Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout120600 PC AgendaIn compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the office of the City Clerk (909) 694-6444. Notification 48 hours prior to a meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to that meeting [28 CFR 35.102.35.104 ADA Title II] AGENDA CALL TO ORDER: Flag Salute: Roll Call: TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION A REGULAR MEETING CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 43200 BUSINESS PARK DRIVE DECEMBER 6, 2000 - 6:00 P.M. Next in Order: Resolution: No. 2000-037 Commissioner Telesio Chiniaeff, Mathewson, Telesio, Webster, and Chairman Guerriero PUBLIC COMMENTS A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public may address the Commission on items that are listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Commission about an item no~t on the Agenda, a pink "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the Commission Secretary. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name for the record. For all other agenda items a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the Commission Secretary prior to the Commission addressing that item. There is a three (3) minute time limit for individual speakers. CONSENT CALENDAR NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC All matters listed under Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and all will be enacted by one roll call vote. There will be no discussion of these items unless Members of the Planning Commission request specific items be removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action. Agenda RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Approve the Agenda of December 6, 2000. R:\PLANCOMM~Agendas~2000\12-6~00 doc 1 Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Approve the minutes of October 4, 2000. COMMISSION BUSINESS 3 Compact Parkin,q Spaces PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS Any person may submit written comments to the Planning Commission before a public hearing or may appear and be heard in support of or in opposition to the approval of the project(s) at the time of hearing. If you challenge any of the projects in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing or in written correspondences delivered to the Commission Secretary at, or prior to, the public hearing. Planning Application No. 98-0484 (Wolf Creek General Plan Amendment); No. 98-0481 (Wolf Creek Specific Plan No. 12); No. 00-0052 (Wolf Creek Tentative Tract Map No. 29305); No. 00-0029 (Wolf Creek Development Agreement); and 98-0482 (Wolf Creek Environmental Impact Report) on parcels totaling 557 acres located on the east side of Pala Road between Loma Linda Road and Fairview Avenue - Carole Donahoe RECOMMENDATION: 4.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FOR WOLF CREEK (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 98-0484), AND APPROVE THE WOLF CREEK SPECIFIC PLAN NO. (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 98-0481) ON PARCELS TOTALING 557 ACRES LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF PALA ROAD, BETWEEN LOMALINDA ROAD AND FAIRVlEW AVENUE, AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR PARCEL NOS. 950- t t0-002, -005, -033 AND 950-180-00t, -005, -006 AND -010. R:\PLANCOMM~Agendas~2000\I 2-6-00.doc 2 4.2 Adopt a resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-0052 - TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 29305, THE SUBDIVISION OF 557 ACRES INTO 47 LOTS WHICH CONFORM TO THE PLANNING AREAS, OPEN SPACE AREAS, SCHOOL AND PARK SITES OF THE WOLF CREEK SPECIFIC PLAN, LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF PALA ROAD, BETWEEN LOMALINDA ROAD AND FAIRVlEW AVENUE, AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR PARCEL NOS. 950- t t0-002, -005, -033 AN D 950-180-001, -005, -006 AND -010. 4.3 Adopt a resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE WOLF CREEK DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DEAL POINTS (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-0029) AS NOTED IN EXHIBIT A, ON PARCELS TOTALING 557 ACRES LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF PALA ROAD, BETWEEN LOMALINDA ROAD AND FAIRVlEW AVENUE, AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR PARCEL NOS. 950-tt0-002, - 005, -033 AND 950-t80-001, -005, -006 AND -010. 4.4 Adopt a resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING CERTIFICATION OF THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED FOR THE WOLF CREEK SPECIFIC PLAN AND RELATED ACTIONS (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 98-0482) AND RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM IN CONNECTION THEREWITH FOR THE WOLF CREEK SPECIFIC PLAN, LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF PALA ROAD, BETWEEN LOMALINDA ROAD AND FAIRVlEW AVENUE, AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR PARCEL NOS. 950-110-002, -005, -033 AND 950-180-00'1, -005, -006 AND -010. R:\PLANCOMM~Agendas~2000~I 2-6-00.doc 3 COMMISSIONER'S REPORTS PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT ADJOURNMENT Next regular meeting: December 20, 2000, Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 R:\p LANCOMM~Agendas~2000\I 2-6-00.doc 4 ITEM #2 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 4, 2000 CALL TO ORDER The City of Temecula Planning Commission convened in a regular meeting at 6:01 P.M., on Wednesday October 4, 2000, in the City Council Chambers of Temecula City Hall, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. ALLEGIANCE The audience was led in the Flag salute by Commissioner Webster. ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Also Present: PUBLIC COMMENTS No comments. 1 A.qenda RECOMMENDATION: Commissioners Chiniaeff, Mathewson, Telesio, Webster, and Chairman Guerriero. None. Deputy City Manager Thornhill Director of Public Works Hughes, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks, Senior Engineer Alegria, Attorney Curley, Associate Planner Donahoe, Project Planner Thornsley, and Minute Clerk Hansen. 1.1 Approve the Agenda of October 4, 2000. 2 Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Approve the minutes of August 2, 2000. 2.2 Approve the minutes of August 16, 2000. R:PlanComm/minutes/10OZl00 MOTION: Commissioner Chiniaeff moved to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1, and 2. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Webster and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. COMMISSION BUSINESS PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 3 Planninq Application No. 00-0261 (Specific Plan Amendment) located north of Rancho California Road off of Promenade Chardonna,/Hills and Meadows Parkway south of Parducci Lane and qenerally north of Rue Jadot consisting of all lots in Tract No.'s 23100-6, 23100-7 and 23100-8- Thomas Thornsley RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 Adopt a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. 00-0261 pursuant to Section 15061 (b) (3) and make a determination of consistency with a project for which an EIR was previously certified (Section 15162 - subsequent EIRs and Negative Declarations of the CEQA Guidelines); and 3.2 Adopt a resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000-033 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-0261 (SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 6) TO AMEND THE TEXT WITHIN THE MARGARITA VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN'S DESIGN GUIDELINES, FOR' VILLAGE "B", RELATED TO THE SIZE AND VARIATION OF RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS TO BE BUILT IN PLANNING AREAS 8, AND '10/'1t/t2, GENERALLY LOCATED NORTH OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD OFF OF PROMENADE CHARDONNAY HILLS, EAST OF MEADOWS PARKWAY SOUTH OF PARDUCCI LANE AND NORTH OF RUE JADOT CONSISTING OF ALL LOTS IN TRACT NO'S. 23100-6, -7, AND -8. Chairman Guerriero and Commissioner Mathewson advised that they would be abstaining from this item, and therefore left the dais, Commissioner Telesio presiding over the meeting at this point. For Commissioner Webster, Project Planner Thornsley specified the noticed radius for this particular project, relaying that the residences of Commissioner Webster and Commissioner Telesio were adequately distanced from this project's noticing parameters. 2 R: Pla nComm/minut es/100400 Project Planner Thornsley presented the staff report (of record), relaying that the request for amending the Specific Plan was in order to allow for larger units than currently indicated in the Specific Plan; noted the applicant's request to add a condition allowing the Director of Planning to permit minor changes to floor areas; and specified the remaining undeveloped area within this Specific Plan. For Commissioner Telesio, Project Planner Thornsley noted that with this proposal there would be no modifications to lot sizes or to the number of proposed units. Mr. Grant Fwegge, representing the applicant, was available for questions from the Commission. Mr. Mathew Fagan, representing Lennar Homes, thanked Project Planner Thornsley for his efforts regarding this particular proposal; reitereted that the request for the amendment was to allow for the construction of larger homes, noting that this area currently consisted of larger lots; for Commissioner Webster, relayed that with respect to lot coverage, this proposed particular product (the larger units) would be comparable to the existing lot coverage, noting that the largest lot coverage would be approximately forty-five percent (45%) which would be for a single-story footprint, noting that the two- story project would be proximate to the thirty-five to forty percent (35-40%) range for the maximum lot coverage. Mr. John Lynn, 32237 Placer Belair, relayed his opposition to this proposal for the following reasons: 1) the City notification was faulty which did not advise residents of the increased size of the homes to be built, 2) the notification did not specify the number of single-story units preposed before and after this amendment's proposal, 3) concern with respect to the larger homes generating the need for additional energy resources, 4) the proposal's inconsistency with the Growth Management Plan since larger homes equate to additional people residing in the homes which would have a negative impact on traffic, and 5) advised that the City should be involved in developer-marketing decisions due to the impacts on the community. Commissioner Chiniaeff relayed that the proposal of larger homes would improve the value of the neighboring homes; noted that the lot coverage issue was addressed in the City's Development Code which provides rear, front, and side yard setback requirements; with respect to energy uses, acknowledged that with larger homes there may be additional water usage due to additional toilets, while noting that with larger homes there would be less landscaping, thereby reducing water usage; and relayed his support of the proposal. With respect to the notification issue, Project Planner Thornsley specified the details of the noticing for this proposal. Mr. Lynn provided a copy of the notice he received regarding this project. In response, Project Planner Thornsley clarified that the particular recent notice which was distributed with regard to a hearing that the applicant would hold after review of the proposal by the Planning Commission and the City Council if the preposal was approved; relayed that the notice that was distributed approximately a month ago did specify the proposed amendments which were before the Commission at this time. 3 R; Plan Com m/minutes/1~04C0 Commissioner Telesio provided additional information regarding the notice he had received at his residence prior to the September 20, 2000 meeting, relaying that the notice had specified the proposed amendment. Attorney Curley clarified the purpose of the second notice, relaying that this particular notice that Mr. Lynn had provision of was not regarding the particular proposal before the Commission at this time. Commissioner Telesio relayed that in his opinion larger homes did not necessarily equate to larger families with additional vehicles, noting that larger homes could attract residents with higher incomes; noted alternate areas of the City there were small homes with numerous people residing in them; with respect to the Growth Management Plan (GMP), relayed that the GMP was concerned with densities which this proposal had not modified; and relayed his support of the project. MOTION: Commissioner Webster moved to close the public hearing; to approve staff's recommendation. Commissioner Chiniaeff seconded the motion and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Chairman Guerriero and Commissioner Mathewson who abstained. 4 Planning Application No. 98-0481 ¢,Volf Creek Specific Plan No.12); No. 98-0482 (Wolf Creek Environmental Impact Report); No. 98-0484 (Wolf Creek General Plan Amendment); and No. 00-0052 (Wolf Creek Tentative Tract Map No. 293057 on parcels totalin.q 557 acres located on the east side of Pala Road, between Loma Linda Road and Fairview Avenue - Carole Donahoe RECOMMENDATION: 4.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FOR WOLF CREEK (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 98-0484), AND APPROVE THE WOLF CREEK SPECIFIC PLAN (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 98-0481) ON PARCELS TOTALING 557 ACRES LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF PALA ROAD, BETWEEN LOMALINDA ROAD AND FAIRVlEW AVENUE, AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NOS. 950-t10-002, -005, -033 AND 950-180-001, -005, - 006 AND -0t0. 4.2 Adopt a resolution entitled: 4 R:PlanComrn/minut es/1C~OO PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-0052 -TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 29305, THE SUBDIVISION OF 557 ACRES INTO 47 LOTS WHICH CONFORM TO THE PLANNING AREAS, OPEN SPACE AREAS, SCHOOL AND PARK SITES OF THE WOLF CREEK SPECIFIC PLAN, LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF PALA ROAD, BETWEEN LOMALINDA ROAD AND FAIRVlEW AVENUE, AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NOS. 950-1t0-002, -005, -033 AND 950-t 80-00t, -005, -006 AND -0t 0. 4.3 Adopt a resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING CERTIFICATION OF THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED FOR THE WOLF CREEK SPECIFIC PLAN AND RELATED ACTIONS (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 98-0482) AND RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM IN CONNECTION THEREWITH FOR THE WOLF CREEK SPECIFIC PLAN, LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF PALA ROAD, BETWEEN LOMA LINDA ROAD AND FAIRVlEW AVENUE, AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR PARCEL NOS. 950-110-002, -005, -033 AND 950-180-001, -005, -006 AND -0t0. Commissioner Chiniaeff advised that he would be abstaining from this item and therefore left the dais at this time. Associate Planner Donahoe presented the staff report (of record), noting that this item had been continued from the September 6, 2000 Planning Commission meeting and subsequently from the September 20, 2000 Planning Commission meeting; relayed the Commission's desire to continue this matter from the previous meeting in order for the applicant to reassemble the documents, noting that provision of this data has been provided in the binders that the Commission received last week; provided an overview of the corrections to a few pages that should be re-inserted into the new binders, noting that the modifications provide additional detail regarding the private recreation facility, and the applicant's response to the garage and carport issue addressed at the last meeting; noted the receipt of two letters from Ms. Miod and Mr. Lucier which have been provided to the Commission per supplemental agenda material; with respect to the alternate issues that the Commission commented on at the September 20th meeting, noted that the applicant would be addressing those issues; referencing the Specific Plan Section entitled Planning Application Development Standards in Section 3-54, which addresses the specific planning areas, relayed that Planning Area 12 was described as Neighborhood Commercial on page 374, noting that staff was in agreement with the description of the development plan; relayed that with respect to the Zoning Ordinance section which addressees Planning Area 12, staff was requesting that this reflect the description and intent in the Specific Plan itself; noted that on page 13 of the Zoning Ordinance this particular area was described as a Community Commercial zone, advising that staff was recommending that this be changed to a Neighborhood Commercial zone; provided additional information regarding the elimination of various permitted uses; per supplemental agenda material, provided the recommendation for permitted and prohibited uses in the Neighborhood Commercial (Planning Area 12) and Community Commercial (Planning Area 13) areas; and noted the highlighted uses, relaying that these particular uses were automotive bases and that due to the previous comments of the Commission, staff was requesting the Commission's direction with respect to the inclusion of these uses, relaying that although the Design Guidelines for the City did call for the minimal use of vehicular traffic, that it was staff's recommendation that these particular uses be eliminated or permitted solely under a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). Mr. Samuel Alhadeff, attorney representing the applicant, noted that at the last meeting the public comment period had been closed with respect to this particular item, querying the rationale for the re-opening of the public comment period since the Commission had solely requested additional information regarding the following three areas: a list of permitted uses within the commercial areas, the one-story verses two-story element, and the 4,000-4500 square foot lots. Attorney Curley confirmed that at the last meeting, there was a closure to the public comment section, noting that subsequent to that there had been a great deal of Commission discussion regarding further analysis, acknowledging that the comments were concentrated on the issues previously mentioned by Mr. Alhadeff; relayed that as a result of that new information and concepts being discussed (i.e., the modifications to the list of permitted uses), that the public should have an opportunity to comment; and noted that the remainder of the issues appear to have been resolved to the Commission's satisfaction. Mr. Alhadeff clarified for the record that he was in disagreement with Attorney Curley, noting that it had been made clear that the public comment portion of the meeting had been closed at the time of the continuance; relayed that in response to Commissioner Webster's request, all of the provided data had been compiled into one document; and provided additional information regarding the list of permitted uses which had been discussed at the previous Commission meeting, relaying that it was his understanding that the applicant would solely be answering questions with regard to the previously mentioned issues. At this time Chairman Guerriero opened the public comment portion of the meeting. The following individuals were in opposed to the project, as proposed: Mr. Joe Terrazas 31160 Lahontian Street [] Mr. Rick Barrera 45639 Corte Lobos r~ Mr. Mark Broderick 45501 Clubhouse Drive The above-mentioned individuals were in opposition to the project for the following reasons: The need for the construction of a sound wall. The traffic impacts--challenged the traffic analysis associated with this project. A desire for Pala Road to be constructed as a six-lane road. Commended the developer for deleting the proposal for a multi-family apartment complex. Opposed to any Iow-income housing areas due to the blight it ultimately brings to the area. Recommended lowering the density from 2,000 units to 1,000-1500 units. Recommended lots ranging from 7,000-8,000 square feet with the sole construction of executive homes. Challenged the developer's previous comments regarding wide-range support of the project by surrounding communities. Mr. Broderick submitted to the clerk a petition with over 500 signatures of individuals opposing the project due to concern regarding the traffic circulation and the proposed densities. The need for an additional arterial route out of this area. At this time the public comment portion of the meeting was closed. In response to Mr. Terrazas's comments, Commissioner Webster relayed that the plan did include an option for a multi-family apartment complex. In response to Commissioner Webster's queries for the traffic issues to be addressed, Director of Public Works Hughes relayed that the referenced study (per Mr. Broderick's comments) was a draft study conduct in 1999 which was never accepted by the City Council, noting that the City was in the process of contracting for a new traffic study encompassing the entire City, clarifying that staff could not rely on or insist that the applicant utilize that data in the project's analysis. For Commissioner Webster, Deputy City Manager Thornhill relayed that the 1999 traffic study was abandoned due to questions that arose regarding the integrity of the study, noting that since the City Council decided to begin the entire General Plan update it was determined that there would be studies completed in conjunction with both the General Plan and the Circulation Element, noting that the City would be seeking a consultant for this effort proximately; clarified that the Council's concern regarding the 1999 traffic study was regarding the manner in which the data was gathered; confirmed that the 1999 study was the first Circulation Plan Update since the General Plan was completed; for Commissioner Mathewson, relayed that traffic studies are based on modeling of some sort, noting that a link analysis was utilized in the 1999 study, and it has been determined that the City would prefer utilization of intersection analysis which would be more accurate. Director of Public Works Hughes relayed that the 1999 analysis was general and was conducted City-wide, clarifying that the traffic analysis required for this particular EIR was much more detailed and focused, noting that staff has reviewed this technical traffic 7 R: PlanCom rn/minut es/1004~0 analysis and approved this data; for Commissioner Mathewson, clarified that staff was of the opinion that the traffic analysis for this project was reasonable and had been reviewed thoroughly; noted that staff could not utilize the 1999 draft study as a formal gauge. Deputy City Manager Thornhill clarified that the 1999 traffic study was not adopted by the City Council. The applicant's representatives addressed the comments of the community and the Commission, as follows: Mr. Samuel Alhadeff, attorney representing the applicant, relayed that with regard to the traffic report, that the assumptions the applicant had utilized were conservative, requesting confirmation from Director of Public Works Hughes. Director of Public Works Hughes noted that the applicant's traffic report was a more focused and detailed study than the General Plan Circulation Elements; and confirmed that staff had reviewed the traffic study and determined that it was acceptable and reasonable to move forward with the traffic study provided by the applicant. Chairman Guerriero noted that the public comment portion of this meeting had been closed, querying whether it was necessary for it to be re-opened. For Chairman Guerriero, Attorney Curley relayed that it was within the Commission's discretion to re-open the public comment period while noting that the criteria for hearing comments regarding the issues had been met. In light of the fact that no Commissioners opposed the closing of the public comment period, Chairman Guerriero relayed that it would remain closed. At 6:52 P.M. the meeting recessed, reconvening at 7:02 P.M. Commissioner Mathewson requested that the applicant address the issue of the 4,000- square foot lots with respect to architectural treatments and the streetscape issue; and queried the status of the applicant's agreement with respect to the sound wall. Mr. Barry Burnell, representing the applicant, relayed that he would be addressing the 4,000 square-foot lot issue, noting that Mr. William Griffith would be addressing the alternate issues; referenced the Commission's supplemental agenda material, noting the letter from Mr. Alhadeff addressed to Deputy City Manager Thornhill pertaining to the issues regarding the proposed 4,000 square-foot lots, inclusive of information related to the applicant meeting the goals of the General Plan which required a diversity of housing; advised that the applicant has reduced a portion of that diversity by reducing the numbers of 4,000-4,500 square-foot lots, and by eliminating all of the multi-family units that are non-senior units; clarified for Commissioner Webster, that with respect to the referenced documents, that for the record the applicant was solely proposing either courtyard housing or multi-family senior housing, relaying that if the document referred to alternate multi-family units, that this would be corrected; with respect to the proposed 4,000-4,500 square foot lots, noted the applicant's desire to maintain the current proposed housing mix inclusive of those two products; presented a PowerPoint presentation which provided an overview of a similar project (i.e., a mix of 4,000, 4,500, 5,000, 5,500, and 7,200 square-foot lots) currently existing in the City of Temecula (Paloma Del Sol Master Plan inclusive of the Paloma Del Sol project and the Paseo Del 8 R: PlanC°m m/minut e st100400 Sol project), clarifying that the projects depicted did not have the same level of amenities or a true Village Center in a central pedestrian-oriented location as the proposals in the Wolf Creek Project; noted that more than fifty percent (50%) of the homes in Phase I of the Paloma Del Sol area were in the 4,000-4,500 square foot category; relayed data from the Paloma Del Sol website, noting the favorable comments from the residents residing in this area; presented photographs of the Paloma Del Sol project's varied housing streetscapes; provided additional information regarding the existing market for these type of homes (i.e., homes built on smaller lot sizes), noting that in Phase I, and II of this development that all 18 homes of each phase were sold within an hour; concluded his comments, relaying that the applicant believes it is important to meet the City's goals with respect to diversity, and that a good Master Plan would retain value with the 4,000, and 4,500 square foot lots. Mr. Samuel Alhadeff reiterated that there were quality neighborhoods within the City of Temecula that included 4,000-4,500 square foot lots, relaying that when Paseo Del Sol project began its development it was under the County's guidelines, noting the differential with the development under the City's guidelines; provided additional information regarding the guidance of the developer by the City's General Plan and the Elements, reiterating the requirements for diversity of housing; noted the design elements that contributed to the overall pleasing visual impact inclusive of varied elevations, and varied roof planes; noted the applicant's desire to address the concerns of the proximate residents, reiterating that there would only be courtyard homes or senior multi-housing units, clarifying for the record that there would be no alternate multi- family units; and advised that the product mix proposed in the Wolf Creek Project was the culmination of the requirements of the Development Code, and staff's efforts and input in working with the applicant. Mr. William Griffith, the applicant, commented on the 4,000-4,500 square foot lots, noting the applicant's efforts to achieve balance with respect to the General Plan, the Growth Management Plan, and the desires of the surrounding residents; relayed that with respect to the primary concerns expressed at the neighborhood meetings regarding housing and density was the issue of ownership, noting that the applicant's sole rental attached project would be the senior's apartments; advised that the Wolf Creek Project, as proposed, was 700 units under the target densities of the General Plan, and 1700 units under the maximum densities; reiterated that the photographs previously presented (inclusive of 4,000-4,500 square foot lots) demonstrated pride of ownership and preservation of value; asserted that the proposed amenities in the Wolf Creek Project (i.e., the paseos, the grass-lined channel, the schools, the shopping) would add value to the entire community; noted that in working with staff, the applicant has proposed a general recreation facility inclusive of a Junior Olympic-sized pool, aquatic play area, and a meeting room; noted the applicant's commitment to work with the City with respect to the Agreement regarding the Regional Park; with respect to architectural design, relayed that the Planning Commission and the City Council would have the opportunity to review single-story and two-story elements, lot coverage, architectural elevations, and landscaping when the architecture was brought forward for the housing tracts; with respect to the sound wall issue, and the widening of Pala Road matter, noted that the applicant would provide right-of-way provisions for a six-lane road in the event that the City determines that this width was necessitated, relaying that the applicant had agreed to pay its share of the costs associated with the sound attenuation along Pala Road as determined by the Public Works Department; with respect to traffic concerns, noted the applicant's provision of a detailed analysis, noting the associated mitigation measures, relaying that the improvements to Pala Road and the associated drainage project would not be completed without the cooperation of this property, advising that this project was an integral part of these improvements; relayed that the project had met the expectations of the Growth Management Plan; advised that with respect to permitted uses in the commercial centers, that the applicant would support staffs recommendations and revisions regarding the permitted uses (as denoted in the supplemental agenda material) with the exception of the applicant's desire to include a medical office in the permitted uses for the northern commercial center, noting that due to the senior component of the project this may be an appropriate location for this type of use. For Commissioner Mathewson, Mr. Griffith relayed that the project would be inclusive of CC&R's, noting that the developer would be on the architectural committee which would aid in controlling builders; noted that the City guidelines provided parameters as to what should be developed within the property; and advised that numerous elements had been addressed in the Specific Plan ensuring that the application would be consistent. In response to Commissioner Mathewson, Mr. Burnell provided additional information regarding lot sizes. Mr. Griffith relayed that an average lot size at the location where the 4,000 square foot lots were proposed would most likely be approximately 5,000 square feet and above; relayed that with a wider lot width (i.e., an 50-foot by 80-foot configuration), a 4,000 square foot lot had an improved street scene; confirmed that typically in today's building industry the smaller-sized lots were generally wider due to the improved street scene, and buyer appeal. Mr. Burnell advised that when the smaller lot-sized projects come forward, that the approval process could be inclusive of standards with respect to the landscape plan, relaying that in the photographs previously presented that a fast growing species of tree was utilized which contributed to the positive visual appearance of the streetscape; and for Commissioner Mathewson, provided additional information regarding the likelihood of construction of approximately 1400-1600 square foot homes on the 4,000 square lots. For Commissioner Telesio, Mr. Burnell clarified that in the senior-housing area there was an option for the development of courtyard homes, reiterating that regular multi-family housing would not be permitted. In response to Commissioner Telesio, Mr. Griffith reiterated that with respect to the width of Pala Road that the applicant has offered to provide the necessary right-of-way for a six-lane width to be extended to Wolf Valley Road. Mr. Burnell noted that if the Specific Plan did not include this right-of-way provision, it would be noted for the record that the applicant would add that notation. For Commissioner Webster, Mr. Griffith relayed that the issue of one-story verses two- story homes would be addressed by the City as the architectural elements were addressed; noted that with respect to the market place there was a demand for one- story homes, advising that those units would be placed on the larger lots due to lot coverage and square footage issues; and advised that in his opinion, for the developer to anticipate or restrict this element at this point in time would be inappropriate. For informational purposes, Mr. Burnell noted that eleven years ago while there were no requirements in the Paseo Del Sol project for inclusion of one-story homes, that one- 1 0 R:PtanC omm/minute~100400 story homes were constructed and were selling well, providing additional information regarding the standards of the design element. For the record, Mr. Alhadeff noted that with regard to the Pechanga Cultural Resources' concern with respect to monitoring, that the applicant desired to go on record stating that the applicant would work with the Pechanga Reservation representatives, coordinating a pre-construction meeting, and the monitoring process. In response to Chairman Guerriero's query, the Pechanga representative confirmed that the applicant had agreed to the aforementioned comments. For record keeping purposes, Attorney Curley relayed the request for the applicant to provide a copy of the PowerPoint presentation to staff (It was noted for the record that a copy of the PowerPoint presentation was obtained from the applicant and filed in the City Clerk's office.); and queried the Commission as to whether at this time the Commission was closing the rebuttal comment period, and initiating Commission deliberations. In response, Chairman Guerriero confirmed that the Commission would begin its deliberations. The Commission beqan its deliberations, as follows: With respect to the permitted uses within the Community Commercial (CC) zone, Commissioner Mathewson relayed that in order to maintain a pedestrian-oriented center it was his opinion that the following uses should not be permitted: Auditoriums, Automobile repair, Automobile rental, Car wash, Convenience market, and Hotels/motels. For Commissioner Mathewson, Associate Planner Donahoe relayed that the Parcel delivery services use was to allow the storefront type of mailboxes, noting that Postal distribution would not be permitted; and confirmed that it had been recommended that the Restaurant, drive-in/fast food use be stricken from the list of permitted uses. For Commissioner Telesio, Associate Planner Donahoe noted that Alcoholic beverage sa/es would not be permitted in the Neighborhood Commercial (NC) zone, relaying that in the Community Commercial (CC) zone it was recommended that Automotive service stations selling beer and/or wine, and Liquor stores be conditionally permitted. Associate Planner Donahoe advised that while staff was recommending that the Automobile rental be eliminated as a permitted use that the applicant had previously not been in agreement. Commissioner Webster queried the rationale for not allowing Alcoholic beverage sa/es, and Nightclubs/taverns/bars as conditionally permitted uses in the NC zone, recommending that these uses be permitted. In response to Commissioner Webster's recommendation, Commissioner Telesio relayed concurrence if the above-mentioned uses were conditionally permitted. For Chairman Guerriero, Mr. Griffith reiterated the applicant's desire to permit Hospitals in the CC zone, relaying no opposition to the use being permitted under a Conditional Use Permit. 