Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout101602 PC AgendaIn compliance w th t ~e Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assi~stance to participate in !his meeting, p ease contact the office of the Cty C erk (909) 694-6444. Notification 48 hours pdor to a meeting w~ll enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accassibility to that meet ng [28 CFR 35.102.35,104 ADA Title ] AGENDA TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 43200 BUSINESS PARK DRIVE October 16, 2002 - 6:00 P.M. Next in Order: Resolution: No. 2002-044 CALL TO ORDER Flag Salute: Roll Call: Commissioner Olhasso Guerriero, Mathewson, OIhasso, Telesio and Chiniaeff PUBLIC COMMENTS A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public may address the Commission on items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Commission about an item no.~t 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. CONSENT CALENDAR NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC All matters listed under Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and all will be enacted by one roll call vote. There will be no discussion of these items unless Members of the Planning Commission request specific items be removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action. 1 Aqenda RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Approve the Agenda of August 21, 2002 R:\PLANCOMM~Agendas~0(32~10-16-02.doc 1 2 Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Approve Minutes from August 21, 2002 3 Dire(~tor's Hearin.q Case Update RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 Approve the Director's Hearinc Case Update for September 2002 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 b~ limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public he, ring or m written correspondences delivered to the Commission Secretary at, or prior to, the public hearing. Continued from October 2, 2002 , 4 Plannin.q Application No. PA02-0217 Development A.qreement that would .quarantee the ability of Guidant Corporation to e~pand their operations in Temecula, by deveiopin.q up to 481,260 square feet of buildin.q larea, aliowin.q an increase in the maximum buildinqs heiqht to 80 feet and establish a supplemental buildinq setback zone adjacent to public streets; establishin.q future buildin.qland landscape quidelines, and .quaranteeinq the ri.qht to expand for 15 years located EAst of Ynez Road, South of Overland Drive, West of Marqarita Road and north of Solana Way - Dave Ho.qan, Principal Planner RECOMMENDATION: 4,1 Adopt a Resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECUI.A; RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVEI AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR, AND APPROVING THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH, ADVANCED CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS, INC, A SUBSIDIARY OF GUIDANT CORPORATION (PLANNING APPLICATION 02-0217). R:\PLANCOMM'~gendas~002~10-16-02.doc 2 New Items 5 Plannin.q Application No. PA94-0073, PA99-0298, PA94-0075, PA94-0076, PA01-0253, PA01-0230, and PA99-0299 - The annexation of 634 acres to the City of Temecula; a General Plan Amendment to the Land Use Element to incorporate the proposed land uses, and to include Plannin.q Areas 33A and 33B to the Specific plan Overlay Fi.qure; a General Plan Amendment to the Circulation element to eliminate the connection between Nicolas Road and Calle Contento thrcuqh the proiect and to chan,qe the desiqnation of Butterfield Staqe Road between Murrieta Hot Sprinqs Road and Nicolas Road from 4 lanes Specific Plan Road; a Zone Chanqe to pre-zone the annexation property to the SP zonin,q desiqnation and to amend the Development Code Section 17.16.070 of the City of Temecula Development Code t° adopt a Specific Plan for 804.7 acres to provide zoninq and development standards for the development of 2,015 dwellin,q units within several qated communities, 110,000 square feet of nei.qhborhood commercial retail space, a 12 acre elementary school site and a 20 acre middle school site, two public parks sites includin.q a 19.7 acre Sports Park with ii.qhted playinq fields and a 4.8 acre nei.qhborhood park with passive uses, three private recreation facilities, private and public trails and paseos, a fire station site, and 202.7 acres of natural open space to be preserved as permanent habitat, related flood control improvements to Santa Gertrudis Creek and Lon.q Valley Wash; a tentative map to subdivide the proiect for conveyance purposes; a tentative map to create 509 residential lots within a .qated community, a 4.8 acre private recreational facility, a .;~ acre private mini park, private paseos and trails, a 5;1 acre public park site, and two open space lots (21.9 acres) to be preserved as permanent habitat; and a Development A.qreement to .qrant the developer development ri.qhts for ten years and secure the construction of certain infrastructure improvements by the developer located Northeast of the City near the eventual intersection of Butterfield Staqe Road and Nicolas Road - Saied Naaseh-Shahry, Proiect Planner V RECOMMENDATION: 5.1 Adopt a Resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL CERTIFY THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND RELATED ACTIONS 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 RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN, LOCATED NEAR THE EVENTUAL' INTERSECTION OF BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD AND NICOLAS ROAD, (PLANNING APPLICATION 94-0076). R:~PLAN CO MM',Agendas~2002~l 0-16-02.doc 3 5.2 Adopt a Resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE FOLLOWING: 1) GENERAL PLAN ;;AMENDMENT FOR THE RORIPAUGH RANCH SPEClFICl PLAN (PLANNING APPLICATION 99-0298); ~ - 2) THE RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 194-0075); 3) ADOPT AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN ZONING STANDARDS (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 94-0075); 4) ADOPT AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING A CHANGE OF ZONE TO AMEND ~THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF THE CITY (PLANNING APPLICATION 94-0075); AND 5) ADOPT AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE RORIPAUGH RANCH DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (PLANNING APPLICATION NO1 99-0299); ON PARCELS TOTALING APPROXIMATELY ~r804.7 ACRES, LOCATED NEAR THE FUTURE INTERSECTION OF BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD AND NICOLAS ROAD AND FURTHER IDENTIFIED AS ASSESSOR PARCEL NOS. 957-130-001 and 002, 957-340- 001,003, 007, 008, AND 958-260-001 AND 002. 5.3 Adopt a Resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 01-0230 - TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 29353 FOR THE SUBDIVISION OF 804.7 ACRES INTO 39 LOTS AND 8 STREET LOTS, PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 01-0253- TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 29661, FOR FHE SUBDIVISION OF A PORTION OF 158 ACRES INTO 509 RESIDENTIAL LOTS AND 20 OPEN SPACE LOTS WITHIN Pi LANNING AREAS lA, 1,B, 2, 3, 4A, 4B, 5, 6, 7A, 7B, 7C, 8, and 9A OF THE RORIPAUGH. RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN LOCATED NEAR THE EVENTUAL INTERSECTION OF BUTrERFIELD STAGE ROAD AND NICOLAS ROAD, AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR PARCEL NOS. 957-130-001 and 002, ~957-340-001, 003~ 007, AND 008, 958- 260-001 AND 002. R:~P LANCOM M',Agendas~002\l 0-16-02,doc 4 COMMISSIONER'S REPORTS PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT ADJOURNMENT Next meeting: October 29, 2002 - Council Chambers 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, CA 92590 R:~PLANCOMM~Agendas~00~I 0-16-02.doc 5 ITEM #2 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 21, 2002 CALL TO ORDER The City of Temecula Planning Commission convened in a regular meeting at 6:00 P.M., on Wednesday, August 21, 2002, in the City Council Chambers of Temecula City Hail, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. ALLEGIANCE The audience was led in the Flag salute by Commissioner Olhasso. ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Also Present: PUBLIC COMMENTS No comments. CONSENT CALENDAR I Aqenda RECOMMENDATION: Commissioners Guerriero, Mathewson, Olhasso, Telesio, and Chairman Chiniaeff. None. Director of Planning Ubnoske, Assistant City Attorney Curley, Redevelopment Director Meyer, Development Services Administrator McCarthy, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks, Principal Planner Hogan, Associate Planner Papp, Associate Planner Rush, Associate Planner Thornsley, Project Planner McCoy, and Minute Clerk Hansen. 1.1~ Approve the Agenda of August 21, 2002. 2 Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Approve Minutes from July 31, 2002. Chairman Chiniaeff recommended th. the order of the Agenda (Item No. 1) be revised, and that Agenda Item No. 6 be considered after Item No. 3. MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero m~oved to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1-2, subjectlto the recommended modification to Item No. 1 (revising the order of the Agenda in order that Item No. 6 be considered after consideration of Item No. 3). The motion was seconded by Commissioner Telesio apd voice vote reflected unanimous approval. COMMISSION BUSINESS 3 Planninq Application No. PA00-0507-Hampton Inn, for the desi.qn and construction of a 70-room four story hotel building on a 1.35-acre vacant parcel located to the adiacent west oflthe Winchester freeway off ramp next to the Comfort Inn Hotel at the rear of the Rancho Temecula Plaza. - Michael McCoy, Proiect Planner II RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 Adopt a Notice of Exemption !or Planning Application No. PA00-0507 pursuant to Section 15332 of the California Environmental Quality Act 'Guidelines; and 3.2 'Adopt a resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002- A RESOLUTION OF ]'HE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 010-0507 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN - HAMPTON INN SUITES) TO DESIGN AND CONSTRUCT A FOUR STORY, 70-ROOM 41,900 SQUARE FOOT HOTEL BUILDING ON A t.35 ACRE VACANT PARCEL, LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 200 FEET EAST OF JEFFERSON AVENUE AND 200 FEET NORTH OF WINCHESTER, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 910-282-007. Staff provided an overview of the proiect plan B f h I IM y way,o over eads, Project Panner cCoy presented the staff report (of record), not ng that this rem was continued frdm the June 5, 2002 Planning Commission meeting for recommended revisions regarding the landscape, architecture, pedestrian access and circulation plans; relayed the Pla0ning Commission's previous concern regarding the request for a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) increase; with respect to the proposed FAR ~ncrease, noted that ~t was the apphcant s op~n~on that the enhanced architectural treatments met the criteria (per the Development Code) to quahfy for the ~ncrease In FAR; noted the added condition requi'ing that the false balcony treatments be placed on all of the windows (with the exception of the ground floor guestrooms) to effectively screen the vent covers; with respect t? the landscape plan, advised that it was staff's recommendation that additional everg adjacent to the freeway offramp and ti teen trees be added along the eastern perimeter ~at an entry treatment be provided, and that it was the applicant's revised proposal to add additional evergreen trees along the eastern property line as well as against the building, and to add a water fountain element at the entrance of the building; clarified that it was staffs opinion that the revised landscape plan more effectively met the criteria for the FAR increase; with respect to the pedestrian access issues, noted that the City Building Official has revised the applicant's requirement for provision of ADA access from the public right-of-way based on the State Architect's finding that this particular parcel was landlocked, and that access would be provided via vehicles, reading into the record the added condition stating The disabled access from the existing private access driveway to the main entrance of the building is required; the path of travel shall meet the California Disabled Access Regulations in terms of cross-slope, travel-slope, striping and signage and provide all the details on the plans; and advised that the applicant has revised the site plan which now denotes the pedestrian access pathway from the parking lot between the landscaped area in the parking lot, as well as an additional access path from the east side of the property to the west side. Staff addressed the queries of the Commission For Commissioner Mathewson, Project Planner McCoy noted that based on the landscape plan the added fountain treatment did not have seating; relayed that there would be decorative paving in the entryway; confirmed that the required sidewalk (necessary in order for the project to meet the Development Code standards) has been added along the front parking row; and noted that the revised landscape plan included additional evergreen trees, relaying that the project has also been conditioned to add large cedar trees to the front planters to replace the fern pines. In response to Commissioner Telesio, Project Planner McCoy confirmed that it was staff's opinion that the added architectural enhancements (i.e., the substantial amount of added stone veneer) met the criteria ?or the FAR increase; reiterated that while staff had conditioned the project to add the false balcony treatments on all the windows (with the exception of the first floor windows), it was the applicant's desire to include these elements solely on the windows in the inset sections; and relayed that this particular project plan included adequate parking provisions. Commissioner Guerriero noted his continued concern regarding the traffic impacts associated with the project. For Commissioner Guerrier0, Project Planner McCoy provided the revised color board; noted that the applicant has been conditioned to provide a visual representation of the Water treatment for staffs review and approval prior to implementation, Director of Planning Ubnoske clarifying that staff had requested the applicant to provide the visual for the Planning Commission presentation. In response to Chairman Chiniaeff, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks relayed that the Development Impact Fees (DIF) for this particular project would be utilized for various projects, that approximately $20,000 of the approximate $151,000 in DIF fees would be utilized towards a signal project at this location, that the potential traffic project (which has yet to be approved by the City Council) would limit access from left-turning motions, that there would be a dual left-turn lane from Jefferson Avenue onto Winchester Road (traveling east), and that most likely there would be a signal on the north side of the Santa Gertrudis Creek (both locations providing opportunities for U-turn motions); R:P!anComm/r~nutes]082102 3 and advised that these traffic improvements were part of the City's Capital Improvement Projects as well as part of the Harveston Project's mitigation proposal and would most likely be completed within an 18-month period. The applicant's representatives presehted the proiect plan Mr. LarrY Markham, representing the ~pplicant, noted the applicant's concurrence with the Conditions of Approval; specified !he revisions to the project since the item was continued, which included an added hand pavement stamped-concrete walkway, and an enhanced landscape plan; noted that ithe applicant was not opposed to staff's recommendation to add the false balcony treatments to all the windows (with the exceptipn of the first' floor windows);' ~dv~sed~ ' that the applicant's representatives met with Senior Engineer Moghadam to discuss traffic issues at this particular location, noting that direction was provided by ~taff that it would not be appropriate for this project to move forWard and implement improvements at this one area which was part of an overall Capital Improvement Project noted that a median would be installed which would addres~ the turning movement impacts with respect to the parking stalls in question, clarified that the stalls were part of th~s parcel s private property, nobng that the reciprocal egress/ingress easement Was for the driveway and not the parking; noted that the applicant would not be opposed t(~ bring the fountain treatment design plans back to the Planning Commission; for Commissioner Teles~o, relayed that the applicant had offered the use's meeting room for community use; with respect to Commissioner Mathewson's queries regarding provision of a seating element at the fountain, relayed that ~t was h~s understanding that at t~e prewous meebng there had been a recommendation for provision of outdpor seating (i.e., a table) which the applicant would most likely place at the south end of the building in lieu of a portion of landscaping. ~ I, d th In response to t, ommissioner Olhasso s queries regar lng e letter submitted on this date of August 21st, which relayed th~ concerns of Mr. Jim Lin, owner of the adjacent inn, Mr; Markham advised that the applicant would explore relocating the trash enclosure area, Which was presently proposed ~roximate to the neighboring inn's pool. With respect to the colored elevation,I Mr. Markham noted that the elevations were lost during transit from the City of Fresno.I For Commissioner Mathewson, Mr. Markham relayed that it was his understanding that the proposed roof treatment was a more suitable element for the project than alternate roof designs placed on inns in the eastern United States; and relayed that if the fountain elemen~t was relocated to the north, a seating element could most likely be added. Mr. Vince Didonato, landscape engineer representing the applicant addressed the suggestion to relocate the courtyard in order to include a seating element, noting that a courtyard element was pedestnan-on~nted and that the sole access to this area would be from across the driveway and would not be particularly conducive to pedestrian orientation, and that the proposal wa~ designed for the fountain treatment to serve as an accent element rather than a pedestrian-oriented area with seating; for Commissioner Mathewson and Chairman Chmlaeff, specified the areas where enhanced pawng was proposed; relayed that he was not opposed to staff's recommendation to increase the size of'the 15-gallon trees to 24-inch box trees; clarified his opinion that this landscape plan was exceptional, noting that this project had no street frontage, and that all of the landscaping was placed around the erimeter of the building, and that the entry had been accented; and for Chairman Chiniaeff, confirmed that additional evergreen trees were added on the back of the project proximate to the freeway. The public was invited to comment Mr. Ken Westmyer, 31870 Calle Redondela, representing Mr. Lin, owner of the Hampton Inn, noted that it was his opinion that if the building was reduced in order that the FAR not be increased (which was his recommendation), the reduced TOT tax collected would not have a significant impact; noted concern regarding the lack of information regarding the project, and the potential for left-turning movements exiting the parking lot being prohibited which would create negative impacts; queried the rationale for staff now concurring with the proposed building footprint with the few improvements the applicant incorporated, opining that this project plan did not include an exceptional architecture or landscaping plan, and that the proposed building size was inappropriate for the parcel; and requested that the Planning Commission deny the applicant's request for a FAR increase. The Planninq Commission offered ciosinq comments While Commissioner Guerriero relayed appreciation to the applicant for the added enhancements to the project, he disagreed with staff that this project encompassed outstanding architecture, recommending that there be additional enhancements due to the high visibility of the project from the freeway; advised that it was his opinion that no additional vehicle congestion should be added at this location due to the existing traffic impacts; concurred with Mr. Westmyer that a reduction in the building size (e.g., reducing the building to three stories) would not have significant financial impacts on the City of Temecula; recommended that there be additional landscaping; noted that he could not adequately review the project for approval or denial without additional information regarding the fountain element design; relayed that the project offered no community amenities; opined that the concerns of the Comfort Inn property owner should be taken into consideration due to this business' suppod of the City of Temecula for years; and relayed that he was disappointed that the applicant had not initially proposed the wrought-iron treatments on the entire project's windows (with the exception of the first floor), as recommended by staff. Commissioner Mathewson concurred that the proposed building size was too large for this padicular site; in comparing this project to alternate recently approved projects in the City of Temecula, concurred that this proposal did not have an exceptional landscape or architectural plan; and noted that without being able to review the fountain design plan he could not support the FAR request. Concurring with the previous comments, Commissioner Telesio advised that although "exceptional" was a subjective term, it was his opinion that this project was more "standard" than "outstanding"; acknowledged that this was a difficult lot; noted that a pitched-roof element (which had been implemented on some of this company's eastern projects), should have been explored, as was discussed at the previous meeting; for informational purposes, recommended that projects should be enhanced prior to Planning Commission presentation, noting that the Planning Commission has raised the bar with respect to design expectations; and concurred that he could not support the request for an increase in the FAR with this particular project, as proposed. In response to Commissioner Olhasso Director of Planning Ubnoske concurred that determining whether a design plan was outstanding was a subjective determination; relayed= that the Development Code does not define exceptional architecture, that on this particular project the Planning Commi§sion requested that the applicant revise the project,; specifically that stone veneer be added, as well as enhanced paving, and a sidewalk which that applicant has incorporated into the project plan; and recommended that the Planning Commission take into consideration the direction relayed to the applicant at the last meeting by the Planning Commission and whether the applicant has incorporated these revisions into the Current proposal. Commissioner Olhasso noted that the applicant did implement the revisions into the project that the Planning Commission had recommended. For commissioner Olhasso, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks provided additional information regarding the timing of the proposed traffic improvement projects at this location· In light Of the traffic improvements pro osed proximate to the project site, and since the applicai~t incorporated the recommended revisions into the project plan, Commissioner Olhass0 advised that she could suppc~rt the project. / Chairman Chiniaeff noted that the project only need meet one of the warrants denoted in the Development Code to justify a FAR increase; reiterated that the applicant did implement the recommended revision~ of the Planning Commission into the project plan; and suggested that the project be restricted from occupancy until the median was in place. , Additional discussion ensued regarding the traffic projects Lennar (the Harveston Project) would be ~mplemenbng as part of ~ts Development Agreement. CommiSsioner Mathewson relayed that the Planning Commission recommendations expressed at the June 5, 2002 meebng were simply suggestions, and that the Planning Commi§sion was providing direction t6 the applicant that the architectural and landscape plans needed to be enhanced ~f the apphcant was desirous of a FAR ~ncrease; and clanfled that ~mplementatlon of the Planning Commission s recommendations was not a guarantee for approval, Commissione~' Telesio concurring, advising that not all of the recommendations had been ~mplemer)ted, clarifying that the justification for the FAR increase was implementation of an ex~ceptional plan, recommending that the applicant either provide an ' excepbonal plan or reduce the FAR, which was echoed by CommiSsioner Guerriero. MOTION: Commissioner Olhasso moved to continue this matter· (Ultimately this motion died for lack of a second.) In response to Commission d~scuss~or~, Assistant C~ty Attorney Curley relayed that ~f the Planning Commission was not in agreement with the resolution for approval, which included the proposed FAR, then ~t was recommended that the Planning Commission provide direction in order that staff could bring back a resolution with the Commission findings. FAILED MOTION: In order to gauge the Commission's support, Chairman Chiniaeff moved to approve the FAR proposed with this particular project. Commissioner Telesio seconded the motion for discussion purposes and voice vote reflected unanimous denial of the motion due to all the Commissioners voting no. MOTION: Commissioner OIhasso moved to continue this item to the October 2, 2002 Planning Commission meeting. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Guerriero. (Ultimately this motion passed; see the top of page 8.) Commissioner Guerriero clarified that the applicant should bring forward to the October 2"d meeting additional information regarding the design of the water element. Mr. Markham relayed his desire for clarification regarding the Planning Commission's direction; noted that all the hotels in this area with the exception of Temecula Creek inn have exceeded the FAR; advised that the Code allows for an increase from .3 to 1 .; relayed that hotels and mini-storage uses by the nature of the uses typically exceed the FAR; reiterated the concept of proposing a three-story building, noting that with the reduction in parking, additional landscaping could be added; noted that the Code only required that one of the criteria be met to qualify for a FAR increase, advising that the difference between proposing a hotel use verses an office building use was that the City benefited economically from the added revenues generated from the TOT; relayed the applicant's confusion in requesting direction from the Planning Commission and that after implementing these recommendations the Planning Commission did not express support of the revised project plan; and advised that if he had understood the importance of the pitched-roof element, the feasibility of implementing this element would have been investigated. Commissioner Olhasso suggested that the applicant submit the feasibility study, which would then become public record, advising that if the foudh story of the building was needed due to financing issues the Planning Commission could take this issue under consideration. Noting the diligent efforts of the applicant with the project plan, Mr. Markham reiterated the constraints of this particular site, relaying that a hotel use was most likely the most appropriate use for the site; advised that the applicant did offer to contribute funds toward the Jefferson Avenue Median Project as a community amenity, relaying that since this project was included in the City's CIP, the Public Works Depadmental staff directed the applicant not to pursue this concept since the project would be addressed within the CIP. For clarification, Commissioner Telesio relayed that the Planning Commission was seeking an exceptional plan to warrant the FAR increase, advising that while the pitched roof was suggested, since the Planning Commissioners were not architects there could be no commitment to support the proposal without reviewing the plan, recommending that the applicant bring forward the most outstanding plan feasible if the FAR increase was going to be proposed. For clarification, Mr. Markham noted that the applicant's rationale for not including the plan to place the false balcony treatments on every window was due to the applicant's architect's opinion that it would be more visually pleasing if this element was placed solely on the windows in the inset area. At this time voice vote was taken reflecting unanimous approval. Having revised the order of the Agbnda, it was noted that at this time the Commission considered Agenda Itbm No. 6. 6 Plannin.q Application No. PA01-03J24 (Conditional Use Permit) A proposal to desiqn, codstruct and operate a golfing educational facility that includes classroom and pro shop buildinqs, and a nine-hole pbblic qolf course with drivinq ran.qe, located on a vacant 22-acre section of the Linfibld School property on the south side of Rancho Vista Road, north of Pauba Road,lbetween Meadows Parkway and Margarita Road - Michael McCoy, Project Planner RECOMMENDATION: 6.1i Adopt a Resolution Entitled: PC RESC LUTION NO, 2002-032 A RESOLUTION OF 'HE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECL/~,RATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM BASED ON THE INITIAL STUDY AND ADOPT, ION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY~! ACT, AND APPROVAL OF PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 01-0324, A CONDITIONAL USEI PERMIT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO DESIGNI AND OPERATE A GOLFING ACADEMY AND NINE-HOLE PUBLIC GOLF COURSE WITH DRIVING RANGE, A 3,000 SQUARE FOOT PRO- SHOP, AND A 1,900 SQUARE FOOT CARETAKER'S RESIDENCE ON A 22-ACRE SITE LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF RA, NCHO VISTA ROAD, BETWEEN MEADOWS PARKWAY AND MARGARITA ROAD, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR PARCEL NO. 955-020-002 Commissioner Telesio advised that h~ would be abstaining from this item, and ergo left the dais. Staff presented the proiect plan By way of overheads, Project Plannel McCoy provided a detailed overview of the project; highlighting the location, and he surrounding uses; specified that the Professional Golfers College would accommodate between 110-130 students, would conduct classes Mondays through Fridays between 8:00 A.M. and 11.:00 A.M., and m the afternoon would be open for pubhc recreational use; adwsed that n~ght course I~ghbng could extend the use of the facd~bes to 9:00 P.M. seven days a week, and that staff w~s recommending that one of ti address the restriction of the hours of ~e Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Conditions the golf course facility to 9:00 P.M., seven days a week unless a Special Event Permit was obtained from the Planning Department; provided additional information regarding the lighting proposed on this project, advising that staff has conditioned the project for no night lighting due to expressed community concern, advising that if the Planning Commission deemed the night course lighting as an acceptable component of the project then the previously mentioned condition should be removed and the course lighting could be approved in conjunction with the project approval; relayed that the applicant was seeking a thirty-eight percent (38%) parking reduction, and that staff has determined that the project meets the criteria for up to a fifty percent (50%) parking reduction (per Code Section 17.24.020); noted the architectural design of the college and pro-shop buildings; presented the material samples, advising that staff has added conditions (Condition Nos. 13 and 14) to address concerns regarding the quality of the vinyl material proposed for the decorative shutters and siding; for Chairman Chiniaeff, clarified that the applicant has agreed to provide an alternate siding sample material; advised that staff is additionally recommending that a condition be added for Prior to the Issuance of a Grading Permit to require that the applicant submit to the Public Works Department verification of the specific permits and agreements denoted on page 1 of the Mitigation Monitoring Program (Exhibit D in the staff report) as well as a condition regarding the recommended protocol survey denoted in the Mitigation Monitoring Program (all of which have been completed with the exception of the Quino Checkerspot Butterfly Survey); and presented a cross section of the topography of the project. Staff addressed the Planninq Commission queries For Commissioner Guerriero, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks provided additional information regarding the drainage course associated with the project, advising that no siltation or contaminants shall be carried downstream; and Project Planner McCoy noted that the golf ball trajectory study had been included in the agenda packets. In response to Commissioner Mathewson, Project Planner McCoy and Principal Planner Hogan provided additional information regarding the lighting impacts, confirming that there was a potential for a negligible amount of spillage of light onto residential properties, advising that the lumens generated outside of the project would be less than the lumens that a streetlight generates. The applicant's representatives provided an overview of the project Dr. Tim Summerville, President of the Professional Golfers Career College, highlighted the proposal to construct a night-lighted practice golf facility/driving range and a nine- hole golf course, and the goal to have a permanent facility (on the Linfield School properly) for the golf students, as well as and the youth in the community. Mr. Ken Crawford, Chairman of the Board of Linfield School, relayed the future plan to expand the Linfield School Campus, noting that since the school would not be utilizing 20-25 of its acres, offers were entertained for the use of that excess land, and that the school preference had been the Professional Golfers Career College facility due to the use being the most compatible use. Continuing his presentation, Mr. Summerville noted the numerous public members in the audience who were present to support the project; specified the project's benefits to the community, as follows: 1) The project would provide the neighborhood a beautiful R:Pla nComrn/min ut es/082102 9 campus which would raise property values. 2) The Professional Golfers Career College was nationally accredited and interna[ionally recognized. 3) Over 900 students have graduated from the 2-year program, including students from 28 foreign countries. 4) The project would prowde Valley Junior Golf Association ( a non-profit organization) w~th a permanent home, contribution towardS the salary of a full-time PGA golf professional to be hired as its director, an office, and no-cost secretarial help. 5) The night lighting would provide parents an oppodunity to play golf with their children, emphasizing the need for youth-oriented recreational facilities in Temecula, 6) The project would benefit neighboring residents due to the road,being widened to four lanes at Rancho Vista Road; provided an overhead of the project site as exists and a rendering of the site with the project; and advised that the facility was proposed to be lighted until 9:00 P.M. Mr. Mike Marchetti, representing Musco Sports Lighting, by way of overheads noted the d~fferent~als between golf course hghtmg and alternate sports field hght~ng, relaying that the golf course utilized lower foot can~les; advised that the higher the lighting poles the more downward the lights could be aimed, noting the proposal for fifty foot poles; presented a photograph of an alternate lighted golf course project; provided an overview of the manner in which the hght~ng wa,s controlled, noting the external visor which was customized for each project; relayed the guarantee of specified light levels on the surface, as well as off site, advising that the lighting could be adjusted to address negat~vp ~mpacts; specified the Iocat~o~n of the hght~ng structures; for Commissioner Mathewson, relayed that there was nq specified quantitative amount of spillage of light which was deemed a specific accepta,ble standard, advising that this was typically addresSed on a project-by-project basis and was determined by how near the neighbors were to the property; via spill scans, p~rovided additional information regarding the maximum and horizontal light spillage~ for Chairman Chiniaeff, confirmed that the resident who initially had concerns re~arding the lighting had been provided additional information and subsequently wrote alletter (which was included in the agenda material) acknowledging his receipt of this information and provided comparison data between the lighting impacts at the existing sports park and the anticipated impacts from this particular project. Mr. Summerville provided additional information regarding night lighting at this facility as well as alternate facilities, advising that the applicant did not have knowledge of one ne~ghb0r~ng resident being opposed te the proposed hght~ng. MD , r. avid Knowe, the project s designer and landscape architect, provided an overview of the proposed golf course facility an~l landscape plan, specifying the location, number, and size of the proposed plantings (which included 321 trees, over 2,000 shrubs, and 750,000 square feet of turf), the planned use of reclaimed water, and the proposed 9- hole golf course with lakes, streams ahd waterfalls; for Chairman Chiniaeff, specified the along Rancho V~sta road, along the eastern portion landsca, ping and berming proposed ~ ' of the project and along the Linfield ~ .... School s~te, noting the wew of the project form the neighboring homes; and specified thelbuilding design with the proposed smooth vinyl siding. ' At 8:22 'P.M. the meeting recessed, reconvening at 8:30 P.M. The public was invited to comment The following individuals spoke as proponents of the project: Ms. Carmen Latrekia Mr. Richard Dierking Mr. Dan Atwood Ms. Alexandrea Packham Mr. Christopher Reynolds Ms. Carla Boyd Mr. Mike Nelson Sr. John J. Gyves Mr. Don Myren Mr. Bob King Mr. Gary Washburn Mr. Scott Arnold Mr. Alex Michaels Mr. John Telesio Mr. Jonathan Ferrell Mr. Matt Ferrell 31533 Corte Pacheco 42889 Via Alhama 26631 Ynez Road no address provided 32483 Via Destello 30030 Rancho California Road 22959 Giant Fire canyon Lake · 41614 Margarita Road 31395 Corte Mallorca P.O. Box 891777 905 West Lakeshore Lake Elsinore 39467 Long Ridge Drive P.O. Box 2250 31760 Via Telesio 32065 Rock Elm Drive Wildomar 32065 Rock Elm Drive Wildomar The above-mentioned individuals spoke in support of the project, relaying the following comments: This proposal would vastly improve the site; The lighting would serve as a crime-preventative; o Noted opposition to widening Ranch Vista Road until the road is paved all the way through; o Offered support of night lighting until 9:00 P.M.; o Requested that the lighting be monitored; o The project waswell-designed; The recreational aspects of the project would be a benefit to the community's youth; Commended the applicant for its provisions to Valley Junior Golf Association, a non- profit organization; o Noted that the lighting would provide opportunities for youth to share recreational time with their parents; o Relayed the need for a lighted golf facility, noting the lighted fields for alternate sports activities; The project would increase neighboring property values; o This particular proposal encompassed a project which provided a combination of academics, athletics, recreation, and vocational training in an aesthetically pleasing setting; o Thanked the parents and youth for taking the time to express support for the project; Provided additional information regarding the insignificant amount of light spillage with the proposed lighting; The lighting was a vital component of the project and provided a competitive advantage for the golfers; o Requested that there be consideration to preserve the minimal habitat (a few specifically located trees) of the coyotes inhabiting a portion of the project site; and Urged the Planning Commission to approve the project. The applicant relayed concludinq com'ments Mr. Summerville thanked the residents who took the time to attend the hearing and offer support for the project, and in particular support for the night lighting. Mr. Dave Wakefield, representing the :applicant, noted the following requests for modifications to the Conditions of Approval: That Condition Nos. 8 and 9 (denoted on page 16 of the staff report) which prohibits night lighting and restrict the hour~ of operation be deleted; That Condition No. 35 (denoted on page 22 of the staff report) regarding restricting access to the project to right-in/right-out movements be deleted (staff concurred with the deletion of Condition No. 35); That Condition No. 99 (denoted oq page 29 of the staff report) regarding provision of an 18-foot wide easement be deleted (staff concurred with the deletion of Condition No. 99); And for informational purposes, relayed that the applicant would be conducting a pre- construction survey of the land (which was not required), which would address comments made during the publiclcomment period. At this time Chairman Chiniaeff closed the public comment portion of the meeting. The Planninq Commission offered clos~nq remarks For Chairman Chiniaeff, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks provided additional information with respect to Condition No. 9 (regarding parking), Director of Planning Ubnoske clarifying that since the project would be subject to the CUPjand that if there were negative impacts the issue could be addressed with the permit. In response to Director of Planning UISnoske, Mr. Kent Brown, Executive Director of the Professional Golfers College, relayed Ithat since the college was vocational in nature all the students were not on s~te everyday; referencing research conducted, relayed that during a two-week period there had n~ver been more than 50 vehicles at the college; noted that there were ten weeks during the year when students were not on campus at all; relayed the applicant's desire to open the facility to the public when students were not utilizing it; provided additional information regarding the parking needs of the golfers; clarified that the use would not need !07 parking stalls, acknowledging that off-site parking was restricted, and that parkin, g would be monitored; and for Chairman Chiniaeff, ' noted that the hours of operation would be from 9:00 A.M. to 9:00 P.M. For Commissioner Guerriero, Project planner McCoy noted that the applicant has agreed.to provide an a ternative matei'ial for the siding and the decorative shutter featureS, Principal Planner Hogan rela, ying that Condition Nos. 12 and 13 address this issue.~ In response to Commissioner Guerrie~o, Director of Planning Ubnoske advised that staff's Concern regarding the siding material was based on the quality i.e., the appearance and maintenance of the mater~al, relaying that the applicant would be bringing in a similar material of a high .~r quality. Commissioner Guerriero thanked the residents for taking the time out of their busy week to address their comments to the Planning Commission, and demonstrate their support of the project; and relayed gratitude to the applicant for proposing a much-needed recreational facility in the City of Temecula. Principal Planner Hogan recommended that Condition No. 8 be revised to indicate restriction of the night lighting to 9:00 P.M.; and concurred with the applicant regarding deleting Condition No. 9. Principal Planner Hogan noted two typographical errors in the Development Plan Conditions of Approval, recommending that revisions be incorporated, as follows: that in Condition No. 4 (regarding compliance with the Conditions of Approval) the phrase Development Plan or be added prior to the phrase "Conditional Use Permit;" that in Condition No. 5, the phrase Development Plan replace the Phrase "Conditional Use Permit"; and advised that in Condition Nos. 12 and 13 (regarding the vinyl material), the phrase shall be provided should be added, as well as in indication that the applicant shall submit the material to the Planning Department. MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved to close the public hearing; and to approve staff's recommendations subject to the following revisions: Add- The revisions to the Conditions of Approval recommended by staff and specified in the two above paragraphs; Allowance of the night lighting; and Deletion of Condition Nos. 35 (regarding right-in/right-out access) and 99 (regarding the provision of an easement), as requested by the applicant and approved by staff. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Olhasso and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Commissioner Telesio who abstained. At this time the Commission resumed the regular order of the agenda, considering Item No. 4. 4 Planninq Application No. PA02-0260 A proposal to chanqe the General Plan and Zoninq desiqnations from Very Low Density Residential to Professional Office on a 2.75-acre parcel, located Southwest corner of De Portola and Marqarita Roads - Emery Papp, Associate Planner RECOMMENDATION: 4.1 Adopt a Negative Declaration for Planning Application No. 02-0260; 4.2 Adopt a resolution entitled: R:PlanComr~minules~082102 13 PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF I TEMECULA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 02-0260, A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO CHANGE THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM VERY LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO PROFESSIONAL OFFICE AND A ZONE CHANGE FROM VERY LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO PROFESSIONAL OFFICE ON 2.75 ACRES, GENERALLYi LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF DE PORTOLA AND MARGARITA ROADS, AND GENERALLY KIJOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 959-050-007. Associate Planner Papp provided an ',verview of the staff report (of record), highlighting the rationale for the request to chang( the General Plan and Zoning designations on this parcel; advised that the Los Ranchito.' Homeowners Association (HOA) was opposed to the proposed change; provided the results of the traffic and noise analysis associated with the proposed change, advising th'at the amendment would result in lesser impacts in terms of no~se, and the traffic generated would enable the roadway at the ~ntersechon to remain 'at a Level of Service A; and provided add~bonal information with respect to the proposed amendment being consisten~t with the City's Growth Management Plan. In response to Commissioner Guerriero s queries regarding the HOA s concern regarding the desire that the apphcan! install block wall, Associate Planner Papp noted that staff could not make a recommendation regarding this issue without a proposed development plan, advising that once a plan was submitted, this issue could be addressed; for Chairman Chiniaeff, nqted that environmental restraints could be imposed on the amendment proposal .if it had been determined that the traffic impacts would be significant, which was not determined, Principal Planner Hogan providing additional information regarding imposing environmental restraints, advising that if it was determined in the Negative Declaratioh that there was the potential for land use incompptibility, then as a mitigation mbasure a wall could have been required along the western property line. Deputy D~recto~ of Public Works Parks noted that with this amendment an environmental restraint map would not be required since there was no proposal for a subdivision of land. Associate Planner Papp relayed that there would be a required 25-foot setback adjacent to residential areas, advising that the General Plan does not require that any future development application for this ' ...... parcel ~mplement a s~gn~f~cant trans~bonal buffer. For Chairman Chm~aeff, Assistant C~ty Attorney Curley provided additional information regarding the restrictions, which could be imposed on this proposal. In respOnse to Commissioner Telesio, Associate Planner Papp specified the boundaries of the I-IOA. Associate Planner Papp noted the Ioc~tion of the alternate parcels in this area, which had been changed to Professional Office, advising that there had been no requirement to cons!ruct a buffer wall. Mr. Mike McNeff, Pastor representing Valley Christian Fellowship, the owner of the parcel, concurred with staff that discussion regarding installation of a block wall would more appropriately be addressed at the time a Development Plan was submitted; for the record, submitted the signatures of all the adjacent property owners who border this parcel, specifying the location of these particular parcels; and for Commissioner Telesio, provided additional information regarding the adjacent property owners' support of the request to re-zone this particular property. The following individuals spoke in support of the proposed revised general land use designation at this particular site: Ms. Nancy Austin Mr. Kevin Johnson Mr. Guy Romero Ms. Claire Johnson Mr. Jim Shuntz Mr. Vicente Gchaerria Real Estate agent for the applicant 30707 Centaur Court 41685 Hawthorne Murrieta 30707 Centaur Court 30800 La Ray Lane 31775 De Portola road The above-mentioned individuals spoke in support of the proposal, relaying the following comments: The marketing efforts revealed that the proposed zone change would be the best use for this parcel; This property was not well-suited for residential; With the zoning as Office Professional, the City would have more control over development of the parcel; Since the parcel would remain within the Los Ranchitos HOA boundaries, the HOA would have input on future development of the property; The church, which was the property owner, would be able to find a parcel for the future development of a church use with this zone change since this parcel could be more easily sold; Advised that if the parcel was viewed in relationship to the surrounding area, the rezoning appeared to be more appropriate; and Noted opposition to the construction of an 8-foot wall (which was a recommendation of the HOA.) Mr. Larry Markham, representing the Los Ranchitos HOA, via distributed supplemental agenda material, specified the concern of the HOA with this proposal, in particular the impact the proposed rezoning would have on De Portola Road and the next properties to the west, specifically the potential for additional zone changes; provided a history of nearby properties which have had zoning changes; additionally noted concern with regard to various permitted uses within Professional Office zones; advised that the HOA had specified that with the installation of a block wall, and restricted access to De Portola Road (i.e., the parcel taking access off of Margarita Road) the HOA supported the proposed change; with respect to the environmental document, relayed that the traffic impacts of this zone change would be significant, advising that in his opinion the CEQA document was inadequate and that he would provide these points of~concem in writing; recommended that concurrent to the processing of the zoning change, a dedication of access restriction on De Portola Road should be processed, suggesting that the applicant's previous offer of payment be replaced with an offer to pay for the cost of a R:PlanComr~rr~nut esi082102 1 5 block wall; recommended that this item be continued for 60 to 90 days; for CommiSsioner Mathewson, specified ~reviously referenced residential properties which take access off of Margarita Road, confirming that the parcel on the adjacent side of De Portola was a vacant parcel; specified the boundaries of the HOA parcels; for Chairman Chiniaeff and Commissioner Mathew~on, reiterated that the HOA would be agreeable to the applicant installing a block wall along De Portola Road and the property line in lieu of the monies offered to the HOA, specifying that the wall would not need to be installed until the parcel was developed, reiterating that with this requirement and the dedication of access restriction the HOA would b? supportive of the zone change. Additional discussion ensued regarding the discussions between the applicant and the HOA. I For Chairman Chiniaeff, Assistant City Attorney Cudey relayed that if this matter was forwarded to the City Counc, the Cty Council would most likely be addressing CEQA issues (based on comments expressed at this hearing), advising that at that time the Council could either take action, or se~nd the matter back to the Planning Commission for review of the CEQA issues; noted thai if it was the Planning Commission's desire that accommodation be provided to the HOA's concern that there could be language indicating this desire in the recommeqdation to the City Council; noted that it was the Planning Commission's charge in thisi matter to review the request and determine whether this request was consistent With the fundamental planning documents of the City, i.e., the General Plan and zoning; and confirmed that any issue between the private parties was external to the Planning Qommission's jurisdiction. Deputy Director of Public Works Parks provided additional information regarding the access issue, advising that it would be more appropriate to consider access being revised; at the time a development plan was submitted. In response to additional comments, Mr. Markham specified the environmental concerns of the HOA's traffic, and public safety! noting the need for additional mitigation. In response to queries, Deputy Direct~or of Public Works Parks relayed that staff would desire the opportunity to further explore the environmental issues of concern. In respbnse to Commissioner Mathe son's queries as to why the HOA had not specified ~ts concerns dunng the comment period, Mr. Markham relayed that as a Board, the month of July was dark, and the mad was received at a Post Office box, advising that at the August Board meeting eight out of nine Board Members had voted to oppose the zone change, as proposed, For Chairman Chiniaeff, Mr. McNeff advised that the HOA would be able to maintain certain control over the property base~l on the CC&R's which was a separate issue from the rezoning issue; prowded additional information regarding the discussions between the HOA and the applicant; whde noting that ~t would be the applicant s preference to move forward with the HOA's support! relayed the HOA had had ample time to address its queries during the public comment period of the environmental process; and advised that full! disclosure would be provided ~with a new property owner. CommiSsioner Guerriero advised thatlitL would be more prudent for the Planning Commission to make a recommendation after receiving all the associated information including the documents the HCA would be submitting regarding environmental concerns. MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved to continue this item to the November 20, 2002 meeting. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Mathewson. (Ultimately this motion passed; see below.) Commissioner Telesio relayed that the issues of concern presented at this hearing would be more appropriately addressed during review of a future development plan, and not during the request for rezoning due to the lack of a nexus. Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that staff was unaware of outstanding CEQA issues, having first heard these concerns at tonight's hearing; and advised that it would be appropriate to continue this item in order to obtain the information from Mr. Markham and for staff to a~nalyze this issue. Assistant City Attorney Cudey provided additional information regarding the benefit of the Planning Commission obtaining additional information regarding the potential environmental impacts. Chairman Chiniaeff commented on the types of conditions which could be placed in the development plan for this parcel when presented, recommending that this item be moved forward to the City Council. In response, Commissioner Guerriero reiterated his desire for the Planning Commission to have all of the information prior to making a recommendation to the City Council. At this time voice vote was taken reflecting approval of the motion with the exception of Chairman Chiniaeff and Commissioner Telesio who voted n_9o. For Mr. McNeff, Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that at the November 20th hearing the applicant did not need to provide additional information, but that the Planning Commission was interested in obtaining and reviewing additional information regarding the assertion that there would be an increase in traffic. 5 Planninq Application No. PA02-0157 A Planninq Application for two Tentative Tract Maps (TM30681 and TM30682) and one waived Parcel Map (PM30604) for a total for seventeen sinqle-family dwellinq units on 2.17 acres of land, located on the north and south side of Sixth Street (922-052-004, 005, 006, 007, and 010); Submitted by Affirmed Housinq Partners, located on the north and south side of Sixth Street and north of Puiol - Rick Rush, Associate Planner RECOMMENDATION: 5.1 Adopt a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. 02-0157 pursuant to Section 21080.14 of the California Environmental Quality Act; 5.2 Adopt a Resolution entitled: R:PlanComm/minu leS/082102 17 PC RESO'LUTION NO. 2002-029 5.3 Adopt A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 0;2-0157, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 30681 SUBDIVIDING 'rvvo SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS INTO NINE SINGLE-FAMILY LOTS ON 1.17 ACRES GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF PUJOL STREET AND SIXTH STREET, KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 922- 052-010 AND 922-052~011 a Resolution entitled: ! PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002-030 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 02-0157, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 30682 SUBDIVIDING FOUR SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS IINTO SIX SINGLE-FAMILY LOTS ON .81 ACRES GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SIXTH STREET AND FELIX VALDEZ ROAD, KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 922-052-004, 005!006, AND 007 5.4 Adopt a Resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002-031 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 02-0157, A WAIVED TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 30604 SUBDIVIDING A SINGLE- FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOT INTO TWO SINGLE- FAMILY LOTS ON .19 ACRES GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SIXTH STREET AND PUJOL STREET, KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 922-053~-004 Associate Planner Rush provided an o~verview of the project plan (per agenda material), highlighting the location, the subd~ws~on proposal and the proposed density range; noted staff's recommendation that the Planning Commission grant a reduction in the minimum lot areai advising that it was staff's opinion that the proposed project would not be feasible without the development conoession; recommended that the name "Affirmed Housing Group" be replaced in the re~olutions to correctly indicate "Affirmed Housing Partners Temecula LLC"; and advised that Redevelopment Director Meyer was available for questions from the Planning Commission. 18 Ms. Ginger Hitzke, representing Affirmed Housing Padners, relayed that she was available for questions from the Planning Commission. MOTION: Cpmmissioner Mathewson moved to close the public hearing; and to approve staff's recommendation. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Telesio and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. 6 Planninq Application No. PA01-0324 (Conditional Use Permit) A proposal to design, construct and operate a qolfing educational facility that includes classroom and pro shop buildinqs, and a nine-hole public qolf course with drivin.q range, located on a vacant 22-acre section of the Linfield School property on the south side of Rancho Vista Road, north of Pauba Road, between Meadows Parkway and Margarita Road - Michael McCoy, Proiect Planner RECOMMENDATION: 6.1 Adopt a Resolution Entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002-032 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM BASED ON THE INITIAL STUDY AND ADOPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, AND APPROVAL OF PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 01-0324, A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO DESIGN AND OPERATE A GOLFING ACADEMY AND NINE-HOLE PUBLIC GOLF COURSE WITH DRIVING RANGE, A 3,000 SQUARE FOOT PRO- SHOP, AND A 1,900 SQUARE FOOT CARETAKER'S RESIDENCE ON A 22-ACRE SITE LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF RANCHO VISTA ROAD, BETWEEN MEADOWS PARKWAY AND MARGARITA ROAD, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR PARCEL NO. 955-020-002 It is noted that this item was considered out of the order of the agenda, after consideration of Item No. 3; see page 8. COMMISSIONER'S REPORTS Commissioner Guerriero, echoed by Chairman Chiniaeff, commended the planners who presented projects at tonight's hearing for their excellent work. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT Director of Planning Ubnoske updated the Planning Commission regarding the staff recruitment process. ADJOURNMENT I At 10:19 P.M. Chairman Chiniaeff fo?mally adjourned this meeting to the next re.qular meetin,q to be held on Wednesday, September 4, 2002 at 6:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula. Dennis W. Chiniaeff, Chairman Debbie Ubnoske, Director of Planning ITEM #3 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING DIVISION MEMORANDUM Planning Commission Debbie Ubnoske, Director of Planning October 16, 2002 Director's Hearing Case Update Planning Director's Agenda items for September 2002 September19,2002 PA02-0361 To establish a church facility in two Grace AME Approved adjacent suites, totaling approximately of Temecula 4,266 square feet, at an existing 16,383 Valley square foot multi-tenant building. Church Attachments: 1. Action Agendas - Blue Page 2 R AD IR H EA R~vlEMOX2002XSeptember 2002.memo.doc 1 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 ACTION AGENDAS R :\DIRHEAR~VI EM 0\2002~Scptember 2002.m~mo.doc 2 ACTION AGENDA TEMECULA DIRECTOR'S HEARING REGULAR MEETING September19,20021:30PM TEMECULA CITY HALL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CONFERENCE ROOM 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 CALL TO ORDER: Don Hazen, Principal Planner PUBLIC COMMENTS A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address to the Principal Planner on items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Principal Planner about an item no__t listed on the Agenda, a pink "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the Principal Planner. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name and address. For all other agenda items a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the Senior Planner before that item is heard. There is a three (3) minute time limit for individual speakers. Item No. 1: Case No: Applicant: Location: Proposal: Environmental Action: Case Planner: ACTION: PA02-0361 (Minor Conditional Use Permit) Grace AME of Temecula Valley Chumh, c/o Henry Hays 28073 Diaz Road, Suites J & K To establish a church facility in two adjacent suites, totaling approximately 4,266 square feet, at an existing 16,383 square foot multi-tenant building. This project is exempt from CEQA review due to Class 32 Categorical Exemption 15332 (In fill Development Project) Michael McCoy APPROVED P:~PLANNING',DIRHEARk2002\09-19 ~)2 ACTION AGENDA.doc ITEM #4 STAFF REPORT- PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION October 16, 2002 Development Agreement with Advance Cardiovascular Systems, Inc a subsidiary of Guidant Corporation (Planning Application 02-0217) Prepared By: David Hogan, Principal Planner RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Department recommends the Planning Commission adopt a Resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION 2002- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR, AND APPROVING THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH, ADVANCED CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS, INC, A SUBSIDIARY OF GUIDANT CORPORATION (PLANNING APPLICATION 02-0217) APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: Advanced Cardiovascular Systems, lnc, a Subsidiary of the Guidant Corporation PROPOSAL: To make a recommendation to the City Council on the proposed Development Agreement between the City of Temecula and Guidant Corporation LOCATION: East of Ynez Road, south of Overland Drive, West of Margarita Road and north of Solana Way EXISTING GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION Business Park EXISTING ZONING: Business Park (BP) and Light Industrial (LI) SURROUNDING ZONING: North: South: West: East: Specific Plan (SP-7: Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan) and Business Park (BP), Service Commercial (SC) and High Density Residential (H) Light Industrial (LI) and Service Commemial (SC) High Density Residential (H) EXISTING LAND USE: Parking lot and vacant R:~D A\Guidant DA\Staff Report PC3.doc 1 SURROUNDING LAND USES North: South: East: West: Vacant High density residential High density residential Commercial and industrial BACKGROUND The City Redevelopment Agency approved an Owner Participation Agreement (OPA) with Advanced Cardiovascular Systems, Inc (ACS) a subsidiary of the Guidant Corporation on February 12, 2002. The OPA identified a number of financial incentives to encourage ACS to expand its facilities within the community. ACS is currently the largest employer in the City, and the retention and expansion of this facility is considered to be an important priority for the City Council. This item has been continued from the September 18, and October 2, 2002 Commission meetings to allow for extra time finalize the Agreement. The purpose of this proposed Development Agreement is to guarantee the right of ACS to expand their facility (as described in ~he project description) and establish the physical development parameters that an expans!on would bring to the community. The Development Agreement would guarantee ACS the ability to construct a corporate campus facility on a 28 acres site located at the northwest corner of Solana Way and Margarita Road. The project includes the existing parking areas at the north east corner of Ynez Road and Motor Car Parkway. A copy of the Development Agreement is included in Attachment No. 3 of this staff report. Advanced Cardiovascular Systems has n~ot yet made a decision on whether they would expand their operation in Temecula. This Agreement would facilitate that expansion, when a final decision to expand locally has been made by ACS. The proposed Development Agreement would guarantee that they could construCt a corporate campus to expand their operations that would be consistent with the following. , · Build up to 481,260 square feet of building area in up to five main buildings. The future land uses at the site could include a combination of office, research, manufacturing, and educational/training functions. The project would include shared ancillary facilities for the employees such as a fitness cignter, childcare and food services. · Allow for a maximum building height of 80 feet above the finished grade of building pad. · Provide for primary access to the Proposed development via an entrance off Ynez Road at Motor Car Parkway, with secondary access Solana Way and Margarita Road. · Provide adequate parking to accommodate the proposed development. ACS is proposing to provide 5 spaces per 1,000 square feet of building area to handle the need for additional parking during the shift changes. The parking could include a combination of both surface parking and in up to two parking structures. · Provide for the construction of a pedestrian bridge over Ynez Road at Motor Car Parkway to link the existing Guidant facilities with the proposed expansion. The bridge is intended to be used by Guidantlemployees. · Establish general Design Guidelines and a color and material palette for any future buildings. R:~D A\Guidant DA\Staff Repo~ PC3.dcc · Authorize the Planning Director to approve the project based upon the approved Design Guidelines. · Establish the term of the Development Agreement at 15 City fiscal years from the date a certificate of occupancy is issued for the first building. A copy of an approved conceptual color and material palette will also be approved as part of the Development Agreement. The draft is contained in a separate notebook that has been provided to the Commission. These are the generalized design guidelines that will be applied to any ACS expansion on the site under this Development Agreement, ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION To evaluate the impacts of this project, a detailed environmental review was prepared. The initial review indicated that the Project could result in the following potentially significant impacts without mitigation measures. The notice of the intent to adopt a mitigated negative declaration was cimulated for public review between April 1 and April 30, 2002, The results of the Initial Environmental Review are shown in the following table. A copy of the complete Initial Environmental Review is contained in Attachment No. 4. Potentially Significant Measures will be Adopted Environmental Impact Topic Areas Impact to Miti~late the Impacts Aesthetics Yes Yes Agricultural Resources No Air Quality No Biologic Resources Yes Yes Cultural Resources Yes Yes Geology & Soils Yes Yes Hazards & Hazardous Materials No Hydrology & Water Quality No Land Use & Planning No Mineral Resources No Noise Yes Yes Population & Housing No Public Services No Recreation No Transportation & Traffic Yes Yes Utilities & Service Systems Yes Yes While potentially significant impacts were identified for seven of the impact topic areas, all the impacts could be mitigated to a level of insignificance with specified mitigation measures. Staff is recommending that the Mitigation Monitoring Program contained in Attachment No. 5 be adopted as part of this Project. During the circulation period for the Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration, the City received three comments. Copies of these comments letters, and the City's response are contained in Attachment No. 6. R:~D A\Guidant DA\Staff Report PC3.doc 3 Attachments: 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. PC Resolution - Blue Page 5 , Proposed Ordinance - Blue Page 9 PropOsed Development Agreement- Blue Page 15 Initial Study- Blue Page 16 Mitigation Monitoring Program -Blue Page 17 Response Letters and responses to the comments - Blue Page 18 Color and Material Palette - Blue Page 25 R:~D A\Guidant DA\Staff Report PC3.doc 4 ATrACHMENT NO. 1 PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002- R:',D A\Guidant DA\Staff Report PC3.doc PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR, AND APPROVING THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH, ADVANCED CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS, INC, A SUBSIDIARY OF GUIDANT CORPORATION" (PLANNING APPLICATION 02-0217) THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS, Advanced Cardiovascular Systems, Inc, a subsidiary of Guidant Corporation applied for development agreement with the City on April 30, 2002; and WHEREAS, in accordance with the procedure specified in City Resolution 91-52 and the Development Code, the City of Temecula has initiated said Development Agreement with Advanced Cardiovascular Systems; Planning Application No. 02-0217, (hereinafter "Development Agreement"); and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission continued this item at the September 18, 2000 and October 2, 2002 meetings and held a noticed public hearing on October 16, 2002 to consider this item. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES FIND AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That in recommending adoption by the City Council of an Ordinance approving the Development Agreement, the Planning Commission hereby makes the following 'findings: (a) The Development Agreement is consistent with the objectives, policies, general land uses, and programs specified in the City of Temecula General Plan in that the Development Agreement makes reasonable provision for the use of certain real property for industrial, commercial and residential development; and, (b) The Development Agreement complies with the goals and objectives of the Circulation Element of the General Plan and the traffic impacts of the development over the period of the Development Agreement will be substantially mitigated by the mitigation measures and conditions of approval imposed; and, (c) The project subject to the Development Agreement is compatible with the uses authorized in, and the regulations prescribed for the zoning district in which the Property subject to the Development Agreement is located, and that this Development Agreement is consistent with good planning practices by providing for the opportunity to develop the Property consistent with the General Plan; and, (d) The Development Agreement is in conformity with the public convenience, general welfare, and good land use practice because it makes reasonable provision for a balance of land uses compatible with the remainder of the City; and; R:'~D A\Guidant DA\Staff Repoil PC3.doc 6 (e) The Development Agreement will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare because it provides adequate assurances for the protection thereof; and, (f) Notice of the public hearing before the Planning Commission was published in a newspaper of general circulation at least ten (10) days before the Planning Commission public hearing, and mailed or delivered at least ten (10) days prior to the hearing to the project applicant and to each agency' expected to provide water, sewer, and police and fire protection, and to ail property owners within six hundred feet (600') of the property as shown on the latest equalized assessment roll; and, (g) Notice of the public hearing before the Planning Commission included the date, time, and place of the public hearing, the identity of the hearing body, a general explanation of the matter to be considered, a general description and text or diagram of the location of'the real property that is the;subject of the hearing, and of the need to exhaust administrative remedies; (h) The benefits that Will accrue to the people of the City of Temecula from this legislation and this Development Agreement are expansion of an important local employer and could bring additional employment oPportunities to local residents; and. (i) The potentially significant impacts to the environment from the project will be mitigated to a level of insignificance based upon the identified mitigation measures. Section 2. That the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt and approve the Ordinance approving the Development Agreement contained in Attachment "A", and the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this referencei Section 3. The Secretary of the Planning Commission shall cause this Resolution to be transmitted to the City Council for further proceedings in accordance with State law. Section 4. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 16th day of October 2002. Ron Guerriero, Chairperson Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary [SEAL] R:\D A\Guidant DA\Staff Report PC3.doc 7 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary of the Temecula Planning Commission, do hereby certify that the PC Resolution No. 2002- was duly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 16th day of October, 2002 by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: 0 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: NOES: 0 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: 0 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary R:~D A\Guidant DA~Staff Report PC3.doc 8 ATTACHMENT NO. 2 PROPOSED ORDINANCE R:~D A\Guidant DA\Staff Report PC3.doc 9 ATTACHMENT NO. 2 ORDINANCE NO. 99- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR, AND APPROVING THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH, ADVANCED CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS, INC, A SUBSIDIARY OF GUIDANT CORPORATION (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 02-0217) WHEREAS, Section 65864 et seq. of the Government Code of the State of California and Temecula City Resolution No. 91-52 authorize the execution of agreements establishing and maintaining requirements applicable to the development of real property; and, WHEREAS, in accordance with the procedure specified in City Resolution 91-52 and the Development Code, the City of Temecula has initiated said Development Agreement with Advanced Cardiovascular Systems; and, WHEREAS, notice of the City's intention to consider adoption of this Agreement with Advanced Cardiovascular Systems has been duly given in the form and manner required by law, and the Planning Commission and City Council of said City have each conducted public hearings on October 16, 2002 and October 22, 2002, respectively, at which time it heard and considered all evidence relevant and material to said subject. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. FINDINGS. The City Council hereby finds and determines, with respect to this Agreement by and between the City of Temecula and Advanced Cardiovascular Systems, Inc, that: A. The Development Agreement is consistent with the objectives, policies, general land uses, and programs specified in the City of Temecula General Plan in that the Development Agreement makes reasonable provision for the use of certain real property for industrial, commercial and residential development; and B. The Development Agreement complies with the goals and objectives of the Circulation Element of the General Plan and the traffic impacts of the development over the period of the Development Agreement will be substantially mitigated by the mitigation measures and conditions of approval imposed; and, C. The project subject to the Development Agreement is compatible with the uses authorized in, and the regulations prescribed for the zoning district in which the Property subject to the Development Agreement is located, and that this Development Agreement is consistent with good planning practices by providing for the opportunity to develop the Property consistent with the General Plan; and, D. The Development Agreement is in conformity with the public convenience, general welfare, and good land use practice because it makes reasonable provision for a balance of land uses compatible with the remainder of the City; and, E. The Development Agreement will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare because it provides adequate assurances for the protection thereof; and, R:\D A\Guidant DA\Staff Report PC3.doc 10 F. Notice of the public hearing before the Planning Commission was published in a newspaper of general circulation at least ten (10) days before the Planning Commission public hearing, and mailed or delivered at least ten (10) days prior to the hearing to the project applicant and to each agency expected to provide water, sewer, and police and fire protection, and to all property owners within six hundred feet (600') of the property as shown on the latest equalized assessment roll; and, G. Notice of the public hearing before the Planning Commission included the date, time, and place of the public hearing, the identity of the hearing body, a general explanation of the matter to be considered, a general description and text or diagram of the location of the real property that is the subject of the hearing, and of the need to exhaust administrative remedies; and, H. The benefits that will accrue to the people of the City of Temecula from this legislation and this Development Agreement are an increase in higher paying jobs and increased local employment opportunities from an established local company. These community benefits also satisfy the requirements of Municipal Code Section 17.08.050.A. Section 2. APPROVAL. The Development Agreement, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as Exhibit "1" is hereby approved. The Mayor is authorized and directed to evidence such approval by executing this Agreement for, and in the name of, the City of Temecula; and the City Clerk is directed to attest thereto; provided, however, that this Agreement shall not be executed by the City until this Ordinance takes effect and the City has received from the applicant two executed originals of said Agreement. Section 3. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION. A detailed Initial Environmental Study (lES) checklist was prepared for this project. Based upon the analysis contained in the checklist, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared. The analysis identified potentially significant impacts in the areas of Aesthetics, Biologic Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, Noise, TranspodationFFraffic, and Utilities and Service Systems. However, because of the mitigation measures identified in th.e lES, all the potential impacts will be mitigated to a level of insignificance. The lES and Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration was circulated for public review between April 1 and April 30, 2002. As a result, the City Council hereby adopts a Mitigated Negative Declaration, including the Mitigation Monitoring Program, for this project. The approved Mitigation Monitoring Program is contained in Exhibit "2". Section 4. SEVERABILITY. The City Council hereby declares that the provisions of this Ordinance are severable and if for any reason a court 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. NOTICE OF ADOPTION. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same to be posted as required by law. R:\D A\Guidant DA\Staff Report PC3.doc 11 Section 6. This Ordinance shall be in full fome and effect thirty (30) days after its passage. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance. The City Clerk shall publish a summary of this Ordinance and a certified copy of the full text of this Ordinance shall be posted in the office of the City Clerk at least five days prior to the adoption of this Ordinance. Within 15 days from adoption of this Ordinance, the City Clerk shall publish a summary of this Ordinance, together with the names of the Councilmembers voting for and against the Ordinance, and post the same in the office of the City Clerk. Section 7. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 22nd day of October 2002. ATFEST: Ronald E. Roberts, Mayor Susan Jones, CMC/AAE City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Susan Jones, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, 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 22nd day of October, 2002, and that thereafter, said Ordinance was duly adopted and passed at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 12~ day of November 2002, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: Susan Jones, CMC/AAE City Clerk R:~D A\Guidant DA\Staff Report PC3.doc 12 EXHIBIT R:'~D A\Guidant D^\Staff Report PC3.dcc 13 EXHIBIT 2 R:~D A\Guidant DA\Staff Report PC3.doc 14 ATFACHMENT NO. 3 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT R:~D A\Guidant DA\Staff Report PC3.doc 15 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT between THE CITY OF TEMECULA, a California Municipal Corporation and ADVANCED CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS, INC., a Subsidiary of Guidant Corporation TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION AND TITLE PAGE NO. Recitals .......................................................................................................... 1 1. Definitions .................................................................................................. 4 2. Development of Project .............................................................................. 8 2.1. Ownership Interests ......................................................................... 8 2.2. Vested Rights ................................................................................... 8 2.3. Project .............................................................................................. 8 2.3.1. Floor Area Ratio ........................................................................... 8 2.3.2. Location and Size of Improvements ............................................. 9 2.3.3. Design Guidelines; Architectural and Landscape Palette ............. 9 2.3.4. Height Limitation ........................................................................... 9 2.3.4.1. Rooftop Equipment ................................................................ 9 2.3.4.2. Underground Structure .......................................................... 9 2.4. Allowed Uses ................................................................................... 9 2.4.1. Consistent Development Standards ............................................ 10 2.4.2. Use for Parking ............................................................................ 10 2.5. Perimeter Fencing and Landscaping ............................................... 10 2.6. Access ............................................................................................. 10 2.7. Modifications ................................................................................... 10 2.8. Off-Site Public Improvements .......................................................... 10 2.9. On-Site Public Improvements .......................................................... 10 2.10. Dedication or Reservation Requirements ........................................ 11 2.10.1. Public Utility Easements ............................................................ 11 2.10.2. Motor Car Parkway .................................................................... 11 2.10.3. Margarita Road .......................................................................... 11 2.11. Motor Car Parkway .......................................................................... 11 2.12. Margarita Road ................................................................................ 11 2.12.1. Restriction on Improvements ..................................................... 11 2.12.2. Acquisition ................................................................................. 11 2.12.3. Compliance with Landscaping Standards ................................. 12 2.12.4. Compliance with Height and Other Requirements ..................... 12 2.13. Pedestrian Bridge ........................................................................... 12 2.13.1. Owner's Discretion .................................................................... 12 2.13.2. Location and Design; City Review ............................................. 12 2.13.3. Grant of Property Interest; Permits ............................................ 12 2.13.4. Costs, Ownership and Maintenance ..........................................13 2.14. Development Plans ........................................................................ 13 2.14.1. Processing Application .............................................................. 13 2.14.2. Approval of Application .............................................................. 13 2.14.3. Phasing ..................................................................................... 14 SECTION AND TITLE PAGE NO. 2,14.4. Environmental Review ............................................................... 14 2.14.5. Development Plan Modifications ............................................... 14 2.15. Term of Map .................................................................................... 14 2.16. Substitute Tentative Parcel Map ...................................................... 14 2.17. Lot Line Adjustment ......................................................................... 14 3. Development Fees .................................................................................... 15 3.1. Development Processing Fees ........................................................ 15 3.2. Expedited Review ............................................................................ 15 3.3. Development Impact Fees .............................................................. 15 3.4. Landscaping Bond ........................................................................... 15 4. Rules and Regulations .............................................................................. 15 4.1. Applicable Rules and Laws ............................................................. 15 4.2. Applicability to Future Development Approvals ............................... 16 4.3. Model Codes ................................................................................... 16 4.4. Future Enactments .......................................................................... 16 4.5. Enforceability ................................................................................... 16 4.6. Representation ................................................................................ 17 4.7. Amendment to Rules ....................................................................... 17 4.8. Future Mitigation Measures ............................................................. 17 4.9. Districts ........................................................................................... 17 4.10.Phasing ........................................................................................... 17 4.11.Non-conformities ............................................................................. 17 4.12.Abatement and Revocation after the Term of the Agreement Lapses ................................................................ 18 4.13. Other Agencies ................................................................................ 18 5. Term .......................................................................................................... 18 5.1. Commencement .............................................................................. 18 5.2. Duration ........................................................................................... 18 5.3. Termination ..................................................................................... 18 5,3.1. Termination under Agreement ..................................................... 18 5.3.2. Completion of Project .................................................................. 18 5.3.3. Judgment ..................................................................................... 18 5.4. Effect of Termination ....................................................................... 19 5.5. Effect of Agreement on Title ............................................................ 19 6. Amendments;Administration of Agreement ............................................. 19 6.1. Amendment ..................................................................................... 19 6.2. Operating Memoranda ....L ............................................................... 19 6.3. Administration of Agreement ........................................................... 19 7. Amendment to Authorizing Statute or Change in Law .............................. 20 7.1.' Development Agreement ,Legislation ............................................... 20 7.2. Change in State or Federal Law ...................................................... 20 7.2.1. Notice ........................................................................................... 20 7.2.2. Hearing and Determination ........................................................... 20 8. Transfers and Assignments ..................................................................... 20 8.1. Transfers ........................................................................................ 20 8.2: Assignment ..................................................................................... 21 SECTION AND TITLE PAGE NO. 8.2.1. Assignment to a Guidant Assignee ........................................... 21 8.2.2. Assignment Before Completion of Phase 1 ............................... 21 8.2.3. Assignment After Completion of Phase 1 .................................. 22 8.2.4. Notice and Acknowledgement ................................................... 22 8.2.5. Pedestrian Bridge ...................................................................... 22 9. Representations and Warranties ............................................................ 22 9.1. City's Representations and Warranties .......................................... 22 9.2. Owner's Representations and Warranties ......................................23 10. Compliance Review ................................................................................ 24 10.1. Annual Review ................................................................................ 24 10.1.1. Good-Faith Compliance ........................................................... 24 10.1.2. Substantial Compliance ............................................................ 24 10.2. Failure to Conduct Annual Review ................................................ 24 10.3. Initiation of Review by City Council ............................................... 25 10.4. Availability of Documents .............................................................. 25 11. Default ..................................................................................................... 25 11.1. Default by Owner ........................................................................... 25 11.2. Default by City ............................................................................... 25 11.3. Estoppel Certificates ..................................................................... 25 11.3.1. Execution ................................................................................. 26 11.3.2. Costs; Reliance ....................................................................... 26 12. Judicial Review ....................................................................................... 26 12.1. Reference ...................................................................................... 26 12.1.1. Appointment ........................................................................... 26 12.1.2. Pretrial Matters ....................................................................... 26 12.1.3. Trial ........................................................................................ 26 12.1.4. Judgment ................................................................................ 26 12.1.5. Post-Trial Proceedings ........................................................... 27 12.1.6. Appeal .................................................................................... 27 12.2. Specific Performance ................................................................... 27 12.3. Remedies Cumulative .................................................................. 27 12.4. Applicability of Review .................................................................. 27 12.5. Attorney's Fees ............................................................................ 27 12.6. Third-party Challenge ................................................................... 28 12.6.1. Defense of Litigation .............................................................. 28 12.6.2. Compliance with Judgment ................................................... 28 12.6.3. Review of Future Development Approval.. ............................ 28 12.7. Indemnification ............................................................................. 28 12.8. Validation ..................................................................................... 29 13. Encumbrances and Lenders ................................................................... 29 13.1. Right to Encumber ........................................................................ 29 13.2. Notice of Default to Lender ........................................................... 29 14. Waivers and Delays ................................................................................ 30 14.1. No Waiver ..................................................................................... 30 14.2. Extension by Agreement .............................................................. 30 14.3. Force Majeure .............................................................................. 30 SECTION AND TITLE PAGE NO. 14.4. Extensions .................................................................................... 30 14.4.1. Litigation ................................................................................... 30 14.4.2. Other Delays ............................................................................ 30 14,5. Notice of Delay ............................................................................. 30 15. Notices ................................................................................................... 30 15.1. Manner of Giving Notice ............................................................... 30 15.2. Address for Notices ...................................................................... 31 15.3. Effective Date of Notices .............................................................. 31 15.4. Undeliverable Notice .................................................................... 32 15.5. Change of Address ....................................................................... 32 16. General Provisions ................................................................................. 32 16.1. 16.2. 16.3. 16.4. 16.5. 16.6. 16.7. 16.8. 16.9. 16.10. 16.11. 16.12. 16.13. 16.14. 16.15. 16.16. 16.17. 16.18. 16.19. Opinions of Counsel ..................................................................... 32 Binding Covenants ....................................................................... 32 Relationship of Parties ................................................................. 32 Recording ..................................................................................... 32 Severability ................................................................................... 32 Interpretation and Governing Law ................................................ 32 Section Headings ......................................................................... 33 Word Usage ................................................................................. 33 No Joint and Several Liability ....................................................... 33 Time of Essence ........................................................................... 33 Counting Days .............................................................................. 33 Recitals ........................................................................................ 33 Exhibits ......................................................................................... 33 Entire Agreement ......................................................................... 33 Survival of Obligations .................................................................. 34 Third Party Beneficiaries .............................................................. 34 Ambiguities ................... i ............................................................... 34 Counterparts; Duplicate Originals ................................................. 34 Necessary Acts ............................................................................ 34 Exhibits 4 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT THIS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ("Agreement") is entered into as of the __ day of,2002 ("Agreement Date"), by ADVANCED CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS, INC., a California corporation and a subsidiary of Guidant Corporation · ("Owner"), and the CITY OF TEMECULA, a California municipal corporation ("City"), pursuant to the authority of Sections 65864 through 65869.5 of the California Government Code and Article XI, Section 2 of the California Constitution. RECITALS This Agreement is predicated upon the following facts: A. These Recitals refer to and utilize certain capitalized terms, which are defined in this Agreement. The Parties intend to refer to those definitions in conjunction with the use of the defined terms in these Recitals. B. The Development Agreement Legislation authorizes City to enter into binding development agreements with persons having legal or equitable interests in real property for the Development of such property. The purposes of the Development Agreement Legislation include, among other matters: 1. Reducing the uncertainty in the Development approval process. This uncertainty can result in a waste of resources, discourage investment and escalate the cost of Development to the consumer. 2. Strengthening the comprehensive planning process to provide for the most efficient use of public and private resources. 3. Assuring applicants for Development projects that, upon approval of their projects, they may proceed in accordance with existing policies, rules and regulations. 4. - Providing for the financing and/or construction of necessary public facilities. 5. Providing a mechanism to allow alternative means of satisfaction of ordinances or regulations in order to promote flexibility and to respond more selectively to given proposals. 6. Streamlining and coordinating the Development approval process by combining discretionary approvals that would otherwise occur in separate processes. ACS Development Agreement 092002 Page I C. In addition to the general purposes listed above, the following are among the consideration supporting this Agreement: 1. The Owner of the Project has made significant contributions to the City of Temecula and its citizens, including: (a) creating approximately 3,100 local .jobs, which contribute over $91,000,000 in payroll annually to the area economy; and (b) establishing a high quality medical device manufacturing facility at Owner's Existing Facilities. 2. The Agreement authorizes Owner to improve approximately 28 acres of light industrial and business park zoned real property in close proximity to residential areas in the City. Completion of the Project would create jobs for the City's citizens and reduce vehicle miles of travel by creating employment opportunities locally. 3. For both Parties, the Agreement helps provide for: (a) high quality Development of the Property that is the subject of this Agreement; (b) certainty in the type of Development to be undertaken on the Property; and (c) the assurance of adequate public facilities to ensure the good of the community regardless of the City's legal authority to impose such requirement under constitutional and statutory authority. 4. For City, the Agreement helps provide for: (a) employment growth anticipated to result from the Project, both during construction and use; (b) an increase in tax revenues anticipated to result from the Development of the Project; and (c) the achievement of the goals and objectives of its General Plan. 5. For Owner, the Agreement provides for specified limitations on, without the surrender of, the City's exercise of certain of its governmental and proprietary powers together with the certainty of Owner's rights to develop the Project. D. Owner desires to obtain authorization to develop the Property in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement. Owner has not made a final decision on whether to actually develop the Property with the Project, and requires completed land use Entitlements as a prerequisite for making that decision. E. Owner has applied for and City has approved this Agreement in order to create a beneficial Project and a physical environment that will conform to and complement the goals of the City, create a Development project sensitive to human needs and. values, facilitate efficient traffic circulation, and develop the Property. As part of the process of granting this entitlement, the City has required the preparation of an initial study of environmental impacts and has issued a Mitigated Negative Declaration as regards any potentially significant effects arising from the project and has otherwise carried out all requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended. ACS Development Agreement 092002 Page 2 F. On , following a duly noticed and conducted public hearing, the City Planning Commission approved the Mitigated Negative Declaration and recommended that the City Council approve this Agreement. G. On _, following a duly noticed and conducted public hearing and pursuant to CEQA, the City Council approved the Mitigated Negative Declaration. H. On , following a duly noticed and conducted public hearing, the City Council determined that the provisions of this Agreement are consistent with the City's General Plan. On , following a duly noticed and conducted public hearing, the City Council introduced Ordinance No. approving and authorizing the execution of this Agreement. I. On the City Council adopted the ordinance, a copy of which is on file in the office of the City Clerk, and adopted findings and conditions pertaining thereto, including those relating to the environmental documentation for the Project. J. The City has engaged in extensive studies and review of the potential impacts of the project as well as the various potential benefits to the City by the Development of the Project and concluded that the Development of the Project, as provided herein, is in the best interests of the City. K. In consideration of the substantial economic development benefits that would accrue if the Project moves forward, and the strengthening of the planning process and reduction of costs of Development which may adversely affect achieving the goals of the City and the Project, by this Agreement the City intends to give the Owner assurances that Owner can proceed with the Development of the Project for the Term of this Agreement pursuant to its terms and in accordance with the City's General Plan, the Tentative Parcel Map, and the ordinances, rules, regulations and policies existing as of the Agreement Date, except as may otherwise be agreed to by the City and Owner during the further planning of the Project. L. In reliance on the City's covenants in this Agreement concerning Development of the Property, Owner has incurred substantial costs in planning, design, environmental review and site preparation, and may incur additional substantial costs for such purposes as well as for construction and installation of major infrastructure and facilities in order to complete the Project. M. Pursuant to Section 65867.5 of the Development Agreement Legislation, the City Council has found and determined that: (i) this Agreement implements the goals and policies of City's General Plan, and imposes appropriate standards and requirements with respect to land Development and usage in order to maintain the ACS Development Agreement 092002 Page 3 overall quality of life and environment within the City; (ii) this Agreement is in the best interests of and not detrimental to the public health, safety and general welfare of City and its residents; (iii) adopting this Agreement is consistent with City's General Plan and constitutes a present exercise of City's police power; and (iv) this Agreement is being entered into pursuant to and in compliance with the requirements of Section 65867 of the Development Agreement Legislation. NOW, THEREFORE, pursuant to the authority contained in the Development Agreement Legislation, as it applies to City, pursuant to Article XI, Section 2 of the California Constitution, and in consideration of the foregoing recitals of fact, the mutual covenants set forth in this Agreement and for the further consideration described in this Agreement, the Parties agree as follows: 1. DEFINITIONS. The following words and phrases are used as defined terms throughout this Development Agreement and each defined term shall have the meaning set forth below. 1.1. "Agreement Date" means the date of first introduction and reading of the Ordinance approving this Agreement; provided, however, that the Agreement will be in legal force and effect as of the first date at which the ordinance authorizing the Agreement is in force and effect pursuhnt to the provisions of California law. 1.2. "Authorizing Ordinance" means Ordinance No. approving this Agreement. 1.3. "CEQA" means the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Sections 21000, et seq.) and the related California Code of Regulations sections (the "CEQA Guidelines"), as amended from time to time. 1,4. "City" means the City of Temecula, a California municipal corporation and general law City, including its officials, council members, employees, consultants, contractors, agencies and departments. 1.5. "City Council" means the duly elected and constituted city council of City. 1.6. "City Laws" means all codified and uncodified enactments of City and all laws, regulations and standards of any governmental body having jurisdiction within City. ; 1.7., "Days" means calendar days, not business days. 1.8.. "Design Guidelines" means the document described in Section 2.3.3. 1.9.' "Development" shall hav~ the same definition as in Government Code Section 65927, as that statute exists on Agreement Date. ACS Development Agreement 092002 Page 4 1.10. "Development Agreement Legislation" means Government Code Sections 65864 through 65869.5 as they exist on the Agreement Date. 1.11. "Development Code" means Title 17 of City's Municipal Code in effect on the Agreement Date. 1.12. "Development Impact Fee" means fees imposed on Development by City to mitigate the impacts of Development. 1.13. "Development Moratorium" means any action of City, including actions or inactions required pursuant to a voter sponsored initiative, which prohibits or delays the Development of the Project or any portion thereof. 1.14. "Development Plan" Or "Plan" means a plan for the Development of a particular phase of the Project as described in detail in Section 2.14 of this Agreement. 1.15. "Development Processing Fee" means a fee routinely imposed by City to pay the administrative costs of reviewing an application for an Entitlement for a proposed Development. 1.16. "District" means a public improvement district, assessment district, community facilities district, and any similar mechanism to impose, levy, collect, or allocate special assessments, improvement district fees, reimbursement district fees, general or special taxes, or other similar fees or charges. 1.17. "Encumbrance" means a mortgage, deed of trust or any other device by which the Owner's interest in the Property secures a loan or indebtedness. To "Encumber" means to create an Encumbrance. 1.18. "Entitlements" means all grants of authorization to develop real property issued by City and the statutes, ordinances, plans, decisions, resolutions, permits, rules, regulations, and official policies that must be complied with and/or issued as a condition to and in accordance with authorization for Development of real property. Examples of "Entitlements" include the general plan, zoning designations and regulations, subdivision maps, use permits, special use permits, conditional use permits, temporary use permits, Municipal Code and zoning ordinance provisions, site plans, Development Plans, design reviews, variances, building permits, certificates of occupancy, and amendments to any of the above. The term "Entitlements" is not dependent on the nature (such as legislative, quasi-judicial, ministerial or administrative) of the matter in question. 1.19. "Estoppel Certificate" means a writing, signed by the Party issuing it, certifying that: (i) this Agreement is in full force and effect and is a binding obligation of the Parties; (ii) this Agreement has not been amended or modified either orally or in writing or, if amended or modified, describing the amendments; and (iii) no default in the performance of the requesting Party's obligations under the Agreement exists or, if a default does exist, the nature and amount of any default. ACS Development Agreement 092002 Page 5 1.20. "Existing Facilities" means Owner's property and facilities at 26531 Ynez Road (west of Ynez Road across from the Property). 1.21. "Fiscal Year" means the period from July I of one year to June 30, inclusive, of the following year. 1.22. "Floor Area Ratio" or "FAR" means the Gross Floor Area of all buildings on a lot divided by the gross lot area (Development Code Section 17.34.010). 1.23. "Future Development Approvals" means Entitlements to carry out Development of the Project that are granted by City and accepted by Owner, following the Agreement Date, and that may include City's approval of a Development Plan, lot line adjustment, final subdivision map, grading permit, encroachment permit, building permit and occupancy permit. 1.24. "General Plan" means the General Plan of the City of Temecula in effect on the Agreement Date. 1.25. "Gross Floor Area" means the total horizontal area of a building, in square feet, including the exterior walls of all floors (Development Code Section 17.34.010). 1.26. "Indemnified Persons" means City and City's agents, officers, attorneys, and employees. 1.27. "Law" means any official legislative enactment of a governmental agency, public body, or court that binds the Parties. Examples of a Law are case law, constitutional provisions, statutes, ordinances, initiatives, resolutions, policies, orders, rules and regulations. A matter is a Law regardless of whether it was imposed by a legislative body (such as the City Council or State Legislature), an administrative agency (such as the California Public Utilities Commission or City's Planning Department), the electorate (as by initiative or referendum), or any other official body, and regardless of whether it is federal, state or local. 1.28. "Lender" means the mortgagee of a mortgage, the beneficiary of a deed of trust, or the holder of any other security interest in the Property or any portion thereof, and its successors and assigns, including the purchaser at a judicial or non- judicial foreclosure sale or a person or entity which obtains title by deed-in-lieu of foreclosure. 1.29. "Litigation" means all forms of judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings, such as complaints (for damages, declaratory relief, or otherwise), arbitrations, judicial references, petitions (for traditional mandate, administrative mandate, or otherwise), and judicial appeals, no matter how denominated. 1.30. "Mitigated Negative Declaration" means the environmental document under CEQA issued by the City on Apiil 1, 2002 and adopted in connection with this Agreement. ACS Develop~nent Agreement 092002 Page 6 1.31. "Model Codes" means the uniform codes governing construction and those adopted by the State of California and binding on City, as may be lawfully amended by City. Examples of Model Codes include the Uniform Building Code, National Electrical Code, Uniform Fire Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, Uniform Mechanical Code and the Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings. 1.32. "Off-Site Public Improvements" means physical infrastructure improvements or facilities not located on the Property, for dedication to, ownership, use or benefit of the public or a public entity or utility. 1.33. "On-Site Public Improvements" means physical infrastructure improvements or facilities located on the Property, for dedication to, ownership, use or benefit of the public or a public entity or utility. 1.34. "Owner" is Advanced Cardiovascular Systems, Inc., a California corporation and a subsidiary of Guidant Corporation, and includes any assignee authorized under this Agreement. 1.35. "Party" means City or Owner. "Parties" means City plus Owner. 1.36. "Phase I" means the Development of the Property under a Development Plan that includes construction of at least one of the five (5) office buildings allowed under this Agreement. The remainder of the Project may be built in one or more additional phases. 1.37. "Planning Commission" means the duly appointed and constituted planning commission of City. 1.38. "Processing Moratoria" means any significant delay in the City's consideration of Owner's requested Entitlements to advance Development where such delay is caused by other than: (i) the temporary unavailability of staff or staff time required to consider requested Entitlements, or (ii) the failure of Owner to respond to City's request for information, or similar causes. Processing moratoria shall include moratoria imposed by a voter sponsored initiative measure. 1.39. "Project" means the Development of the Property as described in Section 2 of this Agreement. 1.40. "Property" means the real property described in Exhibits "A" and "A-I." The real property described in Exhibit "A" consists of approximately seven (7) acres, and is owned in fee by Owner. The real property described in Exhibit "A-I" consists of approximately twenty (20) acres held and controlled by Owner under a synthetic lease. 1.41. "Rules, Regulations and Policies Affecting Development" or "Rules, Regulations and Policies" shall mean City's General Plan and all applicable elements thereof, City's Zoning Ordinance, the Tentative Parcel Map, a final subdivision map (once adopted) based upon the Tentative Parcel Map, each Future Development ACS Development Agreement 092002 Page 7 Approval, and the City's ordinances, policies, rules, regulations and written policies existing as of the Agreement Date, all as more specifically defined in Exhibit "B." 1.42. "Tentative Parcel Map" means that certain Tentative Parcel Map No. 30107, approved by City on November 8, 2001, and applicable to the property described in Exhibit "A-I." If Owner files an application for a substitute tentative parcel map application under Section 2.16, then thereafter the term "Tentative Parcel Map" shall mean such substitute map except where the context requires otherwise. 1.43. "Term" means the period of time which extends from the Agreement Date through and including June 30th of the fifteenth (15th) full City of Temecula Fiscal Year from the date a certificate of occupancy is issued for the first building to be built on the Property under this Agreement, unless extended by force majeure as described in Section 14.3. In no event shall Owner's construction on or use of any portion of the Property for parking purposes be considered to commence the referenced fifteen (15) year period. 2. DEVELOPMENT OF PROJECT. 2.1. Ownership Interests. Owner represents that it owns approximately seven (7) acres of the Property in fee. Owner further represents that it holds approximately twenty (20) acres of the Property pursuant to a lease agreement with Atlantic Financial Group, Ltd., and that pursuant to the lease agreement, Owner holds all such beneficial rights of ownership as are necessary for Owner to enter into and meet its obligations under this Agreement. The Parties agree that Owner's interests in the Property constitute legal or equitable interests within the meaning of Government Code Section 65865. 2.2. Vested Ri.qhts. While this Agreement is in effect, Owner shall have the vested right to implement the Development of the Property and the Project in the manner described herein, and as further authorized by: (i) the Rules, Regulations and Policies affecting Development of the Project; (ii) the Entitlements; and (iii) Future Development Approvals. City shall have the rights granted to it as set forth in this Agreement, including the approval of Development Plans. Except as otherwise specified in this Agreement, the Rules, Regulations and Policies affecting Development and the Project shall control Development, Future Development Approvals, On-Site Public Improvements and Off-Site Public Improvements relating to the Property. 2.3. Proiect. "Project" means the Development of the Property with up to 481,260 square feet of occupiable space contained in up to five buildings, plus up to two parking structures, along with necessary public and private infrastructure, all as further described in this Section 2. 2.3.1. Floor Area Ratio. The Project as a whole shall not exceed a Floor Area Ratio of 0.40, exclusive of parking structures. Individual legal parcels within the Property shall not be required to meet a specific FAR standard, provided the entire ACS Development Agreement 092002 Page 8 Project meets the FAR of 0.40, exclusive of parking structures. In approving this Agreement, City has made the findings set forth in Section 17.08.050(A) of the Development Code. 2.3.2. Location and Size of Improvements. The location of improvements, and the size and number of buildings (up to five), shall be in Owner's discretion, subject to the standards contained in this Section 2.3.2. If Owner develops the maximum authorized amount of square footage, such square footage shall be contained in a minimum of three buildings. Each of the two parking garages, if constructed, shall contain between 125,000 and 200,000 square feet, but in no event less than the square footage required to meet or exceed the City's parking standard or, at Owner's option, to provide up to five spaces per 1,000 square feet of occupied space (estimated at 500 to 750 spaces per garage) when combined with surface parking on the Property. Except as otherwise expressly provided here, the total square footage and number of stories in each building and parking garage shall be in Owner's discretion. In its discretion, Owner may provide more parking than five spaces per 1,000 square feet of occupied space, by way of combined surface parking and the parking structures permitted by this Agreement. The location of p~rking within the Property for any specific building shall be at Owner's discretion, without regard to parcel lines, provided that the building has legal access to the required parking. 2.3.3. Desiqn Guidelines; Architectural and Landscape Palette. Development of the Project, including colors, materials and landscaping, shall be consistent with the Design Guidelines attached as Exhibit "C." 2.3.4. Height Limitation. No structure on the Property shall exceed a maximum height of 80 feet from finished grade of building pad. Additionally, no structure along Solana Way and Margarita Road shall exceed the height of the Setback Planes as defined and illustrated in Exhibits D-l, D-2 and D-3. 2.3.4.1. Rooftop Equipment. The height limitations contained in Section 2.3.4 shall be exclusive of rooftop mechanical enclosures and telecommunications equipment, and related screening. Nothing in this Agreement shall authorize any third party to construct rooftop telecommunications equipment absent compliance with the City's normal approval process. 2.3.4.2. Underground Structure. The height of an underground structure shall not be counted toward the height of any above-ground portion of that structure for purposes of determining compliance with a height limitation. 2.4. Allowed Uses. Allowed uses of the Property shall include Business Park as defined in the Development Code (including office, research and manufacturing, compounding of pharmaceuticals, and further including all uses carried out by Owner as of the Agreement Date at the Existing Facilities; employee day care facility; employee commissary or cafeteria; educational/training facility; employee gym; and all other ACS Development Agreement 092002 Page 9 permitted uses in the Business Park zoning district. Owner shall not be required to obtain a conditional use permit for any use described in this Section 2.4. 2.4.1. Consistent Development Standards. The approximate seven acre parcel described in Exhibit "A" is zoned Light Industrial. The Development standards for this portion of the Property shall be the same as set forth in this Agreement for the remainder of the Property, which is zoned Business Park. 2.4.2. Use for Parking. A portion of the Property is presently used for parking by employees who work at Owner's Existing Facilities. The Parties agree that use of any portion of the Property for parking by Owner's employees who work at the Existing Facilities, and Owner's invitees thereto, is allowed and consistent with this Agreement. 2.5. Perimeter Fencing and Landscaping. Owner shall be allowed to fence the entire Property, and provide controlled access with guard gates at each point of entry .consistent with the Agreement's provisions for design and landscaping standards and generally accepted engineering principles with regard to vehicle stacking, and (except as otherwise agreed between the City and Owner) consistent with City policies. Fencing and controlled access substantially similar to that utilized at the Existing Facilities shall be deemed allowed under this Agreement. A Development Plan for Phase I shall include the provision of perimeter landscaping as described in the Design Guidelines, and fencing (if proposed by Owner) for the entire Project. 2.6. Access. Access to the Property shall be from Ynez (via Motor Car Parkway), Margarita Road, Street "A" (as shown on the Tentative Parcel Map) and Solana Way. Owner intends its primary access to be from Ynez; however, access shall be authorized from Margarita Road, Street "A" and Solana Way as well. The points of access to Margarita Road, Street "A" and Solana Way shall be as described in Exhibit "E," and as otherwise approved by the'City Engineer upon Owner's request. 2.7. Modifications. The Planning Director has the authority to approve minor modifications to the Development standards and Design Guidelines required for the Project under this Agreement. The Planning Director may determine that a particular modification requires an operating memorandum as described in Section 6.2, or an amendment to this Agreement. 2.8. Off-Site Public Improvements. As a condition to receiving a certificate of occupancy for Phase I, Owner shall construct the City-required Off-Site Public Improvements specifically described in Exhibit "F." Other than by payment of existing Development Impact Fees as specifically identified in and required by this Agreement, Owner shall not be required to contribute financially toward the cost of, or construct or cause to be constructed any City-required Off-Site Public Improvements that are not specifically listed in Exhibit "F." 2.9. On-Site Public Improvements. As a condition to receiving a certificate of occupancy for Phase I, Owner shall construct the City-required On-Site Public ACS Development Agreement 092002 Page 10 Improvements specifically described in Exhibit "G." Owner shall not be required to contribute financially toward the cost of, or construct or cause to be constructed any City-required On-Site Public Improvements that are not specifically listed in Exhibit "G." 2.10. Dedication or Reservation Requirements. There shall be no dedication or reservation of land for public purposes, except as provided in this Section 2.10. 2.10.1. Public Utility Easements. Owner shall convey to City or other appropriate public agencies such easements and rights-of-way reasonably necessary and customarily required to accommodate any On-Site Public Improvements described in Section 2.9 which Owner dedicates or conveys to a public agency for public services (such as storm drains and public utility lines). 2.10.2. Motor Car Parkway. Potential dedication of Motor Car Parkway to the City shall be subject to the provisions of Section 2.11, below. 2.10.3. Margarita Road. Dedication or City acquisition of additional right of way along Margarita Road shall be subject to the provisions of Section 2.12, below. 2.11. Motor Car Parkway. Motor Car Parkway is a private street, under the control of a private ownersf association of which Owner is a member. Upon Owner's request, City shall accept an offer of dedication for Motor Car Parkway and thereafter own and maintain it as a public street. As a condition precedent to City's obligation to accept the offer of dedication, Owner shall cause Motor Car Parkway to be upgraded to public street standards as described in Exhibit "H." Owner shall be responsible for obtaining any consents or authorizations required for the validity of the offer of dedication. Upon Owner's request and with the concurrence of adjacent property owners, City shall rename Motor Car Parkway to "Guidant Parkway" or some other mutually agreeable name including the word "Guidant." 2.12. Margarita Road. Owner is making certain improvements to Margarita Road as part of the Off-Site Public Improvements. City has indicated its interest in widening Margarita Road in the future, at City expense, to include a third lane southbound along the Property. City estimates that the widening would necessitate City's acquisition of an additional 12 feet of right of way beyond the existing right of way (the "Additional Right of Way Area"). 2.12.1. Restriction on Improvements. In order to accommodate City's efforts, Owner agrees that any Development Plan it submits shall provide generally for landscaping of the Additional Right of Way Area. Owner shall not construct any buildings or parking facilities within such area. 2.12.2. Acquisition. Upon City's request, Owner shall convey the Additional Right of Way Area to City. As a condition precedent to Owner's obligation to make the conveyance, City shall compensate Owner for the then-fair market value of the land. The value of the land shall be determined without regard to the restriction on improvements or landscaping requirements contained in Section 2.12.1. If the Parties ACS Development Agreement 092002 Page 11 are unable to agree upon the value, then they shall jointly identify three MAI appraisers. The Parties shall jointly select one of the three MAI appraisers, who shall conduct an appraisal of the Additional Right of Way Area. The expense for the third appraiser shall be divided equally between City and Owner, and that appraiser's determination of value shall be binding upon the Parties. 2.12.3. Compliance with Landscaping Standards. The Parties recognize that City's acquisition of the Additional Right of Way Area and construction of roadway therein will reduce the overall amount of landscaping on the Property. Owner shall not be required to replace such landscaping elsewhere on the Property in order to meet City standards for landscape coverage. The Additional Right of Way Area shall be counted as constituting "minimum required landscaped open space" as set forth in City's Development Code Section 17.08.040, regardless of ultimate acquisition and use by City. 2.12.4. Compliance with Height and Other Requirements. City's acquisition of the Additional Right of Way Area shall not change the location of the Setback Planes as described in Section 2.3.4, nor shall such acquisition affect Project compliance with any other requirement defined or measured by reference to the size of the Property. For example, City's acquisition of the Additional Right of Way Area shall not alter setback requirements in the Development Code, allowed buildable square footage or allowed parking spaces on the Property. 2.13. Pedestrian Bridge. Owner owns and operates Existing Facilities on the west side of Ynez Road. Owner anticipates that there will be considerable pedestrian traffic between those facilities and the Property. In order to accommodate the pedestrian traffic, and to minimize the interruption of vehicular traffic on Ynez Road due to the existing surface pedestrian crossing, the Parties wish to provide for Owner's construction of a pedestrian bridge linking the Property with Owner's Existing Facilities. 2.13.1. Owner's Discretion. Owner may construct the pedestrian bridge at any time, regardless of whether Owner proceeds with the Project. Owner is not required to construct the pedestrian bridge as a result of having entered into this Agreement; provided, however, that if Owner proceeds with the Project and constructs Phase I, Owner shall complete the pedestrian bridge so that it is available for use by Owner's employees by the conclusion .of the Term. 2.13.2. Location and Design; City Review. The location and design of the pedestrian bridge shall be in Owner's discretion, subject to review by City through the Development Plan process described in Section 2.14. Owner may submit an application for Development Plan approval for the pedestrian bridge as a stand-alone project, or as part of the Development Plan for Phase 1. The use of the term "pedestrian bridge" in this Section 2.13 shall not preclude Owner from designing the structure for use by small, motorized vehicles, including electric carts. 2.13.3. Grant of Property Interest; Permits. At Owner's request, the City shall convey a sufficient property interest (e.g., easement) to Owner at no cost, and ACS Development Agreement 092002 Page 12 conduct any necessary proceedings to vacate the airspace in which the bridge is to be located, so that Owner's ownership of the bridge can be the subject of title insurance reasonably acceptable to Owner. The property interest shall acknowledge and provide that Owner shall have the exclusive use of the bridge. City shall also issue any permits required for the pedestrian bridge (e.g., encroachment permit). As a condition to issuance of such permits, and based upon its review of the specific design and the proximity of bridge structures to the public right of way, City may require Owner to indemnify City as to owner's construction and operation of the bridge. Any such indemnification language may be implemented in the form of an operating memorandum as described in Section 6.2, and shall be in a form mutually agreeable to the Parties. 2.13.4. Costs, Ownership and Maintenance. If Owner constructs the bridge, Owner shall pay all costs for design, construction (including relocation of utilities) and maintenance, and for removal upon cessation of use. Owner shall own the bridge, and City shall have no ownership interest therein. 2.14. Development Plans. At such time as Owner is ready to obtain approval for specific structures, City shall process an application from Owner for Development Plan approval. 2.14.1. Processinq of Application. City shall process the application so that a final decision is made within three months from the date the application is deemed complete and assuming timely responses from Owner; provided, however, that if a timely appeal from the decision is filed, the three month period shall be expanded by an additional two months, for a total of five months. The Plan shall be subject to a public hearing before City's Planning Director, with the Planning Director's decision subject to appeal to the Planning Commission, and from there to the City Council. The sole basis for appeal by a third party shall be whether the Development proposed is within the scope of Development authorized by, and is consistent with, this Agreement, including the Design Guidelines. Any such appeal shall specifically set forth in writing the section of this Agreement with which the Development is alleged to be inconsistent. 2.14.2. Approval of Application. City shall be obligated to approve Owner's proposed Plan as a ministerial act, provided the Development proposed is within the scope of Development authorized by, and is consistent with, this Agreement, including the Design Guidelines. The proposed Development shall be considered within the scope of Development if it meets the requirements of Sections 2.3 through 2.13, inclusive. All Development Plans, taken together, shall provide for the Project to meet the Development standards contained in Table 17.08.040A of Section 17.08.040 of the Development Code for the Property as a whole; accordingly, no single legal parcel within the Property shall be required to independently meet Development standards for minimum gross area, Floor Area Ratio, maximum percent of lot coverage, or minimum required landscaped open space. ACS Development Agreement 092002 Page 13 2.14.3. Phasing. Owner may submit a series of Development Plans for approval, addressing different phases of the project. Each Development Plan shall be valid for a period of five (5) years from the date of final approval by City, with such time extended for any force majeure event as described in Section 14.3. A valid Development Plan shall continue in effect for the full five (5) year period, regardless of whether the Term of the Agreement expires during such period. 2.14.4. Environmental Review. City has prepared an initial study and adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration for this Agreement and the Project. In conducting this environmental review, City has considered the maximum buildout of the Project that is possible under this Agreement and any potential environmental effects therefrom. Accordingly, no further environmental review will be required for individual Development Plans provided that the Development proposed by such Plans is within the scope of Development as described in section 2.14.2. 2.14.5. Development Plan Modifications. The Planning Director is authorized to approve minor modifications to a previously approved Development Plan applicable to the Project. The Planning Director, on the advice of the City Attorney, shall have the discretion to determine whether a particular modification is minor and may be processed administratively, or whether the modification requires an amendment to the Development Plan and should thus be the subject of a noticed public hearing before the Director. 2.15. Term of Map. City and Owner agree that multiple final maps may be filed as to Tentative Parcel Map No. 30107, as provided in Government Code Section 66456.1. Specifically, the Parties agree that Owner may file a final map as to Parcels 4 and 5 of the tentative map, those lots being within Owner's Property and under separate ownership from Parcels 1,2 and 3. In accordance with Government Code Section 66452.6(a)(1), the term of Tentative Parcel Map No. 30107 as to the Property shall be for a term equal to the Term of this Agreement. The Parties understand and agree that this Agreement does not apply to Parcels 1, 2 and 3. 2.16. Substitute Tentative Parcel Map. If for any reason Tentative Parcel Map No. 30107 is withdrawn, or if Owner determines to obtain a new map applicable to the property described in Exhibit "Aol ," then Owner may apply for, and City shall approve, a substitute tentative parcel map dividing such property into two lots substantially as described in Tentative Parcel Map No. 30107. tn approving such map, City may impose substantially the same conditions of approval as were included in the original tentative map. 2.17. Lot Line Adiustment. Upon Owner's request, City shall process and . approve a lot line adjustment to reconfigure the existing two lots on the 7-acre parcel and (assuming a final map is filed as to the Tentative Parcel Map) the two lots on the 20-acre parcel. The reconfiguration shall be as specified by Owner, consistent with applicable state law. The reconfiguration shall also be consistent with City Development standards as set forth in Table 17.08.040A of Section 17.08.040 of the ACS Development Agreement 092002 Page 14 Development Code, recognizing, however, that because the entire Project meets the Development standards for minimum gross area, Floor Area Ratio, maximum percent of lot coverage, and minimum required landscaped open space, individual parcels are not required to meet such standards independently. 3. DEVELOPMENT FEES. 3.1. Development Processing Fees. Development Processing Fees charged by City for filing and processing an application for an Entitlement shall be those in effect on the Agreement Date and in such amounts as are in effect at the time of submittal of an application for an Entitlement; provided, however, that at Owner's option, City shall charge its actual costs for plan check and inspection for on-site grading and public improvements. City shall charge its actual costs for other Development Processing Fees as mutually agreed between Owner and City. The Development Processing Fees which may be charged under this Agreement are listed in Exhibit "1," however, nothing in this Agreement restricts City's authority to increase the amount of those fees in the future, in the manner allowed by law. 3.2. Expedited Review. City shall provide expedited review of all approvals sought by Owner. City shall not impose a charge for such expedited review. For each Development Plan submitted by Owner, City shall designate a member of its senior executive staff as the project manager for City processing purposes. 