HomeMy WebLinkAbout071701 CC/PC Jnt. Workshop 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
JOINT CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION
AN ADJOURNED REGULAR WORKSHOP
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
43200 BUSINESS PARK DRIVE
JULY t7, 200t - 7:00 P.M.
At approximately 9:45 P.M., the City Council will determine which of the remaining agenda items
can be considered and acted upon prior to 10:00 P.M. and may continue all other items on which
additional time is required until a future meeting. All meetings are scheduled to end at 11:00 P.M.
CALL TO ORDER:
Mayor Jeff Comerchero
Invocation:
Councilman Naggar
ROLLCALL:
Councilmembers Naggar, Pratt, Roberts, Stone, Comerchero
Planning Commissioners Chiniaeff, Mathewson, OIhasso, Telesio,
Guerriero
PUBLIC COMMENTS
A total of 30 minutes is provided so members of the public may address the Council on
items that appear within the Consent Calendar or ones that are not listed on the agenda.
Speakers are limited to two (2) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Council on
an item which is listed on the Consent Calendar or a matter not listed on the agenda, a
pink "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the City Clerk.
When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name for the record.
For all Public Hearing or Council Business matters on the agenda, a "Request to
Speak" form must be filed with the City Clerk prior to the Council addressing that item.
There is a five-minute (5) time limit for individual speakers.
CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION REPORTS
Reports by the members of the City Council/Planning Commission on matters not on the
agenda will be made at this time. A total, not to exceed, ten (10) minutes will be devoted
to these reports.
R:~Agenda\071701
1
COUNCIL/COMMISSION BUSINESS
1 The Roripau.qh Ranch Specific Plan
RECOMMENDATION:
1.1 Consider the information provided by staff and provide direction to staff on the
proposed project.
ADJOURNMENT
City Council next regular meeting: Tuesday, July 24, 2000, 7:00 P.M., City Council Chambers,
43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California.
Planning Commission next regular meeting: Wednesday, July 18, 6:00 P.M., City Council
Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California.
R:~Agenda\071701
2
ITEM 1
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY
DIRECTOR OF FIN,~/;.I~_
CITY MANAGER
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
City Manager/City Council and Planning Commission
Gary Thornhill, Deputy City Manager
July 17, 2001
Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan
PREPARED BY: Saied Naaseh, Project Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the City Council and the Planning Commission consider the information
provided by staff and provide direction to staff on the proposed project.
BACKGROUND:
On September 12, 2000, the City Council directed staff to proceed with the processing for the
Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan and its annexation (Refer to Attachments 1 and 2 for the Staff
Report and Minutes). This direction was based on the Ad hoc Committee's findings that the
fiscal impacts to the City's budget from annexing this project would be negligible; and the
formation of an assessment district for construction of Butterfield Stage Road, Murrieta Hot
Springs Road, and Nicolas Road would be feasible and would benefit the City. On January 16,
2001 the City Council and the Planning Commission reviewed the proposed Roripaugh Specific
Plan Land Use Map and provided direction to staff on a number of issues that will discussed in
this Staff Report. A copy of the January 16t~ Staff Report and Minutes are included as
Attachments 3 and 4.
On April 24, 2001, the City Council directed staff to process the Roripaugh Specific Plan and
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and bring it forward to the City Council on August 14, 2001.
Staff prepared a Project Schedule to ensure timely processing in order to meet the City
Council's mandated hearing dates. This schedule was prepared with a commitment from the
applicant that they would meet all deadlines in the schedule. Staff has provided routine Status
Reports to the City Council since May 14, 2001 for every City Council meeting (Refer to
Attachment 5 for copies of the Status Reports to the City Council). The applicant's consultants
have met some of the deadlines. However, in two critical cases the applicant has failed to
submit the documents in a timely manner. Specifically, the EIR was delayed a few weeks
because of the inadequacy of the Traffic Study and the need for an updated Traffic Study.
Furthermore, because of the complexity of the issues and the extensive rewriting, the EIR
needed nine screen checks instead of the usual 3 or 4 further delaying the process. These
delays in the finalizing the EIR took valuable time away from staff to initiate the Specific Plan
review. The Specific Plan had to be completely rewritten to make it consistent with the EIR and
provide adequate content and detail as required by Staff. The project schedule anticipated the
R:~S I:~Rodpaugh Ranch SF~new~pcocworkshop staff report 7-17-01,doc 1
Specific Plan to be completed for the Workshop to provide the City Council and the Planning
Commission adequate time to review it in time for the public hearings. Instead staff has yet to
see some parts of the Specific Plan such as the design guidelines for the first time. Staff
provided comments on the 1st screen check of the Specific Plan on June 22nd. One of the staff's
major comments was that the draft Specific Plan was missing the Design Guidelines and the
Development Standards. It should be noted that staff had requested the applicant to rewrite the
Design Guidelines over 6 months ago. The applicant was scheduled to resubmit the 2nd screen
check on June 26th. As of noon on July 12th, staff has not received the 2nd draft of the Specific
Plan.
These missed deadlines have significantly affected the ability of staff to complete its review of
the project and prepare it for the required public hearings. It is staff's opinion that, because of
the continuing delays with the Specific Plan, the August Ist (PC) and August 15t~ (CC) public
hearing date deadlines will be impossible to meet.
In addition, staff and the applicant have not come to an agreement on many of the major
Development Agreement issues since many issues surrounding the formation of the CFD have
not been resolved yet. The issues include the following: the three property owners in the
proposed CFD have not come to an agreement on their fair share burden of the CFD; staff has
not come to an agreement with the applicant on the extent of the improvements that can be
included in the CFD; and, the recent buffering issues raised by the surrounding residents may
have an impact on the number of units in the project and further complicating the CFD
negotiations. All these issues surrounding the number of units, the agreement between the
parties on the fair share of the improvements need to be resolved prior to the commencement of
the Development Agreement negotiations. Because of these very significant complications,
staff believes that the remaining project timelines can be met.
DISCUSSION
The Subcommittee has met several times on the project. In addition, a meeting was held with
the Subcommittee, staff, and the neighbors to the south and east of the project site on July 9th.
Their concerns mainly focused on buffering issues which will also be discussed later in this Staff
Report. The project consists of several components that will be discussed separately below.
The following sections of the report provide a brief description of each component, its status,
and issue that still need to be addressed.
Annexation
The project includes an annexation request for approximately 640 acres (approximately 180-
acre portion of the project is already located within the City). On June 26t~, the City Council
approved the Resolution of Intent to annex the 640-acre project area into the City. Staff filed the
LAFCO application on June 28t'. The expected LAFCO hearing is October 25th. If the City
Council approves the Specific Plan, the effective date of the annexation of the project area is
approximately November 9th. The Community Facilities District (CFD) funding is contingent
upon the effective date of the annexation.
General Plan Amendment
Amendments to the Land Use and Circulation elements of the City's General Plan will be
necessary to implement this project. A General Plan Amendment to the Land Use Element will
provide a consistent land use pattern with the proposed Specific Plan. A General Plan
Amendment to the Circulation Element will eliminate Calle Contento as a through General Plan
Road and will introduce new road cross sections consistent with the proposed Specific Plan.
R:\S P~Roripaugh Ranch SP~new~pcccworkshop staff report 7-17-01 ,doc 2
Specific Plan
The Specific Plan will provide the standards and guidelines for the development of 1721
residential units, a Village Core including 21.3 acres of neighborhood commercial, 300
apartments, 135 townhomes, a 5 acre religious institution site, and 12.4 acres of office uses
within Planing Areas 11, 12, 27, 28, and 29, 2 school sites, 2 park sites totaling approximately
23.6 acres, and approximately 255 acres of open space including natural open space, slopes,
and drainage areas on approximately 819 acres (refer to Attachment 6 for the Land Use Plan
included in the EIR).
Staff has had a very short time to review the Specific Plan since the EIR review took longer than
anticipated in the project schedule. Some sections of the Specific plan such as the Design
Guidelines and the Development Standards have yet to be submitted and therefore have not
been reviewed by staff. The following provides an analysis of the changes to the proposed
Specific Plan compared to the Specific Plan presented at the last Workshop in January. In
general, at the previous Workshop the Planning Commission and City Council indicated that the
proposed number of units, the density, and the lot sizes were acceptable. The City Council and
the Planning Commission expressed concerns regarding the buffering issues to the south of the
project.
Chanqes from the previous Workshop
Land Use Changes
The previous Land Use Plan provided for a 45 acre Village Center (refer to Attachment 7).
Consistent with the direction provided to staff at the Workshop, the village center concept has
been eliminated. This area is now called the Village Core and it includes 21.3 acres of
neighborhood commercial, 300 apartments, 135 townhomes, a 5 acre religious institution site,
and 12.4 acres of office uses within Planing Areas 11, 12, 27, 28, and 29. The additional 5
acres of neighborhood commemial area and the 5-acre religious institution site (Planning Area
29) have been added in response to the comments received at the Workshop. Planing Areas
28 and 29 have been added to the Specific Plan increasing the area from 804 acres to 819
acres. These areas were added to use the existing 160' of easements as a buffer to the Nicolas
Valley. Also consistent with the direction received from the Workshop, the 10-acre park in
Planning Area 27 was added to the 10-acre park cross the street on Butterfield Stage Road.
Planning Area 27 now includes 135 townhomes. The 20.6-acre park in Planning Area 24 will
include lighted sports fields which was consistent with the direction staff received at the
Workshop. The project also includes a 1.5-acre fire station site to serve the project and the
surrounding area.
Miscellaneous Changes
The following provides a list of additional changes recommended at the Workshop that have
been incorporated into the project:
o Medians have been added to the cross sections where feasible.
o The existing trails within Planning Area 10 will be utilized if approved by the Federal and
State resource agencies.
o A trail has been added along the north side of Long Valley Creek (Planning Area 26) to
provide off-street trails for the project.
R:\S P\Roripaugh Ranch SP~ew~pcccworkshop staff report 7-17-01 .doc 3
A Pedestrian Bridge has been added over the Long Valley Creek to provide access to the
school site and the park from the south side of the Long Valley Creek.
Calle Contento will include a gate that will be accessed only in emergencies by the Fire
Department.
The chain link fence will be replaced with a more aesthetically pleasing fence as approved
by the Federal and State agencies.
Signs will be included for the future uses of the different portions of the project site to inform
the public of the intended use of the vacant parcels within the project.
A trail will be constructed along the easterly property line to provide access to the Johnson
Ranch preserve area. This trail will be maintained by the HOA.
A landscaped slope will surround the Long Valley Channel on both sides (outside the
channel right of way). However, the sides of the channel will be rip-rap.
A $2.7 million grant has been secured from the County to improve the county portion of
Butterfleld Stage Road.
The EIR requires approval of a lighting plan for Planing Areas 15-18 to ensure safe
environment and if possible provide a lesser intensity of lighting. The Loop Road streetlights
will be standard cobra heads.
Issues
Buffering
East
The properties to the east of the site are open space or 2.5 acre lots. The project proposes
open space next to the open space consistent with the AD 161 HCP. In addition, staff has
required the applicant to provide a land use transition from the 2.5-acre lots adjacent to the
project site. As a result, 2.5-acre lots are proposed at the perimeter of the site, followed by a
series of 1 to Y2 acre lots and further transitioning into smaller lot sizes. Staff believes the
proposed land uses in this area are compatible with the surroundings.
South
The properties to the south of the 640 acres are minimum 5-acre lots. The proposed lot sizes
on the perimeter of the project are minimum 20,000 square foot lots. After the meeting with the
Subcommittee and the adjacent neighbors, the applicant is proposing minimum 1-acre lots
followed by a row of minimum 20,000 square foot lots. However, the Subcommittee's
recommendation is minimum 2.5-acre lots. Staff would like to obtain input from the City Council
and Planning Commission on this buffering issue.
West and south of Planning Area 27 (southwest corner of Butterfield Stage and Nicolas Roads)
The buffering to the west includes 120' of easements and an additional 20 feet of landscaping
and a wall for a total of 140 feet. The buffering to the south includes a minimum 150' buffer that
will be used as a flood control facility.
West of Planning Areas 28 and 29
The buffering includes 160 feet of easements and a 20-foot landscaping buffer with a wall for a
total of 180 feet. One of the issues regarding Planning Area 28 is whether these property
R:\S P~Ror[paugh Ranch SP~new~occcworkshop staff report 7-17-01.doc 4
owners will consent to be included in the Specific Plan. If these property owners do not join the
Specific Plan, additional buffering will be required on the west side of Planning Areas 11 and 12.
