The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About031896 PC AgendaPUIILIC COMMEN~I'S ' ' · ' .... filled out and filed wilh - : ~ ~ ;:: ;2:,:-:7, :~:~;2~g~X7 ~.:,~:'~:::. ~<'~:/:~g4~;,;~;~' ::' ?, ~:: ~: ,:;~':,,.. ·,.:... ""~; ...."":" '. ;' 'Z:"'~ .: .:'.~';':" ....""' '~ ~ ' ' "'. . . ...., .... ....... :... . . . ,; .; ;,. ~; ;.; ~:"';~:~;~;~..~ I, Appro~lfi ot ~erlda ' : 2~ ~ :5.' '::: .... 2. ~,n, ii~.,,t; ." ": ". ':': 'r~-,.~ r~,,. ~s.~o~) ·.: Location: ' .:::': Pr°lx~sal: A '[,obo I~nvironnlental Action: Mit ~egat. iv6:.] , Planner: Matthew Fagan Recommendalion: Approval Proposal Annexalim, Guiaelines Ibr II1~ C}tv of%m~ula Environmental Action: Nut a Project ~er Section 21~of~,~iforniaEnviro~t~f~Ua~iW :' .-:. AJ)l)..licazIt . .., .1 . .... . ...: ~'.. ::~! :Inc. arid CCL Construedm~, Inc. ~ . Lo,'-ation: east o1' Meadows P~rkway. ' ~ ' ' and ~est of I~uttertield Staue R~md ...... ......,:..~ · ~;:;;' Pmp~,sal: Amend?rant ~o I.l.m~ir,~ ,~.~.~,-u~,~.-'~ ......... ~?'~;~.~:: ' gm:/ta. ViII ~~.~ Mar ..... . ....'. ';.:; ~" · · ' ~. "'." ~' ~...~ ,~'~'.".~:', . ~' ~::'..':' :', ';: 'k~.~'.:~ ~': .:." R~a~iOn:. ,. ~t~m · '.. ......~ ~, .,~..../.: ~.: ~: c;..',: ,....)... :. :.... ~'~' ,~d~iSc~ P~tnil-lVt~ls~de Sp.?i~c Plan: PA95-0003), -...~.: ~:,...=...:: .~:=:~.,, ~..........,; ........ ~.~ ;..,.... ~.., · ;:.-. ~.. ,.- .. :..' :.~; '~.... '.::;~. e ~.".. . · .~ro~sa]: Deletion of a p~aion 0f COndition' ~}f Appt:ova] .No. 44 of PJanning ..:.. ~'.... i0n'.OfAppr~l No; 83 anti '~' ' "':' ".' "' "' I.'A OTHER BUSINI,.~S ITEM #2 MINUTES OF JANUARY 8, 1996 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 8, 1996 A regular meeting of the City of Temecula Planning Commission was called to order on Monday, January 8, 1996, 6:00 P.M., at the Rancho California Water District Board Room, 42135 Winchester Road, Temecula, California. Chairman Steve Ford presiding. PRESENT: Miller, Slaven, Ford, Webster ABSENT: Fahey Commissioner Fahey had given previous notice for her absence. Also present were Planning Manager Debbie Ubnoske, Assistant City Attorney Gre9 Dial and Senior Planner John Meyer. PUBLIC COMMENTS Chairman Ford called for public comments on non-agenda items at 6:05 P.M. There were no requests to speak. COMMISSION BUSINESS 1. Aooroval of Aoenda AYES: 4 NOES: 0 ABSENT: 1 2. Aooroval of Minutes It was moved by Commis.sioner Slaven and seconded by Commissioner Webster to approve the agenda. The motion carried as follows: COMMISSIONERS: Miller, Slaven, Ford, Webster COMMISSIONERS: None COMMISSIONERS: Fahey 2.1 Minutes of November 6. 1995 It was moved by Commissioner Miller and seconded by Commissioner Webster to approve the minutes of November 6, 1995 with the following corrections: Paqe 2, Item 3.1 change Commissioner Miller to ABSTAIN; Page 6 - Delete Commissioner Webster's name from the NOES action and move to AYES: Page 7, 1 st paragraph, change the word retaininQ wall to .Structural wall; And add The motion carried as follows: with AYES: 4; NOES: O; ABSENT: 1; to the action taken in paragraph two. PLANNING COMMISSION The motion carried as follows: JANUARY 8. 1996 AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Miller, Slaven, Ford, Webster NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: I COMMISSIONERS: Fahey DIRECTOR'S HEARING UPDATE Planning Manager Debbie Ubnoske stated that she was available to answer questions on any item submitted in the written report. There were no questions from the Commission. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS PA 95-0133- Change of Zone PA 95-0134- General Plan Amendment Senior Planner John Meyer presented the staff report. Staff recommends approval to change the zoning designation to Service Commercial and recommends adoption of the General Plan Amendment. Senior Planner Meyer asked the Commission to make the following changes: Page 7 - delete section "B"; Section 4 - change the word conditions to aoDroval and; Section 3 change the word in to as. CommissiOner Slaven expressed concern that the site had not been posted in the properly allotted time frame, as required and requested verification on the noticing. Chairman Ford recommended delineating parking to "on-site only for employees." Chairman Ford opehed the Public Hearing at 6:15 P.M. Larry Markham, 41750 Winchester Road, representing Nissan of Temecula, expressed concern with singling out Nissan by conditioning on-site parking only for employees. Chairman Ford closed the Public Hearing at 6:25 P.M. Commissioner Slaven expressed concern with moving forward on this project because other businesses in the center may not have had enough notification. Commissioner Webster stated that he did not see this as a problem so long as the City met the written legal requirements in regard to noticing. PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 8. 1996 Chairman Ford requested clarification on the City requirements for noticing. Assistant City Attorney Greg Diaz responded that it is not a direct requirement to post the site as long as the public hearing notices are mailed to owners of the adjourning properties. He also stated that the site would be re-noticed prior to coming before the City Council. Commissioner Slaven expressed concern to maintain the standard that had been established by the City for advance noticing. Commissioner Miller expressed agreement that the site did not have adequate advance noticing. Chairman Ford requested verification of the mail out to adjourning property owners. Senior Planner Meyer left the meeting to return to City Hall and obtain verification. It was moved by Commissioner Miller and seconded by Commissioner Slaven to continue this item when Senior Planner Meyer returned with verification documentation. This was carried unanimously. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT Planning Manager Debbie Ubnoske recommended the Commission discuss the recommendations for streamlining future Planning Commission meetings. Chairman Ford stated that he has received many suggestions from the Commissioners, i.e.,: Timing of receiving agenda packets. The review process and spending too much time on mundane questions during the meeting. If agendas were received at an earlier time, direction to staff could be given as to when reports are needed. An effective way to utilize the Development Code is needed, Commissioner Slaven expressed concern with the difficulty in getting all the information out in time. She recommended that applicants need to get application paperwork in earlier and asked if this would cause a problem in the community. Planning Manager Ubnoske responded that is was a matter of educating the developers, The pre-application process will require more information prior to submitting the final application and will facilitate the process. Commissioner Miller commented that receiving the agenda earlier prior to the meeting would be beneficial, but the Thursday prior to the meeting is satisfactory. PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 8. 1996 Commissioner Webster stated that a shorter agenda is fine to receive on Thursday, but a longer agenda requires additional time to review. Chairman Ford expressed concern for staff work loads and recommended that whatever timeline they felt was reasonable is sufficient. Commissioner Miller requested that all landscaping and.lighting items be included in the staff reports. Chairman Ford asked about the state law noticing requirements. Planning Manager Ubnoske responded that she will come back, to the Commission with this information, along with a pre-application package timelines The Commission is asked to assist staff by a critique of the process and giving direction as to what they would like to see included in the staff reports. The schedule for obtaining Commission direction is as follows: _ At the January 22, me.eting - State Law/City Re~luirements/Actual Application Process will be discussed. _ At the February 5, meeting - Staff Report content will be the topic. Also Landscaping and Lighting. Chairman Ford opened the Public Hearing at 7:07 P.M. Senior Planner Meyer returned with confirmation that notices had been sent out to adjourning property owners on the Nissan site project. Chairman Ford expressed satisfaction that the notices had been mailed out and would count on the second noticing prior to the City Council meeting. It was moved by Commissioner Miller and seconded by Commissioner Webster to approve PA 95-0133- Change of Zone and PA 95-0134- General Plan Amendment as modified and recommended to the City Council. The motion carried as follows: AYES: 4 NOES: 0 ABSENT: I COMMISSIONERS: Miller, Slaven, Ford, Webster COMMISSIONERS: None COMMISSIONERS: Fahey PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 8. 1996 ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner Slavon and seconded by Commissioner Miller to adjourn the meeting at 7:15 P.M. The motion was carried unanimously. The next meeting of the City of Temecula Planning Commission is scheduled for January 22, 1996, 6:00 P.M. at the Rancho California Water District Board Room, 42135 Winchester Road, Temecula, California. CHAIRMAN SECRETARY MINUTES OF JANUARY 22, 1996 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 22, 1996 A regular meeting of the city of Temecula Planning Commission was called to order on Monday, January 22, 1996, 6:00 P.M., at the Rancho California Water District Board Room, 42135 Winchester Road, Temecula, California. Chairman Steve Ford presiding. PRESENT: Miller, Slaven, Ford, Webster, Fahey ABSENT: None Also present were Planning Manager Debbie Ubnoske, Assistant City Attorney Greg Diaz, Senior Planner John Meyer and Principal Engineer Steve Cresswell. PUBLIC COMMENTS Chairman Ford called for public Comments on non-agenda items at 6:05 P.M. There were no requests to speak. COMMISSION BUSINESS 1. APProval of AQenda It was moved by Commissioner Fahey and seconded by Commissioner Slaven to approve the agenda, The motion carried as follows: AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Miller, Slaven, Ford, Webster, Fahey NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: I COMMISSIONERS: None Land Development Monthly Activity Reoort Planning Manager Debbie Ubnoske stated that she was available to answer any questions the Commission may have on the monthly activity report as submitted. Commissioner Fahey requested the status of the funding for the Capital Improvement Program. Chairman Ford requested the funding report be in the next Commission packet and also the priority list of all projects. Planning Manager Ubnoske responded that the Capital Improvement Program is reviewed during the summer months and she will distribute copies to the Commission at that time. P:\~IHBERVG\O12Z'm~&.PC 3/1]/~ vg, ~ PLANNIN~ COMMISSION ~ANUARY 22, 1996 CommisSioner Webster requested the status of the Western By-Pass Corridor. Planning Manger Ubnoske responded that the environmental report is in progress at this time. Commissioner Fahey reported that the bike lane along the Santa Gertrudes Creek on Winchester Road has a potential for flooding during the rains and recommended that the gates be locked during the inclement weather. 3. Streamline the Development Process ' Pre-ADDlication Process Planning Manager Ubnoske highlighted the pre-application process developed by staff. She then asked for recommendations or direction from the Commission. Commissioner Webster asked about the criteria used by staff to determine who is required to meet concerning a pre-application packet. Planning Manager Ubnoske responded that developers who staff works with consistently are usually met with, however, for those not as familiar with the process, she recommends the.word go out via the written media. Commissioner Fahey expressed her support for the pre-application process as presented. Commissioner Slaven asked if applicants have expressed support for this process. Chairman Ford spoke in support of the pre-application process but expressed concern that the Commission does not always receive all the information until the night of the meeting. Chairman Ford asked for a straw vote regarding the pre-application process form. The Commission unanimously agreed on the use of this process. · LEGAL NOTICING Planning Manager Debbie Ubnoske presented the City's process for legal noticing and explained that Temecula has stronger requirements in place than the County of Riverside or the State of California. Commissioner Fahey asked how the Home Owners Associations and special interest groups are made aware of projects. Planning Manager Ubnoske responded that any group or individual asking to be noticed on a particular site is notified by mail. She also commented that if the Commission agrees, staff could announce to the public at the Commission meetings that anyone interested could leave their name and address and they would be notified of any hearings in which they have an interest. P:\t41MBERVG\O12296.PC 3/131~6 vgM 2 PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 22, 1996 Commissioner Slaven stated that interest groups and individuals interested in the development of a particular site need to be more responsible and find out on their own. Commissioner Miller expressed support for the existing process utilized by the City of Temecula, which is more than ample in his opinion. Assistant City Attorney Diaz responded that the City is regulated to provide written notice to interest groups if such notice is requested in writing.' He also stated that citizens groups have been sharing the responsibility with the City. Principal Engineer Steve Cresswell explained that the city is in the process of implementing a Kiosk Computer Program, which will allow citizens to access project status information from wherever these are installed throughout the City. Chairman Ford expressed satisfaction with the existing noticing procedures utilized by the City and this was agreed upon by the entire Commission. TIMELINE Senior Planner John Meyer presented the process used by staff for development review, which consists of an 8 week timeline from start to when it is comes before the Commission. Commissioner Miller expressed support for the timeline schedule, but asked staff to consider City holidays when finalizing the schedule timeline. Commissioner Fahey recommended the timeline schedule be taken to the City Council for support due to the potential political nature of development review. Assistant City Attorney Diaz stated that traffic and environmental studies are subject to state law. He advised if they are not completed, prior to coming before the Commission, any action to condition the project for this completion or mitigation issues would violate case law. He further explained the Commission needs to have enough information, presented at the meeting, to deem the project complete. If the project is conditioned in the absence of this information, it could preclude the ability to impose the conditions at a later date. Commissioner Fahey expressed her support of this timeline concept. Planning Manager Ubnoske responded that staff will revise the timeline schedule form and the pre-application process end will bring it back to the Commission. Chairman Ford directed staff to refine this timeline and bring it back for the Commission to recommend it to the City Council. This was unanimously agreed upon by the Commission. P:\~JIHBERVG\012Zgb. PC 3/13/96 vgw 3 PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 22, 1996 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE Planning Manager Ubnoske presented a draft document to be implemented which requires signatures as each step is completed on the noticing process. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT Planning Manager Debbie Ubnoske informed the Commission of the League of California Cities Planners Institute Which is scheduled for February 26, 1996..She requested that Commissioners let staff know if they plan to attend, so arrangements can be made. She also commented that the February 19, 1996 meeting of the Commission falls on the President's Day Holiday. The Commission agreed not to meet on February 19, 1996 and reschedule the meeting to March. She also announced the meeting of February 5, 1996 will include Annexation Policies and Lighting and Landscaping issues. COMMISSION DISCUSSION Commissioner Webster requested the status of the Design Guidelines. Senior Planner Meyer responded that the draft had been received by staff. Chairman Ford encouraged the Commissioners to attend the joint meeting with Murrieta on Thursday, January 25, 1996, which will address transportation issues. It was moved by Commissioner Slaven and seconded by Commissioner Miller to adjourn the meeting at 7:30 P.M. The motion was carried unanimously. The next meeting of the City of Temecula Planning Commission is scheduled to February 5, 1996, 6:00 P.M. at the Rancho California Water District Board Room, 42135 Winchester Road, Temecula, California. CHAIRMAN SECRETARY P:\WlHBERVG\O12296.PC ]/13/96 vgw 4 ITEM #3 SPORTS GI~ILL ITEM #4 TO: FROM: DATE: · SUBJECT: MEMORANDUM Planning Commission Gary Thornhill, Community Development Director March 18, 1996 Planning Application No. PA96-0003 (Tentative Tract Map No. 28309) - a forty- six (46) lot residential subdivision of 11.2 acres Prepared by: Matthew Fagan, Associate Planner RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Department Staff recommends the Planning Commission: 1. ADOPT the Mitigated Negative Declaration for PA96-0003; ADOPT the Mitigation Monitoring Program for PA96-0003; ADOPT Resolution No. 96- approving PA96-0003, based upon the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report; and APPROVE Planning Application No. PA96-0003, subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. BACKGROUND This item was continued by the Planning Commission at their meeting of March 4, 1996. The resolution from the March 4, 1996 Staff Report has been modified to reflect the continuance action taken' by'the Commission. ANALYSIS A De Minimus finding has been made for the project (the project will not individually or cumulatively have an adverse effect on wildlife resources, as defined in Section 711.2 of the Fish and Game Code); therefore no Fish and Game Fees will be required for this project. The applicant has requested that Condition of Approval No. 53 be deleted and replaced with the following language: . "The developer shall pay an additional traffic impact fee of ~400.00 per unit, at occupancy permits, as the developer's total contribution to the installation of a landscaped and irrigated traffic safety island on Nicolas Road across the frontage of the site as identified in the General plan." R:\STAFFPavfX3PA96.PC2 3/13/9~ klb Staff has reviewed the request with the Directors of Community Development and Public Works. Staff's recommendation is to leave the subject condition of approval as is and require installation of the traffic safety islands. Should the Planning Commission elect to grant the applicant's request, Staff recommends that the in-lieu cash amount be 9500.00 per unit to be collected upon issuance of building permit. Attachments: PC Resolution No. 96- - Blue Page 3 A. Conditions of Approval - Blue I~age 7 Planning Commission Staff Report dated March 4, 1996 - Blue Page 19 2 A'I'I'ACHMENT NO, 1 PC RESOLUTION NO. 96- ATTACHMENT NO. 1 PC RESOLUTION NO. ~- A RESOLUTION OF THE~ PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA96-0003 TO SUBDIVIDE A 11.23. ACRE PARC~,I, INTO FORTY-SIX (46) PARCELS LOCATED SOUTH OF NICOLAS ROAD, EAST OF VILLA VALENCIA AND WEST OF VIA LOBO AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR' S PARCF, I, NO. 919-360-039 WHEREAS, BA Properties, Inc., c/o Realty Management Advisors fried Planning Application No. PA96-0003 in accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Riverside County Land Use and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference; WIlY-RE, AS, Planning Application No. PA96-0003 was processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission continued Planning Application No. PA96-0003 on March 4, 1996, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or in opposition; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application No. PA96-0003 on March 18, 1996, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or in opposition; WHEREAS, at the public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and -arguments, ff any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all facts relating to Planning Application No. PA96-0003; NOW, T!:rF, REFORE, THF, PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct. Section 2. Findines. That the Temecula Planning Commission hereby makes the following f'mdings, to wit: 1. The proposed land division and the design or improvement of the project is consistent with the City's General Plan and is physically suitable for the type and density of development. The General Plan Land Use designation for the site is Low-Medium Residential (3-6 dwelling units per acre), with a target density of 4.5 dwelling units per acre). The project iproposes forty-six (46) residential parcels on 11.23 acres for a density of 4.1 units per acre. This is consistent with the General Plan Land Use designation for the site. 4 2. The design of the proposed land division or proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. There is no fish wildlife or habitat on the project site, and the project will not affect any fish wildlife or habitat off-site. 3. The design of the proposed land division or the type of improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems. The project has been reviewed for conformance with the City's General Plan, Development Code, Subdivision and Landscaping Ordinances. The project is consistent with these documents and has conditions of approval have been placed on the project accordingly to assure that the development will occur to City Standards. 4. The design of the proposed land division or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through, or use of, property within the proposed land division. The project will take access from Nicolas Road, Milano Road and Villa Valencia, and will not obstruct any easements. 5. Planning Application No. PA96-0003 as proposed, conforms to the logical development of its proposed site, and is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community. Section 3. As conditioned pursuant to Section 4, Planning Application No. PA96-0003 as proposed, conforms to the logical development of its proposed site, and is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community. Section 4. Environmental Compliance. An Initial Study prepared for this project indicates that although the proposed project could have a significant impact on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described in the Conditions of Approval have been added to the project, and a Negative Declaration, therefore, is hereby granted. Section 5. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby appro~,es Planning Application No. PA96-0003 to subdivide a 11.2 acre parcel into forty-six (46) parcels located south of Nicolas Road, east of Villa Valencia and west of Via Lobo and-known as Assessor's Parcel No. 919-360-039, subject to the foilowing conditions: A. Exhibit A, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference and made a part hereof. Section 6. PASSI~.I~, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 18th day of March, 1996. LINDA FAHEY CHAIRMAN 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 March; 1996 by 'the following vote of the Commission: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: DEBBIE UBNOSKE SECRETARY 6 EXHIBIT A CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 7 EXHIBIT A CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Planning Application No. 96-0003 (Tentative Tract Map No. 28309) Project Description: Assessor's Parcel No.: Approval Date: Expiration Date: A residential subdiVision of an 11.2 acre parcel into 46 parcels 919-360-039 PLANNING DEPARTMENT General Requirements The tentative subdivision shall comply with the State of California Subdivision Map Act and to all the requirements of Ordinance No. 460, unless modified by the conditions listed below. A time extension may be approved in accordance with the State Map Act and City Ordinance, upon written request, if made 30 days prior to the expiration date. The developer/applicant shall indemnify, protect, defend, and hold harmless, the City and any agency or instrumentality thereof, and/or any of its officers, employees and agents from any and all claims, actions, or proceedings against the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers, employees and agents, to attack, set aside, void, annul, or seek monetary damages resulting from an approval of the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body including actions approved by the voters of the City, concerning Planning Application No. PA96-0003 (Tentative Tract Map No. 28309) which action is brought within the appropriate statute of limitations period and Public Resources Code, Division 13, Chapter 4 (Section 21000 et seq., !ncluding but not by the way of limitations Section 21152 and 21167). City shall promptly notify the deVeloper/applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding brought within this time period. City shall further cooperate fully in the defense of the action. Should the City fail to either promptly notify or cooperate fully, developer/applicant shall not, thereafter be responsible to indemnify, defend, protect, or hold harmless the City, any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers, employees, or agents. If subdivision phasing is proposed, the applicant shall submit a phasing plan to the Planning Director for approval. Prior to Issuance of Grading Permits The applicant shall submit a copy of the Rough Grading plans to the Planning Director for approval. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Ordinance No. 663 by paying the appropriate fee set forth in that ordinance. Should Ordinance No. 663 be superseded by the provisions of a Habitat Conservation Plan prior to the payment of the fee required by Ordinance No. 663, the applicant shall pay the fee required by the Habitat Conservation plan as implemented by County ordinance or resolution. A qualified archaeologist shall be chosen by the developer and approved by the Planning Director for consultation and comment on the proposed grading with respect to potential archaeological impacts. Should the archaeologist find potential is'high for impact to significant resources, a meeting between the archaeologist, Planning Director, and grading contractor prior to the commencement of grading operations and the excavation and grading contractor shall be arranged. When necessary, the archaeologist or representative shall have the authority to temporarily divert, redirect or halt grading activity to allow recovery of fossils, The applicant shall submit conceptual landscape plans to the Planning Department for review and approval. The plans shall be consistent with City standards including automatic irrigation for all landscaped areas and complete screening of all ground mounted equipment from the view of the public from streets and adjacent property including: All landscaping excluding Temecula Community Services District (TCSD) maintained areas and front yard landscaping which shall include, but may not be limited to private slopes and common areas. Tree, shrub, vine and groundcover planting to screen perimeter walls adjacent to a Nicolas Road. Said plantings shall be consistent with the existing landscaping adjacent to the project along Nicolas Road. c. The height, location and the following materials for all walls and fences: Decorative block for the perimeter of the project adjacent to a public right-of-way (sixty-six feet or larger) and the side yards for corner tots. ii. Wrought iron or decorative block and wrought iron combination to take advantage of views for side and rear yards, iii. Wood fencing shall be used for all side and rear yard fencing when not restricted by i and ii above. The applicant shall demonstrate by submittal of a written report that all mitigation measures identified in the Mitigation Monitoring Program have been satisfied for this stage of the development. Prior to Recordation of the Final Map 9. The applicant shall submit the following to the Planning Director for approval: a. A copy of the Final Map b. A copy of the Rough Grading Plans c. A copy of the Environmental Constraint Sheet (ECS) with the following notes: i. This property is located within thirty (30) miles of Mount Palomar Observatory. All proposed outdoor lighting systems shall comply with the California Institute of Technology, Palomar Observatory recommendations, Ordinance No. 655. ii. This project is within a 100 year flood hazard zone. iii. This project is within a liquefaction hazard zone. d. The applicant shall submit a copy of Covenants, Conditions, end Restrictions (CC&R's) for review and approval by the Planning Department, Public Works Department and the City Attorney. Prior to Issuance of Building Permits 10. The applicant shall submit a receipt or clearance letter from the Temecula Valley School District to the Planning Department to ensure the payment or exemption from School Mitigation fees. 11. The applicant shall submit the following to the Planning Director for approval: a. Construction landscape plans consistent with the City standards and the approved Conceptual Landscape Plans including automatic irrigation for all landscaped areas and complete screening of all ground mounted equipment from the view of the public from streets and adjacent property for: i. Front yards and slopes within individual lots prior to issuance of building permits for any lot(s). b. Wall and fence plans consistent with the Conceptual Landscape Plans. C. Precise grading plans consistent with the approved rough grading plans including all structural setback measurements. d. The Temporary Use Permit application for a Model Home Complex (if applicable) which includes the following: i. Site Plan with off-street parking ii. Construction Landscape Plans iii. Fencing Plans iv. Building Elevations v. Floor Plans vi. Materials and Colors Board A Development Plan shall be submitted and approved by the Planning Director for the housing product. 12. The applicant shall submit an acoustical analysis to the Planning Department for approval,= The analysis shall be submitted prior to the issuance of the first building permit for the project. The analysis shall contain recommendations to ensure that noise levels do not exceed 65dBA for exterior and 45dBA for interior noise levels. 13. Roof-mounted mechanical equipment shall not be permitted within the subdivision, however solar equipment or any other energy saving devices shall be permitted with Planning Director approval. 14. The applicant shall demonstrate by a written report that all mitigation measures identified in the Mitigation Monitoring Program have been satisfied for this stage of the development. Prior to Issuance of Occupancy Permits 15, The applicant shall install the entire landscape frontage of Nicolas Road prior to the first certificate of occupancy of the project. 16. If deemed necessary by the Planning Director, the applicant shall provide additional landscaping to effectively screen various components of the project, 17. Front yard and slope landscaping within individual lots shall be completed for inspectiont 18. All the Conditions of Approval shall be complied with to the satisfaction of the Directors of Planning, Public Works, Community Services and Building and Safety. 19. The applicant shall demonstrate by a written report that all mitigation measures identified in the Mitigation Monitoring Program have been satisfied for this stage of the development. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT The Department of Public Works recommends the following Conditions of Approval for this project. All conditions shall be completed by the Developer at no cost to any Government Agency. Questions regarding the true meaning of the conditions shall be referred to the appropriate staff person of the Department of Public Works. General Requirements 20. It is understood that the Developer correctly shows on the tentative map all existing and proposed easements, traveled ways, improvement constraints and drainage courses, and their omission may require the project to be resubmitted for further review and revision. 21. 22. 23. A Grading Permit for either rough or precise grading, including all onsite flat work and improvements, shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to commencement of any construction outside of the City-maintained road right-of-way. An Encroachment Permit shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to commencement of any construction within an existing or proposed City right-of-way. All improvement plans, grading planS, landscape and irrigation plans shall be coordinated for consistency with adjacent projects and existing improvements contiguous to the site and shall be submitted on standard 24" x 36" City of Temecula mylars. 24. Pursuant to Section 66493 of the Subdivision Map Act, any subdivision which is part of an existing Assessment District must comply with the requirements of said section. Prior to Recordation of Final Map 25. Any delinquent property taxes shall be paid. 26, As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board Rancho California Water District Eastern Municipal Water District Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District City of Temecula Fire Bureau Planning Department Department of Public Works Riverside County Health Department Cable TV Franchise Community Services District General Telephone Southern California Edison Company Southern California Gas Company 27, The Developer shall construct or post security and enter into an agreement guaranteeing the construction of the following public improvements within 18 months in conformance with applicable City Standards and subject to approval by the Department of Public Works. Street improvements, which may include, but are not limited to: pavement, curb and gutter, sidewalks, drive approaches, street lights, striping and signing as appropriate. b. Storm drain facilities. - c. Erosion control and slope protection, 12 28. 29. 30. 