3.3. Development Impact. Fees. Development Impact Fees imposed by City in connection with an Entitlement for the Project shall be charged at the Industrial Rate that existed on February 12, 2002. Development Impact Fees shall be limited to those in existence on February 12, 2002 and charged at such fees' industrial rate (or equivalent) that existed on that date. The total Development Impact Fee payable by Owner in connection with the Project is listed by name and amount on Exhibit "J." Owner shall not be required to pay any Development Impact Fee that is not expressly set forth in Exhibit "J." 3.4. Landscaping Bond. Owner shall not be required to post a landscaping maintenance bond, but shall post a corporate guarantee as to landscaping maintenance obligations in a form reasonably satisfactory to City. 4. RULES AND REGULATIONS. 4.1. Applicable Rules and Laws. Except as otherwise provided in this Agreement, the Rules, Regulations and Policies Affecting Development shall be those that are in force and applicable to the Business Park zoning district on the Agreement Date. Except as otherwise provided in this Agreement, the Laws governing Development of the Property and the Project, including those governing permitted uses, density and intensity of use of the Property, shall be those set forth in the General Plan, and other Rules, Regulations and Policies Affecting Development, including those Laws ACS Development Agreement 092002 Page 15 affecting design, improvement, construction standards, and other specifications applicable to Development of the Property, all as applicable on the Agreement Date. In considering Future Development Approvals, City shall act in a manner that complies and is consistent with this Agreement, the Rules, Regulations and Policies Affecting Development, the Laws, and the other provisions contained in this Agreement. The Project as described in this Agreement and all Future Development Approvals shall be deemed to be in compliance with the Development Code and all Rules, Regulations and Policies Affecting Development, Laws and City Laws. 4.2. Applicability to Future Development Approvals. Owner shall be entitled to apply for and receive Future Development Approvals at any time, free from Development Moratoria or Processing Moratoria, provided that Owner's applications for such approvals are made in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement, the Rules Regulations and Policies, and such Future Development Approvals as the City approves and Owner accepts in writing. City shall accept and timely process all applications for Future Development Approvals in the normal and legal manner for processing such matters and consistent with this Agreement, and the Rules, Regulations and Policies. City shall not withhold any Entitlement, including a building permit, final inspection or certificate of occupancy from Owner if Owner has satisfied all conditions and requirements of this Agreement and any applicable Future Development Approval. City shall consider and approve any other Entitlements not specifically described in this Agreement that are reasonably necessary or a condition precedent to accomplish the Project. 4.3. Model Codes. The City shall apply the versions of all applicable Model Codes in effect at the time an application for Development Plan approval is deemed complete, as to all improvements described in that Development Plan, and shall continue to apply those same versions of Model Codes to that Development Plan for the longest period legally allowed and without interruption. As to each Development Plan, at Owner's request the appropriate City staff shall meet with Owner's representatives to discuss the implementation of Model Codes and relevant timing issues, in order to determine applicable Model Codes and achieve consistency of application of such codes for that phase of the Project. 4.4. Future Enactments. During the Term of this Agreement, City shall not enact any Law, ordinance, rule, regulation or policy applicable to the Property which conflicts with this Agreement, except as specifically requested or approved by Qwner in writing. This prohibition shall include the imposition of limits on the density or intensity of use authorized for the Project and Property as provided by the General Plan. 4.5. Enforceability. Except to the extent it has been amended, canceled, modified or suspended, and subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, this Agreement shall be enforceable by any Party notwithstanding any change in any City Law. ACS Development Agreement 092002 Page 16 4.6. Representation. City represents that there are no City Laws in force as of the Agreement Date that would prohibit the Development of the Project or use of all or any portion of the Property in accordance with this Agreement. 4.7. Amendment to Rules. No amendment to the Rules, Regulations and Policies Affecting Development or to Future Development Approvals shall apply to the Property without Owner's written consent. 4.8. Future Miti.qation Measures. City shall not impose on any Future Development Approvals any land use alternatives or mitigation measures other than those expressly described in this Agreement and the Tentative Parcel Map. 4.9. Districts. Except for Districts which are citywide and imposed on all properties in the City, City shall not include the Property in any District, including any future special assessment, special tax, reimbursement, impact fee or similar District. The Padies acknowledge that the Property is included in a pre-existing District, known as Community Facilities District No. 88-12, pursuant to the "Agreement Regarding Sales Tax Revenues as to Businesses Located Within the Boundaries of Community Facilities District No. 88-12 (Ynez Corridor) of the County of Riverside, State of California," dated June 14, 1991, as amended by the "First Amendment to Agreement Between City of Temecula and Eli Lilly and Company, an Indiana Corporation, Regarding Sales Tax Revenues of Community Facilities District No. 88-12 (Ynez Corridor)," dated April 12, 1994 (collectively, the "CFD 88-12 Agreement"). A default by the City in its obligations with respect to Owner under the CFD 88-12 Agreement, which is not cured within the times permitted by such agreement, shall be a default by the City under this Agreement. 4.10. Phasing. In Pardee Construction Company v. City of Camarillo, 37 Cal.3d 465 (1984), the parties therein entered into an agreement through a consent judgment concerning Development of certain property. The agreement did not specifically provide for the timing of Development. A later-adopted initiative measure placed limits on the number of building permits that could be issued each year. The California Supreme Court held that the initiative prevailed over the agreement, since the parties had failed to specifically address timing of Development. In order to avoid any potential for a similar holding as to this Agreement, the Parties expressly acknowledge and agree that Owner shall have the right (without obligation) to develop the Property in such order and at such rate and at such times as Owner deems appropriate within the exercise of its subjective business judgment, subject only to Owner's satisfaction of this Agreement and the Future Development Approvals. Owner, Project and Development of the Property shall be free of any other limitations or constraints on phasing or Project build-out, or any other limitations or constraints on Development that are inconsistent with this Agreement, whether by voter-sponsored initiative or action of the City. 4.11. Non-conformities. No use or structure that was consistent with this Agreement when it was established or built shall be deemed to be non-conforming at the time this Agreement terminates except to the extent the non-conformity arises from ACS Development Agreement 092002 Page 17 a violation of a Model Code that constitutes an immediate and serious threat to health or safety. 4.12. Abatement and Revocation After the Term of the Agreement Lapses. No use or structure shall be subject to abatement as a nuisance, nor shall any Future Development Approval for a use or structure be subject to revocation, if the use or structure was consistent with this Agreement when established or built and if it remains consistent with the Future Development Approval which authorized it, unless the City finds that the use or structure has fallen into such a state of disrepair that it constitutes an immediate threat to health or safety. In that event, the use or structure may be re- established if it is re-established in a condition that does not constitute an immediate threat to health or safety and in compliance with the Model Codes. 4.13. Other Agencies. City shall assist and cooperate with Owner, at no cost to the City, insecuring County, State or Federal Entitlements, if any are necessary to develop the Property pursuant to this Agreement. 5. TERM. 5.1. Commencement. The term of this Agreement shall commence on the Agreement Date. As provided in Section 1.1, the Agreement will be in legal force and effect as of the first date on which the ordinance authorizing the Agreement is in force and effect pursuant to the provisions of California law. 5.2. Duration. Unless sooner terminated hereunder, this Agreement shall expire at the end of the fifteenth (15th) full Fiscal Year which follows after the earlier of either (1) the date a certificate of occupancy has been issued for the first Project building to be built on the Property, or (2) June 30, 2006. In no event shall Owner's construction on or use of any podion of the Property for parking purposes be considered to commence the referenced fifteen (15) year period. 5.3. Termination. This Agreement shall be deemed terminated upon the occurrence of any of the following events: 5.3.1. Termination under Aqreement. If termination occurs pursuant to any specific provision of this Agreement; 5.3.2. Completion of Proiect. Completion of the total build-out of the Project to the maximum square footage and parking structures allowed by this Agreement, or such lesser area as agreed upon by Owner and City in writing. "Completion" under this Section 5.3.2 shall include City's issuance of all required occupancy permits and acceptance of all dedications and improvements required to complete Development; or 5.3.3. Jud.qment. Entry after all appeals have been exhausted of a final judgment or issuance of a final order directed to the City as a result of any Litigation ACS Development Agreement 092002 Page 18 filed against City to set aside, withdraw, or abrogate the approval of the City Council of this Agreement. 5.4. Effect of Termination. Termination of this Agreement shall not affect any right or duty arising from Entitlements issued by City before termination, nor shall it destroy any vested right arising from the completion of construction in reliance on an Entitlement. Upon termination ofthis Agreement, then subsequent Development of the Property shall be subject to City's then applicable Rules, Regulations and Policies. 5.5. Effect of Agreement on Title. The Parties shall execute and record an appropriate release upon termination of this Agreement. 6. AMENDMENTS; ADMINISTRATION OF AGREEMENT. 6.1. Amendment. This Agreement may be amended only by the mutual agreement of the Parties. Any Party may propose an amendment to this Agreement, and shall give notice of the requested amendment to each Party. In the event of multiple Owners of different portions of the Property, notice shall be given to each such Owner. The procedure for adopting an amendment shall be the same as the procedure required under the Development Agreement Legislation for entering into this Agreement in the first instance. No amendment of this Agreement shall be binding unless it is in writing and signed by the Parties; provided, however, that an amendment of the Agreement as to a portion of the Property shall be binding if signed by the City and the Owner of the portion to which the Amendment is applicable. 6.2. Operatin,q Memoranda. This Agreement requires a close degree of cooperation between City and Owner. From time to time, the Parties may wish to clarify or provide further detail of their performance obligations under this Agreement. During the term of this Agreement, City and Owner may at any time agree that such clarifications are necessary or appropriate, in which event they shall effect such clarifications through operating memoranda approved by City and Owner. Each executed operating memorandum shall be attached to this Agreement. An operating memorandum shall not constitute an amendment to this Agreement requiring public notice or hearing. The City Attorney shall be authorized to make the determination whether a requested clarification may be effectuated pursuant to this Section, or whether the requested clarification is of such a character to constitute an amendment pursuant to Section 6.1. The City Manager may execute an operating memorandum without City Council action. 6.3. Administration of Aqreement. Any decision by City staff concerning the interpretation and administration of this Agreement and Development of the Property in accordance herewith may be appealed by Owner to the Planning Commission for recommendation and thereafter forwarded to the City Council for final action, provided that any such appeal shall be filed with the City Clerk within ten (10) Days after Owner receives written notice of the staff decision. The City Council shall conduct a noticed public hearing on the appeal, and shall render its decision to affirm, reverse or modify ACS Development Agreement 092002 Page 19 the staff decision within thirty (30) Days after the appeal was filed. The City Council shall hear the matter de novo. 7. AMENDMENT TO AUTHORIZING STATUTE OR CHANGE IN LAW. 7.1. Development Aqreement Le.qislation. This Agreement has been entered into in reliance on the provisions of the Development Agreement Legislation in effect on the Agreement Date. Subsequent amendments to the Development Agreement Legislation shall not be applicable to this Agreement, to the extent of any conflict, unless: (i) .the amendments are necessary for the Agreement to be enforceable; or (ii) this Agreement is amended by mutual consent of the Parties to incorporate the provisions of the Development Agreement Legislation as amended. 7.2. Change in State or Federal Law. If any state or federal Law enacted after the Agreement Date prevents or precludes compliance with any provision of this Agreement: 7.2.1. Notice. A Party who believes that the change in Law prevents or precludes compliance shall provide each other Party written notice of the change in state or federal Law. The notice shall include a copy of the change in question and a statement describing how the change conflicts with this Agreement. The Parties shall then promptly meet and confer in a good faith and reasonable attempt to agree how to modify or suspend this Agreement only as necessary to comply with such change in state or federal Law. tf City is the Party sending the notice, it shall send a copy of the .notice to any Lender whose address is known to City. 7.2.2. Hearing and Determination. Within forty-five (45) Days of a Party's notice under Section 7.2.1, the City Council shall hold a public hearing on the matter. This hearing shall occur regardless of whether the Parties reached agreement on the effect of the change in state or federal Law. The City shall give public notice of the hearing at least ten (10) Days before it is held. At the hearing, the City Council shall determine the exact modification or suspension which is reasonably necessary to comply with the change in state or federal Law, while giving the maximum effect possible to the Parties' intent and objectives in entering into this Agreement. Owner shall have the right to offer oral and written testimony at the hearing regarding any proposed action by City. The City Council's determination shall be subject to judicial review as provided in Section 12. 8. TRANSFERS AND ASSIGNMENTS. 8.1. Transfers. Owner shall have the right, at any time and on such number of occasions as it chooses, to sell or transfer any or all of its interest in the Property to any person or entity. Owner shall notify City of a transfer within twenty (20) Days after the event. No transfer shall convey any rights or obligations under this Agreement unless accompanied by an assignment as described in Section 8.2. ACS Development Agreement 092002 Page 20 8.2. Assignment. Owner's assignment of the Agreement, as to all or any portion of the Property, shall be subject to the following restrictions: 8.2.1. Assignment to a Guidant Assignee. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 8.2.2, Owner may assign any or all of its rights and obligations under this Agreement at any time to a Guidant Assignee. As used in this Section 8.2, "Guidant Assignee" means an entity in which a majority interest is owned by Advanced Cardiovascular Systems, Inc., Guidant Corporation or any of their wholly-owned subsidiaries, and which engages in the medical technology business. The City's consent shall not be required for an assignment to a Guidant Assignee. 8.2.2. Assignment Before Completion of Phase 1. For purposes of this Section 8.2.2 and Section 8.2.3, "Phase 1" means the construction of at least 135,000 square feet of Gross Floor Area and the issuance of a cerfificate of occupancy for any portion thereof. Before the completion of Phase I, Owner may assign the Agreement as provided in Section 8.2.2.1 or Section 8.2.2.2. 8.2.2.1. Owner may assign any or all of its rights and obligations under this Agreement, along with all the vested rights described in Section 2, but only with the City's prior consent, which shall not be unreasonably withheld, provided that City determines that the assignee is similarly qualified in terms of its development experience, financial capabilities and ability to generate employment. a. ' The City Council shall be the decision-making body to determine whether to consent to the proposed assignment. The City Council may, in its discretion, hold a noticed public hearing before making the decision. b. City shall have forty-five (45) Days to approve or deny a proposed assignee, from the date of Owner's request for consent. Owner and City may extend that period by mutual agreement. 8.2.2.2. Owner may assign the Agreement, without City's prior consent, provided that of all the vested rights contained in Section 2, only the following provisions may be included in the assignment: a. Allowed square footage, as described in Section 2.3; b. Allowed Floor Area Ratio, as described in Section 2.3.1; c. The location and size of improvements, as described in Section 2.3.2; d. Height limitation and required Setback Planes, as described in Section 2.3.4; ACS Development Agreement 092002 Page 21 e. Allowed uses and consistent development standards, as described in Sections 2.4 and 2.4.1; f. Approved access points, as described in Section 2.6; and g. Provisions as to widening of Margarita Road, as described in Section 2.12. Any assignee under this Section 8.2.2.2 shall comply with the Project Design Guidelines contained in Exhibit "C," and any Development Plan shall be subject to review and approval of the Planning Commission in accordance with the City's usual procedures. The assignee shall pay alt then-current Development Impact Fees and Development Processing Fees. The term of the Agreement for such assignee shall be ten (10) years from the earlier of the date a certificate of occupancy is issued for the first building to be built on the Property, or June 30, 2006, as described in Section 5. 8.2.3. Assignment After Completion of Phase 1. After completion of Phase I, Owner may assign any or all of its rights and obligations under this Agreement, along with all the vested rights described in Section 2, without the City's prior consent. 8.2.4. Notice and Acknowledgement. 8.1.1.2. Owner shall give City written notice of an assignment under Sections 8.2.1, 8.2.2.2 or 8.2.3 within twenty (20) Days thereof. 8.1.1.3. As a condition precedent to the effectiveness of any assignment, the assignee shall provide City with written acknowledgement that it has received and understood the Agreement, and agrees to be bound by it. The assignee shall also provide City with a copy of the agreement effecting the assignment. 8.2.5. Pedestrian Bridge. An assignee other than a Guidant Assignee shall not be required to construct the pedestrian bridge as described in Section 2.13. 9. REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES. 9.1. City's Representations and Warranties. City represents and warrants to Owner as of the Agreement Date as follows: 9.1.1. City is a municipal corporation, which has been duly formed and organized and is validly existing and in good standing under the laws of the State of California. 9.1.2. City has the power, right and authority to enter into this Agreement and to undertake the actions contemplated hereby. ACS Development Agreement 092002 Page 22 9.1.3. All requisite action has been taken by City in connection with entering into this Agreement. 9.1.4. The individuals executing this Agreement on behalf of City have the legal power, right and actual authority to bind City to the terms and conditions of this Agreement. 9.1.5. Neither the execution and delivery of this Agreement, nor the incurrence of the obligations herein set forth, nor compliance with the terms of this Agreement will conflict with or result in a breach of any of the terms, conditions or provisions of, or constitute a default under, any note or other evidence of indebtedness or any contract, indenture, mortgage, deed of trust, loan, agreement, lease or other agreement or instrument to which City is a party or by which any of City's properties may be bound. 9.1.6. This Agreement is, and all documents required hereby to be executed by City, will be valid, legally binding obligations of and enforceable against City in accordance with their terms. 9.1.7. City has all governmental licenses, authorizations, consents and approvals to execute, deliver and perform its obligations under this Agreement. 9.1.8. No City official has a financial interest in this Agreement within the meaning of Government Code Section 1090, nor does any City official who makes or participates in the making of a governmental decision on this Agreement have a conflict of interest under the Political Reform Act (Government Code Sections 73000, et seq.). No City official, consultant or advisor is being compensated with a fee that is contingent on or defined by the payment of any sums to City by Owner. 9.1.9. City shall promptly give Owner notice upon the occurrence of any event, or receipt of any notice, which might give rise to a breach by City of any of its representations, covenants or warranties set forth in this Section 9.1. 9.2. Owner's Representations and Warranties. Owner represents and warrants to City as of the Agreement Date as follows: 9.2.1. Owner is a corporation that has been duly formed and organized and is validly existing and in good standing under the laws of the State of California. 9.2.2. Owner has the corporate power, right and authority to enter into this Agreement and to undertake the actions contemplated hereby. 9.2.3. All requisite action has been taken by Owner in connection with entering into this Agreement. 9.2.4. The individuals executing this Agreement on behalf of Owner have the legal power, right and actual authority to bind Owner to the terms and conditions of this Agreement. 9.2.5. Neither the execution and delivery of this Agreement, nor the incurrence of the obligations herein set forth, nor compliance with the terms of this ACS Development Agreement 092002 Page 23 Agreement will conflict with or result in a breach of any of the terms, conditions or provisions of, or constitute a default under, Owner's articles of incorporation, any bond, note or other evidence of indebtedness or any contract, indenture, mortgage, deed of trust, loan, agreement, lease or other agreement or instrument to which Owner is a party or by which any of Owner's properties may be bound. 9.2.6. This Agreement is, and all documents required hereby to be executed by Owner, will be valid, legally binding obligations of and enforceable against Owner in accordance with their terms. 9.2.7. Owner has all governmental licenses, authorizations, consents and approvals to execute, deliver and perform its obligations under this Agreement. 9.2.8. Owner shall promptly give City notice upon the occurrence of any event, or receipt of any notice, which might give rise to a breach by Owner of any of its representations, covenants or warranties set forth in this Section 9.2. 10. COMPLIANCE REVIEW. 10.1. Annual Review. City and Owner shall review this Agreement at least once every 12-month period from the Agreement Date. City shall notify Owner in writing of the date for review at least thirty (30) Days prior thereto. Such periodic review shall be conducted in accordance with Government Code Section 65865.1 and on the following terms: 10.1.1. Good-Faith Compliance. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65865.1, Owner shall have the duty to demonstrate its good faith compliance with the terms of this Agreement at each periodic review. Owner may satisfy this duty by presenting to City: (i) a written report identifying Owner's performance, along with any reasons for nonperformance or excused performance, or (ii) oral or written evidence submitted at the time of review. 10.1.2. Substantial Compliance. This Agreement and the documents incorporated herein could be deemed to contain thousands of requirements, such as construction and landscaping standards. Providing and reviewing evidence of each and every requirement would waste the Parties' resources. Accordingly, Owner shall be deemed to have satisfied its duty of demonstrating good faith compliance when it presents evidence of its good faith and substantial compliance with (i) any issues requested to be addressed by City in its notice of the review; (ii) the major provisions of a Development Plan; and (iii) restrictions on the uses, number and sizes of structures completed. Generalized evidence or statements shall be accepted in the absence of evidence that Owner's evidence and statements are untrue. 10.2. Failure to Conduct Annual Review. City's failure to conduct the annual review shall not constitute a default by any Party nor shall such failure waive, limit or otherwise affect City's right to conduct annual reviews in subsequent years. ACS Development Agreement 092002 Page 24 10.3. Initiation of Review by City Council. In addition to the annual review, the City Council may at any time initiate a review of this Agreement by giving written notice to Owner. City shall specify in the notice the specific issues it wishes Owner to address concerning Owner's compliance with this Agreement. W~thin thirty (30) Days following such notice, Owner shall submit evidence to the City Council of Owner's good faith compliance with this Agreement. The review and determination by the City Council shall proceed in the same manner as set forth in Section 10.1 for the annual review. The City Council shall initiate its review pursuant to this Section 10.3 only if it has probable cause to believe the health, safety or general welfare of residents of the City is at risk because of specific acts or failures to act by Owner. 10.4. Availability of Documents. Upon Owner's written request, City shall provide Owner copies of any documents, reports or other items reviewed, accumulated or prepared by or for City in connection with any compliance review by City. Owner shall reimburse City for all reasonable and direct costs and fees incurred by City in providing such copies. City shall provide the copies within (10) Days from Owner's request. 11. DEFAULT. 11.1. Default by Owner. If City conducts a review under Section 10 and finds, on the basis of substantial evidence, that Owner has not complied in good faith with terms or conditions of this Agreement, City shall give written notice to Owner stating the manner in which Owner has failed to comply and the steps Owner must take to bring itself into compliance. If, within sixty (60) Days after such notice, Owner does not commence all steps reasonably necessary to bring itself into compliance and thereafter diligently pursue such steps to completion, then Owner shall be deemed to be in default hereunder and City may terminate or modify this Agreement as provided in Government Code Section 65865.1. City shall have the right to pursue any remedy at law or equity, including specific performance. 11.2. Default by City. If Owner determines that City has not complied in good faith with terms or conditions of this Agreement, Owner shall give written notice to City stating the manner in which City has failed to comply and the steps City must take to bring itself into compliance. If, within sixty (60) Days after such notice, City does not commence all steps reasonably necessary to bring it into compliance and thereafter diligently pursue such steps to completion, then City shall be deemed to be in default and Owner may terminate this Agreement. Owner shall have the right to pursue any remedy available at law or equity, including specific performance. 11.3. Estoppel Certificates. A Party may make a written request for an Estoppel Certificate to another Party at any time. The Party to whom the request is made shall provide an Estoppel Certificate to the requesting party within thirty (30) Days after the request. ACS Development Agreement 092002 Page 25 11.3.1. Execution. The City Manager or any person designated by the City Manager may sign an Estoppel Certificate on behalf of City. Any officer of Owner may sign on behalf of Owner. 11.3.2. Costs; Reliance. The requesting Party shall reimburse the responding Party for all reasonable and direct costs and fees incurred by the responding Party in providing the Estoppel Certificate. Any such certificate may and is intended to be relied upon by any person, including the other Party, potential purchasers of all or any part of the Property, Lenders, and potential Lenders. 12. JUDICIAL REVIEW. 12.1 Reference. City and Owner shall have the right to apply to a court to enjoin any breach of this Agreement. Excepting the right to seek such relief, all claims and matters in question arising out of this Agreement, whether sounding in contract, tort or otherwise, shall be resolved through a general reference in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure Sections 638 through 645.1. To initiate such a proceeding, a Party shall apply to the Riverside County Superior Court for the appointment of a referee to hear the dispute. The referee shall hear and determine any and all of the issues in the action or proceeding, whether of fact or of law, and shall report a statement of decision for a complete and final adjudication of the controversy. 12.1.1. Appointment. Owner and City shall agree upon a single referee. If Owner and City are unable to agree on a referee within fifteen (15) Days of a written request to do so, each Party shall submit to the Court up to three nominees for appointment. The Court shall appoint one or more referees, not exceeding three, from among the nominees against whom there is no legal objection. A legal objection shall consist of any of the grounds specified, in Code of Civil Procedure Sections 170.1 or 641. The cost of the reference proceeding shall initially be borne equally by the Parties. 12.1.2. Pretrial Matters. The Parties shall have all rights of discovery permitted by the Code of Civil Procedure in civil litigation, except that the time periods shall be shortened by agreement or by order of the referee, and the extent of discovery shall also be limited, with the goal of completing all discovery within ninety (90) Days. The referee shall hear all pretrial matters, including law and motion and discovery. 12.1.3. Trial. The referee shall try all issues, whether of fact or law. The referee shall follow the rules of evidence applicable in a Court trial. 12.1.4. Judgment. The referee shall render a reasoned statement of decision pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 632, citing both the law and the evidence relied on. The referee's decision shall stand as the decision of the Court, and judgment shall be entered on the statement of decision in the same manner as if the action had been tried by the Court. The judgment may include any provision or relief at law or in equity, including injunctive relief and specific performance, which could have ACS Development Agreement 092002 Page 26 been made by the Court acting without a reference; provided, however, that the referee shall not have the power to punish disobedience of an order by contempt, that power being reserved to the Court ordering the reference in the first instance. The compensation of the referee and reporter as well as any other taxable costs shall be allocated between the respective Parties by the referee as a part of the judgment. 12.1.5. Post-Trial Proceedinqs. The referee shall hear all motions or proceedings that may be heard by a judge following entry of judgment, including motions for reconsideration, to stay execution, to tax costs including attorneys' fees and prejudgment interest, to vacate judgment and for a new trial. 12.1.6. Appeal. The judgment entered on the referee's statement of decision shall be appealable in the same manner as a judgment entered by the Court, under Code of Civil Procedure Section 645. 12.2. Specific Performance. Due to the size, nature and scope of the Project, it will not be practical or possible to restore the Property to its natural condition once implementation of this Agreement has begun. After such implementation, Owner may be foreclosed from other choices it may have had to utilize the Property and provide for other benefits. City and Owner have invested significant time and resources and performed extensive planning and processing of the Project in agreeing to the terms of this Agreement and will be investing even more significant time and resources in implementing the Project in reliance upon the terms of this Agreement, and it is not possible to determine the sum of money which would adequately compensate either Party for such efforts. For the above reasons, City and Owner agree that damages would not be an adequate remedy if a Party fails to carry out its obligations under this Agreement and that each Party shall have the right to seek and obtain specific performance as a remedy for breach of this Agreement. Notwithstanding the foregoing, City shall have no right to seek specific performance to cause Owner to proceed with the Development of the Project, or any other remedy in connection with Owner's decision whether or not to proceed with the Project. 12.3. Remedies Cumulative. The rights and remedies provided in this Agreement shall not be exclusive but shall, to the extent permitted by law, be cumulative and in addition to all other rights and remedies existing at law, in equity or otherwise, except those rights and remedies which have been waived. It is expressly agreed that neither City nor Owner shall be liable for punitive or exemplary damages, and each Party hereby waives its right, if any, to recover punitive or exemplary damages in connection with any breach or default by the other Party under this Agreement. 12.4. Applicability of Review. Any modification, suspension or termination of this Agreement by any Party shall be subject to judicial review unless all affected Parties have consented in writing thereto. 12.5. Attorney's Fees. In any Litigation by which one Party either seeks to enforce its rights under this Agreement or seeks a declaration of any rights or ACS Development Agreement 092002 Page 27 obligations under this Agreement, the prevailing Party shall be awarded reasonable attorneys' fees, together with any costs and expenses (including expert witness and referee costs), to resolve the dispute and to enforce the final judgment. 12.6. Third-party Challenge. The Parties shall cooperate with each other in all reasonable manners in order to keep this Agreement in full force and effect. The Parties shall cooperate in defending against any Litigation challenging the approval of this Agreement or any provision therein. 12.6.1. Defense of Litigation. In the event of Litigation brought by a third-party to the approval or implementation of this Agreement, or any aspect thereof, City and Owner shall jointly cooperate in the defense. The Parties may, but are not required to, develop an operating memorandum to further describe the details of their defense of the Litigation. Each Party shall bear its own attorneys' fees and costs in the trial court unless otherwise agreed. In the event the plaintiff or petitioner obtains a final judgment in its favor in the trial court, the Parties shall decide whether to pursue an appeal. If both Parties wish to appeal, then each shall bear its own attorneys' fees and costs on appeal unless otherwise agreed. If one Party wishes to appeal, but the other does not, then the former Party shall be entitled to pursue the appeal at its sole cost and expense, and shall indemnify the other Party against any Cost associated with the appeal. This Agreement shall remain in full force and effect while the third-party Litigation, including any appellate review, is pending. 12.6.2. Compliance with Judgment. No Party shall be in breach of this Agreement if it acts in :conformance with a final judgment from a court of competent jurisdiction entered because of a third-party challenge. 12.6.3. Review of Future Development Approval. If for any reason a court of competent jurisdiction determines by final judgment that City is required to conduct environmental review for any Future Development Approval, the City agrees that the benefits provided through this Agreement as described in the Recitals qualify as extraordinary benefits of the Project, for purposes of any Statement of Overriding .Consideration, should feasible mitigation measures or alternatives not be available to mitigate project related impacts that are deemed significant. 12.7. Indemnification. Except to the extent of the negligence or willful misconduct of an Indemnified Person, Owner shall indemnify, defend with legal counsel of City's reasonable approval, and hold harmless the Indemnified Persons from and against each and every claim, action, proceeding, cost, fee, legal cost, damage, award or liability of any nature arising from alleged damages caused to third parties and alleging that City is liable for such damages as a direct or indirect result of City's approval of this Agreement. Owner's obligation to indemnify is subject to and conditioned upon the Indemnified Person's timely written request to Owner to defend and/or indemnify. Any such request shall be made immediately upon such Person's becoming aware of a claim which could reasonably give rise to Owner's obligations under this Section. ACS Development Agreement 092002 Page 28 12.8. VaLidation. City shall initiate and pursue to final judgment a validation action confirming the validity and legality of this Agreement. Owner shall reimburse City for one-half of City's legal fees and costs in the validation action, not to exceed $10,000.00. To obtain reimbursement, City shall provide statements to Owner in care of Susan L. Walker, Senior Counsel, at her address as described in Section 15.2. 13. ENCUMBRANCES AND LENDERS. 13.1. Ri.qht to Encumber. This Agreement shall not prevent or limit an Owner of any interest in the Property, or any portion thereof, at any time or from time to time in any manner, at its sole discretion, from Encumbering the Property, the improvements thereon, or any portion thereof with a lease, mortgage, deed of trust, sale and leaseback arrangement or other security device. City acknowledges that any Lender may require certain interpretations of or modifications to the Agreement or the Project and City agrees, upon request, from time to time, to meet with the Owner or representatives of such Lenders to negotiate in good faith any such request for interpretation or modification. City further agrees that it will not unreasonably withhold its consent to any such requested interpretation or modification to the extent such interpretation or modification is consistent with the intent and purpose of this Agreement and does not impair the Development and construction of the public improvements identified herein. A default under this Agreement shall not defeat, render invalid, diminish or impair the lien of any Lender. 13.2. Notice of Default to Lender. After providing a written request for notice to City, any Lender shall be entitled to receive a copy of any notice of default to Owner under this Agreement. As a pre-condition to the institution of Litigation or termination proceedings, City shall deliver to Owner and all such Lenders written notification of any default by Owner in the performance of its obligations under this Agreement which is not cured within sixty (60) Days (the "Second Notice of Default") and shall allow the Lender an opportunity to cure such the defaults. The Second Notice of Default shall specify in detail the alleged default and the suggested means to cure it. After receipt of the Second Notice of Default, each Lender shall have the right, at its sole option, within ninety (90) Days to cure the default or, if the default cannot reasonably be cured within that ninety (90) Day period, to commence to cure the default, in which case no default shall exist and City shall take no further action. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if the default can only be remedied by the Lender obtaining possession of the Property or any portion thereof, and the Lender seeks to obtain possession, the Lender shall have until ninety (90) Days after obtaining possession to cure or, if the default cannot reasonably be cured within that period, to commence to cure the default. A Lender shall not be required to cure any non-curable default of Owner, and any such default shall be deemed cured if any Lender obtains possession. ACS Development Agreement 092002 Page 29 14. WAIVERS AND DELAYS. 14.1. No Waiver. No waiver of a breach, failure of any condition, or any right or remedy contained in or granted by the provisions of this Agreement shall be effective unless it is in writing and signed by the Party waiving the breach, failure, right or remedy. No waiver of any breach, failure, right or remedy shall be deemed a waiver of any other breach, failure, right or remedy, whether or not similar, nor shall any waiver constitute a continuing waiver unless the writing so specifies. 14.2. Extension by A.qreement. The time for performance of any obligation under this Agreement may be extended by the mutual agreement of the Parties. The City Manager and any officer of Owner are authorized to execute any such agreement on behalf of their respective Parties. 14.3. Fome Majeure. A Party shall not be deemed to be in default where failure or delay in performance of any of its obligations under this Agreement is caused by floods, earthquakes, other acts of God, fires, wars, riots or similar hostilities, strikes and other labor difficulties beyond the Party's control, and (as to Owner) Laws (including voter initiative or referenda, moratoria, and judicial decisions) occurring within or affecting Development within the City of Temecula. 14.4. Extensions. The Term of this Agreement and the time for performance by a Party of any of its obligations hereunder shall be extended by the period of time that any of the events described in Section 14.3 exist or prevent performance of such obligations. In addition, the Term shall be extended for delays arising from the following events for a time equal to the duration of each delay which occurs during the Term: 14.4.1. Liti.qation. The period of time after the Agreement Date during which Litigation is pending that relates to this Agreement or to the Development contemplated thereby. This period shall include any time during which appeals may be filed or are pending. 14.4.2. Other Delays. Any delay resulting from an act or omission of City in breach of this Agreement; or the failure of any other governmental agency or public utility to act when the failure to act is beyond Owner's control. 14.5. Notice of Delay. A Party shall give notice to the other Party of any delay that it believes to have occurred because of an event described in Sections 14.3 and 14.4. To be effective, a notice of delay shall be given within thirty (30) Days after the end of the delay. No notice shall be allowed during the thirty (30) day period before the end of the Term. 15. NOTICES. 15.1. Manner of Givin,q Notice. All notices required or provided for under this Agreement shall be in writing and delivered in person, or sent by first-class mail, certified mail (return receipt requested), or overnight delivery. ACS Development Agreement 092002 Page 30 15.2. Address for Notices. Notices to City shall be addressed as follows: City of Temecula 43200 Business Park Drive Post Office Box 9033 Temecula, California 92589-9033 Attn.: City Manager With a copy to: Richards, Watson & Gershon 333 South Hope Street, 40th Floor Los Angeles, California 90071-1469 Attn.: Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney Notices to Owner shall be addressed as follows: Advanced Cardiovascular Systems, Inc. 26531 Ynez Road Temecula, Ca. 92591-4628 Attention: Vice President Customer Service and Site Operations With a copy to: Susan L. Walker, Esq. Senior Counsel Advanced Cardiovascular Systems, Inc. 3200 Lakeside Drive Mail Stop No. S-314 Santa Clara, Ca. 94054 And with a copy to: Michael R. Woods, Esq. 465 1st Street West, Suite 200 Sonoma, Ca. 95476-6600 15.3. Effective Date of Notices. When personally delivered to the recipient, notice is effective on delivery. When mailed first class, postage prepaid, to the last address of the recipient known to the Party giving notice, notice is effective three mail delivery days after deposit in a United States Postal Service office or mailbox. When mailed certified mail, return receipt requested, notice is effective on receipt, if delivery is confirmed by a return receipt. When delivered by overnight delivery service, charges ACS Development Agreement 092002 Page 31 prepaid or charged to the sender's account, notice is effective on delivery, if delivery is confirmed by the delivery service. 15.4. Undeliverable Notice. A correctly addressed notice that is refused, unclaimed, or undeliverable because of an act or omission of the Party to be notified shall be deemed effective as of the first date that such notice was refused, unclaimed or deemed undeliverable by the postal authorities, messenger or overnight delivery service. 15.5. Change of Address. A Party may change its address for notices by giving notice in writing to the other Party as required herein. Thereafter, notices shall be sent to the new address. 16. GENERAL PROVISIONS. 16.1. Opinions of Counsel. Within twenty (20) Days after this Agreement has become legally effective, counsel for City shall provide to Owner a legal opinion substantially in the form attached as Exhibit "K." VVithin twenty (20) Days after this Agreement has become legally effective, counsel for Owner shall provide to City a legal opinion substantially in the form attached as Exhibit "L." 16.2. Bindinq Covenants. To the extent permitted by law, the provisions of this Agreement shall constitute covenants that shall run with the Property for the benefit thereof, and the benefits and burdens of this Agreement shall bind and inure to the benefit of the Parties and their respective successors in interest. 16.3. Relationship of the Parties. Development of the Property is a private project in which neither City nor Owner will be acting as the agent of the other in any respect. City and Owner are independent entities with respect to the terms and conditions .of this Agreement. Nothing.in this Agreement shall be deemed to create a partnership between or among the Parties, nor shall it cause them to be considered joint venturers or members of any joint enterprise. 16.4. Recording. The City Clerk shall record this Agreement and any amendment or cancellation thereof in the Official Records of Riverside County as required by Government Code Section 65868.5. Recordation shall be without fee as provided by Government Code Section 27383. 16.5. Severability. If any term, covenant, condition or provision of this Agreement, or the application thereof to any circumstance, shall at any time or to any extent, be determined by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid or unenforceable, then the remainder of this Agreement, or the application thereof to circumstances other than those as to which it is held invalid or unenforceable, shall be valid and enforceable, to the fullest extent permitted by law, and interpreted in the manner most consistent with effectuating the Parties' intent by the party benefited. 16.6. Interpretation and Governing Law. The language in all parts of this Agreement shall, in all cases, be construed as a whole and in accordance with its fair ACS Development Agreement 092002 Page 32 meaning. This Agreement and any dispute arising hereunder shall be governed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of California, without giving effect to any choice of law rules thereof which may direct the application of the laws of another jurisdiction. The Parties understand and agree that this Agreement is not intended to constitute, nor shall be construed to constitute, an impermissible attempt to contract away the legislative and governmental functions of City, and in particular, City's police powers. 16.7. Section Headings. All section headings and subheadings are inserted for convenience only and shall not affect any construction or interpretation of any provision of this Agreement nor affect any of the rights or obligations of the Parties. 16.8. Word Usaqe. Unless the context clearly requires otherwise, (i) the plural and singular numbers shall each be deemed to include the other; (ii) the masculine, feminine and neuter genders shall each be deemed to include the others; (iii) "shall," "will" or "agrees" are mandatory, and "may" is permissive; (iv) "or" is not exclusive; and (v) "include," "includes" and "including" are not limiting. 16.9. No Joint and Several Liability. At any time that there is more than one Owner, no breach hereof by an Owner shall constitute a breach by any other Owner. Any remedy, obligation, or liability, arising due to such breach shall be applicable solely to the Owner that committed the breach. However, City shall send a copy of any notice of default to all Owners, including those not in breach. 16.10. Time of Essence. Time is of the essence regarding each provision of this Agreement of which time is an element. 16,11. Countinq Days. Days shall be counted by excluding the first day and including the last day, unless the last day is a Saturday, a Sunday or a legal holiday, and then it shall be excluded. Any act required by this.Agreement to be performed by a certain day shall be timely performed if completed before 5:00 p.m. local time on that date. If the day for performance of any obligation under this Agreement is a Saturday, a Sunday or a legal holiday, then the time for performance of that obligation shall be extended to 5:00 p.m. local time on the first following day that is not a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday. As used in this Section, "legal holiday" means those days observed as holidays by the City of Temecula (excluding floating and half-day holidays) pursuant to Temecula Municipal Code Section 2.32.010 as of July 1, 2002, which holidays are listed in Exhibit "M." 16.12. Recitals. Each recital set forth at the beginning of this Agreement is incorporated here by reference, as though fully set forth herein, and agreed by the Parties to be true and correct. 16.13. Exhibits. Each exhibit attached to this Agreement is incorporated here by reference, as though fully set forth herein. 16.14. Entire Aqreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the Parties with respect to the subject matter hereof. This Agreement ACS Development Agreement 092002 Page 33 supersedes all previous negotiations, discussion and agreements between the Parties, and no parole evidence of any prior or other agreement shall be permitted to contradict or vary the terms hereof. No Party has been induced to enter into this Agreement by, nor is any Party relying on, any representation or warranty outside those expressly set forth in this Agreement. 16.15. Survival of Obligations. It is understood and agreed by the Parties that whether or not it is specifically so provided herein any term or provision of this Agreement, which by its nature and effect is required to be kept, observed, or performed after termination or expiration of this Agreement, shall survive such expiration or termination, and shall be and remain binding upon and for the benefit of the Parties until fully observed, kept or performed. 16.16. Third Party Beneficiaries. Except as expressly provided in this Section 16.16, this Agreement is not intended, nor shall it be construed, to create any third party beneficiary rights in any person. All provisions hereof are for the exclusive benefit of City and Owner. No provision hereof shall be construed to benefit or be enforceable by any third party. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the owners of properties with frontage on Motor Car Parkway shall be express third party beneficiaries of City's obligations as set forth in Exhibits "H," "H-1 ," "H-2" and "H-3," with the right to enforce performance of such obligations. 16~17. Ambiquities. Each Party and its counsel have participated fully in the review and revision of this Agreement. Any rule of construction to the effect that ambiguities are to be resolved against the drafting Party shall not apply in interpreting this Agreement. 16.18. Counterparts; Duplicate Oriqinals. This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall be an original, but all of which together shall constitute one instrument. This Agreement may also be executed in duplicate originals for both Parties, and each such document shall constitute an original Agreement. 16.19. Necessary Acts. The Parties shall at their own cost and expense execute and deliver such further documents and instruments and shall take such other actions as may be reasonably required or appropriate to evidenc, e or carry out the intent and purposes of this Agreement. II II II II ACS Development Agreement 092002 Page 34 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have executed this Agreement on the day and year dated below. Dated: ADVANCED CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS, INC., a California corporation By: Name: John M. Capek, Ph.D. Title: President By: Name: Mark A. Murray Title: Vice President, Finance And Business Development Dated: CITY OF TEMECULA, a California municipal corporation By: Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney ACS Development Agreement 092002 Page 35 Development Agreement Index to Exhibits Exhibit A A-1 B Title Legal Description (7 acre +/- portion) Legal Description (20 acre +/- portion) Rules, Regulations and Policies Affecting Development C Project Design Guidelines D Setback Plane Illustration 1 D-1 Setback Plane Illustration 2 D-2 Setback Plane Definitions and Restrictions E Approved Access Points F Off-site Public Improvements F-1 Margarita Road/Solana Way Striping Plan Page I G On-site Public Improvements H Motor Car Parkway Engineering Standards H-1 to H-3 Motor Car Parkway - Upgrades to Public Street Standards Development Processing Fees Development Impact Fees K City's Legal Opinion L Owner's Legal Opinion M Legal Holidays Page 2 Exhibit "A" LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF APPROXIMATE 7 ACRE PORTION OF THE PROPERTY PARCELS I AND 2 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 23354, AS SHOWN BY MAP ON FILE IN BOOK 152 PAGES 74 TO 76, INCLUSIVE, OF PARCEL MAPS, RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, AND AS AMENDED BY CERTIFICATE OF CORRECTION RECORDED DECEMBER 20, 1988 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 373108 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA; EXCEPT ALL MINERAL, OIL AND GAS RIGHTS BELOW THE DEPTH OF 500 FEET BELOW THE SURFACE OF SAID LAND WITHOUT THE RIGHT OF SURFACE ENTRY, AS RESERVED TO KAISER DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION BY DEEDS RECORDED DECEMBER 16, 1987 AS INSTRUMENT NOS. 354622 AND 354624 BOTH OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. Exhibit "A-I" LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF APPROXIMATE 20 ACRE PORTION OF THE PROPERTY LOT 9 OF TRACT NO. 3334, AS SHOWN BY MAP ON FILE IN BOOK 54, PAGES 25 TO 30, INCLUSIVE, OF MAPS, RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA EXCEPT THAT PORTION DESCRIBED ON EXHIBIT C OF FINAL DECREE OF CONDEMNATION RECORDED FEBRUARY 17, 2000 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 2000-059678, OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. Exhibit "B" RULES, REGULATIONS AND POLICIES AFFECTING DEVELOPMENT The City's rules, regulations and policies affecting development, as defined in Section 1.41, shall include the following: 1. The City's General Plan, as defined in Section 1.24. 2. The City's Development Code, as defined in Section 1.11. 3. City Ordinances that govern the Development of real property, in effect on the Agreement Date. 4. The City's written submittal requirements that govern the processing of Development applications, in effect on the Agreement Date. 5. The Tentative Parcel Map and conditions of approval, as defined in Section 1.42. 6. Future Development Approvals, as defined in Section 1.23. 7. The Project Design Guidelines, as set forth in Exhibit "C.' The City Clerk has certified as true and correct copies, two complete sets of the documents described in items one through seven, above. Each Party acknowledges receipt of one set of the referenced documents. Exhibit B City Rules 082802 Exhibit "C" PROJECT DESIGN GUIDELINES SECTIONS: 1 2 3 4 5 6 Purpose and Intent Relationship to Development Code and Citywide Design Guidelines Architectural Design Concept Supplemental Design Standards Architectural and Landscape Palette Addendum Minor Modification of the Project Design Guidelines Section 1. Purpose and Intent. The purpose of these Project Design Guidelines ("Project Design Guidelines" or "Guidelines") is to provide additional details concerning the design of the Project, including pre-approved colors, materials and landscaping palettes. The Guidelines are intended to provide supplemental design information on the buildings to be constructed as part of the Project. The overall scale of the Project is determined in the Development Agreement between the City of Temecula and Advanced Cardiovascular Systems, Inc. ("Agreement"). These Project Design Guidelines are attached as an exhibit to the Agreement. Capitalized terms in these Guidelines shall have the same meaning as defined in Section 1 of the Agreement. Section 2. Relationship to Development Code and C tywide Design Guidelines. These Project Design Guidelines supplement the general development standards and criteria in the Development Code and Citywide Design Guidelines. When there is disagreement between the Guidelines and the Citywide Design Guidelines, the Project Design Guidelines shall control. If there is disagreement between the Agreement and the Project Design Guidelines or the Citywide Design Guidelines, the Agreement shall control. The following development standards in effect on the Agreement Date shall apply to the Project, except as otherwise provided in the Agreement and these Guidelines: a) The development and performance standards applicable to the Business Park Zone set forth in Chapters 17.08 and 17.24 of the Development Code; b) The landscape requirements and standards applicable to office Development set forth in Chapters 17.08, 17.24, and 17.32 of the Development Code; c) Chapters 6 and 8 of the Citywide Design Guidelines; and EXHIBIT "C" Exhibit C Design Guidelines 090902 Page I d) The City's Mount Palomar Lighting Ordinance. Section 3. Architectural Design Concept. The Project is not intended to replicate or overshadow any portion of the City, but rather to complement the City and adjacent properties and to help accomplish the Project's objective of creating a "corporate campus." The Owner's objective is that the Project should be an asset to the City and region, as well as to the Owner. Scale, mass and orientation should be visually interesting and appealing from the perspective of neighboring inhabitants (both commercial and residential) and passers-by, while simultaneously being efficient and sensitive to the Owner's needs. Structures and amenities should be sensitive and responsive to the local climate. Colors, material and texture are to be varied and consistent with the surrounding region and evocative of its culture. The Project should link the Property to the Existing Facilities as needed to facilitate any shared uses and activities. Section 4. Supplemental Desiqn Standards. a) The following architectural and site design concepts shall be considered in the design of the Project: 1) Design should be complementary or consistent with desirable characteristics of the surrounding area in a way that contributes to the establishment of a positive character for the area. 2) While the principal buildings may be predominantly rectangular they shall be designed in such a manner to avoid the appearance of a box-like design and avoid excessive mass and bulk. 3) Roof top equipment and machinery (exclusive of communications antennas) will be screened from public view by parapet walls or other integrated architectural features. 4) The building design will incorporate varying architectuial elements, such as materials, textures, colors, window sizes and fagade composition, in order to create interest and a variety of scale. 5) Main building entrances will incorporate additional features to emphasize their location. A variety of complementary colors should be used, not just one color. The base color and materials for principal office buildings in close proximity to one another should be complementary. For example, the color and materials utilized for the Existing Facilities are consistent with these Guidelines. EXHIBIT "C" Page 2 Exhibit C Design Guidelines 090902 7) Parking structures will be designed in a manner to complement the principal office buildings. Additional architectural design elements will be applied to highly visible surfaces. 8) Water features are encouraged to enhance outdoor spaces and create pleasant summer micro-climates. 9) Project signage shall be approved through the submittal of a Sign Program approved by the City's Director of Planning. b) The following landscape design concepts shall be considered in the design of Project landscaping: 1) Recognize and reflect existing landscape and streetscape qualities evidenced by established planting patterns along Solana Way and Margarita Road. 2) Continue and extend landscape qualities from the Existing Facilities, including careful attention to pedestrian amenities such as shaded and safe walkways, courtyards, open spaces and gardens. 3) Incorporate xeriscape and water conserving practices in the selection and use o[ plant materials and irrigation systems. 4) Incorporate native and drought tolerant vegetation to the maximum extent practical. Section 5. Architectural and Landscaping Palette Addendum. The architectural and landscape palettes for the Project are located in the Addendum to the Project Design Guidelines, further captioned, "Project Design Guidelines and Approved Architectural and Landscape Palettes" (the "Addendum"). The Addendum includes various colored exhibits. Copies of the Addendum shall be maintained by the City Clerk's Office and the City Planning Department. a) Part One of the Addendum sets forth the approved architectural palette for the Project. The Development may use any of the materials and colors in Part One of the Addendum; provided, however, that the darkest shade of sienna (page 5 of the Addendum) shall not be the predominant color of any building, but instead used only as an accent color, except as otherwise approved by the Planning Director. The architectural palette is intended to facilitate modern structures that reflect their place in time, aesthetically, environmentally and technologically. The palette complements its location, and is cognizant of and sensitive to the immediate neighbors and the City at large. The architectural palette includes the list of approved exterior treatments, including glass, metal, plaster, concrete and stone. The palette also includes color boards and photographs that show examples of color combinations and exterior treatments. Photographs of EXHIBIT "C" Page 3 Exhibit C Design Guidelines 090902 particular structures are intended for illustrative purposes only, to show how other projects have made use of the approved colors and materials. b) Part Two of the Addendum sets forth the approved landscape palette for the Project. The Development may use any of plant materials identified for the characteristic landscape zones for the Project. This palette describes nine characteristic landscape zones, and identifies suitable plant materials for use in each zone. c) The architectural and landscape palette Addendum includes a site plan concept, to provide an example of a possible configuration of structures and landscape zones on the Property. While this configuration is consistent with the Agreement and the Project Design Guidelines, other configurations can also satisfy these requirements. Nothing in the Design Guidelines is intended to require that the Owner construct the exact project or utilize the configuration shown on the conceptual site plan. An application for Development Plan approval shall set forth the Owner's intended configuration of structures described in the application, and the use of approved materials, colors, landscape zones and plant materials. Section 6. Minor Modifications to the Proiect Desiqn Guidelines. The Planning Director is authorized to approve minor modifications to the architectural and landscape palettes set forth, in the Addendum. All minor modifications shall be made in writing, and set forth in an operating memorandum as described in Section 6.2. A copy of the approved minor modifications shall be maintained by the City Clerk and Planning Department. The Planning Director shall have the discretion to determine whether a particular modification is minor and may be processed administratively, or whether the modification requires consideration by the Planning Commission. No public hearing shall be required for the Planning Commission to consider any proposed modifications. The Planning Commission's decision shall be subject to appeal to the City Council. EXHIBIT "C" Page 4 Exhibit C Design Guidelines 090902 ~etback area m .? ? EXHIBIT "D-I": Setback Plane Illustration 2 Exhibit "D-2" SETBACK PLANE DEFINITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS Section 1. Definitions. As used in Section 2.3.4 and Exhibits D and D-l, the following terms shall have the stated meanings. (a) "Solana Property Line" marks the southernmost extent of the Property at Solana Way, extending from the Margarita Property Line to the point where Owner's western property line meets Solana Way. (b) "Margarita Property Line" marks the easternmost extent of the Property at Margarita Road, extending from the Solana Property Line to the point where Owner's northern property line meets Margarita Road. (c) "Midpoints": There are four midpoints. (1) Midpoint"A" is the point on the Margarita Property Line that is equidistant between Owner's northern property line and the middle of Street "B" as shown on the Tentative Parcel Map. (2) Midpoint "B" is the point on the Margarita Property Line that is equidistant between the middle of Street "B" and the Solana Property Line. (3) Midpoint "C" is the point on the Solana Way Property Line that is equidistant between the Margarita Property Line and the middle of the access from the Property to Solana Way as shown on the Tentative Parcel Map. (4) Midpoint "D" is the point on the Solana Property Line that is equidistant between the middle of the access from the Property to Solana Way as shown on the Tentative Parcel Map, and Owner's western property line where it meets Solana Way. (d) "Fifty Foot Points": There are four Fifty Foot Points, corresponding with each of the four Midpoints. Each Fifty Foot Point is established by extending a horizontal line from a Midpoint thirty-five (35) feet into the Property, and then going up vertically by fifty (50) feet. (e) "Setback Area" extends thirty-five (35) feet from the Margarita Property Line and the Solana Property Line, into the Property. No buildings shall be constructed above finished grade within the Setback Area. Underground structures are permissible within the Setback Area. Owner shall landscape the Setback Area consistent with an approved Development Plan. (f) "Setback Planes": There are four Setback Planes, corresponding with each of the four Midpoints (and the line Exhibit D-2 081502.doc segment from which each was created), and each of the four Fifty Foot Points. Each Setback Plane is established by extending a line from the Midpoint at an angle to intersect with its corresponding Fifty Foot Point. Each Setback Plane continues at that angle (up and westerly from Margarita Road; up and northerly from Solana Way). (See Exhibits "D" and D- 1 .") Each Setback Plane may be referred to by the letter of its corresponding midpoint; e.g., Setback Plane "A" is the plane that relates to Midpoint "A." Section 2. Setback Plane Heiqht Restriction. Notwithstanding the eighty (80) foot height limitation generally applicable to the Property, no structure shall be higher than a respective Setback Plane. Examples: (i) A building located west of Margarita Road and between Street "B" and Owner's northern property line shall not be higher than the level of Setback Plane "A." (ii) A building located west of Margarita Road and between Street "B" and Solana Way shall not be higher than the level of Setback Planes "B" and "C." (iii) A building located west of Margarita Road and north of Solana Way, between Margarita Road and the access from the Property to Solana Way as shown on the Tentative Parcel Map, shall not be higher than the level of Setback Planes "B" and "C." (iv) A building located north of Solana Way and west of the access to Solana Way as shown on the Tentative Parcel Map shall not be higher than the level of Setback Plane "D." Exhibit D-2 081502.doc EXHIBIT "E" APPROVED ACCESS POINTS J GUIDANT CORPORAIlON CAMPUS, Temecula. California -00287:50 Exhibit "F" OFF-SITE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS I. Tentative Parcel Map (TPM) 30107 Conditioned Public Improvements Improve Solana Way (Major Highway Standards - 100' R/W) to include installation of half-width street improvements, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, raised landscaped median. The intent of this condition is that the improvements shall extend along the frontage of the Property, and that the median shall remain open at Motor Car Parkway. The final geometric configuration ofthis median, including other possible openings for existing driveways, shall be as directed by the City Engineer at the time of final design. Improve Margarita Road (Arterial Highway Standards - 110' RAN) to include installation of a deceleration lane to access the private Street "A." Said lane is to be 10 feet wide, 150 feet long, and is to include a transitional distance of 120 feet. Improve Margarita Road (Arterial Highway Standards - 110' RNV) to include median/striping modifications, etc. to provide for a full turning movement driveway (i.e., left turn in from Margarita Road onto private Street "B"). Note: Other property owners within the TPM other than the City and Guidant will be partially responsible for a portion of these improvements required by the TPM. I1. Additional Public Improvements Reserve 12 feet of the Property along its frontage on Margarita Road for future City purchase to allow for an additional 12 foot wide southbound lane, as further described in Section 2.12 of the Agreement. The cost of constructing the additional lane shall be at the City's expense. Improve Margarita Road (Arterial Highway Standard - 110' R/W) to include median/striping modifications to provide for double left turn lanes from southbound Margarita Road to eastbound Solana Way, as shown in Exhibit "F-I.' The improvements shall include modification of the traffic signal and widening of the pavement on Solana Way east of Margarita Road to accept the double left turn traffic. The required widening shall be adequate to provide for two full eastbound lanes east of Margarita Road and a transitional distance, with a combined length of up to Exhibit F Offsites 081902.doc 600'. The City represents that it has sufficient R/W along the south side of Solana Way to accommodate this required widening. Improve Ynez Road at Motor Car Parkway to include installation of a deceleration lane to access Motor Car Parkway. The lane shall be 10 feet wide, 150 feet long, and shall include a transitional distance of 120 feet. The deceleration lane shall be included within existing public R/W through a combination of restriping of the northbound side of Ynez Road, along with modifications to the traffic signal at Motor Car Parkway. Improve Motor Car Parkway to acceptable City standards, as described in Exhibit "H." Improve and reconstruct the median in Margarita Road south of private Street "B" to accommodate a single northbound left turn into Street "B." Signalize the intersection of Margarita Road at Street "B" as a full function, four-way intersection. All improvements shall include installation of paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, and raised landscaped median as reasonably determined by the City Engineer. Engineering specifications set forth in this Agreement shall be subject to modification by agreement of the City Engineer and Owner as set forth in an operating memorandum as described in Section 6.2. III. Pedestrian Bridge Construct the pedestrian bridge across Ynez Road in the vicinity of Motor Car Parkway that will connect the Existing Facilities with the Project as described in Section 2.13. Exhibit F Offsites 081902.doc Exhibit "F-1" MARGARITA ROAD/ SOLANA WAY STRIPING PLAN Exhibit "G" ON-SITE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS 1. Traffic signal easement to support loop detectors on the westerly leg of the Margarita Road/Street "B" intersection. Note: On-site public improvements which may be required by public agencies other than City are not referenced here. Exhibit G On-Sites 081602.doc Exhibit "H" MOTOR CAR PARKWAY ENGINEERING STANDARDS Improvements to Motor Car Parkway shall be subject to and include the following: Removal and replacement of broken or heaved concrete within the public right of way; Removal and replacement of all brick pavers, asphalt pavement and base materials with the replacement asphalt pavement structural section to be designed to support a Traffic Index of 7.0; Extend the storm drain system to the curbline to remove the cross gutter and median curb inlets in the street; o Place sidewalk on both sides of the street, wherever sidewalk does not exist as of the Agreement Date; Replace substandard driveway approaches with commercial driveways with handicap access, or as an alternative, at Owner's election, seek and obtain an encroachment permit from City to allow individual property owners to continue to maintain non-standard driveways within the public right of way. Driveways may only remain under circumstances where the existing sidewalk meets or can be modified to meet ADA standards. Approval of a requested encroachment permit shall not be unreasonably withheld by City; Retain the landscaped median islands and modify as described in Exhibits H-l, H-2 and H-3. Modify the street light system to meet standards as described in Exhibits H-l, H-2 and H-3. Perform other improvements as necessary to meet the requirements described in Exhibits H-l, H-2 and H-3. A new City standard street dedication, 84' wide, shall be part of the grant of dedication to City as shown on Exhibits H-l, H-2 and H-3. The existing private street easement for Motor Car Parkway may be quitclaimed by the property owners. 10. The dedication of right of way for the street will create circumstances where existing buildings are within setback areas typically required by Exhibit H Motor Car Parkway 092602 City. City would not ordinarily allow structures or parking within such areas. City agrees that no existing structure, on-site parking or use shall be considered nonconforming as a result of the dedication of the street to City, and that all such structures, parking and uses shall be considered conforming as to setback requirements. City may require any new buildings, on-site parking or use to comply with its applicable setback requirements. 11. Owner shall submit a set of improvement plans to City for its review and reasonable approval, showing existing conditions and proposed modifications, consistent with Exhibits H through H-3. Exhibit H Motor Car Parkway 092602 EXHIBIT 'H-1 ' MOTOR CAR PARKWAY - UPGRADES TO PUBLIC STREET STANDARDS (REFER TO EXHIBIT H-3 FOR DESCRIPTIONS OF THESE IMPROVEMENTS) MOTOR CAR PARKWAY AL TERNA TE I LOCATION OF TRANSPORTER DROP-OFF. SEE DETAIL 'A' AT LEFT YW CONC SIDEWALK DETAIL ~ SCALE I"= 80' 1 LOCATION O? RANS~OR TrR ~RO~-OEF La~i~zde 33 ~ Pl~.r~.~zg arid Engi~zee~ng 4933 Paramount Dr. 2nd Fir. DATE:9-4-02 JOB: 570.0 LEGEND ALTERNATE 2 LOCATION OF TRAMS- PORTER DROP-OFF. SEE DETAIL 'B' ON EXHBIT.H-2 MA TCHLINE · EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS/ACCESS EASEMENT LINE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS/PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY Lh*iE INDICATES REFERENCE TO SPECIFIC TYPES OF UPGRADES OR IMPROVEMENTS - SEE EXHIBIT FOR SPECIFICS 570-ex exk'b:c~w~ 9-18-0_p 3:56:38 Do EST EXHIBIT 'H-2' MOTOR CAR PARKWAY - UPGRADES TO PUBLIC STREET STANDARDS (REFER TO EXHIBIT H-3 FOR DESCRIPTIONS .OF THESE IMPROVEMENTS) MA TCHLINE ALTERNATE 2 LOCATION OF TRANSPORTER DROP-OFF. SEE DETAIL 'B' BELOW RIGHT 145 YELLOW 2-WAY LEFT TURN MEDIAN A.C. PAVING EXIST. MEDIAN CURB AND LANDSCAPING ] SOLANA WAY j 4933 ParamounL Dr. 2nd Fir. I San Diego, Ca, 92123 ITel 858-751-0633 Fax 858-751-0634 I DATE:9-04-02 JOB: 570.0 INLETS STREET LIGHT MEDIAN CURB DE~AIL 'S' ~ ALTERNATE 2 LOCArlON OF TRANSPORTER DROP-OFF (SEE EXHIBIT H-1 FOR PLAN L O CA TI ON) NO SCALE EXHIBIT 'H_- 3 ' MOTOR CAR PARKWAY - UPGRADES TO PUBMC STREET STANDARDS (REFER ALSO TO EXHIBIT H-1 ar H-£ FOR PLAN LOCATIONS OF THESE IMPROVEMENTS) I. APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF EXISTING PRIVATE ACCESS EASEMENE ALL PRIVATE ACCESS EASEMENTS CAN BE OUITCLAIMED BY OWNERS UPON ACCEPTANCE OF RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATION BY ClT)~ Z PROPOSED PUBLIC STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY TO THE CITY OF TEMECULA DEOICATED BY THE ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS. J. PROPOSED SIDEWALK EASEMENT TO BE GRANTED TO THE CITY OF TEMECULA BY THE ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS TO ENCOMPASS EXISTING MEANDERING SIDEWALK. 4. EXIS17NG CURB AND SlDEWAL'K TO GENERALLY REMAIN UNLESS OTHERWISE SHOWN ON PLAN. ALL BROKEN OR HEAVED ELEMENTS OF CURB, SIDEWALK, & CROSS GUTTERS TO BE REMOVED & REPLACED. 5. EXISTING A.C. DRIVEWAY TO BE REMOVED-DRIVEWAY IS TOO'STEEP TO MEET A.D.A. CROSSING STANOARDS AND IS CURRENTLY FENCED OFF FROM USE BY PROPERTY OWNER. REPLACE WITH NEW CURB, GUTTER, AND CONTIGUOUS SIDEWALK AND LANDSCAPING TO MATCH EXISTING. . 6. EXISTING A.C. PAVING AND BRICK PAVERS TO BE ENTIRELY REMOVED BETTER LIMITS OF CURBS/CROSS GUTTERS/~EDIAN CURBS AND REPLACED WITH CITY STANDARD ASPHALTIC CONCRETE OVER AGGREGATE BASE, STRUCTURAL SECTION TO MEET A TRAFFIC INDEX OF 7.0. 7. RECONSTRUCT EXISTING MEDIAN CURB INLETS AS STORM DRAIN CLEANOUT MANHOLES. B. RAISE ELEVATION OF MEDIAN CURB IN THIS AREA TO GENERATE I I/2% CROWIV TO OUTER CURBS AND TO NEW CURB INLETS. 9. INSTALL NEW CURB INLETS TO CITY STANOAROS A T LOW POINT IN STREET. INSTALL STORM DRAIN CONNECTORS AS REQUIRED. I0. EXISTING STREET LIGHTS IN MEDIANS ALONG NORTH-SOUTH PORTION OF MOTOR CAR PARKWAY SHALL BE REPLACED WITH DUAL OPPOSING LUMINARIES EQUIVALENT TO CITY STANDARD STREET LIGHTS MOUNTED ON THE EXISTING POLES FOR USE IN THE MEDIAN. IF EXISTING POLES, OR POLES AND FOUNDATIONS, CANNOT BE REUSED FOR RETROFITTING NEW LUMINAIRES, THEN THEY SHALL BE REPLACED WITH EQUIVALENT CITY STANDARD POLES,' OR POLES ANO FOUNDATIONS. EXISTING CONDUIT RUNS MAY BE PRESERVED. NOTE THAT LOCATIONS OF EXISTING STREET LIGHTS ARE APPROXIMATE BUT THE ACTUAL LOCATION AND NUMBER OF LIGHTS MAY NOT BE CORRECTLY OEPICTED.IN EXHIBIT H-I. lh EXISTING STREET LIGHTS IN MEDIANS ALONG THE EAST-WEST PORTION OF MOTOR CAR PARKWAY SHALL BE REPLACED AS PER NOTE 10 ABOVE. IF THE MEDIANS IN THIS SEGMENT OF ROAD ARE REMOVED, AT GUIDANT'B ELECTION, TO ACCOMMODATE NEW STREET STRIPING. HOOVER. THEN THE LIGHTS SHALL BE REPLACED WITH STANDARD CITY STREET LIGHTS LOCATED IN THE PARKWAY. 12. MEDIANS IN THE NORTH'SOUTH PORTION OF MOTOR CAR PARKWAY MAY REMAIN BUT THE LANDSCAPING 5HALL BE TRIMMED OR REMOVED WHERE NECESSARY TO MAINTAIN ADEQUATE SIGHT DISTANCE SAFETY STANDARDS. THE TURF LANDSCAPING (GRASS) IN THE MEDIANS SHALL BE REMOVED AND REPLACED WITH A LOWER MAINTENANCE, LOWER WATER DEMAND MATERIAL. 13. MEDIANS IN THE EAST-I~CZST PORTION OF MOTOR CAR PARKI~AY MAY ALSO REMAIN IN PLACE SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS IDENTIFIED IN ITEM 12 ABOVE; OR. A5 AN ALTERNATIVE, AT GUIDANT'S ELECTION, MAY BE REMOVED AND REPLACED WITH ASPHALT PAVING AS DESCRIBED IN NOTE 6 ABOVE IN THE EVENT THIS AREA IS REQUIRED FOR LANE STRIPING.. 14.'SEE NOTE 4 REGARDING REQUIREMENT TO REPLACE ALL BROKEN OR HEAVEO CONCRETE, MAINTENANCE OF TURF IN THE PARKWAYS (STRIP OF LAND BETWEEN CUR8 AND RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE) IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE P.O.A. OR ADJACENT OWNERS AND MAY REMAIN. 15. THESE DRIVEWAYS 5HALL BE REPLACED WITH A CITY OF TEMECULA STANDARD CONCRETE COMMERCIAL DRIVEWAY WITH STANDARD FLARES (CURRENTLY THE DRIVES ARE "RADIUSED RETURN" DRIVES WI~H ASPHALT OR BRICK PAVING). AB AN ALTERNATIVE. DRIVE MAY BE LEFT IN PLACE AND AN ENCROACHMENT PERMIT OBTAINED BY THE ADJACENT OWNER ALLOttING THE EXISTING NON-STANDARD DmVEWAY TO REMAIN. ~6. THESE DRIVEWAYS SHALL BE RECONSTRUCTED TO FLARED. CONCRETE PAVED STANDARD COMMERCIAL DRIVEWAX THE V~RTICAL RAMP IN THE APRON SHALL BE DESIGNED TO RETAIN ALL STREET GUTTER FLOW WITHIN THE STREET AND PREVENT STREET DRAINAGE FROM ENTERING THE PRIVATE PROPERT~ ~ _ IZ THE OWNERS OF THE FRONTING PROPERTY ALONG MOTOR CAR PARKWAY MAY ELECT TO ADD A TRANSPORTER IRU~K DROP OFF AREA, SAID DROP-OFF SHALL BE DESIGNED TO THE APPROXIMATE DIMENSIONS AS SHO~N ON DETAIL 'A' ON EXHIBIT 'H=I' OR EXHIBIT 'B' ON EXHIBIT H-Z THE PURPOSE OF THE DROP-OFF SHALL BE FOR THE TEMPORARY PARKING OF AUTO-TRANSPORTER TRUCKS IN ORDER TO FACILITATE UNLOADING OF VEHICLES WITHOUT DISRUPTION [0 TRAFFIC OR EMERGENCY VEHICLES. TWO POSSIBLE LOCATIONS OF THIS DROP-OFF ~4RE IDENTIFIED ON EXHIBITS H-I & H-2; HOWEVER. THE FINAL LOCATION AND DIMENSION5 OF SAID DROP-OFF IS SUBJECT TO REFINEMENT DY THE PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION AND APPROVAL BY THE CITY ENGINEER OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA. THE CRITERIA FOR THE SELECTION OF THE FINAL DROP-OFF LOCATION AND ITS GEOMETRY SHALL BE THE SUBJECT OF AN EVALUATION FOR TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSIONED BY GUtOAN~ LabOr. de 33 PI~,~g ar~d Er~gi~eering 4933 Paramount Dr. 2nd Fir. 18. EXISTING 24" DIAMETER PUBLIC STORM DRAIN PER COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE DWG NO. 847-EE WITHIN STORM DRAIN EASEMENTS GRANTED PER PARCEL MAP NO. 2J354 (TWO LOCATIONS). STORM DRAINS TO REMAIN PUBLIC AND TO BE MAINTAINED BY THE CITY OF TEMECULA. DATE:9-04-02 JOB: 570.0 Exhibit "I" DEVELOPMENT PROCESSING FEES Anticipated Fee Worksheet and Fee Amounts This preliminary fee worksheet is a guide to potential fees that may be assessed for the Guidant Expansion Project and is based upon information provided by the applicant. (The applicant is ultimately responsible for verifying the accuracy of the fee amounts.) In some cases, until detailed project plans have been submitted, the amounts for many of the expected fees cannot be determined. Project Location: Project Square Footage/Acreage: Project Description: Application Type: East of Ynez Road, north of Solana Way and West of Margarita Road Approximately 480,000 sq ft on 27.75 acres An office complex for the Guidant Corporation in a campus setting with parking, with accessory facilities such as a fitness center, childcare, and food services. Development Plan Prior to Approval Payable at Application Submittal to the Community Development Department Comprehensive Development Plan for the site and structures (excludes revisions) ........ $ 5,880.00 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Fee * ............................................................ 0.00 Development Review Committee (DFC) Landscape Plan Fee ............................................. 200.00 Traffic Study (if required, the cost would be $780) ............................................................... 0.00 City of Temecula Total Application Filing Fee ......................................................................... $ 6,080.00 UCR Regents Fee (Separate Check) ........................................................................................ 45.00 Department of Environmental Health (Separate Check) ........................................................ 136.00 Total Application Filing Fee ......................................................................................................... $_6_,261.00 After Approval Planning Payable Within Forty-Eight (48) Hours of Project Approval Notice of Determination ** ......................................................................................................... $ 64.00 Payable Prior to Grading Permit Issuance Stephens Kangaroo Rat Mitigation Fees ($500.00/gross acre) *** ............................................... $ 3,500.00 Payable at Building Plan Submittal Consistency Check (for each separate construction phase) .......................................................... $ 370.00 Payable Prior to Building Permit Issuance Landscape Plan Check (assumes 30% site landscaping) ............................................................... $ 2,970.00 Landscape Inspection ..................................................................................................................... $ 225.00 Submit Prior to Certificate of Occupancy Landscape Maintenance Bond (Per DA: Corporate guarantee will be accepted) .......................... $ 0.00 Building and Safety (ASSUMES TYPE H 1-HOUR CONSTRUCTION) Payable at Building Plan Submittal Plan Check ..................................................................................................................................... $67,598.63 Puyable Prior to Building PermH Issuance Permit Fee ..................................................................................................................................... $90,131.50 Strong Motion ............................................................................................................................... $ 9,301.99 Electrical, mechanical, plumbing (based on fixture count) .......................................................... $ 7,500.00 F:\Clients\Guidant\Exhibit I Dev Processing Fees 091802.doc Fire Department Payable at Building Plan Submittal Fire Plan Check (PER BUILDING) .......................................................... $ 582.00 Payable Prior to Building Permit Issuance Fire Plan Check Inspection ............................................................................................................ (included) Fire Sprinkler (PER RISER) ............................................................................................................ $ 582.00 Manual Fire Alarm (PER SYSTEM) ............................................................................................... $ 369.00 Other Fire Suppression Systems (i.e., hood duet, spray booths, etc.) (FEE FOR EACH ONE) ....$ 369.00 Public Works/Engineering Fees for plan check and inspection are estimated based on site and street improvements (flatwork) cost exclusive of building construction. The fee is based on engineer's cost estimate. Contact Public Works Staff for assistance in calculating your Public Works fees. Engineer's construction cost estimate (ESTIMATES ARE FOR PRECISE GRADING ONLY. ROUGH GRADING AND STREET IMPROVEMENTS ARE NOT INCLUDED) Payable Prior to Grading Plan Submittal Plan Check Fees On-site and off-site improvements (curb and gutter, concrete flatwork, storm drain, etc.) 4%oflst $20,000.00 $ ? 3.5% of next $80,000.00 $ ? 3.25% over $100,000.00 $ Grading (0-5,000 cubic yards) $500.00 $ (5,001-100,000 cubic yards) $750.00 $__ (+ $50.00 for each additional I0,000 cubic yards over 100,000 cubic yards) $1,000.00 $__ Payable Prior to Grading Permit Issuance Engineer's cost estimate Inspection Fees On-site and off-site improvements (curb and gutter, concrete flatwork, storm drain, etc.) 4% of 1st $20,000.00 $ 3.5% of next $80,000.00 $ 3.25% over $100,000.00 $ Grading (0-500 cubic yards) $350.00 $__ (501-10,000 cubic yards) $500.00 $ __ (10,001-100,000 cubic yards) $1,000.00 $__ (over 100,000 cubic yards) $1,300.00 + $50.00/10,000 over 100,001 cubic yards $__ Grading Deposit $995.00 $ 7. $ ?. $ ?. Payable Prior to Encroachment Permit Issuance Encroachment Permit (for each permit, $25)) Motor Car Parkway There will also be a fee for plan check and inspection for Motor Car Parkway; the fee is expected to be about 7% of the engineer's construction cost estimate. Contmunity Services District CSD-Maintained Landscape Plan Review F:\Clien~s~Guidant\Exlfibit I Dev Processing Fees 091802.doc Landscape Plan consultation with the City landscape architect (if requested, $125)) Landscape Inspection Fee ($2500 for the first 10 inspections) Street Lighting - Advance Energy Fee (if applicable, ranges between $120 and $300 per light) Landscape Improvements for CSD-maintained areas (e.g. medians) Faithful Performance Bond (if necessary) 100% of construction cost estimate Labor and Materials Bond (if necessary) 50% of construction cost estimate Warranty Bond (if necessary) 10% of construction cost estimate $ ?. $ ?. $ ?. Other Agencies that will ~.ssess fees on the project include: School Fees: Temecula Valley Unified School District Water: Rancho California Water District (RCWD) Sewer: Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD) Riverside County Health Department Riverside County Flood - Area Drainage Plan · Telephone: General Telephone and Electric (GTE) Electric: Southern California Edison (SCE) Footnotes: * No additional CEQA processing fees are anticipated because the environmental analysis and mitigation measures have been previously identified. ** Assumes that a Notice of Determination will be filed to document that a decision was made using a previously prepared environmental document. *** Assumes the SKR Fee has already been paid on the 20 acres at the coruer of Solana Way and Margarita Road; and that the Fee is due only on the seven acre site on Motor Car Parkway, unless receipts can be provided indicating payment of fees in full, then no additional fees will be assessed. F:\Clients\Guidant\Exhibit I Der processing Fees 091802.doc 3 Exhibit "J" DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES 1. City of Temecula Development Impact Fee (DIF), calculated at $0.866 per square foot of gross floor area. Exhibit J DIF 091002.doc Exhibit "K" CITY'S LEGAL OPINION [Date] Advanced Cardiovascular Systems, inc. 26531 Ynez Road Temecula, California 92591-4628 Attention: Vice President Customer Service and Site Operations Re: Deve opment Agreement between the City of Temecula and Advanced Cardiovascular Systems, Inc. Ladies and Gentlemen: I am the City Attorney for the City of Temecula (the "City"), and in such capacity am familiar with the relevant facts and circumstances in connection with the adoption and execution of that certain Ordinance No. of the City (the "Ordinance"), adopted by the City Council of the City (the "City Council"). The Ordinance approves a Development Agreement (the "Agreement") between the City and Advanced Cardiovascular Systems, Inc. ("ACS"), authorizing the Development of approximately 27.757 acres of land in the City. Capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings stated in the Agreement. I have examined and relied upon such records, documents, certificates, and other matters as are in my judgment necessary to enable me to render the opinions expressed herein. In such examination, I assumed the legal capacity of all natural persons and business organizations, the genuineness of all signatures and the authenticity of all documents submitted to me as originals and the conformity to original documents of all documents submitted to me as photostatic or certified copies. I have also assumed the accuracy, completeness and authenticity of all public records made available to me by the City. I have also Exhibit K City Op0fion 091002 Advanced Cardiovascular Systems, Inc. [Date] Page 2 assumed that all writings I have relied on which are dated as of an earlier date are still accurate as of the date of this opinion. Based on the foregoing, and with regard to California law, I am of the opinion that: 1. The City is a municipal corporation duly organized and validly existing under the laws of the State of California; The Ordinance authorizing execution of the Agreement was duly adopted at a meeting of the City Council of the City which was called and held pursuant to law with all public notice required by law and at which a quorum was present and acting throughout, and the Ordinance is in full force and effect and has not been amended, modified, supplemented or rescinded; The adoption of the Ordinance and the execution and delivery of the Agreement and compliance with the provisions of the Agreement under the circumstances contemplated by the Agreement do not and will not conflict with or constitute on the part of the City, a breach of or default under any agreement or other instrument applicable to or binding upon the City or any court order, administrative order, or consent decree to which the City is a party; and Except for the validation action pending to confirm the legality of the Owner Participation Agreement between the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Temecula and ACS (Riverside Superior Court No. RIC 373693), there is no action, suit, proceeding, inquiry or investigation at law or in equity before or by any court, public board or body, pending or, to my knowledge, threatened against the City: (a) to restrain or enjoin · the execution or delivery of the Agreement; (b) in any way 'contesting the existence or powers of the City with respect to the execution and delivery of the Agreement; or (c) which is likely to adversely affect enforceability of, or the authority or the ability of the City to perform its obligations under, the Agreement and the Ordinance. The opinions set forth above are as of the date hereof only, and I assume no obligation to update or supplement this opinion to reflect any facts or circumstances that may hereafter come to my attention or any changes in law that may hereafter occur or become effective. The opinions expressed herein relate solely to, are based solely upon and are limited exclusively to the laws of the state of California. This opinion is furnished in connection with the Agreement and may not be Exhibit K City Opinion 091002 Advanced Cardiovascular Systems, inc. [Date] Page 3 relied upon in connection with any other transaction or by any person other than you. Very truly yours, RICHARDS, WATSON& GERSHON Cc~ By: Peter M. Thorson City Attorney City of Temecula James B. O'Grady, Assistant City Manager Susan L. Walker, Esq. Michael R. Woods, Esq. Exhibit K City Opinion 091002 Exhibit "L" OWNER'S LEGAL OPINION [Date] City of Temecula 43200 Business Park Drive P.O. Box 9033 Temecula, California 92589-9033 Attention: Shawn Nelson City Manager Re: Deve opment Agreement between the City of Temecula and Advanced Cardiovascular Systems, Inc. Ladies and Gentlemen: I am counsel for Advanced Cardiovascular Systems, Inc., a California corporation ("ACS"), and in such capacity am familiar with the relevant facts and circumstances in connection with approval and execution by ACS of a Development Agreement between ACS and the City of Temecula (the "Agreement"). I am also familiar with the corporate status of ACS. The Agreement was approved by the City through adoption of that certain Ordinance No. ., and authorizes the Development of approximately 27.757 acres of land in the City. Capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings stated in the Agreement. I have examined and relied upon such records, documents, certificates, and other matters as are in my judgment necessary to enable me to render the opinions expressed herein. In such examination, I assumed the legal capacity of all natural persons, the genuineness of all signatures and the authenticity of all documents submitted to me as originals and the conformity to original documents of all documents Exhibit L Owner Opinion 090602 City of Temecula [Date] Page 2 submitted to me as photostatic or certified copies. I have also assumed the accuracy, completeness and authenticity of certificates and of all corporate records and information made available to me by ACS. I have also assumed that all certificates dated as of an earlier date are still accurate as of the date of this opinion. Based on the foregoing, and with regard to California law, I am of the opinion that: 1. ACS is a corporation duly formed and validly existing under the laws of the State of California; The execution, delivery and performance by ACS of the Agreement are within its corporate powers. The Agreement has been duly authorized by all necessary corporate action on the part of ACS and has been duly executed and delivered by ACS; The execution and delivery of the Agreement and compliance with the provisions of the Agreement under the circumstances contemplated by the Agreement do not and will not conflict with or constitute on the part of ACS a breach of or default under any agreement or other instrument applicable to or binding upon ACS or any court order or consent decree to which ACS is a party; and Except for the validation action pending to confirm the legality of the Owner Participation Agreement between the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Temecula and ACS (Riverside Superior Court No. RIC 373693), there is no action, suit, proceeding, inquiry or investigation at law or in equity before or by any court, public board or body, pending or, to my knowledge, threatened against ACS: (a) to restrain or enjoin the execution or delivery of the Agreement; (b) in any way contesting the existence or powers of ACS with respect to the execution and delivery of the Agreement; or (c) which is likely to adversely affect the enforceability of, or the authority or the ability of ACS to perform its obligations under, the Agreement. For purposes of factual matters relevant to the opinion expressed herein, I have relied generally upon certificates and statements of an officer of or other counsel to ACS. I have acted as outside counsel to ACS in connection with the negotiation, preparation and execution of the Agreement, but am not familiar with all of the agreements and contracts of ACS. I have not undertaken any independent investigation to determine the accuracy of any such certificates or statements, and any limited inquiry undertaken by me during the preparation of this opinion should not be regarded as such an investigation. No inference as to my knowledge of Exhibit L Owner Opinion 091802 City of Temecula [Date] Page 3 any matters bearing on the accuracy of any such statements should be drawn from the fact of my representation of ACS. In rendering this opinion, I have assumed the following: 1. There are no agreements or understandings among the Parties, written or oral, and there is no usage of trade or course of prior dealing among the Parties that would, in either case, define, supplement or qualify the provisions of the Agreement; 2. There has not been any mutual mistake of fact or misunderstanding, fraud, duress or undue influence; and 3. The conduct of the Parties to the transaction has complied with any requirement of good faith, fair dealing and conscionability. I also call to your attention the fact that under the 1989 Report of the Committee on Corporations of the Business Law Section of the State Bar of California, certain assumptions, qualifications and exceptions are implicit in opinions of lawyers. Although I have expressly set forth some assumptions, qualifications and exceptions herein, I am not limiting or omitting any others set forth in such report or otherwise deemed standard by practice for lawyers in California. The opinions set forth above are as of the date hereof only, and I assume no obligation to update or supplement this opinion to reflect any facts or circumstances that may hereafter come to my attention or any changes in law that may hereafter occur or become effective. The opinions expressed herein relate solely to, are based solely upon and are limited exclusively to the laws of the state of California. This opinion is furnished in connection with the Agreement and may not be relied upon in connection with any other transaction or by any person other than you. Very truly yours, MICHAEL R. WOODS A Professional Corporation By: Michael R. Woods Exhibit L Owner Opinion 091802 City of Temecula [Date] Page 4 Cc~ Susan L. Walker, Esq. Peter M. Thorson, Esq. James B. O'Grady, Assistant City Manager Exhibit L Owner Opinion 091802 Exhibit "M" LEGAL HOLIDAYS 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. New Year's Day (January 1st); Martin Luther King Day (third Monday in January); President's Day (third Monday in February); Memorial Day (last Monday in May); Independence Day (July 4th); Labor Day (first Monday in September); Veterans Day (November 11th); Thanksgiving Day (fourth Thursday of November); Friday following Thanksgiving Day; Christmas Day (December 25th). Holidays falling on Sunday shall be observed on the following Monday. Holidays falling on Saturday shall be observed on the preceding Friday. (Reference: Temecula Municipal Code Section 2.32.010 as of July 1, 2002.) A'rI'ACHMENT NO. 4 INITIAL STUDY R:'~D A\Guidant DA\Staff Report PC3.doc 16 City of Temecula P.O. Box 9033 ~) TemecUla, CA 92589-9033 Environmental Checklist Project Title Development Agreement between the City of Temecula and the Guidant Corporation Lead Agency Name and City of Temecula Address P.O. Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 Contact Person and David Hogan, Senior Planner Phone Number (909) 694-6400 Project Location Generally located north of Solana Way, west of Margarita Road, south of Overland Drive, and east of Ynez Road in the City of Temecula, County Riverside, Califomia. Project Sponsor's Name Guidant Corporation and Address 26531 Ynez Road Temecula, CA 92591-4628 General Plan Designation Business Park (BP) Zoning Business Park (BP) and Light Industrial (LI) Description of Project Advanced Cardiovascular Systems, Inc., a subsidiary of Guidant Corporation ("Guidant"), is applying to the City of Temecula for a Development Agreement which would authorize the expansion of the existing Guidant Corporation Campus on an approximate 27.8-acre site located directly across Ynez Road from its I existing facility in the City of Temecula. The project site is located northwest of the intersection of Solana Way and Margarita Road. It is bounded by Solana Way on the south, Margarita Road to the east, by undeveloped (commercial/office) property to the north, and Ynez Road and Motor Car Parkway to the west. The project is located in an urbanized area surrounded by industrial, commercial and residential land uses. The proposed Development Agreement would guarantee the ability of Guidant Corporation to expand their operations onto this site, providing for the development of up to 481,260 square feet of building area in up to five main buildings in a campus setting. The Agreement would provide for a maximum building height of 80 feet above the finished grade of building pad, exclusive of rooftop mechanical enclosures and telecommunications equipment, and related screening. The total number of floors and square footage for each building is not known at this time. The proposed expansion is anticipated to be constructed in phases. The precise layout of the site and the appearance of the buildings and other facilities will be determined at a later date dudng the development review process. The Development Agreement will authorize maximum parameters for overall development of the site, and site plans for individual phases will be subject to a City development review process. The term of the Development Agreement will extend from the Agreement's effective date until 15 fiscal years from the date a certificate of occupancy is issued for the first building to be built on the site. Primary access to the proposed development would be provided via an entrance off of Ynez Road at Motor Car Parkway, .with secondary access provided via ~ entrances off of Solana wa and/or Mar adta Road. The future land uses at the site could include a combination of office, research, manufacturing, and educational/training functions. The project would include shared ancillary facilities for the employees such as a fitness canter, chlldc~ and food services. The project would further conform to the provisions of t~l~ Development Code. Parking to accommodate the proposed development would be provided at a ratio of 5 spaces per 1,000 square feet of building area and would be accomplished within surface parking areas and up to two parking structures. The proposed project also includes construction of a pedestrian bddge over Ynez Road at Motor Car Parkway to link the existing Guidant facilities with the proposed expansion. The bridge is intended to be used by Guidant employees. See Attachment A for a detailed description of the proposed project. Surrounding Land Uses The project site is surrounded by: undeveloped property and commercial and Setting development to the north; multi-family and single-family residential development to the northeast and east; multi-family residential development to the southeast and south; commercial development to the west and southwest; and the existing Guidant facilities to the west. See Figure A-3 of Attachment A. Other public agencies None. whose approval is required Environmental Factors Potentially Affected The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. v' Aesthetics Mineral Resources Agricultural Resources '7-- Noise · Air Quality Population and Housing v' Biological Resources Public Services v' Cultural Resources Recreation · ~ Geolo~lic Problems ~ Transportatior~l'raffic H~7~rds and Hazardous Materials v' Utilities and Service Systems Hydrology and Water Quality ,'~ Mandatory Findings of Significance Land Use Planning None Determination (To be completed by the lead agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared v' I find that although the proposed project .could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the pro~ect proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required I find that the proposed project MAY have a Upotenfially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on'the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPq~ is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. 2 I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required, Signature Printed name Date 1. AESTHETICS. Would the project: · a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcropping, and historic building within a state scenic highway.? c. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or ,/ quality of the site and its surroundings? d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare which ,/ would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Comments: la. Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. The project could potentially affect a scenic vista. The project site is located within an urbanized area and approximately seven acres of the project site are currently developed with parking lots, access roadways, and landscape areas. The remaining 20 acres of the project site are currently undeveloped land. Implementation of the proposed project would convert primarily vacant land to business park development with supporting parking facilities and landscaping. Depending on their Iocatil~~ and height, the proposed project could potentially block long-range views of the Escarpme'l~' from portions of an apartment complex located east of the site along Margarita Road. The proposed Development Agreement would also provide for a maximum building height of 80 feet (excluding mechanical equipment and associated enclosures). The City Development Code currently allows for a building height of 50 feet within the BP zone, and 40 feet within the LI zone. The City has the discretion to increase these limits through Development Agreements. The potential for maximum building heights along Solana Way of 80 feet, could result in development that is out of scale and character with adjacent residential uses to the east. The impacts of buildings 80 feet in height along Margarita Road is expected to be less because the apartments across Margarita Road are farther away and the apartment complex site is higher than the Guidant site. To address this concern, Section 17.08.070 of the City Development Code provides performance standards and criteria for the design of commercial/office/industrial 'buildings within the City, recognizing that the quality and compatibility of building design directly impacts the health, safety and welfare of the residents of the community. These performance standards include strategies for minimizing visual impacts of commercial/office/industrial development that is located adjacent to residential through a variety of means includin~ .building setbacks. In addition, the project will.also be required to comply with the lands~ standards in the DeveloPment Code that requires either 20% (in the LI Zone) or 25% (in tl'T~ BP zone) of the site to be landscaped. Quality landscaping also has the potential to significantly reduce potential visual impacts from development. The following supplemental measure, to achieve the purposes of Section 17.08.070 (refer to visual depiction in Attachment B of the Initial Study), will be implemented to minimize the visual and aesthetic impacts from this project to a level of insignificance. MM1. To ensure that the scale and character of proposed development along Margarita Road and Solana Way are compatible with adjacent residential uses, the final Site Plan shall reflect the following: · A minimum 35-foot landscaped setback shall be provided along Margarita Road and Solana Way. · Heights of buildings located along Margarita Road and Solana Way at the 35-foot setback line shall be limited to 50 feet. The angle formed from Guidant's existing easternmost property line along Margarita Road, and from Guidant's existing southemmost properbj line along Solana Way, to the 50-foot vertical building height at the setback line shall form the angular plane that establishes maximum building heights, not to exceed 80 feet (excluding mechanical equipment and associated enclosures). Setbacks on upper floors and building articulation to reduce the bulk and mass of the buildings shall be emphasized. · The visual mass of buildings along Margarita Road and Solana Way shall be reduced through breaks in the structure, tree plantings, articulation of the fac,.ade~ and .other amhitectural devices. In addition, construction of the pedestrian walkway across Ynez Road would affect to some extent scenic vistas of the mountains for motorists traveling south on Ynez Road. As the majodty of viewers would be motorists, view blockage would be temporary in nature. Views to the south for pedestrians on sidewalks along Ynez Road would be preserved. The bridge would be compatible in design with surrounding development through the use of complementary materials, colors, form, and architectural detailing. The visual impact of the pedestrian bridge is considered less than significant and no mitigation measures are required. lb. Less Than Significant Impac£ There are no designated scenic resources in the vicinity of the project site. There is one eligible State Scenic Highway (I-15) and one eligible County Scenic Highway (R-79) in the vicinity of the project site. However, due to intervening urban development, views of the project site are not available from these highways. Implementation of the proposed project would provide for the. development of approximately 481,260 square feet of business park development with supporting parking facilities and landscaping. Such development would be consistent with existing uses in the project vicinity and would not degrade the existing visual character or quality of the project site and its surroundings. No impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. lC. Less Than Significant Impact. ApproXimately seven acres of the project site have been previously graded and developed with parking lots, access roadways, and landscape areas. The remaining 20 a.cres of the project si!e consist of.undeveloped land disturbed by past use activities including grading and agnculture. In its current undeveloped and unimprovL~!l~ state, the site has Iow visual quality. Implementation of the proposed project would alter the visual character of the site through development of approximately 481,260 square feet of business park uses with supporting parking facilities and landscaping. If not well designed, the development could degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. Section 17.08.070 of the City Development Code provides general performance standards to support variety and visual interest in development design while still creating a unified overall image within the City. Performance standards to achieve this image include but are not limited to: · use creative entry treatments with such features as canopies, awnings, cornices or atriums; · use a variety of complementary colors and avoid the use of just one color and dark colors; · use various window shapes and sizes; · vary the building shapes by using curved or angled walls; · separate buildings or accessory structures should be designed as an integral part of the primary building by using complementary materials, common architectural elements, and special landscape design techniques; ~ · use a consistent design theme throughout the project. Employ complementary consistent details, shapes, materials and colors. In addition, consistent signage should be provided with complementary colors, lettering, placement and materials; · the mass of the building should be divided to reduce the apparent scale and provide visual interest. Box-like designs should be avoided; · where the character or scale is identifiable, new development should be designed to maintain that character and to be compatible with that scale; · development should be designed to minimize detrimental impacts on surrounding properties, including, but not limited to, visual, noise, air quality and other environmental impacts. Strategies for minimizing the impacts include protecting residential areas adjacent to commercial development through screening of circulation areas, loading areas and trash collection points or other areas that could potentially be disruptive to the residential character of the adjacent area. Conformance with Section 17.08.070 Commercial/office/industrial performance standards would ensure that development is compatible in scale and character to surrounding land uses. The project would enhance the visual quality of the site through architectural treatment and landscaping consistent with City of Temecula standards. In addition, the Development Agreement contains design guidelines for future development that address color palette, materials, landscaping, and lighting. Project compliance with the described performal standards and design guidelines would ensure a high level of design and visual quality 6 site that would be compatible with surrounding development. In addition, the mitigation measure listed under Item 1.a will also reduce future visual impacts. Therefore, impacts related to degradation of the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are required. ld. Less Than Significant Impac£ Existing lighting sources on the project site include surface parking lot lighting on approximately seven acres of the overall 27.8-acre site. The remaining 20 acres of the project site are currently vacant and do not contain any sources of light and glare. The project vicinity experiences existing light and glare as a result of lighting and structures in adjacent commercial and residential areas surrounding the project site. In addition, transient light sources and glare occur as a result of vehicles on Ynez Road, Solana Way, Margarita Road, and Motor Car Parkway. implementation of the proposed project would introduce new light sources and glare on the project site including streetlights, interior building lighting, exterior security lighting, parking lot lighting, and vehicles. The proposed project would also contribute to the amount of transient lighting and glare as a result of increased vehicular use of the surrounding roadways by the project occuPants. The business park lighting, and parking lot and street lighting would be typical of other development in the surrounding area and would not create unusual levels of light and glare. The proposed project would be developed consistent with the standards established in the City's Development Code, and the proposed lighting design and landscaping would assist in minimizing the effects of increased light and glare. Lighting on the site would be shielded and directed downward and away from adjacent residential uses. Development associated with the proposed project would also be consistent with Ordinance No. 655 (Ordinance Regulating Light Pollution), which includes lighting standards to avoid impacts on astronomical research at Mount Palomar Observatory. Project consistency with City Ordinance No. 655 would reduce the potential for significant impacts on the Observatory to a less than significant level. (Sources I and 2) 2. Agricultural Resources. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing Impacts o~ agriculture and farmland. ~!d the project: ~otenflallY :':,'Mi~fi6~ : ~ ~n :. · ~ ~. S!grii:ltc~nt . ~n~rporated $~i~nlti~ht = '.N0 · ~,~ Issues and $~pP°rtingii~f(~fi(~n'$ou~;~es .: :: , Impaa. , :~ :~ ?l~i~ , .~"~dt a. Convert Pdme Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland ,,' of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? ~11 Conflict with the existing zoning for agricultural use, or a v' Williamson Act contract? c. I Involve other changes in the existing environment which, I due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of farmland, to non-a Hcultural use? Comments: 2a..c. No Impact. The project site is not currently used for agdculture. The site is not under a Williamson Act COntract nor is it zoned for agricultural uses. The property is not considered pdme or unique farmland of statewide or local importance as identified by the State Department of Conservation and the City of Temecula General Plan. In addition, the project would not involve changes in the existing environment, which would result in the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural uses. Therefore, there is no significant impact related to this issue. (Source 1) 3. AIR QUALITY. Would the project: a. Conflict with or obstruct rmplementation of the applicable ,/ air quality plan? b. Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially toanexistinor ro'ected air ~ violation? c. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non- attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed cluantita~ive thresholds for ozone precursors? d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Comments: 3,8, No Impact. The proposed project would be subject to the South Coast Air Quality Management District's (SCAQMD) Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). The SCAQMD is required, pursuant the Clean Air Act, to reduce emissions of criteria pollutants for which the South Coast Air Basin (Basin) is in non-attainment (ozone, carbon monoxide, and PM10). The AQMP contains a comprehensive list of pollution control strategies directed at reducing emissions and achieving ambient air quality standards. These strategies are developed, in part, based on regional population, housing, and employment projections prepared by the Southem Califomia Association of Governments (SCAG). SCAG serves as the federally designated metropolitan planning organization (MPO) for the sOuthem California region. With regard to air quality planning, SCAG has prepared the Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide (RCPG), which includes Growth Management and Regional Mobility chapters that form the basis for the land use and transportation control portions of the AQMP, and are utilized in the preparation of air quality forecasts and consistency analysis included in the AQMP. Projects proposing a General Plan Amendment, new or amended General Plan Elements, or Specific Plans require consistency with AQMP review, since the RCPG and AQMP strategy is based on projections from local General Plans. Since the proposed project does not require a General Plan Amendment and is consistent with the land use designations of the City of Temecula General Plan, the proposed project is considered consistent with the region's air quality plans. There are no roads or highways in the vicinity of the proposed project that have been established by the Riverside County Congestion Management Agency (CMA) as arterial or freeway monitoring locations. Furthermore, the proposed project would not add 50 or more trips during the a.m. or p.m. weekdaY peak hours at CMP monitoring intersection, nor would it add 150 or more trips dudng the a.m. or p.m. weekday peak hours at CMP mainline freeway monitoring loCations. No impacts associated with implementation of the AQMP or CMP would result, and no mitigation measures would be required. Less Than Significant Impac£ The project site is located within the South Coast Air Basin, which is characterized by relatively poor air quality. State and federal air quality standards are often exceeded in most parts of the Basin. The proposed project would contribute to regional and local air emissions during construction and operation. The SCAQMD has established screening'thresholds which address pollution sources associated with general construction activities, such as operation of on-site equipment, fugitive dust from demolition, and travel by construction workers. Site grading and construction activities would produce equipment and fugitive dust emissions. As indicated in Table C-1 included within Attachment C, a review of the.proposed project emissions utilizing the SCAQMD screening thresholds indicates that under worst-case assumptions, construction activities would fall below SCAQMD's thresholds. Therefore, regional emissions associated with construction of the proposed project would be less than significant (please refer to Attachment C for air quality worksheets prepared by PCP, Services Corporation, February 2002). In addition, all construction activities would comply with SCAQMD P,ule 403 regarding the control of fugitive dust and other specified dust control measures. Compliance with these regulations would further ensure that the short-term air quality impacts of the proposed project due to site preparation, grading, and construction activities would be less than significant. The SCAQMD has also established screening thresholds to evaluate potential impacts associated with operation of the proposed project. Project operations would increase vehicle 9 emissions generated by mobile sources as well as emissions generated by stationary sources through the use of natural gas and electricity. The project site is designated as Business Park (BP) in the City's General Plan Land Use Element and zoned Business Park (BP) and Industrial (LI) in the City's Development Code. Pumuant to the City's Development Code, target Floor Area Ratio (FAR) for the BP Zone is 0.40 with a maximum FAR of 1.50. The target FAR for the LI Zone is also 0.40. The LI Zone has a maximum FAR of 1.0. Assuming a 27.8-acre project site and a target FAR of 0.40,.the site could ultimately be developed with 483,637 square feet of BP/LI uses. The proposed project's maximum potential buildout falls within the target FAR for the site as identified within the City's General Plan and evaluated in the General Plan EIR Air Quality Analysis. Therefore, no impacts beyond those identified and addressed within the General Plan EIR would occur. It should also be noted that with regard to residential projects that were identified as part of the City buildout projections assumed in the General Plan and analyzed in the General Plan EIR, evidence suggests that only one project in recent years, a Redevelopment Agency affordable housing project, has been approved either close to or in excess of the applicable maximum density range. Based on this assessment, City staff estimates that at least 3,667 residential units originally assumed to be developed in the City have not, or will not, be constructed within the City of Temecula (refer to City of Temecula Community Development Memorandum to City Councilmembers, dated December 21, 2000). Accordingly, actual development within the City is less than buildout assumed within the General Plan EIR and therefore, the analysis, findings, and determinations made within the General Plan EIR continue to be valid. The General Plan EIR air quality analysis and mitigation measures are hereby incorporated by reference. These measures are further discussed under Response No. 3.c below. With incorporation of the a.nalysis I mitigation measures identified in the City General Plan EIR, operational air quality impacts ~[I1~' considered less than significant. The proposed project's traffic analysis was reviewed to determine the potential for the presence or the creation of carbon monoxide (CO) hot spots. Local area CO concentrations were projected using the CALINE4 air quality model. Ambient CO concentrations were combined with CO concentrations generated by vehicle traffic at individual intersections to determine total intersection CO contributions from the proposed project'. The intersections with the highest potential for CO hot spOt formation were selected for analysis based on Level of Service (LOS), high project-related traffic volumes, and the proximity of this traffic to sensitive receptors. Intersections functioning above capacity, which are characterized by a LOS of E or F, have the potential to yield a CO hot spot condition. Based on these criteria, the intersections of Motor Car Parkway and Solana Way and Margarita Road and the apartment ddveway are the closest intersections to the project site with the potential for significant levels of CO concentration, and therefore, were selected for analysis. The one-hour and eight-hour local CO concentrations were found to be well below the State and federal air quality standards. Please refer to Table C-2 of Attachment C, which presents the results of this The analysis of CO impacts followed the methodology recommended by the California Department of Transportation and published in the Transportation Project-Level Carbon Monoxide Protocol, Institute of Transportation Studies, California Davis, December 1997. 1o analysis (detailed calculations are also included within Attachment C). Therefore, the proposed project would not have a significant impact upon one-hour or eight-hour local CO concentrations due to mobile source emissions. .0. Less Than Significant Impact. The South Coast Air Basin is currently in non-attainment for ozone, carbon monoxide, and PM~0. As demonstrated above in Response No. 3.b., project construction emissions are anticipated to fall below SCAQMD daily significance thresholds. As previously stated, buildout of the project site would not result in new impacts above those previously identified within the General Plan EIR. The General Plan Ell:{ identifies the following mitigation measures that are applicable to the proposed project: Implement transportation demand management techniques to reduce motor vehicle tdps, including walking, biking, ddeshadng, local transit, staggered work schedules and telecommunications. 2. Maintain an orderly flow of traffic and improve mobility through the use of transportation systems management techniques. 3. Promote alternatives to motorized transportation by establishing a convenient and efficient system of bicycle routes and pedestrian ways. 4. Promote the use of alternative work weeks and flextime among employem. Encourage the formation of Transportation Management Associations (TMA) for large companies and/or groups of companies. Provide potential TMA's with administrative guidelines and technical assistance, where feasible. 6. Attract and retain industry that complements Temecula's character and takes advantage of Temecula's Iocational advantage for goods movement and corporate mobility. Require new development to incorporate design features which facilitate transit service and encourage transit ddership such as bus pullout areas, covered bus stop facilities, efficient trail systems through projects to transit stops, and incorporation of pedestrian walkways tha{ pass through subdivision boundary walls.' Encourage developers to incorporate native drought-resistant vegetation, mature trees, and other significant vegetation on-site into the site and landscape design for proposed projects. 9. Promote the use of alternative clean fueled vehicles for personal and business use. 11 The proposed project would assist in meeting the above-listed mitigation measures of the General Plan EIR by implementing vadous design features and a Transportation Demand Management Program as project design features. The project would provide ancillary uses. existing and proposed Guidant business park and light industrial uses such as a day cain' center, cafeteria, and fitness center for Guidant employees. These supporting uses would assist in reducing tdps that might otherwise need to be traveled by existing and future Guidant employees. A pedestrian bridge over Ynez Road at Motor Car Parkway proposed to provide a pedestrian linkage between the existing and proposed Guidant development, also assists in further reducing motor vehicle trips and promoting alternative modes for transportation. In addition, existing employees currently utilize the crosswalk at Ynez Road to cross between the existing Guidant facilities and the off-site parking lot. The bridge would allow for travel across Ynez Road without requiring vehicles to stop for pedestrian traffic. Additionally, Guidant currently maintains a' Transportation Demand Management Program for the existing campus that is monitored and certified annually by SCAQMD. The program includes Guidant- implemented methods for reducing motor vehicle trips such as ride share/carpool incentives including preferred parking and monthly cash drawings for carpoo[ers, opportunities to utilize alternative methods for transportation, bus stops, bike room and bike racks, etc. The Transportation Demand Management Program would be expanded to address increased vehicle trips associated with the proposed project and ways to assist in the reduction of vehicle trips. Impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation measures ara raquirad. 3.d. Less Than Significant Impact. The area surrounding the project site contains residential and commercial uses. The closest residential uses ara located approximately 100 feet east a~ south of the project site across Margarita Road and Solana Way, respectively. The close'~" · school (Temecula Elementary School) is located at 41951 Moraga Road in Temecula, approximately 0.6 miles southeast of the project site. The proposed project does not contain any AQMD permitted stationary emissions sources. In general, the primary pollutant of concern with regard to harmful pollutant concentrations resulting from development projects is CO. As described in Response No. 3.b. above, construction and operation of the proposed uses would not result in any substantial local or regional air pollution impacts and, therefore, would not expose any nearby sensitive receptors to severe air pollution conditions. Impacts wouid be less than significant and no mitigation measures are raquirad. .eo No impact. No construction activities, materials, or daily activities are proposed which would create objectionable odors. No impacts would occur and no mitigation measures are required. (Soume 1 ) 12 ~BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the project: a. Have a subs~ntial adveme effe~, either directly or through habi~t m~ifi~tions, on any species identified as a ~ndidate, sensitive, or special s~tus species in Io~1 or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Depa~ment of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Se~i~? b. Have a substantial adveme effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural ~mmuni~ identified in I~1 or regional plans, polities, r~ulations or by the California DepaRment of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Se~? c. Have a subs~ntial adveme effe~ of federally prote~ed wetlands as defined by Se~on 4~ of the Clean Water A~ (including, but not limited to, mamh, vernal pool, ~as~l, etc.) ~mugh dim~ removal, filing, hydml~i~l ' inte~ption, or other m~ns? d. Intedem subs~nfially ~th ~e movement of any native resident or migmto~ fish or ~ldlife species or with es~blished native resident or migrato~ wildlife ~dom, ~ or impede the use of native--sites? ~nfli~ with any Io~1 ~licies or ordinan~s prote~ng biologi~l msour~s, such as a tree pmsewation poli~ or o~inan~? f. ~nfli~ ~th the provisions of an adopted habitat Conse~ation Plan, Natural ~mmuni~ ~nse~ation Plan, or other approved Io~1, r~ional, or s~te habi~t ~nse~a~on plan? Comments: 4a.d. Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. In the winter of 2000 and the spring of 2001, Dudek & Associates, Inc. conducted a biological resources survey of a 38-acre site then owned entirely by Eli-Lilly. The unimproved 20 acres of the project site were part of this Survey. During site visits, biologists characterized the site's habitat, mapped the vegetative communities, and characterized the on-site habitat. The biologists evaluated the potential for the Eli-Lilly site to support species considered sensitive by the City and State and/or federal agencies. The results of the surveys are documented in the technical report. entitled Biological Resources Report for the Temecula Eli Lilly Project, prepared by Dudek & Associates, Inc. May 2001 (Biological Resoumes Report). Refer to that document for a detailed discussion. 13 The Biological Resources Report did not address the remaining seven acres located in the northwestern portion of the project site which was previously gr..aded and developed_. According to a field survey conducted by PCR .Services Corporation in January 20q~ biological resources in this area are limited to a few ~mmature ornamental trees. No impact~ are anticipated to occur to the seven-acre developed portion of the site and no mitigation measures are required. No sensitive plant species were detected during focused surveys. In addition, the extensive soil disturbance and grass density provides little potential habitat for sensitive plant species. Implementation of the proposed project would result in the direct ~:emoval of many common native and non-native plants. As these plant species are not sensitive species, their removal is not'considered a significant impact and no mitigation measures are required. One sensitive wildlife species was observed on the project site and a few others have the potential to occur on the project site and in the vicinity. While a total of three burrowing owls (Athene cunicula~fa) were observed on and adjacent to the overall Site surveyed as part of the Biological Resources Report, only one owl was observed on the southwest comer of the project site. It has not been determined whether or not these individuals were winter visitors or year-round residents. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would result in the removal of burrowing owl habitat. Two raptor nests (presumed red-tailed hawk and barn owl, both non-sensitive s.pecie.s.) we, B~ located within the stand of ornamental trees along the eastern edge of the project site. ~ · there is the potential for nesting birds on the project site, the removal of existing vegetation has the potential to result in a significant impact consistent with the Migratory Bird Treaty ACt. Tentative Parcel Map No. 30107, which includes the 20-acre vacant portion of the project site, was conditioned to address the potential disturbance of burrowing owls and associated habitat, or other nesting birds pdor to approval of grading permits. This project will be conditioned to comply with Conditions of Approval regarding burrowing owls or other nesting birds for Tentative Parcel Map No. 30107. With implementation of the mitigation measures listed below, potential impacts to burrowing owls or their habitat, or other nesting birds would be reduced to a less than significant level. Sensitive species with moderate potential to occur on the project site and in the vicinity include: Western spadefoot toad (Scaphiiopus hammondl~, San Diego ringneck snake (Diadophis punctatus similes), California homed lark (Eremophila alpestds actia), loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus). Sensitive species with high foraging potential but with no nesting potential include: turkey vulture (Cathartes aura), northern harrier (Circus cyaneus), and white- tailed kite (Elanus leucurus). These species are not State-listed or federally-listed as threatened or endangered and it is anticipated that the loss of individuals, if any occur on the project site, would not threaten their regional populations. In addition, habitat on the project site would provide little or no value to sensitive species and therefore elimination or disru 14 of habitat for these sensitive wildlife species on the project site and vicinity does not represent a regionally significant effect on the populations of these species. The project site is within the habitat area identified for the Ouino Checkerspot butterfly. A focused survey conducted for the Quino Checkerspot butterfly was negative and habitat assessments conducted for the California gnatcatcher also were negative. Vematile fairy shrimP (Branchinecta lindahlO were not detected within the project site; however, they were detected within several ponded areas in the detention basins located directly north of the approximate seven-acre developed portion of the project site. This specie of fairy shrimp is not State-listed or federally-listed as threatened or endangered. These man-made basins where the shrimp were detected do not fit the classic definition of "vernal pools" which is the preferred habitat type of fairy shrimp. However, the presence of fairy shrimp in the ponded areas located off-site directly north of the project site indicates that there is some potential for these areas to support the federally-endangered San Diego fairy shrimp (Branchinecta sandiegoen$is) and/or Riverside fairy shrimp (Streptocephalus woottonO. Tentative Parcel Map No. 30107 was conditioned to address the potential presence of federally-endangered fairy shrimp. The condition requires that grading of an area designated in the Biological Resources Report as an interim grading exclusion area (i.e., a 100-foot wide strip along the easterly side of the flood control channel on the Eli-Lilly property, which includes the ponding areas containing fairy shrimp), must be delayed until an agreement has been reached with US Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) regarding the status of the Riverside fairy shrimp in the detention basins. This may entail coordination with the USFVVS and/or additional focused surveys for the shrimp. Eli-Lilly is currently in consultation with USFWS and is in the process of completing additional fairy shrimp surveys to address the potential presence of federally-endangered fairy shrimp. Dependent upon the outcome of the surveys and Eli-Lilly consultation with USFWS, the proposed project could, due to proximity, result in indirect impacts to the fairy shrimp if their presence is established and if the off-site habitat is retained adjacent to the site. To address this potential circumstance, implementation of the following mitigation measure is proposed. This measure.would ensurethat impacts to potential fairy shrimp are reduced to a less than significant level. Miti.qation Measures: MM2. Prior to development or ground disturbance, the impacts to burrowing owls will be mitigated by a combination of pre-construction surveying, passive owl relocation, and burrow replacement. Two weeks before initiation of grading activities, a qualified biologist must survey the entire project area for extant burrowing owls. The biologist will look for burrowing owls whiie walking 20-meter transects. Every potential suitable burrow will be examined for burrowing owl sign (e.g. feathers, pellets, whitewash, bones, insect exoskeletons). All burrows found to house burrowing owls or sign will be flagged and mapped for removal. When surveying for.burrowing owls, it should be noted that they frequently fly to alternative burrow(s) when disturbed. All burrows 15 found to be inhabited by burrowing owls will be fitted with one-way doors for a period of three days. After the third day, the one-way doors will be removed and the burrow network excavated and closed so that re-occupation cannot occur. Before the way doors are titted to the burrows, replacement burrows must be installed combination of the channel easement onsite and offsite location to be determined. The offsite location must be considered suitable habitat and of sufficient size. Burrows will be replaced at a ratio of 2:1 for each burrow found occupied by burrowing owls. A minimum of six burrows must be installed. Burrows should be installed so that entrances randomly face the cardinal directions and that they are randomly distributed throughout the open space area, however at least 20% should be installed within the existing flood control channel. The design of the artificial burrow should be consistent with the latest widely used design. MM3. General: In order to satisfy Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act requirements, vegetation removal should not occur between March and August. If vegetation removal must occur between March and August, then a nesting bird survey must be conducted by a qualified ornithologist. Trees and shrubs containing active nests may not be removed until the nesters have finished. Finishing is defined as having successfully raised a brood until they leave the nest or nest abandonment. Renesting by birds requires the process to begin again. Raptors may nest dudng most any time of the year.. Therefore, the barn owl nest and raptor nest must be surveyed prior to removal regardless of time of year. Removal of the tree may occur when it is determined that they are finished nesting or are not nesting. MM4. In the event federally endangered fairy shrimp are found off-site adjacent to the project site, the Applicant shall consult with the USFWS prior to issuance of grading permits or any actions involving ground disturbing activities in the vicinity of the identified off- site habitat area so that to the extent feasible, project construction and/or operational activities will not have an adverse effect on federally endangered fairy shrimp. 