HomeMy WebLinkAbout100400 PC AgendaIn compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this
meeting, please contact the office of the City Clerk (909) 694-6444. Notification 48 hours prior to a meeting will
enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to that meeting [28 CFR
35.102.35.104 ADA Title II]
AGENDA
TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION
A REGULAR MEETING
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
43200 BUSINESS PARK DRIVE
OCTOBER 4, 2000 - 6:00 P.M.
Next in Order:
Resolution: No. 2000-033
CALL TO ORDER:
Flag Salute:
Roll Call:
Commissioner Webster
Chiniaeff, Mathewson, Telesio, Webster, and Chairman Guerriero
PUBLIC COMMENTS
A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public may address the Commission
on items that are listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes each.
If you desire to speak to the Commission about an item no. jr on the Agenda, a pink
"Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the Commission Secretary.
When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name for the record.
For all other agenda items a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the
Commission Secretary prior to the Commission addressing that item. There is a three
(3) minute time limit for individual speakers.
CONSENTCALENDAR
NOTICETOTHEPUBLIC
All matters listed under Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and all will
be enacted by one roll call vote. There will be no discussion of these items unless
Members of the Planning Commission request specific items be removed from the
Consent Calendar for separate action.
A.qenda
RECOMMENDATION:
1.1 Approve the Agenda of October 4, 2000.
R:\pLANCOMM~Agendas~2000\I 0-4-00.dec
1
2 Minutes
RECOMMENDATION:
2.1 Approve the minutes of August 2, 2000.
2.2 Approve the minutes of August 16, 2000.
COMMISSION BUSINESS
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
Any person may submit written comments to the Planning Commission before a public
hearing or may appear and be heard in support of or in opposition to the approval of
the project(s) at the time of hearing. If you challenge any of the projects in court, you
may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public
hearing or in written correspondences delivered to the Commission Secretary at, or
prior to, the public hearing.
3
Planninq Application No. 00-0261 (Specific Plan Amendment) located north of Rancho
California Road off of Promenade Chardonnav Hills and Meadows Parkway south of
Parducci Lane and ¢lenerallv north of Rue Jadot consistina of all lots in Tract No.'s 23100-6,
23100-7 and 23100-8 - Thomas Thornslev
RECOMMENDATION:
3.1 Adopt a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. 00-0261 pursuant to Section
15061 (b) (3) and make a determination of consistency with a project for which an EIR
was previously certified (Section 15162 - subsequent EIRs and Negative Declarations
of the CEQA Guidelines); and
3.2 Adopt a resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY
COUNCIL APPROVE PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-026t
(SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 5) TO AMEND THE TEXT
WITHIN THE MARGARITA VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN'S
DESIGN GUIDELINES, FOR VILLAGE "B", RELATED TO THE
SIZE AND VARIATION OF RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS
TO BE BUILT IN PLANNING AREAS 8, AND 10/1'1/12,
GENERALLY LOCATED NORTH OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA
ROAD OFF OF PROMENADE CHARDONNAY HILLS, EAST OF
MEADOWS PARKWAY SOUTH OF PARDUCCI LANE AND
NORTH OF RUE JADOT CONSISTING OF ALL LOTS IN
TRACT NO'S. 23'100-6, -7, AND -8.
R:~PLANCOMM~Agendas~2000\I 0-4-00.doc
2
Planninq Application No. 98-0481 0Nolf Creek Specific Plan No.12); No. 98-0482 (Wolf
Creek Environmental Impact Report): No. 98-0484 (Wolf Creek General Plan Amendment);
and No. 00-0052 (Wolf Creek Tentative Tract Map No. 29305) on parcels totalinq 557 acres
located on the east side of Pala Road, between Loma Linda Road and Fairview Avenue -
Carole Donahoe
RECOMMENDATION:
4.1 Adopt a resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY
COUNCIL APPROVE THE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FOR
WOLF CREEK (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 98-0484), AND
APPROVE THE WOLF CREEK SPECIFIC PLAN (PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. 98-048t) ON PARCELS TOTALING 557
ACRES LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF PALA ROAD,
BETWEEN LOMA LINDA ROAD AND FAIRVIEW AVENUE,
AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NOS. 950-tt0-002, -
005, -033 AND 950-t 80-001, -005, -006 AND -0t 0.
4.2 Adopt a resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-0052 -TENTATIVE TRACT
MAP NO. 29305, THE SUBDIVISION OF 557 ACRES INTO 47
LOTS WHICH CONFORM TO THE PLANNING AREAS, OPEN
SPACE AREAS, SCHOOL AND PARK SITES OF THE WOLF
CREEK SPECIFIC PLAN, LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF
PALA ROAD, BETWEEN LOMA LINDA ROAD AND FAIRVIEW
AVENUE, AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NOS. 950-
110-002, -005, -033 AND 950-180-001, -005, -006 AND -010.
R:~PLANCOMM~Agendas~000\10-4-00.doc
3
4.3 Adopt a resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING CERTIFICATION OF
THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED
FOR THE WOLF CREEK SPECIFIC PLAN AND RELATED
ACTIONS (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 98-0482) AND
RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL
FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, A STATEMENT OF
OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND A MITIGATION
MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM IN CONNECTION
THEREWITH FOR THE WOLF CREEK SPECIFIC PLAN,
LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF PALA ROAD, BETWEEN
LOMA LINDA ROAD AND FAIRVIEW AVENUE, AND KNOWN
AS ASSESSOR PARCEL NOS. 950-110-002, -005, -033 AND
950-180-001, -005, -006 AN D -010.
COMMISSIONER'S REPORTS
PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT
ADJOURNMENT
Next regular meeting: October 18, 2000, Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
R:\PLANCOMM~Agendas~2000\I 0-4-00,doc
4
ITEM #2
MINUTES OF THE AUGUST 2, 2000
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
CALL TO ORDER
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
AUGUST 2, 2000
The City of Temecula Planning Commission convened in a regular meeting at 6:00 P.M.,
on Wednesday August 2, 2000, in the City Council Chambers of Temecula City Hall,
43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, Califomia.
ALLEGIANCE
The audience was led in the Flag salute by Chairman Guerriero.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Absent:
Also Present:
PUBLIC COMMENTS
No comments.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Commissioners Chiniaeff, Mathewson, Telesio, Webster,
and Chairman Guerriero.
None.
Attorney Diaz,
Senior Planner Hogan,
Senior Planner Rockholt,
Associate Planner Thomas,
Deputy Director of Public Works Parks, and
Minute Clerk Hansen.
It was noted that the Consent Calendar Items were considered separately.
1 A.qenda
RECOMMENDATION:
1.1 Approve the Agenda of August 2, 2000.
MOTION: Commissioner Mathewson moved to approve the agenda. The motion was
seconded by Commissioner Webster and voice vote reflected unanimous approval.
2 Minutes
RECOMMENDATION:
2.1 Approve the minutes of June 21, 2000.
Commissioner Webster relayed that on page 11 of the minutes, with respect to the
motion, that the minutes should be corrected to reflect that the motion was for approval
of the project with the City's Guidelines, in lieu of the applicanrs guidelines, for the entire
project.
MOTION: Commissioner Mathewson moved to approve the minutes, as *revised. The
motion was seconded by Commissioner Webster and voice vote reflected approval with
the exception of Commissioner Chiniaeff who abstained.
*(For the record it is noted that at the August 16, 2000 Planning Commission meeting
after reviewing a verbatim transcript portion of the June 21, 2000 Planning Commission
meeting that the June 21, 2000 minutes were re-reviewed and approved, as written.)
COMMISSION BUSINESS
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
3
Plannin.q Application No. 99-0335 - Development Plan - QUAID HARLEY
DAVIDSON (located on the east side of Old Town Front Street approximately
1,500 feet south of the Santia.clo Road/Front Street intersection). Associate
Planner Denice Thomas
RECOMMENDATION:
3.1 Adopt a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. 99-0335 pursuant
to Section 15332 of the CEQA Guidelines;
3.2 Adopt a resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000-029
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. 99-0335, A DEVELOPMENT PLAN
FOR THE DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION
OF A 17,371 SQUARE FOOT COMMERCIAL (SC) ZONE,
GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF OLD
TOWN FRONT STREET APPROXIMATELY 1,500 FEET
SOUTH OF THE SANTIAGO ROAD/FRONT STREET
INTERSECTION AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S
PARCEL NO. 922-120-0t 0.
Via overheads, Associate Planner Thomas presented the staff report (of record),
highlighting the location. the adjacent business, access, landscaping, and parking; and
noted the unique building architecture, which was inclusive of a deconstructed type of
articulation.
For Commissioner Mathewson, Associate Planner Thomas relayed that the applicant
had been conditioned to obtain approval from Caltrans; for Commissioner Telesio,
provided additional information regarding the proposed fire pit; for Commissioner
Webster, relayed that the driveway design was restricted with respect to the Fire
Department standards; and in response to Commissioner Chiniaeffs queries, relayed
that while the number of parking spaces was regulated, that staff typically did not dictate
the placement of the motorcycle spaces.
Commissioner Chiniaeff commented on the view of the chain-linked fencing surrounding
the air conditioner unit at the rear of the building
Mr. Robert Quaid, representing the applicant, relayed that a similar architectural style
(near identical) had been constructed in Loma Linda in the Auto Center off the 10
Freeway; noted the growth of the business; provided a detailed overview of the
deconstruction-type style of articulation; relayed that the purpose of the fire pit was for
the provision of a conversational area and to serve to warm the customers in the eady
morning and evening hours; via overhead photographs, displayed the existing building at
the Loma Linda site, clarifying the minor variances in this proposed project; highlighted
the type of merchandise to be sold; noted the positive feedback the applicant had
received with respect to the unique structure of the building in Loma Linda; and for
Chairman Guerriero, relayed that there would be potentially two-to-three annual
fundraising events held at this use, providing additional information regarding the
activities at this site.
Mr. Jeff Coffman, architect representing the applicant, provided additional information
regarding the proposed driveway, noting the requirement to have a 24-foot width for the
purpose of maneuvedng Fire Department vehicles; for Commissioner Chiniaeff, provided
additional information regarding the rationale for the placement of the seven motorcycle
parking spaces proximate to the service entrance area; and with respect to the rear
chain-linked fencing surrounding the compressor, noted that for screening purposes a
vine could be placed in this area, relaying the need for ventilation, noting the restricted
visibility of the fencing.
In order to screen the roll-up door on the front of the building, Commissioner Chiniaeff
recommended increasing the size of two of the trees in the proximate comer landscape
area; for informational purposes, relayed that the applicanrs proposed Eucalyptus Trees
were not surviving in California due to a plant disease in this species, advising that the
applicant may desire to opt for an alternate species; and with respect to the proposed
Boston Ivy, noted that due to the cold temperatures, that this planting would not survive.
With respect to the service bay fronting the street, for Commissioner Mathewson, Mr.
Quaid relayed the limitations if the service bay was to be relocated to the side of the
building, noting the negative impacts with respect to fire access and traffic congestion;
and relayed that the applicant would be agreeable to add additional brick veneer on the
rear of the building.
For Commissioner Webster, Mr. Coffman relayed that the retainer wall would be a
smoothed-face block material, noting that in the planter above the wall area there was
proposed a Rosemary Planting which would drape over the wall; with respect to the roll-
up door, relayed that no awning was proposed in order to de-emphasize this area, noting
the proposed white colodng in order to blend with the building color.
The Commission relayed the followin.q closinf~ remarks:
Commissioner Telesio relayed the need for diversity with respect to the style of
architecture, noting his support of this project.
Commissioner Webster concurred with Commissioner Chiniaeffs comments with
respect to the landscape plan, advising that additionally there be assurance that there
would be a planting to screen the retainer wall; and concurred with Commissioner
Mathewson's recommendation to add additional brick veneer, recommending that the
veneer treatment be placed on all of the elevations.
Commissioner Mathewson relayed that he was in favor of the project with the minor
recommended modifications, noting that in his opinion the proposed building would be
attractive architecturally.
Commissioner Chiniaeff concurred with the comments regarding the unique
architectural style; with respect to the roll-up door, relayed that any additional treatment
in this area would be an improvement; with respect to the location of the irrigation
controller box, recommended that it be relocated to the interior of the building; and
recommended approval of the project with the recommended modifications.
In response to Chairman Guerriero, the applicant's representative relayed that the
applicant would be agreeable to increasing the size of the trees in order to screen the
roll-up door area, to add additional veneer treatment, and to ensure that there would be
a creeping vine planting along the retainer walls.
MOTION: Commissioner Mathewson moved to approve staffs recommendation, with
the following added conditions:
Add-
· That the applicant provide larger plantings to better screen the service bay.
· That the applicant provide plantings to screen the retaining walls.
That the applicant continue the brick veneer treatment along the remaining
elevations (to be determined by staff).
That the applicant relocate the irrigation control box to the interior of the
building, if feasible.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Chiniaeff and voice vote reflected
unanimous approval.
COMMISSIONER REPORTS
Chairman Guerdero relayed gratitude to the City Council and staff for the
workshop, which was held on August 1, 2000.
4
PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT
For informational purposes, Senior Planner Rockholt relayed that the agenda
packets could be 3-hole punched if that was the desire of the Commission.
ADJOURNMENT
At 6:44 P.M. Chairman Guerriero formally adjourned this meeting to Wednesday,
August 16, 2000 at 6:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park
Drive, Temecula.
Ron Guerdero,
Chairman
Debbie Ubnoske,
Director of Planning
MINUTES OF THE AUGUST 16, 2000
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
CALL TO ORDER
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
AUGUST '16, 2000
The City of Temecula Planning Commission convened in a regular meeting at 6:00 P.M.,
on Wednesday August 16, 2000, in the City Council Chambers of Temecula City Hall,
43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California.
ALLEGIANCE
The audience was led in the Flag salute by Commissioner Chiniaeff.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Absent:
Also Present:
PUBLIC COMMENTS
No comments.
CONSENT CALENDAR
1 A.qenda
RECOMMENDATION:
Commissioners Chiniaeff, Mathewson, Telesio, Webster,
and Chairman Guerriero.
None.
Director of Planning Ubnoske,
Deputy Director of Public Works Parks,
City Attorney Thorson,
Associate Planner Donahoe,
Assistant Planner Anders, and
Minute Clerk Hansen.
1.1 Approve the Agenda of August 16, 2000.
2
Minutes
RECOMMENDATION:
2.1 Review and approve the minutes of June 21. 2000.
2.2 Approve the minutes of July 5, 2000.
3 Director's Hearing Update
RECOMMENDATION:
3.1 Receive and file.
MOTION: Commissioner Webster moved to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1-3.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Mathewson and voice vote reflected
approval with the exception of Commissioner Chiniaeff who abstained with regard to
Item No. 2.1.
COMMISSION BUSINESS
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
4
Plannin.G Application No. 00-0300 (Development Plan) Product review approval for
building elevations, floor plans, color and material boards and colored elevations
for 38 lots (Tentative Tract Map 29286) ran~in.q in size from 2,943 to 3,398 sGuare
feet, located on the southeast corner of Date Street and Mar.qarita Road, at the
northern City limit - Patty Anders
RECOMMENDATION:
4.1 Adopt a resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000-030
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. 00-0300, A DEVELOPMENT PLAN
FOR PRODUCT REVIEW APPROVAL CONSISTING OF
BUILDING ELEVATIONS, FLOOR PLANS, COLOR AND
MATERIAL BOARDS AND COLORED ELEVATIONS
FOR 38 LOTS (TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 29286) ON 9.75
ACRES LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF
DATE STREET AND MARGARITA ROAD AND KNOWN
AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO, 911-640-003;
4.2 Adopt a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. 00-0300 pursuant
to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b) (3), as the project does not have the
potential for causing a significant effect on the environment.
Assistant Planner Anders presented the staff report (as per agenda material),
highlighting the elevations and floor plans; noted that all of the proposed homes would
be two stories; and relayed the architectural elements, noting the additional
enhancements on the 20 perimeter lots that were highly visible from either the
Winchester Creek Park, Margarita Road. or Date Street.
Commissioner Chiniaeff recommended that the four reverse corner lots, specifically Lot
Nos. 10, 12, 19, and 21 should also be enhanced architecturally due to the visible rear
and side portions of the homes on these particular lots.
For Commissioner Telesio, via overheads, Assistant Planner Anders specified that the
enhanced architectural elements on the 20 perimeter lots would be inclusive of varying
roof heights, and an additional pop-out element.
Mr. Jim Baggarly, representing Lennar Homes, thanked Assistant Planner Anders and
staff for their diligent efforts with respect to this proposed project; provided an overview
of this particular project; for Commissioner Chiniaeff, provided additional information
regarding Lot Nos. 10, 12, 19, and 21; relayed that the maintenance of the landscaping
outside the wall area on the reverse corner lots would be the homeowner's
responsibility; for Commissioner Mathewson, provided the rationale for proposing all
two-stoW units, noting the economic considerations; for Commissioner Webster, relayed
that each unit was inclusive of a three-car garage, noting the varying design on one plan
with a two-car garage door; specified the enhanced articulation on the 20 perimeter lots;
for Chairman Guerriero, noted that there were nine color schemes for the roof tiles,
relaying that the matedal would be concrete roof tile; and for Commissioner Mathewson,
provided additional information regarding the front setbacks with respect to Plan Nos, 2,
and 3, relaying that the minimum setback was approximately 20 feet.
For Chairman Guerriero, DirectoF of Planning Ubnoske relayed that typically the
Commission would not be conducting product reviews, while noting that staff could
provide a criteria list for this type of review.
Ms. Trisha Stephens, 27014 Raven Hill Court, relayed a desire for the slope which had
previously existed at this site to be restored; and queried the proposed height of the
homes in relation to her neighborhood homes.
For Ms. Stephens, Chairman Guerriero relayed that staff would contact her in order to
provide the additional information she requested regarding the project.
For Commissioner Telesio, Ms. Stephens provided information regarding the noticing of
this particular project. Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that she would confirm that
the project had been noticed properly.
Ms. Rosalie Harmon, 26823 Abaco Court, Murrieta, relayed a preference for the existing
mountain view rather than the view of tract housing; and noted her concern regarding
the project's impact with respect to the 9erieration of additional traffic.
The Commission relayed the followin.cl concludin.q remarks:
Commissioner Telesio commended the architect for the design of the project; and
queried staff with respect to provision of a mix of single-stoW and two-stoW homes for
future proposals. In response, Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that currently the
Design Guidelines did not address a mixing of single and two-stoW homes, noting that if
this was a concern of the Commission, this issue could be addressed at a future point
when the Design Guidelines were revised.
3
Commissioner Webster relayed that the mix of one and two-story homes should be
addressed at the time of the Specific Plan approval; noted that since there currently was
no associated requirements within the Design Guidelines, he would be reluctant to
require a mix; with respect to architectural detail, relayed a desire for similar enhanced
articulation to be included on all 38 homes, rather than solely on the 20 perimeter lots;
concurred with Commissioner Chiniaeff with respect to the four reverse corner lots; with
respect to garage placement, relayed his preference for rear placement, noting that
within the three model plans proposed, it was his recommendation that two of the model
plans include rear placement of the garages and that solely one plan be inclusive of
garage front placement.
Commissioner Mathewson concurred with Commissioner Webster's comments
regarding the placement of the garages; relayed that, overall, it was his opinion that from
an architectural standpoint this was a great project; noted that the mix of one and two-
story homes was of vital importance, relaying a desire for the applicant to consider
inclusion of one-story homes in this project, acknowledging that this was not a
requirement of the Design Guidelines at this point in time.
With respect to the lack of a mix of one and two-story homes, Commissioner Chiniaeff
advised that this was typically determined at the time of the approval of the Tentative
Tract map at which point in time the lot sizes were set; with respect to the garage
placement matter, relayed that at times this was determined by marketing issues; and
with respect to the reverse corner lots, recommended that there be an added condition
requiring the applicant to articulate the rear and the sides of the homes constructed on
these four lots.
Chairman Guerriero commented on the garage placement. recommending that for
future projects, staff consider rear placement of garages; concurred with Commissioner
Chiniaeffs comments regarding the reverse corner lots; and relayed a concern with
respect to Commissioner Chiniaeffs previously mentioned comments regarding the
maintenance of the area outside of the pedmeter wall.
Commissioner Chiniaeff relayed that there were elements that would aid in addressing
the maintenance of the area outside of the wall (which was the responsibility of the
homeowner), providing the following suggestions: developer installed landscaping,
requiring relatively low maintenance, and developer installation of an automatic irrigation
system.
MOTION: Commissioner Chiniaeff moved to approve staff's recommendation with the
following added conditions:
Add-
· That the applicant be required to apply the articulation utilized on the
perimeter lots to Lot Nos., 10, 12, 19, and 21.
· That the applicant install landscaping (via staff recommendation) and an
automatic irrigation system in the area outside the wall of the project.
