Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout092000 PC Agenda e e e S' ::;-- -/"'; -~ II In compliance with the Americans with Disabil~ies Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the office of the C~ Clerk (909) 694-6444. Notification 48 hours prior to a meeting will enable the C~ to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibil~ to that meeting [28 CFR 35.102.35.104 ADA nle II] AGENDA TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION A REGULAR MEETING CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 43200 BUSINESS PARK DRIVE SEPTEMBER 20, 2000 - 6:00 P.M. ........AA....... Next in Order: Resolution: No. 2000-032 CALL TO ORDER: Flag Salute: RollCall: Commissioner Telesio Chiniaeff, Mathewson, Telesio, Webster, and Chairman Guerriero PUBLIC COMMENTS A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public may address the Commission on items that are listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Commission about an item n2! on the Agenda, a pink "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the Commission Secretary. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name for the record. For all other agenda items a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the Commission Secretary Drior 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: 1.1 Approve the Agenda of September 20, 2000. R:\PLANCOMMlAgendas\2000\9-20-00.doc 2 Minutes RECOMMENDATION: e 2.1 Approve the minutes of August 1, 2000. 3 Director's Hearina Uodate RECOMMENDATION 3.1 Receive and File COMMISSION BUSINESS 4 Date for Planning Commission Workshop 5 Topics for Discussion 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. ., 6 Plannina Aoolication No. ()()..0261 (Soecific Plan Amendment) located north of Rancho California Road off of Promenade Chardonnav Hills and Meadows Parkwav south of Parducci Lane and aenerallv north of Rue Jadot consistina of all lots in Tract No.'s 23100-6. 23100-7 and 23100-8 - Thomas Thornslev RECOMMENDATION: 6.1 Adopt a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. 00-0261 pursuant to Section 15061 (b) (3) and make a determination of consistency with a project for which an EIR was previously certified (Section 15162 - subsequent EIRs and Negative Declarations of the CEQA Guidelines); and e R:\PLANCOMM\Agendas\2000\9.~.doc 2 e e e 6.2 Adopt a resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-0261 (SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT NO.5) TO AMEND THE TEXT WITHIN THE MARGARITA VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN'S DESIGN GUIDELINES, FOR VILLAGE "B", RELATED TO THE SIZE AND VARIATION OF RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS TO BE BUILT IN PLANNING AREAS 8, 10, 11, AND 12, GENERALLY LOCATED NORTH OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD OFF OF PROMENADE CHARDONNAY HILLS, EAST OF MEADOWS PARKWAY SOUTH OF PARDUCCI LANE AND NORTH OF RUE JADOT CONSISTING OF ALL LOTS IN TRACT NO'S. 23100-6, -7, AND -8. 7 Plannina ADDlication No. 00-0350lSDecific Plan Amendment) located in Old Town Temecula - Patty Anders RECOMMENDATION: 7.1 Adopt a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. 00-0350 pursuant to Section 15061 (b) (3) of the CEQA Guidelines; and 7.2 Adopt a resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000-_ A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-0350 (SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT) TO AMEND THE SIGN STANDARDS IN CHAPTERS III AND IV OF THE OLD TOWN SPECIFIC PLAN. 8 Plannina ADDlication No. 98-0481 (Wolf Creek SDecific Plan NO.12): No. 98-0482 (Wolf Creek Environmental ImDact ReDorl): No. 98-0484 (Wolf Creek General Plan Amendment): and No. 00-0052 (Wolf Creek Tentative Tract MaD No. 29305) on Darcels totalina 557 acres located on the east side of Pala Road. between Loma Linda Road and Fairview Avenue - Carole Donahoe R:\PLANCOMM\Agendas\2000~20-00.doc 3 RECOMMENDATION: 8.1 Adopt a resolution entiUed: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000-_ A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FOR WOLF CREEK (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA98-0484), AND APPROVE THE WOLF CREEK SPECIFIC PLAN (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 98-0481) ON PARCELS TOTALING 557 ACRES LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF PALA ROAD, BETWEEN LOMA LINDA ROAD AND FAIRVIEW AVENUE, AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NOS. 950- 110-002, -005, -033 AND 950-180-001, -005, -006 AND -010. e 8.2 Adopt a resolution entiUed: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000-_ A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-0052 (TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 29305) THE SUBDIVISION OF 557 ACRES INTO 47 LOTS WHICH CONFORM TO THE PLANNING AREAS, OPEN SPACE AREAS, SCHOOL AND PARK SITES OF THE WOLF CREEK SPECIFIC PLAN, LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF PALA ROAD, BETWEEN LOMA LINDA ROAD AND FAIRVIEW AVENUE, AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NOS. 950- 110-002, -005, -033 AND 950-180-001, -005, -006 AND -010. e 8.3 Adopt a resolution entiUed: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000-_ A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING CERTIFICATION OF THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED FOR THE WOLF CREEK SPECIFIC PLAN AND RELATED ACTIONS (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 98-0482) AND RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM IN CONNECTION THEREWITH FOR THE WOLF CREEK SPECIFIC PLAN, LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF PALA ROAD, BETWEEN LOMA LINDA ROAD AND FAIRVIEW AVENUE, AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR PARCEL NOS. 950-110-002, -005, -033 AND 950-180-001, -005, -006 AND -010. e R:\PLANCOMM\Agendas\2000~20-00.doc 4 e e e COMMISSIONER'S REPORTS PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT ADJOURNMENT Next regular meeting: October 4, 2000, Council Chambers, 43200 Business Pari< Drive Temecula, CA 92590 R:\PLANCOMMlAgendasl2000I9-2G-OO.doc 5 e e e ITEM #2 , e MINUTES OF AN ADJOURNED REGULAR JOINT CITY COUNCIUPLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP AUGUST 1, 2000 CALL TO ORDER The City Council and Planning Commission convened in an adjourned regular joint workshop at 6:00 P.M., on Tuesday, August 1, 2000, in the City Council Chambers of Temecula City Hall, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. ROLL CALL Present: Council members: Mayor Pro Tem Comerchero, Naggar, Pratt, Roberts, and Mayor Stone. Planning Commissioners: Chiniaeff, Mathewson, Telesio, and Chairman Guerriero. Absent: Planning Commissioner: Webster. INVOCATION The invocation was given by Councilman Naggar. ALLEGIANCE e The audience was led in the Flag salute by Mayor Stone. PUBLIC COMMENTS e . No comments. CITY COUNCIUPLANNING COMMISSION REPORTS A. Chairman Guerriero relayed thanks to the City Council for holding this Joint Workshop with the Commission. . B. Commissioner Mathewson expressed his appreciation to staff and to the Council for the street-capping project completed in the Chardonnay Hills area. C. Councilman Naggar noted his gratitude to the Firemen who were battling the Pechanga fire, acknowledging their sacrificial efforts to save life and property. D. Providing an update regarding the August 1, 2000 CETAP meeting, Councilman Roberts relayed that the Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) had provided a presentation with respect to Transportation; and noted that there were also discussions regarding a specific proposed project within the County which was a proposal for a residential tract which was not proximate to any commercial development, and would also encompass a zone change, R:PlanCommlMinutesl080100 1 Mayor Pro Tem Comerchero noted that this particular project would be reviewed in conjunction with the new County Policy, which passed last week. e E. With respect to RTA, Mayor Pro Tem Comerchero relayed that the agency was holding a three-day rail review meeting from July 31st-August 2nd, noting that three of the world's leading authorities on public transportation would assist the County in evaluating the existing mass transit, and future plans for mass transit. COUNCIUCOMMISSION BUSINESS 1 Housina Element ProQress Report RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Receive the Housing Element Needs Assessment and provide comments regarding issues to be addressed in the updated Housing Element. Senior Management Analyst Brown provided an overview of the staff report (per agenda material), noting that the revised Housing Element would be processed prior to the General Plan Update due to State Law requiring every Housing Element in this particular region to be updated by December 31,2000; relayed that the City had hired a consulting firm to aid in the update of this complex element; provided additional information regarding the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA), noting that some of the numbers reflected in the assessment could potentially be revised; and introduced Mr. John Bridges, from Cotton Beland and Associates, who would provide an overview of the Housing Element Update. Mr. Bridges relayed the request of the consulting firm for direction from the Council and the a Commission regarding the regional housing needs numbers; noted the provision of a summary ,., of the report (per supplemental agenda material); via overheads, provided an overview of the 2000-2005 Housing Element, highlighting the RHNA, noting that the State density guidelines reflected 25 units per acre for developing housing for the very low income category, acknowledging that at this time the City of Temecula did not have existing zoning at 25 units per acre; relayed that in 1993, the City of Temecula's Housing Element had proposed 20 units per acre for this category, adding on the density bonuses and mixed use development; and queried the Council and Commission for input regarding the densities desired to be included in the 2000-2005 Housing Element. Mr. BridQes addressed the concerns and comments of the Council and Commission. as follows: In response to Mayor Pro Tem Comerchero's queries with respect to submitting to the State an Element proposing 20 units per acre for the development of the very low income housing, clarified the process of submitting the Draft Element to the State, noting that after a review period the Element could come back with comments; noted that at that time the City could respond to the comments by modifying the Element, if necessary, or the Element could be adopted without revisions, and Findings would be developed to clarify the manner in which the Element conforms with State Law in spite of the comments; and provided additional information regarding possible litigation issues associated with adopting an Element without HCD's concurrence that it did comply with State Law. For Commissioner Chiniaeff, clarified the process of developing the RHNA numbers, acknowledging the current appeal regarding the represented numbers; provided additional information regarding the City's values not being reflected in the RHNA figures; provided e R:PlanCommlMinutesl080100 2 e e e additional data regarding if the proposed Element's housing unit goals were not met at the end of the five-year period; and noted the requirement for the City to provide available land for housing within each of the categories. Councilman Roberts commented on the appeal of the RHNA numbers for Riverside County, providing additional information regarding the associated issues. For Councilman Roberts, relayed that at the subsequent Housing Element Cycle there would be an evaluation of whether the previous Element's goals had been met which would be inclusive of reports regarding changes in the community (i.e., agricultural changes); advised that with respect to the new census results, the data utilized for this Element would come from the previous census information, noting that the data actually utilized was developed approximately three years after a census was taken, noting that it was specific with regard to the block group level, advising that this information would not be available from the new census results for approximately three years. In response to Councilman Naggar's queries regarding RHNA's gauging of the City's infrastructure, noted that once the RHNA numbers were established, the State established the expected growth in the region and each community's share of that growth, advising that the State's position was that the City's responsibility was to ensure that there was land and infrastructure availaQle to accommodate the numbers; with respect to development within the County that impacted the City, advised that the infrastructure issues could be addressed via agreements with the County regarding Development Fees to offset the impacts, clarifying that the State would not take this matter into account when providing RHNA numbers; noted that if the RHNA numbers were revised as a result of the appeal process that the Element could be updated in response to that condition; and reiterated additional information regarding the process if the City did not meet the goals of the Element. For Commissioner Mathewson, provided additional information regarding legal challenges associated with adopting an Element in spite of negative comments from HCD; confirmed that the Housing Programs (i.e., rental assistance) would be included in the Housing Element Report that would go forward to HCD for review; and relayed that the Housing Element was unique from alternate elements encompassed in the General Plan, confirming that at times there was conflict between the Housing Element and altemate elements in the General Plan, and the values of the community. For Mayor Pro Tem Comerchero, provided additional information regarding the State Guidelines for the very low income housing being 25 units per acre, advising that these guidelines were also utilized in coastline communities; relayed the benefits with respect to HCD's review, if there was data reflecting that in certain areas the City would consider (via approval of Specific Plans) zone changes (i.e., to 25 units per acre) in exchange for additional established Open Space areas, noting the likelihood of obtaining a favorable response from HCD if the 25 units per acre density level was included in the Element. The Council and Commission relayed the followinQ closinQ remarks: In concurrence with Mayor Pro Tem Comerchero's comments, Commissioner Chiniaeff recommended that the City incorporate the higher densities via agreements with developers in exchange for additional open space areas, rather than modifying the General Plan to reflect the higher densities; and recommended that the City strengthen the Housing Programs to encourage a wide level of income levels, via subsidizing the purchase of the housing units. R:PlanCommlMinules\080100 3 Chairman Guerriero expressed concurrence with Commissioner Chiniaeff's statements regarding Housing Programs within the City. e Mayor Pro Tem Comerchero relayed that he would not support revising the General Plan to incorporate a higher density of 25 units per acre, recommending that the City propose the 20 units per acre for this particular housing need; and recommended including language in the Element regarding the willingness of the City to consider modifying certain zoning areas (i.e., 25 units per acre) with proposed Specific Plan's in exchange for additional Open Space areas. Councilman Naggar relayed concurrence with Mayor Pro Tem Comerchero, noting that he would not support upzoning areas within the General Plan; and commented on the concept of subsidizing housing. In response, Commissioner Chiniaeff provided additional information regarding the concept. In response to Councilman Naggar's comments, Deputy City Manager Thornhill provided additional information regarding incentives for developers to construct units which would encompass a portion of units for affordable housing, noting the goal to create affordable housing while the visual external appearance of the housing would not appear to be differentiated due to minor variances within the unit being reduction in square footage and/or interior amenities. Commissioner Mathewson relayed for discussion purposes, the concept of financial transfers within communities whereby one community did not desire to fully address very low income housing and would provide financial transfers to address the housing need in an alternate community, noting his concern that the City having some control with respect to housing in response to the desire of the community. In response to Commissioner Mathewson's comments, Councilman Roberts relayed additional information regarding the financial transfer concept being implemented in the Rancho Mirage area. e For informational purposes, and in response to Councilman Roberts' previous comments, Mr. Samuel Alhadeff clarified that the financial transfer agreement was made was made with the City of Coachella, providing additional information regarding the issues associated with the concept; and suggested contacting the City of Coachella for additional information regarding the agreement. Commissioner Telesio commented on the variant levels of income required for housing development at 25 units per acre dependent upon the area of the development (Le., Newport Beach Coast); and queried whether the State took this variance into consideration. In response, Mr. Bridges relayed that in the City of Temecula, the development of 20 units per acres would proximately equate to meeting the low income level, clarifying that at 25 units per acre the low income level would definitely be met; provided additional information regarding density bonuses; and relayed the potential of the State commenting that even with density bonuses the goal should be 25 units per acre. For Councilman Pratt, Mr. Bridges relayed that if there was a recession at a future date affecting income levels that there would most likely be a reduction in the cost of housing units, confirming that the ratio would remain the same. It was the consensus of the Council and the Commission to have the consultant move forward with the Element with a density level of 20 units per acre for the very low-income housing levels. e R:PlanCommlMinutes\OB0100 4 e e e 2 Growth Manaaement Plan RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Provide direction to the Planning Commission and staff on the density and amenity issues associated with the Growth Management Plan (GMP). Deputy City Manager Thornhill provided an overview of the Council's adoption of the Growth Management Plan (GMP), noting the implementation of the program, relaying that staff and the Commission desired to have additional clarification with respect to Policy No.2, Section B (regarding the Planning Commission's approval of projects above the lowest densities if the project provided onsile or community amenities), specifically regarding what constitutes an amenity; and relayed Councilman Naggar's query with respect to the Council's and Commission's view regarding tentative tract and parcel maps that have been previously approved, and are now requesting time extensions. Chairman Guerriero relayed that on the Commission there was not a consensus with respect to what the Council viewed as an amenity; and referenced the General Plan, page 222, Section 5.1 regarding this issue which sited examples. of amenities. Mayor Pro Tem Comerchero clarified that with respect to the Planning Commission's approval of the lowest density levels, that the GMP pertained to Specific Plans and large development plans; noted that the Council was seeking, in terms of amenities, major infrastructure improvements, and community benefits; clarified that the policy was not a mandate to approve projects solely at the lowest density range, noting his concern if there was no flexibility in the approval process; and recommended that although guidelines were necessary, each project should be approved on a case-by-case basis. . Councilman Naggar relayed that his recommendation would be to not add additional specificity to the guidelines, but that the Planning Commission should initially consider the minimum densities in relation to the project's benefits to the community; advised that he had every confidence that the Planning Commission could adequately make the determination whether the qualifying amenities were certain road improvements, or other community assets; concurred with Mayor Pro Tem Comerchero's comments, that the City did not desire to limit development strictly based solely on the lowest densities (siting Mayor Pro Tem Comerchero's example that if a developer proposed a project with higher densities while offering to build a City Library), and that the City did not desire to remove all flexibility, basing approval only on the lowest end of the density range if the project had alternate merits. In addition to referencing the amenities denoted in the General Plan, Chairman Guerriero provided examples of amenities that had been presented to the Commission on previous projects (i.e., a community pool which was increased in size and permitted via written agreement to be utilized by the Swim Team, and specific road improvements); clarified that the Commissioners' opinion differed with respect to qualifying amenities. relayed that in his opinion additional landscaping should be a qualifying amenity, siting a project that had been presented which proposed a forty-seven percent (47%) landscape plan in lieu of the twenty percent (20%) requirement, advising that at this time there was no data to support this asset as a qualifying amenity. Referencing the GMP, and the General Plan, Commissioner Chiniaeff queried that variance in the language of the documents, noting that the General Plan reflected that the target density was mid-range, while the GMP reflected that the target range was the lowest range, questioning R:PlanCommlMinules\080100 5 whether the General Plan needed to be amended to reflect the GMP guidelines. In response, City Attorney Thorson advised that the GMP indicated that each project shall be considered on its own merit in accordance with the General Plan and the City's Zoning Ordinance, confirming Commissioner Chiniaeffs comments that the direction of the GMP in Section 2, B, was for the Planning Commission to consider approval with these guidelines; specified that the direction was for the Planning Commission to focus on whether or not the density was creating a negative impact, and whether or not there could be Findings under the General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance to address this factor; clarified that the GMP was not an amendment to the General Plan, and therefore could not compel the Commission or the Council to solely approve a project at the lowest density; and provided additional information regarding staffs direction to developers. Referencing the General Plan which stated that Future residential development is expected to occur at the target levels of density, as stated in the table (which denoted mid-range densities), Commissioner Chiniaeff recommended that if this was not the City's desire, that the General Plan should be amended. In response, City Attorney Thorson clarified that the General Plan did not state that the density would be mid-range, but that it was expected; relayed that on a case- by-case basis each project would be reviewed in order to determine if the densities proposed were appropriate under those certain circumstances, and to determine the impacts to the community. Councilman Naggar relayed that with respect to the General Plan density table figures which were previously referenced, that he interpreted that to mean that these figures would represent the expected average densities with Citywide development; noted that he viewed the GMP as a philosophy that the Council was communicating to the Planning Commission, relaying that upon review of development proposals the Council would begin with the concept of approving projects in the lower density level, but would take into account other aspects of the project. Commissioner Chiniaeff relayed that the General Plan was specific in that the expected density was the mid-range, based on the previously mentioned table, advising that a process was followed with the development of that language in the General Plan at that point in time; and reiterated his recommendation that if there was a change in the Council's philosophy, that the new policy ought to go through the same process. Deputy City Manager Thornhill clarified that the referenced density range (via the General Plan) did not apply to medium and high density, advising that it was it was the desire to not discourage the development of affordable housing. In light of the desire to not discourage development of affordable housing, Commissioner Mathewson queried how a high density development proposal that would have rents not qualifying for affordable housing should be viewed; and queried whether the target range would be applicable in a case such as this. In response to Commissioner Mathewson's comments, Chairman Guerriero relayed that in the past, the Commission had questioned whether an applicant would be willing to designate a portion of a development for senior housing or low-income housing, advising that if the applicant was not agreeable that this would eliminate one of the amenities that the City was seeking. Chairman Guerriero advised that the Commission desired to have a more definitive direction with respect to the specific amenities that would qualify for approving a higher density, or to incorporate a General Plan amendment. R:PlanCommlMinuteslOB0100 6 e e e e e e Councilman Pratt advised that in his opinion the Planning Commission was qualified to struggle with these issues in determining whether or not a project should be approved; and noted that since the future held additional growth in the City there would need to be plans for improvement with respect to transportation issues. For Councilman Naggar, Deputy City Manager Thornhill clarified the density levels represented on the referenced table in the General Plan, noting that due to the calculations the City utilized in the circulation modeling that there was a buffer, since the medium and high-density projects have never been developed at the highest level; relayed that if it was the desire of the Council to amend the General Plan in order to revise the target density levels, that there would still be flexibility within that range during the approval process; recommended processing an amendment to the General Plan prior to the. update process in order to create clarity with respect to targeted densities, noting that staff needed information in order to direct applicants who would begin planning projects that could encompass a one to one-and-half year period of time. Mr. Robert Oder, representing Mira Loma Apartments, relayed his concern with the lack of definition of what the Council considered an amenity with respect to an apartment complex, or rental housing; advised that there was a universal understanding in the industry that an amenity was an asset to the property which enabled the property owner to receive higher rents (i.e., swimming pool, recreation center, microwave ovens); referencing the Temecula Ridge project, noted that this proposal had multiple amenities; and concurred with Commissioner Chiniaeffs comments that the GMP appears to state that the lowest density range was the desire of the Council, whereas the General Plan codifies what has to be done, relaying that he would be more comfortable applying the GMP if it was submitted to the same review procedure as the General Plan. In response to Mr. Oder, and for informational purposes, Councilman Naggar commented on the Temecula Ridge Project, noting that this proposal was near the high end of the density range; and relayed that he could support changing the term amenity, noting that in his opinion the amenities the Council were seeking were for the purpose of attaining community value. Councilman Roberts relayed that in his opinion, amenities could refer to internal amenities that would reduce the generation of traffic (i.e., a proposed 25-meter pool, a large tot lot, and barbecues) which would reduce the need to leave the complex. Mayor Pro Tem Comerchero relayed that it was clear to him that the term amenity was not viewed the same by the Council as it was by the apartment development industry, advising that it might be appropriate for the GMP to change the word amenity; and noted that the Council, when adopting the GMP, was seeking major community Citywide amenities, relaying a desire to clarify this issue. In response, Mr. Oder relayed that an apartment complex with multiple amenities created a higher quality of life, and thereby was an improvement to the community. For Councilman Naggar, Mr. Oder relayed that it was his opinion that including affordable housing in a luxury apartment project (i.e., the Temecula Ridge Project) would not be appropriate, noting that it was his opinion that low income housing was better suited in single detached dwellings. Mr. William Griffith, representing the Wolf Creek Specific Plan, viewed the GMP as an implementation document via growth management (i.e., balancing the issue of establishing roads, and ensuring adequate traffic circulation); noted that the General Plan was a legislative document providing density ranges, identifying amenities, trade-off elements, and housing R:PlanCommlMinutesl080100 7 elements; noted his difficulty with Section B1 of the GMP due to the application process, the environmental review, and the design of infrastructure; noted the confusion with respect to when a development application was deemed complete, relaying the process; noted that per an anonymous phone call to staff, it had been relayed that the densities were to be at the lowest end of the range in future development proposals; provided an overview of the proposalS in the Wolf Creek Specific Plan, noting the planning period of approximately two years; and recommended that the GMP and the General Plan be disconnected, reiterating that the GMP was solely an implementation tool. e Mr. Barton Buchalter, 30000 Block of Rancho Califomia Road, relayed that from a developer's standpoint, if it was the desire of the Council to approve projects at the lowest densities that the General Plan should be amended, noting that there was certainty needed which would affect property rights, and the individual's due process; opposed the inconsistencies between the GMP and the General Plan, reiterating his recommendation that the General Plan be amended in order to create an equitable situation for developers; noted that required amenities should be differentiated on smaller sites; relayed the acceptable density ranges in altemate areas (i.e., the City of Irvine); and advised that the City may lose quality development if this issue was not resolved. Councilman Pratt relayed his support of the GMP, noting the importance of the community's comments with respect to the issue of growth management. Councilman Naggar relayed that he did not view the GMP as inconsistent to the General Plan, noting that if the viewed inconsistency had been the target density, that this issue had been clarified; with respect to Mr. Griffith's queries, recommended that when preparing a project for the approval process that the developer ensure that if the densities were higher than the lowest range that there be an accompanying excellent project package (i.e., road improvements, fire _ stations, libraries); and reiterated that the GMP was a philosophy, relaying that if growth was not ., managed it could create a crisis situation especially in light of the County's developmental impacts on the City of Temecula. In response to Councilman Roberts, City Attomey Thorson relayed that the GMP specified that each project must be determined on its own merit in terms of its consistency with the General Plan, the Zoning Ordinance, and with State and Federal Law, advising that there was not a conflict with the General Plan, noting that it would not create legal liability issues. Mayor Pro Tem Comerchero concurred with Councilman Naggar, noting that he did not view the GMP as inconsistent with the General Plan, clarifying that the language of the GMP stated direct the Planning Commission to consider, advised that the Council's direction to the Planning Commission was that the Council trusted the Commission to make the decisions within the parameters of the direction provided; clarified that the direction was for the Planning Commission to initially consider development at the low end of the density range and to take into account proposed community benefits; with respect to the amenities represented in the General Plan which Chairman Guerriero had presented, noted that he concurred that those denotations as acceptable amenities; and relayed that the target density level could still be the mid-range if there were community benefits proposed with the project. Chairman Guerriero clarified that the density issue was not the issue needing clarification, advising that the matter of confusion was with respect to a clear definition of qualifying amenities; noted that if the Council desired to utilize the 11 amenities denoted in the General Plan, that the Planning Commission could move forward with a clearer understanding; recommended adding an additional qualifying amenity to the list: an increased percentage of e R:PlanCommlMinutesl080100 8 e e e landscaping, relaying that in his opinion if a project proposed an approximate fifty percent (50%) landscape plan this amenity should qualify as a community asset. In response to Chairman Guerriero, Mayor Pro Tem Comerchero advised that the Council did not desire to limit the qualifying amenities, directing the Commission to determine whether a proposed amenity qualified as a community benefit. Commissioner Mathewson relayed that with respect to the amenity of proposed increased landscaping, that there would need to be a balance on a case-by-case basis, advising that there may be projects that have significant impacts on the site (i.e., significant grading impacts), reiterating the need for a balancing effect; relayed that he could move forward with the Council's direction, noting that the GMP did not state shall consider, but may consider, advising that there was flexibility; and with respect to qualifying amenities, concurred with Councilman Roberts' comments that a reduction in the generation of vehicular trips should be considered an amenity, while noting that some amenities (i.e., a swimming pool) could reduce trips for residents not needing to leave the complex, that if the facility was open to the public it could also be an attractor of traffic. Commissioner Chiniaeff concurred that a reduction in vehicular trips was a public benefit; relayed that it was his opinion that there was a lack of information available to the development community; noted that via the development community, roads, houses and commercial centers were built in a community, advising that in his opinion the City owed the developers a fiduciary responsibility to have a degree of certainty as to a more specific direction with respect to densities; noted that the General Plan was not clear if in the approval process the GMP was included; reiterated that the General Plan specifically stated that the target density was mid- range, relaying that in exchange for special public benefits the Council and the Planning Commission might allow the densities to be between the target density and the maximum density; advised that due to the explicit direction in the General Plan, that if the densities desired have changed, the General Plan should be amended; noted that it was the Planning Commission's charge to enforce the guidelines and pOlicies in the General Plan; relayed that in his opinion, the Council's direction was leaving the development community in a no-man's-land; and recommended that if the Council:s desire was to have a Growth Management Policy it should be part of the General Plan. At Councilman Naggar's request, City Attorney Thorson noted the preceding poliCies of the General Plan which listed eight or nine pOlicies to be considered; clarified that the General Plan addressed a range of densities, not specifying one density for each land use area; advised that the General Plan provided a mechanism to determine the manner that densities would be adjusted in the preceding policies; confirmed that it stated that the expected target density range was f11id-range, advising that guidelines could be developed determining the evaluation of varying densities; and relayed that the General Plan was acceptable, as written, as a legal minimum. Advising that it was not his desire that anyone should be left in a no-man's-land, Councilman Naggar advised that any individual who was considering making a sizeable investment by virtue of development in this City, one should be able to bank on something, and to have a certain degree of certainty. Commissioner Chiniaeff reiterated the lack of clarification with the direction for developers to pursue. R:PlanCommlMinutesl080100 9 In response to discussion comments, Deputy City Manager Thornhill relayed that most of the apartment projects that have been constructed in the City of Temecula have been in the 14-16 units per acre range, advising that to the best of his knowledge there were no development projects close to the 20 units per acre range. In response to City Manager Nelson's queries with respect to the consistency of the GMP with the General Plan, Deputy City Manager Thornhill relayed that while he concurred with City Attomey Thorson's comments from a legal perspective, that from a planner's point of view it was his preference that there be certainty in the General Plan, and that the language of the General Plan (which was the bible for development direction for developers) clarify the basic policy standards; recommended that the language of the General Plan include additional specificity with respect to the amenities; and relayed that clarification would aid in staff's communication with the developers. In response to Mayor Pro Tem Comerchero, Deputy City Manager Thornhill confirmed that if the amenities were more clearly defined there would still not be absolute certainty, but that the ambiguity would be reduced if there were no conflicts between the General Plan and the GMP; and advised that if the two documents (the General Plan and the GMP) were consistent, then the negotiations could begin with the amenities issue. Mayor Pro Tem Comerchero suggested that there be development of a matrix, whereby 20 qualifying amenities could be denoted, and prioritized in order of the most important assets to the community, and then have that data be placed in the form of a table; noted that it could be specified that for a certain amenity there could a be certain percent increase in density. In response, Deputy City Manager Thomhill relayed that this was a feasible concept, noting that staff could work with the Commission and bring forward to the Council recommendations. Councilman Pratt commented on the importance of the concepts expressed from the community residents with respect to growth management. Councilman Naggar relayed that although the City Council could meet to determine additional specificity with respect to qualifying amenities, that it would reduce the flexibility the Planning Commission currently had, querying whether that was the desire of the Commission; and noted that he could support the concept of developing a matrix table as suggested by Mayor Pro Tem Comerchero. Commissioner Mathewson relayed concern with respect to identifying specific standards, advising that General Plans were intended to be general; noted that there was subjectivity in the approval process; and relayed that if standards were further specified, the approval process may be bound to specifics that were not applicable for some projects, while clarifying that he would support expanding the list of qualifying amenities. Commissioner Chiniaeff relayed that while the General Plan did not have to have language that was specific, it should provide guidance with respect to siting the amenities that would be considered when approving densities above the densities outlined in the General Plan; and recommended that during the General Plan update process that there be revisions to reconcile the GMP with the densities, and to provide what community benefits (i.e., trip reductions) could be utilized to offset increase in densities. In response to Councilman Naggar, Commissioner Chiniaeff relayed that with clear direction in the General Plan, the approval process would still have flexibility. R:PlanCommlMinutes\OB0100 10 e e e e e e Commissioner T elesio relayed the desire to review the projects with definite guidelines on a case-by-case basis, with an element of flexibility; and advised that after discussion of this issue, he felt comfortable to move forward with the General Plan and GMP, as written. Mayor Stone relayed his complete confidence in the Planning Commission; reiterated that he was a strong supporter of property rights and due process; noted that it was not his desire to limit the approval process with the development of a matrix table; concurred with Commissioner Chiniaeff' comments that there was confusion with respect to the General Plan and the GMP, relaying that potential land buyers should be able to have certain expectations, advising that there was a conflict between the legal verbiage and expectations, recommending that the language be clarified so that a potential land buyer could have provision of expectations within a certain range. Councilman Roberts relayed that he did not support the matrix concept, noting that the latitude in the approval process was necessary. Councilman Naggar commented on the balance between approving greater densities and the amenities a developer proposed; and recommended leaving that discretion to the Planning Commission. In response to Mayor Pro Tem Comerchero's queries, Chairman Guerriero relayed that if it was the City Council's desire to grant latitude to the Planning Commission to determine whether the amenities proposed qualified for approving higher densities, that he could move forward with that direction. In concurrence with Mayor Stone's comments, Commissioner Mathewson recommended that when the update process took place that clarification be added with respect to the relationship of the GMP to the General Plan; and relayed that he felt comfortable to move forward with the approval process with his interpretation of the GMP and the General Plan. Mayor Stone queried whether the Commission was clear that the Commission could grant a density incentive for an on-site improvement proposed to be utilized solely for the residents living in the project. In response to Mayor Stone, Commissioner Telesio relayed that he could support granting density incentives for on-site improvements due to fact that a better quality development would be a benefit to the community. In response to Mayor Stone, Commissioner Chiniaeff concurred with the discussion comments regarding provision of density incentives; and relayed the importance of the planning staff having a clear understanding of the development expectations since staff would be addressing future applicants. Councilman Naggar commented on on-site amenities, clarifying that the City desired quality development and that in his opinion microwave ovens or tile floors would not be qualifying amenities. Mayor Pro Tem Comerchero noted that within the subjective judgement of the Planning Commission, certain amenities would carry greater weight than others (i.e., an amenity that benefited the entire community rather than one that benefited solely the project's residents). R:PlanCommlMinutes\080100 . 