HomeMy WebLinkAbout103002 PC AgendaIn compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance lo participate in this meeting,
please contact the office of the City Clerk (909) 694-6444. Notification 48 hours prior to a meeting will enable the
City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to that meeting [28 CFR 35.102.35.104 ADA Tit e ]
AGENDA
TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION
AN ADJORNED REGULAR MEETING
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
43200 BUSINESS PARK DRIVE
October 30, 2002 - 6:00 P.M.
CALL TO ORDER
Flag Salute:
Roll Call:
PUBLIC COMMENTS
A total of 15 minutes is provided
Next in Order:
Resolution: No. 2002-045
Chairman Chiniaeff
Guerriero, Mathewson, Olhasso, Telesio and Chiniaeff
so members of the public may address the Commission
on items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes
each. If you desire to speak to the Commission about an item not on the Agenda, a pink
"Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the Commission Secretary.
When you are called to 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
Ali 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 October 30, 2002
R:~PLANCOMM~gendas~002\I 0-30-02.doc
1
2 Minutes
RECOMMENDATION:
2.1 Approve Minutes from September 4, 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 be limited to raising only those issues you or someone
else raised at the public hearing or in written correspondences delivered to the
Commission Secretary at, or prior to, the Public hearing.
New Items
3
PlanninR Application No. PA02-0472 - ProPosal to desi.qn and construct a new ioadin.q door,
drive aisle and associated landscapinq to an existin.q 77,500 square feet industrial buildin.q
located at 41093 County Center Drive - Daniel Lonq, Associate Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
3.1 Adopt a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. PA02-0472; Pursuant to
Section 15301 of the California Environmental Quality Act.
3.2 Adopt a Resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO, 2002-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION
NO. 02-0472, A DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO MAKE A MINOR
MODIFICATION TO AN EXISTING 77,500 SQUARE FOOT
INDUSTRIAL BUILDING ON 5.65 ACRES, LOCATED AT THE
NORTHEAST CORNER OF COUNTY CENTER DRIVE AND
YNEZ ROAD KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 910-110-
041
R:~F'LANCOMM,,Aoend as~2Oo2\10-30-o2.doc
2
Continued from October 16, 2002
4
Planninq Application No. PA94-0073, PA99-0298, PA94-0075. PA94-0076. PA01-0253.
PA01-02301 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 Planning Areas 33A and 33B to the Specific plan Overlay Fiqure; a General
Plan Amendment to the Circulation element to eliminate the connection between Nicolas
Road and Calle Contento throuqh the proiect and to chanqe the desiqnation of Butterfield
Stage Road between Murrieta Hot Springs Road and Nicolas Road'from 4 lanes Specific
Plan Road; a Zone Chan.qe to pre-zone the annexation property to the SP zoning
desiqnation 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 qated 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 located Northeast of
.the City near the eventual intersection of Butter~ield Staqe Road and Nicolas Road - Saied
Naaseh-Shahry, Proiect Planner V
RECOMMENDATION:
4.1 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 FUTURE INTERSECTION OF
BU'I'rERFIELD STAGE ROAD AND NICOLAS ROAD,
(PLANNING APPLICATION 94-0076).
R:\PLANCOMM',Agendas~2002~10-30-02.doc
3
4.2 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 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 BUTI'ERFIELD 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.
4.3 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 THE SUBDIVISION OF A. PORTION OF
158 ACRES INTO 509 RESIDENTIAL LOTS AND r20 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 EVENTUAL
*INTERSECTION OF BU'I'FERFIELD 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 LANCOMM'~gendas~2002\10-30-O2.doc
4
COMMISSIONER'S REPORTS
PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT
ADJOURNMENT Next meeting: November 6, 2002 - Council Chambers
43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, CA 92590
R:~PLANCOMM~Agendas~2002\I 0-30-02.doc
5
ITEM #2
CALL TO ORDER
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 4, 2002
The City of Temecula Planning Commission convened in a regular meeting at 6:00 P.M.,
on Wednesday, September 4, 2002, in the City Council Chambers of Temecula City Hall,
43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California.
ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL
The audience was led in the Flag salute by Chairman Chiniaeff.
Present:
Absent:
Also Present:
PUBLIC COMMENTS
No comments.
CONSENT CALENDAR
I Aqenda
RECOMMENDATION:
Commissioners Guerriero, Mathewson, Olhasso, Telesio,
and Chairman Chiniaeff.
None.
Assistant Manager O'Grady,
Deputy City Manager Thornhill,
Attorney Ahn,
Deputy Director of Public Works Parks,
Marketing Coordinator Wolnick,
Office Technician Cammarato,
Assistant Planner Preisendanz, and
Minute Clerk Hansen.
2
1.1 Approve the Agenda of September 4, 2002.
Minutes
RECOMMENDATION:
2.1 Approve Minutes from August 7, 2002.
MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1-2.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner OIhasso and voice vote reflected unanimous
approval.
