will provide handicapped accessibility
and ground level living space.
ANALYSIS
Variance
The Planning Commission may approve a variance if the findings outlined in Code Section
17.04.040 (F) can be made. Staff is aware that handicap accessibility is not a legal basis for
granting a variance, however staff can make the required findings based on legitimate physical site
conditions.
The parcel width is 62 feet, which exceed the typical lot width in the neighborhood of 50 feet. As a
corner lot, and addition on the exterior side will have minimal visual impact on the surrounding
properties, as compared to an interior lot with 5-foot side yard setbacks. In this case, the home has
a 40-foot rear yard setback, which exceeds the minimum required 20 feet; and the combined side
yard setbacks total 23 feet, which exceeds the minimum combined requirement of 15 feet. The
addition will encroach 7-feet into the exterior setback, and the photo-simulation indicates that the
structure will not adversely impact the visual quality ofthe neighborhood. Petitions submitted with
the application indicate broad neighbor support for the request.
Architecture
The proposed design will be architecturally compatible with the existing residence and with the
surrounding residences. The roof tile, stucco, and paint will all match the existing materials. The
preexisting landscaping will screen the majority of the elevation fronting Bogart Street.
R:WAfiance~01 -O147 Ricl( Ford~Staff report 147pa01.doc
2
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Staff has reviewed the project for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. Based
upon staff's review, the proposed project is eligible for a CEQA exemption (Class 5- Minor
Alterations in Land Use Limitations) pursuant to Section 15305 of the CEQA Guidelines based on
the following reasons:
· The proposed project is a minor alteration in land use limitations with an average slope of less
than 20% and does not result in a change to land use or density.
· The proposed project is a side yard set back variance and does not result in the creation of any
new parcel.
EXISTING ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION
The General Plan Land Use designation for the site is Low Medium Density Residential (LM).
Existing zoning for the site is Low Medium Density Residential (LM). A variety of residential uses
are permitted within this zone, with the approval of a Development Plan pursuant to Chapter 17.05
of the Development Code. The project as proposed, meets all other minimum standards of and is
consistent with, the General Plan, Development Code and the Design Guidelines.
SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS
The granting of the variance will recognize the unique placement of the home on the lot and will
prevent unnecessary hardships that might result from a strict or literal interpretation of the Code.
The overall sentiment of the surroundings residents is to support the granting of the variance, Nine
of the Ford's closest neighbors have signed a petition in support of the variance. We believe a
variance for the room addition would be compatible with the nature and quality of surrounding
development, and will represent an attractive addition to the neighborhood.
FINDINGS - VARIANCE
1. There are practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships created by strict application of the
code due to physical circumstances and characteristics of the property that are not shared
by other properties in the zone. Other properties in the zone not on a corner lot are
permitted to have a combined side yard set back of 15 feet. The setback for corner lots in
this zone have created an unnecessary hardship for this property and stdct application of the
code will not afford the applicant the ability have a total of a 15 foot set back shared by the
majority of the other properties in the zone. Construction of a bedroom off the rear of the
home would require relocation and reconfiguration of the kitchen as well.
2. The applicant did not create the circumstances and characteristics for the variance. The
original plotting of the home on the lot created the circumstances and characteristics, which
prevent the ground level construction of a bedroom without major modifications of the home.
3. This variance does not grant special privileges, which are not otherwise available to
surrounding properties and will not be detrimental to the public welfare or to the property of
other persons located in the vicinity. The majodty of the surrounding residences are
permitted to have a total of 15 feet side yard set backs. The design of the project has taken
public welfare and safety into account and will not be in any way detrimental to the public
welfare.
4. The variance places suitable conditions on the property to protect surrounding properties.
5. The variance does not permit uses, which are not otherwise allowed in the Low Medium
Density Residential Zone (LM).
R:\VAdance~01-0147 Rick Ford~Staff report 147pa01.doc
3
Attachments..
PC Resolution - Blue Page 5
Exhibit A. Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 8
Exhibits - Blue Page 11
A. Vicinity Map
B. Zoning Map
C. General Plan
R:\VAriance~01.0147 Rick Ford~Staff report 147pa01,doc
A'I't'ACHMENT NO. 1
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2001-
R:WAriance~01-0147 Rick Ford~Staff report 147pa01.doc 5
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2001-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 01-
0147 A VARIANCE TO PERMIT A 230 SQUARE FOOT ROOM
ADDITION TO ENCROACH SEVEN (7) FEET INTO THE
REQUIRED15 FOOT EXTERIOR SlDEYARD SETBACK LOCATED
AT 30464 BOGART PLACE, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL
NO. 919-461-009.
WHEREAS, Rick Ford filed Planning Application No. 01-0147, in accordance with the City of
Temecula General Plan and Development Code;
WHEREAS, Planning Application No. 01-0147 was processed including, but not limited to
public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application No. 01-0147 on May
2, 2001, at a duly noticed public heating as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and
interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support or opposition to this matter;
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing and after due consideration of the
testimony, the Commission approved Planning Application No. 01-0147;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES
RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby incorporated by
reference.
Section 2. Findin.qs. The Planning Commission, in approving Planning Application No. 01-
0147 hereby makes the following findings as required by Section 17.04.040. (F) of the Temecula
Municipal Code:
There are practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships created by strict application of the
code due to physical circumstances and characteristics of the property that are not shared
by other properties in the zone. Other properties in the zone not on a corner lot are
permitted to have a combined side yard set back of 15 feet. The setback for corner lots in
this zone have created an unnecessary hardship for this property and stdct application of the
code will not afford the applicant the ability have a total of a 15 foot set back shared by the
majority of the other properties in the zone. Construction of a bedroom off the rear of the
home would require relocation and reconflguration of the kitchen as well.
The applicant did not create the cimumstances and characteristics for the variance. The
original plotting of the home on the lot created the circumstances and characteristics, which
prevent the ground level construction of a bedroom without major modifications of the home.
This variance does not grant special privileges, which are not otherwise available to
surrounding properties and will not be detrimental to the public welfare or to the property of
other persons located in the vicinity. The majority of the surrounding residences are
permitted to have a total of 15 feet side yard set backs. The design of the project has taken
public welfare and safety into account and will not be in any way detrimental to the public
welfare.
R:\V^riance~01-0147 Rick Ford~Staff report 147pa01.doc
6
4. The variance places suitable conditions on the property to protect surrounding properties.
5. The variance does not permit uses, which are not otherwise allowed in the Low Medium
Density Residential Zone (LM).
Section 3. Environmental Compliance. A Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. 01-
0147 was made per the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15305 (Minor
Alterations in Land Use Limitations, Class 5). This project is an in-fill development and it meets the
following criteria:
· The proposed project is a minor alteration in land use limitations with an average
slope of less than 20% and does not result in a change to land use or density.
· The proposed project is a side yard set back vadance and does not result in the
creation of any new parcel.
Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby
conditionally approves Planning Application No. 01-0147 for Vadance to build a 230 square foot
room addition located at 30464 Bogart Place, known as Assessors Parcel NO. 919-461-009. The
Conditions of Approval are contained in Exhibit A.
Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning
Commission this 2n~ day of May 2001.
ATTEST:
Ron Guerriero, Chairperson
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss
CITY OF TEMECULA )
I, Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary of the Temecula Planning Commission, do hereby certify that
PC Resolution No. 01- was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City
of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 2nd day of May, 2001, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
R:\VAriance',.01-0147 Rick Ford~Staff report 147pa01.doc
7
EXHIBIT A
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
DEVELOPMENT PLAN
R:\VAriance~01-0147 Rick Ford~Staff ~eport 147pa01.doc
8
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Planning Application No. 01-0147 (Variance)
Project Description:
A variance to permit a 230 square foot room addition to a
single-family residence to encroach seven (7) feet into
the corner side yard setback, located at 30464 Bogart
Place and also known as Assessors Parcel No. 919-461-
009.
DIF Category:
Residential
Assessor Parcel No.:
Approval Date:
Expiration Date:
919-461-009
May 2, 2001
May 2, 2003
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Within Forty-Eight (48) Hours of the Approval of this Project
1. The applicant shall deliver to the Community Development Department- Planning Division a
cashier's check or money order made payable to the County Clerk in the amount of seventy-
eight Dollars ($78.00) for the County administrative fee, to enable the City to file the Notice
of Exemption as provided under Public Resources Code Section 21108(b) and California
Code of Regulations Section 15062. If within said forty-eight (48) hour period the applicant
has not delivered to the Community Development Department - Planning Division 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
2. The permittee/applicant shall indemnify, protect and hold harmless, the City and any agency
or instrumentality thereof, and/or any of its officers, employees, and agents from any and all
claims, actions, or proceedings against the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, or
any of its officers, employees, and agents, to attack, set aside, void, annul, or seek monetary
damages resulting from an approval of the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof,
advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body including actions approved by the voters
of the City, concerning the Planning Application which action is brought within the
appropriate statute of limitations period and Public Resources Code, Division 13, Chapter 4
(Section 21000 et seq., including but not by the way of limitations Section 21152 and 21167).
The City shall promptly notify the permittee/applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding
brought forth within this time period.
R:\VAriance~01-0147 Rick Ford~Staff report 147pa01.doc
9
The City shall estimate the cost of the defense of the action and applicant shall deposit said
amount with the City. City may require additional deposits to cover anticipated costs. City
shall refund, without interest, any unused portions of the deposit once the litigation is finally
concluded. Should the City fail to either promptly notify or cooperate fully,
permittee/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. Should the applicant fail to timely post the required deposit, the Director may
terminate the land use approval without further notice to the applicant.
3. 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.
4. The colors and materials for this project shall substantially conform to the existing colors and
materials used on the residence. Any deviation from these colors and materials shall require
approval of the Director of Planning.
Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits
5. A Consistency Check fee shall be paid per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule.
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
6. All design components shall comply with applicable provisions of the 1998 edition of the
California Building, Plumbing, Mechanical and Fire Codes; 1998 National Electrical Code;
California Administrative Code, Title 24 Energy and Disabled Access Regulations and the
Temecula Municipal Code.
Obtain all building plans and permit approvals prior to commencement of any construction
work.
8. Provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on plans and
structural calculations submitted for plan review.
9. Provide electrical plan including load calculations and panel schedule for plan review.
10. Provide house-electrical meters at each building for the purpose of providing power for fire
alarm systems and exterior lighting.
11. Schematic plumbing plans, electrical plan and load calculations, along with mechanical
equipment and ducting plans shall be submitted for plan review stamped and original signed
by an appropriate registered professional.
By placing my signature below, I confirm that I have read, understand and accept all the above
Conditions of Approval. I further understand that the property shall be maintained in conformance
with these conditions of approval and that any changes I may wish to make to the project shall be
subject to Community Development Department approval.
Applicant's Signature
Name printed
Date
R:\VAriance\01-0147 Rick Ford~Staff report 147pa01.doc
10
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
EXHIBITS
R:\VAriance~01-0147 Rick Ford~Staff report 147pa01.doc 11
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-0t47 (Variance)
EXHIBIT A
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - May 2, 2001
VICINITY MAP
R:Wafiance~01-0147 Rick Ford~Staff report 147pa01.doc
CITY OF TEMECULA I
EXHIBIT B
DESIGNATION - BP (Business Par_.~
ZONING MAP
EXHIBIT C
DESIGNATION - BP [Business Park)
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-00147 (Variance)
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - May 2, 2001
GENERAL PLAN
R:\Vadance~01-0147 Rick Ford~Staff report 147paO1.doc
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
May 2, 2001
Planning Application No, 01-0026
(Conditional Use Permit)
Extended Stay America
Prepared By: Rick Rush, Project Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
The Community Development Department - Planning Division Staff
recommends the Planning Commission:
ADOPT a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. PA01-
0026 pursuant to Section 15332 of the California Environmental
Quality Act Guidelines.
2. ADOPT a Resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2001-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA APPROVING pLANNING APPLICATION NO. 0t-
0026 A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN
FOR A 46,623 SQUARE FOOT HOTEL BUILDING (EXTENDED
STAY AMERICA) AND THE INSTALLATION OF A'rWELVE-FOOT
DIAMETER GROUND.MOUNTED DISH ANTENNA ON A 1.86
ACRE LOT LOCATED AT THE NORHTEAST CORNER OF
OVERLAND AND JEFFERSON, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S
PARCEL NO. 910-310-014 AND 910-310-002.
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
PROPOSAL:
LOCATION:
Extended Stay America Inc., David Rose, 420 McKinley
Street Suite 111-120, Corona, CA 92879.
Design and construction of a 46,623 square foot hotel
building on a 1.86-acre lot and the installation of a 12-foot in
diameter dish antenna.
At the northeast corner of Jefferson and Overland (APN 910,
310-014 and 910-310-002).
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION:
EXISTING ZONING:
SURROUNDING ZONING:
CC (Community Commercial)
CC (Community Commercial)
North: CC (Community Commercial)
R:\C U P~2001~01-0026 Extended Stay Amedca~Staff report 26paO1.doc
1
EXISTING LAND USE:
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
South:
East:
West:
CC (Community Commercial)
CC (Community Commercial)
CC (Community Commercial)
Veterinary Office.
North: Restaurant
South: Restaurant
East: Shopping Center
West: Shopping Center
· PROJECT STATISTICS
Total Lot Area:
Total Building Area:
Building Footprint:
Landscape Araa:
81,074 square feet
46,623 square feet
15,541 square feet
18,911 square feet
(1.86 acro)
.57 FAR
19.1%
23.3%
Parking Required:
Parking Provided:
Building Height:
118 spaces, plus 5 motorcycle & 6 bicycle spaces
116 spaces, plus 5 motorcycle & 12 bicycle spaces (Bicycle
Credit being requested)
47'-4" (3-story)
BACKGROUND
The application was submitted to the Planning Department on January 11, 2001. A Development
Review Committee meeting was held on February 8, 2001, and the project was deemed complete
on Apd110, 2001.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant requests a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and Development Plan approval for a three-
story, 46,623 square foot hotel, and to construct a 12-foot diameter dish antenna on a 1.86-acre site.
Code Section 17.08.090 (a) requires a CUP for hotels in the CC zoning district, and Code Section
17.40.090 (a) requires Planning Commission approval of a CUP for a dish antenna exceeding 10 %
feet in diameter.
The proposed hotel will have 106 rooms ranging in s~e from 310 to 400 square feet. Each room will
be designed for extended stay guests and be furnished with kitchenettes. The hotel will also have a
community boardroom and be offered to non-profit groups at a discount rate. The applicant is
requesting a .27 increase above the target FAR of .30; and a two-space parking deficiency is
requested to be offset with extra bicycle spaces as provided by Code.
ANALYSIS
Use
Staff can make the required CUP findings for the proposed hotel. The use will compliment the
existing retail uses along Jefferson Drive, and is ideally located as a visitor-serving freeway
oriented businesses.
R:~C U P~001~1-0026 Extended Stay America~Staff report 26pa01.doc
2
A Conditional Use Permit is also required to permit the proposed satellite dish to exceed 10 %
feet in diameter, located along the northeast comer of the site adjacent to the freeway. While
the Applicant proposes to construct a 6 foot high block wall and landscaping around the dish,
staff is not convinced that (a) the dish must be as large as being proposed; and (b), that the
vegetation will adequately screen the upper 6-feet of the dish that will be visible above the wall.
Staff has added a condition that the mounting pad of the dish be lowered 6-feet below grade,
and/or berming be placed along the wall in order for the landscaping to be more effective in a
shorter timeframe (see condition #6).
Access and Circulation
The project will take access from a single driveway off of Jefferson Drive approximately 160 feet
north of Overland Drive. Staff requested that the applicant locate their access point as far away
from Overland as possible to prevent vehicle stacking. The access for the site will be limited to a
right in- right out movement. Parking is located along the north and south elevation near the main
and secondary hotel entrances. No parking will be located on the drive aisles fronting Jefferson or
Interstate 15. Extended Stay America is proposing a pedestrian walkway between their project and
the adjacent Hungry Hunter restaurant. This access is subject to negotiations between the applicant
and Hungry Hunter restaurant.
Based on the City's parking standards for hotel and motel uses, there should be a minimum of 118
parking spaces. As designed, the applicant is proposing 116 vehicle-parking stalls, 5 motorcycle
and 12 bicycle spaces. The applicant is required to provide 1 bicycle space for every 20-vehicle
spaces required. Using this requirement the applicant is required to have 6 bicycle spaces. The
applicant is providing 6 additional bicycle spaces (12 total) to meet the off-street parking
requirements. Code Section 17024.040 (E5) allows up to 6 bicycle spaces to be counted at a rate of
three bicycle spaces for one vehicle space required to fulfill off-street parking. Using the Credit
Provision of Bicycle Parking Spaces, the applicant has met the requirements for off-street parking.
Site Desi n/rA chitecture
The minimum required yard area adjacent to an arterial street for the Community Commercial zone
is 15 feet. The proposed building setback along Jefferson is 24 feet and the setback along
Overland is approximately 80 feet. The interior side yard set back is also approximately 80 feet and
the rear yard setback fronting Interstate 45 is 24 feet. The setbacks for the project have greatly
exceeded the minimum required setbacks in the Community Commercial zone. In exceeding the
minimum required setbacks the applicant has located the building in the center of the property,
which adds to the visual quality of the project.
The architecture is similar to the existing Hungry Hunter restaurant building to the north of the
proposed project, with building materials consisting of lap siding, river rock, and a pitched roof. Two
tower elements will be located on the east and west elevation. These tower elements help to break
up the bulk of the building and provide visual interest. The raised roof is also broken up with varying
heights and pitch. Two dormers are located on the north and south elevation to match the existing
dormers used on the Hungry Hunter Restaurant. The applicant is proposing 2 % foot wall offsets
every 40 feet along the south and north elevations. These elements will break up the appearance of
long expansive walls and will create shadowing on the building. The air-conditioning grilles will be
aluminum accent panels and painted green to match the aluminum window frames. Room access is
internal within the building and an access point is located on each elevation. The main entrance of
the building is accentuated with a porte-cochere and a stamped concrete entry plaza to match the
existing river rock. The entrances at the east, west, and south elevation are covered with a pitched
roof.
R:\C U P~001~)1-0026 Extended Stay America~Staff report 26pa01.doc
3
The main materials used are Cultured Stone Veneer, Pioneer Concrete Tile, Stucco, and Wood
Siding. The Stucco color is Doric White and the Wood Siding is Khaki Shade. The accent panels,
aluminum window frames and vents will be painted ESA green.
Landscapin,q
Twenty-three percent (23%) of the site has been landscaped. This exceeds the twenty percent
minimum landscaping requirement in the CC (Community Commemial) zone. The landscape buffer
along the west portion of the property fronting Jefferson is the most visible landscaped area. The
applicant has provided a 10-foot wide planted area that will provide an aesthetically pleasing
streetscape. On both sides of the driveway, decorative stone pilasters will be added to the
landscaped area. The pilasters will be four feet in height with a cap similar to the cap on the tower
elements and match the cultured stone veneer of the building.
The interior side yard landscape area is 5-feet wide and is designed to complement the existing
landscaping on the Hungry Hunter restaurant site. This planting area will consist of 24"-Box pepper
trees and Canary Island Pines and 5-gal photina fraseris and dietas vegatas. The east portion of
the site fronting Interstate 15 has an average 10-foot landscape buffer. An existing Oak tree will
relocated to this portion of the site and pepper trees and Canary island Pines will be planted for
buffering. A 10-foot wide Rancho Water Sewer Easement runs along the area fronting Overland.
No trees will be planted in this area; turf is proposed in this planting area. 24"-Box eucalyptus trees
and turf is proposed for the planters around the building. The eucalyptus trees will help to break up
the mass 0fthe building. A landscaped seating area will be provided at the southwest comer of the
building that will provide guests and employees an area to congregate outside. In addition to the
exceptional landscaping and outside seating area, the applicant has proposed river rock to be
incorporated into the landscaping on the entire site to blend in with the stone on the building. The
City's Landscape Architect has reviewed the Landscape Plan and the applicant has addressed
those comments on the landscape plan.
Floor Area Ratio
The Floor Area Ratio (FAR) for the project is .57, which exceeds the target .30 for the zone. The
Code offers incentives to increase the FAR to 1.0 if the applicant can meet at least one of the
following criteda in Section 17.08.050.
1. The project includes use(s), which provide outstanding and exceptional benefits to the city with
respect to the employment, fiscal, social and economic needs of the community.
2. The project provides exceptional architectural and landscaping design amenities, which reflect
an attractive image and character to the city.
3. The project provides enhanced public facilities that are needed by the city, beyond those
required mitigation impact measures.
The applicant believes that the project meets the criteda for a FAR increase. In their application
packet, the applicant cites the economic benefits of the Transient Occupancy Tax (i.e. bed tax), and
the exceptional architecture and landscape design of the site.
Staff concurs with the applicant and has determined that the project qualifies for a .27 FAR increase.
The combination of plantings, building articulation, meeting room access to non-profit groups at a
discount, and increased tax revenues ensure that this project will be beneficial to the city.
R:\C U P~001~01~0026 Extended Stay America~Staff report 26pa01.doc
4
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Staff has reviewed the project for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. Based
upon staff's review, the proposed project is eligible for a CEQA exemption (Class 32- In Fill Projects)
pursuant to Section 15332 of the CEQA Guidelines based on the following reasons:
· The site is 1.86 acres, which is less than the 5 acres required.
· The proposed development is consistent with the existing development in the area.
· The site has no value as a habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species.
· The site will be adequately served by public utilities and services.
· The Extended Stay America building is being approved pursuant to the zoning and general plan
designations for the site.
EXISTING ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION
The General'Plan Land Use designation for the site is Community Commercial (CC). Existing
zoning for the site is Community Commercial (CC). A variety of commercial uses are permitted
within this zone, with the approval of a Development Plan pursuant to Chapter 17.05 or a
Conditional Use Permit pursuant to Chapter 17.04 of the Development Code. The project as
proposed, meets all minimum standards of and is consistent with, the General Plan, Development
Code and the Design Guidelines.
SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS
The project has been determined by staff to be consistent with applicable City policies, standards
and guidelines. We believe it is compatible with the nature and quality of surrounding development,
and will represent an attractive addition to the City's office/warehouse uses.
FINDINGS- CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (HOTEL)
1. The proposal, a hotel building, is consistent with the land use designation and policies
reflected in the Community Commercial (CC) land use standards in the City of Temecula
General Plan, as well as the development standards for Community Commercial (CC)
contained in the City's Development Code.
2. The proposed conditional use is compatible with the nature, condition and development of
adjacent uses, buildings and structures, and will not adversely affect the adjacent uses,
buildings or structures. The hotel use is consistent with the retail and hotel land use pattern
along Jefferson.
3. The proposed conditional use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the required
yards, walls, fences, parking and loading facilities, buffer areas, landscaping, and other
development features. As conditioned the site plan conforms to the development standards
of the Community Commercial Zoning District.
4. The nature of the proposed conditional use is not detrimental to the health, safety and
general welfare of the community. The building will be inspected for conformance with the
applicable building codes.
R:\C U P~2001~01-0026 Extended Stay Amedca~Staff report 26pa01,doc
5
FINDINGS- CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (DISH ANTENNA)
As conditioned, the 12-foot diameter dish antenna is consistent with the land use
designation and policies reflected in the Community Commercial (CC) land use standards in
the City of Temecula General Plan, as well as the development standards for Community
Commercial (CC) contained in the City's Development Code.
The proposed conditional use is compatible with the nature, condition and development of
adjacent uses, buildings and structures and the proposed conditional use will not adversely
affect the adjacent uses, buildings or structures. The dish will be fully screened using a
combination of depressed footings, block wall and landscaping.
The nature of the proposed conditional use is not detrimental to the health, safety and
general welfare of the community. The use has been reviewed and conditioned to insure the
health, safety, and general welfare of the community.
FINDINGS - DEVELOPMENT PLAN
1. The proposal, a hotel building, is consistent with the land use designation and policies
reflected in the Community Commercial (CC) land use standards in the City of Temecula
General Plan, as well as the development standards for Community Commercial (CC)
contained in the City's Development Code. The site is therefore properly planned and zoned
and found to be physically suitable for the type and density of the development proposed.
The project, as conditioned, is also consistent with other applicable requirements of State
law and local ordinance, including the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City
Wide Design Guidelines, Ordinance No. 655 (Mt. Palomar Lighting Ordinance), the City's
Water Efficient Landscaping previsions, and all applicable fire and building codes.
2. The overall design of the project, including the site, building, parking, circulation and other
associated site improvements, is consistent with and intended to protect the health and
safety of those working in and around the site. The project has been reviewed for, and as
conditioned has been found to be consistent with, all applicable policies, guidelines,
standards and regulations intended to ensure that the development will be constructed and
function in a manner consistent with the public health, safety and welfare. In order to receive
a FAR increase the applicant has added exceptional architecture and landscape design to
the project. They have also cited economic benefits such as the TOT tax that will generate
added tax revenue for the City. In addition to the aforementioned benefits the applicant is
also providing a community boardroom that staff is conditioning to be rented out to non-profit
organizations at a discounted rate.
Attachments:
PC Resolution - Blue Page 7
Exhibit A. Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 11
Exhibits - Blue Page 24
A. Vicinity Map
B. Zoning Map
C. General Plan
D. Site Plan
E. Elevation
F. Landscape Plan
R:\C U P~2001~01-0026 Extended Stay America~Staff report 26pa01.doc
6
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2001-
R:\C U P~2001~1-0026 Extended Stay America~Staff report 26pa01.doc
7
PC RESOLUTION NO. 200'1-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 01-
0026 A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DESIGN AND
DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR A 46,623 SQUARE FOOT HOTEL
BUILDING (EXTENDED STAY AMERICA) AND THE
INSTALLATION OF A TWELVE-FOOT DIAMETER GROUND-
MOUNTED DISH ANTENNA ON A t.86 ACRE LOT LOCATED AT
THE NORHTEAST CORNER OF OVERLAND AND JEFFERSON,
KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 910-310-014 AND 910-
310-002.