Landscaped Development Zones
For virtually all the other specific plans within the City, Landscaped Development Zones (LDZs)
are provided adjacent to major streets. Portions of Butterfield Stage Road and Murrieta Hot
Springs Road will provide 23' wide LDZs. However, Nicholas Road, the Loop Road, as well as
portions of Murrieta Hot Spring Road are only proposing a 4' to 6' parkway.
Local Street Sidewalks
Planning Staff is requiring the sidewalks on local residential streets to be separated from the
curb with a landscaped parkway. Since the maintenance of these sidewalks is approximately 3
times higher than those adjacent to the curb, staff is requiring the sidewalk and the parkway to
be maintained by the HOA. However, the applicant has objected to this requirement and is
requesting the sidewalks to be adjacent to the curb.
Public Transit
To mitigate the traffic impacts of the project, the EiR requires the project to include a Park-N-
Ride facility with 50 designated spaces within Planning Areas 11 or 29. The applicant prefers
this facility to be in PA 29; however, staff would prefer Planning Area 11. The applicant does
not currently own planning Area 29. The project is providing no other public transit components
other than bus stops which are required of all projects.
Tentative Maps
Two tentative maps have been filed. The "A" map is essentially a conveyance map, dividing the
property into large parcels. The "B" map includes the panhandle area and is proposing 452
residential lots and 6 open space lots. The minimum lot size is 5,000 square feet with average
lot sizes of 6088 square feet. The map also includes a 3-acre neighborhood park and a 12-acre
elementary school site. Staff has had limited time to review the proposed tentative maps and
has done so without the benefit of a complete Specific Plan.
Staff has met with the School District to discuss the circulation around the schools sites. As a
result, the School District has modified their conceptual plan to provide for better cimulation
around the school. Staff has concerns regarding lots fronting the school site; therefore, creating
a potential conflict with the school related traffic. However, while situation is not ideal, in staff's
opinion it is acceptable. In addition, staff has concerns about lots 108, 377, and 378 that front
the access streets that connect this project to Murrieta Hot Springs Road. A potential conflict
could arise with the residents on these lots backing up into the local street with the traffic turning
into these streets from Murrieta Hot Springs Road.
Staff is also concerned about the lack of private recreational facilities, such as tennis courts or a
community pool, that are not proposed within this tract. In addition, staff is concerned about the
lack of off-street paseos connecting the residential areas to the school site. The other concern
is a 40' wide strip of unimproved land that is between southerly boundary of Murrieta Hot
Springs Road and the project boundary. The developer does not own this area which is actually
outside the City Limits. This area will be left without landscaping if the developer does not
secure the rights for the property and install landscaping. Staff would like to include some
language in the Specific Plan and the Development Agreement to improve this area with
landscaping if the developer obtains the rights to the property for the existing owner.
R:\S P~Roripaugh Ranch SP~new~pcccworkshop staff report 7-17-01.doc 5
Environmental Impact Report
Initially, Staff obtained approval from the Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to circulate the
Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for a shortened 30-day public review period to
accommodate the mandated timelines for the project hearing dates. However, the City Council
at its June 26, 2001 meeting directed staff to increase the review period from 30 to 45 days to
provide the surrounding residents additional time to comment on the project. The DEIR was
distributed to the City Council and the Planning Commission when the DEIR was finalized for
public review.
EIR Significant impacts
The DEIR identifies some significant impacts that cannot be mitigated into insignificant levels by
mitigation measures. These significant impacts include:
· Loss of local agricultural land,
· Land use compatibility and consistency with the French Valley Airport Master Plan since
the Master Plan discourages park and school uses within the 2-miles planning limit of
the Master Plan,
· Impacting the 1-15 south bound ramps at Rancho California Road and Margarita Road at
Winchester Road and changing the LOS from E to F and D to F respectively in 2007,
· Exceeding both short and long term SCAQMD thresholds.
The City Council must adopt Statement of Overriding Considerations and Findings (SOC & F)
for all significant impacts in order to certify the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR). Staff
is preparing the SOC & F and will include them in the public hearing Staff Reports for Planing
Commission and City Council.
Main EIR Issues
Two of the main concerns for the City and the surrounding residents are the impacts of the
project on drainage and traffic. The DEIR has considered these issues and has provided
mitigation measures to address these issues. Existing drainage issues in the Nicolas Valley
have long been an issue with the property owners. Some of these properties are within the
existing flood plain; therefore, the project cannot greatly improve the existing drainage issues
associated with these properties. However, the DEIR mitigation measures require a reduction
in the ultimate off-site flow from the project by as much as five percent (5%). This is mainly
accomplished through the construction of detention basins on site. Furthermore, improvements
will be made down stream that further mitigate the impacts of the project to insignificant levels.
Another major concern is the City's existing and future traffic issues. The impacts of the project
are considered significant on the City's road system since associated traffic impacts of the
project will cause a worse than Level of Service D in two intersections in the year 2007. These
intersections include 1-15 southbound ramps at Rancho California Road which will change from
LOS E to LOS F. The second is the Margarita Road at Winchester intersection which will
change from D to F. Two other intersections including 1-15 south bound ramp at Winchester
Road and Yenz Road at Winchester Road and Rancho California Road will be functioning at
LOS F with or without the project in the year 2007. These impacts will occur despite all the
improvements that are required by the mitigation measures (refer to Attachment 8 for a
complete list of transportation mitigation measures for the project.
R:\S P~Roripaugh Ranch SP~new~pcccworkshop staff report 7-17-01 .doc 6
The project can only build 107 units prior to connecting Murrieta Hot Springs Road to Butterfield
Stage Road (BSR) and connecting BSR to the existing paved section of Nicolas Road. The
BSR to Rancho California Road connection will be provided prior to issuance of any building
permits within Planning Areas 12,13,14,15,19,20, 21,22, 23, 24, 27, and 31.
Alternatives
The EIR provides four alternatives for the proposed project: Expanded Open Space, Enhanced
Compatibility, Reduced Intensity, and Rural Intensity. The Planning Commission and the City
Council may choose one or more of these alternatives over the proposed project. These
alternatives have been included in Attachment 9. The project alternatives include project
options that could: enhance the buffering on the east and south sides of the project and/or
remove development on the central ridge of the 640-acre area.
Community Facilities District
The developer, along with two other major property owners, is proposing to form a Community
Facilities District (CFD) to pay for many of the infrastructure improvements necessary for this
project including Butterfield Stage Road, Murrieta Hot Springs Road, and Nicolas Road. The
proceeds from the CFD will be used to construct the infrastructure and payoff over $800,000 of
AD 161 debt. The future residents of the property will pay back the CFD bondholders over 20 to
30 years. The developer is currently proposing $40 million to be included in the CFD. However,
according to preliminary calculations, the entire property could support approximately $20
million to $24 million in bonding capacity. The developer will have to use other means to pay for
balance of the infrastructure improvements not funded by the CFD. The City's main objective is
to only include improvements that serve the entire City such as major road and flood control
improvements. Project serving items such as the Loop Road will not be part of the CFD.
State law limits the amount of assessments levied on real property. Therefore, the number of
units subject to assessment is critical to the generation of adequate funds to build the entire
necessary infrastructure. The buffering issues to the south of the project could reduce the
number of units and result in lower proceeds from the CFD. Previous City Council direction has
allowed the total number of units to be 1,700 units.
Development Agreement
A proposed Development Agreement will secure the entitlements of the project for 10 years and
provides the developer and the City with additional benefits. As a policy, the City has been
requiring that the applicant provide a $1,500 per residential unit Development Agreement fee.
This fee may be credited to the developer in exchange for infrastructure improvements or raw
land beyond the project's legal responsibility to mitigate the impacts of the project. One of the
major issues with the applicant is how this credit will be applied to this project. Staff is
proposing to use this fee to pay for 50% of the construction of the $2,400,000 fire station in
Planning Area 31. The applicant is dedicating this 1.5-acre parcel in exchange for 100% credit
towards the Fire Mitigation component of the DIF. In addition, staff is proposing to use another
$800,000 for a new fire engine for this station. The balance of the approximately $600,000 will
be credited to the developer for providing infrastructure improvements beyond the legal
responsibility of the project. The applicant would like to include the cost of the fire station in the
CFD and does not want to have to provide the City its development agreement fee.
R:\S P~Roripaugh Ranch SP~new~occcworkshop staff report 7-17-01.doc 7
A copy of staff's deal points,which are consistent with the Subcommittee's recommendations,
are included in Attachment 10. At this time, the applicant has not agreed to any of staff's deal
points. As a result, staff believes it is highly unlikely that it will be possible to conclude the
negotiation of the Development Agreement by the proposed hearing date.
SUMMARY
Many components of the project are still far from being finalized such as:
· The Specific Plan document.
· The Development Agreement Deal Points.
· The CFD formation.
· Receiving consent from the two property owners within Planning Area 28 to be included
in the Specific Plan.
Staff would like to receive direction from the City Council and Planning Commission on the
following:
· Acceptable buffering for the properties to the south and east of the 640-acre portion of
the project site.
· The acceptability of the lack of extended LDZs along Nicholas Road, the Loop Road,
and portions of Murrieta Hot Spring Road.
· Requiring the sidewalks on local residential streets to be separated from the curb with a
landscaped parkway with and HOA maintenance for both the sidewalk and the parkway.
· Additional specific public transit improvements.
· The need for private recreational facilities within the Panhandle and the need for paseos
and other pedestrian/bicycle connections.
FISCAL IMPACT
Not applicable.
Attachments
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
September 12, 2000 City Council Staff Report - Blue Page 9
September 12, 2000 City Council Minutes - Blue Page 10
January 16, 2000 City Council/Planning Commission Workshop
Staff Report -BluePage 11
January 16, 2001 City Council/Planning Commission Workshop
Minutes - BluePage 12
City Council Status Reports - Blue Page 13
Land Use Plan (EIR's) - Blue Page 14
Land Use Plan Presented at the January 16, 2001 Workshop - Blue Page 15
Transportation Mitigation Measures- Blue Page 16
Project Alternatives in the EIR - Blue Page 17
Proposed Deal Points for the Development Agreement- Blue Page 18
R:\S P\Rodpaugh Ranch SP~new~pcccworkshop staff report 7-17-01.doc 8
ATrACHMENT NO. 1
SEPTEMBER 12, 2000 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
R:\S P~Roripaugh Ranch SF~new~pcccworkshop staff report 7-17-01 .doc 9
, I
APPROVA~..~.,. ~ ]
CITY ATTORNEY ,~/"~./.~
DIRECTOR OF FINA'NClJE~I
CITY MANAGER
CiTY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
City Manager/City Council
Gary Thomhill, Deputy City Manager
September 12, 2000
Findings and Report from the Ad Hoc Subcommittee Formed to
Evaluate the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan and Annexation
Proposal
PREPARED BY: John De Gange, GIS Administrator
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council consider the recommendation
of the Ad hoc subcommittee and proceed with the processing of the Roripaugh Ranch Specific
Plan and its associated annexation based on the sub-committee's findings following their
evaluation of the assessment district feasibility study.
BACKGROUND: The Rodpaugh Ranch Specific Plan is comprised of 1,625 dwelling units
on approximately 788 acres that is a gross density of 2.08 dwelling units per acre. The land
uses proposed within the project include: 215 acres of standard single-family residential lots
(530 units) including 5,000 and 7,200 square foot minimum lots, 84 acres (222 units) of larger
lot single-family residential lots including 10,000 and 15,000 square foot minimum lots, 96 acres
of large lot single-family residential lots (118 units) including 20,000 square foot minimum lots,
and 17.5 acres (315 units) of multi-family residential uses. In addition, the project includes ten
acres of neighborhood commercial uses, two schools sites totaling 32 acres, three parks totaling
20 acres and 270 acres of open space. The applicant is proposing to annex 634 of the project's
788 acres into the City. Cuffently, a 154-ecre portion of the project is already located within the
C~ty.
DISCUSSION: Since the formation of the Ad hoc subcommittee by the City Council on
August 24, 1999, the committee has met on several occasions, the most recent being August
22, 2000. At this latest meeting, the results of the assessment district feasibility study
evaluating the feasibility of the formation of an assessment district for the construction of
improvements for the backbone read system associated with this project was reviewed and
discussed. These bac~,bone improvements include the extension of Butteifield Stage Road,
Murrieta Hot Spdngs Road and Nicolas Road. In addition, the fiscal impact analysis prepared
for the project was discussed. Based on the evaluation of these studies the subcommittee is
recommending that staff I~e instructed to proceed with processing the project on the following
basis:
R:~Plannlng Flles~Rodp~psta~s2 CC.do~
t
The project as it is currently being proposed is at approximately 2,0 dwelling units per
acre. Additionally, the plan proposes lower density residential along the project's
eastern and southern boundaries as a buffer and transition to the lower density lots to
the east and the wineries.
