HomeMy WebLinkAbout010995 PC AgendaAGENDA
TENIECULA PLANNING COMMISSION
January 9, 1995, 6:00 PM
Rancho California Water District's
Board Room
42135 Winchester Road
Temecula, CA 92390
CALL TO ORDER:
ROLL CALL:
Blair, Fahey, Slaven, Webster 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
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
Case No.:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Environmental Action:
Planner:
Recommendation:
Planning Application No. PA94-0137
City of Temecula
City Wide
An ordinance of the City Council of the City of Temecula Requiring a
Conditional Use Permit for the Establishment of Nightclubs, Teen Clubs,
Dance Halls, Bars and Cocktail Lounge, Billiard Halls and Video Game
Arcades.
Categorical Exemption per Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines
Matthew Fagan
Recommend Approval
Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Propose:
Environmental Action:
Planner:
Recommendation:
Planning Application No. 0180, 181, 183, 184, and 185
Iohnson Machinery Company
Northeast comer of the future intersection of Butterfield Stage Road and
Murrieta Hot Springs Road
A request for approval of an Annexation of 1761 acres to the City of
Temecula; General Plan Amendments to the Land Use and Circulation
Elements; and a Change of Zone from Rural Residential (R-R) to
Specific Plan to prezone the Johnson Ranch property to annex to the City
of Temecula. In addition, a Specific Plan which sets the Zoning and
Development Standards and Design Guidelines for development of 4,969
single family dwellings, 442 acres of open space, 35 acres of Village
Center including 281 multi-family units and approximately 220,000
square feet of retail and office uses, 68 acres of parks and 50 acres of
school facilities.
Certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) which
analyzes the significant impacts and proposes mitigation measures that
reduce these impacts to an insignificant level with the exception of Air
Quality, Wildlife and Vegetation, Land Use and Population and Housing.
Statements of Overriding Considerations have been proposed for these
Impacts.
Salad Naaseh
Recommend Approval
Next meeting: January 23, 1995, 6:00 p.m., Rancho California Water District's Board Room, 42135
Winchester Road, Temecula, California.
PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION
OTHER BUSINESS
ADJOURNMENT
2
ITEM #2
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Planning Commission
FROM:
Gary Thornhill, Director of Planning~J-"
DATE:
January 9, 1995
SUBJECT:
An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Temecula, Amending Sections
9.1,9.50, 10.1, 11.2, and 11.26 of Riverside County Ordinance No. 348, as
adopted by the City of Temecula, requiring a Conditional Use Permit for the
Establishment of Nightclubs, Teen Clubs, Dance Halls, Bars and Cocktail
Lounges, Billlard Halls, and Video Game Arcades
Prepared By:
Matthew Fagan, Assistant Planner
RECOMMENDATION: 1.
ADOPT Resolution No, 95- recommending the
adoption of Ordinance No. 95- amending Sections
9.1, 9.50, 10.1, 11.2, and 11.26 of Riverside County
Ordinance No. 348, as adopted by the City of Temecula,
requiring a Conditional Use Permit for the Establishment
of Nightclubs, Teen Clubs, Dance Halls, Bars and Cocktail
Lounges, Billlard Halls, and Video Game Arcades based
upon the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff
Report.
BACKGROUND
The City Council previously adopted three Interim Ordinances (Ordinances No. 93-05, 93-07
and 94-02) requiring conditional use permits for the establishment of nightclubs, teen clubs,
dance halls, bars and cocktail lounges, billlard halls, massage parlors, or video game arcades.
Interim ordinances are adopted pursuant to Section 65858 of the Government Code in order
to prohibit uses which may be in conflict with a contemplated general plan, specific plan or
zoning ordinance. The Interim Ordinances were adopted because those specific uses listed
in the Interim Ordinance required only Plot Plan approval under Ordinance No. 348. If one of
these uses was proposed in an existing building, then staff would have processed the request
as a tenant improvement. This would have been an over-the-counter, staff level approval.
DISCUSSION
State Law sets a maximum time limit of two years for interim ordinances. Because of this
time limit, Staff is unable to bring an extension to the current interim ordinance before the City
Council. This two year period will lapse on February 9, 1994. The conditional use permit
process allows the City greater control in order to regulate potentially sensitive uses and
assure their compatibility with adjacent uses. This ordinance will need to be adol~ted by
urgency measures in order that there will not be a lapse between the expiration of the interim
ordinance and this permanent ordinance.
So the Commission is aware, staff is in the process of preparing a permanent Development
Code that will be consistent with the City's General Plan. It is anticipated that uses requiring
a Conditional Use Permit including nightclubs, teen clubs, dance halls, bars and cocktail
lounges, billlard halls, massage parlors, and video game arcades will be addressed in the Code.
Staff is now completing final work on the Development Code and hopes to present it to the
Planning Commission and City Council at a joint workshop in January.
FINDINGS
The proposed ordinance requiring a conditional use permit for the establishment of
nightclubs, teen clubs, dance halls, bars and cocktail lounges, billlard halls, and video
game arcades is consistent with the City's General Plan. Policy 1.6 of the Land Use
Element calls for "providing well-defined zoning and development standards and
procedures to guide private sector planning and development." This ordinance will
serve to attain this end.
This Ordinance is necessary for the preservation of the public peace, health and safety,
because without the conditional use permit process, the enumerated uses could be
established without full public participation and review for peace, health and safety
considerations.
Attachments:
Resolution No. 95-
Ordinance No. 95-
__- Blue Page 3
__- Blue Page 7
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
RESOLUTION NO. 95-
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
RP-~OLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THY. PLANNING COMMISSION OF
~ CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL
OF AN ORDINANCE OF ~ CITY COUNCIL OF
CITY OF TENIECULA AI~I~rDING SECTIONS 9.1, 9.~0,
10.1, 11.2, AND 11.26 OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY
ORDINANCE NO. 348, AS ADOPTI~-I) BY ~ CITY OF
TEMEC'I~A, REQUIRING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
FOR ~ ESTABLISII1VIF_aN'r OF NIGHTCLUBS,
CLUBS, DANCE HAI.I.~, BARS AND COCKTAIl.
LOUNGES, BILLIARD HAI.I.~, AND VIDEO GAME
ARCADES
Wltl~.REAS, it is the Mission of the City of Temecula to maivtain a safe, secure, clean,
healthy and orderly community;
WFrF. REAS, according to State planning and Zoning Law, a City may adopt locally
appropriate zoning and development reguhtions;
Wltl~.REAS, it is necessavj to regulate the establishment of nightclubs, teen clubs,
dance hails, bars and cocktail lounges, b~ halls, and video game arcades through the
conditional use permit process;
WltF. REAS, ff such Ordinance were not approved, establishment of nightclubs, teen
clubs, dance halls, bars and cocktail lounges, billlard halls, and video game arcades without a
conditional use penit would be undertaken that may compromise the public health, safety, and
we flare;
WltFREAS, the Planning Commission considered said Ordinance on January 9, 1995,
at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time interested persons had an
opportunity to testify either in support or in opposition;
WI:rEREAS, at said public heating, upon hearing and considering all testimony and
arguments, ff any, of all persons desiring to be heard, the Commission considered all facts
rehting said to Ordinance;
NOW, THEREFORE, ~ PLANNING COMMISSION OF ~ CITY OF
TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE, FIND, AND ORDER AS FOI,IDWS:
Section 1. That the above recitations are tree and correct.
Section 2. Findings.
A. The Planning Commission in recommending approval of Ordinance No. 95- ,
requiring a conditional use permit for the establL~hment of nightclubs; teen clubs, dance halls,
ban and cocktail lounges, bi!!iard halls, and video game arcades makes the following fmdings,
to wit:
1. The proposed Ordinance requiring a conditional use permit for the
establishment of nightclubs, teen clubs, dance hnlln, bars and cocktail lounges, billlard halIn, and
video game arcades is consistent with the City's General Plan. Policy 1.6 of the Land Use
Element calls for "providing well-defined zoning and development standards and procedures to
guide private sector planning and development." This ordinnnce will serve to attain this end.
2. This Ordinance is necessary for the preservation of the public peace, he, oAth
and safety, because without the conditional use permit process, the enumerated uses could be
established without full public participation and review for peace, health and safety
considerations.
Section 3. Environmental Compliance. The Planning Commission recommends that the
City Council determine that this amendment to Riverside County Ordinance No. 348, as adopted
by the City of Temecula, is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental
Quality Act because adoption of thi~ ordinance will have no impact on the environment (Section
15061Co)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines).
Section 4. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 9th day of January, 1995.
STEVEN J. FORD
CHAIRMAN
I I~I~RRy CERTIP/that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning
Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 9th day of
January, 1995 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
GARY THORNI-rIII,
SECRETARY
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
ORDINANCE NO. 95-
ATTACHNIk"NT NO. 2
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF ~ CITY COUNCIL OF ~ CITY
OF TEMECULA, AMENDING SECTIONS 9.1, 9.50, 10.1,
11.~, AND 11.:26 OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY ORDINANCE
NO. 348, AS ADOPTED BY ~ CITY OF TEMECULA,
REQUIRING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMrr FOR THI~.
ESTABLISItM!~.NT OF NIGHTCLUBS, T~EN CLUBS,
DANCE ItAIJ~, BARS AND COCKTAIL LOUNGES,
BILLIARD HALLS, AND VIDEO GAME ARCADES
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES I:I~,RV. Ry ORDAIN
AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Findings That the Temecula City Council hereby makes the following
findings:
B. That it is the Mission of the City of Temecula to maintain a safe, secure, clean,
healthy and orderly community;
C. That according to State Planning and Zoning Law, a City may adopt locally
appropriate zoning and development regulations;
D. That it is necessary to regulate the establishment of nightclubs, teen clubs, dance
halls, bars and coclaail lounges, billlard halls, and video game arcades through the conditional
use permit process;
E. That ff such ordinance were not approved, establishment of such nightclubs, teen
clubs, dance halls, bars and coclaail lounges, billiard halls, and video game arcades without a
conditional use permit would be undertaken that may compromise the public health, safety and
welfare.
Section 2. That notwithstanding any provision of the City of Temecula Ordinance 90-04,
no person shall establish a nightclub, teen club, dance hall, bar and cocktail lounge, billiard hall,
and video game arcade without a conditional use permit. No officer, employee or agent of the
City shall issue any permit or other entitlement which would have the effect of allowing a
nightclub, teen club, dance hall, bar and cocktail lounge, billlard hall, and video game arcade
without a conditional use permit, and in addition, any permit or other enti~ement issued in
violation thereof shall be revoked.
Section 3. Zone Text Amendment. Section 9.1, "a" and "d," "Uses Permitted," in the
C-1 Zone and C-P Zone (General Commercial) of Riverside County Ordinance No. 348 as
adopted by the City is hereby amended to read as follows:
"Article IX
C-1 ZONE
C-P ZONE
(GENERAL COMMI~CIAL)
The following regulations shall apply in all C-1 Zones and C-P Zones:
SECTION 9.1. USES PERMITTED.
The following uses are permitted, only in enclosed buildings with not more than 200
square feet of outside storage or display of materials appurtenant to such use, provided
a plot plan Shall have been approved pursuant to provisions of Section 18.30 of this
Ordinance:
( 1 ) Ambulance services
(2) Antique shops
(3) Appliance stores, household
(4) An supply shops and studios
(5) Auction houses
(6) Auditoriums and conference rooms
(7) Automob'de repair garages, not including body and fender shops or spray painting
(8) Automobile parts and supply stores
(9) Bakery goods distributors
(10) Bakery shops, including baking only when incidental to retail sales on the
premises
(11) Banks and financial institutions
(12) Barber and beauty shops
(13) Reserved
(14) Reserved
(15) Blueprint and duplicating services
(16) Book stores and binders
(17) Bowling alleys
(18) Catering services
(19) Cleaning and dyeing shops
(20) Clothing stores
(21) Confectionery or candy stores
(22) Costume design studios
(23) Reserved
(24) Delicatessens
(25) Department stores
(26) Drug stores
(27) Dry goods stores
(28) Employment agencies
(29) Escort bumus
(30) Feed and grain sales
(31) Florists shops
(32) Food markets and frozen food lockers
(33) Gasoline service stations, not including the concurrent sale of beer and wine for
off-premises consumption
(34) Gift shops
(35) Hotels, resort hotels and motels
06) Household goods sales and rapair, including but not limited to new and used
appliances, furniture, carpets, draperies, lamps, radios, and television sets,
including repair thereof
(37) Hobby shops
(38) Ice cream shops
(39) Ice sales, not including ice plants
(40) Interior decorating shops
(41) Jewelry stores with incidental repairs
(42) Labor temples
(43) Laboratories, film, dental, medical, research, or testing
(44) Laundries and laundromats
(45) Leather goods stores
(46) Liquor stores
(47) Locksmith shops
(48) Mail order businesses
(49) Manufacturer' s agent
(50) Market, food, wholesale, or jobber
(51) Massage parlors, turkish baths, health centers, and similar personal service
establishments
(52) Meat markets, not including slaughtering
(53) Mimeographrag and addresograph services
(54) Mortuaries
(55) Music stores
(56) News stores
(57) Notions or novelty stores
(58) Offices, including business, law, medical, dental, chiropraetic, architectural,
engineering, community, planning, real estate
(59) One on-site operator' s residence, which may be located in a commercial building
(60) Paint and wall paper stores, not including paint contractors
(61) Pawn shops
(62) Pet shops and pet supply shops
(63) Photography shops and studios and photo engraving
(64) Plumbing shops, not including plumbing contractors
(65) Poultry markets, not including slaughtering or live sales
(66) Printers or publishers
(67) Produce markets
(68) Radio and television broadcasting stations
(69) Recording studios
(70) Refreshment stands
(71) Restaurants and other eating establishments
(72) Schools, business and professional, including art, barber, beauty, dance, drama,
music, and swimming
(73) Shoe stores and repair shops
(74) Shoeshine stands
(75) Signs, on-site advertising
(76) Sporting goods stores
(77) Stained glass assembly
(78) Stationer stores
(79) Stations, bus, railroad, and taxi
(80) Taxidermist
(81) Tailor shops
(82) Telephone exchanges
(83) Theaters, not including drive-ins
(84) Tire sales and service, not including recapping
(85) Tobacco shops
(86) Tourist information centers
(87) Toy shops
(88) Travel agencies
(89) Typewriter sales and rental, including incidental re, tits
(90) Watch repair shops
(91) Wholesale businesses with samples on the premises but not including storage
(92) Car washes
(93) Fortune telling, spiritualism, or similar activity
(94) Recycling collection fac'tlities
(95) Convenience stores, not including the sale of motor vehicle fuel
(96) Day care centers
(Deleted)
The following uses axe permitted provided a conditional use permit has been granted
pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.28 of this Ordinance:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
Sale, rental, x=pair, or demonstration of motorcycles, scooters, and motorbikes
Drive-in theaters
Heliports
T'n-e tecapp'mg
Animal hospitals
Body and fender shops and spray painting
Swap meets
All uses permitted in Subsection (a) of thi~ Section that bare more than 200 sq.
ft. of outside storage or display of materlal~
Mini winhouse structures
Lumber yards, including only incidental mill work
(11) Building materials sales yards
(12) Underground bulk fuel storage
(13) Congregate care residential fac'~ities
(14) Convenienc~ stores, including the sale of motor vehicle fuel
(15) Gasoline servic~ stations with the concurrent sale of beer and wine for off-
premises consumption
(16) Liquid petroleum s~rvic~ stations with the concurrent sale of beer and wine for
off-premises consumption, provided the total capacity of all tanks shall not exceed
10,000 gallons.
(17) Bars and cocktail lounges
(18) Billlard halls
(19) Night clubs
(20) Teen night clubs
(21) Videogame arcades."
Section 4. Zone Text Amendment. Section 9.50 "a" and "b," "Uses Permitted" in the
C-P-S Zone (Scenic Highway Commercial) of Riverside County Ordinance No. 348 as adopted
by the City is hereby amended to read as follows:
"Article IXb
C-P-S ZONE
SCENIC IIIGHWAY COMMF~RCIAL
The following regulations shall apply in all C-P-S Zones:
SECTION 9.50. USES PERMITre.
