HomeMy WebLinkAbout041795 PC Agenda AGENDA
TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION
Apr~ 17, 1995, 6:00 PM
Rancho California Water District's
Board Room
42135 W'mchester Road
Tmieeula, CA 92390
CALL TO ORDER:
ROLL CAIJ~:
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
arc 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 Speaks form should be
f~led out and ~ed 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 ~ed 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
2. Approval of minutes from the March 20, 1994 Planning Commission meeting.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Environmental Action:
PJanner:
Recommendation:
Planning Application No. 0180, 181, 183, 184, and 185
Johnson Machinery Company
Northeast comer of the future intersection of Butterfield Stage Road and
Murrieta Hot Spr. ings 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.
3aied Naasch
Recommend Approval
Next meetings: ]oint PC/CC on April 19, 1995, 7:00 p.m., Rancho California Water District's Board
Room, 42135 Winchester Road, Temecula, California.
Regular Planning Commission hearing on May 15, 1995, 6:00 p.m., Rancho California
Water District's Board Room, 42135 Winchester Road, Temecula, California.
PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT
PLANNING CO1VIMISSION DISCUSSION
OTHER BUSINESS
ADJOURNMENT
ITEM #2
MINUTES OF A REGULAR
OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
MARCH 20, 1995
A regular meeting of the City of Temecula Planning Commission was called to order on
Monday, March 20, 1995, 6:00 P.M., at the Rancho California Water District's Board Room,
42135 Winchester Road, Temecula, California. Chairman Steve Ford called the meeting to
order.
PRESENT: 5 COMMISSIONERS: WEBSTER, FAHEY, FORD, SLAVEN, BLAIR
ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: NONE
Also present were Planning Director Gary Thornhill, City Attorney Greg Diaz, Joan Price,
Recording Secretary, John Meyer, Senior Planner
COMMISSION BUSINESS
1. ADcroval of Agenda
It was moved by Commissioner Slaven, seconded by Commissioner Fahey to approve
the agenda.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Webster, Fahey, Ford, Slaven, Blair
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
2. Draft Develooment Code
John Meyer, Senior Planner, introduced the Draft Develooment Code to the
Commissioners. He indicated the Public Hearing will need to encompass three
(3) additional meetings. Tonight's meeting will focus on Chapter 9.01 - General
Provisions; Chapter 9.02 - Establishment of Zoning Districts; Chapter 9.03 -
Administration of Zoning; Chapter 9.04 - Permits; Chapter 9.05 - Development
Plan Process.
The commission scheduled the additional meetings for April 3, 1995, May 15,
1995, and June 19, 1995.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Commissioner Ford asked for public comment on matters not on the agenda.
pcmin03120/'95
TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 20, 1995
Art Pelka, 43185 Margarita Road, Temecula, addressed the Commission on Use
Regulation 9.08. Mr. Pelka represented 175 residents who had recommended
11 changes in regards to the Chaparral/Paloma Del Sol developments. They are
concerned because only 6 recommendations had been taken into consideration.
Draft Develooment Code Proposal
John Meyer summadzed Chapters 9.01 - 9.05 for the Commission. Staff
recommends no changes to the Code.
After discussion on several items, language changes, public notice signs,
property use, home occupation certification, time extensions for permits, and
horticultural activities, the Commission requested staff bring the Development
Code Draft Revisions.
PUBLIC INPUT
AI Theurich, 30533 Bridgeview Cr, Temecula, representing 429 residents of a
Home Owners Association stated: they are concerned with the Home
Occupation Certification. They wish the Development Code to contain strong
language limiting customers, employees, and traffic flow coming in and out of
the residences.
Kenneth G. Ray, TemecuSa, said he believes language in the Code should
include mitigation for schools due to the impact new developments will have.
It is irresponsible to encourage un-controlled growth.
Staff responded that section 9.06.05 - Special Use Standards, does not over-
crowd schools and section 9.16.04 Sub G - includes adequate provisions for
utilities and schools.
Larry Markham, 12175 Winchester Road, Temecula, spoke on 9.04 - Permits,
regarding the inconsistencies on Use Permits and the language on timelines. He
suggests the timelines be consistent, across the board, good for 3 years with
3 one-year extensions.
Staff will review and revise these items as needed, and provide them to the
Commission at a later meeting.
Commissioner Ford closed the Public Headng at 8:45 PM.
The following items of concern expressed by the Commission will be revised by
staff in the Development Code: Impact on Public Schools; Notice of Hearings
for Review and Application Timeline; Standard Public Notice Signs; Editing
language and the public items will be brought back for action by the
Commission at a later meeting.
p~nin03120/gS 2
TEMECUI A PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 20. 1995
It was moved by Commissioner Fahey and seconded by Commissioner Slaven to continue this
item.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Webster, Fahey, Ford, Slaven, Blair
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT
None.
NEXT MEETINGS
April 3, 1995, 6:00 P.M., Rancho California Water District's Board Room, 42135
Winchester Road, Temecula, California.
May 15, 1995, 6:00 P.M., Rancho California Water District's Board Room,
42135 Winchester Road, Temecula, California.
June 19, 1995, 6:00 P.M., Rancho California Water District's Board Room,
42135 Winchester Road, Temecula, California.
It was moved by Commissioner Fahey and seconded by Commissioner Slaven to adjourn the
meeting at 9:00 P.M. The motion was unanimously carried.
pc~3~0~5 .3
ITEM #3
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
April 17, 1995
Planning Application No. PA93-O180, 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 (PA93-
0180) for Johnson Ranch Specific Plan, Annexation,
General Plan Amendment, Change of Zone and;
RECOMMEND Adoption of Resolution No. 95-
approving Johnson Ranch Specific Plan (PA93-0184),
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.
BACKGROUND
On March 13, 1995 the Planning Commission held a Public Workshop, took public
testimony and provided direction to the applicant with Commissioners Blair and Fahey
absent. The following is a list of the comments, concerns, and/or questions voiced by the
Metropolitan Water District (MWD), the members of the public, and the applicant.
~.WrA,'~t_m,I~Oi~SON.~eOI ' 1
MetroDolitsn Water District Comments
A permanent sixty (60) foot easement plus a temporary one hundred (100) foot
construction easement is necessary along the existing alignment of Buck Road for
the proposed San Diego Pipe Line No. 6, MWD requests a utility corridor be
identified on the Land Use Ran for this easement.
The Specific Plan needs to delete the reference to a trail along the existing MWD
fee owned property.
MWD would accept a greenbelt and trails along the future easement for Pipe Line
No. 6.
Public Comments
1. What are the impacts on CSA 149?
2. The City should not approve new projects but needs to improve existing roads.
3. Access to Santa Gertrudis needs to be restricted.
4. The proposed trees will not block the views of Johnson Ranch from the south.
:5.
How long will it take to pass through the Butterfield Stage Road and Rancho
California Road intersection?
The EIR does not address down stream erosion and sediment problems and
flooding.
The common design in California is to design the drainage away from the house to
the street and to a creek. On site retention is not often used and if used, it would
improve the water quality.
If detention basins are not spaced appropriately, they will cause flooding. However,
this is not a reason not to use them. It is appropriate to use detention basins on
Tucalota Creek.
The notification process was not efficient and adequate time was not provided for
the members of the public to attend the Workshop.
10.
The release of excess water from Lake Skinner and the additional run off from this
project will have negative impacts down stream.
Most of these questions and comments were responded to in the Workshop; however,
Staff and the applicant will provide additional input at the Planning Commission's direction.
ADDliCant Comments
Ten thousand (10,000)trees at twenty (20) foot on center are being proposed to be
planted as soon as water is available along portions of the southern and eastern
edges of the open space to buffer and screen 'the site from the surrounding
properties.
Four thousand (4,000) square foot lots are only being proposed in Planning Areas 8
and 12.
Possible locations of Pipe Line No. 6 within the Johnson Ranch site were
demonstrated on an exhibit.
The traffic numbers from the project on Butterfield Stage Road are 3,000-7,000 to
the south and 7,000 to the north of the site. On Nicolas Road the traffic counts
increase by 5,000 to 6,000. The Level of Service for Murrieta Hot Springs Rood
and Butterfield Stage Road with the project will be C or better. However, the Level
of Service for Winchester Road continues to be unacceptable. The number of trips
on Anza Road south of A Street with the project is 4,600 of which less than 3,000
are produced by the project. Without Anze Rood these trips would be distributed to
Butterfield Stage Road.
The project will change the Level of Service on a small portion of Winchester Road
from E to F.
Butterfield Stage Road is the most critical road for the project to carry the traffic
and provides the most relief for Winchester Road.
The most critical part of Winchester Road to this project is the segment between
Murrieta Hot Springs Road and Margarita Road which will be built in the next two
(2) years.
The responsibility of this project is to improve Nicolas Road to two lanes with all
weather crossings.
Dam inundation could not be obtained from other sources; however, a study was
conducted which determined no impacts to the project.
10.
The amount of grading proposed is approximately 5.2 million cubic yards which will
be balanced on site.
11.
The library has a standard to provide 0.17 square foot of building space per capita
and the available space is approximately three (3) times as much. Moreover, a
standard has been set for 1.2 volumes per capita and at the present time there are
1.18 books per capita. Each book costs approximately 30 dollars. Each square
foot of library costs approximately $244 to construct. The cost to provide library
services is $11 per capita.
12.
The twenty (20) year total net cash benefit to the City with the annexation of the
proposed project with 5250 dwelling units is $1.9 million. The twenty (20) year
total net cash benefit to the City without the annexation of the site with 1942
dwelling units is $2.9 million.
13.
The cost for retention basins is not substantial. However, the applicant prefers to
use best engineering practices to mitigate the'drainage impacts and is ambivalent
about using retention basins.
14.
The traffic numbers on Buttedield Stage Road at build out of the project is 26,000
trips north of Rancho California Road and 23,000 south of Rancho California Road.
The intersection with signal will operate at a level of C or better and all cars should
clear the intersection in one cycle.
15. There are 75 acres of parks within the project.
Planning Commission Direction
The following were specific directions to the applicant and each item is followed by an
explanation from staff:
1. Direction:
On-site retention and storage capacity of Tucalots Creek needs
to be discussed and included in the design of the project.
Stsff'a Response: Condition Nos. 19 and 25 of the Specific Plan Conditions of
Approval states:
19.
This Specific Plan ;h:~ may include retention facilities
that control runoff of all storms up to 8 one in one
hundred year storm (or as determined by the
Department of Public Works) so that downstream peak
flows will not increase the risk of =torm damage to
downsi~am properties 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 the
particular site must be approved by the Department of
Public Works.
25.
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, end Master
Drainage and Watershed Plan and/or as directed by the
Department of Public Works and RCFC&WCD.
4
m
m
B
Direction:
Staffs Response:
Direction:
Staff's Response:
Direction:
Staffs Response:
Direction:
Staff's Response:
Dire, don:
Staff's Response:
Direction:
Staff's Response:
Mr. Wheeler should be contacted to explain why the numbers
on Tucalota Creek are different.
Staff is not aware of a meeting or 8 discussion between Mr.
Wheeler and the applicant. However, staff did forward draft
conditions to Mr. Wheeler concerning drainage.
Planning Areas 3a, 3b, and 3c should be changed to open
space.
As presented at the Workshop, the applicant has converted
these Planning Areas to open space.
The open space in Planning Area 14a and 14b needs to be
increased to reduce the environmental impacts.
The applicant has made a number of changes to Ranning
Areas 14a and 14b as depicted in the revised Land Use Plan
which was submitted to staff on April 4, 1995 (refer to
Attachment 14). Gnatcatchers have been plotted for Planning
Commission's information refer to Attachment No. 15). This
will help the Planning Commission determine where the most
sensitive habitat areas are located.
The park in Planning Area 14 should be moved up.
As presented at the Workshop, the applicant has moved this
park to the north and has replaced the park with 16 acres of
open space which will be planted with trees.
The trees proposed by the applicant should be of different
varieties that fit the environment.
Condition of Approval No. 38d. has been added to address
maintenance bonds, timing of planting, type, size and location
of trees and method of irrigation. The landscape plans need to
be approved .by, the resource agencies. The Planning
Commission need to provide direction on when the applicant is
responsible to plant these trees.
The buffer on the east should be widened.
The buffer to the east has been increased by three (3) acres
end will be planted by trees.
Direction:
Staff's Response:
Directjon:
Staff's Response:
Smaller lots should be closer to the Village Center and larger
lots to the perimeter of the project. Minimum lot sizes of
7,200 square ~et need to be considered. Average lot sizes
should be discussed.
As presented in the Workshop, the applicant has limited
Planning Areas 8 and 12 that are adjacent to the Village Center
to 4,000 square foot minimum lot sizes. Banning Area 14 has
a minimum lot size of 6,000 square feet and the rest of
Planning Areas have a minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet.
As a general rule, to convert gross density to average lot sizes,
one must account for local circulation streets which are
approximately 25% of the gross area. For example, Ranning
Area 12 is 89 acres and according to this formula
approximately 22 acres will be allocated to streets. Therefore,
the remaining 67 acres are net lot areas for 445 dwelling units.
This results in average lots sizes of 6,500 square feet within
this Planning Area.
Similarly, Planning Area 14 will have an average lot size of
8,200 square feet and the whole Specific Plan will have an
average lot size of 7,150 square assuming 4570 single family:
dwelling units.-
In Staff's opinion, since the Planning Areas are so large, the
Specific Plan should be conditioned to have each tract map
that is submitted comply with the minimum lot size and the
average lot sizes (refer to Condition No. 38e.). The average lot
sizes should be calculated by the applicant for each Planning
Area for the Planning Commiseion's review.
A Condition of Approval has also been added to address the
Planning Commission's desire to have a minimum lot size of
7,200 square feet in Planning Areas 4, 6, 14a, and 14b (refer
to Condition No. 38f.).
The project cost estimates should be provided to support
applicant's position on the desired number of lots for the
project.
This information was provided to Staff on April 12, 1995 and
is included in Attachment No. 13. The project assumes that
no other projects, and existing or future assessment districts
will contribute to building the infrastructure. The numbers ere
for a stand alone project.
10.
11.
Direction:
Staff'a Response:
Direction:
Staff's Response:
A greenbelt/trail for the Pipe Line No, 6 is desired.
Condition of Approval No. 38g. has been added to require the
developer to landscape and provide a trail on this easement,
The maintenance responsibility of this greenbelt needs to be
determined,
Staff needs to demonstrate why Anza Road is desired. There
are environmental issues that need to be considered.
The Department of Public Works is requesting that Anza Road,
south of "A' Street, be included in the Johnson Ranch Specific
Plan Circulation Plan due to the following (refer to Attachment
No. 16):
Anz8 Road is currently part of the adopted City General
Plan and the County of Riverside SWAP, that is
proposed to connect to Rancho California Road to the
south;
The subject portion of Anza Road is entirely within the
project limits of the Johnson Ranch Specific Plan and
should be the responsibility of Johnson Ranch;
The project has been conditioned to provide certain off-
site improvements to various roadways, however no
off-site improvements to Anza Road, to the south, have
been conditioned;
The President of the Vintners Association stated at one
of the Planning Commission Meetings that the local
vintners are opposed to a four (4) lane roadway for
Anza Road, however the Department of Public Works
has conditioned Johnson Ranch for two (2) lanes 9l~-
site with no improvements off-site:
Should the Anza Road condition be deleted, the burden
of providing this facility, including property acquisition,
would then lie with the City's Capital Improvemeht
Program should the City decide to provide this
important local circulation link in the future;
The cost of the Anza Road improvement has been
included in the attached Project "off-site mitigation
balance sheet" and if deleted should be replaced with
equal contribution to some other off-site facility, such
as Winchester Road, in order To mitigate the project's
off-site impacts.
4/13t~ m 7
12. Direction:
Staffs Response:
13. Direction:
14.
Staff's Response:
Direction:
Staff's Response:
15. Direction:
16.
Staff's Response:
Direction:
Staff's Response:
The proper CFS's should be provided for Tucalnts Creek.
The applicant has not submitted new information.
Conditions of Approval should be provided to require
appropriate design of drainage facilities.
Condition No. 21 of the Department of Public Works
Conditions of Approval states:
21.
Drainage and flood control facilities shell be provided in
accordance with the requirements of the City and/or
Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation
District (RCFC&WCD).
A copy of the Park Agreement needs to be provided to the
Planning Commission.
Attachment No. 12 includes an outline of the Agreement for
the Planning Commission's review. A final Agreement will be
prepared for the City Council's approval.
A Condition of Approval should be added to the project to
restrict the access to Santa Gertrudis Creek if it is necessary to
do sc.
Condition of Approval No, 38h. has been added to address this
concern,
More information needs to be provided by staff on the library
services.
Staff has contacted the Riverside City and County Public
Library District (District) and has obtained information that is
included in this discussion. The primary source for the
operation budget of the library system is from a portion of
property tax that is slated for library services only. This
portion is 1.711% of the property tax for every house.
Assuming a ~145,000 median price for Johnson Ranch and a
1 percent property tax, 8 total of $24 would be generated by
each house on an annual basis for library services. Assuming
2.7 people for each dwelling unit, the generated revenues for
Johnson Ranch on a per capita basis will be almost
According to the District the available funds per capita is
approximately $10 annually and the average for the State is
$18-~20,
Additionally, a one time fee of ~100 would be applicable to
each residential unit. A mitigation measure has been
recommended to request more revenues to mitigate the library
impacts which the applicant is protesting. According to the
District, the adbpted service standards include 1.2 volumes per
capita (the Public Library Association recommends 2.0
volumes per capita) and 0.5 square feet of library space per
capita. Moreover, the district county wide provides .24 square
feet (including three new libraries which will be operational
within the next year) and 1.17 volumes per capita county-
wide. The Temecula library provides service for 85,000 people
with 0.18 square foot of library area per capita and 0.88
volumes per capita.
The cost of providing a library is approximately $244 per
square foot. Johnson Ranch, based on 0.5 square foot of
library space per capita, 2.7 people per household and 4850
dwelling units will need approximately 6,500 square feet of
library space with a cost of approximately $1.6 million. The
project will generate ~485,000 from the ~ 100 per residential
unit mitigation fee. Therefore, according to these calculations,
there will be short fall of $1.1 million for Johnson Ranch for
library services.
Library services are a County function. The City has
approximately $275,000 available from library mitigation fees;
however, we do not have any plans on how to spend this
money. The Planning Commission may recommend to City
Council on possible uses for this money to benefit the library.
Planning Commission Questions
What is the topography of the site and which areas are being proposed to be cut or
fill? How many cubic yards of dirt is being moved?
2. When will the exact boundaries of the open space be determined?
If the open space adjacent to Planning Areas 148 and 14b is increased as a result of
further environmental mitigation after the approval of the project, what will happen
to the density and the total number of dwelling units within those Planning Areas?
4. Where are the general locations of the archeological sites?
5. On-site retention and storage capacity of Tucalota Creek needs to be discussed.
6. What are the future improvements to Winchester Road?
7. What roads are critical for the project in order to carry the project traffic?
8. What improvements are proposed for Nicolas Road?
Will this project be impacted from the Dam Inundation from Lake Skinner or the
Domenigoni Reservoir?
The answers to these questions will be provided by staff at the hearing.
FINDINGS
Environmental Imoact Report
Refer to Document G.
Scecific Plan
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.
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.
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.
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.
C::hanae 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 are
approved 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
4n3,,~ ,= 10
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.
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
,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.
The project is compatible with surrounding land uses which are single family
dwellings on estate lots. The Specific Plan provides for estate lots end 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 Ran 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 CirculBtion 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.
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.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
PC Resolution 95- - Blue Page 15
PC Resolution 95- - Blue Page 17
PC Resolution 95- - Blue Page 21
PC Resolution 95- - Blue Page 25
PC Resolution 95- - Blue Page 29
Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 33
Planning Commission Staff Report Dated February 6, 1995 - Blue Page 52
Planning Commission Workshop Agenda Dated March 13, 1995 - Blue Page 53
City's Response to Metropolitan Water District Letter dated January 19, 1995 -
Blue Page 54
Letters from Interested Property Owners - Blue Page 55
News Paper Article on Water Release - Blue Page 56
City Attorney correspondence on Perk Agreement - Blue Page 57
Applicant's Proposed Cost Estimates - Blue Page 58
Applicant's Proposed Land Use Plan, Project Tabulation and Explanation -
Blue Page 59
Environmental Overlay Exhibit o Blue Page 60
Johnson Ranch Road Improvements - Blue Page 61
13
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
PC RESOLU;I'ION NO. 95-
4/D~ ,,, 14
AITACHMENT NO. 1
I~R~OLUTION NO. 95- ..
A RESOLUTION OF TRE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL CERTI~
THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ]H~-PORT (PA93-0180)
ALONG WITH ITS SUBSEQUENT ADDENDUM, ADOPTING
FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMERTS OF OVERRIDING
CONSIDERATION AND APPROVING THE MITIGATION
MONITORING PROGRAM ON PROPERTY LOCATED ON TFIF~
NORTHR&ST CORNER OF THE FUTURE INTERSECTION OF
BUTtERFreD STAGE ROAD AND MURR~TA HOT SPRINGS ROAD
AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 914-210-047, 914-210.051,
914-240-001, 914-240-003, 914-240-004 AND 914-320-003.
Vql:tEI~EAS, Douglas Wood and Associates completed Final Environmental Impact
Report (PA93-0180) under City's direction ~nd in accordance with the provisions of the City
and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines;
~, said EIR application w~s processed in the time and manner prescribed
by State and local law;
WHI~AS, the Planning Commission considered said Final Environmental Impact
Report (FEIR) which includes the Draft l~-m, the Addendure, the Technical Appendices, the
Response to Comments, the Mitigation Monitoring Program, Findings of Fact and Statements
of Overriding Considerations on April 17, 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, adoption of the Findings of Fact
and Statements of Overriding Consideration and recommended approval of the Mitigation
Monitoring Program;
NOW, THEREFORE, ~ CITY OF Tk;MECULA PLANNING COMMISSION
DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOIJ.0WS:
Section 1. ~ That the City of Temecula Planning Commission in
recommending Certification of the proposed FI=IR, w~l~es the following findings, to wit:
A. Refer to Document G of the Staff Report, Findings of Fact and Statement of
Overriding Considerations, which is incorporated herein by this reference.
Section 2. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby
recommends certification of FlaIR (PA93-0180), adoption of the Findings of Fact and
Statements of Ovexfiding Consideration and recommended approval of the Mitigation
4trim ,, 15
Monitoring Program for the Iohnson Ranch Specific Plan, Annexation, General Plan
Amendment, Development Agreement, and Change of Zone on property located on the
northeast comer of the future intersection of Butterfield Stage Road and Murtieta Hot
Springs Road and known as As~ssor's Parcel No. 914-210-047, 914-210-051, 914-240-001,
914-240-003, 914-240-004 and 914-320-003.
Section 3. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 17th day of April, 1995.
ST'EVEN I. FORD
CHAIRMAN
I F/ERERy CERT~Y that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning
Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, head on the 17th day of
April, 1995 by the following vote of the Commission:
· AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
GARY THORNI-IlLL
SECRETARY
4/U~ ,, 16
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
PC RESOLU:TION NO. 95-
4/~ m 17
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
PC ]~E~OLUTION NO.
A I~E~OLUTION OF ~ PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF TEMF, CULA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF JOHNSON
RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN (PIANNING APPLICATION NO. PA93-0184
PROPOSING ZONING, LAND DEVELO~ STANDARDS AND
DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR DEVEJ.,OPMENT OF 4,9~9 SINGLP-
FAMILY DWELLINC,8, 442 ACRES OF OPEN SPACE, 3S ACRES OF
VU.L&GE CENTER INCLUDING 281 MULTI FAMILY UNITS AND
APPROXIMATRLY 220,000 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL AND OFFICE
USES ON 20 ACRF~, 68 ACRF-q OF PARKR AND ~0 ACRF-q OF
SCHOOL FACILrFIE3; PROJECT IS LOCATED ON THF.
NORTI~AST CORNER OF THE FUTURE INTERSECTION OF
BU'I'rERFW-Lr} STAGE ROAD AND 1VIURI!Ik'rrA HOT SPRINGS ROAD
AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 914210-047, 914-210-051,
914-240-001, 914-240-003, 914-240-004 AND 914-320-003.
WHEREAS, Johnson Machinery Co. filed the Johnson Ranch Specific Plan in
a~cordance with the Riverside County Land .Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision
· Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference and applicable State Laws;
WIYI~,EAS, said applications were processed in the time and manner prescribed by
State and local law;
WHRREAS, the Planning Commission considered said applications on April 17, 1995
at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or opposition;
WW,~,EAS, at the conclusion of the Commission heaxing, the Commission
recommended approval of said applications;
NOW, THElIP. PORE, ~ PLANNING COMMISSION OF TFrP. CITY OF
TEMECULA DOES llE~OLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. FjEcliig~ That the Temecula Planning Commission hereby m~ltes 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 m approved by the
City Council and all Conditions of Approval are met.
vx~s = 18
2. The project will result in the construction of General Plan Roads and
other inf',-aslrucP. n~ at no cost to the City.
The project will preserve an environmemally significant open space
5. The project is compatible with surrounding land uses which are single
family dwelllags on eslate lots. The Specific Plan provides for estate lots and open space
adjacent m the sun~unding estate lots which provides for an adequate transition and
buffering.
6. Mitigation measures for the project wffi reduce most of the impacts
from the project to insignificant levels with the exception of Noise, Air Quality, W'~dlife and
Vegetation, Land Use, and Population and Hou~ng. 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 Genezal Plan.
8. Said findings are supt~rted 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, I ~nd Use and Population and Housing. Statements of Overriding
Considerations have been prepared for these impacts. Subsequent to preparation of the
Dh"IR, an Addendure E]R was prepm'ed for the project. This Addendure analyzed the
"revised project" impacts and introduced new rm'tigafion 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 Specific Plan (Planning Application No. PA93-
0184) located on the northeast comer of the future interscion of Butterfield Stage Road and
Murrieta Hot Springs Road, subject to the Conditions of Approval as set forth in Attachment
No. 6, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
Section 4. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOFrED this 17th day of April, 1995.
STEVEN I. FORD
CHAIRMAN
I HERFRy 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 17th
day of April, 1995 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
' NOES:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMIdSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
GARY THORNBIlL
SECRETARY
~es = ' 20
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
PC RESOLUTION NO. 95-
ATrA~ NO. 3
RESOLUTION NO. 9~-_
A Pv-~OLUTION OF TH'E CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING
COMMISSION RECO~ING APPROVAL OF PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. PA93-0181 CHANGING THE ZONING FROM
RURAL RF-~IDENTIAL (R-R) TO SPECIFIC PLAN, FOR PROPERTY
LOCATED ON ~ NORTHEAST CORNER OF THF. FUTURE
INTERSECTION OF BU'ITERFt~,D STAGE ROAD AND MURRIETA
HOT SPRINGS ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.
914.210-047, 914-210-051, 914-240-001, 914-240-003, 914-240-004 AND
914-320-003.
WtlEREAS, Iohnson Machinery Co. ~ed the Johnson Ranch Change of Zone in
accordance with the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, planning and Subdivi~iun
Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference and applicable State Laws;
WIIEREAS, said application was processed in the time and manner prescribed by
State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning CommissiOn considered said application on April 17, 1995
at which time interested persons had an ,,~,portunity to testify either in support or opposition;
WIP~,S, at the conclusion of the Commission heating, the Commission
recommended approval of said application;
NOW, THI~F~FORE, ~ PLANNING COMMISSION OF ~ CITY OF
TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. 'nEiD..ai~ That the Temecula Planning Commission hereby rnaic~s 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 gools, 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, W'l]dlif~ and
Vegetation, Land Use, and Popul.fion and Ho-~ng. Therefore, Statements of Overriding
Considerations have been prepared for these significant impacts.
4. The project is compatible with surrounding land uses which are single
family dwellings on estate lots. The Specific Plan provides for egate lots and open space
adjacent to the surrounding e~tate 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 John:son Ranch Specific Plan due to the fact that the
development standards and Conditions of Approval proposed within the specific plan and the
mitigation m_~ures within the i~-IR ensure orderly development of the site.
6. Adequate ac_eess 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 incoxporated by reference.
B. As conditioned pursuant to Section 3.
Section 2. Environmental Compliance. An ini6al study was completed for the
pwject which indicated that there would be potentially significant impacts assochted 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 I=JR 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 prepaxation 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 Enviwmnental Impact
Report which includes the Draf~ ~.IR, 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. PA93-
0184) located on the northeast comer of the future intersection of Butterfield Singe Road and
Muftieta Hot Springs Road, subject to the Conditions of Approval as set forth in Attachment
No. 6, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this rderence.
4~s~s = 23
Section ~. PASSED, AIPROVED AND ADOPTED this 17th day of April, 1995.
STEVEN I. FORD
CHAIRMAN
I HER~.Ry 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 17th
day of April, 1995 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
GARY THOP, NHIIJ,
SECRETARY
4/xsss ,~ 24
ATTACHMENT N0. 4
PC RESOLUTION NO. 95-
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
PC RESOLUTION NO. 9~-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF JOHNSON
RANCH ANNEXATION (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA93-0183)
PROPOSING ANNEXATION OF 1,761 ACRES VvTriqlN THE SPHERE
OF INFLUENCE OF C1TY OF TEMECULA; PROJECT IS LOCATED
ON ~ NORTI~--~.,ST CORNER OF ~ FUTURE INTERSECTION
OF BI.rrrERF~JJ} STAGE ROAD AND MURRIETA HOT SPRINGS
ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCF-L NO. 914210-047, 914-
210-051, 914-240-001, 914-240-003, 914-240-004 AND 914-320-003.
V~HEREAS, 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;
WlqEREAS, said applications were processed in the time and manner prescribed by
State and local law;
~, the Planning Commission considered said applications on April 17, 1995
at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or opposition;
WI~EREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing, the Commission
recommended approval of said applications;
NOW, THRRRFORE, THE PLANNING COMMIRSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. ~ That the Temecula Planning Commission hereby m~-s 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.
vl3~ = 26
4. The project is coml~t,~le wilh surrounding land uses which are single
family dwellings on estate lots. The Specific Plan provides for estate lots and open sp~we
adjacent to the surrounding estate lots which provides for an adequate transition.
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, Wr~dlife and
Vegetation, Land Use, and Population and Housing. Theadore, Statements of Overriding
Considerations have been prepared for these si~ulficant impacts.
6. The project is consistent with the gosh, policies, and implementation
programs contained in the General Plan.
?. Said findings are supported by the Staff Report analysis, maps,
exhibits, attachments and environmeninl documents associated with this application and
herein incorporated by rderence.
B. As conditioned pursuant to Section 3.
Section 2. Environmental Compliance. An initial study was completed for the
pwject which indicated that there would be potenfiMly significant impacts associated with the
development of the project. Consequen~y, it was determined that an Envi~oamental Impact.
Report would be necessary for the pwject. An EnvironmenUd 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 Q,~lity,
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 Fin~! Environmental Impact Report
which includes the Draft E1R, 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 corner of the future intasection of BuUerfield Stage Road
and Muftieta Hot Springs Road, subject to the Conditions of Approval set forth in
Attachment No. 6, attached hereto and incorporated herein by ~xis reference.
~x~ = 27
Section 4. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 17th day of April, 1995.