WHEREAS, Extended Stay America Inc., flied Planning Application No. PA01-0026, in a
manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code;
WHEREAS, Planning Application No. 01-0026 was processed including, but not limited to
public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission at a regular meeting, considered Planning Application
No. 01-0026 on May 2, 2001 at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the
City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support or opposition
to this matter;
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing and after due consideration of the
testimony, the Commission approved Planning Application No. 01-0026;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES
RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
· Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby incorporated by
reference.
Section 2. Findinqs. The Planning Commission, in approving Planning Application No. 01-
0026 hereby makes the following findings as required by Section 17.05.010.F of the Temecula
Municipal Code:
FINDINGS- CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (HOTEL)
A. 1. The proposal, a hotel building, is consistent with the land use designation and
policies reflected in the Community Commercial (CC) land use standards in the City of Temecula
General Plan, as well as the development standards for Community Commercial (CC) contained in
the City's Development Code.
B. The proposed conditional use is compatible with the nature, condition and
development of adjacent uses, buildings and structures, and will not adversely affect the adjacent
uses, buildings or structures. The hotel use is consistent with the retail and hotel land use pattern
along Jefferson.
C. The proposed conditional use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the
required yards, walls, fences, parking and loading facilities, buffer areas, landscaping, and other
development features. As conditioned the site plan conforms to the development standards of the
Community Commercial Zoning District.
R:~C U P~001~1-0026 Extended Stay Amedca~Staff report 26pa01.doc
8
D. The nature of the proposed conditional use is not detrimental to the health, safety
and general welfare of the community. The building will be inspected for conformance with the
applicable building codes.
Section 3. Findinqs. The Planning Commission, in approving Planning Application No. 01-
0026 hereby makes the following findings as required by Section 17.05.010.F of the Temecula
Municipal Code:
FINDINGS- CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (DISH ANTENNA)
A. The proposal, a 12-feet in diameter dish antenna, is consistent with the land use
designation and policies reflected in the Community Commercial (CC) land use standards in the City
of Temecula General Plan, as well as the development standards for Community Commercial (CC)
contained in the City's Development Code.
B. The proposed conditional use is compatible with the nature, condition and
development of adjacent uses, buildings and structures and the proposed conditional use will not
adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings or structures. The proposed use will be fully screened
using a block wall and landscaping.
C. The nature of the proposed conditional use is not detrimental to the health, safety
and general welfare of the community. The use has been reviewed and conditioned to insure the
health, safety, and general welfare of the community.
Section 2. Findin,qs - Development Plan. The Planning Commission, in approving Planning
Application No. 01-0026 hereby makes the following findings as required by Section 17.05.010.F of
the Temecula Municipal Code:
FINDINGS - DEVELOPMENT PLAN
A. The proposal, a hotel building, is consistent with the land use designation and
policies reflected in the Community Commercial (CC) land use standards in the City of Temecula
General Plan, as well as the development standards for Community Commercial (CC) contained in
the City's Development Code. The site is therefore properly planned and zoned and found to be
physically suitable for the type and density of the development proposed. The project, as
conditioned, is also consistent with other applicable requirements of State law and local ordinance,
including the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City Wide Design Guidelines,
Ordinance No. 655 (Mt. Palomar Lighting Ordinance), the City's Water Efficient Landscaping
provisions, and all applicable fire and building codes.
B. The overall design of the project, including the site, building, parking, circulation and
other associated site improvements, is consistent with and intended to protect the health and safety
of those working in and around the site. The project has been reviewed for, and as conditioned has
been found to be consistent with, all applicable policies, guidelines, standards and regulations
intended to ensure that the development will be constructed and function in a manner consistent
with the public health, safety and welfare. In order to receive a FAR increase the applicant has
added exceptional architecture and landscape design to the project. They have also cited economic
benefits such as the TOT tax that will generate added tax revenue for the City. In addition to the
aforementioned benefits the applicant is also providing a community board room that staff is
conditioning to be rented out to non-profit organizations at a discounted rate.
R:\C u P~2001~01-0026 Extended Stay Amer~ca~Staff report 26paO1,doc
9
Section 4. Environmental Compliance. A Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. 01-
0026 was made per the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15332 (In-Fill
Development Projects, Class 32). This project is an in-fill development and it meets the following
criteria:
· The site is 1.86 acres, which is less than the 5 acres required.
The proposed development is consistent with the existing development in the area.
· The site has no value as a habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species.
· The site will be adequately served by public utilities and services.
· The Extended Stay America hotel building is being approved pursuant to the zoning
and general plan designations for the site.
Section 5. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby conditionally
approves Planning Application No. 01-0026 for a Conditional Use Permit to build a 46,623 square
foot hotel building on a 1.86-acre lot at northeast corner of Jefferson and Overland, known as
Assessors Parcel NO. 910-310-002 and 910-310-014. The Conditions of Approval are contained in
Exhibit A.
Section 6. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED on this 2ND day of May 2001.
ATTEST:
Ron Guerfiero, Chairperson
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss
CITY OF TEMECULA )
I, Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary of the Temecula Planning Commission, do hereby certify that
PC Resolution No. 01-005 was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City
of Ternecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 2r~ day of May, 2001, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
R:~C U P~2001tO1-O026 Extended Stay America~Staff report 26pa01.doc
10
EXHIBIT A
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
DEVELOPMENT PLAN
R:~C U P~2001~01-0026 Extended Stay America~taff report 26pa01.doc
11
Project Description:
DIF Category:
Assessor Parcel No.:
Approval Date:
Expiration Date:
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Planning Application No. 01-0026 (Conditional Use Permit)
The design and construction of 46,623 square foot hotel
building on a 1.86-acre lot, located at the northeast
corner of Jefferson and Overland known as Assessors
Parcel No. 910-310-002 and 910-310-014.
Retail Commercial
910-310-002 and 910-310.014
May 2, 2001
May 2, 2003
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Within Forty-Eight (48) Hours of the Approval of this Project
1. The applicant shall deliver to the Community Development Department - Planning Division a
cashieds check or money order made payable to the County Clerk in the amount of seventy-
eight Dollars ($78.00) for the County administrative fee, to enable the City to file the Notice
of Exemption as provided under Public Resources Code Section 21108(b) and California
Code of Regulations Section 15062. If within said forty-eight (48) hour period the applicant
has not delivered to the Community Development Department - Planning Division 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
2. The permittee/applicant shall indemnify, protect and hold harmless, the City and any agency
or instrumentality thereof, and/or any of its officers, employees, and agents from any and all
claims, actions, or proceedings against the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, or
any of its officers, employees, and agents, to attack, set aside, void, annul, or seek monetary
damages resulting from an approval of the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof,
advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body including actions approved by the voters
of the City, concerning the Planning Application which action is brought within the
appropriate statute of limitations period and Public Resources Code, Division 13, Chapter 4
(Section 21000 et seq, including but not by the way of limitations Section 21152 and 21167).
The City shall promptly notify the permittee/applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding
brought forth within this time period.
R:~ U P~2001 ~01-0026 Extended Stay Amedca~Staff report 26pa01.doc
12
10.
The City shall estimate the cost of the defense of the action and applicant shall deposit said
amount with the City. City may require additional deposits to cover anticipated costs. City
shall refund, without interest, any unused portions of the deposit once the litigation is finally
concluded. Should the City fail to either promptly notify or cooperate fully,
permittee/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. Should the applicant fail to timely post the required deposit, the Director may
terminate the land use approval without further notice to the applicant.
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.
In consideration of the grant of an increase in the Floor Area Ratio, the applicant and any
subsequent owners in interest shall provide the hotel meeting facilities to charitable groups
and non-profit service agencies for a minimum of four days per month at 30% of the hotel's
standard rate for such facilities.
In order to avoid being classified as a residence, the maximum occupancy of any unit by any
customer shall not exceed 30 days.
To properly screen the satellite dish the mounting pad of the dish shall be lowered 6-feet
below grade, and/or berming be placed along the wall in order for the landscaping to be
more effective in a shorter time frame.
The development of the premises shall substantially conform to the approved Exhibit "D'
(Site Plan), contained on file with the Community Development Department - Planning
Division. Additionally, the following criteria must be met prior to development of the project:
a. All ground mounted utility/mechanical equipment shall be located such that they are
not placed in prominent locations visible to the public.
b. Provide the Planning Department with a copy of the underground water plans and
electrical plans for verification of acceptable placement of the transformer and the
double detector check prior to final agreement with the utility companies.
c. The final landscape plan shall include locations of all ground mounted utility/
mechanical equipment and provide suitable screening of that equipment.
Any outside wall-mounted lighting shall be hooded and directed so as not to shine directly
upon adjoining property or public rights-of-way. Those lights shown on the elevation plan as
"typical extedor building lighting" shall be a decorative type complimentary to the building.
Details of these lights shall be submitted to the Planning Department for review prior to
installation.
All parking lot lights and other exterior lighting shall be shown on electrical plans submitted
to the Department of Building and Safety for plan check approval and shall comply with the
requirements of Riverside County Ordinance No. 655.
Building elevations shall substantially conform to the approved Exhibit "E" (Building
Elevations), contained on file with the Community Development Department - Planning
Division. All mechanical and roof-mounted equipment shall be hidden by building elements
that were designed for that purpose as an integral part of the building. When determined to
be necessary by the Director of Planning, the parapet will be raised to provide for this
screening.
R:\C U P~001~01-0026 Extended Stay America~Staff repot[ 26paO1,doc
13
11.
12.
13.
All roof drainage downspouts shall be internalized and architecturally integrated within the
wall of the structure so as not to be visible from the outside of the building.
Landscaping shall substantially conform to the approved Exhibit "F' (Landscape Plan).
Landscaping installed for the project shall be continuously maintained to the reasonable
satisfaction of the Director of Planning. If it is determined that the landscaping is not being
maintained, the Director of Planning shall have the authority to require the property owner to
bring the landscaping into conformance with the approved landscape plan. The continued
maintenance of all landscaped areas shall be the responsibility of the developer or any
successors in interest.
The colors and materials for this project shall substantially conform to the following list of
approved colors and materials and with the Color and Material Board contained on file with
the Community Development Department - Planning Division. Any deviation from the
approved colors and materials shall require approval of the Director of Planning.
Material
Windows Frames and Gdlls
Paint Color A
Paint Color B
Concrete Tile Roof
Cultured Stone Veneer
Color
Sherman Williams ESA Green
Sherman Williams Doric White SW 1151
Sherman Williams Khaki Shade 1127
Blackwood Blend OSL-521
Spring Standard CSV-2070
Prior to the Issuance of Grading Permits
14. The applicant shall sign both copies of the final conditions of approval that will be provided
by the Community Development Department - Planning Division staff, and retum one signed
set to the Community Development Department - Planning Division for their files.
15. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 8.24 of the Temecula Municipal
Code (Habitat Conservation) by paying the appropriate fee set forth in that Ordinance or by
providing documented evidence that the fees have already been paid.
16. The applicant shall submit to the Community Development Department - Planning Division
for permanent filing two (2) 8" X 10" glossy photographic color prints of the approved Color
and Materials Board and of the colored version of approved Exhibit "E", the colored
architectural elevations to the Community Development Department - Planning Division for
their files. Ail labels on the Color and Materials Board and Elevations shall be readable on
the photographic prints.
17. All compact-parking spaces shall be marked for "COMPACT CARS ONLY."
Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits
18. A Consistency Check fee shall be paid per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule.
19. Three (3) copies of Construction Landscaping and Irrigation Plans shall be submitted to the
Community Development Department - Planning Division for approval. These plans shall
conform substantially with the approved Exhibit "F", or as amended by these conditions. The
location, number, genus, species, and container size of the plants shall be shown. The
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. The plans shall be
accompanied by the following items:
a. Appropriate filing fee (per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule at time of submittal).
b. One (1) copy of the approved grading plan.
R:~C U P~2001~01-0026 Extended Stay America~Staff report 26pa01.doc
14
c. Water usage calculations per Chapter 17.32 of the Development Code (Water
Efficient Ordinance).
d. Total cost estimate of plantings and irrigation (in accordance with the approved
plan).
Prior to the Issuance of Occupancy Permits
20. All required landscape planting and irrigation shall have been installed consistent with the
approved construction plans and shall be in a condition acceptable to the Director of
Planning. The plants shall be healthy and free of weeds, disease, or pests. The irrigation
system shall be properly constructed and in good working order.
21. Performance securities, in amounts to be determined by the Director of Planning, to
guarantee the maintenance of the plantings, in accordance with the approved construction
landscape and irrigation plan shall be flied with the Community Development Department -
Planning Division for one year from final certificate of occupancy. After that year, if the
landscaping and irrigation system have been maintained in a condition satisfactory to the
Director of Planning, the bond shall be released.
22. A permanently affixed reflectorized sign constructed of porcelain on steel, beaded text or
equal, displaying the International Symbol of Accessibility, shall identity each parking space
reserved for the handicapped. The sign shall not be smaller than 70 square inches and
shall be centered at the interior end of the parking space at a minimum height if 80 inches
from the bottom of the sign to the parking space finished grade, or centered at a minimum
height of 36 inches from the parking space finished grade, ground, or sidewalk. A sign shall
also be posted in a conspicuous place, at each entrance to the off-street parking facility, not
less than 17 inches by 22 inches, clearly and conspicuously stating the following:
"Unauthorized vehicles parked in designated accessible spaces not
displaying distinguishing placards or license plates issued for
persons with disabilities may be towed away at owner's expense.
Towed vehicles may be reclaimed by telephoning 909 696-3000."
In addition to the above requirements, the surface of each parking place shall have a
surface identification sign duplicating the Symbol of Accessibility in blue paint of at least 3
square feet in size.
23. All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use allowed
by this permit.
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
24. 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 site plan all
existing and proposed property lines, easements, traveled ways, improvement constraints
and drainage courses, and their omission may require the project to be resubmitted for
further review and revision.
General Requirements
25. A Grading Permit for either rough and/or precise grading, including all on-site fiat work and
improvements, shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to
commencement of any construction outside of the City-maintained street right-of-way.
26. 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.
R:\C U P~2001~01-0026 Extended Stay Amedca~Staff report 26pa01.doc
15
27. An Encroachment Permit shall be obtained from the California Department of Transportation
prior to commencement of any construction within an existing or proposed State right-of-
way.
28. All improvement plans, grading plans, and raised landscaped median 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 Issuance of a Grading Permit
29. A Grading Plan shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and shall be reviewed and
approved by the Department of Public Works. The grading plan shall include all necessary
erosion control measures needed to adequately protect adjacent public and private property.
The Developer shall post secudty and enter into an agreement guaranteeing the grading and
30.
erosion control improvements in conformance with applicable City Standards and subject to
approval by the Department of Public Works.
31, A Soil Report shall be prepared by a registered Soil or Civil Engineer and submitted to the
Director of 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.
32. 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.
33. The Developer shall have a Drainage Study prepared by a registered Civil Engineer in
accordance with City Standards identifying storm water runoff expected from this site and
upstream of this site. The study shall identify all existing or proposed public or private
drainage facilities intended to discharge this runoff. The study shall also analyze and identify
impacts to downstream properties and provide specific recommendations to protect the
properties and mitigate any impacts. Any upgrading or upsizing of downstream facilities,
including acquisition of drainage or access easements necessary to make required
improvements, shall be provided by the Developer.
34. 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.
35. As deemed necessary by the D rector of the Department of Public Works, the Developer
shall receive written clearance from the following agencies:
a. Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District
b. Planning Department
c. Department of Public Works
d. Southern California Edison
e. Eastern Municipal Water Distdct
36. 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.
37. permanent landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department
and the Department of Public Works for review and approval.
R:\C U P~001~01-0026 Extended Stay America~Staff repo¢ 26pa01.doc
16
41.
42.
43.
38. The Developer shall obtain any necessary letters of approval or slope easements for off-site
work performed on adjacent properties as directed by the Department of Public Works.
39. A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The Area Drainage Plan fee is payable to the
Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District by either cashier's check or
money order, pdor to issuance of permits, based on the prevailing area drainage plan fee. if
the full Area Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge has already been credited to this
property, no new charge needs to be paid.
Prior to Issuance of a Building Permit
40. Improvement plans and/or precise grading plans shall conform to applicable City of
Temecula Standards subject to approval by the Director of the Department of Public Works.
The following design criteria shall be observed:
a) Flow line grades shall be 0.5% minimum over P.C.C. and 1.00% minimum over A.C.
paving.
b) Driveways shall conform to the applicable City of Temecula Standard No. 207A.
c) Concrete sidewalks and ramps shall be constructed along public street frontages in
accordance with City of Temecu a Standard Nos. 400. 401and 402.
d) Improvement plans shall extend 300 feet beyond the project boundaries.
e) All street and ddveway centeriine intersections shall be at 90 degrees.
f) Public Street improvement plans shall include plan and profile showing existing
topography, utilities, proposed centerline, top of curb and flow line grades.
g) Landscaping shall be limited in the comer cut-off area of all intersections and adjacent to
driveways to provide for minimum sight distance and visibility.
h) All concentrated drainage directed towards the public street shall be conveyed through
under sidewalk drains.
The Developer shall construct the following public improvements to City of Temecula
General Plan standards unless otherwise noted. Plans shall be reviewed and approved by
the Director of the Department of Public Works:
a) Improve Jefferson Avenue along property frontage (Major Highway Standards - 100'
R/W) t.o include installation of raised landscaped median.
b) The Developer shall design and construct the full width raised landscape median on
Jefferson Avenue, (Major Highway Standards - 100' RA/V) from the intersection of
Jefferson Avenue and Overland Road to a point beyond the property frontage, as
determined by the City Engineer. The constructed median beyond property frontage may
be eligible for Development Impact Fee (D.I.F.) credits. The design of the median shall
be coordinated with the City's Traffic Division. The Developer shall apply for D.I.F. Fee
Reduction in accordance with City Ordinance No. 97-09.
All street improvement design shall provide adequate right-of-way and pavement transitions
per Caltrans' standards for transition to existing street sections.
The Developer shall construct the following public improvements in conformance with
applicable City Standards and subject to approval by the Director of the Department of
Public Works.
a) Street improvements, which may include, but not limited to: pavement, curb and gutter,
medians, sidewalks, drive approaches, street lights, signing, striping, traffic signal
systems, and other traffic control devices as appropriate
R:~C U P~001~01-0026 Extended Stay Amedca~Staff report 26pa01.doc
17
b) Storm drain facilities
c) Sewer and domestic water systems
d) Under grounding of proposed utility distribution lines
44. A construction area Traffic Control Plan shall be designed by a registered Civil or Traffic
Engineer and reviewed by the Director of the Department of Public Works for any street
closure and detour or other disruption to traffic circulation as required by the Department of
Public Works.
45. 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 Soil Engineer
shall issue a Final Soil Report addressing compaction and site conditions.
46. The Developer shall pay to the City the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee as
required by, and in accordance with, Chapter 15.06 of the Temecula Municipal Code and all
Resolutions implementing Chapter 15.06.
Prior to Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy
47. As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive
written clearance from the following agencies:
a. Rancho California Water Distdct
b. Eastern Municipal Water District
c. Department of Public Works
48. Corner property line cut off shall be required per Riverside County Standard No. 805.
49. All public improvements shall be constructed and completed per the approved plans and
City standards to the satisfaction of the Director of the Department of Public Works.
50. The existing improvements shall be reviewed. Any appurtenance damaged or broken shall
be repaired or removed and replaced to the satisfaction of the Director of the Department of
Public Works.
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
51. All design components shall comply with applicable provisions of the 1998 edition of the
California Building, Plumbing, Mechanical and Fire Codes; 1998 National Electrical Code;
California Administrative Code, Title 24 Energy and Disabled Access Regulations and the
Temecula Municipal Code.
52. Demolition of the existing water well shall e done in conjunction with the riverside County
Environmental Health Department and completed prior to the issuance of a grading permit.
53. A demolition perm will be required for the removal of the existing veterinary building, barn
and other out-buildings. This shall include inspection through the final inspection process
prior to the issuance of a building permit.
54. A sound transmission control study shall be prepared and submitted at time of plan review in
accordance with the provisions of Appendix Chapter 12, Section 1208A, of the 1998 edition
of the California Building Code.
55. Submit at time of plan review, a complete exterior site lighting plan showing compliance with
Palomar Lighting Ordinance No. 655 for the regulation of light pollution. All streeflights and
other outdoor lighting shall be shown on electrical plans submitted to the Department of
Building and Safety. Any outside lighting shall be hooded and directed so as not to shine
directly upon adjoining property or public rights-of-way.
R:\C U P~2001~01-0026 Extended Stay Amefica~Staff report 26pa01.doc
18
56. Obtain all building plans and permit approvals pdor to commencement of any construction
work.
57. A pre-construction meeting is required with the building inspector prior to commencement of
any construction or inspections.
58. Disabled access from the public way to the main entrance of the buildings is required. The
path of travel shall meet the California Disabled Access Regulations in terms of cross slope,
travel slope, stripping and signage. Provide all details on plans. (California Disabled
Access Regulations effective April 1, 1998). Provide precise grading plan for plan check
submittal to check for handicap accessibility
59. All buildings shall comply with the applicable provisions of the California Disabled Access
Regulations effective April 1, 1998. Provide the proper number of disabled parking
spaces located as close as possible to the main entries in accordance with California
building Code Table 11B-6. Provide a site plan as requested above which indicates
compliance with this.
60. Roll-in showers for the disabled shall be evenly dispersed over all floors.
61. Provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on plans and
structural calculations submitted for plan review.
62. Provide electrical plan including load calculations and panel schedule for plan review.
63. Provide house-electrical meters at each building for the purpose of providing power for fire
alarm systems and exterior lighting.
64. Schematic plumbing plans, electrical plan and load calculations, along with mechanical
equipment and ducting plans shall be submitted for plan review stamped and original signed
by an appropriate registered professional.
65. Obtain street addresses from the Building Official prior to submittal of plans for plan review.
66. $ignage shall be posted conspicuously at the entrant to the project that indicates the hours
of construction, shown below, as allowed by City of Temecula Ordinance No. 0-90-04,
specifically Section G (1) of Riverside county Ordinance No. 457.73, for any site within one-
quarter mile of an occupied residence.
Monday-Friday 6:30 a.m. - 6:30 p.m.
Saturday 7:00 a.m.- 6:30 p.m.
No work is permitted on Sunday or Government Holidays
67. Provide an approved automatic fire sprinkler system.
68. Restroom fixtures, number and type shall be in accordance with the provisions of the 1998
edition of the California Building Code, Appendix Chapter 29.
69. Provide an approved precise grading plan for plan check submittal for checking of site-
disabled accessibility.
FIRE DEPARTMENT
70. Final fire and life safety conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed by
the Fire Prevention Bureau. These conditions will be based on occupancy, use, the
Califomia Building Code (CBC), California Fire Code (CFC), and related codes which are in
force at the time of building plan submittal.
R:~C U P~001 ~01-0026 Extended Stay America~Staff report 26pa01.doc
19
71. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or
construction of all commercial buildings per CFC Appendix III.A, Table A-III-A-1. The
developer shall provide for this project, a water system capable of delivering 2000 GPM at
20 PSI residual operating pressure, plus an assumed sprinkler demand of 800 GPM for a
total fire flow of 2800 GPM with a 4 hour duration. The required fire flow may be adjusted
dudng the approval process to reflect changes in design, construction type, or automatic fire
protection measures as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau. The Fire Flow as given
above has taken into account all information as provided. (CFC 903.2, Appendix Ill-A)
72. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set minimum fire hydrant distances per CFC
Appendix Ill-B, Table A-III-B-1. A minimum of 4 hydrants, in a combination of on-site and off-
site (6" x 4" x 2-2 1/2" outlets) on a looped system shall be located on fire access roads and
adjacent to public streets. Hydrants shall be spaced at 380 feet apart, at each intersection
and shall be located no more than 210 feet from any point on the street or Fire Department
access road(s) frontage to an hydrant. The required fire flow shall be available from any
adjacent hydrant(s) in the system. The upgrade of existing fire hydrants may be required.
(CFC 903.2, 903.4.2, and Appendix Ill-B).