The following uses am permitted, only in enclosed buildings with not more than 200
square feet of outside storage or display of materials appurtenant to such use, provided
a plot plan shall have been approved pursuant to provisions of Section 18.30 of this
Ordinance:
(1) Ambulance services
(2) Antique Shops
(3) Appliance stores, household
(4) An supply shops and studios
(5) Auditoriums and conference rooms
(6) Automobile parts and supply stores
(7) Bakery goods distributors
(8) Bakery shops, including baking only when incidental to retail sales on the
premises
(9) Banks and financial institutions
(10) Barber and beauty shops
( 11 ) Reserved
(12) Bicycle sales and rentals
(13) Reserved
(14) Blueprint and duplicating services
(15) Book stores and binden
(16) Bowling alloys
(17) Catering services
(18) Ceramic sales and manufacturing for on-site sales, provided the total volume of
kiln space does not exceed sixteen (16) cubic feet
(19) Cleanlag and dyeing shops
(20) Clothing stores
(21) Confectionery or candy stores
(22) Costume design studios
(23) Reserved
(24) Delicatessens
(25) D~artment stores
(26) Dxug stores
(27) Dry goods stores
(28) Electrical substations
(29) Employment agencies
(30) Escort bureaus
(31) Feed and groin sales
(32) Fishing and casting pools
(33) Florists shops
(34) Food markets and frozen food lockers
(35) Gift shops
(36) Hardware stores
(37) Household goods sales and ripair, including but not limited to new and used
appliances, furniture, carpets, draperies, lamps, radios, and television sets,
including ~t:gtir thereof
(38) Hobby shops
(39) Ice cream shops
(40) Ice sales, not including ice plants
( 41 ) Interior decorating shops
(42) Jewelry stores with incidental rapairs
(43) Labor temples
(44) Laboratories, film, dental, medical, research, or testing
(45) Laundries and hundromats
(46) Leather goods stores
(47) Liquor stores
(48) Locksmith shops
(49) Mail order businesses
(50) Manufacturer's agent
(51) Market, food, wholesale, or jobber
(52) Massage parlors, turkish baths, health centers, and similar personal service
establishments
(53) Meat markets, not including slaughtering
(54) Mimeographlag and addmsograph services
(55) Mobilehomes, provided they are kept mobile and licensed punuant to state law,
use for:
a. Construction offices and earetaker's quarters on construction sites for the
duration of a valid building permit, providing they are inconspicuously
located
b. Agricultural worker employment offices for a maximum of 90 days in any
ca]endar year
c. Caretakers or watchmen and their fami|ies provided no rent is paid, where
a p~rmitted and exL~ting commercial us~ is established. Not more than
one mobilehome shall be allowed for a parcel of land or a shopping center
complex
(56) Music stores
(57) News stores
(58) Notions or novelty stores
(59) Nurseries and garden supply stores
(60) Offices, business
(61) One on-site operator's residence, which may be located in a commercial building
(62) Paint and wall paper stores, not including paint contractors
(63) Parking lots and parking structures
(64) Pawn shops
(65) Pet shops and pet supply shops
(66) Photography shops and studios and photo engraving
(67) Plumbing shops, not including plumbing contractors
(68) Poultry markets, not including slaughtering or live sales
(69) Printers or publishers
(70) Produce markets
(71) Radio and television broadcasting studios
(72) Recording studios
(73) Refreshment stands
(74) Restaurants and other eating establishments
(75) Schools, business and professional, including art, barber, beauty, dance, drama,
music, and swimming
(76) Shoe stores and repair shops
(77) Shoeshine stands
(78) Signs, on-site advertising
(79) Sporting goods stores
(80) Stained glass assembly
(81) Stationery stores
(82) Stations, bus, railroad, and taxi
(83) Taxidermist
(84) Tailor shops
(85) Telephone exchanges
(86) Theaters, not including drive-ins
(87) Tobacco shops
(88) Tourist information centers
(89) Toy shops
(90) Travel agencies
(91) Typewriter sales and rental, including incidental x~oairs
(92) Watch repair shops
(93) Wedding chapels
(94) Wholesale businesses with samples on the prerni~ but not including storage
(95) Recycling collection facilities
(96) (Delete)
(97) Gasoline service stations, not including the concurrent sale of beer and wine for
off-premi~s consumption
(98) Golf can sales and service
(99) Hotels, resort hotels, and motels
(100) Day care centers
(101) Convenience stores, not including the sale of motor vehicle fuel.
Uses Permitted by Conditional Use Permit. The following uses am permitted provided
a conditional use permit has been granted pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.28 of
this Ordinance:
(1) Automobile rapair garages, body shops, spray painting shops
(2) Automobile sales and rental agencies
(3) Boat sales, rentals, and services
(4) Car washes
(5) Drive-in theaters
(6) Equipment rental services, including intotillers, power mowers, sanders, power
saws, cement and phster mixers not exceeding 20 cubic feet in capacity, and
other silnilar equipment
(7) Heliperts
(8) Liquid petroleum service stations, with or without the concurrent sale of beer and
wine, provided the total capacity of all tanks 8hall not exceed 10,000 gallons
(9) Mortuaries
(10) Sale, rental, repair, or demonstration of motorcycles, scoomrs, or motorbikes of
two horsepower or greater
(11) Animal hospitals
(12) Sports and recreational facilities, not including motor-driven vehicles and riding
academics, but including archery ranges, athletic fields, beaches, golf chiving
ranges, gymnasiums, miniature golf, parks, phygrounds, sports arenas, skating
rinB, stadiums, and commercial swimming pools
(13) Tim recapping
(14) Tim sales and services, not including recapping
(15) Trailer and boat storage
(16) Travel trailers, mobilehomes, and recreational vehicle sales and service
(17) Track sales and services
(18) Tracks and trailers; the rental of trucks not over 19,500 pounds gross weight,
with body not to exceed 22 feet in length from the back of the cab to the end of
the body; and the rental of trailers not exceeding 6 feet in width or 22 feet in
length
(19) Underground bulk fuel storage
(20) (Deloted)
(21) All uses permitted in subsection (a) that have more fhan 200 squafe fe~t of
outside storage of display of materials
(22) Gasoline service stations, with the concurrent sale of beer and wine for off-
premises consumption
(23) Convenience stores, including the sale of motor vehicle fuel
(24) Bars and cocktail lounges
(25) Billlard halls
(26) Night clubs
(27) Teen night clubs
(28) Videogame arcades.
Section 5. Zone Text Amendment. Section 10.1 "b" and "c" , "Uses Permitted," subject
to a conditional use permit in the I-P Zone (Industrial Park) of Riverside County Ordinance No.
348 as adopted by the City is hereby mended to read as follows:
"ARTICLE X
I-P ZONE
(nVDUSTmAL PARK)
The following regulations shall apply is all I-P Zones:
SECTION 10.1. USES PERIVIflT/;H3.
The following uses are permitted provided a conditional use permit has been granted
pursuant to Section 18.28 of this Ordinance:
I. Airports
2. Heliports
3. Recycling processing facilities
4. Bars and cocktail lounges
5. Billlard halls
6. Night clubs
7. Teen night clubs
8. Video game arcades
Any use that is not specifically listed in subsection a. and b. may be considered a
conditionally permitted use provided that the Planning Director finds that the proposed
use is substantially the same in character and intensity as those listed in the designated
subsections"
Section 6. Zone Text Amendment. Section 11.2 "c" and "f', "Uses Permitted," subject
to a conditional use permit in the M-SC Zone (Manufacturing -_ Service Commercial) of
Riverside County Ordinance No. 348 as adopted by the City is hereby amended to read as
follows:
M-SC ZONE (MANUFACTURING - SERVICE COMMI~CIAL)
SECTION 11.2. USES PERMH'rP_~D.
f.
The following uses are permitted pwvided a conditional use permit has been granted
pursuant to Section 18.28 of this Ordinance:
(1) Meat packing plants, not including slaughtering or rendering of animals
(2) Cemeteries, crematories, and mausoleums
(3) Paper storage and recycling, not within a budding
(4) Brewery, distillery, or winery
(5) Acid and abrasives manufacturing
(6) Fertil iTer production, organic or inorganic
(7) Petroleum and bulk fuel storage, above ground, pursuant to Ordinance No. 546
(8) Paints and varnishes manufacturing and incidental storage
(9) Concrete batch plants and asphalt plants
(10) Recycling processing facilities
( 11 ) (Deleted)
(12) Airports
(13) Poultry and egg processing
(14) Recycling of wood, metal, and constn~ction wastes
(15) Natural gas storage, above ground
(16) Drive-in theaters
(17) Disposal service operations, not including transfer stations
(18) Bars and cocktail lounges
(19) Billlard halls
(20) Night clubs
(21) Teen night clubs
(22) Video game arcades
Any use that is not specifically listed in Subsections (b) and (c) may be considered a
conditionally pennitted use provided that the Planning Director finds that the proposed
use is substantially the same in character and intensity as those listed in the designated
subsections."
Section 7. Zone Text Amendment. Section 11.26 "c" and "f", "Uses Permitted,"
subject to a conditional use permit in the M-M Zone (Manufacturing - Medium) of Riverside
County OrdinanCe No. 348 as adopted by the City is hereby mended to read as follows:
M-M ZONE (MANUFACTURING - IVfg]~IUM)
SETION 11.26. USES PERMi'i-fP_,D.
The following uses are permitted pwvided a conditional use permit has been grated
pursuant to Section 18.28 of this Ordinance:
(1) Auto wrecking and junk yards
(2) Abattoirs
(3) Cemeteries, crematories, and mausoleums
(4) Paper storage and recycling, not within a building
(5) Cotton ginning
(6) Acid and abrasives manufaetudng
(7) Fertilizer production, and processing organic or inorganic
(8) Petroleum and bulk fuel storage, above ground, pursuant to OrdinanCe No. 546
(9) Paints and varnishes manufacturing and incidental storage
(10) Concrete batch plants and asphalt plants
(11) Disposal service operations
(12) Drive-in theaters
(13) Airports
(14) Dump sites
(15) Recycling of wood, metal, and construction wastes
(16) Sand blasting
(17) Gas, steam, and oil drilling operations
(18) Sewerage treatment plants
(19) Swap meets
(20) Smelting metal and foundries
(21) Recycling processing facilities
(22) Bars and cocktail lounges
(23) Billlard halls
(24) Night clubs
(25) Teen night clubs
(26) Video game arcades
Any use that is not specifically listed in Subsections (b) and (c) may be considered a
COnditionally permitted use provided that the Planning Director finds that the proposed
use is substantially the same in character and intensity as those listed in the designated
subsections."
Section 8. Environmental Compliance The City Council determines that this
amendment to Riverside County Ordinance No. 348, as adopted by the City of Temecula is
exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act because adoption of
this Ordinance will have no impact on the environment (Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA
Guidelines).
Seaion 9. Severability The City Council hereby declares that the provisions of thi~
Ordinance are sevemble and ff 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 10. Effective Date This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thLrty (30)
days after its passage. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance. The City
Clerk Shall publish a summary of this Ordinance and a certified copy of the full text of this
Ordinance shall be posted in the office of the City Clerk at least five days prior to the adoption
of this Ordinance. Within 15 days from adoption of this Ordinance, the City Clerk shall publish
a summary of this Ordinance, together with the names of the Councilmembers voting for and
against the Ordinance, and post the same in the office of the City Clerk.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 10th day of January, 1995.
A'I'I'P_ST:
RON ROBERTS
MAYOR
JUNE S. Gl~l~q(
CITY CT.I~.RK
STATE OF CAIY~ORNIA)
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) SS
CITY OF TEMECULA )
I, June S. Greek, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the
foregoing Ordinance No. 95- was duly introduced and placed upon its f~rst reading at a
regular meeting of the City Council on the day of , 199_ and that thereafter, said
Ordinance was duly adopted and passed at a regular meeting of the City Council on the
day of ,199_, by the following roll call vote:
COUNCn MEdBERS:
NOES:
COUNCU-MEMBERS:
COUI'~CrLM]EIVlB~:
~ S. GRln:In:K
ITEM #3
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
January 9, 1995
Planning Application No. PA93-O 180, PA93-0181, PA93-0183, PA93-0184, PA93-0185
Prepared By: Saied Naaseh
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Department Staff recommends the Planning
Commission:
RECOMMEND Adoption of Resolution No. 95-
certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report (PA 93-
0180) for Johnson Ranch Specific Plan, Annexation,
General Plan Amendment, Change of Zone and;
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
RECOMMEND Adoption of Resolution No. 95-
approving Johnson Ranch Specific Plan (PA 93-0184),
based upon the Analysis and Findings contained in the
Staff Report and subject to the attached Conditions of
Approval.
RECOMMEND Adoption of Resolution No. 95-
approving Change of Zone (PA93-0181 ), based upon the
Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report.
RECOMMEND Adoption of Resolution No. 95-
approving Johnson Ranch Annexation (PA93-0183),
based upon the Analysis and Findings contained in the
Staff Report and subject to the attached Conditions of
Approval.
RECOMMEND Adoption of Resolution No. 95-
approving General Plan Amendment (PA93-0185)based
upon the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff
Report.
Johnson Machinery Company
James Fergus
R:~STAFFRPTUOHNSON.PC2 12129/94 vgw 1
PROPOSAL:
LOCATION:
EXISTING ZONING:
SURROUNDING ZONING:
PROPOSED ZONING:
EXISTING GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION:
A request for approval of an Annexation of 1761 acres to
the City of Temecula; General Plan Amendments to the
Land Use and Circulation Elements; and a Change of Zone
from Rural Residential (R-R) to Specific Plan to prezone
the Johnson Ranch property to annex to the City of
Temecula. In addition, a Specific Plan which sets the
Zoning and Development Standards and Design Guidelines
for development of 4,969 single family dwellings, 442
acres of open space, 35 acres of Village Center including
281 multi-family units and approximately 220,000 square
feet of retail and office uses, 68 acres of parks and 50
acres of school facilities. Lastly, to certify the Final
Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) which analyzes the
significant impacts and proposes mitigation measures that
reduce these impacts to an insignificant level with the
exception of Air Quality, Wildlife and Vegetation, Land
Use and Population and Housing. Statements of
Overriding Considerations have been proposed for these
impacts.
Northeast corner of the future intersection of Butterfield
Stage Road and Murrieta Hot Springs Road.
Rural Residential (R-R)
North:
South:
East:
West:
Conservation Area (W-1), Residential
Agriculture, Minimum 5 Acre Lots (R-A-5),
Light Agricultural, Minimum 5 Acre Lots (A-
1-5)
Rural Residential (R-R), Light Agricultural,
Minimum 10 Acre Lots (A-1-10)
Rural Residential (R-R), Residential
Agriculture, Minimum 20 Acre Lots (R-A-
20), Residential Agriculture, Minimum 5
Acre Lots (R-A-5)
Specific Plan (SP)
Specific Plan
Hillside (0-0.1 Dwelling Units/Acre, 21 acres), Very Low
Density Residential (0.2-0.4 Dwelling Units/Acre, 368
acres), Low Density Residential (0.5-2 Dwelling
Units/Acre, 334 acres), Low Medium Residential (3-6
Dwelling Units/Acre, 387 acres), Public institutional (16
acres), Neighborhood Commercial (3 acres), Parks (13.8
acres) Open Space (164 acres) and Golf Course (291
acres)
R:~STAFFI~TUOHN$ON.PC2 12/29/94 vgw 2
Table 2
Number of
Parks and
Schools
Net Acres
· . .::::.: " · Parks Schools Open Space
Tuo4dota
Neighboehoocl Vjllege G~tmmmlity Blrmenf/ary Middle Greek Qreenbd~
28 18 15 30 20 40.2 402.3
Planning Area 1
BACKGROUND
Planning Applications 93-0180, 93-0181,93-0183, 93-0184, and 93-0185 were formally
submitted to the Planning Department on August 19, 1993. This Staff Report will summarize
the important issues; however, because of the size of the project, all details will not be
discussed in the Staff Report. Several months of meetings and revisions have resulted in ten
(10) separate documents accompanying the Staff Report. These documents are as follows:
e
·
·
·
e
·
e
Specific Plan (Document A)
Design Guidelines (Document B)
Draft Environmental Impact Report (Document C)
Technical Appendices (Document D1 and D2)
Congestion Management Program (Document E)
Response to Public Comment, Mitigation Monitoring Program and the Addendure to the
EIR (Document F)
Findings and Statements of Overriding Considerations (Document G)
Fiscal Impact Report (Document H)
Exhibits (Document I)
Environmental Impact Report
After the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was first submitted to the City, it went though
several screen checks during which Staff reviewed, edited and supplemented the document
before the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) was released and distributed for the 45
day public review period. Comments were received from several agencies and individuals.
Staff has responded to these comments in accordance with State Law (refer to Document F
for Response to Comments). Several meetings during the past 18 months were held with the
applicant to resolve environmental issues. This resulted in the revised Land Use Plan (refer
to Exhibits G and H of Document I). The Revised Land Use Plan primarily increased the open
Sp8C6 8feB.
Specific Plan
After the Specific Plan was first submitted, it went through several screen checks. The
applicant and Staff met several times during the past 18 months to resolve issues surrounding
the Specific Plan. As a result, the Johnson Ranch Specific Plan document includes most of
R:\STAFFRPTUOHNSON.PC2 12129194 vOw 4
PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION:
Very Low Density Residential (0.2-0.4 Dwelling
Units/Acre, 98 acres), Low Medium Residential (0.5-2
Dwelling Units/Acre, 1019 acres), High Density
Residential (13-20 Dwelling Units/Acre, acreage not
specified), Public Institutional (50 acres), Neighborhood
Commercial (acreage not specified), Parks (68 acres) and
Open Space (442 acres)
EXISTING SWAP DESIGNATION: SpecificPlan/RuraITransitionalAreawithdensitiesranging
from I to 5 Dwelling Units/Acre
EXISTING LAND USE:
Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
North:
South:
East:
West:
Vacant, Single Family Dwellings on Estate
Lots, MWD Facility
Vacant, Single Family Dwellings on Estate
Lots
Vacant, Single Family Dwellings on Estate
Lots, Proposed Roripaugh Ranch Specific
Plan
Vacant, Mountain View Specific Plan
PROJECT STATISTICS
The Specific Plan area includes approximately 1761 acres and would permit a maximum of
5250 dwelling units for a gross density of 2.98 and a net density of 3.1 dwelling units per
acre.
Additionally, Table 1 and 2 provide a summary of project statistics.
Table 1
Single Family
Village Centert, ..
Multi-Family Commercial
Number of Units 20 4,949 281 -
Net Acres z 97.6 1,018.9 - -
Net Density IDU/AC) 0.2 4.85 ....
Square Footage .... 220,000
Village Center total acreage is 35; specific acreage has not been assigned to the multi-family and
commercial sites.
Net acres includes the total acreage within the Planning Areas designated for low and medium density
residential.
R:~STAFFRPTUOHNSON.PC2 12/29/94 vgw ~3
the issues and standards that Staff and the applicant have agreed on. Additionally, Conditions
of Approval for the Specific Plan include standards and requirements that were not included
in the Specific Plan.
Planning Commission Workshops
Two Planning Commission Workshops were held to receive direction from the Planning
Commission on several issues. These workshops also provided the public with an opportunity
to present their comments to Staff and the Planning Commission (refer to Attachment 7 for
Planning Commission Workshop Minutes).
Neighborhood Meetings
Staff has encouraged the applicant to conduct neighborhood meetings. As a result, a
neighborhood meeting was scheduled and conducted by the developer on April 16, 1994 and
a similar second meeting is scheduled for January 7, 1995.
Meetings with the California Department of Fish and Game, the U .S. Fish and Wildlife Service
and Riverside County Habitat Conservation Agency.
Two meetings were held regarding sensitive biological resources and the adequacy of the open
space green belt area as a wildlife corridor. Representatives from the California Department
of Fish and Game, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Riverside County Habitat Agency
(RCHCA) were present at these meetings. All representatives commended the applicant and
City Staff in providing this green belt and dedicating it as a permanent open space to an
appropriate resource agency. In addition, these meetings proved to be beneficial in writing the
Conditions of Approval and Mitigation Measures.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Annexation
Planning Application No. 93-0183 is a request for approval of an annexation of approximately
1761 acres to the City of Temecula. This area is located within the City of Temecula Sphere
of Influence and is contiguous to the City Limits by one point at the northeast corner of the
City. A Fiscal Impact Analysis has been prepared to determine the impacts of the annexation
on the City Budget (refer to Document H).
