Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout081804 PC Agenda . In 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) 694-6444. 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 REGULAR MEETING CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 43200 BUSINESS PARK DRIVE AUGUST 18, 2004':'; 6:00 P.M. ........ Next In Order: Resolution No. 2004-042 CALL TO ORDER Flag Salute: RollCall: Commissioner Chiniaeff Chiniaeff, Guerriero, Mathewson, Olhasso, and Telesio PUBLIc COMMENTS A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public may address the Commission on items that are not 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 salmon colored "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 mi2!: 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. .1 Aaenda RECOMMENDATION: R:\PLANCOMMlAgendas\2004\O8-18-04.doc 1.1 Approve the Agenda of August 18, 2004 2 Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Approve the Minutes of June 16, 2004 2.2 Approve the Minutes of July 7, 2004 3 Director's HearinQ Case Update RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 Approve the Director's Hearing Case Update for July 2004 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. Continued from August 4, 2004 4 PlanninQ Acolication No. PAO4-0477 a Develooment Code Amendment to amend a portion of Chapter 17.08 of the City of Temecula Municical Code establishinQ additional performance standards reaulatinQ office use in Liaht Industrial Zones. Dale West. Associate Planner 5 PlanninQ Acclication PA03-0723 a Develocment Plan. submitted bv MCA Architects. to construct two sinQle-story retail buildinQs consistinQ of 6.480 and 6.870 SQuare feet rescectivelv on two parcels totalina 1.3 acres. located on the northwest corner of Overland Drive and MarQarita Wav. Matthew Harris. Associate Planner New Items 6 PlanninQ Acclication No. PA03-0603 and PA03-0604 a Develocment Plan and Tentative Tract Mac. submitted bv William Lvon Homes. to subdivide 14.1 acres into 128 lots (125 detached sinQle-familv courtyard homes) with a minimum lot size of 3.000 SQuare feet. In coni unction. a Develocment Plan (Product Review) for 125 residential courtyard homes located within PlanninQ Area 7 of the Wolf Creek Specific Plan is beinQ reQuested. Units ranee from 1.800 SQuare feet with 4 different floor clans and 3 architectural desiQns. located east of PechanQa Parkwav and west of Wolf Creek Drive North. Cheryl Kitzerow. Associate Planner. R:\PLANCOMMlAgendas\2004\O8-18-Q4.doc 7 Plannina Application No. PA03-0609 a Minor Condtional Use Permit. submitted bv Exxon Mobile Corporation. to allow the sale of beer and wine (Tvce 20 license) from an existina 925 SQuare foot Mobil cas station buildina. located at 44520 Bedford Court. aenerallv located at the southeast corner of Hiahwav 79 South and Bedford Court. Stuart Fisk. Associate Planner. 8 Plannina Application No. PA02-0371 and PA02-Q372. a Tentative Tract Map and Zonina Amendment. submitted bv Marchand Wav Development. Inc.. to subdivide 4.57 cross acres into 7 sinale-familv residential lots averaaina 0.5 net acres and chance the zonina from Low Densitv Residential (L-1. 1 acre minimum) to Low Densitv Residential (L-2. 0.5 acre minimum\. located on the east side of Ynez Road. opposite Quiet Meadow Road and aDDroximatelv 473 linear feet north of the centerline of Santiaao Road. Matt Peters. Associate Planner. COMMISSIONER'S REPORTS PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT ADJOURNMENT Next regular meeting: September 1, 2004 Council Chambers 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 R:\PLANCOMMlAgendas\2004\OS-1S-Q4.doc . ITEM #2 . . . . . MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 16, 2004 CALL TO ORDER The City of Temecula Planning Commission convened in a regular meeting at 6:00 P.M., on Wednesday, June 16, 2004, in the City Council Chambers of Temecula City Hall, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. Chairman Telesio thanked Eve Craig for the prelude music. ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Chiniaeff led the audience in the Flag salute. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Chiniaeff, Guerriero, Mathewson, Olhasso, and Chairman Telesio. Absent: None. PUBLIC COMMENTS None. CONSENT CALENDAR 1 Aqenda RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Approve the Agenda of June 16, 2004. 2 Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Approve the Minutes of April 21, 2004. 3 Director's Hearina Case Update recommendation: 3.1 Approve the Director's Hearing Case Update for May 2004. R:IMinutesPCIO61604 MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved to approve the Consent Calendar. Commissioner Olhasso seconded the motion and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. . COMMISSION BUSINESS New Items 4 Plannina Application No. PA03-0717 an Administrative Development Plan. submitted bv Matt Greenbera. WestMar. to construct a 550 SQuare foot fenced outdoor smokinalseatina area in association with an existina lounae located at 27725 Jefferson Avenue. Suite 101 and 102. north of Montezuma Senior Planner Papp presented a staff report (of record), relaying the following: . That the Beacon Lounge has applied for an Administrative Development Plan (ADP) to construct a 550 square foot outdoor seating/smoking area in conjunction with the existing lounge; . That the area is being proposed to be fenced with an eight-foot high wall around an existing landscaped area; . That the applicant expressed concern with the Planning Department's Conditions of Approval regarding landscaping and that the applicant was informed that more landscaping would be required as replacement for the landscaping to be removed; . . That staff suggested that the applicant plant vines or shrubs along the outside base of the fence, to incorporate live plantings in clay pots near the entrance to the lounge, and to plant a cluster of small trees in the southwest corner of the outdoor area; . That the applicant's revised plan indicated one sago palm in a corner and a total of three clay pots; . That staff made an administrative decision to have this item come before the Planning Commission for review and approval; . That staff is in favor of the application but that staff is of the opinion that the landscaping be upgraded and staff has attached three Conditions of Approval to address the concern of landscaping. At this time, the Public Hearing was opened. Mr. Patrick Meredith, the applicant, relayed the following: . R:\MinutesPCIO61604 2 . . . . That he is of the opinion that the landscaping requirements have been met; . That the applicant is open to any type of tree other than sago palm. At this time, the Public Hearing was closed. COMMISSION DISCUSSION Commissioner Guerriero noted that he is in favor of the patio concept but concurs with staff's recommendation in regard to landscaping. Commissioner Mathewson concurs with staff's recommendation of conditioning the fence inward approximately 18 inches from the drive aisle to accommodate landscaping and noted that he is not in favor of the proposed sago palm. MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved to approve staff's recommendation and that staff work with the applicant in regard to the tree type. Commissioner Mathewson seconded the motion and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Commissioner Chiniaeff who voted No. PC RESOLUTION NO. 2004-031 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA03-0717, AN ADMINISTRATIVE DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO CONSTRUCT A 550 SQUARE FOOT FENCED OUTDOOR SMOKING/SEATING AREA IN ASSOCIATION WITH AN EXISTING LOUNGE LOCATED AT 27725 JEFFERSON AVENUE, SUITE 101 AND 102, NORTH. OF VIA, ALSO KNOWS AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NUMBER 921-400-031 5 Plannina ADDlication No. PAO4-0215 a Comprehensive Sian Proaram. submitted bv Bruce Heinsel. Motivational Svstems. for the "villaae" commercial portion of the Temecula Creek Villaqe Proiect located on the south side of Hiahwav 79S between Jedediah Smith Road and Avenida De Missiones Senior Planner Papp presented a staff report (of record), noting the following: . That on December 12, 2001, the Planning Commission approved a Development Plan to allow for the construction of 400 apartment units and 121,000 square feet of commercial office retail space on approximately 32 acres; . That at the time of approval, a sign program was not required by the Development Code for this type of building; therefore, the Planning Commission did not have the opportunity to review signage for the project; R:\MinutesPC\O61604 3 . That therefore, staff brought the sign program to the Planning Commission for review and approval and that the sign program for Temecula Creek Village proposes 10 different types of signs; . . That staff reviewed proposed sign program and is of the opinion that most of the signs conform to the design standards found in the Development Code. Sian proposals: . Signs Band C: (see staff report); that staff is of the opinion that there is a need to enhance these signs by adding architectural elements to the top and sides of each sign, per the Development Code; . Sian E: (see staff report); that the Development Code is silent on suspended cabinet signs mounted with the issue of internal illumination; that as a condition of approval, staff recommends the insertion of an opaque backing plate behind the sign face, stamped or cut in such a way, to illuminate only the text and graphic elements of the sign face; . Sian F: (see staff report); that staff has concerns with the issue of internal illumination and recommends Condition of Approval No. 16 to address this issue. . CONCLUSION: Staff has determined that the proposed sign program, subject to the proposed Conditions of Approval, for the Temecula Creek Village Development, comply with the purpose and intent of the sign standards of the Development Code; and that staff is of the opinion that the sign program will enhance the development, and staff is recommending approval. For Commissioner Mathewson, Mr. Papp further clarified sign dimensions and fonts. At this time, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Bruce Heinzel, of Motivational Systems Inc., representing A.W. properties relayed the following: . That the primary objection in the signage design would be to create an image and a mood consistent with Temecula's unique atmosphere and to create a continuous theme within the mixed-use development including Temecula Creek Village retail and the gated residential area by utilizing a slight variation of the same logo; . R:\MinutesPCIO61604 4 . . . . That the timeless, up-scale craftsman-style logo mark was rendered with a color- palette change to differentiate the two developments, while still tying them together as a community; and that the residential logo will appear in stained glass while the retail logo will be in dark rust and bronze; . That natural materials and earthy colors in the signs will be enhanced by the surrounding terrain and will illustrate the builder's attention to detail and concern for the City's environment; . That the signs being proposed will create a sense of arrival and permanence in the community with striking details and illumination, while still functioning as visible, legible directional signage for both pedestrian and vehicular way finding. The following describes the types of signs being proposed: Main entry identification monument . Sian Tvpe A: would be the main entry identification monument; . Sian Tvpe B: would be a man entry major retail tenant monument; . Sian TvDe C: would be a secondary major office tenant monument; . Sian TvDe D: would be freestanding multi-tenant directory; Secondary Identity Sianaae . Sian TVDe E: retail tenant identification arcade sign; that staff expressed concern with illumination type; . Sian TVDe F: upper floor office tenant identification signage; . Sian TvDe G: major office tenant identification; Wav findina . Siqn Type H: secondary office tenant directory; . Sian TVDe I: retail tenant signage; . Sian TvDe J: building address plaque. At this time, the Public Hearing was closed. COMMISSION DISCUSSION Commissioner Chiniaeff expressed excitement with the overall project. Commissioner Guerriero echoed Commissioner Chiniaeff's comments. Commissioner Olhasso noted her appreciation for the improved monument sign and complemented the logo, but did express concern with the logos on the second story. R:IMinutesPClO61604 5 Assistant City Attorney Curley clarified corporate logs noting that the Commission could control the size of logos but not the actual logo itself. . Commissioner Olhasso suggested reducing the size of the signs. Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that she understands the concerns of the Commission in regard to the size of the signs and relayed that if it is the will of the Commission, staff could work with the applicant in reducing the size. For the Commission, Senior Planner Papp relayed that he would be happy to work with the applicant to address the concerns of the sign size. MOTION: Commissioner Mathewson move staff's recommendation; that staff work with the applicant in regard to architectural treatments for Sian Tvpes B&C to include chisel cut caps to all freestanding monument signs and above tenant identification panels; that opaque backing to all store front identification signs be added (see staff report); that the text regarding individual signs be clarified with staff and the applicant; and that the applicant work with staff to achieve an appropriate reduction for Sian ~. Commissioner Olhasso seconded the motion and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. PC RESOLUTION NO. 2004-032 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA04-0215, TO ADOPT A COMPREHENSIVE SIGN PROGRAM FOR THE "VILLAGE COMMERCIAL" AREA OF TEMECULA CREEK VILLAGE GENERALLY LOCATED ALONG THE SOUTH SIDE OF HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH BETWEEN JEDEDIAH SMITH ROAD AND AVENIDA DE MISSIONES, ALSO KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL 961-010-025 THROUGH -031, -033 THROUGH -035, AND -037 . 6 Plannina Application No. PA04-0297 a City initiated Development Code Amendment to establish reQuirements for private heliports and to make other minor chanaes Associate Planner Harris presented a staff report (of record), noting the following: . That in October 2003, under a Conditional Use Permit (CUP), a rooftop heliport was approved at 42580 Rio Nedo at the northwest corner of Temecula in an industrial area and will be 400 square feet in size; . That the Planning Director's decision was appealed by Councilman Stone; advising that his concerns were that there was no current criteria that existed within the Development Code that would apply to heliports; and that due to this, Mr. Stone was of the opinion that further analysis by the City would be warranted; . R:\MinutesPCIO61804 6 . . . . That based on Councilman Stone's appeal, staff surveyed 16 heliport jurisdictions stating that out of 16 jurisdictions, half did not have any standard regulations for heliports; and that the scope and range of the heliports that did have regulations, varied greatly; . That staff recommends that private heliports also be allowed in the Professional Office (PO) zoning districts as a conditional use to better serve business owners and executíves; . That moreover, staff is requesting that private hospital heliports also be allowed as a conditional use in the Community Commercial (CC), Highway Tourist Commercial (HTC), and Service Commercial (SC) zones so as to better accommodate a potential hospital facility in these areas of the City; . That in addition, staff has drafted siting and design criteria which addresses the following: 0 Prohibiting the siting of private heliport facilities within 1,000 feet of existing or designated schools, public parks, and existing and future assembly facilities having 500 persons or more seating capacity; 0 Prohibiting the siting of the heliport's touchdown liftoff area within required yards nor within ten (10) of the property line; 0 That as part of the City's processing of the Conditional Use Permit (CUP), these facilities proposals will be transmitted to both the State Aeronautics Division, the Airport Land Use Commission, Riverside County, and the FAA as well; 0 That the amendment will also be requiring a potential wall around ground heliports to reduce horizontal wind velocities; . That since the writing of staff's report the State Aeronautics Division recommended another change to the proposed ordinance that reads: that ground heliports may be required to be surrounded by a fence or wall at least four feet high and constructed in such a manner as to deflect the horizontal wind velocities caused by the rotation of the rotor blades, providing all FAR Part 77 imaginary surfaces and the surface area remain obstruction fee; and that staff is recommending that additional language be modified; . That touchdown liftoff area shall be surfaced with material that will be free of dust, loose organic or inorganic material, and particles that may be blown about by the helicopter; R:IMinutesPCIO61604 7 . That lighting used for nighttime operations shall be directed away from adjacent residences; . . That in regard to rooftop heliports no roof openings, windows, or skylights, shall be permitted within twenty-five (25) feet of touchdown landing area; . That staff is proposing that flights operate between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. on weekdays only (except for medical emergency flights); however, there would be the ability to have intermittent use flights on Saturdays and Sundays subject to an acquisition of a temporary use permit; . That in regard to operational hours, the applicant is requesting that the operational hours (prohibiting the weekend use) be applied to heliports over 500 feet of a residential zone; . That biennial monitoring report will come before the Planning Commission every couple of years; that the biennial report shall include data on the types of helicopters using the facility, hours of operation, performance standards, number of monthly flights, and any other necessary data; . That staff determined that the provisions are exempt from CEOA; . . That staff recommended that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council adopt the proposed Development Code amendment for private heliports. COMMISSION DISCUSSION Commissioner Chiniaeff noted that a wall or fence surrounding a ground heliport would cause dust to be blown around and suggested that this requirement be deleted; that hospital heliports be limited to those that serve ER/trauma centers; that staff consider operating hours on an case by case study; and that in regard to the annual report, staff may want to consider asking for a review of the CUP only if there have been complaints due to the heliport. Commissioner Guerriero relayed that he concurs with staff in regard to hours of operation; that someone other than the applicant should be in charge of the periodic review other than the applicant and that Commissioner Guerriero concurs with Commissioner Chiniaeff's comment in that hospital heliports should be only for ER/trauma. . R:IMinutesPClO61804 8 . . . Fire Marshal McBride noted the following: . That there is a loop hole of Article 24 of the California Fire Code which states that: there must be two conforming exits, stairway and a legitimate door exiting from a helicopter landing area if its on a building; that the loop hole states that if it is smaller than a certain dimension, one conforming exit and that the second could be a quick escape device (ladder); the loop hole portion is that if you have the helicopter landing on the roof, the roof of any commercial building would far exceed the dimensions and there would need to be two conforming exits; that if a 12 inch platform is built on top of a roof, the exiting requirement would only be from the platform to the roof resulting in one exit leaving the roof to get down; . That the department has great difficulty with the idea of only having one exit from a rooftop helicopter; . That often times general acute care hospitals take in people that turn unstable and need to be flown to more advanced care; Assistant City Attorney Curley clarified zoning ordinances for the Planning Commission. At this time, the Public Hearing was opened. Mr. Daniel Roth of Robinson Helicopters noted that the California Fire Code and the California Building Code that when you have a small helicopter landing area the number of people in the helicopter is small, it is not necessary to have two exits from it. Mr. McBride clarified that if the Planning Commission adopts an amendment to the Development Code that Mr. McBride would suggest to include a requirement for two conforming stairway exits from any rooftop heliport. At this time, the Public Hearing was closed. MOTION: Commissioner Chiniaeff moved to recommend that the City Council adopt the proposed ordinance subject to the following: that hospital heliports be limited to those that serve as ER/trauma, that the requirement of a wall or fence be installed around helipads be deleted; that the periodic review be implemented only if there have been complaints to a specific site; that staff consider the hours of operation on a case by case study. Commissioner Guerriero seconded the motion and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. R:\MinutesPCIO61604 9 PC RESOLUTION NO. 2004-033 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSIN OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE TO ESTABLISH REQUIREMENTS FOR PRIVATE HELIPORTS IN VARIOUS ZONES ANDMAKE OTHER MINOR CHANGES" PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA04-O297 . 7 Plannina ApDlication No. PA02-0478 an ADPeal. submitted bv Brad Adams. Sunstone Svstems Intemational. Inc.. of the Plannina Director's decision to approve a Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan for the construction. establishment and operation of a Drivate heliport on an existina industrial buildina located at 42580 Rio Nedo Associate Planner Harris presented a staff report (of record), noting the following: . That staff has reviewed the proposed heliport project against the draft supplemental standards and has determined that the project would fully conform to these provisions; . That should the Commission support the proposed Development Code Amendment, staff recommends that the appeal be denied subject to an added project condition stating that: . 0 Conditional Use Permit (CUP) No.2 approval is contingent on City Council adoption of a Development Code Amendment and that the project conforms to the adopted standards and regulations. For Commissioner Chiniaeff, Fire Marshal McBride noted the following: . That there will be a fire extinguisher on the roof adjacent to the landing pad; . That there will be one conforming exit from the pad and the second could be a ladder. At this time, the Public Hearing was opened. Mr. Roth representing the applicant, noted that there would be an existing roof hatch with a stair on the building; and that the plan is to put a full set of stairs in going down to the first floor; and is of the opinion that the applicant would not object to putting a ladder that goes over the parapet and down the side of the building to the back of the yard; and that there will be marked signage to call out the exit on the set of stairs. Ms. Nancy Baron of Temecula noted concern with flight plans. . R:\MinutesPC\O61604 10 . . . For Ms. Baron, Chairman Telesio relayed that anything that is approved would be subject to FAA regulations. At this time, the Public Hearing was closed. MOTION: Commissioner Chiniaeff moved to denv the appeal and include a condition in the CUP that requires that the applicant to include an emergency ladder that goes over the parapet and down the side. Commissioner Olhasso seconded the motion and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. PC RESOLUTION NO. 2004-034 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DENYING THE APPEAL OF THEPLANNING DIRECTOR'S DECISION TO APPROVE PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA02-o478 A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT/DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO CONSTRUCT, ESTABLISH AND OPERATE A PRIVATE ROOFTOP HELIPORT ON AN EXISTING INDUSTRIAL BUILDING LOCATED AT 42580 RIO VEDO KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. APN 909-290-029 8 Plannina Application No. PAO3-0535 a Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan. submitted bv Lon Bike. Architectural Team 3. to construct an 18.808 square foot. three-storv office/retail buildina within the Old Town Specific Plan Area. located on the south side of Fifth Street. aDDroximatelv 120 west of Front Street. Don Hazen. Principal Planner Principal Planner Hazen presented a staff report (of record), noting the following: . That the proposed project is a request for a three-story mixed use office/retail building. . That the building design conforms to the Old Town Specific Plan, Old Town Western architectural style guidelines; . That feature styling such as vertical cedar siding, corrugated metal roofs, wood trimmed windows, wood picket railings, wood column posts, and decorative building light fixtures will be incorporated; . That the applicant has also incorporated staff's request to add windows and storefronts along the rear facing the creek and to add a storefront entrance and shed roof dormers over the lower windows along the alley to help maintain the pedestrian scale of the alley; R:\MinutesPCIO61604 11 . That the proposed project as conditioned is consistent with the current and proposed amended Old Town Specific Plan; that three-story buildings in the Tourist Retail Core (TRC) are recommended in the proposed amended Specific Plan (SP), and the project is contingent upon City Council approval of the SP amendment or this particular request (whichever occurs first); and that the Old Town Local Review Board reviewed the application and unanimously recommended Planning Commission Approval. For Commissioner Olhasso, Deputy Director Parks relayed that the walking path for the Murrieta Creek trail will be completed in 2 to 3 years and that the Army Corp. of Engineer will be planning on beginning design work of the facility in October 2004. Commissioner Olhasso expressed excitement with the new investment in Old Town. For Commissioner Chiniaeff, Mr. Hogan relayed that the Specific Plan does not require on-site parking; that the applicant will be providing the absolute minimum on-site parking for their tenant needs; that in addition, the applicant will be construction two parallel parking spaces in the 5th street right-of-way; and that the City is currently exploring locations to establish interim parking facilities as well. At this time, the Public Hearing was opened. Mr. Lon Bike, representing Architectural Team 3, relayed that the applicant concurs with the Conditions of Approval. At this time, the Public Hearing was closed. MOTION: Commissioner Olhasso moved to approved staff's recommendation. Commissioner Guerriero seconded the motion and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. PC RESOLUTION NO. 2004-035 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA03-o535, A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO CONSTRUCT AN 18,808 SQUARE FOOT 3-STORY OFFICE/RETAIL BUILDING, LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF FIFTH STREET, APPROXIMATELY 120 FEET WEST OF FRONT STREET; KNOWN AS ASSESSOR PARCEL NOS. 922- 035-033,017, AND 019 At this time, the Planning Commission took a five minute break. R:IMinutesPClO61604 12 . . . . . . 9 Plannina ApDlication No. PA03-0158 a City initiated proposal to make amendments to the Old Town Specific Plan. includina uDdatina information on the urban infrastructure plans. delete duplicate land uses from the permitted use matrix. add supplemental desian standards. modify the Land Use Map. update the Local Review Board's responsibilities. and delete the oriainal implementation proaram Principal Planner Hogan presented a comprehensive amendment and update to the Old Town Specific Plan (OTSP); relaying that staff has been working with Development Processing Coordinator Noland and the Old Town Local Review Board for the past year on the revision of the Old Town Specific Plan (OTSP), the following are some of the changes to the Land Use Map: . That the Union 76 Service Station at the southeast corner of Rancho California Road and Old Town Front Street into the Highway Tourist Planning Area in the Specific Plan was added; . That moving the boundary, adjustment between the Highway Tourist Commercial and Community Commercial Planning Area to shift two parcels from the highway Tourist to Community Commercial area; and that these two lots are oriented toward the Core of Old Town; . That the Tourist Retail Core (TRC) will be expanding northward to include the shopping center immediately north; . That the Community Commercial Tourist Support District will be deleted at the southern end of Old Town; . That the Old Town Local Review Board recommended merging the Tourist Servicing Residential (TSR) Planning District into the Tourist Retail Core (TRC) Planning District; so staff recommends residences east of Mercedes Street be designated or permitted uses which will allow residences to stay and expand, and in an event of a fire, will allow residences to replace a residence; . That the proposed Specific Plan amendment will locate all the historic preservation and Old Town Local Review Board provision into a single chapter of the plan; . That the permitted use matrix has been updated; . That adjustments have been made to the mixed use provisions; . That staff formalized the elimination of a parking standard in the Specific Plan; . That staff is recommending that all the buildings in the Tourist Retail Core be allowed to build up to three-stories; R:\MinutesPC\O61604 13 . That additional design standards were added such as Public Art, Outdoor Dining and Sidewalk Furniture and Umbrellas, Pocket Parks, and Advertising and sign Design Guidelines; . . That Shift Historic structure "0" one lot to the northeast; that this structure was shifted onsite as part of a larger housing project; . That building "B" has been added to the historic preservation list; . That building "M" (Delgado House); that there have been issues raised by the home owners in regards to the year of the Delgado House; and that staff will be sending a building inspector out to determine whether it is 1920s or 1940s. For Commissioner Chiniaeff, Mr. Hogan noted that a new parking structure is currently being explored. For Commissioner Olhasso, Mr. Hogan relayed that the Specific Plan (SP) has specific standards to allow both office and residential over retail or in some cases it could also be allowed behind it; that the original specific plan envisioned above but that the current plan would envision behind as well. For Commissioner Mathewson, Mr. Hogan relayed that there have been discussions about establishing a 3rd parking lot as an interim parking lot, prior to constructing a parking structure near Mercedes Street and Main Street. . Director of Planning Ubnoske further clarified that with the Theater opening in the summer of 2005, staff would anticipate that there would be an increased demand for parking; and that currently staff is seeking areas for surface parking. Commissioner Olhasso suggested that a parking study be performed in Old Town. Commissioner Guerriero gave thanks to the Old Town Local Review Board and staff for an outstanding job with the revised Specific Plan. At this time, the Pubic Hearing was opened. Mr. Otto Baron, Temecula resident noted the following concerns: . That Director of Redevelopment Meyer had six (6) buildings in Old Town demolished; . Queried on why Mercedes Stress is considered part of the Tourist Retail Core; noting that he has had a tourist business at 4th and Mercedes and he would desire to see tourist-type businesses near his store but that the City has been discouraging businesses from expanding. . R:\MinutesPC\O61604 14 . . . At this time, the Public Hearing was closed. COMMISSION DISCUSSION Commissioner Chiniaeff gave kudos to the Old Town Local Review Board and staff for a great job with the Specific Plan. MOTION: Commissioner Chiniaeff moved to recommend that the City Council approve the Old Town Specific Plan and addendum to the plan. Commissioner Guerriero seconded the motion and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. PC RESOLUTION NO. 2004-036 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVE A COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE OF THE OLD TOWN SPECIFIC PLAN (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 03-0518) COMMISSIONER'S REPORT Commissioner Guerriero commented on the newspapers racks in front of the post office noting that they are unsightly and requested that Assistant City Attorney Curley explore this issue. Commissioner Mathewson relayed that he has driven through Harveston Community and expressed excitement with the new community. For Commissioner Mathewson, Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that she is of the opinion that the median on Rancho California Road will be landscaped. Commissioner Chiniaeff noted that he would prefer to have a real location map with staff's report versus what is currently being used. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT Ms. Ubnoske noted that the Black Angus is having problems with the wiring in their water fountain; that in regard to banner signs on the rear side of Bel Villagio, the dental sign is a valid permit until through June 23, 2004, the Help-U-Sell and Music Time are both illegal banners, balloons at the EXXON Mobile when checked there were no balloons, a notice violation was issued to the Shell Station in regard to painting, deletion of handicap parking stalls, and graffiti on the gas pumps. R:\MinutesPCIO61604 15 Ms. Ubnoske also relayed that at the next meeting she will be bringing forward a report in regard to Code Enforcement; and that the two new planners have started working; and that the Meadow Village redesign plan will be coming forward soon. ADJOURNMENT At 8:40 p.m., Chairman Telesio formally adjourned this meeting to the next reaular meetlna to be held on Wednesday. July 7.2004 at 6:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula. John Telesio Chairman Debbie Ubnoske Director of Planning R:IMinutesPc\o61604 16 . . . . . . MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 07, 2004 CALL TO ORDER The City of Temecula Planning Commission convened in a regular meeting at 6:00 P.M., on Wednesday, July 07, 2004, in the City Council Chambers of Temecula City Hall, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. Chairman Telesio thanked Eve Craig for the prelude music. ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Guerriero led the audience in the Flag salute. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Chiniaeff, Guerriero, Olhasso, and Chairman Telesio. Absent: Mathewson. PUBLIC COMMENTS None. CONSENT CALENDAR 1 Aqenda RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Approve the Agenda of July 7, 2004. 2 Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Approve the Minutes of May 5, 2004. MOTION: Commissioner Chiniaeff moved to approve the Consent Calendar. Commissioner Olhasso seconded the motion and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Commissioner Mathewson who was absent. R:\MinutesPCIO70704 COMMISSION BUSINESS . New Items 3 Plannina ADPlication No. PA04-0349. a DeveloDment Plan. submitted by Miles- Doualas Architects. to desian and construct a new 27.972 SQuare foot industrial warehouse buildina on a 3.57 acre site in the Liaht Industrial ill) Zone. and a 27.5 foot screen wall intearated with the buildina is pro Dosed alone the north elevation of the existina buildina alona Winchester Road to screen a future electric-aeneratina system. located at 42310 Winchester Road Associate Planner Kitzerow presented a staff report (of record), noting the following: . That the project site is located along Winchester Road Calle Empleado and Rio Nedo noting that there is an existing 33,000 square foot industrial warehouse where Opti-Form business is currently located; . That the proposal is to construct a 27,000 square foot warehouse building to the rear of that building existing on-site; . That the proposal has been designed to match the existing buildings architecture materials and colors; . . That access to the proposed building will be provided from a 30 foot drive aisle off Rio Nedo; that this driveway will provide a loop around the existing and proposed buildings for adequate on-site circulation; and that the existing access along Winchester Road will remain; . That in addition, the proposal also includes 27.5 foot screen wall along the north elevation of the existing building on Winchester; . That the proposal would be to screen a future electric-generation facility outside the building; . That the screen wall is proposed to be integrated with the building architecture with the addition of spandrel glass and matching the height of the wall with the height of the building; . That the site parking, landscaping and setbacks all meet City Code and regulations and that staff has determined that the project as conditioned is consistent with the general plan, Development Code and the Design Guidelines and that the applicant is in agreement with all the Conditions of Approval. . R:\MinutesPCIO70704 2 . . . MOTION: Commissioner Chiniaeff moved to approve the proposed project subject to the conditions as related in staff's report. Commissioner Guerriero seconded the motion and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Commissioner Mathewson who was absent. PC RESOLUTION NO. 2004-037 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA04-0349, A DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO DESIGN AND CONSTRUCT A 27,972 SQUARE FOOT INDUSTRIAL WARHOUSE BUILDING ON A 3.57 ACRE SITE CURRENTLY DEVELOPED WITH A 33,774 SQUARE FOOT INDUSTRIAL BUILDING IN THE LIGHT INDUSTRIAL (LI) ZONE LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF WINCHESTER ROAD AND CALL EMPLEADO. (ASSESSORS PARCEL NOS. 909-310-070 AND 909-290-032). 4 Plannina Application No. PA04-0112. a Development Plan. submitted by Richard Clarke. Clarkeworks. to construct an 8.000 square foot office buildina on .98 acres located on the west side of Maraarita Road. approximately 1.000 feet north of Overland Drive Associate Planner Long presented a staff report (of record), noting the following: . That the proposed project is located within the Overland Corporate Center; . That staff has worked with the applicant on the design of the office building to blend with the existing offices in the Center; . That staff has required the applicant to either record a reciprocal parking and cross lot access agreement or provide staff with verification that such an agreement has been recorded (Condition No. 13); . That the project meets the minimum development standard including setbacks, height, lot coverage, and landscaping. At this time, the Public Hearing was opened. Mr. Jorge Cely, representing the Clarkwerks Architect noted that the applicant is in acceptance of all the Conditions of Approval. At this time, the Public Hearing was closed. R:IMinutesPClO70704 3 MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved to approve staff's recommendation. Commissioner Olhasso seconded the motion and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Commissioner Mathewson who was absent. . PC RESOLUTION NO. 2004-038 A RESOLUTION OFHT EPLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA04-0112, A DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR A 8,000 SQUARE FOOT SINGLE STORY OFFICE BUILDING ON .98 ACRES, LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF MARGARITA ROAD, APPROXIMATELY 1000 FEET NORTH OF OVERLAND DRIVE, KNOWS AS APN: 921-830-017 COMMISSIONER'S REPORT Chairman Telesio noted that he attended the Veteran's Memorial advising that there are blocks still available for purchase. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT Principal Planner Hazen introduced summer intern Harmony Bales and Associate Planner Matt Peters to the Planning Commission. . Director of Planner Ubnoske reminded the Planning Commission of the Joint City CounciVPlanning Commission meeting on August 10, 2004 from 5:00 p.m. to 7:00p.m. Ms. Ubnoske also noted that Principal Planner Brown has been working with the City Attorney to develop a City Penalties Ordinance which deals with repeat offenders; and that once adoption of the ordinance, under the Civil Penalties Ordinance, the maximum fine will be $ 2500 a day per, per penalty. ADJOURNMENT At 6:20 p.m., Chairman Telesio formally adjourned this meeting to the next reQular meetina to be held on Wednesday. Julv 21.2004 at 6:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula. Debbie Ubnoske Director of Planning John Telesio Chairman . R:IMinutesPC\O70704 4 . ITEM #3 . . . TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING DIVISION MEMORANDUM Planning Commission Debbie Ubnoske, Director of Planning August 18,2004 Director's Hearing Case Update Planning Director's Agenda items for July 2004 July 8,2004 July 15, 2004 July 15, 2004 July 22, 2004 July 22, 2004 PA03-0727 P A03-0464 PA04-0255 PA04-0255 PA04-0109 & PA04-0110 A Product Review for 166 detached single- family residential homes located within Planning Areas 1 and 5 of the Wolf Creek Specific Plan. Units range from 3083 square feet to 3628 square feet with 4 different floor plans and 3 architectural designs, located east of Pechanga Parkway and north of Wolf Valley Road. A Product Review for 92 detached single- family residential homes located within Planning Area 9 of the Wolf Creek Specific Plan. Units range from 2142 square feet to 2638 square feet with 3 different floor plans and 3 architectural designs, located east of Pechanga Parkway and north of Wolf Valley Road A Development Plan to construct, establish and operate a 5406 square foot single story medical office building on .72 acres, located at 29748 Rancho California Road. A Minor Conditional Use Permit to establish a 6450 square foot church facility, located at 32824 Wolf Store Road, Unit B A Minor Conditional Use Permit to establish a 6450 square foot church facility, located at 32824 Wolf Store Road, Unit B A Tentative Parcel Map No. 32157 to subdivide 2.42 acres (2 existing parcels) into four (4) commercial parcels with a minimum lot size of .43 acres, located at 28465 Old Town Front Street P: \P LAN N IN G\D IRHEAR IMEM 0\2004\07 - 2 004. doc Standard Pacific Homes Palmilla Medical Building D. Davidson Hector Arellano Hector Arellano Approved Approved Continued to July 22 Approved RCM Capital Continued Partners, to July 29 LLC A Product Review for 127 detached single- family residential homes located within Planning Area 6 of the Wolf Creek Specific Plan. Units range from 2474 square feet to 2935 square feet with 3 different floor plans and 3 architectural designs, located east of Pechanga Parkway and north of Wolf Valley Road. July 22, 2004 PA04-0018 A Product Review for 121 detached single- Woodside Approved family residential homes located within Homes Planning Area 1 of the Wolf Creek Specific Plan. Units range from 2916 square feet to 3964 square feet with 3 different floor plans and 3 architectural designs, located east of Pechanga Parkway and north of Wolf Valley Road. July 29, 2004 PA04-0109 A Tentative Parcel Map No. 32157 to RCM Capital Approved & subdivide 2.42 acres (2 existing parcels) Partners, PA04-0110 into four (4) commercial parcels with a LLC minimum lot size of .43 acres, located at 28465 Old Town Front Street July 29, 2004 PA04-0288 A Minor Conditional Use Permit to establish TrueVine Approved and operate a 1474 square foot church Pentecostal expansion consisting of a sanctuary and Church offices, located at 28780 Front Street (South Creek Mall, Suite D-4). July 29, 2004 PA03-0558 l' Extension of Time for Tentative Parcel Woodbridge Approved Map 29466, located at the north side of Development Santiago Road, east of John Warner Road and west of Avenida De San Pasqua!. July 29, 2004 Pa04-0465 2 Extension of Time for Tentative Parcel Woodbridge Approved Map 29466, located at the north side of Development Santiago Road, east of John Warner Road and west of Avenida De San Pasqua!. Attachment: 1. Action Agendas - Blue Page 2 . p, \PLAN NIN GID IRHEAR IMEM 0\2004\07 -2004. doc . . . .... P: \P LANNIN G\D IR HEAR IMEM 012 004\07 -2004. doc ATTACHMENT NO.1 ACTION AGENDAS . . . ACTION AGENDA TEMECULA PLANNING DIRECTOR'S HEARING REGULAR MEETING July 8, 2004 1 :30 PM TEMECULA CITY HALL MAIN CONFERENCE ROOM 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 CALL TO ORDER: Don Hazen, Principal Planner PUBLIC COMMENTS A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address the Principal Planner on items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Principal Planner about an item not listed on the Agenda, a white "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the Principal Planner. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state vour name and address. Item No.1 Project Information: Project Number: Project Title: Applicant: Project Description: PA03-0718 Aspen @ Wolf Creek Standard Pacific Homes A Product Review for 166 detached single-family residential homes located within Planning Areas 1 and 5 of the Wolf Creek Specific Plan. Units range from 3,083 square feet to 3,628 square feet with 4 different floor plans and 3 architectural designs. East of Pechanga Parkway and north of Wolf Valley Road Determination of Consistency with a project for which an Environmental Impact Report was previously adopted Cheryl Kitzerow APPROVED Location: Environmental Action: Project Planner: ACTION: Item No.2 Project Information Project Number: Project Title: Applicant: Project Description: PA03-0727 Cedar @ Wolf Creek. Standard Pacific Homes A Product Review for 92 detached single-family residential homes located within Planning Area 9 of the Wolf Creek Specific Plan. Units range from 2,142 square feet to 2,638 square feet with 3 different floor plans and 3 architectural designs. East of Pechange Parkway and north of Wolf Valley Road Determination of Consistency with a project for which an Environmental Impact Report was previously adopted Cheryl Kitzerow APPROVED Location: Environmental Action: Project Planner: ACTION: P,IPLANNINGIDIRHEARlAgendas\2004\07-j)8-û4 Action Agenda.doc 1 ACTION AGENDA . TEMECULA PLANNING DIRECTOR'S HEARING REGULAR MEETING July 15, 20041 :30 PM TEMECULA CITY HALL MAIN CONFERENCE ROOM 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 CALL TO ORDER: Don Hazen, Principal Planner PUBLIC COMMENTS A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address the Principal Planner on items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Principal Planner about an item not listed on the Agenda, a white "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the Principal Planner. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state vour name and address. Item No.1 Project Information Project Number: Project Title: Applicant: Project Description: Project Planner: ACTION: PA03-0464 Palmilla Medical Building W. Dean Davidson, Architect A Development Plan to construct, establish and operate a 5,406 square foot single-story medical office building on .72 acres. 29748 Rancho California Road Adopt a Notice of Exemption, Section 15332 (Class 32). In- fill Development Project. Matt Harris APPROVED . Location: Environmental Action: Item No.2 Project Information Project Number: Project Title: Applicant: Project Description: Location: Environmental Action: Project Planner: ACTION: PA04-0255 The Lamb of Life Bible Church Hector Arellano A Minor Conditional Use Permit to establish a 6,450 square foot church facility. 32824 Wolf Store Road, Unit B Exempt CEQA Guidelines, Class 15301 Dan Long CONTINUED TO JULY 22, 2004 . P,\PLANNINGIDIRHEAR\Agendlli>I2004\O7-15-04 Action Agenda.doc 1 . . . ACTION AGENDA TEMECULA PLANNING DIRECTOR'S HEARING REGULAR MEETING July 22, 20041 :30 PM TEMECULA CITY HALL MAIN CONFERENCE ROOM. 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 CALL TO ORDER: Don Hazen, Principal Planner PUBLIC COMMENTS A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address the Principal Planner on items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Principal Planner about an item not listed on the Agenda, a white "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the Principal Planner. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state vour name and address. Continued from July 15,2004 Item No.1 Project Information Project Number: Project Title: Applicant: Project Description: PA04-0255 The Lamb of Life Bible Church Hector Arellano A Minor Conditional Use Permit to establish a 6,450 square foot church facility. 32824 Wolf Store Road, Unit B Exempt CEQA Guidelines, Class 15301 Dan Long APPROVED Location: Environmental Action: Project Planner: ACTION: New Items Item No.2 Project Information Project Number: Project Title: Applicant: Project Description: PA04-0109 and PA04-0110 Tentative Parcel Map RCM Capital Partners,LLC A Tentative Parcel Map No. 32157, to subdivide 2.42 acres (2 existing parcels) into four (4) commercial parcels with a minimum lot size of 0.43 acres 28465 Old Town Front Street Categorically Exempt per CEQA Section 15315, "Minor Land Divisions." Cheryl Kitzerow CONTINUED TO JULY 29, 2004 Location: Environmental Action: Project Planner: ACTION: P,IPLANNINGlDIRHEARlAgendasl2004\07-22-04 Action Agenda.doc 1 Item No.3 . Project Information Project Number: Project Title: Applicant: Project Description: Project Planner: ACTION: PAO4-0006 Product Review Woodside Homes A Product Review for 127 detached single-family residential homes located within Planning Area 6 of the Wolf Creek Specific Plan. Units range from 2,474 square feet to 2,935 square feet with 3 different floor plans and 3 architectural designs. East of Pechanga Parkway and north of Wolf Valley Road Determination of Consistency with a project for which an Environmental Impact Report was previously adopted (Sec. 15162 - Subsequent EIRs and Negative Declarations). Cheryl Kitzerow APPROVED Location: Environmental Action: Item No.4 Project Information Project Number: Project Title: Applicant: Project Description: Project Planner: ACTION: PAO4-0018 Product Review Woodside Homes A Product Review for 121 detached single-family residential homes located within Planning Area 1 of the Wolf Creek Specific Plan. Units range from 2,916 square feet to 3,964 square feet with 3 different floor plans and 3 architectural designs. East of Pechanga Parkway and south of Loma Linda Road Determination of Consistency with a project for which an Environmental Impact Report was previously adopted (Sec. 15162 - Subsequent EIRs and Negative Declarations). Cheryl Kitzerow APPROVED . Location: Environmental Action: . Po\PLANNING\DIRHEAR\Agendas\2004\07-22-04 Acûoo Agenda.doc 2 . . . ACTION AGENDA TEMECULA PLANNING DIRECTOR'S HEARING REGULAR MEETING July 29, 2004 1 :30 PM TEMECULA CITY HALL MAIN CONFERENCE ROOM 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 CALL TO ORDER: Don Hazen, Principal Planner PUBLIC COMMENTS A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address the Principal Planner on items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Principal Planner about an item not listed on the Agenda, a white "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and tiled with the Principal Planner. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state vour name and address. Continued from July 22, 2004 Item No.1 Project Information Project Number: Project Title: Applicant: Project Description: PAO4-0109 and PA04-0110 Tentative Parcel Map RCM Capital Partners,LLC A Tentative Parcel Map No. 32157, to subdivide 2.42 acres (2 existing parcels) into four (4) commercial parcels with a minimum lot size of 0.43 acres 28465 Old Town Front Street Categorically Exempt per CEOA Section 15315, "Minor Land Divisions." Cheryl Kitzerow APPROVED Location: Environmental Action: Project Planner: ACTION: Item No.2 Project Information Project Number: Project Title: Applicant: Project Description: PA04-0288 Minor Conditional Use Permit TrueVine Pentecostal Church A Minor Conditional Use Permit to establish and operate a 1,474 square foot church expansion consisting of a sanctuary and offices. , 28780 Front Street (South Creek Mall, Suite D-4) This project is exempt from CEQA review due to Class 32 Categorical Exemption 15332 (In-fill Development Project) Matthew Harris APPROVED Location: Environmental Action: Project Planner: ACTION: P:\PLANNINGIDIRHEARlAgendasl2004\07-29-04 Action Agenda,doc 1 Item No.3 Project Information Project Number: Project Title: Applicant: Project Description: Location: PAO3-0558 Extension of Time Woodbridge Development 151 Extension of Time for Tentative Parcel Map 29466 North side of Santiago Road, east of John Warner Road and west of Avenida De San pasqual Exempt CEQA Guidelines, Class 15162 Dan Long APPROVED Environmental Action: Planner: ACTION: Item No.4 Project Information: Project Number: Project Title: Applicant: Project Description: Location: PAO4-0465 Extension of Time Woodbridge Development 2nd Extension of Time for Tentative Parcel Map 29466 North side of Santiago Road, east of John Warner Road and west of Avenida De San Pasqual Exempt CEQA Guidelines, Class 15162 Dan Long APPROVED Environmental Action: Planner: ACTION: P,IPLANNING\DIRHEAR\Agondas\2004\07-29-04 Action Agenda.doc 2 . . . . ITEM #4 . . . . . CITY OF TEMECULA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: Planning Commission Dale West, Associate Planner r DATE: August 18, 2004 SUBJECT: Development Code amendment for additional performance standards for multiple office buildings in the BP and LI zones (PA04-0477) RECOMMENDATION Adopt a Resolution recommending that the City Council adopt an Ordinance that would amend Chapter 17.08 of the T emecula Municipal Code to provide additional performance standards for multiple office buildings in Business Park (BP) and Light Industrial (LI) zones. BACKGROUND The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed Development Code Amendment on August 4, 2004, provided direction to staff and continued the item to August 18. 2004. At the August 4, 2004 meeting, the Commission expressed concerns with the clarity of the proposed performance standards and indicated that several standards were in conflict with one another. The Commission also expressed concerns with uses occupying space in the LI zone that do not create substantial local employment opportunities. Based upon the Commissions comments, staff has made the following changes to the proposed Development Code Amendment: Specify that larger office buildings are preferred but not required in the LI and BP zones. . Provide additional performance standards to achieve a campus-like design when multiple office buildings are proposed. ATTACHMENTS 1. 2. 3. PC Resolution No. 2004-- - Blue Page 2 Standard Ordinance No. 04-- - Blue Page 5 August 4, 2004 Planning Commission Staff Report - Blue Page 9 R:\OrdlnancesIPerformance Stds -office In BP and U zonesIPC memo.doc 1 . . . ATTACHMENT NO.1 PC RESOLUTION NO. 2004-- R:\Ordlnances\Performance SId. -Office in BP and LI Zones\PC memo.doc 2 . . . PC RESOLUTION NO. 2004-- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING CHAPTER 17 OF THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR MULTIPLE OFFICE BUILDINGS IN BUSINESS PARK AND LIGHT INDUSTRIAL ZONES". (PLANNING APPLICATION 04-0477) WHEREAS, on November 9, 1993, the City Council of the City of Temecula adopted the General Plan; and WHEREAS, on January 25,1995, the City Council of the City of Temecula adopted the City's Development Code; and WHEREAS, the City has identified a need to amend the adopted Development Code; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the proposed amendment on August 4, 2004 and August 18, 2004, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, an did testify either in support or opposition to this matter; NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. ADDroval. That the City of T emecula Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council adopt an urgency and standards ordinances amending Chapter 17.08 of the Temecula Municipal Code substantially in the form attached to this resolution as Exhibit A. Section 2. ~ Environmental Compliance. The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council make a determination that the above described ordinances have no potential for an adverse effect on the environment and that pursuant to Section 15061 (b)(3) of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines no further environmental analysis is required. R:\OrdlnancesIPeñonnance Slds -OffIce in BP and U ZonesIPC memo.doc 3 Section 3. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning Commission this 18th day of August 2004. John Telesio, Chairman ATTEST: Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE CITY OF TEMECULA ) ) ss ) I, Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary of the Temecula Planning Commission, do hereby certify that PC Resolution No. 2004-- was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of T emecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 18th day of August, 2004, by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary R:\Ordlnance.IPerionnance Std. -Office In BP and U ZonesIPC memo.doc 4 . . . . . . ATTACHMENT NO.2 DRAFT STANDARD ORDINANCE NO 04-- R:\OrdlnancesIPeriormance Stds -Office In BP and U ZonesIPC memo.doc 5 . ORDINANCE NO. 04-- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING CHAPTER 17 OF THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR MULTIPLE OFFICE BUILDINGS IN BUSINESS PARK AND LIGHT INDUSTRIAL ZONES". (PLANNING APPLICATION 04-0477) WHEREAS, Section 65800 of the Government Code provides for the adoption and administration of zoning laws, ordinances, rules and regulations by cities to implement such general plans as may be in effect in any such city; WHEREAS, the continuing economic development in the Temecula Valley has created an increased demand for office buildings to house desirable and beneficial businesses and the real estate community has identified a present shortage of necessary and desirable professional office buildings; . WHEREAS, the City's currently adopted LI zone development standards restrict the size and type of office buildings that may be developed within the zoning district. However the lands with this zoning designation are of a type and nature that would accommodate the type of development deemed necessary and desirable; WHEREAS, this Ordinance complies with all the applicable requirements of State law and local ordinances; WHEREAS, notice of the proposed Ordinance was posted at City Hall, Temecula Library, Pujol Street Community Center, and the Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce; and, WHEREAS, the City Council has held a duly noticed public hearing on consider the proposed amendments to the Temecula Municipal Code. to THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby amends portions of Table 17.08.030 of the Temecula Municipal Code for "Offices, administrative or corporate headquarters with greater than 50,000 sq. ft." and "Offices, professional services less than 50,000 sq. ft., including but not limited to business law, medical, dental, veterinarian, chiropractic, architectural, engineering, real estate, insurance" to read as follows: . Offices, administrative or corporate headquarters Offices, professional services including, but not limited to, business law, medical, dental, veterinarian, chiro ractic, architectural, en ineerin ,real estate, p C P C P C P p p P P p p R:\Ordlnances\Performance Stds -Office In BP and LI Zones\PC memo.doc 6 . Section 2. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby amends Table 17.08.030 of the Temecula Municipal Code to add Footnote No.5 to read as follows: "5. New office buildings in the BP and LI Zones are subject to Performance Standards contained in Section 17.08.070. E." Section 3. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby amends portions of Section 17.08.070 of the Temecula Municipal Code by adding Subsection "E" to read as follows: "E. Additional Performance Standards for Office Buildings in the Business Park (BP) and Light Industrial (LI) Zones. In order to encourage desirable characteristics of these zones, multiple free standing office buildings must be designed to be compatible with the surrounding scale and retain future opportunities for business growth and expansion. Performance standards to achieve this include but are not limited to the following: 1. Larger single and multi-tenant office buildings are preferred. 3. If multiple freestanding office buildings on a single site are proposed, they should be clustered around a courtyard or common area sufficient to retain a pedestrian scale and to prevent long "barrack-like" rows of buildings. The site should be designed with features that reinforce the visual and spatial relationship of each building and courtyard area, such as the use of decorative paving, landscaping, and pedestrian amenities that complement the architectural design of the buildings. . 2. Landscaping and pedestrian scaled elements such as awnings or trellises should be integrated into the elevation and the passageways should be safely lit." Section 4. Severability. The City Council hereby declares that the provisions of this Ordinance are severable and if for any reason a court of competent jurisdiction shall hold any sentence, paragraph, or section of this Ordinance to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining parts of this Ordinance. 4. Section 5. Environmental Compliance. The City Council hereby finds that this amendment to the Temecula Municipal Code represents a series of minor changes regulating the implementation of the zoning procedures and requirements that have no potential to individually or cumulatively to impact the environment beyond that which currently exists. As a result, the adoption of this ordinance is exempt from further environmental review pursuant to Section 15061 (b) (3) of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines. Section 6. Notice of Adoction. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same to be posted as required by law. Section 7. 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. . R:\OrdlnancesIPerfonnance Std. -Office In BP and U ZonesIPC memo.doc 7 . . . Section 8. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect - 0 days after its passage; and within - 0 days after its passage, together with the names of the City Council members voting thereon, it shall be published in a newspaper published and circulated in said City. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this - day of _,2004. Michael S. Naggar, Mayor ATTEST: Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE CITY OF TEMECULA ) ) ss ) I, Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 04-- was duly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a regular meeting of the City Council on the - day of -, 2004 and that thereafter, said Ordinance was duly adopted and passed at a regular meeting of the City Council on the - day of -, 2004, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk R:\OrdlnancesIPerfonnance Sid. -Qfflce In BP and U ZonesIPC memo.doc 8 . . . ATTACHMENT NO.3 AUGUST 4,2004 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT R:\OrdlnancesIPerlormance Std. -Office In BP and U ZonesIPC memo.doc 9 . . . STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION August 4, 2004 Planning Application No. PA04-0477 (Development Code Amendment) Prepared By: Dale West, Associate Planner RECOMMENDATION: The Community Development Department - Planning Division Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt a Resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2004-- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING CHAPTER 17 OF THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR OFFICE BUILDINGS IN BUSINESS PARK AND LIGHT INDUSTRIAL ZONES". (PLANNING APPLICATION 04-0477) BACKGROUND The Development Code was adopted by the City Council in 1995. Since its adoption, the Code has been periodically amended to modify various provisions as opportunities have been identified and to improve its clarity. The Development Code currently permits "Offices, administrative or corporate headquarters with greater than 50,000 square feef' in the Light Industrial (LI) and Business Park (BP) zones. The Code also permits "Offices, professional services with less than 50,000 square feef' in the BP zone but prohibits them in the LI zone. The City currently has pending applications for projects with multiple small office buildings of less than 50,000 square feet in the LI zone. In the past the City has allowed multiple buildings if the total cumulative square footage was greater than 50,000. However there are circumstances where the site is not large enough to allow 50,000 square feet of building area. Staff believes that these smaller buildings can be allowed if there are design criteria to achieve an appropriate development. Based upon this situation staff is recommending that three changes be made to the Development Code. . To permit offices, administrative or corporate headquarters in the BP and LI zones, regardless of square footage. . To permit professional service offices in all zones, regardless of total square footage. . To add performance standards for designing sites with smaller office buildings in the BP and LI zones. R:\OrdinancesIPerformance Stds -Office in BP and LI ZonesIPC Staff Report.doc 1 ANAL VSIS The amendment proposes to remove the 50,000 square foot requirement for both categories of office uses (administrative or corporate headquarter offices and professional service offices) in both the BP and LI zones. This change would allow any size office building in either zone. The amendment also proposes supplemental performance standards for small office uses in both the BP and LI zones. These performance standards would promote consistency with office buildings and encourage enhanced site design. The supplemental performance standards would encourage fewer multi-story buildings when possible and would require connecting courtyards and plazas between buildings when development projects with smaller buildings are proposed. These standards support desirable characteristics of site design by placing emphasis on the orientation of buildings to achieve compatible scale to the surrounding area and to retain future opportunities for business growth and expansion. Performance standards to achieve this include but are not limited to the following: 1. Fewer buildings with multiple-stories are preferred over numerous smaller buildings. This will provide greater opportunities for larger corporate tenants that may desire an entire building or floor. 2. Freestanding multiple office buildings on a single site should be clustered around a courtyard or common area sufficient to retain a pedestrian scale. This creates opportunities for plazas and pedestrian areas while preventing long "barrack-like" rows of buildings. 3. When clustering is impractical, a visual link should be established between buildings. Areas between buildings should be purposely designed shapes not simply left over spaces between buildings. 4. Landscaping and pedestrian scaled elements such as awnings or trellises should be integrated into the elevation and the passageways should be safely lit. 5. The site should be designed with features that reinforce the visual and spatial relationship of each building, such as the use of decorative paving, landscaping, and pedestrian amenities that complement the architectural design of the buildings." ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION This amendment to the T emecula Municipal Code represents a minor change to the allowable use in the Light Industrial zoned areas of the City, providing clarification for staff's review of project applications. Staff has reviewed the proposed amendment to the Development Code and has determined that the project has no potential to result in any negative impacts to the environment. As a result, staff is recommending the Commission make a recommendation to the City Council that a no impact finding pursuant to Section 15061 (b)(3) of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines be made. Attachments 1. 2. PC Resolution No. 2004-- - Blue Page 3 Standard Ordinance No. 04-_- Blue Page 6 R:IOrdinancesIPerformance Stds -Office in BP and LI ZoneslPC Staff Report.doc 2 . . . . . . ATTACHMENT NO.1 PC RESOLUTION NO. 2004-- R:\OrdinancesIPerfonnance Stds -Office in BP and LI ZonesIPC Staff Report.doc 3 . . . PC RESOLUTION NO. 2004-- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING CHAPTER 17 OF THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR OFFICE BUILDINGS IN BUSINESS PARK AND LIGHT INDUSTRIAL ZONES". (PLANNING APPLICATION 04-0477) WHEREAS, on November 9, 1993, the City Council of the City of Temecula adopted the General Plan; and WHEREAS, on January 25, 1995, the City Council of the City ofT emecula adopted the City's Development Code; and WHEREAS, the City has identified a need to amend the adopted Development Code; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the proposed amendment on August 4, 2004, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, an did testify either in support or opposition to this matter; NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OFTHE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Accroval. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council adopt an urgency and standards ordinances amending Chapter 17.08 of the T emecula Municipal Code substantially in the form attached to this resolution as Exhibit A. Section 2. Environmental Comcliance. The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council make a determination that the above described ordinances have no potential for an adverse effect on the environment and that pursuant to Section 15061 (b)(3) of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines no further environmental analysis is required. Section 3. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning Commission this 4th day of August 2004. John Telesio, Chairman ATTEST: Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary [SEAL] R:IOrdinanceslPertormance Stds -Office in BP and LI ZonesIPC Staff Report.doc 4 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE CITY OF TEMECULA ) ) ss ) I, Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary of the T emecula Planning Commission, do hereby certify that PC Resolution No. 2004-- was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 4th day of August, 2004, by the following vote of the Commissioln: AYES: NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary R:IOrdinanceslPerformance Stds -Office in BP and LI ZonesIPC Staff Report.doc 5 . . . . . . ATTACHMENT NO.2 DRAFT STANDARD ORDINANCE NO 04-- R:\OrdinancesIPertormance Stds -Office in BP and LI Zone.IPC Staff Report.doc 6 . . . ORDINANCE NO. 04-- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING CHAPTER 17 OF THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR OFFICE BUILDINGS IN BUSINESS PARK AND LIGHT INDUSTRIAL ZONES". (PLANNING APPLICATION 04-0477) WHEREAS, Section 65800 of the Government Code provides for the adoption and administration of zoning laws, ordinances, rules and regulations by cities to implement such general plans as may be in effect in any such city; WHEREAS, the continuing economic development in the Temecula Valley has created an increased demand for office buildings to house desirable and beneficial businesses and the real estate community has identified a present shortage of necessary and desirable professional office buildings; WHEREAS, the City's currently adopted LI zone development standards restrict the size and type of office buildings that may be developed within the zoning district. However the lands with this zoning designation are of a type and nature that would accommodate the type of development deemed necessary and desirable; WHEREAS, this Ordinance complies with all the applicable requirements of State law and local ordinances; WHEREAS, notice of the proposed Ordinance was posted at City Hall, Temecula Library, Pujol Street Community Center, and the Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce; and, WHEREAS, the City Council has held a duly noticed public hearing on the proposed amendments to the Temecula Municipal Code. to consider THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby amends portions of Table 17.08.030 of the T emecula Municipal Code for "Offices, administrative or corporate headquarters with greater than 50,000 sq. ft." and "Offices, professional services less than 50,000 sq. ft., including but not limited to business law, medical, dental, veterinarian, chiropractic, architectural, engineering, real estate, insurance" with the following: Offices, administrative or corporate headquarters Offices, professional services including, but not limited to. business law, medical, dental, veterinarian, chiropractic, architectural, engineering, real estate, insurance C P C P C P p5 p5 p5 p5 p p p R:IOrdinancesIPerlormance Std. -Office in BP and LI ZoneslPC Staff Report.doc 7 Section 2. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby amends Table 17.08.030 of the Temecula Municipal Code to add Footnote No.5 to read as follows: . "5. Office uses permitted in the BP and LI Zones are subject to Performance Standards contained in Section 17.08.070. E:' Section 3. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby amends portions of Section 17.08.070 of the Temecula Municipal Code by adding Subsection "E" to read as follows: "E. Additional Performance Standards for Office Buildings in the Business Park (BP) and Light Industrial (LI) Zones. In order to maintain the desirable characteristics of these zones. office buildings must be designed to be compatible with the surrounding scale and retain future opportunities for business growth and expansion. Performance standards to achieve this include but are not limited to the following: 6. 7. Fewer buildings with multiple-stories are preferred over numerous smaller buildings. This will provide greater opportunities for larger corporate tenants that may desire an entire building or floor. Freestanding multiple office buildings on a single site should be clustered around a courtyard or common area sufficient to retain a pedestrian scale. This creates opportunities for plazas and pedestrian areas while preventing long "barrack-like" rows of buildings. 8. When clustering is impractical, a visual link should be established between buildings. Areas between buildings should be purposely designed shapes not simply left over spaces between buildings. . 9. Landscaping and pedestrian scaled elements such as awnings or trellises should be integrated into the elevation and the passageways should be safely lit. 10. The site should be designed with features that reinforce the visual and spatial relationship of each building, such as the use of decorative paving, landscaping, and pedestrian amenities that complement the architectural design of the buildings:' Section 4. Severability. The City Council hereby declares that the provisions of this Ordinance are severable and if for any reason a court of competent jurisdiction shall hold any sentence, paragraph, or section of this Ordinance to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining parts of this Ordinance. Section 5. Environmental Comcliance. The City Council hereby finds that this amendment to the Temecula Municipal Code represents a series of minor changes regulating the implementation of the zoning procedures and requirements that have no potential to individually or cumulatively to impact the environment beyond that which currently exists. As a result, the adoption of this ordinance is exempt from further environmental review pursuant to Section 15061 (b) (3) of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines. Section 6. Notice of AdoDtion. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same to be posted as required by law. . R:\Ordinances\Performance Stds -Office in BP and LI ZoneslPC Staff Report.doc 8 . Section 7. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its passage. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and cause copies of this Ordinance to be posted in three designated posting places. Section 8. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect - 0 days after its passage; and within - 0 days after its passage, together with the names of the City Council members voting thereon, it shall be published in a newspaper published and circulated in said City. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this - day of -, 2004. Michael S. Naggar, Mayor ATTEST: Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk . [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 04-- was duly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a regular meeting of the City Council on the - day of -, 2004 and that thereafter, said Ordinance was duly adopted and passed at a regular meeting of the City Council on the - day of -, 2004, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk . R:\OrdinancesIPerformance Std. -Office in BP and LI ZoneslPC Staff Report.doc 9 . . ITEM #5 . . . . CITY OF TEMECULA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: Planning Commission Matt Harris, Associate Planner DATE: SUBJECT: August 18, 2004 Overland Retail Buildings Rear Elevation Modifications On August 4, 2004 the Planning Commission considered Planning Application No. 03-0723, a Development Plan to construct two retail buildings within the Overland Retail Center located at the northwest corner of Margarita Road and Overland Drive. Upon hearing the staff recommendation and taking public testimony,the Commission voted to continue the item based on the following concerns: . The subject property is located at a prime intersection and the street elevations of the buildings should consist of enhanced architecture. . The proposed buildings turn their backs to the street frontages. Rears of buildings should have store fronts with down lighting. Man-doors are visible from the street frontages. Enhanced articulation, canopies and/or landscaping should be used to screen. . A row of signage should not be established along the street frontages. . The types of retail uses proposed could be problematic. Subsequent to the August 4th meeting, the project architect has provided revised rear (street frontage) elevations. The following modifications have been made in an effort to address the Commission's concerns: Some man-doors have been relocated to achieve greater screening. . Arched vegetated trellis structures have been added on top of abutting retaining walls to achieve screening of some man doors. Secondary wall offsets have been provided on portions of the elevations with greater length and deeper 3-foot wide columns have been incorporated to achieve enhanced articulation and screening of doors. Decorative elements have been added along upper portions of parapets to break up stucco wall planes. Signs have been consolidated and/or relocated to reduce "row of signage" appearance. R:\DP\2003\03-0723 Overland Retail Cenler\Modlflcalion Memo.dol 1 Wider metal canopies with support bars have been added to screen doors and provide interest. . The previously submitted conceptual landscaping plan has not been modified. ATTACHMENTS 1. Revised Plan Packet - Blue Page 3 . . R:\DP\2003\O3-0723 Overland Retail CenterIModlflcatlon Memo.dot 2 . . . ATTACHMENT NO.1 REVISED PLAN PACKET R:IDP\2003\O3-0723 Overland Retail Center\Modificatlon Memo.dot 3 .- - - -----: -. -.~ -.-.- II < i8 I .- '¡. ----~'---~ is ~ ~ , ~ . . ~ . . ~ s t' i~ £;:\ Q .~ "'t : ~ j ~'I z!£ ~~ '5= r- Ul. "> . . . ~ '" 12{ ~ ~ 1~~5 F- .~> . ITEM #6 . . . . . STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION Date of Meeting: August 18. 2004 Prepared by: Cheryl Kitzerow Title: Associate Planner File Number PA03-0603 & PA03- 0604 Application Type: Tentative Tract Map and Development Plan (Product Review/Planned Development) Project Description: Planning Application No. PA03-0604, submitted by William Lyon Homes, is a Tentative Tract Map No. 31898 to subdivide 14.1 acres within Planning Area 7 of the Wolf Creek Specific Plan into 128 lots (125 single family units). In conjunction, Planning Application No. PA03-0603, submitted by William Lyon Homes, is a Development Plan (Product ReviewlPlanned Development) for 125 detached single-family courtyard homes with associated planned development standards. The project site is located east of Pechanga Parkway and west of Wolf Creek Road North. Plan 1, two story 1,800 square feet (28 units) Spanish Colonial (10 units) Craftsman (10 units) Cottage (8 units) Plan 2, two story 1,961 square feet (33 units) Spanish Colonial (9 units) Craftsman (12 units) Cottage (12 units) Plan 3, two story 2,121 square feet (35 units) Spanish Colonial (8 units) Craftsman (14 units) Cottage (13 units) Plan 4, two story 2,272 square feet (29 units) Spanish Colonial (10 units) Craftsman (10 units) Cottage (9 units) RIT M\2003\O3-0604 TIM 31898\ST AFF REPORT.doc Recommendation: (Check One) ~ Approve with Conditions . 0 Deny 0 Continue for Redesign D Continue to: D Recommend Approval with Conditions D Recommend Denial CEQA: ~ Categorically Exempt (Class) 15162 (Subsequent EIR) (Check One) D Negative Declaration 0 Mitigated Negative Declaration with Monitoring Plan DEIR PROJECT DATA SUMMARY Applicant: William Lyon Homes . Completion Date: July 14, 2004 Mandatory Action Deadline Date: August 18, 2004 General Plan Designation: Medium Density Residential Zoning Designation: SP 12 - Specific Plan 12 -Wolf Creek, Planning Area 7 Site/Surrounding Land Use: Site: Vacant East: Vacant, Planning Area 6 of the Wolf Creek Specific Plan - approved Single Family Detached Residences - Woodside Homes (Low Medium Residential) Vacant, Planning Area 12 of the Wolf Creek Specific Plan (Neighborhood Commercial) Existing Single Family Residences across Pechanga Parkway (Low Medium Residential) Planning Area 8 of the Wolf Creek Specific Plan (Future Elementary School) North: South: West: . R,\T M\2003\03-1J6O4 TIM 31898\ST AFF REPORT.doc . . . Lot Area: 3,000 SF minimum Total Floor Area/Ratio N.A. Landscape Area/Coverage 0.34 acre recreation center plus 200 S.F minimum private/per lot Parking Required/Provided 2 covered spaces/unit required / 2 garages/unit provided plus on- street parking for guests BACKGROUND SUMMARY ~1. Staff has worked with the applicant to ensure that all concerns have been addressed, and the applicant concurs with the recommended Conditions of Approval. ANALYSIS Tentative Tract Map, PAO3-0604 Tentative Tract Map No. 31898 is located east of Pechanga Parkway and west of Wolf Creek Road North in Planning Area 7 of the Wolf Creek Specific Plan. The proposed project will subdivide 14.1 net acres of land into 128 lots (including 125 single-family units). Per the requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance (Section 16.03.060.A), two points of access are proposed since there are more than 35 homes. Primary access to the site will be taken from Street 'A' and Wolf Creek Drive North, with secondary, restricted right-inlright-out access from Street 'D' and Wolf Creek Drive North. The map proposes private interior streets and staff finds the design to be acceptable. Pedestrian access is provided to Planning Area 6 (Single Family Residential) to the north of the subject site and Planning Area 12 (Neighborhood Commercial) to the south of the subject site. All proposed access conforms to the requirements of the Specific Plan. The Tentative Map creates 125 residential lots ranging in size from 3,000 square feet to 6,345 square feet, with an average lot size of 3,361 square feet. A .34 acre recreation lot with gazebo, waterspout feature and passive recreational opportunities is also proposed. Two additional open space lots are proposed as pedestrian connections to the adjacent planning areas. The project design accommodates a courtyard product type, as permitted for in Planning Area 7 of the Specific Plan. The courtyard design is similar to the conceptual typical courtyard designs approved in the Specific Plan. Lots front on either the motor-court driveway or the internal loop street. The Specific Plan zoning requirements for Planning Area 7 recognizes the courtyard home site planning is highly dependent on integration of product design and placement of homes on the lots. Courtyard DeveloDment Standards The Wolf Creek Specific Plan requires Planned Development Guidelines be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission when courtyard homes are proposed. The applicant has submitted Planned Development Guidelines (see attached) which establish development standards applicable to the motor-court project design. As designed, the typical cluster for the courtyard includes six units with primary access from the private court drive, and two units with access along the street frontage. Units have been designed so that those units (typically Plan 1) with access from the courtyard and frontage along the street integrate two "front-sided" R:\T M\2003\O3-0604 TIM 31898\STAFF REPORT.doc architectural elements. The Planned Development Guidelines require the following minimum setbacks: . Front yard: 15 feet average to structure, except when structure fronts onto a courtyard, then minimum setback is 5 feet. . . Corner Side yard: 10 feet . Interior Side yard: 0 feet . Rear Yard: 10 feet These standards as proposed achieve the intent of the courtyard design illustrated in the Wolf Creek Specific Plan. The proposed courtyard design lot configuration created challenges for the provision of visitor parking and trash pick-up. The proposed internal streets are proposed as private streets with stub (dead-end) streets located in three locations (not exceeding six hundred feet in length per the Subdivision Ordinance). Due to this design, trash pick up must be handled uniquely since the trash trucks are unable to turn around or back out of the stub streets. The applicant has submitted a Trash Bin Location Exhibit identifying a specified location for each unit to place trash bins on pick-up days along the internal loop street. These areas would have curb markings and be identified in the project CC&R's. Sign age would also be provided restricting parking in these areas on specified pick-up days. Another consideration for this type of courtyard design is the provision of adequate parking since the motor-court driveway does not accommodate parking and driveways are less than 18 feet from the curb. The applicant has submitted a Parking Exhibit illustrating the on-street parking. On-street guest parking spaces total 82 spaces for the site which staff feels is adequate. Staff is satisfied that the courtyard design proposal is functional and will promote innovative site design as envisioned by the Specific Plan. . The proposed Tentative Tract Map is consistent with the Wolf Creek Specific Plan, Subdivision Ordinance, and General Plan. Development Plan, PAO3-0603 Architectural Review The project proposes four (4) floor plans and three (3) architectural styles. The architectural styles include Spanish Colonial, Craftsman and Cottage styles which are consistent with the Residential Architectural Design Guidelines in the Wolf Creek Specific Plan Section IV (B). Staff feels that with the attached conditions of approval, the project exceeds the design requirements of the Wolf Creek Specific Plan. The proposed elevations achieve the overarching design principle stated in the Specific Plan to create a street scene with strong character as well as function and visual variety. The various materials and features proposed include the following for each architectural style: . Spanish Colonial: 20/30 light sand aggregate stucco finish, full "S" concrete roof tiles, covered and arched entryways, 5:12 roof pitch, wrought iron details, clay outlookers, decorative window awnings, arched window lights on garage doors, recessed principal windows, multi-paned windows on front elevations and second story, window trim and shutters, and exposed rafter tails. . R,IT Ml2003103-0604 TIM 31898\ST AFF REPORT.doc . . . . Craftsman: Stucco finish, wood siding, stone veneer, front porch, 5:12 roof pitch, hip and gable roof, wood shutters, exposed wood beams at gables, recessed principal windows, window trim, multi-paned windows on front elevations and second story, decorative wood pot shelves, and flat roof tile. Cottage: Stucco finish, stone veneer, 6:12 roof pitch, flat concrete roof tile, recessed principal windows, window trim and shutters, multi-paned windows, front porches, decorative wrought iron railing on porches, decorative wood pot shelves, and wood fascia. The applicant has provided specific details, which are unique to each style proposed on each elevation, including door and window types, window and door trim, garage door design including windows, materials such as wrought iron details, stone, brick, roof type and pitch, shutters and the overall silhouette. Buildina Elements/Mass. Heiaht. and Scale The Wolf Creek Specific Plan requires careful articulation and detailing of architecture for elevations adjoining major roads classified as collectors or greater, pedestrian corridors and open spaces, with large unbroken surfaces discouraged. A mixture of one and two story elements is encouraged, with single story elements used to reduce architectural massing on corner lots. Furthermore, the Specific Plan requires that highly visible front, side and rear elevations include architectural enhancements. Examples include changing roof lines, incorporating dormers with windows into roofs, varying siding material and/or colors, installation of window trim on second stories, and using window shutters. The proposed project includes two-story elevations that incorporate one-story elements. The units provide adequate articulation in roof forms and offsets to reduce massing and the elevations are visually broken up with offset storiès, changes in materials, architectural banding and/or sloping roof lines. Units adjacent to major roadways, pedestrian corridors and open spaces will provide enhanced elevations, as indicated on the product placement plan and architectural drawings. Proposed enhancements include additional window shutters, additional building materials on sides and rears, and second story pop-out elements. Staff feels the proposed enhancements meet the requirements of the Specific Plan. The proposed units include well pronounced front entries as required in the Specific Plan with the use of covered and/or arched entries. Entry and garage doors are distinct and compatible with the architectural style. Staff is recommending a condition that garage windows be provided for all Plan 3 units and Plan 2 on Lot 2, since these units front the internal street network. Varied unit entry is provided, which achieves a variation in the streetscape that is encouraged in the Specific Plan (page IV-34). Staff is also recommending a condition to require side lights at the front entry of all Plan 3 units and Plan 2 on Lot 2, to further provide streetscape variation, as encouraged in the Specific Plan (page IV-56). Side lights at the front entry are optional in all other locations. Staff feels the proposed roof pitches provide variety in street scene and furthermore, they are representative of the architectural style. Materials and Colors The project includes variation in both building materials and colors which help to provide variation and interest, as well as break up the massing of two story units as required by the Specific Plan. Each of the proposed elevation styles provide four color schemes, which will result R:\T M\2003\O3-06Q4 TIM 31898\ST AFF REPORT.doc in twelve compatible color schemes for the development. Brick, tile and stone are encouraged as paving and wall accents, and have been adequately integrated into the proposed elevations. Roof materials are compatible with the elevation style and complement the primary building colors. The specific plan requires that roof colors compliment building colors and each residential subdivision shall offer homes with two or more different roof color options. Up to 70 percent of the homes will have the same dominant roof color. The proposed roof materials provide adequate color variations. . Product Placement The proposed product placement conforms with the Residential Architectural Guidelines of the Wolf Creek Specific Plan because architectural enhancements will be added on all elevations visible from major Circulation Element roadways, open space areas, and pedestrian corridors. Staff is recommending a condition requiring the rear of Lot 77 to include an enhanced elevation since this unit will be visible from the secondary project entry and Wolf Creek Road North. Units have been plotted to avoid repetition in plan and elevation type, which creates an interesting and varied streetscape. No single-story units are proposed (and are not required in the Specific Plan) however, single story elements on two-story products will avoid a "canyon" effect along the street. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ~1. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, the proposed Project has been deemed to be categorically exempt from further environmental review. (CEQA Section 15162 subsequent EIR's and Negative Declarations). . CONCLUSIONIRECOM M EN DATION Staff has determined that this project is consistent with the General Plan, Wolf Creek Specific Plan, Development Code and Subdivision Ordinance and recommends approval based on the following findings and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. FINDINGS Tentative Tract Map (Code Section 16.09.1400) 1. 2. The proposed subdivision and the design and improvements of the subdivision are consistent with the Development Code, General Plan, the Subdivision Ordinance and the City of Temecula Municipal Code; Tentative Tract Map No. 31898 is consistent with the General Plan, the Subdivision Ordinance, the Development Code, and the Municipal Code because the project has been designed in a manner that it is consistent with the General Plan, Subdivision Ordinance, Development Code, Wolf Creek Specific Plan, and the Municipal Code. The tentative map does not propose to divide land, which is subject to a contract entered into pursuant to the California Land Conservation Act of 1965; . R,\TM\2003\O3-0604 TIM 31898\STAFF REPORT.doc . . . The proposed property has not been used as agricultural land for approximately 15 years. A Williamson Act contract applicable to the subject property expired in 1989; therefore the subject project will not result in the cancellation of a Williamson Contract. 3. The site is physically suitable for the type and proposed density of development proposed by the tentative map. The project consists of a 128-lot (125 residential units) Tentative Tract Map on property designated for medium density residential uses, which is consistent with the General Plan, as well as, the development standards for Planning Area 7 of the Wolf Creek Specific Plan. 4. The design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements, with conditions of approval, will not be likely to cause significant environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. An Environmental Impact Report and Mitigation Monitoring Plan were approved for the Wolf Creek Specific Plan No. 12, which addressed environmental impacts on the site. Mitigation measures (described in the Mitigation Monitoring Program), and the Conditions of Approval for the Specific Plan have been incorporated as conditions for this application, as appropriate. The application is consistent with the project description analyzed in the EIR, and no subsequent environmental review is necessary per Section 15162 of the California Environmental Quality Act. 5. The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems. The project has been reviewed and commented on by the Fire Prevention Division and the Building & Safety Division. As a result, the project will be conditioned to address their concerns. Further, provisions are made in the General Plan and the Development Code to ensure that the public health, safety and welfare are safeguarded. The project is consistent with these documents. 6. The design of the subdivision provides for future passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities in the subdivision to the extent feasible. The design of the subdivision provides for future passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities in the subdivision to the extent feasible. Prior to the construction of single- family residences the applicant will be required to submit building plans to the Building Department that comply with the Uniform Building Code, which contains requirements for energy conservation. 7. The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. All required rights-of-way and easements have been provided on the Tentative Map. The Public Works Department and Community Services District have reviewed the proposed division of land and adequate conditions and/or modifications have been made to the Tentative Tract Map. R:\T Ml2003\O3-0604 TI'M 318981ST AFF REPORT.doc 8. The subdivision is consistent with the City's parkland dedication requirements (Quimby). Per the Development Agreement approved with the Wolf Creek Specific Plan, Quimby fees will not be required. Appropriate parkland dedication and in-lieu fees have been provided. Development Plan (Code Section 17.05.010F) 1. 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 proposed single-family courtyard homes are permitted in the Low Medium Density land use designation standards contained in the Wolf Creek Specific Plan and the City's Development Code. The project is also consistent with the Low Medium land use designation contained in the General Plan. The site is properly planned and zoned, and as conditioned, is physically suitable for the type and density of residential development proposed. The project, as conditioned, is also consistent with other applicable requirements of State law and local ordinances, including the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and fire and building codes. 2. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health, safety, and general welfare. The overall design of the single-family courtyard homes, including the site, building, parking, circulation and other associated site improvements, is consistent with, and intended to protect the health and safety of those living and 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. ATTACHMENTS 1. PC Resolution No. 2004-- PA04-0604 (TIM 31898) - Blue Page 9 Exhibit A - Draft Conditions of Approval PC Resolution No. 2004-- PA04-0603 (Development Plan) - Blue Page 10 Exhibit A - Draft Conditions of Approval 2. 3. 4. Plan Reductions PA04-0604 (TIM 31898) - Blue Page 11 Plan Reductions PA04-0603 (Product Review) - Blue Page 12 5. 6. Wolf Creek Specific Plan Planning Area Map - Blue Page 13 Wolf Creek Specific Plan - Planning Area 7 Zoning Excerpt - Blue Page 14 7. Wolf Creek Specific Plan Residential Design Guideline Excerpt - Blue Page 15 Planned Development Guidelines - Blue Page 16 8. R,W M\2003\O3-0604 TIM 31898\STAFF REPORT.doc . . . . . . ATTACHMENT NO.1 PC RESOLUTION NO. 2004-- PA04-0604, TTM 31898 R:\T M\2003\O3-Q604 TIM 31898\ST AFF REPORT.doc . PC RESOLUTION NO. 2004-- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA03-0604, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 31898 SUBDIVIDING 14.1 ACRES INTO 128 LOTS (125 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL UNITS) IN PLANNING AREA 7 OF THE WOLF CREEK SPECIFIC PLAN, GENERALLY LOCATED ALONG THE WEST SIDE OF WOLF CREEK DRIVE NORTH, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NOS. 961-020-001, 961-020-002, and 961-020-003. WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Temecula adopted the Wolf Creek Specific Plan on February 13, 2001; WHEREAS, William Lyon Homes, filed Planning Application No. PA03-0604 (Tentative Tract Map No. 31898), in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code; WHEREAS, the Application was processed including, but not limited to a 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 August 18, 2004, 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 in opposition to this matter; WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Planning Commission hearing and after due consideration of the testimony, the Planning Commission approved Planning Application No. PA03- 0604 subject to the conditions after finding that the project conformed to the City of Temecula General Plan and Subdivision Ordinance; NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. by reference. Section 2. Findinas. The Planning Commission, in approving Planning Application No. PA03-0604 (TTM 31898) hereby makes the following findings as required by Section 16.09.140 of the Temecula Municipal Code: That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby incorporated . A. The proposed subdivision and the design and improvements of the subdivision are consistent with the Development Code, General Plan, the Subdivision Ordinance and the City of Temecula Municipal Code; Tentative Tract Map No. 31898 is consistent with the General Plan, the Subdivision Ordinance, the Development Code, and the Municipal Code because the project has been designed in a manner that it is consistent with the General Plan, Subdivision Ordinance, Development Code and the Municipal Code. B. The tentative map does not propose to divide land, which is subject to a contract entered into pursuant to the California Land Conservation Act of 1965; R:\T M\2003\O3-QeO4 TIM 31898\O,aft Reso and COAs.doc The proposed property has not been used as agricultural land for approximately 15 yealS. A Williamson Act contract applicable to the subject property expired in 1989; therefore the subject project will not result in the cancellation of a Williamson Contract. C. The site is physically suitable for the type and proposed density of development proposed by the tentative map. . The project consists of a 128-lot Tentative Tract Map on property designated for medium density residential uses, which is consistent with the General Plan, as well as, the development standards for Planning Area 7 of the Wolf Creek Specific Plan. D. The design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements, with conditions of approval, will not be likely to cause significant environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. An Environmental Impact Report and Mitigation Monitoring Plan were approved for the Wolf Creek Specific Plan No. 12, which addressed environmental impacts on the site. Mitigation measures (described in the Mitigation Monitoring Program), and the Conditions of Approval for the Specific Plan have been incorporated as conditions for this application, as appropriate. The application is consistent with the project description analyzed in the EIR, and no subsequent environmental review is necessary per Section 15162 of the California Environmental Quality Act. E. The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems. The project has been reviewed and commented on by the Fire Prevention Division and the Building & Safety Division. As a result, the project will be conditioned to address their concems. Further, provisions are made in the General Plan and the Development Code to ensure that the public health, safety and welfare are safeguarded. The project is consistent with these documents. . F. The design of the subdivision provides for future passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities in the subdivision to the extent feasible. The design of the subdivision provides for future passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities in the subdivision to the extent feasible. Prior to the construction of single- family residences the applicant will be required to submit building plans to the Building Department that comply with the Uniform Building Code, which contains requirements for energy conservation. G. The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. All required rights-of-way and easements have been provided on the Tentative Map. The Public Works Department and Community Services District have reviewed the proposed division of land and adequate conditions and/or modifications have been made to the Tentative Tract Map. . R:\T M\2003\O3-Q604 TIM 31898\Draft Reso and COAs.doc . H. The subdivision is consistent with the City's parkland dedication requirements (Quimby). Per the Development Agreement approved with the Wolf Creek Specific Plan, Quimby fees will not be required. Appropriate parkland dedication and in-lieu fees have been provided. Section 3. Environmental Compliance. An Environmental Impact Report and Mitigation Monitoring Plan were approved for the Wolf Creek Specific Plan No. 12, which addressed environmental impacts on the site. Mitigation measures (described in the Mitigation Monitoring Program), and the Conditions of Approval have been incorporated as conditions for this application. The application is consistent with the project description analyzed in the EIR, and no subsequent environmental review is necessary per Section 15162 of the California Environmental Quality Act. Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby approves Planning Application No. PA03-0604, a Tentative Map for 128 lots located within Planning Area 7 of the Wolf Creek Specific Plan, ranging from 3,000 square feet to 6,345 square feet, subject to the conditions of approval set forth on Exhibit A, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference together with any other conditions that may be deemed necessary. Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning Commission this 18th day of August 2004. John Telesio, Chairperson ATTEST: . 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. 2004-- was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 18th day of August, 2004, by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: . Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary R:\T M\2003\O3.0604 TTM 31898\Draft Reso and COAs.doc 3 . . . EXHIBIT A DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL R:\T M\2003\O3-0604 TIM 31898\Draft Reso and COAs.doc . . . EXHIBIT A CITY OF TEMECULA DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Planning Application No. PA03-0604 Project Description: Tentative Tract Map No. 31898 Subdividing 14.1 Acres Into 128 Lots (125 Single-Family Residential Units) In Planning Area 7 Of The Wolf Creek Specific Plan, Generally Located Along The West Side Of Wolf Creek Drive North. Assessor's Parcel No.: 961-020-001,961-020-002, and 961-020-003 DIF Category: MSHCP Category: Per Development Agreement Not applicable per Development Agreement Approval Date: August 18,2004 Expiration Date: August 18, 2009 PLANNING DIVISION Within Forty-Eight (48) Hours of the Approval of this Project 1. The applicant/developer shall deliver to the Planning Department a cashier's check or money order made payable to the County Clerk in the amount of Sixty-Four Dollars ($64.00) 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/developer has not delivered to the Planning Department the check as required above, the approval for the project granted shall be void by reason of failure of condition (Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c)). General Requirements 2. The tentative subdivision shall comply with the State of California Subdivision Map Act and to all the requirements of Ordinance No. 460, unless modified by the conditions listed below. A time extension may be approved in accordance with the State Map Act and City Ordinance, upon written request, if made 30 days prior to the expiration date. 3. The applicant and owner of the real property subject to this condition shall hereby agree to indemnify, protect, hold harmless, and defend the City with Legal Counsel of the City's own selection from any and all claims, actions, awards, judgments, or proceedings against the City to attack, set aside, annul, or 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. The City shall be deemed for purposes of this condition, to include any agency or instrumentality thereof, or R:\T M\2003\O3-Q604TTM 31898\Draft Reso and COAs.doc 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. any of its elected or appointed officials, officers, employees, consultants, contractors, legal counsel, and agents. City shall promptly notify 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 the 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. If Subdivision phasing is proposed, a Dhasina clan shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Director. . This project and all subsequent projects within this site shall be consistent with Specific Plan No. 12 (Wolf Creek Specific Plan). The project and all subsequent projects within this site shall be subject to Development Agreement Ordinance No. 01-02 (PAOO-0029). The project and all subsequent projects within this site shall comply with all mitigation measures identified within EIR Resolution No. 01-11 (PA98-0482). The applicant shall comply with all mitigation measures contained in the approved Mitigation Monitoring Program. If, during construction, cultural resources are encountered, work shall be halted or diverted in the immediate area while a qualified archaeologist evaluates the finds and makes recommendations. In addition, the developer will coordinate with the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians to allow a representative of the Pechanga Band to monitor and participate in archaeological investigations if and when resources are encountered. including participation in discussions regarding the disposition of cultural items and artifacts. This should be added as a note on the Grading Plans. . Prior to Issuance of Grading Permits 10. 11. A copy of the Rough Grading plans shall be submitted and approved by the Planning Department. 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. 12. A qualified paleontologist/archaeologist shall be chosen by the developer for consultation and comment on the proposed grading with respect to potential paleontologicaV archaeological impacts. A meeting between the paleontologist/ archaeologist, Planning Department staff, and grading contractor prior to the commencement of grading operations and the excavation shall be arranged. The paleontologist/archaeologist or representative shall have the authority to temporarily divert, redirect or halt grading activity to allow recovery of fossils and other significant finds. a. A Native American observer shall be present onsite during grading activities to monitor ground disturbing or earth moving work and identify any cultural resources unearthed. . R:\T M\2003\O3-Q604 TIM 31898\Draft Reso and COAs.doc 6 . Prior to Recordation of the Final Map 13. . The following shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Department: a. A copy of the Final Map. b. A copy of the Environmental Constraint Sheet (ECS) with the following notes: i. This property is located within thirty (30) miles of Mount Palomar Observatory. All proposed outdoor lighting systems shall comply with the California Institute of Technology, Palomar Observatory recommendations, Ordinance No. 655. The Wolf Creek Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (PA98-0482) was prepared for this project and is on file at the City of Temecula Planning Department. A copy of the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&R's) i. CC&R's shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director. The CC&R's shall include liability insurance and methods of maintaining open space, recreation areas, parking areas, private roads, exterior of all buildings and all landscaped and open areas including parkways. No lot or dwelling unit in the development shall be sold unless a corporation, association, property owner's group or similar entity has been formed with the right to assess all properties individually owned or jointly owned which have any rights or interest in the use of the common areas and common facilities in the development, such assessment power to be sufficient to meet the expenses of such entity, and with authority to control, and the duty to maintain, all of said mutually available features of the development. Such entity shall operate under recorded CC&R's which shall include compulsory membership of all owners of lots and/or dwelling units and flexibility of assessments to meet changing costs of maintenance, repairs, and services. Recorded CC&R's shall permit enforcement by the City for provisions required as Conditions of Approval. The developer shall submit evidence of compliance with this requirement to, and receive approval of, the city prior to making any such sale. This condition shall not 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 interest in the common areas and facilities, or (2) a share in the corporation, or voting membership in an association owning the common areas and facilities. c. ii. ii. iii. The applicant shall submit to the Planning Department a copy of a recorded Reciprocal Use Agreement, which provides for cross-lot access and parking across all lots and establishes mutual responsibility for all commonly accessed areas and street front landscaping. 14. Prior to Issuance of Building Permits . The following shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Department: a. Three (3) copies of Construction Landscaping and Irrigation Plans. The location, number, genus, species, and container size of the plants shall be shown. 15. R:\T M\2003\O3-Q604 TIM 31898\Oraft Reso and COAs.doc The plans shall be consistent with the Water Efficient Landscaping 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: i. Appropriate filing fee (per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule at time of submittal). One (1) copy of the approved grading plan. Water usage calculations per Chapter 17.32 of the Development Code (Water Efficient Ordinance). Total cost estimate of plantings and irrigation (in accordance with the approved plan). The locations of all existing trees that will be saved consistent with the tentative map. Automatic irrigation for all landscaped areas and complete screening of all ground mounted equipment from the view of the public from streets and adjacent property for: a. Front yards and slopes within individual lots prior to issuance of building permits for any lot(s). Private common areas prior to issuance of the first building permit. All landscaping excluding Temecula Community Services District (TCSD) maintained areas and front yard landscaping which shall include, but may not be limited to private slopes and common areas. Shrub planting to completely screen perimeter walls adjacent to a public right-of-way equal to sixty-six (66) feet or larger. Hardscaping for the following: a. Pedestrian trails within private common areas Wall and Fence Plans consistent with the Conceptual Landscape Plans showing the height, location and the following materials for all walls and fences: i. Decorative block for the perimeter of the project adjacent to a public right-of- way equal to sixty-six (66) feet or larger and the side yards for corner lots. Wrought iron or decorative block and wrought iron combination to take advantage of views for side and rear yards. Wood fencing shall be used for all side and rear yard fencing when not restricted by i. and ii. above. Precise Grading Plans consistent with the approved rough grading plans including all structural setback measurements. iv. v. vi. b. c. ii. iii. b. c. d. vii. ii. iii. Roof-mounted mechanical equipment shall not be permitted within the subdivision; however solar equipment or any other energy saving devices shall be permitted with Director of Planning approval. 16. R:\T M\2003\O3-0604 TIM 31898\Draft Rasa and COAs.doc . . . . . . Prior to Issuance of Occupancy Permits 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. If deemed necessary by the Director of Planning, the applicant shall provide additional landscaping to effectively screen various components of the project. All required landscape planting and irrigation shall be 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. Front yard and slope landscaping within individual lots shall be completed for inspection. Private common area landscaping shall be completed for inspection prior to issuance of the first occupancy permit. Performance securities, in amounts to be determined by the Director of Planning, to guarantee the maintenance of the plantings within private common areas for a period of one year, in accordance with the approved construction landscape and irrigation plan, shall be filed with the Planning Department 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. The applicant shall be required to provide a Disclosure Statement, singed by a new property owner whose residence is adjacent to the Pechanga Indian Reservation, including those across Pechanga Parkway (Pala Road) and the drainage channel. All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use allowed by this permit. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT The Department of Public Works recommends the following Conditions of Approval for this project. Unless stated otherwise, all conditions shall be completed by the Developer at no cost to any Government Agency. General Requirements 24. 25. 26. 27. It is understood that the Developer correctly shows on the tentative map all existing and proposed easements, traveled ways, improvement constraints and drainage courses, and their omission may require the project to be resubmitted for further review and revision. A Grading Permit for either rough or precise grading shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to commencement of any construction outside of the City-maintained road right-of-way. An Encroachment Permit shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to commencement of any construction within an existing or proposed City right-of-way. All improvement plans, grading plans, landscape and irrigation plans shall be coordinated for consistency with adjacent projects and existing improvements contiguous to the site and shall be submitted on standard 24" x 36" City of Temecula mylars. R:\T M\2O03\O3-QSO4 TIM 31898\Draft Reso and COAs.doc 28. 29. The Applicant shall comply with all underlying Conditions of Approval for Wolf Creek Specific Plan No. 12 (Pa 98-0481) as approved on March 15, 2001. The Applicant shall comply with all underlying Conditions of Approval for Tentative Tract Map No. 29305-1 (pa 00-0052) as approved on March 15,2001. . Prior to Approval of the Final Map, unless other timing Is indicated, the Developer shall complete the following or have plans submitted and approved, subdivision improvement agreements executed and securities posted: 30. As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: a. Rancho California Water District 31. 32. f. g. h. b. Eastern Municipal Water District City of Temecula Fire Prevention Bureau Planning Department Department of Public Works Riverside County Health Department Community Services District Cable TV Franchise Verizon c. d. e. i. . j. k. Southern California Edison Company Southern California Gas Company A School Zone signing and striping plan, per Caltrans standards, shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer for the school site within this project and included with the street improvement plans for the project. Design shall also include a warrant analysis for a flashing yellow beacon and if warrants are met, shall be installed by the Developer. Unless otherwise approved the following minimum criteria shall be observed in the design of the street improvement plans: a. Street centerline grades shall be 0.5% minimum over P.C.C. and 1.00% minimum over A.C. paving. Driveways shall conform to the applicable City Standard No. 207. Street lights shall be installed along the public streets shall be designed in accordance with City Standard No. 800. Concrete sidewalks shall be constructed in accordance with City Standard Nos. 400 and 401. b. c. d. e. All street and driveway centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees. All knuckles shall be constructed in accordance with City Standard No. 602. All cul-de-sac shall be constructed in accordance in City Standard No. 600. All units shall be provided with zero clearance garage doors and garage door openers if the driveway is less than 18 feet in depth from back of sidewalk. . f. g. h. R:\T M\2003\O3-0604 TIM 31898\Draft Raso and COAs.doc 10 . . . 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. i. Landscaping shall be limited in the corner cut-off area of all intersections and adjacent to driveways to provide for minimum sight distance and visibility. All utility systems including gas, electric, telephone, water, sewer, and cable TV shall be provided underground. Easements shall be provided as required where adequate right-of-way does not exist for installation of the facilities. All utilities shall be designed and constructed in accordance with City Codes and the utility provider. All utilities, except electrical lines rated 33kv or greater, shall be installed underground j. k. Private roads shall be designed to meet City public road standards. Unless otherwise approved the following minimum criteria shall be observed in the design of private streets: a. Minimum road widths of 36-ft. paved with 50-ft. right-of-way or easements (shown on typical section). Knuckles being required at 90 'bends' in the road. Separation between on-site intersections shall meet current City Standards (200-ft. minimum). Cul-de-sac geometries shall meet current City Standards. Minimum safe horizontal centerline radii shall be required (all centerline radii should be identified on the site plan). Identify whether gates will be proposed at entrances to project. If so, configuration, stacking distance, and turn-around ability will need to be reviewed and approved by the Fire Department and the Department of Public Works. All intersections shall be perpendicular (90). b. c. d. e. f. g. A construction area Traffic Control Plan shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and reviewed by the Department of Public Works for any street closure and detour or other disruption to traffic circulation as required by the Department of Public Works. Relinquish and waive right of access to and from Wolf Creek Drive N. on the Final Map with the exception of 2 openings as delineated on the approved Tentative Tract Map. Corner property line cut off for vehicular sight distance and installation of pedestrian facilities shall be provided at all street intersections in accordance with Riverside County Standard No. 805. All easements and/or right-of-way dedications shall be offered for dedication to the public or other appropriate agency and shall continue in force until the City accepts or abandons such offers. All dedications shall be free from all encumbrances as approved by the Department of Public Works. 38. Pursuant to Section 66493 of the Subdivision Map Act, any subdivision which is part of an existing Assessment District must comply with the requirements of said section. Prior to City Council approval of the Final Map, the Developer shall make an application for reapportionment of any assessments with appropriate regulatory agency. 39. Any delinquent property taxes shall be paid. R:\T M\2003\O3-Q604 TIM 31898\Draft Reso and COAs.doc 11 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. An Environmental Constraints Sheet (ECS) shall be prepared in conjunction with the Final Map to delineate identified environmental concerns and shall be recorded with the map. A copy of the ECS shall be transmitted to the Planning Department for review and approval. The Developer shall comply with all constraints which may be shown upon an Environmental Constraint Sheet recorded with any underlying maps related to the subject property. . A copy of the grading and improvement plans, along with supporting hydrologic and hydraulic calculations shall be submitted to the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District for approval prior to recordation of the Final Map or the issuance of any permit. A permit from Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District is required for work within their right-of-way. All utility systems including gas, electric, telephone, water, sewer, and cable TV shall be provided for underground, with easements provided as required, and designed and constructed in accordance with City Codes and the utility provider. Telephone, cable TV, and/or security systems shall be pre-wired in the residence. The Developer shall notify the City's cable TV Franchises of the Intent to Develop. Conduit shall be installed to cable TV Standards at time of street improvements. A 24-foot easement shall be dedicated for public utilities and emergency vehicle access for all private streets and drives. Private drainage easements for cross-lot drainage shall be required and shall be delineated and noted on the final map. Easements, when required for roadway slopes, landscape easements, drainage facilities, utilities, etc., shall be shown on the final map if they are located within the land division boundary. All offers of dedication and conveyances shall be submitted for review and recorded as directed by the Department of Public Works. On-site drainage facilities located outside of road right-of-way shall be contained within drainage easements and shown on the final map. A note shall be added to the final map stating "drainage easements shall be kept free of buildings and obstructions. " . Prior to Issuance of Grading Permits 48. 49. As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: a. b. San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Planning Department Department of Public Works Community Services District c. d. e. A Grading Plan shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer in accordance with City of Temecula standards and approved by the Department of Public Works prior to commencement of any grading. The plan shall incorporate adequate erosion control measures to protect the site and adjoining properties from damage due to erosion. . R:\T M\2003\O3-Q604 TIM 31898\Draft Reso and COAs.doc 12 . . . 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. A Soils Report shall be prepared by a registered Civil or Soils Engineer and submitted to the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The report shall address all soils conditions of the site, and provide recommendations for the construction of engineered structures and preliminary pavement sections. A Geotechnical Report shall be prepared by a registered engineer or engineering geologist and submitted to the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The report shall address special study zones and identify any geotechnical hazards for the site including location of faults and potential for liquefaction. The report shall include recommendations to mitigate the impact of ground shaking and liquefaction. A Drainage Study shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and submitted to the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The study shall identify storm water runoff quantities expected from the development of this site and upstream of the site. It shall identify all existing or proposed off-site or on-site, public or private, drainage facilities intended to discharge this runoff. Runoff shall be conveyed to an adequate outfall capable of receiving the storm water runoff without damage to public or private property. The study shall include a capacity analysis verifying the adequacy of all facilities. Any upgrading or upsizing of drainage facilities necessary to convey the storm water runoff shall be provided as part of development of this project. The basis for analysis and design shall be a storm with a recurrence interval of one hundred years. The Developer must comply with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. No grading shall be permitted until an NPDES Notice of Intent (NOI) has been filed or the project is shown to be exempt. The Developer shall post security and enter into an agreement guaranteeing the grading and erosion control improvements in conformance with applicable City Standards and subject to approval by the Department of Public Works. The Developer shall obtain letters of approval or easements for any off-site work performed on adjoining properties. The letters or easements shall be in a format as directed by the Department of Public Works. All lot drainage shall be directed to the driveway by side yard drainage swales independent of any other lot. Prior to Issuance of Building Permits Final Map shall be approved and recorded. A Precise Grading Plan shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and approval. The building pad shall be certified by a registered Civil Engineer for location and elevation, and the Soils Engineer shall issue a Final Soils Report addressing compaction and site conditions. 59. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the California Building Code, the approved grading plan, the conditions of the grading permit, City Grading Standards and accepted grading construction practices. The final grading plan shall be in substantial conformance with the approved rough grading plan. R:\T M\2003\O3-QS04 TIM 31898\Draft Reso and COAs.doc 13 60. 61. 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 pay to the City the Western Riverside County Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) Program as required by, and in accordance with, Chapter 15.08 of the Temecula Municipal Code and all Resolutions implementing Chapter 15.08. Prior to Issuance of Certificates of Occupancy 62. 63. 64. 65. As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: a. Rancho California Water District b. Eastern Municipal Water District c. Department of Public Works All necessary certifications and clearances from engineers, utility companies and public agencies shall be submitted as required by the Department of Public Works. All improvements shall be constructed and completed per the approved plans and City standards to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. The existing improvements shall be reviewed. Any appurtenance damaged or broken due to the construction operations of this project shall be repaired or removed and replaced to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. . COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT General Conditions 66. 67. 68. 69. The HOA will maintain the recreation area (Lot 126) and pedestrian walkways (Lots 127 and 128), monumentation, fencing, streetlights on private streets, landscaping within and along the private streets and the median at the intersection of Street "D" and Wolf Creek Drive North. The CC&R's shall address the placement of residential trash bins and no parking on trash collection days, maintenance of pedestrian accesses, recreation area, common landscaping, streetlights on private street, walls and monumentation. The placement of residential bins for trash collection will be delineated by signage and/or demarcation as approved by TCSD. The developer shall contact the City's franchised solid waste hauler for disposal of construction debris. Only the City's franchisee may haul construction debris. Prior to Issuance of Final Map 70. A public access easement shall be dedicated on the final map for the pedestrian walkways (Lots 127 and 128). . R:\T M\2003\O3-0604 TIM 31898\Draft Reso and COAs.doc 14 . . . 71. 72. The recreation area (Lot 126) and pedestrian walkways (Lots 127 and 128) shall be reserved to themselves for maintenance purposes. TCSD shall review and approve the CC&R's. Prior to Issuance of Building Permits 73. The developer shall provide TCSD verification of arrangements made with the City's franchise solid waste hauler for disposal of construction debris. Prior to issuance of building permit or the installation of additional street lighting on Wolf Creek Parkway North which will be maintained by TCSD, which ever occurs first, the developer shall complete the TCSD application process, submit the approved Edison streetlight improvement plans and pay the appropriate energy fees related to the transfer of street lighting into the TCSD maintenance program. Prior to Issuance of Occupancy 74. 75. 76. 77. It shall be the developer's responsibility to provide written disclosure of the existence of the TCSD and its service level rates and charges to all prospective purchasers. The developer or his assignee shall submit, in a format as directed by TCSD staff, the most current list of Assessor's Parcel Numbers assigned to the final project. FIRE DEPARTMENT Any and all previous existing conditions for this project will remain in full force and effect unless superceded by more stringent requirements here. 78. 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 California Building Code (CBC), California Fire Code (CFC), and related codes which are in force at the time of building plan submittal. 79. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set a minimum fire flow for residential land division per CFC Appendix liLA, Table A-III-A-1. The developer shall provide for this project, a water system capable of delivering 1500 GPM at 20 PSI residual operating pressure with a 2 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. (CFC 903.2, Appendix III.A) The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set minimum fire hydrant distances per CFC Appendix III.B, Table A-III-B-1. Standard fire hydrants (6" x 4" x 21/2" outlets) shall be located on Fire Department access roads and adjacent public streets. Hydrants shall be spaced at 500 feet apart, at each intersection and shall be located no more than 250 feet from any point on the street or Fire Department access road(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. (CFC 903.2, 903.4.2, and Appendix III-B) 80. R:\T M\2003\O3-Q604 TIM 31898\Draft Reso and COAs.doc 15 81. 82. 83. 84. 85. 86. 87. 88. 89. 90. Maximum cul-de-sac length shall not exceed 1320 feet. Minimum turning radius on any cul- de-sac shall be thirty-seven (37) feet for residential and forty-five (45) feet for commercial. (CFC 902.2.2.3, CFC 902.2.2.4) . 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) Prior 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 Ibs GVW. (CFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2.2) 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 Ibs. GVW with a minimum AC thickness of .25 feet. ( CFC sec 902 and Ord. 99-14) 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 and Ord. 99-14) . 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) . Prior to building construction, this development, and any street within serving more than 35 homes shall have two (2) points of access, via all-weather surface roads, as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau. (CFC 902.2.1) 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 prior 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) 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) 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. (CFC 902.4) Special Conditions 91. Prior to issuance of building permits, fuel modification plans shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for review and approval for all open space areas adjacent to the wildland- vegetation interface. (CFC Appendix II-A) . R:\T M\2003\O3-0604 TIM 31898\Draft Reso and COAs.doc 16 . . . 