Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout112801 PC Agendain compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the office of the City Clerk (909) 694-6444. Notification 48 hours pdor 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 AGENDA TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION AN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 43200 BUSINESS PARK DRIVE NOVEMBER 28, 200'1 - 6:00 P.M. Next in Order: Resolution: No. 2001-040 CALL TO ORDER: Flag Salute: Commissioner Telesio Roll Call: Guerriero, OIhasso, Telesio, Mathewson and Chairman Chiniaeff PUBLIC COMMENTS A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public may address the Commission on items that are listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Commission about an item not on the Agenda, a pink "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the Commission Secretary. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name for the record. For all othe~ agenda items a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the Commission Secretary prior to the Commission addressing that item. There is a three (3) mi, nu~e time li~it fo_r individual speakers. CONSENT CALENDAR NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC All matters listed under Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and all will be enacted by one roll call vote. There will be no discussion of these items unless Members of the Planning Commission request specific items be removed from the Consent Cale~lar for separate action. Agenda RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Approve the Agenda of November 28, 2001 R:~pla NCOMM~agendas~2001 \11-28-01 .doc 1 2 Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Approve the Minutes of October 17, 2001 2.2 Approve the Minutes of November 7, 2001 3 Director's Hearincl Case Update RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 Approve the Director's Hearing Case Update 4 Appointment of two Planninq Commissioners to the Rancho Community Church Sub- Committee COMMISSION BUSINESS PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS Any person may submit written comments to the Planning Commission before a public hearing or may appear and be heard in support of or in opposition to the approval of the project(s) at the time of hearing, if you challenge any of the projects in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing or in written correspondences delivered to the Commission Secretary at, or prior to, the public hearing. Planninq Application No. PA01-0109 (General Plan Amendment) Planninq Application No. PA01-0102 (Paloma de Sol Sol Specific Plan Amendment No. 8) and Plannincl Application No. PA01-0117 (Vestinq Tentative Tract No. 24188 Amendment No. 4). Matthew Harris, Associate Planner. The Proposal is as follows: Planning Application No. PA 01-0109 proposes to amend the General Plan Map to reflect the proposed Specific Plan amendments. Planning Application No. PA01-0102 proposes to amend Specific Plan No. SP-4 (Paloma del Sol), Planning Areas 5, 23, 24, 27, 28, 29, 38; and eliminating Planning Area 29B. Planning Application No. PA01-0117 proposes Amendment No. 4 of Vesting Tentative Tract No. 24188 to create 293 single-family residential lots, 1 recreation center lot, 1 park site lot and 16 open space lots located within Planning Areas 26, 27, 28 and 29. R:~plaNCOMM~agendas~2001 \11-28-01 .doc 2 RECOMMENDATION: 5.1 Adopt a Resolution Entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 2001 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL DO THE FOLLOWING: (1) CERTIFY ADDENDUM NO. 4 TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE PALOMA DEL SOL SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 8; (2) APPROVE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FOR THE PALOMA DEL SOL SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 8 (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 0t-0109); and APPROVE PALOMA DEL SOL SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 8 (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 01-0102) AND ADOPT AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE PALOMA DEL SOL SPECIFIC PLAN ZONING STANDARDS FOR PLANNING AREA 38 (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 01-0102; 5.2 Adopt a Resolution Entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 200t. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 01-01'17 - VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 24188 AMENDMENT NO. 4 FOR THE SUBDIVISION OF A PORTION OF THE PALOMA del SOL SPECIFIC PLAN LOCATED EAST OF MEADOWS PARKWAY, NORTH OF DE PORTOLA ROAD, WEST OF BUTTERFIELD · STAGE ROAD AND SOUTH OF PAUBA ROAD, AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR PARCEL NOS. 955-030-002, 955-030-003, 955- · .~ 030-004, 955-030-006, 955-030-032. COMMISSIONER'S REPORTS PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT ADJOURNMENT N~ext Regular Meeting: December 5, 2001, Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Ddve, Temecula, CA 92590 R:~laNCOMM~agendas~O01 ~11-28-01 .doc 3 ITEM #2 MINUTES FOR OCTOBER '17, 2001 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 17, 2001 CALLTO ORDER The City of Temecula Planning Commission convened in a regular meeting at 6:00 P.M., on Wednesday, October 17, 2001, in the City Council Chambers of Temecula City Hall, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. ALLEGIANCE The audience was led in the Flag salute by Commissioner Guerriero. ROLLCALL Present: Commissioners Guerriero, Mathewson, Olhasso, Telesio, and Chairman Chiniaeff. Absent: None. Also Present: Deputy City Manager Thornhill, Director of Planning Ubnoske, Assistant City Attorney Curley, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks, Development Services Administrator McCarthy, Deputy Fire Marshall McBride, Senior Planner Hogan, Associate Planner Thornsley, Project Planner Naaseh, and Minute Clerk Hansen. PUBLIC COMMENTS No comments. CONSENT CALENDAR Aqenda RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Approve the Agenda of October 17, 2001. 2 Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Approve the Minutes of August 22, 2001. MOTION' Commissioner Guerriero moved to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1-2. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Telesio and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. COMMISSION BUSINESS PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS Planninq Application No. PA01-0460 (Chanqe of Zone) to chanqe the zonin(~ on 14 properties located alone both sides of Rid(~e Park Drive from Liclht Industrial (LI) to Business Park (BP/- David Hoqan, Senior Planner RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 Adopt the Final Environmental Impact Report for the General Plan pursuant to Section 15162 of the California Environmental Quality Act; 3.3 Adopt a Resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2001-037 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP ALONG A PORTION OF BOTH SIDES OF RIDGE PARK DRIVE (PLANNING APPLICATION 01-0460)" Via overheads, Senior Planner Hogan provided an overview of the proposed zone changes (per agenda material), advising that in staff's opinion the area is more suitable for office-type uses due to its elevated position and the views from the site; noted a property owner's contact with staff, relaying the desire to construct a 35,000 square foot office building on the site which currently is not allowable in the Light Industrial Zone (i.e., the building would have to be a minimum of 50,000 square feet); and reiterated staff's opinion that this particular zone change was logical, specifying the proposed zoning for each area. For Commissioner Telesio, Senior Planner Hogan provided additional information regarding the area that could potentially be utilized for the Western Bypass; specified the area with the potential for the highest development on the western portion; and for Chairman Chiniaeff, noted that the exact alignment for the Western Bypass has not been determined. Mr. Bill Bachelor, 30270 Santiago Road, relayed his enthusiasm with the potential to construct a professional office building on a parcel that would be positively impacted by this zone change. MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved to close the public hearing; and to approve staff's recommendation. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Mathewson and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. 4 Roripau(~h Ranch Specific Plan Land Use Plan Workshop · The staff report is presented Staff presents the Land Use chan(~es By way of overheads, Project Planner Naaseh provided an overview of the meetings held with the applicant, the Subcommittee, and the community since the August 15, 2001 Planning Commission meeting; reviewed the revisions in the Land Use Plan, specifying that the elementary school site has been removed from the Panhandle area (due to the proximity to the airport) and has been replaced with a park and a private recreation facility, noting the increase in density by 25 units in this area; relayed the decrease in density in the West Butterfield Stage Road Neighborhood by 253 units, advising that Planning Area (PA) No. 27 would provide an improved buffer for the surrounding areas with one-acre lots followed by half-acre lots; with respect to the 640- acre area, relayed the increase in density by 481 units, noting that the elementary school site has been placed in this area, adjacent to the middle school site; specified that overall the project has increased in density from 1721 units to 1986; clarified that the attached units have been deleted from the Plan, noting that the product types will include the clustered courtyard design, small lot single-family with a minimum of 3,500 square feet, minimum 5,000 square foot lots in the Panhandle, and other larger lot projects; and relayed that there would be two private recreation facilities proposed (i.e., one four-acre facility, and one 2.5 acre facility). Staff presents the proposed trails plan Project Planner Naaseh presented staff's proposed trails Plan, noting that the applicant has not yet submitted a trail plan, specifying the Murrieta Hot Springs connector trail, the multi-purpose trails with a Butterfield Stage Road undercrossing, and the trail continuing along Butterfield Stage Road and connecting to the thirty-foot (30') easement. Staff presents the residents' concerns With respect to the residents' concerns, Project Planner Naaseh relayed that the majority of the issues have been addressed with the exception of the following: the need for additional buffering of the Panhandle (to the south) which was additionally recommended by the Subcommittee, the incorporation of mitigation measures to reduce the visibility from Nicolas Valley, *drainage issues, and *traffic impacts (*it was noted that these items will be addressed at a future point in time since the primary focus at this time was the Land Use Plan). Staff presents the Subcommittee's recommendations Specifying various Subcommittee recommendations, Project Planner Naaseh relayed that with respect to the Village Center, the recommendation was to keep the commercial area in PA No. 1 lA; and with respect to the increase in density, the Subcommittee was split regarding this matter. Continuing his presentation, Project Planner Naaseh relayed staff's desire to obtain the Planning Commission's direction with respect to the following: the Land Use Plan, the commercial site being moved to PA No. 13A, the buffering for the Panhandle, the densities, and the need for a public institutional site. Addressing the Planning Commission's questions, for Commissioner OIhasso, Project Planner Naaseh noted that the trail along Butter[ield Stage Road would include a compilation of a horse trail and a sidewalk, Development Services Administrator McCarthy specifying that a Class I trail is separated from the street, whereas a Class II trail is a striped bike lane that is part of the road. For Commissioner Mathewson, Project Planner Naaseh relayed that once the Land Use Plan is finalized, the additional impacts from the increase in density would be assessed; and for Chairman Chiniaeff, specified that the original EIR was conducted for 1721 dwelling units. · The applicant's presentation Noting the revisions in the plan, Mr. Kevin Everett, representing the applicant, highlighted the following modifications regarding the project: The added private recreation facility and public park located in PA Nos. 6A, and 6B. The new location for the elementary school. With respect to staffs proposed trails plan, noted the mixed response from the Nicolas Valley residents, as well as the builders, advising that if the Panhandle area was gated, the access to the trails could be controlled, limiting access to members of the HOA; presented trail concepts with view look-out areas, meandering trails, benches, and landscaping; noted that with the gated concept, the width of the road that fronts the lots could be reduced, and deeper lots could be created; For Chairman Chiniaeff, relayed that the applicant has conducted visibility studies for the Panhandle area, presenting the data which provided the project views from various locations, noting the fifty-foot (50') difference in elevation in various areas; for Commissioner Mathewson, specified the area where the lots have reversed slopes; Noted the desire of the applicant to relocate one of the park sites to PA No. 1 lB in order to enlarge the private recreation area, advising that it would be the applicant's desire to install a view ridge park; for Chairman Chiniaeff, advised that the applicant is working with Development Services Administrator McCarthy regarding the parks issue, confirming that all the parkland requirements will be met; Relayed the applicant's agreement to include two recreational facilities in the project plan, noting that the facility in the Panhandle has been designed, and the applicant consultant is in the process of designing the second one; noted that this particular consultant will additionally be designing the entries, noting that this architectural detail will be carried throughout the development; R:P[anCom~minutes/101701 4 Provided an overview of the types of dwelling units being proposed, specifying the planning areas which would be comprised of lots approximately 4,000 square feet in size; noted the enhance design elements, inclusive of architecture forward treatments, architecture on two sides, front porches, single-story units mixed with two-story units, frontyard HOA landscaping for all lots under 5,000 square feet, and open space lots. With respect to the proposed clustered courtyard housing with zero lot lines, relayed that these lots would range from 3,500.4,000 square feet, presenting photographs of a similar product to what the applicant was planning, noting the detailed architecture. With respect to design, relayed the agreement with the School District which would allow the project's architectural elements to be implemented at the school sites, noting the applicants desire to additionally implement these design elements at the Fire Station in order to create community cohesiveness; Relayed the potential to construct a me:la recreation facility similar to a San Diego facility in the La Mirage Development, relaying the 13,000 square foot recreation room, the ballroom facility, the weightlifting room, the various pools, the five to six saunas, and an outdoor cabana; noted the applicant's desire to locate this facility in PA No. 32, requesting the Planning Commission to consider allowing the applicant to consider permitting the density to be further increased by 72 lots to aid in funding the upfront costs for these facilities, noting that the HOA would fund the long-term maintenance; and for Chairman Chiniaeff, specified that the additional 72 units would bring the total density up to 2058. Addressing the questions of the Planning Commission, Mr. Everett relayed the following: For Chairman Chiniaeff, noted the applicant's desire for the commercial center to stay in PA No. 1 lA due to the easy access to this area; For Commissioner Mathewson, further specified the overall density increase from 1721 to 2058, noting the proposed park and recreational areas; relayed that the previously presented plan for the mega recreation center was not a definite part of the proposal, advising that the applicant is working with staff regarding this matter. Development Services Administrator McCarthy provided additional information regarding the park requirements, advising that staff had concerns regarding the park site location at PA No. 11 B, which was proposed by the applicant yesterday; For Commissioner Olhasso, advised that the proposed dwelling units have increased due to the detailed cost studies conducted, advising that in order for the project to include the elements staff was requesting (i.e., the CFD, the Fire Station and fire truck, and other facilities) the units constructed would need to be increased; With respect to the equestrian trail along the southern and eastern portions of the project, relayed that this trail could be accessed from the one-acre lots, on the County area, confirming that it would be publicly accessible; relayed that it would be the applicant's desire that the horse trail be located on a major thoroughfare, and that the crossing be at grade, which the Public Works Departments was opposed to; and clarified that the final trail plan has not been determined; In response to Commissioner Olhasso's querying if the largest lots were 4,000 square feet (with the exception of the one-acre, and half-acre lots), clarified that the lots would range in size from 3,500 up to one acre, noting the deletion of the 2.5 acre lots; and In response to Chairman Chiniaeff's queries regarding the applicant's comment when it was stated that the dwelling units needed to be increased in order for the CFD to operate, clarified that the funds were needed for Development Agreement R:PlanComn~minutes/101701 5 issues, additionally clarifying that if the City staff requested above what the CFD was funding then those additional monies would come from the developer. it was noted that the meeting recessed at 7:06 P.M. reconvening at 7:17 P.M. · The public is invited to comment The following individuals had concerns regarding the project, as proposed: Mr. Bill Vazzanza Mr. Ron Knowles Mr. John Mize Mr. Jack Norris Mr. Hans Kernkamp Mr. Mike Payne Ms, Joyce Williams Mr. Mike Knowlton 39603 Avenue Lynell 39675 Cantrell Road 32850 Vista Del Monte 33055 Vino Way 39055 Liefer Road 39790 Avenida Arizona 33612 Vino Way 39130 Pala Vista Drive The above-mentioned individuals relayed the following concerns regarding this particular proposal: ,~ Opposed to the developer revising the plan to eliminate the 2.5-acre lots proximate to his property, referencing a previous map (provided by the developer) denoting the 2.5-acre parcels. -' The location of the recreation center (i.e., in PA No. 32) -- Noise, traffic, and light impacts. ..' Adequate water supply. ~' Flood control and drainage issues. · ,' Requested that there be a minimum eight-foot berm on both sides of the creek. ~- Requested Iow density residential for Parcel No. 57130004, due to the proximity to a residence. ~' Concurred with keeping the commemial unit in PA No. 1 lA. ~' Buffering along the east and south side of the project. ,-'Opposed to increased density. ,-'Traffic on Nicolas Road, in particular due to the proximity to the school sites. ,,'Opposed to the proposed viewpoints (i.e., look-out areas), which would defeat the purpose of the buffering elements. · -' Queried where the revenue would be derived from to cover emergency services since this project was primarily a housing development. Concurred that it was better that the City address the impacts of the project rather than the County. Queried whether the Planning Commission was aware of all the comments that residents have expressed to the developer during numerous meetings held over years. · .' Densities are too high. .~ Referenced a letter (which had been distributed to the Planning Commission via supplemental agenda material) dated October 17, 2001, which detailed additional concerns, listed as follows: the need for a final map to be presented, recommended that the large parcels be designated as horse properties, expressed concern regarding lights, parking provisions (proximate the schools and parks), mitigation in the Panhandle area, traffic, and densities. Queried the developer's rationalization for the need for increased densities, questioning the cost analysis. · The Commission provides concludinq comments Recapitulating the past discussions at the Subcommittee meetings, Chairman Chiniaeff noted the various issues of concern, as follows: buffering issues, re-designation of the land uses, the densities, the previous location of the school in light of the proximity to the airport, the area around the sports park, the best location for the commercial area, the compatibility of the project with the surrounding residential area, advising that addressing various issues was part of the rationale for a few of the design changes; with respect to flood control issues, noted that the Public Works Department and Riverside County Flood Control and Conservation District would determine the sides of the slopes; with respect to the buffer proximate to the Panhandle area, advised that the look-out areas would most tikely cause privacy issues; with respect to the proposal to relocate the park, relayed that he was in favor of this concept, noting that with the proposed trails plan individuals would be encouraged to walk to the park; with respect to the trails, advised that an important issue would be whether MWD would allow the use of the waterway for equestrian or pedestrian trails; with respect to a designated church site, clarified that a church use is allowed in any zone via a CUP; and with respect to the increase in density, while relaying that there were some areas where the courtyard housing would be appropriate, advised that he was reluctant to agree with the applicant's request for 2059 dwelling units simply due to this number of units being denoted on a previous plan. In response to Chairman Chiniaeff, Deputy Fire Marshall McBride provided additional information regarding the conditions which would be imposed if a gated community was implemented; and advised that if the determination of planning the gate area was solely dependent on his advisement, it would not be placed on a thoroughfare. Concurring with the previous comments of the residents, Commissioner Guerriero noted his concern regarding water supply, referencing Senate Bill 221. In response, Assistant City Attorney Curley advised that SB 221 would mandate new findings in the City's review and approvals to determine that there was adequate water on a 20-year projection basis to serve the development, providing additional information regarding this review process; advised that the City and the applicant will rely on the local water agencies for this affirmation, relaying that the statute sets out various factors that the water agencies must consider when determining whether there would be adequate water, and subsequently staff would review the agencies' conclusions; provided additional information regarding how CEQA's cumulative clause ties in with the referenced Senate Bill, confirming that there would be a coincidence of analysis; for Commissioner Telesio, confirmed that the water supply entities will take into consideration not only the existing water use but the commitment to water for future development. For Chairman Chiniaeff, Director of Planning Ubnoske noted that for all projects staff requests the water district to provide a letter confirming that an adequate supply exists. Commissioner Mathewson advised that it would be his preference for a final Land Use Plan to be presented to the Planning Commission review, one which has been generally accepted by both the applicant and staff, clarifying that the hearing was not the appropriate forum for debating major land use issues; noted his concern regarding the proposed increase in density; opined that compatibility with the surrounding land uses and appropriate buffering needed to be taken into consideration (i.e., the location of the commercial center); with respect to the potential mega recreation facility, concurred that this facility was proposed too close to the boundaries of the project and should be relocated fudher to the center due to the noise, and lighting impacts; opined that if the density is increased, an EIR would need to be re-circulated in order to address the additional impacts; concurred with concerns regarding water supply, traffic, and drainage; concurred with staffs concern regarding relocating the park site to PA No. 1 lB; with respect to buffering on the eastern and southern portions of the project, relayed concern regarding the small lot sizes on the interior loop, noting that no criteria has been presented for design standards in this area; and noted that the transitioning from 1-acre ~ots to 10,000 square foot lots is too drastic of a change. In response to Commissioner Mathewson, Mr. Everett specified the location of the natural ddgeline at the southern end of the project, the 30-foot buffer (the fuel break with a horse trail), and then the one- to one-half-acre lots, clarifying that PA No. 18 would solely have one- to one-half-acre lots; with respect to PA No. 17, relayed that there would be one-acre lots, one-half-acre lots, and the fuel break, noting that in the remaining area, closer to the loop there would potentially be 10,000 square foot lots; with respect to PA Nos. 27 and 30, relayed the commitment to one-acre, and one-half acre lots; with respect to the gated area, relayed that there would be substantial provisions for parking, noting that the gate would be manned with guards; with respect to the proposed location of the recreation center, clarified that there was a half-mile distance between the proximate neighborhood, noting that the recreation center would not be an intensive lighted project; and relayed that the private roads and landscaping would be paid for by the development's residents, and not the public. Commissioner Olhasso noted that an example of poor developmental planning with respect to transitioning from one-acre, one-half-acre, to ten thousand square foot lots was the Woodside Development; and with respect to the comments concerning lighting at the sports park, clarified that staff was stringent with respect to the type of lighting required and there rules of use. In response to Commissioner OIhasso's queries, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks confirmed that with respect to flooding issues, staff would be thoroughly investigating, and subsequently would determine a recommendation to address this issue. Regarding the CFD, Commissioner Olhasso acknowledged that there would be a financial advisor associated with this mechanism. For Commissioner Olhasso, Director of Planning Ubnoske advised that the additional increase in density that the applicant referenced was new data, relaying that both the Finance Department and the Public Works Department would be carefully scrutinizing the financial analysis, noting that she could forward Commissioner OIhasso's recommendation for the City to conduct its own analysis. Assistant City Attorney Cudey relayed that until the Land Use Plan is finalized the economics of the project cannot be fully analyzed. With respect to the Design Guidelines (which would be developed at a future point), Commissioner Olhasso noted that she was not pleased with the architecture presented in the photographs; regarding the parks, recommended that if the park was to be relocated, that a few housing lots be deleted, and that a tot lot park be implemented on the western portion of the project. Noting that he served on the Subcommittee associated with this project, Commissioner Telesio clarified, for Commissioner Mathewson, that numerous significant proposals presented by the applicant were recent changes, and had not been presented to the Subcommittee, concurring that the new concepts should first be presented to staff, then the Subcommittee, and finally to the Planning Commission; opined that the commercial area should be placed in the center of the project; with respect to the density, advised that the critical issue would be the alternate elements proposed to offset the density (i.e., traffic mitigation, community amenities) which would render the net benefit to the community; with respect to designating a specific site for a religious institution, clarified that it was determined that there was no need to specify a site for this type of use; and concluded that in light of the numerous, significant recent revisions to the Land Use Plan, the data should not be presented to the Planning Commission at this point in time. With respect to the location of the commercial center, the followinQ comments were relayed: Commissioner Guerriero opined that the commercial area should be located proximate to the center of the project which would be more consistent with a Village Center Concept. Noting the discussions and considerations at the Subcommittee level, Chairman Chiniaeff relayed his initial recommendation that the commercial center be located at the southerly location. For Commissioner Mathewson, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks relayed that at PA No. 13 there was an open channel adjacent to Butterfield Stage Road which would limit the access to Butterfield State Road at that site; and with respect to the northerly location, advised that there would be a road system around the commercial center which feeds from numerous locations, and would service the Panhandle area well. In light of Deputy Director of Public Works Parks' comments, Chairman Chiniaeff, echoed by Commissioner Olhasso and Commissioner Mathewson, concurred with the community center being located at the northerly location. Assistant City Attorney Curley clarified that per the Brown Act, the Planning Commission was not making formal decisions, and that the developer should not rely on these comments being a formal decision. With respect to density the followinQ comments were noted: Recapitulating the review of recently approved Specific Plans, Commissioner Guerriero noted concern with respect to the lack of discussion regarding major infrastructure (or a transit system) being implemented, while the densities continue to be increased, advising that it would be his recommendation that the densities be decreased; and clarified that there would be no community benefit regarding the proposed mega recreation center. Commenting on the density issue, Chairman Chiniaeff relayed that proximate to the interior Iccp where the school was located, that this area should be reinvestigated, recommending that this portion of the project not be designated for 3,500 square foot lots. Commissioner Olhasso noted a desire to have additional data regarding the analysis associated with the applicant's comments that the density needed to be increased to make the project financially feasible, clarifying that without this information she could not further comment on the density at this time. Concurring with the concern regarding the financial data associated with the applicant's need for the density to be increased, Commissioner Mathewson relayed concern regarding providing a recommendation with respect to densities at this time. Assistant City Attorney Curley relayed that when the applicant presents the final plan, the proposal will be undergirded with the financial machinations based on the developer's opinion of the density that will be required in order for the project to be financially feasible, as well as a benefit to the City; clarified that the goal of the Planning Commission was to ensure good planning; and, for Commissioner Olhasso, noted that once the applicant has a final proposal, the density should be defended by the applicant to the Planning Commission in support of the project, and that the Planning Commission will evaluate whether the densities proposed support the project. Enumerating the Planning Commission comments, Chairman Chiniaeff noted, for staff and the applicant, the Planning Commission's struggle with the increases in density, and the myriad of changes occurring in the project plan; and clarified that the Planning Commission would desire the applicant to present a fixed plan on their proposal with the supporting justification, having first been analyzed by staff. For Commissioner Telesio, Director of Planning Ubnoske clarified that at this point staff did not have data regarding the specific infrastructure associated with the project. For informational purposes, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks relayed that staff has been involved in meetings with the applicant regarding the CFD formation, the infrastructure, and the drainage issues; concurred that the applicant would need to justify the need for additional densities to cover the additional costs of these elements; and advised that it was the Public Works Department's recommendation to have four lanes at Butterfield Stage Road and Murrieta Hot Springs Road, and not to have a complete tie-in at Nicolas Road at this time. Commissioner Telesio clarified that density is a concern of his and that it was tied to the amount of infrastructure needed. Director of Planning Ubnoske noted that the DA, the CFD, and the density issues are closely tied, advising that per the Planning Commission comments these discussions need to be more finalized prior to Planning Commission presentation. Commissioner Mathewson reiterated, for the applicant, that the project plan should be fixed and previously reviewed by staff and the Subcommittee prior to Planning Commission review. Mr. Everett relayed that it was the applicant's desire to formulate a final Specific Plan, EIR, CFD, and the DA elements, and have staff review the data prior to the Planning Commission presentation. Chairman Chiniaeff reiterated that the Planning Commission desired to review a fixed finalized plan. For Senior Planner Hogan, Chairman Chiniaeff relayed that with respect to buffering issues the Planning Commission did not make any recommendations regarding implementing the 2.5 acre lots, but noted the importance of compatible land uses. Since this was a workshop item, and no formal action was required by the Planning Commission this concluded the comments of the Commission. COMMISSIONER'S REPORTS Commissioner Guerriero congratulated Commissioner Olhasso (as a member of the staff of the City of Ontario) and the City of Ontario for the recent attainment of the Putnam Award. For Commissioner Guerriero, Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that the outside storage at the Power Center was being addressed by Code Enforcement, noting that she would further investigate as to what stage of the citation process this matter was in; and for Commissioner Olhasso, noted that she would additionally follow up on the Code Enforcement issue regarding the site proximate to the 1-15 Freeway and Winchester Road. in response to Commissioner Mathewson, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks relayed that staff will investigate the timing of the signals on Rancho California Road in the early morning hours. Commissioner Mathewson advised that he would be unable to attend the next Planning Commission meeting. Deputy Director of Public Works Parks updated the Planning Commission regarding staffs evaluation of the traffic concerns at the Hometown Buffet use. Commissioner Guerriero clarified that the concern was exiting the site across the street from Hometown Buffet (traveling eastbound). Deputy Director of Public Works Parks noted that he would investigate the matter. Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that she would provide the Planning Commission with information regarding the dates of the Novembe~ meetings. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT No additional input. ADJOURNMENT At 8:59 P.M. Chairman Chiniaeff formally adjourned this meeting to the next reqular meetinR to be held on Wednesdav, November 7, 2001 at 6:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula. Dennis W. Chiniaeff, Chairman Debbie Ubnoske, Director of Planning MINUTES FOR NOVEMBER 7, 2001 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 7, 2001 CALL TO ORDER The City of Temecula Planning Commission convened in a regular meeting at 6:05 P.M., on Wednesday, November 7, 2001, in the City Council Chambers of Temecula City Hall, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. ALLEGIANCE The audience was led in the Flag salute by Commissioner OIhasso. ROLLCALL Present: Commissioners Guerriero, Olhasso, Telesio, and Chairman Chiniaeff. Absent: Commissioner Mathewson. Aisc Present: Director of Planning Ubnoske, Assistant City Attorney Curley, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks, Development Services Administrator McCarthy, Senior Planner Hogan, Senior Planner Hazen, Associate Planner Harris, Associate Planner Thornsley, Assistant Planner Preisendanz, and Minute Clerk Hansen. PUBLIC COMMENTS No comments. CONSENT CALENDAR A.qenda RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Approve the Agenda of November 7, 2001. 2 Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Approve the Minutes of September 5, 2001. R:PlanComm/mJnuteSJ110701 2.2 Approve the Minutes of October 3, 2001. MOTION: Commissioner Guerdero moved to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1-2. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Telesio and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Commissioner Mathewson who was absent. COMMISSION BUSINESS PUBLIC HEARING Planninq Application No. PA01-0471 (Development Plan) to desiqn and construct a concrete tilt-up buildinq totalinc~ 18,602 square feet on a 1.08 acre site. Thomas Thornsle¥, Associate Planner RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 Adopt a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No, PA01-0471 pursuant to Section 15332 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines. 3.3 Adopt a Resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2001-038 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 01-0471 - A DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF A CONCRETE TILT-UP BUILDING TOTALING 18,602 SQUARE FEET ON A 1.08 ACRE SITE, LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE WINCHESTER ROAD, WEST OF DIAZ ROAD, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 909-310-006. Associate Planner Thornsley presented the current project plan (per agenda material), providing the rationale for the revision in the proposal, noting that one site will be built in advance of the other; specified the site location, the revisions in the circulation plan, the loading zone, the added articulation, and the landscape plan; for Commissioner Guerriero, provided additional specifications regarding the loading dock; and for Commissioner Telesio, noted that the alternate site plan will be modified to accommodate these revisions since the projects are being constructed separately. Mr. Dave Wakefield, representing the applicant, provided an overview of the design elements for this particular project, which were consistent with the surrounding development. MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved to close the public hearing; and to approve staff's recommendation. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Olhasso and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Commissioner Mathewson who was absent. 4 Planninq Application No. PA01-0233 (Tentative Tract Map No. 29798), a proposal to subdivide P~annin~ Areas 1, 2, 5, 6 and 9 of the Wolf Creek Specific Plan into 625 dwellin~ units. Rolfe Preisendanz, Assistant Planner 4.1 Adopt a Notice of Exemption based on the Determination of Consistency for which an Environmental Impact Repod (EIR)was previously certified pursuant to CF:QA Guidelines Section 15162; 4.2 Adopt a Resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2001-039 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 01-0233, TENTATIVE TRACT MAPS NO. 29798 SUBDIVIDING PLANNING AREAS 1, 2, 5, 6 & 9 OF THE WOLF CREEK SPECIFIC PLAN INTO 625 SINGLE-FAMILY LOTS FOR SPRING PACIFIC PROPERTIES ON 154.4 VACANT ACRES. GENERALLY LOCATED NORTHEAST OF PALA ROAD BETWEEN LOMALINDA AND WOLF VALLEY ROAD, KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 950-110-002, 005 & 033 AND 958-180-005. Chairman Chiniaeff advised that he would be abstaining with regard to this item, and therefore left the dais, Vice Chairman Telesio presiding. Via overheads, Assistant Planner Preisendanz provided the project overview (via agenda material), highlighting the location, the size and density of the lots (which are consistent with the approved Wolf Creek Land Use Plan), the access to the site, the pedestrian access points, the development of streets with the detached curb/sidewalk design; noted that the Public Works Department has requested that Condition No. 20 c. be revised to reflect the requirement for a twelve foot (12') wide raised median in lieu of a fourteen foot (14') wide raised median, as indicated, and to additionally revise Condition No. 21 .g., adding the following language: unless otherwise approved by the Director of Public Works; relayed that the issue of the circulation plan as it pertains to school activities has not been resolved to staff's satisfaction, noting the concern, specifically with respect to the circulation inside the tract while parents drop off their children at the school and return home, noting staff's desire for the parents to not access Loma Linda Road, or Pala Road, requesting the Planning Commission to further address this matter with the applicant; and for Commissioner Guerriero, specified that the School District is pleased with the current site development, as well as the various access points to the school site, as proposed. Mr. Bill Griffith, representing the applicant, noted that Mr. Barry Burnell would present a PowerPoint presentation which would demonstrate how this map was developed in relationship to the Specific Plan; and with respect to the cimulation proximate to the middle school, relayed that while the School District is in support of the current circulation that there were alternatives that would be presented to the Planning Commission. By way of a PowerPoint presentation, Mr. Burnell provided an overview of the concept of the entire project plan and how this tract relates to that plan, noting the location of the project site, the surrounding properties, the proximate roadways, the approved Land Use Plan, the Phase I development plan, the Village Center area (a portion of which would be developed in Phase ~), the drainage greenbelt along Pain Road, the park and paseo system, the Spods Park, the Community Park, the Linear Park and Paseo Park which provides pedestrian access into the Village Center, the two school sites, an illustrative of Phase I with the tract map, the amenity components, the trails, the enhanced landscaped parkways, the design aspects of the project, the pedestrian links, the neighborhood parks; and relayed the residential components, and the minimum square foot lots permitted in each of the particular planning areas ranging from 5,000 to 7,200 square feet, noting that the average lot sizes were actually averaging between 6,000 square feet to 9,000 square feet. Mr. Camille Bahri, representing the applicant, relayed that there were ample forms of access to the school site which could be controlled with gates in various areas, reiterating that the School District was pleased with the proposed circulation layout, specifying the concern of staff regarding the A Street area; noted that if the intersection was moved closer to the drop-off point, the stacking capacity would be for approximately 11 vehicles, and there would be a shorter distance for pedestrians, opining that this alternative plan would be the best suited for the area. In response to Commissioner Telesio, Mr. Griffith noted that ultimately half of the school students would come from the Wolf Creek Development, and the remainder from other areas; advised that the school sites and bus areas have already been approved by the State Board of Architects; and relayed the goal to create adequate access to the school in the development without encouraging residents from outside the area to cut-through the neighborhoods. For informational purposes, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks relayed that the school circulation plan presented by the applicant was the preferred plan of the Public Works Department. The following individuals spoke in opposition to the project plan, as proposed: o Mr. Mark Broderick o Mr. Tim Parks 45501 Clubhouse Drive 45615 Jeronimo Street The above-mentioned individuals were opposed to this particular plan for the following reasons: · Traffic circulation, and · Offered solutions to address the negative traffic impacts. In response to Commissioner Guerriero, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks relayed that the signals at Loma Linda Road and Wolf Creek Road would be installed in approximately three months, noting that there would also be a signal at Via Consuelo; and specified that Pain Road would be six lanes in width (to Wolf Valley Road). While noting that it would be his preference to have receipt of a letter from the School District clarifying their position regarding the school issues when the representatives are not present at the meeting, Commissioner Guerriero advised that this circulation plan would be efficient. For clarification, Director of Planning Ubnoske noted that the concerns of staff were not shared by the School District. In response to Director of Planning Ubnoske, Senior Planner Hazen noted that staff was satisfied with the alternative circulation plan presented by the applicant, which adequately addressed the issues of concern. For Commissioner Olhasso, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks provided an overview of the circulation projects associated with this project; noted the proposed CIP project (which has no designated funding at this time) to link Loma Linda Road to Avenida de Missions with a bridge across Temecula Creek; relayed that the traffic impact reports prepared for this project did not show a need for an additional exit if Pala Road is completely built out; relayed that Rainbow Canyon Road will be widened to a four-lane road; and advised that Deer Hollow Way would eventually tie-in to Highway 79 (South) through the Redhawk area. MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved to close the public hearing; and to approve staff's recommendation with the following revisions: Modify- That Condition No. 20.c. be revised to reflect the requirement for a twelve foot (12') wide raised median in lieu of a fourteen foot (14') wide raised median, as indicated. That Condition No. 21.g. be revised, adding the following language: unless otherwise approved by the Director of Public Works. The motion was seconded by Vice Chairman Telesio and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Commissioner Mathewson who was absent and Chairman Chiniaeff who abstained. 5 Planninq Application No. PA01-0109 (General Plan Amendment) Planninq Application No. PA01-0102 (Paloma del Sol Specific Plan Amendment No. 8) and Plannina Application No. PA01-0117 (Vestinq Tentative Tract No. 24188 Amendment No. 4). Matthew Harris, Associate Planner. The Proposal is as follows: Planning Application No. PA 01-0109 proposes to amend the General Plan Map to reflect the proposed Specific Plan amendments. Planning Application No. PA01-0102 proposes to amend Specific Plan No. SP-4 (Paloma del Sol), Planning Areas 5, 23, 24, 27, 28, 29, 38; and eliminating Planning Area 29B. Planning Application No. PA01-0117 proposes Amendment No. 4 of Vesting Tentative Tract No. 24188 to create 293 single-family residential lots, 1 recreation center lot, 1 park site lot and 16 open space lets located within Planning Areas 26, 27, 28 and 29. RECOMMENDATION: 5.1 Adopt a Resolution Entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 2001- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL DO THE FOLLOWING: (1) CERTIFY ADDENDUM NO. 4 TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE PALOMA DEL SOL SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 8; (2) APPROVE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FOR THE PALOMA DEL SOL SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 8 (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 01-0109); and APPROVE PALOMA DEL SOL SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 8 (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 01-0102) AND ADOPT AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE PALOMA DEL SOL SPECIFIC PLAN ZONING STANDARDS FOR PLANNING AREA 38 (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 01-0102; 5.2 Adopt a Resolution Entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2001- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 01- 0117 - VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 24188 AMENDMENT NO. 4 FOR THE SUBDIVISION OF A PORTION OF THE PALOMA DEL SOL SPECIFIC PLAN LOCATED EAST OF MEADOWS PARKWAY, NORTH OF DE PORTOLA ROAD, WEST OF BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD AND SOUTH OF PAUBA ROAD, AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR PARCEL NOS. 955-030-002, 955-030-003, 955-030-004, 955-030-006, 955-030-032. Chairman Chiniaeff noted that this item would be noticed for the November 28th Planning Commission meeting, and that no formal action would be taken at this time. COMMISSIONER'S REPORTS In response to Commissioner Olhasso's concern regarding the blight at the furniture uses located off the 1-15 Freeway, Director of Planning Ubnoske advised that Code Enforcement has been addressing this issue. Commending the applicant representatives regarding the Wolf Creek Project presentation (Agenda Item No. 4), Commissioner Olhasso recommended that staff request this level of presentation for all major proposals (i.e., Specific Plans). Relaying how many lives have been helped through the Ronald McDonald House Program while family members are being treated at Loma Linda Hospital, Commissioner Olhasso noted the current fundraising efforts. In response to Commissioner Guerriero's concern regarding the storage bin behind the Power Center, Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that she would obtain additional information regarding the Code Enforcement process. For Commissioner Telesio, Senior Planner Hogan noted that at this time there have been no additional Roripaugh Subcommittee meetings scheduled. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT No additional comments. ADJOURNMENT At 7:10 P.M. Chairman Chiniaeff formally adjourned this meeting to the next reqular adiourned meetinq to be held on Wednesday, November 28, 200'1 at 6:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecuia. Dennis W. Chiniaeff, Chairman Debbie Ubnoske, Director of Planning R:PlanComr~minutes/110701 7 ITEM #3 ClTY OFTEMECULA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING DIVISION MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Planning Commission Debbie Ubnoske, Director of Planning November 20, 2001 Director's Hearing Case Update Planning Director's Agenda items for October, 2001 Date Case No. Proposal Applicant Action October 11,2001 PA01-0271 Planning application for a Phasing Map for a Tentative Tract Map 29798. (Subdividing Planning Areas 1,2, 5, 6 and 9 of the Wolf Creek Specific Plan into 631 dwelling units) Spring Pacific Properties, LLC Approved October 11,2001 PA01-0280 The fourth one year Extension of Time for Tentative Tract Map 26941 Crowne Approved Meadows L.P. October 25, 2001 PA01-0346 To establish and operate a rental car Alamo Car business within an existing Rental retail/commercial center Item Withdrawn October 25, 2001 PA00-0395 Request to subdivide a .40 acre parcel into two parcels of 9,809 Square Feet and 7,834 Square Feet respectively Jeff Compton Continued to November 15, 2001 meeting. October 25, 2001 PA01-0391 Product review application for 150 detached single-family homes of four model types ranging in size from 2,417 to 3,842 square feet within Tract 24136-2 and 24136-3. Woodside Homes of California, Inc. Approved R:~D1RHEAR~MEMO~2001\October2001 .memo.doc 1 Date Case No. Proposal Applicant Action October 25, 2001 PA01-0229 An application for a one year Extension of Time (EOT) for Tentative Tract Map No. 25055. (This EOT will recognize the reduction in total units from 28 to 23 as an impact mitigation with State and Federal Environmental Agencies) Tom Taylor and Jack Hamry Approved October 25, 2001 PA01-0289 Request to subdivide a 13.83-acre parcel into three parcels. Ken Smith Continued to November 1, 2001 Meeting Attachments: 1. Action Agendas - Blue Page 2 R:'xD IRH EAR'xM EM OL2001 \O c toby2001 .racmo.doc 2 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 ACTION AGENDAS R:~DIRHEARkMEMO~200 l\October2001 .memo.doc 3 ACTION AGENDA TEMECULA DIRECTOR'S HEARING REGULAR MEETING October 11, 2001 1:30 PM TEMECULA CITY HALL MAIN CONFERENCE ROOM 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 CALL TO ORDER: Debbie Ubnoske, Director of Planning PUBLIC COMMENTS A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address to the Planning Manager on items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Senior Planner about an item not listed on the Agenda, a pink "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the Senior Planner. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name and address. For all other agenda items a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the Senior Planner before that item is heard. There is a three (3) minute time limit for individual speakers. Item No. 1: Case No: Applicant: Location: Proposal: Environmental Action: Case Planner: Recommendation: ACTION: Planning Application No. PA01-0271 (Phasing Map for Tentative Tract Map 29798) Spring Pacific Properties, LLC Located northeast of Pala Road between Loma Linda Road and Wolf Valley Road Planning application for a Phasing Map for Tentative Tract Map 29798. (Subdividing Planning Areas 1, 2, 5, 6 and 9 of the Wolf Creek Specific Plan into 631 dwelling units) No subsequent EIR is necessary per Section 15162 of the California Environmental Quality Act. Rolfe Preisendanz Approval as conditioned APPROVED Item No. 2: Case No: Applicant: Location: Proposal: Environmental Action: Case Planner: Recommendation: ACTION: Planning Application No. PA01-0280 (V'rr26941), Extension of Time No. 4 Crowne Meadows L.P., c/o Mary Rauschenburg, 181 Old Springs Rd., Anaheim, CA 92808 East of Buttedield Stage Road south of Pauba Road and north of Crowne Hill Drive along the City's eastern limits. The fourth one year Extension of Time for Tentative Tract Map 26941. Determination of Consistency with a project for which a Negative Declaration was previously adopted (Sec. 15162 - Subsequent EIRs and Negative Declarations). Thomas Thornsley Approval APPROVED P:~PLANNING'~D1P, HEARk2001H0-11-01 AGENDA_doe ACTION AGENDA TEMECULA DIRECTOR'S HEARING REGULAR MEETING October25,20011:30PM TEMECULA CITY HALL MAIN CONFERENCE ROOM 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 CALL TO ORDER: Debbie Ubnoske, Director of Planning PUBLIC COMMENTS A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address to the Planning Manager on items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Senior Planner about an item not listed on the Agenda, a pink "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the Senior Planner. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name and address. For all other agenda items a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the Senior Planner before that item is heard. There is a three (3) minute time limit for individual speakers. Item No. 1: Case No: Applicant: Location: Proposal: ITEM WITHDRAWN Planning Application No. PA01-0346 (Minor Conditional Use Permit) Alamo Car Rental 41915 Motor Car Parkway To establish and operate a rental car business within an existing retail/commercial center. Environmental Action:This project is categorically exempt per Article 19, Section 15301 of the California Environmental Quality Act Case Planner: Matthew Harris, Associate Planner Recommendation: Approval Item No. 2: Case No: Applicant: Location: Proposal: Environmental Action: Case Planner: Recommendation: ACTION: Planning Application No. PA01-0395 (Tentative Parcel Map) Jeff Compton, P.O. Box 1152 Temecula, CA 92593 Southwest comer of Sierra Madre Drive & North General Kearney Road Request to subdivide a .40 acre parcel into two pamels of 9,809 Square Feet and 7,834 Square Feet respectively. Exempt per CEQA Sec. 15315 (Minor Land Divisions - Four or fewer lots.) Matthew Harris, Associate Planner Approval Continued to November 15, 2001 Director's Hearing Meeting P:XPLANNING'~DIRHEARk2001\10-25-01 AGENDA..dOC Item No. 3 Case No: Applicant: Location: Proposal: Environmental Action: Case Planner: Recommendation: ACTION: Planning Application No. PA01-0391 (Development Plan for Product Review) Woodside Homes of California Inc., c/o Scott Gale Located at the corner of De Portola and Meadows Parkway in the Paloma Del Sol Specific Plan, Planning area 8. Product Review application for 150 detached single-family homes of four model types; ranging in size from 2,417 to 3,842 square feet within Tract 24136-2 and 24136-3. This project is exempt from further evaluation under CEQA due to the certification of the EIR for the PalomeJPaseo del Sol Specific Plan. Rick Rush, Project Planner Approval Approved Item No. 4 Case No: Applicant: Location: Planning Application No. PA01-0229 (Extension of Time) Tom Taylor and Jack Hamry At the north side of Via La Vita, approximately 1,000 feet east of Margarita Road. Proposal: An application for a one year Extension of Time (EOT) for Tentative Tract Map No. 25055. (This EOT will recognize the reduction in total units from 28 to 23 as an impact mitigation with State and Federal environmental agencies). Environmental Action: Determination of Consistency with a project for which a Negative Declaration was previously adopted (Sec. 15162 - Subsequent EIRs and Negative Declarations). Rick Rush, Project Planner Mayra De La Torre, Assistant Engineer Approval Approved Case Planner: Case Engineer: Recommendation: ACTION: Item No. 5 Case No: PA01-0289 (Tentative Parcel Map Number 30166) Applicant: Ken Smith Location: 27565 Diaz Road, Temecula, CA Proposal: Request to subdivide a 13.83-acre parcel into 3 parcels. Environmental Action:This project is exempt from CEQA review due to Class 15 Categorical Exemption 15315 (Minor Land Divisions) Case Planner: Rick Rush, Project Planner Case Engineer: Mayra De La Torre, Assistant Engineer Recommendation: Approval ACTION: Continued to November 1,2001 Director's Hearing Meeting P:h°LANNING',DIRHEAR~2001\10-25-01 AGENDA_doc 2 ITEM #4 APPOINTMENT OF TWO PLANNING COMMISSIONERS TO THE RANCHO COMMUNITY CHURCH SUB-COMMITTEE ITEM #5 STAFF REPORT CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION November 28, 2001 Planning Application No. PA01-0109 (General Plan Amendment) Planning Application No. PA01-0102 (Paloma del Sol Specific Plan Amendment No. 8) Planning Application No. PA01-0117 (Vesting Tentative Tract No. 24188 Amendment. No. 4) Prepared By: Matthew Harris, Associate Planner RECOMMENDATION: The Community Development Department - Planning Division staff recommends the Planning Commission: 1. ADOPT Resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 2001- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL DO THE FOLLOWING: (1) CERTIFY ADDENDUM NO. 4 TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE PALOMA DEL SOL SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 8; (2) APPROVE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FOR THE PALOMA DEL SOL SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 8 (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 01-0109); and APPROVE PALOMA DEL SOL SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 8 (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 01-0102) AND ADOPT AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE PALOMA DEL SOL SPECIFIC PLAN ZONING STANDARDS FOR PLANNING AREA 38 (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 01-0102 2. ADOPT Resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2001- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 01-0117 - VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 24188 AMENDMENT NO. 4 FOR THE SUBDIVISION OF A PORTION OF THE PALOMA del SOL SPECIFIC PLAN LOCATED EAST OF MEADOWS PARKWAY, NORTH OF DE PORTOLA ROAD, WEST OF BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD AND SOUTH OF PAUBA ROAD, AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR PARCEL NOS. 955-030-002, 955-030-003, 955-030-004, 955-030-006, 955-030- 032. RASP A~001~01-0102 Paloma Del Sol #8~'CSta ft'R. pL.2.doc APPLICATION INFORMATION: APPLICANT: Newland Communities, LLC REPRESENTATIVE: Barry Burnell, T & B Planning Consultants PROPOSAL: Planning Application No. PA 01-0109 proposes to amend the General Plan Map to reflect the proposed Specific Plan amendments. Planning Application No. PA01-0102 proposes to amend Specific Plan No. SP-4 (Paloma del Sol), Planning Areas 5, 23, 24, 27, 28, 29, 38; and eliminating Planning Area 29B. Planning Application No. PA01-0117 proposes Amendment No. 4 of Vesting Tentative Tract No. 24188 to create 293 single-family residential lots, 1 recreation center lot, I park site lot and 16 open space lots located within Planning Areas 26, 27, 28 and 29. LOCATION: North of State Highway 79 South, south of Pauba Road, west of Butterfield Stage Road and east of Margarita Road, EXISTING ZONING: Specific Plan Overlay District, Paloma del Sol, (SP-4) PROPOSED ZONING: Specific Plan Overlay District, Paloma del Sol, (SP-4) BACKGROUND Specific Plan No. 4 (Paloma del Sol) was approved by the Riverside County Board of Supervisors on September 6, 1988 as County SP-219. Subsequent to incorporation, the Temecula City Council approved various amendments to the Specific Plan, in the period of time from 1994 through 1999. A formal submittal for these new amendments was received on February 28, 2001. Staff held a Development Review Committee Meeting with the applicant on April 5, 2001. From June to the present, staff has conducted additional meetings with the Applicant on various revisions to the text and figures in the Specific Plan Amendment and the vesting tentative tract map. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Paloma del Sol SI3ecific Plan Amendment No. 8 The 15 acres associated with existing Planning Area 27 will be merged into proposed Planning 28 and designated for Medium Density single-family residential uses. The commercial uses are being located to the southwestern corner of the project site. A new Planning Area 27 has been re-located to the south and will be established as 9 acres of open space. The reconfigured Planning Area 28 has been expanded from 25.0 acres to 49.4 acres. Based on a density of 2-5 density units per acre, the number of dwelling units will increase from 113 to 190 units. · The Temecula Valley Unified School District has determined the 10.0 acre school site planned for Planning Area 29B will instead be located in the Crown development east of the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan. Therefore, the area has been eliminated and incorporated into Planning Areas 27, 28, and 29. The 2.9 acre Park and Recreation area designated for existing Planning Area 24 will be incorporated into the existing Greenbelt/Paseo system. A new Planning Area 24 will be designated as a 1.0 acre private Park/Recreation area adjacent to Planning Area 27. · Planning Area 29 remains as a 5.0 acre Park/Recreation area. but, will be relocated north of the open space area adjacent to Planning Area 27. · The commercial uses from Planning Area 27 will replace the Medium High residential uses in Planning Area 38. The residential land use designations tor Planning Areas 5 and 23 have been lowered from Medium High (5-8 DU/AC) to Medium (2-5 DU/AC). These changes will result in a reduction of 3 residential units in Planning Area 5 and a reduction of 107 residential units in Planning Area 23. Amendment of General Plan Land Use MaD · The City's General Plan Land Use Map must be amended to reflect the changed land use designations affected by the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan Amendment. Vestinq Tentative Tract Mai) 24188 Amendment No. 4 Amendment No. 4 of Vesting Tentative Tract No. 24188 modifies the previously approved Amendment No 3 by creating 293 single-family residential lots, 1 recreation center lot, 1 park site lot and 16 open space lots within Planning Areas 26, 27, 28 and 29. ANALYSIS Specific Plan Amendment No. 8 proposes to relocate the existing Neighborhood Commemial area from the southwest corner of Pauba and Butterfield Stage Roads to the southwest corner of De Portola Road and Campanula Way. With regard to residential uses, the amendment would result in an overall 2%-3% reduction in residential dwelling units within the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan boundary. The previously planned elementary school facility proposed for Planning Area 29B has been eliminated and public and private parks will be reconfigured and relocated. Si)ecific Plan Amendment No. 8 Relocation of Commercial Area The applicant is requesting to relocate the 15 acre Neighborhood Commercial area at the southwest corner of Pauba Road and Butterfield Stage Road (existing Planning Area 27) to the 8 acre Planning Area 38 located within the village center area at De Portola Road and Campanula Road. The reason given by the applicant for the proposed relocation includes concern over land use compatibility issues and their doubts about being able to attract a major commercial tenant. Staff concurs that a high potential exists for land use conflicts between the currently allowed commercial R:~S p A~2001\01-0102 Paloma Del Sol #Sh~2StaffRpt..2.doc 3 development and the existing and proposed residential development that surround the area.i Moreover, staff believes it is appropriate to concentrate commercial development within thel existing village center area at De Portola Road and Campanula Road, It should be noted that a portion of existing Planning Area 27 contains slope constraints. Subsequently, the relocation of the commercial designation results in a relatively even trade of level developable acreage. The applicant is proposing to amend the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan Zoning Ordinance to provide for Commercial Office/Neighborhood Commercial uses and development standards for Planning Area 38. Staff has reviewed the proposed uses and development standards within Planning Area 38 and believes they are consistent with the Specific Plan and the long term vision in the General Plan. In addition, staff believes the expanded commercial area will enhance the village center and be compatible with surrounding existing and planned uses. Reduction in Residential Units The proposed Specific Plan Amendment No. 8 reduces the total number of residential dwelling units within the overall Paloma del Sol Specific Plan from the currently allowed 5,246 units to a maximum of 5,137 units, with a potential for as few as 5,072 units. This dwelling unit decrease represents a 2% to 3% reduction in residential dwelling units. The High and Very High categories will remain unchanged. The decrease in overall net residential density from 5.1 density units per acre to 4.9 density units per acre results in the allocation of more land to each single family detached residential unit. The gross project density also decreases similarly from 3.8 density units per acre to 3.6 density units per acre. When compared to the 5,604 dwelling units adopted in the original Specific Plan, the total decrease in residential units ranges from 8% (at 5,137 density units) to 10% (at 5,0721 density units). Elimination of School Site The existing Planning Area 29B, which was located within the boundary of tract 24188, was intended to accommodate a 10-acre elementary school facility. However, the Temecula Valley Unified School District has since indicated that the school will actually be located in the Crown Hill development east of the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan. Therefore, Planning Area 29B will be eliminated and the 10 acres will be re-allocated for parks, open space, and some medium density residential development. Parks & O~en Space Areas Two neighborhood park/recreation areas will be provided within Tract 24188. Planning Area 29, which has been reconfigured and relocated slightly, will accommodate a 5.0 acre public park/recreation area. The facility will be constructed, fully operational and dedicated to the City prior to the issuance of the first building permit in Tract 24188 excluding the 67 dwelling units in Tract 24188-1. Planning Area 24 will accommodate a private 1.0 acre park/recreation area. The facility will be constructed and fully operable as a private facility to be operated and maintained by the homeowners association prior to issuance of the occupancy permit for the 4,576th residential unit within the specific plan. R:~ P Ak2001\01-0102 Paloma Dcl Sol #8~CStaffRpt..2.doc 4 Specific Plan/EIR Addendum TypoGraphical Corrections Staff has identified several typographical and numerical errors within the applicant's latest submittal of the Specific Plan and EIR Addendum text. Staff recommends that the corrections identified in Attachment 7 be incorporated into the proposed amended Specific Plan and EIR Addendum documents prior to consideration by the City Council. General Plan MaD Amendment The General Plan Land Use Map Amendment is necessary to conform to the current General Plan land uses and development criteria set forth in the proposed Paloma del Sol Specific Plan Amendment No. 8. The map amendments have been determined to be consistent with the City's General Plan and both the amended and un-amended portions of the Specific Plan. The proposed General Plan Land Use Map is located in Exhibit A of Attachment 3. Vestin(I Tentative Parcel Map Amendment No. 4 Amendment No. 4 of Vesting Tentative Tract No. 24188 is located within Planning Areas 26, 27, 28 and 29 of Specific Plan No. 4. The amendment serves to modify Amendment No. 3 by reducing the number of single-family residential lots from 351 to 293. Pedestrian Connections The previously approved map associated with Tract 24188 had various pedestrian connections incorporated into the design so as to enhance a pedestrian's ability to access adjacent streets and areas. Staff is recommending that three separate connections be incorporated into the latest map amendment. One connection would occur between Street "D" and Butterfield Stage Road. A second access would connect Street "O" with Butterfield Stage Road. And a third connection, located within the interior of the tract, will provide pedestrian access between Streets "G" and "K". The proposed Vesting Tentative Tract Map is located in Exhibit B of Attachment No. 6. The applicant's representative has submitted correspondence (see Attachment 8) indicating their agreement to incorporate the "G" Street/"K" Street connection. However, they do not believe that the "D" Street and "O" Street connections are appropriate. It should be noted that the "Q" Street connection requirement referenced in the correspondence was a misunderstanding and was only recommended as an option by staff and not as a specific requirement. Staff continues to believe that the three separate pedestrian connections are necessary and requests that the Planning Commission provide direction on this issue. Environmental Issues Lots "F", "G', and "H" of Tract 24188 have been designed in conformance with Planning Area No. 27 which is designated as a 9.0 acre natural open space area. The layout of these lots serves to ensure that impacts to an existing drainage and wetland within the planning area will be fully avoided. Conditions of Approval The applicant's representative has submitted correspondence (see Attachments 9 & 10) requesting that various Planning and Public Works conditions associated with Amendment 4 to Tract Map 24188 be modified and or deleted. Since that time, both Planning and Public Works staff have R:~S P AX2001\01-0102 Paloma Del Sol #8'~uCStaffRpt..2.doc $ reviewed the proposed amendments. Public Works staff concurs with all proposed and has incorporated the amendments into the applicable recommended conditions of Moreover, Planning staff conours with all but two of the requested amendments and has incorporated the other amendments into the applicable conditions. The first outstanding amendment is associated with Condition of Approval No. 26 which requires that the applicant provide a conceptual landscape plan for review and approval prior to the recordation of the final map. Correspondence submitted by the applicant's representative requests that the above condition be deleted given that the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan includes a Conceptual Landscape Plan exhibit. Moreover, the applicant believes that the Specific Plan provides the level of detail necessary to address landscaping issues at this point in the planning process. Condition of Approval No. 26 has been a standard condition applied to all previous tract maps within the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan. Therefore, staff recommends this condition be required. The second outstanding amendment is associated with Condition of Approval No. 29 which requires that single-story dwellings be developed on all parcels in Planning Areas 26 and 28 which front on Butterfield Stage Road and have a Landscape Development Zone (LDZ) of less than 32 feet in width. The applicant's representative is requesting that Condition No. 29 be deleted given that none of the parcels within Planning Areas 26 and 28 fronting on Butterfield Stage Road have Landscape Development Zones (LDZ's) of less than 32 feet in width. Upon reviewing the proposed tract map, planning staff believes some of the parcels may indeed have LDZ's of less than 32 feet in width. Therefore, staff recommends that this condition be required. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION The Paloma del Sol Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR No. 235) was approved and certified by the County of Riverside on September 6, 1988. Since that date Addendum No. 1 was certified in conjunction with Amendment No. 4 to the Specific Plan, which added a Development Agreement to the project. Addendum No. 2 was adopted on March 17, 1999 by the City of Temecula in conjunction with an evaluation of additional facilities and uses to the Specific Plan. Addendum No. 3 was adopted on October 19, 1999 by the City in conjunction with an overall reduction of dwelling units and realignment of Campanula Way. Addendum No. 4 to the Final EIR has been prepared to assess the environmental impacts associated with Amendment No. 8 to the Specific Plan. The analysis concludes, as noted in Table 1 Comparative Analysis of Impacts and Mitigation Measures that changes in project impacts as a result of Amendment No. 8 are either unchanged or decreased, and no additional mitigation measures are required. Staff acknowledges the overriding consideration with regards to air quality impacts made by the Riverside County Board of Supervisors during the original certification of Environmental Impact Report No. 235. Staff concludes that environmental concerns regarding the project have been adequately addressed. Adiacent Property Owner Correspondence On November 7, 2001 staff received correspondence from Darren Stroud, attorney with the Law Firm of Jackson DeMarco & Peckenpaugh (see Exhibit 11). Mr. Stroud represents James & Mary Corona. The Coronas own land at the northeast corner of the intersection of Butterfield Stage Road and Highway 79 South. The correspondence contends that the project applicants have failed to construct necessary flood control facilities in accordance with a previously required condition of R:'~ P A~001~01-0102 Paloma Del Sol #$~°CStaffRpt..2.d~c 6 approval and mitigation measures associated with the original approval of the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan. The correspondence indicates that the failure to construct these facilities has resulted in a flood hazard on the Corona's property. Mr. Stroud is requesting that the City enforce the previously required drainage related condition of approval and associated mitigation measures by requiring construction of the flood control facilities prior to issuance of building permits, Moreover, in the absence of such a condition, Mr. Stroud is requesting that a subsequent environmental impact report be prepared to evaluate current hydrology of the area and to mitigated increased flood hazards to the Corona's property. (See Attachment 12 for response from Applicant's Attorney). Public Works Department staff believes the issue of timing and construction of the flood control facilities has already been addressed. Moreover, staff believes the current planning actions being proposed have no affect on the timing and construction of the flood control improvements. With regard to environmental analysis, Planning staff does not believe that the planning actions as proposed have any significant environmental affect on flood hazard issues. Moreover, staff believes the proposed Addendum to the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan EIR adequately addresses potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed project. Therefore, staff does not believe that additional environmental analysis is necessary. SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS Staff recommends that the Planning Commission Certify Addendum No. 4 to Environmental Impact Report No. 235, and approve the General Plan Amendment and amendment No. 8 to the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan. FINDINGS Specific Plan The proposed Specific Plan Amendment is consistent with the General Plan and Development Code. The Specific Plan is a reallocation and redistribution of the majority of the existing Land Use Designations and serves as an implementation tool for the General Plan. Therefore, as proposed, the Specific Plan is consistent with the General Plan, as it is proposed to be amended, and Development Code. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience or welfare of the city. The project has been reviewed by agencies and staff, and is determined to be in conformance with the City's General Plan (as it is proposed to be amended), Development Code, Design Guidelines and Growth Management Program Action Plan. These documents set policies and standards that protect the health, safety and welfare of the community, In addition, the Specific Plan is a master planned community with specific design guidelines and standards that ensure compatibility and interface with the surrounding community in terms of density, design and circulation. Therefore, as proposed, conditioned and designed, the Specific Plan is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community. The subject property is physically suitable for the requested amended land use designations and the anticipated land use developments. There are no physical constraints of the site which would preclude or prohibit the requested land use designations or anticipated developments. R:~S P A~2001~01-0102 Paloma Del Sol # B~PCS ~a fa~Rpt..2.doc 7 The proposed project shall ensure development of desirable character that will be compatible with existing and proposed development in the surrounding neighborhood. The project proposes similar residential land uses adjacent to the existing surrounding neighborhoods. The Community/Neighborhood Commercial development is proposed within a Village Center and is designed to be pedestrian oriented to serve the needs of the Paloma del Sol community and is adjacent to Highway 79 South where similar commercial and retail uses currently exist along the Highway corridor. Vestinq Tentative Tract Amendment The proposed subdivision and the design and improvements of the subdivision is consistent with the General Plan, the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan as amended and the City of Temecula Development Code; The tentative map does not propose to divide land which is subject to a contract entered into pursuant to the California Land Conservation Act of 1965, or the land is subject to a Land Conservation Act contract but the resulting pamels following division of the land will not be too small to sustain their agricultural use; The site is physically suitable for the type and proposed density of development proposed by the tentative map; The design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements, with conditions of approval, are not likely to cause significant environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat as no sensitive species or habitant exist within the project boundaries; The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems; 10. The design of the subdivision provides for future passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities in the subdivision to the extent feasible; 11. The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision, or the design of the alternate easements which are substantially equivalent to those previously acquired by the public will be provided. 12. The subdivision is consistent with the City's parkland dedication requirements (Quimby). R:',S P A~00I~01-0102 Patorma Del ~ol #8~°CS~aflRpt..2.doc 8 Attachments: PC Resolution recommending certification and adoption of Addendum No. 4 to Environmental Impact Report No. 235, approval of Planning Application No. PA01-0109 (General Plan Land Use Map Amendment), approval of Planning Application No. 01-0102 (Specific Plan Amendment and Zoning Standards - Blue Page 10 PC Resolution recommending approval of Planning Application PA01-0117 (Vesting Tentative Map No. 24188 Amendment No. 4) - Blue Page 11 City Council Resolution Approving General Plan Amendment- Blue Page 12 Exhibit A. Addendum No. 4 to the Final EIR Exhibit B. Amended General Plan Land Use Map City Council Resolution Approving Paloma del Sol Specific Plan Amendment No. 8 - Blue Page 13 Exhibit A Amendment No. 8 to Specific Plan No. SP-4 Exhibit B Specific Plan Amendment Conditions of Approval City Council Ordinance Approving Amendment to the Zoning Standards - Blue Page 14 Exhibit A. Zoning Standards 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. City Council Resolution Approving Vesting Tentative Tract No. 24188 Amend. No. 4 - Blue Page 15 Exhibit A. Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 24188 Amendment No. 4 Exhibit B Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 24188 Amendment No. 4 Conditions of Approval Paloma del Sol Specific Plan/EIR Addendum Typographical Corrections - Blue Page 16 T&B Planning Consultants Pedestrian Connections Letter Dated November 1, 2001 - Blue Page 17 T&B Planning Consultants Condition of Approval Letter Dated November 8, 2001 - Blue Page 18 T&B Planning Consultants Condition of Approval Letter Dated November 20, 2001 - Blue Page 19 Darren Stroud Letter Dated November 7, 2001 - Blue Page 20 Samuel Alhadeff Letter Dated November 20, 2001 - Blue Page 21 R:kS P A~2001~01-0102 Paloma Del Sol #$~CStaffRpt..2.doc A'I-FACHMENT NO. 1 PC RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING CERTIFICATION AND APPROVAL OF THE ADDENDUM TO THE FEIR, THE GPA AND SPA RASP Ak2001\01-0102 Paloma Del Sol #8h°CSlaflRpt..2.doc 10 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 RESOLUTION NO. 2001- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL DO THE FOLLOWING: (1) CERTIFY ADDENDUM NO. 4 TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE PALOMA DEL SOL SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 8; (2) APPROVE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FOR THE PALOMA DEL SOL SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 8 (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 01-0109); and APPROVE PALOMA DEL SOL SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 8 (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 01-0102) AND ADOPT AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE PALOMA DEL SOL SPECIFIC PLAN ZONING STANDARDS FOR PLANNING AREA 38 (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 01-0t02) WHEREAS, Newland Communities filed Planning Application Nos. PA01-0109 (General Plan Amendment), and PA01-0102 (Specific Plan Amendment, & Zoning Standards Amendment), (the "Application"), in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan, Development Code, CEQA Guidelines and California State CEQA Guidelines; WHEREAS, the Application was processed including, but not limited to public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered these Applications on November 7, 2001 at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support or opposition to this matter; WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing and after due consideration of the testimony, the Commission recommended approval of the Application subject to the recommended conditions, together with the concurrent recommendation on the certification of Paloma del Sol EIR Addendum No. 4 after finding that the project proposed in the Application conformed to the City of Temecula General Plan; NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section t. In all respects as set forth in the recitals hereinabove, which are hereby incorporated by reference. Section 2. Findings. That the Planning Commission, in recommending approval of the Application, hereby makes the following findings: General Plan Amendment: The General Plan Amendment is necessary to conform to the current General Plan land uses and development criteria set forth in the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan Amendment No. 8. Further, the General Plan Amendment serves to designate the Land Use for the parcels in a manner more conducive to future development. The City finds it necessary to change the Land Use Designation of parcels on the General Plan Land Use Map to ensure the public health, safety and welfare of the City and to facilitate future development of the parcels. R:~S P A~2001\01-0102 Paloma Del Sol #8~PC eir gpa spa res.doc 1 Specific Plan Findincls A. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment is consistent with the General Plan and Development Code. The Specific Plan is a reallocation and redistribution of some of the existing Land Use Designations and serves as an implementation tool for the General Plan. Therefore, as proposed, the Specific Plan is consistent with the General Plan, as it is proposed to be amended, and Development Code. B. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience or welfare of the city. The project has been reviewed by agencies and staff, and is determined to be in conformance with the City's General Plan (as it is proposed to be amended), Development Code, Design Guidelines and Growth Management Program Action Plan. These documents set policies and standards that protect the health, safety and welfare of the community. In addition, the Specific Plan is a master planned community with specific design guidelines and standards that ensure compatibility and interface with the surrounding community in terms of density, design and circulation. Therefore, as proposed, conditioned and designed, the Specific Plan is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community. C. The subject property is physically suitable for the requested amended land use designations and the anticipated land use developments. There are no physical constraints of the site which would preclude or prohibit the requested land use designations or anticipated developments. D. The proposed project shall ensure development of desirable character that will be compatible with existing and proposed development in the surrounding neighborhood. The projec~ proposes similar residential land uses adjacent to the existing surrounding neighborhoods. The Community/Neighborhood Commercial development is proposed within a Village Center and is designed to be pedestrian odented to serve the needs of the Paloma del Sol community and is adjacent to Highway 79 South where similar commercial and retail uses currently exist along the Highway corridor. Section 3. Recommendation to the City Council. The City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council do the following: 1. Approve a Resolution certifying Addendum No. 4 to the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan EIR, and approving General Plan Amendment (PA-01-0109), located in Exhibit A and substantially in the form attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference; 2. Approve a Resolution approving Amendment No. I] to the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan (PA-01-0102), located in Exhibit B and substantially in the form attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference; and 3. Adopt an Ordinance amending the zoning standards for the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan (PA-01-0102), and contained in Exhibit C, and substantially in the form attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. R:',S P AX2001X01-0102 Paloma l)el Sol #SXPC cir gpa spa rcs.doc 2 Section 4. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning Commission this 7t~ day of November 2001. ATTEST: Dennis Chiniaeff, Chairman Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary of the Temecula Planning Commission, do hereby certify that PC Resolution No. 01- was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 7m day of November, 2001, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary R:~S P A~2001\01-0102 Paloma Del Sol #8~2 eir gpa spa res.doc 3 A'I-rACHMENT NO. 2 PC RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL v'FrM 24188 R:\S P A~2001\01-0102 Paloma Del Sol #8WCStafffipt..2.doc ATTACHMENT NO. 2 PC RESOLUTION NO. 2001- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 01-0117 -VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 24188 AMENDMENT NO. 4 FOR THE SUBDIVISION OF A PORTION OF THE PALOMA DEL SOL SPECIFIC PLAN LOCATED EAST OF MEADOWS PARKWAY, NORTH OF DE PORTOLA ROAD, WEST OF BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD AND SOUTH OF PAUBA ROAD, AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR PARCEL NOS. 955-030-002, 955-030-003, 955- 030-004, 955-030-006, 955-030-032. WHEREAS, Newland Communities filed Planning Application No. PA01-0117, (the "Application") in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan, Development Code and Subdivision Ordinance; WHEREAS, the Application was processed including, but not limited to public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, at a regular meeting, considered the Application on November 7, 2001, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did, testify either in support or opposition to this matter; WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing and after due consideration of the testimony, the Commission recommended approval of the Application subject to the conditions after finding that the project proposed in the Application conformed with the City of Temecula General Plan, as amended, the proposed Paloma Del Sol Specific Plan Amendment No. 8, Development Code and Subdivision Ordinance; NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section t. by reference. That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby incorporated Section 2. Findings. That the Planning Commission, in recommending that the City Council approve the Application, hereby make the following findings as required in Chapter 16 of the City of Temecula Subdivision Ordinance. A. The proposed subdivision and the design and improvements of the subdivision is consistent with the General Plan, the Paloma Del Sol Specific Plan as amended and the City of Temecula Development Code; B. The tentative map does not propose to divide land which is subject to a contract entered into pursuant to the California Land Conservation Act of 1965, or the land is subject to a Land Conservation Act contract but the resulting parcels following division of the land will not be too small to sustain their agricultural use; R:~S P A~001\01-0102 Paloma Del Sol #8~pc tract ras..doc 1 C. The site is physically suitable for the type and proposed density of development proposed by the tentative map; D. The design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements, with conditions of approval, are not likely to cause significant environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat as no sensitive species or habitant exist within the project boundaries; F. The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems; G. The design of the subdivision provides for future passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities in the subdivision to the extent feasible; H. The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision, or the design of the alternate easements which are substantially equivalent to those previously acquired by the public will be provided. (Quimby). The subdivision is consistent with the City's parkland dedication requirements Section 3. Environmental Compliance. The Paloma Del Sol Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR No. 235) was approved and certified by the County of Riverside on September 6, 1988. Since that date Addendum No. 1 was certified in conjunction with Amendment No. 4 to the Specific Plan, which added a Development Agreement to the project. Addendum No. 2 was adopted on March 17, 1999 by the City of Temecula in conjunction with an evaluation of additional facilities and uses to the Specific Plan. Addendum No. 3 was adopted on October 19, 1999 by the City of Temecula in conjunction with an overall reduction of in dwelling units and the reconfiguration and realignment of Campanula Way. The analysis associated with the Addendum No. 4 to Environmental Impact Report No. 235 concludes that changes in project impacts as a result of Amendment No. 8 are either unchanged or decreased from the original project and that no additional mitigation measures are required. The Planning Commission acknowledges the overriding consideration with regard to air quality impacts made by the Riverside County Board of Supervisors dudng the original certification of Environmental Impact Report No. 235. Staff concludes that the environmental concerns regarding the project have been adequately addressed. Section 4. Recommendation to the City Council. The City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council approve a resolution approving of Planning Application No. PA01-0117 (Amendment No. 4 to Vesting Tentative Tract Map 24188), for the subdivision of a portion of the Paloma Del Sol Specific Plan as shown on Exhibit A, and substantially in the form contained herein and incorporated herein by this reference. R:~S P A~001',01-0102 Paloma Der Sot #8~c tract ~es..doc Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning Commission this 7~ day of November 2001. ATTEST: Dennis Chiniaeff, Chairman Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary of the Temecula Planning Commission, do hereby certify that PC Resolution No. 01- was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 7th day of November, 2001, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary R:~S P A'G. O01~01-0102 Pa[oma Del Sol #8~pc tract res..doc 3 A'I-I'ACHMENT NO. 3 RESOLUTION CERTIFYING THE ADDENDUM TO THE FEIR AND APPROVING THE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT R:~S P A~2001~01-0102 Paloma Del Sol #8'~c'CStaft~pt..2.doc 12 ATTACHMENT NO. 3 RESOLUTION NO. 01-. A RESOLUTION OF THE CiTY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA CERTIFYING ADDENDUM NO. 4 TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR SP-4 AND APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 01-0109 (GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT) FOR THE PALOMA DEL SOL SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 8 LOCATED EAST OF MARGARITA ROAD, WEST OF BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD, NORTH OF HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH AND SOUTH OF PAUBA ROAD. (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 01-019) WHEREAS, Newtand Communities filed Planning Application No. PA01-0109 (the "Application"), in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan, Development Code, CEQA Guidelines and California State CEQA Guidelines; WHEREAS, the Application was processed including, but not limited to public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the Application on November 7, 2001 at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support or opposition to this matter; WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing and after due consideration of the testimony, the Commission recommended approval of the Application subject to and based upon the findings set fodh hereunder; WHEREAS, the City Council considered the Application on , 2001, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support or opposition to this matter; WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Council hearing and after due consideration of the testimony, the Council approved of the Application, and certified Addendum No. 4 to the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Paloma Del Sol Specific Plan, and made all required findings and determinations relative thereto after finding that the project proposed in the Application conformed to the City of Temecula General Plan as amended; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby incorporated by reference. Section 2. Environmental Compliance. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby certifies Addendum No. 4 to the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Paloma Del Sol Specific Plan, as contained in Exhibit A, and makes all required findings and determinations relative thereto and finds that the Addendum was prepared consistent with the applicable CEQA provisions and that the Addendum was considered in association with the approval of the Specific Plan Amendment. Section 3. General Plan Amendment, The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby approves the Application changing the General Plan Land Use Designations on property located east of Margarita Road, west of Buttedield Stage Road, north of Highway 79 South and south of Pauba Road as contained in Exhibit B to this Resolution. R:~S P A~2001\01-0102 Paloma Del Sol #8\cc gpa rcs..doc Section 4. PASSED APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula this ~ day of 2001. ATTEST: Jeff Comerchero, Mayor Susan W. Jones, CMC/AAE City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY Of RIVERSIDE CITY OF TEMECULA) SS I, Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that Resolution No. 2001- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the day of 2001, by the following vote: COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Susan W. Jones, CMC/AAE City Clerk R:~ P A~001\01-0102 Paloma Del Sol #8kcc gpa res_doc 2 EXHIBIT A ADDENDUM NO 4 TO THE FINAL EIR FOR THE PALOMA DEL SOL SPECIFIC PLAN (SP-4) PALOMA DEL SOL ADDENDUM NO. 4 TO EIR 235 Prepared: October 24, 2001 P LOMA DEL SOL TABLE OF CONTENTS A. B. C. INTRODUCTION .......... ~ .................................................................................................. 2 BACKGROUND ..................................................................................................................... 2 PUm'OSE ............................................................................................................................. 3 SUMMARY ~NALYSIS .......................................................................................................... 7 H. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS ................................................................................... 9 A. SEISMIC SAFETY ................................................................................................................. 9 B. SLOPES AND EROSION ...................................................................................................... 10 C. W.IND EROSION AND BLOWSAND ..................................................................................... I 0 D. FLOOOmC ......................................................................................................................... 11 E. NOISE ................................................................................................................................ 11 F. C~T~ ~O Am Q~Jm. Xry ............................................................................................ 11 G. WATER AND SEWER....~ .................................................................................................... 1 1 H. TOXIC Stms?m~c~s .......................................................................................................... 13 I. Acmctr~rt~z .................................................................................................................. 13 J. OPEN SPACE AND CONSERVATION ................................................................................... 14 IC WH,D~EGETATION ................................................................................................. 14 L. MU~RAL R~SO~CES ...................................................................................................... 17 NL EN~RaY R~SOm~CES .............. ~ ......................................................................................... 17 N. SCENIC HI~mVAYS ........................................................................................................... 1 $ O. CVLTV~,L,~m SC~E~rrlF]C R~SOU~CES ........................................................................ 19 P. CmCULAT~ON ~,~V TR~,F~C ............................................................................................ 19 P. WATER ~O S~W~R ......................................................................................................... 23 ~ F~ S~R~C~ ................................................................................................................. S. S~ SER~S ....................................... : ................................................................... 26 T. S~ ........................................................................................................................... 27 U. P~ ~ ~c~o~ ................................................................................................. 28 V. ' U~ES .......................................................................................................................... 30 W. SOLW W~ ................................................................................................................... 34 ~ Lm~ ......................................................................................................................... 34 Y. ~ S~R~C~S ........................................................................................................... ~ ~R~ .......................................................................................................................... 36 ~ D~S~RP~v~SS ................................................................................................ 36 m. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................... 36 ADnESDU NO. 4 TO EIR 235 I. INTRODUCTION A. BACKGROI.~D The Paloma del Sol Specific Plan Environmen~ Impact Report (EIR No. 235) was approved and certified by the County of Riverside on September 6, 1988. Addendum No. I was prepared in conjunction with Amendment No. 4 of the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan No. 219 and was certified by the Temecula City Council in 1992. Addendum No. 1 added a Development Agreement which did not change the physical impacts identified in the EIR since it only dealt with collection of fees, improvements to parks and dedication of parks m the City for maintenance. When Amendments No. $ and 6 were approved in January of 1997 and January of 1998 respectively, the City Council detern'fined that the project was consistent with a project for which an EIR had already been prepared. Therefore, the Council concluded that no further environmental analysis was required for these amendments. Addendum No. 2 was adopted on March 17, 1999 by the City of Temecula. Addendum No. 2 evaluated institutions such as facilities for the aged, congregate care residential facilities, information center and nursery schools and found that no additional environmental impact evaluation would be required. Addendum No. 3 evaluated the potential impacts resulting from Specific Plan Amendment No. 7, which is referred to herein as the "Approved Project.". This Addendum (Addendum No. 4) evaluates the cun'ent project, which is discussed.in full in Specific Plan Amendment No. 219 and is referred to herein as the "Proposed Project." The original Paloma del Sol EIR No. 235 and Addendum Numbers 1, 2 and 3 are hereby incorporated by reference into this document. Copies of the original Paloma del Sol Specific Plan and subsequent Amendments, as well as the original Paloma del Sol EIR No. 235 and all four addendums (i.e., Addendums Nos. l, 2, 3 and 4), are available at the City of Temecula Planning Department, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California 92590. According to Section 21166 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), no subsequent or supplement environmental impact report is required for the project unless one or more of the following events occur: (1) substantial changes are proposed in the project that will require major revisions of the EIR; (2) substantial changes occur with respect to circumstances under which the project is being undertaken that require major revisions in the EIR; or (3) new information which was not known at the time that the EIR was certified and completed becomes available. None of the situations have occurred as a result of Amendment No. 8. By statute, the environmental analysis need not examine those significant effects of the subsequent projects that: (1) have already have been mitigated or avoided as part of the prior project approval, as evidenced in the findings adopted for the prior project, or (2) that were "examined at a sufficient level of detail" in the prior F~W.. that they can "be mitigated or avoided by site specific revisions, the impositions of conditions, or by other means in connection with the approval of the latter project." (Public Resources Code §21094, subd. (a).) Thus, this Addendum ~Addendum No. 4) only addresses those project-related effects that have changed since the original EIR and subsequent Addendums PALOMA DEL SOL Page 2 of 36 October 26, 2001 ADDENDUM NO. 4 TO 235 (Addendum No. 3 in particular) were certified and which might feasibly result in potentially significant imp~ts. When the current project (Amendment No. 8 to Paloma del Sol Specific Plan 219) is compared to the original Paloma del Sol Specific Plan No. 219 project, there is a decrease of 474 dwelling units and 8.5 aCrreS of COmmercial uses. This document constitutes Addendum No. 4 to Environmen~ Impact Report (EIR) No. 235, which was certified on September 6, 1988 (SCH#8707003). EJR No. 235 analYzed the potential environmental impacts associated with implementation of the approved Paloma del Sol Specific Plan. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), an addendum to an existing EIR is appropriate where, in order to comply with CEQA, the EIR requires only "m/nor technical changes or additions" that do not raise important new issues about the significant effects on the environment* (CEQA Guidelines § 15164). A variety of land use changes were incorporated into Amendments No. 4 through No. 7 of the original Paloma del Sol Specific Plan No. 219. For the purposes of this Addendum a comparison will be made between the original approved Paloma del Sol Specific Plan and the proposed land use changes for Paloma del Sol Amendment No. 8. Approved land uses changes for Amendments No. 4 through No. 7 and the proposed land use changes for Amendment No. 8 are described below: Amendments 1, 2, and 3 were prepared under County jurisdiction and there are no records to be referenced for them. The following Amendments were prepared under City of Temecula jurisdiction and are described below: Amendment No. 4 added 6.5 acres of Very High density residential to Planning Area 6. h also added 1.5 acres of park to Planning Area 37, reduced community/neighborhood commercial area in Planning Area I by 4.9 acres, and reduced major roads by 3.1 acres. Amendment No. 5 resulted in several Land Use Plan modifications, including: An increase in the number of Medium density dwelling units from 2,338 to 2,487; A reduction in the number of Medium-High density dwelling units from 2,356 to 2,251; A reduction in the number of multi-family dwelling units from 910 to 590; A 4,0-acre park/recreation area site; An increase in the community/neighborhood commercial acreage from 31.5 acres to 32.3 acres; and A reduction in the roadway landscape requirements adjacent to commercial uses, PALOMA DEL SOL Page 3 of 36 October 26, 2001 ADDENDUM NO. 4 TO EIR 235 Amendment No. 6 encompassed several minor changes to the Specific Plan, including plan revisions in Planning Areas 2, 2~ and 29A. The park in Planning Area 29A was increased from 4.0 acres to 5.0 acres. Planning Area 28 was reduced in size by one acre, resulting in a reduction of dwelling units from l17to 113. The dwelhng units were u'ansferred toPlanning Area 2, bring/rig the total number of units in Planning Area 2 up to 120. Roadway cross- sections and standards were updated to conform to the City's General Plan. Access points and neighborhood entries on certain planning areas were relocated to conform to the approved Tentative Tract Maps. Streets "G" and "IF' were renamed as Campanula Way. The phasing plan was revised to reflect current expectations. Overall, Specific Plan Amendment No. 6 did not result in any total acreage or dwelling unit changes. Amendment No. 7 involved land use changes in Planning Areas 1, 6, and 8 and the alteration of Campanula Way between De Portola Road and Meadows Parkway. Planning Area 8, designated in Amendment No. 6 as Medinm Density Residential, was revised to allow a Medium Density Senior Community. The size and number of dwelling units remained the sm'ne. Planning Area 6, already designated as Very High density residential, was re. configured to include both High and Very High density residential and reduced in size to accommodate the expansion of Planning Area 1. Due to this density division and size reduction, Planning Area 6 was divided into Planning Area 6A (High Residential) and Planning Area 6B (Very High Residential). Combined, Planning Areas 6A and 6B were proposed to contain 508 dwelling units; which was a reduction of 82 dwelling units from the approved number of dwelling units (590 dwelling units). Planning Area 1 was increased in' size from 32.3 to 35.0 acres. As part of the proposed changes to Planning Ama 1 an application was submitted to the City of Temecula to process Amendment No. 7 to the Specific Plan in conjunction with a Development Plan and a Development Agreement, both pertaining only to a portion of Planning Area 1. The Development Plan permits the construction of a 276,243 square foot community commercial center of focused retail villages on 24 acres. In addition, Campanula Way was realigned and reconfigured between De Portola Road and Meadows Parkway from a 100-foot right-of-way to a 78-foot right-of-way with "rounded out" traffic cimles and a four-way stop or signalized intersection. The proposed Amendment No. 8 to the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan involves a reduction of the total number of residential dwelling units with.in the overall Paloma del Sol Specific Plan from the currently entitled 5,246 dwelling units to no more than 5,137 units and as few as 5,072 units. This represents a reduction of residential dwelling units between 2.1% and 3.3%. The High and Very High Residential categories remain unchanged. The decrease in overall net residential density from 5.1 du/ac to 4.9 alu/ac results in the allocation of more land to each single-family detached residential unit. Similarly, the gross project density has decreased from 3.8 alu/ac to 3.6 du/ac. When compared to the 5,604 dwelling units adopted PALOMA DEL SOL Page 4 of 36 October 26, 2001 tonEsnuM No. 4 TO EIR 235 in the original Specific Plan, the total decrease in residential units hes between 8.3% (at 5,137 alu) and 9.5% (at 5,072 alu). The commercial uses planned for Planning Ama 27 at the comer of Pauba and Butterfleld Stage Roads have been relocated to Planning Area 38, adjacent to the south side of De Portola Road. The deletion of the commercial center in Planning Area 2'/resulted in land use changes for Planning Areas 24, 28, and 2P as well. Planning Area 27 in Amendment No. 8 has been designated as a 9.0-acre natural open space area designed to preserve some existing on-sit~ wetland vegetation. Planning Area 28 has expanded from 25.0 acres of Medium d~nsity residential uses in Amendment No. ? to 49.4 acres of Medimn density residential uses in Amendment No. 8. The number of dwellings proposed in Planning 28 increased from 113 to 190 units as a result of removal of the commercial development. However, there was a corresponding deav. ase in the amount of residential development as a result of P.A. 38 convening from Medium-High Residential to Commercial. Planning Area 29 remains as a Park/Recreation Area, but the location and configuration of the parcel are somewhat altered. However, the acreage of this Park/Recreation Area remalus unchanged at 5.0 acres. In addition, the elementary school proposed for Planning Area 29B in previous Amendments has been deleted since the Temecula Valley Unified School District (TVUSD) has indicated that the site is no longer needed. Another change involves the creation of a new Park/Recreation Area in Planning Area 24, which is located adjacent to the Planning A_rca 27 Open Space. The former Planning Area 24 (formerly designated in Amendment No. 7 as a Park/Recreation Area situated between Planning Areas 13 and 23) has been merged into the greenbelt system and is no longer identified as a Park/Recreation Ar~a or a separate planning area. Due to remaining high demand for commercial uses in the village center area near the supermarket and the Home Depot, Paloma del Sol Specific Plan Amendment No. 8 proposes that the residential uses allocated for Planning Area 38 be converted to Community/Neighborhood Cornmemial. Planning Area 38 will incorporate the same development standards that now apply to Planning Area 1. Specific Plan Amendment No. 8 also proposes several minor residential dwelling unit adjustments to reflect the approved and constructed implementing tracts. Acreage and dwelling unit comparisons between the original Specific Plan for Paloma del Sol and Amendment No. 8 are illustrated below in Table 1, Summary of Land Use Changes: PALOMA DEL SOL Page 5 of 36 October 26, 2001 ADDESDUM NO. 4 TO EIR 235 SPECIFIC PLAN No. 219 (original) Land Use Acres D.Us 536.0 2,366 Medium Me. urn High 43?.5 2,406 Table ! Summary. of Land Use Changes SPEcie'lC PLAN No. 219 Amendment No. 7 Land Us~ A~s Medium 491.0 Ivie&um (Senior) 89.0 MeAium High ~16~ V~ ~ 56 ~ V~ ~ 12.0 ~/ 39.0 , ~/ 35.0 Nei~ Nci~ Nei~ 1~.0 Nei~ Day ~ 2.0 Day ~ 2.0 ~or ~ 20.0 ~or ~ 20.0 ~ 41.0 ~e~ 41.0 S~l Sch~l P~ or t5.4 P~ or ~on ~on ~ ~n~tt 2S.0 ~lt P~s 28.0 ~way 87.6 R~way P~s 82.0 D.Us 2,083 4OO 2,255 268 Major Su'e~ts 114.0 Major S~eets 103.4 P~O~-'T 1,391.5 5,611 1,391.5 ~,2~6 TOTAL P~on~r TOVAL SPECIFIC PLAN No. 219 Amendment No. 8 Land Use Acr~ Medium 610.7 Medium (Senior) 89.0 Medium High 303.8 High Very High 12.0 Community/ 43.0 N~ghborhood 2.5 Day Car~ 2.0 J~mior High 20.0 Elementary 31.0 School Parks or 30.6 Rec~ea6on Areas D.Us 2,551 335 (400)* 1,678 268 24O Grccnbclt Pascos 31.9 Roadway Pescos 81.5 Op~ Space 9.0 Major Su'eets 102.2 PROJF. cr TOTAL 1.391.5 5,072 (5,137)* Implementation of the adult ~cti~mant option for Planning A~a 8 increases the total dwelling unit allocation for plan'~ing Ar~a 8 to 400 du, raises the total medium d~nsity dwelling unit allocation to 2,951 du, and would raise thc toual dwell~g units allowed in the Specific Plm to 5,137. PALOMA DEL SOL Page 6 of 36 October 26, 2001 ADDENDUM NO. 4 TO E]P** 235 C. $1.rMMARYANALY$~ Section II contains a brief summary of the environmental impacts resulting from the approved Paloma d~l $ol Specific Plan No. 219 as analyzed in EIR No. 235. After each summa~ is a brief statement describing the changes in project impa~ts that are anticipated to result with implementation of Amendment No. 8. As shown on Table 2, Corn~armive Analysis of la. acts and Mi~garion Measures, the impacts associated with Amendment No. 8 are substantially the same or less than the impacts analyzed in the certified EIR. Therefore, no new mitigation measures are required. Environmental Issue Seismic Safer/ Slopes and Erosion Wind Erosion & Blowsand Flooding Noise Climate and Air Quality Water Quality Toxic Substances Agriculture Open Space and Conservation Wildlife/Vegetation Energy Resources Sce~c Hi,ways Cultural and Scientific Resources Circulation and Traffic Public Facilities and Services Light and Glare Disaster Preparedness Table 2 _Compara~ve Analysis of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Additional Changes in Project Impacts Mitigation Measures Unchanged No Unchanged No Unchanged No Unchanged No Decreased No Decreased No Unchanged No Unchanged No Unchanged No Decreased No Decreased No Elecu'icity - Unchanged No Natural Gas - Decreased Unchanged No Unchanged No Approximately Unchanged No (Somewhat Decreased) Decreased No Unchanged No Unchanged No PALOMA DEL SOL Page 7 of 36 October 26, 2001 ADDE m NO. 4 TO EIR 235 Table 3, below, provides an overview offall public utilities and serves and compares the Approved Project (i.e., Paloma del Sol Specific Plan, Amendment No. 7) with the Proposed Project (i.e., Paloma del Sol Specific Plan, Amendment No. 8): Table 3 Public Utilities and Services Comparison Public Approved Project (Amendment No. 7) Utilities and Service Estimated Usage/ Service Level Water~ 4,026,400 gallons Sewer~ 1,845,300 gallons 15,879 residents Proposed Project (Amendment No. 8) Impact after Estimated Usage/ Impact after Mitigation Service Level Mitigation Insignificant 3,765,000 gallons Insignificant Insignificant 1,453,771 gallons Insignificant Significant Decrease of 1,342 Significant residents Schools4 Parks/Recreation Natural Gas~ 8.4 dapa~ies (original SP) 10.6 deputies (adjusted) 4,2~ students 131.0 acres Significant 9.7 deputies Significant Significant 3,855 students Significmt Insignificant 153.0 acres Insignificant Insignificant 35,749,212 cubic Insignificant feeffmonth 39,133,910 cubic fee~lmonth (35,574.829 baaed on new usage rates) 42,030,975 kWh per year 37,958,936 kwh per Electricity6 (63,388,761 based on Insignificant Insignificant new usage rates) year Solid Wnstev 57 tons per day Insignificant 37.4 tons per day Insignificant Health Servicess 15,879 residents Insignificant Decrease of 1,342 Insignificant residents 600 gallons/day for residences, 3,000 gallons/acre/day for commercial, 3,800 gallons/acre/day for parks 300 gallons per day per residences, 3,000 gallonataere/day for commercial 1 deputy/I,500 people .55 K-8 students per du, and .21 high school students per du $0 kef/du/yr for single family residential, 0.03a,8 kcf/sffy~ for retail commercial 5,621 kWh/du/yr for residential, and 13.54 kWh/sf/yr for commercial 7 7.9 pounds per pe~on per day Demands for health services are based on population, but are not quantified in this EIR. PALOMA DEL SOL Page 8 of 36 October 26, 2001 ADDENDUM NO. 4 TO EIR 235 H. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS For the purposes of this environmental analysis, the existing or %aseline" condition is assumed to be the original Paloma del Sol Specific Plan No. 219. A. SEISMIC SAFETY Previously Identified hnpacts Several geotechnical investigationsx were conducted on the project site, which concluded that the sit~ does not have any active faults within its boundaries. The site is expected to experience ground motion from earthquakes on regional and/or local causative faults. The dominant seismic feature in the project vicinity is the northwest striking Elsinore Fault Zone. The site is subject to liquefaction in the southwestern portion of the site where the fiat alluviated flood plain of Temecula Creek is located. When mitigation measures are implemented, the impacts regarding seismic hazards are considered non-significant. Mitigation measures contained in the EIR include: (1) Conformance with the latest Uniform Building Code and City Ordinances can be expected to satisfactorily mitigate the effect of seismic groundshaking; (2) Mitigation of the liquefaction potontial within the southern portion of the site will occur as a result of project development, which will lower artificially high ground water levels by removal of recharge ponds, as well as increased overburd~ as a result of site grading; (3) During site development, additional geological evaluation should be continued in order to verify the extent and relative age of fault activity, according to Pacific Soils Engineering, Inc. Analysis of Changed Project Impacts Amendment No. 8 to the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan proposes 5,072 dwelling units without a senior community option and 5,137 units if the senior community option and the dwelling unit option for the proposed office designation are implemented. For the purposes of this Addendum, the FIR has assumed a worst case scenario and evaluated the impacts associated with a 5,137 unit project. As such, the current project proposes 474 units fewer than proposed in the original Paloma del Sol Specific Plan, which proposed 5,611 units. The 474 dwelling unit reduction would result in 1,342 fewer project residents (based upon City of Temecula General Plan's generation factor of 2.83 persons per dwelling unit). Consequontly, fewer residents will be exposed to seismic safety hazards, including ground shaking. The extent of project impacts upon existing seismic conditions will be the same since no increase ~ Geortc3rucai Report for En~¢~o,,,-~u~l Imlx~ Pwrlx~.s, Bs~.trf~ H/Ils, P, ancho C. al/fom~ CounO R/vers/~, CA. (May 1987), Faa St~l:~, 1400.acre The Meazto~: at Rancho C. alqomia Project, Rancho (August 1987), and Ev~t~,,aon of Liq~aa:ion Potential, Port/on of Val/Men3,',ws (September 1987). PALOMA DEL SOL Page 9 of 36 October 26, 2001 ADDENDIYM NO. 4 TO EIR 235 in the overall developable area is proposed. No additional or revised mitigation measures are proposed. SLOPES AND EROSION Previously Identified Impacts According to the original Geotechnical Report2, there are no severely limiting or unamenable geotechnical constraints associated with the project. However, some of the existing landforms will be altered by grading, moderate to severe erosion may exist if graded slopes are unprotected, and three potential landslide areas may be present on-site. Mitigation measures required to alleviate impacts from the Paloma del Sol project m'e as follows: 1) alluvial and colluvial soils removal should be developed during Tentative Map smclies and be incorporated into grading; 2) temporary ground cover will be provided to prevent erosion during the construction phase; 3) grading shall be done in stages to lessen erosion; and 4) final slopes will be contour-graded and will blend with existing natural contours. Analysis of Change in Project Impacts Amendment No. 8 to the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan will require the same physical alteration of the property resulting in similar impacts to slopes and erosion. Amendment No. 8 maintains the same amount of area being disrupted by grading. The proposed grading plan identifies approximately the same quantifies of earthwork. Impacts to slopes on-site will be similar and the potential for erosion will remain high. These impacts, however, can be reduced to an insignificant level through implementation of the mitigation measures contained in EIR No. 235. No additional or revised mitigation measures are proposed. WIND EROSION AND BLOWSAND Previously Identified Impacts: The project is not located within the wind/erosion or blowsand area designated within the City of Temecula's General Plan and is not considered an area of concern. This issue was not addressed in the adopted EIR. Analysis of Change in Project Impacts This issue was not addressed in the adopted EIR, and does not need to be discussed in this addendum (i.e., Addendum No. 4 to the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan, Amendment No. 8). 2 Geom:hn/c~ Relx~ for En~o.,,,,murd Impact Purposes, Butr. erfield Hills, Rancho Califomi. a, Counrff of Riverside, CA. (May 1987), FauJz Stud:~, 1400.a~re The M..d,~s at Rancho California Project, Rancho California (August 1987), and Eoaluamm ofLiquefacaon Porem/z~ pomon of. Vail M..~.'i..ws (September 1987). PALOMA DEL SOL Page 10 of 36 October 26, 2001 AnDV. h'DU NO. 4 TO EIR 235 FLOODING Previously Identified Impacts The hydrology report prepared for the project concluded that implementation of the Paloma del Sol Land Use Plan would result in the alteration of existing on-site drainage panems. The project would result in the creation of impermeable surfaces on-site resulting in an increase to the existing 100-year storm runoff. The project site also lies within the Dam Inundation Area for a 100-year event for Vail Lake dam. The Assessment Diswict 159 has been created to mitigate potential flooding impacts to Temecula Creek. All standards of the Riverside County Flood Conu'ol District will be met, and erosion control devices will be installed in development areas to mitigate the effect of increased runoff at points of discharge. Analysis of Change in Project Impacts Amendment No. 8 to the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan, which reconfigures land uses and roadways described in the original Paloma del Sol Specific Plan, would not effect existing or proposed flooding conditions any differently than previously approved Specific Plan Amendments. Also, the proposed project would not significantly increase or reduce the amount of land to be graded in excess of the grading already approved by the City. The amended land use plan would still result in short term downstream impacts related to erosion and sedimentation during grading and the creation of impermeable surfaces. Since the p~oposed p .rpject would not result in any new flood-related impacts that have not already been evaluated and approved for previous Specific Plan Amendments, then no new mitigation measures would be required. The mitigation measures identified in EIR No. 235 and previous Addenda will adequately ensure that the degree of existing mitigation measures is sufficient and that no additional mitigation measures will be required. NO~E Previously Identified Impacts In the adopted EIR No. 235, noise-related impacts would be generated from both short-term and long-term sources. The short-term sources arc construction-related activities at the time of project implementation; the long-term sources arc vehicular traffic produced by the project. There is minor existing noise associated with traffic on Highway 79 South, which is mitigated by expanded setbacks that reduce traffic noise levels to below a level of significance. This amendment does not change the situation in any way, so new mitigation measures a~ not required. Analysis of Change in Project Impacts Amendment No. 8 to the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan results in approximately the same amount of grading as previously identified, therefore, short-term noise impacts related to grading activities are expected to remain unchanged. The reduction of 474 residences from PALOMA DEL SOL Page 11 of 36 October 26, 2001 AnnE DUM NO. 4 TO EIB. 235 the residential component of the original Paloma del Sol Specific Plan will also shorten the duration of short-term noise impacts associated with home building activities. Amendment No. $ proposes fewer dwelling units and fewer acres of commercial development than the original Paloma del Sol Specific Plan; therefore, no additional or revised mitigation measures are necessary. Previously Identified Impacts Air quality impacts associated with Paloma del Sol include both short-term and long-term impacts. Short-term impacts (at the time of the original EIR) result from project grading and long-term impacts are associated with project build out. Short-term air quality impacts will result from pollutant emissions from construction equipment and the dust generated during grading and site preparation. Short-term impacts resulting from construction activities are considered insignificant because they do not reach significant impact th~sholds established by Southern California Air Quality Management Disn-ict (SCAQIvID). Construction-related significance thresholds, according to SCAQMD, are. based on exceeding any of the following: 550 pounds per day of Carbon Monoxide, 75 pounds per day of Reactive Organic · Gases, 100 pounds per day of Oxides of Nitrogen, 150 pounds per day of Oxides of Sulphur, or 150 pounds per day of Particulate Matter. The primary source of long-term impacts to air quality is automobile emissions. Other emissions will be generated from residential and commercial natural gas and electricity consumption. Long-term air quality impacts are considered significant with respect to carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxide, particulates, and reactive organic gas emissions. Mitigation at the grading and consmactiun phase of the project included watering graded surfaces and planting ground cover to reduce short-term impacts to a level of insignificance. The project will integrate design elements such as transit facilities, energy efficient buildings, and solar access orientation of stxuctures m reduce long- term impacts. Despite these measures, long-term impacts to air quality represent a significant adverse impact which required a statement of overriding considerations. Analysis of Change in Project Impacts Amendment No. 8 to the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan does not propose any additional grading of the property outside of the area, which was previously evaluated in EIR No. 235. The proposed land usc plan decreases dwelling unit density on-site and does not increase thc overall.amount of developable area. Additionally, Paloma del Sol currently will not exceed SCAQMD significant impact thresholds because the site only requires minimal grading since mass grading has already occurred in conjunction with adjacent residential and commercial projects. No additional or revised mitigation measures are proposed in conjunction with Amendment No. 8. EIR No. 235 concluded that air quality impacts would remain a significant adverse impact, which required a Statement of Overriding Considerations. Amendment No. 8 will not substantially change the conclusions reached previously. PALOMA DEL SOL Page 12 of 36 October 26, 2001 ADDENDUM NO. 4 TO EIR 235 o WATER QuM. rrY Previously Identified Impacts Construction of the Paloma del Sol project will alter the composition of surface runoff. Build out of Paloma del Sol will result in impervious surfaces and imgated landscaped areas. Runoff entering the storm di-~in system will contain urban pollutants such as pesticides, fertilizers, and automobile related residues which will contribute to the incremental degradation of water downstream in Temecula and Murrieta creeks. Ewsion control techniques will be implemented to reduce the amounts of sedimentation entering both Creeks. Additionally, the project will comply with requirements of the California State Water Quality Control Board with respect to urban runoff con~xol. By implementing the following mitigation measures, the level of impacts related to water quality are not considered significant. In order to mitigate for water quality impacts, the project will comply with the Riverside County Flood Contwl District requirements regarding erosion control devices during grading (e.g., berms, culverts, sand-bagging and desilting basins), and the employment ofthe''Water Pollution Aspects of S~reet Surface Contaminants" pwgram published by the U.S.- Environmental Protection Agnney. Analysis of Change in Project Impacts Amendment No. 8 to the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan does not propose any development outside of the area that was previously evaluated in EIR No. 235. The proposed land use plan reduces the number of dwelling units and slightly increases acreage of commercial land use; however, it does not increase the overall developable area. Mitigation measures contained in EIR No. 235 would be implemented to ensure that water quality impacts remain at a level of insignificance. No additional or revised mitigation measures a~ proposed. TOXIC SU~Sr,~C~S Previously Identhqed Impacts/Mitigation The project is not anticipated to produce toxic substances. This issue was not adckessed in the adopted EIR; therefore, no mitigation is necessary. Analysis of Change in Project Impacts This issue was not addressed in the adopted EIR, and does not need to be discussed in this addendum (/.e., Addendum No. 4 to the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan, Amendment No. 8). L AGRICULTURE Previously Identified Impacts The Paloma del Sol project site was used for dryland fanning and grazing by slieep and cattle, however, it was not designated as prime, statewide important, unique or locally PALOMA DEL SOL Page 13 of 36 Octobe~ 96, 2001 ADDEND NO. 4 TO EIR 235 important farmland within the Environmental Hazards and Resources Element of the Comprehensive General Plan (Riverside County). In addition, the site has minor Class I and Class II agricultural soils. Due to these two factors, the discontinuation of farming on this site is not considered significant and, therefore, does not require mitigation. A portion of the site has already been mass graded as well. Analysis of Change in Project Impacts Although Amendment No. 8 to the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan reconfigures land uses and slightly alters roadways, it does not substantially increase/reduoe the amount of land being graded. The same amount of impacts to agriculture will occur with the proposed changes in Amendment No. 8 as with the adopted Specific Plan No. 219 and EIR No. 235. As such, no mitigation is required. OPEN SPACE AND CONSERVATION Previously Identified Impacts Amendment No. 7 includes 32.5 acres of parks/recreation areas, 28.0 acres of greenbelts, and 82.0 acres of roadway paseos for a park and recreation total acreage of combined 142.$ acres.. The approved Development Agreement allows for parks, greenbelts, and roadway paseos to count toward park and recreation credit. The land use changes included in the adopted Paloma del Sol Specific Plan (/.e., Amendment No. 7) did not involve any increase in project open space and conservation impacts; therefore, no additional or revised mitigation Analysis of Change in Project Impacts Amendment NO. 8 to Specific Plan No. 219 includes land use changes that include the new provision of 9.0 acres of Open Space (i.e., Planning Area 27) for drainage and wedand vegetation preservation purposes. This Open Space category did not existing in the original Specific Plan No. 219 or in the adopted Specific Plan No. 219 (i.e., Amendment No. 7). The land use changes associated with the Proposed Project (i.e., Amendment No. 8) would not involve any increase in project Open Space and Conservation impacts. Therefore, no additional or revised mitigation are warranted. WILDLIFF.~V'EGETATION Previously Identified Impacts A Biological Aasessment3 for Paloma del Sol was prepared in 1987 to determine project impacts to existing biological resources on-site, and the following represent the findings at that time. When this assessment was completed, introduced grassland covered thc majority of the site, which was duc, at least partly, to past agricultural and grazing practices on the Btolog~¢al Az.scssment for Vail Meadows (May 1987) PALOMA DEL SOL Page 14 of 36 October 26, 2001 ADDESD NO. 4 TO EIR 235 site. In the extreme southern, western, central, and eastern portions oD. he site, coastal sage scrub was found. The site potentially provided habitat for the Stephens' Kangaroo Rat and several "Blueqine" avian species and was considered an important raptor wintering area. At that time, direct impacts would have resulted from construction-related activities including cut, fill and other g~ading activities necessary for roads, building pads, utihties, fuel modification and flood control. There may be some indirect impacts such as noise, light and glare and the introduction of domesticated animals (dogs and cats). Three updates to the original biological assessment have been prepared as follows: A Quino Checkerspot butterfly (QCB) Survey4 completed in 1999, a Final Paloma del Sol Stephens' Kangaroo Rat Update Survey on May 30, 1996 (done by Biodiversity Associates), and a Fodused Survey for California gnatcateher completed on December 28, 1995 (done by Pacific Southwest Biological Services). These studies found that virtually no native vegetation now exists on the site as a result of: · Diking associated with past dry farming, weed abatement and cattle grazing; Grading associated with construction of the roadways (De Ponola .Road, Meadows Parkway, Margarita Road, Pio Pico Road, Montelegro Way, and Leena Way), and a haul wad used to transport dirt used for construction of the supermarket/shopping center and sports park northeast of the intersection of State Highway 79 South and Margarita Road; and · Grading for construction of the future extension of Meadows Parkway along the eastern tract boundary between Leena Way and De Portola Road. No Quino Checkerspot butterfly adults were observed during any flight surveys and no potentially suitable habitat components occur within the site. Although two small areas of dwarf plantain (the primm-y host plan0 were encountered, they represent too small of an ama to provide an adequate amount of host plant or nectary plants to support QCB. Also, there were no observations made of California gnatcatchers on the site. Because there are no existing sensitive species on site, there will be no impacts by construction. Although the site is located within a potential habitat ama for Stephens' Kangaroo Rat, it is also within the Stephens Kangaroo Rat Habitat Conservation Plan. The Paloma del Sol project has complied with all applicable requirement of this program. Therefore, no further mitigation is requi~d. (1999) PALOMA DEL SOL Page 15 of 36 October 26, 2001 No. 4 TO EIR 235 At the time of the original analysis, the site contained four blueline streams as depicted on U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) topographic maps. The jurisdictional boundaries for these streams were mapped in December 1995 and January 1995 by Glenn Lukos Associates, a biological resources firm, using the most up-to-date regulations and written policies in conjunction with guidance from the regulatory agencies. Three of the four jurisdictional areas were graded and removed in conformance with permits issued by the ACOE. Analysis of Change in Project Impacts Amendment No. 8 to the Specific Plan would result in approximately the same amount of area disrupted by grading activity as the original Paloma del Sol Specific Plan and the Adopted Project (i.e., Amendment No. 7). It should be noted that mass grading on the site has already occurred. Three of the four jurisdictional areas on-site would be permanently impacted by the proposed project, except for the jurisdictional area and wetland that would be preserved within permanent natural open space in Planning Area 27. The Army Corps of Engincers (ACOE) has jurisdiction over approximately 7.13 acres of the project site, of which 1.32 acres consists of jurisdictional .wedands. 'The proposed Specific Plan Amendment No. 8 project would avoid impacts to an existing drainage area (2.18 acres that is under the ACOE jurisdiction, including 0.84-acre, which has been identified as an ACOE jurisdictional wetland) by preserving the area within a 7.1-acre natural open space area (Planning Area 27). As mentioned above, the ACOE, in addition to the CDFG, also has jurisdiction over this same area. With incorporation of the open space feature (Planning Area 27), any potential impacts to this jurisdictional wetlands would be mitigated to below a level of significance. It should be noted, that the portions of the project have already been constructed or are in the process of being constructed. Mitigation of the impacts associated with on-site biological resources has already been approved by the City and is currently underway. Preservation of Planning Area 27 for drainage corridor purposes, responds to previous mitigation measures. All other mitigation for the other jurisdictional areas on-site will remain the same as that identified in the original EIR and previous Addendums. In summary, the direct impacts associated with Amendment No. 8 to the Specific Plan would be similar to or less than the impacts associated with the original Specific Plan. Because a significant loss of native plants is not expected, and sensitive wildlife species are not expected to be significantly impacted, no additional mitigation is required by Amendment No. 8 of the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan. PALOMA DEL SOL Page 16 of 36 October 26, 2001 AnDENnUM NO. 4 TO EIR 235 Le ~IIN'ERAL RESOURCES Previously Identified Impact.~Mifigafion The State Division of Mines and Geology has prepared mineral resource reports designating mineral deposits of statewide or regional significance. The State Geologist has classified areas into Mineral ResoUrCes Zones (MRZ) and Scientific Resource Zones (SZ). The zones identify the statewide or regional significance of mineral deposits based on the economic value of the deposits and accessibility. As discussed in the Open Space/Conservation Element of the City of Temecula General Plan, the zoning classification of MRZ-3a has been applied to the City and its Sphere of Influence by the State. "The MRZ-3 areas contain sedimentary deposits which have the potential for supplying sand and gravel for concrete and crushed stone for aggregate, however, these areas are determined as not containing deposits of significance economic value based on the available data.''~ Therefore, potential impacts to mineral resources resulting from implementation of the Approved Project (i.e., Paloma del Sol Specific Plan, Amendment No. 7) would be below a level of significance, and as such, no mitigation is required. Analysis of Change in Project Impacts The area and extent of impact for the Proposed Project (i. e., Amendment No. 8 ) would be the same as the area and extent of impact for the Approved Project (i.e., Amendment No. 7). Therefore, there would be no change in the level of anticipated impacts to mineral resotuces, and no mitigation measures would be required: ENERGY RESOURCES Previously Identified Impacts Development within Paloma del Sol will increase energy consumption for motor vehicle movement, space and water heating, lighting, home appliance use, and construction equipment manufacturing and operation. Natural gas demand for the approved Paloma del Sol Specific Plan was calculated at 39,133,910 cubic feet per month. On-site electricity demand was estimated to be 42,030,975 kilowatts per year. In order to reduce impacts to a level below significance, thc following measures shall be employed: (i) Passive solar heating techniques such as double-pane windows, adequate roof overhangs and proper building insulation; (2) Space and water heating should be provided via gas instead of electricity; and (3) compliance with Title 24 of the California Adminisu-ative Code. 5 City of Temecala General Plan, Open Spac~Conservation FJement, page 5-20. PALOMA DEL SOL Page 17 of 36 October 26, 2001 ADDENDUM NO. 4 TO EIR 235 Ne Analysis of Change in Project Impacts The original Paloma del Sol Specific plan proposed 5,611 dwelling units and 54 acres of commercial land uses. Amendment No. 8 to the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan proposes a maximum of 5,137 dwelling units (assumes senior housing option) and 45.5 acres of commercial land uses, resulting in a reduction of 474 dwelling units and a decrease of 8.5 acres of commercial uses. Project impacts to energy resources will therefore decrease energy consumption by 2,882,394 kwh/unit/year for residential dwellings and by 1,189,645 kwh per square foot per year for commercial uses (assumes an average floor area ratio of 0.21 for commercial uses). The net result is a decrease in electricity demand of approximately 4,072,039 kwh/unit/year.(a 9.7% overall reduction in energy usage) when compared with the estimated electricity demand in the original Paloma del Sol EIR. Therefore, potential impacts to electricity would decrease slightly. In comparison to the project impacts for the original Specific Plan, Amendment No 8 impacts to natur~ gas conserves would result in a decrease in natural consumption by 3,159.210 kwh/unit/year for residential dwellings and by 225,488 kwh per square foot per year for commercial uses (assumes an average floor area ratio of 0.21). This would result in an overall net decrease in natural gas demand of approximately 8.6% when compared with the estimated natural gas consumption for the original Specific Plan as assessed in the original Paloma del $ol EIR. SCENIC HIGHWAYS Previously Identified Impacts The project site is directly bordered by a designated scenic highway (Highway 79 South). Mitigation measures to protect this area along the project frontage will include special setback and landscaping concepts to buffer the site from traffic and enhance the project's visual image for drivers and persons viewing the site from adjoining properties. Analysis of Change in Project Impacts Amendment No. 8 to the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan does not propose any significant changes to the design guidelines of the Specific Plan. Therefore, impacts to the County- designated eligible scenic highway (Highway 79 South) will continue to be mitigated to below a level of significance. No additional or revised mitigation measures are proposed. PALOMA DEL SOL Page 1.8 of 36 October 26, 2001 ADDENDUM NO. 4 TO EIR 235 Oe O CULTURAL AND S cu!.NTIFI C RESOURCES Previously Identified Impacts The Paloma del Sol Specific Plan was surveyed for cultural resources in 1979 and was incorporated into a report6. Cultural resources are classified as both archaeological and paleontological resources. One prehistoric and one historic resource were identified on-site. The historic site no longer exists on-sim. The prehistoric site consisted of two unifacial manos and a 40m X 20m area of sporadic occupation. In ord~ to mitigate this prehistoric sim, it is recommended that the ground cover be reduced by removal of vegetation and wash to ~.,~vvide better surface visibility and all artifacts and features mapped and collected. Subsurface testing shall be conducmd consisting mi)~imally of two lm x lm excavation units. Analysis of Change in Project Impacts A report, Cultural Resource Management Investigations of the Paloma del Sol Development Temeculc~ California, was completed September 24, 1996 by Chris E. Drover, Ph.D. The report indicated that none of the cultural resource sims to be impacted are likely to yield any further significant information and that grading could proceed, but should be monitored in the vicinity of the cultural deposits. Since preparation of that report, mass grading of thc project site has oceurr~ Native American representatives from the Pechanga Band of the Lulsefio tribe were present during all test excavations, and a qualified monitor has been present during project grading operations for archaeological monitoring purposes. No additional mitigation measures will be needed. CIRCIJLATION AND TRAFFIC Previously Identified Impacts The Rivcn~ide County Mastrr Plan of Highways was used in preparing the original EIR. The Paloma del Sol project site has since been incorporated as a part of thc City of Tcmecula and is subject to the erimria and standards set forth in the City's Circulation Element. The Vail Meadows Development, Traffic Impact Study was prepared by Wilbur Smith Assoeiams for the Vail Meadows project (now thc "Paloma del sor' projec0 in November 1987. In September 1999, Wilbur Smith Associates prepared an update to the traffic report entitled, Traffic Impact Study for Plaza Del Sol Commercial Center (now called the "V'fllages at Pasco Del Sol"). This update related specifically to Planning Areas l(a) and l(b), which border the north side of Highway 79 South. Wilbur Smith Associates prepared a partial traffic update in February 2001, which evaluated the traffic generation impacts associated 6Culm'tal Re.w~rce Inventory and Impact A~ea.wnent for d~ KACOR/Rancho Ca//forrua Property (July 30 and August 10, 1979). PALOMA DEL SOL Page 19 of 36 October 26. 