General Plan Amendment
Planning Application No. 93-0185 is a request for approval of a General Plan Amendment to
the Land Use and Circulation Elements (refer to Exhibits B, C and D of Document I). The
amendment to the Land Use Element involves replacing the land uses shown on the General
Plan with the Johnson Ranch land uses. The General Plan designates a total of 1942
residential units designed around a golf course community. This amendment will double the
net density of the existing General Plan from 1.5 to 3.1 dwelling units per acre.
The amendment to the Circulation Element adds two new Specific Plan Roads to the General
Plan Circulation Ran, deletes one road from the General Plan and modifies General Plan cross
sections. Specifically, Streets B and C would become new General Ran Roads and Anza Road
R:~STAFFt~T~JOHNSON .PC2 12129/94 vgw 5
would be deleted. The amendments to the cross sections include modified bike lane, travel
lane, and median widths.
Change of Zone
Planning Application No. 93-0181 is a request for approval of a Change of Zone from Rural
Residential (R-R) to Specific Plan (SP) to prezone the Johnson Ranch property to annex to the
City of Temecula.
Specific Plan
Planning Application No. 93-0184 is a request for approval of a Specific Plan which sets the
Zoning and Development Standards and Design Guidelines for development of 4,969 single
family dwellings, 442 acres of open space, 35 acres of Village Center including 281 multi-
family units, and approximately 220,000 square feet of retail and office uses, 68 acres of
parks and 50 acres of school facilities.
Environmental Impact Report
Planning Application No. 93-0180is a request to certify the Final Environmental Impact Report
(FEIR) which includes the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR), the Technical Appendices,
the Response to Comments, the Mitigation Monitoring Program, the Addendum to the DEIR,
and the Findings and Statements of Overriding Considerations. The FEIR analyzes the
significant impacts of the Johnson Ranch Specific Plan, Annexation, General Plan Amendment,
Development Agreement, and Change of Zone and proposes mitigation measures that reduce
these impacts to an insignificant level with the exception of Air Quality, Wildlife and
Vegetation, Land Use, and Population and Housing. Statements of Overriding Considerations
have been prepared for these impacts.
Subsequent to the circulation of the DEIR, the applicant revised the Specific Plan to increase
the amount of open space and create a continuous open space corridor through the Specific
Plan area as described in one of the project alternatives analyzed in the DEIR. An Addendum
was prepared in accordance with Section 15164 of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) guidelines to identify and discuss the revisions made to the Specific Plan and analyze
the changes in project impacts, and the mitigation measures relating to the Specific Plan
revisions. The Addendure concluded that none of the Guidelines calling for preparation of a
subsequent EIR have occurred and the changes to the project did not raise important new
issues about the project's significant effects to the environment.
ANALYSIS
Annexation
The proposed annexation will give the City control over the development of this site.
Furthermore, this annexation will have a positive impact on the City budget according to the
Fiscal Impact Analysis (refer to Document H). This report analyzes the fiscal impacts of the
Johnson Ranch project as described in Table 3 below. The analysis assumes a 20 year build
out.
R:~TAFFI!~T~JOHNSON.PC2 12129/94 vOw 6
Table 3
· ' .. Johnson RanCh Specific Plan
20 Year Year 5 Year 10 Year 15 Year 20
Total
City of Temecula Net Cash
Surplus ~ 1,937,000 45,000 66,000 155,000 283,000
Net Cash Surplus is the difference between total revenues generated from the project
and the total cost of providing services to the project.
Note:
All values are in thousands of dollars.
The 20 Year Total category shows the cumulative cash surplus for the build out of the
project (20 years).
The 5, 10, 15, and 20 year categories show the cash surplus for these specific years.
As can be seen from Table 3, the City will realize a cash surplus starting from year five (5) and
throughout the build out.
Exhibit E of Document I demonstrates the on going annual cash flow to the City from an
average Johnson Ranch single family dwelling valued at $140,000. The Fiscal Impact
Analysis makes several critical findings in determining the positive fiscal impacts of the
annexation of this project:
Annual revenues to be generated by the Johnson Ranch average single family unit are
greater than the annual expenses by $25 per house.
Sales taxes are a very significant revenue to the City, accounting for 31% of total
revenues projected for the Johnson Ranch single family unit.
Property taxes will only account for one-third of revenues projected to be generated to
the City by the average Johnson Ranch single family unit.
State Subventions and other miscellaneous items account for the remaining revenues
for the City.
The per capita retail sales for Temecula is approximately $12,366.00which is 226%
of the six county region (Riverside, San Diego, San Bernardino, Orange, Los Angeles,
and Ventura Counties) average. An analysis of 126 cities with a population of 25,000
or more ranked Temecula number nine in per capita taxable retail sales.
General Plan Amendment
The applicant is proposing to amend the General Plan Land Use and Circulation Elements to
implement the Johnson Ranch Specific Plan (refer to Exhibits B, C and D of Document I). The
Land Use Element Amendment would permit a maximum gross density of 2.98 dwelling units
per acres and would double the net density of the site from 1.5 to 3.1 dwelling units par acre.
Staff supports this amendment, since proper standards and mitigation measures have been
included in the Specific Plan, the DEIR and the Addendum to ensure implementation of General
Plan Goals and Policies.
R:~STAFFRPT~JOHNSON.PC2 12129/94 vgw 7
One of the Circulation Element Amendments involves adding two new General Plan Roads.
Staff is in support of this amendment. However, Staff does not support the other two
amendments, which include deletion of Anza Road from the Circulation Plan and modification
of the General Ran cross sections. A letter from the Temecula Valley Wine Country was
received which supports the deletion of Anza Road (refer to Attachment 8).
Change of Zone
The zone change will pre-zone the property for annexation. The existing County zoning of the
property is Rural Residential (R-R) and the proposed zoning is Specific Plan (SP). The Specific
Plan sets the zoning standards to ensure orderly development of the site.
Specific Plan
General Vicinity and Surroundino Uses
The site is located outside the City Limits and within the City Sphere of Influence (refer to
Exhibit I of Document I). Several Specific Plans within the City's Sphere of Influence including
Quinta Do Lago, Dutch Village, Crown Valley Village, Borel Park, Mountain View and Silver
Hawk have been approved by Riverside County (refer to Exhibit J of Document I). These
Specific Plans, when developed, will include approximately 8342 residential units and 1425
acres of commercial/industrial on over 4500acres. The remainder ofthe Sphere of Influence
includes a small area of estate lots (refer to Exhibit F of Document I). Therefore, the general
vicinity of the site, although undeveloped now, will be developed over time as these approved
Specific Plans are implemented. The approval of this Specific Plan is a continuation of
commitment of this area to urbanization. This Specific Plan, along with the proposed
Winchester 1800 and Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plans could add approximately 13,000
residential units and 136 acres of commercial/industrial to the area.
The site borders estate lots and the Skinner Reservoir Preserve Area to the north (refer to
Exhibit K of Document I). This preserve area, which includes the open space area around the
proposed Domenigoni Reservoir, has been created as a preserve for the long term protection
of the K-rat (refer to Exhibit L of Document I) and is also a part of the southwestern Riverside
County Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Area.
To the west, the Mountain View Specific Plan has been approved by Riverside County. This
Specific Plan is primarily single family residential with supporting commercial, schools and
parks.
To the south of the site there are existing estate lots and the proposed Roripaugh Specific Plan
which is also a primarily single family residential project with supporting commercial, schools
and parks.
Estate lots are located to the east of the site. The Land Use Plan provides sufficient buffer
between the on site conventional single family dwellings and the adjacent estate lots that
surround the site. This buffering is made possible by providing the open space within Planning
Area I and the estate lots within Planning Area 3. These two Planning Areas provide a ring
around the site except for the westerly side which is adjacent to the single family dwellings
proposed within the Mountain View Specific Plan.
R:~STAFFR~T~JOHNSON.PC2 12/29/94 vgw 8
Land Use Plan
The Land Use Plan consists of three Residential Villages designed around a Village Center.
Each Residential Village includes an 10 acre elementary school and a 6 acre Village Park. Nine
(9), three (3) acre Neighborhood Parks are scattered around the three Residential Villages.
Twenty (20) estate lots are proposed within Planning Area 3 to the north of the site. Planning
Area I consists of over 400 acres of open space preserve area which surrounds the property
to the south, east and north and forms a greenbelt on the perimeter of the site. This greenbelt
provides a buffer between the proposed urbanized area of Johnson Ranch and the surrounding
estate lots to the north, south, and east of the site. Planning Area 5 is a tributary to Tucalota
Creek and will be the main drainage course on site. This creek will be improved with trails on
each side. A Metropolitan Water District (MWD) easement traverses the northwest portion
of the site. This easement will be used as a Class I trail.
Villaae Center
The Village Center concept as described in the General Plan promotes the development of
special Village Centers, with an urban character, at key locations in the City. These centers,
according to the General Plan, will help to provide a sense of place and focal points for
community activity. Additionally, the Village Centers are intended to contain a concentration
and mixture of compatible uses including retail, office, public facilities, recreation uses and
housing, all designed to encourage non-automotive modes of transportation.
The centrally located Johnson Ranch Village Center along with Planning Area 11, which
includes a 20 acre Middle School and a 15 acre Community Park, meet the intent of the
General Plan Village Center Concept. The commercial portion of the Village Center provides
for a variety of retail and office uses. Public facilities include the middle school, community
park, a potential church site and a possible park and ride facility. The Design Guidelines within
the Specific Plan ensure the pedestrian orientation of the center and require appropriate
connection of the center to the surrounding residential areas. Additionally, trails within
Johnson Ranch provide pedestrian and bike access to the Village Center from all residential
areas. The multi-family portion of the Village Center will further provide the intensity needed
for a successful Village Center. The 281 units will be developed in 50-100 unit clusters
around the Village Center. The smaller clustering of the multi-family units will help to reduce
the negative impacts associated with some larger multi-family complexes.
Estate Lots
The twenty (20) estate lots are proposed within Planning Area 3. This Planning Area will be
developed with a maximum density of 0.2 dwelling units per acre to provide a buffer for the
estate lots to the north of the site from the single family dwellings within Planning Area 2.
Clustering of lots may be allowed with a minimum lot size requirement of one acre.
Additionally, this area is biologically sensitive; therefore, the grading of this Planning Area will
be limited to building pads and roads. The EIR acknowledged the appropriateness of the
estate lots as an appropriate use to protect the biological resources of this area.
R:\STAFFRPTUOHNSON,PC2 12129/94 vow 9
Conventional Sinale Family Lots
Johnson Ranch is primarily a single family development with a maximum of 4,949
conventional single family units proposed. Each Planning Area is assigned a maximum number
of units, an average gross density and- average lot size. Specific lot sizes and densities will
be determined at the time of tract map reviews with minimum lot sizes of 4,000 square feet.
Average lot sizes within the Planning Areas will be between 5,000 and 6,200 square feet.
Parks
A total of 61 acres of improved public parks are proposed, including a 15 acre community
park, three (3) six (6) acre Village Parks, and nine (9) Neighborhood Parks. Dedication of
these improved park sites along with the seven (7) acre credit received for the landscape and
trail improvements for the Tucalota Creek will satisfy the Quimby Act requirements of the
project. The parks will be developed in accordance with the guidelines within the Specific
Plan.
The Community Park will be developed prior to issuance of the 2,500 building permit. The
Village Parks will be developed prior to issuance of the 500, 3500 and 4500 building permit
and the Neighborhood Parks will be developed prior to issuance of the 250, 750, 1000, 1250,
1500, 2000, 4000, 4500 and 5000 building permit. The Tucalota Creek landscaping and
trails will be developed with the adjacent residential tracts and prior to issuance of fifty (50)
percent of the building permits within each adjacent tract.
Open Space
Over 400 acres of open space will be preserved within Planning Area 1. The majority of this
area is considered prime habitat area including Cottonwood/Willow Riparian, Sage Scrub and
Vernal Pools, and the rest of the area is considered important to provide linkages between
habitat areas. The open space area within Johnson Ranch will provide a critical linkage
between two biologically significant areas: Skunk Hollow within the Mountain View Specific
Plan and the Lake Skinner/Domenigoni Reservoir Preserve Areas through Santa Gertrudis
Creek. This linkage is considered critical since isolated patches of habitat preservation have
proven to fail over time and the success rate is increased dramatically when linkages are
provided. Moreover, Johnson Ranch is one of the last, if not the last, opportunity to provide
this linkage.
This open space area will be dedicated to a resource agency such as the Riverside County
Habitat Conservation Agency (RCHCA) to be preserved and maintained as permanent open
space. Furthermore, since the preservation of this area is a very significant step in preserving
and enhancing the biological integrity of the area, Staff has committed to a full or partial credit
of the K-rat fee. This authority is vested in the Planning Director by Ordinance 663 (K-rat
Ordinance). The details of the fee credits, timing, phasing of dedication, improvements and
maintenance will be determined prior to approval of any implementing subdivision maps or
grading permits, whichever occurs first (refer to Condition Nos. 32 and 33). Staff has held
meetings with appropriate resource agencies such as Riverside County Habitat Conservation
Agency (RCHCA), the California Department of Fish and Game, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service and has received very favorable response from these agencies on this preserve area
and the important linkage it provides.
I~%STAFFI~gTUOHNSON.PC2 12129/94 vgw 10
The development of residential areas abutting Planning Area I may include several conditions
including the following (refer to Exhibits N and 0):
Backyard walls or view fences
Single loaded streets
Parks and/or other landscaped "wet" edges
Fuel modification zones, if required
Trails and other passive uses
Trails
Several types of trails are proposed within the Johnson Ranch Specific Plan (refer to Figure
Exhibit O of Document I). Future subdivisions will be designed to provide pedestrian and
bicycle access to the major streets and Tucalota Creek (refer to Exhibits P and Q of Document
I). These trails will provide for pedestrian, bicycle, and equestrian circulation within the site
and also provide connections to other existing and proposed trails outside the site. Class II
on street bike lanes provide striped, eight (8) foot paved bike lanes along all major streets
(refer to Exhibit R of Document I). Additional bike lanes and pedestrian trails will be provided
within the Tucalota Creek Open Space (refer to Exhibit Q of Document I). The MWD easement
and Open Space within Planning Area I will provide for multi-purpose trails which could be
used by horses and mountain bikes (refer to Exhibit S of Document I). Finally, sidewalks will
provide additional pedestrian access throughout the site. The trails within the Johnson Ranch
are comprehensive and provide for circulation throughout the site.
Environmental Impact Report
The Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) prepared for this project analyzed the Johnson
Ranch Specific Plan as originally proposed by the applicant and several alternatives to the
project. The DEIR identified five (5) impacts which will not be mitigated to insignificant levels
by the mitigation measures. These impacts include: Noise, Air Quality, Wildlife and
Vegetation, Land Use, and Population and Housing.
After the City received comments on the DEIR from all agencies and interested parties and
upon further negotiations with the applicant, the Specific Plan Land Use Plan was revised to
include more open space and provide an open space linkage and wildlife corridor through the
specific plan area to the Skunk Hollow Vernal Pool area and the Lake Skinner/Domenigoni
Reservoir Preserve Area. As required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA),
an Addendum to the EIR was prepared to address the impacts of the Revised Land Use Plan.
The Addendum identified the same impacts which were identified in the DEIR that will not be
mitigated to insignificant levels by the mitigation measures. However, as a result of the
Revised Land Use Plan, impacts to Slopes and Erosion, Hydrology, Water Quality, Circulation,
Cultural and Scientific Resources, Wildlife and Vegetation, Land Use, and Aesthetics/Light and
Glare were reduced.
The Final EIR includes the DEIR, the Addendum to the DEIR, the Technical Appendices, the
Findings and Statements of Overriding Consideration, Responses to Comments, and the
Mitigation Monitoring Program. These documents provide all the necessary environmental
information necessary for the Planning Commission to make an informed decision on the
project. The following provides a summary of the important issues identified in the EIR:
R:~STAFFI~JOHNSON .PC2 12/29/94 vOw 11
Circulation
The project proposes an extensive network of on-site streets to serve the project; moreover,
off-site improvements to Murrieta Hot Springs Road and Butterfield Stage Road will be
necessary to provide primary and secondary access to the site. The developer will be
responsible to pay all the costs associated with providing the necessary infrastructure for the
project or a Development Agreement shall be reached with the City to specify the funding
sources for these infrastructure improvements (refer to Condition No. 35).
An evaluation of the 1993 traffic volumes has indicated that all roadways within the study
area operate at Level of Service C or better, other than Winchester Road between Margarita
Road and Murrieta Hot Springs Road; moreover, all the intersections operate at a level D or
better during the morning and afternoon peak hours except for the Winchester Road
intersections at Nicolas Road and Murrieta Hot Springs Road. The City is in the process of
installing the interim traffic signal at the Winchester Road and Nicolas Road intersection.
The Traffic Study and the EIR provide a detailed analysis of the traffic conditions. Mitigation
measures provide necessary improvements for project implementation. Other than on-site
improvements, development of the first 500 units of the project will necessitate improvement
of Murrieta Hot Springs Road with two lanes from the project boundary to the existing
alignment; moreover, a secondary access, such as Butterfield Stage Road, would need to be
provided. All subse~luent developments will be required to provide additional traffic studies
with the implementing Tract Maps or Plot Plans to determine the extent of the off-site
improvements (refer to Mitigation No. 6 in Document C).
Hvdroloqy
The southern portion of the site drains into Santa Gertrudis Creek and the northern portion
drains into the Tucalota Creek. Staff is currently not in agreement with the amount of run-off
increased as a result of the project as stated in the Hydrology Study. On-site retention
facilities are to be utilized in the design of the project and the Specific Plan is conditioned
accordingly.
Air Quality
The Air Quality impacts of the project were calculated in conformance with South Coast Air
Quality Management District (SCAQMD) standards and the results were compared to the
thresholds set by SCAQMD. Table 4 provides the results of this analysis.