73. As required by the California Fire Code, when any portion of the facility is in excess of 150
feet from a water supply on a public street, as measured by an approved route around the
exterior of the facility, on-site fire hydrants and mains capable of supplying the required fire
flow shall be provided. For this project on site fire hydrants are required. (CFC 903.2)
74. Maximum cul-de-sac length shall not exceed 1320 feet. Minimum turning radius on any cul-
de-sac shall be forty-five (45) feet. (CFC 902.2.2.2.3 and Subdivision Ord 16.03.020)
75. if construction is phased, each phase shall provide approved access and fire protection prior
to any building construction. (CFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2)
76. Pdor to building construction, all locations where structures are to be built shall have
approved temporary Fire Department vehicle access roads for use until permanent roads
are installed. Temporary Fire Department access roads shall be an all weather surface for
80,000 lbs. GVW. (CFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2.2)
77. Prior to building final, all locations where structures are to be built shall have approved Fire
Department vehicle access roads to within 150 feet to any portion of the facility or any
portion of an exterior wall of the building(s). Fire Department access roads shall be an all
weather surface designed for 80,000 lbs. GVVV with a minimum AC thickness of .25 feet. (
CFC sec 902)
78. Fire Department vehicle access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than
twenty-four (24) feet and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than thirteen (13)
feet six (6) inches. (CFC 902.2.2.1)
79. The gradient for a fire apparatus access roads shall not exceed f'~een (15) percent. (CFC
902.2.2.6 Ord. 99-14)
80. Prior to building construction, dead end road ways and streets in excess of one hundred and
fifty (150) feet which have not been completed shall have a turnaround capable of
accommodating fire apparatus. (CFC 902.2.2.4)
81. Prior to building construction, this development shall have two (2) points of access, via all-
weather surface roads, as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau. (CFC 902.2.1)
R:\C U P~001~01-0026 Extended Stay Amedca~Staff repo~l 26pa01.doc
2O
82. Prior to issuance of building permits, the developer shall furnish one copy of the water
system plans to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation. Plans shall be
signed by a registered civil engineer; contain a Fire Prevention Bureau approval signature
block; and conform to hydrant type, location, spacing and minimum fire flow standards. After
the plans are signed by the local water company, the originals shall be presented to the Fire
Prevention Bureau for signatures. The required water system including fire hydrants shall be
installed and accepted by the appropriate water agency pdor to any combustible building
materials being placed on an individual lot. (CFC 8704.3, 901.2.2.2 and National Fire
Protection Association 24 1-4.1 )
83. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, "Blue Reflective Markers"
shall be installed to identify fire hydrant locations. (CFC 901.4.3)
84. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, approved numbers or
addresses shall be provided on all new and existing buildings in such a position as to be
plainly visible and legible from the street or road fronting the property. Numbers shall be of a
contrasting color to their background. Commercial, multi-family residential and industrial
buildings shall have a minimum twelve (12) inches numbers with suite numbers a minimum
of six (6) inches in size. All suites shall gave a minimum of six (6) inch high letters and/or
numbers on both the front and rear doors. Single family residences and multi-family
residential units shall have four (4) inch letters and/or numbers, as approved by the Fire
Prevention Bureau. (CFC 901.4.4)
85. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, a directory display
monument sign shall be required for hotel, apartment, condominium, townhouse or mobile
home parks. Each complex shall have an illuminated diagrammatic layout of the complex
which indicates the name of the complex, all streets, building identification, unit numbers,
and fire hydrant locations within the complex. Location of the sign and design specifications
shall be submitted to and be approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau pdor to installation.
86. Prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy or building final, based on square footage and
type of construction, occupancy or use, the developer shall install a fire sprinkler system.
Fire sprinkler plans shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to
installation. (CFC Article 10, CBC Chapter 9)
87. Prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy or building final, based on a requirement for
monitoring the sprinkler system, occupancy or use, the developer shall install an fire alarm
system monitored by an approved Underwriters Laboratory listed central station. Plans shall
be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation. (CFC Article 10)
88. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, a "Knox-Box" shall be
provided. The Knox-Box shall be installed a minimum of six (6) feet in height and be located
to the right side of the main entrance door. (CFC 902.4)
89. All manual and electronic gates on required Fire Department access roads or gates
obstructing Fire Department building access shall be provided with the Knox Rapid entry
system for emergency access by fire fighting personnel. (CFC 902.4)
90. Prior to final inspection of any building, the applicant shall prepare and submit to the Fire
Department for approval, a site plan designating Fire Lanes with appropriate lane painting
and or signs.
R:\C U P~001~01-0026 Extended Stay Amedca~Staff report 26pa01.doc
21
S eci~l Conditions
91. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final a simple plot plan and a
simple floor plan, each as an electronic file of the .DWG format must be submitted to the
Fire Prevention Bureau. Alternative file formats may be acceptable, contact fire prevention
for approval.
92. The applicant shall comply with the requirements of the Fire Code permit process and
update any changes in the items and quantities approved as part of their Fire Code permit.
These changes shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for review and approval per
the Fire Code and is subject to inspection. (CFC 105)
TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT
93. The property owner or private tenant(s) shall maintain all perimeter landscaping and
parkways.
94. Class II Bike lanes shall be provided on Jefferson Ave. and completed in concurrence with
road improvements required for this development.
95. Prior to building permits a set of landscape plans for the proposed raised medians shall be
reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Services.
96. Pdor to building permits the developer shall enter into an improvement agreement and post
securities for the landscaped median on Jefferson Ave.
97. Installation of the landscape improvements within the medians shall commence pursuant to
a pre-job meeting with the TCSD Maintenance Superintendent and monitored in accordance
with the TCSD inspection process.
If additional streetlights are to be installed, due to this project, the following condition will apply.
98. Prior to issuance of Building permits or installation of streetlights, whichever comes first, the
developer shall file an application with the TCSD and pay the appropriate energy fess
related to the transfer of said streetlights into the TCSD maintenance program.
Prior to issuance of Certificates of Occupancy:
99. The landscape improvements within the raised landscape medians shall be completed to
TCSD standards.
OTHER AGENCIES
100. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Rancho Caiifornia
Water District's transmittal dated January 25, 2001, a copy of which is attached.
101. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the County of Riverside
Department of Environmental Health's transmittal dated January 25, 2001, a copy of which is
attached.
102. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Eastern Information
Center's transmittal dated January 24, 2001, a copy of which is attached.
By placing my signature below, I confirm that I have read, understand and accept all the above
Conditions of Approval I further understand that the property shall be maintained in conformance
with these conditions of approval and that any changes I may wish to make to the project shall be
subject to Community Development Department approval.
R:\C U P~001~01-0026 Extended Stay Amedca~Staff report 26pa01.doc
22
Applicant's Signature
Name printed
Date
R:\C U P~2001~01-0026 Extended Stay Amedca~Staff report 26pa01.doc
23
January 25, 2001
Rick Rush, Case Planner
City of Temecula
Planning Department
43200 Business Park Drive
Post Office Box 9033
Temeeula, CA 92589-9033
SUBJECT:
WATER AVAILABILITY
PORTIONS OF LOT 116 OF THE TEMECULA RANCHO
APN 910-310-002 AND APN 910-310-014
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA01-0026
Dear Mr. Rush:
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.
Please note that there is an existing private well on this property. RCWD will
require that this well be abandoned prior to the establishment of water service per
Health Department Standards.
If fire protection is required, the customer will need to contact RCWD for fees and
requirements.
Water availability would be contingent upon the property owner signing an
Agency Agreement that assigns water management rights, if any, to RCWD.
if you should have any questions, please contact an Engineering Services
Representative at this office.
Sincerely,
RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT
Steve Brannon, P.E.
Development Engineering Manager
0 l~B:at025~F012-T I ~FCF
C: Laurie Williams, Engineering Services Supervisor
Bud Jones, Project Manager / Sr. Engineering Technician
- DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
January 25, 2001
City of Temecula Planning Department
P.O. Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589
RE: Conditional Use Permit No. PA01-0026
Dear Rick Rush:
1. The Department of Environmental Health has reviewed the Conditional Use Permit No. PA01-0026 and has
no objections. Sanitary sewer and water services may be available in this area.
2. PRIOR TO ANY PLAN CI-IECK SUBMITTAL for health clearance, the following items are required:
a) "Will-serve" letters from the appropriate water and sewering agencies.
b) A clearance letter from the Hazardous Services Materials Management Branch (909) 358-5055 will be
required indicating that the project has been cleared for:
· Underground storage tanks, Ordinance #617.4.
· Hazardous Waste Generator Services, Ordinance #615.3.
· HaTardous Waste Disclosure (in accordance with Ordinance #651.2.
· Waste Reduction Management
3. Waste Regulation Branch (Waste Collection/Lea).
4. Destruction of any water well(s) shall require permit approval from the Water Engineer Section of
Environmental Health.
Sincerely,
Martinez, Superv~s~'S~nmental Health Specialist
SM:dr
(909) 955-8980
NOTE:
review for f'mal Department of Environmental Health clearance.
Cc: Doug Thompson, Ha?ardous Materials
Any current additional reqmrements not covered can be applicable at time of Building Plan
1 ZOO1
3y
~ALIF~)RNIA
HISTORICAL
RESOURCES
INFORMATION
~YSTEM
Eastern Infom'mtJon Ce~er
Riverside, CA 92521-0418
PhOne (909) 787-57~
Fax (90~) 7~?-5409
January24, 2001
TO: Rick Rush
City of Temecula Planning Department
RE: Cultural Resource Review
Case: PA01-0026
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 propoasd project area has not been surveyed for cuit~,ra, I resources and containe or is adjaoent to
-- known cultural resource(si. A Phase I study ts recommenoeo.
Based upon existing data the proposed project area has the potential for containing cultural resources.
A Phase I study is recommended.
V' A Phase I cultural resource study (MF 8991 [part of larger project]) identified a portion of site CA-RIV-644
~ located within the project boundades.
The project area contains, or has the possibility of containing, cu tufa resources. However, due to the
"' nature of the project or prior dare recovery studies, an adverse effect on cultural resources is not
anticipated. Further study is not recommended.
A Phase I cultural resource study (MF 8 ) identified no cultural resources. Further study is not
recommended.
V' There is a Iow probability of additional significant cultural resources. Further study is not recommended.
V' If, during construction, cultural resources are encountered, work should be halted or diverted in the
~ immediate area while a qualified archaeologist evaluates the finds and makes recommendations.
Due to the archaeological sensitivity of the area, earthmoving during construction should be monitored
~ by a professional archaeologist.
The subm ssion of a cultural resource management report is recommended following guidelines for
-- Archaeological Resource Management Reports prepared by the California Office of Historic Preservation,
Preserverion Planning Bulletin 4(e), December 1989.
Phase I Records search and field survey
--Phase II Testing [Evaluate resource s gnificance; propose m t gallon measures fo.r "significa, n,t' $itas.,~
--Pheselll Mitigati~n[Datarac~veryb~~xcevati~n~preservsti~ninp~ace~~rac~moinati~n~~tnetw~~!
--Phase IV Monitor earthmoving activities
COMMENTS: Prior, intensive investigation (MF#127) of site CA-RIV-644 resulted in the
recommendation that additional, significant cultural resources are unlikely to be present in
the immediate project area. Further resource inventory and/or evaluation work does not,
therefore, appear to be necessary. However, a ~luslified .a,[chaeologist should be consulted
in the event that previously unknown and potentially sigmflcant resources are exposed as a
result of construction activities within the project area.
If you have any questions, please contact us.
Eastern Information Center
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
EXHIBITS
R:\C U P~001~01-0026 Extended Stay Amedca~Staff report 26pa01.doc
24
CITY OF TEMECULA
Project Site
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 01-0026 (Conditional Use Permit)
EXHIBIT A
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - May 2, 2001
VICINITY MAP
R:~C U P~2001~01-0026 Extended Stay Amedca~Staff report 26pa01.doc
25
CITY OF TEMECULA
EXHIBIT B
DESIGNATION - BP [Business Park.~
ZONING MAP
EXHIBIT C
DESIGNATION - BP (Business Park)
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 0t-0026 (Conditional Use Permit)
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - May 2, 2001
GENERAL PLAN
R:~C U P~001~31-0026 Extended Stay Amedca~Staff report 26pa01.doc
26
CITY OF TEMECULA
[:::r ....Extended Stay America
~.
...... ~, Temecula, California #8844
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 01-0026 (Development Plan)
EXHIBIT D
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - May 2, 2001
SITE PLAN
R:~C U P~2001~01-0026 Extended Stay Amefica~.Staff report 26pa01.doc
27
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 0t-0026 (Conditional Use Permit)
EXHIBIT E
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - May 2, 2001
R:~C U P~2001~01-0026 Extended Stay Amedca~Staff report 26pa01.doc
28
ELEVATIONS
CITY OF TEMECULA
1/,
PLANT LIST
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 01-0026 (Conditional Use Permit)
EXHIBIT F
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - May 2, 2001
LANDSCAPE PLAN
R:\C U P~2001~01-0026 Extended Stay America~Staff report 26paOl.doc
29
ITEM #7
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
May 2, 2001
Planning Application No. 00-0272
(Extension of Time Appeal)
Prepared By: Thomas Thornsley, Associate Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
The Director of Planning recommends the Planning Commission:
ADOPT a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. 00-0272
(Extension of Time) based on the Determination of Consistency with
a project for which an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was
previously certified pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 -
Subsequent EIR's and Negative Declarations.
2. ADOPT a Resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 2001-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CiTY
OF TEMECULA DENYING THE APPEAL OF PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. PA00-0272 (EXTENSION OF TIME-APPEAL),
UPHOLDING THE DIRECTOR OF PLANNING'S DECISION TO
APPROVE PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA00-0272 THE FIFTH
AND FINAL EXTENSION OF TIME FOR VESTED TENTATIVE
TRACT MAP No. 23143 FOR THE REMAINING 696 SINGLE
FAMILY LOTS AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF PAULA ROAD
AND BUTrERFIELD STAGE ROAD, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S
PARCELS NO. 952-020-009, -012, -013, -015, -016, & -020 AND
952-030-012, -013, & -014.
or, ADOPT a Resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 2001-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA APPROVING THE APPEAL OF PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. PA00-0272 (EXTENSION OF TIME-APPEAL),
AMENDING THE DIRECTOR OF PLANNING'S APPROVAL AS
CONDITIONED FOR PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA00-0272,
THE FIFTH AND FINAL EXTENSION OF TIME FOR VESTED
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 23143, FOR THE REMAINING 696
SINGLE FAMILY LOTS AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF
PAULA ROAD AND BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD, KNOWN AS
ASSESSOR'S PARCELS NO. 952-020-009, -012, -013, -015, -016,
& -020 AN D 952-030-012, -013, & -014.
R:'~E O 'i"~00-0272 tt23143 5th~Appeal Report.doc
1
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT: Roger Jaeger, 41325 Billy Joe Lane, Temecula, CA 92592
PROPOSAL: An Appeal of the Director of Planning's Decision to approve Planning
Application No. PA00-0272, an Extension of Time for Vested Tentative Tract
No. 23143.
LOCATION: At the southwest comer of Paula Road and Butterfield Stage Road (known
as Crowne Hill).
BACKGROUND:
Vested Tentative Tract Map No. 23143 is one of two subdivision maps (the other is VTT 26941)
making up the area known as Crowne Hill (or Crowne Meadows) subdivision with 1,026 residential
lots. This map was first approved on August 16, 1988, by the County Board of Supervisors. In 1992,
after the incorporation of the City of Temecula, this map was amended and the first phase of the
map was recorded. Since that time, the map has received five extensions of time. In 1999, three
phases of the map were recorded and 249 homes were built. At this time there are 696 residential
lots that need to be recorded prior to August 16, 2001.
On February 15, 2001, the Director of Planning approved Planning Application No. PA00-0272, an
Extension of Time for Vested Tentative Tract No. 23143 (v'l-r 23143). This is the fifth and finial
extension of time allowed for the remaining 696 unrecorded lots within this tract. A number of
neighboring residences attended the public hearing and on March 2, 2001, Roger Jaeger, a private
citizen, filed a formal appeal of the Director of Planning's decision on this project, (See Attachment
2) citing concerns over the clearing of the property.
DISCUSSION:
At the Director's Hearing, the appellant and several other neighboring homeowners raised issues
regarding the development of this property and the clearing and grading of over 300 acres. The
developer had explained that they plan to clear the entire subdivision acreage of the existing
vegetation and grade all the remaining areas of VTT 23143. Comments were made regarding the
necessity to clear and grade such a large area at one time, and the long term unsightliness of the
denuded hillsides and the dust blowing off the bare land.
As part of the approval of the Extension of Time, the Director of Planning added a condition of
approval to insure that all reasonable methods of dust control and/or soil erosion have been
incorporated into the grading plan. This is in addition to original conditions that required interim
landscaping or other erosion control measures (Attachment 6, COA# 20.B.), and the installation of
common area landscaping prior to the release of the first building final in each phase (Attachment 6,
COA# 7.A.).
APPEAL ANALYSIS:
In filing his appeal request, Mr. Jaeger has cited the need for conditions to regulate the clearing of
the property, the timing of development, and the replacement of vegetation. A copy of the Appeal
application is included as an attachment. Following is a summary analysis of his appeal points and
the staff and City Attorney response.
R:~E O T~0-0272 tt23143 5thV~ppeal Report.doc
2
"Conditions need to be placed on cleadng of property and amount of time allowed to develop or
replace vegetation."
Response: The City has no jurisdiction over the clearing (grubbing) of property, but does require
that an erosion control plan be prepared prior to the issuance of a grading permit.
Currently there are conditions of approval on this project that will address grading
and unfinished areas. There are no City regulations that limit the amount of land that
can be graded at any one time, nor how soon graded property should be developed.
The City Attorney believes that the approved conditions are sufficient, considering
the current ordinances and the fact that the map is vesting.
"Developer has stated he (she) intends to strip land to dirt to avoid potential future threatened
species found on the property to interrupt his project. It is impossible to comply with all the AQMD
requirements and Water Quality issues on a s~te th/s la g .
Response: A condition of approval for this project required a biological assessment of the
property for the California gnatcatcher to be provided to the Fish and Wildlife Service
(F&WS) with mitigation measures acceptable to this agency. The applicant worked
with the F&WS on an acceptable mitigation measure to permit development of the
property. On December 4, 2000, the owners were issued an Endangered Species
Act incidental take permit (10a) for the gnatcatcher. This permit clears the way for
the owner to develop the property and is valid for 30 years.
Staff has contacted Air Quality Management District (AQMD) and understands that
the developer must prepare or file a fugitive dust control plan prior to the
commencement of grading. The contact person at AQMD indicated the removal of
the existing vegetation would be self defeating because the existing vegetation is the
best form of dust control. As for the City, Public Works requires the developer file A
Notice of intent with/and receive clearance from the State Water Resources Control
Board prior to issuance of a grading permit.
Desired action to be taken. "That grading permits should be required prior to clearing and that no
property will remain uncleared for more that 12 months."
Response: Once sufficient erosion control measures are in place, there is no legal basis to
specify the time frame for construction.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
This project is within the Crowne Hill subdivision for which the Butterfield Stage Ranch Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) No. 230 was prepared and certified. Under California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15162 (Subsequent EIRs and Negative
Declarations) this project is exempt and a Notice of Exemption has been prepared for Planning
Application No. 00-0301.
Section 15162 applies when an EIR has been certified or negative declaration adopted for a project,
no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for that project unless there are substantial changes not
discussed or examined in the EIR.
The request for an Extension of Time is only requesting to maintain the original approval of the map
R:~E O T~O-0272 tt23143 5thV~opeal Report.doc
3
meets the criteria noted by remaining consistent Crowne Hills' original approval and intended land
use for residential development. Therefore, the proposed project is eligible for a CEQA exemption
pursuant to Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines.
RECOMMENDATION:
In considering the appeal, the Planning Commission has two options:
Uphold the Director of Planning decision to approve the project and deny the appeal of
Planning Application No. PA00-0272. The resolution to deny the appeal is contained in
Attachment No. 1.
Approve the Appeal of Planning Application No. PA00-0272 for the Extension of Time and
modify the conditions of approval that will satisfy the appellant's concerns.
The City Attorney believes that the conditions of approval adequately address the appellant's
concern to the extent that City ordinances permit, and staff recommends that the Planning
Commission deny the appeal and uphold the Director's approval as conditioned.
Attachments:
4.
5.
6.
o
Planning Commission Resolution No. 2001 -_ - To Deny the Appeal of PA00-0272 - Blue
Page 5
Exhibit A - Blue Page 8
Planning Commission Resolution No. 2001-_ - To Approve the Appeal of PA00-0272 -
Page 9
Exhibit A - Blue Page 12
Appeal of the Director of Planning Decision - Blue Page 13
Staff Report to the Director of Planning dated February 15, 2001 - Blue Page 14
Minutes of the Director of Planning hearing of February 15, 2001 - Blue Page 16
Conditions of Approval dated July 16, 1992 for V-I-T #23143, Revised No. 1, Amended No. 5,
Second Extension of Time - Blue Page 17
Exhibits - Blue Page 19
A. Vicinity Map
B. Zoning Map
C. General Plan
D. Site Plan
Appellant correspondences received April 24, 2001 - Blue Page 13
R:',E O T~00-0272 tt23143 5th~opeal Report.doc
AI'~ACHMENT NO. 1
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2001- ,.
TO DENY THE APPEAL OF PA01o0272 (EXTENSION OF TIME - APPEAL)
R:~E O T~00-0272 tt23143 5th~ppeal Report.doc 5
A~'I'ACHMENT NO. 1
RESOLUTION NO. 2001-_
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA DENYING THE APPEAL OF PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. PA00-0272 (EXTENSION OF TIME-APPEAL),
UPHOLDING THE DIRECTOR OF PLANNING'S DECISION TO
APPROVE PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA00-0272 THE FIFTH
AND FINAL EXTENSION OF TIME FOR VESTED TENTATIVE
TRACT MAP NO. 23143 FOR THE REMAINING 696 SINGLE
FAMILY LOTS ATTHE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF PAULA ROAD
AND BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S
PARCELS NO. 952-020-009, -012, -013, -015, -016, & -020 AND
952-030-012, -013, & -014.
WHEREAS, Crowne Meadows L.P., initiated Planning Application No. PA00-0272
(Extension of Time), in accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code;
WHEREAS, Planning Application No. PA00-0272 (Extension of Time) was processed
including, but not limited to public notice, in the timely manner prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, notice of the proposed Extension of Time was posted at City Hall, Temecula
Library, Pujol Street Community Center, and the Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce;
WHEREAS, the Director of Planning considered Planning Application No. PA00-0272
(Extension of Time) on February 15, 2001, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at
which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in
support or opposition to this matter;
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Director's'hearing and after due consideration of the
testimony, the Director approved PA00-0272 (Extension of Time);
WHEREAS, an Appeal was filed on March 2, 2001 requesting that Planning Application No.
PA00-0272 (Extension of Time - Appeal) be brought before the Planning Commission for their
consideration;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission received a copy of the Director's Hearing proceedings
and Staff Reports regarding Planning Application No. PA00-0272 (Extension of Time); and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing pertaining to Planning
Application No. PA00-0272 (Extension of Time - Appeal) on May 2, 2001, at which time interested
persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support or opposition to Planning Application
No. PA00-0272;
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing and after due consideration of the
testimony, the Commission voted to deny the appeal of Planning Application No. 00-0272
(Extension of Time - Appeal) upholding the Director of Planning's approval as conditioned;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES
RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
R:~E O 'r~00-0272 tt23143 5th~Appeal Report.doc
Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby incorporated by
reference.
Section 2. Environmental Compliance. A Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No.
00-0272 was made per the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15162. This
section applies when an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been certified and there are no
substantial changes to the project; no new significant environmental effects requiring revision of the
EiR; and the EIR is deemed adequate for the project being considered.
Section 3. Findinqs. The Planning Commission, in approving Planning Application No. 00-
0272 hereby concludes that the original findings for Vested Tentative Tract Map 23154 still apply.
Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission, in denying the
Appeal, hereby approves Planning Application No. 00-0272 for an Extension of Time for Vested
Tentative Tract Map No. 23143 for the remaining 696 single family lots at the southeast corner of
Paula Road and Butterfield Stage Road, known as Assessor's Parcels No. 952-020-009, -012, -013,
-015, -016, & -020 and 952-030-012, -013, & -014 as conditioned at the Director's Hearing. The
Conditions of Approval are contained in Exhibit A.
Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning
Commission this 2n~ day of May, 2001.
ATTEST:
Ron Guerriero, Chairperson
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
(SEAL}
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss
City of Temecula )
I, Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary of the Temecula Planning Commission, do hereby certify that
PC Resolution No. 01- was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City
of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 2~ day of May, 2001, by the following vote:
AYES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
NOES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
R:~E O 'r~00-0272 tt23143 5th',Appeal Report.doc
EXHIBIT A
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA01-0272
FIFTH EXTENSION OF TIME
FEBRUARY 15, 2001
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
R:LE O 'T~00-0272 tt23143 5thLa, ppeal Report.doc
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Planning Application No. PA00-0272 (Fifth Extension of Time)
Project Description: Extension of Time Request for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23143
located East of Buttedield Stage Road and south of Pauba Road.
Assessor's Parcel No.:
Approval Date:
Effective Date:
Expiration Date:
952-020-009,-012,-013,-015,-016, & -020
952-030-012,-013, &-014
Febmary 15,2001
August16,2000
August16,2001
PLANNING DEPARTMENT:
General Requirements
1. Vested Tentative Tract Map 23143 has been extended for one year and will expire on August
16, 2001. This is the fifth and final Extension of Time for this map. This map will expire at
this time unless it has been recorded in compliance with the Temecula Subdivision Ordinance,
Chapter 16.24 of the City of Temecula's Development Code.
The applicant shall comply with all underlying conditions of approval for Vesting Tentative Tract
Map No. 23143 previously applied including but not limited to the original conditions of approval
dated August 16, 1988, the Second Extension of Time approved July 16, 1992, the Third
Extension of Time (Planning Application No. PA98-0250) approved September 17, 1998, the
Fourth Extension of Time (Planning Application No. PA99-0208) approved September 13, 1999,
and/or others unless superseded by these conditions of approval.
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. PA00-0272 (5tn Extension of Time). 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.
The tentative subdivision shall comply with the State of California Subdivision Map Act and to all
the requirements of Chapter 16 of the Development Code unless modified by the conditions
listed below.
5. Any delinquent property taxes shall be paid prior to recordation of the final map.
6. The final map shall conform substantially to Vesting Tentative Tract Map 23143 dated March 13,
1990, and a copy filed with Planning Application No. PA99-0208 dated May 26, 1999.