2001 ADDENDUM NO. 4 TO EIR 235 with the land use changes proposed in Amendment No. 8 to the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan. A multi-step methodology was used to estimate the projected traffic forecasts in these studies. The first step was to determine project U-ip generation, which estimates the total arriving and departing traffic at the project site on a peak hour and daily basis. The second step of the forecasting process was project traffic distribution, which involves the development of a geographic trip distribution pattern that identifies the origins/destinations of project traffic. The third step was project traffic assignment, by which project-generated trips are allocated to the street system. Project generated uaffic was calculated at approximately 42,055 vehicle trips per day based on the land use mix proposed in the original Paloma del Sol Specific Plan No. 219 as analyzed in the certified EIR No. 235. Based upon project generated traffic and associated impacts to roadway segment and intersections within the project vicinity, mitigation measures were identified consisting of roadway and intersection improvements. Recommended long range roadway improvement needs in the project vicinity (which resulted from the specific plan build-out and cumulative area development traffic impact analysis) were identified as follows: (1) extension of Meadows Parkway from De Portola Road, south to State Route 79, (2) signalization at State Route 79 and Margarita Road Intersection, State Route 79 and Meadows Parkway Intersection, and at Margarita Road and designated "gateway" street (south of Pauba Road), (3) provision of 4-lanes on: Meadows Parkway between State Route 79 and De Ponola Road, designated secondary road connecting Meadows Parkway to De Portola Road, which provides access to the proposed community shopping center; and, designated 'gateway" streets, (4) inclusion of separate left and right turn lanes at certain intersections, and (5) the widening and signalization of various off-site .roads and intersections. Analysis of Change in Project Impacts The following conclusions are based on the findings of the original 1987 Wilbur-Smith Associates (WSA) traffic impact study, the subsequent Traffic Impact Study for Plaza Del Sol Commercial Center (now referred to as the "Villages at Pasco Del $o1') update, and the most recent traffic update letter, which was prepared in February 2001 for Specific Plan Amendment No. 8: Specific Plan Amendment No. 8 would result in a combined net reduction in residential units, commercial acreage, and school acreage. Residential units would be reduced by either 109 (Adult Retirement Option) or 174 dwellings (Proposed [s,~d Use Plan), depending on the development option implemented for Planning Area 8. Within the community and neighborhood commercial land use categories, the proposed changes would result in an overall net reduction of seven (7) commercial acres. In addition, the proposed land use plan changes would result in the elimination of ten (10) acres from the elementary school category. For the purposes of Wilbur Smith's latest traffic PALOMA DEL SOL Page 20 of 36 October 26, 2001 No. 4 TO EIR 235 analysis, one element~y school has been eliminated from the land use plan. A t~ypical attendance of 700 students per school was used for the remaining elementary schools. Specific Plan Amendment No. 8 also proposes minor changes in greenbelt paseos, roadway paseos and major streets. However, these changes would not result in significant differences in the vehicle trip generation for the Specific Plan. Traffic signals have been installed at thc Margarita Road/De Portola Road, Highway 79 South/Meadows Parkway, and Highway 79/Buttedield Stage Road intersections and on Campanula Way at the rear of the Home Depot to ensure that the intersections operate at an acceptable Level of Service (LOS D or better). Installation of these four traffic signals has mitigated the potential traffic impacts at these intersections to below a level of significance. In summary, the proposed changes in Specific Plan Amendment No. 8 will result in a total reduction of 7,963 daily vehicle trips from the number of daily vehicle Uips associated with Amendment No. 7 (see Table 4, Land Use and Trip Generation Comparison, for detail). This reduction is determined as follows: PALOMA DEL SOL Page 21 of 36 Octol~' 26, 2001 ADnESDUM NO. 4 TO EIR 235 Qm · . Thc trip reduction (as shown in Table 4, Land Use and Trip Genera'ion Comparison) is determined as follows: Amendment No. 8 results in a decrease of 174 medium density residential dwelling units from the number of units proposed in Amendment No.7. Th. is change results in a reduction of 1,163 daily vehicle trips. Amendment No. 8 also proposes changes to commercial property densities. Community commercial uses will be increased by eight acres, resulting in an addition of 4,400 daily trips. However, neighborhood commercial uses will be reduced by 15 acres, resulting in a net reduction of 10,500 daily trips. Taken together, trips associated with all types of commercial uses will be reduced by 6,100. Daily trips associated with the elementary schools will be reduced by 700, and changes to greenbelt paseos, roadway paseos and major streets were found to be negligible. Thc proposed land use changes (from Specific Plan No. 219, Panendment No. 7 to Amendment No. 8) would result in an overall reduction traffic impacts associated with the Appwved Project (/.e., Amendment No. 7). While substantial, this reduction would not be great enough to eliminate the need for the traffic impwvements identified elsewhere in this section. The developer will continue to be responsible for payment of development impact fees in accordance with the fee schedule established by the City. However, with the reduction in traffic volumes associated with Amendment No. 8, the developer's fair share con~bution of development impact fees shall be concomitantly reSuced. WATER AND SEWER Previously Identified Impacts A preliminary water and sewer report~ was prepared for the Paloma del Sol project in 1987. The site lies within the Rancho Villages Assessment Disu'ict (providing for major infrastructure improvements), Rancho California Water District (water service), and Eastern Municipal Water District (sewer services). Thc site lies within the 1305, 1380, and 1485 pressure zone systems, with thc majority of the site lying within 1380 pressure zone system. Sewage from Paloma del Sol would be treated at the EMWD's Rancho California Regional Water Reclamation Facility. The EMWD site is (was) proposed to expand its capacity in time to adequately serve thc needs of Paloma del Sol residents. 6Preliminary Investigation on Water and Sewer Service for Vail Meadows (August 1987) PALOMA DEL SOL Page 23 of 36 October 26, 2001 ADnENDUM NO. 4 TO EIR 235 Approximately four million gallons of water reservoir storage would be required for the previously approved Paloma del Sol project. This storage would be provided by existing reservoirs in the local area. It is unknown whether additional reservoir storage would be constructed for future use. In addition, approximately 100 gallons of sewage per person per day (the Eastern Municipal Waste District's sewage generation factor) would be generated by the project, which is approximately 1,453,771 million gallons per day for the Paloma del Sol project. The proposed infrastructure wastewater collection facilities to ultimately serve the project was based on EMWD's overall system master planning for the Rancho Villages Assessment District. See V.D.2 for further discussion and exhibits. In order to mitigate for potential impacts associated with the original Paloma del Sol Specific plan, the following mitigation measures shall be implemented: 1) Health and Safety Code Section 17921.3 X~luims low-flush toilets and urinals in all buildings; 2) Title 20, California Administrative Code Section 1606 (b) establishes efficiency standards that set the maximum flow rate of all new sliowerbeads, lavatory faucets, etc.; 3) Title 20 of the CAD Sections prohibits the sale of fixtures that do not comply with regulations; 4) Tide 24 CAD 2-5307 (b) prohibits the installation of fixtures unless the manufacturer has certified to the CEC compliance with flow rate standards; 5) Title 24 CAD Sections 2-5352 (i) and 0) address pipe insulation requirements, which can reduce water used before hot water reaches equipment or fixtures; 6) Health andSafety Code Section 4047 prohibi~ installation of residential water softening or conditioning appliances unless certain conditions are satisfied; 7) Government Code Section 7800 specifies that lavatories in all public facilities be equipped with self-closing faucets that limit the flow of hot water. Analysis of Change in Project Impacts The original Paloma del Sol Specific Plan proposed 5,611 dwelllhg units and 54 acres of commercial development. In December 1995, the Eastern Municipal Water Disu'ict (F. MWD) adopted an Urban WarerManngeraent Plan using Paloma del Sol Specific Plan Amendment No. 1 as thc basis for the project. The Urban Water Management Plan assumes a total of 5,604 dwelling units in Paloma del Sol at project build out, in addition to 51 acres of cornmercial uses, 63 acres of public uses, and 129 acres of park. These uses were factored into the long term non-potable water needs of the EMWD. The current proposal (Amendment No. 8) would provide a maximum of 5,137 dwelling units, 45.5 acres of commercial development, 53 acres of public uses (including the schools and the day care center), and 145.9 acres of park/recreation areas, greenbelt paseos and roadway paseos. Although demand for non-potable water for use in the park/recreation areas, greenbelt paseos and roadway paseos within the proposed project would increase somewhat from that anticipated in the Urban Water Management Plan. Non-potable water usage for all of the other uses would incrementally decrease when compared with the assumptions made in the original Paloma del Sol EIR and EIvlWD's adopted Urban Water Management Plan. PALOMA DEL SOL Page 24 of 36 October 26, 2001 AnnENDUM NO. 4 TO EIR 235 Therefore, the net change in non-potable water usage would be insignificant. Amendment No. 8 to thc Paloma del Sol Specific Plan proposes a maximum of 5,137 dwelling units and 45.5 acres of commercial land uses, a reduction of 474 dwelling units and a decrease of 8.5 acres of commercial uses from the original Specific Plan. Consequently, the decrease in residential development would result in a reduction in water usage of approximately 284,400 gallons per day for residential uses (assumes 600 gpd/du) and a reduction of 17,000 gpd for the 8.5 acres of commercial uses. The addition of the 20.0-acre junior high school (not included in the original Specific Plan) would increase water usage by another 40,000 gallons per day (assumes 2,000 gpd/ac). Furthermore, if it is assumed that the water requirements for the elementary schools and the open space and park/recreation areas remain essentially unchanged, then the new project would result in a reduction in water demand of 261,400 gallons per day when compared with the original Specific Plan. Table 5, below, identifies the estimated usage and impacts after mitigation for both the Approved Project (/.e., Amendment No. 7) and the Proposed Project (/.e., Amendment No. 8). Public Utilities and Serwice Table $ Public Utilities and Services Comparison Water Sewer~ Approved Project (Amendment No. 7) Estimated Usage 4,026,400 gallons 1,845,300 gallons (Amendment No. 8) Impact after Estimated Usage Impact after Mitigation Mitigation Insignificant 3,765,000 gallons Insignificant Insignificant 1,453,771 gallons lns~ificant 7600 gallons/day for residences, 3,000 gallons/acre/day for conunercial, 3,800 gallona/acreb~ay for parks s 300 gallons per day per res/dcnces, 3,000 gallons/acre/day for commercial The Proposed ~¥ojeCt woulc~result in r t ed im~act~ to water and sewer when compared to the Approved Project. Therefore, with implementation of the mitigation measures specified in Section V.D of the certified EIR for the original Paloma del $ol Specific Plan, potentially significant impacts would be reduced to below a level of significance. 0 Previously Identified Impacts The project site is presently provided with fire protection services by the Rivemide County Fire Department in cooperation under contract with the City of Temecula. The Pauba Fxre Station on Pauba Road services the site. PALOMA DEL SOL Page 25 of 36 October 26, 2001 AnDENDUM NO. 4 TO EIR 235 The original F~IR found that the existing fire station, which is located within three miles of the project site, would only provide Category iT[ level of protecilon. However, that station was determined not to be adequate to serve the project site. Consequently, the original Paloma del Sol Specific plan would be subject to Development Impact Fees to offset the cost of providing a new fire station within a five-minute response time to the project site. Th/s would mitigate the project's impacts to fire-related services to a level below significance. Analysis of Change in Project Impacts The orig/nal Paloma del Sol Specific plan proposed 5,611 dwelling units and 54 acres of commercial land uses. Amendment No. 8 to the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan proposes a maximum of 5,137 dwelling units and 45.5 acres of commercial land uses, a reduction of 4'74 dwelling units and a decrease of 8.5 acres of commercial uses. The change in land uses between Amendments No. ? and 8 is even smaller:. When compared to Amendment No. 7, the number of dwelling units in Amendment No. 8 would decreased by 174 dwelling units (Proposed l~nd Use Plan) or 109 dwelling units (Adult Retirement Option), which would result in 496 or 311 fewer project residents, depending upon which plan gets implemented. The acreage of proposed commercial development in Amendment No. 8 remains the same as the commercial acreage associated with Amendment No. 7. The net effect of these land use changes would not significandy change the response times from the existing tim station to the project site. Accordingly, the significant impacts associated with the previous assessment for the original Paloma del Sol Specific Plan, would require similar mitigation to reduce the impacts to a level below significant. S. Sm~m.~- SERWCF, S Previously Identified Impacts Police services are provided to the site by Riverside County Sheriff's Department, which operates from the I~ke Elsinore Sheriff's Station. The County and City recognize the need for additional sheriff services with the increase in population. The EIR states that the - - Sheriff's department attempts to maintain a ratio of one deputy for every 4,000 persons, while a letter from thc Sheriff's Department reflects the need for one deputy per 1,500 people. According to the City of Temecula's General Plan, one deputy per 1,000 people is the desired milo. In order to rnitigate the project's impacts associated with police services, the applicant of the original Paloma del Sol Specific Plan would be required to coordinate with the Riverside County Sheriff's Deparunent to assure that proper protection facilities and personnel would be available. To ensure safety to the residents of the original Paloma del Sol project, safety measures would be incorporated in the design of the project's circulation components (for pedestrians, vehicles, and police), street lighting, residential door and window visibility from street and buildings, and fencing. PALOMA DEL SOL Page 26 of 36 October 26, 2001 A D mUM NO. ,l TO EIR 235* Ye Analysis of Change in Project Impacts The orions! Paloma del Sol Specific plan proposed 5,611 dwelling units, which would equate to a population of 15,$79 persons, assuming a generation factor of 2.83 persons per unit as indicated in the City of Temecula General Plan. Amendment No. 8 to the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan proposes a maximum of 5,137 dwelling units, which represents a reduction of 474 dwelling units or 1,342 project residents from that proposed in the original Specific Plan. Assuming a County stalldard of one deputy per 1,500 persons, then Specific Plan Amendment No 8 would generate a need for 9.7 deputies. This is a reduction from the 10.6 deputies required under the original Specific Plan (as recalculated using the Sheriff Depa~huent's current ratio of one deputy per 1,500 persons). It should be noted that the original EIR was prepared using a different deputy/population ratio. Updaling the original EIR to use the current Sheriff's Depa-r~ent current deputy/population ratio, would increase the deputies need to adequately serve the original Specific Plan from g.4 to 10.6 deputies. Impacts to sheriff services would be reduced by 0.9 deputy. When compared to Amendment No. 7, the number of dwelling units in Amendment No. $ would decreased by 174 dwelling units (Proposed Land Use Plan) or 109 dwelling units (Adult Retirement Option), which would result in 496 or 311 fewer project residents, depending upon which plan gets implemented. The reduction in population associated with Amendment No. $ would result in a slight reduction in impacts to sheriff services of 0.4 deputy for the Proposed Land Use Plan and 0.2 deputy for the Adult Retirement Option. Consequently, impacts to utilities would be reduced, and no further mitigation is required. SCHOOLS Previously Identified Impacts The Paloma del Sol project hcs within the Temccula Valley Unified School Disuict (TVUSD) for grades K-12. The entire project will be served by three existing elementary. schools: ........ Abby Reinke Elementary School (K-5), 43799 Sunny Meadows Drive, Temecula (Planning Area 11 on-site); Paloma Elementary School Cd-5), 42940 Via Rami, Temecula (located off-site); and Joan F. Sparkznan Elementary School (K-5), 32225 Plo Pieo Road, Temeeula (Planning Area 7 on-site). Abby Reinke Elementary School is partially built and is being built in phases, although it is presently serving students. Estimated completion date for the school is approximately 2002. Although the Specific Plan designates an additional site for another elemenm.,'y school within the project (Planning Area 32 in the Approved Project), the TVUSD has indicated that this site is no longer needed (see dated February 4, 1999 letter in the Appendix), since most of the PALOMA DEL SOL Page 27 of 36 October 26, 2001 ADDENDUM NO. 4 TO ~ 235 dwelling units within the Paloma Del Sol project have already been built and arc not generating as many students as originally predicted. Planning Area 32 will develop with Medium density (2-5 du/ac) residential uses instead of an elementary school, The project includes a middle school in Planning Area 30, adjacent to Meadows Parkway. This school ('remecula Middle School) is open and serves students in grades 6-8. Temecula Middle School is located at 42075 Meadows Parkway. Existing high school students in Paloma Del Sol attend (and new students will also attend) Temecula Valley High School, which serves grades 9-12. The high school is located at 31555 Rancho Vista Road adjacent to Margarita Road. According to the certified EIR for the original Paloma del Sol Specific Plan, the project would generate an e~mated 3,086 students in Grades K-8 (based upon TVUSD's generation factor of 0.55 students per dwelling unit). In addition, 1,178 high school students would be generated from the previously approved project (based upon Elsinore Union High School District's generation factor of 0.21 students per dwelling unit). The certified EIR determined that the proposed 61 acres of school sites would provide adequate school services for TVUSD students. Since certification of the EIR, the project is building om at a lower density than originally envisioned. Therefore, the number of students generated by the proposed project will be reduced accordingly. The Temecula Valley Unified School District has already determined that the Junior High School site in Plmming Area 30 is no longer required. Analysis of Change in Project Impacts The original EIR assumed that the original Specific Plan project would generate 3,086 K-8 students and 1,178 high school students. Amendment No. 8 to the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan would result in a reduction of 539 single-family dwelling units (assuming that Planning Area 8 would built out with 335 single family homes) from that anticipated in the original Paloma del Sol Specific Plan. Using generation factors of 0.55 students per unit for Grades K-8 and 0.21 students per unit for high school, ther~ would be a d~xease of 296 K-8 students and 113 high school students fi.om those generated by the Original Specific Plan project. Amendment No. 8 will reduce impacts to schools, and no further mitigation is required. U. PARKS AND RECREATION Previously Identified Impacts Implementation of thc Approved Project (i.e., Paloma Del Sol Specific Plan, Amendment No. 7) would create a demand for parks and recreation facilities in the project area. To meet this demand, the Specific Plan includes an extensive Open Space and Recreation Program. This program will provide 142.5 acres of land for park, recreational open space, parkway and pasco uses, which is equivalent to 9.53 acres of park and recreation land per 1,000 residents. The provision of this acreage will adequately mitigate the increased recreational demands generated by the Approved Project. PALOMA DEL SOL Page 28 of 36 October 26, 2001 ADnE UM NO. 4 TO EIR 235 Analysis of Change in Project Impacts Implementation of Amendment No. 8 to the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan would result in a reduction of 474 dwelling units when compared with the original Paloma del Sol Specific Plan. The reduction Would cause 1,351 fewer project residents (based on the City of Temecula's generation factor of 2.85 persons per dwelling unit). When compared to Amendment No. 7, the number of dwelling units in Amendment No. 8 has decreased by 174 dwelling units and 109 dwelling units uncL-r the adult retirement option, while the total park and recreation acreage has increased slightly from 142.5 to 144.0 acres. Amendment No. 8 includes 30.6 acres of parks/recreation areas, 31.9 acres of greenbelts, and 81:5 acres of roadway paseos for a combined park and recreation total acreage of 144.0 acres. The approved Development Agreement allows for parks, greenbelts, and roadway paseos to count toward park and recreation credit. A comparison of park and ~ation open space for both Amendment No. 7 and Amendment No. 8 is contained in Table 6, Park/Recreation Acreage Comparison Analysis. Table 6 Park/Recreation Acreage Comparison Analysis Amep~m-~ / Plan N~ of Population Amount of Am~nnt of A~nage Dwellln~ Ml~plier Park/]~ ParlotR~ That Units Acreage Requlr~l Acreage F.v ~ _,~_ ~ ($ AC/I,000) Provided $ AC/l,000 Amendment No. 7: Adopted Land Use Plan 5,246 2.85 74.8 142.5 +67.7 Amendment Proposed LUP 5,072 2.85 72.3 144.0 +71.7 No. 8: Proposed Adult 5,137 2.85 73.2 144.0 +70.8 Plan Option As depicted in Table 6, above, Amendment No. 8 would result in a net increase of 1.5 acu'~ of land devoted to park and recreation uses over that provided in Amendment No. 7. Therefore, Amendment No. $ would not result in any increase in potentially significant impacts associated with parks and recreation. No additional mitigation measures are warranted. PALOMA DELSOL Page 29 of 36 Octob~ 26, 2001 No. 4 TO EIR 235 V. UTILITII~S Special Background Information Beginning in January 2001, California began to experience a shortage in the supply of electricity. That situation was a result of three fundamental changes within the organization of the power industry: (1) a halt in power plant consa'uction during the 1990's, (2) deregulation in 1996, and (3) an increase in the price of natural gas. According to the California Department of Water Resources (DWR), the majority of the energy crisis stems from the lack of new plant construction during the 1990's, which corresponded directly to the decline in the availability of electrical energy early in 2001. Because of the decreasing supply and a high demand for energy, the wholesale price of electricity began to rise. This situation was further exacerbated by deregulation. The deregulation agreement of 1996 placed a price cap on the dollar mount the California utilities, like SC'E, could charge their customers. Because of the price cap, SCE was fomed to charge consumers less for energy than the price they had to pay. This price discrepancy eventually forced SCE into debt, and because of waning credit the company was no longer able to buy enough power to satisfy demand. SCE, however, was able to buy power on a daily basis with cash reserves, but this was not a reliable means by which to supply all of their customen on a continual basis. As a direct result of SCE's financial difficulties, on January 17, 2001, the DWR was given authority to purchase power on behalf of SCE. The power purchased by DWR was used to supply those customers who were beyond the daily capacity of SCE. The DWR paid for the electricity with funds from the State of California General Fund and this money would be reimbursed to the State by a three cent (3¢) increase per Kilowatt hour (KW) charge. This charge was added to consumers' bills staring on June 3, 2001. Additionally, on August 21, 2001, the California Senate passed a bill allowed SCE to issue bonds for up to $2.9 billion. The money generated from the bonds will allow SCB to reimburse the companies tbeyowe; approximately ?0 percent of their debt. Most notably, these measures are a first step to providing SCE with thc ability to regain its credit status, thus, enabling SCE to begin providing all of its customers with electricity. In addition to the steps taken by SCE and the state, within the last year the California Energy Commission (CEC) has approved a total of 16 power plant projects. Of these app~o-ved project~ three have been completed and are currently producing 1,415 Megawatts 0VIW) of electricity per year (one MegaWatt supplies 750 homes). An additional plant, an out-of- service unit in Huntington Beach, is being upgraded and retrofitted, and completion is expected in November 2001. This plant will add an additional 450 MW per year to the energy grid. The remaining 12 plants are either being constructed or are in the process of obtaining financing. These 12 plants are expected to be online between 2001 and 2004 (see Table 7, California Power Plant Project Status). In addition, the eEC is reviewing proposals for 20 new power plants, and has announced plans for 31 additional power plants. PALOMA DEL SOL Page 30 of 36 October 26, 2001 ADn .NDUM NO. 4 TO EIR 235 Combined, these 79 projects, which will be located throughout California, will result in an additional 30,482 MW produced per year. These projects are expected to be completed between September 2001 and August 2005. Most notably, eight of these power plants will be located in Riverside County and seven will be located in San Bemardino County. It is important to note that some aging facilities will require special pollution permits and expensive maintenance, which may render them too costly to operate. Therefore, some power plants presently producing energy may be taken off-line. Additionally, approximately 22 executive orders were issued by Governor Gray Davis in the first six months of 2001. The intent of these executive orders was to promote conservation and to temporarily ease restrictions found within thc California Environmental Quality Guidelines (CEQG) tha~ pertain to power generation. More specifically, the executive order eased regulations pertaining to power plant construction, shortened new plant approval time, eased power generation restrictions, and eased overall plant production and management guidelines. Most of these executive orders will expire December 31, 2001, which will cause the approval t~ne for new power plants, existing plant emission standards, and overall plant management requirements to revert to the standards set forth in thc (CEQG). Table 7 California Power Plant Project Status Projects approved Over ~0 ~almcity ~ Loca~on Stat~s On.line Date Me~a Wnu (MW) (By ~ounty) Surest~ 320 Kcm Co. Operational Sunc 2001 Surer~ ~0 S-~ Co. Ol~rafional July 2001 Los McndanoaI 555 Contra Costa Operational July 2001 Operational Total 1,41S Humingmn Beach~ 450 Orange Co. Construction Nov. 2001 La Paloma2 1,048 Kern Co. ConStm~on - April-~une ...... 2OO2 Del~a: 880 Cun~ra Costa Consmacfion ~ 2002 Moss Landing2 1.060 Monterey Co. Cons~uction June 2002 High Desert 720 San Benardino~ Constru~on luly 2003 Elk Hills 500 Kern Co+ Construction March 2003 BI)the 520 Rivc~ide Co? Con.~'uction March 2003 Pastoria 750 Kern Co. Consmacfion January 2003 Operational and Under 7,343 Cons~rnction Subtotal Mountain View 1,056 San Bemardino~ ] Financing I June 2003 PALOMA DEL SOL Page 31 of 36 October 26, 2001 ADnESD M NO. 4 TO EIR 235 ProjecU approved .Over 300 Mega Wart (MW) Capacity (MW) Location Stares (By County) On-llne Date Otay Mesa 510 Three Mountain 500 Comra Costa 530 Midway-Sunset 500 Financing Subtotal 10,439 Wildflow~ Larkspur 90 Wildflower Indigo 135 GWF Hanfo~d 95 San Diego Co. Financing Shasta Co. Financing Contra Mesa Financing Kern Co. Financing Sun Diego Co. Cousmaction Riverside Co? Construction Sun Bernurdino3 Conslruction San Bernardino~ Construc~doll IGngs Co. Construction July 2003 D~cemb~ 2003 July 2003 June 2004 July 2001 July 2001 Septembex 2001 September 2001 September 2001 C. alpine Gilroy Pham I 135 Calpeak Escondido 49.5 Under Construction Subtotal 584.5 Santa C!'-'a CO. Sun Diego Co. September 2001 September 2001 Pegasus 180 Sun Bemurdino Financing Ca.lpine King City 50 Mon~rey CO. Financing C. alpine Gilroy · 49.5 San Diego Co. Financing Financing Subtotal December2001 2001 APPROVED TOTAL 11,303 Denotes power plants that became openitional in the summex of 2001 Denotes power plants that are expected to be operational in the summer of 2002 Denot~ power plan~ that will eventually be operauonal m the region of the proposed project. *Source: California Energy Commission (CEC), Wcbsite: http://www.cncr~v.ca.s,ov/sitinecases PALOMA DEL SOL Page 32 of 36 October 26, 2001 No. 4 TO EIR 235 Previously Identified Impacts The residential, commercial and office uses in the Approved Project (i.e., Specific Plan Amendment No. 7) will create a demand for energy estimated at 63,388,761 kWH per year for electricity and 35,574,929 cubic feet/month (4,115,715 therm$ per year per dwelling unit based on new ussage rates) for natural gas. The Southern California Edison Company and the Southern California Gas Company provide electricity to the project site and have indicated that they would be able to meet these estimated demands. Analysis of Change in Project Impacts When compared to Amendment No. 7, the number of dwelling units in Amendment'No. 8 would be decreased by 174 dwelling units (Proposed Land Use Plan) or 109 dwelling units (Adult Retirement Option), which would result in 496 or 311 fewer project residents, depending upon which plan gets implemented. The reduction in population associated with Amendment No. 8 would result in a corresponding reduction in utility demand (see Table 8, Estimated Natural Gas and Elec-trlciry Demand Comparison). Consequently, impacts to utilities would be reduced, and no further mitigation is required. Public Utilities and Service Table 8 Estimated Natural Gas and Electricity. Demand Comparison Approved Project (Amendment No. 7) (Amendment No. 8) Impact after Impact after Mitigation Mitigation Estimated Usage Estimated Usage 4,115,715 therms per 3,976,688 therms per year per dwelling unit year per dwelling unit Natural Gass (ba~ on new usage Insignificant {based on new usage Insi~ificant ra~) rates) 42,030,975 kWh l~r y~ar El~cuici~y6 (63,388,761 based on Insignificant 37,955,936 kWh per Insignificant new usage ratez) year ~ New generation rates provided by Southern California Gas Co. (SCG) provide for 799 th~rms/year/dwelling unit for single-family residences and 483 therma/year/dw¢lling unit for multi-family dwellings of five or mor~ units.. Due to the fact that construction varies so widely (e.g., a glass building vs. a heavily insulated building) and that there is such a wide variation in types of materials and equipment ns~:l, a typical demand figure is not available for commercial construction from SCG. ~ 5,~21 kWlgdu/yr for residan~al, and 1'4.~4 kWh/sf/yr for comme~l PALOMA DEL SOL Page 33 of 36 October 26, 2001 ADDENDUM N0. ~ TO EIR 235 W. SOLID WASTE [3 Previously Identified Impacts The project site is located within the El Sobrante service area. The Paloma del Sol Specific Plan will result in an increase in the amount of solid waste generated on the project site when compared to e~/isting conditions. There will also be a corresponding increase in the service needs for waste haulers. The population of 14,546 estimated to be generated by Proposed Project will result in approximately 57.5 tons of waste a day assuming that 7.9 pounds of waste is generated per person per day. This will incrementally shorten the life span of the El Sobrante Landfill; however, the landfill has received County approvals for a major multi-year expansion that would dramatically extend the life expectancy of the landfill. The expansion project is already under construction. In addition, California law currently requires all municipalities to recycle or divert 50% of their solid waste slxeam.~ from landfills. This practice is expected to continue and will also contribute to the life expectancy of the landfill. Analysis of Change in Project ImPacts Amendment No. 8 to the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan would result in a reduction of 474 dwelling units when compared with the original Paloma del Sol Specific Plan. The reduction would result in 1,351 fewer project residents (based upon City of Temecula General Plan's generation factor of 2.85 persons per dwelling uni0. When compared to the Approved Project (i.e., Amendment No. 7), the number of dwelling units in Amendment No. 8 would be decreased by 174 dwelling units (Proposed Land Use Plan) or 109 dwelling units (Adult Retirement Option), which would result in 496 or 311 fewer project residents, depending upon which plan gets implemented. The reduction in population associated with Amendment No. 8 would result in the generation of less amounts of solid waste, which would reduce the demand for landfill space. Consequently, impacts associated with solid waste would be reduced, and no further rnitigation is required. L~P.~P. mS · Previously Identified Impacts The project is currently served by library facilities located near the intersection of Ynez Road and Rancho Califorma Road in Rancho California. Due to the increase in population that Paloma del Sol will generate, mitigation fees will be required by the project to increase the facility size, book collection and library staff. Analysis of Change in Project Impacts Amendment No. 8 to the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan would result in a reduction of 474 dwelling units when compared to the original Paloma del Sol Specific Plan. The reduction would result in 1,351 fewer project residents (based upon City of Temecula General Plan's generation factor of 2.85 persons per dwelling unit). PALOMA DEL SOL Page 34 of 36 October 26, 2001 ADDE mU NO. 4 TO EIB 235 When compared to the Approved Project (i.e., Amen~knent No. 7), the number of dwelling units in Amendment No. 8 would decreased by 174 dwelling units (proposed Land Use Plan) or 109 dwelling units (Adult Retirement Option), which would result in 496 or 311 fewer project residents, depending upon which plan gets implemented. The reduction in population associated with Amendment No. 8 would result in less demand for books, library space, and library facilities. Since impacts to libraries would be reduced, and no further mitigation is HEALTH SERVIGES Previously Identified Impacts The following medical facilities serve the project area: (1) Inland Valley Regional Medical Center (80 beds);'(2) Menifoe Valley Medical Center (84 beds); and (3) Rancho Springs Medical Center (99 beds). Other fadlities for specialized medical cases are also located throughout the ~ No mitigation measures are required, as it is believed that medical facilities respond to "market" demand. Analysis of Change in Project Impacts Amcnctment No. 8 to the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan would result in a zeduction of 474 dwelling units when compared with the original Paloma del Sol Specific Plan. The ~ction would mean a decrease of 1,351 fewer project residents (based upon City of Temecula's new generation factor of 2.85 persons per dwelling unit). When compared to the Approved Project (i.e., Amendment No. 7), the number of dwelling units in Amendment No. 8 would be decreased by 174 dwelling units (Proposed Land Use Plan) or 109 dwelling units (Adult Ret/rement Option), which would result in 496 or 311 fewer project residents, depending upon which plan gets implemented. The reduction in population that would occur if Amendment No. 8 is implemented would result in a reduced '-demand for health services. Consequently, impacts to health services would be reduced,-and no further mitigation is required. AIRPORTS Previously Identified Impacts Paloma del Sol is not affected by any "Airport Influence Areas," and therefore was not discussed in the adopted EIR, nor were mitigation measures required. Analysis of Change in Project Impacts The project is not within an Airport Influence area, and does not require mitigation measures. PALOMA DEL SOL Page 35 of 36 October 26, 2001 AnDE mt NO. 4 TO E1R 235 DISASTER ]~.EPAREDNESS Previously Identified Impacts Earthquakes, floods, and wildfires are natural occurrences that cannot be prevented. The County Office of Disaster Preparedness is responsible for coordinating the various agencies to assure preparedness and recovery from a natural disaster. Seismic safety, slopes and erosion, wind erosion and blowsand, flooding, and £~re services impacts and accompanying mitigation m'e discussed in separate sections of the EIR. Analysis of Change in Project Impacts Amendment No. 8 to the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan would result in a reduction of 474 dwelling units, or 1,351 fewer project residents (based upon the City of Temecula's new generation factor of 2.85 persons per dwelling unit), from that envisioned in the original Paloma del Sol Specific Plan. In comparison' to the Approved Project (£e., Amendment No. 7), the number of dwelling units in Amendment No. 8 would be decreased by 174 dwelling units (Proposed Land Use Plan) or 109 dwelling units (Adult Retirement Option), which would result in 496 or 311 fewer project residents, depending upon which plan gets implemented. Implementation of either the Proposed Land Use Plan or the Adult Retirement Option would result in a reduction in population that would be exposed to seismic safety hazards, including ground shaking. As such, nb further mitigation is n~cessary. III. CONCLUSION In all cases, impacts associated with implementati°n of the Proposed Project (i.e., Paloma del Sol Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment No. 8) would be the same as or less than those analyzed in the certified FI:J'R and Addendum No. 3 for the Approved Project (i.e., Paloma del Sol Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment No. 7). The Proposed Project will be required to comply with all mitigation measures identified in the c~rtified FEIR and the subsequent F_2R addendums; including~his EIR ..... addendum (i.e., Addendum No. 4). No additional mitigation measures are necessary to reduce potentially significant impacts to below a level of significance. PALOMA DEL SOL Page 36 of 36 Octobta' 26, 2001 APPENDIX ADDENDUM NO. 4 TO EIR 235 'I'Ma ~,~,'- c~irms ~I~ ~e Tem~:c~ Yall~ ~ School Distri~, up~ ~*- o£~ n~t~r 0~35!r~012-U~ (S,'~',~ol $~ ;,, tt~ Pa.~o dr.1 ~1Pmjmt), ~11 m~ ~ ,,,~t will T~m~mt~ Vall~ U~ti~l ~ ~ ~ Ocular 20, 19St. /'FEM~'VAI.LEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTKI'CT -. EXHIBIT B GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION MAP R:kS P A~2001~01-0102 Paloma Del Sol ~ ~ ~cs..doc ATTACHMENT NO. 4 RESOLUTION APPROVING PALOMA DEL SOL SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT NO.8 R:\S P Ak2001\O1-0102 Paloma Del Sol # 8\PC Sta ft~t. pt..2 .doc 13 ATTACHMENT NO. 4 RESOLUTION NO. 01- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA01-0102 (SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 8) FOR THE PALOMA DEL SOL SPECIFIC PLAN LOCATED EAST OF MARGARITA ROAD, NORTH OF HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH, WEST OF BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD AND SOUTH OF PAUBA ROAD BASED UPON THE ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS CONTAINED IN THIS RESOLUTION. WHEREAS, Newland Communities filed Planning Application No. PA01-0102 (the "ApplicatioW), in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan, Development Code, CEQA Guidelines and California State CEQA Guidelines; WHEREAS, the Application was processed including, but not limited to public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the Application on November 7, 2001 at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support or opposition to this matter; WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearings and after due consideration of the testimony, the Commission recommended approval of the Application subject to and based upon the findings set forth hereunder; WHEREAS, the City Council considered the Application on , 2001, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support or opposition to this matter; WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Council hearing and after due consideration of the testimony, the Council approved of the Application, and certified Addendum No. 4 to the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Paloma Del Sol Specific Plan, made all required findings and determinations relative thereto and after finding that the project proposed in the Application conformed to the City of Temecula General Plan as amended; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby incorporated by reference. Section 2. Findings. That the City Council, in approving the Application, hereby makes the following findings as required in Chapter 17.16 of the Temecula Municipal Code: A. The proposed specific plan amendment is consistent with the General Plan, as it is proposed to be amended, and Development Code. The proposed Specific Plan amendment is consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan and Development Code. The Specific Plan is a reallocation and redistribution of existing Land Use Designations and serves as an implementation tool for the General Plan. Therefore, as proposed, the Specific Plan is consistent with the General Plan, as it is proposed to be amended. R:~S P Ak2001\01-0102 Paloma Del Sol #8~e spa res..doc 1 B. The Specific Plan Amendment will not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience or welfare of the city. The project has been reviewed for conformance with the City's General Plan, Development Code, Design Guidelines and Growth Management Program Action Plan. These documents set policies and standards that protect the health, safety and welfare of the community. In addition, the Specific Plan is a master planned community with specific design guidelines and standards that ensure compatibility and interface with the surrounding community in terms of density, design and circulation. Therefore, as proposed, conditioned and designed, the Specific Plan is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community. C. The subject property is physically suitable for the requested land use designations and the anticipated land use developments. There are no physical constraints of the site which would preclude or prohibit the requested land use designations or anticipated developments. Moreover, the proposed Specific Plan land uses are consistent with the land uses of the General Plan and will serves as the tool to regulate and implement the goals and policies of the General Plan. The applicant has submitted an application for Tentative Tract Map which indicates that the site is physically suitable for the land uses and development proposed in the Specific Plan. D. The proposed project willl ensure development of desirable character which will be compatible with existing and proposed development in the surrounding neighborhood. The project proposes similar residential land uses adjacent to the existing surrounding neighborhoods, with extensive landscape buffers and interfaces. The commercial office/neighborhood commercial development is proposed within a Village Center and is designed to be pedestrian oriented to serve the needs of the Paloma Del Sol community. The proposed commercial office/neighborhood commercial land is north of Highway 79 South where similar commercial and retail uses currently exist along the Highway corridor. Section 3. Environmental Compliance. The City Council of the City of Temecula has certified Addendum No. 4 to the Final Environmental Impact Report for Paloma Del Sol Specific Plan, made all required findings and determinations relative thereto and finds that the Addendum was prepared consistent with applicable CEQA provisions. The Council also finds that the Addendum was considered in association with the approval of this Specific Plan Amendment. Section 4. Specific Plan. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby approves the specific plan amendment known as the Paloma Del Sol Specific Plan Amendment No. 8, on property located east of Margarita Road, north of Highway 79 South, west of Butterfield Stage Road and south of Pauba Road, as contained in Exhibit A and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval contained in Exhibit B. R:xS P AY2001XOI-0102 Paloma Del Sol #8~e¢ spa rcs_doc 2 Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning Department this 7= day of November 2001. Jeff Comerchero, Mayor ATTEST: Susan W. Jones, CMC/AAE City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTYOF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that Resolution No. 2001- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the clay of 2001, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Susan W. Jones, CMC/AAE City Clerk R:~S P A~.001 ~0143102 Paloma DeJ Sol ~ spa ~s..doc 3 EXHIBIT A AMENDMENT NO. 8 TO SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 219 4 B SUMMARY OF CHANGES SUMMARY OF CHANGES TO PALOMA DEL SOL (MEADOWS) SPECIFIC PLAN The PALOMA DEL SOL Specific Plan Amendment No. 4 was filed pursuant to City Council approval of the "Agreement Regarding Paloma del Sol" on January 11, 1994. Amendment No. 4 added 6.5 acres of Very High density residential to Planning Area 6 and 1.5 acres of Park to Planning Area 37, reduced the Community/Neighborhood Commercial area in Planning Area 1 by 4.9 acres, and reduced major roads acreage by 3.1 acres. Specific Plan Amendment No. 5 increased the number of Medium density dwelling units from 2,338 to 2,487, reduced the number of Medium-High density dwelling units from 2,356 to 2,251, reduced the number of Multi-family dwelling units from 910 to 590, added a 4.0-acre Park/Recreation area site, increased the Community/Neighborhood Commercial acreage from 31.5 acres to 32.3 acres, andreduced the roadway landscape requirements adjacem to commercial uses. Specific Plan Amendment No. 6 ehcompassed several minor changes to the Specific Plan, The Park in Planning Area 29A was increased from 4.0 acres to 5.0 acres. Planning Area 28 was reduced in size by one acre resulting in a reduction of dwelling units from 117 to 113. The dwelling units were a'ansferred to Planning Area 2 bringing the total number of units in Planning Area 2 up to 120. Roadway cross- sections and standards :.~;,; ~,ac,, .vere updated to conformwith the City's General Plan. Access points and neighborhood entries on certain planning areas h,~... ~,,.,..,vere relocated to conform with approved Tentative Tract Maps. Stxeets "{3" and "IT' ha¥c ~;c~;were renamed as Campanula Way. The phasing plan has been revised to reflect current expectations, and wording has been added that gives the Director of Community Development the authority to allow minor variations from Specific Plan standards without a Specific Plan amendment. Overall, Specific Plan Amendment No. 6 did not result in any total acreage or dwelling unit changes. Thc pl~poscd Specific Plan Amendment No. 7 involvesd_ land use changes in Planning Areas 1, 6, and 8, the creation of Planning Areas l(a), "Village Core," and l(b), "Villages," and the realignment and reconfiguration of Campanula Way between De Portola Road to Meadows Parkway. As part of the p~,,~,,~$¢~ changes to Planning Area 1, an application h~: ~, v~as submitted to the City of Temecula to process Amendment No. 7 to the Specific Plan in conjunction with a Development Plan and a 1 O-year Development Agreement (which contains an additional 15 year covenant allowing rebuilding and uses in accordance with the Development Agreement for a total of 25 years), both pertaining only to a portion of what ~ ....... L]y was designated by ,,d,~¥~c~ Amendment No. 6 as Planning Area 1. The Amendment ,, ~ included a division of Planning Area I into a series of subgroups identified as Planning Areas 1, 1 (a) and 10a) for planning purposes with the existing La,~k~ de ~clo~,,¢nt super market center and remaining undeveloped community/neighborhood commercial property north of L~,,;k:~ the super market center along Margarita Road frontage ~,, ~,c known as Planning Area 1. The Development Plan application focused on the newly created Planning Areas la and lb. The Development Plan ;,i;l permitted the construction of a 276,243 square foot community commercial center with a centxalized village core and a series of supporting focused retail villages on 24-acres withtocafions for community gathering places and pedestxian linkages to join the surrounding uses in support of the village concept. P~.l.,o~ nEL SOL I. SUMMARY OF CHANGES SPEC~nC ~ NO. 219/A~,n)~m'T NO. 8 (S.P. NO. SP-4) Page I-1 ~l SUMMARY OF CHANGES The village core ~ ill bcco.q.,,iocd of was desiened to vrovide interactive people=invking spaces al,az ~ ill i.~;.d,~ in coniunction with sit-down restaurants, small scale food establishments, offices, and retail uses surrounding and connected to a large active courtyard plaza that v, ili i,,cl,~& containine both vassive and active water features. In the village core common area, a friendly atmosphere v,;ll ,5c was created to promote the use for live performances, interactive demonstrations and community events. To support the village core, a series of retail villages will be established to enhance the synergy of the community shopping center. The four sub-villages will include a "Home Village," a "Sports Village," a "Music and Media Village," and a "Food and Healthy Village." A brief dc,~,.,iptior, of ,.ac,l, vill,,gc, is as foll-o~ s. ~, V,a~fic~itl ~ filch ho.,6~. Thc v,L,,ma ~o,m.6, ci~ aritho, ~ifl,h, fl.~ "IIo,.~ v, oposi,,g ~ consu act a 131,848 s~ ~ ho.,c h,,~mcnt sto, c Mil, ~ at~chcd lh,~,, ito,Ls, bc&u~,,, and bafli st~cs, f~.itu,~ sto~s, dccu~fing StOiCS, avpli&,ec TI,,. "Spo, to Village," is a~, i,,tc~,atio,, of svotts-,clat~d ,od.il, ,.,, athletic flu,c,ss c.tcrtai,,n,,.~,t ~,~d di,,ing ~at v~t,,~ ~,, ~cfi~ c, hc~th) ~,d fashi~nabl~ ~vo~fit.g li~ sblc ~r ,~idcnu ~T~,,,~ula md fl,c ha& mca. hi,,,~ ~eho,. ~i~in ~,i~ .ill~gc will ~ a ~votfing goo& ~to, c, fit,,~s club &~d ~veci~t) c~. S~co,,~j ~s6~, ~h ~ ~ bc c~,,~;&,~d ~ p~t ~ ~c Village Co, c, c,ould i,,clu& juice b~s, s~, c, o~ s.v~,,.~a~vi~,~n "MusL and Mcdia Village" 'dill fc,atu~c ,ctail,.ts of,hasle,, video ,u~d/u. books to thc Lo,,,c cnt,~rtai,,,,,cnt ,,cc~ of tlc u,.& ar~a. last ~ illagc, fl,~ "rood ,.ad IIcalfl~y Vill,.~c" will scr~e t~ iat~,,~t.~ fi,c` c.;*dag food ,,,~k~t w~, fli~ Lal~i~ ~ ~e c~,~l. Thi~ c~i/fing ~illagc Mil ~at~ 5upportla~ co,,,.,~.,,.ial will ii,clu& in-llnc shops *ith c,o,,,~limcnt~, y o,., .icc,s sud, as juice b~ ~,d beauty s~vvli~s ~ .ell ~ allowi,,g smd ~c office (including ,,,~dic~n~), ~y-c~c, el.lc, f~t ~ods, aum,,,~.~ pfodac~ an~, An .pdau. d co,,.h,.,clal ~,,.a illust, afive (sec` F, gure 50E) has becn v,mi&d wifl,ln A.,,.a&.c,nt No. 7 to ,cftc`ct ti',,, p, op(~cd village, co,,c,,q.a, fo, Ph,,,,,h,g A~,.a 1 ai,d fl~c D~i~,, Guideli,,,.s l,a~,~ bc,c,n ,,pelatcd to 1,i~;I,lisl,t fl,c i,,,l~o~tanec of q,.atit) &ccl.,p,.c,n that ~ ill p~crvidc long,v,.,., viability fo~ ahd fl,c, s,,,,oar, di,,g eo,,,,,,,,,,it~. In addition. Amendment No. 7 added updated vigne~s 1',,,.,. '.,cc,, ad&d to the Design Gui&lines (see Figures 16A, 16Bi and 16C) to provide varying perspectives of the proposed 35-acre Planning Area. Pa~o~o, ~m. So~. I. SUMMARY OF CItANGF_,S S?g~Flc PLt,.N NO. 219/A,',~;I~,W-.NT NO. 8 (S.P. NO. $P4) Page I-2 ~ SUMMARY OF CHANGES As pan of Amendment No. 7, Planning Area 6 wih'-be was reduced from 36.3 acres to 34.3 acres to account for the increased size of Planning Area 1. In addition, Planning Area 6 whtl-be was divided into two planning areas 6A and 6B. Planning Area 6A ,~;11 now includes 22.3 acres ~,d ,ill bt ~.lo~d as High density (9-12 du/ac) residential with a maximum of 268 dwelling units. Planning Area 6B i~ pl,~,h,d f,5, includes 12 acres of Very High density (I 3-20 du/ac) residential with a maximum of 240 dwelling units. The reduction and division of Planning Area 6 ,~ill resulted in a decrease of 82 dwelling units from 590 to 508 units. All affected base maps and land use tables ha.c b~r, were updated to reflect these proposed changes to Planning Area 6 and a descriptive summary of Planning Areas 6A and 6B t'ra've-be.t~ w.as added m Section ltl. SPECIFIC PLAN. Specific Plan Amendment No. 7 also propose~l_ the development of an active senior community within Planning Area 8. A Tentative Tract Map for the active senior project t~ was submitted along with Amendment No. 7. Planning Area 8 v,;ll still b,. Jcsi~,,at~d a* M,.di,~,,, ,c~;dc,,dal ~;tl, 400 dv,,lling ,.;,., but ~ill ,or, now includes feature design standards that will enable this planning area to be developed as a private gated active senior community. If developed as an active senior community, · Planning Area 8 will include a private recreation area for senior community residents and contain street/sidewalk landscaping and housing architecture targeted for active adult living..As part of Amendment No. 7. e~xamples of the planned unique senior street/sidewalk landscaping and housing architecture ha;',, b,-¢, were incorporated into Section IV. DESIGN Gum~_n, ms (See Figures $1A-E). As a result of the changes proposed for Planning Area 1, a ,cali~,~,c,,t of Campanula Way ~ ly..t ~,.,.,, IX. Pottota Road ,md M,.ado~ Pa&~aj. Thc ~o-~d ',~ ill bt .was altered from a throughway at a 100-foot right-of-way m a 78~foot right-of-way with two u'affic cimles (which will require r122-foot .rights_-of-way at their wide st points._) and limited on-street parallel parking. The northerly segment ~;,iA ~ intersects_ with De Portola Road and provides access to Planning Area 6A, Planning Area 38 and Planning Area 37. The southeasterly segment -.~,,.:Id intersects_ with Meadows Parkway and .~ services the commercial center and Planning Area 6B. The roadway segment v.~ald allows for the provision of on-street parking to promote the village center concept. The alteration -[II r*sul~_dd in a total reduction of 0.7-acre in major streets_ a ..... All affected base maps ha~c ~,;,~ were changed to reflect the realigned design with traffic circles including bicycle muting and utility services. An ac,~.agc ~,d d~,cllin~ uhit c,~,,,pafi-~,.,.s bct~ cc,, Specific. Pla,, Amcndu.e.t No, 6 and.Sp,.eifi,. Plan A~,,cn&,cnt No. 7 i* ill.~uatcd below. The prol)osed Specific Plan Amendment No. 8. which is fully described i~ this document, reduces the total number of residential dwellin~ units within the overall Paloma Del Sol Specific Plan from the currently entitled 5.246 units to a maximum of 5.137 units, with a potential for as few as 5.072 units. This dwellin~ unit decrease reCresents a 2% to 3% reduction in residential units. The High and Very Hi£h cate~,ories would remain unchanged by an~roval of Amendment No .8. The decrease in overall net residential density from 5.1 du/ac to 4.9 alu/ac results in the allocation of more land to each sinele family detached residential unit. The gross Cmiect densitw decreases similarly from 3.8 du/ac to 3.6 alu/ac. When compared to the 5.604 dwelling units adopted in the original Specific Plan, the total decrease in residential units ranges from 8% (at 5.137 du) to 10% (at 5.072 PALOMA DEL SOL SPECIFIC PI,AN NO. 219/AME~I)~,rt No, 8 I. SUI~Y OF CHANGES S.P. NO. SP..4) Page I-3 B SUMMARY OF CHANGES SU~L-~RY OF CIIANGE$ TABLE M,.di,~.. IE~i ........ bi,Ak,., IIi~.h V,.,~ IIi~h . 363 ~ V~,: IIi~l, C .........b / C ~;~I,b~,h~d .323 ~l~,b~,l,~d ~l~,~,l,~d t7.5 J.n;~, I~l, S~I,o~I 20.0 J.,,l~, IEgh S~l,o~ Road~ P~s 82.0 ~OJECT TOTAL :.3~1,5~o .... ~RO.~CT TOTAL ..... "' ~' 2,255 ..... 22,3 268 ..... 120 ~ 35.0 17.5 20.O 32~ 82.0 102.7 The commercial uses planned for Plannin£ Area 27 at the corner of Pauba and Butteffield Stase ROad have been eliminated. Plannin£ Area 27 has been reconfigured and relocated to an area south of the Plannin* Area 28 and 29 and includes 9.0 acres from Meadows Parkway to Butterfield Stage Road. This area will be nreserved as natural open space, and contains existing wetland ve£etation. This chanlte is accompanied by the reconfi~uration of Plannin~ Areas 24, 28 and 29 and elimination of Planninff Area 29B. Plannin= Area 24 in Amendment No. 7 is desienated for 2.9 acres of Park/Recreation uses on the border between Planning Areas 13 and 23. In Amendment No. 8. Plannin~ Area 24 will be reduced by 1.9 acres and shifted north to be located adiacent to the southern border of Plannin~ Area 27 and adiacent to the northern rlght-of-wav of Sunny Meadows Drive. A new Park/Recreation Area (Planning Area 24) has been located adjacent to the Planning Area 27 Open Space. The former Planning Area 24 (designated in Amendment No. 7 as a Park/Recreation Area situated between Planning Areas 13 and 23) has been merged into the greenbelt system and is no longer identified as a separate Planning Area, although the area still exists. Overall, the acreage devoted to SOL I. S~YOF CHANGES PL&N NO, 219/AMENDMENT N0. 8 (S.P. NO. SP'4) Page 1.4 I SUMMARY OF CHANGES Greenbelt Paseos within Paloma del Sol has increased since the former location of the Planning Area 24 Park/Recreation site has been incorporated into the pasco greenbelt system. Planning Area 28 has expanded from 25.0 acres of Medium density residential uses in Amendment No. 7 to 49.4 acres of Medium density residential uses in Amendment No, 8. The number of dwellings proposed in Planning 28 correspondingly increased from 113 to 190 units. Planning Area 29 remains as a Park/Recreation Area, but the location and configuration of the parcel are somewhat altered. However. the acreage of this Park/Recreation Area remains unchanged at 5.0 acres. In addition, the elementary school proposed for Planning Area 29B in Amendment No. 7 has been deleted from the land use plan since the Temecula Valley Unified School District has indicated that the site is no longer needed. Due to the high demand for office and commercial uses in the village center area near the surer market center and the planned Home Depot, Paloma Del Sol S~ecific Plan Amendment No. 8 proposes that the &O-acre medium hi£h residential uses allocated for Planning Area 38 be converted to Communin, fNeighborhood Commercial. Plannin~ area specific development 'standards have been established for Plannin~ Area 38. (See Paloma Del Sol Svecific Plan Zone Ordinance, Amendment No. In addition, the residential land use designations for Plannin£ Areas 5 and 23 have been changed from Medium High to Medium. Specific Plan Amendment No. 8 also vroposes several minor residential dwelling unit and acreage adjustments in Planning Areas 3, 4, 9. 13, 14, and 26 to reflect the anoroved and constructed implementing tracts. An acreage and dwellin~ unit comparison between Specific Plan Amendment No. 7 and Specific Plan Amendment No. 8 is delineated on the next page. PALOXin DgL SOl, I. SI. rMMARY OF CHANGES SPgCL~IC PI,aN NO. 2191.a~fgNDl,~rr NO. 8 (S.P. NO. $P-4) Page II~ SUMMARY OF CHANGES SUMMARY OF CHANGES TABLE (Comparison of Specific Plan Amendments No. 7 and 8) S.P. No. 219 Amendment No. 7 S.P. No. 219 Amendment No. 8 Land Use Density Acres Dwelling Land Use , Density Acres DU/AC Units ' DU/AC Medium 4.24 491.0 2.083 Medium 4.2 610.7 Medium (Senior 4.49 89.0 400 Medium (Senior 3.8/4.5' 89.0 Community) Community) Medium High 5.41 416,5 2,255 Medium High 5.5 303.8 High 12.0 22.3 268 High 12.0 22.3 Very High 20.0 I2.0 240 Very High 20.0 12.0 Community/ Community/ Neighborhood 35.0 Neighborhood 43.0 Commercial Commercial Neighborhood 17.5 Neighborhood 2.5 Commercial Commercial Day Care 2.0 Day Care 2.0 Junior High School 20.0 Junior High School 20.0 £1em~ntary School 41.0 Elementary School 31.0 Parka or Parks or 32.5 30.6 Recreation Areas Recreation Areas Greenbelt Pas~os 28.0 Gr~nbelt Paseos 31.9 Natural Open _ Natural Open 9.0 Space Space Roadway Paseos 82.0 Road way Paieos S 1.5 Major Streets 102.7 Major Streats 102.2 PROJECT PROJECT 3.8 1,391.5 5,246 3.6 1,391.5 TOTAL TOTAL Dwelling Units 2,551 335'/400 1,678 268 24O 5,072/ 5,137 Implementation of thc adult retirement option for Planning Area 8 would increase the total dwelling unit allocation for Planning Area 8 to 400 du, raises the total medium density dwelling unit allocation to 2,951 du and would raise the total dwelling units allowed in the Specific Plaa to 5,137 du. ?,,~m,t~ ~m. SOL I. S~Y OF CHA.~'aES SPECIfiC ~ NO. 219/~t, lzh'T NO. 8 (S.P. NO..qP-4) Page 1-6 A. PROJECT SUM3t~Y 1. Project Location and Local Land Uses The PALOMA DEL SOL Specific Plan project site is comprised of 1391.5 acres in the City of Temecula in southwestern Riverside County (See Figure 1, Regional Map and Figure 2A, Vicinity Map). The site is bounded by Pauba Road on the north, State Highway 79 South on the south, Butterfield Stage Road m the east, and Margarita Road m the west. Existing land uses in the projee~ area include residential, commercial, open space, agricultural and public/quasi-public. a. Existing On-site Land Uses and Zoning Designations The project site is characterized by rolling terrain. Several washes, beginning on-site, are evidem in the north-central portion of the site. Those washes meander through the site, draining the site to the southwest and south. The existing zoning of the site is SP (Specific Plan). Significant portions of the site had historically been used for dry farming agricultural purposes. Those areas include the north-central/northwest, and southeast and southwest portions of the site. The southern portion of the site, adjacent to State Highway 79 South was temporarily developed with effluent holding/percolation ponds of the Eastern Municipal Water District. The overall site has been or is currently being mass graded for development. b. Surrounding Land Uses As shown on Figures 2A and 2B, the site is surrounded predominantly by existing and proposed single family land uses, agricultural land uses, the Temecula Valley High School and the Linfield Christian High School. Land north of the eastern portion of the site is "Vintage Hills" residential development. Properties northeast of the site are developed with several single family residences on large lots. Land to the east of all but the extreme southern portion of the site is vacant, however, a single family subdivision (Crowne Hill) is proposed to be developed on that land. Property east of the extreme southern portion of the site is being dry farmed. Immediately to the south of Highway 79 South is being developed with commercial uses. Land to the west of the site is being developed with "estate lot" single family homes (Los Ranchitos). Property northwest of the site is being developed with the Temecula Sports Park. 2. Project Description The PALOMA DEL SOL Specific Plan project combines residential, commercial, schools, a neighborhood park/recreation areas, a__daycare center, greenbelt/paseos, open space and an extensive circulation network, within a comprehensive plan. The land use designation and residential densities for the PALOMA DEL SOL Specific Plan have been blended to reflect a mixed use concept responding to the changing urbanizing character of the Rahcho Califo,,ia Temecula area. The Specific Plan is designed to consider access links, compatible land use transitions with neighboring properties, views, and landform relationships. P~&o~ n~ Son II. StrMMARY Specific Plan No. 219/Amendment No. 8 (S2~. No. SP4) Page II-1 ~-- HE. ET Lake Bsinore ~ PROJECT __ ~-~ %j" .~'"--'-LOC~TION RiverSide Co. San Diego Co. REGIONAL MAP ...,~P k L 0 M A D E L S 0 L AMENDMENT #8 [~~,-, --'-=-="-'"-'-- 1'1'-2 @o~ A total of 5,2465,072' dwelling units m, ei_s proposed on 1,03~,.gl.037.8 acres throughout the site. As indicated on Figure 3, Specific Land Use Plan (including Table I, Detailed Land Use Snmrnary), 2,4832.886 d.u. of Medium density uses on 5,33699.7 acres; 2,2.551,678 d.u. of Medium-High density uses on 416.5303.8 acres; 268 d.u. of High density uses on 22.3 acres; and Very-High density units totaling 240 units on 12 acres are proposed. In addition, the following land uses are proposed: Community/Neighborhood Commercial AC); Neighborhood Commercial (17.52.5 AC); F,~,2n'ee Elementary Schools (4-1-31.0 ^¢); one Junior High School (20 AC); :i:kreefour Nclghbo, hood Park/Recreation Areas (I,3.g21.1 AC); T,~_..~ne Neighborhood Parks (-1-4v59~.5 AC); C~n S~ace (9.0 AC): m~d a Daycare Center (2.0. ^¢), greenbelt ~aseos (31.9 acres), roadway Caseos (81.5 acres'k and major s~reets (102.2 acres). Implementation of the adult retirem~m option for pla~ing Ar~a 8 incre~e$ the total dwelliag unit allocation for Planning Area 8 to ~ du, raises the total medium d~.sity dwelling unit alloca~on to 2,355 du and would raise the total dwdliag u~u; aliowe, d ia tl~ Specific Plan to 5.137 du. 3. Market Objectives This project is proposed for development based on extensive buyer profile studies that were conducted for the project. The studies provide data regarding: location features which influence people in their choice of where to live; housing features considered important; features keeping people from buying a home; and groupings of features. A number of housing products are being designed at this time with features desired by home purchasers who would be identified as the target market for the project. Examples may be viewed in the Design Guidelines Section of this report (Section IV). It is thought that this research will permit the close targeting of homebuyers likely to move to PM.OMA DEL SOL and tl,~ [,o, Lion of 12.1~,,~& Comity the Temecula area. In addition, a number of house sizes, and neighborhood types (i.e. cluster, courtyard, conventional single family) will be offered to provide maximum variety and price range. It is the intent of thc PALOMA DEL SOL Spe, cific Plarl to be unified in overall theme but varied in individual character to provide complimentary land uses. Additional specific market objectives are: To provide affordable, moderately priced single family detached homes. A market forecast states that it is expected that the supply of expensive single family homes will begin to grow faster than demand, and that hom~s in moderate price ranges should be more marketable. To provide a housing product with larger and fewer rooms with all else being equal. Market study shows that general product features associated with faster sales rates are a preference for larger and fewer rooms all else being equal. More bathroom facilities also appear to be associated with be~r sales. To provide land uses that extend and are consistent with ongoing development along Highway 79 South and in the urban core developing in Temecula. PALO~A DEL SO~ Fi'. SUMMARY Specific Plan No. 219/Amendment No. 8 (S.P. No. SP-4) Page II-5 To reinforce the community identity of the project vicinity through control of project design elements such as architecture, landscaping, color, paving, walls, fencing, signage and entr7 u'eatments and through an extensive, viable circulation network. To reflect anticipated marketing needs and public demand by providing a diversity of housing types and locations which will be marketable within the region. To provide detached and attached, high-quality housing to serve a specmma of buyers. To provide "move-up" opportunities for present residents in the vicinity and in the surrounding areas of Riverside and San Diego Counties. To auract commercial uses that will be oriented to serve community needs, those of persons employed on-site, and off-site users accessing the site from Highway 79 South. To provide appropriate adequate flood comrol measures designed to .contain flows in the two major on-site streambeds. To provide an aesthetic and functional open space system that responds to site conditions in its configuration and provides an extensive scenic amenity for future residents. To provide school sites on the project site which will permit elementary and middle school students to uavel a short distance to attend school. To provide nail systems which will encourage and provide for the on-site use of alternate modes of transportation (bicycle, pedes~an). To provide a functional roadway system on*site which fosters thc safe and efficient movement of local on-site traffic, while discouraging use by through traffic and slowing traffic ~c~eeds in the immediate area of the ballfields, High density residential and community commercial by incorporating the use of traffic circles. To provide varied recreational opportunities and facilities for the use and enjoyment of on-site resiclen~. To provide unique and aesthetically pleasing landscaping palettes which will provide for an attractive and visually cohesive project. To provide housing opportunities for employees of the rapidly growing industrial areas of Temecula. PALO~ D~r~ SOL ri'. strm~Ry specific Plan No. 219/Panendment No. 8 (S.P. No. SP-4) Page lrl'-~ ~1~ SPECIFIC PLAN A. DEVELOPMENT PIANS AND STANDARDS [] ~G OBJ~cr~ v'ES This Specific Land Use Plan is being prepared within the framework of a detailed and comprehensive multi-disciplinary planning program. Issues such as engineering feasibility, market acceptance, economic viability, County Comprehensive General Plan goals and objectives, development phasing and local ¢ornml.~ty gOalS have been fully ex.mined and com~dere& To further ensure the environmental compatibility, aesthetic satisfaction and functional integrity of the plan, specific plara'fing goals and objectives were identified. These were defined and identified in pa.rl through a careful analysis by an Opportunities and Constraints Study. W~th this analysis and the site goals and objectives in rnin~ the PALOMA DEL SOL Specific Plan: Considers topographic, geologic, hydrologic, and environmental opportunities and conslraints to create a design that generally conforms to the character of the land by retaining and utilizing basic existing landfor~s as much as possible. Reflects anticipated marketing needs and public demand by providing a range of housing types which will be marketable within the developing economic profile of Temecula area as well as the County of Riverside generally. Provides residential development and ~deq-,t, support facilities (commercial use, community uses. schools, open space and recreation) and circulation in a convenient and efficient manner. Provides direct and convenient aCCess to individual residential neighborhoods, recreational areas, and schools via a safe and efficient circulation system composed of a network of Arterial. Major. Secondary, Collector and Local roadways, each designed for appropriate traffic and user needs. Provides for alternative modes of transportation within and adjacent to the site including pedestrian, bicycles, and eqeeslrian trails, which will foster the conservation of valuable energy resources as well as lessen air pollution in the immeAiate area~ Establishes a unique open space/environment utilizing a greenbelt pasco system and expanded parkway greenbelts to link project parks, recreation areas, and schools. Establishes design guidelines for the development of the Paloma del Sol Village Center (Lucky C~n~ct, Villag~ C,~,,., ~ad Villa~co at Pasco del Sol). PA~O~Anm, SOL l~I. SPECIFIC PIAN Spec/ftc Plan No. 219/~,~o~,lment No. 8 (S2. No. SP~,) Page III-1 1. Soecific Land Use Plan Project Description PALOMA DEL SOL iS envisioned to be a high quality, mixed-use, master-planned COmmtlnity. Through a sa'ong cohesive community design, The PALOMA DEL SOL Specific Plan, .when implemented, will offer a diverse, convenient living environment for furore residents. The PALOMA DEL SOL proiect will be a highly amenitized community offering certain elements not of~n found along many standard master-planned communities such as an expansive ln~y landscaped parkway system located within all Collector, Secondary, Major, and Arterial roadways, and also along Highway 79 South. Also, a lengthy and expansive Paseo System will serve ~o provide land use definition; to provide recreational oppommities; and in the major function of providing for the use of altemadve modes of mmsportation (,pedes~an) through the site. Recreation centers (areas) are also planned which will support and provide facilities for organized forms of recreadon. Th~ PALOMA DEL SOL property Nil be identified and unified through design elements such as architecture, signage, landscaping, color, walls, fencing, and entry ~reannents consistent with themes identified in the marketing studies. Some variability of design will be allowed so that individual development enclaves will be identifiable and compatible with the overall commullity, and wi~ be able to establish their own individual design character. For a description of specific design elements within this Specific Plan please see Section IV, Design Guiddines. 'C,,,c Figure 3A depicts all of the on-site areas that have changed on the Amendment No. 7 (Planning Areas 3. 4. 5. 8. 9 12. 13. 14. 23. 24. 26.'27. 28. 29. 29B. and 38)site plan fo, [o reflect the most recent Soecific Plan amendment (Specific Plan Amendment No. 8~ ~.~ illaou,~cd i~ F,,~,~ 3, Svc¢if~ l~.,d Usc Plan. Svecific Plan Amendment No. 8 is depicted in Fieure 3B. Svecific Plan l. and Use Plan - Amendment No. 8. and is summarized on Table I. Detailed Land Use Summaw. ~ Sl~..CifiC information regarding Planning As~as, please refer m Sections III.B. and C., Planning Psrea Development Standards and Zoning Regulations. Thc proposed land uses within the Specific Plan include: RESIDENTIAL - Development within the project will generate a density units per acre overall, and housing types will be spread over four density categories varying from Medium to Very High Density. The acreage shown for each planning area represents gross acreage, which ~.-cls subject to minor fluctuations when detailed engineering and roadway alignment studies are completed. MEDIUM DE/qsrI'Y (~-5 DU]AC) residential areas include -2;4632,886 dwelling units on 5~9699.7 acres of land located throughout (predomlnately on the periphery) the site. Medium Density use is proposed for Planning Areas 4,5. 8 (sehior option), 9, 10, 14, 17, 18,.23, 25, 26, 28, 31 and 33. It is anticipated that these homes will be located on 5,000 to 7,200 square foot lots and will be targeted for move-ap, first-time buyers and some retirees. Planning Area 8 is planned as an active seniors community, but may be developed as Medium density family housing if the plans for the senior community are not implemented. Specific Ph~ No. 219/.A.mev,'l~,~,t No. 8 (S.P. No. SP-4) Page HI-2 I ! l[ ! i ,i W W UJ ~0 Medim M~llum ¢$eaior Com=ualty) Medium Hig~ Yet? High Resldealizl To~tls TABLE 1: D~ n .gn ~ Ug~ SUbIM. kRY Density Units (du/ac) (du) 9 44.0 2-5 3.1 ~1~ 10 78.0 2-~ 4~ 351 14 ~.~9~ 2-5 4.7 17 ~.0 2-5 43 ~ 16.0 2-5 4.2 31 67.0 2-5 3~ 214 33 37.0 2-5 4~ 165 8' 89.0 2-5 3.8~4~ 2 ~.o 5-s 6.0 12o 15 17,0 5~ 5~ 93 21 ~,8 5-8 5~ ~2 ~ ~,0 5~ 53 352 I6B 12.0 13-20 20.0 V~ ~ Sub~ ~0 1~20 20.0 COIV[IVi]~R~ ~ 0-{'~ ~:R USES Inmlcm~tafion of the adult nm~m~at o~6m fc~ ~/u~ 8 i~cwa.~s the ~ dv, dlinR unit ~!~,~-~tio~ f~r PA 8 to 400 d~, r~es lhe m~l medium ~,~ du allocafio~ m 2..951 ~ud would r~se {he lo~J dwcl]ins uniis allov,~l ia ~he Slx:cific pI~ Io $,137 du. PALOMA DEL SOI, HI. Sl:~c;iglC PLAN Specific Plan No. 219/Am~,4,,,~,i No. 8 (S.P. No. SP-4) Page ~I-5 lVlEDIU~ ($E~O~ COM~vH.n~TY) is proposed for pls_nnlng Area 8 which contains 89.0 acres. If the Senior Comrnmliw is imvlementecL ~ total of 400 units will be constructed within the pla~nlng area at a de~'ity of 2-5 dwelling per acre. The Senior Community will target active retired' individuals that wish to live within a private gamd community. If the Senior Community is not implemented, Planning Area 8 will be developed as a family oriented Medium Density Residential neighborhood and will s~ill have a maximum of 4~335 units and a density of 2-5 dwelling units per acre. MF.D~ HIOrI Dt~SlTY (5-8 DU/A¢) will be located in Planning Areas 2, 3, $ 13, 15, 16, 20, 21, and 22;.~.~ ..... ,~,~, ~o. A total of 2,2551,678 homes are to be constructed within this category of land use un a total of 44-(:c5303.8 aores, which is generally targeted to first-time buyers. The minimum lot size is 4,000 square feet. The Medium .High density residential land use is "as a rule" located in the central portion of the site. This use also touches the southern boundary of the site adjacent to Highway 79 Souflt. HIGH DENSITY housing is proposed for pJanning Area 6A which contains 22.3 acres. A total of 268 homes will t~ be constructed at a density of 942 dwellings per acre. This planning area may include High density detached homes or townhomes, targeting first-time home buyers or the rental market. Vlmy HIGH DENSlT¥ housing is proposed for pJnnnlng ~ 6B which contains 12 acres. A total of 240 dwellings will be consmicted at a density of 13-20 dwellings per acr~. This Planning Area may include condominiums and apartments, which will be targeted for leu'st-tlme home buyers and possibly the rental market. Where Medium, Medium High, High, and Very High density housing types are planned, private recreation facilities and common open space will be provided w supplement COmmUnity open space uses. Private recreational areas may include facilities such as a pool; spa, and/or barbecue areas. Exact design and layout of these facilities will be accomplished in conjunction with detailed future tract layouts. COMMERCIAL - The community will be served by ~hreefive commercial sites totaling 51d43.0 acres. The commercial uses proposed will be Neighborhood and Community/Neighborhood uses primarily for residents and persons employed un- site. The commercial sites are located in Planning Areas 1, l(a), l(b), 36, and All ~i~fiv.e sites will have a community orientation while Planning Areas 1, l(a) and 1Co) also will be easily visible and accessible from'Highway 79 South and will therefore contain some highway-related commercial UseS. For a list of permitted uses, see Specific Plan Zoning Ordinance. VII Al .