11 R: PlanComm/minut es/1{304~o Chairman Guerriero concurred with Commissioner Mathewson's recommendations. Additional discussion ensued regarding eliminating the Convenience market from being permitted in the NC zone, Commissioner Mathewson recommending that it solely be conditionally permitted in the CC zone. Commissioner Webster relayed that since there were no Grocery stores permitted in the NC zone, it was his opinion that the Convenience market should be permitted in this zone. In response to the Commission comments, Deputy City Manager Thornhill suggested that a specialty food market less than 5,000 square feet be permitted in the NC zone. The Commission concurred with Deputy City Manager Thornhill's recommendation. The applicant was agreeable to the Commission's recommendations with respect to the revisions to the permitted uses in the NC and CC zones. Chairman Guerriero queried the Commission with respect to the issue of the proposed 4,000 square-foot lots. With respect to the applicant's presentation which depicted existing 4,000 square-foot lots in the City of Temecula, Commissioner Telesio relayed that this area was maintaining its value, noting the improved appearance due to the maturity of the landscaping, advising that based on his work experience in this particular area (Paloma Del Sol) that it had not become a rental home zone; advised that with respect to the proposed mix of housing, that it was consistent with the General Plan, and the Growth Management Plan, noting the need for smaller homes in the community; relayed that it might be helpful in the future if an informational period was held informing the public of the guidelines (General Plan) which the City was bound to uphold; noted that it was the Commission's charge to administer the standards of the General Plan; and relayed no opposition to the proposed diversity of housing products. Concurring with Commissioner Telesio's comments regarding the Commission's charge to ensure that the standards of the General Plan were met, in addition to the guidelines of the Development Code, and the Design Guidelines, Commissioner Webster relayed that with respect to the Specific Plan that there was a major differential between the proposed Zoning Code and the Development Code, advising that this should be the focus of the Commission with respect to lot sizes and Land Use; relayed that the primary issue of concern with respect to the size of lots was the Land Use designations within the Land Use Plan; noted that there were 14 residential planning areas within the document, nine of which were Medium Density, and five of which were Low Medium Density; advised that in his opinion, there was prevision of a diversity of housing types but there was an overabundance of Medium Density housing, noting that while there was a need for both Medium Density, and Low Medium Density housing, that this Land Use Plan was not satisfying the Low Medium housing needs; relayed that in order to be able to support the Village Center concept, he would recommend residential planning areas between Pala Road, and the interior loop road, recommending placement of Medium Density housing within that area, and Low Medium Density housing outside of this area (on the alternate side of the loop road); with respect to the Low Medium Housing regulations, noted that the Development Code specified a minimum lot size of 7200 square feet, relaying that he did not support revising this standard with regard to this project; with respect to lot coverage, noted the requirement of thirty-five percent (35%), relaying that there was greater lot coverage in this particular proposed Zoning Code; recommended that the Zoning Code within the Specific Plan be consistent with the City's Development Code; advised that the Temecula residents expected the Commission to implement the General Plan, the Development Code, and the Design Guidelines; with respect to the Medium Density Housing, relayed that with the exception of the courtyard homes he would favor a lower limit of 5,000 square feet lots, advising that the applicant could recoup the land differential if narrower streets were proposed, noting that narrower streets were an identified desirable element within the General Plan, the Development Code, and the Design Guidelines; advised that narrower roads provided an improved street scene; reiterated that it had been his previous recommendation that there be an improved treatment of the garages, providing an architecturally forward design philosophy with the front door visible from the front of the house, and the garage setback behind the front door, noting that the applicant had chosen not to address these elements; and relayed that in addition to the previously mentioned revisions, he was also in favor of the sidewalks being separated from the curb with a parkway. Commissioner Mathewson relayed concurrence with Commissioner Webster's recommendation with respect to the narrower street element, and sidewalks being separated from the curb with a parkway; with respect to the 4,000 square-foot lot size, relayed that the matter of pride of ownership was not the primary issue, but the enhanced architectural treatment was, noting his opposition to garages placed proximate to the street, relaying his recommendation that there be front porch elements added; noted the need for a variety of quality architectural treatment, recommending that the project propose a variety of siding elements; advised that he was reluctant to support the 4,000-4,500 square-foot lots without specific Design Guidelines that would ensure architectural treatment appropriate for a Village Concept (i.e., garages placed in the rear, alleyways, balconies, porches, varied roof types); with respect to the issue of one-story homes, relayed his desire for additional specificity in the Specific Plan to ensure the construction of one-story homes; and advised that Product Review was currently conducted at the staff level. In response to the Commission's comments, Deputy City Manager Thornhill proposed that with respect to varying product type and setbacks, that prior to any Tentative Map being approved for this project that the Design Guidelines could be modified to establish standards which could be reviewed and approved by the Commission which would provide the Commission the authority to ensure the development of specific standards. Mr. Griffith relayed that while he had no objection to Deputy City Manager Thornhill's proposition, it was his recommendation that with respect to the 4,000-4,500 square-foot lots, the project be conditioned to have the Product Review conducted by the Planning Commission rather than at a staff level; advised that it would be difficult to develop specific detailed standards at the Tentative Map level with respect to architectural treatments; noted that architectural guidelines could be established prior to construction of the housing units; and relayed that from a timing perspective, it was the applicant's desire to move forward in order to initiate the Pala Road improvements; For Commissioner Mathewson, Mr. Griffith relayed that it would be approximately 18-24 months before any houses would be occupied, noting that in Phase I of the project, that there was solely one product category that was inclusive of 4,500 square-foot lots. 13 R:PlanComrn/rninutes/1004C0 Deputy City Manager Thornhill commented that the Commission's concerns could be addressed via more stringent Design Guidelines, rather than at the Project Review level; relayed the cumbersome agenda schedule that would be necessitated with Commission Product Review, advising that if there were specific concerns, that the Commission could appeal a decision to the Planning Commission level, recommending that the concerns be addressed via the development of standards within the Design Guidelines; for Commissioner Mathewson, confirmed that it was his recommendation that the Design Guidelines be submitted to the Planning Commission in conjunction with the approval of the Tentative Tract; and in response to Mr. Burnell's queries, relayed that this recommendation was solely associated with the 4,000-4,500 square-foot lot product since this was the area of Commission concern. Mr. Griffith relayed that while he was not opposed to Deputy City Manager Thornhill's recommendation with respect to the 4,000-4,500 square-foot lot project, that since there were solely three areas with 4,000-4,500 square-foot lots, that in his opinion a Planning Commission level of Product Review would not saturate the Planning Commission's agenda schedule. Deputy City Manager Thornhill relayed that incorporated into the standards there could also be established guidelines for alternate elements recommended by the Commission (i.e., varied elevations, porch elements, architecturally forward designs). For Commissioner Telesio, Mr. Burnell relayed that the applicant has provided several cross sections with narrower streets, separated sidewalks, options for garage locations, and guidelines recommending architectural forward designs on the project, clarifying for the record that these elements were included in the Design Guidelines; and noted the restrictions related to City staff not permitting various proposed elements. Deputy City Manager Thornhill relayed that while the provision of narrower streets was a pleasing element, that there were standards required with respect to Fire Department accessibility to the lots; advised that the Fire Department staff has agreed to consider a slightly reduced paved section, relaying that accessibility to the houses could not be compromised; with respect to landscape strips and trees, noted that there were negative impacts associated with this element, advising that there were innovative solutions (i.e., utilization of smaller trees with root barriers), noting that staff could address this issue. While acknowledging the impacts staff was attempting to address with the proposal of narrower streets, and sidewalks separated with parkways, Chairman Guerriere relayed that there were numerous benefits to the elements (i.e., reduction in speeding, improved streetscapes), noting that with respect to Fire Department access, that historically tract housing had included these elements and had been accessible; and relayed his strong opposition to wide streets. Deputy City Manager Thornhill relayed that the Commission could add a condition requiring staff to review options available for reduced cross-section streets, noting that when the Tentative Tract Maps were brought forward, staff could bring additional information regarding this element. Mr. Griffith relayed that he concurred with the elements recommended by the Commission (i.e., narrow streets, parkways), advising that the applicant would be agreeable to a condition requiring further investigation regarding the feasibility of the implementation of these elements; noted that the applicant was restricted by the policies of the City Departments; with respect to Deputy City Manager Thornhill's recommendation with respect to adding specificity to the design standards in conjunction with the approval of the Tentative Tracts for the 4,000-4,500 square-foot lot areas, or if it was the Commission's desire to review these areas during a Product Review prior to the issuance of Building Permits, that the applicant was agreeable; with respect to the recommendation for narrower streets, advised that the applicant was required to adhere to the Fire Department Standards, noting that the applicant was willing to work with staff to include this element. Mr. Alhadeff relayed that the applicant would bring the 4,000-4,500 square-foot lot design back to the Commission, while advising that bringing this forward at the Tentative Map stage would be difficult. For Commissioner Mathewson, Mr. Burnell provided additional information regarding the standards setforth in the applicant's proposal, advising that the project would undergo a thorough design review; and advised that if the standards needed to be more detailed with respect to the smaller lots that the applicant would be willing to comply. After additional Commission comments, Deputy City Manager Thornhill relayed that the Commission could receive specific Design Guidelines for the entire project, inclusive of specific provision regarding the treatment of the 4,000 and 5,000 square-foot lot areas. In response to Mr. Burnell's queries, Deputy City Manager Thornhill relayed that if the Commission was satisfied with the project type proposed on the larger lots then there would be no need to further address these areas. Attorney Curley clarified the process before the Commission, noting that the Commission was to make a recommendation on this planned proposal, relaying that the City Council would consider the Commission's recommendation and make a final determination; advised that it was not necessary to re-write the document, relaying that the Commission's action should reflect its support or lack of support of the project which could be subject to specific changes; noted the rationale for moving the project forward to the City Council, reiterating that the Commission was a recommending body; with respect to the discussion regarding the Design Guidelines, advised that if it was the opinion of the Commission that the Specific Plan was inadequate, that there should be specific recommendations for revisions that would warrant the Commission's support of the project, if that was the desire of the Commission, noting that there could be a recommendation for denial if the applicant did not comply; relayed that the Commission's actions could state its support of the project subject to the Design Guidelines being augmented with respect to included specific standards; noted that the City Council would then review the applicant's proposed project in conjunction with the Commission's response to this particular project; and reiterated that the Commission would need to clarify the areas that were being recommended to be augmented. Commissioner Mathewson relayed his concern with respect to the lack of specificity regarding elements such as one-story verses two-story housing, varied roof styles and types; advised that overall, it was his opinion that the applicant had done a great job in terms of the provision of amenities, and meeting the expectations of the Growth Management Plan; noted that with the lack of specificity with respect to architectural 15 R:PlanComm/minut e~100400 treatments, that he would be reluctant to support the project, recommending that there be a percentage of one-story homes required, standards with respect to varied roof styles, and standards with respect to requiring that 1400-1600 square-foot homes be constructed on the smaller lots. Deputy City Manager Thornhill relayed that he concurred with Commissioner Mathewson's desire to ensure that the homes did not have a uniform appearance, reiterating that if there were specific concerns the Planning Commission could appeal a Project Review to the Commission level; suggested that the Commission could require varied setbacks, providing additional information; relayed that there were options for the Commission to consider; advised that the item before the Commission at this time was for the Master Plan for the development of this entire community, acknowledging that all of the details were not presented at this point in time; reiterated that the Design Guidelines/Standards could be brought to the Commission for approval, relaying that staff could hire an independent architect to present concepts that would enhance the City's Design Guidelines. Mr. Burnell relayed that with the type of architectural specificity desired by the Commission, the applicant would be required to dictate architectural styles, noting that certain design aspects preferred at one point in time are not desired at another point in time, advising that it would be appropriate to present this type of specific detail with the builder package; and noted that since this was an approximate 10-year project, if specificity was developed to this extent at this point in time, those elements would need to be brought back to the Planning Commission at a future point in time due to antiquated architectural requirements. Mr. Griffith concluded his comments, relaying that the single greatest concern in a Master Planned Community which encompassed 2,000 units was the difference between policy, and implementation, with regard to Master Planned Community development, land development, infrastructure, and architecture; advised that architecture could be addressed prior to construction, noting the difficulties with plotting 2,000 homes to demonstrate varied setbacks and alternate elements; and clarified that these specific architectural elements would need to be the purview of staff and the Planning Commission during the Product Review at some time in the future. The Commission relayed the followin,q closing remarks: Commissioner Webster relayed that he was still of the opinion that the project did not implement the Village Center as envisioned in the General Plan, Development Code, and the City's Design Guidelines; with respect to the General Plan, referenced the map denoting the Village Center overlays within the City, noting that this was the sole area in the City that included undeveloped land with the Village Center area overlay; advised that the alternate areas had previously approved Specific Plans, noting the City's efforts in the past to implement the overlay in these areas, while advising that in his opinion it had failed due to a lack of implementation; noted that the City had received awards with respect to the Village Center concept included in the General Plan; relayed that his primary concern with respect to this particular proposal was the lack of assurance that there would be a functional Village Center; advised that while the proposed project did propose a fine Commercial Center it did not meet the criteria for a Village Center element; noted that a primary objective in the Village Center would be to maintain a quarter-mile walking radius, advising that this project did not include this element; relayed that essentially the project proposed two separate villages bisected by Wolf Valley Road, advising that the optimum solution would be to split the Village Center; noted that if the Village Center was to remain, as proposed, in the middle of the project then Wolf Valley Road should not traverse through this area, relaying the major conflict between the placement of a major roadway, and a pedestrian-oriented area, advising that this was not acceptable; relayed that the project did not meet the goals with respect to the proposed mix uses; with respect to provisions for civic uses and gathering areas, provided additional information regarding the goals; and concluded his comments, relaying that with respect to the numerous goals, elements and requirements within the City Documents, that this project did not propose a satisfactory amount of these elements. Chairman Guerriero requested Commissioner Webster to clarify his comments by providing a recommendation. Commissioner Webster relayed that he could not support the project, as proposed; noted that he did not agree with Deputy City Manager Thornhill's recommendation that the issues previously discussed be brought back to the Commission, relaying that with respect to past projects that this had not been effective. Commissioner Telesio relayed the geographical restrictions placed on the project, noting the difficulties developing the optimum Village Center element; advised that in alternate projects, the Village Center element had not been created due to the lack of a feasible solution; and relayed that if the Village Center was divided, it would negate the feasibility of having a viable commercial center. For informational purposes, Chairman Guerriero noted that there was a project developed in the City of Sacramento where the ideal Village Center concept was constructed, advising that it was failing with respect to creating a pedestrian-oriented center, and that the residents were continuing to drive. Deputy City Manager Thornhill relayed that the goal was not solely to create a Village Center, but to redirect traffic; advised that if the Village Center element was removed from this project as suggested by Commission comments, and replaced with a strictly residential area, that there would be irreparable traffic congestion impacts; and noted that all of the traffic would then be redirected out to Highway 79. Chairman Guerriero clarified that the Commission was not advocating removing the commercial element, relaying that the manner in which the centers were situated within the project attracted residents to drive and not walk which defeated the Village Center concept. Deputy City Manager Thornhill clarified that this was an attempt to provide residents with options to driving, creating some areas where residents could walk to a center; asserted that pedestrian use was encouraged if the environment was suitable, noting the interior loop road that was primarily for the benefit of the residents living in the development, and the proposed paseo and bicycle system along the loop road which connected to the center; advised that if the commercial areas were not located at the corners, it would be improbable for a commercial buyer to develop the area, advising that the commercial center would likely fail; provided additional information regarding the intent of the Village 17 R:Plan Corem/minutes/100400 Center; and relayed that in his opinion the element that this project was lacking was a multi-family area which would aid in the viability of the project. Querying the reference to the compact commercial area proposed in this project, Commissioner Webster relayed that there was a Neighborhood Commercial area proposed on one side of the street, and a Community Commercial area on the alternate side of the street; with respect to the recommendation to locate the commercial center on the corner sites, relayed that this was for visibility purposes, advising that there would be equal visibility with his recommended reconfiguration; advised that the Neighborhood Commercial area, as proposed, was not satisfying any neighborhood; with respect to Deputy City Manager Thornhill's comments regarding higher density housing, noted that with the reconfiguration of the commercial centers, a multi-family housing element could be implemented; advised that this property was one of the last opportunities for the City to implement a Village Center concept, relaying that he felt strongly regarding this issue, noting that it was important that this comment was relayed to staff, the applicant, and to the City Council for consideration. Chairman Guerriero reiterated Attorney Curley's comments with respect to the Planning Commission making a recommendation regarding this proposed project, querying whether the Commission's comments were for the purpose of encompassing recommendations to the City Council. Attorney Curley confirmed that the Planning Commission had the applicant's proposal before it, and that it was the Commission's charge to comment, and make recommendations as the planning advisory body in order to aid the ultimate decision makers, the City Council, in its deliberations; recommended that the Commission provide a consensual recommendation (i.e., recommendation of approval, recommendation of denial, or recommendation of approval subject to the addition or deletion of certain elements); advised that the plan would not need to be redrafted, noting that if there were weaknesses, or if the Commission could not support the project, then the recommendation would go forward to the City Council; and relayed that the Council would then review the project, the Commission's recommendation, and subsequently agree, disagree, or make modifications. Commissioner Webster relayed that there were a host of issues that had not been addressed with respect to this proposed project; relayed that even if he was satisfied with the Land Use Plan, that there were still areas that need to be addressed with respect to the proposed zoning, the proposed Design Guidelines, the Conditions of Approval, as well as, the Mitigation Monitoring Program for the CEQA document. With respect to the Conditions of Approval, Commissioner Webster relayed that the wrong length was still represented regarding cul-de-sac lengths; with respect to improvements to Pala Road, recommended that Pala Road be improved as an urban arterial to Wolf Valley Road at a minimum, if not to Fairview Road; with respect to the Cimulation Element, noted the policy in the General Plan requiring that this element be updated every three years, noting his disappointment with the efforts with respect to adhering to this update process; noted that numerous letters written pertaining to the project had relayed that the project was not being mitigated properly; noted that the Mitigation Measures Report stated that the interim improvements that have been and are in the process of being completed would satisfy this project, noting his disagreement with this analysis, recommending that there be a condition that this project tie in with the R:PlanComm/minuteS~100400 Ultimate Interchange Improvements for Highway 79 South, and the 1-15; and advised that these issues were not adequately addressed with the CEQA analysis, or within the Conditions of Approval. With respect to the alternate CEQA issues that had not been adequately addressed, Commissioner Webster relayed that the City's General Plan EIR had a Mitigation Monitoring Program that all subsequent projects were required to adhere to, including this project; noted that a major issue was the Energy Resources and Air Quality element, relaying that requirement to maximize energy conservation measures for subsequent projects, advising that this project was solely providing mitigation measures that complied with Title 24 requirements which are minimum energy standards, relaying that this was not adequate in light of the General Plan's EIR requiring maximum energy conservation measures; noted that there were two specific measures that could be included within the Mitigation Monitoring Program, listed as follows: 1) compliance with the EPA's Energy Star Program which was the same as Edison's Comfort Wise Program, and 2) the use of small roof tile panels on houses utilized to generate their own electricity, relaying that the California Energy Commission has set up funding to subsidize these programs, advising that these elements should be included as feasible and economical measures; noted that in the applicant's Design Guidelines there was a provision for blending solar panels with the Housing Element; cited a Iow-income project in the City of Compton that had provision of this energy conservation element; with respect to Air Quality, noted that one of the specific measures required by the Air Quality Management Department (^QMD) was Land Use Development that minimized vehicular travel, relaying that if the Village Center was intended to satisfy the CEQA requirements, it would have to be designed properly, referencing his previous recommendation to create a more pedestrian friendly area. With respect to Utility issues, Commissioner Webster noted the response to Metropolitan for a requirement for coordination of San Diego Pipeline No. 6 within Fairview Road, advising that this element should be included within the Mitigation Monitoring Program. With respect to the developer-installed landscaping and irrigation complying with the Water Conservation Ordinance within the City, Commissioner Webster advised that the City's Ordinance needed to be revised with respect to the specific plan, in order to require that all developer-installed landscaping and irrigation (for the Commercial, the general landscape, and the single-family, and multi-family projects) be in conformance with the State's Model Water Conservation Ordinance, noting the significance of this issue; and advised that it could be addressed with respect to this project within the Mitigation Measures. With respect to the Cumulative Impacts regarding this project, Commissioner Webster relayed that numerous letters have been written with respect to this issue; noted that there have been previous discussions regarding the baseline data, as well as Mitigation Measures that are now feasible; advised that the Cumulative Impact Analysis was incomplete, noting that a primary focus should be Energy Resources; relayed that due to development increase demands, Edison was corresponding with respect to the future negative impacts regarding meeting these demands1 noting that this was a cumulative impact that had not been addressed; with respect to traffic, noted that these cumulative impacts have not been adequately addressed, recommending a thorough analysis. Reiterating recommendations that he had made earlier in the meeting, Commissioner Webster reiterated the recommended Land Use changes in zoning, in order for the Low Medium Zoning to comply with the Development Code; with respect to the Design Guidelines, relayed that the project needs to be one hundred percent (100%) architecturally forward; noted that since the initial introduction of this project, he had relayed that he was not in agreement with the location of the Middle School, acknowledging that the City did not have control over this placement, advising that now it had been noted that no lights could be installed at this site due to the adjacent residential property; relayed that the applicant did not make efforts to address the school issue; and recommended that the City stand by the General Plan, the Development Code, and the Design Guidelines and solely approve a project that complies with the City documents. Chairman Guerriero reiterated that the Commission was to make recommendations, moving this project forward to the City Council for its consideration; and queried the Commission for input regarding Commissioner Webster's recommendations. In response to Commissioner Mathewson's queries, Commissioner Webster clarified that the design document needed to be redrafted, noting that the Low Medium Density should be in compliance with the Development Code; with respect to the Medium density, advised that there should be investigation to create a new Zoning Code due to the City's standard being inconsistent with these requirements, relaying that he would entertain development of a new code in the Specific Plan for Medium Density; confirmed that in the Medium Density Zone, he could support setbacks and lot dimensions that varied from the City's Development Code, providing additional information, relaying that 7200 square foot lots would not be feasible for Medium Density; relayed that if the applicant was proposing lots smaller than 5,000 square feet, there would need to be additional specificity in the Design Guidelines; noted that the proposed five-foot side yard setbacks on both sides of the house in the Medium Density housing was not adequate; and confirmed that the previously mentioned recommendations regarding lot coverage standards needed to be address, ed. Commissioner Mathewson concurred with Commissioner Webster's recommendations; and noted that he recommended that the applicant additionally provide clarification with respect to the sound attenuation agreement. In response to Commissioner Mathewson, Deputy City Manager Thornhill relayed that it was important to note that this Specific Plan Document provides for subsequent approvals of Tentative Maps, noting that during that review process the applicant would be required to comply to specific standards; and advised that there was a Development Agreement moving forward at this time, relaying that there would be language in the agreement addressing Commissioner Mathewson's concern. Commissioner Mathewson relayed the difficulties in the past addressing issues after approval of a Specific Plan, citing alternate matters. Deputy City Manager Thornhill provided clarification with respect to the Mitigation Measure within the Mall's Regional Specific Plan that had not been incorporated into the Conditions of Approval, relaying the upcoming opportunity that the City would have to impose the condition. 20 R:PlanComm/minutes/1 C0400 Commissioner Mathewson relayed that he could support the applicant's comments regarding addressing architectural treatments during the project Review Precess, while noting that the following issues should be addressed in the Specific Plan at this time: the building footprints, garage placement, and the one-story, two-story issue. With respect to the Design Guidelines, Commissioner Telesio relayed that the Design Guidelines issue should be addressed with the builder at the Preduct Review level; listed the issues that needed to be addressed at this time, as follows: the consideration for narrow streets, and the parkway element; noted that it appeared to him that while the recommendations setforth by the Commission were valid, that the Commission had gotten bogged down in the design details rather that the actual project presented; relayed that some recommendations were related to the internal process (citing a recommendation to modify the Development Code), noting the problem with providing a developer with the Development Code and subsequently addressing issues that were not in the City's documents; and provided additional information regarding his concern with expecting standards that have not been established. In response to Commissioner Telesio's comments, Commissioner Mathewson noted that the applicant had preposed relief from the Development Code with respect to lot coverage elements, and frent-yard setbacks. Commissioner Telesio relayed that the applicant had worked in conjunction with City staff and polices with respect to this proposal; noted that he was not aware of the Commission's charge to develop new standards, and create legislation; relayed that his opinion varied with respect to the recommendation to divide the Commercial Center, noting the difficulties with this preperty meeting the optimum Village Center concept with the existing geography; noted that in his opinion, this overall project met the diversity requirement needed in the City, met the General Plan requirements, and met the Growth Management Plan expectations; relayed his desire for the project to go forward with any recommendations the Commission desired to add, noting that there should come a point in time when the Commission either accepted the proposal recommending approval for the project to go forward, or to state that the project needed to go back to the drawing board. Commissioner Mathewson queried the direction of the Commission's actions if there was concurrence with Commissioner Webster's recommendations. Attorney Curley noted the three resolutions before the Commission, relaying that the Commission's recommendation on each resolution could be for appreval subject to the specific changes articulated, or that the Commission's recommendation could be for denial based on the specific comments, advising that either way the Council would have an understanding of the Commission's position; noted that the City Council would review the proposed project, and the Commission recommendation, relaying that if there was a substantial different course taken by the Council that the Commission had not discussed in any way, it would come back to the Commission for further recommendation; clarified that the broader manner in which the issues were relayed to the Council, the more certainty there would be that the Commission had not overlooked elements; relayed that staff would repackage the resolutions in either orientation; advised that there needed to be a majority vote from the Commission, noting that it could be a recommendation for the City Council to deny appreval based on the articulated short-failings, relaying that if these elements were rectified at the Council level that there would be a level of comfort approving the project since there would be assurance that the Commission's considerations have been responded to. MOTION: Commissioner Webster moved to recommend that the City Council deny this proposed project which would be reflected in the resolutions of denial based on the detailed comments previously mentioned, noting that the record of the minutes would clarify the findings; briefly recapitulated the rationale for denial, as follows: inadequate analysis and mitigation measures within the CEQA document, the Tentative Map, the General Plan Amendment, and the Specific Plan Document, and due to the issues previously detailed with respect to the zoning, the Design Guidelines, the Land Use, the Circulation, and the Village Center. Commissioner Mathewson seconded the motion. (Ultimately this motion passed, see below.) In response to Attorney Curley, Commissioner Webster confirmed that he would desire to have the revised resolutions brought back to the Commission as a business item in order to ensure that the resolutions were articulated, as intended; and clarified that the denial was primarily based on the lack of compliance with the General Plan, the Development Code, and the Design Guidelines. At this time voice vote was taken reflecting approval of the motion to deny with the exception of Commissioner Chiniaeff who abstained. COMMISSIONER REPORTS No input. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT No input. ADJOURNMENT At 9:38 P.M. Chairman Guerriero formally adjourned this meeting to Wednesday, October t8, 2000 at 6:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula. Ron Guerriero, Chairman Debbie Ubnoske, Director of Planning ITEM #3 CITY OF TEMECULA STAFF REPORT TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Members of the Pla , lng Commission Debbie Ubnoske, Director of Planning December 6, 2000 Consideration of deleting Section 17.24.040 (E)-Compact Parking Spaces from the Development Code Prepared by: Stephen Brown, Senior Management Analyst RECOMMENDATION: Review and comment on the merits of deleting Section 17.24.040(E) of the Development Code permitting compact parking spaces. BACKGROUND This request is prompted by a comment delivered to the City Council during the public comment period regarding compact car parking spaces. The commenter opined that compact spaces are difficult because the small size makes it difficult to get out of the car, and the narrow lanes between parking spaces are problematic when negotiating turns. The commenter further offered anecdotal evidence that everyone is driving larger vehicles now and there is no longer a need for compact spaces. The City Council has directed staff to prepare an analysis on the elimination of compact parking spaces from the Development Code. ANALYSIS The following information is derived from an analysis prepared for the City of Riverside, which has struggled with this same issue. In recent years the average car size has been steadily increasing and large sport utility vehicles are now more popular than ever. According to an article in Cars and Strips magazine (February 2000), the median vehicle size ten years ago was approximately 15 feet long and 5 feet 8 inches wide. Now the median is about 15 feet 10 inches long and 5 feet 8 inches wide. Although the largest sport utility vehicles only make up about 1% of total vehicle sales, the overall trend towards larger vehicles means that fewer care will be able to fit into the compact spaces. Experience has shown that compact spaces tend to be misused by larger vehicles which often park across two spaces or fit so snugly into one space that it is difficult for other cars to use the adjacent spaces. Staff observations show the compact spaces are often the least utilized of all spaces in the parking lot since many compact car owners prefer to park in the larger spaces. In fact, it seems the inclusion of compact spaces often cause a parking deficit because these spaces are so often misused by large vehicles. R:XBROWNS\compact parking\staff report pc.doc Current Regulations The City of Temecula Development Code Section 17.24.040 (E) permits compact parking spaces that are 8'X16' for up to 30 percent of the total parking count. The regular parking space defined in the Temecula Development Code is 9' X 18'. Reasons for Compact Parking Spaces · Where the cost of land is too high or land is constrained, compact parking is a cost effective solution. · Compact stalls have value where there are a substantial percentage of all day parkers verses a major retail component that has a high turnover rate. · Compact parking reduces the amount of land needed for parking lots thus reducing the amount of visual impact for a given amount of cars. Also, larger parking spaces cost more to construct. · Many developers count on the installation of compact spaces as a way to provide the required number of spaces without acquiring additional property or applying for a variance. There are several options to consider if the Commission wishes to modify or delete the requirement for compact parking spaces. Currently there are 35 jurisdictions in California that do not allow compact parking stalls. Options to consider · Modify the Code to allow a percentage of compact spaces for projects that require over 100 parking spaces. · Reduce the percentage of compact spaces allowed, down from 30% to 10%. · Create a universal parking stall size that is smaller than our standard size but larger than the compact size. The City of Riverside recently amended their Municipal Code which established a universal parking stall of 8.5" X 18" with a 24 foot drive aisle. R:\BROWNS\compact parking\staff report pc.doc 2 ITEM #4 STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CiTY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION December 6, 2000 Reconsideration of the recommendation for denial of: Planning Application No. 98-0481 - Wolf Creek Specific Plan No. t 2 Planning Application No. 98-0482 -Wolf Creek Environmental Impact Report Planning Application No. 98-0484 - General Plan Amendment for Wolf Creek Planning Application No. 00-0052 - Tentative Tract Map No. 29305 And Consideration of: Planning Application No. 00-0029 - Wolf Creek Development Agreement Prepared By: Carole K. Donahoe, AICP, Associate Planner and Saied Nasseh-Shahry, Project Planner RECOMMENDATION: The Community Development Department - Planning Division Staff recommends the Planning Commission: 1. ADOPT a Resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FOR WOLF CREEK (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 98-0484), AND APPROVE THE WOLF CREEK SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 12 (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 98-048t) ON PARCELS TOTALING 657 ACRES LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF PALA ROAD, BETWEEN LOMALINDA ROAD AND FAIRVlEW AVENUE, AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR PARCEL NOS. 960-t10-002, -005, -033 AND 950-180-001, -005, -006 AND -010. R:\S P\Wolf Creek SP~STAFFRPT.PC for 12-6-00.doc 1 2. ADOPT a Resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-0052 - TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 29305, THE SUBDIVISION OF 557 ACRES INTO 47 LOTS WHICH CONFORM TO THE PLANNING AREAS, OPEN SPACE AREAS, SCHOOL AND PARK SITES OF THE WOLF CREEK SPECIFIC PLAN, LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF PALA ROAD, BETWEEN LOMALINDA ROAD AND FAIRVlEW AVENUE, AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR PARCEL NOS. 950-110-002, -005, -033 AND 950-180-00'1, -005, -006 AND -0'10. ADOPT a Resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE WOLF CREEK DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DEAL POINTS (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-0029) AS NOTED IN EXHIBIT A, ON PARCELS TOTALING 557 ACRES LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF PALA ROAD, BETWEEN LOMALINDA ROAD AND FAIRVlEW AVENUE, AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR PARCEL NOS. 950-tl 0-002, -005, -033 AND 950-180-001, -005, -006 AND -010. ADOPT a Resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING CERTIFICATION OF THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED FOR THE WOLF CREEK SPECIFIC PLAN AND RELATED ACTIONS (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 98-0482) AND RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM IN CONNECTION THEREWITH FOR THE WOLF CREEK SPECIFIC PLAN, LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF PALA ROAD, BETWEEN LOMALINDA ROAD AND FAIRVlEW AVENUE, AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR PARCEL NOS. 950-110-002, -005, -033 AND 950-'180-001, -005, -006 AND -0'10. R:~S P\Wolf Creek SP~STAFFRPT.PC for 12-6-00.doc 2 APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: SP Murdy, LLC REPRESENTATIVES: Bill Griffith and Camille Bahri, Spring Pacific Properties, LLC Barry Burnell, T & B Planning Consultants, Inc. Donald Lohr and Tony Terich, Lohr + Associates, Inc. Sam Alhadeff, AIhadeff & Solar, LLP STATUS At the conclusion of Planning Commission hearings held on September 6, 20, and October 4, 2000, the Planning Commission voted to deny the Wolf Creek Specific Plan. On October 18, 2000, the Planning Commission considered the resolutions recommending denial which were prepared by the City Attorney's office. At the end of their deliberations, the Commission moved to reconsider the project at a later date. They asked the developer to address all items as specified in the three resolutions for the various portions of the project, and to return to the Commission. The applicant desired to bring the Development Agreement deal points before the Commission, for their recommendation to the City Council concurrently with the reconsideration. ANALYSIS Staffs summary of the disposition of all items as listed in the Resolutions follows. Resolution for the General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan Item No. 1: Zoning based Development Standards · The Specific Plan proposes residential lot sizes below those authorized by the Development Code. Utilize the existing 7,200 square foot minimum lot size. · The development proposal does not offer project amenities and innovative site planning techniques and certainty of design so as to justify deviation from the City's existing standards. · The overall development presents an overabundance of medium density residential development and an inadequate amount of Iow-medium housing densities. · Provide a maximum lot coverage of 35%. Disposition: The project has been redesigned, with the elimination of all "small lot" single family residential 4,000 and 4,500 square foot lots previously proposed (369 units). The Planning Areas have been reconfigured to provide a transition of lot sizes from 7,200 square foot lots at the perimeter of the project, to 5,000 square foot lots and courtyard homes at the interior of the project. The revised Land Use Plan is provided as Attachment No. lA. The number of dwelling units proposed is 1,881 which is 263 units less than the originally proposed plan at 2,144 (and 496 units less than the originally proposed plan without the high school, at 2,377). The number of dwelling units at 1,881 is the same as last submitted by the developer on October 4, 2000. R:\S P\Wolf Creek SP~STAFFRPT.PC for 12-6-00.doc 3 Comparison of Residential Lot Sizes Previous Acres Previous Units Revised Acres Revised Units 20,000 s.f. 4.1 8 4.1 8 7,200 s.f. 71.6 258 85.2 309 6,000 s.f. 80.7 346 90.6 390 5,500 s.f. 0 0 27.3 126 5,000 s.f. 130.7 617 129,6 612 4,500 s.f. 46.9 229 0 4,000 s.f. 23.3 140 0 0 SFD 12.0 114 29.0 267 Courtyard SFD 14.1 169 14.1 169 Courtyard or or orMF Sr. 310 310 Totals 383.4 1,881 379.9 1,881 or or 2,022 2,022 Disposition: Item No. 2: Disposition: Single Family Dwelling Courtyard Planning Areas 7, 10, and 18 shall come forward as Planned Development Overlay (PDO) zones with their own Supplemental Design, Development Standards and Development Plan. Condition of Approval No. 13 has been added to the Specific Plan reflecting this requirement. The PDO application process, as provided within the Development Code, assures the opportunity for innovative site planning techniques and the City's ability to direct future residential developers with regard to the product offered. Design and Development Guidelines · Allow for narrower public streets by providing an alternate street section. · Provide criteria for alternate sidewalk locations both at back of curb and behind a landscaped right-of-way and identify homeowner association maintenance. · Develop architectural guidelines that assure diversity, a mix of one and two story housing, comprehensive architecture forward design and alternate garage configurations. · Define alternate roofing styles and materials, siding materials and treatments, front porches and alternate construction materials and technologies. · Provide detailed landscape and architectural standards for any parcel under 5,000 square feet. The applicant has submitted the exhibit entitled "Option 2 - Through Local Streets." See Attachment No. lB, Condition of Approval No. 12 has been added to the Specific Plan stating that, in the event Option 2 street sections are used, the parkways shall be maintained by homeowner associations. Furthermore, Condition No. 12a. requires that sidewalks be a minimum of five feet in width on both sides of the street. R:~, P\Wolf Creek SP~STAFFRPT.PC for 12-6-00.doc 4 Disposition: Disposition: Item No. 3: Alternate garage locations have been provided entitled "Front Yard Setbacks (Typical Condition)." See Attachment No. 1C. Single family residential lots less than 5,000 square feet are no longer proposed; therefore, no detailed standards were submitted. Land Use: The Land Use Matrix for the Neighborhood and Community Commercial zoning districts shall be modified. Disposition: The Zoning Ordinance has been revised to reflect commercial uses as determined by the Commission, See Attachment No. 1E. Disposition: The Residential Development Standards Matrix has been revised to reflect the latest redesign of housing products. See Attachment No. 1D. Lot coverage limitations have not been modified because the applicant argues that deviations from the Development Code are tradeoffs for the various project amenities. Please see the applicants 'Response to Planning Commission Findings," Attachment No. 6. Item No. 4: Village Center: Provide pedestrian and bicycle linkages from residential areas to open space/recreation facilities, commercial and employment centers, to encourage non-vehicular travel. · Establish a thorough and detailed set of design guidelines, development standards and incentive programs for uses within the Village Center, so as to provide reliable guidance to future users. · Ensure that adequate public gathering areas or plazas are incorporated to allow for social interaction and community activities. Disposition: The applicant discusses those elements already within the specific plan that addresses these concerns. Please see his "Response to Planning Commission Findings," Attachment No. 6, Pages 9 through 11. Resolution for the Tentative Tract Map Item No. la: The designation of the category of street improvement for Pala Road from State Route 79 South to Fairview Road must be resolved. Disposition: The City and the applicant shall enter into a Development Agreement that replaces the Interim Pala Road improvements with 6-lane ultimate width improvements. See the Development Agreement Deal Points exhibit provided as Attachment 4A. Item No. 1 b: Maximum cul-de-sac length shall not exceed 600 feet. Disposition: Condition of Approval No. 103 of the Map and Condition of Approval No. 75 of the Specific Plan have been amended to replace "1320 feet" with "600 feet." Item No. lc: A condition of approval requiring payment of the applicant's fair share of the costs for sound attenuation measures adjacent to Pala Road shall be included. R:\S P\Wolf Creek SP\STAFFRPT.PC for 12-6-00.doc 5 Disposition: Condition of Approval No. 5 has been added to the Specific Plan; a Mitigation Measure regarding noise has been added; the fair share contribution has been included in the Development Agreement Deal Points. Resolution for the Item No. 2a: Disposition: Item No. 2b: Disposition: Item No. 2c: Disposition: Item No. 2d: Disposition: Disposition: Item No. 2e1: Disposition: Item No. 2e2: Final Environmental Impact Report Traffic Impact Analysis should be examined and confirmed as being accurate and reliable. The Traffic Engineering Division of the Public Works Department confirms that the date utilized is accurate and reliable. Interim Pale Road improvements should be confirmed as being adequate measures. The Development Agreement Deal Points replace the Interim Pala Road improvements with 6-lane ultimate width improvements. See the Development Agreement Deal Points exhibit provided as Attachment 4A. Interstate 15 Interchange should be reevaluated to ensure the proposed mitigation measures and derivative conditions of approval are appropriate. The Traffic Engineering Division of the Public Works Department confirms that the proposed mitigation measures are appropriate. General Plan mitigation measures should be incorporated as mitigation measures for the specific plan and conditions of approval should be added to implement the same. Condition of Approval No. 6 has been added to the Specific Plan Conditions of Approval referencing the General Plan mitigation measures as applying to the specific plan. Condition of Approval No. 6A. has been added to the Specific Plan requiring where feasible inclusion of Energy Star/Edison Comfort Wise Programs, solar roof panels, and programs that offer maximum energy/utility efficiencies. Augment the Mitigation Measures and Mitigation Monitoring Program to include coordination with Metropolitan Water District. Metropoliten Water District has been added to Condition of Approval Nos. 25 and 44 of the Map requiring their clearance prior to the approval of the Final Map and the issuance of grading permits. Additionally, Condition of Approval No. 28 has been added to the Specific Plan to identify the need to coordinate design activities with MWD. Landscaping and irrigation devices shall conform to the California Model Water Conservation Ordinance. R:\S P\Wolf Creek SP~STAFFRPT.PC for 12-6-00.doc 6 Disposition: Condition of Approval No. 6B. has been added to the Specific Plan requiring where feasible inclusion of landscaping and irrigation devices that conform to the California Model Water Conservation Ordinance. Item No. 2e3: Sound attenuation measures shall satisfy the General Plan and City ordinances. Disposition: Condition of Approval No. 7 has been added to the Specific Plan requiring noise assessments as described in the EIR Noise Section, 3. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DEAL POINTS Staff and the applicant have reached consensus on the Deal Points for the Development Agreement. The Deal Points represent the most important part of the Development Agreement, basically laying out the City's and the applicant's obligations. These Deal Points are listed in Attachment 6 and include provisions for the land dedication of a 40-acre sports park, park improvements, an option for the City to accept a Community facility site, the land dedication and construction of a fire station, formation of the Community Facilities District for the permanent improvements to Pala Road, Development Agreement fees, and Level of Service D considerations. The City Attorney has determined that the Planning Commission can make a recommendation to the City Council regarding the Development Agreement by considering the Deal Points and without the benefit of the entire Development Agreement document. Due to time constraints, the final Development Agreement document has not been included as part of this Staff Report because attorneys representing both the City and the applicant continue to fine-tune the details of this legal document. The City Council Subcommittee for Wolf Creek, consisting of Council members Pratt and Naggar, has reviewed the Deal Points and will hold their final meeting on the Deal Points during the next week. Their final recommendations will be presented to the Planning Commission at the hearing on December 8, 2000. The Project Description for the Environmental Impact Report shall be amended to include the Development Agreement. This inclusion does not result in additional impacts since the Development Agreement is an implementing tool for the Specific Plan. Condition No. 14c. has been added to the Specific Plan noting this inclusion in the Final Environmental Impact Report. CORRESPONDENCE Staff has provided as Attachment No. 5a additional correspondence received since October 4, 2000, from Pamela Miod. FINDINGS Plann n.q Application No. 98-0481 - Wolf Creek Specific Plan No. 12 and Planning Application No. 98-0484 - General Plan Amendment The project as proposed and conditioned is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community. The project has been reviewed by agencies and staff and determined to be in conformance with the City's General Plan, Development Code, Design Guidelines and Growth Management Program Action Plan. These documents set policies and standards that protect the health, safety and welfare of the community. Access and circulation are adequate for emergency vehicles. R:~S P\Wolf Creek SP~STAFFRPT.PC for 12-6-00,doc 7 2. The project is compatible with surrounding land uses. The project proposes similar residential neighborhoods adjacent to existing surrounding neighborhoods, with interface buffers and full roadway improvements. Project commercial development is proposed within a Village Center, across Pala Road from the Pechanga Casino. 3. The proposed project will not have an adverse effect on the community because it remains consistent with the goals and policies of the adopted General Plan. The project does not represent a significant change to the planned land uses for the site. The General Plan Amendment is a relocation and reallocation of existing land use designations that conforms to the design of the specific plan. Planning Application No. 98-0482 - Wolf Creek Environmental Impact Report See Attachment 3 for full text. Planning Application No. 00-0052 - Tentative Tract Map No. 29305 1. The proposed subdivision and the design and improvements of the subdivision is consistent with the Development Code, the proposed General Plan Amendment, the Wolf Creek Specific Plan, the City of Temecula Municipal Code and Subdivision Ordinance. 2. The tentative map does not propose to divide land which is subject to a contract entered into pursuant to the California Land Conservation Act of 1965. The Agricultural Preserve status of the property expired in 1989 through the Notice of Nonrenewal Process initiated in 1979. 3. The site is physically suitable for the type and density of development proposed by the tentative map. The site is generally fiat topographically, with no unique land features. It is surrounded by existing and developing residential uses, as well as commercial uses generated by the Pechanga Indian Reservation proper~y across Pala Road. 4. The design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements, with conditions of approval, are not likely to cause significant environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. There are no known fish, wildlife or habitat on the project site, and the project will not affect any fish, wildlife or habitat off-site. The site is surrounded by development and is an infill site. 5. An environmental impact report has been prepared and a finding has been made, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(a) (3), finding that specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the environmental impact report; 6. The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements are not likely t° cause seri°us public health problems. 7. The design of the subdivision provides for future passive or natural heating °r c°°ling opportunities in the subdivision to the extent feasible R:~S P\Wolf Creek SP~STAFFRPT.PC for 12-6~0.doc 8 The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision, or the design of the alternate easements which are substantially equivalent to those previously acquired by the public will be provided. 9. The subdivision is consistent with the City's parkland dedication requirements (Quimby). 10. Quimby fees have been determined for the Wolf Creek Specific Plan, and the map has been conditioned to provide these fees. Plann n,q Application No. PA00-0029 - Development Agreement 1. An environmental review has been conducted and approved for this Agreement in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. 2. The City desires to obtain the binding agreement of the Developer and Owner for the development of the property in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement. The Developer desires to obtain the binding agreement of the City to permit the Developer to develop the Developer's Project on the Developer's Parcels in accordance with the "Applicable Rules" (as hereinafter defined) and this Agreement. The Owner desires to obtain the binding agreement of the City to permit the Owner to develop the Owner's Parcel in accordance with the "Applicable Rules" (as hereinafter defined) and this Agreement. Developer and Owner have applied to the City in accordance with applicable procedures for approval of this mutually binding Agreement. The Planning Commission and City Council of the City have given notice of intention to consider the Agreement, have conducted public hearings thereon pursuant to the Government Code, and have found that the provisions of this Agreement are consistent with the Specific Plan and the City's General Plan. This Agreement is consistent with the public health, safety, and welfare needs of the residents of the City and the surrounding region. The City has specifically considered and approved the impact and benefits of the development of the Property in accordance with this Agreement upon the welfare of the region. This Agreement will bind the City to the terms and obligations specified in this Agreement and will limit, to the degree specified in the Agreement and under State law, the future exercise of the City's ability to delay, postpone, preclude or regulate development on the Property, except a provided for herein. In accordance with the Development Agreement Statutes, this Agreement eliminates uncertainty in the planning process and provides for the orderly development of the Property. Further, this Agreement eliminates uncertainty about the validity of exactions imposed by the City, allows installation of necessary improvements, provides for public services necessary for the region with incidental benefits for the Property, and generally serves the public interest within the City of Temecula and the surrounding region. R:\S P\Wolf Creek SP~STAFFRPT. PC for 12.-6-00.doc 9 Attachments: PC Resolution for the General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan - Blue Page Exhibit A - Revised Wolf Creek Specific Plan Land Use Plan Exhibit B - Option 2 - Through Local Streets Exhibit C - Front Yard Setbacks (Typical Condition) Exhibit D - Revised Residential Development Standards Matrix Exhibit E - Revised Zoning Ordinance Exhibit F - Revised Conditions of Approval 11 PC Resolution for Tentative Tract Map No. 29305 - Blue Page 18 Exhibit A- Revised Conditions of Approval PC Resolution for the Final Environmental Impact Report- (Under Separate Cover) Exhibit A - Revised Mitigation Monitoring Program - Blue Page 21 PC Resolution for the Development Agreement Deal Points - Blue Page 22 Exhibit A - City's Proposal for the Wolf Creek Development Agreement Correspondence received subsequent to October 4, 2000 - Blue Page 24 a. Pamela Miod, correspondence dated November 15, 2000. Applicants Responses to Planning Commission Findings, dated November 20, 2000. - Blue Page 25 R:\S P\Wolf Creek SP\STAFFRPT.PC for 12-6-00.doc 10 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000- SPECIFIC PLAN AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT R:\S P\Wolf Creek SP\STAFFRPT.PC for 12-6-00.doc 11 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 RESOLUTION NO. 00- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FOR WOLF CREEK (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA98-0484), AND APPROVE THE WOLF CREEK SPECIFIC PLAN (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 98-0481) ON PROPERTY TOTALING 657 ACRES LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF PALA ROAD, BETWEEN LOMALINDA ROAD AND FAIRVlEW AVENUE, AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NOS. 950-110-002, -005, -033 AND 950-t80-001, -005, -006 AND -0t0. WHEREAS, SP Murdy, LLC filed Planning Application Nos. PA98-0481, -0482 and -0484 (the "Application"), in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan, Development Code, CEQA Guidelines and California State CEQA Guidelines; WHEREAS, the Application was processed including, but not limited to public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the Application on September 6, 2000, September 20, 2000, October 4, 2000, October 18, 2000, and December 6, 2000, at duly noticed public hearings as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support or opposition to this matter; WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing and after due consideration of the testimony, the Commission recommended approval of the Application subject to conditions, and Certification of said EIR and Adoption of the Mitigation Monitoring Program after finding that the project proposed in the Application conformed to the City of Temecula General Plan; NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby incorporated by reference. Section 2. Findings. That the Planning Commission, in recommending approval of the Application, hereby makes the following findings as required in Section 16.09.140 of the Temecula Municipal Code: A. The project as proposed and conditioned is compatible with the health, safety and welfare ofthe community. The project has been reviewed by agencies and staff and determined to be in conformance with the City's General Plan, Development Code, Design Guidelines and Growth Management Program Action Plan. These documents set policies and standards that protect the health, safety and welfare of the community. Access and circulation are adequate for emergency vehicles. B. The project is compatible with surrounding land uses. The project proposes similar residential neighborhoods adjacent to existing surrounding neighborhoods, with interface buffers and full roadway improvements. Project commercial development is proposed within a Village Center, across Pala Road from the Pechanga Casino. R:\S P\Wolf Creek SP~RES-ZA. PC.doc C. The proposed project will not have an adverse effect on the community because it remains consistent with the goals and policies of the adopted General Plan. The project does not represent a significant change to the planned land uses for the site. The General Plan Amendment is a relocation and reallocation of existing land use designations that conforms to the design of the specific plan. Section 3. Environmental Compliance. The City Council of the City of Temecula must approve and adopt the Final Environmental Impact Report and Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Wolf Creek Specific Plan in order to approve the Application. Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby recommends approval of the Application, to develop 557 acres of land with a mixed use specific plan known as the Wolf Creek Specific Plan No. 12, certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report and adoption of the Mitigation Monitoring Program, on property located on the east side of Pala Road, between Loma Linda and Fairview Avenue, and known as Assessor's Parcel Nos. 950- 110-002, -005, -033 and 950-180-001, -005, -006 and -010. Section $. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this sixth day of December, 2000. Ron Guerriero, Chairperson I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the sixth day of December, 2000 by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary RSS P\WolfCreek SP~RES-ZA.PC.doc 2 EXHIBIT A REVISED WOLF CREEK SPECIFIC PLAN LAND USE PLAN R:\S P\Wolf Creek SP~STAFFRPT.PC for 12-6-00.doc 12 EXHIBIT B OPTION 2 - THROUGH LOCAL STREETS R:\S P\Wolf Creek SP\STAFFRPT.PC for 12-6-00.doc 13 EXHIBIT C FRONT YARD SET BACKS (TYPICAL CONDITION) R:~S P\Wolf Creek SP~STAFFRPT.PC for 12-6q30.doc 14 Wolf Creek FRONT YARD SETBACKS (Typical Condition) STREET 15' 2-CAR GARAGE HOUSE STANDARD RESIDENTIAE ~:~,ONT YARD Sh"rBAc~ STREET 3-CAR GARAGE HOUSE STANDARD RESIDENTIAL FRONT YARD SETBACK WITH SECOND-STORY OVERHANG ~repare~ ~or Spring Pacific Properties L.L.C. 15751 ROCKFIELD BLVD. - SUI-I'E 100 - IRVIiN-E, CA 92618 Page IV-36 Figure IV-34A Wolf Creek FRONT YARD SETBACKS (Typical Condition) S~E~ HOUSE 2-CAR GARAGE ! HOUSE l~pared For Spring Pacific Properties L.L.C. 15751 ROCKFIELD BLVD. - SU1TE 100 - IRVINE, CA 92618 Page IV-37 Fig,=e IV-34B Wolf Creek FRONT YARD SETBACKS (Typical Condition) STREET ARCHWAY (optional) 2-CAR GARAGE 15' (average) HOUSE ATTACHED REAR GARAGE SETBACK (typicnl) Prepared For Spring Pacific Properties L.L.C. 15751 ROCKI:IELD BLVD. - $I~111: 100 - IRVIlqE, CA 92618 Page IV-38 Fi_g~re IV-34C Wolf Creek FRONT YARD SETBACKS (Typical Condition) STREET 10' 15' (optional) HOUSE 2-CAR GARAGE granny fiat permitted over garage DETACHED EEAE GARAGE SETBACK I:'~-~d For Spring Pacific Properties L.L.C. 15751 ROCKFIELD BLVD. - SUli b 100 - IRVINE, CA 92618 Page IV-39 Figure IV-34D EXHIBIT D REVISED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS MATRIX R:\S P\Wolf Creek SPVSTAFFRPT. PC for 12~-00.doc 15 EXHIBIT E REVISED ZONING ORDINANCE R:\S P~Wolf Creek SP\STAFFRPT.PC for 12-6-00.doc 16 Wolf Creek Zoning City of Temecula Specific Plan No. 12 Zoning (1) (2) (3) plannln? Area 1 - LM Zone Single Family Residential (7~200 s.f. lots) The uses permitted in Planning Area 1 of Specific Plan No. 12 shall be the same as those uses permitted in the LM Residential District in Chapter 17.06 of the City of Temecula Development Code. The development standards for Planning Area 1 of Specific'Plan No. 12 shall be the same as those standards identified for the LM Residential District in Section 17.06.040 of the City of Temecula Development Code, except for the following: C. D. E. F. H. I. J. Minimum net lot area shall not be less than seventy-two hundred (7,200) square feet. The minimum average width of a lot shall not be less than fifty feet (50'). The minimum depth of a lot shall not be less than eighty feet (80').' The front yard to a liveable structure shall not be less than twenty feet (20'). The comer side yard shall be not less than ten feet (10'). The interior side yard shall be not less than the sum of fifteen feet (15'); minimum five feet (5'). The rear yard shall be not less than twenty feet (20'). The maximum height shall not exceed thirty-five feet (35'). Minimum garage setbacks shall be twenty feet (20'). Patio covers for side and rear yards with vertical supports shall be a minimum of five feet (5') from the property line. Patio covers without vertical supports shall be a minimum of three feet (3') from the property line. Patio covers for front yards with vertical supports shall be a minimum of ten feet (10') from the property line. Patio covers without vertical supports shall be a minimum of three feet (3') from the property line. The maximum percent of lot coverage for two story dwellings will be 40 percent of the lot coverage. The maximum percent of lot coverage for one story dwellings will be 50 percent of the lot coverage. Except as provided above, all other zoning requirements shall be the same as those requirements identified in Chapter 17.06 of the City of Temecula Development Code. Specific Plan No. 12 11/28/2000 Page 1 Wolf Creek Zoning Planning Area 2 - LM Zone Single Family Residential (6,000 s.f. lots) (i) The uses permitted in Planning Area 2 of Specific Plan No. 12 shall be the same as those uses permitted in the LM Residential District in Chapter 17.06 of the City of Temecula Development Code. (2) The development standards for Planning Area 2 of Specific Plan No. 12 shall be the same as those standards identified for the LM Residential District in Section 17.06.040 of the City of Temecula Development Code, except for the following: B. C. D. E. F. H. I. J. Minimum net lot area shall not be less than six thousand (6,000) square feet. The minimum average width of a lot shall not be less than fifty feet (50'). The minimum depth of a lot shall not be less than eighty feet (80'). The front yard to a liveable structure shall not be less than twenty feet (20'). The comer side yard shall be not less than ten feet (I0'). The interior side yard shall be not less than the sum of fifteen feet (15'); minimum five feet (5'). The rear yard shall be not less than twenty feet (20'). The maximum height shall not exceed thirty-five feet (35'). Minimum garage setbacks shall be twenty feet (20'). Patio covers for side and rear yards with vertical supports shall be a minimum of five feet (5') from the property line. Patio covers without vertical supports shall be a minimum of three feet (3') from the property line. Patio covers for front yards with vertical supports shall be a minimum of ten feet (10') from the property line. Patio covers without vertical supports shall be a minimum of three feet (3') from the property line. The maximum percent of lot coverage for two story dwellings will be 40 percent of the lot coverage. The maximum percent of lot coverage for one story dwellings will be 50 percent of the lot coverage. (3) Except as provided above, all other zoning requirements shall be the same as those requirements identified in Chapter 17.06 of the City of Temecula Development Code. Specific Plan No. 12 11/28/2000 Page 2 Wolf Creek Zoning Planning Area 3 - PI District Middle School (1) The uses permitted in Planning Area 3 of Specific Plan No. 12 shall be the same as those uses permitted in the PI Public Institutional District of Chapter 17.12 of the City of Temecula Development Code. (2) The development standards for Planning Area 3 of Specific Plan No. 12 shall be the same as those standards identified for the PI Public Institutional District Zone in Section 17.12.040 of the City of Temecula Development Code. Planning Area 3 - LM Zone Single Family Residential (7,200 s.f. lots) (If school site is not acquired by District) (1) The uses permitted in Planning Area 3 of Specific Plan No. 12 shall be the same as those uses permitted in theLM Residential District in Chapter 17.06 of the City of Temecula Development Code. (2) The development standards for Planning Area 3 of Specific Plan No. 12 shall be the same as those standards identified for the LM Residential District in Section 17.06.040 of the City of Temecula Development Code, except for the following: C. D. E. F. H. I. J. Minimum net lot area shall not be less than seventy-two hundred (7,200) square feet. The minimum average width of a lot shall not be less than fifty feet (50'). The minimum depth ora lot shall not be less than eighty feet (80'). The front yard to a liveable structure shall not be less than twenty feet (20'). The comer side yard shall be not less than ten feet (10'). The interior side yard shall be not less than the sum of fifteen feet (15'); minimum five feet (5'). The rear yard shall be not less than twenty feet (20'). The maximum height shall not exceed thirty-five feet (35'). Minimum garage setbacks shall be twenty feet (20'). Patio covers for side and rear yards with vertical supports shall be a minimum of five feet (5') from the property line. Patio covers without vertical supports shall be a minimum of three feet (3') from the property line. Patio covers for front yards with vertical supports shall be a minimum of ten feet (10') from the property line. Patio covers without vertical supports shall be a minimum of three feet (3') from the property line. The maximum percent of lot coverage for two story dwellings will be 40 percent of the lot coverage. The maximum pement of lot coverage for one story dwellings will be 50 percent of the lot coverage. (3) Except as provided above, all other zoning requirements shall be the same as those requirements identified in Chapter 17.06 of the City of Temecula Development Code. Specific Plan No. 12 11/28/2000 Page 3 Wolf Creek (1) (2) Zoning Planning Area 4 - PR Zone Kent Hintergardt Park The uses permitted in Planning Area 4 of Specific Plan No. 12 shall be the same as those uses permitted in the PR Parks and Recreation District of Chapter 17.14 of the City of Temecula Development Code. The development standards for Planning Area 4 of Specific Plan No. 12 shall be the same as those standards identified for the PR Parks and Recreation District in Section 17.14.040 of the City of Temecula Development Code. Specific Plan No. 12 11/28/2000 Page 4 Wolf Creek Zoning plannino~ Area 5 - LM Zone Single Family Residential (6,000 s.f. lots) (1) The uses permitted in Planning Area 2 of Specific Plan No. 12 shall be the same as those uses permitted in the LM Residential District in Chapter 17.06 of the City of Temecula Development Code. (2) The development standards for Planning Area 2 of Specific Plan No. 12 shall be the same as those standards identified for the LM Residential District in Section 17.06.040 of the City of Temecula Development Code, except for the following: B. C. D. E. F. H. I. J. Minimum net lot area shall not be less than six thousand (6,000) square feet. The minimum average width of a lot shall not be less than fifty feet (50'). The minimum depth of a lot shall not be less than eighty feet (80'). The front yard to a liveable structure shall not be less than twenty feet (20'). The comer side yard shall be not less than ten feet (10'). The interior side yard shall be not less than the sum of fifteen feet (15'); minimum five feet (5'). The rear yard shall be not less than twenty feet (20'). The maximum height shall not exceed thirty-five feet (35'). Minimum garage setbacks shall be twenty feet (20'). Patio covers for side and rear yards with vertical supports shall be a minimum of five feet (5') from the property line. Patio covers without vertical supports shall be a minimum of three feet (3') from the property line. Patio covers for front yards with vertical supports shall be a minimum of ten feet (10') from the property line. Patio covers without vertical supports shall be a minimum of three feet (3') from the property line. The maximum percent of lot coverage for two story dwellings will be 40 percent of the lot coverage. The maximum pement of lot coverage for one story dwellings will be 50 percent of the lot coverage. (3) Except as provided above, all other zoning requirements shall be the same as those requirements identified in Chapter 17.06 of the City of Temecula Development Code. Specific Plan No. 12 11/28/2000 Page 5 Wolf Creek Zoning planning Area 6 - M Zone Single Family Residential (5~000 s.f. lots) (1) The uses permitted in Planning Area 6 of Specific Plan No. 12 shall be the same as those uses permitted in the M Residential District of Chapter 17.06 of the City of Temecula Development Code. In addition, the permitted uses identified under Section 17.06.030 shall also include noncommercial community association recreation and assembly buildings and facilities. (2) The development standards for Planning Area 6 of Specific Plan No. 12 shall be the same as those standards identified for the M Residential District in Section 17.06.040 of the City of Temecula Development Code, except for the following: B. C. D. F. G. H. I. Minimum net lot area shall not be less than five thousand (5,000) square feet. The minimum average width of a lot shall not be less than forty-five feet (45'). The minimum depth of a lot shall not be less than eighty feet (80'). The front yard to a liveable structure shall not be less than an average of fifteen feet (15') and a minimum of ten feet (10'). The comer side yard shall be not less than ten feet Off). The interior side yard shall be not less than 5 feet (5'). The rear yard shall be not less than fifteen feet (15'). The maximum height shall not exceed thirty-five feet (35'). Minimum garage setbacks shall be eighteen feet (18') from the right-of-way for entrances that face the street. Roll-up type garage doors are required. A ten foot (10') setback is allowed if the garage is a side-entry garage. Patio covers for side and rear yards with vertical supports shall be a minimum of five feet (5') from the property line. Patio covers without vertical supports shall be a minimum of three feet (3') from the property line. Patio covers for front yards with vertical supports shall be a minimum of ten feet (10') from the property line. Patio covers without vertical supports shall be a minimum of three feet (3') from the property line. The minimum rear yard square footage shall not be less than eight hundred square feet (800 sq. ft.). The maximum percent of lot coverage for two story dwellings will be 50 percent of the lot coverage. The maximum percent of lot coverage for one story dwellings will be 55 percent of the lot coverage. (3) Except as provided above, all other zoning requirements shall be the same as those requirements identified in Chapter 17.06 of the City of Temecula Development Code. Specific Plan No. 12 11/28/2000 Page 6 Wolf Creek Zoning Planning Area 7 - M Zone Single Family Residential (Courtyard Homes) (1) The uses permitted in Planning Area 7 of Specific Plan No. 12 shall be the same as those uses permitted in the M Residential District in Chapter 17.06 of the City of Temecula Development Code. (2) The development standards for Planning Area 7 of Specific Plan No. 12 shall be the same as those standards identified for the M Residential District in Section 17.06.040 of the City of Temecula Development Code, except for the following: B. C. D. E. G. H. I. J. Minimum net lot area shall not be less than three thousand (3,000) square feet. The minimum width at the front setback shall no be less than thirty feet (30'). The minimum average width of a lot shall not be less than thirty feet (30'). The minimum depth of a lot shall not be less than sixty-five feet (65'). The front yard to a liveable structure shall not be less than an average of fifteen feet (15') and a minimum of ten feet (10'). The comer side yard shall be not less than ten feet (10'). The interior side yard shall have a minimum setback of zero feet (0). The rear yard shall be not less than five feet (5'). The maximum height shall not exceed thirty-five feet (35'). Minimum garage setbacks shall be eighteen feet (18') from the right-of-way entrances that face the street and ten feet (10') for a side-entry garage. Roll-up type garage doors shall be required. Patio covers for side and rear yards with vertical supports shall be a minimum of five feet (5') from the property line. Patio covers without vertical supports shall be a minimum of three feet (3') from the property line. Patio covers for front yards with vertical supports shall be a minimum of ten feet (10') from the property line. Patio covers without vertical supports shall be a minimum of three feet (3') from the property line. (3) Except as provided above, all other zoning requirements shall be the same as those requirements identified in Chapter 17.06 of the City of Temecula