92. Prior to issuance of building permits, plans for structural protection from vegetation fires shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for review and approval. The measures shall include, but are not limited to, enclosing eaves, noncombustible barriers (cement or block walls), and fuel modification zones. (CFC Appendix II-A) 93. Prior to map recordation the applicant shall submit to the Fire Prevention Bureau a georectified (pursuant to Riverside County standards) digital version of the map including parcel and street centerline information. The electronic file will be provided in a ESRI Arclnfo/ArcView compatible format and projected in a State Plane NAD 83 (California Zone VI) coordinate system. The Bureau must accept the data as to completeness, accuracy and format prior to satisfaction of this condition. BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT Prior to the Issuance of a Building Permit 94. A receipt or clearance letter from the Temecula Valley School District shall be submitted to the Planning Department to ensure the payment or exemption from School Mitigation fees. OTHER AGENCIES 95. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the County of Riverside Department of Environmental Health's transmittal dated December 9, 2003, a copy of which is attached. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the City of Temecula Police Department transmittal dated November 10, 2003, a copy of which is attached. 96. 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 Planning Department approval. Applicant's Signature Date Applicant's Printed Name R:\T M\2003\O3-0604 TTM 31898\Draft Reso and COAs.doc 17 ,& COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE. HE '-\ SERVICES AGENCY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRON TH December9,2oo3 ---=- City of Temecula Planning Department P.O. Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 ATIN: Rick Rush RE: TENT A TlVE TRACT MAP NO. 31898 (125 LOTS) Dear Ladies and Gentlemen: 1. The Department of Environmental Health has reviewed Tentative Tract Map 31898 and recommends: . a A water system shall be installed in accordance with plans and specifications as approved by the water company and the Environmental Health Department. Pennanent prints of the plans of the water system shall be submitted in triplicate; with a minimum scale not less than one inch equals 200 feet, along with the original drawing to the County Surveyor's Office. The prints shall show the internal pipe diameter, location of valves and fire hydrants; pipe and joint specifications, and the size of the main at the junction of the new system to the existing system. The plans shall comply in all respects with Div. 5, Part 1, Chapter 7 of the California Health and Safety Code, California Administrative Code, Title 11, Chapter 16, and General Order No. 103 of the Public Utilities Commission of the State of California, when applicable. The plans shall be signed by a registered engineer and water company with the following certification: "1 certify that the design of the water system in Tentative Tract Map 31898 is in accordance with the water system expansion plans of the Rancho California Water District and that the water services, storage, and distribution system will be adequate to provide water service to such "Tentative Tract Map". This certification does not constitute a guarantee that it will supply water to such Tentative Tract Map at any specific quantities, flows or pressures for fire protection or any other purpose. A responsible official of the water company shall sign this certification. The plans must be submitted to the Countv Surveyor's Office to review at least two weeks PRIOR to the reQuest for the recordation of the final map. 2. This Department has no written statement from Rancho California Water District agreeing to serve domestic water to each and every lot in the subdivision on demand providing satisfactory financial arrangements are completed with the sub divider. It will be necessary for financial arrangements to be made PRIOR to the recordation of the final map. . 4065 County Circle Drive. Riverside, CA 92503. Phone (909) 358-5316. FAX (909) 358-5017 (Mailing Address - P.O. Box 7600. Riverside. CA 92513-7600) p,;",d"",y'¡,dpaw@ Page Two Attn: Rick Rush December 9, 2003 . 3. This subdivision is within the Eastern Municipal Water District and shall be connected to the sewers of the District. The sewer system shall be installed in accordance with plans and specifications as approved by the District, the County Surveyor's Office and the Health Department. Permanent prints of the plans of the sewer system shall be submitted in triplicate, along with the original drawing, to the County Surveyor's Office. The prints shall show the internal pipe diameter, location of manholes, complete profiles, pipe and joint specifications and the size of the sewers at the junction of the new system to the existing system. A single plat indicating location of sewer lines and waterlines shall be a portion of the sewage plans and profiles. The plans shall be singed by a registered engineer and the sewer district with the following certification: "I certify that the design of the sewer system in Tentative Tract Map 31898 is in accordance with the sewer system expansion plans of the Eastern Municipal Water District and that the waste disposal system is adequate at this time to treat the anticipated wastes from the proposed Tentative Tract Map". The plans must be submitted to the County Surveyor's Office to review at least two weeks PRIOR to the request for the recordation of the final map. 2. This Department has no written statement from Eastern Municipal Water District agreeing to serve sewer service to each and every lot in the subdivision. It will be necessary for financial arrangements to be made PRIOR to the recordation of the final map. . Sincerely, ~"""""'~w ""oW S ",imi" (909) 955-8980 . H~v~LV~U , FRO1 : . . . '-'UCO', ---~,. v. ._..._vv-~, _vvv, . ~V- - FAX NJ. : Nov. 10 2003 Øl: 15PM P2 Date: CITY OF TEMECULA POLICE DEPARTMENT CRIME PREVENTION & PLANS UNIT 27540 Ynez Road, Suite J-9, Temecula, CA 92591 (909) 506-2626 Fax: (909) 506-2838 November 10, 2003 Case Name: Tentative Tract Map - Wolf Creek Specific Plan Case Number: PA03-0604 Applicant: William Lyon Homes, Mel Mercado Proposal: A Tentative Tract Map to Subdivide 14.1 acres into 125 single family lots with a minimum lot size of 3,000 square feet. Case Planner: Rick Rush The following comments pertains to Officer Safety, Public Safety and Crime Prevention measures regarding this planning project transmittal. 1. Landscaping: Applicant shall ensure all landscaping surrounding all buildin9s are kept at a height of no more than three feet (3') or below the ground floor windowsills. Plants, hedges and shrubbery should be defensible plants to deter would-be intruders from breaking into the building utilizing lower level windows. a. Applicant should ensure all trees surrounding all building roof tops be kept at a distance so as to deter roof accessibility by .would-be burglars" Trees also act as a natural ladder. Prune tree branches with at least a 6 feet clearance from the buildings. . b. Any burms should not exceed 3' in height. c. All walkways and sidewalks should be landscaped in a manner as to provide minimum concealment for would-be attackers. d. The placement of all landscaping should comply with guidelines from Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED). Furthermore. all landscaping should be of the type and situated In location so as to maximize observation while providing the desired degree of aesthetics. 2. Lighting: All parking lot lighting surrounding the complex should be energy-savin9 and minimized after hours of darkness and in compliance with the State. of California Lighting Ordinance. Furthermore, all exterior lighting must comply with Mt. Palomar Lighting Requirements. RECEIVED, 11/1D/D3 "~U~M; -~~~,y u~ '~M~~UL~; W~~U; ~~u~ ~ FROM: 3. 4. Nov. 10 2003 01: 16PM P3 FAX NO. : . a. All exterior doors should have their own vandal resistant fixtures installed above. The doors shall be illuminated with a minimum one (1) foot candle of light at ground level, evenly dispersed. Hardware: All doors, windows, locking mechanisms, hinges, and other miscellaneous hardware shall be commercial or institution grade. 5. Graffiti: Any graffiti painted or marked upon the buildings shall be removed or painted over within twenty-four (24) hours of being discovered. Notify the Temecula Police Department immediately so a report can be taken. Alarm System: Upon completion of construction, the buildings shall have a monitored alarm system installed and monitored 24-hours a day by a designated private alarm company, to notify the police department immediately of any Intrusion. All multi-tenant office/suites! businesses located within a specific building should have their own alarm system. 6. Roof Hatches: All roof hatches shall be painted "International Orange." Public Telephones: Any public telephones located on the exterior of the buildings should be placed in a well-lighted, highly visible area, and installed with a "call-out only" feature to deter loitering. This feature is not required for public telephones installed within the interior of the buildings. . 7. 8. Marked Parking for Disabled Vehicles: All disabled parking stalls on the premises shall be marked in accordance with section 22511.8 of the California Vehicle Code. 9. Crime Prevention: a. All retailing businesses shall contact the California Retailers Association for their booklet on the California Retail Theft Law at: California Retailers Association 1127-11"' Street, Suite 1030, Sacramento, CA 95814 (916) 443-1975. Penal Code 490.5 affords merchants the opportunity to recover their losses through a civil demand program. b. Business desiring a business security survey of their location can contact the crime prevention unit of the Temecula Police Department. c. Employee training regarding retail theft, credit card prevention, citizen's arrest procedures, personal safely or any other related crime prevention training procedures are also available through the crime prevention unit. Any business that serves or sell any alcoholic beverages will comply with all guidelines within the Business and Profession Codes and all other guidelines associated with the State Department of Alcohol Beverage Control. Contact the Temecula Police Department for inspections and training for both employees and owners. This includes special events held at business location where alcohol will be serviced for a fee and the event is open to the general public. . d. H""""'~V"'U' FRO1 : . . . . .£.rM, --~~.. ~, ,---~~-~, ----, . ~-- ~ FAX NO. : Nov. 10 2003 01: 16PM P4 e. The Temecula Police Department affords all retailers the opportunity to participate in the "'nkless Ink Program." At a minimal cost of less than $40.00 for Inkless inkpads, retailers can take a thumbprint of every customer using a personãrcheckto þay for services. A decal is also posted on the-front entry of the business-advising customers of the "Inkless Ink program in use". If the business becomes a victim of check fraud, the police department will be able to track the suspect with the thumbprint. Any questions regarding these comments shall be referred to the Temecula Police Department Crime Prevention and Plans Officer at (909) 506-2626. Lynn No Fanene, Sr. . . . ATTACHMENT NO.2 PC RESOLUTION NO. 2004-- PAO4-0603, (DEVELOPMENT PLAN) R,IT Ml2003\O3-0604 TIM 31898\ST AFF REPORT.doc 10 . PC RESOLUTION NO. 2004-- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA03-0603, A DEVELOPMENT PLAN (PRODUCT REVIEW AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES) FOR 125 DETACHED SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL COURTYARD HOMES LOCATED WITHIN PLANNING AREA 7 OF THE WOLF CREEK SPECIFIC PLAN, EAST OF PECHANGA PARKWAY AND WEST OF WOLF CREEK ROAD NORTH. UNITS RANGE FROM 1,800 SQUARE FEET TO 2,272 SQUARE FEET WITH 4 DIFFERENT FLOOR PLANS AND 3 ARCHITECTURAL DESIGNS (ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NOS. 961-020-001,961-020-002, and 961-020-003). WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Temecula adopted the Wolf Creek Specific Plan on February 13, 2001 ; WHEREAS, William Lyon Homes, filed Planning Application No. PA03-0603, in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code; . WHEREAS, Planning Application No. PA03-0603 was processed including, but not limited to a 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. PA03-0603 on August 18, 2004, 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 in opposition to this matter; WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Planning Commission Hearing and after due consideration of the testimony, the Planning Commission approved Planning Application No. PA03-0603 subject to the conditions after finding that the project proposed in Planning Application No. PA03-0603 conformed to the City of Temecula General Plan, Development Code and Wolf Creek Specific Plan; NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby incorporated by reference. Section 2. Findinas. The Planning Commission, in approving Planning Application No. PA03-0603 (Development Plan) hereby makes the following findings as required by Section 17.05.01 OF 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 proposed single-family courtyard homes are permitted in the Medium Density land use designation standards contained in the Wolf Creek Specific Plan and the City's Development Code. The project is also consistent with the Medium land use designation R:\Product ReviewlWolf Creek103-0603 Wolf Creek Area 7\DRAFf RESO AND COA'S.doc 1 contained in the General Plan. The site is properly planned and zoned, and as conditioned, is physically suitable for the type and density of residential development proposed. The project, as conditioned, is also consistent with other applicable requirements of State law and local ordinances, including the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City Wide Design Guidelines, and fire and building codes. B. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health, safety, and general welfare. . The overall design of the single-family courtyard homes, 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. Section 3. Environmental Compliance. A Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. PA03-0603 was prepared per the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15162. This section applies when an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been certified and there are not substantial changes not discussed or examined in the EIR. Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby approves Planning Application No. PA03-0603, a Product Review and Planned Development Guidelines for 125 detached single-family residential courtyard homes located within Planning Area 7 of the Wolf Creek Specific Plan, ranging from 1,800 square feet to 2,272 square feet with four (4) different floor plans and three (3) architectural designs, subject to the conditions of approval set forth on Exhibit A, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference together with any other conditions that may be deemed necessary. . Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning Commission this 18th day of August 2004. John Telesio, Chairperson ATTEST: Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary [SEAL] . R\Product ReviewlWolfCreeklO3-O603 Wolf Creek Area 7IDRAFI' RESO AND COA'S.doc 2 . . . STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE CITY OF TEMECULA ) ) ss ) " Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary of the Temecula Planning Commission, do hereby certify that PC Resolution No. 2004-- was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 18th day of August, 2004, by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: NOES: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary R:\Product ReviewIWolfCreekIO3-0603 Wolf Creek Area 7IDRAF\' RESO AND COA'S.doc 3 . . . EXHIBIT A DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL R,lProduct ReviewIWolfCreek\O3-0603 WulfCreek Area 7\DRAFf RESO AND COA'S.doc 4 . . . EXHIBIT A CITY OF TEMECULA DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Planning Application No. PA03-0603 Project Description: A Product Review and Planned Development Guidelines for 125 detached single-family residential courtyard homes located within Planning Area 7 of the Wolf Creek Specific Plan, located east of Pechanga Parkway and west of Wolf Creek Road North. Units range from 1,800 square feet to 2,272 square feet with four (4) different floor plans and three (3) architectural designs. DIF Category: MSHCP Category: Per Development Agreement Not Applicable Per Development Agreement Assessor's Parcel No: 961-020-001,961-020-002, and 961-020-003 Approval Date: Expiration Date: August 18, 2004 August 18, 2006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT 1. The applicant shall deliver to the Planning Department a cashier's check or money order made payable to the County Clerk in the amount of Sixty-Four Dollars ($64.00) 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 Planning Department the check as required above, the approval for the project granted shall be void by reason of failure of condition (Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c). General Requirements 2. The applicant and owner of the real property subject to this condition shall hereby agree to indemnify, protect, hold harmless, and defend the City with Legal Counsel of the City's own selection from any and all claims, actions, awards, judgments, or proceedings against the City to attack, set aside, annul, or 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. 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. City shall promptly notify both the applicant and landowner of any claim, action, or proceeding to which this R:lProduct ReviewIWoIfCreek\O3-0603 Wolf Creek Area 7\DRAFf RESO AND COA'S.doc 5 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. condition is applicable and shall further cooperate fully in the defense of the action. The City reserves the 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. . The applicant shall submit, to the Planning Department for permanent filing, two (2) 8" X 10" glossy photographic color prints of the color and Materials Boards and of the colored version of the approved colored architectural elevations. All labels on the Color and Materials Board, and Elevations shall be readable on the photographic prints. The project shall meet all applicable Conditions of Approval for Tract Map Number 29798 (PA01-0233). This approval is for product review only and shall in no way limit the city or other regulatory or service agencies from applying additional requirements and/or conditions consistent with applicable policies and standards upon the review of grading, building and other necessary permits and approvals for the project. 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 Director of Planning may, upon an application being filed within thirty days prior to expiration and for good cause, grant a time extension of up to three one-year extensions of time, one year at a time. . The development of the premises shall substantially conform to the approved plans, contained on file with the Community Development Department - Planning Division. The colors and materials for this project shall substantially conform to the approved colors and materials contained on file with the Planning Department, or as amended herein. Any deviation from the approved colors and materials shall require approval of the Director of Planning. The applicant shall sign both copies of the final conditions of approval that will be provided by the Planning Department staff, and return one signed set to the Planning Department for their files. The Development Code requires double garages to maintain a minimum clear interior dimension of 20' x 20'. This shall be clearly indicated on the plans prior to the issuance of building permits for the project. Interior dimensions are measured from the inside of garage wall to the opposite wall, steps, landing, equipment pedestals, bollards or any similar type feature. When the top of the stem wall is more than 8" above the garage floor, the required dimension is measured from the inside edge of the stem wall. 12. The rear elevation of Plan 1 B located on Lot 77 adjacent to Wolf Creek Drive North shall be an enhanced elevation. 13. A side light window shall be incorporated in the front door design for all Plan 3 units and for Lot 2 (Plan 2). . R,\P",duct Review\Wolf C,.ek\03-Q603 Wolf Creek Area ?\DRAFT RESO AND COA'S.doc 6 . 14. Garage window lights shall be provided for all Plan 3 units and Lot 2 (Plan 2A). Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. . 20. 21. 22. 23. The applicant shall comply with standards, conditions and requirements set forth in the Wolf Creek Specific Plan, Mitigation Monitoring Program, conditions of approval for Tract Map 29798 (PA01-0233), and Ordinance No. 00-02, the Development Agreement between the City of Temecula and S.P. Murdy, LLC for the Wolf Creek Specific Plan. The applicant shall submit street lighting and signage plans to the Planning Director for final approval. Street lighting shall comply with the Specific Plan, Riverside County Mt. Palomar Lighting Ordinance, and the mitigation-monitoring program. Said lighting shall comply with the standards as set forth in the Mitigated Monitoring Program and install hoods or shields to prevent either spillage of lumens or reflections into the sky (lights must be downward facing). The applicant shall submit mailbox elevations and a plot plan clearly indicating the location of each mailbox area. Mailbox type and location shall be subject to the approval of the Postmaster and Planning Director. Prior to construction of the Model Home complex, the applicant shall apply for a Model Home complex permit. A separate building permit shall be required for all signage. An appropriate method for screening the gas meters and other externally mounted utility equipment shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department. The wall and fence plans, shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning Director prior to the issuance of building permits for the project. Landscape plans for front yards, slopes and common lots, to include a plan for perimeter or "community" walls/fences, shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning Director prior to the issuance of building permits for the project. Landscape plans shall include details of the recreation center facilities, including but not limited to paving materials/colors for waterspout, and materiaVcolors of shade structure to be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director. Prior to Building Occupancy 24. . All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use allowed by this permit. R,lProduct ReviewlWolf Creek\O3-0603 Wolf Creek Area ?\DRAFT RESO AND COA'S.doc 7 All required landscape planting and irrigation for each individual house shall have been installed consistent with the approved construction landscape plans and shall be in a condition acceptable to the Planning Director prior to occupancy for each house. The plants shall be healthy and free of weeds, disease, or pests. The irrigation system shall be properly constructed and in good working order. 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 Planning Department approval. 25. Date Applicant's Signature Applicant's Printed Name R:\Product Review\Wolf Creek\03-0603 WoIfCreek Area 7\DRAFf RESO AND COA'S.doc 8 . . . . . . ATTACHMENT NO.3 PLAN REDUCTIONS (PAO4-0604 - TTM 31898) R:\T M\2003\03-0604 TIM 3:1898\STAFF REPORT.doc 11 . . . / ~j!1 WI- õ~ - »f!: CJ)D ex> ~ /t T"" ' Ct) s ---.--- ------- ji ~~~! ~ ì¡!II~ ¡ i I' 'I I I ¡ I ! I i ~' I II' ,t æ ~j; ~~ IIG I'i!i¡'¡i!! :1111 !I!! E ¡~ Iii ¡ii ¡III !!:!! I. liP] Ii' I II ,~ --, liIJ i ! \ Ii. ! " i Ii d: U,I'I, ! § Ili~ S¡II,:g'i!I~li!1 'I !1;íH lie 1111111111 ilK db . ""..! ì ¡ . . .."., "....... , II "i I . I ,I II I I I : : I i I 'i : "i'll .' I .' I .' , II I I II i I i I i L-86L6iJ 'ON~Wf.l1 :~' . 1 I i I I I ! ,. I I I I I . . PRODUCT REVIEW PLANS WOLF CREEK City of Temecula, Ca. CIVIL ENGINEER: TI-Œ KEITH CGt1f'ANIE& 22...., CACTUS AYE. SUITE 3ØØ MORENO VALLE-r. CALIFORNIA "'SS3-..,,4 ,..,..J ".'-83ØØ ph '.".J 6S3-S3"'" ,"x CONTACT, M,. Bob "'- 6UILDER: PROJECT KEY MAP PROJECT VICINITY WILl-lAM LYON I-IOME& IS313 INNOvATION ORIYE SUITE 3"" 5AN OIEGO, CA .2128 '858"'13-4<oøø ph. '858"'13-48IS 'ax CONTACT, M,. M~I M...cado LANDSCAPE A~ITECT: DAYID NEAULT A&&OCIA'Æ&, INC. 4"'" ENTE""""ISE CIIOCLE NORTI4 SUITE 14Ø TEMECULA, CALIFOI"NIA "'S'" ,..",J 2"'-343" ph """'J 2...3431 'a. CONTACT, M,. R<ob..-t Ta" ~C~~ g 51-1EET INDEX TITLE SI4EET COI1'1ON AREA LANOIlCAFE TYPICAL FRONT -rAROS PARK , ENTRT" PLAN STREET ENe> PL.AN LEGENOS- WAU. PLANS CONSTRJCTION OETAILS ~ - ~-==-...==- - ~.::I:~-=- ..~~-::::.:;.-= =':..-..=,1:.=.:......- -""-----""'" *..... . I 2-S I:ZÎ: 6 , 8 ;; ==-= ~=€-::; ~ ~~Iü \Y ¡¡¡ w ~q ~ ~ IE è: I- U ~ ~ p '" . J! ~ d! x ?6~~~¡ R!uð~<JX~ ~>o"~i: ~!ilf~. O-""'alI: 3g~Ut 9 I ~ ~ 5 I I I L-I ¡ -- . =-- 1Ø-13~ 14 """LNIf'W .,.; OJ.,. NO¡.¡..¡o:) f;t1I!A1l¡1 ¡;¡IÎ!J 0NV'10I=~ o~jll ill "."! 'l"1n:;¡;¡¡.a¡, , O ..u.1~ 0""- ,.", ...,.. SI9I--<L9-9"" "Xv. _"-<L9-- 'Id 9"'" "" '060'0 ""9 ØØ< ."'" ""'.I(] "",""owl <L<g 931-1OH NO.l 1 i-I\f1111t11 :>I33<!:1:;) :nom --'~~---:1 , ....J . . . II il ilii II! !Iil !II t !I.; I¡I' i!1 mIll! II, . . . I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : ,LO' ,'" : ~........................................................... . . I ~ I . !I jl ~ ¡Iii ~'\' ù I. b! -J; ~ ni i" <lr ¡:~ III ¡ID ' r -J -J ~ II i! t III! ¡¡i' i!1 1'1 ~III ~II II, """.1.1<\0'1<1 ...- ~ f;[ljl¡I¡II,i!i' .....,.,=~ ~~. , J/ I !II ", \f,n::¡3/.W ,¡o ÁlI::¡ """""""'81-1"'" "'OV-'L"-." "',,"l1l<2I6.-<1.,,-.,,"'" .... "" '06810 u." ..... ."... .""0 """MOW, 'L'" ."""'" NOÁ 1 """""1m '>I3~::¡ ::110m . . ~, I i I I ì ~J.N'V1d .,.3>1.,. NOI-I-IO:::> f¡[I;N ¡q I i! 'I' ....... = ~ g~. . JI ¡ III ". 'V'1n?3W3.L =0 .u.1~ ~ --,-~-~ -: ! ~ ~i;L~; "P"""'IoII"W '.ow g""-<L9-9<Ø '>CO. øœ"-<L9-<IW "" 9.œ .,.::> '06<010 u'"' J>Ø< 8""9 eAIJC uonOAowl <L<g 931-1OH NO.1. 1 l-llfl11lm ) 3~::> ::110m ~ k II 'I '. ~ I, Ilii II! Iii! i~ I!I 11'5 §! t III' -III I'I ~!II ~ - - ~ 3~o. .-' 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 :;!:¡¡~ 1 ::;~o. : ~- . 1 -! _mm__~: ~ :~ :J: 10 1 :lIs ~ :t- ~ 1-0 I~IL 1...1 -! : ~ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 . . '!ONI~~~ oP"""'I-II"""I-I -o=œJ'1 ~I. ' ."'-<L9-<m "." ØØõ>-<L9-o$<l "'" ~~ Ì' ,'II! i ....... maJAa>I ""'""""" oom "" '0&'" """ Ø<IXi O""" SA"" ""I1MOW, <L<9' C". . /1111 ". 'l"1n::>3 " 31 =0 Ál.1::> ç;¡¡. C]H NO), 1 "",,""1m ~=3<S::;¡ :nom . ~ . ~ II " ¡Iii ~.o I. w~ III Ilil I !! 11'5 t ,II' -II! r ~ mIll . 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ¡~! : Õ 1 1 '!JL 1 W :&R! [;¡~o 11-0 §~~ :}:IL I-...J m_m."I...JO ~I 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 . . I i ! I ! ! I ~~ ì I I I i f[l1.¡II¡11I ~ III~ ¡lli,I::' CI.. . J . g"""Id.UOW"'- "....,""'" <!NI>'1d1lS~.L:>rIOO>io --,~~-~ -~ °"""_1"1-1"'1-1 (Ð t ..gy-<L"-.""'.""'<>6~-<L"..""'" -~ -!:) I ØØ< O1'no ~~ .J?.~:~L":~ ~ ~ f . ! I. ! ~ I 93i-lOt1NO""""'I"lm:s:!i ,¡¡,. ...J ::>I3~:) ::110m . ¡ ~ ¡ ¡ ; "11n::>3J..SJ. ,¡o JJ.I::> .- ~ ~ I ¡ III ,I 18 'I Ii II II III 'I iii, iHI Ißü Id' "I ~ lil I ! . I . \ i ! :"11I,.............",.!111 ~ I !!! j!! !!!!! j!!! I!!! !!! I! ! ~~ I I! I I ," ¡ ,'i ill ¡I'I ,I !II I ¡ ! I ~~! illdllllhjj¡¡ I,ll!!.!!!.! ~. I ~~¡II¡!,ì!¡ ¡,lllil!i ¡I ~ ¡ 1di,lhl ¡!hlnlllqdi¡ IIII!.I!!II 110101°01 'ð'., I -& . { 'J § ~ I I ~ I:: I Iii! ; I'I! ~ ¡¡I¡il ,1111 lis!, 111.!1 j!II!1 . . 'O::ilj""'O ' ~~ '11 I'II!I CI o. . .!II !II ". ""'1d "= :""*"cJ ....... rnawRI J.:JI1CIO> cJ ...,n::>=1-GJ. ,¡o J..J.I::> OP""'"W'8 . "'" --'-~-~-~J "'gjo-<L9-9" "X.. ~.-<L9-9" "'" (Ð~, . . r- gem"" '060>10 """ ! I ØØ< .w" '"^I.oa "'I>MØWj "". J 'I -l g~~~,~~ ïhll; . I / II /~ . . 3 ill ): ~ ..J !L I- Z ill ~ Z 0 1: ~&; !z ~ ill- 3 ill ): ~ ¡[ It: ill I- Z ill ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ .8 ~~ j;~;i ;:ilu f~ t L-4 f " '" ilil Ilil II'~ ,Ii' \,1 ~'Ii' ! i I I I ! It I f I I f I i 6 ¡:: ~ ill ..J ill I- Z ill ~ 6 1: & ! 1-' Z ~ ill -o.::[I:JIIIUO¡ >~ -¡ I III!, ~". . 1/ ¡ 111 iI. NIf'1cl 0N3 !33O119 """""""" .....,.. m31A3>1 J.:JnaO> d '1111?3I-Sl. dO ÁJ.I~ °F""'- 1°'" ."" --,~~-- -- I """-<L"-9Ç9'X~~;;<!;;'e:,~U~ Q}I'.!~III II. ~ t ~ ØQK ...In¡¡ OAI'<] UO'1OA""'1 <L<O¡ ~ A J l ~ """""" ""Á 1 """lllm <sf; . .1 J ~ I :: >l33<!!1::J ::I1om , ~ I , . '~ -. 0 Z lU I- lU ~ I- <I) ri ~ ~ lU ~ i!" Iï " 0 ~ Z - , I I 21 lU I Iii ~ ~ I I- <I) ~ .i!; ,::] II 0.' <I) - ;~~ dd 8ì!~1 ~iI~~ ~î~~ I I I I I ! II I il ¡Iii Ii' ,. ilil 11'5 . ,ei' " d¡¡ -~. 'k. .-' -0:: I' . ' 9CJNæa, ~ ~ >åj)lßijl¡I¡UI\I .....,.. "'"'^"" =~ ~~]I ¡ 111 I:.' V'1ro31-131 ,¡o ),,11:) --,~~-~ -- O"",,-,e¡.¡""'œ f ~ <1V-<L"-959 ">co. """"'-<L"-959 'Id r?;~ (fI 9~,"""'Oe;.. aU"9rl L, II ' øø£ ..,'... 8A"O UOnMOW <L<., ~ r , f ¡ -l . 9~':~\ñ3: ~ d II 1 ; . . . i!. ¡hi II illl I! 11'5 I d' ¡ -'1:1 . ~/!i I ¡ I ~ I if II d I , ... ... '."" I , Iii III I-! III II I ~ I ! ,II ,!II.iIl.lli Hn " , , , -~ .. I II III II" ........ ......, ..... 11111 ,I.,.. .... !! !!!W !II! jjW!jj !H!!j! jj U! jjW .!!H! W! I ! II II I I ¡ I I II III III ! ¡'S;I III' lIlli, I Iii' ¡ 1'111 Ii I ~ I! ~ I I' hi uI' i I II 111111 Iii I 1i,I! , II II III i IIIB Ii I' I III L II IIIIII I¡I"I I I II/iI I I ~! I I I ¡Ihlll ull! ! 1'1 i IIIII I I ¡,II dilllll! i I I I II ¡II I II iii!.! 111111 111111 II III ! ee ED ß °0 <eO) ~ ~ ~~ III tI¡h¡flij JJrtlJh, ¡I.}UM 1 1. ~II!'t l¡ij ¡1ft'! ~ JIDI~111f W:fid¡1 ! J ì -c::[I:J I'IO ' >~ -! I I'll! 'I 1110 "ill I" oZ. . $ iii . I'l91ol 1,.,.,. """"".... .....,..-~ "I'lro3I.e.J. :!O ..u.1~ I. 'I, III ~ 'Iii Ilil ¡. ,; In II ~!ii ill 1~11ii1 r.i¡i~i~~~i ~t;~. mÞ ~~~ ~~ :~~;d~ i í im h1~m i I ¡ I 0 oJ . . I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,601 ~....................... ..,......", """"" Ç,ev-<L9-""" ">C.. """-EL9-9" "" e... "" ...a.,a ""9 ØØ< 811"9 P^,'C] """""""1 <LEÇ, 931-1OH NO.1. 1 """",m '>I33è1:;) ::110m --'~~-~-~ I I,! I ~llf ! , --1 , . . . 11 . .....~................... -0=[1.1111"81 ~~ 'j I I Iii, C~. . U¡ III". ~1""" """""""" ....... mi1^3Ol L:JI1OCO , 'I"lro3W3J. ,¡o .l..J.I::> . ::t ::t ::t ::t;1 ::t ~§ ~¡~~~ Î ~ t ~ l t ~~ -J~ i~~~~~m~~ i í ¡ ~m ~~m lit I e . . "".".8w ,'W '-'1-1 O""'-<L"-- ,,". øøo;'-<L"-SS9 "" sa", "" 'oPe", """ ØØ< ""'9 .A,'" ""'M""" <L<.. 93WC>H NOJ. 1 i-Io'l11lm '>I3~:;¡ =1om œ--'-î~~~: t II, III ~ 'I Ii II ¡, ¡ili; .II' ¡I ø!ii !II ~. I i I I ì ~t1IIj~1 ¡U,i!J Q~J¡-¡ II! ".1 N\f1d ".,.,. "....,.- .....,., nalA3!l "'""""" ~ --'~~I~!J-~ I W :ífn--1; 0"""_1-1-1'-\-1 ~1"'-<L9-999 "", """".<L9-999 'Id 9Qœ .." '060>'0 u... ""'" -,,"" -^"O """MOW, <Logi 9"""'H NOJ. 1 ""'111m )f3~::J ::110m ';'1n::>3W3J. =0 ÁlI:::l ¡i i~~ i ~h~Uli i ¡ ; ~m ~~~m Ilitie t 'I, III ~ 'II¡ iii' Ii, Ii .11'11 B~li!ll . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I ¡g: ~ ". ~ ~~ð . y,. '3l I\) UJ :I-~ :1:0 .::::¡ IL . -I : ~ I I I 115' ,09, .....................................................# )R! OO ::!O .l1I-J11 . . 'C::[I.lII'HO ' >~ 'j I Ild'l ~~. . III ul". ....,.. T1'om """""""" ...,.". IISWI>I J.:>I1CIO>k 'l'1n::>3\..eJ. , O -UI:::> . ~~~~¡i~ ~H1UJ ~ ~ ~ å~ ~~ ~~ i !i!I! ~ i!W ~~W I tie I i !III! i¡li' ¡iI ¡i J 1=. ¡! I!II III -..-..-..-.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ¡~~ :~ã :Q.~ .\JW ~ [::¡~~ '.... ~ . s~~ :f U .::::¡IL .--_n_n Om. ..J ~: ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ I i I I i (i).'XS"XI'" SLUHP BLOCK cAP @." "Ie'" SLUMP BLOCK CAP ø~'i.f~X:,.;,t~~L~'["'.WIT" G)~~..;'t~eoCI" STEEL """""T ALL CELLS WIT" 0~¡;¡'?:e" STRUcT1JRAL STEEL @~~É'f 8 ~~¿. TO f'OU" @F"',," GRADe 1 ".'. A I MA8<>'4RT INTE"'OR FIOODUCTION TH!Më WALL c I T\J6ULAR STEEL ÆNCE NoT.II ,j <D ,...._,~"""..o~ (j)'-O~'A""""'" (j) ~'O~'A~"W= @ '-O~'A""",,"""" @-- @ ro~_- '" CD-"""""",,,,--,- NoT.II . ~=.~~~ N.T.II "I = ÆNCE <D ....""""""" (j) :;,:;,: ~ ='" (j)...."""""" ;) @ ....._,..=- @""""'- @......,..",- CD ............. @ .'O~-- @ =-;.:" "";:,.,.,. $;.:;;=. ~ :;::::::._"'..,. 1_- :Ð ~ =..=::.:=- 2) : ==:.':;:~~ ID0~..... 11 :':'---- >~_~__m_- ~__~m__.~ ~mOO¡:- NoT.II e I WOOD GATE NoT.II F I ëNTR'r I'1ON1.t'ß¡NT ELEvATION . " 'II.ASTER 6ëY0Nr:> . -""----' . e ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ Q ~ U~ ~ ~g~ 5 ~ § on ~ !! .:. ~ ~ ~ ~ ,j " ¥~~~: w~1s 0 Ih~<!!~ U~i~i~ ~~;;¡¡iB~ O"'rc"" . 3j iBdlIlJ: (;) I ~ I ~ I I I L-14 a _....... =...- -- - . t- ãi :E x w Z Om t- 5m « Q)~ Q E~ Q)O 0 -z -t> ..J 0 ï:i ~I- Zu ãi w t- OO « ~ . ;i- d! (Iilif I I ,'. II lie¡ I~ I, I" IH~ ,I!II¡ I ¡1.lii i3 i Iii, iBid!! !i 11111 , I" I § ii' I{ ... ~ ¡iii ~ì ~ . i- .! I ¡¡ I :h ~. ~ fj ~ I ,I I' _.1 , I' Î ,I I ,- 0 " ¡ " : I! j/S> I ;.. ~ ~ m :E x w Zeu o~'" - Q)m ~ E¡;; « Q) c:i (JI-Z -t> 0 o~ ...J ~ l- t) C) Z 52 a: « a.. li~ I I ~'I IIi. I~i i, I" 11'li '¡i!1 ~i¡l ii ill ihll ær!ilil 2111" I II :,!¡¡ ! &111 lit " ,II ¡ ¡ L. ;1 i" I!i Ii ~II ,I I' .1 ¡ Ii I " ! :! ¡ II . . f ¡ . . . . ATTACHMENT NO.4 PLAN REDUCTIONS (PAO4-0603 - DEVELOPMENT PLAN) R:\T Ml2003\03-û604 TIM 31898\ST AFF REPORT.doc 12 L I ~ I I I I I I l r i I I I I - ~ .1I V-,! :: " '" u i':: ..: ,,- IJ) ¡..: «. IJ) 11,. III . 0 .... 0 g~ ~ J: -, '" ~~ '" Z~ II: O~ U III 0 Z III C iñ III It: < ~ ~II; > - .J = II. . oJ . 0 - ~ ~ ;t ~'HO I moo"" II """""""""_..., ¡ , ¡ ~ ¡ å ~ î ~ ¡ , , 'a i' '" < bI " ~ ! ! 1 . ~ 8. :.: !¡ 8 ~!~¡!! :L ~:!8i..8 ,.,¡ .,' ni¡¡i!¡;1¡¡¡,¡ ! ! ~!¡mi¡!~!HI.~ .~ ¡ "'¡8~;¡:¡HW: .~i : ~ <",, ¡ii :'81 .~, > ~ ~! ';6 ¡¡~2 ' ~ ... . ">. ," < : ~ i .¡ :< . ~ . ¡¡ H ~ . 'I ,j j¡ 0 1)1 0( I ~ ¡ <I) Z 0 ¡: 0( ø ~ 0.." ~~ ....' : UlZ 0 ~ 4:3~ ~ :t- ~r~'~~1I1e oz~ u >- " UI< J 0 . ~~ 11.. .~ UI...I ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ .... - ~ ;u '" a iii t.: bI ~ ,~".,o , ,..'OY' I f I ~ I I I i ~ I I I I I I I I I I ~ I I I ¡ ì - I I """""""""""'.." ~ IE B :¡ ! 1\ i Ii . II '0 .~ < ~ ~ ("J t' '/\, .:: , "," , ,"rl - .1',I,,',.,;,',Z 1 'Co ,0 ,::!h",,! ",~,.«<;"tf¡;::: ~ ¡¡ i!l';!~1>1 111'11 " ¡¡!IIIIMi!! ¡ Ii I !! ! ! Hi ~:I:m:~¡m¡¡agd¡8¡!! im¡WW¡ ~ I¡ ~ ~! ~ . ~ H ¡¡:~:.8¡~¡~~~ ",' ~ :¡ ï~¡ .¡~ < .0 .,. = :E i~ ~o > "' 0 ¡¡; ~ ~ ~ ¡¡: g,~' . . ~ . , . . ~ 0( I/) z r- - Q 0( . I-- « 11. ' > w . J 0 _w~~ I<: x ]D:>1 '¡ ¡J zll~ -,~,! ¡J w.." 0 ~ z<" 0:: o5~u > ~ W J = U II. Z . ~ w .J . . e 0 - I/) 3: " w '" " ;: !u !' ~ 0 ¡¡; I;: ~ J ...."".'*"~~" ~ , ~ 5 ¡ ; ;¡ ¡i 8; ~.~ . . ! ~¡ ~Š Þ ìr < "' a: " . g ¡! ! s 0 " '50 8 U is; 31 .1 , <0"".' 9" ~mm!¡¡¡: 1-8!,..<a' ~ ' ~mmmH ~ l!!!~;¡>!¡' it :.¡ !: .ï ~ ¡ ~'S ¡ ~" ~; ¡ = ~ ~ ã ¡ ~ . fJ " "' Q ¡¡¡ t: "' ~ rJ) Z 0 ¡: ~ bJ ..J ~",J .~ JJ ~¿ \II 'I-> '\11 bJl-. ZO J a:: OU~ U bJ U Z bJ C ¡¡; bJ 0: r- - « . 0. . , « x ~1I]8 .. " ~ ~ I&. . ..J < 0 - ~ ~ ~ ~,,~ , "0'0" -: , ~. I ~ . I \ I 8 I l' WI I I : I ! I ! i I I i I I ! i I - I I " z i ~ - -------- l' WI -I- , ! I I ¡ . I ! þ z i ~ ~ ----------------- l' WI ~ ------- u z I/) "-. ~ :.:: ~ 11.. ~ '- 0 .: ~! ~ : II~ "I> \II ~~ It ~ ~ \11M U oJ c ~ ¡,. ~ ~. .J < ¡¡¡ 0- ~ 3:-' :t I!' :( : 00-.9{ 0 : __m- T QOtD N 0( ..; ,, - II) ~ ¡..: 0( w II) Q. . "' ..... 0 ~" :.: J: A 8 -, þ ~II~ ---'< þ ~~ 0: > I-~ U oJ .. "' 0 0 1&. . :: z "' ..J < 9 0 - II) := -' "' 0: -' ;!: c .; ~ ! Q § . ~."..c I ,ococ" I I I L L I , ; I I I i , I i I ! i i I I ! i ~ I I I I i ! I ~ i I i I I i II II . ¡ ¡ i ~ """""""'1~" ~i ¡: H ! ju " ~ .. 11:11) .' ~ ~ ¡ ¡ .! 5 !!!!! ¡! ~.!:318~ <: ..¡~'!;Id; " ~!~1;W¡ i ~,¡~::¡¡!¡¡ .~ ,¡:a:H;¡:¡ ~ JW¡!¡>¡¡¡ ~ .1:8! :¡ ! ~ a'!~~ I, : ~ ~ g ¡ ~1 ~ N ~ ' . ~i! ¡ 3 8' d . . ? '.. c ~ ~ ~ " ¡¡: III N « UI Z 0 ¡: 0( >. wJ .J~ WZ ~ ~~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ w~ u~ zll) w c iñ w ~ [II) .. c ;; t .. J u z ,... - .« . 'n, " . .~ ~- .~ ~ II] u > ~ ... ~ I&. . ..J < 0 - ~ ~ :: ~ PI N 0( II II II 'f- ~ ¡Z . !O ~ ~ ~ . -. iLL ~j!! ,'<,¡ g ;8 ! a! ! j " 8 !U!!! !; r c ..L~i ,,¡mm !~ ¡ c."> ¡I. " ~¡m::F¡¡i ,¡!¡,.~ ' ¡¡I ¡¡ ~HmHl!h¡:¡I¡! . ~ , I¡ ~m§m!>¡: n ¡Ii ~ ! .".! : ~! ~ !!¡Eë¡~ ¡¡ " " - ~ W!;¡i ~: ~ 8; . ,§ ~ ,,~. ~o . u <11 Z 0 ¡: 0( > W .J Wz . ." -'I) :IE-, -,~~ 0 LL. S:' . ... 5 ~ W 0 Z W c iñ W '" " - 0( . D. . . 0 :.: -' Id J: :;;. I ~ ~II~. 0 > ~ .J ~ 0 ."""""W"""'k" ! i¡ l&. . .J < 0 - s: ~ -: ~ J I I I I i I I I I [H- I . I I ¡- I 1- :0 !? ¡., 0 iii t: ~ .J "."-'0 ; ..."., I ~ i ì I ¡ I i I j - I I I i I I - I r . II ¡~ ;a ; ~ n .""""""_H" 1¡ I¡ . " '" 0( ~ ~ .. ~ !. : ! 5 :I!š ! ~!!i¡¡!¡I!¡ !¡ .;: ::1: ;¡¡\; ~¡ . .J~ì8!!;~>!¡ . ~ ;~¡ 11 ,¡ ~ ~ I '§ I o(~'c~ ::E -, I ! ! .~ ¡ ii! '0 ',;, 0 ¡¡; l- X " ~ .1- Z .0 ,~ :"- ~ ,,- ê:C ,; 0( D." ¡;; . ..J '-- 0 ,OJ ~j>:~ X A 9",111 II" "'--~~ Iú z .:; ~b~O:° . I-u~l): ~ OJ 0 ~ 11.. ~ OJ oJ < C 0- ~ ¡:: ~ '" " ¡~ ~ 0 ¡¡; t ~ .J . e~ ¡¡ ¡s h """':¡""'..." ¡I ; " > i! ¡ jj . ;0 :~ ~ ~ U) 0 ~ \ ¡ ¡ 0\ ,J B : o~ jB 8 ~3¡¡! ~¡ ;;;-!!H~ !; d¡mji;! ~i;~:!d¡! <>""','1 ..,!¡1\nL ,J¡¡!!;¡>¡¡ n~¡!! ii ~ ¡ ~.¡ ~! ~ I H ; :< z 0 ¡: < ~ < U) ¡¡J íd II. ; S ~ 0 0 ~~ :.: z::;; ,II ~~.! bI ~~~ II: ....~' 0 0" ,J ;:~ ,...- bI 0 Z UI C ¡¡j UI II: u 'o. - II) N < 8 ;II~. > ~ . I&. ~ .J < 0 - ~ ~ ;!: iØ' :. .. c iii ~ IL .. ,J ;: ¡ . I I I ¡ i 8, i ¡ ~ I ! ! I I ! . I II II II ! ¡ , ïiiNR iil II r r u '" 0( .. '" ~!; ;, ' 0 'g ,go 9 Õ ¡Un! ;; U -'go,-, g' ,; g!n .~ nmmmi .J"oa~'" ,0 ~ Ii;!!!! 11 ~ ;: n¡ '1 ,~}~ ~a > Q ¡go( ) . - N . 0( .' - - . , , ¡n z 0 ¡:: ~ '" 0(. -' ~ 11.' "'.. . ßi ---- 0 U~" :II: J: Z ::;-¡ III 0(..;, III P; II: ~ ~ ~ U o~ ;:~ I--~ '" U Z '" C ¡¡; '" It: " - ~ ~II~ > " .J ~ a I&. . -I . 0 - ~ ~ ~ ~ :~ .. Q ;; t: ~ ~u 0, ~ ~ ~ ~. 'f ) . ~. " g ¡ 3.¡ 8 8 ~!¡ h !! ;;;!!hî¡:;h ~¡¡!¡¡~¡¡~¡ ~ "':1.". .J ~,;,~ ~1 IiI ~;ïi¡¡¡U¡j .J<¡!¡-¡; ~! ~ -., >" . ~ n -I 1 ... <. 0 . ~ . ::E :u z 0 ~ ~ ~: .J~ «. : ~~ II. 0- , ~~~..... J: -:. z-- 10: II" 0( i{. z . .. J: ~ ~ III 0 " . z ~ III > . ~ffi~ II: .J :: 0 J: U ~! I&. < ~ ..J- z 0" ~ ~- ¡¡; ~ 01 0: 0 z i~ .. " ¡¡ t: ~ .J :: I L I , !' I ¡ - i I i I i I I . i ¡ ! ~ < I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I T------------ ----------- ~ E3 f- ~ --7 ~ E3 i i ¡ I ~ I i i f- Q ,;¡ « ~ z ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ IJ) ,,- z :5 «: .. .. ... . 0 --- 0 O~ ~ J: ~; III O'! III ~~ ~ III~ U U ~ "" C J < iñ 0- ::! ~" ~ . ~ ~II~ > . .J ~ " ;: þ z ~ ~ .o-.9~ " ,; . . . ~ ~ ~ ;;: " ,; , . N ! 0 i ..: iii ¡..: <I) OJ '" -. ~ ~~ \1/ OJ~ \1/ ::!~ It ~~ U : OJ u z w C iij OJ 0:: u 1'0 - < . II. ; ..... 0 ~ :I: ;;. ~II~ - Ii. ~ ~ < 0 - ~ ~ ~ .~..-.. , ..0..." M . -:: ~ ¡ , I I I I ~ \ I ¡ ! ! ~ ! I i I I i .1 I i : ""'""""'""""..." - ;0 '.. 0 iñ I- ~ " ¡;: U "J 0: ') ~ J " <;: ~ 9 ì."'!9 ~ :'!9 8~c. ~!!¡m HL 1¡1!llil ¡!i ¡;: :2i!o we .. ~» ., ~ ~ s .~ ::¡ N ;j !! !! Ii II - - N ~ !" 'I- .z '0 '0: "L ï I I I IJ) Z 0 ~ «. > 11." W.J ¡:;j:! "«~» :.: ~ ~8{~ ~;:; ~ II: :t Z ~ 0 >-" WL 0" Z W C ¡¡¡ W 0: " - . 0 :11: > .J ~ . u. . oJ < 0 - .~ ~ -: ~ :00 '.. 0 iñ l- lL .. .J . ¡ :§ j¡ """",..,..,.,..." - <J ~- . 'I- ~ ~§ ~ .~ ~.! go : .' .r 0 \8 : 89 " P,\ ; .J 8¡ " ! 8 :: "J ~, i' " 8 ~:g¡ ~~ Big . r~"1( , ""11 '" ;;¡BW¡;¡i¡¡¡d¡- ;i~~¡ l¡¡.~ . . I- 0:9»0'0000"0"08" g , o.~ . ~¡¡mWgim '!.Jh ¡.j; .~. !] "S:o.,¡¡ >o:¡ '00 ~¡ ': ~ .J'¡M¡:~ ¡q.' ~ < .:,~ ,¡ ,~. ~ W¡ i¡ -; !( ~¡ .:~ ; ::¡ . > 0 "' c ¡¡; I- :I " íi! II - - PI ~ .< II! Z 0 ¡: « > OJ ..J ~z~ ¥: .m ~i\ll ~~~ \II ~~~ II: J: 5 ~ u .... OJ U Z OJ C ¡¡¡ OJ 0: " - « . Q, " I .- I ~II~. I- - ~ .J " : I&. . oJ < 0 - ~ ~ 3: In " "' c ¡¡; t: "' .J r- I ~ I , J I \ I I I I I i I I I I i i . I I ¡ I i I I I i i I 8 i ; ~ !§ ; , H ~ ~ ".""",."",_z." - ii ('-/~ ."f --I ~ u " ~ ~ . ::¡ J L '", 0 9' '- 9 ~ 8 9 , '8 8 ~!! ¡ ,¡ -- :88" 1: w¡:8¡¡¡'O!. l-'1o,.!¡¡g: I-hlu..:: ¡ ~¡¡;m~¡¡! .."q:¡~¡; " ~'m~¡ '! ~ :~g , ': w : " ; ~ ~ ~ ; ::¡ i~ I, 'I- IZ ..0 , ;~ . '¡,'.."!'" ¡ 8Hi . :! ¡I! ¡ i~ c. 0 " II - w 0 ¡¡; I- ~ '" ¡¡: .. ., ~ u z !J) ~ 1'- ~ «. ~ D.: ..J "- UJ 0 ~~~; : II~ UJ 1-" 1&1 .. ~:; ~ 0:: 0 . ~u~u: ~ UJ U Z UJ C ¡¡¡ UJ a: b. . .J . 0 - ~ ~ -:: " m. 'w 0 ¡¡; I- ... W ~ III ~ ~ ~ '" ~ ~ d .1 6 :.!! i;. ~åi¡~¡ m ~¡¡i¡¡¡\P¡ :;¡3!1:i:¡gji ~~!!m~¡j! ..II!!:;! !i! f:~¡r ¡:~ UI : ,. ¡ ~ ~ H .i ::;: ',' :< z 0 ¡: < ~ «.. ..J ~ "'bì D.. ~i "- 0 0 ~~ :.: x :;; . ~:(; III II: J: ~~ III Z .. z... 0:: 0 . ~:d u : :'0 "'UI " :nb.. ~ J:~ ..J ~ ~ 0- ~ ~ ~ '" c ¡¡¡ '" 0:: u Z .... - ï-;ïT' i: ! n¡ .: i í ~ ~: ; HI ;: II I I , .. a m I, '" a æ t: UI ~ UI a æ >- ~ e ii: .. ! I - I I I I I I i i í i I ì I - ~ i i i I a: 0( .. a: I1J . . ~ gl . Ig ! .J g, j.g.8 8 ~::! !~ 11: '- ::;3..: .' â ~mm¡;¡ih I- g<'"..:.:o> ~mmliim :! ¡¡~f¡¡ Hi ~ :1 g íi .¡ ~ ~g ~ 5ð ~ ;¡: . > Ii Ig ¡: ..: """'7'.""" ¡ , , ;~ ¡ H > u 0 .. 0 iii l- X '-' ¡;; II - - II) ~ In z 0 ¡: « > ~ «. ~311. : "'" --- 0 ~~~~xlI~ H'! þJ ~ ; '" ~.II:: - - ;;;~M u "'x 0:;: J:~ I- '" U Z '" c iii '" 0: /'0 - ~ d \I. . oJ . 0 - ~ ~ -: ;: " .. 0 iñ t: ~ :8 ï""';;""""" i.i. ;3 gi ¡5 ~¡ ,~ - :~ 0: ~ '" 0: II) ~ !. ! 5 U! : ~ li¡.! ¡f "':~ ,\~: "~ ... ii" <I¡" g;:m¡¡i¡ ~ 'I!::~I:: 11.2:¡¡i¡~¡¡ ~ 8,:.¡ !¡ it :'§ . ': ~ ! ~. 1 ~ . , :¡ ,0 '", 0 ¡¡; ... ~ " ~ II - - :Þ z 0 ¡:: « > ~ 0(. "'- 11." ß~' ~ - I l) ~~.~ ~ I ~::;-. 'III H~ III ~ II~ . '" ~.IX - ;;¡~WU : "'~ ~! I- '" l) z '" c ¡¡¡ '" ~ " - II. . .J ~ 0 - ~ ~ .11) '", 0 ¡¡; t: '" -' u ;t " ~ ~ 0 L ~ I I I i , ! ------- ¡ II Î U ~ I 8 I ! i Î ijJ ijJ f--- ill ~ j, I - I I I " z i ~ ¡. z < " . ~ ~ » ~ ~ CD ~ 0 z 1'0 - < . N " Nil.. ~ ~~ ; ~ ;; 1I:~.bI II~ ~~ bI ~ ~ OJ~ !r > . ~~ U .J :: w C ij¡ OJ II: b.. . ..I < 0 - ¡: ~ ~ :¡: oO-.l! -========~ " " u z tL ,,- iii , .;; ¡..: 0( ~ ~ II. z ~ s~ ~ ~ II~ . ~~ III ~ ~ . õj II: . :. IL~ U oJ .~ W U z w C ¡¡; W It: " ,; . . . ~ ~ . . . ~ IL z ..I < 0 - ~ ~ ;:: " ,; 0 ~ " ~ a ~ " 0( ~ i L ¡ ! ~ I I ~ I I I ! i I ! I ! I I I I ¡ I ; ¡ I ì I I I - i I I , ! .. - II] ""'.",,.... "'".." /:;rì! y ¡~q ,1,1 >' .' ~ . ~ ¡~ r C J "'[ .., ;0 .~ ~ .. ~ ( . ~ ~ ¡ I 13 Õ ~.:3 S. s! u 'j:8:~j " ;;;¡!!I¡:!U; ~ilmmm ¡ ~~!¡:U¡¡ :¡ : ~ 0"..0« 1= , ~ n' r ~î ¡ ~t~o ;~ .~ .. 0 iii ... :t " ii! ~I\I ~ . - . ~ . - - . . . II) z 0 ¡:: 0(. ~II. . III.J . ...J~ "- ,III ~~ :.: ~ .<t. {. III Z II~ 'o! III - ~~~ ~ 0 -: ~z~u~ ~ III~ 0 U ( 'J¡. . ~ ..J. C 0- ~ := ~ 0: " - ~ i~ '", 0 iii ... ::; .J - III!!I!I II .....",.,.""...... ¡ å ~ ~ ">. '0 a: ~ .. a: U) . g 3¡ .!I ! 0 !¡ h!s .s ~ ¡¡31m ¡¡ .. ! ~: 8 ~ 8;: ,. E¡¡¡I;¡!~¡ï¡ ~i¡pW¡!! .. j!:ï~¡g:¡!: ~1¡!g!!!>;¡ it ,I.'E ~, g ¡ ~ \1 !~í¡ ~~ ~ ~~ . ~~ ~ ! . .. .' " eo i; H ¡~ PI " 0( . r¡¡ z 0 ~ > '" ..J . ."'z u 0 ~ In ~~ ... :I: - . ':...~J Iù :;; .. a:t::lùzll~ ::J~"a:o .., fr ~ ~o > : '" ..J ~ ~ ¡.. ø ~ ..J. :: - 0- ~ ~" a: " - 0( " .0. . ~ ¡U i i ¡ I 1 i e .~ 0 ¡¡¡ t: ~ .J .~,,-,o I ""avo I I I I ~ I i I I i I I I I .1 I I I I f I I i i I .1 ì ¡ ¡ j - .. [II .....~""'..." P 0: '" .. 0: ~ C' ~ ~ . (. ð U!! !~ ~ !9! BI !i ..B,... B" W!:!¡¡:¡¡i ~;¡:Hi¡!;; ! '" -1""2,,1 ' ..¡.i!:¡'¡O; : ~'il¡m.!! ¡ ~ ,"I II ;~ . !ë H i ~ ~. 0, '\, "" ( '1 ft1 " "'i . :.', ¡- '. - ji['l ~ ¿ !~ J\. . c) '--'}:"- ,(Y,) - . - ¡ ! ¡ .~ . ~ .. c iñ ~ z ø æ . [I 'I ~ < u en z 0 ~ <. > 11.' j . '" 0 =u..~~z .- . ø. 1&1 A -~~ 1&1 Z 81 u ~ t; ~o: 0 .:; ~UMU : ~ '" ø U II. ~ .J C 0- ill :=" a: " 1'0 - : ~ 0 .. c iñ t .. ~ l1li II 1~ :: ¡¡ H ,i H î1"""'" ~ !! . I: ;¡~ c a: < '" a: '" . ~ 3 ¡ . .3 õ !.¡: L ¡8 ~!!mm¡¡ ~~¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡i¡ t;¡¡¡::!:¡;: tWmï¡m ...¡:¡!¡¡¡I.¡¡ :!m¡;~¡¡~! ¡¡ a: ,.¡.osa §" ~ ¡ ~. i ,; ~ : ~ 0 m¡ !¡ ¡¡ .. ,\ II ;< '" C ¡¡¡ l- I: " a: It) ~ :-< z Q I- .r-. - -< > . W -< .J . Wõì Q. I c'" --- ' w" 0 ~ ~~ ~ I: .- -<"'0 III zll~ 8 :I: ~~ III Z <. 0 < ~:d II: > ~ a:'" U ... ~ :;¡I: m ~! IL . ~ .J < W 0 - U Z }: " w " Q U! ~ w a: u '" C ¡¡¡ l- lL '" ... , ,~..~O I "O'O ~ ~ i i 1 I ~ I ( - I I .1 I I II!!!!II II Ii I H ï~""'I.'" !:¡ ;3~. " g¡ e' !¡ ¡: ,< H .0 0: '" '" 0: <J) . . g !! : i! ! 8 ;î.8!1: :; ,.Ïii!¡¡¡ !î ~mmm¡¡ o.j1<îPg,U' .J.:¡!:::!>¡¡ '" ¡j,S!:: !! ¡;: ,I.!~ \, ¡i '" :: '~ð~ ¡ ~ ~ H :; ¡~ ¡ :;: , ~ h ¡ 51 ~~ I 'i Hh i", I' '" a æ ~ ~ ø æ IJ ID ~ ;<0 Z 0 ¡: « > ~ « w UJ õì D. ~ o.J UJ III 0 U ~'. ~ ~ ~::;~ \II J: ~"! '\11 z """ UJ '" ~ 0: ,o:~ U It'" :J~ ~! UJ u Z UJ 0 ¡¡¡ UJ It u r- - ~II] > .J ~ . I&. . oJ < 0 - ~ ~ ~ 5: u '" 0 æ t '" .J .. I!iI!II II ~! ,: ¡i H ïï"""¡ ,¡1 8 ¡ ;J1 ~ ~: ¡¡ j ~ c II: ~ ~ II: '" ~ !. ! ! ;1 U!: : , ¡¡I,!! !¡ ~¡. ;.P: .8: "'p', ,8~"g ~mmmi -'~¡¡!!¡!~¡¡ ~ ,,~.¡. " ¡;: :~§ ¡~ .~ ~ ¡ Æ ¡¡ i ~. 0 ~ '- §: ~~ ~ ~ C ¡¡; ... " '" ¡;: þ .... ~ 9 z 0 ¡: 0( > W .J wo¡ Q-' wm U ~~ :.: ~ ~¡ 111 :J: ~~11I ~~~ II: ,~~u ",Id . j" ~! w u z w Q ¡¡¡ w '" 0 .... - 0( . Do : I 0 , ;II~. > . -' ~ 0 b. ~ .J ~ 0 - '3; " . " ~ I I I I ! 1 j I . I I ~,=~"J - - ---_._-~--- --.~--- -~ ----- ------ ---------~-~--'--- -- --8--- -------- RIGHT SIDE:A III I REAR - 0 MATERIA~PA~ET1:E ICO~ORS '~~~J!!f¡f¡tlf~~~ ~~" ~EFT SIDE'C II ~ ~ RESIDENCE FOUR I GARAGE EXTENT ION OPTION ,.HOWN ON 'A' "~AnON' .,"CO, ,,"'-,'4 WOLF CREEK-/ PA-7 WILLIAM ~YON HOMES,INC.- o';o",."hl"," A4-B - --. I - - t~ @ .t t ~ @ ---7 .t :. z ~ ~ ~ ¡. ~ ~ ~ :0 ~ ~ ( ) ~ u z ':' - I æ <: : I go.. ~ I 0: ..... 0 - i '10:", :;;8' ~~ iii II: ~'! iii ~ ~ '" ~ II: > :.. ~~ u ..J .~ ~ 11.. :: ¡¡; ..J. :i1 0- 3: ~ ~ I I í I ¡ L I I 1 j I . ~."..o I "0'0 ~ ----._._-~--_._-_..~-------------- _._---~.- --------------8 .--.----- ----.--------~-----------.--.----------. :::';::'~::~~,~~':~';,~:-~:c' CUR"T.,.~"N"...~"e =NT.~=N~'~"' .'~.e~R'eR '~N. ENTRY DDOR ..'w'.'.."~' F~'H,".'R.UH.TH' 'e".~Rom'~~'~RT".. =HT>N",~'~. aU'..'N. "... mN.AAO .~,- ~.::::~;;::.:~; ,"':'.",;,;~,~~'~".. GARAGE DOOR JAMB DETAIL N.T-O. ENTRY DOOR =e.... ce.'NT ,~e. OVCR 'O'.T". _n~ I III: D :.Ji..L.",e CO.HT UR' IH: WH...= :i:: ~i I, ..,.,,". .e-'N~~" ",. TO'. ENTRY DOOR JAMB DETAIL ENTRY DOOR RESIDENCE '. 