~,GE CENTER - The o,~u~,~,~Outhwest corner of PALOMA DEL SOL (bounded by Highway 79 South, Margarita Road, de Portola Road and Meadows Parkway) is part of a Village Center as defined by the Temeeula General Plan. Although PALOMA DEL SOl. was originally designed and has been partially constructed ns a suburban master planned community, many of the design concepts and performance PALOMA DEL SoI, ]~I. SpEcII~IC PI,AN' Specific Plan No. 219/Amenrtr,,.'nt No. 8 ($-P. No. SP-4) Page rtl-6 standards pertaining to the village core can still apply to the Paloma del Sol Village Center. The PALOMA DEL SOl. Village Center encompasses Planning areas 1, l(a), 1C0), 6A, 0"B, 36, 37 and 38 which are planned for comme.~i~, single f. rniIy residential, multi-family residential and neighborhood park uses. Specific design guidelines and standards that apply to future implementation of the village cent~' are found in Section 1VD, Village Center Design Guidelines. S~_ndards pertaining to backbone pedestrian and bicycle systems are found in Section IVC, Landscape Design Guidelines and Community Elements of this Specific Plan. The SP Zone for these planning areas contains standards that support the village center design concepts. SENIOR COMMUNITY - Planning Area 8 may become a private gated active seniors community reslxicted to residents who meet appropriate age resections. Zoning will allow age resu'iction upon approval of CC&R covenants which provide that the project will be marketed as age resu'icted in conformance with applicable State or Federal law. Such a comm~lity Wi]] offer unique stree.t/sidewalk landscaping and housing architecture. All park and recreational areas wiuhin the commRnity gates will be private, designated for use only by Senior Community residents. Guidelines and standards pertaining to the implementation of the Senior Community are found in Section IV, Design Guidelines, of u~is specific plan. GRgV~.N'BELT/PASEOS, ROADWAY/PASEOS, SLOPES - A significant portion (l I,.q.$113.4 acres) of the project site is being designed as greenbel~/pasoos, roadway paseos and slopes. These paseos serve several functions and act to "tie" the community's neighborhoods to each other while providing alternative modes of Iravel (pedes~an, bicycle, etc.) to major destination Points (schools, m~d commercial facilities, and recreation facilities) within the community. The pasoos generally follow drainage courses m~d that will in most cases continue to function in a drainage capacity; however, the majority of off-site and on-site water now carried in the central east/west drainage channel will be carried through an underground system of pipes. Additionally, at broader locations within the paseos, recreational facilities may be planned. All roadways shown on the Specific Plan Ia~d Use Plan also will have greenbelt/paseos (parkways) expanded from the standard right-of-way. The greenbelt/pasco system is expected to provide a major aesthetic and unifying amenity for the entire project. SCHOOI~ - A total of 6-1:51.0 acres will be allocated for school sites. Faa, Three elementary school sites are planned, containing a total of 4-i-31.0 acres. One elementary school site is located in the southwestern quadrant of the site adjacent to Margarita Road. An additional school site is located within each il,,,.,, cl,~adia,r,~ of fl,¢ akc the northwest ouadrant adiacent to Pauba Road and another is located within the center of the southeast quadrant. A 20-acre Junior High School site is located in the z,o,',l,,.,,,~,ortheastem portion of the site, adjacent to Meadows Parkway. Elementary schools are proposed in Planning Areas 7, 11, 29, and 32. The Junior High School is proposed in Planning Area 30. [] RECREATION AREAS/PARKS - :E-a'eeFour nc;gl~bo, l,ood park/recreation areas (Planning Areas 12, 19, ~.,d 24 and 29) tomline 21.1 acres, are planned to serve P,~J.,OMA DEL SOL ll~. SPECIFIC PLAN Specific Plan No. 219/Amev,~-,~'~, No. 8 (S.P. No. SP-4) Page ITL7 residents of the community. An existin£ 9.5 acre neighborhood park h.~ been consructed and dedicated to the City of Temecula t on Plmmi~g Area 37~. ~ nc;gl,b~,ho~d p~rk ~ p~r, cd fo, Pt~,;,,g A~ 27~ In addition, further recreational opportunities will occur in the Medium, Mextium-High, High and Very High density residential ar~s. For a full discussion of proposed recreational opportunities please see Sec. rrf. A.7 and Section IV, Design Guidelines, of this Specific Plan. ROADS - Major roadways totaling 103.4102.2 acres will be implement~l in conjunction with the proposed project. The City of Temecula's Circulation Plan will adequately serve future traffic volumes for the region. On-sim traffic will be handled by a hierarchical roadway system consisting of Arterial, Major, Secondary, Collector and Local roadways. Looping Collector roadways will generally carry interior traffic to higher traffic carrying Major and Arterial roadways (See Figure 4). In ,ddition, Cl~s I blc~clc u,.:ls Class 1I bicycle lanes will be striped along most roadways ~'oughout the site (Figure 6). b. Land Use Development S~andards Three levels of development standards and guidelines have been established that, when combined, ensure an orderly, sensitive methodology for implementation and development of the permitted uses established for the PALOMA DFaL SOL by the Zoning Standards set forth in Sec. rn.C. At one level, special techniques and mitigations have been designed for application, as appropriate, to each Planning Area. These specific standards are discussed at length in Sec. IH.B of this Specific · Plan and will be employed to insure a high ~ck,l~,,.nt quality development, consistent with, co,,sls~ac., and~rovidin~ p,o,l,L l~,,~,islo~ for. the proper transition between the varying land uses and product intensity within the PALOMA DI~L SOL m'oiect. A second level encompasses design techniques relative to architectural, landscape and community- wide development guidelines. These measures are discussed extensively in the Design Guidelines, 'Sec. IV of this Specific Plan. At a third, broader level, general project-wide provisions have been established. These standards, which will work in coordination wi~h the Planning Area Standards and l~sign Guidelines to insure overall project sensitivity are: 1) TMs Specific Plan shall be developed with a maximum of ~3tt65,072 dwelling units within a total 1,391.5 acre ama in thc manner illusuated on the Specific Land Use Plan (Figure 3). · Generally, the uses permitted shall include residential, neighborhood and community/neighborhood commercial, park, recreation, schools, open space, and circulation. These uses are more appropriately delineated in the Planning Area Concepts (Figures 15A- 15KK). 2) Uses and development standards will be in accordance with the zoning regulations established by this Specific Plan and detailed in the Planning Area Development Standards, Sec. IH.B, and will be defined by Specific Plan objectives, future detailed development plans and potential conditional use permits as appropriate. PALOMAD~L, 80L 1TI'. SPEi,;,U"iC ~ Specific Plan No. 219/Amendment Bio. 8 iS.t'. No. SP-4) Pase rrf-8 3) 4) 5) 7) 8) 9) 10) ~2) Standards relatin~ to signage, landscaping, parking and other related design elements will conform to the zoning regulations also as set forth in Sec. rFf.B and the Desig~ Guidelines in Section IV. When appropriate and necessary to meet the goals of this Specific Plan, the slandards will exceed the zoning requirements provided herein. The development of the property shall be in accordance with the mandatory r~uirements of all City of Temecula Ordinances or as amended by th/s Ordinance and State laws. It aiso shall conform substantially with this approved Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment No. ~g (S.P. No. SP-4), as filed in the Office of the City of Temecula Planulng Depar~ent, unless otherwise' amended. Prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of any use contemplated by this approvai, the applicant shall first obtain clearance from the City of Temecula Planning Department verifying that ail pertinent conditions of Specific Plan approval have been satistied for the phase of development in question. Any potentiai public open space/recreation areas on the site will be developed per appropriate zoning requirements and operated to maintain public access to recreation facilities. Design features such as special architectu~ai treatment, perimeter and interior landscaping and buffering of parking lot/loading zone areas will be incorporamd into projact design to minimi:,,, any potentiai conflict between higher intensity commerciai uses and any abut~ng residential enclaves (Please sec ;J,. Section IV, Design Guidelines. Sec. P~.) An environmental assessmem shall be conducted for each tract, change of zone, develop~nent plan, specific plan amendment or any other discretionary permit required w implcmant the specific plan. At a minimum; the environmental assessment shall utilize the evaiuation of impacts addressed in the EIR prepared for this Specific Plan No. 219 Amendment No. (S.P. No. SP-4). A change of zone application, which would constitute a Specific Plan Amendment. may be required, as determined by the Planning Department, with a subsequent development application if the proposed use varies substantiaily from the use(s) provided for by the zoning standards established by this Specific Plan. Lots created pursuant to this Specific Plan and any subsequent tentative maps shail be in conformance with the development standards of the zones applied to the property by this Specific Plan. If necessary, roadways, infrastructure, open space and any other public facilities will be coordinated by and paid for through an assessment or community services dislrict or area to facilitate construction, maintenance and management. Final development densities for each Planning Area shall be determined through the appropriate development application up to the maximum density identified based upon, but not limited to, the following: PA~O~A ~L SO~ IH. Sl'F~l~a¢ PLAN Specific Plan No. 219/Amendment N~. 8 (S3~. No. SP-4) Pa~e lIl-9 13) 14) 15) 16) 17) 18) a) Adequate availability of services. b) Adequate access and circulation. c) Innovation in housing types, design, conservation or oppommides. d) Sensitivity to neighborhood design through appropriate lot and street layouts. Prior to the issuance of the first building permit for each phase, improvement plans for developed common open space areas, including irrigati°n plans~ shall be submitted for Planning Department approval for the stage of development in question. Irrigation plans shall be certified by a landscape archkecc For the security and safety of f~ture residents the applicant and/or developer shall incorporate the following design concepts within each individual tract: a) Circulation for l~desu'ians, vehicles and police pan'ots. b) City-required lighting of streets, walkways, bikeways and commercial area. c) Visibility of doors and windows fi.om the stxeet and between buildings. d) Fencing heights and materials. Any common areas identified in the specific plan shall be maintained by a permanent master -maintenance organization. The organization may be public or private. The maintenance organization shall be established prior to or concurrent with the recordation of the first land division or issuance of any building l~rmits for any approved development permit. It is anticipated that maintenance associations, if formed, will be established as follows: The master property owners association shall be charged with the un qualified right to assess their own individual owners who own individual units for reasonable maintenance and management costs which shall be established and continuously maintained. The l~,,~perty owners association shall be responsible for private roads, parking, open space areas, signing, landscaping, irrigation, common areas and other facilities as necessary. Specific Plan 219 is located within thirty (30) miles of Mount Paloma- Observatory. Light and glare may adversely impact operations at the Observatory. Outdoor lighting shall be fxom low pressure sodium lamps that are oriented and shielded to prevent direct illumination above the horizontal plane passing through thc lumina. The Director of Community Development may approve minor variations in standards and design guidelines without requiring an amendment to the Specific Plan as follows: Site Design - Changes in the location of pedestrian pathways and linkages, parking lots, building orientation and lot configuration from the typical examples shown in Yxt.q~,, ~. $o~.. IlL SPF. CIFIC PI, AN Specific Plan No. 219/Amendment No. ii ($.P. No. $P-4) Page ri'I-10 19) l~gures 14A, 14B, 14C, 42, 43, 44, 45, 50A and 50E. The required elements may not be delete~L Signage - Changes in copy, size, materials and color as long as the proposed signage is compatible with the exisffug signage in Paloma del $ol and the typical signage shown on l~gure 50D. Landscaping - Reductions in the required landscape development zone up to 15% and plant material substitutions. ' Monumentation - Reductions in comer cut-off area not to exceed 15%, changes in monumentation signage, materials and color as long as the propose changes are compatible with existing monumentafion in PALOMA DI/1. SOL and the typical plans in the Specific Plan. Walls and Fencing - Changes in materials and color that are compatible with existing walls and fencing in PALOMA DEL SOL and typical wall and fencing details shown in the Specific Plan. Increases in height not to exceed 10% of the maximum allowed by the Specific Plan. Architecture - Additional styles and detailing that are compatible with the eclectic Mediterranean styles prescribed for the Specific Plan Setbacks - Reductions from required setbacks not to exceed 15%. Parking - Reductions in the required parking and parking area landscaping not to exceed 15%.. Phasing - Phasing that differs from the Conceptual Phasing Plan and the Public Facilities Phasing Plan of the Specific Plan as long as infrastructure and commullity facilities needs of the community are met. Changes in major design criteria such as land use, minimum lot size, park dedication requirements and roadway standards will require an amendment to the Specific Plan. Transfer of Dwelling Units -- The proposed number of dwelling units contained in a residential application may exceed the maximum expressed in that Planning Area by up to twenty percent (20%) without an amendment to the Specific Plan, provided that an equal or greater number of units was unused in a previously approved or concurrently submitted application within another Planning Area or combination of Planning Areas, or the owner of another Planning Area files a written relinquishment of an equal number of dwelling units in another Planning Area. All Iransfers are to be approved by the Planning Department. P~o.o~a~ DEL S0~ 1TI'. SPECIFIC PLAN Speci~c Plan No. 219/Amendment No. 8 (S.P. No. SP-4) Page HI-11 Circulation Plan a. Circulation Plan Description The project roadway concept depicted in the Circulation Plan (Figure 4) was developed as a result of a thorough traffic analysis conducted by Wlibur Smith Associates conducted for the original EIR (See Technical Appendices). The circulation plan has been revised based on a more recent traffic study date~ (September %, 1999~ also prepared by W'flbur Smith Associates, .to address the traffic impacts associated with the Villages @ Pasco del Sol commercial center proposed for Planning Areas l(a) and l(b). The 1999 analysis evaluamd not only the proposed Plaza del Sol commercial area development, but also: 1) background ~raffic growth, 2) proposed adjustments to the sizes, configuration and uses allowed in residential Planning Areas 6 (now 6A and OB) and 8 and 3) other known area development projects that would affect traffic flow and diswibution. The 1999 analysis also contains a "City Build-Out Assessment" which considers full build-out of the City of Temecula, City of Murrieta and surrounding unincorporamd County of Riverside areas. Because the study also considers off-site circulation impacts not directly related to the Specific Plan Area, the discussion that follows attempts to distinguish clearly between those improvements to be provided by the applicant and/or any subseqt~ent developers as part of the development of PALOMA DI~. SOl. and those improvements delineated in the traffic analysis but not included within the scope of this Specific Plan. Those improvements contemplated to be constructed in conjunction with development of PALO~ I)l~. SOl. Specific Plan are specifically delineated in the Cireuladon Plan Development Standards. Principal east-west roadway access to the site is provided by Highway 79 South. Highway 79 South is a paved two-lane road between Interstate 15 (I-15), and proposed Bucteffield Stage Road which will be improved to a 4-lane roadway in 1999/2.000. Additional east-west access to the site is provided by De Portola Road, Rancho Vista Road, Pauba Road and Rancho California Road, all paved two or four-lane roads. The only north-south road currently servicing the project study area is Margarita Road, a paved two and four-lane Arterial roadway between Highway 79 South and Rancho California Road. Meadows Parkway, a planned 4-lane roadway which already has been conslructed south from Rancho California and Pauba Roads into the northern and central areas of Paloma del Sol, will be completed to Highway 79 South with full width improvements prior to the opening of the commercial uses in Planning Areas l(a) and 1Co). Ou-site circulation is accommodated efficiently by a network of roadways. Each 'roadway's location and size (Figure 4) are designed to facilitate the efficient movement of traffic throughout the site. The main objective of the circulation plan is to provide direct and convenient access to individual residential clusters, schools, recreation areas, and commercial facilities through a safe and efficient system of arterial, major, secondary, collector, and local roadways, and a pedestrian u'ail sidewalk system. Roadway cross-sections are shown on Figures 5A-C. In addition, a Class H striped bicycle nail system will be provided as depicted on Figure 6. P.,~Co~ vl~. Sox, ~I. SPEc:le'lC PI,P,,.N' Specific Plan No. 219/A,,,,-,,a'.,,..'~, No. 8 (S.P. No. SP-4) Page WL1.2 · .- J, FIELD STAGE nOAO BUTTER _. o o o O o o..o. ~2~:,-': ,,. I r.,O O'O O O -O.O~ q ,q P'U''~'" ' ".'~ .... '11 · il' ~¢ ,,' il! 'I, -Il. Prima~ north-south on-gte traffic will be handled by a Major roadway, Meadows Parkway, which will have a 100-foot right.of-way between Panba Road on the north and Highway 79 South on the south. From Campanula Way to Highway 79 South, Meadows Parkway will comist of a h~-~' 100--foot ~wide divided ~four,lane roa& De Portola Road will be a Major roadway with a 100-foot right-of-way. That road will provide a route for off-site traffic to move through the site, consistent with the City's Master Plan of Highways. A significant portion of on-site traffic will be handled by a collector loop road system consisting of two lanes of navel in a 66*foot right-of-way. One loop road (Roadway"B", Figure 4) forms a full circle which will provide access to all Pla~ning Areas to the w~'t of Meadows Parlo~ay and north of De Ponola Road, with the exception that the Daycam Center (Pla~nlng Area 34) will receive access from Pauba Road. All planning Areas to the east of Meadows Parkway and north Of De Ponola Road will take access from Loop Road D, with the exception that the Neighborhood Commercial facility will receive access from Panba Road. Plsn~i~g Areas between De Portola Road and Highway 79 South will receive access from Margarita Road, Highway 79 South, De Ponola Road or Campanula Way as designated on Figure 4, Circulation Plan. Turning lanes will be provi~d at various locations throughout the project as specified in the Traffic Impact Analysis (See Technical Al~endiees). As noted, in addition to the vehicular circulation system, bicycle use will be encouraged by the provision of a bicycle trail system as depicted by Figure 6. Class II bicycle trails will be located on Collector, Secondary, and Gateway roadways as depicted on Figure 6. Pauba Road at the northern boundary of the site will also contain a bicy2le trail. A Class I bicycle trail will be provided adjacent to Meadows Parkway and De Portola Road. This system will connect neighborhoods and points of destination throughout the site. b. Circulation Plan Development standards 1) The proposed Circulation Plnn provides an efficient traffic design that meets or exceeds the public safety, security and transportation needs of the project. The on-site system depicted on the Circulation Plan (Figure 4) has been derived from the Master Circulation Plan oudined in the project Traffic Study and will serve as the composite circulation plan for the Specific Plan.. (See Technical Appendices.) The ilhiswated, on-site roadway improvements will be phased in accordance with this plan. 2) Heavy through traffic should be eliminated from residential neighborhoods and commercial/high density interface areas. Major roadways should be implemented as non- access roadways, with residential ncighborhoods served by smaller residential collectors. 3) The subdivision shall comply with thc street improvement recommendations/mitigations measures outlined in the project traffic study (Please see Sec. V.D.1.) P~o~ n~-~ SoL HI. b-'PECIFI¢ PLAN Spec~c Plan No. 219/.~,~a,~-t No. 8 (S~. No. SP-4) Page I~-18 4) 5) 6) 7) S) 9) 10) 11) On-site roads will be consu'ucted as: a) b) c) d) e) 0 g) Highway 79 South (142' R.O.W.) At.rials (110' R.O.W.) Majors (100' R.O.W.) Secondaries (88' R.O.W.) Collector~ (66' 1LO.W.) Commercial Collector with on-street parking and traffic circles (VS' R.O.W.) Local Streets (60' tLO.W.) Mediaa ishmds, traffic circles and bus turnouts a~: proposed on c.e~taia project eauies (collector a~d loca~ sm~ets). Ia this case, the R.O.W. provided shall be iac~eased to allow commm~o,~ of ~e medians, traffic circles and bus turnouts according to City sumdards. Landscaping requirements will be based on street width in accordance with the Roadway Landscape Trealments depicted on F~gures 23 through 31 in the Design Guidelines (Sec. tv.B). Some Major roadway improvements may be implemented through an assessment disu'ict or similar financing mechanisms. All roads shall b~ constructed to ultimate City standards in accordance with Ordinanc~ No. 460 and 4~1 as a requirement of the implementing subdivisions for the Specific Plan. The.project proponent shall participate in the.Traffic Signal Mitigation Program as approved by the City of Temecula subject to certain reimbursements under Development Impact Fee Reduction Agreement. The project shall comply with the conditions and requirements set forth by the City. A bike path system as described in the Design Guidelines (Sec. IV) shall be consu'ucted in accordance with City standards for such facilities. Bus shelters s~all be constructed upon approval of routes and locations by the City and the Riverside Transit Authority (RTA). P~uo~ ~L SOL III. SPECIfiC PIAN Spec/ftc Pla~ No. 219/~a~o~t No. 8 (~-~. No. SP4) P~ge ]~LI-19 a. Drainage Plan Description The majoriv/ of the project sim is tocaw, d within the Temecula Creek wazershed, close m the confluence of Ternecula Creek and Murrieta Creek. The site generally drains in an east to west direction, and is an eventually ~ibu~-y to Tcmecula Creek through a number of existing culvert crossings of Highway 79 South: Total off-site tributary area is composed of approximately 192 acres from Bu~zerfield Stage P,~nch to the east of the site. 0bvio,,l~ ~ifl, Development of the site will alter the natural on-site drainage courses w211~ ale, cd to a ¢~,t~, cxecnt. After development, new drainage courses will consist of su'eets, channels and swales, underground storm drains and/or a combination of the above. A significant amount of off- site as well as on-site flows will be piped under the greenbel~Jpaseo system (Figure 7). The majority of water will exit the site to the west and south in pipes varying in size up to 120 inches in diameter. The actual size and location of the drainage system will be determined at the tract map stage of development. A small portion of the northern part of the site may be within the Murrieta Creek Area Drainage Plan under the jurisdiction of the Riverside County Flood Control District, b. Drainage Plan Development SUmdards 1) Drainage and flood conlrol facilities and improvements shall be provided in accordance with the City of Temecula and Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation Dislrict requirements. 2) It is anticipated that drainage/flood control facilities will be maintained by the Riverside County Hood Control and Water Conservation District. 3) Please see Sec. V.C.4, Flooding, for mitigations viewed as further development standards for drainage. PALO~,A DEL SOL II~. SPECIFIC PLAN Specie Plan No. 219/.~,~,~t No. 8 (S.P. No. SP-4) Page 1II-20 Public Facility Sites Phasine Plan a. Public Facility Pbn~ng Description In order to insure timely development of public facilities, a phasiag plan has been ~epared for the :'.,~,~four Neighborhood Park/Recreation Areas (Planning Areas 12, 19, amut 24 and 29), for the Neighborhood Parks (Planning Areas 29A *.Id 37); for the Pasco/Greenbelt System, for the Equestrian Trail along Pauba and de Ponola Roads, for each Elementary School (Planning Areas 7, 11, 29, and 32), and for the Junior High School (Planning Area 30) (See Figure lO:ar). b. Public Facility Phasing Schedule Public facility consu'uction shall be phased as provided by the Public Facilities Phasing Table (Table 2) and Figure 10. 6. Gradinu Plan a. Grnding Pinn Description Grading for pALOMA DEL SOL site is tailored to the existing topography of the site. It is intended that the proposed plan be sensitive to and reflect original natural land forms, where possible, so that different land uses and residential enclaves are distinguished and separated by topographic features (See Figure 11, Grading Concept.). Portions of the site that are fiat or gently sloping will require minimal cut and fill operations. Earthwork quantifies will be balanced in logical areas on-site. The Grading Plan also establishes a basis for appropriate txeatment of drainage requirements and accommodates a street system that meets City of Temecula standards for acceptable grades. b. Grading Plan Development Standards 1) 2) 3) 4) All l~'ading activities shall be in substantial conformance with the overall Conceptual Grading Plan (Figure 11), and shall implement any grading-related mitigation measures outlined in: Seismic Safety (Sec. V.C.1.) Slopes and Erosion (Sec. V.C.2.) Prelimillal'y Gcote, chnical Investigations (Sec. VI.E.&F.). Prior to any development within any area of the Specific Plan, an overall Conceptual Grading Plan for the portion in process shall be submiued for Planning Department approval. The Grading Plan for each such area shall be used as a guideline for subsequent detailed grading plans for individual stages of development within that area. All stxeets shall have a gradient not exceeding City standards. Prior to initial grading activities, a soils report; and geotechnical study shall be performed that further analyze on-site soil conditions and include appropriate measures to conu'ol erosion and dust (See Preliminary Geotechnical Investigations). PALOMA DEl. SOL 1TI. SPECIFIC PLAH Specific Plan l',lo. 2191~,',',,,~a'r,,,,,~% No. 8 (S.P. No. SP-4) Pa~e 1II-25 Table PUBLIC FACI~'rtr~ Area Public Size Milestone and Requir~mems 12 Neighborhood Park/Rec~afion A~a 19 Neighborhood Park~ea~lion 7.4 AC 7.7 AC To be completed during Phase IV, prior to the issuance of the 4.576th building i~'mit- T,~ Lc ~..,~,~r/x.~.l d,~:..~ 1~,~ L t',;,,, t~ b,~l,l~ p~,...;LTo b~ com~lcmd durin£ Pha.~ IL vrior to the issuance of the 2,376th buildin~ 24 Neighborhood Park/ Recreation Area '~'AC 1.0AC To be complexe. A dining Phas~ IV. prior issuanc~ of the 4,576th building l~nnit a~d coujuncfiou with deveAoprn~t of Plazming 23 ..d 24 26. Nei~borhood Park/ ~on A~a 37 Neighborhood Park 9,5*C To be completed and a,-d!camd ~ the City dining Phase I~ prior to the issuance of thc 174th building pea'mit in phm.i.g A.wa 23 or th~ issuance of the fu,st building lx:tmit in pI,nnl.g Ar~s 26 and 28, whichever occurs tim. l-la~ I~n complgmd and dedi~-.a w d~ Cit7 of 35 C.~eeubelt/Pas~o S~tem N/A Equestrian Trail 7 Elementary School ll.0AC 11 Elementary School 10.0 AC 32 Elementary School 10,0 AC 30 ~unior High School 120,0 developm~t To b~ completed conct..~.,dy with deve. lopm-',,t of Planning ~ 8, 9, 10, ~ 28, 31.32, 33 and 34. To be consln~cted by the School Dis~ct in accorda~c~ w their pupil de,,~.nd and flmding capabitiges. To be constructed by the School District in accord~cc to their pupil d~'mnnd and funding capabilities. To b~ coustru~ by th~ School Di. strict in accordan~ to their pupil demand and f~cting capabilities. To bc cousmicted by thc School Disuict in accordance m their pupil demand and fimding capabili,le.s. Note: Timing of improvements may be modified through a development agreement. PALOMA DEL SOL I~. SPECI~C PLAN Specific Plan Ne. 219/A.~ment No. 8 (S.P. No. SP-4) Pase m'-27 Detailed grading plans shall be prepared prior to any on-site grading for each project or group of projects. 6) The apphcant shall be responsible for maintenance and upkeep of all planting and irrigation systems until those operations are the responsibility of other parties. 7) The overall shape, height and grade of any cut and Wl slope shall be developed in concert with the existing natural contours and scale of the natural ten'ain of a particular site. s) Potential brow'ditches, terrace drains or other minor swales, determined necessary at futu~ stages of project review, shall be lined with natural erosion control materials or concrete. 9) Grading work shall be balanced on-site wherever POssible. 10) Graded but undeveloped land shall be planted with interim erosion control plant materials. 11) All cut and fill slopes shall be constructed at inclinations of no'steeper than two (2) horizontal feet to one (1) vertical foot unless o~se approved by the City. 12) Grading shall not be permitted prior to approval of grading permits for the development area in question. 7. O~en $oace and Recreation Plan a. Open Space and Recreation Description A major unifying element of the PALOMA DEL SOt. community is the Open Space and Recreation Program. The Program is extensive and provides a vast array of recreational opportunities in which all members of the Commtlllity can participate. Purther, u'~ program incorporates many dive,se elements in a coordinated, cohesive plan that interrelates with and links the various neighborhoods of the comm[lnity With each other and to certain destination POints, such as schools and shu~,F~ug facilities. Opportunities vary fi.om passive (i.e. undeveloped open space),, to active (i.e. neighborhood park), to'potentially strucnn~l (i.e. recreational programs). Varying types and degrees of activities will be available which will provide r~sidents the opportunity to take quiet "wsllc.~.in the park;" use an on-site equestrian trail; participate in community meetings and social gatherings; participate in active outdoor informal recreational activities; and participate in potentially su-ucuu~l professionally organized and instructed courses and sporting events which could occur at one of the five park/recrcation centers. In fact, the proposed program is significant in that !~o,4-:9153.0 acres of land will be devoted to park, recreational, open space, parkway and paseo uses which is equivalent to approximately 15.0 10.5 acres per 1,000 residents. The various recreational facilities are linked to each other and the other elements of the community with an extensive parkway and pasco trail system. The "heart" of the system is the "Backbone Community Pasco System." That system is augmented by neighborhood open space corridors and a parkway system adjacent to all collector and higher volume roadways. The parkway and pasco system will be landscaped as shown in the Design Guidelines (Section IV) and will at a minimum PALOMA DEL SOL III. SPECIFIC PLAN Specific pla~ No. 219/~-~m~t No. S (S~. No, SP*4) Page 111-29 contain one or more sidewalks. Bicycle Irails (Class Il) will be provided as shown on Figure 6. The overall Recreation and Open Space concept is depicted in Figure 12. The elements and a~reage of the Program are provided in Table 3. The various elements of the Program are discussed below. 1) Community Recreational Opportunities. Community recreational opportunitiea are those opportunities which are available for the use and enjoyment of members of the PALOMA DI~L SOI. community. They are segmented and discussed as follows: · Neighborhood Parks/Recreational Areas · Schools · Equasuian Trail · Activity Nodes · Rancho California Sports Park a) Neighborhood Park~. T,,'c,A neighborhood parks (Planning Areas--2~ a~ 37) totaling 14.5'9.5 acres m'ei.! provided. Thc t~.ks ,~c k%a~,d in the southwest and rmrt~-~st=portions of the site. The parks -,;21 ~ is l,~,d~,,i~,.d developed and may includes.' .~acl, u~ ~. ball fields, soccer fields, picnic areas, mi ptayfi~.ld, ba~k~.tball (half-co',.t), ~and wolkyball co~, g, oup barbecuei, and a restroom/snack bar. soccer f,,J-&, b~cball fickI~ ~,,d a shack ,~b~r. Pull. The parks ~ is__owned by the 'City of Temecula and maintained by the Temecula Community Services District (TCSD). The l~,~k ia IXl,~,min$ A,c~ 37 haz bccn co,~u,~c~cd ,.,d &.l;,~a~cd ~o fl,c Cit~ of Teh,,~,~ul~,. It is fully b) Neighborhood Park/Recreational Areas.. TL,,,Fpur neighborhood park/rec~alion centers wrzliflg 13.~21.1 acres are provided. Plannin£ Area 12. adjacent to the elementary school site in Plannin~ Area 1 l. provides var~Jrecreafional ovvommities on 7.4 acres. One of fl,¢ ¢,.,~,o {Planning Area 19~ is located in the northwestm'n pan of the site and contains 7.7 acres. A second ee,t~ (Plavning Area 24~ contains 1.0 acres and is located l~t ,~c,, Pt~....:.,$ A,~,,s 13 *.,d 23 in the taortheastern pan of the site. adjacent to and south of the o~en swaee use in Plannin£ Area 27 aad '~9-acr~. TI,~. fl.;,d ccn~.., (planning§ Area i--22~ contains -7~5.0 acres and also is located in the o.,.;.l,.onheastern ponlon of the site, adjacent to and north of the open space use in Plannin£ Area 27. These ,.,.,,:,,°areas could provide facilities for commllnity meetings, workshops, social events and active panicipation recreational activities. They will function in at least the same, if not expanded capacity, as fully developexl public parks and could be consu'uct~d as public parks. Each park or recreation center may contain a COmmunity building and may include 'the following representative facilities: · · · · · · · · · Pool complex (swimming pool, pool deck, wading pool and spa) Tennis courts (2 lighted) Sand volleyball court Off-street parking lot Adventure play Croup barbe.c. ~ patio Open play area Family picnic area Shade arbor PALOMA DEL SOL Specific Plan N~. 219/.a~,,~,a~nt No. 8 (S.P. No. SP-4) III. S~cn~ic PL~ P~,e m-~o LU rs LU ~ L Table :5 RECR~T~ON]OPEN SPACE PROGRAM COMMUNiTI' RECREATIONAL OPPORTUNiTIt;S Neighborhood Parks Neighborhood Park/Recreational Areas School Recreation Facilities 1. Elementary Schools (5 AC ~ x 4~ schools) 2. Junior High School 3. Tem~cula Valley High School D. Rancho California Spo~ Park B. C. Equ~Uian Trail (adjacent to Pauba and d" Portola Roads) Activity Nod~ within the Community 'B~tbone' Pasco System - calculated. at thc rate of 1 acre per 6~00 persons TOTAL PRIVATE ACI'I ~E PARTICIPATION OPPORTUNITIF. S To be provided in each Medium-High, High and Yery-High Density pln~ning Area by the developer of that particular planning area - calcu!.,ed at the rate of one acr~ t~ 500 persons. Very-Itis~ r~.asity TOT/Id, III. OPEN SPACE, G]~..i~NBELT/PASF, OS AND PAR.KWAY PASEOS A. Opcn Space Corridors by R~identinl Density Acreage -2015,0 est. 12 esl acre. aRe added for ~his faciliw) (No ac~a~ added for ~ facility) 4.0 2.2 12.~12.4 OVERALL RECREATIONAL AND OPEN SPACE OPPORTUNITIES To be provided in each Medium and Medium. High Density plsnalng Area by the developer of that particular p!nnnin_o area - calcu!~t _~J at a ra~ of one acre per 2~0 pe~om. 1. Medium (except for plnnni~g Areas 31, 25 and 26 for which no provision for 23.0~7.3 open spaae, greenbeks/pn.seos or parkway paseos will be made because of the 7.200 square foot m!,:im::m lot size ) 2. Medi~-Hi~ 22.C lP.0 mi~u~: ~.~ ~3 acre~ for ~rlva~ a~v¢ p~cipation : I~ CommqnRy "Backbone" ?a~eo System (28 ~finus 2.2 ~ for acfivi~ ~odes) Natural Open Space CPlann/ni ~ 2?) 9.0 Roadway TOTAL P~iv~ recm~lion a~a of a~ least one acr~ Pl~g ~ 8 h ~vclo~ ~ a ~y~n~ M~ ~t ~ ~e ~ for M~ o~ ~ ~ ~e f~ of ~t md ~y p~s ~j~t to PALOMA DEL SoL YH. SPECIFIC PLAN Specific Plan No. 219/Amenclme~t No. 8 (S2. No. SP-4) Page W1'-32 c) d) c) t) F, oai a ,¢vi¢~ of these facllhics it can bc s~c,, that .~cfivitics for all age groups can occur at ~ park/recreation center. There arc Tot Lot(s) f~r young children "tots~, Adventure Play,~ Ama(s) for older children, and various other listed facilities for teens and adults. Not onie are the park/recreation centers diver~e from a standpoint of age groups catered to, but also to activities that can be accommodated. As noted, community meetings can occur at these centers, but other events will also be accommodated such as social gatherings (sewing circles, bridge clubs, hobbies), and arts and crafts instruction may also occur. In addition, sports insu'uction clinics may also be held at these locations. School& F,, ~.~ schools are proposed to be located on thc site, and another (Temecula Valley High School) is existing just north of thc site. The Junior High School sito is locat~:l in the northeastern portion of the site, and ~ elementary schools are located throughout the site. Associated with and on school grounds arc recreational cquipmcn! and fields for school children and which also ma), be used by thc community. Typical recreational equipment and sports fields which.may be provided at these school sites will include thc following: Playground equipment, basketball court& t~nnis courts, volleyball courts, softball field(s), soccer field(s), and .football field(s). Equestrian Trail. Extension of regional equesltian trails will be provided along the south side of Pauba Road and along the north side of de Portola Road in landscaped parkways. The trail will be 10 feet in width. Activity Nodes. Within the Community Pase0 System a number of activity nodes (minimum size: 0.5 AC) will occur at a rate of one acre per 6,500 residents, yielding a total of approximately 2.42 acres. These nodes may include the following facilities/equipment Picnic tables, tot lots, family pieulc, horseshoes, and group barbecue facilities. Community Activity Nodes will be available for use of all residents, and as such, will be maintained by the master home owner's association or TCSD. Rancho California $~vorts Park. The Rancho California Sports Park, to cOntain more than 86 recreational acres upon its completion, is located immediately northwest of the site, at the intersection of Margarita and Pauba Roads. This park w/Il contain sports fields and recreational facilities for use by all residents in the area. P;~to~ Dw SoL rtl SPECIFIC PLAN Specific Plan No. 219/Amenc~nent No. 8 (S-~. No. SP-4) Pa~e 2) Private Active Participation Opponunine's. In Medium-High density single family detached neighborhoods and in neighborhoods containing atm:hed housing types, private recreation facilities will be provided at a rate of one acre per 500 persona. It is expected that there will b~ a number of these recreational facihties throughout the site in the Medinm-High, High and Very High density areas. The pasco and roadway systems have sel~nented the property into numerous residential enclaves (neighborhoods). It is envisioned that the majority of those enclaves will have private recreational facilities. Private recreational areas may include facilities such as pools, spas, cabanas, meeting rooms, barbecues, wetbars, and kitchen facilities, In the Medium density areas these private recreational facilities will be located within secondary paseo parkways which weave through the neighborhoods. Planning Area g ('Medium density), if implemented as a Senior Community, creates a community geared toward "Active Seniors." Private recreation facilities for its community residents are planned to provide the following amenities: a) Competition sized pool b) Gathering center (no less than 5,000 square fee0 c) 2 tennis courts d) May also contain: putting green,' shuffle board, paddle tennis, badminton, volleyball Thc extent of recreational facilities and l~ivate common open space provided will be designed and pro~'ammed based on detailed site planning for the Senior Commllllity. Timing of c~on will be based on development Plan approval. Tract maps in Planning Area $ ('ff senior~) shall contain conditions which state the recreation building and main recreation common area ~rounds must be completed on or before 50% of the traits have been sold and uansferred to home buyers. h should be emphasized that PALOIvlA DF.i. SOL is being planned as a single integrated commllRity and that the community-wide recreational facilities (paseos/~ralls, community recreation centers, neighborhood parks, and the equeslxian trail) will be available to all residents of PALOMA DI~. SOL. Future individual tract approvals must therefore receive credit for the overall project-wide open space and recreation systems in assessing open space and recreation requirements for each future individual Ii-act PALO~IAD'~LSOL TH. RPEC;t/'iC PLAN Specific Pla~ No. 219/~m~t No. 8 (S.P. No. SP4) Page HI-34 3) Open Space, Greenbelt Paseos, Parkway Paseos. a) Open Space Corridors will be provided in the Medium and Medium-High dnnsit~ neighborhoods and will be calculated at a rate of one acre per 250 persons. One exception is that provisions for internal greenbelt/pasoos are not required when average lot ~ meet or exceed a 7,200 square foot minimum. If Planning Area 8 is developed as an active senior community these open space corridors may be private but shall be connected to the public pasco system. Such connections may be comxoiled using pedestrian entry gates. If Plmming Area 8 is not developed as a private access-con~xolled residential neighborhood, these open space corridors shall be public. Greenbolt/paseos will provide several functions, Faint, they will give additional separation between numerous dwellings in the Medium and Medium- High density residential neighbo~oods (essentially, higher density single f, mily neighborhoods). Second, they will provide an area for a limited amount of passive recreational opporturfities to occur. Third, in many instances, they will provide a link to thc community pasco system (discussed below): Fourth, in the Medium-High density residential areas, they will provide an area in which neighborhood active participation recreational facilities can be located. Facilities, other than those just noted, will not be provided within these corridors with the possible exception of a trail in some locations. However, pasco areas will be landscaped with tuff, trees, etc. so that they will be aesthetically pleasing. The corridors will be owned and maintained by a neighborhood homeowners association. Community "Backbone" Greenbelt/Pasco System. The community paseo system containing a total of ~283L9 acres of land, will provide pedestrian and bicycle access links throughout the PALOMA DEL SOL community. The system will vary in width and will meander throughout the commu:aity. (See ]gigure 11.) Being fully landscaped, the system not only will , function as a trail system, but it also will be aesthetically pleasing and'will provide dwelling unit and land use separations. The system will .contain a pedestrian path that is 8 feet in width, and community activity nodes will provide linkages not only to each neighborhood within the Community, but also to major destination points including schools, park, community recreation centers, shopping facilities, and the Rancho California Sports Park jnst northwest of the site. Since all residents of PALOMA ~)~. SOL will be allowed to use this system, it will be maintained by the Master Homeowners' Association or the Temecula Community Services Dis~et crC. SD). Parkway Open Space Adjacent to Roadways. An expanded parkway system will be located adjacent to all collector and higher volume roadways. The park-way system will be landscaped with turf, ur, es, and various additional plant materials. Community 'theme' walls will be located adjacent to the parkways. Parkways will vary in width with a buffer located adjacent to Highway 79 South. Some of the parkways will meander, thus creating changing and interest~g viewpoints to those using them. SidewalLs will be provided on each side of the parkways throughout the development. Also to be included are bicycle lanes on selected roadways. P,u,o~v, ~)~. So~. HI. SPECIFIC ~ Specific Plan No. 219/.~,,~,~a,,,~,~% No. 8 ($.P. No. SP-4) Page Ill-ab i) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8) 9) 10) 11) 12) Open Space and Recreation Plan Development Standards One neighborhood park will be provided for the benefit of all residents within the community. The nvo neighborhood parks may contain the following facilities/equipment: picnic area(s), wt lot(s), exercise course(s), playfield(s), rest rooms, parking areas, and a basketball court (half-court), soccer fields and baseball fields. Three neighborhood park/recreational areas will be provided for the benefit of all residents within the community. The neighborhood park/recreation cen~ers may be developed as public or private passive parks. As an alternative, the sites may be developed as privale or public active parks or recreation centers which may contain the following representative equipment: Pool Complex (swimming pool, pool deck, wading pool and spa), tennis courts, volleyball courts, tot lot, adventure play, group picnicdbarbeeue facilities, open play tuff area, clubhouse building, and parking areas, and may also contain shuffle board, paddle tennis, or badminton (See Section IV, Design Guidelines for further definition of included equipment). · ~,,. Four sites will be provided for schools (f,~.= three elementary schools, and one junior high school). When consmacted, those schools will have playgrounds and areas which may contain the following facilities: Playground equipment, basketball courts, ~ennis courts, volleyball courts, softball-soccer-football fields. An equestrian wail (10 feet in width) will be provided in the parkway area on the south side of Pauba Road and on the north side of De Ponola Road. Activity nodes for the use of all residents will be provided in the Community Pasco system at the rate of one acre per 6,500 residentS. The average size of those nodes will be ~ to ~' acre. The Activity Nodes may contain picnic tables, seating and open play areas. Exea-cise par courses may also be provided. The Activity Nodes will be owned and maintained by the Master Homeowners' Association or the TGSD. Private active participation recreational areas will be provided in the Medium-High, High, and Very- High density residential areas at a rate of one acre per 500 persons. Private active participation recreational areas may include the following facilities: pool(s), spa(s), cabana(s), meeting room(s), barbecues, wetbar(s), and kitchen facilities. Open Space Corridors will be provided in the Medium and Medium-High density residential land use areas at a rate of one acre per 250 persons, unless lot size minimum~ exceed 7,200 square feet. Within the Medium-High density residential areas private active participation recreational uses will occur within these corridors. PalOMA DI~L So~, 1TI'. SPIi:CIFIC PLAN Specific Plan No. 219/.~,~,-a,~,.ut No. 8 (S.P. No. SP-4) Page ITI-36 13) Open Spa~e Corridors will be owned and m~intained either by a homeowners' association or the TCSD as appropriate. 14) A Community Paseo System will be provided for the benefit of ali residents in the PALOIVlA DEL SOL ¢omm~mit),. The Community Paseo System will be owned and maintained by a master homeowners' association or the TCSD. 16) A Parkway System will be provided on all collector and higher volume roadways adjacent to and tllroughout the project site. 17) The Parkway System will contain sidew~l~c~ on each side of the slreet. 1 g) The Parkway System will be maintained by either the Master Homeowners' Association or the TCSD. 19) Ail recreational and open space areas will be landscaped, and irrigated. 20) All recreational facilities will provide parking in accordance to City of Temecula standards. 21) Landscaping within recreation and open space areas will be further governed by the'Development Stanclar~ in the Landscaping Plan seclion of ~his Specific Plan (Section I]I.B.8.) and the Design Guidelines Section (Section IV) of this Specific Plan. PAI.OMA DEL SOL Specific Plan No. 219/Amendment No. 8 (S.P. No. SP-4) HI. SPZCn~lc PLaN Pa~e m'-37 PLANNING AREA DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND ZONING REGULATIONS Development standards and zoning regulations for PALO~L~ DEL SOL have been established at three levels: General Development Provisions, which were addressed in Section. WI.A.1; Design Guidelines, which are provided in Section. IV; and Planning Standards to which this section is devot~L Planning Areas were selected on the basis of logical, separate units of development. Criteria ~onsidered in this process included uniformity of use as it pertains to zoning and relationship to adjoining product and surrounding topography. The Planning Area'graphics for this section (Figures 15A-H.U) were derived fi.om the Conceptual Landscape Plan (Figure 13A)~ The site plans depicted herein are only conceptual in nature. Although development may conform closely to some elements of the illustrative plans provided in Section IV, it is a~ticipated that actual lotting will not be determined until the tract map stage. A Specific Plan Zoning Ordinance was prepared and submitted separately from this Specific Plan document. The zoning provisions within that Ordinance establish use restrictions for each Planning Area. The zoning provisions should be used in conjunction with the planning standards for each respective Planning Area. Immediately following this page are three examples of single family residential lotting configurations which may be developed at various locations within the Specific Plan site (See Figures 14A, 14B, and I~C). The 'Typical Traditional' configuration as well as the 'Typical Courtyard' configuration may be developed at various locations in the Medium density category. The "Typical Cluster" configuration may be developed in the Medium High density category. These figures are provided to give the reader an example of how some neighborhoods within the specified land use categories may be developed. They are not intended to be representative of all residential development of the same density. In addition, three examples of sinele family residential lotting configurations which may be developed within the senior community on Plannlng Area 8 are shown on Figures 14D, 14E, and 14F. P~SOL m. b-'PEC:IIq¢ PL.~N NO. 219/AMI~M~IT bio. 8 (Specific Plan SP.4.) Page 1. Plannint Area 1. HaL and a. Descriptive Summary Planning Ama~ 1, 1 (a) and I Co), as depicted on Figure 1SA, provide~ for the development of 35.0 acres ,,~Lof Community/Neighborhood Commercial use~. A typical site plan is depicted in the Design Guidelines, Section IV. b. Land Use and Development Standards Please refer to Zone Ordinance No. 97-01 (See S.P. Zone Ordinance Tab). p)nnning StavdsardS 1) Access to the Planing Am~ will be provided from Margarita Road, State Route 79, and Campanula Way to tl,~ ,,o, fl,. Access points, as depicted, are conceptual. Access to the individual planning areas shall be determined when wact maps or development plans are submitmd. Access along Highway 79 is subject to Calm a~,l~oval. 2) A Minor Community entry statement will be provided at the intersection of Highway 79 and Margarita Road at the southwest boundary of the Planning Area (see Figure 32). 3) A Minor Project entry statement will be provided at the intersection of Campanula Way and Meadows Parkway at the northeastern boundary of the pJ~nnlng ~ (S~c: Fig~IrCS 35 and 36). 4) A Major Community enu'y statement will be provided at the intersection of Highway 79 end Meadows Parkway at the southeastern boundary of the planning Area (sec Figu~s 32 end 33). 5) Roadway landscape treaunents, such as those depicted on Figures 25, 23A, 239r~, end 27, respectively, ihall be provided along Highway 79, Margarita Road, Meadows Parkway, and Campanula Way, except for commercial frontage. The primary character of the commercial frontage shall consist of extensive turf mounding, grouped trees end shrubs. 6) A bic~L u~il Class 11 bicycle lane will be located i~o..t! Meadows Parkway; and Campanula Way to the north and east of the Planning Area as shown on Figure 6. 7) Pedestrian access between Planning Areas 36 and 38 and Planning Area 1 shall be provided es shown on Figures 50A and 50C. 8) Please refer to Section rrl.A. 1 through I'H.A for the following Development Plans and Standards that apply site-wide: rrl.A.1. Specific Land Use Plan 17I.A.2. Circulation Plan rtl.A.3. Drainage Plan m.A.4. Wamr and Sewer Plans I~.A.5. Public Facility Sites Phasing Plan rrI.A.6. Grading Plan I]LA.7. Open Space and Recreation Plan rfl.A.8. Landscaping Plan PALOMA DI~L SOL ITl. ~'Ei:~C P~.N Sw.~'lC ~ NO. 219/A~='~viZ~ NO. 8 (Speci~c Plan $P-4) Page fll'.51 9) n) 13) ]4) 15) Please see Design Guidelines, Section IV.B.3.c for general criteria pertaining to design of commercial areas and Section IV.B.3.c.1, for criteria related to siting and orientation of commercial uses. The commercial land uses permitted within lkis Planning Area are designated in the Specific Plan Zoning Ordinance. A Development Plan will be required for definition form and uses of each commercial area. Existing uses in Planning Areas I a andlb (commercial center) may be rebuilt for the term of the respective Development Agreement. The right to rebuild is cxtende~t for an additional 15 year covenant period for rebuilding in the event of damage, destruction or remodeling beyond the term of the development agreement. Waste disposal containers will be limited to designated, confined areas set aside for solid waste collection. A minimum of one Commercial entry statement shall be provided along Campanula Way (see Figure 37). Details for the Major and Minor Commercial entry statements are depicted on Figures 42B through-42F. Pedestrian plazas shall be provided as shown on Figure 50A. Planning Area 1 lies within the Paloma del Sol Village Center and is tharefore, subject to the Village Center Design Guidelines as contained in Section IV.I) of this specific plml. These guidelines contain standards and examples pertaining w pedestrian oriented design (Section IV.D.2.b), building scale (Section IV.D.2.c), intensification (Section IV.D.2.d), parking design (Section IV.D2.e), signage (Section IV.D.2.f) and transit provisions (Section IV.D.2.g). An illus{rative site plan that depicts an initial design for Planning Area 1 is shown on Figure 50E. P~u.o~* Dm. so~ hi. SPF~:~,C PLAN bio. 219/A!vUZNl:)~.{~ NO. 8 (Specific Piton ~P-4) Page 3. Pisnnln~o Area a. Descriptive Summary Planning Area 3, as depic~d on Figure 15C, provides for the development of 4t~4.8 acres ~ Medium High density residential use. A ~,,~ ~o~ of 255254 dwelling units ard.! planned at a iarget density ofSr!U.7 du/ac (D~nsity Range 5-8 du/ac). A typical site plan is depicted in the Design Guidelines, Section. IV.C.3. b. Land Use and Development S~ndards Please refer to Zone Ordinance No. 97-01 (See S.P. Zone Ordinance Tab). C. Planning S~ndards 1) 2) 4_) 2) Access to the Planning Area will be provided from a -,aj,,, ,,,~dwa) (Campanula Wa~,) ;,, :'.,c n,~,ti,wcst, ~,d £,~,, a Majo, ,oad,,a} CDc Po, tota Road) to tlc ,oftl,¢,~t. Access points~ as depicted, are conceptual. Access to the L~.I: ddu,,.l planning areas shall be determined when tract maps or development plans are submitted. A Minor Project entry statement will be provided at the intersection of De Ponola Road and Campanula Way at the northern boundary of the Planning Area. (See Figure 35.) Roadway landscape treatments, such as those depicted on l~gums 25, 23B, and 27, respectively, shall be provided along Highway 79, De Ponola Road and Campanula Way. A minimum of one neighborhood entry statement will be provided at egress points onto Campanula Way along th6 northwestern boundary of the Planning Area. A Class I bicycle trail will be located in De Ponola Road C,~,~p*.,,,l~ Way to the northeast and a Class rl bicycle lane will be located alon~ I~ Po, ~o1,~ Road Campanula Way to the northwest of the Planning Ar~a as shown on Figure 6. A site of archaeological/historical significance is located within this planning ar~a. Prior to issuance of Development or Grading Permits, an appropriate detailed mitigation program shall be idendfiad and, if necessary, complet~i. This program shall be approv~ by the History Division of the Rivcrsid~ County Parks and Recreation Depm'tment. Garages shall have a front yard setback as follows: Minimum of 20 (twenty) feet from ba~k of sidewalk, or if no sidewalk is provided, 20 (twenty) feet from back of curb. P~n~. sol IlL SPECnVc Pt.~ SI, F.~iC PL~,N NO. 219/AM~IDIV~,tl' l,l~. S (Specific plan S~-4) Page 111-56 Please refer to Section ITl.AA. through III.A.8. for the following Development plans and Standarfls that apply site-wide: ITl.AA. Specific Land Use Plan III.A2. Circulation Plan HI.A_~. Drainage Plan III.AA. Water and Sewer Plans HLA.5. Public Facility Sites Phasing Plan IH.A.6. Grading Plan ~.A.7. Open Spa~e and Recreation Plan I~.A.8. Laudseaping Plan Please see Design Guidelines, Section IV, for related criteria. PAI. OM~ D~I. SOL fH. $1'ECI!~ Pr. AN No. 219/A~n~m~m'r No. $ (Specific Plan S~-4) P~ge HI-$7 4. Plannin£ Area 4 · a. Descriptive Summar7 Planning Area 4, as depicted on Figure 15D, provides for the development of afl943.2 acres ~,:g, Rf Medium density residential use. A tu,~,.,~ total of 188188 dwelling units m'ei_s planned at a target density of ~4.4 alu/ac (Density Range 2-5 du/ac). b. Land Use and Development Standards Please refer to Zone Ordinance NO. 97-01 (See S.P. Zone Ordinance Tab). planning Standards 1) Vehicular ~_ccess to the Planning Ama will be provided from a M4o, ,oad~a~, (De Ponola Road) tx, fl,~. t,v,xl,. Access points, as dep~cted, are conceptual and, as such, shall be determined when tract maps or development plans are submitted. No vehicular access shall be permitted into Planning Area 4 from Butterfield Sta~e Road. 2) A ML,o, C~,,-,,,~,fit2~ ~.n~ oU~,,t ~11 b~. £:~vi&d at fl,~ h~,o~.~fi~, of IEr, L.~aa 79 ,~d Butt,.,fi,.ld S~ag~ R-o,at at &c o,~Ufl,,.,~,~ bound,,,;~ ,.tf fl,,. PI~...,;,~,~ A.~. (S,.c F~t~,~,. 32.) ~2) A Minor Project entry statement will be provided at thc intersection of De Portola Road and. Butterficld Stage Road at the northeast boundary of thc Planning Are~ (See Figure 35 and 36.) 43)' A minimum of one neighborhood entry statement will be provided at egress points onto De Portola Road at the northern boundary of the Planning Area. (See l:igure 37.) Roadway landscape treaunents, such as those depicted on Figures 25, 23A and 2~B, respectively, shall be provided along Highway 79, Butterfield Stage Road and De Portola Road. A Class I bicycle trail will be located in De Portola Road to the north of the Planning Area as shown on Figure 6. ~6) Please refer to Section rll.A.1 .through III.A.8 for the following Development Plans and Standards that apply site-wide: HI.A. 1. Specific Land Use Plan HI.A.2. Circulation Plan m.A.3. Drainage Plan rH.A.4. Water and Sewer Plans III.A.5. Public Facility Sites Phasing Plan III.A.6. Grading Plan IlI.A.7. Open Space and Recreation Plan III.A.8. Landscaping Plan Garages shall have a front yard setback as follows: Minimum of 20 (twenty) feet fi.om back of sidewalk, or if no sidewalk is provide& 20 (twenty) feet from back of curb. 98_) Please see Design Guidelines, Section IV, for related criteria. P~o~.t~ o~, Sot Ill. SPP. C~SC Pt.~,N No. 219/AM~tn,~m' No. 8 (Specific Plan $P4) Page 1U.$9 5. Piannino Area a. Descriptive Summary Planning Area 5, as depicted on Fignre 1 bE, provides for the development of 35.5 acres ,,l~Lof Medium IIi~l, density residential nse. A ,~a~.L~,~,, total of I$$152 dwelling units ~<.~ planned at a target density of ~ du/ac (Density Range $-,0,2-5 alu/ac). A conceptual site plan is depicted in the Design Guidehnes, Section. IV.C.3. b. Land Use and Development Standards Please refer to Zone Ordinance No. 97-01 (See S.P. Zone Ordinance Tab). 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8) Planning S~andards Access to the Planning Area will be provided from ~ .~jo~ ,,~adw,v (Campanula Wa~,) ~.,., ii,~ o,~;.~, De Ponola Road ,~,, fl,~ ,,o, ~1, o, and Meadows Parkwa~ on fl,~ w~t. Access points, as depicted, are conceptual. Access ~ d,,. h,.l; ,idual ¥1,~h~ ~a~ shall be determined when wa~t maps or development plans are submiv, ed. A--Minor Project entry statement! will be provided al the intersection of De Ponola Road and Campanula Way at the northeastern l~,~,~,i~ :,comer of the Pla~nlng Area and at the intersection of Meadows ParkWay and Camvanula Way at the southwestern comer of the Planning Area: (~ Rgure 35:). A Community Intersection enlry statement will be provided at the intersection of Meadows Parkway and De Ponola Road at the northwestern corner of the Planning Area. (See Figure ~4.) A l',fl,,.,, r'~,.,j~t E,~.,.~ ota~,~,.la o1,~11 br. p,,.,,i&d at ~I,,. ,.,.,.,,., ,,ff Mc~J~,,~ P,,k,,~.~ C,~.va,,,,la W,,~ at ti,,. ~o,~1,,.,.~., ,.o,.,.~ ~ tl,c Pt,~mlng A~,.a (~.c rig,~cs 35 ~,,d 37). A minimum of one neighborhood entry statements will be pw~ded at egress points onto Campanula Way at the southern boundary of the Planaing Area. (See Figure 37.) Roadway landscape treatments, such as those depicted on Figures 23B, 2.~, and 27, ~ol~; ~cl~ shall be provided along De Ponola Road, Meadows Parkway;, and Campanula Way. Private recreation facilities are planned which may include facilities such as pools, spas, cabanas, meeting rooms, barbecues, wet bars, and kitchen facilities. A Class I bicycle trails will be located alone Camoanula Way to the south and Class Il bicycle lanes will be located alou£ in De Ponola Road and Meadows Parkway to the north and west resvecfively. ~.,d C~,,l~a~,,,la Way s,,,ou,~ng fl,c PI,~,~ias A~,.a as shown on Figure 6. Balconies raay encroach inw building setback lines. PAWMA "n. SOL ITl. PLAN NO. 219/AMB~M~rr NO. $ (Specific Plan SP..4) Page m-~l 9) Please refer to Section IH.A.1. through III.A.$. for the following Development Plans and Standards that apply site-wide: I~,.1. Specific Land Use Plan III.A.2. Circulation Plan rn~.3. Drainage Plan 1TI.AA. Water and Sewer Plans III.A.5. Public Facility Sites Phasing Plau IH~.6. Grading Plan IH.A.7. Open Space and Recreation Plan rrIA.8. Landscaping Plan 10) Please see Design Guidelines, Section IV, for related criteria. PALOMA D~I, ~L ]~. SPP,.E~FIC PLAN No. ltg/A~a~t~a~r NO. S (Specific PI~ SP-~) Page m-62 Planning Area 8 a. Descriptive Summary Planning Ama 8, as depicted on Figare 15H, provides for ~' development of 89~ acres for either a Medium density private gated acu~.v.~, senior community or for family oriented Medium density residential' use. A ~,~h~,~,, total Of ~05~ dwelling units ~.~ planned at a target density of ~ du/ac (Density Range 2-5 du/a¢). A typical site plan for family oriented development is d~e..~,icted on Fi~,u~-~ ~_4~A~.If.p!~a¢-~.. for lh.e~i~o.r Commumty are unplemcnted, Planning Area 8 ~~ and shall conform vnth the typical s~te plans deplete3 on Figures 14D, 14E and 14F. b. Land Use and Development Standards Please refer to Zone Ordinance No. 97-01 (See S.P. Zone Ordinance Tab). Planning Standards 1) Access tO the Plaun~_g ~ea will he provided fi.om coll~¢tm ,vadways ("D" a~d "D" S~ ~u) to ~ ~~..-~f ~ faxn~ P~o Pmo Road to tl,~ ,,orthwcst, De Ponola Road o~ · ~xmth-and Meadows Parkway ~n~he-ea~ Access points as depicted are conceptual. Access to tl,~ ;,,di~id,,~l plalhlLig areas shall be determined when tract maps or development plans ar~ submitted. 2) A Minor Projec! entry statement will be provided at the intersection of"D" o .... ~ and Meadows Parkway at the nor~eas~m boundary of the Planning Area. (See Figure 35 and 36.) 3) A Project Intersection en ..tr~. s_.m~ment and p_~.&.o, crossing will be provided at Uhe intersec6on of ' 13 Ssa~t~.~d D :su~ct~~~.:W._~vatthenorthernboundaryofthePlannmg Area. (See Figures 38 and 39). 4) A Community Intersection Entry Statement will be provided at the intersection of Meadows Parkway and De Ponola Road (See Figure 34). $) A min~um 07 one neighborhood entry statement will be provided at egress points onto "D" Su~c; ~i~a.Y at the northern boundary of the Planning Area. (See Figure 37.) 6) A Paseo enlry statement will be provided at the northwestern boundary of the Planning Area. (See Figure 39.) 7) A landscaped mmsition area as depicted ~ Figures 13B or 13C, shall be created betwetm the Planning Area and Plaunigg Area 7 to provide a buffer between residential and adjacent elementary school land usc~. s) A Commumty Paseo System segment ~.~..Onn..~~.t.~~~ ~a~l be provided at the northwestern boundary of the Planning Area:. (S~ee Figur~ ~)'~)~ P.~.Ot,',ADEI. SO~ ITl. SPECIFIC ~ NO. 219/A.,vlm,'t x,~i~ NO. S (Specific plnn SP-~) Page IH-71 s) lO) 12) 13) Roadway landscape l~atments, such as those dcpicted.on_Fi, guros -~-~27~. 24 and 23B , ,.ol~cctl, ,Jy shall be provided along "13" Si, ,.ct, "D" .% ,.,.~, De Ponola Road; and Meadows Parkway. If implemented, the Senior Community will include_.5 unique s~eet/sldewalk landscape Irealments. A cross secuon of these treaunents and ~ planned location within the Senior Community conceptual site plan is depict~l on Fign~s 5lA, 5lB, 51C, 51D and 51E. Class I bicycle trails will be located alon~ Meadows Parkway and De Ponola Road to the east and south, respectively. Class II bicycle lanes will be located along Amarita and Leena Way to the north and east. respectively. Bike trails and bike lanes are will b~ }oca~d M all ,a,ct~ s.,,~',~,dh,g fl,,. Pl,~.,h,g A.,.o ~ shown on Figure -26~'.. An equesudan wail will be located in the northern park~vay of De Ponola Road on the south edge of the Planning Area (see Figure 24). Garages shall have a front yard setback as follows: Minimum of 20 (twenty) feet from back of sidewalk, or if no sidewalk is provided, 20 (twenty) feet i-om back of curb. Please refer to Section rll~..1, through 1TI.A.8. for the following Development Plans and Standards that apply site wide: HI.A. 1. Specific Land Use Plan III.A.2. Circulation Plan III.A.3. Drainage Plan rrI.A.4. Water and Sewer Plans III.A.5. Public Facility Sites Phasing Plan III.A.6. Gradlng Plan ITI.A.7. Open Space and Recreation Plan III.A.8. Landscaping Plan 14) Please see Design Guidelines, Section IV, for related criteria. P~Un~A O~ SO~. m. Silica:lC PLaN $~'mc PL~ NO. 219/~M~rr No. 8 (Specific Plan SP-4) Page m-7~ Planning Are~ 9 a. Descriptive Summary Planning Area 9, as depicted on F~gure 15I, provides for ~ development of 44~_~ acres density residential use. A ,,,,,,d,,,u,, ~oml of ,.~ dwelling umts ~ planned at a target density of 3.1 du/ac (Density Range 2-5 du/ac). A typical site plan is depicted.on Figure 14A. b. Land Use and Development Stnndards Please refer to Zone Ordinance No. 97-01 (See S.P. Zone Ordinance Tab). c. Planning Stnndards 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8) 9) 10) Access to the Plarmmg Area will be provided fi.om a Collccto~, wd,,ay CD" 2,u ~ct)~ and from De Portola Road . Access points, as depicted, are conceptual. Access to tli~ ~,~div;dual pl~.r,h~g ,~as shall be determined when tract maps or development plans are submitted. A Minor Project entry statement will be provided at the intersection of"D" S:. cc~ ~ and Meadows Parkway at the northwest boundary of the Planning Area. (See Figure 35 and 36.) A Major Project enu'y statement will be provided at the intersection of De Portola Road and Campanula Way at the eastern boundary oftbe Planning Area. (See Figure 35.) Project Intersection entry statements will be provided at the intersection of"D" $:~ cc~ ~ ' and Campanula Way. (See Figure 38.) A Community Intersection entry statement will be provided at the intersection of De Portola Road and Meadows Pankway. (See Figure 34.) A min~...urn o~f one neighborhood entry statement will be provided at egress points onto "~" o,,.,.~ along the northern boundary of the Planning Area. (See F~gure 37.) Roadway landscape treatments, such as those depicted on Figures 24, 23B, 27, and respectively shall be prowded along De Portola Road, Meadows Parkway, "D" SU cc~ ~ and Campanula Way. A Class I Bicycle trail will be located alone Meadows Parkway to the west and alone De Portola Road to the south. A Class II bicycle uail~ lane will be located alon~ Leena Way ~o the north and alon~ the Gateway access to the east h, all ,~ds s,~,~',.,dia~ fl,~ Pl,~.,h~g Arcs as shown on Figure 6. An eques'u'ian trail will be located in the parkway tO the south of the Planning Area along De Portola Road. (See Figure 24.) Garages shall have a front yard setback as follows: Minimum of 20 (twenty) feet f~om back of sidewalk, or if no sidewalk is provided, 20 (twenly) feet from back of curb. PArO~ Dm SOL Ill. SPECn~c ~ SIara21rlc PLA~ NO. 219/A.vnmm,~T No. 8 (Sl~iflc PI~ SP-4) Page I11-74 Please refer to Section III.AA. through I~.A.8. for the following De~'elopment Plans and Standards that apply site-wide: lit.AA. Specific Land Use Plan IH.A.2. Circulation Plan III.A.3. Drainage Plan IILA.4. Water and Sewer Plans III.A.5. Public Facility Sites Phasing Plan III.A.6. Grading Plan III~..7. Open Space and Recreation Plan lI1.A.8. Landscaping Plan 12) Please see Design Guidelines, Sections WA-C, for criteria related to architecture and landscape architecture. PALOt,'a, nm. SOL I~. SPECIFIC: ~ S~cmc ~ NO. 219/AM~,~rr NO. 8 (Specific Plan SP4) Page I11.75 Planning Area 13 a. Descriptive Summat~ Planning Area 13, as depicted on Figure 15M, provides for the development of 32~ acres ,,,~ _~. Medium High densi.~_residential use. A maximum-total of l'J'~;~ dwelling units ~.~'~ plmmed at a target density of~ alu/ac (Density Range 5-8 alu/ac). A typical site plan is depicted in the Design Guidelines, Section. IV.C.3. b. Land Use and Development Stnndards Please refer to Zone OrdinanCe No. 97-01 (See S.P. Zone Ordinance Tab). Planning Standards l) Access to the Pl~in£~_Area will be provided from a collector roadway ~"D" Suc~t) to th~ cas~~. Access points, as depicted, are conceptual. Ac~css t~ tl,~ .~d, vidual plaiu.ag ,~c'~..4_d shall be dex'~min~.d fi_nahzed when tract maps or development plans are submir~d. 2) A minimum 9f o~n~ ~_ei_g23borhood entry statement will be provided at egress points onto "D" ~-~Z%~57. ~~ at the eastern boundary of the Planning Area. (See F~gure 37.) 3) A landscaped Ixansition area, as typified by Figures 13B or 13C, shall be created betw~:n the Planning Area and the Elementary School (Planning Ar~a t I ) to assist in the distinction between differem land uses. 4) A Community Paseo System segment shall be provided at the northern and western boundaries of thc Planning Ama. ($e~ Figure 30.) 5) ~i. t~roadwa¥ l~.a~.dscal~e Ixea~ent, sucl, as depicted on Figur~ 27, shall be provided along "D" 6) Private recreation facilities are planned which may include facilities such as pools,' spas, cabanas, meeting rooms, barbecues, wet bars, and kitchen facilitias. 7) A Class II bicy_c}_e..~,.]~n~.._.wi,'~Ll~ located in Eollcctot Rosd "D" St,,.,.t to flit c~st of th,. ?l,~-,;.,g A~;?~ ~~..~.~.~. ~o the west as shown on Figure 6. s) Please refer to Section m.A.1, through III,A.8. for the following Development Plans and Standards that apply site-wide: III.A. 1. Specific Land Use Plan III.A~. Circulation Plan III.A.3. Drainage Plan III.A.4. Water and Sewer Plans rrI.A.5. Public Facility Sites Phasing Plan III.A.6. Grading Plan ITI.A.7. Open Spac~ and Recreation Plan ITI.A.8. Landscaping Plan 9) Garages shall have a front yard setback as follows: Minimum of 20 (twenty) feet from back of sidewalk, or if no sidewalk is provided, 20 (twenty) feet from back of curb. 1 O) Please see Design Guidelines, Section IV, for related criteria. Pt~OMA DEL SOL ltl SPECIFIC I~LAN SPE~F1C ~ NO. 219/AI,~NDMENT NO, 8 (Specific plan SP-4) Pa~e Ill-g5 ~'5~,.'. Piannin~ Area 14 Descriptive Summary Planning Area 14, as depicted on Flgur~ 15N, prov~das f~ ~ development of~ acres ~ Medmm densny res~denual use. A ,,...~,.,~ total of ~30~!, dwelling umts ~ planned at a target density of 4.? du/ac (Density Range 2-5 alu/ac). A typical site plan is depicted on Figure 14A. b. Land Use and Development Standards Please refer to Zone Ordinance No. 97-01 (See S.P. Zone Ordinance Tab). c. Planning Standards 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) ?) S) Access to the Planning Area will be provided from a colkct~, ,vadwa) ("D" Suc~0 ~o tlc ~. ~.~ and Meadows Parkway to ILc west. Access points, as depicted, are conceptual. Access t~ tL~ ~ad~vidu~l pl~h~g ~n~a shall be determined when u'act maps or development plans are submitted. A Minor l~oject entry statement will be provided at the intersection of"D"o~~ and~'~: Meadows Parkway at the southwestern boundary of the Planning Area. (See Figures 35 and 36) A minimum of one neighborhood envy statement will be provided at egress points onto ~~t the southern boundary of thc Planning A~a. (See F~gu~ 37.) A Pasco cn~y stateroom with pedesu'ian crossing will be provided at the northwestern boundary of the Planning Area as depicted by Figure 49. Community Paseo System segments shall he provided at the northern and eastern boundaries of the Planning Area. (See Figure 30.) Roadway landscape tr~a~nents, such as those depicted on [j~s 23B and 27 respectively shall be provided alollg Meadows Parkway and A Class I bicycle trail will be located along Meadows Parkway to the east ia CotL'~toi Road ..... - ' to the ~ ~ ~d a Class II bkvcle l~e ~11 ~ located alon~' wcs~ of~e Piing ~ ~ sho~ on Fi~ 6. Please refer to Section IXLA.1. through III.A.8. for the following Development Plans and Standards that apply site-wide: III.AA. Specific Land Use Plan m.A.2. Circulation Plan III.A.3: Drainage Plan IILA.4. Water and Sewer Plans ~I.A.5. Public Facility Sites Phasing Plan III.A.6. Grading Plan III.A.7. Open Space and Recreation Plan II1.A.8. Landscaping Plan Garages shall have a front yard setback as follows: Minimum of 20 (twenty) feet from back of sidewalk, or if no sidewalk is provided, 20 (twenty) feet from hack of curb. SOL Ill. SI~=Ol:IC PLaN ~ No. 2191A~a~t,'~,~W NO. ~ (Specific l~h= SP-4) Page IH-$7 1 O) Please see Design Guidelines, Sections IVA-C, for criteria r~lated to a~hi~*eture and landscape architecture. PALOMA DI~ SOL I~. SPECIFIC PLAN SIn'S'lC PI..