31. d. Sewer and domestic water systems. e. Undergrounding of proposed utility distribution lines. Relinquish and waive right of access to and from Nicolas Road on the Final Map with the exception of street access, substantially as shown on the approved tentative map. Improvement plans, including but not iimited to, streets, parkway trees, street lights, driveways, drive aisles, mailbox locations, street centerline monuments, drainage facilities and paving shall be prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer and approved by the Department of Public Works. Final plans (and profiles on streets) shall show the location of existing utility facilities and easements as directed by the Department of Public Works, Improvement plans, rough and/or precise grading plans shall conform to applicable City of Temecula Standards subject to the approval by the Department of Public Works. The following design criteria shall be observed: Flowline grades shall be 0.5% minimum over P.C.C. and 1.00% minimum over A.C. paving. b. Driveways shall conform to the applicable City Standard No. 207. Street lights shall be installed along the public streets adjoining the site in accordance with Ordinance No. 461 and shall be shown on the improvement plans as directed by the Department of Public Works. Concrete sidewalks shall be constructed along public street frontages in accordance with City Standard Nos. 400 and 401. Improvement plans shall extend 300 feet beyond the project boundaries or as otherwise approved by the Department of Public Works. Minimum centerline radii shall be in accordance with City Standard No. 113 or as otherwise approved by the Department of Public Works. All reverse curves shall include a 100-foot minimum tangent section or as otherwise approved by the Department of Public Works. All street and driveway centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees or as approved by the Department of Public Works. Landscaping shall be limited in the corner cut-off area of all intersections and adjacent to driveways to provide for minimum sight distance and visibility. All concentrated drainage directed towards the public street shall be conveyed through undersidewalk drains. Corner property line cut off shall be required per Riverside County Standard No. 805. 32. A Signing and Striping plan, as required, shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and approved by the Department of Public Works and included in the street improvement plans. 33. A construction area Traffic Control Plan shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and approved by the Department of Public Works for any street closure and detour or other disruption to traffic circulation as required by the Department of Public Works. 34. All driveways shall be located a minimum of two (2) feet from the side' property line. 35. All utility systems including gas, electric, telephone, water, sewer, and cable TV shall be provided for underground, with easements provided as required, designed and constructed in accordance with City Codes and the utility provider. 36. All utilities, except electrical lines rated 33kv or greater, shall be installed underground. 37. Easements, when required for roadway slopes, landscape easements, drainage facilities, utilities, etc., shall be shown on the final map if they are located within the land division boundary. All offers of dedication and conveyances shall be submitted for review and recorded as directed by the Department of Public Works, On-site drainage facilities located outside of road right-of-way shall be contained within drainage easements and shown on the final map. A note shall be added to the final map stating "drainage easements shall be kept free of buildings and obstructions." 38. An Environmental Constraints Sheet (ECS) shall be prepared in conjunction with the final map to delineate identified environmental concerns and shall be permanently filed with the office of the City Engineer. A copy of the ECS shall be transmitted to the Planning Department for review and approval. The following information shall be on the ECS: a. The delineation of the area within the 100-year floodplain. b. Special Study Zones. 39. The Developer shall comply with all constraints which may be shown upon an Environmental Constraint Sheet recorded with any underlying maps related to the subject property. 40. The Developer shall deposit with the Department of Public Works a cash sum as established, per lot, as mitigation towards traffic signal impacts, Should the Developer choose to defer the time of payment of traffic signal mitigation fee, he may enter into a written agreement with the City deferring said payment to the time of issuance of a building permit. Prior to Issuance of Grading Permits 41. A Grading Plan shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and shall be reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works. The grading plan shall include all necessary erosion control measures needed to adequately protect adjacent public and private property. 14 42. 43. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49, 50. 51. All lot drainage shall be directed to the driveway by side yard drainage swales independent of any other lot. The Developer shall comply with all constraints which may be shown upon an Environmental Constraint Sheet (ECS) recorded with any underlying maps related to the subject property. The DevelOper must comply with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the State WaterResources Control BOard. No grading shall be permitted until an NPDES Notice of Intent (NOI) has been filed or the project is shown to be exempt. As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Planning Department Department of Public Works A Soils Report shall be prepared by a registered Soils Engineer and submitted to the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The report shall address all soils conditions of the site, and provide recommendations for the construction of engineered structures and pavement sections. The Developer shall have a Drainage Study prepared by a registered Civil Engineer in accordance with City Standards identifying storm water runoff expected from this site and upstream of this site. The study shall identify all existing or proposed public or private drainage facilities intended to discharge this runoff. The study shall also analyze and identify impacts to downstream properties and provide specific recommendations to protect the properties and mitigate any impacts. Any upgrading or upsizing of downstream facilities, including acquisition of drainage or access easements necessary to make required improvements, shall be provided by the Developer. Graded but undeveloped land shall be stabilized from erosion to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. The Developer shall post security and enter into an agreement guaranteeing the grading and erosion control improvements in conformance with applicable City Standards and subject to approval by the Department of Public Works. An Area Drainage Plan fee shall be paid to the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District. The Developer shall obtain any necessary betters of approval or easements for any offsite work performed on adjacent properties as directed by the Department of Public Works at no cost to any agency. 15 52. The site is in an area identified on the Flood Insurance Rate Map as Flood Zone A. This project shall comply with Chapter 15, Section 15.12 of the City Municipal Code which may include obtaining a Letter Of Map Revision from FEMA. A Flood Plain Development Permit shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and approval. Prior to Issuance of Building Permits 53. install f011 width landscaped and irrigated traffic safety island on Nicolas Road from the easterly project boundary to Villa Venecia, as may be required by the Department of Public Works. The Developer shall install the island across the site's frontage to centerline at their cost. The remaining portions to be installed shall be reimbursed by the City. 54. The building pad shall be certified to have been substantially constructed in accordance with the approved Precise Grading Plan by a registered Civil Engineer, and the Soils Engineer shall issue a Final Soils Report addressing compaction and site conditions. 55. The Developer shall pay any capital fee for road improvements and public facilities imposed upon the property or project, including that for traffic and public facility mitigation as required under the EIR/Negative Declaration for the project. The fee to be paid shall be in the amount in effect at the time of payment of the fee. If an interim or'final public facility mitigation fee or district has not been finally established by the date on which the Developer requests its building permit for the project or any phase thereof, the Developer shall execute the Agreement for payment of Public Facility fee, a copy of which has been provided to the Developer. Concurrently, with executing this Agreement, the Developer shall secure payment of the Public Facility fee. The amount of the security shall be ~2.00 per square foot, not to exceed $10,000. The Developer understands that said Agreement may require the payment of fees in excess of those now estimated (assuming benefit to the project in the amount of such fees). By execution of this Agreement, the Developer will waive any right to protest the provisions of this Condition, of this Agreement, the formation of any traffic impact fee district, or the process, levy, or collection of any traffic mitigation or traffic impact fee for :~his project; orovided that the Developer is not waiving its right to protest the . reasonableness of any traffic impact fee, and the amount thereof. Prior to Issuance of Certificates of Occupancy 56. As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: Ranch0 California Water District Eastern Municipal Water District Department of Public Works 57. Asphaltic emulsion (fog seal) shall be applied only as directed by the Department of Public Works at a rate of 0.05 gallon per square yard. Asphalt emulsion shall conform to Section Nos. 37, 39, and 94 of the State Standard Specifications. 58. The Developer shall provide "stop" controls at the intersection of local streets with arterial streets as directed by the Department of Public Works. 59. The existing improvements shall be reviewed. Any appurtenance damaged or broken shall be repaired or removed and replaced to the satisfaction of the Department of Public Works. 60. All improvements shall be constructed and completed per the approve~l plans and City standards to the satisfaction of the Di.rector of PUblic Works. COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT General Requirements 61. The developer, or his assignee, shall be responsible for the parkway landscaping adjacent to Nicolas Road until such time as those responsibilities are accepted by the TCSD. 62. The proposed TCSD landscape maintenance area adjacent to Nicolas Road shall not extend beyond the curb return on Street "D". All perimeter walls, interior slopes, drainage structures and entry monumentation shall be constructed outside of the proposed TCSD area and maintained by the property owner or an established Home Owners' Association (HOA). 63. Construction of the parkway landscaping on Nicolas Road shall commence pursuant to a pre-job meeting with the developer and the TCSD Maintenance Superintendent. Failure to comply with the TCSD review and inspection process may preclude the acceptance of this area into the TCSD maintenance program. Prior to Recordation of the Final Map 64. The applicant shall Satisfy the City's park land dedication requirement (Quimby) through the payment of an in-lieu fee equivalent to the dedication of .60 acres of land. The fee shall be calculated by multiplying the required amount of park land by the City's then current appraised land valuation as established by the City Manager. 65. Landscape construction drawings for the parkway landscaping along Nicolas Road shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Services. 66. The subdivider shall post security and enter into an agreement to improve the parkway landscaping along Nicolas Road. 67. The parkway landscaping on Nicolas Road shall be identified as a landscape maintenance easement and offered for dedication to the City on the final map. Prior to the Issuance of Certificates of Occupancy 68. Prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy, the applicant or his assignee, shall file an application and pay the appropriate fees for the dedication of arterial and residential street lights into the maintenance program. ]? 69. Prior to issuance of the first certificate of occupancy, the applicant or his assignee shall submit the most current list of Assessor's Parcel Numbers assigned to the final project. OTHER AGENCIES 70. The applicant shall comply with the environmental health recommendations outlined in the Riverside County Health Department's transmittal dated January 10, 1996, a copy of which is attached. 71. The applicant shall comply with the fire improvement recommendations outlined in the County of Riverside Fire Department's letter dated February 13, 1996,a copy of which is attached; 72. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the Eastern Municipal Water District transmittal dated January 11, 1996, a copy of which is attached. 73. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the Rancho California Water District transmittal dated February 15, 1996, a copy of which is attached. 74. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the Eastern Information Center Department of Anthropology's transmittal dated January 8, 1996, a copy of which is attached. I have read, understand and accept the above Conditions of Approval. Applicant Name J~mua~ 10, 1996 COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE · HEALTH SERVICES AGENCY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH City of Temecula Planning Department 43174 Busineis Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 ATTN: MatthewFagan: RE: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 28309 (PA96-0003): PARCELS 1 AND 2 OF PARCEL MAP 5732. (46 LOTS) PORTIONS OF Dear Gentlemen: The Department of Environmental Health has reviewed Tentative Tract Map No. 28309 and recommends: A water system shall be installed according to plans and specifications as approved by the water company and the Health Depatttnent. Permanent prints of the plans of the water system shall be submitted in triplicate, with a minimum scale not less than one inch equals 200 feet, along with the original drawing to the City of Temecula. The prints shall show the internal pipe diameter, location of valves and fire hydrants; pipe and joint specifications, and the size of the main at the junction of the new system to the existing system. The plans shah comply in all respects with Div. 5, Part 1, Chapter 7 of the California Health and Safety Code, California Administrative Code, Title 11, Chapter 16, and General Order No. 103 of the Public Utilities Commission of the State of California, when applicable. The plans shall be signed by a registered engineer and water company with the following certification: "I certify that the design of the water system in Tract Map No. 28309 is in accordance with the water system expansion plans of the Rancho California Water District and that the water services, storage, and distribution system will be adequate to provide water service to such Tract Map". This certification does not constitute a guarantee that it will supply water to such Tract Map at any specific quantities, flows or pressures for lure protection or any other purpose. This certification shall be signed by a responsible official of the water company. The plans must be submitted to the City of Temecula's Office to review at least two weeks prior 19 the request for the recordation of the final map. This subdivision has a statement from Rancho California Water District agreeing to serve domestic water to each and every lot in the subdivision on demand providing satisfactory financial arrangements are completed with the subdivider. It will be necessary for financial arrangements to be made prior to the recordation of the final map. John M: Fanning, Director 4065 County Circle Drive · Riv,erside, CA 92503 · Phone (909) 358-5316 · FAX (909) 358-5017 (Mailing Address - P.O. Box 7600 · Riverside, CA 92513-7600) ~.,.,,,, ..... ...d....,~-~ City of Temecuta PIning Dept. Page Two Atm: Matthew Fagan January 10, 1996 This subdivision is witkin the Eastern MuniCipal Water District and shall be connected to the sewers of th~ District. The sewer system shall be installed according to plans and specifications as approved by the DisWict, the City of Temecula and the Health Department. Permanent prints of the plans of the sewer system shall be submitted in triplicate, along with the original drawing, to the City of Temecula. The prints shall show the internal pipe diameter, location of manholes, complete profiles, pipe and joint specifications and the size of the sewers at the junction of the new system to the existing system, A single plat indicating location of sewer lines and wate~ines shall be a portion of the sewage plans and profiles. The plaxxs shah be signed by a registered engineer and the sewer district with the following certification: "I certify that the design of the sewer system in Tract Map No. 28309 is in accordance with the sewer system expansion plans of the Eastern Municipal Water Dislrict and that the waste disposal system is adequate at this fn-ne to treat the anticipated wastes from the proposed Tract Map". The plans must be submitted to the City of Temecula's Office to review at least two weeks prior. to the request for the recordation of the final map. It will be necessary for financial arrangements to be completely finalized prior to recordation of the final map. Sincerely, Gregor Dellenbach; Environmental Health Specialist IV GD:dr (909) 275-8980 ss 90 [909) 694-6444 · Fax 1909J 694-, February 13, 1996 TO: ATTN: R,E: PLANNING DEPARTIV[ENT MATIvrIEW FAGAN PA96-0003 PARCEL MAP 28309 With respect to the conditions of approval for the above referenced plan, the Fire Dep~iuaent recommends the following fire protection measures be provided in accordance with City of Temecula Ordinances and/or recognized fLre protection standards: Provide or show there exists a water system capable of delivering 1000 GPM for a 2 hour duration at 20 PSI residual operating pressure, which must be available before any combustible material is placed on the job site. Approved standard fire hydrants (6"x4"x2 1/2") shall be located at alternate street intersections and spaced not more than 330 feet apart in any direction with no portion of any lot frontage more than 165 fee from a fLre hydrant. Approved ~nndard fn'e hydrants (6"x4x2 1/2") shall be located at each street intersection and spaced not more than 330 feet apart in any direction with no portion of any lot frontage more than 165 feet from a hydrant. Applicant/developer shall ft{mish one copy of the water plans to the Fire Department for review, Plans shall be signed by a registered civil engineer, containing a Fire Department approval signature block, and shall conform to hydrant type, location, spacing and m~nlrnum f'tre flow. Once the plans axe signed by the local water company, the originals shall be presented to the Fire Depax'tment for signature. Blue dot reflectors shall be mounted in private streets and driveways to indicate location of fLre hydrants. They shall be mounted in the middle of the street direc~y in line with fire hydrant. All buffclings shall be constructed with fire retardant roofing material.~ as described in The Uniform BuDding Code. Any wood Shingles or shakes shall be a Class "B" rating and shall be approved by the fire department prior to installation. Prior to recordation of the final map, the developer shall pay to the City of Temecula, the sum of $400.00 per lot/unit, as mitigation for fire protection impacts. Should the developer choose to defer the time of payment, he/she may enter into a written agreement with the City of Temecula deferring said payment to the time of issuance of the FLrst budding permit. Applicant/developer shall be responsible to provide or show there exists conditions set forth by the Fire Department. All questions regarding the meaning of these conditions shall be referred to the Fire Department Planning and engineering section (909)694r6439. RAYMOND H. REGIS Chief Fire Depaxhnent Planner Laura Cabral Fire Safety Specialist ~./DE C January~7'i~, Mr. Matthew Fagan City of Temecula 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 1996 RECEIVED JAN 2 9 1996 SUBJECT: Tentative Tract Map 28309, Forty-six (46) Lot Tract, Located Southerly of Nicolas Road. Dear Mr. Fagan: We have reviewed the materials transmitted by your office which describe the subject project. Our comments are outlined below: General It is our understanding the subject project is proposal to subdivide an approximate 11.23 acre parcel into 46 residential lots, located on the south side of Nicolas Road, easterly of Villa Venecia, identified as Tentative Tract Map 28309. The subject project is located within the District's sanitary sewer service area, however, it must be understood the available service capabilities of the District's systems are continually changing due to the occurrence of development within the District and programs of systems improvement. As such, the provision of services will be based on the timing of the subject project, the status of the District's permi'h to operate, and the service agreement between the District and the developer of the subject project. Reclaimed Water The District encourages the beneficial use of reclaimed water for landscape irrigation and other uses in accordance with Title 22 of the California Administrative Code and Eastern Municipal Water District Ordinance No. 68. The design of irrigation systems for subject project landscaped areas must consider the District's water budget criteria and landscape irrigation guidelines. Water budget and landscape irrigation guidelines may be obtained from the District's Customer Service Department. Mail to: Post Office Box 8300 San Jacinto, California 92581-8300 Telephone (909) 925-7676 Fax (909) 929-0257 Main Office: 2045 S. San Jacinto Avenue, San jacinto Customer Sentic~ / Engineering Annex: 440 E. Oakland Avenue, Hemet, CA Operations a: Maintenance Center: 2270 Trumble Road. Perris, CA 92571 Telephone (909) 928-3777 · Fax (909) 928-6177 '~r. Matthew Fagan ~ 28309 ~anuary 11, 1996 Page 2 The developer must submit information which describes the subject project's irrigation water/potential reclaimed water demand to the District's Customer Service Department for review. At the time of the District's review, a District determination will be made regarding requirements for reclaimed water use and/or reclaimed water system improvements. S~nitary Sewer The subject project is considered tributary to the District's Temecula Valley Regional Water Reclamation Facility (TVRWRF). The nearest existing TVRWRF system sanitary sewer facilities to ~he subject project are as follows: 21-inch diameter gravit~ sanitary sewer aligned in Nicolas Road along the project frontage. 8-inch diameter gravity sanitary sewer aligned in Millano Road to the west of the project. Other Issues The applicant shall coordinate with Ms. JUdith Conacher of the District's Customer Service Department (909) 766-1810, ext. 4409 for "One-Stop" process tracking and determination of fees and processing requirements. Sewer design shall be coordinated through Mr. Victor Barreto 0f the District's Subdivision Department at (909) 766-1860. Should you have any questions regarding these comments, please feel free to contact this office at (909) 766-1810, ext. 4468. Sincerely, EASTERN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT Kevin L. Crew Senior Customer Service Engineer KLC/cz 96-116 ~wp-ntwk-ttm28309.wpd) Water February 15, 1996 Mr. MaRhew Fagan, Assistant Planner City of Temecula · Planning Department 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590-3606 SUBJECT: Water Availability Tentative Tract Map 28309 Case No. PA96-0003 Dear Mr. Fagan: Please be advised that the aboveLreferenced property is located within the boundaries of Rancho California Water District (RCWD). Water service, therefore, would be available upon completion of financial arrangements between RCWD and the property owner. In addition, developer will be required to construct on-site facilities to serve each proposed lot. If fire protection is required, customer will need to contact RCWD for fees and requirements. Water availability would be contingent upon the property owner signing an Agency Agreement which assigns water management rights, if any, to RCWD. If you have any questions, please Contact Janice Johnson. Sincerely, RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT Laurie Williams Engineering Services Manager wp96\LW:JJ:ebO47/FOI2/FEG cc: Janice Johnson. Engineering Services Representative CALIFORNIA :HISTORICAL .. =-SOURCES INFORMATION YSTEM MONO ~',IYO RIVERSIDE Eastern Information Center Department of Anthropology University of California Riverside, CA 92521-0418 Phone (909) 787-5745 Fax (909) 787-5409 January 8, ~996 Matthew Fagan City of Temecula Planning Department 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 Case No.: Applicant: PA96-0003 (TT 28309) BA Properties, Inc. c/o Realty Management Advisors Dear Mr. Fagan: Please find enclosed our comments for one project transmittal as requested by the Planning Department. If you have any questions, please contact the Eastern Information Center at (909) 787-5745 and specify the case number and the date on which we submitted our com- ments. PA 96-0003/TT 28309 .............................. January 18, 1996 Sincerely, Uyen Doan Information Officer Enclosure(s) CALIFORNIA HISTORICAL RESOURCES INFORMATION YSTEM I~ONO [NYO RIVERSIDE .Eastern Information Cehter Department of Anthropology University of California-- Riverside, CA 92521-041 Phone (909) 787-5745" Fax (909) 787-5409 CULTURAl, RESOURCE REVIEW DATE: ::r,.qN. S'//qg~, RE: Case Transmittal Reference Designation: Records at the Eastern Information Center of the California Historical Resources Information System have been reviewed to determine if this project would adversely affect prehistoric or historic cultural resources: The proposed project asia has not bccn surveyed for cultural ruouro~ and contains or is adjaccnt to known cultural resource(s). A Phase I study is recommended. Based upon existing data the proposed project are4t has the potential for containing cultural re. sourct. s. A Phase l study is recommended. __ A Phase I cultural re, source Study OVlF # ) identified one or moro cultural resources. The project area contains, or has the possibility of containing, cultural rosourcea. However, duc to the nature of the project or prior data teenycry studies, an adverse effect on cultural resources is not anticipated. Further study is not rexommcnded. A Phase I cultural resource study (MF/f ) identified no cultural resources. Further study is not recommended. There is a low probability of cultural resources. Further study is not recommended. If, during construction, cultural resources are encountered, work should be halted or diverted in the iramediate am while a qualified archaeologist evaluates the finds and makes recommendations. Due to the archaeological sensitivity of the are. a, earthmoving during construction should be monitored by a professional archaeologist. Th ' e submission of a cultural re, source management report is recommended following guidelines for Archaeological Resource Management Reports pi-~pare2 by the California Office of Historic Preservation, Preservation Planning Bulletin 4(a), December 1989. t-"//Phase I Records search and finld survey Phase !1 Testing [Evaluate resource significance; propose mitigation measures for 'significant" sites.l Phase Ill Mitigation Data r~covery by excavation, preservation in place, or a combination of the two.] Phase IV Monitor earthmoving activities COMMENTS: If yod have any questions, please contact us. Eastern Information Center ATTACHMENT NO. 2 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DATED MARCH 4, 1996 STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION March 4, 1996 Planning Application No. PA96-0003 (Tentative Tract Map No. 28309) Prepared By: Matthew Fagan, Associate Planner RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Department Staff recommends the Planning Commission: 1. ADOPT the Mitigated Negative Declaration for PA96-0003; 2. ADOPT the Mitigation Monitoring Program for PA96-0003; 3. ADOPT Resolution No. 96- approving PA96-0003, based upon the Analysis and Findings contained-in the Staff Report; and 4. APPROVE Planning Application No. PA96-0003, subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: BA Properties Inc., c/o Realty Management Advisors REPRESENTATIVE: RBF & Associates PROPOSAL: A forty-six (46) lot residential subdivision of 11.2 acres LOCATION: South of Nicolas Road, east of Villa Valencia and west of Via Lobo EXISTING ZONING: LM (Low-Medium Density Residential, 3Z6 dwelling units per acre) SURROUNDING ZONING: North: LM {Low-Medium Density Residential, 3-6 dwelling units per acre) South: LM (Low-Medium Density Residential, 3-6 dwelling units per acre) East: LM (Low-Medium Density Residential, 3-6 dwelling units per acre) West: LM (Low-Medium Density Residential, 3-6 dwelling units per acre) Not requested PROPOSED ZONING: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: LM {Low-Medium Density Residential, 3-6 dwelling units per acre) R:\STAFFRPT~PA96.PC 2/28196 klb EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USES: North: Santa Gertrudis Creek, Single-Family Residential South: Single-Family Residential East: Single-Family Residential West: Single-Family Residential PROJECT STATISTICS Total Area: Number of Lots: Project Density: Earthwork Amount: Cut: Import: 11.2 acres 46 4.09 dwelling units per acre 2,000 cubic yards 57,000 cubic yards BACKGROUND Planning Application No. PA96-0003 (Tentative Tract Map No. 28309) was formally submitted to the Planning Department on January 3, 1996. A Development Review Committee (DRC) meeting was held on January 18, 1996. Planning Application No. PA96-0003 was deemed complete on February 8, 1996. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project is a forty-six (46) lot residential subdivision on 11.2 acres. A rose farm (Rancho Roses) used to be located on the project site. The business ceased operations and remaining concrete slabs were removed after an abatement process on the property. The project is in- fill, with single family residences located immediately to the east, west and south. The improved Santa Gertrudis Creek is to the north, with single-family residences to the north of the Creek. ANALYSIS Site Desien & Area Compatibility The proposed subdivision is well designed and laid out in a rather straight-forward manner. Access wilt be from Nicolas and Milano Roads. Milano Road will be the main street through the project and will have three (3) cul-de-sacs off of the street. Homes will not front Nicolas Road, as access will be restricted as a condition of approval for the map. Lot sizes range from 7,200 square feet to 12,746 square feet in size. These lot sizes are compatible with surrounding development. R:\STAFFRPT\3PA96,PC 2/28/96 Idb 2 Landscaping The conditions of approval require that landscaping along Nicolas Road be consistent with the existing street scape conditions in the area. The Nicolas Road landscape plan will be required prior to the issuance of a grading permit, and the entire frontage of Nicolas Road landscaping shall be installed prior to the first occupancy of the project. Nicolas Road is classified as a Arterial Highway in the City of Temecula General Plan Circulation Element, The Arterial Highway roadway cross section from the General Plan calls for a fourteen (14) foot wide landscaped median, The project has been conditioned for the landscape median from the intersection of Villa Valencia and Nicolas Road, east for the entire frontage of the project. The applicant will improve the entire median from site frontage to center-line, and the City will reimburse the applicant for half of the improvements. Gradinq and Drainaee Currently, the site is relatively flat. The applicant is proposing to import approximately 57,000 cubic yards of fill material to raise the elevation of the project site. This will make the project similar in elevation to the surrounding residences, and raise the project out of the identified flood plain. The applicant has stated that the importing of fill material will also help with site drainage. Site drainage will be primarily from the east to the west, A retaining wall will be at the rear property line of lots 1-7. All drainage from these lots will be to the west. Circulation/Traffic A Focused Traffic Analysis was prepared for the pr,oject (dated December 22, 1995 by Robert Kahn®John Kain & Associates, Inc,). Based upon the analysis contained in the Report, the project will be consistent with the Goals contained in the City's General Plan Circulation Plan. Level of service at affected intersections will be "B" or better during peak hours. ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY The zoning for the project site is LM (Low-Medium Density Residential, 3-6 dwelling units per acre). The General Plan Land 'Use Designation for the site is also LM. The project is consistent with the zoning and General Plan. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION An Initial Study has been prepared for this project, The Initial Study determined that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, these effects are not considered to be significant due to mitigation measures contained in the. project design and in the Conditions of Approval for the project. Staff recommendsthat the Planning Commission adopt a Negative Declaration and approve the Mitigation Monitoring Program for the project. SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS The project has been reviewed for conformance with the City's General Plan, Development Code, Subdivision and Landscaping Ordinances. The project is consistent with these .documents and conditions of approval have been placed on the project accordingly to assure that the development will occur to City Standards. FINDINGS The proposed land division and the design or improvement of the project is consistent with the City's General Plan and is physically suitable for the type and density of development. The General Plan Land Use designation for the site is Low-Medium Residential (3-6 dwelling units per acre), with a target density of 4.5 dwelling units per acre). The project proposes forty-six (46) residential parcels on 11.23 acres for a density of 4.1 units per acre. This is consistent with the General Plan Land Use designation for the site. The design of the proposed land division or proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. There is no fish wildlife or habitat on the project site, and the project will not affect any fish wildlife or habitat off-site. The project will not individually or cumulatively have an adverse effect on wildlife resources, as defined in Section 711.2 of the Fish and Game Code. The design of the proposed land division or the type of improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems. The project has been reviewed for conformance with the City's General Plan, Development Code, Subdivision and Landscaping Ordinances. The project is consistent with these documents and conditions of approval have been placed on the project accordingly to assure that the development will occur to City Standards. The design of the proposed land division or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through, or use of, property within the proposed land division. The project will take access from Nicolas Road, Milano Road and Villa Valencia, and will not obstruct any easements. Planning Application No. PA96-0003as proposed, conforms to the logical development of its proposed site, and is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community. Attachments: 2. 