Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout032194 PC AgendaAGENDA TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION March 21, 1994, 6:00 PM VAIL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 29915 Mira Loma Drive Temecule, CA 92390 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Ford ROLL CALL: Blair, Fahey, Hoagland, Salyer and Ford PUBLIC COMMENTS A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address the commissioners on items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Commissioners about an item not listed on the Agenda, a pink "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the Commission Secretary. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name and address. For all other agenda items a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the Planning Secretary before Commission gets to that item. There is a three (3) minute time limit for individual speakers. COMMISSION BUSINESS 1. Approval of Agenda NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEM Case No.: Applicant: Location: Proposal: Environmental Action: Planner: Recommendation: Current Planning Department Notice of Public Hearing Procedure City of Temecula City Wide Present the Planning Department's current procedure and several recommendations for improving the noticing process. N/A Matthew Fagan/Linda Beaudoin Provide Direction R:%WIMBERVG~PLANCOMM%AGENDAS%3-21-94 3114/94 vgw 1 PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 3. Case No: Applicant: Location: Proposal: Environmental Action: Planner: Recommendation: Specific Plan No. 263 and Change of Zone No. 5589 Kemper Real Estate South of Winchester Road between Ynez and Margarita Roads Specific Plan proposing a 1,375,000 square foot Commercial Core, 810,000 square feet of Office/Institutional at and Mixed Use Residential with 298,000 square feet of retail with an accompanying Change of Zone request changing the zoning from R-R (Rural Residential) and A-2-20 (Heavy Agricultural 20 acre minimum lot size) to SP (Specific Plan). Environmental Impact Report Steve Jiannino Provide Direction to Staff Case No: Applicant: Location: Proposal: Environmental Action: Planner: Recommendation: Spedtic Plan No. 1, Change of Zone No. 5617 and Environmental Impact Report No. 348 Kernper Real Estate South of Winchester Road and east of Margarita Road Specific Plan proposing 206 Single-Family Residential units, 644 Multi-Family Residential units, 13.5 acres of Commercial, approximately 5 acres of Office, and 18.5 acres of Park and Retention with an accompanying Change of Zone request changing the zoning from R-R (Rural Residential) and A-2-20 (Heavy Agricultural, 20 acre minimum lot size) to SP (Specific Plan). Environmental Impact Report Steve Jiannino Provide Direction to Staff Next meeting: April 4, 1994, 6:00 p.m., Vail Elementary School, 29915 Mira Loma Drive, Temecula, California. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION OTHER BUSINESS Planning Commission workshop is scheduled for April 25, 1994 on Johnson Ranch ADJOURNMENT R:~WIMBERVG~°LANCOIVl/t~AGB~IDAS%3-21-94 3115/94 vgw 2 ITEM #2 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Planning Commission Gary Thornhill, Director of Planning MEMORANDUM March 21, 1994 Planning Department Procedures for Noticing Recommendations for Improving the Noticing Process Public Hearings and Prepared By: Matthew Fagan, Assistant Planner Linda Beaudoin, Planning Technician RECOMMENDATION: REVIEW the attached Staff Report on Current Notice of Public Hearing Procedures RECOMMEND a Notice of Public Hearing Procedure to the City Council BACKGROUND Planning Staff has been directed by the City Council to review present Notice of Public Hearing (NOPH) procedures. Staff has conducted this review and will present an assessment of the current procedures for handling NOPH as well as suggestions for improving this process. DISCUSSION Current NOPH Procedure The current procedure fo~ NOPH is as follows: Notification Labels: Staff receives the notification labels as part of the application submittal. The guidelines for preparing the notification labels are included with the application and are attached as Attachment No. 1. These labels are typically prepared for the applicant by a Title Company and a certification letter must accompany the labels (Reference Attachment No. 2). Projects that will be heard by the Planning Director require property owners within a 300 foot radius from the project be notified. Those projects that will go before the Planning Commission and/or the City Council require property owners within a 600 foot radius from the project be notified. The labels are verified by staff to be accurate and that they reflect the correct area to be notified. Notices are mailed to the property owners within the proper radius from the site. This notice is also attached to the sign that is posted on the site. R:\STAFFRPT\NOPtLPC 3/15/94 kLb 1 Notification of Homeowner's Associations Within the Project Area: Staff has recently started notifying Homeowners Associations (HOA) that may be affected by the project at the Development Review Committee (DRC) level. Staff determines Which HOA's are affected by the project by reviewing the City's HOA map and assessing those HOA's that abut the project or take access from the same road as the project. A letter is then mailed to the Association along with a copy of the proposed project. A City Staff contact person is named in the letter. Posting of the Site: The site is posted with a 4' high by 4' wide bright yellow sign prior to the date of the hearing body. Depending upon noticing requirements imposed by state law, the sign will be placed upon the site 10, 20, or 30 days prior to the hearing. Additional Notification: In addition to the above methods of noticing property owners and HOA's that may be affected by development proposals, the project is also noticed at the following places: a. In front of City Hall; b. At the Temecula Library; c. At the Temecula Town Association; and d. In The Californian Newspaper. Recommended Chanaes to the Current NOPH Procedure Alternative Sources of Notification Labels: Staff has looked into acquiring the notification labels from a source other than Title Companies. Two alternative sources of notification labels are discussed below. A third option would be to encourage the Title Companies to include a standard exhibit in their package that would afford Staff the opportunity to spot check the validity of the labels. In-House Generation of Labels. Staff has the capability of generating the notification labels in-house. The process would involve the time of the Information Systems Administrator, the Case Planner, and an Office Assistant. Materials would include the Assessor's Pages, labels and a form to fill out to give to the Information Systems Administrator. Estimated current cost for this process would be approximately $200.00 per application. Currently, it is also estimated that Staff will have the time to generate the labels. The benefit from using this process is that it would place the responsibility for this function on the Planning Staff to assure that the notification labels are correct and complete. Outside Contractual Service. Staff was contacted by an individual who will also provide the service of generating the notification labels. They have stated that they have started to provide this service for Title Companies. They currently charge $1.00 per label with a minimum charge of $75.00 per project. The benefit from this service is that there is a specific individual that will be held responsible for the accuracy of the labels. The shortcoming of this system is that the cost could be expensive for applicants. R:\STAFFRPT\NOPH.PC 5/15/9~ ktb 2 Standard exhibit for radius package. One other option is to create new criteria for the Title Companies to follow that will assure that the correct information is supplied to Staff. One way to accomplish this would be to require them to provide an exhibit (the Assessor's Index Page) in the submittal that would show the parcel in question along with all of the parcels within the specific radius range. An example of this is included as Attachment No. 3. In addition to showing the radius and each parcel, they would also have to (identify on the exhibit) all of the Assessor's pages. Staff feels that this option would resolve the problems that we have been experiencing in the past. Revised NOPH Ryer. Staff has created a revised NOPH notice that is mailed to the affected property owners (Reference Attachment No. 4 for current notice and Attachment No. 5 for the revised notice). The new features are listed below. New layout. The new notice contains a much larger font for the words "Notice of Public Hearing." In addition, the words Notice of Public Hearing will be located next to the return address on the outside of the notice. The vicinity map is located in a box in