R:\STAFFF~°~JOHNSON.PC2 12129/94 vgw 12
Table 4
ReVised" Total
Project
Pollutant Emissions
"Original"Total :: SCAQMD
Project Threshold of
Emissions Significant
Carbon Monoxide (CO)
7,243 7,406 550
Nitrogen Oxides (NOx)
1,154 1,180 110
Sulfur Oxides (SOx)
91 93 150
Particulates 161 165 150
Reactive Organic Gases 417 426 75
As it can be seen from Table 4, project emissions for long term regional air quality exceed the
SCAQMD thresholds of significance for CO, Reactive Organic Gases (ROG), NOx and
Particulates (PM 10). Several mitigation measures have been included within the Mitigation
Monitoring Program to reduce the air quality impacts of the project; however, these impacts
remain significant and a Statement of Overriding Considerations has been prepared.
Wildlife and Veaetation
The site includes significant biological habitat including Riversidian Sage Scrub,
Cottonwood/Willow Riparian Forest, and Vernal Pools. Table 7 of Document F shows the
Acreage of the Total Habitat Area, the Original Land Use Plan and the Revised Land Use
Impacts and the Acreage Increase of the Preserved Habitat Area as a result of the Revised
Land Use Plan. The Revised Plan was introduced largely to protect the habitat areas by
increasing the open space area. Moreover, this greenbelt provides an important habitat linkage
from Skunk Hollow to the Skinner Lake and the Domenigoni Reservoir Preserves (for related
discussion, please refer to the Open Space Section of the Staff Report.
Focused surveys of sensitive species such as K-rat, California Gnatcatcher, Riverside Fairy
Shrimp, Arroyo Southwestern toad, and nesting raptors and riparian birds will be conducted
prior to issuance of any grading permits or approval of any Tract Maps for the site to
determine the specific impacts of these actions on these species. If any of these species are
found at the time of the surveys, impacts to these species will be mitigated either through on-
site preservation or through relocation or re-vegetation at a suitable location, either on-site or
off-site. These mitigation measures will need to satisfy all permitting resource agencies.
Since it is not possible to fully determine the extent of potential project impacts to these
resources or provide specific mitigation measures at this time, these potential impacts remain
significant at this time.
The proposed intersection of Murrieta Hot Springs Road and Butterfield Stage Road and the
current proposed alignment of Murrieta Hot Spring Road from the southwest corner of the site
to the existing alignment of Murrieta Hot Springs Road to the east might have potential
significant impacts to the Skunk Hollow watershed and the on-site vernal pools. According
to the California Department of Fish and Game and the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service, these
sensitive resources are very significant, especially Skunk Hollow, and impacts from the project
should be avoided. Staff has provided several mitigation measures which completely protect
these resources. Ultimately, the implementation of these mitigation measures may change the
R:%STAFFF~I~JOHNSON.PC2 12129/94 vgw 13
alignment of Murrieta Hot Springs Road and Butterfield Stage Road. At this time, it is
impossible to identify an alignment that will completely avoid impacts to these resources,
since the identification of these impacts is beyond the scope of this project. It should be
noted that Skunk Hollow is located within the Mountain View Specific Plan and the City has
not been successful in inviting the current Mountain View owners to meetings to discuss the
impacts of these regional road improvements.
Fire Protection
The project will result in increased demand in fire protection and emergency services which
may include the need for additional fire fighters, additional equipment, and/or improvements
to existing facilities. According to the Fiscal Impact Report, the average Johnson Ranch single
family dwelling valued at $140,000 will generate $1 O0 annually in property tax-fire passthru
and will cost the City $115 annually to provide fire protection. Therefore, there is a direct
shortfall of $15 per single family for a total of $74,535 for 4,969 single family dwellings.
Despite this shortage, other revenues from each single family dwelling will not only make up
for this shortage but will produce a $25 surplus for each house.
A mitigation measure in the DEIR requires the developer to pay $400 per residential unit and
0.25 cents per square footage of commercial development. However, this mitigation fee can
only be used for one time capital improvements such as land, building, and equipment
acquisition and not for everyday operation such as salaries and maintenance. Another
mitigation measure in the DEIR requires the developer to pay additional fees to mitigate the
fire impacts through a Development Agreement. Since the Development Agreement for this
project will not be approved with the Specific Plan and the EIR, a condition of approval has
been included for the Specific Plan that requires approval of a fee mitigation agreement prior
to approval of any implementing development applications/permits including but not limited
to Plot Plans, Conditional Use Permits, Tentative Maps, and grading, building and occupancy
permits for this project (refer to Condition No. 19).
The General Plan requires the City to coordinate with the County Fire Department in the
location and phasing of new fire stations to ensure that adequate service levels are
maintained. Therefore, a mitigation measure has been included in the DEIR that requires either
the French Valley Fire Station or an on-site fire station to be operational prior to issuance of
the first building permit for the project. The French Valley Fire Station is currently under
construction.
Police Protection
The proposed project will result in increased demand for police protection. The Police
Department, as required by the General Plan, has a criteria of I deputy per 1,000 residents.
Johnson Ranch, with an anticipated population of 13,598, would require approximately 14
deputies for adequate police protection. According to the Fiscal Impact Report, it will cost the
City $224 per average house within Johnson Ranch to provide police protection and this cost
will not only be off-set by the revenues generated by each house, a $25 surplus will be
realized, too.
R:%STAFFI~r~JOHNSON.PC2 12129/94 vow 14
The City does not have a mitigation fee for police protection, yet, according to the Fiscal
Impact Report, police protection accounts for almost fifty percent (50%) of the total revenues
generated from the average house within Johnson Ranch. A mitigation measure in the EIR
requires the developer to pay additional fees to mitigate the police impacts through a
Development Agreement. Since the Development Agreement for this project will not be
approved with the Specific Plan and the EIR, a condition of approval has been included for the
Specific Plan that requires approval of a fee mitigation agreement prior to approval of any
implementing development applications/permits including but not limited to Plot Plans,
Conditional Use Permits, Tentative Maps, and grading, building and occupancy permits for this
project (refer to Condition No. 19).
Libraries
This development will result in an increased demand in library services. The Riverside County
Library District serves the City with the 59,000 square foot and 51,900 volume library in the
Walt Abraham Administrative Center. This library serves a population of 59,000. Library staff
has indicated the inadequatehess of the current level of service. The District has a standard
calling for 1.2 volumes and 0.5 square foot of library space per person. The District currently
provides only 0.13 square feet and 0.97 volumes per capita county wide. The service level
for the library has been reduced due to shortage of revenues. The revenues for the District
are primarily obtained from a Special Tax District tax collected by the County.
The General Plan requires the City to consider a mitigation fee that off sets impacts from new
development. A mitigation measure has been proposed which requires each residential unit
pay the $100 library mitigation fee. The City keeps this fee in an account for future use (refer
to Mitigation No. 0.8.1 in Document F). A total of $274,552has accumulated in this account
to date. To further mitigate the library impacts, the DEIR requires the developer to offer a
lease space for a library within the Village Center for a period of five years at no cost to the
District (Mitigation No. 0.8.2.). However, the District will be responsible to furnish the site
and provide staff and books.
The General Plan requires the City to work with the District to provide for needed additional
library facilities and services within the City Limits. The District prepared a study last year for
the communities of Murrieta, Wildomar and Lake Elsinore which revealed that these
communities prefer one large full service library to several smaller ones. Temecula was
excluded from this study, since there is an existing library to serve the City. In light of the
findings of this study and telephone conversations with a representative of the District, it was
revealed that at the present time and in the foreseeable future, the District is not in a position
to furnish a leased space, provide staff, or books, if a site was dedicated to them. Staff
recommends the deletion of the mitigation measure 0.8.2. discussed in the above paragraph.
A new mitigation measure should be added that additional fees be paid to the City to replace
this mitigation measure (refer to Condition No. 20). Furthermore, the General Plan requires
the City to consider a mitigation fee that off sets impacts from new development.
A mitigation measure in the DEIR requires the developer to pay additional fees to mitigate the
library impacts through a Development Agreement. Since the Development Agreement for this
project will not be approved with the Specific Plan and the EIR, a condition of approval has
R:~STAFFI~TUOHNSON,PC2 12129/94 vow I 5
been included for the Specific Plan that requires approval of a fee mitigation agreement to be
approved prior to approval of any implementing development applications/permits including
but not limited to Plot Plans, Conditional Use Permits, Tentative Maps, and grading, building
and occupancy permits for this project (refer to Condition No. 19).-
Water and Sewer
The provision of water and sewer services to the site will result in increases in water
consumption and waste water generation as well as extension of pipelines within public right
of way or easements to serve the project. Both of these services will be provided by the
Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD) and all subsequent implementing projects will be
subject to approval of EMWD to ensure adequateness of these services.
The site will have to be served by two water tanks each to serve a different pressure zone
(refer to Exhibit U of Document I). The existing Mountain View water tank may be used to
provide storage for a portion of the site, if capacity is available at the time of development.
Otherwise, a water tank will have to be constructed by the developer on the north side of
Borel Road (refer to Exhibit T of Document I). The primary supply to this tank would be a
connection to the MWD EM-11 line located at the intersection of Auld Road and Washington
Avenue. The secondary supply will be through a connection line at the intersection of
Murrieta Hot Springs Road and Butterfield Stage Road to be built by Assessment District (AD)
161.
The other portion of the site will be served by a new tank to the east of the site; a new
booster station will be necessary at this location to ensure adequate flow-rates (refer to Exhibit
T of Document I). The water supply to this tank will also be provided by a connection to the
EM-11 line.
San Diego Pipeline No. 6 may be constructed by the Metropolitan Water District (MWD) within
the site. The develope~ has been negotiating with MWD for the precise location of this
pipeline and has reached a preliminary understanding with MWD that if the pipeline is to be
located within the Specific Plan area it will go primarily through the disturbed grassland portion
of the open space corridor. Environmental impacts of this pipeline have not been addressed
in the EIR. MWD will be responsible for assessing the environmental impacts of their project
prior to construction of this facility (refer to Condition Nos. 21 and 22)
The designated master planned receiving pipeline for waste water generated by this project
is the Santa Gertrudis Trunk Sewer. The wastewater from this project will be conveyed to this
line via two different sewage collection systems-the Tucalota/Murrieta Hot Springs Road
System and Nicolas Road/Santa Gertrudis System. The closest connection point for the
Tucalota/Murrieta Hot Springs System is approximately 8,200 feet west of Butterfield Stage
Road along Murrieta Hot Springs Road. A portion of this extension is planned to be
constructed by Assessment District (AD) 161. The closest connection point for the Nicolas
Road/Santa Gertrudis System is approximately 2.5 miles southwest of the site along Nicolas
Road. Two temporary and one permanent lift station will be necessary.
R:%STAFFFi~TUOHNSON ,PC2 12129/94 vgw 16
Schools
The project will generate a total of 4,356 students (1942 elementary, 1207 middle and 1207
high school). The project is providing three (3) elementary and one middle school site. These
sites, along with mitigation fees, will address the impacts of the project. However, the School .
District foresees a need for a high school site in the French Valley area. Most of the land in'
the area is committed to development through specific plans and none include a high school
site; however, the School District may approach any property owner in the French Valley area
to purchase a high school site. This project and the proposed Roripaugh Specific Plan, also
with no high school site, are the only specific plans that are not approved in the area that the
City has any control over. The only other specific plan not approved in the area is the
Winchester 1800 that was recommended for denial by the County Planning Commission. This
Specific Plan has not been scheduled to be heard by the Board of Supervisors.
On November 7# 1994 the Planning Commission recommended approval of the School
Mitigation Resolution to the City Council. This resolution may be heard by the City Council
in January. This resolution requires developers seeking General Plan Amendments, specific
plans or change of zone approvals to reach an agreement with the School District prior to
approval of such applications. The EIR for this project was prepared and circulated prior to
this resolution approval; therefore, the mitigation measures require the developer to reach an
agreement with the School District prior to recordation of any maps. Staff has had several
discussions with the developer regarding this issue; however, an agreement has not been
reached with the School District yet. Should the City Council adopt the School Mitigation
Resolution as recommended by the Planning Commission, this project may not be approved
without the finalization of this agreement.
EXISTING ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION
The existing County Zoning for the site is Rural Residential (R-R). Since a Specific Plan is
proposed, the Zoning will change to Specific Plan which includes standards, Conditions of
Approval and mitigation measures to make this new zoning consistent with the General Plan
provided that the General Plan Amendments are approved. The General Plan Designation of
the site is Hillside (21 acres), Very Low Density Residential (368 acres), Low Density
Residential (334 acres), Low Medium Residential (387 acres), Public Institutional (16 acres),
Neighborhood Commercial (3 acres), Parks (13.8 acres) Open Space (164 acres) and Golf
Course (291 acres). The applicant is proposing to amend the General Plan Designations to
Very Low Density Residential (98 acres), Low Medium Residential (1019 acres), High Density
Residential (15 acres), Public Institutional (50 acres), Neighborhood Commercial (15 acres)
Parks {61 acres) and Open Space (442 acres). The applicant is also proposing to amend the
Circulation Element. One of the Circulation Element Amendments involves adding two new
General Plan Roads. Staff is in support of this amendment. However, the other amendments,
deletion of Anza Road and Borel Road and revisions to the cross sections, do not have Staff's
support. Conditions of Approval have been included to require this project to be consistent
with the General Plan Circulation Element. Therefore, these conditions with Staff's support
of the addition of two roads as General Plan Roads make this project consistent with the Goals
and Policies of General Plan.
R:~STAFFRPTUOHNSON .PC2 12129/94 vgw 17
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
An initial study was completed for the project which indicated that there would be potentially
significant impacts associated with the Johnson Ranch Specific Plan, Annexation, General Plan
Amendment, Development Agreement, and Change of Zone. Consequently, it was determined
that an Environmental Impact Report would be necessary for the project. An Environmental
Impact Report (PA93-0180) was prepared by the applicant's consultant, Douglas Wood and
Associates, Inc. and was reviewed, revised and supplemented by City staff. The
Environmental Impact Report analyzed all the significant impacts of the project and proposed
mitigation measures which are included in the Final EIR that reduce these impacts to an
insignificant level with the exception of the following: Noise, Air Quality, Wildlife and
Vegetation, Land Use and Population and Housing. Statements of Overriding Considerations
have been prepared for these impacts.
Subsequent to preparation of the DEIR, an Addendum was prepared for the project. This
Addendure analyzed the "revised project" impacts and introduced revised mitigation measures
as a result of the revision in the project Land Use Plan and in response to public comments
during the 45 day public review period. Therefore, staff recommends Certification of the Final
Environmental Impact Report which includes the Draft EIR, the Addendum, the Response to
Comments, the Mitigation Monitoring Program and Findings of Fact and Statements of
Overriding Considerations.
SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS
Staff supports this project because it will provide for:
Control over the development of the site by annexation to the City.
Positive fiscal impacts on the City budget.
Construction of regional infrastructure at no cost to the City.
Buffering the adjacent estate lots with an open space greenbelt.
A permanent preservation of important biological resources and providing a biological
link between the Skunk Hollow and Skinner/Domenigoni preserve habitat areas.
Development standards for a pedestrian oriented Village Center.
A network of trails which provide alternative modes of transportation for the future
residents of the site.
Sixty one (61) acres of developed public parks to provide a mixture of recreational
activities.
FINDINGS
Environmental Imoact Reoort
Refer to Document G,
Soecific Plan
The project is consistent with the City's General Plan provided the General Plan
amendments to the Land Use and Circulation Elements are approved by the City
Council and all Conditions of Approval are met.
R:%STAFFF~'~IOHNSON.PC2 12129/94 vgw 18
2. The project will result in the construction of General Plan Roads and other
infrastructure at no cost to the City.
3. The project, as conditioned, will have adequate access, utilities and services.
4. The project will preserve an environmentally significant open space area.
The project is compatible with surrounding land uses which are single family dwellings
on estate lots. The Specific Plan provides for estate lots and open space adjacent to
the surrounding estate lots which provides for an adequate transition and buffering.
Mitigation measures for the project will reduce most of the impacts from the project
to insignificant levels with the exception of Noise, Air Quality, Wildlife and Vegetation,
Land Use, and Population and Housing. Therefore, Statements of Overriding
Considerations have been prepared for these significant impacts.
The project as conditioned is consistent with the goals, policies, and implementation
programs contained in the General Plan.
Said findings are supported by analysis, maps, exhibits, and environmental documents
associated with this application and herein incorporated by reference.
Chanae of Zone
The Project is consistent with the City of Temecula General Plan provided the General
Plan Amendments to the Land Use Plan and the Circulation Element areapproved by the
City Council.
The project is consistent with the goals, policies, and implementation programs
contained in the General Plan provided the General Plan Amendments to the Land Use
and Circulation Elements are approved by the City Council.
Mitigation measures for the project will reduce most of the impacts from .the project
to insignificant levels with the exception of Noise, ,Air Quality, Wildlife and Vegetation,
Land Use, and Population and Housing. Therefore, Statements of Overriding
Considerations have been prepared for these significant impacts.
The project is compatible with surrounding land uses which are single family dwellings
on estate lots. The Specific Plan provides for estate lots and open space adjacent to
the surrounding estate lots which provides for an adequate transition and buffering.
The site of the proposed Change of Zone is suitable to accommodate all the land uses
permitted in the proposed Johnson Ranch Specific Plan due to the fact that the
development standards and Conditions of Approval proposed within the Specific Plan
and the mitigation measures within the FEIR ensure orderly development of the site.
Adequate access will be provided to the site as specified in the Specific Plan and the
FEIR.
R:~STAFFRPTUOHNSON.PC2 12129/94 vgw 19
Said findings are supported by the Staff Report analysis, maps, exhibits, attachments,
and environmental documents associated with this application and herein incorporated
by reference.
Annexation
The project is consistent with the City's General Plan provided the General Plan
Amendments to the Land Use and Circulation Elements are approved by the City
Council.
2. The project is located within the City' Sphere of Influence.
3. The project will have a positive fiscal impact on the City budget.
The project is compatible with surrounding land uses which are single family dwellings
on estate lots. The Specific Plan provides for estate lots and open space adjacent to
the surrounding estate lots which provides for an adequate transition.