3. 4. PC Resolution - Blue Page 5 A. Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 9 Initial Study - Blue Page 21 Mitigation Monitoring Program - Blue Page 42 Exhibits - Blue Page 62 A. Vicinity Map B. Zoning Map C. General Plan Map D, Tentative Tract Map R:\STAFFP, j'I~PA96.PC 3/6/96 k]b 4 ' ·' ATTACHMENT NO. 1 PC RESOLUTION NO. 96- R:'xSTAFFRPTX3pA96.PC 2/28/96 klb ~ ATrACHMENT NO. 1 PC RESOLUTION NO. 96- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF ~ CITY OF TEMECU~A APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA96-0005 TO SUBDIVIDE A 11.2~ ACRE PARCEL INTO FORTY-SIX (46) PARCELS LOCATED SOUTH OF NICOLAS ROAD, EAST OF VILLA VALENCIA AND WEST OF VIA LOBO AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 919-~60-0~9 WltEREAS, BA Properties, Inc., c/o Realty Management Advisors fled Planning Application No. PA96-0003 in accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Riverside County Land Use and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference; WItF. REAS, Planning Application No. PA96-0003 was processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WI~REAS, the Planning Commission continued Planning Application No. PA96-0003 on March 4, 1996, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or in opposition; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application No. PA96-0003 on March 18, 1996, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or in opposition; WHEREAS, at the public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons deskring to be heard, said Commission considered all facts relating to Planning Application No. PA96-0003; NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct. Section 2. Findings. That the Temecula Planning Commission hereby makes the foliowing fmdings, to wit: 1. The proposed land division and the design or improvement of the project is consistent with the City's General Plan and is physically suitable for the type and density of development. The General Plan Land Use designation for the site is Low-Medium Residential (3-6 dwelling units per acre), with a target density of 4.5 dwelling units per acre). The project ~roposes forty-six (46) residential parcels on 11.23 acres for a density of 4.1 units per acre. This is consistent with the General Plan Land Use designation for the site. R:\STAFFRPTL3PA96.PC 316196 klb 6 2. The design of the proposed land division or proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. There is no fish wildlife or habitat on the project site, and the project will not affect any fish wildlife or habitat off-site. 3. The design of the proposed land division or the type of improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems. The project has been reviewed for conformance with the City's General Plan, Development Code, Subdivision and Landscaping Ordinances. The project is consistent with theie documgnts and has conditions of approval have been placed on the project accordingly to assure that the development will occur to City Standards. 4. The design of the proposed land division or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through, or use of, property within the proposed land division. The project will take access from Nicolas Road, Milano Road and Villa Valencia, and will not obstruct any easements. 5. Planning Application No. PA96-0003 as proposed, conforms to the logical development of its proposed site, and is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community. Section 3. As conditioned pursuant to Section 4, Planning Application No. PA96-0003 as proposed, conforms to the logical development of its proposed site, and is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community. Section 4. Environmental Compliance. An Initial Study prepared for this project indicates that although the proposed project could have a significant impact on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described in the Conditions of Approval have been added to the project, and a Negative Declaration, therefore, is hereby granted. SectiOn 5. COnditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby approves Planning Application No. PA96-0003 to subdivide a 11.2 acre parcel into forty-six (46) parcels located south of Nicolas Road, east of Villa Valencia and west of Via Lobo and known as Assessor's Parcel No. 919-360-039, subject to the following conditions: A. Exhibit A, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference and made a pan hereof. R:\STAFFRPTX3PA96.PC 3/6/96 lab 7 Section 6. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 4th day of March, 1996. CHAIRMAN I ItEREBY CERTI~'Ir that the foregoing Resolution wa~ duly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 4th day of March, 1996 by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: NOF~: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: DEBBIE UBNOSKE SECRETARY R:\STAFFRPT~3PA96,PC 316196 klb 8 EXHIBIT A CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL R:\$TAFFRPT~3PA96,PC 2/28/96 klb 9 EXHIBIT A CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Planning Application No. 96-0003 (Tentative Tract Map No. 28309) Project Description: Assessor's Parcel No.: Approval Date: Expiration Date: A residential subdivision of an 11.2 acre parcel into 46 parcels 919-360-039 PLANNING DEPARTMENT General Requirements The tentative subdivision shall comply with the State of California Subdivision Map Act and to all the requirements of Ordinance No. 460, unless modified by the conditions listed below. A time extension may be approved in accordance with the State Map Act and City Ordinance, upon written request, if made 30 days prior to the expiration date. The developer/applicant shall indemnify, protect, defend, and hold harmless, the City and any agency or instrumentality thereof, and/or any of its officers, employees and agents from any and all claims, actions, or proceedings against the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers, employees and agents, to attack, set aside, void, annul, or seek monetary damages resulting from an approval of the. City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body including actions approved by the voters of the City, concerning Planning Application No. PA96-0003 (Tentative Tract Map No. 28309) 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). City shall promptly notify the developer/applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding brought within this time period. City shall further cooperate fully in the defense of the action. Should the City fail to either promptly notify or cooperate fully, developer/applicant shall not, thereafter be responsible to indemnify, defend, protect, or hold harmless the City, any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers, employees, or agents. If subdivision phasing is proposed, the applicant shall submit a phasing plan to the Planning Director for approval. Prior to Issuance of Grading Permits The applicant shall submit a copy of the Rough Grading plans to the Planning Director for approval, R:\STAFFP, PT\3PA96.PC 2/28/96 Idb 10 The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Ordinance No. 663 by paying the appropriate fee set forth in that ordinance. Should Ordinance No. 663 be superseded by the provisions of a Habitat Conservation Plan prior to the payment of the fee required by Ordinance No. 663, the applicant shall pay the fee required by the Habitat Conservation plan as implemented by County ordinance or resolution. A qualified archaeologist shall be chosen by the developer and a.pproved by the Planning Director for consultation and comment on theproposed grading with respect to poten'tial archaeological impacts. ShOuld the archaeologist find potential is 'high for impact to significant resources, a meeting between the archaeologist, Planning Director, and grading contractor prior to the commencement of grading operations and the excavation and grading contractor shall be arranged. When necessary, the archaeologist or representative shall have the authority to temporarily divert, redirect or halt grading activity to allow recovery of fossils. The applicant shall submit conceptual landscape plans to the Planning Department for review and approval. The plans shall be consistent with City standards including automatic irrigation for all landscaped areas and complete screening of all ground mounted equipment from the view of the public from streets and adjacent property including: All landscaping excluding Temecula Community Services District (TCSD) maintained areas and front yard landscaping which shall include, but may not be limited to private slopes and common areas. Tree, shrub, vine and groundcover planting to screen perimeter wails adjacent to a Nicolas Road. Said plantings shall be consistent with the existing landscaping adjacent to the project along Nicolas Road. c. The height, location and the following materials for all walls and fences: Decorative block for the perimeter of the project adjacent to a public right-of-way (sixty-six feet or larger) and the side yards for corner lots. ii. Wrought iron or decorative block and wrought iron combination to take advantage of views for side and rear yards. iii. Wood fencing shall be used for all side and rear yard fencing when not restricted by i and ii above. The applicant shall demonstrate by submittal of a written report that all mitigation measures identified in the Mitigation Monitoring Program have been satisfied for this stage of the development. Prior to Recordation of the Final Map 9. The applicant shall submit the following to the Planning Director for approval: a. A copy of the Final Map R:\STAFFRPT\3PA96.PC 2/28/96 klb 11 A copy of the Rough Grading Plans A copy of the Environmental Constraint Sheet (ECS) with the following notes: i. This property is located within thirty (30) miles of Mount Palomar Observatory. All proposed outdoor lighting systems shall comply with the California Institute of Technology, Palomar Observatory recommendations, Ordinance No. 655. ii. This project is within a ~00 year flood hazard zone. iiio This project is within a liquefaction hazard zone. d. The applicant shall submit a copy of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&R's) for review and approval by the Planning Department, Public Works Department and the City Attorney. Prior to Issuance of Building Permits 10. The applicant shall submit a receipt or clearance letter from the Temecula Valley School District to the Planning Department to ensure the payment or exemption from School Mitigation fees. 11. The applicant shall submit the following to the Planning Director for approval: a. Construction landscape plans consistent with the City standards and the approved Conceptual Landscape Plans including automatic irrigation for all landscaped areas and complete screening of all ground mounted equipment from the view of the public from streets and adjacent property for: i. Front yards and slopes within individual lots prior to issuance of building permits for any lot(s). b. Wall and fence plans consistent wi~h the Conceptual Landscape Plans. c. Precise grading plans consistent with the approved rough grading plans including all structural setback measurements. d. The Temporary Use Permit application for a Model Home Complex (if applicable) which includes the following: i. Site Plan with off-street parking ii. Construction Landscape Plans iii. Fencing Plans iv. Building Elevations v. Floor Plans R:\STAFFRPT~3PA96./~C 2/28/96/LIb 12 vi. Materials and Colors Board A Development Plan shall be submitted and approved by the Planning Director for the housing product. 12. The applicant shall submit an acoustical analysis to the Planning Department for approval. The analysis shall be submitted prior to the issuance of the first building permit for the project. The analysis shall contain recommendations to ensure that noise levels do not exceed 65dBA for exterior and 45dBA for interior noise le~iels. 13. Roof-mounted mechanical equipment shall not be permitted within the subdivision, however solar equipment or any other energy saving devices shall be permitted with Planning Director approval. 14. The applicant shall demonstrate by a written report that all mitigation measures identified in the Mitigation Monitoring Program have been satisfied for this stage of the development. Prior to Issuance of Occupancy Permits 15. The applicant shall install the entire landscape frontage of Nicolas Road prior to the first certificate of occupancy of the project. 16. If deemed necessary by the Planning Director, the applicant shall provide additional landscaping to effectively screen various components of the project. 17. Front yard and slope landscaping within individual lots shall be completed for inspection. ~ 18. All the Conditions of Approval shall be complied with to the satisfaction of the Directors of Planning, Public Works, Community Services and Building and Safety. 19. The applicant shall demonstrate by a written report that all mitigation measures identified in the Mitigation Monitoring Program have been satisfied for this stage of the development. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT The Department of Public Works recommends the following Conditions of Approval for this project. All conditions shall be completed by the Developer at no cost to any Government Agency. Questions regarding the true meaning of the conditions shall be referred to the appropriate staff person of the Department of Public Works. General Requirements 20. It is understood that the Developer correctly shows on the tentative map all existing and proposed easements, traveled ways, improvement constraints and drainage courses, and their omission may require the project to be resubmitted for further review and revision. R:\STAFFRFI~3PA96.PC 2/28/96 klb 13 ~ 21. 22. A Grading Permit for either rough or precise grading, including all onsite flat work and improvements, shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to commencement of any construction outside of the City-maintained road right-of-way. 23. 24. An Encroachment Permit shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to commencement of any construction within an existing or proposed City right-of-way. All improvement plans, grading plans, landsc'ape and irrigation plans shall be coordinated for consistency with ~djacent projects and existing improvements contiguous to the site and shall be submitted on standard 24" x 36" City of Temecula mylars. Pursuant to Section 66493 of the Subdivision Map Act, any subdivision which is part of an existing Assessment District must comply with the requirements of said section. Prior to Recordation of Final Map 25. Any delinquent property taxes shall be paid. 26. 27. As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board Rancho California Water District Eastern Municipal Water District Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District City. of Temecula Fire Bureau Planning Department Department of Public Works Riverside County Health Department Cable TV Franchise Community Services Dist~'ict General Telephone Southern California Edison Company Southern California Gas Company The Developer shall construct or post security and enter into an agreement guaranteeing the construction of the following public improvements within 18 months in conformance with applicable City Standards and subject to approval by the Department of Public Works. Street improvements, which may include, but are not limited to: pavement, curb and gutter, sidewalks, drive approaches, street lights, striping and signing as appropriate. b. Storm drain facilities. c. Erosion control and slope protection. R:\STAFFRPT'x3PA96.PC 2/28/96 klb 14 28. 29. 30. d, Sewer and domestic water systems. e. Undergrounding of proposed utility distribution lines. Relinquish and waive right of access to and from Nicolas Road on the Final Map with the exception of street access, substantially as shown on the approved tentative map. Improvement plans, including but not limited to, streets, parkway trees, street lights, driveways, drive aisles, mailbox locations, street centerline monuments, drai:nage facilities and paving shall be prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer and approved by the Department of Public Works, Final plans (and profiles on streets) shall show the location of existing utility facilities and easements as directed by the Department of Public Works. Improvement plans, rough and/or precise grading plans shall conform to applicable City of Temecula Standards subject to the approval by the Department of Public Works. The following design criteria shall be observed: Flowline grades shall be 0.5% minimum over P.C.C. and 1,00% minimum over A.C. paving. b. Driveways shall conform to the applicable City Standard No. 207. Street lights shall be installed along the public streets adjoining the site in accordance with Ordinance No. 461 and shall be shown on the improvement plans as directed by the Department of Public Works. ConCrete sidewalks shall be constructed along public street frontages in accordance with City Standard Nos. 400 and 401. Improvement plans shall extend 300 feet beyond the project boundaries or as otherwise approved by the Department of Public Works, Minimum centerline radii shall be in accordance with City Standard No. 113 or as otherwise approved by the Department of Public Works. All reverse curves shall include a 100-foot minimum tangent section or as otherwise approved by the Department of Public Works. All street and driveway centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees or as approved by the Department of Public Works. Landscaping shall be limited in the corner cut-off area of all intersections and adjacent to driveways to provide for minimum sight distance and visibility. All concentrated drainage directed towards the public street shall be conveyed through undersidewalk drains. 31. Corner property line cut off shall be required per Riverside County Standard No. 805. R:\STAFFRFT\3PA96.PC 2/28/96 klb 15 32. A Signing and Striping plan, as required, shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and approved by the Department of Public Works and included in the street improvement plans. 33. A construction area Traffic Control Plan shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and approved by the Department of Public Works for any street closure and detour or other disruption to traffic circulation a~ required by the Department of Public Works. 34. All' 'driveways shall be located a minimum of two (2) feet from the side property line. 35. All utility systems including gas, electric, telephone, water, sewer, and cable TV shall be provided for underground, with easements provided as required, designed and constructed in accordance with City Codes and the utility provider. 36. All utilities, except electrical lines rated 33kv or greater, shall be installed underground. 37. Easements, when required for roadway slopes, landscape easements, drainage facilities, utilities, etc., shall be shown on the final map if they are located within the land division boundary. All offers of dedication and conveyances shall be submitted for review and recorded as directed by the Department of Public Works. On-site drainage facilities located outside of road right-of-way shall be contained within drainage easements and shown on the final map. A note shall be added to the final map stating "drainage easements shall be kept free of buildings and obstructions," 38. An Environmental Constraints Sheet (ECS) shall be prepared in conjunction with the final map to delineate identified environmental concerns and shall be permanently filed with the office of the City Engineer. A copy of the ECS shall be transmitted to the Planning Department for review and approval. The following information shall be on the ECS: a. The delineation of the area within the 100-year floodplain. b. Special Study Zones: 39. The Developer shall comply with all constraints which may be shown upon an Environmental Constraint Sheet recorded with any underlying maps related to the subject property. 40. The Developer shall deposit with the Department of Public Works a cash sum as established, per lot, as mitigation towards traffic signal impacts. Should the Developer choose to defer the time of payment of traffic signal mitigation fee, he may enter into a written agreement with the City deferring said payment to the time of issuance of a building permit. Prior to Issuance of Grading Permits 41. A Grading Plan shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and shall be reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works. The grading plan shall include all necessary erosion control measures needed to adequately protect adjacent public and private property. R:\STAFFRPT\3PA96.1~C 2/28/96 k/b 16 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 49. 50. 51. All lot drainage shall be directed to the driveway by side yard drainage swales independent of any other lot. The Developer shall comply with all constraints which may be shown upon an Environmental Constraint Sheet (ECS) recorded with any underlying maps related to the subject property. The Developer must comply with the requirements of the National PollGtant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from'the State Water Resources Control Board. No grading shall be permitted until an NPDES Notice of Intent (NOI) has been filed or the project is shown to be exempt. As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Planning Department Department of Public Works A Soils Report shall be prepared by a registered Soils Engineer and submitted to the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The report shall address all soils conditions of the site, and provide recommendations for the construction of engineered structures and pavement sections. The Developer shall have a Drainage Study prepared by a registered Civil Engineer in accordance with City Standards identifying storm water runoff expected from this site and upstream of this site. The study shall identify all existing or proposed public or private drainage facilities intended to discharge this runoff. The study shall also analyze and identify impacts to downstream properties and provide specific recommendations to protect the properties and mitigate any impacts. Any upgrading or upsizing of downstream facilities, including acquisition of drainage or access easements necessary to make required improvements, shall be provided by the Developer. Graded but undeveloped land shall be stabilized from erosion to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. The Developer shall post security and enter into an agreement guaranteeing the grading and erosion control improvements in conformance with applicable City Standards and subject to approval by the Department of Public Works. An Area Drainage Plan fee shall be paid to the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District. The Developer shall obtain any necessary letters of approval or easements for any offsite work performed on adjacent properties as directed by the Department of Public Works at no cost to any agency. R:\STAFFRPT\~PA96.]~C 2/28/96 kll~ 17 52. The site is in an area identified on the Flood Insurance Rate Map as Flood Zone A. This project shall comply with Chapter 15, Section 15.12 of the City Municipal Code which may include obtaining a Letter Of Map Revision from FEMA. A Flood Plain Development Permit shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and approval. Prior to Issuance of Building Permits 53. Install full width landscaped and irrigated traffic safety'iSland on Nic01as Road from the easterly project boundary to Villa Venecia, as may be required by the Department of Public Works. The Developer shall install the island across the site's frontage to centerline at their cost. The remaining portions to be installed shall be reimbursed by the City. 54. The building pad shall be certified to have been substantially constructed in accordance with the approved Precise Grading Plan by- a registered Civil Engineer, and the Soils Engineer shall issue a Final Soils Report addressing compaction and site conditions. 55. The Developer shall pay any capital fee for road improvements and public facilities imposed upon the property or project, including that for traffic and public facility mitigation as required under the EIR/Negative Declaration for the project. The fee to be paid shall be in the amount in effect at the time of payment of the fee. If an interim or final public facility mitigation fee or district has not been finally established by the date on which the Developer requests its building permit for the project or any phase thereof, the Developer shall execute the Agreement for payment of Public Facility fee, a copy of which has been provided to the Developer. Concurrently, with executing this Agreement, the Developer shall secure payment of the Public Facility fee. The amount of the security shall be 92.00 per square foot, not to exceed 910,000. The Developer understands that said Agreement may require the payment of fees in excess of those now estimated (assuming benefit to the project in the amount of such fees). By execution of this Agreement, the Developer will waive any right to protest the provisions of this COndition, of this Agreement, the formation of any traffic impact fee district, or the process, levy, or collection of any traffic mitigation or traffic impact fee for this project; provided that the Developer is not waiving its right to protest the · reasonableness of any traffic impact fee, and the amount thereof. Prior to Issuance of Certificates of Occupancy 56. As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: Rancho California Water District Eastern Municipal Water District Department of Public Works 57. Asphaltic emulsion (fog seal) shall be applied only as directed by the Department of Public Works at a rate of 0.05 gallon per square yard. Asphalt emulsion shall conform to Section Nos. 37, 39, and 94 of the State Standard Specifications. R:\STAFFRPT~3PA96.PC 2/28/96 Idb 18 58. The Developer shall provide "stop" controls at the intersection of local streets with arterial streets as directed by the Department of Public Works. 59. The existing improvements shall be reviewed. Any appurtenance damaged or broken shall be repaired or removed and replaced to the satisfaction of the Department of Public Works. 60. All improvements shall be constructed and completed per the approved plans and City standards to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT General Requirements 61. The developer, or his assignee, shall be responsible for the parkway landscaping adjacent to Nicolas Road until such time as those responsibilities are accepted by the TCSD. 62. The proposed TCSD landscape maintenance area adjacent to Nicolas Road shall not extend beyond the curb return on Street "D". All perimeter walls, interior slopes, drainage structures and entry monumentation shall be constructed outside of the proposed TCSD area and maintained by the property owner or an established Home Owners' Association (HOA). 63. Construction of the parkway landscaping on Nicolas Road shall commence pursuant to a pre-job meeting with the developer and the TCSD Maintenance Superintendent. Failure to comply with the TCSD review and inspection process may preclude the acceptance of this area into the TCSD maintenance program. Prior to Recordation of the Final Map 64. The applicant shall satisfy the City's park land dedication requirement (Quimby) through the payment of an in-lieu fee equivalent to the dedication of .60 acres of land. The fee shall be calculated by multiplying the required amount of park land by the City's then current appraised land valuation as established by the City Manager. 65. Landscape construction drawings for the parkway landscaping along Nicotas Road shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Services. 66. The subdivider shall post security and enter into an agreement to improve the parkway landscaping along Nicolas Road. 67. The parkway landscaping on Nicolas Road shall be identified as a landscape maintenance easement and offered for dedication to the City on the final map. Prior to the Issuance of Certificates of Occupancy 68. Prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy, the applicant or his assignee, shall file an application and pay the appropriate fees for the dedication of arterial and residential street lights into the maintenance program. R:\STAFFR~T\3PA96.PC 2/28/96 klb 19 69. Prior to issuance of the first certificate of occupancy, the applicant or his assignee shall submit the most current list of Assessor's Parcel Numbers assigned to the final project. OTHER AGENCIES 70. The applicant shall comply with the environmental health recommendations outlined in the Riverside County Health Department's transmittal dated January 10, 1996, a copy of which is attached. 71. The applicant shall comply with the file improvement recommendations outlined in the County of Riverside Fire Department's letter dated February 13, 1996,a copy of which is attached. 72. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the Eastern Municipal Water District transmittal dated January 11, 1996, a copy of which is attached. 73. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the Rancho California Water District transmittal dated February 15, 1996, a copy of which is attached. 74. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the Eastern Information Center Department of Anthropology's transmittal dated January 8, 1996, a copy of which is attached. I have read, understand and accept the above Conditions of Approval. Applicant Name R:\STAFFRPT~3PA96.PC 2/28196 klb 20 Z _'x January 10, 1996 COUNTY Of RIVERSIDE · HEALTH SERVICES AGENCY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH City of Temecula Planning Department 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 ATTN: Matthew Fagan: RE: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 28309 (PA96-0003): PARCELS 1 AND 2 OF PARCEL MAP 5732. (46 LOTS) PORTIONS OF Dear Gentlemen: The Department of Environmental Health has reviewed Tentative Tract Map No. 28309 and recommends: A water system shall be installed according to plans and specifications as approved by the water company and the Health Department. Permanent prints of the plans of the water system shall be submitted in triplicate, with a minimum scale not less than one inch equals 200 feet, along with the original drawing to the City of Temecula. The prints shall show the internal pipe diameter, location of valves and fire hydrants; pipe and joint specifications, and the size of the main at the junction of the new system to the existing system. The plans shall comply in all respects with Div. 5, Part 1, Chapter 7 of the California Health and Safety Code, California Administrative Code, Title 11, Chapter 16, and General Order No. 103 of the Public Utilities Commission of the State of California, when applicable. The plans shall be signed by a registered engineer and water company with the following certification: "I certify that the design of the water system in Tract Map'No. 28309 is in accordance with the water system expansion plans of the Rancho California Water District and that the water services, storage, and distribution system will be adequate to provide water service to such Tract Map". This certification does not constitute a guarantee that it will supply water to such Tract Map at any specific quantities, flows or pressures for fire protection or any other purpose. This certification shall be signed by a responsible official of the water company. The plans must be submitted to the City of Temecula's Office to review at least two weeks prior tO the request for the recordation of the final map. This subdivision has a statement from Rancho California Water District agreeing to serve domestic water to each and every lot in the subdivision on demand providing satisfactory financial arrangements are completed with the subdivider. It will be necessary for financial arrangements to be made prior to the recordation of the final map. John M. Fanning, Director 4065 County Circle Drive · Riverside, CA 92503 · Phone (909) 358-5316 · FAX (909) 358-5017 (Mailing Address - P.O. Box 7600 · Ri~,erside, CA 92513-7600) ............... City of Temecula Planning Dept. Page Two Arm: Matthew Fagan January 10, 1996 This subdivision is within the Eastem Municipal Water District and shall be connected to the sewers of the District. The sewer system shall be .installed according to plans and specifications as approved by the District, the City of Temecula and the Health Department. Permanent prints of the plans of the sewer system shall be submitted in triplicate, along with the original drawing, to the City of Temecula. The prints shall show the internal pipe diameter, location of manholes, complete profiles, pipe and joint specifications and the size of the sewers at the junction of the new system to the existing system. A single plat indicating location of sewer lines and waterlines shall be a portion of the sewage plans and profiles. The plans shall be signed by a registered engineer and the sewer district with the following certification: "I certify that the design of the sewer system in Tract Map No. 28309 is in accordance with the sewer system expansion plans of the Eastern Municipal Water District and that the waste disposal system is adequate at this time to treat the anticipated wastes from the proposed Tract Map". The plans must be submitted to the City of Temecula's Office to review at least two weeks prior to the request for the recordation of the final map. It will be necessary for financial arrangements to be completely fmalized prior to recordation of the final map. Sincerely, Gr~go~r Dellenbach, Environmental Health Specialist IV GD:dr (909) 275-8980 ~'~us~Yn~ss ri 90 /909t 6946444 · Fax (909) 694-17~29 Febmary 13, 1996 TO: A'I'fN: RE: PLANNING DEPA~TIvEB, I~rr MATTHEW FAGAN PA96-0003 PARCEL MAP 28309 With respect to the conditions of approval for the above referenced plan, the Fire Department recommends the following fire protection measures be provided in accordance with City of Temecula Ordinances and/or recognized fire protection standards: Provide or show there exists a water system capable of delivering 1000 GPM for a 2 hour duration at 20 PSI residual operating pressure, which must be available before any combustible material is placed on the job site. Approved standard fire hydnmts (6"x4"x2 1/2") shall be located at alternate street intersections and spaced not more than 330 feet apart in any direction with no portion of any lot frontage more than 165 fee from a fire hydrant. Approved standard fn'e hydrants (6"x4x2 1/2") shall be located at each street intersection and spaced not more than 330 feet apart in any direction with no portion of any lot frontage more than 165 feet from a hydrant. Applicant/developer shall ftimish one copy of the water plans to the Fire Department for review. Plans shall be signed by a registered civil engineer, containing a Fire Department approval signature block, and shall conform to hydrant type, location, spacing and minimum fire flow. Once the plans are signed by the local water company, the originals shall be presented to the Fire Department for signature. Blue dot reflectors shall be mounted in private streets and driveways to indicate location of fire hydrants. They shall be mounted in the middle of the street directly in line with fire hydrant. All buildings shall be constructed with fire mtal'rlant roof'rag materials as described in The Uniform Builtllng Code. Any wood shingles or shakes shall be a Class "B" rating and shall be approved by the fire department prior to installation. Prior to recordation of the final map, the developer shall pay to the City of Temecula, the sum of $400.00 per lot/unit, as mitigation for fire pwtection impacts. Should the developer choose to defer the time of payment, he/she may enter into a written agreeme~t with the City of Temecula d~ferring said payment to the time of issuance Of the fast building permit. Applicant/developer shall be responsible to provide or show there exists conditions set forth by the Fire Department. All questions regarding the meaning of these conditions shall be referred to the Fire Department Planning and engineering section (909)694.