The motion was seconded by Chairman Guerriero. (Ultimately this motion passed;
see page 5,)
4
Commissioner Webster reiterated his desire for the applicant to modify an additional
model plan to include rear placement of the garage.
In response to Commissioner Webster's comments, Commissioner Chiniaeff relayed
his reluctance to require this modification, noting that this would be requiring the
applicant to change product, querying whether that was within the purview of the
Commission.
For clarification, City Attorney Thorson confirmed that the footprint was pad of the
Subdivision Map, relaying that if the request would require a reconfiguration of the
building, it would be difficult to support this request.
Commissioner Webster relayed that in his opinion the footprint did not affect his
request, noting that currently one of the three models proposed rear placement of the
garage, clarifying that he was recommending that two of the three models propose rear
placement of the garages.
For Commissioner Mathewson, Director of Planning Ubnoske provided additional
information regarding the predetermined lot sizes.
Commissioner Mathewson relayed that he would support Commissioner Webster's
recommendation with respect to the rear placement of the garage on two of the model
plans.
Commissioner Chiniaeff provided additional information regarding the relationship
between the size of the lot and the proposed housing units. noting the marketing
analysis associated with the proposal; and commented on the varying setbacks currently
proposed.
Mr. Steve Shepard, representing Lennar Homes, provided an overview of the project's
conformance to the City's requirements; relayed a willingness to address the reverse
corner lots per Commissioner Chiniaeffs comments; and in response to Commissioner
Webster's specific recommendation, relayed that from a marketing point of view, the
applicant could not support the recommendation to include 23 lots (in lieu of the
proposed 17 lots) with rear placement of the garage.
Commissioner Webster provided additional comments regarding the issue of
marketing.
At this time voice vote was taken reflecting unanimous approval.
It was noted that at 6:58 P.M the meeting recessed, reconvening at 7:08 P.M.
5
Planning Application No. 99-0317 (Development Plan) The design, construction
and operation of a 246-unit, two and three story apartment complex with pool,
clubhouse, workout buildin~ and tot lot on approximately 21 acres, located on the
south side of Rancho California Road southeast of the intersection of Rancho
California Road and Moraga Road - Carele Donahoe
RECOMMENDATION
5.1 Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for Planning Application No. 99-
0317;
5.2 Adopt a resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000-031
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. 99-0317 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN
FOR THE TEMECULA RIDGE APARTMENTS) - THE
DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A 246-
UNIT, 'rvvo AND THREE STORY APARTMENT
COMPLEX WITH POOL, CLUBHOUSE, WORKOUT
BUILDING AND TOT LOT ON 20.88 NET ACRES,
LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF RANCHO
CALIFORNIA ROAD SOUTHEAST OF THE
INTERSECTION OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AND
MORAGA ROAD, AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S
PARCEL NO. 944-290-0'1t, AND ADOPTING A
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION RELATED
THERETO.
Commissioner Webster advised that he would be abstaining with regard to this
Agenda Item, and therefore left the meeting at 7:09 P.M,
Via overhead maps, Associate Planner Donahoe presented the proposed project (of
record); provided an overview of the meetings and discussions related to the Growth
Management Plan and its relation to this project, reiterating the Council's direction to
the Planning Commission with respect to making a determination based on the
proposed amenities in relation to the proposed densities; noted the inclusion in the
staff report of the data related to this particular projecrs proposed densities and
amenities; relayed that with respect to the rear yard fencing, the applicant has agreed
to increase the size of the wreught-iren fence from six feet to eight feet; with respect to
the correspondence received from the Pechanga Cultural Resources Supervisor
regarding their desire for a "walkover" at the sight, noted that the initial study and the
Mitigation Monitoring Measure have been revised to include provision for the
"walkover;" regarding the Conditions of Approval, noted the following corrections: with
respect to Condition No. 6B, relayed that the phrase Olympic-sized swimming pool
should be replaced to reflect Junior Olympic-sized swimming pod, 25 meters in length
and six lanes wide; with respect to Condition No. 9 (regarding the colors and
materials), noted that the "$" denotation should be corrected to indicate "#;" with
respect to Condition No. 99, noted that the existing factore should be removed, adding
6
the following language after the phrase "through the payment of in-lieu fees": in
accordance with the park/and dedication formula in the Temecula Subdivision
Ordinance; and relayed that the a plicant has provided the colored drawings which
had been presented at the May 3~Planning Commission meeting (via supplemental
agenda material), briefly reviewing the renderings.
With respect to Condition No. 10 (regarding the agreement with the local swim club),
Commissioner Chiniaeff queried whether this condition should be more clearly defined;
Commissioner Mathewson queried whether the reference to the local swim club should
be more specific as to a specified entity. In response, Associate Planner Donahoe
relayed that to the best of her knowledge there was solely one swim club in the City of
Temecula, advising that the applicant would provide additional information with respect
to the agreement with the Swim Club.
For Commissioner Mathewson, Associate Planner Donahoe clarified the modification
with respect to Condition No. 99 (regarding the parkland requirements); and confirmed
that the Resource Agencies had reviewed the Environmental Assessment.
For the record, Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that a letter dated August 15,
2000 from Mr. Stan Wright, noting his opposition and concerns with respect to the
project had been copied and distributed to the Commission; and for Chairman
Guerriero, provided Mr. Wright's address.
For the record, Commissioner Chiniaeff relayed that he had participated in ex-parte
communications with Mr. Markham (the applicanrs representative).
Mr. Larry Markham, representing the applicant, provided an overview of the applicant's
discussions with the Swim Club's representative, noting the modification of the size of
the pool in order to satisfy the request of the Swim Club, relaying that a fee would be
charged for the maintenance of the facilities, advising that in conjunction with an
aquatic approval board the days and hours of use would be arranged; for Chairman
Guerriero, relayed that a length of time for the Swim Club Agreement had not been
specified, noting that the applicant would be willing to establish specifications; for
Commissioner Chiniaeff, provided additional information regarding the export of
42,000 yards of material, relaying that the material would be exported off-site; with
respect to area proximate to A Street, advised that the applicant has worked with the
adjacent property owner to develop an agreement that would entail the developer who
first proceeds with development in this area to provide the other with reciprocal
ingress/egress utility easements; with respect to the proposed landscaping on the
slopes, provided additional information regarding the landscape plan on the southerly
property line which has been coordinated with Mr. Oder (the adjacent property owner)
relative to his concerns with respect to drainage, erosion, screening, and security; and
for Commissioner Telesio, provided additional information regarding the landscaping.
Commissioner Mathewson noted his concern with respect to the grading quantities of
200,000 cubic yards.
With respect to the exported material, Chairman Guerriero relayed concern with
respect to the number of truck trips, and the route to be utilized, noting his concern
regarding traffic disruption on Rancho California Road. In response, Mr. Markham
relayed that the developer would have to obtain permits, which would require submittal
7
of a route plan, times and days of operation, and traffic provisions, in accordance with
the Public Works Department.
For informational purposes, Chairman Guerriero commented on the lack of adequately
trained flagmen on alternate projects within the City.
In response to Commissioner Chiniaeff, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks relayed
that at the Moraga Road/Rancho California Road proposed signal site, staff would
investigate the timing of the installation with respect to aiding in the construction truck
traffic.
For Commissioner Telesio, Mr. Markham provided additional information regarding the
extension of La Colina to Moraga Road, relaying that the direction of truck travel had
not been established, advising that the applicant would be willing to add a condition
requiring the applicant to work with staff to ensure a safe travel route, noting that if this
required accelerating the four-way signal at Moraga Road or placing the signal under
manual control, that the applicant would be agreeable; and provided additional
information regarding the grading plan.
With respect to Chairman Guerriero's queries regarding the corner monumentation,
Mr. Markham provided additional information regarding the proposed extensive
monumentation program, noting the enhanced landscaping along Moraga and Rancho
California Roads in order to screen the buildings from the readway; and confirmed that
the applicant has been conditioned to improve the existing landscaped median.
For Commissioner Mathewson, with respect to the habitat issues, Mr. Markham
provided additional information regarding the applicant's current process to acquire off-
site mitigation lands, noting that there were no Checkerspot Butterflies sited in either
season; and with respect to the grading issues, noted the applicanrs assiduous efforts
with staff to develop the project which was now before the Commission, providing
additional information regarding the issues that have been addressed.
The following individuals relayed their opposition to the project:
n Mr. David Michael
n MS. Pamela Miod
(representing Citizen's First of Temecula Valley)
n Mr. Don Leonard
n Mr. Charles Rich
30300 Churchill Court
31995 Via Saltio
31336 Paseo De Las Olas
42403 Cadno Place
The above-mentioned individuals were opposed to the project for the following
reasons:
Concern with respect to the proposed densities, increased traffic, and the impact
on the schools.
Challenged the credibility of Mr. Markham (the applicanrs representative), stating
that his interest was solely involved with the project's development.
· Queried which amenities were for the provision of community benefits.
Noted the negative impact with respect to the existing residents' view.
Queried the rationale for the lack of consideration regarding the neighboring
residents' comments.
Concern regarding the availability of water and utilities due to the existing
shortages.
Relayed that numerous residents located in the City of Temecula to avoid dense
development, and to enjoy a more rural lifestyle.
Concern regarding the impact the project would have with respect to lowered
property values.
Noted that the standard of living for the existing neighboring residents would
decrease.
The following individuals were proponents of the project:
[] Mr. Lon Brusegard
Dr. Robert VVheeler
(representing EMA and the Resources Conservation District)
n Mr. Bob Oder
[] Ms. Helon Oder
[] Mr. Robert Oder
(representing the Mira Loma Aparlments)
[] Ms. Evie Hughes
23766 Via Maddd, Murrieta
29090 Camino Alba, Murrieta
29911 Mira Loma Drive
29911 Mira Loma Drive
29911 Mira Loma Drive
27727 Jefferson Avenue, Murdeta
The above-mentioned individuals were proponents of the project for the following
reasons:
· The need for affordable housing in the City of Temecula.
Noted the importance of a mix of different types of housing developments within
the overall City development.
Relayed the importance of constructing apartments within the City rather than
solely in the rural areas.
· Noted the economic need for this type of housing, referencing the Husing Report.
· Opposed a "No Growth Policy," relaying the negative impacts.
Relayed that this high quality proposed project was a far greater project than
previously proposed projects at this site.
Noted that the applicant worked diligently with the neighboring property owners,
addressing the concerns.
Advised that this was an overall superlative apartment project plan, which would
enhance the community.
· Relayed strong opposition to the previously proposals at this site.
Via overheads, compared the densities of alternate apartment complexes in this
area.
Relayed a desire for an apartment development with attached garages, noting the
safety issues associated with the provision.
Mr. Samuel AIhadeff, representing the applicant, thanked staff and the Commissioners
who have worked diligently with respect to this matter; for the record, noted that this
project has been under review for approximately two years; sited various goals,
policies, amenities, and Land Use Elements represented in the General Plan; provided
an overview of the amenities that this project would provide in the community; relayed
the need for apartment housing in the City of Temecula, siting a one-percent (1%)
vacancy factor in existing units; and provided additional information regarding the
Growth Management Plan and its relation to this project.
In rebuttal of the community comments, Mr. Markham addressed Mr. Leonard's
concerns, with respect to the water and utilities issues, relaying that this project would
be immensely more water efficient, and energy conserving than existing older
developments; with respect to the neighboring residents' view, via overheads,
displayed the existing topography, and the proposed landscaping with the proposed
project, noting the efforts of the applicant to address the viewshed issue; relayed that
there were three community meetings held in order to hear the concerns of the
residents; and provided an overview of the previously proposed project and
subsequent approval at this site, noting the reduction in the current proposed
densities, and the improved site and design plans.
For Chairman Guerriero, Mr. Alhadeff, and Mr. Markham provided additional
information regarding the community meetings, which the applicant held regarding the
project.
Mr. Tom Dodson, CEQA consultant representing the applicant, provided an overview
of the analysis of the energy consumption, water consumption, and waste water
generation issues, providing additional information regarding the ability to meet water
and energy demands, additional information regarding the existing and proposed
power plants which would provide the electricity to supply power for the long-term
range, and additional data regarding the waste water treatment systems.
The Commission relayed concludinq remarks, as follows:
For informational purposes with respect to the residents who had expressed concern
with the development of a project proximate to their neighborhood, Commissioner
Telesio relayed that some growth was inevitable unless one purchased the
surrounding properties; noted that in his opinion, the applicant had addressed the
concerns of the neighboring prepedies, specifically commending the landscape plan;
commented on the previously proposed projects for this parcel, relayin9 that this
project far exceeds previous proposals; commented on the timing of the Growth
Management Plan's (GMP) adoption in relation to this projed which has been in the
review process for approximately two years; advised that this project supercedes the
10
City's requirements; with respect to amenities, noted that the quality of the project
would be an asset to the community; relayed that this particular project would,
additionally, improve the view along Rancho California Road (i.e., per the landscape
plan); noted the availability of the pool for community use; and referenced Councilman
Naggar's comments relayed at the City Council/Planning Commission Workshop at
which time he stated that if you are going to increase the density above the minimum,
make sure it is a "darn good project," advising that in his opinion, "This was a dam
good project."
Commissioner Mathewson relayed that his concern was not based on the quality of
the project, the diversity of housing provisions, or the comparison between alternate
projects proposed for this site; relayed that his focus was to determine the following: 1 )
whether this project on this site was appropriate, meeting the criteria of the General
Plan, the GMP, and "good planning sense,' and 2) whether it met the cdteda of that
site based on the current Land Use regulations; with respect to the proposed amenities
qualifying for the cdteria to grant the density bonus, noted that in his opinion the
proposed amenities do not warrant the densities proposed per the GMP,
acknowledging that this determination was subjective; noted his rationale in drawing
this conclusion was based on the following: 1) that garages were proposed as an
amenity, while acknowledging the positive visual aesthetic element, and the safety
provisions, advised that in his opinion this was not a qualifying amenity, 2) the
development of three-story buildings on the site would have significant negative
impacts on viewsheds (i.e., from Rancho California Road), 3) with respect to the pool
being available to the Swim Club. noted that in his view, this was a limited community
benefit, relaying that it was an on-site amenity, advising that in his opinion a qualifying
amenity would be a community benefit over and above what would normally be
associated with the development, noting that the tot lot, the barbecues, and the
pool/spa area were standard amenities for this type of project. relaying that the
developer would get a credit for these on-site amenities relative to the Quimby
requirements, providing additional information regarding the lack of reciprocity. 4) with
respect to the additional landscaping proposed, relayed that in relation to the
significant amount of grading and degradation of the natural environment it was not his
opinion that the landscape plan balanced this significant impact, and 5) with respect to
the monumentation and decorative elements, relayed that these features did not
supercede alternate development's proposals; and in conclusion, advised that due to
the previously mentioned rationale in his opinion this project did not qualify for a
maximum density under this land use designation.
Commissioner Chiniaeff relayed that with respect to the pool issue, that the
availability of the pool to the Swim Club was a community benefit; with respect to the
provision of the on-site amenities (i.e., the pool, tot lots, barbecues), noted that these
proposals would lessen the impact on the community parks and recreational facilities;
with respect to the proposed garages in lieu of carports, relayed that this amenity
aided in the creation of an upscale project, providing a multi-housing opportunity that
has not been provided with alternate similar projects (siting one exception); with
respect to the viewshed issue, concurred with Commissioner Telesio that there was no
guarantee that when one purchased property that the adjacent property would remain
undeveloped, noting the fights of the property owner to develop their property, advising
that grading was a part of this aspect of the property owner's rights; relayed that this
project would be an attribute to the community, providing numerous amenities as
denoted in the General Plan; and advised that he would support the project.
11
Chairman Guerriero relayed that when the City Council/Planning Commission
Workshop was held that he had referenced this project numerous times since in his
opinion this project merited exactly what the General Plan stated, as in Policy 5. 1
(regarding the denoted amenities), advising that after queries to the Council for
direction, it had been confirmed that the General Plan's denotations for amenities were
acceptable, relaying that the GMP was not in contradiction with the General Plan;
advised that the reason for people locating in the City of Temecula was due to the
diligent efforts thus far in developing the City; clarified that it was not the City of
Temecula's desire to change property rights; commented on the City's efforts to
address a multitude of issues when development proceeds (i.e., water and electricity
needs); noted the desire of the City to provide housing for all income levels; relayed
that he would request the applicant to provide one-percent (1%) of the project for
senior housing, and/or low-income housing; applauded the developer for increasing
the size of the pool to accommodate the Swim Club, advising that the availability to
swim clubs should extend for a specific duration (i.e., the life of the project) rather than
for a short duration; commented on the loss of view, relaying that this was inevitable
with growth in a community, advising that this project had addressed this issue;
commended the applicant for the increased landscape plan, advising this was a
community amenity; applauded the developer for the proposed monumentation at the
intersections; and relayed that he would support the project, noting that this was a
great project; and reiterated his recommendation for the applicant to provide one to
two percent (1-2%) of the project for Senior Housing and/or low income housing units.
MOTION: Commissioner Chiniaeff moved to approve staffs recommendation, subject
to the following:
Add-
The amended conditions recommended by staff (see page 6 of the minutes,
specified in Associate Planner Donahoe's staff report presentation).
That the applicant work with the Public Works Department in accelerating
the modification of the signal at Moraga Road to provide for traffic control for
truck traffic.
That the applicanrs agreement with the Swim Club continue for the life of
the project, modifying the arrangement in order to not negatively impact the
use for the residents.
That the applicant provide two percent (2%) of the units for either Senior or
Low/Moderate Income Housing.
Commissioner Telesio seconded the motion.(Ultimately this motion passed; see
page 13.)
Mr. Alhadeff noted that he had a handicapped son, and advised that without reservation
the applicant has relayed that he would be agreeable to the two percent (2%) provision
of housing for seniors and/or low-moderate income levels; with respect to the pool,
relayed the applicanrs commitment to make the pool available to the Swim Club; and for
Chairman Guerriero, relayed that the applicant would work with staff regarding the
12
speci~city of the Agreement with the Swim Club in order to address his
recommendations.
At this time voice vote was taken, reflecting approval with the exception of
Commissioner Webster who abstained and Commissioner Mathewson who voted n__o.
COMMISSIONER REPORTS
No input.
PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT
Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that the American Planning Association
(APA) would be holding a Planning Commissioners Forum on September 9,
2000, noting that she would have additional information regarding the forum on
August 20, 2000.
Director of Planning Ubnoske noted that there would be a tour of developments
in Orange County to review developments similar to what was being proposed in
the Harveston Specific Plan; and invited two Commissioners to attend the tour.
For informational purposes, Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that Senior
Planner Rockholt had resigned, noting that the staff was holding interviews,
seeking individuals to fill the position.
ADJOURNMENT
At 9:32 P.M. Chairman Guerdero formally adjoumed this meeting to Wednesday,
September 6, 2000 at 6:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park
Drive, Temecula. . ·
Ron Guerriero,
Chairman
Debbie Ubnoske,
Director of Planning
13
ITEM #3
CITY OF TEMECULA
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PLANNING DIVISION
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Planning Commis 'one
Debbie Ubnoske, Director of Planning
October 4, 2000
Planning Application No. PA00-0261 (Specific Plan Amendment)
PREPARED BY:
RECOMMENDATION:
Thomas Thornsley, Project Planner
The Planning Commission recommend that the City Council approve
PA00-0261 (Specific Plan Amendment), a request to amend the text
of the Margarita Village Specific Plan, Planning Areas 8, and
10/11/12 to increase the maximum size for the homes from 2,600
square feet to 3,700 square feet and to reduce the number of floor
plan provided from five (5) to three (3).
BACKGROUND:
This project was continued at the September 21, 2000, Planning
Commission Meeting due to the possibility there Would be a lack of a
quorum based on the legal noticing. At the public hearing, two
Commissioners, Guerriero and Mathewson had to abstain because
they reside within the project area and Commissioner Telesio
announced that he too had received a notice, which would require
him to abstain keeping the Commission from having a quorum. His
proximity to the specific plan and the need to be noticed were
questioned and this item was continued so staff could confirm the
validity of the notification. A review of the noticing package found
that several properties were included that fell outside of the 600 foot
radius noticing requirement. It was determined that Commissioner
Telesio's property lies more that 1,200 feet outside of the area of
Margarita Village Specific Plan.
Staff has updated the resolutions and the Conditions of Approval to
reflect the continuance. A copy of the original staff report package,
with revisions, is attached to this memorandum.