PUBLIC WORKS:
The Department of Public Works has reviewed the Conditions of Approval for Vested Tentative
Tract Map No. 23143 and finds that the Conditions of Approval for the Second Extension of Time,
R:~E 0 T~0-0272 ~23143 5th~COA.doc
Conditions of Approval
PA00-0272 (5~ Extension of Time)
VTT 23143
February 15, 2001
approved by the City of Temecula Planning Department on July 16, 1992 should be modified as
shown (in their original numbering sequence) with additions in bold and deletions struck as follows:
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT- LAND DEVELOPMENT DIVISION
The following Department of Public Works Conditions of Approval are to amend, supersede orto be
added to the previously approved development conditions for this project, and shall be completed at
no cost to any Government Agency. All questions regarding the true meaning of the conditions shall
be referred to the appropriate staff person of the Department of Public Works.
It is understood that the Subdivider has correctly shown on the amended tentative map all existing
and proposed easements, traveled ways, improvements constraints and drainage courses, and their
omission may require the project to be resubmitted for further review and revision.
59. The Developer shall comply with the State of California Subdivision Map act, and all
applicable City Ordinances and Resolutions.
60. The final map shall be prepared by a licensed land surveyor or registered Civil Engineer, -
subject to all the requirements of the State of California Subdivision Map Act and
Ordinance No. 460.
PR!OR TO R=-CORD.~.T!O.H OF TH=- F!.~!~L .~."..~.P:
61. 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.
(Added at Directors Hearing on July 16, 1992).
62. Pedestrian access walks with adequate easements shall be provided from the ends of
cul-de-sacs or knuckles at the following locations: San Juan Court to Butterfield Stage
Road; Swoboda Court to Park Site "D"; and Cherokee Way, John Way and Rudy Court,
all to Crowne Hill Drive. (Added at Directors Hearing on July 16, 1992).
PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF THE FINAL MAP:
63. The developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies:
· Rancho California Water District;
· Eastern Municipal Water District;.
· Riverside County Flood Control District;
· City of Temecula fire Bureau;
· Planning Department
· Engineering Department;
· Riverside County Health Department;
· CATV Franchise; and
· Temecula Community Services Department
64. All road easements and/or street dedications shall be offered for dedication to the public
and shall continue in force until the City accepts or abandons such offers. All
dedications shall be free from all encumbrances as approved by the City Engineer.
65. Northshire Circle, Yew Wood Place, Linda Court, Stage Court, Wakeene Circle,
Wyandotte Street, Rudy Court, Janda Court, Paola Court, Faber Court, Topeka Court,
Gatehead Court, Majestic Court, Regents Hill, Vandamere Court, Esser Court, Monroy
R:~E O T~0-0272 tl23143 5th\COA. doc
Conditions of Approval
PA00-0272 (5th Extension of Time)
VTT 23143
February 15, 2001
66.
67.
68.
69.
70.
71.
72.
73.
74.
75.
76.
Cimle, Hill Street, Pampa Court, Fiji Way, Suva Lane, Stanko Circle, Meade Circle, Oslo
Circle, Jolene Circle, Devant Circle, Drennon Court, Sparks Court, Dupont Circle,
Swoboda Court, Aden Circle, Tiempo Circle, John Way, Trestle Circle, Drennon Circle,
Hussar Court, Trini Court, San Juan Court, Jolle Court, San Jose Court, Pliance Way,
wy,, Street, G Circle; Cinnamon Lane, Atchison Drive, Bigh Court, Paraguay Drive, Brsil
Lane, Whistle Court, Cherokee Way, Wristle Court, Peppermint Lane, Rainmaker
Avenue, Tonga Way, Sam Way, Soko Court, Soko Circle, Corddua Circle, F Circle,
Munich Circle, Peru Lane, and Berlin Way shall be improved with 40 Feet of asphalt
concrete pavement, or bonds for the street improvements may be posted, within the
dedicated right-of-way in accordance with City of Temecula Standard No. 104, Section
A (40'/60').
Swartz Way, Lima Street, Crowne Hill Drive, Castle Way, Trestle Street, and Royal Crest
Place shall be improved with 44 feet of asphalt concrete pavement, or bonds for the
street improvements may be posted, within the dedicated right-of-way in accordance with
City of Temecula Standard No. 103, Section A (44'/66').
Pauba Road shall be improved with 32 feet of half street improvement plus one 12' lane,
or bonds for the street improvements may be posted, within a 44' dedicated right-of-way
in accordance with County Standard No. 102 (64'/88').
Butterfield Stage Road shall be improved with 43 feet of half street improvement plus
one 12' lane, or bonds for the street improvements may be posted, within a 55'
dedicated right-of-way in accordance with City of Temecula Standard No.100 (86'/110').
In the event that Royal Crest Place, Pauba Road, Butterfield Stage Road, and Crowne
Hill Drive are not constructed by Assessment District 159 prior to final map recordation,
the developer shall construct or bond for the required improvements. The improvements
shall be constructed prior to occupancy.
Vehicular access shall be restricted on Pauba Road, Butterfield Stage Road, and
Crowne Hill Drive and so noted on the final map.
The subdivider shall construct or post security and an agreement shall be executed
guaranteeing the construction of the following public improvements in conformance with
applicable City standards:
a. Street improvements, including, but not limited to: pavement, curb and gutter,
sidewalks, drive approaches, street lights, signing, striping, traffic signal systems,
and other traffic control devices as appropriate.
b. Storm drain facilities.
c. Sewer and domestic water systems.
The street design and improvement concept of this project shall be coordinated with
adjoining developments.
Street lights shall be provided along streets adjoining the subject site in accordance with
the City of Temecula Standard Nos. 800, 801,802, and 803.
The minimum centerline radii shall be 300 feet or as approved by the City Engineer.
All street centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees or as approved by the City
Engineer.
A minimum centerline street grade shall be 0.50 percent.
R:~E 0 ?~0-0272 t~23143 5th~COA.doc
Conditions of Approval
PA00-0272 (5th Extension of Time)
V'[T 23143
February 15, 2001
77. The subdivider shall submit four prints of a comprehensive grading plan to the
ply ~ C
Engineering Department. The plan shall com with the U:!fcrm Bu!!d!~ cdc .....
~-~ latest provision of the Uniform Building Code, and as may be additionally
provided for in these Conditions of Approval. The plan shall be drawn on 24" x 36" mylar
by a Registered Civil Engineer.
78. The subdivider shall submit four copies of a soils report to the Engineering Department.
The report shall address the soils stability and geological conditions of the site.
79. A drainage study shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer. All drainage
facilities shall be installed as required by the City Engineer.
80. On-site drainage facilities, located outside of road right-of-way, shall be contained within
drainage easements shown on the final map. A note shall be added to the final map
stating "Drainage easements shall be kept free of buildings and obstructions."
81. A drainage easement or a letter of ~permission to accept drainage" shall be obtained
from the affected property owners for the release of concentrated or diverted storm flows
onto the adjacent property. A copy of the recorded drainage easement shall be
submitted to the City for review prior to the recordation of the final map.
82. The subdivider shall protect downstream properties from damages caused by alteration
of the drainage patterns; i.e., concentration or diversion of flow. Protection shall be
provided by constructing adequate drainage facilities, including enlarging existing
facilities or by securing a drainage easement.
83. Prior to final map, the subdivider shall notify the Cites CATV Franchises of the Intent to
Develop. Conduit shall be installed to CATV Standards at time of street improvements.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING PERMITS:
84. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, developer must comply with the requirements of
the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit form the State
Water Resources Control Board. No grading shall be permitted until a NPDES clearance
is granted or the project is shown to be exempt. (Added at Directors Hearing on July 16,
1992).
85. Prior to any work being performed in public right-of-way, fees shall be paid and an
encroachment permit shall be obtained from the City Engineer's Office.
86. A grading permit shall be obtained from the Engineering Department prior to
commencement of any grading outside of the City-maintained road right-of-way.
87. A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The charge shall equal the prevailing Area
Drainage Plan fee rate multiplied by the area of new development. The charge is
payable to the Flood Control District prior to issuance of permits. If the full Area Drainage
Plan fee or mitigation charge has already credited to this property, no new charge needs
to be paid.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMIT:
88. The Developer shall pay to the City the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee as
required by, and in accordance with, Chapter 15.06 of the Temecula Municipal Code and
all Resolutions implementing Chapter 15.06 DIF Condition.
R:~ O T~0-0272 tt23543 5th\COA.doc
Conditions of Approval
PA00-0272 (5"~ Extension of Time)
VTT 23143
February 15, 2001
89. A precise grading plan shall be submitted to the Engineering Department for review and
approval. The building pad shall be approved by a registered Civil Engineer for location
and elevation, and the Soil Engineer shall issue a Final Soils Report addressing
compaction and site conditions.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY:
90. Construct full street improvements including but not limited to, curb and gutter, A.C.
pavement, sidewalk, drive approaches, parkway trees and street lights on all interior
public streets.
91. Asphaltic emulsion (fog seal) shall be applied not less than 14 days following placement
of the asphalt surfacing and shall be applied at a rate of 0.05 gallon per square yard.
Asphalt emulsion shall conform to Section Nos. 37, 39, and 94 of the State Standard
Specifications.
CONDITIONS 92 THROUGH 94 WERE ADDED AT DIRECTORS HEARING ON JULY 16,
1992.
~;~;*~" ...... = .... ;~ "~"+ · .... *~* .... "= ........_ (Deleted at Directors Hearing on
July 16, 1992).
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT- TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING DIVISION
PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF THE FINAL MAP:
=';bm[~c!. ,q'his condition has been revised. See Condition 110 under Prior to
Issuance of Occupancy Permits).
95. Bus bays will be provided at all existing and future bus stops as determined by the
Department of Public Works and the Riverside Transit Agency (RTA).
96. A signing and striping plan shalt be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and
approved by the City Engineer for all internal streets with a curb separation of 44' or
more. For internal streets with a curb separation of 40' or less, only a signing plan for
each tract shall be required.
R:~E 0 T~0-0272 ~3143 5fll~COA.doc
Conditions of Approval
PA00-0272 (5t~ Extension of Time)
VTT 23143
February 15, 2001
· - ........ + ~ ...... ;'k *~ ...... "~' ~^~> ~"~;**~ ~his condition has been
revised. See Condition 110 under Prior to Issuance of Occupancy Permits).
98. When the Tract Map is phased, a minimum of 2 points of all weather vehicular ingress
and egress, with a 28' minimum width, shall be required for each phase unless otherwise
approved by the City Engineer.
99. Sight distance calculations shall be required for each proposed intersection, and shall
conform with the CaITrans sight distance standards.
100. In the event the Rancho Villages Assessment District No. 159 does not fully improve
Butterfield Stage Road from Rancho California Road to SR79 South, Royal Crest Place
from Butterfield Stage Road to Crowne Hill Drive, Crowne Hill Drive from Pauba Road to
Butterfield Stage Road, and Pauba Road from Via Del Monte to Buttedield Stage Road,
then the Developer may ............................... = ....................... , be el,glble
for DIF Credits for the amount over the developer's pro rata percentage of the design
and construction costs of:
A. Signing and striping plans prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and approved by
the City Engineer for Butterfield Stage Road from Rancho California Road to SR79
South, Crowne Hill Drive from Pauba Road to Butterfield Stage Road, Royal Crest
Place from Butterfield Stage Road to Crowne Hill Drive, and Pauba Road from Via
Del Monte to Buttedield Stage Road.
B. Traffic signal plans prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and approved by the City
Engineer for the ultimate signal locations at Butterfield Stage Road and Rancho
California Road: Butterfield Stage Road and Pauba Road; Butterfield Stage Road
Portola Road, Bu ............
C. Traffic signal interconnect plans prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and
approved by the City Engineer for Butterfield Stage Road from Pauba Road to De
Portola Road.
D. The raised medians on Buttedield Stage Road from Pauba Road to De Portola Road
shall include 250' of left turn storage capacity with 120' of approach transition or as
determined by the Director of Public Works during design, for the intersections with
Royal Crest Place, Crowne Hill Drive and De Portola Road. All other street
improvements including but not limited to asphalt concrete pavement and
aggregate base, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, shall be constructed
on Butterfield Stage Road between the north and south tract boundary lines.
E. The striping plan for Pauba Road to include a left turn land for Crowne Hill Drive.
101. A school zone signing and striping plan shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer
and approved by the City Engineer for the school site within this project. This will be
separate from the street improvement plans and will cover any and all streets necessary
to provide the appropriate signing and striping.
102. Prior to designing any of the above plans, contact Transportation Engineering for the
design requirements.
R:~E 0 T~00-0272 tt23143 5th~COA.doc
Conditions of Approval
PA00-0272 (5~ Extension of Time)
VTT 23143
February 15, 2001
PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF ANY ENCROACHMENT PERMITS:
102. A construction area traffic control plan shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer
and approved by the City Engineer for any street closure and detour or other disruption to
traffic circulation as required by the City Engineer.
PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF OCCUPANCY PERMITS:
CONDITIONS 104 AND 105 WERE ADDED AT DIRECTORS HEARING ON JULY 16, 1992.
104. The subdivider shall provide "stop" controls at the intersection of local streets with
arterial streets and collector streets as directed by the Department of Public Works.
105. Landscaping shall be limited in the corner cut-off area of all intersections and adjacent to
driveways to provide for minimum sight distance.
106. All signing and striping shall be installed per the approved signing and striping plan.
107. All traffic signals shall be installed and operational per the special previsions and the
approved traffic signal plan ;';~cc '::'- ;.-cc'.c..d. as specified under Condition 110 but not
later than issuance of occupancy for the final phase.
108. All school zone signing and striping shall be installed per the approved school zone
signing and striping plan prior to occupancy of the school site.
109. All traffic signal interconnect conduit and cable along Butterfield Stage Road from Pauba
Road to De Portola Road shall be installed per the approved plan at the time of street
improvements.
110. Plans for a traffic signal shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and
approved by the Department of Public Works for the intersection of Buttarfield
Stage Road at Pauba Road and shall be included in the street improvement plans.
The traffic signal may be installed at the discretion of the Director of Public Works.
Plans for a traffic signal shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and
approved by the Department of Public Works for the intersection of Butterfield
Stage Road at Royal Crest Place. A traffic signal shall be installed prior to
issuance of the 150th occupancy not including occupancy of Phase 2, 3, and 4,
unless additional traffic studies support delaying the installation or whenever
Royal Crest Place is constructed to Butterfield Stage Road, whichever comes first.
Plans for a traffic signal shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and
approved by the Department of Public Works for the intersection of Pauba Road
and Crowne Hill Drive. A traffic signal shall be installed prior to issuance of the
504th occupancy not including occupancy of Phase 2, 3, and 4, unless additional
traffic studies support delaying the installation or whenever Crowne Hill Drive is
constructed to Pauba Road, whichever comes first.
Plans for a traffic signal shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and approved
by the Department of Public Works for the intersection of Butterfield Stage Road at
Crowne Hill Drive. A traffic signal shall be installed prior to issuance of the 20th
occupancy on the extension of Crowne Hill Drive. This 20th occupancy is not inclusive of
Phase 2, 3, and 4 occupancy.
R:',E O 3~0-0272 It23143 5th'COA.doc
Conditions of Approval
PA00-0272 (5= Extension of Time)
VTT 23143
February 15, 2001
111.
Prior to issuance of grading permits the Public Works and Planning Departments
shall insure that all reasonable methods of dust control and/or soil erosion have
been incorporated into the plan. (Added at Director's Hearing 2/15/01)
FIRE DEPARTMENT:
7. All previous conditions of approval still apply,
COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT:
8. All previous conditions of approval still apply.
OTHER AGENCIES:
9. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Rancho California Water
District's transmittal dated July 28, 2000, a copy of which is attached.
10. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the California Department of
Transportation's transmittal dated August 9, 2000, a copy of which is attached.
have read, understand and accept the above Conditions of Approval.
Applicant's Signature
Print Name
R:~E 0 T~00~272 tt23143 5th~COA.doc
AI'FACHMENT NO. 2
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2001-
TO APPROVE PA01-0272 (EXTENSION OF TIME APPEAL)
R:~E O T~00-0272 tt23143 5th~ppeal Repod.doc
9
A'rrACHMENT NO. 2
RESOLUTION NO. 2001-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA APPROVING THE APPEAL OF PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. PA00-0272 (EXTENSION OF TIME-APPEAL),
AMENDING THE DIRECTOR OF PLANNING'S APPROVAL AS
CONDITIONED FOR PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA00-0272,
THE FIFTH AND FINAL EXTENSION OF TIME FOR VESTED
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 23143, FOR THE REMAINING 696
SINGLE FAMILY LOTS AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF
PAULA ROAD AND BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD, KNOWN AS
ASSESSOR'S PARCELS NO. 952-020-009, -012, -013, -015, -016,
& -020 AND 952-030-012, -013, & -014.
WHEREAS, Crowne Meadows L.P., initiated Planning Application No. PA00-0272
(Extension of Time), in accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code;
WHEREAS, Planning Application No. PA00-0272 (Extension of Time) was processed
including, but not limited to public notice, in the timely manner prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, notice of the proposed Extension of Time was posted at City Hall, Temecula
Library, Pujol Street Community Center, and the Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce;
WHEREAS, the Director of Planning considered Planning Application No. PA00-0272
(Extension of Time) on February 15, 2001, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at
which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in
support or opposition to this matter;
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Director's hearing and after due consideration of the
testimony, the Director approved PA00-0272 (Extension of Time);
WHEREAS, an Appeal was filed on March 2, 2001 requesting that Planning Application No.
PA00-0272 (Extension of Time - Appeal) be brought before the Planning Commission for their
consideration;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission received a copy of the Director's Hearing proceedings
and Staff Reports regarding Planning Application No. PA00-0272 (Extension of Time); and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing pertaining to Planning
Application No. PA00-0272 (Extension of Time - Appeal) on May 2, 2001, at which time interested
persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support or opposition to Planning Application
No. PA00-0272;
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing and after due consideration of the
testimony, the Commission voted to approve the appeal of Planning Application No. 00-0272
(Extension of Time - Appeal) amending the Director of Planning's approval as conditioned;
R:~E 0 T~DO-0272 tt23143 5th'v~ppeal Report.doc
10
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES
RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby incorporated by
reference.
Section 2. Environmental Compliance. A Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No.
00-0272 was made per the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15162. This
section applies when an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been certified and there are no
substantial changes to the project; no new significant environmental effects requiring revision of the
EIR; and the EIR is deemed adequate for the project being considered.
Section 3. Findinqs. The Planning Commission, in approving Planning Application No. 00-
0272 hereby concludes that additional conditions of approval are needed in order to make the
findings of consistency with the original findings Vested Tentative Tract Map 23143.
Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby
conditionally approves Planning Application No. 00-0272 for an Extension of Time for Vested
Tentative Tract Map No. 23143 for the remaining 696 single family lots at the southeast corner of
Pauia Road and Butterfield Stage Road, known as Assessor's Parcels No. 952-020-009, -012, -013,
-015, -016, & -020 and 952-030-012, -013, & -014. The Conditions of Approval are contained in
Exhibit A.
Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecuia Planning
Commission this 2n~ day of May, 2001.
ATTEST:
Ron Guerriero, Chairperson
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
{SEAL}
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss
City of Temecula )
I, Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary of the Temecula Planning Commission, do hereby certify that
PC Reso ution No. 01- was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City
of Temecula at a reguiar meeting thereof held on the 2"d day of May, 2001, by the following vote:
AYES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
NOES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
ABSTAIN:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
R:~E O 'r~0-0272 tt23143 5th"~,ppeal Report,doc
11
EXHIBIT A
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA01-0272
FIFTH EXTENSION OF TIME - APPEAL
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
R:',E 0 "1'~0-0272 tt23143 5th'V~opeal Report,doc
12
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Planning Application No. PA00-0272 (Fifth Extension of Time)
Project Description: Extension of Time Request for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23143
located East of Butterfield Stage Road and south of Pauba Road.
Assessor's Parcel No.:
Approval Date:
Effective Date:
Expiration Date:
952-020-009, -012, -013, -015, -016, & -020
952-030-012, -013, & -014
February 15, 2001
August 16, 2000
August 16, 2001
PLANNING DEPARTMENT:
General Requirements
Vested Tentative Tract Map 23143 has been extended for one year and will expire on August
16, 2001. This is the fifth and final Extension of Time for this map. This map will expire at
this time unless it has been recorded in compliance with the Temecula Subdivision Ordinance,
Chapter 16.24 of the City of Temecula's Development Code.
The applicant shall comply with all underlying conditions of approval for Vesting Tentative Tract
Map No. 23143 previously applied including but not limited to the original conditions of approval
dated August 16, 1988, the Second Extension of Time approved July 16, 1992, the Third
Extension of Time (Planning Application No. PA98-0250) approved September 17, 1998, the
Fourth Extension of Time (Planning Application No. PA99-0208) approved September 13, 1999,
and/or others unless superseded by these conditions of approval.
3. 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. PA00-0272 (5th Extension of Time). 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.
4. The tentative subdivision shall comply with the State of California Subdivision Map Act and to all
the requirements of Chapter 16 of the Development Code unless modified by the conditions
listed below.
5. Any delinquent property taxes shall be paid prior to recordation of the final map.
8. The final map shall conform substantially to Vesting Tentative Tract Map 23143 dated March 13,
1990, and a copy filed with Planning Application No. PA99-0208 dated May 26, 1999.
PUBLIC WORKS:
The Department of Public Works has reviewed the Conditions of Approval for Vested Tentative
Tract Map No. 23143 and finds that the Conditions of Approval for the Second Extension of Time,
R:~E 0 '1~00-0272 tt23143 5th~COA.doc
Conditions of Approval
PA00-0272 (5t~ Extension of Time)
v3-r 23143
February 15, 2001
approved by the City of Temecula Planning Department on July 16, 1992 should be modified as
shown (in their original numbering sequence) with additions in bold and deletions struck as follows:
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT- LAND DEVELOPMENT DIVISION
The following Department of Public Works Conditions of Approval are to amend, supersede or to be
added to the previously approved development conditions for this project, and shall be completed at
no cost to any Government Agency. All questions regarding the true meaning of the conditions shall
be referred to the appropriate staff person of the Department of Public Works.
It is understood that the Subdivider has correctly shown on the amended tentative map all existing
and proposed easements, traveled ways, improvements constraints and drainage courses, and their
omission may require the project to be resubmitted for further review and revision.
59. The Developer shall comply with the State of California Subdivision Map act, and all
applicable City Ordinances and Resolutions.
60. The final map shall be prepared by a licensed land surveyor or registered Civil Engineer,
subject to all the requirements of the State of California Subdivision Map Act and
Ordinance No. 460.
?D~OD T/~l D[:i~imnATI/'~/~l O¢ TU[: ,l:lkl&l
61. 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.
(Added at Directors Hearing on July 16, 1992).
62. Pedestrian access walks with adequate easements shall be provided from the ends of
cul-deosacs or knuckles at the following locations: San Juan Court to Butterfield Stage
Road; Swoboda Court to Park Site "D"; and Cherokee Way, John Way and Rudy Court,
all to Crowne Hill Drive. (Added at Directors Hearing on July 16, 1992).
PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF THE FINAL MAP:
63. The developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies:
· Rancho California Water District;
· Eastern Municipal Water District;
· Riverside County Flood Control District;
· City of Temecula fire Bureau;
· Planning Department
· Engineering Department;
· Riverside County Health Department;
· CATV Franchise; and
· Temecula Community Services Department
64. All road easements and/or street dedications shall be offered for dedication to the public
and shall continue in force until the City accepts or abandons such offers. All
dedications shall be free from all encumbrances as approved by the City Engineer.
65. Northshire Circle, Yew Wood Place, Linda Court, Stage Court, Wakeene Circle,
Wyandotte Street, Rudy Court, Janda Court, Paola Court, Faber Court, Topeka Court,
Gatehead Court, Majestic Court, Regents Hill, Vandamere Court, Esser Court, Monroy
R:~ 0 'I~00-0272 lE3143 5th~,OA,doc
Conditions of Approval
PA00-0272 (5"~ Extension of Time)
v-[-r 23143
February 15, 2001
Circle, Hill Street, Pampa Court, Fiji Way, Suva Lane, Stanko Circle, Meade Circle, Oslo
Circle, Jolene Circle, Devant Circle, Drennon Court, Sparks Court, Dupont Circle,
Swoboda Court, Aden Circle, Tiempo Circle, John Way, Trestle Circle, Drennon Circle,
Hussar Court, Tdni Court, San Juan Court, Jolle Court, San Jose Court, Pliance Way,
"Y" Street, G Circle; Cinnamon Lane, Atchison Drive, Bigh Court, Paraguay Drive, Brsil
Lane, Whistle Court, Cherokee Way, Wristle Court, Peppermint Lane, Rainmaker
Avenue, Tonga Way, Sam Way, Soko Court, Soko Circle, Corddua Circle, F Circle,
Munich Circle, Peru Lane, and Berlin Way shall be improved with 40 Feet of asphalt
concrete pavement, or bonds for the street improvements may be posted, within the
dedicated right-of-way in accordance with City of Temecula Standard No. 104, Section
A (40'/60').
66. Swartz Way, Lima Street, Crowne Hill Drive, Castle Way, Trestle Street, and Royal Crest
Place shall be improved with 44 feet of asphalt concrete pavement, or bonds for the
street improvements may be posted, within the dedicated right-of-way in accordance with
City of Temecula Standard No. 103, Section A (44'/66').
67. Pauba Road shall be improved with 32 feet of half street improvement plus one 12' lane,
or bonds for the street improvements may be posted, within a 44' dedicated right-of-way
in accordance with County Standard No. 102 (64?88').
68. Butterfield Stage Road shall be improved with 43 feet of half street improvement plus
one 12' lane, or bonds for the street improvements may be posted, within a 55'
dedicated right-of-way in accordance with City of Temecula Standard No.100 (86'/110').