~ NO. 219/A~,~Dt.4~NTNo. $ (Speaific Plan $P-.4) P~e IH-87A f. ll~ 23. Planning Area 23 a. Descriptive Summary Planning Area 23, as depicted on Figure 15W, provides for the development of 6656.6 acres vri~o~f Medium Itigh density residential use. A i.,~,~h..., ;oral of 363256 dwelling units ta¢is planned at a target density ofSr54.5 du/ac (Density Range 5-82-5 du/ac). A typical site plan is depicted in the Design Guidelines, Section W.C.3. b. Land Use and Development Standards Please refer to Zone Ordinance No. 97-01 (See S.P. Zone Ordinance Tab). c. Planning Standards 1)' Access to the Planning Area will be provided from a toilette, ,~,adv, a) ("D" 2~.0Sunnv Meadows Drive to thc .o~fl, and cast and f,,,,,, Meadows Parkway to fl,~ ~st. Access points, as depicted, are conceptual. Access to thc ;.db,~duaI pl~,,;ng *.cas shall be determined when tract maps or development plans are submitted. 2) A Minor Project entry statement will be provided at the intersection of "D" Su:czSunny Meadows Drive and Meadows Parkway at the northeastern boundary of the Planning Area. (See Figures 35 and 36) 3) A minimum of one neighborhood entry statements will be provided at egress points onto "D" o°h ~czSunnv Meadows Drive and Meadows Parkway at the northern, mad eastern, and western boundaries of the Planning Area. (See Figure 37.) 4) A CommuniW Pasco entry statement with p¢&st,;,~l ~,osslng will be provided at the southwestern boundary of the Planning Area. (See Figure 49.) A ~edestrian crossin~ will be provided at or near the Community Paseo entry s~atement. The ~edestrian crossing shall be located to maximize ~edestrian safeW when crossin~ Meadows Parkway. 5) A Community Paseo System segment shall be provided at the southern boundary of the Planning Area. (See Figure 30.) 6) Roadway landscape treatments, s,ch as ~o~¢ depicted on Figures 23B and 27 shall be provided along Meadows Parkway and "D" $ucczSunnv Meadows Drive. 7) A Class I bicycle trail will be located alone Meadows Parkway to the east. and a Class II bicycle lane will be located ia fl,c Cotlccto, Loop Road CD" St,c~0 along Sunny Meadows Drive to the ,,o, th zu,d c~st west of the Planning Area &,di,, M~adows ?~k~ay to thc ~cst of thc Pla,,~iag ~ as depicted in Figure 6. s) Private recreation facilities are planned which may include facilities such as pools, spas, cabanas, meeting rooms, barbecues, wet bars, and kitchen facilities. 9) Garages shall have a front yard setback as follows: Minimum of 20 (twenty) feet from back of sidewalk, or if no sidewalk is provided, 20 (twenty) feet from back of curb. P~IA DEL ~OL IlL SP£C~C PLA~ SI~SClFIC Pt~N NO. 219/AI~'UI~NT NO. 8 (Specific Plan SP4) Page II]-I 12 10) Please refer to Section m.A.1 through III.A.8 for the following Development Plans and . Standards that apply site-wide: III.A.I. Specific Land Use Plan I~I.A.2. Circulation Plan III.A.3. Drainage Plan III.AA. Water and Sewer Plans III.A.5. Public Facility Sites Phasing Plan III.A.6. Grading Plan IILA.7. Open Space and Recreation Plan m.A.8. Landscaping Plan 11) Please see Design Guidelines, Section IV, for related criteria. PALOIdADELSOL III. SPECIFIC PLAN SPECIFIC PlAN NO. 219/A3.tI~'DMENT NO. S (Specific Plan SP-4) Page Ill- I 13 24. Plannin~ Area 24 a. Descriptive Summary Planning Area 24, as depicted on Figure 15X, provides for th.._!e development of 2.-~9-~ 1 .O-acre,, klifo._~r a ncl~hbv,hood park/recreation area. A twical neighborhood conceptual landscape/site plan is provided in the Design Guidelines, Sccti,,~ IVB. Figure 47. b. Land Use and Development Standards Please refer to Zone Ordinance No. 97-01 (See S.P. Zone Ordinance Tab). c. Planning Standards 1) 4) 5) 6) 7) Access to the Planning Area will be provided from a c,Alccto, ~ cadway ("D" ~¢ct) t'o the cas~ local street internal to Planning Area 26. Pedestrian access to the Planning Area will also be provided from Co..maai'tj lhxks to thc cast and ~cst the pedestrian linkage between residential and park land uses (see Figure 50B). Thc Co,.mm,k2 P,~sco S)st~h, sc~.,~at~ shall bc dcvclop,.d ;,~ ac.,.da.¢c t~ I'ig.,c 30.A tandscane transition area/open space landscape buffer, as depicted in Figures 13B or 13C. will be nrovided along the eastern, western and northern boundaries of the planning area to buffer adiacem land uses. A.Class II bicyc e ;~ all lane wil be located in ..... ~, Srrcc;Sunnv Meadows Drive to the ca~;~outh of the Planning Area as shown on Figure 6. For park concept design plans, see Fiaure 47 in the Desien Guidelines section of this Specific Plan. This facility shall be constructed and fully operable prior to the issuance of the occupancy permit for the 4,576th residential unit within the Specific Plan. Please refer to Section III.A.1 through III.A8 fort. he following Development Plans and Standards that apply site-wide: III.A.I. Specific Land Use Plan III.A.2. Circulation Plan m.A.3. Drainage Plan III.A.4. Water and Sewer Plans HI.A.5. Public Facility Sites Phasing Plan III.A.6. Grading Plan III.A.7. Open Space and Recreation Plan III.A.8. Landscaping Plan Please also see Section IV, Design Guidelines, for related criteria. PALOMA DEL SOL HI. SPECIFlC PLAN SPECIPlC PI. aN NO. 219/AMENDMEhrr NO. $ (Specific Plan SP.-4) Page II1-115 26. Plannin~ Area 26 a. Descriptive Summary Planning Area 26, as depicted on Figure 15Z, provides for the development of 5029.5 acres ,izho_..f Medium density residential use. A lis~,~.~siutss ~.otal of 149130 dwelling units ~reis_.plarmed at a target density of 4-r54.4 dh/ac (Density Range 2-5 du/ac). A typical site plan is depicted on Figure 14A. b. Land Use and Development Standards Please refer to Zone Ordinance No. 97-01 (See S.P. Zone Ordinance Tab). c. Planning Standards 1) Access to the Planning Area will be provided from ,~ coll~cto~, o,~d,,~) ("D" .gu,.,.t) to thc ,*'cst ,~.d 'KY' St,,.~t to thc ~,,~thSunnv Meadows Drive. Access points, as depicted, are conceptual. Access t~ flic iadMdual pla~,ing ~,cao shall be determined when tract maps or development plans are submitted. 2) Mi,o, h ojcct cern ~ stat,.a,cat xqll be pA o~id,~d at fl,c ;atc, zcctio~i of"C" St,,.~t a~,d Btatc, fi~ld Road at tl,c .o~fl,castc,. bou.da,., ~thc Plaih,ing A~ca. (Sec Figm,. 35 a,,d 36.) 3) A hoj¢ct Iat,.,o,.,.tioa c,tu~ .tatc,h,.at ~ill bc l~,ovidcd at fl,¢ iht,. scctl,m of"C" St,,.ct ar, d "D" Su'~ct at thc .o, tk~stc,, b~und&~: of thc Pl,,,mlng A~c,~. (S~c Fig~,. 3§.) A local street within Planning Area 26 shall nrovide vehicular access to the park/recreation area (Plannin~ Area 24~. A minimum of one neighborhood entry statement will be provided at egress points onto "D" ,5z, c~:Sunnv Meadows Drive at the western boundary of the Planning Area. (See Figure 37.) A Pasco entry statement will be provided at the southeast and southwest boundaries of the property. (See Figure 39.) Roadway landscape treatments, such-as zl,,~c depicted on Figures 23C, 27, and 27 ,c~p~¢tivcly, shall be provided along Butterfield Stage Road, fl~e ColLctor Loop Read ("D" St, c~t) ai,d "C" 51reemnd Sunny Meadows Drive. If the LDZ falls below 32', only single story residential units shall be allowed on the lots immediately adjacent to Butterfield Stage Road. A Community Paseo System segment shall be provided at the southern boundary of the property. (See Figure 30.) A bicjclc hall Class II bicycle lane will be located in "D" Shc,ASunnv Meadows Drive to the west of the Planning Area and i,, "C" Sheet to fl,c am'th ~fl~c Plam~i.g A, ca. PALOM~ I:)EL SOL IlL SPECIFIC PLAN SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 2191AMl~'B~el, rr NO. 8 (Specific Plan SP4) Page III- 120 Please refer to Section III.AA through III,A.8 for the following Development Plans and Standards that apply site-wide: III.A.1. Specific Land Use Plan III.A.2. Circulation Plan III.A.3. Drainage Plan III.A.4. Water and Sewer Plans III.A.5. Public Facility Sites Phasing Plan III.A.6. Grading Plan III_A.7. Open Space and Recreation Plan III.A.8. Landscaping Plan Please see Design Guidelines, Section IV, for related criteria. pALOM^ Yin. SO~ IlL SPEC:IFIC PI.AN SPECIFIC PLAN N O. 219/.4.ivm~m' NO. 8 (Specific Plan SP-4) Page III- 12 ] 0 27. Piannin£ Area 27 a. Descriptive Summary Planning Area 27, as depicted on Figure 15AA, provides for preservation dc~clov.,cht of-1-59.0 acres · ~;~l~o__fr, c;ghbo,hood ,~o,..,,.c;al land ,~scland as natural open sl~ace. A tyl~lcal s;tt plan la dcp;¢ecd ~n thc IX. sis. Gui&Ih,cs, Sctfion. IV.C.3. b. Land Use and Development Standards Please refer to Zone Ordinance No. 97-01 (See S.P. Zone Ordinance Tab). c. Planning Standards 1) 2) 3) 4) 6) 7) No vehicular access to this Planning Area is ulanned, although maintenance crews may access this area from Meadows Parkway and Sunny Meadows Drive as necessary. Acc¢~ to th. Pla,mi.~; At,.a bill bc ~,,ovi&d o.1) fi,~., a ~,.t,~ndar2 ~oad~..~ (I',~aba Road) to fl,~ Actc.s fi,~,,, D .'tt,., field S~gc Road ,~a fl.c ,~ast,,,a~ be co.~idcl cd at the dcv'~lop.,,.tt plan but c,~ rosy bt allo~gd if thc City rsabl;¢ Winks l~po~tn,,.nt co.,~.,s fl,,~t adtq.au: u,~ffit flow on D utt~tficld Slat~ Road will bt .,alnt~h,,.d. Act,~ss poh,ts, as dc~icgd, ~, ~ 6OhC~oal. to ~l~ ;ndiGdu~l vl~nnMg ~tc~ sh~ll be dctc,.,h,~d ~h~. &~l~v.,~.t pl~ns ~,~ ~cc~s ~ fl,~ h,divldual ~a,i,,g A Minor Co.....?tj m oiect enlry statement will be provided at the intersection ofl~.b.~ and Battc, fitld St~gt R~ds at fl,t liol't.li6&stY, ls, be~..da~ oflY,¢ Pta,sting A,¢a. Meadows Parkway and Su'nnv Meadows Drive (See Figures ~235 and 36.) Roadway landscape treatments, ~,cli as h~,,,~,, depicted on Figures -24-'anfl-25~3 B. 23C and 27. shall be provided along Pauba RoadMeadows Parkway. Sunny Meadows Drive and Butterfield Stage Road. cqatoui~, u.il will b,. ~,y',id'cd i. fl~c adjacc.t pa, kwa) to fi,t noah ,~long r.uba Road oil Fi~.,t 24. Vchlcul~ ~cc~s ~,oss fi,is hall will ,~q.i,c thc usc pla,.,h,g c,k~ti~ (s.~h as 'M~abk stop slga.") at fl,~ &.clop.,~nt vl~, s~gc ~ c,,~.,~ fl,~ ~Lty The Planning Area may also be accessed by a bit2,& h.il Class II bicycle lane which is located along Pauba RoadMeadows Parkway and Sunny Meadows Drive. (See Figure 6.) Waste dlsvosal comaiii~,. ~;11 bt li.dttd to dtsig.attd, toafi~itd °,cas ~ct ssi& fo, solid A dc.~:lop.,cut pla. -ill bt ,,.qal, cd fo, &finitio., f~,,,,, a.id ascs. PALOMA DEL SOl. IlL SPECI~C PI..~N St~r.c~r~c ~ NO. 219/at,~D~t~rr No. $ (Specific Plan SP-4) Page III- 123 5) 6) 10) A residential/oven space landscaped buffer/n'ansition area as depicted byin Figures 13B or 13C shall be created between the Planning Area and Planning Areas 26 and 28 to provide a buffer between adiacent residential zu~d adj ac~,a co,,~,,~ial land uses. This buffer area should contain a pedestrian connection to the residential neighborhood in Planning Area -2-826 as shown in Figure 50EB_. Please refer to Section III.AA. through III.A.8. for the following Development Plans and Standards that apply site-wide: III.AA. Specific Land Use Plan III.A.2. Cireulation Plan II1.A.3. Drainage Plan III.AA. Water and Sewer Plans III.A.5. Public Facility Sites Phasing Plan III.A.6. Grading Plan III.A.7. Open Space and Recreation Plan III.A.8. Landscaping Plan PLasc s,c Dcsi~. Gui&lilies, 5cctio.s WA-C, fo, c,;t~,ia, Uatcd to tu ~hi~t.,; a.d l~.idscapc arclslt,.¢tm ~.. P~.o~t~ D~. So~. IlL SPECIFIC PL.a.N SPECIFIC PL.$.N NO. 219/AMI~MEh'F NO. g (Specific Plan $P-4) Page III-124 28, PlanninR Area 28 a. Descriptive Summary Planning Area 28, as depicted on Figure 15BB, provides for the development of-2'549.4 acres Medium density residential use. A m,~h,,,,, wtal of 113190 dwelling units are planned at a target density of4r53.8 du/ac (Density Range 2-5 du/ac). A typical site plan is depicted on Figure 14A. b. Land Use and Development Standards Please refer to Zone Ordinance No. 97-01 (See S.P. Zone Ordinance Tab). c. Planning Standards 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) Access to the Planning Area will be provided from tl,~ ~lkct~ ,oadwa) CC" S-h~.~t tv thc so~hc,,~t a,d fi6,, Meadows Parkway ~,~ ~l, .... ~ and Bunerfield Stage Road. Access points, as depicted, are conceptual. Access to thc L,di,ld,al plash,lag ~c&s shall be determined when tract maps or development plans are submitted. A Major Community entry statement will be provided at the intersection of Pauba Road and Meadows Parkway at the northwestern boundary of the Planning Area. (See Figures 32 and 33.) A minimum of one neighborhood entry statement will be provided at the egress points onto .%~z,Meadows Parkway and Btmerfield Stage Road at the soathcast~,,western and eastern boundaryies of the Planning Area. (See Figure 37.) A Minor Project entry statement will be provided at the $c,;.~l,northeastern boundary of the Planning Area at the intersection of Buneffield Stage Road and aC-a-StreetPauba Road. (See Figures 35 and 36.) A pedestrian linkage shall be provided between the residential neighborhood in Planning Area 28 and the open space area in Planning Area 27 and the park/recreation area in Planning Area 29-~ as shown on Figure 50B. Often, this is accomplished by providing an open space linkage with a trail from the end ora residential cul-de-sac, but other site planning options are possible. A landscaped transition area, as typified by Figures 13B or 13C, shall be created between the Planning Area and Planning Area 29 to assist in the distinction between residential and clc,,~,a~ sd,ool~ark/recreation area land uses. Roadway landscape treatments, ..ch as u',c, oc depicted on Figures 24, 23A'C_, 23B, and 28 respectively, shall be provided along Pauba Road, Butterfield Stage Road; and Meadows Parkway;, and "C" PALOMA DEL SOL IlL S?EC~C Pt.~ SPacl~c ~ NO. 219/AMla~,vl~rr NO. 8 (Sl~cific Pla~ $p.4) Page III-126 An equestrian trail will be located in the parkway to the north of the Planning Area. Vehicular access across this trail will require the use ofsvecial site vlanning criteria (such as "double stop si~ns") at the develovment plan stage to ensure the safety of equestrians using this trail. A residential/open space landscaved buffer/transition area as depicted in Figures 13B or 13C shall be created between Planning Area 28 and Planning Area 27 to vrovide a buffer between adjacent oven sDace. This buffer area should contain a pedestrian connection to the residential neighborhood in Planning Area 28 as shown in Fieure 50B. A Class I bicycle trail will be located along ~ the st, c,ts o,~ flic ,o, th, south, and west of thc Plaimi,,g-A~caMeadows Parkway and Pauba Road to the east and a Class H bicvcle lane Pauba Road to the east. (See Figure 6.) Please refer to Section III.AA through III.A.8 for the following Development Plans and Standards that apply site-wide: III.A.1. Specific Land Use Plan III.A.2. Circulation Plan III.A.3. Drainage Plan III.A.4. Water and Sewer Plans III.A.5. Public Facility Sites Phasing Plan IILA.6. Grading Plan II1.A.7. Open Space and Recreation Plan III.A.$. Landscaping Plan Please see Design Guidelines, Sections IVA-C, for criteria related to architecture and landscape architecture. P,~LOM^ DEL SOL IIL SPECllqC PL~ SPECIFIC PLAN bio. 219/A3ta'ND~ NO. 8 (Sp~:ific Plaa $p-4) Page III-127 29. Planning Area 29~ a. Descriptive Summary Planning Area 29-A, as depicted on Figure 15CC, provides for th.~e development of 5.0 acres ,,i;~'ffor a neighborhood park/recreational facility. A typical site plan is depicted in the Design Guidelines, Section. IVB. b. Land Use and Development Standards Please refer to Zone Ordinance No. 97-01 (See S.P. Zone Ordinance Tab). c. Planning Standards 1) 2) 3) 4) $) 53_ Access to the Planning Area will be provided from tl~c Collceto, Road "D" ,g u,-ct ~ fl,,. soathvia a local street within Planning Area 28 and from Meadows Parkway. A Rxoadway landscape treatment, as depicted on Figures 23]8 ~,d 2g, shall be provided along Meadows Parkway to the west aad fl~c Coll¢ct,,~ Ro,~d "D" Stacct to flic south. For park facility conceptual design plans, see the Design Manual Section of this Specific Plan (Section IV.B.). This Planning Area will be constructed, fully operational and dedicated to the City prior to the issuance of the 174th building permit in Planning Area 23 or the issuance of the first building permit in Planning Areas 26 or 28, whichever occurs first. A Class I bicycle ~ail will be located in "D" Sheet to fl,c soar, ofth~ Pla~,fing A~caMeadows Parkway, to the east as shown on Figure 6. A M;~lo~ Pi ojcet ,.,e, ~ starc.,ent '~ ill be pi o~ i&.d at fl,c s~uthvecstc,, boand~.y err thc Plmming Area at file intc, scctlw, vfMc.dov~. I'aikwa) aad "D" Sheet. (Sec rig,-,.~ 35 a~id 36.) A r~ark/open space landscaped buffer/transition area as depicted in Figures 13B or 13C shall be created between Planning Area 27 and Planning Area 29 to provide a buffer between adjacent oven space. A landscaped transition area. as woified by Figures 13B or 13C. shall be created between the Plannine Area and Planning Area 28 to assist in the distinction between residential and park/recreation area land uses. This buffer area should contain a vedestrian connection to the residential neighborhood in Planning Area 28 as shown in Fibre 50B. A pedesa'ian linkage shall be provided between the residential neighborhood in Planning Area 28 and the park/recreation area in Planning Area 29~ as shown in Figure 50B. P~a.O~AOF. J.$O~. IlL SPECIFIC ]~tflq SP£CL~C pL~.U NO. 2 ! 9/A~a~a~m~rr NO. g (Specific Plan SP-4) Page lll- 129 Please refer to Section III.A.I through III.A.8 for the following Development Plans and Standards that apply site-wide: III.A.1. Specific Land Use Plan III.A.2. Circulation Plan III.A.3. Drainage Plan III.A.4. Water and Sewer Plans III.A.5. Public Facility Sites Phasing Plan III.A.6. Grading Plan III.A.7. Open Space and Recreation Plan III.A.8. Landscaping Plan Please see Design Guidelines, Sections IVA-C, for criteria related to architecture and landscape architecture. PALOMA DEL SOL III. SPECIFIC PLAN SPECIFIC P~N NO. 219/AMB~DM~,rr NO. 8 (Specific Plan SP-4) Page III-130 Z -I fl. Pl~hii,,g A~,.,~ 29B, a~ dc~,ict~d o. Fig~. ISCC, v~idcs ~, &.~lop,.c,it ~ 10 ac,~s with El~.,~m,) gd,ool. ~f~t ~,nc p~i.t h, th.~ fl,c Scl,o~l Dish itt ~h~ld dc~llne to ~l~c ti,is ~ ~ifl, M~di~. &l,slt~ m~i&nfial usc. A ,.~h.~., ~1 of 45 dwclll,ig u.lu ~ould b, ~11~ ;d at a ~t &,,,it: of 4.5 dJ~c. ~..it) ~sc 2-5 d~) A r~vi~al sit; Via, fu, Mcd;.., &.~it: ,~;dc,,tial l~,d us~ is dcvictcd i~ fl,~ D~si~, G~i&lih;s, Section. W.C.3.) b. Land U*~ and Dt~;l~p,,,.;~t St~ad,~, ds Plc,~sc ,~fcr to Zo.; O, dh,a, icc ~,~. 974)1 (5cc S.P. Z,~.c O, dh,,~.c¢ Tab). l)' Acco** to th~ Pla~,.i,,~ A~,.,~ will bc provided fc~., a ,.ollccto, eoad.~ays ("D" St~cct a.d "C") south a.d ~outl,casl. 2) Accco~ to tlc s~h. will also bc a.ailabl,, fi~,,, th,. bic.~lc t~,~ils in "D" Sts cot ..nd "C" Stt c,.t. (Sec 6.) 3) 4) Thc Ek.,.,.nta~ Scl,ool will b,. const,.ct~d [0' fl,c School District t~ thci~ stand.~ds. $) Apo, tlo,, effthc school site ,,,ay bc developed v, lth open ~vacc/, cc~c,~tio,~ l~d ,/scs. Those uscs ,,,nj i.clu&, bxa will .c~ bc lh.ltcd to thc follo*,ing: $,.~ball fi;Id, h~,'d c,~act, opel, iatay, pla)g~o.,,d, t~ ~ pa~kh,g faciliti,.s, a.d la~,dscaping a,,d i. lsotio, l. All facilltlcs ~ill be pl,~,,~,,.d a,,d co,,~h,,ctcd b: tlc School Di~ulct. ¢) G,~,.~,.s shall h,~c ,~ float y,~d sctba,.k as foll,~.s. Mi,iim~,,. of 20 (t~vcaty) fi. ct fl,~,, b,~ck o~f si&walk, o, if~,o si&walk is t,,~i~d, 20 (tw,.atj) ~ct rio,,, back of c.,b. 7) Plca.~ ,cf~l to Scctloa III.A.1. fl,,~,~,gh III.A.§. f~ th,. followins Dc~clop.,cat Plai,s a~ld S'~,d,~ ds flint alaplJ sitc~ i&. tlI.A.1. Sp,.,.ific L,u~d Usc Plan HI.A.2. Ch,.ulation Pl~l III.A.3. Dx~;aagc r'la~ III.AA. Watt, ,~ad Sc,c, Plans III.A.5. Public Facility Si~.s Phasi,g Pl~ui III.A.6. G,,~ding III.A.7. Ope, S~c,. and Recreation PIa.~ III.A.§. Laudscaplng Pl~,a 0) Pl,.~sc sc~ I2~sir~, Gui&Ii.cs, S,.ctio,is IVA-C, for c, hc~ ia, clav. d to aed~ctu~,, and landscape 9) tlc ,.vc.t that thc Scliool Dj.t, ici elects not to acquhc tl,~ sit~, all toadwa) la,,dsc,,t~c ,.,itctia, liclghbo,hood c,th.~ cfit,.,i, and ~,oj,.ct i,~,sc,.tlo,~ cia~j statc,,,,..t ,.,itc, ia av~licabl¢ to "C" St,,.ct a~,d Loo~ 2~ cot "D" adjacent to, csi&.atlal dc,~=to~,.,.,,t shall a~ply. PAl. OMA l~m. Sol. IlL SI'EClF~C ~ SPECIe-lC PI..~ NO. 219/A.~v~NI~ NO. g (S~:~cifi¢ Plan $P4) Page III- 132 ~93.~8. Planning Area 38 a. Descriptive Summar3, Planning Area 38, as depicted on Figure 1 SA, provides for the development of 8.0 acres'n'i~o~fM~d[ llir:,h dci,sk~ ,csi&,nialCommunitv/Neighborhood Commercial use. A ,,,axh,,u,,~ ml ~48 d~lllag ua,iu ~,~ ~la,~xcd at a uu~ct densit~ ei'6.0 d~ae ~ns;~ ~.gc 5-8 d~'ac). Z~,o 1~ lh~e all~cd h, thls ~l~mh,g ~.a. A conceptual si~ pl~ is depicted in ~e Desi~ Guidelines, Section ~.C.3. b. Land Use and Development Standards Please refer to Zone Ordinance No. 97-01 (See S.P. Zone Ordinance Tab). Planning Standards 1) 3) 4) Primary A vehicular access into the Planning Area will be provided fi.om Campanula Way za" - c,~t a,,d Dc Poctola Ro,~d to tl,,. no~lh. Access points, as depicted, are conceptual. Access to iadi~ id,al pl,,,al,,~ ,, ~as shall be determined when development plans are submitted. A project intersection entry statement, as depicted on Figure 38, will be provided at the intersection of De Portola Road and Campanula Way. A ill;lililialli ~tf o/'~. l,,.lghb,~.hood caul, stat,..,,.,lt will Lc t,,~vid,.d at c~,,.ss ~,oh,ts o~tto C,~mp,~nula Wa) ~t thc ,.as'c,. b~u,,cl~ o£th~ I'la~.h,s-A,,.,~. (Sec Fls~,,c 37.) A minimum of one Commercial entry statement shall be vrovided along Campanula Way (see Fi~.,ure 37/. Details for the Maior and Minor Commercial entry statements are depicted in Figures 42B throueh-42F. Roadway landscape treatments, such as those depicted on Figures 23B and 27, respectively, shall be provided along De Portola Road and Campanula Way. The ~Hmarv character of the commercial frontage shall consist of extensive tuffmoundine, erouped trees and shrubs. Ix, i~ at,., cc, ,.atioo facilities ar~ pla..cd vd,ich nia) inclu& faciliti,.s such as pools, spas, ,.,~baaas, l,,cCtil,g ~.ooms, ba, bccucs, wet b~, and IGtoh~,l facilities. A Class I bicycle trails will be located in along De Portola Road and a Class I bicycle trail and a Class II blcvcle lane will be located along the east side of Campanula Way adjacent to the Planning Area as shown on Figure 6. Pedestrian access between Planning Area 38 and Planning Areas 1, 1 (b) and 36 shall be provided as shown on Figures 50A and 50C. A landscaped transition area, as typified by Figures 13B and 13C, shall be created between Planning Area 38 and Planning Areas 1, 1 (b) and 36 to p,o-,idx, a baffc, b,.t~.,.h ,c~idcntial and adja,.cnt c6,..,¥~claI la,~d uses. A secondary pedestrian linkage to Planning Area 5-736 shall be provided as shown on Figure 50A. P~o~, r~_ SoL IlL SPECFFIC PLAN SPISClFIC PLAN NO. 219/AMENDMENT NO. 8 (Specific Plan SP-4) Page III- 152 9) lo) Please refer to Section HI~.. 1 through III~A.$ for the following Development Plans and Standards that apply site-wide: III.A.I. Specific Land Use Plan III.A.2. Circulation Plan III.A.3. Drainage Plan III.A.4. Water and Sewer Plans IILA.5. Public Facility Sites Phasing Plan III.A.6. Grading Plan III.A.7. Open Space and Recreation Plan III.A.8. Landscaping Plan Please sec D~i~, Guid¢llncs, Scctions WA-C, fo~ ,., itc, ia, elated to/u chit~ctu,,, a,~d landscape a~hit~¢tm ~,. Gathciing places in tlc fy.. ofp, i, ate s cc, carlo,, facilities shall bc psuvided as showu ~,, Figm c 50A. These ,,,~) ~kc flic f~,,, of ~,,,11 facilRics sF~cad tMou~out fl~c Plah.i,,g~, o, be consolidat~d in~ m,c l~gc ,cc~cati~ Planning Area 38 lies within the Paloma del Sol Village Center and is therefore subject to the Village Center Design Guidelines as contained in Section IVD of this specific plan. These guidelines contain standards and examples pertaining to pedestrian oriented design (Section IV.D.2.b), building scale (Section IV.D.2.c), intensification (Section IV.D.2.d) and signage (Section IV.D.2.f). Please see Design Guidelines, Section IV.B.3.c for general criteria ~ertainine to design of commercial areas and Section IV.B.3.c.1. for criteria related to siting and orientation of commercial uses. The commercial land uses permitted within this Planning Area are designated in the Specific Plan Zoning Ordinance. A Development Plan will be required for definition form and uses of each commemial area. Existing uses in Planning Areas I a and 1 b (commercial center) may be rebuilt for the term of the respective Development A~reement. The right to rebuild is extended for an additional 15 year covenant period for rebuilding in the event of damage, destruction or remodeling bevond the term of the development agreement. Waste disposal containers will be limited to designated, confined areas set aside for solid waste collection. 13) Pedestrian plazas shall be provided as shown on Figure 50A. PALOMA D~- SOL IlL SP£cnac PL&N S~EC~mC Pc~q NO. 219/A/d~D~ NO. 8 (Specific Plan SP~I) Page III- 153 -2 0 EXHIBIT B CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL R:~ P ^~2001 ~01-0102 PaJo~ Del S~ #SV:c EXHIBIT B CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Planning APplication No. 01-0109 - Specific Plan Amendment No, 8 PLANNING DIVISION General Requirements The applicant and owner of the real property subject to this condition shall hereby agree to indemnify, protect, hold harmless, and defend with Legal Counsel of the City's own selection, the City shall be deemed for purposes of this condition, to include any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its elected or appointed officials, officers, employees, consultants, contractors, legal counsel, and agents from any and all claims, actions, awards, judgments, or proceedings against the City to attack, set aside, void, annul, seek monetary judgments, or proceedings against the City to attack, set aside, void, annul, seek monetary damages resulting, directly or indirectly, from any action in furtherance of and the approval of the City, or any agency of instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body including actions approved by the voters of the City, concerning the Planning Application. City shall promptly notify both the applicant and landowner of any claim, action, or proceeding to which this condition is applicable and shall further cooperate fully in the defense of the action. The City reserves the right to take any and all action the City deems to be in the best interest of the City and its citizens in regards to such defense. 2. The applicant shall comply with all underlying conditions of approval for Specific Plan No. SP-4, and its previous amendments, unless superseded by these conditions of approval. 3. The text of Amendment N0. 8 to Specific Plan No. SP-4 shall conform with Exhibit A "Paloma Del Sol Specific Plan, Amendment No. 8" or as amended by these conditions. Within Thirty (30) Days From the Second Reading of the Ordinance Approving the Amendment 4. The applicant shall submit the amended Specific Plan text to the Community Development Department - Planning Division. By placing my signature below, I confirm that I have read, understood and accept all the above Conditions of Approval. I further understand that the property shall be maintained in conformance with these conditions of approval and that any changes I may wish to make to the project shall be subject to Community Development Department approval. Applicant Signature R:~S P A~20011O 1-0102 Paloma Del Sol ~ spa ~s..doc 6 ATTACHMENT NO. 5 ORDINANCE APPROVING AMENDMENT OF STANDARDS R:LS P Ak2001~01-0102 Paloma Del Sol #8~PCStaft~pt..2.doc 14 ? ATTACHMENT NO. 5 ORDINANCE NO. 01- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING AMENDED ZONING STANDARDS FOR THE PALOMA del SOL SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 8 THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Procedural History. The City Council of the City of Temecula does hereby find, determine and declare that: Newland Communities LLC ("Owner") filed Planning Application No. PA01-01- 0109 (General Plan Amendment), PA01-0102 (Specific Plan Amendment No. 8 to Specific Plan Amendment No. 219 & Amendment of Planning Area No. 38 Zoning Standards), PA 01-0117 (Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 24188, Amendment No. 4) ("the application") in accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code. On November 7, 2001 the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula held a duly noticed public hearing on the project at which time all persons interested in the project had the opportunity and did address the Planning Commission on these matters. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearing and due consideration of the proposed Project, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. recommending to the City Council that the Project be approved, subject to certain recommended conditions. On 2001, the City Council of the City of Temecula held a duly noticed public hearing on the Project at which time all persons interested in the Project had the opportunity and did address the City Council on these matters. At the conclusion of the Council hearing and after due consideration of the testimony, the Council approved of the Application, and certified Addendum No. 4 to the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Paloma Del Sol Specific Plan, made all required findings and determinations relative thereto and after finding that the project proposed in the Application conformed to the City of Temecula General Plan as amended. Section 2. Findinqs, The Planning Commission of the City of Temecula further defines and declares that: a. Specific Plan No.8 implements the goals and policies of the City's General Plan and provides balanced and diversified land uses, and impose appropriate standards and requirements with respect to land development and usage in order to maintain the overall quality of life and the environment within the City, R:~S P A~001\01-0102 Paloma Del Sol #8\cc zon. ord.doc 1 b. Specific Plan No. 8 is consistent with the City's General Plan, and each Element thereof, the City's Growth Management Program Action Plan and constitutes a present valid exercise of the City's police power. c. Specific Plan No. 8 is compatible with surrounding land uses. It proposes similar residential neighborhood adjacent to existing surrounding neighborhoods. In addition, it proposes commercial uses adjacent to existing commercial development. d. Specific Plan No. 8 will not have an adverse effect on the community because it remains consistent with the goals and policies of the adopted General Plan. e. The City Council finds the City of Temecula has certified Addendum No. 4 to the Final Environmental Impact Report for Specific Plan No. 8, made all required findings and determinations relative thereto and finds that the Addendum was prepared consistent with applicable CEQA provisions. The Council also finds that the Addendum was considered in association with the approval of this Specific Plan Amendment. Section 3. Adoption of Amended Zoninra Standards for the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby adopts revised zoning standards for the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan Amendment No. 8, as set forth in the attached Exhibit A. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED, by the City Council of the City of Temecula this __ day of November 2001. ATTEST: Jeff Comerchero, Mayor Susan W. Jones, CMC/AAE City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA) I, Susan W. Jones, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 01-__ was duly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a regular meeting of the City Council on the ninth day of January, 2001, and that thereafter, said Ordinance was duly adopted and passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Temecula on the day of ,2001 by the following roll call vote: R:~S P Ak2001~01-0102 Paloma Del Sol #8\cc zon. ord.doc 2 AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: Susan W. Jones, CMC/AAE City Clerk R:',S P A~2001\01-0102 Paloma D~I Sol #8\¢¢ zon. ord.doc 3 EXHIBIT A AMENDED ZONING STANDARDS R:~S P A~2001\01-0102 Paloma Del Sol #8~cc zon. ord.doe Medium Density Residential Planning Area 4, 5, 8 (if not seniors), 10, 14, 17, 18, ~; 25, 26, 28 & 33 Medium Density Residential Zone The following regulations shall apply in this Medium Density Residential Zone: SECTION 6.1 USES PERMITTED. a. The following uses shall be permitted in the Medium Density Residential Zone: (1) One family dwellings. (2) Two-family dwellings. (3) Public parks and public playgrounds, golf courses with standard length fairways and county clubs. (4) Home occupations. (5) Planned residential developments, provided a land division is approved pursuant to the provisions of Riverside County Ordinance No. 460 (I 991) and the development standards in Section 18.5 or 18.6 of Riverside County Ordinance No. 348 (1991). The following uses are permitted provided a plot plan has been approved pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.30 of Riverside County Ordinance No. 348 (1991): (1) Beauty shops operated from a home by its inhabitants where no assistants are employed and the on-site sign is unlighted and does not exceed two square feet in (2) Temporary real estate tract offices located within a subdivision, to be used only for and during the original sale of the subdivision, but not to exceed a period of 2 years ia any event. (3) Nurseries, horticultural. SECTION 6.2 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. The following standards of development shall apply in the Medium Density Residential Zone, except that planned residential developments shall comply with the development s~andards contained in Section 18.5 of Riverside County Ordinaaee No. 348 (1991). a. Building height shall not exceed three (3) stories, with a maximum height of forty feet (407. Lot area shall be not less than 5,000 square feet. However, the lot area for two-family dwellings shall be not less than 4,500 sq. ft. per dwelling unit. The minimum lot area shall be determined by excluding that portion ora lot that is used solely for access to the portion ora lot used as a buildiag site. rev. 10/24/01 -1- The minimum average width of that portion of a lot to be used as a building site shal! be 45 feet with a minlmRln average depth of 85 feet. However, for two-family dwelling lots, the mln~mum average width sh~!! be 40 feet with the same minimum'average depth orE5 feet. That portion ora lot used for access on "flag" lots shall have a mlnlmul'tl width of 20 feet. The minimum frontage of a lot shall be 45 feet, except that lots fronthag on knuckles or cul- de-sacs may have a minimum frontage of 35 feet. Lot frontage along curvilinear su'eets may be measured at the building setback in accordance with zone development standards. Minirnam yard requirements are as follows: (1) The front yard shall be not less than 10 feet, measured from the existing pub .lie right- of-way street line or from any future public fight-of-way s~eet line as shown on any Specific Plan of Highways, whichever is nearer the proposed structure. (2) Side yards on interior and through lots shall be not less than 5 feet. Side yards on comer and reversed comer lots shall be not less than l 0 feet from the existing street line or from any future street line as shown on any Specific Plan of Highways, whichever is nearer the proposed smacture, upon which the main building sides, except that where the lot is less th~n 50 feet wide, the yard need not exceed 20% of the width of the lot. (3) The rear yard shall be not less than 15 feet. In addition, the following standard shall also apply: (a) No lot shall have more than 55% of its net area covered with buildings or ~a-ucture$. (4) No structural encroachrnents shall be permitted in the front, side or rear yard without approval ora setback adjustment purs~,,nt to City Ordinance. Automobile storage space shall be provided as required by Section 18.12 of Riverside County Orai~nce No. 348 (1991). rev. 10/24/01 Medium Density Residential (Senior) Planning Area 8 (if seniors) Medium Densffy Residential (Senior) Zone The following regulations shall apply i~, this Medium Density Residential (Senior) Zone: SECTION 6.1 USESPERMITTED. a. The following uses shall be permitted ia the Medium Density Residential (Senior) Zone: (1) One family dwellings. (2) Public parks and public playgrounds. (3) Home occupations as permitted otherwise by City of Temecula Development Code. (4) Planned residential developments, provided a land division is approved pursuant to the provisions of Riverside County Ordinance No. 460 (1991) and the development standards ia Section 18.5 or 18.6 of Riverside County Ordinance No. 348 (1991). The following uses are permitted provided a plot plan has been approved purs~n,~t to the provisions of Section 18.30 of Riverside County Ordixmaee No. 348 (1991): (1) Beauty shops operated fi'om a home by its inhabitants where no assistants are employed and the on-site sign is unlighted and does not exceed two square feet ia (2) Temporary real estate tract offices located within a subdivision, to be used only for and during the original sale of the subdivision, but not to exceed a period of 2 years unless such offices are combined with a community or recreation center in which case not to exceed 5 years. (3) Nurseries, horticultural. SECTION 6.2 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. The following standards of development shall apply ia the Medium Density Residential (Senior) Zone, except that planned residential developments shall comply with the development standards contained ia Section 18.5 of Riverside County Ordinance No. 348 (1991). a. Building height shall not exceed three (3) stories, with a maximum height of forty feet (40'). Lot area shall be not less than 4,000 square feet. The minimum lot area shall be determined by excluding that portion ora lot that is used solely for access to the pordon ora lot used as a building site. The minimum average width &that portion ora lot to be used as a building site shall be 40 feet with a minimum average depth of 70 feet. rev. 10/24/01 -3- The ml.lmum fi.on*age ora lot shall be 40 feet, except that lots fi.onting on knuckles or cul- de-sacs may have a ml.lmum fi.ontage of 35 feet. Lot fi.ontage along curvilinear streets may be measured at ~e building setback in accordance with zone development s'~ndards. Minimum yard requirements are as follows (all setbacks are measured from the back of sidewalk or, ii'there is no sidewalk, from the back of curb): (1) The fi.ont yard shall be not less than: 10 feet to the living area ofthe building, 8feet to a porch, 18 feet to a fi.om entry garage, 8 feet from back of curb to a side entry garage or 5 feet from back of sidewalk to a side entry garage. (2) Side yards on interior and through lots shall be not less than 5 feet. Side yards on comer and reversed comer lots shall be not less than 10 fe~t to the living area of a building, 5 feet to a porch or 18 feet to a fi.om envy garde on the s~eet side of a house. Side yard encroachments up to 2 feet are allowed for a chimney and/or media niche. Where such projections are proposed on facing sides of adjacent dwelling units, encroachments shall be off-set to allow adequate site dtain~e. (3) The rear yard shall be not less tha~ l O feet, except on comer lots where the rear yard shall not be less than 5 feet provided the street side yard shall not be less than 10 feet. Where courtyards are included on the interior side of the structure then the rear yard shall not be less than 8 feel (4) No structural encroachments shall be permitted in the front, side or rear yard without approval ora setback adjustment pursuant to City Ordinance. (5) Patio covers are allowed in rear yard areas only, except for end units which are allowed patio covers only in courtyard areas. Patio covers shall be set back from rear or side property lines as follows: 5 feet minimum to a support post, 3 feet minimum to the edge of the shade structure (canopy). Automobile storage space shall be provided as required by Section 18.12 of Riverside County Ordinance No. 348 (1991). rev. 10~24/01 ~ Medium Density Residential Planning Areas 9 & 31 Medium Density Residential Zone The following regulations shall apply in this Medium Density Residential Zone: SECTION 6.1 USESPERM1TTED. a. The following uses shall be permitted in the Medium Density Residential Zone: (1) One family dwellings. (2) Public parks and public playgrounds, golf courses with standard length fairways and eountr~ clubs. (3) Home oeeupatious. (4) Planned residential developments, provided a land division is approved pursuant to the provisions of Riverside County Ordinance No. 460 (1991) and the development standards in Section 18.5 or 18.6 of Riverside County Ordinance No. 348 (1991). The following uses are permitted provided a plot plan has been approved p~'S,,ant tO the provisions of Section 18.30 of Rivemide County Ordinance No. 348 (1991): (1) Beauty shops operated fi'om a home by its inhabitants where no assistants employed and the on-site sign is unlighted and does not exceed two square (2) Temporary real estate tract offices located witMn a subdivision, to be used only for and during the original sale of the subdivision, but not to exceed a period of 2 years in any event. (3) Nurseries, horticultural. SECTION 6.2 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. The following standards of development shall apply in the Medium Density Residential Zone, except that planned residential developments shall comply with the development standards contained in Section 18.5 of Riverside County Ordinance No. 348 (1991). a. Building height shall not exceed three (3) stories, with a maximum height of forty feet (40'). Lot area shall be not less than 7,200 square feet. The minimum lot area shall be deL, ,,~ned by excluding that portion of a lot that is used solely for access to the portion of a lot used ns a building site. Co The minimum average width of that portion ora lot to be used as a building site shall be 60 feet with a minimum average depth of 100 feet. That portion ora lot used for access on "flag" lots shall have a rainim~ width of 20 feet. rev. 10/24/01 eo Thc minimum frontage of a tot shall be 60 feet, except that lots fronting on knuckles or cul- de-sacs may have a minimum bontage of 35 feel Lot frontage along curvilinear s'ffeets may be measured at the building setback in accordance with zone development standards. Minlm~tm yard requirements are as follows: (1) Tha frout yard shall be not less than 15 feeg measured bom the existing public dght- of-way street line or from any future public fight-of-way sa'eet line as shown on any Specific Plan of Highways, whichever is nearer the proposed sn'ucmre. (2) Side yards on interior and through lots shall be not less than i 0% of the width of the log but not less than 3 feet in width in any event, and need not exceed a width of 5 feet. Side yards on comer and reversed comer lots shall be not less th~n 10 feet fi'om the existing meet line or from any future street line as shown on any Specific Plan of Highways, whichever is nearer the proposed structure, upon which the m~in building sides, except that where the lot is less than 50 feet wide, the yard need not exceed 20% of the width of the lot. '(3) The rear yard shall be not less than 10 feet. (4) No stmctaral encroachments shall be permitted in the bong side or rear yard without approval ora setback edj~tment pursuant to City Ordinance. Automobile storage space shall b~ provided as required by Section 18.12 of Pdverside County Ordinance No. 348 (1991). rev: 10/24/01 -6- Medium High Density Residential. Planning Areas 2, 3;5; 13, 15, 16; 20, 21, a~ ~:' .... 22~.~i~d 23 and 38 Medium High Density Residential Zone The following regulations shall apply ia this Medium High Density Residential Zone: SECTION 6.1 USESPERMITTED. The following uses shall be permitted ia the Medium High Density Residential Zone: (1) One family dwellings. (2) Two family dwellings. (2) Public parks and public playgrounds, golfcouraes with standard length fairways and counWy clubs. (3) Home occupa~dons. (4) Planned resident/al developments, provided a land division is approved pursuant to ' the provisions of Riverside County Ordinance No. 460 (1991) and the development standards ia Section 18.5 or 18.6 of Riverside County Ordinance No. 348 (1991). The following uses are permitted provided a plot plan has been approved pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.30 of Riverside County Ordinance No. 348 (1991): (1) Beauty shops operated fxom a home by its inhabitants where no assistants are~ employed and the on-site sign is unlighted and does not exceed two square feet ia (2) Temporary real estate tract offices located w~thln a subdivision, to be used only for and during the original sale of the subdivision, but not to exceed a period of 2 years in any event. (3) Nurseries, horticultural. SECTION 6.2 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. The following standards ofdevelopmem shall apply in the Medium High Density Residential Zone, except that planned residential developments shall comply with the development standards contained in Section 18.5 of Riverside County Ordinance No. 348 (1991). a. Building height shall not exceed 3 stories, with a maximum height of 40 feet. Lot area shall be not less than 4,000 square feet. However, the lot area for two-family dwellings shall be not less than 3,500 square feet per dwelling unit. The minimum lot ~ shall be determined by excluding that portion of a lot that is used solely for access to the portion ora lot used as a building site. r~v. 10/24/01 -7- f. The mlnirflum average width of that portion of a lot to be used as a building site shall be 40 feet with a minimum average depth of $0 feet. However, for two-family dwelling lots, the minimum average width shall be 40 feet with the same minimllm average depth of 75 feet. That portion ora lot used for access on "flag" lots shall have a rn~nimlml width of 20 feet. The minimum frontage ora lot shall be 40 feet, except that lots fronting on knuckles or cui- de-sacs may have a minimum frontage of 35 feet. Lot frontage along curvilinear streets may be measured at the building setback in accordance with zone development standards. Minimum yard requirements are as follows: (1) The front yard shall be not less than 10 feet, measured from the existing public right- of-way street line or from any future public right-of-way street line as shown on any Specific Plan of Highways, whichever is nearer the proposed m-ucture. (2) Side yards on interior and through lots shall be not less than 5 feet. Side yards on comer and reversed comer lots shall be not less than 10 feet from the existing street line or from any future street line as shown on any Specific Plan of Highways, whichever is nearer the proposed s~ructure, upon which the main building sides, except that where the lot is less than 50 feet wide, the yard need not exceed 20% of the width of the lot. The mar yard shall be not less than 15 feet. In addition, the following standard shall also apply: (a) No lot shall have more than 55% of its net area covered with buildings or No structural encroachments shall be permitted in the front, side or rear yard without approval of a setback adjustment pursuant to City Ordinance. (3) (4) Automobile storage space shall be provided as required by Section 18.12 of Riverside County Ordinance No. 348 (1991). r~v. 10/'24101 f- High Density Residential Planning Area 6A High Density Residential Zone The following regulatiol~ shall apply in this High Density Residential Zone: SECTION 8.1 USES PERMITTED. bo The following uses shall be permitted provided approval of a plot plan shall lust have been obtained pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.30 of Riverside Count), Ordinance No. 348 (1991): (1) (2) Any use permitted in the Medium Density Residential Zone. · Aparu~em houses or condominiums. Nursery schools for preschool day care. Institutions for the aged licensed by the California State Department of Social Welfare or the County Department of Public Welfare. Accessory buildings, to a specific permitted use, provided that the accessory buildin~ is established as an incident to a principal use and does not ch.n~e the character of that use. On-site signs, affixed to buildi,$ wall% stating the name of the sWucture, use or institution, not to exceed five percent (5%) of the surface area of the exterior face of the wall upon which the sign is located. The follgwing uses shall be permitted provided a conditional use permit is obtained pursuant to this ordinance: (1) Evening nursery school, child care and babysitting facilities, where 13 or more unrelated ckilclrea are kept under supervision by a person licensed by the State Department of Social Welfare or Riverside County Depa~tment of Public Welfare during any hours between 5 p.m. and ii a.m. (2) Congregate care residential facilities, developed pursuant to City Ordinance, County and State Codes and Ordinances. Planned residential developments, provided a land division is approved pursuant to the provisions of Riverside County Ordln~nce No. 460 (1991) and the development sumdards in Section 18.5 or 18.6 of Riverside County Or, in,nee No. 348 (1991). SECTION 8.2 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. The following standards of development shall apply in the High Density Residential Zone, except that planned residential developments shall comply with the development standards contained in Section 18.5 of Riverside County Ordinance No. 348 (1991). rev. !0/24/01 -9- bo The miniwmm lot area shall be 7,200 square feet for a multifamily or condominium project with a minimum average width of 60 feet and a minimum average depth of 100 feet. The minimum lot area for small tot single family detached ~h.ll be 3,000 square feet with a minimum average width of 30 feet and a minimum average depth of 100 feet. For a single family detached product, the rninlmll~, front and rear yards setback to the main structure (livable portion of the building) or a side loaded garage shall be 5 feet. The minimum front setback for a front-loaded garage shall be 16 feet from the back of sidewalk and a roll up garage door shall be required. If the garage is located in the rear of the lot and is accessed from the front, the rear setback shall be $ feet and the garage shall be a single story structure, ffthe garage is located in the rear and accessed by an alley, the minimum rear setback as measured, from the centerline of the alley shall be 10 feet. The alley width shall be a minimum of 20 feet. The front setback shall be measured-from any existing or future public or private right-of-way street line as shown on any specific street plan of the City. The rear setback shall be measured from ~e existing rear lot line or from the centerline of any recorded alley or easement; if the rear line adjoins a street, the rear setback requirement shall be the same as required for a front setback. The :minimum side yard shall be 5 feet, if the side yard adjoins a street, the side setback requirement shall be the same as required for a front setback. No structural encroachments shall be permitted in the front, side or rear yard except as allowed by City Ordinance. The maximum density shall be twelve (12) units per acre. Ail buildings and structures ~hall not exceed 35 feet in height. Automobile storage space shall be provided as required by Section 18.12 of Riverside County Ordinance No. 348 (199.1). rev. 10/24/01 -10- Very High Density Residential Planning Area 6B Very High Density Residential Zone The following regulations shall apply in this Very High Density Residential Zone: SECTION $.1 USES PERMITTED. The following uses shall be permitted provided approval ora plot plan shall first have been obtained pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.30 of Riverside County Ordinance No, 348 (1991): (i) (3) (4) Any use permitted in the Medium High Density Kesidential Zone. Aparuncnt houses. Nursery schools for preschool day care. Institutions for the aged licensed by the California State Department of Social Welfare or the County Department of Public Welfare. Accessory bui]dlngs, to a specific permitted use, provided that the accessory.building is established as an incident to a principal use and does not change the character of that use. On-site signs, affixed to buiJding walls, stating the name of the structure, use or institution,m not to exceed five percent (5%) of the surface area of the exterior face of the wall upon'which~' the sign is located. The following uses shall be permitted provided a conditional use permit is obtained pursuant tO this ord~n~ne~: (1) Evening nursery school, child care and babysitting facilities, where 13 or more unrelated children arc kept under supervision by a person licensed by the State Department of Social Welfare or Riverside County Department of Public Welfare during any hours between 5 p.m. and 8 (2) Congregate care residential facilities, developed pursuant to City Ordinance, County and State Codes and Ordinances. Planned residential developments, provided a land division is approved pursuant to the provisions of Riverside County Ordinance No. 460 (1991) and the development standards in Section 18.5 or 18.6 of Riverside County Ordinance No. 348 (1991). SECTION 8.2 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. The following standards of development shall apply in the Very High Density Residential Zone, except that planned residential developments shall comply with the developmem standards con~zJaed in Section 18.5 of Riverside County Ordinance No. 348 (1991). rev. 10/24/01 -11- f. g. h. The minimum lot area shall be 7,200 square feet with a minimum average width of 60 feet and a minimum average depth of 100 feet, unless different rnlnlmnm~ ~ specifically required in a particular are~ The minimum front and rear yards shall be 10 feet for buildings that do not exceed 35 feet in height. Any portion of a building which exceeds 35 feet in height ~hall be set back from the front and rear lot lines no less than 10 feet plus 2 feet for each foot by which the height exceeds 35 feet. The from setback shall be measured from any existing or future public fight-of-way street line as shown on any specific street plan of the City. The rear setback shall be measured from the existing rear lot line or from any recorded alley or easement; if the rear line adjoins a street, the rear setback requirement shall be the same a s required for a front setback. The minimm side yard shall be $ feet for buildings that do not exceed 35 feet in height. Any portion of a building which exceeds 35 feet in height shall be set back from each side lot line 5 feet plus 2 feet for each foot by which the height exceeds 35 feet; if the side yard adjoins a sa'eet, the side setback requirement shall be the same as required for a front setback. No structural encroachments shall be permitted in the front, side or rear yard without approval ora setback adjustment pur~9~t to City Ordinance. High density multi-family dwelling units shall be set back a rni~imum of 18 feet from any existing or future public right-of-way street line as shown on any specific sa'eet plan of the City. Said setback shall be applicable for front, rear and side yards should they adjoin a Street. No lot shall have more than 50 percem of its net area covered with buildings or muctures. The maximum density shall be ~wenty (20) units per acre. All buildings and structures shall not exceed 50 feet in height. Automobile storage space shall be provided as required by Section 18.12 of Riverside County Orelinnnee No. 348 (1991)~ rev. 10/24/01 Community/Neighborhood Commercial Planning Areas 1, ~ 36 ~'~i~ For Planning Areas l(a) & l(b), see Pages 18-~8~7 Community/Neighborhood Commercial Zone The following regulations shall apply in all Community/Neighborhood Commercial Zones: SECTION 9.1 USES PERMITTED. The following uses are pert~tted, only in enclosed buildings with not more than 200 square feet of outside storage or display of materials appurtenant to such use, provided a 'Development Plan is approved. (1) Antique Shops. (2) Appliance Store, household, not to exceed 10,000 square feet (3) Art supply shops and studios. (4) Art md fine art sales. . (5) Automobile parts and supply stores, not to exceed 7,500 square feet. (6) Bakery goods diswibutors, not to exceed 7,500 square feet. (7) Bakery shops, includ~n?, baking only when incidental to retail sales on the premises. (8) Banks and ~nancial institutions with walk-up or drive-up teller or ATM. (9) Barber and beauty shops. (10) Barbecue Sto~.s. (11) Baseball ticket, card and logo merchandise stores. (12) BeauW aid/supply and/or health stores. (13) Bed and bath sto~es. (14) Blind and window cover stores. (15) Blueprint and duplicating services, copy shops or 24-hour Copy and Business Sen'vice Stores. (16) Book stores and binders. (17) Building materials with more than 75% indoor including the outdoor sale of garden supplies. (18) Card and gift stores. (19) Car washes. (20) Carpet or floor covering stores. (21) Catering senriees. (22) Ceramic painting ~x~res. (23) Cheek easlfiag eenm-s. (24) Child learning een~-ra. (25) Children's store including educational toys and gii~s. (26) Civic and government uses including post ofl~ee and library uses. (27) Clea~ing and dying shops. (28) Clothi,~g stores, not to exceed 25,000 square feet. (29) Coffee houses. (30) Confectionery or candy stores. rev. 10/24101 (31) Convenience stores, not including the sale of motor vehicle fuel. (32) Da)' care centers. · (33) Dehcatessens. (34) Deparunent stores not to exceed $0,000 square feet (35) Dollar stores. (36) Donut shops. (37) Drug stores with drive-thru, not to exceed 20,000 square feet. (35) Dry goods or general merchandise stores. (39) Employment agencies. (40) Express delivery collection points. (4I) Fabric stores. (42) Feed and grain sales only as an incidental accessory use to a pet shop. (43) Fimess club (including 24-hour operation). (44) Florist shops. (45) Food markets and frozen food lockers. (46) Frame, lens or eyeglass stores. (47) Furniture Stores. (48) Gasoline service stations, not including the concurrent sale of beer and wine for off- premises consumption. (49) G'~ shops. (50) Golf equipment stores. (51) Hardware stores. (52) Health cemers, or similar personal service establishments, not to exceed 7,500 square feet. (53) Household goods sales, including but not limited to, new and used appliances, furniture, carpets, draperies, lamps, radios and television sets, including repair thereof. (54) Hobby shops. (55) Honey baked ham stores. (56) Ice cream; yogurt, frozen yogurt or juice shops. (57) Ice sales, not including ice plants. (58) Interior decorating shops. (59) Jewelry stores, including incidental repairs. (60) Laboratories, film; dental, medical, research or testing. (61) Laundries and laundromats. (62) Leather goods stores. (63) Linen stores. (64) Loan stores. (65) Locksmith shops. (66) Mail Order or internet businesses. (67) Mattress or bed stores. (68) Meat markets, not including slaughtering. (69) Music, media, or video rental stores. (70) Musical instruments stores. (71) Nail and manicure stores. (72) Newsstands. (73) Notions, novelty or tabletop stores. (74) (75) (76) (77) (78) (79) (8O) (83) (84) (85) (88) (sg) (90) (91) (92) (93) (94) (95) (96) (97) (1oo) (lOl) (102) (103) Oo4) (I05) (lO5) 007) (lo8) (lO9) (1 lo) 011) (112) (113) (] 14) (i 16) (117) Nursery schools for preschool day care. Offices, including business, law, medical, dental, chiropractic, architectural, engineering, COmrn~lity planning and real estate. Office supplies including home office service stores. Paint and wallpaper stores, not including pain! contractors, not to exceed 10,000 square feet Party supply stores. Patio furniture stores. Pet shops and pet supply shops. Photography shops and studios and photo engraving. Pizza eat-in, take-out or delivery stores. Plumbing shops, not including plumbing conwactors, not to exceed I0,000 square feet. Postal annex stores. Primer or publishers. Produce markets. Radio and television broadcasting studios. Recording studios. Recycling collection facilities with no outdoor storage allowed. Refreshments stands. Restaurants and other eating establishments, including those serving beer, wine or · alcohol and with outdoor seeting. Schools, business and professional, including art, barber, beauty, dance, dram~ karate, martial arts, musk and swimming. Shoe stores and repair shops. Shoeshine stands. Shopping center management and leasing offices. Sign shops including instant signs and on-site advertising and sponsorship. · Sporting goods stores, not to exceed 40,000 square feet. Speaker stores, includiag small appliances. Stained glass assembly or ceramic painting stores. Stationery stores. Suntanaing stores. Supplemental, diet or weight loss stores. Tabletop and gift stores. Taxidermist. Tailor shops. Theater, no! including drive-ins. Tire sales and service, not including recapping. Tobacco shops. Tourist information centers. Toy shops. Travel agencies. Typewriter sales and rental, including incidental repairs. Vitamin shops. Watch repair shops. Wholesale businesses with samples on the premises but not including storage. Wine uming rooms and sales. r~v. 10/24/01 -15~ The following uses are permit*ed provided a conditional use permit has been granted pursuant to City Ordinance. (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) Convenience stores, including the sale of motor vehicle fuel. Gasoline service stations with the concurrent sale of beer and wine for off-premises consLllllption. Liquid petroleum service station with the concurrent sale o£beer and wine for off- premises consumption, provided the total capacity of all tanks shall no exceed 10,000 gallons. Bars and cocktail lounges. Billiard and pool halls. Dance halls. Fast food restaurants with drive-thru. Multifamily or mixed use multifamily/commercial uses provided a Development Plan is approved in accordance with the City of Temecula Development Code. Any use that is not specifically listed in Subsections a., b. and c. may be considered a permitted or conditionally permitted use provided that the Plan~i~g Director finds that the proposed use is substantially the same in character and intensity as those hsted in the desi~ated subsections. Such a use is subject to the permit process which governs the category in which it falls. SECTION 9.2 PLANNED COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENTS. Planned Commercial Developments are permitted provided a land division is approved pursuant to the provisions of City or Temecula Ordinance No. 460 (1991). SECTION 9.3 (DELETED) SECTION 9.4 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. The following standards of development are required in the Community/Neighborhood Commercial Zones: There is no mlnlmmn lot area requirement, unless specifically required by zone classification for a particular area. bo There are no yard requirements for buildings which do no exceed 35 feet in height except as required for. specific plans. Any potion of a building which exceeds 35 feet in height ~hall be setback from the front, rear and side lot lines not less than 2 feet for each foot by which the height exceeds 35 feet. The front setback shall be measured from the existing public right-of-way street line unless a specific plan has been adopted in which case it will be measured from the specific plan street line. The rear setback shall be measured from the existing rear lot line or from any recorded alley or easement; if the rear line adjoins a street, the rear setback requirement shall be the same as required for a front setback. Each side setback shall be measured from the side lot tine, or from an existing adjacent public right-of- way street line unless a specific plan has been adopted, in which case it will be measured from the specific plan street line. r~v. 10/24/01 -16- All buildings and slrucu.u~ shall'no ~xce~d ~0 feet in height. Automobile storage space shall be provided in accordance with the City of Temecula Development Code. as required by Section 18.12 of Riverside County Ordinance No. 341 (1991). Ail roof mounted mechanical equipment shall be screened from the ground elevation view to a minimum sight distance of 1,320 feet. m'v. I 0/24101 Community/Neighborhood Commercial Planning Area 1 (a) - Village Core as' crosshatched on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof The following regulations shall apply in the Village Core Commercial Planning Area l (a) Zone of the Villages ~ Pasee del Sol. SECTION 9.1 USES PERMITTED. The following uses are permitted only in enclosed buildings. (1) Art and fine art sales. (2) Art supply and studios not to exceed 3,000 square feet. (3) Bakery shops, including baking only when incidental to retail sales on the premises. (4) Banks and financial institutions with walk-up or ATM in Building J except for 1,600 square foot space on southeast comer on Plaza. Barber and beauty shops. Baseball ticket, card and/or logo merchandise store. Beauty ~de/supply store and/or health store. Blueprint and duplicating services or 24 hour Copy and Business Service $tor~ in Building B or in Building J except for 1,600 square foot space on southeast comer on Book slores and binders not to exceed 2,000 square feet. Card and gift ~tor~ wkich may include antiques as incidental sales. Check cashing center in Building B or in Building J except for 1,600 square foot space On sotltheant comer on Ckild learning cen*~r in Building J except for 1,600 square foot space on southeast corner on Plaza Children's store including educational toys and gi~. Civic and government uses including post office and library uses. Cleaning, dying or ~ailor shops. Clothing s~ores, not to exceed 5,000 squar~ fe~. Coffee hour. Confectionery or candy stores. Copy shop in Building B or in Building J except for 1,600 squar~ foot space on $oWtheast cornel' on P~a~'a Day care centers in Building J except for 1,600 square foot space on southeast comer on Delica~ssens. Dental or medical offices in Building $ except for 1,600 square foot space on southeast comer on Donut shop, Dy/goods or general merchandise stores not to exceed 3,000 square (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (2O) (21) (22) (23) (24) r~v. 10/24/01 -18- (25) (26) (27) (28) (29) (30) (31) (32) (33) (34) (35) (36) (37) (38) (39) (40) (41) (42) (43) (44) (45) (46) (47) (48) (49) (5o) (51) (52) (53) (54) (55) (56) Employment agencies in Building B or in Building J except for 1,600 square foot space on southeast comer on Plaza. Express delivery collection point in Building B or in Building J except for 1,600 square foot space on southeast comer on Plu?~ Fabric store not to exceed 3,000 square feet. Flor/st shops including cart or kiosk. Frame, lens or eye glass more in Building J except for 1,600 square foot space on Southeast comer on PlaTa Health centers or similar personal service establishments, not to exceed 10,000 square feet in Building J except for 1,600 square foot space on southeast comer on pla?a Health and beauty aids more. Household goods sales, including but not limited to, new and used appliances, furniture, carpets, draper/es, lamps, radios and television sets, including repair thereof not to exceed 1,000 square feet. Hobby shops and toy store not to exceed 5,000 square feet. Honey baked ham store. Ice cream; yogurt, frozen yogurt or juice shops. Information center. Interior decorating shops in Buildin§ 5 except for 1,600 square foot space on southeast comer on P1"7~ Jewelry stores, including incidental repairs. Laboratories, film, dental, medical, research or testing in Building J except for 1,600 square foot space on southeast comer on Pla~a Leather goods stores. Linen store not to exceed 2,000 square feet. Loan store in Building J except for 1,600 square foot space on southeast comer P!a~- Locksmith shops. Luggage stores. Mall order or interact businesses in Building J except for 1,600 square foot space on southeast comer on Plaza or any retailer as incidental to its operating retail store. Medical or dental offices in Building J except for 1,600 square foot space on southeast comer on Meat markets, not including slaughtering. Musk, media, or video rental stores not to exceed 2,000 square feet. Musical instrument store. Nail and manicure store. Newsstands. Notions, novelty or tabletop stores. Nursery schools for preschool day care in Building J except for 1,600 square foot space on southeast comer on Offices, including business, law, medical, dental, chiropractic, architectural, engineering, community planning and real estate in Building J except for 1,600 square foot space on southeast comer on Plaza. Party supply store. Pet shops and pet supply shops not to exceed 3,000 square feet. rev. 10F24/01 -10- (57) Photography shops and studios and photo engraving. (58) PizT.~ eat-in, take-out or delivery store. (59) Postal annex store. (60) Post Office. (61) Printer or publishers in Building J except for 1,600 square foot space on southeast comer on Plaza. (62) Produce markets, carts or kiosk. (63) Radio and lelevision broadcasting smd[ns or remote broadcasting. (64) Real Estate office in Building B or in Building J except for 1,600 square foot space on southeast comer on Plaza. (65) Recording studios. (66). Recycling collection facilities incidental to a retail store operation, but not including outdoor storage. (67) Refreshmem stands. (68) Restaurants and other eating establishments, including those serving beer, wine or alcohol and with outdoor seating and including bakery goods baked on premises for distribution and allowing catering services as an integral use. Also, mnsic and dancing is allowed as part of a restaurant and lounge operation. (69) Schools, bm[ness and professional, including art, barber, beauty, d,nce, drama, karate, martial arts, music and swimming in Building J except for 1,600 square foot space on southeast comer on Plaza. (70) Shoe stores and repair shops. (71) Shoeshine stands. (72) Shopping center management and lea~ing office in Building J except for 1,600 square foot space on southeast comer on Plaz~ (73) Sign shops including instant signs and on-site advertising and sponsorship in Building J except for 1,600 square foot space on southeast comer on Plaza~ (74) Sporting goods stores, not to exceed 3,000 square feet. (75) Speaker stores, including small appliances not to exceed 3,000 square feet. (76) Stained glass assembly or ceramic painting store. (77) Stationery stores. (78) Suntan store. (79) Supplement, diet or weight loss store in Building B or in Building J except for 1,600 square foot space on southeast comer on Plaza. (80) Tabletop & gifts. (81) Tailor shops. (82) Tobacco shops. (83) Tourist information centers. (84) Toy shops not to exceed 2,500 square feet. (85) Travel agencies. (86) Typewriter or computer sales and rental, including incidental repairs and training in Building J except for 1,600 square foot space on southeast comer on (87) Vitamin shop. (88) Watch repair shops. (89) Wholesale businesses with samples on the premises but not including storage or distribution from the premises in Building J except for 1,600 square foot space on southeast comer on Plaz~ (90) Wine T~Jng Room and sales. rev. 10n4ml -20- The following uses are pertained provided a conditional use permit has been granted pursuant to City Ordinance. (1) Bars and cocktail lounges. (2) Billiard and pool halls. (3) Evening nursery school, child care and babysitting facilities, where 13 or urn'elated chil~en are kept under supervision by a person licensed by the State Deparunent of Social Welfare or Riverside County Depa~i~lent of Public Welfare during any ho~trs between $ p.m. and 8 a.m. in Building J except for 1,600 square foot space on southeast comer on Plaza. Any use that is not specifically listed in Subsections a and b. may be considered a permitted or conditionally permitted use provided that the Community Development Director or Planning Manager finds that the proposed use is substantially the same in character and intensity as those listed in the designated subsections and the Village Concept overlay. Such a use is subject to the permit process which governs the category in which it falls. SECTION 9.2 PLANNED COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENTS. Planned Commercial Developments axe permitted provided a land division is approved pursuant to the provisions of City or Temecula Subdivision Ordinance. SECTION 9.3 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. The following standards of development are required in the Village Core: (1) (2) (3) (4) There are no minimum lot area requirements, unless specifically required by classification for a particular area. (5) There are no yard requirement~ for buildings which do not exceed 35 feet in height except as required for specific plans. Any portion of a building which exceeds 35 feet in height shall be setback from the front, rear and side lot lines not less than 2 feet for each foot by which the height exceeds 35 feet. The front setback shall be measured from the existing public right-of-way slreet line unless a specific plan has been adopted in which ease it will be measured from the specific plan street line. The rear setback shall be measured from the existing rear lot line or from any recorded alley or easement; if the rear line adjoins a street, the rear setback requirement shall be the same as required for a front setback. Each side setback shall be measured from the side lot line, or from an existing adjacent public right-of- way s~reet line unless a specific plan has been adopted, in which ease it will be measured from the specific plan street line. All buildings and structure shall not exceed 50 feet in height. Calculation of required parking spaces required shall be provided as required by City of Temecula Development Code. Landscaping of parking area shall be consislent with the Specific Plan Amendment No. 7 as approved. All roof mounted mechanical equipment shall be screened from the ground elevation view~ to a minimum sight distance of 1,320 feet at same grade as finished floor.