11 Chairman Guerriero recommended that with projects that were highly visible in the community that there be consideration to require some type of a landscape monumentation or a statement element; and provided additional information regarding the visual buffer landscaping could provide. In response to Mayor Stone's previous query regarding a development's provision of an on-site amenity (i.e., a pool), Commissioner Mathewson relayed that he would balance the amenity with how it benefited the community, as a whole. e It was noted that at 8:42 P.M. the meeting recessed, reconvening at 8:59 P.M. Deputy City Manager Thornhill reiterated the request for the City Council to provide direction with respect to requests for time extensions on Tentative Tract Maps and Tentative Parcel Maps; and provided an overview of the existing review process of granting the extensions. Councilman Naggar recommended that the Planning Director consider the GMP when considering the request of the time extensions. In response to Councilman Naggar, Commissioner Chiniaeff relayed opposition to changing allowable densities on a previously approved map, advising that the landowner would lose entitlements they had previously obtained; and noted that most likely numerous maps would expire with respect to the ability to request time extensions during the next two-to-three year period. Councilman Naggar advised that the landowner would be able to maintain the density level if there were proposed amenities (i.e., horse trails). Councilman Roberts, echoed by Mayor Stone, recommended that the process of approving the map time extensions remain, as is. e In response to Councilman Roberts, Deputy City Manager Thornhill advised that when reviewing the time extensions that staff reviewed the projects with respect to the State Law that pertained to granting those extensions, considering whether it was consistent with the General Plan and whether there were public health and safety issues that may exist now that did not exist at the time of the approval, ensuring that the maps appropriately addressed these two issues. For Councilman Pratt, Deputy City Manager Thornhill relayed staff's efforts to ensure that trail easements were obtained on properties adjacent to the creeks. Deputy City Manager Thornhill relayed that if there were areas of concern in the review process that staff would bump up the approval process of the time extension request to the Planning Commission level. City Attorney Thorson relayed that the City could not condition a map extension, advising that it could either be granted or denied, while noting that the property owner could agree to a condition; provided additional information regarding the remaining lots; advised that when a request for a time extension was submitted, that there was an automatic 50-day extension per State Law, noting that the final map could be perfected during the period, bypassing the extension process altogether; noted that if the City requested trails, there would have to be Findings to justify the fact that there were different circumstances at this time that did not exist e R:PlanCommlMinutesl080100 12 e e e when the map was approved; and for Councilman Naggar, provided additional information regarding the trail system being added to the General Plan. 3 General Plan Proaress Update RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 Provide comments on the Elements (i.e. Land Use, Circulation, Growth Management) that should be examined during the update of the City's General Plan. Senior Planner Hogan presented the staff report (as per agenda material), noting the request for input from the Commission and the Council with respect to the General Plan update; relayed that the matters staff had preliminary identified for addressing were with respect to the following: 1) the landfill land issues, specifically with regard to the remaining vacant land, 2) the process of addressing Open Space preservation issues, 3) investigating alternate transit options, 4) addressing built-out traffic conditions, 5) investigating the effect of regional growth issues, and 6)ultimately to research the sustainability of the community; relayed that the new traffic analysis would be conducted intersection-based rather than road segment-based; advised that staff would request the consultant to provide a ten-year infrastructure recommendation; relayed that there would be additional noise and air quality studies; and reiterated the request for the Commission and the Council to provide input with respect to any policies, focuses, or issues to address at this time in the updating process. Councilman Roberts recommended that there be a Transit Element investigated during the General Plan update process in order to consider the feasibility of the matter, noting that Councilman Pratt had made recommendations in the past regarding this issue. For Councilman Roberts, Deputy.City Manager Thornhill confirmed that there was.a transit corridor on Winchester Road, relaying that staff has been ensuring provision of those easements as development occurs. Mayor Pro Tem Comerchero relayed concurrence with including a Transit Element in the update, advising that it should be tied into the Land Use Element, specifically with regard to the relationship between the two; in response to Senior Planner Hogan's query, noted that it was his opinion that the General Plan should, additionally, address art in public places. Chairman Guerriero recommended that there be investigation with respect to underground parking facilities (i.e., in the Old Town area, or in the second phase of the mall), and to investigate tunneling (underpasses) as opposed to overpasses (I.e., in the Highway 79 area); and recommended that the City develop specified truck routes. Commissioner Mathewson recommended that Land Use, Circulation, and the Growth Management clarification be addressed, as well as the Community Design Element, specifically with respect to architecture, landscaping, and monumentation; recommended that the Open Space Element address recreational facilities; and with respect to the Housing Element, recommended investigating financial transfers to alternate communities in order to address the regional housing impacts, querying the Council for their input regarding this issue. In response to Mayor Stone, City Attorney Thorson relayed that staff could bring back the issue of financial transfers in order to provide the Council with additional background information. R:PlanCommlMinutesl080100 13 With respect to the Western Bypass Project, Councilman Pratt recommended that in order to accommodate the area on the western portion of the creek, that there be a circular circulation. route (creating a circular route around the City) whereby the Sport's Park would be accessible from alternate portions of the City without travelling through the center of town. e Concurring with Commissioner Mathewson's comments regarding the Community Design and Architecture Element, Commissioner Chiniaeff advised that while the larger projects were scrutinized with respect to this issue that there be closer attention paid to the smaller projects, as well; and recommended that a major issue needing to be addressed in the update was the sphere of influence. In response to Councilman Naggar, with respect to transit issues, Deputy City Manager Thornhill relayed that while it was possibly too late for the planning of fixed routes, that there were numerous options for non-fixed routes. . With respect to the process of updating the General Plan, Commissioner Mathewson recommended that there be efforts to incorporate citizen involvement (i.e., workshops in neighborhoods). In response, Deputy City Manager Thornhill relayed that staff had involved the community during the last update, confirming that this was an integral part of the process, noting that staff would incorporate community involvement. Councilman Naggar relayed the importance of expediting the process of completing the update. Mayor Stone relayed that this Joint City Council/Planning Commission Workshop had been productive, recommending that the workshops be held at a minimum of twice a year. ADJOURNMENT e At 9:28 P.M., the City Council convened as the Temecula Community Services District and the Temecula Redevelopment Agency, and Mayor Stone formally adjourned the Joint City Council/Planning Commission Workshop to the next City Council regular meeting on Tuesdav. August 8. 2000. 7:00 P.M., and to the next Planning..Commission regular meeting on Wednesday. August 2. 2000. 6:00 P.M., City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, . Temecula, California. Ron Guerriero, Chairman Debbie Ubnoske, Planning Director e R:PlanCommlMinutesl080100 14 e ITEM #3 e e e e e CITY OF TEMECULA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING DIVISION MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Debbie Ubnoske, Planning Director DATE: September 12, 2000 SUBJECT: Director's Hearing Case Update Planning Director's Agenda items for August, 2000 Date Case No. Proposal Applicant Action August 3, 2000 PA99-0388 A request to build and Provident Approved operate a 3,280 sq. ft. bank Savings Bank with drive-thru service on a .74-acre site. August 10, 2000 PA99-0395 To design, construct and , Childtime Approved operate an 8,000 sq. ft. day Children's care center within the Center (Paul Roripaugh Estates Specific Frahm) Plan Area. August 10, 2000 PA99-0175 The subdivision and rough #50 Center City Continued to grading of 53.41 acres into Associates, LLP August 17, 10 industrial lots and one 2000 open space lot August 17, 2000 PA99-0175 The subdivision and rough #50 Center City Approved grading of 53.41 acres into Associates, LLP 10 industrial lots and one open space lot August 31, 2000 PAOO-0209 Request to create a parcel Windsor Approved map that will consist of one Partners parcel (5 units) totaling (Robert Winn) 67,494 square feet AU9ust 31, 2000 PAOO-0278 Product Review for three M-A Temeku Approved models for construction on Hills 109 lots within Tract 28482-3 Deveiopment (Cypress Point) Partners (McMillin) Attachments: 1. Action Agendas - Blue Page 2 R:\DIRHEAR\MEMO\2000\August 2000.memo.doc e e e R:\DIRHEAR\MEM0\2000\AuguSl 2000.memo.doc ATTACHMENT NO.1 ACTION AGENDAS 2 e e e AGENDA TEMECULA DIRECTOR'S HEARING REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 3, 2000 1:30 PM TEMECULA CITY HALL MAIN CONFERENCE ROOM 43200 Business Park Drive Temecnla, CA 92590 CALL TO ORDER: Debbie Ubnoske, Planning Manager PUBLIC COMMENTS A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address to the Planning Manager on items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Senior Planner about an item not listed on the Agenda, a pink "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the Senior Planner. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state vour name and address. For all other agenda items a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the Senior Planner before that item is heard. There is a three (3) minute time limit for individual speakers. PUBLIC HEARING Case No: Case Name: Applicant: Planning Application No. P A99-0388 (Minor Conditional Use Permit) Provident Savings Bank Provident Saving Bank, Don Blanchard, 3756 Central Ave., Riverside, CA 92506 In the Winchester Meadows Shopping Center on the northeast comer at the Winchester Road entrance west of Rorapaugh Road. A request to build and operate a 3,280 square foot bank with drive-thru service on a .74 acre site. . This project is a Class 32 Categorical Exemption under CEQA (Section Number 15332 In-fill Development Projects on sites under five acres in an urbanized area.) Thomas Thomsley, Project Planner Approval APPROVED Location: Proposal: Environmental Action: Case Planner: Recommendation: ACTION: ADJOURNMENT P,\PLANNING\DIRHEAR\2000\8.3-OO.AGENDA.doc ACTION AGENDA TEMECULA DIRECTOR'S HEARING REGULAR MEETIl\'G AUGUST 10, 2000 1:30 PM e TEMECULA CITY HALL MAIN CONFERENCE ROOM 43200 Business Park Drive Ternecula, CA 92590 CALL TO ORDER: David Hogan, Senior Planner PUBLIC COMMENTS A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address to the Planning Manager on items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Senior Planner about an item not listed on the Agenda, a pink "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the Senior Planner. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state vour name and address. For all other agenda items a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the Senior Planner before that item is heard. There is a three (3) minute time limit for individual speakers. PUBLIC HEARING 1. Case No: Case Name: Applicant: Location: Proposal: Environmental Action: Categorical Exemption Case Planner: Case Engineer: Recommendation: ACTION: 2. Case No: Case Name: Applicant: Location: Proposal: Environmental Action: Case Planner: Case Engineer: Recommendation: ACTION: ADJOURNMENT P A99-0395 Childtime Children's Center Paul Frahm 27321 Nicolas Road To design, construct and operate an 8,000 square foot day care center within the Roripaugh Estates Specific Plan Area. Proposal will be exempt from CEQA pursuant to Class 32 No. 15332 (In-Fill Development Projects). Denice Thomas Annie Bostre-Le Approval APPROVED e Planning Application No. P A99-0175 Tentative Parcel Map No. 29162 #50 Center City Associates, LLP Westerly ofDiaz Road, between Dendy Parkway and Cherry Street extended, at the extreme northwest comer of the City. ofTemecula corporate boundaries (Assessor's Parcel No. 909-370-003) The subdivision and rough grading of53.41 acres into 10 industrial lots and one open space lot Mitigated Negative Declaration Denice Thomas, Associate Planner John Pourkazemi, Associate Engineer Approval CONTINUED TO AUGUST 17, 2000 e p, \PLANNING\DIRHEAR\2000\8. IO-OO.AGENDA.doc e e e ACTION AGENDA TEMECULA DIRECTOR'S HEARING REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 17, 20001:30 PM TEMECULA CITY HALL MAIN CONFERENCE ROOM 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 CALL TO ORDER: David Hogan, Senior Planner PUBLIC COMMENTS A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address to the Planning Manager on items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Senior Planner about an item not listed on the Agenda, a pink" Request to Speak" form should be fil1ed out and filed with the Senior Planner. When you are cal1ed to speak, please come forward and state vour name and address. For al1 other agenda items a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the Senior Planner before that item is heard. There is a three (3) minute time limit for individual speakers. PUBLIC HEARING I. Case No: Case Name: Applicant: Location: Planning Application No. P A99-0175 Tentative Parcel Map No. 29162 #50 Center City Associates, LLP Westerly ofDiaz Road, between Dendy Parkway and Cherry Street extended, at the extreme northwest corner ofthe City of Temecula corporate boundaries (Assessor's Parcel No. 909- 370-003) The subdivision and rough grading of 53.4] acres into 10 industrial lots and one open space lot Mitigated Negative Declaration Denice Thomas, Associate Planner Gerald Alegria, Senior Engineer Approval APPROVED Proposal: Environmental Action: Case Planner: Case Engineer: Recommendation: ACTION: ADJOURNMENT p, IPLANNINGIDIRHEARI200018- I 7 -OO.AGENDA.doc ACTION AGENDA TEMECULA DIRECTOR'S HEARING REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 31, 2000 1 :30 PM TEMECULA CITY HALL MAIN CONFERENCE ROOM 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 e CALL TO ORDER: Debbie Ubnoske, Director of Planning PUBLIC COMMENTS A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address to the Planning Manager on items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Senior Planner about an item not listed on the Agenda, a pink "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the Senior Planner. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name and address. For all other agenda items a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the Senior Planner before that item is heard. There is a three (3) minute time limit for individual speakers. PUBLIC HEARING Environmental Action: Planning Application No. PAOO-0209 Tentative Parcel Map Number 29821 Robert Winn, Windsor Partners 43172 Business Park Drive Request to create a parcel map that will consist of one parcel (5 units) totaling 67,494square feet. This project is exempt from CEOA review due to Class 15 Categorical Exemption 15315 (Minor land Divisions) Denice Thomas John Pourkazemi Approved e 1. Case No: Case Name: Applicant: location: Proposal: Case Planner: Case Engineer: Action: Proposal: Planning Application No. PAOO-0278 Development Plan for Product Review M-A Temeku Hills Development Partners (McMillin) Northwest of the intersection of Meadows Parkway and Royal Birkdale Road within the Temeku Hills Specific Plan Area. Product Review for three models for construction on 109 lots within Tract 28482- 3 (Cypress Point). This project is exempt from further evaluation under CEOA due to a prior finding of no significant environmental effect and the resulting from the certification of the EIR for the T emeku Hills (Margarita Village) Specific Plan. Rolfe Preisendanz Approved e 2. Case No: Case Name: Applicant: location: Environmental Action: Case Planner: Action: ADJOURNMENT P,\PLANNING\DIRHEAR\2()()()\8-J I -00 .AGENDA.doc e ITEM #4 e e e e DATE FOR PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP e e ITEM #5 e e e TOPICS FOR DISCUSSION e e e ITEM #6 e e e e e STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION Date: September 20, 2000 Planning Application No. PA 00-0261 (Specific Plan Amendment) Prepared By: Thomas Thomsley, Associate Planner RECOMMENDATION: The Community Development Department- Planning Division Staff recommends the Planning Commission: 1. ADOPT a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. PAOO-0261 pursuant to Section 15061 (b) (3) and make a determination of consistency with a project for which an EIR was previously certified (Section 15162 - subsequent EIRs and Negative Declarations of the CECA Guidelines); and 2. ADOPT a Resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PAOO-0261 (SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT No.5) TO AMEND THE TEXT WITHIN THE MARGARITA VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN'S DESIGN GUIDELINES, FOR VILLAGE "S", RELATED TO THE SIZE AND VARIATION OF RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS TO SE BUILT IN PLANNING AREAS 8 AND 10/11/12, GENERALLY LOCATED NORTH OF RANCHO CAUFORNIA ROAD OFF OF PROMENADE CHARDONNAY HILLS, EAST OF MEADOWS PARtfmAY SOUTH OF PARDUCCI LANE AND NORTH OF RUE JADOT CONSISTING OF ALL LOTS IN TRACT NO'S. 23100-6, -7, AND-8. BACKGROUND The Chardonnay Hills (Village "Bj portion of the Margarita Village Specific Plan is near completion with only a small area (Area 8 and a portion of 10/11/12) remaining to be built. At this time, only 79 lots out of 578 lots remain vacant. Within Village "B"there are 12 planning areas with a variety of product types, sizes, and floor plan variations. In response to the changing demand for larger homes the applicant, Lennar Homes, is requesting to amend the specific plan, which limits the size of homes that can be built in the remaining undeveloped areas Throughout the Margarita Village Specific Plan a wide range of home sizes and product variations have been proposed and built. As the applicant points out in the attached Letter of Justification, the Specific Plan states, in Section UI.A.; "The Design Guidelines provided herein are intended as a living document. They are subject to modification over time.... With the option available to request change, the Applicant has filed for this Specific Plan Amendment. 1 R:IS P'Margarita Village SPIAmendment 5 PA00-02611STAFFRPT PC.doc PROPOSED SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENTS e The proposed Specific Plan Amendment will expand the flexibility of the unit sizes within Chardonnay Hills by changing the maximum square footage and the number of variable floor plans of Areas 8 and 10/11/12. The first request is to introduce language that will allow the Director of Planning make administrative changes to home sizes without amending the Specific Plan. Secondly, a change is proposed to increase the maximum unit size for Areas 8 and 10/11/12 from 2,600 square feet to 3,700 square feet and to require a minimum ofthree (3) floor plans instead of five (5). The 79 remaining lots are some of the larger lots (7,282 to 23,676 square feet) within the Village "B" planning area and they are mixed with surrounding homes, in small clusters, or cui-de- sacs. Although this request diminishes the number of floor plans, the Design Guidelines require variations for each plan. Three floor plans would create at least nine variations. The layout and separation of the remaining lots from one another will keep the homes from looking like a continuous tract. The amendments to the Design Guidelines are as follows: Chapter III- Deslan GuIdelines. SectIon C.3. - VII/aae "S" Architectural GuIdelines: b. Buildino Mass. Form. and Scale: 1. Text added after the first sentence in the introductory paragraph stating: "Home sizes are depicted below. If changes to the home sizes are desired they may be administratively approved by the Director of Planning without amending this Specific Plan." e 2. First bullet changed to delete Planning Areas 8 & 10/11/12. . "The homes in Planning Areas 2 and 3, II, aAEl1Q!11.'12 shall range in size from 1,500 sq. ft. to approximately 2,600 sq. ft. and a minimum to five (5) floor plans shall be provided: 3. New bullet added to change what had been 2,600 sq. ft. to 3,700 sq. ft. and five (5) floor plans to three (3) floor plans. . "The homes in Planning Areas 8 and 10/11/12 shall range in size from 1,500 sq. ft. to approximately 3,700 sq. ft. and a minimum to three (3) floor plans shall be provided." ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION These minor amendments affect only the unit sizes and number of floor plan variations found in the Design Guidelines of the Margarita Village Specific Plan. The Margarita Village Specific Plan includes a variety of design standards, which were part of the consideration of the previous Environment Impact Report for the Margarita Village Specific Plan, as well as the Final Environmental Impact Report for the City General Plan. The changes requested are all within the range of Design Guidelines previously considered. As a result, the project is exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15061 (b) (3) because a determination of consistency can be made for a project a for which an EIR was previously certified (Section 15162 - subsequent EIRs and Negative _ Declarations of the CEQA Guidelines). 2 R;IS PlMargarila Village SPlAmendmenl5 PAlJO.02611STAFFRPT PC.doc e e e GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING CONSISTENCY The proposed changes to the Design Guidelines are consistent with the intent of the Margarita Village Specific Plan and with the General Plan because they still promote variations in the size and variety of homes being buill. SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS The proposed amendment to the Design Guidelines of the Margarita Village Specific Plan will allow larger homes to be built within the designated planning areas and complete the build-out of Chardonnay Hills while maintaining the character and intent of the Margarita Village Specific Plan. FINDINGS 1. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment is consistent with the General Plan and the Margarita Village Specific Plan because the amendment maintains a variety of home sizes and styles. 2. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment is consistent with the goal and objectives of the Margarita Village Specific Plan because the amendment permits the development of homes of desirable character that will be compatible with both the existing and proposed development in the surrounding area. 3. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment will not affect the public interest, health, safety, convenience or welfare of the City because the changes relate to the Design Guidelines and do not alter any element of the Specific Plan affecting these concems. Attachments: 1. PC Resolution - Blue Page 4 Exhibit A - City Council Ordinance - Blue Page 7 Exhibit B - City Council Resolution - Blue Page11 2. Margarita Village Specific Plan Affected Pages - Blue Page 15 3. Statement of Justification - Blue Page16 4. Vicinity Map - Blue Page 17 5. Specific Plan Land Use Map - Blue Page 19 3 R:\S P'Margarita Village SPlAmendmenl5 PAllO-0261\sTAFFRPT PC.doc e e e ATTACHMENT NO.1 PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000- 4 R:IS P'Margarilll Village SPlAmendment 5 PA()().q.!61ISTAFFRPT PC.doc e e e ATTACHMENT NO.1 RESOLUTION NO. 00-_ A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PAOO-0261 (SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT NO.5) TO AMEND THE TEXT WITHIN THE MARGARITA VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN'S DESIGN GUIDELINES, FOR VILLAGE "B" , RELATED TO THE SIZE AND VARIATION OF RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS TO BE BUILT IN PLANNING AREAS 8 AND 10/11/12, GENERALLY LOCATED NORTH OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD OFF OF PROMENADE CHARDONNAY HILLS, EAST OF MEADOWS PARKWAY SOUTH OF PARDUCCI LANE AND NORTH OF RUE JADOT CONSISTING OF ALL LOTS IN TRACT NO'S. 23100-6, -7, AND -8. WHEREAS, Lennar Homes (the "Applicant") filed Planning Application No. PAOO-0261 (the "Application"), in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code; WHEREAS, the Application was processed including, but notlimited to public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered this Application on September 20,2000, at a duly noticed publiC hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff, the Applicant, and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support or opposition to this matter; WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing and after due consideration of the testimony, the Commission recommended approval ofthe Application subject to conditions after finding that the project proposed in the Application conformed to the City of Temecula General Plan; NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. FindinQs. A. The Planning Commission in recommending approval of the Application, makes the following findings: 1. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment is consistent with the General Plan and the Margarita Village Specific Plan because the amendment maintains a variety of home sizes and styles. 2. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Margarita Village Specific Plan because the amendment permits the development of homes of desirable character that will be compatible with both the existing and proposed development in the surrounding area. 5 R:\S P\Margarita Village SPlAmendment 5 PAOO-0261\STAFFRPT PC.doc 3. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment will not affect the public interest, health, safety, convenience or welfare of the City because the changes relate to the Design Guidelines and do not alter any element of the Specific Plan affecting these concems. Section 2. The City ofTemecula Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council approve the modifications to the Design Guidelines for Village "B" contained in the Margarita Village Specific Plan as contained in Exhibit A, substantially in the form contained herein. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 20th day of September, 2000. Ron Guerriero, Chairperson I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 2011I day of September, 2000 by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary 6 R:IS P'Margarita Village SPlAmendmenl 5 PAllO-02611STAFFRPT PC.doc e e e e e e EXHIBIT A CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE 7 R:IS P'Margarlta Village SPlAmenclmenl5 PA00-02611STAFFRPT PC.doc e e e EXHISIT A ORDINANCE NO. 00-_ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PAOO- 0261 (SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT NO.5), TO AMEND THE TEXT WITHIN THE MARGARITA VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN'S DESIGN GUIDELINES, FOR VILLAGE "B", RELATED TO THE SIZE AND VARIATION OF RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS TO BE BUILT IN PLANNING AREAS 8 AND 10/11/12, GENERALLY LOCATED NORTH OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD OFF OF PROMENADE CHARDONNAY HILLS, EAST OF MEADOWS PARKWAY SOUTH OF PARDUCCI LANE AND NORTH OF RUE JADOT CONSISTING OF ALL LOTS IN TRACT NO'S. 23100-6, -7, AND '8. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Chapter III - Design Guidelines, Section C.3. - Village "S" Architectural Guidelines, for the Margarita Village Specific Plan are hereby amended: A. Subsection b. Suildinq Mass. Form. and Scale, the first paragraph is hereby amended to read as follows: "Home sizes are depicted below. If changes to the home sizes are desired they may be administratively approved by the Director of Planning without amending this Specific Plan." S. First bullet changed to delete Planning Areas 8 & 10/11/12. . "The homes in Planning Areas 2 and 3, 8, and 10111/12 shall range in size from 1,500 sq. ft. to approximately 2,600 sq. ft. and a minimum to five (5) floor plans shall be provided." C. New bullet added to change what had been 2,600 sq. fl. to 3,700 sq. fl. and five (5) floor plans to three (3) floor plans. . "The homes in Planning Areas 8 and 10/11/12 shall range in size from 1,500 sq. ft. to approximately 3,700 sq. ft. and a minimum to three (3) floor plans shall be provided." Section 2. following findings: Findinqs. In adopting this Ordinance, the City Council hereby makes the A. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment is consistent with the General Plan and the Margarita Village Specific Plan because the amendment maintains a variety of home sizes and styles. 8 R:\S P\Margarita Village SP\Amendment 5 PAOQ-0261 \ST AFFRPT PC.doc B. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Margarita Village Specific Plan because the amendment permits the development of homes of desirable character that will be compatible with both the existing and proposed development in the surrounding area. e C. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment will not affect the public interest, health, safety, convenience or welfare ofthe City because the changes relate to the Design Guidelines and do not alter any element of the Specific Plan affecting these concems.. Section 3. Environmental Determination. These minor amendments affect only the unit sizes and number of variations found in the Design Guidelines of the Margarita Village Specific Plan. The Margarita Village Specific Plan includes a variety of design standards, which were part of the consideration of the previous Environment Impact Report for the Margarita Village Specific Plan, as well as the Final Environmental Impact Report for the City General Plan. The changes requested are all within the range of Design Guidelines previously considered. As a result, the project is exempt from CECA pursuant to Section 15061 (b) (3) and a determination of consistency with a project for which an EIR was previously certified (Section 15162 - subsequent EIRs and Negative Declarations of the CECA Guidelines). Section 4. Severabilitv. The City Council hereby declares that the provisions of this Ordinance are severable and if for any reason a court of competent jurisdiction shall hold any sentence, paragraph, or section of this Ordinance to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining parts of this Ordinance. Section 5. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same to be posted as required by law. e Section 6. 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 7. 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 Council members voting thereon, it shall be published in a newspaper published and circulated in said City. e 9 R:\S PlMargarita Village SP\Amendmen\ 5 PAllO-0261\sTAFFRPT PC.doc e e e PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED, by the City Council of the City of Temecula this 10th day of October, 2000. Jeffrey E. Stone, Mayor ATTEST: Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Susan W. Jones, City Clerk of the City ofTemecula, Califomia, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. _ was duly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 10th day of October, 2000, and that thereafter, said Ordinance was duly adopted and passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Temecula on the _ day of , 2000 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk 10 R:IS PlMargarfta VIllage SP\l\mendmenlS PAoo-o261lSTAFFRPT PC.doc e e e EXHIBIT B CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 11 R:\S P'Margarita Village SPlAmendmenl 5 PA~l\STAFFRPT PC.doc e e e EXHIBIT B RESOLUTION NO. 00-_ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PAOO-0261 (SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT NO.5) TO AMEND THE TEXT WITHIN THE MARGARITA VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN'S DESIGN GUIDELINES, FOR VILLAGE "B", RELATED TO THE SIZE AND VARIATION OF RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS TO BE BUILT IN PLANNING AREAS 8, 10, 11, and 12, GENERALLY LOCATED NORTH OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD OFF OF PROMENADE CHARDONNAY HILLS, EAST OF MEADOWS PARKWAY SOUTH OF PARDUCCI LANE AND NORTH OF RUE JADOT CONSISTING OF ALL LOTS IN TRACT NO'S. 23100-6, -7, AND -8. WHEREAS, Lennar Homes (the "Applicant") filed Planning Application No. PAOO-0261 (the "Application") 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 public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the Application on September 20, 2000, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff, the Applicant, and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support or opposition to this matter; WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing and after due consideration of the testimony, the Commission recommended approval of the Application subject to conditions after finding that the project proposed in the Application conformed to the City of Temecula General Plan; WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing pertaining to the Application on October 10, 2000, at which time interested persons had opportunity to, and did testify either in support or opposition to the Application; WHEREAS, the City Council received a copy of the Commission proceedings and Staff Report regarding the Application; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby incorporated by reference. Section 2. following findings: Findinqs. In adopting this Ordinance, the City Council hereby makes the A. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment is consistent with the General Plan and the Margarita Village Specific Plan because the amendment maintains a variety of home sizes and styles. 12 R:IS PIMargarita Village SPlAmendment 5 PAOO-0261\STAFFRPT PC.doc B. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Margarita Village Specific Plan because the amendment permits the development of homes of desirable character that will be compatible with both the existing and proposed development in the surrounding area. e C. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment will not affect the public interest, health, safety, convenience or welfare of the City because the changes relate to the Design Guidelines and do not alter any element of the Specific Plan affecting these concems. . Section 3. Conditions. The City of Temecula City Council hereby approves the Application to amend the Margarita Village Specific Plan sign standards in Chapter III, Section C.3., Village "B" Architectural Guidelines, for the Margarita Village Specific Plan to read as follows: A. Subsection b. Buildino Mass. Form. and Scale, the first paragraph is hereby amended to read as follows: "Home sizes are depicted below. The Planning Manager may allow changes to the home sizes without amending this Specific Plan." B. First bullet changed to delete Planning Areas 8 & 10/11/12. . "The homes in Planning Areas 2 and 3,8, aRd 1~!11!12 shall range in size from 1,500 sq. ft. to approximately 2,600 sq. ft. and a minimum to five (5) floor plans shall be provided." C. New bullet added to change what had been 2,600 sq. ft. to 3,7000 sq. ft. and five (5) to three (3). e . "The homes in Planning Areas 8 and 10/11/12 shall range in size from 1,500 sq. ft. to approximately 3,700 sq. ft. and a minimum to three (3) floor plans shall be provided." Section 4. Environmental Determination. These minor amendments affect only the unit sizes and number of floor plan variations found in the Design Guidelines of the Margarita Village Specific Plan. The Margarita Village Specific Plan includes a variety of design standards, which were part of the consideration of the previous Environment Impact Report for the Margarita Village Specific Plan, as well as the Final Environmental Impact Report for the City General Plan. The changes requested are all within the range of Design Guidelines previously considered. As a result, the project is exempt from CECA pursuant to Section 15061 (b) (3) and a determination of consistency with a project for which an EIR was previously certified (Section 15162 - subsequent EIRs and Negative Declarations of the CECA Guidelines). Section 5. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resolution. e 13 R:IS PlMargarila Village SPIAmendment 5 PA00-02611STAFFRPT PC.doc e e e Section 6. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED, by the City Council of the City of Temecula this 10th day of October, 2000. Jeffrey E. Stone, Mayor ATTEST: Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Susan W. Jones, City Clerk of the City ofTemecula, California, do hereby certify that Resolution No. was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the _ day of , 2000, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk 14 R:IS PlMargarffa Village SPlAmendmenl 5 PAlJG.02611STAFFRPT PC.doc e e e ATTACHMENT NO.2 MARGARITA VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN AFFECTED PAGES 15 R:\S PlMargarita Village SPlAmendmenlS PA~l\STAFFRPT PC.doc e e e Margarita Village III. Design Guidelines 3. Village "B" Architectural Guidelines a. Introduction Village "B" shall contain two basic architectural motifs and a third custom area adjacent to the Vineyards on the eastern boundary of the property. Because the two neighborhoods will comprise the majority of Village "B", these guidelines will predominantly address those areas. The basic architectural themes for Village "B" will be Spanish, Mediterranean, and French Manor. Planning Areas 2, 3, 8, and 10/11112 will have a combination of Mediterranean and French elevation styles. Planning Areas 4 and 6 will have a combination of Spanish and Mediterranean elevations. The Custom homes in Planning Areas 7 and 9 shall combine all three elevation styles: French, Spanish and Mediterranean. This is a natural combination of styles for the Rancho California area and will provide a variety of elevations as well as giving each development area a separate character. The Mediterranean style will provide the blend between the various planning areas and the Spanish and French will provide the necessary agent to keep the visual interest within the projects. All design elements used in Village "B" should work together to achieve a sense of neighborhood identity. b. Building Mass. Form. and Scale Village "B" shall include a range of dwelling unit sizes in proportion to the size of the project. Home sizes are depicted below. If changes to the home sizes are desired they may be administratively approved by the Director of Planning without amending this Specific Plan. There shall also be a variety of elevation types per plan throughout the project. A sense of neighborhood will be accomplished by manipulating the building mass, form, and scale within each planning area. . The homes in Planning Areas 2 and 3, 8, BRa 19.'1 1.'12 shall range in size from 1,500 sq. ft. to approximately 2,600 sq. sq. ft. and a minimum of five (5) floor plans shall be provided. . The homes in Planning Areas 8, and 1011 1/12 shall range in size from 1,500 sq. ft. to approximately 3,700 sq. ft. and a minimum of three (3) floor plans shall be provided. . The homes in Planning Areas 4 and 6 shall range in size from 1,200 sq. ft. to approximately 2,100 sq. ft. with a minimum of five (5) floor plans. . The Custom homes in Planning Areas 7 and 9 shall have a minimum of 1,800 sq. ft. of living area. . The structures will consist of one and two story elevations with the one story elements being used at front setbacks and at comer lot configurations. . The two story structures will have stepped back second floors to reduce any adverse visual impact as well as one story roof elements to improve blend between adjacent structures. . The combination of one and two story structures will provide vertical height differences within the community. Specific Plan No. 199: Amendment No.5 Page 111- 13 e e e ATTACHMENT NO.3 LETTER OF JUSTIFICATION 16 R:IS PlMargarita Village SPlAmendmenl 5 PAClO-02611STAFFRPT PC.doc e Justification for Amendment No.5: Margarita Village Specific Plan The Riverside County Board of Supervisors (Board) originally adopted the Margarita Village Specific Plan in 1986. The Board approved Amendment No. 1 in September 1988. The City of Temecula City Council approved Amendments No.2, 3 and 4 in March, 1996, October, 1997 and January, 1998 respectively. The majority of the Specific Plan area has been built out as of June 2000. Lennar Homes is proposing Amendment No. 5 to the Specific Plan, to increase the home sizes allowed in Planning Area 8 of the Specific Plan (TM 23100-6, TM 23100-7 and TM 23100-8), which is comprised of seventy-nine (79) parcels. This is within Village "B" of the Specific Plan. According to Section III.C.3 (Village "B" Architectural Guidelines), the current range in this Planning Area is 1 ,500 square feet to 2,600 square feet. In response to market demand, Lennar Homes is proposing to increase the upper end of the range to 3,700 square feet. They are proposing these homes on the largest lots within the phases of TM 23100. As stated in Section IliA (Design Guidelines, Purpose and Intent): "The Design Guidelines provided herein are intended as a living document. They are subject to modification over time so as to allow for response to unanticipated conditions, such as changes in taste, community desire and the marketplace, as well as amendments to the Specific Plan itself," It is with this Specific Plan policy guidance that Lennar Homes is proposing the current Amendment. e Lennar Homes is not proposing any other Amendment to the Specific Plan. They have reviewed the existing Development Standards and Design Guidelines and have determined that the larger homes will meet the established setbacks, lot coverage, height restrictions and design intent in effect under the current Specific Plan. e R:\S P\Margarita Village SP\A.mendment 5 PAOO-0261Vustification for SPA.doc 09/12/00 e e e ATTACHMENT NO.4 VICINITY MAP 17 R:IS P\Margarita Village SPlAmendmenl5 PA00-02611STAFFRPT PC.doc e CITY OF TEMECULA e . I ract 23100-6 l!!4 ract23100-7 ract 23100-8 r'TI P1aonlna Anoe c:.n Terneku HntslMa arlta VII . SP "\ . lOll ....... ({) e CASE NO.OO -0261 (SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT) EXHIBIT - A PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - September 20,2000 . VICINITY MAP 18 R:IS P'Margarila Village SPlAmendmenl5 PA00-02611ST AFFRPT PC.doc e e e . ATTACHMENT NO.5 SPECIFIC PLAN LAND USE MAP 19 R:IS P'Margarita Village SPlAmendmenl 5 PAllO-02611STAFFRPT PC.doc e CITY OF TEMECULA " . U . T&.B Planning Consultan~ 1~>>OHo\UAlM~wmlllO 1oW~_CAtl.iWII5r7U1fQ~ ., 08tItlIN 0tM. sum JW ~ -MNOUC;;o. CAUf.tmI_l....... RGURE 11.3 PROPOSED SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT#3 SPECIFIC LAND USE PLAN Margarita Village CASE NO.OO -0261 (SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT) EXHIBIT - A PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - September 20, 2000 SPECIFIC PLAN LAND USE MAP 20 R:IS PlMargarila Village SPlAmendment 5 PA00-02611STAFFRPT PC.doc e ITEM #7 e e e e e STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION Date: September 20,2000 Planning Application No. PA 00-0350 (Specific Plan Amendment) Prepared By: Patty Anders, Associate Planner RECOMMENDATION: The Community Development Department - Planning Division Staff recommends the Planning Commission: 1. ADOPT a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. PAOO-0350 pursuant to Section 15061 (b) (3) of the CEQA Guidelines; and 2. ADOPT a Resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE PLANNING APPUCATlON NO. PAOO-0350 (SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT) TO AMEND THE SIGN STANDARDS IN CHAPTERS III AND IV OF THE OLD TOWN SPECIFIC PLAN. BACKGROUND Merchants in the Old Town area have requested the City Council and Planning Staff to consider a revision to the sign standards in the Old Town Specific Plan to allow merchants on side streets to have modified sign age when the existing buildings are set back from the street and their visibility is limited. The goal is to help merchants on side streets increase their visibility while maintaining the character and intent of the Old Town Specific Plan sign standards. The result was modifications to Chapters III and IV of the Old Town Specific Plan (OTSP) relative to monument signs and the associated cross-references. PROPOSED SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT The proposed Specific Plan Amendment will allow flexibility in the sign standards to increase visibility to merchants on the side streets in Old Town Temecula with existing buildings that are set back from the street. The monument sign regulations are being modified to allow two types of monument signs whereas currently there is only one type of monument sign type. The first is the existing monument sign that requires 150' of linear frontage, can be six feet in height and allows up to sixteen square feet of sign area. The second is the new MMini- MonumentM sign. Mini-Monument signs are allowed in the front setback area (outside of the public right-of-way). can be six square feet and up to four feet in height. This would replace the option of having a projecting sign, which is also permitted up to six square feet. A merchant can have either one Mini-Monument or one projecting sign, but not both. The Mini- Monument is required to be placed on a wooden structure. However, if the sign is placed on a creative, time appropriate architectural element such as a covered wagon, wagon wheel or railroad cart as defined in Chapter 3, Subsection 9.7.p. (Outdoor Display) of the Old Town R:lOldlownIPJan AmendmentsIPAlJO.035O (Sign AmendmtsISTAFFRPT.PC.doc 1 Specific Plan, the height of the sign may be increased. The Planning Director shall determine the height limit for the architectural element on a case-by-case basis. In order to obtain the increased height. the architectural element must be reviewed and approved by the Old Town Local Review Board and the Director of Planning. e The Specific Plan amendment will also clarify sign standards, correct some typographical errors and allow the number of sign colors to be increased from three to four to allow more creative, unique sign designs. There is also a provision to allow generic, direction signs to be placed on the existing street name poles. At such time the location and design of the directional signs are determined, the signs will be brought back to the Planning Commission for their review. The most significant amendments to the sign standards are as follows: Chapter III SectIon G. Sign Reguiations (See Attachment 2. Existing S"ecffic Pian Pages): A. Subsection 3 (c), page 111-48, paragraph is hereby amended to read as follows: * Any project that proposes to provide space for more than one tenant shall iRsiaate tl:1e size BREI apprS)(iffiate toastieR at all SigAS te t:.e ereetea SA tRB prapert'( provide a comprehensive sign plan prior to. The comprehensive sign plan shall indicate the size, approximate location, color and material of all signs to be erected on the property at the time of initial application. Signs shall be shown on elevation drawings with accurate dimensions provided. The Director may also require the following information:* B. Subsection 5. Prohibited Signs in Old Town, page 111-49, the first bullet item is hereby modified to read as follows: e "Freestanding signs on lots with less than 150' of frontage er llllilsiRgS with setbaaks on a single street and buildings with front yard setbacks of ten (10) feet or greater less". C. Subsection 6. Permitted Signs in Old Town, page 111-49, add a new bullet at the beginning of this section to read as follows: "Mini-Monument Signs for lots with buildings that have actual front yarr/s of mOnJ than ten (10) feet that were constructed prior to 1994." D. Subsection 7. (d) Sign Standards pages III-51 and III-52 shall be modified to allow the provision of Mini-Monument signs. This section is hereby modified to read as follows: "d. Monument Signs - one of the following sign types may be permitted per site If the following nJquirements are met: 1. Monument - A maximum of one double face sign !ler street frontage if said street frontage is over 150 feet on anyone street. The maximum square footage of a freestanding sign shall be 16 square feet. Height of sign shall not exceed six (6) feet above grade. Width shall not exceed four (4) feet. Each tenant placard shall not exceed 12" high. Sign may only be indirectly illuminated. Intemal illumination is prohibited. e R:\OldtownIPlan AmendmentsIPAOG-035O (Sign AmendmtsISTAFFRPT.PC.doc 2 e e e 2. Mini-Monument - Msximum of one double fsce sign if ssid stnHIt frontsge is less thsn 150 fllBt on sny one street, if the building existed prior to 1994 snd if the building is set bsck ten (f01 feet or more from the street. The msximum sign sres is six (61 squsre fllBt with s msximum height of four (4) feet. The sign msy be plsced in the front ysrd setbsck for incressed visibl7ity, but not within the public right-of-wsy. No illuminstion is silo wed. H s bUl7ding hss more thsn one tensnt or building per lot, there shsll only be one Mini-Monument sllowed. H s sign is plsced on s crestive, time sppropriste srchitectursle/ement such ss s covered wsgon, wsgon wheel, rsi/rosd csrt, etc. (ss defined in Subssction 9.7.p.l, the height msy be incresssd. The sTChitectursle/ement must be reviewed snd spprov8d by the Old Town Locsl Review 80srd snd the Director of P1snning. - Chst1ter IV (See Attschment 3, A""lIcsble S"ecHlc Plsn PsaesJ: E. Subsection A. 4 (e), page IV-4, add a new tt' bullet to read as follows: "Mlnl.Monument signs located on architectural featuras that exceed the stendarr/ height requirement to four feet" F. Subsection E. 2, Guideline 3-Sign Color, page IV-47, revise the third bullet, first line to read as follows: "Limit colors to tI=lree four on a single sign." G. Subsection G. 4 (c), Street Name Pole Signs, page IV-69, modify this paragraph to read as follows: "These signs will be simple wood construction similar to the existing wood signs currently located in Old Town. Old Town's logo may be incorporated into the street name placard or pole. Generic directional signs may be added to the existing street name poles or light poles, provided the signs are approved by the applicable City Departments. " ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION These minor amendments to the sign standards concentrate on sign age for buildings that were in existence prior to the adoption of the Old Town Specific Plan. Any potential physical impacts to the environment associated with implementing the Old Town Specific Plan were included in the previous Negative Declarations for the Old Town Specific Plan, as well as the Final Environmental Impact Report for the City General Plan. As a result, the project is exempt from CEQA, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061 (b) (3). GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING CONSISTENCY The proposed sign modifications are consistent with the General Plan and the intent of the Old Town Specific Plan because it helps promote the revitalization of Old Town by assisting businesses to have adequate signage to enhance business opportunities which in tum helps to revitalize Old Town. R:\OIdlownIPIan AmendmentsIPAllO-035O (Sign AmeI.dlubo\STAFFRPT.PC.doc 3 SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS The proposed sign amendments to the Old Town Specific Plan are intended to allow merchants on side streets to have modified sign standards due to their limited visibility while maintaining the character and intent of the Old Town Specific Plan sign standards. FINDINGS A. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment is consistent with the General Plan and the Old Town Specific Plan because it helps promote the revitalization of Old Town by assisting businesses to have adequate signage to enhance business opportunities. B. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment promotes the public interest, health, safety, convenience or welfare of the City because the City will be providing businesses with appropriate signage to help promote business opportunities in Old Town. C. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment ensures the development of desirable charaderthat will be compatible with both the existing and proposed development in the surrounding area and would promote the preservation of the historic character of Old Town. Attachments: 1. PC Resolution - Blue Page 5 Exhibit A - City Council Ordinance - Blue Page 8 Exhibit B - City Council Resolution - Blue Page 12 2. Chapter III, Old Town Specific Plan Affected Pages - Blue Page 16 3. Chapter IV, Old Town Specific Plan Affected Pages - Blue Page 17 4. Vicinity Map - Blue Page 18 R:lOldtownlPlan AmendmentsIPAOCl-035O (Sign AmendrntsISTAFFRPT.PC.doc 4 e e e e e e ATTACHMENT NO.1 PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000- R:\OldIownIPlan AmendmentsIPAOO-035O (Sign AmendmtsISTAFFRPT.PC.cloc 5 e e e ATTACHMENT' 1 RESOLUTION NO. 00-_ A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE PLANNING APPUCATION NO. 00- 0350 (SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT) TO AMEND THE SIGN STANDARDS IN CHAPTERS III AND IV OF THE OLD TOWN SPECIFIC PLAN. WHEREAS, the City of Temecula filed Planning Application No. 00-0350 (the "Application"), 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 public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered this Application on September 20,2000, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support or opposition to this matter; WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing and after due consideration of the testimony, the Commission recommended approval of the Application subject to conditions after finding that the project proposed in the Application conformed to the City ofTemecula General Plan; NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOUOWS: Section 1. Findinas. The Planning Commission in recommending approval of the Application, makes the following findings: 1. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment is consistent with the General Plan and the Old Town Specific Plan because it helps promote the revitalization of Old Town by assisting businesses to have adequate signage to enhance business opportunities. 2. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment promotes the public interest, health, safety, convenience or welfare of the City because the City will be providing businesses with appropriate signage to help promote business opportunities in Old Town. 3. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment ensures the development of desirable character that will be compatible with both the existing and proposed development in the surrounding area and would promote the preservation of the historic character of Old Town. Section 2. The City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council approve the modifications to the sign standards contained in the Old Town Specific Plan as contained in Exhibits A and 8, substantially in the form contained herein. R:\OldtownlPlan AmendmentsIPAClO-035O (Sign AmendmtaISTAFFRPT.PC.doc 6 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 20th day of September, 2000. Ron Guerriero, Chairperson I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 20lh day of September, 2000 by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: R:\OldlownIPlan AmendmentsIPAOO-035O (Sign AmendmtsISTAFFRPT.PC.doc 7 Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary e e e e e e Exhibit A CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE R:\OIdtownIPIan AmendmentsIPAOO-035O (Sign AmendmtsISTAFFRPT.PC.doc 8 e e e EXHIBIT A ORDINANCE NO. DO-_ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, CAUFORNIA, AMENDING PORTIONS OF CHAPTER III SIGN REGULATIONS FOR THE OLD TOWN SPECIFIC PLAN PLANNING APPUCATION NO. 00-0350 (SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT). . THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Chapter III, Section G, Sign Regulations, for the Old Town Specific Plan are hereby amended: A. Subsection 3 (c), the first paragraph is hereby amended to read as follows: " "Any project that proposes to provide space for more than one tenant shall provide a comprehensive sign plan. The comprehensive sign plan shall indicate the size and approximate location of all signs to be erected on the property at the time of initial application. Signs shall be shown on elevation drawings with accurate dimensions provided. The Director may also require the following information:" B. Subsection 5. Prohibited Signs in Old Town. The first bullet item is hereby modified to read as follows: "Freestanding signs on lots with less than 150' of frontage on a single street and buildings with front yard setbacks of ten (10) feet or less". C. Subsection 6. Permitted Signs in Old Town. Add a new bullet at the beginning of this section to read as follows: "Mini-Monument Signs for lots with buildings that have actual front yards of more than ten (10) feet that were constructed prior to 1994." D. Subsection 7. (d) Sign Standards shall be modified to allow the provision of Mini- Monument signs. This section is hereby modified to read as follows: "d. Monument Signs - one of the following sign types may be permitted per site if the following requirements are met: 1. Monument - A maximum of one double face sign if said street frontage is over 150 feet on anyone street. The maximum square footage of a freestanding sign shall be 16 square feet. Height of sign shall not exceed six (6) feet above grade. Width shall not exceed four (4) feet. Each tenant placard shall not exceed 12" high. Sign may only be indirectly illuminated. Intemal illumination is prohibited. . 2. Mini-Monument - Maximum of one double face sign if said street frontage is less than 150 feet on anyone street, if the building existed prior to 1994 and if the building is set back ten (10) feet or more from the street. The maximum sign area is six (6) square feet with a maximum height of four (4) feet. The sign may be placed in the front yard setback for increased visibility, but not within the public right-of-way. No illumination is R:\OldIownIPlan AmendmentsIPAlJG.035O (Sign Amendmts\STAFFRPT.PC.doc 9 allowed. If a building has more than one tenant or building per lot, there shall only be one Mini-Monument allowed. If a sign is placed on a creative, time appropriate architectural element such as a covered wagon, wagon wheel, railroad cart, etc. (as defined in Subsection 9.7.p.1. the height may be increased. The architectural element must be reviewed and approved by the Old Town Local Review Board and the Director of Planning." e E. Subsection 7 (h) Sign Standards shall be modified to insert the following sentence at the end of the existing paragraph: "Each tenant may have a projecting sign, however no tenant may have both a projecting sign and a Mini-Monument sign." F. as follows: The following amendments are typographical errors and should be amended to read Subsection 7 (n), in the first line, the word "year" should be replaced with "rear". Subsection 7. (0) the word "are" should be replaced with "area". Section 2. following findings: Findinas. In adopting this Ordinance, the City Council hereby makes the 1. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment is consistent with the General Plan and the Old Town Specific Plan because it helps promote the revitalization of Old Town by aSSisting businesses to have adequate signage to enhance business opportunities. 2. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment promotes the public interest, health, safety, convenience or welfare of the City because the City will be providing businesses with appropriate signage to help promote business opportunities in Old Town. e 3. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment ensures the development of desirable character that will be compatible with both the existing and proposed development in the surrounding area and would promote the preservation of the historic character of Old Town. Section 3. Environmental Determination. These minor amendments to the sign ordinance concentrate on signage for buildings that were in existence prior to the adoption of the Old Town Specific Plan. Approval of these modifications does not have the potential to cause a significant impact on the environment. Any potential physical impacts to the environment associated with implementing the Old Town Specific Plan were included in the previous Negative Declarations for the Old Town Specific Plan, as well as the Final Environmental Impact Report for the City General Plan. As a result, the project is exempt from CECA, pursuant to CECA Guidelines Section 15061 (b) (3). Section 4. Severability. The City Council hereby declares that the provisions of this Ordinance are severable and if for any reason a court of competent jurisdiction shall hold any sentence, paragraph, or section of this Ordinance to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining parts of this Ordinance. . Section 5. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same to be posted as required by law. e R:\OldtownlPlan AmendmentsIPAoo.o35O (Sign AmendmtsISTAFFRPT.PC.doc 10 e e e Section 6. 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 7. 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 Council members voting thereon, it shall be published in a newspaper published and circulated in said City. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED, by the City Council of the City of Temecula this 26th day of September, 2000. ATTEST: Steven J. Ford, Mayor Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Susan W. Jones, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, Califomia, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. _ was duly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 26th day of September, 2000, and that thereafter, said Ordinance was duly adopted and passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Temecula on the _ day of , 2000 by the following roll call vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: ABSENT: Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk R:\OldlownIPlan AmendmentaIPAOO-035O (Sign AmendmtaISTAFFRPT.PC.doc 11 e e e EXHIBIT B CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION R:\Oldtown\P1an Amendments\PAOll-035O (Sign Amendmls\STAFFRPT.PC.doc 12 e e e EXHIBIT B RESOLUTION NO. 00-_ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PAOO- 0350 (SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT), TO AMEND THE SIGN STANDARDS IN CHAPTER IV OF THE OLD TOWN SPECIFIC PLAN. WHEREAS, the City of Temecula filed Planning Application No. PAOo-0350 (the "Application") 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 public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the Application on September 20; 2000, at a duly noticed publiC hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support or opposition to this matter; WHEREAS, at the conclusion ofthe Commission hearing and after due consideration of the testimony, the Commission recommended approval of the Application subject to conditions after finding that the project proposed in the Application conformed to the City ofTemecula General Plan; WHEREAS, the'City Council conducted a public hearing pertaining to the Application on September 26, 2000, at which time interested persons had opportunity to, and did testify either in support or opposition to the Application; WHEREAS, the City Council received a copy of the Commission proceedings and Staff Report regarding the Application; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby incorporated by reference. Section 2. following findings: Findinas. In adopting this Ordinance, the City Council hereby makes the A. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment is consistent with the General Plan and the Old Town Specific Plan because it helps promote the revitalization of Old Town by assisting businesses to have adequate signage to help enhance business opportunities. B. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment promotes the public interest, health, safety, convenience or welfare of the City because the City will be providing businesses with appropriate signage to help promote business opportunities in Old Town. C. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment ensures the development of desirable character that will be compatible with both the existing and proposed development in the surrounding area and would promote the preservation of the historic character of Old Town. R:\OIdlownIPlan AmendmentsIPAOO-035O (Sign AmendmtsISTAFFRPT.PC.doc 13 Section 3. Conditions. The City of Temecula City Council hereby approves the ,6 Application to amend the Old Town Specific Plan sign standards in Chapter IV to read as follow: _ D. Subsection A. 4 (e), add a new 71h bullet to read as follows: "Mini-Monument signs located on architectural features that exceed the standard height requirement to four feet.. E. Subsection E. 2, Guideline 3 - Sign Color, revise the third bullet, first line to read as follows: "Umit colors to four on a single sign.. F. Subsection G. 4 (c), add a sentence to the end of the existing paragraph which reads "Generic directional signs may be added to the existing street name poles provided the signs are approved by the applicable City Departments.. Section 4. Environmental Determination. These minor amendments to the sign regulations concentrate on sign age for buildings that were in existence prior to the adoption of the Old Town Specific Plan. Approval of these modifications does not have the potential to cause a significant impact on the environment. Any potential physical impacts to the environment associated with implementing the Old Town Specific Plan were included in the previous Negative Declarations for the Old Town Specific Plan, as well as the Final Environmental Impact Report for the City General Plan. As a result, the project is exempt from CEQA, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061 (b) (3). . Section 5. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resolution. e e R:\OldtownlPlan AmendmentsIPAOll-035O (Sign AmendmtsISTAFFRPT,PC.doc 14 e e e Section 6. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED, by the City Council of the City of Temecula this 26th day of September, 2000. ATTEST: Jeffrey E. Stone, Mayor Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Susan W. Jones, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, California, do hereby certify that Resolution No. was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City ofTemecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the _ day of , 2000, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk R:\OldtownlPlan AmendmentaIPAllO-035O (Sign AmendmtaISTAFFRPT.PC.doc 15 e e e ATTACHMENT NO.2 CHAPTER III, OLD TOWN SPECIFIC PLAN EXISTING PAGES R:\OIdlownIPIan AmendmentsIPAoom5O (Sign AmendmtsISTAFFRPT.PC.doc 16 e e e G. SIGl'\ REGULATIONS The purpose of the sign regulations is to provide the means for adequate identification of buildings and businesses by regulating and controlling the design, size, and location of all signs within the Specific Plan area except the Highway Tourist Commercial District, Medium Density Residential District, High Density Residential District, and the Community Commercial District where the sign requirements of the Development Code shall apply. These regulations do not apply to service stations. The requirements of the Development Code shall apply for service stations. The intent of these regulations is to establish specific standards for all exterior signing that will ensure continuity, consistency, and harmony with the architectural quality of the Old Town environment as it may have appeared in the early 1900's. 1. Comoliance Reouired No person shall erect, reerect, construct, enlarge, alter, move, improve, remove, convert, or equip any sign or sign structure or cause or permit the same to be done contrary to or in violation of any of the provisions of these sign regulations. 2. Uncertainty Of Silm Relrolations If a situation arises that is not covered by these sign regulations or there is ambiguity as to these regulations or the type of permit required, the Director shall provide written intetpretation after consulting the Development Code. 3. General Silm Standards a. The area of a wall sign or logo with individual letters shall be measured by a rectangle around the outside of the lettering andlor the pictorial symbol. b. Planning and Building Departments review and approval is required prior to the placing, erecting, moving, or reconstructing of any sign within the Specific Plan area, unless expressly exempted. c. Any project that proposes to provide space for more than one tenant shall indicate the size and approximate location of all signs to be erected on the property at the time of initial application. Signs shall be shown on elevation drawings with accurate dimensions provided. The Director may also require the following information: . . . Method of illumination; Sign materials and colors; and Method of attachment. m-48 Qry of Temecula Old Town Specific Plan 4. d. All pennanent signs shall require a pennit prior to erecting or attaching the sign. Exempt Signs e · Historical markers 5. Prohibited Si~s in Old Town · Freestanding signs on lots with less than 150' of road frontage or buildings with setbacks of 10' or greater · Roof mounted signs · Animated signs, including time and temperature displays · Rotating, moving, emitting, or flashing signs · Balloon signs · Ambient air balloons · Internally illuminated signs including window locations · Neon tube signs · Window signs above the second story · Paper, cloth, or plastic streamers or bunting - except holiday decorations · Fonned plastic or injection molded signs · Statues used for advertising · Traffic sign replicas · Vehicle signs a · Internally illuminated awnings .. · Backlit illuminated awnings . Plywood Signs · Signs mounted on railings, banisters, balusters or porch columns · Four or more non-governmental flags · Any sign prohibited by the Development Code and not expressly "Pennitted" in this SpecificPlan 6. Pennitted Si~s . . . . . . . . . . . . Wall Signs (business identification) Supergraphics Building Name Signs Freestanding Signs Window Signs Under Canopy Signs Awning Signs Projecting Signs Temporary A-Frame or Sandwich Board Signs Temporary Signs Flags, Non-governmental, 3 or less Accessory Signs e City of TemecuJa Old Town Specific Plan 1lJ - 49 7. Si!!J1 Standards e Business establishments having single frontage onto a public street or buildings with one building entrance are permitted a maximum total square footage equal to 1.5 square feet per linear front foot of business establishment. Each business may use any combination of the following signs to arrive at the total allowable square footage. However, each sign shall not exceed the maximum square footage prescribed below. Business establishments having frontage onto two public streets are permitted a maximum total square footage equal to 1.5 square feet per linear front fOOl of business establishment along the primary street and 0.5 square feet per linear front foot of business establishment along the secondary street. Each business may use any combination of the following signs to arrive at the total allowable square footage. However, each sign shall not exceed the maximum square footage prescribed below. a. Wall Signs Maximum of one square foot per linear front foot of business establishment. To be located not higher than the lowest of the following: e . . . 25 feet above grade; Bottom of the sill line of the second floor windows; or Cornice line of the building. b. Supergraphics The pUIpOse of allowing wall supergraphics is to allow the advertising or depiction of products that may have been available in an 1890's marketplace. Maximum size shall not exceed 60 % of wall surface. c. Building Name Signs The pUIpOse of allowing is building name signs is to allow the identification of buildings. Maximum size shall not exceed 10 % of wall surface of the building. In the event that a building name advertises one or more businesses located within said building, the signage will not be considered a building name sign but will be included in total square footage permitted for that business or building. d. Monument Signs e Maximum of one double face sign per street frontage if said street frontage is over 150 feet. The maximum square footage of a freestanding sign shall be 16 square feet. Height of sign shall not exceed 6 feet above Ciry of Temecula Old Town Specific Plan 111- 51 grade. Width shall not exceed 4 feet. Each tenant placard shall not exceed 12" high. Sign may only be indirectly illuminated. Internal _ illumination is prohibited. . e. Permanent Window Signs On ground level, coverage shall not exceed 20 percent of the total window and door area visible from the exterior of the building; on second level, coverage shall not exceed 30 percent per window. (No window signs are permitted above second level). f. Under Canopy Signs Permitted under a canopy, roof, covered walkway, or porch; maximum size of 3 square feet; m;n;mum of 7' vertical clearance shall be required from walking grade to the bottom of the sign. g. Awning Signs On ground floor level; 20 percent maximum coverage allowed of the total exterior surface area of each awning. On the second floor level and above; 10 percent maximum coverage allowed of the total exterior surface area of each awning. Internal illumination prohibited. h. Projecting Signs e Maximum size may not exceed 6 square feet and shall not extend more than 3 feet from the wall surface. No illumination allowed. Projecting signs shall only be attached to buildings, not to poles or other signs. Projecting signs may encroach into the public right-of-way a maximum of 3 feet subject to the approval of the Director. L A-Frame/Sandwich Board Sign One A-frame or sandwich board sign allowed per property for up to 12 days per month (Le. on Friday, Saturday, Sunday). Maximum size of 3.5 feet high by 2 feet wide. No illumination allowed. j. Temporary Signs Temoorarv I!1'3.JId o.penine: and s.pecial event sie:ns are allowed for each business establishment on the exterior wall. Signs shall not be attached to any other freestanding element (porch balustrade, garden wall, tree, monument sign, vehicle, etc.). Signs shall be constructed of cloth, canvas, or other durable material. Plastic or vinyl banner signs are not - permitted. Neon colored/day glow banner signs are prohibited. · III-52 Ciry of Temecula Old Town Specific Plan e e e m. Hanging Signs Permitted under a canopy and parallel to the primary street; maximum size of 6 square; minimum of 7' venical clearance shall be required from walking grade to the bottom of the sign. n. Rear Facing Signs Where a building has parking or pedestrian access at the year of a building, each business is permitted a maximum of one sign, not to exceed 3 square feet in size. o. Interior Facing Signs Where a building has a courtyard or similar area that can not be viewed from the public right-of-way or parking are, each business is permitted a maximum of one sign, not to exceed 5 % of the total wall area of the business. Interior facing signs shall not be counted towards the overall total sign area permitted for the building. p. Outdoor Display The location of replicas of items that were commonly found in the turn of the century, such as covered wagons, wagon wheels, railroad carts, and livestock, located out of the public right-of-way. H. DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVE BONUSES In order to achieve the type and quality of development and revitalization envisioned for the Specific Plan area, certain development incentive bonuses have been established to encourage developers and property owners to panicipate in the various programs described below. Incentive bonuses may be granted at the discretion of the Plannin!! Commission or City Council and nothing contained herein shall obligate the City to provide any of the following bonuses. 1. Pedestrian Amenities Incentive a. Purpose Throughout the Specific Plan area it is desirable to encourage pedestrian oriented spaces within individual commercial building sites such as plazas, courtyards, and seating areas. Such features not only make the pedestrian environment more pleasant but they also add significantly to the overall visual quality of the particular commercial project. 111 - 54 Dry of Temecula Old-Town Specific Plan e e e ATTACHMENT NO.3 CHAPTER IV, OLD TOWN SPECIFIC PLAN EXISTING PAGES R:\OldtownlPlan AmendmentsIPAOO-035O (Sign AmendmtaISTAFFRPT.PC.doc 17 e e e d. What is a Level One Pro;ect? Level One projects do not require OnRB review and are regarded as a minor alteration to an existing property or the construction of an individual house. Plans for development projects which the Planning Direct.:lr (or his designee) feels may be "minor" or "incidental" will be submitted for a "staff onlv" review. Assuming the design is appropriate, and in conformance with these design guidelines, the development proposal is ~ Proved administrativelv. Typical Level One projects include, but are not limited to: . interior changes or alterations; · re-landscaping around existing structure; . re-roofing; . demolition to non historic structures; . single family residence (new construction, additions, remodeling); · new sign face into existing frame or "can" hardware . single signs under 12 square feet; · cumulative exterior modifications to a non-residential buil- ding when less. than 25% of the facade is affected; and . repainting. e. What is a Level Two Proiect? Level Two projects are generally regarded as developments having the potential for silmificant aesthetic impacts on the surrounding area. As a result, Level Two projects reauire a OTLRB review and recommendation prior to the Director's or Planning Commission's action. Typically Level Two Projects include, but are not limited to: . multi-family residential projects; · new commercial, office, or residential projects; · cumulative exterior architectural modifications to an exis- ting commercial, office or residential building when over 25% of the facade is affectel.~; . demolition of a historic structure; . redevelopment to a historic structure; . signs over 12 square feet; iU.d . removal of an oak tree. IV - 4 City of Temecu/a Old Town Specific Plan Guideline 3 ~ Sism Color Sign colors and materials should be elements that were available in the _ 1890'S. See the color palette available at the City Planning Department. ., . Colors should be selected to contribute to legibility and design integrity. Even the most carefully thought out sign may be unat- tractive and a poor communicator because of poor color selection. . Use significant contrast between the background and letter or symbol colors. If there is little contrast between the brightness or hue of the message of a sign and its background, it will be dif- ficult to read. . Umit colors to three on a single sign. Too many colors overwhelm the basic function of communication. The colors compete with content for the viewer's attention. Ilmited use of the accent colors can increase legibility, while large areas of com- peting colors tend to confuse and ilisturb. . Vertical or horizontal wooden signs can be effectively utilized in a variety of different ways on windows, building surfaces or as accent bands. A wooden waIl sign can be painted or stained and sealed for a more natural look, depending upon the appearance _ of the surrounding structures. Lettering can consist of metal or ., raised wood and when placed within a sign band, will serve to unify the building facade. Carved or sandblasted wood signs are also appropriate. . Metal sign panels can utilize raised lettering on metal bands. Printing and lettering can also be applied directly to a flat metal sign band with letters consisting of wood, acrylic or metal. e City of Temecuw Old Town Specific Plan W-47 c. e e e Street Name Pole Silms These signs will be simple wood construction similar to the existing wood signs currently located in Old Town. Old Town's logo may be incorporated into the street name placard or pole. c:::. Front St. STREET SIGN MATCHING RANCHO CALIFORNIA WOODEN STYLE WITH COWBOY LOGO City of Temecula Old Town Specific Plan IV - 69 e e e ATTACHMENT NO.4 VICINITY MAP R:\OldtownlPlan AmendmentsIPAoomso (Sign Amendml8\STAFFRPT.PC.doc 18 CITY OF TEMECULA ~ CASE NO.OO -0350 (SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT) EXHIBIT - A VICINITY MAP PLANNING COMMISSION DATE. September 20,2000 R:\Oldtown\Plan Amendments\PAOIl-035O (Sign Amendmt8\STAFFRPT.PC.doc 19 e ITEM #8 e e e e e STAFF REPORT. PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION September 20, 2000 Planning Application No. 98-0481 - Wolf Creek Specific Plan No. 12 Planning Application No. 98-0482 - Wolf Creek Environmental Impact Report Planning Application No. 98-0484 - General Plan Amendment for Wolf Creek Planning Application No. 00-0052 - Tentative Tract Map No. 29305 Prepared By: Carole K Donahoe, AICP, Associate Planner RECOMMENDATION: The Community Development Department. Planning Division Staff recommends the Planning Commission: 1. ADOPT a Resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FOR WOLF CREEK (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 98-0484), AND APPROVE THE WOLF CREEK SPECIFIC PLAN (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 98-0481) ON PARCELS TOTALING 557 ACRES LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF PALA ROAD, BETWEEN LOMA LINDA ROAD AND FAIRVlEW AVENUE, AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR PARCEL NOS. 950-110-002, -005, -033 AND 950-180-001, -005, -006 AND -010. 