COMMISSION BUSINESS
3 Economic Development Presentation by Ms. Michelle Schierberl and Assistant
Manaqer Jim O'Grady
Via a PowerPoint presentation, Assistant Manager O'Grady provided a detailed overview
of Temecula's Economic Development Program (per agenda material), relaying the
following:
Noted that many successful components of this program were instituted under the
leadership of Ms. Mary Jane Olhasso when she worked for the City of Temecula;
· Specified the goals and policies in the General Plan which addressed economic
development;
Relayed the marketing efforts, the study information provisions, the site location
assistance, and the economic alliance of Temecula, Murrieta, Lake Elsinore, and
Riverside County;
Noted the City's partnering efforts with the Economic Development Corporation of
Riverside County (EDC), with the Chamber of Commerce and UCR Connect for
marketing to the high technical sector, for venture and capital and networking, and to
assist in the economic development efforts;
Relayed the vital role the brokers had in the business community who actively sell
Temecula everyday, advising that City staff provides information to these individuals;
Advised that he, as well as Marketing Coordinator Wolnick were actively involved in
economic development, noting as well that all the City employees, Boards,
Commissions, and Council play a part in this matter;
Apprised the Planning Commission of the tourism efforts;
Via charted data, specified the growth in employment opportunities in Temecula,
manufacturing and retail business employment providing the largest number of jobs,
and manufacturing business employment providing a higher average payroll per
capita;
· Provided additional information regarding the City's financial status;
For Commissioner Olhasso, relayed that he would notify her when Dr. Husing's
presentation was scheduled for the City Council.
Commissioner Olhasso recommended that once staff had the community profile that the
strategic plan be updated, and offered to volunteer her time, if needed, for this process.
For Commissioner Guerriero, Assistant Manager O'Grady provided additional information
regarding the marketing outreach, which takes place between the property owner and
prospective tenants, noting the potential changing variables in the market place; and
advised that staff would continue efforts to attract high-end tenants.
In response to Commissioner Mathewson's queries, Assistant Manager O'Grady relayed
that in efforts to attract high technical industries staff worked with EDC as well as the
Southwest Riverside County Economic Alliance (noting that the representatives from these
two agencies, Ms. Diane Sessions, and Ms. Stevie Field, were available for questions of
the Planning Commission), focusing on the City's strengths, i.e., the types of industries
which were successfully doing business in Temecula; noted that these marketing efforts
took place primarily in northern California as well as in the Counties of San Diego and Los
Angeles, advising that this was a long-term effort; relayed that one of the pdmary
attractors to the City of Temecula was the high "Quality of Life," as well as the price of
land, the skilled quality work force, the schools, and the recreational programs; and noted
the goal to create a higher education center with 50,000 square feet of classroom/office
space along with the development of affordable housing units which would render the
lease rates more attractive for the education center.
For Commissioner Telesio, Assistant Manager O'Grady relayed that San Diego and
Riverside Universities were well-regarded, additionally noting that there were
approximately 23 colleges and universities located in the Inland Empire, confirming the
desire to bring these facilities closer to Temecula, noting that the satellite centers located
in Temecula at this time served 2,000 students, reiterating the goal for creating a higher
education facility in the City of Temecula; with respect to the brine line, relayed the efforts
regarding this issue and the recent extension of the line to the City of Lake Elsinore;
provided additional information regarding efforts with respect to the airports, e.g.,
supporting efforts to preserve the French Valley Airport for small jets and private planes;
and noted the importance in strategic planning of being aware of the City's strengths and
weaknesses.
Ms. Michelle Schierberl, Real Estate Broker with Grubb & Ellis Commercial Real Estate
Services, responded to Planning Commission queries relaying the following:
That the Gap use which was proposed to be located at the Bel Villaggio Center was a
high-end use;
· That the importance of a good tenant mix was that it aided in attracting additional high-
end tenants;
That it would be helpful if the City's website included information regarding the regional
area (e.g., from Fallbrook to Sun City) in order to reflect the larger regional population
base which various tenants were seeking;
For Commissioner Olhasso, provided additional information regarding the necessary
elements (e.g., a $75,000 minimum household income, and a good mix of existing
tenants) for the development of "Lifestyle Centers" to be seriously considered in a City;
and
For Commissioner Telesio, provided additional information regarding marketing
research programs which while costly provide a developer with vital information
regarding comprehensive data on all existing and upcoming projects, e.g., the
Harveston Project.