the center of the notice. Bright color. Staff recommends that the notice be printed on bright paper that will over time automatically trigger a response in people's minds that this is an important item that has been sent to them from the City of Temecuta. Cm Standard Criteria for Exhibit for Vicinity map. Staff has prepared standard criteria for the Vicinity map for the notice (see Attachment No. 6). The vicinity map will clearly call out the main streets in the area. In addition, the site will be shaded, with the word "site" in large print and an arrow showing the location of the site. New Sign. A new design for the sign that used for posting the site has been explored as another way of increasing the visibility for projects. Staff recommends that the sign continue to be the same size as previous used (4' high x 4' wide) and the same bright yellow color. The top of the sign should include in bold letters what is being proposed. This information should be in plain language and brief in its description (i.e., PROPOSED CHURCH or PROPOSED SHOPPING CENTER). This information should be visible to motorists while in their cars. Below this would be the words "Notice of Public Hearing." Also needed on the sign should be the City Seal, notice information, the City's address and phone number and a directional map to City Hall. Staff is requesting direction as to the type of sign that the Commission would prefer to see posted on the site. Typical costs and prototype signs for new signs have obtained from a sign company and are included as Attachment No. 7. A $45.00 charge is currently levied by the sign company that is under contract with the City to post sites. Posting of Site Upon Application Submittal. In addition to posting the site for a Notice of Public Hearing, the site may also be posted upon submittal of an application. The anticipated benefit from posting the site early in the process is that the adjacent property owners will be afforded additional notification and time to respond to the project before it goes to public hearing. A shortcoming of this is that the posting of R:\STAFFRPT\NOPH.pC 3/15/94 ktb 3 the site for application submittal will be more costly that posting the site for the Public Hearing. Additional Exposure in the Newspaper. The Californian was contacted to determine how and whether additional coverage may be provided for the Public Hearing items within the City of Temecula. Staff inquired into the possibility of including hearing information in the front page index. The spokesperson for the Californian is still in the process of determining if this is possible. A synopsis of the meeting agendas can be placed in the Government Meeting Section of The Californian if specific newspaper deadlines are met (Reference Attachment No. 8). Minimum Number of Residents to be Noticed. In some instances, the number of affected property owners within a 300 foot or 600 foot radius from a given project is a very small number (i.e., between 5-10 separate property owners). Some municipalities have a minimum number of property owners (approximately 30) to be notified. This will assure that a satisfactory number of affected property owners will be notified of projects in their area. Attachments: 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Required Property Owners Notification Information - Blue Page 5 Property Owners Certification - Blue Page 6 Standard Exhibit for Radius Package - Blue Page 7 Current Notice of Public Hearing - Blue Page 8 Revised Notice of Public Hearing - Blue Page 9 Standard Vicinity Map for Notice of Public Hearing - Blue Page 10 Costs for Types of Noticing Signs and Prototype Signs- Blue Page 11 Example of Government Meeting Section of The Californian - Blue Page 12 R:\$TAFFRPT\NOPH.PC 3115/q~ ktb 4 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 REQUIRED PROPERTY OWNERS NOTIFICATION INFORMATION R:\STAFFRPT\NOPH.PC 3/15/9~ ktb 5 REQUII~lq~ PROPERTY OWNERS NOTIFICATION INFORMATION The following items will be required at the time of f~llng of the above noted case application: TWO identical packages to be inserted in separate 9 1/2" x 12 i/2" manila envelopes. These envelopes shall indicate the case number and the word "hbels," and shall contain the following: One typed set of gummed labels indicating all the properoj owners' names and the mailing edclresses that axe within a 600-foot radius of the exterior of the proposed project (this list Shall be ascertained from the last equ~liTed assessment roll). For Projects under 10,000 square feet in size AND requiring a planning Director's Hearing, a 300-foot radius package is needed A photocopy of the aforementioned labels. One label for the representative and/or engineer. One label for the owner. Four typed sets of gummed labels of the owner, engineer, and xepresentativ6 with their mailing addresses. Do not include duplicate sets where representative and owner, etc., am the same. These should be inserted in a letmr-sized envelope and stapled to the outside of one of the large manila envelopes mentioned in item 1 above. Certification by the rifle company, engineer, or surveyor that the above list is complete and accurate. The Tax Assessor' s Office will not prepax~ or certify the property owner list (see certification form attached). On a copy of your exhibit or tentative map show all parcels within 600/300 feet. On the map, print the names of all property owners within 6001300 feet as they are listed on the gummed labels. CITY OF TEMECUL4 PLANNING DEPARTMENT ATTACHMENT NO. 2 PROPERTY OWNERS CERTIFICATION R:\STAFFRPT\NOPH.PC 3/15/94 kLb 6 PROPERTY OWNERS CERTII~ICATION I, , c~rtify that on , the ached (Print Name) (month-day-yes. r) property owners list was px~d by ('Pr~t compsny or individu~'s natme) purS-nnt tO application requimm~nU furnished by the City of Temecula plnnning DeparUnent. Said llst is a complete and m:e compilnt/on of owner of the subject property and all other property owners Within ~00/300 feet of the property involved in the application and is based upon the latest eq,,nli~ed assessment rolls. I further ceX~f7 that the information ~ed is true and correct to the best of my howledge. I understand that incorrect or erroneous information may be groan{is for rejection or denlnl of the application. NAME: lIr, -~JKEGISTRATION: ADDKESS: PHONE: SIGNATURE: DA'A1~: CASE NO.: (Sa.m.-5p.m.) CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING DEPARTMENT A'I'I'ACHMENT NO. 3 STANDARD EXHIBIT FOR RADIUS PACKAGE R:\STAFFRPT\NOPH.PC ]/15/94 ktb 7 ~A, TTACHMENT NO. 3 "// -J / J / / -- ~ / DIU ATI'ACHMENT NO. 4 CURRENT NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING R:\STAFFRPT\NOPH.PC 3/15/9~ ktb 8 Notice of Public Hearin~ THE CITY OF 'rEMF_ZIFtA 43174 Business Park Drive Temecuh, CA 92590 A PUBLIC HEARING has been scheduled before the PLANNING COMMISSION to consider the matter(s) described below. Case No: Applicant: Location: Proposal: Enviromental Action: Planner: Case No: Applicant: Location: Proposal: Environmental Action: Planner: Any person may submit written comments to the Planning Commission before the hearing(s) or may appear and be heard in support of or 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(s) described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing(s). The proposed project application(s) may be viewed at the public infomation counter, Temecula Planning Department, 43174 Business Park Drive, Monday through Friday from 9:00 AM until 4:00 PM. Questions concerning the project(s) may be addressed to the case planner at the City of Temecula planning Depatuuent, (909) 694- 6400. The time, place and date of the hearing(s) are as follows: PLACE OF HEAR!~G: DATE OF HEARING: TIME OF HEARING: Vail Elementary School 29915 Mira Loma Drive Temecula, CA ,1994 6:00 p.m. ATT,D, CHMENT NO. 5 REVISED NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING R:\STAFFRPT\NOPH.PC 3/15/94 ktb 9 Notice of Public Hearing A PUBLIC I~'.4R1NG has been scheduled before the CITY OF 'x~V!FL"ULA PLANNING COMlv~SION to consider the matter described below: Case No: Applicant: Location: Proposal: Environmental Action: Planner: Recommendation: i nity Map SEE ATTACHMENT NO. 6 PLACE OF DATE OF glv. ARING: TIME OF m~.AR1NG: Vail nementnty Sehool, 29915 lVHra Lores Drive, Tsnenda, CA 6:00 PM Any person may submit written c~mm~ats to the pln,,i.g Commission before the beszing(s) or may appear and be heard in support of or opposition to the appwval of the project(s) at the time of hearing. I/you challenge any of the projeax in court, you may be limited W raising only those issues you or someone dse raised at the publit hearing(s) dtswibed in this notitt, or in writam correspondence delivered W the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the publlt lwaring(s). The proposed project application(s) may be viewed at the public information counter, Temecula planning Deparm~mt 43174 Business Park Drive, Monday through Friday from 9:00 AM until 4:00 PM. Questions conc~xing the project(s) may be Mdnmed to at tho City of Temecula planning Department, (909) 694-6400. ATTACHMENT NO. 6 STANDARD VICINITY MAP FOR NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING R:\STAFFRPT\NQPH,PC 3/15/94 ktb 10 ATIA~HIVII:N I NU. ~ PROJECT AREA SHADED MAJOR STREETS f IDENTIFIED BOLD WORD SITE AND ARROW NORTH ARROW ATTACHMENT NO. 7 COSTS FOR TYPES OF NOTICING SIGNS AND PROTOTYPE SIGNS R:\STAFFRPT\NOPH.pC 3/15/94 kLb 11 SIGN TYPE SEMI- PERMANENT SIGN ATTACHMENT ~NO.