The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About091802 PC AgendaIn compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the office of the City Clerk (909) 694-6444. Notification 48 hours prior to a meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements t° ensure accessil~)ility to that meeting [28 CFR 35.102.35.104 ADA Title II] AGENDA TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 43200 BUSINESS PARK DRIVE September 18, 2002 - 6:00 P.M. Next in Order: Resolution: No. 2002-036 CALL TO ORDER Flag Salute: Commissioner Guerriero Roll Call: Guerriero, Mathewson, OIhasso, Telesio and Chiniaeff PUBLIC COMMENTS A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public may address the Commission on items that are not 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 spea. k, please come forward and state your name for the record. For all other agenda items a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the Commission Secretary prior to the Commission addressing that item. There is a three (3) minute time limit for individual speakers. CONSENT CALENDAR NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC All matters listed under Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and all will be enacted by one roll call vote. There will be no discussion of these items unless Members of the Planning Commission request specific items be removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action. 1 Aqenda RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Approve the Agenda of September 18, 2002 R:~PLANCO M M'~Agendas~002\09-18-02.doc 1 2 Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Approve Minutes from July 17, 2002. 3 Director's Hearin.q Case Update RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 Approve the Director's Hearing Case Update for August 2002 COMMISSION BUSINESS 4 Development Review Process, Debbie Ubnoske · 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. Continued from September 4, 2002 Appeal of PA01-0601 Unmanned Telecommunication Facility consistin.q of replacin.q two existinq qolf ball nettinq wood poles· with two metal poles, which will contain the antennas located on the northeast comer of Rancho California Road and Mar.qarita Road in Temeku Hills Golf Course, Plannin.q Area 46 of the Mar.qarita Villa.qe Specific Plan 199. Rolf~ Preisendanz, Assistant Planner. RECOMMENDATION: 6 5.1 Requesting a continuance to October 2, 2002 Planninq Application No. PA02-0236 A Development Plan Product Review for detached sin.qle family residences within Plann n.q Area No. 7 of the Harveston Specific Plan IocateJ south of Oak Street, West of Marqarita Road, between Harveston School Road and Maiof F~ntry off of Oak Street, Assessor's Parcel No. 916-160-004 and 916,170-011, Tentative Tract Map 29928-2 and 29928-3. Rolfe Preisendanz, Assistant Planner. R:~p LANCOMM~Agendas~2.002',09-18-02.doc 2 RECOMMENDATION: 6.1 Adopt a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application(s) No. 02-0236 (Development Plan / Product Review) based on the Determination of Consistency with a project for which an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was previously certified pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 - Subsequent EIR's and Negative Declarations. 6.2 Adopt a Resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 02-0236 - A DEVELOPMENT PLAN / PRODUCT REVIEW FOR DETACHED SINGLE ~FAMILY RESIDENCES WITHIN PLANNING AREA 7 OF THE HARVESTON SPECIFIC PLAN LOCATED SOUTH OF OAK STREET, WEST OF MARGARITA ROAD, BETWEEN HARVESTON SCHOOL ROAD AND MAJOR ENTRY OFF OF OAK STREET, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. APN 916-160-004, 916-180-008, 916-170-011 AND 916-170-007 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 29928-1 AND 29928. New Items 7 Plannin.q Application No. PA02-0217 Development A.qreement with Advanced Cardiovascular Systems, Inc. a subsidiary of The Guidant Corporation, Dave Hoqan, Principal Planner 8 RECOMMENDATION: 7.1 Requesting a continuance to October 2, 2002. Planninq Application No. PA02-0355 A Substantial Conformance request to amend the Desiqn Guidelines of the Crowne Hill subdivision for Vested Tract Map No~'s 231.43-5 through -12 and approval of the Conceptual Landscape Plan alon,q Pauba Road, east of Butterfield Staqe Road and south of Pauba Road, Thomas Thornsley, Associate Planner RECOMMENDATION: 8.1 Adopt a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No, 02-0355 (Substantial Conformance) based on the Determination of Consistency with a project for which an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was previously certified pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 - Subsequent EIR's and Negative Declarations. R:~,P LANCOM M'~gendas~2002~09-18-02.doc 3 9 8.2 Adopt a Resolution entitled: ' PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 02-0355 - A SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE REQUEST TO AMEND THE DESIGN GUIDELINES OF THE CROWNE HILL SUBDIVISION FOR VESTED TRACT MAP NO's. 23143-5 THROUGH -12 AND APPROVAL OF THE CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN ALONG PAUBA ROAD, LOCATED EAST OF BU'I'FERFIELD STAGE ROAD AND SOUTH OF PAUBA ROAD. Plannin.q Application No. PA99-0186 General Plan Amendment: 2000-2005 Housin.q Element, Dave Ho.qan, Principal Planner: RECOMMENDATION: 9.1 Adopt the Negative Declaration for Planning Application No. 99-0186; 9.2 Adopt a Resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CiTY COUNCIL ADOPT THE 2000-2005 HOUSING ELEMENT (PLANNING APPLICATION 99-0186) 10 Planninq Application No. PA02-0318 Development Code Amendment: Modular Structures and'Other Chan.qes, Dave Hoqan, Principal Planner: RECOMMENDATION: 10.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF 'THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADOPTING STANDARDS 'FOR MODULAR STRUCTURES, ADOPTING CHAPTER 17.10 OF THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE, AND MAKING OTHER MINOR MODIFICATIONS TO THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE" (PLANNING APPLICATION 02-0318) R:',PLAN COM M\Age nd as',2002\09-18-02.doc COMMISSIONER'S REPORTS PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT ADJOURNMENT Next meeting: OctOber 2, 2002 - Council Chambers 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, CA 92590 R:~PLANCOMM'~.gendas~002\09-18-02.doc 5 ITEM #2 MINUTES OF AN ADJOURNED REGULAR JOINT CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP JULY 17, 2002 CALL TO ORDER The City Council and Planning Commission convened in an adjourned regular joint workshop at 6:06 P.M., on Tuesday, July 17, 2002, in the City Council Chambers of Temecula City Hall, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. ROLL CALL Present: Councilmembers: Comerchero, Naggar, Pratt, Stone, and Roberts Planning Commissioners: Mathewson, Olhasso, Telesio, and Chiniaeff Absent: Planning Commissioner: Guerriero ALLEGIANCE The audience was led in the Flag salute by Councilman Comerchero. PUBLIC COMMENTS No comments. CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION REPORTS Updating the Planning Commission and the City Council, Councilman Pratt noted that earlier this morning he had attended a Third District (Supervisor Venable's District) Workshop, which focused on transportation issues, advising that the meeting had been informative. Mayor Pro Tem Stone requested staff to obtain additional information regarding the Monorail Project in the City of Las Vegas, requesting data concerning the following: the consultant chosen, the costs of the project, and the funding mechanisms utilized. Co For informational purposes, Mayor Pro Tem Stone noted that via City Clerk Jones he would be forwarding photographs to the Councilmembers of various large bronze art figures which represented samples of the type of art he would like to see installed in the City of Temecula at a future point. For future consideration, Commissioner Olhasso relayed her recommendation that senior apartments be developed in the Target Center, and/or the Tower Plaza. Chairman Chiniaeff advised that the continued encroachment by County residential development, as well as the associated development of school sites near the French Valley Airport, would have significant negative impacts on the airport. After additional discussion ensued, the City Council requested staff to agendize the French Valley Airport matter in order for the Council to explore the associated issues; additionally requested that a School Board representative be present at that meeting to R:\Minutes\071702 1 address questions of the Council, that copies of the School Board meeting minutes be obtained and provided to Council (where citing schools in the French Valley area had been discussed), and that annexation and the purchase of the airport be explored and reported on. CITY COUNCIL/COMMISSION BUSINESS 1 General Plan Goals and Policies RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Review the draft Goals and Policies Workbook and provide direction. Deputy City Manager Thornhill noted the importance of the Goals and Policies component of the General Plan. Relaying the diligent effods of the General Plan Community Advisory Committee and the consultants as it relates to the General Plan update, Senior Planner Hogan introduced the Committee Members who were present; and advised that it was staff's desire to obtain input from the Planning Commission and the City Council with respect to the draft Goals and Policies Workbook. Via a PowerPoint presentation, Mr. Jeff Henderson with the aid of Mr. Brian Boeking, consultants with Cotton/Bridges Associates, provided an overview of the following: · A graphic outline of the General Plan Program. · A summary of the Goals and Policies Workbook- Noted that this draft document was the result of work completed by the General Plan Community Advisory Committee in a series of eight meetings as well as extensive review by City staff. Requested direction from the City Council and the Planning Commission (primarily focusing on the content of the data rather than typographical or grammatical errors which could be addressed in written form) either at tonight's workshop or in written form within a two-week period regarding the following issues: Whether the goals and policies denoted were still relevant to the community of Temecula; Whether there were omissions i.e., areas that should be addressed in the Goals and Policies which had not been; and Clarified that it was not necessary that the City Council and the Planning Commission reach a consensus regarding the issues at this time. · Defined and provided examples of the three primary components of the policies expressed in the General Plan, as follows: Goals, Policies, and Implementation actions. R:\Minutes\071702 2 Recommended that the Goals and Policies component of the General Plah be consolidated in its final form in order to provide a more streamlined and clearer document. The Planninq Commission and the City Council commented on the Draft Goals and Policies Workbook, as follows: With respect to the LAND USE ELEMENT, the following comments were relayed: With respect to Goal 1 (regarding an integrated mix of uses), in Policy 1.5 (regarding supporting the development of specified uses), Councilman Comerchem recommended that biomedical uses be added, Mayor Pro Tern Stone additionally recommending that clean manufacturing uses be added. With respect to Policy 1.13 which stated Identify and preserve the necessary land to pursue a community college, major college or university, Chairman Chiniaeff advised that to identify a specific college may create an inverse condemnation issue, recommending that the language state encourage the development, rather than identify. With respect to Policy 1.14 (regarding greenbelts, etc.,) Councilman Comerchero recommended that the word encourage be replaced with a stronger term, i.e., require, Mayor Pro Tem Stone recommending that greenbelts in between the City and County boundaries as well as within these boundaries be encouraged. With respect to Goal 2 (regarding protected rural and historical areas), in Policy 2.2 (regarding the rural development standards), Mr. Henderson clarified that this particular policy addressed incentive provisions for maintaining the areas as rural, Senior Planner Hogan clarifying that the General Plan Community Advisory Committee has more fully discussed rural preservation areas which would be addressed with the Planning Commission and the City Council in an upcoming workshop, noting that there was a proposal to investigate extending the planning area to the east (i.e., to Anza Road) and to identify areas to remain rural. With respect to Goal 3 (regarding land use patterns which enhance residential neighborhoods), in Policy 3.3 which stated Protect single-family residential areas from encroachment by commercial uses, Chairman Chiniaeff queried whether the emphasis was intended to be on protection of single-family residential areas, advising that if commercial uses were located adjacent to multi-family dwellings, more residents would be impacted. Councilman Comerchero and Councilman Naggar noting the importance of protecting the single-family residences i.e., placing a buffer between business development and single-family residences. With respect to Policy 3.4 (regarding review of residential development within the French Valley Airport) Mayor Pro Tern Stone recommended that language be added to this policy point stating the following: and implement policies to preserve the long-term integrity of this important business asset. In response to Mayor Pro Tem Stone's queries, Deputy City Manager Thornhill confirmed that it was his understanding that when pumhasing a home and/or land in the County proximate to the French Valley Airport, the White Report (that disclosed information related to the airport and was included in the escrow paperwork) was provided to property owners based on their proximity to the airport. R:\Minutes\071702 3 With respect to Goal 4 (regarding enhancing the environmental resources), in Policy 4.2 (regarding hillside development standards), Mayor Roberts relayed that in the first line there was a typographical error, and that the word of should be deleted. For Mayor Pro Tem Stone, Deputy City Manager Thornhill relayed that there was language included in the Open Space component of the General Plan, which identified the escarpment of the hills as an important resource, noting the potential to develop programs to put these particular areas in Open Space. For Mayor Roberts, Director of Public Works Hughes noted that while the City's Grading Ordinance was near ready for circulation, this ordinance would not address the issue of property owners disking for fire control. In response to Mayor Roberts's concern regarding downstream impacts when property owners were disking so significantly the impacts were similar to grading impacts, Deputy City Manager Thornhill recommended that when the Grading Ordinance was presented to the City Council that at that time the issues associated with grading be raised and addressed. For Councilman Naggar, Deputy City Manager Thornhill noted that most of the areas in the City were part of a Master Plan and have already been slated for mass grading; and relayed that the City had hillside policies which addressed lot sizes and slopes, advising that at the next City Council meeting Assistant Manager O'Grady would be presenting information regarding tools for preserving Open Space. With respect to Goal 5 (regarding development that encourages alternative modes of transportation), in Policy 5.3 (regarding the design of sidewalks and trials) Mayor Roberts offered commendation for adding the restriction prohibiting poisonous landscaping in the design of sidewalks and trails. Commissioner Mathewson noted that since this goal addressed alternate modes of transportation, and Policy 5.6, 5.7, 5.9, and 5.10 addressed the benefits of the Mixed Use Overlay concept, these policy points were not applicable to this goal, recommending that the goal for developing Mixed Use Overlays be separated as a goal, in and of itself. Concurring with Commissioner Mathewson, Councilman Comerchere relayed that the "Adaptive Re-use Commercial Center" concept was a critical element, and was related to the preliminary approval of the City's Housing Element; and noted the benefits if in five years' time this concept is being implemented in the City. Commenting on roadways in the City with striped bike lanes, a few of which are congested and have only one lane for vehicular travel, Chairman Chiniaeff recommended that while there should be a goal to implement bike lanes, there should also be consideration to have adequate lanes of travel for vehicles. In response to Mayor Roberts' recommendation to delete the word light from the phrase light rail in Policy 5.8 (regarding implementation of trails and transit systems), Deputy City Manager Thornhill advised that it may be prudent to develop a new policy addressing the development and implementation of regional rail, noting that the policy point could include commuter, as well as high speed rail, and Policy 5.8 could remain, as written, Mayor Roberts concurring with Deputy City Manager Thornhill's suggestion. Councilman Comerchero recommended that in Policy 5.8 although the language includes the term bus that it should also state including RTA R:\Minutes\071702 4 in light of future RTA plans, and after additional discussion ensued it was the consensus to include all forms of rail in this policy point. In response to queries, Mr. Henderson confirmed that the Village Centers and Mixed Use Overlay areas would be addressed separately. With respect to Goal 6 (regarding a plan for Old Town Temecula), Mayor Pro Tem Stone advised that he would be abstaining from discussion of this goal. Councilman Comemhero recommended that with respect to the referenced mixed uses in Old Town, that the language be more specific as to the particular type of mixed use being encouraged. Commissioner Olhasso recommended adding language that referenced Tourist Commercial uses for Old Town. Chairman Chiniaeff recommended that there be encouragement of uses that would attract people downtown in the evening hours; and for Councilman Comerchero, specified that this concept would include encouragement of the aggregation of land to create these types of uses. Apprising the City Council and Planning Commission, Senior Planner Hogan clarified that the Old Town Specific Plan more specifically addressed the specific goals discussed, noting that it was the consensus of the City Council/Planning Commission a goal could be added to this section of the General Plan that repeats the direction provided in the Specific Plan; and for Mayor Roberts, advised that a copy of the Specific Plan could be provided to the City Council/Planning Commission in order to explore whether there were major direction changes recommended for this document. Noting that he attended a recent Old Town Local Review Board meeting, Councilman Pratt relayed that it had been his recommendation that the Board Members visit Leavenworth, Washington which represented the concept he envisioned for Old Town; and advised that there was a website for the City of Leavenworth where additional information could be obtained. With respect to diversifying the types of uses in Old Town, Deputy City Manager Thornhill relayed the discussions the Committee Members had had related to attracting additional patronage; advised that the plans to develop the Theater Project, as well as the Children's Museum in Old Town would aid in developing this area as a cultural center as well as a historic area; and concurred that there should be a visioning process for Old Town. Referencing the Keyser Marston study, Councilman Comerchero noted the primary recommendation for Old Town had been to energize the population, noting the potential future projects that were in the planning process and could accomplish this task, if approved. With respect to Goal 7 (regarding annexation of unincorporated areas), Chairman Chiniaeff recommended that Policy 7.3 include language that addressed consideration of annexation to address preserving properties adjacent to City boundaries. While noting that both Policy 7.6 (regarding impacts on the City from development on its boundaries) and 7.7 (regarding developing strong working relationships with neighboring jurisdictions) were important polices, Councilman Comerchero recommended that the language be modified in order for the two policy points to not appear contradictory. R:\Minutes\071702 5 It is noted that there were no recommendations with respect to Goal 8 (regarding coordinated regional land use patterns.) With respect to the CIRCULATION ELEMENT, the following comments were relayed: With respect to Goal 1 (regarding striving to maintain certain Levels of Service), Councilman Pratt noted his opposition to the word strive. In response, Deputy City Manager Thornhill noted that to denote a stronger term such as "maintain" for a certain Service Level would not be feasible due to the lack of control over the roadways that was ares. ult of development occurring outside the City boundaries. Councilman Pratt opined that the "Level of Service" concept for mitigating traffic was ineffective. For informational purposes, Mr. Henderson relayed that when Land Use and Circulation was presented again a "Principal Intersection" concept would be brought forward. For Councilman Comemhero, Director of Public Works Hughes noted that most cities in the State, as well as in the nation recognized that in commuter periods there would be an expectation that there would be a larger percentage of vehicles on the roads, clarifying that the intent to operate at a LOS "D", or better, during peak hours, and an LOS "C", or better, during non-peak hours (as referenced in Goal 1 as well as Policy 1.7) was an attempt to ensure that intersections were not operating at a LOS "D" for eight to ten hours a day. With respect to Goal 2 (regarding enhancement of traffic safety) regarding Policy 2.7 (regarding establishing a ring route), Chairman Chiniaeff recommended that development of a continuous route (i.e., a limited access route) from one end of the City to the other be thoroughly investigated. Councilman Pratt opined that improving transit routes for vehicles would not be a satisfactory long-term solution. With respect to Goal 3 (regarding a regional transportation system), discussion ensued regarding specifically identifying the rights-of-way for future transit lines, as referenced in Policy 3.8, Senior Planner Hogan clarifying that the policy was providing direction for the future and not referencing an accomplished task, Councilman Comerchero recommending that the following language be added at the appropriate time after the word Identify in Policy 3.8. With respect to Goal 4 (regarding an efficient City circulation system, in Policy 4.12 (regarding the use of alternative fuel), Commissioner Mathewson recommended that this policy be relocated to the section addressing Air Quality. With respect to Goal 5 (regarding parking), Commissioner Mathewson relayed his concern regarding the joint use of parking facilities referenced in Policy 5.6, which could have negative impacts if not addressed appropriately. It is noted that there were no comments relayed with respect to Goal 6 (regarding alternatives to motorized travel) or Goal 7 (regarding a truck circulation system). R:\Minutes\071702 6 With respect to the OPEN SPACE/CONSERVATION ELEMENT, the following comments were relayed: Mayor Roberts recommended that there be consideration to create a policy of preserving the few remaining oak trees in the City. In response, Deputy City Manager Thornhill confirmed that there were few oak trees in the City, advising that typically during the environmental studies these issues were identified and efforts were made to protect the oak trees at that time; and advised that these policies could be strengthened, and/or an ordinance could be drafted for follow-up of the issue. Deputy City Manager Thornhill noted that in areas such as along the creek, there could be consideration to plant native species of trees in order to ensure that the City would always have oak trees, as well as other species if this was the desire of the City Council/Planning Commission. For Mayor Pro Tem Stone, Director of Community Services Parker advised that the existing actual parkland in the City of Temecula was approximately 3.5 acres per thousand residents, including the use of the two shared School District facilities. In response to Mayor Pro Tem Stone's queries, City Attorney Thorson noted that the Quimby requirements were directed by State Law and could not be increased by a local jurisdiction, confirming, for Councilman Naggar, that with a Development Agreement additional requirements could be negotiated. Deputy City Manager Thornhill noted that when high densities were proposed in a development plan, staff could discuss with the applicant the increase of Open Space areas which would be for private use, and not public. Mayor Pro Tern Stone recommended that language be added stating that in terms of negotiating Development Agreements and various types of projects, the City desires to obtain/implement as much parkland as feasible. In response to Councilman Naggar, Councilman Comerchero advised that during the General Plan Update Process the term "Open Space~ would be more specifically defined. With respect to Goal 2 (regarding conservation and protection of water), for Councilman Naggar, Deputy City Manager Thornhill relayed that a policy could be developed requiring gas stations to demonstrate that the contaminants on site could be contained and treated for shipment off the property as per the standards of the Water Control Board; and confirmed that this particular issue was addressed via alternate avenues, Mayor Roberts recommending that this issue be explored and brought back. It is noted that no comments were relayed with respect to Goal 3 (regarding protection of plant and animal species), Goal 4 (regarding conservation of energy resources), Goal 5 (regarding conservation of open space), and Goal 6 (regarding preservation of historical and cultural resources). With respect to Goal 7 which stated Protection ofpdme agricultural land from premature conversion to urbanized uses, Councilman Comerchero recommended that the word premature be deleted. In response to the ensuing discussion, Deputy City Manager Thornhill advised that this particular goal would only be applicable if the City opted to annex property beyond the City boundaries to the east. R:\Minutes\071702 7 With respect to Policy 7.2 which states, Promote and preserve the local wine industry, Councilman Comemhero recommended that the language be modified to state promote and aid in preserving the local wine industry, Mayor Roberts suggesting that this policy would be applicable under Economic Development. In response to additional discussion, Deputy City Manager Thornhill advised that staff would work with Goal 7. With respect to Goal 8 (regarding a trail system that serves both recreational and transportation needs) under Policy 8.5, Councilman Comerchero noted that the phrase personal transportation alternatives was an appropriate phrase. With respect to Goal 9 (regarding protection of dark skies), it is noted that no comments were relayed regarding this item. Regarding the GROWTH MANAGEMENT/PUBLIC FACILITIES ELEMENT, the following comments were relayed: With respect to Goal 1 (regarding management of growth), it is noted that no recommendations were relayed. With respect to Goal 2 (regarding patterns of growth), Chairman Chiniaeff noted the reference to "Village Centers" in Policy 2.4. Highlighting the phrase added to Policy 3.1 that states actualpolice service levels will be evaluated annually, Councilman Comerchero recommended that similar language also be included in Policy 3.2. Councilman Pratt noted his opposition to the term strive which was utilized in Policy 3.1 and 3.2. With respect to Goal 4 (regarding the school system), it is noted that no comments were relayed. With respect to Goal 5 (regarding public and quasi-public facilities), under Policy 5.4 (regarding providing meeting space for non-profit groups), Councilman Comerchero recommended that the language be revised to be more specific, noting his concern that the policy could be interpreted in such a way as for all non-profit groups to feel entitled to meeting space provisions. In response, Mr. Henderson suggested adding the phrase if feasible, Deputy City Manager Thornhill suggesting the addition of the phrase explore opportunities, Councilman Comemhero noting that either suggestion would be appropriate. With respect to Goal 6 (regarding water and wastewater infrastructure system), Mayor Roberts noted that he was pleased that Policy 6.7 addressed a brine line in the City. It was noted that with respect to Goal 7 (regarding an effective, safe and environmentally compatible flood control system), and Goal 8 (regarding waste management), no comments were relayed. With respect to Goal 9 (regarding electrical, natural gas, and telecommunication systems), under Policy 9.3 (regarding installation of technological structures), Commissioner OIhasso, echoed by Mayor Roberts and Mayor Pro Tern Stone, opined that the language was not strong enough, advising that standards needed to be established. Councilman Naggar additionally R:\Minutes\071702 8 noting that the installation of fiber optics will be an integral component in encouraging individuals to work out of their homes, or for businesses to develop satellite offices. In response, Mr. Henderson relayed that the language in this policy point would be strengthened. With respect to the PUBLIC SAFETY ELEMENT, the following comments were made: With respect to Goal 1, Policy 1.10 (regarding a Citywide Emergency Preparedness Plan), for Councilman Comemhero and Mayor Roberts, Deputy City Manager Thornhill advised that even though the City had an Emergency Preparedness Plan it was still prudent to have this element included as a policy. It is noted that no other recommendations were relayed regarding the Public Safety Element. With respect to the NOISE ELEMENT, the following comments were relayed: With respect to Goal 1 (regarding associated land use planning), it is noted that no recommendations were relayed. With respect to Goal 2 (regarding the control of noise between land uses), Chairman Chiniaeff queried the definition of the term outdoor equipment that was referenced in Policy 2.2. Mr. Henderson noted that further definition would be provided. Deputy City Manager Thornhill clarifying that outdoor equipment referred to stationery outdoor equipment i.e., air conditioners, and pool equipment; and advised that the newer developments located proximate to major arterials had sound walls between the arterial and the residential area as referenced in Goal 3 and 4. With respect to the AIR QUALITY ELEMENT, the following comments were relayed: With respect to Mayor Pro Tern Stone's queries regarding solar energy panels, Deputy City Manager Thornhill noted the significant higher costs for builders initially with implementation of environmentally sensitive buildings and energy conserving elements; and suggested that there be a general goal with policies encouraging the development of such building elements. With respect to the COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT, the following comments were relayed: For clarification, Deputy City Manager Thornhill relayed that in this segment of the General Plan the updating of the Design Guidelines issues would most likely be addressed. With respect to Policy 2.7 (regarding art in public and community places), Mayor Roberts recommended that the phrase consider the establishment be replaced with the word Establish. With respect to Goal 3 (regarding preservation and enhancement of individual districts or neighborhoods), for Councilman Naggar, City Manager Nelson relayed that various funding mechanisms are being explored for the development of additional Open Space, noting that potentially funding could be identified to develop various slope areas within residential areas (e.g. Margarita and Pauba Roads) related to preserving open space. Councilman Comerchero recommended that an additional goal be added to this element regarding City beautification, which could encompass assisting private landowners in beautifying vacant property, and Old Town improvements, Mayor Pro Tern Stone suggesting that the addition of entry statements in some of the older neighborhoods could be considered. R:\Minutes\071702 9 Discussion ensued with respect to Goal 4 (regarding streetscapes). For Mayor Pro Tern Stone, City Attorney Thorson relayed that the only Redevelopment funds that could be utilized outside of the project area were for Iow and moderate-income housing. Commissioner Olhasso advised that if homeowners were at a moderate income level, a beautification program could be implemented on single-family privately-owned homes, that covenants could be entered into, that the property could be landscaped, and that if the property owners do not maintain the landscaping the City could place a lien against the property and maintain the area. City Manager Nelson noted the challenges regarding uniform maintenance of these areas. With respect to Goal 5 (regarding protection of significant natural features), under Policy 5.3 which states Establish a program to acquire, or permanently protect critical hillside areas from development, Mayor Roberts relayed that he was pleased with the additional of this policy point. It is noted that there were no recommendations with respect to Goal 6. In response to Chairman Chiniaeff's queries associated with Goal 7 (regarding community gathering areas), in Policy 7,8 and 7.9 (regarding public gathering spaces), Mr. Henderson advised that these policy points could be consolidated. With respect to the ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ELEMENT, the following comments were relayed: In Goal 1, under Policy 1.5 (regarding attracting Federal and State agency offices), Councilman Comerchero recommended that there be efforts expended specifically to attract as Federal out- of-state office to the City of Temecula, Councilman Pratt suggesting that there be efforts to attract a Federal home security office. With respect to Goal 2 (regarding diversification of the economic base), Councilman Comerchero and Mayor Pro Tern Stone confirmed that it was their desire to also add bio- technical and high technical uses to Policy 2.1. With respect to Goal 3 (regarding maintaining an economic base) it is noted that no recommendations were relayed. With respect to Goal 4 (regarding establishment of a diverse education, training and job placement system), Commissioner Olhasso recommended that a policy point be added referencing a K-12 or K-16 education in order to align course work and curriculum between high school and co!lege; advised that the issue of students who are not bound for college should be addressed, that the ROP program should be encouraged, and that coursework in the high school should be aligned with industrial needs; and noted that connectivity with the County of Riverside and its training program would be vital, relaying that she would be willing to volunteer to aid in setting up a work force strategy. In response, Mayor Pro Tern Stone noted that thera was a program designated for this particular function, advising that it should be revitalized. Councilman Naggar suggested that in addition there be efforts to attract a regional occupation center. With respect to Goal 5 (regarding promoting the advantages of located in Temecula) in Policy 5,4, Commissioner OIhasso recommended that the language be revised to state support the business retention program or words to that effect; advised that the Inland Empire Small R:\Minutes\071702 10 Business Development Center (SBDC) office which suppods small businesses should be referenced in these policies; and noted that an entrepreneur network and entrepreneur training programs could be developed via partnerships with Mt. San Jacinto College. With respect to Policy 5.3 (regarding monitoring the ratio of the supply of housing verses the supply of jobs), Mayor Roberts recommended deleting the word of. In response to Commissioner OIhasso, Councilman Comerchero provided additional information regarding the lack of a need and the lack of funding for a Convention and Visitor's Bureau at this time per the Chamber of Commerce's investigation. Mr. Henderson relayed that additional written comments were encouraged, and that written remarks could be provided to Senior Planner Hogan any time within the next two weeks. For Councilman Pratt, City Attorney Thorson confirmed that an update of a General Plan was considered a project under CEQA, and that the consultant would also be preparing an EIR. Councilman Naggar noted the importance of keeping this General Plan Update Project on tract; and commended the General' Plan Community Advisory Committee's efforts regarding this project, Mayor Pro Tern Stone recommending that a banquet be scheduled in honor of this committee's assiduous efforts. ADJOURNMENT At 8:28 P.M., Chairman Chiniaeff formally adjourned the Joint City Council/Planning Commission Workshop to the next Planning Commission adjourned regular meeting on Wednesday~ July 3'1~ 20027 6:00 P.M., City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. Dennis W. Chiniaeff, Chairman Debbie Ubnoske, Director of Planning R:\Minutes\071702 11 ITEM #3 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OFTEMECULA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTDEPARTMENT PLANNING DIVISION MEMORANDUM Planning Commission Debbie Ubnoske, Director of Planning September 18, 2002 Director's Hearing Case Update Planning Director's Agenda items for August 2002 August 8, 2002 PA01-0627 A Planning Application for the installation ofNextel Approved a wireless telecommunication facility, Communicati consisting of twelve cellular antennas OhS located within the interior of 2' diameter cylinders located on the roof of an existing building and the installation of an equipment shelter to be installed in the intedor of the building August !5, 2002 PA01¢553 A request to subdivide approximately 81.3 Lowry & Continued acres of undeveloped land into 14 Associates to August retail/commercial lots totaling 13.35 acres 29, 2002 and three remainder parcels (continued from July 25, 2002) August 15, 2002 PA99-0393 Planning Application requesting an Quality Approved Extension of Time for Tentative Parcel Map Associates 28049 (one parcel condominium subdivision of 3.73 acres) August 22, 2002 PA02-0297 To establish a church facility totaling 2,573 True Vine Approved square feet within portions of two existing Pentecostal buildings. Church August 29, 2002 PA02-0395 A Minor Conditional Use Permit to operate Kevin L. Approved an automobile electronic accessory sales Mitchell, Al + and installation business located in Suite A- Ed's 3, Building A, 41125 Winchester Road; Autosound Submitted by Al + Ed's Autosound August 29, 2002 PA01-0553 A request to subdivide approximately 81.3 Lowry & Approved acres of undeveloped land into 14 Associates retail/commercial lots totaling 13.35 acres and three remainder parcels (continued from July 25, 2002) Attachments: 1. Action Agendas - Blue Page 2 R:~DIRHEAR~MEMO~002~August 2002.memo.doc ATI'ACHMENT NO. 1 ACTION AGENDAS R.XDIRHE)sR~vlEMO~2002kAugust 2002.memo.doc ACTION AGENDA TEMECULA DIRECTOR'S HEARING REGULAR MEETING August 8, 2002 1:30 PM TEMECULA CITY HALL MAIN CONFERENCE ROOM 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 CALL TO ORDER: Don Hazen, Principal Planner puBLIC COMMENTS A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address to the Principal Planner on items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Principal Planner about an item not listed on the Agenda, a pink "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the Principal · 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: ACTION: Planning Application PA01~0627 (Minor Conditional Use Permit) Nextel Communications, Barbara Saito 40940 County Center Drive A Planning Application for the installation of a wireless telecommunication facility, consisting of twelve cellular antennas located within the interior of 2' diameter cylinders located on the roof of an existing building and the installation of an equipment shelter to be installed in the interior of the building. Notice of Exemption per California Environmental QualityAct Article 19 Categorical Exemptions Section 15332 Class 32 In-fill Development Projects. Rick Rush APPROVED P:~PLANNIN G~DIRHEARk2002\08-08-02 .ACTION AGENDA. do~ 1 ACTION AGENDA TEMECULA DIRECTOR'S HEARING REGULAR MEETING August 15, 2002 1:30 PM TEMECULA CITY HALL MAIN CONFERENCE ROOM 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 CALL TO ORDER: Don Hazen, Principal Planner PUBLIC COMMENTS A total of 15 minutes is provided so members 'of the public can address to the Principal Planner on items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Principal Planner about an item not listed on the Agenda, a pink "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the Principal 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" forr~ 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: ACTION: Planning Application PA01-0553 (Tentative Parcel Map No. 30180) Lowry & Associates Southeast & southwest comers of State Highway 79 South and Pala Road (APN's 961-010-001,002, 003, 004 & 005). A request to subdivide approximately 81.3 acres of undeveloped land into 14 retail/commercial lots totaling 13.35 acres and three remainder parcels. (Continued from the July 25, 2002, meeting) Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program per the California Environmental Quality Act. Matthew Harris CONTINUED TO AUGUST 29, 2002 Item No. 2:. Case No: Applicant: Location: Proposal: Environmental Action: Case Planner: ACTION: Planning Application PA99-0393 Quality Associates East of the intersection of Main Street and Pujol Street Planning Application requesting an Extension of Time for Tentative Parcel Map 28049 (one parcel condominium subdivision of 3.73- acres) This project is exempt from CEQA review due to Class 15 Categorical Exemption 15315 (Minor Land Divisions) Rick Rush APPROVED AC~ON AGENDA TEMECULADIRECTOR'S HEARING REGULAR MEETING August22,20021:30PM TEMECULA CITY HALL MAIN CONFERENCE ROOM 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 CALL TO ORDER: Don Hazen, Principal Planner PUBLIC COMMENTS A total of 15 minute§ is provided so members of the public can address to the Principal Planner on items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Principal Planner about an item not listed on the Agenda, a pink "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the Principal 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: Planning Application PA02-0297 (Minor Conditional Use Permit) Applicant: TrueVine Pentecostal Church Location: 28780 Front Street (South Creek Mall, Suites A-10 & D-5) APN # 922-091-003. Proposal: To establish a church facility totaling 2,573 square feet within portions of two existing buildings. Environmental Action: This project is exempt from CEQA review due to Class 32 Categorical Exemption 15332 (In-fill Development Project) Case Planner: Matthew .Harris ACTION: APPROVED P:~PLANNING~DIRHEAR~200'2~08-22-02 ACTION AGE2qDA.d~c 1 ACTION AGENDA TEMECULA DIRECTOR'S HEARING REGULAR MEETING August 29, 2002 1:30 PM TEMECULA CITY HALL MAIN CONFERENCE ROOM 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 CALL TO ORDER: Don Hazen, Principal Planner PUBLIC COMMENTS · A total of 15 minutes is provided so membem of the public can address to the Principal Planner on items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Principal Planner about an item not listed on the Agenda, a pink "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the Principal 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: ACTION: Planning Application PA02-0395 (Minor Conditional Use Permit) Kevin L. Mitchell, Al + Ed's Autosound Located at Suite A-3, 41125 Winchester Road A Minor Conditional Use Permit to operate an automobile electronic accessory sales and installation business located in Suite A-3, 'Building A, 41125 Winchester Road; Submitted by Al + Ed's Autosound. Categorical Exemption per Section 15301 (Existing F, acilitieS) Rolfe Preisendanz APPROVED Item No. 2: Case No: Applicant: Location: Proposal: Environmental Action: Case Planner: ACTION: Planning Application PA01-0553 (Tentative Pamel Map No. 30180)) Lowry & Associates Southwest & southwest comers of State Highway 79 South and Pala Road (APN's 961-010-001,002, 003, 004, & 005). A request to subdivide approximately 81.3 acres of undeveloped land . into 14 retail/commemial lots totaling 13.35 acres and three remainder pamels. Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation MonitOring Program per the California Environmental Quality Act. Matthew Harris APPROVED p:~PLANNING~l)IRI4E. AR~-29-02 AGENDA.doc 1 ITEM #4 STAFF REPORT- PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION September 18, 2002 Prepared By:. Debbie Ubnoske, Director of Planning. RECOMMENDATION: The Community Development Department- Planning Division Staff recommends the Planning Commission: RECEIVE AND FILE APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: PROPOSAL: City of Temecula City of Temecula Update the Development Review Process BACKGROUND in May of 2002, staff was directed by the City Council to look at the City's Development Review Process and bring back to the Council a Work Program to simplify the process, create partnerships and improve communication. Since receiving that direction, staff has met weekly. Staff, as a result of these weekly meetings, has taken the following steps: Analyzed the current development review process and created a flowchart of a streamlined process; Identified a method of project tracking that all departments Nil use; Met with the Chamber of Commerce, Manufacturer's Council, Economic Development Committee and Coordinating Committee to discuss things the City does well, areas where we need to improve, and elicit suggestions for improvement; Prepared a Request for Proposal to update the City's Design Guidelines; Created a Customer Service Survey and sent the Customer Service Survey to applicants who went through the development review process during the last year; 6. Analyzed the Planning Department applications to determine their ~ability and clarity. In addition, staff is suggesting the Commission and Council support the bllowing staff requests: 7. The creation of an appointment process for application intake; 8. The creation of City CEQA Guidelines to allow for a greater number of exemptions; R:~DEBBIE~pcrpt.dev reviewprocess.doc 1 Revisiting the Approval Authority Matrix to possibly allow more projects to be considered at a Director's Hearing as opposed to Planning Commission. These steps have been taken in an effort to create components of a Work Program that the City Council will ultimately approve. It is anticipated that this final Work Progrem will be the basis for a streamlined development review process that looks at creating partnerships between the City staff and applicants and improves communication, both with our external customers, as well as, our internal customers. For purposes of this process, staff looked at three separate categories of projects. These three categories are: projects that are categorically exempt from the California Envirenmental Quality Act (CEQA), projects that require a negative declaration an.d legislative projects (i.e. specific plans, generel plan amendments, etc.) The work program described in this staff report will address ways to streamline the projects that are categorically exempt and those that require a negative declaretion. Legislative projects such as specific plans have too many variables attached to them to be able to commit to any specific timeline (i.e. environmental impact report, public meetings, public contreversy, etc.) DISCUSSION Development Review Flow Chart The Development Review Flow Chart (Attachment 1) outlines the process for three major categories of projects: projects that are exempt from CEQA, projects that require a Negative Declaretion (non- exempt) and legislative projects such as specific plans, zone changes, and general plan amendments. The biggest change to the precess is the implementation of an appointment process to accept projects. Projects submitted under an appbintment can be deemed complete the day they are submitted, thereby saving 30 days that previously staff used to deem the project complete. If the application is not deemed complete, the applicant will have the immediate benefit of knowing the items that must be submitted to provide a complete application. This change, combined with instituting the CEQA process eadier, has reduced the amount of time that staff will spend on application review for exempt projects from an averege of 15 weeks to 7 weeks. For projects requiring a negative declaration, staff has reduced the amount of staff review time from an average of 19 weeks to 10 weeks. It should be noted here that this is just the amount of time that staff has to review the project. The entire timeline for project review will be longer because the applicant will need time to make any changes, re-dreff plans and then re-submit them to staff. Staff will commit, however, to ensudng that projects with a categorical exemption will be approved within four months and those with a negative declaretion will be appreved within six months provided the applicant meets mutually agreed upon submittal deadlines. Needless to say, if there are serious issues associated with any project, or any amount of public contreversy, these timelines will most likely be longer. Another change to the process is the optional pre-Development Review Process and optional Development Review Process. This optional process will be used when staff determines that the project's comments are not significant enough to warrent a meeting with staff. For non- exempt projects, staff will be beginning the environmental review process 2 weeks earlier and this will also help streamline the process. Proiect Tracking The City Council also has indicated a desire to have staff create a project trecking system. Currently, such a system is in place, but is not used consistently by all the staff. In addition, the City has added new staff and not all of the staff have had training on the system. Part of the Work Program will be to create a standardized project tracking system, ensure that all staff are trained on it, and begin utilizing it. This precess will most likely take some time to get up and running but it is R:~DEBBIE~pcrpt.dev reviewprocess.doc 2 anticipated that it will be operetional during the next calendar year. In the interim, staff will be trecking all projects manually. Staff suggests the use of milestones for each project similar to those used for "fast treck" projects (reference Attachment 2). This will previde certainty to applicants in terms of a hearing date. Staff is also suggesting that the Planning Director review all applications every four months to determine whether there appear to be any issues that might be slowing up projects. Lastly, staff suggests that the Commission and Council support the creation of a Commission/Council Sub-Committee that will meet every six months to review the status of all applications that have been submitted within that time period. .Applicat ons Staff from Planning, Public Works, Fire and Building and Safety all reviewed the application submittal requirements and removed requirements that could be submitted at a later point in the precess. This will save applicants time at the beginning of the precess and also defer some of the project costs until later in the precess. Staff also took the existing "multi-purpose" application and created separate applications for every type of project (i.e. development plan, conditional use permit, zone change, etc). Every application will also have a cover sheet that explains the purpose of the application, the Code section that requires it and a brief description of the precess. In addition, staff has made the "pre-application" precess much less formal and will be revising this application to require fewer submittals (i.e. no floor plans or elevations will be required). This wiJl greatly simplify the pre-application precess. In addition, the City is preposing to give each applicant an "application completion letter" which will identify their project planner, contacts in other departments and a senior staff member to contact should complications arise. It is the intent of this letter to better explain the planning process and the City's customer service philosophy and hopefully reduce an applicant's hesitation to seek assistance if they encounter problems. Meetinqs with the Chamber of Commerce, Manufacturer's Council, Economic Development Committee and Coordinatinq Committee Dudng the months since May, staff has met on two separate occasions with the above-mentioned greups. The purpose of the firet meeting was to find out what the City is doing well in terms of our development review precess, where the City needs to impreve it's development review process, and to get suggestions for ways to improve the development review process. A summary of the meeting notes is included as Attachment 3. The purpose of the second meeting was to share with the Chamber, the Manufacturer's Council, the EDC and the Coordinating Committee what staff will be taking forward to the Planning Commission and City Council in terms of recommendations. At this meeting, staff did share with the people in attendance that much of what they raised as concerns is being addressed as we go through this precess. Examples of where staff has addressed concerns are the following: Issue raised of expediency (instituting the appo!ntment precess and beginning CEQA review earlier will greatly streamline the process). Issue raised of unreasonable design requests (hidng a consultant to update the City's Design Guidelines will create a level playing field. Staff will be consulting with the Commission, Council and development community on these Guidelines). Issue raised that the submittal checklist is too extensive (staff has removed some of the requirements). Issue raised that soils and hydrology reports older than one year need to be vedfied for accuracy (staff has changed this to reports older than t~o years). R:\DEBBILm, pcrpt.dev reviewprocess.doc 3 5. Issue raised that CEQA process needs to be initiated eadier (staff is recommending doing this). C ty Desiqn Guidelines Request for Proposal One of the issues that was identified as staff met with the various groups mentioned in the paragraph above was the issue of staff subjectivity with respect to project design. The City's Design Guidelines, when created, were intended to allow for flexibility of design. It has become apparent, however, that there is the need for updating the City's Guidelines, and perhaps even requiring them to be part of the Development Code. Planning staff has prepared a Request for Proposal to update the City's Design Guidelines and will be releasing that shortly. The next step in the process will be the interviewing of qualified firms to update the City's Design Guidelines. The development community will be strongly encouraged to have input into these Design Guidelines as they are drafted. Customer Service Survey One of the Council's wishes was to have continuous feedback on the development review process. Towards that end, staff has developed a Customer Service Survey (Attachment 4). The survey has already been mailed to applicants who went through the development review process last year. It is staff's intent to have this survey sent out on a continuing basis to receive feedback on the process. All responses will be sent back to the City Manager's Office. It is Management's current philosophy to recognize good customer service and provide positive feedback and this philosophy will continue to be an important one for the City. During the monthly Community Development Department staff meetings, staff that have exemplified outstanding customer service are recognized and rewarded with a Department trophy. This is just one example of how the City provides recognition for employees who provide excellent customer service. Creation of an Appointment Process As was mentioned eadierin the report, upon Council's approval of the Work Program, one of the things staff hopes to institute is an appointment process for case intake. Appointments will be made by calling the Planning Department. Every attempt will be made to schedule an appointment within 2 to 3 days of the request. A planner and an engineer will meet with the applicant during the appointment to check the application for completeness. Applications will be deemed complete or incomplete during the appointment. An application that is deemed complete will then be scheduled for a Development Review Committee meeting within 3 weeks. If during the routing of an application, no significant comments arise, staff can choose to by-pass the pre-Development Review Committee meeting and the Development Review Committee meeting, thereby saving at least one more week in the process. City Wide California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines (CEQA) Currently, the City is using the State CEQA Guidelines. These Guidelines call out certain situations where projects can be deemed exempt from CEQA thereby saving an applicant time and money. The City will be creating our own CEQA Guidelines and that will enable us to look at other exemptions. Projects who are then deemed exempt, as mentioned above, will not need to go through the environmental process. R:~DEBBIE~pcrpt.dev reviewprocess.doc 4 SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS In summary, per the City Council's direction, staff has spent the last few months reviewing our development review process and outlining a number of ways to streamline it. This process has been a collaborative process with the Chamber of Commerce, Manufacturer's Council, EDC and Coordinating Committee..It is the intent of the Work Program to create a streamlined, collaborative process where the City and applicants work together to achieve the common goal of creating the best-built environment possible. Upon the Council's approval of staff's approach, staffwill formalize all of the suggestions contained in this staff report into a formal Work Program that will outline Goals and Objectives, as well as, specific tasks and milestones. Staff would like to institute the appointment process, new applications, manual project tracking and customer service surveys beginning in January of 2003. It is anticipated that the Design Guidelines, staff training on the project tracking and the City CEQA Guidelines will be completed by the end of calendar year 2003. Attachments: 2. 