Mitigation measures for the project will reduce most of the impacts from the project
to insignificant levels with the exception of Noise, Air Quality, Wildlife and Vegetation,
Land Use, and Population and Housing. Therefore, Statements of Overriding
Considerations have been prepared for these significant impacts.
The project is consistent with the goals, policies, and implementation programs
contained in the General Plan.
Said findings are supported by the Staff Report analysis, maps, exhibits, attachments
and environmental documents associated with this application and herein incorporated
by reference.
General Plan Amendment
Mitigation measures for the project will reduce most of the impacts from the project
to insignificant levels with the exception of Noise, Air Quality, Wildlife and Vegetation,
Land Use, and Population and Housing. Therefore, Statements of Overriding
Considerations have been prepared for these significant impacts.
The Project is consistent with the City of Temecula General Plan provided the General
Plan Amendments to the Land Use and Circulation Elements are approved by the City
Council and the Conditions of Approval are complied with.
The project implements the goals, policies, and implementation programs contained in
the General Plan provided the General Plan Amendments to the Land Use and
Circulation Elements are approved by the City Council and the Conditions of Approval
are complied with.
The project is compatible with surrounding land uses which are single family dwellings
on estate lots. The Specific Plan provides for estate lots and open space adjacent to
the surrounding estate lots which provides for an adequate transition.
R:~STAFFF~TUOHNSON.pC2 12129/94 vOw 20
5. Said findings are supported by analysis, maps, exhibits, and environmental documents
associated with this application and herein incorporated by reference.
Attachments:
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
PC Resolution - Blue Page 22
PC Resolution - Blue Page 25
PC Resolution - Blue Page 29
PC Resolution - Blue Page 33
PC Resolution - Blue Page 37
Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 41
Planning Commission Workshop Minutes - Blue Page 58
Temecula Valley Wine Country Letter - Blue Page 59
R:~STAFFIt~IUOHNSON.PC2 12129/94 vow
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
PC RESOLUTION NO. 95-
R:~STAFFRPT~OHNSON.PC2 12/29./94 vgw 22
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
I~F-~OLUTION NO. 9~-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMIgSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONlV~NTAL IMPACT
REPORT (PA93-0180) ALONG WITH ITS SUBSEQUENT ADDENDUM,
ADOPTING FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMI~NTS OF OVERRIDING
CONSIDERATION AND APPROVING TRF~MITIGATION MONITORING
PROGRAM ON PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE NORTF~AST CORNER
OF THE FUTURE INTERSECTION OF BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD
AND MURRIETA HOT SPRINGS ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S
PARCEL NO. 914-210-47, 914-210.51, 914-240-01, 914-240-03, 914-240.04
AND 914-320-03.
WIIEREAS, Douglas Wood and Associates completed Final Environmental Impact
Report (PA93-0180) under City's direction and in accordance with the City and State CEQA
Guidelines;
WHEREAS, said EIR application was processed in the time and manner prescribed by
State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered said Final Environmental Impact
Report (FEIR) which includes the Draft EIR, the Addendum, the Technical Appendices, the
Response to Comments, the Mitigation Monitoring Program, Findings of Fact and Statements
of Overriding Considerations on January 9, 1995, at which time interested persons had an
opportunity to testify either in support or opposition;
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Planning Commission hearing, the Planning
Commission recommended Certification of the said FEIR, Adopted the Findings of Fact and
Statements of Overriding Consideration and Approved the Mitigation Monitoring Program;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION
DOES RESOLVE, DETER1VIINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Findinns. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission in recommending
Certification of the proposed FEIR, makes the following findings, to wit:
A. Refer to Document G of the Staff Report, Findings of Fact and Statement of
Overriding Considerations.
Section 2. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby
recommends certification of FEIR (PA93-0180), adopts Findings of Fact and Statements of
Overriding Consideration and approves of the Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Johnson
Ranch Specific Plan, Annexation, General Plan Amendment, Development Agreement, and
R:%STAFF~OHNSON.PC2 12129/94 vgw 23
Change of Zone on property located on the northeast comer of the future intersection of
Butterfield Stage Road and Murrieta Hot Springs Road and known as Assessor' s Parcel No. 914-
210-47, 914-210-51,914-240-01, 914-240-03, 914-240-04 and 914-320-03.
Section 3. PASSED, APPROVEB AND ADOPTED this 9th day of January, 1995.
STEVEN 1. FORD
CHAIRMAN
I ItEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning
Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 9th day of
January, 1995 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COIVlIVIISSIONERS:
GARY THORNHILL
SECRETARY
R:%STAFFP/rTUOHNSON.PC2 12129/94 vgw 24
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
PC RESOLUTION NO. 95-
R:~STAFFRPT~JOHNSON.PC2 12129/94 yew 25
ATTACH3VrF~NT NO. ~
PC RESOLUTION NO. 95-
A RESOLUTION OF T~F~ PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE~ CITY OF
TEMECULA RECOlVIMF-NDING APPROVAL OF JOHNSON RANCH
SPECIFIC PLAN (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 93-0184 PROPOSING
ZONING, LAND DEV~.I ~OPMENT STANDARDS AND DESIGN
GUIDELINES FOR DEVELOPMENT OF 4,969 SINGLF~ FAMILY
DWELLINGS, 442 ACRI~.q OF OPEN SPACE, 35 ACRES OF VILLAGE
CENTER INCLUDING 281 MULTI FAMILY UNITS AND
APPROXIMATELY 220,000 SQUARE FEET OF RETAH~ AND OFFICE
USES ON 20 ACRES, 68 ACRES OF PARKS AND 50 ACRI~-q OF SCHOOL
FACILITIES; PROJECT IS LOCATED ON ~ NORTHEAST CORNER
OF THE FUTURE INTERSECTION OF BIYlTERFT~I.I~ STAGE ROAD
AND MURRIETA HOT SPRINGS ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S
PARCEL NO. 914-210-47, 914-210.51, 914-240-01, 914-240.03, 914-240.04
AND 914-320-03.
WHEREAS, Johnson Machinery Co. filed the Johnson Ranch Specific Plan in
accordance with the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision Ordinances,
which the City has adopted by reference and applicable State Laws;
WHEREAS, said applications were processed in the time and manner prescribed by State
and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered said applications on January 9, 1995
at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or opposition;
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing, the Commission
recommended approval of said applications;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Findings. That the Temecula Planning Commission hereby makes the
following findings:
A. The Planning Commission in recommending approval of said application makes
the following findings, to wit:
1. The project is consistent with the City's General Plan provided the General
Plan amendments to the Land Use and Circulation Elements are approved by the City Council
and all Conditions of Approval are met.
R:%STAFFRPT%JOHNSON.PC2 12129/94 vgw 26
2. The project will result in the construction of General Plan Roads and other
infrastructure at no cost to the City.
3. The project, as conditioned, will have adequate access, utilities and
4. The project will preserve an environmentally significant open space area.
5. The project is compatible with surrounding land uses which are single
family dwellings on estate lots. The Specific Plan provides for estate lots and open space
adjacent to the surrounding estate lots which provides for an adequate transition and buffering.
6. Mitigation measures for the project will reduce most of the impacts from
the project to insignificant levels with the exception of Noise, Air Quality, Wildlife and
Vegetation, Land Use, and Population and Housing. Therefore, Statements of Overriding
Considerations have been prepared for these significant impacts.
7. The project as conditioned is consistent with the goals, policies, and
implementation programs contained in the General Plan.
8. Said findings are supported by analysis, maps, exhibits, and environmental
documents associated with this application and herein incorporated by reference.
B. As conditioned pursuant to Section 3,
Section 2. Environmental Compliance. An initial study was completed for the project
which indicated that there would be potentially significant impacts associated with the
development of the project. Consequently, it was determined that an Environmental Impact
Report would be necessary for the project. An Environmental Impact Report (PA93-0180) was
prepared by the applicant's consultant, Douglas Wood and Associates, Inc. and was reviewed
by City staff. The Environmental Impact Report analyzed the significance of all the impacts and
proposed mitigation measures included in the Final EIR that reduced these impacts to an
insignificant level with the exception of the following: Noise, Air Quality, Wildlife and
Vegetation, Land Use and Population and Housing. Statements of Overriding Considerations
have been prepared for these impacts. Subsequent to preparation of the DEIR, an Addendum
EIR was prepared for the project. This Addendure analyzed the "revised project" impacts and
introduced new mitigation measures as a result of the revision in the project Land Use Plan and
in response to public comments during the 45 day public review period. Therefore, staff
recommends Certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report which includes the Draft
FAR, the Addendure, the Technical Appendices, the Response to Comments, the Mitigation
Monitoring Program, Findings of Fact and Statements of Overriding Considerations.
Section 3. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby
recommends approval of the Johnson Ranch Specific Plan (Planning Application No. 93- 0184)
located on the northeast comer of the future intersection of Butterfield Stage Road and Murrieta
Hot Springs Road.
R:%STAFFllrTUOHNSON.PC2 12129/94 vgw 27
A. ARachment No. 6, attached hereto.
Section 4. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 9th day of January, 1995.
STEVEN J. FORD
CHAIRMAN
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning
Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 9th day of
January, 1995 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
GARY THORNHILL
SECRETARY
R:XSTAFFItvI'UOHNSON.PC2 12129/94 vgw 28
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
PC RESOLUTION NO. 95-
R:~STAFFI~TUOHNSON.PC2 12129/94 vgw 29
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
ORDINANCE NO.
A RESOLUTION OF TFIF~ CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING
COMMISSION RECOMMI~NDING APPROVAL OF PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. 93-0181 CHANGING THE ZONING FROM RURAL
RESIDENTIAL (R-R) TO SPECIFIC PLAN, FOR PROPERTY LOCATED
ON THE NORTFIEAST CORNER OF THE FUTURE INTERSECTION OF
B~l,r} STAGE ROAD AND MURRIETA HOT SPRINGS ROAD
AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 914-210-47, 914-210.51,914-
240-01, 914-240-03, 914-240-04 AND 914-320-03.
VatEREAS, Johnson Machinery Co. filed the Johnson Ranch Change of Zone in
accordance with the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision Ordinances,
which the City has adopted by reference and applicable State Laws;
WHEREAS, said application was processed in the time and manner prescribed by State
and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered said application on January 9, 1995
at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or opposition;
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission heating, the Commission
recommended approval of said application;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Findinns. That the Temecula Planning Commission hereby makes the
following findings:
A. The Planning Commission in recommending approval of said application makes
the following findings, to wit:
1. The Project is consistent with the City of Temecula General Plan provided
the General Plan Amendments to the Land Use Plan and the Circulation Element are approved
by the City Council.
2. The project is consistent with the goals, policies, and implementation
programs contained in the General Plan provided the General Plan Amendments to the Land Use
and Circulation Elements are approved by the City Council.
3. Mitigation measures for the project will reduce most of the impacts from
the project to insignificant levels with the exception of Noise, Air Quality, Wildlife and
Vegetation, Land Use, and Population and Housing. Therefore, Statements of Overriding
Considerations have been prepared for these significant impacts.
R:%STAFFRPT~JOHNSON .PC2 12129/94 vow 30
4. The project is compatible with surrounding land uses which are single
family dwellings on estate lots. The Specific Plan provides for estate lots and open space
adjacent to the surrounding estate lots which provides for an adequate ~transition and buffering.
5, The site of the proposed Change of Zone is suitable to accommodate all
the land uses permitted in the proposed Johnson Ranch Specific Plan due to the fact that the
development standards and Conditions of Approval proposed within the specific plan and the
mitigation measures within the FI~.IR ensure orderly development of the site,
6, Adequate access will be provided to the site as specified in the Specific
Plan and the FEIR,
7. Said findings are supported by the Staff Report analysis, maps, exhibits,
attachments, and environmental documents associated with this application and herein
incorporated by reference.
B. As conditioned pursuant to Section 3,
Section 2. Environmental Compliance. An initial study was completed for the project
which indicated that there would be potentially significant impacts associated with the
development of the project. Consequently, it was determined that an Environmental Impact
Report would be necessary for the project. An Environmental Impact Report (PA93-0180) was
prepared by the applicant's consultant, Douglas Wood and Associates, Inc. and was reviewed
by City staff. The Environmental Impact Report analyzed the siguifieance of all the impacts and
proposed mitigation measures included in the Final FJR that reduced these impacts to an
insignificant level with the exception of the following: Noise, Air Quality, Wildlife and
Vegetation, Land Use and Population and Housing. Statements of Overriding Considerations
have been prepared for these impacts. Subsequent to preparation of the DEIR, an Addendure
EIR was prepared for the project. This Addendure analyzed the "revised project" impacts and
introduced new mitigation measures as a result of the revision in the project Land Use Plan and
in response to public comments during the 45 day public review period. Therefore, staff
recommends Certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report which includes the Draft
EIR, the Addendure, the Technical Appendices, the Response to Comments, the Mitigation
Monitoring Program, Findings of Fact and Statements of Overriding Considerations.
Section 3. Conditions, That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby
recommends appwval of the Johnson Ranch Specific Plan (Planning Application No. 93- 0184)
located on the northeast comer of the future intersection of Butterfield Stage Road and Murrieta
Hot Springs Road.
A, Attachment No, 6, attached hereto,
R:%STAFFI~T%JOHNSON.PC2 12129i94 vgw 31
Section 4. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOFrED this 9th day of January, 1995.
STEVEN J. FORD
CHAIRMAN
I ItEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning
Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 9th day of
January, 1995 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
GARY THORNHILL
SECRETARY
R:%STAFFRPT~,IOHNSON.PC2 12129/94 vgw 32
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
PC RESOLUTION NO. 95-
R:~STAFFRPTUOHNSON.PC2 12129/94 vgw 33
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
PC RF-~OLUTION NO. 95-
A I~PSOLUTION OF ~ PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF JOHNSON RANCH
ANNEXATION (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 93-0183) PROPOSING
ANNEXATION OF 1761 ACRES WITHIN ~ SPHF~RE OF INFLUENCE
OF CITY OF TEMECULA; PROJECT IS LOCATED ON THIw~
NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE FUTURE INTERSECTION OF
BUTtERFIELD STAGE ROAD AND MURRIF, TA HOT SPRINGS ROAD
AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 914.210-47, 914.210-51, 914.
24001, 914-240-03, 914-240-04 AND 914-32003.
WttF~REAS, Johnson Machinery Co. filed the Johnson Ranch Annexation request in
accordance with the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision Ordinances,
which the City has adopted by reference and applicable State Laws;
WttEREAS, said applications were processed in the time and manner prescribed by State
and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered said applications on January 9, 1995
at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or opposition;
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission heating, the Commission
recommended approval of said applications;
NOW, TItEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Findings. That the Temecula Planning Commission hereby makes the
following findings:
A. The Planning Commission in recommending approval of said application makes
the following findings, to wit:
1. The project is consistent with the City's General Plan provided the General
Plan Amendments to the Land Use and Circulation Elements are approved by the City Council.
2. The project is located within the City' Sphere of Influence.
3. The project will have a positive fiscal impact on the City budget.
4. The project is compatible with surrounding land uses which are single
family dwellings on estate lots. The Specific Plan provides for estate lots and open space
adjacent to the surrounding estate lots which provides for an adequate transition.
R:\STAFFRP'DJOHNSON.PC2 12/29/94 vgw 34
5. Mitigation measures for the project will reduce most of the impacts from
the project to insignificant levels with the exception of Noise, Air Quality, Wildlife and
Vegetation, Land Use, and Population and Housing. Therefore, Statements of Overriding
Considerations have been prepared for these significant impacts.
6. The project is consistent with the goals, policies, and implementation
programs contained in the General Plan.
7. Said findings are supported by the Staff Report analysis, maps, exhibits,
attachments and environmental documents associated with this application and herein
incorporated by reference.
B. As condi~oned pursuant to Section 3,
Section 2. Environmental Compliance. An initial study was completed for the project
which indicated that there would be potentially significant impacts associated with the
development of the project. Consequently, it was determined that an Environmental Impact
Report would be necessary for the project. An Environmental Impact Report (PA93--0180) was
prepared by the applicant's consultant, Douglas Wood and Associates, Inc. and was reviewed
by City staff. The Environmental Impact Report analyzed the significance of all the impacts and
proposed mitigation measures included in the Final EIR that reduced these impacts to an
insignificant level with the exception of the following: Noise, Air Quality, Wildlife and
Vegetation, Land Use and Population and Housing. Statements of Overriding Considerations
have been prepared for these impacts. Subsequent to preparation of the DEIR, an Addendure
was prepared for the project. This Addendure analyzed the 'revised project" impacts and
introduced new mitigation measures as a result of the revision in the project Land Use Plan and
in response to public comments during the 45 day public review period. Therefore, staff
recommends Certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report which includes the Draft
EIR, the Addendure, the Technical Appendices, the Response to Comments, the Mitigation
Monitoring Program, Findings of Fact and Statements of Overriding Considerations.
Section 3. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby
recommends approval of the Johnson Ranch Annexation request (Planning Application No. 93-
0183) located on the northeast comer of the future intersection of Butterfield Stage Road and
Murrieta Hot Springs Road.
A. Attachment No. 6, attached hereto.
R:~STAFFII:~T~JOHNSON.PC2 12129/94 vgw 35
Section 4. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 9th day of January, 1995.
STEVEhi J. FORD
CHAIRMAN
I HEREBY CERTIYY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning
Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 9th day of
January, 1995 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
GARY THORNH/LL
SECRETARY
R:XSTAFFI~q~JOHNSON.PC2 12~9~4 vow 36
ATTACHMENT NO. 5
PC RESOLUTION NO. 95-
R:~STAFFRP'I~JOHNSON.PC2 12/29/94 vgw 37
ATTACHMENT NO.
PC RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF ~ CITY OF
TEMECULA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AMF. NDMENTS TO
~ LAND USE AND CIRCULATION ELEMENTS OF THE GENERAL
PLAN (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 93-018~) TO IMPLEMENT THE
JOHNSON RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN; PROJECT IS LOCATED ON ~
NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE FUTURE INTERSECTION OF
BUTtERFIELD STAGE ROAD AND MURRIETA HOT SPRINGS ROAD
AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 914-210-47, 914-210.51,914-
240--01, 914-240-03, 914-24004 AND 914-320-03.