~ 7 COSTS FOR ~ :OF NOTICING SIGNS SINGLE ANNUAL CASE COST COST $150.00 Material & construction 50.00 Planning Commission posting 50.00 City Council posting (if necessary) loo signs 100 Signs 30 Signs approx. PER MEETING POSTING $ 50.00 Planning Commission posting 50.00 City Council posting (if necessary) I0 Signs # 100 Signs 30 Signs approx. PER MEETING POSTING (Meeting Date Posted in large letters) $ 50.00 Planning Commission posting 12.00 @ Large lettering for meeting dam 50.00 City Council posting (if necessary) 12.00 @ Large lettering for meeting date # Assumes replacement rote of ten signs/year (may be less) 10 Signs # 100 Signs 30 Signs approx. $15,000.00 5,000.00 1.500.00 $21,500.00 $I ,500.00 5,000.00 1.500.00 $8,000.00 $1,500.00 5,000.00 1,200.00 1,500.00 1.200.00 $10,400.00 R:\P~G~SIONS.CHT 3115194 SEMI-PERMANENT SIGN ,,,/ Public Hearing Notice (~) ~ CITY OF TEI'IECULA For i~lermetion centeel: Temecule Planning Department 43 174 Bu~lness Part Drive Temecule, CA g2591 (90g) 694-6400 a. Sign goes up at time of application. b. Planning Commission Meeting notice posted. c. City Council Meeting notice posted (if required). d. Sign removed after final action. SIGN COST Single Case Cost $150.00 Matedal & construction 100 Signs 50.00 Planning Commission posting 100 Signs 50.00 City Council posting (if necessary)30 Signs (approx.) $250.00 Advantages: - Constant public information during review process. Disadvantages: - Vandalism and maintenance. - Higher costs to applicants. - Sign clutter around cib/. - Posting of hearing notices would largely go unnoticed. Annual Cost $15,000.00 5,000.00 1.500.00 $21,500.00 PER MEETING POSTING PI~OPOSED U~E: 200,000 If Him. Mater. Public Hearing Notice ~ ~ CITY TEr"IECULA For infermellon coateel: Temecgle Planning Department 4~ 174 Business Part Drive Temeceleo CA 92591 Sign goes up prior to Planning Commission meeting, Planning Commission hearing notice posted. b. Sign removed after Planning Commission meeting. Sign goes up prior to City Council meeting, City Council hearing notice posted (if necessary). d. Sign removed after final action. SIGN COST Single Case Cost* 10 Signs# 50.00 Planning Commission posting 100 Signs 50.00 City Council posting (if necessary)30 Signs (approx.) $100.00 Annual Cost $1,500.00 5,000.00 1.500.00 $8,000.00 *re-usable signs #Assumes replacement rate of ten signs/year (maybe less). Advantages: - "Up" time is reduced, minimizing potential for vandalism and sign clutter. - Signs are recycled, reducing costs to applicants. - Placement of sign structure catches attention easier than posting of notice on existing sign. Disadvantages: - Shorter overell window of time for public noticing. PER MEETING POSTING Public Hearing Notice (~ ~] CITY TEHECULA Cltg Council HeeLing, Feb. 8, 1994 For Information contact: Temoculo Planning Doportment 43174 Des I hess Park Drjve Tamecole, Ce g25gl 694-6400 Sign goes up prior to Planning Commission meeting, Planning Commission hearing notice posted. b. Sign removed after Planning Commission meeting. Sign goes up pdor to City Council meeting, City Council hearing notice posted (if necessary). d. Sign removed after final action. SIGN COST Single Case Cost* Annual Cost 10 Signs# $1,500.00 50.00 Planning Commission posting 100 Signs 5,000.00 12.00@ Large lettering for meeting date 1,200.00 50.00 City Council posting (if necessary)30 Signs (approx.)1,500.00 12.00 @ Large lettering for meeting date 1.200.00 $124.00 $10,400.00 *re-usable signs #Assumes replacement rate @ option of ten signs/year (may be less). Advantages: - "Up" time is reduced, minimizing potential for vandalism and sign clutter. - Signs are recycled, reducing costs to applicants. - Placement of sign structure catches attention easier than posting of notice on existing sign. Disadvantages: - Shorter overall window of time for public noticing. ATTACHMENT NO. 8 EXAMPLE OF GOVERNMENT MEETING SECTION OF THE CALIFORNIAN R:\STAFFRPT\NOPH,PC ~/15/9~ kLb 12 ATTACHMENT NO. 8 aders animal rescue policy nssnd other-nlmal shel- In a~ emergency, a Ranch- so that the rightful owners ['uesday, couuty stimh~- o~cer Harry Pkipps re- that veteran Animal ~l ChiefF,,~mett Gibson staff combined with con- ci~izens to save all ani- ' the recent propertyneed- e entered, it was," said *A notice was left for · that their been z'emovej., r could be picked on said rescue efforts ; hindered by the lack of process -- a ; to be considered by the Task Force for Domestic . Breeding. Penxdt procured beforehmmd could be posted on a gate or fence, authorizing nnlmn| con- trol staff to enter the property as needed to rescue nn~mSJS. Phipps, however, questioned the cotmty's liability for a~- msJs that may perish despite proper posting, and Gibson mainreined that any disaster rescue plan should be flexible enough to allow his crewto deal with a rh~nging situation. Gibson did support mending the counv/s ,,imnl shelter con- tracts to provide for emergency situations, but at some addi- tional cost. Supervisox~ cited their desir- es to have shelters hold rescued nnlrn~ls for longer time pez~ods could have a better chance to claim them. Also, the board a~reed that animals should be transported and held as near as possible to their points o£ res- cue. In the Winchester and Ortega area fires, most estmty-rescued animals were taken either to the Lake Elsinore Animal Friends ~helter, 29001 Bastton St., or P.~nona ~,imal Haven at 690 Hnmane Way in Sen Ja- cinto. Dozens more were saved by the extensive rescue efforts of volunteer residents -- such as Debts Johnson of Wincheso ter, who used her own horse trailer to relocate and find tem- porary boarding for several horses left homeless by fire. II the California Parks Bond Ac~ of 1994 n June.' rusk force to a cat licensing pro- 1st District will be r M~chelle Sheehe D.istric~ by Anne Wash- ; sixth change ;the Mission Trail read g project in Lake Elsin- he board approved ) for I~IB C Contractors rebuff and pack over existing sewer Mission Trail fol- pro. blems. Change orders for the projec~ now tota~ $178~80 or 8.23 per- cent of the original project cost. [] Approved a memorandttm of understanding between the Mood ConWol District and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers re- garcLing emergency response to potential T~lr,~ ~OOdln_w at Lnlre Elsinore thl; year. [] Reappointed Joseph Phelps of Temecula to the District 7 Flood Control and Water Con- servation Co,-m~,sion. Phelps has served on the co_'~n~eion for three years and will now serve to Oct. 31, 1996. Compiled by Chuck Har~.y :~'*lrfia~u's budget e,11, for'~ 1.32 peme~ ($32,2 _m~) ~ ~ ~"+"~ J~y L ODe ~ aami-;~a~r ~n'C too ~d by WHson's budge~ ~ou~ W~y Upper, ~ce president of h~ess se~ces, s~d ~e sh~.' Upper made ~ comment bued on what appe~s a doubl~dg~ sword: ~e $32.~ mlll;On ~cease ~ pm~d on MSJC ~u~g i~ per- ~s ~t fee ~m $13 ~ $20 ~d ~-g b~ ~ut $15 ~- Hon by d~ md~ ~ ballots de~es. Murrieta for mom wR M'ORRIETA -- For ~e sec- ond ~e ~ mo mon~, resi- dents ~ gong to bat for a M~e~ wom~ ~g ~m a deb~ bled ~e. ~ ~e ~ey a~y ~ll s~g so~ ba~ 'for ~ofie ~nn; who~ baffle ~ apl~ ~c ~e~a made headlines ~ December ~d ushend ~ a ~d ofw~ ~p~. ~ve~one wu so helpS, R was j~t ~beHevable,' s~d Deb~e McGee, who ~p~ or- ~ ~P~ ll)VE~NMEITMELqlNG mm 'r,.,--~-toco,,.