VV'~ the monies generated from the proposed assessment district, the project will be
conditioned to construct the required infrastructure improvements pdor to development
of the project.
The project proposes to preserve 270 acres of open space which will directly tie into the
Johnson Ranch preserve area and protect on-site habitat for the California Gnatcatcher
and the Quino Checkerspot Butterfly.
The commercial and high density component on the project could potentially be
integrated into the County's Oasis Transit Plan.
FISCAL IMPACT: The fiscal impacts associated with this project have been addressed in a
Fiscal Impact Analysis prepared by Stanley R. Hoffman Associates. This report indicates that
the annexation of the Roripaugh Ranch Spec~c Plan area will have neither a negative or a
positive fiscal impact on the City of Temecula.
R:~Plannlng Fil~Rer;~ _"~r 'tus2 CC.de~
2
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
SEPTEMBER 12, 2000 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
R:\S P~Roripaugh Ranch SP~new~occcworkshop staff report 7-17.-01.doc 10
Mr. Berger provided information regarding the factors to be addressed prior to the development
of an interim fee; relayed that as soon as the alternate agencies adopt the Implementation
Agreement, the City could begin charging a fee; and noted that .= that this process '
could be ready in a 60-day period of time.
presentation.
apervisor Buster, Ms. Berger, and Mr. Haley
Coun.
Management Polices.
~pervisor Buster for hi
16 Juvenile Loiterina Ordinance
RECOMMENDATION:
16.1 Introduce and read by title onh
ORD
AN ORDINANCE OF THE
TEMECULA ADDING CHAPTEI
MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING
2000-10
JNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TO THE TEMECULA
:ILE LOITERING AND
Police Chief Domenoe provided an ow
ordinance would provide Police Officers
students (and their parents),
during school hours;
was not serving as a deterrenl
and/or are found in
g
~ying that this
em to provide sanctions on
lic places within the City
the students to school
Referencing the ordinance, Ms
District Attorney's
go to school, noting
these individuals
public places when
ueded the ~rence requirements
or suspended. In response, from the
have been expelled still required to
schools, and alternate available for
,jective was to keep the youth off the and out of
be in school.
City A~orney Thor
and read by title only Ordinance No. 2000-10.
MOTION: ~pprove staffs recommendation. Mayor Pro Tem
Comerchero = vote reflected unanimous approval.
17 Findin.qs and Report fromth~/~d I,u,, C;~.c,;.mm!~__~ formed t~ :':.cl:;,;;c ;;,~ ~u, ;~au.qh ---'-
Ranch Specific Plan and Annexation Proposal
RECOMMENDATION:
17.1
Approve the recommendation of the Ad hoc Subcommittee and proceed with the
processing of the Rodpaugh Ranch Specific Plan and its associated annexation
based on the subcommittee's findings following their evaluation of the assessment
district feasibility study.
R:Wlinutes',091200
13
Deputy City Manager Thornhill relayed the process of determining whether this project (which
was primarily located in the County at this point in time) was viable, noting the concerns
regarding the density of the project, the infrastructure financing, and alternate issues; relayed
that the Subcommittee addressed these issues at the August 22, 2000 meeting, noting that the
results of the Assessment District Feasibility improvements for the backbone read system (i.e.,
the extension of Butterfield Stage Road, Murrieta Hot Springs Road, and Nicholas Road)
associated with this project were reviewed; advised that there were also concerns with respect
to the fiscal impacts associated with the project, noting the subsequent request that a Fiscal
Impact Analysis be performed, relaying that the results of that study revealed that this would be
a fairly neutral project in terms of the fiscal impacts; based on the fact that the City would have
control over the project, and the creation of an Assessment District to construct the
infrastructure, it was determined by the Subcommittee that it would be in the best interests of
the City to process the application and not allow it to go to the County due to the uncertainty
which would be created with respect to the density the project, relaying that at this point the
proposal was at a density level of approximately 2 units per acre across the entire property,
noting that there would be approximately 270 acres that would be permanently preserved; and
advised that the recommendation of the committee was to consider the recommendation of the
Ad hoc Subcommittee and to proceed with the processing of the project and the associated
annexation based on the Subcommittee's findings following their evaluation of the Assessment
District Feasibility Study.
For Mayor Stone, Director of Public Works Hughes relayed that the preliminary estimates for the
infrastructure necessary would be approximately $24 millio, n for drainage, street improvements
and some utilities; advised that it was not the intent to fund the entire amount via the financing
district, relaying that there would be guarantees in place that the alternate portions would be
provided by other means; provided additional information regarding the applicant's portion of
that figure as the Assessment District was formed which would be approximately $16-18 million;
confirmed that there would be a substantial amount of grading required for the road
improvements; and relayed that the word prior could be changed to reflect concurrent with
respect to the requirement to condition the project to construct the required infrastructure
improvements pdor to development of the project.
Mayor Pro Tern Comerchero provided an overview of the Subcommittee's process of
determining whether to move forward with the processing of this project; specified the cdteda
that was met with respect to densities, open space areas, infrastructure, and a feasible
Assessment District; and advised that the project fulfilled all of these elements.
In response to Councilman Naggar, Director of Public Works Hughes provided clarification with
respect to the timing of the roadway work with respect to development.
In response to Councilman Naggar's queries as to whether the Open Space area would be
useful, Deputy City Manager Thornhill relayed that it was useful in providing habitat and wildlife
connections; relayed that the alternate space would be part of the Quimby requirements and
part of the active components of the plan; and noted that it was likely that there would be some
limited access allowed in terms of horseback riding.
Clarifying the density proposal, Councilman Pratt additionally relayed that the residents would
be pleased with the Open Space area.
Mayor Stone commended the Subcommittee for their diligent efforts with respect to this project.
Deputy City Manager Thornhill commented, for the record, that he had received a call from the
applicant relaying his queries with respect to an alternative project, clarifying that this was not
R:~Minutes\091200
14
the issue before the Council tonight, relaying that any alternate plans would need to go back to
the Subcommittee for review.
Councilman Roberts relayed that he would be voting on the proposal at hand, with no changes.
Mr. John Mize, 32850 Vista Del Monte, noted his opposition to this development; relayed that in
his opinion the County should deal with this proposal; and noted concern regarding the
proposed densities in light of the surrounding development, relaying a desire for 2.5 acre lots.
Mr. W. Vazzana, 39605 Avenida Lynell, noted that he had been in contact with the developer;
relayed that the developer had addressed some of his concerns; and with respect to the impact
to Region 2 County Service Area, advised that density would be the primary concern.
In response to Mr. Mize, Mayor Pro Tern Comerchero noted that the proposed density was 2.06
units per acre; with respect to the desire for 2.5 acre lots, relayed that the General Plan's zoning
designated lhis property at a density of 3 units per acre.
Councilman Naggar relayed that he was pleased with the potential of having an additional
offram p.
For Councilman Naggar, the developer's representative relayed that much of the infrastructure
would be completed prior to the issuance of building permits.
MOTION: Mayor Pro Tem Comerchero moved to approve staff's recommendation. Councilman
Roberts seconded the motion and voice vote reflected unanimous approval.
18 Appointment of Ad Hoc Council Subcommittee to review future electrical needs for the City
of Temecula
(Placed on the agenda at the request of Mayor Pro Tem Comerchero. and
Councilman Naggar.)
RECOMMENDATION:
18.1 Appoint two members of the City Council to serve on an Ad Hoc Council
Subcommittee for the purpose of investigating future electrical needs and options
that may be available to the City of Temecula,
MOTION: Councilman Roberts moved to appoint Mayor Pro Tem Comerchero and Councilman
Naggar to an Ad HOC Committee to review future electrical needs. Mayor Stone seconded the
motion and voice vote reflected unanimous approval.
CITY MANAGER'S REPORT
City Manager Nelson relayed that Make A Difference Daywas scheduled for September 23to,
from 8:00 A.M. to 1:00 P.M. Assistant City Manager O'Grady noted that the focus would be to
clean up the creeks and other Open Space areas, relaying that interested individuals could call
City Hall for additional information.
R:~inutes',091200
15
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
JANUARY 16, 2000 CITY COUNCIl/PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP STAFF
REPORT
R:\S P~Ror[paugh Ranch SP~new~cccworkshop staff report 7-17-01 .doc 11
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY
DIRECTOR OFFINANCE
CITY MANAGER
CITY OFTEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
City Manager/City Council and Planning Commission
Gary Thornhill, Deputy City Manager
January 16, 2001
The Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan Joint City Council/Planning
Commission Workshop
PREPARED BY: Saied Naaseh, Project Planner IV
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the City Council and the Planning Commission consider the information
provided by staff and provide direction to staff.
BACKGROUND:
On September 12, 2000, the City Council directed staff to proceed with the processing for the
Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan and its annexation (refer to Attachments 1 and 2 for the Staff
Report and Minutes). This direction was based on the Ad hoc Committee's findings that the
fiscal impacts to the City's budget from annexing this project would be negligible, the formation
of the assessment district for construction of Butterfield Stage Road, Murrieta Hot Springs Road,
and Nicolas Road would be feasible and would benefit the City. In directing staff to proceed
with the processing of the project, the City Council observed the following:
The project as it is currently being proposed is at approximately 2.0 dwelling units per
acre. Additionally, the plan proposes lower density residential along the project's
eastern and southern boundaries as a buffer and transition to the lower density lots to
the east and the wineries.
With the monies generated from the proposed assessment district, the project will be
conditioned to construct the required infrastructure improvements prior to development
of the project.
The project proposes to preserve 201 acres of open space which will directly tie into the
Johnson Ranch preserve area and protect on-site habitat for the California Gnatcatcher
and the Quino Checkerspot Butterfly.
· The commercial and high-density component on the project could potentially be
integrated into the County's Oasis Transit Plan.
R:\S P\Roripaugh Ranch SP\new~pcccworkshop staff report 11601 final.doc 1
At the City Council's direction, staff has proceeded with processing the Specific Plan and all the
other associated applications for the project. This project consists of:
· An annexation request of 640 acres (154-acre panhandle portion of the project is already
located within the City);
· A General Plan Amendment to the Land Use Element to identify the location of specific
land uses on the General Plan Land Use Map;
A General Plan Amendment to the Circulation Element to eliminate the Calle Contento
as a General Plan Road and reduce the right-of-way width for Nicolas Road from 110' to
78';
A Specific Plan to provide the standards and guidelines for the development of 1700
units, a 45 acre Village Center, 2 school sites, 3 park sites totaling approximately 23
acres, and approximately 290 acres of open space including natural open space, slopes,
and drainage areas on 804 acres (refer to Attachment 3 for the Land Use Plan and
Attachment 4 for the Land Use Category Acreage);
· A tentative map subdividing the project site into 29 parcels;
· An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to address the environmental impacts of the
project which will be re-circulated for comments later this month; and
Formation of a Community Facilities District (CFD) to construct the necessary roads to
serve this project including Butterfield Stage Road, Murrieta Hot Springs Road, and
Nicolas Road.
DISCUSSION
History of the Area
Since it was first submitted in 1994, the project land use plan has gone through several
revisions and has evolved through the years. For example, one of the earlier land use plans
included 2053 dwelling units with a fragmented open space plan compared with 1,700 units and
201 acres of preserved open space habitat. Since its first submittal, staff had insisted on a
larger more coordinated open space dedication from this project and other projects in this
vicinity long before the US of Fish and Wildlife Service and California Fish and Game started on
the AD 161 Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP).
Similarly, when reviewing the Johnson Ranch Specific Plan, staff insisted on a permanent green
belt around the Johnson Ranch property. This 500-acre permanent open space provided critical
habitat linkages between the wildlife corridors in the region including those on the Roripaugh
Ranch project. Staff invited the US Fish & Wild Life Service and California Fish and Game to
the City to share our proposal for the green belt. The Service staff commended City staff in
being proactive in preserving these critical linkages. This open space/greenbelt system was
such a critical habitat linkage that a large portion of the Johnson property has now been
included in the AD 161 HCP. Through staffs initial efforts we now have a true open space
corridor and buffer at the perimeter of our City. This permanent open space is provided to our
residents at no cost to them or the City. These areas will be permanently preserved now
instead of collecting fees to purchase land in the future.