Vv~aREAS, Johnson Machinery Co. filed the General Plan Amendment requests in
accordance with the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision Ordinances,
which the City has adopted by reference and applicable State Laws;
WHEREAS, said applications were processed in the time and manner prescribed by State
and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered said applications on January 9, 1995
at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or opposition;
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing, the Commission
recommended approval of said applications;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMI.qSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. FindinEs. That the Temecula Planning Commission hereby makes the
following findings:
A. The Planning Commission in recommending approval of said application makes
the following findings, to wit:
1. Mitigation measures for the project will reduce most of the impacts from
the project to insignificant levels with the exception of Noise, Air Quality, Wildlife and
Vegetation, Land Use, and Population and Housing. Therefore, Statements of Overriding
Considerations have been prepared for these significant impacts.
2. The Project is consistent with the City of Temecula General Plan provided
the General Plan Amendments to the Land Use and Circulation Elements are approved by the
City Council and the Conditions of Approval are complied with.
R:\STAFFIt~T~JOHNSON.PC2 12/29/94 vgw 38
3. The project implements the goals, policies, and implementation programs
contained in the General Plan provided the General Plan Amendments to the Land Use and
Circulation Elements are approved by the City Council and the Conditions of Approval are
complied with.
4. The project is compatible with surrounding land uses which are single
family dwellings on estate lots. The Specific Plan provides for estate lots and open space
adjacent to the surrounding estate lots which provides for an adequate transition.
S. Said findings are supported by analysis, maps, exhibits, and environmental
documents associated with this application and herein incorporated by reference.
B. As conditioned pursuant to Section 3,
Section 2. Environmental Compliance. An initial study was completed for the project
which indicated that there would be potentially significant impacts associated with the
development of the project. Consequently, it was determined that an Environmental Impact
Report would be necessary for the project. An Environmental Impact Report (PA93-0180) was
prepared by the applicant's consultant, Douglas Wood and Associates, Inc. and was reviewed
by City staff. The Environmental Impact Report analyzed the significance of all the impacts and
proposed mitigation measures included in the Final FIR that reduced these impacts to an
insignificant level with the exception of the following: Noise, Air Quality, Wildlife and
Vegetation, Land Use and Population and Housing. Statements of Overriding Considerations
have been prepared for these impacts. Subsequent to px~aration of the DEIR, an Addendure
was prepared for the project. This Addendure analyzed the "revised project" impacts and
introduced new mitigation measures as a result of the revision in the project Land Use Plan and
in response to public comments during the 45 day public review period. Therefore, staff
recommends Certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report which includes the Draft
FIR, the Addendure, the Technical Appendices, the Response to Comments, the Mitigation
Monitoring Program, Findings of Fact and Statements of Overriding Considerations.
Section 3. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby
recommends approval of the General Plan Amendment requests (Planning Application No. 93-
0185) located northeast corner of future intersection of Butterfield Stage Road and Murrieta Hot
Springs Road.
A. Attachment No. 6, attached hereto.
R:XSTAFFII='I'~IOHNSON.PC2 12129/94 vgw 39
Section 4. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 9th day of January, 1995.
STEVEN J. FORD
CHAIRMAN
I IPF~REBY 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 9th day of
January, 1995 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COM/v~SSIONERS:
GARY THORNHILL
SECRETARY
R:XSTAFFII~TUOHNSON.PC2 12129/94 vow 40
ATTACHMENT NO. 6
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
R:~STAFFh°TUOHNSON.PC2 12129/94 vgw 41
ATTACHMENT NO. 6
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Johnson Ranch Specific Plan
Planning Application No. 93-0184
Project Description:
A Specific Plan proposing zoning and development
standards and design guidelines for development of 4,969
single family dwellings, 442 acres of open space, 35
acres of Village Center including 281 multi family units
and approximately 220,000 square feet of retail and
office uses, 68 acres of parks and 50 acres of school
facilities, an Annexation of 1761 acres to the City of
Temecula; General Plan Amendmentsto the Land Use and
Circulation Elements; and a Change of Zone from Rural
Residential (R-R) to Specific Plan to prezone the Johnson
Ranch property to annex to the City of Temecula and to
certify the Final Environmental Impact Report.
Assessor's Parcel No.:
Approval Date:
914-210-47,914-210-51,914-240-01,914-240-03,
914-240-04AND 914-320-03.
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Within Forty-Eight (48) Hours of the Approval of this Project
The applicant/developer shall deliver to the Planning Department a cashier's check or
money order made payable to the County Clerk in the amount of Nine Hundred Twenty-
Eight Dollars ($928.00) which includes the Eight Hundred and Fifty Dollar ($850.00)
fee, in comoliance with AB 3158, required by Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(d)(3)
plus the Seventy-Eight Dollars ($78.00) County administrative fee, to enable the City
to file the Notice of Determination required under Public Resources Code Section
21152 and California Code of Regulations Section 15094. If within said forty-eight
{48) hour period the applicant/developer has not delivered to the Planning Department
the check as required above, the approval for the project granted herein shall be void
by reason of failure of condition, Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c).
General Conditions
The developer/applicant shall indemnify, protect, defend, and hold harmless, the City
and any agency or instrumentality thereof, and/or any of its officers, employees and
agents from any and all claims, actions, or proceedings against the City, or any agency
or instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers, employees and agents, to attack, set
aside, void, annul, or seek monetary damages resulting from an approval of the City,
R:~STAFFRPT~JOHNSON.PC2 12129/94 vow 42
9.
10.
or any agency or instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal board or legislative
body including actions approved by the voters of the City, concerning the projects-
including Annexation, General Plan Amendment, Change of Zone, Specific Plan and
Environmental Impact Report, which action is brought withir~ the appropriate statute
of limitations period and Public Resources Code, Division 13, Chapter 4 (Section 21000
et sea., including but not by the way of limitations Section 21152 and 21167). City
shall promptly notify the developer/applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding
brought within this time period. City shall further cooperate fully in the defense of the
action. Should the City fail to either promptly notify or cooperate fully,
developer/applicant shall not, thereafter be responsible to indemnify, defend, protect,
or hold harmless the City, any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers,
employees, or agents.
All development within this site shall be in accordance with the requirements of all City
ordinances, except as expressly modified herein, and State laws, and shall conform
with the approved Specific Plan. Regulations or procedures not covered by the Specific
Plan or appurtenant documents shall be subject to the City ordinances in effect at the
time entitlement is required.
A potential religious facility(s) site shall be identified within the Village Center and shall
be designated on the Land Use Plan. If the site is not developed as a religious facility,
any use within the Village Center Zoning shall be allowed.
Structural building permits shall not be issued for any subdivision maps approved for
the purpose of financing.
Each section of Tucalota Creek trail and landscaping shall be completed prior to
issuance of 50% of the residential building permits within each abutting tract. The
developer for Planning Area 8b or c, whichever develops first, shall be responsible to
make these improvements along Planning Area 9. The Developer for Planning Area 10
shall be responsible to make these improvements along Planning Area 10 and 11 prior
to issuance of any occupancy permits within Planning Area 10. However, if the
developer improves Planning Area 11 park prior to receiving any occupancy permits for
Planning Area 10, the developer shall provide the improvements along the boundary
adjacent to Planning Area 11 prior to the City accepting the park.
Where Tucalota Creek trails cross project streets, at grade crossings shall occur at
signalized intersections with appropriate signage and striping. Otherwise, lighted under
crossings shall be provided.
The developer shall provide improvements to all the trails within the project consistent
with the Specific Plan.
The Specific Plan shall be consistent with the General Plan as amended with the
approvals for this project.
Sidewalks shall not be placed next to curb and shall be placed within the 14 foot
parkway with planters on both sides on all roadways with a 78 foot wide right-of-way
or larger,
R:~STAFFR°TUOHNSON.PC2 12129/94 vgw 43
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
The visual impact of theme walls and potential for graffiti shall be minimized by the use
of graffiti resistant materials and an appropriate landscaping screen including trees,
shrubs, vines and espaliers.
All landscaping shall be consistent with the Water Efficient Landscaping Ordinance.
All parkways for streets larger than 78 foot right-of-way shall be a minimum of
fourteen 14 feet.
Fence plans shall be submitted along with the tentative tract map applications to
determine the appropriate fencing along the perimeter of the project and the areas
adjacent to the open space areas consistent with the Specific Plan Guidelines and as
approved by the Planning Director.
Private Open Space equal to minimum of 150 square feet shall be required for each
multi-family dwelling unit.
All view fences and block walls shall be provided with pilasters at side property lines
that intersect these walls/fences.
Approval of the Johnson Ranch Specific Plan is contingent upon and shall not become
effective, nor shall it vest, until the applicant has reached and recorded a binding
mitigation agreement with the Temecula Valley Unified School District to ensure the
mitigation of the new students generated by this Specific Plan if the City Council
adopts the School Mitigation Resolution as recommended for approval by the Planning
Commission.
In the event that the new City Development Code is not adopted by City Council by
the time the applicant files for the first implementing application (i.e. tentative map,
plot plan, etc.), the applicant shall apply for a Specific Plan Amendment and submit a
complete Zoning Section with this Amendment application.
The applicant shall enter into a Development Agreement or another similar and
appropriate agreement or mechanism which identifies and establishes appropriate
mitigation impact fees, and/or sites dedication and/or public facilities construction for
the project as required by the EIR for mitigation of the fire, police, parks, roads and
library impacts of the project upon the community. Implementing development
applications/permits including but not limited to Plot Plans, Conditional Use Permits,
Tentative Maps, and grading, building and occupancy permits for this project shall not
be approved or issued until such time as the agreement or other mechanism has been
approved by the City and the applicant.
The applicant shall pay additional fees over and beyond the $100 per residential unit
to mitigate the library impacts. This fee is to replace Mitigation No. 0.8.2. of
Document F which requires the developer to provide a leased library space within the
Village Center for a period of five (5) years at no cost to the library. This fee shall be
determined through the Development Agreement or a similar Fee Mitigation Agreement
prior to approval of any implementing development applications/permits including but
not limited to Plot Plans, Conditional Use Permits, Tentative Maps, and grading,
building and occupancy permits for this project.
R:~STAFFI~mi~JOHN$ON.PC2 12/29/94 vgw 44
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
The applicant shall reach an agreement with the Metropolitan Water District on the
precise location of the San Diego Pipe Line No. 6. This agreement shall be secured
prior to approval of any implementing applications/permits including grading permits.
No construction shall take place within Planning Area 1 for the purpose of construction
of the MWD San Diego Pipe Line No. 6 until an environmental analysis of the impacts
of its project on Planning Area I is completed.
This project and all subsequent projects within the site shall comply with all mitigation
measures identified in the adopted Mitigation Monitoring Program unless modified by
the Conditions of Approval.
All residential subdivision maps shall utilize a modified grid street system. Cul-de-sacs
and curvilinear streets may be appropriate in this system and they shall be reviewed
for appropriateness on a project by project basis as determined by the Planning
Director.
Prior to issuance of grading permits, approval of development permits, recordation of
final maps, issuance of building permits and issuance of occupancy permits for any
subsequent projects or activities within the site, the applicant/developer shall
demonstrate by submittal of a written report that all mitigation measures identified in
the Mitigation Monitoring Program within the FEIR have been satisfied for the stage of
development that permits are being issued for.
Within thirty (30) days of the final approval of the project by City Council, the Specific
Plan and the Final Environmental Impact Report shall be submitted to the Planning
Department in final form acceptable to the Planning Director for review and approval.
The final form shall include all Conditions of Approval, resolutions, ordinances, all
modifications made by the Planing Commission and City Council and a Development
Criteria Document. This document shall summarize all development related standards,
guidelines, criteria, conditions of approval, and mitigation measures in a manner to ease
reviewing subsequent implementing applications. A master print copy (8 ~" X 11 ")
and six (6) copies of the documents shall be submitted.
Prior to approval of any development plans, all subsequent projects shall receive
appropriate clearances, conditions and approvals from all agencies with jurisdiction on
project review. These agencies shall be determined by the Planning Director and the
City Engineer.
The developer or the developer's successor-in-interest shall be responsible for
maintaining the undeveloped portion of the site including weed abatement and litter
removal.
The applicant shall deposit sufficient funds with the City of Temecula to retain the
services of a qualified consultant to administer and implement the Mitigation Monitoring
Program approved for this project as part of Environmental Impact Report for Johnson
Ranch in compliance with Assembly Bill 3180.
If any of these conditions of approval differ from the Specific Plan text or map exhibits
or any other documents, the conditions enumerated herein shall take precedence.
R:\STAFFI~w~JOHNSON.PC2 12129/94 vgw 45
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
Any proposed amendment to this Specific Plan shall require public hearings and review
by the Planning Commission and City Council, and/or shall be reviewed in accordance
with such rules and regulations for the review of Specific Plan Amendments as may
have been adopted by the City and which are in effect at the time of any proposed
amendment is submitted.
The developer may receive a full or partial credit for the required K-rat fees in exchange
for dedication of the open space area to an acceptable resource agency such as
Riverside County Habitat Conservation Agency (RCHCA). The precise amount of the
fee credit shall be equal to the fair market value of Planning Area 1 area of which shall
not be less than 402 acres. This amount shall be determined by a MAI appraisal at the
time the Open Space is dedicated. The appraiser, the amount of the fee credit and the
dedication shall be approved by the RCHCA Board. The developer shall be responsible
for the cost of the appraisal and the appraisal shall be based on the current zoning of
Rural Residential (R-R). After the fee credit is determined, a reduced K-rat fee shall be
calculated for the entire project site, thereby spreading the fee credit over the entire
project site. This shall be done by calculating the total K-rat fee for the entire site and
reducing this amount by the fee credit and dividing the result by the total acreage of
the site. The amount of the credit shall not exceed the total K-rat fee for the project.
An Open Space Mitigation Plan shall be prepared prior to approval of implementing
subdivision maps anywhere within the Specific Plan area or approval of any grading
permits, whichever comes first. This plan shall be approved by the Planning Director
and shall include the timing, improvements, maintenance, fee credit and phasing of
dedication of the open space areas and shall be prepared conjunction with the
appropriate resource agencies, the applicant and the City. All the open space within
Planning Area I shall be dedicated to the Riverside County Habitat Conservation
Agency (RCHCA) or any other appropriate public agency prior to the issuance of any
grading permits for the project.
A comprehensive Sign Program and Design Guidelines shall be submitted for review
and approval of the Planning Commission along with the development application for
the Village Center. This Sign Program and Design Guidelines shall include standards
for small signs with a unique texture, shape, or interesting features.
The developer shall be responsible to pay all the costs associated with providing the
necessary infrastructure for the project or a Development Agreement shall be reached
with the City to specify the funding sources for these infrastructure improvements.
Subdivisions shall be designed in such manner that the front of residential lots face the
Neighborhood Parks. Any exception to this design shall be on a case by case basis and
shall be subject to the approval of the Planning Commission.
All setback areas within the Village Center shall be landscaped.
The minimum open space required for the multi-family within the Village Center shall
be 30% of the gross area of the site.
R:~STAFFI~>TUOHN$ON,PC2 12/29/94 vgw 46
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
The following are the Department of Public Works Conditions of Approval for the Johnson
Ranch Specific Plan, and shall be completed at no cost to any Government Agency. All
questions regarding the true meaning of the conditions shall be referred to the appropriate staff .
person of the Department of Public Works.
GENERAL CONDITIONS:
All utility systems such as electric, including those which provide direct service to the
project site and/or currently exist along public rights-of-ways adjacent to the site
(except electrical lines rated 33 kv or greater), gas, telephone, water, sewer, and cable
TV shall be placed underground, with easements provided as required, and designed
and constructed in accordance with the current City Codes and the utility provider
guidelines.
Prior to the issuance of any grading permit, as deemed necessary by the Department
of Public Works, the Developer shall consult with the State of California Department
of Fish and Game, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
to determine if permits or approvals are necessary from such agencies for any action
contemplated by this proposal. Such consultation shall be in writing, and copies of said
correspondence, including responses from agencies, shall be submitted to the City.
Where appropriate, the terms, conditions, and recommendations of the noted agencies
shall be incorporated as Conditions of Approval into the areas of development.
Prior to issuance of building permits for the various phases of development, the
Developer shall pay any capital fee for road improvements and public facilities imposed
upon the property or project, including that for traffic and public facility mitigation as
required under the EIR/Negative Declaration for the project. The fee to be paid shall be
in the amount in effect at the time of payment of the fee. If an interim or final public
facility mitigation fee or district has not been finally established by the date on which
the Developer requests its building permit for the project or any phase thereof, the
Developer shall execute the Agreement for payment of Public Facility Fee.
Concurrently, with executing this Agreement, the Developer shall post a bond to secure
payment of the Public Facility Fee. The amount of the bond shall be $2.00 per square
foot, not to exceed $10,000. The Developer understands that said agreement may
require the payment of fees in excess of those now estimated (assuming benefit to the
project in the amount of such fees). By execution of this Agreement, the Developer will
waive any right to protest the provisions of this condition, of this Agreement, the
formation of any traffic impact fee district, or the process, levy, or collection of any
traffic mitigation or traffic impact fee for this project; provided that the Developer is not
waiving its right to protest the reasonableness of any traffic impact fee, and the
amount thereof.
The Developer shall make a good faith effort to acquire any offsite property interests
necessary for the provision of improvements associated with this Specific Plan and in
adherence to the K-Rat/Quimby requirements and if the Developer should fail to do so,
the Developer shall, prior to submittal of any final map for recordation, enter into an
agreement to complete the improvements pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act, Section
R:~STAFFI!~TUOHNSON.PC2 12129/94 vgw 47
66462 and Section 66462.5. Such agreement shall provide for payment by the
Developer of all costs incurred by the City to acquire the offsite property interests
required in connection with the subdivision. Security of a portion of these costs shall
be in the form of a cash deposit in the amount given in an appraisal report obtained by
the Developer, at the Developer's cost. The appraiser shall have been approved by the
City prior to commencement of the appraisal. Only upon Developer's initial attempt to
obtain necessary right-of-way, City shall, at Developer's expense, obtain right-of-way
via eminent domain proceedings.