R:XS PXMargarita Village SPXAmendment 5 PA00-0261\continued PC memo.doc
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
0RtGINAL
PLANNING COMMISSION
Date: September 20, 2000
Planning Application No. PA 00-0261 (Specific Plan Amendment)
Prepared By: Thomas Thomsley, Associate Planner
RECOMMENDATION: The Community Development Department - Planning Division Staff
recommends the Planning Commission:
1. ADOPT a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. PA00-0261 pursuant to
Section 15061 (b) (3) and make a determination of consistency with a project for
which an EIR was previously certified (Section 15162 - subsequent EIRs and
Negative Declarations of the CEQA Guidelines); and
2. ADOPT a Resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL
APPROVE PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA00-0261 (SPECIFIC
PLAN AMENDMENT No. 5) TO AMEND THE TEXT WITHIN THE
MARGARITA VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN'S DESIGN GUIDELINES,
FOR VILLAGE "B", RELATED TO THE SIZE AND VARIATION OF
RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS TO BE BUILT IN PLANNING
AREAS 8 AND 10111112, GENERALLY LOCATED NORTH OF
RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD OFF OF PROMENADE
CHARDONNAY HILLS, EAST OF MEADOWS PARKWAY SOUTH
OF PARDUCCI LANE AND NORTH OF RUE JADOT CONSISTING
OF ALL LOTS IN TRACT NO'S. 23100-6, -7, AND -8.
BACKGROUND
The Chardonnay Hills (Village "B") portion of the Margarita VIllage Specific Plan is near completion
with only a small area (Area 8 and a portion of 10/11/12) remaining to be built. At this time, only 79
lots out of 578 lots remain vacant. Within VIllage wB" there are 12 planning areas with a vadety of
product types, sizes, and floor plan variations. In response to the changing demand for larger
homes the applicant, Lennar Homes, is requesting to amend the specific plan, which limits the size
of homes that can be built in the remaining undeveloped areas
Throughout the Margarita VIllage Specific Plan a wide range of home sizes and product variations
have been proposed and built. As the applicant points out in the attached Letterof Justification, the
Specific Plan states, in Section III.A.; "The Design Guidelines provided herein are intended as a
living document. They are subject to modification overtime..." With the option available to request
change, the Applicant has filed for this Specific Plan Amendment.
R:%S PWlargarita Village SP~rnendmertt 5 PA00-O261~STAFFRPT PC,doe
PROPOSED SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENTS
The proposed Specific Plan Amendment will expand the flexibility of the unit sizes within
Chardonnay Hills by changing the maximum square footage and the number of vadable floor plans
of Areas 8 and 10/11/12. The first request is to introduce language that will allow the Director of
Planning make administrative changes to home sizes without amending the Specific Plan.
Secondly, a change is proposed to increase the maximum unit size for Areas 8 and 10/11/12 from
2,600 square feet to 3,700 square feet and to require a minimum of three (3) floor plans instead of
five (5). The 79 remaining lots are some of the larger lots (7,282 to 23,676 square feet) within the
Village "B" planning area and they are mixed with surrounding homes, in small clusters, or cul-de-
sacs. Although this request diminishes the number of floor plans, the Design Guidelines require
variations for each plan. Three floor plans would create at least nine variations. The layout and
separation of the remaining lots from one another will keep the homes from looking like a
continuous tract.
The amendments to the Design Guidelines are as follows:
Chal~ter III- Desi.gn Guidelines, Section C.3. - Villa~e "B" Architectural Guidelines:
b. Building1 Mass, Form, and Scale:
1. Text added after the first sentence in the introductory paragraph stating:
"Home sizes are depicted below. If changes to the home sizes are desired they
may be administratively approved by the Director of Planning without
amending this Specific Plan."
2. First bullet changed to delete Planning Areas 8 & 10/11/12.
"The homes in Planning Areas 2 and 3, 8, and 10/11/12 shall range in size from
1,500 sq. ft. to approximately 2,600 sq. ft. and a minimum to five (5) floor plans
shall be provided."
3. New bullet added to change what had been 2,600 sq. ft. to 3,700 sq. ft. and five (5) floor
plans to three (3) floor plans.
"The homes in Planning Areas 8 and 10111112 shall range in size from 1,500
sq. ft. to approximately 3,700 sq. ft. and a minimum to throe (3) floor plans
shall be provided."
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
These minor amendments affect only the unit sizes and number of floor plan variations found in the
Design Guidelines of the Margadta Village Specific Plan. The Margarita Village Specific Plan
includes a vadety of design standards, which were part of the consideration of the previous
Environment Impact Report for the Margadta Village Specific Plan, as well as the Final
Environmental Impact Report for the City General Plan. The changes requested are all within the
range of Design Guidelines previously considered. As a result, the project is exempt from CEQA
pursuant to Section 15061 (b) (3) because a determination of consistency can be made for a project
for which an EIR was previously cartitled (Section 15162 - subsequent EIRs and Negative
Declarations of the CEQA Guidelines).
R:~S PV~argarita Village SP~Amendment 5 PA00-0261LSTAFFRPT PC,doc
GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING CONSISTENCY
The proposed changes to the Design Guidelines am consistent with the intent of the Margadta
Village Specific Plan and with the General Plan because they still promote variations in the size and
vadety of homes being built.
SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS
The proposed amendment to the Design Guidelines of the Margadta Village Spedtic Ran will allow
larger homes to be built within the designated planning areas and complete the build-out of
Chardonnay Hills while maintaining the character and intent of the Margadta Village Specific Plan.
FINDINGS
1. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment is consistent with the General Plan and the Margadta
Village Specific Plan because the amendment maintains a variety of home sizes and styles.
The proposed Specific Plan Amendment is consistent with the goal and objectives of the
Margarita Village Specific Plan because the amendment permits the development of homes of
desirable character that will be compatible with both the existing and proposed development in
the surrounding area.
The proposed Specific Plan Amendment will not affect the public interest, health, safety,
convenience or welfaro of the City because the changes relate to the Design Guidelines and do
not alter any element of the Spedtic Plan affecting these concorns.
Attachments:
1. PC Resolution - Blue Page 4
Exhibit A - City Council Ordinance - Blue Page 7
Exhibit B - City Council Resolution - Blue Page11
2. Margarita Village Specific Plan Affected Pages - Blue Page 15
3. Statement of Justification - Blue Page16
4. Vidnity Map - Blue Page 17
5, Specific Plan Land Use Map - Blue Page 19
3
R:~S PV,&argadta Village Sp~Amendment 5 PA00-0261~STAFFRPT PC.doe
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000-
4
R:%S PVvlargarlta Village SP%Amendment 5 PA00-0261~STAFFRPT PC.doc
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
RESOLUTION NO. 00-.__
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL
APPROVE PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA00-0261 (SPECIFIC
PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 5) TO AMEND THE TEXT WITHIN THE
MARGARITA VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN'S DESIGN GUIDELINES,
FOR VILLAGE "B", RELATED TO THE SIZE AND VARIATION OF
RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS TO BE BUILT IN PLANNING
AREAS 8 AND 10111112, GENERALLY LOCATED NORTH OF
RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD OFF OF PROMENADE
CHARDONNAY HILLS, EAST OF MEADOWS PARKVVAY SOUTH
OF PARDUCCI LANE AND NORTH OF RUE JADOT CONSISTING
OF ALL LOTS IN TRACT NO'S. 23100-6, -7, AND -8.
WHEREAS, Lennar Homes (the "Applicant") filed Planning Application No. PA00-0261 (the
"Application"), in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development
Code;
WHEREAS, the Application was processed including, but not limited to public notice, in the
time and manner prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission was scheduled to hold a noticed public hearing on
September 15, 1999, on the issue of recommending approval or denial PA99-0238 (Specific Plan
Amendment); and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, due to a concern with the noticing and the possibility
there would be a lack of a quorum, continued Planning Applications No. PA99-0238 (Specific Plan
Amendment) to the Planning Commission Hearing on October 4, 2000;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered this Application on October 4, 2000 at a
duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff, the Applicant, and
interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support or opposition to this
matter;
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing and after due consideration of the
testimony, the Commission recommended approval of the Application subject to conditions after
finding that the project proposed in the Application conformed to the City of Temecula General Plan;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES
RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Findinqs.
A. The Planning Commission in recommending approval of the Application, makes the
following findings:
5
R:\S P~,,largarita Village SP%Amendment 5 PA00-0261 \STAFFRPT PC.doc
1. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment is consistent with the General Plan
and the Margarita Village Specific Plan because the amendment maintains a variety of home sizes
and styles.
2. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment is consistent with the goals and
objectives of the Margarita Village Specific Plan because the amendment permits the development
of homes of desirable character that will be compatible with both the existing and proposed
development in the surrounding area.
3. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment will not affect the public interest,
health, safety, convenience or welfare of the City because the changes relate to the Design
Guidelines and do not alter any element of the Specific Plan affecting these concerns.
Section 2. The City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City
Council approve the modifications to the Design Guidelines for Village "B" contained in the
Margarita Village Specific Plan as contained in Exhibit A, substantially in the form contained herain.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 4th day of October, 2000.
Ron Guerriero, Chairperson
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning
Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held th
on the 4 day of October,
2000 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
6
R:\S P~tvlargadta Village SP~Amendment 5 PA00-0261\STAFFRPT PC.dec
EXHIBIT A
CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE
7
R:~S PV,/la~gartta Village SP~q'mndrnent 5 PA00-026fiSTAFFRPT PC.doc
EXHIBIT A
ORDINANCE NO. 00-
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA, APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA00-
0261 (SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 5), TO AMEND THE
TEXT WITHIN THE MARGARITA VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN'S
DESIGN GUIDELINES, FOR VILLAGE "B", RELATED TO THE
SIZE AND VARIATION OF RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS TO
BE BUILT IN PLANNING AREAS 8 AND 10/11/12, GENERALLY
LOCATED NORTH OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD OFF OF
PROMENADE CHARDONNAY HILLS, EAST OF MEADOWS
PARKWAY SOUTH OF PARDUCCI LANE AND NORTH OF RUE
JADOT CONSISTING OF ALL LOTS IN TRACT NO'S. 23100-6, -7,
AND -8.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DOES
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Chapter III - Design Guidelines, Section C.3. - Village "B" Architectural
Guidelines, for the Margarita Village Specific Plan are hereby amended:
A. Subsection b. Building Mass, Form, and Scale, the first paragraph is hereby
amended to read as follows:
"Home sizes are depicted below. If changes to the home sizes are desired they may
be administratively approved by the Director of Planning without amending this
Specific Plan."
B. First bullet changed to delete Planning Areas 8 & 10/11/12.
"The homes in Planning Areas 2 and 3, 8, and 10/11/12 shall range in size from
1,500 sq. ft. to approximately 2,600 sq. ~. and a minimum to five (5) floor plans
shall be provided."
C. New bullet added to change what had been 2,600 sq. ft. to 3,700 sq. ft. and five
(5) floor plans to three (3) floor plans.
"The homes in Planning Areas 8 and 10/11/12 shall range in size from
1,500 sq. ft. to approximately 3,700 sq. ft. and a minimum to three (3) floor
plans shall be provided."
Section 2.
following findings:
Findings. In adopting this Ordinance, the City Council hereby makes the
A. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment is consistent with the General Plan and the
Margarita Village Specific Plan because the amendment maintains a variety of home sizes and
styles.
8
R:\S P\Margarita Village SP~Amendment 5 PA00-0261\STAFFRPT PC.doc
B. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment is consistent with the goals and objectives
of the Margadta Village Spedtic Plan because the amendment permits the development of homes
of desirable character that will be compatible with both the existing and proposed development in
the surrounding area.
C. The proposed Spedtic Plan Amendment will not affect the public interest, health,
safety, convenience orwelfare of the City because the changes relate to the Design Guidelines and
do not alter any element of the Specific Plan affecting these concerns.
Section 3. Environmental Determination. These minor amendments affect only fie unit
sizes and number of variations found in the Design Guidelines of the Margadta Village Specific
Plan. The Margadta Village Specific Plan includes a vadety of design standards, which were part of
the consideration of the previous Environment Impact Repod for the Margarita Village Spedtic Plan,
as well as the Final Environmental Impact Repod forthe City General Plan. The changes requested
are all within the range of Design Guidelines previously considered. As a result, the project is
exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15061 (b) (3) and a determination of consistency with a
project for which an EIR was previously certified (Section 15162 - subsequent EIRs and Negative
Declarations of the CEQA Guidelines).
Section 4. Severability. The City Council hereby declares that the provisions of this
Ordinance are severable and if for any mason a coud of competent jurisdiction shall hold any
sentence, paragraph, or section of this Ordinance to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the
validity of the remaining parts of this Ordinance.
Section 5. The City Clerk shall cadify to the adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the
same to be posted as required by law.
Section 6. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days
after its passage. The City Clerk shall cedify to the adoption of this Ordinance and cause copies of
this Ordinance to be posted in three designated posting places.
Section 7. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its passage;
and within fifteen (15) days after its passage, togetherwith the names of the City Council members
voting thereon, it shall be published in a newspaper published and circulated in said City.
9
R:LS P~largarita Village SP%Amendment 5 PA00-O261~STAFFRPT PC.doc
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED, by the City Council of the City of Temecula this
10th day of October, 2000.
AI'I'EST:
Jeffrey E. Stone, Mayor
Susan W. Jones, CMC
City Clerk
[SEAL]
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss
CITY OF TEMECULA )
I, Susan W. Jones, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, Califomia, do hereby certify that the
foregoing Ordinance No. __ was duly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a regular
meeting of the City Council on the 10th day of October, 2000, and that thereafter, said Ordinance
was duly adopted and passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Temecula on
the __ day of ,2000 by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
Susan W. Jones, CMC
City Clerk
10
R:~S PliVlargarita Village SP~Ame~dment 5 pA00-O261~STAFFRPT PC.do~
EXHIBIT B
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION
11
R:~S PV, Aargarita Village SP%Amendment 5 PA00-0261%STAFFRPT PC,doc
EXHIBIT B
RESOLUTION NO. 00-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVING PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. PA00-0261 (SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT NO.
5) TO AMEND THE TEXT WITHIN THE MARGARITA VILLAGE
SPECIFIC PLAN'S DESIGN GUIDELINES, FOR VILLAGE "B",
RELATED TO THE SIZE AND VARIATION OF RESIDENTIAL
DWELLING UNITS TO BE BUILT IN PLANNING AREAS 8, 10, 11,
and 12, GENERALLY LOCATED NORTH OF RANCHO
CALIFORNIA ROAD OFF OF PROMENADE CHARDONNAY HILLS,
EAST OF MEADOWS PARKWAY SOUTH OF PARDUCCI LANE
AND NORTH OF RUE JADOT CONSISTING OF ALL LOTS IN
TRACT NO'S. 23100-6, -7, AND -8.
WHEREAS, Lennar Homes (the "Applicant") filed Planning Application No. PA00-0261 (the
"Application") in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development
Code;
WHEREAS, the Application was processed including, but not limited to public notice, in the
time and manner prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission was scheduled to hold a noticed public hearing on
September 15, 1999, on the issue of recommending approval or denial PA99-0238 (Specific Plan
Amendment); and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, due to a concern with the noticing and the possibility
there would be a lack of a quorum, continued Planning Applications No. PA99-0238 (Specific Plan
Amendment) to the Planning Commission Hearing on October 4, 2000;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the Application on October 4, 2000, at a
duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff, the Applicant, and
interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support or opposition to this
matter;
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing and after due consideration of the
testimony, the Commission recommended approval of the Application subject to conditions after
finding that the project proposed in the Application conformed to the City of Temecula General Plan;
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing pedaining to the Application on
October 10, 2000, at which time interested persons had opportunity to, and did testify either in
support or opposition to the Application;
WHEREAS, the City Council received a copy of the Commission proceedings and Staff
Report regarding the Application;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES
RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby incorporated by
reference.
12
R:~ PM',,largarita Village SP~Amendment 5 PA00-0261 \STAFFRPT PC.doc
Section 2.
following findings:
Findinfis. In adopting this Ordinance, the City Council hereby makes the
A. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment is consistent with the General Plan and the
Margarita Village Specific Plan because the amendment maintains a variety of home sizes and
styles.
B. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment is consistent with the goals and objectives
of the Margarita Village Specific Plan because the amendment permits the development of homes
of desirable character that will be compatible with both the existing and proposed development in
the surrounding area.
C. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment will not affect the public interest, health,
safety, convenience or welfare of the City because the changes relate to the Design Guidelines and
do not alter any element of the Specific Plan affecting these concerns.
Section 3. Conditions. The City of Temecula City Council hereby approves the
Application to amend the Margarita Village Specific Plan sign standards in Chapter III, Section C.3.,
Village "B" Architectural Guidelines, for the Margarita Village Specific Plan to read as follows:
A. Subsection b. Buildin¢l Mass, Form, and Scale, the first paragraph is hereby
amended to read as follows:
"Home sizes are depicted below. The Planning Manager may allow changes to the home
sizes without amending this Specific Plan."
B. First bullet changed to delete Planning Areas 8 & 10/11/12.
"The homes in Planning Areas 2 and 3,8, and 10/11/12 shall range in size from
1,500 sq. ft. to approximately 2,600 sq. ft. and a minimum to five (5) floor plans
shall be provided."
C. New bullet added to change what had been 2,600 sq, ~. to 3,7000 sq. ft. and five
(5) to three (3).
"The homes in Planning Areas 8 and 10/11/12 shall range in size from 1,500 sq.
ft. to approximately 3,700 sq. ft. and a minimum to three (3) floor plans shall be
provided."
Section 4. Environmental Determination. These minor amendments affect only the unit
sizes and number of floor plan variations found in the Design Guidelines of the Margarita Village
Specific Plan. The Margarita Village Specific Plan includes a variety of design standards, which
were pad of the consideration of the previous Environment Impact Repod for the Margarita Village
Specific Plan, as well as the Final Environmental Impact Report for the City General Plan. The
changes requested are all within the range of Design Guidelines previously considered. As a result,
the project is exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15061 (b) (3) and a determination of
consistency with a project for which an EI R was previously certified (Section 15162 - subsequent
EIRs and Negative Declarations of the CEQA Guidelines).
Section 5. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resolution.
13
R:\S P~vlargarita Village SP~Amendment 5 PA00-0261 \STAFFRPT PC.doc
Section 6. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED, by the City Council of the City of
Temecula this 10th day of October, 2000.
Jeffrey E. Stone, Mayor
ATTEST:
Susan W. Jones, CMC
City Clerk
[SEAL]
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss
CITY OF TEMECULA )
I, Susan W. Jones, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, California, do hereby cedify that Resolution
No. was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular
meeting thereof held on the day of ,2000, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
Susan W. Jones, CMC
CityClerk
14
R:\S P~tvlargarita Village SP~Amendment 5 PA00-0261\STAFFRPT PC.doc
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
MARGARITA VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN AFFECTED PAGES
15
R:%S P'dvlargarita Village SP%Amendment 5 PA00-O261%STAFFRPT PC.doc
Margarita Village IIl. Design Guidelines
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 neighborhoods 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 Mediterranean and French elevation
styles. Planning Areas 4 and 6 will have a combination of Spanish and Mediterranean elevations. 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 separate character. The Mediterranean
style will provide the blend between the various planning areas and the Spanish and French will provide
the necessary agent 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 in proportion to the size of the project. Home
sizes are depicted below. If changes to the home sizes are desired they may be administratively
approved by the Director of Planning without amending this Specific Plan. There shall also be a
variety of elevation types per plan throughout the project. A sense of neighborhood will be accomplished
by manipulating the building mass, form, and scale within each planning area.
· The homes in Planning Areas 2 and 3, 8, and 10/I 1/12 shall range in size from 1,500 sq. ft. to
approximately 2,600 sq. sq. ft. and a minimum of five (5) floor plans shall be provided.
· The homes in Planning Areas 8, and 10/11/12 shall range in size from 1,500 sq. ft. to
approximately 3,700 sq. ft. and a minimum of three (3) floor plans shall be provided.
· The homes in Planning Areas 4 and 6 shall range in size from 1,200 sq. ft. to approximately 2,100 sq.
ft. with a minimum of five (5) floor plans.
· The Custom homes in Planning Areas 7 and 9 shall have a minimum of 1,800 sq. ft. of living area.
· The structures will consist of one and two story elevations with the one story elements being used at
front setbacks and at comer lot configurations.
· The two story structures will have stepped back second floors to reduce any adverse visual impact as
well as one story roof elements to improve blend between adjacent structures.
· The combination of one and two story structures will provide vertical height differences within the
community.
Specific Plan No. 199: Amendment No. 5 Page III- 13
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
LETTER OF JUSTIFICATION
16
R:',S p~vlargarita Village SP~Arnendment 5 PA00-0261~STAFFRPT PC.doe
Justification for Amendment No. 5:
Margarita Village Specific Plan
The Riverside County Board of Supervisors (Board) originally adopted the Margarita
Village Specific Plan in 1986. The Board approved Amendment No. 1 in September
1988. The City of Temecula City Council approved Amendments No. 2, 3 and 4 in
March, 1996, October, 1997 and January, 1998 respectively. The majority of the
Specific Plan area has been built out as of June 2000.