STEVEN I. FORD
CHAIRMAN
I BRRERy 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 17th
day of April, 1995 by the following vote of the Commission:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
NOES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
G~Y~OP, NHILL
SECRETaY
4~nss , 28
ATTACHMENT NO. 5
PC RESOLdTION NO. 95-
,t,x~s , 29
ATFACHMENT NO. 5
PC RESOLUTION NO. 95-
A 12E~OLUTION OF ~ PLANNING COMMISSION OF ~ CITY
OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AMl~rDlVtl~rrS
TO THE LAND USE AND CIRCULATION ~T,~IENTS OF ~
GENERAL PLAN (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA93-0185) TO
IMPLEMENT ~ JOIINSON RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN; PROJECT IS
LOCATED ON ~ NORTF~AST CORNI~ OF ~ FUTURE
INTERSECTION OF B~LD STAGE ROAD AND MURRIETA
HOT SPRINGS ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARC!~.L NO.
914-210-047, 914-210-051, 914-240-001, 914-240-003, 914-240-004 AND
914-320-003.
WH1;~EAS, 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;
WRER.FAS, said applications were processed in the time and manner prescribed by
State and local hw;
W!~REAS, the Planning Commission considered said applications on April 17, 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, THE~FJ~ORE, THE PIANNING COMMBSION OF ~ CITY OF
TEMECULA DOES IH?-qOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOTJK)WS:
Section 1. Fj.v. akv~ That the Temecula Planning Commission hereby mates the
following findings:
A. The Planning Commission in recommending appwval 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 leveis with the exception of Noise, Air Quality, WDdlife and
Vegetation, Land Use, and Population and Housing. Tha'efore, Statements of Oyezriding
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 Circuhfion Elements are
approved by the City Council and the Conditions of Approval are complied with.
vnm = 30
3, The projea implem~t~ the goals, policies, and implementation
programs contained in the General Plan vx/,vided the General Plan Amendments to the l ~nd
Use and C'h-culation l~ements are approved by ~e City Council and the Condition~ 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 Wansi~on.
5. Said findings are supported by analysis, maps, exhibits, and
environmental documents associated with this application and herein incorporated by
reference.
B. As condifioned pursuant to Section 3.
Section 2. Bnvironment~l Compliance,, An initial study was completed for the
pwjoct which indicated that there would be potewi~lly significant impacts associated with the
development of the project. Consequently, it was determined that an Environmental Impact
Report would be necessavj 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 ~-~ that reduced these
· impacts to an insignificant level with the exception of the following: Noise, Air Quality,
Wildlife and Vegetation, l ~nd Use and Population and Housing. Statements of Overriding
Considerations have been prepared for these impacts. Subsequent to pretmmfion of the
DF. I1, an Addendure was p~ for the project. This Addendure analyzed the *revised
project' impacts and introduced new mitigation measures as a result of the revision in the
pwject 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 Phnning Commission hereby
recommends approval of the General Plan Amendment requests (Phnning Application No.
PA93-0185) located northeast comer of future intersection of Butterfield Stage Road and
Murrieta Hot Springs Road, subject to the Conditions of Approval and set forth in
Attachment No. 6, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
Section 4. PASSRn, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 17th day of April, 1995.
STEVEN 1. FORD
CHAIRMAN
I ltRRERy CERTIF~ that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the
Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 17th
day of April, 1995 by the following vote of the Commission:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
NOES:
PLANN]NG COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
GARY THORNI4U l,
SECRETARY
4/tsm = 32
ATTACHMENT N0. 6
CONDITIONb OF APPROVAL_
ATTACHMENT NO. 6
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Johnson Ranch Spedtic Ran - Planning Application No. PA93-0184
Project Description: A Specific Plan propoing zoning and development standards
and deign guidelines for development of 4,969 ingle 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 perks and
50 acres of school facilities, an Annexation of 1761 acres to the City of Temecule;
General Plan Amendments to the Land Use and Circulation Bementa; 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 ce~G;y the Final Environmental
Impact Report.
Assessor's Parcel No.:
Approval Date:
914-210-047,914-210-051,914-240-001,914-240-
003, 914-240-004and 914-320-003.
· 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 comcliance 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, 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,
4~z~s , 34
9.
10.
Specific Ran and Environmental Impact Report, which action is brought within the
appropriate statute of limitations pedod and Public Resources Code, Division 13,
Chapter 4 (Section 21 000 et seo., 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 trai~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 Tucalots 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 Ran.
The Specific Ran 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 -1-4 12 foot
parkway with planters on both sides on all roadways with a 78 foot wide right-of-
way or larger.
4n~s . 35
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 espaliera.
All landscaping shall be consistent with the Water Efficient Landscaping Ordinance.
Salt tolerant plant materials shall be considered when reclaimed water is the primary
source of irrigation.
All parkways for streets larger than 78 foot right of way shall be o minimum of
fourteen 1 ~1 foot.
Fence plans shall be submitted along with the tentative tract map applications to
determine the appropriate fencingalbng 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 for exclusive use by the occupants 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 t~ 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
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
including but not limited to Rot Plans, Conditional Use Permits, Tentative Maps, and
grading, building and occupancy permits for this project.
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
pdor 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 1 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 shal'l
demonstrate by submittal of a written report that ell 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 ½" 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 arld 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.
29.
30.
30a.
31.
32.
33.
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 including the Mitigation Monitoring Program and
Design Guidelines, the conditions enumerated herein shall take precedence.
Otherwise, the most restrictive standard within the approved documents shall take
precedent.
The minimum width of Planning Area I along the eastern boundary shall be 400
feet.
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 ..--._-¥ shall receive a full or partial credit for the required K rot fees
required by City's SKR mitigation fee ordinance, Ordinance 663, 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 I 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 or any other person requesting the mitigation fee credits 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. The Plan shall
also include provisions to prevent unauthorized public access to and use of Planning
Area I prior to dedication. 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, unless the appropriate Resource agency approval's required for the
development of the Specific Plan area have not been obtained, in which case
~s~s = 38
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
38a.
38b.
38c.
38d.
38e.
38f.
38g.
Planning Ares I shall be dedicated in phases as set forth in the Open Space
Mitigation Plan.
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 common open space required for the multi-family within the Village
Center shall be 30% of the gross area of the site. This percentage may include
other landscaped areas such as setbacks but shall not include paved areas for
parking and access dives and the building foot pint.
No grading shall be allowed within Planning Area 1, except as allowed in the Open
Space Mitigation Plan for providing trails.
Wood shakes shall not be allowed within this project and this material should be
deleted from Page 5-9 of the Design Guidelines.
The trail within Planning Area I shall be continued along the entire southern edge of
Planning Area 3.
The applicant shall submit a planting plan for the open space area within Planning
Area 1 along southern and eastern property lines which are proposed to be planted
with trees. This plan shall include the provision for maintenance bonds, timing of
planting, type, size and location of trees and method of irrigation. The landscape
plans need to be approved by applicable resource agencies.
For the Planning Commission's review, the applicant shall calculate the average lot
sizes for each Planning Area. Every tentative tract map that is submitted shall
comply with these average Ict sizes and minimum lot sizes.
The average lot size in Planning Areas 4, 6, 14a, and 14b shall be 7,200 square
feet.
For Planning Commission's review, the applicant shall provide a detail for the future
MWD easement for San Diego Pipeline No. 6. This detail needs to provide the
landscaping theme and trails. The applicant shall reach an agreement with MWD to
use this easement for landscaping and trails.
38h. Along with the Open Space Mitigation Plan, the access to Santa Gertrudis shall be
restricted if potential safety hazards are identified.
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, tha
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; ~ that the Developer is not waiving its
right to protest the reasonableness of any traffic impact fee, and the amount
thereof.
./z3;~s . 40
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-RaUQuimby requirements and if the Developer
should fail to do so, the Developer shall, pdor to submittal of any final map for
recordation, enter into an agreement to complete the improvements pursuant to the
Subdivision Map Ant, Sention 66462 and Sention 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-rasistant 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 Direntor 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. Doviatiow3 may be oilowed outside the ourb only (within the
parkway) for Spoolfie Plan Roods through o General Plan Amendment with the
oonourronoo of the Planning Dirootor and the Dirootor of Publie Worko.
"On all street~ larger than the 78 foot right-of-way fourteen (14) foot
parkways shell be prodded within the ultimate dght-of-way if the bikeway
width is reduced from 10 feet to 8 feet or sidewalk width shell be reduced
from 6 feet to 4 feet within a twelve (12} foot perkway.'
10.
All intersection intervals shall comply with City and Caltrans standards and
requirements.
11.
12.
13.
.14.
The Developer shall provide bus bays and shelters within the Specific Ran. 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 Ran 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 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 referred 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 these improvements
shall be determined by 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,
all weather, paved roadway; and
Anza Road along the easterly boundary of the property as a two (2) lane, all
weather, paved roadway.
,~13~s , 42
15.
Prior to Rnal Map recordorion or issuance of any Grading Permit, the Developer shell
bond for or construct the improvements to Muftieta Hot Springs Road and
Butterfield Stage Road in accordance with the Specific Plan requirements,
"Unless the improvements are constructed at the time of recordation of the
first final map or issuance of the first grading permit within the Specific Plan
area, 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 bonding or construction requirements shall be
established pursuant to subsequent required traffic studies and a
development or improvement agreement between the City and Developer
which shall establish the increments and phases of construction of the
improvements."
Due to resource agency reauiraments. the ultimate final desion location of
Murrieta Hot Sorinos Road and/or Butterfield Staoe Road may differ from the
alionment as shown in the Johnson Ranch Soecific Ran.
It is oossible that the final enoineered dan may reauire the alteration of
Dlannino areas set aside for residential dwellinos and even the deletion of lots
from those areas. If such alterations are determined by the Planning Director
to be sionificant. the eDolicant shall oreDare, submit and orocess for aoDrovel
e soecific olan amendment.
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:
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
17.
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
4~u~s , 43
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 Ran, 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.
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.
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.
411.3/9~ m 44
19,
20.
21.
22.
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.
A provision that gives the City the right to review and approve the
C.C.&R.~s.
The right for the City to review end 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 ;h:!! may 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 the ~isk of storm
damage to downstream properties 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 *.hi; the particular site must be approved by the Department
of Public Works.
The proposed open space drainage swales through the site to Tucalota Creek and
Santa Gertrudis Creek drainage systems and detention facilities are critical elements
of the entire specific plan. Their fi.~:! 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 :=oh
preliminary engineering prior to the approval of any further development proposals
within the Johnson Ranch Specific Ran, 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 8 Master Drainage and Watershed Plan, including _- :_-v!::d an updated
Hydrology 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 desiiting facilities.
23.
Drainage facilities within each phase shall ha constructed immediately after the
completion of the site grading and prior to, or Concurrently with, the initial site
development within that phase.
24.
All open channel drainage facilities shall be designed to carry 100 year storm flows,
subject to the approval of the Depafi. E.ent of Public Works and RCFC&WCD, as
applicable.
25.
The Developer shall construct the proposed on-site and off-site drainage facility
improvements and the on-site dstention/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.
26.
As required by the Department of Public Works, additional Hydrology and Hydraulic
Reports shall be submitted with subsequent development applications to study the
drainage impacts and analyze necessary measures to mitigate the runoff created as
part of the development of this project.
27.
The Developer shall accept and properly dispose of all off-site drainage flowing onto
or through the site.
· 28.
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.
29.
The 100 year flood plains for all natural water courses shall be moppod oo 100 yoor
flood ploino shown on an ECS map. The subsequent grading plans shall delineate
the 100-year flood plain adjacent to the grading area.. 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 ir~stalled 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.
,uz3~gs ,, 46
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 Ran
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 Geotachnical
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 guarantaeing the grading and erosion control improvements.
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.
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.
38.
Major grading activities shall be scheduled during the dry season wherever possible,
or as otherwise approved by the Department of Public Works.
~uu~ m 47
39.
Soils stabilization, which may include revegetation of graded areas, shell occur
within 30 days of final grading activities as directed by the Department of Public
Works.
40. The site shall be watered dudng grading operations to control dust.
41. Temporary drainage and sediment control devices shall be installed as directed by
the Department of Public Works.
42.
Where import or export offsite of the Specific Plan is required 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, e Traffic Control Plan, and a daily time
schedule of operations.
43°
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.
44.
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.
45.
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.
45a.
Prior to the approval of any subsequent tentative map, conceptual grading plans
shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works and the applicant shall submit
approval letters from the applicable resource agencies.
Phasing:
46.
Construction of the development permitted by the Specific Plan, including
- recordation of final subdivision maps, may be carried out in stages provided 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 Ran 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.
4~3m ,, 48
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 Tucalots 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 usa 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.
m
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.
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 perk
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 am 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.
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.
4~3~ , 50
Pdor 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 Ran 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.
4z~3~ = 51
ATTACHMENT NO. 7
PLANNING COMMISSION STAF~ REPORT DATED FEBRUARY 6, 1995
4/z3/ss = 52
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
February 6, 1995
Planning Application No. PA93-0180, 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;
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.
BACKGROUND
On January 9, 1995 the Planning Commission took public testimony and continued this item
with a 5-0 vote. In doing so the Commission requested the applicant to answer all questions
that were asked in the hearing. Attachments 7 through 13 include all correspondence that
was either distributed to the Planning Commission at the previous hearing or received by Staff
following the hearing. The Conditions of Approval have been modified to reflect all the
changes recommended by the Memorandum from the Planning Director to the Planning
Commission dated January 9, 1995.
Since the last staff report the applicant has withdrawn his request for a General plan
Amendment for modifying the General Plan cross sections. Moreover, the General Plan
Amendment for deletion of Anza Road as a General Plan Road needs to be explained in more
detail. The applicant is proposing to delete Anza Road as a four lane arterial throughout the
site. Staff support this General Plan Amendment; however Staff is recommending to keep a
two lane connection throughout the site for Anza Road. The applicant is in support of Staff's
position by providing a two lane connection road between Borel Road and "A' Street.
However, the applicant does not wish to extend Anza Road south of 'A" Street to the
southeast corner of the site.
ANALYSIS
Attachment 14 includes a list of questions that the Planning Commission directed the applicant
to answer. These questions were prepared by Staff by listening to the Planning Commission
hearing tape. Each question is followed by an answer that was prepared by the applicant.
In order to distribute the Planning Commission packets on time, Staff has not had a chance
to review these answers for accuracy. Staff will be prepared to provide comments at the
Planning Commission hearing.
RNDINGS
EnvironmentBI Imoact ReDort
Refer to Document G.
Scecific 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.
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.
8. Said findings are supported by analysis, maps, exhibits, and environmental documents
associated with this application and herein incorporated by reference.
ChanQe of Zone
The Project is consistent with the City of Temecula General Plan provided the General
Plan Amendments to the Land Use Ran and the Circulation Element are approved 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.
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.
Said findings are supported by analysis, maps, exhibits, and environmental documents
associated with this application and herein incorporated by reference.
R:~STAI~R/f~OI~SON.PC:~ 2/2/9S kk 4
Attachments:
2.
3.
4.
5.
6,
7.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
PC Resolution - Blue Page 6
PC Resolution - Blue Page 9
PC Resolution - Blue Page 13
PC Resolution - Blue Page 17
PC Resolution - Blue Page 21
Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 25
Memorandum dated January 9, 1995 Distributed by Staff to the Planning Commission
at the Hearing - Blue Page 43
School District Letter dated January 9, 1995 Distributed to the Planning Commission
at the Hearing - Blue Page 44
Metropolitan Water District Letter dated January 19, 1995 Distributed to the Planning
Commission at the Hearing - Blue Page 45
Riverside County Transportation and Land Management Agency Letter dated
January 6, 1995 - Blue Page 46
Memorandum January 9, 1995 Distributed by Staff to the Planning Commission at the
Hearing Responding to the Riverside County Transportation and Land Management
Agency Letter - Blue Page 47
Hewitt and McGuire Letter Distributed by the Applicant dated January 5, 1995
Distributed to the Planning Commission at the Hearing - Blue Page 48
Letters from Interested Property Owners - Blue Page 49
List of Questions and Answers - Blue Page 50
City Attorney's Response to Hewitt and McGuire Letter Dated January 5, 1995
- Blue Page 51
R:~SrAPI~wr~OHN~3H.~*C~ 2F/~9~ lab 5
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
PC RESOLUTION NO. 95-
R:~STAI~RPT~OHNSON.PC3 2/2~ klb 6
ATTACI~MENT NO. 1
RESOLUTION NO. 9~
A R~-qOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COlVlI~H~qSION OF ~ CITY OF
~ RECOMMENDING ~ CITY COUNCIL CERTIFY ~
FINALENVIRONMENTALIMPACT1H~ORT(PAg~0180) ALONGWITH
ITS SUBSEQUENT ADDENDUM, ADOFrlNG FINDINGS OF FACT AND
STATISMENT$ OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATION AND AlPROVING
~ MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM ON PROPERTY
LOCATED ON ~ NORTHEAST CORNER OF THY~ ~
INTERSECTION OF B~I.D STAGE ROAD AND MUI~H~.TA
HOT SPRINGS ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCel. NO. 914-
21047, 914-210-51, 914-2A0-01, 914-~10-03, 914-2A0-04 AND 91,t-320-03.
~, Douglas Wood and Associates completed Final Environmental Impact
Report (PA93-0180) under City's direction and in accordance with the provisions of the City and
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines;
WHEREAS, said kg~g application was processed in the lime and manner prescribed by
State and local law;
Vq~EREA~, the planning Commi.~sion considered said Finnl Environmental Impact
Report (FI~) which includes the Draft FaR, the Addendum, the Technical Appendices, the
Response to Comments, the Mitigation Monitoring Program, Findings of Fact and Statements
of Overriding Considerations on February 6, 1995, at which time interested persons had an
opportunity to testify either in support or opposition;
~, at the conclusion of the Planning Commission heaxing, the planning
Commission recommended Ce~ification of the said l~'~l k~, adoption of the Findings of Fact and
Statements of Overriding Consideration and recommended approval of the Mitigation Monitoring
NOW, TB~EI~ORE, ~ CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION
DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOI.LOWS:
Sectionl. Findin~,s. That the City ofTemecuhPlanning Commi.~sion in recommending
Certification of the proposed FBIR, makes the following findings, to wit:
A. Refer to Docment G of the Staff Report, Findings of Fact and Statement of
Overriding Considerations, which is incorporated herein by this rderence.
S_-~__i_on 2. Conditions. That the City of Temecuh Banning Commi,~sion hereby
recommends certification of I~PAR (PA93-0180), adoption of the Findings of Fact and Statements
of Overriding Consideration end recommended approval of tile Mitigation Monitorin~ Program
for the Johnson Ranch Specific Plan, Pknnexatioll, Gene~ Plan Alnendmellt, Development
R:~TAFFRFFdOI~ISON.K3 2/2/95 k~
7
Agreement, and Change Of Zone on property located on the northeast comer of the future
intersection of ButU~ne~ld Stage Road and Murrieu Hot Springs Road and iraown as Assessor's
Parcel No. 914210-47, 914.210-51,914.240-01,914-240-03, 914-240-04 and 914-320-03.
Section 3. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 6th day of February 6, 1995.
STEVEN I. FORD
CHAIRMAN
I m~i~.ny 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 6th day of
February, 1995 by the following vote of the Commi.~sion:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
GARY THO~ I-
SBCP,~rARY
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
PC RESOLU'I:ION NO. 95-
P.:~TAFFRP'r~OI.D, ISON.PC3 2/2/95 klb 9
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
PC RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF ~ PLANNING COMMI-qSION OF ~ CITY OF
~ RECO~ING APPROVAL OF JOHNSON RANCH
SPECWIC PLAN (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 93-0184 PROPOSING
ZONING, LAND DEVEI OPMENT STANDARDS AND DESIGN
GU]DRI.I'NE, S FOR DEV!~J,O I~VIENT OF 4,969 SINGLE FAMILY
DW'gI-IJNGS, 442 ACRES OF OPEN SPACE, 35 ACRI?-q OF Vn.I.&GE
CENTER INCLUDING 281 MULTI FAMrLY UNITS AND
APPROXIMATELY 220,000 SQUARE FW~-T OF RET.~H- AND OFFICE
USES ON 20 ACRES, 68 ACRES OF PARKS AND 50 ACRES OF SCHOOL
FACHJTIES; PROJECT IS LOCATI~ ON ~ NORT!:W.~.ST CORNER
OF ~ FUTURE INTERSECTION OF BU'I'rERFtFJoD STAGE ROAD
AND MURRw, TA HOT SPRINGS ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S
PARCEL NO. 914210-47, 914-210-51, 914-2~-01, 914-7,40-03, 914-240-04
AND 914-320-03.
Vc'tIRREAS, Johnson Machinery Co. flied the John.~on R~lch Specific Plan in
accordance with the Riverside County Land U.se, 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;
Vf'tII?.REAS, the planning Commition considered said applications on February 6, 1995
at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or opposition;
~-~, at the conclusion of the Commigsion hearing, the Commi.~sion
recommended approval of said applications;
NOW, THRRI~.FORE, ~ PLANNING COMMISSION OF TFtF. CITY OF
TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Findin2s. That the Temecula Planning Commi.~sion hereby makes the
following findings:
A. The Planning Commi-~sion in recommending approval of said application makes
the foliowing findings, to wit:
1. The project is consistent with the City's Genenl Plan provided thc General
Plan amendments to the 1 ~d Use and C'lrc~!ntlon Elements ax~ approved by the City Counc'd
and all Conditions of Approval are met.
R:~TAFFRFr~OI-B~ON.PC3 2/2/95 lib 'J 0
2. The project will result in the construction of General Plan Roads and other
infrastructure at no cost to the City.
The project, as conditioned, will have adequate access, utilities and
4. The project will preserve an environmentally significant open space area.
5. The projea 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 surwunding estate lots which pwvides for an adequate transition and buffering.
6. Mitigation measures for the pwjea 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 0verr~ding
Considerations have been prepared for these significant impacts.
7. The project as condi~oned is consistent with the goals, policies, and
implementation pwgrams contained in the General plan
8. Said findings are supported by analysis, maps, exhibits, and environmental
documents assochted with this application and heroin incorporated by reference.
B. As conditioned pursuant W 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 nnalyzai the significance of all the impacts and
proposed mitigation measures included in the Final PAR that reduced these impacts W an
insignificant level with the exception of the following: Noise, Air Qnality, Wildlife and
Vegetation, Land Use and Population and Housing. Statements of Overriding Considerations
have been prepared for these impacts. Subsequent to preparation of the DmR, an Addendure
~ was prepared for the project. This Addcodum 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 W 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 Mitigatioll
Monitoring Program, Findings of Fact and Statements of Overr~dlng 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 interseaion of Burro'field Stage Road and Murrieta
Hot Springs Road, subject to the COnditions of Approval as set forth in Attachment No. 6,
ached hereto and incorporated herein by this rdenmce.
it:WrAI~RF'r~OlmSON.I~3 2~2~95 Irk 11
Section 4. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOFrED thi.~ 6th day of February, 1995.
S'rt~VEN I. FORD
CHAIRMAN
I H'~ERy CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the planning
Commission of the City of Temecula at a regxdar meeting thereof, held on the 6th day Of
February, 199S by the following vote of the Commi-~sion:
PLANNING CONINIISSION.uRS:
NOES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONP, F,S:
GARY THORNY-In
SECRETARY
R:ISTAI~RPT~OItN~ON.PC3 2./285 Ir. lb 12
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
PC RESOLU~'ION NO.
AI~rACHMENT NO. 3
I~V-qOLUTION NO. 9~-_
A RESOLUI~ON OF ~ t;l'l'x' OF TEMECUIA PLANNING
COMMISSION RECOlVllVn~IDING APPROVAL OF PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. 93-0181 CHANGING ~ ZONING PROM RURAL
RESIDENTIAL (R-R) TO SPECWIC PLAN, FOR PROPERTY LOCATED
ON 'l'lt~ NORTH~:~kST CORNER OF Tin?. FUTURE INTERSECTION OF
B~T ,n STAGE ROAD AND MURRIETA HOT SPRINGS ROAD
AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCRI. NO. 914210-47, 914-210-51, 914-
240-01, 914-240-03, 914-240.-04 AND 914-320-03.
WITERF. AS, Johnson Machinery Co. ~od the Johnnon 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;
WIlERE,a.S, said application was p~ in the time end manner prescribed by Stale
end local law;
~, the Planning Commi.~sion considered said application on February 6, 1995
at which time interested persons had en oppo.rmnity to testify either in support or opposition;
~, at the conclusion of the Commlnsion hearing, the Comminsion
recommended approval of s,lid application;
NOW, Ti~I~EI~ORE, ~ PLANNING COMMISSION OF ~ CITY OF
TI~IECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Seaion 1. FindinEs. That the Temecula planning Commi.~sion hereby makes the
following findings:
A. The planning Commi.~sion 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 end the Circulation Element are approved
by the City Council.
2. The pwject is consistent with the goals, policies, end implementation
programs contained in the General Plan provided the General Plan Amendments to the I -~-d 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, end Population end Housing. Thenffo~, Statements of Orehiding
Considerations have been prepared for these signifnnt impacts.
R:~STAFFRP~IOI-DqSON.PC3 2F~9~ lib '] 4
4. The project is compau_Zble with surmtmding land uses which are single
family dwellings on estate lots. The Specific Plan provides for estate lots and open space
adjacent to the surrounding es~ lots which provides for an adequate tnmsition and buffering.
5. The site of the proposed Change of Zone is suilable to accommodate all
the land uses permitted in the proposed JOhn~Oll 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.
6. Adequate access will be provided to the site as specified in the Specific
Plan and the 1~'~.
7. Said findings are supported by the Staff Report analysis, maps, exhibits,
attachments, and environmental documents associated with thi~ application and herein
incoxpomted by reference.
B. As conditionad 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. Consequen~y, it was deterrained that an Environmental Impact
Report would be necessary for the project. A~ Envil~onmenta] ImpaCt RepO~ (PA93-0180) was
prepared by the applicant's consultant, Douglas Wood and Associates, Inc. and was ~viewed
by City staff. The Environmental Impact Report analyzed the significance of all the impacts and
proposed mitigation measures included in the Finnl 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 p~red for these impacts. Subsequent to preparation of the DI~T~ an Addendure
EIR was pR~-~d for the project. This Addendure nnnlyzed the "l~vised project" impacts and
introduced new mitigation measures as a result of the revision in the project I~nd Use Plan and
in rosponse to public comments during the 45 day public review period. Then'-fore, 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 Commi-~sion hereby
recommends approval of the Johnson Ranch Specific Plan (Planning Application No. 93- 0184)
located on the northeast corner of the future intersection of Butterfield Slage Road and Munieta
Hot Springs Road, subject to the Conditions of Approval as set forth in Attachment No. 6,
attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
R:WrAFFItPT~OHNSON,PC3 2/2~)5 k~ '~ ~
Seaion 4. PASSED, APPROVED AND AI}O~ this 6th day of February, 1995.
-~'rli~E~l I. FORD
CHAIRMAN
I FIlliP, By CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning
Commission of the City of Temecula at a l~gular meeting thereof, held on the 6th day of
February, 1995 by the following vote of the Commission.'
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COM1VIBSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
GARY THORN'Fro
SECRETARY
It:XSTAI~II'V~OItNSON.I~Ca 2/1~95 klb 16
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
PC RESOLU;I'ION NO. 95-
R;~S'r. IJq;RP~.~Oie,ZSON.!,C3 ~ ;db 17
ATTACHIVIENT NO. 4
PC RESOLUTION NO. 95-
A RPSOLUTION OF ~ PLANNING COMMISSION OF ~ CITY OF
TEMECULA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF JOHNSON RANCH
ANNEXATION fPLANNING APPLICATION NO. 93-0183) PROPOSING
ANNEXATION OF 1761 ACRES WITraN ~ SFFIERE OF INFLUENCE
OF CITY OF TEVIECULA; PROJECT IS LOCATED ON ~
NORTB~-~,ST CORNER OF ~ FUTURE INTERSECTION OF
BUTrEILvB~,Ior} STAGE ROAD AND MURRIETA HOT SPRINGS ROAD
AND KNOVIrN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCRI.NO. 914-21047, 914-210-51, 914-
240-01, 914-240-03, 914-240-04 AND 914-320-03.
~, John.~on lVhchinery Co. filed the Johnson Ranch Annexation ~quest in
accordance with the Riverside County T~nd Use, Zoning, planning and Subdivision Ordinances,
which the City ha.~ adopted by reference and applicable State Laws;
WItEREAS, said applications were processed in the rime and manner prescribed by State
and local hw;
WtIEREAS, the Planning Commi~sio~ considered said applications on February 6, 1995
at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or opposition;
WItEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing, the Commi.~sion
recommended approval of said applications;
NOW, Tm~RPORE, Trig PLANNING COMMISSION OF ~ CITY OF
TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Sectinn 1. F__iV. aiBg~. 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 pwvided the General
Plan Amendments to the 12nd Use end Circuh~on Elements are appwved 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 est~¢e lots and open space
adjacent to the surrounding estate lots which provides for an adeqna,~ transition.
R:~TAi~.Fr~OlmSON.PCS 2F2~5 Id~ I 8
5. Mitigation measures for the projea will reduce most of the impacts from
the projea to insignificant levels with the exception of Noise, Air Quality, Wildlife and
Vegetalion, X~nd Use, and Population and Hous~g. Thesefore, Stateme!Its of OVOITjdin~
Considerations have been prepared for these significant impacts.
6. The project is consistent with the goals, poficies, and implementation
programs contained in the General Plnn
7. Said findings are supported by the Staff P, cport analysis, maps, exhibits,
attachments and envinmmental documents associated with this application and herein
incorporated by reference.
B. As condifioned pttw~nnt to Section 3.
Section 2. Environmental Conlpllance. An initial study was completed for the project
which indicated that there would be potentlnlly significant impacts asseclnt~d with the
development of the project. Consequen~y, it was detor~nlned that all Envifonmentnl Impact
Report would be necessary forthe 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 nnnlyzed the sigltiflcance of nil the impacts and
proposed mitigation measures included in the Finnl ~ that reduced these impacts to an
insignificant level with the exception of the following: Noise, Air Q. nllty, Wildlife and
'Vegetation, Land Use and Population and Housing. Statements of Over~dlng Considerations
have been prepared for these impacts. Subsequent to preparation of the Di~I<, an Addendure
was prepared for the project. This Addendum analyzed the "revised project" impacts and
introduced new mitigation measures as a result of the x~ision in the project l~nd 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 Addendum, 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, subject to the Conditions of Approval set forth in Attachment No.
6, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
R:~rAmLrr~O~.K3 2r~j~ u~ 19
Section 4. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOFrED this 6th day of February, 1995.
STEVEN I. FORD
CHAIRMAN
I I:IERY. Ry 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 6th day of
February, 1995 by the following vote of the Commission:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
NOES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
GARY THORNttTIJ~
SP_L"RI/fARY
R:~rAFI~L~T~Om~ON.~C~ 2n~ ~ 20
ATTACHMENT NO. 5
PC RESOLU'i'ION NO. 95-
R:~rAFFaI~OIO4SO~.PC3 2t2~ klb 2 1
ATTACHMENT NO.
PC RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF ~ CITY OF
TEMECULA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AMENDMENTS TO
~ LAND USE AND CIRCULATION RI.RM'~ITS OF ~ GENERAL
PLAN (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 930185) TO IMPI.RMRNT THY.
JOHNSON RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN; PROJECT IS LOCATED ON THE
NORTHEAST CORNER OF ~ FLrrURE INTERSECTION OF
BlrlWERF~J.D STAGE ROAD AND MURRw. TA HOT SPRINGS ROAD
AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEl. NO. 914-21047, 914210-51, 914-
240-01, 914-TAIMB, 914-240-04 AND 914-320-03.