Landscaping and permanent irrigation facilities shall be installed with street
improvements. Perimeter walls shall be treated with graffiti-resistant coating and shall
be installed adjacent to street improvements within each phase.
A phasing plan addressing the construction scheduling of necessary infrastructure
requirements shall be approved by the Director of Public Works and the Planning
Director prior to approval of any subsequent development application.
CIRCULATION:
As a condition of approval for any subsequent development application associated with
this Specific Plan, the Developer shall enter into an agreement with the City for a "Trip
Reduction Plan" in accordance with Ordinance No. 93-01.
Adequate primary and secondary access (28' minimum paved) shall be provided for
each phase of development as approved by the Department of Public Works. Access
to residential, office, and commercial areas shall be reviewed by the Department of
Public Works at the time of submittal of individual development applications. Additional
rights-of-way at entries to the aforementioned sites may be required to provide for
turning lanes as directed by the Department of Public Works.
All street sections shall correspond with Typical Roadway Cross Sections and
requirements of the Circulation Element of the City's General Plan, City ordinances and
standards. Deviations may be allowed outside the curb only (within the parkway) for
Specific Plan Roads through a General Plan Amendment with the concurrence of the
Planning Director and the Director of Public Works.
10.
All intersection intervals shall comply with City and Caltrans standards and
requirements.
11.
12.
The Developer shall provide bus bays and shelters within the Specific Plan. The
location and number of bus bays shall be subject to approval of the City and Riverside
Transportation Agency (RTA). Additional right-of-way dedications associated with bus
bays shall be provided by the Developer.
All necessary infrastructure improvements have been/will be conditioned based on the
Project Traffic Study and the Conceptual Phasing Plan shown on Figure 32 of the
Specific Plan. Any substantive rephasing of the development must be approved by the
Planning Commission through a rephasing application. A rephasing of the development
considered to be minor or in substantial conformance with the construction phasing
R:\STAFFFIPT~OHNSON.PC2 12129/94 vgw 48
13.
14.
15.
16.
plan approved with the adoption of the Johnson Ranch Specific Plan, as determined
by the Director of Public Works and the Planning Director, may be approved
administratively through applicable City procedures. Prior to the issuance of occupancy
permits within any phase, all on and offsite improvements as ~eferred to in the Traffic
Reports and subsequent addenda along with additional requirements set herein, or as
set by conditions on individual tracts, must be constructed and/or bonded as required
by the Department of Public Works.
Ensuing Traffic Reports, analyzing traffic impacts associated with subsequent
development stages of the Specific Plan, shall be submitted to identify implementation
and timing of the necessary improvements to mitigate cumulative traffic impacts.
The design and construction of the following infrastructure improvements, are a
condition of the Specific Plan, the timing of the completion of those improvements shall
be determined by the subsequent required traffic studies;
"A" , "B", and "C" streets as Major/Principal Collector Highways per the Specific
Plan, curb-to-curb sections to be pursuant to the General Plan street sections;
Murrieta Hot Springs Road from Leon Road to Butterfield Stage Road as a four
(4) lane roadway (City to facilitate a reimbursement agreement with adjacent
property owner(s) as development occurs);
Butterfield Stage Road from the northerly limits of Tract 23209 to Nicolas Road
as a four (4) lane roadway (City to facilitate a reimbursement agreement with
adjacent property owner(s) as development occurs);
Butterfield Stage Road from Nicolas Road to Washington Street as an Urban
Arterial (6 lane) Roadway per the General Plan (City to facilitate a
reimbursement agreement with adjacent property owner(s) as development
occurs for off-site portion only);
Nicolas Road from Joseph Road to Butterfield Stage Road as a two (2) lane
paved roadway; and
Anza Road along the easterly boundary of the property as a two (2) lane paved
roadway.
Prior to Final Map recordation or issuance of any Grading Permit, the Developer shall
bond for or construct the improvements to Murrieta Hot Springs Road and Butterfield
Stage Road in accordance with the Specific Plan requirements. The cross section shall
be in accordance with the Typical Roadway Cross Section of City's General Plan
classification for an Urban Arterial Highway four (4) lane width right-of-way.
Prior to Final Map recordation or issuance of Grading Permit, the Developer is
responsible to bond for and construct the traffic signals at the intersections listed
below. The Developer shall analyze the traffic signal warrants and shall install the
traffic signals accordingly and/or as directed by the Department of Public Works at the
following intersections, as depicted by the Project Traffic Study:
R:~STAFFRPTUOHNSON,PC2 12129/94 vgw 49
17.
Butterfield Stage Road & "B" Street
Butterfield Stage Road & Promontory Road/"A" Street
Butterfield Stage Road & Murrieta Hot Springs Road (City to facilitate a
reimbursement agreement with adjacent property owner(s) as development
occurs)
Butterfield Stage Road & Nicolas Road (City to facilitate a reimbursement
agreement with adjacent property owner(s) as development occurs)
"C" Street & "B" Street
"C" Street & "A" Street/Buck Road
Borel Road is designated as a Secondary Highway with 88' Right-of-Way pursuant to
the General Plan. The Developer shall dedicate the necessary additional Right-of-Way
along Borel Road.
DRAINAGE:
18.
The proposed Santa Gertrudis Creek and Tucalota Creek drainage facilities have little
regional benefit and are required mainly for the applicant's convenience. Unless the
Temecula Community Services District (TCSD) maintains them, the Department of
Public Works (DPW) must ensure that the public is not unduly burdened for future
costs. If this is the case, the DPW will require that concurrent with the submittal of
any development application or prior to the issuance of any grading permit within the
Johnson Ranch Specific Plan, whichever occurs first, the Developer shall enter into an
agreement with the City of Temecula which guarantees the perpetual maintenance of
the drainage facilities proposed by the specific plan. Said agreement shall be
acceptable to the City and shall include, but not necessarily be limited to, the following:
A precise description of the facilities to be maintained and the acceptable level
of that maintenance.
The right of the City to review and approve the design and any future
modifications to the drainage facilities covered by the agreement.
A clause stating that determination of the adherence to the level of maintenance
will be in the sole judgment of the City.
d. An establishment of time frames and procedures for noticing and compliance.
A provision whereby the primary maintenance responsibility for the drainage
facilities will fall to Developer/Homeowners Association (DHOA). The City will
assume maintenance responsibility only if DHOA fails to do so. If the City is
forced to assume the maintenance responsibility a method for reimbursement
from the DHOA must be established. Failure of DHOA to make such
reimbursement will result in the City having the ability to place liens against the
property(s) of Developer or individuals of the DHOA.
R:~STAFFR~T~JOHNSON.PC2 12129/94 vgw 50
19.
A requirement for the developer to establish an automatically renewable Letter
of Credit (LOC) (or other acceptable alternate) in favor of the City, which can
be drawn upon by the City in the event the DHOA fails to meet its obligation or
in the event the DHOA income is insufficient to meet the required maintenance
costs. This LOC must have a life span from 50 to 99 years.
A guarantee that each year the DHOA will submit to the City a maintenance
status report for all facilities covered under this agreement. This report must
be certified by a Civil Engineer, licensed in the State of California and previously
approved by the City. If DHOA fails to submit said report, the City shall
commission the report and invoice DHOA.
A stipulation that the DHOA would be responsible for obtaining and maintaining
in perpetuity, all licenses, permits and other rights required for the proper
maintenance of the drainage facilities.
The right of the City to approve any contractor hired by the DHOA to perform
maintenance on the drainage facilities.
A clause providing that if the City is forced to assume the maintenance
responsibility for the drainage facilities, ownership of the facilities will fall to the
City.
DHOA must agree to indemnify, hold harmless and defend the District and the
County of Riverside against any claims or liability resulting from the
construction, operation, maintenance and all other use of the drainage facilities.
I. Access rights for the City for inspection purposes.
m. A provision that gives the City the right to review and approve the C.C.&R.'s.
The right for the City to review and approve the methodology used by
Developer to determine the monthly fee to individual homeowners and the
minimum balance available for operation and maintenance and for emergencies.
This Specific Plan shall include retention facilities that control runoff of all storms up
to a one in one hundred year storm (or as determined by the Department of Public
Works) so that downstream peak flows will not increase due to this development.
Prior to approval of any subdivision, development plan or grading permit for the
Johnson Ranch Specific Plan, a watershed wide retention policy must be in place and
an engineered plan for its implementation on this site must be approved by the
Department of Public Works.
R:%STAFFR°TUOHNSON.PC2 12129/94 vgw 5 1
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
The proposed Santa Gertrudis Creek and Tucalota Creek drainage systems and
detention facilities are critical elements of the entire specific plan. Their final size,
location, and schedule of implementation are crucial in the development of this site.
Even though the applicant believes that the final engineering of these facilities will
result in a design that will "fit" the land use plan, the applicant shall complete and the
City shall approve such final engineering prior to the approval of any further
development proposals within the Johnson Ranch Specific Plan, including, but not
limited to, the approval of a parcel map processed for financing purposes.
It is possible that the engineered plan may require the alteration of planning areas set
aside for residential dwellings and even the deletion of lots from those areas. If such
alterations are determined by the Planning Director to be significant, the applicant shall
prepare, submit and process for approval a specific plan amendment.
Drainage and flood control facilities shall be provided in accordance with the
requirements of the City and/or Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation
District (RCFC&WCD).
Prior to approval of any subsequent development applications, the Developer shall
submit a Master Drainage and Watershed Plan, including a revised Hvdroloov Study.
for review and approval by the City and RCFC&WCD that analyzes the adequacy of the
proposed and existing downstream drainage facilities, including the necessity for
detention and desilting facilities.
Drainage facilities within each phase shall be constructed immediately after the
completion of the site grading and prior to, or concurrently with, the initial site
development within that phase.
All drainage facilities shall be designed to carry 100 year storm flows, subject to the
approval of the Department of Public Works and RCFC&WCD, as applicable.
The Developer shall construct the proposed on-site and off-site drainage facility
improvements and the on-site detention/desilting basin(s) provision as recommended
in the Specific Plan, Hydrology Study, and Master Drainage and Watershed Plan and/or
as directed by the Department of Public Works and RCFC&WCD.
As required by the Department of Public Works, additional Hydrology and Hydraulic
Reports shall be submitted with subse~tuent development applications to study the
drainage impacts and analyze necessary measures to mitigate the runoff created as
part of the development of this project.
The Developer shall accept and properly dispose of all off-site drainage flowing onto
or through the site.
The Developer shall protect downstream properties from damages caused by alteration
of the drainage patterns; i.e., concentration or diversion of flow. Protection shall be
provided by constructing adequate drainage facilities, including enlarging existing
facilities or by securing drainage easements.
R:~STAFFF~°I'~JOHNSON.PC2 12/29/94 vgw 52
29.
The natural water courses shall be mapped as 100-year flood plains. The subsequent
grading plans shall delineate the 100-year flood plain. A Flood Plain Development
Permit shall be required for any encroachment into the mapped floodway.
WATER AND SEWER:
30.
Water and sewer facilities shall be installed in accordance with the requirements and
specifications of the City and Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD). Such
requirements shall be applied at the subdivision or plot plan stages of the development.
31.
Prior to the approval of subsequent development applications, the Developer shall
submit the master water plan and master sewer plan to EMWD to check for adequacy
of the proposed water and sewer facilities. The Developer shall obtain written approval
for the water and sewer systems from EMWD.
32.
Prior to the approval of any subsequent development applications, including the
approval of any plot plan application or subsequent tentative map approval, the
Developer shall provide the City with evidence that adequate wastewater treatment
facilities are being provided to meet the needs of the Johnson Ranch Specific Plan
development.
GRADING:
33.
No grading shall be permitted for any development area prior to tentative map or plot
plan approval and issuance of grading permits for the specific area of development.
34.
Grading plans and operations shall be in accordance with the Uniform Building Code,
City Grading Standards, the recommendations contained in the Geotechnical Report,
or any subsequent reports prepared for the project, the conditions of the grading
permit, and accepted grading construction practices and the recommendations and
standards specified in the Specific Plan and Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
document.
35.
Prior to issuance of any grading permit, Erosion Control plans shall be prepared in
conformance with applicable City Standards and subject to approval by the Department
of Public Works. The Developer shall post security and enter into an agreement
guaranteeing the grading and erosion control improvements.
36.
The Developer shall comply with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit regulated by the State Water Resources Control
Board, and the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) implemented by the San
Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board.
37.
Each subsequent application for a phase of development shall include a conceptual
grading plan to indicate at a minimum:
· Preliminary quantity estimates for grading.
R:~STAFF~ri~JOHNSON.PC2 12129/94 vgw 53
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
Techniques and methods which will be used to prevent erosion and
sedimentation during and after the grading process in compliance with the City
Standards and NPDES requirements.
· Preliminary pad and roadway elevations.
· Designation of the borrow or stockpile site location for import/export material.
Approximate time frames for development including the identification of areas
which will be graded during the rainy months.
· Hydrology and hydraulic concerns and mitigation.
Major grading activities shall be scheduled during the dry season wherever possible,
or as otherwise approved by the Department of Public Works.
Soils stabilization, which may include revegetation of graded areas, shall occur within
30 days of final grading activities as directed by the Department of Public Works.
The site shall be watered during grading operations to control dust.
Temporary drainage and sediment control devices shall be installed as directed by the
Department of Public Works.
An import/export route shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works prior to
issuance of any grading permit. The plan shall include limitation to the duration of the
grading operation and construction activities, a Traffic Control Plan, and a daily time
schedule of operations.
Prior to issuance of any grading permit, a soils reports shall be submitted to the
Department of Public Works for review and approval, to address engineering, geologic,
seismic, and soils engineering concerns for each tentative map or commercial parcel
map for each phase of proposed development.
All public streets shall be maintained and cleaned if necessary on a daily basis during
grading operation and construction activities. Cash deposit, letter of credit or posting
of bond to guarantee maintenance of all public rights-of-way affected by the grading
operations and construction activities, shall be posted prior to issuance of grading
permits.
If subsequent Geotechnical and Soils Reports determine that dewatering of the site is
necessary during construction, necessary permits (ie. in compliance with NPDES
permit) shall be obtained from appropriate agencies prior to approval of the grading
plans.
R:~STAFFRPT~JOHNSON.PC2 12129f94 vgw 54
PHASING:
46.
Construction of the development permitted by the Specific Plan, including recordation
of final subdivision maps, may be carried out in stages ~}rovided that, adequate
vehicular access is constructed for all dwelling units in each stage of development and
further provided that such development conforms substantially with the intent and
purpose of the Specific Plan Phasing Plan.
47.
Development applications shall be submitted for each planning unit in each phase. Total
acreage, dwelling units, and land uses within each phase shall be in accordance with
the specifications of the Specific Plan.
TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT
Based upon the proposed development of 5,250 residential units, the park land
dedication requirement (Quimby) for the Johnson Ranch Specific Plan is 61 acres. The
developer or his successors, shall improve and dedicate to the City one (1), 15 acre
Community Park site; three (3), 6 acre Village Park sites; and nine (9), minimum 3 acre
Neighborhood Park sites.
The developer shall improve the Tucalota Creek area for multi-purpose recreational trail
use. Tucalota Creek shall be maintained by a private maintenance association until
such time as the Director of Community Services has determined that this area
provides an integral part of the City's Recreational Trail Program.
All proposed public park facilities shall be designed and improved in accordance with
the Park Development Guidelines and Exhibit 4-3 of the City of Temecula Parks and
Recreation Master Plan. The final decision regarding the specific design and amenities
for each park site shall be determined by the Director of Community Services prior to
the approval of the respective tentative map.
Ballfield lighting shall be provided at the Community Park to allow for night use of the
playing fields. The Director of Community Services shall have the final decision
regarding the necessity for ballfield lighting at each of the proposed Village Parks. The
developer, or his successor, shall provide a disclosure to all properties adjacent to the
Community Park and the Village Parks regarding the use of ballfield lighting.
All proposed public park facilities shall provide for pedestrian circulation and
handicapped accessibility pursuant to the American Disability Act (ADA) Standards.
Pursuant to City standards, all parks designated as a public facility shall be a minimum
of three (3) acres in size.
The installation of all landscape materials and irrigation equipment for the public park
sites, slope areas, parkway landscaping, trails and medians shall be in conformance
with the City of Temecula Landscape Development Plan Guidelines and Specifications.
R:%STAFFRPTUOHNSON.PC2 12129/94 vgw 55
Construction of the public park sites, landscaping, trails and medians proposed for
dedication to the TCSD shall commence pursuant to a pre-job meeting with the
developer and the City Maintenance Superintendent. Failure to comply with the TCSD
review and inspection process may preclude acceptance of these areas into the TCSD
maintenance program.
All park facilities, and/or other recreational areas, intended for transfer to the City "in-
fee" shall be dedicated free and clear of any liens, assessments, or easements that
would preclude the City from using the property for public park and/or recreational
purposes. A policy of title insurance and a soils assessment report shall also be
provided with the dedication of the property.
10.
The developer, or the developer's successors or assignees, shall maintain the park
facilities, landscaping, trails and medians until such time as those responsibilities are
accepted by the TCSD.
11.
All exterior slopes contiguous to public streets that are adjacent to single family
residential development shall be offered for dedication to the TCSD for maintenance
purposes. All interior slopes, open space, perimeter walls, and entry monumentation
shall be maintained by the private property owner or an established Homeowners'
Association (HOA).
12.
Slopes and landscaping adjacent to commercial development shall be maintained by the
property owner, or other approved private maintenance association.
13.
Bike lanes and recreational trails shall be provided on site and designed to intercept
with the City's Park and Recreation Master Plan, the Riverside County Regional Trails
Program, and the proposed Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan.
14.
The developer, or his successors, shall attempt to secure an easement for a multi-
purpose trail and provide the necessary improvements along the MWD right-of-way in
concurrence with the slope and landscape improvements along Butterfield Stage Road.
15.
Class II Bike Lanes shall be provided on all roadways which are 66' or wider and where
determined necessary by the Director of Community Services. Class II Bike Lanes shall
be completed in concurrence with the street improvements. Where adjacent to park
facilities, Class II Bike Lanes shall be constructed to allow for on-street parking.
PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF THE FINAL MAP:
16.
Prior to recordation of each final map, landscape construction drawings for any
respective public park site, slopes and landscaped areas proposed for dedication to the
City shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Services.
17.