69. In the event that Royal Crest Place, Pauba Road, Butterfield Stage Road, and Crowne
Hill Ddve are not constructed by Assessment District 159 pdor to final map recordation,
the developer shall construct or bond for the required improvements. The improvements
shall be constructed prior to occupancy.
70. Vehicular access shall be restricted on Pauba Road, Butterfield Stage Road, and
Crowne Hill Drive and so noted on the final map.
71. The subdivider shall construct or post security and an agreement shall be executed
guaranteeing the construction of the following public improvements in conformance with
applicable City standards:
a. Street improvements, including, but not limited to: pavement, curb and gutter,
sidewalks, drive approaches, street lights, signing, striping, traffic signal systems,
and other traffic control devices as appropriate.
b. Storm drain facilities.
c. Sewer and domestic water systems.
72. The street design and improvement concept of this project shall be coordinated with
adjoining developments.
73. Street lights shall be provided along streets adjoining the subject site in accordance with
the City of Temecula Standard Nos. 800, 801,802, and 803.
74. The minimum centerline radii shall be 300 feet or as approved by the City Engineer.
75. All street centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees or as approved by the City
Engineer.
76. A minimum centerline street grade shall be 0.50 percent.
R:~E 0 7~00-0272 It23143 5th~COA.d~3~
Conditions of Approval
PA00-0272 (5t" Extension of Time)
V'R' 23143
February 15, 2001
77. The subdivider shall submit four prints of a comprehensive grading plan to the
Engineering Department. The plan shall comply with the Ur.~fc..'m.. =_~!!d!~, Cc'Jc, Ch~t~r
7-0 latest provision of the Uniform Building Code, and as may be additionally
provided for in these Conditions of Approval. The plan shall be drawn on 24" x 36" mylar
by a Registered Civil Engineer.
78. The subdivider shall submit four copies of a soils report to the Engineering Department.
The report shall address the soils stability and geological conditions of the site.
79. A drainage study shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer. All drainage
facilities shall be installed as required by the City Engineer,
80. On-site drainage facilities, located outside of road right-of-way, shall be contained within
drainage easements shown on the final map. A note shall be added to the final map
stating "Drainage easements shall be kept free of buildings and obstructions."
81. A drainage easement or a letter of "permission to accept drainage" shall be obtained
from the affected preperty owners for the release of concentrated or diverted storm flows
onto the adjacent property. A copy of the recorded drainage easement shall be
submitted to the City for review prior to the recordation of the final map.
82. The subdivider shall protect downstream properties from damages caused by alteration
of the drainage patterns; i.e., concentration or diversion of flow. Protection shall be
provided by constructing adequate drainage facilities, including enlarging existing
facilities or by securing a drainage easement.
83, Prior to final map, the subdivider shall notify the City's CATV Franchises of the Intent to
Develop. Conduit shall be installed to CATV Standards at time of street improvements.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING PERMITS:
84. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, developer must comply with the requirements of
the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit form the State
Water Resources Control Board. No grading shall be permitted until a NPDES clearance
is granted or the project is shown to be exempt. (Added at Directors Hearing on July 16,
1992).
85. Prior to any work being performed in public right-of-way, fees shall be paid and an
encroachment permit shall be obtained from the City Engineer's Office,
86. A grading permit shall be obtained from the Engineering Department prior to
commencement of any grading outside of the City-maintained road right-of-way.
87. A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The charge shall equal the prevailing Area
Drainage Plan fee rate multiplied by the area of new development. The charge is
payable to the Flood Control District prior to issuance of permits. If the full Area Drainage
Plan fee or mitigation charge has already credited to this property, no new charge needs
to be paid.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMIT:
88. The Developer shall pay to the City the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee as
required by, and in accordance with, Chapter 15.06 of the Temecula Municipal Code and
all Resolutions implementing Chapter 15.06 DIF Condition.
R:~E O T~0-0272 tt23143 5th~COA.d0c
Conditions of Approval
PA00-0272 (5m Extension of Time)
VT'r 23143
February 15, 2001
89. A precise grading plan shall be submitted to the Engineering Department for review and
approval. The building pad shall be approved by a registered Civil Engineer for location
and elevation, and the Soil Engineer shall issue a Final Soils Report addressing
compaction and site conditions.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY:
90. Construct full street improvements including but not limited to, curb and gutter, A.C.
pavement, sidewalk, drive approaches, parkway trees and street lights on all interior
public streets.
91. Asphaltic emulsion (fog seal) shall be applied not less than 14 days following placement
of the asphalt surfacing and shall be applied at a rate of 0.05 gallon per square yard.
Asphalt emulsion shall conform to Section Nos. 37, 39, and 94 of the State Standard
Specifications.
CONDITIONS 92 THROUGH 94 WERE ADDED AT DIRECTORS HEARING ON JULY 16,
1992,
for Pc:,'mcnt cf c~, ,~.1;.. Fxc~/Fcc, c cc~:.' ''~ '"~';"~' ~'~ ~' ........ ;.~^. +.. n .... , ....
.... ;~;~" ...... ; .... ;*~ ';"~* * .... *"~* .... ~'; ....... (Deleted at Directors Headng on
July 16, 1992).
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT - TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING DIVISION
PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF THE FINAL MAP:
c'--'bm!~"!. ,q'his condition has been revised. See Condition 110 under Prior to
Issuance of Occupancy Permits).
95. Bus bays will be provided at all existing and future bus stops as determined by the
Department of Public Works and the Riverside Transit Agency (RTA).
95. A signing and striping plan shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and
approved by the City Engineer for all internal streets with a curb separation of 44' or
more. For internal streets with a curb separation of 40' or less, only a signing plan for
each tract shall be required.
....... Slg, ,_, plan~ ~hall b ..... ~ .....· _ .~= ............... ~ ........... ~.~. ...... · ....
97.
R:~E O 3~0-0~72 tt23143 5th~?,OA.doc
Conditions of Approval
PA00-0272 (5~ Extension of Time)
VTT 23143
February 15, 2001
; ........... ,.~ ...... ;,... ...... ,~ ~.......~....u .-. ,~..-;-~, (This condition has been
revised. See Condition 110 under Prior to Issuance of Occupancy Permits).
98. When the Tract Map is phased, a minimum of 2 points of all weather vehicular ingress
and egress, with a 28' minimum width, shall be required for each phase unless otherwise
approved by the City Engineer.
99. Sight distance calculations shall be required for each proposed intersection, and shall
conform with the CalTrans sight distance standards.
100. In the event the Rancho Villages Assessment District No. 159 does not fully improve
Butterfield Stage Road from Rancho California Road to SR79 South, Royal Crest Place
from Butterfield Stage Road to Crowne Hill Drive, Crowne Hill Drive from Pauba Road to
Butterfield Stage Road, and Pauba Road from Via Del Monte to Butterfield Stage Road,
...+,.. ;..+ .... ;,..~. ........ , ........ + ,.,;+r. +~... C!t'.' be eligible
then the Developer may ...............................
for DIF Credits for the amount over the developer's pro rata percentage of the design
and construction costs of:
A. Signing and striping plans prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and approved by
the City Engineer for Butterfield Stage Road from Rancho California Road to SR79
South, Crowne Hill Drive from Pauba Road to Butterfield Stage Road, Royal Crest
Place from Butterfield Stage Road to Crowne Hill Drive, and Pauba Road from Via
Del Monte to Butterfield Stage Road.
B. Traffic signal plans prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and approved by the City
Engineer for the ultimate signal locations at Butterfield Stage Road and Rancho
California Road: Butterfield Stage Road and Pauba Road; Buttedield Stage Road
and De Portola Road; Bu.+t.c.'flc~d _.?.teac Rccd ~nd SP.79 Scuth.
C. Traffic signal interconnect plans prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and
approved by the City Engineer for Butterfield Stage Road from Pauba Road to De
Portola Road.
D. The raised medians on Butterfield Stage Road from Pauba Road to De Portola Road
shall include 250' of left turn storage capacity with 120' of approach transition or as
determined by the Director of Public Works during design, for the intersections with
Royal Crest Place, Crowne Hill Drive and De Portola Road. All other street
improvements including but not limited to asphalt concrete pavement and
aggregate base, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, shall be constructed
on Butterfield Stage Road between the north and south tract boundary lines.
E. The striping plan for Pauba Road to include a left turn land for Crowne Hill Drive.
101. A school zone signing and striping plan shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer
and approved by the City Engineer for the school site within this project. This will be
separate from the street improvement plans and will cover any and all streets necessary
to provide the appropriate signing and striping.
102. Prior to designing any of the above plans, contact Transportation Engineering for the
design requirements.
R:~ O 3~Y272 It23143 5th~COA.d0c
Conditions of Approval
PA00-0272 (5~ Extension of Time)
VTT 23143
February 15, 2001
PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF ANY ENCROACHMENT PERMITS:
102. A construction area traffic control plan shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer
and approved by the City Engineer for any street closure and detour or other disruption to
traffic circulation as required by the City Engineer.
PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF OCCUPANCY PERMITS:
CONDITIONS 104 AND 105 WERE ADDED AT DIRECTORS HEARING ON JULY 16, 1992.
104. The subdivider shall provide "stop" controls at the intersection of local streets with
arterial streets and collector streets as directed by the Department of Public Works.
105. Landscaping shall be limited in the corner cut-off area of all intersections and adjacent to
driveways to provide for minimum sight distance.
106. All signing and striping shall be installed per the approved signing and striping plan.
107. All traffic signals shall be installed and operational per the special provisions and the
approved traffic signal plan :':hc~ ;':=.-:c~tc~ as specified under Condition 110 but not
later than issuance of occupancy for the final phase.
108. All school zone signing and striping shall be installed per the approved school zone
signing and striping plan prior to occupancy of the school site.
109. All traffic signal interconnect conduit and cable along Butterfield Stage Road from Pauba
Road to De Portola Road shall be installed per the approved plan at the time of street
improvements.
110. Plans for a traffic signal shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and
approved by the Department of Public Works for the intersection of Butterfield
Stage Road at Pauba Road and shall be included in the street improvement plans.
The traffic signal may be installed at the discretion of the Director of Public Works.
Plans for a traffic signal shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and
approved by the Department of Public Works for the intersection of Butterfield
Stage Road at Royal Crest Place. A traffic signal shall be installed prior to
issuance of the 150t~ occupancy not including occupancy of Phase 2, 3, and 4,
unless additional traffic studies support delaying the installation or whenever
Royal Crest Place is constructed to Butterfield Stage Road, whichever comes fireL
Plans for a traffic signal shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and
approved by the Department of Public Works for the intersection of Pauba Road
and Crowne Hill Drive. A traffic signal shall be installed prior to issuance of the
504t~ occupancy not including occupancy of Phase 2, 3, and 4, unless additional
traffic studies support delaying the installation or whenever Crowne Hill Drive is
constructed to Pauba Road, whichever comes first.
Plans for a traffic signal shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and approved
by the Department of Public Works for the intersection of Butterfield Stage Road at
Crowne Hill Drive. A traffic signal shall be installed prior to issuance of the 20~
occupancy on the extension of Crowne Hill Drive. This 20th occupancy is not inclusive of
Phase 2, 3, and 4 occupancy.
R:~E O T~-~272 tt23143 5lh~OA.doc
Conditions of Approval
PA00-0272 (5th Extension of Time)
VTT 23143
February 15, 2001
111.
Prior to issuance of grading permits the Public Works and Planning Departments
shall insure that all reasonable methods of dust control and/or soil erosion have
been incorporated into the plan, (Added at Director's Hearing 2/15/01)
FIRE DEPARTMENT:
7, All previous conditions of approval still apply,
COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT:
8. All previous conditions of approval still apply.
OTHER AGENCIES:
9. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Rancho California Water
District's transmittal dated July 28, 2000, a copy of which is attached.
10. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the California Department of
Transportation's transmittal dated August 9, 2000, a copy of which is attached.
I have read, understand and accept the above Conditions of Approval.
Applicant's Signature
Print Name
R:~E O 3~00-0272 tt23143 5t~COA.doc
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
APPEAL OF PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA01-0272
R:~E O 35{30-O272 tt23143 5th",Appeal Report.doc
13
City of Temecula
Commnnify Developmellt Departzlleilt
43200 Business Park Drive * Temecula · CA · 92~90
P.O. Box 9033, T,,m~_'ula * CA * 92~89-9033
(909) 694-6400 · FAX (909) 6946477
Origi l Case Numbe (s)
A. PUP. POS~
The ~ of ~ appeal procedure is to pwvide a methOd of recourse for persons aggrieved by or
dissatisfied with all aofion tak~ by all admini.ql~live agency of the City ill the admillistration or
enforcement of any provisions of the Development Code.
'qz _C¢
,Tv
B. FILING
1. Development Application.
2. Appeal Form.
3. Filing Fee.
C. NOTICE OF APPEAL - TIME LIMIT
A notice of an appeal by any individual who is aggrieved by or dissatisfied with a decision made by
him or in his behalf, or with any action, order, requirement, decision or determination shall not be
acted upon unless filed within fifteen (lb') calmdar days after service of written notice of the derision.
D. NOTICE OF APPEAL - CONTHNT~
Appealing the decision of: /.~-~
(Sp~ify l)ir~Ior of~ or l~...i,,g Commi,,sion AND A~iim Ds~)
lm__~mn or justificalion to support the appeal. Appellant must submit with this appeal each issue
the ~t alleges was wrongly determined together with eve-,T agreement and a copy
Dcsh~ action to b~ ~aken:
IIn the event .~.,y Notice of Appeal applicant fails to answer any information set forth above, then
the req~e-_~ will b~ l'e~d.~ed to the apl:~llant, with a statement of the deficiencies. The appellant
shall be allowed five (5) calendar days in which to mille thc notice of appeal.
A'R'ACHMENT NO. 4
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA2001 -0272
STAFF REPORT TO THE DIRECTOR OF PLANNING DATED FEBRUARY 15, 2001
R:~E O '1'~0..0272 tt23143 5thV~ppeal Report.doc
Director's Hearing
February 15, 2001
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA00-0271 (3rd Extension of Time)
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA00-0272 (5t~ Extension of Time)
Project Description:
Crowne Meadows, L.P., has file two Extension of Time requests, Planning Application No. PA00-
0271.(Third Extension of Time for V-l-~'26941 ) and PA00-0272 (Fifth Extension of Time V'I'T 23143)
for the area know as Cmwne Hills located on the east side of Butterfield Stage Road and south of
Pauba Road under
Site Layout:
Tract 26941 consists of 133 acres and is divided into 28 lots. Tract 23143 consists of 459 acres and
was divided into 1026 lots of which 330 have been previously recorded. The lots of Tract 26941
have a minimum lot size of 2.5 areas and create a buffer area between the existing 5 acre lot in the
county to the east and the medium density lots to the west in Tract 23143. Access to these tracts is
from Butterfield Stage Road and Paubla Road via Crowne Hill Drive and Royal Crest Place.
Environmental:
Studies have been performed for critical habitat during the past several years and found that there
was significant occupied habitat on the site. The applicant has been working with the Fish and
Wildlife Service to establish the proper protocol for release of the land for development in
compliance with their environmental documentation. Therefore, this project qualifies under CEQA
for a "Determination of Consistency" with a project for which a Environmental Impact Report was
previously adopted (Section 15162- Subsequent EIR's and Negative Declarations).
A local resident who has been notified of this hearing has expressed concerns about the mass
grading of this property (see attached letter). The primary concern relates to the blowing dust and
the aesthetic condition of the area that he and his neighbor w!ll have to endure until the property is
built upon. Anticipating the development time for of this property it is likely that these conditions
could exist for many year. Staff understands the concern expressed here and has ask the applicant
to address this issue and determine if there is the possibility to grade the site in phases. Public
Works has requirements for dust and erosion control methods that are to be implemented during
and after grading that should eliminate some of the problems. Once the property is graded it will
require monitoring to assure continued compliance until all improvements are complete.
Recommendation:
Planning Staff recommends that the Planning Director approve Planning Applications No. PA00-
0271 (3ru Extension of Time) and PA00-0272 (5th Extension of Time) with their attached conditions
of approval.
This concludes Staff's presentation. Staff is available to answer any questions.
R:~E O T~O-O272 tt23143 5th~.ppeal Report.doc
15
from the desk of Roger Jaeger
City of Temecula pl~,~,~ Departn~nt,
I reside at 41325 Billy Joe Lane in Country Road Estates. I along with tnany of my
neighbors are very concerned with the Crowne l-l~l.~ Development ;,i,,aediately adjacent to
west of our properties. My concern is not thgt the property will be developed but rather
how it is to be developed. Left unchecked based on conversations with the you and the
Developer I anticipate that they will in fact completely ~ the land of all vegetation and
keep it in that state until all development is completed, much the same as the Pasco del Sol
project on the comer ofButterfmld Stag~ aha Pauba. Ac, cording to you the City neither
can nor will do anything to stop this f~om occtaxing. I consider tht, an outrage. Keep in
mind this, if they were to comJnue building at th= rate they are right now it wRl ta~e over
10 ycer~ to complete this project and that is ffthere is no economic downturm This means
that for the next immediate I0 years and ~ss~'bly longer we will be forced to view
the visual blight ofthi~ property. We ~ have to endure daily the dust generated from this
project as the wind.~ pick up each attemoon~ Thc rUnofffrom rains will complete transform
the sand bed stream used for horschack r~dln~ fh~ separams_ this project from ours to a
mudbowL The restricted access to the groperty due to dense vegetation, which helps to
control the offroad vehicl~ w~l ~e completely removed and we can anticipate an
increase in that activity. Additionally, as the l~me~ are developed there are no
architectural controls on the rear elevations of the homes. Given what has been developed
so far, we ~,m assume that we wal soc a wall of 2 story stucco hemes with no treatments
on the rear of the homes.
All oftbe items I've mentioned are going to seriously impact the q,~l;ty of our life
and the value of our homes. I'm asking that you not allow this project to move forward
withoui some set of guidelines that will control the impact this development w,Tfl have on
our ~y to Oy Uve~
I am asld,,g that the Developer, only clear land that he is prepared to landscape or
build on within 12 months. I'm also asking that they provide architectural features similar
to the frollt elevations on ali rear and side vi~,--ws of hill top homes that can he viewed from
Country Roads Estates. You can be assured that those lots with views of Country
Estates will be sold for pren~,m* of thousands of dollars over other lots in the
development. I believe it is fair to ~,~ that they give consideration to us on these items, ff
you wish to discuss this further you may contact me at any of thc following numbers.
Work (909)506-1464 Fax 506-5594
Home 676-5919
B-mail rajaeger~.stunnm,p.com
Please he advised that I intend to appear at Hearing on 2/15/01 to further voice my
concerns. Thank~ for your attention to thi.~ very impotent matter.
Sincerely, Roger Jaeger
ATTACHMENT NO. 5
MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 15, 2001, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING HEARING
R:',E O '1'~00-O272 tt23143 5th~Appeal Report.doc
16
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING DIRECTOR
FEBRUARY 15, 2001
A regular meeting of the City of Temecula Planning Director was called to order on Thursday,
February 15, 2001 at 1:30 PM, at the City of Temecula Main Conference Room, 43200 Business
Park Drive, Temecula, California. Senior Planner, Don Hazen presiding.
Also present were Project Planner Michael McCoy, Associate Planner Thomas Thomsley, Deputy
Director of Public Works Ron Parks, Senior Engineer Jerry Alegria, and Minute Clerk Theresa
Alvarez.
Senior Planner, Don Hazen opened the public hearing for items not listed on the agenda at
1:35 PM. There were no requests to speak.
1. Plannin,q Application No. PA01-0013 {Development Plan for product review)
Project Planner, Michael McCoy presented the staff report for Planning Application PA01-
0013 (Development Plan), a product review of three models for construction on 87 lots within
Tract 24187-1.
Senior Planner, Don Hazen opened the public hearing at 1:38 PM.
Applicant Bill Pentington, Trimark Pacific Homes has read and is in concurrence with the Condition
of Approval.
Deborah Christensen, 32255 Corte IIIora, Temecula, CA she was aware that when they were first
approved that the lot size would be between 3500 - 5000 sq ft and that the home size would be a
minimum of 2600 sq ft; her concern lies with the lot sizes being too small for the size of homes to be
placed on them and with all 2 stories and no one stories would give the appearance of row house,
townhouse view from her yard and her neighborhood.
Applicant Bill Penington, Trimark Pacific Homes clarified that all of the lot sizes are a minimum of
6,000 sq ft.
Senior Planner Don Hazen closed the public hearing at 1:45 PM.
Senior Planner, Don Hazen approved application no. PA01-0013 subject to the attached Conditions
of Approval.
2. Planninq Application No. PA 00-0271 {VTT 26941 ) & PA00-0272 {V I I 23143), Extensions
of Time
Associate Planner, Thomas Thornsley presented the staff report for both Planning
Application No.s PA00-0271 (¥ I ~ 26941 ) and PA00-0272 (¥ ~ ~ 23143) Extensions of Time.
Senior Planner Don Hazen asked Senior Engineer Jerry Alegria to summarize some of the
recommending conditions of approval that are new; conditions being recommended that were not
previously applied to the prior EOT
R:~DIRHEAR'd~III~001 \02-154)1 minutes.doc
Senior Engineer Jerry Alegria stated that the new conditions relate to when the signals at Crowne
Hill Dr., Butterfield Stage, Royal Crest Stage and Pauba and Crowne Hill Dr. must be installed and
what they have done is established a threshold of occupancy when those signals would have to be
installed at those locations.
Senior Planner Don Hazen opened the public hearing at 2:05 PM.
Attorney Sam Alhadeff, representing the applicant, 41530 Enterprise Cr South expressed that he
would like everyone else to speak and they would respond to the citizens concerns
Ed Lindsey, 42375 Camino Merano, Temecula, CA - lots are set on minimum 5000 sq ft and he
believes the lot size should be at least 10,000 sq ft because of the impacts to traffic and because of
the schools and another concern about dust containment.
Roger Jaeger 41325 Billy Joe Lane Temecula, CA - his property backs up to the east of the project.
What concerns him is mitigation for wildlife and they would strip the land completely to dirt which
they have done for the last 3 years. They are inundated with dirt; they feel the way the developer or
owner is not dealing with the dust control on the property. Concerned about what they are going to
do architecturally with the homes.
Representative Sam Alhadeff clarified the issues about the keno checkerspot butterfly in the area in
which Mr Jeager just described to us. The other areas where he spoke about grading, they don't
want any habitat to grow there so that Fish and Wildlife will not restrict development because they
found 2 butterflies resting on a hill.
Heather Crown 41485 Via Del Monte, Temecula, CA - concerned with the impact on the wash
behind her home how the properties will be developed. Also wondered whether there will be any
equestrian trails in the subdivision.
Associate Planner Thomas Thornsley - explained that the grading plans will have to be submitted.
Senior Engineer Jerry Alegria - explained that they look at those issues at grading time.
Applicant Mary Rauschenburg explained that there are horse trails along Pauba that join the trails
that abut Paseo. It is the same kind of set up that is a requirement of a map today, and there are
no other interior horse trails designed in this project.
Debbie Luzuriaga, 42075 Calle Barbana, Temecula, CA she has questions, are you going to leave
the watercourse in the area in the current condition, or are you planning to put improvements in to
control it; they have an existing air strip that many of them find appealing and is concerned about the
quality of homes that they will have on the 5 acres lots
Applicant Mary Rauschenburg, in regards to the watercourse if you are talking about the same
watercourse on the estates lots, it will be a untouched and there will be a conveyance to not be
developed. It is currently being proposed to leave it in the open stage that is in today.
Representative Sam Alhadeff - asked will there be restriction of what will be built on those lots?
Applicant Mary Rauschenburg - They will not be building the estates lots. Each house will have its
own grading plan and will have to come in for approval by the City; we are only doing the mass
grading plan sometime in the near future.
Debbie Christensen - mentioned that in her development, their roads are all maintained by the
HOA; she confirmed that none of the applicants roads seem to impact her roads.
R;~DIRItEAR'~d INUTE.SA2001'~)2 - 154) l miuutm.doc
2
Applicant Mary Rauschenburg - answered that none of the developments roads will impact that
other development
Debbie Christensen- expressed concerns about the airstrip.
Attorney Sam Alhadeff responded that the County of Riverside has addressed the issues regarding
the private airstrip because it is not in the City of Temecula; there are no avigation easements or
building restrictions on this property that he is aware.
Roger Jaeger - about his grading concerns; what they can expect to happen in this grading
process? Can they expect them to strip off the entire acreage?
Senior Planner Don Hazen - we have the discretion in this meeting to apply reasonable conditions if
they are related to public health, safety or welfare, and there has been substantial testimony taken
today that spoke to the issues about the impacts of grading. We have the ability to encourage
phased grading; maybe to implement the best standard practices that are available to us to minimize
dust control. What will happen next if these maps are approved for EOT is to do mass grading of
the site and typically that is an administrative decision that doesn't require a Public Hearing.
Terri (last name was not stated or written on request to speak form) 33444 Pauba Rd, Temecula,
CA. concerned with the grading of the project.
Applicant Mary Rauschenburg, regarding the two vested maps that they are requesting EOT, 26941
the estate maps 23143, clarification on item #100 and clarification on the credits and what would be
received, and the additional clarification on item #1d; lastly on item #110 would like to have a
discussion on the timing of the traffic signal for Crowne Hill and Butterfield Stage that was just
recently added.
Representative Sam Alhadeff - The language states "may be eligible for DIF credits" we would like
to be "shall receive DIF credits" for that work; requested clarification of Condition #110 would like
more detail of the requirements of Mary.
Ron Parks, Deputy Director of Public Works, clarified the requirements of Condition #110 regarding
the issues of DIF credits; staff cannot impose a condition that says they shall receive DIF credits
because DIF credits need to be applied for by the developer. They would be eligible for a portion of
the costs of that signal, depending upon the impact that they had on the intersection versus the
impact of the whole city on the intersection. He believes staff had gone over that with the applicant
and we feel that there is a need for the signals to be installed because of the health & safety issues.