--,-mitygener- , osity, the effort netted holiday Wlldomar Municipal Advisory Council WILDOMAR --The town Munici* pal Adviso~ Council will meet at 7 p.m. today in the Wlldomar Ele- mentary School, 23.575 Palomar St. The agentis includes: [] County Supen~sor Bob Bust- ef's re~crton a possible mgionae park in Wildomar. [] Posting of Wildomar bound- arysigns. [] Establish liaison with county PlanningCommission. ~11 Rood cofftrol pl arming com- mittee. [] Discuss s~arPJO of NeighVor- hood Wato~ ~rogram. [] Joint powers Commission for Mamh Air Fome Base. toys and clo~h4ng for the Whm ~fiy as well as $2,300 for a ~nmily trust fund at Fjzst .i ic B--~' oa Vrmchestor ~ Now, McCabe hopes for even t more com~"nunit7 outreach. The Murfists Parks and P~c- rearion Commi~sion last week 1' approved a two-day soi~ball h tottrnsznent forthe Winn cause. The coed, double-elimination event is set for Feb. 5 and 6 at California Oaks Sports Park Area businesses ulready have donat~l items for a ~axne-rels~ ed silent auction. Money m~de t' from concession sales also will c benefit the Winns, McCabe 6 said. 6 Organizers~ hope for 18 ITEM #3 RECOMMENDATION: STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION March 21, 1994 Specffic Ran No. 263 (Regional Center) Change of Zone No. 5589 Prepared By: Steve Jiannino The Planning Department Staff recommends the Planning Commission: APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: PROPOSAL: LOCATION: EXISTING ZONING: SURROUNDING ZONING: PROPOSED ZONING: Continue this item to a date specific as determined at the public hearing. KRDC Inc. T & B Planning Consultants Specific Plan proposing a 1,375,000 square foot commercial core, 810,000 square feet of Office/Institutional with possible Multi-Family Residential and an additional 298,000scluare feet of Retail Commercial with an accompanying Change of Zone request changing the zoning from R-R (Rural Residential) and A-2-20 (Heavy Agricultural, 20 acre minimum lot size) to SP (Specific Plan No. 263). Southeast corner of the intersection of Ynez and Winchester Roads R-R (Rural Residential) and A-2-20 (Heavy Agricultural, 20 acre minimum lot size) North: South: East: West: C-P-S (Scenic Highway Commercial) M-SC (Manufacturing Service Commercial) A-2-20 (Heavy Agricultural, 20 acre minimum lot size) C-P-S (Scenic Highway Commercial) SP (Specific Plan No. 263) R:\STAFFRF~263SP.PC 3rtGj94 idb GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATIONS: CC (Community Commercial) O (Professional Office) BP (Business Park) P (Public/Institutional) Specific Plan Overlay Village Center Overlay EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USES: North: South: East: West: Commercial Development (Costco) Vacant Vacant Commercial Development (Palm Plaza) PROJECT STATISTICS Plannina Area 1 Total Area Possible Residential Retail/Office Building Area 72 Acres 300 Units 810,000 Square Feet Planning Area 2 Total Area Commercial Retail Building Area 97.8 Acres 1,555,000 Square Feet Plannina Area 3 Total Area Retail/Office Building A:rea 5.5 Acres 118,000 Square Feet BACKGROUND Specific Plan No. 263 and Change of Zone No. 5589 were submitted to the Riverside County Planning Department on September 8, 1989. After completion of the initial Environmental Study, the Riverside County Planning Department determined that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) would be required for the project. Draft Environmental Impact Report No. 340 (DEIR No. 340) was prepared analyzing the impacts of the project. The cases were transferred to the City of Temecula in April, 1990. R:%STAFFI~2838P.PC 3/15/94 Idb 2 Environmental Impact Report No. 340 was completed and was certified by the City Council on July 13, 1993. The current project is consistent with the project analyzed in Environmental impact Report No. 340. The Specific Plan and Change of Zone were placed on hold while the developer processed a project on a portion of the site. The developer has recently requested that Specific Plan No. 263 be set for public hearing for discussion purposes. The developer is aware of general changes which have to be made to the Specific Plan prior to receiving a recommendation from the Planning Commission. These general changes include changing the zoning code format to be consistent with the City's draft Development Code, reflecting the City's adoption of a General Plan and changing Planning Area 3 from Retail/Office to Business Park. The applicant anticipates being able to incorporate recommendations from the public and the Commission brought out in the public hearing. At this time staff is not prepared to provide Conditions of Approval for the project. Staff has requested additional information from the applicant concerning timing of infrastructure improvements. With Specific Plan No. 255 (Winchester Hills) being placed on hold, the necessary improvements needed within the first year of approval of the Regional Center may change. PROJECT DESCRIPTION This project proposal is a Specific Plan with an accompanying Change of Zone request on 201.3 acres. The project site is located along the south side of Winchester Road between Ynez and Margarita Roads. The City's General Plan designates the site as Specific Plan and Village Center overlay areas. The underlying land use designations of the General Plan consist of Community Commercial, Professional Office, Business Park and Public Institutional. The Specific Plan document contains the zoning, development standards and architectural guidelines for the project site. The proposed zoning and development standards contained within the Specific Plan document will govern development for this site over the City's Development Code unless it is not addressed in the Specific Plan Zoning Ordinance. The Specific Plan proposes the following three (3) Planning Areas: Plannine Area 1 Planning Area I is a proposed mixed use site on 72 acres located on the west side of Margarita Road between Winchester Road and Apricot Avenue. The mixed use designation would allow the development of Public/Institutional, Offices and Retail uses and Multi-Family Residential units. The residential units could be constructed as flats over offices or commercial uses. The proposed variety of uses within Planning Area I will encourage the area to be developed as a Village Center as depicted in the City's General Plan. The ability to have residential and commercial uses in the same building or next to each other should increase pedestrian activity within the area. Plannine Are8 2 Planning Area 2 is a proposed retail commercial core site on 97.8 acres located at the southeast corner of Ynez and Winchester Roads. This area is envisioned as a large commercial core center to be developed with a regional mall or a power center. The area will be more vehicle oriented than Planning Area 1. R:~STAFF~263SP.PC 3115/94 klb 3 Plannino Ares 3 Planning Ares 3 is a proposed retail/office site on 5.49 acres located at the southeast corner of Ynez Road and Apricot Avenue. The designation and zoning for this site are going to be revised to be consistent with the City's General Plan designation of Business Park. ANALYSIS The Specific Plan includes the development standards, zoning, architectural and handicap guidelines for the project area. The development standards require the provision that the projects be developed with pedestrian amenities and at a pedestrian scale. These requirements are generally required, but they cannot be detailed at this time. Therefore, staff is requiring the zoning codes for each area includes the requirement that before any development is approved in an area, a Design Manual covering the area be completed and approved by the Planning Commission. The Design Manual will include a proposed site layout showing the location of pedestrian amenities and alternate transportation facilities, such as bus shelters, taxi stands and a transit station. The Design Manual shall also include the type of street furniture to be used in the area. In addition, proposed subdivision of Planning Area 2 should indicate an area for a park and ride facility as required in the Environmental Impact Report. Circulation and Drainaoe The current Circulation Plan shows the boundary roadways for the Site with major and minor access points into the project area. The internal traffic circulation will be designed during project development approval or with the processing of s Design Manual for an area which includes site plans. Staff is requesting a circulation system be developed with roadways that meet the City's public street standards if public streets are not provided. The roadway system should include landscaped parkways and sidewalks. All access points for Winchester Road must be approved by the City Engineer and Caltrans. Currently, the major entry points along Winchester Road are consistent with a Memorandum of Understanding between the City and Caltrans. However, the minor entry points are not consistent with the Memorandum of Understanding. Pursuant to City Council direction, staff is currently working with the development community and Caltrans on a re-evaluation of the Memorandum of Understanding which may include these restricted access points. The Department of Public Works request that the Planning Commission discuss the drainage and traffic issues and direct staff on the following items: · Timing for provision of the Detention Facility in Campos Verdes. · Regional Center onsite circulation. A priority schedule of necessary infrastructure improvements, as listed below, with respect to timing and responsibility of construction. a) Winchester Road b) Margarita Road R:%STAFFI~T%263SP.PC 3115/94 klb 4 c) North General Kearny Road d) Miscellaneous offsite improvements The traffic improvements listed below, required as part of development of the Urban Core Projects are included in Assessment District (AD) 161 and Community Facilities District (CFD) 88-12. The Department of Public Works recommends that the projects be conditioned for the improvements to be