2. 3 Be 4/ ENTRY DOORS / GARAGE DOORS ""'.,. ",'.,'-0' WOLF CREEK/PA-7 WILLIAM LYON HOMES.INC. II .dio,"Á"hi"'" GARAGE DOOR! ELEVATION "A' "=~T>" nu- T".O""'. æææææææ 00000000 00000000 00000000 mH"",.~'N. GARAGE DOOR! ELEVATION 'B' R.....aro- 0""'. mmmmmmm 00000000 00000000 00000000 GARAGE DOOR! ELEVATION "c" A4-10 I . . . ATTACHMENT NO.5 WOLF CREEK SPECIFIC PLAN PLANNING AREA MAP R:\T Ml2003\03-0604 TIM 31898\ST AFF REPORT,doc 13 . . . LEGEND ~ VlLLAO' CBN!I!B. IIIIIIII ,.... - !>IWHAOI!OBI!BNBBLT # ".. MAJOR 00MMUNlTY EN1RY ~ LINBAR,... ~ BBCONDAIlYCOMMllNß'{BN1"llY ~ IlOADWAYPASBÐ mJ ~~B Wolf Creek COMMUNITY DESIGN PLAN " liJ......¡ Fo. Spring pacilic Properties L.L.C. - 15751 IIOCKFIELDBLVD. ,SUITE lOO-IRVINE,CA92618 F;gme m-l LI~ IIImJI .; .....¡ tIJ l\or ill-2 . . . ATTACHMENT NO.6 WOLF CREEK SPECIFIC PLAN PLANNING AREA 7 ZONING REGULATIONS (EXCERPT) R:\T M\2003\03-0604 TIM 31898\ST AFF REPORT.doc 14 . . . Wolf Creek Zoning Planninl! Area 7 - M Zone Sinl!le Familv Residential (Courtyard Homes) (I) (2) The uses permitted in Planning Area 7 of Specific Plan No. 12 shall be the same as those uses permitted in the M Residential District in Chapter 17.06 of the City of Temecula Development Code. The development standards for Planning Area 7 of Specific Plan No. 12 shall be the same as those standards identified for the M Residential District in Section 17.06.040 of the City of Temecula Development Code, except for the following: A. B. C. D. E. Minimum net lot area shall not be less than three thousand (3,000) square feet. The minimum width at the front setback shall no be less than thirty feet (30'). The minimum average width of a lot shall not be less than thirty feet (30'). The minimum depth of a lot shall not be less than sixty-five feet (65'). The front yard to a liveable structure shall not be less than an average of fifteen feet (IS') and a minimum often feet (10')- The comer side yard shall be not less than ten feet (10'). The interior side yard shall have a minimum setback of zero feet (0). The rear yard shall be not less than five feet (5')- The maximum height shall not exceed thirty-five feet (35'). Minimum garage setbacks shall be eighteen feet (18') trom the right-of-way entrances that face the street and ten feet (10') for a side-entry garage. Roll-up type garage doors shall be required. Patio covers for side and rear yards with vertical supports shall be a minimum offive feet (5') from the property line. Patio covers without vertical supports shall be a minimum of three feet (3') trom the property line. Patio covers for tront yards with vertical supports shall be a minimum often feet (10') trom the property line. Patio covers without vertical supports shall be a minimum of three feet (3') from the property line. F. G. H. I. J. K. L. (3) Except as provided above, all other zoning requirement;> shall be the same as those requirements identified in Chapter 17.06 of the City of Temecula Development Code. (4) W\,~" C"at ty",d h"h\e~ AI e implwlc.hted, 1'1 opel site dcs;!)I1 ill ",I, (,~ detailed ;'.teßlation of ",d,itcctuÚ.1 Boo, plA1\ d(,~i5J\ "itl'plvttill5 Alld site d~åißr.. Thelâo.", A Plmmed De",luþhl.:.r.t Q",.IA] (PDQ) PIli" applo..d b) tI,e Plmlhi"ß Co"""issioll stlbject to ilK le( dilGln....tå of ChApte. 17.22 of the De,dôþH1(,nt Code sl.all b<. lequi."d. The D.:"dopm.:.nt PIAII stlbn.ittal shAll ;,,(,Idde 111\ AI(,hitG(,hIlAI d('åigt\ p,,~k-Aß(, ind...d;l\ß fluu,platls /...d ek~AtioJ\s ful All p.oddGt t)pc. p.upo~c.:I. Minimum rear yard requirements are set at five feet (5') for courtyard home products, however courtyard home site planning is highly dependent on integration of product design and placement Specific plan No. 12 Page 10 of39 2/14/2001 ( Wolf Creek Zoning of homes on the lots. 11." D\:;,dol."¡,,,¡,t PI".. ¡..lIbt d\:;",i>hStiMc a m;hil..llill of 269 sqllal" fGet vf dsabk pli,ðh, }ald spa.:", fol cad, lot. ill A detailed noise assessment. evaluating project and cumulative noise impacts. shall be Drovided for Planinl¡:Area 7 because of its location adjacentto PalaRoad. Asnecessarv. the assessment shall describe noise reduction measures to be incoroorated into the project to comDlv with state and local exterior noise standards. The assessment shall be comDleted to the satisfaction of the City Drior to the aDDroval of a tentative subdivision map or develo\,ment Dlan. whichever is aDproDrjate for the tvoe of develoDment proposed. (6) When courtyard homes are imolemented, Planned DeveloDment guidelines shall be submitted for review and aporoval bv the Planning Commission. !h The Development Plan shall include an architectural desil!ll Dackage including floOl:plans and elevations for all Droduct types. ß The DeveloDment Plan must demonstrate a minimum of two hundred (200) SQuare feet of usable private vard space for each lot. Specific plan No. 12 2/1412001 Page II of39 . . . . . . ATTACHMENT NO.7 WOLF CREEK SPECIFIC PLAN RESIDENTIAL DESIGN GUIDELINES (EXCERPT) R:\T M\2003\O3-0604 TIM 31898\ST AFF REPORT,doc 15 . . (. w oil Creel~ IV. Design Guidelines To give a better idea of the depth, separation, and treatment of WOLF CREEK from the adjacent land uses acroSs from Pala Road a perspective view of Pal a Road is shown in Figure IV-37. This exhibit gives a view from the curb of the Pata Road median looking southeast toward the WOLF CREEK Community. This view affords a realistic view of the drainage channel, the boulder-lined drop structure, and the block wall abutting the back of the residential uses in . Planning Area 7. To create visual breaks in the block wall "view fencing" (no access pennitted) will abut residential cul-de-sacs so that wall design is not monolithic. Articulation and landscaping will also be used to visually enhance the block wall. Walls will not be constructed adjacent to commercial areas. B. Architecture The WOLF CREEK community has been conceived as a project with a historical California architectural design philosophy. The history of the Temecula area and its aesthetic compatibility within the WOLF CREEK can be considered the source of the style selection. California architecture is well adapted to the climate and the southern California lifestyle as well. While architectural style is implied, these guidelines do not mandate specific details, materials or colors. This approach would create monotony and unifonnity, and discourage individual design expression and innovation. Instead, the intent of the architectural guidelines is to encourage and inspire individual developers and designers. "Early California" embodies an eclectic collection of different architectural styles that have been used throughout southern California; see Figures IV-34A-G, Early California Vignettes. The styles that are appropriate for WOLF CREEK are California Ranch (Figure IV-38A), Cottage (Figure IV -38B), Craftsman (Figure IV-38C), Monterey (Figure IV-38D), American Fannhouse (Figure IV-38E), Spanish Colonial (Figure IV-38F), and Traditional (Figure IV-38G). These styles are compatible with one another, have a demonstrated market appeal and community acceptance and can be successfully adopted to a contemporary merchant builder's product line. It is important that these guidelines assist in the design 'of merchant builder product lines without being overly restrictive. Architects shall avoid harsh contrasts of materials and colors and shall be sensitive to the scale shown for the style they are emulating. Details and colors shall correlate with the styles selected. Theoverarching design principle is to create a street scene that has both a strong character as well as function and visual variety. Various techniques are described on the following pages that can achieve this goa\. It is not necessary to utilize every method on every building as long as the goals of variety and character are achieved. See Figures IV-39A - IV-39D. Specific plan No. 12 IV-45 W aU Creel~ IV. Design Guidelines . Figure IV-38B, Cottage Style Figure IVc38C, Craftsman Style . Figure IV-38D, Monterey Style Specific plan No. 12 IV-47 . . . . Wolf Creel~ IV. Design Guidelines Figure IV-38E, American Farmhouse Style Figure IV-38F, Spanish Colonial Style Figure IV-38G, Traditional Style SpeciHc plan No. 12 IV -48 Wolf Cree1 ARCIDTECTURAL GUIDELIN:a! MASSING, HEIGHT & SCALE VARIED ROOF FORMS, AND COMBINATIONS OF ONE AND TWO STORY ELEMENTS PROVIDE VARIETY. REDUCE MASS AND ACCOMODATE PEDESTRIAN SCALE CAREFUL ARTICULATION AND DETAIUNG OF ARCHITECTURE ADJOINING MAJOR ROADS. COMMUNITY THEME WALL PUNCTUATED WITH' GENEROUS AMOUNTS OF LANDSCAPING IS ENCOURAGED &.p.-1 For Spring Pacilic Properties L.L.C. 15751 ROCKFIEU> BLVD.- suræ 100 - lRVINE, CA. 92618 Page IV-49 Figure Ive ' . f. teC . Wolf Creel~ ARCIDTECTURAL GUIDELINES DOORS & WINDOWS . WINDOW PEDIMENTS, SMALL ROOF ELEMENTS, OVERHANGS AND PROJECTIONS ARE ENCOURAGED ,....w. ~ j~' >- ...:'~ . . '. . . DEEP SET CASEMENT JWINDOWS AND " ARTICULATION OF GARAGE . DOORS ARE ENCOURAGED ~ . i4b &.p.nd For ~ Spring Paci£ic Properties L.L.C. 15751 ROCKFIELD BLVD.- SUITE 100 - IRVINE, CA. 92618 Page IV-50 FigurelV-39B . (~ UL Wolf Creel. ARCIDTECTURAL GUIDELINE' BALCONIES & PORCHES ~ N..,.~ .~ 'oj ., ~ ~, ~ Ñ -""- ~ ~.. . '. PORCH PROVIDES DETAIL, SHADOW RELIEF, ~ AND ARTICULATES ENTRY ï., . t " t-.. ,..., #' BALCONY LOCATION. ADJOINING OPEN SPACES REDUCES MASS fWY ~»o w. ~'" ~ w- ~.'%íu-~ -ty.. .?-.J.#..... N~.,.. -n""-,, --. ----- .._~ '-- ----=:;- . - -- . Figure I. .. . LlC &.p...d For Spring Pacilic Properties L.L.C. 15751 ROCKFIELD BLVD.- SUITE 100 - IRVINE, CA. 92618 Page IV-51 Wolf Creelz AR CIDTECTURAL G UID ELINES DETAILS: . EXPOSED BEAMS ARE SOFTENED WITH DETAIL .~~: ~ 1V'~ WI7VYf\)' I ~~ 4tJI< ARCHED ENmlES AND ARCHITECTURAL PROJECTIONS ACCENT DOOR QUA mEFOIL WINDOWS SHADE AND FORM ACCENT ENTRY . .Ju, COURTYARD ENTRY . Figure lV-39D ßepo..d For Spring Paci£ic Properties L.L.C. 15751 ROCKFIELD BLVD.- SUITE 100 - IRVINE, CA. 92618 Page IV-52 ..... UL Wolf Creek IV. Design Guidelines . 1. Residential Architectural Desit:n Guidelines a. Mass, Height and Scale Mass of buildings located adjacent to major vehicular and pedestrian corridors, and open spaces shall be carefully articulated, with large unbroken surfaces discouraged. The use of a mixture of one and two story elements are encouraged. Single story elements are encouraged to reduce architectural massing when located on a comer lot. Homes shall maintain low lines and horizontal fonns as feasible, especially on comer lots. Varied rooffonns are encouraged. A hierarchy of fonn shall be present such as well-pronounced front entries. The highly visible front, side, and rear elevations of homes located adjacent to major circulation corridors shall include architectural enhancements. Examples of possible enhancements to side and rear building elevations include: changing roof lines, incorporating donners with windows into roofs, varying siding material(s) and/or color(s), installation of window trim on second stories, and using shutters to frame windows . Residences that abut streets classified as collectors or greater shall be designed and built with enhanced architecture such as architectural decoration and trim, projections, and/or articulated facades on those elevations visible from such street(s). . The use of articulated walls to create strong shadows and visual interest is encouraged. Building projections and recesses shall be provided on the front facade of each residential structure. Emphasis shall be placed on horizontal architectural lines including architectural trim and fascia lines. Specific plan No. 12 IV-53 . . . . W aU Creel~ IV. Design Guidelines Two-story elevations shall be visually broken up with offset stories, changes in materials, architectural banding or other similar accents, and/or sloping roof- lines. This is especially important where two or more elevations of a residence are prominently visible, as at street corners. b. Materials and Colors Changes in building materials and/or colors are encouraged to help visually break up the massing and scale of two-story elevations. The color of buildings shall be compatible with and integral to the materials chosen. Accent colors that complement the designated color scheme may be applied to doors, windows, shutters, architectural trim and special features for visual interest. To promote visual interest, it is recommended that a mixture of cool and wann building materials and roof colors be incorporated into each residential structure. Several color schemes shall be provided for similar elevations to provide variation and interest. Clay, concrete or ceramic tiles that complement the primary building color(s) may be used at building entries to create visual focal points. Brick, tile and stone are encouraged as paving and wall accents. Smooth-textured stucco and plaster, may have uneyen surface to recall hand worked appearance. Wood products shall be of sufficient quality to accept semi-transparent stains. Where timber is used as a decorative or structural element on a residential building, the size and scale of the timber shall be in proportion to the overall lines, size and massing ofthe building. Specific plan No. 12 IV-54 Wolf Creek IV. Design Guidelines . c. Building Elements Roofscapes Simple gable, hip or shed roofforms are encouraged. Roof overhangs or clipped eves are encouraged. Cornice banding on parapet walls is encouraged. Long unbroken roof lines are discouraged. Variations in roofline heights and alignments are encouraged. Roof pitches should, in general, vary ITom 5:12 to 3:12. Roofing materials shall be non-flammable (Le., concrete tiles, clay tiles, slate). Asphalt shingle roofing is permitted if it is fire retardant. Masonry materials with integral color are preferable to surface glazed materials, since integral colors tend to be more durable and long-lasting. Roof color shall compliment the building colors. Each residential subdivision. shall offer homes with two or more different roof color options. Each subdivision may have up to 70% of the homes with the same dominant roof color; a secondary roof color shall be used on the remaining homes. Both the primary and secondary colors shall be compatible. The roof material palette for each building shall contain more than one color to achieve a variegated appearance. This variegation should be noticeable, but subtle. Colors may vary as long as they are compatible with each other. Dramatic changes in roofing colors between buildings in the same subdivision are discouraged. For example, a few scattered cool grey roofs within a subdivision of mostly warm red roofs look out-of-place and artificial; however, a warn'l grey roof would look fine adjacent to a warm brown roof. The exception to this approach is when several different architectural styles are used within the same subdivision, in which case, different roofing colors and materials are appropriate. Specific plan No. 12 IV-55 . . . . Wolf creek IV. Design Guidelines Windows and Doors Deep set openings are suggested to convey the impression of wall thickness and create strong shadows. Window pediments, small roof elements, and overhangs and projections over windows, doors and garage doors are encouraged. Deep set, comer and arched windows are encouraged. Articulation of highly visible roll-up garage doors is encouraged. Using pot shelves or flower boxes below windows will add visual interest and color. Exterior doors shall be decorative and visually interesting. Plain, frosted and etched glass door panels and sidelines are desirable options. French doors, donner windows and decorative shutters are encouraged. A variety of window treatments are encouraged, including unusual window placement, use of decorative grills and iron work, and incorporation of glass block windows where light is desired but privacy is an issue. Divided lights will reduce the scale oflarge windows and provide visual interest. High windows, transom windows, and clerestory windows are encouraged. Balconies and Porches Balconies and porches may be used to articulate and reduce mass, as well as provide shadow relief. Porches, balconies and trellis structures that are located in front yards shall be compatible with the overall architectural theming, style and design of the residence. Balustrades of wood and iron are encouraged. Any projections shall be simple and bold. Cylindrical or square columns of stucco or concrete are encouraged. SpeciHc plan No. 12 IV-56 Wolf Creel~ IV. Design Guidelines . Arch or column supports of balconies shill be used as entry elements where possible. Materials used shall be appropriate to the designated style. Private Walls and Fences Low garden walls which can serve as seating and flat display surfaces are recommended. The use of gateways, portals, and openings which "frame" a view is encouraged. Gates shall be placed to provide physical access to public open spaces, pascos or enhanced landscape edges. The use of thematic materials and colors appropriate to the designated architectural style is encouraged. Project wall design shall be consistent with the community wall program. Height, proportions and scale must be sympathetic to architecture ofadjacent buildings. . . . Incorporating pilasters into private walls is encouraged. Private rear and side yards shall be enclosed by a fence, wall, entry court or landscaping as appropriate. Encourage substantial proportions, conveying the visual impression of solidity and permanence. Decorative grillwork and see-through fencing shall be used wherever possible to provide visual access to open space. Details Quatrefoil window details are encouraged. A quatrefoil window is a window with four-lobes or leaf-shaped curves. These windows are usually smaller than typical windows and are often used for decorative purposes, rather than for ventilation. Specific plan No. 12 IV-57 . . . . Wolf Creek N. Design Guidelines Potshelves, pilasters and brick and tile accents are encouraged around doors, windows and entries, particularly near front and side entries that are easily visible from the street. Low and high walls shall be used to define courtyards, patios and entries. Chimneys shall be simple, well scaled elements and trimmed to match the architecture. Mailboxes shall be grouped in multi-family areas and designed to reflect the architectural motif. All antennas shall be restricted to the attic or interior of the residences. Solar panels, if any, shall be integrated into the roof form and flush with roof slope and color to blend with roof materials. Skylights, if any, are to be designed as an integral part of the roof. The metal flashing surrounding the skylight should be painted to match the roof color. Mechanical equipment such as gas meters, air conditioning and heating equipment shall be screened from public view, either by landscaping, fences, walls, earth herms or combination thereof. Exposed, unpainted sheet-metal spouts are discouraged. Such spouts shall be painted to match the building or the architectural trim. Design covered porches to have shallow pitched canopies and broad roof overhangs. When using wood as a building material; incorporate substantial posts, timbers, planks wide railings, and balusters into the architecture. Use decorative porch supports with capitals, wrapped with wood trim, ortumed portions. For subdivisions with a minimum lot size of7,200 square feet or larger, consider providing some homes with covered breezeways or archways that link detached garages and/or structures to the main residence. Rain gutters, flashing, and other architectural elements and trim constructed of sheet metal shall be painted with dark colors similar to the fascia. Specific plan No. 12 IV-58 Wolf Cree~ FRONT YARD SETBACKS (Typical Condition) SffiEET ---,-- '5' (av..-.ge) HOUSE I I I I I I 2-CAR GARAGE I I I I I '---- STANDARD RESIDENTIAL FRONT YARD SETBACK ~ . STREET HOUSE . . . I I I 3-CARGARAGE I I . I I '--------- STANDARD RESIDENTIAL FRONT YARD SETBACK WITH SECOND.STORY OVERHANG -ÚXIJiQ!) PrepareJ For Spring Pacific Properties LLC. 15751 ROCKFIELD BLVD. - SUITE 100. IRVINE, CA 92618 Page IV-36 Figure IV-3. .. . L'i: . . . Wolf C reel~ FRONT YARD SETBACKS (Typical Condition) STREET ---L-- I 2-cAR GARAGE ---------- HOUSE Not" Ave<>ge front yaro_is 151eet. TYP-ICALSIDE-I' AClNGGARAŒ SE11!ACK I.!n>Jg!} STREET ; --r-----r--- : 1U ¡ J HOUSE .'_.___01'8"""""""'," -""".......'" need""- 20-22"" fn>m Ihe rightolwaY"""""pmvideaœess"Ihe_"""'....... .2 The'SpilGanoge-opöon_""""""",IhaIIheIronl_oI """'home"""""'fn>mlhe-- SPlIT GARAGE WITH I S-FOOT AVEAAGE SETBACK (three-ar....... cand"" onlv) Figure IV-34B Prepared For Spring Pacific Properties LLC. 15751 ROCKFIELD BLVD- - SUITE 100 - IRVINE, CA 92618 Page IV-37 .. .- LH~ Wolf Creel- FRONT YARD SETBACKS (Typical Condition) STREET --1------ 15' (average) 1 . HOUSE . . . . . . . 2-GAR GARAGE: . . ATTACHED REAR GARAGE SETBACK fu:I?jg!} Preparea fur Spring Pacific Properties LLC. 15751 ROCKFIELD BLVD. - SUITE 100 - IRVINE, CA 92618 Page IV-38 Figure IV-3. .. . Lt~ . . . Wolf Creel~ FRONT YARD SETBACKS (Typical Condition) STREET --~--~---- 15' HOUSE 2-CAR GARAGE - Option: granny flat pennitted over garage DETACHED REAR GARAGE SETBACK ~ Prepared For Spring Pacific Properties L.L.C. 15751 ROCKFIELD BLVD. . SUITE 100 . IRVINE, CA 92618 Figure IV-34D .. .- LH~ Page IV-39 . . . ATTACHMENT NO.8 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES R,IT Ml2003103-0604 TIM 31898\ST AFF REPORT.doc 16 . PLANNING AREA 7 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES 1) The uses permitted in Planning Area 7 of Specific Plan No. 12 shall be the same as those permitted in the M Residential Zoning District in Chapter 17.06 of the City of Temecula Development Code. 2) The development standards for Planning Area 7 of Specific Plan No. 12 shall be the same as those standards identified for the M Residential Zoning District in Section 17.06.040 of the City of Temecula Development Code, except for the following: A. Minimum net lot area shall not be less than three thousand (3,000) square feet. B. The minimum lot frontage shall not be less than twenty feet (20'). C. The minimum width at the front setback shall not be less than fifteen feet (15'). D. The minimum average width of a lot shall not be less than thirty feet (30'). E. The minimum depth of a lot shall not be less than fifty feet (50'). F. The front yard to a livable structure shall not be less than an average . of fifteen feet (15'), except when a livable structure fronts onto a courtyard then the setback shall be five feet (5'). G. The corner side yard shall be not less than ten feet (10') H. The interior side yard shall have a minimum setback of zero feet (0'). I. The rear yard shall be not less than five feet (5'). J. The maximum height shall not exceed thirty-five feet (35'). K. Minimum garage setbacks shall be fifteen feet (15'), except when a garage faces a courtyard then the setback shall be five feet (5'). L. Patio covers for side and rear yards with vertical supports shall be a minimum of five feet (5') from the property line. Patio covers without vertical supports shall be a minimum of three feet (3') from the property line. M. Patio covers for front yards with vertical supports shall be a minimum of ten feet (10') from the property line. Patio covers without vertical supports shall be a minimum of three feet (3') from the property line. N. A minimum of two hundred (200) square feet of usable private open space per lot shall be provided. 3) The maximum encroachments into required yard areas for Planning Area 7 of Specific Plan No. 12 shall be the same as those standards identified in Table 17.06.050F of the City of Temecula Development Code. . 4) Except as provided above, all other zoning requirements shall be the same as those requirements identified in Chapter 17.06 of the City of Temecula Development Code. . ITEM #7 . . . . . Date of Meeting: Prepared by: File Number STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION August 18, 2004 Stuart Fisk Title: Associate Planner PA03-0609 Application Type: MCUP Project Description: A Minor Conditional Use Permit to allow for the sale of beer and wine (Type 20 license, off-sale) from an existing 925 square foot gas station building, located at 44520 Bedford Court, generally located at the southeast corner of Highway 79 South and Bedford Court (AP.N. 922- 210-041). Recommendation: ~ Approve with Conditions CEQA: 0 Deny 0 Continue for Redesign 0 Continue to: 0 Recommend Approval with Conditions 0 Recommend Denial ~ Categorically Exempt (Class) 15301 0 Negative Declaration 0 Mitigated Negative Declaration with Monitoring Plan DEIR RIM C U P\2003\03-O6O9 Exxoo Mobil\ST AFF REPORT.doc PROJECT DATA SUMMARY . Applicant: Exxon Mobil Corporation Completion Date: October 23, 2003 Mandatory Action Deadline Date: August 18,2004 General Plan Designation: Highway/Tourist Commercial (HTC) Zoning Designation: Highway/Tourist Commercial (HT) Site/Surrounding Land Use: Site: Highway/Tourist Commercial North: South: East: West: Professional Office High Density Residential Professional Office/ High Density Residential Highway/Tourist Commercial Lot Area: 0.94 acres Total Floor Area/Ratio N/A Landscape Area/Coverage N/A Parking Required/Provided N/A BACKGROUND SUMMARY . [g 1. Staff has worked with the applicant to ensure that all concerns have been addressed, and the applicant concurs with the recommended Conditions of Approval. ANALYSIS The proposed project is a request to sell beer and wine (Type 20 license, off-sale beer and wine) from an existing Mobil gas station building in the Highway/Tourist Commercial (HT) zone, located at the southeast corner of Highway 79 South and Bedford Court. For the sale of beer and wine, Section 17.10 of the Development Code requires that all uses (other than a restaurant) must obtain a conditional use permit from the Planning Commission. The Development Code also states that any business selling beer and wine shall be no closer than 500 feet from any public park, religious institution or school. Staff's policy for measuring the 500 foot separation from religious institutions and schools is that the measurement is taken from the nearest door of either use. Parks are measured from the nearest door of the proposed use to the closest property line of the park. The GIS department has provided the maps necessary for staff to verify that the proposed use is not closer than 500 feet from any religious institution, school or public park. There are two churches in the vicinity, . R,\M C U 1'12003\03.0609 Exxon MobillST AFF REPORT-doc . . . Rancho Community Reformed Church located at 29141 Vallejo Avenue (approximately 750 feet from door to door) and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints located at 44650 La Paz Street (approximately 700 feet from door to door). The Police Department has reviewed the proposed project and has provided conditions of approval. Staff has verified through the Department of Alcohol Beverage Control that the project site is within Census Tract 0432.14. A total of eleven (11) Type 20 licenses currently exist in the tract and twelve (12) are allowed before it is considered "over-concentrated". Since this census tract is not over-concentrated with Type 20 licenses, Public Convenience or Necessity Findings are not required. The Police Department has indicated that no crimes or complaints have been filed within the past year with respect to the operation of the existing retail fueling facility and that the addition of beer and wine sales from the premises is not anticipated to significantly impact the need for police services. The applicant has indicated that the addition of beer and wine sales from the premises will be for the convenience of the residents and that the sale of beer and wine makes economic sense for the operation of the retail fueling facility. The applicant has indicated that beer and wine will account for approximately 10% of the total sales for the retail fueling station. The proposed project is consistent with Section 17.10 of the Development Code. Staff believes that the findings for a Minor Conditional Use Permit can be made. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION 01. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, the,proposed Project has been deemed to be categorically exempt from further environmental review. (Class 15301, existing facilities, no expansion of facilities) CONCLUSIONIRECOMMEN DA TIO N Staff has reviewed the proposed project and has determined that the project is consistent with the General Plan and Development Code. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission make the findings for a Minor Conditional Use Permit. In addition, staff recommends that the Planning Commission determine that the project is exempt from CEQA Guidelines pursuant to Section 15301, existing facilities. FINDINGS Conditional Use Permit (Code Section 17.040.010E) 1. The proposed conditional use is consistent with the General Plan and the Development Code. The proposed use is consistent with the General Plan (Highway/Tourist Commercial) and Zoning (Highway Tourist Commercial), as well as the standards within the Development Code. The project is not less than 500 feet from a religious institution, school or a public park. 2. The proposed minor conditional use is compatible with the nature, condition and development of adjacent uses, buildings and structures and the proposed minor R:IM C U 1'12003\03-0609 Exxon Mobil\ST AFF REPORT.doc , 2. conditional use will not adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings or structures. . The proposed project is compatible with the nature, condition and development 01 adjacent uses, buildings, and structures because the proposed project will provide additional convenience for the community, and will allow the business at the project site to be competitive with other similar businesses selling beer and wine in the vicinity of the project site. 3. The site for a proposed conditional use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the yards, walls, fences, parking and loading facilities, buffer areas, landscaping and other development features prescribed in this development code and required by the Planning Commission or Council in order to integrate the use with other uses in the neighborhood. An existing Mobil gas station at the site adequately provides all improvements including yards, walls, fences, parking and loading facilities, buffer area, landscaping and all other features as required in the Development Code and by Planning Commission in order to integrate the use with other uses in the neighborhood. 4. The nature of the proposed minor conditional use is not detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the community. 5. The nature of the proposed use is not detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare to the community because the project will provide an additional convenience to the community, which will reduce vehicle trips and the site is consistent with the city policies regarding separation of sensitive uses. In addition, the City Police Department has reviewed the proposed project and has issued conditions for approval. That the decision to approve, conditionally approve, or deny the application for a conditional use permit be based on substantial evidence in view of the record as a whole before the Planning Commission or City Council on appeal. . The project has been reviewed, as a whole, in reference to all applicable codes and ordinance before the Planning Commission. ATTACHMENTS 1. Plan Reductions - Blue Page 5 3. PC Resolution No. 2004-- - Blue Page 6 Exhibit A: - Conditions of Approval Statement of Operations - Blue Page 7 . R,IM C U 1'\2003\03,0609 Exxon Mobil\ST AFF REPORT.doc . . . ATTACHMENT NO.1 PLAN REDUCTIONS RIM C U 1'\2003\03-0609 Exxoo Mobil\ST AFF REPORT.doc .d""",-"" " ii ~ø i~ 8Id ~~ ' ~i ~ . !ynoo aYO~aa8 ¡ .. .. ... oj!! II: ?ë ~ :z: (! !i: !! C to- W 8L r--J, 19 -----J Ii . . . ATTACHMENT NO.2 PC RESOLUTION NO. 2004-- R:\M C U 1'\2003\03-0609 Exxon Mobil\ST AFF REPORT.doc . . . PC RESOLUTION NO. 2004-- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA03-0609, A REQUEST FOR A MINOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR THE SALE OF BEER AND WINE (TYPE 20 LICENSE, OFF-SALE) FROM AN EXISTING GAS STATION LOCATED AT 44520 BEDFORD COURT, GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH AND BEDFORD COURT, KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 922-210-041. WHEREAS, Rubin Stewart, representing Exxon Mobil Corporation, filed Planning Application No. PA03-0609 in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code; WHEREAS, Planning Application No. PA03-0609 was processed including, but not limited to a 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. PA03-0609 on August 18, 2004, 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 in opposition to this matter; WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Planning Commission's Hearing and after due consideration of the testimony, the Planning Commission approved Planning Application No. PAO3-0609 subject to the conditions of approval after finding that the project proposed in Planning Application No. PA03-0609 conformed to the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code; NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby incorporated by reference. Section 2. Findinas. The Planning Commission, in approving Planning Application No. PAO3-0609 (Minor Conditional Use Permit) hereby makes the following findings as required by Section 17.04.010.E of the Temecula Municipal Code: A. The proposed conditional use is consistent with the General Plan and the Development Code. The proposed use is consistent with the General Plan (HighwaylTourist Commercial) and Zoning (Highway Tourist Commercial), as well as the standards within the Development Code. The project is not less than 500 feet from a religious institution, school or a public park. B. The proposed minor conditional use is compatible with the nature, condition and development of adjacent uses, buildings and structures and the proposed minor conditional use will not adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings or structures. R:IM C U P\2003\O3.Q609 Exxon MobillDraft PC Reso w- conditions.doc 1 The proposed project is compatible with the nature, condition and development of adjacent uses, buildings, and structures because the proposed project will provide additional convenience for the community, and will allow the business at the project site to be competitive with other similar businesses selling beer and wine in the vicinity of the project site. C. The site for a proposed conditional use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the yards, walls, fences, parking and loading facilities, buffer areas, landscaping and other development features prescribed in this development code and required by the Planning Commission or Council in order to integrate the use with other uses in the neighborhood. An existing Mobil gas station at the site adequately provides all improvements including yards, walls, fences, parking and loading facilities, buffer area, landscaping and all other features as required in the Development Code and by Planning Commission in order to integrate the use with other uses in the neighborhood. D. The nature of the proposed minor conditional use is not detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the community. The nature of the proposed use is not detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare to the community because the project will provide an additional convenience to the community, which will reduce vehicle trips and the site is consistent with city policies regarding separation of sensitive uses. In addition, the City Police Department has reviewed the proposed project and has issued conditions for approval. E. That the decision to approve, conditionally approve, or deny the application for a conditional use permit be based on substantial evidence in view of the record as a whole before the Planning Commission or City Council on appeal. The project has been reviewed, as a whole, in reference to all applicable codes and ordinances before the Planning Commission. Section 3. Environmental Comcliance. A Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. PA03-0609 was made per the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15301 (Existing Facilities, Class 1). The proposed project will not add square footage to an existing commercial building, located at 44520 Bedford Court. (A.P.N. 922-210-041). Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby conditionally approves the Planning Application No. PA03-0609, a request for a Minor Conditional Use Permit to allow for the sale of beer and wine (Type 20 license, off-sale) from an existing Mobil gas station building located at 44520 Bedford Court (A.P.N 922-210-041), subject to the conditions of approval set forth on Exhibit A, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference together with any other conditions that may be deemed necessary. R:\M C U 1'\2003\03-0609 Exxon MobillDraft PC Reso w- conditions.doc 2 . . . . . . Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning Commission on this 18th day of August 2004. John Telesio, Chairperson ATTEST: Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary {SEAL) STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE CITY OF TEMECULA ) ) ss ) I, Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary of the Temecula Planning Commission, do hereby certify that PC Resolution No. 2004-- was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of T emecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 18th day of August 2004, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary R,IM C U 1'12003\03-0609 Exxon Mobil\Draft PC Reso w- conditions.doc 3 . . . EXHIBIT A CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL R,IM C U P\2oo3\03-0609 Enoo MobillDnlft PC Reso w- conditionS.doc 4 .>..,,-J.,;,. k.~_:- . . . 4. 5. EXHIBIT A CITY OF TEMECULA DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Planning Application No. PA03-0609 Project Description: A Minor Conditional Use Permit to allow for the sale of beer and wine (Type 20 license) from an existing 925 square foot gas station building, located at 44520 Bedford Court, generally located at the southeast corner of Highway 79 South and Bedford Court (A.P.N 922-210-041) 921-210-041 Assessor's Parcel No.: Approval Date: August 18, 2004 Expiration Date: August 18, 2006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT Within Forty-Eight (48) Hours of the Approval of this Project 1. The applicant/developer shall deliver to the Planning Department a cashier's check or money order made payable to the County Clerk in the amount of Sixty-Four Dollars ($64.00) for the County administrative fee, to enable the City to file the Notice of Exemption as provided under Public Resources Code Section 211 08(b) and California Code of Regulations Section 15062. If within said forty-eight (48) hour period the applicant/developer has not delivered to the Planning Department the check as required above, the approval for the project granted shall be void by reason of failure of condition (Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c)). General Requirements 2. The applicant shall sign both copies of the final conditions of approval that will be provided by the Planning Department staff, and return one signed copy to the Planning Department for their files. 3. The applicant shall comply with the statement of operations (attached) for PA03-0609 on file with the Planning Division, unless superceded by these Conditions of Approval. This Conditional Use Permit may be revoked pursuant to Section 17.03.080 of the City's Development Code. The applièant and owner of the real property subject to this condition shall hereby agree to indemnify, protect, hold harmless, and defend the City with Legal Counsel of the City's own selection from any and all claims, actions, awards, judgments, or proceedings against the City to attack, set aside, annul, or seek monetary damages resulting, directly or indirectly, from any action in furtherance of and the approval of the City, or any R:\M C U 1'12003\03-0609 Exxon Mobil\Draft PC Reso w- conditions.doc 5 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. agency or instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body including actions approved by the voters of the City, concerning the Planning Application. 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. City shall promptly notify 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 the 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. . Within two years of approval of this permit, commencement of the use shall have occurred or the approval shall be subject to expiration. If commencement of the use has not occurred within tWo years of approval of this permit, the permittee may, prior to the expiration of the conditional use permit, apply for up to three one-year extensions of time. Each extension of time shall be granted in one-year increments only. The city, and its planning director, planning commission, and city council retain and reserve the right and jurisdiction to review and modify this conditional use permit (including the conditions of approval) based on changed circumstances. Changed circumstances include, but are not limited to the modification of the business, a change in scope, emphasis, size or nature of the business, and the expansion, alteration, reconfiguration or change of use. The reservation of right to review any conditional use permit granted or approved or conditionally approved hereunder by the city, its planning director, planning commission, and city council is in addition to, and not lieu of, the right of the city, its director of planning, planning commission, and city council to review and revoke or modify any conditional use permit approved or conditionally approved hereunder for any violations of the conditions imposed on such conditional use permit or for the maintenance of any nuisance condition or other code violation thereon. . The permittee shall obtain City approval for any modifications or revisions to the approval of this Conditional Use Permit. All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use allowed by this permit. POLICE DEPARTMENT 11. 12. 13. For required signage for type 20 license, applicant will consult booklet "ABC-617 (11/99) for detailed requirements for signage i.e., (Customer Warning, Excess Signs on Windows and Doors, Loitering and Open Containers, Tobacco, Cancer/Pregnancy Warning and Smoking.) Contact the Temecula Police Department for a copy of this guideline. The applicant shall obtain a copy of "Model Store Policies - A Guide for Off-Sale Licensees" from the Department of Alcohol Beverage Control. All retailing businesses shall contact the California Retailers Association for their booklet on the California Retail Theft Law at: California Retailers Association 1127-11 th Street, Suite 1030, Sacramento, CA 95814, (916) 443-1975. Penal Code 490.5 affords . R,IM C U 1'\2003\03-0609 Exxon Mobil\Draft PC Reso w- conditions.doc 6 . . . 14. merchants the opportunity to recover their losses through a civil demand program. The Temecula Police Department affords all retailers the opportunity to participate in the "Inkless Ink Program." At a minimal cost of less than $40.00 for inkless inkpads, retailers can take a thumbprint of every customer using a personal check to pay for services. A decal is also posted on the front entry of the business-advising customers of the "Inkless Ink program in use". If the business becomes a victim of check fraud, the police department will be able to track the suspect with the thumbprint. 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 Community Development Department approval. Applicant's Printed Name Date Applicant's Signature R:\M C U 1'12003\03-0609 Exxon Mobi1\Draft PC Reso w- conditions.doc 7 . . . ATTACHMENT NO.3 STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS R,IM C U 1'\2003\03-0609 Exxon MobillST AFF REPORT.doc ¿,~D: 10/24/03 3:06PM; ->CITY OF TEMECULA; #195; PAGE 4 0 n . STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS Conditional Use Penmit Modification-Development Application Penmit No. PA03"'OiPOQ 44520 Bedford Court, Temecula, Califomia.-APN: 922-210-041 1. Hours of Operation-24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Approving the CUP application would not change this. 2. Number of Emplovees-six. Approving the CUP application would not change this. 3. Amount ofReauired Parking--Appmving the CUP application would not change this~ 4- Average Daily Trips Generated-Not anticipated to change from existing usage. 5. Type of EQuipment or Processes Used-Sales of beer and wine would be fi:om existing coolers (i.e., no change in cwrent equipment or processes). 6. Description of Hazardous Materials-Existing operating gas station and proposed use does not involve hazardous materials. . 