The signals that are being asked for are directly associated with this development and the impact of
this development located at Crowne Hill/Butterfield Stage Rd, Royal Crest/Butterfield Stage Rd and
Crowne Hill/Pauba Rd.
Senior Planner Don Hazen questioned Ron Parks - When the condition references the timing of the
signals at the 150t~ or 504th occupancy, is that cumulative occupancy starting from what is already
built or from here on in do you start from no. 1,2?
Deputy Director of Public Works Ron Parks - It is from here on in, we have already accounted for
the 249 units that have been built and the next permit would start with no.1.
Attorney Sam Alhadeff - Go back to item #100, hypothetical question. Let's assume that we
R:~DIRHEAR'~IN UTES~.O01 ~ff2.15 -01 minuU~s.doc
understand that we have to apply for our DIF credits, but let's assume this traffic signal is being put
in and our impacts would allow us to get X as a credits; let's assume for a moment that perhaps
there was another project that didn't contribute its pementage. Would they get more than their
impact credits?
Deputy Director of Public Works Ron Parks - If you start to build tracts out there and start
generating additional traffic that will initiate a need to have that signal in; if the project across the
street starts developing the traffic flint, they will be required to put the signal in and they may be
eligible for the Dif credits - it all depends on who is recording maps. But you are conditioned the
same as they are to get the signal installed that's what the City feels the need is.
Attorney Sam Alhadeff - He was trying to figure hypothetically our impact is 50% some other
developments impact is 50%. We would get 50% credit?. Because we are impacting it 50% but we
are paying for the whole thing.
Deputy Director of Public Works Ron Parks - You are getting credit for the 50% you are impacting;
you are puffing in 100%, you are paying for 50% because that is what you have caused and you are
being reimbursed through DIF Credits the other 50%. You would have to pay for the entire signal
and be reimbursed through DIF credits the other 50% that you are not responsible for. It could be
25% could be 75%.
Applicant Mary Rauschenburg- Regarding the road improvements for Butterfield Stage Road, the
same type cf question. She clarified the she is to put in the median for the entire length, but is the
project eligible for a credit for the portion that fronts the 249 lots?
Ron Parks - He confirms that she is speaking about the raised landscape median. It is eligible for
DIF credits for projects that you dc not own. He reiterates to her that the wording in the condition
needs to say, "shall". He confirms that in the past all projects have applied for DIF credits in this
manner have received them. He clarifies that even if this project is not extended, the property
owner has to right, once they get the environmental clearances, to clear, grub the site, if they wish.
He would hope that in this case that they would do the grading in phases. And what happens when
they get a rough grading permit is that they are required to install erosion control landscaping to
minimize the dust that is created.
Representative Sam Alhadeff- stated that Mr. Jaeger raised the point on the Paloma/Paseo del Sol
project that they have looked at dirt for a while. Mr. Lindsey raised the point that the erosion (dust)
control is at his home every summer in his living room. Sam states that the City requires every map
to have dust control. If there is a dust control issue, they should come in and talk to the Public
Works.
Deputy Director of Public Works Ron Parks - He doesn't believe that the area that they are talking
about has been graded other than discs. This is an incorporated area and there are going to be
houses here and were doing the best that we can to minimize the impacts on the surrounding areas
as well as the environment; they would do the same thing with this development if they applied for a
permit but they need this map before they can apply for a permit.
Senior Planner Don Hazen closed the public hearing at 2:50 pm
Senior Planner Don Hazen summarized that these are time extension of approved tract maps, and
R:'~DIRHEARWIINUTESA2001 ~Y2-15-01 minu~es.doc
4
failure to grant a time extension will basically allow these to expire. In order to reject these
extensions, there has to be some underlying reason why we can't allow these maps to record and
eventually be built upon. Typically there would have to be inconsistencies with our General Plan,
which is not the case here. The preperty is zoned for residential use and these maps are
implementing our General Plan; or if there was a major problem with being able to previde services
to this area of the City, and we are able to previde services. There is really no legal reason for not
appreving these extensions.
We take these opportunities to take another look at the previous conditions of appreval and update
those conditions for reasons of public, health safety;, and the staff recommendations and these
conditions that have been discussed are such changes that staff has recommended be added to
this. Other concerns he has heard in this meeting have to do with the secondary effects such as
grading impacts and amhitectural quality of the homes. He believes that are too many areas in the
City where you see large blocks of land that sit exposed year after year. He would like to impose a
condition on the maps that to the extent possible require phased grading. Defers to PW Is it all
possible to get an overall master grading plan and then allow grading permits to be issued in
phases.
Deputy Director of Public Works Ron Parks - states it is prectical depending upon the balance of cut
~nd fill; there could be an area where they have to remove outside the limits of the area that you are
approving or stockpile. Many times as with the Paseo Del Sol, they are mass grading and actually
come back and do mass grading of subdivisions and then come back again and do fine grading
after they built the houses; that is the process that is allowed. We are currently working on a new
grading ordinance that would eliminate that; we are currently working under the County grading
ordinance and the county would actually allow them to mass grade the whole thing.
Applicant Mary Rauschenburg stated that the City's conditions of appreval somewhat contradict the
ability to do a whole lot of phasing because they are required to do a park at one end of the project
where there are no other homes; access roads to get there; where ever else they do move forward
and do another phase they are going to have additional access requirements needed there is only 2
more access points on this tract which is at Royal Crest/Crown/Pauba, so to some extent they are
greatly limited to what in our ability to phase just based on the City's requirements of what they have
to install the 81 lots that are of record would require a good portion of the site to be graded today for
street access on top of the fact that before any of that can be build the other side of the preject has
to be graded so that a park can be built.
Senior Planner Don Hazen - asks Ron Parks that to minimize the adverse impacts dust etc., are
there conditions that we could put on the mass grading permit that we have not done in the past, so
we could move towards that direction which we are already working towards with the new grading
ordinance?
Ron Parks - explains that one of the things that they have done on some of the custom lots is
require matting to prevent erosion and keeps the dust control down but you still have large areas
that are flat and they don't normally plant and so that does generate some dust off of those flatter
areas; many time they have siltation screen that they put over the flatter areas and that may
eliminate some of the dust we could take a look at that when we as do the erosion control plan and
maybe something they could do is take a look at staff is too look at dust erosion as well as water
erosion.
Associate Planner Thomas Thomsley, explains the process for product review once a developer has
purchased the property and wishes to develop it.
Applicant Mary Rauschenburg - states that she could grade the property right now if she wished but
R:~DIRHEAR~ ~'OJTF..S~2001 ~02-15 -01 minutes.doc
5
since she has no intention of pulling grading permits fight now.
Senior Planner Don Hazen approves application No PA00-0271 based on the findings and adding a
condition that prior to issuance of a grading permit, the Public Works and Planning Dept. shall find
that all reasonable methods have been incorporated to help minimize unnecessary blowing dust
and/or soil erosion added as condition 13 on tract 26941 and this is still consistent with the original
environmental review that was done for the site. As for the second application No PA00-0272 for
the vesting tract 24143 making similar grading condition as with application no PA00-0271 and
number condition #111. Also, both maps were conditioned to explore the feasibility of phased
grading at the time of grading plan review.
The meeting was adjourned at 3:15 P.M.
Don Haz"~'n/, Seni~'J oi~lanner
R:XDIRHEAR~v~INUTES'~200t ~)2-15 '01 minutes.doc
ATTACHMENT NO. 6
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
JULY 16, 1992
VESTED TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 23143
REVISED NO. 1, AMENDED NO. 5, SECOND EXTENSION OF TIME
R:~E O T~00-0272 tt23143 5th~ppeal Repo~.doc
17
C1TY OF TEMF. CImA
CONDITIONS 017 AFI:'ROYAL
~ Ve.vfing Tentative Tract Map No. 2.3143,
~ No. 1, Amended No. 5, Second Extension
of T',me
lh'ojec~ De.sc~tion: 1,026 Lot Single F~rni~y
Subdivision with 97 Open Space Lou
Aascssor's Parcel No.: 926-760-001 through 005,
926-770-001 thnmgh 003
~nn|n~ I)~M'tm~nt
e
The t~nt~vo suJx~vision sh.li comply with thc State of ~'~li¢ozah Subdivision 1~.? Aa
and to all th~ rcquimmcnts of Oydlnn-ce 460, Schednlc A, unless modified by the
Map Act and City Ordinance, upon written m~uest, if made 30 days prior to the
cxphation dam.
~ condi~ofl.11y a.Ec~ed revised t~ntative m~ will expire on August 16, 1992, --less
exU:ndcd as provid~ by Ozdin.nc~ 460.
3. Any delinquent ~ taxes shall be paid prior to x~cordation of the fin.l map.
Legal access as required by Oniinance 460 shall be provided frum the: u'act map
boundary to a City ~ road.
Ail mad easements shall be offered for d_~imtion to th~ public and shall continue in
fmv. e until the governing body a¢c_,!Ins or abandons such offers. All dedications shall be
fxee flora all cncumbrance~ as approved by fl~e CJty ~nginecr. S~e~ n~m~.s shall be
bjm approval of th= City 2u ia r.
~:~,~,,,,',,U, whun z~uized for m~iway slat~z, cL~;-..~, hSlifi~, u/liti=, ~:., ~ be
shown on the ~ mn.n fit. hey axe Io~_ -.d witl~n thc l.nd d/vision boundary. Ail offers
of &d/cation and convcyanccz .~h~n bc sub~,.~ and recorded as ~ by the City
Subdivision ph,,in§, including any proposed common opell space at~a improvement
phasing, if applicable, shall be subjec~ to pt~,,i,g Department approval Any proposed
ph~ing sh~ll provide for -d,~quz.~ vehi~d.r ~'~ss m all lots in each ph~¢, and shall
mbsta.~nlly conform to the intent and purpos~ of fhe subdivision a rova .
10.
11.
12.
Ae
An overall conceptual landscape plan shsll be submitted to the'
Deparanent for approval prior to issuance of any grading permits.
shah hi_vhli~ht ill the arais which will be landscaped indudi-~ front yarch,
dopes within individual lots, common area slopes/open space, private parks,
public parks, street parkways, landscape development zones, medians, e~c.
Construction landscape plans for each phase shall be submitted for approval
to the Planning Department prior to issuance of any buiMin.- permits for that
phase. All common area landscaping for ~ch phase shall be in.died prior
to issuance of the i';m,! for any house in that phase. All private parks within
each individual phase shall be developed prior to issuance of the f'uud for the
f'wst house on ~h=, ph~e. (,a~ at Dimaors Hearing on July 16, 1992).
A mainm~uce distric~ or homeowncrs' associ=~on $h~11 be csiablhhed for m~im~-n..cc
of Open Space Lo~ 1027-1082, I087-1090 and ,.~e 1093 and 1097-1105. The
deveioper/appN~t stroll pay for all costs relating to ~?~b~i~h,,,~nt of the di~ala or th=
homeownc~' association. (Amended aI Dimcum Heating on July 16, 1992).
A Homeowners Associ.tion shall be eatablhhed for m.lm~_-~.ce of Lo~s 1083-1086. The
d~ve. lop~/~llg~llt ~h~11 p~y for all costs zeAaling W ~'ll~li~hm~zlt Of th~ Homcown~rs
Association.
A copy of the f;n~! grading Plan shall be submi~___~_ to the
x~vicw and approval. Ail on-site cut ~nd fill slopes
Be limited to a maximum slope ratio of 2 to 1. Setbacks from top and
bottom of slopes shall conform to the Uniform Building Code. (Amended at
the Dir~ors Hearing on July 16, 1992).
B. Be contour-graded to blend with existing -=m~,al contours.
Be a pan of th= downh;~1 lot when within or bciween individual lo~s or as
approved by th~ City ~]gineer.
All graded slopes over thi~ (3) feet in height shall be landscaped and irrigated according
to the City Development Code. A ,t,~n,.a l~nS~'~ping and inigation plan, pzqm~d by
a ~.fifi,~ profezsioual, shall be submiv~ w th= City pl~rming Dcpanmcm for p~'view
ami appwval prior to hsuance of buii~;-_- permhs.
The applicant shall comply ~ the Conditions of Appwval outlined in th= Tcmecula
Comm,lnit~j Se..l'Vi~ Disll'iCt'S ll"~smin~! ~ June
anached. (Amended at Direcwr~ Hearing on July 16,
13.
· 14.
15.
16.
Diz~'tors Heating on July 16, 1992).
The applkaat shall comply with the environmental health l'~,~ommcndafions outlined ill
th~ County Health Dep,~huent's tmasmittal dated March 10, 1992, a copy of which is
~-~ehed. (Amended a~ Dix~ors Hearing on July 16, 1992).
The applica~lt sh2ll comply with the flood conlzol r~cDmmendal:i0llS outlined in the
Riverside County Flood Control D;--let's le.t~er dated February 22, 1988, a copy of
which is 2,n~h,.d. If th~ pwject lies within an adopted flood control d~;-~ge ar~a
punuant m Section 10.25 of City of Temecula T~-d Division Ord;n~-ce 460, appzopri~r~
fee~ for the construction of aha d~;-.~ facilities shall be collected by the City prior to
~ of Occupancy Permits.
17.
.~W_a~r. Disuict's transmittal dated,June 15, 1992 a copy of which is ,,~clned..(~anded
· at ~ Hearing on July 16, 1992). ': '
18. All pWtX~sed conmuction ,h.1] comply with the Califo~i, Institute of Techaology,
Palomar Observatory Outdoor Lighting Policy, as o~tl;.ed in the Southwest A~a Plan.
19.
The applicant shall comply with the fu'e improvement r~comrm..n~tlo~ ovtlined in the
County F'u~ Depamnent's ],.n~? damt June 15, 1992, a copy of wlfich is
(Amended at ~ Heating on July 16, 1992).
.'....ii'~.. . ~..::'~"-:..:~"'~'
The applicanl ~,I1 comply with the z~'.nznmendations outlined in the Ra~ho California
The applicallt $h~11 comply with the l'ecomm¢lldatiolls ovtllnerl in the ~ Mliai~al
Water District transmilz~ dated January 27, 1988, a copy of which is attached.
20. Lots created by thi~ subdiViSion sh~l! comply with the following:
21.
Lots c, rmted by this subdivhion shall be in conform2~ce with thc de~velopment
standanis of th~ R-l, R-4 and R-5 (open space) wne~.
Graded but undeveloped I..d sh. ll be m.lnt~ined in a w~'~-~_-fzl~e condition1 and
shali be either planted with interim landscaping or pwvided with other emsiun
enntml meastu~ as approved by the Director of Building and Safety.
The developer ~:h.'11 be zv. sponsible for m.in~m, nc~ and upk~ of~ ~o~,
~ ~ ~on sy~s ~ s~h 6m~ ~ ~ose ~om ~ ~c ~n~fi~
of o~ p~es ~ a~v~ by ~e pl.nnlng ~r.
~'TAFFR.FT~3 $ 43-5. ~OA 3
3.
24.
Prior to n~cordafion of the f. ml map, an Enviwnmen~al Conswaints Shea'
be prvpazed in conjunct/on with the fizml map to delineaU: identified
concerns and shall be permanently filed with the office of th~ City Engineer. A copy of
the ~ shM1 be transited to the pl~nn~,§ Detr, u~-.~nt for ~vicw and approval Thc
appwved ECS shall be forwantcd with copies of the reco~ final map to the planning
Depar~eat a~d the ~eat of B,,ildlng aad Safety.
The following notes shall be placed on the Env/wnmental Consn-aints Sheet:
:This property is located w~thln ~ (30) ~ of Mount Palomar Observatory.
All pzoposcd outdoor liEhtinE systems ~h~, comply with th~ ~'~i¢omia Institute
of Technology, Palom-- Observatory Outdoor Lighting Policy.'
'HIR No. 230 was pre-pared for ~ pw~ _,x~__ and is on ~e at the City of Temecuh
pi.,,;,§ DepamnenC' :.~.
C. 'Drain=ge easements ~h=ll be kept free of b~lalngs and obstructions. '
Prior to the hs-=~ce of CI'..'.-.~:C l'~..'.-'Z'l':.~ BUIT.nING PERMITS the following
conditions shall be ~=ti~%d: (Am~lecl al the ~s Hearing on luly 16, 1992).
A. l ior to the issuance of P li g'buaai-_-pemlts com .on open
. area landscaping and izzigation p1=~, ~ be submitted for Planning
· appwval for the phase of developmcnt In tn'ocess. The pl~n~ eh~ll be
by a hnd~:ap~ ~ and ~h.11 pl'cndge for the following: (Amended at the
Director's Heating on Jluly 16, 1992).
O)
Peu~aancnt automatic irrigation systems ~:h:dI b~ in.~'~llext on all land.scape, d
ar~s x~g irrigation.
(3)
Lalldsca~ screening where reqtlired ~:h.ll b~ desiglled to be opacltte llp to
a minimum height of six (6) feet at m=f,,,'ity.
· All utility service a~:as and enclosures shall be screened from view with
lancL,,-~.-~g and decorative' ~ or baffle treaunents, as approved by
(4)
Parkways shall be landscaped to pwvide visual screening or a t~n~ifion
into the primnry USe azea of the site. T~n~cap~ elements sh~11 include
earth be]ming, ground cover, shrubs and specimen tn:es. Front yards
sh~ll be landscaped and ah~t
(5)
(6)
Wall pl~n~ shall be submitted for the pwjea perimeter. Wooden fencing
sh~l! not be allowed on the perimeter of fhe project other than the wood
fencing for the eq.uescrian wail as specified in Condition No. $1. All locs
with slopes leading down from the lot shall be provided with g~t~,~ in the
wa,U for m~int~n~n~e a~_~S.
T~nds~aping plan~ sl~l! incorpora~ the us~ of specimen accent ~ at
key visual focal points within the project.
Where sueet tr~s ~,~,~t be planted w~th!~ right-of-way of interior streets
and project parkways due to in.mfficie~t mad right-of-way, they ~I~H be
pl~n~ed outside of the road fight-of-way.
Landscaping p1.n~ shall incorporate native ~nd drought tolea-ant p1.~t~ where
a~c~rpri~e.
(1)
All rices shall be minimum double s~ir~ Weaker and/or slow g~owing
tlees ~h~ll be steel slaked.
If the project h to be phased, prior to the approval of grading permits, an
overall conceptual grading plan eh.l! be submi_n_~_ to th~ pl.nnlng Di~ctor
for approval The plan shall be used as a guideline for subsequent
detailed g~llng pl=n~ for individual ph.~-_~ of development and .~h~ll
include th~ following:
(a) Techniques which wffl be vt,;lh,~,,~t to prevent erosion amd
sedimentation dm'ing and after the gr~Hing process.
Co)
Approximate time frames for grading and identification of areas
which may be graded during the higher probability rain months of
lanuary through Much.
(c) l~1;min,ry pad and roadway elevations.
(d) Areas of temporary grading outside of a particular phzze.
O)
Ail cut siopez located adjacent to ungraded v.n,,-al terrain and
te~ (10) feet in vertical height sh.n be contour-graded incorporating the
following grading tech-i .-ues:
(a)
The angle of the graded slope sh.l! be gradua.Uy adjusu~l to the
angle of the natural terrain.
Ang~i~r fo,'ms ~ha~l ~ discourage. Tbe
th~ ~nm~l ~undcd t~r~in.
26.
The to~ and tops of $1op~ shall be rounded with curves with radii
d~_,ig~d in proportion to the total height of th~ slope~ whcz:
drainage and stability permit such rounding.
(d)
Where cut or fitl slopes e~c_,x~_~ 300 fce~ in horizontal length, the
horizoni~l contours of the slope shall be curved in a continuous,
(4)
~ (SO) percent of all trees planted ~;thin the project shall be a
mlnim,,m of twenty four (24) inch box. The landscape plans proposed
for each phase'_~h-n incorporate the f'u'~y (50) percent ~;~ of twenty
four (24) inch boz trees into the design. (Added at Dirc~z3 Hearing
on ~'uly 16, 1992).
Phor to the is~.-~e of lp'~d;-g permits, th= developer shall provid=
evidence to the Director of Building and Sa~ th.r all ~lj~ce~t off-gte
m.-,ffacun~ slop~ have r~corded slope m~:ments and that slope
malnt~n.ne~. I'P..,~DOOSI-D1.'lil~ have ~ ;~,~glled as axuplDved by the
DLrector of Bmr.' g and Safety. - ' ' ~ ....
Prior to the hsuanc~ of grading permits, a qualified paleontologist shah be
the developer for comultation and comment on the lm~po~ grading with ~0ect to
potentialpaleontological ~. Should the paleontologist find the pot~fial is high for
impact to significaut resources, a p~-grade meeting between the paleontologist .nd
excavation and grading contractor sh,ll be arranged. When n~ccssary, the paleontologist
· or zepzesentmive shall have the authority to temporarily divert, redirect or halt grading
activity to allow recovery of fossils.
Prior w thc issuance of~ the following conditions shall be ,-fieF-md:
No budding permits shall be issued by the City for a. uy re~iclcvtl,! lot/unit within
the project boundary until the developer's succe, ssor's-in-intcre.st pmvide~
evidcnce of compli~n~ with public facility ~n~ncing mcasure~. A cash sum of
one-hundred dolla~ ($100) per lot/unit shall be deposited with tbe City as
mitigation for public hqxary development.
Ih/or w the submittal of building phnm W the Dt3uazuneut of Building and Safety
an acou~cal study shztl be performed by an acou~cal engim~r to establ~h
l~llYpl~ I~fi~;iOll me~eBIT.~ that sh. Zl be ~ ~0 individual dwelling units
within the subdivision to ~duce ambient interior noise levels to 45
exterior levels to 65 CHIR,. (Amended at Directors Hearing on ~uly 16,
2B.
All buiJrllng pl~n~ for all n~w swactures shall incorporate all r~quir~d elements
f'wm the subdivision's approved ~ protection plan as approved by the Count'
Fir= Marshal.
All dwellings to be constructed wi~hln this mbdivision shall be d~signed and
constructed with fi~ mta_vdant (CI.~ A) roofs as approved by the Fi~ Marshal.
Roof-mounted m~h..;,'-~1 equipmeat shall not be permitted within the
subdivision, however solar equipmant or an)' other energy saving dcvic~ sh~,
All landscaping and irrigation $h.ll be installed in accorrt=nce with approved pl~n~
prior to the issuance of occupancy permits. If seasonal conditions do no[ p~rmi£
planting, interim land.scaping and erosion control m~asur~s sh~11 be t~.ili~.t as
appwved bi' the pl.n.i.g ~r and the Director of Building and Safe~.
All lands~?ing and inigation SI'~1! be installed in aceordance with approved pl~n~
and s~.!I be verified by City field in .~l)ection.
Not withstanding the preceding conditions, wherever an acoustical study is
mquized for noise .-~,,.t;on puxposes, the heights of an requiz~i w.n~ ~h.11 be
d~'mined by ~ aco~i~'~ smd}'.
Prior to the issuance of a [r~,~i-g permit, the applicant shall comply with the pwvisions
of Or, ti.=.,-.e No. 663 by paying the appwpri~- fee set forth in that or, in..ce. Should
Orrtln.nce NO. 663 be superseded by the provisions of a Habitat Conservation Plan prior
to the paymcnt of the fee required by Orttin~nr.e No. 663, the applicant shnll pay the fee
~ by the Habitat Conservation Plan as implemented by County Ordin. nr,~ 01'
~-..soludon.
7
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
¢f '~ ~'-" --'- 071imin~t~"'-4 at Dii~wn Hearing on luly 16, 1992).
The subdivider ~h.l! defend, indemnlf~, and hold harmless the City of Temecula, its
a~enLs, officer, and employees fwm any ehlm. a~ion, or proceeding a~ins~ the City of
Tem~fl. or ils a~enLs, ~, or employees W .meb, set aside, void, or nnnul an
approval of the City of Temecula, ils advhory agencies, appeal boarch or legislative body
con~ml-..= Tenlafive ~ Map No. 23143, Ame~ied No. 5 which a~ion is bwught
within the time period pzovided for in c'~li¢omia Govemm~t Code Section 66499.37.
The City of Temecula w~l promptly notify the subdivider of any such chlm, action, or
proceeding against the City of Temccuh and will cooperate fully in the defense. If the
City f~i1~ to pwmpfly notify the subdivld~-r of any tach e~=im, action, or pwcceding or
fails to coopexa~ fully in the defense, the subdivider shall not, thereafter, be respon,ibl¢
to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the City of Tern. eofl~:
The developer eh,I! mak~ a good faith effort to acquire any X~luir~d off-site pwpeny
interco/s, and if he or she sho-M fail to do so, th~ developer shall al lca~ 120 days prior
to submff~'-~! of tJ~ ~1 ~ for approval, en~r inw an al~emeal to comple~ the
improvemems punuant to Governm~t Code Semion 66462 al such time as the~
provide for payment by thc developer of all cosLs in,mn'cd by the Cip/to acquh'c the off-
si~ p~ interests ~ in conn~tion with the subdivision. S~curity of a portion
Of the-_~ cOSLS sh~l! be in the form of a .,~h d~posR in thc ~mOunt ~ivcn in an appr~i~!
r~pon ob~i,~ed by th~ developer, at the developer's cosL The appraiser shall have been
approved by the City prior to comm¢llCelllelK Of th~ app~i~l.
All uOlity sys~.ms including gas, elecu'ic, ~el~phone, waler, sewer, and ~hlc TV shall
be provided for underground, with easements pn~rided as requiz~d, and designed and
consuvc~ed in accor~ece with City Codes and the utility provided. Telephone, cable
TV, and/or security sys~ms shall be pre-wi_w~ in the residence.