4b. Less Than Significant ImpacL The proposed project would not have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) or US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). No riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community was detected on the project site. 4C. Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would not have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filing, hydrological interruption, or other means. The 20-acre undeveloped portion of the project site, as addressed in the Biological Resources Report, consists primarily of ruderal or weedy vegetation, with patches of ornamental vegetation on the eastern portion of the project and patches of tamarisk and mule fat scrub on the southeast corner of the project According to the Biological Resources Report, although mulefat scrub is sometimes considered a wetland community, conditions indicate that this vegetation would not be regulated as wetlands by CDFG, or by the Corps. The mulefat scrub is not physically connected to a stream channel and therefore, it would not be regulated by CDFG. The mulefat scrub is isolated and does net have hydric soils or wetland hydrology and therefore, it would' not be regulated by the Corps. In addition, according to the Biological Resources Report, because the tamadsk scrub patches on site were not associated with a stream channel, nor did they occur upon hydric soils or have wetland hydrology, they would not be regulated by the Corps or CDFG. The project site does not contain any wetlands communities. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are required. 4e. No Impact. The proposed project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance. Locally designated species are protected in the Old Town Temecula Specific Plan area; however, they are not protected elsewhere in the City. Since the project site is not located in Old Town Temecula and there are no locally designated species on site, no impacts are anticipated. 4f. Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. A habitat assessment for the federally-endangered Stephens' Kangaroo Rat (SKI:{) was conducted, and the survey results indicate that no evidence of the species was found and that it is therefore, unlikely to occupy the site. The project site is located within the fee area for the SKR Long-Term Habitat Conservation Plan. Tentative Parcel Map No. 30107, which included all but seven developed acres of the project site, was conditioned to comply with the provisions of Chapter 8.24 of the Temecula Municipal Code (Habitat Conservation) by paying the appropriate fee set forth in that ordinance or by providing documented evidence that the fees have already been paid. This project will be conditioned to comply with the following mitigation regarding payment of Habitat Conservation fees. As a result, the proposed project would be in compliance with local regulations governing the Habitat Conservation Plan requirements associated with construction and operation of the project. Therefore, with implementation of the mitigation measure listed below, impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level. Miti,qation Measure: MM5. Pdor to issuance of grading permits the applicant shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 8.24 of the Temecula Municipal Code (Habitat Conservation) by paying the appropriate fee set forth in that ordinance or by providing documented evidence that the fees have already been paid. (Sources 1, 3 and 4) 17 5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 1506.57 b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of ,/ an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 1506.57 c. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Comments: 5a.d. No Impac£ The project site is located within an urbanized arsa and has been previously graded and developed. Results of record searches conducted by the University of Califomia, Riverside Eastem Information Center, background review, and a field survey indicate that no histodc amhaeological sites ars known to exist within the project site. The seven-acrs portion of the project site has already been subject to disruption and any surficial amhaeological resources which may have existed at one time have likely been removed or destroyed. 5b.c. Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. Results of record seamhes by the University of California, Riverside Eastern Information Center, background review, and a field survey indicate that no prehistoric or historic archaeological sites ars known to exist within the project site. The seven-acre portion o~ the project site has already been subject to disruption and any surficial archaeological resources which may have existed at one time have likely been removed or destroyed. Tentative Parcel Map No. 30107, which included the remaining 20 acres of the project site, was conditioned to address -Cultural resources prior to grading the site to ensure that development would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of archaeological or paleontological resources. This project will be conditioned to comply with the following mitigation to ensure that grading and development associated with the proposed project would not cause a substantial adverse effect to potential amhaeological or paleontological resources. Miti.qation Measures: MM6. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, a qualified paleontologist/archaeologist shall be chosen by the develoPer for consultation and comment on the proposed grading with respect to potential paleontological/archaeological impacts. A meeting between the paleontologist/archaeologist, Community Development Department - Planning Division staff, and grading contractor prior to the commencement of grad operations and the excavation shall be arranged. A qualified archaeologist a 18 qualified paleontologist shall be present on-site dudng grading to monitor the site for the presence of cultural or paleontological resources. A qualified paleontologist/archaeologist or representative shall have the authority to temporarily divert, redirect or halt grading activity to allow recovery of cultural resources or fossils. The developer shall submit to Planning Department staff a copy of a contract between the developer and a qualified archeologist and a paleontologist for monitoring services during grading of the site. (Sources 1, 4 and 5) 6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: a. i Expose people or structures to potential substantial , adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i)Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Pdolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? (Refer to Division of Mines and Geolo~al Publication 42.}____ ~ ~reund shaking? iii) Seismic-related ground failure, includin~l liquefaction? iv) Landslides? b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? v'. c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or v' that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 1801-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or properb~. e. Have soil incapable of adequately supporting the use of v' septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?. Comments: No Impact. Althou,gh the project site is located in the seismically active region of southern California, it is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone, nor does it contain any active faults. Therefore, no impacts associated with fault rupture are expected to occur with implementation of the proposed project. 19 6.a.ii. Less Than Significant ImpacL Faults within the region that are in proximity of the project site include the Wildomar branch of the Elsinore Fault located approximately 0.12 miles to the west; the Murrieta Fault Ioca!ed approximately 3.4 miles to the north; and the Wolf Valley Fal~ located approximately 4.5 m~les to the south. During a seismic event, the project site is subje~'~ to moderate to strong ground shaking typical of the general southern California area. The County of Riverside has established Groundshaking Zones, which indicate the level of risk from greundshaldng. The City is located in Groundshaking Zone II, which is expected to vary from moderate to intense groundshaking in the event of an earthquake. Development of the proposed project could result in the potential exposure of people and structures to ground shaking in the event of an earthquake. Any ground shaking that may occur would be similar throughout the City and no unusual or unique dsk is posed by the proposed structures. With adherence to seismic standards as identified in the California Building Code as adopted in City Municipal Code No. 15.04.010, potential impacts related to seismic ground shaking would be less than significant. 6.a.iii.iv. and d. Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. The project site and vicinity are predominately urbanized and consist of relatively fiat topography. As identified in the General Plan Safety Element, the project site is not located within a subsidence, liquefaction, expansive soil, or landslide hazard area. The geotechnical investigation for the project site states that the secondary effects of seismic activity, including landsliding, ground subsidence, grounsL lurching, shallow-ground rupture, and liquefaction, are considered unlikely at the site. Tentati~l Parcel Map No. 30107, which includes the 20-acre vacant portion of the project site, was conditioned to address the potential risk associated with seismic activity. This project will be conditioned to comply with Conditions of Approval regarding geotechnical conditions for Tentative Parcel Map No. 30107. With implementation of the mitigation measure listed below, no impacts associated with .seismic-related' ground failure, including liquefaction, expansive soils, or landslides would occur. Mitiqation Measures: MM7. Pdor to the issuance of grading and building permits, the recommendations contained in soils report(s) shall be implemented. 6b. Less Than Significant' With Mitigation Incorporated. While the northwest portion of the project s'ite has been previously graded and developed with parking lots, access roadways, and landscaped areas, the remainder of the site is currently vacant and undeveloped. The proposed project has the potential to result in. erosion of soils due to construction activities. Tentative Parcel Map No. 30107, which includes the 20-acre vacant portion of the project site, was conditioned to address erosion of soils. This project will be conditioned to comply with Conditions of Approval regarding geotechnical conditions for Tentative Parcel Map No. 301, 2O With implementation of the mitigation measures listed below, impacts associated with potential soil erosion or the loss of topsoil would be less than significant. Miti.qation Measures: MM8. Prior to the issuance of grading and building permits, the Applicant shall submit to the Public Works Department an erosion control plan prepared in accordance with City requirements. MM9. Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits, landscape plans shall be prepared for all slopes created by the grading and fill of these sites consistent with "Slope Planting Guidelines" and the Development Code, and shall provide erosion control on undeveloped portions of the site. SC. Less Than Significant Impac£ As the site is relatively fiat, implementation of the proposed project would not require significant alteration of the existing topography on the project site. According to the geotechnical investigation for the project site, the entire site is underlain by relatively horizontally bedded siltstone and sandstone of the Pauba Formation. Silty sands predominate; however, beds of silt, well-graded, and poorly graded sands were also encountered on the project site. Prior grading activities have resulted in desilting basins cut into the existing bedrock and areas of undocumented artificial fill. In accordance with the recommendations of the geotechnical investigation for the project site, all existing Iow-density and potentially collapsible soil materials such as loose manmade fill, alluvium and highly weathered bedrock, would be removed to underlying dense bedrock from each area to receive compacted fill. Mitigation Measure No. 6, provided above, would address the risk associated with unstable soil conditions. With implementation of this mitigation, impacts related to .unstable soil conditions would be less than significant. Se. No Impact. The project site is located in an urbanized area in which wastewater infrastructure is currently in place. Therefore, the capacity of the soils to support septic tanks or alternative waste water systems is not relevant to the proposed project. No impact would occur and no mitigation measures are required. (Sources 1, 2, 4, 6 and 7) 7. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: Potentially MelOdeon Less Than Significant InCOqX~ated Significant No Issues and Suppo~ng Information Sources Impact , Impact ~lmpact a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the ¢' D environment through the routine transportation, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? 21 7. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: b. Create a signifi~nt ha~rd to the public or ~e en~mnment through reasonably foreseeable upset and a~ident ~nditions invoking .the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c. Emit ha~rdous emissions or handle ha~rdous or acutely ha~rdous materials, subs~n~s, or acutely h~ardous materials, subs~n~s, or ~ste within one- qua~er mile of an existing or proposed s~ool? d, Be Io~ted on a site ~i~ is included on a list of ha~rdous materials sit~ ~mpiled pumuant to Government ~de Se~on 65962.5 and, as a result, would it ~eate a signifi~nt ha~rd to the public or the en~mnment? e. For a proje~ Io~ted ~thin an ai~o~ land use plan or, ~em such a plan has not been adopted, within ~o miles or a public ai~o~ or public use ai~o~, would ~e proje~ result in a ~fe~ h~rd for people residing or wo~ing in the pmje~ ama? f. For a proje~ ~in ~e vidni~ of a pdvate aim~p, would · e project result in a ~fe~ h~ for ~ople residing or wo~ing in ~e project ama? g. Impair implementation of or physi~lly inteEem ~th an adopted emergency r~ponse plan or eme~en~ eva~afion plan? h. ~ose people or s~ums to a sign~nt ~k or Io~, inju~ or death invoMng ~ldland fires, including ~em ~ldlands am adja~nt to u~an~ed ar~s or ~em residents am inte~ixed ~th ~ldlands? Comments: 7a.b. Less Than Significant ImpacL The proposed project would not use, store, transport, generate, or dispose of substantial quantities of hazardous materials. Construction activities would involve the use of commonly used potentially hazardous materials, including vehicle fuels, oils, and transmission fluids. Operation of the proposed uses would involve the use and storage of small quantities of potentially hazardous materials in the form of pharmaceutical or medical device manufacturing materials, cleaning solvents and herbicides for landscaping. Guidant currently maintains a Business Emergency Plan which is updated and submitted to the County of Riverside Hazardous Materials Management Division annually for operations permit renewal. The purpose of the Plan is to ensure that all potentially hazardous materials are contained, stored, used, and disposed of in compliance with applicable standards al;l~ regulations and that the appropriate personnel are contacted in the event of a hazard~ materials-related emergency. In the event pharmaceutical or medicel device manufacturing is undertaken on the project site, Guidant would expand the Business Emergency Plan to address the site and its related activities. All potentially hazardous materials would be contained, stored, and used in accordance with manufacturers' instructions and handled in compliance with the Business Emergency Plan and other applicable standards and regulations. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. 7C. Less Than Significant Impact. The closest school to the project site is Temecula Elementary School located over one-half mile to the southeast. No new schools are proposed within one- quarter 'mile of the project site. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are required. 7od. No Impact. This project site is not nor is it located near a site, which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Govemment Code Section 65962.5 that would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 7.e.f. No ImpacL The project site is not located within an airport land use plan, nor is it located within two miles of a public airport or public use airport or in the vicinity of a private airstrip. The closest airport to the project site is French Valley Airport located approximately 5 miles to the northeast of the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would not introduce people into an area where there is a safety hazard as a result of an airport. 7.g.h. Less Than Significant Impac£ Construction and operation of the proposed project would not interfere with emergency response or emergency evacuation plans on-site and in the local area. The project site is within an urbanized area that is not considered to be a wildland fire risk area. In addition, Guidant currently maintains a Business Emergency Plan, which is updated and submitted to the.County of Riverside Hazardous Materials Management Division annually for operations permit renewal. The Plan identifies an emergency response and emergency evacuation plan for the existing Guidant facilities in the event of a hazardous materials-related emergency. This plan would be updated to include the uses on the project site. Impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are required. (Sources 1 and 2) 23 8. HYDROLOGY' AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: a. Violate any water quali~ s~ndards or waste discharge requirements? b. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or inte~em subs~ntially wi~ groundwater m~arge su~ that thers would be a net defldt in aquifer volume or a lowering of · e Io~1 groundwater ~ble level (e.g., ~e produc~on rote of pr~xisting nea~y wells would drop to a level which ~uld not suppo~ e~sting land uses or plann~ uses for ~i~ pe~i~ have been granted)? c. Subs~ntially alter the e~sfing drainage paffem of the site or ama, including ~mugh ~e alteration of ~e ~u~ of a sEeam or ~er, in a manner ~i~ would result in subs~ntial erosion or sil~on on- or off-sEe? d. Subs~ntially alter the e~sfing drainage paffem of the site or ama, including ~mugh ~e alteration of the ~ume of a stream or Hver, or subs~nfially increase the rote or amount of su~a~ runoff in a manner ~ich would result in fl~ding on- or off-site? e. Cr~te or ~ntHbute runoff ~ter ~ich would ex. ed the ~pad~ of e~sting or planned sto~' water drainage systems or pm~de subs~nfial additional sour~s ~ ~lluted runoff? f. Othe~se subs~ntially degrade water qaali~ g. Pla~ housing wi~in a lO.year fl~d h~rd area as mapped on a federal FIo~ Ha~ Bounda~ or/FI~ Insumn~ Rate Map or o~er fl~ h~ delineation map? h. Pla~ ~in a 10~y~r fl~ ha~ ama stratums ~i~ ~uld impede or mdim~ fl~ flo~? L ~ose ~ople or stratums to a sign~nt Hsk of loss, inju~ or dea~ involving fl~ding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j. Inundaaon by sei~e, tsunami, or mudflo~ Comments: 8.a.f. Less Than Significant Impact, Regulatory and permitting processes have been established to control the water quality of runoff from urban construction sites. In 1987, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, also referred to as the Clean Water Act (CWA), was amended to provide that the discharge of pollutants into waters of the United States from storm water is effectively prohibited, unless the discharge is in compliance with a National Pollutant Discharge, Elimination System (NPDES) Permit. The 1987 amendments to the CWA added Sec 402(p), which established a framework for regulating municipal, industrial and construction stormwater discharges under the NPDES program. In California, these permits ara issued through the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and the nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs). The project site is within the'jurisdiction of the RWQCB, San Diego Region 9. The SWRCB has adopted a statewide general construction permit that applies to most construction projects. This permit allows storm water discharge under certain conditions during the construction period but is intended to minimize the pollution of downstream receiving waters from construction activities. The conditions of approval for Tentative Parcel Map No. 30107 included requiring the developer to submit to the Public Works department an erosion control plan prepared in accordance with City requirements and a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) prepared in accordance with the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements prior to the issuance of grading permits. As a result, the proposed project would be in compliance with state and local regulations goveming water quality standards and waste discharge requirements associated with construction and operation of the project. Therefore, impacts related to violation of any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements would be less than significant. Less Than Significant ImpacL The Rancho Califomia Water District provides water and reclaimed water services to the project area. Groundwater is located approximately 38 feet below ground surface. The proposed project does not include the injection into or extraction from groundwater and would not create substantial subsurface cuts, which might impede groundwater movement. No water wells would be used on the project site, as the District would provide domestic water supply. Implementation of the proposed project would not deplete groundwater supplies or substantially interfere with groundwater recharge.. 8.c.d.e. Less Than Significant ImpacL The proposed project would result in the alteration of existing drainage patterns and the amount and quality of surface, runoff due to grading, and construction of business park structures and associated parking, resulting in the addition of impervious surfaces and irrigation of landscaped areas within the 20-acre undeveloped portion of the project site. Some changes to absorption rates, drainage patterns and the rate and amount of surface runoff are expected whenever development occurs on previously permeable ground. While absorption rates and surface runoff will change, potential impacts shall be mitigated through site design. Drainage conveyances, which are required for the project to safely and adequately handle runoff that is created, ara anticipated to ultimately drain into the two existing storm drains located off of Motor Car Parkway. The proposed project will be required to accommodate the drainage created as a result of proposed development, and not impa~ct surrounding properties. Impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are required. 25 8.g,h.i.j. No Impact. As identified in the General 'Plan Safety Eleme.n.t, the project site?snot Iocate~ the 100 Year Flood Boundary or in any of the Dam Inundation Areas, nor is it near any large bodies of water. Therefore, the proposed project would not place any structure within a 100- year flood hazard area nor is the project site subject to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. No impacts would occur and no mitigation measures are required. (Sources I and 4) 9. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: .... ~_~ ~,~, = .... ........ ~ · ~,~,~- ,~$ ........ ~ , . ;~ ,~.:?:~,~ ?~:4~*~ .............. a. I Physi~lly dMde an es~blished ~mmuni~ ¢ b. ~nfli~ ~th appli~ble land use plan, polio, or ¢ regulation of an agen~ ~ judsdi~ion over the pmje~ (including, but not limited to ~e general plan, spe~c : plan, Io~1 ~as~l p~mm, or zoning o~inan~) adopted for the pu~ose of avoiding or mitigating an envimnmen~l effe~ c. Confli~ ~th any appli~bte habi~t ~nse~ation plan or ¢ ~ natural ~mmuni~ ~nse~ation plan? Comments: .8. No Impact. The project site is surrounded by: undeveloped property and commercial development to the north; single-family and multi-family residential development to the east and northeast; multi-family residential development to the southeast and south; commercial development to the west and southwest. Although there are residential neighborhoods to the east and south of the project site, the single family neighborhoods are buffered by distance as well as the multi-family units adjacent to the project site. The proposed project would be compatible with the adjacent office park and commercial uses to the northwest and north, respectively, of the project site. A pedestrian bddge over Ynez Road at Auto Mall Parkway also is proposed as part of the project to provide a pedestrian linkage between the existing and proposed development. This improvement would connect the proposed project to the non- residential area located to the west and would not physically divide the established residential communities located to the east and south of the proposed project. No impacts would occur and no mitigation measures are required. No Impact. The City's General Plan Land Use Element designates the project site as Business Park (BP), and it is zoned BP on the approximately 20-acre portion of the site ~ Light Industrial (LI) on the approximately seven-acre portion of the site. The General Plan 26 land use designation allows for the development of business and employment centers that offer attractive and distinctive amhitectural design, innovative site planning, and substantial landscaping and visual quality. Typical uses may include: professional offices, reseamh.and development, laboratories, light manufacturing, storage, industrial supply and wholesale businesses. The intent of the LI District, as defined by the Development Code, is to promote development of attractive comprehensively planned industrial uses that will help to provide the City with a sound and diverse industrial base. The Development Agreement provides that the development standards for the portion of the site zoned LI, shall.be the same as for the portion of the site that is zoned BP. The BP and LI Zoning Districts as defined by the Development Code allows for development consistent with the BP General Plan land use designation. The proposed Development Agreement for the project site, will allow for the vested dght to develop the site with up to 481,260 square feet of development in up to five buildings, plus two parking structures. As identified within the Development Agreement, the permitted uses could include office, reseamh, medical device and/or pharmaceutical manufacturing, with employee day care facility, employee commissary or cafeteria, educational/training facility, employee gym, and other similar uses. The proposed project would be consistent with the land uses permitted under the General Plan BP land use designation and the BP/LI Zoning Districts, representing the logical extension of the existing uses to the west of the project site. The proposed project would not conflict with applicable land use plans and policies, including the City of Temecula General Plan and the City's Development Code. No impacts would occur and no mitigation measures are required. (Sources 1 and 2) .0o Less Than Significant Impac£ The project site is within the Fee Area of the Riverside County' Stephen's Kangaroo Rat Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) but is not within a designated reserve area as defined by the Conservation Plan nor is it within a proposed reserve area for the County of Riverside Multi-species Habitat Conservation Plan. The project site is located within the Tentative Parcel Map No. 30107. A Condition of Approval was required for the approval of Tentative Parcel Map No. 30107, which required that the applicant comply with the provisions of Chapter 8.24 of the Temecula Municipal Code (Habitat Conservation) by paying the appropriate fee set forth in that ordinance or by providing documented evidence that the fees have already been paid. This condition has been placed upon the proposed project as mitigation (refer to Response No. 4f.) As a result, the proposed project would be in compliance with local regulations governing the Habitat Conservation Plan requirements associated with construction and operation of the project. Therefore, no impacts would occur and no mitigation measures are required. (Sources 1 and 4) 10. MINERA/. RESOURCES. Would the project: a. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? Comments: lO.a.b. No Impact. The project will not result in the loss of available, known mineral resoumes or the loss of an .available, locally important mineral resoume recovery s te Implementation of the proposed project would not result in an impact related to mineral resources and no mitigation measures are required. (Source 1) 11. NOISE. Would the project result in: a. .Exposure of people to severe noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbome vibration or groundbome noise levels? c. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels ,n the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d. A substantial temporary or pedodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the ro.p_Eqj.~area to excessive noise levels? 28 Comments: Less Than Significant Impact. The following analysis defines the existing noise environment within the project area and evaluates the future estimated noise levels at noise-sensitive land uses resulting from operation of the proposed project. The noise environment in the project area is dominated by traffic noise from nearby roadways. The heaviest traveled roadways in the vicinity of the project area include Margarita Road, Solana Way, and Ynez Road, which ara located east, south, and west of the project site, respectively. Secondary noise results from nearby Interstate 15, commemial activities (e.g., delivery and garbage trucks), and residential noise sources (e.g., passenger vehicles, pets, and landscape maintenance operations). Ambient noise levels in the project vicinity are typical of noise levels experienced within urbanized areas throughout the City of Temecula. Ambient noise measurements'were conducted with a Type I Sound Level Meter on February 26, 2002 to determine existing noise levels in the project vicinity. Four measurement sites were located along the property boundary approximately 10 feet from Margarita Road and Solana Way and north and south of the project site along Margarita Road. Measurement data is summarized in Table D-1 included as Attachment D to this report. Noise-sensitive land uses (sensitive receptors) in the project vicinity include multi-family residences east and south of the project site. The City of Temecula has adopted local guidelines based on the community noise compatibility guidelines established by the State Department of Health Services for use in assessing the compatibility of vadous land use types with a range of noise levels. These guidelines are the basis for guidelines contained in the City of Temecula General Plan Noise Element, which are expressed in terms of the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL).2 CNEL guidelines for specific land uses are classified into four categories: (1) "clearly acceptable"; (2) "normally acceptable"; (3) "normally unacceptable"; and (4) "dearly unacceptable." A CNEL value of 65 dBA' is considered the dividing line between a "normally acceptable" and "normally unacceptable" noise environment for noise sensitive land uses, including single-family and multi-family residences, parks, schools, and playgrounds. For less sensitive office and industrial' uses, the dividing line between "normally acceptable" and "normally unacceptable" is set at 75 and 80 dBA, respectively. The CNEL guideline was used to evaluate the impact of off-site vehicular noise associated with the proposed project. OThe CNEL is the average ofall~.4-weighted dB levels for a 24-hour period, with a .5 dB upward adjustment added to those noise levels occurring between 7.'00 P.M. and I0:00 P.M. and a 10 dB upward adjustment for noise levels occurring between 10:00 P.M. and 7:00 29 Section 8.32.10 of the City of Temecula Municipal Code provides provisions related to noise control. While the provisions of this Section do not provide a specific threshold, an increase in the ambient n°ise level °f 3 dB is generally considered to be noticeable and ;~o~en~.er:;e~ noise level of 5 dB or more is considered clearly discemable.' Therefore, a operational noise level increase of 5 dBA over the existing average ambient noise level at an adjacent property would be considered a significant impact. The noise levels associated with future operations subsequent to construction of the proposed project have been analyzed and compared to the applicable significance threshold which limits the equivalent sound level (Leq) for residential zones to a noise level increase of 5 dBA over the existing average ambient noise level at an adjacent property. The operation of mechanical equipment such as air conditionem, fans, blowers, compressors, and related equipment may generate audible noise levels. Mechanical equipment would be located within buildings or shielded from nearby sensitive noise receptors to attenuate noise and avoid conflicts with adjacent residential uses. Therefore, operation of mechanical equipment within these areas would not result in a substantial increase in noise levels. No significant impact would occur and no mitigation measures would be required. The proposed project would increase the number of daily trips 'on the roadway system surrounding the project site. The maximum increase in noise levels resulting from project traffic would be 0.3 dBA along Solana Way and Margarita Road. The FHWA traffic model (FHWA-RD-77-108) was used to model existing and all future traffic noise levels. calculation worksheets are included in Appendix C. This methodology allows for evaluation of the Average Daily Traffic Volumes provided in the Guidant Traffic Impact Analysis. These noise levels are well below the 5 dBA threshold of significance. An increase of less than 3 dBA is generallY not:discemible to most people and~ therefore, no impact would occur and no mitigation measures would be required. 11.b. Less Than Significant Impact- Excessive noise and vibration are not present in the project area. The primary source of noise and vibration in the area is associated with vehicular traffic along the various local transportation corridors within the area. As described in Response Nos. 1 la. and d., construction and operation of the project would not result in the generation of excessive groundbome noise levels. Although vibration would occur as a result of construction activities, excessive groundborne vibration activities such. as pile driving would not be required during construction and given the distance of the sensitive receptors from proposed activities, vibration levels at nearby sensitive receptors would be less than significant. No significant impacts associated with the exposure of persons to excessive ground.borne vibration or groundborne noise levels would occur and no mitigation measures would be required. · Bruel & Kjaer,/lcoustic Noise Measurements Handbook. 5th Ed., Hass~tll, J.R, & Zaveri, K., June 1998, pages 34 and 62. 30 11.c. Less Than Significant ImpacL Noise associated with the change in traffic Volumes resulting from cumulative traffic was also evaluated and compared to guidelines set forth in the City of Temecula's General Plan to evaluate the impact of vehicular noise. The maximum increase in noise levels resulting from cumulative traffic would be 0.5 dBA along Solana Way and 0.4 dBA along Margarita Road. Noise calculation worksheets are included in Attachment D. These noise levels are well below the 5 dBA threshold of significance. An increase of less than 3 dBA is generally not discernible to most people and, therefore, no impacts associated with cumulative traffic noise would occur and no mitigation measures would be required. 11.d. Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. Noise impacts from construction activities occurring within the project site would be a *function of noise generated by construction equipment, equipment location, the sensitivity of nearby land uses, and the timing and dUration of the noise-generating activities. Construction activities would include five stages: (1) site preparation; (2) excavation/fill; (3) foundation construction; (4)building construction; and (5) finishing and cleanup. Each stage involves the use of different kinds of construction equipment and, therefore, has its own distinct noise characteristics. Clearing and excavation typically involve the use of earth moving equipment, such as heavy-duty trucks, grademl backhoes, and front-end loaders. Foundation construction typically involves the use of concrete trucks, cranes and pneumatic tools. Building construction typically involves the use of hammers, generators, compressors, and light trucks, while noise sources associated with finishing and site cleanup generally include trucks, landscape rollers, and compactors. Section 8.32.020 of the City of Temecula Municipal Code prohibits construction activities within one-quarter mile of a residential zone during the hours of 6:30 p.m. and 6:30 a.m. Monday through Friday, 6:30 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. Saturday, and does not allow construction activities on Sunday. Table D-2 in Attachment D lists the highest noise levels associated with each stage of construction. These estimated construction noise levels are governed primarily by the high noise-producing pieces of equipment to be used and-represent conservative worst-case conditions in which the maximum amount of construction equipment would be operating dudng a one-hour period. These estimated maximum noise levels would not be continuous nor would they be typical of noise levels throughout the construction period. As indicated in Table C-2, due to the type of construction equipment proposed, the highest level of construction noise would be expected to occur during the grading, excavation, and finishing phases, with an equivalent sound level (Leq) as high as 86 dBA at 50 feet from the center of construction activity. The estimated construction noise levels during the heaviest periods of activity at nearby sensitive receptors are provided in Attachment D. Residences near the project site would be approximately 400-500 feet from the center of the construction zone. To ascertain construction noise impacts, the construction-activity noise level was calculated by making a distance adjustment to the construction noise level at the receptor location based on a 6 dBA 31 for doubling of distance. Residences located to the east of the project site could occasionally experience construction noise levels of 68 dBA (hourly Leq) and residences to the south of the project site could occasionally experience construction noise levels of 66 dBA (hourly IL~ during the heaviest periods of construction. A construction noise level of 68 dBA would ~ slightly above existing ambient noise levels. However, such noise levels would be experienced intermittently as only portions of the project site would be under construction at any one time. The majodty of the time, construction noise levels at adjacent sensitive locations would be much lower, due to reduced construction activity and the phasing of construction (i.e., construction noise levels at a given location would be reduced as construction activities conclude or move to another more distant location of the site). Nevertheless, it is possible that construction noise would pose a temporary and periodic nuisance to adjacent residential uses. Therefore, construction noise is considered significant. The mitigation measures provided below would address intermittently high construction noise levels. With their implementation and compliance with the City Noise Ordinance, noise impacts associated with construction of the proposed project would be less than significant. Miti.qation Measures: MM10. Construction shall be restricted to the hours of 6:30 A.M. to 6:30 P.M. Mondaythrough Friday and 7:00 A.M. to 6:30 P.M. Saturday. MM11. The project contractor shall use construction equipment with noise shielding muffling devices. MM12. Construction activities shall be scheduled so as to avoid operating several pieces of equipment simultaneously, which causes high noise levels. MM13. The Applicant shall notify the communities in advance of construction activities. The construction manger's (or representative's) telephone number shall also be provided with notification so that community concerns can be expressed and addressed whenever feasible. Forms of notification shall include one or more of the following: signs posted on the site and/or distribution of leaflets to adjacent residents. 11.e. No Impact. There are no public airstrips within the vicinity of the project site. As such, project construction or operation would not expose people residing or working in the area to excessive noise levels and no mitigation measures would be required. 11.f. No Impact. There are no private airstrips within the vicinity of the project site. As such, project construction or operation would not expose people residing or working in the area to excessive noise levels and no mitigation measures would .be required: (Sources 1 and 9) 32 ° 2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: II ~ ~ ~ '~'"~ ': i...~ ". a. I Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c. Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Comments: 12.a. No Impact. The project site is located within an urbanized area with existing infrastructure and roadways. Development of the project site would not result in the extension of roads or major infrastructure. While the proposed project may cause some people to relocate to; or within Temecula to be closer to their place of employment, it would not induce growth beyond what is projected in the City of Temecula General Plan. In addition, the proposed project is largely intended to implement the City General Plan by attracting additional quality employment for local residents and to the support the existing Guidant Corporation Campus in that it provides for an additiOnal 481,260 square feet of allowable building space to include supporting office space, a day care center, commissary, and fitness center for Guidant employees. 12.b.c. No Impact. No residential properties currently exist on the project site and none would be provided as part of the proposed project. Implementation of the proposed project would not displace existing housing, nor would it displace numbem of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. No impacts would occur and no mitigation measures are required. 13. PUBLIC SERVICES: Would the proposal result in substantial adverse physical Impacts associates with the provisions of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the following public services: Lees Than Significa~l~ With Potentially Mitigation Less Than Significant Incorporated Significant No Issues and Supporting Information Sources Impact Impact Imp~d Poli~ protection? ,/ c. Schools? v' 33 d. Parks? e. Other pub c faci t es? Comments: 13.a. 13.b. 13.c. Less Than Significant Impact. The City of Temecula contracts with the County of Riverside for enhanced fire protection services, as a result there are four Stations that provide fire protection to the City. RCFD Station No. 73 would primarily serve the project site. RCFD Station No. 73, located at 27415 Enterprise Cimle, is less than one mile from the project site. Typical emergency response time for the RCFD is 5 minutes or less on the average. The development of approximately 481,260 square feet of business park uses on the project site would thereby increase the potential number of structures and persons who would need fire protection and paramedic services. The General Plan EIR states that additional fire facilities and personnel needs in the City of Temecula would be addressed during the contract'renewal process between the City and the RCFD. Development within the City would be subject to Fire Mitigation Fees established by the RCFD. This fee covers the cost of building, staffing and operating additional 'tire facilities. Although it is anticipated that the project site can be adequately serviced by Station No. 73, any potential need for increased personnel or equipment would be adequately addressed through the payment by the applicant of the Fire Mitigation Fees which are included in the City's Development Impact Fees as provided in the Municipal Code Section 15.06.030..Impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are required. Less Than Significant ImpacL The City of Temecula contracts with the County of for enhanced police services, as a result, police protection for the 'project area is based out of. the Southwest Justice Center located near the French Valley Airport. The City also has three store-front Sheriff's Deparl:ment office locations: Town Center Storefront at 27540 Ynez Road, Old Town Storefront at 28410 Old Town Front Street, and Promenade Mall Storefront at Winchester Road and Ynez Road. The Town Center Storefront is located approximately 1.5 miles from the project site. The City has an established Level of Service Standard of one officer per 1,000 residents. While the increase in building space and the potential increase in new residents would generate additional demands on police protection services, it is anticipated that the Sheriff's Department can adequately service the project site. In addition, the Applicant would address any potehtial need for increased personnel or equipment through the payment by the Applicant of the City's Development Impact Fees as provided in the Municipal Code Section 15.06.030. Impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are required. Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is within the Temecula Valley Unified School District. There are no school facilities on or immediately adjacent to the project site. As there are no residential land uses provided with the proposed project, school services would not be directly impacted. However, the proposed project includes the expansion of existing business park/light industrial facilities, and employment opportunities generated by the proposed proj could have the potential to generate a demand for housing, which could in turn affect existing schools in the area. Senate Bill 50 (SB 50) was signed into law on August 27, 1998. Under SB 50, the state, except where hardship assistance is provided, will fund 50 percent of the cost of future school facilities, assuming that local bonds will be approved, and that school fees will provide the remaining 50 percent. SB 50 states that the maximum fee amounts allowed by the bill are "deemed to provide full and complete school facilities mitigation" for purposes of CEQA. Pursuant to the bill, the initial, or ULevel 1" fees that can currently be charged by a school district are $2.05 per square foot for residential construction and $0.33 per square foot for commercial construction. Therefore, the school fees for the proposed project would be a commercial/industrial fee of $0.33 per square foot of new construction. In addition, the potential demand for housing and the associated increase for school services would be within regional levels accounted for by the General Plan. Impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are required. 13.d. Less Than Significant ImpacL The increase in employee population has the potential to affect existing recreational facilities or increase the demand for adult recreation programs in the City. The proposed project would provide a fitness center to be utilized by the project- generated employees, as well as Guidant employees located at the existing facility. Although it is anticipated that the proposed fitness center would adequately serve the Guidant employees regarding recreation, the Applicant would address any potential need for increased personnel or equipment through the payment by the Applicant of the City's Development Impact Fees as provided in the Municipal Code Section 15.06.030. Impacts would be leSs than significant and no mitigation measures are required. 13.e. Less Than Significant Impac£ The project would have a less than significant impact upon, or result in a need for new or altered public facilities. No significant impact would occur with respect to public facilities and no mitigation measures would be required. (Sources 1, 8 and 10) 14. RECREATION. Would the project: ' · ~ ~,~:: ].~ae~l~Q~rting !6f~hna~i~,~;::. ,:~i /, . ' ,: a. Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b. Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? 35 Comments: 14.a.b. Less Than Significant ImpacL The increase in the on-site population has the potential to increase the demand for adult recreation pregrems in the City. The proposed project would provide a fitness center, which would accommodate the new employees as well as existing employees at the Guidant facilities. Therefore, impacts related to increased use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated would be less than significant. 15. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project: a. ~use an incase in ~affic ~i~ is subs~ntial in relation to ~e existing Eaffic load and ~pad~ of ~e s~et system (i.e., result in a subs~nflal incase in eider ~e number of vehicle ~ps, ~e volume to ~pad~ milo on roads, or ~ngestion at inteme~ions)? b. Ex,ed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of sewi~ standard es~blished by ~e ~un~ ~ngesfion management agency for designated roads or highways? c. Result in a ~ange in air ~ffic paffems, including eider an incase in ~affic levels or a ~ange in Io~fion ~at resul~ in subs~ntial safe~ Hsks? d. Subs~nfially incase ha~rds due to a design feature (e.g., sha~ ~wes or dangerous inteme~ons) or in~mpafible uses (e.g., fa~ equipment)? e. ResuR in inadequate eme~en~ a~ss? f. Result in inadequate pa~ing ~pad~ g. ~nfli~ ~ adopted polities, plans, or pr~mms suppo~ng alternative tmnspo~ation (e.g., bus turnout, bi~e m~s? Comments: 15a.b. Less than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. The General Plan has established Level of Service (LOS) D as the lowest acceptable level of service for traffic cimulation within the City of Temecula. The applicant prepared a traffic study, entitled Guidant Corporation Campus Expansion Traffic Impact Analysis, dated February 12, 2002 by Urban Crossroads. The analysis reviewed the existing conditions, as well as the potential project impacts at the following eight intersections adjacent to the project site: 36 · Ynez Road (NS) at Overland Drive (EW) Ynez Road (NS) at Motor Car Parkway (EW) Ynez Road (NS) at Solana Way (EW) · Promenade Way (NS) at Overland Ddve (EW) · Motor Car Parkway (NS) at Solana Way (EW) · Margarita Road (NS) at Overland Ddve (EW) · Margarita Road (NS) at the apartment driveway (EW) · Margarita Road (NS) at Solana Way (EW) All study area intersections currently operate at LOS D or better at peak hours with the exception of Margarita Road at Apartment Driveway. The proposed project would generate approximately 5,089 daily vehicle trips with 737 vehicles per hour dudng the A.M. peak hour and 697 vehicles per hour during the P.M. peak hour. With the addition of estimated proposed project traffic plus traffic from future adjacent development, all study area intersections are expected to operate at LOS D or better at peak hours with the exception of Margarita Road at Apartment Driveway and Motor Car Parkway at Solana Way. The following public improvements were required as conditions of approval of Tentative Parcel Map No. 30107: · Improve Solana Way (Major Highway Standards - 100' PJW) to include installation of half-width' street improvements, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, raised landscaped median. · Improve Margarita Road (Arterial Highway Standards - 110' PJW) to include installation of a deceleration lane to access the pdvate Street "A". Said lane is to be 10 feet wide, 150 feet long, and is to include a transitional distance of 120 feet. · Improve Margarita Road (Arterial Highway Standards - 110' PJW) to include median/striping modifications, etc. to.provide for a full tuming movement driveway (i.e., left turn in from Margarita Road onto pdvate Street "B". In addition, the Development Agreement identifies public road improvements that will be accomplished as part of the Owner Participation Agreement entered into by and between the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Temecula and the applicant. These improvements include the following and have been taken into consideration in the analysis of potential significant impacts related to traffic/circulation: · Improve Ynez Road at Motor Car Parkway to include installation of a deceleration lane to access Motor Car Parkway. Said lane is to be 10 feet wide, 150 feet long, and is to include a transitional distance of 120 feet. · Improve Motor Car Parkway to acceptable standards. · Improve and signalize Margarita Road at Private Street "B". 37 15.C 15.d 15.e. 15.f 15.g Taking into consideration the improvements that would occur as conditions of approval of Tentative Parcel Map No. 30107 and as part of the Owner Participation Agreement, incorporation of the mitigation measures provided below would reduce these significant traffic impacts to a less than significant level. Miti.qation Measures: MM14. Mar,qarita Way/Apartment Driveway: The proposed access should be located directly across from the existing Apartment Driveway and form the fourth leg of this intersection. A traffic signal should be constructed with development to allow this access point full access along Margarita Road and additional median modifications and re-striping will be accomplished to maintain LOS D for existing plus project conditions. MM15. Proiect Driveway/Solana Way: This access point should be restricted to right-in/right- out only. A stop sign, stop bar, and stop legend should be provided to control vehicles exiting the site. Less Than Significant ImpacL Development of the proposed project will not result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks. The site is not within the French Valley Airport's "flight overlay district and therefore the proposed project would not result in a change in air traffic patterns. No Impac£ The project will not result in hazards to safety from design featuresl The designed to current City standards and does not propose any hazards. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. No Impact. The project will not result in inadequate emergency access or inadequate access to nearby uses. The project is designed to current City standards and has adequate emergency access. The project does not interfere with access to nearby .uses. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. Less Than Significant Impac£ The proposed development complies with the City's Development Code parking requirements for business park/light industrial uses. The project exceeds the City's parking standards, providing 5 spaces per 1,000 square feet of development. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. Less Than Significant Impact. The project as proposed does not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting altemative transportation. To accommodate employees, the applicant has provided motorcycle and bicycle parking, vanpool and carpool spaces, all as preferential spaces at the main entry. As a consequence, the project supports alternative transportation, and no impact is anticipated. (Sources 1, 2 and 11) 38 J UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project: :" :: a. Ex,ed wastewater ~ea~ent requirements of the ~ appli~ble Regional Water Quali~ ~ntml Board? b. Require or result in ~e ~nstmction of new water or wastewater treatment fadlities or e~ansion of e~sting facilities, ~e ~nstmction of whi~ ~uld ~use signifi~nt envimnmen~l effects? c. Require or result in the ~nstruc~on of new sto~ water drainage fadlifies or expansion of e~sting fadlities, the ~ns~ction of whi~ ~uld ~use signifi~nt en~mnmen~l effe~? d. Have s~dent water supplies a~ilable to se~e ~e project from e~sting en~emen~ and msour~s, or am new or e~anded entitlemen~ needed? e. Result in a dete~ination ,by the wastewater tma~ent pm~der ~i~ sewes or may sewe the proje~ that it has adequate ~pad~ to se~e the proje~'s proje~ed demand in addition to the provideds eAsfing ~mmitmen~? ~Be se~ed by a landfill wi~ suffident pe~iffed ~pad~ to a~mmodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g. Comply with federal, state, and Io~1 s~tutes and regulations related to solid waste? Comments: 16.a., b. and e. .C. Less Than Significant Impact. Development of the proposed project will not exceed wastewater treatment requirements, require the construction of new treatment facilities, nor affect the capacity of treatment providers. The proposed project will have an incremental effect upon existing systems. However, the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the City's General Plan states: "implementation of the proposed General Plan would not significantly impact wastewater services." Since the project is consistent with the City's General Plan, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. Moreover, the project will be conditioned to comply with Regional Water Quality Control Board standards that will be monitored by the Department of Public Works. Potential impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are required. Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. The development of the parcel will require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities onsite that will 39 COnnect to the existing system currently in place. The design of the existing system that exists offsite is expected to be sufficient to handle this project and will not require the expansion of ' existing facilities. Tentative Parcel Map No. 30107, which includes the 20-acre vacant portia. of the project site, was COnditioned to address storm drainage flows that would result fro'l?F proposed development. This project will be COnditioned to comply with Conditions of Approval for Tentative Pamel Map No. 30107, which required submittal of a drainage study with the initial grading plan check. With implementation of the mitigation measure listed below, impacts associated with storm water drainage would be less than significant. Miti.qation Measure: MM16. A Drainage Study shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and submitted to the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The study shall identify storm water runoff quantities expected from the development of this site and upstream of the site. It shall identify all existing or proposed off-site or on-site, public · or private, drainage facilities intended to discharge this runoff. Runoff shall be conveyed to an adequate outfall capable of receiving the storm water runoff without damage to public or private property. The study shall include a capacity analysis verifying the adequacy of all facilities. Any upgrading or upsizing of drainage facilities necessary to convey the storm water runoff shall be provided as part of development of the project site. The basis for analysis ands design shall be a storm with a recurrence interval of one hundred years. 16.d. Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project will not significantly impact existing water supplies nor require expanded water entitlements. While the proposed project will have an incremental impact upon existing systems, the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the City's General Plan states: "Both EMWD and RCWD have indicated an ability to supply as much water as is required in their services areas (p. 39)." The FEIR further states: "implementation of the proposed General Plan would not significantly impact wastewater services (p. 40)." Since the project is COnsistent with the City's General Plan, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 16.f.g. Less Than Significant Impact. The project will not result in a need for new. landfill capacity. Any potential impacts from solid waste created by future development can be mitigated through participation in Source Reduction and Recycling Programs, which are implemented by the City. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. (Sources 1, 4, 10, 11, 12, 13) 4O 17. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality ,/ of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number of restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b. Does the' project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects? c. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adveme effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Comments: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. The project site is located within an urbanized area and has been previously graded and developed. No riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community was detected on the project site. Implementation of the proposed project would result in the removal of burrowing owl habitat and could indirectly impact the man-made basins found to the north of the project site, which could provide habitat for fairy shrimp. Implementation of mitigation measures as previously described within this Initial Study would ensure that impacts to burrowing owls and potential fairy shrimp are reduced to a less than significant level. 17.b. As described previously, no prehistoric or historic archaeological sites are known to exist within the Project site. In addition, mitigation would ensure that development would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of archaeological or paleontological resources. Development of the proposed project would not degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of major periods of Califomia history or prehistory. Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. The project site would be developed in conformance with the City of Temecula's General Plan and Development Code. All cumulative effects for the various land uses of the subject site as well as the surrounding 41 developments were analyzed in the General Plan Environmental Impact Report. With cumulative traffic (estimated proposed project traffic plus traffic from future adjacent development) all study area intersections are expected to operate at acceptable levels at hours with the exception of Margarita Road at Apartment Driveway and Motor Car Parkway Solana Way. Incorporation of mitigation measures as previously described within this Initial Study would reduce potentially significant impacts to a less than significant level. All other cumulative resource issues were found to be consistent with the General Plan and the Development Code. It should also be noted that with regard to residential projects that were identified as part of the City buildout projections assumed in the General Plan and analyzed in the General Plan EIR, evidence suggests that only one project in recent years, a Redevelopment Agency affordable housing project, has been approved either close to or in excess of the applicable maximum density range. Based on this assessment, City staff estimates that at least 3,667 residential units originally assumed to be developed in the City have not, or will not, be constructed within 'the City of Temecula (refer to City of Ternecula Community Development Memorandum to City Councilrnembers, dated December 21, 2000). Accordingly, actual development within the City is less than buildout assumed within the General Plan EIR and therefore, the analysis, findings, and determinations.made within the General Plan EIR continue to be valid. Given the project's consistency with the General Plan and Development Code, the cumulative impact related to the development of the proposed project will not have a significant impact. 17.c. No Impact. The proposed project will not have environmental effects that would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, directly or indirectly. The proposed project~ designed and will be developed consistent with the Development Code and General Plan. significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 18. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should Identify the following on attached sheets. a. Eadier analyses used. Identi~ earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. b. Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which affects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c. Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specifiCconditions for the project.' Comments: In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15063(c)(3)(D), this Guidant Corporation Campus Expansion Initial Study has referenced and incorporated information from the General Plan EIR in analyzing the project's potential significant environmental effects as further described below: 42 According to Section 21083.3(b) of the Public Resources Code, =lfa development project is nhsistent with the general plan of a local agency and an.. environmental impact report was certified respect to that general plan, the application of this division to the approval of that development project shall be limited to effects on the environment which are peculiar to the parcel or to the project and which were not addressed as significant effects in the prfor environmental impact report, or which substantial new information shows will be more significant than desc#bed in the prior environmental impact report, or which substantial new information shows will be more significant than descrtbed in the prior environmental impact report." Furthermore, as described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, CEQA mandates that projects which are consistent with the development density established by existing zoning, community plan, or general plan policies for which an EIR was certified shall not require additional environmental review, 'except as might be necessary to examine whether there are project-specific significant effects which are peculiar to the project or its site. Ultimate development of the project site has been addressed under the City of Temecula General Plan, adopted in 1993, and analyzed within the 1993 certified General Plan EIR (copies of these documents are available for review at the City of Temecula Community Development Department). The proposed project's maximum potential buildout falls within the target FAR (0.40) for the site as identified within the City's General Plan and analyzed within the General Plan EIR. Therefore, the Initial Study summarizes the findings of the General Plan EIR where appropriate and incorporates this document by reference. In addition, potentially significant impacts ~peculiar to the project" are identified in the Initial Study, and · mitigation measures are provided to reduce potential impacts to a lessthan significant level. "· e Guidant Corporation Campus Expansion Initial Study identifies significant environmental effects ated to air quality and traffic/circulation that cannot be avoided or substantially lessened despite the project's incorporation of ail feasible mitigation, measures. These impacts associated with air quality and cumulative traffic, are fully addressed in the City's General Plan EIR, and are not peculiar to the project or its site. Furthermore, the project has provided mitigation measures that are feasible at the project-level and has also incorporated design features that contribute to implementation of the program-level mitigation measures set forth in the City General Plan EIR (refer to Section 4.2 Air Quality of the General Plan EIR). In accordance with Section 15152(f)(3)(C) of the CEQA Guidelines, the only purpose of including analysis of such effects in another environmental impact report would be to put the agency in a position to adopt a Statement of Overriding. Considerations with respect to the effects. The City previously adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations, acknowledging significant unavoidable impacts related to air quality and traffic, and maximum buildout potential of the project site had been addressed in the General Plan EIR; therefore, significant environmental effects have been adequately addressed. 43 The following sources as listed below were utilized in preparation of the Guidant Corporation Campus Expansion Initial Study: SOURCES o 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. City of Temecula General Plan, November 1993. City of Temecula Development Code, Title 17 Zoning. Biological Resources Report for the Temecula Eli Lilly Project, prepared by Dudek & Associates, Inc. May 2001. Conditions of Approval for Tentative Parcel Map No. 30107. Histo#cal/Archeological Resources Survey, prepared by CRM Tech, December 15, 2000. California Department of Conservation, Seismic Hazards Evaluation & Zoning For California, www. consrv, ca.qov/dm.q/shezp, September 2001. Geotechnical Investigation, 37-Acre Commercial Parcel, Located West of Margarita Road and South of Overland Drive, City of Temecula, Riverside County, California, prepared by Petra Geotechnical, Inc., January 26, 2001. City of Temecula Official Intemet Site, www.ci.temecula,ca.us Bruel & Kjaer, Acoustic Noise Measurement Handbook, 5~ Ed., Hassal, J.R. & Zaveri, K., June 1998, pages 34 and 62. City of Temecula General Plan Environmental Impact Report, July 1993. Guidant Corporation Campus Expansion Traffic Impact Analysis, Urban Crossroads, February 12, 2002. Eastern Municipal Water District, EMWD Insights - Temecula Valley, June 2001. Integrated Waste Management Board, Jurisdiction Profile for City of Temecula, October 4, 2001, www. ciwb.ca.qov/Profiles/J uds. Memorandum to City Councilmembers, Subject: Information on Actual Development Project Intensitit prepared by Community Development Department, December 21, 2000. ATTACHMENT A: PROJECT DESCRIPTION ATTACHMENT A: PROJECT DESCRIPTION A. INTRODUCTION The Project Applicant, the Guidant Corporation, is applying to the City of Temecula for a Development Agreement, which would at~thorize the expansion of the existing Guidant Corporation Campus on an approximate 27.8-aero site located directly across Ynez Road from the existing Guldant Corporation facility in the City of Temecula (City), Riverside County (County). The proposed project would provide for the development of approximately 481,260 square feet of allowable building area to include supporting office space, a day care facility, commissary or cafeteria, an educational/training facility, and fitness center for Guidant employees. The project site is designated as Business Park (BP) in the City's General Plan Laud Use Element and zoned BP and Light Industrial (LI) in the City's Development Code. The grading and development associated with the proposed project would be consistent with the provisions of the City's Development Code. B. PROJECT LOCATION The project site is located in the noFthwestern portion of the City of Temecula, Riverside County, as shown in Figure A-1 on page A-2. Access to the project site is provided via Ynez Road and Motor Car Parkway to the west, Margarita Road to the east, and Solana Way to the south as shown in Figure A-2 on page A-3. The project site is surrounded by: undeveloped property and commercial development to the north; multi- and single-family residential development to the east and northeast; multi- family residential development to the southeast and south; commercial development to the west and southwest and the existing Guidant Corporation facility to the west. Figure A-3 on page A-4 provides an aerial view of the project site and adjacent vicinity. C. SITE CHARACTERISTICS The approximately 27.8-acre project site is located directly across Ynez Road from the existing Guidant Corporation Campus. The project site ranges in elevation from approximately Guldint Corporation City of Tem~ula PCR Servicc~ Corporation March 28, 2002 Page A-I ~ / ~ P~O~ Ontario /~RedlandsO'~ LOS ~geles~ ~ / / ~ L ~un~no ~ _ __ / ~ ~~~~rr~--~ ~ ~or~o /~ ~ ~ ~. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~Valloy ) Im~flal 8~a~h > ~ Figure A-1  Gffidant Co~oration b 5 10 20' Miles Cmpus ~sion ~,: ,ca ~,~=~ ~. ~ Region~ Map Single-family Residential The Promenade at Temecula Commercial Office Development Overland Drive Single-family Residential Commercial/ Office Development PROJECT SITE Multi-family Residential Multi-family Multi-familY Residential Residential Commercial/Office Development Commercial/ Office Devel( Figure--~A- ~ Guidant Corporation No scale Calll[~ll$ Expansion 8~rc~: PCR Smvtces Corpmatioe, 2001 Vicinity Map No scale Aerial Source: Eagle Aedel Imaging, May 4, 2C01 Attachment A: Project Description 1,060 to 1,090 feet above mean sea level. Approximately seven acres of the project site located at the northwest corner of the project site immediately east of Ynez Road, are currently developed with parking lots, access roadways, and landscaped areas. The remaining 20 acres consist of currently undeveloped land previously disturbed by past land use activities including grading and agriculture. Ruderal and non-native grassland occurs on this portion of the project site. In addition, several ornamental non-native trees are found on the eastern edge of the project site. D. PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS The proposed project would provide for the development of approximately 481,260 square feet of allowable building area to include supporting office space, a day care facility, a commissary or cafeteria, an educational/training facility, and fitness center for Guidant employees. A pedestrian bridge over Ynez Road at Auto Mall Parkway is proposed to provide a pedestrian linkage between the existing and proposed Guldant development. The proposed project is anticipated to be constructed in phases with the ultimate timing of bulldout to occur in response to market demand for the products manufactured within by Guidant. The proposed development concept includes the construction of up to five office buildings at a maximum of five stories. The maximum height of the buildings would be 80 feet above the ground level, excluding mechanical equipment and associated enclosures. Appropriate building setbacks and landscaping would be utilized to address the proximity of the proposed development to the adjacent land uses. Primary access to the proposed project would be provided via an entrance off of Ynez Road at Motor Car Parkway, with secondary access provided via enhances off of Solana Way and Margarita Road. Parking will be accommodated at a ratio of 5 spaces per 1,000 square feet of building area within surface parking areas and potentially two parking structures at buildout of the proposed project. Guldant Corporation Cliy of Temecula PCR Services Cotlmration March 28, 2002 Page A-5 Attachment A: Project Desc~pfion E. DESCRIPTION OF DISCRETIONARY ACTIONS Implementation of the proposed project would require the following approvals: City of Temecula · Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration · Development Agreement · Grading Permits · Building Pen'nits Guldant Corporation City of Temecula PCR ,%trices Corporation March 28, 2002 Page A-6 ATTACHMENT B: BUILDING SETBACK DIAGRAM ATTACHMENT C: AIR QUALITY TABLES Attachment C: Air Quality Tables Table C-1 ESTIMATED WORST CASE PROJECT-RELATED CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS" CO ROC NOx Daily Emissions (lbs/day)c 65 71 89 SCAQMD Daily Threshold (lbs/day) 550 75 1 O0 Lbs/Day Over (Under) (485) (4) (11) SOx PMt~ 5 9 150 150 (145) (141) Worst-case construction impacts are based upon the highest projected daily emissions occurring during the site preparation and construction phases. Fugitive dust emissions based on AP-42 assumptions. Daily estimate based on 22.5 working days per month. Source: PCR Services Corporation, February 2002. Construction emission calculation worksheets are included in Appendix .4. Guldant Corporation City of Temecula PCR Services Corporation March 28, 2002 Page C-I Attachment C: Air Quality Tablez Table C-2 ESTIMATED FUTURE MAXIMUM CO CONCENTRATIONS (2005)' Averaging Future Without Future WRh Project Project · Modeled Intersection Period Project (2005) b Proleet (2005) ~ Increment Impart Motor Car Parkway and 1-hr. 9.3 9.5 0.2 No Solana Way 8-hr. d 3.9 4.4 0.5 No Margatitu Road and 1-hr. 10.8 11.8 1.0 No Aparm~ent Driveway 8-hr. d 4.7 5.2 0.5 No Note: The State I-hour average CO standard is 20 ppm; the state and federal 8-hour average CO s.t.andard is 9.0 ppm. No exceedances of applicable standards were estimated. These estimated concentrations are based on the traffic impact analysis. Modeled with the C/ILINE4 dispersion model using EMF.4C7F composite emission factors and assuming worst-case meteorological conditions. Concentrations correspond to a location ten feet from the edge of the given intersection for t-hour concentrations and 23 feet from the edge of the given intersection for &hour concentrations. These estimates refer to 2005 and include worst-case background concentrations of 6.1 ppm, 1-hour average, and 5.77 ppm, &hour average. These projected backgrounds were based on future CO emission trends as described in the 1997.4QMP, SC,4QMD. This scenario presents condition~ resulting from cumulative projec~s without the proposed project These estimates refer to 2005 and include worst-case background concentrations of 6.1 ppm, 1-hour average, and 5.77 ppm, &hour average. These projected backgrounds were based on future CO emission trends as described in the 1997 .4QMP, SC,4QMD. This scenario present~ conditions resulting from cumulative projects, including the proposed project. The 8-hour average concentrations (calculated) are based on the local 1-hour average concentrations and a O. 7 persistence factor. Source: PCR Services Corporation, 2002. Guldant Corporation City of Temecula PCR Services Corporation March 28, 2002 Page C-2 ATTACHMENT D: NOISE TABLES Attachment D: Noise Tables Table D-1 NOISE MEASUREMENT DATA Receptor Location * Time Duration L~ Marl~xita Road north of 8:11 15-minute 70.2 Overland Drive 10:53 68.7 Margarita Road south of 7:45 15-minute 70.8 Overland Drive 10:26 69.1 Margarita Road south of Solana 8:45 15-minute 72.1 Way 11:22 71.7 Solana Way west of Margarita 7:20 15-minute 67.7 Road 10:01 66.5 ~ Noise measurements were conducted lO feet from the roadway segment along the project boundary. Source: PCR Services Corporation, February 2002. Guldant Corporation City of Temeeula PCR Services Corporation March 28, 2002 Page D-1 Attachment D: Noise Tables Table D-2 ESTIMATED NOISE LEVELS FROM CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES (Highest Noise Levels During One-Hour Period) Construction Stage Noise Level (dBA) at 50 feet Cleating (Site Preparation) 82 Grading 86 Excavation 86 Building Foundation 77 Building Construction 83 Finishing 86 Source: EPA, Noise from construction Equipment and Operations, BuiMing Equipment and Home Appliances, PB 206717, 1971. Guldant Corporation City of Temecula PCR Services Corporation March 28, 2002 Page D-2 ATTACHMENT NO. 5 MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM R:',D A\Guidant DA~Staff Report PC3.doc 17 Mitigation Monitoring Program Project Description: Development Agreement between the City of Temecula and the Guidant Corporation Location: Applicant: Generally located north of Solana Way, west of Margarita Road, south of Overland Drive, and east of Ynez Road in the City of Temecula, County of Riverside, California. Guidant Corporation 26531 Ynez Road Temecula, CA 92591-4628 Aesthetics General Impact: Mitigation Measures: Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista. (1). To ensure that the scale and character of proposed development along Margarita Road and Solana Way are compatible with adjacent residential uses, the final Site Plan shall reflect the following: · A minimum 35-foot landscaped setback shall be provided along Margarita Road and Solana Way. · Heights of buildings located along Margarita Road and Solana Way at the 35-foot setback line shall be limited to 50 feet. The angle formed from Guidant's existing easternmost property line along Margarita Road, and from Guidant's existing southernmost property line along Solana Way, to the 50-foot vertical building height at the setback line shall form the angular plane that establishes maximum building heights, not to exceed 80 feet (excluding mechanical equipment and associated enclosures). Setbacks on upper floors and building articulation to reduce the bulk and mass of the buildings shall be emphasized. The visual mass of buildings along Margarita Road and Solana Way shall be reduced through breaks in the structure, tree plantings, articulation of the facade, and other architectural devices. Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: Planning staff will verify compliance with the above mitigation measures as part of the final Development Plan review process. Prior to approval of the final Development Plan. Community Development Department Biolo,qical Resources General Impact: Mitigation Measures: Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; and Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. (2). Pdor to development or ground disturbance, the impacts to burrowing owls will be mitigated by a combination of pre- construction surveying, passive owl relocation, and burrow replacement. Two weeks before initiation of grading activities, a qualified biologist must survey the entire project area for extant burrowing owls. The biologist will look for burrowing owls while walking 20-meter transects. Every potential suitable burrow will be examined for burrowing owl sign (e.g. feathers, pellets, whitewash, bones, insect exoskeletons). All burrows found to house burrowing owls or sign will be flagged and mapped for removal. When surveying for burrowing owls, it should be noted that they frequently fly to alternative burrow(s) when disturbed. All burrows found to be inhabited by burrowing owls will be fitted with one-way doors for a period of three days. After the third day, the one-way doors will be removed and the burrow network excavated and closed so that re-occupation cannot occur. Before the one- way doors are fitted to the burrows, replacement burrows must be installed ih a combination of the channel easement onsite and offsite location to be determined. The offsite location must be considered suitable habitat and of sufficient size. Burrows will be replaced at a ratio of 2:1 for each burrow found occupied by burrowing owls. A minimum of six burrows must be installed. Burrows should be installed so that entrances randomly face the cardinal directions and that they are randomly distributed throughout the open space area, however at least 20% should be installed within the existing flood control channel. The design of the artificial burrow should be consistent with the latest widely used design. (3). General: In order to satisfy Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act requirements, vegetation removal should not occur between March and August. If vegetation removal must occur between March and August, then a nesting bird survey must be conducted by a qualified ornithologist. Trees and shrubs containing active nests may not be removed until the nesters have finished. Finishing is defined as having successfully raised a brood until they leave the nest or nest abandonment. Renesting by birds 2 requires the process to begin again. Raptors may nest during most any time of the year. Therefore, the barn o_wl nest and raptor nest must be surveyed prior to removal regardless of time of year. Removal of the tree may occur when it is determined that they are finished nesting or are not nesting. Specific process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: (4). In the event federally endangered fairy shrimp are found off- site adjacent to the project site, the Applicant shall consult with the USFWS prior to issuance of grading permits or any actions involving ground disturbing activities in the vicinity of the identified off-site habitat area so that to the extent feasible, project construction and/or operational activities will not have an adverse effect on federally endangered fairy shrimp. Planning staff will verify compliance with the above mitigation measures as part of the grading plan check review process. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit. Planning Department General Impact: Mitigation Measures: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: Conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. (5). Prior to issuance of grading permits the applicant shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 8.24 of the Temecula Municipal Code (Habitat Conservation) by paying the appropriate fee set forth in that ordinance or by providing documented evidence that the fees have already been paid. Planning staff will verify compliance with the above mitigation measure as part of.the grading plan check review process. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit. Planning Department Cultural Resources General Impact: Mitigation I~leasures: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 1506.5; and Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleotological resource or site or unique geological feature. (6). Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, a qualified paleontologist/archaeologist shall be chosen by the developer for consultation and comment on the proposed grading with respect to potential paleontological/archaeological impacts. A meeting between the paleontologist/archaeologist, Community Development Department - Planning Division staff, and grading contractor prior to the commencement of grading operations and the excavation shall be arranged. A qualified archaeologist and a qualified paleontologist shall be present on-site during grading to monitor the site for the presence of cultural or paleontological resources. A qualified paleontologist/amhaeologist or representative shall have the authority to temporarily divert, redirect or halt grading activity to allow recovery of cultural resources or fossils. The developer shall submit to Planning Department staff a copy of a contract between the developer and a qualified archeologist and a paleontologist for monitoring services during grading of the site. Planning staff will verify compliance with the above mitigation measure as part of the grading plan check review process. P¢ior to the issuance of a grading permit. Public Works Department Geolo,qy and Soils General Impact: Mitigation Measures: Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: · Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction; · Landslides; and/or Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 1801-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property. (7). Prior to the issuance of grading and building permits, the recommendations contained in soils report(s) shall be implemented. Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: Planning staff will verify compliance With the above mitigation measure as part of the grading and building plan check review processes. Prior to the issuance of grading and building permits. Public Works Department General Impact: Mitigation Measures: Specific Process: Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. (8). Prior to the issuance of grading and building permits, the Applicant shall submit to the Public Works Department an erosion control plan prepared in accordance with City requirements. Planning staff will verify compliance with the above mitigation measures as part of the grading and building plan check review processes. Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: Prior to the issuance of grading and building permits. Public Works Department General Impact: Mitigation Measures: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. (9). Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits, landscape plans shall be prepared for all slopes created by the grading and fill of these sites consistent with "Slope Planting Guidelines" and the Development Cede, and shall provide erosion control on undeveloped portions of the site. Planning staff will verify compliance with the above mitigation measures as part of the certificate of occupancy review processes. Prior to the issuance of certificate of occupancy. Public Works Department and Planning Department Noise General Impact: Mitigation Measures: A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. Ensure that the following measures are complied with during construction: (10). Construction shall be restricted to the hours of 6:30 A.M. to 6:30 P.M. Monday through Friday and 7:00 A.M. to 6:30 P.M. Saturday. (11). The project contractor shall use construction equipment with noise shielding and muffling devices. (12). Construction activities shall be scheduled so as to avoid operating several pieces of equipment simultaneously, which causes high noise levels. Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: (13). The Applicant shall notify the communities in advance of construction activities. The construction manager's (or representative's) telephone number shall also be provided with notification so that community concerns can be expressed and addressed whenever feasible. Forms of notification shall include one or more of the following: signs posted on the site and/or distribution of leaflets to adjacent residents. Building and Safety staff will verify compliance with the above mitigation measures as part of the grading and building plan check review processes. Prior to the issuance of grading and building permits, and during grading and construction. Building and Safety Department Transportation/Traffic General Impact: Mitigation Measures: Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the' existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections); and Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways. (14). Mar. qarita Way/Apartment Driveway: The proposed access should be located directly across from the existing Apartment Driveway and form the fourth leg of this intersection. A traffic signal should be constructed with development to allow this access point full access along Margarita Road' and additional median modifications and re-striping will be accomplished to maintain LOS D for existing plus project conditions. (15). Project Driveway/Solana Way: This access point should be restricted to right-in/right-out only. A stop sign, stop bar, and stop legend should be provided to control vehicles exiting the site. Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: Planning and public works staff will verify compliance with the above mitigation measures as pad of the certificate of occupancy review process. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. Public Works Department and Planning Department Utilities and Services Systems General Impact: Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. Mitigation Measures: (16). A Drainage Study shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and submitted to the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The study shall identify storm water runoff quantities expected from the development of this site and upstream of the site. It shall identify all existing or proposed off- site or on-site, public or private, drainage facilities intended to discharge this runoff. Runoff shall be conveyed to an adequate ouffall capable of receiving the storm water runoff without damage to public or private property. The study shall include a capacity analysis verifying the adequacy of all facilities. Any upgrading or upsizing of drainage facilities necessary to convey the storm water runoff shall be provided as part of development of the project site. The basis for analysis ands design shall be a storm with a recurrence interval of one hundred years. Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: Public Works staff will verify compliance with the above mitigation measures as part of the grading plan check review process. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit. Public Works Department 8 ATrACHMENT NO. 6 COMMENT LE3'FERS RECEIVED AND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS R:~D A\Guidant DA\Staff Report PC3.doc 18 April 4, 2002 City of Temecula Planning Department P.O. Box 9033 Temecula CA 92589-9033 Attention; David Hogan Re: Guldant Corperation, east of Motorcar Pkwy and Yllez Rd, northwesterty of Margaita Road and Solana Way - City of Temecula Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the above-referenced project. Please note that Southern Califorola Gas Company has facilities In the area where the above named project la proposed. Gas service to the project could be provided without any significant impact on the environment. The service Would be in accOrdance with the Company's policies and extension rules on file with the California Public Utilities Commission at the time contractual a~Tangements are made. You should be aware that thls letter is not to be interpreted as a contractual commitment to serve {he proposed project, but only as an informational service. The availability of natural gas service, as set forth in this left, er, is based upon present conditions of gas supply and regulatory policies. As a public utility, The Southern California Gas Company is under the Jurisdiction of the California Public Utilities Commission. We can also be affected by actions of federal regulatory agencies, Should these agencies take any action, whl{;h affects gas supply, or the conditions under which service Is available, gas service will be provided in accordance with revised conditions, Typical demand use for: Residential (System Area Average/Use Per Meter) Yearly Single Family ?99 therms/year dwefling unit Multi. Family 4 or less units 482 ~erms/year dwelling unit Multi-Family 5 or more units 483 therms/year dwelling unit These averages are based on total gas consump[ion in residential units served by Southern California Gas Company, and it should not be Implied that any particular home, apartment or tract of homes will use these amounts of enelgy. GC-I GC-2 b. Commercial Due m the fact that construction vedas so Widely (a glass building vs. a heavily insulated building) aild there is such a wide variation in types of materials and , a typical demand figure is not available for this type el construction. Calculations would need to be made after the building has been designed. We have Demand Side Management progrerns available to Commercial/industrial I cust~rnsre to provide asSistanCe Jn selecting the most effective applications of energy of our energy corlservaflon programs, please contact our Commercial/Industrial Support Center et 1-800-GA$-2000. GC-2 (cont.) GC-3 Technical Supervisor The Gas Company (GC) Response to GC Comment No. 1 This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration. The concerns expressed in this letter are addressed individually below. Response to GC Comment No. 2 The comment is noted. The project site is located in an urbanized area in which natural gas infrastructure is currently in place. No significant impact would occur related to natural gas capacity or service capability. The applicant will coordinate with The Gas Company to ensure that the most appropriate and effective applications of energy conservation programs are implemented. Response to GC Comment No. 3 This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration. R:\D A\Guidant DA\Staff Report PC3.doc 19 Department of Toxic Substances Control ' · ,.., ....... [Edwin F. Lowry, Director ~..~t r~;,.~ ,) v .... ~, 5796 Col'porate Avenue Winston H. Hlckoxli;';'~ "' [L~ ~--'ypress, California 90630 California Env~ronmentt~¥- Protection Agency Apfl119,2002 Gray Davis Governor Mr. David Hogan Senior Planner City o1' Temecula Planning Department P.O. Box 9033 Temecula, California 92589-9033 NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF TEMECULA AND THE GUIDANT CORP PROJECT (SCH #2002041010) Dear Mr. Hogan: The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) has received your Negative Declaration (ND) for the above-mentioned Project. Based on lhe review of the document, DTSC's comments are as follows: DTSC,1 1) The ND needs to identify and determine whether current or histerio uses at the J DTSC-2 Project site have resulted It3 any release of hazardous wastes/substances at the I Project area, 2) The ND needs to identify any known or potentially contaminated site within the I proposed Project area. For all identified sites, the ND needs to evaluate whetherI DTSC-3 conditions at the site pose a threat to human health or the envlrortrnent. 3) 4) The draft ND should identify the mechanism to initiate any required investigation and/or remedlation for any site that may require remediation, and the government agency to provide appropriate regulatory oversight. If the property had vegetation or agricultural use, onsite soils could contain pesticide residues, The site may have contributed to soil, and grour~dwater contamination. Proper Investigation and remedial actions should be conducted at'the site prior to its new development. DTSC~ IDTSC-5 5) If any of the adjacent properties am contaminated with hazardous chemicals ~ and if the Proposed project Is within 2 000 feet from a COntaminated site, then the ~ proposed development may fall under the "Border Zone of a Contaminated ~ DTSC-6 p~ wey~ ~,ou ¢a~ n~/uoe ~mand end out' your energy coat=, ~ee our Web-~e e! tw, w.~,~o. Oe.gov. ~ ~ PdntedonRe~,x~lPaper Mr, David Hogan April 19, 2002 Page 2 6) Property." Appropriate precautions should be taken prior to construction if the proposed project is on a UBorder Zone Property.' The project construction may require s011 excavation and soil filling in certain areas. Appropriate sampling is required prior to disposal of the excavated s0il. If the soil is contaminated, properJy dispose of It rather than placing it in another location. Land Disposal Restrictions (LDRs) may be applicable to these soils. Also, if the project is planning to Import soil to backfill the areas excavated, proper sampling should be conducted to make sure that the imported soil is free of contamination. 7) If the' project requires demolition, renovation and addition of building structures, investigate the presence of lead paints and asbestos containing materials (ACMs) in the currently existing buildings at the site. if the presence of lead or ACMs are suspected, proper precautions should be taken during demolition activities. Additionally, the contaminants should be remediated in compliance with the California environmental regulations. If during construction the project, soil and/or groundwater contamination are suspected, construction In the area should cease and appropriate Health and Safety procedures should be implemented. If it is determined that contaminated soil and/or groundwater exist, the ND should ident~j how any required inwstigation and/or remediafion will be COnducted, and the government agency to provide appropriate regulatory oversight. DTSC provides guidance for the Preliminary Endangerment Assessment (PEA) preparation and cleanup oyersight through the Voluntary CleaRup Program (VCP). For additional information on the VCP, please visit DTSC'S web site at- yvww.dtsc, ca.~ov. If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact Mr. Johnson P. Abraham, Project Manager at (714) 484-54.76. Haissam Y. Salloum, P.E. Unit Chief Southern California Cleanup Operations Branch Cypress Office TDTSC-6 (cont.) DTSC-7 DTSC-8 DTSC-9 DTSC-1O Mr. David Hogan April 19, 2002 Page 3 cc: Governor's Office of Planning and Research State Clearinghouse P.O. Box 3044 Sacramento. California 95812-3044 Mr. Guenther W. Moskat, Chi~' Planning and Environmental Analysis Section CEQA Tracldng Center Department of Toxic Substances Control P.O. Box 806 Sacramento, Califomla 95812-0806 Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) Response to DTSC Comment No. 1 This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration. The concerns expressed in this letter are addressed individually below. Response to DTSC Comment No. 2 Historic uses at the project site may have resulted in prior release of hazardous wastes/substances in the project area; however, appropriate remedial activities have been accomplished. Two dairies, consisting of four residential houses and two milking barns, were formerly located on an overall 41.6~acre site located at the northwestern corner of Solana Way and Margarita Road, of which the project site is a part. An Environmental Site Assessment was performed in April and May 1990 in order to evaluate the presence of environmental contamination on the 41.6-acre site. The site reconnaissance identified nine possible sources of environmental concern including the following: 1) manure; 2) wastewater collected in the ponds; 3) six aboveground gasoline and diesel storage tanks; 4) miscellaneous empty and partially filled containers of hydraulic oil, herbicide, motor oil, muriatic acid, detergent, and unlabeled or unidentified containers; 5) one diesel underground storage tank (UST); 6) one gasoline UST; 7) one hydraulic oil blow-down tank (muffler) for an air compressor formerly located in the northern milking barn; 8) a concrete-lined, subgrade, mechanic's pit in an equipment maintenance bay; and 9) apparent patches of oil-stained soil. During further investigation of the site, an additional compressor blow-down tank was discovered. In order to appropriately remediate the 41.6-acre site for eventual mass grading and future redevelopment, the following was accomplished in 1991: 1) disposal of manure; 2) removal of water accumulated in holding ponds; 3) inspection and remediation of residences and milking barns for asbestos; 4) packing and disposal of household hazardous materials; 5) demolition and disposal of all structures and site improvements; 6) removal of USTs; 7) removal of a mechanic's service pit; 8) abandonment of groundwater monitoring wells; 9) removal of septic tanks; and 10) disposal of hydrocarbon-affected soil. In January 1992, a Closure Report was prepared by Woodward Clyde and submitted to the County of Riverside Department of Health Services, Environmental Health Division (DHS) in order to satisfy Riverside County requirements to document removal of the tanks and acknowledge that remedial activities were complete. In addition, according to the Closure Report, during April 1990, three groundwater monitoring wells were installed within the 41.6- acre property (which includes the project site) to assess possible impact to groundwater. Contaminants were not detected in water samples collected from the three wells, and upon approval from County DHS, the monitoring wells were appropriately abandoned. In February 1992, the County of Riverside DHS issued a letter to the applicant indicating that with the provision that the information contained in the Closure Report was accurate, no further ramediation action was required. Based on this information, it is assumed that historic uses of the site no longer pose a hazard, as the site has been appropriately and effectively remediated. No mitigation would be necessary. R:~O A\Guidant DA\Staff Report PC3.doc 20 Response to DTSC Comment No. 3 No known or potentially contaminated site exists within the project site. Refer to Response to DTSC Comment No. 2. In addition, as part of the Environmental Site Assessment that was performed in April and May 1990, a database seamh for hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 was performed on the 41.6-acre site, which includes the project site. According to the records review, there are no recorded State Superfund, National Priority List (NPL) sites, or landfills (active or inactive) within one-quarter mile of the 41.6-acre site, including the project site. In addition, there are no Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Information System, Resoume Conservation and Recovery Act-permitted facilities, Cortese-listed sites or unauthorized tank release cases within the site vicinity. The Riverside County Agricultural Commissioners Office had no records of permits for restricted material use at the project site, and the Eastern Municipal Water District had no record of permits that would allow the site to discharge to the sewer system. Response to DTSC Comment No. 4 The comment is noted. As described in detail under Response to DTSC Comment No. 2, remedial actions took place on the project site in 1991. In February 1992, the County of Riverside Department of Health issued a letter indicating that no further remedial action was required. Response to DTSC Comment No. 5 As indicated previously under Response to DTSC Comment No. 3, the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioners Office had no records of permits for restricted material use at 41.6- acre subject site, which includes the project site. For the time period that their records have been maintained, the site has not been involved in agricultural production. In addition, the project site has been investigated for potential soil and groundwater contamination, and eppropria{e remedial activities have occurred. Refer to Response to DT$C Comment No. 2 for a detailed discussion of potential soil and groundwater contamination. Response to DTSC Comment No. 6 The project site is not located on a "Border Zone Property," as it does not fall within 2,000 feet from a contaminated site. Refer to Response to DTSC Comment No. 3. No impacts are anticipated. Response to DTSC Comment No. 7 As described previously under Response to DTSC Comment No. 2, prior remedial activities have ensured that the soil currently on the site is free of contamination. The applicant proposes to balance soils onsite in order to prepare for construction; therefore, soils will neither be imported onto the site nor will soils on the site be exported. No impacts are anticipated. R:',D A\Guidant OA'~Staff Report PC3.dOC 21 Response to DTSC Comment No. 8 The project will not require demolition or renovation of building structures, as the site is currently vacant. While structures historically were located onsite, these structures have since been removed. Proper precautions were taken during demolition activities and the contaminants were remediated prior to their removal in accordance with California environmental regulations. Response to DTSC Comment No. 9 As indicated previously, the project site has been investigated for potential soil and groundwater contamination, and appropriate remedial activities took place in 1991 to prepare the project site for eventual mass grading and future redevelopment. Refer to Response to DTSC Comment No. 2 for a detailed discussion of potential soil and groundwater contamination. Response to DTSC Comment No. 10 The comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decision-makers. R:\D A\Guidant DA~Staff Report PC3.doc 22 Apdl 4, 2002 Mr. David Hogan Senior Planner City of Temecula P.O. Box 9033 Temecula. CA 92589-9033 Subject: Notice of Proposed Negative Declaration for the Expansion of the Guidant Corporation Campus Dear Mt. Hogan: We received a copy of the Notice of Proposed Negative Declaration on Apdl 1, 2002 for the Expansion of the Guidant Corporation Campus Project in the City of Temecula and are providing you with the following comments: I.RCTC-1 1) 2) 3) RCTC is participating in Ifle development of the Rivemide County Integrated Project (RClP) and the Community Environmental Acceptability Process (CETAP). As part of the RCIP and CETAP, RCTC requests that ~l)~e Expansion of the Guidant Corporation Campus Project' not only be Condltlened to study and mitigate for local impacts, but also ~egional impacts to the transportation system. Alternatives proposed in the Winchester/Temecula Corridor RCIP/CETAP study indicate a major interchange at the lntemtate 15 (I-15) and State Route 79 (Winchester Road) location. Your traffic information provides no indication what Impact your .5.089 trips per .day-will have on neEher the.. SR-79 intsrv, hange immediately north of the project nor the Rancho California Road interchange to the south. It Is suggested In your Notice Section 15 that all of the traffic impacts associated with "the Expansion of the Guldant Corpora'don Campus Project" will be mitigated to a level less than signEicant (Level of Service D). RCTC Is still concerned that existing and future year Levels of Service (LOS) will be significantly deteriorated to Level of Service ~F", especially at freeway interchanges, Potential cumulative impacts are not mentioned. RCTC-2 RCTC-3 I Please ensure that you are coordinating directly with Caltrans concerning I-t5 for ~ RCTC-4 this project, I April 4, 2002 Page -2- 4) RCTC wOuld like to maintain a coordinated effort for all projects that affect transportation in western Riverside County, Please contaG't RCTC if you have any questions concerning this process, Should you have additional information, please contact Bechtel Measure "A" Project Coordinator, Gustavo Quintero, at (g0g)787-7935. Thank you for giving RCTC the opportunity to comment on your proposed Negative Declaration, Sincerely, · ~ug~ . puty Executive Director RCTC Riverside County Transportation Commission Cc: Linda Grimes, Caltrans 08 Bill Hughes, Mike Davis, Gustavo Quintero- Bechtel IRCTC-5 IRCTC-6 ~:',." I L ES~IEa,,,E~mma~I R~,iews No~-project~40402DNDN0~3ulaa~t~xpansloa-c[oc Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) Response to RCTC Comment No. 1 This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration. The concerns expressed in this letter are addressed individually below. Response to RCTC Comment No.2 The project site is being developed in conformance with the City of Temecula's General Plan and Development Code. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15063(c)(3)(D), the Guidant Corporation Campus Expansion Initial Study has referenced and incorporated information from the General Plan EIR in analyzing the project's potential significant environmental effects. According to Section 21083.3(b) of the Public Resources Code, "If a development project is consistent with the general plan of a local agency and an environmental impact report was certified with respect to that general plan, the application of this division to the approval of that development project shall be limited to effects on the environment which are peculiar to the parcel or to the project and which were not addressed as significant effects in the prior environmental impact report, or which substantial new information shows will be more significant than described in the prior environmental impact report." Furthermore, as described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, CEQA mandates that projects which ara consistent with the development density established by existing zoning, community plan, or general plan policies for which an EIR was certified shall not require additional environmental review, except as might be necessary to examine whether there are project-specific significant effects which are peculiar to the project or its site. Ultimate development of the project site has been addressed under the City of Temecula General Plan, adopted in 1993, and analyzed within the 1993 certified General Plan EIR (copies of these documents are available for review at the City of Temecula Community Development Department). The proposed project's maximum potential buildout falls within the target FAR (0.40) for the site as identified within the City's General Plan and analyzed within the General Plan EIR. Additionally, there is no substantial new information that would indicate that impacts would be more significant than previously described in the General Plan EIR. Therefore, with the exception of potentially significant impacts "peculiar to the project" which are identified in the Initial Study and mitigation measures provided to reduce these potential impacts to a less than significant level, the Initial Study incorporates the General Plan EIR document by reference and does not re-address the impact that the proposed project, or the proposed project plus related projects, would have on the $R-79 interchange immediately north of the project site or the Rancho California Road interchange to the south, as potential impact to these intersections was previously analyzed in the General Plan EiR. Response to RCTC Comment No. 3 The Guidant Corporation Campus Expansion Initial Study identifies significant environmental effects related to traffic/circulation that cannot be avoided or substantially lessened despite the project's incorporation of all feasible mitigation measures. These impacts associated with cumulative traffic, including impacts to freeway interchanges, are fully addressed in the City's General Plan EIR, and ara not peculiar to the project or its site. Furthermore, the project has provided mitigation measures that are feasible at the project-level R:~D A\Guidant DA\Staff Report PC3.doc 23 and has also incorporated design features that contribute to implementation of the program- level mitigation measures set forth in the City General Plan EIR. In accordance with Section 15152(f)(3)(C) of the CEQA Guidelines, the only purpose of including analysis of such effects in another environmental impact report would be to put the agency in a position to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations with respect to the effects. The City previously adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations, acknowledging significant unavoidable impacts related to traffic, and maximum buildout potential of the project site was addressed in the General Plan EIR; therefore, significant environmental effects related to traffic/circulation have been adequately addressed. All cumulative effects for the vadous land uses of the project site as well as the surrounding developments were analyzed in the General Plan Environmental Impact Report. With cumulative traffic (estimated proposed project traffic plus traffic from future adjacent development), all study area intersections are expected to operate at acceptable levels at peak hours with the exception of Margarita Road at Apartment Driveway and Motor Car Parkway at Solana Way. Incorporation of mitigation would reduce these potentially significant impacts to a less than significant level. Response to RCTC Comment No. 4 As indicated previously under Response to RCTC Comment Nos. 2 and 3, impacts associated with cumulative traffic including impacts to 1-15, are fully addressed in the City's General Plan EIR, and are not peculiar to the project or its site. Ultimate development of the project site has been addressed under the City of Temecula General Plan, adopted in 1993, and analyzed within the 1993 certified General Plan EIR (copies of these documents are available for review at the City of Temecula Community Development Department). The proposed project's maximum potential buildout falls within the target FAR (0.40) for the site as identified within the City's General Plan and analyzed within the General Plan EIR. Additionally, there is no substantial new information that would indicate that impacts to 1-15 would be more significant than previously described in the General Plan EIR. Therefore, with the exception of potentially significant impacts "peculiar to the project" which are identified in the Initial Study and mitigation measures provided to reduce these potential impacts to a less than significant level, the Initial Study incorporates the General Plan EIR document by reference and does not re-address the impact that the proposed project, or the proposed project plus related projects, would have on 1- 15. For that reason, direct coordination with Caltrans concerning 1-15 was not undertaken. It should be noted, however, that a copy of the Draft Initial Study was distributed to Caltrans, District 8 by the State Clearinghouse. Caltrans did not submit any comments. Response to RCTC Comment No. 5 The comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decision- makers. Response to RCTC Comment No. 6 The comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decision-makers. R:~D A\Gu~ant DA\Staff Report PC3.doc 24 ATTACHMENT NO. 7 COLOR AND MATERIAL PALE'i'rE (SEE SEPARATE HANDOU~ R:\D A\Guidant DA\Staff Report PC3.doc 25 ITEM #5 STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION October 16, 2002 Planning Application No. - " 94;0073 ~ Annexation Planning Application No. 99-0298 - General Plan Amendment Planning Application No. 94-0075 - Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan Planning Application No. - 94-0075 - Change of Zone Planning Application No. 94-0076 - Environmental Impact Report Planning Application No. -01-0253, Tentative Tract Map No. 29661 Planning Application No. 01-0230 - Tentative Tract Map No. 29353 Planning Application No. 99-0299 - Development Agreement Prepared By: Saied Naaseh, Project Planner RECOMMENDATION: The Community Development Department - Planning Division Staff recommends the Planning Commission: 1. ADOPT a Resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 2002 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL CERTIFY THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND RELATED ACTIONS AND RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS PURSUANTTO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, A ,STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND A ',MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM IN CONNECTION THEREWITH FOR THE RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN, LOCATED NEAR THE EVENTUAL 'INTERSECTION OF BUTrERFIELD STAGE ROAD AND NICOLAS ROAD, (PLANNING APPLICATION 94-0076) R:\S P\Rodpaugh Ranch SP~new~PC Staff Report 10-16-02~PC Staff Report 10-16-02.doc 1 ADOPT a Resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE FOLLOWING: 1) GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FOR THE RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 99- 0298); 2) THE RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 94-0075); 3) ADOPT AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN ZONING STANDARDS (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 94-0075); 4) ADOPT AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING A CHANGE OF ZONE TO AMEND THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF THE CITY (PLANNING APPLICATION 94-0075); AND 5) ADOPT AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE RORIPAUGH RANCH DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 99-0299); ON PARCELS TOTALING APPROXIMATELY 804.7 ACRES, LOCATED NEAR THE EVENTUAL INTERSECTION OF BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD AND NICOLAS ROAD AND FURTHER IDENTIFIED AS ASSESSOR PARCEL NOS. 957-130-001 and 002, 957-340- 001,003, 007, 008, AND 958-260-001 AND 002. ADOPT a Resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 01-0230 - TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 29353 (LEVEL "A"), PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 01-0253 (LEVEL "B' MAPS) - TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 29661, FOR THE SUBDIVISION OF A PORTION OF PHASE I OF THE RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN LOCATED NEAR THE EVENTUAL INTERSECTION OF BUI-FERFIELD STAGE ROAD AND NICOLAS ROAD, AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR PARCEL NOS. 957-130-001 and 002,957-340-001,003, 007, 008, AND 958-260-001 and 002 R:',S P'~Ro~ipaugh Ranch SP~new~C Staff Report 10-16-02~C Staff Report 10-16-02.doc 2 APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: Richard Ashby, Ashby USA, LLC REPRESENTATIVES: Kevin Everett, Pacific International Development Frank Coyle, The Keith Companies Kent Norton, The Keith Companies Patrick Hirsch, Himch and Associates PROPOSAL: The annexation of 634 acres to the City of Temecula; a General Plan Amendment to the Land Use Element to incorporate the proposed land uses, and to include Planning Areas 33A and 33B to the Specific Plan Overlay Figure; a General Plan Amendment to the Cimulation Element to eliminate the connection between Nicolas Road and Calle Contento through the project and to change the designation of Butterfield Stage Road between Murrieta Hot Springs Road and Nicolas Road from 4 lanes Specific Plan Road; a Zone Change to pre-zone the annexation property to the SP zoning designation and to amend the Development Code Section 17.16.070 of the City of Temecula Development Code to adopt a Specific Plan for 804.7 acres to provide zoning and development standards for the development of 2,015 dwelling units within several gated communities, 110,000 square feet of neighborhood commercial retail space, a 12 acre elementary school site and a 20 acre middle school site, two public parks sites including a 19.7 acre Sports Park with lighted playing fields and a 4.8 acre neighborhood park with passive uses, three private recreation facilities, private and public trails and paseos, a fire station site, and 202.7 acres of natural open space to be preserved as permanent habitat, related flood control improvements to Santa Gertrudis Creek and Long Valley Wash; a tentative map to subdivide the project for conveyance purposes; a tentative map to create 509 residential lots within a gated community, a 4.8 acre private recreational facility, a .3 acre private mini park, private paseos and trails, a 5.1 acre public park site, and two open space lots (21.9 acres) to be preserved as permanent habitat; and a Development Agreement to grant the developer development rights for ten years and secure the construction of certain infrastructure improvements by the developer. LOCATION: Northeast of the City near the eventual intersection of Butterfield Stage Road and Nicolas Road EXISTING ZONING: SP (Specific Plan) for the plateau portion and Very Low for the annexation portion SURROUNDING ZONING: North: Medium Residential and Conservation Habitat South: Rural Residential East: Rural Residential and Conservation Habitat West: Very Low and Low Medium Residential PROPOSED ZONING: SP (Specific Plan) R:\S P\Roripaugh Ranch SP~ew~PC Staff Report 10-16-02'~PC Staff Report 10-16-02.doc 3 EXISTING GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATIONS: HR (Hillside, 0-0.1 DU/Ac), LM (Low Medium Density, 3-6 DU/AC), OS (Open Space) with a maximum overall density of 3 dwelling units per gross acre. PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATIONS: L (Low Density Residential), LM (Low Medium Density Residential), M (Medium Density Residential), NC (Neighborhood Commercial), OS (Open Space) and P (Public Institutional) EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USES: North: ResidentialNacant Land/Open Space South: ResidentialNacant Land East: Residential/Vacant Land West: ResidentialNacant Land BACKGROUND This project has been in the planning stage for over 10 years. Since that time, not only has the size and layout of the project changed, so has the applicant. The current applicant began work on this project in late 1999. The Planning Commission has held two public hearings on the current proposal on August 15, 2001 and October 17, 2001. There have been two Community Meetings and several Subcommittee Meetings in the past year. In this time frame, the Land Use Plan has changed several times with the number of dwelling units fluctuating between 1,721 and 2,058. The current proposal is for 2,015 units. Attachment 5 includes an errata sheet with all the changes that the applicant is required to make to the Specific Plan prior to forwarding the document to the City Council. Previous Planning Commission Meetings On August 15, 2001, the Planning Commission heard the Roripaugh Specific Plan and continued it to the October 17, 2001 meeting. The Planning Commission directed staff and the applicant to tryto resolve remaining issues and bring forward a complete and comprehensive package for Planning Commission's review. Attachment 6 provides a summary of the Commission's concerns and comments from this meeting. Copies of the previous Planning Commission Staff Report and minutes are included in Attachments 7 and 8. Staff's focus was on generating a Land Use Plan that makes good planning sense and was acceptable to the Subcommittee and the surrounding residents. Several meetings were held between staff, the applicant, the Subcommittee, and the residents to arrive at the current Land Use Plan. On October 17, 2001, the Planning Commission held a Workshop and continued the project off- calendar directing staff and the applicant to resolve all the issues surrounding the project prior to scheduling the project for another hearing. Attachment 9 includes the October 17, 2001 Land Use Plan with 1986 units. In addition, Attachment 10 provides a summary of the Commission's concerns regarding the project, Attachments 11 and 12 include the October 17, 2001 Planning Commission Staff Report and minutes. The following includes the concerns raised by the Planning Commission that may need additional discussion. The rest of the Commission's concerns have been addressed. · Complete 4 lane improvements to Nicolas Road are probably needed. R:~S P~Rodpaugh Ranch SP~new~PC Staff Report 10-~ 6-02',PC Staff Report 10-16-02.doc · The private recreation center concept is acceptable but additional units will not be granted. · The total number of units appropriate for the project is dependent on the amenities, improvements, and the benefits to the community. · The visual transition from large lots to small lots needs to be looked at carefully. Community Meetin.qs On September 12, 2001 and September 25, 2002 staff held meetings with the surrounding residents to present them with the then current Land Use Plan. Their inputs from these meetings are summarized in Attachments 13 and 14. As a result of the input, staff has made refinements to the Land Use Plan and the project to address most of the residents concerns. However, the following concerns still remain: · The Density of the project is too great and better buffering needs to be provided. · The sports Park and the Private Recreation Centers will have noise impacts on the existing residences. · The size of Fuel Modification Zone and the amount of landscaping need to be increased. · The Nature Walk should be eliminated. · Complete horse trails should be provided for the area. Subcomm ttee Meetinqs The Land Use Plan included in Attachment 9 was subsequently presented to the Subcommittee on September 24, 2001. The Subcommittee's complete recommendations are included in Attachment 15. The following provides a list of recommendations from the Subcommittee that additional discussion: · Buffering along the southerly boundary of the Plateau Area. · The appropriate number of units for the project. Staff feels the current proposed Land Use Plan included in Attachment 16 with 2,015 units is a balanced compromised that addresses most of the concerns from the Planning Commission, the Subcommittee, and community; however, there are some members in the community that believe the proposed project is too dense for the generally rural area. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed project includes the following components: Annexation The City Council adopted Resolution No. 2001-063 OR June 26, 2001 for the initiation of the annexation proceedings for 634 acres to the City of Temecula. This area is being pro-zoned to Specific Plan to facilitate the annexation of the property. After the adoption of the Specific Plan and certification of the Final Environmental impact Report, staff will forward them along with the Plan of Services, the Fiscal Impact Report to the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO). Staff expects that in approximately 60 to 90 days after the City Council approval of the project, LAFCO will hold a public hearing on the annexation. R:\S P",Roripaugh Ranch SP~new\PC Staff Report 10-16-02~PC Staff Report 10-16-02.doc 5 General Plan Amendment The applicant is requesting to amend the City of Temecula General Plan Land Use and Circulation Elements. These amendments are necessary to make the project consistent with these Elements of the General Plan. The Land Use Element amendment has three components: Amend the General Plan Land Use Map (Figure 2-1of the General Plan) to incorporate the proposed land uses by the project. Amend the General Plan Land Use Map (Figure 2-1of the General Plan) to incorporate the annexation area into the City Limits. Amend the General Plan Specific Plan Overlay Exhibit (Figure 2-5 of the General Plan) to include Planning Areas 33A and 33B. In addition, the General Plan Circulation Element includes the following components: Amend the General Plan Circulation Element map (Figure 3-1 of the General Plan) to eliminate the connection between Nicolas Road and Calle Contento through the project. Amend the General Plan Circulation Element map (Figure 3-1 of the General Plan) to change the designation of Butterfield Stage Road between Murrieta Hot Springs Road and Nicolas Road from 110' (Arterial Highway with 4 lanes) to Specific Plan Road, add North and South Loop Roads as Specific Plan Road, and add streets A and B as Collector Road. Zone Chanqe The applicant is also requesting to amend the City of Temecula Zoning Map and Development Code Section 17.16.070. These amendments are necessary to: · To pre-zone the annexation area with the Specific Plan Zoning Designation. · Incorporate the Specific Plan zoning development standards and design guidelines into Chapter 17.16 of the Development Code. Specific Plan The applicant is proposing a maximum of 2,015 single-family detached units including up to 167 zero lot line dwelling units in the M2 areas of the plan. The Specific Plan area is divided into two residential neighborhoods. The Plateau portion includes Planning Areas (PAs) lA, 1 B, 2, 3, 4A, 4B, 5, 6, 10 11, 12. The Valley portion of the project includes PAs 14 through 31,33A, and 33B. The Plan also includes 110,000 square feet of neighborhood commercial retail space, a 12 acre elementary school site and a 20 acre middle school site, two public parks sites including a 19.7 acre Sports Park with lighted playing fields and a 4.8 acre neighborhood park with passive uses, three private recreation facilities, private and public trails and paseos, a fire station site, and 202.7 acres of natural open space to be preserved as permanent habitat. The Specific Plan includes a number of amenities that will be discussed in the Staff Report. The timing for the construction of these amenitieS is included in Exhibit "A" of the Specific Plan, which is included as Attachment 17. The following tables include a summary of the proposed residential and non-residential zoning categories: R:~,S P~Rodpaugh Ranch SP',new~PC Staff Report 10-16-02'~PC Staff Report 10-16q)2.doc 6 Residential Zoning Categories Planning Number of 'Area,~.cres Minimum Lot Density Areas Detached Size, Single Family Square feet units Low Density Residential 10, 19, 20, 21, 117 107.6 Minimum 1.1 (L) 33 A, and 33B 20,000 with 1 acre lots on the perimeter of the PAs Low Medium Density (LM) lA, 2, 3, 4A, 654 126.2 5,000 5.2 4B, and 16 Low Medium 17 and 18 285 68.6 6,000 4.2 Density Medium Density 23 and 24 122 21.5 4,000 5.7 Standard (M1) Medium Density 12, 14, 15, 22, 837 with up to 88.9 8,000 9.4 Cluster (M2) and 31 167 zero lot line units permitted Total Residential NA 2,015 412.8 NA 4.9 (Gross Residential) Total NA 2,015 804.7 NA 2.5 (gross Total) Non-Residential Zoning Categories Plannin~ Area - Gross Acres Neighborhood Commercial 11 15.4 Neighborhood Park 6 5.1 Sports Park 27 19.7 Private Mini Park 1B 0.3 Mega Private Recreation Center 30 4.0 Primary Recreation Center 5 5.2 Elementary School 29 12.0 Middle School 28 20.0 Fire Station 32 2.0 Long Valley Wash 25 and 26 30.3 Santa Gertrudis Creek Portions of 14 and 27 5.0 Detention Basin 7B 2.0 Detention Basin 7C 1.8 Habitat 8, 9A, 9B, and 13 202.7 Manufactured Slope 7A and portion of 6 21.2 Public and Private Streets NA 45.2 Total NA 391.9 R:\S P\Roripaugh Ranch SP~new~PC Staff Report 10-16-02~PC Staff Report 10-16-02.doc The following provides a discussion of the different components of the Specific Plan: Public Parks (Planning Areas 6 and 27) The project is anticipated to build out with a population of 5,743 residents based on the City's household factor of 2.85 persons per household. The City also has a Quimby Act parkland requirement of five (5) acres of parkland per 1,000 residents. Therefore, the project is required to provide 28.7 acres of parkland. These requirements are met by dedicating two developed public park sites (PA 6 and PA 27) for a total of 24.8 acres and receiving a credit for the 4.55 acres of private recreational areas. The developer will be required to dedicate two fully developed public park sites in PAs 6 and 27. The Neighborhood Park, located in PA6, is a passive park on approximately 5.1 acres and will be developed in accordance with the amenities included in Section 4.2.1 of the Specific Plan. Figure 4- 4 shows the conceptual design for the park. In addition, Figure 3-6 shows how the Neighborhood Park fits into its general vicinity. The Neighborhood Park will be completed prior to the issuance of the 400th building permit for the entire project. The Sports Park, located in PA27, is an active park with lighted sports fields on approximately 19.7 acres and will be developed in accordance with the amenities included in Section 4.2.1 of the Specific Plan. Figure 4-3 shows the conceptual design for the park. In addition, Figure 3-22 shows how the Sports Park fits into its general vicinity. The Sports Park will be completed pdor to the issuance of the 700t~ building permit for the entire project. Pdvate Park and Private Recreation Facilities (Planning Areas lB, 5, and 30) The project is proposing three private recreation facilities, which will be constructed by the developer, be privately owned and maintained by the Homeowners Association (HOA): Mini Park The 0.3-acre Mini Park is proposed in PA 1B with a tot lot and picnic tables. For a complete list of amenities, please refer to Section 4.22. of the Specific Plan. Figure 4-9 includes the conceptual design of the Mini Park. Figure 3-1 shows how the Mini Park fits into its general vicinity. The Mini Park will be completed prior to the issuance of the 100th building permit in PAs lA, 2, 3, 4A, and 4B. Primary Center The 4.8-acre Primary Recreational Facility is proposed in PA 5. Figure 3-5 of the Specific Plan shows how the center fits in with its general vicinity. The amenities will include a minimum 5,000 square foot clubhouse with exercise room, weight room, aerobic room, game room, kitchen, offices, and Bistro. In addition, 2,000 - 3,400 square feet lap pool, wading pool, spa, tennis courts, children's play structure, and grass volleyball court. A complete listing of the amenities is located in Section 4.2.2 of the Specific Plan. Figures 4-7 and 4-8 show the conceptual site plan and the conceptual elevation of the center. The park portion of the Primary Center will be completed prior to the issuance of the 250th building permit in PAs lA, 2, 3, 4A, and 4B and the pool and building portion will be completed prior to the issuance of the 350th building permit in PAs lA, 2, 3, 4A, and 4B. R:\S P~Roripaugh Ranch SP~new~PC Staff Report 10-16-02'~PC Staff Report 10-16-O2.doc 8 Mega Center The Mega Recreational Facility is proposed within PA 30 with an area of 4.0 acres. Figure 3-25 of the Specific Plan shows how the center fits in with its general vicinity. The amenities include a minimum 8,000 square foot clubhouse with exemise room, weight room, aerobic room, game room, kitchen, offices, and Bistro. In addition, a free form pool between 4,000 and 5,000 square feet, a small recreational pool between 1,000 and 2,000 square feet, wading pool, five spas, and lighted tennis courts will be provided. A complete listing of the amenities is located in Section 4.2.2 of the Specific Plan. Figures 4-5 and 4-6 show the conceptual site plan and the conceptual elevation of the center. The park portion of the Mega Center will be completed prior to the issuance of the 800th building permit for the entire project and the pool and building portion will be completed prior to the issuance of the 1150th building permit for the entire project. Open Space Habitat (Planning Areas 8, 9A, 9B, 13) In January of 2001, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service approved the final Sub-Regional Habitat Conservation Plan (SHCP) for the County's Assessment District 161 (AD161 ). This plan involves 3 public agencies and 9 individual property owners in the project area. The Roripaugh Ranch project is one of the properties participating in the SHCP, which is designed to protect 4 listed, and 17 unlisted but sensitive plant and animal species. As a part of the SHCP, the project is required to set aside 202.7 acres of open space within Planning Areas 8, 9A, 9B and 13 to be preserved in permanent Open Space. Figures 2-1 land 2-12 show how the Open Space Preserve areas within the project will fit into the regional open space reserve. The open space area will be owned by the County of Riverside and maintained by a maintenance agency specifically created for this purpose. Planning Areas 8, 9A, 9B and 13 will remain in their current natural condition with the exception of a fuel modification zone and hydro seeding of non-irrigated native plant species mix to provide erosion control in areas disturbed by construction. Fuel modification will occur at the perimeter of these areas adjacent to residential and commemial areas. (See Figure 4-34A, 4-34B and 4-34C). These landscaped areas will not be irrigated. Schoo/FacN#es Middle School (Planning Area 28) A 20.0-acre Middle School is proposed in Planning Area 28 adjacent to the Community Sports Park (Planning Area 27). The school will include active recreational opportunities (i.e., sports fields, game courts and tennis courts) typical of this use. The conceptual site design and layout illustrated in Figure 4-10 was provided by Temecula Valley Unified School District. An earlier version of the Specific Plan showed the Elementary School Site in the Plateau area. Elementary School (Planning Area 29) A 12.0-acre Elementary School is proposed in Planning Area 29 adjacent to the Middle School (Planning Area 28). The school will include active recreational opportunities (i.e., sports fields and game courts) typical of this use. The conceptual site design and layout was provided by the Temecula Valley Unified School District. R:~ P\Roripaugh Ranch SP',new',PC Staff Report 10-16-02\PC Staff Report 10-16-02.doc 9 Trail System Paseos The project is proposing an extensive system of off-street trails and paseos in addition to the sidewalks and bike lanes within the public right-of-way to facilitate the non-vehicular movement within the project. Figures 4-12 and 4-13 show the location of these trails, paseos, and bike lanes. River Walk (See Figures 4-13 and 4-14) The River Walk is proposed along both sides of Long Valley Wash between Butterfield Stage Road and the east project boundary as illustrated in Figure 4-13 and includes a 4' black vinyl coated chain link fence separating the trial from the Long Valley Wash. The north and south side trails will be linked with a pedestrian bridge across the Long Valley Wash within Planning Area 26. The River Walk connects Planning Areas 20 through 24 to the Middle School, Elementary School, Mega Center and Multi-Use Public Trail. The Master Homeowners Association will maintain the River Walk and it will be completed prior to the issuance of any building permits in PAs 10 through 12, 14 through 24, 31, and 33A. Nature Walk (See Figures 2-11,4-12 and 4-15A) The Nature Walk will be located within the landscaped slope area of Planning Area 7A adjacent to Planning Areas lA through 4B. This walk will link each planning area to the Neighborhood Park in Planning Area 6. The walk will not be lighted and will be completed prior to the issuance of the 400th building permit for the entire project. Pedestrian Bridge (See Figure 4-13 and 4-14) A pedestrian bridge will be installed within Planning Area 26 that will connect residential Planning Areas 20, 21,22, 23 and 24 with the Community Sports Park, Planning Area 27; Middle School, Planning Area 28; Elementary School, Planning Area 29; Mega Center, Planning Area 30; and residential, Planning Area 31. The Pedestrian Bridge will be completed prior to the issuance of the 75t~ building permit in PAs 22, 23, and 24. Multi-Use Trail (See Figure 4-16) A 15' wide multi-use trail is planned along the southern and eastern boundaries of the project site adjacent to planning areas 19, 20, 21,25 and 32 as illustrated in Figure 4-16. The trail will be within the 30' Fuel Modification Zone and will be accessible to the residential properties directly adjacent to the trail as well as the general public. The Roripaugh Ranch Home Owners Association will maintain the fuel modification zone trail and split rail fencing. The City of Temecula (TCSD) will maintain the trail along Butterfield Stage Road adjacent to the fire station, The Multi Use Trail will be completed prior to the issuance of any building permits in PAs 19, 20, and 21. Drainage and Flood Control improvements The Drainage Plan provides the framework for drainage control within the Specific Plan area and serves to avoid potential hydrologic impacts to downstream areas, (refer to Figure 2-6 of the Specific Plan). The Drainage Plan fully mitigates all project impacts of off-site flows. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the developer will provide a Drainage Management Plan (DMP) covering both Santa Gertrudis Creek and Long Valley Wash immediately downstream of the project site. The DMP will demonstrate that runoff leaving the project site will not increase velocity or flow. This will be accomplished by installing four (4) detention and/or flow-by basins to retain water during high flows but allow Iow flows to immediately exit the site. R:\S P\Roripaugh Ranch SP~new',PC Staff Report 10-16-02~PC Staff Report 10-16-02.do¢ 10 Residential Amhitectural Design Guidelines The Architectural Design Guidelines of the Specific Plan are proposed to create quality amhitecture with detail and variety. These guidelines have been written to be very strict with little mom for non- compliance with its standards. It should be noted that the Design Guidelines section in the Specific Plan did not include many of the changes staff had requested; therefore, an entirely new Amhitectural Design Guideline section is included in the Errata Sheet. The following provides a summary of the intent of these Guidelines: · Encourage diversity of architectural style between the adjacent residential Planning Areas by creating four groups of architectural styles. Each group includes three or four architectural styles. The merchant builder is required to select two architectural styles from one group. There are a total of 14 architectural styles. Refer to Section 4.10.3.1 for the Architectural Groups and Styles. · Require architectural forward concept in 100% of the homes sites with lots sizes exceeding 20,000 square feet. · Require 50% architectural forward concept of the remainder of the home sites. · Require using both single-story and two-story in Low and Low Medium Density designated Planning Areas. · Articulation shall be provided on all sides of the homes ("four-sided architecture") including balconies, pop out staircases, modulated facades, window treatments, and second story projections. · Avoid canyon like effect between buildings by increasing building separation by stepping the second story mass away from the property line or other substantial articulation. · Create a single story plane at the rear by recessing the second story. · Special treatments at corner lots are required such as: o Either using single story units or two story units with a significant one-story mass located towards the exterior side yard. o Two story homes on corner lots need to be modified to create two front elevations. · Require incorporation of a variety of garage placements as described in Figures 4-62 to 4-68. · No three-car garage doors will face the street. · Using ornamental features including wrought iron and exterior light fixtures to create interest in the front of the house. · Extensive front elevation articulation including emphasizing the entrances, balconies and porches, ground floor windows, second floor overhangs and built in planters. · Require entry courtyards, covered entries, or covered porches at the entry. · Front yard hardscaping will include colored concrete with varying textures and score lines or various stones including the driveways. Refer to Figures 4-85 through 89. · Other specific standards regarding unit entries, doors, windows, garage doors, roof design, and mail boxes. R:~S P~Rodpaugh Ranch SP~new~PC Staff Report 10-16-02'~PC Staff Report 10-16-02.dcc 11 Tentative Tract Map 29353 The applicant is proposing Tentative Tract Map No. 29353 to subdivide 804.7 acres into 39 lots and 8 lettered lots for streets. The lots created by this tentative map are consistent with the boundary of the Planning Areas of the Specific Plan. This map will be used for conveyance purposes and no construction with the exception of infrastructure improvements will result from it. The lots roughly conform to the proposed Planning Area boundaries Tentative Tract Map 29661 The applicant is proposing Tentative Tract Map No. 29661 to subdivide the approximately 158 acres into 509 residential lots and 22 open space lots. Minimum lot size for the residential lots is 5,000 square feet with an average lot size of 6,288 square feet. The proposed map includes Planning Areas 1 A, 1 B, 2, 3, 4A, 4B, 5, 6, 7A, 7B, 7C, 8, and 9A which is generally referred to as the Plateau Neighborhood in the Specific plan. Figures 3-1 through 3-4 include the design details of the residential areas. The entire area, excluding the public park site (lot 518) and the open space habitat sites (lots 516 and 517) are proposed to be within a gated community with private streets, recreational facilities, and trails. Three vehicular gates will be maintained by the Homeowners Association (HOA). The gate on Street "N' will be a Staff Gated Primary Entry, the gates on Streets "A' and "R' are secondary card key gates. Figures 4-18A and 4-19 of the Specific Plan show the details of the Staff Gated Entry, Figures 4-21,4-22A show the details of the Card Key Gated Entries, and Figure 4-20C shows the details of the Auto and Pedestrian Gated Entries, which are located behind the Staff Gated and Card Key Entries. The Staff gated Primary Entry will be completed prior to the issuance of the 250~h building permit in PAs lA, 2, 3, 4A, and 4B. The Card Key Entry between PA lA and 2 will be completed prior to the issuance of 30% of the building permits in PA lA and PA2. The Card Key Entry between PA 4A and 4B will be completed prior to the issuance of 30% of the building permits in PA 4A and PA 4B. Access The pdmary access to Valley neighborhood will be from Murrieta Hot Springs Road, which is already constructed just past Pourroy Road by the Rancho Bella Vista development to the north, which is currently under construction. The project is proposing to continue Murrieta Hot Springs Road to Butterfield Stage Road and provide a secondary access to the proposed lots via one of the following three options: · Buttedield Stage Road to Rancho California Road, · Butterfield Stage Road to Nicolas Road, or · Buttedield Stage Road to Calle Girasol. Trails and Paseos The proposed map includes the Nature Trail and several Paseos all of which are privately owned and maintained. The Nature Trail is located within lot 520, which is the manufactured slope area. Ten paseos are located within the tract and they connect the residential lots to the Nature Trail, the Private Recreation Center, the Mini Park, and the Neighborhood Park. They are designed to reduce the walking distance between the residential lots and the destinations within and outside this project. Figure 4-12 of the Specific Plan shows the overall location of the Nature Trial and the Paseos. R:~S P\Roripaugh Ranch SP\new~PC Staff Report 10-16-02\PC Staff Report 10-16-02.doc 12 Figure 4-15A shows the design detail of the Nature Walk, which includes a 10' wide trail, slope landscaping and a 4' high split rail fence. The design detail of the paseos is shown on Figure 4-38, which includes a 5' wide walkway, landscaping, and lighting. The Paseo connecting the Nature Trail to the Neighborhood includes a Paseo Entry Gate, which is shown on Exhibit 4-37. The Nature Walk will be developed prior to the issuance of the 400th building permit for the entire project. The paseos will be developed prior to the issuance of any building permits in the PA in which the Paseo is located. Private Primary Recreational Facility and Mini Park The Primary Recreational Facility and the Mini Park will be constructed by the developer and will be privately owned and maintained by the Homeowners Association (HOA). The Primary Recreational Facility is proposed within lot 523 with an area of 4.7 acres. The amenities include a minimum 5,000 square foot clubhouse with exemise room, weight room, aerobic room, game room, kitchen, offices, and Bistro. In addition, a lap pool between 2,000 and 3,400 square feet lap pool, wading pool, spa, tennis courts, children's play structure, grass Volleyball court, picnic table, and minimum of 30 parking spaces. For a complete listing of the amenities, please refer to Section 4.2.2 of the Specific Plan. Figure 3-5 of the Specific Plan shows how the center fits in with its general vicinity. Figures 4- 7 and 4-8 show the conceptual site plan and the conceptual elevation of the center. The park portion of the Primary Center will be completed prior to the issuance of the 250th building permit in PAs lA, 2, 3, 4A, and 4B and the pool and building portion will be completed prior to the issuance of the 350th building permit in PAs lA, 2, 3, 4A, and 4B. The 0.3-acre Mini Park is proposed on lot 6 with a tot lot and picnic tables. For a complete list of amenities, please refer to Section 4.22. of the Specific Plan. Figure 4-9 includes the conceptual design of the Mini Park. Figure 3-1 shows how the Mini Park fits into its general vicinity. The Mini Park will be completed prior to the issuance of the 100th building permit in PAs lA, 2, 3, 4A, and 4B. Neighborhood Park The proposed public Neighborhood Park will be developed by the developer and maintained by the City of Temecula. This park will include passive recreational opportunities such as children's play area and tot lot, picnic areas, lighted basketball court, a small restmom facility, walkway lighting, and minimum of 37 parking spaces. For a complete listing of the park amenities, please refer to Section 4.2.1 of the Specific Plan while Figure 4-4 shows the general layout and the conceptual design for the park. In addition, Figure 3-6 shows how the Neighborhood Park fits into its general vicinity. The Neighborhood Park will be completed prior to the issuance of the 400th building permit for the entire project. It should be noted that the proposed tentative map is slightly deficient in meeting the park and Quimby requirements with the proposed Neighborhood Park and Private Primary Center and the Mini Park; however, when the Specific Plan is considered as a whole, the project exceeds these requirements. The MWD Property and RCWD Easement The Metropolitan Water District's (MWD) 70' wide property and 50' wide easement and the Rancho California Water District's (RCWD) 40' wide easement bisect the eastern portion of the site running on a north-south direction. The 70' wide MWD property and 50' wide MWD easement are not part of the Specific Plan area. However, the RCWD easement is part of lot 518 and 532 and the Specific Plan. The City' Trails Master Plan designates this area as a future regional trail. This trail will require MWD approval prior to its construction by the City. The City's Capital Improvement Program (CIP) does not currently include a budget for this future trail. R:~S P\Rodpaugh Ranch SP~new\PC Staff Report 10-16-02\PC Staff Report 10-t6-02.doc 13 Deve opment A.qreement The Applicant has requested to enter into a Development Agreement with the City. The Development Agreement document has been included in Attachment 18. The Development Agreement was based on the following major Deal Points: o The CFD for funding the major infrastructure shall be formed and funded prior to issuance of the 1st building permit for the project. Fees and Credits a. Development Impact Fees (DIF) i. 100% credit is provided for the Street Improvements, Traffic Signal, Parks and Recreation, and Fire components ii. Payment of 100% of the Library and Corporate Facility b. DA Fees i. Residential Component Fee of $1,500.00 per residential unit for a total fee of $3,022,500 (2,015 x $1,500) and Commercial Component Fee of $3.00 per square foot for a total fee of $330,000 (110,000 x $3.00) for a total of $3,352,500 is satisfied by: a. A payment of $2,000,000 for the construction of the Fire Station and pumhase of a fire truck and; b. A partial credit of $1,352,500 toward construction of off-site road improvements. c. Open Space Fee, $150 per residential unit (total of $302,250) is satisfied by a 100% credit toward the dedication of 202.7 acres in Planning Areas 8, 9A, 9B, and 13. d. Public Art fee, $50.00 per residential unit (total of $100,750) is satisfied by a 100% credit toward the placement of public art on the project site. TUMF is anticipated to be adopted by the County of Riverside. Adopted TUMF shall be paid when it is adopted in accordance with the adopted guidelines. Any potential credits shall be negotiated between the developer and the agency responsible to administer the TUMF in accordance with the adopted guidelines. Construction of 50 park-n-ride spaces on-site to be provided prior to issuance of building permits in Phase 2. Contribute $300,000 to a Shuttle Service. 10 Year Term for the DA Traffic Impacts and Road Improvements At build-out, the Project will generate 28,165 vehicle trips. Since the project site is located in a largely undeveloped area, which will require the extension and construction of roads to the site, the following road improvements are required by the Mitigation Measures: R:\S P\Roripaugh Ranch SP~ew\PC Staff Report 10-t 6-02\PC Staff Report 10-16-02.doc 14 Mitigation Measures The project will be permitted to construct 107 units within PAs lA through 4B with the existing access from Murrieta Hot Springs Road to Winchester Road. To construct more than 107 units will require the following additional improvements: 1. Full width for Murrieta Hot Springs Road (MHSR) from its current terminus at Pourroy Road to the MWD easement, 2. Half width MHSR from the MWD easement to Butterfield Stage Road (BSR). 3. Half width BSR from MHSR to southern project boundary at PA32. 4. Nicolas Road half width from BSR to western project boundary. 5. Nicolas Road 40' curb to curb from the western project boundary to 450' east of the existing Nicolas Road/Calle Girasol intersection. 6. The EIR Mitigation Measures (MM) require the developer to construct one secondary access from the following three options: a. Connection to the existing Nicolas Road at Joseph Road through Nicolas Road including the construction of a four lane bridge; b. Connection to the existing Nicolas Road at Joseph Road through BSR and Calle Chapos; or c. Connection to Rancho California Road through BSR. To construct more than 400 units, the following will need to be completed: 1) "A" and "B" Streets full width (two lanes). Regardless of the secondary option built by the developer, to construct more than 509 units, the rest of the road improvements need to be completed including: 1. BSR full width (four lanes) from MHSR to Rancho California Road. 2. Nicolas Road full width (4 lanes) from BSR to the project boundary at the MWD easement. 3. Nicolas Road off-site with a 40' curb to curb pavement which includes two travel lanes and a turning lane from the project boundary to the existing two lane Nicolas Road at Joseph Road including a four lane bridge at the crossing for Santa Gertrudis Creek. 4. MHSR full width (four lanes) from Pourroy to BSR. 5. Calle Chapos 38' on center from BSR to Walcott Lane/Calle Girasol. 6. North and South Loop Roads. The Project will construct the following intersection improvements selected by the City for early completion and in lieu of its fair share contributions to other intersections in the area: 1. North General Kearney Road at Nicolas Road to be constructed by the 1st building permit with the ultimate lane configurations of: a. Northbound N General Kearney Rd: I Through Lane, 1 Right Turn Lane. b. Southbound N General Kearney Rd: 1 Shared Left, Through, Right Turn Lane. R:\S P~Rodpaugh Ranch SP~e,zAPC Staff Report 10-16-02\PC Staff Report 10-16-02.doc c. Eastbound Nicolas Rd: 1 Left Turn Lane, 2 Through Lanes, I Right Turn Lane. d. Westbound Nicolas Rd: 1 Left Turn Lane, 2 Through Lanes, 1 Right Turn Lane. 2. Pourroy Road and Murrieta Hot Springs Road to be constructed by the 400th building permit. 3. Winchester Road at Nicolas Road to be constructed by the 510th building permit with the ultimate lane configurations: a. Northbound Winchester: 2 Left Turn Lanes, 4 Through Lanes, I Free Right Turn Lane. b. Southbound Winchester: 2 Left Turn Lanes, 4 Through Lanes, 1 Right Turn Lane. c. Eastbound Nicolas Road: I Left Turn Lane, 1 Through Lane, 1 Right Turn Lane. d. Westbound Nicolas Road: 3 Left Turn Lanes, 1 Through Lane, 1 Right Turn Lane. 4. Butterfield Stage Road at Rancho California Road by the 510~ building permit. a. Northbound BSR: 1 Left Turn Lane, 2 Through Lanes b. Southbound BSR: I Left Turn Lane, 2 Through Lanes c. Eastbound nCR: 2 Left Turn Lanes, 2 Through Lanes d. Westbound nCR: I Left Turn Lane, 2 Through Lanes 5. Murrieta Hot Spdngs Road at Butterfield Stage Road to be constructed by the 510t~ building permit. 6. Nicolas Road at Butterfield Stage Road to be constructed by the 510th building permit. 7. Calle Chapos at Butterfield Stage Road to be constructed by the 510th building permit. 8. Traffic signals may be required, as warranted, at the two other project entrances from Murrieta Hot Springs Road located to the east and west of the Pourroy Road main project entrance. 9. The Developer shall contribute a fair share portion of the total construction costs for traffic signals at the following percentages: a. 5.8% for the traffic signal at 1-215 Freeway (Southbound Ramps) at Murrieta Hot Springs Road including southbound left turn lane, southbound dght turn lane, eastbound through lane, eastbound right turn lane, westbound through lane, and westbound free right turn lane; b. Undetermined percentage for the lane improvements at Murrieta Hot Springs Road and Alta Murrieta in the City of Murrieta including improvements to be specified. c. 12.4% for the traffic signal at Murrieta Hot Springs Road and Margarita Road. d. 11.1 % for the traffic signal at Murrieta Hot Springs Road and Winchester Road. The following intersections fair share contributions are deemed satisfied by the completion of the above intersection improvements in the section above. The City may elect to improvement these intersections at a later date as City ClP projects or require other developers to complete them, as the City deems appropriate. 1. 1-15 Freeway (southbound ramps) at Rancho California Road - southbound left turn lane, westbound free right-turn lane, eastbound free dght turn lane, and southbound free right-turn lane. R:',~ P',Roripaugh Ranch SP~new~PC Staff Report 10-16-02\PC Staff Report 10-16-02.doc 16 2. Ynez Road at Winchester Road - southbound right-turn overlap. 3. Ynez Road at Rancho California Road - eastbound through lane. 4. 1-15 Freeway (southbound romps) at Winchester Road - southbound left-turn lane, southbound right-turn lane, westbound free right-turn lane, right-turn lane, westbound through lane, eastbound through lane, and eastbound free right-turn lane. 5. Traffic signal and related intersection improvements, as warranted, at the intersection of La Serena and Meadows Parkway. 6. 1-15 Freeway (northbound ramps) at Winchester Road - northbound left-turn lane, northbound free right-turn lane, westbound through lane, and westbound free right-turn lane. 7. I- 15 Freeway (southbound ramps) at Rancho California Road - southbound left-turn lane, southbound, eastbound, and westbound free right-turn lanes. 8. 1-15 Freeway (northbound ramps) at Rancho California Road - northbound left-turn and right-turn lanes. 9. Ynez Road at Winchester Road - southbound left-turn lane, southbound right-turn overlap, and eastbound left-turn lane. 10. Ynez Road at Rancho California Road - westbound left-turn lane, westbound right-turn lane, southbound through lane, southbound free fight turn lane, eastbound free right-turn lane, and eastbound through lane. 11. Margarita Road at Rancho California Road - northbound and southbound through lanes, southbound right-turn lane, eastbound left-turn lane, eastbound right-turn overlap, westbound left-turn lane, northbound right-turn lane, and westbound right turn overlap. 12. Calle Contento at Rancho California Road - eastbound left-turn lane, eastbound through lane, westbound left-turn lane, and westbound through lane. In addition, Butterfield Stage Road between Murrieta Hot Springs Road and the northern project boundary will not be constructed. Following table provides a summary of the project's required fair share contributions to these intersections: R:\S P\Rodpaugh Ranch SP~new~PC Staff Report 10-16-O2\PC Staff Report 10-16-02.doc 17 Table 2-3 Project Fair Share Contributions Project Percent of New Traffic Roadway (NS) Intersection (EW) AM PM 1-215 Freeway SB Murrieta Hot Springs 4.4 5.8 Ramps Road 1-215 Freeway NB Murrieta Hot Springs 7.3 6.8 Ramps Road 1-15 Freeway- SB Ramps Winchester Road 3.2 5.7 Rancho California Road 5.7 6.8 1-15 Freeway- NB Ramps Winchester Road 2.4 4.9 Rancho California Road 7.8 10.0 Ynez Road Winchester Road 4.5 5.6 Rancho California Road 6.2 5.9 Margarita Road Murrieta Hot Springs 11.4 12,4 Road 11.1 11.2 Winchester Road 6.6 7.4 La Serena Way 5.6 6.4 Rancho California Road Winchester Road Murrieta Hot Springs 11.1 9.3 Road 10.1 12.3 Nicolas Road N. General Kearny Road Nicolas Road 18.6 18.3 Meadows Parkway La Serena Way 30.5 22.1 Rancho California Road 28.6 23.6 Butterfield Stage Road Murrieta Hot Springs 23.3 24.2 Road 39.7 35.7 Nicolas Road 29.5 25.8 Calla Chapos 20.8 19.0 La Serena Way 21.3 19.1 Rancho California Road Calle Contento Rancho California Road 10.3 11.3 Alta Murrieta Murrieta Hot Springs TBD TBD Road Source: Table 6-1 from Urban Crossroads, November 2001 TBD = To Be Determined (by Temecula Engineer) EW = east-west NB = northbound NS = north-south SB = southbound R:\S P',Rodpaugh Ranch SP~ew~PC Staff Report 10-16-O2\PC Staff Report 10-16-02.doc 18 LOS Standards Even after the implementation of all the mitigation measures, as the project builds out, it will cause the LOS at the following intersections to exceed City standards by 2007: 1-15 southbound ramps at Rancho California Road, and Winchester Road at Margarita Road. In addition, the following intersections will exceed City LOS standards with or without the project at buildout: 1-15 southbound ramps at Winchester Road, Ynez Road at Winchester Road, Ynez Road at Rancho California Road. ANALYSIS This section will provide a discussion of all the issues raised by the Subcommittee, Planning Commission, and the residents. Staff will provide a recommendation on all the issues based on facts, reasonable planning, standards, and based upon previous direction from the Planning Commission and the Subcommittee. It will also include areas of discussion on the components of the project that staff believes needs the Planning Commission input. Four Lane Improvements to Nicolas Road The applicant's Traffic Engineer re-examined the number of trips on Nicolas Road and has concluded that the original recommendation of the Traffic Study for a two-lane connection is still valid. The City's Traffic Engineer agrees with this assessment. However, the study still requires a third turning lane to provide additional safety for turning movements. Staff believes the proposed improvements to Nicolas Road are adequate. Some residents have also expressed concerns that Nicolas Road should be four lanes because it starts at the project site with four lanes, then transitions to a 40' section with two travel lanes and a turning lane. It then turns into a two-lane road between Liefer Road and Joseph Road before transitioning back to four lanes. Staff has further channeled some fair share contributions by the developer to the intersections along Nicolas Road including a new traffic signal at Nicolas and North General Kearney prior to the issuance of the first building permit for the project. In addition, two additional left turn pockets from Nicolas Road to Winchester Road towards the mall and the freeway will be added prior to the issuance of the 520th building permit. Total of Units The total number of units of the project has always been the most debated topic among the residents who live nearby the project. The residents believe the project's density will change their life style and the existing character of the area. The members of the Subcommittee were split on their recommendation for the total number of units. Council member Roberts and Commissioner Chiniaeff needed more information on the amenities (paseos, private recreational areas, trails, and other improvements), the mitigation measures, and the lotting study for the proposed project prior to consenting to the proposed number of units. Council member Comerchero and Commissioner Telesio supported the proposed Land Use Plan. The proposed Specific Plan provides the Planning Commission and the City Council the necessary information regarding the amenities of the project. R:\S P'~loripaugh Ranch SP~ew~PC Staff Report 10-16-02\PC Staff Report 10-16-02.d0c The Planning Commission was not convinced that the increase in the number of units was needed because of the added cost of the construction of the Mega Center. Similar to the Subcommittee, the Commission also wanted to see the project as a whole prior to making a recommendation on the total number of units. The number of units for the project increased from 1,721 to 1,986 between the August 15, 2001 and October 17, 2001 Planning Commission meetings. The reason for this increase, according to the applicant, was to pay for the private recreation amenities that staff had asked for and to pay for all the infrastructure improvements that the City was requesting. The General Plan permits the development of over 2,400 units on this site. The major benefit of the proposed project is the extension of the City's General Plan road network such as Butterfield Stage Road from Murrieta Hot Springs to Rancho California Road including two bridges over Santa Gertrudis Creek and Long Valley Wash, the construction of Murrieta Hot Springs Road from its current terminus to Butterfield Stage Road, and construction of Nicolas Road from Butterfield Stage Road to the existing pavement at Liefer Road including a 4 lane bridge. In addition, staff believes that the proposed private recreation amenities provide a unique residential community concept that may appeal to many existing Temecula residents if they choose to move to the development. Further, the proposed Design Guidelines should result in quality development that includes a fire station, 2 public parks, 2 schools sites, and extensive on site and off site road improvements. Therefore, in staff's opinion, the benefits and amenities provided by the project justify the proposed number of units. Bufferinq Valley Area Buffering has also been a well-debated issue for both the Valley Area and the Plateau Area. The residents would like to see larger lots (2.5-acre minimum) along the eastern and southern boundaries of the Valley area where 1-acre lots are currently proposed to provide additional buffering for them. Again, staff believes that the proposed buffering that has been provided is adequate. The buffering and the elevation difference between the project site and the existing residents provide a reasonable transition between the project and the larger lots in the vicinity of the project. Staff recognizes that the proposed buffering may not be ideal; however, it provides a reasonable compromise and is consistent with the Subcommittee and Planning Commission direction. Plateau Area The following measures were recommended by the Subcommittee to be incorporated into the project to reduce visibility of the Plateau Neighborhood from the Nicolas Valley. A Visual Impact Study was required to determine the visibility of these lots, which has been completed (refer to Figure 4-15 of the Specific Plan). The following mitigation measures were proposed by the Subcommittee to reduce the visual impacts: · An additional 40' to 50' of building setback or landscaped buffer for all lots with pad elevations higher than the top of the slope. The width of the natural or manufactured slope between the property line for the existing properties in the Nicolas Valley and the proposed lot along the south side of the Plateau has remained largely the same at 80' to 170'. A 25' building setback is also required for these houses which brings the total distance between them to 105' to 195'. In addition, enhanced landscaping is required in certain areas of the manufactured slope in accordance with the Visual Analysis included in Figure 4-15. Staff believes this combination provides adequate buffering between the existing lots and the R:~S FARodpaugh Ranch Sl:~new~PC Staff Report 10-16-02\PC Staff Report 10-16-02.doc 2O proposed lots consistent with the Subcommittee and the Planning Commission direction. · Additional landscaping at the bottom of the slope. · The manufactured slope will be extensively landscaped. · Use of single story units along the south edge. The applicant has not committed to single story homes along the south edge. The applicant believes that the Visual Analysis and the proposed additional landscaping have adequately addressed the visual buffering of the proposed homes from the Nicolas Valley. Visual Transition from Larqe to Small Lots Staff believes the south Loop Road provides the transition from large lots to smaller lots on the southern portion of the site (PAs 20 and 21 ). This transition is less defined on the eastern portion of the site (PA 19), as 6,000 square foot lots will most likely back up to the larger 20,000 square foot lots and will be divided by a project wall. If the Commission prefers to add a visual buffer between these areas, one way to accomplish it would be to require landscaping at the shared boundary of PAs 19 and 18. Staff has not added this requirement to the Specific Plan Guidelines. Noise and Li.qht Impacts The residents expressed concerns regarding light and noise from the parks and the private recreation centem. The City uses Musco lighting for lighting sports fields. These lights are designed with minimum spillage and should not be a nuisance to the residents. Moreover, the Sports Park (PA 27) is approximately 4,100 feet to the eastern property lines and 1,100' to the south property line. In addition, the Mega Center (PA 30) is approximately 1600' to the east property line and 1,900' to the south property line and its activities should not impact the residents outside the project area. Staff believes that the distance between these components and the type of lighting used for the Sports Parks should not greatly impact the surrounding residents. Increasin,q the Size and Amount of Landscaping for the Fuel Modification Zone Some residents expressed concerns regarding the non-irrigated thirty-foot wide fuel modification zone along the eastern and southern boundaries of the Valley area and requested it to be widened to 50' along with irrigated landscaping to provide additional buffering. The purpose of this area is primarily a fuel modification zone with non-irrigated native landscaping (hydro seed mix). The developer has agreed to open this area to the public in response to their demands for additional trails. It should be noted that the HOA would be maintaining this public trail. Staff believes the additional cost of providing landscaping and irrigation for the entire area could be an unnecessary financial burden on the HOA. Staff does not believe increasing the fuel modification width from 30' to 50' would greatly increase the buffering. If the commission would like to provide additional visual buffering for some existing residences along the eastern boundary of the project, staff would suggest adding additional landscaping to specific areas that are not substantially higher than the project site. Eliminatinq the Nature Walk The residents in the Nicolas Valley have expressed concerns regarding invasion of their privacy by the people using the pdvate Nature Walk located on the south side of the Plateau area within PA7A. Therefore, some residents have requested the elimination of the Nature Walk, which is located within 40' of the property line of the existing homes at the closest points at lots 103, 110, 313, and R:\S P~Rodpaugh Ranch SP~new\PC Staff Report 10-16-02~PC Staff Report 10-16-02.doc 21 316 of the "B" Map. Staff would like to keep the Nature Walk, as it is an important component of the projects overall design theme and provides a useful amenity for the future residents of the project. As illustrated on Figure 4-15A, landscaping will be provided to screen the trail from Nicolas Valley, as it is located within the manufactured slope area. In addition, the residents had concerns regarding the future residents and their pets trespassing on their property. The Nicolas Valley residents requested a fence at this location. Staff examined using a number of types of wall/fences such as a block wall or a split rail fence. The block wall seemed out of place with the rural character of the Nicolas Valley. The split rail fence did not provide the protection that the Nicolas valley residents desired. Therefore, staff is proposing the chain link fence, which compared to a block wall is barely visible from a distance. Home Trails Horse trials have been a topic of discussion during the Community Meetings. The residents of the Nicolas Valley would like to be able to go from Nicolas Road to the UCR property on the northeastern edge of the project site. The properties around the project site are permitted to have homes and staff has done everything that is practical to facilitate the movement of homes in the area. It should be noted that currently there are no designated home trails in the vicinity of the project. A soft surface path has been provided on Nicolas Road to Butterfield Stage Road. There is a gap between this path and the Multi Use Trail along PA 32 that leads into the UCR property. An off- street home crossing at Butterfield Stage Road was considered by staff; however, we could not come up with a viable solution. It should be noted that the development of a tdal network throughout the City is long-term goal for the City. This project is providing its fair share of trails that will be used by the public. The applicant is required to seek approval of a Habitat Management Plan (HMP) prior to the recordation of any Final Maps. This HMP requires the developer to address a number of issues including the pedestrian and equestrian access to the UCR and Johnson Ranch properties. Neiqhborhood Commercial The applicant has agreed to include language in the Specific Plan to encourage eating establishments with outdoor seating areas to take advantage of the views to the east and southeast, refer to Page 3-35, Planning Area 11 Standards, Number 9 for the specific language that has been included in the Specific Plan. Staff has also added provisions to this Planning Area to anticipate the need for future telecommunication facilities in this ama. The center is required to solicit the telecommunication companies prior to filing for a Development Plan to inquire about locating in this area. Regardless of the response from these companies, a tower element will be required in the design of the center that could be used for future telecommunication facilities. A park-n-ride facility with 50 designated spaces was required by the DEIR to reduce the traffic impacts of this project. These spaces will be provided in Planning Area 11 and have to be provided prior to the issuance of any building permits in Planning Areas 10, 12, 14 through 24, 31,33A, and 33B. Specific requirements of the park-n-ride are included in Section 3.11, Numbers 2 and 3 of the Specific Plan. R:~S P~Rodpaugh Ranch SP~ew',PC Staff Report 10-16-02~PC Staff Report 10-16-02.doc 22 Fences and Walls Chain Link Fences As indicated on Figures 2-14 through 2-17, the project includes a number of chain link fences at different locations. Staff has required these fences to be black vinyl coated with vertical and horizontal black-coated supports. These fences are required along the habitat area to keep the wild life and the domestic pets separated. They are also located along the southern property line of the Plateau area on the perimeter of PA 7A. Comer Lot Privacy Fencing The applicant is proposing wood fencing with stucco pilasters in corner lot conditions (Figure 2-16); however, staff is recommending a stucco finish for these conditions. This will provide a more continuance appearance that will last a long time compared to wood fencing. Therefore, all fencing visible from the street will be stucco finish with the exception of the side yard gates. Sidewalks The issue of curb-separated sidewalks for both major and local streets has been debated between staff and the applicant for a long time. First, the applicant was reluctant to provide any curb separated sidewalks on major streets because of the topography of the site and, at the same time, the City's Public Works Department has sited long term maintenance issues and the difficulty of locating utilities when curb separated sidewalks are proposed. However, staff believes a reasonable compromise has been reached between the parties on major streets as illustrated on Figure 2~5D. However, staff has not been able to convince the applicants that curb separated sidewalks along local streets are also desirable. Curb separated sidewalks are proposed along the street frontage of both the Sports Park and the Neighborhood Park (PAs 27 and 6), atthe perimeter of PA 11, and along the Butterfield Stage Road frontage of PAs 11 and 12 where a 12' combination Class I bike lane and sidewalk is proposed. This limited curb separated sidewalk path is designed to connect the entire valley neighborhood to the Neighborhood Park (PA 6), the commercial Center (PA 11 ), the Sports Park (PA27), the Elementary and Middle School site (PAs 29 and 28), and the Mega Center (PA30). It should be noted that even the residents in PA lA can reach the Sports Park and beyond to the east on the North Loop Road with using the Nature Walk and curb separated sidewalks. Staff believes this is an acceptable compromise given the topography of the site. Another sidewalk related issue is along Murrieta Hot Springs Road. Within the existing portion of the road within the County, curb adjacent and curb separated sidewalks are being constructed. However, the project proposes to transition into curb adjacent sidewalks because the road elevation is above the home pads, which will result in placing the walls for the residential units on the top of the slope. Since the wall will be only 12' away from the curb, separating the sidewalk from the curb with the parkway will cause the sidewalk to be immediately adjacent to the wall. Since this is not an acceptable design solution, staff is recommending curb adjacent sidewalks in this area and all other areas within the project with the same condition. The only way to have curb-separated sidewalks in this situation is to have at least 15' between the curb and the wall for the residential units. It is possible to achieve this design; however, it would require redesigning the project to reduce the build able area by 3', which the applicant has been unwilling to do. R:\S P\Rodpaugh Ranch SP~new~PC Staff Report 10-16-02\P0 Staff Report 10-16-02.doc 23 Parkway Widths The project is proposing limited parkway widths, which are one of the few design shortcomings of this project. Other Specific Plans in the past have included 25' to 32' of Landscaped Development Zones beyond the curb. The applicant has been reluctant to provide wider parkways along the roadways stating that to do so will reduce the build able pad areas. If this is a concern to the Planning Commission, there are a number of ways to mitigate this issue by directing staff to add all or part of the following to the Specific Plan: Require dense and mature landscaping to be installed by the developer. Thirty six inch (36") box trees can achieve a more instantaneous and established landscaping for the parkways and medians along with forty eight inch (48") and/or 60" box trees at the intersections, Primary Project Monumentations, Staff Gated Primary Entries, and at the Card Key Gated Entries. Requiring a "green wall" can soften the project walls since the width of the parkways is minimal. Approval Authority The development application approval authority table (Table 1-1 of the Specific Plan) is consistent with the Development Code version. However, the Planning Commission needs to be aware of two approval processes. The first one is for approval of the residential products, which is now proposed to be approved by the Planning Commission consistent with the Planning Commission's direction on other Specific Plans. However, staff believes with the detailed architectural guidelines, the Planning Commission may want to consider deferring this review to staff. The second item that the Planning Commission needs to be aware of is the approval of the Private Recreation Centers, which are currently proposed to be administratively approved by staff. Correspondence on the Proiect Staff has received one letter from the surrounding residents which is signed a several residents in the vicinity. The issues discussed in the letter include: increase buffering to the south and east of the Valley Neighborhood from 1 acre to 2.5 acres, Maintenance of the Fire Department "Knox Box" at Calle Contento, Security and privacy impacts of the Multi-use Trail, dust impacts of the grading operations. This letter is included in Attachment 4. GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING CONSISTENCY The Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan development concept is consistent with all applicable goals and programs contained within the General Plan and effectively implements the policies of the General Plan and the applicable zoning requirement. The issues and goals identified within each element of the General Plan have been evaluated, and a statement of compliance with the General Plan has been included in the Specific Plan. Staff has also compared the project with the Growth Management Program Action Plan (GMAP) The project supports the goals, policies, and other provisions contained in the GMAP relative to housing needs, alternative modes of transportation, employment opportunities, open space and recreational needs, etc. With the approval of the General Plan Land Use and Circulation Element Amendments, the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan will be consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan. R:~S P~RoHpaugh Ranch SP~ew~PC Staff Repo~ 10-16-02\PC Staff Repod 10-16~)2.doc 24 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION Environmental Impact Report Because of the scope and impacts of the project, a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) was prepared for this project. The DEIR analyzed the impacts of the project and proposed mitigation measures to reduce the impacts of the project to insignificant levels. However, despite incorporating changes and alterations into the Project, four environmental categories were found to have direct unavoidable and significant adverse environmental effects. The following direct environmental impacts were found to be significant in the EIR: 2. 3. 4. Loss of Agricultural Land; Transportation and Circulation; Air Quality; and Aesthetics. The potential impacts were concluded to be significant because the impacts could not be reduced below thresholds of significance by the proposed Project changes and mitigation measures. In addition, the EIR found that growth in the area would cumulatively have considerable impacts on traffic, noise, air quality, and water consumption. Therefore, Statements of Overriding Consideration (SOC) are proposed for these impacts. The SOC and the Findings for the EIR are included in Attachment I as partofthe Resolution for the Certification of the FEIR. The Mitigation Monitoring Program is included in Attachment 1. The DEIR was cimulated for public review from April 3, 2002 to May 17, 2002. Response to Comments were prepared and distributed to the commenting agencies on October 1,2002 as part ofthe Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR). Notices were sent to individuals who commented on the DEIR which notified them of the availability of the FEIR and the response to their comments. Staff received a letter from the California Indian Legal Services requesting the following language for Mitigation #2: "(2) Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Developer shall enter into a Pro-Excavation Agreement with the local Native American (NA) Pechanga Band to fund up to 2 NA representatives to monitor all ground breaking activities and set for the treatment for Native American remains and cultural items found on the project site .................. " This letter is included in Attachment 4. The Planning Commission recommendation needs to incorporate this change to the City Council. SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS This project has been in the Planning stage for over a decade. When the Planning Commission held a public hearing approximately one year ago, many of the issues surrounding this complex project were not addressed adequately. However, staff believes the project has evolved to provide reasonable buffering, include a vision for a quality development with many amenities for its future residents. It also provides the City with needed road improvements that may not happen without the development of this site. The following provides a summary of the project's benefits: R:~S P'~Roripaugh Ranch SP~new~PC Staff Report 10-16-02\PC Staff Report 10-16-02.doc 25 Roads The project will construct major General Plan level roads, which will enhance traffic movement throughout the City. These improvements include: · Full width construction of Murrieta Hot Springs Road from Pourroy to Butterfield Stage Road. · Full width construction of Butterfield Stage Road from Murrieta Hot Springs to Ranch California Road. · Full width improvement of Nicolas Road on-site and 40' curb-to-curb improvement of Nicolas Road to Liefer Road. · Improvements to the Winchester Road and Nicolas Road intersection · Installation of six traffic signals at the following intersections as they are warranted. o North General Kearney Road at Nicolas Road o Pourroy Road and Murrieta Hot Springs Road o Butterfield Stage Road at Rancho California Road o Murrieta Hot Springs Road at Butterfield Stage Road o Nicolas Road at Butterfield Stage Road o Calle Chapos at Butter~ield Stage Road Other Benefits of the Project include; 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. A 19.7 acre sports park A 4.8 acre neighborhood park Over 200 acres of permanent open space A Fire Station site $1,200,000 to fund 50% of the construction cost for the fire station $800,000 to fund the purchase of fire apparatus to be used anywhere in the City A quality development with comprehensive private recreation programs and trails systems along with quality architecture. R:\S P\Rodpaugh Ranch SP\new\PC Staff Report 10-16-02'~PC Staff Repod 10-16-02.doc 26 FINDINGS Plannin.q Application No. 94-0076 - Roripau.qh Ranch Environmental Impact Report 1. The Environmental Impact Report was prepared and circulated in conformance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act and Guidelines. 2. The Planning Commission reviewed the Draft and Final Reports prior to considering these matters, and listened to all testimony prior to making their decision to recommend · certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report to the City Council. Planninq Application No. 99-0298 - General Plan Amendment 1. 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. 2. The applicant is requesting to amend the following section of the General Plan. These amendments are necessary to make the project consistent with these Elements of the General Plan. The Land Use Element amendment has three components: a. Amend the General Plan Land Use Map (Figure 2-1 of the General Plan) to incorporate the proposed land uses by the project. b. Amend the General Plan Land Use Map (Figure 2-1 of the General Plan) to incorporate the annexation area into the City Limits. c. Amend the General Plan Specific Plan Overlay Exhibit (Figure 2-5 of the General Plan) to include Planning Areas 33A and 33B. In addition, the General Plan Circulation Element includes the following components: d. Amend the General Plan Circulation Element map (Figure 3-1 of the General Plan) to eliminate the connection between Nicolas Road and Calle Contento through the project. e. Amend the General Plan Circulation Element map (Figure 3-1 of the General Plan) to change the designation of Butterfield Stage Road between Murrieta Hot Springs Road and Nicolas Road from 110' (Arterial Highway with 4 lanes) to Specific Plan Road, add North and South Loop Roads as Specific Plan Road, and add streets A and B as Collector. 3. The applicant is proposing a General Plan Amendment as proposed and conditioned is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community. 4. 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. 5. 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 the existing 3 dwelling units per gross acre designation. R:\S FARodpaugh Ranch SP~nevAPC Staff Report 10-16-02\PC Staff Report 10-16~02.doc 27 Plannin~ Application No. 94-0075 - Roripauqh Ranch Specific Plan No. 11 The proposed Specific Plan is consistent with the General Plan, as it is proposed to be amended, and the Development Code. The proposed Specific Plan is consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan and Development Code. The Specific Plan is a reallocation and redistribution of the majority of the existing land use designations and serves as an implementation tool for the General Plan. Therefore, as proposed, the Specific Plan is consistent with the General Plan, as it is proposed to be amended, and Development Code. The proposed Specific Plan would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience or welfare of the city. The project has been reviewed by agencies and staff, and is determined to be in conformance with the City's General Plan (as it is proposed to be amended), Development Code, Design Guidelines and Growth Management Program Action Plan. These documents set policies and standards that protect the health, safety and welfare of the community. In addition, the Specific Plan is a master planned community with specific design guidelines and standards that ensure compatibility and interface with the surrounding community in terms of density, design and cimulation. Therefore, as proposed, conditioned and designed, the Specific Plan is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community. The subject property is physically suitable for the requested land use designations and the anticipated land use developments. There are no physical constraints of the site which would preclude or prohibit the requested land use designations or anticipated developments. Moreover, the proposed Specific Plan land uses are consistent with the land uses of the General Plan and will serve as the tool to regulate and implement the goals and policies of the General Plan. The applicant has submitted applications for Tentative Tract Maps which illustrate that the site is physically suitable for the land uses and development proposed in the Specific Plan. The proposed project shall ensure development of desirable character which will be compatible with existing and proposed development in the surrounding neighborhood. The project proposes similar residential land uses adjacent to the existing surrounding neighborhoods, with extensive landscape buffers and interfaces. The Specific Plan took under consideration the existing developments and surrounding zoning classifications to ensure development that will be complementary and compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Planning Application No. 99-0299--Development Aqreement An environmental review has been conducted and approved for this Agreement in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act.. The City desires to obtain the binding agreement of the Developer and Owner for the development of the Property in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement. The Developer desires to obtain the binding agreement of the City to permit the Developer to develop the Developer's Project on the Developer's Parcels in accordance with the "Applicable Rules" (as hereinafter defined) and this Agreement. The Owner desires to obtain the binding agreement of the City to permit the Owner to develop the Owner's Parcel in accordance with the "Applicable Rules" (as hereinafter defined) and this Agreement. R:~S P'~Roripaugh Ranch SP~new'~PC Staff Report 10-16-OZ~PC Staff Report 10-16-02.doc 28 Developer and Owner have applied to the City in accordance with applicable procedures for approval of this mutually binding Agreement. The Planning Commission and City Council of the City have given notice of intention to consider the Agreement, have conducted public hearings thereon pursuant to the Government Code, and have found that the previsions of this Agreement are consistent with the Specific Plan and the City's General Plan. This Agreement is consistent with the public health, safety, and welfare needs of the residents of the City and the surrounding region. The City has specifically considered and approved the impact and benefits of the development of the Property in accordance with this Agreement upon the welfare of the region. This Agreement will bind the City to the terms and obligations specified in this Agreement and will limit, to the degree specified in the Agreement and under State law, the future exercise of the City's ability to delay, postpone, preclude or regulate development on the Property, except a provided for herein. In accordance with the Development Agreement Statutes, this Agreement eliminates uncertainty in the planning process and provides for the orderly development of the Property. Further, this Agreement eliminates uncertainty about the validity of exactions imposed by the City, allows installation of necessary improvements, provides for public services necessary for the region with incidental benefits for the Property, and generally serves the public interest within the City of Temecula and the surrounding region. Planning Application Nos. 01-0230 and 01-0253--Tentative Tract Maps o The proposed subdivision and the design or improvements of the subdivision is consistent with the General Plan, the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan, Development Code, and other applicable regulations and requirements. The tentative maps do 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 be too small to sustain their agricultural use. The site is physically suitable for the type and density of development proposed by the tentative map. Access is proposed from five adjacent, existing streets within the Specific Plan. The site is adjacent to already developed and similar residential uses. Public utilities are available at or in close proximity to the site. The design of the subdivision provides for future passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities in the subdivision to the extent feasible. 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. The map has provided that all proposed and existing public utility easements over landscape areas shall be granted as shown on the map. The subdivision is consistent with the Ci~s parkland dedication requirements. R:\S P~Roripaugh Ranch SP~new~PC Staff Report 10-16-02\PC Staff Report 10-16-02.doc 29 Attachments: 1. PC Resolution for the EIR - Blue Page 31 Exhibit A - City Council Resolution for the FEIR Certification- Blue Page 32 2. PC Resolution for approving the Project - Blue Page 33 Exhibit A - City Council Resolution for the GPA and Specific Plan - Blue Page 34 Exhibit B- City Council Ordinance for the Development Code Amendment and Zoning Standards for the Roripaugh Specific Plan - Blue Page 35 Exhibit C -City Council Ordinance authorizing the Development Agreement- Blue Page 36 3. PC Resolution for Tentative Tract Map Nos. - Blue Page 37 Exhibit A -City Council Resolution for Tentative Tract Map 29353- Blue Page 38 Exhibit A-l- Conditions of Approval for Tentative Tract Map 29353 Blue Page 39 Exhibit B - City Council Resolution for Tentative Tract Map 29661- Blue Page 40 Exhibit B-1 - Conditions of Approval for Tentative Tract Map 29661- Blue Page 41 4. Correspondence Received - Blue Page 42 5. Specific Plan Errata Sheet - Blue Page 43 6. Planning Commission Meeting Summary, August 15, 2001 - Blue Page 51 7. Planning Commission Staff Report, August 15, 2001 - Blue Page 54 8. Planning Commission Minutes, August 15, 2001 - Blue Page 55 9. Planning Commission October 17, 2001, Proposed Land Use Plan - Blue Page 56 10. Planning Commission Meeting Summary, October 17, 2001 - Blue Page 57 11. Planning Commission Staff Report, October 17, 2001 - Blue Page 59 12. PJanning Commission Minutes, October 17, 2001 - Blue Page 60 13. Community Meeting Summary, September 12, 2001 - Blue Page 61 14. Community Meeting Summary, September 25, 2002 - Blue Page 63 15. Subcommittee Meeting Summary, September 24, 2001 - Blue Page 65 16. Currently Proposed Land Use Plan - Blue Page 68 17. Exhibit A of the Specific Plan, Timing for Improvements - Blue Page 69 18. Development Agreement - Blue Page 73 R:~S P~Rodpaugh Ranch SP~new~PC Staff Report 10-16-02~PC Staff Report 10-16-02.doc 3O A'I-FACHMENT NO. 1 PC RESOLUTION FOR EIR R:\S P'~Roripaugh Ranch SP~new~PC Staff Report 10-16-02'~PC Staff Report 10-16-02.doc A'I'I'ACHMENT NO. 1 PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL CERTIFY THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND RELATED ACTIONS 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 RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN, LOCATED NEAR THE FUTURE INTERSECTION OF BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD AND NICOLAS ROAD, (PLANNING APPLICATION 94-0076) Project Description WHEREAS, the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan and related actions ("Specific Plan"), initiated and prepared on behalf of the City of Temecula. The Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan proposes the development of The annexation of 634 acres to the City of Temecula; a General Plan Amendment to the Land Use Element to incorporate the proposed land uses, and to include Planning Areas 33A and 33B to the Specific plan Overlay Figure; a General Plan Amendment to the Circulation element to eliminate the connection between Nicolas Road and Calie Contento through the project and to change the designation of Butterfield Stage Road between Murrieta Hot Springs Road and Nicolas Road from 4 lanes to Specific Plan Road; a Zone Change to pre-zone the annexation property to the SP zoning designation and to amend the Development Code Section 17.16.070 of the City of Temecula Development Code to adopt a Specific Plan for 804.7 acres to provide zoning and development standards for the development of 2,015 dwelling units within several gated communities, 110,000 square feet of neighborhood commercial retail space, a 12 acre elementary school site and a 20 acre middle school site, two public parks sites including a 19.7 acre Sports Park with lighted playing fields and a 4.6 acre neighborhood park with passive uses, three private recreation facilities, private and public trails and paseos, a fire station site, and 202.7 acres of natural open space to be preserved as permanent habitat, related flood control improvements to Santa Gertrudis Creek and Long Valley Wash; a tentative map to subdivide the project for conveyance purposes; a tentative map to create 509 residential lots within a gated community, a 4.8 acre private recreational facility, a .3 acre private mini park, private paseos and trails, a 5.1 acre public park site, and two open space lots (21.9 acres) to be preserved as permanent habitat; and a Development Agreement to grant the developer development rights for ten years and secure the construction of certain infrastructure improvements by the developer. Environmental Review Process WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act CCEQA"), the City is the lead agency for the Specific Plan as the public agency with both general governmental powers and the principle responsibility for implementing the Specific Plan; and, R:~S P~Roripaugh Ranch SP~ew~PC Staff Report 10-16-02~Resos and ord (EJP)-final 2 WHEREAS, a Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report ("Draft EIR") was issued on December 10, 1997, inviting comments from responsible agencies, other regulatory agencies, organizations and individuals pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines section 15082; and, WHEREAS, written statements were received by the City in response to the Notice of Preparation, which assisted the City in narrowing the issues and alternatives for analysis in the Draft EIR; and, WHEREAS, a Draft EIR was prepared by the City pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines section 15168 to analyze potential adverse environmental impacts of Specific Plan implementation pursuant to CEQA; and, WHEREAS, upon completion of the Draft EIR dated April 3, 2002, the City initiated a 45- day public comment period by filing a Notice of Completion with the State Office of Planning and Research in May 17, 2002; and, WHEREAS, the City also published a Notice of Availability for the Draft EIR in a newspaper of general circulation. Copies of the Draft EIR were sent to public agencies, organizations, and individuals. In addition, the City placed copies of the Draft EIR in public libraries in Riverside County and made copies available for review at City offices; and, WHEREAS, during and before the official public review period for the Draft EIR, the City received 16 written comments, all of which were responded to by the City. Those comments and the responses are included as part of the Final Environmental Impact Report/Response to Comments document ("Final EIR"); and, WHEREAS, on October 17, 2001 the Planning Commission held a workshop and on September 12, 2001 and September 25, 2002 two Community meetings were conducted to provide information about the Specific Plan; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21092.5, the City provided its responses to all commentors on October 1,2002; and, Statutory Requirements for Findings WHEREAS, Section 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines prevents the City from approving or carrying out a project for which an EIR has been completed that identifies any significant environmental effects unless the City makes one or more of the following written finding(s) for each of those significant effects accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding: A. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the final EIR; or, B. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency; or, C. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including R:~S P~Rofipaugh Ranch SP~uew~C Staff Repor~ 10-16-02~Resos and ord (F~P)-final provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR; and, WHEREAS, Section 15093 of the State CEQA Guidelines requires that if the Specific Plan will cause significant unavoidable adverse impacts, the City must adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations prior to approving the project. A Statement of Overriding Considerations states that any significant adverse project effects are acceptable if expected project benefits outweigh unavoidable adverse environmental impacts; and, WHEREAS, environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR as potentially significant, but which the Planning Commission finds can be mitigated to a less than significant level through the imposition of mitigation measures and/or conditions identified in the Final EIR and Specific Plan and set forth herein are described in Section 1 of the proposed City Council Resolution to Certify the FEIR; and, WHEREAS, environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR as potentially significant but which the Planning Commission finds cannot be fully mitigated to a less than significant level despite the imposition of all feasible mitigation measures described in Section 2 of the proposed City Council Resolution to Certify the FEIR; and, WHEREAS, alternatives to the Specific Plan that might eliminate or reduce significant environmental impacts are described in Section 4 of the proposed City Council Resolution to Certify the FEIR, have been determined not to significantly reduce the environmental impact of the Specific Plan; and, WHEREAS, a discussion of Specific Plan benefits identified by City staff and a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the environmental impacts that cannot be fully mitigated to a less than significant level are set forth in Section 3 of the proposed City Council Resolution to Certify the FEIR; and, WHEREAS, Public Resources Code section 21081.6 requires the City to prepare and adopt a mitigation monitoring and reporting program for any project for which mitigation measures have been imposed to assure compliance with the adopted mitigation measures; and, WHEREAS, prior to taking action, the Planning Commission has heard, been presented with, reviewed and considered all of the information and data in the administrative record including the Final EIR, and all oral and written testimony presented to it during meetings and hearings. The Final EIR reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission and is deemed adequate for purposes of making decisions on the merits of the Specific Plan and related actions. No comments or any additional information submitted to the City have produced any substantial new information requiring circulation or additional environmental review of the Final EIR under CEQA, nor do the minor modifications to the Final EIR require additional public review because no new significant environmental impacts were identified, no substantial increase in the severity of any environmental impacts would occur. 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. RAS P~oripaugh Ranch SP~ew~2 Staff Report 10-16-02~,esos and ord (EJP)-final Section 2. Findin.qs The Final Environmental Impact Report, adopt the Statement of Overriding Considerations and approve the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program substantially in the form contained in Exhibits A and B respectively of the City Council Resolution to Certify the FEIR. Section 3. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning Commission this 16th day of October 2002. A'I-I'EST: Dennis Chiniaeff, Chairman Debbie Ubnoske Secretary [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CiTY OF TEMECULA ) i, Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary of the Temecula Planning Commission, do hereby certify that PC Resolution No. 2002- was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 16th day of October, 2002, by the following vote: AYES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary R:XS PXRoripaugh Ranch SPXnew~C Staff Report 10-16~)2~Resos and ord (EIP)-final 5 EXHIBIT A CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION FOR FEIR CERTIFICATION R:~S P'~Roripaugh Ranch SP'mew~PC Staff Report 10-16-02\PC Staff RePOrt 10-16-02.doc 32 CC RESOLUTION NO. 2002 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING CERTIFICATION OF THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED FOR THE RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN AND RELATED ACTIONS 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 RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN, LOCATED NEAR THE FUTURE INTERSECTION OF BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD AND NICOLAS ROAD. (PLANNING APPLICATION 94-0076) Statement of Findings of Fact Pursuant to CEQA Guideline Section 15091 For the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan WHEREAS, the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan and related actions ("Specific PlaW), initiated and prepared on behalf of the City of Temecula. The Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan proposes the development of The annexation of 634 acres to the City of Temecula; a General Plan Amendment to the Land Use Element to incorporate the proposed land uses, and to include Planning Areas 33A and 33B to the Specific plan Overlay Figure; a General Plan Amendment to the Circulation element to eliminate the connection between Nicolas Road and Calle Contento through the project and to upgrade the designation of Butterfield Stage Road between Murrieta Hot Springs Road and Nicolas Road from 4 lanes to Specific Plan Road; a Zone Change to pre-zone the annexation property to the SP zoning designation and to amend the Development Code Section 17.16.070 of the City of Temecula Development Code to adopt a Specific Plan for 804.7 acres to provide zoning and development standards for the development of 2,015 dwelling units within several gated communities, 110,000 square feet of neighborhood commercial retail space, a 12 acre elementary school site and a 20 acre middle school site, two public parks sites including a 19.7 acre Sports Park with lighted playing fields and a 4.8 acre neighborhood park with passive uses, three private recreation facilities, private and public trails and paseos, a fire station site, and 202.7 acres of natural open space to be preserved as permanent habitat, related flood control improvements to Santa Gertrudis Creek and Long Valley Wash; a tentative map to subdivide the project for conveyance purposes; a tentative map to create 509 residential lots within a gated community, a 4.8 acre private recreational facility, a .3 acre private mini park, private paseos and trails, a 5.1 acre public park site, and two open space lots (21.9 acres) to be preserved as permanent habitat; and a Development Agreement to grant the developer development rights for ten years and secure the construction of certain infrastructure improvements by the developer. WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), the City is the lead agency for the Specific Plan as the public agency with both general governmental powers and the principle responsibility for implementing the Specific Plan; and, WHEREAS, a Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report ("Draft EIR") was issued on April 1, 1999, inviting comments from responsible agencies, other regulatory agencies, organizations and individuals pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines section 15082; and, R:~S P~Roripaugh Ranch SP~new~PC StaffReport 10-16-02~Resos and ord (EJP)-flnal WHEREAS, written statements were received by the City in response to the Notice of Preparation, which assisted the City in narrowing the issues and alternatives for analysis in the Draft EIR; and, WHEREAS, a Draft EIR was prepared by the City pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines section 15168 to analyze potential adverse environmental impacts of Specific Plan implementation pursuant to CEQA; and, WHEREAS, upon completion of the Draft EIR dated November 2, 2000, the City initiated a 45-day public comment period by filing a Notice of Completion with the State Office of Planning and Research in November 2, 2000; and, WHEREAS, the City also published a Notice of Availability for the Draft EIR in a newspaper of general circulation. Copies of the Draft EIR were sent to public agencies, organizations, and individuals. In addition, the City placed copies of the Draft EIR in public libraries in Riverside County and made copies available for review at City offices; and, WHEREAS, during and before the official public review period for the Draft EIR, the City received 16 written comments, all of which were responded to by the City. Those comments and the responses are included as part of the Final Environmental Impact Report/Response to Comments document ("Final EIR"); and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21092.5, the City provided its responses to all commentors on October 1,2002; and, WHEREAS, Section 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines prevents the City from approving or carrying out a project for which an EIR has been completed that identifies any significant environmental effects unless the City makes one or more of the following written finding(s) for each of those significant effects accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding: A. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the final EIR; or, B. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency; or, C. Specific economicl legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR; and, WHEREAS, Section 15093 of the State CEQA Guidelines requires that if the Specific Plan will cause significant unavoidable adverse impacts, the City must adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations prior to approving the project. A Statement of Overriding Considerations states that any significant adverse project effects are acceptable if expected project benefits outweigh unavoidable adverse environmental impacts; and, WHEREAS, environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR as potentially significant, but which the City Council finds can be mitigated to a less than significant level through the R:~S P~R~fipaugh Ranch SI~nevAPC Staff Repor~ 10-16~)2~Resos and ord (EJP)-final imposition of mitigation measures and/or conditions identified in the Final EIR and Specific Plan and set forth herein are described in Section 1 hereof; and, WHEREAS, environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR as potentially significant but which the City Council finds cannot be fully mitigated to a less than significant level despite the imposition of all feasible mitigation measures described in Section 42 hereof, and, WHEREAS, alternatives to the Specific Plan that might eliminate or reduce significant environmental impacts are described in Section 4; and, WHEREAS, a discussion of Specific Plan benefits identified by City staff and a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the environmental impacts that cannot be fully mitigated to a less than significant level are set forth in Section 3 hereof; and, WHEREAS, Public Resources Code section 21081.6 requires the City to prepare and adopt a mitigation monitoring and reporting program for any project for which mitigation measures have been imposed to assure compliance with the adopted mitigation measures; and, WHEREAS, prior to taking action, the City Council has heard, been presented with, reviewed and considered all of the information and data in the administrative record including the Final EIR, and all oral and written testimony presented to it during meetings and hearings. The Final EIR reflects the independent judgment of the City Council and is deemed adequate for purposes of making decisions on the merits of the Specific Plan and related actions. No comments or any additional information submitted to the City have produced any substantial new information requiring circulation or additional environmental review of the Final EIR under CEQA, nor do the minor modifications to the Final EIR require additional public review because no new significant environmental impacts were identified, no substantial increase in the severity of any environmental impacts would occur. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Findings, Impacts of the Project that have been mitigated to insignificant Levels. The following issues were found to be less than significant based on detailed technical data supporting a conclusion that mitigation measures identified in the EIR and administrative record will be implemented reducing the impacts to below a level of significance. In the following presentation each resource issue is identified and followed by a description of the potential significant impact, a discussion of the finding in the entire administrative record, primarily the EIR, and any mitigation measures that will be implemented to achieve a non- significant impact are identified, as well as the facts supporting the finding. A. The City Council hereby finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project, which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment for the resources addressed below. Public Resources Code Section 21081 states that no public agency shall approve or carry out a Project for which an environmental impact report has been completed which identifies one or more significant effects unless the public agency makes one, or more, of the following findings: 1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effects thereof as identified in the completed environmental impact report; R:~S P~Roripaugh Ranch SP~nevAFC Staff Report 10-16-02~Resos and ord (EIP)-final 2. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and such changes have been adopted by such agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency; and/or 3. Specific economic, social, or other consideration make infeasible the mitigation measures or Project alternatives identified in the environmental impact report. B. The City Council hereby finds, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081, that the following issues are less than significant based on implementation of the mitigation measures outlined below and that no additional mitigation measures or Project changes are required to reduce these impacts below a significant level. These issues and the measures adopted to mitigate them to a level of insignificance are as follows: Land Use and Planning Potential Significant Impact C. The Project site is currently classified as a Specific Plan in the City of Temecula General Plan, which allows a gross density of 3 units per acre. (DEIR, p. 3-9 to 3-11) The County's Southwest Area Plan (SWAP) also designates the "Valley" portion of the site for Iow density housing (DEIR, p. 3-10). (Ibid.) The proposed net density of the Project is 2.5 dwelling units per acre (du/ac). (DEIR, p. 3-11) Short-term impacts will occur as the land use on the property changes from unimproved vacant land, to a construction site, and finally to a Iow to moderate intensity residential neighborhood. (DEIR, p. 3-11) Due to the design of the project, development of the site will not have long-term impacts on the surrounding neighborhoods to the southwest, south, and east (DEIR, pp. 3-9 to 3-11). In addition, the Valley portion of the project will be annexed into the City of Temecula - this is not expected to have any significant land use impacts. Finding D. The current combination of standard conditions, uniform codes, and Project design features help reduce the overall land use impacts of the Project on surrounding land uses by creating larger lots around the perimeter of the site with smaller lots on the "inside" of the Project (DEIR, pp. 3-9 to 3-11). The following measures are proposed to mitigate potential land use impacts of the proposed project relative to regional plans (i.e., the French Valley Airport Master Plan): 1. The Specific Plan has been transmitted to the County's Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) for review and comment. Official comments, including the Conditions of Approval prepared by ALUC, have been transmitted to the City as part of the decision-making action on the project. 2. The developer has provided the County's Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) with Avigation Easements for all the parcels in Planning Areas 1-9, and sends a copy of that proof to the City Planning Department. 3. The developer has also provided the City with proof that avigation easements have been obtained for all the lots in Planning Areas 1-5. R:',S PxRoripaugh Ranch SI:'~nevAFC Staff Report 10-16-02XResos and oral (EJP)-final 10 4. Prior to recordation of any maps in Planning Areas 1-5, the developer shall demonstrate to the City Planning Department that buyer information contains a statement regarding avigation easements. This information shall be provided either in the White Report or supplementary information with an affidavit of disclosure by the developer. 5. The developer has demonstrated that proposed structures comply with the current height restrictions of the French Valley Airport and ALUC for Planning Areas 1-9. 6. One or both of the proposed school sites can be converted to residential use provided that all of the following are met: (a) approval of a Specific Plan Amendment (SPA) is obtained from the City to convert from Educational Designation to Low Medium Residential Designation; (b) the School District has indicated in writing that they are no longer interested in using Planning Areas 28 and/or 29 as schools sites; and (c) the total number of units for the entire project does not exceed 2,015 units. 7. Incorporate noise attenuation measures into any building construction to ensure interior noise levels are at or below 45-decibel levels. (Refer to Noise Mitigation Measures 3.10-5 and 3.10-6). 8. Install hoods or shields to prevent either spillage of lumens or reflections into the sky (lights must be downward facing). 9. The Plan and EIR are amended to recognize the approved CLUP and the airport is to include the appropriate text and graphic illustrations. 10. No obstruction of the "FAR Part 77 Conical Surface" shall be permitted. (Refer-see Land Use & Planning Mitigation Measure 3.1-5) 11. The following uses shall be precluded: a) stadiums; b) amphitheaters; c) lighted ball fields; and d) churches in Planning Areas 1-9. 12. The following uses shall be prohibited: a) Any use which would direct a steady light or flashing light of red, white, green, or amber colors associated with airport operations toward an aircraft engaged in an initial straight climb following takeoff or toward an aircraft engaged in a straight final approach toward a landing at an airport, other than an FAA- approved navigational signal light or visual approach slope indicator; b) any use which would cause sunlight to be reflected towards an aircraft engaged in an initial straight climb following takeoff or toward an aircraft engaged in a straight final approach toward a landing at an airport; c) any use which would generate smoke or water vapor or which would attract large concentrations of birds, or which may otherwise affect safe air navigation within the area; or d) any use which would generate electrical interference that may be detrimental to the operation of aimraft and/or aircraft instrumentation. 13. Prior to recordation of any final maps, or the recordation of any avigation easements, whichever is first, the Temecula Community Services Department (TCSD) shall approve the wording for, and authorize the filing of, an avigation easement for the neighborhood park (Planning Area 6). The avigation easement for PA 6 shall be recorded and documented with the Planning Department prior to construction of the park. Facts in support of the Finding R:~S PuRofipaugh Ranch Sl~nevgPC Staff Report 10-16-02~Resos and ord (EJP)-final 11 E. The density of the Project (i.e., Iow density suburban intensity of 2.5 units/acre) complies with the General Plan and has been organized to minimize impacts on the surrounding neighborhoods (Draft EIR, p. 3-11). F. With implementation of the standard conditions, uniform codes, Project design features, and the recommended mitigation measures, the Project will not significantly impact surrounding land uses and is consistent with the City's General Plan, and will thus create no significant short- or long-term impacts on land use. (Draft EIR, p. 3-15) G. Development in the Temecula area is expected to continue and result in a fundamental change in the character of the area (DEIR, p. 6-6). However, the change need not be cumulatively considerable if proper planning is exercised. It is not anticipated the Project will contribute to cumulative land use and planning impacts in the Temecula area. (Draft EIR, p. 6- 11) Earth Resources Potential Significant Impact H. Various regional faults, such as the San Andreas Fault, are capable of producing major earthquakes and substantial ground shaking. (Draft EIR, p. 3-28) Development of the proposed Project will introduce additional homes and residents into an area subject to moderate ground shaking, settling, and other seismic related hazards. (Ibid.) I. Soils on the site have a moderate to high potential for erosion if the vegetative cover is removed. (Draft EIR, p. 3-30, 3-34) The Project will temporarily increase the potential for erosion by removing vegetation during grading activities for roads and building pads. (Ibid.) Long-term increases to erosion potential will occur as a result of increased surface runoff rates due to road paving and construction of impermeable structures. (Ibid.) Finding J. The following measures are recommended to prevent earth-related impacts from becoming significant: 1. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, engineering reports addressing geologic, seismic, or soil limitations and foundation design will be prepared for the following Planning Areas: PA(s) 12 14 15 17 18 19 20 22 23 24 27 Report Topic(s) Liquefaction liquefaction, landslides landslides Landslides Liquefaction (south end) landslides and liquefaction for lots along creek landslides and liquefaction for lots along creek liquefaction liquefaction liquefaction liquefaction (sports park) R:~S l~R. oxipaugh Ranch SP~nevAPC Staff Report 10-16-02XResos and ord (E]P)-final 12 28 liquefaction (school site) 31 liquefaction 33A, B liquefaction Nicolas liquefaction (offsite improvements) 2. If a particular lot cannot accommodate appropriate setbacks, it will not be built. These reports will specify appropriate foundations and other design parameters to alleviate identified potential geotechnical impacts. These reports will be prepared and approved by the City Department of Public Works prior to the issuance of grading permits. 3. Prior to the issuance of grading permits for offsite improvements related to the project, engineering reports addressing geologic, seismic, or soil limitations and foundation design will be prepared for any affected areas that have not already had such studies, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department. 4. At least two days prior to scheduled blasting, the developer shall post a clearly visible sign at the intersection of Nicolas Road and Calle Girasol to notify residents of the Nicolas Valley if and when blasting will occur. Any blasting activities will be limited to the hours of 9 AM to 4 PM, Monday through Friday. Prior to any blasting, the developer shall obtain permission from the City Engineer to post notice in at least one newspaper of local circulation at least one week in advance. A note to this effect shall be placed on the grading plans. Section 2. Water Resources (below) contains mitigation measures for erosion control and sedimentation (i.e., water erosion). Section 6 on Air Quality contains mitigation measures for dust control (i.e., wind erosion and revegetation of disturbed areas). Facts in Support of the Finding A. While development of the proposed Project will introduce additional homes and residents into an area subject to moderate ground shaking, settling, and other seismic related hazards, these hazards are similar to those experienced throughout the mountain region, and most of Southern California. (Draft EIR, p. 3-28) These hazards are not substantially elevated for the Project site and will not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects. (Ibid.) Also, the residential structures will be designed to withstand anticipated seismic stresses and soil conditions, further minimizing potential impacts to new residents. (Draft EIR, p. 3-30, 3-34) B. Implementation of standard conditions, existing codes, proposed Project design features, and the mitigation measures listed above, will assure that potential geologic, seismic, soil, and other earth-related impacts remain less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 3-39) Development throughout the region will also introduce thousands of new residences and residents into areas subject to considerable ground shaking and some that have soil limitations. However, with proper design and engineering, no cumulative impacts to earth resources are expected. Therefore, the Project's potential impacts to earth resources are not cumulatively considerable. (DEIR, p. 6-6) Water Resources Potential Significant Impact RAS P~Roripaugh Ranch Sl~new~2 Staff Report 10-16-02hResos and ord (EJP)-final 13 C. Development of the Project site will increase the amount of onsite runoff by covering pervious native soils with various impervious surfaces such as asphalt, concrete, and buildings. (DEIR, p. 3-45) Based on the proposed development plan, approximately 254 acres (32 pement) of the site will be covered by impervious surfaces (e.g., roadways, parking areas, homes, patios, etc.). (DEIR, p. 3-47) The covering of existing native soils with impervious surfaces could slightly change recharge of local groundwater. (Draft EIR, p. 3-48) D. Santa Gertrudis Creek presently has an outlet flow off the Project site of 3,479 cfs - the proposed drainage plan will not increase that flow. Similarly, Long Valley Wash presently has an outlet flow of 4,460 cfs - the proposed drainage plan will not increase that flow with construction of the proposed drainage facilities (FEIR, pp. 11, 12) E. Present runoff is mostly limited to natural sediments from the surrounding agricultural land. (Draft EIR, p. 3-48) Conversion of the site to urban uses means that runoff entering the storm drain system will contain minor amounts of pollutants typical of urban use, including pesticides, fertilizers, oil and rubber residues, detergents, grease, hydrocarbon particles, dust particles, and other debris. (Ibid.) This runoff, although typical of urban use, will contribute to the incremental degradation of downstream water quality in Santa Gertrudis Creek and Long Valley Wash. (Ibid.) Finding F. With compliance with NPDES requirements and implementation of the following mitigation measures, water resource related impacts will be mitigated to a less than significant level: 1. Prior to the issuance of a rough grading permit, the developer shall provide a Drainage Management Plan (DMP) covering both Santa Gertrudis Creek and Long Valley Creek immediately downstream of the project site. The DMP must provide erosion control measures sufficient to protect properties downstream of Santa Gertrudis Creek, Long Valley Wash, and the Plateau portion of the project from flooding, scour, erosion, and/or other drainage-related damage up to a 100-year storm. The DMP will demonstrate that runoff leaving the project site will not increase velocity or flow. The report will demonstrate how total offsite flows from the 2 channels can be reduced to the greatest extent feasible from existing flows. The DMP will identify maintenance responsibilities and be prepared to the satisfaction of the City Public Works Department and the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District. The DMP shall incorporate any changes to the project drainage reports and demonstrate the project meets all applicable requirements of the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (RCFCWCD) relative to drainage improvements and drainage-related construction activities. The DMP must demonstrate the planned improvements will prevent downstream erosion and flooding impacts and any increases in offsite runoff. If it cannot demonstrate these conditions are met, no building permits shall be issued, to the satisfaction of the City Public Works Department and the RCFCWCD. For the purposes of this measure, downstream impacts also refers to MWD pipelines that could be impacted. 2. Prior to recordation of any maps, or issuance of grading permits, whichever is first, the developer shall provide a maintenance agreement for the portions of the Santa Gertrudis Creek and Long Valley Creek on the project site. It must be mutually agreeable to the City Public Works Department, the Riverside County Flood Control and Water R:~S l~Rofipaugh Raach SP~newXPC Staff Report 10-[6~02~Resos and ord (F~lP)-final 14 Conservation District (RCFCWCD), and the Home Owners Association (HOA). This agreement shall state that the City is only responsible for maintaining flood control facilities under public roads, and is not responsible for maintaining the Santa Gertrudis Creek and Long Valley Wash channels or detention basins, and the other facilities must be maintained by RCFCWCD/HOA, with funding provided by the HOA. 3. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the developer shall coordinate any construction that could impact facilities of the Metropolitan Water District (MWD) to assure that their facilities are not damaged by project construction, either onsite or offsite. 4. Prior to issuance of rough grading permits, as part of implementation of the mass grading plan, the developer shall identify and make, as necessary, interim channel improvements including, but not limited to, grading and construction of detention basins during the period before Phase 2 permanent channel improvements are constructed to protect downstream facilities constructed during Phase 1, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Interim improvements will require a mass-grading permit. 5. The City reserves the right to require the developer to mitigate any concentrated offsite flows near the project improvements and to adequately disperse them by the use of rip-rap, armorflex, or equivalent improvements, as approved by and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. This measure shall be in fome during the entire development process for the project. 6. The timing of all bridge improvements shall be consistent with the transportation mitigation measures, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 7. Prior to recordation of any final map, the developer shall provide a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLMR) and comply with that process, to the satisfaction of the City Public Works Department. 8. Prior to issuance of the first building permit for Phase 2, the developer shall submit appropriate documentation to the Federal Emergency Management Agency sufficient to update the Flood Insurance Rate Maps for Planning Areas 12, 13, 14, 27, 33A, and 33B for Santa Gertrudis Creek, and Planning Areas 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, and 31 for Long Valley Wash. 9. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the developer shall prepare and submit a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) to the SDRWQCB for review and comment covering both construction and occupancy of the project. The WQMP shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City Public Works Department. Facts in Support of the Finding G. The amount of water that will be required for the Project is not substantial on a regional basis, and will not result in any significant change to the overall direction or flow rate of groundwater and will mainly use imported water supplied by EMWD. (Draft EIR, p. 3-45) H. With implementation of the proposed drainage master plan, runoff and peak flows will not increase (FEIR, pp. 11, 12) The Project will not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area. (Ibid.) Also, the Project will not substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on or off-site. (Ibid.) R:~S P~Roripaugh Ranch SP~nevAI'C Staff Report 10-16~)2~Resos and ord (FAP)-fina! I. With implementation of the standard conditions, uniform codes, Project design features, and the recommended mitigation measures, the Project will not significantly alter flows to Santa Gertrudis Creek or Long Valley Wash, and will have no significant short- or long-term impacts on water-related resoumes. (Draft EIR, p. 3-54) J. As development occurs, local water resources, both surface and underground, will be incrementally impacted as native soils are covered over, runoff is increased, and more urban pollutants are introduced into local runoff. (Draft EIR, p. 3-58) However, these impacts are not expected to be significant as long as the County continues to require developers to not increase offsite runoff and to properly plan flood control improvements for new development. (Ibid.) As growth continues, there may be cumulative significant impacts to water resources, (ibid.) However, the Project will not make a significant contribution to potential cumulatively considerable impacts on water resources. (Ibid.) Biological Resources Potentially Significant Impact K. The Project site contains several vegetation types, including 248.5 acres (31%) covered by sage scrub, transitional and grasslands, 24.6 acres of riparian vegetation, 7.8 acres of woodlands, and 537.5 acres (67%) of disturbed land. (Draft EIR, p. 3-117) The site contains two major drainages (Santa Gertrudis Creek and Long Valley Wash) plus several other minor tributary drainages. The site supports a number of listed or otherwise protected species, including the California gnatcatcher, Quino butterfly, Stephen's kangaroo rat, and possibly burrowing owls. L. After circulation of the first DEIR, the Project was extensively revised and was made consistent with the Assessment District 161 Sub-Regional Habitat Conservation Plan recently approved by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (DEIR, pp. 3-125 to 3-129). The Project is also consistent with the draft habitat and conservation areas identified in the CETAP maps of the Riverside County Integrated Plan (FEIR, p. 15). The Project, as proposed, will remove 154 acres of the onsite sage scrub, transitional, and grassland vegetation, 9.9 acres of the riparian vegetation, and almost all of the woodland vegetation. Almost all of the proposed development will be on land already disturbed (DEIR, p. 3-131) The site provides extensive raptor foraging habitat, so its removal could have cumulative impacts on raptors. (DEIR, p. 3-134) Due to preservation of much of the Santa Gertrudis environs in the AD 161 SHCP, the proposed Project will not adversely affect biological resoumes on, or wildlife movement across, the site. (Draft EIR, 3-140) Finding M. Implementation of the following mitigation measures will reduce impacts to biological resources to less than significant levels: 1. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit or map recordation, whichever is first, the developer shall obtain Streambed Alteration Agreements (SAA) with the California Department of Fish and Game for impacts to onsite drainages, including but not limited to, Santa Gertrudis Creek and Long Valley Creek. While this is a standard agency requirement, several unique requirements of the Roripaugh site require this measure to be spelled out in detail. R:~S P',Roip=ugh Ranch SP~nevAPC Staff Repoxt 10-16~}2~Resos and ord (F~IP)-final 16 Existing disturbed wetland areas on the site will be restored and maintained according to conditions of approval of the SAA. The two flow-by/detention basins shown in the Master Drainage Plan in the two major drainage channels will be constructed with "soft" (i.e., natural) · bottoms and be allowed to revegitate naturally (in Planning Areas 13 and 25). They will be maintained on a regular basis for flood control purposes. Willow and other appropriate riparian species will be planted in areas designated by the CWA 404 permit being processed for this project. This vegetation will create new wetland habitat (approximately 1.22 acres) to compensate for the loss of existing onsite wetlands (0.61 acres). The project is expected to impact a total of 2.69 acres of land under ACOE jurisdiction. It is also expected to impact 3.0 acres of land under CDF&G jurisdiction, of which 0.83 acres is riparian habitat. The revegetation areas may be near the flow-by/detention basins or within the creek channels, as approved by the Army Corps in approved 404 permitting documents. As shown in Figure 3.4-3, Master Drainage Plan, the basins will be constructed prior to the issuance of occupancy permits for the following areas: Basin Location South end of PA-7C Southwest portion of Santa Gertrudis Creek Long Valley Wash (PA 25 & 26) Constructed prior to issuance of... 1st building permit PA 3, 4A, or 4B 1~t building permit in PA lA, 2, or 3 PA lA (PA 7B) 250t~ building permit in PA lA, 2, or 3 (PA 13) 1st building permit east of Butterfield Stage Road (PA 14, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 24, 27, 28, or31) and concurrent with Long Valley channel improvements These basins shall be maintained by the Developer, although the basin in Planning Area 13 may be maintained by the County's designated conservation organization under the AD 161 SHCP. Non-performance of maintenance duties will be cause for suspension of building permits for the project, regardless of development phase. In addition, the developer shall transmit a copy of the approved CWA 404 permit for the project within 30 days of approval by the ACOE. 2. The developer has retained a qualified biologist to prepare a directed survey to locate on site coastal California gnatcatcher nests, and no occupied gnatcatcher nests were present, in addition, no grading or removal of habitat will take place within 100 feet of known nesting sites during the nesting and breeding season (mid-February through mid-July). The developer shall provide the City with a copy of the report approved by the appropriate resource agency. 3. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit or any vegetation clearing, including offsite roadway or other improvements, a focused burrowing owl survey will be completed and any burrowing owls occurring on the site will be excluded from active burrows. Owl surveys and burrow exclusion will follow the CDFG protocols for this species (CDFG 1993). The developer shall provide the City with a copy of the report approved by the appropriate resource agency. 4. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit or any vegetation clearing, including offsite roadway or other improvements, a directed survey shall be conducted to determine the presence or absence of nesting raptor species. Surveys will be conducted between April and June. If raptor nests are present, no grading or removal of habitat will take place within 500 feet of known nesting sites during the nesting/breeding season (mid-March R:~S P~Roripaugh Ranch SP~ncw~PC Staff Report 10-164)2~Resos and ord (EIP)-final 17 through mid-July). The developer shall provide the City with a copy of the report approved by the appropriate resource agency. 5. The open space in Planning Areas 8, 9A, 9B, and 13 will be managed by a conservation organization authorized by the most current AD 161 SHCP Agreement. Prior to recordation of a final map, the developer shall provide the City with a Habitat Management Plan (HMP) signed by the agency that will own and maintain the habitat area, covering activities related to the AD 181 Habitat area on the project site (Planning Areas 8-10). The HMP will address the exact boundaries of the area, fencing, lighting, landscaping, fuel modification, access roads for fire equipment, pedestrian and equestrian trails, and access gates to the preserve area, including public access to the Johnson Ranch and UCR property. The Developer shall comply with all applicable requirements of the AD 161 SHCP and the approved HMP, including but not limited to the following: a. Roadways in or adjacent to the open space areas, including security and maintenance roads, shall have highly visible signs notifying drivers of the potential for wildlife (e.g. "WARNING - WILDLIFE XING"). Speed laws near corridors should be strictly enforced. b. No fences shall impede movement within the corridor. If a fence is necessary in these areas, it should be a two-strand smooth-wire or split-rail type. The bottom strand or rail should occur no lower than 20 inches above the ground, with the second strand or rail occurring no higher than 40 inches above the ground. c. Fencing shall be installed and maintained along the perimeter of the open space areas (Planning Areas 8, 9A, 9B, and 13) to minimize intrusion by humans, pets, vehicles, etc. d. Habitat or corridors shall be screened from the direct view of adjacent homes, roads, etc. by trees and shrubs. Dense vegetative screening is required for the edge of any developed areas adjacent to corridors. e. If nighttime lighting is necessary in the area of wildlife corridors, only appropriate restrictive lighting pointed away from the corridor should be allowed. In addition, streets should not terminate at the edge of the corridor because this may promote turning of automobiles, which would flood the corridor with headlight illumination. Streets that do terminate shall have fencing or other visual screening to limit light intrusion into the habitat area. f. During the vegetation clearing or grading, all areas of Riversidian sage scrub proposed to be preserved in the vicinity of construction activities shall be protected through the construction of temporary fencing. No construction access, parking or storage will be permitted within the fenced area. Vehicle transportation routes between cut-and-fill locations will be restricted. Failure of the developer to abide by the guidelines of AD 161 SHCP and the HMP will be grounds for suspension of building permits for the project, regardless of phase. This action can be appealed to the City Council in disputed cases. 6. Prior to final map approval, the Developer shall document that an effective Fuel Modification Zone (FMZ) has been planned around the AD 161 SHCP area R:~S PMRoripaugh Ranch Sl~nevAPC Staff Report 10-16-02~qesos and ord (EIP)-final 18 (Planning Areas 8-10), to the satisfaction of the City Planning and Public Works Departments, City Fire Department, and the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. No maps shall be approved until a mutually agreeable FMZ plan is approved by the City Public Works Department, subject to concurrence with the other affected agencies/departments. 7. Prior to approval of any final maps, all mature trees should be shown on an exhibit (mature = 3 inches truck diameter at breast height or larger). The developer shall replace mature trees lost through development at a minimum 1.5:1 ratio as outlined in the Master Landscape Plan and Landscape Material Palette in Section 5 of the Specific Plan at appropriate locations throughout the project. Facts in Support of the Finding N. The proposed mitigation measures will establish a Habitat Management Plan for the habitat land of AD 161 SHCP within the Project site (PAs 8, 9A, 9B, and 13) which will help assure the long-term health of this habitat area for the gnatcatcher, Quino butterfly, and Stephen's kangaroo rat. (Draft EIR, pp. 3-133 to 3-136) Payment of a regional fee will mitigate impacts to the Stephen's kangaroo rat, and protocol surveys and possible relocation will prevent impacts to any burrowing owls. Other sensitive species will also benefit by the 201 acres of habitat land set aside on the site. O. With implementation of standard conditions, uniform codes, and recommended mitigation measures, impacts to biological resources will be reduced to less than significant levels. (DEIR, p. 3-140) P. Ongoing development will put additional pressure on local biological resources, especially the loss of foraging land for raptors (DEIR, p. 6-7) Since the Project is mitigating its own impacts, and it will not contribute to cumulatively considerable impacts to biological species. (Ibid.) Energy and Mineral Resources Potential Significant Impact Q. The project area does not contain any significant energy resoumes. The State is currently experiencing an energy "crisis" but is expected to resolve it in the coming months. The Santa Gertrudis Creek channel does contain sand and gravel resoumes, and a small mining operation is currently extracting aggregate from the channel onsite. The proposed Project will preserve Santa Gertrudis Creek channel intact so no significant impacts are expected to mineral resoumes. (DEIR, p. 3-142) The Project will consume additional electricity and natural gas, but this increase is not considered significant when viewed over the long-term (DEIR, p. 3-142) Finding R. Implementation of the following mitigation measures will reduce potential energy impacts to less than significant levels: Compliance with the State's energy conservation regulations contained in Title 24. Facts in Support of the Finding R:XS PxRoripaugh Ranch SP~newLPC Staff Report 10-16-02XResos and ord (EJP)-final 19 Over the long-term, the public and private utility companies serving Southern California are expected to have adequate supplies of electricity and natural gas, despite the currant short-term "crisis" (DEIR, p. 3-141) Hazards Potential Significant Impact S. Occupancy of the proposed Project will require the use of a number of common hazardous materials such as cleaners, fertilizers, etc., however, these are not considered a significant impact (DEIR, p. 3-145). Hazardous materials from former vehicle-related activities were found in several small areas in the center of the site, as delineated in a Phase I report for the site. These contaminated areas have since been remediated according to applicable requirements. The site will also expose hundreds of residents to increased hazards related to overflights from the French Valley Airport, which is considered significant. (DEIR, p. 3-146) Finding T. The previous Section 1 entitled Land Use and Planning proposes mitigation measures related to avigation easements for future project residents and land uses (DEIR, pp. 3-14, 3-15) Implementation of the mitigation measures in the Land Use section regarding avigation easements and the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) will reduce impacts related to overflight hazards to less than significant levels. Compliance with existing laws and regulations regarding hazardous materials are considered adequate to control potential exposure of Project residents to hazardous materials. In addition, the following measures are recommended to assure there ara no impacts regarding hazardous materials: 1. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the developer shall demonstrate that the contaminated areas identified in the 1999 Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) report have been remediated according to applicable regulations, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. 2. Prior to issuance of any grading permits, the developer shall contact the Voluntary Cleanup Program (VCP) if cleanup oversight is required, and contact a DTSC if a Preliminary Endangerment Assessment must be prepared. 3. Prior to the City's acceptance of the grant deeds for the 2 park sites (Planning Areas 6 and 27) and the fire station site (Planning Area 32), the developer shall demonstrate that the sites are not contaminated by hazardous materials, to the satisfaction of the Temecula Community Services Department (TCSD), Public Works, and the Fire Department. 4. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the developer shall contact the State's Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA) to identify any hazmat permitting authority or agency related to the project. 5. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the Developer shall obtain a hazardous waste storage permit if so directed by the State's Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA). Facts in Support of the Finding R:~S PXRoripaugh Ranch SP~nevAPC Staff Report 10-16-02~Resos and ord (EJP)-final U. With respect to hazardous materials, large amounts of such materials will not be stored onsite and only small amounts of chemicals typical in suburban uses will be used during operation of the Project. Therefore, significant impacts related to hazardous materials are not anticipated for the proposed Project. (Draft EIR, p. 3-145) In addition, the proposed Project will not result in a cumulatively considerable impact on the use or disposable of hazardous materials. (Draft EIR, p. 6-8) V. Notifying residents of potential hazards from the proximity to French Valley Airport and restricting building heights will not prevent accidents, but obtaining an avigation easement from all involved property owners is the required mitigation for residential land uses within this zone. With these, the impacts of the Project relative to hazards of aircraft overflight have been mitigated to less than significant levels (DEIR, p. 147). Noise Potential Significant Impact W. The project area is relatively quiet at present due to the lack of major roads and largely rural condition. The proposed Project will generate both short-term construction noise and long-term noise, mainly in the form of vehicular traffic on local roadways. (Draft EIR, pp. 3- 157 to 3-162) At buildout, the Project will increase ambient noise levels by 2.6 dB which is below the specified 3 dB CEQA threshold. Area-wide noise impacts from planned growth are expected to be cumulatively considerable (DEIR, p. 6-8) Finding X. Implementation of the following mitigation measures will reduce short-term noise impacts from construction and long-term noise impacts from project occupancy to less than significant levels: 1. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the developer shall prepare and file a Noise Control Plan (NCP) with the City Public Works Department. The NCP will commit the developer to the following measures. Failure of the developer to abide by these restrictions will be grounds for suspension of building permits, regardless of phase, to the satisfaction of the Community Development Department. a. All construction and general maintenance activities, except in an emergency, shall be limited to the hours of 7 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. Monday through Friday, except for holidays. b. All construction equipment shall use properly operating mufflers, and no combustion equipment such as pumps or generators shall be allowed to operate within 500 feet of any occupied residence from 7 p.m. to 7 a.m. unless the equipment is surrounded by a noise protection barrier. c. All construction staging shall be performed as far as possible from occupied dwellings. The location of staging areas will be subject to review and approval by the City prior to the issuance of grading and/or building permits. R:~S PuRoripaugh Ranch SP~ncvAPC Staff Report 10-16-02~Resos and ord (EJP)-final 21 d. Prior to precise grading plan approval, a noise mitigation analysis shall be performed for single family residences or multi-family residential buildings within 200 feet of the edge of right-of-way for Murrieta Hot Springs Road and Butterfield Stage Road, or for any other noise-sensitive uses on the project site potentially exposed to exterior noise levels in excess of 60 dB CNEL. The analysis must demonstrate that planned noise protection will meet City standards, to the satisfaction of the City Community Development Department. e. Prior to precise grading plan approval, the developer shall prepare a noise mitigation analysis for all non-residential uses within 100 feet of the edge of right-of-way for Murrieta Hot Springs Road or residences along Butterfield Stage Road (e.g., Planning Area 11 ), or for any other noise-sensitive uses on the project site potentially exposed to exterior noise exceeding 70 dB CNEL. The noise analysis must demonstrate that planned noise protection will meet City standards, to the satisfaction of the City Community Development Department. f. Prior to approval of the final park design, the developer shall document that outdoor recreational areas are designed to have exterior noise levels of less than 70 dB CNEL, to the satisfaction of the City Community Development and Community Services Departments. Noise attenuation along Butterfield Stage Road for the sports park should be in the form of berms rather than walls. g. Prior to precise grading plan approval, the developer shall document that interior living areas have noise levels less than 45 dB CNEL, to the satisfaction of the City Community Development Department. h. Prior to the issuance of building permits for homes in Planning Areas 1-4B, the developer shall demonstrate that the homes will have double-paned windows with at least 25 STC ratings installed to reduce noise from occasional aircraft overflights from French Valley Airport. i. Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits in each Planning Area, the developer shall demonstrate that written information is available and being provided to prospective residents in Planning Areas 1-4B on avigation easements, height restrictions, and occasional overflights (noise and hazards). j. Measures 2 and 3 under Land Use and Planning (Section E, sub- section 1 ) address potential noise impacts related to operations at the French Valley Airport. Facts in Support of the Finding Construction of the Project may temporarily increase noise levels along local roads for several months. However, due to the topography and distance from occupied structures, these noise levels should not exceed significance criteria. (Draft EIR, p. 3-154) Y. Potential noise impacts from the proposed Project will occur in its opening year (2003) as well as at buildout (+2015) but are not expected to be significant (i.e., +2.6 dB) (Draft EIR, pp. 3-157 to 3-162). Due to the amount of growth anticipated, cumulative noise impacts are expected to be considerable (+6 dB), although the proposed Project's contribution will not be significant (Draft EIR, p. 6-8) R:kS PhR. otipaugh Ranch SPXnevAPC Staff Report 10-164}2~Resos and ord (~IP)-final 22 Z. Implementation of the mitigation measures described above, as well as standard conditions and uniform codes, will reduce potential noise impacts to a less than significant level. (Draft EIR, p. 3-165) Public Services Potential Significant Impact Z. Fire Protection: Almost the entire Project site is currently outside of the 5-minute response time requirement of the Temecula Fire Department (FD) (DEIR, p. 3-166) In addition; the Project will require an extensive Fuel Modification Zone (Ibid.) The Project is providing a new fire station site (DEIR, p. 3-167) AA. Police Protection: Law enforcement services are provided by the Temecula Police Department and the Riverside County Sheriff's Department. When annexed, the entire site will be under the jurisdiction of the City Police Department. (DEIR, p. 3-173) The Project would require the service of an additional 6 deputies. (Ib~id.) BB. Schools: At present, all local school sites of the Temecula Valley Unified School District (TVUSD) are impacted by local growth and the State's mandatory class-size reduction program. (Draft EIR, p. 3-175) Data from the TVUSD shows that all of the schools that would serve the Project site are currently at or over capacity. (FEIR, p. 16) In addition, the TVUSD is expecting enrollments to continue increasing and expects to accommodate the continued growth by using portables. (Ibid.) Consequently, cumulative impacts to school services will be significant due to continued growth (DEIR, p. 6-8) The Project is making available a new 12- acre elementary school site and a new 20-acre middle school site southeast of Butterfield Stage Road and Nicolas Road. (DEIR, p. 2-9) CC. Recreation: The proposed Project could generate as many as 5,743 new residents, which would create a need for approximately 28.7 acres of parkland, based on State and local Quimby Act standards (DEIR, p. 3-179) The Project will provide an amount of parkland equivalent to 28.7 acres, including a 5.1-acre neighborhood park in the Plateau area, a 19.8- acre community sports park just west of the middle school site, and 9.1 acres of private recreational facilities. (Ibid.) As the area grows, additional parkland will have to be provided to assure there are no cumulatively considerable recreation impacts. (Draft EIR, p. 6-8) Finding Implementation of the following mitigation measures will reduce impacts to public services to less than significant levels: Fire Protection DD. Prior to issuance of a building permit in any Planning Area other than 1, 2, or 3A, and completion of a permanent onsite fire station, the developer shall demonstrate that the proposed unit is within a 5-minute response time for the City Fire Department. EE. The developer shall provide, in fee title, a permanent fire station site to the Temecula Fire Department (Planning Area 32). The station shall be operational, including all permanent utilities, prior to issuance of the 250th building permit within Planning Areas lA, 2, or R:~S P~Roripaugh Ranch SP~new~t~C S~aff Report 10-164)2hResos and ord (EJP)-final 23 3. No additional building or occupancy permits shall be granted until adequate onsite fire services are available, as determined by the Temecula Fire Department. FF. Prior to issuance of the 251st building permit for the project, and if a permanent fire station is not yet operational, the developer shall provide a site, construct, and fund the operation of a temporary firs station. The location and other parameters of this station are up to the discretion of the City Fire Chief. GG. Prior to issuance of occupancy permits, the developer shall pay the appropriate fire component of the Development Impact Fee (DIF), to the satisfaction of the City Building Official. Police Protection HH. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the developer shall incorporate the following crime prevention measures within the detailed design plans for each tract map submitted to the City for review. The City of Temecula, Crime Prevention Officer shall review detailed design plans for proposed residential and commercial uses in order to insure incorporation of these measures: 1. On-site street, walkways and bikeways shall be illuminated in order to enhance night time visibility; 2. Doors and windows shall be visible from the street and between buildings in order to discourage burglaries and potential suspect hiding places; 3. Fencing heights and materials utilized are intended to discourage climbing; readily apparent in 5. locations; and The numbering identification system utilized on-site shall be visible and order to aid emergency response agencies in quickly finding specific 6. (e) Walls along backbone streets will utilize graffiti resistant materials in their construction. In addition, shrubs, vines, and espalliers shall be planted along the outside of these walls in order to prove 'de coverage thereby further discouraging graffiti and climbing. Schools II. The developer shall pay applicable developer fees according to SB 50 and state law. Under current law (SB-50, 1998), developers are required to pay a Level 2 or Level 3 developer fee prior to building permit issuance for each residential unit not covered by a developer/TVUSD negotiated mitigation agreement. TVUSD has established $3.32 and $6.63 per square foot as the Level 2 and Level 3 fees, respectively, in compliance with the SB-50 provisions. Level 2 applies until the state declares Level 3 is allowed, at which time 'rVUSD's Level 3 rate will take effect immediately, pursuant to TVUSD Governing Board Resolution. The Level 2 and Level 3 rates are subject to change as they are re-calculated and the revised rates are adopted annually pursuant to the SB-50 provisions. City Resolution 96-119 is no longer in effect. R:~ P',Rofipaugh Ranch Sl~new~C Staff Report 10-16-02'~Resos and ord (EJP)-final 24 Recreation (Parks, Trails, and Open Space) JJ. Prior to the issuance of the first building permit, the developer will demonstrate that a minimum of 28.7 acres of park credit has or will be provided to the satisfaction of the City Community Services Director. (See Figure 3.11-4) KK. Prior to approval of the private recreational facility plans, ail private recreational facility parking areas shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department and the Director of Community Services, to ensure that they are in accordance with the City of Temecula standards, including permanent utilities. LL. Prior to the issuance of the 400th building permit in the project area, the 5.1-acre park site (Planning Area 6) will be developed, including all permanent utilities and the 90-day maintenance period, and the grant deed accepted by the City Council. MM. Prior to issuance of the 100th building permit, 0.3-acre mini-park site (Planning Area lB) will be completed to the satisfaction of the Community Services Director, including all permanent utilities NN. Prior to the issuance of the 250th building permit, the park portion of the private recreation area in the Plateau area (Planning Area 5) will be completed to the satisfaction of the Community Services Director. OO. Prior to the issuance of the 350th building permit, the building and pool portion of the private recreation area in the Plateau area (Planning Area 5) will be completed to the satisfaction of the Community Services Director. PP. Prior to the issuance of the 700th building permit in the project area, the 19.8- acre sports park site (Planning Area 27) will be developed, including all permanent utilities and the 90-day maintenance period, and the grant deed accepted by the City Council. QQ. Prior to the issuance of the 800th building permit, the park portion of the private recreation area in the Valley area (Planning Area 30) will be completed to the satisfaction of the Community Services Director. RR. Prior to the issuance of the 1150th building permit, the building and pool portion of the private recreation area in the Valley area (Planning Area 30) will be completed to the satisfaction of the Community Services Director. SS. Prior to issuance of occupancy permits, the developer shall pay the appropriate parks component of the Developer Impact Fee (DIF) or enter into a DIF credit agreement, to the satisfaction of the City Building Official. TI'. All proposed TCSD slope/landscaping maintenance easements should be offered for dedication on the final maps. UU. Prior to final map approval, the developer will certify to the City that ownership and maintenance of all open space areas will be the responsibility of an appropriate conservation organization. TCSD does not assume maintenance of open space or habitat areas. R:~S P~Roripaugh Ranch SPXnew~2 Staff Report 10-16-02~Resos and ord (EJP)-final 25 W. Prior to issuance of the 400th building permit, the Plateau trail in Planning Area 7A and the trail between Planning Areas 4B and 6 shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Community Services Director. WW. Prior to A map recordation for the Valley portion or B map tentative map approval for the Valley portion, the developer shall provide written authorization from RCFCWCD that the maintenance reads along both sides of Long Valley Wash can be used as trails. XX. Prior to tentative map approval, if the Long Valley Wash trails cannot be constructed within the maintenance roads, separate trails shall be designed and shown on the tentative map outside of the flood control right-of-way. YY. Prior to issuance of the 1st building permit in Phase 2, the Riverwalk multi-use trails within the maintenance roads on both sides of Long Valley Wash shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Community Services Director. ZZ. If the maintenance road along the north side of Long Valley Wash cannot be used as a multi-use trail, a separate trail along the north side of Long Valley Wash shall be completed prior to issuance of the 50th building permit in Planning Area 31, to the satisfaction of the Community Services Director. AAA. If the maintenance road along the south side of Long Valley Wash cannot be used as a multi-use trail, a separate trail along the south side of Long Valley Wash shall be completed prior to issuance of the 75th building permit in Planning Areas 22, 23, or 24, to the satisfaction of the Community Services Director. BBB. Prior to issuance of the 75~h building permit for Planning Areas 22, 23, or 24, the developer shall construct a pedestrian bridge across Long Valley Wash, consistent with the guidelines in the Specific Plan, and to the satisfaction of the Community Services Director. CCC. Prior to the issuance of any building permits in Planning Areas 19, 20, or 21, the developer shall construct a 15-foot wide multi-use trail within a 30-foot wide fuel modification zone along the south side of Planning Areas 20, 21, the south and west sides of Planning Area 32, and the east sides of Planning Areas 19 and 20, to the satisfaction of the Community Services Director. The trail will be designated as an easement for public use on any tentative maps for these areas. Library Services DDD. Prior to issuance of building permits, the Developer shall pay the appropriate Library DIF fee component. Facts in Support of the Finding EEE. Fire Protection: Development of the proposed Project will increase the need for fire service, but the project will provide .a new fire station. (DEIR, p. 3-168) The Project will also contribute additional tax revenues and other City and County funds to help offset additional fire service costs (FIA, p. 5). FFF. Police Protection: The proposed Project will incrementally increase the need for police services, but it is not expected to have any direct significant impacts on police services R:~ P~Roripaugh Rmach SP~nevAPC Staff Report 10-16-02~Resos and ord (EIP)-final 26 (DEIR, p. 3-174). In addition, access to the site and surrounding area by police personnel, as well as response times for emergency and non-emergency calls, should not be significantly impacted. (Ibid.) The Project will also contribute additional tax revenues and other City funds to help offset additional police service costs (FIA, p. 6) GGG. Schools: The Project will contribute additional students at all grade levels to the Temecula Valley Unified School District (TVUSD) but this will be offset by offering two new school sites. (Draft EIR, p. 3-175 to 3-176). Also, recent changes in school financing laws indicate that payment of developer impact fees (or their equivalent in facilities) represents full and complete mitigation under CEQA. (Ibid.) HHH. Recreation: The Project will provide 24.8 acres of new developed parkland to serve project residents and the community at large (DEIR, p. 3-157) In addition, the proposed Project will provide private recreational facilities and passive open space for Project residents. (Ibid.) The Project will provide $131,321 in additional revenues to the Temecula Community Services District (TCSD) compared to additional costs of $115,523 (FIA, p. 6, 8) III. Library Services: At Project build-out, property taxes and other revenues will provide approximately $603,052 annually for library services to offset annual operating costs. This will assure there are no significant impacts on library services. (DEIR, p. 3-186, FIA, p. 6). JJJ. Medical Services: The Project will incrementally increase the need for hospital and paramedic services, however, it is not expected to create any significant impacts to medical services. (DEIR, p. 3-187) KKK. Roads: Project residents will place additional demands on local and regional roads (DEIR, p. 3-189) However, the Project and its attendant CFD will provide for the construction of a number LLL. of critical improvements of local and regional roadways, intersections, and traffic signals. In addition, the Project will provide additional funds to the City and County through increased property and gasoline taxes to help fund road maintenance (FIA, pp. 6-7) MMM. Government: Upon annexation, the Project will provide additional funds to the City in the form of increased sales taxes, subventions, and other taxes to help fund governmental services. (FIA, p. 5) After build-out, the proposed Project will provide estimated recurring revenues totaling $1,338,571 and will generate service costs of $1,279,312, for an annual surplus of $59,259. (Ibid.) Therefore, the proposed Project will not produce any significant impacts related to general government services. (Ibid.) NNN. With the standard conditions and uniform codes as part of the Project's design features, as well as implementation of the above mitigation measures, potential impacts to public services will be reduced to less than significant and will have positive impacts to the City. (DEIR, p. 3-190) Utilities Potential Significant Impact OOO. Water: Project residents will increase the consumption of water provided by the Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD) by 1.33 million gallons per day (DEIR, p. 3-191) The R:~ P~Roripaugh Ranch SP~ncvAPC Staff Report 10-164)2~Rcsos aud ord (F. JP)-final 27 EMWD expects to be able to serve the Project by the construction of various on- and off-site pipelines and other improvements (DEIR, p. 3-193) PPP. Sewer: Project residents will increase the generation of wastewater collected and treated by the Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD) by 611,500 gallons per day (DEIR, p. 3-169) The EMWD expects to be able to serve the Project by the construction of various on- and off-site pipelines and other improvements (DEIR, p. 3-198) QQQ. Electricity/Natural Gas: The Project will consume 36,940 kilowatt-hours per day of electricity and 464,667 cubic feet per day of natural gas. (DEIR, p. 191) Edison International and the Southern California Gas Company have indicated they can serve the Project. (DEIR, pp. 3-203, 3-204) RRR. Solid Waste: At buildout, the Project will generate approximately 13 tons per day of waste (DEIR, p. 3-205), which can be disposed of at existing County facilities (Ibid) Finding Implementation of the following mitigation measures will reduce impacts to public services to less than significant: Water SSS. Prior to the recordation of maps, the developer will demonstrate that water in adequate volume and of adequate quality is available to serve project start-up through completion and full occupancy per requirements of the Eastern Municipal Water District and Rancho California Water District, as applicable. ~ ~ I. The developer has provided the City with adequate documentation from the local water purveyors (Ek, WVD and RCWD) that they have adequate water supplies according to the requirements of SB 221 and SB 610. Sewer UUU. The developer shall install reclaimed water piping for irrigating the two private recreational facilities, the public park sites, and all common landscaped areas on the project site, to the satisfaction of the Temecula Community Services and Public Works Departments. Electricity/Natural Gas * None proposed Solid Waste VVV. Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits, the developers will inform all refuse generators within the project site in writing about opportunities for recycling and waste reduction (i.e. buyback centers, curbside recycling, etc.). The use of such facilities will be encouraged by the developer through information (e.g. materials, accepted locations, etc.) provided in sales literature. R:~S P~R. oripaugh Ranch SI~nevAPC Staff Report 10-16-02~Resos and ord (EJP)-final 28 WWW. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the developer will provide adequate areas for collecting and loading recyclable materials (recycling areas) in the commercial and multi-family residential areas. This will help the City comply with the California Solid Waste Reuse and Recycling Access Act of 1991 (AB 1327). The developer will also demonstrate compliance with established standards for design, siting, and operation of recycling areas and programs. XXX. All commercial wastes shall be processed at the Materials Recovery Facility in the City of Perris, or similar recovery facility. YYY. The developer shall provide proof to TCSD that construction debris, including but not limited to lumber, asphalt, concrete, sand, paper, and metal is recycled through the City's solid waste hauler. Facts in Support of the Finding 777. The Project will consume additional water, electricity, and natural gas, and generate additional wastewater and solid waste. However, local serving agencies indicate they have adequate resources to serve the Project, and thus no significant impacts are expected (DEIR, p. 3-197. 3-200, 3-203, 3-204, 3-205, 3-207) Scientific Resources Potential Significant Impact AAAA. Although a site survey revealed no sudicial amhaeological artifacts, the Temecula Valley has yielded archaeological resources in the past (DEIR, p. 3-229). In addition, certain local geologic formations have yielded paleontological resources in the past, and the Project site contains some of these formations. ~ Based on the above information, the Project site could yield scientific resources during grading. (Draft EIR, p. 3-230) Finding Implementation of the following mitigation measures will reduce impacts related to cultural resources to less than significant; BBBB. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the developer shall retain an archaeological/paleontological monitor to observe onsite grading, including excavated soil stockpiles, especially in areas where Pauba or unnamed Sandstone formations are disturbed, for evidence of paleontological, archaeological, or historical artifacts (e.g., shells, fossils, bones, pottery, charcoal deposits, arrowheads, etc.). If any artifacts are discovered during grading, work will be halted and qualified personnel will be retained to examine, evaluate, and determine the most appropriate disposition of the resource(s). CCCC. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the developer shall enter into an agreement with the local Native American (NA) Pechanga Band to allow for up to 2 NA representatives to monitor all ground-breaking and grading activities. This effort will be coordinated through the archaeological monitor, to the satisfaction of the City Planning Department. R:XS PXRoripaugh Ranch SP~ncw\PC Staff Report 10-16q)2XRcsos and ord (F. JP)-final 29 DDDD. If human remains are found, and determined by the County Coroner's office to be Native American, and it is determined by the Native American Heritage Commission that member(s) of the Pechanga Band are the most likely descendants, the Developer shall allow reburial of the remains and associated goods within the project boundaries, to be "capped" to prevent further disturbances in the future. The site of such burial shall not be disclosed to the public, pursuant to Government Code {}6254. Details of the reburial shall be negotiated between the Developer and the Pechanga Cultural Resources Committee. EEEE. If human remains are found, and not determined by the County Coroner's office to be Native American, but believed by the Pechanga Band to be so, the Developer shall be required to pay reasonable costs to determine whether the remains are Native American. FFFF. All Luiseno cultural items and associated grave goods found on site, other than human remains, are to be avoided, relocated, salvaged, returned to the Pechanga Band or any other option decided by the Pechanga Band to be appropriate, before development of the area in which the item was found is to resumed. GGGG. The Developer shall provide for tribal archaeological monitors to be present during any Phase II and potential Phase III surveys of all sites within the project. Facts in Support of the Finding HHHH.Although the Project area is considered sensitive for archaeological and paleontological resources, no such resources were found on the Project site during a walkover survey. (Draft EIR, p. 3-230) in addition, qualified personnel will be onsite to monitor grading in case such resources are discovered (DEIR, p. 3-230) IIII. In addition, the Project's potential impacts will not be cumulatively considerable provided the County and City continue to require archaeological surveys and mitigation as part of its development approval process. (Draft EIR, p. 6-9) Through the implementation of the above mitigation measures, potential impacts to scientific resources will be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 3-231) Section 3. Findinqs Significant Unavoidable Impacts of the Project A. Despite incorporating changes and alterations into the Project, four environmental categories were found to have direct unavoidable and significant adverse environmental effects. The following direct environmental impacts were found to be significant in the EIR: 1) loss of agricultural land; 2) transportation and circulation; 3) air quality; and 4) aesthetics. The potential impacts were concluded to be significant because the impacts could not be reduced below thresholds of significance by the proposed Project changes and mitigation measures. In addition, the EIR found that growth in the area would have cumulatively considerable impacts on traffic, noise, air quality, and water consumption. The following discussion outlines the four direct significant, unavoidable impact categories of the Project and describes both the anticipated effects of the Project as well as the mitigation measures designed to minimize them to the degree feasible. Agriculture Significant Unavoidable Impact R:XS l%Rofipaugh Ranch SP~nevAFC Staff Report 10-16d)2~q. esos and oral (EJP)-final 3O B. The Project site has supported agriculture for many decades, and is classified as locally important farmland in the Temecula General Plan and contains prime agricultural soils according to the federal Natural Resources Conservation Service (DEIR, pp. 3-16 to 3-17) Finding C. Conversion of the site to suburban uses will eventually eliminate all agricultural activities on the site. There is no effective mitigation other than precluding its development, which would not achieve the overall goals of the project. No mitigation is therefore recommended. Facts in Support of the Finding D. Loss of agricultural activities on the site is unavoidable if the site is converted to suburban uses. This is therefore a significant unavoidable impact of the Project (DEIR, p. 3-21) Transportation and Circulation Significant Unavoidable Impact E. Existing traffic levels in the vicinity of the Project site are relatively Iow and most intersections in the immediate area are operating at acceptable Levels of Service (LOS) except some intersections near the Temecula Mall (DEIR, p. 3-60) At buildout, the Project will generate 28,165 vehicle trips. As the Project builds out, it will cause the LOS at the intersections of the 1- 15 southbound ramps at Rancho California Road Winchester Road at Margarita Road to exceed City standards by 2007. In addition, the intersections of the 1-15 southbound ramps at Winchester Road, Ynez Road at Winchester Road, and Ynez Road at Rancho California Road will exceed City LOS standards with or without the project at buildout. These intersections represent a significant traffic impact (DEIR, p. 3-97). F. Continuing development in the surrounding area is expected to produce significant traffic impacts. Therefore, the Project will make a significant contribution to cumulative traffic impacts. (Ibid.) Finding The following mitigation measures will help reduce traffic and cimulation related impacts to the greatest degree practical: G. The following shall be used to implement the mitigation measures in this section: (a) all proposed road improvements shall include associated flood control, storm drain, water, and sewer lines; (b) all references to bridges shall mean hydro-arch bridges or other designs as approved by the City Engineer; (c) full-width improvements shall consist of the complete street and landscape improvements with the right-of-way; (d) half-width improvements shall consist of the construction of the improvements from curb to the raised landscaped median, the full-width raised landscaped median, where applicable, and a travel lane adjacent to the median on the unimproved half; (e) on center improvements shall mean (1) a 38'width improvement consisting of two 14' travel lanes and a 10' turn lane, or (2) a 40' width improvement consisting of two 14' travel lanes and a 12' turn lane. R:~S IARoripaugh Ranch SIAnevAPC Staff Report 10-16-02LResos and ord (EJP)-final 31 H. Prior to the issuance of building permits for each phase, the developer or the CFD must construct the improvements identified (in Table 1). The City reserves the right to withhold building permits in excess of those indicated until the mitigation measures necessary to improve the Level of Service to LOS D or better are completed for each phase of development, except the following five intersections that will exceed City standards even without project- related traffic: a) 1-15 southbound ramps at Winchester Road; b) 1-15 southbound ramps at Rancho California Road; c) the intersection of Ynez Road at Winchester Road; d) the intersection of Ynez Road at Rancho California Road; and e) the intersection of Margarita Road at Winchester Road. However, the developer is still responsible to comply with the mitigation measures for the improvement of the above five intersections. The developer and/or CFD will be responsible for acquiring right-of-way where necessary for any required onsite and offsite improvements. The City will require additional or supplemental traffic studies prior to approval of future tentative tract maps. If these studies confirm that area intersections are operating below LOS D or otherwise pose an unsafe condition from project traffic, then the developer shall be responsible for mitigating these conditions, in addition to the mitigation measures already identified in the EIR. In general, the supplemental traffic studies will: (a) document ambient traffic volume conditions; (b) estimate trip generation for the particular development phase; and (c) assess traffic conditions with the traffic added by the particular development phase. The exact study area to be addressed in each of the traffic studies should be defined through discussions with the City Traffic Engineer. In general, the study area should include the immediate access intersections and roadways which would serve the new development phase, and those critical offsite intersections and roadways that will provide primary access to the new development. Critical intersections/roadways are defined as those facilities that are experiencing high levels of peak period traffic congestion at the time the traffic study is to be performed. The traffic study determinations would assist the City in proactively planning for area roadway improvements. NOTE: The proposed improvements and their phasing are summarized in the attached Table 1. I. The developer must make a fair share contribution towards the improvement of the following intersections identified (in Table 2). The City reserves the right to withhold building permits in excess of those indicated until the mitigation measures necessary to improve the Level of Service to LOS D or better are completed for each phase of development, except the following five intersections that will exceed City standards even without project-related traffic: a) 1-15 southbound ramps at Winchester Road; b) 1-15 southbound ramps at Rancho California Road; c)the intersection of Ynez Road at Winchester Road; d) the intersection of Ynez Road at Rancho California Road; and e) the intersection of Margarita Road at Winchester Road. However, the developer is still responsible to comply with the mitigation measures for the improvement of the above five intersections. The developer and/or CFD will be responsible for acquiring right-of-way where necessary for any required onsite and offsite improvements. Additional or supplemental traffic shall be conducted studies prior to approval of future tentative tract maps. If these studies confirm that area intersections are operating below LOS D or otherwise pose an unsafe condition, then the developer shall be responsible for mitigating these conditions, in addition to the mitigation measures already identified in the EIR. In general, the supplemental traffic studies will: (a) document ambient traffic volume conditions; (b) estimate trip generation for the particular development phase; and (c) assess traffic R:XS P~Roripaugh Rmlch S P'xnewXPC Staff Report 10-164)2kP, esos and ord (EJP)-final 32 conditions with the traffic added by the particular development phase. The exact study area to be addressed in each of the traffic studies should be defined through discussions with the City Traffic Engineer. In general, the study area should include the immediate access intersections and roadways which would serve the new development phase, and those critical offsite intersections and roadways that will provide primary access to the new development. Critical intersections and roadways are defined as those facilities that are experiencing high levels of peak period traffic congestion at the time the traffic study is to be performed. The traffic study determinations would assist the City in proactively planning for area roadway improvements. NOTE: The proposed improvements and their phasing are summarized in the attached Table 2. J. When the appropriate warrants are met, the developer will contribute a fair share contribution towards the installation of traffic signals and related intersection improvements at: (a) Butterfield Stage Road at La Serena Way; and (b) Meadows Parkway at La Serena Way. K. Prior to approval of the street improvement plans, the developer shall demonstrate that the sight distance at each of the project entrances meets City and Caltrans standards, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. L. Prior to the approval of the tentative tract maps for Planning Areas 17, 18, and 19, the streets shall be designed to provide safe horizontal and vertical alignments including special considerations to speed control on steep grades. M. A General Plan Amendment to the Circulation Element is being approved for the following: (a) the designation of Calle Contento as a Principal Collector Road is recommended to be deleted within the project site; and (b) the designation of Butterfield Stage Road as an Augmented Arterial Highway (122' right-of-way) from Murrieta Hot Spring Road to Nicolas Road. N. Prior to approval of development plans for Planning Area 11, the developer shall provide pedestrian and bicycle facilities in this area, to the satisfaction of the City Planning Department. O. Prior to issuance of any building permit for Planning Areas 10, 11, 12, 14-31, 33A, or 33B, the developer shall provide and construct 50 designated Park-N-Ride spaces in Planning Area 11. P. Prior to the first building permit in Phase 2, the developer shall fund operation of a shuttle bus service to and from the project. The developer shall pay the RTA to operate the shuttle bus service for a period of 3 years for project residents, but may be expanded to serve areas outside of the project on a fair share basis. This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the Planning Director and RTA. Q. Prior to tentative tract map approval in each phase, the developer shall coordinate with the RTA to incorporate transit-related facilities and design features into the project, to the satisfaction of the City Public Works Department. R. In conjunction with constructing Nicolas Road offsite in Phase 1, the developer shall install a 6-foot wide asphalt path along the north side of Nicolas Road. This path shall be built to the satisfaction of the Temecula Community Services and Public Works Departments. The asphalt path shall be extended from 450 feet east of the Nicolas Road/Calle Girasol intersection to the bridge over Santa Gertrudis Creek during Phase 2. RAS P~Roripaugh Ranch SI~ncvAPC Staff Report 10-16-02W, esos and ord (EJP)-final 33 S. Prior to issuance of the grading permits and/or building permits, the developer shall provide the City with a letter stating that all contractors will be prohibited from using Nicolas Road for construction-related traffic. T. Prior to tentative map approval for Planning Area 19, the 15-foot wide multi-use trail within a 30-foot fuel modification zone shall be designated to be screened from offsite homes on an as needed basis. Screening shall be accomplished through the use of either landscaping or topography, to the greatest extent feasible. However, the primary goal of this trail is to provide access to the trail from adjacent onsite and offsite lots. U. Prior to the issuance of building permits in the appropriate phase, the developer shall make a fair share contribution to four planned intersection improvements along Murrieta Hot Springs Road within the City of Murrieta: 1 ) 1-215 southbound ramps; 2) Alta Murrieta Drive; 3) Margarita Road; and 4) Winchester Road. Facts in Support of the Finding V. Even with implementation of all these mitigation measures, several intersections will still exceed City standards as a result of Project traffic. Therefore, the Project will still have significant traffic impacts even after implementation of all feasible mitigation measures (DEIR, p. 3-97) Air Quality Significant Unavoidable Impact W. Temporary or short-term emissions will occur during construction of the Project (approximately 2000 to 2005). Such emissions include on-site generation of dust and equipment exhaust, and oft-site emissions from construction employee commuting and/or trucks delivering building materials. (Ibid.) Evaporative emissions of volatile organic compounds from paints, asphalt, and other coatings will also be generated, and will exceed SCAQMD significance levels.. (DEIR, p. 3-108) X. SCQAMD daily significance thresholds will also be exceeded for CO, ROC, NOx, and PM10 (DEIR, p. 3-111) however, the mobile nature of the on-site construction equipment and oft-site trucks will prevent any violation of CO standards in the immediate Project area. (DEIR, p. 3-111) Finding The following measures are recommended to reduce potential short-term (construction-related) and long-term (operational) air quality impacts to the greatest extent feasible: X. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the developer will submit a Dust Control Plan (DCP) to the City consistent with SCAQMD guidelines. These requirements apply to offsite as well as onsite improvements. The DCP will include activities to reduce onsite and offsite dust production. Such activities will include but are not limited to: 1. Throughout grading and construction activities, exposed soil will be kept moist through a minimum of twice daily watering to reduce fugitive dust. RAS PXRoripaugh Ranch SPXnevAPC Staff Report 10-164)2kP. esos and ord (EJP)-final 34 2. Street sweeping will be conducted, as needed, alone, paved site access roadways to remove dirt dropped by construction vehicles or dried mud carried off by trucks moving dirt or bringing construction materials. Site access driveways and adjacent streets will be washed if there are visible signs of any dirt track-out at the conclusion of any workday. 3. All trucks hauling dirt away from the site will be covered to prevent the generation of fugitive dust. 4. During high wind conditions (i.e., wind speeds exceeding 25 mph), areas with disturbed soil will be watered hourly, sprayed with chemical binders, or activities on unpaved surfaces will be terminated until wind speeds no longer exceed 25 mph. 5. chip sealing access roads (if needed) 6. hydroseeding exposed soil surfaces. 7. chemical binders or surfactants to water. During the construction phase of the project, if the measures identified in the DCP are not implemented as proposed, the City shall halt construction until such time as the situation is corrected, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department. Y. Prior to the issuance of grading and building permits, the developer will document to the City that appropriate construction equipment has had tune-ups or equivalent work to assure iow NOx emissions. These requirements apply to offsite as well as onsite improvements. This documentation must be provided prior to the commencement of any work on any equipment anticipated to be used for more than 30 days. In addition, the developer shall encourage the use of alternative fuels (e.g., compressed natural gas) on construction vehicles and equipment. All diesel equipment and vehicles must be equipped with particulate filters and use only Iow sulfur fuels (less than 15 ppm sulfur content). Z. Prior to the issuance of grading and building permits, the developer will document to the City that all workers have been encouraged to carpool, and workers will be informed in writing. These requirements apply to offsite as well as onsite improvements. AA. Prior to the issuance of building permits, individual contractors will submit a Traffic Management Plan to the Public Works Department that includes, but is not limited to: 1. scheduling receipt of construction materials to non-peak travel periods (i.e., 7:30 - 8:30 AM and 4:00 - 6:00 PM); 3. 4. 5. routing construction traffic through areas of least impact sensitivity; limiting lane closures and detours to off-peak travel periods; staging areas away from existing residential uses; and staging areas away from existing residential uses. BB. In addition to these measures to control construction-related emissions, the Mitigation Measures portion of the Transportation and Circulation section of this document (Section 5, above) includes several transportation system management/transportation demand RAS P~Roripaugla Ranch Sl~ne~/u~C Staff Report 10-16-02~Resos and ord (EJP)-final 35 management (TSM/TDM) measures to help reduce long-term (operationally-related) air quality impacts, including a shuttle bus, transit node, and design for alternative transportation options. Facts in Support of the Finding CC. Due to the size and nature of the project, its construction and occupancy will generate amounts of air pollutants that will exceed SCAQMD thresholds (DEIR, pp. 3-108, 3- 111). While implementation of the proposed mitigation will help reduce pollutant emissions, they are not likely to reduce them to less than significant levels (DEIR, p. 3-115) DD. Future development will contribute to incremental increases in air pollution over the long-term (i.e., as units are occupied) as a result of vehicular traffic and energy consumption. (Draft EIR, p. 6-7) According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(I)(3), "a lead agency may determine that a Project's incremental contribution to a cumulative effect is not cumulatively considerable if the Project will comply with the requirements in a previously approved plan or mitigation program which provides specific requirements that will avoid or substantially lessen the cumulative problem within the geographic area in which the Project is located." (Ibid.) In this case, a Project's cumulative impact can be mitigated to a level of less than significant by compliance with SCAQMD's AQMP guidelines. (Ibid.) Aesthetics Significant Unavoidable Impact EE. As the Project builds out, the surrounding rural neighborhoods will presented with views of suburban housing (Draft EIR, pp. 3-214 to 3-217)..In addition, lighting for the athletic fields at the community park will introduce new sources of light and glare to the Project site and surrounding areas and roads. (Ibid.). These are considered significant aesthetic impacts on the rural Nicolas Valley and Temecula Wine Country areas (Ibid.) Finding The following mitigation measures will help reduce potential aesthetic impacts to the greatest degree practical: FF. The developer will submit all architectural and landscape design plans, along with plant material palettes, to the City for review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits in conformance with the approved Specific Plan. GG. Prior to approval of the tentative tract map or Development Plan, whichever is applicable, for Planning Area 31, a 25-foot building setback consisting of a landscaped buffer zone or an internal street or driveway, shall be provided along the north and west boundary of Planning Area 31. If one or both of the schools are built prior to approval of the tentative map or the Development Plan for Planning Area 31, and an equivalent buffer, as determined by the Planning Director, is provided on the school sites, the developer may request the City to reduce or eliminate the buffering requirement. HH. The Community Services Director shall review and approve the sports field lighting during design development. II. The City will evaluate the commercial center lighting for potential offsite impacts prior to the issuance of building permits for Planning Area 11. The lighting in these areas will be adequately shielded or directed to minimize offsite impacts, to the satisfaction of the Planning Director. JJ. The developer shall submit plans for rural-oriented lighting for Planning Areas 14- 26, 30, and 31. These plans are subject to review and approval by the City Community Development and Public Works Departments. No final maps will be approved until the lighting plan is approved. KK. The Master developer shall provide prospective homebuyers with notice that the community sports park will include sports field lighting for evening use. Proof of the notification shall be provided to the Planning Director prior to the recordation of the final map. LL. Prior to recordation of final maps or issuance of a grading permit, the developer shall submit plans to the Planning Department for Planning Areas 10, 12, and 14 through 17 for those uses adjacent to the AD 161 SHCP open space areas of sufficient scale and detail for City staff to review potential lighting impacts on the open space areas. The developer shall make any changes to the plans, including reduction in the amount or placement of streetlights, night lighting, fencing, etc. to preclude light spilling into the habitat areas. Review of plans for possible changes to street lighting shall be coordinated with the City Public Works Department. Facts in Support of the Finding MM. The only effective way of eliminating aesthetic impacts of the Project (i.e., views and night lighting) would be to substantially reduce the density of the project and eliminate the night lighting at the community park. According to the developer, the Project density is needed to fund its various local and regional improvements, and the night lighting is needed for youth sports to make effective use of the community park. Therefore, construction of the Project as proposed, including the recommended mitigation measures, will result in significant aesthetic impacts (Draft EIR, p. 3-219) Cumulative Impacts 00. The Project was found to have potentially significant cumulative impacts on: (1) traffic; (2) air quality; 3)'noise; and water consumption. Even with implementation of all feasible mitigation measures for this Project, its contributions to cumulative impacts cannot be mitigated to a level of less than significant. (DEIR, pp. 6-6 to 6-9) Section 3. Statement of Overriding Considerations. The City Council hereby finds that, despite the incorporation of mitigation measures outlined in the Draft EIR, the following impacts cannot be fully mitigated to a less than significant level, and a Statement of Overriding Considerations is therefore included herein: A. This section of the findings addresses the requirements in Section 15093 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines. Section 15093 requires the lead agency to balance the benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable significant impacts, and to determine whether the Project related significant impacts are acceptably overridden by the Project benefits. As outlined in Section H above, the Project would produce direct unavoidable significant impacts in four environmental categories: 1 ) loss of agricultural land; 2) transportation R:~ PXRoripaugh Raach SP~nevAPC Staff Report l~16-02~Reso~ and ord (EJP)-final 37 and cimulation; 3) air quality; and 4) aesthetics. It will also make contributions to cumulatively considerable impacts related to traffic, air quality, noise, and water consumption. B. The City Council's findings set forth in the preceding sections have identified all of the adverse environmental impacts and the feasible mitigation measures which can reduce impacts to less than significant levels where feasible, or to the lowest achievable levels where significant unavoidable impacts remain. These impacts and mitigation measures are discussed in Section 1 of this document. With the implementation of the mitigation measures discussed in the EIR and administrative record, these effects can be mitigated to a level of less than significant except for unavoidable significant impacts as discussed in Section 2 of these Findings. C. The findings have also analyzed three action alternatives to determine whether they are reasonable or feasible alternatives to the proposed action or whether they might reduce or eliminate the unavoidable significant impacts of the proposed action. These significant impacts have been outlined in Section 4 and the City Council finds that all feasible alternatives and mitigation measures have been adopted or identified for implementation by the City or Responsible Agencies. D. The Council finds that the Project's benefits are substantial and outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects to air quality, Agriculture, Transportation, and aesthetics and cumulative impacts associated with the Project. This finding is supported by the fact that major infrastructure improvements will benefit the community through improvements to flood control facilities, fire protection, improvements to the local water system and road improvements affecting the whole community. Moreover, the Project site will now be managed where currently no management occurs, greatly benefiting the property as well as the surrounding community. Moreover, the Project will add a high quality, Iow-density development to the community consistent with the General Plan. The Council finds that these benefits and others set forth above, when balanced against the four unavoidable significant adverse impacts, outweigh the impacts because of the social and economic values, which accrue to the community. E. The City Council hereby declares that to the extent any mitigation measures recommended in the EIR could not be incorporated, such mitigation measures are infeasible because they would impose restrictions on the Project that would prohibit the realization of specific economic, social, and other benefits that this Council finds outweigh the unmitigated impacts. The City Council further finds that except for the Project, all other alternatives set forth in the EIR are infeasible because they would prohibit the realization of Project objectives and/or of specific economic, social and other benefits that this City Council finds outweigh any environmental benefits of the alternatives. F. The City Council hereby declares, that, having reduced the adverse significant environmental effects of the Project to the extent feasible by adopting the proposed mitigation measures, having considered the entire administrative record on the Project, and having weighed the benefits of the Project against its unavoidable adverse impacts after mitigation, the City Council has determined that the following social, economic, and environmental benefits of the Project outweigh the potential unavoidable adverse impacts and render those potential adverse environmental impacts acceptable based upon the following overriding considerations: TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION G. The Project will provide various regional and local roadway improvements that will be installed by the developer or funded through the Community Facilities District, and that are beyond the Project's fair share contributions, are substantial and outweigh the significant R:xS P~Roripaugh Ranch SPXnevAPC Staff Report 10-16-02LResas and ord (EJP)-final 38 traffic impacts of the project. H. The Project will provide various traffic signals and intersection improvements that exceed its fair share contributions in this regard, and earlier than currently proposed, which therefore outweigh the identified significant traffic impacts at several local intersections. I. The Project will construct the following intersection improvements selected by the City for early completion, and in lieu of its fair share contributions to area intersections, as identified in Section 4 below: If warranted, bonds shall be posted to secure traffic signal and intersection improvements prior to recordation of final maps with construction complete prior to issuance of building permits. M. North General Kearney Road at Nicolas Road to be constructed by the 1st building' ' permit in accordance with the ultimate lane configurations: Northbound N General Kearney Rd: 1 Through Lane, I Right Turn Lane Southbound N General Kearney Rd: 1 Shared Left, Through, Right Turn Lane Eastbound Nicolas Rd: 1 Left Turn Lane, 2 Through Lanes, I Right Turn Lane Westbound Nicolas Rd: I Left Turn Lane, 2 Through Lanes, I Right Turn Lane N. Pourroy Road and Murrieta Hot Springs Road to be constructed by the 400th building permit. O. Winchester Road at Nicolas Road to be constructed by the 510th building permit in accordance with the ultimate lane configurations: Right Turn Lane. Northbound Winchester: 2 Left Turn Lanes, 4 Through Lanes, 1 Free Turn Lane. Southbound Winchester: 2 Left Turn Lanes, 4 Through Lanes, 1 Right Turn Lane. Eastbound Nicolas Road: I Left Turn Lane, 1 Through Lane, 1 Right Turn Lane. Westbound Nicolas Road: 3 Left Turn Lanes, 1 Through Lane, 1 Right P. Buttedield Stage Road at Rancho California Road by the 510th building permit. 1. Northbound BSR: 1 Left Turn Lane, 2 Through Lanes 2. Southbound BSR: 1 Left Turn Lane, 2 Through Lanes R:XS PXRoripaugh Ranch Sl~nevAPC Staff Report 10-16~)2'uResos and ord (EJP)-final 39 3. Eastbound RCR: 2 Left Turn Lanes, 2 Through Lanes 4. Westbound RCR: 1 Left Turn Lane, 2 Through Lanes Q. Murrieta Hot Springs Road at Butterfield Stage Road to be constructed by the 510th building permit. R. Nicolas Road at Buttedield Stage Road to be constructed by the 510th building permit. permit. Calle Chapos at Butterfield Stage Road to be constructed by the 510th building T. Traffic signals may be required, as warranted, at the two other project entrances from Murrieta Hot Springs Road located to the east and west of the Pourroy Road main project entrance. 1. The Developer shall execute an agreement with the City to contribute a fair share portion of the total construction costs for traffic signals at the following percentages: U. 5.8% for the traffic signal at 1-215 Freeway (Southbound Ramps) at Murrieta Hot Springs Road including southbound left turn lane, southbound right turn lane, eastbound through lane, eastbound right turn lane, westbound through lane, and westbound free right turn lane; V. Undetermined percentage for the lane improvements at Murrieta Hot Springs Road and Alta Murrieta in the City of Murrieta including improvements to be specified. W. 12.4% for the traffic signal at Murrieta Hot Springs Road and Margarita Road. X. 11.1% for the traffic signal at Murrieta Hot Springs Road and Winchester Road. 1. If warranted, bonds shall be posted to secure traffic signal and intersection improvements prior to recordation of final maps with construction complete prior to issuance of building permits. 2. The following intersections fair share contributions are deemed satisfied by the completion of the intersection improvements in Section 3 above. a. 1-15 Freeway (southbound ramps) at Rancho California Road - southbound left turn lane, westbound free right-turn lane, eastbound free right turn lane, and southbound free right-turn lane b. Ynez Road at Winchester Road - southbound right-turn overlap c. Ynez Road at Rancho California Road - eastbound through lane d. Butterfield Stage Road at Rancho California Road - traffic signal e. 1-15 Freeway (southbound ramps) at Winchester Road southbound left-turn lane, southbound right-turn lane, westbound free right-turn lane, right-turn lane, westbound through lane, eastbound through lane, and eastbound free right-turn lane. R:xS PxRofipaugh Ranch SPmcvAPC Staff R~port 10- l 6-02~Rcsos and ord (EJP)-final 4O f. Traffic signal and related intersection improvements, as warranted, at the intersection of La Serena and Meadows Parkway. g. 1-15 Freeway (nodhbound ramps) at Winchester Road northbound left-turn lane, northbound free right-turn lane, westbound through lane, and westbound free right-turn lane h. I- 15 Freeway (southbound ramps) at Rancho California Road - southbound left-turn lane, southbound, eastbound, and westbound free right-turn lanes. i. 1-15 Freeway (northbound ramps) at Rancho California Road - northbound left-turn and right-turn lanes j. Ynez Road at Winchester Road - southbound left-turn lane, southbound right-turn overlap, and eastbound left-turn lane k. Ynez Road at Rancho California Road - westbound left-turn lane, westbound right-turn lane, southbound through lane, southbound free fight turn lane, eastbound free right-turn lane, and eastbound through lane I. Margarita Road at Rancho California Road - northbound and southbound through lanes, southbound right-turn lane, eastbound left-turn lane, eastbound right-turn overlap, westbound left-turn lane, northbound right-turn lane, and westbound right turn overlap m. Calle Contento at Rancho California Road - eastbound left-turn lane, eastbound through lane, westbound left-turn lane, and westbound through lane Y. In addition, Butterfield Stage Road between Murrieta Hot Springs road and the northern project boundary will not be constructed. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Z. The Project will dedicate 201 acres for the long-term maintenance of habitat as its part of the Assessment District 161 Sub-Regional Habitat Conservation Plan. AA. The Project will improve Long Valley Wash so as to provide for enhanced wildlife movement through the area. BB. The Project will provide over 10 acres of new and/or restored (i.e., revegetated) biological habitat onsite, including riparian and wetland areas along Santa Gertrudis Creek and the Long Valley Wash. WATER RESOURCES CC. The Project will provide for needed flood control improvements along these critical stretches of Santa Gertrudis Creek and Long Valley Wash, and help protect downstream properties from historical flooding, which substantially exceeds its fair share contribution in this regard. DD. The Project will provide for the long-term maintenance of proposed flood control facilities to minimize additional cost to the City for protecting oftsite properties from historical flooding. R:~S IARoripaugh Ranch SP~new~PC Staff Report 10-16-02W, esos and ord (EJP)-final EE. The Project will construct a new water distribution system onsite and connect to area-wide water service system of the Eastern Municipal Water District. FF. Without the Project, the existing uncontrolled drainage will continue to occur. FIRE PROTECTION GG. The Project will provide a site and funding for a new fire station for the Temecula Fire Department. HH. The Project will significantly improve existing emergency and commercial access to the local community, thereby allowing increased access for fire control services to the Project site and surrounding area. SCHOOLS II. The Project will make available a new 12-acre elementary school site to the Temecula Valley Unified School District. JJ. The Project will make available a new 20-acre middle school site to the Temecula Valley Unified School District. FISCA~HOUSING KK. The Project will facilitate the formation of a Community Facilities District (CFD) to fund needed public improvements, such as roads, drainage, bridges, fire station, landscaping, intersections, and traffic signals, at a minimum cost of approximately $33.3 million, including roads such as Butterfield Stage Road, Murrieta Hot Springs Road, etc. LL. The Project will pay off an estimated $835,000 left in the AD 161 fund through formation of the CFD MM. The Project will facilitate the formation of a master Homeowner Association (HOA) to maintain the onsite landscaped and open space areas not already maintained by the County or its designee for habitat under the AD 161 SHCP program. NN. The Project will enhance and increase available housing choices in the area, by providing additional housing types through the prevision of approximately 2,015 single-family residential units. OO. The Project will augment the County's economic base through increased property taxes, gasoline tax, sales taxes subventions and other taxes. At full buildout, the Project will provide estimated recurring revenues totaling $1,338,571 versus service costs of $1,279,312, resulting in an annual surplus of $59,259. (Fiscal Impact Assessment, September, 2002). PP. The Project will increase employment, during the short-term from such jobs as construction, landscaping and sales-related jobs, and during the long-term from such jobs as maintenance, security, various onsite office uses, and increase retail sales of goods in the Temecula area. QQ. The Project will increase property values in the area through development of a series of gated communities throughout the Project. Private roads and landscaped medians on R:~S P, Roripaugh Ranch SP~newXPC Staff Report 10-16-02kResos and ord (EIP)-final 42 non-arterial roads will be maintained by the private Homeowners Association without cost to the general public. RECREATION RR. The Project will provide benefits to the community through the construction of a 5.1-acre neighborhood park and a 19.8-acre community sports park to meet a portion of its 28.7 acres of parkland required under the Quimby Act. SS. The Project will provide two upscale private recreational facilities on 9.1 acres for Project residents in addition to the public parks, thereby reducing the demand on public facilities and providing the balance of the 28.7 acres of parkland required under the Quimby Act. -Fr. The Project will create an interconnected system of sidewalks and trails to allow pedestrians, bicyclists, and equestrians efficient non-vehicular access through the project site, SCIENTIFIC RESOURCES UU. The Project will provide benefit to the community through the documentation and curation of any notable archaeological and/or paleontological material that may be discovered during excavation and grading of the site. Without such actions, such archaeological and/or paleontological resources would be unrecognized. SUMMARY The City Council hereby declares that the foregoing benefits provided to the public through approval and implementation of the Project outweigh the identified significant adverse environmental impacts of the Project which cannot be mitigated. The City Council finds that the Project benefits outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects identified in the EIR and therefore finds those impacts to be acceptable. Section 4. Alternatives. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires discussion of a reasonable range of project alternatives that could feasibly attain the project's objectives (14 CCR § 15126(f)). CEQA requires that an EIR evaluate a reasonable range of alternatives to the Project, or to the location of the Project, which: (1) offer substantial environmental advantages over the Project proposal, and (2) may be feasibly accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time considering the economic, environmental, social and technological factors involved. The purpose in analyzing alternatives to a proposed project is to determine if an alternative is capable of eliminating or reducing potential significant adverse environmental effects, "even if these alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of the Project objectives, or would be more costly" (§ 15126.6). A. The Draft EIR identified the City's objectives for the proposed Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan Project, which are to provide: 1) a master-planned community; 2) a variety of housing options; 3) be sensitive to natural features; 4) provide unifying themes within the community; 5) provide a variety of major public improvements; 6) provide backbone infrastructure for the site and surrounding area; 7) be consistent with the City's goals and policies; 8) minimize impacts to surrounding residents, public services, and utilities; and 8) neighborhood commercial uses. (DEIR, p. 2-20) R:~S P~Roripaugh Ranch SPXnew~PC Staff Report 10-16-02~Resos and ord (EIP)-final 43 The EIR considered a total of seven alternatives to the proposed action which were examined in detail as follows: Alternative Locations B. The alternative that considered another location was eliminated from detailed analysis. In the process of preparing the EIR, it was necessary to consider possible alternative locations to the proposed Project to ascertain whether potential significant impacts could be reduced below a significant level. Assuming that development would occur on a comparable area and with the same uses, same general density, and same intensity, no alternative site could be found which could feasibly reduce or eliminate the unavoidable significant impacts of a comparable project. The California Supreme Court ruled that a feasible alternative must take into account economic factors, including whether a property is owned or can be reasonably acquired by the Project proponent. (Citizens of Goleta Valley et al. v. City Council (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553.) (Draft EIR, p. 7-24) In addition, the Court ruled that it is not necessary to consider alternative sites when the proposed Project is in accordance with an approved regional planning framework, such as the Riverside County General Plan. (Ibid.) C. The EIR concluded that, based on the outcome of the Goleta II case, under the circumstances, a more thorough discussion of an alternative site for the Project was not necessary. (DEIR, p. 7-24) Further, the EIR concluded that, for the unavoidable significant impacts of the Project on air quality, demographics, schools and traffic, an alternative location would differ very little from those of the proposed Project. (DEIR, p. 7-24) Also, the "Alternative Sites" alternative is infeasible because the developer does not own or control any other large parcels of vacant land in the area, and the proposed Project was developed specifically for this site, so it is likely the Project, as proposed, could not be reasonably "moved" or developed on some other site. (DEIR, p. 7-24) For these reasons, the Draft EIR determined that no feasible alternative sites exist. Finding D. The Council finds that the conclusion in the EIR regarding an alternative location for the proposed Project was properly eliminated from further detailed consideration because no alternative project site can feasibly meet the objectives established for the proposed Project. The Council also finds that no alternative location is capable of eliminating or reducing the identified significant effects of the proposed action. Therefore, no alternative location offers substantial environmental advantages over the proposed Project and the City Council rejects this alternative because such locations are considered environmentally infeasible. This concludes the discussion of the alternative that was eliminated from further consideration. A discussion of the five alternatives given detailed consideration follows: No-Action Alternatives Evaluated in Detail A. No Project - No Development Alternative (0 units) E. Under this alternative, much of the 804.7 acres of private property would remain in agricultural use (i.e., vacant) (DEIR, pp. 7-7, 7-8) The City Council finds that although the "No Project - No Development" alternative is the environmentally superior alternative to the proposed Project, it is infeasible because it fails to meet Project objectives. R:~S PxRofipaugh Ranch SP~nevAPC Staff Report 10-16-02~Resos and ord (FJP)-finai 44 F. Under the "No Project - No Development" alternative, all significant Project specific impacts will be avoided, assuming that the site remains undeveloped. (DEIR, pp. 7-7, 7-8) However, since the property is currently designated for residential development, it can reasonably be anticipated that another residential development project would be submitted in the future, if the proposed Project is not approved. Future development of any residential project for the site would likely result in environmental impacts similar to those of the proposed Project. (DEIR, p. 7-8) Notwithstanding these future speculations, the "No Project - No Development" alternative as described in the Draft EIR would result in less impacts to the environment than the proposed Project. (Ibid.) Therefore, it is an environmentally superior alternative. (Ibid.) However, this alternative does not meet the Project's objectives of developing a residential project consistent with the General Plan land use designation for the site. (Ibid.) Also, this alternative does not meet the Project objectives regarding providing a variety of quality housing opportunities, providing backbone public infrastructure, etc. (DEIR, p. 7-23) Therefore, the City Council finds that the "No Project - No Development" alternative is infeasible because it fails to meet Project objectives and rejects it. Active Alternatives Evaluated in Detail A. Alternative I - Agriculture-Clustered Development (472 units) G. Alternative 1 would cluster Iow-medium density suburban housing along the south side of Murrieta Hot Springs Road and along both sides of Butterfield Stage Road. The remaining portions of the property that were not within Santa Gertrudis Creek or an improved Long Valley Wash would remain for agricultural use (380 acres). This alternative would eliminate significant all of the significant impacts associated with the proposed Project (i.e., loss of agricultural land, air quality, traffic, and aesthetics)(DEIR, p. 7-25). H. The City Council finds that Alternative I fails to meet Project objectives as compared to the Project. With the proposed modifications, the Project's impacts and density are only slightly reduced from those of the proposed Project. The City Council finds that Alternative 1 is less feasible because it does not meet Project objectives to the same degree as the proposed Project, such as the ability to fund the various major public improvements (e.g., parks, schools, roads). Alternative 2 - Reduced Intensity (1,131 units) I. Alternative 2 would eliminate all the medium density residential uses and distribute Iow and Iow medium density housing throughout the site. This alternative would reduce impacts of the proposed Project related to traffic and aesthetics to less than significant levels, although impacts to agriculture and possibly air quality would remain. The City Council finds that Alternative 2 is environmentally superior to the proposed Project, but is not feasible because it fails to meet many of the Project objectives, including the ability to fund the various major public improvements (e.g., parks, schools, roads). Alternative 3 - Rural Density (166 units) J. Alternative 3 would limit development to rural densities (2.5 and 5-acre lots) on the entire property. This alternative would eliminate all significant environmental impacts of the project except loss of agricultural land. However, it would not provide enough units to support formation of a CFD to finance the planned major improvements. The City Council finds that Alternative 3 is environmentally superior to the proposed Project but is not feasible because it fails to meet Project objectives, and rejects it. Environmentally Superior Alternative R:~S P~Roripaugh Ranch SI~newXPC Staff Report 10-16~}2LResos and ord (EJP)-final 45 K. State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6 subdivision (e) requires a discussion of the "No Project" alternative. (Ibid.) However, the State CEQA Guidelines stipulate that if the "No Project" alternative is the environmentally superior alternative, then the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives. (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6, subd. (e)(2).) Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 are all considered by the Draft EIR as "environmentally superior" to the proposed Project. (Ibid.) These alternatives eliminate two or more significant impacts of the Project. (Ibid.) For these reason, the Draft EIR determined that Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 are considered "environmentally superior" alternatives to the proposed Project. (DEIR, p. 7-16) However, none of the alternatives contain enough units to support a CFD to fund necessary regional road improvements. Therefore, the City Council rejects all of the alternatives in favor of the proposed Project. Section5. Growth Inducing Impacts. State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126 requires the evaluation of growth-inducing impacts of a proposed project. This discussion must address ways the Project could encourage economic and population growth and construction of additional housing either directly or indirectly. (DEIR, p. 6-1) The proposed Project is somewhat growth-inducing as it introduces utilities, roads, etc. into areas that are currently vacant or support rural residential uses. A. The City Council finds that the foregoing benefits provided to the public through approval and implementation of the Specific Plan outweigh the identified significant adverse environmental impacts of the Specific Plan which cannot be mitigated. The City Council further finds that each of the Specific Plan benefits outweighs the unavoidable adverse environmental effects identified in the Draft EIR and therefore finds those impacts to be acceptable. Each of the benefits listed above, standing alone, is sufficient justification for the City Council to override these unavoidable environmental impacts. B. The City Council finds that it has reviewed and considered the Final EIR in evaluating the Specific Plan, that the Final EIR is an accurate and objective statement that fully complies with the CEQA, State CEQA Guidelines and the City's local CEQA Guidelines and that the Final, EIR reflects the independent judgment of the Council. Section 6. Certification. The City Council hereby certifies the Environmental Impact Report based on the following findings and conclusions: A. Findings. The following significant environmental impacts have been identified in the Draft EIR and will require mitigation as set forth in Section 2 of this Resolution but cannot be mitigated to a level of insignificance. B. Conclusions 1. Ail significant environmental impacts from implementation of the Specific Plan have been identified in the Draft EIR and, with implementation of the mitigation measures identified, will be mitigated to a level of insignificance, except for those impacts listed in Section 6 above. 2. Other reasonable alternatives to the Specific Plan, which could feasibly achieve the basic objectives of the Specific Plan, have been considered and rejected in favor of the Specific Plan. 3. Environmental, economic, social and other considerations and benefits R:~ P',Roripaugh Ranch SP~ncw',PC St~ff Report 10-16-02'~Resos and old (F. JP)-final derived from the development of the Specific Plan override and make infeasible any alternatives to the Specific Plan or further mitigation measures beyond those incorporated into the Specific Plan. Section 7. Adoption of a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program A. The City Council hereby adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program in Appendix D of the Final EIR and attached to this Resolution as Exhibit A. In the event of any inconsistencies between the mitigation measures as set forth herein and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program shall control. Section 8. Location of Records A. The documents and materials that constitute the record of proceedings on which these Findings have been based are located at the City of Temecula, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California 92590. The custodian for these records is the City of Temecula Planning Director. This information is provided in compliance with Public Resources Code section 21081.6. Section 9. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED, by the City Council of the City of Temecula this day of 2002. ATTEST: Ron Roberts, Mayor Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, California, do hereby certify that Resolution No. 2002- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular' meeting thereof held on the th day of ., 2002, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: 0 ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS None COUNCILMEMBERS: None 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None City Clerk R:XS PxRoripaugh Ranch SPXnew~PC Staff Report 10-16-02~Resos and oral (EJP)-finaI 47 Susan W. Jones, CMC TABLE 1 PHASE 1 (Planning Areas 1-4B, 6, and 32) Onsite Prior to issuance of the 34t~ building permit, the following improvements shall be completed: 1. Secondary Access - Provide secondary access limited to right-turns only from Planning Areas lA, 2, or 4A to Murrieta Hot Springs Road. Prior to issuance of the 108th building permit, the following improvements shall be completed: 2. Buttedield Stage Road - Construct half-width improvements from Murrieta Hot Springs Road to the south project boundary at Planning Area 32, including construction of two full-width bridges within and over Santa Gertrudis Creek and Long Valley Wash. 3. Buttedield Stage Road - Dedicate full-width right-of-way from the northern project boundary to Murrieta Hot Springs Road. 4. Murrieta Hot Springs Road - Construct full-width improvements from east of Pourroy Road at the northern project boundary to the IVNVD pipeline property. 5. Murrieta Hot Springs Road - Construct half-width improvements from the MWD pipeline property to Butterfield Stage Road. 6. Nicolas Road - Offer a dedication for a 110' right-of-way from Butterfield Stage Road to the west project boundary. 7. Nicolas Road - Construct half-width from Butterfield Stage Road to the western project boundary. 8. South Loop Road - Construct half-width in front of fire station (Planning Area 32). Prior to issuance of the 400" building permit, the following improvements shall be completed: 9. "A" Street - Construct full-width from Murrieta Hot Springs Road to Butterfield Stage Road. 10. "B" Street - Construct full-width improvements from Nicolas Road to "A" Street. 11. North Loop Road - Construct a full-width bridge over and within Santa Gertrudis Creek and connect the bridge to Butterfield Stage Road with full width improvements. 12. Traffic Signals - Construct traffic signals and related intersection improvements as warranted at: (a) Murrieta Hot Springs Road and Pourroy Road and (b) All project entrances on Murrieta Hot Springs Road. R:~S I~Rorip~ugh Ranch SI~nevAPC Staff Report 10-16~)2~Resos and ord (E, IP)-final 48 Offsite Prior to the issuance of the 108" building permit, the following improvements shall be completed: Nicolas Road - Construct 40' width on center improvements from the western project boundary to 450' east of the existing Nicolas Road/Calle Girasol intersection. Secondary Access - The required secondary access for the Plateau area shall be provided by one of the following options: If Nicolas Road is designated as the secondary access route, the following improvements shall be completed: Construct 40' width on center improvements from 450 feet east of the existing Nicolas Road / Calle Girasol intersection to Liefer Road including the full width bridge structure over and within Santa Gertrudis Creek. ii. to its ultimate intersection with Nicolas acquisition. Realign existing Calle Girasol Road including right-of-way If Calle Chapos from Butterfield Stage Road to Walcott Lane and Calle Girasol from Walcott Lane to the existing Nicolas Road / Calle Girasol intersection is designated as secondary access, the following improvements shall be completed: Calle Chapos from Butterfield Stage Road to Walcott Lane - Construct 38' width improvements on center to existing pavement. ii. Calle Girasol from Walcott Lane to the existing Nicolas Road/Calle Girasol intersection Construct 38' width on center improvements, as required by the City Fire Chief and City Engineer (including right-of-way acquisition), on Calle Girasol from Walcott Lane to the existing Nicolas Road/Calle Girasol intersection. If Butterfield Stage Road from the southern project boundary to Rancho California Road is designated as secondary access, construct half width improvements from the southern project boundary at Planning Area 32 to Rancho California Road, excluding any existing improvements. PHASE 2 (Planning Areas 10, 11, 12, 14 - 24, 27 - 31, 33A, and 33B) Prior to the issuance of any building permit in Phase 2, the following improvements must be completed: Onsite R:~S l~Roripaugh Ranch Sl~new\PC Staff Report 10-16-02~Resos and ord (FAP)-final 49 Butterfield Stage Road - Construct remaining half-width improvements from Murrieta Hot Springs Road to 550' south of the intersection of Butterfield Stage Road and Nicolas Road. Butterfield Stage Road - Construct or bond for grading and full-width improvements from the northern project boundary to Murrieta Hot Springs Road. Murrieta Hot Springs Road - Construct remaining half-width improvements from the MWD pipeline property to Butterfield Stage Road. North Loop Road - Construct full-width improvements from the bridge structure at North Loop Road/Santa Gertrudis Creek crossing to the Long Valley Wash Bridge structure at South Loop Road. South Loop Road - Construct the full width bridge structure crossing Long Valley Wash and construct full width street improvements from this bridge to Butterfield Stage Road. Nicolas Road - Construct remaining improvements from Butterfield Stage Road to western project boundary. Traffic signal - Construct traffic signals and related intersection improvements, as warranted, at the intersections of: ao Offsite Murrieta Hot Springs Road at Butterfield Stage Road, Butterfield Stage Road at North Loop Road, and Buttedield Stage Road at South Loop Road, Butterfield Stage Road - Construct remaining half-width improvements from 550' south of the intersection of Butterfield Stage Road and Nicolas Road to the south project boundary at Planning Area 32. Butterfield Stage Road - Construct full width improvements from the southern project boundary at Planning Area 32 to Rancho California Road excluding any existing improvements. Nicolas Road - Construct 40' width improvements from 450 feet east of the existing Nicolas Road/Calle Girasol intersection to Liefer Road including the full width bridge structure over Santa Gertrudis Creek. Calle Girasol and the Nicolas Road / Calle Girasol intersection - Realign existing Calle Girasol to its ultimate intersection with Nicolas Road including right-of-way acquisition. Calle Chapos - Construct 38' width on center improvements from Butterfield Stage Road to the existing paved terminus at Calle Girasol. R:~S P~Roripaugh Ranch Sl~new~C Staff Report 10-16-02XResos and ord (EJP)-final 50 TABLE2 PHASE 1 (prior to issuance of 1st building permit in Planning Areas 1-4B, 6, and 32) 1-15 Freeway (southbound ramps) at Rancho California Road - southbound left turn lane, cc~thwestbound free right-turn lane, and eastbound free right turn lane1 and southbound free riqht-turn lane 1-215 Freeway (southbound ramps) at Murrieta Hot Springs Road - southbound left-turn lane, southbound right-turn lane, eastbound through lane, eastbound right-turn lane, westbound through lane, and westbound free right-turn lane 3. Ynez Road at Winchester Road - southbound right-turn overlap 4. Ynez Road at Rancho California Road - eastbound through lane 5. North General Kearny Road at Nicolas Road - traffic signal. 6. Butterfield Stage Road at Rancho California Road - traffic signal Murrieta Hot Springs Road at Alta Murrieta Drive (in the City of Murrieta) - lane improvements (as yet undetermined). The developer shall provide the City of Temecula with a letter from the City of Murrieta stating that a fair share contribution to identified improvements at this intersection has been made. PHASE 2 (prior to issuance of Ist building permit in Planning Areas 10 - 12, 14 - 24, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 33A, and 33B) 1-15 Freeway (southbound ramps) at Winchester Road - southbound left-turn lane, southbound right-turn lane, cas.~,vestbound free riqht-turn lane, right-turn lane, westbound through lane, eastbound through lane, and eastbound free right-turn lane. Traffic signal and related intersection improvements, as warranted, at the intersection of La Serena and Meadows Parkway. 1-15 Freeway (northbound ramps) at Winchester Road - northbound left-turn lane, northbound free right-turn lane, westbound through lane, and westbound free right-turn lane I- 15 Freeway (southbound ramps) at Rancho California Road - southbound left-turn lane, southbound, eastbound, and westbound free right-turn lanes. 1-15 Freeway (northbound ramps) at Rancho California Road - northbound left-turn and right-turn lanes Ynez Road at Winchester Road - southbound left-turn lane, southbound right-turn overlap, and eastbound left-turn lane R::~q P~oripaugh Ranch SP~nevAPC Staff Report 10-164)2~Resos aud ord (EIP)-final 51 Ynez Road at Rancho California Road - westbound left-turn lane, westbound right-turn ................ ~ ....... , southbound through lane, southbound free fight turn lane, eastbound free right-turn lane, and eastbound through lane Margarita Road at Winchester Road - eastbound left-turn lane, southbound right-turn lane, westbound right-turn lane, and southbound right-turn overlap 9. Margarita Road at Rancho California Road - northbound and southbound through lanes, southbound right-turn lane, eastbound left-turn Cane, eastbound right-turn overlap, westbound left-turn lane, northbound right-turn lane, and westbound right turn overlap 10. Margarita Road at Murrieta Hot Springs Road - northbound shared left-through lane, eastbound through lane, and westbound through lane 11. Winchester Road at Nicolas Road - northbound left-turn lane, northbound free right turn ever~plane, westbound left-turn lane, northbound through lane, southbound left-turn lane, southbound through lane, and eastbound right-turn overlap, and '.':cctbc'-'.",d 12, Winchester Road at Murrieta Hot Springs Road - northbound through lane, southbound through lane, and westbound through lane 13. Butterfield Stage Road at Rancho California Road - northbound left-turn lane, northbound through lane, southbound left-turn lane, southbound through lane, eastbound left-turn lane, eastbound through lane, westbound left-turn lane, and westbound through lane 14. Calle Contento at Rancho California Road - eastbound left-turn lane, eastbound through lane, westbound left-turn lane, and westbound through lane These improvements shall be constructed and the developer shall provide appropriate fair share contributions to these improvements as shown below: PROJECT FAIR SHARE CONTRIBUTIONS Project Percent of New Roadway (N/S) Intersection (E/W) Traffic AM PM 1-215 Freeway - SB Ramps Murrieta Hot Springs Road 4.4 5.8 1-215 Freeway - NB Ramps Murrieta Hot Springs Road 7.3 6.8 1-15 Freeway - SB Ramps Winchester Road 3.2 5.7 Rancho California Road 5.7 6.8 1-15 Freeway - NB Ramps Winchester Road 2.4 4.9 Rancho California Road 7.8 10.0 Ynez Road Winchester Road 4.5 5.6 Rancho California Road 6.2 5.9 Margarita Road Murrieta Hot Springs Road 11.4 12.4 Winchester Road 11.1 11.2 La Serene Way 6.6 7.4 Rancho California Road 5.6 6.4 Winchester Road Murrieta Hot Springs Road 11.1 9.3 Nicolas Road 10.1 12.3 N. General Kearny Road Nicolas Road 18.6 18.3 Meadows Parkway La Serena Way 30.5 22.1 Rancho California Road 28.6 23.6 Butterfield Stage Road Murrieta Hot Springs Road 23.2 24.2 Nicolas Road 39.7 35.7 Calle Chapos 29.5 25.8 La Serena Way 20.8 19.0 Rancho California Road 21.3 19.1 Calle Contento Rancho California Road 10.3 11.3 Alta Murrieta Drive Murrieta Hot Springs Road TBD TBD (City of Murrieta) TBD = to be determined based on fair share calculations Source: Table 6-1 from Urban Crossroads, November 2001 (as shown in Table 3.5-8 from 2nd Revised DEIR) N:\31367\doc\EIR\SOC&Findings5.doc R:~S l~Roripaugh Ranch SPSnew~C Staff Report 10-16-02XResos and ord (EJP)-final 53 EXHIBIT A (FOR ATTACHMENT 1) MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM RAS l~Roripaugh Ranch SP~nevAPC Staff Report 10-16-02~Resos and ord (EJP)-final 54 Z AI'rACHMENT NO. 2 RESOLUTION FOR APPROVING THE PROJECT R:\S P\Roripaugh Ranch SP~e'~/~PC Staff Report 10-16-02\PC Staff Report 10-16-02.doc 33 ATTACHMENT NO. 2 PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE FOLLOWING: 1) GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FOR THE RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 99-0298); 2) THE RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 94-0075); 3) ADOPT AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN ZONING STANDARDS (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 94-0075); 4) ADOPT AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING A CHANGE OF ZONE TO AMEND THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF THE CITY (PLANNING APPLICATION 94-0075); AND 5) ADOPT AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE RORIPAUGH RANCH DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 99-0299); ON PARCELS TOTALING APPROXIMATELY 804.7 ACRES, LOCATED NEAR THE FUTURE INTERSECTION OF BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD AND NICOLAS ROAD AND FURTHER IDENTIFIED AS ASSESSOR PARCEL NOS. 957-130-001 and 002, 957-340-001, 003, 007, 008, AND 958-260-001 and 002. WHEREAS, Ashby USA, LLC filed Planning Application Nos. PA99-0298 (General Plan Amendment), PA94-0075 (Specific Plan, Development Code Amendment, Roripaugh Ranch Zoning Standards), PA94-0075 (Change of Zone), and PA99-0299 (Development Agreement) (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 Temecula Municipal Code Section 17.16.070 shall be amended to add Specific Plan No. 12, the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan and adopting the zoning ordinance and development standards contained in the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan by Ordinance; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the Application on October 16, 2002 at duly noticed public hearings as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support or opposition to this matter; WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing and after due consideration of the testimony, the Commission recommended approval of the Application subject to the recommended conditions, together with the concurrent recommendation on the Roripaugh R:XS P~Roripaugh Ranch SPknew',PC Staff Report 10-16-02',Resos and ord (EJP)-fmal 56 Ranch 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. In all respects as set forth in the recitals hereinabove, which are hereby incorporated by reference. Section 2. Findings. That the Planning Commission, in recommending approval of the Application, hereby makes the following findings: General Plan Amendment: The General Plan Amendment is necessary to conform to the current General Plan land uses and development criteria set forth in the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan. Further, the General Plan Amendment serves to designate the Land Use for the excluded parcels in a manner more conducive to proper planning and future development. Specific Plan Findinqs A. The proposed Specific Plan is consistent with the General Plan, as it is proposed to be amended, and Development Code. The proposed Specific Plan is consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan and Development Code. The Specific Plan is a reallocation and redistribution of the majority of the existing Land Use Designations and serves as an implementation tool for the General Plan. Therefore, as proposed, the Specific Plan is consistent with the General Plan, as it is proposed to be amended, and Development Code. B. The proposed Specific Plan would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience or welfare of the city. The project has been reviewed by agencies and staff, and is determined to be in conformance with the City's General Plan (as it is proposed to be amended), Development Code, Design Guidelines and Growth Management Program Action Plan. These documents set policies and standards that protect the health, safety and welfare of the community. In addition, the Specific Plan is a master planned community with specific design guidelines and standards that ensure compatibility and interface with the surrounding community in terms of density, design and circulation. Therefore, as proposed, conditioned and designed, the Specific Plan is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community. C. The subject property is physically suitable for the requested land use designations and the anticipated land use developments. There are no physical constraints of the site which would preclude or prohibit the requested land use designations or anticipated developments. Moreover, the proposed Specific Plan land uses are consistent with the land uses of the General Plan and will serves as the tool to regulate and implement the goals and policies of the General Plan. The applicant has submitted applications for Tentative Tract Maps which illustrates that the site is physically suitable for the land uses and development proposed in the Specific Plan. D. The proposed project shall ensure development of desirable character which will be compatible with existing and proposed development in the surrounding neighborhood. The project proposes similar residential land uses adjacent to the existing surrounding neighborhoods, with buffers and interfaces. The Specific Plan took under consideration the existing developments and surrounding zoning classifications to ensure development that will be R:YS P~Rofipaugh Ranch S l~newhVC Staff Report 10-16-02hResos and ord (EJP)-final 57 complementary and compatible with the surrounding neighborhood by providing a transition in lot sizes. Development A,qreement Findings A. The City desires to obtain the binding agreement of the Applicant for the development of the property in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement. B. The Applicant desires to obtain the binding agreement of the City to permit the Developer to develop the Developer's Project on the Developer's Pamels in accordance with the "Applicable Rules" (as hereinafter defined) and this Agreement. C. The Applicant has applied to the City in accordance with applicable procedures for approval of these mutually binding Agreements. The Planning Commission of the City has given notice of its intention to recommend the Agreement to the City Council, and has found that the provisions of this Agreement are consistent with the Specific Plan and the City's General Plan, as amended. D. These Agreements are consistent with the public health, safety, and welfare needs of the residents of the City and the surrounding region. The City has specifically considered and approved the impact and benefits of the development of the Property in accordance with these Agreements upon the welfare of the region. E. These Agreements will bind the City to the terms and obligations specified in this Agreement and will limit, to the degree specified in the Agreement and under State law, the future exercise of the City's ability to delay, postpone, preclude or regulate development on the Property, except a provided for herein. F. In accordance with the Development Agreement Statutes, this Agreement eliminates uncertainty in the planning process and provides for the orderly development of the Property. Further, this Agreement eliminates uncertainty about the validity of exactions imposed by the City, allows installation of necessary improvements, provides for public services necessary for the region with incidental benefits for the Property, and generally serves the public interest within the City of Temecula and the surrounding region. Section 3. Environmental Compliance. This Planning Commission has reviewed the draft EIR and Mitigation Monitoring Program and recommend that the City Council approve and certify the same. Section 4. Recommendation to the City Council. The City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council approve the following: 1. Resolution approving the General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan contained in Exhibit A, as shown on Exhibits A-2, AND A-3 and subject to the conditions contained in Exhibit A-l, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference; 2. Adopt an Ordinance amending the Development Code and adopting the zoning standards and as contained in Exhibit B amending the Official Zoning Map of the City of Temecula as substantially contained in Exhibit B-1 attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference; R:xS PXRodpaugh Ranch SPXnewXPC Staff Report 10-16~)2~.esos and ord (EJP)-final 58 3. Adopt an Ordinance authorizing the Roripaugh Ranch Development Agreement as contained in Exhibit C substantially contained in Exhibit C-1 attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. All substantially in the forms contained in the above referenced Exhibits for the property located near the future intersection of Butterfield Stage Road and Nicolas Road. Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning Commission this 16th day of October 2002. ATTEST: Dennis Chiniaeff, Chairman Debbie Ubnoske Secretary [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary of the Temecula Planning Commission, do hereby certify that PC Resolution No. 2002- was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 16th day of October, 2002, by the following vote: AYES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary R:'~S PkRotipaugh R~nch SPXnevAPC Staff Report 10-16~)2~Resos and ord (EJP)-final 59 EXHIBIT A CITY COUNCIl.. RESOLUTION FOR THE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS AND SPECIFIC PLAN R:\S P~J:ioripaugh Ranch SP~new~DC Staff Report 10-16-02~PC Staff Report 10-16-02.doc 34 CC RESOLUTION NO. 2002- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA99-0298 (GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT) FOR THE RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN PREZONING AND ADOPTING SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 12 (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 94-0075) ON PARCELS TOTALING 804.7 ACRES LOCATED NEAR THE FUTURE INTERSECTION OF BUTFERFIELD STAGE ROAD AND NICOLAS ROAD, AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR PARCEL NOS. 957-130-001 and 002, 957-340-001,003, 007, 008, AND 958-260-001 and 002 BASED UPON THE ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS CONTAINED IN THIS RESOLUTION. WHEREAS, Ashby USA, LLC flied Planning Application Nos. PA94-0075 and PA99- 0298 (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'October 16, 2002, at duly noticed public hearings as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support or opposition to this matter; WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearings and after due consideration of the testimony, the Commission recommended approval of the Application subject to and based upon the findings set forth hereunder; WHEREAS, the City Council considered the Application on ., 2002, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support or opposition to this matter; WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Council hearing and after due consideration of the testimony, the Council approved of the Application, and certified the Environmental Impact Report, made all required findings and determinations relative thereto and adopted the Mitigation Monitoring Program after finding that the project proposed in the Application conformed to the City of Temecula General Plan as amended; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby incorporated by reference. Section 2. Findings. That the City Council, in approving the Application, hereby makes the following findings as required in Chapter 17.16 of the Temecula Municipal Code: General Plan Amendment. R:~S P~P. oripaugh Ranch SP~new~PC StaffR~port 10-164)2~P. esos and ord (EJP)-final 61 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 as it provides a transition in lot sizes, with interface buffers and full roadway improvements. 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. Specific Plan A. The proposed specific plan is consistent with the General Plan, as it is proposed to be amended, and development code. The proposed Specific Plan is consistent with the goals and policies of the general plan and development code. The Specific Plan is a reallocation and redistribution of the majority of the existing Land Use Designations and serves as an implementation tool for the General Plan. Therefore, as proposed, the Specific Plan is consistent with the general plan, as it is proposed to be amended, and development code. B. The proposed Specific Plan would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience or welfare of the city. The project has been reviewed by agencies and staff, and is determined to be in conformance with the City's General Plan (as it is proposed to be amended), Development Code, Design Guidelines and Growth Management Program Action Plan. These documents set policies and standards that protect the health, safety and welfare of the community. In addition, the Specific Plan is a master planned community with specific design guidelines and standards that ensure compatibility and interface with the surrounding community in terms of density, design and circulation since it provides a transition in lot sizes. Therefore, as proposed, conditioned and designed, the Specific Plan is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community. C. The subject property is physically suitable for the requested land use designations and the anticipated land use developments. There are no physical constraints of the site which would preclude or prohibit the requested land use designations or anticipated developments. Moreover, the proposed Specific Plan land uses are consistent with the land uses of the General Plan and will serves as the tool to regulate and implement the goals and policies of the General Plan. The applicant has submitted applications for Tentative Tract Maps which indicate that the site is physically suitable for the land uses and development proposed in the Specific Plan. D. The proposed project shall ensure development of desirable character which will be compatible with existing and proposed development in the surrounding neighborhood as it provides a transition in lot sizes. The project proposes similar residential land uses adjacent to the existing surrounding neighborhoods, with landscape buffers and interfaces. The Specific Plan took under consideration the existing developments and surrounding zoning classifications R:~S 17XRoripaugh Ranch Sl~ncwWC Staff Report 10-16~)2~Resos and ord (EJP)-final 62 to ensure development that will be complementary and compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Section 3. Environmental Compliance. The City Council of the City of Temecula has certified the Final Environmental Impact Report, made all required findings and determinations relative thereto and adopted the Mitigation Monitoring Program after finding that the project proposed in the Application conformed to the City of Temecula General Plan, as amended, for the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan in order to approve the Application. Section 4. General Plan Amendment. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby approves the Application Amending the Land Use Element to amend the General Plan Land Use Map (Figure 2-1of the General Plan) to incorporate the annexation area into the City Limits and to Amend the General Plan Specific Plan Overlay Exhibit (Figure 2-5 of the General Plan) to include Planning Areas 33A and 33B and amending the General Plan Circulation Element (Figure 3-1 of the General Plan) to eliminate the connection between Nicolas Road and Calle Contento through the project and to change the designation of Butteffield Stage Road between Murrieta Hot Springs Road and Nicolas Road from 110' (Arterial Highway with 4 lanes) to Specific Plan Road, Add "A" and "B" Streets as Collector, and add North and South Loop Road as Specific Plan Road for 804.7 acres on property located near the future intersection of Butterfield Stage Road and Nicolas Road as shown on Exhibits A-2 and A-3, and known as Assessor Parcel Nos. 957-130-001 and 002, 957-340-001, 003, 007, 008, AND 958-260-001 and 002. Section 5. Specific Plan. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby prezones the property as Specific Plan and approves mixed use specific plan known as the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan (SP No. 12) subject to the Conditions of Approval included in Exhibit A-1 and as shown on Exhibit A-4, on property locate near the future intersection of Butterfield Stage Road and Nicolas Road, and known as Assessor Parcel Nos. 957-130-001 and 002, 957-340- 001,003, 007, 008, AND 958-260-002 subject to that attached Conditions of Approval. R:~S P~Roripaugh Ranch SP~ew~C Staff Report 10-16-02~Resos and ord (F~P)-final 63 Section 6. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning Department this ............ day of .......... 2002. Ron Roberts, Mayor ATTEST: Susan W. Jones, CMC/AAE City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTYOF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that Resolution No. 2002- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the day of 2002, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Susan W. Jones, CMC/AAE City Clerk R:XS l~Rorlpaugh Ranch SP~newXPC Staff Report 10-164}2XResos and ord (EJP)-final 64 EXHIBIT A-1 CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Planning Application No. PA94-0075 (Specific Plan) - Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan No. 11 Project Description: A Specific Plan for 804.7 acres to provide zoning and development standards for the development of 2,015 dwelling units within several gated communities, 110,000 square feet of neighborhood commemial retail space, a 12 acre elementary school site and a 20 acre middle school site, two public parks sites including a 19.7 acre Sports Park with lighted playing fields and a 4.8 acre neighborhood park with passive uses, three private recreation facilities, private and public trails and paseos, a fire station site, and 202.7 acres of natural open space to be preserved as permanent habitat, related flood control improvements to Santa Gertrudis Creek and Long Valley Wash. Assessor's Parcel Nos. 957-130-001 and 002, 957-340-001,003, 007, 008, AND 958-260- 001 and 002 Approval Date: October 16, 2002 PLANNING DIVISION Within Forty-Eight (48) Hours of the Approval of this Project The applicant shall deliver to the Community Development Department - Planning Division a cashier's check or money order made payable to the County Clerk in the amount of Nine Hundred Twenty-Eight Dollars ($928.00) which includes the Eight Hundred and Fifty Dollar ($850.00) fee, required by Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(d)(3) plus the Seventy-Eight Dollars ($78.00) County administrative fee, to enable the City to file the Notice of Determination for the Environmental Impact Report required under Public Resoumes Code Section 21151 and California Code of Regulations Section 15904. If within said forty-eight (48) hour period the Applicant has not delivered to the Community Development Department - Planning Division the check as required above, the approval for the project granted shall be void by reason of failure of condition (Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c)). R:XS P~Roripaugh Ranch SP~newXPC Staff Report 10-16-02XResos and oral (EJP)-final 66 General Requirements Approval of this Specific Plan is contingent upon and shall not become effective nor shall it vest until a General Plan Amendment (GPA) and Zone Change are approved by the City Council, and an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) or any other environmental review under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) are certified by the City Council. Within thirty (30) days of approval of the Specific Plan, the applicant shall submit a final copy reflecting all the changes necessary to make the document consistent with City Council's final action. The final Specific Plan shall be reviewed for consistency and approved by the Planning Director. The approval granted by this Resolution shall become effective upon the Effective Date of the Development Agreement, as the term Effective Date is defined in the Development Agreement adopted concurrently with this Resolution. In addition to the foregoing, in the event a Development Agreement is entered into that superoedes or alters these conditions of approval and the applicant causes a default or terminates by conduct the Development Agreement, then the City shall immediately consider the revocation of the approval granted by this Resolution. R:XS P~Roripaugh Ranch SP~new~2 Staff Report 10-16-02~Resos and ord (EJP)-final 67 Propsed General Plan Land_U._s_e.,De,_.s_i~g~nation~s Proposed General Plan Circulation Element Amendment EXHIBIT B CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT AND ZONING STANDARDS FOR THE RORIPAUGH SPECIFIC PLAN R:~S P~Rodpaugh Ranch SP~new\PC Staff Report 10-16-02\PC Staff Report 10-16-02.doc 35 ORDINANCE NO. 2002- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 94- 0075 (DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT) AMENDING SECTION 17.16.070 TO INCLUDE RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 12, AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP, AND ADOPT CHAPTER 5 (DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS) INCLUDING THE ZONING STANDARDS INCLUDED THEREIN FOR RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT FOR THE RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 12, ON PARCELS TOTALING APPROXIMATELY 804.7 ACRES LOCATED NEAR THE FUTURE INTERSECTION OF BUTrERFIELD STAGE ROAD AND NICOLAS ROAD, AND FURTHER IDENTIFIED AS ASSESSOR PARCEL NOS. 957- 130-001 and 002, 957-340-001,003, 007, 008, AND 958-260~001 and 002 THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Add the following to the end of the list contained in Section 17.16.070 of the Temecula Municipal Code: "SP-12 Roripaugh Ranch SP-13 Harveston" Section 2. The City Council for the City of Temecula hereby adopts Chapter 5 of the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan, Development Standards as an uncodified ordinance. Section 3. Notice of Adoption. Within 10 days after the adoption hereof, the City Clerk of the City of Temecula shall certify to the adoption of this ordinance and cause it to be posted in at least three public places in the City. Section 4. Environmental Compliance. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby finds that the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) and mitigation monitoring reporting program is consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and that it accurately addresses the impacts associated with the adoption of these two Ordinances implementing the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan. Section 5. Severability. The City Council hereby declares that the provisions of this Ordinance are severable and if for any reason a court 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 6. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same to be posted as required by law. R:'G l'~Rofipaugh Ranch SP~ncwkPC Staff Report 10-16-02~Resos and ord (EJP)-final 72 Section 7. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its passage. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and cause copies of this Ordinance to be posted in three designated posting places. Section 8. This Ordinance shall be in full fome and effect thirty (30) days after its passage; and within fifteen (15) days after its passage, together with the names of the City Council members voting thereon, it shall be published in a newspaper published and circulated in said City. Section 9. of Temecula this PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED, by the City Council of the City day of 2002. Ron Roberts, Mayor A'I-rEST: Susan W. Jones, CMC/AAE City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CiTY OF TEMECULA) I, Susan W. Jones, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 02- was duly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a regular meeting of the City Council on the __ day of 2002, 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 ,2002 by the following roll call vote: AYES:. COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Susan W. Jones, CMC/AAE City Clerk R:~S P~Roripaugh Ranch SPmew~C Staff Report 10-164)2~Resos and ord (EJP)-final 73 FIGURE 1-2 COUNIY OF RIVERSIDE CH OS-R OS-R CH CITY ~ CITY LIMITS V L Very Low Residential (0.4-2.0 du/ac) EM tow Medium Residential (l_2~14du/ac) PF Public Facilities SP Specific Plan (Roripaugh Ranch Panhandle) OS Open Space ~ PROJECT SITE COUNTY SOUTHWEST AREA PLAN DESIGNATION RR Rural Residential (<0.2 du/ac) A Agdcultum CH Conservaflo~ Habitat SP Specific Plan (Rancho Bella Vista) VI- VeP/Low Density (0.4-2.0 du/ec) L Low Density (2.O-5.0 du/ac) M Meclium Density (5.0-8.0 du/ac) BP Business Pad( CC Community Center OS-R Open Space - Recreation RC Retail Commercial PF Public Facilities N O T · O S C A L E onpau n cn Ueld ~sl') pue-I pesodoJd EXHIBIT C CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT R:\S P\Rodpaugh Ranch SP~new~,PC Staff Report 10-16-02\PC Staff Report 10-16-02.doc 36 ORDINANCE NO. 2002- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING THAT CERTAIN AGREEMENT ENTITLED "DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF TEMECULA AND ASHBY USA, LLC, (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 99-0299)" THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. declare that: The City Council of the City of Temecula does hereby find, determine and A. Ashby USA, LLC ("Owner") filed Planning Application No PA99-0298 (General Plan Amendment), PA 94-0073 (Annexation), PA94-0075 (Specific Plan, Development Code Amendment and Specific Plan Zoning Standards), PA 94-0076 (Environmental Impact Report), PA 94-0075 (Change of Zone), PA99-0299 (Development Agreement) PA01-0253 (Tentative Tract Map 29661), PA01-0230 (Tentative Tract Map 29353), (the "Application") in accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code for land use approvals for a 804.7 acre planned community located Northeast of the City near the future intersection of Butterfield Stage Road and Nicolas Road, ("Project"). B. Government Code Section 65864 authorizes the City to enter into binding development agreements with persons having legal or equitable interests in real property for the development of such property in order to, among other matters: ensure high quality development in accordance with comprehensive plans; provide certainty in the approval of development projects so as to avoid the waste of resources and the escalation in the cost of housing and other development to the consumer; provide assurance to the applicants for development projects that they may proceed with their projects in accordance with existing policies, rules and regulations and subject to conditions of approval, in order to strengthen the public planning process and encourage private participation in comprehensive planning and reduce the private and public economic costs of development; and provide for economic assistance to Owner for the entitlements authorizing development related improvements. C. On October 16, 2002 the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula held a duly noticed public hearing on the Draft Environmental Impact Report, the proposed Development Agreement(s) and the other land use applications for the Project at which time all persons interested in the Draft EIR, proposed Development Agreement and the Project had the opportunity and did address the Planning Commission on these matters. D. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearings and due consideration of the proposed Development Agreement and the Project, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2002- recommending to the City Council that the Development Agreement be approved, subject to certain recommended conditions. E. On ,2002 the City Council of the City of Temecula held duly noticed public hearings on the Draft Environmental Impact Report, proposed Development Agreement(s) and the other land use applications for the Project at which time all persons interested in the proposed Development Agreement and the Project had the opportunity and did address the City Council on these matters. R:~S P~Roripaugh Ranch SP~newhUC Staff Report 10-16-02~Resos and ord (EJP)-final 76 F. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearings before the Planning Commission and the City Council, and due consideration of the proposed Final EIR, Annexation, General Plan Amendment, Change of Zone, Code Amendment, Specific Plan Zoning Ordinance, Tentative Tract Maps (Level A and B), and Development Agreement, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2002- __ , entitled "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Temecula Certifying the Environmental Impact Report Prepared for the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan No. 12 (Planning Application No. 94- 0076) and Related Actions, and Adoption of the Environmental Findings Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program in Connection Therewith." Section 2. declares that: The City Council of the City of Temecula further finds, determines and A. In consideration of the substantial public improvements and benefits to be provided by Owner and the Project, in further consideration of the implementation of the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan and in order to strengthen the public financing and planning process and reduce the economic costs of development, by the Development Agreement, the City intends to give Owner assurance that Owner can proceed with the development of the Project for the Term of the Development Agreement pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Development Agreement and in accordance with the City's General Plan, ordinances, policies, rules and regulations existing as set forth in the Development Agreement. In reliance on the City's covenants in the Development Agreement concerning the development of the Property, Owner has and will in the future incur substantial costs in site preparation and the construction and installation of major infrastructure and facilities in order to make the Project feasible. B. The Development Agreement and the Existing Project Approvals, as defined in the Development Agreement, implement the goals and policies of the City's General Plan, and the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan, provide balanced and diversified land uses, and impose appropriate standards and requirements with respect to land development and usage in order to maintain the overall quality of life and the environment within the City. C. The City has engaged in extensive studies and review of the potential impacts of the Project as well as the various potential benefits to the City by the development of the Project and concluded that the Project is in the best interests of and is not detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the City. D. The Development Agreement is consistent with the City's General Plan, and each Element thereof, and the City's Growth Management Action Plan, and constitutes a present valid exercise of the City's police power. E. The Development Agreement is being entered into pursuant to and in compliance with the requirements of Government Code Section 65867. F. All legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Ordinance have occurred. Section 3. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby approves certain agreement entitled "Development Agreement by and Between the City of Temecula and Ashby USA, LLC." and authorizes the Mayor to execute said agreement attached hereto as Attachment C-1. R:xS P',Roripaugh Ranch SP~newWC Staff Report 10-16-02XResos and ord (E.IP)-final 77 Section 4. If any sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be unconstitutional or otherwise invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining provisions of this ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this ordinance and each sentence, clause or phrase thereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more sentences, clauses or phrases be declared unconstitutional or otherwise invalid. Section 5. The City Clerk of the City of Temecula shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same or a summary thereof to be published and posted in the manner required by law. Section 6. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this _ day of ,2002. ATTEST: Ron Roberts, Mayor Susan Jones, CMC City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTYOF RIVERSIDE ) ss. CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Susan Jones, CMC, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 02- was duly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a regular meeting of the City Council on the day of ,2002, and that thereafter, said Ordinance was duly adopted and passed at a regular meeting of the City Council on the day of ,2002 by the following vote, to wit: AYES:COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES:COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS: SUSAN JONES, CMC CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: Peter M. Thorson City Attorney R:XS P~Roripaugh Ranch SP~newXPC Staff Report 10-164)2~P, esos and ord (EJP)-final 78 ATFACHMENT NO. 3 PC RESOLUTION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT MAP Nos 29661 & 29353 R:\S P",Roripaugh Ranch SP~new~PC Staff Report 10-16-02'~PC Staff Report 10-16-02.doc 37 PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 01-0230 - TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 29353 FOR THE SUBDIVISION OF 804.7 ACRES INTO 39 LOTS AND 8 STREET LOTS, PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 01-0253 (LEVEL "B' MAPS) - TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 29661, FOR THE SUBDIVISION OF A PORTION OF 158 ACRES INTO 509 RESIDENTIAL LOTS AND 20 OPEN SPACE LOTS WITHIN PLANNING AREAS lA, 1,B, 2, 3, 4A, 4B, 5, 6, 7A, 7B, 7C, 8, AND 9A OF THE RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN LOCATED NEAR THE FUTURE INTERSECTION OF BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD AND NICOLAS ROAD, AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR PARCEL NOS. 957-130-001 and 002, 957-340-001, 003, 007, AND 008, 958-260-001 AND 002 WHEREAS, Ashby USA, LLC filed Planning Application No. 01-0230 and 01-0253 (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 October 16, 2002 at duly noticed public hearings as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did, testify either in support or opposition to this matter; WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing and after due consideration of the testimony, the Commission recommended approval of the Application subject to the conditions after finding that the project proposed in the Application conformed with the City of Temecula General Plan, as amended, the proposed Specific 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. That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby incorporated by reference. Section 2. Findinqs. That the Temecula Planning Commission, in recommending that the City Council approve the Application, hereby recommends the following findings as required in Chapter 16 of the City of Temecula Subdivision Ordinance. A. The proposed subdivision and the design and improvements of the subdivision is consistent with the Development Code, General Plan, the proposed Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan and the City of Temecula Development Code; R:~S l~Roripaugh Ranch SI~new~PC Staff Report 10-16-02~Resos and ord (EJP)-final 8~ B. The tentative maps do 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 maps; D. The design of the subdivisions and the proposed improvements, with conditions of approval, are not likely to cause significant environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat as no sensitive species or habitant exist within the project boundaries; 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 subdivisions and the type of improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems; G. The design of the subdivisions provides for future passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities in the subdivision to the extent feasible; H. The design of the subdivisions and the type of improvements will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision, or the design of the alternate easements which are substantially equivalent to those previously acquired by the public will be provided. (Quimby). The subdivisions are consistent with the City's parkland dedication requirements Section 3. Environmental Compliance. Residential projects approved under a Specific Plan are exempt from further environmental review pursuant to Section 15182 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines. All environmental impacts were previously identified and in the Final Environmental Impact Repot/ (FEIR) and Mitigation Monitoring Program in order to approve the project. Section 4. Recommendation to the City Council. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby recommends the City Council to adopt a resolution approving of Planning Application No. 01-0230 - Tentative Tract Map No. 29353 for the subdivision of 804.7 acres into 39 lots and 8 street lots, Exhibit A and as shown on Exhibit A-l, Planning Application No. 01-0253- Tentative Tract Map No. 29661, for the subdivision of 158 Acres into 509 residential lots And 20 open Space Lots Within Planning Areas lA, lB, 2, 3, 4A, 4A, 5, 6, 7A, 7A, 7A, 8, and 9A, Exhibit B and as shown on Exhibit B-1 of the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan located near the future intersection of Butterfield Stage Road and Nicolas Road, and known as Assessor Parcel Nos. 957-130-001 and 002, 957-340-001,003, 007, and 008, 958-260-001 and 002 subject to the project specific conditions set forth on Exhibit A-2, B-2 respectively, and attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference. R:~S P~.Rofipau gh Ranch SP~new~PC Staff Repoxl lip 16~)2~Resos and ord (EJP)-final 82 Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning Commission this 16th day of October 2002. A']-rEST: Dennis Chiniaeff, Chairman Debbie Ubnoske Secretary [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary of the Temecula Planning Commission, do hereby certify that PC Resolution No. 2002- was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 16th day of October, 2002, by the following vote: AYES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary R:XS PXRoripaugh Ranch SPXaew~PC Staff Report 10-16-02XResos and ord (EJP)-final 83 EXHIBIT A CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 29353 R:\S P\Rodpaugh Ranch SP~new~PC Staff Report 10-16-02~.°C Staff Report 10-16-02.doc 38 CC RESOLUTION NO. 2002- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING OF PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 01-0230 - TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 29353, A SUBDIVISION OF 804.7 ACRES INTO 39 LOTS AND 8 STREET LOTS WITHIN THE RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN LOCATED NEAR THE FUTURE INTERSECTION OF BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD AND NICOLAS ROAD, AND FURTHER IDENTIFIED AS ASSESSOR PARCEL NOS. 957- 130-001 and 002, 957-340-001,003, 007, 008, AND 958-260-001 AND 002. WHEREAS, Ashby USA, LLC filed Planning Application No. PA01-0230 AND PA01- 0253 (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 October 16, 2002, at a duly noticed public hearing as proscribed by law, at which time the City staff and interosted persons had an opportunity to, and did, testify either in support or opposition to this matter; WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearings and after due consideration of the testimony, the Commission recommended approval of the Application subject to and based upon the findings set forth hereunder; WHEREAS, the City Council considered the Application on 2002, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support or opposition to this matter; WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Council hearing and after due consideration of the testimony, the Council approved of the Application, and certified the Environmental Impact Report and adopted the Mitigation Monitoring Program after finding that the project proposed in the Application conformed to the City of Temecula General Plan; WHEREAS, all legal preconditions to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby incorporated by reference. Section 2. Findin~ls. That the City Council, in approving the Application, hereby makes the following findings as required in Section 16.09.140 of the Temecula Municipal Code. R:~S PW. oripaugh Ranch SP~newWC StaffReport 10-164)2~Resos and ord (EIP)-final 85 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 proposed subdivision map is consistent with the subject specific plan and related General Plan Amendment. C. The tentative map does not propose to divide land which is subject to a contract entered into pursuant to the California Land Conservation Act of 1965, or the land is subject to a Land Conservation Act contract but the resulting parcels following division of the land will not be too small to sustain their agricultural use; D. The site is physically suitable for the type and proposed density of development proposed by the tentative map; E. The design of the subdivisions and the proposed improvements, with conditions of approval, are not likely to cause significant environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat as no sensitive species or habitant exist within the project boundaries; F. 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; G. The design of the subdivisions and the type of improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems; H. The design of the subdivisions provides for future passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities in the subdivision to the extent feasible; I. The design of the subdivisions and the type of improvements will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision, or the design of the alternate easements which are substantially equivalent to those previously acquired by the public will be provided. (Quimby). The subdivisions are consistent with the City's parkland dedication requirements Section 3. Environmental Compliance. Residential projects approved under a Specific Plan are exempt from further environmental review pursuant to Section 15182 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines. All environmental impacts were previously identified and in the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) and Mitigation Monitoring Program in order to approve the project. Section 4. Conditions. The City Council of the City of Temecula approves Planning Application No. 01-0230 - Tentative Tract Map No. 29353 (Exhibit A-l) for the subdivision Of 804.7 acres into 39 lots and 8 street lots within the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan, subject to the project specific conditions set forth on Exhibit A-2, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference together with any and all other necessary conditions that may be deemed necessary, for the property located near the future intersection of Butterfield Stage Road and R:\S PXRoripaugh Ranch SP~new~C Staff Report 10-16~)2~,Rcsos and ord (EJP)-final 86 Nicolas Road, and further identified as Assessor Parcel Nos. 957-130-001 and 002, 957-340- 001,003, 007, 008, and 958-260-001 and 002. Section5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this ,2002. day of A'CrEST: Ron Roberts, Mayor Susan W. Jones, CMC/AAE City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTYOF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that Resolution No. 2002- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the of 2002, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: Susan W. Jones, CMC/AAE City Clerk R:~S P~Roripaugh Ranch SPXnewWC Staff Report 10-16-02~Resos and ord (EJP)-final 87 EXHIBIT A-1 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 29353 EXHIBIT A-2 CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Planning Application No.: PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 01-0230 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 29353 Project Description: The subdivision Of 804.7 acres into 39 lots and 8 street lots which conform to the Planning Areas of the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan. Assessor's Parcel Nos.: 957-130-001 and 002, 957-340-001, 003, 007, 008, and 958-260-001 and 002. Approval Date: Approval Date: Expiration Date: Expiration Date: PLANNING DIVISION General Requirements 11. The tentative subdivision shall comply with the State of California Subdivision Map Act and to all the requirements of the Temecula Subdivision Ordinance, unless modified by the conditions listed below. A time extension may be approved in accordance with the State Map Act and City Ordinance, upon written request, if made 30 days prior to the expiration date. 12. The permittee/applicant shall indemnify, protect and hold harmless, the City and any agency or instrumentality thereof, and/or any of its officers, employees, and agents from any and all claims, actions, or proceedings against the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers, employees, and agents, to attack, set aside, void, annul, or seek monetary damages resulting from an approval of the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body including actions approved by the voters of the City, concerning the Planning Application which action is brought within the appropriate statute of limitations period and Public Resources Code, Division 13, Chapter 4 (Section 21000 et seq., including but not by the way of limitations Section 21152 and 21167). The City shall promptly notify the permittee/applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding brought forth within this time period. The City shall estimate the cost of the defense of the action and applicant shall deposit said amount with the City. City may require additional deposits to cover anticipated costs. City shall refund, without interest, any unused portions of the deposit once the litigation is finally concluded. Should the City fail to either promptly notify or cooperate fully, permittee/applicant shall not, thereafter be responsible to indemnify, defend, protect, or hold harmless the City, any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers, employees, or agents. Should the applicant fail to timely post the required deposit, the Director may terminate the land use approval without further notice to the applicant. R:~S PXP, oripaugh Ranch Sl~newkPC Staff Report 10-164)2kResos and ord (EJP)-final 90 13. This project and all subsequent projects within this site shall be consistent with Specific Plan No. 12, the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan. 14. The project and all subsequent projects within this site shall comply with all mitigation measures identified within the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan, and the approved Mitigation Monitoring Program thereof. 15. Within thirty (30) days of the final approval of the project by the City Council, the map shall be submitted to the Planning Department in final form for review and approval. The final form shall include all conditions of approval and all modifications made by the Planning Commission and City Council. 16. The approval granted by this Resolution shall become effective upon the Effective Date of the Development Agreement, as the term Effective Date is defined in the Development Agreement adopted concurrently with this Resolution. Prior to Issuance of Grading Permits 17. A copy of the Rough Grading plans shall be submitted and approved by the Planning Division. 18. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 8.24 of the Temecula Municipal Code (Habitat Conservation) by paying the appropriate fee set forth in that ordinance or by providing documented evidence that the fees have already been paid. 19. Prior to the approval of the grading plans, improvement plans, the final map, or any other plans requiring MWD approval that may impact their property and easement, the developer is responsible to provide the City with MWD approval for the said plans. Prior to Recordation of the Final Map 20. The following shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Division: a. A copy of the Final Map. b. A copy of the Environmental Constraint Sheet (ECS) with the following notes: This property is located within thirty (30) miles of Mount Palomar Observatory. All proposed outdoor lighting systems shall comply with the California Institute of Technology, Palomar Observatory recommendations, Ordinance No. 655, ii. The Roripaugh Ranch Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared for this project and is on file at the City of Temecula Community Development Department - Planning Division. iii. Lots 31, 32, and 33 shall be designated as permanent open space. c. A copy of the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&R's) i. CC&R's shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director. The R:~S P~t oripaugh Ranch SP'~nevAPC Staff Report 10-164)2~Resos and ord (EIP)-final 91 CC&R's shall include liability insurance and methods of maintaining open space, recreation areas, parking areas, private roads, exterior of all buildings and all landscaped and open areas including parkways. ii. No lot or dwelling unit in the development shall be sold unless a corporation, association, property owner's group or similar entity has been formed with the right to assess all properties individually owned or jointly owned which have any rights or interest in the use of the common areas and common facilities in the development, such assessment power to be sufficient to meet the expenses of such entity, and with authority to control, and the duty to maintain, all of said mutually able features of the development. Such entity shall operate under recorded CC&R's which shall include compulsory membership of all owners of lots and/or dwelling units and flexibility of assessments to meet changing costs of maintenance, repairs, and services. Recorded CC&R's shall permit enforcement by the City for provisions required as Conditions of Approval. The developer shall submit evidence of compliance with this requirement to, and receive approval of, the city prior to making any such sale. This condition shall not apply to land dedicated to the City for public purposes. iii. Every owner of a dwelling unit or lot shall own as an appurtenance to such dwelling unit or lot, either (1) an undivided interest in the common areas and facilities, or (2) a share in the corporation, or voting membership in an association owning the common areas and facilities. 11. Prior tO the approval of the grading plans, improvement plans, the final map, or any other plans requiring MWD approval that may impact their property and easement, the developer is responsible to provide the City with MWD approval for the said plans. Prior to Issuance of Building Permits 12. The applicant shall conduct an acoustical study to ensure acceptable interior and exterior noise standards pursuant to the General Plan noise levels for residential and commercial structures. All recommend construction techniques, improvements and/or walls recommended in the acoustical report shall be incorporated into the construction of the structures and subdivision. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Unless otherwise noted, all conditions shall be completed by the Developer at no cost to any Government Agency. GENERAL CONDITIONS 13. It is understood that the Developer correctly shows on the Tentative Map all existing and proposed easements, traveled ways, paseos, pedestrian trails, improvement constraints, detention basins, and drainage courses, and their omission will subject the project to further review and may require revision. R:XS P~Roripaugh Ranch SPXnevAPC Staff Report 10~16-02~Resos and ord (EJP)-final 92 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. A Grading Permit for mass, rough, and/or precise grading shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to commencement of any construction outside of the City-maintained road right-of-way. An Encroachment Permit shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to commencement of any construction within an existing or proposed City right-of-way. An Encroachment Permit may be issued for all roads designated as private streets. The Developer shall participate in a Cooperative Agreement with the County allowing the City to act on their behalf, if at the time prior to issuance of a grading permit in the County area the annexation process has not been completed. The Developer shall submit a Maintenance Agreement to maintain flood control facilities for the portions of Santa Gertrudis Creek and Long Valley Wash located within the project site. It must be mutually agreeable to the City Director of Public Works, Riverside County Flood Control & Water Conservation District (RCFCWCD), and the Home Owners Association (HOA). The Maintenance Agreement shall contain a funding mechanism whereby all residential dwelling units in the proposed project will be equally assessed for the Santa Gertrudis Creek and Long Valley Wash maintenance. The Maintenance Agreement shall be executed prior to issuance of the first building permit. The Developer shall agree to the formation of a Community Facilities District for the construction of, but not limited to, road, bridge, drainage, traffic signal intersection, landscape, and fire station improvements in accordance with the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan. The form of the Agreement shall be subject to the approval of the City Engineer and City Attorney and shall be executed prior to final map recordation. All easements and/or right-of-way dedications shall be offered for dedication to the public or other appropriate agency and shall continue in force until the City accepts or abandons such offers. All dedications shall be free from all encumbrances as approved by the Department of Public Works. The Developer shall obtain letters giving permission to grade or easements for any off- site work performed on adjoining properties. The letters or easements shall be in a format as directed by the Department of Public Works. The Developer shall make a good faith effort to acquire the required off-site property interests, and if he or she should fail to do so, the Developer shall, prior to submittal of the Final Map for recordation, enter into an agreement to complete the improvements pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act, Section 66462 and Section 66462.5. Such agreement shall provide for payment by the Developer of all costs incurred by the City to acquire the off-site property interests required in connection with the subdivision. · Security of a portion of these costs shall be in the form of a cash deposit in the amount given in an appraisal report obtained by the Developer, at the Developer's cost. The appraiser shall have been approved by the City prior to commencement of the appraisal. A development phasing plan addressing the schedule of necessary infrastructure requirements shall be approved by the Department of Public Works and the Planning Director prior to approval of any subsequent application. R:~S P~Roripaugh Ranch SP~nevAPC Staff Report 10-16-02~Resos and ord (EJP)-final 93 23. The Developer shall pay to the City the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee as required by, and in accordance with, Chapter 15.06 of the Temecula Municipal Code and all Resolutions implementing Chapter 15.06. 24. All utility systems such as electric, including those which provide direct service to the project site and/or currently exist along public rights-of-ways adjacent to the site (except electrical lines rated 33 kv or greater), gas, telephone, water, sewer, and cable TV shall be placed underground, with easements provided as required, and designed and constructed in accordance with City Codes and the utility provider. CIRCULATION 25. Adequate primary and secondary access shall be provided for each phase of development as approved by the Department of Public Works. Vehicular access easements shall be secured across undeveloped areas to provide secondary access. The exact location and number of access points shall be subject to review and approval by the Department of Public Works at the time of submittal of future individual tentative tract maps and/or development applications. Additional right-of-way at entries may be required to provide for turning lanes as directed by the Department of Public Works. 26. Access along Murrieta Hot Springs Road, Butterfield Stage Road, Nicolas Road, and the Loop Roads as shown on this master tentative tract map shall be restricted except at street intersections and driveways to be identified in individual tentative tract maps and approved by the Department of Public Works. 27. All street sections shall correspond with the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan, Figures 2-4, 2-4A, 2-5, 2-5A, and 2-5A-1 and by reference made a part of these conditions of approval, typical roadway cross sections and requirements of the Circulation Element of the City's General Plan, and City ordinances and standards. 28. The Developer shall obtain permission from adjacent affected property owners along Nicolas Road and Butterfield Stage Road to allow for grading and any related driveway improvements necessary to continue to allow legal vehicular access through the use of some mechanism approved by the City's Public Works Department including but not limited to: permission to grade offsite letters, blanket or specific right of entry letters, and temporary construction easements. 29. Prior to approval of the street improvement plans, the developer shall demonstrate that adequate sight distance at intersections and approved driveways meet City and Caltrans standards to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 30. Bridge structure type shall be approved by the City Public Works Department and Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District. Proposed bridges shall provide acceptable crossing over waterways to accommodate all necessary vehicular, pedestrian, equestrian, dry and wet utilities, future utilities including but not limited to conduit for fiber optic cable or traffic signal interconnect if not placed within street pavement. The bridge design shall include, but not be limited to the following studies: foundation analysis, scour analysis, and protection measures. R:~S P~Roripaugh Ranch SP~acw~C Staff Report 10-164)2XResos and ord (EJP)-final 94 31. The Developer shall submit to the City Public Works Department for review and approval street improvement plans, signing and striping plans, traffic signal plans, and traffic control plans for all improvements in the phasing section of these conditions. TRAFFIC MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM 32. The Traffic Mitigation Monitoring Program proposes that a traffic study be approved prior to the issuance of the first building permit for each additional phase of development. The intent of the Traffic Mitiqation Monitorin.q Proqram is not to re-define miti.qation responsibility, but rather to assist in the refinement of area improvement needs and the timinq of the improvements. The traffic study would: 1) document ambient traffic volumes conditions; 2) estimate trip generation for the particular development phase; and 3) assess traffic conditions with the traffic added by the particular development phase. The exact study area to be addressed in each of the traffic studies should be defined through discussions with the City Traffic Engineer. In general the study area should include the immediate access intersections and roadways, which would serve the new development phase and those critical off-site intersections and roadways that will provide primary access to the new development. Critical intersections/roadways are defined as those facilities that are experiencing high levels of peak period traffic congestion (at the time the traffic study is to be performed). The traffic study findings would assist the City in proactively planning for area roadway improvements. 33. Ensuing Traffic Reports, analyzing traffic impacts associated with subsequent development stages of the Specific Plan, shall be submitted to identify implementation and timing of the necessary improvements to mitigate cumulative traffic impacts. DRAINAGE 34. The Developer shall, as required by the City and Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, protect downstream properties from damages caused by alteration of the drainage patterns including concentration or diversion of flow and increases in flow and/or velocity. Protection shall be provided by constructing adequate channel improvements, drainage facilities, and by securing drainage easements, as necessary. 35. Drainage and flood control facilities shall be provided in accordance with the requirements of the City and/or Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (RCFC&WCD). All drainage facilities shall be designed to convey 100-year storm flows, subject to the approval of the Department of Public Works and RCFC&WCD, as applicable. 36. Prior to issuance of a grading permit affecting the creek areas, the Developer shall submit a Drainage Management Plan covering both Santa Gertrudis Creek and Long Valley Wash to the City and RCFC&WCD to review the adequacy of the proposed and existing downstream drainage facilities. The Drainage Management Plan will address how the planned improvements will prevent downstream erosion and flooding impacts. 37. Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the Developer shall provide a flood control maintenance agreement for the portions of Santa Gertrudis Creek and Long Valley Wash within the project site. It must be mutually agreeable to the City Department of Public Works, the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, and R:'G PXRoripaugh Ranch SP~newXPC StaffRepor/10-16-02',Resos and oral (EJP)*final 95 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. the homeowner."; association. This agreement shall state that the City is only responsible for maintaining flood control facilities under public roads, and is not responsible for maintaining the Santa Gertrudis Creek and Long Valley Wash channels or detention basins. The Developer shall construct the proposed on and offsite drainage facility improvements and interim detention basins and/or flow by basins as recommended in the Specific Plan and Drainage Study documents and/or as directed by the Department of Public Works and RCFC&WCD, as applicable. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the Developer shall identify and construct, as necessary, interim channel improvements including, but not limited to, grading and construction of detention basins before permanent channel improvements are constructed. Drainage facilities within each phase shall be constructed immediately after the completion of the site grading and prior to or concurrently with the initial site development within that phase. The Developer shall accept and properly dispose of all off-site drainage flowing onto or through the site. The Developer, in procuring the protection of downstream properties, has elected to construct two detention basins in the "Plateau Area", a detention basin in Santa Gertrudis Creek and a flow by basin in Long Valley Wash. These detention and flowby basins shall be adequately sized so as not to increase the flow and velocities exiting the project boundary. The Developer shall provide adequate bank protection, as approved by the City Department of Public Works and RCFC&WCD, to Santa Gertrudis Creek between the project's western boundary to Liefer Road prior to the issuance of the 108~ building permit if Nicolas Road is chosen to provide secondary access and the 510th building permit if is not. Nicolas Road will not be accepted into the City's maintained street system until all offsite channel improvements are complete and accepted by the City and RCFC&WCD. The Developer shall provide maintenance roads to all proposed detention basins to provide access for maintenance. Road specifications such as width and type shall be per Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District requirements. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the Developer shall coordinate any construction that could impact Metropolitan Water District (MWD) facilities to assure that their facilities are not damaged by project construction, either onsite or offsite. The City reserves the right to require the developer to mitigate any concentrated offsite flows and to adequately disperse them by the use of rip-rap or equivalent improvements, as approved by and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. This condition shall be in fome during the entire development process for the project. A Flood Plain Development Permit and Flood Study shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and approval. The flood study shall be in a format acceptable to the Department and include, but not be limited to, the following criteria: R:XS l%Rofipaugh Ranch SP~ncwXPC Staff Report 10q 6-02XP. esos and ord (ESP)-final 96 Drainage and flood protection facilities which will protect all structures by diverting site runoff to streets or approved storm drain facilities. Adequate provision shall be made for the acceptance and disposal of surface drainage entering the property from adjacent areas. Identify and mitigate impacts of grading to any adjacent floodway or floodplain. The location of existing and post development 100-year floodplain and floodway. The Developer shall submit a Drainage Management Plan covering both Santa Gertrudis Creek and Long Valley Wash to the City and RCFC&WCD to review the adequacy of the proposed and existing downstream drainage facilities. The Drainage Management Plan will address how the planned improvements will prevent downstream erosion and flooding impacts. 47. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the Developer shall provide a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) and comply with that process. 48. Prior to issuance of occupancy permits in those lots adjacent to either Santa Gertrudis Creek or Long Valley Wash, the Developer shall submit appropriate documentation to the Federal Emergency Management Agency and obtain approval of Letter of Map Revision (LOMR). 49. A flood mitigation charge shall be paid prior to issuance of building permits. The Area Drainage Plan fee is payable to the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District by either cashier's check or money order, prior to issuance of permits, based on the prevailing area drainage plan fee. If the full Area Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge has already been credited to this property, no new charge needs to be paid. WATER AND SEWER 50. Water and sewer facilities shall be installed in accordance with the requirements and specifications of the City, Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD), and Rancho California Water District (RCWD). Such requirements shall be applied at the subdivision or plot plan stages of the development. 51. Prior to the approval of subsequent development applications, the Developer shall submit a Water Master Plan to EMWD and RCWD to check for adequacy of the proposed water facilities. The Developer shall obtain written approval for the water system from EMWD and RCWD. 52. Prior to the approval of subsequent development applications, the Developer shall submit a Sewer Master Plan to EMWD to check for adequacy of the proposed sewer facilities. The Developer shall obtain written approval for the sewer system from EMWD. 53. Prior to approval of the final map, the developer shall provide the City with adequate documentation from the local water purveyors (EMWD and RCWD) that they have adequate water supplies to serve project start-up through completion and full occupancy according to the requirements of Senate Bills 221 and 610. R:XS PXRofipaugh Ranch Sl~newh~2 Staff Report 10-16-02h°,esos and ord (EJP)-final 97 54. The Developer shall install reclaimed water lines to irrigate landscaped areas to the satisfaction of the Public Works and Temecula Community Services Departments if throughout the course of development and until such time the project is complete, reclaimed water lines become available within 300 feet of any project boundary. GRADING 55. Prior to the issuance of any grading permit, the Developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: State of California Department of Fish and Game, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Where appropriate, the terms, conditions, and recommendations of the noted agencies shall be incorporated as Conditions of Approval into the areas of development. 56. No grading shall be permitted for any development area prior to tentative map or plot plan approval. 57. Grading plans and operations shall be in accordance with the California Building Code, City Grading Standards, the recommendations contained in the Geotechnical Report, or any subsequent reports prepared for the project, the conditions of the grading permit, and accepted grading construction practices and the recommendations and standards specified in the Specific Plan and Environmental Impact Report (EIR) documents. 58. Prior to issuance of any grading permit, erosion control plans shall be prepared in conformance with applicable City Standards and subject to approval by the Department of Public Works. The Developer shall post security and enter into an agreement guaranteeing the grading and erosion control improvements. 59. The Developer shall comply with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit regulated by the State Water Resources Control Board, and the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) implemented by the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board. No grading shall be permitted until an NPDES Notice of Intent (NOI) has been filed or the project is shown to be exempt. 60. Slopes over 30 feet shall be contour graded. If such a slope cannot be contour graded, a registered civil engineer shall prepare and submit a report that demonstrates why such techniques are not feasible for a particular slope. This report shall be reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works prior to issuance of a grading permit. 61. The Developer shall post a clearly visible sign at the intersection of Nicolas Road and Calle Girasol to notify residents of the Nicolas Valley if and when blasting will occur at least two days prior to scheduled blasting. Any blasting activities will be limited to the hours of 9 AM to 4 PM, Monday through Friday. Prior to blasting, the Developer shall obtain permission from the City Engineer to post notice in at least one newspaper of local circulation at least one week in advance. 62. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the Developer shall submit a Dust Control Plan (DCP) to SCAQMD that is consistent with Rule 403 guidelines for approval. The Developer shall submit written proof to the City that SCAQMD has reviewed and approved the DCP. The DCP shall be applicable for all onsite as well as offsite work and includes but is not limited to the following activities: twice daily soil watering, street sweeping, covering of trucks hauling soil away, chip sealing access roads, hydroseeding R:xS P~Rofipaugh Ranch SI~ewXPC StaffReport 10-16-02~Resos and ord (E. lP)-final 98 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. exposed soil sun'aces, and adding chemical binders or surfactants to water used for watering. Also, the Developer shall provide the City with documentation that appropriate construction equipment that is anticipated to be used for more than 30 days has had tune-ups or equivalent work to assure Iow NOX emissions. In addition, all diesel equipment and vehicles must be equipped with particulate filters and use only Iow sulfur fuels. Prior to issuance of grading and building permits, the individual contractors shall submit a Traffic Management Plan (TMP) to the Public Works Department that includes but is not limited to: scheduling receipt of construction materials to off-peak travel periods (7:30 to 8:30 AM and 4:00 to 6:00 PM, routing construction traffic through areas of least impact sensitivity, limiting lane closures and detours to off-peak travel periods, and staging areas away from existing residential uses. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the Developer shall prepare and file a Noise Control Plan (NCP) with the Public Works Department. The NCP will be generally consistent with the mitigation monitoring program and the City's construction noise ordinance. Graded but undeveloped land shall be maintained weed-free and planted with interim landscaping, such as hydroseed, and temporary irrigation within ninety days of completion of grading, unless building permits are obtained. Paleontologists and Archeologists shall be present during grading, including excavated soil stockpiles, in accordance with the Environmental Impact Report mitigation measure. An import/export route shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works prior to issuance of any grading permit. The plan shall include limitation to the duration of the grading operation and construction activities, a Traffic Control Plan, and a daily time schedule of operations. A Soils Report shall be prepared by a registered Civil or Soils Engineer and submitted to the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The report shall address all soils conditions of the site, and provide recommendations for the construction of engineered structures and preliminary pavement sections. A Geotechnical Report shall be prepared by a registered engineer or engineering geologist and submitted to the Department of public Works with the initial grading plan check. The report shall address special study zones and identify any geotechnical hazards for the site including location of faults and potential for liquefaction and landsides. The report shall include recommendations to mitigate the impact of ground shaking and liquefaction. If subsequent Geotechnical and Soils Reports determine that dewatering of the site is necessary during construction, necessary permits (ie. in compliance with NPDES permit) shall be obtained from appropriate agencies prior to approval of the grading plans. Ail public streets shall be maintained and cleaned if necessary on a daily basis during grading operation and construction activities. Cash deposit, letter of credit or posting of bond to guarantee maintenance of all public rights-of-way affected by the grading R:~S P~Rofipaugh Ranch SI~new~PC Staff Report 10-16-02hResos and ord (EJP)-final 99 operations and construction activities, shall be posted prior to issuance of grading permits. SPECIFIC PLAN PHASING 72. Construction of the development permitted by the Specific Plan, including recordation of subdivision maps, may be carried out in stages provided that, adequate vehicular access is constructed for all dwelling units in each stage of development and further provided that such development conforms substantially with the intent and purpose of the Specific Plan Conceptual Phasing Plan Figure 2-10 and Phasing of Road Improvements Section 2.2.6. 73. 74. In the event that the City is unable to construct the street and slopes, acquire the additional right of way and complete any related proceedings associated with that process, for the segment on Butterfield Stage Road from Chemin Clinet to Ranch California Road, by the 510th building permit, the Developer shall be responsible for completing this work by the 510th building permit. Prior to the issuance of building permits for each phase, the developer or the CFD must construct the improvements identified below. The City may require additional or supplemental traffic studies prior to approval of future tentative tract maps. If these studies confirm that area intersections are operating below LOS D or otherwise pose an unsafe condition, then the developer shall be responsible for mitigating these conditions, in addition to the mitigation measures already identified in the EIR. SPECIFIC PLAN PHASE 1 a. ONSITE ROAD IMPROVEMENTS Prior to issuance of the 34th building permit, the following improvements shall be completed: Secondary Access - Provide secondary access from Lots 1, 3-7 to Murrieta Hot Springs Road. Prior to issuance of the 108th building permit, the following improvements shall be completed: ii. Improve Murrieta Hot Springs Road from existing improvements east of Pourroy Road to the MWD Easement (Arterial Highway - 110' RNV) to include dedication of full-width street right-of-way, installation of full-width street improvements, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer), and a 14-foot wide raised landscaped median. All proposed improvements shall be coordinated with existing improvements including raised landscaped median and lane width transitions as approved by the City Traffic Engineer. ii. Improve Murrieta Hot Springs Road from the MWD Easement to Buttertield Stage Road (Modified Arterial Highway- 110' RNV) to include dedication of full-width street right-of-way, installation of half-width street R:~S P~Roripaugh Ranch SPXnevAPC Staff Report 10-16~02~Resos and ord (EJP)-final 100 improvements including a 14-foot wide raised landscaped median and a 14-foot wide travel lane adjacent to the median on the unimproved half, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, and utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer). Driveways shall be constructed to provide access to the MWD property and easement. iii. Improve Butterfield Stage Road from Nicolas Road to Murrieta Hot Springs Road (Augmented Arterial Highway - 122' R/W) to include dedication of full-width street right-of-way, installation of half-width street improvements plus a 14-foot wide raised landscaped median and a 12-foot travel lane adjacent to the median on the unimproved half, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, and utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer). Dedicate full-width right-of-way on Butterfield Stage Road from Murrieta Hot Springs Road to the northern project boundary (Arterial Highway - 110' R/W). Vo Improve Butterfield Stage Road from Nicolas Road to the southern project boundary (Arterial Highway - 110' R/W) to include dedication of full-width street right-of-way, installation of half-width street improvements including a 14-foot wide raised landscaped median and a 14-foot wide travel lane adjacent to the median on the unimproved half, full-width bridge structures over Santa Gertrudis Creek and Long Valley Wash, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, and utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer). vi. Improve Nicolas Road from Butterfield Stage Road to the western project boundary (Modified Secondary Highway - 110' R/VV) to include dedication of full-width street right-of-way, installation of the northerly half-width plus 10 feet street improvements including paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, soft surface path, split rail fence, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, and utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer). vii. Improve South Loop Road from Butterfield Stage Road to the end of the fire station site frontage (Modified Principal Collector Road - 76' R/W) to include dedication of full-width street right-of-way, installation of the southerly half-width plus 6 feet street improvements including paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, and utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer). Prior to issuance of the 400"' building permit, the following improvements shall be completed: Improve "F' Street along Lot 8 frontage (Modified Collector Road - 66' R/W) to include dedication of full-width street right-of-way, installation of full-width street improvements including paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, and utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer). R:",S I~Rofipaugh Ranch SP~nevAPC Staff Report 10-16~}2'dReso~ and ord (EJP)-fina] 101 iX. Improve North Loop Road from Butterfield Stage Road to the east side of Santa Gertrudis Creek (Modified Principal Collector Road - 76' R/W) to include dedication of full-width street right-of-way, installation of full-width street improvements including a full-width bridge over Santa Gertrudis Creek, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, and utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer). b. OFFSITE ROAD IMPROVEMENTS Prior to issuance of the 108th building permit, the following improvements shall be completed: Improve Nicolas Road from the western project boundary to 450 feet east of the existing Nicolas Road/Calle Girasol intersection (Modified Secondary Road - 110' R/W, Section K) to include installation of 40-foot width on center improvements, paving, asphalt concrete berm including signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer) and a 6-foot wide curb separated asphalt concrete path on the north side. iX. The Developer shall obtain permission from adjacent affected property owners to allow for grading and any related driveway improvements necessary to continue to allow legal vehicular access onto Nicolas Road through the use of some mechanism approved by the City's Public Works Department including but not limited to: permission to grade offsite letters, blanket or specific right of entry letters, and temporary construction easements. Provide secondary access by constructing improvements for one of the following options: If Nicolas Road is designated as the secondary access route, the following improvements shall be completed: Construct 40 foot on center improvements (Modified Secondary Road - 110' R/W, Section K) from 450 feet east of the existing Nicolas Road/Calle Girasol intersection to Leifer Road including the full-width bridge structure over and within Santa Gertrudis Creek. ii. Realign existing Calle Girasol to its ultimate intersection with Nicolas Road including right-of-way acquisition. iii. The Developer shall provide adequate bank protection, as approved by the City Department of Public Works and RCFC&WCD, to Santa Gertrudis Creek between Buttedield Stage Road and the western project boundary and from 450 feet east of the Nicolas Road/Calle Girasol intersection to Leifer Road prior to the issuance of the 108th building permit if Nicolas Road is chosen to provide secondary access and the 510th building permit if is not. Nicolas Road will not be R:~ lt~Roripaugh Ranch SP, new'tPC Slaff Report 10-16~)2~o, csos aad ord 102 accepted into the City's maintained street system until all offsite channel improvements are complete and accepted by the City and RCFC&WCD. If Calle Chapos from Butterfield Stage Road to Walcott Lane and Calle Chapos from Walcott Lane to the existing Nicolas Road/Calle Girasol intersection is designated as secondary access, the following improvements shall be completed: Construct 38-foot width on center improvements (Modified Collector Road - 66' R/W, Section L) from Butterfield Stage Road to the Nicolas Road/Calle Girasol intersection. ii. Construct 38-foot width on center improvements including horizontal realignment and right-of-way acquisition, as required by the City Fire Chief and City Engineer, from Walcott Lane to the existing Nicolas Road/Calle Girasol intersection. Co If Butterfield Stage Road (Arterial Highway- 110' R/W) is designated as secondary access, construct half-width improvements from the southern project boundary to Chimen Clinet including dedication of full-width street right-of-way, installation of half-width street improvements, including a 14-foot wide raised landscaped median and a 14-foot wide travel lane adjacent to the median on the unimproved half, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, and utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer), excluding any existing improvements. c. TRAFFIC SIGNALS The developer must make a fair share contribution towards the improvement of the following intersections identified below. Additional or supplemental traffic studies shall be conducted prior to approval of future tentative tract maps. If these studies confirm that these intersections are operating below LOS D or otherwise pose an unsafe condition, then the developer shall be responsible for mitigating these conditions, in addition to the mitigation measures already identified in the EIR. st Prior to issuance of the 1 building permit in Lots 1-7, 8, and 22 iii. 1-15 Freeway (Southbound Ramps) at Rancho California Road: southbound left-turn lane, southbound free right-turn lane, westbound free right-turn lane, and eastbound free right-turn lane. 1-215 Freeway (Southbound Ramps) at Murrieta Hot Springs Road: southbound left-turn lane, southbound right-turn lane, eastbound through lane, eastbound right-turn lane, westbound through lane, and westbound free right-turn lane. Ynez Road at Winchester Road: southbound right-turn overlap. Ynez Road at Rancho California Road: eastbound through lane. 103 viii. North General Kearney Road at Nicolas Road: traffic signal. Butterfield Stage Road at Rancho California Road: traffic signal. Murrieta Hot Springs Road at Alta Murrieta: lane improvements as yet undetermined. The developer shall provide the City of Temecula with a letter from the City of Murrieta stating that a fair share contribution to identified improvements at this intersection has been made. Murrieta Hot Springs Road at Pourroy Road: construct traffic signal and related intersection improvements as warranted. d. WATER IMPROVEMENTS ii. Install water mains per Eastern Municipal Water District requirements. iii. The Developer shall install reclaimed water lines to irrigate landscaped areas to the satisfaction of the Public Works and Temecula Community Services Departments if throughout the course of development and until such time the project is complete, reclaimed water lines become available within 300 feet of any project boundary. e. SEWER IMPROVEMENTS Install sewer main in Murrieta Hot Springs Road from Pourroy Road to the MWD Easement. ii. Install sewer main in Nicolas Road per Eastern Municipal Water District requirements. f. DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS i. Construct detention basin west of Lot 1 and detention basin south of Lot 5 along southern "Plateau" area. ii. Construct storm drains and related outlet facilities as required by the hydrology/hydraulics studies. SPECIFIC PLAN PHASE 2 Prior to issuance of the 510th building permit or any building permit in Phase 2, the following improvements must be completed: a. ONSITE ROAD IMPROVEMENTS Improve Murrieta Hot Springs Road from the MWD Easement to Butterfield Stage Road (Modified Arterial Highway - 110' R/W) to include installation of remaining half-width street improvements, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer). A 14-foot wide raised landscaped median shall be constructed in Phase 1. ii. Improve Buttedield Stage Road from Murrieta Hot Springs Road to Nicolas Road (Augmented Arterial Highway- 122' R/VV) to include installation of R:~S P~Roripaugh Ranch SP~ncw~C Staff Report 10-16-02~Resos ~ud ord (EJP)-final 104 remaining half-width street improvements, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, and utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer). A 14-foot wide raised landscaped median shall be constructed in Phase 1. iii. Improve Butterfield Stage Road from Nicolas Road to the southern project boundary (Arterial Highway - 110' R/W) to include installation of remaining half-width improvements including installation of paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer). A 14-foot wide raised landscaped median shall be constructed in Phase 1. iV. Construct or bond for grading and full-width improvements on Butterfield Stage Road from Murrieta Hot Springs Road to the northern project boundary (Arterial Highway - 110' R/W) to include installation of full-width street improvements including a 14-foot wide raised landscaped median, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, and utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer). Improve North Loop Road and South Loop Road (Modified Principal Collector Road - 76' R/W) to include dedication of full-width street right-of- way, installation of full-width street improvements, construction of a full- width bridge over Long Valley Wash, raised landscaped median, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, and utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer). vi. Improve Nicolas Road from Butterfield Stage Road to the western project boundary (Modified Secondary Highway - 110' R/W, Section D) to include remaining southerly half-width street improvements including paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, soft surface path, split rail fence, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, and utilities {including but not limited to water and sewer). OFFSITE ROAD IMPROVEMENTS Improve Butterfield Stage Road from the southern project boundary to Rancho California Road excluding existing improvements (Arterial Highway - 110' R/W) to include installation of full-width improvements except sidewalk on the County side, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer), and a 14-foot wide raised landscaped median. ii. Improve Nicolas Road from 450 feet east of the Nicolas Road/Calle Girasol intersection to Leifer Road (Modified Secondary Road - 110' R/W, Section K) to include dedication of full-width street right-of-way, installation of 40-foot width improvements including full-width bridge improvements at Santa Gertrudis Creek, paving, asphalt concrete berm, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer) and a curb separated asphalt concrete path along the northerly side, iii. Improve Calle Chapos from Butterfield Stage Road to Walcott Lane (Modified Collector Road - 66' R/W, Section L) to include installation of 38-foot on center improvements to include paving, asphalt concrete berm, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer). iv. Realign existing Calle Girasol to its ultimate intersection with Nicolas Road including right-of-way acquisition. c. TRAFFIC SIGNALS - Install, as warranted, at the following intersections: The developer must make a fair share contribution towards the improvement of the following intersections identified below. Additional or supplemental traffic studies shall be conducted prior to approval of future tentative tract maps. If these studies confirm that these intersections are operating below LOS D or othenNise pose an unsafe condition, then the developer shall be responsible for mitigating these conditions, in addition to the mitigation measures already identified in the EIR. Prior to issuance of 1st building permit in Phase 2 as defined in the Specific Plan vi. vii. viii. ix. xi. xii. Butterfield Stage Road and Nicolas Road/North Loop Road: construct traffic signal and related intersection improvements, as warranted. Butterfield Stage Road and Calle Chapos/South Loop Road: construct traffic signal and related intersection improvements, as warranted. Murrieta Hot Springs Road and Butterfield Stage Road: construct traffic signal and related intersection improvements, as warranted. La Serena Way and Meadows Parkway: construct traffic signal and related intersection improvements, as warranted. 1-15 Freeway (Southbound Ramps) at Winchester Road: southbound left- turn lane, southbound right-turn lane, westbound through lane, westbound free right-turn lane, eastbound through lane, and eastbound free right-turn lane. I-15 Freeway (Northbound Ramps) at Winchester Road: northbound left- turn lane, northbound free right-turn lane, westbound through lane, and westbound free right-turn lane. 1-15 Freeway (Northbound Ramps) at Rancho California Road: northbound left-turn and right-turn lanes. Ynez Road at Winchester Road: southbound left-turn lane, southbound right-turn overlap, and eastbound left-turn lane. Ynez Road at Rancho California Road: westbound left-turn lane, westbound right-turn lane, eastbound through lane, southbound through lane, southbound free right-turn lane, and eastbound free right-turn lane. Margarita Road at Winchester Road: eastbound left-turn lane, southbound right-turn lane, westbound right-turn lane, and southbound right-turn overlap. Margarita Road at Rancho California Road: northbound and southbound through lanes, southbound right-turn lane, eastbound left-turn lane, eastbound right-turn overlap, westbound left-turn lane, northbound right- turn lane, and westbound right-turn overlap. Margarita Road at Murrieta Hot Springs Road: northbound shared left- through lane, eastbound through lane, and westbound through lane. R:~ P'~Roripaugh Raach SP~new~C Staff Report 10-16-02~Resos and old (EJp)-final 106 xiii. Winchester Road at Nicolas Road: northbound left-turn lane, northbound frae right-turn lane, westbound left-turn lane, northbound through lane, southbound left-turn lane, southbound through lane, and eastbound right- turn overlap. xiv. Winchester Road at Murrieta Hot Springs Road: northbound through lane, southbound through lane, and westbound through lane. xv. Butterfield Stage Road at Rancho California Road: northbound left-turn lane, northbound through lane, southbound left-turn lane, southbound through lane, eastbound left-turn lane, eastbound through lane, westbound left-turn lane, and westbound through lane. xvi. Calle Contento at Rancho California Road: eastbound left-turn lane, eastbound through lane, westbound left-turn lane, and westbound through lane. f. ONSITE DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS ii. Install full width box culverts or equivalent drainage facilities where Santa Gertrudis Creek crasses North Loop Road and Butterfield Stage Road. The drainage facilities shall be designed to convey the tributary 100-year storm flows. iii. Install full width box culverts or equivalent drainage facilities whera Long Valley Wash crasses South Loop Road and Butterfield Stage Road. The drainage facilities shall be designed to convey the tributary 100-year storm flows. iv, Construct Santa Gertrudis Craek Channel through Lots 33, 37 and 38. The channel shall be designed to convey the tributary 100-year storm flow and have adequate bank hardening and/or other treatment to protect the adjacent properties from flooding. Construct the detention basin on Lot 38. The detention basin should be designed to regulate outflow rate such that the peak flow in Santa Gertrudis Creek west of Butterfield Stage Road is equal to or less than the undeveloped condition. vi. Construct the flow-by basin on Lot 34. The flow-by basin should be designed to regulate outflow rate such that the peak flow in Long Valley Wash west of Butterfield Stage Road is equal to or less than the undeveloped condition. vii. Construct Long Valley Wash through Lots 34 and 35. The channel shall be designed to convey the tributary 100-year storm flow and have adequate bank hardening and/or other treatment to protect the adjacent properties from flooding. g. OFFSITE DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS Construct Santa Gertrudis Creek Channel from the box culvert or equivalent drainage facility crossing Butterfield Stage Road westerly to the confluence with the existing Long Valley Wash o The channel shall be designed to convey the tributary 100-year storm flow, have adequate bank hardening and/or other treatment to protect the adjacent properties from flooding. The channel shall be extended a sufficient distance and designed in a manner that flows will return to the existing conditions at the outlet point. Access roads shall be constructed as necessary to provide adequate channel maintenance. The channel, access roads and confluence structures shall be contained within drainage easements obtained by the developer. h. WATER IMPROVEMENTS ii. Install water mains per Eastern Municipal Water District requirements and per Rancho California Water District requirements, as necessary. iii. The Developer shall install reclaimed water lines to irrigate landscaped areas to the satisfaction of the Public Works and Temecula Community Services Departments if throughout the course of development and until such time the project is complete, reclaimed water lines become available within 300 feet of any project boundary. i. SEWERIMPROVEMENTS Install a 21-inch sewer line in Nicolas Road from Butterfield Stage Road to Leifer Road and then to Joseph Road where it will connect to an existing 21-inch sewer line. ii. Install sewer mains per Eastern Municipal Water District requirements and City Standard No. 609. Trench shall be per City Standard No. 407, which will require the overlay of half of Nicolas Road between Leifer Road and Joseph Road. COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT General Requirements: 75. If any of the following conditions of approval differ from the Specific Plan text or exhibits, the conditions enumerated herein shall take precedent. 76. All perimeter slope/landscape areas designated as Temecula Community Services District (TCSD) maintenance areas, shall be identified and offered for dedication to the TCSD as a maintenance easement on the final map. Underlying ownership of the respective areas shall remain with the individual property owner or the Homeowner's Association. All other landscape areas, open space, trails, entry monumentation, signage, pedestrian portals, bus shelters, pedestrian bridge, fences, walls and private gated areas shall be maintained by the Homeowner's Association (HOA), private maintenance association or property owner. 77. The c~urrent park dedication requirement (Quimby) for this development is 28.71 acres, based on 2015 single family units. This requirement shall be satisfied with the 19.7 acre community sports park (Lot 30), the 5.1 acre neighborhood park (Lot 8) and the HOA owned and maintained recreational areas identified in the Roripaugh Specific Plan R:~S I'~Rofipaugh Ranch Sl~lewhnC Staff Report 10-16-02hReso~ and ord (E, lP)-final 108 including the private recreation centers (Lots 5 and 27) and the private mini park (Lot 2). 78. The design of the 19.7 acre community sports park (Lot 30) and the 5.1 acre neighborhood park (Lot 8) shall be in substantial conformance with the conceptual designs and guidelines identified within the Specific Plan. Prior to submittal of construction plans, the developer shall meet with the Director of Community Services to determine the location and specifications of the park amenities to be provided on site. Construction plans and specifications must be approved by the Director of Community Services. 79. All park and slope/landscape plans submitted for consideration for TCSD maintenance shall be in conformance with the City of Temecula Landscape and Irrigation Specifications and Installation Details and the Park Land and Landscape Dedication Process. 80. The design of the 19.7 acre community sports park (Lot 30) and the 5.1 acre neighborhood park (Lot 8) shall provide for pedestrian circulation and shall be in compliance with American with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements. 81. The developer is entitled to receive a credit against the park and recreation component of the City's Development Impact Fee (DIF) pursuant to a Development Agreement or a DIF Credit Agreement between the applicant and the City prior to approval of the final map. 82. Construction of the 19.7 acre community sports park, the 5.1 acre neighborhood park, landscaped medians and proposed TCSD slope/landscape maintenance areas shall commence pursuant to a pre-construction meeting with the developer and TCSD Ma!ntenance Superintendent. Failure to comply with the TCSD review and inspection process may preclude acceptance of these areas into the TCSD maintenance programs. 83. The Home Owner's Association (HOA) portion of Lot 8 shall be developed concurrently with the public park portion of Lot 8, The City will not accept the conveyance of the public park until all improvements have been completed within Lot 8. The developer, the developer's successor or assignee, shall be responsible for all maintenance of the park sites, slopes/landscape areas and landscaped medians until such time as those responsibilities are accepted by the TCSD or other responsible party. 85. The public parks shall be improved and conveyed to the City free and clear of any liens, assessment fees, or easements that would preclude the City from utilizing the property for public purposes. A policy of title insurance for the value of the land and the cost of the improvements and a soils assessment report shall also be provided with the conveyance of the property. 86. The design of the private mini-park (Lot 2) and the private recreation centers (Lots 5 and 27) shall be consistent with the conceptual designs and guidelines identified in the RoriPaugh Specific Plan, 87. Class II bicycle lanes, as specified in the Roripaugh Specific Plan, shall be identified on the street improvements plans and constructed in concurrence with the completion of said street improvements. 109 88. A multi-use trail will be constructed along both sides of Long Valley Channel (Lot 35) and along the north side of Lot 34. If the maintenance marls for the Long Valley Channel are proposed for this purpose, written authorization from RCFCWCD must be provided to the City allowing public access for trail purposes prior to approval of any tentative map for the Valley portion. If RCFCWCD determines that that the "River Walk" cannot be located within the channel right-of-way, then the trail area shall be located outside the flood control area. These trails shall be designed and shown on the respective tentative map for this area. 89. The developer shall dedicate on the final map a fifteen (15) foot easement for public access within the 30 foot fuel modification zone and construct an equestrian trail along the westerly edge of Lot 22, the southerly edge of Lots 20, 21, and 22 and the easterly edge of Lots 19 and 34. 90. All residential street lighting will be maintained by the Home Owner's Association (HOA), 91, The developer shall contact the City's franchise solid waste hauler for disposal of the construction debris. Only the City's franchisee may haul construction debris. 92. The developer shall provide adequate space for a recycling bin within any trash enclosure in the commercial area (Lot 10). Prior to Approval of the Final Map: 93. All slope/landscape areas intended for dedication to the TCSD for maintenance shall be identified on each final map by numbered lots with the square footage of said lot numbers indexed as proposed TCSD maintenance areas. 94, Construction drawings for all parks, landscaped medians and proposed TCSD slope/landscape maintenance areas shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Services prior to the approval of the respective final map, 95. The developer shall post security and enter into an agreement to improve the public parks, landscaped medians and proposed TCSD slope/landscape maintenance areas prior to the approval of the respective final map. 96. An equestrian crossing shall be approved by the Water Quality Control Board 0NQCB) for the multi-purpose trail connection between Lots 19 and 20 across the easterly edge of Lot 34 prior to the approval of the respective final map. 97. The developer shall file a notice of intention with the Temecula Community Services District to initiate election proceedings for acceptance perimeter slope/landscape into the TCSD maintenance program. All costs associated with this process shall be borne by the developer. Prior to Issuance of Building Permits: 98. Prior to issuance of building permits, the developer shall provide TCSD verification of arrangements made with the City's franchise solid waste hauler for disposal of construction debris. R:~S P~Roripaugh Ranch SI~nevAPC Staff RepoR 10-16-02~Resos and ord (EJP)~final 110 99. 100. 101. The private mini-park (Lot 2) shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Community Services Director prior to the issuance of the 100th residential building permit. The park portion of the private recreation center (Lot 5) shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Community Services Director prior to the issuance of the 250th residential building permit in Lots 1,3, 4, 6 and 7. The building and the pool portion of the private recreation center (Lot 5) shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Community Services Director prior to the issuance of the 350t~ residential building permit Lots 1, 3, 4, 6 and 7. 102. The 5.1 acre neighborhood park (Lot 8) shall be improved, including the completion of the 90-day maintenance period, and the conveyance accepted by the City Council prior to the issuance of the 400"~ residential building permit for the overall Roripaugh Development. 103. The Paseo connecting Lot 7 and Lot 8 shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Community Services Director prior to the issuance or the 400t~ residential building permit in Lots 1, 3, 4, 6 and 7. 104. The Nature Walk and adjacent landscape areas (Lot 36) shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Community Services Director prior to the issuance of the 400th residential building permit in Lots 1,3, 4, 6 and 7. 105. The 19.7 acre sports park (Lot 30) shall be improved including the completion of the 90- day maintenance period, and the conveyance accepted by the City Council prior to the issuance of the 700th residential building permit for the overall Roripaugh Development. 106. The park portion of the private recreation center (Lot 27) shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Community Services Director prior to the issuance of the 800~h residential building permit for the overall Roripaugh Development. 107. The building and the pool portion of the private recreation center (Lot 27) shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Community Services Director prior to the issuance of the 1150t~ residential building permit for the overall Roripaugh Development. 108. The "River Walk" and the landscaping adjacent to the maintenance roads on both sides of Long Valley Wash (Lot 35) and along the north side of Lot 34 shall be completed prior to the issuance of the 1st residential building permit in the Valley portion (Phase 2). 109. If the maintenance road along the north side of Long Valley Wash cannot be used for a multi-use trail, a separate trail with landscaping shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Community Services Director prior to the issuance of the 50th building permit in Lot 26. 110. If the maintenance road along the south side of Long Valley Wash cannot be used for a multi-use trail, a separate trail with landscaping shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Community Services Director prior to the issuance of the 75t~ building permit in Lots 23, 24 and 25. R:'~S l~Roiipaugh Ranch SP~ncw~C Staff Rcport 10-164)2~Resos and ord (ElP)-final 111 111. A pedestrian bridge will be constructed across Long Valley Wash (Lot 35) connecting Lots 24 and 26 to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director and the Community Services Director prior to the issuance of the 75th building permit in Lots 23, 24 and 25. 112. The developer shall construct a 15 foot soft surface trail within the 30 foot fuel modification zone to the satisfaction of the Community Services Director along the westerly edge of Lot 22, the southerly edge of Lots 20, 21, and 22 and the easterly edge of Lots 19 and 34 prior to the issuance of the first building permit in Lots, 19, 20 and 21. 113. Prior to the installation of arterial street lights or issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first, the developer shall file an application, submit approved Southern California Edison street light plans and pay the appropriate fees to the TCSD for the dedication of arterial street lights into the appropriate TCSD maintenance program. Prior to Issuance of Certificates of Occupancy: 114. Prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy within each phase map, the developer shall submit the most current list of Assessor's Parcel Numbers assigned to the final project. 115. It shall be the developer's responsibility to provide written disclosure of the existence of TCSD and its service level rates and charges to all prospective purchasers. FIRE DEPARTMENT 116. Any previous existing conditions for this project will remain in full force and effect unless superceded by more stringent requirements here. 117. Final fire and life safety conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed by the Fire Prevention Bureau. These conditions will be based on occupancy, use, the California Building Code (CBC), California Fire Code (CFC), and related codes which are in fome at the time of building plan submittal. 118. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set a minimum fire flow for residential land division per CFC Appendix III.A, Table A-III-A-1. The developer shall provide for this project, a water system capable of delivering 1500 GPM at 20-PSI residual operating pressure with a 2-hour duration. The required fire flow may be adjusted during the approval process to reflect changes in design, construction type, or automatic fire protection measures as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau. The Fire Flow as given above has taken into account all information as provided. (CFC 903.2, Appendix ~i~-A) 119. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set minimum fire hydrant distances per CFC Appendix III.B, Table A-III-B-1. Standard fire hydrants (6" x 4" x 2 1/2" outlets) shall be located on Fire Department access roads and adjacent public streets. Hydrants shall be spaced at 500 feet apart, at each intersection and shall be located no more than 250 feet from any point on the street or Fire Department access road(s) frontage to a hydrant. The required fire flow shall be available from any adjacent hydrant(s) in the system. The upgrade of existing fire hydrants may be required. (CFC 903.2, 903.4.2, and Appendix R:xS P~Rolipaugh Ranch SPXaew~PC Staff Report 10-16~)2~Resos and oral (EJP)-final 112 Ill-B) 120. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set a minimum fire flow for commemial land division per CFC Appendix Ill-A, Table A-III-A-1. The developer shall provide for this project, a water system capable of delivering 4000 GPM at 20-PSI residual operating pressure with a 4 hour duration. The required fire flow may be adjusted during the approval process to reflect changes in design, construction type, or automatic fire protection measures as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau. The Fire Flow as given above has taken into account all information as provided. (CFC 903.2, Appendix Ill-A) 121. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set minimum fire hydrant distances per CFC Appendix Ill-B, Table A-III-B-1. Super fire hydrants (6" x 4" x 2-2 1/2" outlets) shall be located on Fire Department access reads and adjacent public streets. Hydrants shall be spaced at 350 feet apart, at each intersection and shall be located no more than 210 feet from any point on the street or Fire Department access read(s) frontage to a hydrant. The required fire flow shall be available from any adjacent hydrant(s) in the system. The upgrade of existing fire hydrants may be required. (CFC 903.2, 903.4.2, and Appendix Ill-B) 122. Maximum cul-de-sac length shall not exceed 1320 feet. Minimum turning radius on any cul-de-sac shall be thirty-seven (37) feet for residential and forty-five (45) feet for commercial. (CFC 902.2.2,3, CFC 902,2.2.4) 123. Private entry driveways with divider medians must be a minimum of 16 feet wide on each side unless the median is held back 30 feet from face of curb of perpendicular road. 124. If construction is phased, each phase shall provide approved access and fire protection prior to any building construction. (CFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2) This will include all internal roads, connecting roads between phases, and construction gates. All required access must be in and available prior to and during ALL construction. Phasing is approved on a separate map, and is ultimately subject to final approval in the field. 125. Prior to building construction, all locations where structures are to be built shall have approved temporary Fire Department vehicle access roads for use until permanent roads are installed. Temporary Fire Department access reads shall be an all weather surface for 80,000 lbs. GVVV. (CFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2.2) 126. Prior to building final, all locations where structures are to be built shall have approved Fire Department vehicle access roads to within 150 feet to any portion of the facility or any portion of an exterior wall of the building(s). Fire Department access roads shall be an all weather surface designed for 80,000 lbs. GV~N with a minimum AC thickness of .25 feet. ( CFC sec 902) 127. Fire Department vehicle access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than twenty-four (24) feet and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than thirteen (13) feet six (6) inches. (CFC 902.2.2.1) 128. Prior to building construction, dead end road ways and streets in excess of one hundred and fifty (150) feet which have not been completed shall have a turnaround capable of 113 accommodating fire apparatus. (CFC 902.2.2.4) 129. Prior to building construction, this development and any street within serving more than 35 homes or any commercial developments shall have two (2) points of access, via all- weather surface roads, as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau. (CFC 902.2.1) 130. Prior to issuance of building permits, the developer shall furnish one copy of the water system plans to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation. Plans shall be: signed by a registered civil engineer; contain a Fire Prevention Bureau approval signature block; and conform to hydrant type, location, spacing and minimum fire flow standards. After the plans are signed by the local water company, the originals shall be presented to the Fire Prevention Bureau for signatures. The required water system including fire hydrants shall be installed and accepted by the appropriate water agency prior to any combustible building materials being placed on an individual lot. (CFC 8704.3, 901.2.2.2 and National Fire Protection Association 24 1-4.1) 131. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, "Blue Reflective Markers" shall be installed to identify fire hydrant locations. (CFC 901.4.3) 132. All manual and electronic gates on required Fire Depadment access roads or gates obstructing Fire Department building access shall be provided with the Knox Rapid entry system for emergency access by firefighting personnel. (CFC 902.4) Special Conditions 133. Prior to issuance of building permits, fuel modification plans shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for review and approval for all open space areas adjacent to the wildland-vegetation interface. (FC Appendix II-A) 134. Prior to issuance of building permits, plans for structural protection from vegetation fires shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for review and approval. The measures shall include, but are not limited to, enclosing eaves, noncombustible barriers (cement or block walls), and fuel modification zones. (CFC Appendix II-A) 135. Prior to map recordation the applicant shall submit to the Fire Prevention Bureau a georectified (pursuant to Riverside County standards) digital version of the map including parcel and street centerline information. The electronic file will be provided in a ESRI Arclnfo/ArcView compatible format and projected in a State Plane NAD 83 (California Zone VI ) coordinate system. The Bureau must accept the data as to completeness, accuracy and format prior to satisfaction of this condition. By placing my signature below, I confirm that I have read, understand and accept all the above Conditions of Approval. I further understand that the property shall be maintained in conformance with these conditions of approval and that any changes I may wish to make to the project shall be subject to Community Development Department approval. Applicant Signature R:XS P~Roripaugh Ranch SP~new~PC Staff Report 10-164)2~Resos and ord (EJP)-final 114 EXHIBIT B CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 29661 R:\S P\Roripaugh Ranch SP~ew~PC Staff Repod 10-16-02~C Staff Report 10-16-02.doc 40 CC RESOLUTION NO. 2002- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA01-0253 (TTM 29661), B Map FOR THE SUBDIVISION OF 158 ACRES INTO 509 RESIDENTIAL LOTS AND 20 OPEN SAPCE LOTS WITHIN PLANING AREAS lA, 1,B, 2, 3, 4A, 4B, 5, 6, 7A, 7B, 7C, 8, and 9A OF THE RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN; LOCATED NEAR THE FUTURE INTERSECTION OF BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD AND MURRIETA HOT SPRINGS ROAD, AND FURTHER IDENTIFIED AS ASSESSOR PARCEL NOS. 957-130-001 and 002, 957-340- 001,003, 007, 008. WHEREAS, Ashby USA, LLC filed Planning Application No. 01-0253 (Level "B' Map) - Tentative Tract Map No. 29661 (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 October 16, 2002, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by taw, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did, testify either in support or opposition to this matter; WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearings and after due consideration of the testimony, the Commission recommended approval of the Application subject to and based upon the findings set forth hereunder; WHEREAS, the City Council considered the Application on 2001, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support or opposition to this matter; WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Council hearing and after due consideration of the testimony, the Council approved of the Application, and certified the Environmental Impact Report and adopted the Mitigation Monitoring Program after finding that the project proposed in the Application conformed to the City of Temecula General Plan; WHEREAS, all legal preconditions to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby incorporated by reference. Section 2. Findinqs. That the City Council, in approving the Application, hereby makes the following findings as required in Section 16.09.140 of the Temecula Municipal Code. R:XS P~Rofipaugh Ranch SP~new~PC StaffReport 10-16~)2~Resos and ord (EJP)-final 116 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 Municipat Code; B. The proposed subdivision map is consistent with the subject specific plan and related General Plan Amendment. C. The tentative map does not propose to divide land which is subject to a contract entered into pursuant to the California Land Conservation Act of 1965, or the land is subject to a Land Conservation Act contract but the resulting parcels following division of the land will not be too small to sustain their agricultural use; D. The site is physically suitable for the type and proposed density of development proposed by the tentative map; E. The design of the subdivisions and the proposed improvements, with conditions of approval, are not likely to cause significant environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat as no sensitive species or habitant exist within the project boundaries; F. 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; G. The design of the subdivisions and the type of improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems; H. The design of the subdivisions provides for future passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities in the subdivision to the extent feasible; I. The design of the subdivisions and the type of improvements will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision, or the design of the alternate easements which are substantially equivalent to those previously acquired by the public will be provided. (Quimby). The subdivisions are consistent with the City's parkland dedication requirements Section 3, Environmental Compliance. Residential projects approved under a Specific Plan are exempt from further environmental review pursuant to Section 15182 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines. All environmental impacts were previously identified and in the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) and Mitigation Monitoring Program in order to approve the project. Section 4. Conditions. The City Council of the City of Temecula approves Planning Application No. 01-0253 (Exhibit B-l) - Tentative Tract Map No. 29661, for the subdivision of 158 Acres into 509 residential lots And 20 open Space Lots Within Planning Areas lA, lB, 2, 3, 4A, 4A, 5, 6, 7A, 7A, 7A, 8, and 9A of the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan, subject to the project specific conditions set forth on Exhibit B-2, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference together with any and all other necessary conditions that may be deemed necessary, R:~S P~Roripaugh Ranch SP~new~PC Staff Report 10-164)2~Resos and ord (EJP)-final I17 for the property located near the future intersection of Butterfield Stage Road and Murrieta Hot Springs Road, and further identified as Assessor Parcel Nos. 957-130-001 and 002, 957-340- 001,003, 007, 008. SectionS. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this .day of ,2002. A'FI'EST: Ron Roberts, Mayor Susan W. Jones, CMC/AAE City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) J, Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that Resolution No. 2002- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a mgularmeetingthere~ heldonthe AYES: NOES: ABSENT: of COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: OUNCILMEMBERS: 2002, by the following vote: Susan W. Jones, CMC/AAE City Clerk R:~S P~Rofipaugh Ranch SP~new~PC StaffReport 10-16-02hResos and ord (EJP)-final EXHIBIT B-1 CONDmONS OF APPROVAL FOR TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 29661 R:',,S P'~oripaugh Ranch SP~new'~PC Staff Report 10-16-02",PC Staff Report 10-16-02.doc 41 EXHIBIT B-2 CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Planning Application No.: PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 01-0253-TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 29661, (LEVEL "B' MAP) Project Description: The subdivision of 158 Acres into 509 residential lots And 20 open Space Lots Within Planning Areas lA, lB, 2, 3, 4A, 4A, 5, 6, 7A, 7A, 7A, 8, and 9A of the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan Assessor's Parcel Nos.: 957-130-001 and 002, 957-340-001,003, 007, 008 Approval Date: Expiration Date: PLANNING DIVISION General Requirements The tentative subdivision shall comply with the State of California Subdivision Map Act and to all the requirements of Temecula Subdivision Ordinance, unless modified by the conditions listed below. A time extension may be approved in accordance with the State Map Act and City Ordinance, upon written request, if made 30 days prior to the expiration date. The permittee/applicant shall indemnify, protect and hold harmless, the City and any agency or instrumentality thereof, and/or any of its officers, employees, and agents from any and all claims, actions, or proceedings against the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers, employees, and agents, to attack, set aside, void, annul, or seek monetary damages resulting from an approval of the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body including actions approved by the voters of the City, concerning the Planning Application which action is brought within the appropriate statute of limitations period and Public Resources Code, Division 13, Chapter 4 (Section 21000 et seq., including but not by the way of limitations Section 21152 and 21167). The City shall promptly notify the permittee/applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding brought forth within this time period. The City shall estimate the cost of the defense of the action and applicant shall deposit said amount with the City. City may require additional deposits to cover anticipated costs. City shall refund, without interest, any unused portions of the deposit once the litigation is finally concluded. Should the City fail to either promptly notify or cooperate fully, permittee/applicant shall not, thereafter be responsible to indemnify, defend, protect, or hold harmless the City, any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers, employees, or agents. Should the applicant fail to timely post the required deposit, the Director may terminate the land use approval without further notice to the applicant. RSS P~Roripaugh Ranch SP~new~PC StaffReport 10-164)2~Resos and ord (EJP)-final 121 This project and all subsequent projects within this site shall be consistent with Specific Plan No. 13, the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan. The project and all subsequent projects within this site shall comply with all mitigation measures identified within the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan, and the approved Mitigation Monitoring Program thereof. Within thirty (30) days of the final approval of the project by the City Council, the map shall be submitted to the Planning Department in final form for review and approval. The final form shall include all conditions of approval and all modifications made by the Planning Commission and City Council. The Developer shall disclose to all home buyers that Date Street is planned to be a six (6) lane urban arterial roadway and will include a freeway interchange pursuant to the City of Temecula General Plan Circulation Element. The approval granted by this Resolution shall become effective upon the Effective Date of the Development Agreement, as the term Effective Date is defined in the Development Agreement adopted concurrently with this Resolution. Enhanced landscaping shall be incorporated into the landscape plans for lot 520 in accordance with Figure 4-15 of the Specific Plan. The Nature Walk shall include enhanced landscaping adjacent to lots 103, 110, 313, and 316 to screen the Nature Walk from the Nicolas Valley. 10. A minimum of one parking space shall be provided for the Staff gated Primary Entry. 11. Notwithstanding any of the conditions contained herein, the Developer and the City may enter into a development agreement, pursuant to Government Code Section 65864 through 65869.5 or other agreement(s) requiring the Developer to: 1) advance the funding or construction of public improvements; 2) redefine the scope of any public improvement; 3) acquire or fund the acquisition of land for public purposes; and 4) waive any right to reimbursement for facilities or the dedication of land. Further, notwithstanding any of the conditions contained herein, Developer may seek an agreement for reimbursement for any improvements or facilities that qualify for reimbursement at such time as the City of Temecula adopts an ordinance for such reimbursement pursuant to and consistent with California Government Code Sections 66485 through 66489, inclusive, and further shall waive the same in the event of agreements, consistent with the foregoing, that require or include any or all of the terms set forth immediately above. Prior to Issuance of Gradinq Permits 11. A copy of the Rough Grading plans shall be submitted and approved by the Planning Division. 12. Prior to the approval of the grading plans, improvement plans, the final map, or any other plans requiring MWD approval that may impact their property and easement, the developer is responsible to provide the City with MWD approval for the said plans. R:~S P~orlpaugh Ranch SP~new~PC StaffReport 10-I6~)2~Resos and ord (EJP)-final 122 13. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 8.24 of the Temecula Municipal Code (Habitat Conservation) by paying the appropriate fee set forth in that ordinance or by providing documented evidence that the fees have already been paid. Prior to Recordation of the Final Map 14. The following shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Division: a. A copy of the Final Map. b. A copy of the Environmental Constraint Sheet (ECS) with the following notes: 1) 2) 3) This property is located within thirty (30) miles of Mount Palomar Observatory. All proposed outdoor lighting systems shall comply with the California Institute of Technology, Palomar Observatory recommendations, Ordinance No. 655. The Roripaugh Ranch Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared for this project and is on file at the City of Temecula Community Development Department - Planning Division. Lots 516 and 517 shall be designated as permanent open space. A copy of the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&R's) 1) CC&R's shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director. The CC&R's shall include liability insurance and methods of maintaining open space, recreation areas, parking areas, private roads, exterior of all buildings and all landscaped and open areas including parkways. 2) No lot or dwelling unit in the development shall be sold unless a corporation, association, property owner's group or similar entity has been formed with the right to assess all properties individually owned or jointly owned which have any rights or interest in the use of the common areas and common facilities in the development, such assessment power to be sufficient to meet the expenses of such entity, and with authority to control, and the duty to maintain, all of said mutually agreeable features of the development. Such entity shall operate under recorded CC&R's which shall include compulsory membership of all owners of lots and/or dwelling units and flexibility of assessments to meet changing costs of maintenance, repairs, and services. Recorded CC&R's shall permit enforcement by the City for provisions required as Conditions of Approval. The developer shall submit evidence of compliance with this requirement to, and receive approval of, the city prior to making any such sale. This condition shall not apply to land dedicated to the City for public purposes. 3) Every owner of a dwelling unit or lot shall own as an appurtenance to such dwelling unit or lot, either (1) an undivided interest in the common areas and facilities, or (2) a share in the corporation, or voting membership in an association owning the common areas and facilities. R:~S PW, oripaugh Ranch SP~nex'APC 5ltaffReport 10-164)2W. esos and ord (EJP)-final 123 4) The CC & Rs shall include lots 528, 529, 530, and 531 and lots as common areas to be maintained by the Homeowners Association. 13. Prior to the recordation of the final map, the precise location of paseos shall be determined consistent with the Specific Plan requirements. 14. Prior to the recordation of the final map, all Card Key Gated Entries shall include an approximately 10' wide landscaped planter at the intersection. 15. Prior to the approval of the grading plans, improvement plans, the final map, or any other plans requiring MWD approval that may impact their property and easement, the developer is responsible to provide the City with MWD approval for the said plans. 16. Prior to approval of the Final Map, the plans for the precise location of Paseos; parkway, median, slope, and fuel modification, Staff Gated Primary Entry, Card Key Entry, landscaping shall be submitted for approval. Prior to Issuance of Building Permits 15. The applicant shall conduct an acoustical study to ensure acceptable interior and exterior noise standards pursuant to the General Plan noise levels for residential and commercial structures. All recommend construction techniques, improvements and/or walls recommended in the acoustical report shall be incorporated into the construction of the structures and subdivision. 16. Prior to issuance of building permits, the landscape and architectural plans for Paseos, Paseo gates, walls and fences, Staff Gated Primary Entry, Card Key Entry, and private recreation facilities shall be submitted for approval. 17. The following shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Division: Three (3) copies of Construction Landscaping and Irrigation Plans. The location, number, genus, species, and container size of the plants shall be shown. The plans shall be consistent with the Water Efficient Landscaping Ordinance. The cover page shall identity the total square footage of the landscaped area for the site. The plans shall be accompanied by the following items: 1) Appropriate filing fee (per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule at time of submittal). 2) One (1) copy of the approved grading plan. 3) Water usage calculations per Chapter 17.32 of the Development Code (Water Efficient Ordinance). 4) Automatic irrigation for all landscaped areas and complete screening of all ground mounted equipment from the view of the public from streets and adjacent property for: Front yards and slopes within individual lots prior to issuance of occupancy permits for any lot(s). R:XS P~P. odpaugh Ranch SP~new~PC Staff Report 10-16-02~Resos and ord (EJP)-final 124 b. Private common areas prior to issuance of occupancy permits. All landscaping excluding Temecula Community Services District (TCSD) maintained areas and front yard landscaping which shall include, but may not be limited to private slopes and common areas. Wall and Fence Plans consistent with the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan and the Conceptual Landscape. Precise Grading Plans consistent with the approved rough grading plans including all structural setback measurements. 18. Roof-mounted mechanical equipment shall not be permitted within the subdivision, however solar equipment or any other energy saving devices shall be permitted with Planning Director' approval. 19. Lots 89 through 115, 201 through 211,298 through 316, and 435 through 453 Los shall have a minimum rear yard setback of 25'. Prior to Issuance of Occupancy Permits 20. If deemed necessary by the Director of Planning, the applicant shall provide additional landscaping to effectively screen various components of the project. 21. All required landscape planting and irrigation shall be installed consistent with the approved construction plans and shall be in a condition acceptable to the Director of Planning. The plants shall be healthy and free of weeds, disease, or pests. The irrigation system shall be properly constructed and in good working order. 22. Front yard and slope landscaping within individual lots shall be completed for inspection prior to issuance of each occupancy permit (excluding model home complex structures). 23. All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use allowed by this permit. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT The Department of Public Works recommends the following Conditions of Approval for this project. Unless stated otherwise, the Developer at no cost to any Government Agency shall complete all conditions. General Requirements 24. It is understood that the Developer correctly shows on the tentative map all existing and proposed easements, traveled ways, paseos, pedestrian trails, improvement constraints, detention basins and drainage courses, and their omission may require the project to be resubmitted for further review and revision. 25. A Grading Permit for mass, rough, and/or precise grading shall be obtained from the R:~S P~Roripaugh Ranch SP~new~PC StaffReport 10-164)2~Resos and ord (EJP)-final 125 Department of Public Works prior to commencement of any construction outside of the City-maintained road right-of-way. 26. An Encroachment Permit shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to commencement of any construction within an existing or proposed City right-of-way. An Encroachment Permit may be issued for all roads designated as private streets. 27. The Developer shall participate in a Cooperative Agreement with the County allowing the City to act on their behalf, if at the time prior to issuance of a grading permit in the County area the annexation process has not been completed. 28. The Developer shall submit a Maintenance Agreement to maintain flood control facilities for Santa Gertrudis Creek, Long Valley Wash, detention basins, and flowby basins located within the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan. It must be mutually agreeable to the City Director of Public Works, Riverside County Flood Control & Water Conservation District (RCFCWCD), and the Home Owners Association (HOA). The Maintenance Agreement shall contain a funding mechanism whereby all residential dwelling units in the proposed project will be equally assessed for the Santa Gertrudis Creek and Long Valley Wash maintenance. The Maintenance Agreement shall be executed prior to issuance of the first building permit. 29. The Developer shall agree to the formation of a Community Facilities District for the construction of, but not limited to, road, bridge, drainage, traffic signal, intersection, landscape, and fire station improvements in accordance with the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan. The form of the Agreement shall be subject to the approval of the City Engineer and City Attorney and shall be executed prior to final map recordation. 30. Adequate primary and secondary access shall be provided for each phase of development as approved by the Department of Public Works. Vehicular access easements shall be secured across undeveloped areas to provide secondary access. 31. Relinquish and waive right of access to and from Murrieta Hot Springs Road on the final map with the exception of three openings at Street "A", Street "N", Street "R", and Metropolitan Water District (MWD) proposed driveways. Driveway access shall be provided to MWD fee property and easement on both the north and south sides of the street. 32. The Developer shall, as required by the City and Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (RCFC&WCD), protect downstream properties from damages caused by alteration of the drainage patterns including concentration or diversion of flow and increases in flow and/or velocity. Protection shall be provided by constructing adequate channel improvements, drainage facilities, and by securing drainage easements as necessary. 33. All easements and/or right-of-way dedications shall be offered for dedication to the public or other appropriate agency and shall continue in force until the City accepts or abandons such offers. All dedications shall be free from all encumbrances as approved by the Department of Public Works. 34. The Developer shall make a good faith effort to acquire the required off-site property interests, and if he or she should fail to do so, the Developer shall, prior to submittal of R:~S P~Roripaugh Ranch SP~new~PC StaffReport 10-164)2~Resos and ord (EJP)-final 126 35. 36. the Final Map for recordation, enter into an agreement to complete the improvements pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act, Section 66462 and Section 66462.5. Such agreement shall provide for payment by the Developer of all costs incurred by the City to acquire the off-site property interests required in connection with the subdivision. Security of a portion of these costs shall be in the form of a cash deposit in the amount given in an appraisal report obtained by the Developer, at the Developer's cost. The appraiser shall have been approved by the City prior to commencement of the appraisal. All utility systems such as electric, including those which provide direct service to the project site and/or currently exist along public rights-of-ways adjacent to the site (except electrical lines rated 33 kv or greater), gas, telephone, water, sewer, and cable TV shall be placed underground, with easements provided as required, and designed and constructed in accordance with City Codes and the utility provider. All improvement plans, grading plans, landscape and irrigation plans shall be coordinated for consistency with adjacent projects and existing improvements contiguous to the site and shall be submitted on standard 24" x 36" City of Temecula mylars. Prior to Approval of the Final Map, unless other timing is indicated, the Developer shall complete the following or have plans submitted and approved, subdivision improvement agreements executed and securities posted: 37. Any delinquent property taxes shall be paid. 38. As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: City of Temecula Depadment of Public Works City of Temecula Planning Department City of Temecula Building & Safety Department Temecula Community Services District City of Temecula Fire Prevention Bureau Eastern Municipal Water District Metropolitan Water District Riverside County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Riverside County Health Department Cable TV Franchise Verizon Southern Califomia Edison Company Southern California Gas Company San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board U.S. Fish & Wildlife Department of Fish & Game R:~S P~Roripaugh Ranch SP~newWC StaffReport 10-164)2~Resos and ord (EJP)-final 127 q. Army Corps of Engineers 39. An Environmental Constraints Sheet (ECS) shall be prepared in conjunction with the Final Map to delineate identified environmental concerns and shall be recorded with the map. A copy of the ECS shall be transmitted to the Planning Department for review and approval. The following information shall be on the ECS: The delineation of the area within the 100-year floodplain. Special Study Zones. Geotechnical hazards identified in the project's geotechnical report. Archeological resources found on the site. 40. The Developer shall demonstrate that water in adequate volume and of adequate quality is available to serve project start-up through completion and full occupancy per requirements of Eastern Municipal Water District. 41. All road right-of-way shall be offered for dedication to the public or other appropriate agency and shall continue in force until the City accepts or abandons such offers. All dedications shall be free from all encumbrances as approved by the Department of Public Works. Private streets shall be retained by the Home Owners Association for maintenance. 42. All private streets, driveways, paseos, and drainage easements shall be retained and maintained by a Master Homeowners Association. 43. The Developer shall obtain road access easements for the extensions of Street "A" and Street "N", from the northern project boundary to Murrieta Hot Springs Road. 44. Private drainage easements for cross-lot drainage shall be required and shall be delineated and noted on the final map. 45. Easements, when required for roadway slopes, landscape easements, drainage facilities, utilities, etc., shall be shown on the final map if they are located within the land division boundary. All offers of dedication and conveyances shall be submitted for review and recorded as directed by the Department of Public Works. On-site drainage facilities located outside of road right-of-way shall be contained within drainage easements and shown on the final map. A note shall be added to the final map stating "drainage easements shall be kept free of buildings and obstructions." 46. The Developer shall construct the following public improvements to comply with Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan street cross sections, City of Temecula General Plan and City ordinances and standards, unless otherwise noted. Street Improvement, Storm Drain, Signing and Striping, Traffic Signal, and Traffic Control Plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works: Onsite Private Streets 47. Improve Private Street "N" (Specific Plan Private Street Standards - 60' R/E to 104.5' R/E) to include installation of full-width street improvements, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not RAS P~.oripaugh Ranch SP~new~PC StaffReport 10-16q)2~Resos and ord (EJP)-final 128 limited to water and sewer). Street "N" shall include a Staffed Gated Primary Entry as shown in Figure 4-19 in the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan and by reference made a part hereof. The Staffed Gated Primary Entry shall be constructed by the 250"' building permit. 48. Improve Private Street "A' (Specific Plan Private Street Standards - 47' PJE to 60' PJE) to include installation of full-width street improvements, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer). Street '%" shall include a Card Key Gated Secondary Entry as shown in Figure 4-21 in the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan and by reference made a part hereof. The Card Key Gated Secondary Entry shall be constructed when 30 percent of building permits have been issued in TTM 29661-1 and/or 'I-DM 29661-2. 49. Improve Private Street "R' (Specific Plan Private Street Standards - 47' R/E to 60' R/E) to include installation of full-width street improvements, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer). Street "R' shall include a Card Key Gated Secondary Entry as shown in Figure 4-22A in the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan and by reference made a part hereof. The Card Key Gated Secondary Entry shall be constructed when 30 percent of building permits have been issued in TTM 29661-4 and/or TTM 29661. 50. Improve Private Streets "A', "B', "C', "D", "E", "F", "G', "H", "1", ,,j., "L", "O", "P", "Q", "R", "S", "T", "U", "~f', "V~', "X", "DD', "HH" (Specific Plan Private Street Standards - 47' PJE with 4.5-foot wide public utility easements on both sides of street beyond road easement) to include installation of full-width street improvements, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer). "A" Street and "R" Street shall include a Card Key Gated Secondary Entry as shown in Figure 4-21 and Figure 4-22A, respectively, in the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan and by reference made a part hereof. 51. Improve Private Streets "K', "M" (Specific Plan Private Street Standards - 56' R/E with 4.5-foot wide public utility easements on both sides of street beyond road easement) to include installation of full-width street improvements, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer). 52. Private Driveways shall be constructed at a minimum width of 20 feet with no parking allowed to allow for fire service access. Private Driveways shall be allowed only at street knuckle locations. Offsite Public Streets 53. Improve Murrieta Hot Springs Road (Specific Plan Arterial Highway - 110' R/VV) from existing improvements east of Pourroy Road to the Metropolitan Water District (MWD) fee right-of-way and easement to include dedication of full-width street right-of-way, installation of full-width street improvements, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer), and a 14-foot wide raised landscaped median. The raised landscaped median and lane widths shall be transitioned, as necessary and as approved by the City Traffic Engineer, to coordinate existing County improvements and proposed City improvements. R:~S P~Roripaugh Ranch SPXnew~PC Staff Report 10-16-02XResos and ord (EJP)-final 129 54. Imp~'ove Murrieta Hot Springs Road (Specific Plan Modified Arterial Highway - 110' R/VV) from the MWD fee right-of-way and easement to Butterfield Stage Road to include dedication of full-width street right-of-way, installation of half-width street improvements including a 14-foot wide raised landscaped median and a 14-foot wide travel lane adjacent to the median on the unimproved half, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer). Driveway access shall be provided to Metropolitan Water District (MWD) fee property and easement. These MWD access driveways shall be constructed on both the north and south side of the street. 55. Improve Butterfield Stage Road (Specific Plan Augmented Arterial Highway - 122' RNV) from Murrieta Hot Springs Road to Nicolas Road to include dedication of full-width street right-of-way, installation of half-width street improvements including a 14-foot wide raised landscaped median and a 12ofoot wide travel lane adjacent to the median on the unimproved half, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer). 56. Dedicate full-width right-of-way and bond for the grading and street improvements for Butterfleld Stage Road (Specific Plan Arterial Highway- 110' RNV)from Murrieta Hot Springs Road to the northern project boundary. 57. Improve Butterfield Stage Road (Specific Plan Arterial Highway - 110' RAN) from Nicolas Road to the southern project boundary to include dedication of full-width street right-of-way, installation of half-width street improvements including a 14-foot wide raised landscaped median and a 14-foot wide travel lane adjacent to the median on the unimproved half, full-width bridge improvements over Santa Gertrudis Creek and Long Valley Wash, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer). 58. Improve Nicolas Road (Specific Plan Modified Secondary Highway - 110' RAM) from Butterfield Stage Road to the western project boundary to include dedication of full-width street right-of-way, installation of the northerly half-width plus 10 feet street improvements including paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, soft surface path, split rail fence, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, and utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer). 59. Improve Nicolas Road (Specific Plan Modified Secondary Road Standards - 110' RAN, Section K) from the western project boundary to 450 feet east of the existing Nicolas Road and Calle Girasol intersection to include installation of 40-foot width on center street improvements including, paving, asphalt concrete berm, a curb separated 6-foot wide asphalt concrete path placed 6 feet from asphalt concrete berm, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer). 60. Improve South Loop Road (Specific Plan Modified Principal Collector Road - 76' RAN) from Buttedield Stage Road to the end of the fire station site frontage to include dedication of full-width street right-of-way, installation of the southerly half-width plus 6 feet street improvements including paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer). 61. Improve Specific Plan "A" Street (Specific Plan Modified Collector Road - 66' RNV) along R:XS PkRoripaugh Ranch SPXnew~PC StaffRepori 10-16~02~Resos and ord (EIP)-final 130 Lot 518 frontage to include dedication of full-width street right-of"way, installation of full- width street improvements, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer). 62. Improve North Loop Road from Butterfield Stage Road to the east side of Santa Gertrudis Creek (Modified Principal Collector Road - 76' RAN) to include dedication of full-width street right-of"way, installation of full-width street improvements including a full- width bridge over Santa Gertrudis Creek, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, and utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer). Secondary Access Alternatives The following street improvements from one of the three alternatives listed below shall be constructed to provide secondary access. 63. Nicolas Road Alternative Improve Nicolas Road (Specific Plan Modified Secondary Road - 110' RAN, Section K) from the western project boundary to Leifer Road to include installation of 40-foot width on center street improvements including, paving, asphalt concrete berm, a curb separated 6-foot wide asphalt concrete path placed 6 feet from asphalt concrete berm on the north side, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer). In addition, these improvements shall include full-width bridge improvements over Santa Gertrudis Creek at the Nicolas Road and Calle Girasol intersection and the realignment of Calle Girasol to its ultimate intersection with Nicolas Road including right-of"way acquisition. In addition, the Developer shall provide adequate bank protection, as approved by the City Department of Public Works and RCFC&WCD, to Santa Gertrudis Creek between Butterfield Stage Road and the western project boundary and from 450 feet east of the Nicolas Road/Calle Girasol intersection to Leifer Road. 64. Calle Chapos/Calle Girasol Alternative Improve Calle Chapos (Specific Plan Modified Collector Road - 66' RNV, Section L) from Buttedield Stage Road to Calle Girasol to include dedication of full-width street right-of- way to accommodate horizontal curve realignments as approved by the Department of Public Works and the Fire Department, installation of 38-foot on-center street improvements including, paving, asphalt concrete berm, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer). 65. Buttedield Stage Road Alternative Improve Butterfield Stage Road (Specific Plan Arterial Highway Standards - 110' RNV) from the southern project boundary to Chemin Clinet to include dedication of full-width street right-of-way, installation of half"width street improvements including a 14-foot wide raised landscaped median and a 14-foot travel lane adjacent to the median on the unimproved half, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, and utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer). R:~S P~Roripaugh Ranch SP~newWC StaffReport 10-16q)2~P. esos and ord (EJP)-final 131 Bridges 66. Bridges shall be designed and constructed full-width on Buttedield Stage Road and North Loop Road over Santa Gertrudis Creek including channel improvements in the vicinity of the bridge structure prior to issuance of the 108th building permit. Bonds shall be posted to secure bridge improvements prior to recordation of final maps. 67. Bddge shall be designed and constructed full-width on Butterfield Stage Road over Long Valley Wash including channel improvements in the vicinity of the bridge structure prior to issuance of the 108th building permit. Bonds shall be posted to secure bridge improvements prior to recordation of final maps. 68. Bddge structure type shall be approved by the City Public Works Department and Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District. Proposed bridges shall provide acceptable crossing over waterways to accommodate all necessary vehicular, pedestrian, equestrian, dry and wet utilities, future utilities including but not limited to conduit for fiber optic cable or traffic signal interconnect if not placed within street pavement. The bridge design shall include, but not be limited to the following studies: foundation analysis, scour analysis, and protection measures. 69. All street sections shall correspond with the requirements of the Circulation Element of City's General Plan, City Ordinances and Standards, or as approved with the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan. Unless otherwise approved the following minimum criteria shall be observed in the design of the street improvement plans: 70. Street centerline grades shall be 0.5% minimum if concrete curb and gutters are provided. 71. Driveways shall conform to the applicable City Standard Nos. 207, 207A and/or 208 except maximum residential driveway widths shall be 24 feet. Street lights shall be installed along the public streets shall be designed in accordance with City Standard No. 800, 801,802 and 803. Concrete sidewalks shall be constructed in accordance with City Standard Nos. 400 and 401. Design of street improvements shall extend a minimum of 300 feet beyond the project boundaries to ensure adequate continuity of design with adjoining properties. Minimum centerline radii shall be in accordance with City Standard No. 113. All reverse curves shall include a 100-foot minimum tangent section. All street and driveway centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees. All units shall be provided with zero clearance garage doors and garage door openers if the driveway is less than 18 feet in depth from back of sidewalk. Landscaping shall be limited in the corner cut-off area of all intersections and adjacent to driveways to provide for minimum sight distance and visibility. There shall be adequate sight distance at each of the project entrances that meet City and Caltrans standards as approved by the City Engineer. R:~S P~Roripaugh Ranch SPXnew~PC StaffRepor~ 10-164)2~Resos and ord (EJP)~final 132 Ail concentrated drainage directed towards the public street shall be conveyed through curb outlets per City Standard No. 301. Corner property line cut off for vehicular sight distance and installation of pedestrian facilities shall be provided at all street intersections in accordance with Riverside County Standard No. 805. Minimum flow line grade from high point at end of cul de sacs and within the beginning and end of curve shall be one percent. All utility systems including gas, electric, telephone, water, sewer, and cable TV shall be provided underground. Easements shall be provided as required where adequate right-of-way does not exist for installation of the facilities. All utilities shall be designed and constructed in accordance with City Codes and the utility provider. All utilities, except electrical lines rated 33ky or greater, shall be installed underground. All monuments shall be set as specified on the final map and in accordance with City Standard Nos. 700A and 701 with bonds posted prior to recordation of the final map 1o secure monumentation. 72. Pursuant to Section 66493 of the Subdivision Map Act, any subdivision, which is part of an existing Assessment District must comply with the requirements of said section. Prior to City Council approval of the Final Map, the Developer shall make an application for reapportionment of any assessments with appropriate regulatory agency. 73. The Developer shall make a good faith effort to acquire the required off-site property interests, and if he or she should fail to do so, the Developer shall, prior to submittal of the Final Map for recordation, enter into an agreement to complete the improvements pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act, Section 66462 and Section 66462.5. Such agreement shall provide for payment by the Developer of all costs incurred by the City to acquire the off-site property interests required in connection with the subdivision. Security of a portion of these costs shall be in the form of a cash deposit in the amount given in an appraisal report obtained by the Developer, at the Developer's cost. The appraiser shall have been approved by the City prior to commencement of the appraisal. 74. The Developer shall notify the City's cable TV Franchises of the Intent to Develop. Conduit shall be installed to cable TV Standards at time of street improvements. Prior to Issuance of Grading Permits 75. As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: 76. San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board 77. Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District 78. Planning Department 79. Department of Public Works RSS P~Roripaugh Ranch SP~new~PC Staff Repor~ 10-164)2~Resos and ord (EJP)-final 133 80. Riverside County Health Department 81. Community Services District 82. Verizon 83. Southern California Edison Company 84. Southern California Gas Company 85. The developer shall ensure that a Cooperative Agreement between the City and County be executed authorizing the City to act on the County's behalf, for any improvements required in the County necessary to complete the grading of this tentative tract map in the event that the County area has not been annexed. Grading of roads in the County area is necessary prior to issuance of the 108th building permit in order to provide for secondary access. 86. The Developer shall post security and enter into an agreement guaranteeing the grading and erosion control improvements in conformance with applicable City Standards and subject to approval by the Department of Public Works. 87. The Developer shall obtain letters giving permission to grade or easements for any off- site work performed on adjoining properties. The letters or easements shall be in a format as directed by the Department of Public Works. 88. The Developer shall obtain permission from adjacent affected property owners along Nicolas Road and Butterrield Stage Road to allow for grading and any related driveway improvements necessary to continue to allow legal vehicular access through the use of some mechanism approved by the City's Public Works Department including but not limited to: permission to grade offsite letters, blanket or specific right of entry letters, and temporary construction easements. 89. A Grading Plan shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer in accordance with City of Temecula standards and approved by the Department of Public Works for all grading involving interim channel improvements, detention basins, road improvements, and as otherwise necessary to balance earthwork volumes. The grading shall conform to the elevations shown on the approved Master Tentative Tract Map. 90. A Grading Plan shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer in accordance with City of Temecula standards and approved by the Department of Public Works prior to commencement of any grading. The plan shall incorporate adequate erosion control measures to protect the site and adjoining properties from damage due to erosion. The following guidelines shall be implemented in the grading plans: All slopes shall be contour graded and shall conform to the latest California Building Code, Appendix Chapter 33. The grading shall ensure that the overall shape, height and grade of any cut or fill slope shall be designed to simulate the natural terrain and blend as much as possible with the adjacent natural open space. Slopes over 30 feet shall be contour graded. If such a slope cannot be contour graded, a registered civil engineer shall prepare and submit a report that demonstrates why such techniques are not feasible for a particular slope. This R:XS Phq. orlpaugh Ranch SPknewL°C Staff'Report 10-16~)2kResos and ord (EJP)-final 134 report shall be reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works prior to issuance of a grading permit. All slopes shall be hydroseeded for erosion control. Slopes exceeding ten feet in vertical height shall be hydromulched, hydroseeded, jute netted, or be covered with some type of erosion control blanket and other erosion control measures needed to prevent soil erosion. Soil stabilizers shall be used to control dust as required by SCAQMD Rule 403 and as stated in the condition below. All cut and fill slopes shall be constructed at inclinations not steeper than two horizontal feet to one vertical foot. Contour grading shall incorporate the following techniques: i. Curve contours shall blend in with the natural slope as much as possible. Abrupt angular intersections should be avoided. ii. All roads shall be designed to flow with the contours of the site. iii. Avoid straight, engineered slopes as much as possible. All slopes shall not exceed the maximum recommended ratio by the geotechnical report. iv. Planting in graded areas shall create a visual appearance of similar character to nearby hillside areas. Trees and plants should be grouped together in swales and in irregular patterns to closely reflect natural conditions. 91. An importJexport route shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works prior to issuance of any grading permit. The plan shall include limitation to the duration of the grading operation and construction activities, a Traffic Control Plan, and a daily time schedule of operations. 92. All public streets shall be maintained and cleaned if necessary on a daily basis during grading operation and construction activities. Cash deposit, letter of credit or posting of bond to guarantee maintenance of all public rights-of-way affected by the grading operations and construction activities, shall be posted prior to issuance of grading permits. 93. A Soils Repod shall be prepared by a registered Civil or Soils Engineer and submitted to the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The report shall address all soils conditions of the site, and provide recommendations for the construction of engineered structures and preliminary pavement sections. 94. A Geotechnical Report shall be prepared by a registered engineer or engineering geologist and submitted to the Department of public Works with the initial grading plan check. The report shall address special study zones and identify any geotechnical hazards for the site including location of faults and potential for liquefaction. The report shall include recommendations to mitigate the impact of ground shaking and liquefaction. 95. If subsequent Geotechnical and Soils Reports determine that dewatering of the site is necessary during construction, necessary permits in compliance with the NPDES permit, shall be obtained from the appropriate agencies prior to approval of the grading plans. R:~S P~Roripaugh Ranch SP~newhUC StaffReport 10-16-02~Resos and ord (EJP)-final 135 96. 97. 98. 99. 100. 101. 102. 103. 104. A Drainage Study shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and submitted to the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The study shall identify storm water runoff quantities expected from the development of this site and upstream of the site. It shall identify all existing or proposed off-site or on-site, public or private, drainage facilities including detention basins intended to discharge this runoff. Runoff shall be conveyed to an adequate outfall capable of receiving the storm water runoff without damage to public or private property. The study shall include a capacity analysis verifying the adequacy of all facilities. Any upgrading or upsizing of drainage facilities necessary to convey the storm water runoff shall be provided as part of development of this project. The basis for analysis and design shall be a storm with a recurrence interval of one hundred years. The Developer shall, as required by the City and Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, protect downstream properties from damages caused by alteration of the drainage patterns including concentration or diversion of flow and increases in flow and/or velocity. Protection shall be provided by constructing adequate channel improvements, drainage facilities, and by securing drainage easements, as necessary. Drainage and flood control facilities shall be provided in accordance with the requirements of the City and/or Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (RCFC&WCD). All drainage facilities shall be designed to convey 100-year storm flows, subject to the approval of the Department of Public Works and RCFC&WCD, as applicable. Drainage facilities within each phase shall be constructed immediately after the completion of the site grading and prior to or concurrently with the initial site development within that phase. The Developer shall provide adequate bank protection, as approved by the City Department of Public Works and RCFC&WCD, to Santa Gertrudis Creek between the project's western boundary to Leifer Road prior to the issuance of the 108th building permit if Nicolas Road is chosen to provide secondary access and the 510th building permit if is not. Nicolas Road will not be accepted into the City's maintained street system until all offsite channel improvements are complete and accepted by the City and RCFC&WCD. The Developer shall provide maintenance roads to all proposed detention basins to provide access for maintenance. Road specifications such as width and type shall be per Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District requirements. Temporary drainage and sediment control devices shall be installed as directed by the Department of Public Works. All lot drainage shall be directed to the driveway by side yard drainage swales independent of any other lot. A Flood Plain Development Permit and Flood Study shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and approval. The flood study shall be in a format acceptable to the Department and include, but not be limited to, the following criteria: R:kS PkRoripaugh Ranch SPknewkPC Staff Report 10-164)2q>.esos and ord (EJP)-final 136 Drainage and flood protection facilities which will protect all structures by diverting site runoff to streets or approved storm drain facilities. Adequate provision shall be made for the acceptance and disposal of surface drainage entering the property from adjacent areas. The impact to the site from any flood zone as shown on the FEMA flood hazard map and any necessary mitigation to protect the site. Identify and mitigate impacts of grading to any adjacent floodway or floodplain. The location of existing and post development 100-year floodplain and floodway. 105. A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The Area Drainage Plan fee is payable to the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District by either cashier's check or money order, prior to issuance of permits, based on the prevailing area drainage plan fee. If the full Area Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge has already been credited to this property, no new charge needs to be paid. 106. The Developer shall coordinate any construction that could impact Metropolitan Water District (MWD) facilities to assure that their facilities are not damaged by project construction, either onsite or offsite. 107. The Developer must comply with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. No grading shall be permitted until an NPDES Notice of Intent (NOI) has been filed or the project is shown to be exempt. 108. The Developer shall submit a Dust Control Plan (DCP) to SCAQMD that is consistent with Rule 403 guidelines for approval. The Developer shall submit written proof to the City that SCAQMD has reviewed and approved the DCP. The DCP shall be applicable for all onsite as well as offsite work and includes but is not limited to the following activities: twice daily soil watering, street sweeping, covering of trucks hauling soil away, chip sealing access roads, hydroseeding exposed soil surfaces, and adding chemical binders or surfactants to water used for watering. Also, the Developer shall provide the City with documentation that appropriate construction equipment that is anticipated to be used for more than 30 days has had tune-ups or equivalent work to assure Iow NOX emissions. In addition, all diesel equipment and vehicles must be equipped with particulate filters and use only Iow sulfur fuels. 109. The Developer shall provide the City with documentation that appropriate construction equipment that is anticipated to be used for more than 30 days has had tune-ups or equivalent work to assure Iow NOX emissions. In addition, all diesel equipment and vehicles must be equipped with particulate filters and use only Iow sulfur fuels. 110. The Individual Contractors shall submit a Traffic Management Plan (TMP) to the Public Works Department that includes but is not limited to: scheduling receipt of construction materials to off-peak travel periods (7:30 to 8:30 AM and 4:00 to 6:00 PM), routing construction traffic through areas of least impact sensitivity, limiting lane closures and detours to off-peak travel periods, and staging areas away from existing residential uses. 111. The Developer shall prepare and file a Noise Control Plan (NCP) with the Public Works Department. The NCP will be generally consistent with the mitigation monitoring R:~S Phq. oripaugh Ranch SP~new~PC StaffReport 10-164)2hResos and ord (EJP)-final 137 program and the City's construction noise ordinance. 112. Graded but undeveloped land shall be maintained weed-free and planted with interim landscaping, such as hydroseed, and temporary irrigation within ninety days of completion of grading, unless building permits are obtained. 113. Paleontologists and Archeologists shall be present during grading, including excavated soil stockpiles, in accordance with the Environmental Impact Report mitigation measure. Prior to Issuance of Building Permits 114. Final Map shall be approved and recorded. 115. As part of the Mitigation Monitoring Program, additional traffic studies may be required prior to issuance of the first building permit for each additional phase of development. The intent of this program is not to redefine mitigation responsibility, but rather to assist in the refinement of area improvement needs and the timing of the improvements. The additional traffic study will: 1) document ambient traffic volume conditions; 2) estimate trip generation for the particular development phase; and 3) assess traffic conditions with the traffic added by the particular development phase. The exact study area to be addressed in each of the traffic studies should be defined through discussions with the City Traffic Engineer. In general, the study area should include the immediate access intersections and roadways, which will serve the new development phase and those critical off-site intersections and roadways that will provide primary access to the new development. Critical intersections/roadways are defined as those facilities that are experiencing high levels of peak period traffic congestion at the time the traffic study is to be performed. The traffic study findings will assist the City in proactively planning for area roadway improvements. 116. A Precise Grading Plan shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and approval. The building pad shall be certified by a registered Civil Engineer for location and elevation, and the Soils Engineer shall issue a Final Soils Report addressing compaction and site conditions. 117. In the event that the City is unable to construct the street and slopes, acquire the additional right of way and complete any related proceedings associated with that process, for the segment on BSR from Chemin Clinet to Ranch California Road, by the 510th building permit, the Developer shall be responsible for completing this work by the 510th building permit. 118. Prior to the issuance of building permits for each phase, the developer or the CFD must construct the improvements identified below. The developer and/or CFD will be responsible for acquiring right-of-way where necessary for any required onsite and offsite improvements. SPECIFIC PLAN PHASE 1 a. ONSITE ROAD IMPROVEMENTS Provide secondary access from Street "A", Street "N", and Street "R" to Murrieta Hot Springs Road prior to issuance of the 34th building permit. R:~S P~Roripaugh Ranch SP~new~PC StaffReport 10-164)2XResos and ord (EJP)-final 138 ii. Improve Private Street "N" (Specific Plan Private Street Standards - 60' R/E to 104.5' R/E) to include installation of full-width street improvements, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer). Street "N' shall include a Staffed Gated Primary Entry as shown in Figure 4-19 in the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan and by reference made a part hereof. The Staffed Gated Primary Entry shall be constructed by the 250th building permit. iii. Improve Private Street "A" (Specific Plan Private Street Standards - 47' R/E to 60' R/E) to include installation of full-width street improvements, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer). Street "A" shall include a Card Key Gated Secondary Entry as shown in Figure 4-21 in the Rodpaugh Ranch Specific Plan and by reference made a part hereof. The Card Key Gated Secondary Entry shall be constructed when 30 percent of building permits have been issued in TTM 29661-1 and/or TTM 29661-2. iv. Improve Private Street "R" (Specific Plan Private Street Standards - 47' PJE to 60' R/E) to include installation of full-width street improvements, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer). Street "R" shall include a Card Key Gated Secondary Entry as shown in Figure 4-22A in the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan and by reference made a part hereof. The Card Key Gated Secondary Entry shall be constructed when 30 percent of building permits have been issued in TTM 29661-4 and/or 3-I'M 29661. Improve Private Streets "A", "B", "C", "D", "E', "F', "G', "H", "1", "J", "L', "O', "P", "Q", "R", "S", "T', "U', "V', "V~', "X', "DD", "HH" (Specific Plan Private Street Standards - 47' R/E with 4.5-foot wide public utility easements on both sides of street beyond road easement) to include installation of full-width street improvements, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer). "A" Street and "R' Street shall include a Card Key Gated Secondary Entry as shown in Figure 4-21 and Figure 4-22A, respectively, in the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan and by reference made a part hereof. vi. Improve Private Streets "K", "M" (Specific Plan Private Street Standards - 56' PJE with 4.5-foot wide public utility easements on both sides of street beyond road easement) to include installation of full-width street improvements, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer). vii. Private Driveways shall be constructed at a minimum width of 20 feet with no parking allowed to allow for fire service access. Private Driveways shall be allowed only at street knuckle locations. R:~S PLRovipaugh Ranch SP~new~PC ,~;taff Report 10-16-02~.¢sos and ord (E,lp)-final 139 b. OFFSITE ROAD IMPROVEMENTS Prior to issuance of the 108~ building permit, the following improvements shall be completed: Improve Murrieta Hot Springs Road from existing improvements east of Pourroy Road to the MWD Easement (Specific Plan Arterial Highway - 110' RAN) to include dedication of full-width street right-of-way, installation of full-width street improvements, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer), and a 14-foot wide raised landscaped median. The raised landscaped median and lane widths shall be transitioned, as necessary and as approved by the City Traffic Engineer, to coordinate existing County improvements and proposed City improvements. Improve Murrieta Hot Springs Road from the MWD Easement to Butterfield Stage Road (Specific Plan Modified Arterial Highway - 110' R/W) to include dedication of full-width street right-of-way, installation of half-width street improvements including a 14-foot wide raised landscaped median and a 14-foot wide travel lane adjacent to the median on the unimproved half, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, and utilities {including but not limited to water and sewer). Driveway access shall be provided to Metropolitan Water District (MWD) fee property and easement. These MWD access driveways shall be constructed on both the north and south side of the street. xi. Improve Butterfield Stage Road from Nicolas Road to Murrieta Hot Springs Road (Specific Plan Augmented Arterial Highway - 122' RNV) to include dedication of full-width street right-of-way, installation of half-width street improvements plus a 14-foot wide raised landscaped median and a 12-foot wide travel lane adjacent to the median on the unimproved half, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, and utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer). xiL Dedicate full-width right-of-way on Butterfield Stage Road from Murrieta Hot Springs Road to the northern project boundary (Specific Plan Modified Arterial Highway- 110' R/W). Improve Butterfield Stage Road from Nicolas Road to the southern project boundary (Specific Plan Aderial Highway - 110' R/W) to include dedication of full-width street right-of-way, installation of half-width street improvements plus a 14-foot wide raised landscaped median and a 14-foot wide travel lane adjacent to the median on the unimproved half, full-width bridge structure over Santa Gertrudis Creek and Long Valley Wash, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, and utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer). xiv. Improve Nicolas Road from Buttedield Stage Road to the westem project boundary (Specific Plan Modified Secondary Highway - 110' RNV) to include dedication of full-width street right-of-way, installation of the northerly half-width street plus 10 feet improvements including paving, PeAS P~Korlpau gh Ranch SP~new~PC Staff Report 10-16-02~Rcsos and ord (EJP)-final 140 curb and gutter, sidewalk, soft surface path, split rail fence, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, and utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer). XVo Improve Nicolas Road from the western project boundary to 450 feet east of the existing Nicolas Road/Calle Girasol intersection (Specific Plan Modified Secondary Road - 110' RNV) to include installation of 40-foot width on center improvements, paving, asphalt concrete berm including signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer) and a 6-foot wide curb separated asphalt concrete path on the north side. xvi. Improve South Loop Road from Butteffield Stage Road to the end of the fire station site frontage (Specific Plan Modified Principal Collector Road - 76' R/VV) to include dedication of full-width street right-of-way, installation of the southerly half-width street improvements plus 6 feet including paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, and utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer). xi. Provide secondary access by constructing improvements for one of the following options: If Nicolas Road is designated as the secondary access route, the following improvements shall be completed: iv. Construct 40 foot on center improvements (Specific Plan Modified Secondary Road, Section K) from 450 feet east of the existing Nicolas Road/Calle Girasol intersection to Leifer Road including the full-width bridge structure over and within Santa Gertrudis Creek. v. Realign existing Calle Girasol to its ultimate intersection with Nicolas Road including right-of-way acquisition. vi. The Developer shall provide adequate bank protection, as approved by the City Department of Public Works and RCFC&WCD, to Santa Gertrudis Creek between Butterfield Stage Road and the western project boundary and from 450 feet east of the Nicolas Road/Calle Girasol intersection to Leifer Road prior to the issuance of the 108th building permit if Nicolas Road is chosen to provide secondary access and the 510~ building permit if is not. Nicolas Road will not be accepted into the City's maintained street system until all offsite channel improvements are complete and accepted by the City and RCFC&WCD. vii. The Developer shall obtain permission from adjacent affected property owners along Nicolas Road and Butterfield Stage Road to allow for grading and any related driveway improvements necessary to continue to allow legal vehicular access through the use of some mechanism approved by the City's Public Works Department including but not limited to: R:~S P~Roripaugh Ranch SP~new~C Staff Report 10-164)2~Resos and ord (F~lP)-final permission to grade offsite letters, blanket or specific right of entry letters, and temporary construction easements. If Calle Ghapos from Butter[ield Stage Road to Walcott Lane and Calle Chapos from Walcott Lane to the existing Nicolas Road/Calle Girasol intersection are designated as secondary access, the following improvements shall be completed: Construct 38-foot width on center improvements (Specific Plan Modified Collector Road - 66' R/VV, Section L) from Butterfield Stage Road to the Nicolas Road/Calle Girasol intersection. iii. Construct 38-foot width on center improvements including horizontal realignment and right-of-way acquisition, as required by the City Fire Chief and City Engineer, from Walcott Lane to the existing Nicolas Road/Calle Girasol intersection. If Butterfield Stage Road (Specific Plan Arterial Highway- 110' RNV) is designated as secondary access, construct half-width improvements from the southern project boundary to Chimen Clinet, including half-width street improvements, a 14-foot wide raised landscape median and a 14-foot wide travel lane adjacent to the median on the unimproved half, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, and utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer). The Developer shall obtain permission from adjacent affected property owners to allow for grading and any related driveway improvements necessary to continue to allow legal vehicular access onto Nicolas Road through the use of some mechanism approved by the City's Public Works Department including but not limited to: permission to grade offsite letters, blanket or specific right of entry letters, and temporary construction easements. Prior to issuance of the 400t~ building permit, the following improvements shall be completed: xi. Improve Specific Plan "A' Street along Lot 518 frontage (Specific Plan Modified Collector Road - 66' R/VV) to include dedication of full-width street right-of-way, installation of full-width street improvements including paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, and utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer). xii. Improve North Loop Road from Butterfield Stage Road to the east side of Santa Gertrudis Creek (Specific Plan Modified Principal Collector Road - 76' RNV) to include dedication of full-width street right-of-way, installation of full-width street improvements including a full-width bridge over Santa Gertrudis Creek, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, and utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer). R:~S P~Roripaugh Ranch SP~new~PC Staff Report 10-164~2~>,esos and ord (EJP)-final 142 TRAFFIC SIGNALS The developer must make a fair share contribution towards the improvement of the following intersections identified below. Additional or supplemental traffic studies shall be conducted prior to approval of future tentative tract maps. If these studies confirm that these intersections are operating below LOS D or otherwise pose an unsafe condition, then the developer shall be responsible for mitigating these conditions, in addition to the mitigation measures already identified in the EIR. ii. iii. iv. V. vi. vii. 1-15 Freeway (Southbound Ramps) at Rancho California Road: southbound left-turn lane, southbound free right-turn lane, westbound free right4urn lane, and eastbound free right-turn lane. 1-215 Freeway (Southbound Ramps) at Murrieta Hot Springs Road: southbound left-turn lane, southbound right-turn lane, eastbound through lane, eastbound right-turn lane, westbound through lane, and westbound free right-turn lane. Ynez Road at Winchester Road: southbound right-turn overlap. Ynez Road at Rancho California Road: eastbound through lane. North General Kearney Road at Nicolas Road: traffic signal. Butterfield Stage Road at Rancho California Road: traffic signal. Murrieta Hot Springs Road at Alta Murrieta: lane improvements as yet undetermined. The developer shall provide the City of Temecula with a letter from the City of Murrieta stating that a fair share contribution to identified improvements at this intersection has been made. Murrieta Hot Springs Road at Pourroy Road: construct traffic signal and related intersection improvements as warranted. WATER IMPROVEMENTS (Prior to issuance of the 1st building permit) The Developers for the Rancho Bella Vista Specific Plan along with the Developer for the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan shall install a water line from an existing reservoir located in the Rancho Bella Vista Specific Plan area, approximately 3,000 feet west of the future Butterfield Stage Road and 3,400 north of Murrieta Hot Springs Road. ii. Install water mains per Eastern Municipal Water District requirements. iii. The Developer shall install reclaimed water lines if throughout the course of development and until such time the project is complete, reclaimed water lines become available within 300 feet of any project boundary. SEWER IMPROVEMENTS (Prior to issuance of the 1st building permit) P.:~S P~Roripaugh Ranch SP~new~PC StaffReport 10-16-02~Resos and ord (EJP)-final 143 i. Install sewer main in Murrieta Hot Springs Road from Pourroy Road to the MWD Easement. (Prior to issuance of the 108th building permit) ii. Install sewer main in Nicolas Road per Eastern Municipal Water District requirements. m. DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS (Prior to issuance of the 1st building permit) Construct detention basin in TTM 29661-1 along the west project boundary and detention basin in 'i-i'M 29661-3 along the southern project boundary. ii. Construct storm drains and related outlet facilities as required by the hydrology/hydraulics studies. (Prior to issuance of the 108th building permit) iii. Install full width box culverts or equivalent drainage facilities where Santa Gertrudis Creek crosses North Loop Road and Butterfield Stage Road. The drainage facilities shall be designed to convey the tributary 100-year storm flows. iv. Install full width box culverts or equivalent drainage facilities where Long Valley Wash crosses South Loop Road and Butterfield Stage Road. The drainage facilities shall be designed to convey the tributary 100-year storm flows. If Nicolas Road is selected to provide secondary access, construct Santa Gertrudis Creek Channel from the box culvert or equivalent drainage facility crossing Butterfield Stage Road westerly to the confluence with the existing Long Valley Wash. The channel shall be designed to convey the tributary 100-year storm flow, have adequate bank hardening and/or other treatment to protect the adjacent properties from flooding. The channel shall be extended a sufficient distance and designed in a manner that flows will return to the existing conditions at the outlet point. Access roads shall be constructed as necessary to provide adequate channel maintenance. The channel, access roads and confluence structures shall be contained within drainage easements obtained by the developer. 119. The Developer shall pay to the City the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee as required by, and in accordance with, Chapter 15.06 of the Temecula Municipal Code and all Resolutions implementing Chapter 15.06. Prior to Issuance of Certificates of Occupancy 120. As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: R:~S P~R. oripaugh Ranch SP~ncwXPC StaffR. eport 10-16-02~q. esos and ord (E.rP)-final 144 a. Eastern Municipal Water District b. Department of Public Works 121. All necessary certifications and clearances from engineers, utility companies and public agencies shall be submitted as required by the Department of Public Works. 122. All improvements shall be constructed and completed per the approved plans and City standards to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. 123. The existing improvements shall be reviewed. Any appurtenance damaged or broken due to the construction operations of this project shall be repaired or removed and replaced to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT General Requirements: 124. All perimeter slope/landscape areas designated as Temecula Community Services District (TCSD) maintenance areas shall be identified and offered for dedication to the TCSD as a maintenance easement on the final map. Underlying ownership of the respective areas shall remain with the individual property owner or the Homeowner's Association. All other landscape areas, open space, trails, entry monumentation, signage, pedestrian portals, bus shelters, fences, walls and private gated areas shall be maintained by the Homeowner's Association (HOA), private maintenance association or property owner. 125. The design of the 5.1-acre neighborhood park (Lot 518) shall be in substantial conformance with the conceptual designs and guidelines identified within the Specific Plan. Prior to submittal of construction plans, the developer shall meet with the Director of Community Services to determine the location and specifications of the park amenities to be provided on site. Construction plans and specifications must be approved by the Director of Community Services. 126. The park and slope/landscape plans submitted for consideration for TCSD maintenance shall be in conformance with the City of Temecula Landscape and Irrigation Specifications and Installation Details and the Park Land and Landscape Dedication Process. 127. The design of the 5.1 acre neighborhood park (Lot 518) shall provide for pedestrian circulation and shall be in compliance with American with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements. 128. The developer is entitled to receive a credit against the park and recreation component of the City's Development Impact Fee (DIF) pursuant to a Development Agreement or a DIF Credit Agreement between the applicant and the City prior to approval of the final map. R:~S P~ofipaugh Ranch SP~newh°C StaffReport 10o164)2~Resos and ord (EJP)-final 145 129. Construction of the 5.1 acre neighborhood park (Lot 518), landscaped medians and proposed TCSD slope/landscape maintenance areas shall commence pursuant to a pre- construction meeting with the developer and TCSD Maintenance Superintendent. Failure to comply with the TCSD review and inspection process may preclude acceptance of these areas into the TCSD maintenance programs. 130. The HOA slope area (Lot 532) shall be developed concurrently with the public park (Lot 518). The City will not accept the conveyance of the public park until all improvements have been completed within Lots 518 and 532 to the satisfaction of the Community Services Director. 131. The developer, the developer's successor or assignee, shall be responsible for all maintenance of the park site, slopes/landscape areas and landscaped medians until such time as those responsibilities are accepted by the TCSD or other responsible party. 132. The public park shall be improved and conveyed to the City free and clear of any liens, assessment fees, or easements that would preclude the City from utilizing the property for public purposes. A policy of title insurance for the value of the land and the cost of the improvements and a soils assessment report shall also be provided with the conveyance of the property. 133. The design of the private mini-park (Lot 6) and the private recreation center (Lot 523) shall be consistent with the conceptual designs and guidelines identified in the Roripaugh Specific Plan. 134. Class II bicycle lanes, as specified in the Roripaugh Specific Plan, shall be identified on the street improvements plans and constructed in concurrence with the completion of said street improvements. 135. All residential street lighting will be maintained by the Home Owner's Association (HOA). 136. The developer shall contact the City's franchise solid waste hauler for disposal of the construction debris. Only the City's franchisee may haul construction debris. Prior to Approval of the Final Map: 137. All slope/landscape areas intended for dedication to the TCSD for maintenance shall be identified on each final map by numbered lots with the square footage of said lot numbers indexed as proposed TCSD maintenance areas. 138. Construction drawings for the public park, landscaped medians and proposed TCSD slope/landscape maintenance areas shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Services. 139. The developer shall post security and enter into an agreement to improve the public park, landscaped medians and proposed TCSD slope/landscape maintenance areas. 140. The developer shall file a notice of intention with the Temecula Community Services District to initiate election proceedings for acceptance perimeter slope/landscape into the TCSD maintenance program. All costs associated with this process shall be borne by the developer. R:~S P~Rorlpaugh Ranch SP~new~PC Staff Repor~ 10-164)2~Resos and ord (EJP)-final 146 Prior to Issuance of Building Permits: 141. Prior to issuance of building permits, the developer shall provide TCSD verification of arrangements made with the City's franchise solid waste hauler for disposal of construction debris. 142. The private mini-park (Lot 6) shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Community Services Director prior to the issuance of the 100th residential building permit. 143. The park portion of the private recreation center (Lot 523) shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Community Services Director prior to the issuance of the 250th residential building permit. 144. The building and the pool portion of the private recreation center (Lot 523) shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Community Services Director prior to the issuance of the 350th residential building permit. 145. The 5.1 acre neighborhood park (Lot 518) shall be improved, including the completion of the 90-day maintenance period, and the conveyance accepted by the City Council prior to the issuance of the 400th residential building permit for the overall Roripaugh Development. 146. The paseo (Lot 519) and the trail connecting Lot 519 and Lot 518 (Neighborhood Park) shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Community Services Director prior to the issuance of the 400th residential building permit. 147. The "Nature Walk" and adjacent landscape areas (Lot 520) shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Community Services Director prior to the issuance of the 400th residential building permit. 148. Prior to the installation of arterial street lights or issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first, the developer shall file an application, submit approved Southern California Edison street light plans and pay the appropriate fees to the TCSD for the dedication of arterial street lights into the appropriate TCSD maintenance program. Prior to Issuance of Certificates of Occupancy: 149. Prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy within each phase map, the developer shall submit the most current list of Assessor's Parcel Numbers assigned to the final project. 150. It shall be the developer's responsibility to provide written disclosure of the existence of TCSD and its service level rates and charges to all prospective purchasers. FIRE DEPARTMENT 151. Any previous existing conditions for this project will remain in full force and effect unless superceded by more stringent requirements here. 152. Final fire and life safety conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed by the Fire Prevention Bureau. These conditions will be based on occupancy, use, the RSS P~Rodpaugh Ranch SP~newWC StaffReport 10-16q)2~Resos and ord (EJP)-final 147 153. 154. 155. 156. 157. 158. 159. California Building Code (CBC), California Fire Code (CFC), and related codes which are in force at the time of building plan submittal. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set a minimum fire flow for residential land division per CFC Appendix III.A, Table A-III-A-1. The developer shall provide for this project, a water system capable of delivering 1500 GPM at 20-PSI residual operating pressure with a 2-hour duration. The required fire flow may be adjusted during the approval process to reflect changes in design, construction type, or automatic fire protection measures as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau. The Fire Flow as given above has taken into account all information as provided. (CFC 903.2, Appendix The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set minimum fire hydrant distances per CFC Appendix III.B, Table A-III-B-1. Standard fire hydrants (6" x 4" x 2 1/2" outlets) shall be located on Fire Department access roads and adjacent public streets. Hydrants shall be spaced at 500 feet apart, at each intersection and shall be located no more than 250 feet from any point on the street or Fire Department access road(s) frontage to a hydrant. The required fire flow shall be available from any adjacent hydrant(s) in the system. The upgrade of existing fire hydrants may be required. (CFC 903.2, 903.4.2, and Appendix The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set a mimmum fire flow for commercial land division per CFC Appendix Ill-A, Table A-III-A-1. The developer shall provide for this project, a water system capable of delivering 4000 GPM at 20-PSI residual operating pressure with a 4 hour duration. The required fire flow may be adjusted during the approval process to reflect changes in design, construction type, or automatic fire protection measures as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau. The Fire Flow as given above has taken into account all information as provided. (CFC 903.2, Appendix The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set minimum fire hydrant distances per CFC Appendix Ill-B, Table A-III-B-1. Super fire hydrants (6" x 4" x 2-2 1/2" outlets) shall be located on Fire Department access roads and adjacent public streets. Hydrants shall be spaced at 350 feet apart, at each intersection and shall be located no more than 210 feet from any point on the street or Fire Department access road(s) frontage to a hydrant. The required fire flow shall be available from any adjacent hydrant(s) in the system. The upgrade of existing fire hydrants may be required. (CFC 903.2, 903.4.2, and Appendix m-B) Maximum cul-de-sac length shall not exceed 1320 feet. Minimum turning radius on any cul-de-sac shall be thirty-seven (37) feet for residential and forty-five (45) feet for commercial. (CFC 902.2.2.3, CFC 902.2.2.4) All traffic-calming devices that could impede or slow emergency vehicle access are prohibited, except those expressly approved by the fire prevention bureau individually on a case-by-case basis when they maintain the required travel widths and radii. Cul-de-sacs and/or intersections with planters must maintain 24-foot clear unobstructed travel width around the planters, not including parking. Hardscape areas are permissible provided that they meet the 80,000 lb. load requirements and are at road level. R:~S P~Roripaugh Ranch SPXncw~PC StaffReport 10-164)2~P. csos and ord (EJP)-final 148 160. Private entry driveways with divider medians must be a minimum of 16 feet wide on each side unless the median is held back 30 feet from face of curb of perpendicular road. 161. If construction is phased, each phase shall provide approved access and fire protection prior to any building construction. (CFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2) This will include all intemal roads, connecting roads between phases, and construction gates. All required access must be in and available prior to and during ALL construction. Phasing is approved on a separate map, and is ultimately subject to final approval in the field. 162. Prior to building construction, all locations where structures are to be built shall have approved temporary Fire Department vehicle access roads for use until permanent roads are installed. Temporary Fire Department access roads shall be an all weather surface for 80,000 lbs. GVXN. (CFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2.2) 163. Prior to building final, all locations where structures are to be built shall have approved Fire Department vehicle access roads to within 150 feet to any portion of the facility or any portion of an exterior wall of the building(s). Fire Department access roads shall be an all weather surface designed for 80,000 lbs. GVW with a minimum AC thickness of .25 feet. ( CFC sec 902) 164. Fire Department vehicle access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than twenty-four (24) feet and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than thirteen (13) feet six (6) inches. (CFC 902.2.2.1) 165. Prior to building construction, dead end road ways and streets in excess of one hundred and fifty (150) feet which have not been completed shall have a turnaround capable of accommodating fire apparatus. (CFC 902.2.2.4) 166. Prior to building construction, this development and any street within serving more than 35 homes or any commercial developments shall have two (2) points of access, via all- weather surface roads, as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau. (CFC 902.2.1) 167. Prior to issuance of building permits, the developer shall furnish one copy of the water system plans to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation. Plans shall be: signed by a registered civil engineer; contain a Fire Prevention Bureau approval signature block; and conform to hydrant type, location, spacing and minimum fire flow standards. After the plans are signed by the local water company, the originals shall be presented to the Fire Prevention Bureau for signatures. The required water system including fire hydrants shall be installed and accepted by the appropriate water agency prior to any combustible building materials being placed on an individual lot. (CFC 8704.3,901.2.2,2 and National Fire Protection Association 24 1-4.1) 168. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, "Blue Reflective Markers" shall be installed to identify fire hydrant locations. (CFC 901.4.3) 169. All manual and electronic gates on required Fire Department access roads or gates obstructing Fire Department building access shall be provided with the Knox Rapid entry system for emergency access by firefighting personnel. (CFC 902.4) Special Conditions RSS P~Roripaugh Ranch SP~new~PC Staff Report 10-164)2hResos and ord (EJP)-final 149 170. 171. 172. Prior to issuance of building permits, fuel modification plans shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for review and approval for all open space areas adjacent to the wildland-vegetation interface. (FC Appendix IPA) Prior to issuance of building permits, plans for structural protection from vegetation fires shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for review and approval. The measures shall include, but are not limited to, enclosing eaves, noncombustible barriers (cement or block walls), and fuel modification zones. (CFC Appendix II-A) Prior to map recordation the applicant shall submit to the Fire Prevention Bureau a georectified (pursuant to Riverside County standards) digital version of the map including parcel and street centedine information. The electronic file will be provided in a ESRI Arclnfo/ArcView compatible format and projected in a State Plane NAD 83 (California Zone VI ) coordinate system. The Bureau must accept the data as to completeness, accuracy and format prior to satisfaction of this condition. By placing my signature below, I confirm that I have read, understand and accept all the above Conditions of Approval. I further understand that the property shall be maintained in conformance with these conditions of approval and that any changes I may wish to make to the project shall be subject to Community Development Department approval. Applicant Signature R:~S P~Roripaugh Ranch SP~new~PC Staff Report 10-16~)2~R. es~s and ord (EJP)-final 150 ATFACHMENT NO. 4 CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED R:~S P~Rodpaugh Ranch SP~new\PC Staff Report 10-16-02~PC Staff Report 10-16-02.doc RECEIVED: 10/ 9/02 I :11PM; ->CITY OF TEMECULA; #729; PAGE 2 Donna 3. Renaux-Morris 805 969?964 p.2 We the undersigned, as proper~ o~ers next to the Southern & FAstem boull .da~-of the ..... ,,_...:..~,., ~,~ t~, bav~ the following conditions or ~sancs mitigated by the City of Temecula Piannins Commsmon: 1) p.~.-establislunent of the originally planned 2.5 acre pegpberal buffer lots alont~ the Southern & Easmn boundaries as was promised by then City Councilman Ron Roberts in the luly, 2001 meeting and by Developer Ashby himself dil~ctly to ProperVj Owner Bill Vazz~_ ns This dement of the l~oj~t was unjustly reneged on. The corrc~ly plonned I acm lots are not buffers but consfilute a bl~tnnt and abrupt d~lopment intrusion into already established nLml prope~ies, some of which are as large as 10-20 ac~s. Ti~ tentative PJve~side County General [~nd Use plan for the project area already establishes that all lots be minimum 2.5 acres. 2) Asseran~ that the emerSencY "crash gate~, or ~,~horized automatic Sate with dicker, to l~lain pel~y a~l be lnnintnined by the city with the further stipulation that. the planned cul-d~-sa~ adjacent to the end of Calle Cont~o n~v~r connect and become an arterial su~et. :~) Our security and privacy will be greatly impacted. There is no security or privacy buffer betwee~ our propewff lines and tl~ "multi-use" trail which will be accessed by thousands of sight,gets. The D~veloper & Pl~nnlng Commission needs to address how the lack of secudt~ and privacy for the neighboring properlies can be restored. South and Fast n~ighbudng prolx~i~s to tbe 4) Reduclion ofwind driven di~ and dust: The combi-~on of project will be subject to undue hardships dining such ~ scale caving up and gr, al-g on the valley floor a~l the prewilin8 winds th~ persistently buffet the windward slopes of the Eastern hills continually, m~ for unwarranted pmpe~ damage and poses health h~rds, not to mention din debris onto the honses, decks, pools, etc. in the area. We ~lU~St ~ hours and additional restraints to the 8radi~, as wetting down the soil during this process will not be enough to solve this problem. 10/08/2002 08:28 76074~1815 CILS ESC PAGE CALIFORNIA INDIAN LEGAL SERVICES BISHOP EUKEKA ~COND~DO Escondido Office 609 South Escondido Boulevard, Escondido, CA 92025 ~' PhoNe 760/746-8941 4- Fax 760/746-1815 www. calindian, org ~' dlsescondldo~calindian.org Laura Y. Miranda, Senior Staff Attorney 760/746-8941, Ext. 110 I~ira0d a~,calindian.org 0AKIAND SANT& ROSA WASHINGTON, D,C. October 8, 2002 Mr. Saied Naaseh City of Temeeula, Planrdng Dept. 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 Delivered via facsimile to: (909) 694-6477 RE: Comments on the Roripaugh Ranch Project Final EIR- SCH #97121030 DeaxMr. Naaseh: We are submitting these comments on behalf of our client, the Pechanga Band of Luisefio Indians ("Tribe"), a federally recognized Indian tribe, whose traditional territory included the geographical area of the Roripaugh Ranch Project ("Project"). CILS and our client are in receipt of the Final EIR for the Project. We appreciate the City's incorporation of our previous comments into the mitigation measures, including the mitigation monitoring plan. We would simply like to clarify one sentence in the mitigation monitoring plan with regard to the pre-excavation agreement. We recommend the following change to Mitigation Measure # (2) - To add the underlined phrase to the sentence, so that it reads as follows: "(2) Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Developer shall enter into a Pre-Excavation Agreement with the local Native American (NA) Pechanga Band to fund up to 2 NA representatives to monitor all ground-breaking activities and to set forth trealrgent for Native American remagxs a~d cultural item~ found on the Project s~te ..... ' The tribe believes it important to clarify that thePre-Excavation Agreement will not only contain provisions with regard to monitoring, but also treatment provisions for the possible finds of remains and cultural items (artifacts) that are generally addressed in Mitigation Measure # (2) (Final EIR, September 26, 2002, Appendix D, Draft Mitigation Monitoring Plan, page 40-41). The tribe prefers to set forth such provisions in the Pre-Excavation Agreement prior to any ground-breaking as it is prudent to decide how cultural items will be treated before they are actually found, thus saving time and resources so the Project may continue to proceed in a smooth and expeditious manner. 10/0B/2002 09:28 ?GO7461B15 CILS ESC PAGE 03 Mr. Saied Naaseh City of Temecula, Plannhag Dept. October 8, 2002 Page 2 Thank you for rids opportunity to comment. Please contact me with any questions at the number above. in YScACerelO, '// // LEGAL SERVICES Laura Y. Attorneys ~or the Pechanga Tribe cc: Kent No,on, Keith Companies, Fax: (909) 653-5308 ATFACHMENT NO. 5 SPECIFIC PLAN ERRATA SHEET R:\S P\Roripaugh Ranch SP~new\PC Staff Report 10-16-02\PC Staff Report 10-16-02.doc 43 SPECIFIC PLAN AND FINAL EIR ERRATA SHEET The following changes to the Specific Plan document shall be made prior to the City Council Public Hearing: 1. Cover Sheet. Remove the word "Draft", located below the date, from the cover sheet. 2. Page i-6. Volume I and II. Table of Contents. Section 4.8. Replace the word "Plant" with the word "Landscape" to revise the section title to: "Landscape Material Guidelines". 3. Page i-7. Volume I and II. Table of Contents. Section 5.6.2. There is no text under this section. Provide text or delete section. Change the page number to 5-21. 4. Page i-10. Volume I and II. Table of Contents. List of Figures. Figure 4-34A. Delete "100'" from the figure title. The figure title shall be: "Fuel Modification Zone - Cross-Section". 5. Page i-11. Volume I and II. Table of Contents. Provide Exhibit A. 6. Figure ES-3, Surrounding Land Use and Proposed Development Change the Calle Contento lot sizes from 1 acre to 2.5 acres. 7. Page 1-7, Section, 1.1.8, Goal 4, Analysis Correct the spelling of "Shuttle Service" 8. Figure 1-4, Proposed General Plan Circulation Amendment, the exhibit needs to only show the following roads which are being added or deleted to the General Plan or are being modified: a. Butterfield Stage Road between Murrieta Hot Springs Road and Nicolas Road as a Specific Plan Road. b. "A", "B" as Collector (66') c. North Loop Road and South Loop Road, Specific Plan Road d. The elimination of the Calle Contento connection 9. Page 1-20, Table 1-1, Procedural Approval Authority, the following needs to be added: Residential Product Review approved by the Planning Commission 10. Page 2-5, Table 2-2, Proposed Land Use by Planning Areas, Planning Area 24 minimum lot size should be changed to 4,000 square feet 11. Page 2-7, Number 11, Delete 12. Page2-13. Section2.2.3. Arterial Highway. Line2. Add an"s"after Spring to correct the street name Murrieta Hot Springs Road. Add the following at the end of the first sentence: "...excepting existing improvements in the County, constructed by the Rancho Bella Vista project. This proposed street cross section, as it applies to Murrieta Hot Springs Road, shall be coordinated with the existing County cross section during the design phase." 13. Page 2-14. Section 2.2.3. Modified Arterial Highway. Delete the following from the first sentence and the entire second sentence as indicated: "...excepting existing improvements in the County, constructed by the Rancho Bella Vista project. This proposed street cress section, as it applies to Murrieta Hot Springs Road, shall be coordinated with the existing County cress section during the design phase." 14. Page 2-14. Section 2.2.3. Modified Arterial Highway. Line 7. Correct the spelling of the word "Area". R:~S P~oripaugh Ranch SP~ew'~PC Staff Repod 10-16-02~PC Staff Report 10-16-02.doc 44 15. Page 2-14. Section 2.2.3. Modified Collector Road. Reference the correct figure number as follows: Figure 2-4A, Sections F-1 and F-2. 