3. 4. Development Review Flow Chad - Blue Page 6 Project Timeline - Blue Page 7 Summary of Meeting Notes - Blue Page 8 Customer Service Survey - Blue Page 9 R:\DEBBIE~pcrpt.dev reviewprocess.doc 5 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FLOW CHART R:\DEBBIE~ocrpt.dev reviewprocess.doc ATTACHMENT NO. 2 PROJECT TIMELINE R:~DEBBIE~pcrpt.dev review process.doc 7 of Temecula May 13, 2002 May 28, 2002 May 31,2002 June 6, 2002 June 7, 2002 June 14, 2002 June 23, 2002 July17,2002 August1,2002 Application was submitted Soils Report and Current Title Report due (Applicant) Departmental comments due (Staff) Environmental determination (Staff) Corrections and revised plans to be re-submitted to staff (Applicant) Departmental Conditions of Approval due to Planning (Staff) Submit Grading Plans to Public Works Department (Applicant) Submit Building Plans to Building and Safety (Applicant) Public Notice prepared (Staff) Planning Commission hearing End of Appeal deadline R:'~RushR~Forms'~Fast Track Cont"act.doc 1 ATrACHMENT NO. 3 SUMMARY OF MEETING NOTES Development Review Process (Meeting Notes) Things we are doing well · City does a good job of logging plan checks in and out. · Assigned inspector for major projects. · Helpful staff · Hotels, motels, mini-storage always exceed F.A.R. · Front counter / Gary Formoe- very helpful. · Likes in-house - Shell is example. Thin.qs to study · Expediency · Complete comments and preparedness-in-field · Plan Checks o Repetitive plan checks o Plan check objects o Second plan check inconsistencies. · Continuity in staff · Fear of reprisal · Planning process o Subjective, opinionated o Micro-management of projects (architectural, etc.) · Fees o Staff to send information on fees o Fees are higher in Temecula than in Murrieta and other cities. · Slow process · Unreasonable designs · "Attitude" on Development o Attitude is privilege to develop in Temecula. · "Threat" of kicking project to higher level · Landscape o Landscape comments exceed scope of review o Consider not requiring landscaping in rear of Industrial projects. · CEQA not initiated earlier. · Health department food service plan check is slow. · Planning Commission and Staff asks for too much (i.e. raise the bar) · Cannot meet with individual departments involved in process. · Floor Area Ratio for hotels, motels - subjective findings to grant unclear · ¼ acre- Gross vs. net o G.P. Consistency · Growth management- suitable amenities. 7/16/02 R:\WlMBERVG~ary. Notes. Development Review Process-2.doc 1 7/16~02 Development Review Process (Meeting Notes) · Process-define and assist applicant. · No monitoring of inter-departmental tasks. · Why didn't staff identify earlier high rate of incomplete applications. · Tracking software being looked at. · In past food service plan check has been slow. · CEQA started too tate in process. · Submittal checklist is too extensive · Too much staff interpretation of what Commission / Council want to see · Specific time frame for pre-app comments. · Wants ordinances restructured <10k to P.C. In Murrieta is 3 acres. · Is soils report > 1 year old is required to be updated. · Re-prove hydrology studies is not always necessary. · Stumbling blocks in Building & Safety. \ · Delivery, not the process, is the issue. · Staff micro-manages projects. · 98% of submittals are deemed incomplete - something is wrong. · Mike Elliott is making land use decisions beyond his scope of responsibility. · More concurrent processing of applications. · Gross versus net acreage issue needs to be re-addressed. · Projects under 10,000 square feet - change to allow staff to approve larger projects. Recommended Actions Staff be prepared / timely. Reduce submittal requirements. Clarity, simplicity No surprises Positive attitude. Keep client informed Responsiveness to problems o Ombudsman team o Understand role Meeting after (3X) failure to address staff corrections. o Improve communications. o Not wait so long to receive comments. "In-house" lead to solve issues Let decisionmakers understand reality of obstacles by Planning Commission staff on developer decision to build in Temecula Clarity in standards Pre-application timelines o Responsiveness R:\WIMBERVG\ga~.Notes. Development Review Process-2.doc 2 7/16/02 Development Review Process (Meeting Notes) · Code revision >10,000 to Planning Commission o Extremely rigid vs. staff approval · Application submittal requirements are unreasonable. o Geotech o Hydrology o Soils report (1 year) · Hire staff landscape architect · Code amendment to emphasize landscaping in front · Concurrent processing · Help applicants through process - eliminate uncertainties - lay it out · Computer tracking (online?) · Not wait 30 days to find out incomplete · Encourage pre-application meeting- before design. · Copy the client on all correspondence. · Define what an amenity is in Growth Management Plan. · Landscape % too high - in wrong places - could prefer more in front. · Need to avoid multiple checks / reduce number of checks required reduce restrictions. · Additional requirements, not on 1st check. · Make sure that contacts are made - let the client know what the status of the project is. · Make sure client knows when plans are received. · Have continuity of inspectors. · Call back same day / acknowledge calls. · Project manager position should be developed need to get back to customer on issues. Would like to assist. · Don't fine tune plans - catch 1st time. · Don't assume developer wants to do things just for lower cost. · Applicants have to prove utility capacity · Routing of additional material prior to department sign-off on building permits - last minute surprises · Develop design standards, rather than guidelines. R:~WlMBERVG~gary. Notes. Development Review Process-2.doc 3 8/12/02 Development Review Process (Meeting Notes' Things we are doing well Design quality. · Specific applications-easier. · Flow Charting process. · Application intake by appointment is good. Things to study · Pre-App, do not require as much detail on plans - check for major items. · Continuity of staff- submittal review. · Reduce"bloated" process/conditions. · Getting bogged down on details. · Overly detailed grading plan requirements. · Guidelines vs. standards o Overly rigid? o Stifle good design? o Lose corporate identity? · Excessive information required on plans - if one plan changes, then other related plans must be revised (coordination and cost) (i.e. Rancho Church project). · Design guidelines update - conside~ private-sector input. · Input on code amendments. Agree to send notice amendments to Coordinating Committee as desired. · Incomplete analysis. · Planners acting as architects. · Inconsistency with Planning Commission decisions. Design Guidelines. · Soils report (< two years) why for"developed lots"; why up front. · Hydrology studies? Why up front? Letter from soils report. · Out-of-town architects not familiar with local regulations. Recommended Actions · Explore landscape %, versus location criteria. · . Performance standards preferred over prescriptive regulations. Churches. · Discuss design early-on · Project tracking online o Streamline o Security o Training of staff · Shave more time off on CEQA review. · Acknowledge design that may not have public visibility - be reasonable. · Applications have"Development Team" established. R:\WIMBERVG\Notes. Development Review Process-Coordinating Committe,doc 8/12/02 Development Review Process (Meetinc~ Notes) · Submittal requirements based on certain project scena~'ios (flow chart and submittal requirements). · Train staff to readily identify plan deficiencies early-on, or pre-app. · Less cumbersome pre-app and will hold off on working plans o Keep it simple o Fewer consultants o Site plan o No grading · Schedule/Tracking - keep applicant in Iccp; coordination to get through process. · Create Site Plan Design on a conceptual basis prior to submittal or pre-app or formal application ("Pre, pre-app") - more detailed, better comments. · Eliminate Gobbledy-Gook requirements/conditions. · Defer requirement for color renderings until public hearing schedule. · Allow more administrative approvals. Feedback. · Concurrent environment processing. R:\WlMBERVG\Notes. Development Review Process-Coordinating Committe.doc 2 A'FrACHMENT NO. 4 CUSTOMER SERVICE SURVEY City_ of Temecula OFFICE OF CITY MANAGER 43200 Busmess Park Drive - PO Box 9033 - Temecula - California - 92~89-9033 (909) 506-5100 -. FAX (909) 694-6499 CUSTOMER SERVICE SURVEY Thank you for taking the time to complete this survey. Please be as specific as possible with your comments. Please rate our service on a scale of I to 5,,with 1 being "needs improvement" aqd 5 being Uexcellent". Please mark "N/A" if not applicable. STAFF ASSISTANCE / GENERAL 1. Staff was courteous and professional. 2. Staff explained City requirements thoroughly. 3. Staff took under consideration alternative ideas. 4. Overall service. 5. General Comments: PROCESSING 1. Staff performed tasks efficiently and timely. 2. Staff maintained contact throughout the process. 3. Staff correspondence was well written and clear. 4. Overall service. 5. Was the overall process cumbersome? Please explain: -- 6. Did staff keep you abreast of the processing of your application? 7. General Comments: R:¥nc~nty~Customer Service Survey.doc GRADING / COhSTRUCTION PLAN REVIEW 1. Plans were returned within scheduled time frame, 2. The plan comments were clear and understandable, 3. Questions or clarifications were adequately addressed, 4. General Comments: INSPECTION SERVICES 1. Inspection requests were 'acted upon as scheduled. 2, Inspectors arrived within expected time frame, 3, Required corrections were made clear and concise. 4. Inspectors were courteous and acknowledged any cOncerns. 5. Overall service, 6. General Comments: ADDITIONAL INFORMATION OPTIONAL: NAME: ADDRESS: PHONE NUMBER: PROJECT ADDRESS: [] Please check box if you would like someone from the City Manager's office to call you. Thank you for your. feedback! . R:~mcintyk~Custemer Service Su~,ey.doc 2 ITEM #5 CITY OFTEMECULA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTDEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: · Planning Commi,~,~/,/ /~'l/ Debbie Ubnosk~, Director of Planning September 18, 2002 Appeal of PA01-0601 Unmanned Telecommunication Facility On August 7, 2002, the Planning Commission requested that the appellant's representative, Compass Telecom Services, provide staff the following items in order to render a decision regarding the Appeal of the Director's decision to deny PA01-0601: An alternative site analysis, as required by the Antenna Ordinance Chapter 17.40.030, which identifies all reasonable, technically feasible, alternative locations and/or facilities which could provide the proposed telecommunication service. A sample of the metal poles proposed to house the antennas. On August 29, 2002 staff received the items requested by the Planning Commission. The sample adequately reflects the existing wood poles that currently support the golf ball netting on site. Staff is currently reviewing the Alternative Site Analysis and the RF Engineering Propagation submitted by the applicant. Staff will have a recommendation ready for Planning Commission review on October 2nd and requests that this item be continued to that date. R:'Ut,1 C U P~001\01-0601 Temeku Hills Wireless Commun Facil[ty~2nd PC Continuance Memo.doc 1 cingular' WIRELESS August 27, 2002 Cingular Wireless 2521 Michelle Drive, 2"~ Floor Tusfln, CA 92780 Phone: 714-734-7400 Rolfe Preisendendanz Project Planner City of Temecula 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92589-9033 Si~bject: Alternative Sites/Planning Application No. 01-0601 ~y To whom it may concern, The water tank site is too high and will cover too large an area. Why is that a bad thing? We have a limited number of channels we can use. Channels use different frequencies. We are licensed to use a small slice of the frequency spectrum from which we can generate a limited number of channels. If one radio is using the same channel (id est. frequency) as a radio down the street then they will interfere with each other and destroy the usable signal. At the same time we want to limit the number of sites that we build because they are expensive. But, a site has a limited capacity to handle calls. If a site receives too many calls and congests then some customers can not make calls on our system. Therefore, we must carefully balance several factors. There is no rule of thumb that says that high sites provide "better" coverage. High sites are useful Under nan:ow circums,tances, low traffic areas with flat terrain. That does not apply to the densely developed and hilly Temecula area. Thus, the coverage objective for this site is limited to the valley centered on Rancho California between coverage from SD457 and CM261 with the terrain providing natural barriers to the signal. SD461 will then provide a strong signal over a specific geographic area and not interfere with the same frequency used down the street. SD460 is similar and covers the next valley over centered on Rancho Vista Road. The density of development is these areas is great enough to justify these sites v~hile NOT adding to the sprawling interference caused by other high sites such as CMl 19, CMl20, CM257, CM258, CM259, CM261, CM263, CM504, CM677, and CM680. Placing a site on the water tank will increase interference lowering quality and capacity without dominating the intended coverage area. For these reasons the water tank was NEVER considered a serious candidate and was NOT considered after Jiffy Lube fell through. Regards, Geoffrey Burley RF Engineer Cingular Wireless Cingular Wireless · 2521 Michelle Drive · 2nd Floor - Tustin, CA 92780 COMPASS -TS, Inc. * 17870 Skypark Circle * Suite 102 * h-vine, CA 92614 Ph: 949475-8950 · Fax: 949~5-8949 August 28, 2002 Rolfe Preisendendanz Project Planner City of Temecula 43200 Business park Drive Temecula, CA 92589-9033 · RE: Appeal of P_lanning Di/ector's Hearing Action (Planning Application No_.~l-0601) Dear Rolfe, At the meeting of August 7, 2002 the Planning commission continued the hearing to the meeting of September 4th in request of additional information. The Planning Commission requested additional site analysis including alternatives and justification, and a steel pole sample painted in a fashion similar to that of the existing wooden poles to be replaced. At the Commission's request we have provided a more detailed altemative site analysis which identifies all reasonable, technically feasible alternative locations and or facilities which could provide the proposed telecommunication service. The analysis addresses the potential for collocation at an existing or a new site and the potential to locate facilities as close as possible to the intended service area. It also explains the rationale for selection of the proposed site in view of the relative merits of any of the feasible alternatives. The analysis confirms the fact the subject location, with the stealth type of installation provides the best opportunity for meeting the coverage objectives in the area while minimizing the number, size, and adverse environmental impacts of facilities necessary to provide the services to the City. Therefore, by providing a completely stealth facility at the subject location, the proposed installation at the proposed location clearly meets the intent of the alternative site analysis section of the City's telecommunication ordinance. In addition to the analysis, all of the supporting back-up documentation to the analysis has been provided for the benefit of the Commission. In addition, a sample of a steel pole painted to match a wooden telephone pole has been provided. Please note that the pole sample provided is only representative of the type of steel to be used for the pole installation. The pole sample does not represent the steel thickness or diameter of the exact poles to be used in this installation. For specific information regarding the size and type of pole to be used in this installation please refer to the drawings. At the Planning Commission's request, the steel pole sample has been professionally painted to look like a wooden telephone pole. As can be seen by the sample, the steel pole completely resembles a wooden telephone pole t~om the coloring to the splitting, to the knots in the wood. A letter fi.om the artist outlines the paint materials used on the sample, and a cost estimate to paint the two proposed poles in a similar fashion. Locating Cingular'S antennas inside a netting pole with the associated equipment completely concealed within an enclosure compatible with the existing perimeter wall eliminates aesthetic and visual impacts commonly associated with wireless installations. Furthermore, providing additional landscape off site seamlessly blends the equipment area into the natural setting of the golf course. Cingular is committed to utilizing installations that are successfully integrated into the existing environment in order to minimize aesthetic impacts. Responding affirmatively to the requests of the City and the Planning Commission, Cingular believes this is a high quality installation which will result in minimal visual impact if any, and therefore, respectfully requests staff support for the approval of Planning Application Number 01-0601 We respectfully request the Planning Commission grant the appeal, overturn Planning Director's denial, and approve_the planning Application No. 01-0601. Thank you for your time and consideration. Should you require any additional information or have any questions regarding our proposal, please contact me directly at (949).475-8950 extension 118. Sincerely, COMPASS Telecom Services Attactunents Alternative Site Analysis Cingular Wireless Temeku Hills Golf Course PA-01-0601 Project No. SD-461-03 In accordance with industry standards, Cingular Wireless always attempts to co-locate wireless facilities on existing approved sites and/or structures. The desire to co-locate is based on a number of factors, including coverage objectives, cost efficiency and strong recommendations by City jurisdictions. C~ngular Wireless has determined that there are no existing approved sites within the search ring that can facilitate their needs for this installation. This determAnation is based on fi:equent site visits by Cingular Wireless' Radio Frequency (RF) Engineers and information provided by Leasing Specialists. Cingular Wireless' RF Engineers have identified properties near the intersection of Rancho California Road and Margarita Road as the only feasible opportunity to meet their coverage objectives in the area. Furthermore, Cingular Wireless' Leasing Specialist has determined that coming to terms on a lease agreement with other surrounding property owners is not likely due to lack of interest or unreasonable business terms. Cingular Wireless' RF Engineers and the Site Acquisition Specialist have selected the subject property (Temeku Hills Golf Course) near the intersection of Rancho California Road and Margarita Road as the only feasible opportunity to meet their coverage objectives in the area. Cingular Wireless' RF Engineers and the Site Acquisition Specialist explored the opportunity to place a wireless facility in Palomar Village Shopping Center at the Jiffy Lube facility across the street west of the proposed project location. The owners of Jiffy Lube did sign a Letter of Authorization for us to submit a Conditional Use Permit Application to the City and a lease agreement for the proposal. However, the underlying property owner (Carey Levy) of the entire shopping center was not ~interested in the proposal, therefore the project died. Furthermore, upon submittal of a CUP, the City was opposed to the installation and recommended we look for an alternative location, such as the golf course across the street. Copies of portions of the CUP application (PA-01-0251), the LOA and written correspondence to the property owner are provided for reference. There is a multi-family residential complex located near the comer of Margarita Road and Rancho California Road to the south of the proposed facility location. There are no existing wireless facilities at this location, nor are there any existing vertical elements that could support this installation at that residential complex. Furthermore, it is a residential complex. Typically, local jurisdictions are hesitant in supporting wireless facilities on residentially zoned properties, much less sites occupied by residential uses. Therefore, this location was not pursued as a facility location. Cingular Wireless also attempted to locate the facility at the watertank south of · the subject location. However, because the grade elevation of the watertank facility is exceptionally higher than what is necessary, also, Cingular already has a facility located at Rancho Sports Park just a short distance up the street, on Margarita Road. Therefore, because the elevation of the watertank location was too high, and the fact there is an existing facility very closely located, and the fact that it does not meet the coverage objectives for the area, the candidate was no longer pursued. The final alternative location evaluated for feasibility was the Post Office property located across Rancho California Road to the south. Because the site backs UP to a large hillside, the site does not allow Cingular Wireless the opportunity to meet its coverage objectives. Also, there are no existing wireless facilities at this location, nor are there any existing vertical dements that could support this installation. Furthermore, the Postmaster General is not interested in entering into an agreement with Cingular Wireless for a wireless facility at this post office location, therefore this location was no longer pursued as a candidate. Written correspondence to the property owner is provided for reference. Finally we arrived at the subject property for an installation. The subject property meets all the basic criteria necessary for a feasible candidate. The owners of the subject property are interested in executing a deal with Cingular 'to lease space for the installation. The subject location offers the opportunities necessary for providing an installation which will achieve the coverage objectives outlined by the Radio Frequency (RF) Engineers. The City of Temecula Municipal Code allows Wireless Telecommunication facilities at this location, therefore it can be entitled, and the proposed installation is one that can be reasonably constructed with a minimal mount of time, and expense. Initially, the City recommended a monopalm installation at this location because of the number of existing palm trees. While we were open to the City's suggestions' for an installation, certainly a facility, which would be undetectable, would be much more desirable. After further investigation and discussions with the owner's representative, the proposed installation was much more desirable than a monopalm installation, especially due to the proximity of residential, and the fact that the proposed installation would not ever be noticeable because it is completely hidden from view inside a pole. In light of the very limited opportunities for an installation in the area, installing a wireless telecommunication facility inside an existing pole and replacing the protective golf ball netting back-stop for the golf course offers the best opportunity for an installation to improve wireless coverage in the area. When co-location is not possible, building mounted antennas are often the desired installations by both Cingular Wireless and most City jurisdictions because they blend in welt with the surrounding environment. But when an installation can be completely removed from view, eliminating all impacts commonly associated with wireless telecdmmunicafion facilities, the proposed type of installation offered the best type of win-win solution for !ocating.a facility. It should be noted that Cingular Wireless would cooperate with other carders who wish to collocate on any of the netting poles in the future. POTENTIAL CANDIDATES REJECTION RATIONALE Jiffy Lube Rancho California Road Palomar Village Shopping Center Rancho Califomia Road · Residential Apartment Complex Margarita Road Watertank Facility Margarita Road Post Office Rancho California Road Temelm Hills Golf Course Rancho California Road Jiffy Lube owners signed agreement with Cingular. Underlying property owner of Palomar Village Shopping Center is not interested in entering into an agreement with Cingular Wireless for locating a wireless facility anywhere on their property. The property owner is not interested in entering into an agreement with Cingular Wireless for locating a wireless facility anywhere on their property. The property is at a less than desirable grade elevation, it is zoned and occupied by residential uses, the City is typically hesitant in supporting wireless facilities on residential properties. The property is at a less than desirable grade elevation, it is located too close to an existing facility, and does not achieve necessary coverage objectives. The Postmaster General is not interested in entering into an agreement with Cingular Wireless for a wireless facility at this post office location. Furthermore, because the site backs up to a large hillside, the site does not allow Cingular Wireless the opportunity to meet its coverage objectives. Also, since there are no existing wireless facilities at this location, nor are there any existing vertical elements that could support this installation, this location was The site is at a location and grade elevation which affords Cingular Wireless the opportunity to meet its coverage objectives with a willing property owner and a proposed installation which completely complies with the City's Wireless Telecommunication Ordinance. EXISTING CARRIERS IN AREA REJECTION RATIONALE The only location where there are existing carrier facilities within the vicinity of the proposed installation is at the watertank facility. The property is at a less than desirable grade elevation, it is located too close to an existing facility, and does not achieve necessary coverage objectives. The location at the golf course in the netting pole offers the best opportunity for a conscienscious installation with minimal, if any impact at all. The proposal complies with the City's wireless ordinance, the facility will not result in any adverse impacts on the existing surrounding properties, and the proposed installation meets the coverage objectives, the landlord has agreed to terms, and the site has been approved by Cingular's Radio Frequency Engineers. Site Justification Cingular Wireless Temeku Hills Golf Course PA-01-0601 · Project No. SD-461~03 uCr 2 9 By Pursuant to its license agreement, Cingular Wireless is in the process of improving and expanding its network throughout Riverside County, including areas within the City of Temecula to comply with its FCC license requirements. The purpose of the proposed site is for capacity off-loading from other Cingular Wireless sites in the vicinity and to fill-in a weak coverage area in this geographic region. Cingular Wireless seeks to establish the infras~u~ture necessary to offer high quality seamless wireless communication services coverage to residents and businesses of the City of Temecula. The proposed site will provide in-building coverage to the retail commercial and residential areas near the intersection of Rancho California Road and Margarita Road. This site will provide coverage along Rancho Callfomia Road approximately between Moranga Road and Tee Drive and along Margarita Road between Cross Road and Del Rey Road. It is crucial for Cingular Wireless to have adequate coverage in this area in order to serve customers and remain in compliance with it FCC license obligations. The need for improved service is determined by market demand, capacity requirements for a specific geographic area, and the need to provide continuous coverage from one site to another in a particular geographic region. Once the need for additional capacity or enhanced coverage in a particular area has been established, Cingular Wireless' Radio Frequency Engineers (RF) identify a target area (search ring) to locate a new facility which will meet the coverage objectives. The required site location and antenna height is determined by an engineering study of the coverage area. The study evaluates radio signal propagation over the desired coverage area based on topography, geographical features and possible signal attenuation due to seasonal changes in vegetation. It is desirable to have direct, clear line of sight fi.om the array of antenna, panels to the required coverage area. The location and height of wireless facilities are based on technical requirements and, as such must be placed according to those requirements. This site is critical in establishing a seamle.ss high quality network for providing wireless telecommuuications services to the region. After comparison of other potential site locations in the surrounding area, the subject property offers the most desirable location in the interest of public convenience and welfare. The design, height and placement of the facility will allow the facility to serve the intended function without being unsightly or causing adverse impacts on surrounding properties or uses. The proposed use will provide a service which will contribute to the general well being of the neighborhood and the community. Since their introduction, wireless telecommunications systems have proven to be an invaluable commurfications tool in the event of emergencies (traffic accidents, fires, etc.) and natural disasters (earthquakes, floods, etc.) where normal land line communications are often disrupted, overlooked, or inaccessible during and after an event has occurred. This service and similar technology are utilized by numerous governmental and quasi-governmental agencies that provide emergency service. Wireless telecommunications systems including cellular telephones have also proven to be invaluable tools in business communications and everyday personal use. In this sense, wireless telecommunications system networks are desirable in the interest of public convenience, health, safety, and welfare, and thus are proper in relation to the development of the community. Additionally, unlike other land uses which can be spatially determined through the General Plan, or other land use plans, the location of wireless telecommunications facilities are based on technical requirements which include service area, geographical elevations, ali~ment with neighboring sites and customer demand components. Placement within the urban geography is dependent on these requirements. Accordingly, wireless telecommunication facilities have been located adjacent to and within all major land use categories including residential, coimnercial, industrial, open space, etc, proving to be compatible in all locations. The proposed installation will not be detrimental to the character of development in the neighborhood since the facility is manned and does not require or include any water, waste treatment, or management of hazardous materials and does not generate noise, odor, smoke, or result in any other adverse impacts on adjacent land uses. The proposed facility will allow business owners, residents, and commuters within the coverage area improved wireless access to the rapidly expanding communications infxastmcture by expanding the capability of the network to provide voice and data transmission services to meet the current market demand. Installation and operation of the proposed wireless telecommtmication facility will not result in any adverse affect or changes to the existing character of the subject property, adjacent uses, or the local community. In addition, there is existing adequate access to the site to serve the proposed facility. Therefore, the location, size, design and operating characteristic of the proposed facility are not detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, or welfare of people or residents residing or working in the City. The City of Temecula's General Plan designates the site as "Open Space". The proposed use is consistent with the General Plan designation and Zoning of the subject property. The Zoning Code allows the installation and operation of wireless telecommunication facilities in the OS District:through the approval of a Use Permit. Installation of the proposed wireless telecommunication facility is not in conflict with any provision of the General Plan because the overall goal of the General Plan, as implemented through the Zoning Ordinance, is to provide an arrangement of land uses, circulation, and land · services which will encourage and contribute to the health, safety, welfare and convenience of the people who live and work in this area. The proposed project will promote public health, safety, and welfare by providing wireless telecommunications services to the area., Wireless mobile phones are becoming a necessary emergency service devise and business tool, as well as being a convenience for personal and family use. Additionally, the proposed installation will not affect any element of the General Plan since the primary use of the subject property as a golf course recreation area will remain unchanged. ITEM #6 CITY OFTEMECULA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTDEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Planning CommonlY' Debbie Ubnosk6, Director of Planning September 18, 2002 PA02-0236 Product Review for Lennar Homes On September 4, 2002 Planning Application 02-0236 Home Product Review for the Harveston Specific Plan was continued to the September 18th Planning Commission Meeting. The Commission had requested that the applicant revise the elevations submitted and bring the product elevations back for consideration. Staff expects to receive the revised elevations on Tuesday, September 10th, which will not allow time for Staff review prior to staff reports being printed. Therefore, Staff will be prepared to discuss the revised elevations at the Planning Commission meeting scheduled for September 18t~. R:~Product Review~-Iarveston Product~PC Continuance Memo.doc 1 ITEM #7 CITY OFTEMECULA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Planning Commis~/ Debbie Ubnoske~)~e-ctor of Planning September 18, 2002 Continuance of the Guidant Development Agreement (PA02-0217) The City of Temecula has been working with Advanced Cardiovascular Systems, Inc (ACS), a subsidiary of the Guidant Corporation, about a possible local expansion. Financial incentives were detailed in the Owner Participation Agreement approved by the City Council on February 12, 2002. Since that time, City Staff has been working with representatives of ACS on the physical development of their property. The various physical development issues are being addressed through a development agreement. However, because the Development Agreement details have not been finalized, Staff is requesting that this item be continued to the October 2, 2002 Planning Commission meeting. R:~D A\Guidant DA\Continuance Report PCl.doc ITEM #8 STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION September 18, 2002 Planning Application No. 02-0355 (Substantial Conformance) Prepared By: Thomas Thornsley, Associate Planner RECOMMENDATION: The Community Development Department - Planning Division Staff recommends the Planning Commission: '1. ADOPT a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. 02-0355 (Substantial Conformance) based on the Determination of Consistency with a project for which an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was previously certified pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 - Subsequent EIR's and Negative Declarations. 2. ADOPT a Resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 02- 0355 - A SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE REQUEST TO AMEND THE DESIGN GUIDELINES OF THE CROWNE HILL SUBDIVISION FOR VESTED TRACT MAP NO's. 23143-5 THROUGH -12 AND APPROVAL OF THE CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN ALONG PAUBA ROAD, LOCATED EAST OF BU'I-rERFIELD STAGE ROAD AND SOUTH OF PAUBA ROAD. APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: PROPOSAL: LOCATION: EXISTING ZONING: SURROUNDING ZONING: Pacific Century Homes, 40925 Country Center Drive, Suite 110, Temecula, CA 92591 and KB Home Coastal, Inc., 12235 El Camino Real, Ste. 100, San Diego, CA 92130 A Substantial Conformance request to amend the Design ' Guidelines of the Crowne Hill subdivision (V'I'M 23143) and review of the landscape plan along Pauba Road. The property south of Pauba Road between Butter[ield Stage Road and Via Del Monte and east of Butterfield Stage Road between Pauba Road and Crowne Hill Drive. Very Low Residential (VL) North: Riverside County R-1 South: Low Medium Density Residential East: Riverside County R-I West: Low Medium Density Residential R:\SUB CONFORMANCE~?.002~D2-0355 Crowne Hill Design Guidelines~Staff report PC 8-18-02.doc 1 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: EXISTING LAND USE: SURROUNDING LAND USES: LOW Medium Vacant North: Residential South: Residential East: Residential West: Vacant BACKGROUND The area known as Crowne Hill is comprised of 459 acres at the southeast corner of'Pauba Road and Butterfield Stage Roads consisting of Vested Tract Map No. 23143 and Vested Tentative Tract Map No. 26941. Riverside County Board of Supervisors approved Map No. 23143 August 16, 1988, with 1,026 lots. The City approved Tentative Map No. 26941 July 13, 1993, with 28 residential estate lots (2~ acre or larger) over 131 acres. Since their approval, both maps were conditioned to use residential architectural standards set in the Design Guidelines prepared by Ranpac and Planning Design Solutions, which were originally part of a master plan put together for the Crowne Hill subdivision. These Design Guidelines depict architectural drawings for English Tudor or country style homes. Development companies that have approached the City with regard to .developing these tracts, have not embraced these styles of architecture. Now that the remaining property has been purchased by two buildem, they are requesting to amend the old Design Guidelines and are proposing more contemporary architectural styles. Since the early part of the year, homeowners in the Pauba Ranchos area (north and east of the tract) have been inquiring about the extent of landscaping proposed along Pauba Road. Conditions of Approval concerning the landscape buffer along Pauba Road were added to VTM 23143 at the July 16, 1992, Director's Hearirig. The conditions dealing with the landscaping made the plans subject to review by the Pauba Ranchos Homeowners Association and approval by the Planning Director. Due to the sensitivity of this matter to the neighboring homeowners, staff felt that this matter should also be addressed at this time in a public forum. On July 3, 2002, an application to amend the Design Guidelines was filed and staff met with the applicants and commented on the proposal July 31, 2002. The applicants incorporated most of staff's comments and resubmitted documents on August 12, 2002. Although there were some elements related to architecture and articulation that staff believed could be further enhanced, it was agreed to take the Design Guidelines forward to Planning Commission. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicants are proposing to update the old Design Guidelines on file for TraCt 23143, otherwise know as the Crowne Hill subdivision on the eastern most boundary of the city. Within the revised Design Guidelines are all the elements include in the previous guidelines. Those standards being modified or added are architectural, home placementJorientation, monumentation, walls and fence plans, and landscaping. A complete copy of the revised Crowne Hill Design Guidelines is attached (Exhibit D.) ANALYSIS A review of the City's Residential Performance Standards finds that the applicants have considered them in the development of their Design Guidelines by including a variety of architectural styles, providing enhanced elevations, using variable setbacks, and variations in the garage placement to create visual interest along the street frontages. Architecture: The primary concept of the new guidelines uses a c?ntemporary interpretation of four architectural styles historically prevalent in Southern California: Spanish Colonial, Craftsman, Italianate, and R:~SUB CONFORMANCE~?.002~02-0355 Cro~rne Hill Design Guidelines~,taff report PC 8-18-02.doc 2 French Country. As described in the guidelines, these amhitectural styles will be an appropriate interpretation that "captures the spirit" of the particular amhitecture, as opposed to being exact reproductions. Staff has considered the compatibility of these four styles of architecture and finds that there are similar architectural styles found in the immediate area and throughout Temecula. Various materials and building elements are included in each elevation to craft each distinctive style. Most styles use stucco as the primarily finish material with accents of lap siding, ledger or coble veneer. Other enhancements include entry archways, columns, mullioned windows, knee braces, outlookers, shutters, varied chimneys, false pot shelves and balconies. Staff felt that the drawings in the guidelines should reflect a broader use of the accent materials and element on the side and rear elevations to better relate the particular architectural style. The applicants differed with staff on where additional accenting material should be used the homes. Rather than redesign the guidelines with further details of these elements, both the applicants and staff agreed to consider the comments of the Planning Commission before implementing further changes. During the subsequent product reviews, the Design Guidelines can be used to require further enhancing elerhents to assure that the city is getting well designed, articulated, and enhanced homes; To further assure this, staff has added a condition for a text amendment encouraging more use of enhancing accent element such as the rock and brick veneer, wood siding, exposed eves, and window accenting. Streetscape/Enhanced Elevations: To add visual interest along the street frontages, the homes utilize variable setback and garage placement and enhanced rear and side elevations where they are visible to the public. Building placement on the lots utilizing architecture forward and side entry garages will minimize the visual intrusion of the garages protruding forward of the home and thus dominating the streetscape. All direct entry garages have a minimum setback of 20 feet behind right-of-way, while side entry garages can be placed at a minimum setback of 10 feet. Additionally, many of the home designs have second story elements over the garage to incorporate it into the homes design or the garage is held back and the living space of the home is brought forward. All of these concepts are recommended in the Residential Performance Standards found in the City's Development Code. Accent elements and additional articulation will be provided on the side and rear elevations, of those homes visible to the general public from major streets (Butterfield Stage Road, Pauba Road, and Crowne Hill Drive) and on corner lots internal to the subdivision. The enhancements include such items as window trim, selected placement of window shutters, full pop-out wall projections with a gable roof, accent banding, and material accents consistent with those used on the front elevations. Additionally, enhancements have been provided on the sides and reare of those homes visible from the estate lots to the east. Because portions of this subdivision are terraced, staff has asked the applicant to provide a line of site assessment to verify whether the rear elevations of those homes at the north end of the project area are visible from Pauba Road during product review. Should it be found that these homes are visible, they are conditioned to have side and rear enhancements. Monumentation, Walls, and Fences: Monumentation designs have been proposed for the major street entries, Butterfield Stage and Pauba Roads, and at the major intersection of the tract at the afore mentioned streets. The original guidelines also proposed to have accent treatments elsewhere in the subdivision at major crossroads and the underlying conditions of approval require that the landscape plans incorporate the use of specimen accent trees at key visual focal points within the project. Therefore, staff is conditioning that the interior crossroad locations of Crowne Hill Drive at Royal Crest Place, Wolf Street, and Fox Road comply with this condition in preparation of the landscape construction plans. Block walls, tubular fencing, or wood fencing are proposed throughout the subdivision. Staff supports the proposed use of slump block walls because it is consistent with the perimeter walls R:',SUB CONFORMANCE~2002~2-0355 Crowne Hill Design Guidelines'~Staff report PC 8-18-02.doc 3 currently installed along both side of Butterfield Stage Road. Where lots have the opportunity to take advantage of surrounding views, tubular steel fencing is proposed unless noise conditions require solid fencing (block). All internal side and rear yard fences will be wood. Landscapinq: The Design Guidelines provide standards for landscaping each front yard with one street tree, one yard tree, turf, and a manual irrigation system. The plan also allows the turf to be held back 4 to 8 feet from the edge of the house and from the side property lines to allow for future homeowner landscaping and irrigation. Th. ese standard are inconsistent with the City's residential landscape standard and they are in conflict with the subdivision's conditions of approval. Those conditions require that all front yards shall be provided with landscaping and automatic irrigation and that 50% of all trees planted within the project be a minimum 24 inch box size. Staff has therefore conditioned that the Design Guidelines comply with the City's residential landscape standards. Pauba Road Landscape Buffer In consideration of the larger estate lots along the north side of Pauba Road, the design of the subdivision separated the larger lots to the north from its smaller lots with a large (150-300 foot deep) landscape buffer. At the July 16, 1992, Director's Hearing, conditions were added to the map that dealt with landscaping this open space buffer area and subject it to review by the Pauba Ranchos Home Owners Association. As grading got under way earlier this year, homeowners in the area voiced their concern about the buffer area landscaping and that it will enhance this area. Some residents have asked that the buffer area be fully landscaped, however, the applicants never intended this area to be fully and formally landscaped. These differences come about because the neighbors and the applicants have different interpretations of the intent of the conditions and to what extent this open space buffer should be landscaped. Conditions number 52 and 54 read as follows: "52. Lot 1088 and 1095 shall be landscaped with native/drought tolerant trees, 'shrubs and ground cover/hydro-seed. Temporary irrigation shall be instal/ed to allow for establishment of the landscaping subject to the review of the Pauba Ranchos Home Owners Association and the approval of the Planning Director. 54. The landscaping along Pauba Road shall be native landscaping to presen/e the natural stateofthearea. ThelandscapingshallbesubjecttothereviewofthePaubaRanchos Home Owners Association and approval of the Planning Director.' The applicant presented the landscape pian to the Pauba Ranchos Home Owners Association on August 21, 2002, and no comments had been submitted to the Planning Department prior to the completion of this report. The landscape plan proposes a tree-lined street with turf, shrubs, and ground covers along the sidewalk and equestrian trail. Heavy landscaping will also be installed at the neighborhood entry point and over most areas being graded. Some area will be hydroseeded with a native plant mix. Staff understands the applicant's concerns about maintaining such a large planting area, yet believes that there should be some more integration of formal landscaping. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared and certified for this subdivision when the County approved it. The amending of the Design Guidelines does not alter or conflict with the previous environmental assessment. Therefore, Under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15162 (Subsequent EIRs and Negative Declarations) this project is exempt and a Notice of Exemption has been prepared for Planning Application No. 02-0355. Section 15162 applies when an EIR has been certified or negative declaration adopted for a project, no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for that project unless there are substantial changes not discussed or examined in the EIR. R:~SUB CONFORMANCE~002~02-0355 Crowne Hill Design Guidelines~Staff report PC 8-18-02,doc 4 The affected area of the subdivision meets the criteria noted by developing consistent with the Butterfield Stage Ranch Specific Plan EIR No. 230 land uses, which anticipated detached single- family dwelling units. Therefore, the proposed project is eligible for a CEQA exemption pursuant to Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines. GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING CONSISTENCY The project is consistent with the Low Medium (LM) land use desighations of the Temecula General Plan and the Development Code. Upon approval of the Substantial Conformance as conditioned, the project will be consistent with the Residential Performance Standards found in the Development Code, and with the policies of the General Plan's Community Design Element. SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS The project has been determined by staff to maintain consistency with applicable City policies, standards and guidelines. We believe the revised Design Guidelines will assure the development of single family homes that are compatible with the nature and quality of surrounding development, and that they will represent an attractive and functional addition to the City's residential housing. FINDINGS - SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE 1. The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan for Temecula and with all applicable requirements of state law and other ordinances of the city. The proposal is consistent with the land use designation and policies reflected for Low Medium Residential (LM) development in that it is establishing consistent design standards for a large development area required in the City of Temecula General Plan, as well as incorporating the intent of the Residential Performance Standards found in the City of Temecula Development Code. TheamendmentoftheCrowneHillDesignGuidelinesisthereforeproperlyplannedand found to be suitable for future development. 2. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health, safety, and general welfare. The amended Design Guidelines will assure that well designed homes appropriate to the area will be built consistent with the ResidentiaI Performance Standards found in the City of Temecula Development Code. The project has been reviewed for, and as conditioned, can be found to be consistent with, all applicable policies, guidelines, standards and regulations intended to ensure that the development will be constructed and function in a mannei' that will enhance the physical character, integrity, and quality of the residential areas for the protection of the public health, safety and welfare. Attachments: PC Resolution - Blue Page 6 Exhibit A. Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 9 Exhibits - Blue Page 13 A. Vicinity Map B. Zoning Map C. General Plan D. Crowne Hill Design Guidelines R:~SUB CONFORMANCE~002~02-0355 Crowne Hill Design Guidelines~Staff report PC 8-18-02.doc 5 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 PC RESOLUTION NO. 2001- PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 02- 0355 - A SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE REQUEST TO AMEND THE DESIGN GUIDELINES OF THE CROWNE HILL SUBDIVISION FOR VESTED TRACT MAP NO's. 23143-5 THROUGH -12 AND APPROVAL OF THE CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN ALONG PAUBA ROAD, LOCATED EAST OF BUTI'ERFIELD STAGE ROAD AND SOUTH OF PAUBA ROAD. WHEREAS, Pacific Century Homes and KB Home Coastal, Inc., filed Planning Application No. 02-0355, in accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code; WHEREAS, Planning Application No. 02-0355 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 Planning Application No. 02-0355 on September 18, 2002, at duly noticed public hearings as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support or in opposition to this matter; WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing and after due consideration of the testimony, the Commission approved Planning Application No. 02-0355; NOW, THEREFORE, TH E PLANNING COMMISSION OF TH E CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section1. by reference. That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby incorporated Section 2. Findinqs. The Planning Commission, in approving Planning Application No. 02-0355 hereby makes the following findings as required by Section 17.05.010.F of the Temecula Municipal Code: A. The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan for Temecula and with all applicable requirements of state law and other ordinances of the city. The proposal is consistent with the land use designation and policies reflected for Low Medium Residential (LM) development in that it is establishing consistent design standards for a large development area as required in the City of Temecula General Plan, as well as incorporating the intent of the Residential Performance Standards found in the City of Temecula Development Code. The amendment of the Crowne Hill Design Guidelines is therefore properly planned and found to be suitable for future development. B. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health, safety, and general welfare. The amended Design Guidelines will assure that well designed homes appropriate to the area will be built consistent with the Residential Performance Standards found in' the City of Temecula Development Code. The project has been reviewed, and as conditioned, can be found to be consistent with, all applicable policies, guidelines, standards and regulations intended to ensure R:~SUB CONFORMANCEA2.002~02-0355 Crowne Hill Design Guidelines\Staff report PC 8-18-02.doc 7 that the development will be constructed and function in a manner that will enhance the physical character, integrity, and quality of the residential areas for the protection of the public health, safety and we/fare. Section 3. Environmental Compliance. A Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. 02-0355 was made per the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15162. This section applies when an Environmental Impact Report (EiR) has been certified or negative declaration adopted for a project, no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for that project unless there are substantial changes not discussed or examined in the EIR. Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby conditionally approves Planning Application No. 02-0355, a Substantial Conformance request to amend the Design Guidelines of the Crowne Hill subdivision for Vested Tract Map No's. 23143-5 through -12 and the conceptual Landscape Plan along Pauba Road, east of Butterfield Stage Road and south of Pauba Road, and known as all lots within Vested Tract Map No's. 23143-5 through ~ 12. The Conditions of Approval are contained in Exhibit A. Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning Commission this 18th day of September 2002. ATTEST: Dennis Chiniaeff, Chairperson 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 certifythat PC Resolution No. 02- was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 18t~ day of September, by the following Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERSi PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary R:~SUB CONFORMANCE~002~02-0355 Crowne Hitl Design Guidelines~Staff report PC 8-18-02.doc 8 EXHIBIT A CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE R:~SUBCONFORMANCE',2002~02-0355CrowneH DesgnGude nes\Staffi*~o~C:8~l~8~0~c '~- EXHIBIT A CiTY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Planning Application No. 02-0355 (Substantial Conformance) Project Description: A Substantial Conformance request to amend the Design Guidelines of the Crowne Hill subdivision for Vested Tract Map No's. 23143-5 through -12 and approval of the Conceptual Landscape Plan along Pauba Road, east of Butterfield Stage Road and south of Pauba Road. DIF Category: Residential Vested Tract Map: Approval Date: Expiration Date: All lots of VTM No's. 23143-5 through - 12 September 18, 2002 September 18, 2004 PLANNING DEPARTMENT Within Forty-Eight (48) Hours of the Approval of this Project The applicant shall deliver to the Community Development Department- Planning Division a cashier's check or money order made payable to the County Clerk in the amount of Sixty- four Dollars ($64.00) for the County administrative fee, to enable the City to file the Notice of Exemption as provided under Public Resoumes Code Section 21108(b) and California Code of Regulations Section 15062. If within said forty-eight (48) hour period the applicant has not delivered to the Community Development Department - Planning Division the check as required above, the approval for the project granted shall be void by reason of failure of condition (Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c). General Requirements The permittee/applicant shall indemnify, 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 21167); The City shall promptly notify the permittee/applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding brought forth within this time period. The City shall estimate the cost of the defense of the action and applicant shall deposit said amount with the City. City may require additional deposits to cover anticipated costs. City shall refund, without interest, any unused portions of the deposit once the litigation is finally concluded. Should the City fail to either promptly notify or cooperate fully, permittee/applicant shall not, thereafter be responsible to indemnity, defend, protect, or hold harmless the City, any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its R:~SUB coNFORMANCE~2002~02-0355 Crowne Hill Design Guidelines',E;tafl report PC 8-18-02.doc 10 o = o o So = 10. officers, employees, or agents. Should the applicant fail to timely post the required deposit, the Director may terminate the land use approval without further notice to the applicant. This approval shall be used within two (2) years of the approval date; otherwise, it shall become null and void. By use is meant the beginning of substantial construction contemplated by this approval within the two (2) year period which is thereafter diligently pursued to completion or the beginning of substantial utilization contemplated by this approval. The Landscape Guideline text within the Design Guidelines shall be revised so that: a. All residential front yard landscaping conforms to the Landscape Standards found in the City of Temecula's Development Code Section 17.06.060. b. Street trees shall be planted in or immediately adjacent to the public right-of-way with placement being consistent along the street frontage. c. All portions of the front yard, forward of side yard fences, shall be landscaped prior to issuance of an occupancy permit. The Project Monumentation Plan within the Design Guidelines shall include enhanced intersection treatments at the interior crossroad locations of Cr0wne Hill Drive at: Royal Crest Place, Wolf Street, and Fox Road, in compliance with the underlying conditions requiring that the landscape plans incorporate the use of specimen accent trees at key visual focal points with the project in preparation of the landscape construction plans. Landscaping installed for the project shall be continuously maintained to the reasonable satisfaction of the Director of Planning. If it is determined that the landscaping is not being maintained, the Director of Planning shall have the authority to require the property owner to bring the landscaping into conformance with the approved landscape plan.. The continued maintenance' of all landscaped areas shall be the responsibility of the developer or any successors in interest. The Director of Planning will be entitled to ask for additional enhancing accent elements such as rock and brick veneer, wood siding, exposed eves, and/or window accenting during the review of applications for the product review for the actual homes, if it is deemed necessary. A line of sight assessment'shall be prepared that assess the visibility of homes in the tract from Pauba Road east of Crowne Hill Drive looking southward. Should it be determined that homes are visible from Pauba Road then they shall include enhanced architectural treatment. Within seven (7) days of final approval, the applicant shall sign both c~)pies of the final conditions of approval that will be provided by the Community Development Department - Planning Division staff, and return one signed set to the Community Development Department - Planning Division for their files. Within thirty (30) days of final approval, the applicant shall revise Exhibits "D", (Crowne Hill Design Guidelines) to reflect the final Conditions of Approval and submit five (5) full size copies. R:~SUB CONFORMANCE~2002~02~0355 Crowne Hill Design Guidelines~Staff report PC 8-18-02.doc 11 Prior to the issuance of Building Permits 11. Three (3) copies of Construction Landscaping and Irrigation Plans prepared in conjunction with the Design Guidelines shall be submitted to the Community Development Department- Planning Division for approval. These plans shall conform substantially with the approved Exhibit "F", or as amended by these conditions. The location, number, genus, species, and container size of the plants shall be shown. The plans shall be consistent with the Water Efficient Ordinance. The cover page shall identify the total square footage of the landscaped area for the site. The plans shall be accompanied by the following items: a. Appropriate filing fee (per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule at time of submittal). b. One (1) copy of the approved grading plan. c. Water usage calculations per Chapter 17.32 of the Development Code (Water Efficient Ordinance). d. Total cost estimate of plantings and irrigation (in accordance with the approved plan). e. A landscape maintenance program shall be submitted for approval, which details the proper maintenance of all proposed plant materials to assure proper growth and landscape development for the long-term esthetics of the property. The approved maintenance program shall be provided to the landscape maintenance contractor who shall be responsible to carry out the detailed program. Prior to the Issuance of Occupancy Permits 12. 13. All required landscape planting and irrigation shall have been 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. Performance securities, in amounts to be determined by the Director of Planning, to guarantee the maintenance of the plantings, 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 upon request by the applicant. 14. All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use allowed by this permit. ~ By placing my sig,nature 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 pi'oject shall be subject to Planning Commission approval. Applicant's Signature Name printed Date R:~SUB CONFORMANCE~?.002~02-0355 Crowne Hill Design Guidelines~Staff report PC 8-18-02.doc 12 ATFACHMENT NO. 2 EXHIBITS CONFORMANCE~2002~02-0355 C[owne Hill Design G uidelin es\Sl~ff ~epor t PC 8-;18-02.doc ; ~=~% R:~SUB CITY OF TEMECULA . Project Site PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 02-0355 (Substantial Conformance) EXHIBIT A pL?NNING COMMISSION DATE - September 18, 2002 VICINITY MAP R:~SUB CONFORMANCE~002~72*0355 Crowne Hill Design Guidelines~St~ff report PC 8-18-02.doc CITY OF TEMECULA EXHIBIT B ZONING MAP DESIGNATION - LM ~Low M~dium Density Residential) EXHIBIT C GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION - LM .(.Low .Medium Density__~esidential) PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 02-0355 (Substantial Conformance) ~ PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - September 18, 2002 R:\SUB CONFORMANCE~2002~02-0355 Crowne Hill Design Guidelines\Staff report PC 8-18-02.doc 15 EXHIBIT D CROWNE HILL DESIGN GUIDELINE Z r~ Z © [ Z Z Z Z Z 0 m~ oz ~ Z 0 Z Z 0 U Z Z Z ,/ (D ,,9oo Z U U Z Z 0 U U Z T Z Z Z T E 0 U U Z T Z ~E Z Z Z Z Z Z 0 Z Z uo ~ ~ ~ ~ Z Z Z 0 Z Z z Z 0 u Z 0 JO 'V'O'H ~ 3 LU ILl LLI ITEM #9 STAFF REPORT- PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION September 18, 2002 Planning Application No. 99-0186 (General Plan Amendment: 2000-2005 Housing Element) Prepared By: David Hoga'n, Principal Planner RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Department Staff recommends the Planning Commission: 1. ADOPT the Negative Declaration for Planning Application No. 99-0186 2. ADOPT a Resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 02- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT THE 2000-2005 HOUSING ELEMENT (PLANNING APPLICATION 99-0186) BACKGROUND State Law requires that local jurisdictions periodically update their Housing Element every five years. The originally City Housing Element was approved in 1993. In the late 1990's, the State of California deferred Housing Element updates because of funding shortfalls. The current draft Housing Element will meet the State-mandated requirements through 2005. The City hired Cotton Bridge Associates in June of 1999 to assist in the development of an updated Housing Element. Since that time, staff and the consultant have been working with the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) to prepare a housing element that HCD feels meets the requirements of state law. The City has' finally received a conceptual approval of the draft Housing Element on July 2, 2002. ANALYSIS The purpose of a housing element is to address local and regional housing needs. A housing element is expected to: (1) assess local housing needs, resources, and constraints; (2) identify sites to meet future housing needs; (3) provide goals and objectives to maintain, improve and develop local housing; and (4) provide a five-year master plan to meet the City's share of regional housing needs. The key aspects of the Housing Element are: · To provide housing opportunities to meet the needs of existing and future residents; · To provide affordable housing; · To remove governmental constraints in maintaining and developing housing; · To conserve the existing housing stock; and, · To provide equal access to local housing opportunities and prohibit discrimination. The Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) targets for ~ery Low, Low, Moderate, and Upper R:\GENP~ousing Element 2000~Staff Report PC1 .doc 1 income categories are incorporated into the Element. The Draft Housing Element has been cimulated to the Department of Housing and Community Development as required by Sate Law. The Department has reviewed the Draft and provided a number of comments that were addressed in each subsequent submittal. A description of the general comments provided by HCD are shown below. Copies of HCD's comment lettem are contained in Attachment No. 4. 1/18/01 5/21/01 7/2/02 Issue Areas Letter Letter Letter Status Housing Needs, Resoumes v~ Resolved and Constraints Quantified Objectives v' Resolved Housing Programs/Adequate ~' ,/ Conditionally Approved Sites and Density Provisions Public Participation ,/ Resolved As of July 2, 2002, the key remaining issue to be addressed will be resolved in the General Plan Update process that is currently underway. The proposed Mixed Use provisions that will be added to the General Plan, and later the Development Code, have demonstrated to the Department of Housing and Community Development that the City will be providing adequate sites and adequate densities. The Mixed Use concept constitutes a future program under the General Plan and is not under consideration at this time. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION Staff has prepared an Initial Environmental Study (lES) for the 2000-2005 Housing Element. Based upon the analysis contained in the lES, the adoption of an updated Housing Element would have not impacts on the environment beyond those envisioned in the environmental impact report for the City General Plan. The Study indicated that no additional environmental impacts would result from this update. Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that a Negative Declaration, with De Minimus Impact Finding, be approved. GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING CONSISTENCY Staff has evaluated the provisions in the draft Housing Element for consistency with the remaining elements of the Plan. Based upon this review, staff has determined that the Draft Housing Element is consistent with the remaining Elements of the General Plan. SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council approve the Dratt 2000-2005 Housing Element, R:\GENPLAN\Housing Element 2000~Staff Report PCl.doc 2 Attachments: 2. 3. 4. PC Resolution - Blue Page 4 Draft 2000-2005 Housing Element - Blue Page 7 Initial Study - Blue Page 8 HCD Comment Letters - Blue Page 9 R:\GENPLAN~ousing Element 2000\Staff Report PCl.doc A'rrACHMENT NO. 1 PC RESOLUTION NO. 02- .. (PLANNING APPLICATION PA99-0186) R \GENPLAN~Housmg' E ement 2000\Staff Report PC1 .doc PC RESOLUTION NO. 02- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT THE 2000-2005 HOUSING ELEMENT (PLANNING APPLICATION 99-0186) WHEREAS, State Law requires that local jurisdictions periodically update their housing elements; and WHEREAS, the City of Temecula adopted its first Housing Element on November 9,1993; and WHEREAS, the State.of California has completed the Regional Housing Need Assessment process for this' housing element cycle; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the proposed amendment on September 23, 2002, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, an did testify either in support or opposition to this matter; NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RECOMMEND THAT THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE CITY OF TEMECUEA APPROVE THE 2000-2005 HOUSING ELEMENT AND ACCOMPANYING NEGATIVE DECLARATION, SUBSTANTIALLY IN THE FORMS THAT ARE ATrACHED TO THIS RESOLUTION IN EXHIBITS A AND B, RESPECTIVELY. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning Commission this 18th day of September 2002. Dennis Chiniaeff, Chairperson R:\GENP~ousing Element 2000~Staff Report PCl.doc 5 ATTEST: Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary {SEAL} STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 18th day of September,, 2002, by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary R:\GENPLAN~Housing Element 2000~Staff Repod PCl.doc 6 ATTACHMENT NO. 2 2000 - 2005 HOUSING ELEMENT (PLANNING APPLICATION PA99-0186) City of Temecula 2000-2005 Housing Element July 2002 City of Temecula 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92589-9033 Consultants to the City Cotton/Beland/Associates 6336 Greenwich Drive, Suite F San Diego, CA 92122 1100.00 CITY OF TEMECULA Housing Element Se~ion Page Section I. Introduction .................................................................................................... 44 · A. Community'Context ......................................................................................................... 4-1 · B. State Policy and Authorization ......................................................................................... 4-2 C. Organization of the Housing Element .............................................................................. 4-2 D. Relationship to Other General Plan Elements ................................................................. 4-3 E. Public Participation .......................................................................................................... 4-3 F. Data Sources and Glossary ......................................................................................... 2... 4-3 Section II. Housing Needs Assessment..2 ......................................~ .............................. 4-5 A. Population Characteristics ......................................................................................... ...... 4-5 B. Employment Characteristics ............................................................................................ 4-7 C. Household Characteristics ............................................... i ............................................... 4-9 D. Special Needs Populations ............................................................................................. 4-12 E. Housing Stock Characteristics ............................................................................. ~ ......... 4-15 Section III. Constraints on Housing Production ......................................................... 4-26 A.. Market Constraints ......................................................................................................... 4-26 B. Governmental Constraints ............................................................... : ............................. 4-28 C. State Tax Policies and Regulations.: ...................................................................... : ....... 4-36 D. Infrastructure Constraints ............................................................................................... 4-37 E. Environmental Constraints ............................................................................................. 4-37 Section IV. Housing Resources ................................................................................... 4-39 A. Sites for Housing Development ..................................................................................... 4-39 B. Financial Resources ....................................................................................................... 4-47 C. Housing Developers ................................................................ i ...................................... 4-49 D. Infrastructure and Facilities ..... ~ ..................................................................................... 4-50 E. Energy Conservation ............................ : ......................................................................... 4-50 Section V. Accomplishments under Adopted Housing Element ........................... :. 4-51 A. Provision o f Adequate Housing Sites ............................................................................ 4-51 B. Assist in Development of Affordable Housing ............................................................. 4-54 C, Government Constraints ..................................... : .......................................................... 4-53 D. Conserve and Improve Existing Affordable Housing ............................................. ~ ...... 4-54 E. Equal Housing Opportunity ........................................................................................... 4-58 F. Housing Element Monitoring and Reporting ................................................................. 4-58 Section VI. Housing Plan ........................ ~ .................................................................................. 4-60 A. Goals and Policies .......................................................................................................... 4-60 B. Housing Programs ..................................... : .................................................................... 4-63 Appendix A: Housing Element Glossary TOC.doc * July 2002 Page 4-i CITY OF TEMECULA Housing Element Figure Figure 4-1 Figure 4-2 Page 990 ^ge Distribution ............. ~ ..................................................................................... 4-6 Temecula Housing Stock Composition ..................................................................... 4-]6 Table Table 4-1 Table 4-2 Table 4-3 Table 4-4 Table 4-5 Table 4-6 Table 4-7 Table 4-8 Table 4-9 Table 4-10 Table 4-11 Table 4-12 Table 4-13 Table 4-14 Table 4-15 Table 4-16 Table 4-17 Table 4-18 Table 4-19 Table 4-20 Table 4-21 Table 4-22 Table 4-23 Table 4-24 Table 4-25 Table 4-26 Table 4-27 Table 4-28 Table 4-29 Page Population Growth Trends ............................................................................................ 4-5 1990 Race and Ethnicity ............................................................................................... 4-7 Employment of Residents by Occupation ..................................................................... 4-7 Employment by Industry: 199~; ................................................................................... 4-8 Household Gro~. h Trends ............................................................................................ 4-9 Average Number of Persons per Household - 1990 & 2000 ...................................... 4-10 1998 Household Income by Income Group ...... ~ ......................................................... 4-11 1990 Households Overpaying for Housing .............................................. .. ................. 4-12 Total Housing Units ............................. ~ ........ ~ ............................................................. 4-15 1990 Housing Tenure .............................. : ................................................................... 4-16 Age of Housing Stock ................................................................................................. 4-17 Median Home Prices ..................................................................................... · .............. 4-18 Housing Sales - January 1999 through June 2000 ...................................................... 4-19 Affordable Housing Costs by Income Category - Riverside County ......................... 4-19 Assisted Housing Inventory and At-Risk Status ......................................................... 4-21 Value of At-Risk Housing Units - Rancho California Apartments ............................ 4-23 Rent Subsidies Required ........................................ : ............. : ...................................... 4-24 Disposition of Conventional Loan Applications - 1997 ............................................. 4-27 Disposition of Government Backed Loan Applications - 1997 .................................. 4-27 Residential Development Standards ........................................................................... 4-30 Parking Space Requirements ...................................................................................... 4-31 Planning Fee Schedule - City of Temecula ................................................................. 4-34 Development Fees - City of Temecula ....................................................................... 4-35 Residential Development Potential of Vacant Land Outside Specific Plan Areas ..... 4-39 Remaining Approved Residential Development for Existing Specific Plans ............. 4-40 Regional Housing Growth Need by Income Group .................................................... 4-44 Summary of Residential Development Potential ............................... ......................... 4-46 Housing Program Summary ............................ ~ ........................................................... 4-76 Summary of Quantified Objectives ............................................................................ 4-80 TOC.doc * July 2002 Page 4-ii CITY OF TEMECULA Housing Element I. INTRODUCTION A. Community Context The City of Temecula is a growing community located along Interstate 15 in southwestern Riverside County, just north of the San Diego County line. Located in Temecula Valley, the City is surrounded by gentle rolling hills. Surrounded by this attractive natural setting and located with access to both Orange and Los Angeles Counties to the north and San Diego County to the south, the City population almost doubled during the past ten years, increasing from 27,099 persons in 1990 to 53,791 persons in 2000. With its European history beginning in the 1800's, Temecula has played an important role locally for over a cqntury. Old Town Temecula is the .historic core of ~he City and is located in its western portion. Change from a small agricultural community to an urbanized city began in 1964 when Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical purchased the 87,500- acre Vail Ranch. Development of the ranch occurred under the design of a master plan that continues to influence the land use pattern and circulation system of Temecula today. Much of the remaining vacant land within the City will be developed under the control of approved specific plans. The majority (79%) of the existing housing in Temecula consists of single-family houses, with the remainder consisting of multi-family units. The high number of single-family homes is reflective of the City's young family-oriented population and desire to maintain its rural traditions. In comparison to the surrounding communities, the cost of purchasing a new home in Temecula is high, with a 1999 median price of $195,000. In the neighboring communities of Hemet, Lake Elsinore, Murrieta, and Perris the 1999 median home price ranges from $79,250 to $t69,000, while the median home price in the County is $130,000. In recent years, the housing market in Temecula has very much been influenced by the growth pressure in San Diego County. As housing prices in San Diego County began catching up with prices in south Orange County, many people who work in San Dieg° have chosen to live in Temecula, placing significant pressure on the Temecula housing market. Employment opportunities exist within Temecula, allowing residents to work and live within the City. In 1990, the Southem California Association of Governments (SCAG) estimated an average of 1.66 jobs was available in Temecula for each household, approximating the City average of 1.62 wage earners per household. The jobs/housing ratio in Temecula is anticipated to decrease to only 1.06 jobs per household by 2005, as the construction of new housing outpaces employment growth. · I. Intro.doc ,, July 2002 Page 4-1 CITY OF TEMECULA Housing Element B. State Policy and Authorization The California State Legislature has identified the attainment of a decent home and suitable living environment for every Californian as the State's major housing goal. Recognizing the important role of local planning programs in the pursuit of this goal, the Legislature has mandated that all cities and counties prepare a housing element as part of their comprehensive General Plans. State Housing Element Law requires all cities and counties to updlte their Housing Elements at least every five years to reflect a community's changing needs. However, the current housing element cycle has been extended to cover a ten-year period due to the lack of state budget for the Regional Councils of Governments (such as the Southern California Association of Govemments) to generate the regional housing growth allocations. Temecula's most recent Housing Element was prepared in 1993 and is currently being updated to cover the period of July I, 2000 through June 30, 2005. C. Organization of the Housing Element The City of Temecula is facing important housing issues such as: preserving the historic txaditions of the community; ensuring that new development is compatible with the existing character; providing a range of housing that meets the needs of all residents; ensuring that the affordable housing is available to all segments of the community; and balancing employment with housing opportunities. This Housing Element evaluates housing needs in Temecula based on its demographic and housing characteristics. The Element also compiles an inventory of resources available to address identifiedhousing needs, assesses the effectiveness and appropriateness of existing housing programs being implemented by the City, and crafts a housing strategy that would effectively address the housing issues relating to availability, adequacy, and affordability within the limitations of the City. This Housing Element represents a policy statement indicating that Temecula will continue to strive toward maintaining and enhancing its housing quality and its desirability as a place to work and live. The Temecula Housing Element is comprised of the following major.components: · An analysis of the City's population, household and employment base; and the characteristics of the City's housing stock (Section ID; · Review of potential constraints to meeting the City's identified housing needs (Section liD; · An evaluation of opportunities and resources that will further the development of new housing (Section IV); 1. lntro.doc * July 2002 Page 4-2 CITY OF TEMECULA Housing Element An evaluation of accomplishments under the adopted Housing Element (Section V); and A statement of the Housing Plan to address the City's identified, housing needs, including housing goals, policies and programs (Section VI). D. Relationship to Other General Plan Elements The Temecula General Plan is comprised of the following 10 elements: 1) Land Use; 2) Circulation; 3) Housing; 4) Open Space/Conservation; 5) Growth Management/Public Facilities; 6) Public Safety; 7) Noise; 8) Air Quality; 9) Community Design; and 10) Economic Development. Background information and policy direction presented in one element is also reflected in other General Plan elements. For example, residential development capacities established in the Land Use Element are incorporated within the Housing Element. The General Plan goals and policies were reviewed for consistency with proposals recommended in this Housing Element update. This Housing Element builds upon other General Plan elements and is consistent with the goals and policies set forth by the General Plan. City staff mainta'ms a conscious effort to ensure that revisions to any element of the General Plan achieve internal consistency among all General Plan elements. Specifically, thc City will be undertaking a comprehensive General Plan update in 2001. As part of that update, all General Plan goals, policies, and programs will be reviewed for intemal consistency. E. Public Participation Residents of Temecula have several opportunities to provide input during the development of the Housing Element. On August 1, 2000, the City conducted a publicly noticed study session before the Planning Commission and City Council to discuss housing needs in the City and to provide policy directions for the drafting of the Element. During its 45-day review of the DraR Housing Element by the California State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), the Draft Element is available for review by interested individuals and organizations. Notice of Availability of the Draft Element was published in The Press Enterprise and direct mailing sent to the following organizations representing the interests of low and moderate income households and persons with special needs: · Coachella Valley Housing Coalition · Rancho-Temecula Valley Senior Center · Fair Housing Council of Riverside · Riverside Center for Independent Living · Catholic Charities · Housing Authority of the County of Riverside I. lntro.doc · July 2002 Page 4.-3 CITY OF TEMECULA Housing Element In addition, public hearings will be held on the Housing Element before both the Planning Commission and City Council. Notification will be published in the local newspaper in advance of each hearing. Housing developers and organizations representing the interests of residents with special housing needs will be directly notified of the availability of the Draft Element and the public hearing dates. F. Data Sources and Glossary The data used for the completion of this Housing Element comes fi:om a variety of sources, including the 1990 Census, various studies produced by the City of Temecula, Southern California Association of Govermnents (SCAG), the California Department of Finance, local newspapers, local real estate agents, as well as professional' associations. The data sources represent the best data available at the time this Housing Element was prepared. This Housing Element, along with the state-mandated requkements, includes a Glossary of terms used in the Element. This Glossary has been included to allow readers to better understand the terminology used in the Housing Element discussion, and can be found in the appendix of the Element. I. Intro.doc · July 2002 Page 4-4 CITY OF TEMECULA Housing Element II. HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT This section of the Housing Element describes the supply and demand for housing in Temecula and is broken into five subsections, addressing the characteristics of population, employment, households, special needs populations, and housing stock. This analysis provides the basis for developing a successful housing program that meets the needs of the community. A. Population Characteristics 1. Population Growth Trends Temecula is the fifth largest city among the 24 cities in the County of Riverside. According to the Census, Temecula had a population of 27,099 in 1990. During the period from 1990 to 2000, the California Department of Finance (DOF) estimates that the City ~opulation almost doubled. As depicted in Table 4-1, Temecula experienced the largest growth in the last ten years in comparison to surrounding communities, and almost three times the growth that the County as a whole experienced. Table 4-1 Population Growth Trends · % Change Projected Projected % Change Jurisdiction 1990' 2000 1990-2009 2005 2000-2005 Temecula 27,099 53,791 98% 72,080 34% Hemet 36,094 62,751 74°,{, 75,646 21% Lake Elsinore 18,285 30,370 66% 53,261 75% Murfieta* 24,2~ 43,989 81% ** " Perils 21,460 32,369 51% 55,062 70°.4 Riverside County 1,170,413 1,522,855 30% 1,976,938 30°.4 SCAG estimates that Temecula will continue to experience substantial growth during the next five years. The level of growth however, is anticipated to be less than that experienced during the last ten years, with a projected growth of 34% to about 72~000 persons2 For Riverside County, an overall 30% growth is expected for the next five years. The neighboring cities of Lake Elsinore and Pen-is are expected to experience greater growth in comparison to Temecula in the coming years. Temecula's share of the total population in Riverside County is projected to remain at slightly below 4% in 2005. 11. Needs.doc · July 2002 Page 4-5 CITY OF TEMECULA Housing Element 2. Age Characteristics The age structure of a population is an important factor in evaluating housing needs and projecting the distribution of future housing development. Traditionally, both the young adult population (20-34) and the elderly population (65+) tend to prefer low to moderate cost, smaller units. Persons between 35 to 54 years old usually reside in higher cost, larger units because they typically have higher incomes and a larger household size. As shown in Figure 4-1, the 1990 population of Temecula contains a younger population than the County as a whole. The median age of Temecula residents was 29.1, while the County median age was 31.5. While the City population has grown significantly since 1990, the City has remained as a family-oriented community and mostly likely has maintained a similar age. structure as in 1990. This. age structure indicates that the City may require larger single-family homes to meet the needs of families w/th their school age children, as well as smaller, moderately priced houses and multi_-family units for those younger individuals who do not have children, or are just beginning th6ir families. Figure 4-1 1990 Age Distribution O 45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% <5 [1~ Iemecula · Riverside County 5-17 18-20 21-24 25-44 45-54 55-59 60-64 65-74 75-84 85+ , Age Groups Source: 1990 Census 3. Race/Ethnicity Characteristics The racial and ethnic composition of a population affects housing needs because of the unique household characteristics of different racial/ethnic groups. These characteristics tend to correlate with other factors such as family size, housing location choices, and mobility. As shown in Table 4-2, the large majority (81%) of the 1990 population in Temecula was White, with Hispanics making up the next largest ethnic group (15%). In comparison, Riverside County contains a much more diverse population. Only 64% Il. Needs.doc ~ July 2002 Page 4-6 CITY OF TEMECULA Housing Element of the County's 1990 population was White. The next largest ethnic group was the Hispanic population at 26%. Table 4-2 1990 Race and Ethnicity Race/ Number of Temecula % of Temeculals Number of Riverside % of Riverside Ethnidty Residents Population County Residents County's Popula6en White 21,882 80.7% 754,140 64.4% Black 395 1.5% 59,966 5.1% Asian/Otha- 883 3.3% 48,793 4.2% Hispanic 3,939 14.5% 307,514 26.3% Total 27,099 100.0% 1,170,413 100.0% Since 1990, the racial and ethnic composition of Temecula's population has changed. This is reflected in the school enrollment data obtained fi:om the State Depamnent of Education. Enrollment data for the 1997/98 school year in the Temecula Valley Unified School District showed that only 71 percent~of the students were White, 18 percent were Hispanic, 7 percent were Asian and others, and 4 percent were Black. B. Employment Characteristics 1. Employment Growth According to the 1990 Census, 13,932 Temecula residents were in the labor force, representing a labor participation rate of 74%. (The labor force includes employed and unemployed persons aged 16 years and above.) As shown in Table 4-3, most of the residents were employed in two categories of occupation: managerial and professional specialty (29%) and sales, technical, and administrative support (33%). In 1990, the unemployment rate was 3.1%. According to the State Employment Development_ Department, Temeenla's unemployment rate in June 2000 was 2.9%, much lower than the countywide rate of 4.7%. Table 4-3 Employment of Residents by Occupation Occupation Number of Jobs % of Total Managerial/Professional 3,753 28.6% Sales/Technical/Administrative (Support) 4,349 33.1% Service Occupation 1,303 9.9% Predsion Production, Craft & Repair 1,861 14.2% Operators, Fabrications, Laborers 1 ;537 11.7% Farming, Forestry, Fishing 339 2.6% Total. 13,142 100.0°,{, II. Needs.doc · July 2002 Page 4-7 CITY OF TEMECULA Housing Element A City study of employment opportunities indicated that there were 19,714 jobs in Temecula in 1996. Employment by industry is tabulated in Table 4-4. As shown, manufacturing and retail trade were the primary industries in Temecula. Table 4-4 Employment by Industry: 1996 Indusby # of Jobs % of Total Manufacturing 5,455 27.7% Retail Trade 4,370 22.2% Govemmont, EducalJon, Utilities 1,910 9.7% Distribution & Transportation 1,445 7.3% Agriculture & Mining 1,193 6.1% Support ,Services 1,048 5.2% , Construction 1,130 5.7% Hotel & Amusement 860 4.4% i Business Sen/ices 777 3.9% Finance & Real Estate 571 2.9% Health Services 563 2.6% Engineering & Management 393 2.0% Total 19,714 100.0% Source: Cily of Temecula Community Rofiie, 1996. According to SCAG, thc City had an employment base of 15,184 jobs in 1990, which is projected to increase by 53% to 23,179 by the year 2005, representing an average annual growth of 3.5%. With this projected increase in employment, there will likely be an associated increase in the demand for housing in the City. However, SCAG employment estimates over the last ten years have proven to be consistently below actual in-City employment levels. 2. Jobs-Housing Ratio A general measure of the balance between a community's employment opportunities and the housing needs of its residents is through a "jobs-housing ratio" test. According to the Census, Temecula had an average of 1.62 wage-earaers in a family while SCAG estimated that the City had 1.66 jobs per household in 1990. These figures generally indicated that adequate employme~nt opportunitiesexisted in the City, potentially allowing a portion of its residents to work there. In comparison, Riverside County had 1.50 wage-earners per family, but offered only 0.89 jobs per household in 1990. Overall, more residents in other parts of the County worked outside of their place of residence than in Temecula. However, by the year 2005, thc jobs-housing ratio in Temecula is projected to decrease substantially to 1.06, indicating that employment growth in the City is not projected to keep pace with household growth. If SCAG employment estimates prove to be accurate, by the year 2005, an increased number of Temecula residents will commute to other places in the region for employment. The majority of Temecula residents commute to outside of the City to work in San Diego and Orange Counties. As a result, II. Needs.doc · July 2002 Page 4-8 CITY OF TEMECULA Housing Element the Temecula housing market is directly tied to the San Diego and orange County markets. C. Household Characteristics 1. Household Growth Trends Parallel to the population growth trends shown in Table 4-1, household growth in Temecula exceeded that of the surrounding communities and the County as a whole. Between i990 and 2000, the number of households in Temecula increased by 74% while that in the County only increased by 20%. Comparing the City population · growth (98%) with its household growth (74%) indicates that the City has become more family-oriented with increasing household size. Overall, Temecula is expected to grow at a faster pace than the County as shown in'Table 4-5. However, the discrepancy is expected to shrink by 2005 when Temecula's household growth is projected at 37% and the County's at 32%. Table 4-5 Household Growth Trends % Change Projected Projected % Change Jurisdiction 1990' 2000 1990-2000 2005 2000-2005 Temecula '9,130 15,875 74% 21,816 37% Hemet 17,397 27,241 57% 33,645 24% Lake EIsinore 6,066 8,844 46% 16,199 83% Muniela* 6,849 10,296 50% ** ** Penis 6,726 8,850 32% 16,811 90% Riverside County 402,067 483,580 20% 640,311 32% 2. Household Composition and Size The characteristics of the households in a city are important indicators of the typ~ of housing needed in that community. The Census defines a household as all persons who occupy a housing unit, which may include families related through marriage or blood, unrelated individuals living together, or individuals living alone. People living in retirement or convalescent homes, dormitories, or other group living situations are not considered households. According to the 1990 cenSus, 80% of the 9,130 households in Temecula were considered families]. Among the 1,861 non-family households, 1,264 (68%) were Families are defined by the Census as people who live together in a household who are related to the householder by birth, marriage, or adoption. 11. Needs.doc., July 2002 Page 4-9· CITY OF TEMECULA Housing Element single people living alone, including 259 (14%) elderly persons living alone. Overall, only 12 Temecula residents lived in group quarters in 1990. Household size is an important indicator for identifying sources of population growth as well as ovemrowding in individual housing units. A city's average hQnsehold size may decline in communities where the population is aging. As depicted in Table 4-6, the average persons per household increased by 14% in Temecula during the period of 1990-2000. This is consistent with the large number of families with school age children living in Temecula. Average household sizes in Lake Elsinor and Penis experienced similar growth as that in Temecula and are currently at similar levels as Temecula, reflecting similar household trends in these three neighb, oring cities. However, household trends in Hemet and Murrieta are drastically different than those in Temecula as indicated by the growth in average household sizes. Table 4-6 Average Number of Persons per Household 1990 & 2000 Averse Persons/Household % Change Judsdiclion 1990 2000 1990 - 2000 Temeoula 2.97 3.39 14.1% Hemet 2.04 2.27 ~ 9.7% Lake Elsinore 2.99 3.41 14.1% Marrieta* 3.53 4.27 21.0% Penis 3.16 3.63 14.9% Riverside County 2.85 3.09 8.4% 3. Household Income The income earned by a household is an important indicator of the household;s ability to acquire adequate housing. While Upper Income households have more discretionary income to spend on housing, Low and Moderate Income households are more limited in the range of housing that they can afford. Typically, as the income of households decreases the incidence of overpayment and overcrowding increases. The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) has developed the following income categories: · Very Low Income Households earn between 0 and 50% of the Median Family Income (lVIFI), adjusted for household size; Low Income Households earn between 51 and 80% of the MFI, adjusted for household size; II. Needs.doc · July 2002 Page 4-10 CITY OF TEMECULA Housing Element · Moderate Income Households earn between 81 and 120% of the MFI, adjusted for household size; and, · Above Moderate/Upper Income Households earn over 120% of the MFI, adjusted for household size. As part of the RegiOnal Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA), SCAG has developed estimates on income distribution for all jurisdictions within the SCAG region in 1998. The income distributions for Temecula and Riverside County are presented in Table 4- 7. Overall, household incomes in Temecula are higher than Countywide, with about 22% of households in the City earning Very Low and Low incomes, while more than 35% of the households in the County were lower incomes. Median household income in Temecula was estimated at $56,946 in 1998, which Continued to be higher than the Countywide median income of only $46,500. One reason for the higher median income in Temecula is that many of Temecula's residents work in San Diego and Orange Counties where the median income and associated wages are higher. Table 4-7 1998 Household Income by Income Group City of Temecola Owner- Renter- Total Western Riverside Income Group Households Households Households County Very Low Income 4.6% 19.8% 10.1% 19.9% Low Income 7.1% 18.6% 11.3% 15.5% Moderate Income 17.3% 27.7% 21.1% 20.9% Upper Income 71.0% 33.9% 57.5% 43.7% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Source: Regional Housing Needs Assessment, SCAG, 1998. 4. Overcrowding An overcrowded household is typically defined as one with more than one person per room, excluding bathrooms, kitchens, hallways, and porches. A severely overcrowded household is def'med as one with more than 1.5 persons per room. Overcrowding in results from either a lack of affordable housing and/or a lack of available housing units of adequate size. According to the 1990 Census, only 117 (2%) of the owner-households and 321 (9.7%) of the renter-households were overcrowded. In comparison, overcrowding was a more prevalent issue Countywide, with 6% of the owner-households and 18% of the renter- households living in overcrowded conditions. 5. Overpayment State and Federal standards consider a family as overpaying for housing if it spends more than 30% of its gross income on housing. A household that is spending more than it can afford for housing has less money available for other necessities and emergency II. Needs.doc · July 2002 Page 4-11 CITY OF TEMECULA Housing Element expenditures. Very Low Income households overpaying for housing are more likely to be at risk of becoming homeless than other households. Renter-households overpay for their housing costs more often than owner-households because of their typically lower incomes. Compared to renters, overpayment by owners is less of a concern because homeowners have the option to refinance the mortgage, or to sell the house and move into rentals or buy a less expensive home. As shown in Table 4-8 below, among the City's overpaying households, 40% were Very Low and Low Income households and 60% were Moderate and Upper Income households. The majority of the Moderate and Upper Income households with housing overpayments were homeowners. Overall, lower income renter-households were more impacted by housing overpayment than other groups. Similarly, Countywide, approximately 35% of the households experiencing housing overpayment in 1990 earned lower incomes. Table 4-8 1990 Households Overpaying for Housing Total Households Renter-Households Overpaying Overpaying Owner-Households Overpaying Income Group # % # % # % Very Low Income 850 21.3% 669 45.2% 181 7.2% Low Income 757 19.0% 434 29.3% 323 12.9% Moderate/Upper Income 2,385 59.7% 378 25.5% 2,007 79.9% Total Overpaying Households 3,992 100.0% 1,481 100.0% 2,511 100.0% Source: CHAS Databook, HUD, 1993. D. Special Needs Populations Certain segments of the population may have a more difficult time finding decent, affordable housing due to their special circumstances or needs. These "special needs" population include elderly persons, disabled persons, large households, single parent households, farm workers, and the homeless. 1. Agricultural Workers .Agriculture is a predominant industry in Riverside County and the area is divided into four distinct agricultural districts. The City of Temeenla is located within the San Jacinto/Temecula agricultural district. The 1990 Census reported 339 Temecula residents employed in farming, forestry, and fishing occupations2 While there is no agricultural operation in the City, nearby wineries represent an employment base for agricultural workers. The City study indicates that 1,193 agriculture-related jobs were located in Temecula in 1996. Agricultural workers face various housing issues due to their typically lower incomes and the seasonal nature of their work. II. Needs.doc ,, July 2002 Page 4-12 CITY OF TEMECULA Housing Element 2. Single Parents Single-parent families with children often require special attention due to their needs for affordable childcare, health care, and housing assistance. Female-headed families with children particularly tend to have lower incomes, thus limit'.rog housing availability for this group. According to the 1990 Census, 750 households in Temecula were headed by single- parents, 70% of which were headed by females. Among the female-headed households, 43% were living below the poverty level. Elderly The special needs of the elderly are a function of their often lower or fixed, income. In addition, housing for the elderly often requires special attention in design to allow greater access and mobility. Housing located within the vicinity of community facilities and public transportation also facilitates mobility of the elderly in the community. According to the Census, Temecula had 1,709 residents age 65 or older, representing slightly more than 6% of the total population. In Temecula, ~bout 14% of all owner- householders in 1990 were over 65 years of age. Furthermore, approximately 30% of the elderly residents were reported to have self-care and mobility limitations and/or work disabilities. 4. Persons with Disabilities In 1990, about 9% of the Temecula residents age 16 or over were recorded by the Census as experiencing self-care and mobility limitations and/or work disabilities. Physical and mental disabilities can hinder a person's access to traditionally designed housing units (and other facilities) as well as potentially limit the ability to earn income. Housing that satisfies the design and location requirements of disabled persons is limited in supply and often costly to provide. Housing oppommities for disabled persons can be addressed through the provision of affordable, barrier-flee housing. In addition to the development of new units, rehabilitation assistance can also be provided to disabled residents to make necessary improvements to remove architectural barriers of existing units. II. Needs.doc · July 2002 Page 4-13 CITY OF TEMECULA Housing Element 5. Large Households. o Large households are defined as those with five or more persons. The 1990 Census reported 1,336 households in Temecula had five or more members, 70% were owner- households and 30% were renters. Typically, the availability of adequately sized and affordable housing units is a major obstacle facing large households. In 1990, Temecula had 3,528 three-bedroom housing units and another 3,166 housing units with four or more bedrooms. Thus, the City has an adequate supply of large-size housing units. The issue for large .households is related to affordability, particularly among renters. According to the Census, 48% of the large renter-households were overpaying for housing. Homeless The homeless population refers to persons lacking consistent and adequate shelter. According to the 1990 Census, there were no homeless persons reported visible at street locations in Temecula. The Temecula Police Department indicated that approximately 20 to 22 homeless persons were estimated to be living in the Old Town retail area. A program was put into place to fmd housing for these persons and all were placed. Since then, only a few homeless persons travelling through are found in the City. Outside of the City in the agricultural areas, rural homeless persons such as migrant farm workers are occasionally identified. A number of facilities and service agencies serve the homeless in the Temecula Valley' area: Corner Stone Outreach, Inc. (Perris) - A one-year supervised residential structured program for males aged 18 to 60. This program offers shelter, food, clothing, Christian education, and assistance in legal matters. Mustard Seed (Lake Elsinore) - Transitional housing facility for women and their children. Mustard Seed operates a four-bedroom facility that can accommodate up to 15 women and children. The maximum stay is six months and education on parenting skills, finance, and other life skills is provided. Valley Restart Shelter (tlemet) - Drop-in center for homeless people offering showers, meals, telephone, counseling, .transportation, temporary mailing address, laundry facilities, job information and referral. II. Needs.doc ,. July 2002 Page 4-14 CITY OF TEMECULA Housing Element E. Housing Stock Characteristics A housing unit is defined as a house, apartment or single room, occupied as a separate living quarter Or, if vacant, intended for occupancy as a separate living quarter. Separate living quarters are those in which the occupants live and eat separately from any other persons in the building and that have direct access from the outside of a building or through a common hall. 1. Housing Growth Trends As shown in Table 4-9, the housing stock in Temecula increased by almost 74% during the period of 1990 to 2000. Temecula had the greatest increase in its housing stock compared to the surrounding communities. However, .over the next few years, Temecula is expected to experience only moderate housing growth, while a substantial housing increase is anticipated for Lake Elsinore and Perris. 2. Housing Type The majority (78%) of the existing housing stock in Temecula consists of single-family detached 'and attached homes (see Figure 4-2). Single-family housing units are dispersed' throughout the City. Multi-family developments of five or more units represent the next largest segment (19%) of the housing stock, and the greatest concentration of apartment complexes is. located along Margarita Drive. Currently consisting of 197 units, Heritage Mobilehome Park located in the northeastern comer of the City is the only mobilehome park in Temecula. The City has recently approved an additional of 13 spaces'to be provided in that park. Table 4-9 Total Housing Units % Change % Change ,[ufi~icti0n 1990' 2000 1990-2000 2005 2000-2005 Iemecula 10,659 18,534 74% 21,816 18% Hemet 19,692 30,802 56% 33,645 9% Lake Elsinore 6,981 10,150 45% 16,199 60% Murfieta* 9,664 14,528 50% ** '"* Pen~s 7,761 10,444 35% 16,811 61% Riverside County 483,847 582,419 20% 640,311 10% II. Needs.doc · July 2002 Page 4-15 CITY OF TEMECULA Housing Element Figure 4-2 Temecula Housing Stock Composition 276 uaits (1%)Jingle Famay (afacheo') ~68 mats (1%) Mum Famll'/(~ units) Mu~tJ F~y (24 ~s) 3~' units {2~) s~ng~e Far~ (detached) 14,287 units Source: California Department of Finance, Januas' 1,2000. 3. Tenure Table 4-10 illustrates the tenure distribution of occupied housing in Temecula and in the surrounding communities. Compared to the surrounding communities Temecula has an average rate of homeownership. Correlating the high percentage of single- '' family homes that exist in Temecula and the average proportion of renters in the City indicates that many single-family hemes are used as rentals.. Table 4-10 1990 Housing Tenure Occupied Dwelling Units % of Total % of Total Occupied Total Occupied Units Jurisdicfio~ Owner Occupied Occupied Units Renter Occupied Units Temecula 5,806 63.6% 3,324 36.4% 9,130 Hemet 10,844 62.3% 6,553 37.7% 17,397 Lake 3,565 58.8% 2,501 41.2% 6,066 EIsinore Murfieta" 424 74.6% 144 25.4% 568 Penis 4,703 69.9% 2,023 30.1% 6,726 Riverside County 270,876 67.4% 131,191 32,6% 402,067 II. Needs.doc · July 2002 Page 4-16 CITY OF TEMECULA Housing Element The rate of vacancy is a measure of housing availability in a community. A vacancy rate of 5% generally indicates an adequate supply of housing with room for mobility.. According to the 2000 DOF data, the overall vacancy rate in Temecula was 14.4% while that in the County was recorded at 17.0%. The relatively high vacancy rote in' Temecula and in the County is attributed to the high level of new residential development in the area, with many housing units continually coming on the market. 