7. Other Descriptions that Describe the Proposed Use-N/A . . ITEM #8 . . . . . Date of Meeting: Prepared by: STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION August 18, 2004 Matt Peters Title: Associate Planner Application Type: Zone Change, Tentative Tract Map File Number PA02-0371 & PA02- 0372 Project Description: Change of Zone from Low Density Residential (L-1, One-acre minimum lot size) to Low Density Residential (L-2, One-half acre minimum lot size), and Tentative Tract Map to subdivide a 4.57 acre site into seven single family residential lots ranging from .5 acres to .82 acres, located on the east side of Ynez Road, approximately 470 feet north of Santiago Road (APN 945-060-006). [8J Approve with Conditions D Deny D Continue for Redesign 0 Continue to: Recommendation: (Check One) CECA: (Check One) 0 Recommend Approval with Conditions 0 Recommend Denial 0 Categorically Exempt [8J Negative Declaration 0 Mitigated Negative Declaration with Monitoring Plan DEIR PROJECT DATA SUMMARY Applicant: Completion Date: Marchand-Way Development June 22, 2004 August 18, 2004 Mandatory Action Deadline Date: Low Density Residential (L), .5-2 Dwelling Units Per Acre General Plan Designation: Zoning Designation: L-1 (Low Density Residential, one acre minimum lot size) R:\T Ml2002\02-0371 TR 30169 Quiet Meadow RdlStaff Report MDP (8-9-04).doc Site/Surrounding Land Use: Site: Vacant . North: South: East: West: Single-family residence Single-family residence Single-family residence Single-family residence Lot Area: 4.27 acres Net Lot Sizes: Parcel One: .82 acres (35,756 sq.ft.) Parcel Two: .61 acres (26,644 sq.ft.) Parcel Three: .61 acres (26,644 sq.ft.) Parcel Four: .61 acres (26,915 sq.ft.) Parcel Five: .59 acres (25,877 sq.ft.) Parcel Six: .50 acres (21,831 sq.ft.) Parcel Seven: .50 acres (21,792 sq.ft.) Total Floor Area/Ratio N.A. Landscape Area/Coverage N.A. Parking Required/Provided N.A. BACKGROUND SUMMARY . The Planning Commission initially reviewed these applications on May 7, 2003. The Planning Commission determined that the application would create a residential density that would be incompatible with the surrounding properties and voted to recommend City Council denial. On August 12, 2003, the City Council reviewed the application and expressed concern about taking action on a zone change request while the General Plan update was in progress. The City Council voted to continue the application and refer the matter to the General Plan Community Advisory Committee (CAC) for policy input prior to taking formal action. On October 14, 2003, the CAC discussed the application in the context of the overall land use goals for the Chaparral area. The CAC determined that the zone change request to one-half acre minimum lots on this site would be consistent with the existing General Plan policies for the Chaparral area (Pg. 10-29). The site does not have any of the environmental constraints referred to in the General Plan for the Chaparral area, and the resulting density would be compatible with the surrounding land use densities. In a broader context, the CAC viewed the Chaparral area as transitioning from one-acre lots to half-acre lots if visual and environmental considerations were addressed. In order to address development and clarify densities in the Chaparral area, staff had discussions with an ad hoc City Council Subcommittee consisting of Councilmembers Naggar and Comerchero, as well as the CAC. An Interim Chaparral Policy was developed as follows: . R,\T M\2002\02-0371 TR 30\69 Quiet Meadow RdlStaffReport MDP (8-9-04).doc . . . 1. The gross density in the Chaparral Area shall be one dwelling unit per acre, except for the tier of lots adjacent to and approximately seven hundred feet east of Ynez Road, where two dwelling units per acre may be allowed. 2. In areas with one unit per acre gross density, half-acre (20,000 square feet) lots may be allowed when the remaining property is set aside and preserved for open space and habitat purposes. All project approvals shall include conditions of approval and requirements to ensure the long term protection and maintenance of these open space and habitat areas. 3. In areas with two units per acre gross density, project shall incorporate and support, to the maximum extent feasible, an internal road network intended to minimize internal vehicle trips using, and vehicular turning movement conflicts along, Ynez Road. As part of the design review process, all future developments shall provide trail right-of- way dedications and/or easements for, as well as construct or agree to fund the future construction of, the approved citywide trail network in and adjacent to particular development project. 4. At the March 23, 2004 City Council meeting, the Council reviewed the policy direction received from the Subcommittee and CAC and referred the matter to the Planning Commission for a formal recommendation. At that meeting, the Council had questions regarding who would construct and/or maintain the trails that are proposed to run through this area and who would be responsible for the potential liability. At the April 21, 2004 Planning Commission meeting, Principal Planner David Hogan presented the Interim Chaparral Policy in relation to the two planning applications that brought this issue into the spotlight. The first application is the subject proposal consisting of a seven lot subdivision (Tentative Tract Map 30169) on Ynez Road. The second is an active application for 'a 30-lot subdivision (Tentative Tract Map 30434) in the middle part of the Chaparral Area. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the Interim Chaparral Policies. The voice vote reflected unanimous approval. At the June 22, 2004 City Council meeting, the Council approved the Interim Chaparral Policies. ANALYSIS Zone Chanae The application will create seven residential parcels between .5 and .8 acres in net lot area. Public testimony previously given at the first Planning Commission was mixed (one resident speaking in favor, and six residents opposed). However, the General Plan CAC found that the % acre density is appropriate in this area, creating a compatible transition with the higher suburban densities to the west. Staff concurs with the analysis of the CAC and finds no underlying environmental or policy basis to deny the zone change request from L-1 (one acre min. lot size) to L-2 (one-half acre minimum lot size). Tentative Tract Mac The map will create seven residential lots fronting on a private street to be sited along the northerly edge of the site and terminate into a cul-de-sac. The entrance to the subdivision will be R:IT M\2002\02-j)371 TR 30169 Quiet Meadow RdlStaffReportMDP (8-9-04).doc aligned with the Quiet Meadow Road intersection to the west. The lot sizes will range from .5 to .8 acres and complies with the minimum half-acre lot size requirement of the L-2 zoning district. The topography rises from the west to east; however slopes are minimal when compared to the rest of the Chaparral area. The pad elevation of Lot 1, which will side onto Ynez Road, will be approximately five feet above Ynez Road, and twenty two feet lower than the highest pad (Lot 7) at the rear of the site. As conditioned, the proposed map will conform to all applicable City Code requirements and staff recommends approval. Included as a condition of approval is a requirement that all sloped areas and the private street be maintained by a homeowners association. . ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION [8J 1. An initial study has been prepared and indicates that the project will not have any potentially significant environmental impacts. Staff has circulated its environmental findings in accordance with the requirements of CEQA and no public or agency comments were received. Special studies submitted with the application included a Fault Hazard Investigation (T.H.E. Soils Co., January 29, 2003), a Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation (THE. Soils Co., February 10, 2003), and a Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment (Jean Keller, PhD., October 2002). Those documents were distributed, reviewed, and accepted by the relevant agencies. The specific conditions and recommendations of those studies have been incorporated as conditions of approval. Staff recommends adoption of a Negative Declaration for the project. . CONCLUSIONIRECOMMEN DATION Staff has determined that the request to reduce the lot sizes by changing the zone from L-1 to L- 2 is consistent with the General Plan, and Interim Chaparral Policies adopted by the City Council on June 22, 2004. The Tentative Tract Map has been conditioned to ensure that all required public and private improvements are constructed and maintained, and the current Development Code requires that the design of each new home obtain Planning Director approval at a public hearing prior to issuance of a building permit. FINDINGS Zone Change 1. The zone change request from L-1 to L-2 is consistent with the General Plan policy for the Chaparral area because it provides an opportunity to transition down from the larger lots found in the Los Ranchitos and Santiago Estates areas to the south and west (General Plan pg. 10-29) Tentative Tract Map (Code Section 16.09.140) The proposed subdivision and the design and improvements of the subdivision are consistent with the Development Code, General Plan, the Subdivision Ordinance and the City of Temecula Municipal Code; The proposed subdivision and the design and improvements of the subdivision are. RW M\2002\O2-0371 TR 30169 Quiet Meadow RdlStaff Report MDP (8-9-Q4).doc . . . 2. consistent with the Development Code, General Plan, and the City of Temecula Municipal Code. The seven-lot subdivision of a 4.57 gross acre site will result in a density of 1.53 units per acre and is within the allowable density range of .5 to 2 units per acre specified in the General Plan land use element for the Low Density Residential designation. The tentative map does not propose to divide land, which is subject to a contract entered into pursuant to the California Land Conservation Act of 1965; The proposed property has not been used as agricultural land and has never entered into any Williamson Act contracts. 3. The site is physically suitable for the type and proposed density of development proposed by the tentative map. The site is physically suitable for the type and proposed density of development proposed by the tentative map. The Initial Study and special reports prepared for the application indicate that the project will not have any significant impacts to the environment. 4. The design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements, with conditions of approval, will not likely cause significant environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. The design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements, with conditions of approval, will not likely cause significant environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat, because the recommendations of the cultural resource, fault hazard, and geotechnical reports have been incorporated as conditions of approval. 5. The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems. The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems, because development will be inspected by City staff for compliance with all applicable building and fire codes prior to occupancy. 6. The design of the subdivision provides for future passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities in the subdivision to the extent feasible. The design of the subdivision provides for future passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities. During review of the design of the homes, staff will ensure that all setbacks have been met and that light and air access is available to the extent possible. The construction will be required to conform to all state energy efficiency codes as well. 7. The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within R,IT M\2002102-0371 TR 30169 Quiet Meadow RdlStaff Report MDP (8-9-Q4).doc the proposed subdivision, because the City staff have reviewed the latest title report and af1 required easements and dedications wif1 be required as conditions of approval. . 8. The subdivision is consistent with the City's parkland dedication requirements (Quimby). The subdivision is consistent with the City's parkland dedication requirements (Quimby), because the Temecula Community Services District has conditioned the project to have appropriate Quimby fees paid prior to issuance of building permits ATTACHMENTS 1. Plan Reduction (TTM 30169) - Blue Page 7 PC Resolution No. 2004-- PA02-0372 (Zone Change) - Blue Page 8 Exhibit A - Draft City Council Ordinance 2. 3. PC Resolution No. 2004-- PA02-0371 (Tentative Tract Map 30169) - Blue Page 9 Exhibit A - Draft Conditions of Approval Vicinity Map - Blue Page 10 4. 5. 6. Initial Study - Blue Page 11 Excerpt Minutes from June 22, 2004 City Council Meeting - Blue Page 12 . 7. Excerpt Minutes from April 21, 2004 Planning Commission Meeting- Blue Page 13 8. Excerpt Minutes from March 23, 2004 City Council Meeting- Blue Page 14 Excerpt Minutes from August 12, 2003 City Council Meeting - Blue Page 15 9. 10. Excerpt Minutes from May 7,2003 Planning Commission Meeting - Blue Page 16 Petition and Letters of Support for the Proposal - Blue Page 17 11. 12. Oral Argument Against the Proposal as recorded in the May 7,2003 Planning Commission Meeting (Excerpt) - Blue Page 18 . R\T M\2002\02-0371 TR 30169 Quiet Meadow RdlStaffReport MOP (8-9-Q4).doc . . . ATTACHMENT NO.2 PC RESOLUTION NO. 2004-- PA02-0372 (ZONE CHANGE) RIT M\2002\02-0371 TR 30169 Quiet Meadow RdlStaffReport MDP (8-9-04).doc . . . PC RESOLUTION NO. 2004-- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF PLANNING APPLICATION PA02-0372, A CHANGE OF ZONE FROM LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (L~1) TO LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (L-2), GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF YNEZ ROAD, OPPOSITE QUIET MEADOWS ROAD, APPROXIMATELY 473 LINEAR FEET NORTH OF THE CENTER LINE OF SANTIAGO ROAD, A 4.57 ACRE PARCEL KNOWN AS ASSESSOR PARCEL NO. 945-060-006. WHEREAS, Marchand-Way Development Inc., filed Planning Application No. PA02-0372 (Change of Zone), in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code; WHEREAS, the Application was processed including, but not limited to a 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 August 18, 2004, 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 in opposition to this matter; WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing and after due consideration of the testimony, the Commission recommended City Council approval of Planning Application PAO2-0372 subject to and based upon the findings set forth hereunder; WHEREAS, all legal preconditions to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RECOMMEND THAT THE CITY COUNCIL RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. by reference. That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby incorporated Section 2. Findinas. Zone Chanae. The Planning Commission, in recommending City Council approval of Planning Application No. P A02-0372, hereby finds that the amendment to the Official Zoning Map is consistent with the adopted General Plan goals for the City of Temecula, because the zone change from L-1 to L-2 is consistent with the City's General Plan land use policy for the Chaparral area because it "provides an opportunity to transition down from the larger lots found in the Los Ranchitos and Santiago Estates areas to the south and wesf' (General Plan, pg. 10-29). R:\T M\2002\O2-037! TR 30169 Quiet Meadow RdlStaffReport MDP (Res! w Draft Ord).doc ! Section 3. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning Commission this 18th day of August, 2004. John Telesio, Chairperson ATTEST: Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE CITY OF TEMECULA ) ) ss ) I, Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary of the Temecula Planning Commission, do hereby certify that PC Resolution No. 2004-- was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of T emecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 18th day of August, 2004, by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: NOES: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary R,\T M\2002\02-O371 TR 30169 Quiet Meadow Rd\StaffReport MDP (Resl w Draft Ord).doc 2 . . . . . . EXHIBIT A DRAFT CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE R:\T Ml2002\O2-0371 TR 30169 Quiet Meadow RdlStaffRepon MDP (Res! w Draft Ord).doc 3 . . . ORDINANCE NO. 04-- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP, A CHANGE OF ZONE FROM LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (L-1) TO LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (L-2), GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF YNEZ ROAD, OPPOSITE QUIET MEADOWS ROAD, APPROXIMATELY 473 LINEAR FEET NORTH OF THE CENTER LINE OF SANTIAGO ROAD, A 4.57 ACRE PARCEL KNOWN AS ASSESSOR PARCEL NO. 945-060-006. WHEREAS, Marchand-Way Development Inc., filed Planning Application No. PA02-0372 (Change of Zone); in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on August 18, 2004, and recommended that the City Council approve Planning Application PA02-0372 as an amendment to the City Zoning Map; and WHEREAS, this Ordinance complies with all the applicable requirements of State law and local ordinances; and WHEREAS, notice of the proposed Ordinance was posted at City Hall, Temecula Library, local newspaper, and the project site; and WHEREAS, the City Council has held a duly noticed public hearing on_, 2004 to consider the proposed amendments to the City Zoning Map. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Amendments To The City Zonina Mac The City Council hereby amends the Official Zoning Map for the City of Temecula for Parcel 945-060-006 by changing the zoning designation from Low Density Residential (L-1) to Low Density residential (L-2: . Section 2. Environmental Review. The City Council, based upon the information contained in the Initial Environmental Study and Negative Declaration prepared for this project, finds the impacts of the proposed amendment is accurately described and discussed and hereby adopts a Negative Declaration. Section 3. Severability. If any sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be unconstitutional or otherwise invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining provisions of this ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this ordinance and each sentence, clause or phrase thereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more sentences, clauses or phrases be declared unconstitutional or otherwise invalid. Section 4. Notice of Adoction. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same to be posted as required by law. Section 5. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days R:\T Ml2002\02-0371 TR 30169 Quiet Meadow RdlStaffReport MDP (Res1 w DraftOrd).doc 4 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 6. 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 this- day of ,2004. Mike Naggar, Mayor ATTEST: Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE CITY OF TEMECULA ) ) ss ) . I, Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 04-- was duly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a regular meeting of the City Council on the - day of _,2004 and that thereafter, said Ordinance was duly adopted and passed at a regular meeting of the City Council on the - day of -' 2004, by the following vote: AYES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSTAIN: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk . R,\TM\2002\02-0371 TR 30169 Quiet Meadow Rd\StaffReport MDP (Res! w Draft Ord).doc 5 . . . ATTACHMENT NO.1 PLAN REDUCTION (TTM 30169) R,IT M\2002102-0371 TR 30169 Quiet Meadow RdlStaffRepon MOP (8-9-04).doc ~l >f~~' ',~1;.t,",.,¡,ì-¡~II".i. J¡;1~~.:,,~þ' 'iJ..,'-.J!J. 'P"';"+,',~,;;'iì ~.'" "'~¡íi ~~~ .ä '¡ . ' ' ,', ID . "'i"i H "I .,', ~¡ , \, ~"",1 I;!: ¡ , II' I ~"'-'" ,II. 1'111, "I I ~ ~... n: Ir"I~1 d ; , ~I tl' 1111 I ¡ I,m I- I!n i ! " ! ~ IHIII! . Ip!:!;-II ~I ~ !~! !ltl ~'b~"I; lei I I: ¡¡il ¡ ¡I II¡Jth ¡!m~...î. ¡¡ill!; ~ L ':!I!!!~! !,i!1 III III I /rr a~! r---¡ I/.!! g,...,1 I.! I /J,il,-l L'I . L-Cl --I ~"..1':U!!,!!I~'!.-- L -/-~!".-1J_--- 96-96/69 B'/V W9 lO'lil / 01 101 <J:i to - 0 C'j . . . ATTACHMENT NO.3 PC RESOLUTION NO. 2004-- PA02-0371 , (TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 30169) R,IT M\2002\02-0371 TR 30169 Quiet Meaduw RdlStaffReport MDP (8-9-04).doc . . . PC RESOLUTION NO. 2004-- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA02-0371 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 30169 SUBDIVIDING ONE SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOT INTO SEVEN SINGLE- FAMILY LOTS ON 4.57 GROSS ACRES, GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF YNEZ ROAD, OPPOSITE QUIET MEADOWS ROAD, APPROXIMATELY 473 LINEAR FEET NORTH OF THE CENTER LINE OF SANTIAGO ROAD, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR PARCEL NO. 945-060-006. WHEREAS, Marchand-Way Development Inc., filed Planning Application No. PA02- 0371 (Tentative Tract Map No. 30169), in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code; WHEREAS, the Application was processed including, but not limited to a 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 August 18, 2004, 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 in opposition to this matter; WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Planning Commission hearing and after due consideration of the testimony, the Planning Commission recommended City Council approval of Planning Application PAO2-0371 subject to the attached conditions and based upon the findings set forth hereunder; WHEREAS, all legal preconditions to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RECOMMEND THAT THE CITY COUNCIL RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby incorporated by reference. Section 2. Findinas. The Planning Commission, in recommending approving the Application hereby makes the following findings as required by Section 16.09.140 of the Temecula Municipal Code: A. The proposed subdivision and the design and improvements of the subdivision are consistent with the Development Code, General Plan, the Subdivision Ordinance and the City of Temecula Municipal Code; The proposed subdivision and the design and improvements of the subdivision are consistent with the Development Code, General Plan, and the City of Temecula Municipal Code. The seven-lot subdivision of a 4.57 gross acre site will result in a density of 1.53 units per acre and is within the allowable density range of.5 to 2 units per R:\T M\2002\02-0371 TR 30169 Quiet Meadow RdlStaffReport MOP (Res2 w COA).doc 1 acre specified in the General Plan land use element for the Low Density Residential designation. . B. The tentative map does not propose to divide land, which is subject to a contract entered into pursuant to the California Land Conservation Act of 1965; The proposed property has not been used as agricultural land and has never entered into any Williamson Act contracts. C. The site is physically suitable for the type and proposed density of development proposed by the tentative map. The site is physically suitable for the type and proposed density of development proposed by the tentative map. The Initial Study and special reports prepared for the application indicate that the project will not have any significant impacts to the environment. D. The design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements, with conditions of approval, will not likely to cause significant environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. The design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements, with conditions of approval, will not likely cause significant environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat, because the recommendations of the cultural resource, fault hazard, and geotechnical reports have been incorporated as conditions of approval. . E. The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems. The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems, because development will be inspected by City staff for compliance with all applicable building and fire codes prior to occupancy. F. The design of the subdivision provides for future passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities in the subdivision to the extent feasible. The design of the subdivision provides for future passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities. During review of the design of the homes, staff will ensure that all setbacks have been met and that light and air access is available to the extent possible. The construction will be required to confonn to all state energy efficiency codes as well. G. The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision, because the City staff have reviewed the latest title report and all required easements and dedications will be required as conditions of approval. . R,'T M\2002\Q2-0371 TR 30169 Quiet Meadow RdlStaff Report MDP (Re,2 w COA).doc 2 . . . H. (Quimby). The subdivision is consistent with the City's parkland dedication requirements The subdivision is consistent with the City's parkland dedication requirements (Quimby), because the Temecula Community Services District has conditioned the project to have appropriate Quimby fees paid prior to issuance of building permits. Section 3. Environmental ComDlIance. An Initial Study was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. Based on a finding of no significant environmental impact, the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve a Negative Declaration for the application. Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby conditionally recommends approval of Planning Application PA02-0371 according to the specific conditions set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference together with any and all necessary conditions that may be deemed necessary. Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning Commission this 18th day of August, 2004. John Telesio, Chairperson ATTEST: Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE CITY OF TEMECULA ) ) ss ) I, Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary of the Temecula Planning Commission, do hereby certify that PC Resolution No. 2004-_was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 18th day of August, 2004, by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: 0 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: NOES: 0 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: 0 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: 0 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary R,IT M\2002\02-Q371 TR 30169 Quiet Meadow RdlStaffReport MDP (Res2 w COA).doc 3 . . . EXHIBIT A DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL R:\T M\2002\02-0371 TR 30169 Quiet Meadow RdlStaffReport MDP (Res2 w COA).doc 4 . . . EXHIBIT A CITY OF TEMECULA DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Planning Application No.: Project Description: PA02-0371 (Tentative Tract Map 30169) A Tentative Tract Map to subdivide 4.57 gross acres of land into seven single-family lots, located on the east side of Ynez Road, opposite Quiet Meadow Road and approximately 473 linear feet north of the centerline of Santiago Road. DIF Category: MSHCP Category: Residential Detached Residential Detached Assessor's Parcel No.: 945-060-006 Approval Date: August18,2004 Expiration Date: August 18, 2007 PLANNING DEPARTMENT Within Forty-Eight (48) Hours of the Approval of this Project 1. The applicant/developer shall deliver to the Planning Department a cashier's check or money order made payable to the County Clerk in the amount of One Thousand Three Hundred Fourteen Dollars ($1,314.00) which includes the One Thousand Two Hundred and Fifty Dollar ($1,250.00) fee, required by Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(d)(3) plus the Sixty Four Dollars ($64.00) County administrative fee, to enable the City to file the Notice of Determination for the Mitigated or Negative Declaration required under Public Resources Code Section 21108(a) and California Code of Regulations Section 15075. If within said forty-eight (48) hour period the applicant/developer has not delivered to the Planning Department the check as required above, the approval for the project granted shall be void by reason of failure of condition [Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c)]. General Requirements 2. The tentative subdivision shall comply with the State of California Subdivision Map Act and to all the requirements of Ordinance No. 460, unless modified by the conditions listed below. A time extension may be approved in accordance with the State Map Act and City Ordinance, upon written request, if made 30 days prior to the expiration date. 3. The applicant and owner of the real property subject to this condition shall hereby agree to indemnify, protect, hold harmless, and defend the City with Legal Counsel of the City's own selection from any and all claims, actions, awards, judgments, or proceedings R:\T Ml2002\02-0371 TR 30169 Quiet Meadow RdlStaff Report MDP (Res2 w COA).doc 5 4. against the City to attack, set aside, annul, or 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. 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. City shall promptly notify 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 the 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. If Subdivision phasing is proposed, a chasina clan shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Director. 5. This project shall be contingent upon the approval of Planning Application PA02-0372 (Zone Change). 6. If, during construction, cultural resources are encountered, work shall be halted or diverted in the immediate area while a qualified archaeologist evaluates the finds and makes recommendations. In addition, the developer will coordinate with the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians to allow a representative of the Pechanga Band to monitor and participate in archaeological investigations if and when resources are encountered, including participation in discussions regarding the disposition of cultural items and artifacts. This should be added as a note on the Grading Plans. Prior to Issuance of Grading Permits 7. A copy of the Rough Grading plans shall be submitted and approved by the Planning Department. 8. 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. Prior to Recordation of the Final Map 9. The following shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Department: a. A copy of the Final Map. b. A copy of the Environmental Constraint Sheet (ECS) with the following notes: i. This property is located within thirty (30) miles of Mount Palomar Observatory. All proposed outdoor lighting systems shall comply with the California Institute of Technology, Palomar Observatory recommendations, Ordinance No. 655. ii. This project is within a liquefaction hazard zone. iii. This project is within a Subsidence Zone. A copy of the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&R's) c. R,IT M\2002102.Q371 TR 30169 Quiet Meadow RdlStaffReport MDP (Res2 w COA).doc 6 . . . . . il. CC&R's shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director. The CC&R's shall include liability insurance and methods of maintaining open space, recreation areas, parking areas, private roads, exterior of all buildings and all landscaped and open areas including parkways. No lot or dwelling unit in the development shall be sold unless a corporation, association, property owner's group or similar entity has been formed with the right to assess all properties individually owned or jointly owned which have any rights or interest in the use of the common areas and common facilities in the development, such assessment power to be sufficient to meet the expenses of such entity, and with authority to control, and the duty to maintain, all of said mutually available features of the development. Such entity shall operate under recorded CC&R's which shall include compulsory membership of all owners of lots and/or dwelling units and flexibility of assessments to meet changing costs of maintenance, repairs, and services. Recorded CC&R's shall permit enforcement by the City for provisions required as Conditions of Approval. The developer shall submit evidence of compliance with this requirement to, and receive approval of, the city prior to making any such sale. This condition shall not 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 interest in the common areas and facilities, or (2) a share in the corporation, or voting membership in an association owning the common areas and facilities. iil. Prior to Issuance of Building Permits The following shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Department: a. Three (3) copies of Construction Landscaping and Irrigation Plans. The location, number, genus, species, and container size of the plants shall be shown. The plans shall be consistent with the Water Efficient Landscaping 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: I. Appropriate filing fee (per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule at time of submittal). One (1) copy of the approved grading plan. Water usage calculations per Chapter 17.32 of the Development Code (Water Efficient Ordinance). Total cost estimate of plantings and irrigation (in accordance with the approved plan). The locations of all existing trees that will be saved consistent with the tentative map. Automatic irrigation for all landscaped areas and complete screening of all ground mounted equipment from the view of the public from streets and adjacent property for: a) Front yards and slopes within individual lots prior to issuance of building permits for any lot(s). 10. . il. iil. iv. v. vI. R:\TM\2002\02-0371 TR 30169 Quiet Meadow Rd\StaffReport MDP (Res2 w COAj.doc 7 11. b. Private common areas prior to issuance of the first building permit. All landscaping excluding Temecula Community Services District (TCSD) maintained areas and front yard landscaping which shall include, but may not be limited to private slopes and common areas. Shrub planting to completely screen perimeter walls adjacent to a public right-of-way equal to sixty-six (66) feet or larger. Hardscaping for the following: a) Pedestrian trails within private common areas Wall and Fence Plans consistent with the Conceptual Landscape Plans showing the height, location and the following materials for all walls and fences: i. Decorative block for the perimeter of the project adjacent to a public right- of-way equal to sixty-six (66) feet or larger and the side yards for corner lots. Wrought iron or decorative block and wrought iron combination to take advantage of views for side and rear yards. Wood fencing shall be used for all side and rear yard fencing when not restricted by i. and ii. above. Precise Grading Plans consistent with the approved rough grading plans including all structural setback measurements. . b) c) d) vii. ii. iii. c. Roof-mounted mechanical equipment shall not be permitted within the subdivision; however solar equipment or any other energy saving devices shall be permitted with Director of Planning approval. . Prior to Issuance of Occupancy Permits 12. 13. 14. 15. If deemed necessary by the Director of Planning, the applicant shall provide additional landscaping to effectively screen various components of the project. All required landscape planting and irrigation shall be 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. Front yard and slope landscaping within individual lots shall be completed for inspection. 16. Private common area landscaping shall be completed for inspection prior to issuance of the first occupancy permit. Performance securities, in amounts to be determined by the Director of Planning, to guarantee the maintenance of the plantings within private common areas for a period of one year, in accordance with the approved construction landscape and irrigation plan, shall be filed with the Planning Department 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. . R,\T M\2002\02-0371 TR 30169 Quiet Meadow RdlStaffReport MDP (Res2 w COA).doc 8 . . . 17. All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use allowed by this permit. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT The Department of Public Works recommends the following Conditions of Approval for this project. Unless stated otherwise, the Developer at no cost to any Government Agency shall complete all conditions. General Requirements 18. It is understood that the Developer correctly shows on the tentative map all existing and proposed easements, traveled ways, improvement constraints and drainage courses, and their omission may require the project to be resubmitted for further review and revision. 19. A Grading Permit for either rough or precise grading shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to commencement of any construction outside of the City-maintained road right-of-way. An Encroachment Permit shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to commencement of any construction within an existing or proposed City right-of-way. 20. All improvement plans, grading plans, landscape and irrigation plans shall be coordinated for consistency with adjacent projects and existing improvements contiguous to the site and shall be submitted on standard 24" x 36" City of Temecula mylars. Prior to Approval of the Final Map, unless other timing is indicated, the Developer shall complete the following or have plans submitted and approved, subdivision Improvement agreements executed and securities posted: 21. 22. As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: a. San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board b. Rancho California Water District c. Eastern Municipal Water District City of Temecula Fire Prevention Bureau Planning Department Department of Public Works Riverside County Health Department Cable TV Franchise Community Services District Verizon d. e. f. g. h. i. j. R,IT M\2002\02-0371 TR 30169 Quiet Meadow RdlStaffReport MDP (Res2 w COA).doc 9 23. 24. k. I. Southern California Edison Company Southern California Gas Company The Developer shall design and guarantee construction of the following public improvements to City of Temecula General Plan standards unless otherwise noted. Plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works: a. Improve Ynez Road (Secondary Highway Standards - 88' RIW) to include curb and gutter, sidewalk, streetlights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer). All street improvement design shall provide adequate right-of-way and pavement transitions per Caltrans standards for transition to existing street sections. Unless otherwise approved the following minimum criteria shall be observed in the design of the street improvement plans: a. Street centerline grades shall be 0.5% minimum over P.C.C. and 1.00% minimum over A.C. paving. Driveways shall conform to the applicable City Standard Nos. 207, 207A and/or 208. Street lights shall be installed along the public streets shall be designed in accordance with City Standard No. 800, 801, 802 and 803. Concrete sidewalks shall be constructed in accordance with City Standard Nos. 400 and 401. Design of street improvements shall extend a minimum of 300 feet beyond the project boundaries to ensure adequate continuity of design with adjoining properties. All street and driveway centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees. Landscaping shall be limited in the corner cut-off area of all intersections and adjacent to driveways to provide for minimum sight distance and visibility. All utility systems including gas, electric, telephone, water, sewer, and cable TV shall be provided underground. Easements shall be provided as required where adequate right-of-way does not exist for installation of the facilities. All utilities shall be designed and constructed in accordance with City Codes and the utility provider. All utilities, except electrical lines rated 33kv or greater, shall be installed underground b. 25. b. c. d. e. f. g. h. i. Private roads shall be designed to meet City public road standards. Unless otherwise approved the following minimum criteria shall be observed in the design of private streets: a. Minimum road widths of 32-ft. paved with 50-ft. right-of-ways or easements (shown on typical section). Separation between on-site intersections shall meet current City Standards (200- ft. minimum). . b. Ro\T M\2002\02-0371 TR 30169 Quiet Meadow RdlStaff Report MDP (Res2 w COA).doc 10 . . . . 26. 27. 28. . 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. . 35. c. Cul-de-sac geometries shall meet current City Standards. Minimum safe horizontal centerline radii shall be required (all centerline radii should be identified on the site plan). Identify whether gates will be proposed at entrances to project. If so, configuration, stacking distance, and turn-around ability will need to be reviewed and approved by the Fire Department and the Department of Public Works. All intersections shall be perpendicular (90). d. e. f. A construction area Traffic Control Plan shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and reviewed by the Department of Public Works for any street closure and detour or other disruption to traffic circulation as required by the Department of Public Works. Corner property line cut off for vehicular sight distance and installation of pedestrian facilities shall be provided at all street intersections in accordance with Riverside County Standard No. 805. All easements and/or right-of-way dedications shall be offered for dedication to the public or other appropriate agency and shall continue in force until the City accepts or abandons such offers. All dedications shall be free from all encumbrances as approved by the Department of Public Works. Any delinquent property taxes shall be paid. An Environmental Constraints Sheet (ECS) shall be prepared in conjunction with the Final Map to delineate identified environmental concerns and shall be recorded with the map. A copy of the ECS shall be transmitted to the Planning Department for review and approval. The following information shall be on the ECS: The Developer shall comply with all constraints, which may be shown upon an Environmental Constraint Sheet recorded with any underlying maps related to the subject property. The Developer shall make a good faith effort to acquire the required off-site property interests, and if he or she should fail to do so, the Developer shall, prior to submittal of the Final Map for recordation, enter into an agreement to complete the improvements pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act, Section 66462 and Section 66462.5. Such agreement shall provide for payment by the Developer of all costs incurred by the City to acquire the off-site property interests required in connection with the subdivision. Security of a portion of these costs shall be in the form of a cash deposit in the amount given in an appraisal report obtained by the Developer, at the Developer's cost. The City prior to commencement of the appraisal shall have approved the appraiser. The Developer shall notify the City's cable TV Franchises of the Intent to Develop. Conduit shall be installed to cable TV Standards at time of street improvements. A 32-foot easement shall be dedicated for public utilities and emergency vehicle access for all private streets and drives. Private drainage easements for cross-lot drainage shall be required and shall be delineated and noted on the final map. R:\T M\2002\02-0371 TR 30169 Quiet Meadow RdlStaff Report MDP (Res2 w COA).doc 11 Easements, when required for roadway slopes, landscape easements, drainage facilities, utilities, etc., shall be shown on the final map if they are located within the land division boundary. All offers of dedication and conveyances shall be submitted for review and recorded as directed by the Department of Public Works. On-site drainage facilities located outside of road right-of-way shall be contained within drainage easements and shown on the final map. A note shall be added to the final map stating, "drainage easements shall be kept free of buildings and obstructions. " Prior to Issuance of Grading Permits 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: a. San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board b. Planning Department c. Department of Public Works d. Community Services District A Grading Plan shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer in accordance with City of Temecula standards and approved by the Department of Public Works prior to commencement of any grading. The plan shall incorporate adequate erosion control measures to protect the site and adjoining properties from damage due to erosion. A Soils Report shall be prepared by a registered Civil or Soils Engineer and submitted to the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The report shall address all soils conditions of the site, and provide recommendations for the construction of engineered structures and preliminary pavement sections. A Geotechnical Report shall be prepared by a registered engineer or engineering geologist and submitted to the Department of public Works with the initial grading plan check. The report shall address special study zones and identify any geotechnical hazards for the site including location of faults and potential for liquefaction. The report shall include recommendations to mitigate the impact of ground shaking and liquefaction. A Drainage Study shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and submitted to the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The study shall identify storm water runoff quantities expected from the development of this site and upstream of the site. It shall identify all existing or proposed off-site or on-site, public or private. drainage facilities intended to discharge this runoff. Runoff shall be conveyed to an adequate outfall capable of receiving the storm water runoff without damage to public or private property. The study shall include a capacity analysis verifying the adequacy of all facilities. Any upgrading or upsizing of drainage facilities necessary to convey the storm water runoff shall be provided as part of development of this project. The basis for analysis and design shall be a storm with a recurrence interval of one hundred years. The Developer must comply with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. No grading shall be permitted until an NPDES Notice of Intent (NO!) has been filed or the R,\T M\2002\02-0371 TR 30169 Quiet Meadow RdlStaff Report MDP (R.,2 w COA).doc 12 . . . . 