Development Code. (4) When courtyard homes are implemented, proper site design involves detailed integration of architectural floor plan design with plotting and site design. Therefore, a Planned Development Overlay (PDO) Plan approval by the Planning Commission subject to the requirements of Chapter 17.22 of the Development Code shall be required. The Development Plan submittal shall include an architectural design package including floorplans and elevations for all product types proposed. Minimum rear yard requirements are set at 5' for courtyard home products, however courtyard home site planning is highly dependent on integration of product design and placement of homes on the lots. The Development Plan must demonstrate a minimum of 200 square feet of usable private yard space for each lot. Specific Plan No. 12 11/28/2000 Page 7 Wolf Creek Zoning (1) (2) (1) (2) planning Area 8 - PI District Elementary School The uses permitted in Planning Area 8 of Specific Plan No. 12 shall be the same as those uses permitted in the PI Public Institutional District of Chapter 17.12 of the City of Temecula Development Code. The development standards for Planning Area 8 of Specific Plan No. 12 shall be the same as those standards identified for the PI Public Institutional District Zone in Section 17.12.020 of the City of Temecula Development Code. Plannin? Area 8 - M Zone Single Family Residential (Option) (5,000 s.f. lots) (If school site is not acquired by District) The uses permitted in Planning Area 8 of Specific Plan No. 12 shall be the same as those uses permitted in the M Residential District in Chapter 17.06 of the City of Temecula Development Code. The development standards for Planning Area 8 of Specific Plan No. 12 shall be the same as those standards identified for the M Residential District in Section 17.06.040 of the City of Temecula Development Code, except for the following: F. G. H. Minimum net lot area shall not be less than five thousand (5,000) square feet. The minimum width of a lot at the front setback line shall not be less than forty-five feet (45'). The minimum aYerage width of a lot shall not be less than forty-five feet (45'). The minimum lot depth shall not be less than eighty feet (80'). The front yard to a liveable structure s, hall not be less than an average of fifteen feet (15') and a minimum of ten feet (10'). The comer side yard shall be not less than ten feet (10'). The interior side yard shall be not less than five feet (5'). The rear yard shall be not less than fifteen feet (15'). The minimum rear yard square footage shall not be less than eight hundred square feet (800 sq. fi.). The maximum height shall not exceed thirty-five feet (35'). Minimum garage setbacks shall be eighteen feet (18') from the right-of-way entrances that face the street and ten feet (10') for a side entry garage. Roll-up type garage doors shall be required. Patio covers for side and rear yards with vertical supports shall be a minimum of five feet (5') from the property line. Patio covers without vertical supports shall be a minimum of three feet (3') from the property line. Patio covers for front yards with vertical supports shall be a minimum often feet (Iff) from the property line. Patio covers without vertical supports shall be a minimum of three feet (3') from the property line. Specific Plan No. 12 11/28/2000 Page 8 Wolf Creek M. (3) Zoning The maximum percent of lot coverage for two story dwellings will be 50 percent of the lot coverage. The maximum percent of lot coverage for one story dwellings will be 55 percent of the lot coverage. Except as provided above, all other zoning requirements shall be the same as those requirements identified in Chapter 17.06 of the City of Temecula Development Code. Specific Plan No. 12 11/28/2000 Page 9 Wolf Creek Zoning plannln~ Area 9 - M Zone Single Family Residential (5,000 s.f. lots) (l) The uses permitted in Planning Area 9 of Specific Plan No. 12 shall be the same as those uses permitted in the M Residential District of Chapter 17.06 of the City of Temecula Development Code. (2) The development standards for Planning Area 9 of Specific Plan No. 12 shall be the same as those standards identified for the M Residential District in Section 17.06.040 of the City of Temecula Development Code, except for the following: B. C. D. F. G. H. I. Minimum net lot area shall not be less than five thousand (5,000) square feet. The minimum average width of a lot shall not be less than forty-five feet (45'). The minimum depth of a lot shall not be less than eighty feet (80'). The front yard to a liveable structure shall not be less than an average of fifteen feet (15') and a minimum of ten feet (10'). The comer side yard shall be not less than ten feet Off)- The interior side yard shall be not less than five feet (5'). The rear yard shall be not less than fifteen feet (15'). The maximum height shall not exceed thirty-five feet (35'). Minimum garage setbacks shall be eighteen feet (18') from the right-of-way for entrances that face the street. Roll-up type garage doors are required. A ten foot (10') setback is allowed if the garage is a side-entry garage. Patio covers for side and rear yards with vertical supports shall be a minimum of five feet (5') from the property line. Patio covers without vertical supports shall be a minimum of three feet (3') from the property line. Patio covers for front yards with vertical supports shall be a minimum often feet (10') from the property line. Patio covers without vertical supports shall be a minimum of three feet (3') from the property line. The minimum rear yard square footage shall not be less than eight hundred square feet (800 sq. ft.). The maximum percent of lot coverage for two story dwellings will be 50 percent of the lot coverage. The maximum percent of lot coverage for one story dwellings will be 55 percent of the lot coverage. (3) Except as provided above, all other zoning requirements shall be the same as those requirements identified in Chapter 17.06 of the City of Temecula Development Code. Specific Plan No. 12 11/28/2000 Page 10 Wolf Creek Zoning planning Area 10 - M Zone Single Family Residential (Courtyard Homes) (1) The uses permitted in Planning Area 10 of Specific Plan No. 12 shall be the same as those uses permitted in the M Residential District in Chapter 17.06 of the City of Temecula Development Code. (2) The development standards for Planning Area 10 of Specific Plan No. 12 shall be the same as those standards identified for the M Residential District in Section 17.06,040 oftbe City of Temecula Development Code, except for the following: B. C. D, E. G. H. I. J. Minimum net lot area shall not be less than three thousand (3,000) square feet. The minimum width at the front setback shall no be less than thirty feet (30'). The minimum average width of a lot shall not be less than thirty feet (30'). The minimum depth of a lot shall not be less than sixty-five feet (65'). The front yard to a liveable structure shall not be less than an average of fifieen feet (15') and a minimum often feet (10'). The comer side yard shall be not less than ten feet (10'). The interior side yard shall have a minimum setback of zero feet (0). The rear yard shall be not less than five feet (5'). The maximum height shall not exceed thirty-five feet (35'). Minimum garage setbacks shall be eighteen feet (18') from the right-of-way entrances that face the street and ten feet (i0') for a side-entry garage. Roll-up type garage doors shall be required. Patio covers for side and rear yards with vertical supports shall be a minimum of five feet (5') from the property line. Patio covers without vertical supports shall be a minimum of three feet (3') from the property line. Patio covers for front yards with vertical supports shall be a minimum often feet (10') from the property line. Patio covers without vertical supports shall be a minimum of three feet (3') from the property line. (3) (4) Except as provided above, all other zoning requirements shall be the same as those requirements identified in Chapter 17.06 of the city of Temecula Development Code. When courtyard homes are implemented, proper site design involves deiailed integration of architectural floor plan design with plotting and site design. Therefore, a Planned Development Overlay (PDO) Plan approval by the Planning Commission subject to the requirements of Chapter 17.22 of the Development Code shall be required. The Development Plan submittal shall include an architectural design package including floorplans and elevations for all product types proposed. Minimum rear yard requirements are set at five feet for courtyard home products, however courtyard home site planning is highly dependent on integration of product design and placement of homes on the lots. The Development Plan must demonstrate a minimum of 200 square feet of usable private yard space for each lot. Specific Plan No. 12 11/28/2000 Page 11 Wolf Creek Zoning (2) Planning. Area 11 - PR Zone Neighborhood Park The uses permitted in Planning Area 11 of Specific Plan No. 12 shall be the same as those uses permitted in the PR Parks and Recreation District of Chapter 17.14 of the City of Temecula Development Code. The development standards for Planning Area 11 of Specific Plan No. 12 shall be the same as those standards identified for the PR Parks and Recreation District in Section 17.14.040 of the City of Temecula Development Code. Specific Plan No. 12 11/28/2000 Page 12 Wolf Creek Zoning plannlno Area 12 - NC Zone Neighborhood Commercial (1) The uses permitted in Planning Area 12 of Specific Plan No. 12 shall be the same as those uses permitted in the NC Neighborhood Commercial District of Chapter 17.08 of the City of Temecula Development Code, except that the following uses shall not be permitted: A. Auditoriums and Conference Facilities B. Automobile Sales C. Automobile Parts-sales D. Automobile Repair Services E. Automobile Rental F. Automobile Service Stations G. Banks and Financial Institutions with drive-throughs H. Bowling Alley I. Building Material Sales J. Car Wash, Full Service K. Communications Equipment Sales L. Convenience Market M. Discount/Department Store N. Dry Cleaning Plant O. Equipment Sales and Rentals P. Funeral Parlors, Mortuary Q. Furniture Sales R. Garden Supplies and Equipment Sales and Service S. Health and Exercise Clubs (greater than 5,000 square feet) T. Hospitals U. Hotels/Motels V. Kennel W. Libraries, Museums and Galleries X. Liquor Stores Y. Mini-Storage or Mini-Warehouse Z. Movie Theaters AA. Music and Recording Studios BB. Nightclubs/Taverns/Bars/Dance Club/Teen Club CC. Nurseries (Retail) DD. Offices, Administrative or Corporate Headquarters with greater than 50,000 sq. ft. EE. Paint and Wallpaper Stores FF. Pawnshops GG. Pest Control Services HH. Printing and Publishing II. Radio and Broadcasting Studios, Offices Specific Plan No. 12 11/28/2000 Page 13 Wolf Creek Zoning JJ. Recycling Collection Facilities KK. Restaurants with Lounge or Live Entertainment LL. Rooming and Boarding Houses MM. Swimming Pool Supplies/Equipment Sales NN. Taxi or Limousine Service OO. Tile Sales PP. Wedding Chapels (2) The following uses are conditionally permitted in Planning Area 12 of Specific Plan No. 12 subject to the approval of a conditional use permit. Parcel Delivery Services Alcoholic Beverage Sales Liquor Stores (3) The development standards for Planning Area 12 of Specific Plan No. 12 shall be the same as those standards identified for the NC Neighborhood Commercial District in Section 17.08.040 of the City of Temecula Development Code. (4) Except as provided above, all other zoning requirements shall be the same as those requirements identified in Chapter 17.08 of the City of Temecula Development Code. Specific Plan No. 12 11/28/2000 Page 14 Wolf Creek Zoning Planning Area 13 - CC Zone Community Commercial (1) The uses permitted in Planning Area 13 of Specific Plan No. 12 shall be the same as those uses permitted in the CC Community Commercial District of Chapter 17.08 of the City of Temecula Development Code, except that the following uses shall be prohibited: A. Auditoriums - Conference Facilities B. Automobile Rental C. Automobile Sales D. Automobile Repair Services E. Automobile Services Stations F. Automotive Oil Change/Lube Services G. Automotive Service Stations Selling Beer and/or Wine With or Without an Automated Car Wash H. Banks and Financial Institutions Mth drive-throughs I. Bed and Breakfast J. Building Material Sales K. Car Wash, full service L. Dry Cleaning Plant M. Equipment Sales and Rentals N. Funeral Parlors, Mortuary O. Garden Supplies and Equipment Sales and Service P. Hotels/Motels Q. Mini-Storage or Mini-Warehouse R. Music and Recording Studios S. Nurseries (Retail) T. Offices, Administrative or Corporate Headquarters with greater than 50,000 Sq. ft. U. Pawnshops V. Pest Control Services W. Printing and Publishing X. Radio and Broadcasting Studios, Offices Y. Recycling Collection Facilities Z. Restaurant, Drive-in AA. Rooming and Boarding Houses BB. Taxi or Limousine Service CC. Tile Sales DD. Wedding Chapels (2) The following uses are conditionally permitted in Planning Area 13 of Specific Plan No. 12 subject to the approval of a conditional use permit. B. C. D. Parcel Del.ivery Services Convenience Market Liquor Stores Restaurant, Fast Food Specific Plan No. 12 11/28/2000 Page 15 Wolf Creek Zoning (3) (4) The development standards for Planning Area 13 of Specific Plan NO. 12 shall be the same as those standards identified for the CC Community Commercial District in Section 17.08.040 of the City of Temecula Development Code. Except as provided above, all other zoning requirements shall be the same as those requirements identified in Chapter 17.08 of the City of Temecula Development Code. Specific Plan No. 12 11/28/2000 Page 16 Wolf Creek Zoning (1) (2) Planning Area 14 - PI Zone Recreational~ Fire Station or Library The uses permitted in Planning Area 14 of Specific Plan No. 12 shall be the same as those uses permitted in the PI Public Institutional District of Chapter 17.12 of the City of Temecula Development Code. 'In addition, the permitted uses identified under Section 17.12.030 shall also include fire stations. The development standards for Planning Area 14 of Specific Plan No. 12 shall be the same as those standards identified for the PI Public Institutional District Zone in Section 17.12.040 of the City of Temecula Development Code. Specific Plan No. 12 11/28/2000 Page 17 Wolf Creek Zoning (2) (3) Plannin~ Area 15 - M Zone Single Family Residential (5.000 s.f. lots) The uses permitted in Planning Area 15 of Specific Plan No. 12 shall be the same as those uses permitted in the M Residential District of Chapter 17.06 of the City of Temecula Development Code. The development standards for Planning Area 15 of Specific Plan No. 12 shall be the same as those standards identified for the M Residential District in Section 17.06.040 of the City of Temecula Development Code, except for the following: B. C. D. F. G. H. I. Minimum net lot area shall not be less than five thousand (5,000) square feet. The minimum average width of a lot shall not be less than forty-five feet (45'). The minimum depth of a lot shall not be less than eighty feet (80'). The front yard to a liveable structure shall not be less than an average of fifteen feet (15') and a minimum of ten feet (10'). The comer side yard shall be not less than ten feet (10'). The interior side yard shall be not less than five feet (5'). The rear yard shall be not less than fifteen feet (15'). The maximum height shall not exceed thirty-five feet (35'). Minimum garage setbacks shall be eighteen feet (18') from the right-of-way for entrances that face the street. Roll-up type garage doors are required. A ten foot (10') setback is allowed if the garage is a side-entry garage. Patio covers for side and rear yards with vertical supports shall be a minimum of five feet (5') from the property line. Patio covers without vertical supports shall be a minimum of three feet (3') from the property line. Patio covers for front yards with vertical supports shall be a minimum often feet (10') from the property line. Patio covers without vertical supports shall be a minimum of three feet (3') from the property line. The minimum rear yard square footage shall not be less than eight hundred square feet (800 sq. ft.). The maximum percent of lot coverage for two story dwellings will be 50 percent of the lot coverage. The maximum percent of lot coverage for one story dwellings will be 55 percent of the lot coverage. Except as provided above, all other zoning requirements shall be the same as those requirements identified in Chapter 17.06 of the City of Temecula Development Code. Specific Plan No. 12 11/28/2000 Page 18 Wolf Creek Zoning (I) (2) (3) Planning. Area 16 - L-2 Zone Single Family Residential (20~000 s.f. lots) The uses permitted in Planning Area 16 of Specific Plan No. 12 shall be the same as those uses permitted in the L-2 Residential District of Chapter 17.06 of the City of Temecula Development Code. The development standards for Planning Area 16 of Specific Plan No. 12 shall be the same as those standards identified for the L-2 Residential District in Section 17.06.040 of the City of Temecula Development Code, except the following: B. C. D. E. F. G. H. I. J. Minimum net lot area shall not be less than twenty thousand (20,000) square feet. The minimum average width of a lot shall not be less than one hundred feet (100'). The minimum depth of a lot shall not be less than ninety feet (90'). The front yard to a liveable structure shall not be less than twenty-five feet (25'). The comer side yard shall be not less than fifteen feet (15'). The interior side yard shall be not less than ten feet (10'). The rear yard shall be not less than twenty feet (20'). The maximum height shall not exceed thirty-five feet (35'). Minimum garage setbacks shall be twenty feet (20'). Patio covers for side and rear yards with vertical supports shall be a minimum of five feet (5') from the property line. Patio covers without vertical supports shall be a minimum of three feet (3') from the property line. Patio covers for front yards with vertical supports shall be a minimum of ten feet (10') from the property line. Patio covers without vertical supports shall be a minimum of three feet (3') from the property line. The maximum pement of lot coverage for two story dwellings will be 25 pement of the lot coverage. The maximum percent of lot coverage for one story dwellings will be 25 percent of the lot coverage. Except as provided above, all other zoning requirements shall be the same as those requirements identified in Chapter 17.06 of the City of Temecula Development Code. Specific Plan No. 12 11/28/2000 Page 19 Wolf Creek Zoning (1) (2) (3) plnnnino Area 17 - LM Zone Single Family Residential (6,000 s.f. lots) The uses permitted in Planning Area 17 of Specific Plan No. 12 shall be the same as those uses permitted in the LM Residential District in Chapter 17.06 of the City of Temecula Development Code. The development standards for Planning Area 17 of Specific Plan No. 12 shall be the same as those standards identified for the LM Residential District in Section 17.06.040 of the City of Temecula Development Code, except for the following: B. C. D. E. F. H. I. J. Minimum net lot ama shall not be less than six thousand (6,000) square feet. The minimum average width of a lot shall not be less than fifty feet (50'). The minimum depth of a lot shall not be less than eighty feet (80'). The front yard to a liveable structure shall not be less than twenty feet (20'). The comer side yard shall be not less than ten feet (10'). The interior side yard shall be not less than the sum of fifteen feet (15'); minimum five feet (5'). The rear yard shall be not less than twenty feet (20'). The maximum height shall not exceed thirty-five feet (35'). Minimum garage setbacks shall be twenty feet (20'). Patio covers for side and rear yards with vertical supports shall be a minimum of five feet (5') from the property line. Patio covers without vertical supports shall be a minimum of three feet (3') from the property line. Patio covers for front yards with vertical supports shall be a minimum of ten feet (10') from the property line. Patio covers without vertical supports shall be a minimum of three feet (3') from the property line. The maximum percent of lot coverage for two story dwellings will be 40 percent of the lot coverage. The maximum percent of lot coverage for one story dwellings will be 50 percent of the lot coverage. Except as provided above, all other zoning requirements shall be the same as those requirements identified in Chapter 17.06 of the City of Temecula Development Code. Specific Plan No. 12 11/28/2000 Page 20 Wolf Creek Zoning planning Area 18- M Zone Single FamilF Residential (Courtyard Homes) The uses permitted in Planning Area 18 of Specific Plan No. 12 shall be the same as those uses permitted in the M District in Chapter 17.06 of the City of Temecula Development Code. (2) The development standards for Planning Area 18 of Specific Plan No. 12 shall be the same as those standards identified for the M Residential District in Section 17.06.040 of the City of Temecula Development Code, except for the following: B. C. D. E. G. H. I. J. Minimum net lot area shall not be less than three thousand (3,000) square feet. The minimum width at the front setback shall no be less than thirty feet (30'). The minimum average width of a lot shall not be less than thirty feet (30'). The minimum depth of a lot shall not be less than sixty-five feet (65'). The front yard to a liveable structure shall not be less than an average of fifteen feet (15') and a minimum of ten feet (10'). The comer side yard shall be not less than ten feet (10% The interior side yard shall have a minimum setback of zero feet (0). The rear yard shall be not less than five feet (5'). The maximum height shall not exceed thirty-five feet (35'). Minimum garage setbacks shall be eighteen feet (18') from the right-of-way entrances that face the street and ten feet (10') for a side-entry garage. Roll-up type garage doors shall be required. Patio covers for side and rear yards with vertical supports shall be a minimum of five feet (5') from the property line. Patio covers without vertical supports shall be a minimum of three feet (3') from the property line. Patio covers for front yards with vertical supports shall be a minimum of ten feet (10') from the property line. Patio covers without vertical suppOrts shall be a minimum of three feet (3') from the property line. (3) Except as provided above, all other zoning requirements shall be the same as those requirements identified in Chapter 17.06 of the City of Temecula Development Code. (4) When courtyard homes are implemented, proper site design involves detailed integration of architectural floor plan design with plotting and site design. Therefore, a Planned Development Overlay (PDO) Plan approval by the Planning Commission subject to the requirements of Chapter 17.22 of the Development Code shall be required. The Development Plan submittal shall include an architectural design package including floorplans and elevations for all product types proposed. Minimum rear yard requirements are set at five feet for courtyard home products, however courtyard home site planning is highly dependent on integration of product design and placement of homes on the lots. The Development Plan must demonstrate a minimum of 200 square feet of usable private yard space for each lot. Specific Plan No. 12 11/28/2000 Page 21 Wolf Creek Zoning Planning Area 18 - H Zone Multiple Family Senior Housim, (Oufion) (If courtyard homes are not implemented) (1) The uses permitted in Planning Area 18 of Specific Plan No. 12 shall be the same as those uses permitted in the H Residential District in Chapter 17.06 of the City of Temecula Development Code. (2) The development standards for Planning Area 18 of Specific Plan No. 12 shall be the same as those standards identified for the H Residential District in Section 17.06.040 of the City of Temecula Development Code, except for the following: B. C. D. The minimum width at the front setback shall no be less than thirty feet (30'). The minimum average width of a lot shall not be less than fifty feet (50'). The minimum depth of a lot shall not be less than one hundred feet (100'). The front yard to a liveable stracture shall not be less than an average of twenty feet (20') and a minimum of ten feet (10% The comer side yard shall be not less than fifteen feet (15'). Variable interior side yard setbacks may be permitted provided the sum of the setbacks shall not be less than ten feet (10') and the distance between adjacent structures shall not be less than ten feet (10% The rear yard shall be not less than twenty feet (20'). The maximum height shall not exceed thirty-five feet (35'). Minimum garage setbacks shall be twenty feet (20') from the right-of-way entrances that face the street and ten feet (10') for a side-entry garage. Roll-up type garage doors shall be required. Patio covers for side and rear yards with vertical supports shall be a minimum of five feet (5') from the property line. Patio covers without vertical supports shall be a minimum of five feet (5') from the property line. Patio covers for front yards with vertical supports shall be a minimum of ten feet (10') from the property line. Patio covers without vertical supports shall be a minimum of five feet (5') from the property line. (3) Except as provided above, all other zoning requirements shall be the same as those requirements identified in Chapter 17.06 of the City of Temecula Development Code. Specific Plan No. 12 11/28/2000 Page 22 Wolf Creek Zoning (1) (2) (3) Plannim, Area 20 - M Zone Single Family Residential (5s000 s.L lots) The uses permitted in Planning Area 20 of Specific Plan No. 12 shall be the same as those uses permitted in the M Residential District of Chapter 17.06 of the City of Temecula Development Code. The development standards for Planning Area 20of Specific Plan No. 12 shall be the same as those standards identified for the M Residential District in Section 17.06.040 of the City of Temecula Development Code, except for the following: B. C. D. F. G. H. I. Minimum net lot area shall not be less than five thousand (5,000) square feet. The minimum average width of a lot shall not be less than forty-five feet (45'). The minimum depth of a lot shall not be less than eighty feet (80'). The front yard to a liveable structure shall not be less than an average of fifteen feet (15') and a minimum of ten feet (10'). The corner side yard shall be not less than ten feet (10'). The interior side yard shall be not less than five feet (5'). The rear yard shall be not less than fifteen feet (15'). The maximum height shall not exceed thirty-five feet (35'). Minimum garage setbacks shall be eighteen feet (18') from the right-of-way for entrances that face the street. Roll-up type garage doors are required. A ten foot (10') setback is allowed if the garage is a side-entry garage. Patio covers for side and rear yards with vertical supports shall be a minimum of five feet (5') from the property line. Patio covers without vertical supports shall be a minimum of three feet (3') from the property line. Patio covers for front yards with vertical supports shall be a minimum of ten feet (10') from the property line. Patio covers without vertical supports shall be a minimum of three feet (3') from the property line. The minimum rear yard square footage shall not be less than eight hundred square feet (800 sq. fl.). The maximum percent of lot coverage for two story dwellings will be 50 percent of the lot coverage. The maximum percent of lot coverage for one story dwellings will be 55 percent of the lot coverage. Except as provided above, all other zoning requirements shall be the same as those requirements identified in Chapter 17.06 of the City of Temecula Development Code. Specific Plan No. 12 11/28/2000 Page 23 Wolf Creek Zoning Planning Area 21 - LM Zone Single Family Residential (6,000 s.f. lots) (1) The uses permitted in Planning Area 21 of Specific Plan No. 12 shall be the same as those uses permitted in the LM Residential District in Chapter 17.06 of the City of Temecula Development Code. (2) The development standards for Planning Area 21 of Specific Plan No. 12 shall be the same as those standards identified for the LM Residential District in Section 17.06.040 of the City of Temecula Development Code, except for the following: B. C. D. E. F. H. I. J. Minimum net lot area shall not be less than six thousand (6,000) square feet. The minimum average width of a lot shall not be less than fifty feet (50'). The minimum depth of a lot shall not be less than eighty feet (80'). The front yard to a liveable structure shall not be less than twenty feet (20'). The comer side yard shall be not less than ten feet (10'). The interior side yard shall be not less than the sum of fifteen feet (15'); minimum five feet (5'). The rear yard shall be not less than twenty feet (20'). The maximum height shall not exceed thirty-five feet (35'). Minimum garage setbacks shall be twenty feet (20'). Patio covers for side and rear yards with vertical supports shall be a minimum of five feet (5') from the property line. Patio covers without vertical supports shall be a minimum of three feet (3') from the property line. Patio covers for front yards with vertical supports shall be a minimum of ten feet (10') from the property line. Patio covers without vertical supports shall be a minimum of three feet (3') from the property line. The maximum percent of lot coverage for two story dwellings will be 40 percent of the lot coverage. The maximum percent of lot coverage for one story dwellings will be 50 percent of the lot coverage. (3) Except as provided above, all other zoning requirements shall be the same as those requirements identified in Chapter 17.06 of the City of Temecula Development Code. Specific Plan No. 12 11/28/2000 Page 24 Wolf Creek Planninp Area 22 - LM Zone Single Family Residential (7,200 s.f. lots) Zoning (1) The uses permitted in Planning Area 22 of Specific Plan No. 12 shall be the same as those uses permitted in the LM Residential District in Chapter 17.06 of the City of Temecula Development Code. (2) The development standards for Planning Area 22 of Specific Plan No. i2 shall be the same as those standards identified for the LM Residential District in Section 17.06.040 of the City of Temecula Development Code, except for the following: C. D. E. F. H. I. J. Minimum net lot area shall not be less than seventy-two hundred (7,200) square feet. The minimum average width of a lot shall not be less than fifty feet (50'). The minimum depth of a lot shall not be less than eighty feet (80'). The front yard to a liveable structure shall not be less than twenty feet (20'). The corner side yard shall be not less than ten feet (10'). The interior side yard shall be not less than the sum of fifteen feet (15'); minimum five feet (5'). The rear yard shall be not less than twenty feet (20'). The maximum height shall not exceed thirty-five feet (35'). Minimum garage setbacks shall be twenty feet (20'). Patio covers for side and rear yards with vertical supports shall be a minimum of five feet (5') from the property line. Patio covers without vertical supports shall be a minimum of three feet (3') from the property line. · Patio covers for front yards with vertical supports shall be a minimum of ten feet Off) from the property line. Patio covers without vertical supports shall be a minimum of three feet (3') from the property line. The maximum percent of lot coverage for two story dwellings will be 40 percent of the lot coverage. The maximum percent of lot coverage for one story dwellings will be 50 percent of the lot coverage. (3) Except as provided above, all other zoning requirements shall be the same as those requirements identified in Chapter 17.06 of the City of Temecula Development Code. Specific Plan No. 12 11/28/2000 Page 25 Wolf Creek Zoning Planning Area 23 - LM Zone Single Family Residential (5~500 s.f. lots) (1) The uses permitted in Planning Area 23 of Specific Plan No. 12 shall be the same as those uses permitted in the LM Residential District in Chapter 17.06 of the City of Temecula Development Code. (2) The development standards for Planning Area 23 of Specific Plan No. 12 shall be the same as those standards identified for the LM Residential District in Section 17.06.040 of the City of Temecula Development Code, except for the following: B. C. D. Minimum net lot area shall noi be less than fifty-five thousand (5,500) square feet. The minimum average width of a lot shall not be less than fifty feet (50'). The minimum depth of a lot shall not be less than eighty feet (80'). The front yard to a liveable structure shall not be less than an average of fifteen feet (15') and a minimum of ten feet (10'). The comer side yard shall be not less than ten feet (10'). The interior side yard shall be not less than the sum of fifteen feet (15'); minimum five feet (5'). The rear yard shall be not less than twenty feet (20'). The maximum height shall not exceed thirty-five feet (35'). Minimum garage setbacks shall be eighteen feet (18') from the right-of-way for entrances that face the street. Roll-up type garage doors are required. A ten foot (10') setback is allowed if the garage is a side-entry garage. Patio covers for side and rear yards with vertical supports shall be a minimum of five feet (5') from the property line. Patio covers without vertical supports shall be a minimum of three feet (3') from the property line. Patio covers for front yards with vertical supports shall be a minimum of ten feet (10') from the property line. Patio covers without vertical supports shall be a minimum of three feet (3') from the property line. The maximum percent of lot coverage for two story dwellings will be 50 percent of the lot coverage. The maximum percent of lot coverage for one story dwellings will be 55 percent of the lot coverage. Specific Plan No. 12 11/28/2000 Page 26 Wolf Creek Zoning (1) (2) (1) (2) Planning Area 24 - City Sports Park The uses permitted in Planning Area 24 of Specific Plan No. 12 shall be the same as those uses permitted in the PR Parks and Recreation District of Chapter 17.14 of the City of Temecula Development Code and shall also include as permitted uses: B. C. D. E. F. G. Trails, including bicycle and pedestrian trails. Lighted athletic fields. Picnic group facilities. Parking areas and lots. Restrooms and snack bars. Restaurants (no alcoholic beverage sales or drive thins). Skate parks. The development standards for Planning Area 24 of Specific Plan No. 12 shall be the same as those standards identified for the PR Parks and Recreation District in Section 17.14.040 of the City of Temecula Development Code. p!annlno Area 24 - LM Zone Single Family Residential (Option) (5,500 s.f. lots) (If City Sports Park option is not implemented) The uses permitted in Planning Area 24 of Specific Plan No. 12 shall be the same as those uses permitted in the LM Residential District in Chapter 17.06 of the City of Temecula Development Code. The development standards for Planning Area 24 of Specific Plan No. 12 shall be the same as those standards identified for the LM Residential District in Section 17.06.040 of the City of Temecula Development Code, except for the following: B. C. D. Minimum net lot area shall not be less than fifty-five thousand (5,500) square feet. The minimum average width of a lot shall not be less than fifty feet (50'). The minimum depth of a lot shall not be less than eighty feet (80'). The front yard to a liveable structure shall not be less than an average of fifteen feet (15') and a minimum often feet (10'). The comer side yard shall be not less than ten feet (iff). The interior side yard shall be not less than the sum of fifteen feet (15'); minimum five feet (5'). The rear yard shall be not less than twenty feet (20'). The maximum height shall not exceed thirty-five feet (35'). Minimum garage setbacks shall be eighteen feet (18') from the right-of-way for entrances that face the street. R011-up type garage doors are required. A ten foot (10') setback is allowed if the garage is a side-entry garage. Patio covers for side and rear yards with vertical supports shall be a minimum of five feet (5') from the property line. Patio covers without vertical supports shall be a minimum of three feet (3') from the properly line. Specific Plan No. 12 11/28/2000 Page 27 Wolf Creek Zoning Patio covers for front yards with vertical supports shall be a minimum of ten feet (10') from the property line. Patio covers without vertical supports shall be a minimum of three feet (3') from the property line. The maximum percent of lot coverage for two story dwellings will be 50 percent of the lot coverage. The maximum percent of lot coverage for one story dwellings will be 55 percent of the lot coverage. Specific Plan No. 12 11/28/2000 Page 28 EXHIBIT F REVISED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL R:~S P\Wolf Creek SP~STAFFRPT. PC for 12-6~)0.doc 17 EXHIBIT B CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Revised December 6, 2000 Planning Application No. PA98-0481 - (Specific Plan) - Wolf Creek Specific Plan No. 12 Project Description: A mixed use specific plan which provides a full range of residential uses and product types; school sites, park sites, open space and drainage greenbelt, roadways, private recreation center, fire station site and commercial sites, specifically as follows: From 2, ! 'I,'!, tc 2,~01 1,881 to 2,158 dwelling units for an overall density of 3.~ tc ~,.7 3.4 to 3.6 dwelling units per acre. Residential product includes ~ acre estate lots, 7,200 square foot to ~,000 5,000 square foot lots, courtyard homes, and an option for c """; ......... ;*" multi-familyat~3rtmeR~seniorhousing. School sites totaling 32- 33 acres for an elementary and middle school. Thc mldd!c A 44-a6re ....... ;' ..... ~. ,.,~*~. I~,.~.*~,~ ~,,~tm~,t~, 6-acre neighborhood park that anchors the Village Center, a 6.7 acre linear park with three activity nodes that traverses the entire length of the project, 3 ,I,.5 cc'c, ,"";"~'~'"-~'""'~.~,~, ,wv,, ,v~ ~._,""-u,., and an additional 1.5 acre parking area for the Kent Hintergardt Park. Park sites were selected and coordinated for joint use with the Temecula Valley Unified School District facilities. A 4.