4. Age and Housing Stock Conditions The age of housing is commonly used as a measure of when housing may begin to require major repairs. In general, housing units over 30 years old are likely to exhibit signs of rehabilitation needs, such as new roofing, foundation work, and new plumbing. As depicted in Table 4-11, the majority of the housing units in Temecula (92%) were built between 1980 through 2000 and most likely are in excellent condition. Only about 1% of the existing housing stock is over 30 years old. While approximately 7 percent of the units were built in the 1970s and will be approaching 30 years old during this Housing Element cycle, these units were built in compliance with modem building standards and will not likely to deteriorate rapidly. According to City staff, no housing unit will need to be demolished or replaced due to dilapidated conditions. (However, the Agency has a few units that may be removed in order to facilitate intensification of the sites. The Agency will ensure that any applicable replacement/relocation requirement is met.) Also, based on the housing age and condition in the City, only a small portion of the City's 1,600 older housing units would require rehabilitation (not more than 20% or 320 units) and only some households would require assistance in making the needed repairs or improvements. The City estimates a rehabilitation assistance need for 150.households over the next five years. Table 4-11 Age of Housing Stock Year Built Number of Units % of Total April 1990- January 2000 7,875 43% 1980 to March 1990 9,073 49% 1970 to 1979 1,361 7% 1960to 1969 170 <1% 1950 to 1959 13 <1% 1940 to 1949 0 0% 1939 or earlier 42 <1% II. Needs.doc · July 2002 Page 4-17 CITY OF TEMECULA Housing Element 5. Housing Costs Ownership Housing Temecula is one of the fastest growing and most prosperous communities in the Inland Empire. With its setting amidst the wine country and location along 1-15 mid-way between San Diego and Orange counties, Temecula experiences growth from both directions. As a result, Temecula was one of the first communities to see its residential real estate market recovering fi.om Southern California's steep recession. As evidenced in Table 4-12, median home price in Temecula increased significantly between 1998 and 1999 while median prices in surrounding communities even declined slightly or increased only nominally. Since 1999, housing pfiqe increases have stabilized in Temecula. According to the California Association of Realtors, housing prices in Temecula are higher than in some surrounding communities but lower than in Corona, Murrieta, Norco, and Rancho Mirage as of December 2001. While Temecula is one of the highest cost housing markets in Riverside County, compared to San Diego and Orange Counties, where the majority of the City's residents work, the City's housing costs are substantially lower. For example, for. the first quarter of 2001, new homes in Temecula sold for an average of $226,000, while new homes in north San Diego County sold for an average of $415,000. Table 4-12 Median Home Prices Jurisdiction June 1999 June 1998 % Change Temecula $195,000 $157,637 23.7% Hew. et $79,250 $79,500 4).3% Lake Elsinore $114,000 $114,500 i -3.95% Mun~eta $169,000 $158,000 I 7.0% Perils $85,000 $84,500 0.6% Riverside Counly $130,000 $126, ,0~0 3.2% Reflective of the housing stock, most housing sales in Temecula are for three- and four- bedroom single-family homes. During the 18-month period between January 1999 and June 2000, 1,188 housing sales were executed, of which 85% were three- and four- bedroom single-family homes. Housing units in Temecula are sold for a wide range of prices. As shown'in Table 4-13, four-bedroom homes are sold from $95,000 to $645,000, indicating that some older housing units are sold for much lower prices while newer and custom homes are priced much higher. Condominium sales in Temecula exhibited similar patterns of wide price ranges~ II. Needs.doc · July 2002 Page 4-18 CITY OF TEMECULA Housing Element Table 4-13 Housing Sales January 1999 through June 2000 Single-Family Median Price Pdce Range Units Sold % of Total 2~edroom $126,250 $47,000-$750,000 52 4.5% 3~oedroom $153,000 $68,181-$560,000 553 48.2% 4-bedroom $190,000 $95,000-$645,000 456 39.8% 5-bedroom $254,q00 $1521000-$740,000 81 7.1% 6-bedroom $252,000 $198,000-$400,000 5 0.1% Condominiums Median Pdce Price Range Un~ Sold % of Total 2-bedroom $107,000 $72,000-$165,854 15 36.6% 3-bedroom $120,000 $69,500-$142,500 25 61.0% 4-bedroom $148,000 $148,000 I 0.4% Source: Los Angeles Times, Dataquick Se[vice Housing affordability is dependent upon income and housing costs. According to the HUD guidelines for 2000, the median family income 0VIFI) for a family of four in Riverside County is $47,400. Based on this median income, the following maximum income limits for a four-person family can be established: Very Low Income households (0 to 50% of MF1) eam a maximum of $23,700 Low Income households (51 to 80% of MFI) earn a maximum of $37,900 Moderate Income households (81 to 120% of MFI) earn a maximum of $56,900 · Median Income households earn $47,400 Table 4-14 Affordable Housing Costs by Income Category Riverside County Maximum Monthly Afford§hie Affordable Taxes/ Affordable Income Category Income Housin9 Cost Ut[lit/ Rent Maintenance Home Pdce Very Low $23,700 $592 $50 $542 $50 $70,300 Low $37,900 $947 $100 $847 $100 $106,900 Moderate $56,900 $1,422 $150 $1,272 $150 $178,400 Median $47,400 $1,185 $100 $1,085 $100 $148,600 Maximum alfordable home price based on a 30-year loan at 7.5% interest, assuming that the homebuyer can aff~d to pay a 10% downpayment and desin9 costs. Assuming that the potential homebuyer within each income group has sufficient credit, downpayment (10%), and maintains affordable housing expenses (i.e. spends no more than 30% of their gross income on the mortgage, taxes, and insurance), the maximum affordable home price can be determined for each income group. Table 4-14 shows the maximum housing prices affordable to the various income groups. Based on the median home prices shown in Table 4-13, housing ownership opportunities are available in Temecula for some Low Income and most Moderate Income households, although Very Low Income households would not be able to afford median prices housing in the City. Most small condominiums and some small single-family homes are affordable to Low Income households. In addition, most two-bedroom houses and II. Needs.doc · July 2002 Page 4-19 CITY OF TEMECULA Housing Element some three- and four-bedroom houses, as well as all condominium units are affordable to Moderate Income households. Rental Housing Current rental information for private rental units in Temecula was obtained through the 1998 Old Town Temecula Market Assessment that surveyed 13 apartment complexes throughout the City containing a total of 3,120 units. The large majority (70%) of the units in Temecula are two-bedroom units. In 1998, the average rent in Temecula was $515 for a one-bedroom unit, $625 for a two-bedroom unit, and $695 for a three-bedroom unit. An intemet search of limited apartments for rent in Temecula indicates that rents have gone up by about 15 to 20% for most one- and two-bedroom Based on the household income limits identified in Table 4-14, a Low Income household can afford to pay $847 per month, while a Moderate Income household can afford to pay up to $1,272 per month. Based on these limits, Low and Moderate Income households can afford to live in Temecula even if rents have increased significantly by 20% since the sur~zey. As Very Low Income households can only afford to pay $542 a month in rent, they will not be able to afford market rate rents without paying in excess of 30% of their gross income under most circumstances. Often large households with Very Low Incomes have to resort to smaller units in order to save on housing costs, bu~'overerowding tYPically occurs. 6. Assisted Housing at Risk of Conversion In ventory o fA ssisted Housing State Housing Element law requires 'cities to prepare an inventory including all assisted multi-family rental units which are eligible to convert to non-low income housing uses due to termination of subsidy contract, mortgage prepayment, or expiring use restrictions. Under Housing Element law, this inventory is required to cover an evaluation period following the statutory due date of the Housing Element (July 1, 2000). Thus, this at-risk housing analysis covers the period from July 1, 2000 through June 30, 2010. Table ~-15 provides an inventory of the City's assisted multi-family housing stock by various government assistance programs. This inventory includes all multi-family rental units assisted under federal, state, and/or local programs, including HUD programs, state and local bond programs, redevelopment i~rograms, and local density bonus or direct assistance programs. 11. Needs.doc ,, July 2002 Page 4-20 CITY OF TEMECULA Housing Element Table 4-15 Assisted Housing Inventory and At Risk Status Total Project Earliest # of Units At Project Units ' Program Convemion Date Risk Tern~eula Villas 96 Section 8 New Cons[ 6/1999 48 (28837 Pujol St.) (expired) Woodcreek 344 Mortgage Revenue 3/31/2003 71 (4220 Morago Rd,) Bond Rancho California 55 Section 8 New Cons[ 3/15/2004 55 (29210 Stonewood Section 221(cl}4 Rd.) Rancho Wast 150 RDA Revenue Bond 4/8/2026 150 (4220 Main SL) HOME Rancho Creek .30 RDA Loan 9/30/2026 '30 (28464 Felix Valdez Rd,) Mission Village 76 RDA Revenue Bond 7/16/2028 i 76 Apartments (28497 Pujot SI.) Oaktree 40 FmHA New Const. 8/8/2004 40 (42176 IJndley Lane) Sec~on 515/Section 8 Creekside 48 FmHA New Con, 8/22/2036 43 (28955 Puiol St.) . Section 515 Source: Cily of Temecela, September 1999. ~ The Section 8 contract for one apartment complex, Temecula Villas (28837 Pujol Stree0, expired in June 1999. The owner has not entered into an agreement with the Temecula Redevelopment Agency to accept additional' funding in exchange for preserving the affordability of the units, nor are Section 8 vouchers accepted at the complex. The owner plans on renting the units at market rate. At-Risk Housing Conversion Potential Oaktree, Woodcreek, and Rancho California complexes are the only housing developments that may be at risk between July 1, 2000 and June 30, 2010. The details of each project are discussed below. Oaktree: The 40-unit Oaktree project was financed through FmHA-New Construction Section 515 loans. While this project has the potential to expire in 2004 with prepayment of the loan, the nature of the program makes it extremely unlikely that the Oaktree project will be permitted to prepay and convert to market-rate lents. To qualify for prepayment and conversion, the owner of the project must prove that the affordable housing provided by the project is not needed. Discussions with FmI-IA representatives indicate that few farm housing projects have ever been able to document that affordable, farm housing is no longer needed. Therefore, the affordable housing restrictions on Oaktree are expected to continue for the entire duration of the loan. Also, additional incentives are o~en offered to owners of affordable housing financed under the FmI-IA New Construction Section 515 program to encourage the continued affOrdability of the units. Since the Oaktree project is unlikely to convert during the Housing Element planning period due the constraints described above, preservation of this affordable housing complex is not analyzed below. I1. Needs.doc · July 2002 Page 4-21 CITY OF TEMECULA Housing Element Woodcreek: The 344-unit Woodcreek project was financed with a multi-family mortgage revenue bond. Under the bond program, 20% (71) of the project units are required to be reserved for Low Income tenants for the greater of 15 years or as long as the bond is outstanding. The Low Income use restriction on the 71 units is due to expire in March 2003. Rancho California: This 55-unit project was developed with a HUD-insured Section 221(d)4 mortgage loan. This mortgage loan mainta'ms a market rate interest and places no deed restriction on the project to mainta'm the units as affordable housing. To ensure affordability of these units, HUD provided-a 20-year Section 8 contract for'the 55 units subsidizing the rent payments by tenants. This Section 8 contract is due to expire in March 2004. Preservation and Replacement of At-Risk Housing Cost Analysis Preservation of the at-risk projects can be achieved in four ways: 1) facilitate transfer of ownership of the at-risk properties to non-profit organizations; 2) purchase of affordability covenants; 3) provide rental assistance to tenants using funding sources other than Section 8; and 4) construct or purchase replacement affordable units. Transfer of Ownership: By transfen-ing ownership of at-risk projects to non-profit housing organizations, long-term, low income use of those projects can be secured, and the project will be eligible for a greater range of government assistance programs. Of the two at-risk housing development within Temecula, transferring ownership to a non- profit is only appropriate in the case of Rancho California. Since only 20% of the Woodcreek complex is affordable to lower income households, it is not cost-effective to purchase the entire apartment complex. Table 4-16 presents the estimated market value for the Rancho California project to establish an order, of magnitude for assessing preservation, costs. 'According to development experts, current market values for the at-risk project can be esthnated on the basis of the project's potential annual income, operating expenses and building condition. As shown in Table 4-16, the estimated market value of the Rancho California project is $4 million. However, unless some form of mortgage assistance is available to the non-profit organizations, rental income fi.om the lower income tenants would not likely be adequate to cover the mortgage payment, and rental subsidy would be required. I1. Needs.doe * July 2002 Page 4-22 CITY OF TEMECULA Housing Element Table 4-16 Value of At-Risk Housing Units Rancho California Apartments Size of Units Number of Units in Projed 2-Bedroom 22 3-Bedrcom 4-Bedroom 11 Total 55 Gross Operating Income ~73,065 Annual Operafin9 $3;',307 NOt Annual Income $335,759 Market Value ~4,029~102 Market value for Rancho Cardomia Apartments is estimated with tee following assumptions: 1. Old Town Temecula Market Study - averege market umt fo~' a 2-Bedroom ls $515,2. bedroore is $625,3-bedreom is $695, and a 4-bedreum is estimated to be 10% higher th~ a 3~mom for an aven'~je rent of $765. 2. Vacancy Rate = 5% 3. Annual operating expenses = 10% of gross revenues 4. Market Value = Annual net project income * reultiplication lacier. 5. MullJplicafion factsr for busings in 9ood fo excellent condition in 12. Purchase of Affordability Covenant: Another option to preserve the affordability of at-risk projects is to provide an incentive package to the owners to maintain the projects as low income housing. Incentives could include writing down the interest rate on thc remaining loan balance, and/or supplementing the tenant's rent payment or Section 8 subsidy amount from HUD to market levels. To purchase the affordability covenant on the at-risk projects, an incentive package should include interest subsides at or below what the property owners can obtain in the' open market. To enhance the attractiveness of the incentive package, the interest subsidies may need to be combined with additional rent subsidies. Rent Subsidy: A total of 55 units in the Rancho California project currently maintain Section 8 contracts that are due to expire within the time frame of this Housing Element. Should annual renewal of project-based S6ction 8 contracts become unavailable in the future, tenant-based rent subsidies such as Section 8 vouchers and certificates may be used to preserve the affordability of housing. Also, should the owner of Woodcreek decide to convert the 71 units into market rate housing, Section 8, or other forms of rent subsidies may be required to assist the existing tenants. Under the HUD Section 8 program, assistance is only available to Very Low Income households (up to 50% of the County Median Family Income). Thus the discrepancy between the Fair Market Rent for a unit and the housing cost affordable to a Very Low Income household is used to estimate the amount of rent subsidy required for that unit. Table 4-17 estimates the rent subsidies required to preserve the affordability of the assisted units to Very Low Income households. Based on the estimates and assumptions shown in this table, approximately $191,664 in rent subsidies would be required annually to preserve the Rancho California units, and approximately $168,246 in annual rent subsidies would be required to preserve the Woo&reek units, for a total of 5359,910. U. Needs.doc ,, Jury 2002 Page 4-23 CITY OF TEMECULA Housing Element Table 4-17 Rent Subsidies Ret uired Section 8/Subsidized Al-risk Units Rancho Calitornia Woodoreek 2-Bedroum 22 58 3-Bedroom 22 13 4-Bedroom~ 11 0 Total 55 71 Total Menthly Rent Income Supported by Affordable $26,180 $31,383 Housing Cesl of Vel7 Low Income Households · ' Total Month Rent Allows by Fair Market Rents $42,152 $45,403 Total Annual Subsidies Required $191,664 $168,246 Notes: 1. Unit mix of Woodcmek Apartment units is based on propo~ons in the entire project. 2. A Iwo-bedronm unit is assumed to be occupied by a thme-porson household, a three- bedroom unit by a four-porson household, and a four-bedroom unit by a five-person household. 3. Based on 1999 Median Family Income in Riverside County, affordable monthly housing cost for a three-person Ve~7 Low Income household is $431, for a four-person household is $490, and a five-pefson household is $538. 4. 1999 Fair Market Rents in Riverside County is $597 for a Iwo~edrcorn unit, $829 for a three-bedroom unit, and $980 for a four-bedroom unit. Replacement Cost Analysis/Purchase of Similar Units: The cost of developing new housing depends on a variety of factors such as density, size of units, location and related land costs, and type of construction. Based on discussions with a local developer with recent experience building multi-family housing within Temecula, it would be difficuR to develop multi-family rental housing for less than approximately $100,000 per unit. This cost estimate includes all costs associated with development. To replace the 126 affordable units in Rancho California and Woodcrcek apartments would therefore require at least $12,600,000 ($5.5 millior~ for Rancho California and $7.1 million for Woodereek), provided that vacant or underutilized multi-family residential sites would be available for construction of replacement housing. Instead of constructing new at-risk affordable units, similar existing units may be purchased to replace those units. Based on'the value analysis for the Rancho California apar~n~nts, an existing unit would cost approximately $73,250. To replace the 126 affordable units in Rancho California and Woodcreek through the purchase of similar existing units, the total cost would be approximately $9.2 million ($4 million for Rancho California and $5.2 million for Woodcreek). Cost Comparison The cost to build new housing to replace the 126 at-risk units within the Rancho California and Woodcreek projects is high, with an estimated total cost of close to $12.6 million. This cost estimate is higher than the cost to preserve the units by transferring ownership to a non-profit (in the case of Rancho California) or purchasing 126 similar existing units, which is estimated at approximately $9.2 million. 11. Needs.doc * July 2002 Page 4-24 CITY OF TEMECULA Housing Element Use of other forms of rent subsidies to replace rental assistance, such as Section 8, does not ensUre long-term trait affordability. The cost associated with rent .subsidies 'is lower, requiring a total of approximately $359,910 annually. Overall, lxansferdng project ownership to non-profit organizations combined with f'mancing techniques to lower the mortgage payment, as well as pUrchase of affOrdability covenants, are probably the most cost-effective means to preserving the at- risk housing projects in Temecula. I1. Needs.doc * July 2002 Page 4-25 CITY OF TEMECULA Housing Element III. CONSTRAINTS ON HOUSING PRODUCTION Market, governmental, and infrastructure factom pose constraints to the provision of adequate and affordable housing. These constraints may result in housing that is not affordable to Very Low, Low, and Moderate Income households, or may render residential construction economically infeasible for developers. A. Market Constraints 1. Land and Construction Costs A major cost associated with developing new housing is the cost of land. Most vacant residential parcels in Temeeula have been subdivided, while others are contained within planned communities. In the Meadow View area, where parcels begin at ½ acre and increase in size, the average price Of a vacant parcel ranges from $60,000 to over $100,000. Larger tracts of raw land are available in the surrounding sphere ofi .nfluence at a lower cost per acre. However, the potential development of this raw land is constrained by the City's desire to preserve the agricultural lands, as evident in the General Plan. Another major cost associated with building a new house is the cost of building materials, which can comprise up to 50% of the sales price of a home. Construction costs for wood frame single-family construction of average to good quality range from $50 to $70 per square foot, while custom homes and units with extra amenities may nm higher. Costs for wood frame, multi-family construction average about $50 per square foot excluding parking. Both the costs of land and construction of a new house are passed on to the homebuyer. As a result, an increase in the cost of land or construction materials will result in a higher housing price for the purchaser. 2. Availability of Mortgage and Rehabilitation Financing Under the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA), lending institutions are required to disclose information on the disposition of loan applications. Overall, financing is generally available to homebuyers and homeowners in Temecula. As depicted in Table 4-18, in 1997'overall, 73% of the 1,031 applications submitted for conventional home ' purchase loans were approved (though not all applicants accepted the loan [i.e. · originated the loan]), and only 12% were denied, with the remaining 14% of the applications withdrawn or closed, for incompleteness. However, lower income applicants had a lower rate of approval in comparison to the higher income applicants. The disparity between income groups with the availability of fimding is also apparent in the approval rate for conventional home improvement loans. Overall, home improvement loans have lower approval rates. In 1997, only 54% of the 430 applications submitted for conventional improvement loans were approved, indicating III. Constraints.doc * July 2002 Page 4-26 CITY OF TEMECULA Housing Element the continued need for City assistance in providing home improvement loans, especially for lower income applicants. Table 4-19 illustrates the disposition of government-backed home purchase and home improvement loans. Government-backed loans include those insured by the FHA, FmHA, and VA, but do not include those provided through the Temecula Redevelopment Agency. Comparing Table 4-19 with Table 4-18 indicates that more Low and Moderate Income households in Temecula rely on govemment-backed loans than on conventional loans to achieve homeownership. This further substantiates the continued need for homebuying assistance in order to facilitate homeownership among Low and Moderate Income households. Few households applied for home improvement loans under either conventional or government-backed lending. This is reflective of the overall sound conditions of the City's housing stock. Nevertheless, Low and Moderate Income households seeking home improvement financing had comparative lower approval rates under both conventional and government-backed lending than Upper Income households. Locally assisted home imprbvement loans and grants are important to assist'mg the Low and Moderate Income households in making the necessary repairs. Table 4-18 Disposition of Conventional Loan Applications: 1997 Home Purchase Loans Home Improvement Loans % % Applicant Income Total Originated/ % % Total % Al)PI'ns Approved* Denied Other Apprns Originated/Approved, Denied % Other Low Income 106 68.9% 14.1% 17.0% 34 55.9% 32.4% 11.8% (<80% MFI) Moderate Income 183 70.5% 16.4% 13.1% 108 38.0% 56.5% 5.6% (80-119% MFI) Upper Income 686 76.7% 10.8% 12.5% 288 60.1% 34.4% 5.6% {>+120% MFI) , Not Available 56 51.8% 16.1% 32.1% 0 0 0 0 Total 1,031 73.4% 12.4% 14.1% 430 54.2% 39.8% 6.0% * O~ioated Loan is a loan that has been approved and accepted by the applicant. Source: Home Mortgage Disclosure Act {HMDA) data for 1F37. Tabulated with the Centrex soltware. Table 4-19 Disposition of Government Backed Loan Applications: 1997 Home Purchase Loans Home Improvement Loans Applicant Income Total % % % Total % % % Appl'ns Originated/ Odgioated/ Denied Other Approved* Denied Other Appt'ns Approved* Low Income 116 74.1% 12.1% 13.8% 12 0% 66.7% 33.3% {<80% MFt) Moderate Income 328 80.8% 10.7% 8.5% 58 36.2% 39.7% 24.1% (80-119% UFI) Upper Income 380 76.8% 14.2% 8.9% 101 45.5% 33.7% 20.8% {>+120% MFI) Not Available 37 59.5% 13.5% 27.0% 6 16.7% 83.3% 0% Total 861 77.2% i. 12.5% 10.2% 177 38.4% 39.5% 22.0% * Odgioated Loan is a loan that has been approved and accepted by the appr~ant. Source: Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) data for !997. Tabulated with the Centrax software. IlL Constraints.doc * July 2002 Page 4-27 CITY OF TEMECULA Housing Element B. Governmental Constraints 1. Land Use Controls The Land Use Element of the Temecula General Plan and corresponding Development Code provide for a range of residential types and densities dispersed throughout the City. The current Land Use Element has designated 10,295 acres (63%) of the City's total land inventory for residential uses, including: single-family homes, multi-family units, and mobile homes. Residential densities in Temecula cover a wide spectrum, including the following categories: · Hillside Residential (HR) (0-0.1 mt/net ~cre) Very Low Density Residential (VL) (0.2-0.4 unit/net acre) · Low Density Residential-1 (L-l) (0.4-1 mt/net acre) · Low Density Residential-2 (L-2) (1-2 un/ts/net acre) · Low Medium Density Residential (LM) (3-6 units/net acre) · Medium Density Residential (M) (7-12 units/net acre) · High Density Residential (H) (13-20 units/net acre) These residential categories provide for a range of housing types to be developed in Temecula. The City has set target levels for density for the Hillside (0.1 unit/acre); Very Low (0.3 units/acre); Low (1.3 units/acre); and LOw Medium (4.5 units/acre) Density Residential designations. Only projects that provide amenities or public benefits will be allowed to exceed the target level. The types of amenities or public benefits may include providing road connections, parks, or fire station. These amenities typically apply to large-scale planned development projects. The City has not set density target levels for the Medium and High Density Residential categories in order to facilitate the development of affordable housing. 2. Residential Development Standards Temecula's residential development and parking standards are summarized in Tables 4- 20 and 4-21. Residential standards have been adopted by the City to protect the safety and welfare of its residents. The Development Code and General Plan allow for modification and flexibility in the development standards through the provision of a Village Center Overlay and Planned Development Overlay. Flexibility in planning for overlay areas is allowed to promote a greater range of housing opportunities within the City. Diversity of housing, including affordable housing is one of the performance standards for the Village Center Overlay. The Planned Development Overlay Zoning District also encourages the pmvisi0n of additional housing opportunities for the community. Additional flexibility in development standards is also provided in the Development Code through the use of variable setbacks. This flexibility allows for creative site planning, especially for irregular sites. II1. Constraints.doc * July 2002 Page 4-28 CITY OF TEMECULA Housing Element To provide for additional opportunities for affordable housing, the Development Code and General Plan also allow senior,, congregate care, and affordable housing in some non- residential zoning dis~cts. Senior housing is allowed in the Neighborhood Commercial, Community Commercial, Service Commercial, Highway/Tourist Commercial, and Professional Office zoning disa-icts. Congregate care facilities are allowed in the Neighborhood Commercial, Community Commercial, Highway/Tourist Commercial, Service Commercial, and Professional Office zoning districts. Affordable housing projects are allowed in the Professional Office zoning district. For example, the City has recently adopted a Planned Development Overlay district for the Temecula Creek Village to provide for mixed-use commercial/residential development. Temecula Creek Village will develop 32,6 vacant acres within the Professional Office (PO) zone with 20 acres of residential and 12 acres of commercial uses. Residential uses envisioned for the Planned Development Overlay district include medium and high density multi-family uses. II1. Constraints.doc · July 2002 Page 4-29 CITY OF TEMECULA Housing Element Table 4-20 Residential Development Standards HR VL L4 L-2 LM M H ~inimum Net Lot Area (square feet) .... 7,200 7,200 7,200 ~tinimom Average Net Lot Ama per Dwelliag Unit 10acrss 2.5acres 1.0aere 0.5aere -- -- -- VlaximUm Dwelfing Units Per Aere~ ..... 12.0 20.0 .OT DiMENSiONS ~inimum Lo{ Frontage at Front Property Une 50~ 40fL 40fL 30fL 30fL 30fL 30fL dtbimum LOt Frontage for a Flag Lot at Front Property Une 400. 30fL 30fL 25ft, 20fL 200. 20fL dinimum Width at Required Front Setbad( Aroa 100fL 100fL 70fL 50fL 50fL 40fL 30fL ~linimum Average W',:ith 100 fL 80 ft. 70 fL 60.fL 50 ft. 50 ft. 50 fL Minimum L(X Depth 150fL 120fL 100fL 90fL 80fL 100 ft. 100fL SETBACKS Minimum Froot Yard2 40fL 25fL 25ft. 25ft.z 20fL2 20fL2 20fL2 Minimum Comer Side Yard 40fL 15fL 15fL 15fL 15fL 15fL 15fL Minimum Intador Side Yard3 10 ft. 10 ft. 10 ft. 10 fL Vadable3 Variable3 Vadable3 Minimum Rear Yard 20fl. 20fL 20fL 20fL 20ft. 20fL 20ft. MaximumHeight I 35fL Maximum % of Lot Coverage 10% 20% 25% 25% 35°/, 35% 30% OponSpaceRequirod [ o%l 70% 60% 60% 25%] 25% 30% Private Open Space/Per UnitI INA NA NA NA NAI 200 150 Notes: 1. Affordable housing and congregate care facilities may exceed the stated densities pursuant to the provisions of Sectior 17.06,050,H, '2. Variable front yard setbacks: In order to allow for a more interesting visual image and rooro flexible site planning variable setback., may be pen'~itted in the L2, LM, M and H dist~cts. Front yard setbacks shall have an average of at least twenty font. Garages witl' entrances not faring the front yard area may be setback a minimum of ten font. Other portions of a stmcturo may have a front yarc setback of a roinirouro of ten feet; however, the average setbad( of twenty feet shall be maintained, 5. Variable side yard setbacks: In the LM zoning district, the combined side yard setback for beth sides must equal at least fiftonn fon* with one side having at least ten font to provide potestJat vehicular access to the rear of the property and shall be located on the sam( side as the driveway. In the M and H zoning districts, variable side yard setbacks may be permitted provided the sum of the side yarc set~acks is not less than ten feet and the distance between adjacent strocturss is not less than ten font, This permits a zero lot line an'angement with a zero setback on one side yard and ten feet on the opposite site yard. ~ource: The Cily of Temocula Development Code. ItL Constraints.doc * July 2002 Page 4-30 CITY OF TEMECULA Housing Element Table 4-21 Parking Space Requirements Land Use Required Pa~n,cj Spaces Siegle~am~y Unit 2 enclosed spaces Deplex, Tdplex 2 covered spaces/units, plus 1 guest spaco/4 units Multi-family Units (12 units or less)- 3 or fewa' · 2-5 units: 2 covered spaces/units, plus 2 guest spaces bedrooms · 6-12 units: 2 covered spaces/unit, plus 3 guest spaces Multi4amity Units (13 or mom units)- 3 or fewer · 1 covered space and ~ uncovered space for each l-bedroom unit; bedrooms · 1 covered and I uncovered space for each 2-bedroom unit; · 2 covered spaces and ½ uncovered space for each 3-bedroom (or more) unit; plus 1 guest space/6 units, with a minimum of 4 guest spaces. Mobilehome Park · 1 covered space/Imiler site, p~us 1 guest space/2 trailer sites Second Unit · I covered space for each 2-bedroom (or smaller) unit; · 2 covered spaces for each 3-bedroom (or larger) unit. Granny Rat 1 uncovered space/unit Senior Citizens Housing Complex/Congregate ½ covered space/unit, plus 1 uncovered guest space pe~ 5 units Care Source: City of Temecula Development Code 3. Provisions for a Variety of Housing Housing Element law specifies that jurisdictions must identify adequate sites to ~e made available through appropriate zoning and development standards to encourage the development of a variety of types of housing for all income levels, including mobile homes, congregate care facilities, senior housing, emergency sheiters, and transitional housing.' The following paragraphs describe the City's provision for these types of housing. Mobile Homes/Manufactured Housing: Temecula allows for the provision of manufactured housing in all of its residential zoning districts. Mobile home parks are allowed with a conditional use 'permit in. all of the residential zoning districts. Manufactured housing must be certified according to the National Mobile Home Construction and Safety Standards Act of 1974 and conform to all other development and use requirements applicable to .the primary units in the zoning district. The units must stand on a permanent foundation and the materials used for the siding must be approved by the Planning Director. Senior Housing/Affordable Housing: Senior and affordable housing are permitted in the High, Medium, and Low Medium Density Residential zoning districts, with approval of a development plan. The maximum density allowed for senior housing that complies with the City's affordable housing provisions, including the density bonus, is: 30 units/acre for High Density Residential, 20 units/acre for Medium Density Residential, and 8 units/acre for Low Medium Density Residential. For the approved specific plans, the maximum density bonus cannot exceed 50% of the target density in the planning area. Senior housing is also allowed in the Neighborhood Commercial, Community Commercial, Service Commercial, Highway/Tourist° Commercial, and Professional Iii. Constraints.doc · July 2002 Page 4-31 CITY OF TEMECULA Housing Element Office zoning districts. Senior housing constructed in the Neighborhood Commercial zone will be developed consistent with the development and performance standards allowed in the Medium Density Residential 'zoning district. For the Community Commercial, Service Commercial, Highway/Tourist Commercial, and Professional Office zoning districts, senior housing will be developed consistent with the development and performance standards allowed for the High Density Residential zoning district. Affordable housing developments are entitled to receive at least a density bonus of 25% in each residential zoning district. The maximum densities for affordable housing projects, including the density bonus, are: 30 units/acre for High Density Residential, 18 units/acre for Medium Density Residential, and 8 units/acre for Low Medium Density Residential development. For the approved specific plans, the maximum density, including the density bonus, is not allowed to exceed 50% of the target density in the planning area, as discussed above. Affordable housing projects are also allowed in the Professional Office zoning district up to 30 units/acre with a conditional use permit. Affordable housing projects, including affordable senior projects may also be granted at least one development concession by the City as an incentive for the provision of affordable housing. The potential concessions include: · An increase in the amount of required lot coverage; · A modification to theg~b-~iek-O?-[e~l'reffy~d"~i-6h§ii3ns; · An increase in the maximum allowable building height;. ·, · A reduction in the amount of required on-site parking; · A reduction in the amount of on-site landscaping, except that no reduction in on-site recreational amenities may be approved unless the affordable housing is in close proximity with easy access to a public park with recreational amenities;' · A reduction in the minimum lot area; or · Approval of an affordable housing project in the Professional Office zone with the approval of a conditional use permit. Congregate Care: Congregate care facilities are not limited specifically to density requirements, as long as all of the development standards for the zoning district are met. Congregate care facilities are allowed in the Low-2 Densi/y Residential, Low Medium Density Residential, Medium Density Residential, High Density Residential, Neighborhood Commercial, Community Commercial, Highway/Tom/st Commercial, Service Commercial, and Professional Office zoning districts. Second Units: The City of Temecula allows second units in all of the residential districts where a detached single-family unit exists and the owner occupies either the primary or secondary unit. Second units cannot be sold, but may be rented. The second unit must be compatible with the design of. the primary dwelling trait and meet the size and parking requirements identified in the Development Code. III. Constraints.doc o July 2002 Page 4-32 CITY OF TEMECULA Housing Element Emergency Shelters/Transitional Housing: The City facilitates the development of emergency shelters and transitional housing by permitting the development of such facilities in the Medium Density and High Density Residential districts by right. These uses are also permitted in other residential districts with a conditional use permit. Emergency shelters are also permitted with ,a conditional use permit in the Neighborhood Commercial, Community Commercial, Highway/Tourist Commercial, Service Commercial, Professional Office, Business Park, and Light Industrial Zoning districts. Currently, Temecula has two group homes for teenagers with a total capacity of 18 persons. In addition, two residential facilities in the City offer housing for up to 12 developmentally disabled persons. 4. Development and Planning Fees The cost of development is a constraint to the implementation of affordable housing projects. Typically, the cost of developing raw land is significantly increased by the various regulations and fees local governments impose on developers. The City of Temecula charges various fees and assessments to cover the cost of processing permits and providing certain services and utilities. Table 4-22 summarizes that City's planning fee requirements for residential development, while Table 4-23 depicts the City's development f..ees for residential development. Comparing the cost of one jurisdiction's development and planning fees to another is difficult since each jurisdiction calculates and applies its fee schedule in its own unique way. While no recent studies available to the general public have been completed in Riverside County to compare the fees charged by various jurisdictions, a 1991 County of Riverside Administrative Office (CAO) study compared the c"ost of developing a 50- unit subdivision in various communities~ In this study, Temecula ranked in the top three jurisdictions for development fees charged. III. Constraints.doc · July :~002 Page 4-33 CITY OF TEMECULA Housing Element Table 4-22 Planning Fee Schedule City of Temecula Project Type t CityofTemeenlaFee I Department of EnvirenmentalHeetlh Fee Planning and Zoning Conditional Use Pe~nit- New Building ~,'~ $5,837 $234 Conditional Use Permit-Exisling Building~ $888 $234 Development Agreement $4,550 . N/A Development Ran - Less lhan 10~000 sf (Administrative) $190 N/N Development Plan- Less than 10,000 sf ~,~4 $3,540' $136 Development Plan - Ova' 10,000 sf ~,z3,4 $5,880 $136 General Plan Amendmeet~,z3 $5~587 $59 Single Family Residence and Additions $30 N/A Variance~ $1,954 $120 Zoning Amendment (Text Chanaes, Map Chenges) ~.s $3,617 i $61 Zoning Amendment (Specific Plan) ~,~.s $15,578 $197 Subdivisions Certificate of Land Division Compliance (fee per parcel) $1,093 $138 Certificate of Land Division Compliance w/Waiver of Final Parcel $837 N/A Map (fee per parcd) Lot Line Adjustment $834 $72 Merger of Continuous Parcel $714 N/A Mino~ Change (Parcel Map) $729 N/A Minor Change (Tract Map) $741 N/A Parcel Map- Tent~ve (Residential) w/Walve~' of Final Map~-3,s · $3,735 $389 Parcel Map - Tentative (Residential) w/o Waiver of Rnal Map~.~-3'~ $3,346 $675 Parcel Map- Vesting Tentative Map~,~ $7,734 $424 Tract Map - Malti-Famity-Tentative Statutory Condo Subdivision $7,085 $528 MaI) FilingS,z3,s Tract Map- Multi-Family-Revised Statutory Condo Subdivision Map $6,007 $203 Tract Map- Single Family Residential Tract (Sewem) ~.~3,5 $6,000 $528 Tract Map- Single Family ResidenlJal Tract (Sub~udsce Disposal) $6,000 $424 Tract Map- Single Family Residential Tract (Revised T~ntative ' $3,861 $528 Subdivision Map) ~,z.~.s Tract Map Besting Tentative Sthgle Family Residential Trac0,Z3,s M!~_~!!~_neous Charges CEQA (Draft EIR)' I$7'12°1 $395 Old Town Architectural Review $20 N/A 1. Add CEOA Fee of $613+$8/gross aare (it required) 2. Add UC Regents Fee of $25 (~f required) - not applical~e to duplicate applicalions 3. Add Traffic Study Fee of $780 (if required) 4. Add DEC Landscape Fee of $200 5. Add per lot and per gross acre fee (depends en spedfic project) Source: Temecula Abdd,qed Application Fee Schedule (June 4,1998) III. Constraints.doc · July 2002 Page 4-34 CITY OF TEMECULA Housing Element Table 4-23 Developme ~nt Fees City of Temecula Development Fee Land Use Fee/Unit Street System Improvements Residential Attached $517 Residential Detached $737 Traffic Signals and Traffic Control Systems Residential Attached $78 Residential Deleehed $110 C(:nporate Fadlities Residential Attached $119 Reeidential Detached $224 Fire Protection Fadltiies Residential Attached $42 i Residential Detached $56 Parks and Recreational Improvements Residential Attached $1~222 i Residential Detached $1,629 Ubraries Residential Attached $158 Residential Detached $210 Total Residential Attad~ed $2~136 Residential Detached $2,966 Source: City of Temeeula, 1999 5. Building Codes and Enforcement The City of Temecula has adopted the Uniform Building Code CUBC) and has not made any additional modifications to the UBC. This Code is considered to be the minimum necessary to protect the public health, safety, and welfare. The City is responsible for enforcement of the UBC. Only 1% of the housing stock in Temecula is older than 30 years. Overall, the housing stock is in excellent condition. The City's Code Enforcement program is complaint- based, and will not constrain the development or preservation of housing. When housing code violations are cited for units occupied by low and moderate income households, the Code Enforcement staff routinely offers information regarding the City's rehabilitation programs. 6. Local Processing and Permit Thc evaluation and review process required by City procedures contributes to thc cost of housing in that the holding costs incurred by developers during the review period are ultimately manifested in the unit'S selling price. The administrative approval process (which includes development projects that are less than 10,000 square feetin building floor area and are exempt ~om the California Environmental Quality Act [CEQA]) is administered by the Community Development Department and other involved agencies, and does not require review by the City Council nor Planning Commission. The average time for administrative approval is five weeks. Once approval is given, the property owner must submit the approved plans to the Community Development and Public Works Departments to obtain the required pennits. Discretionary projects require review and approval by City staff, affected agencies, City Council, and Planning Commission. The average period until a discretionary project IH. Constraints.doc · July 2002 Page 4-35 CITY OF TEMECULA Housing Element reaches the public heahng stage is 11 weeks. An additional five weeks may be required after the public hearing until the final approval with associated conditions is given. This processing time flame is not considered excessive. The City has not adopted any special design or environmental review processes that would add additional time to the processing period. In addition, since much of the remaining vacant residential land is contained in specific plan areas, the environmental review required under CEQA has been completed and the development standards required have been identified, expediting the approval process of projects within the specific plan area. C. State Tax Policies and Regulations 1. Article 34 of the California Constitution Article 34 was enacted in 1950. It requires that low rent housing projects developed, constructed, or acquired in any mariner by any State or public agency, including cities, receive voter approval through the referendum process. The residents of Temecula have not passed a referendum to allow the City to develop, construct, or acquire affordable housing. While California Health and Safety Code further clarifies-the scope and applicability of Article 34 to exclude hous'mg projects that have deed-restriction on less than 49% of the units or rehabilitation/reconstruction of housing projects that are currently deed- restricted or occupied by lower income persons, Article 34 still constitutes an obstacle for local governments to be directly involved in production of long-term affordable housing. 2. Environmental Protection State regulations require environmental review of proposed discretionary projects (e.g., subdivision maps, use permits, etc.). Costs resulting fi.om fees charged by local government and private consultants needed to complete the environmental analysis, and fi.om delays caused by the mandated public review periods, are also added to the cost of housing and passed on to the consumer. However, the presence of these regulations helps preserve the environment and ensure environmental safety to Temecula's residents. In addition, much of the remaining vacant residential land is located within approved specific plan areas for which the required environmental review has akeady been completed. III. Constraints.doc · July 2002 'Page 4-36 CITY OF TEMECULA Housing Element D. Infrastructure Constraints' Another factor adding to the cost of new construction is the cost of providing adequate infrastructure (major and local streets; curbs, gutters, and sidewalks; water and sewer lines; and street lighting) which is required to be built or installed in new development. In most cases, these improvements are dedicated to the City, which is then responsible for their maintenance. The cost of these facilities is borne by developers, and is added to the cost of new housing units, and is eventually passed on to the homebuyer or property owner. In addition, two areas of the City, designated for residential uses, are partially developed and do not have sewer service. Development of this land is limited to Very Low Density Residential uses. The majority of the remainder of future residential development within the City will occur in master planned communities, or on sites adjacent to existing infrastructure. As a result, residential development will not be constrained by the lack of sufficient infrastructure in the remainder of the City. The Rancho Califomia Water District (RCWD) is the retail supplier of potable water to the City. According to the Growth Management/Public Facilities Element of the General Plan, the 'RCWD has adequate water supply to meet current demand and is investigating a number of sources to meet long-range demands. Upgrading existing wells, adding new wells, implementing a water recharge program, and increasing the use of reclaimed water are among the major strategies devised by the RCWD. Wastewater facilities in Temecula are provided by the Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD). The EMWD has adequate capacity to meet current treatment demand. A planned expansion to the Rancho California Treatment Plant by 2003 will further increase the District's wastewater treatment by 10 million gallons per day. By closely working with the RCWD and EMWD in developing supply options; conservation techniques, including the us, e of reclaimed Water; and development monitoring systems, the City can ensure that development does not outpaee the long-term availability of water and adequacy of wastewater treatment capacity. E. Environmental Constraints The City is impacted by various environmental hazards that include active fault traces, liquefaction and subsidence, steep slopes, and flooding. These natural hazards form environmental constraints to residential development by threatening the public safety. To protect the health, safety, and welfare of residents in Temecula, the City has adopted regulations that limit development within areas of high risk, and/or require design standards that can withstand natural hazards. Flood Plain (FP) Overlay District: The City has applied a Flood Plain Overlay District to portions of the City that are threatened by flooding hazards. The overlay district includes design requirements that must be met for new construction and substantial improvement of III, Constraints.doe ,, July 2002 Page 4-37 CITY OF TEMECULA Housing Element structures within the district. These design standards have been adopted to reduce the flooding hazards threatening people and structures within the overlay district. The Flood Plain Overlay District affects primarily the Hillside and Business Park areas at the western edge of the City. Residential development in the hillside area is already constrained to one . unit per ten acres to reflect the various environmental hazards and the high costs associated · with the mitigation techniques. A handful of vacant residential sites at the southern edge of the City are also affected by flood hazards. Most of these sites are infill vacant lots designated for Very Low Density Residential (0.2 to 0.4 trait per acre). One vacant property zoned for Medium Density Residential (7 to 12 units per acre) is located within the Flood Plain Overlay District. Development on this property must comply with specific structural design standards that raise the cost of construction. However, this property represents only a fraction of the City's vacant Medium Density Residential land. The environmental constraints and the associated cost factor impacting this property will not compromise the City's ability to provide adequate sites to accommodate its Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA). Alquist Priolo: Temecula is located within a highly active seismic region. Three Alquist- Priolo Special Studies Zones are located in Temecula - Wildomar, Willard, and Wolf Valley. These zones have been delineated by the State Geologist and encompass the area on either side of potentially or recently active fault traces ·where the potential for surface- rupture exists. The Wildomar Fault is the predominant fault in the City. This fault trends in a' northwest direction and transects the length of the City. The Willard fault is loca{ed southwest of the Wildomar fault zone. South of the Willard fault is the Wolf Valley fault zone.' Within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault zone, habitable structures must maintain a minimum 50-foot setback distance from the fault trace per State law. The presence of three Alquist-Priolo zones in Temecula limit the amount of land and intensity for the development of residential uses. However, only a few vacant residential sites d~signated for Very Low Density Residential use are impacted by these Alquist-Priolo zones. 1II. Constraints.doc * July 2002 Page 4-38 CITY OF TEMECULA Housing Element IV. HOUSING RESOURCES A. Sites for Housing Development 1. Vacant Sites An important component of the Temecula Housing Element is the identification of sites for future housing development, and evaluation of the adequacy of this site inventory in accommodat'mg the City's share of regional housing growth as determined by the Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG). As part of this Housing Element update, the City conducted a parcel-by-parcel vacant residential site analysis, for land outside of approved specific plans, based on data obtained fi.om the City's geographic information system (GIS). Table 4-24 qUantifies the number and type of housing units that could be accommodated on the City's vacant residential sites located outside of approved specific plan areas. The City also conducted a records search and visual survey using aerial photos and site visits tc estimate the remaining residential development capacity by number and type of housing within the approved specific plans. Table 4-25 summarizes the housing developm~:r,,t potential remaining in the specific plan areas. Table 4-24 Residential Development Potential of Vacant Land Outside Specific Plan Areas Vacant Net Dwelling General Plan Designations Density Range Target Density Acreage Units Hillside 0-0.1 DU/AC 0.1 DU/AC ' 47 ~- Very Low 0.24).4 DU/AC 0.3 DU/AC 1,089 327 Low 0.5-2 DUIAC 1.3 DU/AC 218 283 row Medium 3-6 DU/AC 4.5 DUlAC 539 2,426 Medium 7-12 DU/AC 12 DU/AC* 171" 2,004'* · High 13-20 DU/AC 20 DU/AC* 48" 1,029" Total 2,112 6,074 · The City of Temecula allows the development of Medium and High Density residential land at the maximum density. "Nine parcels, a total of approximately 5.33 acres of land (1.67 acres Medium Density and 3.71 acres High Density), acquired or under contract by the Redevelopment Agency is included. . Development of these parcels will produce approximately 89 units affordable to Low and Very Low Income households. Source: City of Temecula, September 1999. IV. Housing Resources.doc * July 2002 Page 4-39 CITY OF TEMECULA Housing Element Table 4-25 Remainin ,, Approved Residential Development for Existing Specific Plans Low Meaium/ Medium High Very High sPeC~c Ran/Land Low Density Me~um Density Density High Densityt Densily2 Total Use DesignalJons~ (.4-2 DU/AC) (2-5 DU/AC) (5-8 DU/AC) (8-14 DU/AC) (14-20 DU/AC) Units Campos Verdes 16 226 0 0 0 242 Margarita V~llage 19 351 764 175 0 1,309 Paloma ~ Sol 0 917 941 0 590 2~448 Rancho Highlands 0 0 0 0 383 383 Harveston 0 0 0 0 3003 300 Total 35 1,494 1,705 175 1,273 4,682 ~ Land use categories for specific plans vary from these used in the Development Code. I 2 The antidpated density in adopted specific plens, except for the Westside Specific Plan, is 11.6 units/acm for High Dens'~ Pa~sidentiat end 15.8-16.2 units/acm for Very High Density Residential. The enticipoted dens'~ in a specific plan area refers only to an overati average density acmes the specific plan when a range of housing types is. provided within a residential categor,/. It does not prevent individual projects from achieving the ma~mom density permitted, 3 The Harvestou Specific Plan allows 13 to 20 units/acre. * The Old Town Specific Plan is a redevelopmeof plan fo~ the Old Town Dist~ct and does not identify a specific number of housing units that will be built. Source: City of Temecula, September 1999 Three specific plans have remaining potential for Very High Density residential development - Paloma Del Sol, Rancho Highlands, and Hazveston. Paloma Del Sol is under active construction. The City Council is considering removing certain conditions for approval to facilitate the development of high density housing in this specific plan area. Harveston is currently being graded for construction. This specific plan has a remaining capacity to develop approximately 300 units at Very High Density. Rancho Highlands is approaching buildout with the exception of the Very High Density area. Infrastructure is already in place within the'Rancho Highlands Specific Plan area. The Temecula Development Code allows for an increase in density in the High, Medium, and Low Medium residential designations if the development is senior housing, affordable housing or a congregate care facility. Densities for senior housing may be increased in High Density to 30 units/acre, in Medium Density to 20 units/acre, and in Low Medium Density to 8 units/acre. Density bonuses of at least 25% may also be granted for affordable housing projects, potentially increasing the maximum density, including density bonus, to 30 units/acre in High Density, 18 units/acre in Medium Density, and 8 units/acre in Low Medium Density. The density bonuses offered by the City. exceed the State density bonus requirements. Density bonuses may also'be granted to specific plan areas, as long as the maximum density bonus does not exceed 50% ofihe target density in such areas. For example, in the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan area, the target density for Very High density is 16.2 units per acre, with a maximum range of 20 units per acre. An affordable housing project can potentially receive a maximum density bonus of 8.1 units per acre, resulting in a maximum density of 28.1 units per acre. In addition, the City offers flexibility on standards for front and rear yard setbacks, building height, lot coverage, open space requirements, parking requirements, and lot IV. Housing Resources.doc · July 2002 Page 4-40 CITY OF TEMECULA Housing Element size. The approval authority for the project may approve any combination of concessions to the extent needed to facilitate the development of affordable housing. Overall, the vacant site inventory yields an estimated development capacity of 10,758 units as of September 1999. The abundance of less expensive land in Riverside County has allowed for the development ofhonsing that sells for less than housing in Orange, Los Angeles, and San Diego Counties. 2. Targeted Sites Within the Old Town Specific Plan area, the Temecula Redevelopment Agency has identified several sites with the potential for residential redevelopment. Currently, the Redevelopment Agency has secured site control of three parcels and is securing site control of six additional sites through acquisition and tax default, totaling 5.33 acres. While the scope of housing development to occur on all of these sites has not been determined, given the Agency involvement, some form of affordable housing development can be expected..Based on the allowable density, an estimated 89 houses affordable to lower income households can be constmcted. The allowable density may b.e increased if density bonuses are utilized. 3. Mixed Use Development As discussed in the Constraints section of this Housing Element, the Temecula Development Code and General Plan also allow housing in some non-residential zoning districts. The City has recently adopted a Planned DevelOpment Overlay district for the Temecula Creek Village to provide for mixed-use commercial/residential development. Temecula Creek Village will develop 32.6 vacant acres within the Professional Office (PO) zone with 20 acres of residential and 12 acres of commemial uses. A key component of this project is the provision of a high density residential project, with integrated commercial development in the Professional Office areas.--The 20 acres of residential use have not been included in the City's residential sites inventory. The City is in the process of updating its General Plan. As part of the update, the City has identified four additional areas with mixed-use opportunities. These areas, located within the City boundary and generally surrounding the 1-15 corridor, total 448 acres and are characterized either by aging commercial centers, traditional commercial development, or vacant/under-utilized land. Specifically, in the area south of Old Town, many lots are currently vacant and present great opportunities for mixed use development. Such reuse has become popular among developers and residents alike in recent years. Currently, a mixed-use project has been proposed in Village of the Old Town, immediately outside one of the identified mixed-use overlay areas. The project proposes a total of 1,631 dwelling units at various densities. The project proposes to create 1,360 high density multi-family at 35 to 40 units per acre. Building heights proposed range fxom three to four stories. The City is in the process of negotiating with the project developer to include at least 10% affordable units (60% lower income and 40% moderate income) in the proposal. IV. Housing Resources.doc · July 2002 Page 4-41 CITY OF TEMECULA Housing Element The types of mixed use envisioned for the mixed-use overlay areas are consistent with the village center concept. In some cases, residential units would be added within existing shopping centers and districts. In other cases, existing developments would be replaced with new mixed-use projects. Both multi-family rental apartments and condominiums/townhomes are envisioned. While mixed use will be permitted by right in the 448 acres identified with mixed use potential, 40% of the properties are assumed to be developed with residential uses. The maximum residential density for mixed-use development is up to 30 units per acre, with the potential to accommodate between 2,100 and 3,500 units depending on the areas to be included. To facilitate mixed-use development, the City will consider providing flexible development standards such as increased height limit and shared parking opportunities. Upon completion of the General Plan, the City will revise the Zoning Ord'mance to establish specific use, height, bulk, parking, landscaping, and other guidelines for these areas that would be appropriate for mixed-use development. 