R:\S P\Rodpaugh Ranch SP~ew~cccworkshop staff report 11601 final.doc 2
General Plan Land Use Consistency
The General Plan Land Use Element states the following key objectives for this project:
"To develop a master planned residential community that provides a variety
of housing types suited to the terrain and shall not exceed an average of 3
dwelling units per acre; grading that is sensitive to the natural landforms;
and development that protects sensitive natural resources of the area"
The proposed project provides a wide range of housing:
· 460 5,000 square foot lots
· 343 6,000 square foot lots
· 83 7,200 square foot lots
· 85 10,000 square foot lots
· 65 15,000 square foot lots
· 115 20,000 square foot lots
· 2 5 acre lots (existing)
· 381 multi-family units
The project's density is 2.1 dwelling units per acre which includes a total of 290 acres of open
space. A total of 201 acres of open space is being dedicated to the County of Riverside as a
permanent open space habitat preserve. Therefore, staff finds the proposed project consistent
with the General Plan Land Use Element. However, staff is concerned regarding the extension
of the development in Planning Area 15. We believe the area could potentially be unsuitable for
development because of existing and future potential for erosion. Staff would like to receive
input from the City Council and the Planning Commission on the lot sizes, the mixture of lot
sizes, the overall density of the project, and extension of development in Planning Area 15.
Vision for the Proiect
This project was submitted in 1994 and has gone through many revisions. Staff requested the
applicant to totally rewrite the specific plan. One of the basic design elements missing from the
specific plan was the commitment to a cohesive design in terms of architecture, streetscape,
and landscaping. In other words, what will Roripaugh Ranch look like when it is built? Since
this project area is designated as a specific plan, the City has the opportunity to completely
control the future design of the project. The applicant will be providing an overview at the
workshop on their vision for the project. Staff would like to receive input from the City Council
and the Planning Commission on this issue.
Land Use Plan
The land use plan has been designed with several constraints in mind. First, the alignment of
Butterfleld Stage Road is fixed since Murrieta Hot Springs Road is already designed with a
potion of it currently under construction. Therefore, Butterfield Stage Road creates a physical
barrier between the Village Center (VC), parks, schools, and the residential areas. Second, the
approval of the Assessment District 161 HCP has created the permanent habitat areas shown
on the land use plan as open space. Third, Santa Gertrudis and Long Valley Creeks run
through the property and along with the detention basins provide the drainage system for the
area. A 10' x 12' storm drain box collects all the water collected in Santa Gertrudis Creek's
detention basin and takes it under Butterfield Stage Road and releases the water into the
Planning Area (PA) 27 park. In addition, MWD easement separates the residential areas within
the panhandle from the VC. The site topography has played a role in the design of the project.
The major ridgeline of the site runs on the northerly side of PAs 13,14, and 15. With these
R:\S P\Rodpaugh Ranch SP\new~pcccworkshop staff report 11601 final.doc 3
constraints in place, the following discussion focuses on the compatibility of this project with its
surroundings.
The land use plan has been designed to "fit" the established land uses in the project perimeter.
The following analysis looks at the relationship between the project's land uses and its
surroundings:
North
The property to the north of the panhandle is the Rancho Bella Vista Specific Plan. The
proposed 5,000 square foot lots within the panhandle are consistent with the suburban
development proposed by Rancho Bella Vista.
The property to the north of the 640-acre portion is open space which is compatible with the
proposed open space within the project. Staff believes the proposed land uses in this area are
compatible with the surroundings.
East
The properties to the east of the site are open space or 2.5 acre lots. The project proposes
open space next to the open space consistent with the AD 161 HCP. In addition, staff has
required the applicant to provide a land use transition from the 2.5-acre lots adjacent to the
project site. As a result, 2.5-acre lots are proposed at the perimeter of the site, followed by a
series of 1.5-acre lots, and further transitioning into 0.5-acre lots. Staff believes the proposed
land uses in this area are compatible with the surroundings.
South
The properties to the south of the 640 acres are 5-acre lots. The proposed lot sizes on the
perimeter of the project are 0.5-acre lots to the east and 15,000 square foot lots to the west.
These lots sizes do not seem to be compatible with the surrounding areas. It should be noted
that the properties outside the project site are significantly higher than the proposed lots within
the project. Staff would like to obtain input from the City Council and Planning Commission on
this buffering issue. The issue at stake here is to discourage further urbanization and
subdivision of existing parcels beyond this project.
The properties to the south of the panhandle are 2.5 acre and 5.0-acre parcels. A natural open
space slope buffers this area. The elevation of these parcels is considerably lower than the
project site. Staff believes the proposed land uses in this area are compatible with the
surroundings.
West
The properties to the west of the site are 5.0-acre lots. The Village Center, the Community
Park, and Butterfield Stage Road abut these properties. The Village Center will include an
access road which will provide access to these properties. Staff believes adequate buffering is
provided by the park and Butterrield Stage Road. However, staff would like to receive City
Council's and Planning Commission's input on the buffering with the Village Center.
The Villaqe Center
The Village Center is approximately 45 acres with 35 acres of usable space. The VC includes
approximately 15 acres of retail and office and 20 acres of multi-family residential resulting in
approximately 381 units. The VC could also include the proposed 1.5-acre site for the fire
station which will be jointly paid for by the developer and the County. Staff is recommending to
R:\S P\Rodpaugh Ranch SP~new~pcccworkshop staff report 11601 final.doc 4
include a 5-acre religious facility site in the VC. The only use for this site would be a religious
facility. According to the General Plan, other appropriate uses for the VC would be day care
centers, libraries, post offices, and police stations.
The City has the opportunity to expand on the guidelines proposed in the General Plan by using
our experience in reviewing projects with the VC concept. What specific guidelines should we
include in the Specific Plan to make this a successful VC? Attachment 5 includes the General
Plan guidelines on the VC concept. The following are some of the components of a VC:
,, Site Design including building and parking orientation, i.e. Main Street
· Building mass and signage
· Pedestrian connections within the VC and access from outside the VC
· Pedestrian plaza and focal points of the VC
· The manner in which the multi family units and the religious institution is built into the VC
· Integration of the activities of the community into the VC
· Intensification of land uses to support the VC and mass transit
· Appropriate land uses surrounding the VC and the manner in which they are designed
Staff would like to spend some time at the Workshop on the VC concepts and how it applies to
this project. As mentioned in the Constraints on the Site Section of the Staff Repod, Butterfield
Stage Road is a major barrier in the design of the VC. Butterfield Stage Road and the MWD
easement hinder pedestrian movement from the residential areas.
Circulation Improvements and Fundinq
One of most important benefits of this project is the construction of the roadway system
associated with this project (refer to Attachment 6 for the Road Improvements Exhibit). The
approval of this project and its associated CFD will cause the construction of:
· Nicolas Road from its terminus to Butterfield Stage Road
· Murrieta Hot Springs Road from its terminus which is now under construction to Buttedield
Stage Road
· Butterfield Stage Road from Rancho California Road to Murrieta Hot Springs Road
Currently, three major property owners are participating in the CFD with Roripaugh Ranch being
the largest contributor. Without the formation of this CFD the construction of these
improvements would be cost prohibitive for the City and the property owners.
SUMMARY
Staff would like to receive input from the City Council and Planning Commission on the
following:
· The VC concepts and how they apply to this project.
· Buffering the properties to the west of the VC from the VC.
· Buffering the properties to the south of the 640 acres.
· Vision of the project.
· Lot sizes, the mixture of lot sizes, the overall density of the project.
· Extension of development in Planning Area 15.
We would like to make this a "hands on workshop" without long presentations from staff or the
applicant.
R:\S P\Rodpaugh Ranch S P~new~pcccworkshop staff report 11601 final.doc 5
FISCAL IMPACT
The fiscal impacts associated with this project have been addressed in a Fiscal Impact Analysis
prepared by Stanley R. Hoffman Associates. This report indicates that the annexation of the
Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan area will have neither a negative nor a positive fiscal impact on
the City of Temecula.
Attachments
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
September 12, 2000 City Council Staff Report
September 12, 2000 City Council Minutes
Roripaugh Ranch Land Use Map
Land Use Category Acreage
General Plan Village Center Guidelines
Road Improvement Exhibit
Correspondence from Adjacent Property Owners
R:\S P\Roripaugh Ranch SP\new~pcccworkshop staff report 11601 final.doc 6
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
JANAURY 16, 2001 CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP MINUTES
R:\S P\Rodpaugh Ranch SP~new~pcccworkshop staff report 7-17-01,doc 12
MINUTES OF AN ADJOURNED REGULAR
JOINT CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP
JANUARY 16, 2001
CALL TO ORDER
The City Council and Planning Commission convened in an adjourned regular joint workshop at
7:00 P.M., on Tuesday, January 16, 2001, in the City Council Chambers of Temecula City Hall,
43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California.
ROLL CALL
Present: Councilmembers:
Planning Commissioners:
Absent: Councilmember:
Planning Commissioner:
ALLEGIANCE
Naggar, Pratt, Stone, Roberts
Chiniaeff, Mathewson, Telesio, Guerriero.
Comerchero
Webster
The audience was led in the Flag salute by Councilman Naggar.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
No comments.
CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION REPORTS
Councilman Stone advised that Mayor Pro Tern Roberts and he had participated in a
South County tour, sponsored by Lennar, to review architectural designs and
streetscapes, noting that the tour was educational, informative, and will assist in the
evaluation of this particular and future projects. Mr. Stone encouraged each
Councilmember and Commissioner to partake in such a tour.
COUNCIL/COMMISSION BUSINESS
1 The Roripau,qh Ranch Specific Plan
RECOMMENDATION:
1.1 Consider the information provided by staff and provide direction to staff.
Briefly reviewing the staff report (of record), Deputy City Manager Thornhill reviewed the
purpose of this workshop, noting that staff will present information to the City Council and
Planning Commission in an effort to obtain direction and input with regard to this project, noting
that the obtained information would then be incorporated into the Specific Plan and the design
of the project. At this time, Mr. Thornhill introduced Project Planner Naaseh, who proceeded
with a detailed overview of the project, clarifying the following:
R:\Minutes\011601
1
· That the applicant has worked with staff in an effort to revise the old Specific Plan in
order to achieve a higher quality development in the City;
· That previous City Council/Ad hoc Committee direction was to process the Specific
Plan based on the importance of the Butter[ield Stage Road connection from
Murrieta Hot Springs Road to Rancho California Road; that it was determined that
the fiscal impacts of this project would be minor;
· That this project was originally submitted in the 1990s and since has undergone
numerous Land Use Plan changes; that original Land Use Plan was submitted at
over 2,000 dwelling units; that the Plan has been driven by a number of constraints
on the site:
Open space area requirements as per AD 161;
Fixed alignment of Murrieta Hot Springs Road and Butter[ield Stage
Road, which will dictate how the land use patterns will be developed
on this particular site;
· Other constraints include the fixed location of Nicolas Road, which
dictates the location of the loop road; another fixed location is Calle
Chapos s is the Eong Valley Channel, and the open space areas;
· That the proposed density for this Specific Plan will be two dwelling units per acre
and that the General Plan permits up to three dwelling units per acre; that a total of
1,700 dwelling units are being proposed, including the 381 apartment units or multi-
family units;
· That the lot sizes will range between 5,000 square feet to 21/2 acres;
· That the area to the east (existing 21/2 acre lots) will be buffered by 1-acre, 10,000-
square foot and 6,000-square foot lots; that the area to the south (5-acre lots) will be
buffered with 20,000-square foot lot; that the elevation of the perimeter of the project
is significantly higher and, therefore, the proposed buffering would be viewed as
adequate. Mr. Naaseh requested City Council/Planning Commission input with
regard to the buffering issue;
· That the Village Center would be located next to the 21/2~acre lots; that after
reviewing the land use pattern and location, it was determined that the Village Center
should only be located at the major intersection at Butter[ield Stage Road and
Murrieta Hot Springs Road and the commercial core.
At this time, Public Works Director Hughes addressed major components of the road system,
which would be the backbone of this project, noting the following:
· That the projected $20 million, financed through the Communities Facilities District
(CFD), will fund the infrastructure improvements for this project - the primary
improvements would include Murrieta Hot Springs Road (full width as an arterial
roadway for the project's connection with Butterfield Stage Road); Butterfield Stage
Road from Murrieta Hot Springs Road down to the southerly project limits of
Roripaugh (full street improvements - 4-lane major collector); project boundaries of
the Roripaugh project to Rancho California Road to include the westerly half of
Butterfield Stage Road; easterly half of Butterfield Stage Road along that route would
remain in the County of Riverside and no available funding is foreseen in order to
complete the easterly half of this improvement; discussions with the County have
included the County's participation in City improvements, especially in the grading
costs of the east side;
· That the City is actively pursuing available grant funding to as well complete the east
side; that if the County Transportafion Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF) were
available, the easterly half would be a viable project to be funded by such source
funding;
R:~,finutes\011601
2
· That three east/west connections are being incfuded in the CFD from Buttedield
Stage Road into the existing roadway system - Nicolas Road, Calle Chapos, and La
Serena Way; that once these connections are completed as well as Murrieta Hot
Springs Road and the connection to Rancho California Road, it will provide a major
connection for the City in providing an alternate north/south route; that the projected
average daily trips, at buildout, is estimated at 35,000;
· That another major component of the CFD is the drainage channel - the
undercrossing.