Lennar Homes is proposing Amendment No. 5 to the Specific Plan, to increase the
home sizes allowed in Planning Area 8 of the Specific Plan (TM 23100-6, TM 23100-7
and TM 23100-8), which is comprised of seventy-nine (79) parcels. This is within Village
"B" of the Specific Plan. According to Section III.C.3 (Village "B" Architectural
Guidelines), the current range in this Planning Area is 1,500 square feet to 2,600 square
feet. In response to market demand, Lennar Homes is proposing to increase the upper
end of the range to 3,700 square feet. They are proposing these homes on the largest
lots within the phases of TM 23100. As stated in Section III.A. (Design Guidelines,
Purpose and Intent): "The Design Guidelines provided herein are intended as a living
document. They are subject to modification over time so as to allow for response to
unanticipated conditions, such as changes in taste, community desire and the
marketplace, as well as amendments to the Specific Plan itself." It is with this Specific
Plan policy guidance that Lennar Homes is proposing the current Amendment.
Lennar Homes is not proposing any other Amendment to the Specific Plan. They have
reviewed the existing Development Standards and Design Guidelines and have
determined that the larger homes will meet the established setbacks, lot coverage,
height restrictions and design intent in effect under the current Specific Plan.
R:\S PXMargarita Village SPXAmendment 5 PA00-0261Uusti~cation for SPA.doc 09/12/00
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
VICINITY MAP
17
R:%S PWlargadta Village SP%Amendment 5 PA00-0261~STAFFRPT PC.doc
CITY OF TEMECULA
J \
CASE NO.00 -0261 (SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT)
EXHIBIT - A
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - September 20, 2000
18
R:~S PWlargarita Village SP%Amendment 5 PA00-O261%STAFFRPT PC.doc
VICINITY MAP
ATTACHMENT NO. 5
SPECIFIC PLAN LAND USE MAP
19
R:~S PVv'largarita Village SP%Arnendment 5 PA00-0261%STAFFRPT PC.doc
CITY OF TEMECULA
VICINITY MAP
H :~75 OU
M
66.1
356
MH
M
33.8
136 ~j
FIGURE 11-3
PROPOSED SPEC F C PLAN AMENDMENT#3
· I .[~Ts,.P~..i..co.~.~..~SPECIFIC LAND USE PLAN
t~ I """"' ~ta Village
CASE NO.00 -0261 (SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT)
EXHIBIT - A
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - September 20, 2000
SPECIFIC PLAN LAND USE MAP
20
R:~S PWlargadta Village SP%Amendment 5 PA00-O261%STAFFRPT PC.doe
/I
ITEM #4
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
October 4, 2000
Planning Application No. 98-0481 - Wolf Creek Specific Plan No. 12
Planning Application No. 98-0482 - Wolf Creek Environmental Impact Report
Planning Application No. 98-0484 - General Plan Amendment for Wolf Creek
Planning Application No. 00-0052 - Tentative Tract Map No. 29305
Prepared By: Carole K. Donahoe, AICP, Associate Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
The Community Development Department - Planning Division Staff
recommends the Planning Commission:
1. ADOPT a Resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE
THE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FOR WOLF CREEK (PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. 98-0484), AND APPROVE THE WOLF CREEK
SPECIFIC PLAN (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 98-0481) ON PARCELS
TOTALING 557 ACRES LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF PALA ROAD,
BETWEEN LOMA LINDA ROAD AND FAIRVIEW AVENUE, AND KNOWN
AS ASS ESSOR PARCEL NOS. 950-110-002, -005, -033 AN D 950-180-001,
-005, -006 AND -010.
ADOPT a Resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. 00-0052 -TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 29305, THE
SUBDIVISION OF 557 ACRES INTO 47 LOTS WHICH CONFORM TO THE
PLANNING AREAS, OPEN SPACE AREAS, SCHOOL AND PARK SITES
OF THE WOLF CREEK SPECIFIC PLAN, LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE
OF PALA ROAD, BETWEEN LOMA LINDA ROAD AND FAIRVIEW
AVENUE, AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR PARCEL NOS. 950-110-002, -
005, -033 AND 950-180-001, -005, -006 AND -010.
R:\S P\Wolf Creek SP\STAFFRPT.PC for 10~-00,doc
1
3. ADOPT a Resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA RECOMMENDING CERTIFICATION OF THE FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED FOR THE WOLF CREEK
SPECIFIC PLAN AND RELATED ACTIONS (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 98-
0482) AND RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS
PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, A
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND A MITIGATION
MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM IN CONNECTION THEREWITH FOR
THE WOLF CREEK SPECIFIC PLAN, LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF PALA
ROAD, BETWEEN LOMA LINDA ROAD AND FAIRVIEW AVENUE, AND KNOWN
AS ASSESSOR PARCEL NOS. 950-110-002, -005, -033 AND 950-180-001, -005, -
006 AND -010.
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
SP Murdy, LLC
REPRESENTATIVES:
STATUS
Bill Griffith and Camille Bahri, Spring Pacific Properties, LLC
Barry Burnell, T & B Planning Consultants, Inc.
Donald Lohr and Tony Terich, Lohr + Associates, Inc.
Sam Alhadeff, Alhadeff & Solar, LLP
At their last meeting on September 20, 2000, the Planning Commission closed the public hearing
for the Wolf Creek Specific Plan, but asked the applicant to reassemble the various documents
pertaining to the project for their final review. The applicant was asked to return on October 4,
2000, to address Commissioner's concerns regarding the 4,000 and 4,500 square foot lots, the mix
of one and two-story homes in each subdivision, and the list of commercial uses for the
neighborhood and community commercial sites.
Staff received the reassembled documents on Wednesday, September 27, 2000, and the binder
containing these documents is attached. Responses to the concerns noted above shall be
presented verbally at the hearing on October 4, 2000.
CORRESPONDENCE
Staff has provided as Attachment No. 8 all correspondence received since the printing of the first
Staff Report. These documents were previously distributed to the Commission as additional
information, at the September 6 and September 20, 2000 hearings. They have been assembled
here for your convenience, including letters from the same correspondent.
Ballfield Lighting at the Middle School
The Notice of Public Hearing indicated that the Middle School ballfields would be lighted for
evening play. Redhawk residents adjacent to the Middle School site have voiced opposition to this
activity, as noted in the correspondence received. The Temecula Community Services Distdct has
confirmed that the ballfields at the Middle School site will not be lighted because adequate fields
are available at the proposed community park and City sports park that located in other portions of
the specific plan.
R:\S P\Wolf Creek SP\STAFFRPT.PC for 10-4-00.doc
2
FINDINGS
Planninq Application No. 98-0481 - Wolf Creek Specific Plan No. 12
and Planninq Application No. 98-0484 - General Plan Amendment
The project as proposed and conditioned is compatible with the health, safety and welfare
of the community. The project has been reviewed by agencies and staff and determined to
be in conformance with the City's General Plan, Development Code, Design Guidelines and
Growth Management Program Action Plan. These documents set policies and standards
that protect the health, safety and welfare of the community. Access and circulation are
adequate for emergency vehicles.
The project is compatible with surrounding land uses. The project proposes similar
residential neighborhoods adjacent to existing surrounding neighborhoods, with
interface buffers and full roadway improvements. Project commercial development is
proposed within a Village Center, across Pala Road from the Pechanga Casino.
The proposed project will not have an adverse effect on the community because it remains
consistent with the goals and policies of the adopted General Plan. The project does not
represent a significant change to the planned land uses for the site. The General Plan
Amendment is a relocation and reallocation of existing land use designations that conforms
to the design of the specific plan.
Planning Application No. 98-0482 - Wolf Creek Environmental Impact Report
See Attachment 3 for full text.
Planninq Application No. 00-0052 - Tentative Tract Map No. 29305
The proposed subdivision and the design and improvements of the subdivision is
consistent with the Development Code, the proposed General Plan Amendment, the Wolf
Creek Specific Plan, the City of Temecula Municipal Code and Subdivision Ordinance.
The tentative map does not propose to divide land which is subject to a contract
entered into pursuant to the California Land Conservation Act of 1965. The Agricultural
Preserve status of the property expired in 1989 through the Notice of Nonrenewal Process
initiated in 1979.
The site is physically suitable for the type and density of development proposed by the
tentative map. The site is generally fiat topographically, with no unique land features. It is
surrounded by existing and developing residential uses, as well as commercial uses
generated by the Pechanga Indian Reservation property across Pala Road.
The design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements, with conditions of
approval, are not likely to cause significant environmental damage or substantially and
avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. There are no known fish, wildlife or habitat
on the project site, and the project will not affect any fish, wildlife or habitat off-site. The site
is surrounded by development and is an infill site.
An environmental impact report has been prepared and a finding has been made,
pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081 (a) (3), finding that specific economic,
social, or other considerations make infeasible mitigation measures or project alternatives
R:\S P\Wolf Creek SRSTAFFRPT.PC for 10-4-00.doc
3
identified in the environmental impact repod;
9. Thedesignofthesubdivisionandthetypeofimprovementsarenotlikelytocauseserious
public health problems.
10. The design of the subdivision provides for future passive or natural heating or cooling
opportunities in the subdivision to the extent feasible
11. The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements will not conflict with easements
acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed
subdivision, or the design of the alternate easements which are substantially equivalent to
those previously acquired by the public will be provided.
12. The subdivision is consistent with the City's parkland dedication requirements (Quimby).
13. Quimby fees have been determined for the Wolf Creek Specific Plan, and the map has
been conditioned to provide these fees.
Attachments:
5.
6.
7.
8.
PC Resolution for the Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment- Blue Page 5
Exhibit A - Wolf Creek Specific Plan text - (Under Separate Cover)
Exhibit B - Conditions of Approval - (Under Separate Cover)
Exhibit C - General Plan Amendment - Blue Page 6
PC Resolution for Tentative Tract Map No. 29305 - Blue Page 7
Exhibit A - Conditions of Approval - (Under Separate Cover)
Exhibit B - Revised Exhibit
PC Resolution for the Final Environmental Impact Report - (Under Separate Cover)
Exhibit A - FEIR text - (Under Separate Cover)
Exhibit B - FEIR Technical Appendices - (Under Separate Cover)
Exhibit C - Addendum to the FEIR dated August 23, 2000 - (Under Separate Cover)
Exhibit D - Addendum No. 2 to the FEIR dated September 14, 2000 - (Under Separate
Cover)
Exhibit E - Mitigation Monitoring Program - (Under Separate Cover)
Staff Report dated September 6, 2000 - Blue Page 8
Planning Commission Minutes of September 6, 2000 - Unavailable
Staff Report dated September 20, 2000 - Blue Page 9
Planning Commission Minutes of September 20, 2000 - Unavailable
Correspondence received subsequent to staff reports - Blue Page 10
a. Endangered Habitats League, Dan Silver, Coordinator, dated 9/3/00.
b. William & Ted Lee Tams, E-mail received 9/4/00.
c. Pamela Miod, correspondence dated 9/6, and fax received 9/20/00.
d. Pamela J. Jones, M.D., fax dated 9/6/00.
e. Sterlyn & Janie Rigsby, correspondence dated 9/6/00.
f. Pechanga Cultural Resource Center, John A. Gomez, Jr., Supervisor, fax dated
9/6/00, and correspondence delivered 9/20/00.
g. Peter Lucier, correspondence delivered to the Commission dated 9/6/00.
h. Tracy Luke, request to inform the Commission per telecon on 9/8/00.
R:\S P\Wolf Creek SP\STAFFRPT.PC for 104-00.doc
4
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000-
SPECIFIC PLAN
AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
R:\S P\Wolf Creek SP\STAFFRPT.PC for 104-00.doc
5
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
RESOLUTION NO. 00-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL
APPROVE THE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FOR WOLF
CREEK (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA98-0484), AND
APPROVE THE WOLF CREEK SPECIFIC PLAN (PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. 98-0481) ON PROPERTY TOTALING 557
ACRES LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF PALA ROAD,
BETWEEN LOMA LINDA ROAD AND FAIRVIEW AVENUE, AND
KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NOS. 950-110-002, -005, -033
AND 950-180-001, -005, -006 AN D -010.
WHEREAS, SP Murdy, LLC filed Planning Application Nos. PA98-0481, -0482 and -0484
(the "Application"), in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan, Development
Code, CEQA Guidelines and California State CEQA Guidelines;
WHEREAS, the Application was processed including, but not limited to public notice, in the
time and manner prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the Application on September 6, 2000,
September 20, 2000, and October 4, 2000, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at
which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in
support or opposition to this matter;
WH EREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing and after due consideration of the
testimony, the Commission recommended approval of the Application subject to conditions, and
Certification of said EIR and Adoption of the Mitigation Monitoring Program after finding that the
project proposed in the Application conformed to the City of Temecula General Plan;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby incorporated by
reference.
Section 2. Findings. That the Planning Commission, in recommending approval of the
Application, hereby makes the following findings as required in Section 16.09.140 of the Temecula
Municipal Code:
A. The project as proposed and conditioned is compatible with the health, safety and
welfare of the community. The project has been reviewed by agencies and staff and determined to
be in conformance with the City's General Plan, Development Code, Design Guidelines and Growth
Management Program Action Plan. These documents set policies and standards that protect the
health, safety and welfare of the community. Access and circulation are adequate for emergency
vehicles.
B. The project is compatible with surrounding land uses. The project proposes similar
residential neighborhoods adjacent to existing surrounding neighborhoods, with interface buffers
and full roadway improvements. Project commercial development is proposed within a Village
Center, across Pala Road from the Pechanga Casino.
R:\S P\WoIf Creek SPXRES-ZA.PC.dOC
C. The proposed project will not have an adverse effect on the community because it
remains consistent with the goals and policies of the adopted General Plan. The project does not
represent a significant change to the planned land uses for the site. The General Plan Amendment
is a relocation and reallocation of existing land use designations that conforms to the design of the
specific plan.
Section 3. Environmental Compliance. The City Council of the City of Temecula must
approve and adopt the Final Environmental Impact Report and Mitigation Monitoring Program for
the Wolf Creek Specific Plan in order to approve the Application.
Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby
recommends approval of the Application, to develop 557 acres of land with a mixed use specific
plan known as the Wolf Creek Specific Plan No. 12, certification of the Final Environmental Impact
Report and adoption of the Mitigation Monitoring Program, on property located on the east side of
Pala Road, between Loma Linda and Fairview Avenue, and known as Assessor's Parcel Nos. 950-
110-002, -005, -033 and 950-180-001, -005, -006 and -010.
Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this fourth day of October, 2000.
Ron Guerriero, Chairperson
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning
Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the fourth day of October,
2000 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
R:\S P\Wolf Creek SPXRES-ZA.PC.dOC
2
EXHIBIT C
GENERAL PLAN COMPARISON
R:\S P\Wolf Creek SP\STAFFRPT.PC for 10~.-00.doc
6
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000-
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 29305
R:\S P\Wolf Creek SP\STAFFRPT.PC for 10-4-00.doc
7
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
PC RESOLUTION NO. 00-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. PA00-0052 (TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO.
29305) TO SUBDIVIDE 557 ACRES INTO 47 PARCELS WHICH
CONFORM TO THE PLANNING AREAS, OPEN SPACE AREAS,
SCHOOL AND PARK SITES OF THE WOLF CREEK SPECIFIC
PLAN, LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF PALA ROAD,
BETVVEEN LOM ALINDA ROAD AND FAIRVIEW AVENUE, AND
KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NOS. 950-110-002, -005, -033
AND 950-180-001, -005, -006 AND -010.
WHEREAS, SP Murdy, LLC filed Planning Application No. PA00-0052 (the "Application") in a
manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan, Development Code and Subdivision
Ordinance;
WHEREAS, the Application was processed including, but not limited to public notice, in the
time and manner prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, at a regular meeting, considered the Application on
September 6, 2000, September 20, 2000, and October 4, 2000, at a duly noticed public hearing as
prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an oppodunity to, and did,
testify either in support or opposition to this matter;
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing and after due consideration of the
testimony, the Commission recommended approval of the Application subject to the conditions after
finding that the project proposed in the Application conformed with the City of Temecula General
Plan, Development Code and Subdivision Ordinance;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1.
by reference.
That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby incorporated
Section 2. Findings. That the Temecula Planning Commission, in approving the
Application, hereby makes the following findings as required in Section 16.09.140 of the Temecula
Municipal Code.
A. The proposed subdivision and the design and improvements of the subdivision is
consistent with the Development Code, General Plan, any applicable specific plan and the City of
Temecula Municipal Code;
B. The tentative map does not propose to divide land which is subject to a contract
entered into pursuant to the California Land Conservation Act of 1965, or the land is subject to a
Land Conservation Act contract but the resulting parcels following division of the land will not be too
small to sustain their agricultural use;
C. The site is physically suitable for the type and proposed density of development
proposed by the tentative map;
R:\S P\Wolf Creek SRRES-TM.PC.doc
1
D. The design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements, with conditions of
approval, are not likely to cause significant environmental damage or substantially and avoidably
injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. There are no known fish, wildlife or habitat on the project site,
and the project will not affect any fish, wildlife or habitat off-site. The site is surrounded by
development and is an infill site;
E. An environmental impact report has been prepared and a finding has been made,
pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081 (a) (3), finding that specific economic, social, or
other considerations make infeasible mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the
environmental impact report;
F. The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements are not likely to cause
serious public health problems;
The design of the subdivision provides for future passive or natural heating or
cooling opportunities in the subdivision to the extent feasible;
H. The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements will not conflict with
easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed
subdivision, or the design of the alternate easements which are substantially equivalent to those
previously acquired by the public will be provided.
(Quimby).
The subdivision is consistent with the City's parkland dedication requirements
Section 3. Environmental Compliance. The City Council of the City of Temecula must
approve and adopt the Final Environmental Impact Report and Mitigation Monitoring Program for
the Wolf Creek Specific Plan in order to approve the Application.
Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby
conditionally approves the Application (Tentative Tract Map No. 29305) for the subdivision of a 557
acre parcel into 47 parcels which conform to the planning areas, open space areas, school and park
sites of the Wolf Creek Specific Plan, located on the east side of Pala Road, between Loma Linda
Road and Fairview Avenue, and known as Assessor's Parcel Nos. 950-110-002, -005, -033 and
950-180-001, -005, -006 and -010, subject to the project specific conditions set forth on Exhibit A,
attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference.
Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this fourth day of October, 2000.
Ron Guerriero, Chairperson
R:\S P\Wolf Creek SP\RES-TM.PC.doc
2
! 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 fourth day of October, 2000 by the
following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
R:\S P\Wolf Creek SP\RES-TM.PC.dOC
3
II
'~1 :kJI
~jl
?r}l}ll
,{,d,!,
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
STAFF REPORT DATED SEPTEMBER 6, 2000
R:\S P\Wolf Creek SP\STAFFRPT.PC for 10-4-00.doc
8
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
September 6, 2000
Planning Application No. 98-0481 -Wolf Creek Specific Plan No. 12
Planning Application No. 98-0482 - Wolf Creek Environmental Impact Report
Planning Application No. 98-0484 - General Plan Amendment for Wolf Creek
Planning Application No. 00-0052 - Tentative Tract Map No. 29305
Prepared By: Carele K. Donahoe, AICP, Associate Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
The Community Development Department - Planning Division Staff
recommends the Planning Commission:
1. ADOPT a Resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FOR WOLF CREEK (PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. 98-0484), AND APPROVE THE WOLF CREEK
SPECIFIC PLAN (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 98-0481) ON PARCELS
TOTALING 557 ACRES LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF PALA ROAD,
BETWEEN LOMA LINDA ROAD AND FAIRVIEW AVENUE, AND KNOWN
AS ASSESSOR PARCEL NOS. 950-110-002, -005, -033 AND 950-180-001,
-005, -006 AND -010.
2o ADOPT a Resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-0052 -
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 29305, THE SUBDIVISION OF 557 ACRES
INTO 47 LOTS WHICH CONFORM TO THE PLANNING AREAS, OPEN
SPACE AREAS, SCHOOL AND PARK SITES OF THE WOLF CREEK
SPECIFIC PLAN, LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF PALA ROAD,
BETWEEN LOMA LINDA ROAD AND FAIRVIEW AVENUE, AND KNOWN
AS ASSESSOR PARCEL NOS. 950-110-002, -005, -033 AND 950-180-001,
-005, -006 AND -010.