in place at certain development phases based on the required ensuing traffic study amendments. AD 161 funded oroiects: Date Street Overpass @ I-15 Date Street from the Overpass to Margarita Road Winchester Road/I-15 interchange ramp widening Winchester Road widening from Margarits Road to Murrieta Hot Springs Road Margarita Road widening from Winchester Road to Murriets Hot Springs Road Ynez Road widening from Equity Lane to City limits Murrieta Hot Springs Road widening from Date Street to Canyon Road CFD 88-12 funded oroiects: Winchester Road/I-15 interchange ramp widening Overland Street Overpass @ I-15 and the street improvement from Jefferson Road to Ynez Road Overland Street from Ynez Road to Margarits Road Margarits Road widening from Solana Way to Winchester Road Solana Way widening from Ynez Road to Margarita Road The traffic signals are the responsibility of the Developer who will be reimbursed from City of Temecula Signal Mitigation Fees if the particular signal is a required area wide signal. R:~STAFFRFT~263SP.PC 3/15j94 Idb 5 LandsceDe Development Zone The project provides for enhanced landscaping setbacks along the following major roadways: Winchester Road, Margarita Road, Ynez Road and Apricot Avenue. The Specific Plan includes the proposed landscaping design guidelines for these areas. The Landscape Development Zone (LDZ) extends from the curb 32 to 37 feet. This area includes 12 feet of street right-of- way. The width of the Landscape Development Zone is 32 feet for Margarita Road, Ynez Road and Apricot Avenue and 37 feet for Winchester Road. The applicant is currently requesting the Landscape Development Zone along Winchester Road be decreased to 30 feet at some future date if the City determines a transit system will not be developed along Winchester Road. Staff feels that it would be appropriate to maintain the 37 feet to enhance the gateway effect of Winchester Road. Staff does not support having the Landscape Development Zone along Winchester Road being smaller than along the other roadways with the project area. PUBLIC/INSTITUTIONAL USE The Specific Plan allows for Public/Institutional uses in Planning Area 1, but does not designate a specific area for these uses. Although the General Plan shows an appropriate 20 acre site in this area, the project is consistent with the General Plan since it acknowledges and allows for these uses. Currently, it is unknown where the most appropriate site for these uses will be. Therefore, staff concurs with the applicant that the designation of a specific site at this time would be inappropriate. PROJECT PHASING It is anticipated that development will start in Planning Area 2 and development in Planning Areas I and 3 will occur later. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION This project is consistent with Environmental Impact Report No. 340. Environmental Impact Report No. 340 was certified by the City Council on July 13, 1993. Statements of Overriding Consideration were adopted at that time for the following: Noise, Air Quality, Agriculture, Wildlife and Vegetation, Circulation, and Libraries. SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS Prior to making the minor revisions to the Specific Plan to reflect the City's adoption of e General Plan, the applicant requested a public hearing be held to obtain input from the Planning Commission. The applicant will submit an amended Specific Plan to the Planning Commission for final recommendation to the City Council. With the submittal of a final package and Planning Commission's direction, staff can complete the review of the project and provide a staff report including Findings and Conditions of Approval. The applicant is anticipating being able to provide the necessary documents in a short time period and would like to be continued to a date specific at the public hearing. A recommended date for continuance will depend on the information and testimony received during the public hearing. R:~STAFFI~T%2838P.PC 3115/94 klb 6 ITEM #4 STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION March 21, 1994 Specific Plan No. I (Campoe Verdes) Environmental Impact Report No. 348 Change of Zone No. 5617 Prepared By: Steve Jiannino RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Department Staff recommends that the Planning Commission provide direction to staff on the proposed project and then continue this item to a date specific as determined at the public hearing. APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: KRDC, Inc. REPRESENTATIVE: T&B Planning Consultants PROPOSAL: A Specific Ran consisting of: 206 Single-Family Residential units, 644 Multi-Family Residential units, 13.5 acres of Commercial, 4.6 acres of Office/Commercial, 5.8 acres of Detention Basin and 13.5 acre Park with accompanying Change of Zone request from R-R (Rural Residential) and A-2-20 (Heavy Agricultural, 20 acre minimum lot size) to SP (Specific Plan No. 1); an Environmental Impact Report No. 348 on the potential impacts of the project. The preferred Land Use Plan alternative would propose 231 Single-Family Residential units, 348 Multi-Family Residential units, 12.6 acres of Commercial, 4.6 acres of Office/Commercial, 5.8 acres of Detention Basin, 13.5 acre Park/Detention and 11.1 School Site. LOCATION: South of Winchester Road and east of Margarita Road EXISTING ZONING: R-R (Rural Residential), A-2-20 (Heavy Agricultural, 20 acre minimum lot size) SURROUNDING ZONING: North: South: East: West: C-P-S (Scenic Highway Commercial) and R-R (Rural Residential) A-2-20 (Heavy Agricultural, 20 acre minimum lot size) SP (Specific Plan No. 164, Roripaugh Hills) A-2-20 (Heavy Agricultural, 20 acre minimum lot size), R-R (Rural Residential) R:%STAFFRPT~ISP.PC 3116/94 Idb 1 PROPOSED ZONING: SP (Specific Plan No. 1) GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: CC (Community Commercial 0 (Professional Office) H (High Density, 13-20 dulac) M (Medium Density, 7-12 du/ac) LM (Low Medium Density, 3-6 du/ac) OS (Open Space/Recreation) Specific Plan Overlay EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USES: North: Winchester Road, Vacant South: Vacant East: Residential West: Vacant PROJECT STATISTICS Gross Acreage: 132.9 Acres Single-Family Residential 206 Units Multi-Family Residential 644 Units Commercial 13.5 Acres Office/Commercial 4.6 Acres Detention Basin 5.8 Acres Park/Detention 13.5 Acres Alternate Land Use Plan Single-Family Residential 232 Dwelling Units Multi-Family Residential 348 Dwelling Units Commercial 12.6 Acres Office/Commercial 4.6 Acres Detention Basin 5.8 Acres School Site 11.1 Acres Park/Detention 13.5 Acres BACKGROUND These projects were filed with Riverside County in November, 1989 prior to the City's incorporation. The project was originally submitted as a Change of Zone, Environmental Impact Report and several Tentative Tract Maps. City staff required the project be submitted as a Specific Plan. The project has gone through many reviews and several changes and was placed on hold at the request of the applicant. At this time, the applicant has submitted a preferred alternative Land Use Plan for discussion at the Planning Commission hearing. R:~STAFF~rI~18P,PC 3116/94 klb 2 The Draft Environmental Impact Report was transmitted to the State Clearir~ghouse on July 10, 1992 for distribution in accordance with the 45 day review period. Comments were received during the review period from several agencies. As a result of these comments, updated Traffic Studies and a Drainage Study were necessary and have been attached to the Draft Environmental Impact Report as an addendum. The revised Drainage Study indicated the need for a detention basin to mitigate drainage associated with development of the adjacent Regional Center; this resulted in a Detention Basin being proposed in Planning Area 2. This project was previously scheduled for public hearing on September 14, 1992, but the hearing was cancelled by mutual agreement between the developer and staff due to additional work to be completed on the project. The developer and staff have held many meetings preparing the project for this public hearing. Recently, the applicant has submitted a preferred Land Use Plan which includes a school site and fewer Multi-Family Residential units. The applicant is requesting Ranning Commission direction on the alternative plan prior to amending all the documents to reflect the new Land Use Plan proposal. Because the applicant has not been able to provide all the information requested, staff was unable to complete a detailed analysis of the proposed project. However, staff is prepared to discuss the major issues of the project involving the extension of roadways through adjoining neighborhoods, buffer or transition to Meadowview and proposed land use plan. Specific Plan No. 255, Winchester Hills, has been placed on hold. Subsequently, the Traffic Study prepared for the Urban Core Projects shall be