WI~EREAS, Johnson Machinery Co. filed the General Plan Amendment requests in
accordance with the Riverside County I and Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision Ordinances,
which the City has adopted by reference and applicable State Laws;
WHtREAS, said applications were processed in the time and manner prescribed by State
and local law;
~, the planning Commi.~Sion considered said applications on February 6, 1995
at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or opposition;
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commition hearing, the Comminsion
recommended approval of said applications;
NOW, THEREPORE, ~ PLANNING COMMISSION OF ~ CITY OF
TEMECULA DOES RF-~OLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS POTJOWS:
Section 1. Findin2s. 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.
w:~r,un, m,ruom, mo..pca r~m .,,, 22
3. The project implements the goals, policies, and implemevtntlon programs
contained in the General Plan provided the General Plan Amendments to the 1 ~nd Use and
Circulation Elements are approved by the City Council and the Conditions of Appwval are
complied with.
4. The project is compatible with surrounding lnnd uses which ale single
fnmily dwellings on estate lots. The Specific Plan provides for estate- lots and open space
adjacent to the surrounding estnte- lots which plx)vides for an adequate transition.
5. Said findings are supported by analysis, mnps, exhibits, and environmental
documents associated with this application and herein incorporated by reference.
B. As condifioned 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 assochted with the
development of the pwject. Consequen~y, it was determined that an Environmental Impact
Report would be necessary forthe project. An Environmental Impact Pepon (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 thnt reduced these impacts to an
insignificant level with the exception of the, following: Noise, Air Q,nllty, 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
l~l~, the Addendure, the Technical Appendices, the Re4ponse to Comments, the Mitigation
Monitoring Program, Findings of Fact and Statements of Overriding Considerations.
Section 3. Conditions. That the City of Temecula plnnning Commis~sinn hereby
recommends approval of the General Plan Amendment requests CPhnnlng Application No. 93-
0185) located northeast comer of future intersection of Butterfield Stage Road and Murrleta Hot
Springs Road, subject to the Conditions of Approval and set forth in Attachment No. 6, attached
hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
~:wr~yr~om~soN.~cs ~ ~ 23
Section 4. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED thig 6th day of February, 1995.
S-i'~VEI'q' I. FOP, D
I lq~RERy 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 6th day of
February, 1995 by the following vote of the Commission:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
NOES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
~G COMMISSIONERS:
GARY THORNI-In' ,1,
SECRETARY
R:~Sr~OmqSON.~,'C3 ~r~95 ~m 24
ATTACHMENT NO. 6
CONDITION~ OF APPROVAL_
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 end office uses, 68 acres of perks
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 Temeculs and to certify the
Final Environmental Impact Report.
Assessor's Parcel No.:
Approval Date:
914-21047, 91 4-210-51,91 4-240-01,91 4-240-03,
91 4-240-04 and 914-320-03.
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Within Forty-Eight (48) Hours of the Approval of this Project
1. The applicant/developer shall deliver to the Planning Department a cashier's check or
money order made payable to the County Clerk in the amount of Nine Hundred Twenty-
Eight Dollars ($928.00) which includes the Eight Hundred and Fifty Dollar (~850.00)
fee, in compliance with AB 3158, required by Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(d)(3)
plus the Seventy-Eight Dollars (e78.00) 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,
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-
a:~r~a~r~om~so~.~.cs ~5 ~ 26
9.
10.
including Annexation, General Ran Amendment, Change of Zone, Specific Plan and
Environmental Impact Report, which action is brought within the appropriate statute
of limitations period and Public Resources Code, Division 13, Chapter 4 (Section 21000
st seo., 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 Ci~.y 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 -1-4 12 foot
parkway with planters on both sides on all roadways with a 78 foot wide right-of-way
or larger.
2:~STAFFR~I~OI~SON.~C3 2DJgS I~ 27
11.
12,
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
The visual impact of theme wells 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 stroots largor than 78 foot right of way shall bc a minimum of
fourroan 14 foot.
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 for exclusive use by the occupants 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:~TAI~FilFI~OI~I$ON,!~2~ 2j2jg~ k~ 28
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 Sen Diego Pipe Une No. 6. This agreement shall be secured
prior to approval of any implementing applications/permits including grading permits.
No construction shall take place within PlanningArea 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 1 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 implementthe 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.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
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 end 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 ..m-%- shah receive a full or partial credit for the roquirod K rot fees
required by City's SKR mitigation fee ordinance, Ordinance 663, in exchange for
dedication of the open space area to an acceptable resource agency such as Riverside
County Habitat Conservation Agency (RCHCA)o 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 or any other person
requesting the mitigation fee credits 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.
37. All setback areas within the Village Center shall be landscaped.
R:~'TAFFIIFI~IOI~',ISON.]~C3 2/2~5 [rJb ~0
38.
The minimum common open space required for the multi-family within the Village
Center shall be 30% of the gross area of the site. Thia percentage may include other
landscaped areas such as setbacks but shall not include paved areas for parking and
access ddves and The building foot pdnt.
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; orovided that the Developer is not
waiving its right to protest the reasonableness of any traffic impact fee, and the
amount thereof.
R:~STAF~Pr~OHNSON.~C3 2r2~5 kb 3 1
The Developer shall make a good faith effort to acquire any offsite property interests
necessary for the provision of improvements associated with this Specific Ran 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
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. Doviatiorv3 may be oilowed outside the curb only (within the parkway) for
Specific Plan Roods through a General Plan Amendment with the concurrence of the
Planning Director and the Director of Public Works.
"On all streets larger than the 78 foot right-of-way fourteen (14) foot parkways
shall be provided within the ultimate right-of-way if the bikeway width is
reduced from 10 feet to 8 feet or sidewalk width shell be reduced from 6 feet
to 4 feet within a twelve (12) foot parkway."
10. All intersection intervals shall comply with City and Caltrans standards and
requirements.
R:~rAn~J, rgo~soN.~c3 ms ~b 32
11.
12.
13.
14.
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
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 referred 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.
~:~r~.~m~o~soN.K~ zrms ub 33
15.
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 orooo oootion oholl
bo in oooordonoo with tho Typiool Roadway C, rooe Sootion of City'o Gonoral Ben
olo~3ifioation for on Urban Artoriol Highway four (~1) Iono width right of way.
"Unless the improvements are constructed at the lime of recordallan of the first
final map or issuance of the first grading permit within the Specific Plan area,
the Developer shall bend for or conaif~ct the improvements to MurrieTa Hot
Springs Road and Butterfield Stage Road in accordance with the Specific Plan
requirements. The bending or construction requirements shall be established
pursuant to subsequent required Traffic studies and a development or
improvement agreement between the City and Developer which shall establish
the increments and phases of con~i~uclion of the improvements."
16.
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:
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
17.
Barel 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 Barel 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.
R:'~TAF~R. FI~OI~tSON.PC3 2/2/95 k/b 34
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.'
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.
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.
Access rights for the City for inspection purposes.
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.
R:~TAJrFRPT~JOI~ON.PC3 2/2~)5 lrJb 35
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
This Specific Plan :h;~ may include retention facilities that control runoff of 811 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 the risk of storm damage to
downstream propertie~ due to this development. Prior to approval of any subdivision,
development plan or grading permit for the Johnson Ranch Specific Plan, 8 watershed
wide retention policy must be in place and an engineered plan for its implementation
on th~; the particular site must be approved by the Department of Public Works.
The proposed open space drainage swales through the site to Tucalota Creek and
Santa Gertrudis Creek drainage systems and detention facilities are critical elements
of the entire specific plan. Their f!.-..-! 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 ;'Jch f~.~:~ preliminary
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; rc':i;=~ an updated
Hydrology 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 open channel 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 subsequent development applications to study the
drainage impacts and analyze necessary measures to mitigate the runoff created as
part of the development of this project.
2/2/95 klb 36
27.
The Developer shall accept and properly dispose of all off-site drainage flowing onto
or through the site.
28.
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.
29.
The 100 year flood plains for all natural water courses shall be moppod as 100 yoar
flood plains shown on an ECS map. The subsequent grading plans shall delineate the
100-year flood plain adjacent to the grading area,. A Rood 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
conformonce with applicable City Standards and subject to approval by the Department
of Public Works, The Developer shall post security and enter into an agreement
9uaranteeing the grading and erosion control improvements,
R:~s'rAF~j,r~omqsoN.~,cs 2r~B ~ 37
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.
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.
38. Major grading activities shall be scheduled during the dry season wherever possible,
or as otherwise approved by the Department of Public Works.
39. 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.
40. The site shall be watered during grading operations to control dust.
41. Temporary drainage and sediment control devices shall be installed as directed by the
Department of Public Works.
42. Where import or export offsite of the Specific Plan is required 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.
43. 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.
44. 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.
R:W~'AFF~,R~OHNSON,PC3 2r~95 lr~ 38
45.
If subsequent Geotechnical and Soils Reports determine that dewatering of the site is
necessary during construction, necessary permits (is. in compliance with NPDES
permit) shall be obtained from appropriate agencies prior to approval of the grading
plans.
Phasing:
46.
Construction of the development permitted by the Specific Plan, including recordation
of final subdivision maps, may be carried out in stages provided 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.
R=~F~"rUO~eO..K~ ~rm5 k~ 39
TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT
Based upon the proposed development of 5,250 residential units, the park land
dedication requirement (Quimby) forthe Johnson Ranch Specific Ran 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.
e
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.
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.
R:~$TA_I;'FRPT~OI'~ISON.PC3 2/2/95 kib 40
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.
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.
R:X~TAFFRPT~OI~NSON.PC3 7./2~5 klb 41
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.
~:~T~R~r~Om~SON.~C3 2~S k~ 42
A'I'I'ACHMENT NO. 7
MEMORANDUM DATED JANUARY 9, 1995
DISTRIBUTED BY STAFF TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AT THE HEARING
~:'.S'r,~Fer~O,~SOZ~.K~ m~ U, 43
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Planning Commission
Gary Thornhill, Planning Director
January 9, 1995
Revised Conditions of Approval for Johnson Ranch Specific Plan
The following revised Conditions of Approval are being recommended by Staff:
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
10.
Sidewalks shall not be placed next to curb and shall be placed within the -14 12
foot parkway with planters on b~th sides on all roadways with a 78 foot wide
right-of-way or larger.
13.
All parkways for strocts Iorgcr than 78 foot right of ~%~y shall bc a minimum of
fourtccn 14 fcct.
15.
32.
Private Open Space for exclusive use by the occupants equal to minimum of
150 square feet shall be required for each multi-family dwelling unit.
The developer racy shall receive a full or partial credit for the rcquircd K rat fees
required by City's SKR mitigation fee ordinance, Ordinance 663, 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 or any other person requesting the mitigation
fee credits 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
R:~IAASEHSUOHNSONG.COA 1/9/95
project.
38.
The minimum common open space required for the multi-family within the
Village Center shall be 30% of the gross area of the site. This percentage may
include other landscaped areas such as setbacks but shall not include paved
areas for parking and access drives end the building foot print.
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
CIRCULATION:
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. Dcvintions rnoy bo oilowed outsidc thc curb only
(within the parkway) for Spooific Plan Roods through a Ccncral Plan
Amcndmcnt with thc concurrcnoc of thc Planning Director and thc Dircctor of
Publio Works.
"On all streets larger than the 78 foot right-of-way fourteen (14) foot
parkways shall be provided within the ultimate right-of-way if the
bikeway width is reduced from 10 feet to 8 feet or sidewalk width shall
be reduced from 6 feet to .4 feet within a twelve (12) foot parkway."
15.
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. Thc
cross scction ~hall bc in occordancc with thc Typical Roodsray Cro3c Scction
of City'3 Gsncrol Plan classification for an Urban Arterial Hi§hway four (4) lanc
width right of way.
"Unless the improvements are constructed at the time of recordation of
the first final map or issuance of the first grading permit within the
Specific Plan area, 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 bonding or
construction requirements shall be established pursuant to subsequent
required traffic studies and a development or improvement agreement
between the City and Developer which shall establish the increments and
phases of construction of the improvements."
DRAINAGE:
19.
This Specific Plan shs~ may 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
the risk of storm damage to downstream properties due to this development.
Prior to approval of any subdivision, development plan or grading permit for the
R:~NAASEHSUOHNSONC.COA 1/9/95 an
Johnson Ranch Sl~ecific Plan, a watershed wide retention policy must be in
place and an engineered plan for its implementation on thi; the particular site
must be approved by the Department of Public Works.
20.
The proposed open space drainage swales through the site to Tucalota Creek
and Santa Gertrudis Creek drainage systems and detention facilities are critical
elements of the entire specific plan. Their fi.~ 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 finol preliminary 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.
22.
Prior to approval of any subsequant development applications, the Developer
shall submit a Master Drainage and Watershed Plan, including; r;~'i:;d an
updated Hydrology 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.
24.
All open channel drainage facilities shall be designed to carry 1 O0 year storm
flows, subject to the approval of the Department of Public Works and
RCFC&WCD, as applicable.
29.
The 100 year flood plains for all natural water courses shall be n~ppcd oc 100
ycor flood pl-~ins shown on an ECS map. The subsequent grading plans shall
delineate the 100-year flood plain adjacent to the grading area.. A Flood Plain
Development Permit shall be required for any encroachment into the mapped
floodway.
GRADING:
42.
Where import or export offsite of the Specific Plan is required 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.
R:~IAASEHSUOHNSONC.COA 3/9/95
ATTACHMENT NO. 8
SCHOOL DISTRICT L,- ~ I ER DATED JANUARY 9, 1995
DISTRIBUTED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AT THE HEARING
~Vednesday February 1, 1~ &:)Blm -- Fral '909 6~5 7335, -- Pep 2J
TVUS~ FACILITIES lb: 90g-695-7~5
FED 01'95
AllCII1XATlaW
17::~1 No.002 P-02
T.V.U..';.D.
.,AN ]. I~ 1995
~ -- mMI I?11
BAXOIelR,X~
4:3174 Sudmas ]~k Drive
Tie PmJea Fopam 5,120 dwellinS units ("DU'), inctudb~ 4~M ~ tamy ov
,^d 31S aald-hm~y DTL The Distzia has calcubzed the im;gt from new zcsideadal
f2qm~M/d~lm Pkn m ccrdSed b), de Count/of~verdde oaluae 21, 19~4, uSafief
pm. ir~ K-12 ~ ~ i= ev~ ~ family DO is $9,~3 ~! ~,~3~ f~ e~
Distzict'ssdtoaifbclldasm TbeDimlctismm. e~tly~ mlawy~mo]h;i]lt~
fees ("Feel'), Firsuet to Governhint ~ Secdoa ~3060, ia d~e atomrot of $1,T2 F
,mld.t,-,ny DU of L000 q, sre tee. tl; l:)Istd~ will coDm S3.096 !x~ simile family DU
md $1,720 per nmili-hmDy wib the Pmjm b' · toud ot$1~.820.560. it m be ciady
sea tbaz de Fees m'll ,et provide e~e Ol,vict with the e,,ds mqdmt ~ kle~y house
aeeds d $3S,T'JS,Ig0.
February 1, 1~95/,:3aFro -- Froa ,909 695 7335, -- page 3J
TVUSD FRCILITIES 1D:909-695-7335 FEB 01'95 17:~2 No.O02 P.O3
As dL~muand drove, ~ l'X) f~ed. Accmdinlly, since Novemh,,xr nf I~1,
llsCizylmbsmmluirsdbyliztmnsofltsownGenmlPlantoadoptasdmoln~tipfion
ptie?z~miJllrl~tlmt ofllloComl~. AlofOIiada~, IlsCsty lm not adoiXzxl azh apol~.
lZmam~, it is out gplnizm tMz lmad on llg langualS in ltm City's Geneml Plan, liesob
}wednesday February, 1, 1995 4:__~ -* F~ '~ ~ ~5' -- Pa~ &i
TVUSD FACILITIES ID:909-695-7335 FEB 01'95 17:~2 No.O02 P,04
Bowmm, Amz4mxq, Km, Wmta&.(h&gam, m
AMmmvm! nf'dm,Zobnsm beck SiNmitre Ram is comimgemst upon mini shall mbeconm
ndfilmSmmmlrmvddmOmTmVmll~UnibdkhollY~mmnnuedm
C,~ek-~ (Addeslum m~eD~Bl~p. 43).
),Tim. ll~m,t rand Murdm- Decisions Are dlt C~lrfent ~ my/Rennrdial School FMilSdef
lXm, (m. gSS) 2.~ Cd. lqwr. S2S. Wglitm s. e~ union Hip sc.oom
Pi*.mtef L"~smh.dml .,~ d~ t'm,.m~ ~f Z ~ AnSdg (19~1) Z77 Cml. septr. 645. and M~mets
v. qq, .,Ip.b,a .School Dbtfict v C:emmq~ of Rh, emsi~. (~9gl) FIg Cat. eptr. 421
(~y mbmm "Mlm l:hz:bJau"). k mddidoo. bad oe the Mut~,u decimjm~,
mequb~ to amsider dmmdeqn~ of :cbooi fmoOi~em mdm, mbe~.,~nh~bd
QummyAct('CgQA~. T!dmmmb~auv~-*,'~emof~memsmiadr. mimmm~
It cmmt be eksdy mere tim tim Project viii Imv~ · silni~t impact mm ~ I)~'s
mchoolfm~ l'mmmmmCSQA. m~SnirmmntimPmmnmstbemitilmdt°atevdef
insit~etnre lnior to mppamvml ofm pnmJecz bY me C~ty. as Umhmh oftho !dlrm!~,
t~m.t"*Jty imm mim mmmmimmi~ mmM~im mmmme dmn dme stsmu). mchmi fee from mmw iegi~ve
~Wednesday February 1, 19~ 6:35pm -- Fr~ '909 695 7335' -- Page 5i
TVUSD FACILITIES ID:909-695-7555 FEB 01'95 17:35 No.O02 P.OS
The Dis~tct wcmld b¢ l~ued to .toovide ~he City wi~h a~y ~dd~fi~nd ~afDraW, iQn il
may~/uir~
ATTACHMENT NO. 9
METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRIC~ Lbl ~ ER DATED JANUARY 19, 1995
DISTRIBUTED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AT THE HEARING
R:,.s'r.4jr~j,r~om~soN.~c~ 2r~gs adb 45
MWD
METROPOLITAN WATER D/STRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
January 19,
Offme of General Counsel
1995
""'20' U
CITY OF TD.1ECIJbe.
Mr. Saied Naaseh
Planning Department
City of Temecula
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, California 92590
Dear Mr. Naaseh:
Johnson Ranch SPecific Plan
The purpose of this letter is to inform you that The
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California's
(Metropolitan) negotiations with Johnson Machinery concerning
the Johnson Ranch Specific Plan are ongoing. Enclosed herewith
is a copy of Metropolitan's December 19, 1994 letter to the
City of Temecula Planning Director which details the background
for those negotiations.
Pipeline No. 6
cc: James K. Fergus
METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
December 19, 1994
Mr. Gary Thornhill
Planning Director
City of Temecula
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, California 92590
Dear Mr. Thornhill:
Johnson Ranch SPecific Plan Environmental ImPact Report
The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
(Metropolitan) is in the design stage for its San Diego Pipeline
No. 6 Project, which crosses the Johnson Ranch property from the
adjacent Lake Skinner property.to Anza Road. The Final EIR for
· the san Diego Pipeline No. 6 P~oject was certified in June of
1993, with a preferred alignment along Buck Road, then planned as
part of the County Transportation Plan. On October 13, 1994,
after our request to representatives of Johnson Ranch,
Metropolitan received a copy of the Draft Environmental Impact
Report (DEIR) for the Proposed Johnson Ranch Specific Plan
(Planning Application 93-0180) from Douglas Wood and Associates.
Upon reviewing this draft document after the public review period
had closed in late August of 1994, we noted that the existing
Buck Road alignment is not part of the proposed Johnson Ranch
Specific Plan.
We have subsequently met with representatives from the
Johnson Ranch property and are working with them on the alignment
of the San Diego Pipeline No. 6 through the property. Johnson
Ranch owners need to ensure that Metropolitan's existing easement
and fee corridor containing its San Diego Pipeline Nos. 3, 4, and
5 will not be affected by the proposed specific plan. Attached to
this letter for your use is a copy of the "Guidelines for
Developments in the Area of Facilities, Fee Properties, and/or
Easements of The Metropolitan Water District of Southern
California". Metropolitan has contacted a member of your staff,
Saied Naaseh, to facilitate coordination between your agency,
Johnson Ranch representatives, and Metropolitan. We look .forward
to receiving copies of the comment letters to the DEIR, the Final
EIR, and the proposed mitigation monitoring program from your
agency.
METROPOLITAN WATER O~TRICT OF SO~'HERN CALIFORNIA
Mr. Gary Thornhill -2-
December 19, 1994
We will continue coordinating our planning efforts with
those associated with the Johnson Ranch Specific Plan
development. In so doing, Metropolitan and Johnson Machinery
Company will be able to reach their respective objectives
concerning the San Diego Pipeline No. 6 Project and the Johnson
Ranch Specific Plan..
In the meantime, we request the City of Temecula and
the proponents of the project to direct all further inquiries on
this matter to B. Anatole Falagan, Metropolitan's San Diego
Pipeline No. 6 Project Manager, at (213) 217-6830.
rian .' Thomas
B G
Assistant Chief of
Planning and Resources
DwS:hah
Attachment
CC:
William Johnson, Jr.
James rergus
Hugh Hewitt
Saied Naaseh
ATTACHMENT NO. 10
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AND LAND
MANAGEMENT AGENCY Le: ~ ~ ,-R DATED JANUARY 6, 1995
OU FY OF RIVEI E
TRANSPORTAHON AND
LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY
.Timus_-,1' 6, '1995
3ohnson Banch Bnvirunmencal Zmpac~ aepor~ Response
co Etvetside C~nCy C~ncs
The R~vetslde County T:ansportation Deparument has reviewed f-h_~
response to otto cc~menEs prepared by D~uglas vexed. & Associates.
The Department still has ~utstanding issues ~hat either were nut
adequately addressed In ~aw :esponss or need to he clazified. &ll
referenced TransporTation ;om~en=s in T/is lecte: reZer to 'the
Del~rtmen~'s August 29t 1994 lec~er (attached) to the City
regardLng the BIR prepared for ~he Johnson Ranch project,
The response ~o cant 3 regarding off-site $nfrastructure
m ~m '~ c Zot z~ ~se
~de s~ees.
~ec~l~ties o~ ~ co~ct~ '~ o~e~' for what~r ~on,
b~ ~e applicut will ~ ~l~nl~le tQr ~ .t~m~ in
o~r to have ~cess, S~, t~ ~ ~ e;l~tion as to
h~ ~s p~Jec~ is ~in~ ~ pay ~e 'f~r s~" ~or off-site
imptcvesmnts when At Is not withIn the ts~unds~ies of a funding
dis~rict. Fur=hermcre, only ldontiZie~facilities vl~h/n the
½
'disTrAct' are eligible for fair ~ mre.
To reslx~haC the delinitlcn of off-slteroadwayimprova~ents
is beIng 2oreminced is nut addressIng the issue.
The response to l~es 5 .regardln~ the Traffic X~tigatlon
~nitorIng Program r~s~ ~a~f~c ~ls Us not ~s~
=~ ~e issue ~ha~ 480 ~ ~ =ri~ a~ si~lfic~=f ~w~ce
W~t iS ~ for ~ nlysis. For co~s~ncy ~sos
(w~ ~), the f~ussd mlys~ sho~d
ho~ ~l~. t~ ~n= ~rs~d tMt this progr~ did no~
~plsce ~ ~n~. The ~affic ~lysLI
s~s ~d ~, ~t 400 ~11~ ~ts as ~cat~
~e.
The response to item 6 regarding the widening of ~urrieta Mot
Springs to six lanes is not entirely accurate. The I~IR on
pa~e IV-SE, rather than the C~ Tr~Zflc Xnal:ys~s, states that
murrieta Hot Springs Road will ultimately be widened to six
l~nes. The Airport Community Traffic Study recommended ~
six lane segments to Murrieua Mot SprinVs Road at the following
loc~t~ou:
From 1-15 east within the boundaries of the City of Murrieta
The intersection o~ Winchester Road
The rest of the facility within the County remained an Az?.er~al
Highway designation. We have included a map of the ACTS
circu/ation recom~endations for ~our files.
Thank you for the opportunity to ceviev end commen~. If you have
any questions regarding this letter, please contact Ruthanne Taylor
~erger, Senior Transpor~ation Planner, at 275-20~6.
Sincerely,
Edwin D. Studor
Transporterich Planning Manager
RTBtmw
Attachments
cc~ Frank Sherkow
Dave Barnhar~
Laurie Dobson
TRANSPORTATION AND.
LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY
Transportation Department ~,~ e. ~..-~,,.
Dirertot o.F Trar, q3o~arlon
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION
AugUSt 29, 1994
Saied Naaseh
City of Temecula
Plannlng Department 43174 Business; ~ark Drive
Temecula, CA 92590 ..~"" ^ ....:.-""~"'"'
.. ,:. :. ~j~ 7'~.:,...
Re-' Draft Envircnmentel Impact:.Reoor~_ (DRTR)"'.-: ..
for t e Johnson Ran~h.s~ecifi~
.h .... . '- '~s.' .. 'C,
Dear ,r.
The-County of R~Ve~ide
1. The proposed' pzbJect is'/oc~ed]~i~hin.,=he Cit~~ gf~ femecula's ~''
'~sphere of ~nEluence~' We. are~':c6fice~ed'-With 'pote~a! traffic
impacts t6 roa~s remaihin~'~.Unde~ County :'JuriSdiction andS,
':::~= roadways idenrl=led in.. =he~CirculatlOn sec=io~of-: the P~lic
/' Fecilltles ~..a~d 'i Se~ices j'=~emeht of the ./~ve~ide Co~n~y~
~=~ Comprehens i~e :-.. G&neral~': ~i'An. /f These zoaaw~y'~ ~--.par=icula=l~
B~tterfield s~ag&-:'ia~'~7'iza~:/iti6 into Washington
Street, designdUd8 as' ]an=~X~iiA1 'HighWay ( 110' R/W);
- Murrie=a Ho~ Springs Road, designated as a Secondl~ Highwa~
(88' R/W) between the southwesterly p~jeut bo~da~ and
Buck Road;
- Boren Ro~d, designated as a Secondary Mighway (88' R/W)"a~
the northerly bounda~ of the project and extending easterly
from the project boundary; and,
- Nicholas Road, designated as an Arterial Highway (110' R/W)-
4080 L=mon SIre. c:. 8:h Floor'Rivct.,,idc. California ~250h(909) ~7~-6749
p. t). Box lDgo-Riverlid¢, Ca,'If0mia ,~2502-1090*FAX (909} 275~721
DEIR - johnson Ranch Specific Plan
AuguSt 29, 1994
Page 2
The project is proposing change~' to the roadways on County
Public Facilities and ServiCes Element Circulation section
which will require a General Plan Amendment to delete or down
grade these facil!~ies as proposed.
There are significant off-site infrastructure improvements that
this project is dependent upon for circulation and traffic
impact mitigation. The traffic study in the technical appendix
indicates that most of these improvements are being provided
by others ISouthwsst Road and Bridge Benefit Dls~riot, AD 161,
CFD 88-12, and Conditions of Approval). The document states
that the applicant will pay a "~are share' cost for required
infrastruct'~re lmp=ovements. The applicant can only ~a~ a
'fare share' cost for improvements if the propert is within
the boundaries of a funding district and the fa~lities are
identified. Any othe= off~site improvements will be the
responsibility of the applicant.
In T~affio and Circulation Section, mitigation measure
number 3 (pg. I~-83) states that Murrieta Hot Springs Road
needs to b e built from the wettern project boundary through the
site. This mitigation measure needs to be amended to include
the following language: 'The applicant/developer will
coordinate with the Transportation Department, specifically
Assessment District 161 for the construction of Murrieta Hot
Springs Ro~d."
The document recomends a Traffi~ Mitigation/Monitoring Program
_with a trip threshold of 400 peak.hour trips before an analysts
of "hot spots" would be required. The project needs to turn in
opening year analysis for all development projects within the
plan to ensure level of service is being maintained. The
Department also recommends a'cumulative analysis for "hot
spots" at a 200 peak hour ~rip threshold in order to be
consistent with CM~ requirements.
The Congestion Management Program Tra=fio Impact Analysls
(CMP TIA) and the traffic study indicate ~hat Murrieta Ho~
Springs Road will be widened to a six lane Urban Arterial
Highway. This roadway is to be improved to a four lane Artezial
Highway in the unincorpora~ed area. The document needS.. to
clarify who is going to provide the two additional lan~s an~
how they are to be paid for.
The CM3? TIA mitigation measures for project'traffic 'impacts
consists of a Traffic Mitigation/Monitoring Program, a
circulation phasing plan, and "fare share "payment mechanism
paid ~o the City of Tamcould. It should be noted that this
project and surrounding area is within the unincorporated
DSIR - Johnson Ranch Specific Plan
Augus% 29, 1994
Page 3
portion of the County. Mitigation measures need =o be based
on what is acceptable to Riverside County, and any "fare share'
fees =ha~ are paid. need to be paid to Riverside County.
The City of Temecula should consult with our Department in orde=
to assess potential traffic impacts £rom buildout of the proposed
project which may affect =he circulation system within the County.
The mitigation measures outlined in the DEIR should be implemented
and required to comply with the standards of the Riverside County
Transportation Department. Any impacts to the County circulation
system should be completely addressed and mitigated to our
requirements.
We appreciate the opportunity to review and comment on the DEIR and
would like to reques~ a copy of the Final EIR when available. If
you have questions, please contact Sena B. WiJesinha, Senior
Transportation Planner, at (909) 275-6828 or Sian Roman, Associate
Planner, at (909) 285-6874.
Sincerely,
Louis C; Gamache
Transportation Planning Engineer
RTBzSR:mw
cc: Frank $herkow
Dave Barnhart
Ed Studor
Laurie Dobson
TOTAL P. e5
ATTACHMENT NO. 11
MEMORANDUM JANUARY 4, 1995 DISTRIBUTED BY STAFF
TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AT THE HEARING RESPONDING TO THE
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AND LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY Le: I I ..-'R
R:~'fA~FRPI~OIiNSON.I~3 2/2/95 kb 47
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Planning Department
Jim D. Faul, Assistant Engineer
January 9, 1995
Johnson Ranch - Response to County of Riverside Transportation
Department Letter dated January 9, 1995
The Department of Public Works has reviewed the letter from the County of Riverside
Transportation Department dated January 9, 1995 and offers the following comments:
The Department of Public Works has conditioned the Johnson Ranch Project for the
essential access infrastructure. The conditions were based on the attached chart
analyzing the essential access roads. The conditions also provide for a
reimbursement agreement with adjacent property owner(s) as development occurs.
The eligible reimbursement roods were determined to be Murrieta Hot Springs Road
and Butterfield Stage Road. The attached chart provides the City's determination of
the required off-site roadway improvements.
The Project Traffic Analysis does state 'peak hour trips' and not 'dwelling units'.
Also, the focused traffic analysis shall be done at 200 peak hour trips to be
consistent with the Congestion Management Plan.
It is the Department of Public Works' understanding that Murriets Hot Springs Road
will ultimately be six (6) lanes and designated as an Urban Arterial Highway from I-15
to Date Road and an Arterial Highway from Date Road to Butterfield Stage Road.