R:~S P%Wolf Creek SP%STAFFRPT.PC for SP,EIR,GPA, map,doc
1
3. ADOPT a Resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA RECOMMENDING CERTIFICATION OF THE FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED FOR THE WOLF
CREEK SPECIFIC PLAN AND RELATED ACTIONS (PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. 98-0482) AND RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF THE
ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
CONSIDERATIONS, AND A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING
PROGRAM IN CONNECTION THEREWITH FOR THE WOLF CREEK
SPECIFIC PLAN, LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF PALA ROAD,
BETWEEN LOMA LINDA ROAD AND FAIRVIEW AVENUE, AND KNOWN
AS ASSESSOR PARCEL NOS. 950-110-002, -005, -033 AND 950-180-001, -
005, -006 AND -010.
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
SP Murdy, LLC
REPRESENTATIVES: Bill Gdffith and Camille Bahd, Spdng Pacific Properlies, LLC
Barry Burnell, T & B Planning Consultants, Inc.
Donald Lohr and Tony Tedch, Lohr + Associates, Inc.
PROPOSAL:
A mixed use specific plan which provides a full range of residential uses and product types,
school sites, park sites, open space and drainage greenbelt, roadways, pdvate recreation
center, fire station site and commercial sites, specifically as follows:
· From 2, 144 to 2,601 dwelling units for an overall density of 3.8 to 4.7 dwelling units per
acre. Residential product includes ~ acre estate lots, 7,200 square foot to 4,000
square foot lots, courtyard homes, an option for a senior community, and multi-family
apartments.
· School sites totaling 32 acres for an elementary and middle school. The middle school
site includes lighted ballfields.
· A 14-acre community park with lighted ballfields that anchors the Village Center, a 6.7
acre linear park with three activity nodes that traverses the entire length of the project,
a 4.5 acre neighborhood park, and an additional 1.5 acre parking area for the Kent
Hintergardt Park. Park sites were selected and coordinated for joint use with the
Temecula Valley Unified School District facilities.
· A 15-acre drainage greenbelt along the full length of Pala Road, designed as passive
open space.
· Roadways and circulation system that provide pedestrian linkages, bicycle paths and
interconnected uses throughout the project.
· Pdvate recreation center, fire station and other public facility uses on 5 acres at the
Village Center.
· Neighborhood and Community Commercial areas totaling 20 acres at the Village
Center.
R:%S P~Wolf Creek SP%STAFFRPT. PC for SP,EIR,GPA, map.doe
2
A General Plan Amendment that relocates and reallocates land use designations already
approved for the property, in order to align these designations to the Wolf Creek Specific
Plan planning areas and amenities. The relocation of designations is depicted in the
Exhibit entitled "General Plan Comparison" attached to this staff report. The reallocation
details are as follows:
Existing GP Proposed GP
Acreage Acreage
· Neighborhood Commercial 5 8
· Community Commercial 15 12
· Community &Neighborhood Parks 25 20
· Linear Park & Paseos 0 14.4
· Pdvate Recreation Facilities 0 5
· Drainage Greenbelt Open Spaca 0 15
· Major Roads 50 29
· Elementary School 10 12
· Middle School 20 20
· High School 46 0
· Low Density Residential 0 4.1
· Low Medium Density (3-6 dus/acre) 328 370
· Medium Density Residential (7-12 dus/acre) 21 19.5
· High Density Residential (13-20 dus/acre) 37 28
Total 557 557
Tentative Tract Map No. 29305 which subdivides 557 acres into 47 lots, delineating the
planning areas within the specific plan and lots for parks and schools. The Map is divided
into two phases. Phase I is that portion of the project north of Wolf Valley Road, and
Phase II is that portion of the project south of Wolf Valley Road.
LOCATION:
At the southem end of the City of Temecula, approximately two miles east of
Interstate 15, south of State Highway 79 South, on the east side of Pala
Road, between Loma Linda Road and Fairview Avenue.
EXISTING ZONING: SP Specific Plan
SURROUNDING ZONING:
North: PO Professional Office
South: Riverside County - Redhawk Specific Plan
East: LM Low Medium Residential, Park and Riverside County
West: LM Low Medium Residential, Pechanga Reservation
PROPOSED ZONING: N/A
EXISTING GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATIONS:
LM Low Medium Residential - 3.0 to 6.0 dwelling units per acre
M Medium Residential - 7.0 to 12.0 dwelling units per acre
H High Residential - 13.0 to 20.0 dwelling units per acre
NC Neighborhood Commercial
CC Community Commercial
P Pubic institutional Facilities
OS Open Spaca / Recreation
R:~S P\Wolf Creek SP%STAFFRPT.PC f~r SP,EIR,GPA, map.doc
3
PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATIONS: LM Low Medium Residential - 3.0 to 6.0 dwelling units per acre
H High Residential - 13.0 to 20.0 dwelling units per acre
NC Neighborhood Commercial
CC Community Commercial
P Pubic Institutional Facilities
OS Open Space / Recreation
EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant and light agricultural uses
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
North: Vacant and rural home sites
South: Vacant and rural home sites
East: Bridlevale subdivision, Kent Hintergardt Park and the Redhawk community
West: Wolf Valley subdivision and the Pechanga Indian Reservation with gaming casino,
recreational vehicle park, mini-market and vacant property
BACKGROUND
City staff has worked on a specific plan proposal for the subject site for many years, initially with the
former owner of the property who proposed the Murdy Ranch Specific Plan from 1995 to 1997.
Spdng Pacific Properties began discussions with City staff in eady 1998 and formally submitted the
Wolf Creek Specific Plan on December 10, 1998.
At the request of staff, the applicant hosted a community meeting on August 17, 1999, at the
Temecula Creek Inn. A workshop was held with the Planning Commission on September 1, 1999, at
which time Commissionere provided comments and recommendations to the developer.
The developer and staff worked through several screencheck reviews prior to the submittal of the
fifth version of the specific plan dated August 2000.
Three weeks prior to the public hearing on this case, the Temecula Valley Unified School District
Board indicated their preference for a high school site on property not within the Wolf Creek Specific
Plan. While the middle school and elementary school sites remain within the plan, the proposed
high school that will serve the southeast area of the Distr~ct will be located either directly across
Fairview Avenue from the project, or at a site further east. Wolf Creek Specific Plan designers
anticipated the uncertainty of school district selection, and provided an altemative land use for the
46.5 acre Planning Area 24, for 233 residential dwellings with a minimum lot size of 5,500 square
feet. The Environmental Impact Report prepared for the plan considered environmental impacts of
the project both with schools and with residential development on these sites.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Villac~e Center
Because the General Plan identifies property at the intersection of Wolf Valley Road and Pala Road
as a Village Center, the project was designed with all of the Village Center concepts in mind. The
applicant chose to incorporate the Wolf Creek Village Center where Wolf Valley Road intersects
with the project's loop road, thereby enhancing pedestrian access and community activities at all
four comers of this project hub. The 14-acre community park and adjacent elementary school
anchor one comer, while a pdvate recreation facility, fire station and other public uses occupy
another comer. The last two corners are slated for commercial development, both an 8 acre
R:~S P\Wolf Creek SP~STAFFRPT.PC for SP,EIR,GPA, map.doc
4
neighborhood center, and a 12 acre community commemial area across the street, sized to meet
the needs of the local community. Immediately adjacent to the south, and with carefully designed
linkages to these centers, are multi-family residential dwellings, situated to encourage non-
automotive modes of transportation. The community hub is complete with gathering places and
plazas, monumentation and a community landmark. It is the main focal point for Wolf Creek
community activities, providing a concentrated, cohesive mixture of compatible uses.
The Linear Park, Activity Nodes and Trail System
Integral to the design of the Wolf Creek community is the internal loop road, which is bordered by a
linear park along its entire length, and meandering Class I bicycle paths on both sides of the street.
The linear park is an ideal recreation amenity for active residents who live anywhere within the
project. The linear park is also accessible to non-residents. Benches, ddnking fountains, tot lots and
passive open spaces are provided at the activity nodes along the way. Joggers or cyclists can also
stop at the par courses, parks, or the commercial canters at the hub.
To complete the trail system for the project, Class II bicycle paths are also provided along Loma
Linda Road, Via Del Coronado, Pala Road and Fairview Avenue, and both sides of Wolf Valley
Road and Street
The Drainacle Greenbelt Interfaca
The Wolf Creek project proposes an open, grass-lined drainage channel along the length of Pala
Road that vades in width from 100-feet to 128-feet. The developer has taken the opportunity to
design this channel as a greenbelt, passive open space area that provides a visually pleasing buffer
for existing development on the west side of Pala Road. The developer has proposed a semi-
meandering sidewalk for this stretch of Pala Road, where parkway "pop-outs" will bring trees and
foliage to the street at appropriate intervals. Coupled with the raised landscaped median proposed
for Pala Road, the streetscape softens this major roadway.
The Redhawk Interfaca
Similarly, the applicant paid attention to the interfaca with the existing Redhawk community along its
east boundary. Below the slopes which provide an existing urban interfaca zone lies a jogging trail
that is used by Redhawk residents. The Wolf Creek plan intends to support continued use of this
trail, with project openings along its own edge that encourage surveillance rather than tuming its
back to it.
Phasing
The Wolf Creek Specific Plan is projected to develop land uses in four phases, with Phase I and II
starting along the north side of Wolf Valley Road. A maximum of 472 dwelling units will be
constructed in Phase I, along with the 8 acre neighborhood commercial canter, the middle and
elementary school, and the community park. Phase II will add another 350 dwellings along the south
side of Loma Linda Road.
Infrastructure for the project, however, will be constructed in two phases, the first phase on the
north side of Wolf Valley Road, and the last phase on the south side. Infrastructure will be
constructed ahead of and accommodate the development of land uses.
R:~S P\Wolf Creek SP~.STAFFRPT.PC for SP,EIR,GPA, map.doe
5
Tentative Tract Map No. 29305
The applicant has mapped the entire 557 acres into 47 lots for financing purposes. The lots conform
to the specific plan land use map, with planning areas further subdivided into neighborhood areas.
Tentative Tract Map No. 29305 delineates major street widths, cross-sections and access
restrictions, as well as the lots designated for the drainage channel, schools and parks.
ANALYSIS
Consistency with the Growth Management Program Action Plan
General Plan Amendment Densities
The proposed General Plan changes in residential densities are as follows:
Density Existing Existing Proposed Proposed
Range @ Low end @ High end @Low end @ High End
Low ~ - 2 0 0 2 8
Low Medium 3 ~ 6 1,122 2,244 1,110 2,220
Medium 7 - 12 147 252 137 234
High 13 - 20 481 740 364 560
Total 1,750 3,236 1,613 3,022
With respect to the range of dwelling units possible on the site, the proposed General Plan
Amendment decreases the range numbers overall by 137 to 214 residential units.
Specific Plan Densities
The proposed Specific Plan offers the following allocation of dwelling units:
Density Proposed Proposed Target Target Project
Range @ Low end @ High end Density Units Units
Low ~ - 2 2 8 1.3 22 8
Low Medium 3 - 6 1,110 2,220 4.5 1,665 1,833
Medium 7 - 12 137 234 9.5 185 128
High 13-20 364 560 16.5 462 408
Total 1,613 3,022 2,334 2,377
The total number of dwelling units proposed at 2,377 is 43 units greater than the target density of
2,334 units. However, it is 764 units greater than the lowest allowable density of 1,613. Staff
supports the breadth of residential product proposed with the project. By providing a wide spectrum
of housing opportunities, the project complies with the General Plan Housing Element. By
concentrating higher densities near the Village Center, the project offers the best opportunity to
attract public transit alternatives, such as bus service, smart shuttles or vanpools. Established
Village Centers are more likely to be considered as connection points to larger forms of public
transportation, such as express buses, light rail or Metrolink.
R:~S P\Wolf Creek SP~STAFFRPT.PC for SP,EIR,GPA, map,doc
6
Infrastructure Improvements
As required by the Growth Management Program Action Plan, the project ensures that roadway
improvements are in place pdor to issuance of the first building permit. The project's Traffic Study
recommends as mitigation that the following off-site improvements are completed pdor to issuance
of the first building permit for either residential or commerdal development within Wolf Creek:
· Intedm interchange improvements at 1-15 and State Route 79 South
· Widening of State Route 79 South between 1-15 and Pala Road
· Widening of Pala Road to four lanes from Clubhouse Ddve to Wolf Valley Road
Additionally, the project is conditioned to provide the following on-site improvements pdorto the first
building permit:
· Ultimate improvements to Via Del Coronado from Via Cordoba to Loma Linda Road
· Half-width improvements to Loma Linda Road from Via Del Coronado to Pala Road
· Ultimate improvements to Wolf Valley Road from the eastedy Specific Plan boundary to
Pala Road
· Ultimate improvements for six lanes to Pala Road from Loma Linda Road to Via Gilberto
· Installation of traffic signals at Pala Road and Loma Linda Road, Pala Road and Wolf Valley
Road, and Pala Road and the Intedor Loop Road North
Similarly, additional roadway, drainage and other infrastructure improvements are required in
conjunction with project phasing. Given these mitigation measures, the project ensures that
infrastructure is constructed ahead of the new development that it proposes.
Coordination with other Aqencies
Project developers have coordinated their efforts with many outside agencies concemed with
growth in the area. The City has assisted in the collaboration of efforts towards the widening of Pala
Road with the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians. The developer has contributed to the Pala area
drainage solution, resolving existing flooding conditions and proposing to replace existing
undersized facilities. The developers have met numerous times with the Temecula Valley Unified
School Distdct to meet their need for school sites in the project area. Along with the park and open
space amenities offered in the project, the school sites in Wolf Creek will provide an impressive list
of recreational and cultural amenities not currently available in this area.
R:~S P\Wolf Creek SP~STAFFRPT.PC for SP,EIR,GPA, map.doc
7
Amenities
WOLF CREEK MASTER COMMUNlq'Y
Park Amenities
Existing Parks
(Kent Hintergardt; Pala
Community; Loma Unda;
John Magee)
= 23 acres
Snack Bar 0
Football Field I lit (Combined with soccer
field)
Soccer Field 2 (KH)
Softball/Baseball Field 0
Basketball Courts I (Pala)
Basketball Half-Courts 2 (Pala)
Tennis Courts 2 (Pala)
Volleyboll Courts 2 (Pala)
Restrooms at largest parks (K-H / Pala)
Children's Play Areas (Tot 4
Lot)
Exercise / Par Course 0
Private Recreation Center 0
Swimming Pool 0
Gymnasium 0
Parking Spaces 108 (22 KH) (86 Pala)
Community Center 0
Water Play Area 0
Wolf Creek
(Community;
Neighborhood; Unear; K-
H addition; Private Rec.)
= 30 +/- acres -
excluding schools
1 (CP)
(MS)
3 lit (2-ES) (MS)
6 lit (2-MS) (Z-F_S) (2-CP)
12 (8-MS) (4-ES)
2 (NP)
12 (4-CP) (8-MS)
O
at schools, and
community and
neighborhood parks
8 (3-LP) (3-ES) (1-NP) (1-
cp)
1 (LP)
I (PRC)
1 (MS)
1653 (331 @ Parks & PRC)
(1,322 @ Schools)
I (PRC)
I (PRC)
CP = Community Park
ES = Elementary School
KH = Kent Hint~ardt
LP = Unear Park
MS = Middle Schod
NP = Neighbodlood Park
PRC = Private Recreation Center
R:~S P\Wdf Creek SP~STAFFRPT. PC f~ SP,EIR,GPA, map.dec
8
With amenities at the schools, parks and commercial areas of the plan, it is entirely feasible that the
project could reverse existing traffic pattems by creating desirable land uses that would reduce or
eliminate out-of-neighborhood vehicle trips.
Given the design of the Wolf Creek Specific Plan and the amenities proposed, staff believes that
there are sufficient community benefits to warrant Planning Commission consideration of residential
units above the lowest density.
Specific Plan Design Guidelines, Zoning Standards, and Residential Development Matrix
Planning Commissioners offered several suggestions to the applicant dudng the Commission
Workshop in September, 1999, much of which has been addressed within the Design Guidelines,
Zoning Standards and Residential Development Matrix.
Senior Component
The Wolf Creek Specific Plan allows for the opportunity to provide residential dwellings
designed for seniors in Planning Area 18, which is adjacent to the commercial canter and fronts
Pala Road. The Design Guidelines specify pedestrian access to the commercial center and
Loop Road, and identifies product design conducive to pdvacy, caonvenienca and security.
Residential Product
Staff worked with the applicant to provide strong architectural guidelines for merchant builders in
the specific plan text, including the mixture of one and two-story elements, vaded roof forms,
structural enhancements, projections, recasses, articulated facades, treatment of comer lots,
and the selection of materials for visual interest. A vadety of garage alternatives are noted, in
order to achieve a pleasing street scane.
Staff had cancams regarding the smaller lots sizes proposed at 4,000 and 4,500 square feet.
The applicant has provided a minimum 800 square foot rear yard for private recreational use on
these lots, as well as full access to the pdvate recreational facility in Planning Area 14 forthe
homebuyers. These lot sizes will accommodate zero lot line product, which the applicant feels
meets the market need for an alternative to conventional large single-family detached homes.
Less yard maintenance, land, infrastructure and construction costs are attractive to that
segment of the market with changing household requirements.
The applicant is proposing lot coverage percantages greater than the City's Development Code.
However, front, rear and intedor yard setbacks are consistent with Code for the 7,200 and 6,000
square foot lots. In the smaller lot sizes, the 800 square foot minimum pdvate rear yard is
required, which is greater than the Code requirement for 200 square feet. The project is
conditioned to correct the zoning standard text to comply with the Residential Development
Matdx.
Local Street Sections
The Local Govemment Commission, in reviewing the Wolf Creek Specific Plan, has requested
that the project be revised to parkway sidewalks with greater pavement shading and street
canopies. The applicant offers parkway sidewalks on the local streets within the residential
planning areas as an altemative cross-section option, for consideration by the City.
R:~S P~Wdf Creek SP~STAFFRPT.PC for SP,EIR,GPA, rnap.doc
9
Future changes to the Specific Plan
The Wolf Creek Specific Plan text proposes that processing of modifications to the plan which
do not change the general intent of the plan, be approved administratively by the Director of
Planning. While this proposal was derived from the Minor Exceptions section of the
Development Code, staff has conditioned the project to add language as follows:
"At the sole discretion of the Director of Planning, any modification may be deemed a major or
minor change to the specific plan. In any event, the Director of Planning may refer any request
for modification to the Planning Commission or City Council."
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
A Screencheck Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared and submitted forthe Wolf
Creek Specific Plan on December 10, 1998. On October 13, 1999, a Notice of Completion and a
Notice of Availability were prepared and the Draft EIR was circulated by the Califomia State
Clearinghouse under SCH#99101094 for public review and comment from October 20, 1999 to
December 3, 1999. A total of 21 wdtten comments were received and considered in preparation of
the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR), submitted August 1, 2000, with comments and
responses to comments included within Section 8.0.
An Addendum to the FEIR was also submitted on August 23, 2000 and is attached to this staff
report as Attachment No. 5. The Addendum addresses updated information regarding active
alcoholic beverage licenses at the Pechanga Casino. Previously, available information indicated
that no such licenses had been issued.
A summary of the FEIR analysis is as follows:
Unavoidable, si.clnificant impact: Air Quality
Potentially si.clnificant impacts that can be avoided or mitif~ated:
Soils & Geology Traffic
Hazards Noise
Drainage
Impacts considered but not found to be sic|nificant:
Land Use & Planning
Water Resources
Energy Resources
Utilities
Aesthetics
Recreation
Cumulative Impacts
Population & Housing
Biological Resources
Public Services
Service Systems
Cultural Resources
Agdcultural Resources
Traffic Study
A comprehensive Traffic Study was prepared by Robert Kahn, John Kain & Associates dated
December 17, 1998, to analyze the impacts of the Wolf Creek Specific Plan upon the surrounding
roadway system. The study analyzed 14 intersections, from the 1-15 Freeway interchange, along
State Route 79 South, and Pala Road, focusing on peak travel periods between 7:00 to 9:00 a.m.
and 4:00 to 6:00 p.m. The analysis concluded that the project would generate approximately 42,036
trips ends per day with schools, and 38,527 with residential development on the three school sites.
R:~S P\Wdf Creek SP~STAFFRPT.PC for SP,EIR,GPA, map.doe
10
The Traffic Study lists readway improvements required for the area, with or without the Wolf Creek
project in order to achieve an acceptable Level of Service D (LOS D) or better at the intersections
studied. When these identified readway improvements are in place, LOS D or better is predicted at
all intersections at opening year of the project and at build-out in the year 2015. Therefore, the
FEIR identifies the completion of certain readway improvements as mitigation measures to reduce
traffic impacts to a less than significant level. Because the timing of infrastructure improvements is
critical, the project has been conditioned that no building permit can be issued for either residential
or commercial development until certain improvements are completed. See the previous discussion
under "Consistency with the Growth Management Program Action Plan - Infrastructure
Improvements" above.