Providing additional information as it relates to density, Project Planner Naaseh noted that
Low/Medium Density includes 240 acres at a total of 886 dwelling units and that Low Density
(more rural) includes a total of 155 acres at a total of 265 dwelling units.
Mr. Wes Hyland, representing the applicant, project consultant, advised that at the last Planning
Commission workshop, this project was proposed at 2,058 dwelling units. Mr. Hyland
proceeded with providing background information with regard AD 161, noting that the initial
fiscal analysis proposed to fund a portion of the school fees by a CFD and a portion of
improvements by the CFD; that after further discussions with the City, a desire was expressed
to have the CFD fund as much of the road improvements as possible; that the applicant has
agreed to this and has committed the necessary funds ($20 million) to construct the facilities
and, in addition, has agreed to pay off the AD 161 debt used to build portions of Winchester
Road and improvements of Winchester Road and Murrieta Hot Springs Road. In closing, Mr.
Hyland stated that the applicant has attempted to address issues raised by the City and has
provided the means to accomplish these issues.
By way of overheads, Mr. Kevin Evertt, representing the applicant, further described the
Roripaugh Specific Plan, commenting on the habitat hub and the various neighborhoods of the
Plan (Villas, Vineyards, Village Center, and habitat, which will include two 3.6 acre lots). Mr.
Everett advised that the residents of Nicolas Valley will not be able to see the Villas (property
located above the Nicolas Valley); that the Vineyard lots (east and south) are located higher
than the Nicolas Valley lots and that the closest home would be 10' to 15' above the existing
residences; that the Village Center (46.6 acres) will consist of a maximum of 15 acres of
commercial, a maximum of 381 apartment units, a fire station, a religious institution (5 acres),
along with other traditional uses of linkage. Further commenting on the project, Mr. Everett
noted the following:
School Sites have been approved by the School District - 20-acre middle school site
and 12-acre elementary school site; that the applicant has met the park requirements
by providing three park sites - 10.4 acre, 10.1 acre, and 3.0 acre parks;
Linkages include the following:
· Biketrail system
· Trail system (MWD easement) to link the Village Center and parks
· Pedestrian pathway system around loop road as well as 15' easement
for horse trail system
· East side of property will have a 15' easement for an equestrian riding
system to link with the UCR property and to Johnson Ranch and to
the outskirts of the habitat.
Mr. Evertt noted that the road system in the Villas area will be a loop road system - one which is
not growth inducing - and that no roads will enter into the surrounding perimeter.
R:\Minutes\011601
3
By way of diagrams, Mr. Pat Hersch, landscape architect, further elaborated on the three
proposed parks - a passive 10.1-acre park, an active 10.4 acre park, and a 3.0 neighborhood
park, commenting on location and correlation to the school and advising that the walkway
system through Murrieta Hot Springs Road through the Village Center will as well link the three
parks.
City Council Discussion
For Councilman Naggar, Deputy City Manager Thornhill advised that because of resident
concern with regard to growth inducing, Calle Contento will be eliminated from the Circulation
Element and that because of the number of trips carried through that area, staff had agreed with
the elimination. Mayor Pro Tern Roberts as well noted that Calle Contento has been a dirt road
which recently has been asphalt paved but not to City specifications; that the road runs through
the citrus/vineyard district; and that he would concur with eliminating Calle Contento from the
Circulation Element.
It was noted, for Councilman Naggar, that the proposed open space area has been designated
as habitat, which would be dedicated to the County and then maintained by a non-profit agency
for permanent habitat; and that the open space area will be fenced off; and that any issue
regarding the habitat area will have to be approved by the Fish and Game and Fish and Wildlife
Agencies. Councilman Naggar noted his support of providing some Iow-impact uses for the
open space area.
For Councilman Naggar, Project Planner Naaseh ~;dvised that the multi-family component (381
apartment units) is being proposed on the south side of the Village Center and that, at this point
in time, no other details have been presented.
In response to Councilman Naggar, Public Works Director Hughes advised that Murrieta Hot
Springs Road would ultimately be improved to a four-lane arterial road; further elaborated on the
Butterfield Stage Road improvements, advising that it is estimated that Butterfield Stage Road
will carry 34,000 trips per day which would be equivalent to Margarita Road, south of
Winchester Road; that if the County were not to proceed with its improvements, a two-lane
facility (which would accommodate 16,000 to 18,000 trips per day as long as restricted access
be maintained along that route), south of Roripaugh Ranch project would be sufficient; that the
34,000 trips per day is a forecasted figure for buildout which will not be reached for many years.
Further addressing Councilman Naggar's questions, Mr. Hughes advised that the completion of
Butterfield Stage Road and Murrieta Hot Springs Road projects would provide another alternate
route for the residents and, therefore, SR 79 South, Rancho California Road, Margarita Road,
and Winchester Road would actually experience a reduction in traffic trips. In the long-term
range, Mr. Hughes advised that it would be expected that Butterfield Stage Road would
continue north from Murrieta Hot Springs Road and eventually connect at SR 79 North (outside
of City limits), dependent on how that road will be established, it could function as an Eastern
Bypass and in that case, added trips would be expected on SR 79 North.
As this project proceeds, Councilman Naggar requested that a comprehensive trail diagram be
provided in order to determine how it would incorporate with the City's Trails Master Plan and
encouraged the applicant to meet with the City's Trails Master Plan consultant.
In response to Councilman Naggar's concern with regard to future school funding, Deputy City
Manager Thornhill and City Attorney Thorson advised that City's are limited in the imposition of
additional school impact mitigation measures and, therefore, the State had adopted a large
R:\Minutes\011601
4
bond issue to fund school construction. Mr. Thorson noted that a more detailed explanation of
alternative with regard to that issue would be provided at a later time.
Mr. Hyland reiterated that the applicant has been negotiating two school sites with the School
District, particularly the construction of the Elementary School.
Councilman Naggar requested that a timeline of this project be provided.
Councilman Pratt commented on the autoculture and the need for public transportation as well
as public education. For Mr. Pratt, Mr. Hyland advised that buildout of the project is estimated
at 5 to 7 years for most sections of the project with some being completed within the 7 to 9 year
range.
Commenting on the City's partnership with the Temecula Valley Unified School District in
maximizing the use of sports fields, Councilman Stone suggested that the proposed active park
be located adjacent to the school fields; questioned whether consideration had been given to
reversing the location of the park with the school in an effort to provide buffering for the
residents in Planning Area 22; questioned whether the sales tax revenue generated by the
proposed 15-acre commercial area could support City services for the estimated dwelling units
and whether the proposed 15 acres would be sufficient to accommodate the needs of the
residents; noted that the multi-family units would buffer the 7,200 square foot lots in Planning
Area 13 if some of the density in Planning Area 12 were reduced to create a larger commercial
core; expressed concern with locating two parks across the street from each other, viewing it as
poor utilization of open space; stated that he would prefer a passive park closer or adjacent to
the school in Planning Area 6 or somewhere within the Plan around Planning Area 21; and
suggested the utilization of paseos to link parks to the open space area.
For Councilman Stone, Deputy City Manager Thornhill noted that AD 161 will not be funding the
internal street; that the General Plan incorporated traffic studies of this project at a density of
three dwelling units per acre which would equate to a total of 2,400 dwelling units, noting that
the proposed dwelling units will be 20% less; and that all assumed improvements, as per the
General Plan, are being completed, noting that a minor change with the alignment of Murrieta
Hot Springs Road. Community Services Director Parker stated that the project meets the
Quimby requirements.
Project Planner Naaseh advised that Nicolas Road has been downgraded to a 78' right-of-way
and that Johnson Ranch (approximately 5,000 units) has been deleted.
For Councilman Stone, Project Planner Naaseh noted that a new traffic study is being
completed and that the proposed development will be phased as necessary to aid the traffic
study and the Development Agreement. Deputy City Manager Thomhill stated that similar
conditions, as those imposed on Wolf Creek, would be imposed on the proposed project,
specifically as it relates to permitting development based on Level of Service as to the pulling of
building permits and that AD 161 will have to be in place prior to pulling a building permit.
Planninfl Commission Discussion
For Councilman Naggar, Chairman Guerriero advised that a fire gate will be installed at Calle
Contento.
R:~¥1inutes\011601
5
For Mr. Guerriero, Public Works Director Hughes noted that the Circulation Element does not
reflect the installation of landscaped medians for the arterial roads. Mr. Guerriero relayed his
desire to have landscaped medians installed.
Project Planner Naaseh clarified that the applicant is in the process of completing a trails map
which would be intended to provide connections through sidewalks, trails, design of the
subdivision, adequate pedestrian access to all schools, parks, and open space areas.
Further addressing the project, Chairman Guerriero requested the option for senior housing;
commented on the need for an additional high school; expressed concern with splitting the two
larger parks, noting that Wolf Creek is providing a 40-acre park; and stated that the proposed
buffering of ~ acre parcels for lots 17 and 19 would be inadequate.
In response to Chairman Guerriero's suggestion, Deputy City Manager Thornhill suggested that
a senior housing component with increased density be considered at the Butten'ield Stage
Road/Nicolas Road intersection in exchange for reducing densities at the lower-end of the
project. Mr. Thornhill also noted that another Police Substation is not being proposed.
For Commissioner Mathewson, staff noted the following:
· That the project buildout would be at approximately 1,700 units and 5,100
individuals;
· That the CFD would adequately fund the major backbone infrastructure as planned
but that it would not include the east half of Butterfield Stage Road which is located
in the County;
· That the proposed open space drainage (east of Butterfield Stage Road) will not be a
grass channel;
· That a 5-acre religious institution in the Village Center will be a permitted use,
commenting on built-in time limits.
In response to Commissioner Chiniaeff, Public Works Director Hughes advised that the
Circulation Element reflects Butterfield Stage Road as a restricted access corridor. Mr. Hyland,
representing the applicant, noted that the grading of the roads would have to be completed in
conjunction with the land adjacent to it, advising that the dirt for the roads, particularly Butterfleld
Stage Road, will come from the adjacent land. It was noted that the first phase of the
panhandle would include Murrieta Hot Springs Road, Butterfield Stage Road to Nicolas, and
Nicolas.
Project Planner Naaseh, for Commissioner Chiniaeff, advised that staff would further explore
the County's Land Use Plan and would provide information at a later date.
With sufficient elevation change, Commissioner Chiniaeff stated that the proposed buffering of
~ acre lots to the existing 21/2-acre to 5-acre lots would be sufficient. For Mr. Chiniaeff, it was
noted that the originally Johnson Ranch was to function as the Village Center.
For Commissioner Telesio, Project Planner Naaseh advised that Planning Areas 8, 9, 10, and
11 have been designated as permanent habitat areas; that currently no other uses are permitted
for these Areas; and that any changes from the current use would have to be approved by the
Fish and Game and Fish and Wildlife Agencies.
Public Works Director Hughes informed Commissioner Telesio that approximately 90% of the
necessary easements for both east and west halves of Butterrield Stage Road have already
R:\Minutes\011601
6
been obtained and that some slope encroachments along with some right-of-ways still need to
be acquired.
Public Comments
Mr. Bob Larson, 39673 Granja Court (resident to the east of the project), representing the
Neighborhood Watch Group, advised that the Group has neither taken a position in support or
opposition of this project; advised that over the past years, the Group has met several times
with the project representatives; stated that the project representatives have been
accommodating, informative, and responsive; and commended the applicant on his efforts to
reduce the originally proposed density. With regard to the project, Mr. Larson relayed the
following desires of the residents:
· No through street to Calle Contento
· Uniform bordering on the east end versus a chainlink fencing
· No street lights in bordering areas - transition street lights into the higher-density
areas
· Increased buffer for the south end
Commending the developer on the planning of the equestrian trails, Mr. Kenneth Ray, P.O. Box
891333, Temecula (property owner of a 5-acre parcel at the far southwest corner, adjacent to
the panhandle), informed the Council/Commission that he does not oppose the project and
stated that diligent planning efforts have been put forth with regard to it. Mr. Ray requested
grading and layout modifications to avoid severe erosion problems on his parcel and to the two
21/2-acre parcels to the east of him. In closing, Mr. Ray expressed concern with regard to
school funding and requested that no street lights be installed on the panhandle.