2. ADOPT a Resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-0052 - TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 29305, THE SUBDIVISION OF 557 ACRES INTO 47 LOTS WHICH CONFORM TO THE PLANNING AREAS, OPEN SPACE AREAS, SCHOOL AND PARK SITES OF THE WOLF CREEK SPECIFIC PLAN, LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF PALA ROAD, . BETWEEN LOMA LINDA ROAD AND FAIRVlEW AVENUE, AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR PARCEL NOS. 950-110-002, -005, -033 AND 950-180-001, -005, -006 AND -010. R:IS PIWo/f Creek SPISTAFFRPT,PC for &-:zo.oo.doc 3. ADOPT a Resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000- e A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING CERTIFICATION OF THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED FOR THE WOLF CREEK SPECIFIC PLAN AND RELATED ACTIONS (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 98-0482) AND RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM IN CONNECTION THEREWITH FOR THE WOLF CREEK SPECIFIC PLAN, LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF PALA ROAD, BETWEEN LOMA LINDA ROAD AND FAIRVlEW AVENUE, AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR PARCEL NOS. 950-110-002, -005, -033 AND 950-180-001,- 005, -006 AND -010. APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: SP Murdy, LLC REPRESENTATIVES: Bill Griffith and Camille Bahli, Spring Pacific Properties, LLC Barry Bumell, T & B Planning Consultants, Inc. Donald Lohr and Tony Terich, Lohr + Associates, Inc. Sam Alhadeff, Alhadeff & Solar, LLP e STATUS On September 6, 2000, the Planning Commission opened the public hearing and took testimony from nine citizens for, against or neutral to the project. Additionally, Planning Commissioners commented upon the following areas of the Wolf Creek Specific Plan: traffic signals and street widths, village center design, specific plan Zoning Standards and Design Guidelines, and the Final Environmental Impact Report and Mitigation Monitoring Program. The Planning Commission continued the matter for two weeks, in order to receive additional information regarding the proposed regional sports park for Planning Area 24, the former high school site. Commissioners requested that staff, the applicant, and consultants for the project respond to their concems. The applicant was asked to submit a Revised Traffic Study, Specific Plan Land Use Map, Design Guidelines and Mitigation Monitoring Program no later than Wednesday, September 13, 2000. Staff will review the revised documents and prepare a verbal response to the Planning Commission at their hearing on September 20, 2000. e R:IS PIWoIf Creel< SPISTAFFRPT.PC for ~20-00.doc 2 e e e FINDINGS Plannina Aoolication No. 98-0481 - Wolf Creek Soecific Plan No. 12 and Plannina Aoolication No. 98-0484 - General Plan Amendment 1. The project as proposed and conditioned is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community. The project has been reviewed by agencies and staff and determined to be in conformance with the City's General Plan, Development Code, Design Guidelines and Growth Management Program Action Plan. These documents set policies and standards that protect the health, safety and welfare of the community. Access and circulation are adequate for emergency vehicles. 2. The project is compatible with surrounding land uses. The project proposes similar residential neighborhoods adjacent to existing surrounding neighborhoods, with interface buffers and full roadway improvements. Project commercial development is proposed within a Village Center, across Pala Road from the Pechanga Casino. 3. The proposed project will not have an adverse effect on the community because it remains consistent with the goals and policies of the adopted General Plan. The project does not represent a significant change to the planned land uses for the site. The General Plan Amendment is a relocation and reallocation of existing land use designations that conforms to the design of the specific plan. Plannina Aoolication No. 98-0482 - Wolf Creek Environmentallmoact Reoort See Attachment 3 for full text. Plannina Aoolication No. 00-0052 - Tentative Tract Mao No. 29305 4. The proposed subdivision and the design and improvements of the subdivision is consistent with the Development Code, the proposed General Plan Amendment, the Wolf Creek Specific Plan, the City of Temecula Municipal Code and Subdivision Ordinance. 5. The tentative map does not propose to divide land which is subject to a contract entered into pursuant to the Califomia Land Conservation Act of 1965. The Agricultural Preserve status of the property expired in 1989 through the Notice of Nonrenewal Process initiated in 1979. 6. The site is physically suitable for the type and density of development proposed by the tentative map. The site is generally flat topographically, with no unique land features. It is surrounded by existing and developing residential uses, as well as commercial uses generated by the Pechanga Indian Reservation property across Pala Road. 7. The design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements, with conditions of approval, are not likely to cause significant environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. There are no known fish, wildlife or habitat on the project site, and the project will not affect any fish, wildlife or habitat off-site. The site is surrounded by development and is an infill site. 8. An environmental impact report has been prepared and a finding has been made, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(a) (3), finding that specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the environmental impact report; R:IS PIWoIf Creek SPISTAFFRPT.PC for &-20-00.doc 3 9. The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems. 10. The design of the subdivision provides for future passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities in the subdivision to the extent feasible 11. 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, or the design of the alternate easements which are substantially equivalent to those previously acquired by the public will be provided. 12. The subdivision is consistent with the City's parkland dedication requirements (Quimby). 13. Quimby fees have been determined for the Wolf Creek Specific Plan, and the map has been conditioned to provide these fees. Attachments: 1. PC Resolution for the Specific Plan - Blue Page 14 Exhibit A - Wolf Creek Specific Plan text - Under Separate Cover Exhibit B - Conditions of Approval - Revised Conditions at Hearing Exhibit C - General Plan Comparison PC Resolution for Tentative Tract Map No. 29305 - Blue Page 16 Exhibit A - Conditions of Approval - Revised Conditions at Hearing PC Resolution for the Final Environmental Impact Report - Blue Page 1 B Exhibit A - FEIR text - Under Separate Cover Exhibit B - FEIR Technical Appendices - Under Separate Cover Exhibit C - Addendum to the FEIR dated August 23, 2000 - See Staff Report of 9-6-00 Exhibit D - Mitigation Monitoring Program - Revised Program at Hearing Staff Report dated September 6, 2000 - Blue Page 21 Planning Commission Minutes of September 6, 2000 - Unavailable 2. 3. 4. 5. R:\S PIWolf Creel< SP\sTAFFRPT.PC for 9-:zo.oo.doc 4 e e e e e e ATTACHMENT NO.1 PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000- SPECIFIC PLAN AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT R:IS PIWoff Creek SPISTAFFRPT.PC for 9-20-00.doc 6 e e e ATTACHMENT NO.1 RESOLUTION NO. 00-_ A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FOR WOLF CREEK (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA98-0484), AND APPROVE THE WOLF CREEK SPECIFIC PLAN (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 98-0481) ON PROPERTY TOTALING 557 ACRES LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF PALA ROAD, BETWEEN LOMA LINDA ROAD AND FAIRVIEW AVENUE, AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NOS. 950-110-002, -005, -033 AND 950-180-001, -005, -006 AND -410. WHEREAS, SP Murdy, LLC filed Planning Application Nos. PA98-0481, -0482 and -0484 (the "Application"), in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan, Development Code, CEQA Guidelines and Califomia State CEQA Guidelines; WHEREAS, the Application was processed including, but not limited to public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the Application on September 6, 2000, and September 20, 2000, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support or opposition to this matter; WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing and after due consideration of the testimony, the Commission recommended approval of the Application subject to conditions, and Certification of said EIR and Adoption of the Mitigation Monitoring Program after finding that the project proposed in the Application conformed to the City of Temecula General Plan; NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby incorporated by reference. Section 2. Findings. That the Planning Commission, in recommending approval of the Application, hereby makes the following findings as required in Section 16.09.140 of the Temecula Municipal Code: A. The project as proposed and conditioned is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community. The project has been reviewed by agencies and staff and determined to be in conformance with the City's General Plan, Development Code, Design Guidelines and Growth Management Program Action Plan. These documents set policies and standards that protect the health, safety and welfare of the community. Access and circulation are adequate for emergency vehicles. B. The project is compatible with surrounding land uses. The project proposes similar residential neighborhoods adjacent to existing surrounding neighborhoods, with interface buffers and full roadway improvements. Project commercial development is proposed within a Village Center, across Pala Road from the Pechanga Casino. R:\S P\WolfCreck SP\RES.ZA.PC.doc C. The proposed project will not have an adverse effect on the community because it e remains consistent with the goals and policies of the adopted General Plan. The project does not . represent a significant change to the planned land uses for the site. The General Plan Amendment is a relocation and reallocation of existing land use designations that conforms to the design of the specific plan. Section 3. Environmental Compliance. An Initial Study prepared for this project indicates that although the proposed project could have a significant impact on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described in the Conditions of Approval have been added to the project, and a Negative Declaration, therefore, is hereby granted. Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby recommends approval of the Application, to develop 557 acres of land with a mixed use specific plan known as the Wolf Creek Specific Plan No. 12, certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report and adoption of the Mitigation Monitoring Program, on property located on the east side of Pala Road, between Lorna Linda and Fairview Avenue, and known as Assessor's Parcel Nos. 950-110- 002, -005, -033 and 950-180-001, -005, -006 and -010. Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this twentieth day of September, 2000. Ron Guerriero, Chairperson e I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the twentieth day of September, 2000 by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary e R:\S P\WolfCreek SP\RES-ZA.PC.doc 2 e e e EXHIBIT C GENERAL PLAN COMPARISON R:IS PIWolf Creek SPISTAFFRPT.PC for 9-20-00.doc 7 e ,. ~ ..~ -.. .- z 0 to - -~ <i ll. ~ 0 , LJ Z <i -.J n. .J <i ~ w Z w l!J :-: ~ E ~ c c' ~ ~ .- c - c a 'J ~ c' u !:: !:: - ~ - ~ c .@ = ~ '.c. c. -. "' C' Z c '.' .' = , -'i' ", - .' ~ -=' .' .'. , C-' 0 .~ , . cr- .=> ..e. ,.. ..-, '" ~ ~. . ". ~ cr- .' " ~ a ~ ." >-l ~ ~ = - - ,. ~ ..l ~ t:' ~ ~ .;; -" "" ,,!;; 0<, ~ 0 " :ii >= P1 > >-l >-l ~ z R B '" ~ ~ I Q ~ ~ :;:; ::1: '" ,..J -- '" e e C i: C ;; C ;; - c " r -. w.. C ,~ , cr- . . " ~ .c. 0 i '" , or. 0 " >':- ~ '> g " c. .' ..l to e -. " 2 ~ . . "" -> C .c. ,. S .. >= -= ~ Vi , Z ~! ~ ~ 0;, '- ;. .g '" ~. G v ~ Q - . :ii " '" " '. ::;: '" I I i~ R I~ ~ I I '" z 0 z ;~; , in o :;: '-' 'f- !I d f.I5 a.. o :;: ~ / I I I \ \ '11_-:' i..~ ::; ..J ,!!.. j'" . ::; ..J "- i ;Q ~\ -,: ;2 \ '0; -1 ..... \ i 8 .....-.. \ ~ > <fl o ::; ..J \3 :;: ...J o ...J '_u_ ...J Z < .._.._~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Z "_III~ C-' C-' Z - E- rr:, - ~ j ~ f- a:: if. <( f- o Z :;: -' <fl :;: 0 -'. a. I o (/j o. 1,'.3.:.lil.i "- l I l \ :;: I ~ ,.~1 ...;,; ~,~,- ~/:i1. :2 ~ ) :2 ~ \ \ \. :2 \ -1 rll.1 I ~ \...-.. Q. :;: ...J (l. :2 ~ ...J > , I r.;: I a.. ~ :2 ...J o :;: -' '" z < ~. c.. ~ ~ ~ c Z ~ C-' ~ ~ rr:, ':l. 0 cD ~ cD 0 tt: ~ U c.. I.l. .J ~ ..J $ - '" e e e ATTACHMENT NO.2 PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000- TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 29305 R:IS PIWol1 Creek SPISTAFFRPT.PC lor 9-20-00.doc a e e e ATTACHMENT NO.2 PC RESOLUTION NO. 00-_ A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PAOO- 0052 (TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 29305) TO SUBDIVIDE 557 ACRES INTO 47 PARCELS WHICH CONFORM TO THE PLANNING AREAS, OPEN SPACE AREAS, SCHOOL AND PARK SITES OF THE WOLF CREEK SPECIFIC PLAN, LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF PALA ROAD, BETWEEN LOM ALlNDA ROAD AND FAIRVIEW AVENUE, AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NOS. 950-110-002, -005, -033 AND 950-180-001, -005. -006 AND- 010. WHEREAS, SP Murdy, LLC filed Planning Application No. PAOo-0052 (the "Application") in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan, Development Code and Subdivision Ordinance; WHEREAS, the Application was processed including, but not limited to public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commi~sion, at a regular meeting. considered the Application on September 6, 2000, and September 20, 2000, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did, testify either in support or opposition to this matter; WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing and after due consideration of the testimony, the Commission approved the Application subject to the conditions after finding that the project proposed in the Application conformed with the City of Temecula General Plan, Development Code and Subdivision Ordinance; NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. reference. That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby incorporated by Section 2. FindinQs. That the Temecula Planning Commission, in approving the Application, hereby makes the following findings as required in Section 16.09.140 of the Temecula Municipal Code. A. The proposed subdivision and the design and improvements of the subdivision is consistent with the Development Code, General Plan, any applicable specific plan and the City of Temecula 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, or the land is subject to a Land Conservation Act contract but the resulting parcels following division of the land will not be too small to sustain their agricultural use; C. The site is physically suitable for the type and proposed density of development proposed by the tentative map; R:\S PIWolf Creek SPIRES- TM.PC.doc D. The design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements, with conditions of a approval, are not likely to cause significant environmental damage or substantially and avoidably ,., injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. There are no known fish, wildlife or habitat on the project site, and the project will not affect any fish, wildlife or habitat off-site. The site is surrounded by development and is an infill site; E. An environmental impact report has been prepared and a finding has been made, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(a) (3), finding that specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible mitigation measures or project altematives identified in the environmental impact report; F. The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems; G. The design of the subdivision provides for future passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities in the subdivision to the exten! feasible; H. 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, or the design of the altemate easements which are substantially equivalent to those previously acquired by the public will be provided. I. (Quimby). The subdivision is consistent with the City's parkland dedication requirements Section 3. Environmental Compliance. An Initial Study prepared for this project indicates that although the proposed project could have a significant impact on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described in the Conditions of Approval have been added to the project, and a Negative Declaration, therefore, is hereby granted. e Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby conditionally approves the Application (Tentative Tract Map No. 29305) for the subdivision of a 557 acre parcel into 47 parcels which conform to the planning areas, open space areas, school and park sites of the Wolf Creek Specific Plan, located on the east side of Pala Road, between Loma Linda Road and Fairview Avenue, and known as Assessor's Parcel Nos. 950-110-002, -005, -033 and 950- 180-001, -005, -006 and -010, subject to the project specific conditions set forth on Exhibit A, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference. Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this twentieth day of September, 2000. . Ron Guerriero, Chairperson e R:\S PIWolf Creek SPIRES-TM.PC.doc 2 e e e I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the twentieth day of September, 2000 by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: NOES: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary R:\S PIWolf Creek SPIRES-TM.PC.doc 3 e e e ATTACHMENT NO.3 PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000- FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT R:IS PIWol1 Creek SPISTAFFRPT.PC lor 9-20-00.doc 10 e e e RESOLUTION NO. 00- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING . CERTIFICATION OF THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED FOR THE WOLF CREEK SPECIFIC PLAN AND RELATED ACTIONS AND RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL FIND.INGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM IN CONNECTION THEREWITH FOR THE WOLF CREEK SPECIFIC PLAN, LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF PALA ROAD, BETWEEN LOMA LINDA ROAD AND FAIRVIEW AVENUE, AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR PARCEL NOS. 950-110-002, -005, -033 AND 950- 180-001, -005, -006 AND -010. Statement of Findings and Fact Wolf Creek Specific Plan Project Description WHEREAS, the Wolf Creek Specific Plan and related actions ("Specific Plan" or the "Projectj, initiated and prepared on behalf of the City of T emecula. The Wolf Creek Specific Plan proposes the development of a 557 _acre planned community in the City ofTemecula. The Project site is located at the southem end of the City of Temecula, approximately two miles east of Interstate 15, along the east side of Pala Road, south of State Highway 79 South, between Loma Unda Road and Fairview Avenue. The Specific Plan includes two options for development. The Project with School Sites option includes 2,144 residential dwelling units at a range of densities, commercial development within a "Village Center," three public school sites, one neighborhood parK, oile community park, one linear parK, and a fIVe_acre site reserved for public institutional uses such as churches, libraries or multLuse facilities. The Project with Residential Use of School Sites option allows school sites to be developed with residential uses, resulting in a maximum total of 2,601 dwelling units. The Specific Plan also includes plans for roadways, drainage, water, and sewer to support the level of development proposed; and Environmental Review Process WHEREAS, pursuant to the Califomia Environmental Quality Act ("CECAj, the City Is the lead agency for the Specific Plan as the public agency with both general govemmental powers and the principle responsibility for implementing the Specific Plan; and WHEREAS, a Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report ("Draft EIRj was issued in March 1988, inviting comments from responsible agencies, other regulatory agencies, organizations and individuals pursuant to State CECA Guidelines section 15082; and WHEREAS, written statements were received by the City in response to the Notice of Preparation, which assisted the City in narrowing the issues and altematives for analysis in the Draft EIR; and WHEREAS, a Draft EIR was prepared by the City pursuant to State CECA Guidelines section 15168 to analyze potential adverse environmental impacts of Specific Plan implementation pursuant to CEClA; an\! WHEREAS, upon completion of the Draft EIR dated October 1999, the City initiated a 45-day public comment period by filing a Notice of Completion with the State Office of Planning and Research in December 1999 and WHEREAS, the City also published a Notice of Availability for the Draft EIR in a newspaper of general a circulation. Copies of the Draft EIR were sent to public agencies, organizations, and individuals. In ,., addition, the City placed copies of the Draft EIR in public libraries in Riverside County and made copies available for review at City offices; and WHEREAS, during and before the official public review period for the Draft EIR, the City received 13 written comments, all of which were responded to by the City. Those comments and the responses are included as part ofthe Final Environmental Impact Report ("Final EIRj; and WHEREAS, in September 1999, a Planning Commission wor1<;shop was conducted to provide information about the Specific Plan; WHEREAS, pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21092.5, the City provided its responses to all commentors on August 14, 2000; and Statutory Requirements for Findings WHEREAS, Section 15091 of the State CEOA Guidelines prevents the City from approving or cal1)'ing out a project for which an EIR has been completed that identifies any significant environmental effects unless the City makes one or more of the following written finding(s) for each of those significant effects accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding: (1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the final EIR; or (2) Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency; or e (3) Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project altematives identified in the final EIR; and WHEREAS, Section 15093 of the State CEOA Guidelines requires that if the Specific Plan will cause Significant unavoidable adverse impacts, the City must adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations prior to approving the project. A Statement of Overriding Considerations states that any significant adverse project effects are acceptable if expected project benefrts outweigh unavoidable adverse environmental impacts; and WHEREAS, environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR which the Planning Commission finds are less than significant and do not require mitigation are described in Section 2 hereof; and WHEREAS, environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR as potentially significant, but which the Planning Commission finds can be mitigated to a less than significant level through the imposition of mitigation measures and/or conditions identified in the Final EIR and Specific Plan and set forth herein are described in Section 3 hereof; and WHEREAS, environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR as potentially significant but which the Planning Commission finds cannot be fully mitigated to a less than significant level despite the imposition of all feasible mitigation measures described in Section 4 hereof, and WHEREAS, altematives to the Specific Plan that might eliminate or reduce significant environmental e impacts are described in Section 5 hereof, and e e e WHEREAS, a discussion of Specific Plan benefits identified by City staff and a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the environmental impacts that cannot be fully mitigated to a less than significant level are set forth in Section 6 hereof; and WHEREAS, Public Resources Code section 21081.6 requires the City to prepare and adopt a mitigation monitoring and reporting program for any project for which mitigation measures have been imposed to assure compliance with the adopted mitigation measures; and WHEREAS, prior to taking action, the Planning Commission has heard, been presented with, reviewed and considered all ofthe information and data in the administrative record including the Final EIR, and all oral and written testimony presented to it during meetings and hearings. The Final EIR reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission and is deemed adequate for purposes of making decisions on the merits of the Specific Plan and related actions. No comments or any additional information submitted to the City have produced any substantial new information requiring circulation or additional environmental review of the Final EIR under CEQA, nor do the minor modifications to the Final EIR made by the City Council require additional public review because no new significant environmental impacts were identified, no substantial increase in the severity of any environmental impacts would occur and no feasible Project mitigation measures as defined in State CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5 were rejected. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, a DOES FIND AND DECLARE THAT: . Section 1- Findings The Planning Commission of the City of Temecula, in a meeting assembled on September 6, 2000, determined that based on all of the evidence presented, including the Final EIR, written and oral testimony given at meetings and hearings, and submission of testimony from the public, organizations, and regulatory agencies, the following environmental impacts associated with the Wolf Creek Specific Plan are potentially significant unless otherwise indicated and each of these impacts will be avoided or substantially lessened by the identified mitigation measures: Section 2 Significant Environmental Impacts Considered Less Than The Planning Commission hereby finds that the following potential environmental impacts of the Wolf Creek Specific Plan are less than significant and therefore do not require the imposition of mitigation measures: 2.1 Population and Housing 2.1.1 Population e The proposed Project will provide a maximum of between 2,144 and 2,601 new housing unit in Temecula (Final EIR, p. 27). Based on the City's current average household size of 3.338 persons, this new housing has the potential to generate a maximum of between 7,157 to 8,682 new residents (Final EIR, p. 27). Even though not anticipated, the proposed Project is consistent with the regional population projections of the Southern California Association of Government ("SCAG"), as set forth in the Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide and the Subregional Comprehensive Plan prepared by the Western Riverside Council of Governments ("WRCOG"). According to the General Plan, at buildout, the area within the City limits will have 39,658 dwelling units and a population of 112,254 persons (Final EIR, p. 27). By providing between 2,144 and 2,601, the Project will enable to the City to provide housing to meet the needs of this expected population growth. Therefore, the level of popUlation generation are consistent with the General Plan and are not considered significant (Final EIR, p. 27). 2.1 .2 Housing The Project will add between 2,144 (Project with School Sites option) and 2,601 (Project with Residential Use of School Sites option) new housing units to the City's existing housing stock (Final EIR, p. 27). The Project is consistent with the City's land use policies contained in the City of Temecula General Plan ("General Plan"). Though primarily a single-family housing development, the Project also proposes the development of multi-family housing. The Project will provide housing opportunities for a range of people. The provision of housing of this type is consistent with the City's objective to encourage the provision of adequate sites for housing (City of Temecula, 1994-1999 Housing Element, p. 4-42). In addition, the development of the housing units proposed in the Project would help the City to achieve its 1998-2005 Regional Housing Needs Assessment ("RHNA") number as determined by SCAG and WRCOG. The RHNA is a key tool for SCAG and WRCOG to plan for projected growth in the region. As specified by the RHNA, the City of Temecula has a projected housing need for 7,798 housing units during the 1998-2005 period (WRCOG, July 23,1999). Since the Project is consistent with a the Temecula General Plan and City land use policies, impact will be less than significant. . e e e In a regional context, the Wolf Creek site lies within the WRCOG subregion, which is defined by SCAG to be housinlLrich and jObsJlOor (Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide, SCAG, 1994). SCAG projects a jobs/housing ratio of 0.99 for the year 2015 (Final EIR, p. 28). Assuming an employment generation factor of 2 employees per 1,000 square feet of commercial space, the Project can be expected to create approximately 600 jobs in the neighborhood retail businesses of the Village Center (Final EIR, p. 28). Although the Project will result in the development of residential units in an already housinlLrich subregion, SCAG projects a housing_rich ratio for the subregion in 2015. Therefore, the proposed Project is not in conflict with the SCAG projections. Furthermore, SCAG's regional growth management policies are based on adopted General Plan development projections. As discussed above, the Wolf Creek Project is consistent with the City of Temecula's General Plan. Lastly, according to the General Plan EIR, the jobslhousing balance is measured on a citywide basis rather than a project_specific basis, and as a whole, Temecula's land use policy works toward achieving regional jobs/housing goals (City otTemecula General Plan EIR, p.199). Wdh regard to the Project with School Sites, in addition to the approximately 600 jobs that are anticipated to be created due to the commercial development in the Specific Plan area, development of the schools will result in approximately 344 new jobs. As mentioned previously, the City of Temecula's land use policy is designed to achieve regional jobslhousing goals, and this Project is consistent with the City's land use policy. Therefore, no impact is anticipated for either scenario for the Specific Plan (Final EIR, p. 28). 2.2 Water Resources The Rancho Califomia Water District iRCWDj provides water service to the site currently for agricultural use and will be responsible for providing domestic water service. In 1997, RCWD adopted an update to its Water System Master Plan. The current plan provides for water service facilities and resource development to meet projected demands over the next 20Jear period based on the City's General Plan. The population density proposed under Wolf Creek Specific Plan is less than anticipated with development of the site under the General Plan. Therefore, the Wolf Creek developmem has been factored into the Water System Master Plan (Ibid., p. 42). Furthermore, since the Wolf Creek Specific Plan proposes population density and building intensity less than that provided under the City of Temecula General Plan, it is exempt under Water Code Section 10910(b) (Final EIR, p. 42). Project implementation will permanently eliminate agricultural use of the Project site and thereby serve to reduce agricultural runoff, including any associated fertilizer and/or pesticide residue. This impact is considered positive with respect to groundwater quality (Ibid., p. 43). All construction activity associated with the Project will comply with NPDES requiremerrts, as implemented and enforced by the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board. Also, all commercial development will comply with NPDES requirements for stormwater runoff control, as implemented and enforced by the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board. Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits, the City will ensure that any required permanent facilities are in place. Compliance with these standard requirements will be mandated for the Project. Thus, no mitigation is required (Ibid., p. 44). 2.3 Biological Resources Implememation of the Project will replace current invasive weeds and any associated wildlife with structures, roadways, and other types of urban development. The structures and Introduced landscape vegetation will limit potential re_establishment of native plant and animal species on the site. However, this is not considered a significam impact, given that native species have previously been displaced by e Existing eucalyptus trees may be removed to facilitate site development. Per the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, these trees cannot be removed during nesting season if raptors or other sensitive bird species maintain nest sites. Compliance with existing regulations will avoid potential impact (Final EIR, p. 72). Prior studies revealed no evidence of Stephens' Kangaroo Rat ("SKR"; a federally-listed endangered species) occupation on the site or in the immediate vicinity. The City has not required the 1988 survey to be updated because historically, SKR has not been located in the area, the Temecula General Plan EIR did not identify suitable habitat in'the area, and no change in conditions has occurred that would suggest the presence of SKR. Therefore, no significant impacts to this species will result from Project 'implementation (Ibid., p. 73). According to a letter provided by the United States Fish and Wildlife Services ("USFWS"), the Project will not result in any adverse impact to the endangered Quino Checkerspot Butterfly. Therefore, no significant impact will result from Project implementation (Final EIR, p. 73). 2.4 Energy Resources Southem Califomia Edison ("SCE") provides electric power service to the Project site and region. Overhead power lines along Pala Road and roads accessing surrounding subdivisions provide electric power to development in the area. The SCE fine on the south side of Pala Road is a 12 kilovolt line, as is the line extending across the property from Pala Road to Kent Hintergardt ~ark (Ibid., p. 75). According to average electric power usage factors published by the South Coast Air Quality Management District ("SCAQMD"), the Project with School Sites will use an average of 18,688 megawatt of electricity e per year and the Project with Residential Use of School Sites will consume an average of 19,207 megawatt hours of electricity per year. SCE indicates that at both local and regional scales, both levels of usage are less than significant (Ibid., p. 76). Natural gas service is provided by the Southem Califomia Gas Company ("Gas Company"). The Gas Company maintains a four_inch gas main in Pala Road (Ibid., p. 75). According to natural gas factors also published by the SCAQMD, the Project with School Sites will use an average of 184 million cubic feet and the Project with Residential Use of School Sites will use 213 million cubic feet of average natural gas per year. Gas Company officials indicate that at both local and regional scales, both levels of usage are less than significant (Ibid., p. 77). As required by state regulations, the Project will incorporate state building standards for energy conservation ouUined in Tille 24 of the Califomia Administrative Code as well as energy-saving devices as required by law. These standards are therefore considered part of the Project. The mandatory incorporation of these standards into the Project will further reduce the energy impact of the Project below a level of significance. As a result, no mitigation is required (Ibid., pp. 78-9). 2.5 Public Services 2.5.1 Fire Protection The Riverside County Fire Department ("RCFD"), which operates in conjunction with the Califomia Department of Forestry and Fire Protection ("CDF"), provides fire protection services on a contract basis to the City of Temecula. Projected population increases are monitored and personnel levels are adjusted periodically during the contract renewal process (Ibid., p. 101). Currently, there are three permanent fire station sites (Station 73, Station 12, and Station 84) in - Temecula. The fire station closest to the Wolf Creek site is Station 84 on pauba Road, approximately ,., e e e , . Station 73, located on Enterprise Circle, houses a truck company and an engine company and is staffed by seven full_time fire personnel. Station 12 has an engine company with three full_time firefighters, as well as volunteer engine and a wildland fire engine. Station B4 maintains an engine company with three full_time firefighters. Response time from all stations is estimated at two minutes per mile (Final EIR, p. 101). According to the RCFD, current contract personnel provide adequate levels of service to the City. Three new fire stations, including one located within the Wolf Creek site are proposed by the Riverside County Fire Master Plan. RCFD's 2001/2 capital improvement plan provides for such a station to be established irrespective of whether the Wolf Creek development proceeds (Final EIR, pp. 101-2). Current RCFD FirelEmergency Medical Service response time objectives for urban category II land uses (defined as general commercial uses and residential densities of 2 to 8 dwelling units per acre) is a 10_minute response time for 90 percent of all fires, and a 5_minute response time for emergency medical services. The response time objectives for heavy urban land uses (residential densities of 8_20 dwelling units per acre) is an 8_minute response time for fire and a 5_minute response time for emergency medical service. Policy 3.2 of the City General Plan provides that the City will "strive to provide a minimum response time of between 7 and 10 minutes of an alarm for 90 percent of all fires, in accordance with the Riverside County Fire Protection and Emergency Master Plan" (Final EIR, p. 102). . The southem portion of the Project area lies within a high_fire_hazard area, as designated by Califomia . Department of Forestry. This designation reflects the prior undeveloped nature of the area, and hazard area boundaries are currently being redrafted to respond to and reflect development in the adjacent Rainbow Canyon and Redhawk communities. Until such redistricting, however, properties within the designated high_fire_hazard area are required to provide brush clearance zones around structures (Final EIR, p. 102). Project with Residential Use of SchoOl Sites: Under this development scenario, most of the Project site will be developed at 3.8 to 6.6 dulac. Thus, the objective will be a 10_minute response time. Only 30 acres of the 557 _acre site will be developed at higher density, and that portion of the site should have an 8_minute fire response time and a 5_minute emergency medical response time. In general, satisfaction of these objectives requires location within a three_mile radius of a fire station (Final EIR, p. 102). The Project site is located within the three_mile maximum travel distance from the existing fire station on Pauba Road. RCFD plans call for construction of an additional station within the Wolf Creek property. This station is planned to be constructed during fiscal year 2001/2 (Final EIR, p. 103). The City and RCFD review projects on a case_by_case to identify service needs and have adopted a development fee program to fund required facilities. Developers within the Wolf Creek Project will be required to pay the fees to fund station improvements citywide and construction of the new station within the Wolf Creek Project. The Specific Plan includes within Planning Area 14 an option for a fire station (Final EIR, p. 103). The Project applicant has committed to providing a portion of the available 5 acres for construction of the fire station, and the Specific Plan and Project conditions of approval will reflect this commitment (Final EIR, p. 103). The developer(s) will be required to pay Development Impact Fees established by the City to fund long_term capital improvements related to fire protection services, and a fire station site will be provided consistent with RCFD's plans. No impact on fire services will result (Final EIR, p. 103). Project with School Sites: The development of residential use of school sites is considered the worst_case scenario. No additional analysis is required since this has been addressed in the preceding discussion (Final EIR, p. 103). .