revised and impact for the first year of development re-evaluated and identified to correspond with the current proposals, The Regional Center and Campos Verdes projects. Therefore the Conditions of Approval are not yet available. PROJECT DESCRIPTION This project proposes a Specific Plan with an accompanying Change of Zone request on 132.9 acres. The project site is located south of Winchester Road and east of Margarita Road. The General Plan designates the area as a Specific Plan overlay area with a portion of the site located within the Village Center overlay area. The underlying land use designations of the General Plan consist of Community Commercial, Professional Office, High Density Residential, Medium Density Residential, Low Medium Density, and Open Space/Recreation. The Specific Plan document contains the zoning design standards for each area. The proposed zoning and development standards contained within the Specific Plan document will govern development for this site over the City's Development Code unless it is not addressed in the Specific Plan Zoning Ordinance. The Specific Plan proposes seven (7) Planning Areas within the project site consisting of six (6) different land uses with the commercial uses being proposed along Margarita Road. Planning Area I is a 13.5 acre site proposed as a park and located south of North General Kearny Road. A 2.8 acre portion of the park site is to be used for drainage and detention purposes. The remaining 10.7 acres are to be developed as an active recreational park with playground equipment, restrooms and lighted ball fields. Access to this area will be from a driveway along North General Kearny Road. R:%STAFFRPT~ISP.PC 3115/94 klb 3 Planning Area ;~is a proposed Office/Commercial and Detention Basin site located south of North General Kearny Road between Margarita Road and Planning Area 1. Planning Area 2 consists of a 5.8 acre Detention Basin and a 4.6 acre Office/Commercial site. The detention area will be developed as a passive recreational area to allow for use when the area is dry. Access to the. Office/Commercial area will be from a joint access with Planning Area I along North General Kearny Road with a restricted right inkight out only access along Margarita Road. A landscape development zone of 32 feet is being provided along North General Kearny and Margarita Roads. The increased landscaped area includes 12 feet of street right-of-way. The proposed landscaping for the landscape development zone is provided for in the Design Guidelines of the Specific Plan. Planning Area 3 is a proposed High Density Residential site located east of Margarita Road and north of North General Kearny Road. This area is proposed as a Multi-Family Residential area with a maximum housing density of 17 units par acre. Access to Planning Area 3 will be from North General Kearny Road and Campoe Verdes Lane. The proposed landscape development zone of 32 feet in width will be continued along Margarita Road and North General Kearny Road. Currently, no development proposals have been submitted for this area. The Specific Plan provides zoning and development standards along with Architectural Guidelines which will have to be followed for any proposed development. The area is between Office/Commercial (Planning Area 2) and Commercial (Planning Area 4) sites and provides a portion of the varied housing mixture within the project. It also supplies a high density housing area in close proximity to shopping and employment areas. Planning Area 4 is a proposed Commercial site on 13.5 acres. The area will provide retail uses for the residents of the project and the surrounding community. Planning Area 4 is located at the southeast corner of Margarita. and Winchester Roads. Access to the site will be from Margarita Road and Campos Verdes Lane. Pedestrian access is to be provided from Planning Area 5 along the eastern boundary of the site. The 32 foot wide landscape development zone will be continued along Margarita Road with a 37 foot wide landscape development zone being provided along Winchester Road. The 37 feet along Winchester Road incudes 12 feet of right- of-way along Winchester Road and the 25 foot wide transportation corridor which runs along Winchester Road to provide for possible future transit uses. Currently, no development plans have been submitted for this area. The Specific Plan provides zoning and development standards along with Architectural Guidelines which will govern development of the site. Any proposed development will have to demonstrate how it provides pedestrian scale and orientation along with providing for alternative modes of transportation. Some of these facilities could include: open spaces, bicycle racks or lockers, bus shelters, taxi stands, shade structures etc. Large employment enterprises will be encouraged to provide bicycle lockers and shower rooms to encourage employees to ride their bikes to work. Planning Area 5 is a proposed High Density Residential site located between the Commercial Center (Planning Area 4) and the existing Roripaugh Hills development. Planning Area 5 is a proposed Multi-Family Residential development with a maximum density of 17 dwelling units per acre similar to Planning Area 3. The preferred alternative Land Use Plan shows this area as Single-Family Residential with minimum lot sizes of 4,500 square feet. Access to the area will be from Campos Verdes Lane, Planning Area 6 and the possible extension of Starling Street. Planning Area 6 is a proposed Medium Residential site with a density range of 5-8 dwelling units per acre. The current target density is 5.2 dwelling units per acre. Planning Area 6 is located north of North General Kearny Road adjacent to Planning Area 3. Access to this area will be from Campoe Verdes Lane and through 8 residential street intersection with North General Kearny. The zoning for this area allows single-family dwellings on lots with a minimum area of 4,500 square feet. A previous Tentative Tract Map has been submitted for this Planning Area, but is not being processed at this time. The current alternative for the Specific Ran shows an 11.1 acre school site within Planning Area 6 adjacent to North General Kearny Road and east of Planning Area 4. The alternative will allow the site to be developed as a Medium Density Residential area if the school district chooses not to develop the site as an elementary school. Planning Are8 7 is a proposed Medium Low Residential site with a density renge of 2-5 dwelling units per acre. The current target density is 3 dwelling units per acre. Planning Area 7 is located north of North General Kearny Road between Planning Area 6 and the Meadowview Estates. Access to the site is currently proposed from North General Kearny Road, Planning Area 6 and the extension of Sanderling Way. The zoning for the area allows single-family dwellings on lots with a minimum area of 7,200 square feet. In addition, a buffer of 40 feet in width and minimum lots sizes of 10,000 square feet are proposed adjacent to the Meadowview Estate development. The transition from the proposed project to the larger lot Meadowview Estates with some horse properties has been an outstanding issue for the project. Currently the provision of larger lots and a landscaped buffer of 40 feet is being proposed. ANALYSIS Landscape Develooment Zone The project provides for enhanced landscaping setbacks along the following major roadways: Winchester Road, Margarita Road, North General Kearny Road and Campos Verdes Lane. The Specific Plan includes the proposed landscaping design guidelines for these areas. The Landscape Development Zones (LDZ) extends from the curb 18 to 37 feet. This area includes 12 feet of street right-of-way. The width of the Landscape Development Zone are Campoe Verdes Lane - 18 feet, Margarita and North General Kearny Road - 32 feet and Winchester Road - 37 feet. The applicant is requesting that the Landscape Development Zone along Winchester Road be decreased to 30 feet at some future date if the City determines that a transit system will not be developed along Winchester Road. However, staff feels that the 37 foot zone should be retained in order to enhance the gateway effect of Winchester Road. Staff does not support having the landscape development zone along Winchester Road being smaller than along Margarita and North General Kearny Roads. R:%STAFFF~T%1SP.PC 3/15/94 bsk 5 Parks The currant park layout consistency of 10.5 acres may be changed with the processing of the alternative land use plan. The Quimby requirements will be reduced from the 10,5 acres to about 7.5 acres because of the reduction in residential units from 850 to 573, The applicant and the TCSD are beginning discussions on the park and the type of facilities that should be provided. The outcome of these discussions could alter the park design and the size of the Office/Retail area in Planning Area 2. Circulation and