4. Second Units In addition to development on vacant land, the City recognizes the potential for additional new development of affordable housing in the form of second units. The City has incorporated development standards for second units into its Development Code. The Code allows for second units in all residential zoning districts where there is an existing owner-occupied single-family detached dwelling unit if the following conditions are met: · The unit may be rented, but not sold; An attached second unit's floor area is no more than 400 square feet, and does not exceed 30% of the floor area of the primary residential unit; · A detached second unit has a floor area between 400 and 1,200 square feet; · The application for the second unit is signed by the owner of the parcel and primary residential dwelling unit; · The design of thc second unit is compatible with the primary dwelling unit and the surrounding neighborhood; and · There is one covered parking space for each two-bedroom (or smaller) second unit or two covered parking spaces for each three-bedroom (or larger) second unit. IV. Housing Resources.doc * July 2002 Page 4-42 CITY OF TEMECULA Housing Element Residential Development Potential Compared with Temecula's Regional Housing Needs The WRCOG has adopted a Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) for its member cities. For Temecula, WRCOG has established the City's share of regional' housing needs as 7,798 additional units for the ~eriod of January 1, 1998 to June 30, 2005, as of October 2000. Table 4-26 shows the breakdown of these 7,798 dwelling units into income categories. Housing Units Constructed: Housing units constructed and issued certificates of occupancy between January 1, 1998 and June 30, 2000 can also be counted toward fulfilling the RI-INA for this Housing Element cycle. According to City records, a total of 1,408 new single-family dwelling units and 834 multi-family dwelling units have been approved, issued building permits, or constructed since January 1, 1998, as of July 1999. Of these newly approved or constructed housing units, 38 are part of the Mission Village Apartments affordable housing development, which is located on land acquired by the Redevelopment Agency. Half (19 units) of these 38 units are affordable to Very Low Inconie households, and the remainder (19 units) are affordable to Low Income households. Two senior apartment projects, at densities of 30 units per acre, have been approved for a total of 385 units. These senior units are larger than the average senior unit and include additional amenities; the actual rent will be higher than typical senior housing affordable to Very Low Income seniors. These 385 units are anticipated to be affordable to Low Income senior households. Based on the housing cost and affordability analysis (Tables 4-13 and 4-14) contained in section II of this Housing Element, the remaining 411 newly constructed multi-family units are affordable to Moderate Income households. Of the 1,408 single-family housing units, 189 units were developed at densities less than eight units/acre, and as such are affordable only to Upper Income households. Given that three-bedroom homes were the most typical home sales in 1999 and had a median price of $153,000, conservatively one quarter of the rema'ming 1,219 single- family homes is expected to be affordable to Moderate Income households. This assumption is reasonable given that several new subdivision developments in Temecula are currently selling at prices starting at high $140,000 to low $170,000. These include The Villas (two- and three-bedroom homes) and the Bungalows (three- to five-bedroom homeS). According to the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) data, between 1998 and 1999, 67 very low income households, 308 Iow income households, and 1,063 moderate income households purchased homes in Temecula. Lower and moderate income households constituted 33% of all homebuyers in the City during those two years. Among these 1,438 lower and moderate income households, 636 (44%) received government-backed loans from the FHA that offer reduced interest rates and downpayment requirements. In addition, the City's First-Time Homebuyer Program offers downpayment assistance to households with incomes not exceeding the area median income. The Mortgage Credit Certificate and Employee Relocation programs IV. Housing Resources.doc · July 2002 Page 4-43 CITY OF TEMECULA Housing Element also provide downpayment assistance to households with incomes not exceeding 120% of the area median income. Remaining RHNA: The remainder of the newly constructed single-family houses is assumed to be affordable to Upper Incomehouseholds. Of the remaining 5,556 RHNA units, 2,994 will need to be affordable to Very Low, Low, and Moderate Income households. Table 4-26 presents the City's RHNA as determined by WRCOG, the affordability level of housing units constructed since january 1998, and the remaining RHNA for the City. Income Group , Very Low Income Low Income Moderate Income Upper Income Total Re: Table 4-26 ional Housing Growth Need by Income Group Housing Units Total RHNA (1/1/1998- 6/30/2005) 1303 1,014 1,716 3,665 7,798 Constrocted/Approved (11111998-613011999) 19 404 716 1,103 2,242 RHNA Remaining 1,384 610 ' 1,000 2,562 5,556 Units Capadty ..... !.8~7~ 4 Source: WRCOG, June1999; City of Temeoula, July 1999. Summary of Residential Development Potential: The City's site inventory demousl~ates the availability of adequate sites to address the projected housing gro~vth needs. Table 4-27 summarizes the City's residential development potential._ However, the difficulty of providing affordable housing is generally acknowledged due to the tight housing market in Southern California. The site inventory indicates a capacity of 1,029 units on properties outside ora specific plan area and 1,273 units within spccific plan areas with High Density and Very High Density zoning. Additional capacity is also available through target sites and. mixed-use development_. These zoning designati~us will facilitate the development of affordable housing, particularly with the use of public assistance, such as redevelopment housing set-aside funds, Iow' income housing tax credits, and Section 8 rental assistance. The Redevelopment Agency is actively pursuing affordable hoUSing development .with redevelopment housing set-.' aside funds as mandated by state law. One recent Redevelopment Agency project, Mission Village, was developed at a density of approximately 20 units to the acre and the units are affordable to Very Low and Low Income households. The City has 'set target densities for the various residential designations: Hillside Residential (0.1 unit/acre); Very Low Density Residential (0.3 units/acre); Low Density Residential (1.3 units/acre); and Low Medium Density Residential (4.5 units/acre). Only projects that provide amenities or public benefits will be allowed to exceed the target level. However, to facilitate affordable housing development, the City has not set target density levels for the Medium and High Density Residential categories. As indicated in Table 4-2.4, development in the City's High Density zone is permitted to occur at densities of 20 units/acre, which can be increased to 30 units/acre with a density bonus, potentially creating housing affordable to Low and Very LOw Income IV. Housing Resources.doc · July 2002 Page 4-44 CITY OF TEMECULA Housing Element households. For Very High Density development within specific plan areas, the anticipated density is 15.8 to 16.2 units per acre (Table 4-25). However, the anticipated density refers only to an overall average density across the specific plan when a range of housing types is provided within a residential category. It does not prevent individual projects from achieving the maximum density permitted. Density bonuses for senior and affordable housing may also be permitted within approved specific plan areas as long as the maximum density bonus does not exceed 50% of the target density in such areas. Past multi-family developments in the City have realized a range of densities, averaging to about 16 units per acre with some projects exceeding 20 units per acre. According to a major residential developer in the Inland Empire, development of housing affordable to lower income households in most communities in California requires some form of subsidies, such as land writedowns, construction fmancing, fee waiver/reimbursement, and/or provision of off-site improvements. The issue is whether the subsidies required wofild be so high that render affordable housing development financial infeasible. Based on past projects, the Temecula Redevelopment Agency estimates an average subsidy of about $18,000 to $24,000 per unit to develop housing affordable for lower income households. This level of gap financing required in Temecula is consistent with, or less than, that needed in other communities based on a review of affordability gap analyses contained in several inclnsionary in-lien fee studies. Therefore, the $18,000 to $24,000 per unit subsidy to develop affordable housing for lower income households is considered financially feasible. · As part of this Housing Element update, the City has included several programs/actions to facilitate affordable housing development. Program 4 (Land Assemblage and Affordable Housing Development) acquires land, which is then provided to affordable housing developers for the deVelopment of housing affordable to lower income households. Program 9 (Development-Fee Reimbursement) offers reimbursement of development fees paid by the developers of affordable and senior housing. Program 11 (Redevelopment Set-Aside) identifies the development of multi-family affordable · housing and acquisition of land for the development of low and moderate income housing as Priority I projects for the use of set-aside funds. Affordable Housing Projects in the Pipeline: Currently, the Agency is involved in the development of three affordable housing projects, including: A single-family development with 20 to 25 units and affordable to households with income up to 120% of the County MFI A 70-unit condominium project affordable to households with incomes between 80% and 100% oftheCountyMFl A 96-unit senior housing project affordable to seniors with incomes between 50% and 80% of the County MFI. IV. Housing Resources.doc ,. July 2002 Page 4-45 CITY OF TEMECULA Housing Element Table 4-27 Summary of Residential Development Potential GP Maximum Maximum Income Opportunity Areas Designation Density · Acres. Unit Potential Lower Income Outside Specific Plan Areas High 20 du/ac 48 1,029 Wjthln Specific Plan Areas · Very High 20 du/ac -- 1,273 Target Sites High 20 du/ac 5.33 89 Mixed-Use (Village of Old Town) MU 35 - 40 du/ac -- 82 Total 2,473 Moderate Income Outside Specific Plan Areas Medium 12 du/ac 171 2,004 Within Specific Plan Areas High Density 14 du/ac --. 175 Mixed-Use (Village of Old Town) MU 3540 du/ac -- 54 T6tal 2,233 Upper Income Outside Specific Plan Areas Hillside 0.1 - 4.5 1,893 3,041 through Low du/ac Medium Within Specific Plan Area Low through 0.4 - 8.0 -- 3,234' Medium High du/ac Mixed-Use (Village of Old Town) MU various -- 1,495 Total 7,770 Note: Development potential in this table does not include the mixed use areas to be considered in the General Plan update. IV. Housing Resources.doc * July 2002 P~e446 CITY OF TEMECULA Housing Element Financial Resources Redevelopment Set-Aside Fund Stat6 Community Redevelopment Law (CRL) provides the mechanism whereby cities and counties within the state can, through' adoption of an ordinance, establish a redevelopment agency. The Agency's primary purpose is to provide the legal and financial mechanism necessary to address blighting conditions in the community through the formation of a redevelopment project area(s). Of the various means permitted under CRL for financing redevelopment implementation, the most useful of these provisions is tax increment financing;. This technique allows the assessed property valuation within the redevelopment project area to be frozen at its current assessed level when the redevelopment plan is adopted. As the property in the project area is improved or resold, the tax increment revenue generated from valuation increases above the frozen value is redistributed to the redevelopment agency to finance other redevelopment projects. CRL also requires the 'redevelopment agency to address housing issues for Low and Moderate Income residents in the following ways: · expend 20% of the tax increment revenue to increase and improve the supply of Low and Moderate Income housing; · replace Low and Moderate Income housing which is destroyed as a result of a redevelopment project (replacement housing obligation); and ensure that a portion of all housing coustmcted or substantially rehabilitated in a redevelopment project area be affordable to Low and Moderate Income households (inchisionary obligation). Prior to Temecula's incorporation, the County of Riverside established a Redevelopment Project on July 12, 1988 with the adoption of Redevelopment Plan No. 1-1988. The Project area extends from Interstatel5/State Route 79 Interchange north to the City limits. The Old Town is included within the Project area. After incorporation, the City ofTemecula assmned responsibility for administering the Project area. Pursuant to State law, the Temecula. Redevelopment Agency has established a Redevelopment Housing Fund by setting aside 20% of the tax increment revenue. The Agency anticipates an annual deposit of about $1.4-1.6 million in tax increment over a five-year period, for a total deposit of approximately $7.7 million. Based on the required 20% set-aside, approximately $1.5 million will be available during the five- year period for housing activities. Since set-aside funds are a function of property tax revenues, the amount of future deposits will depend on factors such as market conditions and the timing 9f new taxable development. CRL sets forth a variety of options for localities to expend their housing funds, including: IV. Housing Resources.doc · July 2002 Page 4-47 CITY OF TEMECULA Housing Element Land disposition and write-downs; · Site improvements; Loans; · 'Issuance of bonds; · Land and building acquisition by Agency; · Direct housing construction; · Housing rehabilitation; · Rent subsidies; · Predevelopment funds; and · Administrative costs for non-profit housing corporations. The specific uses of the set-aside funds are described in the Housing Plan section of this Housing Element. Section 8 The Section 8 rental assistance program extends rental subsidies to Very Low Income · families and elderly who spend more than 30% of their income on rent. The subsidy represents the difference between the excess of 30% of the monthly income and the actual rent. Most Section 8 assistance is issued to the recipients as vouchers, which permit tenants to locate their own housing and rent units beyond the federally determined fair market rent in an area; provided the tenants pay the extra rent increment. The Housing Autho/'ity of Riverside administers the Section 8 Certificate/Voucher Program for Temecula. As of April 1999, 22 households were leasing in Temecula with the assistance of Section 8 programs. Of these 22, four households were elderly, and seven were disabled. An additional 138 households living in Temecula were on the waiting list to receive Section 8 rental assistance, 35 of which were elderly and/or disabled. Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program The City receives its CDBG funding through the County of Riverside. Based on its population, the City is eligible to receive approximately $300,000 annually from the County. The City has, in the past, used approximately 85% of the CDBG funds for capital projects, such as the Senior Citizen Center Expansion project, and the remaining 15% of the funding is awarded to various public service organizations. No CDBG funds have been used for housing at this time. IV. Housing Resources.doc * July 2002 Page 4-48 CITY OF TEMECULA Housing Element C. Housing Developers The following are several housing providers interested in developing and/or preserving affordable housing in the City: Coachella Valley Housing Coalition 45-701 Monroe Street, Suite G Indio, CA 92201 (760) 347-3157 · Habitat for Humanity 41964 Main Street Temecula, CA 92591 (909) 693-0460 · Jamboree Housing Corporation 2081 Business Center Drive, Suite 216 Irvine, CA 92612 (949) 263-8676 · Affirmed Housing 200 East Washington Avenue, Suite 208 Escondido, CA 92025 (619) 738-8401 Vista Equities 29800 MacArthur Blvd., Suite 750 Irvine, CA 92612 (949) 474-3145 The Olson Company 30200 Old Ranch Pkwy, #250 Seal Beach, CA 90740 (562) 596-4770 San Diego Community Housing Corporation 8799 Balboa Avenue, Suite 220 San Diego, CA 92123 (858) 571-0444 SoCa Housing 8265 Aspen Street, Suite 100 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 (909) 481-0172 IV. Housing Resources. doc · July 2002 Page 449 CITY OF TEMECULA Housing Element D. Infrastructure and Facilities The majority of the land available for residential development is located adjacent to existing infxastmcture facilities, or within a specific plan area where infrastructure will be provided as part of the development process. As a result, infxastmcture facilities will be able to serve most of the future residential development. E. Energy Conservation .As residential energy costs rise, increasing utility cost reduce the affordability of housing. The City has many opportunities to directly affect energy use within its jurisdiction. Title 24 of the California Administrative Code sets forth mandatory energy standards for new development, and requires adoption of an "energy budget". The home building industry must comply with these standards while localities are responsible for enforcing the energy conservation regulations. IV. Housing Resources.doc · July 2002 Page 4-50 CITY OF TEMECULA Housing Element V. Accomplishments under Adopted Housing Element In order to develop an effective housing plan for the 2000-2005 period, the City must assess the effectiveness of its existing housing programs and determine the continued appropriateness of such programs in addressing housing adequacy, affordability, and availability issues. This section evaluates the accomplishments of each program against the objectives established in the 1993 Housing Element, explains any discrepancy in program achievements, and recommends programmatic changes to the 2000-2005 Element. A. Provision of Adequate Housing Sites 1. Land Use Element/Zoning Ordinance Objective: Provide a range of residential development opportunities through appropriate land use and zoning designations to fulfill the City's share of regional housing needs. The Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) for the City was determined at 870 units (129 Very Low; 137 Lower; 171 Moderate; and 433 Above Moderate Income households) for the period of 1989 to 1997. Accomplishments: The City provided adequate sites to accommodate its share of regional growth through specific plan and zoning provisions. A total of 5,998 housing units have been constructed between January 1990 and December 1997, representing 690% of the City's allocated RHNA. Based on the affordability analysis contained in Section II and Section IV, Part 4, one- quarter of the new 5,962 single-family houses constructed are affordable to Moderate Income households, while one-half of the 23 aparlments and seven mobile homes constructed during this period are affordable to Moderate Income, with the other half affordable to lower income households. Based on this analysis, the City provided 1,509 units affordable to moderate income' households (880% of the RHNA for moderate income households) and 18 units affordable to lower income units (or 13% of the RHNA for lower income households). 2. Sites for Homeless and Emergency and Transitional Shelters Objective: Provide adequate sites for emergency and transitional shelters by adopting a Zoning Ordinance that permits transitional and emergency housing in Medium and High Residential Deus!ty zones, and conditionally permits shelters in the remaining Residential zones and Commercial and Industrial zones. Accomplishments: In 1998, Temecula updated the Development Code in which emergency shelters and transitional housing are permitted in the V. Accomplishments.doc · July 2002 Page 4-51 CITY OF TEMECULA Housing Element Medium Density and High Density Residential districts. The City required two units in the Rancho West project to be reserved for ~xansitional housing. These uses are also permitted in other residential districts with a conditional use permit. Emergency shelters are also permitted with a conditional use permit in the Neighborhood Commercial, Community Commercial, Highway/Tourist Commercial, Service Commercial, Professional Office, Business Park, and Light Industrial zoning districts. 3. Landbanking Objective: Acquire sites (or funds) for affordable/senior housing through the development of a Landbanking Program. Accomplishments: In 1996, the Temecula Redevelopment Agency purchased 3.42 acres of land on Pujol Street to be leased to Affirmed Housing for the Mission Village affordable housing project. A 0.19-acre parcel was also purchased by the Agency and will be granted to Habitat for Humanity for the construction of two single-family homes affordable to Very Low Income families. In addition, the Agency acquired two Medium Density Residential parcels totaling 0~67 acres. The Redevelopment Agency is working to acquire four additional parcels and two tax defaulted parcels for a total of 4.47 acres. B. Assist in Development of Affordable Housing 1. Density Bonus Program Objective: Encourage development of housing for low-income households by incorporating a Density Bonus Program into the Zoning Ordinance. Include provisions to ensure the continued affordability of traits. Accomplishments: The City updated the Development Code in 1998. As described in Section III and IV, the new Development Code contains density bonus provisions for affordable and senior housing developments in the High, Medium, and Low Medium residential designati6ns. Density bonuses may also be granted to specific plan areas, as .long as the maximum density, including the bonus, does not exceed 50% of the target density in the planning area. Two senior housing developments have been approved at 30 units per acre, providing a total of 385 units. 22 Mortgage Revenue Bond Financing Objective: Increase the supply of rental and ownership units affordable to Low and Moderate Income households by working with Riverside County in securing tax exempt Mortgage Revenue Bond financing. Assistance will be provided to 20 first time homebuyers annually through the single-family V. Accomplishments.doc * July 2002 Page 4-52 CITY OF TEMECULA Housing Element program and the use of multi-family Mortgage Revenue Bond financing will be promoted. Accomplishments: Use of Mortgage Revenue Bond for residential construction in Riverside County has been limited in recent years. Instead, the City has relied heavily on redevelopment set-aside funds for affordable housing development. 3. Section 202 Elderly or Handicapped Housing Objective: Provide housing and related facilities for the elderly and handicapped by supporting all viable non-profit entities, seeking Section 202 funding Accomplishments: Due to federal budgetary constraints, the application and allocation of Section 202 funding has become an increasingly competitive process. No non-profit organization pursued Section 202 allolment for the development of senior housing in Temecula. 4. Second Units Objective: Provide increased affordable housing opportunities to low-income households by adopting a Second Unit Ordinance as part of th, e Development Code. The Second Unit Ordinance shall permit second units on residential lots zoned for single- and multi-family residential use. Incentives shall be included for development of second units intended for occupancy by persons over the age of 62. Accomplishments: The City has incorporated development standards for second units into its Development Code. The Code allows for second units in all residential zoning districts where there is an existing owner-occupied single-family detached dwelling unit if the conditions described in Section are met. Since adoption of the second unit ordinance, 10 second units have been achieved. C. Government Constraints 1. Priority Processing for Affordable Housing Objective: Facilitate production of affordable housing through the development of a schedule for priority processing of affordable housing projects. A Contact person shall be designated to coordinate processing of all of the necessary permits. V. Accomplishments.doc · July 2002 Page 4-53 CITY OF TEMECULA Housing Element Accomplishments: The City has not adopted a schedule for priority processing of affordable housing projects. The number of housing projects processed during the last ten years did not warrant any special processing procedure for affordable housing projects. 2. Modify Development Fees Objective: Provide incentives to developers of affordable/senior housing by reviewing existing development fee schedule and consider fee reductions, or the addition of fee waiver provisions for the production of low-income and senior citizen housing. ~lccomplishments: To provide assistance to developers of affordable/senior housing, the Redevelopment Agency may reimburse developers for the development fees paid. On a project-by-project basis, a developer of affordable/senior housing may enter into .a development agreement with the Redevelopment Agency that stipulates that the developer will pay the City's development fees and the Agency will reimburse the developer. D. Conserve and Improve Existing Affordable Housing 1. Preservation Program Objective: Conserve affordable housing in the City by encouraging Section 8 project property owners to renew their contracts. Identify non-profit organizations capable of purchasing these units. Consider the use of City- based incentives for assisted units that are not subject to HUD-sponsored incentives. Explore the possibility of providing tenant-based subsidies to assisted units that convert to market rote. Accomplishments: The Redevelopment Agency has attempted to work with the owner of the Temecula Villas (Section 8 contract expired in June 1999) to maintain, the affordability of the units in exchange for financial incentives from the City. The owner is not interested in maintaining the units as affordable hous'mg and plans on offering the units at market rents. The 2000- 2005 Housing Element includes programs to preserve and expand affordable housing opportunities in the City. 2. Redevelopment Set-aside Fund Objective: Provide a source of funding for housing programs by developing an expenditure plan for redevelopment set-aside monies. Programs that focus on the rehabilitation of units occupied by Low and Moderate Income households, preservation of assisted units, and construction of affordable housing will receive priority in the expenditure plan. V. Accomplishments.doc · July 2002 Page 4-54 CITY OF TEMECULA Housing Element Accomplishments: Pursuant to State law, the Temecula Redevelopment Agency has established a Redevelopment Housing Set-Aside Fund using 20% of the tax increment revenue. The Agency received a total deposit of approximately $15.8 million in set-aside funds for the period of Fiscal Year 1991/2 through Fiscal Year 1999/2000. These funds were utilized to implement the ~irst Time Homebuyer and Residential Improvement Programs. 3. Code Enforcement Objective: Preserve the housing stock by developing a Housing Inspection Program for all multi-family complexes. Accomplishments: Temecula has not adopted a Housing Inspection Program targeting multi-family complexes. Implementation of such a program is infeasible at this time due to the high cost and staffing requirements. Furthermore, housing in the City is generally in good condition; a citywide inspection program is not warranted. However, the City continues to enforce the Development Code and the Uniform Building Code. 4. 'Tool Lending Objective: Maintain the integrity of the housing stock by establishing a Tool Lending Program and advertise the availability of home repair information and tool lending. Accomplishments: The City has not adopted a Tool Lending Program as the administration of such a program can be cumbersome and time-consuming. However, to assist households with housing rehabilitation needs, the City offers a range of loan and grant rehabilitation programs, as described below. 5. Low-Interest Residential Rehabilitation Loans Objective: Preserve existing housing stock by establishing a low-interest residential rehabilitation program. Provide program referrals through code enforcement activities. Accomplishments: Since 1996, the City has been offering the following low- interest or grant rehabilitation programs for residential units: Senior Home Repair Grant Program: This program was available to seniors 55 or older with a household income that does not exceed 120% or the area median income adjusted for household size. Eligible households receive grants of up to $3,000 for be used for needed repairs to their homes. As of June 1999, eight senior households have been awarded grants through this rehabilitation program. V. Accomplishments.doc · July 2002 Page 4-55 CITY OF TEMECULA Housing Element Home Improvement Program: This program is available to owners of single-family detached homes, condominium units, townhouses, and manufactured homes on a p~naanent foundation that are located within Old Town, La Serena, Winchester Creek, or any condominium units. The household income of the homeowher must not exceed 80% of the area median income adjusted for family size. Grants are available for up to $2,500 to correct confirmed health and safety and/or building code violations. Loans up to $5,000 per household are available for exterior painting, roofing, fence repair/replacement, and other exterior improvements. As of June 1999, 57 projects funded by these two programs have been completed. Multi-Family Rehabilitation Loan Program: The City offers this loan program to owners of rental property within the City to assist with rehabilitation and correction of deferred maintenance. To qualify for the loan program, a number of units will be required to be set-aside for a period of 30-years for rental to Very Low and Low Income tenants. In addition, the property owner must enter into a Property Maintenance Agreement to ensure that the property is properly maintained. As of June 1999, the City has provided funding under this program to three multi-family complexes, and 218 units have been set- aside for rental to Very Low and Low Income tenants. 6. Section 8 Housing Certificates/Vouchers Objective: Provide housing subsidies for Low. Income households by supporting efforts to increase the amount of funding allocated to HUD programs. Provide referrals to apartment complex owners for information on the various Section 8 programs. Accomplishments: The Housing Authority of Riverside administers the Section 8 Certificate/Voucher Program for Temecula. As of April 1999, 22 households are leasing in Temecula with the assistance of Section 8 programs. Of these 22, four households are elderly, and seven are disabled. An additional 138 hous6holds living in Temecula are on the waiting list to receive Section 8 rental assistance, 35 of which are elderly and/or disabled. 7. Home Sharing Objective: Assist seniors and other with limited income in obtaining housing by supporting SHARE and home sharing activities of the Senior Citizens Service Center. The objective is 40 matches a year: 15 Very Low Income · households; 15 Lower Income households; and 10 Moderate Income households. V. Accomplishments.doc * July 2002 Page 4-56 CITY OF TEMECULA Housing Element Accomplishments: Thc City has not adopted its own Home sharing program, but continues to support the homesharing activities of the Senior Citizens Service Center. 8. Mobile Home Park Assistance Objective: Preserve low-cost housing options for City residents by providing teclmical assistance to mobile home park residents in pursuing Mobilehome Park Assistance Program (MPAP) funds. Accomplishments: Heritage Mobile Home Park is the only mobile home park in the City. Residents of this mobile home park did not pursue MPAP funds; no technical assistance was needed. 9. Mortgage Credit Certificate Objective: Assist at least 50 first-time homebuyers by providing tax credits, 10 of which are 19wer income households. Accomplishments: The City participates in the Mortgage Credit Certificates program administered by the County. As of July 1999, 72 households have been assisted under this program. In addition, the City has implemeated a First Time Buyer Program to assist lower income households with the purchase of the.ir first home. This loan program provides assisiance for a portion of the down payment and/or closing costs of up to 20% of the purchase price of a home. To qualify, the home buyer must not have owned a home during the previous' three years, the buyer's household income must not exceed the area median income adjusted for household size, and the house must be located within the City. As of July 1999, 52 households have received funding through this program. The City has also adopted an Employee Relocation Program to assist employees of participating employers with the down payment for a house located within Temecula. To qualify for this program, the household income of the homebuyer cannot exceed 120% of the area median income adjusted for household size. Down payment assistance is provided in the form of a loan of .up to 10% of the purchase price, up to $15,000, with payments deferred for five years. As this is a recent program, adopted in January 1999, no households have been assisted yet. 10. Low Income Home Energy Act Program Objective: Support the County of Riverside Department of Community Action (DCA) and Temecula Senior Citizen Services Center in providing utilities assistance and weatherization to 30 Very Low Income households and V. Accomplishments.doc., July 2002 Page 4-57 CITY OF TEMECULA Housing Element allocate CDBG funding to the DCA for continued administration of the Low Income Home Energy Act Program (LIHE~3tP). Accomplishments: The City has not participated in the LIHEAP and did not allocate CDBG funding to the DCA for continued administration of the LII-IEAP. E~ Equal Housing Opportunity 1. Equal Housing Opportunity Objective: 'Support the activities of the Fair Housing Program to be in compliance with the National Fair Housing Law. Accomplishments: The City participates in the Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) program as part of the Riverside Urban County program. CDBG regulations mandate the provision of programs and services to further fair housing choice. Fair housing services are provided by Fair · Housing Program of Riverside County. 2. Housing Referral Directory Objective: Dispense information on local, state and federal housing programs by developing a directory of services and resources for Low and Moderate Income households and special needs groups. Provide information and referrals to persons on an as needed basis. Accomplishments: The City created a Housing Referral Directory. Generally, information provided to persons requesting information through the Directory includes: the name, ioeafion, unit sizes, and phone number of the projects provid'mg the required housing. F. Housing Elem6nt Monitoring and Reporting 1. Annual Reporting Objective: Ensure that the Housing Element retains its viability and usefulness by developing a monitoring program and report annually to the City Council on implementation progress. Forward the monitoring report to HCD. Accomplishments: While a formal, annual report addressing the implementation of the Housing Element has not been developed, the Planning Department periodically updates the City Council on the progress of V. Accomplishments.doe · July 2002 Page 4-58 CITY OF TEMECULA Housing Element implementation of the General Plan, including the Housing Element. However, new state law now mandates the annual reporting to the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) and Office of Planning and Research (OPR). The City will comply with the annual reporting requirements. 2. Housing Needs Data Base Objective: Accurately assess housing needs in the community by requiring social service agencies/non-profit organizations receiving CDBG funding from the City to record information on the residences of clients served using a reporting form to be developed by the City. Accomplishments: Service agencies receiving CDBG funding from the City are required to report on their program accomplishments at least annually. Records from service agencies help the City assess the extent of housing and supportive service needs, particularly regarding the special needs population. The City also participated in the preparation of the 2000-2005 Consolidated Plan for the Riverside Urban County consortium. The Consolidated Plan includes an updated housing and community develo ~ment needs assessment. V. Accomplishments.doc · July 2002 Page 4-59 CITY OF TEMECULA Housing Element VI. Housing Plan The five-year Plan is the centerpiece of the 2000-2005 Homing Element for Temecula. The Housing Plan sets forth the City's goals, policies, and program? to address the identified housing needs. Housing programs included in this Plan define the .specific actions the City will take to achieve .specific goals and policies. The City's overall strategy for addressing its housing needs has been defined according to the following areas: · Providing adequate housing sites; · Assisting in development of affordable housing; Removing governmental conStraints; · Conserving and improving existing affordable housing; and · Promoting equal housing opportunity. A. Goals and Policies Provide Adequate Housing Sites Goal 1 Provide a diversity of housing opportunities that satisfy the physical, social and economic needs of existing and future residents of Temecula. Discussion Policy 1.1 Policy 1.2 Policy 1.3 Policy 1.4 Policy 1.5 Policy 1.6 The City provides for a mix of new housing opportunities by designating a range of residential densities and promoting creative design and development of vacant land. By providing for the coustmction of a range of housing, the needs of all sectors of the community can be met. Provide an inVentory of land at varying densities sufficient to accommodate the existing and projected housing neexts in the City. Encourage residential development that provides a range of housing types in terms of cost, density and type, and provides the opportunity for local residents to live and work in the same community by balancing jobs and housing types. Require a mixture of diverse housing types and densities in new developments around the village centers to enhance their people-orientation and diversity. Support the use of innovative site planning and architectural design in residential development. Encourage the use of clustered develOpment to preserve and enhance important environmental resources and open space. Encourage the development of compatible mixed-use projects that promote and enhance the village concept, facilitate the efficient use of public facilities, and support alternative h~ansit options. VI. Plan.doc · July 2002 Page 4-60 CITY OF TEMECULA Housing Element Assist in Development of Affordable Housing Goal 2 Provide affordable housing for all economic segments of Temecula. Discussion Temecula works to provide a variety of affordable housing opportunities for all economic segments of the community. By coordinating with other government agencies and non-profit organizations to access funding sources for affordable housing and partner in the creative provision of affordable housing, the City helps provide safe and affordable housing for all residents in the community. Policy 2.1 Promote a variety of housing opportunities that accommodate the needs of all income levels of the population, and provide opporttmities to meet the City's fair share of Low and Moderate Income housing. Policy 2.2 Support innovative public, private and non-profit efforts in the development of affordable housing, particularly for special needs groups. Policy 2.3 Encourage the use of non-traditional housing models, including single-room occupancy structures (SRO) and manufactured housing, to meet the needs of special groups for affordable housing, temporary shelter and/or transitional housing. Policy 2.4 Pursue all available forms of private, local, state and federal assistance to support development and implementation of the City's housing programs. Remove Governmental Constraints Goal 3 Remove governmental constraints in the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing, where appropriate and legally possible. Discussion The City's goal is to remove or mitigate constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing to ensure that housing affordable to all members of the community is provided. Governmental requirements for the developm6nt and rehabilitation of housing often add to the cost of the provision of affordable housing and may result in fewer opportunities for housing affordable to lower income households. Reducing development fees and ensuring that City regulations provide for the sffety and welfare of the population without imposing unreasonable costs will help in the provision of affordable housing. Policy 3.1 Providb reasonable processing procedures and fees for new construction or rehabilitation of housing. VI. Plan.doc ,, July 2002 Page 4-61 CITY OF TEMECULA Housing Element Policy 3.2 Policy 3.3 Consider mitigating development fees for projects providing affgrdable and senior housing. Periodically review City development standards to ensure consistency with the General Plan and to facilitate high-quality affordable housing. Conserve and Improve Existing Affordable Housing Goal 4 Conserve the existing affordable housing stock. Discussion Along with providing for new affordable housing opportunities, the City also has a goal to preserve existing affordable housing opportunities for residents. By providing incentives and programs to mainta'm existing units, both the affordability and the structural integrity of the units, the City ensures that affordable housing opportunities are preserved. Policy 4.1 Monitor the number of affordable units eligible for conversion to market-rate units and develop programs to minimize the loss of these units. Policy 4.2 Develop rehabilitation programs that are directed at preserving the integrity of the existing housing stock. Policy 4.3 Support the efforts of private and public entities in maintaining the affordability of units through implementation of energy conservation and weatherization programs. Promote Equal Housing Opportunities Goal 5 Provide equal housing opportunity for all residents in Temecula. Discussion Policy 5.1 In order to make provisions for the housing needs of all segments of the community, the City must ensure that equal and fair housing opportunities 'are available t6 all residents. Encourage and support the enforcement of laws and regulations prohibiting the discrimination in lending practices and in the sale or rental of housing. Policy 5.2 Support efforts to ensure unresfficted access to housing for all segments of the Policy 5.3 Encourage housing design standards that promote the accessibility of housing for the elderly and disabled. VI. Plan.doc * July 2002 Page 4-62 CITY OF TEMECULA Housing Element Policy 5.4 Encourage and consider supporting local private non-profit groups that address the housing needs of the homeless and other disadvantaged groups. B. Housing Programs The goals and policies contained in the Housing Element address Temecula's identified housing needs and are implemented through a series of housing programs. Housing programs include both programs currently in operation in the City and new programs that have been introduced to address the unmet housing needs. This section provides a description of each housing program, and future program goals. The Housing Program Summary (Table 4-27) located at the end of this section summarizes the future five-year goals of each housing ,program, along with identifying the program funding sources, responsible agency, and time flame for implementation. Provide Adequaie Housing Sites A key element in satisfying the housing needs of all segments of the community is the provision of adequate sites for housing of. all types, sizes and prices. This is an important fimction in both zoning and General Plan designations. 1. Land Use Element and Development Code The Land Use Element of th~ Temecula General Plan designates land within the City for a range of residential densities ranging fi.om 0.1 to 20 units per acre. The following aspects of the Development Code facilitate the provision of adequate sites for affordable development: NO density targets have been set for the Medium and High Density Residential categories so these districts can be developed at their maximum allowable density;, · The Village Center Overlay and Planned Development Overlay allow for the modifications and flexibility in development standards; - · Mobile home parks are allowed in all of the residential zoning districts with a conditional use permit; Senior and affordable housing are allowed in a variety of residential and non-residential zoning districts and are eligible for density bonuses and development concessions; Congregate care facilities are allowed in a variety of residential and non- residential zoning districts and the facilities are not limited specifically to the density requirements of the specific zoning district; VI. Plan.doc * July 2002 Page 4~63 CITY OF TEMECULA Housing Element · Second units are allowed in all residential zoning districts where a detached single-family unit exists; and Emergency shelters and transitional housing are allowed in the Medium and · High Density Residential zoning districts, and conditionally allowed in the rema'mder of the residential dislricts. Emergency shelters are also conditionally allowed in several of the non-residential zoning disfficts. As stated in Section IV, the City has a RHNA of 7,798 new units for the period of 1998 through 2005. A total ·of 2,242 units have already been approved or constructed between 1998 and July 1999. The residential development capacity under the Temecula Land Use Plan provides sufficient land to meet the City's remaining need for new construction of the remaining 2,242 units for the 2000-2005 period. Five-Year Objectives: · The City will continue to implement and, as appropriate and necessary, augment the Land Use Element and Development Code. The City will provide for an adequate number of residential sites to accommodate the remaining regional share of 999 Very Low Income units, 789 Low Income units, 1,206 Moderate Income units, and 2,562 Above Moderate Income units. · The City will ma'mtain an inventory Of sites suitable for residential development and provide that information to interested developers. The City will encourage the reservation of land that is currently designated for multiple-family development for the development of multiple-family housing by providing the multi-family sites inventory to multi-family housing developers to solicit development interest. The City will update the multi-family sites inventory at least once a year. As part of the General Plan update, the City has identified additional areas with mixed-nsc potential. The City will work to create a mixed-use overlay in the Land Use Policy May to be applied to approximately 448 acres of land along the 1-15 corridor. Residential mixed-use is permitted at_a density of 30 tm/ts per acre. To facilitate mixed-nsc development, the City will establish appropriate flexible development .standards such as increased building height and shared parking opportunities in the Zoning Ordinance. Target date for adopting the Land Use Policy Map is anticipated in 2003. Within six months of adoption of the Land Use Policy Map including the 'mixed use overlay, the City will establish development standard appropriate for implementing mixed-use standards. VI. Plan.doc * July 2002 Page 4-64 cITY OF TEMECULA Housing Element The City will encourage higher density residential development within the mixed~use overlay areas by providing appropriate, flexible development standards through thc Zoning Ordinance. Upon completion of the General Plan (2003), the City will revise the Zoning Ordinance to establish specific use, height, bulk, parking, landscaping, and other guidelines appropriate for mixed-use development. 2. Sites for Emergency and Transitional Housing The homeless population of Temecula consists of only a few transient homeless persons, though there is a larger rural homeless population located outside of the City limits in the unincorporated, agricultural areas. While there are a number of facilities and service agencies serving the homeless needs of Temecnla, the only transitional housing within Temecula is the two units within the Rancho West project that have been reserved as transitional housing. The Temecula Development Code provides for the provision of emergency shelters and transitional housing within th~ City. The City facilitates the development of emergency shelters and transitional housing by permitting such facilities in the Medium Density and High Density Residential districts by right. These uses are also permitted in other residential districts with a conditional use permit. Emergency shelters are also pennitted with a conditional use permit in the Neighbbrhood Commercial, Community Commercial, Highway/Tourist Commercial, Service Commercial, Professional Office, Business Park, and Light Industrial zoning districts. Five-Year Objectives: The City will continue to permit emergency shelters and transitional housing as identified in the Development Code. · The City Will continue to require affordable housing projects receiving assistance fi.om the City to reserve units for transitional housing. VI. Plan.doc - July 2002 Page 4-65 CITY OF TEMECULA Housing Element Assist in Development of Affordable Housing New construction is a major source of housing for prospective homeowners and renters. However, the cost of new construction is substantially greater than other program options. Incentive programs, such as density bonus, offer a cost-effective means of providing affordable housing. Other programs, such as the First Time Home Buyers Program, increase the affordability of new and existing housing. 3. Density Bonus Ordinance The City has adopted its own Density Bonus Ordinance that complies with the State requirements. The allowable density bonus for qualifying senior and affordable housing projects increases the total allowable density for High Density Residential, Medium Density Residential, and Low Medium Density Residential zones. For the approved specific plans, the maximum density, including the density bonus, is not allowed to exceed 50% of the target density in the planning area. Affordable housing projects, including affordable senior projects may also be granted at least one development concession by the City as an incentive for the provision of affordable housing. The potential concessions include: · An increase in the maximum lot coverage; · A modification to the setback or required yard provisions; · An increase in the maximum allowable building height; · A reduction in the required on-site parking; A reduction in the amount of on-site landscaping, except that no reduction in on-site recreational amenities may be approved unless the affordable housing is in' close proximity with easy access to a public park with recreational amenities; reduction in the minimum lot area; Or · Approval of an affordable housing project in the Professional Office zone with the approval of a conditional use permit. Five-Year Objectives: · The City will continue to implement the Density Bonus Ordinance. · The City will inform residential development applicants of opportunities for density increases. VI. Plan.doc * July 2002 Page 4-66 CITY OF TEMECULA Housing Element 4. Land Assemblage and Affordable Housing Development The City can utilize CDBG and redevelopment monies to purchase land for the development of lower and Moderate Income housing. Through its Redevelopment Agency, the City has acquired, through the purchase or tax default, three parcels of residential land, not including the land acquired for the Missiqn Village project, to be used for the development of affordable housing. The Redevelopment Agency typically provides the land it acquires to affordable housing developers for the development of housing units affordable to Low and Very Low income households. The City currently has an additional four parcels, a total of 1.37 acres, under contract for purchase. Two tax-defaulted properties totaling 3.1 acres will also be available for affordable housing development Five- Year Objectives: · The City will continue to acquire land for use in the provision of affordable housing. · The City will facilitate the development of the nine parcels to produce 89 housing units affordable to lower income households. 5. Second Unit Ordinance The City has adopted a Second Unit Ordinance to facilitate the construction of affordable second units within developed areas of the City. The Second-Unit Ordinance allows for second units in all residential zoning districts where there is an existing owner-occupied single-family detached dwelling unit if certain conditions are met, as described in Section IV. Five-Year Objectives: · The City will continue to allow and promote the construction of affordable second units to result in the construction of five new second units by 2005. 6. Mortgage Credit Certificate Program The Mortgage Credit Certificate (MCC) program is administered countywide by the County of Riverside Economic and Development Agency (EDA), and is a way for the City to further leverage homeownership assistance. MCCs are certificates issued to income-qualified first,time homebuyers authorizing the household to take a credit against federal income taxes of up to 20% of the annual mortgage interest paid. This tax credit allows the buyer to qualify more easily for home loans as it increases the effective .income o f the buyer. VI. Plan.doc * July 2002 Page 4-67 CITY OF TEMECULA Housing Element Five-Year Objectives: · The City will continue to promote the regional Mortgage Credit Certificate program to assist an average of 10 households annually. 7. First Time Home Buyer Program The City's First Time Home Buyer Program (FTHB) provides loan assistance to first time home buyers whose income does not exceed the area median income. The home being purchased must be located within City limits, be attached to a permanent foundation, have a minimum of two-bedrooms, and be Occupied by the seller, or vacant. The maximum assistance available under this program is 20% of the purchase price plus closing costs, up to a total payout of $24,000. The home buyer also must maintain to house in good condition during the t~tm of the assistance. Five- Year Objectives: The City will continue to implement the First Time Home Buyer Program to assist 15 households annually. 8. Employee Relocation Program The Employee Relocation Program is designed to provide assistance to families moving to the City due to relocation of their employer. This program provides a second trust deed of up to 10% of the purchase price of the house, up to $15,000, to be used for the downpayment. During the first five years of the 30-year loan, no payment on the loan is required. For the remaining 25 years, the loan is fully amortized for 300 months, at Prime Rate of simple interest. To be eligible, the applicant must be employed with a City approved company participating in this program and the household income must not exceed 120% of the area median income. The home must be located within the City limits, be attached to a permanent foundation, and be occupied by the seller, or vacant. Five-Year Objectives: The City will cont'mue to implement its Employee Relocation Program to assist five households annually. VI. Plan.doc · July 2002 Page 4-68 CITY OF TEMECULA Housing Element Remove Governmental Constraints Under state law, the Temecula Housing Element must address, and where appropriate and legally possible, remove, governmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing. The following programs are designed to lessen governmental constraints to housing development. 9. Development Fees Reimbursement Developers of affordable/senior housing may qualify to receive a reimbursement by the Redevelopment Agency for development fees paid by the developer. Typically, developers of affordable/senior housing pay the City the required development fees. If the development qualifies for reimbursement of development fees through the Redevelopment .Agency, the developer enters into a contract with the Agency, which then reimburses the developer for the fees paid. Five-Year Objectives: The Redevelopment Agency will continue to enter into development agreements with qualifying senior/affordable housing projects on a case-by- case basisto provide development fee reimbursement. Conserve and Improve EXisting Affordable Housing A community's existing affordable housing stock is a valuable resource that should be conserved, and if necessary, improved to meet habitability requirements. 