- -. .". .. . . - - - --... .. -. -. - . . - - buffer between undeveloped brushland on the adjacent Pechanga Indian lands and proposed urban a development at Wolf Creek. First, Pal a Road will be widened to four lanes, creating an approximate . 134_foot paved roadway. Second, the planned grass_lined drainage channel along Pala Road will be up to 120 feet in width. According to City Building staff, this 200+ foot buffer zone provides a level of protection consistent with Califomia Department of Forestry standards. Exposure to fire hazards will be less than significant (Final EIR, p. 103). 2.5.2 Police Protection The City of Temecula contracts with the Riverside County Sheriff's Department for law enforcement services. The contract provides for assignment of 31 swom officers and 7 non_swom officers to the City. These officers are supported by 2 lieutenants, 7 sergeants, and' 6 investigators. The Sheriffs DepartmenVCounty Justice Center serves the Temecula area. This facility is located north of Auld Road and east of Leon Road, outside the City limits but within its sphere of influence (Final EIR, p. 104). Under Policy 3.1 of the General Plan, the City strives to provide a minimum of one full_time officer for 1,000 residents for police protection services. Police protection services are funded through general fund revenues of the City (Final EIR, p. 104). . Project with Res/drmtJal Use of School Sites: Under this development scenario, the proposed Project will result in a population of 8.682 persons, based on an average household size of 3.338 persons. At a ratio of 1 officer per 1,000 population, the Project will generate demand for 9 additional fulLlime officers Project buildout. All staff will be based at existing sheriff facilities. No physical environmental impact will result from Project implementation (Final EIR, p. 104). Project with School Sites: In this scenario, the proposed Project will result in a POPulation of 7,157 persons. At a ratio of 1 officer per 1,000 population, the project will generate demand for 7 additional e full_time officers at the end of Project build out. All staff will be based at existing sheriff facilities. No physical environmental impact will result from Project implementation (Final EIR, p. 104). 2.5.3 Schools The Wolf Creek Specific Plan site lies within the Temecula Valley Unified School District (TVUSD). The District currently operates 10 elementary schools (grades K_5), 3 middle schools (grades 6_8), 2 comprehensive high schools (grades 9_12), and a continuation high school. The District's enrollment has been rapidly growing. Total enrollment was 16,065 as of April, 1999. According to District staff, the District has been using portable classrooms as temporary buildings to accommodate the rapidly growing student population. A total of 49% of the District's classrooms are portable and interim facilities (Final EIR, p. 105). Policy 4.1 of the City's General Plan commits the City to supporting the District in providing adequate school facilities for students from new development to the extent permitted by law. The primary mechanisms to sustain quality educational services, in cooperation with the School District, are the provision of school sites, imposition of statutory development fees, negotiated development fees as permitted by law, and the provision of information to the School District. To implement this policy, the City has adopted a school mitigation resolution and has adopted the school mitigation plan of the TVUSD. Developers are required to pay a per dwelling unit fee for new residential construction to offset impact. Any dedication of land for school purposes can be credited against the total required school fee (Final EIR, p. 105). . Project With Residential Use of School Sites: Based on the student generation cited in the Final EIR and assuming the worst_case scenario for student generation whereby the school sites are developed with residential uses, the project's proposed 2,385 detached single family units and 216 attached e multi_family units will generate up to 2,035 new students. Approximately 1,092 will be elementary students, 466 will be middle school students, and 477 will be high school students. This number of e e e . - . ... . - - -. .. . - - - - - . -' - SB50 and Proposition lA, which addressed class size reduction and construction/maintenance of facilities, were passed in November of 1998. Proposition lA includes a variety measures, such as the sale of public bonds and allowing local govemments to assess fees on development, to ensure that enough schools and related infrastructure are built/maintained. Therefore, schools will be built to meet future demand. Under this scenario, future school sites have not been identified. Environmental review will be required by the District for any new school construction. Physical environmental impact cannot be assessed at this time. Per Section 15165 of the CEQA Guidelines, further analysis is not appropriate (Final EIR, p. 106). Project with School Sites: Under this scenario, the proposed Specific Plan designates 3 school sites within the Project site: a 12_acre elementary school site, a 20_acre middle school site, and a 46.5_acre high school site. No final detennination has been made by the District as to whether any or all of these sites will be acquired and developed as District schools, although the District has identified a clear need for these facilities (Final EIR, p. 106). Based on the generation factors cited above, the project's proposed 1,928 detached single family units and 216 attached multUamily units will generate up to 1,670 new students. Approximately 897 will be elementary students, 383 will be middle school students, and 390 will be high school students. This number of students is equivalent to 10 percent of the entire 1999 enrollment within the District (Final EIR, p.l06). As described above, SB50 and Proposition lA include a variety measures, such as the sale of public bonds and allowing local govemments to assess fees on development, to ensure that enough schools and related infrastructure are built/maintained. The proposed school sites will provide school facilities for Wolf Creek residents and other students in the area. The new schools will help address overcrowding and 10nILtenn growth needs (Final EIR, p. 106). Construction of new schools on the Project site will result in physical changes to the local environment. These changes and associated impact are examined throughout this EIR. Impacts on air quality and cumulative impact on agricultural resources are identified as significant and unavoidable. All other impacts can be reduced to acceptable levels. Once precise design plans for the schools have been prepared, TVUSD may be required to conduct further environmental review to detennine whether any additional future mitigation may be necessary (Final EIR, p. 107). The Temecula Valley Unified School District, upon completion of preliminary plans for each proposed school within the Wolf Creek Specific Plan area, will undertake any required subsequent environmental review pursuant to CEQA and the District's CEQA Guidelines (Final EIR, p. 107). The impacts associated with the location of schools within the Specific Plan area are considered less than significant; however, the impact on air quality and the cumulative loss of agricultural lands will continue to be significant and unavoidable (as discussed in Sections 4.2 and 4.3). All other physical environmental impacts related to school construction, as identified in Section 3.3, can be mitigated to less_than_significant levels (Final EIR, p. 107). 2.5.4 Libraries The City of Temecula is a member of the Riverside County Library'District. One facility, the 15,000 square_foot Temecula Library located in the Walt Abraham Administrative Center, serves the residents of Temecula and Murrieta. Plans for a new library branch on Pauba Road adjacent to a new sports park are being considered (Final EIR, p. 107). Revenue for the District is obtained from a Special District tax collected by the County. In addition, a portion of the City's Development Impact Fees go towards the provision of library facilities (Final EIR, p. 107). Project With Residential Use of School Sites: Under this development scenario, the proposed Project - will generate a residential population of approximately 8,682 persons. Based on the adopted service . standards of the Library District, this population could result in the need for an additional 10,418 volumes and 4,341 square feet of library space. The developer will be required to pay Library Mnigation Fees to offset the cost of prOViding any additional library facilnies (Final EIR, p. 108). This Project, in nself, will not require construction of any new library facilities. The Library District has already inniated plans to construct a new facilny on Pauba Road absent the Wolf Creek Project. No physical environmental impact will result due to the Project (Final EIR, p. 108). Project With School Sites: Development of residential use of school snes is the worst case scenario. No additional analysis is required. Thus, the analysis listed above applies to this develoPment scenario (Final EIR, p. 108). . 2.6 Utilities and Service Systems 2.6.1 Water The Rancho Califomia Water District ("RCWD") currently provides water service to the site for agricultural use and will be responsible for providing domestic water service. In late 1997, RCWD adopted a comprehensive update of ns Water System Master Plan. The Master Plan addresses water resource management. The plan provides for water storage and distribution facilities, water resource development, and acquisnion of imported water supplies to meet anticipated needs for the next 20 years based on the Cny's General Plan. The Plan recognizes urban development densities on the Wolf Creek sne similar to or more intensive than that proposed the Wolf Creek Specific Plan. Furthermore, since the Wolf Creek Specific Plan proposes population density and building intensity less than provided under the General Plan, n is exempt under Water Code Section 1091 O(b) (Final EIR, p. 119). Water facilities on the Project sne include a 24jnch steel water main along Pal a Road from Loma Linda to Wolf Valley Road, 12jnch and 16jnch water mains on the northeast boundary, and a 16_inch main located on the northwest boundary along Loma Linda Road. The major source of potable water distributed by the RCWD is groundwater from the Murrieta_Temecula basin. The groundwater is supplemented with imported water from the Metropolitan Water District ("MWD"). The RCWD has a current annual supply capability of 59,000 acre_feet per year, which is adequate to meet current demand for potable water (Final EIR, pp. 119-20). e The proposed new development will require construction of a new on_site water distribution system to serve the proposed uses. Since the proposed Project includes the provision of the necessarY water infrastructure SUbject to appropriate approvals, impact on water facilities is considered less than significant (Final EIR, p. 120). Development under the proposed Specific Plan will create demand for additional potable water from residences, commercial uses, and for irrigation of greenbelts, parks, and other landscaped areas. The proposed Project is estimated to require approximately 1,343 acre feet per year ("AFY"). Wllh the school snes, the proposed Project will consume approximately 1,162 AFY of water (Final EIR, p. 120). The actual use of water on the sne will be lower than the above estimates because the Project is required to comply with existing mandatory state requirements for water_conserving toilets, shower heads, faucets, and other appliances in all development, which will reduce the average daily consumption below 400 gallons per day per dwelling unit. The RCWD indicates that water service is available to the Project, and water availability would be contingent upon the property owner signing an agreement to assign water management rights, if any, to RCWD. In addition, the RCWD's 20j'ear water service master plan assumes development of the Wolf Creek area with residential and commercial uses (Final EIR, p.121). e 10 e e e - -. - - -. - . - - - ... . - - - - - - - - - - - ...- water service master plan assumes development of the site, impact on water facilities and resources will be less than significant (Final EIR, p. 121). 2.6.2 Sewer Sewer service to the Project site will be provided by the Eastem Municipal Water District rEMWD"). EMWO is under the jurisdiction of the San Diego Water Quality Control Board. EMWD is currently meeting treatment demand in Temecula and is treating approximately 5.5 million gallons of wastewater per day at the Rancho Califomia Treatment Plan. The facility was expanded in 1996 to provide tertiary treatment capacity of 8 million gallons of wastewater per day rmgd"), with secondary treatment capacity of 10 mgd. This capacity is considered adequate to accommodate new development within the District's service area (Final EIR, p. 121). Project With Residential Use of School Sites: Development pursuant to the proposed Wolf Creek Specific Plan will generate, on average, 868,200 gallons of wastewater per day from residential uses and commercial uses will generate, on average, an additional 60,000 gallons per day. The Rancho Califomia Treatment Plan has adequate capacity to treat this amount of additional sewage. Project impact on treatment facilities will be less than significant (Final EIR, p. 122). The proposed Specific Plan includes a sewer plan for the site. The sewer plan proposes a system layout that is based on EMWO's overall system master planning for the Rancho Villages Assessment District No. 159, which sized and financed the sewer infrastructure based upon up to 2,700 units within Wolf Creek, or more units than currently proposed under the worst_case scenario. Since the proposed Project will provide sewer system improvements in accordance with existing requirements, Project impact on sewer infrastructure will be less than significant (Final EIR, p. 122). Project With School Sites: Wrth schools, the proposed Plan will generate approximately 792,064 gallons of wastewater per day. This represents a lesser amount of wastewater than would be generated under the development of residential uses on the school sites. Therefore, the residential use of school sites is considered the worst_case scenario. This scenario also will not result in a significant impact on sewer infrastructure (Final EIR, p. 122). 2.6.3 Solid Waste Solid waste from the Wolf Creek area is hauled by CR&R, Inc. under contract to the City of Temecula. The waste is disposed of at the Badlands Sanitary Landfill or other facility in the vicinity accepting domestic waste. The landfill encompasses approximately 1,081 acres, with a current disposal area of 141 acres and an annual capacity of 432,000 tons. The estimated closure date is 2010 (Final EIR, p. 123). Project With Residential Use of School Sites: Based on the factors identified in the Final EIR, the proposed Specific Plan, without school sites, will generate approximately 5,586 tons of waste per year (Final EIR, p. 123). This waste will be picked up and once recyclable materials have been extracted, disposed of at the Badlands Sanitary Landfill or other regional facility. The Project, similar to all other development in the City of Temecula, is subject to mandatory City requirements, policies, and programs for solid waste reduction developed in conformance with the Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989, and amendments. Since the Project is required to include these mandatory programs and procedures, Project impact will be less than significant (Final EIR, pp. 123-4). Project With School Sn8$: If schools are provided, the proposed Plan will generate approximately 4,879 tons of waste per year (based on 0.136 tons of waste per person, 2,562 students, and 344 staff). This represents a lesser amount of waste than that associated with residential use of the school sites, as a result the Project impact would be less than significant (Final EIR, p. 124). 11 2.7 Recreation e Five public parks exist within a five_mile radius of the Wolf Creek site: Three in the City of Temecula and two within unincorporated Riverside County. The City parks are Loma Linda Park, Kent Hintergardl Park, and Pala Community Park. County parks in the area include Paseo Park in the Redhawk community near Redhawk Elementary School (Final EIR, p. 133). project With Residential Use of School Sites: Implementation of the Wolf Creek Plan will increase the demand for park and recreation facilities in the City of Temecula. Pursuant to the City's General Plan policy and Quimby Act Ordinance, the mandatory park dedication requirement for 2,601 dwelling units is 33.24 acres, based on 5 acres per 1,000 population. (The Quimby Act Ordinance establishes population factors of 2.59 persons per single_family unit and 2.34 persons per multUamily unit. Final EIR, p. 134). Land credits totaling 28.21 acres have been applied to the overall park land dedication of the Wolf Creek Specific Plan; however, this falls short of those mandatory requirements for development of 2,601 dwelling units (Final EIR, p. 134). The scenario involving 2,601 residential units would require a total of 33.4 acres of park land and open space, or 6.4 acres more than the Project with School Sites scenario (Final EIR, p. 12). To address the shortfall for this maximum residential build out scenario, the Specific Plan includes a provision which states "In the event the Project falls short (of parkland credit), the developer will either increase the size of the private recreation facility in Planning Area 14, get 50% credit for the private recreational facilities in the multi_family areas, or increase the size of the 4.5_acre park in Planning Area 19. The developer may pay Quimby fees to satisfy park requirements if approved by the City of Temecula." These provisions will ensure that parkland dedication or fees are provided consistent with City ordinances. Impact will thereby be reduced to a less_than_significant level (Final EIR, pp. 134- 5). Project with School Sites: Under this development scenario, park dedication requirements for 2,144 .- dwelling units is 27.49 acres. Land credits and credits anticipated from private recreation facilities total .. 28.21 acres. This amount falls short of the requirements for development of 2,144 dwelling units. However, as indicated above, the Specific Plan includes provisions to ensure full compliance with City requirements. Recreation impacts under this development scenario are less than significant. 2.8 Local Agricultural Resources The 557 _acre Project site historically has supported agricultural operations. The Murdy family operated a livestock ranch on the property for over 30 years dating back to the 1940s and up until 1972, conducted farming operations. Since 1972, a majority of the property has been leased for the commercial production of turf and groundcover, as well as minor field crops. The Agricultural Preserve status of the property expired in 1989 through the Notice of Nonrenewal Process (initiated in 1979) (Final EIR, p. 137). Today, agricultural activity has virtually disappeared from this area of the Temecula Valley, with the remnant farming operations on the Wolf Creek site representing the only such use. As described in Section 2.1 (Land Use and Planning) of the Final EIR, surrounding properties have been developed with and/or have pending development plans for residential subdivisions, golf courses, and the Pechanga Casino and its related uses. The City of Temecula General Plan Land Use map designates the subject property and all surrounding lands within the City's sphere of influence for urban uses (Final EIR, p. 137). The Williamson Act contract applicable to the property expired in 1989. Thus, the Project will not result in the cancellation of a Williamson Act contract (Final EIR, p. 138). , At the local level, the existing agricultural use of the property is anomalous, given that surrounding properties support urban type uses. City land use policy provides for the eventual development of the Wolf Creek site with residential, commercial, school, and open space uses. The conversion from .- agricultural to urban use is not inconsistent with land use policy. Current on_site agricultural activities are .. 12 e e e .. - _. . ._ - . - . _0 __.0 _ _ _ __ _ _._ __ receives no Williamson Ad property tax benefrts. Thus, in a local context, the site does not appear to represent a prime agricuttural property (Final EIR, p. 138). To identify the significance of this land in a more regional context, a Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (LESA) was conduded using a model developed by the California Department of Conservation, Office of Land Conservation. The analysis indicated that, based on the scoring thresholds contained in the LESA manual, the loss of this agricuttural resource represents a significant impad. Since the Agricultural Preserve status of the site expired in 1989 and since the General Plan Land Use map designates the property and all surrounding lands for urban uses, the impad on local agricuttural resources. However, the cumulative impads due to the loss of agricutturallands are significant and are discussed in Section 4.3 (Final EIR, p. 137-9). 2.9 Cumulative Impacts (except for Air Quality and Agricultural Land) The Temecula GeneralPlan EIR examined impads associated with build out within the corporate city limits, its sphere of. influence, and a larger "area of interest." The entire study area encompasses approximately 60 square miles and at build out (40,Jear time period), will provide for up to 79,299 housing units. The Wolf Creek Specific Plan is accounted for within the total unit count. Regional growth plans were also examined in evaluating cumulative impads on a regional basis (Final EIR, p. 157). The General Plan policies and standards which serve as mitigation measures for the potential cumulative effeds of all development under the General Plan have been applied to the Wolf Creek Specific Plan whenever applicable. Among the many General Plan policies applied to the Wolf Creek Specific Plan are the following (Final EIR, p. 158): o Establishing setbacks along Alquist-Priolo Special Studies zones; o Incorporating the village concept into large master-planned developments; o Incorporating pedestrian and bicycle trails into projed design; o Providing adequate circulation improvements to support the level of development proposed; and o Providing development standards that ensure high quality design. The incorporation of the General Plan policies and standards in the Specific Plan from the start have ensured that cumulative impads associated with the development are less than significant with the the exception of air quality and the loss of agricultural land (Final EIR, p. 157-8). Section 3 - Environmental Impacts Mitigated To A Less Than Significant Level The Planning Commission hereby finds that mitigation measures outlined in the Final EIR have been incorporated into the Wolf Creek Specific Plan that avoid or substantially lessen the following potentially significant environmental impads identified in the Specific Plan Final EIR to a less than significant level. The potentially significant Projed impads and the mitigation measures which have been adopted to mitigate them to a less than significant level are as follows: 13 ~ 3.1.1 Potential Significant Impact- Land Use Compatibility Project With Residential Use of School Sites: Residential land uses at suburban densities currently exist immediately north, northeast, and west of the Wolf Valley Ranch site. Additional subdivision activity and development are anticipated consistent with the specific plans that have been approved for these areas. The Wolf Creek Specific Plan proposes residential. densities similar to the densities currently existing and planned in the immediate vicinity, with a circulation system planned to tie into existing roads and trails. The level of commercial development proposed is similar to other commercial businesses currently operating in other areas of the City, such as the retail complex on Rancho Califomia Road near US. As such, the Project continues the existing physical arrangement of the established and planned community (Final EIR, p. 24). On the adjacent Pechanga Indian Reservation, the closest development consists of the gambling casino located on Pala Road at Wolf Valley Road, directly across from the Wolf Creek property. The casino, which began operations in 1995, is open 24 hours a day and offers card games, slot machine play, and video poker. No alcohol is served. The associated gas stationlminLmarket is east of the casino on Pala Road. A golf course and resort hotel are planned west of the casino (Final EIR, p. 24). The 24_hour operation of the casino has the potential to create compatibility concems with regard to the residential uses proposed along Pal a Road. Potentially adverse impacts include traffic and parking lot noise, and light and glare from the parking lot. The width of Pal a Road, the proposed 100_ to 128_foot wide flood control greenbelt, and buffers which will be incorporated into residential site design (for noise control) will provide a 200_ to 300_foot buffer and thereby minimize impact. Land use compatibility impacts with respect to the casino will not be significant (Final EIR, pp. 24-5). Project With School Sites: The proposed high school site (Planning Area 24) is located on Pala Road at the south eastem end of the Project site. The high school site is across the street from the Pechanga Casino. The casino may be considered an attractive nuisance because it has the potential to create compatibility concems with regard to daily high school activities. Potentially adverse impacts include traffic and parking lot noise from the casino. Most of the high school students are minors and are prohibited from casino grounds. The width of Pala Road and the 100_ to 128_foot_wide flood control channel will provide a buffer between the high school and the casino. However, additional setback of buildings on school grounds may be necessary to minimize impact (Final EIR, p. 25). The minLmarket located across the street from the high school has the potential to create compatibility concems with regards to safety issues if students cross Pala Road to patronize the minLmarket. The City has no jurisdiction over the design and construction of the high school. However, the Temecula Valley Unified School District has indicated its intention to design the high school to incorporate measures to ensure student safety and minimize potential impacts. Land use compatibility impacts with respect to the minLmarket and casino will not be significant (Final EIR, p. 25). 3.1.2 Findings The Project will not result in any significant land use impacts. However, to minimize potential secondary impacts on residential uses and the high school within the Wolf Creek Specific Plan from the presence of the gambling casino and minLmarket, the following mitigation measures are recommended to further reduce impact: e e 1. For any residential development abutting Pala Road across from the casino, subdivision and site design shall incorporate noise attenuation walls if project_specific noise studies indicate that such features are necessary to achieve noise standards. If such walls are provided, landscaping shall be provided along the walls to achieve aesthetic improvements and to reduce potential for _ vandalism. Any such required walls and landscaping shall be provided prior to the issuance of . 14 e e e _~u~""..u ,vi L"w._w w_.~~____. The Temecula Valley Unified School District will ensure that the high school site design incorporates safety features such as fences, walls, and landscape buffers to discourage student pedestrian traffic across Pal a Road to the minLmar1\et (Final EIR, p. 26). 3.1.3 Supporting Explanation 2. A General Plan Amendment application has been filed to amend the Land Use Plan to reflect the pattern of land uses proposed by the Wolf Creek Specific Plan. The principal change involves rearranging the pattern of residential uses, locating commercial uses on both sides of Wolf Valley Road, establishing new par1\ locations, and accommodating potential school sites (Final EIR, p. 25). Project With Residential Use of School Sites: The Wolf Creek Specific Plan proposes land use types and development intensities consistent with the designations shown on the existing General Plan Land Use Plan. The proposed General Plan Amendment will rearrange the land use pattern designated for the site but retain the same overall maximum densities and dwelling units allowed on the site. The Project incorporates the "Village Center" concept described in the Land Use Element by providing central commercial, institutional, and recreational facilities and higher_density residential uses linked by pedestrianlbicycle paths. The Project is consistent with General Plan land use policy (Final EIR, p.25). Project With School Sites: As discussed above, the proposed land use types and intensities are consistent with General Plan land use policy. The General Plan also anticipates the development of public/institutional uses in the Wolf Creek Plan area. Therefore, development under this scenario is consistent with General Plan land use policy (Final EIR, p. 25). 3.2 Geotechnical Issues 3.2.1 Potentially Significant Impact Detailed geotechnical investigations revealed the following: Presence of Wildomar fault trace across Planning Areas 21 and 22, . No evidence of Wolf Valley fault on the site, and . No evidence of subsidence. The development standards for Planning Areas 21 and 22 include a requirement for a 75_foot setback 1rorn the Wildomar fault for all structures. This requirement assures avoidance of potential impact (Final EIR, pp. 31-39). . Grading and soil recompac:lion will require further review at the subdivision stage. Mitigation is required to avoid potential impact (Final EIR, p. 39). 3.2.2 Findings The following mitigation measure is required to avoid site_specific impact at the subdivision level: 1. As specific development proposals are advanced for Individual planning areas, construction-,evel geological and soils analyses will be performed as required by the City (Final EIR, p. 39). IS - - - - . - - -. - - . - -... . . -.. .. .. . e the Specific Plan that will reduce geotechnical impacts to a less than significant level. 3.2.3 Supporting Explanation Groundshaking and Surface Fault Rupture Project With Residential Use of School Sites: The Project site is subject to earthquake groundshaking hazards typical of the Califomia seismic environment. During the life of the Project, on_site development likely will be subject to ground accelerations generated from earthquakes produced along area faults (Final EIR, p. 37). Structures in the proposed development will be located on alluvial materials underiying the site, which generally tend to amplify ground motion. Secondary ground displacements in response to a nearby seismic event or a large regional earthquake are possible. Future seismic events could result in structural damage to buildings within the Project area. However, these effects would be expected under similar conditions throughout the region. State and local building codes require seismic hazard mitigation features to be incorporated into bUilding design and construction. All Project construction will comply with these codes. Impacts relative to groundshaking will thereby be reduced to a less_than_significant level (Final EIR, p. 37). Within an Alquist_Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone, habitable structures must maintain a minimum 50_foot setback distance from the fault trace per State law. Project specific geotechnical studies recommend a 75_foot setback zone or either side of the fault trace on the property (Figure 9, Final EIR, p. 38). The Specific Plan includes language for Planning Areas 21 and 22 to address this potential hazard and the required setback. Planning Areas 21 and 22 are the only two areas containing the fault trace (Final EIR, p.37). Due to the lack of evidence of suggesting the presence of the Wolf Valley segment on the site, and e because a 75_foot no_build buffer zone will be provided for the Wildomar segment, surface fault rupture hazards are less than significant (Final EIR, p. 37). Project Wdh School Sites: The above analysis and conclusion for Project with Residential Use of School Sites applies to this altemative. None of the school sites lies within the Alquist_Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone (Final EIR, p. 37). Uquefaction Project With Residential Use of School Sites: The Project geotechnical reports concluded that liquefaction potential on the site is low. Under "worst case" conditions, the soils engineer indicates that liquefaction would be limited in occurrence and manifested as minor potential settiements of a uniform nature. No special mitigation for liquefaction is necessary. Therefore, potential impact will be less than significant (Final EIR, p. 39). Project With School Sites: The above analysis and conclusion for Project with Residential Use of School Sites applies to this altemative (Final EIR, p. 39). Topography Project With Residential Use of School Sites: Because the site is relatively level, minimal landform alteration will be required to prepare the site for development. Project implementation will require some grading to create building pads, parking facilities, parks, and utilities, as well as to complete circulation and drainage system improvements. Overall landform alteration will be less than significant (Final EIR, p. 39). 16 e Findings August 2000 Wolf Creek Specific Plan City of Temecula e e e Project With School Sites: The above analysis and conclusion for Project with Residential Use of School Sites applies to this altemative (Final EIR, p. 39). Ground Subsidence Project With Residential Use of School Sites: Subsidence and settlement monitoring on the site has revealed no evidence of vertical movement indicative of subsidence. Thus. no impact on development is expected (Final EIR, p. 39). Project With School Sites: The above conclusion for Project with Residential Use of School Sites applies to this altemative (Final EIR, p. 39). 3.3 Air Quality (Short-Term Construction-Related) 3.3.1 Potential Significant Impact The estimated average amount of quarterty construction is below the SCAOMD thresholds of significance. However. during certain quarters, market demand has the potential'to result in a greater level of construction, which may result in a significant impact (Final EIR, p. 48). ' 3.3.2 Findings Incorporation into the Specific Plan of the following mitigation measures will result in changes or alterations to the Specific Plan that will reduce short-term construction-related air quality impacts to a less than significant level: 1. Construction contractors will maintain and service construction equipment to minimize exhaust emissions (Final EIR. p. 52). SCAOMDRules 402 and 403 shall be adhered to. reducing airbome particulate matter and ensuring the cleanup of construction-related dirt on approach routes to construction sites (Final EIR. p. 53). 2. 3. During grading activities, topsoil mounds shall be stabilized to prevent wind erosion and release of dust and particulates. This may be accomplished through regular watering, hydroseeding, netting, chemical applications. and other methods determined acceptable by the City (Final EIR. p.53). 4. All unpaved roads and parking areas will be watered down or chemically treated to control dust. Such mitigation shall occur on a daily basis or as otherwise appropriate, given weather conditions as determined by the City of Temecula. The City will monitor the construction site on a regular basis to ensure compliance (Final EIR. p. 53). s. Trucks leaving construction sites will be washed off. A Monitoring Program of the construction site to ensure compliance shall be the responsibility of the developer (Final EIR, p. 53). 17 Wolf Creek Specific Plan City of Temecula Findings August 2000 - - - -.... . -. - . - e Project With Residential Use of School Sites: The amount of construction-generated air pollutant emissions is generally proportional to the size of the Project under construction. The proposed Wolf Creek Specific Plan anticipates development to occur in two phases over a period of ten or more years, depending upon market condnions (Final EIR, p. 48). Over the next 10 years, development within the Wolf Valley Ranch sne will consist of between 2,144 and 2,601 dwelling unns, 300,000 square feet of commercial use, three schools (If so determined by the Temecula Valley Unified School District), and supporting infrastructure, including major roadways. If . schools are not built on the three sites provided in the Specific Plan, 2,601 residential units will be built (Final EIR, p. 48). The 557 _acre site is level land, and extensive grading will not be required for this development. Mass grading in excess of the quarterly emissions threshold is not planned. The developer plans to construct the proposed 2,144 to 2,601 units over a 5_ to 10j'ear period. Based on past development trends in the region during aggressive building cycles, the average level of development in any given quarter can be estimated at 56 to 65 units (Final EIR, p. 48). According to the Project applicant, commercial development probably will occur following the residential development. The estimated average amount of quarterly residential development, which is considered aggressive, is below the SCAQMD thresholds. During certain quarters, market demand has the potential to result in a greater number of units being constructed. However, compliance with standard SCAQMD requirements can reduce potentially significant impacts to acceptable levels (Final EIR, p. 48). Project With SChool Sites: The above analysis for Project with Residential Use of School Sites is valid for this scenario because the residential component represents the worst_case analysis for short_term impacts (Final EIR, p. 48). Implementation of the above referenced mitigation measures will reduce impacts to air qualny impacts e (with the exception of long-term air quality) to a less than significant level (Final EIR, p. 48). For a discussion of long-term air quality and the cumulative impacts to air quality please refer to Section 4.1 and 4.2. 3.4 Transportation and Circulation 3.4.1 Potential Significant Impact At buildout, the proposed Project with schools is forecast to generate approximately 42,036 new vehicle trips, while the scenario involving no schools would generate 38,527 (Final EIR, p. 56). The traffic impact analysis for the Specific Plan indicates that the Project will significantly impact levels of service at several intersections in the Project area, one during the moming peak hour, two during the evening peak hour, and one during both the moming and evening peak hour. In the absence of any roadway improvements, Project traffic impacts will be Significant (Final EIR, p. 63). 3.4.2 Findings The traffic study indicates that the following on-site roadway improvements must be incorporated into the Project to reduce impacts to acceptable levels: On-site Improvements The traffic study indicates that the following on_site roadway improvements must be incorporated into the Project to reduce impacts to acceptable levels: 18 e Findings August 2000 Wolf Creek Specific Plan City of Temecula e e e 1. In conjunction wtth Project development, Pala Road from 300 feet south of Loma Linda Road to Fairview Avenue will be constructed at its ultimate halCsection width as an Arterial Highway (110_foot right_oCway). Pala Road should be improved at a halCsection width as an Urban Arterial Highway (134_foot righCoCway) from Loma Linda Road to a point 300 feet south of the Loma Linda intersection, and then transition to the Arterial Highway section. A 14_foot_wide landscaped median shall be constructed in accordance with Ctty standards (Final EIR, p. 67). 2. In conjunction with Project development, Wolf Valley Road from Pala Road to the eastem Project boundary will be constructed at tts ultimate cross_section width as a Secondary Highway (88_foot righCoCway) in conjunction with adjacent development (Final EIR, p. 67). 3. In conjunction wtth Project development, construct Loma Linda Road from Pala Road to Via Del Coronado to its ultimate half_section width as a Collector (66_foot righCoCway) in conjunction with adjacent development, or a 78_foot roadway if the Circulation Element Update of the General Plan is approved (Final EIR, p.67). 4. In conjunction wtth Project development, Fairview Avenue from Pala Road to the eastem Project boundary will be constructed at its ultimate half_section width as a Secondary Highway (88_foot right_oCway) (Final EIR, p.67). S. Stte distance at each entrance to the Project shall be reviewed with respect to standard CaltranslCity of Temecula sight_distance standards at the time of preparation of tentative maps (Final EIR, p. 67). Off-site Improvements The traffic study and Circulation Element Update of the General Plan indicate that the following off_site roadway improvements must be accomplished to reduce impacts to acceptable levels: 6. Property owner(s) within the Project area, or the developer(s), shall contribute to the construction of the Pala Road bridge crossing of Temecula Creek on a fair_share basis through Assessment District No. 159 (Final EIR, p. 68). 