Dreinaoe The residents of Roripaugh Hills have raised concerns about the extension of Starling Street and Sanderling Way into this project along with having High Density Residential development adjacent to their development. As stated earlier, the developer is proposing an alternative to reduce the residential density by providing a Single-Family Residential development instead of the proposed Multi-Family Residential development in Planning Area 5 reducing the overall residential units in the Specific Plan from 850 units to 579 units. The developer is willing to design any proposed tract maps with a circulation system either providing for the extension of Starling Street and Sanderling Way or leaving them as currently dead-ended. The Department of Public Works request that the Planning Commission discuss the drainage and traffic issues and direct staff on the following items: · Timing for provision of the Detention Facility in Campoe Verdes. Campos Verdes onsite circulation. ie, the extension of Starling Street and Sanderling Way through the Campos Verdes Specific Plan. The intent was always to have Starling Street and Sterling Way ultimately extended. The extensions may be considered beneficial based on the following assumptions: A more expedient emergency response time to Roripaugh Hills homes. Discourage an increase in the Average Daily Trips on Winchester Road (a CMP thoroughfare), Provide an, eighborhood circulation, primarily from east to west for access to the commercial center, school, and parks. The possibility of an elementary school in Planning Area 6 and the construction of a 10 acre park with active recreational facilities within Ranning Area I which could be accessed directly from Roripaugh Hills, without having to access Winchester Road. Concerns raised by the residents including possible increased traffic and vandalism in their neighborhoods. R:%STAFFI~vT%18P.PC 3/16/94 klb 6 A priority schedule of necessary infrastructure improvements, as listed below, with respect to timing and responsibility of construction. a) Winchester Road b) Margarits Road c) North General Kearny Road d) Miscellaneous offsite improvements The traffic improvements listed below, required as part of development of the Urban Core Projects are included in Assessment District (AD) 161 and Community Facilities District (CFD) 88-12. The Department of Public W(~rks recommends that the projects be conditioned for the improvements to be in place at certain development phases based on the required ensuing traffic study amendments. AD 161 funded oroiects: Date Street Overpass @ I-15 Date Street from the Overpass to Margarita Road Winchester Road/I-15 interchange ramp widening Winchester Road widening from Margarita Road to Murrieta Hot Springs Road Margarita Road widening from Winchester Road to Murrieta Hot Springs Road Ynez Road widening from Equity Lane to City limits Murrieta Hot Springs Road widening from Date Street to Canyon Road CFD 88-12 funded orojects: Winchester Road/lol 5 interchange ramp widening Overland Street Overpass @ I-15 and the street improvement from Jefferson Road to Ynez Road Overland Street from Ynez Road to Margarita Road Margarita Road widening from Solana Way to Winchester Road Solana Way widening from Ynez Road to Margarita Road The traffic signals are the responsibility of the Developer who will be reimbursed from City of Temecula Signal Mitigation Fees if the particular signal is a required area wide signal. Transition/Buffer Within Planning Area 7, the on going maintenance responsibility of the proposed 40 foot landscaped buffer is still an issue that needs to be resolved. In addition, the developer and staff have not come to a final determination as to what the appropriate transition/buffer should be. Some of the suggestions include increasing the lot sizes along the Meadowview lots to a minimum of 15,000 square feet, providing a buffer of 40 feet (including a horse trail) and designing any subdivision with a single loaded street along the Meadowview property in order for the street to function as an additional buffer area. PROJECT PHASING The project is proposed to be developed in two major phases. The first phase consists of the single-family residential units, the 13.5 acre park, and the 5.8 acre detention basin. The second phase consists of the multi-family residential units, the commercial retail site, and the office site. Most of the area proposed for the second phase of development is located along Margarits Road. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION An initial study was completed for the project by Riverside County Planning staff which indicated that there would be several environmentally potentially significant impacts with the development of the project. Consequently, staff determined that an Environmental Impact Report would be necessary for the project. Environmental Impact Report No. 348 was prepared by the applicant's consultant, Douglas Wood and Associates, Inc. The Environmental Impact Report analyzed the significance of all the major impacts. Following is a summary of the impacts: Seismic Safety The site does not contain any known active faults, but it is affected by the nearby Wildomar Fault. Therefore, the site is subject to possible ground shaking hazards. Construction of any improvements will have to incorporate building techniques to mitigate for possible ground shaking. Also, a portion of the site lies within a potential liquefaction zone. As a mitigation measure, any development within this area will have to comply with recommendations made within detailed geology reports provided prior to issuance of grading permits for the site. In addition, a portion of the site also lies within the Dam Inundation Area for Lake Skinner. Therefore, an evacuation route shall be developed for the area prior to recordation of any final maps and a notice of the possible hazard shall be included in all deeds recorded on the property. Completion of the proposed Assessment District No. 161 improvements to Santa Gertrudis Creek Channel could remove the site from the Dam Inundation Area for Lake Skinner. The possibility of a dam failure is considered a significant unavoidable impact. Therefore, a Statement of Overriding Consideration will have to be adopted for this impact with certification of the Environmental Impact Report. Aodcultural Lands Implementation of the Specific Plan will remove possible areas for dry farmed cropland. It will also re-~ult in the loss of future agricultural lands designated as "/ocal Important Farm/and' and 'Prime Farm/and' as indicated in the City's Draft General Plan, Agricultural Resources Section. Development of the property could theoretically hasten the conversion of other agricultural areas to urban uses by creating economic pressures and increasing land value for development. However, from a practical standpoint, this project is surrounded by urbanizing or planned urban development. There are no practical mitigations for this impact, except no development, even though the impact is considered a significant impact. Therefore, a Statement of Overriding Consideration will have to be adopted for this impact with certification of the Environmental Impact Report. Climate and Air Quality Although impacts to air quality will occur during the grading and construction phase of the project, the major impact to air quality will come from vehicle exhaust after build out of the project. Mitigation measures have been added to the project to lessen the impacts to the air quality. Some of these mitigation measures include: watering graded surfaces and providing interim landscaping (groundcover) of graded areas to lower dust emissions to reduce impacts during construction. Additional mitigations include: providing bike paths, completing required on- and off-site road improvements, complying with Congestion Management Programs and providing a jobs/housing balance. While these measures provide feasible mitigations for the increased traffic, the impact to air quality will still be a significant impact. The total number of vehicle miles generated from the project cannot be reduced sufficiently to enable the impact to be considered insignificant. Therefore, a Statement of Overriding Consideration will have to be adopted for this impact in conjunction with certification of the Environmental Impact Report. Noise Noise impacts will occur during grading and construction of the project, although the major noise impact will be from the cumulative effect of increased traffic on the roadways from this project and additional development in the area. Impacts during construction will be lessened by controlling the time construction activities are allowed to take place. Traffic noise will be partially mitigated by construction of barrier walls along the major roadways. The ultimate height of the barrier walls will be determined when detailed noise studies are completed prior