-6439. RAYMOND H. REGIS Chief Fire Department Planner Laura Cabral Fire Safety Specialist ] astern Municipal' / i:erDistrict Mr. Matthew F'agan City of Temecula January 11, 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 1996 RECEIVED JAN 2 9 1996 Ans'd.., .......... SUBJECT: Tentative Tract Map 28309, Forty-six (46) Lot Tract, Located Southerly of Nicolas Road. Dear Mr. Fagan: We have reviewed the materials transmitted by your office which describe the subject project. Our comments are outlined below: General It is our understanding the subject project is proposal to subdivide an approximate 11.23 acre parcel into 46 residential lots, located on the south side of Nicolas Road, easterly of Villa Venecia, identified as Tentative Tract Map 28309. The subject project is located within the District's sanitary sewer service area, however, it must be understood the available service capabilities of the District's systems are continually changing due to the occurrence of development within the District and programs of systems improvement. As such, the provision of.services will be based on the timing of the subject project, the status of the District's permit to operate, and the service agreement between the District and the developer of the subject project. Reclaimed Water The District encourages the beneficial use of reclaimed water for landscape irrigation and other uses in accordance with Title 22 of the California Administrative Code and Eastern Municipal Water District Ordinance No. 68. The design of irrigation systems for subject project landscaped areas must consider the District's water budget criteria and landscape irrigation guidelines. Water budget and landscape irrigation guidelines may be obtained from the District's Customer Service Department. Mail to: Post Office Box 8300 San Jacinto, California 92581-8300 Telephone (909) 925-7676 Fax (909) 929-0257 Main Office: 2045 S. San Jacinto Avenue, San Jacinto Customer Service / Engineering Annex: 440 E. Oakland Avenue, Hernet, CA Operations & Maintenance Center: 2270 Trumble Road, Perris, CA 92571 Telephone (909) 928-3777 Fax (909) 928-6i77 Mr. Matthew Fagan TTM 28309 January 11, 1996 Page 2 The developer must submit information which describes the subject project's irrigation water/potential reclaimed water demand to the District's Customer Service Department for review. At the time of the District's review, a District determination will be made regarding requirements for reclaimed water use and/or ~eclaimed water system improvements. Sanitar!F Sewer The subject project is considered tributary to the District's Temecula Valley Regional Water Reclamation Facility (TVRWRF). The nearest existing TVRWRF system sanitary sewer facilities to the subject project are as follows: 21-inch diameter gravity sanitary sewer aligned in Nicolas Road along the project frontage. 8-inch diameter gravity sanitary sewer aligned in Millano Road to the west of the project. Other Issues The applicant .shall coordinate with Ms. Judith Conacher of the District's Customer Service Department (909) 766-1810, ext. 4409 for "One-Stop" process tracking and determination of fees and processing requirements. Sewer design shall be coordinated through Mr. Victor Barreto of the District's Subdivision Department at (909) 766-1860. Should you have any questions regarding these comments, please feel free to contact this office at (909) 766-1810, ext. 4468. Sincerely, EASTERN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT Kevin L. Crew Senior Customer Service Engineer KLC/cz 96-116 (~D-ntwk-ttm28309.wpd) Jeffrey L. Minklet John F. Hennigaf Phillip L. Forbes E. P. '~ob" Lemons Kenneth C. Deaiv perry, R, Louck Linda M, Fregoso C. Miehnel Cowerr February 15, 1996 Mr. Matthew Fagan, Assistant Planner City of Temecula Planning Department 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590-3606 SUBJECT: Water Availability Tentative Tract Map 28309 Case No. PA96-0003 Dear Mr. Fagan: Please be advised that the aboveZreferenced property is located within the boundaries of Rancho California Water District (RCWD). Water service, therefore, would be available upon completion of f'mancial arrangements between RCWD and the property owner. In addition, developer will be required to construct on-site facilities to serve each proposed lot. If fire protection is required, customer will need to contact RCWD for fees and requirements. Water availability would be contingent upon the property owner signing an Agency Agreement which assigns water management rights, if any, to RCWD. If you have any questions, please contact Janice Johnson. Sincerely, RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT Laurie Williams Engineering Services Manager wp96\LW:JJ:eI~47/F012/FEG cc: Janice Johnson. Engineering Services Representative CALIFORNIA I'IISTORICAL RESOURCES INFORMATION SYSTEM MONO RIVERSIDE · Eastern Information Center Department of Anthropology University of California Riverside, CA 92521-0418 Phone (909) 787-5745 Fax (909) 787-5409 January8, 1996 Matthew Fagan City Of Temecula Planning Department 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 Case No.: Applicant: PA96-0003 (TT 28309) BA Properties, Inc.: c/o Realty Management Advisors Dear Mr. Fagan: Please find enclosed our comments for one project transmittal as requested by the Planning Department. If you have any questions, please contact the Eastern Information Center at (909) 787-5745 and specify the case number and the date on which we submitted our com- ments. PA 96-0003/TT 28309 .............................. January 18, 1996 Sincerely, Uyen Doan Information Officer Enclosure(s) CALIFORNIA HISTORICAL RESOURCES iNFORMATION SYSTEM NYO R~'ER~IDE Eastern Information Center Department of Anthropology University of Califorr'' Riverside, CA 92521-0,. Phone (909) 787-5745 Fax (909) 787-5409 CULTURAL RESOURCE 'REVIEW DATE: RE: Case Transmittal Reference Designation: Records at the Eastern Information Center of the California Historical Resources Information System have been reviewed to determine if this project would adversely affect prehistoric or historic cultural resources: The pmposexl project area has not b~n surveyed for cultural rr~ouret~ and contains or is adjacent to knob cultural resource(s). A Phase l study is recommended. V//Bas~d upon existing data the prcposexl project area has the potential for containing cultural re. sources. A Phase I study is recommend~l. A Phase I cultural resource study (MF # ) identified one or mor~ cultural resources. The project area contains, or has the possibility of containing, cultural rosources. However, due to the nature of the project or prior data recovery studies, an adverse effect on cultural resouro~ is not anticipat~L Further study is not recommended. A Phase I cultural resource study (MF # ) identified no cultural resources. Further study is not recommended. There is a low probability of cultural resources. Further study is not recommended. If, during construction, cultural resources are encountered, work should be halted or diverted in the immediate area while a qualified archaeologist evaluates the Finds and makes recommendations. Due to the archaeological sensitivity of the area, earthmoving during construction should be monitored by a professional archaeologist. V""/The submission of a cultural resource management report is recommended following guidelines for Archaeological ResoUrce Management Reports prepared by the California Office of Historic Preservation, Preservation Planning Bulletin 4(a). December 1989. v//Phase I Records search and field survey __ Phase II Testing [Evaluate resource significance; propose mitigation measures for "significant" sitcs.] Phase Ill Mitigation [Data recovery by cxcavation, prcservation in place, or a combination of the two.] __ Phase IV Monitor earthmoving activities COMMENTS: If you have any questions, please contact us. Eastern Information Center ATTACHMENT NO. 2 INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY R:\STAFFRPT\3PA96.PC 2/28/96 klb 21 CITY OF TEMECULA Environmental Checklist 2. 3. 4. 5. 10. Project Title: Planning Application No. PA96-0003 (Tentative Tract Map.No. 28309) Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Temecula 43174 Business Park Drive, Temecula, CA 92590 Contact Person and Phone Number: Matthew Fagan, (909) 694-6400 Project Location: South of Nicolas Road, east of Villa Valencia and west of Via Lobo Project Sponsor's Name/Address: BA Properties, Inc., c/o Realty Management Advisors 4350 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 300 San Diego, CA 92122 Attn: William D. Kennedy General Plan Designation: LM (Low-Medium Density Residential, 3-6 dwelling units per acre) Zoning: LM (Low-Medium Density Residential, 3-6 dwelling units per acre) Description of Project: A forty=six (46) lot residential subdivision on 11.2 acres. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The project is surrounded by single-family residences to the south, east and west. Nicolas Road is fully improved to the immediate north. North of Nicolas Road is Santa Gertrudis Creek, Which is a concrete lined channel. North of the Creek are single-family residences. Other public agencies whose approval is required: Riverside County Fire Department, Riverside County Health Department, Temecula Police Department, Eastern Municipal Water District, Rancho California Water District, Southern California Gas Company, Southern California Edison Company, General Telephone Company, and Riverside Transit Agency. R:\STAFFRPT\3PA96.1~C 2/28/96 klb 22 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 and Planning [X] [ ] Population and Housing [X] IX] Geologic Problems '[ ] [ ] Water [ ] [ ] Air Quality [ ] [ ] Transportation/Circulation [X] [ ] Biological Resources [ ] [ ] Energy and Mineral Resources [ ] Hazards Noise Public Services Utilities and Service Systems Aesthetics Cultural Resources Recreation Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: [ ] IX] [] [] 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 the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE 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 significant effect(s) 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. R:\STAFFRPT\3PA96.PC 2/28/96 klb 23 [] 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 all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in a earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Date For ]~:%STAFFRF~\3PA96.PC 2/28/96 Idb 24 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: Potentially Potentially Unless Less Than I~SUes and Supporting Information Sources Significant Mitigation Significant : Impacct Incorporated impact 1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a. Conf)ict with general plan designation or zoning? (Source 1, Figure 2-1, Page 2-17) b. Conflict with applicable environmental'plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project7 ( ) c. Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? (Source 1, Figure 2-1, Page 2-17) d. Affect agricultural resources or operations - (e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? (Source 1, Figure 5-4, Page 5-17) e. Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including low- income or minority community)? ( ) 2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would be proposal: a. Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projects? ( ) b. Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through project in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? ( ) c. Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? ( ) 3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving? a. Fault rupture? (Source 1, Figure 7-1, Page 7- 6) b. Seismic ground shaking? ( ) c. Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? ( ) d. Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? ( ) e. Landslides or mudflows? ( ) X X NO Impact X X X X X X X X X X X R:\STAFFRPT~3PA96.PC 2/28/96 klb 25 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions form excavation, grading or fill? ( ) g. Subsidence of the land? (Source 1, Figure 7- 2, Pag~ 7-8) h. Expansive soils? ( ) i. Unique geologic or physical features? 4. WATER. Would the proposal result in: Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and mount of surface runoff? ( ) b. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? ( ) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? ( ) d. Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? ( ) e. Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? ( ) fm Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts ' or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? ( ) g. Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? ( ) h. Impacts to groundwater quality? ( ) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? ( ) 5. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? ( ) :Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation X Less Than SignifiGant Impact X X X X X No X X X X X X X R:\STAFFRPT~3PA96.I~C 2/28/96 klb 26 IssUeS and Supporting InfOrmation Sources ; Significant Mitigation Significant b. Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? ( c. Alter air movement, moisture or temperature or cause any change in climate? ( ) d. Create objectionable odors? ( ) ' X TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a. Increase vehicle trips or traffic congestion? X ( ) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersection or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? ( c, Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? ( ) d. Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off- site? ( ) e. Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists7 ( ) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? ( ) g. Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? ( ) BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals and birds)? ( b. Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? ( ) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (Source 1, Figure 5*3, Page 5-15) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? (Source 1, Figure 5-3, Page 5- 15) e. Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? ( ) No X X X X X X X X X X X X X R:\STAFFRFr\3PA96.PC 2/28/96 klb 27 ', Issues and SuppOrting InformatiOn Sources ~! Significant Mitigation Significant ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a. Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? ( ) b. Use non-renewal resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? ( ) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? ( ) 9. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemical or radiation)? ( ) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? ( ) c. The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? ( ) d. Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? ( ) e. Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? ( ) 10. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a. increase in existing noise levels? ( ) b, Exposure of people to severe noise levels? ( ) 11. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a. Fire protection? ( ) b. Police protection? ( c, Schools? ( ) X X X X No impact X X X X X X X X X R:\STAFFRPT',3PA96.PC 2128196 ~lb 28 IsSueS and Supporting information Sources d. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? ( ) e. Other governmental services? ( Potentially Signifieent Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact X No Impact X R:\STAFPRPT~3PA96.l~C 2/28/96 klb 29 IsSUeS and::SUpporting: Information SourCes 12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a. PoWer or natural gas? ( ) b. Communications systems? ( ) c. Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? ( ) d. Sewer or septic tanks? (.) e. Storm water drainage? ( ) f. Solid waste disposal? ( ) g. Local or regional water supplie~? ( ) 13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a. Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? ( b. Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? { ) c. Create light or glare? ( ) 14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a. Disturb paleontological resources? (Source 1, Figure 5-7, Page 5-22) b. Disturb archaeological resources? { c. Affect historical resources? ( } d. Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? ( ) e. Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? ( ) 15. RECREATION. Would the proposal: a. Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? ( ) -: b. Affect existing recreational opportunities? ( ) X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X IssUes and:Supporting Information Sources :: ~ Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Then Significant Impact No Impact 16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. 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 drgp 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 California history or prehistory? b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? X X c. Does the project have impacts that area X 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). d. Does the project have environmental effects X which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? 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. 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. 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:~STAF~FRPT\3PA96.PC 2/28196 kYo 31 SOURCE LIST 1 - City of Temecula General Plan 2 - City of Temecula General PLan Final Environmental Impact Report R:\STAFFRPT\3PA96.PC 2/28/96 klb 32 DISCUSSION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Land Use and Plannine 1.b. The project will not conflict with applicable environmental plans or polices adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project. The project is consistent with the City's General Plan Land Use Designation of LM (Low Medium Density Residential, 3-6 dwelling units per acre). Impacts from all General Plan Land Use Designations were analyzed in the Environmental Impact Report for (EIR) the General Plan. Agencies with jt~risdiction withill the City commented on the scope of the analysis contained in the EIR and how the land uses would impact their particular agency. Mitigation measures approved with the EIR will be applied to this project. Further, all agencies with jurisdiction over the project are also being given the opportunity to comment on the project and it is anticipated that they will make the appropriate comments as to how the project relates to their specific environmental plans or polices. The project is in-fill and there will be limited, if any environmental effects on environmental plans or polices adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project. No significant effects are anticipated as a result of this project. 1.e, The project will not disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community {including low-income or minority community). The project is in-fill single-family residential development surrounded by single-family residences. There is no established residential community (including low-income or minority community) at this site. No significant effects are anticipated as a result of this project. Pol~ulation and Housinq 2.a. The project will not cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections. The project is in-fill single-family residential development which is consistent with the City's General Plan Land Use Designation of Low-Medium Density Residential. Since the project is consistent with the City's General Plan, and does not exceed the target density for Low Medium Density Residential, it will not be a significant contributor to population growth which will cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections. No significant effects are anticipated as a result of this project. 2.b. The project will not induce substantial growth in the area either directly or indirectly. The project is in-fill development and is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Designation of Low Medium Density Residential. The project will cause people to relocate to or within Temecula; however, due to its limited scale, it will not induce substantial growth in the area. No significant effects are anticipated as a result of this project. 2,c. The project will not displace housing, especially affordable housing. The project site is vacant; therefore no housing will be displaced. No significant effects are anticipated as a result of this project. Geoloaic Problems 3.b,c,h. The project may have a significant impact on people involving seismic ground shaking, seismic ground failure, liquefaction and expansive soils. The project is located in Southern California, an area which is seismically active. Any potentially significant impacts will be mitigated through building construction which is consistent with Uniform Building Code R:\STAFFRPT\3PA96.PC 2128/96 klb 33 3.d. 3.e, 3.f. 3.i. standards. Further, preliminary soil reports are required as part of the application submittal and will be used to determine appropriate conditions of approval. The soils reports will also contain recommendations for the compaction of the soil which will serve to mitigate any potentially significant impacts from seismic ground shaking, seismic ground failure, liquefaction and expansive soils. No significant effects are anticipated as a result of this project. The project will not expose people to a seiche, tsunami or volcanic hazard. The project is not Iocal:ed in an area where any of these hazards'could'occur. No significant effects are anticipated as a result of this project. The project will not expose people to landslides or mudflows. The Final Environmental Impact for the City of Temecula General Plan has not identified any known landslides or mudslides located on the site or proximate to the site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. The project will have a less than significant impact from erosion, changes in topography, grading or fill. Increased wind and water erosion of soils both on and off-site may occur during the construction phase of the project and the project may result in changes in siltation, deposition or erosion. Erosion control techniques will be included as a condition of approval for the project. In the long-run, hardscape and landscaping will serve as permanent erosion control for the project. The project will result in a change to the site topography and ground surface relief features from fill material which will be imported to the site for the project. Grading will be necessary for the realization of this project, Since the amount of grading will be the minimum necessary for the realization of the project, modification to topography and ground surface relief features will not be considered significant. Potential unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading or fill will be mitigated through the use of landscaping and proper compaction of the soils. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. The project will not impact unique geologic or physical features. No unique geologic features or physical features exist on the site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. Water 4.a. 4.b. The project will result in changes to absorption rates, drainage patterns and the rate and amount of surface runoff. Previously permeable ground will be rendered impervious by construction of buildings, accompanying hardscape and driveways. While absorption rates and surface runoff will change, any potential impacts can be mitigal~ed through site design. Drainage conveyances will be required for the project to safely and adequately handle runoff which is created, No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. The project will not expose people or property related hazards such as flooding. According to Figure 7-4 of the Final Environmental Impact Report for the City of Temecula General Plan, the project is not located in a dam inundation area. A portion of the project has been identified to be within the 100 year flood boundary of the Santa Gertrudis Creek. The applicant has provided a Letter of Map Revision to Staff pertaining to the location of the floodway boundary due to improvements to the Santa Gertrudis Creek. Based upon the R:\STAFFRFI'~3PA96.PC 2/28/96 klb 34 Letter, the project is not located within the 100 year flood boundary. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 4,0. The project may have a potentially significant effect on discharges into surface waters and alteration of surface water quality. Prior to issuance of a grading permit for the project, the developer wilt be required to comply with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the State Water Resou[ces Control Board. No grading shall be permitted until an NPDES Notice of Intent has' been filed or the project is shown to be exempt. By complying with the NPDES requirements, any potential impacts can be mitigated to a level less than significant. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 4.d. The project will have a less than significant impact in a change in the amount of surface water in any waterbody. Additional surface runoff will occur because previously permeable ground will be rendered impervious by construction of buildings, accompanying hardscape and driveways. Surface drainage will be channelled to Nicolas Road and the existing development to the west. Ultimately, drainage empties into the Santa Gertrudis Creek. Due to the limited scale of the project, the additional amount of drainage into the Creek will not considered significant. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 4.e. The project will not impact currents, or to the course or direction of water movements. Reference response 4.d. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 4.f-h. The project will not result in a change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability. No changes will occur in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions, withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations. Further, the project will not result in an altered direction or rate of flow of groundwaters or in impacts to groundwater quality. Construction on the site will not be at depths sufficient to have a significant impact on ground waters. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 4.i, The project will not result in a substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater water otherwise available for public water supplies. According to information contained in the Final Environmental Impact Report for the City of Temecula General Plan, "Rancho California Water District indicate that they can accommodate additional water demands." Water service currently exists in the immediate proximity to the project. Water service will need to be provided by Rancho California Water District (RCWD). This is typically provided upon completion of financial arrangements between RCWD and the property owner. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. Air Quality 5.a. The project will not violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation. The project (46 lots/potential units) is below the threshold for potentially significant air quality impact (166 units) established by South Coast Air Quality Management District (Page 6-10, Table 6-2 of the South Coast Air Quality Management CEQA Air Quality Handbook). No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. R:\STAFFRPT~3PA96.PC 2/28/96 klb 35 5.b. The project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants. There are no significant pollutants in proximity to the project. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 5.c, 5.d. The project will not alter air movement, moisture or temperature, or cause any change in climate. The limited scale of the project precludes it from creating any significant impacts on the environment in this area, No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. The project will create objectional odors during the construction phase of the project. These impacts will be of short duration and are not considered significant. Transportation/Circulation 6.a, The project will result in a less than significant increase in vehicle trips; however it will add to traffic congestion. The Focused Traffic Analysis prepared for the project (dated December 22, 1995 by Robert Kahn®John Kain & Associates, Inc.) states: "for opening year traffic conditions with the project, the study area intersections (Winchester and Nicolas & N. General Kearney and Nicolas), are projected to operate at Level of Service "B" or better during peak hours." Goal 1 of the City of Temecula General Plan Circulation Element is: "Strive to maintain a Level of Service "D" or better at all intersections within the City during peak hours and Level of Service "C" during non-peak hours." This Goal is achieved during the peak hour and it can be reasoned that the off-peak traffic will also be achieved (based upon distribution of trips for single-family residential uses). The applicant will be required to pay traffic signal mitigation fees and public facility fees as conditions of approval for the project, No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 6.b. The project will not result in hazards to safety from design features. The project is designed to current City standards and does not propose any hazards to safety from design features. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 6,c, The project will not result in inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses. The project is in-fill single-family development, surrounded by single-family residences. The project is designed to current City standards and has adequate emergency access. The project does not provide direct access to nearby uses; therefore, it will not impact access to nearby uses. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 6.d. The project will have sufficient parking capacity on-site. The City of Temecula Development Code requires two (2) enclosed parking spaces for single-family residences (Table 17.24(e)). A Development Plan will be required for the single-family dwelling units (houses) and the Plan will not be approved, nor a building permit issued until this requirement has been met, No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 6.e, The project will not result in hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists. Hazards or barriers to bicyclists have not been included as part of the project. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 6.f. The project will not result in conflicts with adopted policies sQpporting alternative .: transportation. The project was transmitted to the Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) and their response states: "The site is not currently served by fixed-route services and there are no R:~STAFFRPTL~PA96.]~:: 2/28/96 klb 36 plans in the near future for such service. Dial-a-ride services remain available in Temecula for the elderly and disabled residents of the community." No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 6.g. The project will not result in impacts to rail, waterborne or air traffic since none exists currently in the immediate proximity of the project. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. Bioloqical Resources 7.8, The project will not result in an impact to endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats, including, but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals and birds. The project site has been previously been used by a nursery (Rancho Roses) and soil remediation performed after the use ceased operations. There are no native species of plants, no unique, rare, threatened or endangered species of plants, no native vegetation on or adjacent to the site. Further, there is no indication that any wildlife species exist at this location. The project will not reduce the number of species, provide a barrier to the migration of animals or deteriorate existing habitat. The project site is located within the Stephen's Kangaroo Rat Habitat Fee Area. Habitat Conservation fees will be required to mitigate the effect of cumulative impacts to the species. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 7.b. The project will not result in an impact to locally designated species, Locally designated species are protected in the Old Town Temecula Specific Plan; however, they are not protected elsewhere in the City. Since this project is not located in Old Town, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. The project will not result in an impact to wildlife dispersal or migration corridors. The project site does not serve as part of a migration corridor. It is in-fill single-family residential development, surrounded by single-family residences. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. Enerqv and Mineral Resources The project will not impact and/or conflict with adopted energy conservation plans. The project will be reviewed for compliance with all applicable laws pertaining to energy conservation during the plan check stage. No permits will be issued unless the project is found to be consistent with these applicable laws. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 8.b. The project will result in a less than significant impact for the use of non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner, While there will be an increase in the rate of use of any natural resource and in the depletion of nonrenewable resource(s) (construction materials, fuels for the daily operation, asphalt, lumber) and the subsequent depletion of these non-renewable natural resources. Due to the scale of the proposed development, these impacts are not seen as significant. The project will not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State. No known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State are located at this project site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. R:\STAFFRPT~3~'A96.]~C 2/28/96 Idb 37 Hazards The project will not result in a risk of explosion, or the release of any hazardous substances in the event of an accident or upset conditions since none are proposed in the request. The same is true for the use, storage, transport or disposal of any hazardous or toxic materials. Large quantities of these types of substances are not generally associated with residential uses. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 9.b. The project will not interfere with an emergency responSe'plan or an emergency evaluation plan. The subject site is not located in an area which could impact an emergency response plan. The project will take access from a maintained street and will therefore not impede any emergency response or emergency evacuation plans. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 9.c. The project will not result in the creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard. The project will be reviewed for compliance with all applicable health laws during the plan check stage. No permits will be issued unless the project is found to be consistent with these applicable laws. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 9.d. The project will not expose people to existing sources of potential health hazards. No health hazards are known to be within proximity of the project. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 9,0. The project will not result in an increase to fire hazard in an area with flammable brush, grass, or trees. The project is in-fill single-family residential development, surrounded by single-family residences. The project is not located within or proximate to a fire hazard area. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. Noise 10.a. The proposal will result in increases to existing noise levels. The site is currently vacant and development of the land logically will result in increases to noise levels during construction phases as well as increases to noise in the area over the long run. Long term noise generated by this project would be similar t0 the existing single-family residences in the area. No significant noise impacts are anticipated as a result of this project in either the short or long run. 10.b. The project may expose people to severe noise levels and vibrations during the development/construction phase (short run). Construction machinery is capable of producing noise in the range of 100 + DBA at 100 feet which is considered very annoying and can cause hearing damage from steady 8ohour exposure. This source of noise will be of short duration and therefore will not be considered significant. The exposure to severe vibrations will be of short duration and will also not be considered significant. Long-term exposure of people from noise from Nicolas Road may occur; however it can be mitigated to a level less than significant. Table 16 of the City's General Plan states that the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL), 100 feet from the centerline of Nicolas is 64.1 CNEL at City buildout. There is the potential for noise impacts to all of the lots adjacent to Nicolas Road; however, none of the interior lots of the project will be affected. Table 8-4 (Land Use with Noise Standards) establishes an interior standard of 45CNEL and an exterior standard of 65CNEL. A noise analysis will be required as a condition of approval for the project. This analysis shall be performed prior to the issuance of building permits and mitigation measures will be included in the final siting and design of the residences. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this projecL Public Services 11 .a,b. The project will have a less than significant impact upon, or result in a need for new or altered fire or police protection. The project will incrementally increase the need for fire and police protection; however, it will contribute its fair share to the maintenance of service provision from these entities. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 11.c. The project will have a less than significant impact upon, or result in a need for new or altered school facilities. The project will not cause significant numbers of people to relocate within or to the City of Temecula and therefore will not result in a need for new or altered school facilities. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. ll.d. The project will have a less than significant impact for the maintenance of public facilities, including roads. Funding for maintenance of roads is derived from the Gasoline Tax which is distributed to the City of Temecula from the State of California. Impacts to current and future needs for maintenance of roads as a result of development of the site will be incremental, however, they will not be considered significant. The Gasoline Tax is sufficient to cover any of the proposed expenses. 11 ,e. The project will not have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental services. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. Utilities and Service Systems 12.a. 12.b. The project will not result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to power or natural gas. These systems are currently being delivered to the site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. The project will net result in a need for new systems or supplieS, or substantial alterations to communication systems (reference response No. 12.a.). No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 12.c. The project will have a less than significant effect in the need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities. 12.d. The project will not result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to sanitary sewer systems or septic tanks. While the project will have an incremental impact upon existing systems, the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the City's General Plan states: "both EMWD and RCWD have indicated an ability to supply as much water as is required in their services areas (p. 39)." The FEIR further states: "implementation of the proposed General Plan would not significantly impact wastewater services (p. 40)." Since the project is consistent with the City's General Plan, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. There are no septic tanks on site or proximate to the site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. R:%STAFFRPT\3PA96.PC 2/28196 klb 39 ,' 12.e. The proposal will result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to storm water drainage. The project is in-fill, and will need to provide some additional on-site drainage systems. The drainage system will be required as a condition of approval for the project and will tie into the existing system. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 12.f. The proposal will not result in a need for new systems or substantial alterations to solid waste disposal systems, Any potential impacts from solid waste created by this development can be mitigated through participation in any Source Reductionand RecyCling Programs which are implemented by th~ City. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 12.g. The project will not result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to local or regional water supplies. Reference response 12.d. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. Aesthetics 13.a. The project will not affect a scenic vista or scenic highway. The project is in-fill and is not located in a area where there is a scenic vista. Further, the City does not have any designated scenic highways. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 13.b. The project will not have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect. The project is in-fill and is consistent with adjacent single-family residential development. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 13.c. The project will have a potentially significant impact from light and glare. The project will produce and result in light/glare as all development of this nature results in new light sources. All light and glare has the potential to impact the Mount Palomar Observatory. The project will be conditioned to be consistent with Ordinance No, 655 (Ordinance Regulating Light Pollution). No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. Cultural Resources 14.b,c. The project will have a less than significant impact on archaeological and historical resources. The site has been disturbed from the removal of foundations that remained after the rose farm ceased operations. According to the transmittal from University of California Riverside Eastern Information Center, the project site has not been surveyed for these resources. Based upon the fact that the site has been disturbed, and that it is in-fill development, it is unlikely that resources will be affected by the project. However, the project will be conditioned to perform Class 1 Survey (which consists of records search and field survey) prior to the issuance of a grading permit. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 14.d. The project will not have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values. Reference response 14.b,c. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. R:%STAFFP, F'I~PA96.PC 2/25/96 klb 40 14.e. The project will not restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area. No religious or sacred uses exist at the site or are proximate to the site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. Recreation 15.a,b. The project will have a less than significant impact or increase in demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities. The project will not cause significant numbers of people to relocate within or to the City of Temecula. However, jt will result in an incremental impact or in an increas~ in demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities. The same is true for the quality or quantity of existing recreational resources or opportunities, Payment of Quimby Fees will be required for this project and will be paid prior to the recordation of the final map. This will serve to mitigate any impacts from the project on existing and future park facilities. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. R:\STAFFR~T~3PA96.PC 2/28/96 klb ATTACHMENT NO. 3 MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM R:\STAFFRPT~3PAgei.PC 2/28/96 klb / < < < < ~ ~ ~ ~: z ~ ~ z ~ Z < < < < < < < < < Z 0 < <- < < < 0 m < < < < < < < < ~ ~ ~ z < .< < ~ ~ ~ z 0 o o ~ ~ o ~Z < < < z ~ ~ ~ < < < < < < < < < ,< ,< o" =,'==~.Y='~ ~o~,,s= Z ,< Z~ .< Z ATTACHMENT NO. 4 EXHIBITS R:\STAFFILPT~3PA96.PC 2/28/96 klb 62 CITY OF TEMECULA TE~,I'~AT~'~ TRA~T CASE NO. - PA96-0003 EXHIBIT- A -~'~ ,ANNING COMMISSION DATE - MARCH 4, 1996 VICINITY MAP R:\STAFFP, YT~PA96.I~C 2114196 klb CITY OF TEMECULA ::?'SITE EXHIBIT B - ZONING MAP DESIGNATION - LM (LOW Mi<qIUM DENSrrY RESIDENTIAL 3-4 DU PER ACRE) M ~ \ M VL EXHIBIT C - GENERAL PIAN DESIGNATION - LM (LOW Ms:DIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL 3-6 DU PER ACRE) CASE NO. - PA96-0003 PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - MARCH 3, 1996 R:\STAFFP,~b'YX3PA96.PC 2/14/96 klb t_ CITY OF TEMECULA CASE NO. - PA96-0003 EXHIBIT - D TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 28309 · '~LANNING COMMISSION DATE - MARCH 3, 1996 R:\FORMS\STAFFRFr. PC 2/23/96 klb ITEM #5 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Planning Commission Gary Thornhill, Community Development Director March 18, 1996 Planning Application No. PA95-0125, Annexation Guidelines Prepared by: Saied Nnn~eh, Associate Planner BACKGROUND This item was continued by the Planning Commission at their meeting of March 4, 1996. The resolution from the March 4, 1996 Staff Report has been modified to reflect the continuance action taken by the Commission. Attachments: 1. Planning Commission Staff Report dated March 4, 1996 - Blue Page 2 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DATED MARCH STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION March 4, 1996 Planning Application No. 95-0125 Prepared By: Saied Naaseh, Associate Planner RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Department Staff recommends the Planning Commission: ADOPT Resolution No. __ recommending approval of PA95-0125, the City's Annexation Guidelines Checklist, based upon the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report. BACKGROUND On February 5, 1996, the Planning Commission held a Workshop to discuss the proposed Annexation Guidelines. This Workshop was a result of City Council direction to prepare guidelines to evaluate annexation proposals. At this Workshop, the Commission provided direction tO staff on a number of issues which are addressed in this Staff Report. Annexation projects individually and cumulatively could have a great impact on the City in terms of future population of the City and the required municipal services needed for these projects. The intent of the Annexation Guidelines is to allow the Planning Commission and the City Council to make informed decisions on annexation requests. These Guidelines will enable the Planning Commission and the City Council to weigh the advantages and disadvantages of annexation requests and to make decisions that are consistent with the General Plan and in the best interest of the City. These guidelines are based on the General Plan's Annexation Goals and Policies. DISCUSSION This section provides an analysis of the issues discussed by the Commission. These issues included: The role of the Priority Map (Criteria No. 2). Projects that are subject to the High Quality Employment Opportunities (Criteria No. 7). Projects that are within Assessment Districts (Criteria No.5). Development Agreement fees (Criteria No. 1 ). The relationship between the proposed Guidelines and the General Plan. R:~T~I.PC 318/96 m 1 Priority MaD Due to the Commission's concerns, staff has re-evaluated the Priority Map introduced at the workshop. The Commission directed staff to provide an alternative to the previously proposed Annexation Priority Map. Several options were discussed. One alternative consisted of a map identifying the different sections of the Sphere without identifying the priorities among them. Another alternative was to identify the different sections of the Sphere of Influence and prioritize them as high, medium, and low. The General Plan Growth Management Element includes a policy which encourages setting priorities for growth areas (Policy 2.6), In staff's opinion, if the Commission and Council want to pro-actively influence the future development of the Sphere of Influence, the City needs to prioritize the annexation areas. The advantage of taking a pro-active role is that it can help to increase the control of our Sphere of Influence. One of the disadvantages of pro-active annexation is the potential for negative short-term fiscal impact on the City. Another drawback is that many property owners may not wish to become part of the City. The Commission also asked whether the Priority Map controlled the Checklist. The Priority Map is a part of the Checklist and does not override the Checklist. If a project is consistent with the Annexation Priority Map, it simply receives a "Yes"; if it is not, it receives a "No". Just like all the other criteria in the Checklist, a "No" in this column does not automatically stop the City from further analyzing the annexation proposal. The new Priority Map includes three categories of high, medium, and low priority (refer to Attachment 1, Exhibit B). In order to establish the priority areas for the annexation areas, staff referred back to the General Plan. The Land Use Element of the General Plan indicates that it is the City°s desire to annex areas prior to, or concurrent with, project approvals in order to exercise control over the use, quality and design of development, as well as ensure the adequacy of public facilities and amenities (Goal No. 7). Moreover, Policy No. 7.1 indicates that the City should annex lands to the City that can be developed in accordance with the General Plan and can be adequately served by public facilities and utility services. Therefore, the General Plan makes it clear that the high priority areas for annexation should be those areas with no entitlements. At this time, these areas include the Johnson Ranch and Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plans, some areas within the French Valley Area, the escarpment area to the west of the City Limits, and the Rainbow Canyon and Pechanga Creek areas to the southwest of the City Limits. Staff then recommends that the Redhawk, Vail Ranch, Silverhawk, Rancho Bella Vista, and the French Valley Specific Plans become the medium priority areas. The rest of French Valley would then become the low priority areas. Proiects with Hioh Quafitv Emolovment Oooortunities The Commission had concerns with the term "significant high quality employment" in Criteria No. 7. Staff's intent with this criteria was to differentiate between projects that provide high paying professional jobs associated with industrial and corporate parks and the entry level jobs associated with neighborhood commercial retail projects. Staff is recommending a minor change that would make this criteria a better tool to evaluate annexation proposals. Therefore, the following language is recommended to replace the original proposal with the added phrase shown in bold: *The proposal includes industrial and/or office designated areas and will bring high quality employment opportunities to the residents of Temecula.' This modification eliminates a negative mark for projects that are primarily residential with limited retail development. Such proposals would receive an N/A for this criteria. Projects with Assessment Districts The Commission directed staff to combine two criteria that dealt with assessment districts. The Commission felt that as long as Assessment Districts were financially solvent, they were not undesirable. Staff agrees with the Commission and is proposing Criteria No. 5 with the following language: "The proposal is within a proposed or existing Assessment District that is financially solvent." Develonment Aareement Fees The Commission expressed concern regarding Criteria No. 1. This criteria states the willingness of the developer/owner to enter into a Development Agreement. One of the benefits of entering into a Development Agreement for the City is the ability to obtain Development Agreement fees from the developer. The Commission had 8 question regarding this fee and the difference between Development Impact and Development Agreement fees. There are generally two types of fiscal impacts to the City: capital cost impacts and operating cost impacts. Development Impact fees relate to mitigating the direct capital cost impacts of the project. Capital costs relate to the expense of constructing fire stations, police stations, libraries, and purchasing fire trucks, patrol cars (refer to Criteria No. 10). Operating costs refer to the cost to operate a fire station, police station, or library. These cost include salaries, supplies, utilities, etc (refer to Criteria No. 9), The only mechanism to offset operating cost impacts associated with new development projects is to enter into a Development Agreement and collect a Development Agreement fee. Furthermore, a Development Agreement fee can also be collected by the City simply in exchange for giving the developer entitlements for a certain amount of time as specified in the Development Agreement. For existing developments, City-wide assessments are the only way to mitigate the operating cost impacts. It should be mentioned that new assessments would have to be approved through an election before they can be imposed by the City if the residents are not currently paying for these services. The Relationshin between the Goals and Policles of the General Ran and the Annexation Checklist The Commission was concerned about the relationship between the Checklist and General Plan. The Checklist was developed using the General Plan Goals and Policies which are included in Attachment No. 3. Staff has referenced each criteria in the checklist with the policy numbers from the applicable General Plan Element to show the relationship of each criteria to the General Plan. These references appear at the end of each criteria and are .shown in italics. While the checklist may include some criteria not specifically referenced in the General Plan, the additional criteria complement the stated goals of the General Plan. 318/96 The Checklist has been designed to implement the General Plan. CONCLUSION By law, the City is not required to annex any land within the Sphere of Influence; therefore, annexations become policy decisions for the City Council. In staff's opinion, if long term control of the Sphere of Influence is desired, the City should take a pro-active role in annexations. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION This project does not require an environmental analysis since it is not considered a project pursuant to Section 21065 of the California Environmental Quality Act. Attachments: 1. PC Resolution - Blue Page 5 Exhibit A. Exhibit B. Annexation Guidelines Checklist - Page 8 Annexation Priority Map -Page 14 3. 4. 5. General Plan Goals and Policies Regarding Annexations - Blue Page 15 The Steps in the Annexation Process - Blue Page 23 Specific Plans within the Sphere of Influence - Blue Page 31 Planning CommissiOn Workshop Staff Report, February 5, 1996- Blue Page 32 R:~T~I.PC 3/8/96 m 4 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 RESOLUTION NO. 96- ATTACHMENT N0.1 PC RESOLUTION NO. 96- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT RESOLUTION 96- FOR ADOPTION OF THE ANNEXATION GUIDELINES CHECKLIST. WHEREAS, State Planning and Zoning Law requires a City to adopt 8 General Plan; and, WHEREAS, State Planning and Zoning Law states that a local General Plan may contain issues the local government deems necessary and appropriate to address local concerns; and, WHEREAS, The City adopted its General Plan on November 9, 1993; and, WHEREAS, The General Plan contains numerous policies on the subject of annexation; and, WHEREAS, The proposed Annexation Guidelines Checklist is consistent with the adopted General Plan for the City; and, WHEREAS, The Checklist is a useful tool for the Planning Commission and the City Council to make informed decisions on annexation proposals. WHEREAS, The Checklist helps to prioritize annexations. 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, County Library, Rancho California Branch, the Community Center, and the Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce; and, WHEREAS, A public meeting was conducted on March 4, 1996, at which time the Planning Commission continued the item to the March 18, 1996 meeting, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in suppor~ or opposition. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER BY RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF CITY'S ANNEXATION GUIDELINES (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA95-0125), WHICH INCLUDES THE ANNEXATION GUIDELINES CHECKLIST AND THE ANNEXATION PRIORITY MAP AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBITS A AND B, RESPECTIVELY, ATTACHED HERETO AND INCORPORATED HEREIN BY THIS REFERENCE. R:~5'TAFFRlvI'X.~*II~I.!'C 31B/96 m 6 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 18th day of March, 1996. LINDA FAHEY, CHAIRMAN I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adoDted by the Planning Commission of .the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 18th day of March, 1996 by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: DEBBIE UBNOSKE SECRETARY R:~TAFFRF'~ANN~XI.!~C 31g/96 an 7 EXHIBIT A THE ANNEXATION GUIDELINES CHECKLIST ~STL~J~XI,PC 3/~/96 m B MJ I-- li il Exhibit B ANNEXATION PRIORITY MAP R:~TAFFRI'I~.'OiEXI.PC 318/96 m 14 Environmental Study HIGH MEDIUM LOW ANNEXATION PRIORITY MAP of Temecu|a Sphere of Influe General Plan Program ATTACHMENT NO. 2 GENERAL PLAN GOALS AND POLICIES REGARDING ANNEXATIONS R:~STAPFRP'BAIqNI~XI.FC 318/96 sa Does Yes. 1. the General Ran contain annexation ooals and nolicies? The General Plan states that: The General Plan Study Area includes some 34 square miles of unincorporated territory. Within this area, are approximately nine proposed specific plans, that when developed, will have a direct impact on the City in terms of traffic, noise, the demand for community facilities, the demand for employment and commercial activities~ .and other impacts It is the City's desire to annex areas within the Sphere of Influence prior to or concurrent with project approvals, in order to exercise control over the use, quality and design of development, as well as ensure the adequacy of public facilities and amenities. The City intends to utilize the General Plan to review development and annexation proposals within these unincorporated areas. The City shall adopt procedures governing the prezoning of areas to be annexed to the City. These procedures shall be included in the Development Code. Criteria for prezoning shall consider existing land uses, if any, on the site to be annexed; existing County zoning on the site and surrounding area; existing circulation patterns; and environmental conditions on the site and surrounding area. Prezoning is subject to the same requirements applicable to zoning in the City including the requirement for consistency with the General Plan. The City has a great opportunity to shape the open spaces of development annexing to the City. The challenge facing Temecula is to create a multipurpose open space system that does not solely consist of the unusable spaces leftover from development, but maintains viable agriculture lands outside the City, preserves wildlife habitats, maximizes water resources, and secures recreational, historic and cultural resources. The City will benefit from connection with the open spaces ensured through ownership by federal and state government, such as the Cleveland National Forest., the U.S. Bureau of Land Management and the California State University at San Diego. Fiscal Viability of projects need to be verified by: Requiring new development to pay for its share of capital and operating costs not met by General Fund revenues generated directly by the project. Utilizing the comprehensive fiscal impact model on an ongoing basis to monitor both General Fund and Community Service District Fund fiscal impacts as development information becomes available. Ce Formulating land use mitigation strategies for projected deficits to incorporate a balance of land uses that will provide sufficient revenue to cover new costs. R:~STAFFRPT~NNT~I.PC 318/~ m 16 Defining financing techniques that will assist in funding recurring costs in addition to funding one-time capital improvements, allocating the impacts equitably between new and existing development. e. Evaluating fiscal impacts of future annexations on an ongoing basis. f. Evaluating long-term effects of proposed City sales tax rebates to large retailers, Further, the General Plan provides the following specific Goals and Policies that relate to annexations: Goal 7 of the Land Use Element Orderly annexation and development of unincorporated areas within Temecula's Sphere of Influence. Discussion The unincorporated area in the City's northern Sphere of influence is largely proposed for development through specific plans. The City has an opportunity to control land use, phasing of development, project design, and infrastructure improvements by annexing these properties prior to approval by Riverside County, The intent is to ensure that future annexations are a beneficial addition to the City. Policy 7.1 Annex lands to the City that can be developed in accordance with the General Plan and can be adequately served by public facilities and utility services. Policy 7.2 Require proposed annexations to be evaluated using the City's Fiscal Impact Model and Traffic Impact Model. Policy 7.3 Evaluate the land use pattern and intensity/density of proposed annexations in terms of: 1. The Village Centers designations on the Land Use Plan. The linkage of open space and trails to adjacent developments. The compatibility of the annexation to adjacent uses in the City. The demonstrated need for additional housing, industrial, commercial and other uses. R:~STAFFRlvl'xANNEXI.PC 318/96 m 17 Goal 8 of the Land Use Element A City which is compatible and coordinated with regional land use patterns. Discussion Temecula is a leader in the region in terms of its commercial uses, job base, and quality of residential development. The land use decisions the City makes will have direct and indirect impacts on surrounding communities (and visa versa). Through inter-goVernmental coordination, the City can properly address regional land use issues to achieve a coordinated regional land use pattern. The Growth Management Element contains more specific policies related to regional coordination and growth management. Policy 8.1 Provide a pattern of land uses that maintain and enhance the viability of neighboring communities including the City of Murrieta, and the counties of Riverside and San Diego, through compatible uses and linkages. Policy 8.2 Provide a. system of open space that is coordinated with regional open space uses to comprehensively address the management and conservation resources. Goal 2 of the Growth Management Element Orderly and efficient patterns of growth within Temecula that enhance the quality of life for residents. Discussion' The Growth Management Strategy contained in the Growth Management Element is intended to be the framework for a future Growth Management Program (GMP). This GMP should be designed to influence adequacy of public facilities and services in relation to the location, phasing, type, quality and intensity of new development and redevelopment. It should also take into consideration the existing communities and resources of Temecula, the Sphere of Influence, and Environmental Study Area. All the policies of this Element, in essence, support this goal. Policy 2.1 Prepare and implement a Growth Management Program for Temecula. Policy 2.2 Ensure that phasing of public facilities and services occur in such a way that new development is adequately supported as it develops. Policy 2.3 Establish and maintain level of service standards in order to document adequacy requirements. Policy 2.4 Encourage development of Village Centers, as defined in the Land Use and Community Design Elements to reduce public service costs and environmental impacts through compatible land use relationships, and efficient circulation and open space systems. Policy 2.5 Policy 2.6 Encourage new development that helps to create and maintain a balance between jobs and housing opportunities. Establish priority growth areas within the City and Sphere of Influence where near-term urbanization will be encouraged. Policy 2.7 Discourage the use of assessment districts that promote urban sprawl and premature urbanization in rural and agricultural 8raes. Policy 2.8 Coordinate the Growth Management Program with the Congestion Management Program as necessary. Goal 6 of the Growth Management Element A water and wastewater infrastructure system that supports existing and future development in the Study Area. Discussion Water availability is a critical determinant in Southern California's future growth and development. By working closely with the Rancho California Water District and Eastern Municipal Water District in developing supply options; conservation techniques, including the use of reclaimed water; and development monitoring systems, the City can ensure that development does not outpace the long-term availability of water. Close coordination with Eastern Municipal Water Distriot in the timely expansion of wastewater treatment facilities is equally important to the community's well-being. Policy 6.3 Coordinate with the water and wastewater districts when considering General Plan amendments, annexations, or development agreements, in order to assist the districts in planning for adequate capacity to accommodate future growth. R:~TAF'~'RFI~axNNEXI.PC 318/96 m 19 Goal 7 of the Growth Management Element An effective, safe and environmentally compatible flood control system. Discussion As urbanization increases, so does the potential for disruption caused by flooding and inadequate flood control facilities. Local and regional flood control facilities need to be comprehensively planned to protect existing. areas and future development from flood hazards. As urban and suburban development increases, runoff increases by replacing permeable surfaces with pavement and structures. The potential of overloading existing drainage facilities is a concern that must be addressed comprehensively in the Study Area. Policy 7.3 Develop master drainage plans, when appropriate, for the Sphere of Influence, in conjunction with the Flood