The Project has been conditioned to provide four (4) lanes from Butterfield Stage
Road to Leon Road.
cc: Raymond A. Casey, Principal Engineer - Land Development
file
r:~flu594V~em~a~ohneon4.dr
ATi'ACHMENT NO. 12
HEWITT AND MCGUIRE Lb; i Ek DISTRIBUTED BY THE APPLICANT
DATED JANUARY 5, 1995 DISTRIBUTED TO THE
PLANNING COMMISSION AT THE HEARING
R:~TAFFelq~Om~SON,t'C3 2/2~9S kn, 48
DEAN DUNN-RANKIN
CHARLES S. EXON
ANDREVV K. HARTZELL
HUGH HEWITr
MARK R. MCGUIRE
HEWITT & MCGUIRE
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
REC~:VF-D
CRY 0t: TEMECULA
DENNIS D. O'NBL
JAY F. PALCHIKOFF
PAUL A. ROWE
WILLIAM L 'IIVOMEY
JOHN P. YEAGER
January 5, 1995
Chairman Steve Ford and
Members of the Planning Commission
City of Temecula
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
Re:
Johnson Ranch Soecific Plan Conditions of ADoroval and
MitiQation Measures
Dear Chairman Ford and Members of the Planning Commission:
I am writing on behalf of the applicant for the Johnson Ranch Specific
Plan, Johnson Machinery Co., to express our support of Staff's recommendation of
approval of the Johnson Ranch Specific Plan. There are, however, several
proposed Conditions of Approval and Mitigation Measures with which we do not
agree and which are either unnecessary, redundant or not in accordance with
applicable law. Our justification for questioning the proposed Conditions of
Approval and Mitigation Measures are described below, along with our proposed
revisions. The references below are to the Planning Department ("PD") and TCSD
Conditions of Approval attached to the Staff Report and to the mitigation measures
in the proposed Mitigation Measure Program ("MMP"). Attached to this letter is a
letter to Ray Casey containing suggested revisions to some of the Public Works
Department's proposed Conditions of Approval. We will continue to work with
City Staff to attempt to resolve these few remaining issues prior to Monday's
hearing and will be prepared to address any questions the Commission may have at
that time.
1. TCSD Condition Noa. 1, 8, 10, 17 and 20, and MMP 0.5.1
{Parkland Dedication and Improvements)
These conditions and mitigation measures all relate to the dedication
and improvement of park and recreational land and facilities and the payment of
parks and recreation fees. In total, the conditions attempt to impose on the project
Chairman Ford and
Members of the Planning Commission
January 5, 1995
Page 2
park and recreation requirements that are greatly in excess of what the law
permits. Johnson Machinery has already proposed dedicating park and recreational
sites and providing recreational trails throughout the open space areas of the
Specific Plan in excess of what the City can legally require. Any park and
recreational improvements further in excess of the legal requirements should be
negotiated in the proposed statutory Development Agreement and not imposed
through the Specific Plan.
The Quimby Act (Government Code § 66477) establishes the only
means by which the City may require the dedication and improvement of park and
recreational sites. The Quimby Act authorizes the City to require by ordinance the
dedication of land or the payment of fees in lieu of the dedication of land, or some
combination thereof, for park and recreational purposes. The amount of land to be
dedicated or fees to be paid must be based on residential density, "which shall be
determined on the basis of approved tentative maps and the average number of
persons per household." The amount of land required to be dedicated or the
· payment of fees cannot exceed an amount necessary to provide three acres of park
and recreational land per 1,000 persons, up to five acres of land per 1,000 persons
if the city's existing park area exceeds three acres per thousand. If a developer
provides park and recreational improvements to the dedicated land, the value of the
improvements shall be credited against the payment of fees or dedication of land.
A recent case has held that any local requirements in excess of the Quimby Act
authorization are preempted by state law and therefore illegal. Auburn Manor
Holdincl CorD. v. City of Roseville, 29 Cal. App. 4th 336 (1994) [request for
hearing pending in California Supreme Court]. Moreover, no analysis has been
performed justifying such an excessive exaction that satisfies the statutory nexus
requirements of Government Code §66000 et seq. or constitutional principles.
The City has determined that the project's park land requirement
under the Quimby Act is 68 acres based on the maximum number of dwelling units
within the Specific Plan of 5,250, the assumed population of 13,598 persons and a
park standard of five acres per thousand. Assuming that the City can establish
that its existing park acreage is five acres per thousand, which the City is required
to do under the Quimby Act, the City can require either the dedication of 68 acres
of park land or the payment of fees in lieu of the dedication, or some combination
thereof. The City cannot, however, require the dedication and improvement of
68 acres of park land, the payment of additional fees and the improvement of all of
the recreational trails within the open space areas of the Specific Plan.
01-04-95 9012-00002
S: \DOC~172\CORR\95010004, LTR
Chairman Ford and
Members of the Planning Commission
January 5, 1995
Page 3
Johnson Machinery has proposed to dedicate 61 acres of land for
community, village and neighborhood park sites, provide 14 acres of improved
linear park within the Tucalota Creek open space area, (for which the City has
agreed to provide 7 acres of credit against the Quimby requirement) and provide
trail improvements within Planning Area 1. These conditions assure that the
project's Quimby Act requirements will be more than adequately satisfied as the
Specific Plan area is subdivided. The appropriate mechanism in which to consider
any additional park and recreational improvements is through the proposed
statutory Development Agreement.
In accordance with these comments, we would revise the Conditions
of Approval and Mitigation Measures as follows:
TCSD Condition No. 1: Revise the last sentence of this Condition to
read as follows:
"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."
Condition No. 8: Condition No. 8 should be revised to read as
follows:
"Construction of the publie park eitoe, 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."
Condition No. 10: Condition No. 10 should be revised to read as
follows:
"The Developer, or the Developer's successors or
assignees, shall maintain the park f_-_-~tL*_- sites,
landscaping, trails, and medians until such times as those
responsibilities are accepted by the TCSD."
01- 04 - 95 9012 - 00002
S: \DOC\172 \CORR\95010004, LTR
Chairman Ford and
Members of the Planning Commission
January 5, 1995
Page 4
Condition No. 17: Condition No. 17 should be revised to read as
follows:
"Prior to recordation of each final map, the Developer or
his successors, shall enter into an agreement and post
security to improve any roepootivo publio park'oito,
parkway landscaping, medians and multi-purpose trails
that are proposed for dedication to the City."
Condition No. 20: .Condition No. 20 should be revised to read as
follows:
"The public park site shall be improvod 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 pursua. nt to the park land
improvement agreement at recordation of the respective
final map, whichever comes first."
2. PD Condition No. 17 and MMP O.4.1 (School Facilities)
The draft EIR identified a mitigation measure for the project's school
facilities impacts requiring a Mitigation Agreement between the Developer and
School District before recordation of the first map. This mitigation measure
ensures that the project will comply with any school mitigation resolution ultimately
adopted by the City Council and is identical to that imposed by the City Council
recently on the Campos Verdes Specific Plan project. This mitigation measure has
been revised, however, to mimic Condition of Approval No. 17 and make the
approval of the Johnson Ranch Specific Plan contingent upon the Developer
reaching a binding Mitigation Agreement with the Temecula Valley Unified School
District if the City Council adopts the proposed school mitigation resolution
currently before it. It is unfair and unreasonable to apply the school mitigation
resolution to a project such as Johnson Ranch that has been under consideration
by the City for over a year.
The approval of the Specific Plan must be effective when it is adopted
by the City Council. Requiring a School Mitigation Agreement that complies with
the City's school mitigation policies prior to the recordation of the first final map,
01-04-95 9012-00002
S: \DOC\172\CORR\95010004. LTR
Chairman Ford and
Members of the Planning Commission
January 5, 1995
Page 5
as recommended in the draft EIR, will ensure that the substance of the City's
school mitigation resolution, in whatever form it is ultimately adopted by the City
Council, will be satisfied prior to development within the Specific Plan area.
We request that the original mitigation measure included in the draft
EIR replace Mitigation Measure 0.4.1 now included in the Mitigation Monitoring
Program and that Condition of Approval No. 17 be deleted.
3. PD Condition No$. 19, 20, 35 and MMP 0.2.1, 0.3.2, 0.8.1, and
0.8.2 (Fire, Police and Libraw Fees):
The Conditions of Approval and Mitigation Measures include a
requirement for the payment of additional fees and the dedication of facilities for
fire, police and library services for which no legal basis has been established
through the EIR or any other analysis included in the record for this project in some
cases, the City is already collecting fees (e.g., for fire and library) and there is no
'indication that the existing fees are ina;lequate. In addition, the fiscal impact
report included in the staff report demonstrates a surplus of annual revenues
available from this project for police protection, fire and library services. The
appropriate mechanism for imposing additional fees would be through the existing
fee programs or the proposed public facilities fee program currently being studied
after the requisite analysis has been conducted.
No analysis has been performed that would satisfy the statutory
requirements of the State "nexus" legislation (Government Code § 66000 et sea.)
or the constitutional standards recently established by the U.S. Supreme Court in
Dolan v. Citv of Tieard. Moreover, to the extent the "additional fees" specified in
the Mitigation Measures are for operation or maintenance, they would be illegal
under Government Code §65913.8. Mitigation measures that are illegal are
infeasible under CEQA and cannot be imposed.
We request that the Conditions of Approval and Mitigation Measures
be modified as follows:
PD Condition No. 19: Replace the first sentence with the following:
"The applicant shall enter into a Development Agreement
or another similar and appropriate agreement or
mechanism which identifies and establishes appropriate
mitigation impact fees, land dedication and facilities
01 - 04 - 95 9012 - 00002
S: \DOC\172\CORR\95010004. L*~
Chairman Ford and
Members of the Planning Commission
January 5, 1995
Page 6
construction requirements for the project consistent with
the Specific Plan and Mitigation Monitoring Program. The
Agreement or other mechanism shall also identify the
timing of the payment of fees, dedication of land and/or
facilities construction and the infrastructure financing
mechanisms to be used, which may include, without
limitation, reimbursement districts, fee programs and
land-secured, public financing districts."
PD Condition No. 20: Delete.
MMP 0.2.1: Delete the last sentence requiring the payment of
"additional fees" in addition to the current fire protection impact fee.
MMP 0.3.2: Delete.
MMP 0.8.1: Delete the last sentence requiring the payment of
additional fees on top of the current $100 per dwelling unit fee.
MMP 0.8.2: Delete because the Riverside County Library System has
indicated that they do not require and could not staff a new library site within the
Village Center. Therefore, this condition is unnecessary.
Condition No. 35: Delete because this general condition is redundant
and covered by various other conditions addressing the conditions for constructing
and/or financing the necessary infrastructure for the project.
4. Condition Nos. 32 and 33 (Plannin~m Area I Dedication):
Johnson Machinery is proposing to dedicate Planning Area 1 to an
appropriate public agency in exchange for credit against the fees imposed pursuant
to the City's current SKR fee ordinance or any other fee that may be levied by the
City in the future for open space or habitat acquisition, restoration, mitigation or
management purposes. The precise amount of the fee credit would be determined
at the time of dedication and would equal the fair market value of the Planning
Area.
The revisions to Condition Nos. 32 and 33 described below are
intended to clarify (i) that the Developer shall receive a fee credit, although the
amount will be determined later, (ii) that the credit will be available against any fees
01-04-95 9012-00002
S: \DOC\172\CORR\95010004. LqR
Chairman Ford and
Members of the Planning Commission
January 5, 1995
Page 7
levied for the same purposes that are served by dedication of the land, (iii) that the
manner of applying the fee credits in connection with development of the property
will be established pursuant to the proposed Open Space Mitigation Plan and (iv)
that such Plan would establish the timing of dedication.
With regard to the dedication timing, it is intended that all of Planning
Area 1 be dedicated as soon as possible in the development process, provided that
all necessary resource agencies' approvals have been obtained for development of
the Specific Plan. If 'all such approvals are not obtained at the time of approval of
the first implementing subdivision map or grading permit, the Open Space
Mitigation Plan would establish those portions of the open space to be ,dedicated in
connection with development of phases within the Specific Plan Area.
We ask that Condition No. 32 be revised to read as follows:
"The Developer shall receive a full or partial credit against
the fee imposed pursuant to Ordinance No. 663 of the
City, as it may be supplemented, amended or
superseded, or any other fee levied by the City for open
space or habitat acquisition, restoration, mitigation or
management purposes ("Habitat Fees"), in exchange for
dedication of Planning Area 1. The precise amount of the
fee credit shall be equal to the fair market value of
Planning Area 1, the area of which shall not be less than
402 acres. Fair market value 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 an
assumption that the Planning Area is zoned rural
residential (R-R) or a comparable zoning designation.
Unless an alternative method for applying fee credits is
approved in the Open Space Mitigation Plan described in
Condition No. 33, after the fee credit amount is
determined, a reduced Habitat Fee amount 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 Habitat Fee for the entire
site and reducing this amount by the fee credit amount
01-04-95 9012-00002
S:\DOC\172\CORR\95010004,LTR
Chairman Ford and
Members of the Planning Commission
January 5, 1995
Page 8
and dividing the result by the total acreage of the site
upon which the habitat fees may be imposed. The
amount of the fee credit shall not exceed the total Habitat
Fee for the project."
Condition No. 33: Revise the last sentence of Condition No. 33 to
read as follows:
"Planning Area I shall be dedicated to the RCHCA or
other appropriate agency prior to the issuance of any
grading permits for the project, unless the appropriate
resource agency approvals required for the development
of the Specific Plan have not been obtained, in which
case Planning Area I shall be dedicated in phases as set
forth in the Open Space Mitigation Plan."
5. Condition No. 38 (Mul~-Familv Private Open SDace): This
Condition requires 30% of the gross area of the multi-family site within the Village
Center to be in open space. Condition of Approval No. 15 requires private open
space of at least 150 square feet to be provided for each multi-family dwelling unit.
It is unclear which Condition is controlling. It appears that only one should be
required and it should be consistent with existing City requirements.
Thank you in advance for your consideration of these comments and
proposed revisions.
Very truly yours,
John P. er
JPY/dcw
cc: Bill Johnson
Jim Fergus
Larry Markham
Gary Thornhill
Saied Naaseh
Greg Diaz
01-04-95 9012-00002
S: \DOC\172\CORR\95010004. LTR
DEAN DUNN-RANKIN
CHARLES S. EXON
ANDREW K. HARTZELL
HUGH HEWITT
MARK R. MCGUIRE
HEWITT & McGUIRE
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
3501 JAMBOREE ROAD. SUII~ 2BO
NEWTq)RT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92680
DENNIS D. O'NEIL
JAY F. PALCHIKOR:
PAUL A. ROWE
W1LLIAM L, TWOMEY
JOHN P. YEAGER
January 5, 1995
Ray Casey
Department of Public Works
City of Temecula
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
Re: Proposed Conditions of Approval
Dear Mr. Casey:
The following comments on the proposed Conditions of Approval
prepared by the Public Works Department are submitted on behalf of Johnson
Machinery Co., the applicant for the Johnson Ranch Specific Plan, as a follow-up
to your meeting with Jim Fergus and Bob Davis on Tuesday. The references are to
the Public Works Department Conditions of Approval which begin on page 47 of
the Staff Report, unless otherwise indicated.
Condition No. 3
This Condition appears to include proposed "fees" referenced in the
EIR, the legality of which we are challenging. The basis for the challenge will be
set forth in a separate letter to the Planning Commission with respect to other
proposed Conditions of Approval and Mitigation Measures. Condition No. 3 would
also have the applicant waive its rights to protest any fees imposed by the City
pursuant to programs that do not now exist and which have not even been
analyzed. We can only be required to pay legally-adopted fees as they exist at the
time they are required to be paid in the course of the development of the Specific
Plan. We request that the Condition be revised to read as follows:
"Prior to issuing building permits for the various phases
of development, the Developer shall pay any capital fee
for road improvements and public facilities imposed on
the property or project. The fee to be paid shall be in the
01-04-95 9029-00002
S:\DOC\172\CORR\95010003.LlI~
Ray Casey
January 5, 1995
Page 2
amount in effect at the time payment of the fee. If an
interim or public facility mitigation fee or district is under
review but has not been finally established by the date on
which the Developer requests its first building permit for
the project or any phase thereof, the Developer shall
execute an "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, if one is adopted within a specified
period with respect to those dwelling units or commercial
structures for which the building permit is being issued.
The amount of the bond shall be $2 per square foot, not
to exceed $10,000 per dwelling unit or commercial
structure."
CONDITION NO. 9
The Planning Department is recommending 14 foot parkways for
streets larger than the 78 foot right-of-way. We understand, however, that the
Public Works Department does not wish to deviate from the standard curb-to-curb
distances for all streets. In addition, the Circulation Element depicts parkways of
only 10 to 12 feet on all typical roadway cross sections larger than 78 feet. We
would agree to the 14 foot parkway within the overall right-of-way designated in
the General Plan provided that 2 feet is taken out of the bikeway (reducing it from
10 feet to 8 feet) or that the sidewalks are reduced from 6 feet to 4 feet within a
12 foot parkway. Either approach would permit the amount of landscaping being
sought by the Planning Department. Consequently, we would propose to delete
the second sentence in Condition No. 9 and replace it with the following:
"On all streets larger than the 78 foot right-of-way
fourteen (14) foot parkways shall be provided within the
ultimate right-of-way if the bikeway width is reduced
from 10 feet to 8 feet or sidewalk width shall be reduced
from 6 feet to 4 feet within a twelve (12) foot parkway."
Condition No. 14
Generally, we agree with the approach you have taken on the
circulation improvements required for the project and your supporting
documentation. There are three issues with this Condition, however, that require
revision or clarification including (1) the Anza Road condition; (2) the
reimbursement provisions and (3) consideration of inclusion of the primary road
segments in the City's road fee program currently being studied.
01-04-95 9029-00002
5:\DOC\172\CORR\95010003.LTR
Ray Casey
January 5, 1995
Page 3
We have requested that Anza Road within the property boundaries be
deleted. The road is unnecessary in the buildout condition based on the project's
traffic studies. In addition, the proposed Anza Road would cross both the open
space area to be established pursuant to the Specific Plan and Santa Gertrudis
Creek offsite. If the City does not choose to delete Anza Road we would propose,
in the alternative, that the right-of-way for Anza Road be dedicated, but not
improved, from "A" Street south to the project boundary, and that local subdivision
streets between "A" Street north to Borel Road be constructed in the course of
development of that area.
I understand that the Public Works Department is not opposed to
facilitating reimbursement to property owners that construct improvements in
excess of their fair share. The applicant agrees to participate in any reasonable
reimbursement mechanism required to reimburse any other property owner who
constructs improvements benefitting the Johnson Ranch property in excess of the
other property owner's fair share.
Butterfield Stage Road and other applicable road segments both within
the Specific Plan area and offsite appear to be of the type currently being studied
by the City for inclusion in the City's road fee or public facilities program. We
request that those road segments be included in the fee study and that fee credits
be available to any developer who constructs these roads, consistent with the
City's approach taken on other similar roadways in the City.
We request that the parenthetical language included in this Condition
regarding reimbursement agreements for Murrietta Hot Springs Road and Butterfield
Stage Road be deleted, that the Anza Road condition be delete and that the
following language be added at the end of the Condition:
"The City will facilitate reimbursement of
Developer's costs in excess of its fair share
for any infrastructure improvements
constructed by Developer through the
establishment of a fee district that includes
all benef'rtting properties, the requirement of
a reimbursement agreement as a condition
of approval of the development of any
benefitting properties, the establishment of
public financing districts, the grant of
appropriate fee credit or any combination
thereof. The Murrietta Hot Springs Road
01-04-95 9029-00002
S:\DOC\172\CORR\95010003.LTR
Ray Casey
January 5, 1995
Page 4
and Butterfield Stage Road segments and
any other road segments described in this
Condition that provide an area-wide
circulation benefrt shall be included in any
road fee program study prepared by the City
and fee credits shall be available in
connection with the construction of such
segments.
Condition No. 15
We understand that the Public Works Department is comfortable with
identifying through subsequent traffic studies and a development or infrastructure
improvement agreement specific road increments to be bonded for or constructed.
In other words, Public Works will not necessarily require the entire full width
improvement to be bonded for or constructed at the outset.
We request that the last:sentence in this Condition be deleted and
replaced with the following:
"Unless the improvements are constructed at the time of
recordation of the first final map or issuance of the first
grading permit within the Specific Plan area, the
Developer shall bond for or construct the improvements
to Murrietta Hot Springs Road and Butterfield Stage Road
in accordance with the Specific Plan requirements. The
bonding or construction requirements shall be established
pursuant to subsequent required traffic studies and a
development or improvement agreement between the
City and Developer which shall establish the increments
and phases of construction of the improvements."
Condition No. 16
For the same reasons discussed with respect to Condition No. 15,
delete the first sentence in this Condition and replace it with the following:
"Except to the extent already constructed prior to
recordation of the first final map or issuance of the first
grading permit within the Specific Plan area, the
Developer shall bond for or construct the traffic signals at
the intersections listed below. The requirements for
bonding or constructing the traffic signals in stages or
0]-04-95 9029-00002
S:\DOC\172\CORR\95010003.LTR
Ray Casey
January 5, 1995
Page 5
increments shall be established pursuant to a
development or improvement agreement between the
Developer and the City and subsequent required traffic
studies. In addition, the City will facilitate reimbursement
of Developer's costs in excess of its fair share for any
traffic signals constructed by Developer through the
establishment of a fee reimbursement district that
includes all benefitting properties, the requirement of a
reimbursement agreement as a condition of approval of
the development of any benefitting properties, the
establishment of public financing districts, the grant of
appropriate fee credits or any combination thereof.
Please revise the following drainage and grading conditions as
indicated.
Condition No. 19:
This Specific Plan =hci~ may include retention facilities thct to 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 the
risk of storm damage to downstream properties 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 th!c the particular site must be approved
by the Department of Public Works.
Condition No. 20
The proposed Santa Gcrtrudi= Crcck and open space drainage swale
through the site to Tucalota Creek drainage systems and dctcntion 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 ~uch final a preliminary engineering plan prior to the approval of any
further development proposals within the Johnson Ranch Specific Plan,
including,but not limitcd to excluding the approval of a parcel map processed for
financing purposes.
Condition No. 22
Prior to approval of any subsequent development applications, the
Developer shall submit a Master Drainage and Watershed Plan, including a ;~:'!=;~
01-04-95 9029-00002
S:\DOC\172\CORR\95010003.LTR
Ray Casey
January5, 1995
Page 6
an updated Hydrology 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 alesilting facilities.
Condition No. 24
All open channel 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.
Condition No. 29
The 100 year flood plains for all natural water courses shall be
mappcd a3 100 ycar flood plain3 shown on an ECS map. The subsequent grading
plans shall delineate the 100-year flood plain adjacent to the grading area. A Flood
Plain Development Permit shall be required for any encroachment into the mapped
floodway.
Condition No. 42
Where import or export offsite of the Specific Plan is required 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.
enclosed.
JPY/kVr
Please call me or Jim Fergus if you have any questions regarding the
Very truly yours,
John P.Y~eag! ~/'"
CC:
Bill Johnson
Jim Fergus
Larry Markham
Gary Thornhill
Saied Naaseh
01-04-95 9029-00002
S:\DOC\172\CORR\gSOlOOO3.LTR
ATTACHMENT NO. 13
Lbl I ERS FROM INTERESTED PROPERTY OWNERS
R:~TAFI~J~r~JOHN~ON.I~3 2/2/95 k~ 49
Temecula Planning Commission
43174 Business Pk. Dr.
Temecula, Ca. 92591
Dear Commission Members:
My name is Raymond Gianton and I reside at 33120 Vino Way in an
unincorporated area of Riverside county. My community is just to the south of
the Johnson Ranch that is proposing a large development.
I am against the plan as it is currently proposed. The development in this area
~n o~ of their
prope~. I ~n not fault ~em for a~empting to do so, b~ it is not in the best
~ interest d the Ci~ d Teme~la nor the valley as a ~ole.
Like many other people in Temecula and su~ounding areas, we moved .o~ here
for the mini a~osphem and for a qualiW environment to bring up a family. I was
~ve~ pleased ~en the Riverside CounW Board d Supe~isom adopted the
SWAP. This plan sho~ par~l sizes of the Johnson Ranch to be a mi~um of
~1,2.5 and 5 a~es. The CiW subsequently in~orated and developed the
~Temecula Land Use Plan. This plan show higher densities for the Johnson
i Ran~. Now the develope~ want Teme~la to break this plan and develop more
~densely. This is exa~ly how areas be~me over developed. I implore that
~Temecula not follow other municipalities in allowing developera to basi~lly have
'their way.
'Approving this plan would set a pre~den~ by ~em all developera in the
and sphere of in~uen~ areas would have more leverage to develop their land
more densely. If this happens in Teme~la and su~ounding titles this valley will
just be one more ~ngested, polluted, ~ime ridden municipality that people want
to get out of.
I request the Temecula City Planning Commission limit this development to
:what is shown on the Temecula Land Use Plan. This plan still allows the
owners to make a lot of money while allowing semi-reasonable growth. Mr.
. Johnson will not be living in this area, the developing consultant will not be living
in this area. After they take their money and run, Temecula will have this
forever.
Temecula's motto is "Old traditions, new opportunities". Sticking to the
Temecula Land Use Plan helps to keep this alive, the Johnson plan will not.
Joyce and Charles Williams
33612 Vino Way
Temecula, Calif. 92591
Temecula Planning Commission
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, Calif. 92591
Jan. 12, 1995
............
Dear Commissioners;
On Monday, Jan. 9, 95 I artended the Planning meeting held at the
Water Districts Board Room. Although it was my intention to address
the Board , I found myserf'unable to after two and a half hours' of
being bombarder with facts and figures from the Johnson Ranch people.
As the plan now is written, we are against it. Three years ago we
bought our land, built our home and in Nov. of '92 moved into our
dream home in the country, On Our 3½ arce lot. We as all Of Our neighbors
dearly love the peace and quiet we experience in this type of a community.
This is the type of community the Johnson Ranch People should be planning,
not a potential area-withhigh crime and social problems which are
unsolvsble.
Whenever a community is built with lots of houses , 'thus people, in
a small area as is now the pla% constant social problems will soon
exist. You just can't put that many people in a small area a~d not
expect to have problems. Why are you considering a plan which will
cause a traffic night-mare, additional work for the police dept.,
distruction!of wildlife and vegetation along the existing creeks
on the Johnson Ranch property. Burly a plan could be developed where
only one house per area would be built. Of course more would be
charged for each home to cover the builders expence. But...
down the line the city of Temecula will be happy that a t~ouble spot
was not approved in 1995-by the Planning Commission.
We have more concerns about the Plan. If any of the Commissioners
would like to speak to us personally, please call. Our number is
909-6761414.
Very Truly Yours,
' .'-; : : Thank.you for t~e. opportunltyjto'speak.-at the. last P1Rn~g:,.C'' ' - . -.
....
-~L~ * ~: Com~{ssion regarding the jOhnson Ranc~ Building P~ojeet;:~ .-:.; _.?. ~:_ - ...
"': ':'Pk~as~ ~ina bei~W~concis~ reaso~s=t6
renaer':a'deCi& n' g i St:''-.
' ~the 'planning application, '#0180}~81:,'183; 134 'and 184. 5:~. -='~' _ ' ':
~' ~,' '- - ~ ~-:The San. ta:Ge~r~des:Creekand.sh~ro~n~ing~"grea_nbelt"-
-"' - :' '-."'7~ will'have='t~ be maintained-at public ~xpense and wouldL
' :'; ~ ..... ' d"peop = ' "
% _ 1. Somehow keeping t~nty thousan ie 6ut of this'
' .': .->?sensitiveenvironmentalarea.:-- ~ "
:'.i -' F. :" 2.'~-Kee~'ing childr~n ~rom-p!aying'i-nto a~seasonalr--~~-
-~. ~_ , r, ,, .' raging river, which wehaVe.seen enough of'
L , --- /~ '~ ~recentl~,,and everywinters' ' ='4"~
' 3~ Maintaining_an a~nUal burden'of disking the fire
: ' ~ - ' ~ ' ' ~ hazard that surrounds the othe~ endangered-: .": '-
, . ,, - · - species~' namely myself and. m~ neighbors. ·
! :i: :, !.. The presentation'by ohnson R =ch is dishonest ingot.'-'
showing' ~he nu~er0~s:..h0mes and ranches ~hat s~round.'.:: .:.~.'"
that seventeen-hundred.acres°- Strategic photography..,:;.:
- " has been used to present as if nobody lives.around th~
~- borders of said prope~cy...-This is irresponsible .... ,_:.'-
presentation. -..,:~;., -__
- - : The'environmental i~pact exceeds the allotted air
pollutants in this a~ea and no matter of mitigation~can--
, make up for clean air that's no longer available to _ .-
~ 'breath..- ..... "_ .- .~-.
- Financial impact shows no-defici~ to the City' upon
"final buildou~". ~here wili~ however~ be a negative.
financial. impact ~o the City and the. citizenry of -;
~ Temecula for twenty years, until ~he final buildou~ is
complete. - -- "
- The t~affic art~ries,'namely Ewy 79 and Californi~ Road'-
are'not sufficient to handel the thirty to sixty
thousand vehicular trips as proposed by the traffic
engineer. Anza, Borei, Buck Road and Butterfield - _
Stage will all empty out into Rancho California Road.
This will cause a major daily traffic congestion that
these country roads were not meant to bear.
T~nec~a M~c~ Ccn~ . :
· 27699 J~fF~on _Av~., S~-101 · T~cc~ CA 925~ ~ (909) 6954079
DAVID C. ROBINSON, D.O.
Family Practice
- The Johnson Ranch sits~surrounded by:
- ' Endangered species
- - Endangered rural Bomosapiens
- Two and a half an~ five acre lots ana ranches
-:- Citrus and vineyard'area
This project doe~ not belong in this area, mot the annexation of
this property. belong Jin Temecula.
Sincerely,
Diplomate of the American Board of Family Practice
DCR/Sl
DD: 01/12/95
DT: 01/13/95
TemecUla Medical Center
27699 Jefferson Ave., Suite 101 - Temecuia, CA 92590 ~ (909) 695-1079
ATTACHMENT NO. 14
LIST OF QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
50
JOHNSON RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN
PLANNING COMMIBION AND PUBUC QUESTIONS
Traffic end Circulation
1, What will happen TO the existing on-site Buck Road end what am the
consequences If It le deleted by this proJe~? The existing graded dirt section of Buck
Road, which is located on-site, would be affected in the later stages of the Johnson
Ranch development schedule. Once the project begins to develop its eastern portion,
the existin9 north-south segment of Buck Road would be eliminated. New street 'A"
will connect with Buck Road and would access to Butterfield Stage Road and points
west. The eliminated north-south segment of Duck Road would be replaced by new
on-site street "C" and street "D'. Circulation will be Improved bv these chances.
2. Whet are the traffic counm on Anza Rosa with the project end has the traffic.
study examined the traffic impsole of the project with and without Anza Road? The
Specific Pier EIR Traffic Study includes a detailed analysis of traffic conditions without
the extension of Ante Road to the project. Wilbur Smith Associates has also
examined future area buildout traffic conditions with the Anza Road extension. Based:
on traffic projections developed for buildout of the City of Temecula General Plan,
traffic volumes on Anza Road would range from 7,000 vehicles per day north of Buck
Road to 4,000 vehicles per day south of Buck Road. It is estimated that
appro×i mstely 75 percent of the Anza Road traffic north of Buck Road and 60 percent
of the Anza Road traffic south of Buck was generated by the original Johnson Ranch
Specific Plan assumed in the City's General Plan. North of Buck Road, new on-she
Proloot roads would effectiveIv serve the traffic Droiected on the eliminated Anza
Impact of the qurrent SPecific Ran (with increased densities) on the portion of
Anze Road so~h of Buck would be minimal, since the project traffic using this
segment of Anza Road is predominantly shopping trips traffic traveling between the
residential areas south of Buck and the project commercial center. While this traffic
may increase slightly due to the increased size of the currently-proposed commercial
center, the factor which has the most influence on how many shopping trips would
come from the vineyard residential ares is the number of residences forecasted in that
area. Since the planned vineyard areas densities have not changed, the only increase
in traffic would be due to the project's proposal to provide more commercial use than
wee assumed in the City'e General Plan. It is estimated that this impact would be 8
net incrcaae in traffic of approximately 15 percent, or 6OO vehicles per day. The total
project-related traffic would be approximately 3,000 vehicles per day. Whhout Anza
Road, approximately 95 percent of the traffic {2,850 vehicles per day) are shifted to
01-26-H g032.,00002
Butteffleld Stage Road. The traffic study Indicates that the additional Snoremerit of
traffic could be accommodated by Butterfield Stage Road end still maintain an
acceptable level of servi~e.