~c-ac~e 25-acre drainage greenbelt along the full length of Pala Road, designed as passive open space. Roadways and circulation system that provide pedestrian linkages, bicycle paths and interconnected uses throughout the project. Private recreation center, fire station and other public facility uses on 5 acres at the Village Center. Neighborhood and Community Commercial areas totaling 20 acres at the Village Center. Development Impact Fee Category: All categories Assessor's Parcel Nos. 950-110-002, -005, -033 950-180-001, -005, 006 and -010 Approval Date: Upon City Council Approval PLANNING DIVISION Within Forty-Eight (48) Hours of the Approval of this Project The applicant shall deliver to the Community Development Department- Planning Division 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, 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 R:\S P\Wolf Creek SP\COA-SP.doc 1 Determination for the Environmental Impact Report required under Public Resources Code Section 21151 and California Code of Regulations Section 15904. Ifwithin said forty-eight (48) hour period the Applicant has not delivered to the Community Development Department - Planning Division the check as required above, the approval for the project granted shall be void by reason of failure of condition (Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c)). General Requirements The permittee/applicant shall indemnify, defend with counsel of City's own election, 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 Planning Application which action is brought within the appropriate statute of limitations period and Public Resources Code, Division 13, Chapter 4 (Section 21000 et seq., including but not by the way of limitations Section 21152 and 21167). The City shall promptly notify the permittee/applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding brought forth within this time period. The City shall estimate the cost of the defense of the action and applicant shall deposit said amount with the City. City may require additional deposits to cover anticipated costs. City shall refund, without interest, any unused portions of the deposit once the litigation is finally concluded. Should the City fail to either promptly notify or cooperate fully, permittee/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 or by development agreement, 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. Approval of this Specific Plan is contingent upon and shall not become effective nor shall it vest until a General Plan Amendment (GPA) is approved by the City Council, and an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) or any other environmental review under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) are certified by the City Council. The applicant shall pay his fair share of the costs for sound attenuation measures adjacent to Pala Road. The applicant shall comply with all applicable mitigation measures contained in the adopted City of Temecula General Plan. A. Where feasible, inclusion of Energy Star/Edison Comfort Wise Programs, so/ar roof panels, and programs that offer maximum energy/utility efficiencies shall be required. B. Where feasible, inclusion of landscaping and irrigation devices that conform to the California Model Water Consen/ation Ordinance shall be required. A detailed noise assessment, evaluating project and cumulative noise impacts, shall be provided for any residential planning area within the project adjacent to Pala Road or Wolf Valley Road, and where such areas lie within a noise environmental projected to exceed 65 CNEL. As necessary, the assessment shall describe noise reduction measures to be incorporated into the project to comply with state and local exterior noise R:\S P\Wolf Creek SP\COA-SP.doc 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. standards. The assessment shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City prior to the approval of a tentative subdivision map or development plan, whichever is appropriate for the type of development proposed. The applicant shall comply with all mitigation measures contained in the approved Mitigation Monitoring Program. Prior to issuance of permits for any development or activities within the site, the developer shall demonstrate by submittal of a written report, that all mitigation measures identified in the Mitigation Monitoring Program within the Wolf Creek Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report have been satisfied. 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 the Wolf Creek Environmental Impact Report, in compliance with Assembly Bill 3180. The selection of the consultant shall be approved by the Planning Director. Prior to City Council approval of the Mitigation Monitoring Program for this project, the applicant shall update the Program to reflect all conditions of approval as approved by the Planning Commission and City Council. Where the Option 2 street sections are used in the Specific Plan, the developer shall provide evidence that the parkways will be maintained by an appropriate homeowner association. a. Sidewalks shall be a minimum of five feet in width on both sides of the street. Applicant shall demonstrate that average daily trips utilizing the street is less than 250 vehicular trips. When courtyard homes are implemented, a Planned Development Overlay (PDO) shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning Commission, subject to the requirements of Chapter 17.22 of the Development Code. The Development Plan shall include an amhitectural design package including floorplans and elevations for all product types. The Development Plan must demonstrate a minimum of 200 square feet of usable private yard space for each lot. Within thirty (30) days of the final approval of the project by the City Council, the Specific Plan and Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) shall be submitted to the Planning Department in final form for review and approval. The final form shall include all conditions of approval and all modifications made by the Planning Commission and City Council. A master print copy (8.5" X 11") and four (4) copies of the documents shall be submitted. The final form shall matchup acreages as accurately as possible with approved Tentative Tract Map No. 29305. The final form shall correct any discrepancies as a result of final approvals by the R:~S P\Wolf Creek SP\COA-SP.doc 3 The project description for the Environmental Impact Report shall be amended to include the Development Agreement. 15. Prior to approval of any development projects, appropriate clearances, conditions and approvals from all agencies with jurisdiction on project review shall be obtained by the developer. These agencies shall be determined by the Planning Director and the City Engineer. 16. 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. 17. 18. Prior to approval of any development projects, the developer shall investigate the feasibility of a reclaimed water system, to irrigate landscaping within the roadway medians, parkways, drainage channel, schools, community park, linear park, neighborhood parks, and other common open space areas. Subsequent residential subdivision maps shall require that the applicant provide a Disclosure Statement, signed by a new property owner whose residence is adjacent to the Pechanga Indian Reservation, including those across Pala Road and the drainage channel. Prior to the Issuance of Grading Permits 19. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 8.24 of the Temecula Municipal Code (Habitat Conservation) by paying the appropriate fee set forth in that ordinance or by providing documented evidence that the fees have already been paid. 20. A qualified paleontologist/archaeologist shall be chosen by the applicant for consultation and comment on the proposed grading with respect to potential paleontological/archaeological impacts. A meeting between the paleontologist/archaeologist, Community Development Department - Planning Division staff, and grading contractor prior to the commencement of grading operations and the excavation shall be arranged. The paleontologist/archaeologist or representative shall have the authority to temporarily divert, redirect or halt grading activity to allow recovery of fossils. 21. The applicant shall sign both copies of the final conditions of approval that will be provided by the Community Development Department - Planning Division staff, and return one signed set to the Community Development Department - Planning Division for their files. Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits 22. For any residential development abutting Pala Road the applicant shall provide project- specific noise studies which shall determine whether noise attenuation walls are necessary to comply with noise standards. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations that result from these studies. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Unless otherwise noted, all conditions shall be completed by the Developer at no cost to any Government Agency. It is understood that the Developer correctly shows on the tentative site plan all existing and proposed easements, traveled ways, improvement constraints and drainage courses, and their omission will subject the project to further review and may require revision. R:\S P\Wolf Creek SP\COA-SP.doc 4 GENERAL CONDITIONS 23. 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 City Codes and the utility provider. 24. 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. 25. Landscaping and permanent irrigation facilities shall be installed with street improvements. Perimeter walls, where required, shall be treated with graffiti-resistant coating and shall be installed adjacent to street improvements within each phase. 26. A phasing plan addressing the schedule of necessary infrastructure requirements shall be approved by the Department of Public Works and the Planning Director prior to approval of any subsequent application. 27. The Developer shall pay to the City the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee as required by, and in accordance with, Chapter 15.05 of the Temecula Municipal Code and all Resolutions implementing Chapter 15.06. 26. The Developer shall ensure coordination with Metropolitan Water Distdct on projects over which the City has jurisdiction (i.e., construction of Fakview Road, Pala Road Improvements, and improvements to the Pala Read channel). CIRCULATION 29. Adequate primary and secondary access shall be provided for each phase of development as approved by the Department of Public Works. Access to 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. 30. The exact location and number of access points shall be subject to review and approval by the Department of Public Works upon future tentative map and/or development plan approvals. 31. All street sections shall correspond with Typical Roadway Cross Sections and requirements of the Circulation Element of City's General Plan, City ordinances and standards or as approved with the Wolf Creek Specific Plan. 32. All intersection intervals shall comply with City standards and requirements. 33. The Developer shall provide bus bays and shelters within the Specific Plan. Location and number of bus bays shall be subject to approval of the City and Riverside Transportation Agency (RTA). Additional rights-of-way dedications associated with bus bays shall be provided by the Developer. R:\S P\Wolf Creek SP\COA-SP.doc 5 34. Necessary improvements have been/~vill be conditioned based on the project traffic studies and the conceptual phasing plan shown on Section III. 8. of the Specific Plan. Any substantive rephasing of the development must be approved by the Planning and Public Works Director through a rephasing application. 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. 35. 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. 36. If the City has a Capital Improvement Project to design and construct Pala Road from Rainbow Canyon Road to Fairview Road to its ultimate configuration including environmental mitigation, the Developer shall pay their fair share and reimburse the City for their street improvement obligation. DRAINAGE 37. 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). 38. Prior to approval of any subsequent development applications, the Developer shall submit the master drainage plan to the City and RCFC&WCD to review the adequacy of the proposed and existing downstream drainage facilities. 39. 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. 40. All drainage facilities shall be designed to convey 100 year storm flows, subject to the approval of the Department of Public Works and RCFC&WCD, as applicable. 41. The Developer shall construct the proposed on and offsite drainage facility improvements and the interim detention basin provision as recommended in the Specific Plan and Drainage Study documents and/or as directed by the Department of Public Works and RCFC&WCD, as applicable. 42. As required by the Department of Public Works, additional Hydrology and Hydraulic Reports shall be submitted with subsequent development applications to studythe drainage impacts and analyze necessary measures to mitigate the runoff created as part of the development of this project. 43. The Developer shall accept and properly dispose of all off-site drainage flowing onto or through the site. 44. The Developer shall protect downstream properties from damages caused by alteration of the drainage patterns; i.e., concentration or diversion of flow. Protection shall be provided by constructing adequate drainage facilities, including enlarging existing facilities or by securing drainage easements. R:\S P\Wo[f Creek SP\COA-SP.doc 6 WATER AND SEWER 45. Water and sewer facilities shall be installed in accordance with the requirements and specifications of the City, Rancho California Water District (RCWD), and Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD). Such requirements shall be applied at the subdivision or plot plan stages of the development. 46. Prior to the approval of subsequent development applications, the Developer shall submit the master water plan to RCWD to check for adequacy of the proposed water facilities. The Developer shall obtain written approval for the water system from RCWD. 47. Prior to the approval of subsequent development applications, the Developer shall submit the master sewer plan to EMWD to check for adequacy of the proposed sewer facilities. The Developer shall obtain written approval for the sewer system from EMWD. GRADING 48. 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. 49. Prior to Final Map recordation or issuance of Grading Permit, the Developer is responsible to bond for and construct the traffic signals at the project's accesses, as required, including the associated street improvements, based on traffic signal warrants analysis relative to subsequent tentative maps and/or development applications. 50. 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. 51. Prior to issuance of any grading permit, erosion control plans shall be prepared in conformance with applicable City Standards and subject to approval by the Department of Public Works. The Developer shall post security and enter into an agreement guaranteeing the grading and erosion control improvements. 52. 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. 53. The site is in an area identified on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps as Flood Zone "A" and is subject to flooding of undetermined depths. Prior to the approval of any plans, the Developer shall demonstrate that the project complies with Chapter 15.12 of the Temecula Municipal Code for development within Flood Zone "A". Residential subdivisions shall obtain a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Commercial subdivisions may obtain a LOMR at their discretion. 54. A Flood Plain Development Permit and Flood Study shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and approval. The flood study shall be in a format acceptable to the Department and include, but not be limited to, the following criteria: Drainage and flood protection facilities which will protect all structures by diverting site runoff to streets or approved storm drain facilities. R:\S P\Wolf Creek SP\COA-SP.doc 7 b. Adequate provision shall be made for the acceptance and disposal of surface drainage entering the property from adjacent areas. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. The impact to the site from any flood zone as shown on the FEMA flood hazard map and any necessary mitigation to protect the site. d. Identify and mitigate impacts of grading to any adjacent floodway. The location of existing and post development 100-year floodplain and floodway shall be shown on the improvement plan. Each subsequent application for a phase of development shall include a conceptual grading plan to indicate at a minimum: a. Preliminary quantity estimates for grading. b. 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. c. Preliminary pad and roadway elevations. d. Designation of the borrow or stockpile site location for import/export material. e. Approximate time frames for development including the identification of areas which will be graded during the rainy months. f. Hydrology and hydraulic concerns and mitigations. Major grading activities shall be scheduled during the dry season wherever possible, or as otherwise approved by the Department of Public Works. Soils stabilization, which may include revegetation of graded areas, shall occur within 30 days of completion of grading activities as directed by the Department of Public Works. The site shall be watered during grading operations to control dust. Temporary drainage and sediment control devices shall be installed as directed by the Department of Public Works. An import/export route shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works prior to issuance of any grading permit. The plan shall include limitation to the duration of the grading operation and construction activities, a Traffic Control Plan, and a daily time schedule of operations. Prior to issuance of any grading permit, a soils reports shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and approval, to address engineering, geologic, seismic, and soils engineering concerns for each tentative map or commercial parcel map for each phase of proposed development. A Geotechnical Report shall be prepared by a registered engineer or engineering geologist and submitted to the Department of public Works with the initial grading plan check. The report shall address special study zones and identify any geotechnical hazards for the site including location of faults and potential for liquefaction. The report shall include recommendations to mitigate the impact of ground shaking and liquefaction. R:\S P\WoJf Creek SP\COA-SP.doc 8 63. 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 bythe grading operations and construction activities, shall be posted prior to issuance of grading permits. 64. 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. PHASING 65. 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. 66. Development applications shall be submitted for each planning unit in each phase. Total acreage and land uses within each phase shall be substantially in accordance with the specifications of the Specific Plan. 67. INFRASTRUCTURE PHASE A a. CIRCULATION The following improvements shall be complete prior to the first building permit i. Improve Pala Road from Loma Linda Road to Via Gilberto (Urban Arterial Highway Standards - 134' RNV) to include dedication of half-width street right-of-way, installation of half-width street improvements, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer) and a 14 foot wide raised landscaped median. ii. Improve Pala Road from Via Gilberto to Wolf Valley Road (Arterial Highway Standards - 110' R/W) to include dedication of half-width street right-of-way, installation of half-width street improvements, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer), and a 14 foot wide raised landscaped median iii. Improve Pala Road from Wolf Valley Road to Fairview Road to accommodate a 60 foot wide pavement (four vehicular travel lanes including a center turn lane), signing and striping. iv. Via Del Coronado from Via Cordoba to Loma Linda Road (Collector Road Standards - 66' R/W) to include dedication of half-width street right-of-way plus twelve feet, installation of the remainder of street improvements, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer) v. In the event that the interim improvements on Pala Road from Rainbow Canyon Road to Loma Linda Road are not complete prior to the first building permit, the Developer shall improve Pala Road to accommodate a 60 foot wide pavement (four vehicular travel lanes including a center turn lane), signing and striping. The City may reimburse the Developer for their fair share of the street improvement obligation as determined by the Director of Public Works. R:\S P\Wolf Creek SP\COA-SP.doc 9 vi. Interior Loop Road from Pala Road to Wolf Valley Road (Modified Residential Collector Street - 85' R/W) to include dedication of full-width right-of-way, installation of full-width street improvements, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer) vii. Wolf Valley Road from the northerly Specific Plan boundary to Pala Road (Modified Secondary Highway - 110' R/W) to include dedication of full-width right-of-way, installation of full-width street improvements, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer). viii. Loma Linda Road from Via Del Coronado to Pala Road (Principal Collector Highway - 78' R/VV) to include to include dedication of half-width street right- of-way plus six feet, installation of half-width street improvements plus six feet, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer). Prior to the 473~ Building Permit: ix. An approved funding and implementation mechanism/fair share contribution program as approved by the Director of Public Works shall be in place to guarantee the improvement of Pala Road from Highway 79 South to Loma Linda Road (Urban Arterial Highway Standards - 134' RNV) to include acquisition of street right-of-way, installation of street improvements, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping and a 14 foot wide raised landscaped median. x. Street "A" from Interior Loop Road (North) to Loma Linda Road (Principal Collector Highway - 78' R/VV) to include dedication of full-width street right-of- way, installation of full-width street improvements, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer) DRAINAGE i, Construct backbone channel and/or drainage facilities and all associated improvements per Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District and the City of Temecula requirements for the following: (1) Pala Road north of Wolf Valley (2) Wolf Valley Road from the northerly Specific Plan boundary to Pala Road (3) Loma Linda Road from Via Del Coronado to Pala Road (4) Interior Loop Road (North) from Wolf Valley Road to Pala Road (5) Street "A" from Interior Loop Road (North) to Loma Linda Road (6) Interior storm drain facilities WATER AND SEWER i. Install water mains per Rancho California Water District requirements and sewer mains per Eastern Municipal Water District requirements for the following roadways: (1) Pala Road north of Wolf Valley Road R:\S P\Wo[f Creek SP\COA-SP.doc 10 68. (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Wolf Valley Road from the northerly Specific Plan boundary to Pala Road Interior Loop Road (North) from Wolf Valley Road to Pala Road Street "A" from Interior Loop Road (North) to Loma Linda Road Interior Loop Road (North) Interior facilities d. TRAFFIC SIGNALS i. Prior to the first building permit, the developer shall install a traffic signal with conduits for future interconnect at the following intersections: (1) Pala Road and Loma Linda Road (2) Pala Road and Wolf Valley Road including provisions for a dual southbound left turn pocket from Pala Road to Wolf Valley Road (3) Pala Road and Interior Loop Road (North) ii. Prior to the 100TM Building Permit, the following signal shall be installed and operational: (1) Pala Road and Clubhouse Drive (2) Pala Road and Muirfield Drive INFRASTRUCTURE PHASE B The following improvements shall be complete prior to the 823ra building permit a. CIRCULATION i. Improve Pala Road from Wolf Valley Road to Fairview Road (Arterial Highway Standards - 110' R/W) to include dedication of half-width street right-of-way, installation of full-width street improvements, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer), and a 14 foot wide raised landscaped median ii. Interior Loop Road (South) from Wolf Valley Road to Pala Road (Modified Residential Collector Street - 85' R/W) to include dedication of full-width right-of-way, installation of full-width street improvements, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer) iii. Prior to the opening of the High School or the 1557th building permit, the Developer shall improve Fairview Road from Pala Road to the Specific Plan boundary ((Secondary Road Standards - 88' R/W) to include dedication of half-width right-of-way, installation of half-width street improvements, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer) b. DRAINAGE Construct backbone channel and/or drainage facilities and all associated improvements per Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District and the City of Temecula requirements for the following: R:~S P\Wolf Creek SP\COA-SP.doc 11 68. (1) Pala Road from Wolf Valley Road to Fairview Drive (2) Interior Loop Road (South) from Wolf Valley Road to Pala Road (3) Fairview Drive from Pala Road to the Specific Plan boundary (4) Interior storm drain facilities c. WATER AND SEWER i. Install water mains per Rancho California Water District requirements and sewer mains per Eastern Municipal Water District requirements for the following roadways: (1) Pala Road from Wolf Valley Road to Fairview Drive (2) Interior Loop Road (South) from Wolf Valley Road to Pala Road (3) Fairview Drive from Pala Road to the Specific Plan boundary (4) Interior facilities d. TRAFFIC SIGNAL The following traffic signal shall be installed and operational with conduits for future interconnect at the following intersection: i. Prior to the 823r~ Certificate of Occupancy (1) Wolf Valley Road and Interior Loop Road (South) ii. Prior to the t,557th Certificate of Occupancy or opening of the High School, whichever occurs first (1) Pala Road and Interior Loop Road (South) (2) Pala Road and Fairview Road An approved funding and implementation mechanism ~fair share contribution program such as a City administered community facility district may be considered in lieu of completed improvements for Public Works conditions as follows: · COA # 61 - INFRASTRUCTURE PHASE A, a. CIRCULATION, i., ii., ix. · COA # 61 - INFRASTRUCTURE PHASE A, b. DRAINAGE, i. · COA # 61 - INFRASTRUCTURE PHASEA, d. TRAFFIC SIGNALS, i. and ii. · COA # 62- INFRASTRUCTURE PHASE B, a. CIRCULATION, i. Regardless if a financing mechanism is established, no occupancies will be allowed that will result in a service level of less than "D' on Pala Road, or at any of the Pala Road intersections from Rainbow Canyon Road to Wolf Valley Road. (Added by Planning Commission, September 20, 2000) FIRE DEPARTMENT The following are the Fire Department Conditions of Approval for this project. All questions regarding the meaning of these conditions shall be referred to the Fire Prevention Bureau. R:\S P\Wolf Creek SP\COA-SP.doc 12 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74. 75. 76. Prior to the first building permit issued in Planning Areas 7-24, the developer shall dedicate a 3=5 1.5 acre Fire Station site southeasterly of the intersection of Wolf Valley Parkway and Wolf Creek Loop Road, and prior to the first final inspection in Planning Areas 7-24, the developer shall construct a fire station as appreved by the Fire Department on the site described within Planning Area 14. (Amended by Planning Commission, September 20, 2000) Final fire and life safety conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed by the Fire Prevention Bureau. These conditions will be based on occupancy, use, the California Building Code (CBC), California Fire Code (CFC), and related codes which are in force at the time of building plan submittal. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set a minimum fire flow for residential land division per CFC Appendix III.A, Table A-III-A-1. The developer shall provide for this project, a water system capable of delivering 1500 GPM at 20-PSI residual operating pressure with a 2-hour duration. The required fire flow may be adjusted during the approval process to reflect changes in design, construction type, or automatic fire pretection measures as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau. The Fire Flow as given above has taken into account all information as provided. (CFC 903.2, Appendix Ill-A) The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set minimum fire hydrant distances per CFC Appendix III.B, Table A-III-B-1. Standard fire hydrants (6" x 4" x 2 1/2" outlets) shall be located on Fire Department access reads and adjacent public streets. Hydrants shall be spaced at 500 feet apart, at each intersection and shall be located no more than 250 feet frem any point on the street or Fire Department access road(s) frontage to a hydrant. The required fire flow shall be available from any adjacent hydrant(s) in the system. (CFC 903.2, 903.4.2, and Appendix Ill-B) The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set a minimum fire flow for commercial land division per CFC Appendix III-A, Table A-III-A-1. The developer shall provide for this project, a water system capable of delivering 4000 GPM at 20-PSI residual operating pressure with a 4 hour duration. The required fire flow may be adjusted during the approval precess to reflect changes in design, construction type, or automatic fire protection measures as appreved by the Fire Prevention Bureau. The Fire Flow as given above has taken into account all information as provided. (CFC 903.2, Appendix Ill-A) The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set minimum fire hydrant distances per CFC Appendix Ill-B, Table A-III-B-1. Super fire hydrants (6" x 4" x 2-2 1/2" outlets) shall be located on Fire Department access roads and adjacent public streets. Hydrants shall be spaced at 350 feet apart, at each intersection and shall be located no more than 210 feet from any point on the street or Fire Department access read(s) frentage to a hydrant. The required fire flow shall be available frem any adjacent hydrant(s) in the system. (CFC 903.2, 903.4.2, and Appendix Ill-B) Maximum cul-de-sac length shall not exceed 43204ee~ 600 feet. Minimum turning radius on any cul-de-sac shall be forty-five (45) feet. (CFC 902.2.2.3) If construction is phased, each phase shall previde appreved access and fire pretection prior to any building construction. (CFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2) R:~ P\Wolf Creek SP\COA-SP.doc 13 77. 78. 79. 80. 81. 82. 83. 84. 85. Prior to building construction, all locations where structures are to be built shall have approved temporary Fire Department vehicle access roads for use until permanent roads are installed. Temporary Fire Department access roads shall be an all weather surface for 80,000 lbs. GVVV. (CFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2.2) Prior to building final, all locations where structures are to be built shall have approved Fire Department vehicle access roads to within 150 feet to any portion of the facility or any portion of an exterior wall of the building(s). Fire Department access roads shall be an all weather surface designed for 80,000 lbs. GVW with a minimum AC thickness of .25 feet. ( CFC sec 902) Fire Department vehicle access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than twenty-four (24) feet and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than thirteen (13) feet six (6) inches. (CFC 902.2.2.1) Prior to building construction, dead end road ways and streets in excess of one hundred and fifty (150) feet which have not been completed shall have a turnaround capable of accommodating fire apparatus. (CFC 902.2.2.4) Prior to building construction, this development shall have two (2) points of access, via all- weather surface roads, as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau. (CFC 902.2.1) Prior to issuance of building permits, the developer shall furnish one copy of the water system plans to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation. Plans shall be: signed by a registered civil engineer; contain a Fire Prevention Bureau approval signature block; and conform to hydrant type, location, spacing and minimum fire flow standards. After the plans are signed by the local water company, the originals shall be presented to the Fire Prevention Bureau for signatures. The required water system including fire hydrants shall be installed and accepted by the appropriate water agency prior to any combustible building materials being placed on an individual lot. (CFC 8704.3, 901.2.2.2 and National Fire Protection Association 24 1-4.1) Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, approved numbers or addresses shall be provided on all new and existing buildings in such a position as to be plainly visible and legible from the street or road fronting the property. Numbers shall be of a contrasting color to their background. Commercial, multi-family residential and industrial buildings shall have a minimum twelve (12) inches numbers with suite numbers a minimum of six (6) inches in size. All suites shall gave a minimum of six (6) inch high letters and/or numbers on both the front and rear doors. Single family residences and multi-family residential units shall have four (4) inch letters and/or numbers, as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau. (CFC 901.4.4) Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, a directory display monument sign shall be required for apartment, condominium, townhouse or mobile home parks. Each complex shall have an illuminated diagrammatic layout of the complex which indicates the name of the complex, all streets, building identification, unit numbers, and fire hydrant locations within the complex. Location of the sign and design specifications shall be submitted to and be approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau prior to installation. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, "Blue Reflective Markers" shall be installed to identify fire hydrant locations. (CFC 901.4.3) R:~S P\Wolf Creek SP\COA-SP.doc 14 86. All manual and electronic gates on required Fire Department access roads or gates obstructing Fire Department building access shall be provided with the Knox Rapid entry system for emergency access by firefighting personnel. (CFC 902.4) 87. Prior to final inspection of any building, the applicant shall prepare and submit to the Fire Department for approval, a site plan designating Fire Lanes with appropriate lane painting and or signs. Special Conditions 88. Prior to issuance of building permits, fuel modification plans shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for review and approval for all open space areas adjacent to the wildland- vegetation interface. (FC Appendix II-A) Prior to issuance of building permits, plans for structural protection from vegetation fires shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for review and approval. The measures shall include, but are not limited to, enclosing eaves, noncombustible barriers (cement or block walls), and fuel modification zones. (CFC Appendix II-A). TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT The Temecula Community Services District (TCSD) provides the following conditions of approval for the Wolf Creek Specific Plan: General Requirements: If any of the following conditions of approval differ from the Specific Plan text or exhibits, the conditions enumerated herein shall take precedent. 89. The current park dedication requirement (Quimby) of 27.49 acres (based on 2,144 dwelling units) shall be satisfied with the credits identified in the Wolf Creek Specific Plan No. 12. Additional park acreage or equivalent in-lieu fees shall be required, if proposed school sites are not acquired by the school district and additional residential units are constructed. In the event that the parkland credits fall short, the developer will either increase the size of the private recreation facility in Planning Area 14, receive 50% credit for the private recreational facilities in the multifamily areas, or increase the size of the 4.5 acre park in Planning Area 19. The developer may pay in-lieu fees to satisfy park requirements, if approved by the Director of Community Services. 90. Upon final approval of the specific plan, certification of the EIR and the end of any appeal process the developer shall convey the 1.5 acres in Planning Area 4 to the City by grant deed free and clear of any liens, assessment fees, or easements that would preclude the City from utilizing the property for public purposes. A policy of title insurance and a soils assessment report shall also be provided at the time of conveyance. 91. The actual design of the community park in Planning Area 11, the neighborhood park in Planning Area 19 and the linear park along the Interior Loop Road shall be in substantial conformance with the conceptual design identified within the Specific Plan. Prior to submittal of construction plans, the developer shall meet with the Director of Community Services to determine the location and specifications of the park amenities to be provided on site. R:\S P\Wolf Creek SP\COA-SP.doc 15 92. 93. 94. 95. 96. 97. 98. 99. 100. All park and slope/landscape plans submitted for consideration shall be in conformance with the City of Temecula Landscape Development Plan Guidelines and Specifications. The design of the parks in Planning Area 11 and 19 and the linear park along the Interior Loop Road shall provide for pedestrian circulation and access for the disabled throughout the park. Construction of the public park sites and proposed TCSD landscape maintenance areas shall commence pursuant to a pre-job meeting with the developer and TCSD Maintenance Superintendent. Failure to comply with the TCSD review and inspection process may preclude acceptance of these areas into the TCSD maintenance programs. The developer, the developer's successor or assignee, shall be responsible for all maintenance of the park sites and slopes/landscaping areas until such time as those responsibilities are accepted by the TCSD. The parks shall be improved and dedicated to the City free and clear of any liens, assessment fees, or easements that would preclude the City from utilizing the property for public purposes. A policy of title insurance and a soils assessment report shall also be provided with the dedication of the property. All exterior slope/landscape areas contiguous to public streets that are adjacent to single family residential development shall be offered for dedication to the TCSD for maintenance purposes following compliance to existing City standards and completion of the application process. All other landscape areas, entry monumentation, signage, pedestrian portals, bus shelters, walls and the drainage channel along Pala Road shall be maintained by the Homeowners Association (HCA), private maintenance association or property owner. A ten (10) foot wide pedestrian pathway/Class I bike lane will be constructed within the linear park (east side) and the paseo (west side) of the Interior Loop Road. Class II bicycle lanes will be included on both sides of "A" Street, Wolf Valley Road, and the adjacent portion of Pala Road, Loma Linda Road and Fairview Road. Class II bike lanes, shall be constructed in concurrence with the street improvements. The developer is entitled to receive a credit against the park component of the City's Development Impact Fee (DIF) based upon the actual cost of improving the community park (Planning Area 11) and the neighborhood park (Planning Area 19). No DIF credits shall be provided for the development of the linear park other than the specific amenities proposed by the developer and approved by the Director of Community Services. The fee/credit issue shall be addressed pursuant to the execution of a Developer Agreement or a Park Improvement ,Agreement between the applicant and the City prior to approval of the final map. Prior to Approval of the Final Map: 101. The developer, or his assignee, shall offer for dedication, enter into an agreement and post security with the TCSD to improve the proposed parkland located in Planning Areas 11 and 19 and the linear park along the Interior Loop Road in accordance with the City standards. 102. All TCSD slope/landscaping maintenance areas shall be offered for dedication on the final map. R:~S P\Wolf Creek SP\COA-SP.doc 16 103. 104. 105. 