43. 44. 45. 46. project is shown to be exempt. The final NPDES requirement shall be address at the right-of-way prior to the water exiting into the street. The Developer shall post security and enter into an agreement guaranteeing the grading and erosion control improvements in conformance with applicable City Standards and subject to approval by the Department of Public Works. A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The 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. The Developer shall obtain letters of approval or easements for any off-site work performed on adjoining properties. The letters or easements shall be in a format as directed by the Department of Public Works. All lot drainage shall be directed to the driveway by side yard drainage swales independent of any other lot. Prior to Issuance of Building Permits 47. . 48. 49. . 50. 51. 52. Final Map shall be approved and recorded. The Developer shall vacate and dedicate the abutter's rights of access along Ynez Road as shown on the approved Tentative Map. A Precise Grading Plan shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and approval. A registered Civil Engineer for location and elevation shall certify the building pad, and the Soils Engineer shall issue a Final Soils Report addressing compaction and site conditions. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the California Building Code, the approved grading plan, the conditions of the grading permit, City Grading Standards and accepted grading construction practices. The final grading plan shall be in substantial conformance with the approved rough grading plan. 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 pay to the City the Western Riverside County Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) Program as required by, and in accordance with, Chapter 15.08 of the Temecula Municipal Code and all Resolutions implementing Chapter 15.08. Prior to Issuance of Certificates of Occupancy 53. As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: R,IT M\2002\O2-0371 TR 30169 Quiet Meadow RdlStaffReport MOP (Res2 w COA).doc 13 54. 55. 56. a. Rancho California Water District Eastern Municipal Water District Department of Public Works . b. c. All necessary certifications and clearances from engineers, utility companies and public agencies shall be submitted as required by the Department of Public Works. All improvements shall be constructed and completed per the approved plans and City standards to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. The existing improvements shall be reviewed. Any appurtenance damaged or broken due to the construction operations of this project shall be repaired or removed and replaced to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. FIRE DEPARTMENT 57. 58. 59. 60. Final fire and life safety conditions will be addressed when the Fire Prevention Bureau reviews building plans. These conditions will be based on occupancy; use, the California Building Code (CBC), California Fire Code (CFC), and related codes, which are in force at the time of building, plan submittal. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set a minimum fire flow for residential land division per CFC Appendix liLA, Table A-III-A-1. The developer shall provide for this project, a water system capable of delivering 1500 GPM at 20-PSI residual operating pressure with a 2-hour duration. The required fire flow may be adjusted during the approval process to reflect changes in design, construction type, or automatic tire 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 II LA) . The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set minimum fire hydrant distances per CFC Appendix IILB, Table A-III-B-1. Standard fire hydrants (6" x 4" x 2 1/2" outlets) shall be located on Fire Department access roads and adjacent public streets. Hydrants shall be spaced at 500 feet apart, at each intersection and shall be located no more than 250 feet from any point on the street or Fire Department access road(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. (CFC 903.2, 903.4.2, and Appendix III-B) Maximum cul-de-sac length shall not exceed 1320 feet. Minimum turning radius on any cul-de-sac shall be thirty-seven (37) feet for residential and forty-five (45) feet for commercial. (CFC 902.2.2.3, CFC 902.2.2.4) 61. 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) This will include all internal roads, connecting roads between phases, and construction gates. All required access must be in and available prior to and during ALL construction. Prior to building construction, all locations where structures are to be built shall have approved temporary Fire Department vehicle access roads for use until permanent . 62. R,IT Ml2002102-0371 TR 30169 Quiet Meadow Rd\StaffReport MDP (Res2 w COA).doc 14 . . . 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. roads are installed. Temporary Fire Department access roads shall be an all weather surface for 80,000 Ibs GVW. (CFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2.2) 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 Ibs. GVW with a minimum AC thickness of .25 feet. (CFC sec 902 and Ord 99-14) 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 and Ord 99-14) Roads on this map being less than 32' will require both sides to be painted Red, and marked "Fire Lane-No Parking CVC. 22500A" . Prior to building construction, dead end roadways 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) 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 local water company signs the plans, 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. (CFC 8704.3,901.2.2.2 and National Fire Protection Association 241-4.1) 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) Firefighting personnel shall provide all manual and electronic gates on required Fire Department access roads or gates obstructing Fire Department building access with the Knox Rapid entry system for emergency access. (CFC 902.4) Special Conditions 69. 70. 71. Prior to issuance of building permits, fuel modification plans shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for review and approval for all open space areas adjacent to the wildland-vegetation interface. (CFC Appendix II-A) Prior to issuance of building permits, plans for structural protection from vegetation fires shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for review and approval. The measures shall include, but are not limited to, enclosing eaves, noncombustible barriers (cement or block walls), and fuel modification zones. (CFC Appendix II-A) Prior to recording a final map a binding agreement for the maintenance and repair of any and all existing underground Fire Department Water Systems, including all fire sprinkler supplies and all fire hydrants and supplies will be in place as a condition of this division to maintain available water in perpetuity. R:\T M\2002\O2-0371 TR 30169 Quiet Meadow RdlStaff Report MDP (Res2 w COA}.doc IS 72. Prior to map recordation the applicant shall submit to the Fire Prevention Bureau a georectified (pursuant to Riverside County standards) digital version of the map including parcel and street centerline information. The electronic file will be provided in an ESRI Arclnfo/ArcView compatible format and projected in a State Plane NAD 83 (California Zone VI) coordinate system. The Bureau must accept the data as to completeness, accuracy and format prior to satisfaction of this condition. COMMUNITY SERVICES General Conditions 73. 74. 75. The developer shall contact the City's franchised solid waste hauler for disposal of construction debris. Only the City's franchisee may haul construction debris. All perimeter parkways (including within the ROW along Ynez Road), the portion of Lot 1 on the north side of the private road, slopes, retaining walls, drainage facilities, street medians and residential street lighting on the private street shall be maintained by the established homeowners association. Any damage done to existing Class II bike lanes along Ynez Road during construction shall be repaired to the satisfaction of Public Works. Prior to Final Map 76. 77. TCSD shall review and approve the CC&R's. The developer shall satisfy the City's parkland dedication (Quimby) requirement through the payment of in-lieu fees equivalent to .10 acres of parkland, based upon the City's then current land evaluation. Prior to the Issuance of a Building Permit 78. 79. Prior to issuance of building permits, the developer shall provide TCSD verification of arrangements made with the City's franchise solid waste hauler for disposal of construction debris. If additional arterial street lighting is to be installed along Ynez Road then prior to the first building permit or installation of the street lighting, the developer shall complete the TCSD application process, submit an approved Edison Streetlight Plan and pay the appropriate energy fees related to the transfer of street lighting into the TCSD maintenance program. OTHER AGENCIES 80. Flood protection shall be provided in accordance with the Riverside County Flood Control District's transmittal dated October 21, 2002, a copy of which is attached. The fee is made payable to the Riverside County Flood Control Water District by either a cashier's check or money order, prior to the issuance of a grading permit (unless deferred to a later date by the District), based upon the prevailing area drainage plan fee. R,\T M\2002\02-0371 TR 30169 Quiet M",dow RdlStaff Report MOP (Res2 w COA).doc 16 . . . . . . 81. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the County of Riverside Department of Environmental Health's transmittal dated July 24, 2002, a copy of which is attached. 82. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Rancho California Water District's transmittal dated July 18, 2002, a copy of which is attached. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in The Gas Company transmittal dated August 8, 2002, a copy of which is attached. 83. 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 Planning Department approval. Applicant's Signature Date Name printed R,IT M\2002\02-0371 TR 30169 Quiet Meadow Rd\Staff Report MDP (Res2 w COA).doc 17 . . . ATTACHMENT NO.4 VICINITY MAP RW M\2002\O2-0371 TR 30169 Quiet Meadow RdlStaff Report MOP (8-9-04).doc 10 . ~ . . . . ATTACHMENT NO.5 INITIAL STUDY R,\T M\2002\02-0371 TR 30169 Quiet Meadow RdlStaffReport MOP (8-9-04).doc 11 City of Temecula P.O. Box 9033, Temecula, CA 92589-9033 Pro'ect Title Lead Agency Name and Address Contact Person and Phone Number Pro'ect Location Project Sponsor's Name and Address nation Surrounding Land Uses and Setting . Environmental Checklist Marchand Wa Develo ment City of Temecula P.o. Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 Rolfe Preisendanz, Assistant Planner 909 694-6400 East side of Ynez Road, between Pauba Road and Santia 0 Road Marchand-Way Development 31530 Railroad Canyon Road Ste. 9 Can on Lake, CA 92587 Low densi residential L Low densi residential L-1 PA02-0371: A Tentative Tract Map application to subdivide 4.57 gross acres into 7 single-family residential lots averaging 0.5 net acres; and PA02-0372: A Change of Zone application to change the zoning designation and map from L-1 to L-2. Ynez Road serves as the west boundary of the project site, with single-family residential uses located to the north, south and east. An area to the south of the subject property consists of a culdezac, with full street improvements, approved by the City for single-family residential uses. Low-density single-family residential homes and vacant residential lots will be served b existin infrastructure. Eastern Municipal Water District for sewer service. Rancho California Water District for water service R:\T M\2002\02-0371 TR 30169 Quiet Meadow RdlCEQA INITIAL STUOY EA DRAFT DOC.doc 1 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Determination (To be completed by the lead agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: x I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will n be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the ro'ect ro onent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be re ared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is re uired. I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impacf' 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. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is re uired, but it must anal ze onl 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 im osed u on the ro osed ro'ect, nothin further is re uired. ~tf f ~~ ? 2C1ri'.::J ate Rolfe Preisendanz Printed name Assistant Planner Title . R:\T M\2002\02-0371 TR 30169 Ouiet Meadow RdlCEQA INITIAL STUOY EA DRAFT DOC.doc 2 a. b. c. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: PQtanlialty 'Sigijlficiint 'lln act Issues'and'Su rtinlntormàÍionSóurœs Ph sicall divide an established communi? Conflict with any applicable land use plan, 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 mitigating an environmental effect? Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? x x Comments: 1.a. 1.b. . 1.c. . The project will not disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community. The project site is vacant and is surrounded by SP-2 (Rancho Highlands Specific Plan) zoned properties to the north that include single family residential housing, Low Density Residential (L-1 and L-2) zoned property to the east, north, and south. The development of this site will be consistent with the surrounding properties. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. The project will not conflict with applicable General Plan designations and environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project. The project is consistent with the City's General Plan land use designation of Low Density Residential (L). The approval of a change of zone from L-1 to L-2 would increase the desired target dwelling units per acre from 1.3 to 1.5, but stay within the low-density residential range of 0.5 to 2 dwelling units per acre as established by the General Plan Land Use Element. Impacts from all General Plan land use designations were analyzed in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the General Plan. Agencies with jurisdiction within the City commented on the scope of the analysis contained in the EIR and how the land uses would impact their particular agency. Mitigation measures approved with the EIR will be applied to this project where necessary. The proposed project will have a less than significant impact with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. The site is located within the County of Riverside Habitat Conservation Plan for the Stephen's Kangaroo Rat, which will require site disturbance mitigation fees to be paid prior to grading activity. The site has been continuously grubbed for weed abatement and fire protection. R:\T M\2002\02-0371 TR 30169 auiet Meadow RdlCEaA INiTIAL STUDY EA DRAFT DOC.doc 3 2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: a. b. c. Issue.saodSu rtio lofómì:ito';'sourCesc . Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure? Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of re lacement housin elsewhere? x Comments: 2.a. 2.b. 2.c. The proposed tentative tract map is for seven (7) total single-family residential lots and is within the allowed General Plan Land Use Element density range of 0.5 to 2 dwelling units per acre. Even with the approval of a zone change from L-1 to L-2 the property would still be within the allowed density range for low density residential land uses and therefore would have no impact on the surrounding area. The proposed project involving a single-family residential subdivision would have no impact on the displacement of existing housing. The proposed project involving a single-family residential subdivision will have no impact on disPlacintt any residents within the surrounding area. 3. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a. b. c. d. e. """-. IssuesandSu rtio 'IofÒim"tiOosources' Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air uali Ian? Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existin or ro'ected air uali violation? Result in a cumulatively considerable net 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 uantitative thresholds for ozone recursors? Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of eo Ie? x x x x R:\T M\2002\02-0371 TR 30169 Quiet Meadow RdlCEQA INITIAL STUDY EA DRAFT DOC.doc 4 Comments: _.a-c. The project will not conflict with applicable air quality plans nor violate air quality or pollution standards. The project proposes to subdivide for residential lots a 4.5-acre vacant site, zoned for low-density residential development. The proposed tentative map and zone change is anticipated to be within the threshold for potentially significant air quality impact established by the South Coast Air Quality Management District as depicted in SCAQMD's CEQA Air Quality Handbook (Source 3) page 6-10, Table 6.2. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 3.d. 3.e. There are no known sensitive receptors to pollutant concentrations in the immediate vicinity. Therefore, no impacts to sensitive receptors will occur as a result of this project. The proposed tentative map and zone change approvals will not create any significantly objectionable odors and will not create an impact to the surrounding community. 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project? a. b. c. d. e. f. . Issues and'Su ortin .Inlormation Sourcès, Have a substantial adverse effect, either 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? Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? Have a substantial adverse effect of federally 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, filling, hydrological interru tion, or other means? Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or im ede the use of native wildlife nurse sites? Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or:,state habitat conservation Ian? PoteÌ\Jlàlly .Significant . . Im'aèt . Potentially.. , Significànt Unless . . . MiJlgátion . Inco' òrated.' x x x x x R:\T M\2002\02-0371 TR 30169 Quiet Meadow RdlCEQA INITIAL STUDY EA DRAFT DOC.doc 5 Comments: 4.a-d. The project site for the proposed tentative map and zone change applications is not located within an. environmentally sensitive habitat or wetlands area as indicated on the City of Temecula General Pia Open Space/Conservation Element Figure 5-3 and the Potentially Sensitive Environmental Habitat Areas map. 4.e-f. The project site is located within the Stephen's Kangaroo Rat Habitat Fee Area. The project will be conditioned to comply with provisions of Chapter 8.24 of the Temecula Municipal Code (Habitat Conservation), which requires payment of the Stephens Kangaroo Rat fee prior to the issuance of a grading permit. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 5. a. b. c. d. Comments: 5.a, b S.c., d. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: Issues andSu ortihìnform.tiòn:S~úlÒés'. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5? Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeolo ical resource ursuant to Section 15064.5? Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or uni ue eolo ic feature? Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? x x x The project site is not located in an area of sensitivity for archaeological resources pursuant to the General Plan (Source 1, Figure, 5-6). The Eastern Information Center of the University of California at Riverside (UCR) recommended in its response dated July 22, 2002, that a Phase I Cultural Resource Management Report be prepared to identify the potential for historical or cultural resources at the project site. The applicant submitted a Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment prepared by a Cultural Resources Consultant in October 2002. The results of this assessment determined that no archaeological sites of either prehistoric or historical origin had been recorded within the property boundaries. A field survey conducted by the consultant on October 1, 2002 confirmed that no significant prehistoric or historical cultural resources were observed within the property boundaries. The project site is located in an area that has high paleontological sensitivity pursuant to the General Plan (Source 1, Figure, 5-7). Therefore, at least one Paleontological Monitor will be present on the site at the commencement of and during all grading operations as a condition of approval to evaluate any significant cultural or historical resources encountered. . R:\T M\2002\O2-0371 TR 30169 Quiet Meadow RdlCEQA INITIAL STUDY EA DRAFT DOC.doc 6 6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: a. b. c. d. i. , 1..ue..ndSu Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involvin : Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as 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 Geolo S ecial Publication 42. Stron seismic round shakin ? Seismic-related round failure, includin Ii uefaction? Landslides? Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of to soil? Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral s readin ,subsidence, Ii uefaction or colla se? Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or ro e ? Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? x X X X X X X X ii. iii. iv. Comments: . 6.a. (i-ii) 6.a. (iii-iv) 6.b. The City of Temecula General Plan Fault Hazard Zone map Figure 7-1 and Environmental Hazards map show that there is an Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone through the eastern section of the project site; therefore, ground shaking impacts are possible as a result of this project. The Fault Hazard Investigation prepared by T.H.E. Soils Co., Inc. reported that no evidence of faulting was identified within the exploratory Fault Trench-1 (FT-1), which was excavated across the existing State of California Fault-Rupture Hazard Zone. Additionally, based on the findings of the Fault Trench-2 (FT-2), no restricted use zones for habitable structures are considered necessary for the northeast corner of the subject property. The project site is not located within an area delineated as a liquefaction hazard zone and is not within an area of potential subsidence as indicated on the General Plan Subsidence/Liquefaction Hazards map Figure 7-2. The minimal amount of grading required for the proposed seven lot residential tentative tract map will be surficially and grossly stable if constructed in accordance with the recommendations presented in the Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation and will therefore not result in any significant soil erosion or loss of topsoil, and therefore will not have a significant impact. R:\T M\2002\02-0371 TR 30169 Quiet Meadow RdlCEQA INITIAL STUDY EA DRAFT DOC.doc 7 6d. 6.e. B.c. The project site is not located on a geologic unit or soil that is 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. . An expansion index test was performed on representative on-site soil samples collected for the Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation. The results of that test indicated that the expansion index for on-site soils were equivalent to a very low expansion potential and would therefore have no impact on creating substantial risks to life or property. Septic sewage disposal systems are not proposed for this project. The project will be served with connection to the existing Eastern Municipal Water District public sewer system. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 7. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h. .lssuesand,Su ron 'Information'Sou"",' -- Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transportation, use, or dis osal of hazardous materials? Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one- uarter mile of an existin or ro osed school? Be located on a site which is included on a 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? For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or workin in the ro.ect area? For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or workin in the ro-ect area? Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation Ian? 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? x x x x x x x . R:\T M\2002\O2-0371 TR 30169 Quiet Meadow RdlCEQA INITIAL STUDY EA DRAFT DOC_doc 8 Comments: ea. The proposed project will have no impact in creating a hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transportation, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? 7.b, c. The proposed project will have no impact involving the release of hazardous materials, substances, or emissions within the environment or one-quarter mile from an existing or proposed school site. 7.d. This project site is not nor is it located near a site, which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 that would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 7.e, f. The project site is not located within an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public or private airstrip. No impact upon airport uses will result from this proposal. 7.g. 7.h. The project will take access from maintained public streets and will not impede emergency response or evacuation plans. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. This project site is not adjacent to wild lands and therefore would be susceptible to high fire danger. However, during development review the proposed project will be required to comply with Fire and Building Codes to assure that all development is safe from fire danger. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. a. b. c. d. e. odin"':lnfòimãiioniSources Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge re uirements? Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which ermits have been ranted? 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? 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 surface runoff in a manner which would result in floodin on- or off-site? Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of olluted runoff? Otherwise substantiall de rade water uali ? x x x x x R:\T M\2002\02-0371 TR 30169 Quiet Meadow RdlCEQA INITIAL STUDY EA DRAFT DOC.doc 9 h. Place housing within a 1 OO-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation ma? Place within a 1 DO-year flood hazard area structures which would im ede or redirect flood flows? Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? Inundation b seiche, tsunami, or mud/low? g. x I. x x Comments: 8.a. The project will not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. The subdivision, and subsequent development, will be required to comply with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the Regional Water Quality Control Board. No grading shall be permitted until an NPDES Notice of Intent has been filed or the project is shown to be exempt. By complying with the NPDES requirements, any potential impacts can be mitigated to a level less than significant. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 8.b.,f. The project will not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level. The project will not have an affect on the quantity and quality of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability. Further, construction on the site will not be at depths sufficient to have a significant impact on ground waters or aquifer volume. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 8.c, d. The proposed project will not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or arA including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner, which would resultY' substantial erosion or siltation and/or flooding on-site or off-site. Some changes to absorption rates, drainage patterns and the rate and amount of surface runoff is expected whenever development occurs on previously permeable ground. Previously permeable ground will be rendered impervious by construction of buildings, accompanying hard scape and driveways. While absorption rates and surface runoff will change, potential impacts shall be mitigated through site design. Drainage conveyances will be required for the project to safely and adequately handle runoff, which is created. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 8.e. Due to the small scale of the proposed residential subdivision, the project will not 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. The project will be conditioned to accommodate the drainage created as a result of the subject site. In addition, the project will be conditioned so that the drainage will not impact surrounding properties. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 8.g-1. The project will have no impact on people or property to water related hazards such as flooding because the project site is located outside of the 100-year floodway and the dam inundation area as identified in the City of Temecula General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. The project site will not be subject to inundation by sieche, tsunami, or mudflow, as these events are not known to happen in this region. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 8.j. . R:\T M\2002\02-Q371 TR 30169 Quie' Meadow RdlCEQA INITIAL STUDY EA DRAFT DOC.doc 10 10. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a. ~ ~ Issues,.nd~Sú rtin ;iófò,';'.tlonS".,êos Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local eneral Ian, s ecific Ian or other land use Ian? b. x Comments: 10,a. There are neither mineral resource designations nor any known mineral resources on this project site. 10.b, Development of the site has no potential to lose access to known and available mineral resources since none occur on the project site, nor is access required across the site to such resources, 11. NOISE. Would the project result in: b, ~ issu.s.nd~Su "in' [In¡~rmâtiQn;i~';rce~':; Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other a encies? Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive roundborne vibration or roundborne noise levels? A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the ro'ect? A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the ro'ect? For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the ro'ect area to excessive noise levels? x c, x d, x e, x f. x Comments: .,a. This project site is designated for the development of single-family residential housing units, The site is currently vacant and development of the land logically will result in increases to noise levels during construction phases as well as increases to noise in the area over the long run, However, the proposal to divide the land will not create noise, No impacts will result from this project. R:\T M\2002\02-0371 TR 30169 Quiet Meadow RdlCEQA INITIAL STUDY EA DRAFT DOC~doc 11 11.b. This project site is designated for the development of single-family residential housing units. There will be no activities related to this subdividing of the property that would lead to exposure of persons tJ generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels. Future residents of homes will not be exposed to high levels of noise according to the noise contours shown in the Gene Plan. No impacts are anticipated. 11.c. Since the project site is designated for low-density residential development per the City's General Plan Land Use and Zoning Maps, the proposed residential tract map is consistent with this land use designation. No unanticipated noise impacts will result from this project. 11.d. The future grading and home construction activity may result in temporary or periodic increases in ambient noise levels during construction. Construction machinery is capable of producing noise in the range of 100+ DBA at 100 feet, which is considered very annoying. However, this source of noise from construction of the project will be of short duration and therefore would not be considered significant. Furthermore, construction activity will comply with City ordinances regulating the hours of activity in residential areas. No significant noise impacts are anticipated. 11.e, f. This project is not within two miles of a public airport or public or private use airport, therefore, people working in the project area will not be exposed to excessive noise levels generated by an airport. 13. AESTHETICS. Would the project: a. b. . . . Issuesand-Su '!\in ;lnlormsliØn-siiufuês Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic hi hwa ? Substantially degrade the existing visual character or uali of the site and its surroundin s? Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? c. x d. x Comments: 13.a. The project will not affect a scenic vista or scenic highway. The project is not located in an area where there is a scenic vista. The City does not have any designated scenic highways. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 13.b. No scenic resources will be damaged or altered as a result of this project. 13.c. The City's residential performance standards and General Plan Community Design Element and Subdivision Ordinance will ensure that the proposed land division residential properties is consistent with the goals and policies established by these documents. 13.d. The proposed project will not create a new source of substantial light or glare to adversely affect the . day or nighttime views within the project area. R:\T M\2002\02-0371 TR 30169 Quiet Meadow RdlCEQA INITIAL STUDY EA DRAFT DOC.doc 12 a. b. c. d. e. f. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision 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: Fire rotection? Police rotection? Schools? Parks? Other ublic facilities? x X X X X Comments: 13.a - f. . The proposed residential tract map will have a less than significant impact upon, or result in a need for new or altered fire, police, recreation or other public facilities. The later development of the parcels created by this project will incrementally increase the need for these services. However, those projects will contribute their fair share through the City's Development Impact Fees, park and recreation fees, and school district fees to the maintenance or provision of services from these entities. Less than significant impacts are anticipated from the proposed division of land. 14. RECREATION. a. b. !ssuesand.Su ort!n ,Information SourCes Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facili would occur or be accelerated? Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? X Comments: 14.a-b. The project will have a less than significant impact on the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities, or affect existing recreational opportunities. The proposed residential tract map would eventually add a small number of single-family homes to the vacant property, which would likely increase the use of existing local parks and recreational facilities, but not to a significant level. The proposed subdivision will have a less than significant impact. . R:\T M\2002\02-0371 TR 30169 Quiet Meadow RdlCEQA INITIAL STUDY EA DRAFT DOC.doc 13 15. TRANSPORTATlONlTRAFFIC. Would the project: a. b. c. d. e. f. g. Issu.. and Su' o,"n .llÌfonnatlónSou","s Cause an increase in traffic which is 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 ration on roads, or con estion at intersections? Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion mana ement a enc for desi nated roads or hi hwa s? Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safe risks? Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incom atible uses e. ., farm e ui ment? Result in inade uate emer enc access? Result in inade uate arkin ca aci ? Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bic cle racks? x x x x X X Comments: . 15.a-b. The proposed residential tract map with up to seven (7) single-family homes and slightly higher residential density above the target density will have no impact on increased vehicle traffic and levels of service on the local street system. 15.c. The proposed project will have no impact on a change in air traffic patterns to pose any risk to the public. 15.d. The proposed project will have no impact to substantially increase traffic hazards or risk to the public due to a design feature or incompatible uses. 15.d. The proposed project will have no impact on emergency vehicle access. The project will be reviewed and conditioned by City staff to provide proper emergency vehicle access. 15.e. The proposed project will have no impact on parking capacity. The project will be reviewed and conditioned by City staff to provide adequate parking capacity. 15.f. The proposed project will not conflict with nor impact adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation plans or programs. . R:\T M\2002\O2-Q371 TR 30169 Quiet Meadow RdlCEQA INITIAL STUDY EA DRAFT DOC.doc 14 a. b. c. d. e. f. 16. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: ISsue. and Su , itin :¡ntoiri"itiò);Sòlirces' . . Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the a licable Re ional Water Quali Control Board? 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? Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or ex anded entitlements needed? Result in a determination by the wastewater 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? Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the ro'ect's solid waste dis osal needs? Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and re ulations related to solid waste? Comments: 16.a., b. and e. PgleÐliaJly Signifiean" 1m act x x x x x x The development of the property will not exceed wastewater treatment requirements, require the construction of new treatment facilities, nor affect the capacity of treatment providers. The project will have an incremental effect upon existing systems. However, the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the City's General Plan states: "implementation of the proposed General Plan would not significantly impact wastewater services." Since the project is consistent with the City's General Plan, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. Moreover, the project will be conditioned to comply with Regional Water Quality Control Board standards that will be monitored by the Department of Public Works. No significant impacts are anticipated. 16.c. The proposed residential tract map would not require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. No impact to existing water facilities is expected. 16.d. The proposed residential tract map and single-family homes will have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources. No impact to existing water supplies is expected. ..f,g. The proposed residential tract map and single-family homes will be served by a landfill with sufficient . permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs and will comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. R:\T M\2002\02-0371 TR 30169 Quiet Meadow RdlCEQA INITIAL STUDY EA DRAFT DOC,doc 15 a. b. c. 17. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources a significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural La Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: , IssuesandSu' rtinlnfÒfln"tioÌ1;Sout<:ês Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-a ricultural use? Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-a ricultural use? pòté~tiallY Significant , "Im~.èt ,F:°tahlially , SignilicajltUnless' , ,,!ill~!Ï?~ . loco orated, x x Comments: 17a,c. The project site is not currently in agricultural production. In addition, this property is not considered prime or unique of Farmland of statewide importance pursuant the Farmland Mapping and Monitor,.n Program of the California Resources Agency or the City of Temecula's General Plan. Therefore, th are no impacts related to this issue. 17b. The project site does not have an agricultural zoning designation by the City of Temecula, and the site is not regulated by a Williamson Act contract. As a consequence, there are no impacts related to this issue. 18. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. Would the project: Issues andSu Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California histo or rehisto ? Does the project have impacts that are 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 ro.ects, and the effects of robable future ro.ects? R:\T M\2002\O2-Q371 TR 30169 Quiet Meadow RdlCEQA INITIAL STUOY EA DRAFT DOC.doc 16 a. b. x x Comments: 17.a. This site is surrounded by low-density residential development and does not contain any viable habitat for fish or wildlife species. This is a residential land division project and change of zone application and it does not have the potential to: degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number of restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. Therefore the proposed project would not have an impact on fish and wildlife species. H.b. The cumulative effects from the project are not considered significant because the subject site is being subdivided in conformance with the City of Temecula's General Plan, Development Code, and Subdivision Ordinance. All cumulative effects for the various land uses of the subject site as well as the surrounding developments were analyzed in the General Plan Environmental Impact Report. Given the project's consistency with the General Plan and Development Code, the cumulative impact related to the development of a seven (7) lot subdivision and a minor density increase with approval of a zone change from L-1 to L-2 will not have a significant impact. . 17.c. The proposed residential tract map and zone change entitlements would not have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. The project is designed and will be developed consistent with the City of Temecula General Plan, Development Code,. and Subdivision Ordinance. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 18. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets. a. b. Earlier anal ses used. Identi earlier anal ses and state where the are available for review. 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 b miti ation measures based on the earlier anal sis. 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 the address site-s ecific conditions for the ro.ect. c. 18.a. Earlier analyses specifically related to this project site were not used because they were outdated. The City's General Plan and Final Environment Impact Report were used as a referenced source in preparing this Initial Study 18.b. All impacts related to this proposed project were adequately addressed and analyzed within this . environmental initial study document. 18.c. No mitigation measures were required with this proposed project since there are no issues identified in the checklist that would be considered potentially significant unless mitigation was incorporated. R:\T M\2002\02-0371 TR 30169 Quiet Meadow RdlCEOA INiTIAL STUDY EA DRAFT DOC.doc 17 SOURCES 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. City of Temecula General Plan, dated November 9, 1993. City of Temecula General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report, dated July 2, 1993. City of Temecula Development Code. City of Temecula Subdivision Ordinance adopted August 24, 1999. South Coast Air Quality Management District CEQA Air Quality Handbook. Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment, prepared by Jean Keller, Ph.D, October, 2002. Fault Hazard Investigation, prepared by T.H.E. Soils Co. Inc., January 29, 2003. Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, prepared by T.H.E. Soils Co. Inc., February 10,2003 R:\T M\2002\02-Q371 TR 30169 Quie' Meadow RdlCEQA INITIAL STUDY EA DRAFT DOC.doc 18 . . . . . . ATTACHMENT NO.6 EXCERPT MINUTES FROM JUNE 22, 2004 CITY COUNCIL MEETING R,ITM\2002\02-0371 TR 30169 Quiet Meadow RdlStaffReport MDP (8-Q-04).doc 12 :~,: . I r þ 35 Winchester Road Widenina at Jefferson Intersection - Proiect No. PWOO-27 - APDroval of the Plans and SDecifications and authorization to solicit construction bids RECOMMENDATION: 35.1 Approve the Construction Plans and Specifications and authorize the Department of Public Works to solicit construction bids for the Winchester Road Widening at Jefferson Intersection (Jefferson Medians) - Project No. PWOO-27. Deputy Director of Public Works Parks clarified the staff report (of record). MOTION: Mayor Pro Tem Comerchero moved to approve the staff recommendation. The motion was seconded by Councilman Stone and electronic vote reflected approval with the exceDtlon of Councilman Washington who was !!2!!m. 36 Chaoarral Area Interim Policy RECOMMENDATION: 36.