3. What other roads in Ternsouls will have 30,000 dally trips that le projected for
Butterfield Slags Road? Examples of other roads in Ternecula which have volumes
approaching 30,000 vehicles per day include:
Rancho California Road east of Ynez (28,270 vehicles per day); end
Ynez Road between Winchester Road and Ranoho California Road
(25, 1 O0 to 26,400 vehicles per day).
The segments of Rancho Califomia Road end Winchester Road between Front
Street/Jefferson Avenue and Ynez Road carry higher volumes, ranging from 35,000
to 46,000 vehicles per day.
4. How will ~ Johnson Ranch feddents access the freeways? Johnson Ranch
residents will have a choice of access routes to the area freeways as fellows:
1-215 to and from the north -- residents would use Murrieta Hot Springs;
Road, Winchester Road (north), Clinton Keith Road and Winchester Road:
I-15 TO and from the north -- residents would use Murrieta Hot Springs
Road and Winchester Road;
I-15 to and from the south - residents would use Winchester Road and.
to a lesser degree, Rancho California Road once Butterfield Stage Road
is completed,
6. Whet offier road improveante are scheduled that might help the flow of the
Vaffic fTom Johnson Ranch to the hewaye? WIll there be · potential for bottle
necks? if yes, identify them. Programmed and planned roadway improvements along
routes providing access to the freeways include:
Widening of Murriete Hot Springs Road between I-15 and Murrieta Drive;
Construction of Mumeta Hot Springs Road from its current eastern
terminus to the Johnson Ranch project;
Widening of Winchester Road from Mergerite Road to Clinton Keith Road;
Widening of CJInton Keith Road;
01-26-96 9032-00002
S: %I)CC\I72%NOIM,*G.QUi 2
Construction of Butterfield Stage Road form the project to Rencho
California Read; and
Widening and extension of Nicolaa Road.
These roadway improvements are programmed through various means, including area
assessment districts, City of Tamecuts Capital Improvement Program, Riverside
County Road end Bridge Fee Program, City of Murriets, Riverside County
Transportation Commission end developer conditions of approval.
The only segment of road which is not ourrantly programmed for improvement
is Murrista Hot Springs Road between Murrista Drive and Winchester Road. The
project mitigation monitoring program for traffic will essentially 'track" prevailing off-
sIte traffic conditions and the incremental project traffic impacts as the project
develops out. This monitoring program, which would include periodic traffic studies,
would ensure that future phases of the project are not 8pproved until it can be
demonstrated that the cumulative off-site traffic impsots can be mitigated to
acceptable levels.
6. Who will ultimately determine the final alignment of Murrieta Hot Springs Road
and Butterfield Stage Road? Is It appropriate to determine this alignment pdor to the
approvad ot the Specific Plan? The currant alignment of Murrieta Hot Springs Road
and Butterfield Stage Road depicted in the Johnson Ranch Specific Plan is consistent
with the CiW's Circulation Element and the County's Southwest Area Ran. The actual
and final alignment of Murrieta Hot Springs Road and Butterfield Stage Road may be
affected by the existence of the Skunk Hollow vernal pool and watershed off-site and
will be determined in connection with more detailed planning and entitlement of the
Rancho Belle Vista and Reripaugh properties. Currently, the County is conducting a
hydrology study of the Skunk Hollow vernal pool. This study and the input of the
State and Federal resource agencies will also help determine 1;he final alignment of the
intersection. In addition, the EIR proposes mitigation measures to ensure That the
roads and associated drainage facilities are designed 8o as not to negatively impact
the Skunk Hollow vernal pool ISle Response to Question No. 14 below). The
Specific Plan requires that final determination of The roadway alignments on-site shell
occur at the time of tentative map approval, based on the determination of the off-site
alignment through the process described above. {See Mitigation Measure J.8.)
7. WIll the right-of-way for Butterfield Stage Road be |noreased If It become the
new alignment of Highway 79? Although there are some preliminary ideas concerning
the typical roadway cross-section end right-of-way, Colttans previously indicated that
the actual right-of-way would be dictated by the traffic projections developed by
WRCOG. Based on the traffic forecasting experience in the southwestern area of
Riverside County, the re-designation of Highway 79 to Butterfield Stage Road should
01-a-as fO:]2-OeO02
S: 'd)OC',172~,grsOZ8~5. QUE 3
have no measurable impact on Traffic routing. Unless significant changes in land use
densities occur in the Temecule Valley vineyard area, It IS not expected ~at ares
buildout traffic forecasts for Butterfield Stage Road would increase. --
8. Who will be respondbb to build the off-site extendon of Anze Road to Randto
Ceilfomia Road if the developer builds the on-alto portion, or its equivalent? The off-
site portion of Anza Road would have to be built by either the vineyard ares
landowners or Riverside CounW,
9. Will there be additional Traffic impacts associated wiffi the project If the Village
Center wee one of the last area to be built w;U,In the Spedtic Plan? If yes, ha~ the
Traffic Study examined litis senado? Since the Village Center will be an attractor of
vehicle Shopping trips which ere generated by area residents, the absence of the
commercial center would affect the way in which the residential shopping trips ere
distributed. Shopping trips generated by project residents would re-clistdbute tO other
commercial centers in ~e area. To the degree that these radirected shopping trips are
made to and from the residence and are not pass-by shopping trips, there could be a
moderate increase in off-site project-related traffic. Conversely, the absence of the
commercial center would also reduce the number of non-project resident shopping
trips which ere being attracted to the Johnson Ranch project. This would actually
reduce some of the project-ralated off-site impacts. It should be noted that the
commercial center is estimated to generate approximately 1 O, 1 O0 vehicle trips, which
' is approximately 16 percent of the total project tips. Further, the on-going traffic
monitoring program required by Mitigation Measure F.6 will ensure that current
conditions are monitored and, if necessary, mitigated.
10, Will this project make off-she Improvements to Buck Road7 Other then the
planned connection of project street "A" to existing Buck Road, no other off-site
improvements to this road will be made, According to contacts made with Riverside
County Road Department staff, Riverside County Service Area 149 is responsible for
maintenance and improvements to the off-site portion of Buck Road east of the
project. These current improvement priorities include Cells Centshide and Pauba
Road, No improvements are scheduled for Buck Road at this time.
11, Do the trips on Nicoles Road include the tips generated by the High School?
What Is the ultimate width of Nicolaa Road and what podon of it will be built by
Johnson Ranch? Who will be responsible to Improve the remaining portion and how
will It be paid for? The General Plan circulation study assigned trips on Nicolas Road
assuming business park/commercial land use for the high school site, which are in
fact greater than the trips generated by the Cheparral High School. Nicolas Road is
programmed as an arterial highway. Public Works Condition No. 14 provides that
Johnson Ranch will be responsible for improvement of two lanes from Joseph Road
to Butterfield Stage Road. The remaining portions will be improved by ADIGI. as
adjacent lands are developed, or by other significant. contributing projects.
01-26-9~ 901~-6~002
S:'~OC%372\F~O100H .QU[ 4
12. Who will be responsible to pay for Infrastructure improvements? Will
assessment diedca be foerod requiring property owners outside me Johnson FiBrich
project m pay for thee imlxovernents? Infra~a-ucture improvementS require to serve
the Specific Plan area will be phased to ensure they am cons~uctsd on a Urnely basis
and in affordable increments. Many ofthe off-site improvements and Butterfield Stage
Road provide regional benefits and may be constructed in connection with the
development of ether property. Lend-secured, public financing districts, City fee
programs, fee reimbursement districts and ol~er similar programs will be considered
as ultimate financing sources for these improvements to ensure that new development
pays its fair share of the cost of the improvements. Existing residents should not be
required to participate in the coil of infrertructure improvements from which they
derive no bene~. Moreover, the project's mitigation measures end conditions of
approval ensure that development will not proceed at Johnson Ranch if the necessary
infrastructure is not in place. (See Planning Department Condition Nos. 19, as
modified, Public Works Condition Nos. 3, 8, 12, 13, 14, 15 end 16, all as modified.)
Bioloalcel Resources
13. What wee the reason for rejection of the Biologically Superior Altemafive In the
DEIR and what ere the similarities and differences between the proposed project Land
Use Plan and this ahemalive? Whet was achbved in terms of preserving 1he sensitive
biological resources by the proposed Land Use Plan? According to page V-35 of the
' Draft EIR, the Biological Open Space Altomalaya was found to be "envlronmentally
superior" to the original project proposal analyzed in the Draft EIR. However, it was
rejected due to the reduction in the number and types of dwelling units proposed as
compared to the original project proposal. This Alternative contains a total of 1,601
acres of Open space as compared to the 252 acres of open space within the originally.
proposed project (an increase of 1,349 acres). ThEe Al~erneth/e was intended to
preserve all sensitive biological resources found on-site 'thereby reducing all biological
impacts to an insignificant level. The "revised" land use plan,, that being the current
project proposal, contains a total of 442.5 acres of open space, an increase of 190.5
acres from the 252 acres associated with the original project proposal. This additional
open space was provided along the eastern and northeastern project boundaries with
the intent of providing a land use buffer and transition area separating more urban
uses within the proposed project with open space areas to the ease and northeast of
the site. While this open space total does not equal that found within the Biological
Open' Space Alternative, the current project proposal provides a continuous bend of
open space along the Southern, eastern and northern project boundaries, something
no found in b~e Biological Open Space Alternative, This continuous buffer along the
perimeter of Johnson Ranch will also provide e valuable open space linkagelcorridor
to the Lake Skinner end Domenigeni Reservoir open space areas to the northeaSt of
the site. The continuous corridor associated with the current project proposal extends
through the site linking these open space areas to the Santa Gertrudis Creek open
space corridor along The southern project boundary.
01-26-~5 9012-00002
5: %1X3C%172 %~tOZOO~. Q~E 5
14. How will the drainage from the residemid arm, parks, roads end consthis'don
amidties be directed awe/from Skunk Hallow? Only a small portion of the Specific
Plan area is within the Skunk Hollow watershed. -Protection of the watershed is
ensured through the mitigation measures, conditions of approval and federal
reguletjons. (See Response to Question No. 23 below, Public Works Condition No.
2 and 36, end Mitigation Measures G.1.2 end G.1.4.) In particular, the following
design and construction measures have been or will be taken:
No residential units or developed parks are proposed within any drainage
area tributary to Skunk Hollow. All proposed residential areas end
developed parks naturally drain away from that basin.
bw
The drainage from the road system will be conveyed within the street
system and outJet into natural or improved drainage ways that drain
away from Skunk Hollow.
Temporary construction activities will incorporate diversion dikes to keep
urban runoff away from Skunk Hollow,
15. How does the Spedtic Plan ensure that the biological rossurges within Planning
Areas 3a, 3b and 3c are protected? Within Planning Area 3, land disturbance is
permitted only within building areas and ~or access is and is prohibited outside those
areas. Site design would be conducted in accordance with City-approved
environmental constraint sheets, which would specify the location of driveways and
building sites. This condition would be enforced in connection with the review,
issuance and inspection of building and grading permits. In addition, a deed restriction
would be imposed for the beneftt of, or conservation easements would be Granted to
the City or a resource agency over that portion of any lot in which building was
prohibited. This mechanism would further encumber the lot and put the banefitting
agency in the enforcement position. Deed restrictions ore commonly used by the
California Coastal Commission in similar situations, while conservation easements are
the mechanism of choice for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Department
of Fish and Game. In addition, by permitting clustering on 1-acre minimum lots, the
20 dwelling units permitted within Planning Area 3 would help preserve s large,
contiguous open space area, if the City so desires, (See Mitigation Measures B.7 and
J.6.}
16. What Is the approved alignment of the Metropolitan Water Distdct's PipeiN No.
6? Does this alignment go through the sensitive open space areas? MWD Is
conducting design studies in conjunction with Johnson Ranch to place Pipeline No. 5
in such a manner ae to achieve its objectives with minimal disturbance to the property.
MWD & Johnson Machinery have agreed to a corridor bisecting the eastern portion
of the property within which and, subject to further study. The pipeline would
ultimately be placed. MWD's project is subject to CEQA requirements related to the
01-26-S5 9012-06e02
s: %lx)c\1~,,9~olllo,~ ,QUE 6
assessment or impact TO sensitive areas end the provision of adequate mitigation
measures. An MWD representative will be present at the February 6, 1995 headrig
to describe their activities.
17. Will the developer be digwed to mace grade the site prior to receiving a~
approvals from California Delmrlment of fish and Game, end she U .S, Fish and Wildfife
Service? Mass grading Of all development areas within the Specific Plan at one lime
is not anticipated. To the extent the approvals of the California Department of Fish
and Game and U .S . Fish and Wildlife Service are required prior to the initiation of mass
grading within any portion of the development areas, the Developer will have to
receive those approvals prior to initiating grading. (See Planning Depa~b,,ent Condition
No. 27, Public Work~ Cundi~iu,~ Nu. 2, MidgaUon Measures J. I, J.2 and J.3.l
ODen SDace
18. Will agoass be limited and/or reafri~ted to the open spase oreas and Santa
Oertrudls Creek? How will trails be designed in these sensitive open apace ames?
The nature and extent of public access to Planning Area I, including the Santa
Genrudis Creek area, will be determined through · consultation process among the
City, RCHCA end the State and Federal resource agencies. Presumably, public access
will be permitted in the manner it is allowed in the Lake Skinner Preserve. It should
be noted that the EIR proposes e mitigation measure to create a 10Q-foot development
setback from the streambed edge or riporion vegetation, whichever creates a larger
corridor, in which trails and service roads would be prohibited. In addition, the
setback area would be bordered by restrictive fence or vegetative barriers within
Planning Area I to prevent excessive human intrusion. Outside of the lOg-foot
development estback, but still wrthin Planning Area 1, trails and passive use areas
could be provided. (See Mitigation Measures J.5, J.8, J.9 and K.I.)
19. Will pieginS public parks next to the open space areas encourage more aceewe
to sendrive areas within the open space? Possibly, but see response to Question No.
18 above.
20. How will the grading of the project site impsot the Integrity of the open apace
ereas? The 442.S acres of open space within the curren~ project proposal will not be
subject to any grading or lendform alteration. In addition, fuel management zones will
be provided along the developed edges of the project in which no structures are
allowed or significant grading required. These zones will further buffer project grading
from adjacent open space areas.
21. How waft the elopes adjeoent to the open apace areaas be protooted and am there
areas with poesibI~ty of lendaides? Any slopes adjacent to the open space area will
be contour graded to meat existing ground. The elopes will be planted and irrigated
as necessary in order to revegatate the disturbed ereas. There ere areas where there
is a possibility of lend slides. There are areas In southeast facing cut elopes that may
01-26-96 golP-0e01)2
S:MX]C%:L72~gS01002S,0UE
7
expose unsupported bedding. In those instances, buttresses may be required.
Detailed, site. specific soil reports will identify questionable ereas. {See Mitigation
Measures B. 1 through B. 6).
22. What d the trmlon area between the open space area and the residerrtial
eream look like? The Specific Plan provides standards for the transition areas which
would permit wells, view fences, single loaded streets, perks end landscaped "wet"
edges, fuel modification zones and trails. (See Specific Plan pp. 2-22, and Figures 14
and 15.)
23. Why doe the Specific Plan permit the developer to possibly convert the open
apace area at the southwest comer of the mite to residential use? The open space
area at the southwest corner of the site may be within the watershed of the Skunk
Hollow vernal pool. Development of this area for residential use would only be
permitted if s mitigation plan were approved by the responsible agencies which
prevents impacts form the project on the Skunk Hollow vernal pool watershed and the
on-site vernal pools and if an acceptable open space linkage were provided through
the area. (See Specific Plan p. 2-7.)
24. How will the fendrig in the periNter of the project snd next to the open space
ares be handled? See response to Question No. 22 above. In addition, the Specific '
Plan provides standards for wells and fences (see pp. 2-57 to 2-59) and the
Conditions of Approval require the submittal of fence plans with each tentative map'
consistent wiffi the Specific Plan guidelines (see Planning Department Condition No,
la,.)
25. Who ie responsible te build the tTailS and necessary fences within the open
space ereIs? Wlfi the developer be responsible 1o make these improvements ff the
open spans area has already been dedicated to RCHCA? What will these fenced ereas
look like7 The developer will construct traiJs within the open space are8 and any
fences or vegetative barriers required through the consultation process described
earlier with respect to the uses permitted wlffiin Planning Area 1. The nature and
appearance of the fenced or vegetative barriers will also be determined during that
consultation process. (See Planning Department Condition No, 8, and Mitigation
Measures J.5 and J.9.)
26, How wide Is the open apace along the eeltern boundary? The buffer ranges
from 400 feet to approximately 3,000 feet. It should be noted that es originally
submitted, the project included 5-acre lots in the ares now proposed for open space
with no provision for open space preservation or trails.
27. What is the blologi0al signfficanoe of the open space area? the currently
proposed Johnson Ranch Specific Plan provides for 8 total of 442.5 acres of open
space, These open sDace areas include open space resources within the Santa
Gemdis Creek open space corridor which contains significant CottonwoodANillow
01,Z6-95 g012.0eOO2
5: ~0C\172\9~10025 .lEE 8
Riparisn habitats. The biologically signi~csm Riversidean Sage Scrub habitats wlffiin
the northeast corner of the project its are also included in ereas designated for open
space use. In addition, Riversidean Sage scrub habitats within The northwest comer
of the site are located In area propose for Estate lot development at 0,2 dwelling
units per acre (five acre Io~s). Mitigation Measure 6 on page 32 of the Mitigation
Monitoring Program requires avoidance of these biologically significant areas. As
previously stated, the projest proposal provides a continuous band of open space
along the southern, eastern and northern project boundaries. This continuous open
space buffer will provide a valuable open space linkage/corridor to the Lake Skinner
and Domenigoni Reservoir open space areas to the northeast of the site, This
continuous corridor through the site else provides an open space link to the Santa
Ger~rudis Creek open apace corridor along the southern project boundary.
2.8. W*dl The open apaoo provide a fire hazard for the surrounding existing homes and
the proposed homes within Johnson Ranch? The Specific Plan (p. 2-8) and Mitigation
Measure 0.2.4 require the approval of a Fire Management Plea by the fire Marshall
prior 1~ approval of any implementing subdivision map adjacent to open space. The
Plan will describe the precise design, among other things, of a 100-foot fuel
modification zone within adjacent open space.
29. How will the City ensure that the open space area will not be vandalized and
destroyed by people? It is antioipated that ~he RCHCA will manage and maintain the
open space within Planning Area 1 in a manner similar to the Lake Skinner preserve.
RCH CA, therefore, will be responsible for enforcing use restrictions within the Planning
Area and preventing vandalism and repairing areas that may be destroyed by
vandalism. Prior to dedication of the area, the landowner shall be responsible for
weed abatement and litter removal. In addition, The Developer has proposed adding
to the conditions of approval the requirement that the Open Space Mitigation Plan
includes provisions to prevent unauthorized public access to Planning Area 1 prior to
dedication. (See Planning Department Conditicna 28 and 33, as modified.)
30. Who will maimsin the open space area end who will pay for thb maintenenae?
See response to Question No. 29.
Environmental
31. Will there be any noise impacts from the French Valley Airport on the future
resideme of the project? No, The closest portion of the project is nearly 1-1/2 miles
from the 55 CNEL {(Marginal Impact) Noise Camour. See Attachment 1 hereto.
32. le the Rodpaugh Spasiris Ran rite under Iliamoon Aat contract? A Notice of
Nonrenewal of the Williamson Act contract on the Roripeugh property was filed In
1987. (See Draft EIR, pp. IV-133-137.)
02-26.gS gO22-eO0:~
5:~OC~J72~g~Oi0025 .QUE 9
33. How far is the nearest on-ill school/rein me Fends Valley Aiq~rl? The
nearest proposed school site is over 2 miles f~om the French Valley Airport. (See
Atteohment 1 hereto.)
34. Win there be adequate fire protection once the project b built? The French
Vetlay Fire Station is almost completed. it will serve Johnson Ranch and satisfy the
City's level of service standards for fire servioe to the Project. The draft EIR
suggested that if the French Valley Fire Station were not constructed, e fire station
would be required within ~he Specific Plan Area. The Fiscal Impact Report identifies
e positive annual cash flow from each residential dwelling unit taking into account firs
service costs. In addition, the project will be required to pay the existing firs
mitigation fee of $400 per residential unit end e0.25 per square foot of commercial
development. 8taff's recommendation that rdll additional fees should be provided by
the project is contrary to these facts. (See Fiscal Impact Report, and Mitigation
Measure 0.2. 1, 0.2.5.)
35. Has the project been reviewed and epproved by the Santa Meteorite'Watershed
Authority? The Santa Margarita Watershed Authority has no approval authority over
the Johnson Ranch Specific Plan property. Development of the project will be subject
to federal stormwater discharge regulations, impacts to "waters of the U.S.' will be
regulated under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, and impacts to streams will
required a 1803 Agreement with the California Department of Fish and Game.
36. Will the project be required to enter into an agreement with the school disTdct
prior to the approval of the Specific Iqen by the Planning Commission? The draft FIR
identified a mitigation measure for the Project's school facilities impacts requiring a
mitigation agreement between the developer and school district before recordorion of
the ProJect's first map. This mitigation measure absolutely ensures that the Project
wile comply with any school mitigation resolution ultimately adopted by the City
Council and ie identical to that imposed by the City Council recently on the Campoe
Vetdee Specific Plan. At this stage of the entitlement process, it is unnecessary and
unworkable to attempt to enter into a detailed mitigation agreement. By requiring a
school mitigation agreement that complies with the City's school mitigation policies
prior to recordetion of the first final map, as recommended in the draft EIR, the City
will ensure that the substance of the school mitigation resolution, in whatever form
it is ultimately adopted by the City Council, will be satisfied prior to any development
within the Specific Plan Area. (See Draft EIR, p. IV-168,)
01.26-96 9019-00902
S:\DOC\3,72%gr-jO100~,(~UE 10
Spedrio Pl~q
37. Whet do 1he Design 43aidelines provide in term of ~he orientation of the houses
on local streets? The Design Guidelines ere part of the Specific Plan and provide
· ' standards such as the following:
a. Front yard setbacks should be varied to create an interesting street
scene, including the use of front porches.
b. Second story roof plane lines should be setback from first story
elevations to help reduce building mess.
c. Wall planes aloe6 the front elevaUon should be staggered to provide
visual interest efong the street scene.
d. One story unite should be paired and situated between two story units
tc msxlmize the mass effect on the street scene.
e. Each floor plan should provide varying exterior elevations to provide
interest to the street scene.
f. Neighborhoods should contain both one and two story units to provide
mass relief to the street scene.
h. The treatment of comer lots should incorporate the following:
One story plans or two story plans incorporating a single plate line
toward the exterior aide yard.
Garage located adjacent to the interior side yard.
Wall plane adjacent to the exterior side yard as short ee possible.
Side end front yard setbacks maximlzed.
A clear line of site across the comer of the lot.
i. Garages which are set back further form the street than adjoining living
areas should be used where possible.
j. Garage doors can be recessed a minimum of 12" from the adjacent walls
to create a strong shadow which minimizes the impact of the door.
k. Two story units should incorporate second story architectural elements
above the garage to reduce the mess of the garage space,
OI-2S-S6 9012.00002
S: ~OC%l~2~q~leO~.Q~ 11
Where garages ere adjacent to one another a fire (3) foot minimum
difference in setbocks should be considered.
Front and side entry garage may bc provided In residenUal
neighborhoods.
n. Variation in roof design shell be utilized to create diversity.
o. Individual unite may incorporate mere than one roof design.
Extended roof overhangs may be used in conjunction with porches,
balconies and racemes.
38. Who wig extend redtimed war lines to the project silo? WIll the project install
on-ella reclaimed water lines? Will reclaimed water be used for parks, parkways and
common area landscaping? Reclaimed water lines will be extended by each developer
as development occurs. The project will install reclaimed water lines If reclaimed
water is or will be svsilable to the project. The use of reclaimed water will depend,
to some extent, on the treatment the effluent receives. Generally, parkways and
common area landscaping can receive reclaimed water.
39. How will the interface of Tucclote Creek with the project roads end l~alls be
handled? Planning Department Condition No. 7 requires that a crosswalk be provided
for the trail along the creek edge. If safety considerations warrant, a warning tiesher
or signal will be provided, as required by the City.
40. How will the uniformity of the deign and timing of the development of Tucalote
Creek be ensured? The design will be coordinated and integrated through preliminary
design of the entire system, and preparation of criteria for Its Incremental construction
on a phased basis. The preliminary design and implementation criteria will be
submitted as part of the first tentative subdivision map that is adjacent to the creek.
(See Specific Plan, p. 2-22, and Figure 13, end Planning Department Condition No. 6.)
41. WIll the utilhy corridors be landscaped or will they be left in their natural state?
MWD will own and maintain two utility corridors which traverse Johnson Ranch,
Trails are permitted within each. Other uses and plant materials are permitted, subject
to MWD Use Guidelines on file with the City.
42, Does the Fire Deporlrnent allow using wood shake on roofs? Only roof
materials, as approved by the Firs Marshall will be considered for use.
01-26-95 9012-80002
S:~OC\Z/2%,gSO10825.QiJ[ 12
43. Why does the General INert for the Johnson liarmh dim Include a wide variety
of reeMentlal densities, while the project only offera two? The Specific Plan provides
for and encourages the use of multiple densriles and product types within each
Rannlng Area. (See Specific Plan, p. 2-6.) The intent is to create as broad an appeal
to as many segments of tho housing market as possible.
44. Wlll the residential density or total number of residential units change if the
alignment of MuffleS Hot Spdngs Road and Butterfield Stage Road are different than
that shown on the Specific Plan? WIg the developer be required to process a Specific
Plan Amendant If these alignments ere changed substantially? No, the density and
total units will not change. The Specific Plan contains sufficient flexibility to permit
the design and location of both alignments based upon further studies without
requiring a Specific Plan amendment. (See Mitigation Measure J.8.) Further, the
Specific Plan establishes the importance of these linkages 8s significant regional
connections.
46. Is there a cap on the number of dwel~ng units or the density In each Planning
Area? The Specific Plan currently provides thee 10% of the total number of dwelling
units within s Planning Area may be transferred to another Planning Area, We
propose to add a further qualification to the Specific Ptan that the overall density of
any Planning Area receiving a transfer of dwelling units shall not exceed 8.0 dwelling
· units per acre. (See Specific Plan pp. 2;7.)
46. What is the maximum density and total area committed to the muld-famlly units
within the Village Center? Maximum density will not exceed 20 dwelling units per
gross site area. The total area committed will be determined at the preliminary deign
stage, and is dictated by type of units, nature of amenities, access to parcels, and
similar factors. A rough estimate would be not more than 15 acres.
47. What is ~ density of Planning Area 3 and what is the :naximum number of
units allowed by the Specific Plan1 A meximum of 20 dwelling units is permitted
within Planning Area 3. The 20 dwelling units may be clustered on 1 -acre minimum
lots which would result in a preservation of · contiguous open space area
encompassing the remaining portion of Planning Area 3. (See response to Question
No. 15.)
48. Will the improved TugsIota drainage channel be fenced? The Tucalota open
space corridor concept is depicted on page 2-20 of the Specific Plan. It is not
anticipated that fencing would be provided between the parkway and channel.
49. la it appropriate to allow urbanizedon to continue In the French Valley erea away
from Highway 79, or is it more appropriate to be developed u a furel area with 2-5
to 5 acre lots? The County General Plan (SWAP) and the City General Plan both
clearly contemplate urbanizedon in the French Va~ey area and provide for its
realization through processes such as the John Ranch Specific Plan.
01-26-g5 seas-eeoc2 13
s: ~0C%172%H010625. QUE
S0. How my dealing mite will be allowed for the Joltneon Ranch site under the
current General Ran end 8WAP? Under the SWAP, 1,942 single-family residential
unite are permitted for the property, The current General Plan also permits a total of
1,942 residential dwelling units. As Mro Th0mhill indicated to the Planning
Commission at the January 9, 1996 hearing, at the time of adoption of the City's
General Plan, the City Council directed Johnson Machinery to seek s General Plan
amendment end prepare 8 Specific Plan for the property in order to increase the
permitted number of dwelling units and allow for analysis of and improvements to the
specific traffic circulation system arising from any increase in the number of dwelling
units.
51. Are any equestrian treH8 proposed? How wig this project ~onnect to the
regional tall system? Yes.
52. Can the Ranning Comffdmlon recommend te the City Council to prohibit
banners end pennants within the Village Canter? Yes.
53. Is the Phasing Plan flexible? Who ha the authority to make changes to it? The
Specific Plan Lend Use Phasing Plan is included in Section 2.8 of the Specific Plan end
depicted on Figure 32. The timing and order of development of the phases may
change TO respond to market conditions. The sDeclfic infrastructure requirements
associated with each phase will be developed as tentative subdivision maps are
processed within eaoh phase end conditions for specific Infrastructure requirements
will be imposed as conditions of tentative subdivision maps. The Phasing Plan is
intended to be conceptual In nature and, therefore, flexible, in order to respond TO
market oppormnities, The infrastructure requiremenT~ associated with development
of any area wIThin the Specific Plan will be fixed ea subdivision maps are processed.
(See Public Works Conditions 6, 8 and 12.)
Fiscal Impacts
54, What is the explanation of ~ difference between the laxable sales under
AJteroative A end B? The Fiscal Impact Report analyzed two alternative assumptions
for the Specific Plan Area. Alternative A assumed annexation into the City of
Temecula and development in accordance wiffi the proposed Specific Plan.
Alternative B assumed development of the property in unincorporated Riverside
County In accordance with the SWAP. Under Alternative A ("with annexation"), the
Project showed a positive cash flow to the City. Under Alternative B ("without
annexation"), the City would gain sales tax revenues from purchases by Johnson
Ranch residents in City store, The Project would have a moderately negative fiscal
impact on the County under Alternative A and B arising largely from the Stete's recent
transfer of property taxes from the County to the public schools.
01-26-g~ gO~2-OeO02
S: ~,IXX:%I72'~gSO1OME.QIE 14
GO. How w;g dee '--sue mimed by the apldlcant'e letter dated January b, 18~6
regarding fees and other issues be resolved? Some of the issues raised by the
applicent'a letter dated January 5, 1995 have been resolved. The financial end policy
issues will be resolved prior to approval of the project by the City Council or in the
proposed Development Agreement.
General
66. Which Specific Plane ere spproved in the French Valley arM? See Attachment
No. 2.
57, ff Johnson Ranch Is approved, will the 83 acres parcel to the north of Johnson
Ranch be developed as 8 eln~'lar housing area? This property is currently within the
County of Riverside. The merits of any proposal for development would be analyzed
in accordance with prevailing standards end poll;lee end in compliance with CEQA.
58, What is the ItaNe of Winchester 1800? This project is scheduled to be
considered by the Riverside County Board of Supervisors on February 24, 1996.
59. What ere the target and range of number of dwelling units w;d,in the City Lintits
and the Sphere of Influence?