16. Page 2-15. Section 2.2.3. Modified Local Roads. Last line. Change "36 feet" to "32 feet". 17. Page 2-15. Section 2.2.3. Modified Secondary Road. Change this heading to read: "Modified Secondary Road (110' ROW/40' CC)". 18. Page 2-15. Section 2.2.3. Modified Collector Road (66'/46'CC). Change this heading to read: "Modified Collector Road (66' ROW/38' CC)". 19. Page 2-23, Delete Number 9, and replace with: The developer is required to provide 50 designated Park-N-Ride spaces in Planning Area 11. Initially, a temporary facility, including lighting, is required to be provided prior to the issuance of any building permits for Planning Areas 10, 12, 14 through 31, 33A, or 33B. A permanent facility is required to be provided prior to the issuance of any occupancy permits within Planning Area 11. The developer shall coordinate with the City to keep the facility open while Planning Area 11 is under construction. The designs of both the temporary and permanent facilities are subject to approval of RTA. 20. Page 2-24, Section 2.2.8, 1st paragraph, 4th line, should read as follows: "... with the exception of the future trail proposed within the MWD pr°perry will be constructed bythe developer." 21. Figure 2-4. Arterial Highway Section C. Third bullet item. Use a capital letter "R" for Murrieta Hot Springs Road. 22. Figure 2-5A-1. Revise entry street cross sections. Revise the first street cross section to apply to the North Loop Road Primary Gated Entry. Revise street dimensions. Revise third street cross section dimensions. This third cross section shall apply to all card key gated entries. 23. Figure 2-5D, Change the Butterfield Stage Road sidewalk along PA 12 to curb separated. 24. Page 2-51, Project Parkland Requirements, In the 2nd line of the 1st paragraph, delete the line under "a". In the Ist line of the 3r~ paragraph, add "public" before "parkland" and delete "on-site". In the 2nd line of the 3rd paragraph, change "shall" to "may". Delete the 4th paragraph. 25. Page 2-52, Delete the 1st sentence at the top of the page. 26. Page 2-52, Trails, In the 1st line of the 1st paragraph, add ", paseos" after "sidewalks". 27. Page 2-53, 2.8.2. #8, In the 1st line, add "for the project" after "permit". 28. Page 2-54, #10, In the 1 st line, change "horse" to "equestrian". 29. Figure 2-11, The access to PA 5 should be white, not pink. In the legend, add "(both sides)" to 6' Wide Soft Surface Path. 30. Page 2-58, #7, In the 4th line, add "pedestrian bridge," after "bus shelters". 31. Page 2-58 #10, In the last bullet, do not capitalize "maintained" and add "areas" after the "maintained". 32. Figure 2-13, Delete the red dashed line on Nicolas Road. 33. Page 2-61, Number 8, should read as follows: R:\S P\Rodpaugh Ranch SP~new~°C Staff Report 10-16-02\PC Staff Report 10-16-02.doc 45 "Property Line Fence (See Figure 2-17) The property line fence is a six-foot high black vinyl coated chain link material with black powder coated posts and rails. This fence will be installed along the southern property line of the Plateau area on the perimeter of PA 7A. This fence shall be installed with the timing specified on Exhibit A' 34. Page 2-61, Number 9, end of 1st line add, "side of the" after along the south .... 35. Page 2-61, Number 11, the title of this section and the first line of the paragraph, change "option" to 'optional" 36. Figure 2-15, The Project Wall and Project Wall Slope Transition shall include vines to create a "green wall" effect. 37. Page 3-9. Section 3.3.3. Item 15. Sentence 2. Replace the word "park" with the word "recreation center". 38. Figure 3-7C, Legend, change the designation for the red Pasco Gate arrow to School Gate. 39. Page 3-31, Section 3.10.3, Landscape and Recreation Standards, add: An Auto and Pedestrian Gated Entry, as illustrated in Figure 4-200, shall be provided behind the Card Key Gated Secondary Entry. 40. Page 3-34, Section 3.11.3, Circulation Standards, Number 3, 7th line, correct the spelling of "prior". 41. Page 3-44. Section 3.14.1. Line 4. Reference the correct figure numbers as follows: Figures 4-78 and 4-81. 42. Page 3-56, Section, 3.18.3, Number 3, add: "the Homeowners Association shall be responsible to maintain the Knox box. 43. Figure 4-1, amend the figure to show Butterfield Stage Road between Murrieta Hot Springs Road and the north project boundary and North/South Loop Road to be shown as Specific Plan Roads, and A and B street as Arterial Roads. 44. Figure 4-2, add a Paseo to the south side of Planning Area 12. 45. Page 4-4, 4.2.1, In the 3rd line of the 1st paragraph, add "development agreement or" before "park improvement". 46. Page 4-4, 4.2.1, In the 5~h line of the 4th bullet add a period after "Ci~'. Add the beginning of the next sentence "Building to be made". In the 2"d line of the 5t~ bullet, correct the spelling of ~vith. Add to the end of the 7 and 8 bullet, Landscape Structures or equal. 47. Page 4-5, In the 4th bullet, change "City" to "others". 48. Page 4-5, Neighborhood Park, In the 3rd line of the 1st paragraph, delete the line under "a". In the last sentence of 2nd and 3rd bullet, put a period after "cover" followed by "Landscape Structures or equal." 49. Page 4-6, In the ~ast bullet, change "6 days" to "5 days" and add "(Monday - Friday)" at the end of that sentence. 50. Page 4-19, 4.4.1, In the 3'd line of the 1 st paragraph, delete the line under "a". 51. Figure 4-12. Use a dark blue color in legend to match Public Class II Bike Lanes in figure. 52. Figure 4-13. Delete the light blue line that designates Private Class II Bike Lanes in Nicolas Road. Replace with red lines on both sides of Nicolas Road to designate that there are Public Class II Bike Lanes. R:\S P\Rodpaugh Ranch SP~new\PC Staff Report 10-16-02'~PC Staff Repor110-16-02.doc 46 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. Figure 4-15A. Revise 130' to 180' dimension designating HOA maintenance area. The 180' dimension should be 150' at most because there is a 175' Visual Buffer Zone of which 25' minimum is within private back yards. Also, the 175' Visual Buffer Zone shown in Section A and in Section B shall be dimensioned to the back wall of the house, not the center mass of the house. Also, in Section B, provide a space between the words "View and From" at the upper left corner. Also, in the paragraph below the key map, revise the second sentence to replace the word "with" with the word "within". Figure 4-18B. Add a 4' dimension to designate the parkway width adjacent to the fire station on the South Loop Road. In the note at the top in the middle delete "delete "And Lighting". Change the note for the project wall on the southeast corner to "HOA Maintained" not 'q'CSD". Change the note for the project wall on the south side of PA 32 to "HOA Maintained" not 'q'CSD". Delete "(TCSD Maintained)" from the note for the Optional Project Wall on the north and west side of PA 32. Delete "(TCSD Maintained) Landscape" under Fire Station Planning Area 32. Figure 4-19. Revise the two notes to spell correctly "Rancho Bella Vista". The notes point to the not a part areas located along Murrieta Hot Springs Road that are to be maintained by Rancho Bella Vista. Figure 4-20A. Revise Project Wall Figure number to Figure 2-15 for that note pointing to the southern perimeter of Planning Area 33A along Santa Ger~rudis Creek. Also, delete the words "Right of Way" and arrow line shown for North Loop Road. Figure 4-20B. Change the title of the figure to: "Bridge Monumentation Cross Section". Figure 4-21. Provide street, sidewalk, parkway dimensions for Murrieta Hot Springs Road and the entrance street to Planning Area lA. The dimensions for the entrance street shall be consistent with Figure 2-5A-1. Also, provide radius of curb returns. Also, provide dimension for vehicle stacking. Also, replace the word "Drive" with the word "Street" to label "Private Interior Street". Also, correct spelling "Rancho Bella Vista" in the two notes designating landscape area located in the County. Also, revise the two notes referring to landscape area to be maintained by Roripaugh Ranch to place the word "of" between the words "Part" and "Roripaugh". Figure 4-22A. Provide street, sidewalk, parkway dimensions for Murrieta Hot Springs Road and the entrance street to Planning Area lA. The dimensions for the entrance street shall be consistent with Figure 2-5A-1. Also, provide radius of curb returns. Also, provide dimension for vehicle stacking. Figure 4-22B. Revise the street dimensions for the entrance road to Planning Areas 14, 15, 16 to be consistent with that shown in Figure 2-5A-1. Also, revise note referring to Project Wall or View Fencing along east side of street to reference figures for both project walls and view fencing as follows: "See Figure 2.15 or 2.16." Also, provide radius of east curb return. Figure 4-22C. Provide street, sidewalk, and parkway dimensions for Nicolas Road. Revise the street dimensions for the entrance road to Planning Area 33A to be consistent with that shown in Figure 2-5A-1. Also, clarify notes on top left and do not overlap. One should read "Parkway (TCSD Maintained)" and the other "Project Wall, Figure 2.16". Also, revise note located to the far right to say: "4' High Split Rail Fencing. Figure 2.17 (TCSD Maintained)". Also, revise Note 2 at bottom of figure to delete the letters "ed" after the word "Maintained". Figure 4-22D. Revise Notes 1 and 2 to replace the word "with" with the word ''within". Revise the street dimensions for the entrance road to Planning Area 12 to be consistent with that shown in Figure 2-5A-1. R:\S P~Roripaugh Ranch SP~new\PC Stall Repo~t 10-16-02~C Staff Report 10-16-02.doc 47 63. Figure 4-22E. Revise the street dimensions for the entrance road to Planning Area 10 to be consistent with that shown in Figure 2-5A-1. Revise note referencing view fencing to reference the correct figure number as Figure 2.16. Aisc, revise figure to show curb separated sidewalk along the north and west perimeters of Planning Area 11. Aisc, revise the curb return radius located in Planning Areas 6 and 11 to 35 feet. 64. Figure 4-22F. Revise the street dimensions for the entrance road to Planning Area 12 to be consistent with that shown in Figure 2o5A-1. Revise the right of way dimension on Street"A" to 66 feet. Revise Notes 1 and 2 to replace the word "with" with the word "within". 65. Revise Figures 4-23A through 4-24 and 4-25B through 4-26B and 4-27 and 4-28 and 4-30A through 4-31 to change the note at the bottom of the figures to capitalize the "P" in "public", the '~/V" in "work", and to add an "s" after the word "work" so that the note reads: "...Public Works..." 66. Figure 4-23A. Change the Project Wall on the right side adjacent to the Fire Station to "HCA Maintained" not 'q'CSD". 67. Figure 4-23B, Correct the spelling of "landscaping" in the sentence under the figure. 68. Figure 4-23F, Revise the note on the top left of the figure to spell correctly the word "create". 69. Figure 4-23D, Delete "and all landscaping is maintained by TCSD" at the end of the sentence under the figure. Label parkways on both sides of the cross-section HCA Maintained. 70. Figure 4-24, Label the parkway adjacent to PA 14 HCA Maintained. 71. Figure 4-25A, the cross section for Murrieta Hot Springs Road outside the curb needs to be consistent with tile cross section for the "B' Map. 72. Figure 4-27; add a 4' high split rail fence to separate the sidewalk from the soft surface path. 73. Page 4-59, delete the 3rd through the 8th bullets. 74. Figure 4-29. Revise Project Wall figure number on the left side to Figure 2-15 and View Fencing figure number to Figure 2-16. 75. Figure 4-31. Change the sidewalk along PA 33B or not a part to curb adjacent. 76. Figure 4-34A. Revise figure title to: "Fuel Modification Zone Cross Section". 77. Page 4-74, Section 4.8.1, add that all trees shall be a minimum of 24" box, unless otherwise noted, all trees on along Murrieta Hot Springs Road, Butterfield Stage Road, Nicolas Road, "A" street, and "B" Street shall be minimum 36" box, and at prominent locations such as Staff gated Primary Entries, Primary Project Monumentations, and at the Card Key Gated Entries shall be minimum of 48" or 60" box as determined by the City's Landscape Architecture as space allows, all shrubs shall be a minimum of 5 gallons, all ground cover shall be from flats at 8" center, unless otherwise noted. 78. Pages 4-75, 4-76 and 4-77, Move the column headings to the top of the page. 79. Figure 4-45. Revise 130' to 180' dimension designating HCA maintenance area. The 180' dimension should be 150' at most because there is a 175' Visual Buffer Zone of which 25' minimum is within private back yards. Aisc, the 175' Visual Buffer Zone shown in Section A and in Section B shall be dimensioned to the back wall of the house, not the center mass. 80. Page 4-96, Revise this entire section consistent with Exhibit A of this Attachment. 81. Figure 4-62, Change 3' minimum to 8' minimum and delete reference to Page 4-116. R:~S P',Rodpaugh Ranch SF~new~PC Staff Report 10-16-02~PC Staff Report 10-16-02.doc 48 82. Page 4-100, Section 4.11.1, delete this section. 83. Page 4-123, Front Yard Landscape & Hardscape, fifth bullet, change two trees to one tree with the exception of PA 10, 19, 20, 21,33A, and 33B that require two trees. 84. Figure 4-35, The street lights for the entire section North & South Loop shall be consistent with the private interior streetlights shown on Figure 4-35. 85. Page 4-124, Add a Side Yard Landscape Section, to indicate that a. Corner lot side yards shall have at least two street trees. b. At corner lot side yards, shrubs and ground cover shall be provided in accordance with the same standards as front yards and 86. Page 5-6, Add footnote #5 to Religious Institutions stating that they are not permitted in Planning Areas lA, 2, 3, 4A, and 4B. 87. Page 5-7. Section 5.3.3. Table 5-2. Revise LM Planning Area 1 to refer to Planning Area lA. 88. Page 5-7, Minimum Lot Width for Pas 19, 20 and 21 require width of the 20,000 square foot lots and 1 -acre lots to be substantially the same. 89. Page 5-11, Add footnote #1 to "Communication Equipment Sales". 90. Page 5-16, Change Municipal Code to Development Code for note #1. Correct the spelling of "City". 91. Page 5-21. Section 5.6.2. There is no text in this section. Include text or delete section. The following changes to the Final EIR document shall be made prior to the City Council Public Hearing: 1. Page 14 of the Mitigation Monitoring Program, Mitigation number 9, delete "or as an alternative, pay a sum of $8,000 per space for a total of $400,000 to the City" R:~S P",Roripaugh Ranch SP~ew',PC Staff Report 10-16-02~c'C Staff Report 10-16-02.doc 49 EXHIBIT A R:~S P\Roripaugh Ranch SP~new\PC Staff Report 10-16-02'~PC Staff Report 10-16-02.doc 50 DESIGN GUIDELINES 4.10 ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN GUIDELINES 4.10.t Introduction These design guidelines will be utilized to direct the future physical development of Roripaugh Ranch, an 804.7-acre, mixed-use development currently located in the City of Temecula and the County of Riverside. In order to create a unique community structure, these community guidelines provide a framework for site planning, the architectural theme and landscaping relating to the project. The purpose of these guidelines is to assure a high quality community character and land use compatibility. 4.10.2 Purpose It is the intent of these guidelines to provide direction on a project-wide level as well as a planning area and site specific level. For example, the guidelines establish criteria at the project level to assure a unified environment, while the planning area and site specific level individual projects will be required to comply with relevant design standards applicable to each use. Although each project should relate to the overall community design theme, these guidelines are not intended to limit innovative design. The use of these guidelines will serve to direct the overall design of Roripaugh Ranch and assure a high quality community character, appearance and land use compatibility. The City of Temecula city staff, Planning Commission, City Council, and other City decision-making bodies will be providing direction when reviewing development projects within Roripaugh Ranch. These guidelines will also serve as design criteria for use by planners, architects, landscape architects, engineers, builders and future properly owners. They will provide a viable framework and clear direction during the development process, without limiting innovative design. The result will be a community with a strong sense of identity, character and cohesiveness. 4.10.3 Residential Architectural Standards 4.10.3.1 Design Groups The intent of these guidelines is to encourage architectural style diversity between the adjacent residential planning areas. Each builder is required to contact the City Planning Department to discuss and review any established facade styles in adjacent planning areas so as to assist in the selection of subsequent styles. Each Planning Area shall be composed of one of the following Exterior Facade Design Groups (Groups A through E) consisting of different Architectural Styles. Within each Residential Planning Area Design Group selected, a minimum of two architectural styles and a maximum of four stytes shall be used. Each style as noted in this section shall have a minimum of four color variations for each Residential Planning Area, No more than four of the same architectural styles may be placed nexqt to one another. Desiqn Group A (All Planning Areas) II. III. IV. Classical Revival (See Figure 4-49) Spanish Revival (See Figure 4-60) Prairie (See Figure 4-59) California Ranch (See Figure 4-48) Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan 4-96 C:\Documents and Settings\naasehs\Local Settings\Temp\SPSect4Screencheck9PC.doc October 7, 2002-DRAFT DESIGN GUIDELINES Desiqn Group B (All Planning Areas) Colonial (See Figure 4-50) French Cottage (See Figure 4-54) East Coast Traditional (See Figure 4-53) Monterey (See Figure 4-58) Desiqn Group C (Planning Areas 10, 19, 20, 21,33A and 33B only) Mediterranean (See Figure 4-56) American Farmhouse (See Figure 4-47) Contemporary Southwest (See Figure 4-51) Desiqn Group D (Planning Areas 10, 19, 20, 21,33A and 33B only) Itatianate (See Figure 4-55) Mission (See Figure 4-57) Craftsman (See Figure 4-52) Desiqn Group E (Acceptable for all Planning Areas) One style from each of the above groups. All merchant builders shall submit plans which identity unique aspects of each style to the City for approval that include text, exhibits and any other materials deemed necessary by the City indicating how the proposed residences will conform with the architectural styles shown in the exhibits 4.47-61 listed in Design Groups A through E, and all other design requirements of this chapter. 4.10.3.2 Architecture Forward and Garage Standards The following standards shall apply to all residential Planning Areas, except as specified: "Architectural Forward" concept shall be incorporated into 100% of the homes in Planning Areas10, 19, 20, 21, and 33A. "Architectural Forward" concept shall be incorporated into at least 50% of the homes in each of Planning Areas lA, 2, 3, 4A, 4B, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 22, 23, 24, and 31. This concept includes advancing the architecture of the living space forward on the lot while concurrently, the garage is held in place or further recessed. Residential dwelling units shall be designed to allow the living portion of the dwelling unit to be "positioned" forward on the lot so that the architecture of the garage will not dominate the street scene. A variety of garage placement solutions shall be incorporated into the overall design of the homes, Minimum driveway length from the property line to the garage door shall be eighteen feet (18') for front-entry garages in all Planning Areas and ten feet (10') for side entry garages in the L and LM Districts, Garage solutions that should be incorporated into the overall design are as follows: Shaltow Recessed Garaqes (See Figure 4-62) Setting the garage back a minimum of eight feet (8') in relationship to the front of the house. Mid to Deep Recessed Garages (See Figure 4-63) Setting the garage back to the middle or rear of the lot. Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan 4-97 C:\Documents and Settings~naasehs\Local Settings\Temp\SPSect41.doc October 7, 2002-DRAr- ~ DESIGN GUIDELINES Third Car Side Loaded (See Figure 4-64) Setting for garage with side loaded entry. This plan can only occur on larger lots. Side Entry Garaqes (See Figure 4-65) The use of side entry garages on lots at least 52 feet wide in order to break the continuous view of garage doors along the street scene. Third Car Tandem (See Figure 4-66) Setting for third car tandem garage. Sinqle Width Driveways (See Figure 4-67) This setting provides a maximum driveway width of twelve (12) feet for adjacent two-car garage. Porte Cochere (See Figure 4-68) Setting provides for the incorporation of a porte cochere. Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan 4-98 C:\Documents and Settings~naasehs\Local Settings\Temp\SPSect4Screencheck9PC.doc October 7, 2002-DRAFT DESIGN GUIDELINES 4.10.3.3 Streetscene: Design Variation Requirements and Front Yard Landscaping The front setbacks of both the garage and living space of adjacent buildings shall vary to provide visual interest along street scene. See Figures 4-69A through 4-69D. Ptease refer to Section 5.0, Specific Plan Zoning Ordinance, Table 5-2 for site specific development standards. Provide visual interest along the street scene, a variety of front entry and side entry garages with varying setbacks shall be utilized. The maximum driveway width at the right- of-way shall be twenty-four (24) feet. Adequate driveway width shall be used onsite to allow for cars to back out of a third-car garage. In no case shall there be an alignment of three garage openings either paired or single doors. Where possible and appropriate, variable lot sizes may be used to increase selection and variety in house and lot size configurations. Neighborhoods shall be laid out in a manner which provide connections into the trail and paseo system as illustrated in Figures 4-12, 4-13, 4-37 and 4-38. In addition to the above requirements, at least 50% of the proposed dwellings in each of Planning Areas 1 through 4B, 16, 17, 18, 23, 24 and 100% of Planning Areas 10, 19, 20, 21, and 33A shall incorporate Architectural Forward criteria. · Front Yard Landscape and Hardscape: o Within Planning Areas 12, 14, 15, 22 and 31, all lots shall have builder install, HOA maintained front yard landscaping. o Within Planning Areas lA, 2, 3, 4A, 4B, 16, 17, and 18 all lots shall have builder install, homeowner maintained front yard landscaping. o Within Planning Areas 10, 19, 20, 21, and 33A all lots shall have builder /homeowner installed, homeowner maintained front yard landscaping. o The following shall apply to all Planning Areas: · Front yard landscape shall be a minimum of 50% to 75% lawn with the remaining area devoted to shrubs and ground cover. No colored rock, gravel or cobblestone shall be used for ground cover. Salt and pepper type granite boulders two to three feet in diameter and thickness may be used as long as they are placed within the landscape in a natural arrangement and accent the overall landscape theme. No more than two to three boulders will be allowed per lot. Shrub sizes shall be 50% 1-gallon and 50% 5-gallon. Quantity shall be one 5-gallon per every 50 square feet and one 1-gallon per every 25 square feet of shrub bed area. Shrubs shall be planted to creat a unified design theme and at the base of houses to soften the mass of the structure. Rodpauqh Ranch Specific Plan 4-121 C:\Documents and Settings~naasehs\Local Seltings\Temp\SPSect4Screencheck9PC.doc October 7, 2002-DRAFT DESIGN GUIDELINES Ground cover shall be rooted cutting spaces at a maximum of 8 inches on center within the shrub bed area. Ground cover shall be continuous under all shrubs and trees. All shrub beds shall be covered with a two-inch layer of one to three inch appearance grade walk-on bark mulch after installation of ground cover. A minimum of two trees shall be installed within the front yard landscaping. These trees shall vary in species from the street tree and shall also vary every third lot in a row. No fewer than four and no more than eight different species of trees shall be used. Minimum size of the trees shall be 24" box. Street trees shall be planted by the builder along all private streets within all planning areas and shall be installed with the front yard six feet behind the Public Utility Easement. See Figures 4-32 and 4-33. There shall be one street tree per lot for all lots with sixty foot or less front yard widths. All lots with greater front yard widths shall have additional trees installed at a maximum spacing of sixty feet. Al street trees shall be installed at a uniform on center spacing. Corner lots shall have street trees on both street frontages. Street trees may vary in species within a planning area but only one tree species will be allowed per street. Planning areas that are separated by a private street shall have the same street tree on each side of the street. Minimum size of street tree shall be 24" box. Trees shall be installed with root barriers. The Homeowners Association shall maintain all street trees. All front yard landscape shall be automatically irrigated to provide 100% coverage. Irrigation controllers shall be installed for each lot within the garage portion of the home and shall be connected to the homes electrical system. Shrub beds systems shall be separately valved from lawn systems. All hardscape (walks and driveways) within the front yard shall be colored concrete with varying textures and score lines, paving stones of various colors with colored concrete borders, flag stone of various sizes and colors with concrete borders or a combination of various textures, shapes, material and colors. Hardscape design shall be uniform within each lot. Please refer to Figures 4-85, 4-86, 4-87, 4-88, and 4-89. Plans are required to be submitted by the Builder or Homeowner to Ashby USA, LLC for all landscaping and hardscape with the front yards for all planning areas. Plans must be prepared and stamped by a licensed landscape architect registered in the State of California. Ashby USA, LLC shall review plans and if found acceptable they shall be approved. After approval by Ashby USA, LLC all landscape and hardscape plans must be submitted to the City of Temecula for review and approval. All landscape and hardscape must be installed by Builder or Homeowner and approved by Ashby USA, LLC and the City of Temecula prior to issuance of final certificate of occupancy. The responsible parties identified above shall also landscape the parkway adjacent to the corner lots. The landscaping shall include trees, shrubs, and ground cover. Rodpauqh Ranch Specific Plan 4-122 C:\Documents and Settings~naasehs\Locai Settings\Temp\SPSecl4Screencheck9PC.doc October 7, 2002-DRAFT DESIGN GUIDELINES 4.10,3.4 Building Elevations A key technique for creating a sense of variety within a project is to vary the heights and forms of the detached homes as seen from the street as illustrated in Figure 4-70 by utilizing the following: · Within Low and Low Medium density Planning Areas, utilize both one- and two-story buildings. To improve the visual relationship between adjacent buildings, it is desirable to introduce intermediate transition between them. Use a one-story architectural element within the two- story building to lessen its apparent height. Create varying roof lines by maximizing offsets of roof planes. · Units located at street corners (see Figure 4-70), should be either single-story or have a significant one-story mass located towards the exterior side yard. Treatment of Mass Avoid a canyon-like effect between buildings and allow greater light penetration into what otherwise might be dark side-yards. At interior side yards, it is required to create the appearance of increased building separation by stepping the second story mass away from the property line or any other substantial articulation. · Provide trims around windows, to break up the wall plane. · Avoid long uninterrupted exterior walls. · Vary the depth of plans to create variations in the building facade. · Two story homes shall be modified to be compatible with placement on corner lots. The modification shall create two front elevations. Surface detail, ornament and architectural elements such as cornices, color contrast, gables applied moldings, arcades, colonnades, stairways and light fixtures that provide visual interest, shadow, and contrast shall be used to enrich architectural character, Details shall be integrated with the overall design concept, Vary the height and roof levels of the building or residence so that it appears to be divided into smaller massing elements. Architectural projections shall be used to achieve this goal. · ,Articulate building forms and elevations with varying rooflines, roof overhangs and intermediate roof elements to create strong patterns of shade and shadow. Interlockinq Mass Just as stepping the second story mass improves the side yard, it can be used to improve the front yard scene. As an example, the second story should be set back in relationship to the garage face or living space below it. The designer should envision the building form as a series of interlocking masses rather than a rectangular or "L" shaped box. Therefore achieving a more aesthetic design solution. Rofipauqh Ranch Specific Plan 4-124 C:\Documents and Settings~naasehs\Local Settings\Temp\SPSect4Screencheck9PC.doc October 7, 2002-DRAFT DESIGN GUIDELINES Articulation of Side and Rear Elevations There is a tendency to have "build out" planes maximized on side and rear yards without articulated treatment of those planes. This results in a two-story stucco effect with no vertical or horizontal relief. Utilize the following techniques or other acceptable techniques to avoid this effect: · Create a single-story plane at the rear by recessing the second story. · Utilize other similar architectural treatments and designs such as balconies or pop out staircases to encourage relief on potential large architectural planes. · Side and rear elevations shall have articulation with modulated facades, window treatment, second story projections and balconies. · Articulation shall be provided on all sides of the homes (Four-sided Architecture") Front Elevations Architectural projections shall be utilized to emphasize entrances, balconies, and porches. Fronts of houses shall utilize several amhitectural features. Ground floor windows shall have significant trim or relief, second floor overhangs or built in planters. Second story windows shall have similar treatment to emphasize them. · All residences shall incorporate entry courtyards, covered entries or covered porches at the entry into the design. (See figure 4-71 and 4.72) · Details shall be concentrated around entrances. Materials used for the front entry shall be distinctive. · Building elements that reflect the architectural style should be incorporated into building entries, windows, front porches, and living areas directly adjacent to the street. Ornamental features including wrought iron and exterior light features shall be combined with other features to create interest in the front of the house with architecturally compatible elements. Rodpauqh Ranch Specific Plan 4-125 C:~Documents and Settings\naasehs\Local Settings\Temp\SPSect4Screencheck9PC.doc October 7, 2002-DRAFT DESIGN GUIDELINES 4.10.3.5 Architectural Elements A successful project design achieves a proper visual balance and sense of cohesiveness. The differences between the plans and elevation must be readily discernable and create variety, yet at the same time elements, styles and materials should not contrast to such an extent as to result in visual chaos. Architectural elements will play a significant role in the establishment of the architectural style. These elements include architectural detailing, colors and materials, and other site structures. The required Architectural and design elements techniques are as follows: Unit Entries (See Figures 4-71 and 4-72) The entry serves several important architectural and psychological functions: it identifies and frames the front doorway; it acts as an interface between the public and private spaces; and it acts as an introduction to the structure while creating an initial impression. The entry shall be designed and located so as to readily emphasize its prime functions. Accent materials are encouraged to be used to further emphasize the entries. If the front door location is not obvious or visible because of building configuration, the entry shall direct and draw the observer in the desired path. The design of the entry area in merchant-built housing shall be strong enough to mitigate the impact of the garage on the facade. · Entry doors and doorways shall be proportional to the architectural style of the structure. · Covered entries, courtyards and porches shall be provided as entry elements. Doors Emphasis shall be placed on the design and type of entry door used. It functions as the major introduction to the interior of the house and concern should be given on the image it creates. · Either single or double doors are appropriate. The door shall be covered by an overhead element or recessed a minimum of 3 ft into the wall plane. The entire door assembly shall be treated as a single design element including surrounding frame, molding and glass side-lights. · Recessed doors may be used to convey the appearance of thick exterior doors. Wood may be used for the entry door. Wood grain texture and raised or recessed panels contribute to the appeal of the door. Greater use is being made of metal entry doors but in order to be acceptable, they shall possess the same residential "feel" provided by the wood grain and panels. Doorways shall be typically rectangular or round-headed and fully recessed. Spiral columns, arches, pilaster, stonework, decorative tiles, or other sculptural details shall be integrated into the doorway design to enhance the visual importance of the entry door. The use of glass in the door and overall assembly is encouraged. It expresses a sense of welcome and human scale. It can be incorporated into the door panels or expressed as single side-lights, double side-lights, transom glass or fan windows. Rodpauqh Ranch Specific Plan 4-127 C:\Documents and Settings~naasehs\Local Settings\Temp\SPSect4Screencheck9PC.doc October 7, 2002-DRAFT DESIGN GUIDELINES Flexibility is allowed concerning the color of the door. It may match or contrast the accent trim, but should be differentiated from the wall color. Windows Typically, the location of windows is determined by the practical consideration of room layout, possible furniture placement, view opportunities and concern for privacy. Greater design emphasis should be directed to ensure that window placement and organization will positively contribute to the exterior architectural character. Windows greatly enhance the elevation through their vertical or horizontal grouping and coordination with other design elements. This relationship to one another and the wall/roof plane creates a composition and sense of order. All windows in a specific plan elevation shall be integrated into the architecture of the building. This should not be interpreted that they are all the same shape, size or type but rather that a hierarchy of windows exists that visually relates and complements one window to another. Windows shall be recessed to convey the appearance of thick exterior walls. Non recessed windows shall be surrounded with articulated architectural elements such as wood trim, stucco surrounds, shutters or recessed openings, shutters, pot shelves, ledges, sills plantons, and rails that compliment the architecture. Merchant-built housing occasionally fails to adequately address proper window design and placement on rear and side elevations. This is usually due to prioritization, maintenance and cost factors. Since side elevations and second story rear windows are frequently visible, greater design effort and budget prioritization need to be given. Garaqe Doors (See Figure 4-73) Utilizing garage types that compliment the architecture, door designs, and plotting techniques will do much to lessen the repetitious garage doors marching down both sides of a residential street. Variations include: o Employment of second-story feature windows above the garage, o Strong architectural entry elements, o Designs with a mix of 2 and 3 car garages, incorporating three single doors in some three car garage plans not facing the street, o Allowance for a 10-foot setback between adjacent garages. o The use of tandem garages may also be incorporated into the building design. o Garage plans with a double door and a single door plan shall not be placed next to each other. · If applicable, where lot width permits plans should include swing-in or side entry garages with reduced front yard setbacks of ten (10) feet. · The design of the garage door shall relate to the overall architectural design of the residence. Colors shall be from the same paint palette. Roripauqh Ranch Specific Plan 4-128 C:~Documents and Settings~naasehs\Local Settings\Temp\SPSect4Screencheck9PC.doc October 7, 2002-DRAFT DESIGN GUIDELINES Ornamentation of garage doors shall be provided to add visual interest from the street scene. The use of the sectional, wood or metal, rolling garage door is required since it maximizes the availability of useable driveway length. Several different panel designs shall be utilized for any project proposed by each merchant builder. Metal doors shall only be used when they include either texture or raised panels of a "residential' nature. The use of window elements is encouraged. The design of the door face shall result in a treatment which breaks up the expanse of the door plane while being complimentary to the architectural elevation of the residence. Amhitectural detail consisting of cornices, applied molding or trim or applied headers shall be used. There shall be an 8' recess. (See Exhibit 4-73) RodDauah Ranch Soecific Plan 4-129 C:\Documents and Se~ngs~naasehs\Local Settings\Temp\SPSect4Screencheck9PC.doc October 7, 2002-DRAFT DESIGN GUIDELINES 4.10.3.6 Residential Roof Form Allowable Roof Pitch (See Figure 4-74) · Allowable roof pitches of 3:12 to 4:12 shall be used. Allowable roof pitches over balconies and/or porches may be 2:12. · A single roof pitch should be used on opposite sides of a ridge. Shallow pitches tend to lessen the apparent building mass. Roof Types The use of different roof types will add variety and interest to the street scene. Changing the roof form on a given plan is the best method of creating alternative elevations. However, the roof characteristics should be consistent with the historical style that is chosen. Hip, gable and shake-like material shall be used separately or together on the same roof. Avoid a canyon effect in side yards when both buildings have front-to-rear gables, by providing dormer or hip elements. Repetitious gable ends along rear elevations shall be avoided. Roof forms with pitch changes at a porch or projection are preferable. · Roof forms having dual pitches such as Gambrel or Mansard shall not be used. Maximize variations in roof lines by offsetting roof planes and combining single-story elements with two-story elements. Long uninterrupted roof lines should be avoided. Mechanical equipment is not permitted on roofs. Desiqn of Rakes and Eaves · The designer may choose from a variety of rake and eave types based on climatic and stylistic considerations. · Moderate or extended overhangs are acceptable if properly designed. Tight fascia with appropriate style are acceptable. · Single or double fascia boards, exposed rafters, or fascias with planscias when adequately scaled, are acceptable. · Care shall be taken to ensure that material sizes avoid a weak or flimsy appearance. Overhanq Projections and Covered Porches · Substantial overhangs are required as a response to solar and climatic conditions. · The inclusion of covered porches and entries are required as part of the product mix. They expand sheltered living space, create entry statements and provide elevation/relief. · Rear covered porches may differ from the roof in both pitch and material, but front porches should retain at least one of these two characteristics. Roripauqh Ranch Specific Plan 4-133 C:\Documents and Settings~naasehs\Local Settings\Temp\SPSect4Screencheck9PC.doc October 7, 2002-DRAFT DESIGN GUIDELINES Steppinq the Roof Form · Steps in the roof respond to the interior room arrangement and provide visual relief and interest. · A vertical step within the ridgeline should be at least 12" - 18" in order to create visual impact and allow for adequate weatherproofing. Solar Panels (See Figure 4-75) · Solar panels shall be parallel to the roof slope and integrated into the roof design. · The frames shall either match the roof or fascia color. · Support equipment shall be enclosed and screened from view. Roripauqh Ranch Specific Plan 4-134 C:\Documents and Settings~,aasehs\Local Settings\Temp\SPSect4ScreencheckgPC.doc October 7, 2002-DRAFT DESIGN GUIDELINES 4.10.3.7 Accessory Items Patio Covers, Trellises Patio covers, trellises, pergolas or similar exterior structures when used shall reflect the character, color and materials of the building to which they are related. · Supports and framing members shall conform the guideline criteria for columns and posts. · The pitch of the patio roof shall be less than the adjacent building. Materials of accessory structures are limited to, and compatible with, the dwelling's exterior siding, trim and roof material. Mailbox Structures (See Figure 4-76) Individual and group mailbox structures shall reflect the architecture and the community. This can be either the streetscape theme of the project or individual architectural detailing of the adjacent dwelling. When common mailbox service is provided, their location shall be near either the project entry or recreation facility. Their location shall minimize visual impact while ensuring easy accessibility. Air Conditioninq Units (See Figure 4-77) All mechanical equipment should be screened from public view. Further consideration should be given as to air conditioning unit pad placement within the rear yard to minimize impact on yard use and layout. Awninqs Canvas awning of solid accent color may be permitted with moderation. Metal awnings are permitted as long as they match the architecture. The decision to provide awnings shall include consideration of their maintenance and deterioration for projects without maintenance associations. The continuous maintenance of the awning shall be required through the HOA CC & R's to ensure their intended appearance. RoriDaueh Ranch Specific Plan 4-137 CADocuments and Settings~naasebs\Local Settings\Temp\SPSect4Screencheck9PC.doc October 7, 2002-DRAFT DESIGN GUIDELINES 4.10.3.8 Materials and Colors The appropriate selection of materials and colors will produce homes that possess their own individual identity, while remaining compatible with the surrounding residences and contributing to the overall quality of the community. Exterior Plaster (stucco) is an acceptable exterior building material, with smooth or other light finish texture. Heavy texture is not permitted. Use of wood, pre-cast concrete, stone/stone venner, and tile is acceptable, when in conformance with the overall building design. Exterior surfaces shall have only a limited number of colors, one or two base colors and two or three trim accent colors. Exterior building materials shall be natural materials which reflect the rural character of the surrounding hillside environment. Color is intended as a primary theme element of the community consistent with the building materials and compatible with the indigenous elements of the environment. Accents are encouraged which are lighter or darker to highlight the character of the structure. Bright and non-earth tone colors are not permitted except as accents. Roof Material It is neither necessary nor desirable that the community should have a single type or color of roof. Use of a single color or roof type creates a sense of monotony that contributes to a monolithic appearance when viewed from a distance. Clay tile, concrete tile and comparable appearing materials are acceptable roofing materials. Fiberglass and aluminum roofing is prohibited. Roof colors shall relate to the wall and fascia color. Roofs shall be of a generally neutral tone while avoiding high contrast or blatant colors such as bright red, deep orange, or ceramic blue. Tile roofs shall consist of a blend with one color being more neutral. Medium to strong color contrasts within the blend shall be avoided. Vents shall be of the same color as the surrounding roof surface. RodDaueh Ranch Specific Plan 4-140 C:\Documents and Settings~naasehs\Local Settings\Temp\SPSect4Screencheck9PC.doc October 7, 2002-DRAFT DESIGN GUIDELINES 4.11 4.12.1 4.12.2 SITE DESIGN Cluster Courtyard (Planning Areas 12, 14, 15, 22 and 31) Clustered Courtyard development as illustrated in Figures 4-78 through 4-82, may be developed within Planning Areas 12, 14, 15, 22 and 31. Please refer to Section 5.0, Specific Plan Zoning ordinance, Table 5-2, for a complete description of applicable development standards. Site Planning Guidelines Street Scene Building setbacks shall vary to create visual interest along street scene. Enhanced landscaping shall occur at the entries to identify the points of entry and set the tone for the project development. The landscape plantings at these areas shall be designed to compliment the road edge transition and clearly emphasize the entry statements. Pedestrian walkways shall incorporate bollards, or similar type of pedestrian level lighting technique, that is uniform, unobtrusive and complementary to the architecture and entry monumentation of the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan. 4.12.3 Building Placement Building orientation should be oriented in such a manner as to create courtyards and open space areas. Clustering of attached units should be designed to create private recreational spaces, thus increasing the aesthetic appeal of the area. The following are elements that shall be incorporated into building placement: Buildings shall be composed of a series of simple yet varied plans to assure compatibility and variety of the overall building form (see Figures 4-78 through 4-82). Buildings shall be oriented in random positions to avoid instances where living spaces of one structure face the living spaces of another and significantly reduce indoor privacy. Minimum spacing requirements are specified in Table 5-2 under the M (Cluster) designation. Private outdoor spaces shall be designed with maximum consideration for privacy (see Figure 4-80). Buildings shall be oriented to provide a series of public open spaces for recreation and general spaces (see Figure 4-78) Public open spaces shall be located within areas accessible to the majority of the surrounding units (see Figure 4-78). To be maintained by HOA. Rofipauqh Ranch SperJfic Pran 4-141 C:\Documents and Settings~naasehs\Local Settings\Temp\SPSect4Screencheck9PC.doc October 7, 2002~DRAFT DESIGN GUIDELINES 4.13 Non-Residential Architecture Standards Building design including commercial structures, staffed gate houses, schools, fire station, and structures within public parks and private recreational areas shall be of the Mediterranean Style and shall complement and enhance the developed character of the neighboring area and surrounding environment. Building design shall be coordinated on all elevations with regard to color, materials, architectural form, and detailing to achieve design harmony and continuity, providing complimentary architectural relief to all sides of the building. Building design shall reflect an integration of function, form and proportion and use of color. Buildings and landscaped open spaces shall be designed to create and shape functional space. Buildings and landscaped open spaces should be oriented for maximum benefit of sunlight, circulation, and views. Agreements between the School District and Developer should include conformance to specified architectural form and detailing as much as possible. Building design should be coordinated on all elevations with regard to color, materials, architectural form and detailing. Parking facilities shall conform to City of Temecula standards and to their architectural guidelines. (Reference City of Temecula Planning and Zoning Standards Chapter 17.24.). Building heights: Building heights shall be related to adjacent open spaces, protect and enhance public views and minimize obstruction of views from adjoining structures. Building heights shall be designed to allow maximum sun and ventilation and provide protection from prevailing winds. Architectural design features such as tower elements may exceed height limitations provided that the allowable overall average building height is maintained. Orient commemial buildings to create views of surrounding natural open space. Roof design shall include: Pitched roof elements such as hip, gable, shed, in full or in combination of pitched or flat roof elements, with or without overhangs to articulate and reduce mass and bulk of buildings shall be included in Building Design. o Mansard roofs are generally discouraged. If used the fiat portion of the roof and/or equipment will not be visible from the public right-of-way or from above. o Flat roof sections shall be covered with a material to match the color of the adjacent wall or roof material if seen from elevated streets or from adjacent residential areas. Rodpauqh Ranch SDecific Plan 4-154 C:\Documents and Settings~naasehs\Local Settings\Temp\SPSect4ScreencheckgPC.doc October 7, 2002-DRAFT DESIGN GUIDELINES o Roof materials shall enhance and complement the roof shape and may vary from structure to structure. Acceptable roof materials include: Clay or concrete tile in Barrel, S shape or Flat Slate Natural metals with raised or standing seams including copper o Unacceptable materials include: · Wood shingles and shakes Corrugated metal and highly reflective surfaces such as glass, shiny metallic and glazed roofing tiles · Asphalt shingles Mechanical Equipment: Line of sight studies may be required to determine whether potential visibility of roof mounted equipment from adjoining properties or public right-of-way will occur. All roof mounted equipment and appurtenances must be placed so as to be totally obscured from public view. If roof mounted equipment is unavoidable, the design of any roof structure shall screen the equipment and be an integral part of the roof design. 4.14 NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL (Planning Area No. 11) It is intended that neighborhood commemial uses will be developed in Planning Area No. 11. The following are site planning guidelines relating to Neighborhood Commercial. Please refer to Section 5.0, Specific Plan Zoning Ordinance, Table 5-4, for site specific development standards. 4.14.1 Site Design The Neighborhood Commercial center shall be designed to achieve a small scale appearance. This shall be accomplished by using building articulation and ornamentation, avoiding long fiat walls, and distributing the project floor area into smaller buildings as illustrated in Figure 4-90. All buildings on the site shall have a strong spatial and functional relationship to each other and with adjacent land uses. · Multiple buildings shall be varied in size and mass. Portions of primary buildings and free standing "satellite" buildings should be located at the street setback lines. Special pavement and landscape enhancement shall be provided at entrances and pedestrian pathways. Buildings shall be oriented to take advantage of the views of the site to the south and southeast by designing pedestrian plazas/seating areas that can be used as viewing or outdoor dining areas. Rodoauoh Ranch Specific Plan 4-155 C:\Documents and Settings~naasehs\Local Setfings\Temp\SPSect4Screencheck9PC.doc October 7, 2002-DRAFT DESIGN GUIDELINES 4.14.2 Streetscene Provide adequate separation between parking and store fronts to a(low for comfortable pedestrian spaces. Vary this distance along the face of building to provide visual interest. · Pedestrian corridors and plazas shall be integrated into the overall design of parking lots. Provide shod runs of buildings and pedestrian links to avoid long vistas. · Provide continuity in landscape design, placement of street furniture, sitting areas, decorative paving and pedestrian oriented lighting features into the streetscape. · Paseos or walk links between streets and parking and edged with buildings shall be utilized as pedestrian corridors. · Loading zones shall be designed to minimize exposure to adjacent streets, highways and residential zones by using walls, fences and site plan orientation. · Exterior storage areas and trash enclosures shall be planned in such a manner to minimize the exposure of such elements. · All telephone and electrical lines shall be placed underground. 4.14.3 Architectural Design Guidelines Distinctive architectural elements that shall be incorporated into the commercial area development described in this section. The following design elements shall also be included. · Strongly articulated building facades and walls · Thick and "heavy" appearance of walls · Pedestrian-friendlyspaces, courtyards and arcades · Decorative details, i.e., tile, ironwork, stonework, and carved woodwork · Appropriately scaled plazas with seating, paving and lighting accents The architectural design of all buildings within the Neighborhood Commercial center to be Mediterranean Style (Planning Area 11), and shall be designed so they are compatible with the architectural styles identified in this Chapter. The following is a list of building elements that should be incorporated into the commercial center: · Significant wall articulation such as insets, pop-outs, wing walls · Multi-planed pitched roofs with varying roof planes, full roof treatments, arcades and varying building height · Articulated mass and bulk · Articulate facades with insets, canopies, window recesses and arches · High quality wall materials · Coudyards and plazas with trellises Rodpauqh Ranch Specific Plan C:\Docurnents and Settings~naasehs\Local Settings\Temp\SPSect4ScreencheckgPC.doc 4-156 October 7, 2002-DRAFT DESIGN GUIDELINES · Tower elements Buildinq elements that shall be avoided include the following: · Large blank fiat walls · Franchise architecture · Flat roofs without a decorative element · Unpainted concrete or cinder block walls · Square "box-like" buildings · Mixing of elements that are not compatible with one another. Scale and Massinq The Neighborhood Commercial center shall be designed so all buildings relate to each other and to the surrounding area with the scale and mass. Special care shall be taken to achieve compatibility of larger buildings next to "satellite" buildings. Unity All buildings within the Neighborhood Commercial center shall be designed so they are architecturally consistent with one another and the surrounding area. Exterior building design including roof design, color, materials, architectural form and details should be consistent to achieve unity within the center. Windows, Doors and OpeninRs Windows, doors and openings should be designed as a part of the architectural form of the building. Storefront windows should be recessed or as pop-outs to add visual interest. Windows/doors should also have similar size and shapes to repeat rhythm along the sidewalk. Sills, headers and moldings should be used to frame openings to enhance the feature. Building Entries All commercial building entries shall be enhanced to announce the point of arrival. Entries shall be consistent with the building architecture. The following are elements that should be incorporated into entries: · Flanked by columns, decorative architectural fixtures or other detail consistent with the architectural style. · Recessed within a larger arched or case decorative opening. · Covered by a portico projecting from the building facade. · Incorporate a pedestrian plaza, landscaping at the point of entry. Roofs All roofs within the commercial center shall be an integral part of the building design and overall form of the structure. Varying roof planes and building height is strongly encouraged to articulate the building mass. Parapets shall be given special attention to buildings with flat roofs. Parapets should be finished with cornices or and/or other decoration treatment enhancing the building design. Materials and Colors Rodoauah Ranch SDecific Plan 4-157 C:\Documents and Settings\naasehs\Local Settings\Ternp\SPSect4Screencheck9PC.doc October 7, 2002-DRAFT DESIGN GUIDELINES Materials and colors should be varied where appropriate to provide architectural interest. Color contrast however is encouraged to highlight architectural details. Fluorescent paints and overly bright colors should be avoided. LandscapinR Substantial landscaping along the front fa(;ade of the buildings shall be used soften the mass of the buildings. 4.13.4 Parking Design In the neighborhood commercial center, the parking shall be designed so it does not dominate the visual image of the center as illustrated in Figure 4-90. Large expanses of paving without visual relief should be avoided. Because of the mixture of land uses within the center, creative approaches should be integrated into the overall parking design. The following are parking related elements that shall be incorporated into the overall design: Surface parking lots shall not be located along the exterior or perimeter street unless they are visually screened with landscaping and or walls compatible with the architecture of the neighborhood commercial center. Parking lot design shall incorporate pedestrian pathways linking to the neighborhood commercial center and surrounding residential neighborhoods. Pathways should be enhanced with seating areas, decorative paving and accent lighting. Parking lots shall contain both perimeter and internal planter areas with shade trees that will maximize coverage and shrubs and ground cover that will break up the expanse of asphalt. · Parking lots shall be divided into smaller parking lots with the incorporation of landscaping, decorative paving and sitting areas. The parking area and driveways shall be arranged to provide safe ingress and egress. The parking area and adjacent streets shall be designed to offer convenience without disrupting pedestrian circulation. · Adequate parking facilities shall be provided for both visitors of the commercial center and employees. Adjacent parking lots shall have reciprocal ingress and egress access. Parking areas should be screened from view of public streets and adjacent uses by implementing landscape berms and/or may have Iow wall structures along the exterior boundaries of parking areas. The landscape berms and/or walls shall be a minimum of 36 inches in height. · Parking is not permitted along the front facade of the major buildings · There is restricted access along Murrieta Hot Springs Road, Butterfield Stage Road and Nicolas Road. 4.14.5 StreetJPlaza Furniture and Bus Shelters Rodpauqh Ranch Specific Plan 4-158 C:\Documents and Settings~naasehs\Local Settings\Temp\SPSect4ScreencheckgPC.doc October 7, 2002-DRAFT DESIGN GUIDELINES Street, bus and plaza furniture and bus sheltem within the Neighborhood Commercial development (see Figure 4-90), shall be designed to coordinate in design, style and color with the principal architectural themes and/or architectural details of the primary structure(s) and building(s) within the development. 4.14.6 Pedestrian Pathways Pedestrian pathways shall be placed within the Neighborhood Commercial site shall offer places for resting, sitting areas, and other opportunities unique to the pedestrian. Effective placement of such spaces is a critical component of this area. Sidewalks shall be placed adjacent to storefronts and wide enough to encourage browsing, stopping to talk or walk through. 4.14.7 Walls Decorative walls and/or screen walls shall be designed to integrate the architecture of the building(s), as well as the landscape design. 4.14.8 Signage Signage standards for the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan shall be subject to the sign regulations of the Temecula Development Code, Chapter 17.28. These standards are intended to establish requirements for all development and are to be used in conjunction with these Design Guidelines. Placement of signage and lighting shall be sensitive to adjacent residential areas. 4.14.9 Lighting Lighting shall be screened from direct view by adjacent residential neighborhoods. All lighting on- site shall conform with applicable Mount Palomar lighting restricted zone requirements. The illumination shall not spill over and adversely affect adjacent properties. Placement of signage and lighting shall be sensitive to adjacent residential areas. 4.14.10 Service Facilities All service facilities, trash bins, loading areas, storage areas, utility cabinet, mechanical equipment shall be designed so they do not create a nuisance to the surrounding areas. Storaqe Areas All storage areas shall be enclosed or completely screened from view outside the service area. Screening shall include wall, buildings, gates, landscaping, berming or a combination acceptable to the City. · The design of all screening elements shall be compatible with the architecture of the surrounding area. Trash Bins Trash bins shall be enclosed within a six-foot wall with solid gates. The Architecture shall incorporate colors, finishes and materials compatible with the surrounding buildings or streetscape theme. · Enclosures should be located away from residential uses and should not create a nuisance for adjacent property owners. · All trash and garbage bins shall be constructed with masonry wails and metal doors and Rodpauqh Ranch Specific Plan 4-159 C:\Docurnents and Settings~naasehs\Local Settings\Temp\SPSect4Screencheck9PC.doc October 7, 2002-DRAFT DESIGN GUIDELINES shall be architecturally compatible with the surrounding buildings. · Enclosures near residential areas and/or streets should include screens/solid covers to prevent wind blown litter. · There shall be a pedestrian access gap to bins. Utility Equipment Where possible, utility equipment shall be located in a utility room within a room. If utility equipment is located outside a building, the equipment should be completely screened from view with walls and/or landscaping acceptable to the City. Mechanical Equipment · All mechanical equipment shall be concealed from view of public streets and nearby buildings. · Equipment located on the roof shall be screened from view by building elements that are designed as an integral part of the building design. Fig 4.90 neigh commercial RodDauoh Ranch SDecific Plan C:~Documents and SettJngs~naasehs\Local Setfings\Temp\SPSect4Screencheck9PC.doc 4-160 October 7, 2002-DRAFT A'I-DACHMENT NO. 6 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SUMMARY, AUGUST 15, 2001 R:\S P~Rodpaugh Ranch SP~nev¢~'C Staff Report 10-16-02\PC Staff Report 10-16-02.doc 51 Comment Does the revised Comments LU Plan address the comments Equitable buffering is needed all One acre buffering Additional input requested from around the site to the south and the Planning Commission on the east plus a 30' panhandle buffering. landscaped buffer along the edge. One acre buffering to the west South of Panhandle buffering is achieved through OS, grade separation, and landscaping. The Core should be moved to The intensity of the The Commercial site in PA 11 a is within the Loop Road core has been still within the core. Additional : reduced and input is requested from the transferred to the Planning Commission on this 640-acre area. issue. Village Center should be proposed The Commercial Additional input requested from within the Loop Road site is still proposed the Planning Commission on the in PA 1 la. Village Center concept. The Middle School site needs to be a minimum of 600' from commercial areas. Move the Multi-Family away from Multi-family has the Core been eliminated Multi-Family not appropriate Multi-family is eliminated Private Recreational Facilities are 2 private needed recreational facilities are proposed R:\S P~Roripaugh Ranch SP~ne~PC Staff Report 10-16-02\PC Staff Report 10-16-02.doc 52 Comment Does the revised Comments LU Plan address the comments The School Site issues with ALUC The Elementary need to be resolved school site has been moved out of the French Valley influence area. Trail connections need to be Staff's proposed Staff has not received applicant's provided as recommended by the trail plan addresses trails exhibit. Subcommittee which is constructing all the trail issues. a connection between off-site Santa Gertrudis Creek and the UCR property through Nicolas Road, under crossing at BSR, and through the perimeter of the project on the south and east sides. In addition, MWD easement trail needs to be provided. The trail along the south of the Staff's proposal Staff has not received applicant's panhandle needs to be provided includes a trail on trails exhibit. the south side of the Panhandle with connections to the panhandle. Consistency with the Growth Staff needs to make Incomplete Management Program Action Plan this determination needs to be determined after the completion of all the components of the project. R:\S P\Roripaugh Ranch SP~new\PC St~ff Report 10-16-02'~PC Staff Report 10-16-02.doc 53 ATI'ACHMENT NO. 7 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING STAFF REPORT, AUGUST 15, 2001 -16-02.doc STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION August15,2001 Planning Application No. 94-0075 (Specific Plan) Planning Application No. 94-0076 (EIR) Planning Application No. 94-0073 (Annexation) Planning Application No. 99-0298 (General Plan Amendment) Planning Application No. 99-0299 (Development Agreement) Planning Application No. 01-0230 (Tentative Tract Map 29353) Planning Application No. 01-0253 (Tentative Tract Map 29661) Prepared By:. Saied Naaseh, Project Planner RECOMMENDATION: The Community Development Department - Planning Division Staff recommends the Planning Commission: 1. Review and provide direction to staff BACKGROUND On September 12, 2000, the City Council directed staff to proceed with the processing of'the Rodpaugh Ranch Specific Plan and its annexation. This direction was based on the Ad hoc Committee's findings that the fiscal impacts to the City's budget from annexing this project would be negligible; and the formation of an assessment district for construction of Butterfield Stage Road, Murrieta Hot Springs Road, and Nicolas Road would be feasible and would benefit the City. On January 16, 2001 the City Council and the Planning Commission reviewed the proposed Rodpaugh Specific Plan Land Use Map and provided direction to staff on a number of issues. On Apdl 24, 2001, the City Council directed staff to expedite the processing of the Rodpaugh Specific Plan and Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and bring it forward to the. City Council on August 14, 2001. Staff prepared a Project Schedule to ensure timely processing in order to meet the City Council's mandated headng dates. This schedule was prepared with a commitment from the applicant that they would meet all deadlines in the schedule. Staff has provided routine Status Reports to the City Council since May 14, 2001 for every City Council meeting. On July 24"~ the City Council and the Planning Commission held a joint workshop and further provided staff direction to schedule the project for a City Council hearing on August 28th. Staff has held several other meetings since the Workshop including three neighborhood meetings, two subcommittee meetings, and several meetings with the applicant. The developer has been constantly changing the Land Use Plan in order to propose a project that is able to fund all the necessary CFD improvements, meet the buffedng requirements of the neighboring residents and the Subcommittee. The applicant's consultants have been unable to prepare cohesive, complete, and consistent documents for staff to review in a timely manner because of these changes. Therefore, staff is unable to present a Staff Report for a Planning Commission decision. Resolving these concerns often requires many hours of discussions and negotiations between staff and the applicant. Due to tight timelines, staff and the applicant have not had a chance to resolve these outstanding issues. Staff is requesting the Planning Commission provide direction to staff based upon the information provided in the Staff Report and the Specific Plan which was submitted to staff on August 1a. The applicant's consultant has included a disclaimer on the Specific Plan that some sections have not been updated due to time constraints. R:~S P'~oripaugh Ranch SP~new~PC Staff reporl 8-1501 A.doc 1 This connection should be a multi-purpose trail with an under-crossing on Butterfield Stage Road and a trial head and v:~tering area in the vicinity of Calle Contento. In addition, the MWD easement trail consistent with tl-,~, City's regional trails efforts needs to be provided. The applicant has not COmmitted to the construction of these trials. Neighborhood cOncerns On August 2, 2001, a community meeting was held by staff to address the rasident's concerns regarding Nicolas Road. In addition, Attachment 1 is a letter from the residents that was provided to the City Clerk at the night of the Workshop. The following provides a summary of their concerns: The recent changes to the Land Use Plan were done without input from the community. The proposed buffedng to the south and west of the 640 acres and south of the panhandle is not adequate, The project should provide a buffer all around the site consistent with the current lot sizes (2,5 acre minimum). Planning Area 27 should be single-family dwellings with minimum 1-acre lots. Nicolas Road should be a continuous 4-lane road with sidewalks, multi-purpose trails, and landscaping. The traffic study downplays the number of trips generated by the project on Nicolas Road. They do not want to be assessed for the future two lanes for the Nicolas Road ultimate width. They have been concemed for a long time that the City will start assessing them for the Nicolas Road improvements. They want something in writing from the City to guarantee that they will not have to pay futura assessments. %'° The safety of Nicolas Road cannot be guaranteed without sidewalks for the residents and the school children. The aesthetic impacts of Nicolas Road need to be mitigated with mature landscaping along Nicolas Road. The extension of this road has a life-style impact on the residents along this road. The construction traffic from the project should be diverted from Nicolas Road to Murrieta Hot Springs Road and Butterfield Stage Road. They were concerned about the urgency of the City Council to approve the project and they questioned the need for the ~eastem bypass" which was cited by some council members as very important to the City. The safety of their vehicular access to Nicolas road was a concern. They have long horse trailers which would make it difficult for them to get out of their driveway and get up to the speed of the traffic traveling on Nicolas Road. They had concems regarding how the existing driveways will be connected to Nicolas Road. They had great concern about the grade of their driveway again because they have long horse trailers. °.% Impacts to Liefer Road and the intersection with Nicolas Road need t° be addressed. TheY were not pleased that Calle Contento is proposed to be closed giving the folks over there a quiet neighborhood while all the traffic is being channeled through Nicolas Road. R:~S P~Roripaugh Ranch SP'~new~PC Staff report 8-15-01 A.doc 3 Public access to the trail along Long Valley Channel could be impacted if the "640 acre" area becomes a gated community. A Class I multi-use trail on the north side of Long Valley Channel from Butterfield Stage Road to the eastern boundary. A Class I multi-use trail from the western boundary at Nicolas Road .to Butterfield Stage Road within Planning Area 27. · .*o An Equestrian trail along the eastern boundary of the project in Planning Areas 16 and 17. Six foot compacted soil or Soil polymer trail within the fuel modification area along the southern edge of the project between Butterfield Stage Road and the eastern boundary. Pedestrian/non-motorized vehicle undercrossing at Butterfield Stage Road. o=o An off-site trail on the north side of Nicolas Road. . Environmental Impac~ Report (EIR) The EIR has identified many mitigation measures that need to be complied with pdor to approval of the tentative maps for the project. In staff's opinion, this will be almost impossible. Staff has requested the applicant provide an action plan to comply with these mitigation measures; however, staff has not received a response from the applicant. The applicant's consultant recently prepared the Response to Comments; however, those responses are not consistent with the latest proposal by the applicant. Again, the applicant's consultants cannot keep up with the constant changes proposed by the applicant. One of the mitigation measures in the EIR requires completion of 19 off-site intersection pdor to issuance of building permits within different phases of the project. The applicant is proposing to pay their fair share of the 19 off-site intersection improvements. Then, the applicant would like the City to use those funds to help fund the construction of Butterfield Stage Road. If the 19 intersections are not improved by this project, other projects, or the City, they will operate at worse than LOD D. Staff has asked the developer to provide the City with an estimated cost of construction for each of these intersections. Staff has not received a response from the developer. In addition, the numerous project changes may require changes to the final EIR. 'i'Development Agreement ~ On August 1,2001, the applicant and the City had reached an agreement on the funding for the fire ?station and the fire truck. The City collects a $1,500 per unit fee Development Agreement Fee which for this project would amount to approximately $2,600,000. The applicant would have received approximately $2,000,000 of credit towards the Development Agreement Fee for the partial funding of the fire station and the full funding of the fire truck. However, on August 9a, the applicant changed their position on this Agreement and is now requesting the City to pay for the pedestrian bridge, the permanent fire station, the fire truck, the temporary fire station, and the operations and maintenance cost of the temporary fire station for a total of $3,900,000. In addition, the applicant ,.will not pay the Development Agreement fee, The Deal Points are included in Attachment 3. R:'~S F~Roripaugh Ranch SP~e~*PC Staff report 8-15-01 A.d~c $ SUMMARY~ONCLUSIONS Despite staff and the applicant's efforts to finalize the project documents for Planning Commission action, the documents still need to be refined to make them internally consistent, consistent with the other documents for the project, and written to the standards of City of Temecula. Many unresolved issues remain that need to be addressed by the applicant and staff. Therefore, staff is requesting the Planning Commission provide direction to staff in regard to the further processing of the project. In addition, the applicant needs to meet with the surrounding residents to address their concerns regarding the project. Staff would like to receive direction from the Planning Commission on the following: · Buffering Trails · Neighborhood Concerns · Zoning Section · ALUC · Development Agreement · Improvements to the 19 Off Site intersections · The trail on the south side of the Panhandle · The lack of extended Landscaped Development Zones (LDZs) along Nicholas Road, the Loop Road, and portions of Murrieta Hot Springs Road. · Curb Separated sidewalks on residential streets maintained by the HOA (including the parkway) · Additional specific public transit improvements. · Private recreational facilities · Design Guidelines Attachments: Letter from the Residents- Blue Page 8 CC/PC Workshop Staff Report on July 17, 2001 - Blue Page 9 Development Agreement Deal Points - Blue Page 10 CFD Priorities - Blue Page 15 Subcommittee Recommendations- Blue Page 19 Land Use Plan - Blue Page 24 Department of Transportation Approval for the School Site - Blue Page 25 R:~S P1~oripaugh Ranch SP/new~PC Staff report 8-15-01 A.doc 7 A'I-I'ACHMENT NO. 8 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES, AUGUST 15, 2001 R:\S P~Rodpaugh Ranch SP~new\PC Staff Report 10-16-02\PC Staff Report 10-16-O2.doc 55 Wa~ staff's proposed revisions to the Development Co~e regarding it was the Planning Commission's r, revision. With respect to the Commercial Building to concur with staff's language be added to restrict the the Plannir recommending that more than fifty feet (50'.) With respect to the Coverage, it was the Plannit recommended revision Lot to concur with staff's MOTION: to close the Io recommendations (denoted in the bullets on pag, ;~) The motion was seconded by Commissioner Mathewson and i, ed approval with the exception of Commissioner Guerriero who was absent. It was noted that the meeting recessed at 7:33 P.M., reconvening at 7:40 P.M. 6 Roripauqh Ranch Saied Naaseh, Project Planner RECOMMENDATION 6.1 Review and Provide Direction to Staff Staff presents the prolect plan, as follows: Via overheads, Project Planner Naaseh presented the staff report; noted that while the efforts of staff and the applicant have been arduous, that due to the time constraints, the complexity of the issues, and the scale of the project, that the documents for this project have not been refined to a point of being internally consistent; advised that the purpose of this presentation was to receive input and direction from the Planning Commission regarding a number of issues; and initially provided a broad overview of the project, highlighting the Specific Plan, the proposed 1721 residential units, the Village Core, the two park sites, and the Open Space. Project Planner Naaseh specified the two school sites, advising that the mitigation measures in the EIR require the applicant to obtain input from the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) prior to approval of the Specific Plan due to Planning Area No. 6 (which is the location of the elementary school site) being within two miles of French Valley Airport, noting that on August 2 the ALUC took action, discouraging a school use in this planning area; relayed that while previously the State Department of Transportation, Aeronautics Division had approved the school site, that after receiving data regarding the ALUC's disapproval, there was a desire to further investigate the site, potentially seeking alternate sites; advised that a representative from the School District was present to answer any questions of the Planning Commission; and requested input from the Commission regarding this issue. Project Planner Naaseh specified the forty-foot (40') landscape strip on the south side of Murrieta Hot Springs Rood; and updated the Planning Commission regarding discussions with the property owner of this property, noting that this area will be landscaped in the spring. With respect to the Land Use Plan, Project Planner Naaseh provided an overview of the proposal, noting that to the south and east are 1-acre lots gradually transitioning into 10,000 and 20,000 square foot lots, and then to 5,000 and 6,000 square foot lots; relayed that previously the proposal w~s for 2.5 acre lots to the east, and 20,000 square foot lots to the south; advised that the applicant's proposal is consistent with the Subcommittee's direction, noting the inclusion of a thirty foot (30') landscaped strip required by the Subcommittee which will also serve as a fire/safety zone, and a trail; with respect to Planning Area No. 28, noted that the Subcommittee recommended the elimination ol the proposed Office area, which has been removed; relayed that the applicant has not complied with the Subcommittee's recommendation with respect to the south of the panhandle where the request was for 25-30 feet of additional open space, for buffering purposes; advised that additionally the Subcommittee directed the applicant to change the designation for Planning Area No. 12 from High Density Apartments to Medium Density Residential, and to change the designation of Planning Area No, 27 from Medium Density Residential to a lower density residential (single-family dwellings); and requested the Planning Commission's input regarding the buffering issues and the areas in which the applicant has not complied with the Subcommittee's recommendations. With respect to the Design Guidelines, Project Planner Naaseh advised that staff's recommendations regarding architectural forward elements, the treatment of the front of the buildings, garages, the rear and side elevations, and the treatment of the corner lots have not been incorporated, which is a major concern for staff; relayed that no Specific Design Guidelines have been proposed for the High Density or Medium Density products; noted that while the panhandle area is proposed with neo-traditional design standards, the Design Guidelines do not contain standards for this type of development; and requested input from the Planning Commission regarding the Design Guidelines. Project Planner Naaseh relayed the disagreements between staff and the applicant regarding the trails which staff advised should be proposed in the Specific Plan, advising that TCSD staff was available for questions of the Planning Commission; and requested the Planning Commission for input regarding this matter. Bpecifying alternate issues of concern, Project Planner Naaseh noted the lack of landscaped Development Zones (LDZs) along Nicolas Road, the Loop Road, and portions of Murrieta Hot Springs Road; relayed the applicant's proposed sidewalks on residential streets separated by a parkway which.staff recommended to be maintained (both the parkway and the sidewalk) by the HOA, the lack of additional specific public transit improvements within the Specific Plan (other than a Park and Ride Facility required by the EIR), and the lack of any pdvate recreationaJ facilities; and requested the Planning Commission for input. Additionally, Project Planner Naaseh requested the Planning Commission to provide recommendations regarding the Development Agreement (DA) Deal Points, With respect to the EIR Mitigation Measures, Project Planner Naaseh noted that various measures would be required to be complied with Prior to Approval of the Tentative Maps, and Prior to the Issuance of Grading Permits; and siting specific areas of concern, relayed that staff is unsure of the manner in which various Mitigation Measures would be complied with. Project Planner Naaseh provided an overview of the concerns voiced by neighbors (as outlined on page 3 of the staff report); and requested the Planning Commission for input. Addressing the questions of the Planning Commission, for Commissioner Mathewson, Project Planner Naaseh noted that with respect to the improvements to Nicolas Road (to a 4-lane road with sidewalks) requested by the residents, that the applicant's response has been that the traffic study only requires two lanes; with respect to the Final EIR which the Planning Commission received tonight, advised that the document was distributed to the various agencies without final approval from City staff, confirming that the EIR (without final staff approval) was sent out for the 45-day review period; provided an overview of the supplemental agenda material distributed to the Planning Commission inclusive of a letter from the School District outlining its position regarding the school sites, and alternate letters received by staff today and during the past week; for Commissioner Telesio, reiterated that the forty foot (40') strip on the south side of Murrieta Hot Springs Road would be landscaped by that particular property owner; and for Chairman Chiniaeff, relayed that the Final EIR Land Use Plan was different than the Land Use Plan in the Specific Plan, specifying the differentials, Director of Planning Ubnoske adding that Ihe location of the school was still an unresolved issue at this point. Deputy Director of Public Works Parks clarified for Chairman Chiniaeff that it was staff's recommendation that if the sidewalks were separated with parkways this area would need to be maintained by the HOA. For Commissioner Mathewson, Assistant City Attorney Curley relayed that il there was a substantial deviation between the Land Use Plan represented in the Final EIR and the current proposed Land Use Plan, then it could be argued thai the document does not comply with CEQA due to the lack of analysis for the projecl presented, noting that if the deviations are not substantial and the scope of impacts are found to be the same, the document may not require re-circulation, clarifying that merely changing the document does not require re-circulation; and advised that once staff has analyzed the differences, a decision would be made regarding whether, or not, to re-circulate the revised document. The School District's concerns were relayed~ as follows: Addressing the letter from the School District, Mr. Dave Gallaher, representing Temecula Valley Unified School District (TVUSD), noted that the proposed project of 1721 residential units would create the need for space for approximately 1300 students (700 elementary grade level, and 600 in the upper grade levels), relaying the plans for a 12- acre elementary school site and a 20-acre middle school site within the project; reiterated the findings of the ALUC that due to being within a 2-mile radius of the airport, the elementary school site was a discouraged use, additionally reiterating the previous approval of the State Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics of the site; noted that the site could be further conditioned; relayed that an approval may be possible if an alternate site fs not feasible; provided the rationale for the panhandle site being the preferred location (per the School District's opinion, as well as the applicant's); advised that due to the unknown iactors regarding the future approval of the school site, it is the School District's desire that if the school site is relocated that there is assurance that an alternate site of the came size would be designated to not be assessed in the CFD, and without residential density; noted that the School District is willing to work with the City and the applicant; for Chairman Chiniaeff, advised that an alternate site should be determined at this time, noting that most likely a formal State approval will not be received sooner than 3-6 months; and confirmed that the area east of Butterfield Stage Road was outside of the 2-mile radius of the airport. The applicant presented the proposed prolect, as follows: Via overheads, Mr. Kevin Everett, representing the applicant, provided an overview of the project, specifying the 809.7 acres o! Open Space (over 30% of the project), the $2.2 million contribution for the Johnson Ranch, the road system estimated at $44 million to connect the Eastern Bypass from Rancho California Road to Murrieta Hot Springs Road, noting that the bypass would be constructed through the project to Butterfield Stage Road, and to the edge o! the property, relaying that from this point it would traverse south to Rancho California Road, noting the three connections at La Serena Way, Calla Chapos, and Nicolas Road that operate the bypass, the 23.6 acres for park sites, the commercial sites totaling 21.3 acres, a 1.5 acre Firs Station site, the 5-acre chumh site, and the balance of the project which has a residential density of 2.1 units per acre which would range in size from 5,000-40,000 square foot lots, courtyard townhomes, and Medium and High Density apartments; and specified the two major drainage courses traversing through the property which would encompass $10 million of improvements (noting that he had included this cost in the improvement figures for the road system.) Mr. Everett advised of the need for a CFD in order to construct the previously-mentioned infrastructure, noting that the land uses need to be determined for each segment of the property in order to determine the bonding capacity; and advised that if the elementary school site is relocated, it would affect the bonding capacity for the CFD which was a concern for the applicant. With respect to buffering, Mr. Everett noted the additional areas developed for this purpose, highlighting the 1-acre lots located on the eastern and southern area, a 30-foot fuel break with a 15-foot horse lrail, the core area, the easement system with an MWD right-of-way for water, and the slope easement; and clarified that the project has been buffered circumferentially. As the presentation continued, Commissioner Telesio requested Mr. Everett to provide the applicant's rationale for not meeting the recommendations of the Subcommittee regarding the Land Use issues. Per supplemental agenda material, Mr. Everett noted the 40 major issues of disagreement between staff and the applicant with respect to the project; advised that the DA, the CFD, and alternate portions of the project could move forward when Ihese issues have been addressed, clarifying that 20 of the 40 items were of critical concem; relayed the envisioned project for approximately 4,000 residents served via a system of bike trails through the entire project, noting the resistance to the Subcommittee's recommendation to place a horse trail system through the middle of the project, advising that there was no opposition to horse trails being located on the outside, specilying the two areas which would not be suitable for horse trails (i.e., a trail up Nicolas Road with a horse bridge constructed under Butterfield Stage Road through the habitat area, or a trail up the creek under Butterfield Stage Rood to the horse trail, and out through the UCR property); with respect to the recommendation to remove the townhomes from Planning Area No. 26, replacing these units with single-family dwellings, noted that the applicant has a contract for the development of townhomes; in response to the Planning Commission's confusion with respect to the map being referenced, noted that he was using the Specific Plan map; with respect to the recommendation to revise the apartment site and to instead designate this area as a townhomes area, clarified that the applicant has been in contact with an apartment company in San Diego regarding the development of this area; noted the applicant's shifting of the townhomes/courtyard concepl Io Planning Area Nos. 13 and 30; and with respect to the buffering issue on the panhandle, relayed the re-alignment of Murrieta Hot Springs Road, the shift and loss of 30 units in this area, noting the current plan of the Tentative Map, advising that the applicant is proposing additional vegetation for screening. For informational purposes, Commissioner Telesio noted that the Final EIR map (received by the Planning Commission at the hearing tonight) was not consistent with the map being referenced. In response, Mr. Everett advised that the Final EIR map could be in error with respect to vadous land uses, noting that the referenced revisions would cause no significant impacts, relaying that the land use was simply shifted between planning areas. Continuing his presentation, Mr. Everett noted alternate points of disagreement between staff and the applicant (as outlined in the supplemental agenda material denoting the 40 points of disagreement), highlighting the issues related to Development Agreement Fee Credits, Open Space issues, Land Use changes, the Fire Station and Fire truck provisions, the lunding of the temporary Fire Station, the 5-minute emergency response time related to the temporary Fire Station and the phase in which this station would be built, the timing of the development of secondary access, the applicant's desire to contribute the project's fair share for off-site improvements in relation to phasing, and for these payments to be utilized on the Eastern Bypass System, the applicant's desire to have the option to gate certain portions of the project, the applicant's desire to limit the paseos in the project, for safety reasons, the applicant's opposition to develop a horae trail where the Pari( and Ride facility would be located, the applicant's opposition to developing private recreation in the panhandle area, the applicant's opposition to shifting the buffering from Planning Area No. 28 to the west side of Planning Area No. 12 (noting the road the applicant would be constructing in this area, and the willingness to add a block wall), the applicant's opposition to develop a pedestrian trail on the south side of the Panhandle, noting the lack of access in this area, the applicant's desire to limit the contact between pedestrians, bicycles, and horses, ergo opposing the horse trail connections, the applicant's position that placement of the LDZs on major roads should be limited, and the applicant's request for attached sidewalks on local streets. The Planninq Commission responds to the applicant's presentation, as follows: For the record, Commissioner Olhasso noted her review of the joint City Council/Planning Commission meeting as well as the Ad hoc Committee meeting; · relayed concern wilh respect to the legal standing, advising that while she respected the efforts expended by the applicant and staff, she was uncomfortable regarding the inconsistencies between the Final EIR Specific Plan documents and the lack of staff review; noted the importance of adherence to accurate reporting, and public disclosure; advised that while the Planning Commission could hear comments regarding this item, her concern was based on the outcome of the entire issue. Commissioner Mathewson queried the applicant as to whether it was his opinion that at this point sufficient information has been provided, that the issues have been addressed satisfactorily, and that this project was prepared to be presented to the Planning Commission for action. In response, Mr. Everett relayed that every issue has not been addressed, concurring with staff in this regard, noting the applicant's desire for the Planning Commission's input; advised that in past discussions the applicant has agreed with the City Manager and staff that if the~e was an item that both entities agreed to disagree on, that staff would impose conditions, and the applicant would express disagreement of these conditions (clarifying that this constitutes a number of major issues) as the project went forward, and allow the City Council to vote on these issues, and the applicant would accept its determination, or move the project on. Commissioner Mathewson questioned Mr. Everett as to whether the applicant was of the opinion that this was a good planning process that was being engaged, noting that there were a significant amount of outstanding issues, advising that in his opinion it was not equitable for the applicant, the staff, the Planning Commission, the City Council, or the public to engage in discussion of these numerous quite detailed issues in this type of forum. In response, Mr. Everett relayed that the applicant would have preferred Planning Commission input at an earlier date, providing additional information regarding the process of the project up tO this point; clarified that it was at a later point in which there were Subcommittee meetings by which the Land Uses have been revised continually, due to implementing recommendations either by the Subcommittee or by staff, ergo the changes in the documents. For Commissioner Mathewson, Assistant City Attorney Curley relayed that in order for the Planning Commission to move the project forward, the Commission would need to find that a complete set of information has been presented; noted the layers of entitlements involved (i.e., the Specific Plan, the DA, and alternate data); advised that in order for staff to relay a recommendation to the Planning Commission, it was necessary for staff to opin that there was an adequate amount of fixed information; provided additional information regarding the Specific Plan which is an envisioned plan of the desired plan, amhitectural, and infrastructure considerations, and the blueprint for the land; noted that conditions, mitigation, and implementation measures are derived from that document; confirmed that this particular document (the Specific Plan) was still in flux, reiterating that the applicant, as well as the staff do not have an identifiable final Specific Plan, noting that this plan would be the headstone for this project moving forward. Relaying that due to the uncertainties regarding the Specific Plan that there was no staff recommendation, and that additionally there were inconsistencies between the EIR and the Specific Plan, and no final Specific Plan, Commissioner Mathewson queried the purpose of holding a public hearing regarding a document in such a state of flux, noting that the community will be commenting on a plan which will change significantly. In response, Mr. Everett noted that it was his understanding there would be two hearings, clarifying that the applicant did not expect the Planning Commission to take action on the project at this time. Chairman Chiniaeff queried whether the Specific Plan (which was Document No. 4), which was received by the Planning Commission, on August 2nd, was the plan the applicant desired to implement. In response to Chairman Chiniaeff, Mr. Everett noted that there have been some modifications to that document based on the meetings with staff, noting the desire to concentrate on the Land Use Plan which has been revised, and to obtain input from the Planning Commission and the City Council regarding this document, advising that subsequently the applicant would create the final Specilic Plan based on the Land Use Plan. Advising that typically the Planning Commission makes a recommendation to the City Council regarding a Specific Plan, Chairman Chiniaeff noted that the Planning Commission was not in a position to make a determination at this time without a fixed plan to evaluate. Mr. Everett confirmed the desire of the applicant to implement the current Land Use Plan, noting the submittal of a proposal to front the cost of $35.8 million of infrastructure for this plan. Chairman Chiniaeff noted the inconsistencies, relaying the applicant's expressed desire to construct townhomes in areas where the plan denotes single-family detached homes, clarifying the confusion in understanding the applicant's desired plan based on the documents the applicant has provided. While. confirming that the latest Land Use Plan that the Planning Commission had received was the document the applicant desired to have evaluated, Mr. Everett noted that the recent Development Guidelines will be modified, advising that additionally all the Design Guidelines have not been included in the document due to the time restraints; and recommended that there be focus on the Land Use Plan, and that a subsequent meeting could be held regarding design elements. Due to the fast-track schedule this project has been on, Director of Planning Ubnoske advised that both she and the applicant concurred that all the documents were not ready for evaluation, noting that at this point the Planning Commission should focus on this Land Use Plan, and that subsequently the Planning Commission's recommendations would be forwarded to the City Council where there may be further recommendations, and finally the document would reflect ali the recommendations which are heard and agreed upon; clarified that it was the applicant's desire that the Planning Commission provide direction with respect to the Land Use Plan; for Commissioner OIhasso, noted that the process would be as follows: that Planning Commission would comment on the Land Use Plan, the applicant would determine whether to implement the recommended changes, and subsequently move the project forward to the City Council where the final evaluation of the Land Use Plan would be made. Commenting on the scope of the work to still be completed on this project, Commissioner Telesio queded the time schedule the project was on, Providing clarification, Deputy City Manager Thornhill relayed the complexity of this process, noting that despite the assiduous efforts of the applicant and staff, this project plan being presented was not deemed complete; concurring with previous comments, advised that staff would not be able to provide Conditions of Approval to the Planning Commission by next week, reiterating that there were still numerous outstanding issues; relayed that it would be staff's desire for the Planning Commission to provide direction with respect to the questions raised during the staff report; concurred that the Planning Commission could not address the 40 items of dispute that the applicant presented, advising that staff could review those issues with the applicant; and noted the desire to obtain input regarding the land use issues; and concurred with Chairman Chiniaeff that it would be helpful to hear the public comments. For Commissioner Mathewson, Deputy City Manager Thornhill concurred Ihat this project's outstanding issues could not be addressed in a week's time. Commissioner Mathewson advised that good planning is a timely process, recommending thai there be thoughtful, thorough planning; and advised that the public will be commenting on a plan that is changing. For informational purposes, Mr. Kent Norton, representing the applicant, apologized for any confusion regarding the EIR, clarifying that Figure No. 1 (the Land Use Plan) in the Final EIR was a previous version, noting that the Land Use Plan within the Specific Plan Document is the correct Land Use Plan, advising that all the analysis in the Final EIR matches that Land Use Plan. Noting the discomfort of the Planning Commission regarding this planning process, Commissioner Telesio relayed the lack of confidence that this plan is the actual final plan the applicant desires to implement; concurred with Commissioner Mathewson's comments that to hear public comment at this point would be considering comments regarding a plan which would most likely be changing. Chairman Chiniaeff noted that the public comments would be helpful for consideration in the development of the final plan. Noting that public comments were a vital part of the process, Commissioner Mathewspn clarified that he would not desire the applicant to be of the understanding that since public comments were being considered that the previous fast-track schedule would be able to be met. In order to inform the public, Mr. Richard Ashby relayed that this plan was started years ago, noting that the Open Space that was given to the County has been the most significant recent change; advised that this project had previously been scheduled to come before the Planning Commission in July of 1999; clarified that the plan presented was the one the applicant desired to develop, but that recommendations by the Subcommittee and staff were being implemented, thereby the documents were being revised; relayed the expense to the applicant due to this 5-year planning process which was stopped (in his opinion) due to the November election a couple years ago; noted that Deputy City Manager Thomhill had advised the applicant that the Planning Commission would not be pleased ~th the information presented, opining that it appeared that Deputy City Manager Thornhill instigated this reaction; relayed that it was the applicant's desire to obtain the Planning Commission's comments regarding the plan in order to determine whether to implement those recommendations, advising that the Subcommittee recommended deleting the townhomes in the area the applicant proposes, noting that it was his desire to hear the Planning Commission's remarks regarding the townhomes element; clarified that he did not desire to have this project impeded again due to this year's election; and reiterated that it was his desire to hear the public's and Planning Commission's comments in order to implement necessary changes into the plan, The Plannin,q Commission heard the public comments at this time~ as follows: Mr. Rod Hanway, 43529 Ridge Park Drive, representing the Garret Group/Redhawk Communities, relayed his support of the project, noting that this project was an appropriate continuation o! development for this area ol Temecula; specified the items that still needed to be addressed, as follows: access, circulation, and financial issues; relayed two corrections, as follows: 1) per Mr. Everett's comments, noted that in the first phase there will be 451 lots developed, ranging in size from 4,000-6,000 square feet, and 2) with respect to the landscaping of the forty-foot (40') strip adjacent to Murrieta Hot Springs Road, noted that this mad was currently under construction, and that as part of that particular project, the developer was required to install all the median and parkway landscaping on Murrieta Hot Springs Road, advised that the forty-foot (40') strip was intended to be an Open Space zone, but that due to the sloping will not be filled in until the Roripaugh Ranch Project was graded, and that subsequently the strip would be landscaped; indicated that the development of the Roripaugh Ranch Project would require off-site grading easements on the torty-fcot (40') strip, as well as access across the strip, clarifying that no discussions have taken place with respect to the access or the grading; and requested that this project be conditioned to participate financially in the improvements for the completion of Murrieta Hot Springs Road as a Condition of Approval, recommending that while there was an existing agreement stating such, that the project should be conditioned to back-up the agreement. Ms. Shirley Lassley, 32850 Vista De Oro, noted that her concern was regarding the buffering issues; applauded Mayor Comerchero for his efforts regarding attempts to reach a compromise with the developer; and thanked the developer for his agreement to make changes. The following individuals were opposed to the project, as proposed: Mr. Mike Knowlton Mr. Ronald Knowles Mr. John Mize [] Mr. Hans Kernkamp [] Mr. Ed Picozzi Mr. Ladd Stokes Ms. Jill Stokes [] Mr. JoeTurgecn 39130 Pala Vista Drive 39675 Cantrell Road 32850 Vista Del Monte 30055 Liefer Road 31480 Nicolas Road 39426 Jessie Circle 39426 Jessie Cimle Cantrell Road reprenentlng Nicolas Valley residents representing Nicolas Valley residents The above-mentioned individuals were opposed to the project due to the following reasons: ~ That this particular proposal was incompatible with respect to land use. · ~ Opined that the project was sub-standard. ~ Noted concern regarding the project's process, relayir!g that due to the major impacts this project would have that the project needed careful planning, recommending that the developer's time demands should be considered immaterial in comparison to the need for a thorough planning process, specifica, lly due to the developer failing to meet his scheduled submittals. · ' Challenged the traffic study. z Relayed concern regarding water flow issues (along the Santa Gertrudis Creek), noting the need for a bridge. z Advised that the residents had expressed concern regarding the original proposal for 677 units on the 130 acres west of Butterfield Stage Road in 1999 which was subsequently increased to 897 units in the project plan which was distributed in July, noting the residents' objection to the 897 units which was subsequently increased to 950 units in the current proposal. ~' Opposed the additional proposed townhomes. ~ The densities are too high. · ~ Advised that fifty-five pement (55%) of the total housing units would be located on fifteen percent (15%) of the acreage west of Butterfield Stage Road. ~' The project lacks buffering for transition areas. · , Requested that 2.5-acre lots be located on the east and south side of the project for buffering purposes. ~ Pleased with the equestrian trails proposal. z Opposed to the development of apartments, as proposed. z Advised that the neighboring residents have expressed their concerns to the developer, which have been ignored. · ~ Requested that while staff, the Planning Commission, and the City Council were considering the needs of the developer, that that consideration be balanced against the needs of the residents, advising that the developer had been negligent in meeting the needs of the surrounding community. ~ Noted the lack of public disclosure, advising that the public has not had the opportunity to review the current project plan. ,~ Queried how the recent changes (density increases) in the plan would impact the traffic. ~ Advised that Nicolas Road would be inadequate if constructed as a two-lane road. ~ Relayed that the time constraints were no excuse for the poor planning and the lack of agreement by the applicant to implement the recommendations of the Subcommittee. v Noted that the widening of Butterfield Stage Road, as well as the potential bridge or culvert added in this area would negatively impact his property (i.e., Mr. Turgeon's), relaying that the developer ultimately advised him that the City would seize his property by eminent domain for this particular project to be able to be developed, relaying a desire to be updated regarding the project's plan. For Mr. Turgeon, Deputy City Manager Thornhill relayed that the road segment of Buttedield Stage Road has been a designated 110' with slope easements which is included in the General Plan; clarified that no individual could take his property if it was currently under his ownership, relaying that if his property was required for the road construction that he would be compensated at such time as the road widening occurred; and further clarified that if right-of-way was acquired, the property would be appraised, and the project would be built in accordance with the General Plan road standards. response to Mr. Turgeon's comments, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks advised It~at the referenced area could be a 60' feet dedication on his property which would be the right-of-way for his half ol the roadway, clarifying that the right-of-way (with various slope easements) has bean reserved along the City boundary; confirmed that he would be notified prior to the construction ot any roads involving his properly, Deputy City Manager Thomhill recommending that Mr. Turgeon check his title report for the property description, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks offering to review the data with Mr. Turgeon if he brings the data to the Public Works Department. It wes noted for the record that Mr. Knowlton submitted a letter to staff outlining c(~ncerns of various residents of the Nicolas Valley Community regarding this particular project, additionally submitting a petition (attached to the letter) inclusive of 13 signatures of Nicolas Valley residents. The Planninq Commission rela,/ed closln,q remarks, as follows: ' Planning Commission discussion ensued regarding continuing this item for 60 days, three months, or continuing the matter off calendar in order to allow staff and the applicant time to address the numerous outstanding issues. In response to staff's request for recommendations regarding the project the Planning Commission relayed the following comments at this time: Commissioner Teleslo noted his involvement in the project's process (i.e., serving on the Subcommittee), relaying the discussions regarding the developer's financial concerns, the restraints regarding his available options, and the direction from the applicant that this project had to be before the C~ty Counc'l by August 28th, or the project's process in the City would be completely halted', and queried whether the necessary continuation of this item would be acceptable to the applicant, or whether the project process would halt. In response, Mr. Ashby relayed that it was his understanding that the City Council took unanimous action d recting the Planning Commission to hold two, or three meetings between now and August 28th (a 13-day period) in an attempt to solve the issues at hand, contirming that the applicant would lose an important option at the end of September or the beginning of October (noting that City staff has copies of the data regarding the option); clarified that after recommendations were received that the applicant would determine whether, or not, to implement changes, and the City Council would make the final determination; and confirmed that a 60-day continuation would not be acceptable. With the information currently provided by the applicant, Deputy City Manager Thornhill advised that under the presented circumstances it would be im.~3ssible to have this project ready lor presentat on to the C ty Council by August 28"', clarifying that the commitment was to make every effort to have this project before the C ty Counc on the 28th Of August provided that all parties met their timeframes; noted that deadlines were not met, and that there were revisions made to the project plan as recent as today, and emphasizing the efforts of staff regarding this project, reiterated that this project would not be ready for the City Council on August 28t~. . in light of the applicant's comments, Commissioner Mathewson recommended making a motion to deny the project. For clarification, Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that there were no conditions or resolutions associated with the project, noting that the project could not be recommended for denial or approval at this point. Chairman Chlniaeff advised that it was his opinion that it was the Planning Commission's charge to review projects, and then make a recommendation to the City Council, advising that the Planning Commission did not have enough information to make a recommendation at this time, reiterating that the Final EIR was received by the Planning Commission at tonight's hearing; with respect to the recommendations which were requested, noted his concurrence with the need for buffers; recommended that the core area be relocated to the intersection of Butterfield Stage Road, and the Loop Road, inside the project, additionally recommending that the project densities be lower near the outer edges of the project; recommended that there be clarification as to whether the applicant intended to develop single-family detached or attached units, advising that the pictures presented were not related to the Development Guidelines; noted the problems with Open Space areas, querying whether the land has been given to the County yet for Open Space; and opined that the multi-family units were not appropriate at the edge of the community. Offering clarification, Commissioner Olhasso noted that she would not negotiate a Development Agreement from the dais, advising that this document should be worked out at the staff level and then brought to the Planning Commission and the City Council; with respect to land use, concurred that the multi-family area was inappropriate in the proposed location; relayed that the school site issue needed to be addressed; relayed appreciation for the Open Space proposed; noted her discomfort regarding the lack of recreational facilities; clarified that the Design Guidelines would need to be of the same quality as the Harveston Project, advising that the bar could not be lowered for this project; and relayed that the horse trails would be an asset to the project, noting that the trails had worked well on the MWD easement in the Chardonnay Hills Project. Commissioner Telesio noted that issues needed to be addressed on the west side of the project, specifying that the commercial zone may need to be relocated, and the school site matter needed to be addressed; with respect to the horse trails, advised that to the best of his recollection the Subcommittee had not requested that the trails traverse through the preserve area, concurring with Project Planner Naaseh that the recommendation had been to provide a connection from Santa Gertrudis Creek to the UCR property; reiterated the concern regarding buffering on the north side of the project; and concurred with Commissioner Olhasso's comments, advising that the benchmark was the standard set for the Harveston Project, clarifying that the Planning Commission would demand quality. In terms of land use issues, Commissioner Mathewson concurred with concerns raised by the community residents with respect to the multi-family units proposed; relayed concern regarding the proposed densities, concern with respect to whether a Village Overlay Plan was appropriate at this location (acknowledging that it had been denoted in the General Plan),.and concern with the amount of Neighborhood Commercial proposed; noted a desire to have an overview with respect to the General Plan Update, advising that this project could be modified under terms of the General Plan; relayed that since this is a rural area, the intensive uses placed in the middle of the project were a concern; recommended that there be additional buffedng on the south side of the panhandle; with respect to the school site issue, advised that a pre-determined alternate site needed to be located; noted a desire for curb separated sidewalks, and unique treatments in terms of street lighting on the eastern side of the project where Iow density was located, recommending that the street lighting blend with the rural nature of this area; advised that inclusion of private recreational facilities was a vital issue, noting that the Specific Plan was not consistent with the Growth Management Plan; recommended that the Quimby requirements be recalculated; and with respect to the Design Guidelines, noted that the document was woefully inadequate with no mention of architectural forward elements. In response to Commission comments regarding continuing the project for 60 days, Director of Planning Ubnoske advised that this would constitute continuing the item to the October 17, 2001 meeting, with the caveat that if the project was ready for presentation at a sooner point, the item would be noticed and brought back to the Planning Commission sooner. Chairman Chiniaeff relayed hopes that at the next hearing the applicant would provide all of the necessary data in order for the Planning Commission to make an educated informed decision. Concurring with the Planning Commission comments, Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that it would be a waste of time if the following items were not completed and finalized: a fixed Land Use Plan, a final DA, the resolve of the CFD, and the maps. Deputy City Manager Thomhill recommended that the Planning Commissioners, who had been appointed to the Subcommittee, attend as many meetings as possible. Commissioner Olhasso requesting that once again the meetings be taped in order for the Planning Commissioners to be able to review the discussions. In response to the Planning Commission recommendations, Mr. Everett relayed that the applicant could come back next week with a new Land Use Plan, relaying the desire to negotiate with the Planning Commission, advising that it was the applicant's desire to obtain Planning Commission input rather than holding Subcommittee meetings. For Mr. Ashby, Assistant City Attorney Cudey noted that it was within the Planning Commission's prerogative to determine how its agenda items and meetings are managed, advising that the Planning Commission could continue this item if that was its desire. In response to Mr. Ashby, Chairman Chiniaeff noted that the Planning Commission needed additional information regarding the project to make its determination, which would take time; provided assurance that if the project was thoroughly ready prior to the 60-day continuation that it could be brought to the Planning Commission at an earlier date. MOTION: Commissioner Mathewson moved to continue this item to the October 17, ~001 meeting, with the caveat that il the project plan was ready at an earlier date, the matter would be noticed and come back to the Planning Commission earlier. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Olhas.~o. (Ultimately this motion passed; see page 21.) Additional discussion ensued regarding the noticing time needed if the project was thoroughly prepared to come before the Planning Commission at an earlier date. At this time voice vote was taken reflecting approval of the motion with the exception of Commissioner Guerr ero who was .absent. COMMISSIONER'S REPORTS For Commissioner Telesio, Deputy City Manager Thornhill relayed that the paleontologist issue (where allegedly there was a disgruntled employee working) was being investigated. With respect to the Mobile Home Park on Old Town Front Street where rental trucks are continually parked in the back of the lot, for Chairman Chiniaeff, Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that staff was addressing the matter. In response to Commissioner Telesio's comments, Senior Planner Hogan and Deputy Director of Public Works Parks provided additional information regarding the housing development on the south side of Pauba Road (which was an early City-approved project), noting that the project was conditioned to install frontage improvements on Pauba Road, and relaying that them were approximately 20- 30 half-acre lots in this development. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT After discussion, the Planning Commission determined to hold the January 2002 meetings on the 16~ and the 30m, making this determination in order for the Fire Department to be able to make plans to use the City Council chambers for a National Training Seminar during the month of January. ADJOURNMENT At 10:30 P.M. Chairman Chiniaeff formally adjourned this meeting to the next adiourned reaular meeting to be held on Wednesday, Auqust 22, 2001 at 6:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula. Debbie Ubnoske, Director of Planning ATTACHMENT NO. 9 PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 17, 2001 PROPOSED LAND USE R:\S P\Rodpaugh Ranch S P~ew~PC Staff Report 10-16-02\PC Staff Report 10-16-02.doc CITY OF TEMECULA 0000~00~0~0~0 CASE NO. - PA94-0075 (Specific Plan) - Rorlpaugh LAND USE PLAN PLANNING COMMISSION DATE -October 17, 2001 RGS P~oripaugh Ranch SPVuew~c staff report 10-17~l.doc 25 ATTACHMENT NO. 10 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SUMMARY, OCTOBER 17, 2001 R:\S P\Rodpaugh Re, nch SP~new~PC Staff Report 10-16-02\P0 Staff Report 10-16-02.doc 57 · SUMMARY OF PC RECOMMENDATIONS 10-17-01 1. Viewpoints should not be utilized. 2. Moving the park to 11B could work if paseos connected it to PA 1 lA and PA4. 3. A specific church site not necessary. 4. Drainage issues should be resolved with staff. 5. Arizona crossing on Nicolas Road is not acceptable. 6. Complete 4 lane improvements to Nicolas Road is probably needed. 7. Gate on Loop Road should be re-examined. 8. Gates will need to be manned 24 hours a day. 9. Mega center concept is acceptable but additional units will not be granted. 10. SB 221 issues need to be addressed. 11. Traffic concerns need to be addressed. 12. Number of units for the project is dependent on the amenities, improvements, and the benefits to the community. 13. The visual transition from large lots to small lots need to be looked at carefully. 14. Amhitectural design of the homes need to be improved from those shown on the pictures. 15. PA5 Neighborhood Park should be converted to a small private park to maintain the current balance of parks. 16. The changes to the project need to go back to the Subcommittee. 17. The commercial site should stay in PA 1 lA. 18. The buffering to the south and east is adequate. 19. A final project Land Use Plan, Specific Plan, environmental analysis, and all other supporting documents need to be prepared and presented to the Planning Commission. R:\S P\Roripaugh Ranch SP¥~ew~PC Staff Report 10.16-02\PC Staff Report 10-16-02.doc 58 ATI'ACHMENT NO. 11 PLAI'INING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT, OCTOBER 17, 2001 R:\S P~Roripaugh Ranch SP~new~PC Staff Report 10-16-02\PC Staff Report 10-16-02.doc 59 TO: FROM: DATE: Subject: ClTY OFTEMECULA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTDEPARTMENT PLANNING DI~SION MEMORANDUM Planning Commissioners Debbie Ubnoske, Director of Planning October 17, 2001 Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan Land Use Plan PREPARED BY: Saied Naaseh, Project Planner RECOMMENDATION: Provide Direction on the issues identified in the Staff Report BACKGROUND: On August 15, 2001, the Planning Commission heard the Roripaugh Specific Plan and continued it to the October 17, 2001 meeting. The Planning Commission directed staff and the applicant to resolve remaining issues and bring forward a complete and comprehensive package for Planning Commission's review. Attachment 1 provides a summary of the Commission's concerns and comments. The focus of staff has been on generating a Land Use Plan that makes good planning sense and is acceptable to the Subcommittee and the surrounding residents. Several meetings have been held between staff, the applicant, the Subcommittee, and the residents to arrive at the proposed Land Use Plan. On September 12, 2001, staff held a meeting with the surrounding residents to present them with a revised Land Use Plan. Their input from this meeting is summarized in Attachment 2. As a result of this input, the applicant made additional refinements to the Land Use Plan. This Land Use Plan was subsequently presented to the Subcommittee on September' 24, 2001 (Refer to Attachment 9 for the Currant Land Use Plan). The Subcommittee's complete recommendations are included in Attachment 3 with major recommendations discussed in the Analysis Section of this Staff Report. Staff feels the proposed Land Use Plan adequately addresses most of the Planning Commission's concams from the August 15th meeting, as well as the Subcommittee's and residents' concerns. Some fine-tuning of the Land Use Plan may be necessary and staff would like to obtain input from the Planning Commission on the Land Use Plan and any other concerns the Planning Commission may have. However, the primary purpose of this Workshop is to finalize the Land Use Plan. After developing a final Land Use Plan, based upon the input received at this Workshop, the process of preparing the Specific Plan can be initiated. R:~ l~Rorlpaugh Ranch Sl~ncvApc staff report lO-17*OI.doc 1 ANALYSIS Chanaes to the Land Use Plan The total number of units for the entire project has increased from 1721 to 1986, an increase of 265 units or about 15%. All the proposed product types are now single family detached, A lotting study will determine a more precise distribution of the units within the Planning Areas. The applicant has not submitted a copy of the lotting study to staff. The following provides a comparison of the August 15th Land Use Plan and the currently proposed Land Use Plan. The project area has been broken into three sub-areas for this discussion. Attachment 4 provides a summary of the changes in the number of units for the project. The Panhandle Neighborhood (PAs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5,and 6) The total number of units in this area has increased from 460 to 485, an increase of 25 units or 5%. The increase is a result of moving the elementary school site due to the site's proximity to the French Valley Airport. This school is now located in PA 22 adjacent to the Middle School site in the 640-acre area. An additional 3-acre neighborhood pan~ and a 2.5-acre private recreation area have replaced a portion of the 12-acre elementary school site. The remainder of the school site has been converted to 25 residential lots with minimum 5,000 square foot lot sizes. The West Butterfield Stage Road Neighborhood (PAs 1 lA, 1 lB, 12, 27, and 30) * This area lays between the MWD easement and Butterfield Stage Road. The total number of units in this area has decreased from 490 to 237 dwelling units, a decrease of 253 units or 51%. The number of units in PA 12 has decreased from 300 attached units to 180 clustered courtyard units. The number of units in PA 27 has decreased from 135 attached units to 12 single-family units. Buffering the surrounding areas was the main reason for the change. One acre lots wJl! be proposed followed by ~ acre lots. The number of units in Planning Area (PA) 30 has deceased from 45 to 9. This change was result of staff's continued concern about the density of this PA and the Subcommittee's concurrence with staff's position. The Subcommittee recommended transferring the balance of the units from PA 30 (36 units) to PA 11B which used to be a Neighborhood Commercial site. In addition, PA 29 has been removed from the Specific Plan. East Butterfield Neighborhood (640 Acre Area) The total number of units in this area has increased from 771 to 1,252 an increase of 481 units or 62%. The applicant is proposing two gates on the Loop Road. The gate concept was not presented to the Subcommittee. While this concept is acceptable to the Fire Department staff, it is subject to further review and approval. Some of the Fire Departments concerns regarding providing adequate service to the area could be addressed by providing Opticom and Knox gate controllers which will provide access through the gates in case of an emergency. This area has been divided into the following three sub-areas: Inside the Loop (PAs 19A, 19B, 20, 21A, 21B, 22, 23, 24, 26, and 32) The total number of units in this area has increased from 270 single-family units with minimum 5,000 square foot lots to 584 with minimum 3,500 square R:~ P~Ro~ipaugh Panch SP~ncw~c staff ~cpo~t lO-17-Ol.doc 2 foot lots (478 units) and the clustered courtyard product (106 units). The total increase in this area is 314 units or 116%. In addition, the elementary school site and the new 4-acre private recreational facility are new to this area. · Outside the Loop to the South and East (PAs 16, 17, and 18) The total number of units in this area has increased from 111 to 130, an increase of 19 units or 17%. Most of the change in this area is due to inequitable buffering issues. The buffering to the east and south of this area is a row of 1-acre lots followed by one row of ½ acre lots. The previous Land Use Plan proposed minimum 2 ~ acre lots along the east side and only minimum 20,000 square foot lots along the south side. In addition, a 30' fuel modification zone is required along the eastern and southern boundary of the area which includes a multi- purpose trail including a horee trail. · Outside the Loop to the North (PAs 13A, 13B, 14, and 15) The total number of units in this area has increased from 390 to 550 an increase of 160 units or 41%. The previous Land Use Plan provided a mixture of product types in this area including 105 attached single-family dwellings, 205 detached single-family dwellings with minimum 6,000 square foot lots, and 80 detached single-family dwellings with minimum 7,200 square foot lots. The current product mix includes 200 clustered courtyard units, 240 detached single-family dwellings with minimum 3,500 square foot lots, and 110 detached single-family dwellings with minimum 7,200 square foot lots. Subcommittee's Recommendations Following are the major recommendations from the Subcommittee. For a complete list of subcommittee's recommendations, please refer to Attachment 3, Village Center Concept The Subcommittee discussed moving the commercial center from Planning Area (PA) 1 lA to PA 13A since PA 11A is not accessible to pedestrians unless a safe route is provided. However, the subcommittee's final recommendation was to keep the commercial in 1 lA since selling alcohol next to the school could be inappropriate. In addition, the Nicolas Valley neighborhood and the developer prefer the commercial center at its present proposed location. Staff sees some merit in moving the commercial center to create a Village Center which was recommended by the Planning Commission. However, moving the commercial center could trigger the 600-foot separation between some alcohol serving uses in the commercial center and the school sites as mentioned in Section 23789 of the California Business and Professions Code (Attachment 7). The Alcohol and Beverage Control (ABC) enforces this Section. According to ABC, this Section is more used as a guide than an absolute requirement. When ABC receives an application for an alcohol license, they consider a number of issues, including but not limited to, the access points of the school in relation to the use and the nature of the proposed use. The ABC would then notify the School Distdct of the proposed application. Conditions may be imposed upon the use based on the ABC's determination and School District's input. Attachment 8 delineates the 600' radius around the school sites. In fact, the rear portion of the 10- acre commemial site is outside the 600' radius. Therefore, since this information about Section 23789 was not available to the Subcommittee, staff feels additional R:~S Ph~.oripaugh Ranch SP~new~pc staff report 10-17-01.doc 3 discussion is warranted regarding the location of the commemial center. Alcohol uses can be regulated through the Specific Plan Zoning Section. Additional input is requested from the Planning Commission on the location of the commercial center. Buffering South, East, and PA 27 The Subcommittee felt that the buffering in this area is adequate. The surrounding residents initially had concerns regarding the buffering on the previous Land Use Plan; however, they did not express concems about the buffering of the current Land Use Plan. In all three PAs, one row of 1-acre lots is followed by one row of ½ acre lots. The Subcommittee also recommended that in PAs16, 17, and 18, the 1-acre lots and ½ acre lots should have the same lot width. In addition, horses should be permitted in the 1-acre lots in PA 16, 17, and 18 with direct access to the trail from the rear yard fence. Staff concurs with the Subcommittee's recommendations. South of the Panhandle The Subcommittee determined that the elevation and distance separation in this area provides some buffering; however, the following measures could be incorporated into the project to reduce visibility of the Panhandle lots from the Nicolas Valley. The Subcommittee directed the applicant to conduct a Visual Impact Study to determine the visibility of these lots. The mitigation measures to reduce the impacts could include: * An additional 40' to 50' of building setback or landscaped buffer for all lots with pad elevations higher than the top of the slope. · Additional landscaping at the bottom of the slope. · Use of single story units along the south edge. Staff has not received a copy of the Visual Impact Analysis to obtain input from the Subcommittee and provide an analysis. Despite the lack of adequate information, staff would like to receive further input from the Planning Commission on this issue. Number of Units · The Subcommittee was split on their reccmmendation for the total number of units. Council Member Roberts and Commissioner Chiniaeff needed more information on the amenities (paseos, private recreational areas, trails, and other improvements), the mitigation measures, and the lotting study for the proposed project prior to consenting to the proposed number of units. However, Mayor Comerchero and Commissioner Telesio supported the proposed Land Use Plan. The Subcommittee will need to provide more specific direction on this issue when the applicant develops a more detailed project description. Staff requests the Planning Commission provide input regarding the proposed number of units. The General Plan permits 3 dwelling units per gross acre which translates to approximately 2,400 dwelling units for the whole site. Staff is supportive of the total number of units for the project as long as the applicant provides the level of amenities, the design detail and quality, and the buffering that has been discussed. The amenities for the project include 2 private recreational facilities, off street multi purpose trails throughout the site, and detailed Design Guidelines which will result in cohesive and attractive community. R:k5 P~Ro~ipaugh Ranch Sl~aevAp~ staff rc])o~ lO-17-oI.d°c 4 Religious Institution Site The Subcommittee had no specific recommendations on this subject. Therefore, this will become a future topic of discussion for them. Staff believes that a 5-acre site designated as Public Institutional needs to be provided. Staff would like to receive Planning Commission's input on this issue. Park-N-Ride and Transit Station The off-site Park-N-Ride facility on SR-79 South was discussed as a possible alternative to the on-site mitigation. Staff has not yet determined the consistency of this recommendation with the project EIR and if this participation will represent complete mitigation for the project. Trails The Subcommittee recommended that the project should provide paseos that do not cross major streets throughout the site. In addition, horse trails should be a minimum 10' to 15' wide (15' is the preferred width). Staff will determine the precise width and surface of all tdals at the tentative map stage. Staff has not received a copy of the proposed trials from the developer; therefore, the following provides a discussion of staff's preferred off-street trails and paseos. Staff would like to receive input from the Planning Commission on the trail network proposed by staff. South of the Panhandle (PA 7) This trail will be constructed by the developer and will be maintained by the HOA, It will connect the two extreme ends of the panhandle along Murdeta Hot Springs Road sidewalks. Additional access points will be provided from the panhandle residential areas. It wilt be a multi purpose trail; however, horses will not be permitted on this trail. The immediate area in the vicinity of trail will be landscaped and will include fencing to discourage the trail users from moving downhill towards the Nicolas Valley. Along the IVIVVD Easement This multi-purpose trail will be constructed by the developer and will be maintained by the City. It will connect the sidewalk on Murrieta Hot Springs Road in the Panhandle to the southerly point of PA 27. PA 27 This Class I multi-purpose trail within PA 27 will be constructed by the developer and will be maintained by the HOA. It will connect the western boundary of PA 27 at Nicolas Road to Butterfield Stage Road. Butterfield Stage Road Under-Crossing The developer will be responsible for constructing an under crossing for a trail from the west side of Butterfield Stage Road into the Sports Park (PA 24), R:~S P~orlpaugh Ranch gP~new~c staffreport I0-17-Ol,doc $ Butterfleld Stage Road Class I Trail This trail on the east side of Butterfield Stage Road will provide a connection from the under crossing to the multi-purpose trail in PA 18. South and East Side of the 640-Acre Area (PAs 16, 17, and 18) The developer will construct a multi-purpose trail within the 30' fuel modification zone. This trail will be maintained by the HOA. The balance of the fuel modification zone will be landscaped. This trail will provide access from the Nicolas Valley via PA 27, the under crossing, and the Class I trail along Butterfield Stage Road to the University of California Riverside (UCR) property. Long Valley Trails and Pedestrian Bridge (PAs 25 and 26) The developer will construct two multi-purpose trails (excluding horses) on both sides on the Long Valley channel. A pedestrian bridge will connect these two trails over Long Valley channel. This pedestrian bridge will provide access to the schools, the Spods Park, and the private recreational facility (PA 32) from the Butterfield Stage Road under- crossing. In addition, they will connect to the multi-purpose trail along the PAs 16 and 17. Additional Off-Street Paseos In addition to the above trails, the project needs to provide off-street paseos that provide access to the above trail and to the other parts of the development. Residents Concerns Since the August15th Planning Commission meeting, the residents have provided their input into the planning process for the Land Use Plan. Most of their concerns relating to the Land Use Plan have been addressed. Following are some of their other concerns about the project: · Improvement of Calle Chapos instead of Nicolas Road as one of the primary access point to the project. · Improvement of NiCOlas Road to 4 lanes by the developer. · The projected Nicolas Road traffic volumes are not realistic. · The safety of Nicolas Road needs to be ensured by adding sidewalks, bike paths, and possible Class I trails (off street). · No Arizona crossing should be proposed for Nicolas Road. · An improved landscaped buffer for the south side of the panhandle needs to be proposed. · Equestrian trails are needed along selected portions of Butterfield Stage Road, Calle Chapos, and Nicolas Road to provide a comprehensive horse access in the area. R:~S l~Roripaugh Ranch SP~evApc $~f repent 10-17-01.d~c 6 · Drainage Issues for Santa Gertrudis and Long Valley channels and Liefer Road need to be adequately addressed. · Restrictions on park lighting should be included. · Adequate parldng for the parks and schools needs to be provided. · The project will generate a lot of traffic. Dssian Guidelines The Design Guidelines are not a discussion item for this Workshop. However, Attachment 5 includes staff's concerns and direction to the applicant. If the Planning Commission would like to see some specific provisions within the Design Guidelines, individual Commissioners should contact staff. ~the EIR_ Due to the changes to the Land Use Plan, staff needs to examine the adequacy of the currant draft EIR. This determination cannot be completed until the Land Use Plan is complete and a detailed project description is developed. After the Land Use Map is finalized, staff will determine whether the Traffic Study or other studies would need to be updated. Summary Staff would, like to receive direction on the following issues from the Planning Commission: · General comments on the Land. Use Plan · The appropriateness of the location of the Commemial Center in PA 1 la · Adequacy of the buffering along the south side of the Panhandle · The total number of units of the project · The need to add a designated Public Institutional site · The trail network Attachments: 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Planning Commissions Concems from the August 15, 2001 Meeting - Page 8 Summary of the September 12, 2001 Community Meeting - Page 11 Revised Summary of the September 24, 2001 Subcommittee Recommendations Page 13 Summary Table for the Changes to the Land Use Plan - Page 16 Staff's General Comments on the Design Guidelines - Page 18 Letters from the Residents - Page 20 Section 23789 of the Business and Professions Code - Page 21 Land Use Plan Delineating the 600' radius around the School - Page 22 Current Land Use Plan - Page 24 R:~S P~oripaugh Ranch SIAncw~pc staffrcport 10-17~Ol.doc 7 ATTACHMENT NO. 12 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES, OCTOBER 17, 2001 R:\S P'~Roripaugh Ranch SP',n,~w\PC Staff Report 10-16-02~°C Staff Report 10-16-02.doc 60 ~ Road, relayed his~ ~tively impacted by .