Noise Study
The City has included a Noise Study in conjunction with plans to widen Pala Road, to identify
any impacts and mitigation measures associated with the Capital Improvement Project. The
Wolf Creek project is conditioned to participate in any noise mitigation program established by
the City and shall pay its fair share of mitigation commensurate with noise impacts attributable
to traffic generated by the Wolf Creek Specific Plan.
Sports Park
There has been some discussion about the altemative use of the 46.5-acre Planning Area 24
former high school site as the City's Sports Park. While staff does not anticipate that any
additional environmental impacts would occur that were not considered with the high school
complex, staff does recommend that an addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report be
prepared and assessed once a conceptual plan for the sports park and its amenities is
designed.
Statement of OverTidina Consideration Recluired
In accordance with Section 15093 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the Planning Commission must
recommend that the City Council adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations prior to appmving
the Wolf Creek Specific Plan because the EIR has identified its impact to air quality as a significant
and unavoidable adverse impact. A Statement of Overriding Considerations states that any
significant adverse project effects are acceptable if expected project benefits outweigh unavoidable
adverse environmental impacts.
GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING CONSISTENCY
The Wolf Creek Specific Plan project includes a General Plan Amendment which relocates and
reallocates land use designations already approved for the property, in order to align these
designations to the Wolf Creek Spedtic Plan planning areas and amenities. The reallocation of
acreages can be considered minimal and consistent with the odginal intent of the General Plan.
The proposed Wolf Creek Specific Plan is consistent with the SP - Specific Plan zoning on the
properly.
SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS
Staff recommends approval of the Wolf Creek Specific Plan because it is consistent with the
General Plan and provides the Village Center as required by the General Plan Village Center
Oveday designation. The project also provides a full range of residential product types in
compliance with the General Plan Housing Element. The Wolf Creek proposal is a master-planned
community offedng schools, parks, corninertial sites, and public facilities to serve its residents and
R:~S P\Wolf Creek SP~STAFFRPT.PC for SP,EIR,GPA, map.doc
tl
surrounding communities. The project design has provided carefully planned interfaces with
surrounding development and offers unique open spaca and recreational amenities, such as the
100-foot to 124-foot wide grass-lined and landscaped drainage greenbelt along Pala Road, the
linear park that runs the full length of the Wolf Creek Intedor Loop Road, the 14-acre Community
Park at the heart of the Village Center, and the neighborhood parks and activity nodes in the
residential neighborhoods.
FINDINGS
Plannin~ Application No. 98-0481 - Wolf Creek Specific Plan No. 12
and Plannina Application No. 98-0484 - General Plan Amendment
The project as proposed and conditioned is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of
the community. The project has been reviewed by agencies and staff and determined to be
in conformance with the City's General Plan, Development Code, Design Guidelines and
Growth Management Program Action Plan. These documents set policies and standards
that protect the health, safety and welfare of the community. Access and circulation are
adequate for emergency vehicles.
The project is compatible with surrounding land uses. The project proposes similar
residential neighborhoods adjacent to existing surrounding neighborhoods, with interface
buffers and full roadway improvements. Project commercial development is proposed
within a Village Center, across Pala Road from the Pechanga Casino.
The proposed project will not have an adverse effect on the community because it remains
consistent with the goals and policies of the adopted General Plan. The project does not
represent a significant change to the planned land uses for the site. The General Plan
Amendment is a relocation and reallocation of existing land use designations that conforms
to the design of the specific plan.
Tentative Tract Map No. 29305
The proposed subdivision and the design and improvements of the subdivision is
consistent with the Development Code, the proposed General Plan Amendment, the Wolf
Creek Specific Plan, the City of Temecula Municipal Code and Subdivision Ordinance.
The tentative map does not propose to divide land which is subject to a contract
entered into pursuant to the California Land Conservation Act of 1965. The Agricultural
Preserve status of the property expired in 1989 through the Notice of Nonrenewal Process
initiated in 1979.
The site is physically suitable for the type and density of development proposed by the
tentative map. The site is generally fiat topographically, with no unique land features. It is
surrounded by existing and developing residential uses, as well as commercial uses
generated by the Pechanga Indian Reservation property across Pala Road.
7. The design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements, with conditions of
approval, are:
Not likely to cause significant environmental damage or substantially and avoidably
injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. There are no known fish, wildlife or habitat on
the project site, and the project will not affect any fish, wildlife or habitat off-site.
The site is surrounded by development and is an infill site.
R:~S P~Wolf Creek SP~STAFFRPT. PC for SP,EIR,GPA, map.dec
12
An environmental impact report has been prepared and a finding has been made,
pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(a) (3), finding that air quality
considerations make infeasible mitigation measures or project alternatives identified
in the environmental impact report.
8. The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements are not likely to cause sedous
public health problems.
9. The design of the subdivision provides for future passive or natural heating or cooling
opportunities in the subdivision to the extent feasible
10. The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements will not conflict with easements
acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed
subdivision, or the design of the altemate easements which are substantially equivalent to
those previously acquired by the public will be provided.
11. The subdivision is consistent with the City's parkland dedication requirements (Quimby).
12. Quimby fees have been determined for the Wolf Creek Specific Plan, and the map has been
conditioned to provide these fees.
Attachments:
PC Resolution for the Specific Plan - Blue Page 14
Exhibit A - Wolf Creek Specific Plan text - Under Separate Cover
Exhibit B - Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 15
Exhibit C - General Plan Comparison
PC Resolution for Tentative Tract Map No. 29305 - Blue Page 16
Exhibit A - Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 17
PC Resolution for the Final Environmental Impact Report - Blue Page 18
Exhibit A - FEIR text - Under Separate Cover
Exhibit B - FEIR Technical Appendices - Under Separate Cover
Exhibit C - Addendum to the FEIR dated August 23, 2000 - Blue Page 19
Exhibit D - Mitigation Monitoring Program - Blue Page 20
Project Exhibits - Blue Page 21
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
Vicinity Map
Zoning Map
General Plan Maps
Surrounding Land Use
Land Use Plan
Tentative Tract Map No. 29305
R:~S P\Wolf Creek SP~STAFFRPT.PC for SP,EIR,GPA, map.doc
13
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
EXHIBITS
R:%S P\Wdf Creek SP~STAFFRPT.PC for SP,EIR,GPA, map.d~x;
21
CITY OF TEMECULA
PECHANGA
INDIAN
RESERVATION
CASE NO. - PA98-0481; PA98-0482; PA98-0484; PA00-0052
EXHIBIT - A
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - September 6, 2000
VICINITY MAP
R:~S P\Wolf Creek SP~STAFFRPT.PC for SP.EIR,GPA, map.doc
14
CITY OF TEMECULA
PROjECT SITE
EXHIBIT B - ZONING MAP
DESIGNATION - SP Specific Plan
/'~ ~ ' "'~'CvL
",./ 0
\
II
EXHIBIT C - GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION - NC Neighborhood Commercial, CC Community Commercial, OS Open Space,
P Public Institutional Facilities, LM Low Medium, M Medium, H High Density Residential
CASE NO. - PA98-0481; PA98-0482; PA98-0484; PA00-0052
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - September 6, 2000
R:\S P\Wolf Creek SP\STAFFRPT.PC for SP,EIR,GPA, map.doc
CITY OF TEMECULA
,.~ .'~ Horse./e ! >/
~ '~ Stables,: *' "~
Tenfecula
Cre~k Inn
Course
', ,. Rainbow
%Canyon and
· ,-,R.esidential
~ 4:~ :du/ac
~'. · ::'<~? (existing)~.~
.-,=--. ~ ,"_.~ .;-:. .?,, / ,
~._."-, ' :~-' ~:. Ek." .: -.-, '' · . Pechanga
".-'." Y:! : .,
:~X ':,;--,. s(-: . 1 ~, :_~., ,;;:
~'//r3 ",i-~''" "::' ,.,;..~,..,..:~.~!~,~.,.\x -11 ar
~'~.Y:~'~,i' ...;':'Y;= ;;' ~.:.::", "~-"'-%,'.~?~]~ '/~:'~ .,l: iY':!-,,.~':'~~ L..: ~--' .
.-
Redha~k
Residential
10-11:9 du/ac
(planned)
-: Pechanga"
~lndian '-
CASE NO. - PA98-0481; PA98-0482; PA98-0484; PA00-0052
EXHIBIT- D
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - September 6, 2000
SURROUNDING LAND USE
R:~S P\Wolf Creek SP~STAFFRPT.PC for SP,EIR,GPA, map.doc
16
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO. - PA98-0481; PA98-0482; PA98-0484; PA00-0052
EXHIBIT- E
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - September 6, 2000
LAND USE PLAN
R:\S P\Wolf Creek SP~STAFFRPT.PC for SP,EIR,GPA, map.doc
ATTACHMENT NO. 6
STAFF REPORT DATED SEPTEMBER 20, 2000
R:\S P\Wolf Creek SP\STAFFRPT.PC for 10-4-00.doc
9
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
September 20, 2000
Planning Application No. 98-0481 -Wolf Creek Specific Plan No. 12
Planning Application No. 98-0482 - Wolf Creek Environmental Impact Report
Planning Application No. 98-0484 - General Plan Amendment for Wolf Creek
Planning Application No. 00-0052 - Tentative Tract Map No. 29305
Prepared By: Camle K. Donahoe, AICP, Associate Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
The Community Development Department - Planning Division Staff
recommends the Planning Commission:
1. ADOPT a Resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FOR WOLF CREEK (PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. 98-0484), AND APPROVE THE WOLF CREEK
SPECIFIC PLAN (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 98-0481) ON PARCELS
TOTALING 557 ACRES LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF PALA ROAD,
BETWEEN LOMA LINDA ROAD AND FAIRVIEW AVENUE, AND KNOWN
AS ASSESSOR PARCEL NOS. 950-110-002, -005, -033 AND 950-180-00t,
-005, -006 AND -010.
2. ADOPT a Resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-0052 -
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 29305, THE SUBDIVISION OF 557 ACRES
INTO 47 LOTS WHICH CONFORM TO THE PLANNING AREAS, OPEN
SPACE AREAS, SCHOOL AND PARK SITES OF THE WOLF CREEK
SPECIFIC PLAN, LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF PALA ROAD,
BETWEEN LOMA LINDA ROAD AND FAIRVIEW AVENUE, AND KNOWN
AS ASSESSOR PARCEL NOS. 950-110-002, -005, -033 AND 950-180-001,
-005, -006 AND -010.
R:~S P~Wolf Creek SP~STAFFRPT. PC for 9-20-00.doc
1
3. ADOPT a Resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA RECOMMENDING CERTIFICATION OF THE FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED FOR THE WOLF
CREEK SPECIFIC PLAN AND RELATED ACTIONS (PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. 98-0482) AND RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF THE
ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
CONSIDERATIONS, AND A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING
PROGRAM IN CONNECTION THEREWITH FOR THE WOLF CREEK
SPECIFIC PLAN, LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF PALA ROAD,
BETWEEN LOMA LINDA ROAD AND FAIRVIEW AVENUE, AND KNOWN
AS ASSESSOR PARCEL NOS. 950-110-002, -005, -033 AND 950-180-001, -
005, -006 AND -0t0.
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
SP Murdy, LLC
REPRESENTATIVES:
Bill Gdffith and Camille Bahd, Spdng Pacific Properties, LLC
Barry Bumeli, T & B Planning Consultants, Inc.
Donald Lohr and Tony Tedch, Lohr + Associates, Inc.
Sam Alhadeff, Alhadeff & Solar, LLP
STATUS
On September 6, 2000, the Planning Commission opened the public headng and took testimony
from nine citizens for, against or neutral to the project. Additionally, Planning Commissioners
commented upon the following areas of the Wolf Creek Specific Plan: traffic signals and street
widths, village center design, specific plan Zoning Standards and Design Guidelines and the Final
Environmental Impact Report and Mitigation Monitodng Program.
The Planning Commission continued the matter for two weeks, in order to receive additional
information regarding the proposed regional sports park for Planning Area 24, the former high
school site. Commissioners requested that staff, the applicant, and consultants for the project
respond to their concems. The applicant was asked to submit a Revised Traffic Study, Specific Plan
Land Use Map, Design Guidelines and Mitigation Monitodng Program no later than Wednesday,
September 13, 2000. Staff will review the revised documents and prepare a verbal response to the
Planning Commission at their headng on September 20, 2000.
R:~S P\Wolf Creek SP%STAFFRPT.PC for 9-20-00.doc
2
FINDINGS
PlanninQ Application No. 98-0481 - Wolf Creek Specific Plan No. 12
and Plannine Application No. 98-0484 - General Plan Amendment
The project as proposed and conditioned is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of
the community. The project has been reviewed by agencies and staff and determined to be
in conformance with the City's General Plan, Development Code, Design Guidelines and
Growth Management Program Action Plan. These documents set policies and standards
that protect the health, safety and welfare of the community. Access and circulation are
adequate for emergency vehicles.
The project is compatible with surrounding land uses. The project proposes similar
residential neighborhoods adjacent to existing surrounding neighborhoods, with interface
buffers and full readway improvements. Project commercial development is proposed
within a Village Center, across Pala Road from the Pechanga Casino.
The proposed project will not have an adverse effect on the community because it remains
consistent with the goals and policies of the adopted General Plan. The project does not
represent a significant change to the planned land uses for the site. The General Plan
Amendment is a relocation and reallocation of existing land use designations that conforms
to the design of the specific plan.
Plannine Application No. 98-0482 - Wolf Creek Environmental Impact Report
See Attachment 3 for full text.
Planninfi Application No. 00-0052 - Tentative Tract Map No. 29305
The proposed subdivision and the design and improvements of the subdivision is
consistent with the Development Code, the proposed General Plan Amendment, the Wolf
Creek Specific Plan, the City of Temecula Municipal Code and Subdivision Ordinance.
The tentative map does not propose to divide land which is subject to a contract
entered into pursuant to the California Land Conservation Act of 1965. The Agdcultural
Preserve status of the property expired in 1989 through the Notice of Nonrenewal Process
initiated in 1979.
The site is physically suitable for the type and density of development proposed by the
tentative map. The site is generally flat topographically, with no unique land features. It is
surrounded by existing and developing residential uses, as well as commercial uses
generated by the Pechanga Indian Reservation property across Pala Road.
The design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements, with conditions of
approval, are not likely to cause significant environmental damage or substantially and
avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. There are no known fish, wildlife or habitat on
the project site, and the project will not affect any fish, wildlife or habitat off-site. The site is
surrounded by development and is an infill site.
An environmental impact report has been prepared and a finding has been made,
pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081 (a) (3), finding that specific economic,
social, or other considerations make infeasible mitigation measures or project alternatives
identified in the environmental impact report;
R:~S P\Wolf Creek SP~STAFFRPT. PC for 9-20-00.doc
3
9. The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements am not likely to cause sedous
public health problems.
10. The design of the subdivision provides for future passive or natural heating or cooling
opportunities in the subdivision to the extent feasible
11. The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements will not conflict with easements
acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed
subdivision, or the design of the altemate easements which are substantially equivalent to
those previously acquired by the public will be provided.
12. The subdivision is consistent with the Ci~s parkland dedication requirements (Quimby).
13. Quimby fees have been determined for the Wolf Creek Specific Plan, and the map has been
conditioned to provide these fees.
Attachments:
PC Resolution for the Specific Plan - Blue Page 14
Exhibit A - Wolf Creek Specific Plan text - Under Separate Cover
Exhibit B - Conditions of Approval - Revised Conditions at Headng
Exhibit C - General Plan Compadson
PC Resolution for Tentative Tract Map No. 29305 - Blue Page 16
Exhibit A - Conditions of Approval - Revised Conditions at Hearing
PC Resolution for the Final Environmental Impact Report- Blue Page 18
Exhibit A - FEIR text - Under Separate Cover
Exhibit B - FEIR Technical Appendices - Under Separate Cover
Exhibit C - Addendum to the FEIR dated August 23, 2000 - See Staff Report of 9-6-00
Exhibit D - Mitigation Monitoring Program - Revised Program at Hearing
Staff Report dated September 6, 2000 - Blue Page 21
Planning Commission Minutes of September 6, 2000 - Unavailable
R:~S P\Wolf Creek SP~STAFFRPT.PC fo~ 9-20-00.doc
4
ATTACHMENT NO. 8
CORRESPONDENCE
R:\S P\Wolf Creek SP\STAFFRPT.PC for 104-00.doc
10
ENDANGERED HABITATS LEAGU
Dedicated to Ecosystem Protection and Improved Land Use Planning
VIA FACSIMILE AND U.S. MAIL
Planning Commission
ATFN: Carole Donahoe
City of Tcmecula
PO Box 9033
Temecnia, CA 92589
Sept. 3, 2000
0 2000
RE: Wolf Creek Specific Plan
Honorable Chair and Members of the Commission:
In recognition of its many positive features, the Endangered Habitats League CEHL) wishes
to support the Wolf Creek Specific Plan as proposed. For your information, EHL is a Southern
California organization dedicated to ecosystem protection, improved land use planning, and
collaborative conflict resolution. We serve on the Advisory Committees to the three components of
the Riverside County Integrated Plan (RCIP), namely the Community and Environmental
Transportation Acceptability Process (CETAP), General Plan Update, and Multiple Species Habitat
Conservation Program CMSHCP).
EHL supports the project asproposed for the following reasons:
· The h-filling of undelllti li Ted land within municipal boundaries represents an efficient use
of land.
· A diversity of housing opportunities is offered, all within a high quality setting.
· The vil/age center configuration, which also integrates parks and schools, will create a
livable and vibrant community.
· Walking and biking opportunities will reduce auto trips and pollution compared to other
potential projects.
· The design facilitates adaptation to accommodate a future transit system.
We stress, however, that all these positive qualities absolutely depend upon the provision
of multifamily and smaller lot detached housing. Absent these features, the proposed project
would not produce a "smart growth" outcome. We thus most sffongly urge you to retain the
multifamily and smaller lot housing and, indeed, increase their relative proportions.
EHL is, however, concerned over the additive traffic impacts of this and many other
projects, both inside and outside of Temecula. We urge you to effectively address this problem,
including through the CETAP process. In no case, should Temecula sacrifice its finest natural
habitats for ill-conceived highway projects, such as a new Rainbow Canyon Road interchange.
We look forward to working with you to make Temecula a regional leader in integrating
land use and transportation. Thank you for considering our views.
Sincerely,
Dan Silver, MD
Coordinator
From: "Mike Naggar' <mnaggar@citycouncil.org>
To: "Sue Steffen" <STEFFENS@co.riverside.ca.us>, "Debbie Ubnoske"
<UBNOSKDS@co.riverside.ca.us>
Date: 9/4/00 4:04PM
Subject: Fw: Road
Sue, Debbie
Please make sure all Planning Commissioners receive a copy of the attached letter. It is in regard to the
Wolf Creek project that is going to be heard on Wednesday the 6th.
Thanks,
Mike
..... Original Message .....
From: Bill Tams
To: mnaggar@citycouncil.org
Sent: Saturday, September 02, 2000 10:20 PM
Subject: Road
Hello Mike Naggar,
My name is Teri Lee Tams, 31430 Loma Linda Road. My family and I live all most across from the
area
that will be home to the Middle School (VVolf Valley Development). I am in agreement we need these
schools.
So please understand I am not a0ainst the school issue, but have great concern about the ROAD these
children and parents will be traveling on. The area where the turn around and parking lot will be is the
run
off water drain, During heavy rains that fills up like a large pond. Nothing has come out on what they
(developers) plan on doing. Also the road (Loma Linda Road) between Pala Road and Via Del Coronado
is a nightmare. Full of holes, narrow and No sidewalks. Most of the cars speed down that mad in a
hurry to beat the traffic going to 79 Highway. They do not care whether the children are walking on the
side of the
road or in some cases down the middle. They speed past the children barley missing other cars or local
residents walking there pets. In the early morning it is heavy in fog, (This is of course not year round),
but it
is during most of the school year. The school bus stop for now is on Temecula Lane by the Pala
Community Park.
We have children from Via Cordoba and streets above as will as Loma Linda and all the streets off of it
hitting
the road.
What I am getting at is, what is going to take place first? I know is is a joke if the VOTERS think
they have a
say. But with the added cars we already are dealing with, and you put heavy trucks on this road, it will
not hold up.
Every couple of years the road gels a patch job, and it's way over due. The amount of TRAFFIC that
cuts thru our
area is increasing daily. Most of the cars do not live in this area, and those who so almost never stop at
the
stop signs, and they fly through as if it's Highway 79. The POLICE due give tickets, but we do not have
that
many officers to man the city, let alone this street. I plan on attending the meeting this coming sept. 6.
But if
you don't mind, please answer my questions if you can. I like my friends in Redhawk are having trouble
understanding
this mess.
again thank you.