Mr. Bill Vazzana, 39605 Avenida Lynell (located on the easterly side of the proposed project),
requested that 21~2-acre parcels be placed along the southerly and easterly border and relayed
his opposition to extending Calle Contento.
Mr. Ed Picozzi, 31480 Nicolas Road, questioned the Council/Commission as to what
considerations have been given to the existing residents on Nicolas Road as it relates to their
change in lifestyles as a result of this project.
Although Dr. John Mize was not present, City Clerk Jones informed the Council/Commission of
a video Dr. Mize had presented to staff in hopes that it would be shown this evening.
At 8:47 P.M., Mayor Pro Tem Roberts called a recess and reconvened the meeting at 9:00 P.M.
Council Discussion
In response to Councilman Stone, Deputy City Manager Thornhill commented on the difficulty
with reversing the location of the park and school, commenting on staff's efforts to work with the
Temecula Valley Unified School District to achieve better school access, noting that placing the
school site along the highway would restrict the ability to provide more than one or two access
points and that placing the school site at a more internal location would create better and more
access points. Mr. Thomhill as well commented on staff's desire to provide internal linkages
such as a pedestrian bridge across Planning Area 24 from the lower Planning Areas.
R:\Minutes\011601
7
Respecting the School District's decision as to location of the school, Councilman Stone
requested that the athletic fields be located to the west side in order for the City and the District
to work out a partnership with lighting.
With regard to the proposed project, Councilman Stone noted the following:
· Would not favor the chainlink fencing along the open space corridor
· Desirous of quality streetscape as well as paseos to line open space areas to public
parks
· Commercial area in Planning Area 12 to be expanded from 15 acres to a minimum of
20 acres
· Could support Planning Area 27 to a multi-family senior living facility
· Park in Planning Area 27 to be adjacent to the school site and connected to Murrieta
Hot Springs Road and adjacent to the school fields in Planning Area 6 if possible
· 20,000 square foot lots completely extended around the perimeter from the east to
the south and transition 20,000 to 10,000 square foot lots without minimizing the
density
· Development to be phased with finished infrastructure
· Overlays on the Specific Plan indicating what would be impacted along the periphery
of this Plan
· Supports light transitioning from denser residential to the more rural areas
· Supports a fire wall at Calle Contento
· Incorporate traffic calming architectural standards
· Construct homes with front accessibility and garages in the rear
In response to Councilman Stone, Public Works Director Hughes advised that AD 161 would be
paying for the infrastructure improvements to Nicolas Road but that those improvements would
not include full street improvements such as curbs, cutters, etc; and that Nicolas Road was
intended to be a 110' right-of-way but that it is being proposed to lower it in classification to a 78'
right-of-way.
For Councilman Pratt, Mr. Pat Hersch further described the location of the open space areas as
well as the view fence. Mr. Pratt relayed his opposition to the chainlink fencing and requested
the developer to participate in public transportation efforts.
Mayor Pro Tern Roberts relayed his support of pedestrian linkages from Planning Areas 19 and
20 to the school site and requested that such linkages should be discussed and possibly
included in the trail system; noted that in order for the equestrian trails to be functional, they
must be properly designed; requested a Homeowners Association horse arena and facilities;
and expressed support for not extending Calle Contento.
Relaying his support of transitioning the street lighting, Councilman Naggar concurred with
minimizing street lighting for the larger parcels as well as the smaller parcels in an effort to
retain the rural atmosphere. Mr. Naggar encouraged staff and the developer to address the
multi-family component in the early stages of the project and requested that staff discuss with
the appropriate agencies the possibility of a passive use for the open space areas.
Commission Discussion
In an effort to better accommodate the children and to achieve better accessibility,
Commissioner Telesio suggested that the school sites as well as the park sites be located more
internally of the project, removing those sites from the main streets; encouraged the use of
R:~Vlinutes\011601
8
parkways to narrow streets to create traffic calming as well as enhancement to the
neighborhoods; and relayed his support of a multi-family component with senior facilities in
order to address that need in this community.
Providing input with regard to the proposed project, Commissioner Chiniaeff stated the
following:
· Placement of future land use signs in an effort to avoid problems with individuals not
knowing what will be constructed on future sites such as multi-family housing, etc.
· Designation of Village Center should be removed and should be redesignated as
Neighborhood Commercial
· Supported either 15,000 or 20,000 square foot lots as buffering for the east and
south sides
Because of the substantial amount of elevation change, Commissioner Chiniaeff noted that he
would not view Planning Area 15 as a high-density area.
With regard to this project, Commissioner Mathewson stated that if the dwelling units in
Planning Areas 17 and 18 were reduced in an effort to obtain larger lots in placement for a
second multi-family component in Planning Area 13, the following concerns would be raised:
· Land use transition to the adjacent 7,200 square foot lots to the east
· Increased number of dwelling units by 15% of overall project
Mr. Matthewson echoed concerns as to the size (smallness) of the Village Center; relayed
concerns with future school funding such as at the time of buildout; desirous of additional active
ball fields; recommended that street lighting be addressed in the lower-density parcels;
encouraged pedestrian linkages (paseos, parkways, smaller streets) throughout residential
neighborhoods for traffic calming effects; and expressed concern with the County not
completing the eastern portion of Butterfield Stage Road and its impacts on Rancho California
Road.
In closing, Chairman Guerriero made the following comments with regard to the proposed
project:
· Would favor a senior housing element in Planning Area 13
· Increase the commercial area from 15 acres to 20 to 25 acres
· Concerned about the lack of usable open space - no regional park in the area
· Encouraged the School District to explore property for a future high school site
· Landscaped medians on Butterfield Stage Road
· Address street lighting
· Would favor Overlays for the area off Nicolas Road
· Would favor pedestrian linkage connection to the school site from Planning Area 19
In response to Chairman Guerriero, Deputy City Manager Thornhill noted that staff would
address Mr. Ray's drainage concerns to ensure the grading plan satisfies his concerns.
CITY MANAGER'S REPORT
Looking forward to proceeding with this project, City Manager Nelson expressed appreciation to
the City Council and the Planning Commission for the valuable comments and input.
R:'W1inutes\011601
9
ADJOURNMENT
At 9:34 P.M., Mayor Pro Tem Roberts formally adjourned the Joint City Council/Planning
Commission Workshop to the next City Council regular meeting on Tuesday, January 23~
200'1~ 7:00 P.M, and to the next Planning Commission regular meeting on Wednesday,
January 17, 200'1~ 6:00 P.M., City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula,
California.
Chairman
R:\Minutes\011601
10
ATrACHMENT NO. 5
CITY COUNCIL STATUS REPORTS
R:\S P\Roripaugh Ranch SP~new~occcworkshop staff report 7-17-01.doc 13
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY
DIR,OF FINANCE
CITY MANAGER
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City ManagedCity Council
Debbie Ubnoske, Director of Planning
May 22, 2001
Roripaugh Specific Plan - Project Update
PREPARED BY:
Saied Naaseh
RECOMMENDATION: Receive and File
BACKGROUND: On April 24th the City Council directed staff to process the Rodpaugh Specific
Plan and Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and bring it forward to the City Council for a public
hearing on August 15, 2001. To that end, staff has prepared a schedule (attached), met v~th the
applicant to discuss the schedule, and worked towards completing the items on the scheduled within
the agreed upon time frames. As part of the EIR review process, staff provided comments to the
applicant on May 7th. One of staff's main areas of concern was the inadequacy of the traffic study
that was submitted. An updated traffic study has been requested of the applicant and will be
submitted to staff on May 18th. Staff will then have the weekend to review the study and provide final
comments to the applicant on May 21st. The EIR consultant then needs to incorporate the
information from the Traffic Study into the EIR and allow staff to review the changes prior to
finalizing the EIR for distribution on May 23r~. The EIR must be distributed on May 23r" to adhere to
the agreed upon schedule. Should there continue to be problems with the traffic study or any other
part of the EIR, there is a chance the hearing date could slip.
Other than the Traffic Study, there are many other issues that need to be addressed in the EIR prior
to its distribution. Staff has provided comments to the applicant on a timely basis. However, the
applicant was late in submitting the EIR revisions to staff which were due on May 14th at 9:00 am.
Instead, the revisions were submitted to staff on May 15th at 9:30 am. Staff will revise the schedule
as necessary to allow us adequate time to review the revisions. As indicated, the schedule for this
project is very tight and any missed deadlines could lead into a delay in the agreed upon hearings
dates.
FISCAL IMPACT: N~A
ATFACHMENTS: Roripaugh Ranch Time Lines
R:\S P\Roripaugh Ranch SP\new\CC status Report May 22.doc
1
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY
DIR.OF FINANCE
CITY MANAGER
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Manager/City Council
Debbie Ubnoske, Director of Planning
June 12, 2001
Roripaugh Specific Plan - Status Report
PREPARED BY:
Saied Naaseh
RECOMMENDATION: Receive and File
DISCUSSION:
Staff and the applicant continue to work on various documents such as the EIR, Development
Agreement, Plan of Services, and the Fiscal Impact Report for the project in an attempt to schedule
the project for the August 1, 2001 Planning Commission hearing and the August 15, 2001 City
Council hearing. Prior to these hearings, staffwill schedule a Joint Planning Commission and City
Council Workshop for July 17th. Staff intends to present as complete of a package as possible for
this Workshop.
However, the EIR review process has taken a lot longer than expected because of the issues
surrounding the Traffic Study, changes to the project requested by the applicant, and the insufficient
time allocated in the schedule for staff to review the EIR and the EIR consultant to address staff's
concerns. Therefore, the EIR has required six or seven partial-text screen checks instead of the
usual three or four full-text screen checks.
The Traffic Study remains one of the focal points of staff's review. The Traffic Study was submitted
on May 20th as scheduled. It should be noted that the Traffic Study was originally scheduled to be
submitted on May 9th; however, substantive changes to the study requested by staff (to make the
Study more "realistic") delayed the submittal of the Traffic Study. Fortunately, the applicant's EIR
consultant was successful in obtaining a verbal 30-day shortened review process for the EIR instead
of the 45-day review from the State Office of Planning and Research (OPR). A written confirmation
from OPR is e~:~ected but OPR has not committed to a specifc date.
Since the Traffic Study was delayed, staff's review of the EIR's traffic section was delayed
accordingly. Some of the off-site mitigation measures were introduced in the EIR for the first time on
the May 29th draft of the Screen Check EIR. in reviewing these mitigation measures, staff had to
request the applicant's Traffic Engineer on June lS~ to re-examine some aspects of the Traffic Study.
R:\S P\Roripaugh Ranch SP\new\CC status Report June 12.doc
This requested information was submitted to staff on June 4th. Staff will be reviewing this
information by June 5~ and will be meeting with the applicant's EIR consultant on June 6t~ to provide
them with staff's comments.
Because of these difficulties, the Applicant's Consultant Team has missed resubmittal deadlines on
several occasions. These delays and problems have meant that time originally envisioned to work
on the Specific Plan and the Tentative Maps has been spent on the EIR instead. Staff continues to
compress the end portion of the schedule as the project timeline shifts back. However, in the next
few weeks there will be no more time to compress and still meet the hoped for Planning Commission
and City Council hearing dates.
Another issue which has just come to staffs attention is an inconsistency in the project phasing
between the EIR and Traffic Study. To correct this issue, stall has directed the EIR consultantto
revise the EIR phasing consistent with the Traffic Study phasing. This change may require
preparation of subsequent Traffic Studies if the applicant wishes to change the phasing of the
project such as accelerating the development of the apartments from Phase 2 to Phase 1. In
addition, the two tentative maps for the project were submitted on May 22"d and 29th. Staff has not
had a chance to review these maps yet. The applicant has asked that all these applications be
scheduled for the August 1st Planning Commission headng. In addition, the applicant has requested
staff to issue a mass grading permit immediately after the August 15th City Council, if the project is
approved.
Finally, Staff has met with the applicant a number of times on the Development Agreement.
However, one of the major issues which needs to be negotiated between staff and the applicant is
the extent of improvements that will be funded by the CFD. The applicant is over two weeks late in
providing the City with a list of improvements to be funded by the CFD. As the negotiating
progresses, staff will provide an update on the status of the Development Agreement. Staff will
continue to work with the applicant to comply with the City Council's direction to bring this project
forward to the August 15th City Council hearing and still meet the minimum legal requirements for an
EIR and Specific Plan.
FISCAL IMPACT: N/A
R:\S P\Roripaugh Ranch SP~new\CC status Report June 12.doc
2
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY
DIR.OF FINANCE
CITY MANAGER
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Manager/City Council
Debbie Ubnoske, Director of Planning
June 26, 2001
Roripaugh Specific Plan - Status Report
PREPARED BY:
Saied Naaseh, Project Planner
RECOMMENDATION: Provide direction to staffto on increasing the Draft Environmental Impact
Report (DEIR) public review period from 30 days to 45 days.