7. Prior to the issuance of the first building pennit for the Wolf Creek Specific Plan, the Pala Road bridge crossing of Temecula Creek shall be constructed to accommodate four travel lanes, consistent wtth plans approved by the Ctty of Temecula. At the time of tentative subdivision map approval or commercial development plan approval, traffic volumes at the Pala Road bridge shall be monttored and approval may be subject to confinnation of available bridge_carrying capacity (Final EIR, p. 68). 8. Prior to issuance of the first building penntt, the following improvements shall have been completed to the satisfaction of the Ctty (Final EIR, p. 68): Interim interchange improvements at '_15/5R 795, . Widening of 5R 79S between Pala Road and '-15, and . Widening of Pala Road to 4 lanes from Clubhouse Drive to Loma Linda Road. 1. The developer(s) shall design and install traffic signals for projecUmpacted intersections when 19 Wolf Creek Specific Plan City ofTemecula Findings August 2000 . ~ . - . . . -.. ... - - -- - . .- Transportation System Management Actions 2. To accommodate transit services within the specific plan, bus tumouts shall be provided at locations designated by Riverside Transit Agency or the City of Temecula Department of Public Worb. Safe pedestrian access to and from the bus tumout shall be provided (Final EIR, p. 68). Additional Measures 3. Subsequent focused traffic studies may be required as the Project develops to identify actual future conditions and to determine whether additional improvements are required of the Project to meet City Level of Significance rLOS") objectives (Final EIR, p. 68). 4. Phased on_site street improvements will be identified and prioritized at the subdivision map stage (Final EIR, p. 68). The incorporation of the roadway and intersection improvements into the Specific Plan and their implementation as planned over the short and long terms, Project impacts in the short-term (year 2002) and in the long-term (year 2015) will be less than significant (Final EIR, p. 69). 3.4.3 Supporting Explanation In order to lessen the need for vehicle trips and to facilitate pedestrian and bicycle movement throughout the Project, the Specific Plan provides system of bikeways and pedestrian pathways. These amenities will be provided along Wolf Valley Road, "A" Street, Pal a Road, Fairview Road, Loma Linda Road, Via Del Coronado, and within the linear park to link neighborhoods within Wolf Creek as well as to other nearby development (Final EIR, p. 11). Furthermore, with respect to automobile circulation, no interior road system has been designed for the Plan, with the exception of roadways providing access to the entire site (Figure 2, Final EIR, p.5). The Interior Loop Road, which will be the primary circulation route through Wolf Creek, is envisioned as a landscaped parkway, with a right_oCway width of 85 feet. This accommodates a 44_foot road width, with wide parkway strips on either side. "A" Street will be constructed as a collector street with a 66_foot right_of way or, if the City's currently proposed General Plan Amendment is adopted, a 78_foot principal collector. Roadways adjacent to the site will be improved to provide efficient access. All other residential road, cuLde_sac, and alley designs will be developed in conjunction with tentative tract maps for individual planning areas (Final EIR, p. 11). 3.5 Hazards 3.5.1 Potential Significant Impact Asbestos and possibly contaminated soils exist on the site (Final EIR, pp. 81-83). 3.5.2 Findings The following mitigation measure will be implemented to reduce potential impacts to hazards at the proposed site to a less than significant level. 1. Soil undemeath and adjacent to the concrete slab where it is suspected that contaminated soil from the waste_oil UST lies within Planning Areas 2 and 3 shall be tested to determine if it Is 20 Findings August 2000 Wolf Creek Specific Plan City of Temecula e e e e accordance with state and federal regulatory requirements (Final EIR, pp. 84-5). 2. All known asbestos_containing materials on the site, including the transite pipe and materials in the four structures, shall be removed or stabilized pursuant to EPA requirements by a certified asbestos_removing contractor. Such remediation shall occur prior to the issuance of any grading permits, other than those that may be necessary to facilitate underground pipe removal (Final EIR, p. 85). . .. . ~. . - . -.. - -. . - - . . - - . - - - - - - - - - - 3.5.3 Supporting Explanation The Wolf Creek site currently is in agricultural use and has been since at least as early as the 1960s. Over the course of this agricultural use, a variety of potentially hazardous materials and substances may have been deposited on the site (Final EIR, p. 81). Project With Residential Use of School Sites e Underground Storage Tanks ("USTs"): All on_site USTs in the vicinity of Planning Areas 2 and 3 have been removed. However, soil remediation for the six USTs removed in 1988 may not have been sufficient to reduce levels of hydrocarbon contamination to less_than_significant levels. It is suspected that contaminated soil may exist undemeath a concrete slab at this location. This is a potentially significant impact (Final EIR, pp. 83-4). . Additional soil contaminated with hydrocarbons from gasoline and diesel fuel that was aerated in 1988 may exist elsewhere on the property at an unknown location or locations. There is no way to determine where this soil may be because there is no record of where this soil was moved. However, aeration, oxidization, and photo_reduction since 1988 will have reduced contamination levels in this soil to less_than_significant levels (Final EIR, p. 84). Pesticides: The concentrations of p,p-dichloro-diphenyl-dicloroethelyene ("4,4'_DDE) detected at the site are well below state and federal regulatory limits. Only 8 out of the 40 soil samples obtained across the site have been found to be impacted by one pesticide at very low concentrations. According to state and federal standards, these levels do not pose a risk due to either dust inhalation or direct skin contact. Potential impact and risk to human health are less than significant (Final EIR, p. 84). Asbestos: Four structures on the site and the existing irrigation pipes contain asbestos. Federal regulatory standards require that asbestos_containing materials, where they will be disturbed, must be removed in accordance with strict procedures. Developer compliance with existing regulations will reduce impact to a less_than_significant level (Final EIR, p. 84). Project With School Sites The conclusion for the no School site altemative is the same for the Project with School sites scenario. State requirements for school construction indude provisions for safeguarding School children against any known or suspected health hazards. Prior to acquisition of any site for school construction, the Temecula Valley Unified School District ("TVUSDj will conduct further, independent studies to ensure that each School site is environmentally sound and free of contaminants that pose potential health hazards. TVUSD compliance with existing regulatory requirements will reduce potential impact to a less_than_significant level (Final EIR, p. 84). e Future land uses on the site indude residential, commercial, and institutional development. None of these land use types involve the use, storage, or production of hazardous materials other than materials generally used for cleaning. Any cleaning or similar substance used will consistent of approved household, commercial, or Institutional products approved by state and federal agencies. No impact will 21 Wolf Creek Specific Plan City of Temecula Findings August 2000 . .. ... . . . . - 3.6 Noise e 3.6.1 Potential Significant Impact Construction noise and traffic noise will result in potentially significant adverse impads. Noise associated with events at the community pari<. can be controlled via existing City and Temecula Community Services District regulations. 3.6.2 Findings The following mitigation measures will be implemented to reduce potential noise impacts to a less than significant level: Short-term Construction Noise The following measure is required to reduce short-term construction noise impads: 1. All construction activities will comply with applicable City noise regulations designed to protect quiet residential areas from stationary noise sources. The City will be responsible for ensuring compliance (Final EIR, p. 99). Long-term Traffic Noise The following measures are required to achieve compliance with City standards for land use compatibility _ with respect to interior and exterior noise: ., 2. All new construction' will incorporate insulation features designed to achieve interior noise standards established by State and local ordinances (Final EIR, p. 99). 3. Any residential planning area within the Project adjacent to Pala Road or Wolf Valley Road, and where such areas will lie within a noise environment projected to exceed 65 CNEL, the property owner and/or developer shall provide a detailed noise assessment. The noise assessment shall evaluate Project and cumulative noise impacts and as necessary, describe noise reduction measures to be incorporated into the Project to comply with state and local exterior noise standards. The noise assessment shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City prior to the approval of a tentative subdivision map or development plan, whichever is appropriate for the type of development proposed (Final EIR, p. 99). Noise reduction measures may include, but are not limited to, noise attenuation walls or other barriers, increased setbacks, or other measures which will effectively achieve the City's desired level of mitigation (Final EIR, p. 99). 4. As directed by the City, a property owner and/or developer may be required to provide the noise assessment described in mitigation measure #3 for any residential development located along the proposed Interior Loop Road within the Wolf Creek Specific Plan. If such assessment shows that projected traffic noise will create noise levels in residential neighborhoods inconsistent with City policies and standards, the City will require noise reduction features in the form of sound walls, increased setbacks, or any combination of measures that will achieve City standards (Final EIR, ~~. . 22 e Findings August 2000 Wolf Creek Specific Plan City of Temecula e e e s. The City plans to undertake noise mitigation in conjunction with plans to widen Pala Road south of the Pala Road blidge crossing of Temecula Creek. The developer shall be required to participate in any noise mitigation program established by the City and shall pay toward a fair share of mitigation commensurate with noise impacts alllibutable to Wolf Creek traffic (Final EIR, p.99). 6. The Temecula Valley Unified School Distlict will ensure that school design achieves the intelior and extelior noise standards established by the State for new school construction (Final EIR, p. 99). 7. Site design techniques will be used as the plimary means to minimize noise impacts. Developers will be required to consider altemative architectural layouts as a means of meeting noise reduction requirements (Final EIR, p. 100). Community Parle Facility Noise 8. If deemed necessary, the City shall limilthe hours of operation of the facility or place other restlictions on the use of amplified sound at the facility in order to protect adjacent uses from noise impacts (Rnal EIR, p. 100). 3.6.3 Supporting Explanation Short-term Construction Noise Project With Residential Use of School Sites: Construction activities on the Project site could cause noisenand use compatibility standards to be exceeded in surrounding residential subdivisions. Duling the construction peliod, noise levels typically range from 75 to 105. according to the A_weighted decibel scale ("dBA j at a distance of 50 feet from the source (Final EIR, p. 93). Project With School Sites: The timing of school construction is not knoV/n. The potential exists, however, for construction of residential units within Planning Areas adjacent to school sites to occur once a school has been completed and is operational. Schools will be built per Department of Education requirements for sound proofing. Also, potential noise from construction activity will be short_term, though as in the no school scenalio, construction activities could cause noiselland use compatibility standards to be exceeded in surrounding residential subdivisions (Final EIR, p. 93). Lon!Lterm Noise Impact Project With Residential Use of School Sites: Development with school uses is considered the worst_case scenalio since a school represents a noise_sensitive land use (Final EIR, p. 93). Project With School Sites: Project and cumulative traffic levels on collector and artelial roadways have the potential to generate significant noise impacts on adjacent residential neighborhoods and schools (Final EIR, p. 93). As part of the traffic impact analysis, noise level projections were estimated for 2002, the start date of the Project, and 2015, the estimated date of Project buildout (Final EIR, p. 93). Year 2002. For residences and school structures located close to Pala Road, noise impacts will be potentially significant in the absence of any mitigation. Existing homes west of Pala Road will expelience an increase in noise levels. This level of increase due to Project traffic is significant (Final EIR, pp. 93_5). Year 201 S. Impacts similar to those reported for year 2002 will result. Sensitive land uses within the Project along Pala Road and Wolf Valley Road may be located in noise environments where extelior 23 Wolf Creek Specific Plan City of Tcmecula Findings August 2000 ... . - -.... ... - - -. - -. . ... along Pala Road will experience an increase in traffic noise levels. In the absence of any mitigation, impacts will be significant (Final EIR, p. 95). The Wolf Creek Project will also continue to contribute to high traffic volumes along SR 79S and Redhawk Parkway, although in the longer term, the percentage contribution will decline. However, because Project traffic will contribute a 0.5 CNEL increase or greater, Project impacts on surrounding uses will be Significant (Final EIR, p. 95). Community Park Facility The Community ParK, located in the Village Center, will have a concessions building, four lighted tennis courts, a tot lot, two lighted ball fields, and surface parking and supporting facilities. The Community ParK will be dedicated to the City of Temecula. The City will have the ability to design the parK to incorporate buffers, landscaping, and setbacks, and to limit the hours of operation to mitigate potential noise impacts on surrounding uses. If amplified sound is used in the parK facility, adjacent residences could experience noise impacts (Final EIR, p. 98). In addition to the mitigation measures identified above, additional discussion outlines additional restrictions and guidelines that in combination with the measures above will reduce noise impacts to a level that is less than significant. Shorl-term Construction Noise Construction activities will be short_term and will occur generally between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.. All construction activity will be required to comply with the City of Temecula noise ordinance. Thus, impacts will be less than Significant (Final EIR, p. 93). Long-term Noise As part of the proposed Project development, the proposed Pala Creek greenbelt channel will create a minimum 100- to 128-foot buffer between Pala Road and the nearest residences, so residences will be set back at least 115 feet (100-foot wide channel plus 15-foot rear yard setback). At a distance 200 feet from the Pala Road centeriine, noise levels will drop off substantially (Final EIR, p. 95). Community Pari< Facility Project With Residential Use of School Sites: Under this scenario, single_family residential uses would surround two sides of the community parK facility. Other uses, including commercial and public facility, would be separated from the site by the proposed Interior Loop Road and Wolf Valley Road, respectively. The City has the ability to control design and use of the parK to guard against potential noise impacts (Final EIR, p. 98). If amplified sound is used in the parK facility, adjacent residences could experience noise impacts. However, per City ordinance, the use of amplified sound is not permitted in public parks unless approved in advance by the Temecula Community Services District. As a result, potential impact will be less than significant (Final EIR, p. 98). . e e Project With School Sites: Under this development scenario, the parK will be surrounded by single_family, elementary school, commercial, and public facility uses. As indicated above, City design and use control over the parK will avoid impact (Final EIR, p. 98). If amplified sound is used in the parK facility, single_family and school uses may experience noise impacts. The State building code requires schools to be designed to meet interior and exterior noise _ 24 . Findings August 2000 Wolf Creek Specific Plan City of Temecula e e e . .- - - - - - -- - - .. -- . -. - -_.- - .-. - - .---- potential noise impacts on the elementary school to a less_than_ significant level. Also, as discussed above, existing City ordinances will wolt to avoid impact associated with amplified sound (Final EIR, p. 98). Other Noise Sources Other sources of noise within the new community will include ambient noise in residential neighborhoods (e.g. lawn mowers, outdoor activity, stereos), mechanical equipment and loading activities associated with commercial uses, and ongoing construction activity. All such use and activity will be required to comply with City noise regulations. Enforcement of existing standards and regulations will wolt to avoid impact (Final EIR, p. 98). 3.7 Drainage 3.7.1 Potential Significant Impact The development of the site will increase runoff into existing inadequate flood control facilities. The Specific Plan includes provisions for on_site drainage facilities to correct existing problems and to accommodate project_related runoff. However, improvements beyond those incorporated into the project are necessary to avoid impact. 3.7.2 Findings In a~dition to the drainage improvements included in the Specific Plan, implementation of the following mitigation measures will reduce impacts to drainage and flood control to a less than significant level: All storm drainage and flood control facilities will be designed and constructed to the satisfaction . of the City Engineer and the Riverside County Water Conservation and Flood Control District, and in accordance wIIh any required permits and conditions that may be required by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers pursuant to the Clean Water Act (Final EIR, p. 117). 2. Final drainage system designs for the Wolf Creek Specific Plan shall be consistent with the provisions of the Wolf Valley Drainage Basin Regional Drainage Analysis Report approved by the City, with supporting Project hydrology and drainage studies. Design flow rates will be based on City of Temecula and Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District standards for 10_ to 100j'ear storm runoff (Final EIR, p. 117). 1. 3. The proposed Pala Creek Road channel will be sized for on-site and off-site storm flows to include the Pechanga Creek overflow at Fairview Road. This facility must be designed to accommodate 100j'ear flows, as well as to coordinate or mitigate the connection with existing regional facilities previously approved by the County of Riverside and City of Temecula (Final EIR, p. 117). 4. The collector storm drain in Wolf Valley Road will be sized to include off-site flows from the adjacent Redhawk Project (Final EIR, p. 117). S. The 100j'ear level of protection shall meet National Flood Insurance program standards as administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), and development of the site shall comply with the provisions of the City of Temecula's Floodplain Management Ordinance. The developer will coordinate with the City Public Works Department and FEMA to amend the Flood Insurance Rate Maps on the basis of proposed drainage plans In order to 2S Wolf Creek Specific Plan City ofTemecula Findings August 2000 ......_.J. ..,~ IlIIIIItn~'.. _..,1'.nwn.wwJ3"WW"J\' ".w, _n., '-"',. As development of the Wolf Creek Specffic Plan area proceeds, interim flood control facil~ies and/or measures will be implemented. pending phasing and the need for and completion of proposed backbone improvements (Final EIR, p. 117). 7. All storm drains and flood control devices will be extended to suitable points of disposal for proper control of storm runoff on and off the s~e (Final EIR, p. 117). 6. 8. The channel downstream of Loma Linda Road to Temecula Creek will require reconstruction to provide capa~y for 1 OO-year flows. The timing of such improvements shall be as directed by the Director of Public Works. The Project applicant may be required to prepare designs and proceed with such reconstruction, w~h a possibility of reimbursement from Assessment District No. 159 or other approved funding mechanisms (Final EIR, p. 117). 9. Erosion control and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plans iSWPPPj incorporating Best Management Practices (BMP) shall be prepared and implemented for the Project grading and construction phases in accordance with C~y and San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System iNPDESj requirements (Final EIR, p. 118). 3.7.3 Supporting Explanation The Wolf Creek site lies w~hin the lower Wolf Valley watershed. adjacent to Pal a Road Creek. Pala Road Creek is a largely unimproved stream channel extending south and west of the site, and ultimately joining Temecula Creek via an earthen channel parallel to Jedediah Smith Road. Most of the upstream area is undeveloped (Final EIR, p. 111). Project Wdh Residential Use of School Sites: Development of the proposed Wolf Creek Specific Plan will result in increased runoff due to covering of currently vacant land with impervious surfaces such as roadways, buildings, parldng lots, and driveways. New local and regional drainage facilities will be required to accommodate both Project runoff and cumulative runoff of development within the Wolf Valley watershed. to protect properties downstream from the Project site from increased runoff. and to provide improved regional flood control (Final EIR, p. 113). In general, existing facilities are inadequate to accommodate existing flows (Final EIR, p. 112). In the absence of the facilities, Project impacts will be significant (Final EIR, p. 113). Furthermore, the Loma Linda RoadfTemecula Creek channel is inadequate to handle 100-year storm flows and will require removal and replacement with an adequately sized facility. In the absence of improvements to the Loma Linda RoadfTemecula Creek channel, the Wolf Creek Project will contribute to existing drainage problems. Cumulative impact is considered significant (Final EIR. p. 114). Project Wdh School Sites: Similarly, in the absence of the facilities and improvements. Project impacts will be significant. Therefore. the same drainagelflood control approach will be used for the Project with School Sites scenario. Given the high debris production potential and the existing drainage and flooding problems at the site, the Project applicant prepared a drainage analysis and plan for the Wolf Valley watershed, to assess Project drainage requirements at both the local and regional levels [Woif Valley Drainage Basin Regional Drainage Analysis Report, April 1999 (Revised)] (Final EIR. p. 111-13). The plan addresses both on_site improvements and improvements required to address existing off_site problems (Final EIR, p. 113). e e The drainage report proposes a plan for collecting stormwater runoff and conveying ~ across the property a 26 .. Findings August 2000 Wolf Creek Specific Plan City of Temecula e e e - . . - . -. . - . - . - - - - - -. -. . -. .. - -. - . - - grass_lined swale with a slope of about 4:1, within a varying easement width of 100 to 128 feet. Existing drainage will be captured at the south end of the property at Pala Road and Fairview Avenue, through a storm drain system constructed as part of the Redhawk development or other system approved by the City Engineer, and then discharged into the proposed grass_lined swale along Pala Road. The grassJined swale will connect to the existing Pala Road channel at the north end of the Project site. The swale, parallel to Pala Road, will have grass_lines side slopes and bottom section, with a 4_fooCwide, concrete_lined, low_flow "V" channel in the center. A series of drop structures are proposed to limit flow velocities to 8 feet per second or less. No fencing or other barriers will be erected along the channel. Box culverts will be constructed under Fairview Road, Wolf Valley Road, and Loma Linda Road (Final EIR, p. 113). The existing 293 cfs of flow that enters the property from the Redhawk development at Wolf Valley Road at present will be conveyed to the Pala Road channel via underground facilities. Additional facilities planned include all on_street and underground facilities required to capture runoff within residential - subdivisions and other planned development, and to convey those flows to the Pala Road Channel. These facilities will be sized according to calculated demand, and all plans will require City approval. Standard engineering practices will mitigate localized drainage impact to a less_than_significant level (Final EIR, p. 113-4). A small area in the northeast comer of the property is tributary to an existing storm drain constructed by the Redhawk Development, which discharges directly into Temecula Creek. Project drainage to the northeast will tie into this existing facility (Final EIR, p. 114). The greenbelt Pala Road Channel represent the primary regional drainage facility requiring improvements to accommodate increased flows from the Wolf Creek development and to mitigate existing flooding problems related to prior urbanization in the area. As such, the following will be required: The main channel drain will be sized for on site and off site storm flows to include the Pechanga Creek overflow at Fairview Road. The channel will be financed by Assessment District No. 159. This facility must be designed to accommodate the 100-year flows, as well as to coordinate or mitigate the connection with existing regional facilities previously approved by the County and City of Temecula (Final EIR, p. 114). Of major concem is the future connection of the Pala Road swale to the existing undersized trapezoidal channel between Loma Linda Road and Temecula Creek, parallel to Jedediah Smith Road. The channel's capacity is inadequate to handle 100-year storm flows and will require removal and replacement with an adequately sized facility. The Project drainage report recommends two altematives to widen the existing earthen channel, as well as a proposal for a box culvert improvement at Loma Linda Road and other locations (undefined). In the absence of such improvements, the Wolf Creek Project will contribute to existing drainage problems. Cumulative impact is considered significant (Final EIR, p. 114). However, the incorporation of the mitigation measures identified above and improvements identified in the Specific Plan will reduce these drainage and flood control problems to a less than significant level (Final EIR, p. 118). 27 Wolf Creek Specific Plan City of Temecula Findings August 2000 ~.O ~:s e 3.8.1 Potential Significant Impact The surrounding area has been occupied historically by native peoples. Though no historic or prehistoric resources' have been identified on the site, the potential exists for subsurface artifacts to be uncovered during grading operations (Final EIR, p. 131). 3.8.2 Findings The following measure is required to avoid potential impact on any subsurface deposits: 1. 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 Luiseilo Mission Indians to allow a representative of the Pechanga 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 (Final EIR, p. 132). The incorporation of this mitigation measure will reduce any potential impact to cultural resources to a less than significant level. 3.9 Aesthetics 3.9.1 Potential Significant Impact e Aesthetic compatibility and light pollution are potentially significant impacts. While the Specific Plan includes provisions to ensure quality design and compatibility, ongoing review and monitoring will be required to avoid impact. In addition, roughly one-third of the southeastem portion of the Wolf Creek Specific Plan site lies within a City-restricted nighttime lighting area that is within a 15-mile radius of Palomar Observatory. A potential exists for a significant aesthetic impact if the Project results in substantial light and glare (Final EIR, p. 126). 3.9.2 Findings Implementation of the following mitigation measures will reduce aesthetic impacts control to a less than significant level: 1. All development within the Project area will conform to the development standards and design , and architectural guidelines contained in the Wolf Creek Specific Plan (Final EIR, p. 129). 2. All outdoor lights in the Wolf Creek Specific Plan area shall consist of 10wJ)ressure sodium lamps oriented and shielded to minimize sky glow interference in accordance with applicable City ordinances and regulations (Final EIR, p. 129). 3. All development in the Wolf Creek Specific Plan area shall comply with the City's Light Pollution Control Ordinance to minimize nighttime light interference and light impacts on IighCsensitive uses (Final EIR, p. 129). The following measure is required to reduce lighting impacts: 28 e Findings August 2000 Wolf Creek Specific Plan City of Temecula e 4. All athletic field and security lighting at all pam and schools shall be designed and constructed to avoid adverse light and glare effects on any adjacent residential use (Final EIR, p. 129). 3.9.3 Supporting Explanation The following details from the Final EIR and Specific Plan illustrate that the Project will not have any signifICant impact upon aesthetics and that any potential aesthetic impact will be reduced to a less than significant level through requirements and standards in the Specific Plan and the mitigation measure identified above: The Specific Plan contains detailed development standards and design guidelines aimed toward ensuring land use compatibility and providing "the City of Temecula, developers, and ultimately residents of Wolf Creek with the necessary assurance that proposed individual developments will conform to the same high standards of design proposed (in the Specific Plan)" (Final EIR, p. 126). The Plan includes requirements for entryway, intersection, and median and parkway landscape treatments to enhance the visual environment and to create edges and linkages throughout the development. Site planning guidelines emphasize pedestrian_scale development within the village center, as well as coordinated architectural treatment of buildings and other features (e.g. lighting fixtures, street fumiture, kiosks, signage). The design guidelines for residential development provide for community theme walls and accent landscaping, streetscape variety through varying setbacks and a mix of one_ and two_story residences, and pedestrian throughways connecting the neighborhoods (Final EIR, p. 126-7). e Architectural guidelines are also provided in the Plan. The architectural guidelines call for articulated building facades, porches and balconies on single_family residences, and paving accents (Final EIR, p. 127). The standards and guidelines contained in the Specific Plan will provide the City of Temecula with the tools necessary to ensure that development within Wolf Creek will complement surrounding development and will not result in any unappealing aesthetic conditions, as viewed from Pala Road or surrounding properties. The Project will not result in any significant adverse aesthetic impact (Final EIR, p. 127). In addition, this scale of development, and the fact that the site topographically lies lower than development to the north, will ensure that views toward the Palomar and San Jacinto Mountains are maintained from surrounding properties (Final EIR, p. 126). Furthermore, the Wolf Creek Specific Plan area currently does not create a light and glare impact on surrounding areas because the site does not have any significant light sources. The Project site is located within the Mount Palomar Observatory Special Lighting Area, which requires unique nighttime lighting restrictions (Final EIR. p. 126). Section 4 - Significant Environmental Impacts Not Fully Mitigated To A Less Than Significant Level The Planning Commission hereby finds that. despite the incorporation of mitigation measures outlined in the Final EIR, the following impacts cannot be fully mitigated to a less than significant level, and a Statement of Overriding Considerations is therefore included herein: 4.1 Air Quality (Long Term) e 29 Wolf Creek Specific Plan City of Temecula Findings August 2000 4.1.1 Potential Significant Impact e Under both Project options, long-term operational emissions (due to vehicular travel and on-site energy consumption) of carbon monoxide, oxides of nitrogen, and reactive organic gases will exceed the SCAQMD thresholds of significance (Final EIR, pp. 49-51). 4.1.2 Findings Implementing the following mitigation measures will reduce long term air quality impacts to the extent feasible: Transportation_related Emissions The following measures 1 through 4 are required to reduce mobile and stationary source emissions. 1. Upon identifying a demand for bus service to the Project area, the Riverside Transit Agency, or other responsible public transit provider, will establish bus routes and stops to service the residents in the specifiC plan area (Final EIR, p. 53). 2. The developer shall provide bus tumouts at strategic locations throughout the Project as determined by the Riverside Transit Agency and approved by the City of Temecula (Final EIR, p. 53). Energy Conservation Measures 3. The developer shall comply with applicable energy conservation guidelines for construction in . accordance with the most recent edition of the Uniform Building Code and any other City requirements (Final EIR, p. 53). 4. The developer shall install energy-efficient lighting for all lighting systems (Final EIR, p. 53). Wrth implementation of the above mitigation measures, air quality impacts will be slightly lessened, and the Project will be consistent with the AQMP. However, the project's level of average daily pollutant emissions will continue to represent a significant and unavoidable impact (Final EIR, p. 53). 4.1;3 Supporting Explanation The Project includes a mix of complementary residential and 10caLserving commercial uses in close proximity to one another. This land use pattem worXs to reduce vehicle trips, a primary goal of the Air Quality Management Plan ("AQMPj. Development of the schools in the Wolf Creek area would generate approximately 344 more new jobs in the area than residential use of the school sites. Also, placing schools within easy walking or biking distance to residential uses further meets AQMP objectives to reduce vehicle trips (Final EIR, p. 52). The Specific Plan provides system of bikeways and pedestrian pathways that are designed to lessen the need for vehicle trips and to facilitate pedestrian and bicycle movement throughout the Project. These amenities will be provided along Wolf Valley Road, "A" Street, Pal a Road, Fairview Road, Loma Linda Road, Via Del Coronado, and within the linear park to link neighborhoods within Wolf Creek as well as to other nearby development (Final EIR, p. 11). 30 e Findings August 2000 Wolf Creek Specific Plan City of Temecula e e e 4.2.1 Potential Significant Impact The Temecula General Plan EIR concludes that cumulative air qualny impacts will be regionally significant and constnute an unavoidable significant impact. The Wolf Creek Specific Plan will contribute incrementally to this cumulative effect (Final EIR, p. 157). 4.2.2 Findings The same mitigation measures identified in Section 4.1 above will help to slightly lessen the cumulative air qualny impacts. Yet, no feasible mnigation measures exist which would reduce the cumulative impact of average daily pollutant emissions to a less than significant level (Final EIR, p. 53). 4.2.3 Supporting Explanation With implementation of the above mnigation measures, air quality impacts will be slightly lessened, and the project will be consistent with the AQMP. However, the project's level of average daily pollutant emissions will continue to represent a significant and unavoidable impact (Final EIR, p. 53). 4.3 Cumulative Impact on Agricultural Uses 4.3.1 Potential Significant Impact The Temecula General Plan EIR states that development will result in a significant cumulative impact on agricultural uses within the San JacintofTemecula Valley District. The removal of the Wolf Creek property from agricultural use will contribute incrementally to this unavoidable cumulative impact (Final EIR, p. 158). 4.3.2 Findings No feasible mitigation exists (Final EIR, p. 158). 4.3.3 Supporting Explanation Though the Project results in a significant cumulative impact on agricultural uses within the San JacintofTemecula Valley District, both the Project scenarios are consistent with the City's General Plan land use policy. The City of Temecula General Plan Land Use map designates the subject property and all surrounding lands within the City's sphere of influence for urtJan uses. Agricultural activity has essentially disappeared from this area of the Temecula Valley. The properties adjacent to the Wolf Creek site have been developed or are planned to be developed with urtJan uses (e.g. residential, commercial, and recreational uses) (Final EIR, p. 137). 31 WoIf Creek Specific Plan City ofTemecula Findings August 2000 e The Planning Commission hereby declares that ~ has considered and rejected as infeasible the alternatives identified in the Final EIR and described below. CEOA requires that an EIR evaluate a reasonable range of alternatives to a Project, or to the location of the Project, which: (1) offer substantial environmental advantages over the Project proposal, and (2) may be feasibly accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time conSidering the economic, environmental, social and technological factors involved. An EIR must only evaluate reasonable alternatives to a Project which could feasibly attain most of the Project objectives, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. In all cases, the consideration of alternatives is to be judged against a "rule of reason." The lead agency is not required to choose the "environmentally superior" alternative identified in an EIR if the alternative does not provide substantial advantages over the proposed Project and (1) through the imposition of mitigation measures the environmental effects of a Project can be reduced to an acceptable level, or (2) there are social, economic, technological or other considerations which make the alternative infeasible. The C~y's General Plan identifies goals and policies that are relevant to the Specific Plan and the City as a whole, which are to provide for the orderly development of Temecula, in general, and also specifically for the Wolf Creek site. These include: A complete and integrated mix of residential, commercial, industrial, recreational, public and open space land uses (Goal 1, City of Temecula Land Use Element, p. 2-9). Including such policies as: < Review all proposed development plans for consistency with the . community goals, policies, and implementation programs of the General Plan (Policy 1.1, Final EIR, p. 2-9). Promote the use of innovative site planning techniques that contribute towards the development of a variety of residential product styles and designs, including housing suitable to the community's labor force (policy 1.2, City of Temecula Land Use Element, p. 2-9). Require the development of unified or clustered community_level and neighborhood_level commercial centers and discourage development of strip commercial uses (Policy 1.3, Final EIR, p. 2-9). Consider the impacts on surrounding land uses and infrastructure when reviewing land uses and infrastructure when reviewing proposals for new development (Policy 1.4, Final EIR, p. 2-9). Require the preparation of specific plans as designated on the Specific Plan Overlay to achieve the comprehensive planning and phasing of development and infrastructure (Policy 1.7, Final EIR, p. 2-9). Encourage flexible zoning techniques in appropriate locations to preserve na,tural features, achieve innovative s~e design, achieve a range of transition of densities, provide open space and recreational facil~ies, and provide necessary amen~ies and facil~ies (Policy 1.9, Final EIR, p. 2-9). < < < < < " A land use pattern that will protect and enhance residential neighborhoods (Goal 3, Final EIR, p. 2-10). Including such policies as: Findings August 2000 < Consider the compatibil~y of proposed projects on surrounding uses in terms of a 32 ,., Wolf Creek Specific Plan City ofTemecula e e e ...~ ~n! J..~ ~..,,!