Acreage~ Dwelling Units
City Area 10,295
Sphere of Influence 11,644
27,853- 51,555
20,654 - 40,217
Target DUs/s(I. ft.
(Probable Level of
Developmenta)
39,658
28,854
Range of dwelling units and square footage is the product of upper and lower
threshold of density/intensity range multiplied by the number of acres.
Target density/intensity is the probable level of development as defined in Table 2-4
of the Land Use Element.
O1 -~6-95 9012-00002
S: ~)0C11/2%H010025 .QUE 15
"i
I
!
f
/ -I
I
I !
I
I _.
is
;/
/
/
/
f
I
,t
NORTH TEMECULA
DEVELOPMENT AREAS
ATTACHMENT NO. 15
CITY ATTORNEY'S RESPONSE :rO HEWITT AND MCGUIRE L.-.. ER
DATED JANUARY 5, 1995
SUBMITrED UNDER SEPARATE COVER
It:XaTAI:I:RI'~OI~ISO~.!'C3 2t2/95 Idb 51
ATTACHMENT NO. 8
PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP AGENDA DATED MARCH 13, 1995
~GENDA
~OHNSON I~NCH · PLANNING COM~f~,~ION WOl~OP
MARCH 13, ~, 6:~ P~
A. ~m~ ~n~
B. ~m~bffi~g
C. ~t
D. ~e 5~ Diego ~e No. 6 ~or
C~ffia~on
A. ~ P~ T~ ~u vs. ~ ~ T~c Co~
B. Off-~ ~pmvem~U
D~e
A. ~-~m
B. Do~ S~ Im~
~c~ Im~ovem~ F~g Me~~'s ~n~bffi~
A. R~ds
B.
C. Sch~ls
D. U~
Fi~ Im~
A. Assumptions
B. So~ of ~u~
C. Co~ of ~&g S~,
De~
A. ~m~t Adj~t m ~e ~a~ ~ S~ ~ ~o~ C~
B. M~-F~y D~m~t
ATTACHMENT NO. 9
CITY'S RESPONSE TO METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT LETTER
DATED JANUARY 19, 1995
4~u~s m 54
iThursday April 13, 1995 7:211 -- irtm ,6805443067, -- Page Zl
84/13/1995 87:17 6885443867
MET'~OPOIZrAN WA'Fmm Dl:ffr!~Ct OF 8Ol.r-xugLN CAT-rI~R;NIA
(Feln'---y ~, 199b')
lles~m: The eo~onu herein rqresent the Oil/', olScial z~eFoeme on the
Johnnon Ranch 8Ix,tic ~ 1~ ~'Html. as a lmtantiallZ ~ pubfie qmncy.
En~'onmental Impaei R~ (EIR). the Adde~dm]a to the Drai~ RIR. ~he revise4
Mitigation Monitoring Prol~am, .nd the Drd~ Specific
The basis for this r~,~ is the fact tha~ it is the reeponm~llty of
Metropofitan's Substructures Branch, ~n~nf Division to review all plans
foF development on or ad~a_~,~nt to ~he existing fee propeFty,
:l~l~p,_~_: T~;- addltio--a inform,,,t_on is hereby incorporated into the Pinal
Environmental Impact Repor~
C~omment 3: On page II-7 of the Dra~ ElR undsr "B. Dinc~tionary Actions and
Approvaln", 7. Rivehide County ~mqx~ation C0mmlsqinn, m, Consideration
Mwnn~oenent Plan", a sub item "a" should be revised to read ms follows:
"Approval of a County General FInn .~m~dmo,t (Public Facilities and Service
Element Oirmlatlon).°
Restnine: If the ~..t~ed project Bite is samrod to the ~ ~Tm~ ~
~on ~ment d ~e ~s ~ ~ ~ ~e ~ ~ m~ m ~ on
Continent 4: Pa~e DI~ o~ the Draft ~ one of the project objectives state~
'7. Construction ~ all required on4ite and off-site improvements in ,rd,~ to
provide a coordinated development eonaistent with stwrounding laud uses in
Ili~{~fdn~ce Wtt~ r~:ment~t end need8 Of ~ Ui4'~ty and ~ d~strict3w.
It should be acknowledged that Metropolitan's Pipeline No. 6 Project is of
regional importance (i.e., distributing water supplies to the counties of
Riverside and San Diego). How does the proposed plan consider its
construction and development so as to not affect Metropolitan's project during
its design and construction?
Response: Condition of Approval 21 which will be applied to the proposed
project states:
"21. 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."
Comment 5: Page III-6 of the Draft EIR states that "this EIR is intended to
cover actions by other governmental agencies...~. An additional action to be
added to the listing which follows this statement in the Draft EIR should
include the following.
5) Consideration and approval of proposed trails/open space along existing and
approved Metropolitan pipeline alignments by the Metropolitan Water District
of Southern California.
Response: This additional inforrhation is hereby incorporated into the Final
Environmental Impact Report.
Comment 6: The currently proposed land use plan (Figure 4 of the Draft EIR)
indicates that the existing Metropolitan fee property is not a part of the plan.
This snrne statement is also made on the revised land use plan figure (Figure
2) in the Addendure to the Draft EIR on Page 10 of the Addendure.. Yet, on
Page 2-17 of the Draft Specific Plan, Figure 11 (Parks, Open Space and Trails
Plan) shows an off-road trail on the existing Metropolitan fee property.
Furthermore, Figure 18 (Trails) on Page 2-33 of the Draft Specific Plan
provides a cross section of a multi-use trail (Metropolitan fee property, open
space). As such, there is a contradiction between the draft CEQA documents
and the draft Specific Plan. Metropolitan has not agreed to the use of its fee
property as part of a multi-use trail system. The applicant will need to
coordinate with Metropolitan on this matter. Any proposed use of the existing
fee property will have to be in compliance with Metropolitan Guidelines.
Response: Condition of Approval 14 will be revised and applied to the proposed
project. As revised (revisions underlined) it states:
"14. In coordination with Metrovolitan and in acoordance with the
Metronolitan Guidelines. 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 Read."
50
Compliance with this Condition of Approval will insure that Metropolitan will
have the opportnn4ty to require compliance with its guidelines in considering any
request for use of Metropolitan fee property as a multi-purpose trail.
Comment 7: Page IH-11, second paragraph of the Draft EIR should be revised
as follows (revisions underlined):
"The Metropolitan Water District (MWD) right-of-way traverses the western
portion of the project site. This fee nronertv contains Metronolitan's San Diego
Pineline Nos. 3. 4 and 5 and a surface service road. These ninelines are major
imported water delivery lines to Southern Riverside and San Die2o Counties.
Given its ownership by MWD, it is not part of the proposed project. Adjacent
residential land uses (as currently proposed) will contain fencing along the
perimeter of the right-of~way. Pronosed uses or access to this area must
comnlv with the Guidelines for Develovments in the Areas of Facilities. Fee
Proverties, and/or Easements of the Metrovolitan Water District of Southern
California."
Resnonse: This revised information is hereby incorporated into the Final
Environmental Impact Report.
Comment 8: Figure 7, Parks, Open Space and Trails Plan, does not include
Metropolitan's existing fee property as part of that plan. Figure 11 in the draft
Specific Plan presumes a trail onM etropolitan's existing fee property and the
Addendure to the Draft EIR also states on Page 9 that the service road along
the Metropolitan right-of-way will be used for multi-purpose trails.
Metropolitan has not agreed to this proposal. Any proposed use of the existing
fee property will have to be in compliance with the Metropolitan Guidelines.
Response: Condition of Approval 14 will be revised and applied to the proposed
project. As revised (revisions underlined) it states:
"14. In coordination with Metronolitan and in accordance with the
Metronolitan Guidelines, the Developer or his successors shall attempt to
secure an easement for a multi-purpose trail and provide the necessary
improvements along the MWD fight-of-way in concurrence with the slope and
landscape improvements along Butterfield Stage Road."
Compliance with this Condition of Approval will insure that Metropolitan will
have the opportnnity to require compliance with its guidelines in considering any
request for use of Metropolitan fee property as a multi-purpose trail.
Comment 9: Figure 9, Circulation Plan, does not contain the existing Buck
Road alignment. Buck Road is a County maintained roadway and is part of the
County of Riverside's transportation p]~nnlng infrastructure. It is also the
approved alignment for Metropolitan's San Diego Pipeline No. 6 Project. For
the street to be vacated, a County General Plan Amenrlvnent would be required.
As mentioned by the County of Riverside in its response (August 24, 1994)
during the public review period: "The project is proposing changes to the
roadways on County Public Facilities and Service Element Circulation section
which will require a General Plan Amendment to delete or downgrade these
facilities as proposed."
Resnonse: The existing alignment of ~.h~ north-south oriented portion of Buck
Road generally falls on the proposed Anza Road alignment as identified in the City of
Temecula, General Plan Circulation Element for the City's Sphere of Influence and
as depicted in the Riverside County General Plan Circulation Element. The proposed
circulation system for the Johnson Ranch Specific Plan would elimlnate the planned
portion of .~n~.a Road between the southeast comer of the project site and Butterfield
Stage Road. The Johnson Ranch EIR Tr~t~c Study and Supplemental Traffic Analysis
reports the impacts associated with the elimination of the identified An~.a Road/Buck
Road segment. It is recognized that the roadway network modification proposed in
the Johnson Ranch Specific Plan would require a City of Temecula, General Plan
Amendment if the proposed project sits is annexed to the City Of Temecula as noted
on page II-6 of the Draft EIR.
Comment 10: Coordination between Metropolitan and the applicant will be
necessary for any roadway or other facilities crossing over the existing
Metropolitan fee property on the western portion of the Johnson Ranch
property. Such facilities must adhere to Metropolitan guidelines.
Response: Condition of Approval 4 which will be applied to the proposed
· project states:
"4. The Developer shall make a good faith effort to acquire any off-site
property interests necessary for the provision of improvements associated with
this Specific Plan and in adherence to the K-Rat/Q:~imby requirements and if
the Developer should fail to do so, the Developor 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 66462 and Section
66462.5. Such agreement shall provide for payment by the Developer of all
costs incurred by the City to acquire the off-site property interests required in
connection with the subdivision. Security of a portion of these costs shall be
in the form of a cash deposit in the smonnt given in an appraisal report
obtained by the Developer, at the Developor'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
Developor's expense, obtain right-of-way via eminent domain proceedings".
Compliance with this Condition of Approval will insure that the project
developer acquire any off-site property interests necessary for provis/on of
improvements associated with the Specific Plan or enter into an agreement to insure
provision of such improvements. These off-site property interests may include
Metropolitan fee property which is currently designated as "Not-a-Part" of the
proposed Johnson Ranch Specific Plan.
62
Comment 11: Pa~e 1II-18 of the Draft EIR states: "The current Johnson
Ranch Specific Plan proposes changes to Riverside County CirculatiOn Element
(and the City of Temecula adopted Circulation Element for the City's Sphere
of Influence).' This sentence is ambiguous with the word 'changes'. Wffi the
applicant or City of Temecula apply for a County General Plan Amendment for
vacating Buck Road, which is the approved alignment corridor for
Metropolitan's San Diego Pipeline No. 6 Project?
Response: Any circulation plan amendments associated with the proposed
project should relate to the City of Temecula General Plan, Circulation Element. As
previously noted, the existing alignment of the north-south oriented portion of Buck
Road generally falls on the proposed .An2a Road alignment as identified in the City of
Temeculs, General Plan Circulation Element for the City's Sphere of Influence and
as depicted in the Riverside County General Plan Circulation Element. The proposed
circulation system for the Johnson Ranch Specific Plan would eHmiuate the planned
portion of An~-a Road between the southeast comer of the project site and Butterfield
Stage Road. It is recognized that the roadway network modification proposed in the
Johnson Ranch Specific Plan would require a City of Temecula, General Plan
Amendment if the proposed project site is annexed to the City of Temecula as noted
on page II-6 of the Draft EIR.
Comment 12: Page IV-12, fourth paragraph of the Draft EIR should be revised
as follows (revision underlined): . "Fill that was place, compacted and tested
during the construction of Met~oDolitan's three underaround ninelines is
present within Metropolitan's fee Dronertv that crosses the western portion of
the subject property."
Response: This revised information is hereby incorporated into the Final
Environmental Impact Report.
Comment 13: Page IV, third paragraph of the Draft EIR should be revised as
follows (revisions underlined): "The existin2 Buck Road traverses dia2onallv
throu2h the Johnson Ranch Dronertv, startin2 north of the property from Borel
Road and leadin2 down toward the southeast edge of the Dronertv as an arterial
roadway (County-maintained, unpaved dirt roadway): Buck Road then traverses
east to Rancho California Read as a mountain arterial (two-lane ~aved
roadway)?
Response: This revised information is hereby incorporated into the F'innl
Environmental Impact Report.
Comment 14: On page IV-57 of the Draft E1R states that Borel Road would be
reconfigured or abandoned. However, there is no mention in the third
paragraph about vacating that portion of Buck Road which is on-site. This
issue needs to be addressed in the Draft EIR.
Response: The existing alignment of the north-south oriented portion of Buck
Road generally falls on the proposed An~.a Road alj~ffnment as identified in the City of
Temecula, General Plan Circulation Element for the City's Sphere of Influence and
63
as depicted in the Riverside County General Plan Circulation Element. The proposed
circulation system for the Johnson Ranch Spedtic Plan would eliminate the planned
portion of .~n~.a Road between the southeast comer of the project site and Butterfield
Stage Read. The ~sting graded dirt section of Buck Road, which is located on-site,
would be affected in the later stages of the Johnson Ranch development schedule.
Once the project begins to develop its eastern' portion, the existing north-south
segment of Buck Read would be eliminated. New Street "A" will connect with Buck
Road and would access to Butterfield Stage Read and points west. The eliminated
north-south segment of Buck Road would be replaced by new on-site street "C" and
street "D". Since circulation will be improved by theso changes, the alternative of
retaining Buck Read was not considered. It is recognized that the roadway network
modification proposed in the Johnson Ranch Specific Plan would require a City of
Temecula, General Plan Amendment if the proposed project site is annexed to the
City of Temecula as noted on psge II-6 of the Draft EIR.
Comment 15: There is no discussion or analysis in Section IV.F,, Circulation
on how that portion of Buck Read, which now traverses the Johnson Ranch
property, will be vacated and what would be the resulting environmental
impacts and mitigations associated with this proposed action.
Response: The vacating of the Buck Read aliL~ment in and of itself would
create no new physical impacts on the environment. The Johnson Ranch EIR Traffic
Study and Supplemental TraffJc Analysis reports the impacts associated with the
· elimination of the identified An~.a Read/Buck Read segment.
Comment 16: Page IV-61, second paragraph of the Draft EIR should be revised
as follows (revisions underlined): "Major on-site access intersections along
Butterfield Stage Read...nronosed reali2ned Buck Read/Promontory Read..."
Response: This revised information is hereby incorporated into the Final
Environmental Impact Report.
Comment 17: Page IV-61, third paragraph of the Draft EIR should be revised
as follows (revisions underlined): "Msjor access intersection along the nronosed
realigned Buck Road (Street "A")..."
Response: This revised information is hereby incorporated into the Final
Environmental Impact Report.
Comment 18: An analysis of retaining Buck Read (that portion that traverses
the Johnson Ranch property) should be included as it is contained in the
County's General Plan.
Response: The existing graded dirt section of Buck Road, which is located on-
site, would be affected in the later stages of the Johnson Ranch development schedule.
Once the project begins to develop its eastern portion, the existing north-south
segment of Buck Read would be elimln~xted. New Street "A" will connect with Buck
Read and would access to Butterfield Stage Read and points west. The eliminated
north-south segment of Buck Road would be replaced by new on-site street "C" and
street "D". Since circulation will be improved by these changes, the alternative of
retaln~ng Buck Road was not considered.
Comment 19: On Page IV-71, Table 21, Levels of Service for Critical
Unsignsli~.ed Intersections, Opening Year With Project Scenario, the first
intersection listed should be referred to as 'A" Street/Proposed Realigned Buck
Road and "D" Street."
Response: This revised information is hereby incorporated into the Final
Environmental Impact Report.
Comment 20: Page IV~78 of the Draft EIR lists the current inconsistencies of
the Johnsen Ranch Specific Plan with the Riverside County General Plan
Circulation Element. There is no discussion concerning the Buck Road portion
through the Johnson Ranch which would be dropped with the implementation
of the Johnsen Ranch Specific Plan. This action is inconsistent with the
County's General Plan Circulation Element and should be so stated in this
section.
Response: It is recegni~.ed that the roadway network modlt~catlons proposed
by the Johnson Ranch Specific Plan would require a City of Temecula, General Plan
Amendment. It should further be recognized that the County of Riverside,
Circulation Element maint~inm the Buck Read name for the portion of Anza Road
· between Butterfield Stage Read and the' east-west portion of Buck Road. Once the
project begins to develop its eastern portion, the existing north-south segment of Buck
Road would be eliminated. New street "A" will connect with Buck Road and would
access to Butterfield Stage Read and points west. The eliminated north-south
segment of Buck Road would be replaced by new on-site street "C' and street "D".
Circulation will be improved by these changes.
Comment 21: No mitigation measure is suggested on Page IV-82 of the Draft
EIR for the loss of the existing Buck Read (a County roadway) within the
Johnson Ranch property.
Response: From a circulation point of view, there are no impacts created by the
loss of Buck Road since traffic which would have used the eliminated portion of Buck
Road/Anza Road is effectively served by Street "C" shown in the Johnson Ranch
Specific Plan. No other mitigation is required for circulation impacts in this regard.
Comment 22: More discussion is needed on Page IV-100 of the Draft EIR
under "Project Impacts" concerning potential archeological impacts to identified
sites (e.g. JP 8).
Response: The archaeological surveys performed on the Johnson B~nch site
revealed fourteen archaeological sites. A map.showing the location of these sites is
on fie with the City of Temecula, Planning Department. While the vast majority of
these sites consist of bedrock grinding features, the settlement patterns within the
subject project areas also reflect short-term c~mpsitas and larger, longer-term
habitation or village sites. Archaeological Site JP-8 is described on page IV-96 of the
' 65
Draft EIR in detail as follows:
"This site is located in the central, western portion of the site just east of the
M.W.D. Pipeline. The site consists of three grinding sli~.ks on two boulders,
and two quartz flakes. Dark grey soils exist around these features suggesting
some potential subsurface deposit. While no water source exists in the
immediate vicinity, a sink hole is nearby. Sites JP-8, 10, and 11 may be related
to JP-9, a central habitation location which generated other, food processing
locations."
As further indicated on page IV-100 of the Draft EIR, this site could be
destroyed by project development if not properly mitigated. On that and subsequent
pages, mitigation measures for each of the fourteen observed archaeological sites are
provided which are based on a set of general procedures which are normally carried
out when mitigating archaeological sites in California Implementation of these
measures will mitigate project impacts to a level of insignlfjcance. Site relocation,
impact assessment, locational mapping and photography of milHn_~ features are
recommended as a mitigation for potential impacts to site JP-8.
Should further delineation of this site be required and access to the existing
Metropolitan fee property be necessary, the project proponent will coordinate
such activities with Metropolitan.'
Response: The Project proponent will require Metropolitan's permission to
access Metropolitan's fee property, if access is required.
Comment 24: Page IV-113 of the Draft EIR, the last paragraph under the
Mammals subsection misleads the reader into thlnldn~r that only eight
Stephens' kangaroo rats (SKR) occupy 337 acres. This paragraph should also
clarify that the 1993 survey is an addendure to two previous surveys conducted
in 1991 and 1989. In particular, the trapping was necessary to verify the
extent of occupied habitat, and that the 337 acres of occupied SKR habitat was
determined through the two previous surveys. However, the SJM Biological's
Reports both 1989 and 1993 (the 1991 report was not available) did not indicate
how the occupied habitat was verified (i.e. no methodoloSy was given). It would
appear that new focused surveys would be necessary for determining SKR
habitat.
Response: A complete copy of the 1989 and 1993 Stephens' kangaroo rat survey
reports conducted on the Johnson Ranch project are included within Technical
Appendix F of the Draft EIR. These surveys were conducted and reports prepared by
Steven J. Montgomery of SJM Biological Consultants. As a "Permitted" or "Certified"
SKR Biologist, he is obligated to adhere to survey guidelines and methedologies as
required by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish
and Game. A detailed description of his survey methods are discussed in the copies
of his analyses.
The 1991 SKR survey referred to in ,.his comment was also conducted by Mr.
Montgomery but was prepared for the Metropolitan Water District in relation to the
alignment of the Pipeline #6 project.
Comment 25: The three paragraphs discussing the Coastal California
gnatcatchers on pages IV-116 and IV-117 of the Draft EIR do not disclose
whether gnatcatchers were surveyed per the Scientific Review Panel Guidelines
for Gnatcatcher Surveys.
Response: A complete copy of the Biological Assessment of the Johnsen Ranch
property is included in its entirety within Technical Appendix F of the Draft ErR. As
indicated on page 5 of that Analysis:
"Focused surveys were conducted in July, 1993 to determine the status
of the Coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica)
within the Johnson Ranch property. These surveys were conducted in
accordance with currenfiy accepted protocol of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service for determining the presence/absence status of coastal California
gnatcatchers."
Comment 26: Page IV-117, last paragraph of the Draft EIR states that any
displaced wildlife will move into acljacent habitats where local populations will
be crowded and disrupted. What is basis of this statement? No reference is
given as to the current densities bf species (sensitive or otherwise) occupying
adjacent habitats. More information should be offered, or the sentence should
be changed to read may, instead of will.
Response: Displaced w~dllt% due to project development may move into
adjacent habitat areas. The nature and degree of this displacement is dependent upon
the extent of wildlife resources being displaced and the nature of surrounding
habitats. The impact of project development upon any sensitive biological reseurees
is discussed in detail on pages IV-119 through IV-125 of the Draft ErR.
Comment 27: Page IV-118, second paragraph of the Draft EIR should cite the
harassment definition per the State and Federal Endangered Species Acts.
This paragraph may mislead the reader into thlnldng that laws of harassment
(or legal definition therefore) pertain to all wildlife species. This definition
should reflect harassment of listed threatened or endangered species only.
Response: Any harassment of or other project-related impacts to Threatened
or Endangered Species will be subject to State and Federal regulations concerning the
protection of these species and the securing of the necessary permits from the
respective wildllfe agencies.
Comment .28: Page IV-118, Table 22 of the Draft EIR classfiles impacts to
Disturbed/Agricultural Lands as non-signifj~nt under Assessment of Impacts.
On Page IV-111, it is stated that non-native grasslands/agriculture support high
densities of raptors and small m~mmsls. However, on Page IV-121, it is stated
that impacts to raptor species would be considered signifi~nt. As such, Table
67
22 for Disturbed/Agricultural Lands and the statements made in the text need
to be clsrifiecL
~nse: Table 22 on page IV-118 of the Draft EIR is intended to indicate
that the direct loss of on.site disturbed/agricultural lands is, of itself, a non-s~Fnif~nt
impact. When considering these disturbed/agricultural lands within a ]ar~er,
cumulative context as a part of a regional raptor fors~ng habitat, these project-
related impacts are considered significant. In spite of the mitigation measures
proposed in the Draft EIR and Addendnm to the Draft EIR, the level of impacts
related to wildlife/vegetation is considered to represent a s'xgnifie~nt adverse impact
which wffi require a Statement of Overrialng Considerations.
Comment 29: Any roadway alignment crossing the existing Metropolitan fee
property must be coordinated with Metropolitan.
Response: Condition of Approval 4 which will be .applied to the proposed
project states:
"4. The Developor shall make a good faith effort to acquire any off-site
property interests necessary for the provision of improvements associated with
this Specific Plan and in adherence to the K-Rat/Qnimby requirements and if
the Developor should fail to do so, the Developor shall, prior to submittal of any
final map for recordation, enter into an agreement to complete th~
improvements pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act, Section 66462 and Section
66462.5. Such agreement shall provide for payment by the Developer of all
costs incurred by the City to acquire the off-site property interests required in
connection with the subdivision. Security of a portion of these costs shall be
in the fo~m of a cash deposit in the mount given in an appraisal report
obtained by the Developor, at the Developor's cost. The appraiser shall have
been approved by the City prior to commeneement 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".
Compliance with this Condition of Approval will insure that the project
developor acquire any off-site property interests necessary for provision of
improvements associated with the Specific Plan or enter into an agreement to insure
provision of such improvements. These off-site property interests may include
Metropolitan fee property which is currently designated as "Not-a-Part" of the
proposed Johnson Ranch Specific Plan.
Comment 30: The discussion on the non-sig~it~icance of cumulative impacts of
sensitive species on Pages Iv-120 through IV-124 of the Draft EIR is
questioned. In particular, if impacts to sensitive species are not significant
(Page IV-117 and IV-125 (5. Mitigation Measures). Also, there is no cumulative
impacts discussion containing information about adjacent and/or regional
habitats that support the sensitive species.
Response: Pages IV-123 and IV-124 of the Draft EIR provide a discussion of
the im,cacts of the proposed project upon on-site open space areas as well as upon
regional resources in areas adja_~nt to or in the viariley of the project site. These off-
site, regional resources include: Skunk Hollow; wi]allfe migration corridors, induaing
the Santa Gertrudis Creek corridor; and the Lake Skinner-Domenigoni Valley Core
(SKR) Preserve.
The "Revised" Johnson l~pch Specific Plan, as discussed fin the Addendnm to
the Draft ErR, includes additional open space areas which are intended to provide a
land use buffer and transition area separating more urban uses within the proposed
project with open space areas to the east and northeast of the site. These open space
areas also provide an open space/wilrlllfe migration connection to adjacent off-site open
space areas. As noted on page 47 of the Addendnm to the Draft EIR, the "Revised"
Specific Plan eliminates a cumulative biological impact upon the northeast portion of
the site, thereby also eliminating a potential cumulative impact upon adjacent off-site
areas as well.
Comment 31: The Lake Skinner Park is owned by Metropolitan. There is no
land use discussion of Metropolitan's Lake Skinner facility on Page IV-133, first
paragraph of the Draft EIR.
Response: As indicated on paged IV-133 of the Draft EIR:
"Also to the north of the site is tlie 6,440-acre Lake Skinner Park, which is a
regional park operated by the County of Riverside. The County Open Space
and Conservation Map designates this area as "Park/Forest". This park
includes the proposed permanent Lake Skinner SKR (Stephens lcangaroo rat)
Preserve."
Comment 32: Page IV-137, last paragraph of the Draft EII~ which required
project approvals, should include an amendment to the County of Riverside's
General Plan Circulation Element.
Response: An amendment to the County's General Plan would be required
unless the City's derision to Annex this area makes it a moot point. If the proposed
project site is Annexed by the City, the City's General Plan would have to be amended
as noted on page II-6 of the Draft EIR,
Comment 33: The Southwestern Riverside County Multi-species Reserve is not
"proposed" as a permanent preserve for SKK This Reserve already exists in
perpetuity to mitigate a number of approved Metropolitan projects with respect
to SKR habitat. The Reserve Management Committee has assumed the
management of the Reserve.
Response: This additional info~-mation is hereby incorporated into the Final
Environmental Impact Report.
69
Comment 34: The project proponent needs to coordinate with Metropolitan if
any facilities cross the existing Metropolitan fee property and the San Diego
Pipeline No. 6 corridor,
Response: Condition of Approval 21 which will be applied to the proposed
project states:
"21. The applicant shall reach an agreement with the Metropolitan
Water District on the precise location of the San Diego Pipe Ijne No. 6.
This agreement shall be secured prior to approval of any implementing
applications/permits including grading permits."
Condition of Approval 4 which will be applied to the proposed project states:
"4. The Developor shall make a good faith effort to acquire any off-site
property interests necessary for the provision of improvements associated with
this Specific Plan and in adherence to the K-Rat/Q~imby requirements and ff
the Developer should fail to do so, the Developor 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 66462 and Section
66462.5. Such agreement shall provide for payment by the Developer of all
costs incurred by the City to acquire the off-site property interests required in
connection with the subdivision. :Security of a portion of these costs shall be
in the form of a _~h deposit in the mount 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 obtsin necessary right-of-way, City shall, at
Developer's expense, obtain right-of-way via eminent domain proceedings".
Compliance with these Conditions of Approval will insure that the project
developer acquire any off-site property interests necessary for provision of
improvements associated with the Specific Plan or enter into an agreement to insure
provision of such improvements. These off-site property interests may include
Metropolitan fee property which is currently designated as "Not-a-Part" of the
proposed Johnson Ranch Specific Plan.
Comment 35: The project proponent needs to coordinate with Metropolitan
should landscaping plans effect the existing Metropolitan fee property and the
San Diego Pipeline No. 6 corridor.
Response: Condition of Approval 21 which will be applied to the proposed
project states:
"21. The applicant shall reach an agreement with the Metropolitan
Water District on the precise location of the San Diego Pipe l,ine No. 6.
This agreement shall be secured prior to approval of any implementin~
applications/permits including gradln~ permits."
7O
Comment 36: The second sentence within the fiffil paragraph of page IV-150
of the Draft EIR should be revised to indicate that three pipelines are
contained in the fee property.
Response: This revised information is hereby incorporated into the Final
Environmental Impact Report.
Comment 37: The project proponent needs to coordinate with Metropolitan
regarrling water plans/structures that affect/cross the ~xisting Metropolitan fee
property and the San Diego Pipeline No. 6 corridor.
Response: Condition of Approval 21 which will be applied to the proposed
project states:
"21. The applicant shall reach an s~eement with the Metropolitan
Water District on the precise location of the San Diego Pipe 1 .ine No. 6.
This agreement shall be secured prior to approval of any implementing
applications/permits including grading permits."
Comment 38: The project proponent needs to coordinate with Metropolitan
regarding sewer plans/structures that affect/cross the existing Metropolitan fee
property and the San Diego Pipeline No. 6 corridor.
Response: Condition of Approval 21 which will be applied to the proposed
project states:
"21. 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 gr,~dlng permits."
Comment 39: Lake Skinner Park is owned by Metropolitan.
Response: This additional information is hereby incorporated into the Final
Environmental Impact Report.
Comment 40: On Page IV-170 of the Draft EIR, fourth paragraph,
Metropolitan should be added to the list of Santa Rosa Plateau participants.
Response: This additional information is hereby incorporated into the Final
Environmental Impact Report.
Comment 41: The existing conditions subsection of Section IV.O.6, Utilities,
should include all existing infrastructure, such as Metropolitan's pipelines and
fee property.
Response: This additional information is hereby incorporated into the Final
Environmental Impact Report.
71
Comment 42: For any utilities crossing Metropolltan's fee property (as well as
the future San Diego Pip~Jlne No. 6 Pipeline corridor) the project .proponent
will need to coordinate with Metropolitan and comply with Metropolitan
Guidelines.
Resnonse: Condition of Approval 21 whiCh will be applied to the proposed
project states:
"21. 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.'
Comment 43: There is no discussion nor impact analysis regarding the
proposed plan with Metropolitau's San Diego PipeJlne No. 6 Project. This
project should be included in Table 32, Cumulative Projects on page V- 1 of the '
Draft EIR. The San Diego Pipeline No. 6 is aregional water supply conveyance
project whiCh needs to be addressed in this section.
Response: Given adherence to Condition of Approval 21 noted above, the
proposed project is not expected to have any major impacts upon the alignment or
subsequent construction of the San Diego Pipeline No. 6.
Section V.A., Cumulative Impac~ Analysis within the Draft EIR lists those
development projects planned in the vicinity of Johnson RanCh whiCh will contribute
to the cumulative impacts of the area. Metropolitan's San Diego Pipeline No. 6
Project is not viewed as a project whiCh would produce cumulative impacts in the
s~me manner as a residential or commercial development. Within the cx~muiative
impact scenario (beyond its direct, construction-related impacts), the San Diego
Pipeline No. 6 is viewed as growth-accommodating rather than producing or
contributing to long-term cumulative environmental impacts.