"' Q:"- b} f-L;;
__ ,-,_.._,~__,. A ..... (l~imln~t~.t al ~rs Hea.,iug on July 16, 1992).
All utilities, except ¢l~:tdcal line~ rated 33kv or greater, stroll be ins~alled underground.
Covenants, Condilions and Restrictions/Reciprocal Access Easements:
35.
36.
37.
39.
The Coven.nC% Conditions and P,~.m'ktions (CC&R's) shall be ~viewed and approved
by the pl,,.i.g Dep~-,,ent prior to final approval of the tra~t maps. The CC&R's shall
inelud~ fi.h;lity insurance and methods of m.i.r~.i.g the open spa~, r~crrarion ar~as,
parking ar~as, priva~ n~d~, all buildings in common open ar~s, all inmfior slopes and
drainage facilities that ar~ nm m.;,.~,i.ed by the Flood Conn-ol Distria or CRy of
Temecula. (Amcvrl~ al the Dir~r's Hearing on July 16, 1992).
41.
No lot or dwe.l-g unit in the development ~h~11 be sold unleas a corporation, association,
propert'y owlle, r'$ gloup, Or simi1~r r. ul;iy has beell formed with the right to
prop~ individually owned or jointly own~ which lmv¢ any rights or ~uw.r~ in
power to be sufficient to m~e~ thc ~xpenses of such end~, and with authori£v
and the duty to m,ln~in, all of ~id mlgl~Uy awil,hlY £eatu= of the d~-v~l~le-~'.
Such entity shall opem~ under ~co, a~_ CC&.R'$ which shall include compulsory
membel~p of all owne~ of lots and/or dwelll.g units and flexibility of as.se.ssments to
mee~ changing costs of m~intl,~,vtce, 1~i1~, alld service$. ReCOl'dl~d CC~LR,'$
permit enforcement by th~ City of l~visio-.. X~luimd by th~ City as Conditions of
Approval. The developer ~h~11 submi~ evidence of compliance with thi~ r~luil-~ment to,
and nw~ive approval of, the City prior to m~t-i~g any such sale. This condition .~ball ll0t
apply to land dedicated to the City for public purposes.
Every owner of a dwelling unit or lot shall own as an appurtenance to such dwelling unit
or lot, either (1) an undivided intexr, st in the core-,on axcas and faelliti~s, or (2) a sha~
in the corpuxafion, or voting m~nbe~lfip in an association, or,lng the common a.reas
and facilities.
Maintenance for all l~ndscaped and open azr, as, including parkways, shnl! be provided
for in the CC&R's.
--.~."~' *~ .'..~.--..i~ .... }.va. ~. ('l~minated al Dir~ctor~ Hearing on July 16, 1992).
-'":-- ' - '" ...... f ~h- ~-"-' ...... A~-'r-,~ 0~ ~.d al DR~o H~m'ing
on July 16, 1992).
Prior to ~ issuance of buiJrll.~ permits, thc developer sh~11 submit a plot plan
application for approval to the Pls--i-i Director for the R-4 portion of the project
showing the location of each proposed structu~ on its lot in compliance with the
r~lUimments for development in the R-4 zone. (Amended at the Director's Hearing on
July 16, 1992).
42.
Prior to th~ issuanc~ of grading p~rmi~ a~a~~, the dcveloper
successur's int~r~st sh~l! submit a mitigation monitoring program which
how compli~ne~ with r~luir~d mitigation m~asurr, s will be met and the appropriate
monitoring timing Of the mlrigation. The applicant ~h~l! r~imburse the City for all
moniwring activity cost. (Amended at the Diz~ctor's Hearing on July 16, 1992).
43. All mitigation measures r~omm~nded in EIX No. 230 shall be implemented.
....... ('k'llmln~,,a at Directors H~aring on July 16, 1992).
45.
The applicallt $hn11 submit a llkw~lopment Agreement which shall be r~viewed and
approved by the City prior to r~:miation of the fh'a't phase. (Amended at the Direc~r's
Hearing on luly 16, 1992).
· CONDIT/ON$ 46 TKROUGH 58 ~ ADDI/D AT DIRECTOI~ HEARING ON JULY 16,
1992.
47.
48.
50.
51.
Prior to.the recordation of the i~n=! mnp, the developer/applicant shall be required
to enter into an Impact and Mitigation A~-eement approved by the Temecnla Valley
Unified School District. No recordation of a l~n=! map shall be completed by the
City of Temecnla until the developer/applicant presents written verification:
District that such an a~reement has been finalized and approved.
Necessary mitigation reinsures s~'~_ptable to the ~ and Wildlife and/or ~ and
Game shall be implemented prior to issuaaco of grarll..* permits to reduce the
impact of the project on K-Rats to a level of insignificance. Xf mitigation measures
are unavailable or are economically infeasible, grading permits shall not be issued..
A new K-Rat study shall be required if deemed we~-~.ry by the Planning Director.
The developmem of this project shall be consistent with the two Design Guidelines
prepared by Ranpac (applicable to the R-4 portion only) and Planni%* Design
Solutions (applicable to the whole project).
An administrative plot plan application shah be f'ded with and approved by the
Planni%* Department for the model home complex(es) in the R-1 zone district.
Prior to issuance of buildin~ peimits, a Consistency Check application or an
equivalent shaft be ~ed with and approved by the Planning Department.
The fourteen (14) foot equestrian Waft on the south side of Pauba Road shaft be
consistent with the Design Guidelines prepared by Plsnnlng and Design Solutions,
Exhibit 21 and the existing equestrian trail on Pauba Road along Paloma del
s~rrmnu,rm~-$.co^ I0
52.
Lot 1088 and 1093 shall be landscaped with native/drought tolerant trees, shrubs
and ground cover/hydrosced. Temporary irrigation shall be iastaUed to allow for
establishment of the landscaping subject to the review of the Pauba Ranchos Home
Owners Association and the approval of the P~rmlno° Director.
All w~ll~ and fanci~ sh~l be con~-ictent wllh the approved Design Guidelines.
Additionally, solid d~corative block wails shall be utfll,ed for the side yard fencing
for comer lots~
54.
The landscaping along Pauba Road shah be native landscaping to presetwe the
natural state of the area. The landscaping shall be subject to the review of the
Panba l~onchos Home Owners Association and approval of the Planning Director.
55.
A biological assessment of the Gnatcatcher shall be required prior to issuance of
grading permits, if the species is listed ~s endangered by the Hah and W'ddlife
and/or l~.sh and Game. Necessary mifi?tion measures acceptable to these agencies
shall be implemented prior to issuance of grading permits.
56.
All monumentafion w~thln the project shall be consistent with both Design Guidelines
approved for the projecl.
57. Lot 1087 shall be landscaped.
58.
Prior to issuance of gradln.= peimlts, erosion control landscaping shall be provided
consistent with Ordinance No. 457.7f.
Public Works D~parc,~ent
The following Depa~t~ucat of Public Works Conditions of Appwval are to amend, supersede or
to be added to the previously approved d~Velopment conditions for thi~ project, and shall be
completed at no cost to any C. wvernment Agency. All questions r~ganling the true m~nlng of
the conditions shall be re.f¢lred to the appropriate slaff person of the Department of Public
Works.
It is undemood th.t the Subdivil~ h~ COl'l'~y shown on the amended tentative map all
eld.v~g and proposed easements, traveled ways, improvements coniu,~nts and ds~in~§e courses,
and their omls~ioll m~y ~ the project to be re. submitted for further r~view and rovision.
59.
The Developer xh~l! comply with the State of C'~l~t~orni~ Subdivision Map Act, and all
applicable City O~in~,,ce,s and Resolutions.
The f~-~! map sh~u be
subjea to an the requi~m~ats of the Sine of C~]ifor. i~ Subdivision Map
Or~r=~ce No. 4~0.
PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF ~ FINAL MAP:
61.
Pursuant to Section 69493 of the Subdivision Map Act, any subdivision which is part
of an existin~ Assessment Distri-* mus~ comp~ with the requirements of said s~Jon.
(Added al ~m H~ring on Inly 16, 1992).
62.
Pedestrian ace. s walks .illa ad~lusie easements shall' be provided from the ends
of cul-de-saes or knuckles si the foHowi-_- locsiio~s: San Susn Court to Butterfield
Stage Road; Swoboda Court to Park Site "D'; and Cherokee Way, John Way and
Rudy Court, all to Crowne Nlli Drive. (Added al ~rs H~ring on Inly 16, 1992).
PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF ~ FINAL MAP:
63. The ~veloper shall _r~'_~_ive written cl~uance fnxn the following agencies:
Rancho California Water District;
Municipa Wa r Dira
Rivev~icl~ County Flood Conn-ol dimict;
'City of Tcmecula FLr~ Bureau;
Depamnem;
Riverside Co,,-~y Health Department;
CATV Fmnchi~; and
All mad ens~nents end/or stmex dedications shall be offered for d_~i~6on w the public
and shall continue in for~ until the City accepts or abandons such offers. An
dedications sh~]1 be fmc fi~m all ~ncumbran~ ns approved by the City Engineer.
65.
Nonhstd~ Chr~, Y~w Wood Pla~, Liuda Corot, .Stage Court. Wakeene Circle,
Wyando-- Smm. a P. ndy Court, landa Court, Paoh Court, Faber Court, Topeka Court,
Crateh~d Court, Majestic Court, P.~g~t~ 1~11, Vandamere Court, ~:-,?-,- Court, Monmy
Cit~, 1~11 Stre~ Pampa Court, Fiji Way, Suva T~.% Slanko Ciml~, M~ade Ciiv. l¢,
Oslo Circle, Jolen~ Circl~, Devant Circle, Drennon Cotut, Sparks Court, Dupont Circl~,
Swoboda Cotut. Aden Ch-cie, l'mmpo Ch~l~, John Way, Tr~.le Ch~l~, Drennen Ch:l~,
Hussar'Court, Trini Court, San Juan Court, Jolle Court, San Jos~ Court, Pli..c~ Way,
"Y" StIl~t, (3 Circle; Ci--=mon I~tle, Atchison Drive, Bi§h Court, Paraguay Drive,
Bnil l~-e, Whistl~ Court, Ch~rok~ Way, Wri.stle Court, P~ l~.e, R.i.r.=l~..
Avenue, Tonga Way, Sam Way, Soko Court, Solm Cin:le, Corddua Circle,
Munich Circle, P~ru Lane, ami B~rlin Wa), sban be improved with 40 fen
66.
67.
68.
69.
70.
71.
72.
73.
concmm pavement, or bonds for the succt improvements may be posmd, within the
dedimt~ right-of-way in accordance with County Standard No. 104, Section A (40'/60').
Swar~ Way, Tim= Street, Cmwne Hill Drive, C~tie Way, Trestle Sit,el, and l~yal
~ Place sh~I1 be improved with 44 feet of asphalt conc~te pavement, or bonds for
th~ ~l.~.,t improvelllents may be postnd, wjthln the tt~dlt-~tt~l right-of-way in accordance
with County Standard No. 103, Section A (44'/66').
Pauba Road ,~11 be improved with 32 feet of ~,,i~ sm~ improvement plus one 12' lane,
or bonds for the sram improvements may be posted, with!n a 44' dedicauxl fight-of-way
in a~cordanc~ with County Standazd No. 102 (~4'/88').
Buv~'Held Stage Road .~h~ll be ilzlproved ~ 43 feet of half ~ improvement plus
un~ 12' lane, or bonds for the sm~ impwvements m~y be posted, within a 55' dedicated
right-of-way in acconiance with County Standard No. 100 (86'/110').
In the event that Royal Cr~t l~e, Pauba Road, BuUen%ld Stage Road, =ntt Crowne
roll Drive ar~ not cun.vaucted by Asse. ssmeat District 159 prior tn :fi.~T m=? r~x:oidation,
tl~ developer ~h~! conmuct or bond for the tutu/red improvements. The improvements
shall be con~ruc~d prior tn occupancy.
Vehic,,1.? access sh.ll be xu.m/~ on Pauba Road, Bull~rfield Sta~e Road, and Crowne
Drive arid so noted on ~ ~n~l m~n.
Th~ stthdivid~' $h~11 construct or pos! securit]t and an agr~:ment shn. be executed
guazunte~ing the conslzucfion of the following public improvements in conformance with
applicable City stundants:
Steer improvements, inClUrtlns,' but not limited tO: pavement, curb and guuer,
sidewnlk% drive approa~he.s, ~ lights, $i~nin~, iLliping, tl--~ei¢ signal systems,
and other traffic control d~¢es a~ appwpriate.
B. Storm drab faci~tie~.
C. Sewer and domestic water systems.
Th~ street de~ig~ and improvement coacept of thi~ pwject shnll be coorrli.=t~l with
adjoining &'velopments.
Sl~em lights shall be provided along ~u~ems adjoini-~ the subject sit~ in a~cordance with
the sr~udanis of Orttl.nnce No. 461 and as approved by the City Engineer.
The minim~ ce~terline radii shall be 300 fee~ or as approved by the City Engineer.
s'.rrA~.~rmi~.s.coA 13
?$. All street centerline iatersecfions shall be at 90 degrees or az approved 'by
76. A r~i-lmum centerline str~ grade shall be 0.$0 l~rcent.
The subdivider shall submit four prints of a comprrdaensive grading plan to the
F~gineering Deparm~ent. The plan shall comply with the Uniform Building Code,
~hapter 70, a~d az may. be additio-=l~y provided for in the,se Conditions of Approval.
The pla~ sh~l! be drawn on 24' x 36' mylar by a Register~ Civil Eaginecr.
78.
The subdivider ,k=l! submit four copi~ of a soils rrpon to the Engineering Department.
The ~pon shall ~d~,~zs the soils stability and geological conditions of th~ site.
79.
A cl~in~e study shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer. All chris,ge
fadliti~ ~h~l! be ia~alled a~ ~lui~t by the City Engineer.
80.
On-site dr~i,~%,~ facilitiez, loca~ outside of road fight-of-way, shall be contained
d~i,~ ea.sem~m~ shown on the f-mai map. A note 'shall be added to the final map
stating 'Drainage ease~ellts sh~ll be kept ~ of buildings and obstructions.'
81.
A d~i-%~e eazement or a letter of'p~rmi*sion to accept drai-~ge' shift'[ be Obm;n~'d from
the affected property owne~ for the release of concentrated or diverted storm
th~ adjacent property. A copy of the ~.orded drainage easement shall be
th~ City for review prior to th~ r~.~rdafion of the final ,~.
82.
The subdivider sh=l~ pnXect downstream properties from Ama§es caused by alteration
of the d~i,~e p~n-ms; i.e., concentration or dive, on of flow. Protection ,h=l! be
provi~ by coasml~ing adequate ch~in~§e facilities, including e~ orging exis~g
faciliti~ or by securing a.dr~i-~e easement.
83.
Prior to t%=! map, the subdivider sh:~1! notify the City's CATV Franchises of the latent
to Develop. Conduit shall be installed to CATV Standards at time of ~h~et
improvements.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCtl OF GRADING PEP,.MIi~:
Prior to issuance of a grading permit, developer must comply with the requirements
of the Nafio-*l. Pollutant Discharge F. fi-,i-*tion System (NPDE~ permit form the
State Water Resources Control Board. No grading shall be pexmitted until a
NFl)ES dear-ance is granted or the projec~ is sho,,u to be exempt. (Added at
Dir~ors Hearing on July 16, 1992).
85.
Prior to any work being performed in public right-of-way, fees sh~, be paid
encroachment permit ~h~! be obtained from the City Engineer's Office.
86.
A gr~dln§ pcnnk shall be obtained f'mm thc Engineering Department prior to
commencement of any grading ou~sid~ of the City-maintained road right-of-way.
87.
A flood mitigation cl~e shall be paid. The charg~ sl~ll equal the pr~wiHug Ar~a
Drainage Plan fee ra~ multiplied by the ar~a of new development. The charg~ is
payabl~ w the Flood Control Distri~ prior to issuau~ of l~rmks. If ~h¢ full Ama
Dmln~g¢ phn f~e or mifigalion charge lms already credited to mi~ property, no new
charge n~x. cis to be paid..
PRIOR TO B~rrr.r~ING PHRlVl/T:
88.
Developer shall pay --y capital fee for road improvements and public facilities
imposed upon the properS, or project, inclu,I~%- that for traffic and public facil~
mitigation as required under the k'!lR;Negative Declaration for the projecz. The fee
to be paid shall be i~ the amount in
interim or flnsl public facility mitigation fee or distric~ bas not been f~nolly
es~bli~hed by the d~te on which developer requests its building permits for the
projeci or any phase thereof, the developer.shall e~--te the Agreement for payment
of Public Facility fee, a copy of which has been provided to developer.
Concurrently, ~ith e~_,~__,ting thi~ Agreement, developer shall post secu~ito,' to secure
payment of the Public Facility fee. The amount of the ._~e~__,rity shall be $2.00 per
square foot, not to e~__~__ $10,000. Developer understands that said Agr~meni may
require the payment of fees in ez,'~ of those now ~-~lmnted (a.~mlng benefit to the
projec~ in the amount of such fees). By execution of this agr~ent, developer will
waive any right to protest the provisions of this Condition, of the Agreement, the
formation of any traffic impact fee district, or the pro~, levy, or collection of any
traffic mitigation or traffic impact fee for this project; urovided that developer is not
waivln_~ its right to protest the reasonableness of any traffic impact fee, and the
~mount thereof. (This condition shall supe~ede a previous requirement). (Added
aI Directors H~ring on luly 16,
89.
A precis: gmal.g plan ch~n b~ submk~:i to th~ !=--gin~ea-ing D~par~¢nt for r~view and
approval. The building pad shall be approved by a registered Civil Engin~r for location
and e.k, vafion, and the Soil Engiae~r sh~n issue a Final Soils P.~-pon addr~asing
compaction and si~ conditions.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF CEP. TII~CA-i~:S OF OCCUPANCY:
90.
ConstrucI full street impwvcmcnts including but not limited to, cufo and gum:r, A.C.
pavem~nz, sid=walk, drive approaches, parkway trees and str~ lights on all interior
public sm:e~s.
91.
Asphaltic ~nuldon (fog seal) shall be appli~ not l~s ~h~. 14 days following'
of fl~e asphalt sudacing and sh~11 be a~pZied al a rar~ of 0.05 ~llon per square
Asphalt emulsion sh. ll cou/onn W Seclion Nos. 37, 39, and 94 of thc Sram Standard
92.
Transportation
PRIOR TO RF. CO~A~ON OF ~ FINAL MAP
CONDITIONS 92 THROUGH 94 ~ ADDED AT DIRECTOI~ m:4_RING ON/ULy
1992.
Plans for a traffic signal shnH be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and
approved by the Depamnent of Public Works for the intertron of Crowne 1~! at
Pauba Road and shsll be included in the str~ improvement phns with the second
plan check submittal.
94.
Prior to designing any of the above plans, contact Transportation EnL~inee~._~ for
the design requirements.
95.
Bus bays will be provided at all existing and future bus stops as deierm;-ed by the
Department of Public Works.
96.
A sig-l-g and striping plan s~.1~ be design~ by a mgismred Civil Engineer and appwved
by the City Engineer for all internal ~u=ets with a curb. separation of 44' or more. For
internal streexs with a curb sepaxafion of 40' or less, only a signing plan $h.11 b~
97.
Traffic signal plans shall be designud by a registered Civil engineer and approved by the
City Engineer for intersections of BulmedieJd Stage Road al Royal Crest Place and
Butmrti~d Stag~ Road al Cwwne ~I Drive. The~ ph.~ $h211 be includl~ in
improvement pl~.~ with thc second plan chc~2k submittal.
S~TmI43-5.CO~. 16
98.
99.
101.
When the Tra~ Map is ph~ed, a minlm.m Of 2 poiilr~ Of nil w~aguer vehichlar ingru, ss
alld egl?..,ls, with a 28' mlni~um width, ~h~l! b~ IcqRircd for each phase unlc. s~ otherwise
approved by the City Pmginecr.
Sight distance calculations shall be r~quL-cd for cach proposed intcr~ccdon, and sh~l]
conform with thc CalTmus sight disumcc s~mctaz~.
In thc ~vent ~h¢ Rancho Villu~ A.sse.ssmellt Di.~;n'~ No. 159 d~ not ~y ~pwvc
Bu~ S~ ~ ~m ~cho P~ro~ ~ ~ SR79 Sou~, ~y~ C~
~m Bvn.~d S~c ~ W ~ ~I ~ve, C~ne ~ D~vc from ~ ~ad
m Bu~ S~c ~, ~d ~ ~ ~m V~ ~ Monm ~ Bunted Smg~
~, ~ ~ ~ may ~ ~ a ~b~t ~mcnt wi~ ~c Ci~ for
· ~ ~oum ~ ~ ~r's pm ~ ~e of ~ ~i~ ~d ~n~on ~
of:
Signing and suiping pl~.~ pmtnm:l by a mgisrerud Civil Eugin~r and approved
by thc City Eogineer for Butmr6,,ld S~t~ Road from Rancho California Road to
SR79 South, Cwwne ~ Drive fu~n Panba Road to Buu~fi,`Id Stage Road,
Royal ~ Place f~om Butmffi~la Slagc Road to Crown-' Hill Drive, and Pauba
Road from V'm I~1 Mon~e ~o ]),,--,field Stage Road.
' Txaffic sikmal p1~,,, pm'pared by a m'~ Civil. Eu~_nccr and approved by thc
City Engineer for the u~m,-' sig,,.l locations at Butrerfield Stage Road and
Rancho California Road; Buttcrfield Stage Rind and Panba Road; Bullerficld
Stage Road and De Portoh Road; BmlerHeld Stage Road and SR79 South.
Traffic sigual inrerconnea phn, prepared by a regisrerud Civil Engineer and
approved by the City Engineer for Butterficld Stage Road from Pauba Road to De
Ponoh Road.
The r~i,sed ~4{un~ on Buiterfi~Id Stage Road from Pauba Road to ~ ~h
~ ~ shull h~ud~0"'~f ~ ~ ~c ~aci~ wi~ 120' of ~h
~n for ~ h~om w~ ~ ~ p~, Cmwne ~ ~ve ~ ~
Thc sniping plan for Pauba Road W include a' left mm lane for Crown,`
Drive.
A school zone siC, inS and striping plan shall be pr~uared by a zugisrered Civil Engineer
and approved by thc City Engin~r for the school sire within thi~ project. This will be
sepamre from thc *u,:e~ improvement p},nc and will cover any and all s~rcc~s necessary
m provid~ the apprupr~,~ signing and miping.
10:l. Prior w designing any of the above plans, conraa Tm-~ponafion Engin~r/ngt
d-~i~n r~luiremenza.
PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF ANY I~ICROACHMHNT PI~I'rs:
103.
A conm-ucfion ax~a Waffle control plan ~h. ll be designed by a registered Civil Engineer
and approved by the City Engineer for any sma closure and detour Or other disruption
tn traf/ic ciroulafion ss requir~ by the City Fmgineer.
PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF OCCUPANCY PHRAI1T~:
CONDITIONS 104 AND 10~ ~ ADDleD AT DIRECI1DP~ ltEARING ON/ULY 16,
1992.
104. The subdivider shall provide "stop" controls at the intersection of local streets with
arterial streets and collector streets ss directed by the Depa~tmant of Public Works.
105. Landscaping shall be limited ill the comer cllt-off ~ of all intersections and
adjacent to driveways to provide for mi,;~,,,m sight distance.
106.
107.
Ail sig~ing and striping shall be installed per the approved si~ing and striping ph.
All traffic sig,~.l~ ~h.l! be ~ and operational per th~ spec/al pwvisions
appwved waffic silpml ph. when warranted but not l=,~ than issuance of occupancy
the :Srml ph.~:.
108. All s~hool zone si~ing and striping sh=l! be inmlled p~r the aupwved school zone
si~i.§ and m-iping plan prior w occupancy of th~ school site.
109. All traffic signal inm'connozts along Bu~terfield Siage Road from Pauba Road to Dc
Ponoh Road .~h~ll be installed per the approved plan. '
s~r,~'~,rm,4~.co^ 18
CITYOF TEMECUL-A' I
City of Temecula
Planning Department
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
Attention: Saied Naaseh, Case Planner
SUBJECT: REVISED VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 23143
AMENDED NO. 4
The Temecuia Community Services Department staff (TCSD) has reviewed the
conditions as set forth in the County of Riverside, City of Temecula Conditions of
Approval and recommends that the City Council APPROVE Revised Vesting Tentative
Tract .No. 23143, Amended No. 4, subject to the Developer of his assignee
conforming to the TCSD Quimby Ordinance Number 460.93 as follows:
Ordinance No. 460.93 (Quimby) requires the dedication of 13.30 acres of developed,
active recreation area. The proposed private park land represents 14.0 acres, of
which 7.0 acres will be applied as a credit towards the dedication requirement, leaving
a 6.3 balance of required park land to be dedicated.
With' respect' to the applicant designating park land in excess of the Quimby
requirement, staff has made allowances for the improvement of said park sites to be
deferred to the later stages of development for this project.
The 6 acre park currently identified as "Park Site A" shall be identified on the
final map by lot number, indexed to identify said lot number as the proposed
public park, and shall be fully developed to TCSD standards and offered for
dedication prior to the issuance of the 250th building permit.
The 4.2 acre park currently identified as "Park Site F' shall be identified on the
final map by lot number, indexed to identify said lot number as the proposed
public park, and shall be fully developed to TCSD standards and offered for
dedication prior to the issuance of the 950th building permit.
Prior to the recordation of the Final Map, the applicant or his assignee shall
execute a letter of agreement with the Temecula Community Services
Department (TCSD) to improve the proposed public parks in accordance with
TCSD standards at ti~e of execution, for park purposes.