DISCUSSION:
Staff and the applicant continue to work on various documents such as the Specific Plan, the "A"
map, the tentative tract map for the "panhandle", Plan of Services, and the Fiscal Impact Report for
the project in an attempt to schedule the project for the August 1, 2001 Planning Commission
hearing and the August 15, 2001 City Council hearing. Prior to these hearings, staff will schedule a
Joint Planning Commission and City Council Workshop for July 17th. Staff intends to present as
complete of a package as possible for this Workshop.
The DEIR has been finalized with the 30-day public review period starting on June 12, 2001 and
ending on July 11, 2001. Furthermore, the fiscal Impact Report has been finalized. Staff has
provided comments on the Specific Plan and the Plan of Services and is waiting for the applicant to
re-submit them. Significant changes are required for the Specific Plan to make it consistent with the
DEIR and to provide for a level of detail and qualitythat staff expects. Therefore, it has taken the
applicant longer than originally anticipated for in the project schedule. The Specific Plan and the
Plan of Services were both due on June 18th at 9:00 AM. The applicant has indicated that they will
besubmittedsometimesintheafternoonofthe19th. Theapplicanthasalsoindicatedthattheyare
still working on the Specific Plan Design Guidelines Section and it will not be submitted on the 19th.
Staff had directed the applicant to rewrite the Design Guidelines Section over six months ago. Staff
is concerned about the delays in submittal of the Specific Plan since it reduces staff's ability to
adequately review it.
The Subcommittee met on June 12th and will be meeting again on June 26th. They have
recommended increasing the EIR review period from 30 to 45 days in order to give adequate time
for the surrounding residents to adequately access the impacts of this project. Staff had originally
requested a shortened EIR review process from 45 to 30 days from the State of California Office of
R:\S P\Roripaugh Ranch SP\new\CC status Report Sune 26.doc
1
Planning and Research (OPR) in order to meet the timelines for this project. Staff's request was
approved by OPR on June 12th (Attachment 1). If the City Council desires to increase the review
period from 30 to 45 days, the City Council needs to direct staff to make this request to OPR. This
direction needs to come prior to closing of the 30-day review period which is July 11th. If the City
requests it after this date, OPR may direct the City to re-circulated the EIR t~r 45 additional days.
Staff anticipates that OPR will grant the Ci~s request to increase the review period to 45 days.
However, this increase in the review period will eliminate staff's ability to meet previous City Council
direction to bring this project forward for action on August 14th. Therefore, staff requests the City
Council to provide direction on increasing the public review period from 30 days to 45 days.
FISCAL IMPACT: N/A
ATFACHMENTS:
1. Letter from OPR - Page 3
R:\S P~Roripaugh Ranch SP\new\CC status Report June 26.doc
2
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY
DIR.OF FINANCE
CITY MANAGER
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City ManagedCity Council
Debbie Ubnoske, Director of Planning
July 10, 2001
Roripaugh Specific Plan - Status Report
PREPARED BY:
Saied Naaseh, Project Planner
RECOMMENDATION: Receive and File
DISCUSSION:
Staff and the applicant continue to work on various documents such as the Specific Plan, the "A"
map, the tentative tract map for the "panhandle", the Mitigation Monitoring Program, Statement of
Overriding Considerations, and the Finding for the EIR in an attempt to schedule the project for the
August 1,2001 Planning Commission hearing and the August 15, 2001 City Council hearing. Prior
to these hearings, staff will schedule a Joint Planning Commission and City Council Workshop for
July 17th. Staff intends to present as complete ora package as possible for this Workshop.
The review period for the EIR has been extended to July 26th to comply with the City Council
th
direction. The LAFCO application for annexation was filed on June 28 . Staff has received a letter
from the Temecula Valley Citizens for responsible Government on July 2nd. In this letter, the author,
David Robinson, has requested an additional 45 days from the date his letter is received to review
the EIR and the Specific Plan. His concerns include inadequate buffering, City's "fast track" of a
large-scale project, lack of a mandatory solar heating requirement to address the "Energy Crisis",
LOS D issues and traffic gridlock, and Air Quality impacts of the project. The Subcommittee and
staff will be meeting with a group of concerned residents around the project site regarding the
project on July 5~. Staff will provide an oral report on the issues raised by the members of the
community.
The Specific Plan schedule is now over 11 days behind which causes great concem for keeping the
project schedule for the targeted public hearings and star's ability to adequately review it.
st th
Staff provided comments on the 1 screen check of the Specific Plan on June 26 . The applicant
nd
nd
was scheduled to resubmit the 2 screen check Specific Plan by July 2 . However, the applicant
th
then indicated that the Specific Plan would not be resubmitted until July 5 . It should be noted that
staff would be reviewing some portions of the Specific Plan, such as the Design Guidelines, for the
first time when the 2"d screen check is submitted.
R:\S P\Roripaugh Ranch SP\new\CC stares Report July 10.doc
I
FISCAL IMPACT: N/A
A'I-rACHMENTS:
'1. Letter from Temecula Valley Citizens for Responsible Government- Page 3
R:\S P\Roripaugh Ranch SP\new\CC status Report July 10.doc
2
ATTACHMENT NO. 6
LAND USE PLAN (EIR'S)
R:\S P~Roripaugh Ranch SP~new~occcworkshop staff repot[ 7-17-01 ,doc 14
~00000000
Proposed Land Use Plan
A'FI'ACHMENT NO. 7
LAND USE PLAN PRESENTED AT THE JANUARY 16, 2001 WORKSHOP
R:\S P\Roripaugh Ranch SP~new~pcccworkshop staff report 7-17-01 .doc 15
Proposed La.nd___U se_Pl__a.o
ATI'ACHMENT NO. 8
TRANSPORTATION MITIGATION MEASURES
R:\S P\Roripaugh Ranch SP~new~cccworkshop staff report 7-17-01 .doc 16
I
I
3.5 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
3.5.6 Mitigation Measures
The following measures are proposed to help prevent potential traffic-related impacts of the project from
becoming significant:
(l)
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the developer will cause the necessary onsite and offsite
roadway, intersection, signals, and other traffic-related improvements identified in the traffic report
to be constructed. The proposed improvements and their phasing are summarized as follows:
PHASE 1 (First 460 building permits in Planning Areas 1-8)
Before issuance of the 1 ~ building permit in Planning Areas 1 and 2, Murrieta Hot Springs Road will
be constructed to just east of Pourroy Road at the northern project boundary.
Prior to issuance of the 108t~ building permit in Planning Areas I and 2, or any building permits in
Planning Areas 3 and 4, the following improvements shall be completed:
Onsite
I. Butterfield Stage Road - Construct half-width improvements from Nicolas Road to Murrieta Hot
Springs Road and dedicate full width right-of-way from Murrieta Hot Springs Road to northern
project boundary. The developer shall 'also bond for grading within and near the dedicated full width
right-of-way.
2. Murrieta Hot Springs Road - Construct full-width improvements from east of Pourroy Road at the
northern project boundary to the MWD easement and half-width from the MWD easement to
Butteffield Stage Road.
3. Nicolas Road - Reserve I 1-foot right-of-way on both sides &the 88-foot right-of-way pending
General Plan Update, Modified Secondary Highway (11 O-foot right-of-way), and construct two 14-
foot lanes plus a I O-foot turn lane (38 feet) from Butteffield Stage Road to western project boundary.
4. Traffic signals and related intersection improvemen~sl as warranted, at the intersection of Murrieta
Hot Springs Road and Pourroy'Road.
Off site
1. Nicolas Road - Construct two 14-foot lanes plus a 10-foot turn lane (38 feet) improvements from
western project boundary to existing terminUS at Calle Girasol at its ultimate grade with an all-
weather surface connection.
2. Traffic signal and related intersection improvements, as warranted, at the intersection of Nicolas
Road and North General Keamey Road.
RORIPAUGH f~ANCH SPECIFIC PLAN
I REVISED D~'T EIR - JUNE 8, 2001 3-75
I
I
3.5 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
PHASE 2a (Planning Areas 12 - 15, 19 - 24, 27, and 31)
Prior to the issuande of building permits, the following improvements must be completed:
Onsite
1. Butterfield Stage Road - Construct fUll width improvements from Murrieta Hot Springs Road to
southern project boundary.
2. Murrieta Hot Springs Road - Construct fUll-width improvements from the MWD easement to
Butterfie]d Stage Road.
3. "C" Street North and South - Construct fUll width improvements with sidewalks on' both sides of
the street.
4. Traffic signals and related intersection improvements, as warranted, at the following intersections -
Butterfield Stage Road at Nicolas Road/"C" Street North, and Butterfield Stage Road at Calle
Chapos/"C" Street South.
Offsite
1. Calle Chapos - Construct half-width plus 8-foot lane improvements from But~erfield Stage Road
to existing terminus.
2. Butter'field Stage Road - Construct half-width plus 12-foot lane fi.om southern project boundary
to existing terminus north of Rancho Califomia Road (at ultimate grade).
3. Traffic signal and related intersection improvements, as warranted, at the intersection of La Serena
Way and Meadows Parkway.
PHASE 2b (Planning Areas lla, llb, 12, 16 - 18, 28 - 30)
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the following improvements must be completed:
Onsite
1. "A" Street - Construct fUll width improvements from Butterfield Stage Road to Murrieta Hot
Springs Road.
2. '~B" Street - Construct fUll width improvements from Nicolas Road to "A" Street.
3. Traffic signal and related intersection improvements, as warranted, at the intersection of Murrieta
Hot Springs Road at Butterfield Stage Road only if Butterfield Stage Road is constructed north of
Murrieta Hot Springs Road.
i RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN
REVISED DRAFT EIR - JUNE 8, 2001 3':76
I
I
3.5 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
(2)
Offsite
1. Butterfield Stage Road - Construct full-width improvement from southern project boundary to
existing terminus north of Rancho California Road (at ultimate grade).
2. Traffic signal and related intersection improvements, as warranted, at the intersection of La Serena
Way and Butterfield Stage Road. It should be noted that, as part of development plan approval,
additional signal contributions may be required.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the following intersection improvements shall be
constructed:
Phase 1 (prior to Is' building hermit in Planning Areas l-4)(approx. 2003)
1. 1-15 Freeway (southbound ramps) at Rancho California Road - southbound left turn lane
southbound free right-mm lane, and eastbound free right mm lane
1-215 Freeway (southbound ramps) at Murrieta Hot Springs Road - southbound left-mm lane,
southbound right-mm lane, eastbound through lane, eastbound right-mm lane, westbound
through lane, and westbound free right-mm lane
3. Ynez Road at Winchester Road - southbound right-mm overlap
4. Ynez Road at Rancho California Road - eastbound through lane
5. North General Kearny Road at Nicolas Road - traffic signal
6. Butterfield Stage Road at Rancho California Road - traffic signal
Phase 2 (prior to 1st buildine nermit in Planning Areas 8 -31)(approx. 2007)
10.
'I1.
I-15 Freeway (southbound ramps) at Winchester Road - southbound left-mm lane,
southbound right-mm lane, and eastbound right-mm lane, westbound through lane,
eastbound through lane, and eastbound free right-tum lane
1-15 Freeway (northbound ramps) at Winchester Road - northbound left-mm lane,
northbound flee right-mm lane, westbound through lane, and westbound free right-mm lane
I-15 Freeway (southbound ramps) at Rancho California Road - southbound left-mm lane,
southbound, eastbound, and westbound free right-mm lanes
I-I 5 Freeway (northbound ramps) at Rancho California Road - northbound left-mm
and right-mm lanes
Ynez Road at Winchester Road - southbound left-mm lane, southbound right-mm
overlap, and eastbound left-mm lane
RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECrFIC PLAN
m R EV1SED DRAFT EIR - JUNE 8, 2001
3-77
I
I
3.5 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
12. Ynez Road at Rancho California Road - westbound left-mm lane, westbound right-mm lane,
eastbound through lane, southbound through lane, southbound free right mm lane, eastbound
free right-mm lane, and eastbound through lane
13. Margarita Road at Winchester Road - eastbound left-mm lane, southbound right-
mm lane,westbound right-mm lane, and southbound right-mm overlap
14.
Margarita Road at Rancho California Road - northbound and southbound through
lanes, southbound right-mm lane, eastbound left-mm lane, eastbound right-mm
overlap, westbound left-mm lane, northbound right-mm lane, and westbound
right mm overlap
15. Margarita Road at Murrieta Hot Springs Road - northbound shared left-through lane,
eastbound through lane, and westbound through lane
16.