As further noted on page V-6 of the Draft EIR, "increased development in the
project area will incrementally increase the demand for public utilities and services,
including water and sewer service. This increased demand may be viewed as a
growth-inducement to existing systems, whiCh may result in expansion or extension
of existing service facilities to serve all anticipated growth." These service facilities
include Metropolitan's San Diego Pipeline No. 6 Project.
Comment 44: Section VA., Cnmulative Impact Analysis needs to address the
cumulative impacts of vacating County roads (e.g., Buck Road) on the County's
Roadway System/Congestion Management Plan.
Response: The cumulative impacts of the project including its proposed
circulation system are addressed in the Traffic Study and Supplemental Traffic
Analysis. The eliminated segment of Buck Road is not a CMP roadway.
Comment 45: Due to incomplete impact analysis, the level of significance of
impacts of certain roadways may need to be reaseessed.
Resnonse: The Johnson Ranch EIR Traffic Study and Supplemental Traffic
Analysis reports the impacts associated with the elimination of the identified An~.a
Read/Buck Road segment.
Comment 46: Within the Increased Recreation Alternative, the Buck Road
alignment through the Johnson Ranch property is retained. This is the
approved alignment for the San Diego Pipeline No. 6 Project.
Response: This additional information is hereby incorporated into the Final
Environmental Impact Report.
Comment 47: The existing Metropolitan fee property is not part of the open
space for the Residential/Open Space Alternative.
Response: This additional information is hereby incorporated into the Final
Environmental Impact Report.
Comment 48: Please note that draft environmental planning doc~mentation
should be sent to Mr. Charles F. Smith at Metropolitan headquarters.
Metropolitan's mailing address is P.O. Box 54153, Los Angeles, CA 90054-
0153.
Response: This additional information is hereby incorporated into the Final
'Environmental Impact Report.
Comment 49: On Page 5 of the Addendum EIR, the discretionary actions
associated with the proposed project are listed. This listing should include the
County of Riverside for approval of a General Plan Amendment to its
Circu]ation Element.
Response: If the proposed project site is annexed to the City, the Circulation
Element of the City's General Plan would have to be amended as noted on page II-6
of the Draft EIR.
Comment 50: Does the acreage listed for Open Space, Other Open Space on
Page 7, Table 2 of the Addendure EIR, include the existing Metropolitan fee
property?
Response: The acreage listed under "Other Open Spaco" on Table 2, Page 7 of
the Addendure EIR does not include the existing Metropolitan fee property.
Comment 51: Page 9 of the Addendnm EIR states: "In addition, the service
roads runulng through the MWD easement traversing the property will used
for hiking and equestrian purposes." Metropolitan has not agreed to this
proposal. Any proposed use of the existing fee property wffi have to be in
compliance with the Metropolitan Guidelines.
Response: Condition of Approval 14 will be revised and applied to the proposed
project. As revised (revisions underlined) it states:
"14. In coordination with Metropolitan and in accordance with the
Metronolitan Guidelines, 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."
Compliance with this Condition of Approval will insure that Metropolitan will
have the opportunity to require compliance with its guidelines in considering any
request for use of Metropolitan fee property as a multi-purpose trail.
Comment 52: There is no discussion within the Addendure EIR on the impacts
and general plan smendment process regarding the vacating of Buck Road
through the Johnson Ranch property.
Response: The existing alignment of the north-south oriented portion of Buck
Road generally falls on the proposed An~.a Road alignment as identified in the City of
Temecula General Plan, Circulation Element for the City's Sphere of Influence and
as depicted in the Riverside County General Plan Circulation Element. The proposed
circulation system for the Johnson Ranch Specific Plan would eliminate the planned
portion ofAnT. a Road between the southeast comer of the project site and Butterfield
Stage Road. The Johnson Ranch EIR Traffic Study and Supplemental Traffic Analysis
reports the impacts associated with the elimination of the identified AnT. a Road/Buck
Road segment. It is recognized that the roadway network modi~ication proposed in
'the Johnson Ranch Specific Plan woulA require a City of Temecula, General Plan
Amendment if the proposed project site is annexed to the City of Temecula, as noted
on page II-6 of the Draft EIR.
Comment 53: Should further delineation of the JP 8 site be required and
access to the existing Metropolitan fee property be necessary, the project
proponent will coordinate such activities with Metropolitan.
Response: The Project proponent will require Metropolitan's permission to
access Metropolitan's fee property, if access is required.
Comment 54: The Reserve Management Committee (RMC) is the responsible
entity for managing the Southwestern Riverside County Muiti-species Reserve.
.Planning efforts relating to the open space system and the Reserve should be
coordinated with the RMC.
Response: This additional information is hereby incorporated into the Final
Environmental Impact Report.
Comment 55: Plans (relating to grading, water, sewer, utility, roadways, and
other fsailities mentioned throughout the proposed specific plan) will need to
be reviewed by Metropolitan if such plans will either affect or cross existing or
planned Metropolitan corridors.
Response: The Project proponent will require Metropolitan's permission to
access Metropolitan's fee property, if necessary. In addition, Plnnnlng Condition of
Approval No. 21 which will be applied to the proposed project states:
"21. The applicant shall reach an agreement with the Metropolitan
Water District on the precise location of the San Diego Pipe I .ine No. 6.
This agreement shall be secured prior to approval of any implementing
applications/permits including grading permits."
Comment 56: The Eastern Municipal Water District will need to coordinate
with Metropolitan on the EM-11 connection.
Response: Mitigation Measure 7 from page 43 of the Mitigation Monitoring
Program states:
"7. The Johnson Ranch project along with other proposed development in the
area will fund, on a fair-share basis, the EM-11 connection to Metropolitan
Water District facilities. This funding shall be in accordance with overall
demand in the area and will be coordinated through the Eastern Municipal
Water District."
Comment 57: The proposed project and its effects on Metropolitan's San Diego
Pipeline No. 6 Project should be .assessed in the cumulative impact analysis
section.
Response: Section V.A., Cnmulative Impact Analysis within the Draft EIR lists
those development projects planned in the vicinity of Johnson Ranch which wffi
contribute to the cumulative impacts of the area. Metropolitan's San Diego Pipeline
No. 6 Project is not viewed as a project which would produce cumulative impacts in
the same manner as a residential or commercial development. Within the cumulative
impact scenario (beyond its direct, construction-related impacts), the San Diego
Pipeline No. 6 is viewed as growth-accommodating rather than producing or
contributing to long-term cumulative environmental impacts.
As further noted on page V-6 of the Draft EIR, "increased development in the
project area will incrementally increase the demand for public utilities and services,
including water and sewer service. This increased demand may be viewed as a
growth-inducement to existing systems, which may result in expansion or extension
of existing service facilities to serve all anticipated growth." These service fadlities
include Metropolitan's San Diego Pipeline No. 6 Project.
Comment 58: For Hydrology, Water Quality, Cultural and Scientific Resources,
Population and Housing, Public Facilities and Services (including the EM-11
connection), within the Revised Mitigation Monitoring Program, those plans
either affecting or crossing existing or planned Metropolitan corridors will need
to be reviewed and approved by Metropolitan.
Response: This revised information is hereby incorporated into the Final
Environmental Impact Report.
Comment 59: Vacating of Buck Road will require a general plan nmendment.
This action should be included in the mitigation monitoring program,
Response: If the proposed projec~ site is annexed to the City of TemeculA; the
Circulation Element of the Oity's General Plan would have to be Amended as note~
on page II-6 of the Draft EIR.
76
MWD
METROPOLITAN WATER D/STRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
i995
' RF_ CEIV' SD
FEB - 7 1995
BY:
Temecula Planning Commission
City of Temecula
43172 Business Park Drive
Temecula, California 92590
Attention Steven Ford
Chairman of Planning Commission
Dear Planning Commissioners:
As indicated in our December 19, 1994, letter to
the City of Temecula Planning Department, The Metropolitan
Water District of Southern California (Metropolitan) is
.working with representatives of Johnson Ranch to examine
alternative alignments of our San Diego Pipeline No. 6
Project (Project) across the Johnson Ranch property.
Metropolitan relied on information from both
Johnson Ranch representatives and the County of Riverside
in completing the Final EIR for the Project and in aligning
its Project within the Buck Road right-of-way, which has
been a County-maintained roadway, officially adopted in 1948
(Resolutions from County Board of Supervisors approved on
February 24, 1948 and May 3, 1948) and is part of the County
of Riverside's General Plan Circulation Study Area 6.
Metropolitan has examined several alternative alignments for
the Project and concluded that the Buck Road alignment for
san Diego Pipeline No. 6, currently approved by its Board of
Directors, is the best alignment based on many factors
including engineering, economic, and environmental concerns.
Since the certification of the Project's EIR,
adoption of the Project, and receipt of the latest
documentation from representatives of the City of Temecula,
County of Riverside, and Johnson Ranch, Metropolitan has
re-examined its approved alignment through the Johnson Ranch
property. Metropolitan has discovered that the only
feasible alternative is one that has elevations similar to
those of Buck Road, has similar environmental impacts and
ME~O~LITAN WATER W~RICT W 50UTHER~ ~tYOR~A
Temecula Planning
Commission
-2-
mitigations as identified in the certified Project EIR, and
does not exceed Metropolitan's anticipated construction and
right-of-way acquisition costs.
If the Johnson Ranch Specific Plan is approved
in its current configuration without the Buck Road
alignment, Metropolitan requests that the Plan reflect a
corridor generally con[orming to the existing Buck Road
alignment for San Diego Pipeline No. 6.
Metropolitan has not agreed to use the existing
Metropolitan fee corridor at the western postion of
Johnson Ranch as a multl-purpose trail system. However,
Metropolitan is willing to discuss the matter further.
Metropolitan has reviewed the draft environmental
planning documents related to the Johnson Ranch Specific
Plan. Specific comments related to those documents are
included in the enclosure with/this letter.
If you have any questions concerning Metropolitan's
request on the Buck Road alignment or on any other issues
raised by this letter, please contact Mr. John Shamma,
Project Engineer at (213) 217-6409.
y truly your
J m
/ lneer
.... ng
DWS:hah
Enclosure
CC:
William Johnson, Jr.
/James Fergus
John Yeager, Esq.
Gary Thornhill
Saied Nassah
ATTACILNIENT -- Temecula Planning Commission Letter --February 3, 1995
The comments herein represent the official response on the Johnson Ranch Specific Plan
by The Metropolitan Water District of Soulhem California (Metropolitan) as a potentially
affected public agency. These comments are based on the review of Ihe following
documents: the draft environmental impact report (EIR), the addendure to the draft EIR,
Ihe revised miligalion moniloring plan, and Ihe draft specific plan.
For this attachment. specific statements and issues are taken from the draft documents
and are either quoted directly, paraphrased. or simply referenced. Metropolitan's
responses follow directly below the referenced statements and issues.
COMSIENTS ON THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
ENVIRONhlENTAL SUMMARY/MITIGATION MONITORING
PROGRAM
Page l- I through Page 1-53.
Please refer to Metropolitan comments listed in the revised mitigation monitoring
plan as part of this attachment.
II. INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE
Page II-I, second paragraph: "An Environmental Assessment of the project has been
prepared by the City of Temecula and a Notice of Preparation (NOP) for an EIR was
distributed to other local Responsible Agencies, the State Clearinghouse and other
interested parties between October 13 and November 12, 1993."
Metropolitan never received the NOP from the City of Temecula, despite the fact
its property is contiguous to Johnson Ranch and it has an existing fee propetty
within Johnson Ranch. Also, in June of 1993 Metropolitan certified its Final ELR
for the San Diego Pipeline No. 6 Project. The City of Temecula was on the
mailing list as an interested public agency to receive Metropolitan's CEQA
documentation for the Pipeline Project.
Page II-5: "B. Discretionary Actions and Approvals."
The Drab EIR should include a tenth item on Page 11-7 as follows: The
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, a. Consideration and
approval should the existing fee property be crossed or utilized (e.g., drainage
facilities, utilities, landscaping. traffic circulation); b. Consideration and approval
of proposed trails/open space on Metropolitan's existing fee property and
approved San Diego Pipdine No. 6 alignment in compliance with the Guidelines
for Developments in the Area of Facilities, Fee Properties, and/or Easements of
1
2
ATTACILNIENT -- Temecula Planning Commissinn Letter -February 3, 1995
The Metropolitan Water District of Sottthern California (Metropolitan
Guidelines).
It is the responsibility of Metropolitan's Substroclures Branch, Engineering
Division to review all plans for development on or adjacent !o the existing fee
proper~y.
Page II-7: "7. Riverside County Transportation Commissionl.} a. Consideration of
project compliance with requirements of the Riverside County Congestion Management
Plan."
Revise "a." to: Approval of a General County Plan Amendment (Public Facilities
and Service Elemenl Circulation).
Ili. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Page III-5: "7. Construction of all required on-site and off-site improvements in order to
provide a coordinated development consistent with surrounding land uses in accordance
with requirements and needs of local utility and service districts."
Metropolitan's Pipeline No. 6 Project is of regional importance (i.e., distributing
water supplies to the counties of Riverside and San Diego). How does the
proposed plan consider its construction and development, so as to not affect
Metropolitan's project during its design and construction?
Page I[1-6, first paragraph: "In addition, this EIR is intended to cover actions by other
governmental agencies...."
Add: 5) Consideration and approval of proposed trails/open space along existing
and approved Metropolitan pipeline alignments by The Metropolitan Water
District of Southern California.
Page I11-7, Figure 4 (Land Use Plan).
This land use plan figure indicates that the existing Metropolitan fee property is
not a part of the plan. This same statement is also made on the revised land use
plan figure (Figure 2) in tile addendum to the Draft E1R on Page 10 of the
Addendum. Yet, on Page 2-17 of the Draft Specific Plan, Figure I 1 (Parks, Open
Space and Trails Plan) shows an off-road trail on the existing Metropolitan fee
property. Furthermore. Figure 18 (Trails) on Page 2-33 of the Draft Specific Plan
provides a cro~s section of a multi-use trail {Metropolitan fee property, open
space). As such. there is a contradiction between the draft CEQA documents and
the draft Specific Plan. Metropolitan has not agreed to the use of its fee property
as part of a multi-use trail system. The applicant will need to coordinate with
3
4
6
ATTAC!!D. IENT -- Temecula Plnnning Commission Letter --February 3, 1995
Metropolitan on this matter. Any proposed use of the existing fee property will
have to be in compliance with Metropolitan Guidelines.
Page III-1 I, second paragraph: "The Metropolitan Water District (MWD) right-of-way
traverses the western portion of the project site. It contains an underground aqueduct and
a surface service road. Given its ownership by MWD, it is not part of the proposed
project. Adjacent residential land uses (as currently proposed) will contain fencing along
the perimeter of the right-of-way. Any access to or across this area will be restricted in
accordance with MWD Guidelines."
Change second sentence to: This fee property contains Metropolitan's San Diego
Pipeline Nos. 3, 4, and 5 and a surface service road. These pipelines are major
imported water delivery lines to southern Riverside and San Diego counties.
Change fourth sentence to: Proposed uses or access to this area must comply with
tile Guidelines for Developments in the Area of Facilities, Fee Properties, and/or
Easements of The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
Page III-14, Figure 7 (Parks, Open Space, and Trails Plan).
This figure is the original Parks, Open Space and Trails Plan and does not include
Metropolitan's existing fee property as part of that plan. Figure 11 in the draft
specific plan presumes a trail on Metropolitan's existing fee property and the
Addendum to the Draft EIR also states on Page 9 (last sentence from top
paragraph) that the service road along the Metropolitan right-of-way will be used
for muhi-purpose trails. Metropolitan has not agreed to this proposal. Any
proposed use of the existing fee property will have to be in compliance with the
Metropolitan Guidelines.
Page Ill-17, Figure 9 (Circulation Plan).
This figure does not contain tile existing Buck Road alignment. Buck Road is a
County maintained roadway and is part of the County of Riverside's
transportation planning infrastructure. It is also the approved alignment for
Metropolitan's San Diego Pipeline No. 6 Project. For the street to be vacated, a
county general plan amendment would be required. As mentioned by the County
of Riverside in its response (August 2~., 199~-) during the public review period:
"The project is proposing changes to the roadways on County Public Facilities
and Service Element Circulation section which will require a General Plan
Amendrnent to delete or down grade these facilities as proposed."
Coordination between Metropolitan and tile applicant will be necessary for any
roadway or other facilities crossing over the existing Metropolitan fee property on
the western portion of the Johnson Ranch property. Such facilities must adhere to
Metropolitan guidelines.
8
10
ATTACH~NIENT -- Temeculn Planning Commission Letter --February 3, 1995
Page III-18, second paragraph, last sentence: "The current Johnson Ranch Specific Plan
proposes changes 1o Riverside County Circulation Element (and the City of Temecula
adopted Circulation Element for the City's Sphere of Influence)."
11
This sentence is ambiguous with the word "changes". Will the applicant or City
of Temecula apply for a County General Plan Amendment for vacating Buck
Road. which is the approved alignment corridor for Metropolitan's San Diego
Pipeline No. 6 Project.9
IV. ENVIRONhlENTAL ANALYSIS
Page IV-12, fourth paragraph: "Fill that was placed, compacted and tested during the
construction of the Metropolitan Water District underground aqueduct pipeline is present
within the MWD easement that crosses the western portion of the subject property."
Revise sentence to: Fill that was placed. compacted and tested during the
construction of Metropolitan's three underground pipelines is present within the
Metropolitan's fee property ....
12
Page IV-57, third paragraph: "Buck Road is an existing east-west, two-lane paved
roadway from Borel Road to Rancho California Road. This facility is designated as a
four-lane Mountain Arterial."
Revise sentence to: The existing Buck Road traverses diagonally through the
Johnson Ranch property. starting north of the property from Borel Road and
leading down toward the southeast edge of the property as an arterial roadway
(County-maintained. unpaved dirt roadway); Buck Road then traverses east to
Rancho California Road as a mountain arterial (two-lane paved roadway).
Page IV-57, first and third paragraphs.
There is a discussion about physical aspects to Borel Road titat would be
reconfigured or abandoned in the first paragraph. However. there is no mention in
the third paragraph about vacating that portion of Buck Road which is on-site.
This issue needs to be addressed in the Draft EIR.
14
Page IV-61, 3. Project Impacts.
There is no discussion or analysis in this section on how that portion of Buck
Road. which now traverses the Johnson Ranch property, will be vacated and what
would be tile resulting environmental impacts and mitigations ~sociated with this
proposed action.
15
ATTACII~!ENT -- Temecula Planning Commission Letter --February 3, 1995
Page IV-61, second paragraph: "Major on-site access inlersections along Butterfield
Stage Road...Buck Road/Promontory Road...."
· Revise to: Major on-site...pror~osed reali~ned Buck Road/Pronmntory Road ....
Page IV-61, third paragraph: "Major access intersections along Buck Road (Street
· Revise to: Major access inter.~ections along the proposed reali~ned Buck Road ....
Page IV-68, Year 2015 Traffic Analysis: and Page IV-70, Table 19.
· An analysis of retaining Buck Road (that portion that traverses the Johnson Ranch
property) should be included as it is contained in the County's General Plan.
Page IV-7 I, Table 2 I.
· First category under column "Intersection" should indicate "A" Street/Proposed
Realigned Buck Road and "D" Street.
Page IV-78. fifth paragraph: "The Johnson Ranch Specific Plan is inconsistent with the
Riverside County General Plan Circulation Element in the following areas...."
· There is no discussion concerning the Buck Road portion through the Johnson
Ranch which would be dropped with the implementation of the Johnson Ranch
Specific Plan. This action is inconsistent with the County's General Plan
Circulation Element and should be so stated in this section.
Page IV-82, 5. Mitigation Measures.
· No mitigation measure is suggested for the loss of the existing Buck Road (a
County roadway) within the Johnson Ranch property.
Page IV-I00, second paragraph (under 3. Project Impacts).
· More discussion is needed concerning potential archeological impacts to
identified sites (e.g., JP 8).
Page IV- 102: ,Ljp 8: Site relocation and impact assessment; Iocational mapping and
photography of railling features."
· Should further delineation of this site be required and access to the existing
Metropolitan fee property be necessary, the project proponent will coordinate
such activities with Metropolitan.
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
ATTACtlP, IENT -- Temecula Plnnning Commitsion Letler --February 3, 1995
Page IV- I 13, last paragraph under the Mammals subsection.
This paragraph misleads the reader into titinking that only eight Stephens'
kangaroo rats (SKR) occupy 337 acres.
The paragraph should also clarify that the 1993 survey is an addendum to two
previous surveys conducted in 1991 and 1989. In particular, the trapping was
necessary to verify the extent of occupied habitat, and that the 337 acres of
occupied SKR habitat was determined through the two previous surveys.
However, Ihe SJM Biological's Reports both 1989 and 1993 (the 1991 report was
not available) did not indicate how the occupied habitat was verified (i.e., no
methodology was given). It would appear that new focused surveys would be
necessary for determining SKR habitat.
Pages IV-116 and IV-117, three paragraphs on the coastal California gnatcare/hers.
These three paragraphs do not disclose whether gnatcatchers were surveyed per
the Scientific Review Panel Guidelines for Gnatcatcher Surveys.
Page IV-117, last paragraph on page.
This sentence states that any displaced wildlife will move into adjacent habitats
where local populations will be crowded and disrupted. What is basis of this
statement? No reference is given as to the current densities of species (sensitive
or otherwise) occupying adjacent habitats. More information should be offered,
or the sentence should be changed to read may, instead of will.
Page IV- I 18, second paragraph (referring to harassment).
Cite harassment definition per the state and federal Endangered Species Acts.
This paragraph may mislead the reader into thinking that laws of harassment (or
legal definition thereof) pertain to all wildlife species. This definition should
reflect harassment of listed threatened or endangered species only.
Page IV-118, Table 22.
hnpacts to Disturbed/Agricultural Lands are classified as non-significant under
Assessment of Impacts. On Page IV-I I I, it is stated that non-native
grasslands/agriculture support high densities of raptors and small mammals.
However, on Page IV-121. it is stated that impacts to raptor species would be
considered significant. As such. Table 22 for Disturbed/Agricultural Lands and
tile statements made in the text need to be clarified.
24
25
26
27
28
ATTAC!INIENT -- Temecu|a Planning Commission Letter --February 3, 1995
Page IV-119, third parngrnph, third sentence.
· Any roadway nlignment crossing the existing Metropolitan fee property must be
coordinated with Metropolitan.
Pages IV-120 through IV-12,s,
· Discussion on the non-significance of cumulative impacts of sensitive species is
questioned. In particular, if impacts to sensitive species are not significant (Page
IV-117, third paragraph), then why is it recommended that focused surveys be
performed on Pages IV-117 and IV-125 (5. Mitigation Measures). Also, there is
no cumulative impacts discussion containing information about adjacent and/or
regional habitats that support the sensitive species.
Page IV- 133, first paragraph.
· The Lake Skinner Park is owned by Metropolitan.
* There is no land use discussion of Metropolitan's Lake Skinner facility.
Page IV- 137, last paragraph.
· Include an amendment to the County of Riverside's General Plan Circulation
Element.
Page IV-140, first paragraph, top line.
· The Southwestern Riverside County Multi-species Reserve is not "proposed" as a
permanent preserve for SKR. This Reserve already exists in perpetuity to
mitigate a number of approved Metropolitan projects with respect to SKR habitat.
The Reserve Management Committee has assumed the management of the
Reserve.'
Page IV-142, Population and Housing.
· Project proponent needs to coordinate with Metropolitan if any facilities cross the
existing Metropolitan fee property and the San Diego Pipeline No. 6 corridor.
Page IV-145, Figure 38 (Landscaping Plan).
· Project proponent needs to coordinate with Metropolitan should landscaping plans
affect the existing Metropolitan fee property and the San Diego Pipeline No. 6
corridor.
29
3O
31
34
ATTACHI~IENT -- Temeculn Planning Commission Letter --Februnry 3, 1995
Page IV-150, fifth paragraph. second sentence.
· Revise sentence to indicate that three pipelines are contained in the fee propeay.
Page IV-153, Figure 40 (Water Plan).
· Project proponent needs to coordinate with Metropolitan regarding water
plans/structures that affect/cross the existing Metropolitan fee property and the
San Diego Pipeline No. 6 corridor.
Page IV-156, Figure 41 (Sewer Plan).
· Project proponent needs to coordinate witit Metropolitan regarding sewer
plans/structures that affect/cross the existing Metropolitan fee property and the 38
San Diego Pipeline No. 6 corridor.
Page IV- 170, second paragraph.
· Lake Skinner Park is owned by Metropolitan.
Page IV-170. fourth paragraph.
· Add Metropolitan to the list of Santa Rosa Plateau participants. In addition, SKR
do not inhabit the Santa Rosa Plateau.
Page IV- 175, second paragraph.
· This existing conditions subsection should include all existing infrastructure, such
as Metropolitan's pipelines and fee property.
Page IV-175, c. Project Impacts.
· For any utilities crossing Metropolitan's fee property (as well as the future San
Diego Pipeline No. 6 Pipeline corridor), the project proponent will need to
coordinate with Metropolitan and comply with Metropolitan Guidelines.
V. MANDATORY CEQA TOPICS
Page V-I, A. Cumulative Impact Analysis.
· There is no discussion nor impact analysis regarding the proposed plan with
Metropolitan's San Diego Pipeline No. 6 Project. This project should be included 4a
in Table 32. The San Diego Pipeline No. 6 is a regional water supply conveyance
project which needs to be addressed in this section.
ATTACII~XIENT -- Temecnln rlnnning Commission Letter -Februnry 3. 1995
Page V-6, first paragraph.
· Need to address tile cutt~ulative impacts of vacating County roads (e.g., Buck
Road) on the County's roadway system/congestion management plan.
Page V-7, item No. 6 (Circulation).
· May need to reassess level of significance, due to incomplete impact analysis.
Page V-36, Figure 46.
· In this alternative, the Buck Road alignment through the Johnson Ranch property
is retained. This is the approved alignment for the San Diego Pipeline No. 6
Project.
Page V-40, sixth paragraph, third sentence.
· The existing Metropolitan fee property is not part of the open space for the
proposed plan.
Page V-5 I, Organizations Consulted.
· Please note that for the draft environmental impact report, Metropolitan was not
consulted. Future environmental planning documentation should be sent to Mr.
Charles F. Smith at Metropolitan headquarters. Metropolitan's mailing address is
P.O. Box 54153, Los Angeles, CA 90054-0153.
CO~IMENTS ON THE ADDENDUh,! TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT
Page 5, second paragraph.
· Include County of Riverside for approval of a General Plan Amendment to its
Circulation Element.
Page 7, Table 2 ("Revised" Project Land Use Summat3,).
· Does the acreage listed for Open Space, Other Open Space, include the existing
Metropolitan fee property?
Page 9, top paragraph, last sentence: "In addition, the service roads running through the
MWD easement traversing the property will be used for hiking and equestrian purposes."
49
5O
ATTAC!!~IENT -- Temecula Planning Commission Letter --February 3, 1995
Metropolitan has not agreed to this proposal. Any proposed use of the existing
fee property will have Io be in compliance with the Metropolitan Guidelines.
51
Page 9. last paragraph. "Roads"; Page 31. F. Circulation.
Titere is still no discussion on the impacts and general plan amendment process
regarding the vacating of Buck Road through the Johnson Ranch property.
52
Page 39, I. Cultural and Scientific Resources.
Should further delineation of the JP 8 site be required and access to the existing
Metropolitan fee property be necessary, the project proponent will coordinate
such activities with Metropolitan.
53
Page 42. J. Wildlife/Vegetation.
Refer to Metropolitan comments previously mentioned in the original draft EIR
section of this attachment.
Page 48. first and seventh paragraphs; Page 49, paragraph, numbered 9.
The Reserve Management Committee (RMC) is the responsible entity for
managing the Southwestern Riverside County Multi-species Reserve. Planning
efforts relating to the open space system and the Reserve should be coordinated
with the RMC.
Several pages throughout addendure on a variety of utility, facility, and landscaping
plans.
Plans (relating to grading, water, sewer. utility, roadways, and other facilities
mentioned throughout the proposed specific plan) will need to be reviewed by
Metropolitan if such plans will either affect or cross existing or planned
Metropolitan corridors.
55
Page 63, second paragraph from bottom of page; Page 65, last paragraph.
The Eastern Municipal Water District will need to coordinate with Metropolitan
on the EM-I I connection.
56
Page 68, first paragraph.
Assess the Plan and its effects on Metropolitan's San Diego Pipeline No. 6
Project in the cumulative impact analysis section.
I0
ATTAC!I~IENT -- Tesnecula rlnnning Commission Letter --February 3, 1995
COI~!MENTS ON TIlE REVISED MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
For Hydrology. Waler Quality, Cultural and Scientific Resources, Population and
Housing, Public Facilities and Services (including the EM-I I connection), those
plans either affecting or crossing existing or planned Metropolitan corridors will
need to be reviewed and approved by Metropolitan.
Vacating of Buck Road will require a general plan amendment. This action
should be included in the mitigation monitoring program.
COI%'IMENTS ON THE DRAFT SPECIFIC PLAN
1.0 SPECIFIC PLAN SUMMARY
Page l-1, third paragraph, first sentence; Figures 3 and 4.
· The Reserve Management Committee (RMC) is the responsible entity for
n~anaging the Southwestern Riverside County Multi-species Reserve. Planning
efforts relating to the open space .~ystem and the Reserve should be coordinated
with the RMC.
Page 1-8, third paragraph.
· This paragraph should mention that an amendment to the County of Riverside's
General Plan Circulation Element will be necessary prior to vacating Buck Road.
2.0 MASTER PLANS
Page 2-8, fourth paragraph, Numbered I I.
· In addition to the fuel modification zone for Santa Gertrudis Creek and Planning
Area I, a fuel modification zone should be considered to the noah, between the
proposed development and Lake Skinner's southern boundary. This zone would
serve to protect Metropolitan's property from f~res that may started to the south,
as well as fires that may intrude onto Johnson Ranch from the north.
P;~ge -.2-9. Figure 8 (Skunk Hollow Watershed).
· For any road~x'ay which crosses the existing Metropolitan's fee property (as well
as the future San Diego Pipeline No. 6 Pipeline corridor), the project proponent
will need to coordinate with Metropolitan and comply with Metropolitan
Guidelines.
58
II
ATTACII~%IENT -- Temecuin Planning Commission Letter --February 3, 1995
Page 2-17, Figure I I (Parks, Open Space and Trails Plan)
Metropolitan has not agreed to the use of its existing fee property (nor of the
future San Diego Pipeline No. 6 corridor) to be used as part of the proposed multi-
purpose trail system. Any proposed use of the existing fee property will have to
be approved by Metropolitan and be in compliance with the Metropolitan
Guidelines.
In addition, the figure indicates that there would be a trail linkage from the
Johnson Ranch properly to the Lake Skinner facility (County Park side).
Currently. this sonthem border is fenced. Coordination and agreement between
Metropolitan and the County Parks would be needed before an access through the
fence could be permitted.
Page 2-18. The Open Space Component subsection; Page 2-19, Figure 12 (Regional
Opens Space).
The Reserve Management Committee (RMC) is the responsible entity for
managing the Southwestern Riverside County Multi-species Reserve. Planning
efforts relating to the open space system and the Reserve should be coordinated
with the RMC.
Page 2-22, Paragraph. Numbered 12.
Add Metropolitan's name to the reference "...in accordance with the requirements
of the City, EMWD and other service proriders...."