106. All areas intended for dedication to the TCSD for maintenance shall be identified on the final map by numbered lots and indexed to identify said lots numbers as a proposed TCSD maintenance area. The subdivider shall post security and enter into an agreement to improve afl proposed TCSD maintenance areas. Construction drawings for all proposed TCSD slope/landscape maintenance areas and the public park sites shall be reviewed and approved by TCSD. A notice of intention to annex into the Temecula Community Services District Service Levels B, C, and D shall be submitted to the TCSD prior to approval of the final map. The property owner election costs involved in the district formation or annexation shall be borne by the developer. Prior to Issuance of Building Permits: 107. Prior to the installation of street lights or issuance of building permits, whichever comes first, the developer shall file an application and pay the appropriate fees to the TCSD for the dedication of arterial and residential street lights into the appropriate TCSD maintenance program. 108. The linear park including one activity node, north of Wolf Valley Road, shall be improved and dedicated to the City prior to the issuance of the 400th residential building permit for the overall project. 109. The 14-acre community park in Planning Area 11 shall be improved and dedicated to the City prior to the issuance of the 800th residential building permit for the overall project. 110. The linear park including two activity nodes, south of Wolf Valley Road, shall be improved and dedicated to the City prior to the issuance of the 1400th residential building permit for the overall project. 111. The 4.5-acre neighborhood park in Planning Area 19 will be improved and dedicated to the City prior to the issuance of the 1,600th residential building permit for the overall project. Prior to Issuance of Certificates of Occupancy: 112. Prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy within each phase map, the developer shall submit the most current list of Assessor's Parcel Numbers assigned to the final project. 113. It shall be the developer's responsibility to provide written disclosure of the existence or TCSD and its service level rates and charges to all prospective purchasers. By placing my signature below, I confirm that I have read, understand and accept all the above Conditions of Approval. I further understand that the property shall be maintained in conformance with these conditions of approval and that any changes I may wish to make to the project shall be subject to Community Development Department approval. Applicant Name R:~S P\Wolf Creek SP\COA-SP.doc 17 ATTACHMENT NO. 2 PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000- TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 29305 R:\S P\Wolf Creek SP\STAFFRPT.PC for 12-6-00.doc 18 ATTACHMENT NO. 2 PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA00-00$2 (TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 29305) THE SUBDIVISION OF 567 ACRES INTO 47 PARCELS WHICH CONFORM TO THE PLANNING AREAS, OPEN SPACE AREAS, SCHOOL AND PARK SITES OF THE WOLF CREEK SPECIFIC PLAN, LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF PALA ROAD, BETWEEN LOMALINDA ROAD AND FAIRVlEW AVENUE, AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NOS. 950-t 10-002, -005, -033 AND 950-180-00'1, -005, -006 AND -010. WHEREAS, SP Murdy, LLC filed Planning Application No. PA00-0052 (the "Application") in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan, Development Code and Subdivision Ordinance; WHEREAS, the Application was processed including, but not limited to public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, at a regular meeting, considered the Application on September 6, 2000, September 20, 2000, October 4, 2000, October 18, 2000 and December 6, 2000, at duly noticed public hearings as prescribed by law, at which time the City staffand interested persons had an opportunity to, and did, testify either in support or opposition to this matter; WHEREAS, atthe conclusion of the Commission hearing and after due consideration of the testimony, the Commission recommended approval of the Application subject to the conditions after finding that the project proposed in the Application conformed with the City of Temecula General Plan, Development Code and Subdivision Ordinance; NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section '1. by reference. That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby incorporated Section 2. FindinRs. That the Temecula Planning Commission, in approving the Application, hereby makes the following findings as required in Section 16.09.140 of the Temecula Municipal Code. A. The proposed subdivision and the design and improvements of the subdivision is consistent with the Development Code, General Plan, any applicable specific plan and the City of Temecula Municipal Code; B. The tentative map does not propose to divide land which is subject to a contract entered into pursuant to the California Land Conservation Act of 1965, or the land is subject to a Land Conservation Act contract but the resulting parcels following division of the land will not be too small to sustain their agricultural use; R:\S P\Wolf Creek SPU:~ES-TM.PC.doc 1 C. The site is physically suitable for the type and proposed density of development proposed by the tentative map; D. The design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements, with conditions of approval, are not likely to cause significant environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. There are no known fish, wildlife or habitat on the project site, and the project will not affect any fish, wildlife or habitat off-site. The site is surrounded by development and is an infill site; E. An environmental impact report has been prepared and a finding has been made, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081 (a) (3), finding that specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the environmental impact report; F. The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems; G. The design of the subdivision provides for future passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities in the subdivision to the extent feasible; H. The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision, or the design of the alternate easements which are substantially equivalent to those previously acquired by the public will be provided. (Quimby). The subdivision is consistent with the City's parkland dedication requirements Section 3. Environmental Compliance. The City Council of the City of Temecula must approve and adopt the Final Environmental Impact Report and Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Wolf Creek Specific Plan in order to approve the Application. Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby conditionally approves the Application (Tentative Tract Map No. 29305) for the subdivision of a 557 acre parcel into 47 parcels which conform to the planning areas, open space areas, school and park sites of the Wolf Creek Specific Plan, located on the east side of Pala Road, between Loma Linda Road and Fairview Avenue, and known as Assessofs Parcel Nos. 950-110-002,-005, -033 and 950-180-001, -005, -006 and -010, subject to the project specific conditions set forth on Exhibit A, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference. R:~ P\Wolf Creek SP~RES-TM.PC.doc 2 Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this sixth day of December, 2000. Ron Guerriero, Chairperson I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the sixth day of December, 2000 by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary R:~S P\Wolf Creek SP~RES-TMPC.doc 3 EXHIBIT A REVISED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL R:~S P\Wolf Creek SP~STAFFRPT.PC for 12~-00.doc 19 EXHIBIT A CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Revised December 6, 2000 Planning Application No. PA00- 6052 - Tentative Tract Map No. 29305 Project Description: Tentative Tract Map No. 29035 subdivides 557 acres into 47 lots, delineating the planning areas within the specific plan and lots for parks and schools. The Map is divided into two phases. Phase I is that portion of the project north of Wolf Valley Road, and Phase II is that portion of the project south of Wolf Valley Road. Assessor's Parcel Nos.: Approval Date: Expiration Date: 950-110-002, -005, -033 and 950-180-00t, -005, -006 and -010 Upon City Council Approval Two years from City Council Approval PLANNING DIVISION General Requirements The tentative subdivision shall comply with the State of California Subdivision Map Act and to all the requirements of Ordinance No. 460, unless modified by the conditions listed below. A time extension may be approved in accordance with the State Map Act and City Ordinance, upon written request, if made 30 days prior to the expiration date. The permittee/applicant shall indemnify, protect 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, er 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 Planning Application which action is brought within the appropriate statute of limitations period and Public Resources Code, Division 13, Chapter 4 (Section 21000 et seq., including but not by the way of limitations Section 21152 and 21167). The City shall promptly notify the permittee/applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding brought forth within this time period. The City shall estimate the cost of the defense of the action and applicant shall deposit said amount with the City. City may require additional deposits to cover anticipated costs. City shall refund, without interest, any unused portions of the deposit once the litigation is finally concluded. Should the City fail to either promptly notify or cooperate fully, permittee/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. Should the applicant fail to timely post the required deposit, the Director may terminate the lans use approval without further notice to the applicant. This project and all subsequent projects within this site shall be consistent with Specific Plan No. 12. R:VS P\Wolf Creek SP\COA-TENT MAP 29305.doc 1 The project and all subsequent projects within this site shall comply with all mitigation measures identified within the Final Environmental Impact Report for Wolf Creek, and the approved Mitigation Monitoring Program thereof. The Developer shall ensure coordination with Metropolitan Water District on projects over which the City has jurisdiction (i.e., construction of Fairview Road, Pala Road Improvements, and improvements to the Pala Road channel). Prior to Issuance of Grading Permits A copy of the Rough Grading plans shall be submitted and approved by the Planning Division. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 8.24 of the Temecula Municipal Code (Habitat Conservation) by paying the appropriate fee set forth in that ordinance or by providing documented evidence that the fees have already been paid. A qualified paleontologist/archaeologist shall be chosen by the developer for consultation and comment on the proposed grading with respect to potential paleontological/archaeological impacts. ^ meeting between the paleontologist/archaeologist, Community Development Department- Planning Division staff, and grading contractor prior to the commencement of grading operations and the excavation shall be arranged. The paleontologist/archaeologist or representative shall have the authority to temporarily divert, redirect or halt grading activity to allow recovery of fossils. Prior to Recordation of the Final Map A reciprocal ingress/egress agreement will be entered into with the Temecula Community Services District for parcels which are land locked as a result of the linear park lots. 10. The following shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Division: a. A copy of the Final Map. b. A copy of the Environmental Constraint Sheet (ECS) with the following notes: 1) This property is located within thirty (30) miles of Mount Palomar Observatory. All proposed outdoor lighting systems shall comply with the California Institute of Technology, Palomar Observatory recommendations, Ordinance No. 655. 2) The Wolf Creek Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared for this project and is on file at the City of Temecula Community Development Department - Planning Division. 3) An Alquist-Priolo Zone has been identified which affects the construction of habitable buildings. c. A copy of the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&R's) 1) CC&R's shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director. The CC&R's shall include liability insurance and methods of maintaining open space, recreation areas, parking areas, private roads, exterior of all buildings and all landscaped and open areas including parkways. R:\S P\Wolf Creek SP\COA-TENT MAP 29305.doc 2 2) No lot or dwelling unit in the development shall be sold unless a corporation, association, property owner's group or similar entity has been formed with the right to assess all properties individually owned or jointly owned which have any rights or interest in the use of the common areas and common facilities in the development, such assessment power to be sufficient to meet the expenses of such entity, and with authority to control, and the duty to maintain, all of said mutually available features of the development. Such entity shall operate under recorded CC&R's which shall include compulsory membership of all owners of lots and/or dwelling units and flexibility of assessments to meet changing costs of maintenance, repairs, and services. Recorded CC&R's shall permit enforcement by the City for provisions required as Conditions of Approval. The developer shall submit evidence of compliance with this requirement to, and receive approval of, the city prior to making any such sale. This condition shall not apply to land dedicated to the City for public purposes. 3) Every owner of a dwelling unit or I(~t shall own as an appurtenance to such dwelling unit or lot, either (1) an undivided interest in the common areas and facilities, or (2) a share in the corporation, or voting membership in an association owning the common areas and facilities. Prior to Issuance of Building Permits 11. The following shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Division: Three (3) copies of Construction Landscaping and Irrigation Plans. The location, number, genus, species, and container size of the plants shall be shown. The plans shall be consistent with the Water Efficient Landscaping Ordinance. The cover page shall identify the total square footage of the landscaped area for the site. The plans shall be accompanied by the following items: 1) Appropriate filing fee (per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule at time of submittal). 2) One (1) copy of the approved grading plan. 3) Water usage calculations per Chapter 17.32 of the Development Code (Water Efficient Ordinance). 4) Total cost estimate of plantings and irrigation (in accordance with the approved plan). 5) The locations of all existing trees that will be saved consistent with the tentative map. 6) Automatic irrigation for all landscaped areas and complete screening of all ground mounted equipment from the view of the public from streets and adjacent property for: a) Front yards and slopes within individual lots prior to issuance of building permits for any lot(s). b) Private common areas prior to issuance of building permits. R:\S P\Wolf Creek SP\COA-TENT MAP 29305.doc 3 c) d) All landscaping excluding Temecula Community Services District (TCSD) maintained areas and front yard landscaping which shall include, but may not be limited to private slopes and common areas. Shrub planting to completely screen perimeter walls adjacent to a public right-of-way equal to sixty-six (66) feet or larger. 7) Hardscaping for the following: a) Pedestrian trails within private common areas Wall and Fence Plans consistent with the Conceptual Landscape Plans showing the height, location and the following materials for all walls and fences: 1) Decorative block for the perimeter of the project adjacent to a Public Right- of-Way equal to sixty-six (66) feet or larger and the side yards for corner lots. 2) Wrought iron or decorative block and wrought iron combination to take advantage of views for side and rear yards. 3) Wood fencing shall be used for all side and rear yard fencing when not restricted by a and b above. Precise Grading Plans consistent with the approved rough grading plans including all structural setback measurements. 12. Roof-mounted mechanical equipment shall not be permitted within the subdivision, however solar equipment or any other energy saving devices shall be permitted with Planning Manager approval. Prior to Issuance of Occupancy Permits 13. If deemed necessary by the Planning Manager, the applicant shall provide additional landscaping to effectively screen various components of the project. 14. All required landscape planting and irrigation shall be installed consistent with the approved construction plans and shall be in a condition acceptable to the Planning Manager. The plants shall be healthy and free of weeds, disease, or pests. The irrigation system shall be properly constructed and in good working order. 15. Froot yard and slope landscaping within individual lots shall be completed for inspection. 16. Private common area landscaping shall be completed for inspection prior to issuance of occupancy permits. 17. Performance securities, in amounts to be determined by the Planning Manager, to guarantee the maintenance of the plantings within private common areas for a period of one year, in accordance with the approved construction landscape and irrigation plan, shall be filed with the Community Development Department - Planning Division for one year from final certificate of occupancy. After that year, if the landscaping and irrigation system have been maintained in a condition satisfactory to the Planning Manager, the bond shall be released. R:~S P\Wolf Creek SP\COA-TENT MAP 29305.doc 4 18. All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use allowed by this permit. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT The Department of Public Works recommends the following Conditions of Approval for this project. Unless stated otherwise, all conditions shall be completed by the Developer at no cost to any Government Agency. General Requirements 19. It is understood that the Developer correctly shows on the tentative map all existing and proposed easements, traveled ways, improvement constraints and drainage courses, and their omission may require the project to be resubmitted for further review and revision. 20. There is no phasing proposed by the Applicant as part of this Tentative Trac{ Map. However the Wolf Creek Specific Plan includes four phases. Any future phasing applications shall be consistent with the approved Wolf Creek Specific Plan phasing. 21. A Grading Permit for either rough or precise grading shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to commencement of any construction outside of the City-maintained road right-of-way. 22. An Encroachment Permit shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to commencement of any construction within an existing or proposed City right-of-way. 23. All improvement plans, grading plans, landscape and irrigation plans shall be coordinated for consistency with adjacent projects and existing improvements contiguous to the site and shall be submitted on standard 24" x 36" City of Temecula mylars. 24. If the City has a Capital Improvement Project to design and construct Pala Road from Rainbow Canyon Road to Fairview Road to its ultimate configuration including environmental mitigation, the Developer shall pay their fair share and reimburse the City for its street improvement obligation. Prior to Approval of the Final Map, unless other timing is indicated, the Developer shall complete the following or have plans submitted and approved, subdivision improvement agreements executed and securities posted: 25. As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: a. San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board b. Rancho California Water District c. Eastern Municipal Water District d. Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District e. City of Temecula Fire Prevention Bureau f. Planning Department R:\S P\Wolf Creek SP\COA-TENT MAP 29305.doc 5 26. g. Department of Public Works h. Riverside County Health Department i. Cable TV Franchise j. Community Services District k. General Telephone I. Southern California Edison Company m. Southern California Gas Company n. Fish & Game o. Army Corps of Engineers p. Metropolitan Water District The following public improvements shall be designed to City of Temecula Public Works standards unless otherwise noted. These plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works: Improve Pala Road from Loma Linda Road to Via Gilberto (Urban Arterial Highway Standards - 134' R/VV) to include dedication of half-width street right-of-way, installation of half-width street improvements, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer), and a 14 foot wide raised landscaped median Improve Pala Road from Via Gilberto to Fairview Road (Arterial Highway Standards - 110' RNV) to include dedication of half-width street right-of-way, installation of half- width street improvements, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer), and a 14 foot wide raised landscaped median Wolf Valley Road from Pala Road to the northerly Specific Plan boundary (Modified Secondary Highway - 110' R/VV) to include dedication of full-width right-of-way, installation of full-width street improvements, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer), and a 14 foot wide raised landscaped median Loma Linda Road from Via Del Coronado to Pala Road (Principal Collector Highway - 78' PAN) to include to include dedication of half-width street right-of-way plus six feet, installation of half-width street improvements plus six feet, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer). Fairview Road from Pala Road to the Specific Plan boundary (Secondary Road Standards - 88' R/VV) to include dedication of half-width right-of-way, installation of full-width street improvements, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer) R:~S P~Wolf Creek SP\COA-TENT MAP 29305.doc 6 Interior Loop Road (Modified Residential Collector Street - 85' RNV) to include dedication of full-width right-of-way, installation of full-width street improvements, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer) Via Del Coronado from Via Cordoba to Loma Linde Road (Collector Road Standards - 66' RAN) to include dedication of half-width street right-of-way plus twelve feet, installation of the remainder of street improvements, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer) Street "^" from Interior Loop Road (North) to Loma Linde Road (Principal Collector Highway - 78' RAN) to include dedication of full-width street right-of-way, installation of full-width street improvements, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer) All street improvement design shall provide adequate right-of-way and pavement transitions per Caltrans standards for transition to existing street sections. Traffic signals with conduits for future interconnect at the following intersections: i) ii) iii) iv) v) vi) vii) viii) Pale Road and Loma Linde Road Pale Road and Wolf Valley Road Pale Road and Interior Loop Road (North) Pale Road and Clubhouse Drive Pale Road and Muirfield Drive Wolf Valley Road and Interior Loop Road Pale Road and Interior Loop Road (South) Pale Road and Fairview Road Construct backbone channel and/or drainage facilities and all associated improvements per Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District and the City of Temecula requirements for the following: ix) Pale Road x) Wolf Valley Road xi) Loma Linde Road xii) Interior Loop Road xiii) Fairview Drive xiv) Street"A" R:\S P\Wolf Creek SP\COA-TENT MAP 29305.doc 7 xv) Interior storm drain facilities 27. Unless otherwise approved the following minimum criteria shall be observed in the design of the street improvement plans: Street centerline grades shall be 0.5% minimum over P.C.C. and 1.00% minimum over A.C. paving. b. Driveways shall conform to the applicable City Standard Nos. 207, 207A and/or 208. Street lights shall be installed along the public streets shall be designed in accordance with Ordinance No. 461. Concrete sidewalks shall be constructed in accordance with City Standard Nos. 400 and 401. Design of street improvements shall extend a minimum of 300 feet beyond the project boundaries to ensure adequate continuity of design with adjoining properties. f. Minimum centedine radii shall be in accordance with City Standard No. 113. g. All reverse curves shall include a 100-foot minimum tangent section. h. All street and driveway centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees. All units shall be provided with zero clearance garage doors and garage door openers if the driveway is less than 18 feet in depth from back of sidewalk. Landscaping shall be limited in the corner cut-off area of all intersections and adjacent to driveways to PrOvide for minimum sight distance and visibility. All utility systems including gas, electric, telephone, water, sewer, and cable TV shall be provided underground. Easements shall be provided as required where adequate right-of-way does not exist for installation of the facilities. All utilities shall be designed and constructed in accordance with City Codes and the utility provider. ,All utilities, except electrical lines rated 33ky or greater, shall be installed underground 28. A construction area Traffic Control Plan shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and reviewed by the Department of Public Works for any street closure and detour or other disruption to traffic circulation as required by the Department of Public Works. 29. Relinquish and waive right of access on all roadways with the exception of the openings as delineated on Tentative Tract Map. 30. Corner property line cut off for vehicular sight distance and installation of pedestrian facilities shall be provided at all street intersections in accordance with Riverside County Standard No. 805. 31. All easements and/or right-of-way dedications shall be offered for dedication to the public or other appropriate agency and shall continue in force until the City accepts or abandons such offers. All dedications shall be free from all encumbrances as approved by the Department of Public Works. R:~S P\Wolf Creek SP\COA-TENT MAP 29305.doc 8 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. Pursuant to Section 66493 of the Subdivision Map Act, any subdivision which is part of an existing Assessment District must comply with the requirements of said section. Prior to City Council approval of the Final Map, the Developer shall make an application for reapportionment of any assessments with appropriate regulatory agency. Any delinquent property taxes shall be paid. An Environmental Constraints Sheet (ECS) shall be prepared in conjunction with the Final Map to delineate identified environmental concerns and shall be recorded with the map. A copy of the ECS shall be transmitted to the Planning Department for review and approval. The following information shall be on the ECS: a. The delineation of the area within the 100-year floodplain. b. Special Study Zones. c. Geotechnical hazards identified in the project's geotechnical report. d. Archeological resources found on the site. The Developer shall comply with all constraints which may be shown upon an Environmental Constraint Sheet recorded with any underlying maps related to the subject property. The Developer shall make a good faith effort to acquire the required off-site property interests, and if he or she should fail to do so, the Developer shall, prior to submittal of the Final Map for recordation, enter into an agreement to complete the improvements pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act, Section 66462 and Section 66462.5. Such agreement shall provide for payment by the Developer of all costs incurred by the City to acquire the off-site property interests required in connection with the subdivision. Security of a portion of these costs shall be in the form of a cash deposit in the amount given in an appraisal report obtained by the Developer, at the Developer's cost. The appraiser shall have been approved by the City prior to commencement of the appraisal. A copy of the grading and improvement plans, along with supporting hydrologic and hydraulic calculations shall be submitted to the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District for approval prior to recordation of the Final Map or the issuance of any permit. A permit from Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District is required for work within their right-of-way. All utility systems including gas, electric, telephone, water, sewer, and cable TV shall be provided for underground, with easements provided as required, and designed and constructed in accordance with City Codes and the utility provider. Telephone, cable TV, and/or security systems shall be pre-wired in the residence. The Developer shall notify the City's cable TV Franchises of the Intent to Develop. Conduit shall be installed to cable TV Standards at time of street improvements. Bus bays will be provided at all existing and future bus stops as determined by the Department of Public Works. Private drainage easements for cross-lot drainage shall be required and shall be delineated and noted on the final map. R:~S P\Wolf Creek SP~COA-TENT MAP 29305.doc 9 42. Easements for sidewalks for public uses shall be dedicated to the City where sidewalks meander through private property. 43. Easements, when required for roadway slopes, landscape easements, drainage facilities, utilities, etc., shall be shown on the final map if they are located within the land division boundary. All offers of dedication and conveyances shall be submitted for review and recorded as directed by the Department of Public Works. On-site drainage facilities located outside of road right-of-way shall be contained within drainage easements and shown on the final map. A note shall be added to the final map stating, "drainage easements shall be kept free of buildings and obstructions." Prior to Issuance of Grading Permits 44, As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: a. San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board b. Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District c. Planning Department d. Department of Public Works e. Metropolitan Water District 45. A Grading Plan shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer in accordance with City of Temecula standards and approved by the Department of Public Works prior to commencement of any grading. The plan shall incorporate adequate erosion control measures to protect the site and adjoining properties from damage due to erosion. 46. A Soils Report shall be prepared by a registered Civil or Soils Engineer and submitted to the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The report shall address all soils conditions of the site, and provide recommendations for the construction of engineered structures and preliminary pavement sections. 47. A Geotechnical Report shall be prepared by a registered engineer or engineering geologist and submitted to the Department of public Works with the initial grading plan check. The report shall address special study zones and identify any geotechnical hazards for the site including location of faults and potential for liquefaction. The report shall include recommendations to mitigate the impact of ground shaking and liquefaction. 48. A Drainage Study shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and submitted to the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The study shall identify storm water runoff quantities expected from the development of this site and upstream of the site. It shall identify all existing or proposed off-site or on-site, public or private, drainage facilities intended to discharge this runoff. Runoff shall be conveyed to an adequate outfall capable of receiving the storm water runoff without damage to public or private property. The study shall include a capacity analysis verifying the adequacy of all facilities. Any upgrading or upsizing of drainage facilities necessary to convey the storm water runoff shall be provided as part of development of this project. The basis for analysis and design shall be a storm with a recurrence interval of one hundred years. R:\S P\Wolf Creek SP\COA-TENT MAP 29305.doc 10 49. The Developer must comply with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. No grading shall be permitted until an NPDES Notice of Intent (NOI) has been filed or the project is shown to be exempt. 50. The Developer shall post secudty and enter into an agreement guaranteeing the grading and erosion control improvements in conformance with applicable City Standards and subject to approval by the Department of Public Works. 51. A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The Area Drainage Plan fee is payable to the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District by either cashier's check or money order, prior to issuance of permits, based on the prevailing area drainage plan fee. If the full Area Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge has already been credited to this property, no new charge needs to be paid. 52. The Developer shall obtain letters of approval or easements for any off-site work performed on adjoining properties. The letters or easements shall be in a format as directed by the Department of Public Works. 53. The site is in an area identified on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps as Flood Zone "A" and is subject to flooding of undetermined depths. Prior to the approval of any plans, the Developer shall demonstrate that the project complies with Chapter 15.12 of the Temecula Municipal Code for development within Flood Zone "A". Residential subdivisions shall obtain a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Commercial subdivisions may obtain a LOMR at their discretion. 54. A Flood Plain Development Permit and Flood Study shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and approval. The flood study shall be in a format acceptable to the Department and include, but not be limited to, the following criteria: Drainage and flood protection facilities, which will protect all structures by diverting site runoff to streets or approved storm, drain facilities. Adequate provision shall be made for the acceptance and disposal of surface drainage entering the property from adjacent areas. The impact to the site from any flood zone as shown on the FEMA flood hazard map and any necessary mitigation to protect the site. d. Identify and mitigate impacts of grading to any adjacent floodway. The location of existing and post development 100-year floodplain and floodway shall be shown on the improvement plan. 55. All lot drainage shall be directed to the driveway by side yard drainage swales independent of any other lot. Prior to Issuance of Building Permits 56. Final Map shall be approved and recorded. R:\S P\Wolf Creek SP\COA-TENT MAP 29305.doc 11 57. 58. 59. 60. A Precise Grading Plan shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and approval. The building pad shall be certified by a registered Civil Engineer for location and elevation, and the Soils Engineer shall issue a Final Soils Report addressing compaction and site conditions. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, the approved grading plan, the conditions of the grading permit, City Grading Standards and accepted grading construction practices. The final grading plan shall be in substantial conformance with the approved rough grading plan. The Developer shall pay to the City the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee as required by, and in accordance with, Chapter 15.06 of the Temecula Municipal Code and all Resolutions implementing Chapter 15.06. Prior to the first building permit, the following improvements shall be complete: Improve Pale Road from Loma Linde Road to Via Gilberto (Urban Arterial Highway Standards - 134' RNV) to include dedication of half-width street right-of-way, installation of half-width street improvements, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer) and a 14 foot wide raised landscaped median. Improve Pale Road from Via Gilberto to Wolf Valley Road (Arterial Highway Standards - 110' RAN) to include dedication of half-width street right-of-way, installation of half-width street improvements, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer), and a 14 foot wide raised landscaped median Improve Pale Road from Wolf Valley Road to Fairview Road to accommodate a 60 foot wide pavement (four vehicular travel lanes including a center turn lane), signing and striping. Via Del Coronado from Via Cordoba to Loma Linde Road (Collector Road Standards - 66' RNV) to include dedication of half-width street right-of-way plus twelve feet, installation of the remainder of street improvements, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer) In the event that the interim improvements on Pale Road from Rainbow Canyon Road to Loma Linde Road are not complete prior to the first building permit, the Developer shall improve Pale Road to accommodate a 60 foot wide pavement (four vehicular travel lanes including a center turn lane), signing and striping. The City may reimburse the Developer for their fair share of the street improvement obligation as determined by the Director of Public Works. Interior Loop Road from Pale Road to Wolf Valley Road (Modified Residential Collector Street- 85' RNV) to include dedication of full-width right-of-way, installation of full-width street improvements, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer) R:~S P\Wolf Creek SP~COA-TENT MAP 29305.doc 12 61. 62. Wolf Valley Road from the northerly Specific Plan boundary to Pala Road (Modified Secondary Highway - 110' RNV) to include dedication of full-width right-of-way, installation of full-width street improvements, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer). Loma Linda Road from Via Del Coronado to Pala Road (Principal Collector Highway - 78' RNV) to include to include dedication of half-width street right-of-way plus six feet, installation of half-width street improvements plus six feet, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer). The developer shall install a traffic signal with conduits for future interconnect at the following intersections: xvi) Pala Road and Loma Linda Road xvii) Pala Road and Wolf Valley Road including provisions for a dual southbound left turn pocket from Pala Road to Wolf Valley Road xviii) Pala Road and Interior Loop Road (North) Construct backbone channel and/or drainage facilities and all associated improvements per Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District and the City of Temecula requirements for the following: xix) Pala Road north of Wolf Valley xx) Wolf Valley Road from the northerly Specific Plan boundary to Pala Road xxi) Loma Linda Road from Via Del Coronado to Pala Road xxii) Interior Loop Road (North) from Wolf Valley Road to Pala Road xxiii) Street"A" from Interior Loop Road (North) to Loma Linda Road xxiv) Interior storm drain facilities Prior to the 100TH Building Permit, the following signal shall be installed and operational: a. Pala Road and Clubhouse Drive b. Pala Road and Muirfield Drive Prior to the 473rd Building Permit: An approved funding and implementation mechanism/fair share contribution program as approved by the Director of Public Works shall be in place to guarantee the improvement of Pala Road from Highway 79 South to Loma Linda Road (Urban Arterial Highway Standards - 134' R/W) to include acquisition of street right-of-way, installation of street improvements, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping and a 14 foot wide raised landscaped median. R:~S P\Wolf Creek SP\COA-TENT MAP 29305,doc 13 63. 