Winchester Road at Nicolas Road - northbound left-mm lane~ northbound right mm overlap,
westbound left-mm lane, northbound through lane, southbound left-mm lane,
southbound through lane, eastbound right-mm overlap, and westbound left-mm lane
17. Winchester Road at Murrieta Hot Springs Road - northbound through lane, southbound
through lane, and westbound through lane
18.
Butterfield Stage Road a~ Rancho California Road - northbound left-mm.lane, northbound
through lane, southbound left-mm lane, southbound through lane, eastbound left-mm
lane, eastbound through lane, westbound left-mm lane, and westbound through lane
19. Calle Contento at Rancho California Road - eastbound left-mm lane, eastbound through
lane, westbound left-mm lane, and westbound through lane
i RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN
REVISED DRAFT EIR - JUNE 8, 2001 3-78
I
I
3.5 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The developer shall provide'the following fair share contributions to these improvements:
Project Percent of New Traffic
Roadway (NS) Intersection (EW) AM PM
1-215 Freeway - SB Ramps Murrieta Hot Springs Road 4.2 5.0
I-215 Freeway - NB Ramps Murrieta Hot Springs Road 6.8 6.0
1-15 Freeway - SB Ramps Winchester Road 2.8 4.9
Rancho California Road 4.5 5.7
1-15 Freeway - NB Ramps Winchester Road 2.1 4.9
Rancho California Road 6.3 8.3
Ynez Road Winchester Road 3.9 4.6
Rancho California Road 5.0 4.9
Margarita Road Murrieta Hot Springs Road 10.5 10.8
Winchester Road 9.8 9.4
La Serena Way 5.4 5.8
Rancho California Road 4.5 5.3
Winchester Road Murrieta Hot Springs Road 11.1 8.2
Nicolas Road 8.8 10.2
N. General Kearny Road Nicolas Road 14.9 15.1
Meadows Parkway La Serena Way 26.5 18.4
Rancho California Road 24.9 20.3
Butterfield Stage Road Murrieta Hot Springs Road 19.8 20.0
Nicolas Road 32.6 28.2
Cal]e Chapos 24.4 20.6
I La Serena Way 18.3 16.1
Rancho California Road 18.9 16.4
Pourroy Road Murrieta Hot Springs Road 32.3 28.9
Calle Contento Rancho California Road 9.2 9.7
Soume: Table 6-1 fi-om Urban Crossroads 2001
EW = east-west NB = northbound NS -- north-south SB -- southbound
I
RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN
REVISED DRA~ EIR- JUNE 8, 2001 3-79
I ~.B~ u~. LLc FIGU RE 3.5-8
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TO A SECONDARY HI~"IWAY
NICOLAS RD. EAST OF
R~GHT-OF-WAY).
I
I
· /
R or~pa ugh'-~ Ranch
I
I
3.5 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
(3)
When the appropriate warrants are met, the developer will cause the installation of traffic signals at
the following intersections: (1) Project West Entrance at Murrieta Hot Springg Road; (2) Proje~:t East
Entrance at Murrieta Hot Springs Road; (3) Project Central Entrance at Murrieta Hot Springs Road;
(4) Poarroy Road at Murrieta Hot Springs Road; Buttertield Stage Road at (5) Murrieta Hot Springs
Road, (6) Nicolas Road, (7) Calle Chapos, and (8) La Serena Way; and (9) Meadows Parkway at La
Semna Way.
The following measures are designed to help prevent potential impacts of the project related to onsite
intersections from becoming significant:
(4)
During preparation of final grading, landscaping, and street improvement plans, the developer shall
submit plans for r6view and approval that demonstrate that the sight distance at each of the project
entrances meets City and Caltrans standards, to the satisfaction of the City Public Works Department.
The following measures are proposed to assure that the project is consistent with the City General Plan:
(5)
A~ the same time the Specific Plan is approved, the dev61oper will obtain approval for a General Plan
Amendment to the Cireu]ation Element for the following:
(a) the designation ofCalle Contento as a Principal Collector Road in the City's circulation plan is
recommended to be deleted;
(b) the designation of Nicolas Road as an Arterial Highway (110' right-of-way) in the City's
circulation plan should be downgraded to a Secondary Highway (88' right-of-way).
The following transportation system management/transportation demand management (TSMJTDM) measures
are proposed to help reduce project-related traffic impacts:
(6)
Prior to the issuance of building permits for Planning Areas lla, llb, 12, 27, 28, and 29, the
developer shall provide pedestrian and bicycle facilities in these areas, to the satisfaction of the City
Public Works Department.
(7)
Prior to fmal occupancy, the developer shall demonstrate contributions/compliance with established
employer and/or public subsidy of transit farebox requirements, to the satisfaction of the City Public
Works Department.
(8)
Prior to issuance of the first occupancy permit for the Village Core area (Planning Areas 11 a, 11 b,
t2, 27, 28, or 29), the developer shall install a Transit Node consisting of at least 50 designated
parking spaces and a bus shelter/waiting area with signage to promote use of transit options for
personal transportation..The design and construction of the node shall be to the satisfaction of the
City Public Works Department. The Node is proposed in Planning Area 29 but its location and
design are subject to negotiation between the developer, City, and RTA.
(9)
Prior to the fu'st occupancy permit, the developer of Planning Areas 11 a and 11 b shall provide a new,
or contribute a fare share towards the operation of an existing, shuttle bus services to and from the
Village Core area. The shuttle service shall be funded or provided on an ongoing basis for prOject
residents, but may be expanded to serve areas outside of the project on a fare share contribution basis.
RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN
I REVISED DP. AFT EIR- JUNE 8; 2001 3-81
I
I
3.5 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
(10) Prior to map recordation for Planning Areas l 1 a and I I b, the developer shall coordinate with local
transit hgency(s) to incorporate transit-related facilities and design features into the Village Core area,
to the satisfaction of the City Public Works Department.
(11 i Prior to fmaf occupancy, the developer(s) of Planning Areas 12 and 27 shall provide onsite laundry
facilities in high density development areas, to the satisfaction of the City Public Works Department.
3.5.7 Impact of Mitigation Measures
Construction of the recommended improvements may cause temporary traffic congestion or re-routing of
traffic. However, no significant impacts are expected from implementation of the recommended measures.
3.5.8 Summary of Impact after Mitigation
Even with implementation of the project as proposed, including the Specific Plan Circulation Element,
standard conditions, uniform codes, and mitigation measures, including recommended roadway and
intersection improvements, the project will produce significant traffic impacts in that the LOS at two
intersection, the 1-15 southbound ramps at Rancho California Road and the intersection of Margarita Road at
Winchester Road, will exceed City standards by 2007. A Statement of Overriding Consideration will therefore
be required to approve the project.
RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFtC PLAN
REVISED DRAFT EIR - dUNE 8, 2001 3-82
ATTACHMENT NO. 9
PROJECT ALTERNATIVES IN THE EIR
R:\S P\Roripaugh Ranch SP~new~pcccworkshop staff report 7-17-01 .doc 17
Alternative 1 - Expande~t,,.Open §pa__.c.e~l_a~n
~mmm~
~.m~mm
§°°%§§
Alternative 2 - Enhanced Compa.ti. bilit_._y._.Pl~a.,~n,
Alternative 3 - Reduced Int_e.nsity~Pl_a.n_
Alternative 4 - Rural De_,nsity_,PI..a.~,
ATTACHMENT NO. 10
PROPOSED DEAL POINTS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
R:\S P\Roripaugh Ranch SP~new~pcccworkshop staff report 7-17-01 .doc 18
City's
Roripaugh Ranch Project
Deal Points
Updated 7-12-01
a) Term of Agreement
i) 10 years
ii) To commence the earlier of the 1~t building permit or second anniversary of the
effective date
b) Timing for the formation of the CFI)
i) Prior to the recordation of the 1~ map
ii) Entire funding for the CFD shall be secured for the CFD prior to the issuance of the
1 ~ building permit
iii) Patties in the CFD
(1) Roripaugh
(2) Von Yoo
(3) Lennar property
c) Fees
i) DIF Fees and Credits
(1) Credits
(a) Street Improvements (100%)
(b) Traffic Signal (Partial to be determined by the City Engineer)
(e) Parks (100%)
(d) Fire (100% towards the dedication of thc 1.5 acre fire station site)
(e) Quimby (100%)
(2) Payments
(a) Library (100% payable, fee to be equal to the fee in effect at the time the
building permit is pulled)
Co) Corporate Facilities (100% payable, fee to be equal to the fee in effect at the
time the building permit is pulled)
(e) Traffic Signal (Partial to be determined bythe City Engineer)
(3) All fees are payable prior to issuance of building permits
ii) DA Fees and Credits
(1) F~s
(a) $1500/DU, DA Fee
Co) $200/DU, Open Space and Habitat Prcservation, and Public Art Fcc
(2) Credits
(a) Partial credit toward the DA fee for the construction of the $2,400,000 fire
station (credit mount $1,200,000) payable at the time the station is needed
{b) Partial credit towards the DA fee for the contribution of $800,000 for fire
equipment payable prior to the issuance of the first building permit
(c) Partial credit towards the DA fee for road improvements (credit amount
$600,000 if approved by the City Engineer)
(d) Partial credit towards the Open Space and Habitat Preservation, and Public
Art Fee for over 200 acres of on-site open space and significant contributions
for purchasing off-site open space (Johnson Ranch Prolx~ty)
(3) Payments
(a) Public Art Fee
(4) Unless otherwise noted, all fees are payable prior to issuance of building permits
iii) TUMF and TUMF Credits
(1) Subject to futare TUMF
(2) No double credits for improvements that received DIF/DA credits
iv) Definition of fair share analysis for applicable fees and credits for on-site and off-site
improvements
d) On-site and off-site improvements to BSR, MITS, and Nicolas
i) Consistent with EIR Mitigation measures
ii) 100% developer responsibility
Other Infrastructure Improvements
Fire Station
i) Land Dedication
(1) 1.5 net usable acres with clear title
(2) Time of dedication 180 days after the effective date of the DA
ii) DA Fee Credit towards construction and design (50% of the cost of the station,
$1,200,000 Due 18 months prior to issuance of the Ia building permit outside the 5
minute response time (outside Planning Areas 1 and 2) to ensure adequate time for
construction of the station)
e)
0
iii) Temporary station if thc developer chooses to build outside the $ minute response
time (outside Planning Areas 1 and 2), 100%of thc cost of thc facility and operating
costs to be paid by the developer
iv) Other required improvements
(1) Access
(2) Full Street Improvements
(3) Timing for these improvements
(a) 30 days prior to the operational date of the fire station
v) Responsible party for the cost of designing the fire station
(1) City
(2) Timing for initiating and finishing the design process
(a) 24 months prior to the developer's projected date of first building permit
issuance
vi) Responsible party for the construction of the fire station
(1) City
(2) Timing for initiating and finishing the construction
(a) Start 18 months prior to (developer's) projected date of issuance of first
building permit m PAs outside the current 5 minute response time
vii) Responsible party to equip and staff the fire station
O) City
(2) Timing for the operation of the fire station
(a) Upon completion of station, ready approximately at the time of actual
issuance of the 1~ permit m PAs
(b) Operational costs paid by the City which is already programmed into 5 year
projections
viii) Developer to grant the right of enUy for the City
g) Transit Component
h) Timing for the development of the apartments
i) If sold and if City has approved the apamnents, the developer will initiate the
development of the apartments prior to selling any detached single family residents
i) Parks
i) Timing for Development with clear tire
(1) 650~ building permit for the 20.9 acre Sports Park
(2) 100m building permit for the 3 acre Neighborhood Park
(3) If the development of the park is not possible for re~asons beyond the control of
the applicant, the developer has the right to requ~t the City Council to dolay the
compl~ion of thc park.
ii) Other requirements for all parks
(1) Access
(2) Street improvements
(3) Timing for these improvements
(a) 30 days prior to the operational date of the parks
j) Qnimby credits
k) No restrictions on the commercial tenants in PAs lla and b
1) Life oftbe tentative maps to be 10 years (Equal tot eh term oftbe Agreement)
m) l)eveloper to pay 100% school fees
n) No building permits shall be issued for six month if a Stage 3 power alert is issued.
o) Building permits shall be halted if any intersections impacted by the project reach
worse than LOS 1)
p) Trail construction along the ensterly boundary of the 640 acre and all related
improvements and HOA malntenun~e of the trail
q) Landscaping for the 40' strip between the Murrieta Hot Springs Road Right=of-
Way and the northerly boundary of the Panhandle.