Page 2-23. Paragraph. Numbered 16.
The Reserve Management Committee (RMC) is the responsible entity for
managing the Southwesteat Riverside County Multi-species Reserve. Planning
efforts relating to the open space system and the Reserve should be coordinated
with the RMC.
Metropolitan has not agreed to the use or its existing fee property (nor of the
future San Diego Pipeline No. 6 corridor) to be used a.s part of the proposed multi-
purpose trail system. Any proposed use of the existing fee property will have to
be approved by Metropolitan and be in compliance with its guidelines.
Page 2-28, 2.2 Circulation Plan.
This discussion does not deal with the vacating of Buck Road and the affect it
may have on the County's regional roadway system.
12
ATTACIINIENT -- Temecula Planning Commission Letter --February 3, 1995
Page 2-32, Paragraph. Numbered 3.
· Same comment as Page 2-23 comment mentioned above.
Page 2-32. Paragraph. Nmnbered 5: "MWD Easement: The MWD sen, ice road will be
used for walking. equestrian and mountain bike use." Figure Ig (Trails).
· Metropolitan has not agreed to this use. but is willing to discuss this matter
further.
Pages 2-34 through 2-46.
· Plans (relating to grading. water. sewer, utility. roadways, and other facilities
mentioned throughout the proposed specific plan) will need to be reviewed by
Metropolitan if such plans will either affect or cross existing or planbed
Metropolitan corridors.
13
ATTACHMENT NO. 10
L~- i i ERS FROM INTERESTED PROPERTY OWNERS
4/13/95 m 55
cc: go Thortth-lll
Dear Councilman:
I voted for you to do the City of Temeculats Business with ethical decision making
methods. We as voters expect you co vote within your city approved guidelines and
zoning laws.
I could not believe my ears that all of you voted to abort the cityts Southwest
Plan for keeping our wine country and open areas in the unincorporated areas in
balance! I am going to write =o the Governor, the Fair Practices Board, the
President, the Attorney General and Co all of the newspapers. 60 Minutes will
hear from me, too.
You are obligated co uphold your own laws! ~hat gives?
Signed,
BJBM .... A concerned Voter!
AND, YOU CAN BET THAT I WILL NEVER VOTE FOR ANY OF YOU EVER AGAIN! ALL OF MY
CHURCH MEMBERS WILL BE WATCHING TO HEAR AND SEE YOUR DECISION MAKING ON THIS
JOHNSON RANCH MODEL...
RECEIVED.
APR 1 11995
CITY MANAGER
cc: C. Tho~nhill.
RECEIVED
APR 11 1995
CITY MANAGER
April 10, 1995
Councilmember Sal Munoz
City Hall
43 174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
Dear Mr. Munoz,
I am writing this letter in opposition to the Johnson Ranch Pro)ect. Our
Wine Countrhy is a very vaJuable asset to this community, and I do not
want it to be destroyed by high-density housing near lake Skinner.
Please vote NO on the Johnson Ranch Project.
Pat Proud
44582 La Paz
Temecula, CA 92592
RECEIVED
APR 11 1995
/las'd .....
Joyce Eleanor Willjams
33612 Vino Way
Temecula, Calif. 92591
City of Temecula
Planning Commission
April 7, 1995
Dear Members of the Planning Commission;
Thank you for sending me the Notice of Public Hearing.
On the Notice you state you are planning a vote of APPROVAL for the
project. It is hard for me to believe that when you get responsible
input from residents whose home and property are close to the Johnson
Ranch project that you disregard our concerns and O. K t~e project
as it is now presented. Certainly you can see that the density is
much to high and will in the future will cause nothing but problems.
So many of us moved away from the city to the open spaces to avoid
what you are allowing to be built in our back yards.
Please reconsider a vote of approval till the project has at least
been cut in half. Think long term. What will this community be like
in twenty years. Anytime this many people are allowed to move into
a small area, you end up with nothing but trouble. I know from experence.
I grew up in East Los Angeles, moved to La Puente~then West Covina.
All these communities eroded over a time Of about 20 years each.
If you vote this in, you will all be responsible for creating anothe~
With the three villages already planed they have set up future "TURFS"
and not one shoval of ground has been turned.
Please reconcider and vote NO for the plan as it now stands.
Very Truly Yours,
Joyce Eleanor Willjams
ee: G. l~o*rnhtll
cc: C.' $9~orzlhl!l
Dear Councilman Lindemans:
I voted for you in the last election.
RECEIVED
APR 11 1995
CITY MANAGER
As a taxpayer and voter I expect you to uphold adopted City of Temecula,
County of Riverside Approved Master Plan Zoning Laws and regulations.
Voting yes to change zoning for the Winchester 1800 Project is a violation of
my trust in you as an elected offical.
What is going on in your thought patterns? Development outside of appro~ed zoning
costs millions of dollars to we taxpayers!
I certainly hope you will vote "NO" to change any French Valley Zoning in the
future to high density!
The Southwest Paln for 532 homes for the Johson Ranch Property Model is the
approved zoning. It does not exceed the SWAP, the air quality, traffic-conjestion
nor RAISE MY TAXES by 324 Million Dollars for the water and schools for this
project. I expect to watch and hear you "NO VOTE" to the Johnson Ranch
Property Model of 4900 homes, justified because it is over the City Adopted CC
and' the County of Riverside's Approved Master Plan's low density guidelines.
Respectfully,
MRS. F. MCMillan
RECEIVED
A P R 12 1995
~'d
r ...... ~:-"~ ..... ~-,-"~---~7-,7'~'~"T"/"~'tT' '."T"""""~?". " '" .... "' ........ """ - ..... ..... · - .....
RECEIVED
APR 11 1995
CITY MANAGER
c~: G. Thornhill
AP~I 1 ~885 ·
CITY MANAGER
' RECEIVED
/~-~z~7~~ APR Z 1 1995
;: 7: ': ];'1 :~ D ·/~/' ,~_~~f--~C.~Y MANAGER
c~.~ G. Thornhi!t~-
Dear Councilman Parks:
I voted for you in the last election.
RECEIVED
APR 11 1995
CITY MANAGER
As a taxpayer and voter I expect you to uphold adopted City of Temecula and
the County of Riverside Approved Master Plan Zoning Laws and regulations,
Voting "YES" to change zoning for the Winchester 1800 Project is a violation
of my turst in you as an elected offical.
Wl~at is going on in your thought patterns? Development outside of approved zoning
costs millions of dollars to we taxpayers!
I certainly hope you ~ill vote "NO" to change any French Valley Zoning in the
future to high density!
The Southwest Plan for the Jobson Ranch Property Model of 532 homes is the
approved zoning. It does not exceed the SWAP, the air quality, traffic-conic
nor RAISE MY TAXES by 324 Million Dollars for the water and schools for this
project.
I expect to watch and hear your "NO VOTE" to the JOHNSON RANCH PROPERTY MODEL of
4900 homes, justified because it is over the City of Temecula's Adopted CC & R's
and the County of Riverside's Approved Master Plan's low density guidelines.
Signed,
MRS. F. McMillan
/tns%L..., .......
CITY MANAGER
1%
Thornhi
Dear City Councilman:
As a voter I am requesting you to VOTE "NO" on the Johnson Ranch Project.
The reasons are as follows:
DENSITY
AIR POLLTION
SWAP PLAN
TAXATION
W'E NEED TO HAVE CONTROLLED GROWTH AS THE COUNTY PLANNERS HAVE RECOMMENDED.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
RESPECTFULLY
RECEIVED
APR 10 1995
CITY MANAGER
~c: G. ~hcrnhiI1
Dear City Councilman:
As a voter I am requesting you to VOTE "N0" on the Johnson Ranch Project.
The reasons are as follows:
DENSITY
AIR POLLTION
SWAP PLAN
TAXATION
WE NEED TO HAVE CONTROLLED GROWTH AS THE COUNTY PLANNERS HAVE RECOMMENDED.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
RESPECTFULLY,
RECEIVED
APR 10 1995
CITY MANAGER
_____, co: G. Thornhill
Dear City Councilman:
As a voter I am requesting you to VOTE 'dNO'" on the Johnson Ranch Project.
The reasons are as follows:
DENSITY
AIR POLLTION
SWAP PLAN
TAXATION
WE NFED TO RAVE CONTROLLED GROWTH AS THE COUNTY PLANNERS RAVE RECOMMENDED.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
RESPECTFULLY,
RECEIVED
APR 10 7995
CITY MANAGER
Dear City Councilman:
As a voter I am requesting you to VOTE "N0' on the Johnson Ranch Project.
The reasons are as follows:
DENSITY
AIR POLLTION
SWAP PI~
TAXATION
WE NEED TO ~AVE CONTROLLED GROWTH AS THE COUNTy PLANNERS HAVE RECOMMENDED.
THANK yOU V~ERy MUCH.
RESPECTFULLy,
"" ":::' RECEIVED
· .~ ' :-.'~7 APR 1 01995
The Nature Conservancy
2255.~Avmue
Pasadens, CA 91101
(818) 395-739~
(818) 795-6321 (fax)
hnuary 3i, 19~
Markham ~t Auochtea
dlTS0~ltOwl, SinlieN
Temec~, CA
It]t: Johnson Ranch Specific Plan
As you zequested, we brimqy have loo]cmt a$ the Dm~t tmvifmmmcntal Imlmx RqmoR t~afdi~
the lohnaon Ran~ Specific Plaa ('1qau") dated Yuly, 1994 ~ by DouSIu Wtwxl &
Ass~iases. As the Plan is lutmmlxaed for mm ales genenaly mxtside The Nature C~mserv~cy's
am oflwtmm'y intorot, w~ w~ notshie mallo~biolo~ally-train~dmfi'to umess the iMan.
0ivm our public mmc~mraFmeut fix gtmtter t~:,~nition of le need [o~ wildlife and habiUtt
l}-h_oe$, however, we would like ~o eqxmsm suplx~, ~y, for your mainmance of the
Toesiota Open Space Co,,Idor. We encourage you to c,,;nfim,e to incorporate ~Of ih~t
lhxkale m the Specific Plan im inletMuted.
SincnTJy,
Merrilee F~llowm
So. Califm'nia Field Relxesemadve
2/2' ,~
California Regional Office. 785 Market Street, San Frandsco. California 94103~
National Office, 1815 North Lynn Street, ArlinBhon. VirBtnla 22209
ATTACHMENT NO. 11
NEWS PAPER ARTICLE ON WATER RELEASE
ATTACHMENT NO. 12
CITY ATTORNEY CORRESPONDENCE ON PARK AGREEMENT
ITuesday April 11, 1~5 12:57m -- Frm '71~7555~8, -- Page 2{
~PE-11-~5 TUE 13:51 B~ C~-I.~ ~ F~ ~ 7147555~ P. ~
~pril ll, 1995
YZA~C8~ (7X4) 798-OSXX
John P. Yeaget, Esq.
Hewitt & XcCuire
19900 Macarthur Boulevard,
Irvine, California 92715
1050
Re:
Outline of Agreement Pertaining to Park and Recreation
Or "Quimby" Dedication, Fee Pay~_e~t, and Development
Fee Credits for JohnsOn Raneal Project, City of Temecula
Dear John:
I wanted to take a moment to memorialize the understanding
City staff had reached with Johnson Ranch regarding what the City
or Temeoula and the Temecula Colmnudty Services District and the
developer's expec~ations would be pertaining to park dedication
and improvement requirements and the c~edits therefor for the
Johnson Ranch project. If the points outlined in this letter are
acceptable to Johnson Ranch, please execute end send via
telecopier a copy of this letter to me. This will permit the
Planning Commission to consider the perk related issues, but
enable us to work out a final agreement before the matter reaches
the City Council.
The basis of understendtng between Johnson Ranch and City
staff is as follows:
Johnson Panoh would dedicate and improve one 15 acre
park, three 6 acre parks, and all 27 acres of
neighborhood parks.
Johnson ~anch would be given a fee credit for the
improvements to the 15 acre park end for the
improvements to the three 6 acre parks. These parks
are to be dedicated, ~proved, and delivered *'turn-key"
to the City.
~uesday A rit 11 1995 1Z:~Tpm -- Free "71/e75556~8° -- page 3~
AF~-II-u~ '~ ~3:~ BIs Ci3bTa IESA · F~X N~ 7147b~SB48
~ohnP. Yeagee,
Hevitt & McGuira
April 110 1995
Page 2
The fee credit is for 100t of the improvements to the
perk sites listed in item 2 above -- even though some
of the improvements are not in excess of
The fee credit available to Johnson Ranch is only tO be
applied to any park or recreational component of any
subsequently adopted Public Improvement or Development
lapact Fee. The fee credit vill not be applied to or
permitted to encroach upon other components of a
Development Impact Fee -- such as ~hat imposed to
mitigate impacts on public works, transportation end
circulation, or other intrastructure.
If sorecreditexists based onthe amount of
improvements, then there is a fee obligation, the
developer accepts the same as a risk. If ~here are
more fees to be paid than the amount of credits
available, based on the value of improvements, the
developer shall pay the balance o~ the fee to the City·
The neighborhood perks, approximately 27 acres, ere to
be dedicated, improved, and delivered uturn-ke~' to the
City for vithout Development Impact-Fee Credit. Such
perks viII be credited against developer's Quimby
obligations.
The creek dedications end improvements, while not
meeting City standards for ~uimby purposes, Will be
given credit against the (~y land dedication
requirements or Q~lmby fee obligations. The developer
shall receive no credit for the improvements to the
creek properties -- either against Quimby or any
subsequent Develo~ent Impact Fee.
The developer has the option toptepees a cost estlmxte
of the park improvements which would be subject to City
approval, or the parties can agree in advance to an
improvement maximum of $100~000 pea acre for the four
parks. With approximately 33 acres of parkland to be
improved for which credit is available, ~h~e equates to
approximately 3.3 million dollars in fee credit.
~ohn P. Yeaget, F4q.
Hevitt & McGuira
April ll, 1995
Page 3
The park dedication and fee obligations would adjust
with units al~Lvvad on a map. The City would pick
which park sites and which size parks would be built.
10.
The Johnson Ranch project would be conditioned such
that a Park Improvement Agreement will be required
prior ~o City Council approval of the project or the
Substance Of this agreement approved concurrently with
the other entitlemete as part of City Council action
on a development agreement. The developer agrees not
to bring a legal challenge contesting the legality or
validity of the proJect's conditions of approval
relating to parks and recreation issues.
11.
The agreement reached between the parties will be
required to be recorded in order for credit to be
available to the developer.
I believe the above reflect the substance of the agreements
whichwe had reached with aohnsonRanchregarding the park
issues. AS noted in the first paragraph of this letterl if these
provisions are acoeptable to you, please telecopy an executed
version of this letter to me at [714) 755-5648 by the close of
business Wednesday, April 12th. This will allow the Planning
Commission Agenda Packets to include this Agreement. Should you
have any questions regarding this matter or wish to discuss it
further, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
~'CitD~I~'ZAttorne~
CITY OF TEMECULA
CC;
Beryl Yasinosky, Management Assistant
Cary Thornhill, Planning Director
Saied Naaseh, Associate Planner
Raymond Casey, Principal Engineer, Land Development
Peter M. Thorson, F~., City Attorney
F~ liO. 7147~55648
ATTACHMENT NO. 13
APPLICANT'S PROI~OSED COST ESTIMATES
4113/9~ m
'58 ·
me ENGINEERING PLANNING SURVEYING LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE
April 1 I, I ~95
Mr. Gary Thomhill, Director
CITY OF TEMECULA
Planning Department
43174 Business Park Ddve
Temecula, CA 92590
RECEIVED
APR 12 1995
RE: JOHNSON RANCH - COST ESTIMATES
Dear Gary:
Enclosed for your use is our estimate of the major infrastructure costs for the Johnson Ranch.
The costs include off-sites, back bone intedor streets (including wet and dry utilities), reservoirs,
pump stations and the major drainage facilities. These costs have been revised to include an
additional two lanes on Murrieta Hot Spdngs Road, a total of four lanes on Butterfield Stage
Road south to Nicholas Road, two lanes on Butterfield Stage Road from Nicholas south to the
existing connection and two lanes on Nicholas Road from Butterfield Stage Road west to the
existing end.
You can expect in-tract site construction cost to range from $9,OO0/Iot (4,500 square foot lots)
to $16,000/Iot (10,000 square foot lots). The average in-tract construction costs should be
around $11,000/lot. That cost includes grading, streets, wet and dry utilities and local drainage
facilities.
The fees for development will add more than $16,000/Iot. Those fees include school fees at
$4,000/Iot which is probably lower than will occur.
If you have any questions please call me.
Very truly yours,
J. F. DAVIDSON ASSOCIATES, INC.
President and CEO
JWC:bes
Enclosure
Corporate Headquarters, 3880 Lemon Street, Suite 300 · P.O. Box 493 · Riverside, CA 9~502 · 909/686-0844 · FAX 9091686-5954
JFD::JFDSADIVh[BARBARAS]JWC.AlVll ;31BARBARASet
· _il U
J. F:. Davidson AsBo~iat;e8, Inc..
August 18, 1993
Revised 4/10/95
JOHNSON RANCH
SUMMARY OF COSTS
STREET
ITEM
1. Urban Artedal
(134' R/W)
2. Arterial Highway
(110'
3. Secondan/Highway
(88' RRV)
4. Revised Residential Collector
(68' R/W)
5o Collector Street
(66' R/VV)
6. Rough Grading for Roadways
SEWER
7. 8" VCP
8. 10' VCP
9. 12" VCP
10. 15"VCP
11. 18'VCP
12. 21' VCP
13. 24" VCP
14. Manhole
15. Lift Station
16. Lift Station
UNIT QUANT PRICE COST
LF. 2,150 337.65 725,948
L.F. 7,400 332.45 2,268,375
L.F. 14, 100 244.65 3,452,385
LF. 11,600 201.65 2,341,460
L.F. 5,900 194.25 1,145,075
C.Y. 594,800 2.00 1,189,600
L.F. 11,000 15.00 165,000
L.F. 4,600 20.00 9,200
L.F. 6,950 25.00 173,750
L.F. 2,800 32.00 89,600
L.F. 1,600 40.00 94,000
L.F. 4,600 45.00 207,000
L.F. 2,400 68.00 132,000
EA. 77 2,500 192,500
EA. 4 180,000 720,000
EA. 2 250,000 500,000
1
17. Force Main (Off-Site)
WATER
[OneSite 1508' Zone]
18. 8' PVC
19. 12' D.I.
20. 20' D.I.
21. Fire Hydrant
22: 8' Gate Valve
23. 12' Gate Valve
24. 20' Gate Valve
[Off-Site 1508' Zone]
25. 20" D.I.
26. 20' Gate Valve
[On-Site 1627' Zone]
27. 8' PVC
28. 10' PVC
29. 12' D.I.
30. 16' D.L
31. Fare Hydrant
32. 8' Gate Valve
33. 10' Gate Valve
34. 12' Gate Valve
35. 16' Gate Valve
[Off-Site 1627' Zone]
36. 16' DIP
37. 16" Gate Valve
L.F. 3,650
L.F. 11,800
L.F. 12,400
EA. 42
EA. 3
EA. 11
EA. 10
-15.00
15.00
30.00
50.00
2,500.00
800.00
1,200.00
4,000
54,750
354,000
620,000
105,000
2,400
13250
40,000
L.F. 10,000 50.00 500,000
EA. 4 4,000.00 16,000
L.F. 4,000 15.00 50,000
L.F. 5,900 22.00 129,850
L.F. 3,000 30.00 50,000
L.F. 3,700 40.00 148,000
EA. 65 2,500.50 162,500
EA. 4 800.00 3250
EA. 5 1,000.00 5,000
EA. 4 1,200.00 4,800
EA. 5 2,500.00 12,500
L.F. 5280 40.00 211,250
EA. 2 2,500.00 5,000
2
' STORM DRAIN Crucalota Creek)
38. 72" RCP
39. 12 x 7 RCB
40. 16 x 7 Double RCB
41. Headwall, Wingwall
Rip-Rap
42. Open Channel
OTHERS
43. Traffic Signals
44. Park Improvements
45. 6' Reverse Frontage Wall
46. Water Storage Tank
47. Water Pump Station
48. Murdeta Hot Springs
Off-Site Street
49. Butterfield Stage Rd.
Off-Site Street
50. Nicolas Road
Off-Site Street
L.F. 2,100 130.00 273,000
L.F. 1,600 380.00 608,000
L.F. 400 470.00 188,000
EA. 8 7,000.00 56,000
L.F. 4,600 223.00 1,025,800
EA. 3 120,000.00 360,000
AC. 75 93,700.00 7,007,500
L.F. 54,400 30.00 1,632,000
GAL 8,000,000 0.4 3200,000
EA. I 250,000 250,000
L.F. 6,800 159.30 1,083240
L.S. 2,537,000 I 2,537,000
L.F. 5,100 8.350 425,850
Professional Fees
(Estimated @ 12%)
Plan Check Fees & Inspection Fees
(Estimated @ 6%)
Cost per lot (based on 5,250 lots)
Subtotal
Contingency @ 15%
TOTAL
GRAND TOTAL
34,682,633
5,202,395
39~885~008
2,393,102
47~064,333
8,g65
3
~) I~IINTEO ON RECYCLED PAF~R
NOTES:
~ F. Davidson/taBoolares, Inc.
Estimate is preliminary In nature, and subject to change upon additional research and
engineering.
There will be EMWD fee reduction/credits for construction of reservoirs and offsite water main,
estimated to be $615/lol (Water storage costs divide by 5,200 lots).
3. Mass Grading of Site not included in estimate.
Additional access to the site will need to be provided during the development of the project.
Access may be from the north, west, or south along Butterfield Stage Road. The cost of the
alternate access will depend on adjacent development that occurs prior to, or during development
of the Johnson Ranch.
LM:kat
10045:costest:aa3
4
March 30, 1995
JOHNSON RANCH
NICHOLAS ROAD
ITEM UNIT PRICE QUANT.
1. Roadway Excavation C.Y. 1.50 996,800
2. 4" AC over 12' Base S.F. 1.35 411.600
3. Down Drains L.S. 1.00 15.000
4. Vadous Size CMP L.F. 80.00 3200
5. Arch Bridge Crossing L.F. 400.00 175
6. Arch Bddge Crossing 'L.F. 500.00 175
7. Entrance/Outlet Structures L.S. 50,000 1
8. Pavement Markings LF. 0.4 11,600
9. Traffic Signs L.S. 3,000.00 I
TOTAL
COST
1,495,200
555,660
15,000
256,000
70,000
87,500
50,000
4,640
3,000
2,537,000
NOTE: Estimate is preliminary in nature, and subject to change upon additional data.
LM:jl
10045:costest:aa4
March 30, 1995
JOHNSON RANCH
NICHOLAS ROAD
2 LANE IMPROVEMENT (88' RIGHT OF WAY)
FROM CALLE GIRASOL TO BUTTERFIELD STAGE
ROAD COST PER LINEAL FOOT
ITEM
1. Fine Grade
2. 4" AC over 12' Base
3. Pavement Markings
4. Traffic Signs
5. Roadway Rough Grading
6. Bridge Crossing
Santa Gertrudis Creek
7. Misc. Drainage Facilities
UNIT PRICE QUANT. COST
S.F. 0.1 88 8.80
S.F. 1.35 28 37.8
L.F. 0.4 I 0.4
L.F. 0.25 I 0.25
C.Y. 2 8 16
'L.F. 15 I 15
L.F. 5.25 I 5.25
TOTAL 83.50
NOTE: Estimate is preliminanJ in nature, and subject to change upon additional data.
LM:jl
10045:costest:aa4
,j~ r~ ~ J.F. rlelvidaon AssciGlat:eB, Inc.
March 30, 1995
JOHNSON RANCH
MURRIETA HOT SPRINGS ROAD
4 LANE IMPROVEMENT (88' RIGHT OF WAY)
ROAD COST PER LINEAL FOOT
ITEM UNIT PRICE
1. Fine Grade S.F. 0.1
2. 4' AC over 12" Base S.F. 1.35
3. Pavement Markings L.F. 0.65
4. Traffic Signs L.F. 0.25
5. Roadway Rough Grading C.Y. 2
6: Dw Utilities 'L.F. 58
QUANT.
88
56
1
1
8
1
TOTAL
COST
8.80
75.6
0.65
0.25
16
58
159.3
NOTE: Estimate is preliminanj in nature, and subject to change upon additional data.
LM:jl
10045:costest:aa4
August 18, 1993
JOHNSON RANCH
66' RIGHT OF WAY, COLLECTOR STREET
ROAD COST PER LINEAL FOOT
ITEM UNIT PRICE
1. Fine Grade SF 0.1
2. 4" AC over 8" Base SF 1.10
3. ~" Curb and Gutter LF 8.00
4. Sidewalk SF 2.00
5. Reclaimed Water LF 20.00
6. Pavement Markings LF 0.4
7. Traffic Signs LF 0.25
8. Dry Utilities LF 58.00
9. Parkway Landscape & Irrigation SF 2.00
10. Street Lights LF 7°00
QUANT
66
40
2
11
1
1
1
1
10
1
TOTAL
COST
6.6
44
16
22
20
0.4
0.25
58
20
7
194.25
NOTE: Estimate is preliminary in nature, and subject to change upon additional data.
JDS:kat
10045:costest:aal
August 18, 1993
JOHNSON RANCH
68' RIGHT OF WAY, REVISED RESIDENTIAL COLLECTOR
ROAD COST PER LINEAL FOOT
ITEM UNIT PRICE
1. Fine Grade SF 0.1
2. 4" AC over 12" Base SF 1.35
3. 8" Curb and Gutter LF 8.00
4. Sidewalk SF 2.00
5. Reclaimed Water LF 20.00
6. Pavement Markings LF 0.4
7. Traffic Signs LF 0.25
8. Dry Utilities LF 58.00
9. Street Lights LF 7.00
QUANT
68
52
2.
11
1
4
1
1
1
TOTAL
COST
6.8
70.2
16
22
20
1.6
0.25
58
201.85
NOTE: Estimate is preliminary in nature, and subject to change upon additional data.
JDS:kat
10045:costest:aa2
August18,1993
JOHNSON RANCH
88' RIGHT OF WAY, SECONDARY HIGHWAY
ROAD COST PER LINEAL FOOT
ITEM UNIT PRICE
1. Fine Grade SF 0.1
2. 4" AC over 12" Base SF 1.35
3. 8" Curb and Gutters LF 8.00
4. Sidewalk SF 2.00
5. Pavement Markings LF 0.4
6. Traffic Signs LF 0.25
7. Dry Utilities LF 58.00
8. Parkway Landscape & Irrigation SF 2.00
(includes Street Trees)
9. Street Lights LF 7.00
10. Reclaimed Water LF 20.00
QUANT
88
60
2
11
2
1
1
12
2
1
TOTAL
COST
8.80
81
16
22
0.80
0.25
58.00
24.00
14.00
20.00
244.85
NOTE: Estimate is preliminary in nature, and subject to change upon additional data.
LM:kat
10045:costest:aa5
AUgust 18~ 1993
JOHNSON RANCH
10' RIGHT OF WAY, ARTERIAL HIGHWAY
ROAD COST PER LINEAL FOOT
ITEM UNIT PRICE
1. Fine Grade SF 0.1
2. 4" AC over 12" Base SF 1.35
3. 8" Curb and Gutter LF 8.00
4. 8" Median Curb LF 8.00
5. Sidewalk SF 2.00
6. Median Landscape .SF 2.00
7. Reclaimed Water LF 20.00
8. Pavement Markings LF 0.4
9. Traffic Signs LF 0.25
10. Dry Utilities LF 58.00
11. Parkway Landscape & Irrigation SF 2.00
12. Street Lights LF 7.00
QUANT
110
64
2
2
11
17
1
2
1
1
12
2
TOTAL
COST
11.00
86.4
16
16
22
34
20
0.8
0.25
58
24
14
302.45
NOTE: Estimate is preliminary in nature, and subject to change upon additional data.
JDS:kat
10045:~stest:aa0
Divideson ,Amloolml;e8~ Inc.
August18,1993
JOHNSON RANCH
134' RIGHT OF WAY, URBAN ARTERIAL
ROAD COST PER LINEAL FOOT
ITEM UNIT PRICE
1. Fine Grade SF 0.1
2. 4" AC over 12" Base SF 1.35
3. 8" Curb and Gutters LF 8.00
4. 8" Median Curb LF 8.00
5. Sidewalk SF 2.00
6. Median Landscape SF 2.00
· 7. Reclaimed Water LF 20.00
8. Pavement Markings LF 0.4
9. Traffic Signs LF 0.25
10. Dry Utilities LF 58.00
11. Parkway Landscape & Irrigation SF 2.00
12. Street Lights LF 7.00
QUANT
134
88
2
11
17
1
3
1
1
12
2
TOTAL
COST
13.4
118.8
16.0
16.0
22.0
34.0
20.0
1,20
0.25
58.0
24.00
14.00
244.85
NOTE: Estimate is preliminary in nature, and subject to change upon additional data.
LM:kat
10045:costest:aa6
ATTACHMENT NO. 14
' APPLICANT'S PROPOSED LAND USE PLAN, PROJECT TABULATION AND EXPLANATION
4~3~ , 59
FIII ~ 2
April 4, 1995
THE FERGUS GROUP, INC.
2725 Jefferson Street, Suite 12
Carlgoad, CA 92008
619/720-4600 '
Fax 720-4667
art tf. arl
Mr. Gary Thornhill
Planning Director
City of Temecula
43172 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
HAND DELIVERED
Subject: Johnson Ranch Specific Plan
· Dear Gary:
We thought it would be helpful to summarize a project proposal we wish the Planning
Commission to act upon at its April 17, 1995 heating. Outlined below are the essential elemems:
1. Project Density - see attached "Proposed Revisions to Specific Plan" (4/3/95), and
Statistical Summary (4/3/95)
4850 dwelling units (2.75 du/ac)
2 Revised Statistical Summary
Land Use Acres
Open Space 559.0
Schools/Parks 83.0
Residential 1000.0
Village Center 35.0
Rights of Way 84.0
1761.0
3. Additional Open Space (included above):
-Convert P.A. 3a 3b 3c (97.6 ac) to permanem open space
-Convert 16 acres in the southerly boundary ofP.A. 14b to permanent open space,
and relocate park to interior site.
-Convert three acres within P.A. 8 to permanent open space
April 4, 1995
Page Two
4. Exchange 13 acres of open space and residential within P.A. 14 -This will reduce impacts to biological resources.
5. Biological Enhancement
-Plant 20 acres within the Southeast corn6 of the property (within open space)
with Coastal Sage Scrub and related materials - to mitigate any impacts within
P.A. 14
-Johnson Ranch Forest (Visual Buffer and Biological Resource)
-plant, ~100 trees/ac - 16 acres within P.A. 14, along southern border
-Plant, ~ 100 trces/ac - 22 acres within P.A. 1 (open space), adjacent to
easterly edge ofP.A. 8
6. Minimum lot sizes; by Planning Area
Minimum
Parcel Lot Size
2,4,6 5,000 s.E
8, 12 4,000 s.E - adjacent to Village Center
14 6,000 s.E
Gary, we believe these revised proposals fully address any otherwise outstanding issues regarding
Johnson Ranch. We look foByard to the Planning Commission's and City Council's affirmative
action on this matter.
Very truly yours,
James e gus
JKF/cm
enclosure
cc: William Johnson, Jr.
Larry Markham
ATTACHMENT NO. 15
ENVIRONMENT~.L OVERLAY EXHIBIT
4/13~95 m
60
ATTACHMENT NO. 16
JOHNSON RANCH ROAD IMPROVEMENTS
4/13/95 an
61