Control District. Goal I of the Open Space/Conservation Element A high quality parks and recreation system that meets the varying recreational needs of residents. Discussion A quality parks and recreation system is a high priority for both the City and Temecula residents. Implementation of the Parks and Recreation Master Ran is a critical first step in achieving this goal. The Parks and Recreation Master Plan strives to attain a balance between quantitative and qualitative levels of service. This balance involves providing an acceptable amount of useable parkland, in close proximity to residents, as well as the appropriate type and .number of facilities to meet the recreation needs and desires of residents. The City's parks and recreation facilities are supplemented by other local and regional facilities, which may be influenced and fostered through inter-governmental cooperation. Policy 1.3 Require developers of residential projects greater than fifty dwelling units to dedicate land based on the park acre standard of five (5) acres of usable parkland to one thousand (1,000) population, or the payment of in-lieu fees in accordance with the Parks and ReCreation Master Plan. Policy 1.6 Encourage the enhancement and preservation of significant natural features, including riparian areas, rock outcroppings, sensitive habitat areas and viewpoints through park design and site development. Policy 1.10 Maximize pedestrian and bicycle access to existing and new parks as an alternative to automobile access. R:~ST~I.I=C 31g/9~ m Goal 3 of the Open Space/Conservation Element Conservation of important biological habitats and protection of plant and animal species of concern, wildlife movement corridors, and general biodiversity. Discussion The interrelationship between the built and natural environments has a strong influence on the character and quality of life in Temeoula. The permanent dedication of open space within the Study Area should be to conserve resources of significance, as well as to provide recreational opportunities, and to ensure viable ecological connections between significant natural areas. The preservation of natural resources helps to preserve biological diversity; provide passive recreation and educational opportunities; facilitate the maintenance of natural, life-sustaining systems; and provide residents with the opportunity to observe wildlife in natural environs. Wildlife corridors can exist in conjunction with recreation trails and other open space uses. This multiple function leverages the protection of species of concern by. simultaneously providing open space and meeting recreational needs. The intent of this goal is to identify, preserve and properly manage natural resources within and adjacent to the community. Policy 3.1 Require development proposals to identify significant biological resources and provide mitigation, including the use of adequate buffering; selective preservation; the provision of replacement habitats; the use of sensitive site planning techniques including wildlife corridor/recreational trails; and other appropriate measures. Policy 3.2 Work with State, regional and non-profit agencies and organizations to preserve and enhance significant biological resources on publicly owned lands. Policy 3.3 Coordinate with the County of Riverside and other relevant agencies in the adoption and implementation of the Riverside County Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan. Policy 3.7 Maintain and enhance the resources of the Temecula Creek, Santa Margarita River, Pechanga Creek and other waterways to the ensure the long-term viability of the habitat, wildlife, and wildlife movement corridors. R:~TAFF~I.I~C 318/96 an 21 Goal 5 of the Open Space/Conservation Element Conservation of open space areas for a balance of recreation, scenic enjoyment, and protection of natural resources and features. Discussion The natural features of the Study Area provide a scenic setting for the community. Topographical features such as the western ridgeline, hillsides in the northern Study Area, and natural drainage courses should 'be protected from insensitive development. The environmental resources of the Santa Margarita River should also be protected from insensitive activities upstream. Public views to these areas should also be maintained to the extent possible. The City's built environment contains parkways and slopes along roadways which function as an open space amenity. These corridors should be well landscaped and maintained. The linkage of open space corridors to parks and regional recreation opportunities serves to tie the community together, as well as encourage bicycling, hiking, and equestrian activities. Such linkages simultaneously encourages other environmental benefits by using the same pathways for wildlife connections. Policy 5.1 Pursue the conservation of the western and southern ridgelines, the Santa Margarita River, slopes in the Sphere of Influence, and other important landforms and historic landscape features through the development review process and as a condition of project approval. Policy 5.2 Identify significant viewsheds to proposed projects that may be preserved through the dedication of open space or the use of sensitive grading, site design and building techniques. Policy 5.3 Encourage the use of clustered development and other site planning techniques to maximize the preservation of open space. Policy .5.8 Require adequate open space in new development for both passive and active recreation. Policy 5.10 Require the connection of open space and recreation areas to adjacent developments and publicly owned recreation areas where appropriate. Policy 5.11 Study the feasibility of establishing a System of Transferable Development Credits, in conjunction with the County, to conserve open space or agricultural uses. Policy 5.12 Incorporate seismic hazard safety zones into valley-wide open space and park systems. R:~T~I.I'C 318/9~ m 22 ATTACHMENT NO. 3 THE STEPS IN THE ANNEXATION PROCESS R:~TA~FRPTIANNI~X1.PC 3/8/9~ ms 23 What are the steos in the annexation process? The annexation process initiates at the City, after the City approves the annexation resolution, LAFCO takes action on the annexation, after that the City becomes the Conducting Authority, and finally the proposal goes back to LAFCO for finalization. The process may be initiated at LAFCO; however, LAFCO can not take action on the annexation proposal until the City has pro-zoned the property, approved the Plan of Services and the environmental documents. To simplify this document, only the first scenario is discussed in detail below: '... 1o THE INITIAL CITY PROCESSING 8. Applicant files an application with the City requesting annexation to the City and the Temecula Community Services District (TCSD) this includes a prezoning application and a copy of a Fiscal Impact Report. b. Staff reviews the application for: ii. iii. iv. Consistency with the General Plan Consistency with the Annexation Guidelines Contiguity with the City Limits Consistency of the applicant's Fiscal Impact Report with the General Ran Fiscal Model c. City staff prepares the following: The Plan of Services The environmental documents in compliance with CEQA A public hearing notice at least 15 days prior to the hearing The Planning Commission conducts a public hearing and makes a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council conducts a public hearing and approves the annexation by adopting an ordinance ~re-zoning the property and adopts a resolution which includes: i. ii. iii. The Plan of Services The environmental documents The Property Tax Agreement with the County if there is no Master Property Tax Agreement The Temecula Community Services District Board adopts a resolution to annex and serve the proposed annexation area. The City Clerk submits a certified copy of the resolutions along with the 10re- zoning ordinance to LAFCO. m LAFCO APPROVALPROCESS LAFCO proceedings are initiated on the date a petition or resolution of application is accepted for filing by LAFCO's Executive Officer issuing a certificate of filing. Immediately after receiving an application and before issuing a certificate of filing, the Executive Officer shall give mailed notice that the application has been received to each interested agency and each subject agency. Within thirty days, the Executive Officer shall determine if the application is complete. The failure to provide a property tax exchange agreement would be grounds for a finding that the application is incomplete and would delay the proceedings.~ Upon issuing a certificate filing, LAFCO schedules and conducts a Public Hearing on the annexation request and approves or denies the request. However, no public hearing is required if 100% of the property owners within the annexation territory consent to the annexation. CITY AS THE CONDUCTING AUTHORITY After LAFCO has adopted a resolution approving the annexation, the proposal is turned over to the City as conducting authority to implement the LAFCO resolution. The City's role at this point becomes ministerial with the exception of detachments. The City Council has only the discretion to disapprove detachments. For annexations, however, the City Council does not have discretion to disapprove the proposal or submit it to an election. For annexations, the City Council schedules and conducts a public hearing to determine the number of protests filed by the landowners or registered voters within the annexation area. (If the City fails or refuses to initiate proceedings hold a public hearing within 60 days, the Board of Supervisors is required to complete the proceedings). Any protests filed shall state whether it is made by a landowner or registered voter. Protests maybe in writing or oral. At the hearing the City Council summarizes '~he LAFCO resolution and hears all oral and written protests. At the conclusion of the hearing the City Council must determine the number of written protests and, within 30 days of the close of the hearing, adopt a resolution specifying its findings on the protests and stating its decision on any matters within its discretion. After adopting a resolution approving the annexation, the City Clerk must submit a certified copy of the resolution to LAFCO, for a determination as whether the City resolution is in compliance, then LAFCO must prepare and execute a certificate of completion and record it with the County Recorder. ~There is a 30 day window during which the County and the City must negotiate a 'property tax agreement. If no agreement is reached, the Revenue and Taxation Section 99 mandates that the annexation proposal is terminated. R:~TAFFRF~ANNE~I.PC 3/8196 m 25 The Executive Officer then issues a statement of boundary change and sends the same to the State Board of Equalization, the County Assessor and Auditor. A statement is also sent to the Secretary of State. a. Proceedings for uninhabited and inhabited are described below: For uninhabited annexations (11 or less registered voters residing within the annexation territory) only landowner protests are applicable and an election is not an option. (1) In such annexations, the City Council must: (a) Terminate annexation DroceedinQs if the landowners owning 50 percent or more of the assessed value of land in the annexation territory file protests with the City, or (b) Order the annexation oroceedinas. ii. For inhabited annexations (12 or more registered voters residing within the annexation territory). (1) In such annexations, the City Council must take the following actions: (a) Terminate the annexation oroceedinQs if 50% or more of the registered voters residing in the annexation territory file protests. (b) Order the annexation oroceedinos subject to a majority election if: At least 25% but less than 50% of the registered voters residing in the annexation territory file written protests, or At least 25% of the number of owners of land, who also own at least 25% of the assessed value of land within the annexation territory file written protests. (i) Hold an Election. The election shall be held according to the following: 1) Hold an election within the annexation territory if the election is required by the virtue of a 25% protest z~wr~wzu, rvu,~,~xl.~c 3,,s~ ,,, 26 (ii) 2) Hold an election within the annexation territory and the City if the assessed value or the number of registered voters in the annexation territory is 50% or more of that in the City, In such a case separate elections are held in the territory to be annexed and in the annexing city and the annexation proposal must be approved by a majority of the voters both in the territory to be annexed and in the annexing city. Adoot A Resolution. If the annexation is ordered subject to confirmation of the voters, the City Council resolution approving the annexation shall also: 1) Call, provide for, and give notice of a special election or elections upon that question 2) Designate the effected territory within which the special election or elections shall be held 3) Fix a date of the election 4) Provide for the question or questions to be submitted to the voters 5) Designate precincts and polling places 6) State any terms or conditions applicable to the annexation, as specified by LAFCO 7) State the vote required for confirmation of the annexation 8) Contain any other matters necessary to call, provide for, and give notice of the special election or ejections and to provide for the conduct and the canvass of returns of the election, as determined by the City Council R:~.STA~I.I~C 3/8/96 an 27 (iv) In addition the following needs to be on the Resolution: 9) 10) 11) 12) Approval of the Plan of Services Approval of the environmental documents Approval of Property Tax Agreement with the County if there is no Master Property Tax Agreement At the conclusion of the hearing the City Council must determine the number of written protests and, within 30 days of the close of the hearing, adopt a resolution specifying its findings on the protests and stating its decision on any matters within its discretion. After adopting a resolution approving the annexation, the City Clerk must submit a certified copy of the resolution to LAFCO, for a determination as whether the City resolution is in compliance, then LAFCO must prepare and execute a certificate of completion and record it with the County Recorder. The Executive Officer then issues a statement of boundary change and sends the same to the State Board of Equalization, the County Assessor and Auditor. A statement is also sent to the Secretary of State. Election Procedures. The City Clerk conducts the election and must give notice of the election in the manner specified in Government Code Sections 57130 and 57131. Pursuant to Section 57131, the notice of election must contain all the matters required in the City Council resolution listed above. Notice shall also be provided to the LAFCO Executive Officer who must draft an impartial analysis to be included in the voter's materials and submit the analysis for LAFC0 approval. LAFCO may make such modifications to the analysis as it deems appropriate. Results of the Election. After the election is held on the question of confirming an annexation, the City Council must, within 30 days of the canvass of the election, declare by resolution the total number of votes cast in the election and the number of votes for and against confirming the annexation. If the annexation is approved by (c) a majority of votes cast, the City Council must also adopt a resolution confirming its previous resolution which ordered the annexation subject to election. If a majority of the votes cast are against confirming the annexation, the City Council must adopt a resolution terminating the proposed annexation. Either a resolution confirming or terminating the proposed annexation must be filed with the LAFCO Executive Officer. Order the Annexation Droceedinas without an election if the protests are insufficient to satisfy the criteria set in Section (b) above (Order the annexation proceedings subject to a majority election if:). (i) Resolution Contents, The City Council shall adopt a resolution ordering the annexation and containing the following information: 1) A statement that the action is being taken pursuant to the Cortese-Knox Local Government Reorganization Act of 1985. 2) A statement of the type of the change or reorganization being acted on (i.e. annexation) 3) A description of the exterior boundaries of the territory for the annexation approved by LAFCO 4) . All the terms and conditions upon the annexation as approved by LAFCO 5) The reasons for the annexation 6) A statement as to whether the regular county assessment roll or another assessment roll will be used for taxes and assessments in the annexed territory 7)' A statement that the annexed territory will or will not be taxed for existing general bonded indebtedness of any agency whose boundaries are changed 8) Any other matter which the City Council deems material to the annexation ~STAFFRFI'L~NNI~XI.I~C 3/8/96 m 29 FINAL LAFC0 ACTION a. LAFCO prepares the Certificate of Completion and records it with the County Recorder. b. LAFCO issues a Statement of Boundary Change. c. Annexation is complete. R:~ST~I.1W3 3~8Y96 m 30 ATTACHMENT NO. 4 SPECIFIC PLANS WITHIN THE SPHERE OF INFLUENCE R:~TAFFI~I.I~C 3/8196 m 31 SPECIFIC PLAN OVERLAY Approved Specific Plan Areas Areas A General Plan Program .| "~ THE PLANNING CENTER FIGURE 2-5 CITY OF TEMECULA Land Use Element Legend for Specific Plan Overlay Figure 2-5 (Continued) APPROVED SPECIFIC PLAN AREAS A- Winchesmr Mesa B. Rancho Spa and Country Club C, Warm Springs D. Silverhawk E. Mountain View F. Margarim Village G. Rancho Highlands H. Paloma del Sol I. Vail Ranch J. Redhawk J.1. RofiVauV.,h Hills FUTURE SPE~IC PLAN ARFASl Winchester 1800 L. Quinta Do Lago M. Mumeta Springs #1 N. Borel Airpark O. Crown Valley Village P. Hot Springs Village Q. Johnson Ranch R. Rofipaugh 800 S. Winchester Hills T. Winchester Meadows Business Park U. Temecula Regional Center V. Campos Verdes W. Old Town X. Unnamed Specific Plan Y. Unnamed Specific Plan Z~,Z2,Z~. Unnamed Specific Plan AA. Murdy Ranch LOCATION ' Environmental Study Area Environmental Study Area Environmental Study Area Sphere of Influence Sphere of Influence City of Temecula City of Temecula City of Temeeula Sphere of Influence LOCATION Sphere of Influence Sphere of Influence Sphere of Influence Sphere of Influence Sphere of Influence Environmental Study Area Sphere of Influence City of Temecula City of Temecula City of Temecula City of Temecula City of Temecula City of Temecula City 0f Temecula City of Temecula City of Temeeula The names of the Future .Specific Plan Areas are subject to change. TEM~)I'II2Gp-L'.,'D.USE · Date: November 9, lo93 Page 2-36 ATTACHMENT NO. 5 PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP STAFF REPORT TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Planning Commission Debbie Ubnoske, Planning Manager February 5, 1996 A Workshop on Annexation Guidelines MEMORANDUM Prepared By: Saied Naaseh, Associate Planner RECOMMENDATION: Provide direction to staff on the proposed Annexation Guidelines. BACKGROUND The City Council has directed staff to prepare guidelines to evaluate annexation proposals. The need for these guidelines is the result of the complex issues involving a number of large annexation proposals such as Johnson Ranch, Roripaugh Ranch, and Silverhawk (Pulte Homes). These projects individually and cumulatively could have a great impact on the City in terms of future population of the City and the required municipal services needed for these projects. Staff contacted other Cities to learn how other local governments reviewed annexation proposals. However, staff has found that no other City in California has adopted detailed annexation guidelines. As a result, the task of creating these guidelines has proved to I~e very challenging. On one hand, the guidelines need to be specific and rigid to allow careful considerations of annexation proposals, but on the other hand, the guidelines need to be general and flexible to allow them to be used for different types of annexation proposals. 'The intent of the Annexation Guidelines is to allow the Planning Commission and the City Council to make informed decisions on annexation requests. These guidelines will enable the Planning CommissiOn and the City Council to weigh the advantages and disadvantages of annexation requests, to make decisions that are consistent with the General Plan and are in the best interest of the City. These guidelines are based on the General Plan's annexation Goals and Policies which are included as Attachment 2. In order to provide a better understanding of the annexation process Attachment 3 has been included for the Commission's information. In addition, the following provides answers to a few annexation questions, R:~TA~.ODL 3r//~6 m 1 DISCUSSION What is an annexation? Annexation is the process of adding new land area into an existing city or special district, such as the Temecula Community Services District, with a resulting change in the boundaries of that local agency. Are there different tvoes of annexations? Yes, there are two types of annexations: Uninhabited annexations (11 or less registered voters residing within the annexation territory) Inhabited annexations (12 or more registered voters residing within the annexation territory) Who can initiate annexations? A proposal for annexation of territory to a city is initiated by application to the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) either by a Resolution of Application adopted by the City Council for City initiated annexations or a petition signed by either of the following for property owner initiated annexations: Not less than 5 percent of the number of registered voters residing within the territory proposed to be annexed as shown on the County Register of Voters; Not less than 5 percent of the number of owners of land within the territory proposed to be annexed who also own 5 percent of the assessed value of land within the territory as show on the last equalized roll. Prior to the adoption of an annexation resolution, the City Council must conduct 8 noticed public hearing. Notice of the public hearing must be published at least 15 days prior to the · date of the hearing. Does the state law reaulate annexations? Yes, the Cortese-Knox Local Government Reorganization Act of 1985, revised 1989, Government Code Section, 56000et. sea., establishes regulations for annexations and other reorganizations. This Act is essentially pro-annexation and generally limits the City's role in the process to that of a "Conducting Authority" to hear and count protests to the annexation from the residents and the property owners in the territory proposed to be annexed. Can the City stoo unwanted annexation DrOOOsalS? Yes, once the City has decided that an annexation project is not in the best interest of the City, unwanted annexations may be stopped in two ways. The most legally defensible manner to stop an annexation is by rescinding the adopted Master Property Tax Agreement with the County. This Agreement allows all annexations to take place by identifying the portion of the property tax that the City would receive from the County on all annexations. A Property Tax Agreement is required by LAFCO prior to deeming the annexation application complete. LAFCO cannot proceed with the annexation process when the application is not deemed complete. Without the Master Property Tax Agreement, the City would not be able to annex properties to the City. In order for the City to approve future annexation proposals, an Individual Property Tax Agreement or a Master Property Tax Agreement needs to be renegotiated with the County. There are advantages and disadvantages associated with rescinding the City's existing Master Property Tax Agreement. The biggest advantage is that the City would be in a strong position if the City were opposed to an annexation proposal, since LAFCO cannot approve an annexation without a Property Tax Agreement. The disadvantages are that the City would have to negotiate a separate Property. Tax Agreement for each individual annexation proposal with the County or adopt a Master Property Tax Agreement, This could be a very time consuming process and, as a result, the City could lose the applicant's interest to annex to the City. Another disadvantage is that the County may ask for more concessions from the City in order to agree to future tax agreements with the City. These concessions could include a bigger share of the property tax for the County and a share of other taxes collected by the City after the annexation such as sales tax. The second method the City can use to stop an annexation is by not approving the Plan of Services or the Pre-Zoning Ordinance, both of which are required by LAFCO before the annexation application is deemed complete. LAFCO would not be able to proceed with the annexation process if the application is deemed incomplete. There is no case law on this issue. However, it is the City Attorney's opinion that this may not be the best legally defensible approach to stop annexations because a court could order the City to prepare a Plan of Services or to pre-zone the property, or allow the applicant to prepare and submit the Plan of Services. How does the Annexation Guidelines Checklist work? The proposed guidelines have been prepared in a checklist format to allow a quick review of the benefits and drawbacks of any proposed annexation (refer to Attachment 1 ). Several categories of criteria have been created which appear at the top of each table. The categories include: · General · Infrastructure · Fiscal · Land Use R:'~'TA~.ODL 3/7/96 sn 3 · Parks and Recreation Each table contains several criteria followed by the possible benefit(s) of each to the City. For each new annexation proposal, staff would complete the tables with check marks in appropriate spaces. A project with many "Yes"as could be a good candidate for annexation, on the other hand, a project with many "No"S is perhaps not a very good candidate for annexation. It should be noted that each criteria has a different weight and more "Yes"as than "No"s does not necessarily mean that ~he project should be annexed to the City. If a criteria does not apply to a particular project, the N/A box will be checked. Staff also recommends against a scoring system that assigns scores for different criteria. While this approach may appear to be objective, it can provide highly subjective or misleading results. CONCLUSION Staff is proposing the adoption of the Annexation Guidelines Checklist. We feel this approach is both comprehensive in scope and provides appropriate flexibility. Attachments: Annexation Guidelines Checklist and the Annexation Priority Map - Blue Page 5 General Plan Goals and Policies Regarding Annexations - Blue Page 11 The Steps in the Annexation Process - Blue Page 16 R:~FA]PFRPTL&NNEX.ODL 3/7/96 m 4 ITEM #6 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: MEMORANDUM Planning Commission Gary Thornhill, Community Development Director March 18, 1996 Planning Application No. PA96-0027 (Specific Plan No. 199 - Zoning Amendment) - Amendment to Planning Areas No. 6, 10, 11 and 12 of Specific Plan No. 199 to increase housing square footage to a maximum of 2, 100 and 2,600 to 3,200 square feet Prepared by: Matthew Fagan, Associate Planner RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Department Staff recommends the Planning Commission: ADOPT Resolution No. 96- recommending approval of PA96-0027 based upon the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report; and APPROVE Planning Application No. 96-0027, subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. BACKGROUND This item was continued by the Planning Commission at their meeting of March 4, 1996. The resolution has been changed to reflect the continuance of this item by the Planning Commission. Attachments: PC Resolution No, 96- - Blue Page 2 A. Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 6 Planning Commission Staff Report dated March 4, 1996 - Blue Page 8 R:\STAFFILr~27PA96.PC2 3114196 mf ] ATTACHMENT NO. 1 RESOLUTION NO. 96- R:\STAFFRFr~L~TPAg~.PC2 3/13/96 mf 2 ATFACHMENT NO. 1 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF ~ PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA96-0027 (SPECIFIC ~ NO. 199 - ZONING AMENDMI~NT) ON PROPERTY LOCATED NORTH OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD, EAST OF MEADOWS PARKWAY, SOUTH OF LA SERENA WAY, WEST OF BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD AND KNOWN AS PLANNING AREAS 6, 10, 11, AND 12 OF SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 199 (MARGARITA VILLAGE) WHEREAS, Bramalea California, Inc., BCI/CCL Venture No. 1 and BCI/CCL Venture No. 2 fried Planning Application No. PA96-0027 (Specific Plan No. 199 - Zoning Amendment) in accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Riverside County Land Use and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference; WHEREAS, Planning Application No. PA96-0027 (Specific Plan No. 199 - Zoning Amendment) was processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WItEREAS, the Planning Commission continued Planning Application No. PA96-0027 (Specific Plan No. 199 - Zoning Amendment) on March 4, 1996, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or in opposition; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application No. PA96-0027 (Specific Plan No. 199 - Zoning Amendment) on March 18, 1996, at a duly noticed public hearing as proscribed by law, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or in opposition; "WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, ff any, of all persons desiring to be heard, the Commission considered all facts relating to Planning Application No. PA96-0027 (Specific Plan No. 199 - Zoning Amendment); NOW, T/IEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TENIECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct. Section 2. Findings. A. The Planning Commission in recommending approval of Planning Application No. ~A96-0027 (Specific Plan No. 199 - Zoning Amendment), makes the following findings, to wit: 1. Planning Application No. PA96-0027 (Specific Plan No. 199 - Zoning Amendment), as proposed, is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community. 2. Planning Application No. PA96-0027 (Specific Plan No. 199 - Zoning Amendment) inconsistent with the City's General Plan, due to the fact that the subject request is in substantial conformance with Specific Plan No. 199 - Margarita Village. 3. The project is compatible with surrounding land uses. The project consists of an expansion to the maximum square footage of single-family residences in an area that is comprised of a variety of sizes of single-family residences. 4. The proposal will not have an adverse effect on surrounding property, because it does not represent a significant change to the planned land use of the area, due to the fact that the proposed land use is consistent with the overall concept of Specific Plan No. 199. 5. The changes proposed in the approved Specific Plan are minor and do not increase the impacts associated with the development or the overall intensity of the development as analyzed in Environmental Impact Report 202. The mitigation measures prepared for this Environmental Impact Report (EIR) will be applied to this project. Section 3. Environmental Compliance. Environmental Impact Report No. 202 was prepared for Specific Plan No. 199 and was certif'~ed by the County Board of Supervisors. It has been eight (8) years since the environmental analysis was performed for this project. It is Staffs op'mion that due to the liraited scope of the proposed Zoning Amendment, there will be no affect on the previous analysis. According to Section 21166 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), no subsequent or supplemental environmental impact report is required for the project unless one or more of the following events occurs: substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the FiR; substantial changes occur with respect to circumstance under which the project is being undertaken which will require major revisions in the FiR; or, new information, which was not known at the time of the FiR was certified and complete becomes available. None of these situations has occurred; therefore, no further environmental. analysis is required. Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby recommends approval of Planning Application No. PA96-0027, (Specific Plan No. 199 - Zoning Amendment) on property located north of Rancho California Road, east of Meadows Parkway, south of La Serena Way, and west of Butterfield Stage Road and known as Planning Areas 6, 10, 11, and 12 of Speeif~c Plan No. 199 (Margarita Village) subject to the foliowing conditions: A. Exhibit A, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference and made a part hereof. R:\STAFFRPT\27PA96.In22 3/13/96 mf 4 Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOFrED this 18th day of March, 1996. LINDA FAHEY CHAIRMAN I HEREBY CERTIP/that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 18th day of March, 1996 by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COM1VHSSIONERS: DEBBIE UBNOSKE SECRETARY R:\STAFFRP~27PA96.1~"2 3/13/96 mf 5 EXHIBIT A CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL R:\STAFFRPT~27PA96.PC2 3/13/96 mf 6 CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Planning Application No. PA96-0027 (Specific Plan No. 199 - Zoning Amendment) Project Description: Amendment to Planning Areas No. 6, 10, 11 and 12 of Specific Plan No. 199 - Margarita Village to increase housing square footage to a maximum of from 2,100 and 2,600 to 3,200 square feet Approval Date: Expiration Date: PLANNING DEPARTMENT General Requirements The developer/applicant shall indemnify, protect, defend, and hold harmless, the City and any agency or instrumentality thereof, and/or any of its officers, employees and agents from any and all claims, actions, or proceedings against the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its Officers, employees and agents, to attack, set aside, void, annul, or seek monetary damages resulting from an approval of the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body including actions approved by the voters of the City, concerning the Planning Application No. PA96-0027 (Zoning Amendment - Specific Plan No. 199) which action is brought within the appropriate statute of limitations period and Public Resources Code, Division 13, Chapter 4 (Section 21 000 et seq., including but not by the way of limitations Section 21152 and 21167). City shall promptly notify the developer/applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding brought within this time period. City shall further cooperate fully in the defense of the action. Should the City fail to either promptly notify or cooperate fully, developer/applicant shall not, thereafter be responsible to indemnify, defend, protect, or hold harmless the City, any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers, employees, or agents. . The applicant shall comply with all underlying conditions of approval for Specific Plan No. 199, and its amendments, unless superseded by these conditions of approval. 