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 04-78 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING AN INTERIM POLICY GUIDING DEVELOPMENT IN THE CHAPARRAL AREA By way of overheads, Planning Director Ubnoske highlighted the staff report (as per agenda material). Mr. Larry Markham, Temecura, advised the Council that he was in attendance to answer questions. Mayor Pro Tem Comerchero commended Planning Director Ubnoske and Community Services Director Parker and their staff for exploring ways to ensure trail connectivity to ensure relevant trails. . Mayor Naggar commended Mayor Pro Tem Comerchero and Mr. Markham on their efforts associated with the trail connection. MOTION: Councilman Roberts moved to adopt Resolution No. 04-78. The motion was seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Comerchero and electronic vote reflected approval with the exceDtion of Councilman Washington who was absent. DEPARTMENTAL REPORT No additional comments. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT No comments. R:\Minutes\O62204 13 . . . ATTACHMENT NO.7 EXCERPT MINUTES FROM APRIL 21, 2004 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING R:\T M\2002\02-0371 TR 30169 Quiet Meadow Rd\StaffReportMDP (8-9-Q4).doc 13 . """,",",,;<r-" -.~.;:-. . . . . . . MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 21, 2004 CALL TO ORDER The City of Temecula Planning Commission convened in a regular meeting at 6:00 P.M., on Wednesday, April 21, 2004, in the City Council Chambers of Temecula City Hall, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. . Chairman Telesio thanked Eve Craig for the prelude music. ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Chiniaeff led the audience in the Flag salute. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Chiniaeff, Guerriero, Mathewson, Olhasso, and Chairman Telesio. Absent: None. PUBLIC COMMENTS No comments. CONSENT CALENDAR 1 Aaenda RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Approve the Agenda of April 21, 2004. 2 Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Approve the Minutes of March 3, 2004. 3 Director's Hearina Case Update RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 Approve the Director's Hearing Case Update for March 2004. R:\MinutesPCI042104 MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved to approve the Consent Calendar and requested to move Item No.7 after No.5. Commissioner Mathewson seconded the motion and voice vote reflected unanimous accroval. . COMMISSION BUSINESS 4 Request to approve an interim Dolicv addressina development DroDosals in the Chaparral Special Studv Area while the General Plan is beina updated. The interim colicv further refines how the Chacarral criteria will be implemented and is expected to be consistent with the General Plan after it is ucdated RECOMMENDATION 4.1 Recommend City Council Approval of the Chaparral Interim Policy Principal Planner Hogan presented a staff report (of record), noting the following: . That in developing the proposed policy, staff had discussions with an ad hoc City Council Subcommittee as well as the General Plan Community Advisory Committee (CAC); . That both groups were of the opinion that development proposals that protect sensitive open space areas and provide local trail connections are desirable and have the highest potential for community wide benefits; . That the proposed interim policy is as follows: . 0 Limit the gross density in the Chaparral area to one dwelling unit per acre, except for the tier of lots adjacent to Ynez Road where a density of two dwelling units per acre would be more appropriate; 0 That a one unit per acre density allow half-acre sized lots to help preserve sensitive open space and habitat areas; 0 That all future developments provide trail dedications for the Citywide trail network when possible; . That the City Councij;reviewed the policy direction received from the Subcommittee and the Commission Advisory Commission (CAC) and refer the matter to the Planning Commission for a formal recommendation. For the Commission, Mr. Hogan relayed that the land uses that are currently in the General Plan uses are currently in the General Plan interim policy; and that what is being proposed is to allow % acre lots in what is currently a one-acre zoning district; that there are two different situations being proposed, one would be for the % acre lots and the other project area is for the one-acre density with the ability to go down to an % lots if the remaining is set is some form of open space. . R:IMinutesPCI042104 2 . . . Mr. Hogan also relayed that for City-owned trails, proper maintenance would include: regular inspections, repairs and resurfacing as needed, weed control, safety signage, and stripping (if hard surfaced); that when the City trail facilities are constructed in easement areas, City liability for the trail is still covered through the General Plan Liability Policy; however, non-trail related liability will still remain the responsibility of the underlying property owners. Mr. Hogan further clarified that the proposed project is designed for large parcels; that it is a voluntary policy; that it would not apply to a person who would desire to build a home on their own lot; and that it would only apply if one were to have subdivisions of land. At this time, the Public Hearing was opened. Mr. Larry Markham, 41045 Enterprise Circle relayed that he is in favor of the project and noted that the proposed project would cut the density in half for the vast majority of the area with the exception of the parcels that are immediately adjacent to Ynez; and that it would allow flexibility on how to site the parcels with regard to clustering. At this time, the Public Hearing was closed. MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved to approve staff's recommendation. Commissioner Mathewson seconded the motion and voice vote reflected unanimous acproval. It was the consensus of the Commission to combine Item No.5 and 7. 5 Public Necessitv and Convenience Findinas 29676 Rancho California Road. Taraet Retail Buildina RECOMMENDATION 5.1 Approve Findings of Public Convenience Per the request of Commissioner Guerriero, Item No.7 will be reviewed after Item No.5 7 Plannina Acclication No. PA03-0726 a Minor Conditional Use Permit to allow the sales of beer and wine (TVDe 20 License) in an existina Taraet Buildina. located at 29676 Rancho California Road Associate Planner Long presented a staff report (as per agenda material), noting the following: . That the proposed project is for a minor CUP that includes the Public Necessity and Findings for Target to sell beer and wine on site; . That the separation of criteria in the Development Code requires 500 feet separation from any schools, parks, hospitals, or religious institution; . That staff was able to make the findings and recommends the approval for a minor Conditional Use Permit (CUP) as well as the findings for convenience; R:\MinutesPCI0421 04 3 . . . ATTACHMENT NO.8 EXCERPT MINUTES FROM MARCH 23, 2004 CITY COUNCIL MEETING R:\T M\2002\02-0371 TR 30169 Quiet Meadow RdlSæff Report MDP (8-9-Q4).doc 14 ._..~"',,^,..,. ..,":;¡¡¡'¡',...;.,., . I , It RESOLUTION NO. 04-38 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE CITY ENGINEER TO BEGIN A STREET CLOSURE OF MUIRFIELD DRIVE BETWEEN PECHANGA PARKWAY AND TROTSDALE DRIVE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF PECHANGA PARKWAY - PHASE IIA - STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS (WOLF VALLEY CREEK CHANNEL - STAGE 1) FOR 30 CONSECUTIVE WORKING DAYS BETWEEN APRIL 2004 AND DECEMBER 2004 11 Award the Construction Contract for Proiect No. PW04-D4 - AsDhalt Crackfill Project- FY2003-2004 - various streets RECOMMENDATION: 11.1 Award a construction contract for Project No. PWO4-O4 Asphalt Crackfill Project - FY2003-2004 - various streets to Bond Blacktop, Inc. in the amount of $89,722.00 and authorize the Mayor to execute the contract; 11.2 Authorize the City Manager to approve change orders not to exceed the contingency amount of $ 8,972.20, which is equal to 10% of the contract amount. MOTION: Mayor Pro Tem Comerchero moved to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1-11. Councilman Stone seconded the motion and the electronic vote reflected unanimous. At 7:37 P.M., the City Council convened as the Temecula Community Services District and the Temecula Redevelopment Agency. At 7:41 P.M., the City Council resumed with regular business. COUNCIL BUSINESS 12 Chacarral Soecial StudY Area -Interim Policy RECOMMENDATION: 12.1 Provide direction on how to address General Plan Land Use and Zone Change requests in the Chaparral Special Study Area. Planning Director Ubnoske reviewed the staff report (of record) and responded to inquiries as follows, noting that the City Council's action would be the final action; that it would not be necessary for the Planning Commission to revisit this matter; that the proposed action would be policy direction, not a zone change; that any future zone changes will require City Council approval; that the General Plan Community Advisory Committee concurred with the proposed policy as it pertains to land use within the City; that the proposed policy will be solely interim for the purpose of codifying the interim policy in the General Plan, at which point, it will be permanent policy; and that the intent of this policy and its codification will be to maintain the rural environment and to maintain the trail system and to create new trail connections and new equestrian trails. R:lMinlrtes\O31604 5 I I I Advising that the owners of properties within the discussed area would still have to be consistent with the hillside policies, Deputy City Manager Thomhill noted that owners could have the option to build one unit on the entire one acre or % acre and set aside % acre for open space. Councilman Roberts relayed his preference that the matter be reviewed by the Planning Commission. . Mr. Larry Markham. 41635 Enterprise Circle North, noted that the transition policy for the 1.75 acre parcel adjacent to Santiago Road will remain the same as will the properties ranging from 21/2 acres to 1 acre and that this interim policy will reduce the L.2 zoning potential, reducing it to one unit per acre. Mr. Markham expressed support for the proposed action; concurred with Councilman Roberts that certain parcels, because of steep slopes, will not be designated as equestrian parcels and would be desirous of preserving the equestrian connection- Viewing this policy as a means to develop the area as was originally intended, Mayor Pro Tem Comerchero expressed his support of the recommendation but concurred with Councilman Roberts that the Planning Commission be given the opportunity to review this interim policy prior to final approval. As a member of the General Plan Community Advisory Committee, Councilman Washington noted that the proposed policy will provide additional flexibility along with providing open space; noted that the Committee was in support of the policy; and concurred that the Planning Commission should be given the opportunity to review the policy- MOTION: Mayor Pro Tem Comerchero moved to forward this item to the Planning Commission for review and that the matter be readdressed by the City Council, within 30 days, for final approval. The motion was seconded by Councilman Stone and the electronic vote reflected unanimous approval. . 13 Status UDdate - Senate Bill 87 (Hollinasworth) (At the request of the entire City Council.) RECOMMENDATION: 13.1 Approve amended language to Senate Bill 87 and urge Senator Hollingsworth and other members of the Califomia legislature to approve SB 87 as amended. As was noted at the last City Council meeting, Mayor Naggar advised that the language submitted by the City with regard to this Senate Bill was accepted by Senator Hollingsworth's office and noted that the proposed action would ratify the amended language. City Attorney Thorson provided clarification of the amended language, advising that with this relinquishment, the City will not have to petition Caltrans for improvements the City may deem as necessary and In the best interest of the citizens' safety with the exception of signals that are in Caltrans jurisdiction. Mr. Sam Pratt, 40470 Brixton Cove, stated that the City of Temecula is not a traffic safe City for its citizens or visitors and that the City has failed to implement an affective Traffic Congestion Plan. . R:IMlnutasIO31604 6 . . . ATTACHMENT NO.9 EXCERPT MINUTES FROM AUGUST 12, 2003 CITY COUNCIL MEETING R:\TM\2002\O2-0371 TR 30169 Quiet Meadow RdlStaffReport MOP (8-9-04).doc 15 . . . .._,-, "....-..~_......."'~~.- :,.=-=.F'¡¡;;_c.. ,~~":.k_. ~~" . I , , 14 Reauest Zone Chance from L-1 to L-2 (PA02-Q372) and Tentative Tract MaD to create seven residential lots ranaina from .5 to .82 acres in lot area IPA02-0371) RECOMMENDATION: 14.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 03°- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DENYING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA02. 0371 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 30169 TO SUBDIVIDE A 4.57 ACRE PARCEL INTO SEVEN SINGLE.FAMIL Y RESIDENTIAL LOTS RANGING BETWEEN .5 AND .82 ACRES IN LOT AREA, LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 473 FEET NORTH OF SANTIAGO ROAD, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR PARCEL NO. 945-060-006 Principal Planner Hazen presented the staff report (as per agenda material); referenced correspondence received from residents as well as a petition of support; and commented on staff's recommendation to approve the request In response to the City Council, Principal Planner Hazen and Public Works Director Hughes advised that with regard to street improvements, the City would condition a four-lot project the same way it would condition a seven-lot project; that because of the intensification, Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees and Development Impact Fees will be Imposed; that the Intersection will be aligned; that because of traffic volume, the intersection will not be signalized; that the City is not the agency that govems the use of septic tanksfsewers; that the neighboring citizens had expressed a desire to conserve the rural lifestyle; and that staff's recommendation for approval of the request was based on best land use, not economics. Councilman Roberts expressed concem with a L-2 zone being surrounded by a L-1 zone. Mr. Larry Markham, representing the applicant, 41635 Enterprise Circle, provided background information with regard to the Meyler property; noted that the Chaparral area has a series of policies to permit subdividing one acre lots to % acre lots; that the area of discussion is the flattest parcel in Chaparral area; that if the seven-lot parcels were approved, the developer would implement sewer; that if only four parcels were approved, for cost reasons, septic tanks would be proposed; that an outreach program to educate the neighboring residents of the project was provided; that the residents to the east of the proposed project are in opposition to it; and that if four parcels were approved, the cul-de-sac would shorten by 60'. In closing, Mr. Markham relayed his concurrence with the staff report as well as the proposed conditions. By way of overheads, Mr. Craig Way, 28545 Old Town Front Street, described the type of development being proposed; relayed the continued demand for a market of $600,000 - $850,000 homes; and advised that all lots are rectan9ular, that four single-story residences and three two-story residences are being proposed; that although all residences will have similarities, each will be different, that three- to four-car garages are being proposed; that proposed development would be a gated community of high quality homes; and that it would not be financially feasible to construct four high-quallty custom homes on one acre lots and to absorb the required cost of infrastructure. In closing, Mr. Way reviewed the proposed quality differences between the four-lot homes and the seven-lot homes. R:\MinuteaI081203 9 I I I Mr. Rick Hauser, 303000 Point Marina, Canyon Lake, further commented on the demand for $600,000 to $850,000 single-story homes, noting that the proposed two-story will only be two story In the front element and that the gated community will provide a sense of security. The following individuals spoke in support of the proposed project . . Mr. Charles Delgado . Ms. Chris Herman . Mr. Steve Lewis . Mr. George Zerb 30270 Santiago Road 29920 Via Serreto 30080 Santiago Road 40445 Calle Katerine The above-mentioned individuals spoke in support of the project for the following reasons: . That the size of the lot would not matter (1 acre or % acre) as long as the homes are quality homes . That the proposed project wHi enhance neighboring property values and, thereby, enhancing the entire community . That the developer is a good developer . That if this quality project were not approved, what type of project could potentially be constructed. The following individuals spoke In opposition to the proposed project: . Ms. Dianne Tanna . Mr. Bob Bums . Dr. Steve Lis . Mr. Ralph Neimeyer 30052 Santiage Road 30112 Santiago Road 30000 Santiago Road 29962 Santiago Road . The above-mentioned IndMduals spoke in opposition to the project for the following reasons: . Will not retain the rural atmosphere . Will not retain open space . Developer could sell the lots of discussion and a different project would be constructed . Will not Improve property values Referencing previously made comments with regard to the Meyler property, Mr. Jim Meyler, 31813 Via Campanario, advised that he does not own the property and that he objects the use of his family when referencing that particular piece of property. At 10:03 P.M., a short recess was taken and the City Council resumed with the public hearing at 10:18 P.M. Apologizing to Mr. Meyler for the reference of his name In conjunction with that particular piece of property, Mr. Markham provided background information with regard to zoning designations for the area of discussion; advised of the requirements necessary to meet the approval of L-1 or L-2 zoning; noted that the developer has met those 11 requirements; reiterated that quality homes will be constructed; and requested the City Council's approval. As was mentioned by Deputy City Manager Thornhill, Councilman Comerchero reiterated that the General Plan Advisory Committee has been discussing this matter; noted that, In his opinion, either L-1 or L-2 should be approved, not a mixture of both; commented on the City's efforts to prohibit the County from zone changes during its General Plan process; stated that the . R,\Minules\O81203 10 . I , , City should adhere to those same expectations; and suggested that the General Plan Advisory Committee should further Investigate this matter and make a recommendation. Concurring with Councilman Comerchero, Mayor Pro Tem Naggar relayed his support of the General Plan Advisory Committee addressing the matter and then make a recommendation to the Planning Commission for review. Concurring with his fellow Councllmembers, Councilman Roberts expressed his dismay with the applicant's presentation and his reference of certain homes and his negative description of them. Councilman Pratt relayed his concurrence with his fellow Councilmembers. As a previous property owner in the area of discussion, Mayor Stone stated that, to his understanding, the City Council's past direction with regard to this area was to retain it as a rural area such as Los Ranchltos; echoed Councilman Comerchero's comment with regard to the City imposing the same expectations on itself as what the City expects of the County; relayed his dismay with the applicant's presentation in reference to particular homes; stated that this City should provide a wide spectrum of housing opportunities; advised that unless the City were beneficiary of certain community improvements, this project does not provide any increased public amenities to justify approval of this project. Commenting on the statutory deadlines with regard to the Tentative Tract Map, City Attorney Thorson suggested that this item be denied without prejudice, allowing the applicant to readdress the matter at a later time. MOTION: Councilman Comerchero moved to deny this project without prejudice; to refer the matter to the General Plan Advisory Committee for further review; to foliow the normal review process; and to waive associated fees with resubmitting the project if the General Plan Advisory Committee were to forward a recommendation of support. The motion was seconded by Councilman Pratt and voice vote reflected approval with the exceDtlon of Mayor Stone who voted ng. 15.2 Hold the public meeting and public he. regarding the proposed Assessment District No. 03-04 (John Wamer Road) an ~rated Financing District No. 03-05 (John Wamer Road) called pursuant to a resolu . regarding the proposed districts adopted on June 24, 2003; 15.3 Allow the City Clerk to tabulate ballots from property owners ived prior to the close of the public meeting and public hearing regarding the prop d districts and allow the City Clerk to announce the results of the tabulation; 15.4 If the ballots received with regard to Assessment District No. 03-04 (John W Road) are a majority (weighted by assessment obligation) in favor of the Assessment District, adopt a resolution entiUed: R:\MinutesIO81203 11 . . . ATTACHMENT NO. 10 EXCERPT MINUTES FROM MAY 7,2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING RW M\2002\02-0371 TR 30169 Quiet Meadow RdlStaff Report MDP (8-9-04).doc 16 .."""""'.U""'W,-".,~.._~::;"'~:. ..'~ ""--""~'" ,*""...,- -',' t) ,) .¡ A me the Public Hearing was closed. 7 Plannina ADDlication No. PA02-0371 and PA02-Q372 A Tentative Tract MaD aCDlication to subdivide 4.57 cross acres into 7 sinale-familv aated residential lots averaaina 0.5 net acres and A Chance of Zone acDlication to chance the zonina from Low Densitv Residential (L-1) to Low Densitv Residential (L-2) located on the east side of Ynez Road. opposite Quiet Meadow Road and aDcroximatelv 473 linear feet north of the centerline of Santiaco Road RECOMMENDATION: 7.1 Recommend to City Council, Adoption of a Negative Declaration based on the Initial Study, which was prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15072. 7.2 Adopt a resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2003- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF PLANNING APPLICATION PA02-0372 A REQUEST FOR A CHANGE OF ZONE FROM LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (L-1) TO LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (L-2), GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF YNEZ ROAD, OPPOSITE QUIET MEADOWS ROAD, APPROXIMATELY 473 LINEAR FEET NORTH OF THE CENTER LINE OF SANTIAGO ROAD, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR PARCEL NO. 945-060-006. 7.3 Adopt a resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2003- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PAO2-0371 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 30169 SUBDIVIDING ONE SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOT INTO SEVEN SINGLE- FAMILY LOTS ON 4.57 GROSS ACRES, GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF YNEZ ROAD, OPPOSITE QUIET MEADOWS ROAD, APPROXIMATELY 473 LINEAR FEET NORTH OF THE CENTER LINE OF SANTIAGO ROAD, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR PARCEL NO. 945-060-006 Principal Planner Hazen provided an overview of the staff report (as per agenda material), noting the following: Chanae of Zone . That the applicant is proposing a Change of Zone from Low Density Residential (L-1) to Low Density Residential (L-2); C:IDocum.nts and SettlngsIMclntyklCesktopl050703.doc 11 (I . That the proposed Change of Zone will allow the appliéant to subdivide the 4.57 gross acre into half-acre lots; that currently, the property is zoned (L-1) and would only allow one-acre minimum lot sizes; . . That standard conditions of approval have been recommended; . That staff would recommend that a Home Owners Association (HOA) be created to provide maintenance responsibility for the common facilities such as the streets, rear- yard slopes, and a comer of open space at the northwest corner; . That the Department of Public Works would recommend the following modifications to the conditions of approval: 0 #11-F -- all streets and driveway centerline intersections shall be at a 90 degrees; 0 #12-F.- all intersections shall be perpendicular (90); 0 #33 -- all lot drainage shall be directed to the driveway by side yard drainage swales independent of any other lot. Principal Planner Hazen advised that he had received a phone call from the applicant regarding Condition No.4, noting the following: 0 B-2 - this project is within a liquidation hazard zone; () 0 B-3- this project is within Subsidence Zoning. . That both sections are required prior to recordation of the final map; . . That staff would recommend that an Environmental Restraint sheet be filed and incorrectly noted that this site was within a liquefaction and subsidence zone; that staff would consent to the elimination of B-2 and B-3; . That after initial study of the project, staff has determined that there were no potentially significant environmental impacts; . That staff would recommend adoption of a Negative Declaration; . That City Council approval will be required; In response to Chairman Chiniaeff's query regarding the Murrieta Fault, Principal Planner Hazen relayed the following: . That a preliminary fault hazard study was submitted with this application; . That the area in reference is roughly 150 feet on the northeast corner; . That boring samples were taken and no evidence of fault ruptures were found; . That the Public Works Department would require detailed analysis prior to recordation of a map; . C:\Documonts and Settinge\Mclntyk\Desktop\O50703.doc 12 ,) ~ ., . That if evidence of a fault hazard were noted, the Public Works Department would not allow this map to record; . That the requested change of zone would require the affected lot to merge with the lot that is out of that zone, which could result into a six-lot map; but at this time, there is not such evidence. Deputy Director of Public Works Parks noted that the final map cannot be recorded until it is determined whether or not a fault line is present. At this time, the Public Hearing was opened Mr. Larry Markham, 41635 Enterprise Circle North, representing the applicant, noted that the applicant would concur with the conditions of approval along with the modifications that Principal Planner Hazen has recommended. . That offsíte trenching was completed to establish whether or not a fault line was present; . That trenching but not boring was performed; . That there was no evidence of any faulting that would require any setback on the property; . That a fault hazard investigation was performed; . That the open space lot will not be an open space lot and that it will be a portion of one of the lots; . That because it is a gated privacy subdivision, there will be a Homeowners Association (HOA); . That the project is not a part of the Los Ranchítos project; Ms. Lowrey, 29925 Via Serrito, spoke in favor of the project, noting that the new homes would be a great addition to the community. The following individuals spoke against the proposal: . Mrs. Cecelia Lewis . Mr. Steve Lewis . Mr. Robert Burns . Mr. Steve Lis . Ms. Dianne Tanna . Mr. Ralph Neimeyer 30080 Santiago Road 30080 Santiago Road 30112 Santiago Road 30000 Santiago Road 30052 Santiago Road 29962 Santiago Road The above-mentioned individuals spoke against the proposal for the following reasons: . That the Fire Department requires an ingress and egress; C:\Documents and Settlngs\MclntyklDesktop\O50703.doc 13 () . That the area is zoned for one house per acre; . . That the residents enjoy living in a rural area; . That the residents enjoy having farm animals; . That the residents would like to see the property developed as one-acre lots. Mr. Dennis Marchand, 30176 Long Horn Drive, Marchand-Way Development, representing the applicant, noted the following: . That Marchand-Way Development specializes in building high-end residences; . That the homes that are being proposed are not simplistic, tract-style homes; . That the intention would be to build high-quality homes with architectural features and amenities, ornately themed, and European style designs of various sorts; . That the CC&Rs will entail architectural guidelines that must be met; . That there has been no decision as to whether these homes will be one- or two-story homes. C) At this time, the Public Hearing was closed. . ON: Commissioner Guerriero moved to denv staff's recommendation. Commissioner Olhass conded the motion and voice vote reflected unanimous approval and to recommend to the City cil for a one acre minimum. RECOMMENDATION: 8.1 Adopt a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No.'s PAO2- 05, PAO2-D606, and PA02-0607 (Development Plan) based on the Determination of Con' tency with a project for which an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was previou certified pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 - Subsequent EIR's and gative Declarations; . C:IDocuments and SettlngsIMclntykIDesktop\O50703.doc 14 . . . ATTACHMENT NO.11 PETITION AND LETTERS OF SUPPORT FOR THE PROPOSAL R:\T M\2002\02-O37 1 TR 30169 Quiet Meadow RdlStaff Report MOP (8-9-04).doc 17 .~ PETITION OF SIJPPORT -> . To Whom It May Concern: The undersigned neighbors support the 7-lot subdivision on Ynez Road north of Santiago and the zone change from Ll (1.0 acre lots) to L2 (0.5 acre lots) for a custom home gated subdivision with high quality custom homes 3,000 square feet and above. ' . NAME I ADDRESS ,.:2h1!1&' 'f ¡ vI ¡)t-1;V& I l-f-h>l- () (2G1/ ~ f/J¿.AJ;;t!t/ ß!¡) ~f ~lÌ /-0/ L/tIOÞ I atilt! it1¿4cft;w /.olld Úþ,L 'f ¡{~ílff!J1rJ ¡( I V Ik> . ' I SIGNA TVRES . I- '" ~)ðf~L~ _L (3~ ~~~ (c ( ~~C . . -q~~)(:q t J\\ûO?30V'-- ~L~iìd rc Gwc C1-CCd Ù) élv Y39Y(J ~.,---:R: UDèD WAY Í<~\:{y)L:J l &;~/? I;;'C'; J C~ I'lh\ /...¡?:4dè C f7UkLu e R:/. I ~Lr (ax4:¡ PETITION OF SUPPORT To Whom It May Concern: . The undersigned neighbors support the 7-1ot subdivision on Ynez Road north of Santiago and the zone change from L1 (1.0 acre lots) to L2 (0.5 acre lots) for a custom home gated subdivision with high quality custom homes 3,000 square feet and above. NAME I ADDRESS ~-zJ~~)/ /:9-- ?~ Ý4,; :¡¿~;:./ t/-ft,fl &~, & ' _7 //J7¡/ £- /J1 A /2 T //,) EZ- Lj'J7I'¡ 15tte.kr.vr 12,)), RoD.:;>' .Fo 1'1 j~JZ.-rIl,.jE-z..... 4-~ /'1 Ahl)cC?', ¡¿¡ / 2,",,--l/ R~~-e~\ 4~lJ'--\ ~í'JúL<iO ~ ,OJ' Ù\., 1.0'\ ~ '^ ,/~) LIS ì )].. \Su L ('Try ~ baý/ L, //1~~;J; r-x'¿ CJ J SV Gdey'Í'ev if (!dø!/I /f?{ ~ C-t Pó4 /) Û /-::J¡}(W~~1:.-ZD SIGNATURES k~- ~L/ tá ' I' '. .¿. .ù, ù~lš R2. -'-'" . ~ v' I /tyJl/&J- d~ß.Øc/ - 1i,A/I{~2411~7À- . , ~r~--4! PETITION OF SUPPORT . To Whom It May Concern: The undersigned neighbors support the 7-1ot subdivision on Ynez Road north of Santiago and the zone change from Ll (1.0 acre lots) to 1.2 (0.5 acre lots) for a custom home gated subdivision with high quality custom homes 3,000 square feet and above. . NAME I ADDRESS ~ f1, "5 ttV\ðla (j' )'¿ ~ .sr ~4tI. ~. ~ V, U (!£¡1J'T JAf)/f{;:3ó¡rJ LflfO,-// H(6 II l-4¡tJlx:i!.){ û!%91:L . 4.U-f. çè) fÞ¡'JAAð ~, "J 0 c --1 f) ~,^", ~ í'A \)' v~.( ¡.(s ~r (i Uv..v. }u/ll)/1-1"1'Z1Aí ~:\\5t!1¡¡~ ;' ~~ fH.' CI ~ Q!.s c. <Ç Yl1 ßÁ £), . ,!!<qftf/'.§b / ¡;."dQ.y D ~ (ß~ r74d. ~~jhlðMðovW Qtf~ (P99J/o ,L..o IV/7 {/¡¡.J..-{' C1'. ~lt~O::ZT"~"Æ- ( y.ff~. -- c:l-f.9c)f.LØNtéV!n.~{!'f, '~ 1~ ð4 ~ ~ M R s Î1 f?t-~i{!£RR í/- fkt?,~Ef(it t!:.??~.i1<. i J"TT!5 -R fI/JT. f) R ~1B,lttC/.!f ,.. ,'-. ,--:; ~ --c;. '7 SIGNATURES 1:JSp- ~ PETITION OF SUPPORT To Whom It May Concern: The undersigned neighbors support the 7-lot subdivision on Ynez Road north of Santiago and the . change from Ll (1.0 acre lots) to L2 (0.5 acre lots) for a custom home gated subdivision with high quality custom homes 3,000 square feet and above. NAME I ADDRESS /¡£'/MJ? .(E".f/fJAL¿ 1).~/t'? If /~/VO "rtÀ :Iv"., - /."tI-?t tu C-~j/'- .. 'IrYj¿;.~ Q~-f ~d?c1r-;- (l.,L / ~ - - :çlðívnC~ ~sseU ,+_'~'Ft-=n'" Q. ì~~ J--\.C"L~..) ~. æ:'~ ¿'~PV~ "t/ 3K-~() bu TTY/r ,ui(/'"4i:I" Vft-- 'J n S e J ¡:; 111 ræ/7 f1. '13':J t Lf ß C/;;t;; 1'1 a i 0(, . --DI Xlf - Mln'Î~~tí (/11 "f~72C? (?vô¿ey{¿ ~ 'Y-..,-".~~v.. \...Y \\ ~ ~~'\~ ~ ~~~ ~~ . 5A'¿L Ý k1~¡'u,4J ' ';?7'/?S:3 NArë:¡//~,p c.. / <'/f77ILEEN T- c/lJ/JI< 4160..J' CG¡'èïE F£é-SCA .~~-r~~...~~Y 43<;;".::::,c::, ø.~<.~~ ~ SIGNATURES (j~ ,!ée ,,~ ~ ~~ ;ÞI~ ~ )JUJARMY ~~ ( ~/+/~ {!CÙ:_f~t Qc~t" £ . (1 ~ c:.G ~, \-- . . . fETlTION OF STJPPORT To Whom It May Concern: The undersigned neighbors support the 7-lot subdivision on Ynez Road north of Santiago and the zone change from Ll (1.0 acre lots) to 1..2 (0.5 acre lots) for a custom home gated subdivision with high quality custom homes 3,000 square feet and above. . NAME I ADDRESS SIGNA TURFS '~(",\Q>~ C""'-Y';' n 4'1¡~~'b~~c::.~~~-r-~~~ ~ \~r:Qvv....... 4~ ~~RJ ~=~ 'G~ 9f7J~ ÒÆ-- rt."r'lA .pm 1L~ ~. 'Î-<-... ~ f'ffLZ ----r . ~11",,:7 ~ klÙtn I;: .¡t ,:- S'~J'VJ -- ( - 'H t &'::3 ~t:J Q u/'T- 7> L 9M1;}- + IJ~. . .::J;AAI~ 't~~ ~+~Aft~ i>rL êf?9tL. ~$31z ~,.¡-~.;- \:4.. t12S'1~ "Z;J:;~\.r <-~dV(¡HI"W2- >J'- ,I ;r~ . ~3?'ð/ ~~ b 91'--»2 ~~~ . ~~,4Iff/) tfLllq:::tJl¿t) ~ i.ßþ t? ¿¡MElfI! IT flR 9.>17-' ~~ ¿#-tZar IÞHz IZ.¡ ¡J 6- - / JiA~ 435'6f B~II1,"", OÔ2Jh-- ~aÞJ ~ / Y3ð{,b 73(,,1++'é~"'.{- Ðtt. '2f'1( ~~/'./j}~ yV7 t c/:fllc¿ /? 6ðlAa.M "'-- . / PETITION OF ~T1PPORT To Whom It May Concern: " The undersigned neighbors support the 7-lot subdivision on Ynez Road north of Santiago and the tIe change from Ll (1.0 acre lots) to 1.2 (0.5 acre lots) for a custom home gated subdivision with high quality custom homes 3,000 square feet and above. ' NAME I ADDRESS ~~ ~ ~ J2 - ~ if?>~:;z f6~- j)~ . ~~~~~ Or. If ,,<¡{fÁ (1tl/;;v;:::¡;flJ, /L /' VA LfA¿¡~ -:fMfL.I F:qS / t' Tir J (ifF£,- ,46~:/ ))r/'md L13fE( ¿;rr~f^,;r>y k ~h Þ/, ~ fu-k- rETITION OF ~TPPORT . To Whom It May Concern: The undersigned neighbors support tile 7-lot subdivision on Ynez Road north of Santiago and the zone change from Ll (1.0 acre lots) to 1.2 (0.5 acre lots) for a custom home gated subdivision with high quality custom homes 3,000 sqU8Ie fœt and above. NAME I ADDRES~ +- 3'Z. C/ frlC.J JI11 0'-' It¡ ¡Q.- ~~J'i .., /' / Pdt- k/J1Ila-: 'h9.11 ~ ~ , ADJJ ~ If II ~~ (ßtt/l, . ,? fJ. /VLÁ4'or' "6&ffyfld,¡ ~ 14.~ .. 438'1-0 ~-+e t.:>oo~ 'Dr p~ if..! tJ'$Ø (4-/& ft.:u.". ~.j&.;(' ()CLv\~O "ì ~~c;c- ~boS ."2- Jt'J£ ~ 7:)LÞorc;.,k r-,~I"A;¡ Lu.. ~/ '-f 3O~ g t,c....ll.(. 7J,wL . ~ -í.t.tMI¡U I~ .. rIA q::H:""J~ . PETITION OF SUPPORT To Whom It May Concern: . The undersigned neighbors support the 7-lot subdivision on Ynez Road north of Santiago and the zone change from Ll (1.0 acre lots) to L2 (0.5 acre lots) for a custom home gated subdivision with high quality custom homes 3,000 square feet and above. . , N";"" .aRESS . SIGNA~ "- -L , \ \,c ~ 4:1J r!.-'Õ ~ ~ 7V"-U. CLb,~ ~~ 41/01,) M(Mlte- ~~~ .: if;::::. j!;¡ ~5 9.;t):¡q:~ ~ St:;J"yolPd!, '1399, Nof:f¡J(Mt-,c~ Ä ¡"" £,~ ~icf¿, (1 ,Ju-o ~r~'-I5 -?q~ Chi 'kut~ ,/,{¿ -/4 '1/'- , , -;::::':'7" k. ~ ;, - ~~~; 'E~¡j~ ~i~ 9t'"lh"i S{J/1IAff Y?'t,!f ;\J,""", ~~ ;2-, flø:I,',<L 1,139P" Ake#/b4,"Æ - ¿ ~ &O/lfe';)<1<:3 Lwf}~V4Le i r/ /YJ A (\v ~ r!p 7 ~ J I\. q ri¡41J ~It ~/r/, ð/~aL ~j!el.~'-t3"":¡1 r;~~ . . ' . . . . PETITION OF SUPPORT To Whom It May Concern: The undersigned neighbors support the 7-10t subdivision on Ynez Road north of Santiago and the zone change from Ll (1.0 acre lots) to 1.2 (0.5 acre lots) for a custom home gated subdivision with high quality custom-homes 3,000 squam feet and above. . \ \ NAME I ADDRESS --11\(lJUÀJ~ ((hAM) 4405:ì..~~~ M SIGNATURES 'i1{ (UtJ 1- (j l]I1 ~ ~luØ: Jß-() .~ ( ~ }U hÁ~l i /1-103/ Cì 5r hP! d,'\YI c.T ,f'h¡n-YI¡^>f '1( / (/ J? ~ L/ è/O<) 0 ,jjrxt/ðYI (7 . , 7ì./Vf1 C .1l.1lr'J. fd. ,{9~ -:f.,1 :J:,/c, /c...¡ Pi,,-,,~A.~ '1])5) G.~c""",¡ ¡J" ¡t'auJ1. ~. - ~ - Clvv~ ~~ u '/ ,d-~~ Ú'. (¿) ~d:£VÜ!üJc/ ~ ~ a It 43¥~~ 9:/:'-9? Æ&"dIJe5T"<!r/......./ c;2 / r ~ '!3<¡<f6 b¿.>rrER/!./or;¡)¡ ~ f)r".AI /{/ Gðr-.J:3.F.J... /j ~ ~~ 7~? ßutfER,dt.lT LlÆ Vð?/' $. . , " . PETITION OF SUPPORT To Whom It May Concern: . The undersigned neighbors support the 7-lot subdivision on Ynez Road north of Santiago and the zone change from Ll (1.0 acre lots) to L2 (0.5 acre lots) for a custom home gated subdivision with high quality custom homes 3,000 square feet and above. NAME I ADDRESS SIGNATURES ::å-vkfìf (1vabt'lLL¡4.3ir5¿, ~ ' L//V/)/"'I r/eEI"IL¿t::' £.j3?::L<r ß",d-(e-!è ~~.J:JJ-fLLL- lj . 4~ rj-.~ -~I~~.X_- t::~,:.'tb._q¿5"'- ~'4'ù~,-=- . . AUG-11-2ee5 e4:47 P" GUA"PACIFICPOWERCORP . . . Av¡ust 9, 2003 6716466587 p.e1 RE: P A ()2.O3711O372, 1M 30169 Mayor leØ'StoDe City ofTemeauJa 43200 BusiDm Park Drift P. O. Box'9033 Temecu1a, CA 92589-9033 Deer Mayor Jeft'StøDe: I cuneady oWn thllIOuto b18tecIat 30555 Baterv St., Temecula In die ChIpmII E8ÞIteI JIIi¡bborhood. My house Is one year old, 3,700 sq. it. 011 a hI1f acre lot. I 'MR1Id lib to SO 011 reecmJ, atroø¡ly IUppCIIthIs the above p¡ojeGt for a zoœ cbaDp &om 1.0 8CI'C 1018 to % acre loll for a 7 lot IIIbdivlsioD. TbiI project oft'en a priY8fo pteclatreet wida bI8h cpII1ity boDIes 3,300 IQ1IIXO feet or 18qer. These bome8 will CIIIlIaaoe 1be .... help iIIca8e our p¡opaty w1ues. 1 8Uœ8lY ... your \'Ute for approval of this PfO.i ect. 011: J. ComercIwm, City Co\III.Cil M. N8IP". City Council S. Pratt, City CouDci1 it RobertI, City Coanci1 HIlS" I VI I Subj: ,Date: 'From: To: . -iiarch8ñdwayoeV;.opm.mc,ñeastsïdeOivñezRìt:ïU8tROdh-Oi-saßiiago--- ------ .", - -- ,-----' -- , 7/12120038:54:10 PM Pacific Standard Time lowreyhome@vahoo,com istone@citvcouncil.org, rroberts@citvcouncil,orQ, mnaQoar@citycouncil,orQ, icomerchero~council,oro. spralt@citycouncil,oro . CC: seawayproperties@aol.com Se"t~"'-!fI!!.nte~!.(~tail¡¡)_- - ----_u_---- Dear Honorable Mayor and COuncilmembers: I am writing this letter, on my own initiative, and ccing Mr. Way, I'm sure to his surprise. we reside on 2.5+ acres beside the property that Mr. Way has planned for a development. I am referring to the Marchand Way development on the east side of ynez Road, north of Santiago and South of Paube. CurrenUy, his land Is nothing but an open field and we are very pleased that he has plans.to develop it into a private street with estate homes. From the start, we have supported his project. I attended a Planning Commission meeting in support of his project. His plans are not the typical 10,000 or less track home lots; these wiD be upscale homes on over 112 acre each with a private gated street We wiD be thrilled to see a neighborhood of nice homes and families Instead of an open field. We are directly affected by his project, and we want you to know we are In support of his development I have not spoken to Mr. Way in over a month (maybe 2 months) so we have no Idea where his plans stand with \he City of Temecula. I was just looking out my kitchen window this aftemoon at his open field and thought I would write a letter to the City In support of his project. Sincerely, EliZabeth Lowrey 29925 Via Serrito Temecuia, CA 92592 co: Craig Way Do you Yahooi? sac Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per monthl . . Tuesday, July 29, 2003 America Online: SEA WA YPROPERTIES . . . August 1, 2003 Mayor Jeff Stone City ofTemecula 43200 Business Park Drive P.O. Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 RE: PA02-O31110312,TM30169 Proposed 1-lót ~ Acre Subdivision Dear Mayor Stone: I live at 29920 Via Serrito (ftontiøg on Y nez Road) a couple bundred feet tìom the proposed 1-1ot ~ Acre Subdivision on Ynez Road. I have seen the map and plans for these custom production homes and I support this project. I think this use would be much better for our neigbborbood than a churdI, school, or moduIarlmanutàctured homes. Sincerely, /~,/' / / .. ¡ .. ~I C "ft~~ 1Jý~ Cbrlstme Herman 29920 Via Senito Temecula, CA 92592 Cc: J. Comerchero, City Council M Naggar, City Council S. Pratt, City Council R. Roberts, City Council August 4, 2003 . Mayor Jeff Stone City ofTemecuJa 43200 Business Park Drive P.O. Box 9033 TemeeuIa, CA 92589-9033 RE: PA02-0371/0372,TM30169 Proposed 7-lot ~ Acre Subdivision Dear Mayor Stone: We live at 29960 Via Serrito (ftouting on Yœz Road) a couple hundred feet ftom the proposed 7-lot ~ Acre Subdivision on Ynez Road. We have seen the map and pIaos fur these custom production homes and we support this project. We think this use would be mw:h better fur our neigbborbood tban a church, scbooJ, or moduIar/mamJtàc:tured homes. Sincerely, . ãck ana Leslie Roripaush , 29960 Via Serrito TemeeuIa, CA 92592 Cc: J. Comerchero, City Council M NasSar, City Council S. Pratt, City Counci1 R. Roberts, City Council . . . . ÐB/ÐB/2ÐÐ3 12: 26 7146442367 AU\i-II-é!OO3 I'Ui !1:14 All J MICHAEL LANNI FAX NO. PAGE Ð1 P. 02 Altgas!!!.2003 Mayor Jeff SIIone dtyofTemecula 43200 Buaineu Park Dr. Temecula, CA 91589-9013 RB: PA02-0371/f1J72, TM30169 Dear Mr. Mayor. I own lite 4.7 Acre _I lot plCperty located on Ynez Rd. in TemecuIa, a couple bndled feet to the Non!1 or tbe ab<ne projeet. My propeny wu _6y approved for 8 - 1/2 Acre Lola 8IId I would like to go on record 8upportina the above project fora zone change from 1.0 aa'e Iota to 1/2 acre lots for a 7 lot 8IIbdivllion. Thi. project af'ferwl private ¡ated street with blgb quality homes 3.300 or l&!'Ier. 1'bcsc homes will eMance the uea and help increaso property values.. I urge you to approve this projecL Slnœrely. ~~ I ~ 1:: 0 a. /; a.", :::s 0 CJ)~ -~ 0 ;¡ c: 5, .Q ~ - :.¡::; Q) c.. 1: .""'i!!( i &. ~ "C ~ ~! c ~:gõ Q) .. '<: ",. ~ 5r ~S,g8 ..J .2' :¡¡ ~ Iü Q J:OD..D.. «10 ~ . . . ATTACHMENT NO. 12 ORAL ARGUMENT AGAINST THE PROPOSAL AS RECORDED IN THE MAY 7,2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING (EXCERPT) R,IT M\2002\O2-0371 TR 30169 Quiet Meadow RdlStaffReportMDP (8-9-04).doc 18 -.JliÌlìír. ~) ~ .' . That if evidence of a fault hazard were noted, the Public Works Department would not allow this map to record; . That the requested change of zone would require the affected lot to merge with the lot that is out of that zone, which could result into a six-lot map; but at this time, there is not such evidence. Deputy Director of Public Works Parks noted that the final map cannot be recorded until it is determined whether or not a fault line is present. At this time, the Public Hearing was opened Mr. Larry Markham, 41635 Enterprise Circle North, representing the applicant, noted that the applicant would concur with the conditions of approval along with the modifications that Principal Planner Hazen has recommended. . That offsite trenching was completed to establish whether or not a fault line was present; . That trenching but not boring was performed; . That there was no evidence of any faulting that would require any setback on the property; . That a fault hazard investigation was performed; . That the open space lot will not be an open space lot and that it will be a portion of one of the lots; . That because it is a gated privacy subdivision, there will be a Homeowners Association (HOA); . That the project is not a part of the Los Ranchitos project; Ms. Lowrey, 29925 Via Serrito, spoke in favor of the project, noting that the new homes would be a great addition to the community. The following individuals spoke against the proposal: . Mrs. Cecelia Lewis Mr. Steve Lewis . Mr. Robert Burns . Mr. Steve Lis . Ms. Dianne Tanna . Mr. Ralph Neimeyer 30080 Santiago Road 30080 Santiago Road 30112 Santiago Road 30000 Santiago Road 30052 Santiago Road 29962 Santiago Road The above-mentioned individuals spoke against the proposal for the following reasons: . That the Fire Department requires an ingress and egress; C:lDocuments and SattlngsIMclntykIDesktop\D50703.doc 13 (ì . That the area is zoned for one house per acre; . . That the residents enjoy living in a rural area; . That the residents enjoy having farm animals; . That the residents would like to see the property developed as one-acre lots. Mr. Dennis Marchand, 30176 Long Horn Drive, Marchand-Way Development, representing the applicant, noted the following: . That Marchand-Way Development specializes in building high-end residences; . That the homes that are being proposed are not simplistic, tract-style homes; . That the intention would be to build high-quality homes with architectural features and amenities, ornately themed, and European style designs of various sorts; . That the CC&Rs will entail architectural guidelines that must be met; . That there has been no decision as to whether these homes will be one- or two-story homes. (O) At this time, the Public Hearing was closed. . ON: Commissioner Guerriero moved to denv staff's recommendation. Commissioner Olhasso conded the motion and voice vote reflected unanimous approval and to recommend to the City cil for a one acre minimum. RECOMMENDATION: 8.1 Adopt a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No.'s PA02- 05, PAO2-D606, and PA02-D607 (Development Plan) based on the Determination of Con' tency with a project for which an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was previou certified pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 - Subsequent EIR's and gative Declarations; . C:\Documents and SettlngsIMclntykIDesktop\O50703.doc 14