~ rev. 10/24/01 -21- r~v. 10/24/01 -22- Community/Neighborhood Commercial Planning Area l(b)- Retail Villages shown on Exhibit "A' attached hereto and made a part hereof, excluding the Village Core. The following regulations shall apply in the Retail Villages Planrfing Area 1 (b) of the Retail Villages the Villages ~ Paseo del Sol. SECTION 9.1 USES PERMITTED. The following uses are permitted only in enclosed buildings. (1) Antique Shops. (2) Appliance Store or Electronic Store household, not to exceed 20,000 square feet. (3) Art supply shops and studios. (4) Art and fine art sales. (5) Automobile parts and supply stores, not to exceed 7,500 square feet. (6) Bakery goods distributors, not to exceed 7,500 square feet. (7) Bakery shops, including baking only when incidentn) to retail sales on the premises. (8) Banks and financial institutions with walk-up or drive-up teller or ATM. (9) Barber and beauty shops. (10) Barbecue store. (11) Baseball ticket, card and/or logo merchandise store. (12) Beauty supply store. (13) Bed and bath store. (14) Blind or window cover store. (15) Blueprint and duplicating services or 24 hour Copy and Business Service Store. (16) Book stores and binders. (17). Card and ~3ift store. (I 8) Car washes. (19) Carpet or floor covering store. (20) Catering services. (21) Ceramic painting store. (22) Check cashing center. (23) Child learning center. (24) Children's store including educational toys and gift. (25) Civic and government uses including post office and library uses. (26) Cleaning, dying or tailor shops. (27) Clothing stores, not to exceed 25,000 square feet (28) Coffee house. (29) Confectionery or candy stores. (30) Convenience stores, not including the sale of motor vehicle fuel. (31) Day care centers. (32) Delicatessens. (33) Dental or medical offices. (34) Departmem stores not to exceed 50,000 square feet. r~v. 10/24101 -23- (35) Donut shop. (36) Drag stores with drive-thru, not to exceed 20,000 square feet. (37) Dry goods or general merchandise stores. (38) Employment agencies. (39) Express delivery collection point. (40) Fabric store. (41) Feed and grain sales only.as an incidental accessory use to a pet shop. (42) Fimess club (including 24 hour operation). (43) Florist shops. (44) Food markets and frozen food lockers. (45) Frame, lens or eye glass store. (46) Furniture Store. (47) Gasoline service smtious, not including the concurrent sale of beer and wine for off- premises consumption. (48) Golf equipment store. (49) Hardware store. (50) Health centers or similar personal service establishments, not to exceed 10,000 square feet. (5 I) Health and beauty aids store. (52) Home Improvement Store with the outdoor sale of gardening supplies and plants in enclosed area with no roof, seasonal sales in a designated area of the parking lot and merchandise for sale or rent along storefrom in designated sniped areas as approved on the site plan. ($3) Household goods sales, including but not limited to, new and used appliances, furniture, carpets, draperies, lamps, radios and television sets, including repair thereof. (54) Hobby shops and toy store. (55) Honey baked ham store. (56) Ice cream, yogurt, ~ozen yogurt or juice shops. (57) Ice sales, not including ice plants incidental to a food, convenience or liquor store. (58) Information c~nter. (59) Interior decorating shops. (60) Jewelry stores, including incidental repairs. (61) Laundries and laundromats, (62) Leather goods stores. (63) Linen store. (64) Loan store. (65) Locksmith shops. (66) Mall order or intemet businesses. (67) Mattress or bed store. (68) Meat markets, not including slaughtering. (69) Music, media, or video rental stores. (70) Musical iusm.tment store. (71) Nail and manicure store. (72) Newsstands. (73) Notions, novelty or tabletop stores. (74) Nursery schools for preschool day care. rev. 10/24/01 (75) (76) (77) (78) (79) (so) (si) (82) (83) (84) (85) (86) (87) (89) (90) (91) (92) (93) (94) (95) (96) (97) (98) (99) 0oo) (lOl) (102) (103) (io4) (105) (106) (107) (los) (lO9) (110 (112) (113) O 14) (115) Office supplies including home office service stores. Offices, including business, law, medical, dental, chiropractic, architectural, engineering, community planning and real estate. Paint and wallpaper, not including paint contractors, not to exceed 10,000 square feet. Party supply store. Patio furniture store. Pet shops and pet supply shops. Photography shops and studios and photo engraving. Pi~Ta em-in, take-out or delivery store. Plumbing shops, not including plumbing contractors, not to exceed 10,000 square feet. Postal annex store. Post Office. Printer or publishers. Produce markets. Radio and television broadcasting studios or remote broadcasting. Real Estate Office. Recording studios. Recycling collection facilities incidental to a retail store operation, but not including outdoor storage. Raf~eshment stands. Restaurants and other eating establishments including catering, and including those ser~,ing beer, wine or alcohol and with outdoor seating, including dancing. Schools, business and professional, including art, barber, beauty, dance, drama, karate, martial arts, music and swimming. Shoe stores and repair shops. Shoeshine stands. Shopping Ccmcr Managemem and Leasing Office. Sign shop including instant signs and on-site advertising and sponsorship. Sporting goods stores, not to e~ceed 40,000 square feet. Speaker store, including small appliances. Stained glass assembly or ceramic painting store. Stationery stores. Suntan store. Supplement, diet or weight loss store. Tabletop & gift stores. Tailor shops. Theater, not including drive-ins. Tire sales and service, not including recapping. Tobacco shops. Tourist information centers. Toy shops. Travel agencies. Typewriter or computer sales and rental, including incidental repairs and training. Vitamin shop. Watch repair shops. rev. 10/'24/01 (1 lB) Wholesale businesses with samples on the premises but not including storage. (117) Wine T~mS_ng Room and sales. The following uses are permitted provided a conditional use permit has been granted pursuant to City Ordinance. (I) Convenience stores, including the sale of motor vehicle fuel. (2) Gasoline service stations, including liquid peu'oleum ("LPG")(,pmvidcd the total capacity of the LPG tanks shall not exceed 10,000 gallons) with the concurrent sale of beer and wine for off-premises consumption. O) Bars and cocktail lounges. (4) Billiard and pool halls. (5) Dance halls. (6) Fast food restaurants with drive-through. (7) Evening nursery school, child care and babysitting facilities, where 13 or more unrelated children are kept under supervision by a person licensed by the State Department of Social Welfare or Riverside County Department of Public Welfare during any hours between 5 p.m. and 8 a.m. Any use that is not specifically listed in Subsections a and b. may be considered a permitted or conditionally permitted use provided that the Community Development Director or Planning Manager finds that the proposed use is substantially the same in character and intensity as those listed in the designated subsections. Such a use is subject to the permit process which governs the categoD, in which it falls. SECTION 9.2 PLANNED COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENTS. Planned Commemial Developments are permitted provided a land division is approved pursuant to the provisions of City or Temecula Subdivision Ordinance. SECTION 9.3 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. The following standards of development are required in the Community/Neighborhood Commercial Zones: There are no minimum lot area requirements, unless specifically required by zone classification for a particular area. There are no yard requirements for buildings which do not exceed 35 feet in height except as required for specific plans. Any portion ora building which exceeds 35 feet in height shall be setback from the front, rear and side lot lines not less than 2 feet for each foot by which the height exceeds 35 feet. The from setback shall be measured from the existing public right-of-my street line unless a specific plan has been adopted in which ease it will be measured from the specific plan street line. The rear setback shall be measured from the existing rear lot line or from any recorded alley or easement; if the rear line adjoins a street, the rear setback requirement shall be the same as required for a front setback. Each side setback shall be measured from the side lot line, or from an existing adjacent public right-of- way street line unless a specific plan has been adopted, in which case it will be measured f~om the specific plma street line. All buildings and structure shall not exceed 50 feet in height. rev. 10/24/01 -26- Calculation of required parking spaces shall be calculated and provided a~ required by City of Temecula Development Code. Landscaping of parking area shall be consistent with Specific Plan 219 Amendment No. ?, All roof mounted mechanical equipment shall be screened fi.om the ground to a rt~imulua sight distance of 1,320 feet at same grade as finished floor. rev. 10/24/01 -27- ' rev. 10/24/01 -28~ Day Care Center/Information Center Planning Area 34 Day Care Center/Information Center Zone The following regulations shall apply in the Day Care CenterFlnformation Center Zone: SECTION 8.1 USES PERMITTED. The following uses shall be permitted provided approval of a plot plan shall first have been obtained pursuant to the provisions ofS~ction 18.30 of Riverside County Ordinance No. 348 (1991): (1) Nursery schools for preschool day care. (2) Institutions for the aged licensed by the California State Department of Social Welfare or the County Department of Public Welfare. (3) Architectural, engineering and community planning offices; provided there is no outdoor storage of material, equipment or vehicles, other than passenger cars. (4) Congregate care residential facilities. (5) Information center. Accessory buildings, to a specific permitted use, provided that the accessory building is established as an incident to a principal use and does not change the character of that use. On-site signs, affixed to building walls, stating the name of the structure, use or insttution, not to exceed five percent (5%) of the surface area of the exterior face of the wall upon which the sign is located. do The following uses shall be permitted provided a conditional use permit is obtained pursuant to this ordinance: (0 (2) Evening nursery school, child care and babysitting facilities, where 13 or more unrelated children are kept under supervision by a person licensed by the State Department of Social Welfare or Riverside County Department of Public Welfare during any hours between 5 p.m. and 8 a.m. Congregate care residential facilities, developed pursuant to City Ordinance, County and State Codes and Ordinances. SECTION 8.2 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. The following standards of development are required in the Day Care Center/Information Center Zone. There is no minimum lot area requirement, unless specifically required by zone classification for a particular area. rev. 10/24/01 -29- There axe no yard requirements for buildings which do no exceed 35 feet in height except as required for specific plans. Any portion of a building wkich exceeds 35 feet in height shall be setback from the front, rear and side lot lines not less than 2 feet for each foot by which the height exceeds 35 feet. The front setback shall be measured from the existing right-of-way street line unless a specific plan has been adopted in which case it will be measured from the specific plan street line. The rear setback shall be measured from the existing rear lot line or from any recorded alley or easement; if the rear line adjoins a street, the rear setback requirement shall be the same as required for a front setback. Each side setback shall be measured fi-om the side lot line, or from an existing adjacent public fight-of- way sla'eet line unless a specific plan has been adopted, in wkich case it will be measured from the specific plan street line. All buildings and structure shall not exceed 50 feet in height. Automobile storage space shall be provided as required by Section 18.12 of Riverside County Ordinance No. 348 (1991.). All roof mounted mechanical equipment shall be screened from the ground elevation view to a minimum sight distance of 1,320 feet. rev. 10/24/01 -30o Elementary School Planning Area 7 SchoolfMedium Density Residential Zone The following regulations shall apply in this Medium Density Residential Zone: SECTION 6.1 USES PERMITTED. The following uses shall be permitted in the Medium Density Resident/al Zone: (1) One family dwellings. (2) Two-family dwellings. (3) Public schools. (4) Public parks and public playgrounds, golf courses with standard length fairways and country clubs. (5) Home occupations. The following uses axe permitted provided a plot plan has been approved pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.30 of Riverside County Ordinance No. 348 (1991): (1) Beauty shops operated fi.om a home by its inhabitants where no assistants are employed and the on-site sign is unlighted and does not exceed two square feet in (2) Temporary real estate tract offices located within a subdivision, to be used only for and during the original sale cf the subdivision, but not m exceed a period of 2 years in any event. (3) Nurseries, hordenltural. SECTION 6.2 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. The following standards of development shall apply in the School/Medium Density Residential Zone, .except that planned residential developments shall comply with the development standards contained in Section 18.5 of Riverside County Ordinance No. 348 (1991). a. Building height shall not exceed three (3) stories, with a maximum height of forty feet (403. Lot area shall be not less than 7,200 square feet. The minimum lot area shall be determined by excluding that portion ora lot that is used solely for access to the portion ora lot used as a building site. The minimum average width of that portion of a lot to be used as a building site shall be 60 feet with a minimum average depth of 100 feet. That portion of a lot used for access on "flag" lots shall have a minimum width of 20 feet. rev. 10/24/01 -31~ The minimum frontage of a lot shall be 60 f~t, except that lots fronting on knucldes or cu/- de-sacs may have a minimum frontage of 35 feet. Lot frontage along curvilinear streets may be measured at the building setback in accordance with zone development standards. Minimum yard requirements are as follows: (1) The front yard shall be not less than 20 feet, measured from the existing public fight- of-way street line or from any future public fight-of-way street line as shown on any Specific Plan of Highways, whichever is nearer the proposed structure. (2) Side yards on interior and through lots shall be not less than 10% of the width of the lot, but not less than 3 feet in width in any event, and need not exceed a width feet. Side yards on comer and reversed comer lots shall be not less than 10 feet from the existing public right-of way street line or from any future public right-of-way street line as shown on any Specific Plan of Highways, whichever is nearer the proposed structure, upon which the main building sides, except that where the lot is less than 50 feet wide, the yard need not exceed 20% of the width of the lot. The rear yard shall be not less than 10 feet. No structural encroachments shall be permitted in the front, side or rear yard without approval of a setback adjustment pursuant to City Ordinance. (3) (4) Automobile storage space shall be provided as required by Section 18.12 of Riverside County Ordinance No. 348 (1991). rev. 10/'24/01 -32- Elementary School Planning Area 11 School/Medium High Density Residential Zone The following regulations shall apply in this Medium High Density Resident/al Zone: SECTION 6.1 USES PERMITTED. The following uses shall be perruitted in the School/Medium High Density Residential Zone: (I) One family dwellings. (2) Two-family dwellings. (3) Public schools. (4) Public parks and public playgrounds, golf courses wSth standard length fairways and countrj clubs. (5) Home occupations. The following uses are permitted provided a plot plan has been approved pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.30 of Kiverside County Ordinance No. 348 (1991): (1) Beauty shops operated bom a home by its in.habitants where no assistants are employed and the on-site sign is unlighted and does not exceed two square feet in (2) Temporary real estate tract offices located within a subdivision, to be used only for and during the original sale of the subdivision, but not to exceed a period of 2 years in any event. Nurseries, horticultural. (3) SECTION 6.2 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. The following standards of development shall apply in the School/Medium High Density Residential Zone, except that planned residential developments shall comply with the development standards contained in Section 18.5 of Riverside County Ordinance No. 348 (1991). a. Building height shall not exceed three (3) stories, with a maximum height of forty feet (407. Lot area shall be not less than 4,000 square feet. However, the lot area for two-family dwellings shall be not less than 3,500 sq. ft. per dwelling unit. The minimum lot area shall be determined by excluding that portion of a lot that is used solely for access to the portion of a lot used as a building site. The minimum average width of that portion of a lot to be used as a building site shall be 40 feet with a mirfimum average depth of 80 feet. However, for two-family dwelling lots, the minimum average width shall be 40 feet with the same minimum average depth of 75 feet. That portion ora lot used for access on "flag" lots shall have a minimum width of 20 feet. rev. 10/24/01 -33- The minimum frontage ora lot shall be 40 feet, except that lots fronting on knuckles or cui- de-sacs may have a minimum frontage of 35 feet. Lot frontage along curvilinear streets may be measured at the building setback in accordance w/th zone development standards. Minimum yard requirements are as follows: (1) The front yard shall be not less than 10 feet, measured from the existing public right- of-way street line or from any future public fight-of-way street line as shown on any Specific Plan of Highways, whichever is nearer the proposed structure. (2) Side yards on interior and through lots shall be not less than 5 feet. Side yards on comer and reversed corner lots shall be not less than 10 feet from the existing street line or from any future street line as shown on any Specific Plan of Highways, whichever is nearer the proposed structure, upon which the main building sides, except that where the lot is less than 50 feet wide, the yard need not exceed 20% of the width of the lot. The rear yard shall be not less than 15 feet. In addition, the following standard shall also apply: (a) No lot shall have more than 55% of its net area covered with buildings or structures. No structural ~ncroachrnents shall be permitted in the front, side or rear yard without approval of a setback adjustment pursuant to City Ordinance. (3) (4) Automobile storage space shall be provided as required by Section 18.12 of Riverside County Ordinance No. 348 (1991). rev. 10/24/01 Elemeata, y School and Juni High School Planning Areas ~iT, 30 and 32 School/Medium Density Residential Zone The following regulations shall apply in this Medium Density Residential Zone: SECTION 6.1 USES PERIVHTTED. The following uses shall be permitted in the Medium Density Residential Zone: (1) One family dwellings. (2) Two-family dwellings. (3) PubLic schools. (4) Public parks and public playgrounds, golf courses with standard length fairways and counu'y clubs. (5) Home occupations. The following uses are permitted provided a plot plan has been approved pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.30 of Riverside County Ordinance No. 348 0991): (1) Beauty shops operated from a home by its inhabitants where no assistants are employed and the on-site sign is unlighted and does not exceed two square feet in (2) Temporary real estate tract offices located within a subdivision, to be used only for and during the original sale of the subdivision, but not to exceed a Igriod of 2 years in any event. (3) Nurseries, horticultural. SECTION 6~. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. The following standards of development shall apply in the Medium Density Residential Zone, except that planned residential developments shall comply with the development standards contained in Section lg.5 of Riverside County Ordinam-.e No. 348 (1991). a. Building height shall not exceed three (3) stories, with a maximum height of forty feet (40'). Lot area shall be not less than 5,000 square feet. However, the lot area for two-family dwellings shall be not less than 4,500 sq. fx. per dwelling unit. The minlmana lot area nhall be determined by exclucliag that portion ora lot that is used solely for access to the portion ora lot used as a building site. The minimum average width of that portion ora lot to be used as a building site shall be 45 feet with a minimum average depth of 85 feet. However, for two-family dwelling lots, the' mJnimura average width shall be 40 feet with the same minimum average depth orS0 feet. That portion of a lot used for access on "flag" lots shall have a minjnlum width of 20 feet. rev. 10/24/01 -35- do The minimum frontage of a lot shall be 45 feet, except that lots fronting on knuckles or cul- de-/acs may have a minimum frontage of 35 feet. Lot frontage along curvilineer s~reets may be measured at the bdlding setback in accordance with zone development standards. Minimum yard requirements are as follows: (1) The front yard shall be not less than 10 feet, measured from the existing public right- of-way street line or from any future public right-of-way street line as shown on any Specific Plan of Highways, whichever is nearer the proposed structure. (2) Side yards on interior and through lots shall be not less than 5 feet. Side yards on comer and reversed comer lots shall be not less than l0 feet from the existing street llne or fxom any future street llne as shown on may Specific Plan of Highways, whichever is nearer the proposed structure, upon which the main building sides, except that where the lot is less than 50 feet wide, the yard need not exceed 20% of the width of the lot. (3) The rear yard shall be not less than 15 feet. In addition, the following standard shall also apply: (a) No lot shall have more than 55% of its net area covered with buildings or No su'uctural encroachments shall be permitted in the front, side or rear yard without approval ora setback adjustment pursuant to City Ordinance. (4) Automobile storage'space shall be provided as required by Section 18.12 of Riverside County Ordinance No. 348 (1991). r~v. 10f24/01 -36- NeiEhborhood Park/Recreation Areas Planning Areas 12, 19, 24, 29-A and 37 Park Zone The following regulations shall apply in all Park Zones: SECTION 8.100. USES PERMITTED. The following uses shall be permitted provided approval of a plot plan shall ~rst have been obtained pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.30 of Riverside County Ordinance No. 348 (1991): (1) Public parks and private recreation facilities. (2) Golf courses and appurtenant facilities, including clubhouses. A clubhouse is permitted to have custom.~ retail shop and restaurant facilities. (3) Noncommercial cornmul~ity association recreation and assembly buildings and Lakes, including noncommercial fishing therefrom. Picnic grounds. Parking lots, only for above-listed permitted uses, pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.12 of RJverside County Ordinance No. 348 (1991), except that not less tha. five percent of the interior of such parking lots shall have distributed landscap- ing in addition to the landscaping reqnirements of Section 18.12 of Riverside County Ordinance No. 348 (1991). Water wells an appurtenant facilities. On-site identification signs, maximum size - 10 square feet. (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) The following uses are permitted provided a conditional use permit has been granted: (1) Riding academies and stables. SECTION 8.101. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. Lot Area. This zone is to be applied to those areas within subdivisions and other residential developments that provide open space and recreationnl area and facilities for the project. Therefore, no minimum lot size is established for the zone. bo Yards. Whenever a building is to be cons~ucted on a lot ia this zone, it shall have a front yard, side yard and rear yar~ each of which shnll be not less than 25 feet. If more than one bnilding is constructed on one lot, there shall be not less than a 20-foot separation betw~m the buildings. No smicun~ encroachments shall be permitted in the front, side or rear yard without approval of a setback adjusu~ent pursuant to City Ordinance. rev. 10/24/01 -37- c. Trash Areas. All trash collection areas shall be enclosed with a solid fence or wall no less than 6 feet high. Automobile storage space shall be provided as required by Section 18.12 County Ordinance No. 348 (1991). e. All btfildings or structures shall not exceed 40 feet in height. rev. 10,"24/01 -35- Community Open Space Planning Area~-~.lm 35 Community Open Space Zone The following regulations shall apply in all Community Open Space Zones: SECTION 8,100. USES PER/VIITTED, The following uses shall be permitted provided approval ora plot plan shall fi.~ have been obtained pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.30 of Riverside Couaty Ordinance No. 348 (1991): (1) Undeveloped and manufactured open space. (2) Golf courses and appurtenant facilities, including clubhouses. A clubhouse is permitted to have customary retail shop and restaurant facilities. (3) Noncommercial community association recreation and assembly buildlnEs and facilities. Lakes, including noncommercial fi.hlng therefrom. Picnic grounds. Parki.£ lots, only for above-listed permitted uses, pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.12 of Riverside County Ordinance No. 348 (1991), except that not less than five percent of the interior of such parking lots shall have distributed landscap- ing in addition to the landscaping requirements of Section 18.12 orR/versicle County Ordinance No. 348 (1991). Water wells an appurtenant facilities. On-site identification sJ~ maximum size - 10 square feet. (4) (5) (~) (?) bo The following uses are permitted provided a conditional use permit has been granted: (1) Riding academies and stables. SECTION 8.101. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. Lot Area. This zone is to be applied to those areas within subdivisions and other residential developments that provide open space and recreational area and facilities for thc project. Therefore, no minimum lot size is established for the zone. bo Yards. Whenever a building is to be constructed on a lot in this zone, it shall have a front yard, side yard and rear yard, each of which shall be not less than 50 feet. If more than one building is constructed on one lot, there shall be not less than a 20-foot separation between the buildings. No slructural encroachments shall be permitted in the front, side or rear yard' except without approval of a setback adju~tmem pursuant to City Ordinance. rev. I 0/24/01 -39- Trash Areas. All wash collection areas shall be enclosed with a solid fence or wall no less tha~ 6 feet kigh.. Automobile storage space shall be provided as required by Section 15.12 of P, iverside~ Co~mty Ordiaimce No. 345 (1991). All b~ildi~g$ or smlctures shall not exceed 50 feet in height. rev. 10/24/01 -40- Commercial Office/Neighborhood Commercial Planning Area 38 Commercial Office/YVeighborhood Commercial Zone The following regulations shall apply in all Commercial Office/Neighborhood Commercial Zones: SECTION 9.1 USESPERM1TTED. The following uses are permitted, only in enclosed buildings with not more than 2,000 square feet of outside storage or display of materials appurtenant to such use and other than as delineated below and outdoor seating for restaurants, employee eating and casual dining, provided a Development Plan is appwved. (1) Antique shops. (2) Ap/.~ancc S~otc, Lo~,.Lold, not t~ c,,,,c~d 30,000 shu~ (-3')/23.Art supply shops and studios. (4) 3L~ Art and fine art sales. ($) Ass/sMd li.L~g fadlit~. (6) Auto~oLi1'c r,~ % paiat2ug ,~d surpll ltoicz, uot to cx~d 10,000 ~q..*.~ Kct. (7) Aut,~,~obilc ~mco ~nd audio otor~ ~ad ;~..-~ht/ou fac~t~s. (8) B~k~,y gooch d/~ulbu~,o, ~,ot to ~,,¢cccl $,000 ~q..*.~ f~ct. ~ Banks and fia:ancial institu~ons with walk-up o, a.i,,.-u£ teller or ATM. (I 0)',5~Barber and beauty shops.. (I I)'6.~Baseball ticket, card and logo merchandise stores. (12)[_72 Beauty aid/supply and/or health stores. (13),'g~ Bio-medical buildings. (14)'9.~ Blind and window cover stores. (15)[10) Blueprint and duplicating services, copy shops or 24-hour copy and business service stores. (1 ~) Do~t~g st~,c, fisL~g s,,ppJ~¢s ~,d bo~t ~ks. (17)(1 l) Book stores and binders. (18) Ca. ~r ~..~k,cu~l (1~) C,~ w,~L~s. (?~)(12) 'Carpet or floor covering stores. (21) (23)(14) (2~)[16) (27)(17) (2g)(18) ._ . Cellular phone stores ~hh cell ~ite. . . Check cashing cemer~. · Child learning centers or day care centers with outdoor play yard. . Civic and government uses including post office and library uses. . Clea.lnE and dying shops. . . Coffee houses -.i~ aud withont drive thro,,~h facilities. Congregate care facility. rev. 10/24/01 -41- (30) (32)f20) (34) <35)[22') 07) 24 27) <+4> (47)(30~ (49) (-58)(32) (-56:)(37) (62,~I~43) ~(45) De~ca~ss~. D~ offi~s. ~ll& . Donm shops. . . Emergen~ ~ m~cM fac~6es. ~plo~t agenci~. . . E~ress delive~ collec6on po~ ~d s~pp~g facfli6es. · . . Family ~ center. F~cd ~d ~&~ ~Mc~ o,Ay ~ ~ ~Gdc~ ~cccss~ ~c ~ a p~t slop. Fhc .. Fi~ess club (~clvding 24-ho~ operation) ~ outdoor recr~fion faci~fies ~ch ~ bmketb~, volleyb~, te~s or . F~e, leto or ~e ~s aoms. G~d~n office. C~I~c ~, ,icc s~Go,~, ~ h~cla~ ~ conc~,cm ~c ~bcci ~d ~c ~ Oo~ ~pm~t aoma. H~ cente~, or s~l~ p~o~ s~ce e~bhs~en~, not to exc~d 17,5~3 ~sq~ f~ I5~ ~ch f~c~cs. Homehold goo~ ~es, ~cl~g bm not l~mit~ to, new ~d ~d appliers, ~, ~, ~pefies~ l~ps, ~os ~d tele~sion se~, ~cludlng rep~ . Hotel lod~g facih6~. I~ ~ yo~ ko~ yo~ or j~ ~ops. Ice ~cs, not ~clud~ng ice pl~. L,~ub~to, ... ~t~or d~o~g ~ops ~d o~ces. , , ~bomtofies, film~ den~, me~, ms,ch or tong. ~Zi~s ~d la~. . . Li~ Stores. ~m aoms. Labc ~x v 2c~S MMI ord~ or ~ bm~esses. . M~ ~d c~opmcfic ~ golf o, p~g ~c~ f~cilifics. M~L,g ~,d ~,~gc facil~cs. Mmi~ ~cn~ moms. N~ ~d m~c~ moms. 10/24101 -42- (72) (73) (75) (76)(47) (77)(48) (~3) (:7)(57) (88) (91)(603 (~2)(6D (93)(62) (94)(63) (~7)(66'} N~..~,~ o,-hoo18 fm p,¢~chool da~ Nut,cO and ~, pl~ ~ . . Offi~s, ~clu~g b~ess, law, me~, den~, ~op~c, m~t~, en~e~g, comm~ planning ~d ~ N~o~g home. .... . . ~ce p~k m~em~t ~d l~g offi~s. .... . . Offi~ supplies ~clu~g home offi~ se~ ~o~s. . . P~t ~d w~Ipaper ~oms, not ~ exceed 20,000 ~ f~t. . .. P~ s~ply ~o~s. Patio ~ ~o~s. . . Phmo~phy shops ~d ~os ~d photo en~g. , , pi~ ~t-~ ~e~m or deHv~ ~o~s. Pl~b~g ~l,op~, n~ ~clu~g pl~b~g cm~acto~, ~ ~ cxcccd 20,000 , Po~ ~ex mo~s. . ~ or pubH~. . ~o ~d tele~sion bro~g , R~r~g ~o~. Re~s~enB ~ ~ o~oor s~g. Re~B ~d o~er ~g ,~blis~enB, ~clu~g o, ~mhol ~d ~ omdoor s~g. Schwa, bm~ess ~d profusion, ~clu~g ~ b~, ~, ~, m~ ~, mmic ~d ~mmlng. Sh~ r~ ~ops ~clu~g ~cidm~ ~e of~ces. Shopp~g cent~ ~ement ~d l~g offices. . . Si~ ~ops ~clu~g ~t ~ ~d on-site ~veffi,~ . , S~ed gl~s ~sembly or ~mlc pm~g (~9)(68~ Suntanning mores. (l $C,)(69~Supplemcntal, di~t or weight loss stor~s. (101) ( 102)(70)Tailor shops. (i ~,3)(71 lTelemarketing offices. (104) TI,cate,, l,ot ;,,clud[ug el,i~:-i~. (I 05) TL~ ~lcs and ~, ,icc, ,,~ i~clucliag ,ccav},L~g. (i ¢,G(72)Tobacco shops. (107) To~iot info,~.~fio~ ccntc,,. (q'0t~73)Tmv¢l agencies. (109) T~uck (I 13)(74~Typewriter and computer sales and rental, including incidental repairs. (11 I) U..:vc,~ity exaction ~hools. (I 12)(75)V~nding machines (i 13)[76)Vitamin shops. rev. 10/24/01 -43- (i 14)~77~Watch repair shops. (115) Wl,olc~l¢ busk,c~sc~ ~ith s,~.plcs oi, thc l~,¢~sci bm ,,ot i~¢luding ~to,~. The following uses are permitted provided a conditional use permit has been granted pursuant to City Ordinance, (1) (1) (2) (2) (3) (4) (5) Co~ cM..cc sto, c~, L~lud~g th. sale of ~o~o~ vcIZcl¢ fuel. ~si~ ling f~i~. G~ol~, ~c, ~icc smfio~ ~i~ thc c~,,,~,,~t ~ ffbcc~ ~d ~c ~r ~ff- N~ schools for p~school ~y c~. Liqdd v~uolc~ ~ .ic~ ~o. wi~ thc c~.c~m ~c or,cc. ~d ~c fo~ cxcccd ~0,000 g~l~. N~ homes. food ,~ wi~ &i ~.u. Ch~ch ~d chub-school ~cilifies. U~ve~iw emension schools~ Co Muififamily or mixed use mulfifamily/commercial uses provided a Development Plan is approved in accordance with the City of Temeeula Development Code. Any use that is not specifically listed in Subsections a., b. and c. may be considered a permitted or conditionally permitted use provided that the planning Director finds that the proposed use is substantially the same in character and intensity as those listed in the desj~ated subsections. Such a use is subject to the permit process which governs the category in which it falls. SECTION 9.2 PLANNED COI~ERCIAL DEVELOPMENTS. Planned Commercial Developments are permitted provided a land division is approved pursuant to the provisions of City or Temecuia Ordinance No. 460 (1991). SECTION 9.3 (DELETED) SECTION 9.4 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. The following standards of development are required in the Commercial/Neighborhood Commercial Zones: There is no minimum lot area requirement, ~lc~ svccLfic~ll7 ,cquLcd by gouc cl&ssific~tion fo, a patt~cul& bo There are no yard requirements for buildings wt,:cL do ~,o ~cccd 50 fcct h~ hc;ght within this zone, except as required for by the adopted Paloma del Sol S~ecific Plan vl~s. A~3 po, f~oa o~a Luild~g wLlcl, exceeds 50 fi,ct ;,, hciglst sl~ll bc setback th~ fi~m, lc~a and side Ica Ih~cs n~ lc~ th,~ 2 K~t fo, cad', foot by ~l,;cL thc l,cir~Lt exceeds 50 f~ct. The from setback shall be measured from the existing public fight-of- way street linc ~.fl~os a ~vc¢ific pl~,. h~s boca ad~.vtcd La wLicl, cas~ it ~lll bc ~,cas...cd fi~.~ tL~ ~v.cific pl~u ~..ct 1h,c. The rear setback shall be measured from the existing rev. 10F24/01 -44.- -C. rear lot line or fi.om any recorded alley or easemem; if the rear line adjoins a street, the rear setback requirement shall be the same as required for a fi.ont setback. Each side setback shall be measured fi'om the side lot line, or from an existing adjacent public right- of-way su'eet line u~,l¢~s a ~cc~fic pl~- h~ b~. ado~,t~.d, i~ ~I,;~L c~sc it w'dl Lc m~,~u ~d l',wn tL~. s~,ccific 1~1~ ~h~.~.t 12¢. All buildings and su'ucture_s shall not exceed ~forty-five (45) feet in height. Automobile storage space shall be provided in accordance with the City of Temecula Developmem Code. as required by Section 18.12 of Riverside County Ordinance No. 348 All roof mounted mechanical equipment shall be screened fi.om the ground elevation view at finish floor elevation to a minimum sight distance of 1,320 feet. rev. 10/24/01 -4.$- ATI'ACHMENT NO. 6 RESOLUTION APPROVING VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 24188 AMENDMENT NO. 4 R:~S P A~2001\01-0102 Paloma Del Sol #8~'CStaffRpt..2.doc 15 ATTACHMENT NO. 6 RESOLUTION NO. 01- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 01-0117 - VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 24188 AMENDMENT NO. 4, FOR THE SUBDIVISION OF 293 RESIDENTIAL LOTS, 1 RECREATION CENTER LOT, 1 PARK SITE LOT AND 16 OPEN SPACE LOTS WHICH CONFORM TO THE PLANNING AREAS, OPEN SPACE AREAS AND PARK SITES OF THE PALOMA DEL SOL SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 8 LOCATED EAST OF MEADOWS PARKWAY, NORTH OF DE PORTOLA ROAD, WEST OF IBUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD AND SOUTH OF PAUBA ROAD, AND FURTHER IDENTIFIED AS ASSESSOR PARCEL NOS. 965-030-003, 955-030-004, 955-030-006, 956 030-032 WHEREAS, Newland Communities filed Planning Application No. PA01-0117 (the "Application") in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan, Development Code and Subdivision Ordinance; WHEREAS, the Application was processed including, but not limited to public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, at a regular meeting, considered the Application on November 7, 2001 at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did, testify either in support or opposition to this matter; WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearings and after due consideration of the testimony, the Commission recommended approval of the Application subject to and based upon the findings set forth hereunder; WHEREAS, the City Council considered the Application on , at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by taw, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support or opposition to this matter; WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Council hearing and after due consideration of the testimony, the Council approved of the Application, and certified Addendum No. 4 to the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Paloma Del Sol Specific Plan after finding that the project proposed in the Application conformed to the City of Temecula General Plan; WHEREAS, all legal preconditions to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. by reference. That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby incorporated R:\S P A~001\01-0102 Paloma Del Sol #8~paloma cc vttm res.DOC 1 Section 2. Findin,qs. That the City Council, in approving the Application, hereby makes the following findings as required in Section 16.09.140 of the Temecula Municipal Code. A. The proposed subdivision and the design and improvements of the subdivision are consistent with the General Plan, Paloma Del Sol Specific Plan, as amended, Development Code and the City of Temecula Municipal Code; B. The proposed subdivision map is consistent with the subject Specific Plan Amendment and related General Plan Amendment. C. The tentative map does not propose to divide land which is subject to a contract entered into pursuant to the California Land Conservation Act of 1965, or the land is subject to a Land Conservation Act contract but the resulting parcels following division of the land will not be too small to sustain their agricultural use; D. The site is physically suitable for the type and proposed density of development proposed by the tentative map; E. The design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements, with conditions of approval, are not likely to cause significant environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat as no sensitive species or habitant exist within the project boundaries; F. The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems; G. The design of the subdivisions provides for future passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities in the subdivision to the extent feasible; H. The design of the subdivisions and the type of improvements will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision, or the design of the alternate easements which are substantially equivalent to those previously acquired by the public will be provided. (Quimby). The subdivisions are consistent with the City's parkland dedication requirements Section 3. The Paloma Del Sol Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR No. 235) was approved and certified by the County of Riverside on September 6, 1988. Since that date Addendum No. 1 was certified in conjunction with Amendment No. 4 to the Specific Plan, which added a Development Agreement to the project. Addendum No. 2 was adopted on March 17, 1999 by the City of Temecula in conjunction with an evaluation of additional facilities and uses to the Specific Plan. Addendum No. 3 was adopted on October 19, 1999 by the City of Temecula in conjunction with an overall reduction of in dwelling units and the reconfiguration and realignment of Campanula Way. The analysis associated with the Addendum No. 4 to Environmental Impact Report No. 235 concludes that changes in project impacts as a result of Amendment No. 8 are either unchanged or decreased from the original project, and that no additional mitigation measures are required. The City Council acknowledges the overriding consideration with regard to air quality impacts made by the Riverside County Board of Supervisors during the original certification of Environmental Impact Report No. 235. Staff concludes that the environmental concerns regarding the project have been adequately addressed. R:'~ P A'~2001\01-0102 Paloma Del Sol #8\paloma cc vffrn res. DOC 2 Section 4. Approval and Conditions, The City Council of the City of Temecula approves Planning Application No. PA01-0117 (Vesting Tentative Tract Map 24188 Amendment No. 4), the subdivision of 293 residential lots, 1 recreation center lot, 1 park lot and 16 open space lots which conform to the Planning Areas and park sites of the Paloma Del Sol Specific Plan and contained in Exhibit A. subject to the project specific conditions set forth on Exhibit B, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference together with any and all other necessary conditions that may be deemed necessary. Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of ,2001. ATTEST: Jeff Comerchero, Mayor Susan W. Jones, CMC/AAE City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTYOF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA) I, Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that Resolution No. 2001-. was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the of August, 200% by the following vote: AYES: COUNClLMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBER$: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Susan W. Jones, CMC/AAE City Clerk R:~ P A~001~01-0102 Paloma Del Sol t~paloma cc v'dm 3 EXHIBIT A VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 24188 (AMENDMENT NO. 4) R:~S P A~001~1,.0102 paloma Del S~ ~tS~alema cc vttm VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT NO. AMENDED NO. 4 EXHIBIT B CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR V'I'TM 24188 (AMENDMENT NO. 4) R:~ P A~001~01-0102 Paloma Del So~ ~t~oaloma cc vttm re~,D~ 5 CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Planning Application No.: Project Description: PA01-0117 (Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 24188, Amendment No. 4) The subdivision of approximately 127 acres into 293 residential lots, I recreation center lot, 1 park lot and 16 open space lots which conform to the Planning Areas, Open Space Areas and Park sites of the Paloma Del Sol Specific Plan Amendment No. 8. Assessor's Parcel Nos.: 955-030-002, 955-030-003, 955-030-004, 955-006, 955-030-032. Approval Date: Expiration Date: PLANNING DIVISION Within Forty-Eight (48) Hours of the Approval of this Project 1. The applicant/developer shall deliver to the Community Development Department - Planning Division a cashier's check or money order made payable to the County Clerk in the amount of Nine Hundred Twenty-Eight Dollars ($928.00) which includes the Eight Hundred and Fifty Dollar ($850.00) fee, required by Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(d)(3) plus the Seventy- Eight Dollars ($78.00) County administrative fee, to enable the City to file the Notice of Determination for the Environmental Impact Report required under Public Resources Code Section 21151 and California Code of Regulations Section 15904. If within said forty-eight (48) hour period the applicant/developer has not delivered to the Community Development Department - Planning Division the check as required above, the approval for the project granted shall be void by reason of failure of condition (Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c)). General Requirements 2. The tentative subdivision shall comply with the State of California Subdivision Map Act and to all the requirements of Ordinance No. 460, unless modified by the conditions listed below. A time extension may be approved in accordance with the State Map Act and City Ordinance, upon written request, if made 30 days prior to the expiration date. 3. The permittee/applicant shall indemnify, protect and hold harmless, the City and any agency or instrumentality thereof, and/or any of its officers, employees, and agents from any and all claims, actions, or proceedings against the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers, employees, and agents, to attack, set aside, void, annul, or seek monetary damages resulting from an approval of the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body including actions approved by the voters of the City, concerning the Planning Application which action is brought within the appropriate statute of limitations period and Public Resources Code, Division 13, Chapter 4 (Section 21000 et seq., including but not by the way of limitations Section 21152 and 211671. The City shall promptly notify the permittee/applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding brought forth within this time period. The City shall estimate the cost of the defense of the R:\S P A~2001~01-0102 Paloma Del Sol #8~paloma cc vltm res.2.DOC 6 action and applicant shall deposit said amount with the City. City may require additional deposits to cover anticipated costs. City shall refund, without interest, any unused portions of the deposit once the litigation is finally concluded. Should the City fail to either promptly notify or cooperate fully, permittee/applicant shall not, thereafter be responsible to indemnify, defend, protect, or hold harmless the City, any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers, employees, or agents. Should the applicant fail to timely post the required deposit, the Director may terminate the lands use approval without further notice to the applicant. 4. This project and all subsequent projects within this site shall be consistent with Specific Plan No. 4. 5. The project and all subsequent projects within this site shall be subject to the Amendment and Restatement of Development Agreement Between the City of Temecula and Mesa Homes (Paloma Del Sol). 6. The project and all subsequent projects within this site shall comply with all mitigation measures identified within EIR No 235. 7. The applicant shall comply with all mitigation measures contained in the approved ~ Monitoring Program. 8. Subdivision phasing shall be subject to Planning Department approval. Prior to Issuance of Grading Permits 9. If the project is to be phased, prior to the approval of grading permits, an overall conceptual grading plan shall be submitted to the Planning Director for approval. The plan shall be used as a guideline for subsequent detailed grading plans for individual phases of development and shall include the following: a. Techniques which will be utilized to prevent erosion and sedimentation during and after the grading process. b. Approximate time frames for grading and identification of areas which may be graded dudng the higher probability rain months of January through March. c. Preliminary pad and roadway elevations. d. Areas of temporary grading outside of a particular phase. 10. The developer shall provide evidence to the Director of Building and Safety that all adjacent off-site manufactured slopes have recorded slope easements and that slope maintenance responsibilities have been assigned as approved by the Director of Building and Safety. 11, The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 8.24 of the Temecula Municipal Code (Habitat Conservation) by paying the appropriate fee set forth in that ordinance or by providing documented evidence that the fees have already been paid. Prior to Recordation of the Final Map 12. Prior to recordation of the final map, an Environmental Constraints Sheet (ECS) shall be prepared in conjunction with the final map to delineate identified environmental concerns and shall be permanently filed with the office of the City Engineer. A copy of the ECS shall be transmitted to the Planning Department for review and approval. The approved ECS shall be forwarded with copies of the recorded final map to the Planning Department and the Department of Building and Safety. The following notes shall be placed on the ECS: a. "This property is located within thirty (30) miles of Mount Palomar Observatory. All proposed outdoor lighting systems shall comply with the California Institute of Technology, Palomar Observatory Outdoor Lighting Policy." R:\S P A~001\01-O102 Patoma eel Sol #8~oaloma cc vttm res.2,DOC 7 b. "EIR No. 235 and an Addendum to this EIR was prepared for this project and is on file at the City of Temecula Planning Department." 13. Any delinquent property taxes shall be paid prior to recordation of the final map. Prior to Issuance of Building Permits 14. The development impact fees associated with the project must be paid to the City of Temecula. 15. With the submittal of building plans to the Department of Building and Safety a copy of the acoustical study prepared by Wilber Smith Associates dated September 22, 1992 and subsequent study dated October 3, 1992, or as updated by subsequent reports, shall be submitted to ensure the implementation of the study to reduce ambient interior noise levels to 45 Ldn and exterior noise levels to 65 Ldn. 16. Roof-mounted mechanical equipment shall not be permitted within the subdivision, however solar equipment or any other energy saving devices shall be permitted with Director of Planning approval. 17. The Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&R's) shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department prior to final map recordation of the tract maps. The CC&R's shall include liability insurance and methods of maintaining the open space, recreation areas, parking areas, private roads, exterior of all buildings and parkways. 18. No lot or dwelling unit in the development shall be sold unless a corporation, association, property owner's group, or similar entity has been formed with the right to assess all properties individually owned or jointly owned which have any dghts or interest in the use of the common areas and common facilities in the development, such assessment power to be sufficient to meet the expenses of such entity, and with authority to control, and the duty to maintain, all of said mutually available features of the development. Such entity shall operate under recorded CC&R's which shall include compulsory membership of all owners of lots and/or dwelling units and flexibility of assessments to meet changing costs of maintenance, repairs, and services. Recorded CC&R's shall permit enforcement by the City of Provisions required by the City as Conditions of Approval. The developer shall submit evidence of compliance with this requirement to, and receive approval of, the City pdor to making any such sale. This condition shall not apply to land dedicated to the City for public purposes. 19. A performance bond and a one year maintenance bond shall be required for all landscaping installed except for landscaping within individual lots. The amount of this landscaping shall be subject to the approval of the Planning Department. This bond shall be secured after completion of said landscaping and prior to release of the dwelling units tied to the timing of the landscaped area 20. Erosion control planting shall commence as soon as slopes are completed on any portion of the site dudng and after the grading operations. A performance bond shall be secured with the Planning Department prior to issuance of any grading permits to insure the installation of this landscaping. Cut slopes equal to or greater than five (5) feet in vertical height and fill slopes equal to or greater than three (3) feet in vertical height shall be planted with a ground cover to protect the slope from erosion and instability. Slopes exceeding fifteen (15) feet in vertical height shall be planted with shrubs, spaces not more than ten (10) feet on center or trees spaced not to exceed twenty (20) feet on center or a combination of shrubs and trees at equivalent spacings, in addition to the ground cover. Other standards of erosion control shall be consistent with Ordinance No. 457.57. 21. Community Theme Walls may be substituted for Project Theme Wails at the developers discretion. R:\S P A~.001~D1-0102 Paloma Del Sol #8~aloma cc vt~n res.2.DOC 8 22. Wood fencing shall only be allowed along the side yards and the rear yards of single family dwellings. Project Theme Walls shall be used along the side yards facing the street for corner lots. 23. The residential lot street tree requirements and front yard requirements shall be consistent with Section IV.C.3.a.1 .,2., and 3. of Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment No. 3. 24. Maintenance and timing for completion of all open space areas shall be as identified in Planning Application No. 92-0013 (Development Agreement) or shall be consistent with Specific Plan No. 219, as amended, if the Development Agreement is null and void. 25. A Mitigation Monitoring Program shall be submitted and approved by the Planning Department prior to recordation of the Final Map. 26. A conceptual landscape plan shall be submitted to the Planning Department prior to recordation of the Final Map for review and approval. The following needs to be included in these plans: a. Typical front yard landscaping for interior, corner and cul-de-sac lots. b. Typical slope landscaping. c. Private and public park improvements and landscaping. d. All open space area landscaping including, private and public common areas, private recreational areas, paseos, equestrian trails, monuments and Landscape Development Zones. e. All landscape plans shall identify the number and size of all plants, the type of irrigation to be used, all hardscaping, fences and walls. f. The timing for installation of all landscaping walls and trails shall be identified prior to approval of these plans. g. The responsibility for installation of all landscaping and walls shall be identified. h. All private open space areas that will not be dedicated to the City as identified in the Development Agreement shall be developed as an integrated part of the open space lot that they are a part of and shall be consistent with the provisions of the Specific Plan. i. Fifty (50) percent of all trees planted within the project shall be a minimum of twenty four (24) inch box. The landscape plans proposed for each phase shall incorporate the fifty (50) percent mix of twenty four (24) inch box trees into the design. The provisions of Chapter 7.06 of the Development Code shall be applied to all landscaped areas with 2:1 slopes or greater. j. A note shall be placed on the conceptual landscape plans that all trees shall be double staked and automatic irrigation shall be installed for all landscaping. These provisions shall be incorporated into the construction plans. k. A note shall be added to all conceptual landscape plans that all utility service areas and enclosures shall be screened from view with landscaping. This equipment shall be identified on the construction landscape plans and shall be screened as specified on this condition. I. The plant heights at sensitive locations for traffic safety shall be subject to the approval of the Public Works Department. m. The timing for submittal and approval of the construction landscape plans shall be identified for all improvements within this condition. R:\S P A~001~1-0102 Paloma Del Sol #8~aloma cc vttm res.2.DOC 9 27. The development of this project and all subsequent developments within this project shall be consistent with Specific Plan No. 219, as amended and Planning Application No. 92-0013 (Development Agreement) or any subsequent amendments. 28. Double-pane window treatment shall be required for second floor elevation windows in any two-story homes constructed on the lots identified in the Acoustical Study prepared by Wilber Smith Associates dated September 22, 1992 and its supplement dated October 3, 1992 and any other supplemental reports. 29. All Parcels in Planning Areas 26 and 28 that abut a portion of Butterfield Stage Road that are designed with a Landscape Development Zone (LDZ) of less than 32 feet shall be developed with single story single family dwellings. Prior to issuance of Occupancy Permits 30. If deemed necessary by the Director of Planning, the applicant shall provide additional landscaping to effectively screen various components of the project. 31. All required landscape planting and irrigation shall be installed consistent with the approved construction plans and shall be in a condition acceptable to the Director of Planning. The plants shall be healthy and free of weeds, disease, or pests. The irrigation system shall be properly constructed and in good working order. 32. Front yard and slope landscaping within individual lots shall be completed for inspection. 33. Performance securities, in amounts to be determined by the Director of Planning, to guarantee the maintenance of the plantings within private common areas for a period of one year, in accordance with the approved construction landscape and irrigation plan, shall be filed with the Community Development Department - Planning Division for one year from final certificate of occupancy. After that year, if the landscaping and irrigation system have been maintained in a condition satisfactory to the Director of Planning, the bond shall be released. 34. All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use allowed by this permit. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 35. The Department of Public Works recommends the following Conditions of Approval for this project. Unless stated otherwise, all conditions shall be completed by the Developer at no cost to any Government Agency. General Requirements 36. It is understood that the Developer correctly shows on the tentative map all existing and proposed easements, traveled ways, improvement constraints and drainage courses, and their omission may require the project to be resubmitted for further review and revision. 37. All underlying Conditions of Approval for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 24188, Amendment No. 3 approved December 8, 1992 shall govern. If conflicting conditions of approval prevail, the most stringent shall apply. 38. A Grading Permit for either rough or precise grading shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to commencement of any construction outside of the City-maintained road right-of-way. An Encroachment Permit shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to commencement of any construction within an existing or proposed City right-of-way. 39. R:~S P A',2001~01-0102 Paloma Del Sol #8~aloma cc vttm res.2.DOC 10 All improvement plans, grading plans, landscape and irrigation plans shall be coordinated for consistency with adjacent projects and existing improvements contiguous to the site and shall be submitted on standard 24" x 36" City of Temecula mylars. Prior to Approval of the Final Map, unless other timing is indicated, the Developer shall complete the following or have plans submitted and approved, subdivision improvement agreements executed and securities posted: 40. As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: a. San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board b. Rancho California Water District c. Eastern Municipa~ Water District d. Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District e. City of Temecula Fire Prevention E~ureau f. Planning Department g. Department of Public Works h. Riverside County Health Department i. Cable TV Franchise j. Community Services District k. Verizon I. Southern California Edison Company m. Southern California Gas Company n. Fish & Game o. Army Corps of Engineers 41. If phasing of the map for construction is proposed, legal all-weathered accesses as required by City Ordinances shall be provided from the tract map boundary to a paved City maintained road. The Developer shall construct the following public improvements to City of Temecula General Plan standards unless otherwise noted. Plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works: a. Improve Butterfield Stage Road (Arterial Highway Standards - 110' R/W) to include dedication of half-width street right-of-way, installation of half-width street improvements, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer), 14' wide raised landscaped median. The developer is eligible to a reduction in the Street System Improvements Component of the Public Facilities Development impact Fee for residential construction as allowed in the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee Reduction Agreement (Exhibit "A") dated July 14, 1998. b. The raised landscape median on Butterfield Stage Road shall include 250' of left turn storage capacity with 120' of approach transition or as determined by the Director of Public Works during design, for the intersection with Street "G". c. Improve Meadows Parkway (Major Highway Standards - 100' PAN) to include dedication of half-width street right-cf-way, installation of half-width street improvements, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, R:\S P A~2001~01-0102 Paloma Del Sol #8~paloma cc vttm res.2.DOC 11 42. 43. Unless design a. b. C. d. e, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer), 12' wide raised landscaped median. The developer is eligible to a reduction in the Street System Improvements Component of the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee for residential construction as allowed in the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee Reduction Agreement (Exhibit "A") dated July 14, 1998. Improve Pauba Road (Secondary Highway Standards - 88' RRV) to include dedication of half-width street right-of-way, installation of half-width street improvements, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer). Improve Sunny Meadows Drive (Collector Road Standards - 66' R/VV) to include dedication of half-width street right-of-way plus twelve feet, installation of half- width street improvements plus twelve feet, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer). Improve Streets '%," "G," "N," and "V" (Entryway Standards - 70' FI,NV) to include dedication of full-width street right-of-way plus six feet, installation of full-width street improvements plus six feet, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer). Improve Streets "B," "C," "D," "F," "G," "H," "1," "J," "K," "L," "M," "N" north of "P," "O," "P," "Q," "R," "S," '%," and "U" (Local Road Standards - 60' RRV) to include dedication of full-width street right-of-way plus twelve feet, installation of full-width street improvements plus twelve feet, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer). All street improvement design shall provide adequate right-of-way and pavement transitions per Caltrans standards for transition to existing street sections. otherwise approved the following minimum criteria shall be observed in the of the street improvement plans: Street centerline grades shall be 0.5% minimum over P.C.C. and 1.00% minimum over A.C. paving. Driveways shall conform to the applicable City Standard Nos. 207, 207A and/or 208. Street lights shall be installed along the public streets shall be designed in accordance with City Standard Nos. 800, 801,802 and 803. Concrete sidewalks shall be constructed in accordance with City Standard Nos. 400,401 and 402. Design of street improvements shall extend a minimum of 300 feet beyond the project boundaries to ensure adequate continuity of design with adjoining properties. Minimum centerline radii shall be in accordance with City Standard No. 113. All reverse curves shall include a 100-foot minimum tangent section. All street and driveway centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees. All units shall be provided with zero clearance garage doors and garage door openers if the driveway is less than 18 feet in depth from back of sidewalk. R:\S P A~2001~01-0102 Paloma Del Sol #8~paloma cc vttrn res.2.DOC 12 j. Landscaping shall be limited in the corner cut-off area of all intersections and adjacent to driveways to provide for minimum sight distance and visibility. k. All concentrated drainage directed towards the public street shall be conveyed through curb outlets per City Standard No. 301,302 and/or 303. I. All utility systems including gas, electric, telephone, water, sewer, and cable TV shall be provided underground. Easements shall be provided as required where adequate right-of-way does not exist for installation of the facilities. All utilities shall be designed and constructed in accordance with City Codes and the utility provider. m. All utilities, except electrical lines rated 33kv or greater, shall be installed underground 44. A construction area Traffic Control Plan shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and reviewed by the Department of Public Works for any street closure and detour or other disruption to traffic circulation as required by the Department of Public Works. 45. Relinquish and waive right of access to and from Pauba Road, Meadows Parkway, Sunny Meadows Drive and Butterfield Stage Road on the Final Map with the exception of one (1) opening on both Meadows Parkway and Butterfield Stage Road only and two (2) openings on Sunny Meadows Drive, as delineated on the approved Tentative Tract Map. 46. Corner property line cut off for vehicular sight distance and installation of pedestrian facilities shall be provided at all street intersections in accordance with Riverside County Standard No. 805. 47. All easements and/or right-of-way dedications shall be offered for dedication to the public or other appropriate agency and shall continue in force until the City accepts or abandons such offers. All dedications shall be free from all encumbrances as approved by the Department of Public Works. 48. Pursuant to Section 66493 of the Subdivision Map Act, any subdivision which is part of an existing Assessment District must comply with the requirements of said section, Prior to City Council approval of the Final Map, the Developer shall make an application for reapportionment of any assessments with appropriate regulatory agency. 49. Any delinquent property taxes shall be paid. 50. An Environmental Constraints Sheet (ECS) shall be prepared in conjunction with the Final Map to delineate identified environmental concerns and shall be recorded with the map. A copy of the ECS shall be transmitted to the Planning Department for review and approval. The following information shall be on the ECS: a. The delineation of the area within the 100-year floodplain. b. Special Study Zones. c. Geotechnical hazards identified in the project's geotechnical report. d. Archeological resources found on the site. 51. The Developer shall comply with all constraints which may be shown upon an Environmental Constraint Sheet recorded with any underlying maps related to the subject property. 52. Cul-de-sacs and knuckles shall be constructed per the appropriate City Standards and as shown on the approved Tentative Map. R:\S P A~001~01-0102 Paloma Del Sol #8~paloma cc vttm res.2.DOC 13 53. Left turn lanes shall be provided at all intersections on Sunny Meadows Drive, Pauba Road, Butterfield Stage Road and Meadows Parkway, as directed by the Department of Public Works. 54. Traffic signal interconnection shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer to show 2" rigid conduit with pull rope, and #5 pull boxes on 200-foot centers along the property fronting Bufterfield Stage Road and Pauba Road. This design shall be shown on the street improvement plans and must be approved by the Department of Public Works. 55. Prior to designing any of the above plans (i.e., left turn lanes, traffic signal interconnection, etc.), contact the Transportation Engineering for the design requirements. 56. The Developer shall make a good faith effort to acquire the required off-site property interests, and if he or she should fail to do so, the Developer shall, prior to submittal of the Final Map for recordation, enter into an agreement to complete the improvements pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act, Section 66462 and Section 66462.5. Such agreement shall provide for payment by the Developer of all costs incurred by the City to acquire the off-site property interests required in connection with the subdivision. Security of a portion of these costs shall be in the form of a cash deposit in the amount given in an appraisal report obtained by the Developer, at the Developer's cost. The appraiser shall have been approved by the City prior to commencement of the appraisal. 57. A signing and striping plan shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and approved by the Department of Public Works for Butterfield Stage Road, Pauba Road, Meadows Parkway and Sunny Meadows Drive and shall be included in the street improvement plans. 58. A copy of the grading and improvement plans, along with supporting hydrologic and hydraulic calculations shall be submitted to the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District for approval prior to recordation of the Final Map or the issuance of any permit. A permit from Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District is required for work within their right-of-way. 59. All utility systems including gas, electric, telephone, water, sewer, and cable TV shall be provided for underground, with easements provided as required, and designed and constructed in accordance with City Codes and the utility provider. Telephone, cable TV, and/or security systems shall be pre-wired in the residence. 60. The Developer shall notify the City's cable TV Franchises of the Intent to Develop. Conduit shall be installed to cable TV Standards at time of street improvements. 61. Bus bays will be provided at all existing and future bus stops as determined by the Department of Public Works and the Riverside Transit Agency (RTA). 62. This development must enter into an agreement with the City for a "Trip Reduction Plan" in accordance with Ordinance No. 93-01. 63. Private drainage easements for cross-lot drainage shall be required and shall be delineated and noted on the final map. 64. Easements for sidewalks for public uses shall be dedicated to the City where sidewalks meander through private property. R:\S P A",2001~01-0102 Paloma Der Sol #8~aioma cc vttm res.2.DOC 14 65. Easements, when required for roadway slopes, landscape easements, drainage facilities, utilities, etc., sha~l be shown on the final map if they are located within the land division boundary. All offers of dedication and conveyances shall be submitted for review and recorded as directed by the Department of Public Works. On-site drainage facilities located outside of road right-of-way shall be contained within drainage easements and shown on the final map. A note shall be added to the final map stating "drainage easements shall be kept free of buildings and obstructions." 66. Pedestrian access with sidewalk shall be provided from the cul-de-sac terminus of Streets "D" and "©" to Buttedield Stage Road and between the cul-de-sac terminus of Streets "K" and "G." Prior to Issuance of Grading Permits 67. As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: a. San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board b. Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District c. Planning Department d. Department of Public Works e. Riverside County Health Department f. Community Services District g. Verizon h, Southern California Edison Company i. Southern California Gas Company 68. A Grading Plan shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer in accordance with City of Temecula standards and approved by the Department of Public Works prior to commencement of any grading. The plan shall incorporate adequate erosion control measures to protect the site and adjoining properties from damage due to erosion. 69. A Soils Report shall be prepared by a registered Civil or Soils Engineer and submitted to the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check, The report shall address all soils conditions of the site, and provide recommendations for the construction of engineered structures and preliminary pavement sections. 70. A Geotechnical Report shall be prepared by a registered engineer or engineering geologist and submitted to the Department of public Works with the initial grading plan check. The report shall address special study zones and identify any geotechnical hazards for the site including location of faults and potential for liquefaction. The report shall include recommendations to mitigate the impact of ground shaking and liquefaction. 71. A Drainage Study shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and submitted to the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The study shall identify storm water runoff quantities expected from the development of this site and upstream of the site. It shall identify all existing or proposed off-site or on-site, public or private, drainage facilities intended to discharge this runoff. Runoff shall be conveyed to an adequate outfall capable of receiving the storm water runoff without damage to public or private property. The study shall include a capacity analysis verifying the adequacy of all facilities. Any upgrading or upsizing of drainage facilities necessary to convey the storm water runoff shall be provided as part of development of this project. The basis for analysis and design shall be a storm with a recurrence interval of one hundred years. R:\S P A~2001~01-0102 Paloma Del Sol #8~oaloma cc vttm res.2.DOC 15 72. The Developer must comply with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. No grading shall be permitted until an NPDES Notice of Intent (NOI) has been filed or the project is shown to be exempt. 73. The Developer shall post security and enter into an agreement guaranteeing the grading and erosion control improvements in conformance with applicable City Standards and subject to approval by the Department of Public Works. 74. A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The Area Drainage Plan fee is payable to the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District by either cashier's check or money order, prior to issuance of permits, based on the prevailing area drainage plan fee. If the full Area Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge has already been credited to this property, no new charge needs to be paid. 75. The Developer shall obtain letters of approval or easements for any off-site work performed on adjoining properties. The letters or easements shall be in a format as directed by the Department of Public Works. 76. All lot drainage shall be directed to the driveway by side yard drainage swales independent of any other lot. Prior to Issuance of Building Permits 77. Finaf Map shall be approved and recorded. 78. A Precise Grading Plan shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and approval. The building pad shall be certified by a registered Civil Engineer for location and elevation; and the Soils Engineer shall issue a Final Soils Report addressing compaction and site conditions. 79. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the California Building Code, the approved grading plan, the conditions of the grading permit, City Grading Standards and accepted grading construction practices. The final grading plan shall be in substantial conformance with the approved rough grading plan. 80. The Developer shall pay to the City the Public Facilities Development impact Fee as required by, and in accordance with, Chapter 15.06 of the Temecula Municipal Code and all Resolutions implementing Chapter 15.06. The developer is eligible to receive credits as allowed in the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee Reduction Agreement (Exhibit "B") dated July 14, 1998. Prior to Issuance of Certificates of Occupancy 81. The subdivider shall provide "stop" controls at the intersection of local streets with arterial streets and collector streets as directed by the Department of Public Works, 82. Landscaping shall be limited in the corner cut-off area of alt intersections and adjacent to driveways to provide for minimum sight distance, 83. All signing and striping shall be installed per the approved signing and striping plan. 84. All traffic signals shall be installed and operational per the special provisions and the approved traffic signal plan as specified under Condition 54 but not later than issuance of occupancy for the final phase. 85. All traffic signal intemonnect conduit and cable along Butterfield Stage Road from Pauba Road to the southerly tract boundary shall be installed per the approved plan at the time of street improvements. 86, Plans for a traffic signal shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and approved by the Department of Public Works for the intersection of Butterfield Stage Road at R:'~S P A~001~1-0102 Paloma Del Sol #8~alorne, cc vttm res.2.DOC 16 87. 88. 89. 90. 91. 