William L. & Ted Lee Tams
31430 Loma Linda Road
Temecula, California 92592
FAXED AND HAND DELIVERED
6 September 2000
Pamela L. AAiod
31995 Via 5altio
Temecula, CA 92592
euroconn@pe. net
909.302.6744
o ooo
Carale bonahoe, Associate Planner
City of Temecula Planning Deportment
City of Temecula
43200 Business park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
Re: Wolf Creek Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report, 5CH #88030705, August 2000
bear AAs. bonahoe,
After reviewing the Wolf Creek 5pacific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR), I have
the following comments end concerns which I respectfully request be made part of the public
record for the project.
CUMULATIVE TRAFFIC IMPACTS:
In my letter to the Planning Commissign dated December 13, 1999 ]: raised as the primary
issue the inadequacy of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DE3:R) with respect to
traffic impacts. The DE~R and the FEIR fail to accurately describe impacts expected
when the Wolf Creak 5pacific Plan is combined with other approved and planned projects.
Considering how out of date the traffic studies are for this project, I request the city
prepare an up to date traffic study that considers new cumulative impacts and recirculate
it for public review and comment,
The documents utilize and reference prior Environmental 3:rapoct Reports (E]:R's)
certified many years ago for the cumulative traffic impact analysis. The General Plan E~R
was certified almost seven years ago (1993) and the AD 159 E1:R over 12 years ago (1988).
And yet these documents are the basis of the cumulative traffic impact analysis. The
response to my comments suggests the project will "avoid traffic impacts over the long
term" because baseline conditions were current. However, the response fails to mention
if the 1993 study includes new projects approved or developed since then. The FEIR also
indicates the City is working on o new Circulation Element Update and has prepared a new
study that is not included in the FE'~R.
The FEIR states the cumulative traffic analysis was based on a "worst case" scenario but
the prior documents were prepared before new circumstances arose which could
significantly increase the number of automobiles that will use 5.R. 79, Pala road and
Fairview Avenue. What about the Pechanga Casino, Morgan Hill and the RCIP? What
about the new casinos under construction on Pala Road in 5an Diego County? Are roads
Pamela L. Miod Page 2 09/06/00
like 5R 79, Pale Road and Fairview Avenue going to be wide enough if the FEIR doesn't
include any of those projects in the cumulative traffic study or in light of the proposed
Beaumont-Banning/Temecula Corridor jn the RCIP?
On page g0 of the FEIR, Table 18 indicates a cumulative AbT of 29,800 on Pale Road
north of Rainbow Canyon Road. Traffic figures supplied by the City Public Works
Department indicate the road is already carrying over 22,000 ADT before the project is
even built. On page 66 it says the Polo Road Bridge will handle 58,400 ADT but on page
90, Table 18 indicates 5.R. 79 will only be at 52,200 ADTwith project and cumulative
impacts. Do the cars disappear after they cross the bridge:> 5omebody should double
check the projections because there are thousands of new homes proposed to be built in
this project and many others. There are also the new casinos just gel"ring started.
The FEIR also fails to adequately describe and recommend realistic traffic mitigation
measures for off site improvements and cumulative impacts. Pages 68, xv and xviall
reference old, out of date mitigation measures. Item Ha. 6 requires the owner to
participate in the funding for Pale Bridge through AD 159 and yet the bridge is already
constructed using other funds. How can the City force someone to buy improvements
that are already paid for with an assessment district? All of the mitigation measures
listed in Item No.8 are already paid for by the assessment district end are almost
complete. There is no indication how the city plans to pay for the clover leaf interchange
that was recommended at Interstate 15 and 5.R. 79 or what the City will require of the
developer to help fund the interchange.
Please also consider the fact that Item No. 7 is a clear reference to an out of date
document and is entirely inappropriate in light of the fact that Pale Road Bridge was
already constructed for six lanes not four lanes. Why require the developer to study the
adequacy of a four-lane structure when the decision to go with six lanes was made several
years ago. That just shows you how out of date these documents are. Finally, there are
several instances where mitigation measures for cumulative impacts are deferred to a
future date. Please refer to Item Nos. 7, 11 and 12 which all defer the analysis of
cumulative impacts and mitigation measures to some future date when the city might have
a better idea of what to expect in terms of cumulative traffic impacts.
HOUSING DENSITIES:
According to the DEIR the majority of single-family residential dwelling units, approximately
1,496 out of 2,144, will be placed on lot sizes between 4,000 square feet and 6,000 square
feet. The concentration of smaller lots creates a "high" density situation, which increases
the cumulative impact situation. The high percentage of smaller lot sizes on this project is
unacceptable.
Environmental Iml~cts and Mitigation Measures. page 60.2.6 Transportation and Circulation,
Threshold for Determining Significance: ~oa/ ! ift the City's Gefte~a/ P/aft Circu/atioft E/emeftt
indicates that the City wi// '~trive to maintain a LOS D or better at all intersectiofts w/thin the
City during peal< hours and LOS C or ~tteP during non-peak hours".
Pamela L. Miod Page 3 09/06/00
To "strive" is a weak and noncommittal term. It is not acceptable to assume the
residents of Temecula are willing to setfie for "severely restricted freedom to maneuver
and a poor level of comfort and convenience when driving",
Executive Summary, Zmpact Summary Matrix, paqe xv, Table S-1: The City traffic engineer has
indicated that monitoring and follow-up studies may be required to assess and respond to the
incremental impact associated with each project phase.
If "follow-up" studies indicate incremental impacts associated with this project, there
are no provisions in this plan to mitigate traffic once the project is already jn progress
and once uncalculated traffic impacts stant affecting local and regional roadways. This
plan does not address how many additional lanes would be needed to accommodate the
uncalculated traffic impacts in order to maintain a level of service "b" or better after
the project is underway, nor does it address the source of funding for additional road
improvements at a later date. There must be a viable mitigation plan that details
implementation of I~lan and identifies means of funding for future road improvements.
With an already congested situation on Pale Road and Hwy 795, additional truck traffic,
~rior to proposed road improvements, will increase traffic congestion and lower the
already low level of service on these roads. The FEIR does not address the addition of
construction truck traffic in its traffic study and the effect it will have on the level of
service during the construction period---5-10 years.
Executive Summary. Unavoidable Significant Impacts, page viii:
Such a statement finds that the Lead Agency has reviewed the EIR and has balanced the
benefits of the project against its unavoidable, significant effects and has considered
the adverse effects to be acceptable.
The EIR identifies one area of UNAVOIDABLE, SIGNIFICANT IMPACT of the project:
Air pallutant emissions (long-term) associated with vehicular traffic end energy
consumption resulting from the project.
This E'J:R also identifies two areas in which the project will contribute incrementally to
UNAVOIDABLE CUMULA'I'ZVE 5IGNIFICANT effects:
· Regional air quality, and
· The loss of agricultural land.
It is irresponsible for the Lead Agency to put a higher value on "development" than the
value of natural resources and the very element that keeps human beings alive--Clean
Executive Summary, Impact Summary Matrix, page xi, Table S-1:
Pamela L. Miod
Page 4 09/06/00
The FE]:R states "Long term operational emissions (due to vehicular travel and on-site
energy consumption) will exceed the 5CAQMD thresholds of significance. (The residents
of the Wolf Creek community will use electricity and natural gas, resulting in increased
air pollutant emissions from regional power plants and facilities generating the energy. Zn
the long term, development pursuant to the proposed 5pacific Plan will result in additional
vehicular traffic and hence, additional vehicular air pollutant emissions.)" Zt further
Stated: "NO FEASIBLE MI11ZGATION EXI5T5."
This project will have a detrimental affect on the future health, safety and welfare of
the residents of the Temecula Valley, especially those individuals located in the 5outhorn
region of Temecula end jt is unconscionable end irresponsible to ignore this element.
Furthermore, outdoor play areas may be affected by potential carbon monoxide (CO) hot
spots, which directly affect the children living in the Wolf Valley region.
Executive Summary, Impact Summary Matrix, Daae xiv, Table S-1:
The FEIR states that construction contractors will maintain and service construction
equipment to minimize exhaust emissions. However, the "monitoring program" of the
construction site and equipment maintenance shall be the developer. The FETR does not
mention who will "monitor" the developer. Furthermore, the issue of cantralling
dangerous diesel pollutants, which ore generated by heavy construction equipment, is not
addressed. Tn addition, it is noted that during grading activities chemical applications
may be used to prevent wind erosion and release of dust and particulotes. The FEIR does
not address the health hazards that may be associated with chemical applications.
Environmental Impact and Mitigation Measures. 2.2 Population end Housing:
The retail complex mentioned, "similar to other commercial businesses, such as the one on
Rancho California Road near Z-15", (assuming the report is referring to the Target Center) is
not compatible with adjacent residential uses and is not consistent with the General Plan land
use patterns of protecting and enhancing residential neighborhoods. With the creation of
approximately 600 jobs in the Village Center (commeraial/retai l complex) and approximately
344 new jobs created by the development of the schools, approximately 944 additional cars
will be traveling to and from this site. What is the percentage of individuals living in the
Wolf Creak project who are expected to work in the commercial/retail center? It is
ridiculous to assume that individuals living within the Wolf Creak and bordering developments
will fill all the jobs created by this project. Teachers living in the already existing
developments will most likely maintain their positions at the outlying schools of which they
are already employed.
Environmental Impact and Mitigation Measures, 2.4 Water Resources, page 42. and page 43.
Water Manaqement:
Both the EMWD and RCWD provide reclaimed water supplies to developers interested in
using such resources within Temecula. However, the Specific Plan for the Wolf Creak
project does not include provisions for irrigation of the parks, schools, or the groanbelt
channel with reclaimed water. With the continued loss of natural resources due to over
Pamela L. Miod Page ~i 09/06/00
development, this developer should be mandated to provide for reclaimed water
opportunities on park, schools, greenbelt channels and open space aPeas.
Environmental ]:mpact and Mitigation Measures 2.12 brainaqe. paqe 113:
· The swale, parallel to Pale I~o~d, will have grass-lined side slopes and bottom section, with a
foot-wide, concrete-lined, low-flow "V" channel in the center. A concrete-lined, low-flow
channel is cantram/to recognized methods of drainage for treating pallutants and run off.
Keeping in mind that maintaining the "quality of life" that is so valued by the residents of the
Temecula Valley, ]: thank you for the opportunity to present my concerns for this project.
sincerely,
Pamela L. Miod
31,995 Via 5altio
Ternecula, CA 92592
1Wednesday September 20, 1900 2:57p~ -* From '909 6995533, -- Page 11
,, EUROCONNECTIONS 989 69955:~::5 P, Ell
Pamela L Miod
31995 Irm 5oitio
Temecula, CA 92592
909,302.6744
FAXEl) AND HAND bELI:VERED
20 S~pteml~r 2000
C4~ole Dol~hos. Associate
City of Temecuio Plcmnin9 ~e~t
43200 Business park briv~
Te, mscule. CA 92590
Re: Wolf Creek Specific Pin Final EnviraNnentd Zmpact Report, 5CH #88030705, August 2000
Zn addition to comments submitled in my lost letter of 6 5aptember 2000, Z herewith submit the
following comments and conr. e~ns which ]: respectfully Peque~ he m~cle paFt of the public record
for the i~oJe~t_
CUMULATZVE TRAFFIC ~NLoACTS:
z request the city peepape an up te dete lw~ffic study that co~idePs MW ctmm/ative impacts
aM recipcdate it fee public review amt cee~e~. This request is based o~ the fact that in my
latter to the Plonnin9 Commission dated December 13, 1999 Z raised as 1he Fimory issue the
inadequacy of the Draft Eavira~q~mMI :[ml~ct Paper, (DE~R) with Pespe~t to traffic imlxL~s. The
DEZR and the FEZI~ foil to accurately describe imlxmts expected when the Wolf Creek Specific Plan
is combined with other approved and pieNed projectS. The documents utilize and reference prior
Environmemol Zmpact Relx~ts (EZR's) certified me~y years ago for the cumulative traffic impact
analysis. The 6ene~l Pkm EZR was certified almost see yeoPs ago (1993) a~d the AD 159 E3ER
over 32 yeo~ 69o (1988~ And yet these documents ore the basis of the cumulative traffic iml~ct
cmalysis. The response to my comments suggests the project will "avoid traffic impacts over the
long term" because baselire conditions were current. Howeve4,. the e~spoase foils to mention if the
1993 study includes raw projects approved or developed since the~ Zt is not sufficient to s~y. ~t
will all work out in the long ru~' Whet about in the shaft md medium term?
Furthermore, it was ~oled at the plannimj commission meeting 6 5eptembe~ 2000, that o draft of
the Circulation Element UFlate is mta certifisd document taxi shouM only be used as background
infoPmotior~ The FEZR notes on page xv tl~t one of the mitigation measuPes (Lame Un&~ Ro~l from
Pale Road to Vm Del Coronado to its ultimate half-section width as a Collector) will be m~t "IF THE
CZRCULAT/:ON ELEMENT UPDATE OF THE ~,~ENERAL PLAN IS AITROVED", If the Circulation
Element is not appPoved, when and how will this mitigation element be achieved?. The ~ does not
address this issue. ¢EQA requiPe~ ell phe~i4 ef the Fqject azd it~ nero- era IomJ teem
impacts te be descryled In detail. DeferFed mitigation is i~ violation of CECIA.
This I~-oject will have a sigRificant impact NI tl'affic, dl/ing ell phese$ of ~ F~ojec$, elms
often mitigatim measures.
IWednesday September 20, 1900 2:57pm -- From '909 6995533' -- Page 21
- ~ EUROCONNECTIONS 989 699553~ P.e2
Pamela L Miod Page 2 20 5eptemben 2000
All phases of the Ix-oje~. short term. medium te.~m and lafwJ-term impacts have not been adequately
de~cj'ib~d in eccapd6nc~ with
Transportation and Circulation Element. pa9e x~. T/~ OfF tn~ffic P...ncjincp../, has it?4:tic~fed
~nitotin9 o~t ~lbw-up ~tudi~ ~ ~e n~uiP~t to ~ o~t t~rl~/~l t~ i~c~,ntol im/~l~t
o~t~ wit~ ~ ~j~ ~
]Ef the monitoring system indicatem that the project can no lange- ~upport a LOS b or better, what
plan is in place to stop the develape, f~m peo~;ed_ing with furthe~ development of the project?
The FETJi does not address th~ issue. FurthermoPe, if future tr~xffic studies deteqni~e that
additional improvements are ~equired of the project to meet City LOS objectives, where will the
funding for the new improvements come tram? The~e must be a viable mitigatlan plan that details
implementation of plan end identifies means of fundlnq far future ra~d improvements. and that ties
the issuance of subdivision maps to specific t~ffic pe~formu~ce standards. What ere the time
frames far the proposed "mo,itoning system",> Will there be monthly, qum-terly. yearly monitoring?
Which agency will be conducting the "monitoring system'? The FEIR does nat address this issue.
At what paint in time will the 'ultimate" Z-|5 end 5~ 795 interchange is Pequired and how is it
going to be funded, constructed and traffic congestion mitigated before it reaches that critical
paint? What measures will he taken along the way to ensure that a =critical point' does not occur>
The FI3ER does hot disclose these details. '
CEQA Fequi~es all phases of the project and its necr end leng term impacts to be desrribed in
deteil. Deferred mltkJetion is in violatia~ of CC-QA.
Z further request a report on avenge travel times in the vicinity of this projed and surrounding
cammunitie~. Studies fo~ LOS standards at intersections do not adequately detail the impact on
air quality. Mitigation measures such as additional tnaffic lights increase overage travel times from
point A to point B. Regardless if LOS standards at each t~ffic light are I) or better, each cycle
takes 1-4 minutes. Multiply that by lO or 15 th~f~c light inte. J~sedions and a cop could be sifting in
traffic far up to an hou~. Multiply that by an avePage additional 5,000 vehicles geaereted by this
project. ]:, addition, an estimated 42.000 daily ccu' trips are projected to he generated es e result
of this project. The FEZI~ identifies "Air pollutant missions (long-term) associated with vehicuku'
traffic end energy consumption resultimj from the project' to have en UNAVOTDABLE AND
5ZGN~FCANI' ]MPACT on the community. A result of the additional vehicles generated by this
pFoject, coupled with the additiohal time spent at traffic lights will severely. further. impact air
quality in the community. Again, the cumulative effects of curt-ant and future projects on SJ~. 795
end Pale Road have not been adequately addressed in the FE33>~
If the "proposed' regional pa~k. middle school and project related road construdlan is allawed ta
proceed ahead of the f~xluired on site ~ off-site 0nfrustructure) read improvements whet
measures will be taken to ensure that additional traffic congestion will nat occur on an already
AIR QUAI TTy:
St~emeat of Overriding Considerations. Section 15093 of CEQA requires the decision-making
agency to halonce, as epplir~ble, the etaremit, legal. social, technalagied. or athe~ berefit~ of e
proposed project against its unavoidable enviremnartai risks when determining whether to approve
Igednesday september 20f 1900 2:57pm -- From ~909 6995533' -- Page 3~
f - ' EUROCONNECTIONS 909 6995533 P.83
Pamela L./~iod
Page 3 20 5eptembe~ ~(X)O
the p~oject. The stoternen~ of oven'id irg consideratkN~ shall be suplx~fed by substantial evidence
in the record. When the lead agency approves a project which will result in the occur'once of
significant effects which ore identified in the final FTR but are nat avoided or substantially
lessened, the agency shall ~tate in un'itimJ the specific ~eosons to support Us action based on the
final EIR and/o~ other information in the record. The 5taft Repo~t dated 6 September 6, 2(X30
states unde~ FJENI:)INGS, 7b that 'the design of the subdiv/sion and the type of improvements are
not likely to cause serious public health problems.' Clean AZR just happens to be one element 1hat
keeps human beings alive. The FEIR does not llst mitigation measures fop health related illnesses
which Pesidenfs in this (u'ea wilt be subjected to.
litigation measures are stated as followr. 'Upon identifying a demand for bus service to the
project a~e~, the Riverside Transit Agency, or other r~sponsible public tranait prorider will
estabrish bus routes and stops to service the residents in the specific plan area.'
Who will 'identify' the 'demand" for bus service? How will this ide/itifying proce..~ be dare? When
will it be done7 If the residems choose not to ride a bu~, or if RTA is unable to provide the
equipment end fu/Iding, what mitigation mea~res will then he taken?
Accepting e Statement of Overriding Considel-etio~s on something as impelMat as ATR is a
violation of the health. safety end welfare of the citizens of this community.
TI~ACT TO I~ED~WK RESTt)ENTS:
The FEIR d~es nat address the impact this pe~ject will have on the residents of the Redhawk
community. Our neighborhood road~ are already heavily impacted by additional development in the
Redhawk area as well as the Pechanga Casino expansiar~ When Pale Road becomes impassable due to
the oonstruction of road impnovement~ and project development (schools, homes, i~,ks,
commercial/retail centers). the least frustrating Pouts will be through our neighborhood streets.
Wolf Valley R~zd and Redhewk PetGray are already heavily traveled with school and tour buses,
vehicles, and commercial vehicles. Traffic trying to exit residential streets onto Redhawk Parkway
is already becoming dangerous. Additional traffic generated by this project will have a detrimental
iml~ct on the community of Redhawk.
How much mane/, is left in Assessment #1597 Will the residenl~ of Redhawk he additionally
assessed for additional bands to fund road improvements associated with this project?
Tn closing, it is noted that after reviewing PC RE5OLUT]:ON #2000. it does not comply with CEQ. A
#15093 by showing the balances of Overriding Considerations and the benefits to the community,
Critical impacts of thL~ I~oject to the community h~ve not been adequately oddrested, no~ has
detailed inferration on mitigation meas~-es been giver~ Once again, T request the city prepare on
up to date traffic study that considers new cumulative impacts and recircuhte it for public review
and comment. Furthermore, T request that a full investigatian on how the health, safety and
welfare of the community wilt be affected by the significant air quality impacts this i~oject will
generate.
Pamela L. J~iod
co; Cilyc~il
Pkinnin9 Con~mi~t. ion
{t4ednesday September 6, 1900 11:]8am --
Sep OG O0 12:25p
909 693 5250' '- Page 11
Moon MD R Medical C
i93-G93-5250
TEMECULA PSYCRIATRIC CENTElL
A MEDICAL CORPORATION
DATE:
29377 Panelm California PaL, Ste. 204, Temecula. CA 92591
Phone (909) 693-118 ! Fax (909) 693-5250
PAGES (includes Cover Sheet)
COMMENTS:
Con~dentiality Nine:
This totecopy may ctmmin confidential and or legairy privileged informmica and is intended only tbf the
use of the individual or anti .ty to whom it is ndArosSeCL If you are not the intended recipicaL the employee.
or agent responsible for delivering this telecopy to the intended recipient. be advised that any copying
dissemination. distribution. or disclosure of intbrmation fix}m this telecopy is s~rictly prohibited. Persons
disclosing c~n~deatial iaformatica are subject to penalties under applicable law.