3. Specific Plan Text Amendments shall conform with Attachment No. 2. Within Thirty (30) Days From the Second Reading of The Ordinance Approving the Amendment 4. The applicant shall submit the Amended Specific Plan text to the Planning Department. R:\STAFFRIrFx27PA~6.PC2 3/13196 mf 7 ATTACHMENT NO. 2 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DATED MARCH 4, 1996 R:\STAFFRPT\27PA96.PC2 3/13/96 nff 8 STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION March 4, 1996 Planning Application No. PA96-0027 {Specific Plan No. 199 - Zoning Amendment) P~epared By: Matthew Fagan, Associate Planner RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Department Staff recommends the Commission: 1. Planning ADOPT Resolution No. 96- recommending approval of PA96-0027 based upon the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report; end APPROVE Planning Application No. 96-0027 ,subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. APPLICATION INFORMATION Bramalea California, Inc. and CCL Construction, Inc. Bramalea California, Inc.: Emile Haddad CCL Construction, Inc.: Charlie Kluger Amendment to Planning Areas No. 6, 10, 11 and 12 of Specific Plan No. 199 - Margarita Village to increase housing square footage to a maximum of from 2, 100 and 2,600 to 3,200 square feet North of Rancho California Road, east of Meadows Parkway, south of La Serena Way, and west of Butterfield Stage Road APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: Proposed HousinQ Sizes 1,500 - 3,200 square feet 1,500 - 3,200 square feet PROPOSAL: LOCATION: PROJECT STATISTICS ExistinQ Housina Sizes 1,500 - 2,600 square feet (Planning Areas 10, 11, 12) 1,200 ~ 2,100 square feet (Planning Area 6) BACKGROUND Planning Application No. PA96-0027 was formally submitted to the Planning Department on February 16, 1996. Because of the limited scale of the changes to the Specific Plan text, no Development Review Committee (DRC) meeting was held for this project. R:~TAFI~,FfL~TPA96.1~C 2/28/96 vlw 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project is a request to expand the range of allowable square footage for housing types in Planning Areas 6, 10, 11 and 12 of Specific Plan No. 199 - Margarita Village (reference Attachment No, 2). ANALYSIS The applicant is requesting that Specific Plan No. 199 be amended to allow a greater range of housing sizes in the subject Planning Areas. The applicant states: "market feedback indicates a demand for a bigger home" (reference Attachment No. 4). The maximum square footage allowed in Planning Area No. 6 is 2, 1 O0 square feet and the maximum square footage allowed in Planning Areas 10, 11 and 12 is 2,600 square feet. The Amendment would allow up to 3,200 square foot houses in these Planning Areas. Staff can support the increase because it allows greater flexibility for the developer and does not increase the density in the Planning Areas. The applicant has submitted an exhibit which shows the existing development and where proposed development will be located. Staff will review the siting of the houses to assure that they are compatible with the existing houses in terms of color, materials and scale. This review will be accomplished through the model home complex application which has been submitted for Staff review. EXISTING ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION The existing zoning for the project site is SP (Specific Plan). The current General Plan designation for the project site is LM - Low-Medium Density Residential (3-6 dwelling units per acre). The applicant is not proposing any change to the density of the project. The project is consistent with the existing zoning and General Plan Designation. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION Environmental Impact Report No. 202 was prepared for Specific Plan No. 199 and was certified by the County Board of Supervisors. It has been eight (8) years since the .environmental analysis was performed for this project. It is Staff's opinion that due to the limited scope of the proposed Zoning Amendment, there will be no.affect on the previous analysis. According to Section 21166 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), no subsequent or supplemental environmental impact report is required for the project unless one or more of the following events occurs: substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the EIR; substantial changes occur with respect to circumstance under which the project is being undertaken which will require major revisions in the EIR; or, new information, which was not known at the time of the EIR was certified and' complete becomes available. None of these situations has occurred; therefore, no further environmental analysis is required. SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS The applicant is requesting that Specific Plan No. 199 be amended to allow a greater range of housing sizes in Planning Areas 6, 10, 11 and 12. The project is consistent with the City's General Plan and existing zoning, No additional environmental review is required for this .project. R:~T~A96.1'C 2/28/96 vgw 2 FINDINGS Planning Application No. 96-0027 (Specific Plan No. 199 - Zoning Amendment), as proposed, is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community. Planning Application No. 96-0027 (Specific Plan No. 199 - Zoning Amendment) inconsistent with the City's General Plan, due to the fact that the subject request is in substantial conformance with Specific Plan No. 199 - Margarita Village. The project is compatible with surrounding land uses. The project consists of an increase in the maximum square footage of single-family residences in an area that is comprised of a variety of sizes of single-family residences. The proposal will not have an adverse effect on surrounding property, because it does not represent a significant change to the planned land use of the area, due to the fact that the proposed land use is consistent with the overall concept of Specific Plan No, 199. The changes proposed in the approved Specific Plan are minor and do not increase the impacts associated with the development or the overall intensity of the development as analyzed in Environmental Impact Report 202. The mitigation measures prel~ared for this Environmental Impact Report (EIR) will be applied to this project. Attachments: PC Resolution - Blue Page 4 A. Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 8 Proposed Specific Plan Text Amendment - Blue Page 10 Exhibits - Blue Page 11 A. Vicinity Map B. Zoning Map C. General Ran Map D. Existing and Proposed Development Letter From Applicant Dated February 14, 1996- Blue Page 12 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 RESOLUTION NO. 96- ATFACHMENT NO. 1 RF-~OLUTION NO. A I~E~OLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECIRA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA96-0027 (SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 199 - ZONING AMENDMENT) ON PROPERTY LOCATED NORTH OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD, EAST OF MF-ADOWS PARKWAY, SOUTH OF LA SERENA WAY, WEST OF BU'YrERFIE~LI} STAGE ROAD AND KNOWN AS PLANNING AREAS 6, 10, 11, AND 12 OF SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 199 (MARGARITA VILLAGE) VaW~REAS, Bramalea' California, Inc. and CCL Construction, Inc. filed Planning Application No. PA96-0027 (Specific Plan No. 199 - Zoning Amendment) in accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Riverside County Land Use and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference; WHEREAS, Planning Application No. PA96-0027 (Specific Plan No. 199 - Zoning Amendment) was processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WI~REAS, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application No. PA96-0027 (Specific Plan No. 199 - Zoning Amendment) on March 4, 1996, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or in opposition; WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, the Commission considered all facts relating to Planning Application No. PA96-0027 (Specific Plan No. 199 - Zoning Amendmen0; NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct. Section 2. ~ A. The Planning Commission in recommending approval of Planning Application No. PA96-0027 (Specific Plan No. 199 - Zoning Amendment), makes the following findings, to wit: 1. Planning Application No. PA96-0027 (Specific Plan No. 199 - Zoning Amendment), as proposed, is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community. 2. Planning Application No. PA96-0027 (Specific Plan No. 199 - Zoning Amendment) inconsistent with the City's General Plan, due to the fact that the subject request is in substantial conformance with Specific Plan No. 199 - Margarita Village. R:~TAFFRPT~TPA96.PC 2/28/96 ~ 5 3. The project is compatible with surrounding land uses. The project consists of an expansion to the maximum square footage of single-family residences in an area that is comprised of a variety of sizes of single-family residences. 4. The proposal will not have an adverse effect on surrounding property, because it does not represent a significant change to the planned land use of the area, due to the fact that the proposed land use is consistent with the overall conc.,ept of Specific Plan No. 199. 5. The changes proposed in the approVed Specific Plan are minor and do not increase the impacts associated with the development or the overall intensity of the development as analyzed in Environmental Impact Report 202. The mitigation measures prepared for this Environmental Impact Report (EIR) will be applied to this project. Section 3. Environmental Compliance. Environmental Impact Report No. 202 was prepared for Specific Plan No. i99 and was certified by the County Board of Supervisors. It has been eight (8) years since the environmental analysis was performed for this project. It is Staff's opinion that due to the limited scope of the proposed Zoning Amendment, there will be no affect on the previous analysis. According to Section 21166 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), no subsequent or'supplemental environmental impact report is required for the project unless one or more of the following events occurs: substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the EIR; substantial changes occur with respect to circumstance under which the project is being undertaken which will require major revisions in the EIR; or, new information, which was not known at the time of the EIR was certified and complete becomes available. None of these situations has occurred; therefore, no further environmental analysis is required. Section 4~ Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby recommends approval of Planning Application No. PA96-0027, (Specific Plan No. 199 - Zoning Amendment) on property located north of Rancho California Road, east of Meadows Parkway, south of La Serena Way, and west of Butterfield Stage Road and known as Planning Areas 6, 10, I1, and 12 of SpecifiC Plan No. 199 (Margaxita Village) subject to the following conditions: A. Exhibit A, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference and made a part hereof. Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOFrED this 4th day of March, 1996. CHAIRMAN I I-W. RERy CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was' duly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 4th day of March, 1996 by the following voU~ of the Commission: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: DEBBIE UBNOSKE SECRETARY R:~TAFFRPT~TPAg~.PC 2/28/96 vgw 7 EXHIBIT A CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL R:X,qTAFFRFr~TPA96.PC .~/28/9~ ~ ~ CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Planning Application No. PA96-0027 (Specific Plan No. 199 - Zoning Amendment) Project Description: Amendment to planning Ar~n~ No. 6, 10, 11 and 12 of Specific Plan No. 199 * Margarita Villnge to increase housing square footage to a maxlm.rn of from 2~100 and 2,600 to 3,200 sq, mre feet Approval Date: Expiration Date: PLANNING DEPARTMF~NT General Requirements The developer/applicant shall indemnify, protect, defend, and hold harmless, the City and any agency or instrumentality thereof, and/or any of its officers, employees and agents from any and all claims, actions, or proceedings against the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers, employees and agents, to attack, set aside, void, annul, or seek monetary damages resulting from an approval of the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body including actions approved by the voters of the City, eonceming the Planning Application No. PA96-0027 (Zoning Amendment - Specific Plan No. 199) which action is brought within the appropriate statute of limitations period and Public Resources Code, Division 13, Chapter 4 (Section 21000 et s~., including but not by the way of limitations Section 21152 and 21167). City shall promptly notify the developer/applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding brought within this time period. City shall further cooperate fully in the defense of the action. Should the City fail to either prompfiy notify or cooperate fully, developer/applicant shall not, thereafter be responsible to indemnify, defend, protect, or hold harmless the City, any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers, employees, or agents. The applicant shall comply with all unde~ying conditions of approval for Specific Plan No. 199, and its amendments, unless superseded by these conditions of approval. 3. Specific Plan Text Amendments shall conform with Attachment No. 2~ Within Thirty (30) Days From the Second Reading of The Ordinance Approving the Amendment 4. The applicant shall submit the Amended Specific Hart text to the Planning Department. ATTACHMENT NO. 2 PROPOSED SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT R:~STAFFI~,,FI~7PA96.l~C 2/28/96 ~ 10 3. Village "B" Architectural Guidelines a. introduction Village "B" shall contain two basic architectural motifs and a third custom area adjacent to the Vineyards on the eastern boundary of the property. Because the two neigh- borhoods .will comprise the majority of Village "B", these guidelines will predominantly address those areas. The basic architectural themes for Village "B" will be Spanish, Mediterranean, and French Manor. Planning Areas 2, 3, 8 and 10/11/12 will have a combination of Mediterra- nean and French elevation styles. Planning Areas 4 and 6 will have a combination of Spanish and Mediterranean eleva- tions. The Custom homes in Planning Areas 7 and 9 shall combine all three elevation styles; French, Spanish and Mediterranean. This is a natural combination of styles for the Rancho 'California area and will provide a variety of elevations as well as giving each development area a sepa- rate character. The Mediterranean style will provide the blend between the various planning areas and the Spanish and French will provide the necessary accent to keep the visual interest within the projects. All design elements used in Village "B" should work together to achieve a sense of neighborhood identity. b. Building Mass, Form and Scale Village "B" shall include a range of dwelling unit sizes i~ proportion to the size of the project. There shall also be a variety of elevation types per plan throughout the pro- ject. A sense of neighborhood will be accomplished by manipulating the building mass, form, and scale within each planning area. O The homes in Planning Areas 2, S, 8 ~xi~iR shall range in size from !500 sq. ft. to approximately 2600 sq. ft. and a minimum of five (5) floor plans shall be provided. The homes in Planning Area= 4mm~k~xsha!l range i~ size from !200 sq. ft. to approximately 2100 sq. ft. ~ith a minimum of five'(5) floor plans. The Custom homes in Planning Areas 7 and 9 shall have a minimum of !800 sq. ft. of living area. o The structures will consist of one and two story eleva- tions with the one story elements being used at front setbacks and at corner lot configurations. o The homes in Planning Areas 10/11/12 shall range in size from 1500 sq. ft. to approximately 3200 sq. ft. and a minimu~n of three (3) floor plans shall be provided. o The homes in Planning Area.6 shall range in size from 1S00 sq. ft. to approximately 3200' sq. ft. with a mimimum of three (3) floor plans. ATTACHMENT NO. 3 EXHIBITS R:~TAFFRF'I~F/PA~.~2/28/96v~ 11 CITY OF TEMECULA NAP ;HO CA Rn MH CASE NO. - PA96-0027 (SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 199 - ZONING AMENDMENT) EXHIBIT- A VICINITY MAP ".ANNING COMMISSION DATE - MARCH 4, 1996 R:\STAFFRPT\27PA96.PC 2/27/96 mf CITY OF TEMECULA EXHIBIT B - ZONING MAP DESIGNATION - SP (SPECIFIC PLAN) EXHIBIT C - GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION - LM (LOW-MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) CASE NO. - PA96-0027 (SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 199 - ZONING AMENDMENT} PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - MARCH 4, 1996 Cr'/AEDONNAY rlILL. TE'MCGULA, CAUFOg'NIA eelOrchard Vacant Production Lots Orchard Inventory Homes X Orchard Closed Homes ~ Orchard ModeLs ; Vineyard Vacant Production Lots mintVineyard Inventory Homes Ill Vineyard CInsed Homes 'f#, Vineyard Models roll Models Parking Lot Closed Chateau and Vintage Product ~ Graded Lots - Raw Lots /Bramalea Vacant Lots ~1-/.. Recreation Center Streets It Unpavcd lilt'Paved- Uncapped ~mm'~Paved - Capped / EXHIBIT [) Ptt-ql, - Ooze. ATTACHMENT NO, 4 LETTER FROM APPLICANT DATED FEBRUARY 14, 1996 R:\STA]~RPT~r/PAg~.YC 2~S/9~ vF 12 February 14, 1996 Mr. Mathew Fagan City of Temecula 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 Re: Chardonnay Hills Dear Mathew: Thank you for meeting with us last Monday to discuss our future plans and for your continuous assistance on the Chardonnay Hills community. Before I discuss our future plans, let me give you a brief history of this community as well as the status of Bramalea. The Chardonnay Hills community was started under the ownership of Marlborough Development Corporation, a subsidary of Bmmalea California, Inc. The community was opened in 1989 offering two products known as Chateau and Vintage with sizes ranging from 1,520 to 2,795 square feet. Approximately 130 homes were built between t989 and 1993 when the lender chose to stop funding. By the end of 1993, Bramalea purchased the project from Marlborough and approximately 160 homesites out of the remaining 475 homesites were put into a partnership with CCL Development with Bramalea acting as the general partner. During 1994 two new down-sized products were developed. The Orchards and Vineyards range in size from 1,265 to 2,479 square feet. During this process, Bramalea gave up four custom lots in Tract 23103-1 to build an additional recreation center since the original recreation center is located in an ungraded portion of the project and as a result of the market condition was delayed beyond our originally anticipated completion date. It is worth mentioning that the second recreation center, which is now complete, is fully amenitized and was planned at Bramalea's sole discretion to accommodate the existing homeowners and help our marketing efforts. As you are aware, in early 1995 and because of its parent's financial situation, Brarnalea California Inc. had to file Chapter -11 and in order not the make the new project (Orchards and Vineyards) suffer, Bramalea turned over its general partnership interest to CCL Development who has carried through with the construction of the community. Bramalea is in the process of filing a plan of reorganization in the bankruptcy court and is expected to emerge out of bankruptcy soon under a new owner. Letmar Homes, Inc. is going to be the owner of the company and all future development will be done under Letmar's name. Mr. Mathew Fagan February 14, 1996 Page Two Lermar is 'the seventh largest home builder in the United States based in Florida. Bramalea's acquisition will be Lermar's first entry into California. We are currently in plan check for new models ranging in size between 2,500 and 3,200 square feet which would be built on the remaining, or a portion of the remaining 315 homesites. The good news is that the market feedback indicates a demand for a bigger home which means that the median price is being pushed up. Our plan is to start models by the first part of April. We are also submitting a request to mend the language in the Specific Plan to allow the construction of homes up to 3,200 square feet within Village "B" of the Santa Margarita Specific Plan. Please note that as a result of the future development, additional utilities will be instailed, streets will be construct, and slopes will be landscaped, which will reduce the erosion problem that has haunted us for the past few years. It will also provide a more fully developed community. I have attached a colored exhibit indicating the status of the construction within the community. We are very excited about the new models and are looking forward to a fresh start. Again, thank you for y~ur ,' p. · el ~,,~/7~,~~1 .dent EKH:db Enclosure ITEM #7 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Gary Thornhill, Community Development Director DATE: SUBJECT: March 18, 1996 Planning Application No. PA96-0024 (Revised Permit-Master Conditional Use Permit: PA94-0061), Planning Application No. PA96-0025 (Revised Permit- Westside Specific Plan: PA95-0003), Planning Application No. PA96-0026 (Revised Permit-Tentative Tract Map No, 28011: PA95-0004) - Old Town Redevelopmerit Project Prepared by: Steve Cresswell, Principal Engineer Matthew Fagan, Associate Planner RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Department Staff recommends the Planning Commission: ADOPT Resolution No. 96- recommending approval of Planning Applications No. PA96-0024, PA96-0025 and PA96-0026 pertaining to interchange improvements to Rancho California Road and Interstate 15 based upon the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report; RECOMMEND Approval of Planning Applications No. PA96-0024, PA96-0025 and PA96-0026, subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. BACKGROUND At the March 5, 1996, Planning Commission Meeting several questions were raised regarding deletion of the condition of approval for the interim improvements to the Rancho California/Interstate 15 interchange. Those questions were: 1 ) Who is responsible for paying for the interim improvements and what will they cost? 2) What is the timing for completion of the Winchester Road/Interstate 15 interchange improvements and the Route 79(S)/Interstate 15 interchange improvements? 3) When will a decision be made by City Council on prioritizing the Rancho California/Interstate 15 interchange improvements and the Overland Bridge overcrossing? How long will it take to construct the interim improvements? RECOMMENDATION Staff has reviewed the Planning Commission's concerns with the applicant. Even though the request for deletion of the condition was initiated by Staff, the applicant does not want the Planning Commission or public at large to receive an impression that they are trying to avoid construction of any improvements. To this end, the applicant has agreed to contribute a proportionate share for the cost of the improvements (reference Attachment No. 4). Staff's primary reason for their initial request was to assist the applicant with moving forward on their project and avoid delays from processing of permits through Caltrans. The City's Rancho California Road project is under design and is approximately 95% complete. Based on discussions with the applicant, Staff has revised their recommendation for deleting the condition of approval pertaining to the Rancho California Road/Interstate 15 interchange improvements. Staff recommends the existing condition be deleted and replaced with the condition stated below. The condition as revised provides the applicant the additional time needed to install these improvements, should the City not proceed with their project for the ultimate improvements, without jeopardizing delay of opening the project due to delays by Caltrans that are beyond the applicant's control. It also provides for the applicant to contribute a proportionate share of the construction cost if the City does proceed with their project. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall enter into an Agreement for the construction of interim improvements to the Rancho California/I-15 interchange described as followS: At the Rancho California Road/Interstate 15 (I-1 S) northbound on ramps, on the westbound intersection approach, widen and/or re-stripe Rancho California Road to provide one through lane aligned with the (eventual) separate left turn lane at the I-15 south on ramps, one through lane, one optional through right turn lane, and one right turn lane. In order to accommodate two lanes of right turning traffic onto the I-15 north on ramp, widening and/or re-striping may be required just north of Rancho California Road. These two lanes should merge into one lane, however, prior to intersecting the mainline of I-15 north. Similar widening and/or re-striping shall be provided on the eastbound intersection approach at the Rancho California Road/interstate I-15 south ramp. The Agreement shall require that construction of the interim improvements commence within twenty-four (24) months of issuance of any grading permit. Negotiable securities in a form acceptable to the City Attorney and an amount acceptable to the City Engineer shall be provided by the applicant guaranteeing the faithful performance of this obligation. Should the City proceed with construction of the ultimate improvements for the interchange ahead of the applicant, then the applicant shall contribute to the City's improvement project an amount equal to the cost of the interim improvements. Applicant shall contribute their share within thirty (30) days of the City's award of the construction contract for the ultimate improvements. The applicant's contribution to the construction of the ultimate improvements shall relieve the applicant from all responsibility regarding the timing for completion of the improvements at I-15 and Rancho California Road. R:~STAFFRP'BOTI~-P, EV.PC2 3114196 mf 3 Attachments: 2. 3. 4. PC Resolution 96- - Blue Page 5 A. Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 9 Planning Commission Staff Report dated March 4, 1996 - Blue Page 12 Interstate 15/Rancho California Road Improvements Exhibit - Blue Page 13 Letter from John Leway dated March 8, 1996 - Blue Page 14 R:\STAFFRFr~OTRP-REV.PC'2 3/14/96 mf 4 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 PC RESOLUTION NO. R:\STAFFILwE\OTRP-P,~V.IK~ 3/13/~ mf 5 ATTACI-IMRNT NO. 1 PC RESOLUTION NO. 96- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA MODIFYING A PORTION OF CONDITION OF APPROVAL NO. 44 ~ OF PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 94-0061 (MASTER CONDITIONAL USE PERM1T), A PORTION OF: CONDITION OF APPROVAL NO. 38 OF PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 95-0003 (WESTSIDE SPECIFIC PLAN); AND A PORTION OF CONDITION OF APPROVAL NO. 83 OF PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA95-0004 (TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 28011) PERTAINING TO IMPROVEMENTS TO THE INTERCHANGE AT RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AND INTERSTATE 15 WHIr. REAS, the City if Temecuh fried Planning Applications No. PA96-0024, PA96- 0025, and PA96-0026 in accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Riverside County Land Use and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference; WHEREAS, Planning Applications No. PA96-0024, PA96-0025, and PA96-0026 were processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission continued Planning Applications No. PA96-0024, PA96-0025, and PA96-0026 on March 4, 1996, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or in opposition; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered Planning Applications No. PA96- 0024, PA96-0025, and PA96-0026 on March 18, 1996, at a duly noticed public hearing as :prescribed by law, at :which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or in opposition; WHEREAS, at the public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, the Commission considered all facts relating to Planning Applications No. PA96-0024, PA96-0025, and PA96-0026; NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TENIECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERNIINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct. Section 2. Findings. The Planning Commission, in recommending approval of Planning Applications No. PA96-0024, PA96-0025 and PA96-0026 makes the following f'mdings: 1. Planning Application No. PA96-0024 (Revised Pennit-Master Conditional R:\STAFFRPT\OTRP-R/~V.PC2 3/13/96 mf 6 Use Permit: PA94-0061), Planning Application No. PA96-0025 (Revised Permit-Westside Specific Plan: PA95-0003), Planning Application No. PA96-0026 (Revised Permit-Tentative Tract Map No. 28011: PA95-0004) are consistent with the City's General Plan. The findings made for the original approval still apply for the revised project. 2. The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the public health or general welfare of the community. Mitigation measures originally approved for the project will remain in effect for this project.. Conditions of approval added to the project will serve to further mitigate any impacts from this project. 3. The proposal will not have an adverse effect on surrounding property, because the use does not represent a significant change to the present or previously planned land use of the area. 4. The site is suitable to accommodate the proposed land use in terms of the size and shape of the lot configuration, circulation patterns, access, and intensity of use due to the fact that the proposed development complies with the standards of the City' s General Plan, Ordinance No. 460 and Ordinance No. 348. Section 3. Environmental Compliance. Planning Application No. PA95-0031 (Environmental Impact Report) was prepared for the Old Town Entertainment Project and was certified by the City of Temecula City Council in July, 1995. According to Section 21166 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), no subsequent or supplemental environmental impact report is required for the project unless one or more of the following events occurs: substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the FIR; substantial changes occur with respect to circumstance under which the project is'being undertaken which will require major revisions in the EIR; or, new information, which was not known at the time of the EIR was certified and complete becomes available. None of these situations have occurred; therefore, no further environmental analysis is required. Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby recommends approval of Planning Applications No. PA96-0024, PA96-0025 and PA96-0026 subject to the following conditions: A. Exhibit A, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference and made a part hereof. R:\STAFFRPT~OTRP-RI~V.PC2 3113196 mf 7 Seaion 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this lgth day of March, 1996. LINDA FAHEY CHAIRMAN 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 March, 1996 by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: DEBBIE UBNOSKE SECRETARY R:'xSTAFFRFYXOTRP-RI!V.PC2 3/13/96 mf g EXHIBIT A CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL R:~STAFFP, PT\OTRP-R~V.PC2 3113196 mf 9 CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Planning Application No. PA96-0024 (Revised Permit-Master Conditional Use Permit: PA94-0061 ), Planning Application No. PA96-0025 (Revised Permit-Westside Specific Plan: PA95-0003), Planning Application No. PA96-0026 (Revised Permit-Tentative Tract Map No. 28011: PA95-0004) - Old Town Redevelopment ProjeCt Project Description: Modifying of a portion of Condition of Approval No. 44 of Planning Application No. 94-0061 (Master Conditional Use Permit), a Portion of Condition of Approval No. 38 of Planning Application No. 95-0003 (Westside Specific Plan); and a Portion of Condition of Approval No. 83 of Planning Application No. PA95-0004 (Tentative Tract Map No. 28011) pertaining to improvements to the interchange at Rancho California Road and Interstate 15 Approval Date: Expiration Date: PLANNING DEPARTMENT General Requirements The developer/applicant shall indemnify, protect, defend, and hold harmless, the City and any agency or instrumentality thereof, and/or any of its officers, employees and agents from any and all claims, actions, or proceedings against the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers, employees and agents, to attack, set aside, void, annul, or seek monetary damages resulting from an approval of the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body including actions approved by the voters of the City, concerning the Planning Application No. PA96-0024 (Revised Permit-Master Conditional Use Permit: PA94- 0061 ), Planning Application No..PA96-O025 (Revised Permit-Westside Specific Plan: PA95:0003) ,Planning Application No. PA96-0026(Revised Permit-Tentative Tract Map No. 28011: PA95-0004); 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). City shall promptly notify the developer/applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding brought within this time period. City shall further cooperate fully in the defense of the action. Should the City fail to either promptly notify or cooperate fully, developer/applicant shall not, thereafter be responsible to indemnify, defend, protect, or hold harmless the City, any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers, employees, or agents. All signage visible from Interstate 15 shall direct patrons of the Old Town Entertainment Complex to the 1-15/SR79 South interchange. All parking will be located off of the Western Bypass or accessible from the Western Bypass. Preferred parking or valet parking will from the Western Bypass. No traffic shall be directed through Old Town toward Rancho California Road. R:\STAFFRPT~OTRP-REV.PC13/13/~6 mf 5. All exiting traffic shall be directed south on the Western Bypass on SR79/I-15. Prior to Issuance of a Grading Permit The applicant shall enter into an Agreement for the construction of interim improvements to the Rancho California/l-15 interchange described as follows: At'the Rancho California Road/interstate 15 (I-15) northbound on ramps, on the westbound intersection approach, widen and/or re-stripe Rancho California Road to provide one through lane aligned with the (eventual) separate left turn lane at the I-15 south on ramps, one through lane, one optional through right turn lane, and one right turn lane, In order to accommodate two lanes of right turning traffic onto the I-15 north on ramp, widening and/or re-striping may be required just north of Rancho California Road. These two lanes should merge into one lane, however, prior to intersecting the mainline of I-15 north. Similar widening and/or re-striping shall be provided on the eastbound intersection approach at the Rancho California Road/Interstate I-15 south ramp, The Agreement shall require that construction of the interim improvements commence within twenty-four (24) months of issuance of any grading permit, Negotiable securities in a form acceptable to the City Attorney and an amount acceptable to the City Engineer shall be provided by the applicant guaranteeing the faithful performance of this obligation. Should the City proceed with construction of the ultimate improvements for the interchange ahead of the applicant, then the applicant shall contribute to the City's improvement project an amount equal to the cost of the interim improvements. Applicant shall contribute their share within thirty (30) days of the City's award of the construction contract for the ultimate improvements. The applicant's contribution to the construction of the ultimate improvements shall relieve the applicant from all responsibility regarding the timing for completion of the improvements at I-15 and Rancho California Road. Prior to the Issuance of.a certificate of occupancy Signage shall be placed at the intersection of Front Street and the Western Bypass directing patrons to parking off of the Western Bypass. All brochures will have maps and parking instructions will direct patrons to SR79 South/Interstate 15 interchange until such time that either the improvements to Rancho California Road/I-15 or Overland Road overpass are completed. A request to Caltrans for project signage on I-15 will be initiated. The signs will serve to direct patrons to the SR79/1-15 exit. R:\STAFFRPT\OTR~-REV.PC'2 3/13/96 mf 11 ATTACHMENT NO. 2 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DATED MARCH 4, 1996 R:~STAFFRPT~OTRP-REV.I~2 3/13/96 mf 12 STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION March 4, 1996 Planning Application No. PA96-0024 {Revised Permit-Master Conditional Use Permit: PA94-0061 ), Planning Application No. PA96-0025 {Revised Permit-Westside specific Plan: PA95-0003), Planning Application No. PA96-0026 (Revised Permit-Tentative Tract Map No. 28011: PA95-0004) - Old Town Redevelopment Project Prepared By: Steve Cresswell, Principal Engineer Matthew Fagan, Associate Planner RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Department Staff recommends the Planning Commission: APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: PROPOSAL: ADOPT Resolution No. 96- recommending approval of Planning Applications No. PA96-0024, PA96-0025 and PA96-0026 pertaining to interchange improvements to Rancho California Road and Interstate 15 based upon the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report; LOCATION: ADOPT Resolution No. 96- recommending approval of Planning Application No. PA96-0026 pertaining to the timing of recordation of a final subdivision map and issuance of a grading permit, based upon the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report; and RECOMMEND Approval of Planning Applications No, PA96~0024, PA96-0025 and PA96-0026, subject to the attached Conditions of Approval, City of Temecula Deletion of a portion of Condition of Approval No. 44 of Planning Application No. 94-0061 (Master Conditional Use Permit); a portion of Condition of Approval No. 38 of Planning Application No. 95-0003 (Westside Specific Plan); a portion of Condition of Approval No. 83 and Condition of Approval No. 32 of Planning Application No. PA95-0004 (Tentative Tract Map No. 28011) pertaining to timing of improvements Generally located west of Interstate 15, north of First Street/Santiago Road, east of the City's Western Border and south of Rancho California Road BACKGROUND On June 5, 1995 the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council approve the Old Town Redevelopment Project ("Project") and certify the Environmental Impact Report for the Project. The City Council approved the Project at their June 13, 1995 meeting. Since the City Council approval of the Project, Staff has had numerous meetings with the applicant and his representatives to discuss a variety of issues related to the project. Staff has recently determined that conditions of approval for the project relating to submittal of the grading plan prior to the recordation of the final map and the timing of improvements to the Rancho California/Interstate 15 interchange could present potential problems to the Project as well as impact current City capital improvement projects. Staff is recommending more flexibility be allowed for the specific timing of these items and is recommending the changes to the conditions of approval as discussed below. ANALYSIS Coordination of the Old Town Temecula Entertainment Complex with The Zev Buffman Group, Inc. (TZBG), has raised several issues pertaining to two of the Conditions of Approval for the project. These issues impact timing of construction of the project. They are: Issue No. 1: Condition of Approval No. 32 of Planning Application No. 95-0004 (Tentative Tract Map No. 28011 ) which reads: "Tract Map No. 28011 shall be recorded prior to the issuance of any permits;" and Issue No. 2: A portion of Condition of Approval No. 74 of Planning Application No. 94-0061 (Master Conditional Use Permit), a portion of Condition of Approval No. 38 of Planning Application No. 95-0003 (Westside Specific Plan), a portion of Condition No, 83 of Planning Application No. PA95-0004 (Tentative Tract Map No. 28011) which reads: "Page 40 of the study states that "at the Rancho California Road/Interstate 15 (I-15) north ramps, on the westbound intersection approach, widen and/or re-stripe Rancho California Road to provide one through lane aligned with 'the (eventual) separate left turn lane at the I-15 south on- ramp, one through lane, one optional through/right turn lane, and one right turn lane. In order to accommodate two lanes of right turning traffic onto the I-15 north on-ramp, widening and/or restriping may be required just north of Rancho California Road; these two lanes should merge into one lane, however, prior to intersecting the mainline of I-15 north". The following language was added at the Planning Commission hearing: "Similar widening and/or restriping shall be provided on the eastbound intersection approach at the Rancho California Road/Interstate 15 south ramp." Issue No. 1 The applicant has provided a letter (dated February 12, 1996), regarding deletion of condition of approval No. 32 of Planning Application No. PA95~0003 regarding filing of the final map prior to issuance of any permit (reference Attachment No, 3). The basis for this request is to allow grading of the arena and the hotel site concurrent with the grading of the Western Bypass and the First Street extension. This will facilitate balancing of the cut and fill of all three sites and minimize any export or import of soil material. It will also reduce overall grading costs due to economies of scale of the work and avoid having to move the soil material more than once by having to temporarily stockpile it. Recommendation: Issue No, 1 Staff has reviewed this request and recomm~d~ deletion of this condition for the following reasons! All three sites will be graded concurrently maximizing the balance of cut and fill for the sites. Import and export will be reduced thereby reducing the impact from trucks on local streets, 3. Overall project costs will be reduced due to the economy of scale. Grading may commence while the map is being processed which will assist the applicant with the overall timing for completion of the project. Grading will be able to proceed during the dry weather season minimizing potential impacts from sedimentation from storm water runoff. m It is desirable to complete the grading prior to placing asphalt on the Western Bypass and First Street minimizing the impact to these newly constructed streets. Issue No. 2: This issue pertains to the deletion of a portion of Condition of Approval No. 44 of Planning Application No. 94-0061 ('Master Conditional Use Permit); a portion of Condition of Approval No. 38 of Pianning Application No. 95-0003 (Westside Specific Plan); and a portion of Condition of Approval No. 83 of Planning Application No. PA95-0004 (Tentative Tract Map No. 28011 ) regarding interim improvements to the Rancho California Road/I-15 overcrossing. The applicant was conditioned to provide interim improvements consisting of widening the existing ramps to the north and south on-ramps and re-striping of Rancho California Road to provide additional lanes. The City is currently designing ultimate improvements which includes the ramp widening, loop on-ramps, bridge widening and re-striping. The purpose of this condition was to alleviate peak hour traffic on Saturdays between the hours of 1:00 p.m. and 2:00 p.m. only. Peak hour weekdays are not significantly impacted by operation of the Entertainment Center which operates at off peak hours. Recommendation: Issue No. 2 Staff recommends deletion of this portion of the condition(s) for the following. reasons: The Winchester Road/I-15 interchange and Route 79(S)/I-15 interchange will be under construction at approximately the same time. Depending on the impacts from these projects, it may not be desirable to have all three interchanges under construction simultaneously. The impact from traffic occurs on Saturday peak hours. The applicant has submitted a proposal to divert traffic to the Route, 79(S)/1-15 interchange. That will help alleviate this condition (reference Attachment No. 4). Staff recommends that the mitigation , enumerated in this letter be included as a condition of appro~/al for tlie project. The City is currently processing improvement plans for the Rancho California Road/I-15 interchange and would prefer to control the timing of these improvements without having the construction of interim improvements interfering with the City's capital project. Indications from Caltrans show a preference to have the ultimate improvements constructed by the City and not disrupt traffic due to construction more than once. m The City currently has a project underwayto interconnect the signals at the I-15 ramps and along Jefferson, Ynez, Winchester and Rancho California Roads, This signal interconnect will help improve service at the overcrossings. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION Planning Application No. PA95-0031 (Environmental Impact Report) was prepared for the Old Town Entertainment Project and was certified by the City of Temecula City Council in July, 1995. According to Section 21166 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), no subsequent or supplemental environmental impact report is required for the project unl6ss one or more of the following events occurs: substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the EIR; substantial changes occur with respect to circumstance under which the project is being undertaken which will require major revisions in the EIR; or, new information, which was not known at the time of the EIR was certified and complete · becomes available. None of these situations have occurred;. therefore, no further environmental analysis is required. SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS Since the City Council approval of the Project, Staff has had numerous meetings with the applicant and his representatives to discuss a variety of issues related to the project. Staff has recently determined that conditions of approval for the project relating to submittal of the grading plan prior to the recordation of the final map and the timing of improvements to the Rancho California/Interstate 15 interchange could present potential problems to the Project as well as impact current City capital improvement projects. Staff is recommending more flexibility be allowed for the specific timing of these issues. FINDINGS Planning Application No. PA96-0024 (Revised Permit-Master Conditional Use Permit: PA94-0061 ), Planning Application No. PA96-0025 (Revised Permit-Westside Specific Plan: PA95-0003), Planning Application No. PA96~0026 (Revised Permit-Tentative Tract Map No. 28011: PA95-0004) are consistent with the City's General Plan. The findings made for the original approval still apply for the revised project. The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the public health or general welfare of the community. Mitigation measures originally approved for the project will remain in effect for this project. Conditions of approval added to the project will serve to further mitigate any impacts from this project. The prdposal will not have an adverse effect on surrounding property, because the u~e does not represent a significant change to the present or previously planned land use of the area. The site iS suitable to accommodate the proposed land use in terms of the size and shape of the lot configuration, circulation patterns, access, and intensity of use due to the fact that the proposed development complies with the standards of the City's ' General Plan, Ordinance No. 460 and Ordinance No. 348. Attachments: 2. 3. 3. PC Resolution - Blue Page 6 A. Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 10 PC Resolution - Blue Page 13 Letter from Fluor Daniel dated February 12, 1996 - Blue Page 16 Letter from TZBG dated February 14, 1996- Blue Page 17 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 PC RESOLUTION NO. 96- R:\STAFFRPT~OTRP-REV.PC 3/7/96 vgw 6 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 PC RESOLUTION NO. 96- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE Crr~' OF TEMECULA DELETING A PORTION OF CONDITION OF APPROVAL NO. 44 OF PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 94- 0061 (MASTER CONDITIONAL USE PERMrF), A PORTION OF CONDITION OF APPROVAL NO. 38 OF pLANNING APPLICATION NO. 95-0003 (WESTSIDE SPECIFIC PLAN); AND A PORTION OF CONDITION OF APPROVAL NO. 83 OF PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA95-0004 (TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 28011) PERTAINING TO THE TIMING OF IMPROVEMENTS TO THE INFERCHANGE AT RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AND INTERSTATE 15 WHEREAS, the City if Temecula filed Planning Applications No. PA96-0024, PA96-0025 and PA96-0026 in accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Riverside County Land Use and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference; WIIEREAS, Planning Applications No. PA96-0024, PA96~0025 and PA96-0026 were processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered Planning Applications No. PA96-0024, PA96- 0025 and PA96-0026 on March 4, 1996, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or in opposition; WHEREAS, at the public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, the Commission considered all facts relating to Planning Applications No. PA96-0024, PA96-0025 and PA96-0026; NOW, THEREPORE, THE PLANNEqG COMMISSION OF THE CrI'Y OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETER_MINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct. Section 2. Findings. The Planning Commission, in recommending approval of Planning Applications No. PA96-0024, PA96-0025 and PA96-0026 makes the following findings: 1. Planning Application No. PA96-0024 (Revised Permit-Master Conditional Use Permit: PA94-0061), Planning Application No. PA96-0025 (Revised Permit-Westside Specific Plan: PA95-0003), Planning Application No. PA96-0026 (Revised Permit-Tentative Tract Map No. 28011: PA95-0004) are consistent with the City's General Plan. The findings made for the original approval still apply for the revised project. 2. The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the public health or general welfare of the community. Mitigation measures originally approved for the project will remain .in effect for this project. Conditions of approval added to the project will serve to further mitigate any impacts from this project. R:\STAFFI~PTXOTRP-REV.PC 3/7/96 vgw 7 3. The proposal will not have an adverse effect on surrounding property, because the use does not represent a significant change to the present or previously planned land use of the area. 4. The site is suitable to accommodate the proposed land use in terms of the size and shape of the lot configuration, circulation patterns, access, and intensity of use due to the fact that the proposed development complies with the standards of the City's General Plan, Ordinance No. 460 and Ordinance No. 348. Section 3. Environmental ComplianCe. Planning Application No. PA95-0031 (Environmental Impact Report) was prepared for the Old Town E~tertainment Project and was certified by the City of Temecula City Council in July, 1995. According to Section 21166 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), no subsequent or supplemental environmental impact report is required for the project unless one or more of the following events occurs: substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the EIR; substantial changes occur with respect to circumstance under which the project is being undertaken which will require major revisions in the EIR; or, new information, which was not known at the time of the EIR was certified and complete becomes available. None of these situations have occurred; therefore, no further environmental analysis is required. Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby recommends approval of Planning Applications No. PA96-0024, PA96-0025 and PA96-0026 subject to the following conditions: A. Exhibit A, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference and made a part hereof. Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOtvrED this 4th day of March, 1996. CHAIRMAN I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoifig Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 4th day of March, 1996 by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: DEBBIE UBNOSKE SECRETARY R:~STAFFRPT~OTR~-P~V.PC 3/'/196 vgw 9 EXHIBIT A CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL R:\STAFFPd?T\OTP~-REV.pC 3F//96 vgw ~ 0 CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Planning Application No. PA96-0024 (Revised Permit-Master Conditional Use Permit: PA94- 0061), Planning Application No. PA96-0025 (Revised Permit-Westside Specific Plan: PA95- 0003), Planning Application No. PA96-0026 (Revised Permit-Tentative Tract Map No. 28011: PA95-4)004) - Old Town Redevelopment Project Project Description: Deletion of a portion of Condition of Approval No. 44 of Planning Application No. 94-0061 (Master Conditional Use Permit), a Portion of Condition of Approval No. 38 of Planning Application No. 95-0003 (Westside Specific Plan); and a Portion of Condition of Approval No. 83 of Planning Application No. PA954)004 (Tentative Tract Map No. 28011) Pertaining to the Timing of Improvements to the Interchange at Rancho California Road and Interstate 15 Approval Date: Expiration Date: PLANNING DEPARTMENT General Requirements The developer/applicant shall indemnify, protect, defend, and hold harmless, the City and any agency or instrumentality thereof, and/or any of its officers, employees and agents from any and all claims, actions, or proceedings against the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers, employees and agents, to attack, set aside, void, annul, or seek monetary damages resulting from an approval of the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body including actions approved by the voters of the City, concerning the Planning Application No. PA96-0024 (Revised Permit-Master Conditional Use Permit: PA94-0061), Planning Application No. PA96-0025 (Revised Permit-Westside Specific Plan: PA95-0003), Planning Application No. PA96-0026 (Revised Permit-Tentative Tract Map No. 28011: PA95-0004), which action is brought within the appropriate statute of I imitations period and Public Resources Code, Division 13, Chapter 4 (Section 21'000 et seo., including but not by the way of limitations Section 21152 and 21167). City shall promp~y notify the .developer/applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding brought within this time period. City shall further cooperate fully in the defense of the action. Should the City fail to either promptly notify or cooperate fully, developer/applicant shall not, thereafter be responsible to indemnify, defend, protect, or hold harmless the City, any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers, employees, or agents. All signage visible from Interstate 15 shall direct patrons of the Old Town Entertainment Complex to the 1-15/SR 79 South interchange. All parking will be located off of the Western Bypass or accessible from the Western Bypass. Preferred parking or valet parking will from the Western Bypass. No traffic shall be directed through Old Town toward Rancho California Road. All exiting traffic shall be directed south on the Western Bypass on SR79/I-15. Prior to the Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy Signage shall be placed at the intersection of Front Street and the Western Bypass directing patrons to parking off of the Western Bypass. All brochures will have maps and parking instructions will direct patrons to SR79 South/Interstate 15 interchange until such time that either the improvements to Rancho Califo5nia Road/I-15 or Overland Road overpass are completed. A request to Caltrans for project signage o~i 1-15 will be initiated. The signs will serve to direct patrons to the SR79/I-15 exit. R:\STAFFRPT\OTR,P-REV.pC 3/7/96 vgw ~ 2 ATTACHMENT NO. 2 PC RESOLUTION NO. 96- R:\STAFFRPT\OTRP-P~V.PC 3rH96 vgw 13 ATTACHMENT NO. 2 PC RESOLUTION NO. 96- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DELETING CONDITION OF APPROVAL NO. 32 OF PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 95-4)003 (WESTSIDE SPECII~IC PLAN) PERTAINING TO TIMING FOR THE 'RECORDATION OF A FINAL SUBDM SION 'MAP AND THE. ISSUANCE OF A GRADING PERMIT WHEREAS, 'rhe City of Temecula filed Planning Application No. PA96-0026 (Revised Permit) in accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Riverside County Land Use and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference; WHEREAS, Planning Application No. PA96-0026 (Revised Permit) was processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application No. PA96-0026 (Revised Permit) on March 4, 1996, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or in opposition; WHEREAS, at the public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, the Commission considered all facts relating to Planning Application No. PA96-0026 (Revised Permit); NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE,. DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct. Section 2. Findings. The Planning Commission, in recommending approval of Planning Application No. PA96-0026 (Revised Permit) makes the following findings: 1. . Planning Application No. PA96-0026 (Revised Permit-Tentative Tract Map No. 28011: PA95-0004) is consistent with the City's General Plan. The findings made for the original approval still apply for the revised project. 2. The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the public health or general welfare of the community. Mitigation measures originally approved for the project will remain in effect for this project. Conditions of approval added to the project will serve to further mitigate any impacts from this project. 3. The proposal will not have an adverse effect on surrounding property, because the use does not represent a significant change to the present or previously planned land use of the area. 4. The site is suitable to accommodate the proposed land use in terms of the size and shape of the lot configuration, circulation patterns, access, and intensity of use due to the fact that the .proposed development complies with the standards of the City's General Plan, Ordinance No. 460 and Ordinance No. 348. R:XSTAFFRPT\OTRP-REV.FC 3/7/96 vgw '[ 4 Section 3. Environmental Compliance. Planning Application No. PA95-0031 (Environmental Impact Report) was prepared for the Old Town Entertainment Project and was certified by the City of Temecnla City Council in July, 1995. According to Section 21166 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), no subsequent or supplemental environmental impact report is required for the project unless one or more of the following events occurs: substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the EIR; substantial changes occur with respect to circumstance under which the project is being undertaken which will require major revisions in ..the EIR; or, new information, which was not known at the time of the EIR was certified and complete becomes available. None of these situations have occurred; therefore,.. ~0 further environmental analysis is required. Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby recommends approval of Planning' Application No. PA96-0026 deleting Condition of Approval No. 32 of Pianning Application No. 95-0003 (Westside Specific Plan) pertaining to timing for the recordation of a final subdivision map and the issuance of a grading permit Section 4. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOFI'ED this 4th day of March, 1996. CHAIRMAN 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 4th day of March, 1996 by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: NOES: .ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING 'COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: DEBBIE UBNOSKE SECRETARY R:\STAFFILPT~OTKP-P,,EV,PC 3/7/96 vg~/ 15 ATTACHMENT NO. 3 LETTER FROM FLUOR DANIEL DATED FEBRUARY 12, 1996 R:\STAFFRPT~OTRP-REV.PC 3/7/96 vgw 16 FLUOR DANIEL Fiuor Dcsniei, tnc 3333 Michelson Drive, Irvme CA 92730 (714) 975-2000 R:,CEi"v'EE' 1996 C; T'Y OF TEMECULA r-n~GINEERING DE~ARTN,~EN ': February 12, 1996 John LeWay Project Manager T.Z.B.G. Inc. 43513 Ridge Park Dr. Temecula, CA 92590 Modification to Tentative Tract Map #28011 Conditions of Approval DearJohn; In order for Fluor Daniel to be able to perform the early subdivision grading of the Hotel and Arena site of the Tentative Tract Map #28011, the condition .of approval number 32 needs to be deleted. Deletion of this condition will permit Fluor Daniel to be able to grade the site at the same time as the Western Bypass arid First St. are being graded, which will facilitate the cut and fill balancing of all three sites. Fluor Daniel will submit rough grading plans for review and approval based upon the approved site plan. All mitigation measures associated with the grading operations will be in place as required by the Conditions of Approval and Mitigation Monitonng program. Any other submittals necessary to begin grading operations or safeguards normally required for eady subdivision grading of a site will be met per the CondLtions. PleaSe follow up with the City of Temecula to make sure that this request to delete Condition of Approval number 32 to Tentative Tract Map#28011 is on the agenda for the March 4, 1996 Planning Commission meeting. You can call me at (714) 975-6876 if you have any questions. Sincerely, Tom SFtimmin Project Director cc: Steve Cresswell, City of Temecula JTS A3TFACHMENT NO. 4 LETTER FROM TZBG DATED FEBRUARY 14, 1996 R:~STAFFRPT\OTRP-EEV.PC 3/7/96 vgw '] 7 February14,1996 Ron Bradley City of Temecula Temecula, CA 92590 Dear R,on: Per your request, the following is a list of items the Old Town Temecula Entertainment Complex project will do to mitigate traffic concerns after removal of the Condition of Approval for the Kancho California Road/I- 15 work: All signage visible from the fleeway will direct patrons of the Old Town Entertainment Complex to the I-15/SR79 South Interchange. There will be signage at the Western Bypass and Front Street intersection direction patrons to go up the Western Bypass. to get to the parking.' ' ' All parking will be located off the Western Bypass or accessible from the Western Bypass. Preferred'parking or valet parking will be from the Western Bypass down First Street. No traffic will be directed through Old Town to,yards Rancho. California Road. · All exiting traffic will be directed south on the Western Bypass on SR79/I-15. All brochures that have maps and parking instructions that come with tickets will direct patrons to SR79 South~-15 interchange. A request to CalTrans for project signage on 1-15 will be initiated. This request will be for signs directing patrons to the SR79 South/I-15 exit. ny questions, please feel free to call me or John LeWay. / : ;v Bu~nan / ,4 TZBG, hie. Venttire AT'I'ACHMENT NO. 3 INTERSTATE 15/RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD IMPROVEMENTS EXHIBIT R:\STAFFP, PT\OTRP-I~V.PC2 3/13/96 mf 13 r IITIGATED INTERS[~TION UNDER CO, N S IDE I~ ftT !Ol,/ INTERSECTION LEGEND ~ - TRAFFIC SIGNAL N.T,S. i[ - STOP SIGN '996 INTERSECTION LANE CONFIGURATIONS WITH' PROJECT ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS - WITH MITIGATION i Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. F[GUREI CITY OF TEMECULA - OLD TOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT ATTACHMENT NO. 4 LETTER FROM JOHN LEWAY DATED MARCH 8, 1996 R:\STAFFRFI'XO'I'R2-REV.PC2 3/14/96 raf ],4. March 8, 1996 909-695-?711 909-6?5-6306 Mr. Ron Bradley City of Temecula 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 RE: WESTSIDE SPECIFIC PLAN AND MASTEii CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - CONDITION 38.1 RANCHO CALIFORNIA ~ IMPROVEMENTS Dear Ron: The Old Town Temecuta Entertainment Center project will provide a security bond for the full amount of the improvements for condition 38. I, Rancho California Road/I-15 ramp improvements, and will complete above improvements 24 months after the start of construction of the Old Town project. Old Town Temecula Entertainment Center will assist City staff in obtaining CALTRANS approvals to meet the 24 month completion schedule of the Rancho California/I-15 ramp improvements. Jd~n D LeWay A TZBG, Inc. Ventqare ITEM #8 TO: FROM: DATE: .SUBJECT: MEMORANDUM Planning Commission Pebble Ubnoske, Planning Manager March 18, 1996 Coverage Requirements for Industrial Development Prepared by: John Meyer, Senior Planner RECOMMENDATION: Provide recommendation to City Council BACKGROUND The recently adopted Development Code requires that 20% of a project's net site area must be landscaped open space for development in the Light Industrial (LI) Zoning Districts (see attached Table). Staff has been working with current and potential applicants who believe these standards result in unnecessary landscaping particularly in the Light Industrial Zoning District. Current local market conditions have resulted in an increase in development of build-to-suit and speculative industrial development. These developers believe the 20% minimum landscape requirement is excessive and may hamper the economic viability of the industrial districts. They cite added construction and maintenance costs, and a reduction in building sizes to support their concerns. 'S~aff believes there are two issues. First, there is the short term economic gain versus the long term economic stability of the industrial areas. Second, there is the issue of what constitutes unnecessary landscaping. The maximization of building area is an important feature when marketing our industrial areas, The construction cost to land cost ratio becomes very important when competing with surrounding markets like Riverside, Corona and Murrieta. However, the long term economic development potential of individual industrial parks may be cornpromised if the development standards are lowered too far. Currently, the standards require landscaping based on the net lot area. For uses with large outdoor storage areas it proves difficult to meet this requirement unless they landscape the perimeter of the storage area or include landscaping within the storage area. ANALYSIS Staff's preliminary analysis has determined many of the recently approved projects in our LI District meet the 20% landscape requirement, particularly if the site included slopes that required landscaping. Staff intends to further analyze this issue and present our findings the night of the meeting. Staff will provide typical site plans showing variations in the landscape percentage and it's impact on the development of the property. Staff will also provide the standards used by other local agencies. CONCLUSION Staff will provide a recommendation upon conclusion of our analysis. Attachment 1. Table 17.08(c) Development Standards - Commercial/Office/Industrial Districts - Blue Page 3 R:~DEVCODE~.SCAPE.PC 3/14196 2 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 TABLE 17.08(c) R:XDEVCODEXLSCAPE.I~C 3114/96 CITY OF TEMECULA Development Code Table 17.08(c) Development StaDdartls - Commercial/CH~ceandustrinl Districts For a Develooment on a Separate Lot Commer~ Development Standards' Minimum Net Lot At~t (Sq. ft.) Target Floor Area Ratio Maximum Floor Aria Ratio with lnt~tslty Bonus as per Section 17.08.050 NCi CC HTC SC PO BP LI] 30,000 30,000 20,000 40.000 40.000 40.1300 40.000 sq. ft ~, ft sq.ft r,q.ft. r.q.ft : sq.fi sq. ft. 0.25 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.50 0,40 0.40 0.40 1.0 1.0 1.5 1.0 1.5 1.0 Miramum Width at Reqmred Front Setback Area Minimum Depth 100 ft, 100ft. Minimum Frontage on a Sixeel. 30 fL 30 fL ?::~-~-~ 2. ~. -ZL'_ ......... ~ ..... Yard A~a adjacent to a Street Arterial Street 23 ft. 15 fL Collector 25 ft. 10 ft Locai 15 fL 10 It. Interior Side Yard 10 ft. 10 ft Rear Yard : 15 ft. 10 ft. .Accessory Structure - Side/Rear Setback 5 ft. 5 ft. Yard areas adjacent to residenfially zoned 25 ft. 25 ~ property. 25fc 25ft 15ft 10 ft 10 ft. 5ft 30 I00 ft. 80 ft. 100 f?, 100 fL 120 ft 120 fL 120 fZ 120 ft 80ft. 60ft 80ft. 80ft. 25~ 20ft 20ft. 20fL 25ft. 20fL 20ft. 20ft 15 ft. 10 fL 10 ft. 10 ft 10ft loft 0 0 10ft. 10ft 10ft 10ft 5ft. 5fC 5ft. 5ft 30 ft. 25 ft. 30 ft, 40:~ Maximum Height 35 ft- 50 Maximum % of Lot Coverage .25% 30% Minimum Required Landscaped Open 25% 20% Space Fence, Wail or Hedge - Maximum 6 fL 6 fL Height Accessory Structure - Maximum Height 12 ft. 12 ft. 75~ 5~ 75ft 50~ 50ft. 3~ 3~ 5~ 40% 40% 2~ 2~ ~% ~% 2~ 6~ 6~ 6.~ 6~ 6~ 12ft. 12ft. 12~ 12ft..12~ ,...~.,,~ Chapter 17.08 · Commenial/lndttttrial Dietfiat · 15