92. Street "G." A traffic signal shall be installed prior to issuance of the 150th occupancy, unless additional traffic studies support delaying the installation or whenever Street "G" is constructed to Butterfield Stage Road, whichever comes first. The developer is eligible to receive reimbursement for the Traffic Signals and Traffic Control Systems for the actual cost for the design and installation as allowed in the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee Reduction Agreement (Exhibit "B") dated July 14, 1998. Plans for a traffic signal shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and approved by the Department of Public Works for the intersection of Pauba Road and Meadows Parkway. A traffic signal shall be installed prior to issuance of the 100th occupancy, unless the Department of Public Works approves delaying the installation. The Developer is eligible to reimbursement for the Traffic Signals and Traffic Control Systems for the actual cost for the design and installation as allowed in the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee Reduction Agreement (Exhibit "B") dated July 14, 1998. Plans for a traffic signal shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and approved by the Department of Public Works for the intersection of Pauba Road and Butterfield Stage Road. A traffic signal shall be installed prior to issuance of the 150th occupancy, unless the Department of Public Works approves delaying the installation. The Developer is eligible to receive reimbursement for the Traffic Signals and Traffic Control Systems for the actual cost for the design and installation as allowed in the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee Reduction Agreement (Exhibit "B") dated July 14, 1998. As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: a. Rancho California Water District b. Eastern Municipal Water District c. Department of Public Works All necessary certifications and clearances from engineers, utility companies and public agencies shall be submitted as required by the Department of Public Works. All improvements shall be constructed and completed per the approved plans and City standards to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. The existing improvements shall be reviewed. Any appurtenance damaged or broken due to the construction operations of this project shall be repaired or removed and replaced to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT General Conditions 93. If any of the following conditions of approval differ from the text of the Specific Plan or exhibits, the conditions enumerated herein shall take precedent. 94. All park and landscape plans submitted for consideration for TSCD maintenance shall be in conformance with the City of Temecula Landscape and Irrigation Specifications and Installation Details and the Park Land and Landscape Dedication Process. 95. Construction of the 5-acre public park site (Lot No. 295) and the median landscaping shall commence pursuant to a pre-construction meeting with the developer and the TCSD Maintenance Superintendent. Failure to comply with the TCSD review and inspection process may preclude acceptance to these areas into the TCSD maintenance programs. R:\S P A~O01V31-0102 Paloma Del Sol #8~paloma cc vttm res.2,DOC 17 96. The developer, the developer's successor or assignee, shall be responsible for all maintenance of the park site and the landscaped medians until such time as those responsibilities are accepted by the TCSD. 97. The park site (Let No, 295) shall be improved and dedicated to the City free and clear of any liens, assessment fees, or easements that would preclude the City from utilizing the property for public purposes. A policy of title insurance for the amount of the improvements and a soils assessment report shall also be provided with the conveyance of the property. 98. Class II bike lanes shall be constructed in concurrence with street improvements along Butterfield Stage Road and Meadows Parkway. The multi-use trail along Pauba Road shall also be constructed in concurrence with the street improvements. 99. All perimeter walls, fences, entry monumentation, signage, parkway landscaping, pedestrian portals, trails, private recreational areas and open space shall be maintained by the Homeowner's Association (HCA), private maintenance association or the property owner. 100, The developer shall contact the City's franchised solid waste hauler for disposal of construction debris. Oniy the City's franchisee may haul construction debris. Prior to Final MaD 101. Construction drawings for the park site (Lot No. 295) and the landscaped medians proposed for dedication to the City shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Services, 102. The Developer shall post security and enter into an agreement to improve the park site (Lot No. 295) and the landscaped medians. Prior to Issuance of Buildinq Permits 103. Prior to the installation of street lights or the issuance of building permits, whichever comes first, the developer shall file an application and pay the appropriate fees to the TCSD for the dedication of arterial and residential street lighting into the appropriate TCSD maintenance program. 104. The 5-acre park site (Lot No. 295) shall be improved, including the completion of the 90- day maintenance period and the conveyance accepted by the City Council prior to the issuance of the first building permit in Tract 24188, excluding the 67 dwelling units in Tract 24188-1 and excluding models. 105, The private recreation center (Lot No. 294) shall be completed prior to the issuance of the 200m building permit in Tract 24188, excluding the 67 dwelling units in Tracts 24188-1. Prior to Issuance of Certificates of Occul~ancv 106. It shall be the developer's responsibility to provide written disclosure of the existence of the Temecula Community Services District and its service level rates and charges to all prospective purchasers. This disclosure shall be in the format acceptable to the City and filed with the TCSD. R:~S P A~2001~01-0102 Paloma Der Sol #8~aloma cc vttm res.2.DOC 18 107. Prior to issuance of any certificates of occupancy within each phase, the developer shall submit, in a format as directed by TCSD staff, the most current list of Assessor's Parcel Numbers assigned to the final project. By placing my signature below, I confirm that I have read, understand and accept all the above Conditions of Approval. I further understand that the property shall be maintained in conformance with these conditions of approval and that any changes I may wish to make to the project shall be subject to Community Development Department approval. Applicant Signature R:\S P A~001~01-0102 PaLoma Del Sol #8~oaloma cc vttm reS.2.DOC 19 ATTACHMENT NO. 7 PALOMA DEL SOL SPECIFIC PLAN/EIR ADDENDUM TYPOGRAPHICAL CORRECTIONS R:'G P Ak2001\01-0102 Paloma Del Sol #8~2StaffRpt..2.doc 16 CITY OF TEMECULA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: PLANNING COMMISSION MATTHE-W HARRIS, ASSOCIATE PLANNER NOVEMBER, 7, 2001 PALOMA DEL SOL SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT TEXT CORRECTIONS Planning and Community Services Department staff have identified the following typographic and numerical corrections. These corrections should incorporated into the text of the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan Amendment No. 8 document and the associated Addendum No. 4 to Environmental Impact Report No. 235 as noted. Addendum No. 4 to Environmental Impact Report 235, Page 8 of 36, Table 3, Public Utilities and Services Comparison, Parks/Recreation line, change 153.0 acresto 144.O acres. Addendum No. 4 to Environmental Impact Report 235, Page 14 of 36, Analysis of Change in Project Impacts paragraph, change the word existing to exist. Addendum No. 4 to Environmental Impact Report 235, Page 22 of 36, Table 4, Land Use and Trip Generation Comparison, Natural Open Space Line, change 7.1 acres in both columns to 9.0 acres. Paloma del Sol Specific Plan Amendment No. 8, I. Summary of Changes, Page I-4, 3r~ paragraph, change 1.9 acres to 1.0 acre, Paloma del Sol Specific Plan Amendment No. 8, III. Specific Plan, Page 111-115, No. 1, delete the sentence "This facility shall be constructed and fully operable priortothe issuance of the occupancy permit for the 4,576~ residential unit within the Specific Plan.." Add the sentence q'his facility shall be constructed and fully operable prior to the issuance of the 200~ building permit in Tract 24188, excluding the 67 dwelling units in Tract 24188-1 ." R:\S P A~2001\01-0102 Paloma Del Sol #8\PC sp change memo.doc ATTACHMENT NO. 8 T&B PLANNING CONSULTANTS PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIONS LETrER DATED NOVEMBER 1, 2001 R:~S P A~001\01-0102 Paloma Del Sol #8'x?CS~affRpt..2.doc Santa Aha · San Diego Sacramento rs {00-~72 ..~ 3242 HALLADA Y, SUIT£ 100 SANTA ANA, CA 92705 (714) 662-2774 FAX # (714) 662-2708 email@tbplanning.com November I, 2001 Mr. Matthew C. Harris, Associate Planner Planning Department CITY OF TEMECULA 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92589-9033 Re: Vesting Tentative Tract 24188 Amendment No, 4 (PA01-0117) and Paloma del Sol Specific Plan Amendment No. 8 (PA01-0102) Dear Matt: In response your comment letter dated October 10, 2001, the Paloma del Sol consultant team was directed by the applicant, NEWLAND ASSOCIATES, INC., to incorporate several additional access points into the Vesting Tentative Tract Map (Tract No. 24188) for Paloma del Sol. Specifically, staffrequested the following: Pedestrian access with sidewalk shall, be provided at the following points: a. Between the cul-de-sacs at the end of Streets "G" & "K". b. From the cul-de-sac terminus of Street "D" to Butterfield Stage Road c. From the cul-de-sac terminus of Street "0" to Butterfield Stage Road. City staff has also requested a pedestrian access point from Street "Q" directly to Butterfield Stage Road. In response to staff's request, the project civil engineer (The Keith Companies) has provided accommodations for all of these access points on the Vesting Tentative Tract Map. The revised map was recently resubmitted to the City. for staff review and distribution to the Planning Commission. Where appropriate, we also included references to several of these access points in the Specific Plan Amendment document. Pedestrian Access Between Streets "G"and "K" We believe that pedestrian access between Streets "G" and "K" can be accommodated relatively easily. This access point would occur in Lot "O" on the Tract Map. However, we still have concerns regarding the other requested access points. Pedestrian Access from the Cul-de-sac Terminus of Street "D" to Butterfield Stage Road A pedestrian access point at this location is feasible. However, opening a cul-de-sac to pedestrians on such a busy street poses potential risks to little children wandering out onto Butterfield Stage Road. Plus, from a security standpoint it is much more difficult to provide "defensible space" with an.open cul-de-sac than with a closed cul~de-sac. For these reasons, we feel that this proposed pedestrian access point should be eliminated from the Vesting Tentative Tract Map (Tract 24188-2.1. Matthew C. Harris Paloma Del Sol November 1, 2001 Page 2 Pedestrian Access from the Cul-de-sac Terminus of Street "O" to Butterfield Stage Road This access point is difficult to provide from a purely logistical standpoint. The grade change between the Street "O" cul-de-sac and the parkway adjacent to Butterfield Stage Road is approximately 8.3%, which exceeds ADA requirements. Current ADA requirements for outdoor ramps is 6% maximum. In addition, a pedestrian walkway is proposed along through the middle of the 2:1 slope that abuts Planning Area 26. The Lot "G" drainage, which borders Planning Area 26, will contain sensitive wetland habitat. Proximity to children and domesticated animals would likely have a negative impact on this vegetation. In addition, providing an access from Buttertleld Stage Road directly to Street "O" would raise potential security concerns as well. We request that this access point be eliminated from the Vesting Tentative Tract Map. Pedestrian Access from the Cul-de-sac Terminus of Street "Q" to Butterfield Stage Road: The grade change between the Street "Q" cul-de-sac and the parkway adjacent to Butterfield Stage Road makes it almost a certainty that stairs would be required at this location in lieu of a ramp. This would conflict with ADA access requirements. In addition, opening a cul-de-sac on such a busy street poses potential risks to little children wandering out onto Butterfield Stage Road. Plus, from a security standpoint, it is much more difficult to provide "defensible space" with an open cul-de-sac than with a closed cul-de-sac. For these reasons, we feel that this proposed pedestrian access point should be eliminated from the Vesting Tentative Tract Map (Tract 24188-2 Conclusion It is our intent to request the Planning Commission direct City staffto remove the Street "D", Street "O" and Street "Q" access points at the upcoming November 7~ public hearing. We hope that this letter clarifies the position of NEWLAND ASSOCIATES, 1NC. regarding the proposed access points. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or comments. Sincerely, T&B PLANNING CONSULTANTS, INC. Mark T. Hickner Senior Project Manager Gary Thomhill / City of Temecula Debbie Ubnoske / City of Temecula Dave Hogan / City of Temecula Jim Delhamer / Newland Dean Meyer / Newland Sam Alhadeff/Adhadeff& Solar Craig Ryan / The Keith Companies Barry Bumell / T&B ATFACHMENT NO. 9 T&B PLANNING CONSULTANTS CONDITION OF APPROVAL LETTER DATED NOVEMBER 8, 2001 R:'G p A~2001\01-0102 Paloma Del Sol #8~PCSta flRpt..2.doc 18 fN 100-172 November ~, 2001 Mr. Matthew C. Harris, Associate Planner Community Development Department Crl'Y OF TEMECULA P.O. Box 9033 Temecula, CA 9258~ · I~: PA01-0117 (¥ESTING TENTATIVE TRACT 1W~AP NO. 24188, AMENDMENT NO. 4-- PALOMA DEb SOl.) Dear Matt: On behalf of the project applicant, NEWLANI~ ASSOCIATES, INC., we are providing you with this letter, which addresses our comments regarding ',he proposed Conditions of Approval for Vexing Tentative Tract Map No. 24188, Amendment No. 4. Our comments are shown in italics, while our proposed text changes are identified in strikeout/underline. We have listed only those conditions that we believe require further consideration. If the condition is not identified below, then the applicant concurs with the condition and no further comment is necessavff. PLANNING I)IVI$1ON Prior to Issuance of Building Permits 14. No building permits shall be issued by the City for any residential lot/unit within the project boundary until the developer or its successor's-in-interest provides evidence of compliance with public facility financing measures. A cash sum of one-hundred dollars ($100) per lot/unit shall be deposited with the City as mitigation for public library development. Applicant'.~ Comment: Please provide clari~cation as to what is meant by "compliance with public facili~yfinan¢ing mea#ures. " Does th~ refer to payment of required Development Impact Fees? Al~o, ~ the $I00 dollar per lot fee the current library fee? 15. With the submittal of building plans to the Department of Building and Safety a copy of the acoustical study prepared by Wilbur Smith Associates dated September 22, 1992 and subsequent study dated October 3, 1992, or as uodated by additional subsequen! reruns, shall be submitted to ensure the ~plementation of the study to reduce ambient interior noise levels to 45 Ldn and exterior noise levels to 65 Ldn. Mr. Matthew C. Harris Palom' a Del $ol November 8, 2001 Page 2 26. A conceptual landscape plan shall be submitted to the Planning Department prior to recordation of the Final Map for review and approval. 'The following needs to be included in these plans:... Typical front yard landscaping for interior, corner and cul-sac lots .... All landscape development plans shall identify the number and size of all plants, the type of irrigation to be used, all hardscaping, fences and walls .... Fifty (50) percent of all treos planted within the project shall be a minimum oftwenty-four (2,~) inch box. The landscape plans proposed for each phase shall incorporate the fifty ($0) percent mix of twenty (24) inch box trees into the design .... ApMicant '$ Comment. The Specific Plan document includes a Conceptual Landscape Plan exhibit. In addition, the document contains the level of detail appropriate at thispoint in theplanningprocess. More detailed landscape plar~' will be .¥ubmitted to the City for review prior to L~suance of the IJ~ building permit in the tract. A t present, it is impossible to provide detail such as the number and size of all plant$, the amount of hardscape, front yard landscaping, etc. We also have concerr~* regarding the requirement that fifty (50) percent of all trees planted within the project be minimum 24" sized boxes. This percentage of larger trees is unnecessarily high. Many trees actually demonstrate improved health and growth rates when planted as 15 gallon trees, e~pecially on slopes. 14/g request that this condition (Condition Plo. 26) be eliminated or at least delayed to the building permit stage. 28. Double-pane window treatment shall be required for second floor elevation windows in any two-story homes constructed on the lots identified in the Acoustical Study prepared by Wilber Smith Associates dated September 22, 1992 and its supplement dated October 3, 1992. and any additional suonlemental reports. Prior to the Issuance of O~cupancy Permits 33. Private common area landscaping shall be completed for inspection prior to the issuance of the 2$0th occupancy permit. Applicant's Comment: This condition ia' irrelevant since all private open s. pace within the project will be maintained by the Homeowners' Association (tf0A). Private landscape architects will inspect all common area landscaping before the bIOA accepts responsibility for the owners'hip and maintenance of the areas. The landscape architects will be responslble for providing the HOA with a certification of cor~pliance ~'tating that the common area has been in~pected and meets with their satisfaction. We request that this condition be deleted.from the Vesting Tentative Tract Map Conditions of Approval. Mr. Matthew C. H,'a'ris Palom'a Del Sol No~,ernber 8, 2001 Page ~ DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS General Requirements 43. The Developer shall construct the following public improvements to City o2f Temecula General Plan standards unless otherwise noted. Plans shall be reviewed and approved by lhe Department of Public Works: Improve Butterfield Stage Road (Arterial Highway Standards - I 10' R/W) to include dedication of half- width street right-of-c/ay, installation of hall-width street improvements, paving, curb and gutter, ~idewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer), and the vroiect's fair share vortion of the 14' wide raised landscaped median island. The raised landscape median of Butterfield Stage Road shall include 250' of left turn storage capacity with 120' of approach transition or as determined by the Director of Public Works' during design, for the intersection with Street "G". Improve Meadows Parkway (Major Highway Standards - 100' R/W) to include dedication of half-width street right-of-way, installation of half-width street improvements, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, draiEage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer), and the proiect's fair share oortion of the 12' wide raised landscaped median i la_~d. 67. Pedestrian access with sidewalk shall be provided fram thc cul de :ac termmu., ofgtrccts D and O to Buttcrficld Stage Road and between the cul-de-sac terminus of Streets "K" and "O." gvulicants Comment: We request that this condition be modified to remove the proposed linkages from Streets "D " and "0" to Butterfield Stage Road. Our reasoning for this i~' disoussed in more depth in our letter to you ~ated, November I, 2001 Prior tO the Issuance of Bttildiug Permits 81. The developer shall pay to the City the Public Facilities Development Impact Fees as required by, and in accordance with, Chapter 15.06 of the Temecula Municipal Code and all Resolutions implementing Chapter 15.06. and pursuant to Public Facilities Development Imvact Fee Reduction A~reement dated JuN. 14t~ 1998. Prior to the Issuance of Certificates of Occupancy 87. Plans for a traffic signal shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and approved by the Department of Public Works for the intersection of Buneffield Stage Road at Street "G 2' A traffic signal shall be installed prior to issuance of the 150' occupancy, unless additional traffic studies support delaying the installation or whenever Street "O" is constructed to Butterfield Stage. Road, whichever.comes first. T13e. Developer is eligible to receive a credit for the Traffic Signals and Traffic Control Systems portion oft. he Public Facilities Development Impact Fee for 100% of the ultimate cost for desi,.m and installation or as otherwise allowed in the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee Reduction Am-cement dated July 14. 1998. Mr. Mart. hew C. Harris Palom': Del Sol November 8, 200 t Pa.~e 4 88. Plans for a traffic signal shall be designed by a registered Civil £ngineer and approved by the Department of PubIic Works £or the intersection of Pauba Road and Meadows Parkway. A traffic signal shall be installed prior lo the issuance of the 100~ occupancy, unless the Department of Public Works approves delaying the installation. The Developer is eligible to receive a credit for the Traffic Sisals and Traffic Control Systems ¢ortion of the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee for 100% of the ultimate ao~t for d esik, n and installation or as otherwise allowed in the Public Facilities Development lmDact Fee Reduction Agreement dated Jul%' 14. 1998. 89. Plans for a traffic signal shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and approved by tl~e Department of Public Works for the intersection of Pauba Road and Bu~erfield Stage Road. A traffic signal shall be installed prior to the issuance of the 150'~ occupancy, unless the Department of Public Works approves delaying the installation. The Developer is eli~.ible to receive a credit for the Traffic Sienals and Traffic Contro[ Systems portion of the Public.Facilities Development Impact Fee for 10&A of the ultimate cost for desitn and installation or as otherwise allowed in tile Public Facilities Development Impact Fee Reduction A~reement dated Jul%' 14:1998. We intend to discuss these Conditions, as appropriate, at the Plann~g Commission hearing this evening in order to achieve resolution in a timely fashion. Please do not hesitate to call mo if you have any questions or comments. Sincerely, T&B PLANNING CONSULTAI~TS, IFC. Mark T. Hickner Senior Project Manager Cc: Jim Delhamer / Newland Dean Meyer / Newland Barry Bumell / T&B Sam Alhadeff/Alh:deff& Solar c~xc~'.~ ~/.? ~qq i~I& SIN~I~BSN03 9NINN~'ld E~] I£:9~ ATFACHMENT NO. 10 T&B PLANNING CONSULTANTS CONDITION OF APPROVAL LETTER DATED blOVEMBER 20, 2001 R:~S p A~2001\01~0102 Paloma Del Sol #8~CStaftRpt..2.doc 19 Santa Aha · San Diego YN100-1?2 November 20, 2001 Mr. Matthew C. Harris, Associate Planner CommuniD' Development Department CITY OF TEMF. CUt. A P.O. Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589 RE: PA01-0117 (VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT NL~I~ NO. 24188, AMENDMENT NO, 4 - PALOMA DEL SOL) Dear MaR: On behalf of the project applicant, NEWLA~D ASSOCIA'r~:S, INC., we are requesting that condition no. 29 be deleted from the conditions of approval for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 24188 Amendment No. 4. The condition reads as follows: 29. All Parcels in Planning ,4teas 26 and 28 that abut a portion of Butterfield Stage Road that are designed with a Zand.~cape Development Zone (LDZ) of less than 32feet shall be developed with single story single family dwellings: As depicted on the Vesting Tentative Tract Map, both Planning areas 26 and 28 have LDZs of 32 feet or more. Approval of the Vesting Tentative Tract Map as proposed will ensure that all these planning areas provide a LDZ of at least 32/~:et. Since this condition does not occur in either Planning Area 26 or Planning Area 28, we requast that City staffdelete this condition. Please call me if you have any quastions or comments. Sincerely, T&B PLANNING CONSULTANTS, INC. Mark T. Hickner Senior Project Manager Jim Delhamer / Newland Dean Meyer / Newland Bar~, Bumell / T&B Sara Alhacl¢ff/Alhadeff & Solar ATTACHMENT NO. 11 DARREN STOUD LETTER DATED NOVEMBER 7, 2001 R:~S P A~2001\01-0102 Paloma Del Sol #8~CStaftRpt..2.doc 20 JACKSON DEI~AI~CO & PEC~:~PAUGII 28878 November 7, 2001 Ds~'oud(~jdplaw.com (949) 851-7404 VIA FA CSIMILE AND HAND DELIVERY Planning Commission City of Temecula 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, California 92590 Attn: Matthew Harris, Associatc Plarmcr Re: Planning Commission Agenda Item No. 5 Planning Application No. 01-0109 - General Plan Amendment Planning Application No. 01-0102 - Paloma Del Sol Specific Plan Amendment No. 8 Planning Application No. 01-0117- Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 24188. Amendment No.4 Dear Honorable Planning Comr, issioncrs: We represent James and Mary Corona and the Corona family (collectively the "Coronas"). The Coronas own land at thc northeast comer of the intersection of Butterfield Stage Road and Highway 79. The Coronas' land straddles thc boundary between Riverside County ("County") and the City of Temecula ("City"), and is directly impacted by the on-going development activities associated with the Paloma del Sol project ("Project"). The Coronas request that the following comments be included in the administzative record regarding the above referenced planning applications. Additionally, the Coronas request that the Planning Commission enforce the drainage-related condition of approval and mitigation measures imposed on the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan ("Specific Plan 219") by conditioning its approval of the above-referenced planning applications on the construction of the flood control facilities prior to issuance of building permits. JACKSON DEi~RC:O ~ PECKEI'SrPAUG-H planning Commission November 7, 2001 Page 2 I. INTRODUCTION Prior to the development of Specific Plan 219 and construction of Buttcdield Stage Road improvements, storm water flowed to the north of the Coronas' land, across Butterfield Stage Road, and through the Specific Plan 219 property. As a result, when the County first approved Specific Plan 219, it imposed a condition on the Project requiring the developer to construct a flood control channel either on-site or off-site to intercept those flows. The County likewise imposed mitigation measures on the Project to prohibit increased flood hazards to adjacent or downstream properties and require that all flood-related hazards must be adequately mitigated. (Reference EIK 235, pp. 315-321, incorporated by reference.) Subsequently, the City adopted the County's condition of approval for Specific Plan 219 that the developer construct the flood control facilities either on-site or off-site. The City first adopted the condition in 1991. However, the flood control facilities have never been built. Accordingly, development of Specific Plan 219 by its predecessor and Newiand Communities' ('~lewland") has resulted in filling the natural drainage course that formerly flowed to the north of the Corona Ranch property, across Burterfield Stage Road, through Specific Plan 219, to Temecula Creek. This has resulted in a flood hazard on the Coronas' land where none previously existed. The flood control facilities are necessary to mitigate the b~7~dous condition created on the'Coronas' land by Newland's development of Specific Plan 219 and the Butterfield Stage Road improvements. Yet, Newiand continues to develop the property without complying with the condition and mitigation measures that require it to construct the flood control facilities, further increasing the likelihood of flood-related hazards to the Coronas' property. · Once again, Newland is requesting amendments to the Project's entitlements without having constructed, or even committing to construct, the flood control facilities. On November 2, 2001, the Coronas, for the first time, became aware of the Planning staff's recommendation to approve the above referenced planning applications (e.g., amendments to the City's General Plan, Specific Plan 219, and Vesting Tentative Map No. 24188) for the Project. However, the Coronas respectfully request that the City enforce the drainage-related condition of approval and mitigation measures imposed on Specific Plan 219 by conditioning any approval of the above-referenced applications on construction of the flood control facilities prior to issuance of building permits. In the absence of such a condition, a subsequent environmental impact report ("EIR') will need to be prepared prior to consideration of the above-referenced applications to evaluate the current hydrology of the area and to mitigate the increased flood hazards to the Coronas' land resulting from the Project. Furthermore, without such a condition, the Pl~nnlng Commission must suspend all action on the Project, including the above-referenced plan-lng applications, until after construction of the flood control facility necessary to mitigate Project-related flooding hazards to the public roads and private property adjacent to the development. JACKSON DEIWI~co & PECI~EI~PA-UGH planning Commission November 7, 2001 Page 3 CONSTRUCTION OF THE FLOOD CONTROL FACILITIES ARE REOU1RED BY A CONDITION OF APPROVAL AND MITIGATION MEASURES IMPOSED ON SPECIFIC PLAN 219 As mentioned previously, the conditions of approval for Specific Plan 219 require compliance with the terms set forth in correspondence dated May 26, 1988, by the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District. The May 26, 1988, letter requires the cons~ction ora drainage facility to intercept of/site storm runoffthat approaches the Project from the east. The letter states that the facility should be constructed as a permanent facility- not as a temporary facility pending development of the next upstream property as had been proposed by Project engineers in correspondence dated May 16, 1988. The letter also states that the facility is to be constructed "before development of the downstream area it is meant to protect" Finally, the letter states that the location, design, and design flow rates and sizes proposed by the developer in Figure 57 of Specific Plan 219 should be considered ~'conceptual." A copy of the May 26, 1988, Flood Control letter is attached as Exhibit "A," together with the prior correspondence dated April 6, 1988, and May 16, 1988, leading up to the May 26, 1988, letter. The correspondence in Exhibit "A" indicates that the developer of Specific Plan 219 attempted to limit the location and size of the necessary flood control facilities and to shif/the responsibility for consu'ucting portions of the permanent flood control facilities to the nex~ ups~eam property. However, in its May 26, 1988, response lener, the County rejected that anemp! and instead required that the necessary permanent facility be constructed as part of Specific Plan 219. The City adopted the May 26, 1998, letter as one of the conditions of approval of Specific Plan 219 in 1991. (Reference attached Conditions &Approval for Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment No. l, at Exhibit "B".) Specific Plan 219, as amended bythe terms of the May 26, 1.988, Flood Control letter, was the "Project" analyzed by EIR 235. EIR 235 imposed mitigation measures on Specific Plan 219 prohibiting increased flood baTards to adjacent or downstream properties, requiring that all flood-related haTa¢ds must be adequately mitigated and requiring preparation of an in-depth study of the Temeeula Creek flood plain.. (Reference EII~ 235, pp. 315-321.) More importantly, the condition of approval and mitigation measures requiring the Newland to construct the flood control facilities as part of SpecLfic Plan 219 still apply to the Project. There has been no subsequent action by the City eliminating or changing the condition of approval or mitigation measures imposed on Specific Plan 219. /n fact, to date, each time the City has approved amendments to Specific Plan 219, mos~ recently in 1999, it has conditioned its approval on the pre-existing conditions, and has never released Newland of the responsibility to construct the flood control facilities. (Reference attached Conditions of Approval Nos. 50, 95, 96, 110, 120, 140, and 148 for Vesting Tentative Map No. 24182 (Amendment No. 3 - December 11/07/2001 16:29 FA~. 949 76Z U597 ap&r iKvl~ JACKSON DEIW-A.RCO ~,c PECKEI~P.i. UGH Planning Commission November 7, 2001 Page 4 g, 1992), Conditions of Approval Nos. 5, 20(g) & Ca), 60, and 79 for Plannlug Application No. PA96-0258 ('Vesting Tentative Map No. 24182 Revised - February 8, 1998), and Condition of Approval No. 7 for Planning Application No. PA99-0285 (Specific Plan Amendment No. 7 - November 16, 1999) at Exhibit "C".)) Therefore, the legal responsibility for consmacting the flood control facilities remains with the developers (Newland) of Specific Plan 219. THE DRAI'NAGE-RELA'fED CONDITION OF APPROVAL AND MITIGATION MEASURES IMPOSED ON SPECIFIC PLAN 219 HAVE NOT BEEN SATISFIED By filling and constructing in the natural drainage channel, the Project has created flood hazards to Corona Ranch that did not previously exist. The Project's alteration of the natural drainage also results in flood hazards to Butterfleld Stager Road and Highway 79. (Reference 1996 Hydrology and Hydraulics Report for Paloma del Sol dated November 1996 by Keith International, Inc.; and Flood ConU'ol letter dated September 23, 1996.) The temporary detention basin and drainage facilities in Butterfield Stage Road do not satisfy all drainage and flood control conditions imposed on Specific Plan 219. The drainage-related condition of approval and mitigation measures require the development of permanent facilities as part of Specific Plan 219 to intercept all offsite storm runoff that approaches the Project from the east, and prohibits increased flood haT. ards to adjacent properties. The record is uncontradicted that the facilities in Butterfield Stage Road are inadequate to intercept all of the west-flowing storm waters. (Reference Flood Control letter dated September 23, 1996, and attached Minutes of the November 8, 1989, Assessment District meeting continuing additional drainage onto the Specific Plan 219 Project from the east, at Exh/bit "D".) Also note that the City has accepted Butterfield Stage Road into the City- maintained street system. (Reference City Council Resolution No. 95-30, at Exhibit "E".) The detention basin is only a temporary facility that is only required to remain in place until the permanent flood con~'ol facilities are constructed. It is not a "permanent" facility itself, as required by the conditions of approvai stated in the May 26, 1988, letter. (Reference Exhibit FAILURE TO MITIGATE THE INCREASED FLOOD HAZARDS RESULTING FROM DIVERTING THE NATURAL DRAINAGE COURSE IS A SIGNIFICANT CHANGE REOUIRING PREPARATION OF A SUPPLEMENTAL EIR Planning staffis recommending that an Addendum is an appropriate environmental document for the planning applications explaining that "changes in project impacts as a result of Amendment No. 8 are either unchanged or decreased, and no additional mitigation measures are required. (Reference StaffRepon p. 5; See also Addendum p. 7). In particular for flooding impacts, the Addendum concludes that "the proposed project would not result in any new flood-related impacts the have not already been evaluated and approved for previous Specific Plan Amendments .... "(Reference Addendum p. 11). However, this JACKSON DEM. A~CO & PECKF-~PAUGH Planning Commission November 7, 2001 Page 5 conclusion runs counter to the actual events that have Iranspired since EIR 235 was originally certified by the County on September 6, 1988. In fact, to date, the Newland has failed to come into compliance with the development criteria and conditions placed on the Project. Instead, as proposed here, the City has allowed the Project to proceed on grounds that new approvals would not cause any additional flood ba:,ards to Corona Ranch and other adjoining properties. In essence, the City is illegally permitting the Project m proceed without chroming the mitigation measures adopted for the Project. As mentioned earlier, Project grading has altered the drainage course that previously existed in the pre-Project condition. Since 1988, them have been significant changes in the topography of the area adjacent to the Project, including Butterfleld Stage Road. The City has yet to analyze these significant changes in the circumstances under which the Project is to be carried out and mitigate the significant increased flood hazards. However, the record before the City shows that the Newiand is responsible to mitigate flood hazards resulting from the Project. The California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") (Public Resources Code sections 21000 et seq.) and the CEQA Guidelines (14 Ca/. Code of Regs. sections 15000 et seq.) require preparation ora subsequent EIR for a project when substantial changes occur to the cixcumstances under which a project is to be tmdemaken, or new information shows that project impacts will be subslanfiaIly more severe. (Public Resources Code section 21166; 14 Cal. Code Regs. section 15162). Project grading and improvements to Butterfield Stage Road have effectively blocked drainage through the area, creating significantly increased flood hazards to adjacent properties than was previously identified in EIR 235. Accordingly, it is illegal for the Plarm/ng Commission to approve the current planning applications based on an Addendum to an outdated EIR. Particularly, where the Addendum incorrectly focuses on the impacts associated with the planning applications and falls to take into consideration the significant changes associated with the whole of the Project~ since its original certification. Over 13 years after the Project EIR was approved, no flood control facilities have been constructed m alleviate the flood hazards, contrary to assumptions made in Project design and the prior environmental impact analysis. To date, Newland has failed to come into compliance with the developmem criteria and conditions placed on the Project. Accordingly, if the Planning Commission chooses not to require the consU'uction of the flood control facilities prior to issuance of building permits as a condition of approval for the above referenced planning applications, then a subsequent EIR will need to be prepared first to analyze the increased lA '"Project' means the whole of an action, which has a potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the envixonment .... "14 Cal. Code of Regs. section 15378(a); See also 14 Cal. Code of Regs. section 15378(c) ("'project' does not mean each separate governmental approval"); 14 Cal. Code of Regs. section 15063(a)(1) (the lead agency must consider "[a]ll phases of project planning, implementation, and operation.") 11/07/2001 16:30 FAX 949 752 0597 JACKSON DE1VL, kRCO ~c PECKE/'~:'AUGH Planning Commission November7,2001 Page 6 Project-related flood risks. The reliance on an Addendum as proposed by Planning staffwould violate CEQA ~md t~e CEQA Guidelines. V. CONCLUSION On behalf of the Coronas, I urge ~e Planning Commission to Planning Commission enforce the drainage-related condition of approval aad mitigation measures imposed on Specific Plan 219 by conditioning its approval of the above-referenced pluming applications on the construction of the flood control facilities prior to issuance of building permits. Otherwise, a subsequent EIR is requi~ed to analyze the Project's significant flood hazards and aU action on the Project must be suspended until the flood control facilities are consmacted. Very truly yours, DWS/tms Eaclosures 430903.3 cc.* S:ephen Corona (facsimile w/out encls., ovemite express w/encls.) Peter Thomson, Cit7 Attorney (facsirr~le w/ou! encls., ovemite express w/encls.) EXHIBIT A ~ianntn~ Oopartmen~ COUnty ~dmln~atrQti~e renter ~lver=ide, ¢~llror~l~ non ~oldmon ;Yail H~ado~ . In our April 6, 1~88 letter wc cxprea~¢~ concern oYar deficien- cies in'the ~peclflC ?lan document_ Ihc~e problom~ hove larKely corrected by the applicant throUKh thc ro¥1~ion o£ a por- tion of the t~t that dcal~ with drainage ~lon~ Paub~ Road and throuKh the..re¥1~Ion of Elsure 57. Thc chen~o~ on FiGure 57 lna'lude thc ~tcn~lon o£ two proposed =~or~ drain= ~outherl~ to Traccula Creck~ the addition o£ a l~rBe s~orm drain alon~ Fmuba Road an~ a naul~ proposed facility alon~ Bu~tcr£1mld 5ta~e ~o~d at the eoutheaet corner of the project. Thi~ l~t dF~£ne~e ~'~d'c[~rc he,'been proposed e~ a re~olt o£ our coomente on the earlier Or,ft. It la needed to Intercept a ~=ount o£ erratic ~tor~ runoff tha~ appro~ohe~ tho project £ro~ thc e=~t. Ira rcpre=¢ntation on Figure 51 =hould be considered conceptual vith resard to location =nd destSn and thc rat:a and ~izo~ =hould be re'~rdcd a= Thio £scittt~ ~hould be con=trucked e~ a permanent facility either o~olte or o£l=~ta be£ore development o£ the downatreo~ ~ras i~ l~ meant to protect. 'Am lonB z= the tczt and.ftsure chon~c= and theae commo~t~ arc made n p~rk of thc £1nn% document wc do no~ object to th~ approv- n1..o£ ~h£~ project. Very trul~ yours, K£NNETH L. £D~ARDS.. co: Robert Bain, Willla~ Freer & A=~oclatea JIlK~bjp 3on£or Civil £nsineer "--~ 11/07/2001 16:31 FAX 949 752 0597 ~D&P_ ..IR¥1NE O~'T. 27 '99 (w]~Dl 1~:24 gR~£OES & ~T~A.ST RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT April 6, ~ttvarai~e Oounty Planning ,De.!~.r'~ner. C Ommty A~m/n/a~ra~ive Can:er Rivereide, C~lifcmn/a A=tenti~ ~:~ectfic Plan Sec~i~m and Gentlsman~ ~al Specific Plan No. 219 ~ ~ ~ dev~ 1389 a~es ~ ~ ~li~ ~ 5,654 ~ll~gs, ~ive n~!o ~ ~y acref of ~cial ~e~. ~ st~ ~ ~ ~g~y 79, We will first m~ke ~=m~.nts ~ thru plan than uk the applicant for more ~ha% m/ght lea~ ~o ~ redesign of the ~rainage plan. t..r~ gPecifi¢ plan tsx~ ~ .~age 309 s~a~es that "--- no ~rainage area will be ~i- 'Var+.ed ~",.,.,,, its natural tr~txmary ~rairmge oouraa." Tn/. ~ould not be the case al~g the s~ portion of the project where three major ~/varsions to ths south are p~osed. It al~s tha~ ~hese diversions w~uld be ,~-o~er if flows were carried all the way ~o T~r~ecula A m~jor w~tarcourse paralle!a ~n~ =oases P~ Road in severs! plaoea al~x~g the n~h ~woJec~ ]::~ur~ _a~..,._._ .'i~. a stream was no~ mentioned in th~ aloecific plan should he. The clrainage heain man~.icne~ in the lug para.apb of Page 306 should be re- .. exam/ned. We believe that this 'aras ~ually is naturally ~ri~ to the vicinitM. of +.he ~aed ~utterfiel~ 8+.age l~ma~/De Portola ~ intarae~.i~ an~ should be dea!~ w'Ith. ~"~.ta ia ~aaec~ ~ review of aartal {:ho~::~yral:t'~ ,~+..in~ bac~ 39 years a:~ ~.~ra~-~io ma~ing 49 years. ~ a:~.~ct .~e='~:n./~ Jo~n ~aahu~,- t~lelmhcne 714/787-1257. Very truly Mona, , Attn~ I:.~r'ry Burnell 2} Ro~er~ B~ir~, william Frost r Civil Z. q /illiarn 'F ost c SSOCiatcs PROFESS)ONAL ENG)NEERS, PLANNERS & SURVEYOR~ May 16, 1985 24084 Mr. John H. Kashuba Senior Civil Engineer Riverside County Flood Contro] end Water Conservation District 1995 Market Street Riverside, CA 9250~ Subject: Response to Comments on Specific Plan No. zig, Development Agreement No. 4, Vail Meadows Dear John: We have reviewed your latter dated April 6, lgBB, regarding the Vail Meadows Specific Plan and the associated drainage plan. Based on your comments, we have addressed these specific items in the text and exhibits. The following is a summary of your three major comments and the appropriate response/modification: Comment- "No drainage area will be diverted from its natural ~ry drainage course." This would not be the case along the south portion of the ~roject where three major diversions to the south are proposed. It appears that those diversions would be proper if flows were carried all the way to Temecule Creek. ~- Aa a part of the masterplan of drainage for the Vail these drainage facilities will be extended from the northstde of Highway 79 to the flow-line of the proposed improvements for Temecula Creak. The plans for the proposed improvements to Temecula C~eek are being prepared by Rancho Pacific Engineering. The drainage areas under discussion currently enter Temecula Creek, but slight)y fur:her downstream than the ultimate proposed location. The precise location is rather relative mince the floodplain in the creek is rather wide, In addition, Figure 57 has been modified on Page 310 of the Specific Plan to indicate these modifications. A copy of the proposed modified maeter has been included for your review. (See colored Exhibit C). P.O BOX 19739 · 14725ALTON PARKWAY. IRVINE. CALIFORNrA92718 * (714) 472-3505 · FAX {714} 472-~373 11/07/2001 16:31 F~T 949 752 0597 JD&P IRVI~E 10/27/99 Hr. John H. Kashube Hay 16, 1988 Page 2 JN ~4084 Comment- A major watercourse parallels and crosses Pauba Road in several placee along the north project boundary. This stream was not mentioned in the specific plan and should be. ~esponse- The catchment aras under discussion is the Pauba Ro~d watershed which begins near Butterfteld Stage Road end flows tn · westerly direction towards Margarita Road. The watershed tributary to Psuba Road has been masterplanned previously in our studies for the preparation of construction plans for Paube Road as a part of Assessment District Ho. 159. The plans for the road and the associated drainage facilities are currently being checked by the Riverside Flood Control District staff. The stream course which parallels and even crosses the Psuba Road alignment has been relocated as & large diameter storm drain within the roadway and varies in size from a 84" RCP to a 120" RCP. Exhibit Ho. 57 indicating the masterplanned drainage facilities has been updated to ~eflect the construction of this storm dra~n. A detat~ed hydrology m&p indicating the location of these facilities has a~ao been included for your review. The text of the specific plan wtl) be revised es follows: "The portion of the project which is not tributary to Temecula Creek, drains to the Murrteta Creek watershed. This represents the drainage area adjacent to Pauba Road. along the northerly boundary of the pro, eot. The extsttng watercourse parallels the proposed Pauba Road alignment and a storm drain is masterplannad to be located in Pauba Road. The storm drain ranges from a 8~*" d~ameter to a [~0" diameter concrete pipe and wl]l be constructed as pert of Assessment District No. 57. The proposed local ator~ drain facilities from the Vail Headows area ~hich are trtbut&ry to thls watershed will be ~ntercepted by this ms, or storm drain within Psube Road." Comments- The drainage basin mentioned tn the last paragraph of Page 306 should be reexamined. ~e believe that th~a area actually is natura~]~ tributary to the vlctntt~ of the proposed Butterfield Stage Road/De Portola Road intersection and should be dealt with. ~esponse- Review of the natura~ topography of the area Indicates that the existing channel thalweg does follow an alignment ver~ close to the future intersection of De Portola and Butterf~e~d Stage Road. To prevent floodtng at this locatton from the tributary offstte aria, will reautre the construction of facilities offs~te to intercept this drainage. It Is assumed that the ultimate offstte flood control factllttes will parallel De Portola to the wast and extend northerly into the off$tta watershed. This offsite watershed drains an area of almost Zig0 acres and the extension of these ultimate drainage, facilities will be extended upstream from the current project b~ the next upstream development. However, portfons of the ultimate system wt~ be constructed w~th the Vail Meadows development. 1~/27/59 15:55 90~ 68~ 6~86 Mr. John H. Kashuba May ~6, ~g88 Page 3 Adjacent to Butterfteld Stage Road an earthen trapezoidal channel will be constructed to intercept the offette flows since e majority of the runoff will be in e overflow condition. Since the channel in this area is a wide flood platn, the trapezoidal channel will intercept any overflow prior to flooding Butterfield Stage Road. This channel will extend to Temecula Creek and will require the construction of an ultimate box culvert at the Highway 79 crossing. The culvert required has been preliminarily sized as e double 14' x 8' RCB. The adjacent development to Vail Meadows may elect in the future to construct a concrete channel facility to replace the earthen trapezoidal channel depending on the proposed landuse plan. In addition, at this time, the overflow condition will be improved by the upstream watershed development. The improvements required with the Vail Meadows development are indicated on Exhibit C, attached, and Figure 57 of the Specific Plan will be updated to reflect these changes. An exhibit has been included which delineates this offsite drainage area tributary to this location. We feel these responses adequately address the comments which you had concerning the drainage plan for Vail Meadows. We would appreciate your timely approval of the drainage concept and indicate this with e written response to the Riverside County Planning Department. If possible, ~e would appreciate your response by May 22 because of the pending Planning Commission meeting. Should you have any questions regarding the drainage plan, please feel free to contact me et our office. Thank you again for working together to resolve these issues. Sincerely, ROBERT BEIN, WILLIAM FROST a ASSOCIATES Civil Engineering amg Enclosures 11/07/2001 16:32 FAX 949 752 0597 JD&P IR¥INE , , 1~'2"//99 15:~ 909 6~* 6~86 909 6~4 6966 ~'~ Inlet. Outlet to Storm Drain [~;il Storm Drain Line Vail Meadows Storm Drain Infrastructure !~/S'9 15: 5E, 90~ 68~ 11/07/2001 16:$1 FAX 949 752 0597 JD&P IRVIN~ · 10~?/~B 15:58 9~9 ~ 6~ 909 684 6986 (~016/067 EXHIBIT B CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL ,Go.. SPECIFIC pLAN NO. 219, AMENDMENT NO. 1 Planninq Department 1. Specific Plan No. 219, Amendmeht No. 1 shall consist of the'following: a. Exhibit "A".: Specific Plan Text Exhibit "B": Specific Plan Conditions of Approval Exhibit"C": Specific Plan Dev~lopmentStandards If any of the following conditions of approval differ from the specific plan text or exhibits, the conditions enumerated herein shall take precedence. The development of the property shall be in accordance with the mandatory requirements of all City of Temecula ordinances including Ordinance Nos. 3hB and 1160 and state laws; and shall conform substantially with adopted Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment No. 1 as filed in the office of the Planning Department, unless otherwise amended. No portion of the soecific plan which purports or prolm=ses to chanqe, waive or modify any ordinance or other leqal requirement for the development shall be considered to be part of the adopted sDecif~c plan. The project shall comply with the conditions set forth in the following agency letters and/or the requlrements.,se.t, forth by these agencies at the development stage: g. h. i. Road Department June 2, 1988 Flood Control M=y 7R lqRR Fire Department January 8, 19B8 an~i February 25, 1991 Parks May 25, 1988 County Administrative Offices April S, 1'988 . Water Agency May 23, 1988 Sewer Agency May 2Lt, 1988 Temecula School District January 26, 1988 Department of Health July 20. 1990 Impacts to the Temecula Union School District shall be mitigated at the development application stage in accordance with the District policies In effect at th~ time of tract submittal:' '": u ~ ~.::~.'. .~',:~ tton~'.oi: --~;.~r.~.y~L n~.~y~.b~.u~;,. "· :' ' :: '":'"'~ '~ .: ':'" ': ' ' ....... ~'~ ~'°~' .~'~.:.'~t~?~T-.t~. ~ r.<'~.~'.: ..... .: STAFFRPT\SP219 13 EXHIBIT C C:i*I-Y OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Vesting Tentative Tract Map No: 241 Amendment No. 3, First Extension of Time Project Description: To subdivide 136.2 acres into 443 Single Family Residential, 21 Open Space and 4 Multi-Family Residential lots. Assessor's Parcel No.; 926-130-036 926-130-037 926-130-03B g26-130-039 926-130-040 Approval Date: December 8, 1992 .Expiration Date: December 8, 1994 PLANNING DEPARTMENT The tentative subdivision shall comply with the State of California Subdivision Map Act and to all the requirements of Ordinance 460, unless modified by the conditions listed below. A time extension may be approved in accordance with the State Map Act and City Ordinance, upon written request, if made 30 days prior to the expiration date. ' 2. Any delinquent property taxes shall be paid prior to recordation of t'he final map. 3. Subdivision phasing shall be subject to Planning Department Approval. Prior to recordation of the final map, an Environmental Constraints Sheet (ECS) shall be prepared in ~onjuriction with the final map to delineate identified environmental concerns and shall be permanently flied with the office of the City Engineer. A copy of the ECS shall be transmitted to the Planning Department for review and approval. The approved ECS shall be forwarded with copies of the recorded final map to the Planning Department and the Department of Building and Safety. The following notes shall be placed on the ECS: 'This property is located within thirty (30) miles of Mount Palomar Observatory. All proposed outdoor lighting systems shall comply with the Cali[ornia Institute of Technology, Palomar Observatory Outdoor Lighting Policy.' "EiR No. 235 and an Addendum to this EIR was prepared for this project and is on file at the City of Temecula Planning Department,' Prior to the issuance of GRADING PERMITS. the following conditions shall be satisfie If the proiect is t'o be phased, prior to the approval of grading permits, an overall conceptual grading plan shall be submitted to the Planning Director for approval. The plan shall be used as a guideline for subsequent detailed grading plans for individual phases of development and shall include the following: Techniques which will be utilized to prevent erosion and sedimentation during and after the grading process. · (2) Approximate time frames for grading and identification of areas which may be graded during the higher probability rain months of January through March. (3) Preliminary pad and roadway elevations. (4) Areas of temporary grading outside of a particular phase. The developer shall provide evidence to the Director of Building and Safety that ail adjacent off-site manufactured slopes have recorded slope easements and that slope maintenance responsibilities have been assigned as approved by the Director of Building and Safety. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Ordinance No..663 by paying the appropriate fee set forth in that ordinance. Should Ordinance No. 663 be superseded by the provleions of a Habitat Conservation Plan prior to ti payment of the fee required by Ordinance No. 663, the applicant shall pay the fee required by the Habitat Conservation Plan as implemented by County ordinance or resolution. Prior to the issuance of BUILDING PERMITS the following conditions shall be satisfied: No building permits shall be issued by the City for any reside[~tial lot/unit within the pr. oject boundary until the developer or its successor's-in-interest provides evidence of compliance with public facility financing measures.' A cash sum of one-hundred dollars ($100) per lot/unit shall be deposited with the City as mitigation for public library development. With the submittal of building plans to the Department of Building and Safety a copy of the acoustical study prepared by Wilber Smith Associates dated September 22. 1992 and revised October 3, 1992 shall be submitted to ensure the implementation of the study to reduce ambient'interior noise levels to 45 Ldn and exterior noise levels to 65 Ldn. Roof-mounted mechanical equipment shall not be permitted within the subdivision, however solar equipment or any other energy saving devices shall be permitted with Planning Department approval, The subdivider shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Tamecula, its agents, officer, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Temecula or its agents, officer, or employees to attach, set aside, void, or annul an approval of the City of Temecula, its advisory agencies, appeal boards or legislative body concerning Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 24182, Amendment No. 3, which action is brought within the time period provided for in California Government Code Section 66499.37. The City of Temecula will promptly notify the subdivider of any such claim,'action, or proceeding against the City of Temacula and will cooperate fully in the defense. If the City falls to promptly notify the subdivider of any such claim, action, or proceeding or fails to cooperate fully in the defense, the subdivider shall not, thereafter,'be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the City of Temecula. The Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions {CC&R's) shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department prior to final map recordation of the tract maps. The CC&R's shall include liability insurance and methods of maintaining the open space, recreation areas, parking areas,' private roads, and exterior of aJJ buildings and parkways. (Amended by Planning Commission on November 16, 19q2.}. No lot or dwelling unit in the devel'opment shall be sold unless a corporation, association, property owner's group, or similar entity has been formed with the right to assess all properties individually owned or jointly owned which have any rights or interest in the use of the common areas and common facilities in the development, such assessment power to be sufficient to meet the expenses of such entity, and with authority to control, and the duty to maintain, all of,~aid mutually available features of the development. Such entity shall operate under recorded CC&R's which shall include compulsory membership of al/ owners of lots and/or dwelling units and flexibility of assessments to meet changing costs of maintenance, repairs, and services. Recorded CC&R's shall permit enforcement by the City of Provisions required by the City as Conditions of Approval. The developer shall submit evidence of compliance with this requirement to, and receive approval of, the City prior to making any such sale. This condition shall not apply to land dedicated to the City for public purposes. 10. 'Maintcnancc for all landscapcd and opcn arced', including porkway=, shall bc providcd for in thc CC&R'~. (Amended by.Planning Commission on November 16, 1992}. 11. Every owner of a dwelling unit or lot shall own as an appurtenance to such dwelling unit or lot, either {1) an undivided interest in the common areas and facilities, or (2) as share in the corporation, or voting membership in an association, owning the common areas and facilities. 12. Within forty-eight (48) hours of the approval of this project, the applicant/developer shall deliver to the Planning Department a cashiers check or money order payable to the County Clerk in the amount of ETght Hundred, Seventy-Five Dollars ($875.00J which includes the Eight Hundred, ]=iffy Dollar 15850.00) fee, in compliance with AB 3158, required by Fish and .Game Code Section 711.4(d)(3) plus the Twenty-Five Dollar ($25.00l County administrative fee, to enable the City to file the Notice of 'Determination required under Public Resources Code Section 21152 and 14 Cal. Code of' Regulations 15094. If within such, forty-eight (48) hour period the applicant/developer has net delivered to the Plann!ng Department the check required 11/07/2001 16:37 FAX 949 752 0597 JD&P IRVINg above, the approval for the project granted herein shall be void by reason of failure condition, Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c). 13. A Neighborhood Entry Statement shall be constructed per F~gure 37 of Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment No. 3 for Streets G, H, S and thetwo future entrances to the 20.0 acre Very' High Density Residential parcels. 14. Bicycle trails shall be constructed per Figure S cf Specific Plan Nc. 21 g. Amendment No. 3 along Street A, Class I1 and DePor~ola Road, Class I. 15. A Majqr Project Entry Statement shall be constructed per Figure 35 of Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment No. 3 for Lot 446. 16. Minor Pro}oct Entry Statements shall be constructed par Figures 35 and 36 of Specific Plan No. 21@, Amendment No, 3 for lots 452 and 460. 17, Minor Community Entry Statemems shall be constructed per Figures 32 of Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment No. 3 for lots 458 and 454. 18. A Landscaped Transition Area shall be constructed per Figure 13C of Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment No. 3 for lot 450. This Landscaped Transition Area shall be incorporated into a 25 to 40 foot minimum building setback for the development of structures on lots 465,466, 467 and 468 at the Pict Plan stage, 19. Roadway landscape treatment shall be constructed per Figure'231~ of Specific Plan No. 219, Anlendment No. 3 for Meadows Parkway. 20. Roadway landscape treatment shall be constructed per Figure 25 of Specific Plan 219, Amendment No. $ for State Highway 79. 21. Roadway landscape treatment shall be constructed per Figure 23A of Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment No. 3 for But-terfield Stage Road. 22. Roadway landscape treatmentshall be constructed per Figure 23B of Specific Plan No. 219. Amendment No. 3 for DePortola Road. 23. Roadway landscape treatment shall be constructed per Figure 23B of Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment NO. 3 for Street A. 24, The 'Landscape Development Zone (LDZ) along Major Community Street Scenes including Meadows Parkway, DePortola Road and Butterfield Stage Road and State Highway 79 shall usa Deciduous Accent Grove Trees, Evergreen Back. ground Grove Trees and Informal Street Tree Groupings identified on the plant palette per Section IV.C.l.b.2.a., b. and c. of Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment No. 3, 25. The LDZs along the Project Street Scene, Street A, shall use the plant palette per Section IV.C.I.c.1, of Specific Plan No. 21 @,Amendment No. 3. 26. · The landscaping for lots 458, 446 and 45,4 shall use the Accent Trees on the plant palette in Section IV.C.I.d.1. and 2. of Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment No. 3. 27. The plant palette for Evergreen Background Grove Trees per Section IV.C.1 .d.4.a of Specific Plan No, 219, Amendment No. 3 and the plant palette for Deciduous Accent Grove Trees per Section Iv,C. 1 .b.2,a, shall be used for the landscape buffer zones in lot 450. The Very High Density Residential landscape requirements shall be consistent with Section IV.C.3.c.1 through 14 of Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment No, 3. 29. Community Theme Solid Walls or Community Theme Tubular Steel Open Fence or a combination of the two shall be constructed per Figure 40 of Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment No. 3; the finish and color of these walls shall be consistent with Section IV.C.2.b~2,e. of Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment No. 3. These walls shall be constructed along Butterfield Stage Road, State. Highway 79, Meadows Parkway, Street A and DePortola Road. 30. Project Masonry Walls and Project.View Walls shall be constructed per Figure 41 of Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment No. 3; these wa(is shall be constructed along Streets G, H and S. 31. The Medium High Density Residential landscape requirements shall be consistent with Section IV.(;.3.c.l. through 14. of Specific plan No. 219, Amendment No. 3. 32, The Medium Density Residential landscape rec~uirements shall be consistent with Section IV.C.3.d.I. through 7. of Specific Plan No, 219, Amendment No. 3. 33. The accent trees identified in Section IV.C.I.d.3. of Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment No. 3 shall be used for the landscaping for Streets G, H and S. 34. The plant material palette identified in Section IV.C,l.e. of Specific Pla~ No. 219, Amendment No. 3 may be used in conjunction with all other specified plant palettes. 35. The seed mix for Turf Grass identified in Section IV.C.I.e of Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment No. 3 shall be used throughout the project. Comparable sod may be used instead of the seed mix, 36. Planting :hall commcncc as coon ac :iapc: arc complctod on any portion of thc =ira and shall pray(dc for rapid ~_/hort tcrm covcragc of thc :Iapc as well a: long tcrm cat¢blishmcnt covcr pcr standards sst forth in Ordinancc ~ 87,75, A pcrformancc bond :hall bc sccurcd with thc Planning Dcpa~mcnt prior to i=:~ncc of any grading pcrmits to in:utc thc installation of thi2 landscaping. Thi2 condi:ion applics only if construction of thc ~tc docs not commcncc within nincty lO0) days of grading opcrationa~ (Amended by Planning Commission on November 16, 1992). 37. A performance bond and a one year maintenance bond shall be rec!uired for all landscaping installed except for landscaping within individual lots. The amount of this landscaping shall be subject to the approval of the Planning Department. This bond shall be secured after completion of the landscaping and prior to release of the dwelling units tied to the timing of the landscaped area. (Amended by Planning Commission on November 16, 1992.). 11/07/2001 15:55 F~ 949 752 0597 JD&P IRVINE t~025/067 Erosion control planting shall commence as soon as slopes are completed on an~l portion of the site during and following grading operations. A performance bond be secured with the Planning Department prior to issuance of any grading perm(ts to insure the installation of this landscaping. Cut slopes equal to or greater then five feet in vertical height and fill slopes equal to or greater than three (31 feet in vertical height shall be plsnted with a ground cover to protect the slope from erosion and instability. Slopes exceeding fifteen (15) feet in vertical height shall be planted with shrubs, spaced not more than ten (10) feet on center or trees spaced not to exceed twenty (20) feet on center or a combination of shrubs and trees at equivalent spacings, in addition to the ground cover. Other standards of erosion control shaU be consistent with Ordinance No. 457.57. (Amended by Planning Commission on NovemSer 16. 1992). irrigation for the project site shall be consistent with Section IV.C, 1 .j. of Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment No. 3. 40. Community Theme Walls may b~ substituted for Project Theme Walls atthe developers discretion. 41; Wood fencing shall only .be allowed along the side yards and the rear yards of single family dwelJings: Project Theme Walls shall be used along the side yards facing the street for corner lots. 42. The residential lot street tree requirements and front yard requirements shall be consistent.with Section IV.C.3,a. 1 .,2, and 3. of Specific Plan No. 21 g, Amendment No. 3. 43. All lighting within the project shall be consistent with Section IV.C,5 of Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment No. 3. 44. All future development on this site will require further review and approval by the City of Temecuia. These developments shall be consistent with the Purpose and Intent of the Architecture end Landscape Guidelines set forth in the Design Guidelines. of Specific Plan No. 21 g, Amendment No. 3 (Section IV). 45. All future development within this project shall comply with applicable Zoning Ordinance Standards adopted for Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment No. 3. 46. The amenities and standards identified in Section III.A,7.a. and b. of S~ecific Plan No. 21@, Amendment No. 3 for parks, recreation areas, activity nodes, private active participation opportunities, open space, greenbelt paseos and parkway paseos shall be used for developing these areas or as modified by the Development A..cTreement 92- 0013. 47. Maintenance'and timing for completion of all open space areas shall be as identified in Development Agreement 92-0013 or shall be consistent with Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment No. 3, if the Development Agreement is null and void. 48. 'A Mitigation Monitoring Program shall be submitted and approved by the Planning Department prior to recordation of the F~nal Ma..p. . 49. A conceptual landscape plan shall be submitted to the Planning Department prior to recordation of the Final Map for review and approval. The following needs to be included in these plans: TyPical front yard landscaping for interior, corner and cul-de-sac lots. Typical slope landscaping. C. Private and public park improvements and landscaping. All open 'space area landscaping including, private and public common areas, "private recreatior~al areas, paseos, equestrian trails, monuments and the Landscape Development Zones. All landscape plans shall identify the number and size of all plants, the type of i?rigation to be used. all herdscaping, fences and walls. .The timing for installation of ell landscaping, walls and trails shall be identified prior to approval of these plans. The plant heights at sensitive locations for traffic safety shall be subiect to the approval of the Public Works Department. The timing for submittal and approval of the construction landscape plans shall be identified for all improvements withi~ this condition. A note shell be added to all conceptual landscape plans that all utility service areas and enclosures shall be screened from view with landscaping. This equipment shall be identified on the construction landscape plans and shall be screened as specified on this condition. J. The re~ponsJbility for installation of all landscaping and walls shall be identified. Ko All private open space areas that will not be dedicated to the City as identified in the Developmen~ Agreement shall be developed as an integrated part of the open space lot that they are a part of and shall be consistent with the provisions of the Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment No. 3. Lo Fifty 150) percent of al/trees planted within the project shall be a minimum of twenty four (24} inch box. The landscape plans proposed for each phase shall incorporate the fifty (50) percent mix of twenty four (24) inch box trees into the design. A note shall be pieced on the conceptual landscape plans that all trees shall be double staked and automatic irrigation shall be installed for all landscaping, These provisions shall be incorporated into the construction plans. 50. The development of this project and ail subsequent developments within this project shall be consistent with Specific Plan Np. 219, Amendment No. 3 and Planning Application No. 92-0013 (Development Agreement), or any subsequent .amendments. 51. If the Gnatcatcher is listed as an endangered species, proper studies and miti~ measures shall be necessary prior to issuance of grading permits. These studies and mitigation measures shall be acceptable to Fish and Game and/or Fish and Wildlife. 52. Double-pane window treatment shall be required for second floor elevation windows in any two-story homes constructed on the lots identified in the Acoustical Study prepared by Wi(bar Smith Associates dated September 22, 1992 and its supplement dated October 3, 1992. '53. A Private Active Participation Opportunity Area Shall be constructed for Jots 465,466, 467 and 468. This area may include facilities such as pools, spas, cabanas, meeting rooms, barbecues, wet-bars and kitchen facilities. This area shall be a minimum of 1.05 acres. 54. A Plot Plan shall be filed for the development of lots 465, 466,467 and 468. The individual developments within these lots shall be consistent with this plot plan. '55. All two-story residential structures shall maintain a 40-foot setback from the State Route 79 right-of-way (this condition applies to single family dwellings only). Lots 80, 6t, 239, 240, 275 and 276 (which have side structure exposure) shall be limited to one-story residential dwellings unless the 40-foot setback requirement (identified Jn Condition Nc. 55~ can be met dudng final site design. 57. The following conditions shall apply to lots 465, 466, 467 and 468: Future· multi-family structures located on the site =hc'~]d shall maintain a minimum 4'0-foot setback from the properly'line along'State Route 79 and a minimum 30-foot setback from the property lines a,d]acent to Meadows Parkway and 'A" Street. (Amended by Planning Commission on November 16, 1992). . Any future multi-family structures located within the 65 dBA noise level contour shall be constructed with doublc pancd window,~ to maintain interior noise levels at 45 dBA or less (refer to Wilber Smith Associates Noise Study dated · September 22, 1992'and subsequent Study dated October 3, 1992). (Amended by Planning Commission on November 16, 1992). Any outdoor activity/recreation areas developed as part of the multi-family res(dent(al project shall be located in the center portion of the site Where exterior noise levels would be below 65 dBA {refer to Wilber Smith Associates Noise Study dated September 22. 1992 and subsequent Study dated October 3, i992). OTHER AGENCIES 58. The applicant shall comply with the environmental h'ealth recommendations outlined in the County Hca)th Department's transmittal dated October 6, 1992, a copy of which ~s attached. 59. The applicant shall comply with the flood control recommendations outlined in the Riverside County Flood Control District's letter dated October 2.2, 1992, a copy of which is attached. If the project lies within an adopted flood control drainage area pursuant to Section 10.25 of City of TemecuJa Land Division Ordinance 4-60, appropriate fees for the construction of area drainage facilities shall be collected by the City prior to issuance of Occupancy Permits. 60. The applicant shall comply with the fire improvement recommendations outlined in the County Fire Department's letter dated October 15, 1992, a copy of which is at~ached. The applicant shall comply with. t:he recommender one out ned in the Department of Transporta'tion transmittal dated January 23, 1992. a copy of which is attached, The applicant shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the Rancho Water District transmittal date January 21, 1992, a copy of which is attached. 63. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the Riverside Transit Agency transmittal dated January 21, 1992, a copy of which is attached. 64. The applicant shall comply w th the recommendation outlined in the Temecula Valley Unified School District transmittal dated May 7, 1992, a copy of which is attached. BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT 65. All proposed construction shall comply with the C~lifornia Institute of Technology, Palomar Observatory Outdoor Lighting Policy, COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT · The following items are the City of Temecuia, Community Services Department [TCSD) Conditions of ApDroval for this project and shall be c0mpJeted at no cost to any Government Agency. The conditions shall be complied with as set forth below, or as modified by separate Development Agreement. All questions regarding the true meaning of the Conditions shall be referre'd to the Development Service Division of TCSD. Prior to Recordation of Final MaD(si 86. Proposed community park sites of less than three (3} acres are to be maintained by an established Home Owners Association (HOA), until offered and accepted by the TCSD for maintenance purposes. {Amended by Planning Commission on November lB, 19921. 8?. Community park :itc:. of {3} acrcs or grcatcr shall bc offcrcd for dcdlc, ati0n to thc City of Tcmccub, Communi:y $crvicc2 Dcp~r~mcnt {TC~D) for maintcnnn~ purpo2cs following compli~ncc to cxisting City ;t~ndard~ and complction of an 3pplication g~ccc~ {Amended by Planning Commission on November 16, 1992}. 88. All proposed slopes, open space, and park land intended for dedication to the TCSD for maintenance purposes shall b~ identified oD the final map by numbered lots and indexed to identify said lot numbers as a proposed?CSD maintenance area. ~029/067 70, Exterior slopes les defined as: those slopes contiguous to public streets that have wJd~:h of 66' or wider), shall be offered for dedication to the TCSD for maintenance purposes following compliance to existing City standards and completion of an application process. All other slopes shall be maintained by an established Home Owners Association IHOA). Proposed open space areas shall be maintained by an established Home Owners Association (HOA]. Open space areas of three {3) acres or greater =ho!! may be offered for dedication to the TCSD for maintenance purposes and possible fu~her recreational development, following compliance to existing City standards and completion of an application process. IAmended by Planning Commission on November 16. 1992). 71. 