~s,~a/C-~mmissioner Ma-~--,~,~ and ~d unanimous approval ~ 4 Roripauqh Ranch Specific Plan Land Use Plan Workshop · The staff report is presented Staff presents the Land Use chanqes By way of overheads, Project Planner Naaseh provided an overview of the meetings held with the applicant, the Subcommittee, and the community since the August 15, 2001 Planning Commission meeting; reviewed the revisions in the Land Use Plan, specifying that the elementary school site has been removed from the Panhandle area (due to the proximity to the airport) and has been replaced with a park and a private recreation facility, noting the increase in density by 25 units in this area; relayed the decrease in density in the West Butterfield Stage Road Neighborhood by 253 units, advising that Planning Area (PA) No. 27 would provide an improved buffer for the surrounding areas with one-acre lots followed by half-acre lots; with respect to the 640- acre area, relayed the increase in density by 481 units, noting that the elementary school site has been placed in this area, adjacent to the middle school site; specified that overall the project has increased in density from 1721 units to 1986; clarified that the attached units have been deleted from the Plan, noting that the product types will include the clustered courtyard design, small lot single-family with a minimum of 3,500 square feet, minimum 5,000 square foot lots in the Panhandle, and other larger lot projects; and relayed that there would be two private recreation facilities proposed (i.e., one four-acre facility, and one 2.5 acre facility). Staff presents the proposed trails plan Project Planner Naaseh presented staff's proposed trails plan, noting that the applicant has not yet submitted a trail plan, specifying the Murrieta Hot Spdngs connector trail, the multi-purpose trails with a Butterfield Stage Road undercrossJng, and the trail continuing along Butterfield Stage Road and connecting to the thirty-foot (30') easement. Staff presents the residents' concerns With respect to the residents' concerns, Project Planner Naaseh relayed that the majority of the issues have been addressed with the exception of the following: the need for additional buffering of the Panhandle (to the south) which was additionally recommended by the Subcommittee, the incorporation of mitigation measures to reduce the visibility from Nicolas Valley, *drainage issues, and *traffic impacts (*it was noted that these items will be addressed at a future point in time since the primary focus at this time was the Land Use Plan). Staff presents the Subcommittee's recommendations Specifying various Subcommittee recommendations, Project Planner Naaseh relayed that with respect to the Village Center, the recommendation was to keep the commemial area in PA No. 1 lA; and with respect to the increase in density, the Subcommittee was split regarding this matter. Continuing his presentation, Project Planner Naaseh relayed staff's desire to obtain the Planning Commission's direction with respect to the following: the Land Use Plan, the commercial site being moved to PA No. 13A, the buffering for the Panhandle, the densities, and the need for a public institutional site. Addressing the Planning Commission's questions, for Commissioner Oihasso, Project Planner Naaseh noted that the trail along Butterfield Stage Road would include a compilation of a horse trail and a sidewalk, Development Services Administrator McCarthy specifying that a Class I trail is separated from the street, whereas a Class II trail is a stdped bike lane that is part of the road. For Commissioner Mathewson, Project Planner Naaseh relayed that once the Land Use Plan is finalized, the additional impacts from the increase in density would be assessed; and for Chairman Chiniaeff, specified that the original EIR was conducted for 1721 dwelling units. · The applicant's presentation Noting the revisions in the plan, Mr. Kevin Everett, representing the applicant, highlighted the following modifications regarding the project: The added private recreation facility and public park located in PA Nos. 6A, and 6B. The new location for the elementa~ school. With respect to staff's proposed trails plan, noted the mixed response from the Nicolas Valley residents, as well as the builders, advising that if the Panhandle area was gated, the access to the trails could be controlled, limiting access to members of the HCA; presented trail concepts with view look-out areas, meandering trails, benches, and landscaping; noted that with the gated concept, the width of the road that fronts the lots could be reduced, and deeper lots could be created; For Chairman Chiniaeff, relayed that the applicant has conducted visibility studies for the Panhandle area, presenting the data which provided the project views from various locations, noting the fifty-foot (50') difference in elevation in various areas; for Commissioner Mathewson, specified the area where the lots have reversed slopes; Noted the desire of the applicant to relocate one of the park sites to PA No. 1 lB in order to enlarge the private recreation area, advising that it would be the applicant's desire to install a view ridge park; for Chairman Chiniaeff, advised that the applicant is working with Development Services Administrator McCarthy regarding the parks issue, confirming that all the parkland requirements will be met; Relayed the applicant's agreement to include two recreational facilities in the project plan, noting that the facilily in the Panhandle has been designed, and the applicant consultant is in the process of designing the second one; noted that this particular consultant will additionally be designing the entries, noting that this architectural detail will be carried throughout the development; Provided an overview of the types of dwelling units being proposed, specifying the planning areas which would be comprised of lots approximately 4,000 square feet in size; noted the enhance design elements, inclusive of architecture forward treatments, architecture on two sides, front porches, single-story units mixed with two-story units, frontyard HOA landscaping for all lots under 5,000 square feet, and open space lots. With respect to the proposed clustered courtyard housing with zero lot lines, relayed that these lots would range from 3,500-4,000 square feet, presenting photographs of a similar product to what the applicant was planning, noting the detailed architecture. With respect to design, relayed the agreement with the School District which would allow the project's architectural elements to be implemented at the school sites, noting the applicants desire to additionally implement these design elements at the Fire Station in order to create community cohesiveness; Relayed the potential to construct a mega recreation facility similar to a San Diego facility in the La Mirage Development, relaying the 13,000 square foot recreation room, the ballroom facility, the weightlifting room, the various pools, the five to six saunas, and an outdoor cabana; noted the applicanrs desire to locate this facility in PA No. 32, requesting the Planning Commission to consider allowing the applicant to consider permitting the density to be further increased by 72 lots to aid in funding the upfront costs for these facilities, noting that the HOA would fund the long-term maintenance; and for Chairman Chiniaefl, specified that the additional 72 units would bring the total density up to 2058. Addressing the questions of the Planning Commission, Mr. Everett relayed the following: For Chairman Chiniaeff, noted the applicant's desire for the commercial center to stay in PA No. 1 lA due to the easy access to this area; For Commissioner Mathewson, fudher specified the overall density increase from 1721 to 2058, noting the proposed park and recreational areas; relayed that the previously presented plan for the mega recreation center was not a definite part of the proposal, advising that the applicant is working with staff regarding this matter. Development Services Administrator McCarthy provided additional information regarding the park requirements, advising that staff had concerns regarding the park site location at PA No. 11B, which was proposed by the applicant yesterday; For Commissioner Olhasso, advised that the proposed dwelling units have increased due to the detailed cost studies conducted, advising that in order for the project to include the elements staff was requesting (i.e., the CFD, the Fire Station and fire truck, and other facilities) the units constructed would need to be increased; With respect to the equestrian trail along the southern and eastern portions of the project, relayed that this trail could be accessed from the one-acre lots, on the County area, confirming that it would be publicly accessible; relayed that it would be the applicant's desire that the horse trail be located on a major thoroughfare, and that the crossing be at grade, which the Public Works Departments was opposed to; and clarified that the final trail plan has not been determined; In response to Commissioner Olhasso's querying if the largest lots were 4,000 square feet (with the exception of the one-acre, and half-acre lots), clarified that the lots would range in size from 3,500 up to one acre, noting the deletion of the 2.5 acre lots; and In response to Chairman Chiniaeff's queries regarding the applicant's comment when it was stated that the dwe//ing units needed to be increased in order for the CFD to operate, clarified that the funds were needed for Development Agreement issues, additionally clarifying that if the City staff requested above what the CFD was funding then those additional monies would come from the developer. It was noted that the meeting recessed at 7:06 P.M, reconvening at 7:17 P.M. · The public Is Invited to comment The following individuals had concerns regarding the project, as proposed: Mr. Bill Vazzanza Mr. Ron Knowles Mr. John Mize Mr. Jack Norris Mr. Hans Kernkamp Mr. Mike Payne Ms. Joyce Williams Mr. Mike Knowlton 39603 Avenue Lynell 39675 Cantrell Road 32850 Vista Del Monte 33055 Vino Way 39055 Liefer Road 39790 Avenida Arizona 33612 Vino Way 39130 Pala Vista Drive The above-mentioned individuals relayed the following concerns regarding this particular proposal: Opposed to the developer revising the plan to eliminate the 2.5-acre lots proximate to his property, referencing a previous map (provided by the developer) denoting the 2.5-acre parcels. The location of the recreation center (i.e., in PA No. 32) Noise, traffic, and light impacts. Adequate water supply. Flood control and drainage issues. Requested that there be a minimum ei hr-foot berm on both sides of the creek. Requested Iow density residential for Parcel No. 57130004, due to the proximity to a residence. Concurred with keeping the commercial unit in PA No. 1 lA. Buffedng along the east and south side of the project. Opposed to increased density. Traffic on Nicolas Road, in padicular due to the proximity to the school sites. Opposed to the proposed viewpoints (i.e., look-out areas), which would defeat the purpose of the buffering elements. Queded where the revenue would be derived from to cover emergency services since this project was primarily a housing development. Concurred that it was better that the City address the impacts of the project rather than the County. Queded whether the Planning Commission was aware of all the comments that residents have expressed to the developer during numerous meetings held over years. Densities are too high. Referenced a letter (which had been distributed to the Planning Commission via supplemental agenda material) dated October 17, 2001, which detailed additional concerns, listed as follows: the need for a final map to be presented, recommended that the large parcels be designated as horse properties, expressed concern regarding lights, parking provisions (proximate the schools and parks), mitigation in the Panhandle area, traffic, and densities. Queded the developer's rationalization for the need for increased densities, questioning the cost analysis. · The Commission provides concludin,q comments Recapitulating the past discussions at the Subcommittee meetings, Chairman Chiniaeff noted the various issues of concern, as follows: buffering issues, re-designation of the land uses, the densities, the previous location of the school in light of the proximity to the airport, the area around the sports park, the best location for the commercial area, the compatibility of the project with the surrounding residential area, advising that addressing various issues was part of the rationale for a few of the design changes; with respect to flood control issues, noted that the Public Works Department and Riverside County Flood Control and Conservation District would determine the sides of the slopes; with respect to the buffer proximate to the Panhandle area, advised that the look-out areas would most likely cause pdvacy issues; with respect to the proposal to relocate the park, relayed that he was in favor of this concept, noting that with the proposed trails plan individuals would be encouraged to walk to the park; with respect to the trails, advised that an important issue would be whether MWD would allow the use of the waterway for equestrian or pedestrian trails; with respect to a designated church site, clarified that a church use is allowed in any zone via a CUP; and with respect to the increase in density, while relaying that there were some areas where the courtyard housing would be appropriate, advised that he was reluctant to agree with the applicant's request for 2059 dwelling units simply due to this number of units being denoted on a previous plan. In response to Chairman Chiniaeff, Deputy Fire Marshall McBride provided additional information regarding the conditions which would be imposed if a gated community was implemented; and advised that if the determination of planning the gate area was solely dependent on his advisement, it would not be placed on a thoroughfare. Concurring with the previous comments of the residents, Commissioner Guerriero noted his concern regarding water supply, referencing Senate Bill 221. In response, Assistant City Attorney Curley advised that SB 221 would mandate new findings in the City's review and approvals to determine that there was adequate water on a 20-year projection basis to serve the development, providing additional information regarding this review process; advised that the City and the applicant wily rely on the local water agencies for this affirmation, relaying that the statute sets out vadous factors that the water agencies must consider when determining whether there would be adequate water, and subsequently staff would review the agencies' conclusions; provided additional information regarding how CEQA's cumulative clause ties in with the referenced Senate Bill, confirming that there would be a coincidence of analysis; for Commissioner Telesio, confirmed that the water supply entities will take into consideration not only the existing water use but the commitment to water for future development. For Chairman Chiniaeff, Director of Planning Ubnoske noted that for all projects staff requests the water district to provide a letter confirming that an adequate supply exists. Commissioner Mathewson advised that it would be his preference for a final Land Use Plan to be presented to the Planning Commission review, one which has been generally accepted by both the applicant and staff, clarifying that the hearing was not the appropriate forum for debating major land use issues; noted his concern regarding the proposed increase in density; opined that compatibility with the surrounding land uses and appropriate buffering needed to be taken into consideration (i.e., the location of the commercial center); with respect to the potential mega recreation facility, concurred that this facility was proposed too close to the boundaries of the project and should be relocated further to the center due to the noise, and lighting impacts; opined that if the density is increased, an EIR would need to be re-circulated in order to address the additional impacts; concurred with concerns regarding water supply, traffic, and drainage; concurred with staff's concern regarding relocating the park site to PA No. 11 B; with respect to buffering on the eastern and southern portions of the project, relayed concern regarding the small lot sizes on the interior loop, noting that no criteria has been presented for design standards in this area; and noted that the transitioning from 1-acre lots to 10,000 square foot lots is too drastic of a change. In response to Commissioner Mathewson, Mr. Everett specified the location of the natural ridgeline at the southern end of the project, the 30-foot buffer (the fuel break with a horse trail), and then the one- to one-half-acre lots, clarifying that PA No. 18 would solely have one- to one-half-acre lots; with respect to PA No. 17, relayed that there would be one-acre lots, one-half-acre lots, and the fuel break, noting that in the remaining area, closer to the loop thero would potentially be 10,000 square fool lots; with respect to PA Nos. 27 and 30, relayed the commitment to one-acre, and one-half acre lots; with respect to the gated area, relayed that there would be substantial provisions for parking, noting that the gate would be manned with guards; with respect to the proposed location of the recreation center, clarified that there was a half-mile distance between the proximate neighborhood, noting that the recreation center would nol be an intensive lighted project; and relayed that the private roads and landscaping would be paid for by the development's residents, and not the public. Commissioner OIhasso noted that an example of poor developmental planning with respect to transitloning from one-acro, one-half-acre, to ten thousand square foot lots was the Woodside Development; and with respect to the comments concerning lighting at the sports park, clarified that staff was stringent with respect to the type of lighting required and there rules of use. In response to Commissioner Olhasso's queries, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks confirmed that with respect to flooding issues, staff would be thoroughly investigating, and subsequently would determine a recommendation to address this issue. Regarding the CFD, Commissioner OIhasso acknowledged that there would be a financial advisor associated with this mechanism. For Commissioner Olhasso, Director of Planning Ubnoske advised that the additional increase in density that the applicant referenced was new data, relaying that both the Finance Department and the Public Works Department would be carefully scrutinizing the financial analysis, noting that she could forward Commissioner Olhasso's recommendation for the City to conduct its own analysis. Assistant City Attorney Cudey relayed that until the Land Use Plan is finalized the economics of the project cannot be fully analyzed. With respect to the Design Guidelines (which would be developed at a future point), Commissioner Olhasso noted that she was not pleased with the architecture presented in the photographs; regarding the parks, recommended that if the park was to be relocated, that a few housing lots be deleted, and that a tot lot park be implemented on the western portion of the project. Noting that he served on the Subcommittee associated with this project, Commissioner Telesio clarified, for Commissioner Mathewson, that numerous significant proposals presenled by the applicant were recent changes, and had not been presented to the Subcommittee, concurring that the new concepts should first be presented to staff, then the Subcommittee, and finally to the Planning Commission; opined that the commercial area should be placed in the center of the project; with respect to the density, advised that the critical issue would be the alternate elements proposed to offset the density (i,e., traffic mitigation, community amenities) which would render the net benefit to the community; with respect to designating a specific site for a religious institution, clarified that it was determined that there was no need to specify a site for this type of use; and concluded that in light of the numerous, significant recent revisions to the Land Use Plan, the data should not be presented to the Planning Commission at this point in time, With respect to the location of the commercial center, the following comments were relayed: Commissioner Guerrierc opined that the commercial area should be located proximate to the center of the project which would be more consistent with a Village Center Concept. Noting the discussions and considerations at the Subcommittee level, Chairman Chiniaeff relayed his initial recommendation that the commercial center be located at the southerly location. For Commissioner Mathewson, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks relayed that at PA No. 13 there was an open channel adjacent to Butterfield Stage Road which would limit the access to Butterfield State Road at that site; and with respect to the nor[herly location, advised that there would be a road system around the commercial center which feeds from numerous locations, and would service the Panhandle area well. In light of Deputy Director of Public Works Parks' comments, Chairman Chiniaeff, echoed by Commissioner Olhasso and Commissioner Mathewson, concurred with the community center being located at the northerly location. Assistant City Attorney Curley clarified that per the Brown Act, the Planning Commission was not making formal decisions, and that the developer should not rely on these comments being a formal decision. With respect to density the followin,q comments were noted: Recapitulating the review of recently approved Specific Plans, Commissioner Guerriero noted concern with respect to the lack of discussion regarding major infrastructure (or a transit system) being implemented, while the densities continue to be increased, advising that it would be his recommendation that the densities be decreased; and clarified that theirs Would be no community benefit regarding the proposed mega recreation center, Commenting on the density issue, Chairman Chiniaeff relayed that proximate to the intedor loop where the school was located, that this area should be reinvestigated, recommending that this portion of the project not be designated for 3,500 square foot lots. Commissioner Olhasso noted a desire to have additional data regarding the analysis associated with the applicant's comments that the density needed to be increased to make the project financially feasible, clarifying that without this information she could not further comment on the density at this time. Concurring with the concern regarding the financial data associated with the applicant's need for the density to be increased, Commissioner Mathewson relayed concern regarding providing a recommendation with respect to densities at this time. Assistant City Attomey Curley relayed that when the applicant presents the final plan, the proposal will be undergirded with the financial machinations based on the developer's opinion of the density that will be required in order for the project to be financially feasible, as well as a benefit to the City; clarified that the goal of the Planning Commission was to ensure good planning; and, for Commissioner Olhasso, noted that once the applicant has a final proposal, the density should be defended by the applicant to the Planning Commission in suppod of the project, and that the Planning Commission will evaluate whether the densities proposed support the project. Enumerating the Planning Commission comments, Chairman Chiniaeff noted, for staff and the applicant, the Planning Commission's struggle with the increases in density, and the myriad of changes occurring in the project plan; and clarified that the Planning Commission would desire the applicant to present a fixed plan on their proposal with the supporting justification, having first been analyzed by staff. For Commissioner Telesio, Director of Planning Ubnoske clarified that at this point staff did not have data regarding the specific infrastructure associated with the project. For informational purposes, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks relayed that staff has been involved in meetings with the applicant regarding the CFD formation, the infrastructure, and the drainage issues; concurred that the applicant would need to justify the need for additional densities to cover the additional costs of these elements; and advised that it was the Public Works Depadmenl's recommendation to have four lanes at Butterfield Stage Road and Murrieta Hot Springs Road, and not to have a complete tie-in at Nicolas Road at this time. Commissioner Telesio clarified that density is a concern of his and that it was tied to the amount of infrastructure needed, Director of Planning Ubnoske noted that the DA, the CFD, and the density issues are closely tied, advising that per the Planning Commission comments these discussions need to be more finalized prior to Planning Commission presentation. Commissioner Mathewson reiterated, for the applicant, that the project plan should be fixed and previously reviewed by staff and the Subcommittee prior to Planning Commission review. Mr. Everett relayed that it was the applicant's desire to formulate a final Specific Plan, fIR, CFD, and the DA elements, and have staff review the data prior to the Planning Commission presentation. Chairman Chiniaeff reiterated that the Planning Commission desired to review a fixed finalized plan. For Senior Planner Hogan, Chairman Chiniaeff relayed that with respect to buffering issues the Planning Commission did not make any recommendations regarding implementing the 2.5 acre lots, but noted the importance of compatible land uses. Since this was a workshop item, and no formal action was required by the Planning Commission this concluded the comments of the Commission. COMMISSIONER'S REPORTS Commissioner Guerdero congratulated Commissioner Olhasso (as a member of the staff of the City of Ontado) and the City of Ontario for the recent attainment of the Putnam Award. For Commissioner Guerriere, Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that the outside storage at the Power Center was being addressed by Code Enfomement, noting that she would fudher investigate as to what stage of the citation process this matter was in; and for Commissioner Olhasso, noted that she would additionally follow up on the Code Enforcement issue regarding the site proximate to the 1-15 Freeway and Winchester Road. In response to Commissioner Mathewson, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks relayed that staff will investigate the timing of the signals on Rancho California Road in the early morning hours. Commissioner Mathewson advised that he would be unable to attend the next Planning Commission meeting. Deputy Director of Public Works Parks updated the Planning Commission regarding staff's evaluation of the traffic concerns at the Hometown Buffet use. Commissioner Guerriero clarified that the concern was exiting the site across the street from Hometown Buffet (traveling eastbound). Deputy Director of Public Works Parks noted that he would investigate the matter. Director o1' Planning Ubnoske relayed that she would provide the Planning Commission with information regarding the dates of the November meetings. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT No additional input. A'I't'ACHMENT NO. 13 COMMUNITY MEETING SUMMARY, SEPTEMBER 12, 2001 R:\S P\Roripaugh Ranch SP~new~PC Staff Report 10-16-02~PC Staff Report 10-16-02.doc SUMMARY OF THE COMMUNITY MEETING ON SEPTEMBER 12, 2001 Over 20 people attended the Community Meeting that lasted approximately 3 hours. First, the applicant presented their proposed Land Use Plan totaling 1986 dwelling units. Staff presentation followed identifying the areas that the applicant and staff need to further negotiate, including: 2. 3. 4. 5. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11, 12, 13. 14. 15. 16. The total number of units appropriate for the project; The location of the Park N Ride and the transit station; The lack of a dedicated site for Public Institutional uses such as religious institutions; The number and location of the private recreational facilities of the project; The location of the trails along Nicolas Road and the type of trail crossing at Butterfield Stage Road. The following is a summary of the community's main points: One-acre lots should be proposed along the southerly property line of the Panhandle. The impacts from the light and noise from the athletic fields need to be addressed. The proposed number of units is not consistent with the current rural atmosphere of the area. The developer should be responsible to improve Nicolas Road to four lanes. The applicant should not make a threat to go to the County. The City should look at Calle Chapos as an alternate route to Nicolas Road to avoid the drainage issues associated with the construction of Nicolas Road. The proposed schools and the parks are important and necessary features of this project. The equestrian trails issues still need to be addressed. City staff should be present in all meetings involving the Community and the developer. The City will create a better project than the County. R:\S P\Rodpaugh Ranch SP\new~PC Staff Report 10-16-02\PC Staff Report 10-16-02.doc 62 ATFACHMENT NO. 14 COMMUNITY MEETING SUMMARY, SEPTEMBER 25, 2002 R:\S P\RoHpaugh Ranch SP~new\PC Staff Report 10-16-02\PC Staff Report 10-16-02.doc ,, ~ 63 ~ COMMUNITY MEETING SUMMARY, SEPTEMBER 25, 2002 Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan The project density will change the rural character of the area. Larger lots are desired along the eastern and southern boundaries of the Valley area where 1-acre lots are currently proposed. The thirty foot wide fuel modification zone along the along the eastern and southern boundaries of the Valley area should be widened to 50 feet and have additional landscaping to provide additional buffering. Light and noise from the parks and the private recreation centers will have an impact on the surrounding residents. The Nature Walk should be eliminated. R:\S.P'tRoripaugh Ranch SP~new~PC Staff Report 10-16-02~C Staff Report 10-16-02.doc 64 ATTACHMENT NO. 15 SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING SUMMARY, SEPTEMBER 24, 2001 R:~S P'~Roripaugh Ranch SP~new\PC Staff Repoil 10-16-02\PC Staff Report 10-16-02.doc 65 SUBCOMMI'rFEE MEETING SUMMARY, SEPTEMBER 24, 2001 1. Village Center Concept Some discussion took place regarding moving the commercial center from Planning Area (PA) 1 lA to PA 13A since PA 1 lA is not accessible to pedestrians unless a safe route is provided. However, the subcommittee's final recommendation was to keep the commercial in 1 lA since selling alcohol next to the school could be inappropriate. 2. Location of the Schools The Subcommittee supported the locations of the schools as proposed. 3. Buffering South, East1 and PA 27 The buffering for the south, east, and PA 27 is adequate with 1 -acre lots and a transition to Y2 acre lots. In Planning Areas 16, 17, and 18, the 1-acre lots and Y2 acre lots should have the same lot width. Horses should be allowed in the 1-acre lots in PA 16, 17, and 18. South of the Panhandle Elevation and distance separation provides some buffering; however, the following measures could be incorporated into the project to reduce visibility of the Panhandle lots from the Nicolas Valley. A Visual Impact Study is needed to determine the visibility of these lots. Mitigation measures to reduce the impacts include: An additional 40' to 50' of building setback or landscaped buffer for all lots with pad elevations higher than the top of the slope. Additional landscaping at the bottom of the slope. Use of single story units along the south edge. 4. Number of Units The Subcommittee was split on their recommendation for the total number of units. Council member Roberts and Commissioner Chiniaeff needed more information on the amenities (paseos, private recreational areas, trails, and other improvements), the mitigation measures, and the lotting study for the proposed project prior to consenting to the proposed number of units. However, Mayor Comerchero and Commissioner Telesio supported the proposed Land Use Plan. This issue will need to be a future topic of discussion. 5. Religious Institution Site The Subcommittee had no specific recommendations on this subject. Therefore, this should become a future topic of discussion. 6. Private Recreational Facilities A 2.5-acre private recreational facility will be added to PA 3. R:VS P\Rodpaugh Ranch SP~new~PC Staff Repor110-16-02\PC Staff Report 10-16-02.doc 66 7. Park-N-Ride and Transit Station The off-site Park-N-Ride facility on SR-79 South was discussed as a possible alternative to the on- site mitigation. Staff needs to determine the consistency of this recommendation with the project EIR and determine if that participation will represent complete mitigation. 8. Zoning Designations The Zoning Designation for PA 30 should be changed to Low Density. The Zoning Designation of PA 11B should be changed to M2 and the units from PA 30 should be moved to PA 11B. 9. Trails Paseos that do not cross major streets should be created throughout the project site, In addition, horse trails should be a minimum 12' to 15' wide (15' is the preferred width). 10. Design Guidelines The level of detail of the Design Guidelines should be sufficient to require the builders to build what was presented to the Subcommittee. 11, Nicolas Road Nicolas Road should have an all weather 12-month crossing. R:\S P\Ro~ipaugh Ranch SP~ew~PC Staff Report 10-16-02\PC Staff Report 10-16-02.doc 67 ATrACHMENT 16 CURRENTLY PROPOSED LAND USE PLAN R:\S P\Rod 68 ~Pro~po~s~d,~La~n~d,. Use Pla. n ATTACHMENT 17 EXHIBIT A OF THE SPECIFIC PLAN, TIMING FOR IMPROVEMENTS R:\S P~,Rodpaugn Ranch SP'mew~PC Staff Report 10-16-02\PC Staff Report 10-16-02.doc 69. EXHIBIT A 1. Secondary Access for each Planning Area. Prior to the issuance of the 34th building permit within each Planning Area 2. Paseos including, hardscaping, landscaping, fencing, lights, and gates Prior to issuance of any building permits in the PA in which the paseo is located 3. Fencing a. Property line fence along PA 7A Prior to issuance of any building permits in PAs lA, 2, 3, 4A, and 4B b. Project walls and view fences Prior to Issuance of the 1st building permit for each residential phase (excluding models) c. Privacy fence (memhant builder) Prior to finalizing the adjacent homes d. Habitat fencing i. Temporary Habitat Fencing Prior to conveyance to the habitat management agency ii. Permanent Habitat fencing Prior to Issuance of the 1st building permit for each residential phase (excluding models) 4. Vehicular Gates and Entries including all street improvements, gates, structures, landscaping, fencing, and equipment a. Staff Gated Entries i. Plateau Prior to issuance of the 250th building permit in PAs lA, 2, 3, 4A, and 4B ii. North and South Loop Road Prior to issuance of the 250th building permit in PAs 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21,22, 23, 24, and 31. b. Cardkey Secondary Entries Prior to issuance of 30% of the building permits in each of the following PAs lA or 2, 4 A or B, 10, 12, 14, 15 or 16, 33A, and 33B 5. Public Parks a. Sports Park (PA 27) Prior to issuance of the 700th building permit for the entire project b. Neighborhood Park (PA 6) Prior to the issuance of the 400th building permit for the entire project 6. Private Recreation Facilities a. Mega Center (PA 30) R:\S P\Roripaugh Ranch SP~J~ew\PC Staff Report 10-16-02~PC Staff Report 10-16-02.doc 70 Prior to the issuance of the 800th building permit for the entire project for the Park portion and prior to the issuance of the 1150th building permit for the entire project for the recreation center building and the pool b. Primary Center (PA 5) Prior to the issuance of the 250th building permit in PAs lA, 2, 3, 4A, and 4B for the Park portion and prior to the issuance of the 350th building permit in PAs lA, 2, 3, 4A, and 4B for the recreation center building and the pool c. Mini Park (PA 1 B) Prior to the issuance of the 100th building permit for the entire project 7. Trails including fencing, landscaping, trails surface, gates, and fuel modification a. Nature Walk including the walk between PAs 4B and 6 Prior to the issuance of the 400~ building permit for the entire project b. River Walk Prior to the issuance of any building permits in PAs 10 through 12, 14 through 24, 31, and 33A c. Multi Use Trail Prior to the issuance of any building permits in PAs 19, 20, and 21 8. Pedestrian Bridge Pdor to the issuance of the 75th building permit for in PAs 22, 23, and 24 9. Parkways, Medians, bridge Monumentation, Primary Monumentations, and all slopes adjacent to roads With the installation of the road improvements 10. Fire Station Prior to the issuance of the 251st building permit for the entire project. 11. Fuel Modification in PA 13 including all slope landscaping, fire access read, and the connections to the fire access road from PAs 16 and 17 to PA 13 Prior to issuance of any building permits in PAs 14 through 17 and 19 12. Park-N-Ride (PA 11) a. Permanent Prior to issuance of any building permits in PAs 10, 12, 14 through 24, 31,33A, and 33B and prior to issuance and occupancy permit in PA 11. b. Temporary If PA 11 is not completed prior to the issuance of any building permits in PAs 10, 12, 14 through 24, 31, and 33A/B, a temporary facility shall be completed prior to the issuance of any building permits in PAs 10, 12, 14 through 24, 31, 33A, and 33B. Flood Control Improvements a. Santa Gertrudis Creek (PA 13) including fencing, access roads, gates, and landscaping including slope areas 13. R:~S P\Roripaugh Ranch SP~ew\PC Staff Report 10-16-02\PC Staff Report 10-16-02.doc 71 Prior to issuance of the 250th building permit for PAs lA, 2, or 3 b. Long Valley Creek (PA 25 and 26) including fencing, access roads, gates, and landscaping including slope areas Prior to issuance of any building permits for PAs 14 through 24, and 27 through 31 c. Detention basins including fencing and landscaping including slope areas i, PA 7B Prior to issuance of any building permits for PAs lA, 2, or 3 ii. PA 7C Prior to issuance of any building permits for PAs 3, 4A, or 4B 14. School fencing along the Loop Road and School Frontage Landscaping With the installation of the road improvements for North Loop Road 15. Road Improvements As specified in the Mitigation Measures. Note: All Improvements are the responsibility of the master developer un/ess otherwise indicated. R:\S P'~oripaugh Ranch S P\r~ew\PC Staff Report 10-16-02\PC Staff Report 10-16-02.doc 72 A'FI'ACHMENT NO. 18 DRAFT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT R:\S P\Roripaugh Ranch SP~ew\PC Staff Report 10-16-02~PC Staff Report 10-16-02.doc 73 : DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT By and Between THE CITY OF TEMECULA, City, and USA PROPERTIES (RORIPAUGH) Owner. 11086\0097~659181.1 DEFINITIONS GENERAL PROVISIONS Binding Covenants Interest of OWNER Term Termination Transfers and Assignments DEVELOPMENT PROVISIONS Vesting Reserved Authority Further Assurances to OWNER Regarding Exercise of Reserved Authority Consistent and Inconsistent Enactments Amendment of Development Agreement Future Amendments to Development Plan Approval(s) Future Development Approvals OBLIGATIONS OF THE PARTIES. FEE AND EXACTION RELATED RESPONSIBILITIES PHYSICAL IMPROVEMENTS Public Facility Financing_Plan Related Real Property Conveyances; Conditions to Development Agreement INDEMNIFICATION RELATIONSHIP OF PARTIES PERIODIC REVIEW OF COMPLIANCE WITH AGREEMENT Periodic Review Good Faith Compliance Failure to Conduct Annual Review Initiation of Review by City Council Administration of Agreement Availability of Documents EVENTS OF DEFAULT: REMEDIES AND TERMINATION Defaults by OWNER Defaults by CITY 11086\0097\659181.1 4 7 7 7 7 7 8 10 10 13 14 14 15 17 17 18 18 24 24 24 25 25 26 26 26 26 26 26 27 27 27 27 Specific Performance Remedy Institution of Legal Action Estoppel Certificates WAIVERS AND DELAYS No Waiver Third Parties Force Majeure Extensions Notice of Delay NOTICES ATTORNEYS' FEES RECORDING EFFECT OF AGREEMENT ON TITLE Effect on Title Encumbrances and Lenders' Rights SEVERABILITY OF TERMS SUBSEQUENT Ab~ENDMENT TO AUTHORIZING STATUTE RULES OF CONSTRUCTION AND MISCELLANEOUS TERMS Interpretation and Governing Law Section Headings Gender No Joint and Several. Liability Covenant of. Good Faith and Fair Dealing No Waiver of Vesting Time of Essence Recitals Entire Agreement: EXTENSION OF MAPS NOT FOR BENEFIT OF THIRD PARTIES ATTACHMENTS COUNTERPARTS 28 28 29 29 29 29 29 30 30 30 31 31 31 31 31 32 32 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 11086~0097X659181.1 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT THIS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (the "Agreement") is entered into as of the day of ,2002 ("Agreement Date"), by and between Ashby USA, LLC, a Limited Liability Corporation ("USA"), and the CITY OF TEMECULA, a municipal corporation, organized and existing under the laws of the State of California (hereinafter "CITY"), pursuant to the authority of Sections 65864 through 65869.5 of the California Government Code and Article XI, Section 2 of the California Constitution. INTENT OF THE PARTIES This Agreement is predicated upon the following facts: A. The following paragraphs refer to and utilize certain capitalized terms which are defined in this Agreement. The parties intend to refer to those definitions in conjunction with the use thereof in these Recitals. B. The Development Agreement Legislation authorizes the CITY to enter into binding development agreements with persons having legal or equitable interests in real property for the development of such property in order to, among other matters: ensure high quality development in accordance with comprehensive plans; provide certainty in the approval of development projects so as to avoid the waste of resources and the escalation in the cost of housing and other development to the consumer; provide assurance to the applicants for development projects that they may proceed with their projects in accordance with existing policies, rules and regulations and subject to conditions of approval, in order to strengthen the public planning process and encourage private participation in comprehensive planning and reduce the private and public economic costs of development; assist in the financing of public improvements; protect against initiatives, moratorium (processing or development) and other actions inconsistent with the Project anticipated by this Agreement; assure reimbursement of OWNER in accordance with the terms of this Agreement and state and federal law; and provide for economic assistance to OWNER for the entitlements authorizing development related improvements. C. USA is the owner of certain real property (the "Property"), as more particularly described in Attachment "1", including a plat graphically depicting the real property contained in Attachment "2". OWNER desires to develop the Property in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement, the Existing Regulations and those regulations of other agencies exercising jurisdiction upon the project. The agreed upon Scope of Development of the Property is set forth in this Agreement expressly or by incorporation. D. OWNER has sought, and the CITY has agreed to, this Agreement in order to assist in the creation of a beneficial project and a physical environment that will conform to and complement the goals of the CITY, create a development project 11086\0097~659181.1 responsive to community needs, facilitate efficient traffic circulation, and develop the Property in a manner beneficial to all parties. As part of the process of granting this entitlement, the City Council of the CITY has required the preparation of and has certified the Project EIR in order to identify any significant environmental effects arising from the Development and has otherwise carried out all requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") of 1970, as amended. Project: The following actions were taken with respect to this Agreement and the 1. On ,2002, following a duly noticed and conducted public hearing, the City Planning Commission recommended that the City Council approve this Agreement, annexation, the General Plan amendments, the Specific Plan, and Tentative Map No. 29353 and 29661, by adoption of its Resolution No. __ and making the findings of fact thereto; 2. On , after a duly noticed public hearing and pursuant to CEQA, the City Council certified the Project EIR and adopted the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program by adoption of its Resolution No. __ and making the findings of fact thereto; 3. On , after a duly noticed public hearing, the City Council determined that the provisions of this Agreement are consistent with the General Plan of the CITY by adoption of its Resolution No. __ and making the findings of fact thereto; 4. On , after a duly noticed public hearing, the City Council approved the annexation, General Plan Amendments, Specific Plan and Tentative Map No. 29353 and 29661 by adoption of its Resolution No. , Ordinance No. __ and making the findings of fact thereto; On , after a duly noticed public hearing, the adopted a Resolution authorizing 6. On , after a duly noticed public hearing, the City Council introduced Ordinance No. approving and authorizing the execution of this Agreement and on , the City Council adopted the Ordinance, a copy of which is on file with the City Clerk of the CITY, and the findings and conditions pertaining thereto. F. The CITY has engaged in extensive studies and review of the potential impacts of the Project under the California Environmental Quality Act and all applicable Existing Regulations, as well as the various potential benefits to the CITY by the 2 11086\0097\659181.1 12/3/01 development of the Project and concluded that the Project is in the best interests of the G. In consideration of the substantial public improvements and benefits already provided and those to be provided by OWNER and the Project, as described in this Agreement, in further consideration of the benefits that will inure to the CITY in conjunction with the implementation of the Project and in order to strengthen the Project's public financing and planning process and reduce the economic costs of development, by this Agreement, the CITY intends to give and by this Agreement gives, OWNER assurance that OWNER can proceed with the Development of the Project for the Term of this Agreement pursuant to the terms and conditions of this Agreement and in accordance with the Development Plan Approval(s) and the Existing Regulations. In reliance on the CITY's covenants in this Agreement concerning the Development of the Property, OWNER has and will in the futura incur substantial indebtedness, as well as costs in planning, engineering, site preparation and the construction and installation of major infrastructure and facilities that OWNER would not incur but for the covenants of CITY provided in this Agreement. H. Pursuant to Section 65867.5 of the Development Agreement Legislation, the City Council has found and determined that: (i) this Agreement and the Development Plan Approval(s) implement the goals and policies of the CITY's General Plan and the Specific Plan, provide balanced and diversified land uses and impose appropriate standards and requirements with respect to land development and usage in order to maintain the overall quality of life and the environment within the CITY, (ii) this Agreement and the Project are in the best interests of and not detrimental to the public health, safety and general welfare of the CITY and its residents; (iii) adopting this Agreement is consistent with the CITY's General Plan and constitutes a present exercise of the CITY's police power; and (iv) this Agreement is being entered into pursuant to and in compliance with the requirements of Section 65867 of the Development Agreement Legislation. I. The CITY and OWNER agree that it may be beneficial to enter into operating memoranda, additional agreements or to modify this Agreement with respect to the implementation of the separate components of the Project when more information concerning the details of each component is available, and that this Agreement should expressly allow for such contemplated operating memoranda, additional agreements or modifications to this Agreement. AGREEMENT NOW, THEREFORE, pursuant to the authority contained in the Development Agreement Legislation, pursuant to Article XI, Section 2 of the California Constitution, and in consideration of the foregoing recitals of fact, all of which are expressly 3 11086~0097\659181.1 12/3/01 incorporated into this Agreement, the mutual covenants set forth in this Agreement, the parties agree as follows: 1. Definitions. Unless the context otherwise requires, the terms defined in this Section 1 shall, for all purposes of this Agreement, or any supplemental agreement, and any certificate, opinion or other document herein mentioned, have the meanings herein specified. All references herein to "Articles," "Sections" and other subdivisions are to the corresponding Articles, Sections or subdivisions of this Agreement, and the word "herein," "hereof," "hereunder" and other words of similar import refer to this Agreement as a whole and not to any particular Article, Section or subdivision hereof. "Accept" means Acceptance. "Acceptance" shall mean the CITY's final approval of the entirety of an On-Site or Off-Site Improvement as issued in the ordinary course of business by the CITY for the certain type of On-Site or Off-Site Improvement under review. "Agreement Date" means ,2002, the date of the second introduction and reading of the Authorizing Ordinance by the City Council. "Authorizing Ordinance" means Ordinance No. this Agreement. of the CITY approving "CITY" means the City of Temecula, a California municipal corporation, duly organized and existing under the Constitution and laws of the State of California, and all of its officials, employees, agencies and departments and assignees or successors. "City Council" means the duly elected and constituted city council of the CITY. "Commencement Date" shall mean the date of the issuance of the first building permit within the project or the one anniversary of the effective date whichever occurs first. "Develop" or "Development" or "Developing" means the improvement of the Property for purposes consistent with the Development Plan, including, without limitation: subdividing, grading, the construction of infrastructure and public facilities related to the Off-Site Improvements, the construction of structures and buildings and the installation of landscaping, all in accordance with the phasing provided for herein. "Development Agreement Legislation" means Sections 65864 through 65869.5 of the California Government Code as it exists on the Agreement Date. 4 11086~0097\659181.1 12/3/01 "Development Impact Fees" or "DIF" means, individually and in the aggregate, the CITY's currently adopted development impact fees as set forth in Ordinance No. 97- 09, as amended, as set forth in the Temecula Municipal Code in Section 15.06. "Development Plan" means the plan for Developing the Property contained in this Agreement, the City of Temecula General Plan as amended on 2002 and as thereafter amended in accordance with Section 3.6 hereof, the Specific Plan entitled the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan, Tentative Tract Map Nos. 29353 and 29661, the Project Final EIR (including Mitigation Monitoring Program) and those Future Development Approvals, approved in conformance with Section 3.7 hereof. "Development Plan Approval(s)" means the approvals of the City Council and other governmental agencies and other actions and agreements described in Attachment 3 hereto, including those amendments to this Agreement made in accordance with Section 3.5, those amended to the Development Plan Approvals made in accordance with Section 3.6 and those Future Development Approvals made in accordance with Section 3.7. "Development Transferee" means a person or entity that expressly assumes obligations under this Agreement pursuant to Section 2.5 hereof. "Effective Date" means the date the Authorizing Ordinance becomes effective. "Existing Regulations" means those ordinances, rules, regulations and official policies of the CITY other than the Development Plan Approval(s) in effect on the Agreement Date, which govern the permitted uses of the Property, building heights, the size of structures, the density and intensity of use of the Property, the timing, fees, and conditions to Development, exactions, assessments, the procedures for, and types of, permits required for the Development, the provisions for reservation or dedication of land for public purposes and the design, improvement and construction standards and specifications applicable to the Property and the infrastructure required for the Development. By way of enumeration, and not limitation, the Existing Regulations include those portions of the items identified on Attachment 4. The CITY has certified two copies of each of the documents listed on Attachment 4. The CITY has retained one set of the certified documents and has provided OWNER with the second set. "Future Development Approvals" means those entitlements and approvals that are: (a) made in accordance with Section 3.7; and (b) requested by the CITY or OWNER in order to authorize the Development to occur upon the Property in a manner consistent with the Development Plan Approval(s). By way of enumeration, and not limitation, the Future Development Approvals include actions such as development plan 5 11086~0097\659181.1 12/3/01 review, tentative maps, final maps, use permits, variances, grading permits, occupancy permits and building permits. "Merchant Builder" means a buyer, assignee, or transferee of one or more individual lots or tracts of the Project, acquiring such lots or tracts for the purpose of engaging in the business of developing, constructing improvements, improving, or using such lots or tracts for development. "Off-Site Improvements" includes both the improvements set forth on Attachment 5 and those described in the Development Plan Approval(s). "On-Site Improvements" means physical infrastructure improvements or facilities that are or will be located on the Property as described both in the Development Plan Approval(s) and Attachment 6. "OWNER" is Ashby USA, LLC and others who subsequently are assigned the rights and obligations of OWNER pursuant to Section 2.5 hereof. "Planning Commission" means the duly appointed and constituted planning commission of the CITY. "Project" means the development of the Property as set forth in the Development Plan Approval(s). "Project EIR" means that environmental impact report prepared for the Project, as certified on ., 2002. "Property" means that certain real property described in Attachment 1 hereof. (Applicant to provide in an electronic file.) "Public Art Program" means the plans, guidelines, and design criteria that will guide the CITY's review of public display art associated with the project. "Public Infrastructure Improvements" mean the improvements described in Attachments 5 and 6 together with those described in the Development Plan Approval(s). "Specific Plan" means the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan, approved by the CITY on ,2002 and as thereafter amended from time to time in accordance with Section 3.6 of this Agreement. Any reference in this Agreement to a Planning Area shall mean the specified Planning Area as the same is set forth in the adopted Specific Plan. 6 11086\0097~659181.1 12/3/01 "Specific Plan Area" means the Property. "Term" means the time frames set forth in Section 2.3. 2. General Provisions. 2.1 Bindin.q Covenants. Except as otherwise provided for in this Agreement, the provisions of this Agreement to the extent permitted by law, constitute covenants which shall run with the Property for the benefit thereof, and the benefits and burdens of this Agreement shall bind and inure to the benefit of the parties, all successors in interest to the parties hereto to the extent provided for in this Agreement. 2.2 Interest of OWNER. OWNER represents that OWNER holds fee simple title interest in the Property. 2.3 Term. This Agreement shall become effective on the Effective Date and shall continue for a ten (10) year term unless terminated pursuant to this Agreement. Unless terminated pursuant to Section 2.4, this Agreement shall terminate at 11:59 p.m. on the tenth (10th) anniversary after the Commencement Date. The termination shall change subject to and upon the facts and terms relating to a specific extension(s), force majeure, revision(s), and termination provisions of this Agreement. 2.4 Termination. This Agreement shall be deemed terminated and of no further effect, except for any express covenants and agreements that expressly survive termination, upon the occurrence of any of the following events: 2.4.1 Termination occurring pursuant to any provision of this Agreement, including, without limitation, a termination in the event of default; 2.4.2 The completion of the total build-out of the Development pursuant to the terms of this Agreement and the CITY's Acceptance of all dedications and improvements required to complete Development; or 2.4.3 Entry, after all appeals or time to appeal have been exhausted, of a final judgment or issuance of a final order directed to the CITY as a result of any lawsuit filed against the CITY to set aside, withdraw, or abrogate the approval of the City Council of this Agreement. 2.4.4 The expiration of the Term as set forth in Section 2.3. 2.4.5 OWNER'S failure to participate in the formation of the public finance district which must occur on or before the first building permit is issued within the Project. 7 11086~0097~659181.1 12/3/01 2.4.6 OWNER'S failure to complete any Off-Site Improvements or On- Site Improvements within the time frames and/or in the manner approved for such construction activities. To provide notice to all, and not as a condition of the effectiveness of a termination of this Agreement, the parties agree to execute and record terminations of or releases of this Agreement. 2.5 Transfers and Assignments. OWNER's resoumes and representations are a material component of CITY's decision to enter into this Agreement. The CITY, but for the factors attributable to OWNER, would not have agreed to the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement. In light of such reliance CITY desires to be provided assurances in regards to any successor to OWNER's rights, duties and obligations which arise, directly or indirectly, under this Agreement. CITY also does not desire to unduly intervene in OWNER's business affairs. In order to satisfy the goals and objectives of CITY, and to allow the OWNER reasonable freedom in regards to its business affairs, CITY and OWNER agree to the following provisions regarding transfers and assignments. 2.5.1 Assignments and/or Transfers Involving no Assignment or Transfer of Certain Specified Rights, Duties and Obligations Arising Under the Development Agreement. OWNER, at any time and from time to time, may transfer to any person, firm or entity that lawfully capable of assuming the same, any interest the OWNER may possess in the Property or the Development Plan, without the prior written approval of CITY so long as, prior to the completion of the transaction which shall result in the transfer or assignment of the subject interest OWNER shall have caused the following to occur: (i) OWNER shall deliver written notice to CITY of the proposed assignment or transfer, including the name of the transferee or assignee, the business address, facsimile number, telephone number and email address of the transferee or assignee, a reasonably detailed description of the interest being transferred or assigned and the anticipated date of the transfer ("Transferee Data.") (ii) OWNER's legal counsel shall deliver a formal written opinion, for benefit of CITY and with the purpose of CITY's reliance on the same for all purposes, that no rights, duties or obligations of OWNER relating to the construction of the Project and all required improvements, and the timely and complete development thereof, are being transferred or assigned as a result of the transaction ("the Opinion.") In the event OWNER cannot provide the Transferee Data and the Opinion set forth in Subsection 2.5.1(i) and 2.5.1(ii) in the required time frame, OWNER shall obtain CITY's written consent, to the proposed transfer and/or assignment which shall 8 11086\0097\659181.1 12/3/01 not be unreasonably withheld. The transferees and assignees identified pursuant to this subsection shall be referenced as "Non-Obligation Assignees/Transferees." 2.5.2 Assi.qnments and/or Transfers Involvin.q the Assi.qnment or Transfer of Certain Specified Rights, Duties and Obligations Arisin.q Under the Development Agreement. OWNER, at any time and from time to time may desire to transfer to another the OWNER's rights, duties and obligations arising under and from the Development Agreement in regards to the promises and performances in regards to the development of the Project and those matters set forth on the Attachments to the Agreement. The requirements attendant to the assignment or transfer are: (i) Prior to the completion of the assignment or transfer the OWNER shall deliver to CITY the information defined in Subsection 2.5.10) above. (ii) Prior to the completion of the assignment or transfer OWNER shall deliver to CITY a duplicate of the instrument by which the subject rights duties and obligations are to be delivered to and vested in the assignee or transferee, including a description of the security provided to the CITY to ensure the completion of the rights, duties and obligations accepted by the party. The Transferee shall provide CITY security in the form, nature and amount CITY determines adequate to complete the Obligations of Transferee in the event Transferee fails to complete said improvements. (iii) Prior to the date completion of the assignment or transfer OWNER shall deliver to CITY an opinion prepared by the assignees or transferees legal counsel, to the benefit of CITY which both identifies with particularity those rights, duties and obligations under the Development Agreement to be assumed by the assignee or transferee and which unequivocally acknowledges that the assignee or transferee is bound by the terms of the Development Agreement and acknowledges the CITY may enforce the Development Agreement against such Party ("Duty Opinion.") (The DA should include a complete list of benefits complete with timing, responsibility, etc. (a table) so the legal opinion should just take this table and modify the responsibilities that are being transferred.) (iv) Prior to the date of the completion of the assignment or transfer OWNER shall deliver to CITY an estoppel certificate, at no cost to CITY, wherein OWNER specifies and acknowledges those obligations under the Development Agreement which OWNER has retained and is responsible to complete pursuant to this Agreement. (v) CITY shall promptly review the documents submitted, at such time all of the documents are received by CITY and shall thereafter provide a written response to OWNER. CITY shall limit its review to the determination of (a) is the 9 11086\0097\659181.1 12/3/01 security for the subject performances reasonably adequate to cause the subject rights, duties and obligations to be completed as required by the Agreement and b) do the documents reasonably provide the information and conform to the standards and requirements expected of such instrument when the same is prepared by a competent legal practitioner. CITY shall deliver its written review, including the revisions or amendments CITY requires as a precondition to the issuance of its consent, to OWNER. In the event CITY's requests are accepted by OWNER, a duplicate set of the execution ready documents shall be provided to CITY prior to the close of the transaction for the purpose of CITY confirming all changes were correctly made therein. CITY shall thereafter be provided final, executed duplicates of the items described in Subsection 2.5.2(ii), (iii), and (iv) above concurrently with the completion of the transaction effectuating the assignment or transfer. The assignee or transferee shall be referenced as the "Development Transferee with Obligations." 2.5.3 Effect of Assignment or Transfer. Unless expressly set forth to the contrary in this Agreement CITY shall require OWNER to perform all promises, duties and obligations set forth in the Development Agreement with the sole exception of those which CITY has consented to be assigned or transferred to a Development Transferee with Obligations. CITY shall look only to the Development Transferee with Obligations to perform the obligations such party is expressly obligated to perform under this Agreement or the action occurring as required by this Agreement and shall require OWNER to perform all other Obligations. 3. Development Provisions. 3.1 Vesting. 3.1.'1 Project. CITY covenants that OWNER has, during the term of this Agreement, the right to implement the Development pursuant to the Development Plan Approvals and the Existing Regulations, including, without limitation, all specified uses, 2,015 residential dwelling units (attached and detached) and 110,000 square feet of commemial retail development, at the building heights, building sizes, lot sizes, infrastructure standards and specifications, densities and types of development provided for in the Specific Plan, and the CITY shall have the right to control the Development in accordance with the Existing Regulations and the Development Plan Approval(s) ('¥ested Right"). Except as otherwise expressly specified in this Agreement, the Development Plan Approval(s) shall control the design and development, and review and approval of all Futura Development Approvals and all Off- Site Improvements and appurtenances in connection therewith. Except to the extent it has been amended, canceled, modified or suspended in accordance with the terms of this Agreement, this Agreement shall be enforceable by CITY, OWNER or their respective assignees notwithstanding any change in any Existing Regulation. 10 I1086~0097\65 9181.1 12/3/01 3.1.2 Limits on Development. The California Supreme Court held in Pardee Construction Company v. City of Camarilla, 37 Cal.3d 465 (1984), that the failure of the parties to address certain limits on a CITY's ability to restdct or regulate a development allowed a later adopted initiative to restrict the development. This Agreement cures that deficiency by expressly addressing the timing for the Development, the vested rights afforded by this Agreement and the scope of the CITY's Reserved Authority. Except as expressly set forth in the Development Plan Approval(s), regardless of any future enactment, by initiative, or otherwise, OWNER shall have the discretion to develop the Development in such order, and at such rate, in one phase or in multiple phases, at such times as OWNER deems appropriate within the exercise of its subjective business judgment. Specifically, the CITY agrees that OWNER shall be entitled to apply for and receive the Future Development Approvals and to develop and use the Property at any time during the term of this Agreement, provided that such application is made and such development occurs in accordance with this Agreement, the other Development Plan Approval(s) and the Existing Regulations. The CITY covenants that no Existing Regulation purports to limit the scope, rate or timing of Development or alter the sequencing of Development in a manner inconsistent with the Development Plan Approval(s). No future amendment of any CITY law, or future adoption of any CITY law or other action, that purports to limit the scope, rate or timing of Development on the Property or alter the sequencing of the Development, in a manner inconsistent with the Development Plan Approval(s), whether adopted or imposed by the City Council or through the initiative or referendum process, shall apply to the Property. In particular, but without limiting any of the foregoing, no numerical restriction shall be placed by CITY on the number of dwellings units or amount of commercial development that may be built in any particular year on any portion of the Property other than permiffed by this Agreement. 3.1.3 Entitlements, Permits and Approvals - Cooperation. 3.'1.3.'1 Processing. CITY agrees that it shall accept and expeditiously process, pursuant to CiTY's regular procedures, OWNER's applications for amendments to this Agreement, amendments to the Development Plan Approval(s) and the Future Development Approvals. 3.1.3.2 Further Mitigation. In connection with the issuance of any Future Development Approvals which are subject to review under CEQA, unless required under the California Public Resoume Code and the Guidelines promulgated thereunder, the CITY shall not impose any environmental land use project altematives or mitigation measures on OWNER orthe Property beyond those referenced in the Development Plan Approval(s). 3.1.3.3 Other Permits. The CITY further agrees to reasonably cooperate with OWNER, at no cost to the CITY, in securing any County, State and 11 11086~0097\659181.1 12/3/01 Federal permits or authorizations which may be required in connection with Development of the Property. Except as expressly provided for in this Agreement, this cooperation shall not require any economic contribution or similar consideration by the CITY. 3.1.3.4 Litigation. The CITY agrees to reasonably cooperate with OWNER in all reasonable manners in order to keep this Agreement in full fome and effect. If any legal action is instituted by a third party or other governmental entity or official challenging the Development Plan Approval(s) or Future Development Approvals, the parties hereby agree to cooperate in the defense of this action. CiTY shall defend its interests under this Agreement using attorneys of its own sole selection and OWNER agrees that OWNER shall be responsible for all of CITY's costs, including, but not limited to, attorneys fees, costs, expert witnesses, travel, exhibits, displays and the like. OWNER shall reimburse CITY its costs within thirty (30) calendar days of receipt of any invoice(s) by OWNER requesting payment for any such costs. 3.1.3.5 Acquisition of Off-Site Property, The CITY shall not postpone or refuse approval of a Future Development Approval because the OWNER or Development Transferee with Obligations has failed to acquire off-site property required for the construction or installation of Off-Site Improvements. Notwithstanding this, If there are delays in the acquisition of the right-of-way for the off-site or County-side portions of Butterfield Stage Road, CITY may issue additional building permits beyond the Five Hundred tenth (510th). The additional building permits beyond the 510th shall be limited to no more than Fifty (50) every six months. In no event, shall the CITY issue more than a total of Two Hundred (200) building permits per Section 3.1.3.5. 'To the extent the CITY, OWNER or a Development Transferee with Obligations does not have sufficient title or interest in the real property to be improved to permit the Public Infrastructure Improvements to be made at the time the Future Development Approval application is filed with the CITY, the applicable OWNER or Development Transferee with Obligations shall make a good faith effort to acquire the required property. If the OWNER or Development Transferee is unable to acquire the required property, the CITY shall consider in good faith the acquisition of the required property. Subject to the following, if the CITY is unable to acquire the required property by negotiation or condemnation within the time frame provided for in Government Code Section 66462.5, the CITY shall continue to issue Future Development Approvals for the Project despite the fact that the improvement has not been completed subject to OWNER delivering to CITY the full sum of monies described hereafter. Further, the CITY's obligation to continue to issue Future Development Approvals as provided for in this Section is contingent upon: (i) the applicable OWNER or Development Transferee with Obligations having made a timely submittal of the improvement plans required for the respective Off-Site Improvement to the CITY; and (ii) consistent with Government Code Section 66462.5, the OWNER or Development Transferee with Obligations enters 12 11086\0097\659181.1 12/3/01 into an agreement with the CITY to reimburse the CITY for costs incurred by the CITY in acquiring the required property; and (iii) so long as OWNER or Development Transferee with Obligations has deposited with CITY an amount equal to the CITY's calculation of the costs necessary to design the improvements, acquire the real property, enter into a contract for such public work subject to all legal requirements and to construct the Public Infrastructure Improvement(s) which are uncompleted. CITY may use these funds for community cimulation/transportation improvements in its sole discretion. 3.2 Reserved Authority. 3.2.1 Uniform Codes. This Agreement shall not prevent the CITY from applying new "uniform" construction standards adopted by the State of California as State Codes, such as the Uniform Building Code, National Electrical Code, Uniform Mechanical Code or Uniform Fire Code, to the Development, provided those same standards are applied to all other development within the CITY. 3.2.2 State and Federal Laws and Regulations. Subject to compliance with the requirements of this Section 3.2.2, the Property may be subject to subsequently enacted state or federal laws or regulations which preempt local regulations, or mandate the adoption of local regulations, and are in conflict with the Development Plan Approval(s). Upon the identification of a subsequently enacted federal or state law meeting the requirements of this Section, CITY or OWNER shall provide the other parties with written notice of the state or federal law or regulation, provide a copy of the law or regulation, and a written statement of conflicts with the provisions of this Agreement. Promptly thereafter CITY and OWNER shall meet and confer in good faith in a reasonable attempt to determine whether a modification or suspension of this Agreement, in whole or in part, is necessary to comply with such federal or state law or regulation. In such negotiations, CITY and OWNER agree to preserve the terms of this Agreement and the rights of OWNER as derived from this Agreement to the maximum feasible extent while resolving the conflict. CITY agrees to cooperate with OWNER in resolving the conflict in a manner which minimizes any financial impact of the conflict upon OWNER without materially increasing the financial obligations of CITY under this Agreement. CITY also agrees to process in a prompt manner OWNER's proposed changes to the Project as may be necessary to comply with such Federal or State law; provided, however, that the approval of such changes by CITY shall be subject to the discretion of CITY, consistent with this Agreement. 3.2.3 Regulation for Health and Safety. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to be in derogation of CITY's police power to protect the public health and safety from a sudden, unexpected occurrence, involving a clear and imminent danger, demanding immediate and interim action to prevent or mitigate loss of, or damage to, life, health, property, or essential public services involving the Property or the immediate community ("Exigent Event"). Upon discovery of an Exigent Event, CITY 13 11086~0097\659181.1 12/3/01 may suspend this Agreement for a pedod reasonably necessary to analyze, evaluate and develop a response to the Exigent Event following delivery of written notice of suspension to OWNER. Immediately thereafter, the suspension shall end and CITY shall provide the OWNER with written notice of the existence of the Exigent Event, a detailed explanation of the CITY's proposed action, and a written statement of conflicts with the provisions of this Agreement. Promptly thereafter CITY and OWNER shall meet and confer in good faith in a reasonable attempt to determine whether a modification or suspension of this Agreement, in whole or in part, is necessary to comply with the Exigent Event. In such negotiations, CITY and OWNER agree to preserve the terms of this Agreement and the rights of OWNER as dedved from this Agreement to the maximum feasible extent while resolving the conflict. CITY agrees to cooperate with OWNER in resolving the conflict in a manner which minimizes any financial impact of the conflict upon OWNER without materially increasing the financial obligations of CITY under this Agreement. CITY also agrees to process in an expedited manner OWNER's proposed changes to the Project as may be necessary to comply with the Exigent Event; provided, however, that the approval of such changes by CITY shall be subject to the discretion of CITY, consistent with this Agreement. 3.3 Further Assurances to OWNER Regarding Exercise of Reserved Authority. 3.3.1 Judicial Review. Based on the foregoing, if OWNER judicially (including by way of a reference proceeding) challenges the application of a future rule, regulation or policy as being in violation of this Agreement and as not being applied in accordance with the Reserved Authority, OWNER shall bear the burden of alleging that such rule, regulation or policy is inconsistent with the Existing Regulations and the Development Plan Approval(s) and the CITY shall thereafter bear the burden of proof in establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that such regulation was adopted pursuant to and in accordance with the Reserved Authority and was not applied by the CITY in violation of this Agreement. 3.4 Consistent and Inconsistent Enactments. 3.4.1 No Conflicting Enactments. The CITY shall not enact a rule, regulation, ordinance, policy, permit or other measure (collectively "Law"), nor take any action applicable to the Project or the Property, which governs the rate, timing, scope, intensity, use, density, manner, or sequencing of the Development, or any part thereof and which is inconsistent or in conflict with the Development Plan Approval(s). By way of enumeration, and not limitation, any law, action or inaction, whether by specific reference to the Project, this Agreement or otherwise, shall be considered to conflict if it: 3.4.1.1 Restricts the Vested Rights described in the Agreement or in any way limits or reduces the rate, timing, scope, intensity, use, 14 11086~0097~659181.1 12/3/01 density, manner, or sequencing of the Development or otherwise requires any reduction or increase in the number, size, height or square footage of lot(s), structures, buildings or other improvements, modifies the standards and specifications applicable to the infrastructure required for the Development or requires additional dedications, exactions, fees or mitigation other than that provided for in the Agreement; 3.4.1.2 Is consistent with Section 3.4.1.1 hereof, but is not uniformly applied by the CITY to all substantially similar development within the CITY; or 3.4.1.3 Imposes a new permit requirement or procedure not already pad of the Existing Regulations. 3.4.2 Consistent Enactments. By way of enumeration and not limitation, the following types of enactments shall be considered consistent with this Agreement and Existing Regulations and not in conflict: 3.4.2.1 Transfers of units or permitted uses within the Property as provided for in Sections 2 and 3 of the Specific Plan; 3.4.2.2 Changes in the phasing of the Development pursuant to an application from OWNER and as first approved by the CITY; and 3.4.2.3 Any enactment authorized by this Agreement. 3.4.3 Consistency Between This Agreement, the Development Plan Approval(s) and Existing Regulations. To the extent a conflict exists or develops between the Existing Regulations and the Development Plan Approval(s), the Development Plan Approval(s) shall be controlling. To the extent a conflict exists or develops between this Agreement and any other Development Plan Approval(s), this Agreement shall be controlling. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary, the mitigation requirements within the Ell:{ shall be carried out as set forth therein, or as may be amended from time to time. 3.5 Amendment of Development Agreement, 3.5.1 Initiation of Amendment. Either CITY or OWNER may propose an amendment to this Agreement. An operating memorandum, as defined below, is not an amendment of this Agreement. 3.5.2 Changes Requiring an Amendment. Unless otherwise required by law, neither an amendment to the Development Plan Approval(s) or the approval of a Future Development Approval shall require an amendment of this Agreement unless the amendment: 15 11086\0097\659181.1 12/3/01 3,5.2.t Materially alters the permitted uses of the Property as a whole in a manner inconsistent with the procedures established in the Specific Plan; 3.5.2.2 Increases the density or intensity of use of the Property as a whole in a manner inconsistent with the procedures established in the Specific Plan; or 3.5.2.3 Increases the maximum height and size of permitted buildings. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein, an amendment of this Agreement is not required if OWNER pursues entitlements, permits or approvals pursuant to a waiver of vested rights as provided for in Section 4.1. 3.5.3 Procedure. Except as set forth in Section 3.5.5 below, the procedure for proposing and adopting an amendment to this Agreement shall be the same as the procedure required for entering into this Agreement in the first instance. 3.5.4 Consent. Any amendment to this Agreement shall require the written consent of both the CITY and the OWNER whose portion of the Property would be materially affected by the amendment. No amendment to all or any provision of this Agreement shall be effective unless set forth in writing, signed by duly authorized representatives of the CITY and the applicable OWNER, and adopted pursuant to legal requirements imposed on CITY. An amendment of this Agreement does not require the consent of an End User, Merchant Builder or Development Transferee unless such person or entity has uncompleted obligations under this Agreement. To the extent the consent of the OWNER that did not initiate the amendment is necessary, that OWNER shall not unreasonably withhold its consent. Notwithstanding the above, that OWNER shall consent to the amendment on or before the thirtieth (30th) day after receipt of notice of the initiation of the amendment if, as determined in that OWNER's reasonable business judgment, that proposed amendment will not have a material adverse impact on the Development of that OWNER's portion of the Property. 3.5.5 Operating Memoranda. The parties acknowledge that refinements and further development of the Project may demonstrate that changes are appropriate with respect to the details and performance of the parties under this Agreement. The parties desire to retain a certain degree of flexibility with respect to the details of the Development Plan and with respect to those items covered in general terms under this Agreement. If and when the parties mutually find that nonsubstantive changes, adjustments, or clarifications are appropriate to further the intended purposes of this Agreement, and such are not materially inconsistent with the Development Plan Approval(s), they may, unless otherwise required by law, effectuate such changes, adjustments, or clarifications without amendment to this Agreement through one or more operating memoranda mutually approved by the City Manager, or designee, on behalf of the CITY and by any corporate officer or other person designated for such 16 11086\009~659181.1 12/3/01 purpose in a writing signed by a corporate officer on behalf of OWNER, which, after execution, shall be attached hereto as addenda and become a part hereof. Unless otherwise required by law or by the Development Plan Approval(s), no such changes, adjustments, or clarifications shall require prior notice or hearing, public or otherwise. Nothing herein shall authorize the delegation of authority to the City Manager, or designee, contrary to California or Federal Law. 3.6 Future Amendments to Development Plan Approval(s). The following rules apply to future amendments to the Development Plan Approval(s), except that Section 3.5 shall control with respect to a nonsubstantive amendment of this Agreement and Section 3.7 shall control with respect to Future Development Approvals: 3.6.1 OWNER's Written Consent. It is contemplated by the parties that mutually agreed upon amendments to the Development Plan Approval(s) may be necessary. Any amendments to the Development Plan Approval(s) to which OWNER does not agree in writing shall not apply to the Property or the Project while this Agreement is in effect. 3.6.2 Concurrent Development Agreement Amendment. Any other Development Plan amendment requiring amendment of this Agreement, as provided for in Section 3.5 hereof, shall be processed concurrently with an amendment to this Agreement in the manner required by law. 3.6.3 Effect of Amendment. Except as expressly set forth within this Agreement, an amendment of the other Development Plan Approval(s) will not alter, affect, impair or otherwise impact the rights, duties and obligations of the parties under this Agreement. To the extent an amendment to the Development Plan Approval(s) is approved in accordance with Section 3.6.1, the amendment shall constitute for all purposes a Development Plan Approval and shall be treated as if it were in existence on the Agreement Date. 3.7 Future Development Approvals. 3.7.1 Exercise of CITY Discretion. In connection with Future Development Approval or any other actions which the CITY is expressly permitted to make under this Agreement relating to the Project, the CITY shall exercise its discretion or take action in a manner which complies and is consistent with the Development Plan Approval(s) and the Existing Regulations. 3.7.2 Concurrent Development Agreement Amendment. Any Future Development Approval requiring amendment of this Agreement, as provided for in 17 11086~0097\659181.1 12/3/01 Section 3.5 hereof, shall be processed concurrently with an amendment to this Agreement. 3.7.3 Effect of Future Development Approvals. Except as expressly set forth within this Section 3.7, a Future Development Approval will not alter, affect, impair or otherwise impact the rights, duties and obligations of the parties under this Agreement. To the extent a Future Development Approval is approved in accordance with Sections 3.7.1 and 3.7.2, the Future Development Approval shall constitute for all purposes a Development Plan Approval and shall be treated as if it were in existence on the Agreement Date. 4. Obligations of the Parties. 4.1 Fee and Exaction Related Responsibilitie-~: 4.1.1 Development Impact Fees. CITY has adopted an ordinance requiring the payment of Development Impact Fees ("DIF"). This Agreement affects the means by which the DIF are collected and accounted for as regards the Project. The CITY will credit, and thus not require cash payment to the CITY from OWNER, except as where cash payments are specified in this Agreement. The per unit credit against due and payable DIF will be calculated at the time each building permit is obtained by OWNER as issued by CITY. CITY will carry the credit in its accounts, and the same will be evidence of an indebtedness OWNER owes to CITY. CITY will grant the credit to OWNER and deem the debt satisfied at such time as CITY Accepts that part of either/or both the On-Site and Off-Site Improvements that are within the scope of each individual DIF category specified hereunder. In the event OWNER fails to obtain the CITY's Acceptance of the On-Site or Off-Site Improvement then CITY may elect to (i) deem the DIF then due and payable; (ii) cease issuance of building permits for all or any portion of the Project; (iii) seek specific performance of the On-Site or Off-Site Improvements; or (iv) seek any other remedy available in law or equity. CITY's election may include any one or any combination of the foregoing remedies. The DIF is comprised of several components, each corresponding to different elements of the On-Site and Off-Site Improvements. The individual component and the credit, if any, is set forth hereunder. 4.1.1.1 Street Improvement DIF Component. The OWNER shall be granted a credit for One Hundred Pement (100%) of the Street Improvement component so long as OWNER completes and CITY Accepts the On-Site and Off-Site Improvements. 18 11086\0097\659181.1 12/3/01 4.1.1.2 Traffic Signal DIF Component. The OWNER shall be granted a credit for One Hundred percent (100%) of the Traffic Signal component so long as OWNER completes and CITY Accepts the On-Site and Off-Site Improvements. 4.1.1.3 Library and Corporate Facilities DIF Components. These components require cash payment of the fees in effect at the time of issuance of each building permit. 4.1.1.4 Fire DIF Component. The OWNER shall be granted a credit for One Hundred percent (100%) of the Fire component so long as OWNER completes and CITY Accepts the Fire Improvements. 4.1.1.5 Park and Recreation DIF Component. The OWNER shall be granted a credit for One Hundred pement (100%) of the Park's component so long as OWNER completes, and CITY Accepts, the park improvements. The Parks shall be built in accordance with the Specific Plan, which includes the following specific matters. a. A 19.7-acre Sports Park (Planning Area 27). b. A 5.1-acre Neighborhood Park (Planning Area 6). c. Street Improvements. The developer shall also be responsible to design and construct not less than a half-width street and right-of-way improvements, related grading and utility connections to the park site at the Developer's cost with no credits towards the Park and Recreation Component of DIF. In addition to any other improvements OWNER shall construct, at its own cost, not later than the thirtieth (30th) day before the Acceptance of each park, and CITY shall have accepted the following: 1. Street and right-of-way improvements adjacent to the Sports Park, including Butterfield Stage Road and the North Loop. 2. Street and right-of-way improvements adjacent to the Neighborhood Park including Murrieta Hot Springs Road and "A" Street as referenced in the Specific Plan. 4.1.1.5.1 General Parks Provisions. a. All real property shall be conveyed as provided for in Section 4.1.1.5 OWNER shall demonstrate the condition of title pursuant to CLTA title insurance policies, in an amount equal to the value of the land and the cost of the improvements. 19 11086\0097~659181.1 12/3/01 b. OWNER shall work with the CITY to design the Community Sports Park and the Neighborhood Park site to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Services and consistent with the requirements of Section 4.2.1 of the Specific Plan. c. The Community Sports Park will generally be improved with two (2) lighted full sized soccer fields, two (2) lighted full sized ball fields, two (2) lighted basketball courts, a restroom/concession/maintenance building, age appropriate play structures, picnic shelter, concrete walkways and parking improvements. The Park Development Impact Fee credit allocated to OWNER under this Agreement for the design and construction of the Community Park is $2,909,989.00. OWNER shall provide verification to the CITY of actual design and construction cost. Any and all design and construction cost in excess of $2,909,989.00 shall be the sole responsibility of OWNER. The Community Sports Park shall be completed, including the completion of the 90-day maintenance and establishment period to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Services and the grant deed Accepted by the City Council, prior to the issuance of the 700th residential building permit in the Project. d. The Neighborhood Park will generally be improved with age appropriate play structures, one (1) lighted basketball court, restroom, picnic shelter, open turf area, concrete walkways and parking improvements. The Park Development Impact Fee credit allocated to OWNER under this Agreement for the design and construction of the Neighborhood Park is $625,000. OWNER shall provide verification to the CITY of actual design and construction cost. Any and all design and construction cost in excess of $625,000 shall be the sole responsibility of OWNER. The Neighborhood Park shall be completed, including the completion of the 90-day maintenance and establishment period to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Services and the grant deed Accepted by the City Council, prior to the issuance of the 400th residential building permit in the Project. 4.1.2 Quimby Fee. The Project, pursuant to the requirements of Section 16.33 of the CITY's Subdivision Ordinance is obligated to provide 28.71 acres of real property for park and recreation purposes. This requirement will be satisfied in full upon CITY's Acceptance of the real property and the OWNER's completion of the private recreation components as described in Sections 2.8.1 and 4.2.2 of the Specific Plan. 4.1.3 Development Agreement Fee. OWNER shall pay to the CITY the aggregate sum of money determined by the following formula. 20 11086~0097\659181.1 12/3/01 Add the sum of the following formula: $1,500 x 2015 (the maximum number of residential dwelling units allowed under the Specific Plan) = $3,022,500 To the sum of the following formula: $3.00 x 110,000 (the maximum amount of square feet of commercial development allowed under the Specific Plan)= $330,000 Total sum due CITY: $3,352,500. 4.1.3.1 CITY Collection of Funds. a. OWNER shall pay to CITY, and CITY shall Accept the sum of Two Million Dollars ($2,000,000.00) for CITY to use for the provision of the Fire Service Improvements described in Section 4.1.6. The monies shall be paid to CITY within thirty (30) calendar days of the formation and funding of the public finance district, or the six month anniversary of the Effective Date of this Agreement, whichever occurs first. b. CITY shall defer collection of the remaining monies attributable to this fee ($1,352,500.00) to the formation of the public finance district. At the time the distdct is funded, this debt will be deemed satisfied in full. If the financing mechanism is not in place on the one year anniversary date of this Agreement, OWNER shall, without demand by CITY, deliver CITY the sum of $1,352,500.00 on the day immediately following the described one year anniversary date. 4.1.4 Fee for Public Art, Open Space and Habitat Preservation. In consideration of CITY's performance pursuant to the terms of this Agreement, OWNER agrees to pay to City a fee of Two Hundred Dollars ($200.00) per dwelling unit which the CITY agrees to use for City-owned public art and open space and habitat preservation purposes. The fee will be paid upon the issuance of each building permit for a dwelling unit. The CITY agrees to use all proceeds of the art fee paid pursuant to this Section on a site located within the Property. Notwithstanding the foregoing, CITY agrees to waive and/or defer the following sums pursuant to the following terms: a. Credit in the amount of One Hundred Fifty Dollars ($150.00) in consideration of OWNER'S contribution of approximately 200 acres of open space and other contributions towards the acquisition of open space lands. b. Credit in the sum of Fifty Dollars ($50.00) per residential unit so long as OWNER provides the full sum "Art in Public Places" monies calculated by multiplying the number of units permitted by the Specific Plan times the $50.00 sum per 21 11086\0097\659181.1 12/3/01 unit. OWNER shall prepare and submit to CITY a Public Art Program. Prior to the iss.uance of the 301st building permit, the OWNER shall prepare, and submit to CITY for review and approval, a Public Art Program. The design of the art piece(s) shall be approved by the Community Services Director pursuant to such Public Art Program. The location of the ar/piece(s) shall be consistent with the approved Public Arts Program. The approved public art shall be installed by OWNER and Accepted by CITY prior to the issuance of the 510th building permit within the Project. 4.1.5 Transit Contributions. Prior to OWNER obtaining any Future Development Approvals unless and until OWNER has submitted, CITY has approved, and the means to implement the same are agreed to, the following: a. Transit Mitigation Fee. A Transit Mitigation Fee in the amount of Three Hundred Thousand Dollars ($300,000.00) shall be paid by OWNER to CITY. OWNER's participation shall consist of providing funding not to exceed a total of Three Hundred Thousand Dollars ($300,000.00) over a two (2) year period to further the "Smart Shuttle" program as defined by any agreement entered into between the CITY and RTA. The funds may be used to further any objective of the Agreement between the CITY and RTA. Payments as requested by CITY shall commence within thirty (30) days of an agreement between the CITY and RTA addressing the "Smart Shuttle" Program and use of the funds provided by OWNER. b. Park-N-Ride. OWNER shall provide, as described in the Specific Plan, fifty (50) designated park-n-ride spaces for public use prior to the issuance of the 1st building permit in Planning Areas 10, 12, 14 through 23, 31, 33A, and 33B. The spaces shall be consistent with the Specific Plan. 4.1.6 Fire Service Improvements. The following shall satisfy OWNER's obligations regarding this component. a. Conveyance of Land. On or before the thirtieth (30th) calendar day after the Effective Date of this Agreement, OWNER accomplish the following: 1. Fee simple title shall be conveyed to CITY, free and clear of all liens and matters of record; 2. OWNER shall provide CITY a CLTA insurance policy insuring CITY's title to the Station Site in an amount equal to the fair market value of the Station Site. 3. The parcel shall have not less than one and one-half (1.5) acre of fiat land usable for development as a CITY fire station. In no event shall the site be in excess of three (3) gross acres. 22 l 1086\0097\659181.1 12/3/0 ! b. Grading. Prior to the issuance of the first (1st ) building permit, OWNER shall rough grade the parcel. c. Construction. Pursuant to the following, OWNER shall tender and CITY shall Accept from OWNER the unrestricted right to utilize sum of Two Million Dollars ($2,000,000.00) for the purpose of CITY to design and construct a Fire Station and acquire title to a fire truck of City's selection. Until the Fire Station is constructed, manned, equipped and deemed operational by the Fire Chief of CITY, OWNER, and any Development Transferee, shall not be issued and shall not seek the issuance of any building permit in any Planning Area, as the same is defined in the Specific Plan, with the sole exception of a total of Two Hundred Fifty (250) residential building permits within Planning Areas lA, 2, and 3. Upon receipt of the right to the development monies and the real property CITY shall commence and complete the design and construction of the Fire Station. CITY anticipates completing the construction of the Fire Station on or before twenty-four (24) months from the date the monies and land are received. Further notwithstanding anything to the contrary, so long as OWNER or an entity in which OWNER is a participant, owner, lender or interest holder is not the contractor constructing the permanent fire station, the Fire Chief, in his sole discretion may allow a maximum of an additional fifty (50) building permits (to a maximum of 300) to be issued within Planning Areas lA, 2, 3, 4A, and 4B so long as the permanent fire station is substantially under construction at the time such additional building permits are issued. d. Fire Station Construction Street Improvements. OWNER shall, subject to final review and Acceptance by CITY, construct the street improvements adjacent to the Fire Station in conformance with the conditions set forth in this Agreement and subject to the CITY's approved street improvement plans for the public street(s) which are immediately adjacent to the Fire Station. OWNER shall commence and complete the street improvements, including but not limited to, asphalt concrete travel lanes, concrete curb and gutter, sidewalk per Specific Plan and right-of- way landscaping as required by CITY. The improvements described in this Section shall be completed not less than thirty (30) calendar days prior to the date the CITY will place the Fire Station in full operation. e. Release. Upon the funding of the public finance district or other financing mechanism and CITY's ability to utilize such monies for construction of a permanent fire station as described in Section 4.1.6, and the Acceptance of title to the site, then OWNER's further obligations to pay the Fire Component of the Development Impact Fee will be credited by CITY, and CITY shall not impose restrictions on building permit issuance based upon nonpayment of the Fire Component of the Development Impact Fee. 23 11086X0097\659181. l 12/3/01 4.1.7 Other Fees. a. Pmcessinq and Application Fees. OWNER shall pay the application and processing fees customarily imposed on the type of entitlement or permit sought at the rate, and in the amount, imposed by CITY pursuant to the fee schedule, resolution or ordinance applicable to all projects in the CITY and in effect at the time the application is deemed complete and Accepted by CITY for action. b. Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF). TUMF is anticipated to be adopted by both CITY and the County of Riverside. It is expected that the adopted fee shall be paid in accordance with the adopted guidelines. Potential credits may be negotiated between OWNER and the agency responsible for its administration in accordance with the adopted guidelines. Notwithstanding these provisions, OWNER shall pay all TUMF fees, in accordance with the terms of the program that are in effect at the time OWNER obtains each building permit. 4.2 Physical Improvements. In consideration of the CITY's promises and performances OWNER agrees to the following: 4.2.'1 Off-site Improvements. OWNER shall be solely responsible for funding, acquiring right-of-way, slope easements, rights of entry, temporary construction easements, as well constructing all improvements identified in Attachment 5. 4.2.2 On-Site Improvements. OWNER shall be solely responsible for funding, acquiring right-of-way, slope easements, rights of entry, temporary construction easements, as well constructing all other on-site improvements. A partial list of important on-site improvements is identified in Attachment 6. 4.3 Public Facility Financing Plan. In consideration for OWNER's commitments under this Agreement to provide certain On-Site and Off-Site Improvements and to assist in the formation thereof, the CITY agrees to use best efforts to cause to be formed a means to finance the Improvements, which most likely will be a Community Facilities District ("CFD"). The parties agree that no building permit within any Planning Area, regardless of whether the improvements will be public or private or commemial or residential, shall be issued until the CFD is formed and funded. CITY shall determine the appropriateness of all proposed improvements financed through the CFD. 4.4 Related Real Property Conveyances; Conditions to Development Agreement. 24 11086\0097\659181.1 12/3/01 4.4.1 Liens, Encumbrances and Environmental Conditions. All real property dedicated to the CITY pursuant to this Agreement shall be free and clear of any and all matters of record that the CITY objects to in its sole discretion, including but not limited to matters which require the direct payment of money (excluding all non- delinquent taxes and assessments), including but not limited to, deeds of trust and mechanic liens. The real property shall also be dedicated free of other encumbrances of record that would prevent the CITY from using such dedicated facility for its intended use as identified herein or as reasonably inferred as relating. Further the real property shall be warranted, to the best of OWNER's actual knowledge, to be free of any known environmental conditions that would prevent the real property from being used as intended by the CITY. OWNER shall provide the CITY copies of all reports, investigations and analysis that discuss the environmental condition of the real property. 5. Indemnification. Except to the extent of the active negligence or willful misconduct of the Indemnified Parties (as defined below), OWNER, with respect to the Property, and the Development Transferee, with respect to the portion of the Property transferred to that Development Transferee, agree that during the Term of this Agreement, to defend the CITY and its agents, officers, contractors, attorney, and employees (the "Indemnified Parties") from and against any claims or proceeding against the Indemnified Parties to set aside, void or annul the approval of this Agreement. OWNER and Development Transferee may be individually referred to herein as "Indemnifying Party" and collectively as "Indemnifying Parties". Each Indemnifying Party shall retain settlement authority with respect to any matter cenceming that Indemnifying Party provided that prior to settling any such lawsuit or claim with respect to that Indemnifying Party, the Indemnifying Party shall provide the CITY and the other Indemnifying Parties with a minimum ten (10) business days wriffen notice of its intent to settle such lawsuit or claim. If the CITY or the other Indemnifying Parties, in their reasonable discretion, do not desire to settle such lawsuit or claim, it may notify the applicable Indemnifying Party of the same, in which event the applicable Indemnifying Party may still elect to settle the lawsuit or claim as to itself, but the non- settling parties may elect to continue such lawsuit, at their cost and expense, so long as: (i) with respect to the CITY, the CITY's decision is predicated upon a legitimate and articulated threat to either the exercise of its police powers or a risk of harm to those present within the CITY; or (ii) with respect to the other Indemnifying Parties, the decision is predicated upon a legitimate and articulated threat to the Development of that Indemnifying Party's property. 6. Relationship of Parties. OWNER is not the agent or employee of the CITY. The CITY and OWNER hereby renounce the existence of any form of joint venture or partnership between them, and agree that nothing contained in this Agreement or in any document executed in connection with the Project shall be construed as making the CiTY and OWNER joint ventures or partners. 25 11086~0097~65918 l. 1 12/3/01 7. Periodic Review of Compliance with Agreement. 7.1 Periodic Review. The CITY and OWNER shall review this Agreement once every 12-month period from the Effective Date until the Agreement terminates. The CITY shall notify OWNER in writing of the date for review at least thirty (30) days prior thereto. 7.2 Good Faith Compliance. During each periodic review, OWNER shall be required to demonstrate good faith compliance with all material terms of this Agreement. The parties recognize that this Agreement and the documents incorporated herein could be deemed to contain hundreds of requirements and that evidence of each and every requirement would be a wasteful exemise of the parties' resoumes. Accordingly, OWNER shall be deemed to have satisfied its good faith compliance when it presents evidence of substantial compliance with the material previsions of this Agreement. Generalized evidence or statements of compliance shall be Accepted in the absence of any evidence that such evidence is untrue. 7.3 Failure to Conduct Annual Review. The failure of the CITY to conduct the annual review shall not constitute, or be asserted by OWNER or CITY as a breach of this Agreement. 7.4 Initiation of Review by City Council. In addition to the annual review, the City Council may at any time initiate a review of this Agreement by giving written notice to OWNER. The Notice must describe in detail the specific issues which caused the CITY to question OWNER'S good faith compliance and the evidence the CITY believes is necessary for the review. Within thirty (30) days following receipt of such notice, OWNER shall submit evidence to the City Council of OWNER's good faith compliance with this Agreement and such review and determination shall proceed in the same manner as provided for the annual review. The City Council shall initiate its review pursuant to this Section 7.4 only if it has probable cause to believe the CITY's general health, safety or welfare is at risk as a result of specific acts or failures to act by OWNER in violation of this Agreement. 7.5 Administration of Agreement. Any final decision by the CITY staff concerning the interpretation and administration of this Agreement and Development of the Property in accordance herewith may be appealed by OWNER first to the Planning Commission and thereafter to the City Council, provided that any such appeal shall be filed with the City Clerk within thirty (30) days after OWNER receives written notice that the staff decision is final all as pursuant to routine planning appeal procedures. The City Council shall render, at a noticed public hearing, its decision to affirm, reverse or modify the staff decision within thirty (30) days after the appeal was filed. 26 11086\0097~659181. I 12/3/01 7.6 Availability of Documents. If requested and reimbursed for all costs, by OWNER, the CITY agrees to provide to OWNER copies of any documents, reports or other items reviewed, accumulated or prepared by orfor the CITY in connection with any periodic compliance review by the CITY, provided OWNER reimburses the CITY for all reasonable and direct costs and fees incurred by the CITY in copying the same. The CITY shall respond to OWNER's request on or before ten (10) business days have elapsed from the CITY's receipt of such request. 8. Events of Default: Remedies and Termination. Unless amended as provided in Section 3.5, or modified or suspended pursuant to Government Code Section 65869.5 or terminated pursuant to this Section 8, this Agreement is enforceable by any party hereto. 8.1 Defaults by OWNER. If, after following the procedures established in Section 7 hereof, the CITY determines on the basis of a preponderance of the evidence that OWNER has not complied in good faith with the material terms and conditions of this Agreement, the CiTY shall, by written notice to OWNER specify the manner in which the allegedly defaulting party has failed to so comply and state the steps the allegedly defaulting party must take to bring itself into compliance. If, within thirty (30) days after the effective date of notice from the CITY specifying the manner in which the allegedly defaulting party has failed to so comply, the allegedly defaulting party does not commence all steps reasonably necessary to bring itself into compliance and thereafter diligently pursue such steps to completion, then the allegedly defaulting party shall be deemed to be in default under the terms of this Agreement and the CITY may terminate this Agreement with respect solely to the allegedly defaulting party's property pursuant to Government Code Section 65865.1 or may seek specific performance as set forth in Section 8.3. 8.2 Defaults by CITY. If OWNER determines on the basis of a preponderance of the evidence that the CITY has not complied in good faith with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, OWNER shall, by written notice to the CITY, specify the manner in which the CITY has failed to so comply and state the steps the CITY must take to bdng itself into compliance. If, within sixty (60) days after the effective date of notice from OWNER specifying the manner in which the CITY has failed to so comply, the CITY does not commence all steps reasonably necessary to bring itself into compliance as required and thereafter diligently pursue such steps to completion, then the CITY shall be deemed to be in default under the terms of this Agreement and OWNER may terminate this Agreement and, in addition, may pursue specific performance as set forth in Section 8.3. OWNER shall not retain the right to seek, and hereby expressly waives, the right to seek damages against CITY for any action or failure to act under this Agreement. 27 1108oq0097\659181.1 12/3/01 8.3 Specific Performance Remedy. Due to the size, nature and scope of the Project, it may not be practical or possible to restore the Property to its natural condition once implementation of this Agreement has begun. After such implementation, OWNER may be foreclosed from other choices it may have had to utilize the Property and provide for other benefits. CITY and OWNER has already invested significant time and resources and performed extensive planning and processing of the Project in agreeing to the terms of this Agreement and will be investing even more significant time and resources in implementing the Project in reliance upon the terms of this Agreement, and it may not be possible to determine the sum of money which would adequately compensate OWNER for such efforts. For the above reasons, the CITY and OWNER agree that damages may not be an adequate remedy if the CITY or OWNER fails to carry out its obligations under this Agreement and that CITY or OWNER shall have the right to seek and obtain specific performance as a remedy for any breach of this Agreement. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if the CITY is authorized by Section 8.4.1 to withhold an approval or permit upon a specified condition being satisfied by OWNER in the future, and if OWNER then fails to satisfy such condition, the CITY may be entitled to specific performance for the sole purpose of causing that nonperforming party, and only that nonperforming party, or any party with an obligation to so perform the condition, to satisfy such condition. The CITY's dght to specific performance shall be limited to those cimumstances set forth above, and the CITY shall have no right to seek specific performance to cause OWNER or a Development Transferee to otherwise proceed with the Development of the Project in any manner, with the express exception of the Off-Site Improvements and the grant of real property for the Interchange improvements. 8.4 Institution of Le,qal Action. Any legal action hereunder shall be heard by a reference from the Riverside County Superior Court pursuant to the reference procedures of the California Code of Civil Procedure Sections 638, et seq. OWNER and the CITY shall agree upon a single referee who shall then try all issues, whether of fact or law, and report a finding and judgment thereon and issue all legal and equitable relief appropriate under the circumstances of the controversy before him. If OWNER and the CITY are unable to agree on a referee within ten (10) days of a written request to do so by either party hereto, either party may seek to have one appointed pursuant to the California Code of Civil Procedure Section 640. The cost of such proceeding shall initially be borne equally by the parties. Any referee selected pursuant to this Section 8.4 shall be considered a temporary judge appointed pursuant to Article 6, Section 21 of the California Constitution. 8.4.1 Effect of Noncompliance. Notwithstanding the foregoing, to the extent the Development Plan Approval(s) expressly provide(s) that Development of the Project or a portion thereof is directly dependent upon the performance of material obligations assumed by OWNER or a Development Transferee, which material obligations have not been performed, the CITY may, in its reasonable discretion, 28 I 1086~0097\659181.1 12/3/01 withhold any permits and/or approvals, including, without limitation, certificates of occupancy, with respect to those directly dependent portions of the Project from OWNER and/or Development Transferee until such obligations have been substantially performed. 8.5 Estoppel Certificates. A party may at any time deliver written notice to the other party requesting an estoppel certificate (the "Estoppel Certificate"). A party receiving a request for an Estoppel Certificate shall provide a signed certificate to the requesting party within thirty (30) days after receipt of the request. The City Manager or any person designated by the City Manager may sign Estoppel Certificates on behalf of the CITY. Any officer or member of a private party may sign on behalf of that party. An Estoppel Certificate is intended to be relied on by assignees and mortgagees. If that one party requests an Estoppel Certificate from the other, the requesting party shall reimburse the other party for all reasonable and direct costs and fees incurred by such party with respect thereto. The Estoppel Certificate shall address issues such as whether: 8.5.1 The Agreement is in full force and effect and is a binding obligation of the parties. 8.5.2 The Agreement has been amended or modified either orally or in writing and, if so amended, identifying the amendments. 8.5.3 A default in the performance of the requesting party's obligations under the Agreement exists and, if a default does exist, the nature and amount of any default. 9. Waivers and Delays. 9.1 No Waiver. Failure by a party to insist upon the strict performance of any of the provisions of this Agreement by the other party, and failure by a party to exercise its rights upon a default by the other party hereto, shall not constitute a waiver of such party's right to demand strict compliance by such other party in the future. 9.2 Third Parties. Non-performance shall not be excused because of a failure of a third person, except as provided in Sections 9.3 or 9.4. 9.3 Force Majeure. A party shall not be deemed to be in default where failure or delay in performance of any of its obligations under this Agreement is caused by floods, earthquakes, other Acts of God, rites, wars, riots or similar hostilities, strikes and other labor difficulties beyond that party's control, action or inaction by the CITY, which actions or inactions are breaches of any term of this Agreement, judicial decisions, or 29 11086~0097~659181.1 12/3/01 litigation regarding the Development Plan Approval(s) or Future Development Approvals or other similar events. 9.4 Extensions.. The Term of this Agreement and the time for performance by a party of any of its obligations hereunder or pursuant to the other Development Plan Approval(s) shall be extended by the actual period of time that any of the events described in Section 9.3 exist and/or prevent performance of such obligations. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein, the performance by CITY of its obligations shall not be delayed or extended by the action or inaction of the CITY. 9.5 Notice of Delay. OWNER shall give prompt notice to the CITY of any delay which OWNER anticipates or believes to have occurred as a result of the occurrence of any of the events described in Sections 9.3 or 9.4. In no event, however, shall notice of a delay of any length be given later than thirty days after the end of the delay or ten (10) days before the end of the Term (unless the cause of the delay arises during that time), whichever comes first. 10. Notices. All notices required or provided for under this Agreement shall be in writing and delivered in person, sent by certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested or by Federal Express or other similar nationwide overnight delivery service. Notices required to be given to the CITY shall be addressed as follows: City of Temecula 43200 Business Park Drive Post Office Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 Attention: Planning Director With a copy to: Richards, Watson & Gershon Thirty-Eighth Floor 333 South Hope Street Los Angeles, CA 90071-1469 Attention: Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney Notices required to be given to OWNER shall be addressed as follows: Ashby USA, LLC USA Properties 470 E. Harrison Street Corena, CA 92879 3O ! 1086\0097~659181.1 12/3/01 Attention: Richard Ashby With a copy to: Cox, Castle & Nicholson, LLP 19800 MacArthur Boulevard, Suite 600 Irvine, CA 92612-2435 Attn: Deborah Rosenthal, Esq. Any notice given as required by Section 10 shall be deemed given only if in writing and upon delivery as provided for in this Section 10. A party may change its address for notices by giving notice in writing to the other party as required by this Section 10 and thereafter notices shall be addressed and transmitted to the new address. 11. Attorneys' Fees. If legal action is brought by any party against another for breach of this Agreement, including actions derivative from the performance of this Agreement, or to compel performance under this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to an award of its costs, including reasonable attorneys' fees, and shall also be entitled to recover its contribution for the costs of the referee referred to in Section 8.4 above as an item of damage and/or recoverable costs. 12. Recordin.q. This Agreement and any amendment or cancellation hereto shall be recorded, at no cost to the CITY, in the Official Records of Riverside County by the City Clerk within the period required by Section 65868.5 of the Government Code. '! 3. Effect of A.qreement on Title. 13.1 Effect on Title. OWNER and the CITY agree that this Agreement shall not continue as an encumbrance against any portion of the Property as to which this Agreement has terminated or released. '13.2 Encumbrances and Lenders' Rights. The mortgagee of a mortgage or beneficiary of a deed of trust encumbering the Property, or any part thereof, and their successors and assigns shall, upon written request to CITY, be entitled to receive from CITY written notification of any default by OWNER of the performance of OWNER's obligations under the Agreement which has not been cured within the time frame established in Section 8.1 hereof. 13.2.1 Notwithstanding OWNER's default, this Agreement shall not be terminated by CITY as to any mortgagee or beneficiary to whom notice is to be given and to which either or the following is true: 31 11086~0097~659181.1 12/3/01 (i) the mortgagee or beneficiary cures any default by OWNER involving the payment of money within ninety (90) days after receipt from CITY of the written notice of default; (ii) as to defaults requiring title or possession of the Property or any portion thereof to effectuate a cure: (i) the mortgagee/beneficiary agrees in writing, within ninety (90) days after receipt from CITY of the written notice of default, to perform the proportionate share of OWNER's obligations under this Agreement allocable to that part of the Property in which the mortgagee/beneficiary has an interest conditioned upon such mortgagee's/beneficiary's acquisition of the Property or portion thereof by foreclosure (including a trustee sale) or by a deed in lieu of foreclosure; (ii) the mortgagee/beneficiary commences foreclosure proceedings to reacquire title to the Property or applicable portion thereof within said ninety (90) days and thereafter diligently pursues such foreclosure to completion, and (iii) the mortgagee/beneficiary promptly and diligently commences to cure such Default after obtaining title or possession. 13.2.2 Notwithstanding Section 13.2.1 of this Agreement, if any mortgagee/beneficiary is prohibited from commencing or prosecuting foreclosure or other appropriate proceedings including by any process of injunction issued by any court or by reason of any action by any court having jurisdiction of any bankruptcy or insolvency proceeding involving OWNER, the times specified in Section 13.2.1 of this Agreement for commencing or prosecuting foreclosure or other proceedings shall be extended for the period of the prohibition. '13.2.3 Neither entering into this Agreement nor a breach of this Agreement shall defeat, render invalid, diminish or impair the lien of any existing or future mortgage or deed of trust on the Property made in good faith and for value. 14. Severability of Terms. If any term, provision, covenant or condition of this Agreement shall be determined invalid, void or unenforceable, the remainder of this Agreement shall not be affected thereby if the tribunal finds that the invalidity was not a material part of consideration for either Party the Agreement as a whole. If the tribunal finds that the invalidity was a material part of the consideration, this Agreement will terminate unless CITY and OWNER agree to amend this Agreement as provided for herein. Upon a termination arising from the application of this Section 14, each Party agrees the Specific Plan shall suspend as to all unpermitted development activity pending the CITY's determination regarding repeal or modification of the same. 15. Subsequent Amendment to Authorizing Statute. This Agreement has been entered into in reliance upon the provisions of the Development Agreement Legislation in effect as of the Agreement Date. Accordingly, subject to Section 3.2.2 above, to the extent that subsequent amendments to the Government Code would affect the 32 11086\0097\659181.1 12/3/01 provisions of this Agreement, such amendments shall not be applicable to this Agreement unless necessary for this Agreement to be enforceable or required by law or unless this Agreement is modified pursuant to the provisions set forth in this Agreement.. 16. Rules of Construction and Miscellaneous Terms, 16.1 Interpretation and Govemin.q Law. The language in all parts of this Agreement shall, in all cases, be construed as a whole and in accordance with its fair meaning. This Agreement and any dispute arising hereunder shall be governed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of California. The parties understand and agree that this Agreement is not intended to constitute, nor shall be construed to constitute, an impermissible attempt to contract away the legislative and govemmental functions of the CITY, and in particular, the CITY's police powers. In this regard, the parties understand and agree that this Agreement shall not be deemed to constitute the surrender or abnegation of the CITY's govemmental powers over the Property or any decision adsing from the Agreement, directly or indirectly. 16.2 Section Headings. All section headings and subheadings are inserted for convenience only and shall not affect any construction or interpretation of this Agreement. 16.3 Gender. The singular includes the plural; the masculine gender includes the feminine; "shall" is mandatory, "may" is permissive. 16.4 No Joint and Several Liability. No breach hereof by OWNER or Development Transferee shall constitute a breach by the non breaching party. Any remedy, obligation, or liability, including but not limited to the obligations to defend and indemnify the CITY, arising by reason of such breach shall be applicable solely to the party that committed the breach. However, the CITY shall send a copy of any notice of violation to all OWNERS and Development Transferee, including those not in breach. 16.5 Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing. No party shall do anything which shall have the intentional effect of harming or injuring the right of the other parties to receive the benefits provided for in this Agreement; each party shall refrain from doing anything intentionally which would render its performance under this Agreement impossible; and each party shall do everything which this Agreement contemplates that such party shall do in order to accomplish the objectives and purposes of this Agreement. 16.6 No Waiver of Vestinq. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed as limiting or impairing any vested rights to proceed with the Development or use of the Property arising independently from entitlements, including those approved for the 33 11086\0097~659181.1 12/3/01 Project, issued by the CITY or others prior to, concurrently with, or subsequent to the approval of this Agreement, Federal and State Constitutions, statutes, or decisional law. '16.7 Time of Essence. Time is of the essence regarding each provision of this Agreement of which time is an element. 16.8 Recitals. All Recitals set forth herein are incorporated in this Agreement as though fully set forth herein. 16.9 Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof, and the Agreement supersedes all previous negotiations, discussion and agreements between the parties, and no parol evidence of any prior or other' agreement shall be permitted to contradict or vary the terms hereof. 17. Extension of Maps. In accordance with Government Code Section 66452.6(a), any tentative map which relates to all or a portion of the Property shall be extended for the greater of (i) the Term of the Agreement or (ii) expiration of the tentative map pursuant to Section 66452.6. '18. Not for Benefit of Third Parties. This Agreement and all provisions hereof are for the exclusive benefit of the CITY and OWNER and its assignees pursuant to Section 2.5 and shall not be construed to benefit or be enforceable by any third party. '19. Attachments. The following attachments are hereby incorporated by reference as if fully set out in the body of this Agreement. Attachments Description 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Legal Description of the Property Plat of the Property Described in Attachment 1 Zoning District Development Standards Existing Regulations Off-Site Improvements Selected On-Site Improvements 20. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement on the day and year dated below. Dated: ,2002 34 11086~0097\65918 I. 1 12/3/01 CITY OF TEMECULA, a municipal corporation By: Name: Title: Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney Dated: ,2002 "OWNER" ,a By: Name: Title: 35 11086X0097\659181.1 12/3/01 State of California ) ) ss County of Riverside ) On before me, , personally appeared , personally known to me or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. Witness my hand and official seal. Signature of Notary State of California ) ) ss County of Riverside ) On before me, , personally appeared , personally known to me or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(les), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. Witness my hand and official seal. Signature of Notary 11086\0097\659181.1 6/26/01 ATTACHMENT "1" (Legal Description of the Property) 11086~0097~659181.1 6/26/01 ATTACHMENT "2" (Plat of the Property Described in Attachment 1) 1108oq0097\659181.1 6/26/01 ATTACHMENT "3" (Zoning District Development Standards) 11086~0097\659181.1 6/26/01 ATTACHMENT "4" (Existing Regulations) 11086\0097\659181.1 6/26/01 Attachment No. 4 2. 3. 4. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. EXISTING REGULATIONS City General Plan The Development Code (Title 17 of the Temecula Municipal Code) The Subdivision Ordinance (Title 16 of the Temecula Municipal Code) Citywide Design Guidelines Habitat Conservation Ordinance Mount Palomar Lighting Ordinance Uniform Building Code, as locally adopted Uniform Fire Code, as locally adopted Standard Drawings for Public Works Construction 11086\0097\659181.1 6/26/01 ATTACHMENT "5" (Off-Site Improvements) 11086\0097\659181.1 6/26/01 ATTACHMENT 5 OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENTS PHASE 1 (Planning Areas 1-4B, 6 and 32) Prior to the issuance of the 108" building permit, the following improvements shall be completed: Nicolas Road - Construct 40' width on center improvements from the western project boundary to 450' east of the existing Nicolas Road/Calle Girasol intersection. Secondary Access - The required secondary access for the Plateau area shall be provided by one of the following options: If Nicolas Road is designated as the secondary access route, the following improvements shall be completed: Construct 40' width on center improvements from 450 feet east of the existing Nicolas Road / Calle Girasol intersection to Liefer Road including the full width bridge structure over and within Santa Gertrudis Creek. ii. Realign existing Calle Girasol to its ultimate intersection with Nicolas Road including right-of-way acquisition. If Calle Chapos from Butteffield Stage Road to Walcott Lane and Calle Girasol from Walcott Lane to the existing Nicolas Road / Calle Girasol intersection is designated as secondary access, the following improvements shall be completed: Calle Chapos from Butterfield Stage Road to Walcott Lane - Construct 38' width improvements on center to existing pavement. ii. Calle Girasol from Walcott Lane to the existing Nicolas Road/Calle Girasol intersection Construct 38' width on center improvements, as required by the City Fire Chief and City Engineer (including right-of-way acquisition), on Calle Girasol from Walcott Lane to the existing Nicolas Road/Calle Girasol intersection. Co If Butterfield Stage Road from the southern project boundary to Rancho California Road is designated as secondary access, construct half width improvements from the southern project 11086\0097\659181.1 6/26/01 6. 7. 8. 9. boundary at Planning Area 32 to Rancho California Road, excluding any existing improvements. 1-15 Freeway (southbound ramps) at Rancho California Road - southbound left turn lane, westbound free right-turn lane, eastbound free right turn lane, and southbound free right-turn lane 1-215 Freeway (southbound ramps) at Murrieta Hot Springs Road southbound left-turn lane, southbound right-turn lane, eastbound through lane, eastbound right-turn lane, westbound through lane, and westbound free right-turn lane Ynez Road at Winchester Road - southbound right-turn overlap Ynez Road at Rancho California Road - eastbound through lane North General Kearny Road at Nicolas Road - traffic signal. Butterfield Stage Road at Rancho California Road - traffic signal Murrieta Hot Springs Road at Alta Murrieta Drive (in the City of Murrieta) - lane improvements (as yet undetermined). The developer shall provide the City of Temecula with a letter from the City of Murrieta stating that a fair share contribution to identified improvements at this intersection has been made. PHASE 2 (Planning Areas 10, 11, 12, 14 -24, 27 - 31, 33A, and 33B) Prior to the issuance of any building permit in Phase 2, the following improvements must be completed: Butterfield Stage Road - Construct remaining half-width improvements from 550' south of the intersection of Butterfield Stage Road and Nicolas Road to the south project boundary at Planning Area 32. Butterfield Stage Road - Construct full width improvements from the southern project boundary at Planning Area 32 to Rancho California Road excluding any existing improvements. Nicolas Road - Construct 40' width improvements from 450 feet east of the existing Nicolas Road/Calle Girasol intersection to Liefer Road including the full width bridge structure over Santa Gertrudis Creek. 11086\0097\659181.1 6/26/01 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. Calle Girasol and the Nicolas Road / Calle Girasol intersection - Realign existing Calle Girasol to its ultimate intersection with Nicolas Road including right-of-way acquisition. Calle Chapos - Construct 38' width on center improvements from Butterfield Stage Road to the existing paved terminus at Calle Girasol. 1-15 Freeway (southbound ramps) at Winchester Road - southbound left- turn lane, southbound right-turn lane, westbound free right-turn lane, westbound through lane, eastbound through lane, and eastbound free right-turn lane. Traffic signal and related intersection improvements, as warranted, at the intersection of La Serena and Meadows Parkway. 1-15 Freeway (northbound ramps) at Winchester Road - northbound left- turn lane, northbound free right-turn lane, westbound through lane, and westbound free right-turn lane 1-15 Freeway (southbound ramps) at Rancho California Road southbound left-turn lane, southbound, eastbound, and westbound free right-turn lanes. 1-15 Freeway (northbound ramps) at Rancho California Road - northbound left-turn and right-turn lanes Ynez Road at Winchester Road - southbound left-turn lane, southbound right-turn overlap, and eastbound left-turn lane Ynez Road at Rancho California Road - westbound left-turn lane, westbound right-turn lane, southbound through lane, southbound free fight turn lane, eastbound free right-turn lane, and eastbound through lane Margarita Road at Winchester Road eastbound left-turn lane, southbound right-turn lane, westbound right-turn lane, and southbound right-turn ovedap Margarita Road at Rancho California Road - northbound and southbound through lanes, southbound right-turn lane, eastbound left-turn lane, eastbound right-turn overlap, westbound left-turn lane, northbound right- turn lane, and westbound right turn overlap Margarita Road at Murrieta Hot Springs Road - northbound shared left- through lane, eastbound through lane, and westbound through lane 11086\0097~659181.1 6/26/01 16. 17. 18. 19. Winchester Road at Nicolas Road - northbound left-turn lane, northbound free right turn lane, westbound left-turn lane, northbound through lane, southbound left-turn lane, southbound through lane, and eastbound right- turn overlap.- Winchester Road at Murrieta Hot Springs Road - northbound through lane, southbound through lane, and westbound through lane Butterfield Stage Road at Rancho California Road - northbound left-turn lane, northbound through lane, southbound left-turn lane, southbound through lane, eastbound left-turn lane, eastbound through lane, westbound left-turn lane, and westbound through lane Calle Contento at Rancho California Road - eastbound left-turn lane, eastbound through lane, westbound left-turn lane, and westbound through lane 11086~0097\659181.1 6/26/01 i ATTACHMENT "6" (Selected On-Site Improvements) 11086\0097\659181.1 6/26/01 ATTACHMENT 6 SELECTED ON-SITE IMPROVEMENTS Butteffield Stage Road - Full width, including two bridges, from Murrieta Hot Springs Road to the south project boundary. Murrieta Hot Springs Road - Full width from the project boundary near the intersection with Pourroy Road to Butterfleld Stage Road. Nicolas Road - Full width, including one bridge, from the project boundary to Butterfield Stage Road. 11086\0097\659181.1 6/26/01