10. Preserve At-Risk Housing Units Between July 1, 2000 and June 30, '2010, three assisted housing projects in Temecula are at-risk of converting to market rate housing. The 344-unit Woodcreek project was financed through the use of a multi-family revenue bond and the Low Income rent restrictions on the 71 affordable units are due to expire in March 2003. The 55-unit Rancho California project maintains a 20-year Section 8 contract that subsidizes rents for the 55 units. The Section 8 contract will expire in March 2004. Detailed analysis on the potential conversion of these projects is included in the Housing Needs section of the Housing Element. Finally, the 40-unit Oaktree project was financed through FmHA-New Construction Section 515 loans. As discussed in the Housing Needs section of this Element, affordability control on this project may potentially expire in 2004 with prepayment of the loan. However, due to the nature of the program it is extremely unlikely that the Oaktree project will be permitted to prepay and convert to market-rate rents. The City of Temecula will implement the following programs on an on-going basis to conserve its affordable housing stock. VI. Plan.doc * July 2002 Page 4-69 CITY OF TEMECULA Housing Element Monitor Units At-Risk: Monitor the status of Woodcreek, Rancho California, and Oaktree since the affordable restrictions are due to expire during the .planning period. Work with Potential Purchasers: Establish contact with public and non- profit agencies interested in purchasing and/or managing units at-risk to inform them of the stares of the Rancho California and Oaktree projects. Tenant Education: The California Legislature passed AB i701 in 1998, requiring property owners give a nine-month notice of their intent to opt our of low income restrictions. The City will work with tenants of at-risk units and provide them with information regarding tenant .rights and conversion procedures. The City will also provide tenants with information regarding Section 8 rent subsidies through the Riverside County Housing Authority, and other affordable housing opportunities. Assist Tenants of Existing Rent Restricted Units to Obtain Priority Status on Section 8 Waiting List: Work with the Riverside Housing Authority to place tenants displaced from at-risk units on a priority list for Section 8 rental assistance. Five- Year Objectives: · The City will monitor the status of Woodcreek, Rancho Califomia, and ' Oaktree. · The City will identify non-profit organizations as potential purchasers/managers of at-risk housing units. The City will explore funding sources available to preserve the affordability of Woodcreek, Rancho California, and Oaktree or to provide replacement The City will assist qualified tenants to apply for priority stares on the Section 8 voucher/certificate program immediately should the owners of the at-risk project choose not to enter into additional restrictions. 1 I. Redevelopment Set-Aside Prior to Temecula's incorporation, the County of Riverside established a Redevelopment Project on July 12, 1988 with the adoption of Redevelopment Plan No. 1-1988. The Project area extends from Interstatel5/State Route 79 interchange north to the City limits. The Old Town is included within the Project area. After incorporation, the City assumed responsibility for administering the Project area. VI. Plan.doc · July 2002 Page 4-70 CITY OF TEMECULA Housing Element Pursuant to State law, the Temecula Redevelopment Agency established a Redevelopment Housing Set-Aside Fund using 20% of the tax increment revenue. The Agency anticipates an annual deposit of about $1.4-1.6 million in tax increment over a five-year period, for a total deposit of approximately $7.7 million. Based on the required 20% set-aside, approximately $1.5 million will be set aside during the five-year period for use for housing, since set-aside funds are a function of property tax revenues, the amount of future deposits will depend on factors such as market conditions and the timing of new taxable development. The housing programs identified for expenditure of Housing Set-Aside Funds include funding for the development and preservation of multi-family affordable housing, acquisition of land for the development of Low and Moderate Income housing, and assistance in the rehabilitation of existing housing units. All of these programs are considered Priority I projects for the use of set aside funds. Five-Year Objectives: The CitY will continue to utihze its Housing Set-Aside Fund to implement the identified housing programs, pursuant to State law. 12. Code Enforcement While the majority of the existing housing stock in Temecula is less than 30 years old, there is a need to enforce housing maintenance for some of the older housing units. The City implements a code enforcement program to correct housing and building code violations. The City has adopted and enforces the Uniform Building Code (UBC). Five-Year Objectives: The City will continue to enforce the UBC and offer information regarding the City's housing rehabilitation programs to low and moderate-income households cited for code violations. 13. Residential Improvement Program The City provides the following grant and low-interest loan programs under its Residential Improvement Program to assist in rehabilitating existing residential Senior Home Repair Grant - This program is available to seniors 55 or older with household incomes not exceeding 120% of the area median income. The one time grant of up to $3,000 can be used for repairing owner-occupied homes on a permanent foundation located in Old Town, La Serena, Winchester Creek, or condominiums throughout the City. VI. Plan.doc · July 2002 Page 4-71 CITY OF TEMECULA Housing Element Single-Family Emergency Grant- This program provides up to $2,500 grants to correct confirmed health and safety and/or building code violations in owner-occupied homes on a permanent foundation located in Old Town, La Serena, Winchester Creek, or any condominium throughout the City. The household's income must not exceed 80% of the area median income. Single-Family Paint & Fence Repair Loan - This loan program is available to households whose income does not exceed 80% of the area median income. Eligible housing units include owner-occupied homes on a permanent foundation located in Old Town, La Serena, Winchester Creek, or any condominium throughout the City. The maximum loan is $5,000 to be used for exterior improvements to the house. The interest rate for the loan is prime interest rate, but the payments are deferred and forgiven after five years if the owner still owns and occupies the unit. If the house is sold within the five-year period, the loan will be due and payable. Multi-Family Rehabilitation Loan - This program is available to owners of rental property within the City of Temecula. The maximum loan amount is $3,000 per unit and it to be used to for rehabilitation and correction 6f deferred maintenance of the units. The term of the loan is 20 years, with repayment deferred for the first five years, after which the loan is fully amortized for the remaining 15 years at prime rate, simple interest. The loan becomes due if the property is sold or refinanced prior to the 20-year period. In exchange for the loan, an affordability covenant on the project will be recorded for a 30-year duration. These covenant requires that a portion of the units be reserved for rent to Very Low and Low Income tenants. The owner is also required to maintain the property and improvements in good condition. Five-Year Objectives: · The City will fund 30 rehabilitation grants and loans annually through its Residential Improvement Program. 14. Section 8 Rental Assistance Program The Section 8 rental assistance program extends rental subsidies to Very Low Income families and elderly that spend more than 30% of their income on rent. The Section 8 certificate subsidy represents the difference between the excess of 30% of the monthly income and the actual rent (up to the federally determined Fair Market Rent (FMR). Most Section 8 assistance is issues to the recipients as vouchers, which permit tenants to locate their own housing and rent units beyond the FMR, provided the tenants pay the extra rent increment. The City contracts with the Riverside County Housing Authority to administer the Section 8 Certificate/Voucher Program. Vl..Plan.doc · July 2002 Page 4-72 CITY OF TEMECULA Housing Element Five- Year Objectives: The City will continue to contract with the County of Riverside to administer the Section 8 Rental Assistance Program and provide rental assistance to at least 22 Very Low Income Temecula households. · The City will support the County of Riverside's applications for additional Section 8 allocation. · The City will promote the Section 8 program to second unit owners. 15. Mobilehome Assistance Program 0VIPAP) To preserve affordable housing oppommities found within mobilehome parks, the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) provides financial and technical assistance to Low Income mohilehome park residents through the Mobilehome Assistance Program (MPAP). The MPAP provides loans of up to 50% of the purchase price plus the conversion costs of the mobilehome park so that Low Income residents, or organizations formed by Low Income residents Can own and/or OPerate the mobilehome park. Heritage Mobilehome Park is the only mobile home park in Temecula. The owners have indicated that they intend to operate the park indefinitely. In the event that the owners decide to close the park, the City will 'work with the tenants to acquire funding.through the MPAP program. Five- Year Objectives: The City will provide technical assistance to Heritage Mobilehome Park residents in pursuing MPAP funds in the event that the owners propose to clos.e the mobilehome park. Promote Equal Housing Opportunities In order to make adequate provision for the housing needs of all economic segments Of the community, the housing program must include actions that promote housing opportunities for all persons regardless of race, religion, sex, family size, martial status, ancestry, national origin, color, age or physical disability. 16. Equal Housing Opportunity The Riverside County Consortium, of which the City is a member, has adopted an Analysis of Impediments (Al) to Fair Housing Choice and has conducted fair housing planning to implement the recommendations identified in the AI. VI. Plan.doc · July 2002 Page 4-73 CITY OF TEMECULA Housing Element The Fair Housing Program of Riverside County maintains a comprehensive approach to alTumatively further and ensure equal access to housing for all persons. The three major components of this approach are: education, training/technical/ consultant assistance, and fair housing rights assistance. The Fair Housing Program of Riverside County is also an advocate for affordable housing, legislative reform, local compliance, and research projects relative to fair housing and human rights issues. The agency works with the State Depamnent of Fair Employment and Housing, and HUD in the referral, enforcement, and resolution of housing discrimination cases. Five-Year Objectives: · Temecula will continue to participate in the Riverside County Consortium in implementing the fair housing plan. · The City will' place fair housing brochures at City Counters, public libraries, Temecula Community Center and Temecula Community Recreation Center. The City will continue to post information regarding fair housing services on the City web site. Future fair housing workshops can also be advertised on the City web site. The City will continue to .provide referral Services to the Fair Housing. Program of Riverside County for residents inquiring about fair housing issues. 17. Housing Referral Directory The City provides housing referral services through its Housing Referral Directory. People contacting the City are provided information on housing projects offering housing specific to the person's needs. Five- Year Objectives: · The City will continue to offer housing referral services through its Housing Referral Directory. 18. Housing for Persons with Disabilities The City will analyze and determine whether there are constraints on the development, maintenance, and improvement of housing for persons with disabilities, consistent with SB 520 enacted January 1, 2002. The analysis will include land use controls, permit procedures, and building codes. · VI. Plan.doc * July 2002 Page 4-74 CITY OF TEMECULA Housing Element Five- Year Objectives: If any constraints are foUnd'in these areas, the City will develop a plan by JanuarY 1, 2003 to remove the constraints or provide reasonable accommodation for hosing intended for persons with disabilities__. Housing Element Monitoring and Reporting To ensure that the housing programs identified in this Housing Element are implemented and achieve their goals, an accurate monitoring and reporting system is required. 19. Annual Reportingfltonsing Needs Database Service agencies receiving CDBG funding fi:om the City are required to report on their program accomplishments at least annually. Records from service agencies help the City assess the extent of housing and supportive service needs, particularly regarding the special needs populations. The City is also required to submit annual reports to the state addressing its success in implementing the General Plan and Housing Element. These reports provide decision makers with useful information regarding how successful the' housing programs are with meeting the needs of the community. Five-Year Objectives: The City will continue to require that service agencies report on their accomplishments annually. This information will be used by the City to assess the commUnity's housing needs and how well these needs are being met by the existing programs. · The City will continue to submit annual reports to the state assessing the implementation of the General Plan and Housing Element. VI. Plan.doc · July 2002 Page 4-75 CITY OF TEMECULA Housing Element Table 4-28 ~ Housing Program Summary Provision of Adequa~e Housin9 Sites 1. Land Use Element and Provide a range of · Continue to implement and, as Departmental Planning Development Code residential development appropriate and necessary, augment Budget Department opportunfies through the Land Use Element and appropriate land use Development Code. designatJens. · Provide far an adequate number of rasidential sites to accommodate the remaining regional fair share for all income levels. · Maintain an inventory of sites available for residential development and provide this informatian to interestod developers. · Encourage the reser,,ation of land that is ounently designated for multiple-femily devebpmenl for the development of muPpie-family housing by providing the muiti4amily sites inventery to multi-family housing developers to solicit development interest. Update the mult~family sites inventoP/at least once a year. · Work to create a mixed~se ovalay in the Land Use Policy May to be applied to approximately 448 aaras of land along the 1-15 corridor. Residential mixe~use is permitted at a density of 30 units per acre, Establish appropriate tiex[ble development standards such as inereased building height and shared' parking oppo~ludifles in the Zoning Ordinance. Target date for adopting the Land Use Policy Map is anticipated in 2003. V~thin six months of adoption of the Land Use Policy Map including the mixed use overlay, estabtish development · standard oppropriate for implementing mb(od-use standards. · Encourage higher density residential development within the mixedqJse overlay areas by providing appropriate, flexible developmen! standads through the Zoning Ordinance. Upon completion olthe General Plan (2003), revise the Zoning Ordinance to establish specific use, height, bulk, parking, landscaping, and other guidelines appropdate fer mixed-use development. VI. Plan.doc · July 2002 Page 4-76 CITY OF TEMECULA Housing Element Table 4-28 HousingProgram Summary ' Responsible Housing Proflram Pro~ram Objectives 5-Yesr Objective and Time Frame Funding Source Agency 2. Sites for Emergency Provide for sites for the * Continue to permit emergency Depatmenta] Planning and Traditional development and shelters and transitional housing as Budget Depadment Housing opportunities for the identified in the Development Code. provtsion of housiog for · Continue to require affordable the homeless, housing projects receiving assistance from the City to reserve units for transitional housing. Affordable Housing Devek nment 3. Density Bonus Encourage the provision · Continue to implement the City's Doparknental Planning Ordinance of senior/affordable Density Bonus Ordinance. Budget Department housing development by · Inform residentiel development . continuing to implement applicants of opportunities for density the Density Bonus increases. Ordinance. 4, Land Assemblage and Assist with the · Continue to acqelm land for use in the Redevelopment Redevelopment Affordable Housing development of provision of affordable housing. Set-aside Funds Agency Development affordable housing by I o Facilitate the development of nine and COBG funds aoguidng land for the parcels to produce 89 housing units development of Low and affordable to lower income Moderate Income households. housing. 5. Second Unit Ordinance Fadlitate the · Continue to allow and promote the Departmental Planning development of constmctiou of affordable second Budget Department affordable housing units to result in the construction of through the construction five new second units by 2005:: of second units. 6. Mortgage Credit Assist first time home · Continue to promote the regional Departmantal . Planning Cer~ficate Program buyer by promoting the Mortgage Credil Certificate program Budget Department regional Mortgage Credit to assist an, average of 10 households Certitioate Program. annually, 7. First Time Home Buyer Assist lower income first ° Continue to implement the First Time Redevelopment Redevelopment Program time home buyers with Home Buyer Program to assist 15 Set-aside Agency the purchase of a home households annually. through the use of loan assistance. 8. Employee Relocation P[ovide loan assistance · Continue to implement the Employes Redevelopment Redevelopment Program to quelified, lower Relocation Program to assist five Set-aside Agency income relocated households annually. employees for the purchase of a home. Removal of Governmental Constraints 9. Development Fees Reduce the cost of ,* Continue to enter into development Redevelopment Redevelopment Reimbursement affordable/senior agreements with queli~/ing Set-aside Agency housing development sel)ior/affordable housing projects on through the a case-by-case basis to provide reimbursement of development fee reimbursement. development fens. VI. Plan.doc ° July 2002 Page 4-77 CITY OF TEMECULA Housing Element Table 4-28 Housing Program Summary I~ousin;Program I Program Objectives I 5-YearObjentJveandTimeFrame I Funding Source I RasponsibleAgency Conserve and It. prove Exlsffn9 Affordable Hoitsin9 10, I~e At-Risk Encourage the · Monitor the slatas of Woedcmek, Redevelopment Redevelopment Housing Units continued affordabllity of Rancho Celifomia, and Oaktree. Set-aside Funds, Agency, Planning at-dsk housing units to · Identify non-profit organizations as CDBG Fam~s, and Department and preserve existing potential porchast,,,rs/menagers of at* Section 8 Riverside Housiog affordable housing tisk housing units. Vouchers/ Authority. oppodunifias. · Explore funcing sources available to Cer[~ficatas. preserve at-dsk units or to provide mplacament units. · Assist tenants to apply for priority status on the Section 8 voucher/certiticate program immediately should the owners of the at*,'isk project choose not tu enter into additional rasthctions. 11. Redevelopment Set- Develop end preserve · Continue to utilize the City's Housing Redevelopment Redevelopment Aside affordable housing Set-aside Fund to implement the Sat-aside Funds Agency through the expenditure identified housing programs, pursuant of Redevelopment Set- to State law. aside funds. 12. Code Enforcement Maintain the existing · Continue to enforce the UBC and Departmental Planning housing stud( through offer information regarding housing Budgets Department the eatorcement of the rehabilitation programs to law and Uniform Building Code moderate income households cited (UBC). for code viol~ons. 13. Residential Ass!st with the · Fund 30 rehabititation grants and loan Redevelopment Redevelopment Improvement rehabilitation of existing annually through the City's Set*aside and Agency Program single and multi4amily Residential Improvement Program. CDBG Funds lower income housing units through the use of loan and grant programs. 14. Section 8 Rental Suppod the County of · Continue to contract with the County HUD Sectien 8 Planning Assistance Program Riverside's Section 8 of Riverside Io administer the Section allocations Department Rental Assistance 8 Rental Assistance Program and Program. provide rental assistance to at least 22 Very Low income Temeoula households. · Suppert the Counb/of Riverside's application for additional Section 8 allocation. · Promote the Section 8 program to second unit owners. 15. MobJlehome Avoid the loss of · Provide technical assistance to Departmental Planning Assistance Program affordable housing Heritage Mobllehome Park residents Budget Department (MPAP) within mobilehpme parks in pursuing MPAP funds in the event due to the dasure of that the owners proposed to dose the existing parks by mobilehame park. i providing technical assistance to lower income mobilehame park residents pursing MPAP funds. VI. Ptan.doc · July 2002 Page 4-78 CITY OF TEMECULA Housing Element Table 4-28 Housing Program Summary Housfag Program ] Program Objectives ] 5-Year Objective and Time Frame I Funding Sourcej Responsible-'6-9 en cY Promote EquaI Houslng C ~pottuni~y 16. Equal Housing Promote equal * Continue to pait~dpate in the Departmental Planning Oppo~ouity opportunities for housing Riverside County Consortium in Budget Deparlment by partidpating in the impleme~ng the fair housing plan. Riverside County · Place fair housing brochures at City Consortium. counte~s, public lilxaries, Temecula Community Center, and Temecela Community Recreation Canler. · Post information regarding fair housing services on City web site. · Provide refanal services to the Fair Housing Program. 17. Housing Referral Assist community · Continue to offer housing referral Depadmental Planning Directory membem in locating services through the City's Housing Budget and Department and housing which meets the Referral Directory. Redevelopment Redevelopment indivk:lual's needs. Set-aside Funds Agency 18. Housing for Persons Analyze and determine · Develop a plan by January 1, 2003 to Departmental Planning and with Disabilities whether there are remove the constraints or provide Budget Building constraints on the reasonable accommodation for Departments development, hosing intended for persons with maintenance, and disabilities. improvement of housing for pemons with disabilities, consistent with SB 520 enacted January 1, 2002. Housing Element Monitoring and Repor'dng 19. AnnualReportJng/ Monitor thehousing : · Coutinuetoreqnirethatservico Departmental Planning Housing Needs needs of the community agendes report on lheir Budget and CDBG Department Database and the ability of current accomplishments annually. This Funds housing programs to inform~on will be used by the City to meet these needs assess the community's housing through ongoing needs and how well these needs are repoding, being met by the existing programs. · continue to submit annual reports to the state assessing the ' implementation of the GeneraJ Plan and Housing Element. VI. Plan.doc · July 2002 Page 4-79 CITY OF TEMECULA Housing Element C. Summary of Quantified Objectives The following Table 4-29 summarizes the City's quantified five-year objectives with regard to housing production, conservation, rehabilitation, and provision of homeowners assistance. · Table 4-29 SUmmary of Quantified Objectives Very Low Moderate Upper Type of Activities Income Low Income Income Income Total New Construction 1,403 1,014 1,716 3,665 7,798 Conservation At-Risk Housing 166 166 Section 8 22 22 Rehabilitation 24 36 90 150 Homeownership First-Time H0mebuyer 5 ,40 80 125 Employee Relocation 5 20 25 Total 1,620 1,095. 1,906 . 3,665 8,286 VI. Plan.doc · July 2002 Page 4-80 CITY OF TEMECULA Housing Element APPENDIX A: HOUSING ELEMENT GLOSSARy Acre: a unit of land measure equal to 43.560 square feet. Acreage½ Net: The portion of a site exclusive of existing or planned public or private road rights-of- Affordability Covenant: A property title agreement which phces resale or rental restrictions on a housing unit. Affordable Homing: Under State and federal statutes, housing which costs no more than 30 percent of gross household income. Housing costs include rent or mortgage payments, utilities, taxes, insurance, homeowner association fees, and other related costs. Annexation: The incorporation of land area into the jurisdiction of an existing city with a resulting change in the boundaries of that city. Assisted Housing: Housing that has been subsidized, by federal, state, or local housing programs. At-Risk Housing: Multi-family rental housing that is at risk of losing its stares as housing affordable for low and moderate income tenants due to the expiration of federal, state or local agreements. California Department of Housing and Community Development - HCD: The State Department responsible for adminktering State-sponsored housing programs and f9r reviewing housing elements to determine compliance with State homing hw. Census: The official United States decennial enumeration of the population conducted bythe federal government. Community Development Block Grant (CDBG): A grant program administered by the U.S. Departmem of Housing and Uthan Development (HUD). This grant allots money to cities and counties for housing rehab'dltation and community development activities, including public facilities and economic development. Condominium: A building or group of buildings in which units are owned individually, but the · structure, common areas and facilities are owned byall owners on a proportional, undivided basis. Density:. The number of dwelling units per unit of land. Density usually is expressed "per acre," e.g., a development with 100 units located on 20 acres has deusity of 5.0 units per acre. Demity Bonus: The allowance of additional residential units beyond the maximum for which the parcel is otherwise permitted usually in exchange for the provision or preservation of affordable housing units at the same site or at another location. Development Impact Fees: A fee or charge imposed on developers to pay for a jurisdiction's costs of providing services to new development. Appendix A - July 2002 Page 4-Ai CITY OF TEMECULA Housing Element Development Right~ The right granted to a land owner or other authorized party to improve a property. Such fight is usually expressed in terms of a use and intensity allowed under existing zoning regulation. For example, a development right mayspeclfy the maximum number of residential dwelling units permitted per acre of land. Dwelling, Multi-family: A building containing two or more dwelling units for the use of individual households; an apartment or condominluna building is an example of this dwelling unit type. Dwelling, Single-family Attached: A one-family dwelling attached to one or more other one-family dwellings by a common vertical wall. Row houses and town hon~s are examples of this dwelling unit type. Dwelling, Single-family Detached: A dwelling, not attached to any other dwelling, which is designed for and occupied by not more than one family and surrounded by open space or yaxds. Dwelling Unit: One or more rooms, designed, occupied or intended for occupancy as separate living quarters, with cooking, sleeping and sanitary facilities provided within the unit for the exclusive use of.a household. El&fly Household: As &fined byHUD, elderly households are one- or two- member (family or non- family) households in which the head or spouse is age 62 or older. Element A division or chapter of the General Plan. Emergency Shelter. An emergency shelter is a facility that provides shelter to homeless families and/or homeless in 'dn4dn~k on a limited short-term basis. Fair Market Rent (FMR): Fair Market Rents (FMK0 are freely set rental rates defined by HUD as the median gross rents charged for available standard units in a county or Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area (SMSA). Fair Market Rents are used for the Section 8 Rental Program and many other HUD programs and are published annually by HUD. First-Time Home Buyer. Defined by HUD as an individual or family who has not owned a home during the three-year period preceding the HUD-assisted purchase of a home. Jurisdictiom may adopt local defmitious for tint-time home buyer programs which differ from non-federally funded pmgraxm. Floor Area Ratio (FAR): The gross floor area of all buildings on 'a lot divided by the lot area; usually expressed as a numerical value (e.g., a building having 10,000 square feet of gross floor area located on a lot of 5,000 square feet in area has a floor area ratio of 2.0). General Phm The General Plan is a legal document, adopted by the legishtive body of a Gty or County, setting forth policies regarding long-term development. California hw requires the preparation of seven elements or chapters in the General Plan: Land Use, Homing, Circulation, Conservation, Open Space, Noise, and Safety. Additional elements are permitted, such as Economic Development, Urban Design and similar local concerns. Group Quarters: A facility which homes groups of unrehted persons not living in households (U.S. Census definition). Examples of group quarters include insdmtlons, dOrmitories, shekers, military Appendix A · July 2002 Page 4-Aii CITY OF TEMECULA Housing Element quarters, assisted living facilities and other quarters, including single-room occupancy (SRO) housing, where 10 or more unrelated individuals are housed. Growth Management: Techniques used by a government t~> regulate the rate, amount, location and type of developmem. HCD: The State Depastment of Housing and CommunityDevelopment. Home Moxtgage Disclosure Act (HMDA): The Home Mongage Disclosure Act requires larger lending institutious making home mortgage loans to publicly disclose the location and disposition of home purchase, refinance and improvement loans. Institutions subject to HMDA must also disclose the gender, race, and income of loan applicants. Homeless: Unsheltered homeless are families and individuals whose primary nighttime residence is a public or private phce not designed for, or ordinarily used as, a regular sleeping accommodation for human beings (e.g., the street, sidewalks, cars, vacant and abandoned buildings). Sheltered homeless are families and persons whose primary nighttime residence is a supervised publicly or privately operated shelter (e.g., emergency, transitional, battered women, and homeless youth shelters; and commercial hotels or motels used to house the homeless). Household: The US Cereus Bureau defines a household as'all persons living in a housing unit whether or not they are related. A single person living in an apartment as well as a family living in a house is cousidered a household. Household does not include individuals living in dormitories, prisons, convalescent homes, or other group quarters. Household Income: The total income of all the persous living in a household. A household is usually described as very Iow income, Iow income, moderate income, and upper income based upon household size, and income, rehtive to the regional median income. Housing Problems: Defined byHUD as a household which: (1) occupies a unit with physical defects (lacks complete kitchen or bathroom); (2).meets the definition of overCrowded; or (3) spends more.than 30% of income on housing cost. Housing Subsid Housing subsidies refer to govemmen~ assistance aimed at reducing housing sales or rem prices to more affordable levels. Two general types of housing subsidy exist Where a housing subsidy is linked to a particular house or apartment, housing subsidy is "project" or "unie based. In Section 8 rental assistance programs the subsidy is linked to the family and assistance provided to any number of families accepted by willing private landlords. This type of subsidy is said to be "tenant based." Housing Unit: A room or group of rooms used by one or more individuals living separately from others in the structure, with direct access to the outside or to a public hall and contaivlng separate toilet and kitchen facilities. HUD: See U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Income Category: Four categories are used to classify a household according to income based on the median income for the.county. Under state housing statutes, these categories are defined as follows: Appendix A ,. July 2002 Page 4-Aiii CITY OF TEMECULA Housing Element r VeryLow (0-50% of Countymedbn); Low (50-80% Of Countymedian); Moderate (80-120% of County median); and Upper (over 120% of Countymedhn). Large Household: A household with 5 or more members. Manufactured Homing: Homing that is constructed of manufactured components, assembled partly at the site rather than totallyat the site. Also referred to as modular housing. Market Rate Housing: Housing which is ava,]able on the open market without any subsid3~ The price for homing is determined by the market forces of supply and demand and varies by location. Median Income: The annual income for each household size within a region which is defined annually by HUD: Half of the households in the region have incomes above the median and half have incomes below the median. Mobile Home: A structure, transportable in one or more sections, which is at least 8 feet in width and 32 feet in length, is built on a permanent chassis and designed to be used as a dwelling unit when connected to the required utilities, either with or without a permanent foundation. Mortgage Revenue Bond (MRB): A state, county 'or city program providl,g financing for the de~'elopment of housing through the sale of tax-exempt bonds. Overcrowding: As defined bythe U.S. Census, a household with greater than 1.01 persons per mom, excluding bathrooms, kitchens, hallways, and porches. Severe overcrowding is defined as households with greater than 1.51 persons per room. Overpayment: The extent to which gross housing costs, including utility costs, exceed 30 percent of gross household income, based on data published bythe U.S..Cemns Bureau. Severe overpayment, or cost burden, exists if gross housing costs exceed 50 percent of gross income. Parcel: The basic unit of land entitlement. A designated area of land established by pht, subdivision, or otherwise legally defined and permitted to be used, or built upon. Physical Defects: A housing unit lacking complete kitchen or bathroom facilities (U.S. Census definition). Jurisdictions may expand the Census definition in defining units with physical defects. Poverty:. The income cutoffs used bythe Census Bureau to determine the poverty status of families and unrented individnal~ included a set of 48 thresholds. The poverty thresholds' are revised annually to allow for changes in the cost of living as reflected in the Consumer Price Index. The average threshold for a family of four persons in 1989 was $12,674.. Poverty thresholds were applied on a national basis and were not adjusted for regional, state, or local variations in the cost of living. Project-Based Rental Assistance: Rental assistance provided for a project, not for a specific tenant. A tenant receiving project-based rental assistance gives up the right to that assistance upon moving from the project. Appendix A ,, July 2002 Page 4-Air CITY OF TEMECULA Housing Element Public Homing: A project-based low-rent housing program operated by independent local public housing authorities. A low-income family applies to the local public housing authority in the area in which they want to live. Redevelopment Agency: California Community Redevelopment Law provides authority to establish a Redevelopment Agency with the scope and financing mechanisms necessary to remedy blight and provide stimulus to eliminate deteriorated conditiom. The hw provides for the pbnnlng, development, redesign, clearance, reconstruction, or rehabilitation, or any combination of these, and the provision of public and private improvements as may be appropriate or necessary in the- interest of the general welfare by the Agency. Redevelopment law requires an Agency to set aside 20 percent of all tax increment dollats generated from each redevelopment project area for the purpose of increasing and improving the community's suppl3~ of housing for low and moderate income households. Regional Homing Needs Assessment (RHNA): The Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) is based on State of Chlifomia projections of population growth and housing unit demand and assigns a share of the region's future housing need to each jurisdiction within the SCAG (Southern California Association of Governments) region. These housing need numbers serve as the basis for the update of the Housing Element in each California city and county. Rehabilitatiom The upgrading of a building previously in a dilapidated or substandard condition for human habitation or use. Section 8 Rental Voucher/Certificate Program: A tenant-based rental assistance program that subsidizes a family's rent in a prlvately owned house or apartment. The program is admlnlstered'bylocal public homing authorities. Assistance payments are based on.30 percent of household annual income. Households with incomes of 50 percent or below the area median income are eligible to participate in the program. Service Needs: The particular services required by special populations, typically including needs such as transportation, personal care, housekeeping, counseling, meals, case management, personal emergency response, and other services preventing premature institutiowli~ation and assisting individuals to continue living independendy: Small Household: Pursuant to HUD definition, a small household consists of two to four non-elderly persons. Southem California Association of Governments (SCAG): The Southern Callfomia Association of · Governments is a regional planning agency which encompasses six counties: Imperial, Riverside, San Bemardin0, Orange, Los Angeles, and Venmra. SCAG is responsible for preparation of the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA). Special Needs Groups: Those segments of the population which have a more difficult time finding decem affordable housing due to special circumstances. Under California Housing Element statutes, these special needs groups consist of the elderly, handicapped, large families, female-headed households, farmworkers and the homeless. A jurisdiction may als0 choose to consider additional special needs groups in the Housing Element,. such as students, military households, other groups present in their Appendix A · July 2002 Page 4-Ay CITY OF TEMECULA Housing Element Subdivision: The division of a lot, tract or parcel of land in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act (California Government Code Section 66410 et seq.). Substandard Homing: Housing which does not meet the ml,lnaum standards contained in the State Housing Code (i.e. does not provide shelter, endangers the health, safety or well-being of occupants). Jurisdictions may adopt more stringent local definitions of substandard homing. Substandard, Suitable for Rehabilitation: SubstandaM units which are structurally sound and for which the cost of rehabilitation is considered economicallywarranted, Substandard, Needs Rephcement: Substandard units which are structurally unsound and for which the cost of rehatJilitatlon is considered infeasible, such as instances where the majority of a unit has been damaged by fire. Supportive Housing: Homing with a supporting environment, such as group homes or Single Room Occupancy (SRO) housing and other housing that includes a supportive service component such as those defined below. Supportive Services: Services provided to residents of supportive homing for the purpose of facilitating the independence of residents. Some examples are case management, medical or psychological counseling and supervision, child care, transportation, and job training. Tenant-Basdd Rental Assistance: A form of rental assistance in which the assisted tenant may move from a dwelling unit with a right to continued assistance. The assistance is provided for the tenant, not for the project. Transitional Housing: Transitional housing is temporary (often six months to two )ears)housing for a homeless individual or family who is transitioniug to permanent housing. Transitional housing often includes a supportive services component (e.g. job skills training, rehabilitation counseling, etc.) to allow .individua!g to gain necessarylife skills in support of independent living. ' U.S. Department of Homing and Urban DeVelopment(HUD): The cabinet level department of the federal government responsible for housing, housing assistance, and urban development at the national level. Housing programs administered through HUD include Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), HOME and Section 8, among others. Zoning: A land use regulatory measure enacted by local government. Zoning district regulations governing lot size, building bulk, placement, and other development standards vary from district to district, but must be uniform within the same district. Each city and ~ountyadopts a zoning ordinance specifying these regulations. Appendix A · July 200~ Page 4-Avi ATrACHMENT NO. 3 INITIAL STUDY. (PLANNING APPLICATION PA99-0186) R:\GENPLAN~Housing Element 2000',Staff Report PCl.doc 8 City of Temecula i P.O. Box 9033, Temecula, CA 92589-9033 Environmental Checklist Project Title 2000 - 2005 City of Temecula Housing Element Update Lead Agency Name and Address City of Temecula P.O. Box 9033 Temecula, CA §2589-9033 Contact Person and Phone Number David Hogan, Principal Planner (909) 694-6400 Project Location City of Temecula, in Southwest Riverside County. Project Sponsor's Name and Address City of Temecula General Plan Designation Not applicable Zoning Not applicable Description of Project The California State Legislature has identified the attainment of a decent home and suitable living environment for every Californian as the State's major housing goal. Recognizing the important role of local planning programs in the pursuit of this goal, the Legislature has mandated that all cities and counties prepare a housing element as part of their comprehensive General Plan. Section 65302(c) of the Government Code sets forth the specific components to be contained in a community's Housing Element. O law requires Housing Elements to be updated at least every State five years to reflect a community's changing housing needs. This update covers the 2000-2005 period, pursuant to the update cycle for jurisdictions within the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) region. The Temecula Housing Element was first adopted in 1993 and is currently being comprehensively updated to address existing and projected housing needs. The Temecula Housing Element is comprised of the following major components: · Ah analysis of the demographic, household, and housing characteristics and trends; · A review of potential market, government, and environmental constraints to meeting the City's identified housing needs; · An evaluation of the land, financial and administrative resources available to address housing needs; and, · Identifies the regionally determined Regional Housing Needs Assessment for the City. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting Temecula is located in southwest Riverside County, surrounded by the communities'of Murrieta, Fallbrook, Winchester, Rainbow, as well as unincorporated areas of Riverside County. Surrounding land uses include open space, agricultural, residential, commercial, and ~ public agencies whose approval industrial uses. California Department of Housing and Community Development i~"l~quired R:\GENPLAN~Housing Element 2000\Initial Study 2002-draftdoc Environmental Factors Potentially Affected ~ The environmental factors checked below would be 'potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is Potenbally S~gmficant Impact as Ind~cated by the checklist on the following pages. Land Use Planning Hazards Population and Housing Noise Geologic Problems Public Services Water Utilities and Service Systems Air Qualib/ Aesthetics Transportation/Circulation Cultural Resources Biological Resources Recreation Energy and Mineral Resources Mandatory Findings of Significance ,/ None Determination (To be completed by the lead agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: ,/ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant on the environment, and a NEGATIVE __ DECLARATION w~red I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will no-~t be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION wiJl be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant impact'' or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are ~mposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Signatu~----e.e.._~" ! ~ ' ~ Printed name ' For R:\GENPLAN\Housing Element 2000\initial Study 2002~lrafLdoc 2 i ~_ Land Use and Planning. Would the project: Potentially Potentially Signil~cant Un~ess Less Than Significant Mifgafl0n Significant No Issues and Supportin§ Infom~DlJon Sources a. Physically divide an established community? ~r"Pact Incorporated Impact lmpact b. Conflict with applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan. local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) ,,' adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigation an environmental effect? c. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? ,/ Comments: The proposed adoption of the 2000-2005 Housing Element describes how the City will meet the requirements of State law (Section 65302 of the Government Code) to provide adequate opportunities for housing. The proposed Housing Element will update a previously certified Housing Elemer~t. Housing elements do not approve specific development projects that are not already envisioned or contained in the adopted City General Plan. The proposed updated Housing Element will not physically divide an established community or conflict with other local or regional plans. Both the current and proposed housing elements are consistent with the other Elements of the General Plan and applicable local plans. Implementing this program will enhance the City's ability to provide a balance of residential, commercial and industrial opportunities as described in the vision statement for the General Plan. The proposed Housing Element is an integral part of providing a balance of residential opportunities. As a result, no impacts to environment are anticipated. 2 POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: Potentially Potentially Significant Unless Less Than significant Mrdgation Significant No Issues and Supporling Information Sources Impact Incorporated I,,,p=~[ Impact a. Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or othe~ infrastructure)? b. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c. Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? ,,' Comments: The proposed adoption of the 2000-2005 Housing Element describes how the City will meet the requirements of State law (Section 65302 of the Government Code) to provide adequate opportunities for housing. The proposed Housing Element will update a previously certified Housing Element. Housing elements do not approve specific development projects that are not already envisioned or contained in the adopted City General Plan. As a result, the programs and actions contained in the proposed updated Housing Element will not induce population growth or new residents to the community beyond those already described General Plan. As a result, no additional impacts to environment are anticipated. R:\GENPLAI'N-Iouslng Element 2000\Initial Study 2002-draft.doc 3 3. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project? Potentially Potentially Significant Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues end S~pparting Information Sources Impact focorporaf~d Impact Impact a. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or deatt involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? (Refer to ' Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.) ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? ,/ · iii) Seismic-related ground failure, ncluding liquefaction'~ iv) Landslides? b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? ,,- c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or; that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 1801-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e. Have soil incapable of adequately supporting the use of = septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems " where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? Comments: The proposed adoption of the 2000-2005 Housing Element describes how the City will meet the requirements of State law (Section 65302 of the Government Code) to provide adequate opportunities for housing. The proposed Housing Element will update a previously certified Housing Element. Housing elements do not approve specific development projects that are not already envisioned or contained in the adopted City General Plan. All future development within the City will be subject to site-specific geotechnical studies, as appropriate, and will comply with applicable building code regulations. Furthermore, the project sets forth programs and policies to facilitate housing rehabilitation and therefore has the potential to improve the seismic safety of older housing units in the City. As a result, no impacts are expected to occur. R:\GENPLAN',Housing Element 2000~lnifial Study 2002~lraff.doc 4 4. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: Potentialry Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Unless Significant No issues and Supporting information Sources impact Mitigation Impact Impact a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge . Incorporated requirements? ,,' b. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses.or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in ,,' substantial erosion or station on- or off-site? d. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alte~'ation of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or ,/ amount of surface runoff in a manner which would resull in flooding on- or off-site? e. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the i capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of ,/ polluted runoff? f. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? ,/ g. Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation ,/ map? h. Place within a lO0-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? ,/ ~. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, ~njury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? J. Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudfiow? ,/ Cor~ments: The proposed adoption of the 2000-2005 Housing Element describes how the City will meet the requirements of State law (Section 65302 of the Government Code) to provide adequate opportunities for housing. The proposed Housing Element will update a previously certified Housing Element. Housing elements do not approve specific development projects that are not already envisioned or contained in the adopted City General Plan. All future development within the City will address all applicable drainage, water supply, and water quality issues when specific development projects are proposed. Future development proposals will also be consistent with the adopted General Plan. As a result, no impacts are expected to Occur, R:\GENPLAN~Houslng Element 2000\Initial Study 2002-draft.doc 5 5. AIR QUALITY. Would the project: Potentially Potentially Signiacant Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues and Supporting Information Sources Impact InC°rpomted impact Impact a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? ,,' b. Violate any air quality standard or coi,[tibute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? ,/ c. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non- attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient ,/ air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors? d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? ,/ e. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? v' Comments: The proposed adoption of the 2000-2005 Housing Element describes how the City will meet the requirements of State law (Section 65302 of the Government Code) to provide adequate opportunities for housing. The proposed Housing Element will update a previously certified Housing Element. Housing elements do not approve specific development projects that are not already envisioned or contained in the adopted City General Plan. All future development within the City will address air quality and air pollution issues when specific projects are proposed. Future development proposals will also be consistent with the adopted General Plan. As a result, no impacts are expected to occur. 6. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project: F~)tedti~l!y I~Ot~l~l~y _S[~hi[carit- U hiess EeSS Than Issfles,and Sup_porting I[if~rm[~tibn SQUIntS ,,, , .... a. Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections? b. Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion ,/ management agency for designated roads or highways? c; Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location thai ,,- results in substantial safety risks? d. Substantially !ncrease hazards due to a design features (e.g., sharp curves, dangerous interSections)? e. Result in inadequate emergency access? ,,' · f. Result in inadequate parking capacity?. ,/ g. Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus.turnouts, bicycle racks? R;\GENPLAN~ousing Element 2000\Initial Study 2002-draft. doc 6 Comments: The proposed adoption of the 2000-2005 Housing Element describes how the City will meet the requirements of State law (Section 65302 of the Government Code) to provide adequate opportunities for ~us~ng. The proposed Housing Element will update a previously certified Housing Element. Housing ants do not approve specific development projects that are not already envisioned or contained in the adopted City General Plan. Future development proposals will also be consistent with the adopted General Plan. As a result, the approval of the Housing Element will not impact transportation of traffic issues and no impacts are expected to occur. 7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the project: Potentially Potentially Significant Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues and Supporting Information Sources Impact Incorporated impact Impact . a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in .local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the ,/ California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California ,,- Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? I Have a substantial adverse effect of federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal .pool, ,/ coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filing, hydrological interruption, or other means? d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resJdent or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildJife nursery sites? e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, Such as a tree preservation policy or ,/ ordinance? f. Conflict with the provisions of an adoPted habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat ,,' conservation plan? Comments: The proposed adoption of the 2000-2005 Housing Element describes how the City will meet the . requirements of State law (Section 65302 of the Government Code) to provide adequate opportunities for housing. The proposed Housing Element will update a previously certified Housing Element. Housing elements do not approve specific development projects that are not already envisioned or contained in the adopted City General Plan. The impacts to biologic issues will be addressed when specific.development occurs. Biology studies are required for all development projects with the potential to impact biologic resources. If resources are identified, mitigation measures are identified and implemented to address the site effects. In addition, most of the City is located within the Stephen's Kangaroo Rat Habitat Fee Area. Conservation fees will be required to mitigate the effect of cumulative impacts to the species from R:\GENPLAN~Housing Element 2000\Initial Study 2002-draft.doc 7 urbanization occurring throughout western Riverside County. As a result, the approval of the Housing.Element will not impact biologic resources and no impacts are expected to occur. 8. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: Potentially Potentially Significant Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues and Supporting Information Sources Impact Incorpu,,ded Impact' Impact a. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the ,,- residents of the state? b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local ,/ general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? Comments: The proposed adoption of the 2000-2005 Housing Element describes how the City will meet the requirements of State law (Section 65302 of the Government Code) to provide adequate opportunities for housing. The proposed Housing Element will update a previously certified Housing Element. Housing elements do not approve specific development projects that are not already envisioned or contained in the adopted City General Plan. Future development proposals will also be consistent with the adopted General Plan. Therefore, the approval of the Housing Element will not impact mineral resources and no impacts are expected to occur. 9. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: · Potentially Potenfial!y Significant Unles: Less Than Sigqificant Mitigation Significant No Issues and Supporting nformafion Sources. .Impact InCO~Orated Impact Impact a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transportation, Use, or ,,' disposal of hazardous materials? b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous ,,' materials into the environment? c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one- ,,' quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Govemment Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, ,,- would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles or a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the proiect area? R:\GENPLAN~Housing Element 2000~lnltJal Study 2002-draft.doc 9. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: ' ~ Potenfialry Potentially Significant Unless Less T~an Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues and SupDortin~ Information Sources ~mpact Inco, F~[,~[~d Impact Impact f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or ,/ working in the project area? g. impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted' emergency response plan or emergency ,,- evacuation plan? h. Expose people or structures to a significant risk or loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to u~banized areas or where ,/ residences are intermixed with wildlands? Comments: The proposed adoption of the 2000-2005 Housing Element describes how the City will meet the requirements of State law (Section 65302 of the Government Code) to provide adequate opportunities for housing. The proposed Housing Element will update a previously certified Housing Element. Housing elements do not approve specific development projects that are not already envisioned or contained in the adopted City General 'Plan. Approval of the Housing Element will not create hazards or result in hazardous material issues. These issues will be addressed when site specific development proposals .are considered. Future development proposals will be consistent with the adopted General Plan. As a result, no impacts are expected to occur. · NOISE. Would the project result in: ~otehflally P0f;entiafiy Sigtiifican! Un ess Less Than SigniflcadtMitigation Significant NO !ssues and Suppa~ng Infz~rmation Sources ,Impact Incorparated Impact Impact a. Exposure of people to severe noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbome vibration or groundborne noise levels? c. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? . d. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing ,,- without the project? e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the; ,/ project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the ,/ ~__ re_p~j.~_area to excessive noise levels? R:\GENPLAN~Housing Element 2000\Initial Study 2002-drafLdoc 9 Comments: The proposed adoption of the 2000-2005 Housing Element describes how the City will meet the requirements of State law (Section 65302 of the Government Code) to provide adequate opportunites for.,,,. housing. The proposed Housing Element will update a previously certified Hous ng Element. Hous n~ elements do not approve specific development projects that are not already' envisioned or contained in the~' adopted City General Plan. Future development proposals will comply with, and will be consistent with the adopted General Plan. As a result, no impacts are expected to occur. 11.. PUBLIC SERVICES: Would the proposal have a substantial adverse physical impacts associates with the provisions of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Potentially Potentially Significant Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues and Supporfin~ Infcrmation Sources Impact ~ncorporated Impact ;,,,F~i a. Fire protection? b. Police protection? c Schools? d. Parks? e Other public facilities? ,/ Comments: The proposed adoption of the 2000-2005 Housing Element describes how the City will meet the requirements of State law (Section 65302 of the Government Code) to provide adequate opportunities for housing. The proposed Housing Element will update a previously certified Housing Element. H0u elements do not approve specific development projects that are not already envisioned or contained in adopted City General Plan. As a 'result, the adoption of the housing opportunity program-in the Housing Element will have no impacts to public services not otherwise addressed elsewhere in the General Plan. 12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project: Potentially Potentially Significant Unress Less Than $i~n*~ent Mitigation Significant No Issues and;~u~po~ir~ t~fo~n~n.S~urces ,i[mPa~ I~q~.mted Impact Impact a. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b. Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing v' facilities, the construction of which could cause, significant environmental effects? c. Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment ~rovider which serves or may serve the projbct that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? R:\GENPLAi'AHousing Element 2000\initial Study 2002-draft.doc 10 12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project: Potentially Potentially Significant Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No tssues and Supportin~ Information Sources Impact Incorporated Impact Impact f. Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g. Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Comments: The proposed adoption of the 2000-2005 Housing Element describes how the City will meet the requirements of State law (Section 65302 of the Government Code) to provide adequate opportunities for housing. The proposed Housing Element will update a previously certified Housing Element. Housing elements do not approve specific development projects that are not already envisioned' or contained in the adopted City General Plan. As a result, the adoption of the housing opportunity program in the Housing Element will have no impacts to public utilities or service systems not addressed elsewhere in the General Plan. 13. AESTHETICS. Would the project: Potentially Significant Unless Less Than Signil3cant Mitigation Significant No Issues arid Supporting Information Sources Itnpact Inco;']~omted Impact impact a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? i~ Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcropping, and historic building within a state 'scenic highway? c. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Comments: The proposed adoption of the 2000-2005 Housing Element describes how the' City will meet the requirements of State law (Section 65302 of the Government Code) to provide adequate opportunities for · housing. The proposed Housing Element will update a previously certified Housing Element. Housing elements do not approve specific development projects that are not already envisioned or contained in the adopted City General Plan. These issues will be addressed when site specific development proposals are considered. As a result, no aesthetic impacts are expected to occur. R:~GENPLAN~Houstng Element 2000\Initial Study 2002-draftdoc 11 14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: Potentially sigrlifi~ant UnleSs Less Than ~igrtifica6t .M~n SignifiCantNo Issues and Supp0rtin,q nformationS0urces . In, paCt . nC°rpom ed ~mpact {,,,~,<,~ · a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 1506.57 ,/ b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 1506.57 ,/ c. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological ,/ resource or site or unique geologic feature? d. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Comments: The proposed adoption of the 2000-2005 Housing Element describes how the City will meet the requirements of State law (Section 65302 of the Government Code) to provide adequate opportunities for housing. The proposed Housing Element will update a previously certified Housing Element. Housing elements do not approve specific development projects that are not already envisioned or contained in the adopted City General Plan. The impacts to cultural resoumes will be addressed when specific development occurs. When development occurs in an area with a high potential for cultural resources, special studies are required. If resources are identified, mitigation measures are identified and implemented to address any site specific effects. As a result, no impacts to public services are expected to occur. 15. RECREATION. Would the project: Potentially Potentially Significant Unless Less Than Sigriificant Mitigation Significant No issues and Supporting Information Soumes Impact Incorporated Impact impact a. Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b. Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities ,/ . which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Comments: The proposed adoption of the 2000-2005 Housing Element describes how the City will meet the requirements of State law (Section 65302 of the Government Code) to provide adequate opportunities for housing. The proposed Housing Element will update a previously certified Housing Element. Housing elements do not approve specific development projects that are not already envisioned or contained in the adopted City General Plan. As a result, no impacts to recreational facilities are expected to occur. R:\GENPLAI, AHousi~g Element 2000\Initial Study 2002-draftdoc 12 r. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. Potentially Potentially Significant Unress Less Thpn Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues and Supporting Infon~aflon Sources Impact Incorporated Impact Impact a. Does the project h,ave the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten' to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduCe the number of ," restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of Califom a history or prehistory? b. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects Of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with ,/ the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects? c. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, ,,- either directly or indirectly? Comments: The proposed adoption of the 2000-2005 Housing Element describes how the City will meet the quUirements of State law (Section 65302 of the Government Code) to provide adequate opportunities for sing. The proposed Housing Element will update a previously certified Housing Element Housing ements do not approve specific development projects that are not already envisioned or contained in the adopted City General Plan. As a result, the approval of an updated housing element will not impact the environment in excess of the impacts associated with implementing the General Plan. No impacts to public utilities or service systems are expected to occur. 17. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to'the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets. a. Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. b. Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which affects from the above check list were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c. Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. The impacts associated with the implementation of the City General Plan were previously identified and discussed in the Draft and Final Environmental Impact Reports in 1993. The Environmental Impact Report for ansCity General Plan also identified specific general plan level mitigation measures and adopted a statement verriding consideration for agricultural resources, air quality biolog c resources, educat on, brary, noise, portat on and circu at on. R:\GENP!_A~Housing Element 2000\lnilJal Study 2002-draftdoc 13 A3-1'ACHMENT NO. 4 HCD COMMENT LE'I-rERS (PLANNING APPLICATION PA99-0186) R:\GENP~ousing Element 2000\Staff Report PCl.doc 9 January18,2001Leffer R:\GENPLAN\Housing Element 2000\Staff Repo~ PCl.doc 10 DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Division of Homing Policy Development FA~: (916) 327-26~3 January lg, 2001 Ms. Debbie Ubnoske, Planning Director City of Temecula Commllnity Develoyiuent Department P.O. Box 9033 Temecula, California 92589-9033 D~_r Ms. Ubno~e: , RE: Review of the City of Temecula's Draft Housing Element Thank y. ou for submitting Temecula's draft housing clement, received for our review on December 7, 2000. As you know, the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) is required to review draft homing elements and report our findings to the locality pursuant to Government Code Section 65585Co). "' A telephone conversation on Sanuary 17, 2001 with Ms. Veronica Tam, of Cotton, Bridges Associates, and Mr. Dave Hogan, tho City's Senio~ Planner, assisted our review. TMs letter and accompanying Appendix sununarize that conversation. While the current draft element includes a useful identification of housing needs in Tcmccula, revisions will be necessav] to comply with State housing clcmcnt .law (Article 10.6 of the Government Code). Among the necessary changes, the element should be ~ to demonstrate that the City has s~cient !an_dj zoned at appmprlate densities, to accommodate the development of housing commensurate with Temecula's ~h~ of the regional housing need for all income groups. We look forward to reviewing the mvisious in thc nc~r fi~_~e and to receiving the annual general plan knpleh~entation repom pu~uant to Government Code Section 65400. For your information, we have enclosed a brief description of new and existing housing and community development progr~ro~ .administered by this D~partment along with funding levels for the current fiscal year. We are pleased to report a historic increase in housing Ponds available througl!. HCD. A number of the programs such as the lobs-Housing Balance Improvement Program, the CalHome Program and the Downtown Rebound Program are new and under cturent development. Please consult our homepage at wva~.hcd ca. gov for program information updates. We hope our comments are helpful to the City. We appreciate thc courtesy and aSsistance of Mr. Hogan and MS. Tam during the course of our review. We would be willing to meet in Temecula or otherwise provide additional ass/stance to aid ~be City in revising its housing element. Please feel free to contact Robert Mans, of our sta~ at (916) 323-31 gO. 1~. Dcbbio Ubnoske. Planning Director Page 2 In accordance with their requests pursuant to the Public Records Act, we arc forwarding a copy of this letter to thc individuals listed below. Siacerely. Cathy E. ~ Acting De~ ~ty Director t~nc]osure CC.' Veronica Tam, Cotton, Bridges & Associates Dave Hogan, City of Te~necula Catherine Ysracl, Supervising Deputy Attorney General. AG's Office Terry Roberts, Governor's Office of Plan~ing and Research Suan Acosta, California Building Industry Association Marcia $~]bl,t Cali£omia Association of Realtors Marc Brown, California Rural Legal Ass~s~aucc Foundation Rob Weiser, California Coalition for Rural Housing Susan D~antis, The Planning Center Data Schur. Western Centcr on Law and Poverty Michael G. Colantuono, Attorney at Law Jonathan Lehrer~raiwer, Attorney at Law Ans Mmic Whitaker, California State Poly- Tech University Karen Warner, Coilon, Bridges & Associates David Booher, California Housing Council Jose Rodriquez, California Rural Legal Assistancc Mi,~ Tran, Inland Counties Legal Services City of Temecula The following ebsnSes wo~d bring Temccula'~ housing'eieracnt into compliance with Article 10.6 of tho Government Code, Accompanying each recommended change we cite the supporting section of thc Government Code. The particular program examples or .data sources listed arc suggestions for your use. A. Housin~ Needs. Resources and Constrain~ 1. The ele~nent should contain an analysis of population and employment trend~ and documentation of projections and. a quantification of the locality'~ es~ting and projected needs for all income levels. Such existing and projected needs shall include the Iocality's share of the regional housing need in accordance with Section 65584 (Section 65585(a)(1)). ~ac regional share need may be reduced by thc number of new units built since Sanuary 1, 1998. Newly built units arc to be assigned to the appropriate income group, based upon the unit's affordabi!ity. The element should demons~ate the units subtracted from the very low-, and low-income cate§eries are affordable to thc appropriate income group. For example., the curr~t element lacks a basis for assi~,ni~g 50 percent of the 411 newly constructed mulfifamily units as affordablc to lower-income householdn (pages 4-38 and 4-39). . ~: 17to element must include a documentation of housing stock condition (Section The el~ncnt includes information on the age of Temecula's housing stock; it should also. contain au estimate of thc number of substandard units in Tcmecula in need of rehabilitation and re~laeemenL The el6mcnt shoUld include an inventory of land suita'ble for residential deve'lopment, including vacant sites and sites having potential for redevelopment, and an analysis of the relationship of zoning and public ~ervices available to these sites (Section 6558~$(a)(39). Expand the laud inventory analysis to indicate and clarify:. Whe~er there is suflicicnt total water and wastewater treatment capacity from the City's water and sewer providers to accommodate the new construction nc~xL 1 Wheth~ units have been' or are likely to be dewloped in Temccula at the upper end of the high density and very high denhty gme. ml plan designations. The City could demon-strat~ the viability of the dwelling u~it projection by describing thc basis for the estimate (for example, past development applications, historic development paRerns in these districts, current City policies, etc.) to substantiate the likelihood that development occurring ori high density land outside apecific plan areas and very high density land does occur nl the upper end of the density ranges for these gencral plan designations. · ~ Whether typical developed deraiiies within the high and very hi§h density des. ignations can accommodate lower-income households. ,,~ The impact of the flood plain 9verlay district and/or !he three Alquist-Pdolo earthquake, fault zones oh the development potential and cost of the vacant land identified (Tables 4-24 and 4-25). How the Village Center O~'erlay and the Planned Development Overlay allow for modification and flexibility in development standards $o as to promote a greater range ofhouaing opportunities within the City, incl~iding affordable housing. ~nalyze potential and actual governmental constraints upon the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing for all income levels, including building codes and their enforcement. The analysi~ shall also demonstrate local effort~ to remove governmental constraints that hinder the locality from meeting it~ share of the regional housing need in accordance with Section 65584 (Section 65583(a)(4)). The el~nent should be revised to include a description of the type and deg~e of thc City's code enforcement program. B. Ouanfified Ob{ectives 'Thc housing element s,~all contain a statement of the community's goals, quantified objectives and policies relative to the maintenance, improvemeng and development of ho~ing, by income level (emphasis added) (Section 65583(b)}. · ~'~V~le the element contains general quantified objectives, the element should also specifically contah overall quantified objectives for housing develop~ant, rehabilitation, and conservation for each income group: very Iow-, low-, moderate-, and above.moderate income. c. Housin~ Pro,rams Identify adequate sites which will be made available through appropriate zoning and development standards and with public services and facilities needed to facilitate and encourage the development of a variety of types of hou.~'ng for all income leveh, including rental housing, factory-built housing mobilehomes, and emergency shelter~ aTd transitional housing. I~ere the inventory of sites, pursuant to paragraph ($) of subdivision (a), doe~ not identify adequate sites to accommodate the need for groups of all house3old income level~ pursuant to Section 65584, the program shail provide for su~cient sites with zoning that permits owner, occupied and rental multifamily residential use by right, including density 'and development ~tandards that could accommodate and facilitate the feasibility of housing for very low- and low-income households (Section 65583(c)(I.)). As noted in comment A.3 above, further analysis of thc feasibility of sites described in the element is needed. The adequacy of sites carmot be established prior'to a more detailed analysis. .*/;he element indicates, "The Temecula Development Code provides for the provislon'~f emergency shelters and transitional housing within the City." The element should describe how the City's standards encourage and facilitate the development of, or conversion to, emergency shelters and/or transitional housing. The housing element shall contain programs, which "addraaa~ ess, and where appropriate and legally possible, remove governmental constraints to the. maintenance, improvement, and d~elopment of housing· (Section 655~3(c)($)). As noted 'above (B-4), Temecula's element requires a more thorough analysis of potential governmental constraints posed by the City's code en.Corcement pwgram. Depending upon .the results of that analysis, the City may need to add prosrams to remove or mitigate ~ny ideatificd constraints. 'Describe in detail the program action to promote housing opportunities for all persons (Section 65585(¢)(5)). While the element includes a fith' hous/ng pwgram, it lacks any description of an infor~_otion dissemi~. 'on component for educating residents about their fairhousing rights and of the process to alake appropriate referrals for fair housing complaints. A fair housing information dissemination program is necessary, to guarantee full utilization of thc housin§ discrimination prol~am. For example, thc City might wish to publicize a complaint referral a§cncy through thc local media, schools, h'braries, post offices, or through housing advocacy groups. D. Public Participation Describe how the City made a diligent effort to achieve the public participation of all economic segments of the community in the development of the element (Section 65583(c)). The housing element should specifically describe efforts by Terneeula to circulate tha housing clement among lower-._.___~come organizations and individuals and to involve such groups and persons in thc devel6pm~t of the element. 4 May 21,2001 Letter R:\GENPLAN~Housing Element 2000~Staff Report PCl.doc 11 D]~-ARTMENT OF HOua~/~G AND COMM~TY DEVELOPMENT Division of Housing Policy Development May 21, 2001 Ms. Debbic Ubnoskc, Planning Director City of Temecula Community Dcvelopment Department P,O. Box 9033 Temccula, California 92589-9033 Dear Ms. Ubnoske: RE: Review of the Revisions to Temecula's Draft Housing Element Update Tb~nk you for submitting revisions to Temecula's draft housing element, received for our review on March 22, 2001. As you know, wc are required to review draft housing clements and report our findings to the locality pursuant to Government Code Section 655S5Co). Our review was facilitated by a telephone conversation with Ms. Veronica Tmn, the City's consultant, on May 18, 2001. The revisions to the draft clement addresses most of the statutory requirements c/ted in our review letter of lanUary IS, 2001. However, the City needs to clearly identify adequate sites to accommodate lower-income households as required by 'State housing element law (Article 10.6 of the Government Code). The Appendix to this letter describes in greater detail the changes needed to bring the element into co. mpl/ance with State housing element law. We hope our comments am helpful to thc City. We welcome the opportunity to mc~t with the City in Temecula to provide any needed assistance to bring the clement into compliance.' If you trove any questions, please comact Robert Mans at (916) 323-3180. In accordance w/th requests pursuant to the Public Records Act, we are forwarding copies of this lctter to the persons .m~d organizations listed below. Sincerely, Ms. Debbie Ubnoske, Planning Director Page 2 Mark Stivers, Senate Committee on HoUSing & Community Development Catherine Ysraol, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, AG's Office Terry Roberts, Governor's Office of Planuing and Research Kimberley Dellinger, California Building Industry Association Marcia Salkin, California Association of Realtors Marc Brown, California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation Rob Weiner, California Coalition for Rural Housing $ohn Douglas, AICP, The Pllmnin~ 'Center Dam Schur, Western Center on Law and Poverty Michael G. Colantuono, Attorney at Law Darn Schur, Western Center on Law and Poverty Jonathan Lehrer-Graiwer, Attorney at Law Aha Marie Whitaker, California Stare Poly - Tech Unive,~ity Karen Warner, Cotton Bridges & Associates David Bo6her, California Housing Council los~ Kodriquez, California Rural Legal Ass/stance Minh Tran, Inland Counties Legal Services · Ai~PEND1X City of Temecul~ Thc following changea would bring Temeeula's housin~ element into compliance with Article 10.6 of thc Government Code..accompanying each recommend~lion we cite thc applicable provision of the C~ovemmunt Code. The pa~icular program examples or data sources listed are suggestions for your use. A. Housing Programs Identify adequate sites which will be made available through appropriate zoning and development standards and with'public services and facilities needed to facilitate and encourage the development of a 'variety of types of housing for all income l~vels, and including multifamily rental housing in order to meet the community's housing goals as identified in subdivision (b). Y/here the inventory of sites, pursuant to paragraph ($) of subdivision (a), does not identify adequate sites to accommodate the need for groups of all household income levels, the program shall provide for ~sufficient sites with zoning that permits owner-occupied and rental, multifamily residential use by right, including density and development standards that could accommodate and facilitate the feasibility of housing for very Iow- and low-in, come households (Section 65583(c)(1}}. As indicated in Table 4-26, Temecula's remaining regional nhare need for lower-income households is 1,994. While the revisions provide mom information, the element still does demonstrate that existing vacant sites, coupled with existing development standards, can accommodate the regional share need for lower-income households. The revised dement states that very high density development within specific plan areas is anticipated to range between 15.8 and 16~ du/ac; projects outside specific plan areas average about 16 units per acre. The City should examine its density and development standards and ascertain whether such standards act to preclude development occurring at the upper end of the higher density range. The element could abe include policies or programs to encourage or facilitate development at the maximum of the higher density range or otherwise demonstrate how this zone can accommodate lower-income development. A recent conversation with a non-profit housing provider in Riverside County suggests that existing land costs in Temeeula range between $200,000 and $300,000 making development of units affordable to lower-income households' unlikely at a density of 16 du/ac. The current draft element was not revised to .indicate how the Village Ceater Overlay and the Planned Development Overlay allow for modification and flexibility in development standards so as to promote a greater range o£housing opportunities within the City, including affordable housing. The City may wish to revisit this issue and indicate how modified development standards within these areas could facilitate units affordable to lower-income households. B. Public Participation 1. Describe iow tie C#y made a diligent e~on to ac3ieve the publtc participation of all economic segrnent~ of the community in the development of the element (Section 65585 Thc element provides a listing of organizations repr~euting lowor-lncomc households and persons with special needs that wore directly mailed a copy of the housing elcm~t. Thc element should also describe City eft'om to encourage involvc~nent of these groups in the development of the housing element. July 2, 2002 Letter R:\GENPLAN'J-Iousing Element 2000~Staff Report PCl.doc 12 DEP.]sRTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Division of Housing policy Development July 2, 2002 Ms. Debbie Ubnoske, planning Director Community Development Department City of Temecula P.O. Box 9033 · Temecula, California 92589-9033 Dear Ms. Ubnoske: RE: Review of the Revisions to Temecula's Draft Housing Element Update Thank you for submitting revisions to Temecula's housing element update, received for our review on May 3, 2002. AdditiOnal fax revisions were received on June 18, 24 and 26, 2002. As you know, the Department of Honsing and Community Development Department (HCD) are required to review draft housing elements and report our findings to the locality pursuant to Govemment'Code Section 65585(b). Telephone conversations with Ms: Veronica Tam, your consultant, assisted our review. We are pleased to find the revised element, including the fax revisions submitted, addresses thc statutory requirements in our May 21, 2002 letter. The element will be in compliance with State law when adopted and submitted to this Department for review (Article 10.6 of the Government Code). We appreciate the efforts of the City to develop land-nsc strategies and programs to address its share of the regional housing need and the community's unique needs. We commend the City's commitment to facilitating affordable housing development through the provision of higher density, mixed-use strategies and flexible development standards. We are thankfifl of the hard work and cooperation of you, your staff and consultant during the course of our review and we look forward to receiving Temecula's adopted housing element for our review. If you have any additional questions, please contact Paul Mc DougaH, of our staff, at (916) 322-7995. In accordance with requests pursuant to thc Public Records Act, we are forwarding copies of this letter to the persons and organizations listed below. Sincerely, Ms. Debbie Ubnoske, Planning Director Page 2 CC: Veronica Tam, Cotton Bridges and Associates Mark.Stivers, Senate Committee on Housing & Community Development Catherine Ysraei, Supervising DePuty Attorney General, AG's Office Terry Roberts, Governor's Office of Planning and Research Kimberley Dellinger, California Building Indi~stry Association Marcia Salkin; California Association of Realtors. Marc Brown, California Rural Legal Assistance Foun~tion ' Rob Weiner, California Coalition for Rural Housing John Douglas, AICP, Civic Solutions Deanna Kitamura, Western Center on Law and Poverty S: LYrm.Martinez~ Westem Center:on Law and. Poverty · Alexander Abbe, LaW Firm'ofRichards, watson & Gershon Ruben Duran, Law Finn ofNeufield, Jaffe & Levin llene J. Jacobs, California Rural Legal Assistance, Inc. Data Schur, Protection & Advocacy, Inc. Jonathan Lehrer-Graiwer, Attorney at Law Ana Marie Whitaker, California State Poly- Tech University David Bo0her, California Housing Council Jose Rodriquez, California Rural Legal Assistance Miah Tran, Inland Counties 'Legal Services Rose-Mayes, Fak Housing Council of Riverside County Robert Bullock, Inland Counties Legal Services -' Joe Carreras, Southern California Association of Governments Won Chang, Attorney at Law, Davis and Company Jacob Lieb, Southern California Association of Governments James A. Ragsdale, JRA Planning Consultants ITEM #10 STAFF REPORT - PEANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION September 18, 2002 Planning Application No. 02-0318 (DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENTS) Prepared by: David Hogan, Principal Planner RECOMMENDATION: The Community Development Department - Planning Division Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt a Resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADOPTING STANDARDS FOR MODULAR STRUCTURES, ADOPTING CHAPTER 17.10 OF THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE, AND MAKING OTHER MINOR MODIFICATIONS TO THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE" (PLANNING APPLICATION 02-0318) BACKGROUND The Development Code was adopted by the City Council in 1995. Since its adoption, the Code has been periodically amended to improve its clarity and to modify various provisions as problems have been identified. These proposed changes are intended to improve clarity, to provide additional direction, and to correct typographical errors. This staff report is intended to analyze the proposed changes for your review and consideration. ANALYSIS This proposed Development Code amendment would do the following: · Set standards for modular structures; · Allow religious institutions in some commercial zones without a conditional use permit; and · Make other minor adjustments and changes in the Development Code Modular Structure Standards As the City continues to build out, staff is beginning to see a need to allow the use of modular structures as accessory buildings for religious institutions and for some industrial types of uses. In considering this concept, staff was concerned about the effect these structures may have on the surrounding community and the potential long-term aesthetic impacts.' As a result, staff has evaluated the issue and come up with a program that would allow modular structures as accessory uses, provided they are not readily visible to the public. In staff's view, this accommodation does nothing to reduce the visual quality of the community but allows local businesSes some additional flexibility in how they respond to their business needs. R:~DEVCODE~02-0318 Amendrnent~PC Staff Report,doc In the process of developing the modular standards, staff noted that it might be appropriate to allow non-profit community organizations and religious institutions to use modular buildings on a temporary basis. As a result, staff developed additional standards for this. The key component is that the temporary use of the modular buildings is limited to 5 yearn, and that a removal bond will be required to prevent the modular unit from becoming permanent. A copy of the proposed modular standards is contained in Attachment No. 3. If the Planning Commission recommends approval of any portion of the modular standard provisions, then staff is also recommending that Section 17.10, Supplemental Design Standards, be created. For clarity and ease of future use, staff is proposing that this new Chapter be compiled from the more general standards in the Residential and Commercial/Industrial Chapters. Section 1 of the draft Ordinance would create Section 17.10 and make the other necessary changes to ensure the internal consistency within the Development Code. The exception is that the household pets discussion from Section 17.06.050.N.3 will be relocated to Chapter 6.02 on the Municipal Code with the other related household pet provisions. A sample of what Chapter 17.10 would actually look like is found in Attachment No. 5. Reliqious Institutions as Permitted Uses The Development Code currently allows religious institutions in all zones with a conditional use permit. Staff is proposing that in most commemial zones, churches should be allowed as permitted uses. Staff's rational is that, given the operating times for most churches, the possibility of land use and circulation conflicts are substantially reduced in commercial zones. As a result, the need for a conditional use permit may be unnecessary. In addition, many of the land use compatibility concerns with adjacent residential uses are also minimized with this proposal. Listed below is the proposed change to the Permitted Use Matrix for the commercial and industrial zones. The bolded items represent the changes. Religious insti[ution, without a daycare or private school Other Minor Chanqes Incidental Retail Sales to Industrial Uses The Development Code currently requires that these activities obtain a conditional use permit. From staff's perspective, this does not seem to be a reasonable requirement for ancillary sales, provided that the incidental sales are a small part of the business. As a result, staff is recommending that incidental retail to an industrial use be permitted as long as the floor area dedicated to the retail purposes is less than 25% of the entire business and the material are either manufactured or assembled on site. Nonprofit and Community Organization Facilities Staff is proposing to clarify the permitted use matrix for the Public Institutional zone. At present it is not clear that these types of facilities are allowed. There is vague language these membership halls and similar nonprofit community uses are conditionally permitted within the Public Institutional zone. Amending this prevision would clearly state that these type of use are conditionally permitted. R:~DEVCODE',02-0318 Amendment'~PC Staff Report,doc 2 Sign Programs The Development Code authorizes the Planning Commission or the Director at a hearing to approve sign programs. However, in reality, this approval authority has always been delegated to the Planning Director (staff-level review and approval). The purpose of this amendment is to modify the Development Code to clarify that sign programs are administrative approvals, subject to appeal to the Planning Commission. Typographic Changes Chapters 17.16 and 17.18 of the Development Code describe specific plans and village center plans as overlays. In reality, when these plans are adopted, they become discrete zones on the zoning map. As a result, the term overlay is confusing and staff is recommending that the word "overlay" be removed from the titles and text in each section. This will eliminate some confusion on how these previsions are to be implemented without changing any of the actual requirements. Obsolete and Unused Definitions Staff has recently completed its review of the definitions chapter in the Development Code (Chapter 17.34) and has determined that some of the definitions are not used in the Development Code or in needed in the day-to-day planning and code enfomement functions. As a result, staff is recommending that these unnecessary definitions be removed from the Development Code. The list of definitions are would be removed with this amendment are contained in Section 4 of the proposed ordinance (Attachment No. 2). ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION The proposed amendment represents a minor change to the Development Code. Staff has completed an Initial Environmental Study and has determined that no negative environmental impacts would occur. As a result, staff is recommending that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council adopt a Negative Declaration for this project. FINDINGS The proposed Development Code Amendment will not have an adverse effect on the community and is consistent with the goals and policies of the adopted General Plan. The proposed Development Code Amendment is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community. Attachments: 3. 4. 5. PC Resolution - Blue Page 4 Exhibit A - Proposed Ordinance - Blue Page 7 Proposed Ordinance - Blue Page 8 Proposed Modular Structure Standards - Blue Page 9 Initial Environmental Study- Blue Page 10 Chapter 17.10 (sample view) - Blue Page 11 R:~DEVCODE'~02-0318 Amendment~PC Staff Report.doc 3 ATrACHMENT NO. 1 PC RESOLUTION NO. 02- PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADOPTING STANDARDS FOR MODULAR STRUCTURES, ADOPTING CHAPTER 17.10 OF THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE, AND MAKING OTHER MINOR MODIFICATIONS TO THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE" (PLANNING APPLICATION 02-0318) WHEREAS, on November 9, 1993, the City Council of the City of Temecula adopted the General Plan; and WHEREAS, on January 25, 1995, the City Council of the City of Temecula adopted the City's Development Code; and WHEREAS, the City has identified a need to amend the adopted Development Code; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the proposed amendment on September 18, 2002, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, an did testify either in support or opposition to this matter; NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS. FOLLOWS:. Section 1. Approval. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council approve the ordinance of the City Council of the City of Temecula amending Title 6 and 17 of the Temecula Municipal Code, substantially in the form attached to this resolution as Exhibit A. Section 2. Environmental Compliance. The proposed amendment represents a minor change to the Development Code. Staff has completed an Initial Environmental Study and has determined that no negative environmental impacts would occur. As a result, staff is recommending that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council adopt a Negative Declaration for this project. R:'~DEVCODE~02-0318 Amendrnent'~PC Staff Report.doc 5 Section 3. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning Commission this 18th day of September 2002. Dennis Chiniaeff, Chairperson ATTEST: Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary {SEAL} STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 18th day of September 2002, by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary R:\DEVCODE~02-0318 Arnendment~PC Staff Report.doc 6 EXHIBIT A ORDINANCE NO. 02- ATrACHMENT NO. 2 PROPOSED ORDINANCE TEXT ORDINANCE NO. 02- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADOPTING STANDARDS FOR MODULAR STRUCTURES, ADOPTING CHAPTER 17.10 OF THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE, AND MAKING OTHER MINOR MODIFICATIONS TO THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE (PLANNING APPLICATION 02-0318) WHEREAS, Section 65800 of the Government Code provides for the adoption and administration of zoning laws, ordinances, rules and regulations by cities to implement such general plans as may be in effect in any such city; and WHEREAS, Sections 65860 of the Government Code requires that a zoning ordinance shall be consistent with the adopted General Plan of the city; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearingon September 18, 2002, and recommended that the City Council approve the following amendments to the City Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, this Ordinance complies with all the applicable requirements of State law and local ordinances; and, WHEREAS, notice of the proposed Ordinance was posted at City Hall, Temecula Library, Pujol Street Community Center, and the Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce; and, WHEREAS, the City Council has held a duly noticed public hearing on September, 18th 2002 to consider the proposed amendments to the City Zoning Map and the Temecula Municipal Code. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. read as follows: Modular Buildinq Standards. Section 17.10.020.1 is hereby adopted to "1. Modular Buildings and Structures. Modular buildings may be allowed in some circumstances as described in this Section if they comply with the following requirements: A. Accessory Structure. Modular buildings may be approved as accessory structures to a larger permanent building. The accessory buildings or structures shall be smaller in'size than the main permanent building. Accessory structures can be allowed, subject to the approval of a development plan, for the following uses or-activities: 1. Religious Institutions in all zones, except the Open Space and Conservation zone. 2. Industrial uses in the Business Park, Light Industrial, and Service Commercial zones. 3. Temporary Facility and Construction Offices in all zones, except the Open Space and Conservation zone. B. Temporary Structures. Modular buildings may be approved as a temporary structures for non-profit community organizations and religious institutions in all zones, except the Open Space and Conservation zone. The temporary structure may be approved subject to the following requirements: 1. The approval of a development plan or conditional use permit (as appropriate) for the permanent facilities. landscape plan. The site shall be fully landscaped in conformance with the approved 3. The term of the temporary approval shall not exceed 5 years. A removal bond shall be provided to ensure the removal of the temporary structure. C. Building Design and Screening. All modular units shall comply with the following standards to soften the appearance of the structures. 1. If the modular is not visible from a street or a public gathering place, the modular structure shall provide at least minimal design compatibility with the surrounding area. Examples of minimal design compatibility include the use of exterior trim elements, similar colors, and other features to soften the modular appearance of the structure. ' 2. Modular buildings that are potentially visible from the public street shall have amhitectural detailing similar to permanent structures. Examples include: accentuated entrances, pop-out features, windows, integrated with the minimal design compatibility components described above. Supplemental landscaping, to further screening the structure may also be required. 3. All accessory modular units shall be screened from the public streets and gathering spaces in such as way as to be un-noticeable. This screening may include a combination of the following: permanent buildings or structures, screening walls, and landscaping. D. Not withstanding these requirements, all other landscape and site layout criteria required by the Development Code and Design Guidelines shall also apply to modular buildings." Section 2. Supplemental Development Standards. A. Establish Chapter 17.10, Supplemental Development Standards and adopt Section 17.10.010 to read as follows:" "17.10.010 PURPOSE. The Purpose of this Chapter is to consolidate a variety of Municipal Code sections from Title 17 that provide supplemental development standards. Some of these standards will apply to development activities in residential, commemial or industrial zones. Other standards my apply to activities in multiple zoning districts," B. Section 17.06.050.N is hereby repealed~ and a new Section 17.10.020.A is adopted to read as follows: "Agricultural Uses. Permitted Uses. The following agricultural uses are permitted by right in all zones, a. Farms of orchards, trees, field crops, truck gardening, flowering gardening, and other similar enterprises carried on in the general field of agriculture. b. Raising, grazing, breeding, boarding or training of large or small animals, except concentrated lot feeding and commercial poultry and rabbit raising enterprises, are allowed on properties one-half net acre or larger in size subject to the following requirements: i. Large animals (cattle, horses and mules). Two animals per half-acre plus one additional animal for each additional half-acre of lot area. Animals under the age of twelve-months are not counted. ii. Small animals (burros, goats, pigs, ponies, and sheep). Two animals per half-acre plus three additional animals for each additional half-acre of lot area. Animals under the age of six-months are not counted. iii. Poultry. Limited to 12 birds per half-acre or 50 birds per acre. All poultry must be confined. The keeping of roosters is prohibited. iv, confined. Aviary. Limited to fifty birds per acre. All birds must be v. All animals shall be kept.a minimum distance of seventy (70) feet from any adjacent residence, school, hospital or church that is located on an adjacent property. This requirement applies to the location of corrals, fenced enclosures, barns, stables or other enclosures. c. In no event shall there be any limit to the permissible number of sheep which may be grazed per acre, where such grazing operation is conducted on fields for the purpose of cleaning up unharvested crops, stubble, volunteer or wild growth where such grazing operation is not conducted for more than four weeks in any six-month period. d. Apiary; provided, that all hives or boxes housing bees shall be placed at least four hundred (400) feet from any public streets or highways, any public school, park, property line to an a different ownership, or from any dwelling or place of human habitation other than that occupied by the owner or caretaker of the apiary. Additionally, a water source shall be provided on-site. 2. Conditional Use Permit Required. The following agricultural uses are permitted with a conditional use permit. a. Wholesale distributor and processor of nursery-plant stock. Retail nursery where incidental and contiguous to propagation of nursery stock and/or wholesale distributor. Outdoor storage and display are prohibited except for nursery-plant stock. b. Dog kennels, dog training schools, and small animal shelters. animals. Dog or cat breeding establishments with more than four adult d. The raising of chinchilla, nutria, hamsters, guinea pigs, cavy, rabbits, and similar small animals. e. Frog farms. f. Worm farms. g.. The keeping of exotic or wild animals, including the keeping of exotic or wild animals as pets." C. Section 17.08.050.G is hereby repealed and a new Section 17.10.020.B is adopted to read as follows: "Alcoholic Beverage Sales. 1. All businesses or establishments offering the sale of alcoholic beverages, except for the incidental sale of beer and wine at a restaurant, shall require the appropriate license from the state of California and the city and be subject to a conditional use permit. 2. Any automotive service station which proposes to sell beer and wine concurrently with motor vehicle fuel shall require a conditional use permit which permit shall be subject to the provisions of Business and Professions Code Section 23790 et seq. and shall require that: a. The decision shall be based on written findings. b. A denial of an application for a conditional use permit is subject to appeal to the city council in accordance with Section 17.03.090 of this code. c. The same procedure for noticing, and conducting the CUP hearing that is utilized by the city for all other conditional use permits shall be used to provide for all parties to be present and to present evidence. d. The decision and findings be based on substantial evidence in view of the whole record to justify the ultimate decision. 3. The above businesses shall not be located within five hundred feet of any religious institution, school or Public park. The license application shall be reviewed by the city's police services prior to city approval." D. Section 17.08.050.C is hereby repealed and a new Section 17.10.020.C is adopted to read as follows: "Arcades. Arcades shall be approved subject to the approval of a conditional use permit by the planning commission. 1. Applications for an arcade shall include following: a. Three sets of typed gummed labels, listing the name and address of all businesses within a shopping center and all landowners within a three- hundred-foot radius of the shopping center or arcade. operation. A description of the types of machines, a floor plan, and hours of 2. The planning commission may apply any condition deemed necessary. These conditions may address, but are not limited to, the following: a. Need for adult supervision; b. Hours of operation; c. Inside and outside security measures; d. Noise attenuation; e. Bicycle facilities; and, f. Interior waiting areas." E. Section 17.08.050.S is hereby repealed and a new Section 17.10.020.D is adopted to read as follows: "Automobile, Motorcycle and Truck Dealership Landscape Standards. 1. Landscape Standards. The following standards shall be applied to all new automobile, motorcycle and truck dealerships or substantial alterations to existing automobile, motorcycle and truck dealerships. a. Display areas: a minimum five foot (5') wide landscape island shall be required at the end of all display area lanes adjacent to the main entry drive lane. A one-foot strip, made of concrete or other materials acceptable to the Community Development Director, shall be located next to the curb immediately adjacent to the end display parking space. Said landscape islands shall have a mixture of trees, shrubs and groundcover shall have automatic irrigation. b. Street frontages. All portions of the property which have street frontage shall meet one of the following criteria: i. A minimum of twelve feet (12') of landscaping shall be provided, measured from the rear of the sidewalk to the display area length and shall be surrounded by Iow growing shrubs, groundcover and turf; or ii. A minimum of twenty feet (20') of landscaping shall be provided, measured from the rear of the sidewalk to the display area, with display area allowed to encroach into eight feet (8') of the landscape area. (A) Display areas sha!l be paved with concrete, a maximum of twenty (20) feet in length and shall be surrounded by Iow growing shrubs, groundcover and turf. (B) The number of display areas allowed shall be calculated in the following manner: 3 display spaces per 100 linear feet of street frontage. Fractional spaces (0.5 and over) shall be rounded up. (C) No display area shall be located immediately adjacent to another display area. Landscaping shall be provided between display areas. c. Development adjacent to existing and proposed residential uses. All portions of the property which abut an existing or proposed residential use shall have a minimum ten foot (10') wide landscape buffer. d. All other portions of the property which do not abut a street or existing or proposed residential uses shall have a minimum five foot (5') wide landscape buffer. e. All customer parking on the site shall be clearly identified, either through special paint (i.e. curb painting) or signage and shall be subject to the landscape requirements contained in Section 17.24.050H of the Development Code. f. Service bays shall not be visible from a public street and shall be adequately screened from adjacent residential uses. g. inventory and vehicle-in-repair storage areas on the site shall be clearly identified and will not need to be internally landscaped. If they are located on the perimeter or adjacent to residential development or sensitive areas they shall be screened in the manner discussed above." F. Section i7.08.050.F is hereby repealed and a new Section 17.10.020.E is adopted to read as follows: "Used Motor Vehicle Sales 0Nithout the sales of new motor vehicles). 1. The minimum lot width of any site supporting a used motor vehicle sales business shall be one hundred feet. 2. The minimum lot area shall be ten thousand square feet. 3. Buffer walls and landscaping shall be as provided as required for the zoning district in which the use is located. 4. A building containing not less than two hundred square feet shall be maintained on the lot supporting the business. The building shall be a permanent structure; modular or portable buildings, or mobile homes are not permitted." G. Section 17.06.050.Q is hereby repealed and a new Section 17.10.020.F is adopted to read as follows: "Bed and Breakfast Establishments (B&Bs). Bed and breakfast establishments shall be developed in the following manner: 1. The facility shall comply with all land use regulations and site development standards of the zoning district in which it is located. 2. The use shall be incidental to the primary use of the residential structure to ensure compatibility with adjacent residential uses. 3. Owner/lessee shall reside in the primary residence and operate the business. 4. family character. 5. 6. 7. period. 8. 9. The exterior appearance of the structure shall have a residential/single- Service of meals shall be for registered guests only. There shall be no separate/additional kitchens for the guests. No guest shall stay more than fourteen consecutive days in any thirty-day All B&Bs shall be subject to the city's hotel/motel room tax. B&Bs shall meet all of the requirements of the city fire department and county health department. 10. The B&B shall be developed on a site that has a minimum lot size of sixty thousand square feet. 11. No receptions, private parties or similar activities, for which a fee is paid shall be permitted." H. Section 17.08.050.D is hereby repealed and a new Section 17.10.020.G is adopted to read as follows: "Car Washes. A conditional use permit shall be required for all full-service or self-service car washes within the commemial districts. Car washes shall comply with the following criteria: residential district. Such businesses shall be located at least two hundred feet from any 2. Wash bays and vacuum areas shall be screened from public view. 3. Regular monitoring of the facility by an attendant shall be provided during business hours to control noise, litter, and other nuisances. 4. Hours of operation shall be limited to seven a.m. to ten p.m., unless otherwise specifically established as a condition of approval. Automatic shut-off of water and electrical systems, except for security and fire protection, shall be provided during non-business hours." I. Section 17.08.050.B is hereby repealed and a new Section 17.10.020.H is adopted to read as follows: "Entertainment Establishments Providing Dancing, Music and Similar Activities. 1. Noise levels shall not exceed the standards set forth in the noise element of the general plan or the environmental performance standards of this development code (Section 17.08.070). 2. Dancing, music, and similar entertainment uses shall be limited to between the hours of six p.m. and two a.m. 3. The city may apply additional requirern'ents or limitations depending on the location, surrounding uses and other considerations" J. Section 17.08.050.O is hereby repealed and a new Section 17.10.020.J is adopted to read as follows: "Outdoor Sales of Merchandise. All businesses shall be conducted complete within an enclosed building. The following outdoor sales and commercial activities may be permitted to operate outdoors, within their respective districts and subject to any required reviews and permits. The outdoor display of merchandise accessory to an on- site business is addressed in Subsection K 1. Automobile, boat, trailer, camper, and motorcycle sales and rentals (subject to a conditional, use permit); 2. Building material, supplies and equipment rental and sales (subject to a conditional use permit); 3. Fruit and vegetable stands (required temporary use permit); 4. Horticultural nurseries (subject to a conditional use permit); Gasoline pumps, oil racks and accessory items when located on pump islands; 6. Outdoor recreation uses; 7. Parking lot and sidewalk sales (subject to temporary use permit and regulations set forth in this chapter); and 8. Other activities and uses similar to those above as determined by the director of planning." K Section 17.08.050.P is hereby repealed and ~a new Section 17.10.020.K is adopted to read as follows: "Outdoor Display of Merchandise Accessory to Current On-Site Business. Any outdoor display must be done in conjunction with the business 'being conducted within the building and shall comply with the following regulations: 1. The items being displayed shall be of the same type that are lawfully displayed and sold inside the building on the premises. 