to recordation of final maps. Even after implementation of feasible mitigation measures, the cumulative noise impact cannot be mitigated to a level of insignificance. Therefore, a Statement of Overriding Consideration will have to be adopted concerning the noise impact in conjunction with certification of the Environmental Impact Report. Circulation This project impacts both on and off-site roadways. The size of the project generates sufficient traffic to require the project to comply with the State Congestion Management Program. The Traffic Study included in the Technical Appendix of the EIR details the impacts of the project to traffic circulation within all the jurisdictions. The analysis contains mitigation measures and timing requirements for the completion of the improvements. These mitigations have been included in the Mitigation Monitoring Program and the Conditions of Approval for the project. The cumulative impacts to circulation will remain significant although the impacts will be lessened by adherence to the Conditions of Approval and mitigation measures. Therefore, a Statement of Overriding Consideration must be adopted for this impact in conjunction with the certification of the Environmental Impact Report for this project. R:%STAFFRoT%1SP.PC 3115/94 klb 9 WildllfeNeoetation A biological study was completed on the site and no rare or endangered plants or animals Were observed or are expected to occur on the site. The site is within the historic range of the Stephen's Kangaroo Rat and is subject to the mitigation fees established for protection of appropriate Stephen's Kangaroo Rat Habitat. Although the site is not habitat for any rare or endangered species, the loss of the habitat will add to the cumulative loss of wildlife habitat in the area. This cumulative loss is considered significant even though the individual project impact is not considered significant. The cumulative significant impact will require a Statement of Overriding Consideration be adopted for this impact in conjunction with certification of the Environmental Impact Report for this project. Rood/Drainage A hydrology study was completed for the project which determined the type of infrastructure necessary to handle an anticipated 100 year storm within the area. A detention basin is being proposed to reduce possible flooding when development of the adjacent Regional Center site occurs. The general drainage of the site is from the east to the west. The majority of the site will be developed to drain to the detention basin. Compliance with the proposed mitigation measures and Conditions of Approval will reduce the impacts of the project, but the cumulative impacts are still considered significant and a Statement of Overriding Consideration needs to be adopted in conjunction with certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report. Erosion Erosion control measures are being required and proposed that will comply with all National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements. These measures will include watering of the site during grading, street sweeping of existing, surrounding roadways, landscaping of graded slopes and barruing and sand bagging where necessary. The Mitigation Monitoring Program discourages any grading of sites prior to development being proposed for the site. The site will not be allowed to be mass graded which will help lessen erosion problems. Detailed erosion control plans must be submitted and approved with issuance of grading permits. The erosion control measures must comply with City and NPDES standards. Impacts associated with erosion, will be non-significant with compliance to the Conditions of Approval and the Mitigation Monitoring Program. Public Facilities The project impacts all public facilities due to the increased demand for services from new development. The impacts will be reduced by payment of fees and the provision of s school site. The library fees for mitigation of this project should be $401.00 per unit in 1992 dollars to provide the anticipated level of service needed for the community. This fee cannot fully mitigate the impact to library services due to the current City's level of service which is below the desired level of service. R:\STAFFIIq~ISP.PC 3115/94 klb 10 The project will result in demand for fire protection and police services which cannot be fully mitigated through contributions to the Fire Protection Impact Mitigation Program or collection of taxes. The impacts to Public Facilities cannot be fully mitigated. Therefore, a Statement of Overriding Consideration must be adopted regarding these impacts in conjunction with certification of the Environmental Impact Report. 10. Utilities The utility providere for the area have determined that they can provide the Electricity, Gas, and Phone services to the site if the proper infrastructure is installed. The utility companies will be providing information on conservation of energy to encourage 811 users to conserve as much energy as possible. With construction of buildings in compliance with Title 24 standards and the installation of appliances which conform to Title 20 standards, the impacts to utilities will be reduced but the cumulative effect will still be considered significant. Therefore, a Statement of Overriding Consideration is required to be adopted with certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report. 11. Parks and RecreationlOoen Soace The project applicant proposes to provide adequate park acreage which meets or exceeds the Quimby requirement for the project. Open Space is being provided through a Landscape Development Zones along the major roadways ranging from eighteen (18) feet to thirty-two (32) feet. The provision of developed park and expanded landscaping areas along major roadways will reduce impacts to a level of non-significance. 12. Cultural and Scientific Resources No cultural resources are anticipated to occur on the site. However, if any cultural resources are encountered as a result of grading, a qualified archaeologist shall be consulted and a mitigation program will be adopted. There is a possibility that paleontology resources could be discovered on the site. Grading of the site shall conform to a mitigation program provided by a qualified paleontologist. Adherence to the paleontologists mitigation program and the conditions of approval will reduce the potential impact to a level of non-significance. 13. Mitioation Monitorfno Proorem The Draft Environmental Impact Report includes the proposed Mitigation Monitoring Program for the project. The Mitigation Monitoring Program is included as a Condition of Approval for the project as a whole with several of the mitigations being separate Conditions of Approval for the project. SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS In order to address concerns raised by property owners to the east of the project site, the developer has submitted a preferred alternative Land Use Plan which eliminates the High information be provided to complete the review of the new project and to incorporate changes resulting from the slower processing of Specific Plan No. 255 (Winchester Hills). R:%STAFFI~I~I~P.PC 3115/94 Idb 11 After taking public hearing testimony and receiving Planning Commission input, the developer will submit an amended Specific Plan incorporating proposed changes. With the submittal of a final package and Planning Commission direction, staff can complete the review of the project and provide e staff report containing Findings and Conditions of Approval. The applicant is anticipating being able to provide the necessary documents in a short time period and would like to be continued to a date specific time at the public hearing. A recommended date for continuance will depend on the information and testimony received during the public hearing, Attachments: Campos Verdes - Proposed Land Use Plan - Blue Page 13 Campos Verdes - Alternative Land Use Plan A - Blue Page 14 Campos Verdes - Alternative Land Use Plan B - Blue Page 15 R:%STAFFRPT~ISP.PC 3115/94 klb 12 ATTACHMENT N0.1 CAMPOS VERDES - PROPOSED LAND USE PLAN R:\STAFF/~T~ISP.PC 3/15/94 klb I 3 CAMPOS VERDES PROPOSED LAND USE PLAN RORIPAUGH ,~,:.,~,.-,,, ..... SP 164 P.A. 2 COMMERCIAL/ OFFICE/ DETENTION 10.4AC ATTACHMENT NO. 2 CAMPO$ VERDE$ - ALTERNATIVE LAND USE PLAN A R:%STAFFI~'T%1SP.PC 3115/94 klb 14 CAMPOS VERDES ALTERNATIVE LAND USE PLAN A ~CAMPOS~ P~6 P.~- 3 SCHOOL* · MEDIUM I COMMERCIAL/ OFFICE/ DETENTION 10,4AC · NOTE: II the School Districl elects rlol to ire this sile, it will be developed as~edium Residential (63 du). ATTACHMENT NO. 3 CAMPOS VERDES - ALTERNATIVE LAND USE PLAN B R:~STAFFRrI'~ISP.PC 3/15/94 kb 15 CAMPOS VERDES ALTERNATIVE LAND USE PLAN B P.A, 2 COMMERCIAL/ OFFICE/ DETENTION 10,4 AC CAMPOS 35,9 AC 168 DU P.~ 3 SCHOOL* 11,1~C · : ; _:2 MEADOWVIEW ;' I,~ · · NOTE: ff the School District e4ects not to asc~edium Rssidenlial (63 du)