72. Prior to recordation of final map, the applicant or his assignee, shall offer for dedication parkland as identified in the Development Agreement. All necessary documents to convey to the TCSD any required easements for parkway and/or slope maintenance as specified on the tentative map or in these Conditions of Approval shall be submitted by the developer or his assignee prior to the recordation of final map. 73, Landscape conceptual drawings for project areas (project areas may consist of slopes, streetscape, medians, turf areas, recreational trails, parks, and etc. that are to be maintained by the TCSD) identified as TCSD maintenance areas shall be reviewed and approved by TCSD staff prior to recordation of final map. 74. All areas identified for inclusion into the TCSD shall be reviewed by TCSD staff, Failure to submit said areas for staff review prior to recordation of final map ;:'~!~ may preclude their inclusion into the TCSD. (Amended by Planning Commission on November 16, 159,?.l. 75. if thc C~ty Enginccr dc~ormincs that thc projcct': =tract improvamcnt bond is' insufficJcnt to co,,cr thc parkway land.~c, apJng and irrigation improvcmcnts, thc dcvcJopcr;haJ~, prior to rccordo~on of final map, po=t a landscapc pcrformancc.~nd which shall bc rctcascd concurrcn~ly with thc rclcasc of ~bdivision pcrformancc bonds, guor~ntccing ~hc viability of ~{I l~ndscoping in~ollcd prior to thc occcp[oncc of m~intcn~ncc rc~pon~ibility by thc TC~D. [Amended by Planning Commission on November 16, Prior to Issuance of Certificate of Occuoancy(s~ 76. It shall be the developer's, the developer's successors or assignee re.sponsibility to disclose the existence of the TCSD, its zones and zone fees to all prospective purchasers at the same time they are given the parcel's Final Public Report Said disclosure shall be made in e form acceptable to the TCSD, Proof of such disclosure, by means of a signed receipt for same, shall be retained by the developer or his successors/assignee and made available to TCSD staff for their inspection in the same manner as set forth in Section 2795.1 of the Regulations Of The Real Estate 1-~ommissioner. Failure to comply shall precJude acceptance of proposed areas into TCSD. 77. Prior to issuance of any certificates of occupancy, the developer or his assignee shall submit, in a format as directed by TCSD staff, the most current list of Assessor's Parcel Numbers assigned to the final project. General 78. All landscape plans submitted for consideration shall be in conformance with CITY OF TEMECULA L~NDSCAPE DEVI~OPMENT PLAN GUIDELINES SPECIFICATIONS. AND 79, The developer, the developer's successors or assignee, shall be responsible for all landscaping maintenance until such time as maintenance duties are accepted by the TCSD. .~'~? PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT The following are the Department of Public Works Conditions of Approval for this project: and shall be completed at no cost to any Government Agency~ AIl previous conditions of approval shall remain in force except as superseded or amended by the following requirements. All c~uestions regarding the true meaning of the conditions shall be referred to the appropriate staff person of the Department of Pubiic Works. it is understood that the Developer correctly shows on the tentative map or site plan all existing and proposed easements, traveled ways, improvement constraints and drainage courses, and their (Jmission may require the project to be resubmitted for further re~ew and revision. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS ' 80. A Grading Permit for either rough or precise (including all onsite fiat work and improvements) construction shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to commencement of any construct,on outside of the City-maintained road right- of-way. An Encroachment Permit shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to commencement of any construction within an existing or proposed City right-of-way. 82. A copy of the grading and improvement plans, along with supporting hydrologic and hydraulic calculations shall be submitted to the Riverside County Flood C'ontrol District for approval prior to recordation of the final map or the issuance of any permits. All improvement plans, grading plans, landscape and irrigation plans shall be coordinated for consistency with adjacent projects and existing improvements contiguous to the site. [~031/067 84. PRIOR 85. 86. S7. 88, 89. 90. 91. 92. Pursuant to Section 66493 of the Subdivision Map Act, any subdivision which is of an existing Assessment District must comply with the requirements of said section. TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING PERMITS: The final grading plan shall be prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer and shall be reviewed end approved by the Department of Public Works. All Iht drainage shall be directed to the driveway by. side yard drainage swales independent of any other lot, or other devices as otherwise approved by the' Department of Public Works. IAmended by Planning Commission on November 16, 1992). Prior to issuance of a grading permit, developer must comply with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System INPDES) permit from the State Water Resources Control Board, No grading shall be permitted until an NPDES Notice of Intent has been filed or the project is shown to be exempt.. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: San Diego Regional Water Quality; Riverside County Flood Control District; Planning Department; Department of Public Works; CaITrans; General Telephone; Southern California Edison Company; and Southern California Gas Company. A Soils Report shall be prepared by a registered soils engineer and Submitted to the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The report shall address all soils conditions of the site, and provide recommendations for the construction of engineered structures and pavement sections. An erosion control plan shall be prepared by a registered civil eng!neer and submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and approval, Graded but undeveloped land shall be maintained in a weedfree condition and shall be either planted with interim landscaping or provided with other erosion control measures as approved by the Department of Publlc Works. A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The charge shall equal the prevailing Area Drainage Plan fee rate multiplied by the area of new development. The charge is payable to the Flood Control District prior to issuance of permits. If the full Area Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge has been al.ready credited to this properZT, no new charge needs to be paid. 93. 94. The developer shall obtain any necessary lepers of aDproval or easements for any offsite work performed on adiacent properties as directed by the Department of Public Works. ,/ A drainage study shall be submit'~ed to the Department of Public Works for review and approval The drainage study shall include, but not be limited to, the foliowlng criteria: Drainage and flood protection facilities which will protect all structures by diverting site runoff to streets or approved storm drain facilities as directed by the Department of Public Works. Identify and mitigate impacts of grading to any onsite or offsite drainage course, c. The location of existing and .post development floodway shall be shown on the improvement plan. 100-year floodplain and The subdivider shall accept and properly dispose of'al/off-site drainage flowing onto or through the site. In the event the Department of Public Works permits the use of streets for drainage purposes, the provisions of Section XI of Ordinance No, 460 will apply, Should the quantities exceed the street capacity, or use of streets be prohibited for drainage purposes, the subdivider shall provide adequate facilities as approved by the Department of Public Works. The subdivider shall protect downstream properties from damages caused by alteration of the drainage I~at~erns; i.e.. concentration or diversion of flow. Protection shall be provided by constructing adequate drainage facilities, including enlarging existing facilities or by securing a drainage easement. A drainage easement shall be obtained from the affected property owners for the re~ease of concentrated or diverted storm flows onto the adjacent property, A copy of the drainage easement shall be submi~ed to the Department of Public Works for review prior to recordation. The location of the recorded easement shall be delineated on the grading.plan. 98. An Encroachment Permit shall be required from Caltrans for any work within their right- of-way. 99. A permit from Riverside County Flood Control District is required for work within their right-of-way. PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF ENCROACHMENT PERMITS: 100. All necessary grading permit requirements shall have been submi~ed/accomplished to the satisfaction of the Department of Public Works, ~mprovement plans, including but not limited to, streets, parkway trees, street'lights, driveways, drive aisles, parking lot lighting, drainage facilities and paving shall be ~orepared by a Registered Civil Engineer on ,?.4' x 36' mylar sheets and approved by the Department of Public Works. F~nal plans (and profiles on streets) shall show the location of existing u:ility facilities and easements as directed by the De{uarcment ot Public Works. 102. The following criteria shall be observed in the design of the improvement plans to be submitted to the Department of Public Works: A. Fl~wline grades shall be 0.5% minimum over P.C.C. and 1.00% minimum over A,C. paving. B. Driveways shall conform to the applicable City of Temecula standards · 207/207A and 401 Icurb end sidewalk,). C. Street lights shall be installed along the juublic streets adjoining the site in accordance with Ordinance 461 and shall be shown on the improvement plans as directed by the Department of Pub[ic Works. D. Concrete sidewalks shah be constructed along public street frontages in accordance with City standard 400 and 401. E. Improvement plans shall extend 300 feet beyopd the project boundaries or es otherwise approved by the Department of Public Works. F. Minimum centerJine radii shah be in accordance with City standard 11;] or as otherwise approved by the Department of Public Works. G. All reverse curves shall include a 100 foot minimum tangent section or as otherwise approved by the Department of Public Works. H. All street end driveway centerline intersections shah be at 90 degrees or as approved by the Department of Public Works. I. Landscaping shall be limited in tJie corner cut-off area of ali intersections and adjacent to driveways to provide for minimum sight distance and visibility. All concentrated drainage directed towards the:public street.from the multi- family residential site shall be conveyed through:undersidewalk drains. 103. 3'he minimum centerline grade for streets shell be 0.50 percent or as otherwise al~proved by the Department of Public Works. 104. Improvement plans par City Standards for the private streets or drives within the multi- family residential development shah be required for review and approval by the Department of Public Works, 105. All driveways shall conform to the applicable City of Temecula standards and shall be shown on the street improvement plans in accordance with CiW Standard 207 and 208. 106. 'All driveways shall be located a minimum of two (2) feet from the side propert7 line. 107, All utility systems including gas, electric, telephone, Water, sewer, and cabie TV shall be provided for underground, with easements provided as required, and designed and constructed in accordance with City Codes and the utility provider. Telephone, cable TV, and/or security systems shall be pre-wired in the residence. 10~. Alt utilities, except electrical lines rated 33ky or greater, shall be installed underground, i 10g, A construction area traffic control plan shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and approved by the City Engineer for any street closure and detour or other disruption to traffic circulation as required by the Department of Public Works. PRIOR TO REcoRDATION OF FINAL MAP: 110. The developer shall construct or post security an!f enter into an agreement guaranteeing the construction of the following public improvements in conformance with applicable City Standards and subject to approval by the Department of Public Works, Street improvements, which may include, but am not limited to: pavement, curb and gutter, sidewalks, drive approaches, street lights, signing, traffic signals and other traffic control devices as approj~riete. Storm drain facilities C. Landscaping (slopes and parkwaysl, D, Erosion control and slope protection. E. Sewer end domestic water systems. 111. F. All trails, as required by the City's Master Plans. : G. Undergrounding of proposed utility distribution lineS. As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies; Rancho California Water District; Eastern Municipat Water District; Riverside County Flood Control District; City of Temecula Fire Bureau; Planning Department; Department of Public Works; Riverside County Health Department; CATV Franchise; CalTrans; Parks and Recreation Department; General Telephone; Southern California Edison Company; and Southern California Gas Company ~035/06T 112. 113. 114. 115. 116. 117. 120. 121. 122. If phasing of the map for construction is proposed, )egal all-weather access as required by Ordinance 4-60 sheil be provided from the tract map boundary to a paved City maintained road. Pedestrian access with sidewalks shall be provided from the cul-de-sac terminus of streets ."D", 'F', 'M', "N' and 'W' to the ad.iacent~pubJic street. All road easements and/or street dedications shall be offered for dedication to the public and shall continue in force until the City accepts or abandons such offers. All dedications shall be free from all encumbrances as approved by the Department of Public Works.' Streets 'G", "H" and "S" shall be improved with 50 feet of asphalt concrete pavement with a raised 10-foot wide median, or bonds for th~ street improvements may be posted, within the dedicated right-of-way in accordar~ce with modified City Standard No. 104, Section A (70'/50'). All remaining interior local streets shall be improved W/th 40 feet of asphalt concrete pavement,' or bonds for the street improvements may be posted, within the dedicated right-of-way in accordance with City Standard No. 104, Section A (60'/40'). De Portola Road and Street 'A' shall be improvedl with 38 feet of half street improvement plus one 12-foot Jane outside the median, or bonds for the street improvements may be posted, within the dedicated ri~iht-of-way in accordance with City Standard No. 101. (100'/76'). Meadows Parkway and ButterfieJd Stage Road shall be!improved with 43 feet of h,!lf street improvement with a raised median, plus one 12Lfoot lane outside the median turn lane, or bonds for the street improvements, may be posted, within a 110' dedicated right-of-way in accordance with City Standald No. 100, [110'/86'). State Highway 79 shall be improved with concrete curt:J and gutter, asphalt concrete pavement, and any reconstruction or resurfacing of existing paving as determined by CaJtrans Within a 71-foot half,width dedicated right-of-way per Caltrans letter,dated January 23, 1992. In the event that the required improvements for this development are not constructed by Assessment District No. 159 prior to recordation of the final map, the developer shall construct or bond for all recluired improvements ' per applicable City Standards. Ail Assessment District No. 159 improvements immediately adjacent to the development shall be constructed prior to occupancy. The Developer shall enter into a reimbursement agreement with the City of Temecula flor constructiop of all offsJte improvements necessary to serve the development, Cul-de-sacs and knuckles shall be constructed per the appropriate City Standards and as shown on the approved Tentative Map. Left turn Janes shall be provided at all intersections on Street "A" and De Portola Road. 124. 125. .126. 127. 12~3. 129. 130, 131. The developer shall make a good faith effor~ to acquire the required off-site property interests, and if he or she should fail to do so, the developer shall, prior to submi~al of the final map for recorda'~}on, enter, into an agreement to complete the improvements pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act, Section 66462 and Section 66462..5. Such agreement shall provide for payment by the developer of ail costs incurred by the City to acquire the off-site proper~y interests required in connection with the subdivision. Security of a portion of these costs shall be in the form of a cash deposit in the amount given Jn an appraisal report obtained by the developer, at the developer's cost, The appraiser shal/ have been approved by the City prior to commencement of the appraisal. Vehicular'access shall be restricted on State Highway 79, But~erfield Stage Road, De Por~ola Road, Street 'A' and Meadows Parkwayand so noted on the final map with the exception of street intersections and two (2) entry points to Street 'A' for the multi-family residential lots as shown on the approved Tentative Map and as approved by the D~par~ment of Public Works. A signing and striping plan shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and approved by the Department of Public Works for State Highway 79, Butterfield Stage Road, De Porto]a Road, Street 'A' and Meadows Parkway and shall be included in the street improvement plans. Plans for e traffic signal shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and approved by the Department of Public Works for the intersections of Meadows Parkway at Street 'A' and De Portola Road at Street 'A' and sha~l be included in the street improvement plans with the second plan check submittal. Traffic signal interconneCtion s~al! be designed by a registered Civil Engineer to show 1-1/2' rigid conduit with pull rope, and #3 pull boxes on 200 foot centers along the property fronting State Highway 79 and But~erfield Stage Road, This design shall be shown on the street improvement plans and must be approved by the Department of Public Works and Caltrans. Prior to designing any of the above plans, contact Transportation Engineering for the design requirements. Bus bays will be provided at all existing and future bus stops es determined by the Department of Public Works. Corner property line cut off shall be required per Riverside CounTy Standard No. $05. Easements for sidewalks for public uses shall be dedicated to the City where sidewalks meander through private property. 1g}037/067 132. Easements. when required for roadway slopes, landscape easements. facilities, ioint-use driveways, utilities, etc., shall be shown on the finat map if they are located within the land division boundary. All offers of dedication and conveyances shall be submitted for review and recorded as directed by the Department of Public Works. On-site drainage faciJit'ies ~ocated outside of road right-of-way shall be contained within drainage easements and shown on the final map. A note shall be added to the final map stating 'drainage easements shall be kept free of buildings and obstructions. ' 133, Prior to recordation of the final map. an Environmental Constraints Sheet (ECS) shall be prepared in co0iunction with the final map to delineate identified environmental conderns and shall be permanently filed with the office of the City Engineer. A copy of the ECS shal~ be transmitted to the Planning Department for review and approval. 134. The developer shall comply with all constraints which may be shown upon an Environmental Constraint Sheet recorded with any underlying maps related to the subject property. 135. Prior to recordation of the final map, the developer shall deposit with the Department of Public Works e cash sum as established, 'per lot, as.mitJgat}on towards traffic signal impacts. Should the develop~ choose to defer the time of payment of traffic signal mitigation fee, he may enter into a wri~en agreement with the City deferring said payment to the time of issuance of a building permit~ 136. Prior to recording the final map, the subdivider shall notify the CitY's CATV Franchises of the intent to Develop. Conduit shall be installed to CATV Standards at time of street improvements, PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT: 137; A precise grading plan shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and approval. The building pad shall be certified by a registered Civil Engineer for location and elevation, and the Soils Engineer shall issue a Final Soils Repo~ addressing compaction and site conditions. 138. Grading of the subiect property shal] be in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, the approved grading plan, the conditions of the grading permit, City Grading Standards and accepted grading construction practices. The final grading plan shall be in substantial conformance with the approved rough grading plan. All grading shall also be in conformance with the recommendations of the County Geologist. dated May 15, 1989. 139. Dc¥clopcr .~h~II pay ar~/capital fcc for road impro~crrtcnta and public facilitic; impo:cd upon thc propcrty or projcct, including that for traffic and public facility mitigation ac rcquircd undcr thc ElR/Ncgativc Dcclaration for thc projcct. Thc fcc to bo paid -,,hall bc in thc amount in cffcct at tho timc of paymcnt of thc fcc, If an intcrim or final public facility mit/gofion fcc or di=trict ha= not bccn finally c".tobii.~hcd by thc datc on which dcvclopcr rcquc;t; its building pcrmita for thc projcct or arvf phaac thcrcof, thc dcvcloper shaft cxccutc thc Agrccmcnt for payment of Public Facility fcc, a copy of which has bccn providcd to dc¥cJopcr. Conc..urrcntly,' with cxccuting thi.=.Agrccmcnt, dcvc4opcr ch~If pact a bond tc $courc paymcnt of thc Public Facility fcc. Thc amount of ;ho bond ¢hall bc ¢2.90 pcr $Cluarc foot, no; to cxcccd ¢~O,O0O. ~vcJopcr undcra:and2 tha; sa~d Agrccmcnt may rcquirc thc payment of fcc2 in cxCc:2 0f now cctimatcd {afl,ming bcncfit to thc pr~jcct in thc amoun~ of 2uch fccsJ. cxccudon of thic Agrccmcn:. dc~lopcr will waivc any right to protcst thc pro~aions of this Condition. of thJ: Agrccmcnt, thc formation of any traffic impact fcc or thc proccs¢, Icvy, or collcction of any traffic mitigation or traffic impact fcc for this projcct; prov~dcd that dcvcJopcr J2 not,?aJvJng it; right to protcst thc of any traffic impact fcc, and thc amount thcrcof. (Amended by Planning Commission on November 16, PRIOR TO iSSUANCE OF CERTIRCATES OF OCCUPANCY: 140. Ail improvements shall be completed and in place per the approved plans, including but not limited to, curb and gutter, A.C. pavement, sidewalk, drive approaches, drainage facilities, parkway trees and street lights on ali interior public streets. 141. All signing and striping shelf be installed per the approved signing and striping plan. 142. All 'traffic signals shall be installed and operational per the special provisions and the approved traffic signal plan. 143, All traffic signal interconnect(on shall be installed per the approved plan. 144. The subdivider shall provide 'Stop' controls a~ the intersection of local streets with arterial streets as directed by the Department of Public Works. 145. All landscaping shall be installed in the corner cut-off area of all intersection and adjacent to driveways to provide for minimum sight distance as directed by the Department of Public Works. 146. A 32' wide paved secondary access road for phased development shall be constructed within a recorded private road easement as approved by the Department of Public Works per City of Temecula Standard 106 (60'/32'l. 147. Asphaltic emulsion Ifog seal) shall be applied only as directed by the Department of Public Works for pavement joins and transition coatings. Asphalt emulsion shall conform to Section Nos. 37, 39, end 94 of the State Standard Specifications. 14B. In the event that the required improvements for this development are not completed by Assessment District 159 prior to certification for occupancy, the Developer shall construct all required improvements. The Developer shall also provide an updated traffic analysis as directed by the Department of Public Works to determine the construction timing and the Developer's percent of contribution toward any facilities not completed per the schedules of improvement, tables XV and XVI, for the Rancho Villages Assessment. The Developer shall also enter into a reimbursement agreement with the City of TemecuJa for the construction of any necessary improvements not completed by Assessment District 159 as determined by the approved traffic analysis.' The following traffic signals shell be constructed as warranted as part of the reimbursement agreement et the following locations: S. C. D. E, State Highway 7S at the Interstate 15 ramps, State Highway 79 at Pale Road. State Highway 79 at Margarita Road. S~are Highway 79 at Meadows Parkway. State Highway 79 at ~Utterfield Stage Road. Butterfiald Stage Road a! De Porto~a Road, CITY OF TEMECULA COND)TIONS OF APPROVAL Planning Application No. PA96-0258 ~'Vestlng TentelJve Tract Map No. 24182- Revised) Project Description: Assessor's Perc~J No,: Approval Date: Expiration Date: The project con~sta of a revised Vest~ng Tenta1';ve Tract Map No. 2418Z (the subdivision of 1:~4.35 acres within creating 562 single family residential lots and 31 open space Jots)- Paloma de~ Sol Various February 2, 1998 To be determined by the Development .Agreement PLANNING DEPARTMENT Ge~eraJ 'Requirements The tentative subdivision shall comply with the State of California SubdivL~on Map Act and to all the requirements of Ordinance No. 460, unless modified by the conditions Jlsted below. A time extension may be approved in accordance with the State Map Act and City Ordinance, upon written request, if made 30 days prior to the expiration date. The developer/applicant shall indemnify, protect, defend, and. hold harmless, the City and any agency or instrumentalitY thereof, and/or any of its officers, employees and agents from any and all claims, actions, or proceedings against the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers, employees and agents, to attack, set aside, void, annul, or ieee monetary damages resulting from an approval of the Cit~/, or any agency or instrumentaJiW thereof, advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body including actions approved by the voters of the City, concerning Planning Application No. PA96-0258 {Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 24182- Revised) which action is brought within the appropriate statute of llmitatlons period and Public Resources Code. Division 13. Chapter 4 [Section 21000'et see.. including but not by the way of limitations Section 21152 and 21167). City shall promptly notify the developer/applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding brought within this time period, City shall further cooperate fully }n the defense of the action. Should the City fail to either promptly notify or cooperate fully, developer/applicant shall not. thereafter be responsible to indemnify, defend, protect, or hold harmless the City, any agency or ~nstrumentality thereof, or any of its officers, employees, or agents. If subdivision phasing is proposed, the applicant shall submit a phasing plan to the Planning Manager for approval ~041/067 The Tentative subdivision shall comply with att reauirements of Specific Plan No. 219 and its amendments unless superseded i~¥ these conditions of approval The tentative subdivision sha)l comply with al) conditions of approval of the underlying ~esting Tentative Tract Map No. 24182 [approved by the R~verslde County Roard of Supervisors), unless su_.p,.er, seded, modified or deleted by these conditions of approval. Prior to Issuance of Grading Permi~ 6. The appJican't shaU comply with the provisions 'of Chapter 8.24 of the Temecula Municipal Code. Prior To Recordation of the Fine/Map 7. The applicant shall submit the following to the Planning Director for approval: a. A copy of the Final Map · b. A copy of the Rough Grading Plans c, A copy of the Environmental Con,~traint Sheet (ECS) with the following notes: 'This property is located within thirty (30) miles of Mount Palomar Observatory. Al) proposed outdoor lighting systems shall comply with the California Institute of Technology, Paiomar Observatory recommendations, Ordinance NO. 655.' d. The app[ican[ shall ~ubmlt a copy of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrlction~, (CC&R'sl for review and approval by the Planning Department, Public Works Depart'ment and the City ATtorney. Prior to Issuance of BulJding Permits 8. The applicant shall submit a receipt or clearance letter from the Temecula Valley . · School District to The Planning Department to ensure th.e payment or exemption from School Mitigation fees. 9.' The applicant shaft submit the following to the Planning Director for approval: a. Precise grading plans consistent ~vith the approved rough grading plans including all structural setback measurements. b. The Temporary Use Permit applicetio~ for a Model Home Complex (if applicable} which includes the following: i. Site Plan with off-street paridng 2 iii. iv. ¥o Construction Landscape Plans Fencing Plans Building Elevations Floor Plans Materials and Colors ~oard A Development Plan shall be submitted and approved by the Planning Director for the housing product. 10. The applicant shall submit an acoustical analysis to the Planning Department for approval. :The analysis shall be submitted prior to the issuance of a building permit for any resident~al construction adjacent to arterial, major or secondary roadways. The analysis shall contain recommendations to ensure That no,se levels do not exceed B5dBA for exterior and 45dBA for inter/or noise levels. ll. Roof-mounted mechanical equipment shall not be permitted w/thin the subdivision, however solar equipment ~r any other energy saving devices shall be permitted with Planning Director approval PHor to Issuance of Occupancy Permits 12. 13, Front yard and slope landscaping within individual lots shall be completed for inspection. All the Conditions of App'roval shall be complied with to the Satisfaction of the Directors of Planning, Public Works. Community Services and Building and Safety. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT The Department of Public Worlcs recommends the following Condhions of Approva for this proiect. Unless stated otherwise, all conditions shall be completed by the Developer at no cost to any Government Agency. General Requirements 14. 15. 16. It is understood that the Developer correctly shows on the tentative map all existing and proposed easements, traveled ways, improvement conatraints and drainage courses, and their omission may require the project to be resubmit-ted for further review and revision. A Grading Permit for either rough or precise grading shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to commencement of any construction outside of the City-maintained road right-of-way, An Encroachment Permit shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to commencement of anycpnstruction within an existing or proposed City right-of-way, , 3 o~r ~At sl~c J~ 04~/067 17. An Encroachment Permit shall be obtained from the California Department of Transportation prior to commencement of any construction within an existing or proposed State right-of-way. All improvement plans, grading plans, ~andscape and irrigation plans shall be coordinated for consistency with adjacent projects and existing improvements. contiguous to the site and shell be submitted on standard 24" x 36' City of Temecu~a mylars. Prior to Approvb! .of the Final Map, unless other drrdng is Indicated, the Developer shall · complete the folldwing or have pl~s submitted and approved, subdivi~on improvement agreements executed and securitJe~ posted: 19. 20. As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Wo.rics, the Developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: · San Diego Regional Water Ouality Control Board · Rancho California Water District · Eastern Municipal Water District · Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District · City of Temecula Fire Bureau · Planning Department Department of Public Works Riverside County Health Department Cable TV Franchise Caltrans Commonlty ServJces District General Telephone. Southern California Edison Company Southern California Gas Company Fish & Game Army Corps of Engineers The Developer shall construct the following public improvements to City of Temecula General Plan standards unless otherwise noted. Plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works: Improve Campanula Way IMajor Highway Standards ~ 100' R/W) to include dedication of half-wldth street right~cf-way, installation of ha/f-width street improvements, paving, curb and gutl'er, sidewal~, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities {including but not limited to water and sewer), 12' painted median. improve De Portola Road and Meadows Parkway {Major Highway Standards - 100' R/W) to include dedication of half-width street right-of-way, instaJJatlon of half-width street improvements, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not fo 21, lira}ted to water and sewer}, 12' raised landscaped median. Improve 'E'. "X" and *C-C' (Co/lector Road Standards - 70' R/W) to include dedication of full-width street rJght-of-way,.installation of full-width street improvements, paving, curb and gutter; sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but net limited to water and sewer}, 10' raised landscaped median.. Improve "A - O', 'F - W", "Y', 'A-A', 'B-B", 'D-O', 'F-F', 'G-G", "H-H', and · .(Local Road Standards - S0' R/W) to include dedication of full-width street '~right-of-wa¥,.JnstalJation of fuji-width street improvements, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street ~ights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities lincluding but not limited to water and sewer). Plans for a traffic signal at the intei'section of Meadows Parkway/Campanula Way_and De Portola Road/Campanula Way to include signal in~e~connect with the signet at the intersection of Meadows Parkway and Campanula Way, Al/street improvement design shall provide adequate right-of-way and pavemen~ transitions per Cai-Trane standards for transJtior~ to existing street sections. in the event, that Highway 79 Sou~h is not constructed by Assessment District No. 159 prior to the flnal map recordation, the Developer shall construct or bond for the improvements to provide for one-half street improvements, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (incite. ding but not limited to water and sewer), 14' raised landscaped median, plus one 12 foot lane per modified City Standard No. 100A (142' R/W). The improvements shall be constructed prior to occupancy. in the event that Butterfieid Stage Road }s not constructed by Assessment D~strlct No. 159 prior to the'final map recordation, the Developer shall construct or bond for the improvements to provide for one-half street . improvements, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not Iimlted to water and sewer), 14' raised landscaped median, plus one 12 foot lane per modified City Standard NO. 100 ('J The improvefflents shall be constructed prior to occupancy, in the event that De Portola Road, Campanula Way and Meadows Parkway are not constructed by Assessment District No. 159 prior to the final map recordation, the Developer shall construct or bond for the improvements to provide for one-barf street improvements plus one 12 foot lane per modified City Standard Ne. 101 (100/76J, The improvements shall be constructed prior to occupancy. Unless otherwise approved the following minimum criteria shall be obse~'ved in the d~sign of the street improvement plans: , [~045/067 22. 23. '24. Street centerline grades shall be 0.5% minimum over P.C.C. and 1.00% minimum over. A,C. paving, Driveways .~hall conform to the applicable City Standard Nos. 207, 207A and/or 208. Street lights shall be installed along the public streets shall be designed in accordance with Ordinance No. 461. Concrete sidewalks shall be constructed in accordance with City Standard Nos. 400 and 401. Cul-de-sacs and knuckles shall be c~nstructed per the appropriate City Standards ans a shown on the approved tentative map. Design of street improvements shall extend a minimum of 300 feet beyond the project boundaries to ensure adequate conti~uity of design with adjoining properties. · g. Minimum centerline radii shall be in accordance with City Standard No. 113. h. All reverse curves shall include a 100-foot minimum tangent Section. i. All street and driveway centerJine intersections shall be at 90 degrees. Landscaping shall be limited in the corner cut-ot~ area of all intersections and adjacent to drivewa, ys to provide for minimum sight distance and visibility. A~I utility systems including gas, .-'lectric, telephone, water, sewer, and cable Tv shal~ be provided underground. Easements shall be provided as required where adequate right-of-way does not.exist for installation of the facilities. All utilities shall be designed and coqstructed in accordance with City Codes . and the utility provider. A construction area Traffic Control Plan shell be designed by a registered Civil ~=ngineer and reviewed by the Department cf Public Works for any street closure and detour or other disruption to traffic circulation as required hy the Department of Public Works. . Relinquish and waive right of access to and from State Highway 79 South, Meadows Parkway, Campanula Way, De Portola Road and Butterfield Stage Road on the Final · Map with the exception of street intersections as delineated on the approved Tentative Tract Map. Corner property llne Cut off for vehicular sight distance and installation of pedestrian facilities shall be provided at all street·intersections in accordance with Riverside County Standard Nc. 805. All easements and/or right-of-way dedications shall be offered for dedication to the public or other appropriate agency and shall continue in force until the City accepts or abandons such offers. All dedications shall be free from all encumbrances as approved by the Department of Public Works. Pursuant t~ ,~ection 66493 of the Subdivision Map Act, any subdivision which is part of an ex~stlng Assessment District must comply with the requirements of said section, Prior to City Council approval of the final map, the Developer shall maEe an application for reapportionment of any assessments with appropriate regulatory agency. 27. 28. 29. 30, 31. Any delinquent property taxes shall be paid. An Environmental Constraints Sheet {ECS) shall be prepared in conjunction with the final map to delineate identified environmental concerns and shall be recorded with the map. A copy of the ECS shall be transmitted to the Planning Department for review and approval The following information shall be on the ECS: a. The delineation of the area within the lO0~year floodplain. b. Special Study Zones. c. GeotechnicaJ hazards identified in the project's geotechnical report. d. Archeological resources found on the site. The.Developer shall comply with all constraints whlch may be shown upon an Environmental Constraint Sheet recorded with any underlying maps related to the subject property. The Developer shall make a good faith effort to acquire the required off-site property in.terests, and if he or she should fall to do so, the Developer shall, prior to submittal, of the Final Map for recordation, enter into an agreement to complete the improvements pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act, Section 66462 and Section 66462.5. Such agreement shall provide for payment by the Developer of all costs incurred by the City to acquire the off-site property interests required in connection with the subdivision. Security of a portion of these costs shall be in the form of a caah deposit in the amount given in an appraisal repot: obtained by the Developer, at · the Developer's cost. The appraiser ahall have been approved by the City prior to commencement of the appraisal. A copy of the grading and improvement plans, along with supporting hydrologic and hydraulic calculations shall be submitted to the Riverside Count)' Flood Control and Water Conservation D~strict for approval prior to recordation of the final map or the issuance of any permit. A permit from Riverside County Flood Control and Water ~0¢7/0~7 Conservation District is required for work within their FGght-of-Way. All utility systems including gas. electric, telephone, water, sewer, and cable TV shall -be provided for underground. With easements provided as required, and designed and constructed in accordance with City Codes and.the utility provider. Telephone, cable TV. and/or security systems shall be pre-wired in the residence. 33. 34. The Developer shall notify the City's cable TV Franchises of the Intent to Develop. Conduit shall be installed to cable TV Standards at time of street improvements. Bus bays will be provided at all existing and future, bus stops as determined by the Riverside Transit Authority and a~ approved by the Department of Public Works. 35. Pedestrian access with sidewalks shall ~e provided from the cul-de-sac terminus of street "G - G' to the adjacent public street. 36, ~'his development must enter into an agreement with the Cit~/for a 'Trip Reduction Plan" in accordance with Ordinance No. 93-01. 37. Easements for sidewalks for public uses shall be dedicated £o the City where sidewalks meander through private property. 38. Easements, when required for roadway slopes, landscape easements, drainage facilities, utJlitiesl etc., shall be shown on the final map if they are located within the land division boundary. ,All offers of dedication and conveyances shall be submitted for review and recorded as directed by the Depa~ment of Public Works. On-site drainage facilities located outside of road right-of-way ~hall be contained within drainage easements and s.hown on the final map. A note shall be added to the final 39. If phasing of the map for construction is proposed, legal all-weather access as required by Ordinance 460 shall be provided from the tract boundary to a paved City maintained road. 40. An interim detention basin has been constructed on the southern portion of Phase and the Final Phase of Tentative Tract 24182. The existing detention basin or an equivalent facility shall remain in place until such time that ~pstream drainage facilities are constructed to convey offsite storm flows to an adequate outlet, Any revisions to the existing detention basin and appurtenant drainage facilities shall be approved by the City. Prior to Is~ance of Grading Permils As deemed necessary by the Departmer~t of Public Works. the Developer shall receive written clearance from.the following agencies: San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board 8 42. 43. 45. · Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation D~tnct · Planning Department · Department of Public Works · Riverside County Health Department · Caltrans · Community Services District · General Telephone · Southern California Edison Company · Southern California Gas Company A Grading Plan Cheil be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer in accordance with City of Temecula standards and approved by the Department of Public Works prior to commencement of any grading. The plan shall incorporate adequate erosion control measures to protect the site and adjoining properties from damage due to erosion. A Soils Report shall be prepared by a registered Civil or Soils Engineer and submitted to the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The report shall address all soils conditions of the site, and provide recommendations for the construction of engineered structures and preliminary pavement sections. A Geotechnical Report shall be prepared'by a registered engineer or engineering geologist and submitted to the Department of public Works with the initial grading plan check. The repor~ shall address special study zones and identify any geotechnicaJ hazards for the site inclt~ding !ocation of faults and potential for liquefaction. The report shall include recommendations to mitigate the impact of ground shaking and liquefaction. A Drainage Study shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and submitted tO the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. ~The study shall identify storm water runoff quantities expected from the development of this site and upstream of the site. It shall identify all existing or proposed off-site or on-site. public or private, drainage facilities intended to discharge this runoff. Runoff shall be conveyed to an adequate outfall capable of receiving the storm water runoff without damage to public or private property..The study shall include a capacity analysis verifying the adequacy of all facilities. Any upgrading or upsizJng of drainage facilities necessary to convey the storm water runoff shall be provided as part of development of this preje~. The basis for-analysis and design shall be a storm with a recurrence interval of one hundred years. 46. The Developer must comply with the requirements 0f the National Pollutant D~scharge Elimination System INPDES] permit from the State Water Resources Control 8oard. No grading shall be permitted until an NPDES Notice of Intent (NOI) has been filed or the project is shown to be exempt, 47. The Developer shall post security and enter into an agreement guaranteeing the grading and erosion centre! improvements in conformance with applicable City Standards end subject to approval by the Department of Public Works. 11/07/2001 16:47 FA.X 949 752 0597 48. All Ice drainage shall be directed to the driveway by side yard drainage swales independent of any other lot. Prior to Issuance of Building Permits 49. Final Map shall be approved and recorded, 50. A Precise Grading Plan shall be submitted to ~hs Department of Public Works for review arid approval, The building pad shell be certified by a registered Civil Engineer for Iocatior~ and elevation, and the Soils Engineer shall issue a Final So[la Report ' addressing compaction and site conditions. 51, Grading of the subject, property shall be in .accordance with the Uniform Building Code, the approved grading plan, the conditions of the grading permit, City Grading Standards and accepted grading construction practices. The final grading plan shall be in.substantial conformance with the approved rough grading plan. 52. The Developer shall pay to the City the Public FaclJities Development Impact Fee as required by, and in accordance with. Chapter 15.05 of the TemecuJa Municipal Coda and all Resolutions implementing Chapter 15.06. PHor to Issuance of Certificates of Occupancy 53. Aa deemed necessary by'the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: Rancho California Water District · Eastern Municipal ~/ater ·District Department of Public Works 54. All necessary certifications and clearances from engineers, utility companies and public agencies shall be submitted as.requlred by the Department of Public Works. 55. All improvements shall be constructed and completed per the approved plaris and City standards to the satisfaction1 of the Director of Public Works. 56. The existing impr0vernent's shall be 'reviewed. Any ,~ppurtenance damaged or broken due to the construction operations of this oroject shall be repaired or removed and replaced to t/~e eotisfaction of the Director of Public Works. · BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT 57. Comply with applicable prow'sions of the 1994 edition of the California Building, Plumbing and Mechanical Codas; 1993 National Electrical Code; California Administrative Code, Title 24 Energy and Disabled Access Regulati.ons and the · Temecula Municipal Code. · l0 Obtain stree! addressing for all proposed bu[Idlngs prior to submitl:al for plan review. 60. 61. Provide electrical plan including load calcs and panel schedule, plumbing schematic and mechanical plan for plan review. Prior to building permit issuance, approval must be obtained from ihs Water District, Sanitation District, Public Works Depsr~ment, F~re Department, Planning Department and Building Department. Based on submitted documents, the occupancy classification cf the proposed use shall be R-3, U-1. ~ Truss calculations that are stamped by the engineer of record, the truss manufacturers engineer, are required for plan review submittal. TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT Community Services has reviewed the revised tentative map application and has the foilowlng conditions of approval: General Requirements: 63. The City's perk dedication requirement IOulmby) shali be satisfied with the development and dedication of · §.0 acre neighburhood park in future Tract No. 24188. as identified within the Paloma Del Sol Development Agreement, Addendum No. 1, and Planning Area 29A in SpEcific Plan No. 219, Amendment No. 6. 64. All other private park facilities, perime{er slopes and parkway landscaping, paseos, and open space areas shell be maintained by an established homeowners' association. 65, The developer shaJ/complete the TCSD application process and pay the appropriate fees prior to the acceptance of street lighting and landscaped medians into the respective TCSD maintenance programs. 66. It shall be the developer's responsibility to provide writ-ten dlsc[osure of the existence of the TCSD and its service level rates and charges to aJJ prospective purchasers. FIRE DEPARTMENT The F~re Prevention Bureau requires the following fire protection measures to be provided in accordan'ce w~th the Uniform Fire Code and the City of Temecula Ordinances. 57. Final fire and life safety conditions Will be addressed when building plans are reviewed by the Fire Prevention Bureau. These conditions wll) be based on occupanoy, use, Uniform Building Code (UBC). Uniform Fire Code (UFC), end related codes which are in force at the time of building plan submittal. 68. The Fire Prevention Bureau is recluired to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or construction of all residential buildings per UFC Appendix Ill. A, Table A-III-A.1. The minimum fire flow for one and two family dwellings less than 3,600 square feet shall be 1000 GPM for a 2 hour duration at 20 PSI residual operating.pressure. DweIllngs in excess of 3,600 sc~uare feet shall not be less than that specified in Table A-Iii-A-1 of the UFC. (UFC 903.2., UFC Appendix Iii-A) 89. Prior to construction, approved standard fire'hydrants ia" x 4" x 2 ½' outlets)'shaJl be located at each street intersection and be spaced nbt more than 500 feet apart. with no portion of any Jot frontage further than 250 feet from a fire hydrant, fUFC 903.2, 903.4.2 and Appendix ill-B) 70. 74. 75. 71. 72. 73. ~ The water mains shall be capable of providing a potential fire flow of 1,000 GPM for a 2 hour duration at 20 PSI residual operating pressure, which must be available orior to any combustible building material .being placed on an 10dJvidual lot. If construction is phased, each phase shall provide approved access and fire' protection prior to any building construction. {UFC 8704.2 & 902.2.2-) Prior to construction, dead end road ways ~nd streets which have not been completed shall have a turnaround capable of accommodating fire apparatus. ~'UFC 902.2.2.4) Prior to issuance of building permits, the developer shall furnish one copy of the water system plans to the. Fire Prevention Bureau for review. Plans shall be; signed by a registered civil engineer; contain a Fire Prevention Bureau approval signature block; and conform to hydrant type, location, spacing and minimum fire flow standards. After the plans are signed by the local water company, the originals shall be presented to the Fire Prevention Bureab for signatures. The required water system including fire hydrants shall be installed and accepted by the appropriate water age'ncy prior to any combustible buiJd}ng materials being placed on an individual lot. {UFC 8704.3,901.2.2.2 and National Fire Protection Association 24 sec. 1-4.1) Prior to issuance of a Certificate of, Occupancy or building final, 'Blue Reflective Markers" shall be installed to identify fire hydrant locations in accordance w~th City specifications. (UFC 901.4.3) Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, all residential dwellings shall display street numbers in a prominent Iooation on the street side of the residence in such a position that the numbers are easily visible to approaching emergency vehicles. The numbers shall be located consistently on each dwelling throughout the development. The numerals shall be no less than four (4) inches in height and shall be contrasting in color to the background. {UFC 901.4.4 and Ord 15) OTHER AGENCIES 76'. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the Rancho California Water District's transmittal dated July 9, 1997. a copy of which is attached. 77. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the Riverside Transit Agency transmittal dated July 17, 1997, a copy of which is attached. 75. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the California Department of Transportation (CALTRANS) transmittal dated July 17, 1997, a copy of which is attached. The appllcant shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District's transmittal dated July 22, 1997, a coloy o( which is attached. 80. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the Riverside County Department of Environmental Health transmittal dated July 24, 1997, a cop)/ of which is attached. have read, understand and accept the above Conditions of Approval. Applicant Name Ci .ty of Temecula 43200 Business Park Drive ?0 Box 9033 - Temecula - California - 92589-9033 (909) 694~6400 - FAX (909) 694~477 December 2, 1999 Ms. Michelle A. Staples Law O~fiees of Susan M. Trager 2100 S. E. Main Street, Suite 104 Irvine, CA 92614 SUBJECT: Dear Ms. Staples: City Council Denial of the Appeal by the Corona Ranch of Planning Application No. PA_99-0284 (Development Plan) and Planning Application No. PA99-0286 (Tentative Parcel Map No. 2943 I) On November 9, 1999 the City of Temecula City Council denied the appeal ofthe above- referenced applications and upheld the Planning Commission approval of Planning Application No. PA99-0284 (DevelOPment Plan) and Planning Application No. PA99-0286 (Tentative Pared Map No. 29431). However, ~n their consideration of the appeal, the CaW Council also approved Planning Application No. PA99-0285 (Amendment bio. 7 to Specific Plan 1%. 219 - Paloma del Sol) with an addition to fie Conditions of Approval that addressed the Corona's concern regarding drainage facilities. A copy of the final Conditions of Approval are included herein for your reference. If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact me at (909) 694-6400. Sincerely, Carole K. Donahoe, AICP Associate Planner A~achment: Cc: Final Conditions of Approval for Planning Application No. PA99-0285 (Amendment No. 7 to Specific Plan No. 219 - Paloma del Sol) Del Sol Inve~ment Co., LLC Newland Communities Attn: Allan L. Davis 5051 Avenida Encinas Carlsbad, CA 92008 Ron Parks, Department of Public Works Jerry Alegria, Department of Public Works Annie Bostre-Le, Department'ofPublic Works Anthony Elmo, Building Department Herman Parker, Temecula Community Services District Attn: Dean Meyer 27393 Ynez Road Temecula, CA 92591-4608 F:~,DI~G~PI~,ni~g Fit~12S4pa99 deaial of ~lgfl Ilr.g EXHIBIT A CITY OF TEMECULA CONDJTIONS OF APPROVAL Revised by the City Council, November 16, 1999 Planning Application No. PA99-02B5 - specific Plan Amendment No. 7 Project Description.: :i:-~ ~r~en~ ~Pecific Plan No. 2'~9 (Paio~ma d;i set) as foJJ~)v~: land uses within Planning Areas ~,6 and 8; the realignment and reconfiguration of Campanula Way behveen De Portola Road and Meadows Parkway;, the reallocation of acreage within Planning Area 1 from 32.3 acres to 35.0 acres; the reallocation of acreage within Planning Area 6 from 36.3 to 34.3 acres; the division of Planning Area 6 into Planning Area 6A (22.3 acres, high density residential, 9-12 dwelling units per acre, with a maximum of 268 dwelling units) and Planning Area 6B (12 acres, ve~/high density residential, 13- 20 du/ac, with a max/mum of 2.40 dwelling units), resulting in an overall reduction of units from 590 to 508 dwellings; the provision to develop an active, private, gated senior community within Planning Area 8 that includes a private recreation area; and an update of Specific Plan Design Guidelines that incorporate the village vignettes and the senior amenities. Approval Date: November 16, 1999 PLANNING DIVISION General Requirements The applicant and owner of the real property subject to this condition shall hereby agree to indemnify, protect, hold harmless, and defend with Legal Counsel of the City's own selection, the City shall be deemed for purposes of this condition, to include any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its elected or appointed officials, officers, employees, consultants, contractors, legal counsel, and agents from any and all claims, actions, awards, judgements, or proceedings against the City to attack, set aside, void, annul, seek monetary damages resulting, directly or indirectly, from any action in furtherance of and the approval of the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body including actions approved by the voters of the City, concerning the Planning Application. City shall promptly notify the both the applicant and landowner of any claim, action, or proceeding to which this condition is applicable and shall further cooperate fully in the defense of the action. The City reserves its right to take any and all action the City deems to be in the best interest of the City and its citizens in ~'egards to such defense. The applicant shall comply with all underlying Conditions of Appreval for Specific Plan No. 21.9 and its amendments unless superceded by these Conditions of Approval. The text of Amendment No. 7 to Specific Plan No. 219 shall conform with Exhibit No. lB, 'Paloma del Sol Specific Plan, Amendment No. 7~ dated October 11, 1999, or as amended by these conditions. The text of Amendment No. 7 to Specific Plan No. 219 Zoning Standards shalt conform with Exhibit No. 2A, "Paloma del Sol Specific Plan Zone Ordinance, Amendment No. 7' dated October 11, 1999, or as amended by these conditions. Within Thirty (30) Days From the Second Reading of the Ordinance Approving the' Amendment 5. The a~.E~_c_ant shall submit the amended .Sp_e_.ctfi.~:__PJan_lext..t0_ti3e_ Co~_munity .......... Development Department- Planning Division in accordance with Conditions of Approval and with requirements by the City Council. 6. The applicant shall correct or modify the following: Page IVo85 b.2) al: The last sentence shall read: 'A.minimum of 10% of the net acreage at the Home Depot site shall be landscaped.' Remove all references to the Major and Minor Commercial Entry and Shopping Center Identification signs, which shall be included in the Villages Design Manual, submitted for review and approval by the Planning Manager pdor to the issuance of permits. Prior to issuance of I~uilding permits for Parcel Map No. 29431, Parcels $ and 7 (Planning Areas 6A and The Butterfield Stage Interceptor ultimate improvements shall be built, ortho City Council, following a public healing, determines that significant improvements have occurred in the negotiaEons for a reasonable compromise, at which time the Council has abthodty to issue building permits for Parcel Map No. 29431, Pa[cel~ 6 and 7 (Planning Areas 6A and 6B), consisting of 508 mulE-fatuity units. The City shall process the request for a public hea~ng , if needed, as a "no fee"application. (Amended by the City Council, November 9, 1999 and modified by the City Council November 16, 1999). By placing my signature below, I confirm that I have read, understand end accept all the above Conditions of Approval. I further understand that the property shall be maintained in conformance with these conditions of approval and that any changes I may wish 10 make to the project shall be 'subject to Community Development Department approval. Applicant Signature EXHIBIT D RrVERSIDE COU'NT'Y FLOOD CONTROl., AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT $eDt. emOer 13, 1 I I I ~r. Joseph Kicak Director of Public Works/ City Engineer City of Temecula 43174 Business PArk Drive Temeculs, CA 92590 Re: Paseo del SO.] - Mass or Rough GraCing ! I i The ;lood Control 0istrict has been Aske0 to authorize the. mass/rough grading of a11 the'tracts within the Oevelooment'known a~ Passe del Sol, within the City of Temecula; soecifically Tracts 24182, 2~183, 2418&. 24185, 24'186 and A portion of 24188, A% this time, our District. is wrestllng with the atsposition'of' aooroximAtely 3000 cfs, tributary to the northeasterly corner of the'intersection of S~ate Highway '79 and Butterfield Stage Roa~. ThCS is the result of an omission from :he infrastructure constructed with Asses~ent District 159. This f~ow was planned to be intercepted upstream from Butterfield Stage Road and routed :o Temecula Creek, across Highway 79, in an open. concrete limed charms] facility. As the City t$ likely awe.,-e, Doth State Highway 79 and Butterfield Stage Road are destined to be (or are slreaQy) elevate~ wish rester: tO the adjacent ground. If our un0erstanding of this elevation differential is correct, this is going to result in 2 :o 4 feet of pon0ing in the area nor:heas%erly from the intersection, with excess flows topping both roadways and traveling westerly An.~ southwesterly toward Temecula Creek. Consideration must be given to :he conditioning of Tract 24182, ate whether these County conditions.woul'd require that.tract to solve the problem, proviOe~ the necessary fscilit~ hAO not been - constructed by Assessment District 159. The enginee~ on ~ pro~ec: is currently ~orking on alternatives to be coneiaered in o~r search for resolution of :this DrcDlem, an~ n~s indicated we may have s=nething to ~ork with auring the week of Seo cemoer 23, 1~96. Providing the aD~licant is willing to confine ail 9raOing activity to the area nor:hwesterIy from a minimum 300-foo% w~oe etr3o, adjacent State Highway 79. or from the FEMA maooed flood.~lain (th~s must De the City's Cell), this DlStr~ct Iqas no aa.laotian :o the C~:¥ &1lowing gra~ng, Jn accoraance ~iCh m~s/rougn grading o~¢~ suOmitted for ~he ba~a~ce o~ T~act 24~q? ~nC all ~f TracL~ i I I I I I' 11/07/2001 .1.6:50 FA.~ 949 752 0597 3.4: 45 JD&? IRVINE t~Q58/057 ! 1 SeD'Cem~er 23, 1~96 =ha= =he ~eveloDer consider ~ess than tull improvement of allow flood flows to continue in a southwesterly direction: adjacenL Highway 79. Provided 1~e City chooses a~ aOOroximate 300- foot wide s~r{D ca.er t~n the entire FEMA mapped flood Dlain, we would have no objection tO the 'gra~e~b)e' ~ortion of Tract 24182 being used as stockpile area for the .fill material necessary to AO~itiona~y, tf the 'strip' is chosen ~y the City, .e hand, Orio~ ~ grading. The City mus= note t~at our review comfortable :ha: :hose changes we wou~a consider eseentia3 ere a nature %ha: could be accomplished during the approxim~:e 4-mon:h long grading operation. zf there ere any questions regarding this mat:er', please contact ei:her Dale Anderson at ~O9/~75-1268 or me a: 90~/275-1265. Very truly yours,. HOWARD L. DICKERSON Senior Civil Engineer c: Kei:h Zn=ernetional, Inc. At=n: Mr, David Shen Newlan~ Associates A:tn: Hr. James Delhamer HLO:slj Minutes of AD 159 Meeting dated November B, 1989 (excerptS) - RVAD ../P Nt~. Nove~.'d ~-r 8, 1989 page t'.kree Acen,::~_Icem III -. Right Of Way Status Pat :[ .effler, Ransac 'Public Works Ho df.':us$ion. P!aaf.. zee at~ached Right of Way Status update. item Iv - Statue of Plans ~nd Construction s:._.~s & Dave Hu~s. Ranpac Public Works Tka S.,' 2r Force Main is the crit'i~al path item for'RVAD. 'Pat Schef.[2r reported tha.t he, hae verbal agreements with owners for "" zat,,er force main easements A du., sewer is complete and paving now. '.:a Bridge piles'to be placed in one week. :eld Stage Road~- 600 acres east of Butterfiald Stage .u were thought, to drain in a southerly direction but t~ actually onto Bedford's property. The CFS flow : area needs to be upgraded because Flood Control did ..~ direction of'flow earlier on. An open channel will :~ed foF that area which will be more economically .; :,or the As~essmen~ Dis~rict. ca was raised regarding =he ~ week time per/od · between the times the b/ds ara received to the start :~s=ion (refer to ~Project Status" attachment), Ivan ~?:plained the process as follows: ?ne bide are opened. unit prices are checked. fpread sheet prepared showing lowest bidder. Form 11 (by 'Ivan Tennant) sent to the Board of Supervisors awarding contract to lowest bidder. [Developer funds have to be received by the County kefore For~ t~ can be sent to the Board for award of contract.){ hand & insurahce requirements must be recmived from cgntractor. Iw:n ,· :,. that it is not poesible to shorten, this time Plo=~,.. ~ .:tached "Project Status" for details. Exhibit C EXHIBIT E RESOLIFrlON NO, 95-30 A I~-~OLIFrION OF TH~ Cll'g COUNCIl. OF 'l:n~ CITY OF 'I'~IECULA, C~I.IFORNIA, ACCEPTING CERTAIN b"YST~I (Bu'rl~'~:~.I~ STAGE ROAD ~OM DE ~R~ RO~ ~ m~wAY ~ (~ ~ DE ~RTO~ RO~ ~OM BD'ri~'~ ~:f D STAGE RO~ ~ Cl-lY' COUNr~7. OF ~ crl¥ OF 'i~vlF_.CLrLA DOF_.S RESOLVE, DEI~iMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: ........ . WH~:~AS, The Riverside County Board of Supervisoa by Rmsolution No. 89-2~1 on Sune 13, 1989, accepted ~ offers of dedi _c~i'o~s for public roads as recorded _Dece__mber 5, 1975, as Iastrnment No. 151727 for pord~qns .~_/,~e Porwla Roag and Butterfield $1agc Road. Said portions ar~ shown on Parcel Map I~19~ 64~, r~:orded in Book 20, Pages 70 through 73 of Pan:al Maps. Acceptance of offers was fq~, .v.~ling purposes only ~nd not into thc County Mais~ined System. . :..., ~.... WH~,:~_.AS~ Bedford Devmlopmmn! Company, a California Corporation, dedicam:l Lot 'Q' (Buttorfield $1~¢ Road) in P'a_,'cr2 Map No. 2~432, filed in Book 159, at Pag~ 35-61 Inclusive of Parcel Maps, to publ~ u~ for street and public uglily purposes. The County Road Said Lot "Q" was acc~ by the Riverside..C_okmty $~rveyor and Road Commissioner on belmlf of th~ Board of Supundsors for v~tin~ l~Url~ ..s~. only and not into the County Maintained-Ro~l System. wI~'a:~,AS, The Toman Company,:~:~f.0rnia Corporation, offered for dedication Lot 'D', (De Ponol~ Road), in Tract No, 23.1~.,...ill..ed in Book 246, at Page. 81-8//Inclusive, of Maps, for public us~ for sm:a and publi~_.'.u~i~.purpos~s. Thm City Council accept~l said offer for public road und p,blic utility Wwat~S, Kau/man ~nd ~rc~:.~i S~n Dido, Inc., a C_~fornia Corporation, offered for dedication Lot "A", (D~ Portoh Road),iin:~ract No. 23125-3, filed in Book 252, at Pag~ 39-47 Inclusiw, for public usm for strict apd,public utility pm'pos~. Thc Cit Council accepted said offer for public mad and public utility pi~po.se~. WHEREAS, The City of Temecfili .~liecame successors-in-int~re.~t to the County of Riverszd¢ upon Incorporalion, effective December 1,191/9; 11/07/2001 16:51 FAX 949 752 0597 JD&P IR¥INE wI:n~REAS, T~¢ A/se.ssmmt Di~tfiCt~ No. 159 contractor has completed fl~¢ public improvements in zccardance with the plans, spedficafions, and standards, and the Rancho California Water DisEct has hsued the Notice of Acceptance for this pb~,,- of work;, W~ e~.AS, the Rivex~de County ~tion Department has requested that the City of Tcmecula accept the compleu.~d work for maintenance purpose~; WHt,:~EAS, the City concurs in ~he ~.~t~nry completion of the work and recommends the acceptance of the,se streets/nm thc City Maimained-Street System: NOW, ~RE, BE IT I~I~.c, OLVED by the City Council of ~he City of Tcmecula as follows: Section 1. That the City of Temec.ula: accept into the City Maiatained-Street System thos~ streets offered and accepted by the C.9_.u.:n: ty of R/ver~id¢, and offered and acceptt:d by the City Council, de, bed in Exhibits "A' an.d..,B~ attached hereto. Section 2. The City Clerk shall. ~..the adoption of this resolution and ar. cept gae streets and portions thereof, offered to .a0..d.:..a~. ted by the County of Riverside for v~ting purposes only, and the City Council, into ~he City-maintained s~:eet sysmm as de,,so:ibed in F_xhibits 'A' and 'B' attached hereto... ~.,~2~..~:,. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOI'I~;u, by thc City Council of the City of Tcmecula at a regular meeting hr, ld on thc 28th da), of March, 199~. STATE OF C_~r.r~ORNIA) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) ClTY OF~) I, June S. Gr~...k, City Ckr. k of the City of Temecula, Califorrda, do h~rd~y ca'ti6' l~-,~lufio~ No. 95-30 ~ duly and regu~ly ~ted by ~¢ Ot~ Coundl of ~e C./~y of Temecuh at a regular me~t/ng fl~e~-eof held on the 28th day ofM~rch, 1~95, by ~e follow/rig vote: AYES: 4 COU'N~: L/ndcmans, P=ks, Robert, Ston~ NOES: 0 COUNC~EP~:: None ABSENT: 0 COUN_Crr M~_.MBERS: None ABSTAIN: ! COUNC]LM~IBER$: Mufioz k_J.__~ I~n¢ $. Gr~TCMC, CJt~ Cl~k '11/07/2001 16:52 FAI 949 752 0597 JD&P IR¥INE ~1~064/o~7 EXHIBIT "A' TO RESOLUTION NO. 95-30 Accepting those parcels dedicated to tho public for public roads and/or streets and public utility purposes accepted for vesting purposes but not for road-maintsined purposes by the County of Riverside, and those parcels dedicated to public use for street end public utility purposes and accepted by the City Council, ell as indicated on Exhibit 'B", into the City Maintained-Street System as described below: A. Those por~ions of Po~tola~Road and Butterfield Stage Road lying within the City LimEs of the .City of Temecula, as described in Instrument No. 15172~.7,,:r~e.corded December 5, 1975, and shown on Parcel Map NO; },4.28, recorded in Book 20, Pages 70 through 73, of Parcel M@p..~_~aDd as accepted for vesting purposes only by Riverside Count~...R. esolution No. 89-251, ail recorded in the office of the County Re,corder, Riverside County, California. B. Lot 'Q' in Parcel Map .No;:23432, filed in Book 159, at Pages 38-61 Inclusive, of Parcel..Maps, said Lot 'Q' being accepted by the County of Riverside .fq.r,¥esting purposes only. .'iL;e?. C. Being Lot "D' in Tract No. 23125-1, filed in Book 246, at Pages 81-85 Incluslve, o_f:..~laps, in the office of the County Recorder, Riverside County, .California. D. Being Lot A' in T[ac,t...NO. 23125-3, filed in Book 252, at Pages 39-47 Inclusive', .'.o.}i~'Maps, in the office of the County Recorder, Riverside Cou~;..California. EXHIBIT 'B' TO RESOLUTION NO. 95-_.~ SUBJECT ACCEPTANCE- PUBLIC STREETS INTO THE CITY-MAINTAINED STREET SYSTEM AS INDICATED BELOW: i-~ smT.g...#/$uw,4¥ 7~ 11/07/2001 16:52 FAX 949 752 0597 JD&P iRV1NE When Reco~l Return P,~Ir. Ao CaI~rotmia Water Post ~ B~ ~17 Tcm~cula, ~ g~8~17 NOT~C£ Ol~ AC~A~CE NOTICE [$ I-[EREB¥ GIVEN BY KANCHO CALIFORNIA WATHR DISTRICT, A PUBLIC CORPORATION, PURSUANTTO SEt.'£~ON 1192.1 oF'rI-L~ CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDUR~ THAT: 1. Thc project, A~?,,mcnt Disrrici ~O~ !59, Butterfield Stage Road, Highway 79 and Dc Ponola Raad-E~st, Phase ! (Project No. D04~4), was acceptgd by the Rancho California Water Distr/ct on January 10, 1995; Thc name of the contractor is Utah Pacific; ~ name of thc s~rety i~ Saf~ca Imurance Company at' A~rica; The dcacription of the property .o.r..p..u.b. lic work or structure is: Street improvement, stnrm drain, grading, water and sewer. RAI~CHO CAL~OP, NIA WATER DL~-r~ICT STAT~ OF CALIFORNIA } }ss. COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE} John F. Hennigar General Mariag~r T am thc Ocn~aJ Manager of the Ranch~ California Water Dbcrict, a public corporafiotl, and as such mak~ ~ verification for and o!~ be.half nf .~a/d Rancho Califoraia Water D/strict~ I hang read th~ foregoing Notice of Acceptance and know thc contents thereof, and tt~ fiu.'~s therein stated are t~uc. I declsrc under penaRy of per~m'y time .~.e. Ioregoing is u'~,, and carre~ ~tccutcd On januaz-~ ~ 0 ~1995 '.~.at Telllecula, Cnliforlga. John F. Hcnu/gax ~-~ General Manager CALIFORNIA ALL.PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT ~me ~e~r a~o~ c~c~i~ and ~ by  ~~ ~ or:~e.,enfi~ upon behalf of which the pef~o~acted; ~ ~ ~ ~'~ W~NE~ my ~d ~d offi~ seN, OPTION, , De.~¢riptlon of Attached Document ~,: ~ ~meflt Date: ~-~/ ~'"~'~':' ~r ~ Pa~s: Slgneds) O~r ~ N~ ~: Signeffs Na~: ~ ~ ~~.~.~ .S~ a: 0 Pa~r--~ Um~ D Gen~ , ~ ~r--~ ~ D Gene~ ~ Guar~an or ~n~wamr ~ ~, ~ G~r~mn ar C~ Signer Is Rel~'eaentlng: Sl~ner I,, Representing: ATTACHMENT NO. 12 SAM ALHADEFF LETTER DATED NOVEMBER 20, 2001 R:~S P A~2001\01-0102 Paloma Del Sol #8~CStaflRpt..2.doc ALHADEFF & SOLAR~ LLP A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 43460 RIDGE PARK DRIVE, SUITE 270 TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA 92590 MAIN TELEPHONE: (909) 699-7556 FACSIMILE: (909) 699-6191 Offices in San Diego and Ternecula. California November 20, 2001 SAMUEL C. ALHADEFF SALHADEFF~SLAW1 .COM 9193.0001 Ms. Debbie Ubnoske Planning Director City of Temecula P.O. Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 Re: Planning Application No. 01-0109- General Plan Amendment Planning Application No. 01-0102 - Paloma del Sol Specific Plan Amendment No. 8 Planning Application No. 01-0117 - Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 24188, Amendment No. 4 (collectively, the "Action") Dear Ms. Ubnoske: On November 7, 2001, Mr. Darren Stroud representing James and Mary Corona and the Corona Family (collectively, the "Coronas") submitted a letter in opposition to the above- referenced Action. While Mr. Stroud has spent a great deal of time of going through history, he has basically restated objections that were made to a prior application that was submitted by Newland for various changes to their Specific Plan. That application was submitted in 1999 and involved the following: Plarming Application No. PA99-0285 (Amendment No. 7 to Specific Plan No. 219 - Paloma del Sol); Planning Application No. PA99-0283 (Development Agreement for the Villages ~ Pasco del Sol, Community Shopping Center); Planning Application No. PA99-0284 (Development Plan - Appeal); and Planning Application No. PA99-0286 (Tentative Parcel Map No. 29431 - Appeal) (collectively, "Original Application"). C:\Data\Clicnts~Ncwland\UBNOSKE LTR I 1-20-01.doc Ms. Debbie Lrbnoske November 20, 2001 Page 2 ALHADEFF & SOLAR, LLP As you can tell the Original Application dealt with Amendment No. 7 to the Specific Plan together with certain other applications with regard to the development plan and a tentative parcel map. At that time, a person with Mr. Stroud's legal firm, Ms. Michele Staples, had filed extensive opposition to the Original Application suggesting the exact same arguments made by Mr. Stroud with regard to the Butterfield Interceptor Channel. A great deal of time was taken by the staffto review those issues and as a result on that application staff concluded "While staff agrees that the issue needs to be resolved, we do not feel that there is a nexus between the Butterfield Stage Intemeptor Channel and the four cases before the Council. The Channel is proposed to be built through AD 159, and Newland Communities has no control over the timing of that process." The staff report goes on to indicate that the process is within the consideration of AD 159 and that "Newland had obligated their property through bonded indebtedness for the work but has no control over the construction." It also pointed out that there was an interim detention basin constructed on property owned by Newland. That basin was to intemept any sheet flow across Butterfield Stage Road and to protect any downstream properties fi.om flooding. Accordingly, we believe these issues to be the same as previously discussed and we believe that the staff analysis of November 9, 1999 is as operative with regard to the Original Application as it would be concerning this application. Should you need any further additional information, please do not hesitate to give us a call. Sincerely, Samuel C. Alhadeff of Alhadeff and Solar, LLP SCA:dll cc: William Curley, Esq. Mr. Matthew Harris