[fyou have received this telecogy in error. please notify the sender immediately by telephone and mail the
entire l~csimile m,~.ge back to us at the address above.
Igednesday September 6, 1900 11:38am -- Fr 909 693 5250# -- Page 21
Sap 06 O0 12:26p Moon MD R Medical C
-693-5250
{Wednesday September 6, 1900 11=~8am -- Fr
Sep OS O0 12.:2Gp
909 693 5250# -- Page 31 l~a
Moon Mn R Medical C 93-693-5250
p.3
September 6, 2000
Temecula Planning Comnussion
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
Sterlyn & Janie Rigsby
45861 Classic Way
Temecula, CA 92592
909-676-3188
0 6 2000
Re: Wolf Creek Development
To whom it may concern:
I oppose the Wolf Creek project due to traffic concerns. I live in the Rainbow Canyon
development and fight traffic on a daily basis. It is extremely difficult to get my child to and from
school on Pauba Road. We also make six round trips to the sports park per week. We also exit
Pala road to go grocery shopping, movies, etc. I used to take the most direct route: Loma Linda to
Via del Coronado to Via Cordova to Red Hawk Parkway to Margarita Road. Because of all of
the traffic problems in Red Hawk, I now go out to Highway 79 to Jedediah Smith (Thank you for
the suggestion Mr. Pratt). Highway 79 near Jedediah Smith is an accident waiting to happen. Even
after the much anticipated completion of Highway 79, ledediah Smith is a residential street and not
meant for everyone on Pain Road to use it to get across town. Considering what the people along
Jedediah Smith in Los Ranchitos had to pay for their land, I think it is safe to assume that they do
not want their front yards to be turned into a major thoroughfare.
Pechanga Entertainment outdoor concert and boxing facilites alone can accomodate 6,000 people
per event. Presently, during every shift change traffic is backed up both directions. On concert
nights, traffic is backed up out to the frecway, down the off-ramps and on the freeway itseli All
life ceases to exist for homeowners on Pala Road because of this traffic problem. We cannot and
have not been able to exit our housing developments because of lack of traffic management on the
part of the Pechanga organization and the C i~ of Temecula.
The new high school presents a problem all its own. The present attendance at Temecula Valley
High School is 3,000. Now, if the new high school has just half that attendance, one can expect
1,000 round-trips daily to get children to and from school, not to mention buses, teachers,
deliveries, etc. If attendance at a Friday night football game is 1,000 and Pechanga has a sold out
crowd the same evening, there will be 7,000 people on Pala Road. Spring Pacific officials may say
that this sort of thing will never happen. I remember the week-end of the Rave party on the
resercation when traffic was deadlocked for hours. That wasn't supposed to happen either. It can
happen and will happen. We are being promised six lanes on Pala Road (talk about a thoroughfare
in your backyard!) and four lanes on Wolf Valley. Not everyone will take these routes, especially
teen-agers frequenting the high school!
The Sports Park on Rancho Vista Road presently accomodates at least 6,000 soccer and baseball
participants per year, not including invitational tournaments. The new sports park which may be
on Pala Road will be similiarly used. Other plans for the development include housing for 7,000
new residents, apartment buildings, an elementary school, a fire station...everyone will have to get
out of the area some way and Pala Road with its many stop lights just isn't a viable solution.
When the Palomar fire this summer started getting close, if an evacuation was ordered, there is NO
WAY we could have all gotten out of here.
With the problems at the border patrol, hundreds of cars are using Rainbow Canyon Road. That
two-lane, pot-holed road is not equipped to handle to traffic it presently holds much less additional
usage. Homes bordering on Rainbow Canyon Road are not safe to even back out of their drive-
way.
People will take the shortest route from A to Z, even if it is through an already crowded street.
Case in point: Avenida de la Reina (now road-blocked), Avertida Pina Colada (now have speed
bumps), Calle Medusa (altemate road was constructed), and Via Cordova (median circles and stop
signs failed, problem has yet to be solved).
A plan needs to be set in motion to join Butterfield Stage to this end of town and extend Via del
Coronado to Highway 79 or some other means in which to move traffic more efficiently. These
roads need to be in place before Spring Pacific construction crews move in (as they apparently
have already on Via del Coronado). Residents of the Pala Road area will not wind around the
planned "internal loop road" or go out of their way (north) to get to Wolf Valley Road, onto Red
Hawk Parkway then onto Margarita. New Wolf Creek residents on the southem portion of the
addition and the traffic from the Middle School (proposed for the comer of Via del Coronado and
Loma Linda) will exit out Via Cordova. Haven't those people had enough grief already?
The Planning Commission has the responsibility to manage growth in such a way that people will
be enhanced by new projects. At the crowded Temecnla Creek meeting (August 1999), a Spring
Pacific official said that the traffic problems were here before he and his people got here.
Everyone in the room agreed with him. The problems are STILL are here and Spring Pacific
Properties are not part of the solution. The Wolf Valley plan would be a great plan if our
infrastructure were in place. Right now, however, the project can only make matters worse.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
lanie Rigsby
o 6 zooo
By
]uednesday September 6, 1900 2:57Fm -- From"
09/~j~/2000 WED 15:33 F,4J, 90950i
-- Page 11
Pechanga Cultural
Pechanga Cultural Resource Center
TemeuclA Band of Luiseno Mission Indians
Pe~ Rgg, rva~m
Post Offi¢~ B~x 2183
Temecula, Calif~,ni,, 92593
Telephoto: (909) 308-9295
Facsimile: (909) 506-9491
FACSIMILE INFORMATION PACE
PLEASE DELIVER TO:
FAY~.
FROM:
Total Number of Pages SeM lnduding ~is Page:
NOTICE:
SENT ]By:
DATE SENT:
IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE LEGIBLE COPIES OF ALL ~
PAGES, PLEASE CP, I,L (909} 308-929S ASAP AND ASK
FOR THE SENDER.
This /misinn is intended only for lhe uge ofd~ indlvldual or entity to whlch it k
addressed and may contain information ~at is privileged, can~dent~ nnd ~rk~,pt frem
d&~do~arc under al~k bw. If the re.~ler duds mcsugc is net ~ inhmdcd redp~ut~
or ~ employee or ~ rcspoam'lde for delivering t~c mcss~e to tim ~ntcudcd rec~icut~
you are hereby notified that any dissemination, dislr~nfion Or p~otocopy~ng of fitls
communir. afion b dficay probiblted. If you have r,',',~ved tltls r~mmnnicmtiOn ~11 error,
piece u~Ify m [MMEDJLATELy by talcphone, and return d~ 0figind message to us at
above addre~ vim ~e U.8. PosUl Servlw.. Tlumkyou.
ORIGINAL: ~
CONFIRM RECEipT: y~
WILL NOT
so
{~ednesday September 6, 1900 2:57p~ -- Frce '~69/,91: -- Page zl
09/0B/2000 WED 15:33 FAZ 90950 I Pechanga Culttwal
~002
PECHANQA CULTURAL RESOURCES
T~neczlla Band of Lsd~e~o Yi, ssicg~ Indians
Pus! ~ ]Box 2153 - Temeojla, CA 92593
Telephone (909) 308-9295 · Fax (909) ~06-9491
C~ue,.;ee Membe~
Aeelia Maauffo
l~naLane
StelianieBffi~oe
c~ of T~,,~da
43200 .Business Park ~
Temecula, CA 92590
Re:, Final F_zndronmcntal Impact Rcl~ott f~ The Wolf Ctcck Spe~ffic Plan
Environmental lml:~'t Repod ,fi~3~) fro' tl~ Weft Cn:ck Spedtic plan
bTIT, S 1MPAC'I'gD BY DEVELOP~FI~
conelusio~sa~theimpaotsonoulturah~som-oesasu~,aglinlheDrafiEIRmdtl~
Pwh_~Bandnlsodisagmeswithanumberoftl~City'smsponsestoosxiniti~commcnts(sc~
lcttctdatedDecemb~3, 1999) asstatodinth~Fina!ElR. ht~Dra~nu~the leadagency, de
C~ty~nives~fimc~c~si~nffi~ttheffiemw~n~mpact~ncu~tt~a~n:s~un:csbased~n~h~
Sacred Is The Duty Trusted Unto Our Care And ~Fith Honor We l~se To The Need
IVednesday Septefaber 6# 1900 R:STpm -- From '
09/~6/2000 Wlc;D 1-5:34 FAX 909.50
369/,91' -- Page 3]
)1 peehan~a Cultural
E3003
Las~y.t!~T_em~l~aVallcyavcaisknowntobefichinLuiscfmculhnllcso~cc~
Thcrcfore. the Pechanga Baad ~mqld be/nvolved/a dctcrmirdng mfiigatiea incasores for th{~
should be consulted and should ha~ a commimmnt ~om lhe City and Spring P,,wifm Pmperlics,
LLCC'lX'wJopef) lowodkwiththePeckmgapeepleonagovemment-to-guvanmesba~s
Ce-~--meois to Respepm-s 12-1. 12-2. ,rod 12-3
IntcslxmselotilcPec~Bnnd'scommentlcttcrd~,edDccemhcr3, 199~.l~eCityrecogaized
F_2q~mndingmiti~-m~nmcasum#l toinclmicthcPa:tmnmHand'spnrlicipMimsaflcracultund
tcsouroch~bccnimpact~lmaybctaolnlcinthc~me, ltmaytake2ot3m4passe~ofa
Pechanga Cultural Resources. remecula Band of !Jtisefw Mission Indians
Post 01Twe Box 218.~ , Temecula, CA 92592
Sacred Is The Duty Tru, ffed Unto Our Gate And With Honor We Rise To The Need
/gednesday Septether 6, 1900 2:57pn -- FPota '~j69491# -- Page 41
09/06/2000 WED 15:35 FAI 90950 I Pech.an, Ka Cultural
k
~004
Comments to P. eslmnraes 12-4, 12--5, and 12-6
The Pec~mp Band is aware ffiat thg projm sim has been agricultural sit~ for 30+ yems ~ ~
depth that grading and over-excavation will occur on rig project sit~ Although gradi-~ may not
gxouul lira ~ of lx~vioua hqlin~ activity, Ovgr-~cavafion will most likd~ go much doq~r
Expanding mitl ~_~fi,_'ou ngasm'c # 1 to include the Pcchanga Band' s parfic/pation after a cultural
tuource luts been impncted may be too l,-,- in ffic gnme, ltmaylake2or3or4passcsofa
s~upaorbulldozctfm'theop~/s~ortotediTe-thattheyluveimpactedacultm-nlresom-ce. TIffs
opentor who has m expe~ienc~ and is fidin~ along at 20- 30 miles an ho~. Artarchaeological
~eymayFoperlyidcntifyandaddre~sanyandaHim.n~ctstocultm31resourcesasfl~ymny
Commen~ to Reslmns~ 12-7
T~gP~changabam~t~oesnotfedthat``T~g~anguag~oftheexpa~dedmit~m~-~nissu~ici~t~y
broadtoincludethemcovayandtzealmentissuesoutlinedinthc~,mmcnf'(f~6,'G,a~
5~dfic Phm, From EIR p. Z~6). T!~ P~a Band reclues~ th~ the COnSdintiOn occur prior
Commenls to Responses 128 and 12-9
Thor~o~ssem~and~ddsuv~of~~,knownmtf---evideff=of
cul~nd~; d~mfa~n:~ouro~w~znot~ How~th=Citydidrea>gniz~
L~ednesday September 6, 1900 2:57pm -- From '~i[~69491# -- Page 5[
.0.9/06/2000 W,~U 15:35 FAX 90950 I Pecha~Sa CulEural
~005
culturalitmso~ar6factstlmtmaybodiscav~duringthedc~eloim~offficFojectagKlou
REQUF, STED INVOLYEMX~IT AND MITIGATION MFASURES
regardingoultund a~u'u:s, as sct fofth iu~Fi-d~K,a~inadulmm:andr~oeotfully
requ~:sts the following cha~es:
Pechanga Cultural Rewurce3 · Temecula Band of Lui$tFw Miuion Indians
Post O. ZrEe Box2183, Temecula, CA 92592
&ztned Is The Duty Trusted Unto Our Care And With Honor W~ Ri.~e To The Need
MARK A, MACARRO
TRIBAL CHAIRMAN
JOHN MAGEE
TRIBAL COUNCIL
PHILLIP IBANEZ
TRIBAL COUNCIL
BILL (Wolf) TINSLEY
TRIBAL COUNCIL
BENJAMIN VASQUEZ
TRIBAL COUNCIL
BETTY BARRIENTOS
TRIBAL COUNCIL
RAYMOND BASQUEZ
TRIBAL COUNCIL
PECHANGA INDIAN RESERVATION
Temecula Band of Luise~o Mission Indians
Post Office Box 1477 · Temecula. CA 92593
Telephone (909) 676-2768 Fax (909) 695-1778
September 20, 2000
Ms. Carole K. Donahoe, AICP
Associate Planner
City of Temecula
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
RE: Comments presented at public hearing on September 20, 2000, 6:30
p.m. for The Final Environmental Impact Report, Wolf Creek Specific
Plan.
Dear Ms. Donahoe:
The Pechanga Band of Luise~o Mission Indians (hereinafter
"Pechanga Band") submits the following comments regarding the Wolf
Creek Specific Plan, through its Cultural Resources Committee and its
counsel, John L. Macarro, Esq., Pechanga Tribal Attorney and Ms. Laura
Miranda, Esq., of California Indian Legal Services.
The Pechanga Band has received copies of the Final
Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for this project. The Pechanga Band
is not opposed to this project. The Band's primary concems are with the
project's potentially significant impacts on Native American, particularly
Luisefio, cultural resources. The Pechanga Band is concerned with the
lawful treatment of Native American remains and with the preservation of
unique and irreplaceable Luisefio cultural resources, village sites and
archaeological sites which would be displaced by ground disturbing work.
Testin~ ProRram/Survevs
Christopher Drover conducted an archaeological survey of the 557-
acre property. This survey consisted of a site records search through the
UCR Archaeological Unit and a walk-over field survey of the project area.
Based on this survey Drover concluded that there would be no significant
potential impacts to cultural resources by the development of this project
(EIR, pg. 131).
However, since the City has acknowledged that subsurface
resources may exist within this project area (EIR, pg. 131) and there is no
evidence to the contrary, the Pechanga Band believes that cultural
resources will be uncovered during the development of this project.
Because this project area is in a culturally sensitive area, as acknowledged
by all parties, is in close proximity to the Pechanga Reservation, and is
likely to contain subsurface artifacts, the Pechanga Band asserts that it is
imperative to have tribal representatives monitor all the ground-breaking
associated with the project, and that an agreement be executed between the
Tribe and the City to address treatment of the cultural resources that will
be found during development of the project.
Recommended Mitigation Measure
The Pechanga Band requests that the following mitigation measure #2 be
add to the Wolf Creek Specific Plan to bring this project into compliance
with the California Environmental Quality Act, including the California
Public Resource Code, section 21081(a).
That the developer enter into a PRE-EXCA VA TION AGREEMENT
and CONSTRUCTION MONITORING PLAN, specific to this project,
to the satisfaction of the Pechanga Band, before approval of the site
plans, any grading plan and prior to any grading permit being issued.
The pre-excavation agreement would set forth the specific details
regarding the Native American monitors, reburial of Native American
remains, and treatment of LuiseBo cultural items.
Lastly, in previous comments the Pechanga Band has stated their
opposition to the language in the NOP (see, page 222, FEIR), which calls
for Native American participation only after it is determined by the
applicant that Native American resources are involved. Unfortunately,
those comments were not taken into account when drafting the FEIR.
Again, the Pechanga Band is opposed to language in the FEIR mitigation
measures which call for Native American involvement only "if and when
resources are encountered." (FEIR, 2.15 (1)). This is impractical
because there will be no one monitoring the grading of this project with
knowledge in Luiseno cultural resources to identify whether resources are
actually encountered. The cultural resources can not be protected, in a
manner sufficient under state law, if there is no one on-site during the
grading to identify the resources which warrant protection. With the
current plan the resources will likely be destroyed without anyone's
knowledge that they were ever there.
The Pechanga Band appreciates the opportunity to participate in
this stage of the process. Allowing active tribal participation in these early
stages will prevent misunderstandings and help your project move forward
smoothly.
: i;ori laLegal Services
Pechanga Tribal Attorney
September 6, 2000
Planning Commission
ATTN: Carole Donahoe
City of Temecula
PO Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589
RE: Wolf Creek Specific Plan
Dear Ms. Donahoe;
I am writing this letter on behalf of the Wolf Valley Homeowners
Association and its residents. We have previously made comments
regarding the draft EIR for the above referenced project and have
conducted meetings with the City Manager, Mr. Shawn Nelson, and the
William Hughes, the Director of Public Works. We appreciate the time
the City staff has spent in addressing our concerns regarding this
project. While we have not always seen eye-to-eye on the issues, we do
appreciate the staff's willingness to listen to the concerns of the HOA
and our members.
We have, in the past, opposed this project for many of the issues
included in our original letter to the City. These issues involved
housing density; the use of multi-family and commercial zones directly
across from homes in the HOA, the lack of any plan for the widening of
Pala Road, speed and safety issues on Pala Road and, most
significantly, the existing and future noise levels on Pala Road. Our
concerns have been '~heard" by the developer of this project and we have
attended at least three separate meetings with Mr. Bill Griffith,
Managing Director of Spring Pacific Properties, LLC, and his staff to
discuss this project and its impacts on this area of Temecula.
During these discussions, we have come to learn that many of the
concerns we have regarding Pala Road are issues that the City of
Temecula has not yet addressed. For example, the City is presently
only 70% completed in its plans for the final build out of Pala Road.
and, as a result, there is no answer to our questions regarding noise
mitigation. Mr. Griffith has indicated on several occasions that he
has informed the City of his willingness for the project to pay its
fair share of any costs to widen Pala Road including noise mitigation
measures. Unfortunately, there is presently no plan for the final
build out of Pala Road that we are aware of. The City's proposed
solution to this problem is for the HOA and the residents to be willing
to accept an interim widening of Pala Road to four lanes from the Pala
Bridge to Wolf Valley Road - without any regard to noise or other
possible mitigation measures that may be required. We find this
proposal unreasonable and unacceptable. Our resolve is strengthened by
Mr. Nelson's statement that the timing and nature of any final solution
to this problem was indeterminate since the project may never be built
or built much more slowly than anticipated at this time. Such a
situation would result in less need to make "final" improvements to
Pala Road for many years. I cannot believe that the City would ask it
residents to support a temporary fix to a problem without knowing the
probable "final" solution and it timing.
We also understand that the City is concerned with congestion, as we
are. Fortunately, at present - and we believe for the foreseeable
future - the congestion is at Loma Linda and Pala Roads. Once traffic
clears this bottleneck it moves smoothly south on Pala Road and there
is little or no congestion at Wolf Valley Road in either the AM or PM.
Thus, we find that the best solution for concerns about Pala Road and
this project should not be rushed through in the name of solving a non-
existent congestion problem.
Regarding the project specifically I am pleased to tell you that we
would support the project based on the following conditions:
1. The total residential density does not exceed 2100 units (as
indicated by Mr. Griffith on September 5~h);
2. Pala Road is widened to six lanes from the Pala Road Bridge
to Wolf Valley Road rather than to Via Gilberto, as presently
proposed. This additional length of less than a quarter mile
will prevent a future bottle neck (similar to the Loma Linda
problem now) at Wolf Valley Road after the final build out of
this project and Pechanga Casino improvements;
3. That Pala Road not be temporarily widened to four lanes
without noise mitigation measures being taken to reduce the
probable impact of noise from more and fast moving traffic.
4. We would again ask the City to consider options to improve
traffic flow and speed on Pala Road. We do not want fatality
motivated traffic control as we have in other parts of the
City.
5. The multi-family area designated as PA-10 be limited to
attached, fee ownership residential units, as proposed to us
by Mr. Griffith.
We would like to take this opportunity to thank you for permitting the
HOA to participate in this process and we urge you to consider the
issues we have raised. These are important to not only us, but also
all the people living along Pala Road today and who live here in the
future.
Thank y
A/PFS
ners Association
Ad Hoc Committee on Wolf Creek Project
CITY OF TEMECULA
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
NOTE TO FILE
Carole Donahoe
September 8, 2000
Wolf Creek Specific Plan
Tracy Luke, Via Quivera, Redhawk, Riverside County
Called today because she has a "big concern" regarding the lights and noise from the proposed
Middle School. The rear of her home looks out onto Wolf Creek, and 3 bedrooms would be
affected. She is concerned about the brightness of the ballfield lights, and the noise that would
emanate from the fields.