~,~uv.. v, ~~"~,,I!u, u.l ~, ",_'~"~'J ~,,~ ,_..wu~. preservation of existing vegetation and land fonn. the location of access routes. noise impacts, traffic impacts, and other environmental conditions (Policy 3.1, Final EIR, p. 2-10). A development pattem that preserves and enhances the environmental resources of the Study Area (Goal 4, Final EIR. p. 2-11). < Consider altemative flood control methods to reduce capital and maintenance costs and provide recreational and open space opportunities (Policy 4.6, Final EIR, p. 2-12). . A land use pattem and intensity of development that encourages altemative modes of transportation, including transit, bicycling, and walking (Goal 5, Final EIR, p. 2-12). Including such policies as: < Require the provision of pedestrian and bicycle linkages from residential areas to open space/recreation facilities, commercial, and employment centers (policy 5.2, Final EIR, p. 2-12). Encourage variety in the design of sidewalks and trails with respect to alignment and surface materials to provide a convenient and enjoyable experience for the users (Policy 5.3, Final EIR, p. 2-13). Designate Village Centers on the Land Use Plan to provide areas within the community that are urban in character, contain a mixture of compatible uses, and are designed to reduce or eliminate the need for automobile in traveling to or within Village Centers (policy 5.5, Final EIR, p. 2-13). Encourage higher density residential, mixed_use development, and support public and community facilities within Village Centers (Policy 5.6, City of Temecula Land Use Element, p. 2-13). Insure that adequate public gathering areas or plazas are incorporated within Village Centers to allow for social interaction and community activities (Policy 5.10, City ofTemecula Land Use Element, p. 2-13).. Discourage the development of strip commercial centers that increase auto- dependency (Policy 5.11, City of Temecula Land Use Element, p. 2-13). < < < < < . A City which is compatible and coordinated with regional land use pattems (Goal 8, City ofTemecula Land Use Element, p. 2-15). . Strive to maintain a Level of Service .0. or better at all intersections within the City during peak hours and Level of Service .C. or better during non-peak hours (Goal 1, City of Temecula Circulation Element, p. 3-8). . Safe and efficient altematives to motorized travel throughout the City (Goal 6, City of Temecula Circulation Element, p. 3-12). Including such policies as: 33 Wolf Creek Specific Plan City of Temecula Findings August 2000 , residential areas and commercial/employment activny centers, public institutions, and recreation areas (Policy 6.5, Cny ofTemecula Circulation Element, p. 3-13). e . A diversny of housing opportunities that satisfy the physical, social and economic needs of existing and future residents fo Temecula (Goal 1, City of Temecula Housing Element, p. 4-42). Including such policies as: < Provide an inventory of land at varying densities sufficient to accommodate the existing and projected housing needs in the City (Policy 1.1, City of Temecula 1994-1999 Housing Element, p. 4-42). < Require a mixture of diverse housing types and densnies in new developments around the village centers to enhance their people-orientation and diversny (policy 1.3, cny of Temecula 1994-1999 Housing Element, p. 4-42). A high qualny parils and recreation system that meets the varying recreational needs of residents (Goal 1, Cny of Temecula Open Space/Conservation Element, p. 5-25). Including such policies as: < Require developers of residential projects greater than fifty dwelling units to dedicate land based on the park acre standard of five (5) acres of usable parldand to one thousand (1,000) population, or the payment of in-lieu fees in accordance with the Parils and Recreation Master Plan (Policy 1.3, City of Temecula Open Space/Conservation Element, p. 5-25). .a Maximize pedestrian and bicycle access to existing and new parks as an . altemative to automobile access (Policy 1.10, City of Temecula Open Space/Conservation Element, p. 5-26). < . Conservation and protection of surface water, groundwater and imported water resources (Goal 2, Cny of Temecula Open Space/Conservation Element, p. 5-26). Including such policies as: < Conserve potable water by requiring water conservation techniques in all new development (Policy 2.3, Cny of Temecula Open Space/Conservation Element, p. 5-26). . Conservation of energy resources through the use of available technology and conservation practices (Goal 4, City of Temecula Open Space/Conservation Element, p. 5-28). . A trail system that serves both recreational and transportation needs (Goal 8, City of Temecula Open Space/Conservation Element, p. 5-32). Protection of dark skies from intrusive light sources which may impact the Palomar Observatory (Goal 9, City of Temecula Open Space/Conservation Element, p. 5-32). 34 e Findings August 2000 Wolf Creek Specific Plan City of TemecuJa e e e - . . - - - * - .. . .. - . * . * - -. * for residents (Goal 2, City of Temecula Growth ManagemenVPublic Facilities Element, p. 6-25). Including such policies as: < Encourage development of Village Centers, as defined in the Land Use and Community Design Elements, to reduce public service costs and environmental impacts through compatible land use relationships, and efficient circulation and open space systems (Policy 2.4, Ctty of Temecula Growth ManagemenVPublic Facilities Element, p. 6-25). . Effective and cost efficient sheriff, fire and emergency medical services within the City (Goal 3, City of Temecula Growth ManagemenVPublic Facilities Element, p. 6-26). Including such policies as: < Require new development to address fire and police protection in a proactive and preventative way through street design, orientation of entryways, siting of structures, landscaping, lighting and other security features (Policy 3.3, City of Temecula Growth ManagemenVPublic Facilities Element, p. 6-26). A qualtty school system that contains adequate facilities and funding to educate the youth of Temecula (Goal 4, City of Temecula Growth ManagemenVPublic Facilities Element, p. 6-27). Including such policies as: < Provide information to the Temecula Valley Unified School District, when considering General Plan amendments, specific plans, zone changes, or other legislative land use policy decisions, to support the School District in providing adequate school faciltties for students for new development to the extent permitted by law (policy 4.1, Ctty of Temecula Growth ManagemenVPublic Facilities Element, p. 6-28). An effective, safe and environmentally compatible flood control system (Goal 7, Ctty of Temecula Growth ManagemenVPublic Facilities Element, p.6-30). . Protection from natural hazards associated with geologic instability, seismic events, and flooding (Goal 1, Ctty of Temecula Public Safety Element, p. 7-16). . Consider noise issues in the planning process (Goal 3, City of Temecula Noise Element, p. 8-17). Including such policies as: < Encourage the use of site design and building design techniques, including the use of landscaped setbacks or berms, building orientation, and buffering of noise sensitive areas, as a means to minimize noise impacts (Policy 3.3, City of Temecula Noise Element, p. 8-17). Enhanced mobiltty to minimize air pollutant emissions (Goal 2, City of Tamacula Air 3S Wolf Creek Specific Plan City ofTemecula Findings August 2000 , . A streetscape system that provides cohesiveness and enhances community image (Goal 4, City ofTemecula Community Design Element, p. 1~). 5.1 uNo Development" Alternative 5.1.1 Description The "no development" altemative assumes continued use of the site for agricultural purposes since this represents the most recent use of the subjed property. Implementation of this aRemative would not result in any of the environmental impads associated with construdion and development of the proposed Projed. The land use, hydrologic, and circulation charaderistics of the site would remain in their present state, and any circulation and traffic impads associated with the Projed development would not occur. In addition, noise and air quality impads due to increased traffic development would not be generated (Final EIR, p. 142). 5.1.2 Finding The Planning Commission find that the "No Development" ARemalive is fails to address many of the Goals identified in the City's General Plan. 5.1.3 Supporting Explanation Under the No Development ARemalive, the Specific Plan would not be adopted or implemented. Therefore, the No Development ARemative is contrary to several of the City's goals as identified in the Land Use Element. In particular, the failure to adopt a Specific Plan for the area would be in contradiction to Land Use Policy 1.7 which requires the preparation of specific plans to achieve the comprehensive planning and phasing of development and infrastrudure (City of Temecula Land Use Element, p. 2-9). Continued use of the site for agricultural production would not be consistent with General Plan land use . policy (City of Temecula Land Use Element, p. 2-9). In the long term, as urban development continues to surround the site, land use conflids between agricultural adivity and urban uses could be significant. Dust generation (from plowing), pesticide use, and farm equipment noise would represent potential irritants to the adjacent residential neighborhoods (Final EIR, p. 142). The No Development ARemative would also not be consistent with Goal 2 and Goal 4 of the Growth ManagemenVPublic Facilities Element since this altemative would not provide growth that "enhances the quality of life for residents" nor would it provides sites for schools to serve the neighboring communities (City ofTemecula Growth ManagemenVPublic Facilities Element, pp. 6-25-6). Furthermore, the infrastrudure improvements associated with the Projed would not occur. Some of these improvements include the construdion of Fairview Avenue as a Secondary Highway (86-foot right- of-way), the construdion of Pala Road to its ultimate half-sedion width as an Arterial Highway (11 O-foot right-of-way), the construction of Loma Linda Road as a Colledor (66-foot right-of-way), and the construdion of Wolf Valley Road as a Secondary Highway (86-foot right-of-way) (Final EIR, p. 67). Wrthout these improvements. the No Development Altemative would fails to address Goal 4 of the Community Design Element, which emphasizes a need for a cohesive streetscape system (City of Temecula Community Design Element, p. 1~). In addition, the existing flood and drainage infrastrudure is insufficient or has inadequate capacity to properly handle runoff from the upstream watershed (Final EIR. p. 111). The Project applicant prepared a drainage analysis and plan for the Wolf Creek Watershed, which Identified existing problems. Wrthout 36 Findings August 2000 Wolf Creek Specific Plao City of Temecula e e e e e e I.. _._ _ . . ... _ ..... _ . _ _. _. _ _ _ .._. _ _ existing problems would continue (Final EIR, pp.111-3). No development of residential housing units on the Wolf Creek Site may also make more difficult for the City to achieve its present Regional Housing Needs Assessment number of 7,798 housing units or future number as identified by SCAG and WRCOG (WRCOG, July 23, 2000, p. 5). The No Development Altemative would fail to meet the Goal 1 of the 1994-1999 Housing Element, which calls for a diversity of housing opportunities that meet the existing needs of existing and future residents (City of Temecula . 1994-1999 Housing Element, p. 4-42). . Thus, the No Development A1temative would be infeasible because it is in contradiction to the City's Goals as identified above. 5.2 All Single-Family Development Alternative 5.2.1 Description The Specific Plan provides for the option of developing planning area 10, which is designated for multi_family use, with single_family cOurtyard residential subdivisions at an average density of 12 units per acre. Under this scenario, up to 2,529 units could be constructed on the site, assuming that all three schools are not constructed (Final EIR, p. 145). 5.2.2 Finding The Planning Commission finds that the All Single-Family Development Altemative is not environmentally superior to the Specific Plan and is infeasible because the altemative is contrary to one of the key goals of the City's 1994-1999 Housing Element and is also not consistent with the City's General Plan. 5.2.3 Supporting Explanation The All Single Family Development Altemative would not be consistent with the General Plan land use designations for the site. The General Plan envisions a "village" concept, whereby a range of residential densities and rental versus owner/occupied uses, together with complementary commercial and institutional uses are developed in an integrated manner. Unlike the proposed Project, this altemative may not achieve General Plan land use goals and for this reason would be considered inferior to the Project (Final EIR. p. 145). Since this altemative would generate 72 fewer housing units and would eliminate multi-family housing as part of the Specific Plan, this altemative would also not be consistent with Goal 1 of the 1994-1999 Housing Element (identified above) In addition, this altemative contradicts Policy 1.1 and 1.3 which identify the need for a diversity of housing types and densities (including rental units) and the development of diverse housing types around village centers (City of Temecula 1994-1999 Housing Element, p. 4-42). 5.3 Low-Density Alternative 5.3.1 Description The low_density residential altemative assumes less than one unit per acre across the entire site, yielding 500 units, or 2.101 fewer units than the Wolf Creek Specific Plan (assuming no school sites). This altemative is considered to be the environmentally superior altemative due to its ability to minimize air quality impacts (Final EIR. p. 147). 37 Wolf Creek Specific Plan City of Temecula Findings August 2000 Though the Low-Density Alternative is environmentally superior to the Specific Plan, the Planning Commission finds that it is infeasible because it fails to meet the City's goals as identified in the General Plan. e 5.3.3 Supporting Explanation Since this atternative would not "provide a balance of uses with commercial and public uses serving the surrounding area" (Temecula General Plan, p. 2_37), this atternative would not be consistent with objectives defined in the City of Temecula General Plan. Furthermore, this alternative would not be consistent with surrounding development pattems. Furthermore, a reduction in the number of housing units constructed would make it more difficutt for the City to meet its current or future Regional Housing Needs Assessment number of housing units as required by the Westem Riverside Council of Govemments and the Southern Califomia Association of Governments (WRCOG, July 23,1999, p. 5). The Low-Density Altemative would fail to provide a diversity of housing opportunities for current and future Temecula residents, as stated in Goal 1 of the 1994-1999 Housing Element and would also be contrary to Policy 1.1 which requires a variety of densities in new developments around village centers (City of Temecula 1994-1999 Housing Element, p. 4-42). Wrth regard to air quality effects, this attemative would have the potential to resutt in less_than_significant Project impacts on air quality, however, the cumulative air quality impacts would remain significant (Final EIR, p. 149). In addition, the altemative might not provide the same level of flood control improvements associated with the Project nor generate property assessment fees adequate to fund regional improvements. In this regard, the attemative is inferior to the Project (Final EIR, p. 150). Though, the Low-Density Alternative is environmentally superior to the proposed Project, it fails to meet a important goalS identified in the Temecula General Plan. . 5.4 "No Project" Alternative 5.4.1 Description The "no Project" attemative considers the case whereby the site is developed in accordance with existing General Plan policy. The General Plan land use map designates the site for a range of urban uses, with a "village center" as a community focal point (Figure 5, Final EIR, p. 20). The Plan designates similar types of uses, intensities of use, and site design as the proposed Wolf Valley Ranch Specific Plan analyzed in this EIR. Existing policy provides for development under two scenarios: one with schools and one without schools. For the purpose of this analysis, under the option with schools, up to 2,250 housing units is assumed. Under the option without schools, this altemative is assumed to result in 2,607 housing units. Under both options, 20 acres of land would be developed with commercial uses (Final EIR, p. 150). 5.4.2 Finding The Planning Commission finds that though this altemative is environmentally comparable to the Project and similar in many respects to the proposed Project, the altemative is infeasible because it fails to meet the goals identified in the City's General Plan. 5.4.3 Supporting Explanation One of the most important differences between the No Project A1temative and the proposed Project is that it lacks several key features -features that are identified repeatedly as part of the City's General 38 e Findings August 2000 Wolf Creek Specific Plan City of Temecula e e e . . . . . - .. - ~.. .. -. . . - .... - - - - - .... - Plan, does not have a linear pai'Xway that ties together a variety of land uses (Figure X, Wolf Creek Specific Plan, p. XX). Thus the developmeni of the No Projed Altemative is contrary to Goal 5 of the Temecula Land Use Element, which encourages a land use pattem that "encourages altemative modes of transportation, including transit, bicycling, and walking" (City of Temecula Land Use Element, p. 2-12). The use of the linear pai'Xway for walking and bicycling that conned the parks, schools, and the commercial uses in the Village Center are designed to reduce the need for automobiles in traveling to or within these areas, which is consistent with Policy 5.5 of the Land Use Element (City of Temecula Land Use Element, p. 2-13). The No Projed A1temative lacks this means of reducing vehicle trips. Similarly, Goal 6 and, in particular, Policy 6.5 of the Circulation Element call for adequate linkages for non-motorized modes of transportation between residential and commercial areas in the City (City of Temecula Circulation Element, p. 3-13). Again, Policy 1.10 of the City's Open Space Element emphasizes the need to "maximize pedestrian and bicycle access to existing and new parks" and Goal 8 identifies the need for a trail system that serves both recreational and transportation (City of Temecula Open Space/Conservation E1ement,p. 5-26). As shown in Figure 4 and Figure 2 of the Final EIR, the proposed Projed develops a streetscape system that is provides cohesiveness and enhances community image," consistent with the Goal 4 of the Community Design Element (City of Temecula Community Design Element, p. 10-6). In addition, the linear park system proposed in the Specific Plan creates enhanced resident mobility without the need for additional vehicular trips and the air pollutants associated with those trips. This is consistent with Goal 2 of the Air Quality Element. (City of Temecula Air Quality Element, p. 9-7). Again, this is a key feature that the No Projed A1temative lacks. Finally, according to goals and policies in the Temecula Noise Element, a Projed should encourage the use of site design and building techniques including "building orientation and bUffering of noise sensitive areas, as a means to minimize noise impads" (City of Temecula Noise Element, p. 8-17). As shown in Figure X of the Specific Plan, three residential areas (2 high density uses and one median density use) are located on Pala Road which may expose these future residents to unnecessary noise impads from the traffic on Pala Road. In the proposed Projed, commercial uses are located adjacent to Pala Road and Wolf Valley Road, increasing their access and removing more of the residential uses to the interior of the site (Figure X, Wolf Creek Specific Plan, p. XX). Though similar in nature to the Specific Plan, the No Projed A1temative fails to address many of the identified goals of the City's General Plan and overall is not a superior altemative. 5.5 Other Alternatives Not Analyzed With regard to altemative locations for a Projed, the CECA Guidelines state that such analysis should be performed if .significant effeds of the Projed would be avoided or substantially lessened by putting the Projed in another location. (Section 15126[d][5][BD. This EIR does not consider an altemative site for the following reasons: (a) Since the Projed covers such a large area (557 acres), a similar siie with existing infrastrudure improvements, and one that is not already master planned for urban development, does not exist within the City of Temecula; (b) the significant, unavoidable impads associated with the Projed result largely from the intensity of development; and (c) the Projed proponent could not reasonably acquire an altemative site. Locating the same Projed at another site would not avoid or lessen the identified unavoidable significant effeds of the Projed (Final EIR, p. 141). Section 6 Project Benefits and Statement of Overriding Considerations Pursuant to State CECA Guidelines sedion 15093, the Planning Commission must balance the benefrts 39 Wolf Creek Specific Plan City ofTemecu1a Findings August 2000 _ _. _ _ _ ... . .. _... w. _ _ .. __ . _ .. . . . recommend approval of the Wolf Creek Specific Plan. If the benefits of the Specific Plan outweigh the a unavoidable adverse environmental impacts, those impacts may be considered "acceptable." . The Planning Commission hereby finds that the Final EIR has identified and discussed significant effects that will occur as a result of the Specific Plan. With the implementation of the mitigation measures discussed in the Final EIR and Specific Plan, these effects can be mitigated to a less than significant level except for the unavoidable Significant impacts as discussed in Section 4 of these Findings. The Planning Commission declares that it has made a reasonable and good faith effort to eliminate or substantially mitigate the potential impacts resulting from the Specific Plan. The Planning Commission finds that to the extent any mitigation measures recommended in the Final EIR and/or Specific Plan could not be incorporated, such mitigation measures are infeasible because they would impose restrictions on the Specific Plan that would prohibit the realization of specific economic, social, and other benefrts that this Planning Commission finds outweigh the unmitigated. The Planning Commission further finds that except for the Specific Plan, all other altematives set forth in the Final EIR are infeasible because they would prohibit the realization of Specific Plan Objectives and/or of specifiC economic, social, and other benefits that this Council finds outweigh any environmental benefrts of the altematives, or have greater environmerrtal impacts. The Planning Commission declares that, having reduced the adverse significant environmental effects of the Specific Plan to the extent feasible by recommending adopting of the proposed mitigation measures, having considered the entire administrative record on the Specific Plan, and having weighed the benefrts of the Specific Plan against its unavoidable adverse impacts after mitigation, the Planning Commission has determined that the fOllowing social, economic, and environmental benefits of the Specific Plan outweigh the potential unavoidable adverse impacts and render those potential adverse environmental a impacts acceptable based upon the following overriding considerations: . 1. The Specific Plan will allow the orderly, well planned development of the Wolf Creek site, providing a range of housing types complemerrtary to existing development in the City. 2. The Specific Plan will provide for the developmerrt of a Village Center concept that centralizes activities, consistent with General Plan policy (Final EIR, p. 4). 3. The Specific Plan will provide active and passive recreational park space as a basic community theme (Final EIR, p. 11). 4. The Specific Plan will integrate into the community an open space network comprised of parks, greenbelts, and connecting pedestrianlbicycle routes (Final EIR, p. 11, 134-5). S. The Specific Plan will provide for the development of neighborhood and community commercial centers to provide needed services and reduce the number of cars traveling across the City for these services (Final EIR, p. 4). 6. The Specific Plan will provide housing to meet anticipated population growth throughout the Temecula Valley (Final EIR, p. 4, 11, 27-8). 7. The. Specific Plan will provide for new school sites (Final EIR, p. 4, 105). 8. The Specific Plan will provide a site for the construction of a new fire station to provide tire protection to residents at the Wolf Creek site and surrounding areas (Final EIR, p. 11, a 40 . Findings August 2000 Wolf Creek Specific Plan City ofTemecula e e e The Specific Plan will provide for the improvement of currently inadequate regional flood control facilities to provide 1 OOJ'ear storm protection (Final EIR, p. 13, 117-8). 10. The Specific Plan will provide road improvements consistent with the General Plan Circulation Bement (Final EIR, p. 12, 67-8). 9. II. The Specific Plan accomplishes and implements the Temecula General Plan goals and policies. The Planning Commission finds that the foregoing benefits provided to the public through approval and implementation of the Specific Plan outweigh the identified significant adverse environmental impacts of the Specific Plan which cannot be mitigated. The Planning Commission further finds that each of the Specific Plan benefits outweighs the unavoidable adverse Environmental effects identified in the Final EIR and therefore finds those impacts to be acceptable. Each ofthe benefits listed above, standing alone, is sufficient justification for the Planning Commission to override these unavoidable environmental impacts. The Planning Commission finds that n has reviewed and considered the Final EIR in evaluating the Specific Plan, that the Final EIR is an accurate and objective statement that fully complies with the CEQA, State CEQA Guidelines and the Cny's local CEQA Guidelines and that the Final EIR reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the Cny Council certifies the Environmental Impact Report based on the following findings and conclusions: 6.1 Findings The following significant environmental impacts have been identified in the Final EIR and will require mitigation as set forth in Section 4 of this Resolution but cannot be mitigated to a level of insignificance: air quality (long-term), the cumulative impact on air quality, and the cumulative impact on agricultural uses. 6.2 Conclusions 1. All significant environmental impacts from implementation of the Specific Plan have been identified in the Final EIR and, with implementation of the mnigation measures identified, will be mitigated to a level of insignificance, except for those impacts listed in Section 6.1 above. 2. Other reasonable altematives to the Specific Plan, which could feasibly achieve the basic objectives of the Specific Plan, have been considered and rejected in favor of the Specific Plan. 3. Environmental, economic, social and other considerations and benefits derived from the development of the Specific Plan override and make infeasible any altematives to the Specific Plan or further mitigation measures beyond those incorporated into the Specific Plan. Section 7 - Adoption of Recommendation for the Adoption of a 41 Wolf Creek Specific Plan City ofTemecula Findings August 2000 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program The Planning Commission hereby recommends adoption of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program attached to this Resolution as Exhibit A. In the event of any inconsistencies between the mitigation measures as set forth herein and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program shall control. Section 8 - Location of Records The documents and materials that constitute the record of proceedings on which these Findings have been based are located at the City of Temecula, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, Califomia 92590. The custodian for these records is the City of Temecula Planning Director. This information is provided in compliance with Public Resources Code section 21081.6. 42 e e e e e e The Resolution shall become effective upon its adoption. PASSED. APPROVED AND ADOPTION this sixth day of September 6, 2000. ATTEST: Debbie Ubnoske Secretary 43 Ron Gueniero, Chairman Planning Commission e e e ATTACHMENT NO.4 STAFF REPORT DATED SEPTEMBER 6,2000 R:IS PIWoIf Creek SPISTAFFRPT.PC far ll-20-00.doc 12 e e e STAFF REPORT. PLANNING Oq/Q~ '41.. CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION September 6, 2000 Planning Application No. 98~481 - Wolf Creek Specific Plan No. 12 Planning Application No. 98~482 - Wolf Creek Environmental Impact Report Planning Application No. 98~484 - General Plan Amendment for Wolf Creek Planning Application No. 00~052 - Tentative Tract Map No. 29305 Prepared By: Carole K Donahoe, AICP, Associate Planner RECOMMENDATION: The Community Development Department - Planning Division Staff recommends the Planning Commission: 1. ADOPT a Resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FOR WOLF CREEK (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 98~484), AND APPROVE THE WOLF CREEK SPECIFIC PLAN (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 98~481) ON PARCELS TOTALING 557 ACRES LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF PALA ROAD, BETWEEN LOMA LINDA ROAD AND FAlRVlEW AVENUE, AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR PARCEL NOS. 950-110~02, ~05, ~33 AND 950-180~01, ~05, ~06 AND -010. 2. ADOPT a Resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00~052 - TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 29305, THE SUBDIVISION OF 557 ACRES INTO 47 LOTS WHICH CONFORM TO THE PLANNING AREAS, OPEN SPACE AREAS, SCHOOL AND PARK SITES OF THE WOLF CREEK SPECIFIC PLAN, LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF PALA ROAD, BETWEEN LOMA LINDA ROAD AND FAIRVlEW AVENUE, AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR PARCEL NOS. 950-110~02, ~05, ~33 AND 950-180~01, ~05, ~06 AND -010. R;IS PIWoIf Creek SPISTAFFRPT.PC for SP,EIR,GPA, map.doc 1 3. ADOPT a Resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000- e A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING CERTIFICATION OF THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED FOR THE WOLF CREEK SPECIFIC PLAN AND RELATED ACTIONS (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 98-0482) AND RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM IN CONNECTION THEREWITH FOR THE WOLF CREEK SPECIFIC PLAN, LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF PALA ROAD, BETWEEN LOMA LINDA ROAD AND FAlRVlEW AVENUE, AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR PARCEL NOS. 950-110-002, -005, -033 AND 950-180-001, - 005, -006 AND -010. APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: SP Murdy, LLC REPRESENTATIVES: Bill Griffith and Camille Bahli, Spring Pacific Properties, LLC Barry Bumell, T & B Planning Consultants, Inc. Donald Lohr and Tony Terich, Lohr + Associates, Inc. e PROPOSAL: A. A mixed use specific plan which provides a full range of residential uses and product types, school sites, par1\ sites, open space and drainage greenbelt, roadways, private recreation center, fire station site and commercial sites, specifically as follows: o From 2,144 to 2,601 dwelling units for an overall density of3.8 to 4.7 dwelling units per acre. Residential product includes ~ acre estate lots, 7,200 square foot to 4,000 square foot lots, courtyard homes, an option for a senior community, and multi-family apartments. o School sites totaling 32 acres for an elementary and middle school. The middle school site includes lighted ballfields. o A 14-acre community par1\ with lighted ballfields that anchors the Village Center, a 6.7 acre linear par1\ with three activity nodes that traverses the entire length of the project, a 4.5 acre neighborhood par1\, and an additional 1.5 acre par1\ing area for the Kent Hintergardt Par1\. Par1\ sites were selected and coordinated for joint use with the Temecula Valley Unified School District facilities. o A 15-acre drainage greenbelt along the full length of Pal a Road, designed as passive open space. o Roadways and circulation system that provide pedestrian linkages, bicycle paths and interconnected uses throughout the project. o Private recreation center, fire station and other public facility uses on 5 acres at the e Village Center. o Neighborhood and Community Commercial areas totaling 20 acres at the Village Center. R:IS PIWolf Creek SPISTAFFRPT.PC lor SP,EIR,GPA. map.doc 2 e e e 8. A General Plan Amendment that relocates and reallocates land use designations already approved for the property, in order to align these designations to the Wolf Creek Specific Plan planning areas and amenities. The relocation of designations is depicted in the Exhibit entitled "General Plan Comparison" attached to this staff report. The reallocation details are as follows: Existing GP Proposed GP Acreage Acreage . Neighborhood Commercial 5 8 . Community Commercial 15 12 . Community & Neighborhood Parks 25 20 . Unear Park & Paseos 0 14.4 . Private Recreation Facilities 0 5 . Drainage Greenbelt Open Space 0 15 . Major Roads 50 29 . Elementary School 10 12 . Middle School 20 20 . High School 46 0 . Low Density Residential 0 4.1 . Low Medium Density (3-6 duslacre) 328 370 . Medium Density Residential (7-12 dus/acre) 21 19.5 . High Density Residential (13-20 duslacre) 37 28 Total 557 557 C. Tentative Tract Map No. 29305 which subdivides 557 acres into 47 lots, delineating the planning areas within the specific plan and lots for parks and schools. The Map is divided into two phases. Phase I is that portion of the project north of Wolf Valley Road, and Phase II is that portion of the project south of Wolf Valley Road. LOCATION: At the southem end of the City of T emecula, approximately two miles east of Interstate 15, south of State Highway 79 South, on the east side of Pal a Road, between Loma Linda Road and Fairview Avenue. EXISTING ZONING: SP Specific Plan SURROUNDING ZONING: North: PO Professional Office South: Riverside County - Redhawk Specific Plan East: LM Low Medium Residential, Park and Riverside County West: LM Low Medium Residential, Pechanga Reservation PROPOSED ZONING: N1A EXISTING GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATIONS: LM Low Medium Residential- 3.0 to 6,0 dwelling units per acre M Medium Residential - 7.0 to 12.0 dwelling units per acre H High Residential-13.0 to 20.0 dwelling units per acre NC Neighborhood Commercial CC Community Commercial P Pubic Institutional Facilities OS Open Space I Recreation R:IS PIWolI Creek SPISTAFFRPT.PC lor SP,EIR,GPA, map.doc 3 PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATIONS: LM Low Medium Residential- 3.0 to 6.0 dwelling units per acre H High Residential- 13.0 to 20.0 dwelling units per acre NC Neighborhood Commercial CC Community Commercial P Pubic Institutional Facilities OS Open Space I Recreation e EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant and light agricultural uses SURROUNDING LAND USES: North: Vacant and rural home sites South: Vacant and rural home sites East: Bridlevale subdivision, Kent Hintergardt ParK and the Redhawk community West: Wolf Valley subdivision and the Pechanga Indian Reservation with gaming casino, recreational vehicle parK, mini-marKet and vacant property BACKGROUND City staff has worKed on a specific plan proposal for the subject site for many years, initially with the former owner of the property who proposed the Murdy Ranch Specific Plan from 1995 to 1997. Spring Pacific Properties began discussions with City staff in early 1998 and formally submitted the Wolf Creek Specific Plan on December 10, 1998. At the request of staff, the applicant hosted a community meeting on August 17, 1999, at the Temecula Creek Inn. A worKshop was held with the Planning Commission on September 1, 1999, at which time Commissioners provided comments and recommendations to the developer. e The developer and staff worKed through several screencheck reviews prior to the submittal of the fifth version of the specific plan dated August 2000. Three weeks prior to the public hearing on this case, the Temecula Valley Unified School District Board indicated their preference for a high school site on property not within the Wolf Creek Specific Plan. While the middle school and elementary school sites remain within the plan, the proposed high school that will serve the southeast area of the District will be located either directly across Fairview Avenue from the project, or at a site further east. Wolf Creek SpecifiC Plan designers anticipated the uncertainty of school district selection, and provided an altemative land use for the 46.5 acre Planning Area 24, for 233 residential dwellings with a minimum lot size of 5,500 square feet. The Environmental Impact Report prepared for the plan considered environmental impacts of the project both with schools and with residential development on these sites. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Villaae Center Because the General Plan identifies property at the intersection of Wolf Valley Road and Pala Road as a Village Center, the project was designed with all of the Village Center concepts in mind. The applicant chose to incorporate the Wolf Creek Village Center where Wolf Valley Road intersects with the project's loop road, thereby enhancing pedestrian access and community activities at all a four comers of this project hub. The 14-acre community parK and adjacent elementary school ., anchor one comer, while a private recreation facility, fire station and other public uses occupy another comer. The last two comers are slated for commercial development, both an 8 acre R:IS PIWolf Creek SPISTAFFRPT.PC for SP,EIR,GPA, map.doc 4 e e e neighborhood center, and a 12 acre community commercial area across the street, sized to meet the needs of the local community. Immediately adjacent to the south, and with carefully designed linkages to these centers, are multi-family residential dwellings, situated to encourage non- automotive modes of transportation. The community hub is complete with gathering places and plazas, monumentation and a community landmark. It is the main focal point for Wolf Creek community activities, providing a concentrated, cohesive mixture of compatible uses. The Linear Park. Activity Nodes and Trail Svstem Integral to the design of the Wolf Creek community is the intemalloop road, which is bordered by a linear park along its entire length, and meandering Class I bicycle paths on both sides of the street. The linear park is an ideal recreation amenity for active residents who live anywhere within the project. The linear park is also accessible to non-residents. Benches, drinking fountains, tot lots and passive open spaces are provided at the activity nodes along the way. Joggers or cyclists can also stop at the par courses, parks, or the commercial centers at the hub. To complete the trail system for the project, Class II bicycle paths are also provided along Loma Linda Road, Via Del Coronado, Pala Road and Fairview Avenue, and both sides of Wolf Valley Road and Street "A". The Drainaae Greenbelt Interface The Wolf Creek project proposes an open, grass-lined drainage channel along the length of Pala Road that varies in width from 100-feet to 128-feet. The developer has taken the opportunity to design this channel as a greenbelt, passive open space area that provides a visually pleasing buffer for existing development on the west side of Pala Road. The developer has proposed a semi- meandering sidewalk for this stretch of Pala Road, where parkway "pop-outs" will bring trees and foliage to the street at appropriate intervals. Coupled with the raised landscaped median proposed for Pala Road, the streetscape softens this major roadway. The Redhawk Interface Similarly, the applicant paid attention to the interface with the existing Redhawk community along its east boundary. Below the slopes which provide an existing urban interface zone lies a jogging trail that is used by Redhawk residents. The Wolf Creek plan intends to support continued use of this trail, with project openings along its own edge that encourage surveillance rather than tuming its back to it. Phasina The Wolf Creek Specific Plan is projected to develop land uses in four phases, with Phase 1 and II starting along the north side of Wolf Valley Road. A maximum of 472 dwelling units will be constructed in Phase I, along with the 8 acre neighborhood commercial center, the middle and elementary school, and the community park. Phase II will add another 350 dwellings along the south side of Loma Linda Road. Infrastructure for the project, however, will be constructed in two phases, the first phase on the north side of Wolf Valley Road, and the last phase on the south side. Infrastructure will be constructed ahead of and accommodate the development of land uses. R:IS PIWoIf Creek SPISTAFFRPT.PC lor SP,EIR,GPA, map.doc 5 Tentative Tract MaD No. 29305 e The applicant has mapped the entire 557 acres into 47 lots for financing purposes. The lots conform to the specific plan land use map, with planning areas further subdivided into neighborhood areas. Tentative Tract Map No. 29305 delineates major street widths, cross-sections and access restrictions, as well as the lots designated for the drainage channel, schools and parks. ANALYSIS Consistency with the Growth Management Program Action Plan General Plan Amendment Densities The proposed General Plan changes in residential densities are as follows: Density Existing Existing Proposed Proposed Range @ Low end @ High end @Low end @ High End Low %-2 0 0 2 8 Low Medium 3-6 1,122 2,244 1,110 2,220 Medium 7 - 12 147 252 137 234 High 13 - 20 481 740 364 560 Total 1,750 3,236 1,613 3,022 With respect to the range of dwelling units possible on the site, the proposed General Plan Amendment decreases the range numbers overall by 137 to 214 residential units. SDecific Plan Densities e The proposed Specific Plan offers the following allocation of dwelling units: Density Proposed Proposed Target Target Project Range @ Low end @ High end Density Units Units Low %-2 2 8 1.3 22 8 Low Medium 3-6 1,110 2,220 4.5 1,665 1,833 Medium 7 -12 137 234 9.5 185 128 High 13 - 20 364 560 16.5 462 408 Total 1,613 3,022 2,334 2,377 The total number of dwelling units proposed at 2,377 is 43 units greater than the target density of 2,334 units. However, it is 764 units greater than the lowest allowable density of 1,613. Staff supports the breadth of residential product proposed with the project. By providing a wide spectrum of housing opportunities, the project complies with the General Plan Housing Element. By concentrating higher densities near the Village Center, the project offers the best opportunity to attract public transit altematives, such as bus service, smart shuttles or vanpools. Established Village Centers are more likely to be considered as connection points to larger forms of public transportation, such as express buses, light rail or Metrolink. e R:IS PIWoII Creek SPISTAFFRPT.PC for SP,EIR,GPA, map.doc 6 e e e Infrastructure Improvements As required by the Growth Management Program Action Plan, the project ensures that roadway improvements are in place prior to issuance of the first building permit. The project's Traffic Study recommends as mitigation that the following off-site improvements are completed prior to issuance of the first building permit for either residential or commercial development within Wolf Creek: . Interim interchange improvements at 1-15 and State Route 79 South . Widening of State Route 79 South between 1-15 and Pala Road . Widening of Pala Road to four lanes from Clubhouse Drive to Wolf Valley Road Additionally, the project is conditioned to provide the following on-site improvements prior to the first building permit: . Ultimate improvements to Via Del Coronado from Via Cordoba to Loma Linda Road . Half-width improvements to Loma Linda Road from Via Del Coronado to Pala Road . Ultimate improvements to Wolf Valley Road from the easterly Specific Plan boundary to Pal a Road . Ultimate improvements for six lanes to Pala Road from Loma Linda Road to Via Gilberto . Installation oftraffic signals at Pala Road and Loma Linda Road, Pal a Road and Wolf Valley Road, and Pala Road and the Interior Loop Road North Similarly, additional roadway, drainage and other infrastructure improvements are required in conjunction with project phasing. Given these mitigation measures, the project ensures that infrastructure is constructed ahead of the new development that it proposes. Coordination with other Aaencies Project developers have coordinated their efforts with many outside agencies concemed with growth in the area. The City has assisted in the collaboration of efforts towards the widening of Pala Road with the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians. The developer has contributed to the Pala area drainage solution, resolving existing flooding conditions and proposing to replace existing undersized facilities. The developers have met numerous times with the Temecula Valley Unified School District to meet their need for school sites in the project area. Along with the park and open space amenities offered in the project, the school sites in Wolf Creek will provide an impressive list of recreational and cultural amenities not currently available in this area. R:IS PIWo/f Creel< SPISTAFFRPT.PC for SP,EIR,GPA, map.doc 7 WOLF CREEK MASTER COMMUNnY Park Amenities Amenities Existina Parks Wolf Creek (Community; (Kent Hintergardt; Pala Neighborhood; Unear; K- Community; Loma Unda; H addition; Private Rec.) John Magee) = 30 +/- acres- = 23 acres excluding schools Snack Bar 0 1 (CP) Football Field 1 lit (Combined with soccer 1 lit (MS) fjeld) Soccer Reid 2 (KH) 3 lit (HS) (MS) Softball / Baseball Reid 0 6 lit (2-MS) (2-ES)(2-CP) Basketball Courts 1 (Pala) 12 (8-MS) (4-ES) Basketball Half-Courts 2 (Pala) 2 (NP) Tennis Courts 2 (Pala) 12 (4-CP) (8-MS) Volleyball Courts 2 (Pala) 0 Restrooms at largest parks (K-H / Pala) at schools, and community and neiahborhood Darks Children's Play Areas (Tot 4 8 (3-LP) (3-ES) (l-NP) (1- Lot) CP) Exercise / Par Course 0 1 (LP) Private Recreation Center 0 1 Swimming Pool 0 1 (PRe) Gymnasium 0 1 (MS) Parking Spaces 108 (22 KH) (86 Pala) 1653 (331 @ Parks & PRe) (1 322 @ Schools) Community Center 0 1 (PRe) Water Play Area 0 1 (PRe) CP = Community Par1c ES = Elementary School KH = Kent Hintergardt LP = Unear Par1c MS = Middle School NP = Neighborhood Par1c PRC = Private Recreation Center R:IS PIWolI Creek SPISTAFFRPT.PC 10( SP,EIR,GPA, map.doc 8 e e e e e e With amenities at the schools, parks and commercial areas of the plan, it is entirely feasible that the project could reverse existing traffic pattems by creating desirable land uses that would reduce or eliminate out-of-neighborhood vehicle trips. . Given the design of the Wolf Creek Specific Plan and the amenities proposed, staff believes that there are sufficient community benefits to warrant Planning Commission consideration of residential units above the lowest density. Specific Plan Design Guidelines, Zoning Standards, and Residential Development Matrix Planning Commissioners offered several suggestions to the applicant during the Commission Workshop in September, 1999, much of which has been addressed within the Design Guidelines, Zoning Standards and Residential Development Matrix. Senior Component The Wolf Creek Specific Plan allows for the opportunity to provide residential dwellings designed for seniors in Planning Area 18, which is adjacent to the commercial center and fronts Pal a Road. The Design Guidelines specify pedestrian access to the commercial center and Loop Road, and identifies product design conducive to privacy, convenience and security. Residential Product Staff worked with the applicant to provide strong architectural guidelines for merchant builders in the specific plan text, including the mixture of one and two-story elements, varied roof forms, structural enhancements, projections, recesses, articulated facades, treatment of comer lots, and the selection of materials for visual interest. A variety of garage altematives are noted, in order to achieve a pleasing street scene. Staff had concems regarding the smaller lots sizes proposed at 4,000 and 4,500 square feet. The applicant has provided a minimum 800 square foot rear yard for private recreational use on these lots, as well as full access to the private recreational facility in Planning Area 14 for the homebuyers. These lot sizes will accommodate zero lot line product, which the applicant feels meets the market need for an altemative to conventional large single-family detached homes. Less yard maintenance, land, infrastructure and construction costs are attractive to that segment of the market with changing household requirements. The applicant is proposing lot coverage percentages greater than the City's Development Code. However, front, rear and interior yard setbacks are consistent with Code for the 7,200 and 6,000 square foot lots. In the smaller lot sizes, the 800 square foot minimum private rear yard is required, which is greater than the Code requirement for 200 square feet. The project is conditioned to correct the zoning standard text to comply with the Residential Development Matrix. Local Street Sections The Local Govemment Commission, in reviewing the Wolf Creek Specific Plan, has requested that the project be revised to parkway sidewalks with greater pavement shading and street canopies. The applicant offers parkway sidewalks on the local streets within the residential planning areas as an altemative cross-section option, for consideration by the City. R:IS PIWoIf Creek SPISTAFFRPT.PC for SP,EIR,GPA, map.doc 9 Future changes to the Specific Plan e The Wolf Creek Specific Plan text proposes that processing of modifications to the plan which do not change the general intent of the plan, be approved administratively by the Director of Planning. While this proposal was derived from the Minor Exceptions section of the Development Code, staff has conditioned the project to add language as follows: "At the sole discretion of the Director of Planning, any modification may be deemed a major or minor change to the specific plan. In any event, the Director of Planning may refer any request for modification to the Planning Commission or City Council." ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION A Screencheck Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared and submitted for the Wolf Creek Specific Plan on December 10, 1998. On October 13, 1999, a Notice of Completion and a Notice of Availability were prepared and the Draft EIR was circulated by the Califomia State Clearinghouse under SCH#991 01094 for public review and comment from October 20, 1999 to December 3, 1999. A total of 21 written comments were received and considered in preparation of the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR), submitted August 1, 2000, with comments and responses to comments included within Section 8.0. An Addendum to the FEIR was also submitted on August 23, 2000 and is attached to this staff report as Attachment NO.5. The Addendum addresses updated information regarding active alcoholic beverage licenses at the Pechanga Casino. Previously, available information indicated that no such licenses had been issued. A summary of the FEIR analysis is as follows: e Unavoidable. sianificant impact: Air Quality Potentiallv sianificant impacts that can be avoided or mitiaated: Soils & Geology Hazards Drainage Traffic Noise Impacts considered but not found to be sianificant: Land Use & Planning Water Resources Energy Resources Utilities Aesthetics Recreation Cumulative Impacts Population & Housing Biological Resources Public Services Service Systems Cultural Resources Agricultural Resources Traffic Study A comprehensive Traffic Study was prepared by Robert Kahn, John Kain & Associates dated December 17, 1998, to analyze the impacts of the Wolf Creek Specific Plan upon the surrounding roadway system. The study analyzed 14 intersections, from the 1-15 Freeway interchange, along State Route 79 South, and Pal a Road, focusing on peak travel periods between 7:00 to 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 to 6:00 p.m. The analysis concluded that the project would generate approximately 42,036 trips ends per day with schools, and 38,527 with residential development on the three school sites. R:IS PIWoIf Creek SPISTAFFRPT.PC lor SP,EIR,GPA, map.doc 10 e e e e The Traffic Study lists roadway improvements required for the area, with or without the Wolf Creek project in order to achieve an acceptable Level of Service 0 (LOS OJ or better at the intersections studied. When these identified roadway improvements are in place, LOS 0 or better is predicted at all intersections at opening year of the project and at build-out in the year 2015. Therefore, the FEIR identifies the completion of certain roadway improvements as mitigation measures to reduce traffic impacts to a less than significant level. Because the timing of infrastructure improvements is critical, the project has been conditioned that no building permit can be issued for either residential or commercial development until certain improvements are completed. See the previous discussion under .Consistency with the Growth Management Program Action Plan - Infrastructure Improvements. above. Noise Studv The City has included a Noise Study in conjunction with plans to widen Pala Road, to identify any impacts and mitigation measures associated with the Capital Improvement Project. The Wolf Creek project is conditioned to participate in any noise mitigation program established by the City and shall pay its fair share of mitigation commensurate with noise impacts attributable to traffic generated by the Wolf Creek Specific Plan. Soorts Park There has been some discussion about the altemative use of the 46.5-acre Planning Area 24 former high school site as the City's Sports Park. While staff does not anticipate that any additional environmental impacts would occur that were not considered with the high school complex, staff does recommend that an addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report be prepared and assessed once a conceptual plan for the sports park and its amenities is designed. Statement of Overridina Consideration Reauired In accordance with Section 15093 of the State CECA Guidelines, the Planning Commission must recommend that the City Council adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations prior to approving the Wolf Creek Specific Plan because the EIR has identified its impact to air quality as a significant and unavoidable adverse impact. A Statement of Overriding Considerations states that any significant adverse project effects are acceptable if expected project benefits outweigh unavoidable adverse environmental impacts. GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING CONSISTENCY The Wolf Creek Specific Plan project includes a General Plan Amendment which relocates and reallocates land use designations already approved for the property, in order to align these designations to the Wolf Creek Specific Plan planning areas and amenities. The reallocation of acreages can be considered minimal and consistent with the original intent of the General Plan. The proposed Wolf Creek Specific Plan is consistent with the SP - Specific Plan zoning on the property. SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS Staff recommends approval of the Wolf Creek Specific Plan because it is consistent with the General Plan and provides the Village Center as required by the General Plan Village Center Overlay designation. The project also provides a full range of residential product types in compliance with the General Plan Housing Element. The Wolf Creek proposal is a master-planned community offering schools, parks, commercial sites, and publiC facilities to serve its residents and R:IS PIWoIf Creek SPISTAFFRPT.PC ,... SP,EIR,GPA, map.doc 11 surrounding communities. The project design has provided carefully planned interfaces with surrounding development and offers unique open space and recreational amenities, such as the 100-foot to 124-foot wide grass-lined and landscaped drainage greenbelt along Pal a Road, the linear park that runs the full length of the Wolf Creek Interior Loop Road, the 14-acre Community Park at the heart of the Village Center, and the neighborhood parks and activity nodes in the residential neighborhoods. FINDINGS Plannino Application No. 98-0481 - Wolf Creek Specific Plan No. 12 and Plannino Application No, 98-0484 - General Plan Amendment 1. The project as proposed and conditioned is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community. The project has been reviewed by agencies and staff and determined to be in conformance with the City's General Plan, Development Code, Design Guidelines and Growth Management Program Action Plan. These documents set policies and standards that protect the health, safety and welfare of the community. Access and circulation are adequate for emergency vehicles. 2. The project is compatible with surrounding land uses. The project proposes similar residential neighborhoods adjacent to existing surrounding neighborhoods, with interface buffers and full roadway improvements. Project commercial development is proposed within a Village Center, across Pala Road from the Pechanga Casino. 3. The proposed project will not have an adverse effect on the community because it remains consistent with the goals and policies of the adopted General Plan. The project does not represent a significant change to the planned land uses for the site. The General Plan Amendment is a relocation and reallocation of existing land use designations that conforms to the design of the specific plan. Tentative Tract Map No. 29305 4. The proposed subdivision and the design and improvements of the subdivision is consistent with the Development Code, the proposed General Plan Amendment, the Wolf Creek Specific Plan, the City of Temecula Municipal Code and Subdivision Ordinance. 5. The tentative map does not propose to divide land which is subject to a contract entered into pursuant to the Califomia Land Conservation Act of 1965. The Agricultural Preserve status of the property expired in 1989 through the Notice of Nonrenewal Process initiated in 1979. 6. The site is physically suitable for the type and density of development proposed by the tentative map. The site is generally flat topographically, with no unique land features. It is surrounded by existing and developing residential uses, as well as commercial uses generated by the Pechanga Indian Reservation property across Pala Road. 7. The design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements, with conditions of approval, are: a. Not likely to cause significant environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. There are no known fish, wildlife or habitat on the project site, and the project will not affect any fish, wildlife or habitat off-site. The site is surrounded by development and is an infill site. R:IS PIWoII Creek SPISTAFFRPT.PC lor SP,EIR.GPA, map.doc 12 e e e e e e b. An environmental impact report has been prepared and a finding has been made, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(a) (3), finding that air quality considerations make infeasible mitigation measures or project altematives identified in the environmental impact report. 8. The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems. 9. The design of the subdivision provides for future paSSive or natural heating or cooling opportunities in the subdivision to the extent feasible 10. 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, or the design of the altemate easements which are substantially equivalent to those previously acquired by the public will be provided. 11. The subdivision is consistent with the City's parkland dedication requirements (Quimby). 12. Quimby fees have been determined for the Wolf Creek Specific Plan, and the map has been conditioned to provide these fees. Attachments: 1. PC Resolution for the Specific Plan - Blue Page 14 Exhibit A - Wolf Creek Specific Plan text - Under Separate Cover Exhibit B - Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 15 Exhibit C - General Plan Comparison PC Resolution for Tentative Tract Map No. 29305 - Blue Page 16 Exhibit A - Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 17 PC Resolution for the Final Environmental Impact Report - Blue Page 18 Exhibit A - FEIR text - Under Separate Cover Exhibit B - FEIR Technical Appendices - Under Separate Cover Exhibit C - Addendum to the FEIR dated August 23, 2000 - Blue Page 19 Exhibit 0 - Mitigation Monitoring Program - Blue Page 20 Project Exhibits - Blue Page 21 A. Vicinity Map B. Zoning Map C. General Plan Maps D. Surrounding Land Use E. Land Use Plan F. Tentative Tract Map No. 29305 2. 3. 4. R:IS PIWoIf Creek SPISTAFFRPT.PC for SP,EIR,GPA, map.doc 13 e e e EXHIBIT C GENERAL PLAN COMPARISON R:IS PIWol1 Creek SPISTAFFRPT.PC lor SP,EIR,GPA, map.doc e. e e r: " ~ 0 ~ .', ~ ., 0 0 . 8 f; - - ~ =- Q 0 " <. " -. -r C - Z = .. , = = ~ ". - ~ = '-' = =, - or. ." I' = '" .- ~ "- < - " ~ or. ~' 0 =- H = - ~ ~ ..J " ~. ~ ~ -6 N! <: .- <, '0 ~ ~ :i: ;: :0:: > H H ~ Z ~ R R ~ '" ~ I " ~ . .. '" .-1 0: :i ;~ (.. ....J t' =2 '"J _ ;;. ~ ~ ~ 'l' ~ or, Oi,''0 Q ~ i'; ~ :r. ;11~i1!~~~1 ~ ;;: =- "' "' c C ;- ;- " - " - , o :~ i: '" ~ o ,,; v ~ ~ ~: 5 ~ t/) o c I g l i i i "" ," ~ \ \ 1""-:' I..... _ ...... n. i ~ \, .,....., ""= ", j .- !"u.6 \ ," '{! . w -'''-'- \ ~ >!J. ~ :; Cl 'f- ,I 0.. .-..... #3 w Z ~ .......- ..:J Q. Q: ~ 0: ~ :: " ~ ~ Z II_"'~ '-' Co-' z - r- oo - ~ :; ~ ::;; ..J , ~,,,,~-.;,.; I~l~{ ::;; ..J ~5 o :;: ..J -' t/) o ~ y ) :; I I ! / \ ~ '''1 . -' ."1 :.. i \. '~. 2, ~...:a \ i JO ...-.. \ w > i Jj 2 ~ Q. ': ~:. <>,... :; w .-- ^....:,"~.';. ~/ -.}f],: :; -' Q. :; --' tl. ~ ~ :; --' ." .-...; -.. .- 13 z o 1I1 .~ <( D.. I o [.J z <( ..J D.. .J <( ~ W Z W (!) , i;- .~ z ~ ...:l Q. ...:l ;2 ro.J Z ro.J '-' Q ro.J 00 'l. 0 :.i' Q. '.ll 0 ~ " U Q. - ...1 r ..I S - '" e e e EXHIBIT C ADDENDUM TO THE FEIR DATED AUGUST 23, 2000 R:IS PIWolf Creek SPISTAFFRPT.PC for SP,EIR,GPA, map.doc 19 e Wolf Creek Specific Plan Addendum to the Final EIR SCH No. 88030705 (99101094) August 23, 2000 A Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the Wolf Creek Specific Plan project (State Clearinghouse No. 88030705) was completed in August of 2000. This Addendum has been prepared to provide updated information to the public and City decision makers about the project and its environmental effects. Since preparation of the FEIR. updated information has been received by the City regarding alcoholic beverage licenses in effect at the Pecbanga Casino (casino) located across Pala Road from the project site. At the time of Final EIR preparation, available information indicated that no such licenses had been issued. Information now indicates that two licenses have been issued to the casino: a Type 20 license (off-sale beer and wine) and a Type 41 license (on-sale beer and wine). This Addendum has been prepared to address this change in ciIcumstances and to clarifY information regarding medical emergency response times discussed in Section 2.11 (Public Services) of the FEIR. . Introduction e Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations) Section 15164, an addendum to an EIR may be prepared when: (A) The EIR requires minor technical changes or additions; and (8) None of the following conditions descnlx:d in the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations) Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR has occurred: (1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which require major revisions of the EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; (2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR due to involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; and/or (3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was completed shows any of the following: . The revised project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous ErR; Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous ErR; e . Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project R:'S PlWolCCreek SPlAddcndum to EIR dated 8-23.oo.doc proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or e Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. Sections 15164(b) and (c) of the CEQA Guidelines also indicate that an addendum need not be circulated for public review, but can be included in or attached to the FEIR, and that the decision-making body shall consider the addendum with the FEIR prior to making a decision on the project. This Addendum to the Wolf Creek Specific Plan FEIR is appropriate because the change in conditions with regard to alcoholic beverage sales necessitates only minor technical changes or additions to the FElR, and none of the conditions described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR has occurred. This conclusion is supported by substantial evidence identified within the FEIR and this AddendWIt Change in Conditions As described above, since preparation of the FEIR, information has been received by the City that the casino has been issued licenses for the sale of beer and wine for both on-site and off-site consumption. On page 24 of the FEIR, the following statement is made with regard to the casino: "No alcohol is served." This statement was based upon information provided by casino employees. The City is now aware that the casino has Type 20 and Type 41 alcoholic beverage licenses. The issue of alcohol sales is considered relevant given that the proposed high school site (planrting Area 24) is located on Pala Road across the street from the pechanga Casino. The FEIR concluded that land use compatibility impacts with respect to the casino will not be significant <FEIR, p. 25). Environmental Impact and Mitigation Measures - Conclusion e The FEIR, on page 25, examines land use compatibility impacts with respect to the casino and the existing mini-market adjacent to the casino. The primaty issues of concern are the attractive nuisance characteristics of these uses and safety hazards to students who may cross Pala Road. As discussed on page 2S of the FEIR, "The City has no jurisdiction over the design and construction of the high school. However, the Temecula Valley Unified School District (TVUSD) has indicated its intention to design the high school to incorporate measures to ensure student safety and minimize potential impacts." TVUSD staff has investigated the appropriateness of the high school site and has determined that the location does not present any undue safety risks to future students and staff. The statement that school design will incorporate safety considerations continues to be valid and applicable to all safety concerns, including the sale of beer and wine at the casino. No new impact will result, and no additional mitigation is required. Other Modifications to the FEIR On page 102 of the FEIR, in the paragraph beginning Project With Residential Use of School S:ites,tIIe~n~ sentence should be modified to read "Thus, the objective will be a IO-minute response time {@fil!k~ .i,~m!1wi~J~t9i~!#!!~fummi~'" (new text highlighted). This information is provided as a clarification. As stated on page 103 of the FElR, the project includes provision of a fire station site, with City ofTemecula - August 23, 2000 . Wolfereek Specific Plan Addendum to Final EJR e plans for fire station construction to be funded during fiscal year 200 1/2. Conclusion As discussed above, the new infonnation regarding conditions at the Pechanga Casino and the clarification with regard to emergency response do not require major revisions to the FEIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or increases in the severity of previously identified significant effects. Given that the FEIR was completed in August of 2000 and that this Addendum was prepared shortly thereafter, no substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken. Thus, no major revisions of the previous FEIR are required due to involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. No information of substantial importance bas been identified indicating that the project will have significant effects not already discussed in the FEIR or that the significant effects previously examined in the report will be substantially more severe. In addition, no infonnation of substantial importance bas been identified indicating that ntitigation measures or alternatives that are considerably different or were previously found infeasible, are now feasible and would substantially reduce significant impacts. e e Wolf Creek Specific Plan Addendum to Final ElR City ofTemecula August 23, 2000 e e e EXHIBIT D MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM R:IS PIWolf Creek SPISTAFFRPT.PC for SP,EIR,GPA, map.doc 20 e Mitigation Monitoring Program Planning Application No. PA98-0481 (Specific Plan) Wolf Creek Specific Plan No. 12 Am QUALITY 1. General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitor: e Long-term operational emissions due to vehicular travel will exceed SCAQMD thresholds. Establish bus routes and stops to service the residents within the specific plan area. The City shall notify the Riverside Transit Agency or other responsible public transit provider of pending development applications within the specific plan, in order that the agency may assess and identify demand for bus service. Prior to the approval of development plans or tentative tract maps Planning Department Am QUALITY 2. General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitor: Long-term operational emissions due to vehicular travel will exceed SCAQMD thresholds. The developer shall provide bus turnouts at strategic locations throughout the project. The City shall review and condition project entitlements which are adjacent to or include identified bus routes that serve the residents in the specific plan area. Prior to the approval of development plans or tentative tract maps Department of Public Works and Planning Department ENERGY CONSERVATION 3. General Impact: e Long-term operational emiSSIons due to on-site energy consumption will exceed SCAQMD thresholds. R:\S P\WolfCreek SP\Mitigation Monitoring Program.doc Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitor: Compliance with applicable energy conservation guidelines for construction in accordance with the most recent edition of the Uniform Building Code and any other City requirements. e The developer shall submit planchecks that include compliance with energy conservation guidelines for City review and approval. Prior to the issuance of building permits. Building Department ENERGY CONSERV A nON 4. General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitor: Long-term operational emISSIOns due to on-site energy consumption will exceed SCAQMD thresholds. The developer shall install energy-efficient lighting for all lighting systems. The developer shall submit planchecks that include energy- efficient lighting. Prior to issuance of bui Iding permits. e LAND USE PLANNING Building Department 1. General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitor: Conflict with habitat conservation plans Compliance with the Stephens Kangaroo Rat (SKR) Long- Term Habitat Conservation Plan Payment of $500.00 per acre SKR mitigation fee Prior to the issuance of a grading permit Department of Public Works and Planning Department GEOLOGY AND SOILS General Impact: Exposure to seismic ground shaking e R:\S P\WolfCreek SP\Mitigation Moniloring Program. doc 2 e Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitor: Ensure that soil compaction is to City Standards A soils report prepared by a registered Civil Engineer shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. Building pads shall be certified by a registered Civil Engineer. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit or building permit Department of Public Works and the Building and Safety Department General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Proce~s: Mitigation Milestone: e Responsible Monitor: Building and Safety Department Exposure to seismic ground shaking Utilize construction techniques that are consistent with the Uniform Building Code Submit construction plans to the Building and Safety Department for review and approval Prior to the issuance of a building permit General Impact: Exposure to soil erosion, subsidence and expansion Mitigation Measure: Ameliorate hazards from unstable soils Specific Process: Compliance with the recommendations of the Geotechnical report Mitigation Milestone: . Prior to the issuance of a grading permit Responsible Monitor: Department of Public Works General Impact: Exposure to soil erosion, subsidence and expansion Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: e Mitigation Milestone: Identify adverse soil conditions and implement measures to ameliorate impacts Submit a Soils Report for review and approval Prior to the issuance of a grading permit R:\S P\WolfCreek SP\Mitigation Monitoring Program.doc 3 Responsible Monitor: Department of Public Works e General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitor: Exposure to soil erosion Stabilize slopes and unstable soils by the planting of slopes consistent with Ordinance No. 457 Submit an Erosion Control Plan for review and approval Prior to the issuance of a grading permit Department of Public Works General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitor: Exposure to soil erosion Stabilize slopes and unstable soils Submit a Slope Planting Plan for review and approval Prior to the issuance of a grading permit e Planning Department General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitor: Affecting the capacity of soils to adequately support the use of septic systems Conduct a Soils Percolation Test The submittal of the results of the Soils Percolation Test and clearance from the Department of Environmental Health for septic sewage disposal systems Prior to the issuance of a grading permit Department of Public Works HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY General Impact: Mitigation Measure: The degradation of water quality and/or waste discharge Compliance with water quality and waste discharge requirements e R:\S P\WolfCreek SP\Mitigation Monitoring Program.doc 4 e Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitor: Obtain clearance from the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board and comply with the requirements of the NPDES permit from the State Water Resources Board. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit Department of Public Works General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitor: e Create excessive runoff exceeding the capacity of existing facilities Identify drainage impacts and implement measures to mitigate impacts Submit a Drainage Study for review and approval Prior to the issuance of a grading permit Department of Public Works TRANSPORT A TIONrrRAFFIC General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitor: An increase in traffic in relation to existing traffic and the capacity of the existing street system Payment of fees to contribute to City-wide traffic improvements Payment of the Development Impact Fee (DIF) for commercial development Prior to the issuance of a building permit Department of Public Works BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES General Impact: Mitigation Measure: e Alter federally protected wetlands Compliance with the requirements of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the California Department ofFish and Game, and the Army Corps of Engineers R:\S P\WolfCreek SP\Mitigation Monitoring Program.doc 5 Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitor: Obtain a 1601-1603 Streambed Alteration Agreement from the Department ofFish and Game and a 404 Permit from the Army Corps of Engineers e Prior to the issuance of grading permits Planning Department General Impact:. Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitor: HAZARDS Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals and birds) Pay Mitigation Fee for impacts to the Stephens Kangaroo Rat Pay $500.00 per acre of disturbed area of Stephens Kangaroo Rat habitat Prior to the issuance of a grading permit Department of Public Works and the Planning Department Exposure to significant hazard e General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitor: Obtain clearances from the Department of Environmental Health, Fire and Building Departments for the use of hazardous substances, their storage, quantities, security and handling Submit clearance letters and/or signatures to the Building Department Prior to the issuance of building permits PUBLIC SERVICES Building and Safety Department and the Fire Department General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Need for new/altered governmental services regarding fire or police protection Payment of Development Impact Fees for Fire and Police Mitigation e Payment ofDIF to the Building Department R:\S P\WolfCreek SP\Mitigation Monitoring Program.doc 6 e Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitor: Prior to the issuance of building permits Building Department General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitor: Need for new/altered schools. Payment of School Fees Payment of current mitigation fees to the Temecula Valley Unified School District Prior to the issuance of building permits Building Department UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS e General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitor: AESTHETICS General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: e Adequate capacity of existing downstream drainage facilities VerifY the adequacy of existing facilities and require upgrading or upsizing of these facililties where necessary Prepare and submit a Hydrology Report to the Public Works Department for review and approval Prior to the issuance of grading permits Department of Public Works The creation of new light sources will result in increased light and glare that could affect the Palomar Observatory Use lighting techniques that are consistent with Ordinance No. 655 Submit lighting plans that conform to the requirements of Ordinance No. 655 to the Building and Safety Department for review and approval R:\S P\WolfCreek SP\Mitigation Monitoring Program.doc 7 Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitor: Prior to the issuance of building permits Building and Safety Department; Planning Department CULTURAL RESOURCES General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitor: Adverse change in the significance of a historical or archaeological resource Identify, recover, preserve and document resources of historical and archaeological significance Condition the project upon the requirement that if any cultural resources or human remains are exposed during grading, ground disturbance activities in the vicinity of the discovery shall be terminated immediately and the City shall be contacted and a qualified archaeologist shall be brought to the site to evaluate the resource. If discovered resources merit long-term consideration, adequate funding shall be provided to collect, curate and report these resources. Prior to the issuance of grading permits and during grading operations Planning Department and Department of Public Works ..., R:'S P\WolfCreek SP\Mitigation Monitoring Program.doc 8 e e e e e e ATTACHMENT NO.4 EXHIBITS R:IS PIWoIf Creek SPISTAFFRPT.PC for SP,EIR,GPA, map.doc 21 e e e CITY OF TEMECULA III ~ ':~~It.~. "'~ ::'::....Ri!tR::::: .'."'~:m'N"""" q. .... ,',-:. .......... ,:.~.=.~' .",' .. 0 .,. ~ 'C'i) ." .', . " /,", . .. ~.~<.;'. ..,..........' ..... ::::~~~~:..\...- ~ --....~ ~:~:~::~:~:. ":r:::::::'. ......... ,,:::.1 t, PECHANGA INDIAN RESERVATION ~ f I l_________ CASE NO. - PA98-0481; PA98-0482; PA98-0484; PAOO-0052 EXHIBIT - A PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - September 6, 2000 VICINITY MAP R:IS PIWolf Creek SPISTAFFRPT.PC for SP,EIR,GPA, map.doc 14 CITY OF TEMECULA ~ EXHIBIT B - ZONING MAP DESIGNATION - SP Specific Plan r /- "'C.VL ~ -.. 'J 0 p..\,-O . ,,,,0 \-o~\; - . .M ... "- .~ ~. .~. V " EXHIBIT C - GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION - NC Neighborhood Commercial, CC Community Commercial, OS Open Space, P Public Institutional Facilities, LM Low Medium, M Medium, H Hi h Density Residential CASE NO_ - PA98-0481; PA98-0482; PA98-0484; PAOO-0052 PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - September 6,2000 R:IS PIWol1 Creek SPISTAFFRPT.PC lor SP,EIR,GPA, map.doc e e e CITY OF TEMECULA " ~ <.oj ,. ,,' , .. ~~." ~ .--" ...i,;;.__.... V'!!I Ranch. . "\ ,.e~~ . _ .... Residential, ,,________." , .. '" , 4-5dulae~,:' i'" ~~ ,. -<> ,,~_.~iliN~n'gl..~,_'ic'=<,.. , Horse....... , '/,., " '~1i'~'r:'f:~~-/';'\~; Stables ' , c.,',', ___ . ."'e 0> ," \ . 11.-0: ~. r~~ ~::~ "~:--:'''''':'- ..,,;.~.... ",-: .~ ,) /. _. ~u ;;,.":-' ,'_ :~< ~ ....~ -:.~d~~~ -~.... .- LOrna Lln .. "" ' . 15em ' .r.,. y_.:/;~ H1nterga1t v "."j; Park "'i, ' " ,'.c-'~' 'S' RedhaWk , ResidentiaL: , 4.3 dulac' -- (deyeloping) , '1:' ~ . >.'lq' ,'<3 . '," .- .. ,""' 'C ,~ '0 <,~.--~--:~ .s "" ';:: De portola Rd .. > .- ~ " '" E' ..' l- T enjeeula Creek Inn ana Golf : Course , : "/l.-.1"" ,I Rainbow Canyon and Wolf Valley Residential /, , 4'-S'du/ae , :~~?;Y~?<isting). ";t' /'" .." ;" . "',._ ~:;......, "', ,... " ,- . " # ~ ':,;,:':~~E:.:'~'., ,// ~~~s.~.~.~ ' --. . -~ '.fr"L ' , , ,. .~ , " " '''''' . " /:,' , ,Peehanga .~. "'~"'. -"~-...' ,~-~, ,f'~Ui,~".qndian ~. "'. '/, '.'~, r.aslno ._ -._,~; .... 'l'lo;ll1~fo! 'r.F~~r:. :..': ~t,t.; ~,/,- .',.", \ ;';"'~'(',"""l.",-,_,~ ",./(:" ,/ ":- . /r. \. ./ '.-"- ./'... "" , " ,-~" ',~ ','C, ' ' , .;.;. v: 'Mini- .: :~'.~, :;)L".,~'-,>?~"''';,:';;/~~? ~ ,,'Market, "~-,, -, .". -. ,:' 29~~ ,- ' , ~_ .... 30 RedhaWk Residential 10-11'.9 dulae (planned) " -- , .' ~ -. PeChanga' ': Indian "" .IReservation _.L ; , ;"'.:";---. '--, -,---'::;--. -":"( --', -~:""'~~~-~~~,~:~,; ~~ ~~~~L~,__ ..:t:~:~_ __ -'-.... ; '1 - '''', i ,.1; '- ~~~;'~:' CASE NO. - PA98-0481; PA98-0482; PA98-0484; PAOO-0052 EXHIBIT - D PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - September 6,2000 SURROUNDING LAND USE R:IS PIWoIf Creek SPISTAFFRPT.PC for SP,EIR,GPA, map.doc 16 CITY OF TEMECULA ], "'....\ ~ I 1'....." ,""" \: "A ,,~i t....,."""""""'" ~l.<>~i\ 'l!ce-~J I' ,......., ,:1, o 0' ( (.p:J 'nll:l'" '-"""",,,,''''''-''' iN~ \~......~.. PECHANCA INDIAN RESERVATION LANDS CASE NO. - PA98-0481; PA98-0482; PA98-0484; PAOO-0052 EXHIBIT - E PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - September 6,2000 LAND USE PLAN R:IS P\Wolf Creek SPISTAFFRPT.PC for SP,EIR,GPA, map.doc e e e CITY OF TEMECULA TENTATIVE TRACT No. 29305 "" THl!: em' Of teMECVlA COUNTY OF RlVERSlOE STATE OF CAliFORNIA _._""""~CI'MCl'OO._'__'_".""._lUO"_--"""____" -=-....c::=A'.:=~=:'.:.::::"-=:'=:;"===.;.':..,~.::.."::'. _OI'_auotf'~OI",,_,,__""'_"""IUO-I""__CCUO'''--'''''-- JAINAAY,ZOOO ~~~ -- '-JJI1/ ~ .'- ~!r' ------ ~-, ... ~ J=1 . .- CASE NO. - PA98-0481; PA98-0482; PA98-0484; PAOO-0052 EXHIBIT - F PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - September 6,2000 R:IS PIWoII Creek SPISTAFFRPT.PC lor SP,EIR,GPA, map.doc 18 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 29305