Prior to recordation of each final map, the developer or his successors, shall enter into
an agreement and post security to improve any respective public park site, parkway
landscaping, medians, and multi-purpose trails that are proposed for dedication to the
City.
R:\STAFFF~T~IOHNSON.PC2 12/29/94 vgw 56
18.
All park sites, slope areas, parkway landscaping, trails and medians identified as TCSD
maintenance areas shall be offered for dedication to the City on each respective final
map.
19.
Perimeter slopes and parkway landscaping, designated as TCSD landscape
maintenance areas, shall be identified and offered for dedication to the City as a
maintenance easement on the final map. Underlying ownership of the respective
easement areas shall remain with the individual property owner or the Homeowners'
Association.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS:
20.
The public park sites shall be improved and dedicated to the City prior to the issuance
of residential building permits as identified within the Park Phasing section of the
Specific Plan or pursuant to the parkland improvement agreement at recordation of the
respective final map, whichever comes first.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY:
21.
Prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy within each phased map, the
developer or his assignee shall submit, in a format as directed by TCSD staff, the most
current list of Assessor's Parcel Numbers assigned to the final project.
22.
Prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy within each phased map, the
developer or his assignee shall file an application with the TCSD and pay the
appropriate fees for the dedication of arterial and residential lights into the maintenance
program.
I~%STAFFI~F%JOHNSON.PC2 12129/94 vow 57
ATTACHMENT NO. 7
PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP MINUTES
R:~STAFFRPT~JOHNSON.PC2 12129/94 vow 58
PRESENT: 4
ABSENT: 1
JOHNSON RANCH
PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP
MINUTES
JULY 28, 1994
COMMISSIONERS: Ford, Fahey, Hoagland and Blair
COMMISSIONERS: Salyer
Associate Planner, Saied Naaseh, presented the Staff Report.
Jim Fergus gave a brief overview of the project.
Larry Markham, Project Consultant, discussed all the approved and proposed Specific
Plans in the vicinity of the project. He indicated that the nearesl winery is one Section
or one mile away from the site. He also talked about the open space connecting
Skunk Hollow with Lake Skinner and the proposed Domenigoni Reservoir through
Johnson Ranch.
Chairman Ford requested information regarding the land uses abutting the site~ Mr.
Markham explained that Mountain View Specific Plan is approved to the west of the
site with approved vesting tentative tract maps, Roripaugh F~anch Specific Plan i.~
being proposed to the south, preserve area and estate lots ar~, ,'-cared to the north ant
estate lots are to the east.
John Canty, Project Engineer, explained project drainage through the Tucalota and
Santa Gertrudis Creeks and explained the access to the site. Access will be provider:
from Butterfield Stage Road to Washington Street to the north 3nd south, minor rura'.
roads to the east, Murrieta Hot Springs and the extension of i~,jck Road to the west.
Chairman Ford inquired about the acquired right of way for the extension of Murriet&
Hot Springs Road and Buck Road. Mr. Canty replied that the Murrieta Hot Springs
right of way was secured but the extension of Buck Road is I~ot.
Mr. Canty explained the first phase of the project (500 units) wiii be using the existing
water tank on the Mountain view site; however, eventually the project will be self
sufficient with the construction of two water tanks, one on-site to the north and the
other off-site to the east of the site. He also indicated that the water system is
adequate to serve this project and is acceptable to Eastern Municipal Water District
(EMWD). Commissioner Hoagland asked why the site was not being annexed to the
Rancho California Water District's boundary? Mr. Canty replied that it is not required.
Bob Luchens, a nearby resident, asked why was the water :a~k for Mountain Vie~
used when it was not designed for this project and was paid for by Assessment
District 161 funds? Mr. Canty replied that the project will use it only for the first 50(,
units.
Mr. Canty talked about the sewer system and explained that the site drains southeast
to northwest. Commissioner Hoagland asked if the sewer system is adequate and
whether the project is within AD 161 ? Mr. Canty replied that the sewer system for
the project is adequate, is acceptable to EMWD and the project is outside the
boundaries of AD 161. Mr. Canty also stated that EMWD oversized the sewer line on
Murrieta Hot Springs Road through AD 161 funds. The first phase of the project (500
units) will be served by a gravity sewer line which would carry the sewage to a lift
station and it would take it Murrieta Hot Springs Road sewer line; however, future
facilities will be built for the project.
Bob Davis , Project Traffic Engineer, explained the traffic impacts of the project.
Three different analysis were included in the Traffic study, existing plus project
conditions, 2015 forecast and area build-out forecast. The primary access to the site
is provided through Murrieta Hot Springs Road, Nicolas Road, Flutterfield Stage Road,
Washington Street, Promontory Road and Borel Road. The Project will generate
approximately 61,500 trips per day. The 2015 with project conditions were better
than the without project conditions since the project will serve the needs of the
surrounding communities. The cost to provide infrastructure is estimated to be
$45,000,000.00 with the first phase including $7,000,000.(J0.
The Anza Road connection in the General Plan was forecasted '.o produce 4000-700C~
trips per day. These trips were mainly generated by JohnsoP Ranch which was a
smaller project than the currently proposed project. A General Plan Amendment will
be necessary to implement the project.
The phasing of improvements will be by roadway utilization. A two lane improvement
to Murrieta Hot Springs Road will connect the site to the existing Murrieta Hot Springs
Road for the first 500 units without needing a secondary access. Subsequent focused
Traffic Impact Reports will be prepared for projects that generate over 400 peak hour'
trips. These reports will identify the necessary mitigation r~easures.
Commissioner Blair asked if the traffic study supported the elimination of Anza Road.
Mr. Davis indicated that this road was never analyzed in the traffic study, since the
applicant did not propose it as a part of his project. Mr. Davis also added that Anz~
Road has always been on the County General Plan but has n,~.ver had high number,~
assigned to it.
Chairman Ford indicated that the 2000 daily trips generated by the project on Borel
Road seems to be a lot of trips for a two (2) lane dirt road. Mr. Davis indicated that
those trips are generated because the project becomes a magnet to attract trips.
Chairman Ford asked Staff whether the Anza Road conne,:t~on is necessary. Mr.
Casey replied that it is.
John Yeager, Project Attorney, talked about project implementation, land dedication
and financing. Over 400 acres of open space is proposed on the project. Mr. Yeaget
indicated that agencies in need of land are usually cash poor; therefore, Johnson
Ranch will be dedicating an open space corridor to the Riverside County Habita'L
Conservation Agency (RCHCA). This dedication will take place as the project is
granted approvals. Johnson Ranch wants to help preserve this open space and
dedicate it to RCHCA in return for credits towards applicable fees. The value of the
open space is approximately $4,000,000.00.
Financing the infrastructure was discussed by Mr. Yeager. This project is self-
sufficient in its infrastructure and will not depend on other projects to build the
necessary infrastructure. In order for the infrastructure to be built, the project needs
to approved. The Development Agreement will ensure building of the infrastructure.
The money needed to build the infrastructure will come frcP,~ some form of public
financing method provided that the sizing and timing o'i' the infrastructure i~
reasonable. Additional funds may come from reimbursem~ ~t agreements. Th~
issuance of the bonds need to be phased as the improveme~t~ are needed. AD 16'
bonds were issued too soon and the same mistake should not be repeated.
Commissioner Hoagland asked what kind of public financing is :he project proposing;
Mr. Yeager replied that Assessment District is the first choice with Community
Facilities District being the second choice.
Commissioner Hoagland asked how the schools will be built? ~VIr. Yeager replied that
they will be built with a combination of dedication of land an~ payment of fees.
Jim O'Neal, Project Land Planner, talked about the land planning aspects of the
project. Mr. O'Neal demonstrated through a slide show that most of the project area
will not be visible from the surrounding properties, except the southern portion of the
site which lies lower than the surroundings and will be visible from the surrounding
homes. Mr. O'Neal also talked about the park system and their locations which
included eight (8), three (3) acre neighborhood parks; one, four ~4) acre neighborhood
park; three (3), six (6) acre parks and one, fifteen (15) acre p~rk.
Commissioner Blair asked how fire hazards will be mitigated. Mr. Naaseh replied that
the EIR requires a 100 foot wet zone.
P,:'~PLANNING'~OHNSON.lVliN 11115194 Idb 3
Mr. Fergus indicated that the proposed density is needed to make the project feasible,
the Village Center helps to reduce trips and Johnson Ranch is a self sufficien~
community.
Commissioner Hoagland left the meeting at 7:35 PM.
Chairman Ford requested the public to come forward to express their concerns.
Jerry Butkiewicz, 37872 Avonida Armada, expressed concerns about the availability
and design of playing fields for kids and also was concerned about the traffic on the
two lane Borel Road.
David Robinson, 39600 Ave Arizona, expressed the following concerns: the area is
rural now and should remain rural; the drainage of the project into Santa Gertrudis and
Tucalota Creeks and their ability to handle the increased run-t~ff is questionable anj
should be analyzed; the open space land being dedicated is too steep; the 100 foot
wet zone is not adequate; Anza Road connection needs to be ~,xamined and how wil,
the Rancho California and Winchester off ramps be able to handle the extra 61,000
additional daily trips associated with this project?
Cindy Bush, 32775 Bootleg Road, indicated that she agrees wi~h the statements mad~
by the two previous speakers and had additional concerns regarding the Geologic
Hazard Area, the necessity to install a fence around the Santa Gertrudis Creek to
prevent kids from drowning, the inadequacy of the sewer system and where all the
wild life will go. Ms. Bush concluded that French Valley residents do not want this
project, development should not jump into rural areas and development should only
be allowed next to existing development. Ms. Bush also added that the Winchester
1800 Specific Plan was recently denied by the County Planning Commission.
Ann Buford, 38951 Avenida Arriba, indicated that there is too much traffic on Rancho
California Road, this project is taking an otherwise open space area and the rural
atmosphere of the area should be preserved. She also wondered why a lot of people
cannot build their homes because of K-rat and why big develops rs like Johnson Ranch
are being allowed to develop their projects.
John Rockwell, P.O. Box 1018, indicated that Tucalota Creek is not on the Johnsor.
Ranch site and is a larger creek off-site and because of flooding he had no access or
utilities for 60 days. He was also concerned about the children from urbanization who
will vandalize his property and asked whether a wall will be built to protect him. He
also wondered if all the concerns brought up tonight will ma~ L~ any difference wheP
voting on the project.
Commissioner Blair indicated that the revised plan was a better plan; however, her
concerns remain the same about premature development and leapfrogging. She also
indicated concerns about the circulation and wondered wheth~ ,r the project should be
approved now.
Commissioner Fahey indicated that this project is premature .~evelopment.
Chairman Ford indicated that we should listen to the public, add-ess off-site circulatior.
concerns regarding improvements to Borel road and the Anza connection, clarify the
Tucalota Creek status, the adequacy of the fire safety wet zone, the proximity of the
closest Fire Station and the geological concerns.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 8:15 PM.
Chairman Steve Ford
Secretary
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION
MONDAY, APRIL 25, 1994
A regular meeting of the City of Temecula Planning Commission was held on Monday, April
25, 1994, 6:00 P.M. at Vail Elementary School, 29915 Mira Loma Drive, Temecula,
California. Chairman Steve Ford called the meeting to order.
PRESENT: 4
ABSENT: I
COMMISSIONERS: Fahey, Hoagland, Salyer, Ford
COMMISSIONERS: Blair
Also present were Planning Director Gary Thornhill, Assistant City Attorney Mary Jo
Shelton-Dutcher and Recording Secretary Gall Ziglet.
PUBLIC COMMENT
None
COMMISSION BUSINESS
1. Approval of Agenda
It was moved by Commissioner Fahey, seconded by Commissioner Hoagland to
approve the agenda as mailed.
The motion carried as'follows:
AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: I COMMISSIONERS:
2.1 Approval of Minutes from the March 7, 1994 Planning Commission Meeting
It was moved by Commissioner Fahey, seconded by Commissioner Hoagland to
AYES:
NOES:
PCMINO4125/94
approve the minutes of March 7, 1994.
The motion carried as follows:
4 COMMISSIONERS:
0 COMMISSIONERS:
Fahey, Hoagland, Salyer, Ford
None
Blair
Fahey, Hoagland, Salyer, Ford
None
516/94
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
2.2
APRIL 25, 1994
ABSENT: I COMMISSIONERS: Blair
Approval of Minutes from the March 21, 1994 Planning Commission Meeting
It was moved by Commissioner Hoagland, seconded by Commissioner Fahey to
approve the minutes of March 21, 1994.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey, Hoagland, Salyer, Ford
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: I COMMISSIONERS: Blair
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
3. PA93-0180, PA93-0181,PA93-0182, PA93-0183, PA93-O194 AND PA93-0185
Workshop to receive direction from the Planning Commission on the Johnson Ranch
Specific Plan, Annexation, General Plan Amendment, Development Agreement and
the Environmental Impact 'Report.
Commissioners Fahey and Hoagland and Chairman Ford stated they each had met
individually with the developer to be briefed on the proposed project and to look at
the location of the site.
Saied Naaseh presented the staff report.
Commissioner Blair arrived at 6:12 P.M.
Bill Johnson, 255 Reburg, Riverside, owner and president of Johnson Machinery,
provided the history of the property.
Jim Fergus, 1081 Borden Aven~Je, Suite 105, Escondido, provided an overview of
the project.
Jim O'Neil, 4521 Campus Drive, Irvine, discussed the key elements of the proposed
plan.
Chairman Ford opened the public hearing at 6:45 P.M.
Ray Gianton, 33120 Vino Way, Temecula, said he is concerned about the proposed
densities and the impacts the project may have on the environment.
PCMIN04125/94 2 616/94
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
APRIL 25, 1994
Robert Hummel, 32655 Bootlegg Road, Winchester, said he is concerned about the
proposed densities, proximity of the project to the airport, infrastructure and
buffering of five acre parcels.
Gerald Onstoff, 39559 Avenida Arizona, Temecula, said the project offers no
provisions for equestrian trails and no access to Santa Gertrudis Creek.
David Robinson, 39600 Avenida Arizona, Temecula, said he is concerned about the
proposed densities and circulation.
Robert Bush, 32775 Bootleg Road, Temecula, said he is concerned about the
proposed densities, buffering of five (5) acre parcels, improvements to
infrastructure, location of the proposed project and the subsidence zone.
Ken Barnes, 39695 Berenda Road, expressed concern about the impacts the project
may have on the Santa Gertrudis Creek and the wineries.
Cindy Bush, 32775 Bootlegg Road, Temecula, asked what will happen to the wine
country agreement if this project is developed. She said she is concerned about the
lack of schools, impacts the project could have on wildlife and traffic. She said she
is concerned about disturbing the Indian artifacts which have been found on the
property.
Jim Fergus suggested the comments made by the public be reviewed by the
developer with staff and the comments brought back to the Commission at a later
date.
Commissioner Fahey said although she feels what is being proposed is a good plan,
however she cannot envision the proposed plan fitting into the area at this time.
She said she feels the project is premature and she cannot forecast 10 or 20 years
from now. Commissioner Fahey said she does not feel there is adequate buffering
in areas 2C and 4, and areas 5, 16 and 17 should be larger and more buffering
around area 14.
Commissioner Hoagland said he agrees with Commissioner Fahey's comments and
the concerns addressed by the Planner.
Commissioner Blair said she finds it difficult to envision the proposed project at this
time. She said her concerns deal more with the overall issues of the project as
follows: a better way of maintaining the natural configuration of the land (i.e. less
densities and greater buffering); addressing of the air traffic in the area; providing
for equestrian trails; and, consideration for the geological subsidence in the area.
Commissioner Salyer said he feels there are a lot of serious issues involving the
proposed project as follows: densities; lack of buffering with the surrounding
environment; protecting of natural resources. Commissioner Salyer said he would
PCMIN04/25194
516/94
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
APRIL 25. i 994
like to hear a response to every concern expressed by the public from staff and the
applicant. Commissioner Salyer said he supports spreading out the multi-family
dwellings and small parks being maintained by the Homeowner's Association.
Chairman Ford said he feels the following should be addressed: the wine country
agreement; Indian artifacts; equestrian trails; infrastructure requirements both on-
site and off-site. Chairman Ford said he agrees with the remarks made by
Commissioner Fahey regarding area 2C and 4.
It was moved by Commissioner Fahey, seconded by Commissioner Hoagland to
close the public hearing at 7:35 P.M. and continue this item off calendar.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES:
5 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Hoagland, Salyer, Ford
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT
Director Thornhill advised the Commission there may be a change in the Planning
Commission meeting location to the Rancho California Water District Board Room on
Winchester Road.
Principal Engineer Ray Casey'reminded the Commission the meeting for Highway 79 South
was changed to May 11, 1994, 6:00 P.M., at Temecula City Hall Main Conference Room.
ADJOURNMENT
Chairman Steve Ford declared the meeting adjourned at 7:40 P.M. The next regular
meeting of the City of Temeeula Planning Commission will be held on May 2, 1994, 6:00
P.M. at Vail Elementary School, 29915 Mira Loma ~i~hairm~an~,~
Drive, Temecula, ifornia.
Steve Ford
Secretary
PCMIN04125194
4 616194
ATTACHMENT NO. 8
TEMECULA VALLEY VINE COUNTRY LETTER
R:\STAFFRPT~JOHNSON.PC2 12/29/94 vgw 59
TEMECULA VALLEY WINE COUNTRY
Gary Thornhill,
Planning Director,
City of Temecula.
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula Ca, 92590
Dear Mr. Thornhill,
The Temecula Valley Vintners Association has looked at plans for
the Johnson Ranch development.
We very much like to village concept ,and the traffic patterns toward
State highway 79(Winchester Road). We also like the green belt that
is around the high density development.
We are very concerned that Anza may be made into a through road. Our
organization would be against Anza becoming a busy road into Wine Country.
When the Southwest Area Plan was being designed we worked to have BUtter-
field Road not Anza become the busy north-south road. Our group still is
very much against Anza becoming a through road.
We hope that our imput will help as you develop the areas near Temecula
Valley Wine Country,
Thank You, / ] - -i
~/~/~/
Audrey Cilurzo
President,Temecula Valley Vintners Association
P.O. Box 1601 · Temecula, CA 92390