2. The aggregate display area shall not exceed twenty-five percent of the linear frontage of the store front or ten linear feet, whichever is greater. 3. Items shall not project more than four feet from the store front. 4. No item, or any portion thereof, shall be displayed on public property; provided, however, items may be displayed within the public right-of-way if an encroachment permit has first been procured from the city. 5. Items shall be displayed only during the hours that the business conducted inside the building on the premises is open for business. 6. No item shall be displayed in a manner that: causes a safety hazard; obstructs the entrance to any building; interferes with, or impedes the flow of pedestrian or vehicle traffic; is unsightly or creams any other condition that is detrimental to the appearance of the premises or any surrounding property; or in any other manner is detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare or causes a public nuisance." L. Section 17.08.050.E is hereby repealed and a new Section 17.10.020.L is adoPted to read as follows: "Permanent Indoor Swap Meet Facilities. 1. Indoor swap meets shall be established only in buildings containing five · thousand square feet or more of gross floor area. 2. City business licenses and state seller permits shall be obtained by every tenant operating a stall space. 3. No more than one business license shall be granted per one hundred fifty square feet of building floor area. 4. The minimum average square footage of a partitioned cubicle or stall space (booth) shall be one hundred fifty square feet. The minimum size for an individual stall shall be one hundred square feet, and no more than twenty-five stall spaces shall be permitted to contain one hundred square feet. No adult business, as defined in the Temecula Municipal Code shall be permiEed. 6. No loudspeakers or sound equipment which can be heard from exterior or semipublic areas shall be used on the premises. 7. Each stall space shall be partitioned with partition walls at a height of not less than five feet, six inches. Scissor-type gating shall not be used to separate vendors or vending areas. tile or carpeting. All floor areas of indoor tenant spaces, shall be covered with a high-grade 9. Aisles shall have a minimum width of seven feet. 10. Security personnel shall be provided during hours of operation." M Section 17.06050.H is hereby repealed and a new Section 17.10.020.M is .adopted to read as follows: "Senior Housing/Congregate Care Facilities/Affordable Housing. Senior housing, congregate care facilities, and affordable housing projects are permitted in the zoning districts identified below subject to the approval of a development plan. Affordable senior housing projects shall comply with the affordable housing provisions contained in Subsection 0.3. 1. Senior housing shall comply with all the provisions of the Development Code unless modified by the following provisions: a. The maximum densities for senior housing projects are as follows: i. In the H residential zoning district, the maximum density shall be thirty (30) units per acre. ii. In the M residential zoning district, the maximum density shall be twenty (20) units per acre. iii. In the LM, L-2, and L-1 residential zoning districts the maximum density shall be eight (8) units per acre. iv. In all approved Specific Plans, the maximum density shall not exceed 50% of the target density in the planning area. b. The net livable area for each dwelling unit shall not be less than four hundred (400) square feet for an efficiency unit, five hundred fifty (550) square feet for a one-bedroom unit, and seven hundred (700) square feet for a two-bedroom unit. Kitchenettes may be permitted, provided they are sized to meet the immediate needs of the occupants of the unit. 2. Congregate care projects shall comply with all the provisions of the Development Code unless modified by the following provisions: a. The maximum densities for congregate care facilities are not limited specifically to density requirements so long as all the site development standards are met (i.e. required setbacks, parking, landscaping, open space, etc.) b. The handicapped units shall comply with the standards set forth in Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations. 3. Affordable housing and affordable senior housing projects are entitled to receive various incentives provided the project meets the requirements of Section 65915 of the California Government Code. Affordable housing projects will receive at least one incentive · from Subsection 3.a and at least one concession from Subsection 3.b. The project incentives and concessions are as follows: a. Density Incentives. Affordable housing projects are. entitled to receive an increase in the allowable density of at least 25% over the density target in each residential zoning district. The maximum densities for affordable housing projects are as follows: i. In the H residential zoning district, the maximum density shall be thirty (30) units per acre. ii. In .the M residential zoning district, the maximum density shall be eighteen (18) units per acre. iii. In the LM residential zoning district, the maximum density shall be eight (8) units per acre. iv. In all approved Specific Plans, the maximum density bonus shall not exceed 50% of the target density in the planning area. b. Development Standard Concessions. Any of the following development standard concessions may be granted by the approval authority for the project, unless a finding is made that these concessions are not necessary to provide the affordable housing units being proposed: i. An increase in the amount of required lot coverage; ii. A modification to the setback or required yard provisions; iii. An increase in the maximum allowable building height; iv. A reduction in the amount of required on-site parking; v.~ A reduction in the amount of onsite landscaping, except that no reduction in on-site recreational amenities may not be approved unless the affordable housing is in a close and easily accessible proximity to a public park with recreational amenities; vi. A reduction in the minimum lot area; or, vii. Approval of an affordable housing project in the Professional Office zone with the approval of a conditional use permit. 4. The provisions of this Subsection also applies to all approved specific plans within the City of Temecula unless the specific plan contains specific standards for the type of housing being considered." N Section 17.08.050.R is hereby repealed and a new Section 17.10.020.N is adopted to read as follows: "Self-Storage or Mini-Warehouse Facilities. 1. Development Standards The following standards shall be applied to all new self-storage or mini-warehouse facilities: a. The design of the facility shall be compatible with the surrounding area in terms of design, bulk and mass, materials and colors. Building exteriors shall not be corrugated metal or similar surface, but shall be of finished quality. Me~al containers are prohibited. b. In commercial zoning, districts the rear and side yard setbacks shall be a minimum of 10 feet. In industrial zoning districts no rear or side yard setbacks are required. The director of planning may increase the setbacks to a maximum of 25 feet when adjacent to an existing residential development project. The front yard setback shall maintain the setback for the underlying zoning classification. c. The maximum lot coverage shall be 65 percent. d. The development site shall provide a minimum of 10% landscaped open space for a project within commercial districts. In industrial districts, the total landscaping shall be equal to the required setback areas. No interior landscaping is required, but the setback areas shall be landscaped. e. A manager's residential unit may be provided, but is not required. f. Required parking spaces may not be rented as, or used for, vehicular storage. However, additional parking area may be provided for vehicles, boats, buses, trailers, etc., provided that the storage area is adequately screened from public view with enhanced landscaping, decorative walls, fences, or other methods as deemed appropriate by the director. 2. Performance and Use Regulations a. Any business activity, other than rental of storage units, including the on-site sale of merchandize or garage sales, and transfer/storage businesses which utilize vehicles as part of the business is prohibited. No servicing or repair of motor vehicles, boats, trailers, lawn mowers, or any similar equipment is permitted. b. Storage units shall not be used for the storage of flammable liquids, highly combustible or explosive materials, or hazardous chemicals. Truck or vehicle rental is prohibited without obtaining all necessary approvals subject to the Development Code Schedule of Permitted Uses." R:',D EVCO[~E',92-0318 kmendment~Draft Ord .N'nen dment.doc 12 0 Section 17.08.050.M is hereby repealed and a new Section 17.10.020.0 is adopted to read as follows: "Drive-Thru Facilities. Commemial uses including restaurants, financial institutions or other business providing drive-thru facilities shall be subject to the following requirements. All drive-thru facilities shall require the approval of a conditional use permit. 2. Pedestrian walkways should not intersect the drive-thru aisles. If pedestrian walkways do cross the drive aisles, they shall be clearly marked with paving or striping. 3. Drive-thru aisle shall have a minimum width of eleven feet on the straight sections and twelve feet on curved portions. 4. For fast food restaurants, the drive-thru aisles shall have a sufficient stacking area behind the menu board to accommodate six cars. 5. The speakers shall be located so as to protect adjoining residential areas from excessive noise." P. Renumber the remaining subsection of Sections 17.06.050 and 17.08.050 and make the appropriate code section references to reflect the renumbered subsection numbering. Q. Add Footnote No. 6 to Table 17.06.030 to read as follows: "6. Subject to the supplemental development standards contained in Chapter 17.10.' R. Amend Table 17.06.030 to include the reference to Footnote No. 6 to the following uses: Bed and breakfast establishments, Congregate care residential facilities for the elderly, and Agricultural/open space uses, Kennels and catteries, and the Noncommercial keeping of horses, cattle, sheep and goats. S. Replace Footnote No. 1 of Table 17.08,030 to read as follows: "6. Subject to the supplemental development standards contained in Chapter 17.102 T. Delete Footnote Nos. 4 and 6 from the end of Table 17.08.030 and replace the existing Footnote Nos. 4 and 6 with a Footnote No, 1. U. Amend Footnote No. 5, and renumber to become Footnote No. 4, of Table 17.08.030, replace the existing Footnote No. 5's with a Footnote No. 4, to read as follows: 4. In addition to any applicable supplemental development standards listed in Chapter 17.10, senior housing residential projects in the CC, SC, HT, and PO zones shall use the development and performance standards for the High Density Residential zone. Senior housing residential projects in the NC zone shall use the development and performance standards for the Medium Density Residential zone and the applicable supplemental development standards in Chapter 17.10.' R:',DEVCODE~2-0318 Amendrnent~Draft Ord Amendment.doc 13 V. Amend Table 17.08.030 by removing the existing footnote references to Footnote Nos. 4, 5, and 6 and add a reference to Footnote No. 1 to the following uses: Alcoholic beverage sales, Arcades (pinball and video games), Automobile dealers (new and used), Automobile service stations with or without an automated car wash, Automobile service stations selling beer and/or wine-with or without an automated car wash, Banks and financial institutions, Congregate care housing for the elderly, Restaurant drive-in/fast food, Swap Meet, entirely inside a permanent building." Wo Add Footnote No. 2 to Table 17.12.030 to read as follows: '"2. Subject to the supplemental development standards contained in Chapter 17.10." X. Amend Table 17.12.030 to include the reference to Footnote No. 2 to the following uses: Congregate care housing, Congregate care living facility, Residential care facility for the elderly, and Residential-senior housing. Y. Add Subsection 17.06.050.D.8 to read as follows: "Animals Accessory to a Residential Use. The keeping of certain non-exotic or non-wild animals is considered an accessory use to a residential use. Common household pets. (cats and dogs) are allowed as accessory uses to residential units. No more than four cats and dogs, over the age of four months, are allowed. Caged pets, including small amphibians, birds, mammals, and reptiles may be kept on the premises. This provision also includes the keeping of fish." Section 3. Typo.qraphic and Minor Amendments To The City Municipal Code. The following clarifications to Title 17 of the Temecula Municipal Code are hereby adopted: A. Amend Chapter 17.16, by removing the word "overlay~ from all titles, headings, sections, and subsections. B. Amend Section 17.18, by removing the word "overlay" from all titles, headings, sections, and subsections. C. Amend Section 17.06.050.D by adding subsection 8 to read as follows: "Pets. The keeping of household pets in conformance with the provisions of Chapter 6 of the Temecula Municipal Code." D. Amend Table 17.08.030 to replace the listing for "Retail support use (15 percent of the total development square footage in the BP and LI)" with the following: Retail support use to a non-commemial business P P (Limited to the sale of products manufactured or assembled on-site and occupying less that 25% of the floor area of the business) E. Amend Table 17.08.030 to replace the listing for "Religious institutions, without a daycare or private school" with the following: Religious institution, without a daycare or private P P P I C P C lC Isch°° I I I I I I / I R:~DEVCODEVJ2~)318 Amendmen6Draff Ord Amendme~t.d~c 14 F, Amend Table 17.12.030 by adding the following line: Membership clubs, organizations, lodges and similar C non-profit community uses following: Amend Table 17.03.010 to replace the listing for Sign Programs with the X H. Amend 17.28.280.A.2 to read as follows: "Maximum area of each sign shall be 3 square feet." I. Amend Chapter 17.34 by changing the following the phrase "Overhang, vehicle" to "Vehicle Overhang." Section 4. Amend Chapter 17.34 of the Temecula Municipal Code be deleting the definitions for the following: amusement park, animal kennel, billiard parlor family, camp public, circulation master plan, clinic, club, condominium, drive-in operation, drive-in theater, employees quarters, equipment rental yard or contractor yard, farm, food store, garage private, garage public, hospital general care, inhabited area, merger, minimum building pad, neighborhood center, land use plan, parcel map vesting, pamel map tentative, parking area private, plat, police power, public services offices or uses, public service use facility, restaurant walkup, retention basin, structural alterations, travel trailer, travel trailer park, truck stop, unique natural feature, and wing wall. Section 5. Severability. The City Council hereby declares that the provisions of this Ordinance are severable and if for any reason a court of competbnt jurisdiction shall hold any sentence, paragraph, or section of this Ordinance to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining parts of this Ordinance. Section6. Environmental ComP!lance. The proposed amendment represents a labeling change to more accurately reflect how those sections of the Development Code operate when implemented. No additional development will result from this amendment and no changes to the environment will occur from the adoption of this Ordinance. As a result, the ordinance is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act and is exempt from further review or analysis. Section 7. Notice of Adoption. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same to be posted as required by law. Section 8. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in full fome and effect thirty (30) days after its passage. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and cause copies of this Ordinance to be posted in three designated posting places. Section 9. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its passage; and within fifteen (15) days after its passage, together with the names of the City Council members voting thereon, it shall be published in a newspaper published and circulated in said City. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this th day of 2002. ATTEST: Ron Roberts, Mayor Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 02- was dully introduced and placed upon its first reading at a regular meeting of the City Council on the ._th day of ,2002 and that thereafter, said Ordinance was duly adopted and passed at a regular meeting of the City Council on the th day of ,2002, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk ATI'ACHMENT NO. 3 PROPOSED MODULAR STRUCTURE STANDARDS R:\DEVCODE~02-0318 Amendment\PC Staff Report.doc - ~ .... · ~ -'~ Modular Buildings and Structures. Modular buildings may be allowed in some circumstances as described in this Section if they comply with the follpwing requirements: Accessory Structure. Modular buildings .may be approved as accessory structures to a larger permanent building. The accessory buildings or structures shall be smaller in size than the main permanent building. Accessory structures can be allowed, subject to the approval of a development plan, for the following uses or activities: Religious Institutions in all zones, except the Open Space and Conservation zone. 2. Industrial uses in the Business Park, Light Industrial, and Service Commercial zones. 3. Temporary Facility and Construction Offices in all zones, except the Open Space and Conservation zone. Temporary Structures. Modular buildings may be approved as a temporary structures for non-profit community organizations and religious institutions in all zones, except the Open Space and Conservation zone. The temporary structure may be approved subject to the following requirements: 1. The approval of a development plan or conditional use permit (as appropriate) for the permanent facilities. 2. The site shall be fully landscaped in conformance with the approved landscape plan. 3. The term of the temporary approval shall not exceed 5 years. 4. A removal bond shall be provided to ensure the removal of the temporary structure. Building Design and Screening. All modular units shall comply with the following standards to soften the appearance of the structures. 1. If the modular is not visible from a street or a public gathering place, the modular structure shall provide at least minimal design compatibility with the surrounding area. Examples of minimal design compatibility include the use of exterior trim elements, similar colors, and other features to soften the modular appearance of the structure. 2. Modular buildings that are potentially visible from the public street shall have architectural detailing similar to permanent structures. Examples include: accentuated entrances, pop-out features, windows, integrated with the minimal design compatibility components described above. Supplemental landscaping, to further screening the structure may also be required. 3. All accessory modular units shall be screened from the public streets and gathering spaces in such as way as to be un-noticeable. This screening may include a combination of the following: permanent buildings or structures, screening walls, and landscaping. Not withstanding these requirements, all other landscape and site layout criteria required by the Development Code and Design Guidelines shall, also apply to modular buildings. ATTACHMENT NO. 4 INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STU DY R:'~DEVCODE~02-0318 Amendment~C Staff Report.doc City of Temecula P.O. Box 9033, Temecula, CA 92589-9033 En¥ironmental Checklist ~ Project Title Development Code Amendment: Modular Structure standards and other minor modifications. (Planning Application 02-0318) Lead Agency Name and Address City of Temecula P.O. Box 9033 ! Temecula, CA 92589-9033 Contact Person and Phone Number David Hogan, Principal Planner (909) 694-6400 Project Location ' City of Temecula, in Southwest Riverside County. Project Sponsor's Name and Address ' City of Temecula General Plan Designation Not applicable Zoning Not applicable Description of Project Adoption of a Development Code (Title 17 of the Temecula Municipal Code) Amendment to make the following changes: · Adoption of additional development standards for modular structures · Creation of Chapter 17.10 for supplemental development standards (most of this Chapter will consist of relocated sections not new standards) D religious institutions in some commercial zones Allowing without a conditional use permit · Minor typographic changes and permitted use clarifications. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting Citywide applicability Other public agencies whose approval None ~s required R:~DEVCODE~02-0318 Amendment~lnitial Study.doc 1 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Land Use Planning Hazards Population and Housing Noise Geologic Problems Public Services Water Utilities and Service Systems Air Quality Aesthetics Transportation/Circulation Cultural Resources Biological Resources Recreation Energy and Mineral Resources Mandatory Findings of Significance ,/ None Determination (To be completed by the Ibad agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: v' I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant on the environment, and a NEGATIVE __ DECLARATION will be prepared I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATEDNEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated..' An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is requiredl but it must analyze.only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. S~natur~- I '~ -~ Date Printed name For R:~DEVCODE',02-0318 Amendment\Initial Study.doc 2 Land Use and Planning. Would the project: Pbtetitially Potentially Significant Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Signilicant No Issues and,Supporting Information Sources Impact Incorporated Impact Impact a. Physically divide an established community? ,/ b. Conflict with applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific ,/ plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigation an environmental effect? c. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or ,/ natural community conservation plan? 2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: Potentially Potentially Significant Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues and Suppoding Intemnation Sources Impact Incorporated Impact Impact a. Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? i Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing ,/ elsewhere? c. Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the ,/ construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 3. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project? Pofphttii!iy Sig~(It'Uh!~ L, ess rrhan §igd~t 'r~ifi'gation Significant No a. Expose people or structures to potential substantial' adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving~. i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? ,/ iii)Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? ,/ iv) Landslides? ,/ b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? ,,' O Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the projectl and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? R:\DEVCODE~02-0318 Amendment\Initial Study.doc 3. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project? Potentially Potentially Significant Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues and Supparfin~l Information Sources Ira, pact Incorporated Impact Impact d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 1801-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial ,/ risks to life or property? e. Have soil incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems: ,,. where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? 4. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: Potentially Potentially Significant L~ss Than Sighificant Ui~less Significant No Issues a~d Supporting Information Sources Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Incorporated a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a ,/ stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? d. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? e. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of ~olluted runoff? . f. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? ,-' g. Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area aS mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h. Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures ,/ which would impede or redirect flood flows? i. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, ~njury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a ,,- result of the failure of a levee or dam? J. Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? ,,- · R:'~DEVCODE~02-0318 Amendment\Initial Study.doc 4 i AIR QUALITY. Would the project: Potentially Potentially Significant Untess Less Than Significant Mitigation Signil~cant No Issues and SuDpo~n~ Informatlon Sources impact Incoq3orated Impact impact a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b. Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? ,,' c. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non- attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors? d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant co, ncentrations? ,/ ' e. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? ,/ 6. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project: Pdtentlally S!~Y~ifi~ I~iti~lafie~ Sl~il~car~t No Iss~Jes and~rnfo~afion~Sbu;' ~s' t Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial i~ relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in ,/ either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on reads, or congestion at intersections? b. Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c. Result in a change in air t~ct~'[ic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that ,/ results in substantial safety risks? d. Substantially increase hazards due to a design features (e.g., sharp curves, dangerous intersections)? e. Result in inadequate emergency access? f. Result in inadequate parking capacity? ,,- g. Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks?. R:\DEVCODE~02-0318 Amendment~lnitial Study.doc 5 7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the project: Potentially Potehflally Significant IJn~ess Less Tha~ Sfgnifi~. nt Mitigation Significant No Issues and Supporfing tn formatJ0n Soumes Impact IqCOrparat~d Impact Impact a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either direcily or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habita or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California ,/ Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? c. Have a substantial adverse effect of federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filing, hydrological interruption, or other means? d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecti~ biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ,/ ordinance? f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat ,/ conservation plan? 8. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: P~e~tla!!y Sig~ifi~arit UMe.~S. I.e~s Than ~ig~!f~ar~t ~liiigali0n Srgnmoant No a. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? R:\DEVCODE',02-0318 Amendment\initial Study.doc 6 I i HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: Potentially Potentially Significant Unress Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues and Supporang Information Sources Impact Incorporated impact Impact 'a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transportation, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c. Emit hazardous emissions or. handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-~ ,/ I quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result ,/ would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles or a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or ~~ct area? ~ For a project' within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project resUlt in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h. Expose people or structures to a significant risk or loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where ,/ residences are intermixed with wildlands? 10. NOISE. Would the project result in: Sign~i~DJlleSs Less Than Issues~and S~Pparting-hlforrflati~mS~)umeS · ,'., . a. Exposure of people to severe noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ,/ ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbome vibration or groundbome noise levels? O A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise~-~'~- -- __ in the project vicinity above levels existing without the ,/ project? R:~)EVCODE~02-0318 Amendment~lnitial Study.doc 7 10. NOISE. Would the project result in: $1~fiifi~a~*¢ -bll~i~at~on~ Sign~fiCarit. No tssues end:Supporting nformafion Sources. ' il~ IqCO~rated ilFhldact Impact d. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing ,,, without the project? e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working'in the project area to excessive noise levels? 11. PUBLIC SERVICES: Would the proposal have a substantial adverse physical impacts associates with the provisions of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: P~o~nti~[ly Pote~ti~lly Sigdifi~a~t Ur~less Less Than S~gniffcai~t Mi§gatlon Sfgn~cant No Issues ai3d Suppartio~ Informafiop Sources Impa~ Inceq~orated I,',',pa~.l Impact a. Fire protection? b. Police protection? ,/ c Schools? ,,. d. Parks? e Other public facilities? ,/ 12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project: ~6~'~]i~ ~i~t~less L~s$~Than Issues a~ Sup~ing;l~fo~a~o~Sou~ -,l~pa~: I~a;~a Im~ Im~ a. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of applicable Regional Water Quali~ Control Board? b. Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the ~nstmction o~ which could cause signifi~nt environmental effects? c. Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d. Have sufficient water supplies available to se~e the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? R:~DEVCODE~02-0318 Amendment~lnitiat Study.doc 8 12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project: -- ---- Potentially Potentially Significant Un,ess Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues and Suppoding Information Sources rmpact Incorporated Impact impact e. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected ,/ demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f. Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g. Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? 13. AESTHETICS. Would the project: Potent Jolty Potentictly Sign[ftc, act Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Signifi;:ant No Issues and Supportin~ Information SOurces Impact Incorporated Impact Impact a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? ,/ b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcropping, and historic building within a state scenic highway? · Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? ,/ d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? 14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: Pdte~ltial!y Potentially ' Signiti~ant,Ut~less Less 'i:han $1~pifi~ant Mitigation, .sJg~ fi~ant No lss, ues and Supporting I~format~ed~S0~mes I 'l~pa~t i'ncoi]3;omted, Impact Impact a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined.in Section 1506.57 ,/ b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resoume pursuant to Section 1506.57 ," c. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique, paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? ,/ d. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? ,/ R:~DEVCODE~02-0318 Amendment~lnitial St[~dy.doc 9 15. RECREATION. Wouldthe project: I~otenflal!y Poter~tially Sight,ant UhleSS I:ess Than Si~ifi~,~h~t M~J~flbn Significant No Issues and:Supporting:Information s~mes. .,l~Fa~t , InCO~,r~te,d Impact Impact a. Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the v' facility would occur or be accelerated? b. Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities ,~ which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? 16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. POtentially Potentially Significant Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues:a,nd,Su@po~ng:lnformation;~ources, i , lb)pact Incorporated Impact Impact a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate v' a plant or animal community, reduce the number of restrict the range of a ram or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a ,/ project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, an~ the effects of probable futura projects? c. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, ,x either directly or indirectly? ' 17. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earl.ier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other' CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section t5063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets. a. Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. b. Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which affects from the above check list were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed b~measures based on the earlier analysis. c. Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. R:\DEVCODE~02-0318 Amendment\Initial Study.doc 10 Comments: The project in question is an amendment to the Development Code to add standards for Modular ~tructures, to reorganize other supplemental development standards nto a single chapter, clarify the use "'~escriptions for accessory commercial uses in indUstrial areas, and other minor modifications to the Code. These changes are consistent with the adopte~ General Plan, represent minor textual changes to the code, and do not have the potential to adversely impact the environment. R:~DEVCODE'~02-0318 Amendmer~t~lnitial Study.doc 11 ATrACHMENT NO. 5 SAMPLE OF PROPOSED CHAPTER 17.10 SECTIONS: 17.10.010 17.10,020 CHAPTER 17.10 SUPPLEMENTAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Purpose Supplemental Development Standards 17.10.010 PURPOSE. The Purpose of this Chapter is to consolidate a variety of Municipal Code sections from Title 17 that provide supplemental development standards. Some of these standards will apply to development activities in residential, commercial or industrial zones, some of these standards may apply to activities in multiple zoning districts. 17.10.020 SUPPLEMENTAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS A. Agricultural Uses. Permitted Uses. The following agricultural uses are permitted by right in all zones. Farms of orchards, trees, field crops, truck gardening, flowering gardening, and other similar enterprises carried on in the general field of agriculture. Raising, grazing, breeding, boarding or training of large or small animals, except concentrated lot feeding and commercial poultry and rabbit raising enterprises, are allowed on properties one-half net acre or larger in size subject to the following requirements: Large animals (cattle, homes and mules). Two animals per half"acre plus one additional animal for each additional half- acre of lot area. Animals under the age of twelve-months are not counted. ii. Small animals (burros, goats, pigs, ponies, and sheep). Two animals per half"acre plus three additional animals for each additional half-acre of lot area. Animals under the age of six- months are not counted. iii. Poultry. Limited to 12 birds per half-acre or 50 birds per acre. All poultry must be confined. The keeping of roosters is prohibited. iv. Aviary. Limited to fifty birds per acre. All birds must be confined. v. All animals shall be kept a minimum distance of seventy (70) feet from any adjacent residence, school, hospital or church that is located on an adjacent property. This requirement applies to the location of corrals, fenced enclosures, barns, stables or other enclosures. In no event shall there be any limit to the permissible number of sheep which may be grazed per acre, where such grazing operation is conducted on fields for the purpose of cleaning up unharvested crops, stubble, volunteer or wild growth where such grazing operation is not conducted for more than four weeks in any six-month period. Apiary; provided, that all hives or boxes housing bees shall be placed at least four hundred (400) feet from any public streets or highways, any public school, park, property line to an a different ownership, or from any dwelling or place of human habitation other than that occupied by the owner or caretaker of the apiary. Additional!y, a water source shall be provided on-site. Conditional Use Permit Required. The following agricultural uses are permitted with a conditional use permit. Wholesale distributor and processor of nursery-plant stock. Retail nursery where incidental and contiguous to propagation of nursery stock and/or wholesale distributor. Outdoor storage and display are prohibited except for nursery-plant stock. b. Dog kennels, dog training schools, and small animal shelters. c. Dog or cat breeding establishments with more than four animals. The raising of chinchilla, nutria, hamsters, guinea pigs, cavy, rabbits, and similar small animals. e. Frog farms. f. Worm farms. The keeping of exotic or wild animals, including the keeping of exotic or wild animals as pets. Alcoholic Beverage Sales. All businesses or establishments offering the sale of alcoholic beverages, except for the incidental sale of beer and wine at a restaurant, shall require the appropriate license from the state of California and the city and be subject to a conditional use permit. Any automotive service station which proposes to sell beer and wine concurrently with motor vehicle fuel shall require a conditional use permit which permit shall be subject to the provisions of Business and Professions Code Section 23790 et seq. and shall require that: a. The decision shall be based on written findings. A denial of an application for a conditional use permit be subject to appeal to the city council in accordance with Section 17.03.090 of this code. The same procedure for noticing, and conducting the conditional use permit hearing that is utilized by the city for all other conditional use permits shall be used and provide for all parties to be present and to present evidence. The decision and findings be based on substantial evidence in view of the whole record to justify the ultimate decision. The above businesses shall not be located within five hundred feet of any religious institution, school or public park. The license application shall be reviewed by the city's po!ice services prior to city approval. Arcades. Arcades shall be approved subject to the approval of a conditional use permit by the planning commission. 1. Applications fdr an arcade shall include following: Three sets of typed gummed labels, listing the name and address of all businesses within a shopping center and all landowners within a three-hundred-foot radius of the shopping center or arcade. A description of the types of machines, a floor plan, and hours of operation. · The planning commission may apply any condition deemed necessary. These conditions may address, but are not limited to, the following: a. Need for adult supervision; b. Hours of operation; c. Inside and outside security measures; d. Noise attenuation; e. Bicycle facilities; and, f. Interior waiting areas. Automobile, Motorcycle and Truck Dealership Landscape Standards. Landscape Standards. The following standards shall be applied to all new automobile, motorcycle and truck dealerships or substantial alterations to existing automobile, motorcycle and truck dealerships. Display areas: a minimum five foot (5') wide landscape island shall be required at the end of all display area lanes adjacent to the main entry drive lane. A one-foot strip, made of concrete or other materials acceptable to the Community Development Director, shall be located next to the curb immediately adjacent to the end display parking space. Said landscape islands shall have a mixture of trees, shrubs and groundcover shall have automatic irrigation. Street frontages. All portions of the property which have street frontage shall meet one of the following criteria: A minimum of twelve feet (12') of landscaping shall be provided, measured from the rear of the sidewalk to the display area length and shall be surrounded by Iow growing shrubs, groundcover and turf; or ii. A minimum of twenty feet (20') of landscaping shall be provided, measured from the rear of the sidewalk to the display area, with display area allowed to encroach into eight feet (8') of the landscape area. (A) Display areas shall be paved with concrete, a maximum of twenty (20) feet in length and shall be surrounded by Iow growing shrubs, groundcover and turf. (B) The number of display areas allowed shall be calculated in the following manner: 3 display spaces per 100 linear feet of street frontage. Fractional spaces (0.5 and over) shall be rounded up. (c) No display area shall be located immediately adjacent to another display area. Landscaping shall be provided between display areas. Development adjacent to existing and proposed residential uses. All portions of the property which abut an existing or proposed residential use shall have a minimum ten foot (10') wide landscape buffer. All other portions of the property which do not abut a street or existing or proposed residential uses shall have a minimum five foot (5') wide landscape buffer. Ali customer parking on the site shall be clearly identified, either through special paint (i.e. curb painting) or signage and shall be subject to the landscape requirements contained in Section 17.24.050H of the Development Code. Service bays shall not be visible from a public street and shall be adequately screened from adjacent residential uses. Inventory and vehicle-in-repair storage areas on the site shall be clearly identified and will not need to be internally landscaped. If they are located on the perimeter or adjacent to residential development or sensitive areas they shall be screened in the manner discussed above. Used Motor Vehicle Sales. (Without the sales of new motor vehicles.) 1. The minimum lot width of any site supporting a used motor vehicle sales business shall be one hundred feet. 2. The minimum lot area shall be ten thousand square feet. 3. Buffer walls and landscaping shall be as provided as required for the zoning district in which the use is located. 4. A building containing not less than two hundred square feet shall be maintained on the lot supporting the business. The building shall be a permanent structure; modular or portable buildings or mobilehomes are not permitted. Bed and Breakfast Establishments. Bed and breakfast estabiishments shall be developed in the following manner: 1. The facility shall comply with all land use regulations and site development standards of the zoning district in which it is located. 2. The use shall be incidental to the primary use of the residential structure to ensure compatibility with adjacent residential uses. 3. Owner/lessee shall reside in the primary residence and operate the business. 4. The exterior appearance of the structure shall have a residential/single-family character. 5. Service of meals shall be for registered guests only. 6. There shall be no separate/additional kitchens for the guests. 7. No guest shall s~tay more than fourteen consecutive days in any thidy-day period. 8. All B&Bs shall be subject to the city's hotel/motel room tax. 9. B&Bs shall meet all of the requirements of the city fire department and county health department. 10. The B&B shall be developed on a site that has a minimum lot size of sixty thousand square feet. 11. No receptions, private parties or similar activities, for which a fee is paid shall be permitted. Car Washes. A conditional use permit shall be required for all full-service or self- service car washes within the commercial districts. Car washes shall comply with the following criteria: Such businesses shall be located at least two hundred feet from any residential district. 2. Wash bays and vacuum areas shall be screened from public view. Regular monitoring of the facility by an attendant shall be provided during business hours to control noise, litter, and other nuisances. Hours of operation shall be limited to seven a.m. to ten p.m., unless otherwise specifically established as a condition of approval. Automatic shut- off of water and electrical systems, except for security and fire protection, shall be provided during non-business hours. Entertainment Establishments Providing Dancing, Music and Similar Activities. Noise levels shall not exceed the standards set forth in the noise element of the General Plan or the environmental performance standards of this development code (Section 17.08.070). Dancing, music, and similar entertainment uses shall be limited to between the hours of six p.m. and two a.m. The city may apply additional requirements or limitations depending on the location, surrounding uses and other considerations. Modular Buildings and Structures. Modular buildings may be allowed in some circumstances as described in this Section if they comply with the following requirements: Accessory Structure. Modular buildings may be approved as accessory structures to a larger permanent building. The accessory buildings or structures shall be smaller in size than the main permanent building. Accessory structures can .be allowed, subject to the approval of a development plan, for the following uses or activities: Religious Institutions in all zones, except the Open Space and Conservation zone. Industrial uses in the Business Park, Light Industrial, and Service Commercial zones. Temporary Facility and Construction Offices in all zones, except the Open Space and Conservation zone. Temporary Structures. Modular buildings may be approved as a temporary structures for non-profit community organizations and religious institutions in all zones, except the Open Space and Conservation zone. The temporary structure may be approved subject to the following requirements: The approval of a development plan or conditional use permit (as appropriate) for the permanent facilities. The site shall be fully landscaped in conformance with the approved landscape plan. c. The term of the temporary approval shall not exceed 5 years. A removal bond shall be provided to ensure the removal of the temporary structure. Building Design and Screening. All modular units shall comply with the following standards to soften the appearance of the structures. If the modular is not visible from a street or a public gathering place, the modular structure shall provide at least minimal design compatibility with the surrounding area. Examples of minimal design compatibility include the use of exterior trim elements, similar colors, and other features to soften the modular appearance of the structure. Modular buildings that are potentially visible from the public street shall have architectural detailing similar to permanent structures. Examples include: accentuated entrances, pop-out features, windows, integrated with the minimal design compatibility components described above. Supplemental landscaping, to further screening the structure may also be required. All accessory modular units shall be screened from the public streets and gathering spaces in such as way as to be umnoticeable. This screening may include a combination of the following: permanent buildings or structures, screening walls, and landscaping. Not withstanding these requirements, all other landscape and site layout criteria required by the Development Code and Design Guidelines shall also apply to modular buildings. Outdoor Sales of Merchandise. All businesses shall be conducted complete within an enclosed building. The following outdoor sales and commercial activities may be permitted to operate outdoors, within their respective districts and subject to any required reviews and permits. The outdoor display of merchandise accessory to an on-site business is addressed in Subsection K. Automobile, boat, trailer, camper, and motorcycle sales and rentals (subject to a conditional use permit); Building material, supplies and equipment rental and sales (subject to a conditional use permit); 3. Fruit and vegetable stands (reqUire~ temporary use permit); 4. Horticultural nurseries (subject to a conditional use permit); 5. Gasoline pumps, oil racks and accessory items when located on pump islands; 6. Outdoor recreation uses; Parking lot and sidewalk sales (subject to temporary use permit and regulations set forth in this chapter); and Other activities and uses similar to those above as determined by the director of planning. Outdoor Display of MerchandiSe Accessory to Current On-Site Business. Any outdoor display must be done in conjunction with the business being conducted within the building and shall comply with the following regulations: The items being displayed shall be of the same type that are lawfully displayed and sold inside the building on the premises. The aggregate display area shall not exceed twenty-five percent of the linear frontage of the store front or ten linear feet, whichever is greater. 3. Items shall not project more than four feet from the store front. No item, or any portion thereof, shall be displayed on public property; provided, however, items may be displayed within the public right-of-way if an encroachment permit has first been procured from the city. Items shall be displayed only during the hours that the business conducted inside the building on the premises is open for business. No item shall be displayed in a manner that: causes a safety hazard; obstructs the entrance to any building; interferes with, or impedes the flow of pedestrian or vehicle traffic; is unsightly or creams any other condition that is · detrimental to the appearance of the premises or any surrounding property; or in any other manner is detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare or causes a public nuisance. Permanent Indoor Swap Meet Facilities. Indoor swap meets shall be established only in buildings containing five thousand square feet or more of gross floor area. City business licenses and state seller permits shall be obtained by every tenant operating a stall space. No more than one business license shall be granted per one hundred fifty square feet of building floor area. The minimum average square footage of a partitioned cubicle or stall space (booth) shall be one hundred fifty square feet. The minimum size for an individual stall shall be one hundred square feet, and no more than twenty- five stall spaces shall be permitted to contain one hundred square feet. No adult business, as defined in the Temecula Municipal Code shall be permitted. No loudspeakers or sound equipment which can be heard from exterior or semipublic areas shall be used on the premises. Each stall space shall be partitioned with partition walls at a height of not less than five feet, six inches. Scissor-type gating shall not be used to separate vendors or vending areas. All floor areas of indoor tenant spaces, shall be covered with a high-grade tile or carpeting. 9. Aisles shall have a minimum width of seven feet. 10. Security personnel shall be provided during hours of operation. Senior Housing/Congregate Care Facilities/Affordable Housing. Senior housing, congregate care facilities, and affordable housing projects are permitted in the zoning districts identified below subject to the approval of a development plan. Affordable senior housing projects shall comply with the affordable housing provisions contained in Subsection. O.3. Senior housing shall comply with all the provisions of the Development Code un~ess modified by the following provisions: a. The maximum densities for senior housing projects are as follows: In the H residential zoning district, the maximum density shall be thirty (30) units per acre. ii. in the M residential zoning district, the maximum density shall be twenty (20) units per acre. iii. In the LM, L-2, and L-1 residential zoning districts the maximum density shall be eight (8) units per acre. iv. In all approved Specific Plans, the maximum density shall not exceed 50% of the target density in the planning area. The net livable area for each dwelling unit shall not be less than four. hundred (400) square feet for an efficiency unit, five hundred fifty (550) square feet for a one-bedroom unit, and seven hundred (700) square feet for a two-bedroom unit. Kitchenettes may be permitted; provided they are sized to meet the immediate needs of the occupants of the unit. Congregate care projects shall comply with all the provisions of the Development Code unless modified by the following provisions: The maximum densities for congregate care facilities are not limited specifically to density requirements so long as all the site development standards are met (i.e. required setbacks, parking, landscaping, open space, etc.) The handicapped units shall comply with the standards set fodh in Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations. Affordable housing and affordable senior housing projects are entitled to receive various incentives provided the project meets the requirements of Section 65915 of the California Government Code. Affordable housing projects will receive at least one incentive from Subsection 3.a and at least one concession from Subsection 3.b. The project incentives and concessions are as follows: Density Incentives. Affordable housing projects are entitled to receive an increase in the allowable density of at least 25% over the density target in each residential zoning district. The maximum densities for affordable housing projects are as follows: In the H residential zoning district, the maximum density shall be thirty (30) units per acre. ii. in the M residential zoning district, the maximum density shall be eighteen (18) units per acre. iii. In the LM residential zoning district, the maximum density shall be eight (8) units per acre. iv. In all approved Specific Plans, the maximum density bonus shall not exceed 50% of the target density in the planning area. Development Standard Concessions. Any of the following development standard concessions may be granted by the approval authority for the project, unless a finding is made that these concessions are not necessary to provide the affordable housing units being propQsed: i. An increase in the amount of required lot coverage; ii. A modification to the setback or required yard provisions; iii. An increase in the maximum allowable building height; iv. A reduction in the amount of required on-site parking; A reduction in the amount of onsite landscaping, except that no reduction in on-site recreational amenities may not be approved unless the affordable housing is in a close and easily accessible proximity to a public park with recreational amenities; vi. A reduction in the minimum lot area; or, vii. Approval of an affordable housing project in the Professional Office zone with the approval of a conditional use permit. The provisions of this Subsection also applies to all approved specific plans within the City of Temecula unless the specific plan contains specific standards for the type of housing being considered. Self-Storage or Mini-Warehouse Facilities. 1. Development Standards The following standards shall be applied to all new self-storage or mini- warehouse facilities: The design of the facility shall be compatible with the surrounding area in terms of design, bulk and mass, materials and colors. Building exteriors shall not be corrugated metal or similar surface, but shall be of finished quality. Metal containers are prohibited. In commercial zoning districts the rear and side yard setbacks shall be a minimum of 10 feet. In industrial zoning districts no rear or side yard setbacks are required. The director of planning may increase the setbacks to a maximum of 25 feet when adjacent to an existing residential development project. The front yard setback shall maintain the setback for the underlying zoning classification. c. The maximum lot coverage shall be 65 percent. The development site shall provide a minimum of 10% landscaped open space for a project within commercial districts. In industrial districts, the total landscaping shall be equal to the required setback areas. No interior landscaping is required, but the setback areas shall be landscaped. e. A manager's residential unit may be provided, but is not required. Required parking spaces may not be rented as, or used for, vehicular storage. However, additional parking area may be provided for vehicles, boats, buses, trailers, etc., provided that the storage area is adequately screened from public view with enhanced landscaping, decorative walls, fences, or other methods as deemed appropriate by the director. 2. Performance and Use Regulations Any business activity, other than rental of storage units, including the on-site sale of merchandize or garage sales, and transfer/storage businesses which utilize vehicles as part of the business is prohibited. No servicing or repair of motor vehicles, boats, trailers, lawn mowers, or any similar equipment is permitted. Storage units shall not be used for the storage of flammable liquids, highly combustible or explosive materials, or hazardous chemicals. Truck or vehicle rental is prohibited without obtaining all necessary approvals subject to the Development Code Schedule of Permitted Uses. Drive-Thru Facilities. Commercial uses including restaurants, financial institutions or other business providing drive-thru facilities shall be subject to the following requirements. 1. All drive-thru facilities shall require a conditional use permit. Pedestrian walkways should not intersect the drive-thru aisles. If pedestrian walkways do cross the drive aisles, they shall be clearly marked with paving or striping. Drive-thru aisle shall have a minimum width of eleven feet on the straight sections and twelve feet on curved podions. For fast food restaurants the drive-thru aisles shall have a sufficient stacking area behind the menu board to accommodate six cars. 5. The speakers shall be located so as to protect adjoining residential 'areas from excessive noise.