64. Street "A" from Interior Loop Road (North) to Loma Linda Road (Principal Collector Highway - 78' R/W) to include dedication of full-width street right-of-way, installation of full-width street improvements, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer) The following improvements shall be complete prior to the 823rd building permit Improve Pala Road from Wolf Valley Road to Fairview Road (Arterial Highway Standards - 110' R/W) to include dedication of half-width street right-of-way, installation of full-width street improvements, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer), and a 14 foot wide raised landscaped median Interior Loop Road (South) from Wolf Valley Road to Pala Road (Modified Residential Collector Street - 85' R/W) to include dedication of full-width right-of- way, installation of full-width street improvements, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer) Construct backbone channel and/or drainage facilities and all associated improvements per Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District and the City of Temecula requirements for the following: xxv) Pala Road from Wolf Valley Road to Fairview Drive xxvi) Interior Loop Road (South) from Wolf Valley Road to Pala Road xxvii) Fairview Drive from Pala Road to the Specific Plan boundary xxviii) Interior storm drain facilities Install water mains per Rancho California Water District requirements and sewer mains per Eastern Municipal Water District requirements for the following roadways: xxix) Pala Road from Wolf Valley Road to Fairview Drive xxx) Interior Loop Road (South) from Wolf Valley Road to Pala Road xxxi) Fairview Drive from Pala Road to the Specific Plan boundary xxxii) Interior facilities of the, ,,~ .........City Sports Park or the 1557th building permit Prior to the opening The Developer shall improve Fairview Road from Pala Road to the Specific Plan boundary ((Secondary Road Standards - 88' R/W) to include dedication of half- width right-of-way, installation of half-width street improvements, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer) R:~S P\Wolf Creek SP\COA-TENT MAP 29305.doc 14 65. An approved funding and implementation mechanism/fair share contribution program such as a City administered community facility district may be considered in lieu of completed improvements for Public Works conditions as follows: · COA#59-a.,b.,i.,j. · COA#60-a.,b. · COA#61-a. · COA#62-a. Regardless if a financing mechanism is established, no occupancies will be allowed that will result in a service level of less than "D" on Pala Road, or at any of the Pala Road intersections from Rainbow Canyon Road to Wolf Valley Road. (Added by Planning Commission, September 20, 2000) Prior to Issuance of Certificates of Occupancy 66. Prior to the 823rd Certificate of Occupancy a. The traffic signal at the intersection of Wolf Valley Road and Interior Loop Road (South) shall be installed and operational with conduits for future interconnect at the following intersection 67. Prior to the 1,557th Certificate of Occupancy or opening of the H!~,h Schcc! City Sports Park, whichever occurs first, the following traffic signals shall be installed and operational with conduits for future interconnect at the following intersection: a. Pala Road and Interior Loop Road (South) b. Pala Road and Fairview Road 68. As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: a. Rancho California Water District b. Eastern Municipal Water District c. Department of Public Works All necessary certifications and clearances from engineers, utility companies and public agencies shall be submitted as required by the Department of Public Works. All improvements shall be constructed and completed per the approved plans and City standards to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. The existing improvements shall be reviewed. Any appurtenance damaged or broken due to the construction operations of this project shall be repaired or removed and replaced to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. 69. 70. 71. R:\S P\Wolf Creek SP\COA-TENT MAP 29305.doc 15 COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT The Temecula Community Services District (TCSD) provides the following conditions of approval for Wolf Creek - Tentative Tract Map No. 29305: General Requirements: 72. If any of the following conditions of approval differ from the Specific Plan text or exhibits, the conditions enumerated herein shall take precedent. 73. The current park dedication requirement (Quimby) of 27.49 acres (based on 2,144 dwelling units) shall be satisfied with the credits identified in the Wolf Creek Specific Plan No. 12. Additional park acreage or equivalent in-lieu fees shall be required, if proposed school sites are not acquired by the school district and additional residential units are constructed. In the event that the parkland credits fall short, the developer will either increase the size of the private recreation facility in Lot No. 18, receive 50% credit for the private recreational facilities in the multifamily areas, or increase the size of the 4.5 acre park (Lot No. 30). The developer may pay in-lieu fees to satisfy park requirements, if approved by the Director of Community Services. 74. Upon final approval of the specific plan, certification of the EIR and the end of any appeal process the developer shall convey the 1.5 acres of Lot No. 4 to the City by grant deed free and clear of any liens, assessment fees, or easements that would preclude the City from utilizing the property for public purposes. A policy of title insurance and a soils assessment report shall also be provided at the time of conveyance. 75. The actual design of the community park (Lot No. 15); the neighborhood park (Lot No. 30) and the linear park (Lot Nos. 45, 46 and 47) shall be in substantial conformance with the conceptual design identified within the Specific Plan. Prior to submittal of construction plans, the developer shall meet with the Director of Community Services to determine the location and specifications of the park amenities to be provided on site. 76. All park and slope/landscape plans submitted for consideration shall be in conformance with the City of Temecula Landscape Development Plan Guidelines and Specifications. 77. The design of the parks (Lot Nos. 15, 30, 45, 46 and 47) shall provide for pedestrian circulation and access for the disabled throughout the park. 78. Construction of the public park sites and proposed TCSD landscape maintenance areas shall commence pursuant to a pre-job meeting with the developer and TCSD Maintenance Superintendent. Failure to comply with the TCSD review and inspection process may preclude acceptance of these areas into the TCSD maintenance programs. 79. The developer, the developer's successor or assignee, shall be responsible for all maintenance of the park sites and slopes/landscaping areas until such time as those responsibilities are accepted by the TCSD. 80. The parks shall be improved and dedicated to the City free and clear of any liens, assessment fees, or easements that would preclude the City from utilizing the property for public purposes. A policy of title insurance and a soils assessment report shall also be provided with the dedication of the property. R:\S P\Wolf Creek SP\COA-TENT MAP 29305.doc 16 81. 82. 83. 84, All exterior slope/landscape areas contiguous to public streets that are adjacent to single family residential development shall be offered for dedication to the TCSD for maintenance purposes following compliance to existing City standards and completion of the application process. All other landscape areas, entry monumentation, signage, pedestrian portals, bus shelters, walls and the drainage channel along Pala Road shall be maintained by the Homeowners Association (HOA), private maintenance association or property owner. A ten (10) foot wide pedestrian pathway/Class I bike lane will be constructed within the linear park (east side) and the paseo (west side) of the Interior Loop Road. Class II bicycle lanes will be included on both sides of "A" Street, Wolf Valley Road, and the adjacent portion of Pala Road, Loma Linda Road and Fairview Road. Class II bike lanes, shall be constructed in concurrence with the street improvements. The developer is entitled to receive a credit against the park component of the City's Development Impact Fee (DIF) based upon the actual cost of improving the community park (Lot No. 15) and the neighborhood park (Lot No. 30). No DIF credits shall be provided for the development of the linear park other than the specific amenities proposed by the developer and approved by the Director of Community Services. The fee/credit issue shall be addressed pursuant to the execution of a Developer Agreement or a Park Improvement Agreement between the applicant and the City prior to approval of the final map. Prior to Approval of the Final Map: 85. The developer, or his assignee, shall offer for dedication, enter into an agreement and post security with the TCSD to improve the proposed parkland (Lot Nos. 15 and 30) and the linear park (Lot Nos. 45, 46 and 47) in accordance with the City standards. 86. All TCSD slope/landscaping maintenance areas shall be offered for dedication on the final map. 87. All areas intended for dedication to the TCSD for maintenance shall be identified on the final map by numbered lots and indexed to identify said lots numbers as a proposed TCSD maintenance area. 88. The subdivider shall post security and enter into an agreement to improve all proposed TCSD maintenance areas. 89. Construction drawings for all proposed TCSD slope/landscape maintenance areas and the public park sites shall be reviewed and approved by TCSD. 90. A notice of intention to annex into the Temecula Community Services Distdct Service Levels B, C, and D shall be submitted to the TCSD prior to approval of the final map. The property owner election costs involved in the district formation or annexation shall be borne by the developer. Prior to Issuance of Building Permits: 91. Prior to the installation of street lights or issuance of building permits, whichever comes first, the developer shall file an application and pay the appropriate fees to the TCSD for the dedication of arterial and residential street lights into the appropriate TCSD maintenance program. R:\S P\Wolf Creek SP\COA-TENT MAP 29305.doc 17 92. 93. 94. 95. The linear park including one activity node (Lot Nos. 45 and 46) shall be improved and dedicated to the City prior to the issuance of the 400th residential building permit for the overall project. The 14-acre community park (Lot No. 15) shall be improved and dedicated to the City prior to the issuance of the 800th residential building permit for the overall project. The linear park including two activity nodes (Lot No. 47) shall be improved and dedicated to the City prior to the issuance of the 1400th residential building permit for the overall project. The 4.5-acre neighborhood park (Lot No. 30) will be improved and dedicated to the City prior to the issuance of the 1,600th residential building permit for the overall project. Prior to Issuance of Certificates of Occupancy: 96. Prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy within each phase map, the developer shall submit the most current list of Assessor's Parcel Numbers assigned to the final project. 97. It shall be the developer's responsibility to provide written disclosure of the existence or TCSD and its service level rates and charges to ail prospective purchasers. FIRE DEPARTMENT The following are the Fire Department Conditions of Approval for this project. All questions regarding the meaning of these conditions shall be referred to the Fire Prevention Bureau. 98. 99. 100. Final fire and life safety conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed by the Fire Prevention Bureau. These conditions will be based on occupancy, use, the California Building Code (CBC), California Fire Code (CFC), and related codes which are in force at the time of building plan submittal. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set a minimum fire flow for residential land division per CFC Appendix III.A, Table A-III-A- 1. The developer shall provide for this project, a water system capable of delivering 1500 GPM at 20-PSI residual operating pressure with a 2-hour duration. The required fire flow may be adjusted during the approval process to reflect ' changes in design, construction type, or automatic fire protection measures as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau. The Fire Flow as given above has taken into account all information as provided. (CFC 903.2, Appendix Ill-A) The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set minimum fire hydrant distances per CFC Appendix III.B, Table A-III-B-1. Standard fire hydrants (6" x 4" x 2 1/2" outlets) shall be located on Fire Department access roads and adjacent public streets. Hydrants shall be spaced at 500 feet apart, at each intersection and shall be located no more than 250 feet from any point on the street or Fire Department access road(s) frontage to a hydrant. The required fire flow shall be available from any adjacent hydrant(s) in the system. The upgrade of existing fire hydrants may be required. (CFC 903.2, 903.4.2, and Appendix Ill-B) R:~S P\Wolf Creek SP\COA-TENT MAP 29305.doc 18 101. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set a minimum fire flow for commercial land division per CFC Appendix III-A, Table A-III-A-1. The developer shall provide for this project, a water system capable of delivering 4000 GPM at 20-PSI residual operating pressure with a 4 hour duration. The required fire flow may be adjusted during the approval process to reflect changes in design, construction type, or automatic fire protection measures as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau. The Fire Flow as given above has taken into account all information as provided. (CFC 903.2, Appendix Ill-A) 102. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set minimum fire hydrant distances per CFC Appendix Ill-B, Table A-III-B-1. Super fire hydrants (6" x 4" x 2-2 1/2" outlets) shall be located on Fire Department access roads and adjacent public streets. Hydrants shall be spaced at 350 feet apart, at each intersection and shall be located no more than 210 feet from any point on the street or Fire Department access road(s) frontage to a hydrant. The required fire flow shall be available from any adjacent hydrant(s) in the system. The upgrade of existing fire hydrants may be required. (CFC 903.2, 903.4.2, and Appendix Ill-B) 103. Maximum cul-de-sac length shall not exceed 43294ee~ 600 feet. Minimum turning radius on any cul-de-sac shall be forty-five (45) feet. (CFC 902.2.2.3) 104. If construction is phased, each phase shall provide approved access and fire protection prior to any building construction. (CFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2) 105. Prior to building construction, all locations where structures are to be built shall have approved temporary Fire Department vehicle access roads for use until permanent roads are installed. Temporary Fire Department access roads shall be an all weather surface for 80,000 lbs. GVVV. (CFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2.2) 106. Prior to building final, all locations where structures are to be built shall have approved Fire Department vehicle access roads to within 150 feet to any portion of the facility or any portion of an exterior wall of the building(s). Fire Department access roads shall be an all weather surface designed for 80,000 lbs. GVVV with a minimum AC thickness of .25 feet. ( CFC sec 902) 107. Fire Department vehicle access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than twenty-four (24) feet and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than thirteen (13) feet six (6) inches. (CFC 902.2.2.1) 108. Prior to building construction, dead end road ways and streets in excess of one hundred and fifty (150) feet which have not been completed shall have a turnaround capable of accommodating fire apparatus. (CFC 902.2.2.4) 109. Prior to building construction, this development shall have two (2) points of access, via all- weather surface roads, as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau. (CFC 902.2.1) 110. Prior to issuance of building permits, the developer shall furnish one copy of the water system plans to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation. Plans shall be: signed by a registered civil engineer; contain a Fire Prevention Bureau approval signature block; and conform to hydrant type, location, spacing and minimum fire flow standards. After the plans are signed by the local water company, the originals shall be presented to the Fire Prevention Bureau for signatures. The required water system including fire hydrants shall be installed and accepted by the appropriate water agency prior to any combustible building materials being placed on an individual lot. (CFC 8704.3, 901.2.2.2 and National Fire Protection Association 24 1-4.1) R:~S P\Woff Creek SP~COA-TENT MAP 29305.doc 19 111. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, "Blue Reflective Markers" shall be installed to identify fire hydrant locations. (CFC 901.4.3) 112. All manual and electronic gates on required Fire Department access roads or gates obstructing Fire Department building access shall be provided with the Knox Rapid entry system for emergency access by flrefighting personnel. (CFC 902.4) Special Conditions 113. Prior to issuance of building permits, fuel modification plans shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for review and approval for all open space areas adjacent to the wildland- vegetation interface. (FC Appendix II-A) 114. Prior to issuance of building permits, plans for structural protection from vegetation fires shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for review and approval. The measures shall include, but are not limited to, enclosing eaves, noncombustible barriers (cement or block walls), and fuel modification zones. (CFC Appendix II-A) BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT 115. All design components shall comply with applicable provisions of the 1998 edition of the California Building, Plumbing and Mechanical Codes; 1998 National Electrical Code; California Administrative Code, Title 24 Energy and Disabled Access Regulations and the Temecula Municipal Code. 116. Submit at time of plan review, a complete exterior site lighting plans showing compliance with Ordinance No. 655 for the regulation of light pollution. All street lights and other outdoor lighting shall be shown on electrical plans submitted to the Department of Building and Safety. Any outside lighting shall be hooded and directed so as not to shine directly upon adjoining property or public rights-of-way. 117. A receipt or clearance letter from the Temecula Valley School District shall be submitted to the Building & Safety Department to ensure the payment or exemption from School Mitigation Fees. 118. Obtain all building plans and permit approvals prior to commencement of any construction work. 119. Obtain street addressing for all proposed buildings prior to submittal for plan review. 120. Disabled access from the public way to the main entrance of any public building is required. The path of travel shall meet the California Disabled Access Regulations in terms of cross slope, travel slope stripping and signage. Provide all details on plans. (California Disabled Access Regulations effective April 1, 1998) 121. All public building and facilities must comply with applicable disabled access regulations. Provide all details on plans. (California Disabled Access Regulations effective April 1, 122. Provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on plans submitted for plan review. 123. Provide electrical plan including load calculations and panel schedule, plumbing schematic and mechanical plan for plan review. R:~S P\Wolf Creek SP\COA-TENT MAP 29305,doc 20 124. Truss calculations that are stamped by the engineer of record and the truss manufacturer engineer are required for plan review submittal. 125. Provide precise grading plan for plan check submittal to check for handicap accessibility. 126. Show all building setbacks 127. Post conspicuously at the entrance to the project the hours of construction as Allowed by City of Temecula Ordinance #0-90-04, and specifically Section G (1) of the Riverside County Ordinance # 457.73, for any site within one-quarter mile of an occupied residence. Construction hours are as follows: Monday - Friday 6:30 a.m. - 6:30 p.m. Saturday 7:00 a.m. - 6:30 p.m. No work is permitted on Sunday or Government Code Holidays OTHER AGENCIES 128. Flood protection shall be provided in accordance with the Riverside County Flood Control District's transmittal dated April 5, 2000, a copy of which is attached. The fee is made payable to the Riverside County Flood Control Water District by either a cashier's check or money order, prior to the issuance of a grading permit (unless deferred to a later date by the District), based upon the prevailing area drainage plan fee. 129. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the County of Riverside Department of Environmental Health's transmittal dated February 22, 2000, a copy of which is attached. 130. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Rancho California Water District's transmittal dated February 15, 2000, a copy of which is attached. 131. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the City of Temecula Police Department transmittal dated, a copy of which is attached. By placing my signature below, I confirm that I have read, understand and accept all the above Conditions of Approval. I further understand that the property shall be maintained in conformance with these conditions of approval and that any changes I may wish to make to the project shall be subject to Community Development Department approval. Applicant Signature R:~S P\Wolf Creek SP~COA-TENT MAP 29305.doc 21 ATTACHMENT NO. 3 PC RESOLUTION FOR THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (UNDER SEPARATE COVER) R:\S P\Wolf Creek SP\STAFFRPT.PC for 12-6-00.doc 20 EXHIBIT A REVISED MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM R:\S P\Wolf Creek SP\STAFFRPT. PC for 12-6-00.doc 21 Mitigation Monitoring Program Planning Application No. PA98-0481 (Specific Plan) Wolf Creek Specific Plan No. 12 Revised December 6, 2000 AIR QUALITY 1. General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitor: Long-term operational emissions due to vehicular travel will exceed SCAQMD thresholds. Establish bus routes and stops to service the residents within the specific plan area. The City shall notify the Riverside Transit Agency or other responsible public transit provider of pending development applications within the specific plan, in order that the agency may assess and identify demand for bus service, Prior to the approval of development plans or tentative tract maps Planning Department AIR QUALITY 2. General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitor: Long-term operational emissions due to vehicular travel will exceed SCAQMD thresholds. The developer shall provide bus turnouts at strategic locations throughout the project. The City shall review and condition project entitlements which are adjacent to or include identified bus routes that serve the residents in the specific plan area. Prior to the approval of development plans or tentative tract maps Department of Public Works and Planning Department R:\S P\Wolf Creek SPLMitigation Monitoring Program.doc ENERGY CONSERVATION 3. General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Long-term operational emissions due to on-site energy consumption will exceed SCAQMD thresholds. Compliance with applicable energy conservation guidelines for construction in accordance with the most recent edition of the Uniform Building Code and any other City requirements. The developer shall submit planchecks that include compliance with energy conservation guidelines for City review and approval. Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitor: ENERGY CONSERVATION 4. General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Prior to the issuance of building permits. Building Department Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitor: Long-term operational emissions due to on-site energy consumption will exceed SCAQMD thresholds. The developer shall install energy-efficient lighting for all lighting systems. The developer shall submit planchecks that include energy- efficient lighting. Prior to issuance of building permits. Building Department LAND USE PLANNING 1. General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitor: Conflict with habitat conservation plans Compliance with the Stephens Kangaroo Rat (SKR) Long- Term Habitat Conservation Plan Payment of $500.00 per acre SKR mitigation fee Prior to the issuance of a grading permit Department of Public Works and Planning Department R:\S P\WolfCreek SP~Vlitigation Monitoring Program.doc 2 LAND USE PLANNING 1. General Impact: Conflict with Metropolitan Water District plans for the San Diego Pipeline No. 6 alignment and related construction and operation activities Mitigation Measure: Coordination of design activities between the Developer and Metropolitan Water District Specific Process: Clearance from MWD Mitigation Milestone: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit or approval of the Final Map Responsible Monitor: Department of Public Works and Planning Department GEOLOGY AND SOILS General Impact: Exposure to seismic ground shaking Mitigation Measure: Ensure that soil compaction is to City Standards Specific Process: A soils report prepared by a registered Civil Engineer shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. Building pads shall be certified by a registered Civil Engineer. Mitigation Milestone: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit or building permit Responsible Monitor: Department of Public Works and the Building and Safety Department General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitor: Exposure to seismic ground shaking Utilize construction techniques that are consistent with the Uniform Building Code Submit construction plans to the Building and Safety Department for review and approval Prior to the issuance of a building permit Building and Safety Department R:\S P\Wolf Creek SP~vlitigation Monitoring Progrmn.doc 3 General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitor: Exposure to soil erosion, subsidence and expansion Ameliorate hazards from unstable soils Compliance with the recommendations of the Geotechnical report Prior to the issuance of a grading permit Department of Public Works General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitor: Exposure to soil erosion, subsidence and expansion Identify adverse soil conditions and implement measures to ameliorate impacts Submit a Soils Report for review and approval Prior to the issuance of a grading permit Department of Public Works General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitor: Exposure to soil erosion Stabilize slopes and unstable soils by the planting of slopes consistent with Ordinance No. 457 Submit an Erosion Control Plan for review and approval Prior to the issuance of a grading permit Department of Public Works General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitor: Exposure to soil erosion Stabilize slopes and unstable soils Submit a Slope Planting Plan for review and approval Prior to the issuance of a grading permit Planning Department R:\S P\WolfCreek SP~Vlitigation Monitoring Program.doc 4 General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitor: Affecting the capacity of soils to adequately support the use of septic systems Conduct a Soils Percolation Test The submittal of the results of the Soils Percolation Test and clearance from the Department of Environmental Health for septic sewage disposal systems Prior to the issuance of a grading permit Department of Public Works HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY General Impact: The degradation of water quality and/or waste discharge Mitigation Measure: Compliance with water quality and waste discharge requirements Specific Process: Obtain clearance from the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board and comply with the requirements of the NPDES permit from the State Water Resources Board. Mitigation Milestone: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit Responsible Monitor: Department of Public Works General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitor: Create excessive runoff exceeding the capacity of existing facilities Identify drainage impacts and implement measures to mitigate impacts Submit a Drainage Study for review and approval Prior to the issuance ora grading permit Department of Public Works R:\S P\WolfCreek SPXlvlitigation Monitoring Program.doc 5 TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: An increase in traffic in relation to existing traffic and the capacity of the existing street system Payment of fees to contribute to City-wide traffic improvements Payment of the Development Impact Fee (DIF) for commercial development Mitigation Milestone: Prior to the issuance of a building permit Responsible Monitor: Department of Public Works BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitor: Alter federally protected wetlands Compliance with the requirements of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the California Department of Fish and Game, and the Army Corps of Engineers Obtain a 1601-1603 Streambed Alteration Agreement from the Department of Fish and Game and a 404 Permit from the Army Corps of Engineers Prior to the issuance of grading permits Planning Department General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitor: Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals and birds) Pay Mitigation Fee for impacts to the Stephens Kangaroo Rat Pay $500.00 per acre of disturbed area of Stephens Kangaroo Rat habitat Prior to the issuance of a grading permit Department of Public Works and the Planning Department R:\S P\WolfCreek SP~vlitigation Monitoring program.doc 6 HAZARDS General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitor: NOISE General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitor: PUBLIC SERVICES General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitor: Exposure to significant hazard Obtain clearances from the Department of Environmental Health, Fire and Building Departments for the use of hazardous subslances, their storage, quantities, security and handling Submit clearance letters and/or signatures to the Building Department Prior to the issuance of building permits Building and Safety Department and the Fire Department Exposure to significant noise levels The developer shall participate in any noise mitigation program established by the City. Payment of fair share costs of mitigation measures commensurate with noise impacts attributable to Wolf Creek traffic. Prior to the roadway widening construction on Pala Road Public Works Department and the Planning Department Need for new/altered governmental services regarding fire or police protection Payment of Development Impact Fees for Fire and Police Mitigation Payment of DIF to the Building Department Prior to the issuance of building permits Building Department R:\S l~WolfCreek SP~vlitigation Monitoring Program.doc 7 General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitor: Need for new/altered schools. Payment of School Fees Payment of current mitigation fees to the Temecula Valley Unified School District Prior to the issuance of building permits Building Department UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitor: AESTHETICS General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitor: Adequate capacity of existing downstream drainage facilities Verify the adequacy of existing facilities and require upgrading or upsizing of these facililties where necessary Prepare and submit a Hydrology Report to the Public Works Department for review and approval Prior to the issuance of grading permits Department of Public Works The creation of new light sources will result in increased light and glare that could affect the Palomar Observatory Use lighting techniques that are consistent with Ordinance No. 655 Submit lighting plans that conform to the requirements of Ordinance No. 655 to the Building and Safety Department for review and approval Prior to the issuance of building permits Building and Safety Department; Planning Department R:\S P\WolfCreek SPhMitigation Monitoring Program.doc 8 CULTURAL RESOURCES General Impact: Adverse change in the significance of a historical or archaeological resource Mitigation Measure: Identify, recover, preserve and document resources of historical and archaeological significance Specific Process: Condition the project upon the requirement that if any cultural resources or human remains are exposed during grading, ground disturbance activities in the vicinity of the discovery shall be terminated immediately and the City shall be contacted and a qualified archaeologist shall be brought to the site to evaluate the resource. If discovered resources merit long-term consideration, adequate funding shall be provided to collect, curate and report these resources. Mitigation Milestone: Prior to the issuance of grading permits and during grading operations Responsible Monitor: Planning Department and Department of Public Works R:\S P\WolfCreek Sp~vlitigation Monitoring Program.doc 9 ATTACHMENT NO. 4 PC RESOLUTION FOR THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DEAL POINTS R:\S P\Wolf Creek SP\STAFFRPT.PC for 12-6-00.doc 22 ATTACHMENT NO. 4 PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE WOLF CREEK DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DEAL POINTS (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-0029) AS NOTED IN EXHIBIT A, ON PARCELS TOTALING 657 ACRES LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF PALA ROAD, BETWEEN LOMALINDA ROAD AND FAIRVlEW AVENUE, AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR PARCEL NOS. 950-1'10-002, -005, -033 AND 950-180- 001, -005, -006 AND -0'10. WHEREAS, SP Murdy, LLC filed Planning Application No. PA00-0029 (the "Application") in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan, Development Code and Subdivision Ordinance; WHEREAS, the Application was processed including, but not limited to public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, at a regular meeting, considered the Application on December 6, 2000, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did, testify either in support or opposition to this matter; WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing and after due consideration of the testimony, the Commission recommended approval of the Application Deal Points after finding that they conformed with the City of Temecula General Plan, Development Code, Subdivision Ordinance, and Wolf Creek Specific Plan No. 12; NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. by reference. That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby incorporated Section 2. Findin.qs. That the Temecula Planning Commission, in approving the Application Deal Points, hereby makes the following findings as required in Section 16.09.140 of the Temecula Municipal Code. A. An environmental review has been conducted and approved for this Agreement in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. B. The City desires to obtain the binding agreement of the Developer and Owner for the development of the property in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement. C. The Developer desires to obtain the binding agreement of the City to permit the Developer to develop the Developer's Project on the Developer's Parcels in accordance with the "Applicable Rules" (as hereinafter defined) and this Agreement. R:~S P\Wolf Creek SP'~RES-DA.PC.doc 1 D. The Owner desires to obtain the binding agreement of the City to permit the Owner to develop the Owner's Parcel in accordance with the "Applicable Rules" (as hereinafter defined) and this Agreement. E. Developer and Owner have applied to the City in accordance with applicable procedures for approval of this mutually binding Agreement. The Planning Commission and City Council of the City have given notice of intention to consider the Agreement, have conducted public hearings thereon pursuant to the Government Code, and have found that the provisions of this Agreement are consistent with the Specific Plan and the City's General Plan. F. This Agreement is consistent with the public health, safety, and welfare needs of the residents of the City and the surrounding region. The City has specifically considered and approved the impact and benefits of the development of the Property in accordance with this Agreement upon the welfare of the region. G. This Agreement will bind the City to the terms and obligations specified in this Agreement and will limit, to the degree specified in the Agreement and under State law, the future exercise of the City's ability to delay, postpone, preclude or regulate development on the Property, except a provided for herein. H. In accordance with the Development Agreement Statutes, this Agreement eliminates uncertainty in the planning process and provides for the orderly development of the Property. Further, this Agreement eliminates uncertainty about the validity of exactions imposed by the City, allows installation of necessary improvements, provides for public services necessary for the region with incidental benefits for the Property, and generally serves the public interest within the City of Temecula and the surrounding region. Section 3. Environmental Compliance. The City Council of the City of Temecula must approve and adopt the Final Environmental Impact Report and Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Wolf Creek Specific Plan in order to approve the Application. Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby conditionally approves the Deal Points for the Wolf Creek Specific Plan Development Agreement, located on the east side of Pala Road, between Loma Linda Road and FairviewAvenue, and known as Assessor's Parcel Nos. 950-110-002, -005, -033 and 950-180-001, -005, -006 and -010, set forth on Exhibit A, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference. R:~S P\Wolf Creek SP~RES-DA,PC.doc 2 Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this sixth day of December, 2000. Ron Guerriero, Chairperson I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the sixth day of December, 2000 by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary R:\S P\Wolf Creek SP~RES-DA,PC.doc 3 EXHIBIT A CITY'S PROPOSAL FOR THE WOLF CREEK DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS R:\S P\Wolf Creek SP\STAFFRPT, PC for 12-6-00.doc 23 City's Proposal For the Wolf Creek Development Agreement 40-Acre Sports Park · Land dedication of 12.37 acres in exchange for a $1,117 credit towards the Development Agreement fee. · Land dedication of 15.34 acres in exchange for $2,800,000 Parks DIF credits and includes $175 credit. · Land dedication of 12.29 acres towards satisfying the Quimby requirements · Street improvements along the frontage on Pala and the Loop Road concurrent with the phasing of the Specific Plan · Half street improvement of Fairview fronting the park plus 10' if the street improvements are not completed as a part of the High School construction by the time the park is completed · Land offered for dedication on the effective date of the Development Agreement and shall be flee of liens within 6 months after the effective date of the Development Agreement 6-Acre Community Park · Improvement of the park in exchange for $750,000 Park DIF credits · Completion of the park is due prior to the 600th building permit · Includes all street improvements fronting the park 1.5-Acre Park · Land dedication of 1.5 acres toward satisfying the Quimby requirements · Land offered for dedication on the effective date of the Development Agreement and shall be free of liens within 6 months after the effective date of the Development Agreement · Includes all street improvements fronting the park Community Facility The City has a 12 month option fi.om the effective date of the agreement to accept a 1.63 acre land for a community facility in exchange for $297,552 Corporate Facilities DIF credits (based on $228.71 and 2022 units, the corporate facilities fee shall be adjusted fi.om $228.71 to $81.57 if the City chooses to accept the site) Land offered for dedication on the effective date of the Development Agreement and shall be free of liens within 6 months after the effective date of the Development Agreement Includes all street improvements fi.onting the site 1.5-Acre Fire Station Site Land dedication of 1.5 acres $114,557 in Fire DIF credits towards the construction of the fire station (based on $56.66 and 2022 units) A maximum $700,000 no interest advance fi'om the developer to the City for the construction of the $1,600,000 fire station to be paid back over time with fire mitigation component of the DIF. Land offered for dedication on the effective date of the Development Agreement and shall be free of liens within 6 months after the effective date of the Development Agreement City to commence the construction of the station no later than the issuance of the 250th building permit. The developer shall not receive building permits beyond the 400th building permit if the fire station is not complete and operational · Includes all street improvements fi.onting the station CFI) · CFD to include the funding for: o Pala Road Permanent improvements · 134' improvement between the SR 79 and Loma Linda · 134' ROW dedication and improvement between Loma Linda and Wolf Creek · 110' ROW dedication and improvement between Wolf Creek and Fairview All Drainage System on Pala Road between the bridge and Fairview Sound Wall Maintenance of the grass lined channel fronting the project · Developer to participate in the CFD improvements in a fair share basis (Fair share still needs to be determined by staff) · CFD to be formed prior to the issuance of the first building permit for the project. · City to only manage the construction of the Permanent Improvements to Pala Road which include Pala Road, Drainage System, and Sound Wall Development Agreement Fees · Residential DIF o Street Improvement (Credits may apply, and need to be determined by staff) o Traffic Signal (Credits may apply, and need to be determined by staf0 o Fire (100% credit, no fees are due) o Corporate facilities ($228.71 per unit or adjusted to $81.57 per unit if City accepts the 1.63 acre Community Facility site) o Park and Recreation (100% credit, no fees are due) o Libraries (No credits, $214 per unit fee shall be paid in full) · Future Public Art and Future Open Space ($200 per unit) · Future TUMF o The fee shall only be paid after its adoption o The developer shall receive TUMF credits towards applicable road improvements constructed by the project · Commercial DIF (No credits, shall be paid in full) ATTACHMENT NO. 5 CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED SUBSEQUENT TO OCTOBER 4, 2000 R:\S P\Wolf Creek SP\STAFFRPT.PC for 12-6-00.doc 24 Pamela L. Miod 31995 Via ~altio Temecula, CA ~5 hk~vember ~000 C~role Dot, bee, Associate Planner City of Temecu;a P/anning/~eportment 43200 Busies T~ecula. CA 92~90 Re: Wolf Cre~k 5pacific Plan Final ~nvironmem, al ~m~act Report. 5CH ~t88030705. August 2000 Dear Ms. Oonahoe, Due to unexpected circumstances. ! am unable to attend the Planning Commission meeting this evening. I-towered, ! would like to go on record once again in opposition of the above-mentioned project. The ~oSonS for my opposition are detailed in my p~evious lette4,s of 6 September 2000, 20 September 2000 and 4 October 2000. This project will bring severe impacts to the Surrounding communities. Furthermore, the cumulative impacts of this project have not been adequately addressed, ae stated in my previous letters. Thank you for making my comments a part of the public record for this project. Respectfully, Pamela I,. Miocl LOS Level D · No building permits will be issued for Planning Areas 20, 21, 22, and 23 unless the developer provides a traffic study that shows the intersection of I-15 and SR79 is operating at LOS D or better Permitted Uses within Planning Area 12 · The developer shall agree that the major tenants within PA 13 shall not dictate the tenant mix in PA 12. Appropriate documents, as deemed necessary by the City, shall be presented to the City prior to approval of any Development Plans for PA 12 and 13. Parkway landscaping along schools · The developer shall be responsible to install the landscaping along the public streets fronting all school sites at the time the street improvements are completed. Wolf Valley Median · A 12' median shall be permitted between Pala and PA 14 instead of the 14' required by the General Plan. Narrower Street Sections · If the City adopts narrower paved section, the developer shall follow the narrower street standards and ROW than is shown on the Specific Plan only if a tentative map has not been approved. Term of the Development Agreement · Ten years for the entitlements Assumptions: Detached units 1712 Attached Units 310 Total 2022 Appraised fire market value of land at $182,529.00 The amounts of fees/credits/dedications will be adjusted if the number of units or the fair market value of the land changes ATTACHMENT NO. 6 APPLICANTS RESPONSES TO PLANNING COMMISSION FINDINGS DATED NOVEMBER 28, 2000 R:\S P\Wolf Creek SP\STAFFRPT.PC for 12-6-00.doc 25 WOLF CREEK RESPONSES TO PLANNING COMMISSION FINDINGS November 28, 2000 INTRODUCTION The City of Temecula Planning Commission considered the Wolf Creek Specific Plan No. 12 and E1PJEIR Addendums No. 1 and 2 and associated actions on September 6, 2000, September 20, 2000 and October 4,2000, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City Staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support or opposition to this matter. At the conclusion of the Commission heating and after due consideration of the testimony both oral and written, the Commission recommended that the City Council deny, collectively, the Application, Certification of the EIR and Adoption of the Mitigation Monitoring Program on the basis that the project was not wholly in conformance with the City's General Plan and Growth Management Program Action Plan goals and policies. City Staff prepared draft findings in response to Planning Commission input. The Applicant has reviewed the draft findings and has modified and augmented the project to bring the Wolf Creek Specific Plan into conformance with the City's General Plan and Growth Management Action Plan. The following document includes the draft findings. The findings as drafted by staff are in italics. Each finding js followed by a Project Consistency analysis that indicates why the revised project is in compliance with the City's General Plan and the Growth Management Action Plan. Page 1 NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby incorporated by reference. Section 2. Findings. That the Planning Commission, in recommending denial of the Application, hereby makes the following findings as required in Section 16.09.140 of the Temecula Municipal Code: A. The project as proposed and conditioned is not compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community. The project has been reviewed by agencies and staff and determined to be in conformance, in part, with the City's General Plan, Development Code, Design Guidelines and Growth Management Program Action Plan. These documents set policies and standards that protect the health, safety and welfare of the community. The overall concept and general development proposal is of high quality. The proposal has the potential of providing an enhancement to the quality of life for the City as a result of the proposed amenities and the foreseeable quality of design and improvements within the development. However, the specific plan (pa-98-0481) does not adequately address certain factors in relation to the General Plan, Development Code, Design Guidelines and Growth Management Action Plan. This Commission has determined, after deliberation upon the testimony, and has identified the following matters, which it believes are not adequately addressed. The Planning Commission finds all matters not addressed in the following to be compatible with the regulatory documents of the City and finds that such matters will not be detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of the community. The areas within the proposed specific plan that require either clarification or augmentation, or both, are: 1. Zoning Based Development Standards. The property development standards set forth in Specific Plan No. 12 are not consistent with the adopted City Development Code and Design Guidelines. The Specific Plan proposes residential lot sizes below those authorized by the Development Code. The Planning Commission has reviewed the standards and understands the Applicant's desire to offer a wide range of housing options. However, this Commission has not received testimony that it believes warrants a deviation from the City's current development standards. The City's development standards reflect the implementation of the mandates in the General Plan and should not be deviated from unless the alternate proposal substantially conforms to the goals and policies in the General Plan, provides first class design attributes and assists the community in achieving satisfaction of the intent of the Development Code. This Planning Commission is aware of and has balance the following policies within the City's General Plan for Land Use in reaching its conclusion that the project should not be approved. Pro[ect Consistency: The property development standards set forth in the Specific Plan do not have to be consistent in every last detail with the City's Development Code. Specific Plans are defined in the City's General Plan (Land Use Chapter, Section V. Implementation Programs) as an implementation tool that replaces the zoning as prescribed in the Development Code. The General Plan specifically states in Paragraph C, Specific Plans, "A specific plan is regulatory in effect and replaces the prescribed zoning for the specific plan area." Zoning is found in the Development Code. Therefore, it is intended that the Specific Plan replace the zoning standards of the Development Code. As long as the Goals of the General Plan are otherwise met by the Specific Plan, the actual standards contained in the Specific Plan Page 2 zoning may be more strict or more lenient or a combination thereof when compared to the Development Code. In point of fact, the Specific Plan development standards are in some cases more strict and in other cases more lenient than the City's zoning standards as contained in the Development Code. Section 17.06.050 (a), Residential Density Incentives, allows increases in the maximum residential density compared to the target density shown in the Development Standards for Residential Districts up the General Plan maximum. These increases are allowed if it can be shown that the project will "provide outstanding and exceptional benefits to the City, exceptional landscape design amenities [such as] landscaped entry features in the public right-of-way, public trail systems or public plazas [or] new public facilities which are needed by the City [such as] community meeting centers, needed transportation improvements, offsite traffic signalization, police or fire stations, public recreation facilities...." Although not specifically stated, it must be assumed that some relief from the City's Development Standards would be granted or it would not be possible to achieve the higher density allowed by the General Plan in exchange for the additional public benefits. As City staff evaluations show, the Wolf Creek Specific Plan is developing at or below the General Plan minimums (except in the case that senior housing is constructed in which case the project only slightly exceeds the General Plan minimums) even though the project provides exceptional design amenities and needed public facilities. Instead, the Specific Plan allows reduced setback standards in a limited number of applications in exchange for providing the following significant benefits for the City: the City Sports Park including a community meeting center, transportation improvements (Pala Road widening and additional Right-of-Way for six lanes, Loma Linda Road, Wolf Valley Road, Deer Hollow Road), on- and off-site drainage facilities, noise mitigation for existing residents, elementary and middle schools, public trail systems (bicycle and pedestrian), public plazas, enmj landscaping, center median landscaping in Wolf Valley Road, creative mixtures of housing types (courtyard homes and seniors housing in addition to conventional single family dwellings) and a fire station site Policy 1.1 of Goal 1 of Section II1 of the Land Use Element in the General Plan requires this Commission to "review all proposed development plans for consistency with the community goals, policies and implementation programs of&is General Plan," Policy 1.2 identifies the policy to "Promote the use of innovative site planning techniques that contribute towards the development of a variety of residential product styles and designs including housing suitable to the community's labor force"; and, Policy 3.1 "consider the compatibility of proposed projects on surrounding uses in terms of the size and configuration of buildings, use of materials and landscaping, preservation of existing vegetation and landform, the location of access routes, noise impacts, traffic impacts, and other environmental conditions." The development proposal does not offerproject amenities and innovative site planning techniques and certainty of design so as to justify deviation from the City's existing standards. Proiect Consistency: The Planning Commission has conducted significant public review of the project by conducting a scoping session and four public hearings. In Page 3 addition, the project was presented to the surrounding community in a publicly advertised community workshop and several meetings with adjacent homeowners and homeowners associations. The project includes courtyard homes that utilize innovative site planning techniques to provide affordable single-family detached housing for the community's labor force. The project also provides an option for seniors housing in a village center setting. This situation occurs nowhere else in the City. The revised project is compatible with adjacent properties. Adjacent land uses east of the project in Redhawk and Vail Ranch consist of single family residential uses (5,000 minimum lot size), parks and schools. The City's General Plan Land Use Map shows these uses to be Low Medium residential and Public/Institutional Facilities. The same exact uses are shown on the City's General Plan for the adjacent portions of the Wolf Creek site. The Wolf Creek Specific Plan implements the Low Medium (3 - 6 du/ac) residential and Public/Institutional Facilities uses shown on the City's General Plan by providing a middle school, an expansion of Kent Hintergardt Park and single family residential housing of varying densities but with a minimum lot size of 5,000 ~quare feet. West of the project across Pala Road, the City's General Plan shows Low Medium residential uses north of Wolf Valley Road. The minimum lot sizes in this area range from 4,500 to 7,200 square feet as depicted in the Assessor's records. The City, in approving its General Plan, determined that Low Medium and High Residential and Neighborhood Commercial uses on the Wolf Creek site would be compatible with the existing residential areas west of Pala Road and north of Wolf Valley Road. The Wolf Creek Specific Plan as currently designed provides for minimum 5,000 and 7,200 square foot single family residential uses in the areas designated for Low Medium uses and reduces the density in the area shown for High Density residential uses to fit the Medium density residential category of the General Plan. The project will implement the Neighborhood Commercial uses shown in the General Plan at the comer of Pala and Wolf Valley Road. The Wolf Creek project will further enhance compatibility for uses west of Pala Road by providing Open Space/Recreation use as defined by the General Plan in the form of the Drainage Greenbelt buffer that will be implemented along the Pala Road frontage. South of Wolf Valley Road and west of Pala Road, the General Plan depicts a Not a Part (the Pechanga Casino and associated uses) and Low Residential. The General Plan identifies Community Commercial, High and Low Medium Residential and Public/Institutional uses for the Wolf Creek Specific Plan and determined that those uses would be compatible with the General Plan designations west of Pala Road. The Wolf Creek Specific Plan implements the Community Commercial, Low Medium Residential and Public Institutional uses by providing Village Center Community Commemial uses, single family homes at 5,000 and 5,500 square foot minimums and a City Sports Park. The Wolf Creek Specific Plan reduces the density of the area shown for High Residential uses to Medium Residential uses in order to meet the goals of the City's Growth Management Action Plan. The Drainage Greenbelt buffer will be implemented along the Pala Road frontage to further buffer these adjacent USES. Page 4 The north and south portions of Wolf Creek are consistent with the General Plan land use designations for those portions of the property and will therefore be consistent with adjacent uses to the south and north respectively. Further this Commission believes the overall development presents an overabundance of medium density residential development and an inadequate amount of Low-medium housing densities, thus fading to satisfy the goals inherent in Land Use Policy 1.2. Proiect Consistency: The revised project converts approximately half of the land designated by the adopted General Plan for High Residential to Medium Residential in order to comply with the City's Growth Management Action Plan and in response to land use compatibility issues raised by residents adjacent to the project. Furthermore, the Specific Plan proposes that the Courtyard Homes, an innovative and affordable site planning and product design concept, be implemented for all of the medium density areas unless High Residential development for seniors housing, which is specifically targeted as desirable in the General Plan (Section III.B.1 of the Housing Chapter of the General Plan), is implemented. The project provides almost the same acreage of Low-medium housing as specified by the General Plan. Those areas will be implemented at an average density that yields the low end of the General Plan density range for the Low-medium category in order to implement the City's Growth Management Action Plan. In summary, the Planning Commission recommends utilizing the existing 7,200 square foot lot size with a minimum thirty-five (35) percent lot coverage standard based upon the testimony. Proiect Consistency: The project has been revised to eliminate 4,000 and 4,500 square foot product types and to further reduce the land allocated for High Density product types. In addition, the project contributes significant public benefits by providing exceptional design amenities and needed public facilities as identified in the General Plan and as specifically discussed under "Project Consistency" above. The project also results in implementation of the General Plan land uses at the low end of the density range in furtherance of the City's Growth Management Action Plan, even though the project provides significant public benefits that would otherwise allow the project to develop at densities higher than the low end of the General Plan density range. Therefore, it is appropriate for the Specific Plan to allow single family lots as small as 5,000 square feet with moderate increases in lot coverage standards as provided for in the Specific Plan Development Standards 2. Design and Development Guidelines. The Design Guidelines set forth in Specific Plan No. 12 present a valuable starting point but are inadequate. The inadequacy is the lack of detailed goals and policies that will direct those future persons developing the various tracts within Specific Plan No. 12. The deficiencies in the Guidelines are: Identify standards allowing for narrower public streets (revise Street sections). Proiect Consistency: The Wolf Creek Specific Plan includes several options for narrower local public streets. Cross sections of these streets are depicted on Figure III-4C (page m-16)in the Specific Plan document. In addition, a separate exhibit entitled, Through Local Streets (Option 2), has been presented by the Applicant under Page 5 separate cover. The Specific Plan identifies potential options for narrower public streets include a street cross section with a 56-foot fight-of-way for Through Local Streets, a 56-foot fight of way for cul-de-sacs and short local streets, and a 50-foot fight-of-way option for cul-de-sacs. However, both the City's Public Works and Public Safety departments have expressed concerns over fire safety relative to the use of narrower streets within Wolf Creek. Because the Wolf Creek Specific Plan allows for narrower streets as an option, it will be up to the City to determine whether to allow the narrower street options. The Applicant has agreed to construct streets to the widths ultimately determined by the City. B. Develop criteria for locating sidewalks both at back of curb and behind a landscaped right-of-way area and identify Homeowners Association maintenance alternative: Project Consistency: Using curbs adjacent to sidewalks on residential streets provides the following benefits over separated parkways: · Easier passenger access from on-street parking; · Enhanced front yard appearance with deeper lawn area; Ability to plant trees with less concern over root intrusion and damage to hardscape; Control of maintenance by homeowner with less likelihood that the parkway section will be ignored. Separated parkways are often poorly maintained; · Uniformity in use and appearance with front yard; and · Enhanced driveway depth will keep vehicles out of pedestrian right-of-way. As an alternative, however, incorporating a landscape parkway between the sidewalk and the curb offers several advantages: There appears to be less pavement and more vegetation, creating a nicer street scene appearance. Pedestrians are physically separated from automobile traffic, creating a greater sense of security for the pedestrians. Parkways allow trees to be planted close to the street pavement, creating the appearance of a narrower streetscene. Parkways can be uniformly maintained by an Homeowner's Association or other entity, ensuring a consistent streetscene appearance. Options for both curb/gutter/sidewalk and curb/parkway/sidewalk are depicted on Figure III-4C (page III-16) in the Specific Plan document. In addition, a separate exhibit entitled, Through Local Streets (Option 2), has been presented by the Applicant to you under separate cover. Potential options for narrower public streets Page 6 include a street cross section with a 56-foot right-of-way for Through Local Streets, a 56-foot right of way for cul-de-sacs and short local streets, and a 50-foot right-of-way option for cul-de-sacs. C. Develop architectural guidelines that: 1. Provide for enhanced definition of architectural criteria to assure diversity rather than uniformity in housing type, including a mix of one and two story housing, and comprehensive "architecture forward" design criteria and a variety of alternate garage configura- tions. Project Consistency: The comprehensive architectural design guidelines contained within the Wolf Creek Specific Plan will ensure that all dwelling units are designed to present an articulated, visually interesting facade from all streets. Special attention is given to comer lots. The residential design guidelines are comprehensive and cover an extensive array of information including: Building elevations/facade articulation/building elements -- pages IV-55 & 60 Architectural massing, height & scale -- pages IV-49 & 53 Building siting & orientation -- pages IV-43 & 59 Materials and colors -- pages 1V-54 & 60 Roof-types and variations -- pages IV-55 & 60 Windows and doors -- pages IV-50 & 56 Patios, balconies and porches -- pages 1V-51, 56 & 61 Architectural detailing -- pages IV-52, 57, 58 & 59 Walls and fences -- pages IV-57 & 60 Laundry facilities (Multi-Family Senior Residential only) -- see page IV-59 Handicapped Units (Multi-Family Senior Residential only) -- see pages IV-59 & 60 Security (Multi-Family Senior Residential only) -- see page IV-60 Patios and balconies (Multi-Family Senior Residential only) -- page IV-61 The design guidelines encourage single-story elements on comer lots: "The use of a mixture of one- and two-story elements are encouraged." (p. IV- 53) · "Varied roof forms are encouraged" (p. 1V-53) Single-story elements are encouraged to reduce architectural massing when located on a comer lot." (p. 1V-53) "Homes shall maintain low lines and horizontal forms as feasible, especially on comer lots." (p. IV-53) "Building projections and recesses shall be provided on the front facade of each residential structure." (page IV-53) "The highly visible front, side, and rear elevations of home located adjacent to major circulation corridors shall include architectural enhancements. Page 7 Examples of possible enhancements to side and rear building elevations include: changing roof lines, incorporating dormers with windows into roofs, varying siding materiai(s) and/or color(s), installation of window trim on second stories, and using shutters to frame windows." (page IV-53) "Two-story elevations shall be visually broken up with offset stories, changes in materials, architectural banding or other similar accents, and/or sloping roof lines. This is especially important where two or more elevations of a residence are prominently visible, as at street comers." (page IV-54) A variety of alternative garage configurations are depicted on Figures IV-34A-D, Front Yard Setbacks, on pages IV-36 through IV-39 of the Wolf Creek Specific Plan. These exhibits illustrate the following garage configuration options available in Wolf Creek: Front-Facing Garage (18' minimum setback) Side-Facing Garage (garage door does not face street) Attached Rear Garage with Optional Archway (this option places the attached garage at the rear of the lot) Detached Rear Garage Setback with Optional Archway (this option places the detached garage at the rear of the lot) Split Car Garage (2 car and 1 car garage are separated; 1 car garage is side- facing) 2. Provide for and define alternate roofing styles and materials, siding materials and treatments, front porches, and alternate construction materials and technologies; Project Consistency: The Wolf Creek Specific Plan allows for simple gable, hip or shed roof forms (see page IV-55). Page IV-55 also includes discussion of roofing materials, colors, pitches, and design. Front porches are discussed on pages IV-56 under Balconies and Porches. Building materials and usage are identified on pages IV-54 and 60. The Specific Plan does not preclude use of alternate construction materials and technologies. 3. Provide detailed landscape and architectural standards for any parcel under five thousand (5000) square feet. Project Consistency: The current Wolf Creek project proposal does not include any residential lots smaller than 5,000 square feet in size. 3. Land-Use. The land use matrix for the Neighborhood Commercial and Community Commercial zoning districts shall be modified as set forth on Attachment 1. Project Consistency: The land use matrix will be modified to comply with Attachment 1. Page 8 4. Village Center. The city of Temecula General Plan identifies and encourages the creation of Village Centers. Village Centers are discussed within Goal 5 of Section 3 and within Section B of Part IV of the Land Use Element of the General Plan. The Village Center proposed in Specific Plan No. 12 represents a valuable starting point for the ultimate design of a Village Center that conforms to the General Plan. However, this Commission cannot recommend approval until refinements are made to the proposed development. The necessary refinements are consistent with the following General Plan policy statements: 5.2 "Require the provision of pedestrian and bicycle linkages from residential areas to open space/recreation facilities, commercial and employment centers." The proposed Village Center, as configured is not conductive to pedestrian and bicycle usage. The Applicant should consider a redesign that integrates higher density (medium density) residential in the area between Pala Road and the loop road together with low-medium density from residential areas to the Village Center must be integrated into the specific plan land use distribution so as to encourage non-vehicular travel. Proiect Consistency: Residential areas within Wolf Creek will be connected to the Village Center via a 10-foot.wide pedestrian path/Class I bike trail adjacent to the Interior Loop Road. In addition, sidewalks and on-street Class II bike lanes will al. low residents convenient non-vehicular access to the Village Center. A 30-foot wide "green necklace" linear park along the Interior Loop Road will connect residential neighborhoods with schools, parks, fire station, library/recreation center in the Village Center, and to double as a recreational amenity and a pedestrian link to surrounding off-site development. The community's pedestrian/bicycle trail system will offer residents convenient and safe access from their homes to nearby schools, parks and recreation facilities within Wolf Creek. The_ school sites will be readily accessible by students through a pedestrian/bicycle trail network designed to maximize pedestrian safety and facilitate pedestrian movement on-site, thereby minimizing the need for unnecessary vehicular trips on the major arterials. 5.6 Encourage higher density residential, mixed use development, and supporting public and community facilities within Village Centers. The Applicant should reconsider the proposed density and mixture of uses in light of the foregoing policy. A greater mixture of uses should be considered so as to provide incentive for the residents to utilize the Village Center for service and commercial needs. Proiect Consistency: The "SP" zoning designation to accommodate a wide range of housing product types within the Specific Plan, including both single-family and multi-family housing. Wolf Creek is designed to provide a wide variety of housing types, lot sizes and price ranges to accommodate the needs of all income levels of the population, which will contribute to the City's fair share of low and moderate income housing. Conventional single-family housing types within Wolf Creek will range from 5,000 to 20,000 square feet, including: · Estate-type residential lots; P~e9 Conventional single-family lots; Zero lot line housing; and Patio homes. The community includes designated areas for innovative single-family detached courtyard homes at densities of up to 9.5 du/ac. As an option, multi-family senior housing may be provided at 22 du/ac in PA 18. The project also proposes some small lot single-family detached housing in the medium density courtyard home neighborhoods. These neighborhoods will providing ownership opportunities for seniors, first time home buyers, singles and busy professionals looking for smaller, less maintenance-intensive lots. Wolf Creek's variety of lot sizes and housing types will allow diversity in architectural expression, building massing and streetscenes not typically found in n~ighborhoods of homogeneous lots and houses. The WOLF CREEK Specific Plan includes standards and guidelines to promote architectural variation and articulation, while ensuring architectural continuity. It should be noted that the Wolf Creek project, while providing for residential diversity throughout the project as well as higher density housing near the Village Center, will not exceed the maximum for each residential density range as identified in the City's General Plan. In fact, the 1,881 to 2,022 dwelling units planned for Wolf Creek are significantly less than the 3,236 dwelling units City staff determined is permitted by the General Plan. 5. 7 "Establish design guidelines, development standards, and incentive programs for uses within Village Centers." The Specific Plan No. 12 standards must either conform to the Development Code or alternately, present a more thorough an detailed set of development code and architectural design standards. The present plan is without sufficient detail so as to provide reliable guidance to future users of the Specific Plan. Proiect Consistency: The project already contains a strong and thorough set of design guidelines for the Village Center. These guidelines are present on pages IV-1 through IV-25 and are very detailed. The guidelines includes discussions of: Site planning (pages IV-I, 4, 5, 6, 10, 12, 13, 18 (Figure IV-17), 19 (Figure IV-18), 20, 23, 24 & 25) Land use variety (page IV-3) The Village Center's strong pedestrian orientation (page IV-3) Typical building facades (pages IV-4 & 5) Building scale and design (pages IV-7 & 8) Parking lot design (pages IV-9, 10, 11, 12, 13 & 17) Pedestrian nodes, plazas & linkages (pages IV-5, 6, 7 & 17) Landmark elements (page IV-8) Building and monument signage (pages IV-13, 14, 15 & 16) 5.10 "Ensure that adequate public gathering areas or plazas are incorporated within Village Centers to allow for social interaction and community activities." The proposed plan does not demonstrate the presence of adequate public assembly areas. Page 10 Proiect Consistency: Figure IV~I in the Specific Plan is entitled, "Village Center Pedestrian Linkages and Gathering Place." It depicts one "Community Hub," two residential gathering places, three pedestrian plazas, several "Pedestrian Connections," a meandering Class I bike lane/pedestrian pathway, pedestrian secondary routes and ClasslI bike routes. The project provides a variety of public gathering areas and plazas within the Village Center. The most visible plaza is located at the intersection of Wolf Valley Road and the interior Loop Road. This plaza is clearly depicted on Figure III-1 on page III-32 in the Specific Plan. Other gathering areas include the City Sports Park with its gazebo, pergola, picnic tables and tot lot (see Figure Ill-10 on page III-31), and the activity nodes (see Figure III-12 on page I11-34). There are three activity nodes located throughout the project along the Interior Loop Road. Figure IV-27 depicts a commercial pedestrian plaza/gathering place that is easily accessible from an adjoining single-family home subdivision. In addition, page IV-27 includes a statement that "entry courtyards and plaza spaces are encouraged." Also, Figure IV-18 on page IV-19 depicts a public plaza at the southeast comer of the Wolf Valley Road/Interior Loop Road intersection. Figure IV-17 on page IV-18 depicts two commercial gathering plazas. The two school sites will also function as gathering places for social interaction and community activities, as will the private recreation center and the public neighborhood parks. B. The Project is not compatible with surrounding land uses because of the deficiencies identified in Section A above. The projec~ does not propose, generally, residential development adjacent to existing, surrounding neighborhoods with interface buffers and to substantial to complete roadway improvements. The commercial component does attempt to implement the Village Center concept at a site located across from the Pechanga Casino. Pro.]ect Consistency: Adjacent land uses east of the project in Redhawk and Vail Ranch consist of single family residential uses (5,000 minimum lot size), parks and schools. The City's General Plan Land Use Map shows these uses to be Low Medium residential and Public/Institutional Facilities. The same exact uses are shown on the City's General Plan for the Wolf Creek site. The Wolf Creek Specific Plan implements the LOw Medium (3 - 6 du/ac) residential and Public/Institutional Facilities uses shown on the City's General Plan by providing a middle school, an expansion of Kent Hintergardt Park and single family residential housing of varying densities but with a minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet. West of the project across Pala Road, the City's General Plan shows Low Medium residential uses north of Wolf Valley Road. The minimum lot sizes in this area range from 4,500 to 7,200 square feet as depicted in the Assessor's Records. The City, in approving its General Plan determined that LOw Medium and High Residential and Neighborhood Commercial uses on the Wolf Creek site would be compatible with the existing residential areas west of Pala Road and north of Wolf Valley Road. The Wolf Creek Specific Plan as currently designed provides for minimum 5,000 and 7,200 square foot single family residential uses in the areas designated for Low Medium uses and reduces the density in the area shown for High Density residential uses to fit the Medium density residential category of the General Plan. The project will implement the Neighborhood Commercial uses Shown in the General Plan at the comer of Pala and Wolf Valley Road. The Wolf Creek project will further enhance compatibility for uses west of Pala Road by providing Open Space/Recreation use as defined by the General Plan in the form of the Drainage Greenbelt buffer that will be implemented along the Pala Road frontage. Page 11 South of Wolf Valley Road and west of Pala, the General Plan depicts a Not a Part (the Pechanga Casino and associated uses) and Low Residential. The General Plan identifies Community Commercial, High and Low Medium Residential and Public/Institutional uses for the Wolf Creek Specific Plan and determined that those uses would be compatible with the General Plan designations west of Pala Road. The Wolf Creek Specific Plan implements the Community Commercial, Low Medium Residential and Public Institutional uses by providing Village Center Community Commercial uses, single family homes at 5,000 and 5,500 square foot minimums and the City Sports Park. Wolf Creek Specific Plan reduces the density of the area shown for High Residential uses to Medium Residential uses in order to meet the goals of the City's Growth Management Action Plan. The Drainage Greenbelt buffer will be implemented along the Pala Road frontage to further buffer these adjacent uses. The north and south portions of Wolf Creek are consistent with the General Plan land use designations for those portions of the property and will therefore be consistent with adjacent uses to the south and north respectively. C. The proposed project will have adverse effect on the community because of the areas of inconsistency with the General Plan identified in Section A above. The General Plan Amendment is in a relocation and reallocation of existing land use designation that conforms to the design of the specific plan. In light of the identified need to augment the Specific Plan, no General Plan Amendment should occur unless and until Specific Plan No. 12 is revised consistent with these recommendations. Proiect Consistency: The Wolf Creek Specific Plan has been modified and augmented by the applicant to respond to Planning Commission consistency concerns as outlined in the analysis above. Page 12