The 11 acre park identified as "Park Site D" (lot 1086), the 3.0 acre park
identified as "Park E" (lot 1085), the .4 acre park identified as "Park B" (lot
1083), and the .9 acre park identified as "Park C" (lot 1084) are considered to
be private parks and shall be maintained by an established Home Owners
Association (HOA).
All additional open space areas shall be maintained by an established Home
Owners Association {HOA). Open space areas identified as Lots 1088 and
1093 may be offered for dedication to the City of Temecuta for maintenance
purposes only following compliance to existing TCSD standards and completion
- of an application process.
Exterior slopes (as defined as: Those slopes contiguous to public streets that
have a width of 66' or greater), shall be offered for dedication to the City of
Temecuta for maintenance purposes following compliance to TCSD standards
and completion of the application process. All other slopes shall be maintained
by an established Home Owners Association (HOA).
Exterior slopes, which border a proposed.Community Park, shall be iderlz~iii~d
by .a. lot number separate from the park site. This lot shall terminate
lot hne of said park site. Slope areas that are contiguous to this lot sha~e
identified by a separate lot number.
All proposed slopes, open space, park land and recreational trails intended for
dedication to the City of Temecula for maintenance purposes Shall be identified
on the Final Map by numbered lots, with the square footage of said lot numbers
indexed as proposed TCSD Maintenance areas.
Prior to the execution of the Letter of Agreement, Applicant shall notify TCSD
staff of any changes in lot numbers, acreage, number of dwellings proposed,
or any other changes that will effect the current conditions in any way.
All questions, regarding the meaning of the conditions shall be referred to
Temecula Communiw Services Department staff.
ment Services Administrator
the
!ounty of Ri' 'rside
DEP~T~ENT OF H~.t.T, EECEWED ~A
T§: CITY OF TEMECULA
S&2ed Naaseh
F~M: ~ ~Envi ronmental
DATE:
Health Specialist
0::)-10-92
RE:
VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 23143. 2ND KXI.=N$ION OF TIKE
Department of Environmental Health has reviewed Vestin~
Tentative Tract Map 23143, 2nd Extension of Time dated
02-28-92.
Our current comments will remain as stated in our letter
dated 09-11-90.
SM:dr
Rl:~rsi~, CaZtSora£a
?aa:a-~Lve Tre~: 231~'; !3 . propo&al'~*o Oubdtvtde approx~a~eZy
Drain=ge fees sba!l be pa~ ~s a~t forth under the prov!-
£tn~1 map or parcel map, or ~£ :ma re¢or~ln: of a
cer:~flc:ce aS =o~pLL~n~c ev~on~!n~ t~o waiver of
parcel ~ap; or
of fans, :aa draioa~e f=ea s~aLl be pa£~ t~ the
inl per'nit ur bulldln~ v~r~lt for each approved ~ar-
cu!, what,ever may be first ~,lae~ after :he
(c) ^ ;re=In; per. it or bul/dLn~ per~i~ ha3 ~n
~n::~ ~:cr~ run~££ ahouLd be re:urned to ex/e~ln~ flor,
r~vla~ prior ~o C~e"rec=r~a~Lon of
~iunnoi~ o:n~ruetod alont lo; Ii.ms and brov di~oh~
should 3. :cn~re~e lined.
£'-.~la~ely £ol%ovini rough ;rudin~
o£ Jeor!~ on~o do~nn~ream properC/as or dre~:~a~e
.he de~elop~n, of adJaoen~ propartiaa t.o enaure :hst
diverted fro= one vatmrshed 1~ anozher. TItle any r~q~2
tho aonntru=tLo~ of bemporarr drainage tacitl%Lea or
Of~S~ eo-struoZLon .~d ~radin$.
of ~uy s~oui~ be oon&a~ned vlt~ln dressage ea~e=ec:~
ehomm on tad fLnaL map. A floce aaouL~ be a
puollcl¥ dedlcac~fi drainage ease'~nts obtained from :h~
a£faoce~ proper%y oufl~r(~). Tile ~oeumen~Ca) should be
roear~o~ and · ~opy 3u~lt;e~ ~0 ;~d Oistrie: prior co
r~eoraation of ~he final nap.
I1. Dratne&a fa~!lltios autleltln; au.~p :onditlo~ =nOuld
A~di:iunal ~er~ency escape ~nautd also
12, i CODy of the iaprOVd~en~ ~ena, ;raaln~ pian~ and fln~!
and approval ~rlor' bo record=lion o~ :~a
sul~ait~ed.
this a££1ae at 71q/?~?.~3:~'
:',:a£
RIVERSIDE
~ DE~AR~
IN GOOPERATiON WI'tH THE
CAJJFORN~A DEPARTMENT OF PORES'TRY
AND FIRE PROT~C'ZlON
GLEN J.
FEKE CH LI~'
JUNE 15, 1992
PLA.NNZNG & ~GIN~F
3?60 t2'/'fl ~.L
· RIVI~P,~DE. CA 9250~
(714) 275-~,777
TO: CZ~ OF '~fllCULA
A/TN: PLANNZNG
KE: TRACT :7.3143 A2~D. 5
~i=h respect to the condiCions of approval for =ha above referenced land divisio:
the Fire Department rec~ends the following f~re protection measures be providec
in accordance with Riverside Coun~ Ordinances and/or recognized fire protection
standards:
FI~E ?ROT~CTION
Schedule "A" fire prctec~icn approved standard fire hydrants, (6"z~"x2~") locate~
one at each street /ncerseccion and spaced no more ~n 330 feet apar~ ~n any
direction, w~.ch no portion of any loc frontage more than 165 feec from a hydrant.
ltLu/mum fire flow sbsl~ be 1000 GPH for 2 hours duration at 20 PSI.
Applicant/developer shall furnish one copy of r.~e water syste~ plans to the
Fire Depar~nent for review, pl... sh-ll be signed by a registered civil
engineer, cont~-g a Fire Depar=ment approval signature block. ~d s~
co~o~ =o hydr~= =~e, loca=2on, spac~E ~d m~ f~e flow. ~c~
pl~ are si~ed by =he loc~ wacer c~y, =he oris~s sh~' be presented
~o =he F~re Depar~en~ for si~a~ur~.
The required va=er system, including f~re hydrants, shall be t.atslled and accep~
by the appropriate water agency prior to any combus~ible building material being
placed on an individual lo=.
HITIGATION
Prior to the recordation of the f4..~ nap, =he developer Sh~11 deposit w~th the
Riverside County Fire Depar~ent, a cash sum of $&O0.00 per lot/un~ as m/~igati~
for fire protection impacts. Should the developer choose to defer the tine of
payment, he/she may enter ~nto a ~ritten agreement v'l~h the County deferr/n$ ss/,
payment to the t/me of issuance of the first building permit.
~E: T~ 231~3 Pa
All quest±one regar~ing the mean~n$ of conditions shall be referred to '~het
Planning and Eng±neering 8c~ff.
~AY~0~D H. REGIS
Chief Fire Depar~ent Planner
Laura Cabral, Fire Safety Specialist
l an h0
June 15, 1992
JUN 1 7 199.
Mr. Said Nasseh
City of Temccula
Planning Department
43180 Business Park DHve
Temecula, CA 92590
Water Availability
Tract Map 23143
Dear Mr. Nasseh:
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 o~er.
Water availability would be contingent upon the property owner si~ng an
Agency Agreement which assigns water management rights, ff any, to RCWD.
If you have any questions, please contact Ms. Senga Doherty.
Sincerely,
RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT
Steve Brannon, P. E.
Manager of Development Eng/neering
SS:SO:aj213/F18~
cc: Senga Doherty, Engineering Technician
tZO/i/eg
January ~ZT, *lg~
Riverside C:oun',y Planntng Oelmr~mnt
4080 Lesson Street, 9~ Floor
Riverside, California g2S01
SUSOI~: ~.~lLu TRACT ~143 (Rcm Goi~nan)
The INstr4c~ tS rts~mdtng to your rt~utst for cmm~nt% m t~e su~
X
Sever Settee Onstto and affStto gravtty smmrs regt?nally.
· b.)~ sCiCtoo. Provide for the new 1t¢t flatlon ~n~
eJrtJnded to · ~'~osed lift s~attofl ts at Teeecula Crnek on %he ~ts: .
A'I'FACHMENT NO. 7
EXHIBITS
R:~E O 'r~00-0272 tt23143 5thV~peal Report.doc
19
CITY OFTEMECULA
ProjeCt
Site
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-0272 (Extension of Time - Appeal)
EXHIBIT A
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - May 2, 2001
VICINITY MAP
R;~E O T~0-O272 tt23143 5thV~ppeat Repo;t.doc
CITY OF TEMECULA
PROJECT SITE
EXHIBIT B
DESIGNATION - SP-7 _(Temecula Regional Center S_~ecific Plan 263)
ZONING MAP
PROJECT SITE
EXHIBIT C
DESIGNATION - CC (Communi~
GENERALPLAN
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-0272 (Extension of Time - Appeal)
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - May 2, 2001
R:UE O 'T~0-0272 tt23143 5th~Appeal Report.doc
CiTY OF TEMECULA
REVISED VESTING TENTATIVE
TRACT MAP NO. 23143
Hill
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-0272 (Extension of Time - Appeal)
EXHIBIT D
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - May 2, 2001
SITE PLAN
R:~,E O T~00-0272 tt23143 5th~Appeal Report.doc
ATrACHMENT NO. 8
APPELLANT CORRESPONDENCES
RECEIVED APRIL 24, 2001
R:~E O T~O-0272 tt23143 5thV~ppeal Repo~.doc
Mr. Roger Jaeger
41235 Billy Joe Lane
Temecula, Calif.. 92592
(909) 676-5919
City of Temecula, Planning Commissioners
Dear Planners
April 23, 2001
On your Calendar for May 2nd, is an issue concerning approval of extension for tract map//23143. I have
had extensive conversations with the developer, who has at this point, been unwilling to discuss or comment on their
intentions of how they intend to develop this property with respect phasing or perimeter improvements. The only
thing that is for sure at this point that the developer has communicated, is that they intend to strip the entire property
of vegetation so as not to become entangled in any issues related to future endangered species. Attached is a letter
that I wrote to the developer that I would appreciate you taking a moment to read. I believe it fully explains all the
issues that I have concerning this property. I also know that it would be an inconvenience to you, but I would
appreciate it if you would visit the site and my property prior to the meeting. I don't believe you can fully appreciate
my concerns without first visiting the site.
I am asking you to postpone the approval of this map until the "conditions for approval" are more clearly
defined, and additional controls are agreed upon with respect to how this project is to be developed due to the long
term impact it is going to have on the existing neighborhood. Specifically, I am asking for the following:
· That a grading permit would be required prior to clearing and grubbing the property.. The UBC requires that if a
person moves more than 50 cys of dirt he is required to have a grading permit. This developer plans to disturb
anywhere from l'to 6" of dirt over a 400+ acre site. This amounts to between 60,000 to 360,000 cys of din.
There will we virtually no controls over dust or erosion if this is allowed to happen.
· This project should be built and developed in phases and a phasing plan should be in place.
· "All" perimeter improvements, such as road and landscaping, should be in place prior to any occupancy permits
being issued.
· All undeveloped lots and slopes need to be revegetated as soon as possible prior to issuing any building permits
or within 30 days.
· All slopes adjacent to and facing east toward Country Road Estates should be left in as natural a state as possible
except as required to actually grade the approved pad locations.
· That perimeter fencing needs to be installed and maintained during construction to limit illegal activities such as
off roading and dumping of trash.
Please give ear to my concerns a.,,~ act accordingly to prevent our neighborhood from being subjected to
unreasonable interruptions in our daily lives during this development period. This project if sold out at the current
rate of sales, would take over 10 years to complete. This is entirely too long to live next door and downwind to 400
acres of blowing dust without due considerations to the impact it will have on the existing neighbors who live in the
area.
Thank you for any considerations,
Roger Jaeger
Mr. Roger Jaeger
41235 Bil/y Joe Lane
Temecula, Calif. 92592
(909) 676-5919
April 1B, 2001
Communities Southwest
181..Old SPrings Road
Anaheim, Cal~. 92808
Mary Raushchenburg
Vice President, Development
Dear Mary,
Once again I am asking you to reconsider and not clear the property that is directly
to the west of my house until you are ready to actually build on the property. I am not
unsympathetic to your position and I understand that you have been financially dmnaged
due to the various endangered species that live on your property. However, to do so
would create a nuisance of unbelievable proportions, not only for myself but for the
existing community surrounding your property.
When we purchased our property over five years ago we were fully aware that
your property would someday be developed. We were assured, however, that a buffer of
custom homes, on large lots si~ilar to ours (Tract 26941), would be between us and the
more densely developed property (Tract 23143). At that time we had no knowledge of
the "gnat catcher" or the "quino eheakered butterfly". Nor at that time were developers in
the habit of clearing large tracts of land to avoid future endangered species. As you -know
our home sits on the side ora hill. It was built with large view windows and a circular
patio that over looks much of the west side and southern portions of your property. We
sit out on a point and almost seem to be right in the midst of your project. The visual
blight of cleared hills surrounding our property would be horrific. Not to mention the fact
that daily, we have winds in excess of 25 miles an hour which blow directly across your
property on to ours. As you are aware, we already have a problem with "offroaders"
creating excessive noise and dust fi.om your property.
In my desperation to prevent the premature development of this property, I have
spent, over the last month, countless hours in contact with virtually every government
· .entity involved in a project the size of yours. At this point I probably know more about all
the agencies and their various representatives than any one in Temeeulm There are
numerous laws, regulations, procedures, compllance's and conditions on the books which
are enforceable and carry extremely stiffpenalties for violations. Based on the extensive
research I have done, I believe that clearing the land the way that other developers in
Temecula have done and you propose to do~is clearly illegal and in violation of countless
rules and regulations. Your extreme decision to strip 400+ acres of all vegetation and
create the kind of nuisance you have indicated you will do, will instigate a costly and
lengthy effort on my part to prevent you from so doing. Please make no mistake
concerning my resolve or resourcefulness to do so.
On the other hand I also believe that there are available to you options that are
acceptable to me which should not cost you anything and could save you thousands of
dollars. First of all, ifa species that is threatened and listed as having Lived on your
property should become endangered, clearing your land would not guarantee you
exemption fxom compliance with regulations concerning a new endangered species
whether you were cleared or not due to the vegetation that you will have to reestablish to
co~o. rm with the conditions of your approval If you were to proceed with obtaining your
grading permit there would be no more approvals to obtain or species to .protect. Nothing
says you would have to immediately begin grading. As I understand, once you have a
grading permit, there is no requirement on the length of time to grade as long as some
documented progress is made every 6 months, or perhaps longer if you had a prearranged
agreement with the City of Temecula.
The other issue I would like to address is that of phasing. It appears that in your
documents there is the option of phasing. At our Public Hearing meeting you stated that
one of the reasons for grading in one phase has to do with requirements placed on you by
the City planners; specifically, park and school construetinn to the west of the project. I
have spoken with Mr. Dave Gallaher of TVUSD who stated the District has no immediate
plans for that school anytime within the next 6 years. Also in my conversations with
Herman Parker, the director for Temecula's parks, I got the very distinct impression that
they are not too excited about your parks at all due to their location, let alone, be in a
hurry to have them on line and have to begin with maintenance.
Another issue I recall you raised were economic concerns. Having been in
construction for over 30 years and having also been involved in construction of multiple
residential developments, I do not believe that grading in two separate phases will have
much of an impact, in fact it could save you money. Especially, since you are required to
fully landscape, improve and maintain all the interior streets prior to issuance of occupancy'
permits. My interpretation of this issue would be the most restrictive one and I would
object to any agreement between you and the City that would allow you to grade your
project in one phase, but allow you to occupy homes in as many phases as you desire, to
the detriment of us who would have to live with the undeveloped backside of your project
for the next 10 to 15 years it will take to fully complete.
The only other issue, to my understanding, in my meeting with the planning
department's staff, was that of compliance with the need for 2 exits and entrances per the
Fire Department. If you were to develop only the area east of, and including Crowne Hills
Parkway, along with a portion of the southern part of the project. This would easily satisfy
. those requirements.
An alternative option, that.I would support would be to develop completely in one
phase, but fully develop first, the properties in the Northwest quadrant of Crowne Hills
and adjacent to Country Roads. These are going to be the most valuable lots and would
probably be the most marketable in a slumping economy. Also, the remaining proper~y
would be the least likely to become inhabited by endanger species.
Regardless of how this project is developed, the east face of the hills should and
must remain covered by the natural vegetation or be fully landscaped prior to the next
rainy season. All those hills on the east face drain into a creek bed that separates your
property from Country Road Estates, which part of it, is actually is on my property. Tills
is a federally protected stream and falls not only under the jurisdiction of Army Corps, but
also is subject to rules and regulations by the Regional Water Quality Board and the
Cal/fomia Department offish and Game. You are also required to obtain written
permission from me prior to diverting or concentrating the flow of water onto my
property without my written approval as per the conditions of your approval fi.om the City
of Temecula, which I will not provide for you. You may want to reconsider the idea I
suggested'previously of somehow transferring the ownership and/or responsibility for this
area to City's Par'ks and Recreation. I thought we had a very workable solution that would
have saved you thousands of dollars in improvement costs, at no cost whatsoever to you.
It is unfortunate that between you and the City you chose to meet without me. I'm sure
that I could have found a way to make it happen, but apparently at this time, them is
nothing moving forward with this proposal or my request for you to place a price on the
property so I could poss~ly purchase and develop it myself. Not that I would want to, but
at this point I am desperate enough to try anything to keep this pristine coastal sage
property in as natural a state as possible, for the long term benefit of not only myself, but
many others, including your future residents of Crowne Hills. One of our City Council
members has expressed an interest in this as a natural park site. It is the possibly the last
remaining sites that looks like the original hilln that was once graced all of Temecula. Also
this is one of the primary and remaining Hot Air Balloon landing sites in Temecula.
In the event you should decide to ignore my request and proceed with the clearing
operation, be advised you are required to obtain a permit fi.om the South Coast Regional
Air Quality Management District. They have very specific rules and guidelines with regard
to fugitive dust, especially since your property would qualify as a "Large Operation" (over
100acres) and be considered as a "Highwind Area" due to the fact that the winds exceed
25 miles per hour virtually every day.
In closing let me state I do not want to fight with you or any one else. It is my
deske that we be neighbors who respect each others right to peacefully enjoy the use,
occupancy and legal development of our respective properties. That is why I have
suggested to you several viable options that would not severely impact our neighborhood
or your bottom line profits. Once again I ask you to reconsider all your options before you
proceed with the clearing of your property. I remain available to discuss these and any
other items or issues you may want to discuss. Perhaps we can come to an agreement
prior to my appeal of your time extension, on May 2, at the Planning meeting.
Sincerely,
Roger A. Jaeger
CC
President, Communities Southwest, Phoenlz~ Arizona
City of Temecula, Planning Commission Members
City of Temecula, Council Members
PC RESOLUTION NO. 01-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL
APPROVE A RESOLUTION ENTITLED "A RESOLUTION OF THE
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-0422 (GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT) TO AMEND THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP
FOR THE CITY OF TEMECULA FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED
ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD
AND HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH, ALSO KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S
PARCEL NO. 952-200-002, 011,012 AND 013", AND ADOPT AN
ORDINANCE ENTITLED "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. 00-042t (CHANGE OF ZONE) TO AMEND THE
OFFICIAL ZONING MAP FOR THE CITY OF TEMECULA FOR THE
PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF
BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD AND HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH, ALSO
KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NOS. 952-200-002, 0t 1,012
AND 013"
WHEREAS, the Buttedield Station LLC/Ronald McRay and Tom Jerele initiated Planning
Application Nos. 00-0421 and 00-0422, in accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and
Development Code;
WHEREAS, Planning Application Nos. 00-0421 and 00-0422 were processed including, but
not limited to public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, notice of the proposed Resolution was posted at City Hall, Temecula Library,
Pujol Street Community Center, and the Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application Nos. 00-0421 and
00-0422 on May 2, 2001, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the
City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support or opposition
to this matter; and
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing and after due consideration of the
testimony, the Commission recommended approval of Planning Application Nos. 00-0421 and 00-
422;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES
RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby incorporated by
reference.
Section 2. Findin.qs. The Planning Commission, in recommending approval of this General
Plan Amendment and Zone Change, make the following findings:
R:~g P A~00-0421 & 422~pC Staff Report.doc
7
The amendments are compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community.
The proposed amendments meet the goals and policies of the General Plan, and are
consistent with the anticipated impacts of the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
for the General Plan and the guidelines of the Development Code. Any future
development of the site will be subject to the City's General Plan, Development Code
and Design Guidelines to ensure the public health, safety and welfare of the community
is maintained when the site is developed.
The amendments are compatible with the existing and surrounding uses. There is a
small amount of existing retail uses across Highway 79. Additionally, the permitted uses
of the proposed Community Commercial zoning and land uses are similar to the
adjacently zoned property of Highway Tourist Commercial. Therefore, the proposed
amendments will be compatible with the existing and future uses in the surrounding
area.
The proposed zoning and land use map amendments will not conflict with the existing
zoning or land uses and will result in more compatible potential land uses as the subject
site is currently adjacent to HTC (Highway Tourist Commercial) zoned property to the
west and the urban residential uses to the south. Future Community Commercial
development is anticipated to meet the needs for the local residents, including the
residential development to the south and north. Therefore, the proposed amendments
will result in compatible development which is a goal of the General Plan.
Section 3. Environmental Compliance. An Initial Environmental Study was prepared for
this project to determine if the proposed changes would result in any environmental impacts beyond
those impacts identified in the Final Environmental Impact Report for the City General Plan. The
initial Study indicated that the proposed General Plan Amendment would not result in impacts
beyond those originally anticipated for the City General Plan. As a result, the Planning Commission
recommends that the City Council make a determination that the potential impacts of this change
were adequately addressed by the Final Environmental Impact Report for the City General Plan and
that no further environmental analysis is required.
Section 4. The City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby recommends approval of
Planning Application Nos. 00-0421 (Change of Zone) and 00-0422 (General Plan Amendment) and
recommends that the City Council approve a Resolution entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-0422
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO AMEND THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP FOR THE
CITY OF TEMECULA FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF
BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD AND HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH, ALSO KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S
PARCEL NOS. 952-200-002, 011,012 AND 013" substantially in the form that is attached as Exhibit
A, and adopt an Ordinance entitled "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-0421 (CHANGE OF ZONE) TO
AMEND THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP FOR THE CITY OF TEMECULA FOR THE PROPERTY
LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD AND HIGHWAY 79
SOUTH, ALSO KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NOS. 952-200-002, 011,012 AND 013"
substantially in the form that is attached as Exhibit B.
R:~ P A~00-0421 & 422~C Staff Report.doc
8
adjacently zoned property of Highway Tourist Commercial. Therefore, the proposed
amendments will be compatible with the existing and future uses in the surrounding
area.
The proposed zoning and land use map amendment is consistent with the adopted
General Plan and will not conflict with the existing zoning or land uses and will result in
more compatible potential land use patterns. Future Community Commeroial
development is anticipated to service the needs for the local residents, including the
residential development to the south and north.
Section 6. Severability. The City Council hereby declares that the provisions of this
Ordinance are severable and if for any reason a court of competent jurisdiction shall hold any
sentence, paragraph, or section of this Ordinance to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the
validity of the remaining parts of this Ordinance.
Section 7. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the
same to be posted as required by law.
Section 8. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days
after its passage. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and cause copies of
this Ordinance to be posted in three designated posting places.
Section 9. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its passage;
and within fifteen (15) days after its passage, together with the names of the City Councilmembers
voting thereon, it shall be published in a newspaper published and circulated in said City.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED, by the City Council of the City of Temecula this
day of 2001.
ATTEST:
Jeff Comerchero, Mayor
Susan W. Jones, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
[SEAL]
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss
CITY OF TEMECULA )
I, Susan W. Jones, Cifyy Clerk of the City of Temecula, California, do hereby certify that the
foregoing Ordinance No. 01- was duly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a
regular meeting of the City Council on the day of ~, 2001, and that thereafter, said
Ordinance was duly adopted and passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
Temecula on the day of ,2001 by the following roll call vote:
R:~g P A~00-0421 & 422~oC Staff Report.doc
16
February 6, 2001
Michael McCoy, Case Planner
City of Temecula
Planning Department
43200 Business Park Drive
Post Office Box 9033
Temecuia, CA 92589-9033
SUBJECT:
WATER AVAILABILITY
PARCEL NO. 16 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 19582-1
APN 909-270-023
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA01-033
HANK'S HARDWARE AND LUMBER
Dear Mr. McCoy:
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, the customer will need to contact RCWD for fees and
requirements.
Water availability would be contingent upon the property owner signing an
Agency Agreement that assigns water management rights, if any, to RCWD.
T~, you should have any questions, please contact an Engineering Services
Representative at this office.
Sincerely,
RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT
Steve Brannon, P.E.
Development Engineering Manager
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
February 8, 2001
City of Temecula
P.O. Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
Attention: Michael McCoy
RE: PA01-O033
Dear Mr. McCoy:
The Department of Environmental Health has reviewed the proposed home improvement
center and has no objections. The project will be on sanitary sewer and an approved
piped water source. Prior to any building approvals," will-serve" letters for water and
sewer shall be required.
If you have any questions regarding this letter, please call this office at (909) 955-8980.
Sincerely,
Supervising EHS
Land Use and Water Engineering * [?O Box 1206. Rivemde. C~. 92502-1206 ' (909~ 955-8980 ' E-MX (909) 955-8902 ' 4080 Lemon Sa'eel 2nd F~¢or. Riverside, CA 92502