Chairman Chiniaeff commented on the waiting period while this particular area attained
the desired population base necessary for acquiring some high-end uses, advising that
while there was a finite amount of land available, proposals were being submitted which
were consistent with the City's zoning. In response, Ms. Schierberl advised that in various
cities, the cities have purchased the retail land in order to land bank the property.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
4 Appeal of PA01-0601 Unmanned Telecommunication Facility. Requesting a
continuance to September 18, 2002, Rolfe Preisendanz, Assistant Planner
For Chairman Chiniaeff, Assistant Planner Preisendanz relayed that this Agenda Item
referred to the proposed telecommunications facility located at the Temeku Hills Golf
Course; and confirmed that it was staff's recommendation that this item be continued in
order for staff to review the recently submitted studies.
MOTION: Commissioner Olhasso moved to continue this item to the September 18, 2002
Planning Commission meeting. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Telesio and
voice vote reflected unanimous approval.
5 Planninq Application No. PA02-0231, 0233, 0234 and 0236 (Development
Plan/Product Review - Harveston, Rolfe Preisendanz, Assistant Planner
PROPOSAL:
PA02-0231: A Development Plan / Product Review for
detached single-family residences within Planning Area
No. 7 of the Harveston Specific Plan located southwest
of the intersection of Date Street and Margarita Road,
Assessor's Parcel No. 916-160-004 and 916-170-011,
Tentative Tract Map 29928-2 and 29928-3;
PA02-0233: A Development Plan I Product Review for
detached single-family residences within Planning Area
No. 4 of the Harveston Specific Plan located southwest
of the intersection of Date Street and Margarita Road,
Assessor's Parcel No. 916-160-004 and 916-170-011,
Tentative Tract Map 29639;
PA02-0234: A Development Plan / Product Review for
detached single-family residences within Planning Area
No. 3 of the Harveston Specific Plan located west of
Ysabel Barnett Elementary School, east of Harveston
Lake, Assessor's Parcel No. 916-170-010, 916-170-011
and 916-170-007, Tentative Tract Map 29929-1;
PA02-0236: A Development Plan / Product Review for
detached single-family residences within Planning Area
No. 7 of the Harveston Specific Plan located south of
Oak Street, west of Margarita Road, between Harveston
School Road and Major Entry off of Oak Street,
Assessor's Parcel No. 916-160-004 and 916-170-011,
Tentative Tract Map 29928-2 and 29928-3.
LOCATION:
Generally located south of Date Street and west of Margarita
Roads.
RECOMMENDATION:
5.1 Adopt a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application(s) No. 02-0231, 0233,
0234 and 0236 (Development Plan(s) / Product Review(s)) based on the
Determination of Consistency with a project for which an Environmental Impact
Report (EIR) was previously certified pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section
15162 - Subsequent EIR's and Negative Declarations;
5.2 Adopt a resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 02-033
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION
NO. 02-0231 - A DEVELOPMENT PLAN / PRODUCT REVIEW
FOR DETACHED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES WITHIN
PLANNING AREA NO. 7 OF THE HARVESTON SPECIFIC PLAN
LOCATED SOUTHWEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF DATE
STREET AND MARGARITA ROAD, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S
PARCEL NO. APN 916-160-004 AND 916-170-011, TENTATIVE
TRACT MAP 29928-2 AND 29928-3;
5.3 Adopt a resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 02-034
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION
NO. 02-0233 - A DEVELOPMENT PLAN / PRODUCT REVIEW
FOR DETACHED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES WITHIN
PLANNING AREA NO. 4 OF THE HARVESTON SPECIFIC
PLAN LOCATED SOUTHWEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF
DATE STREET AND MARGARITA ROAD, KNOWN AS
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. APN 916-160-004 AND 916-t70-
011, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 29639;
5.4 Adopt a resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 02-035
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION
NO. 02-0234 - A DEVELOPMENT PLAN / PRODUCT REVIEW
FOR DETACHED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES WITHIN
PLANNING AREA NO. 3 OF THE HARVESTON SPECIFIC PLAN
LOCATED WEST OF YSABEL BARNETT ELEMENTARY
SCHOOL AND EAST OF HARVESTON LAKE, KNOWN AS
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. APN 916-170-010 AND 916-170-011
AND 916-170-007 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 29929-1;
5.5 Adopt a resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 02-.__
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION
NO. 02-0236 - A DEVELOPMENT PLAN I PRODUCT REVIEW
FOR DETACHED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES WITHIN
PLANNING AREA NO. 7 OF THE HARVESTON SPECIFIC PLAN
LOCATED SOUTH OF OAK STREET, WEST OF MARGARITA
ROAD, BETWEEN HARVESTON SCHOOL ROAD AND MAJOR
ENTRY OFF OF OAK STREET, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S
PARCEL NO. APN 916-160-004, 916-180-008, 916-170-011 AND
916-170-007 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 29928-1 AND 29928.
By way of overheads, Assistant Planner Preisendanz presented the project proposal (per
agenda material), which included plans submitted by Lennar Communities for 300 homes
within Planning Areas 3, 4, and 7 of the Harveston Specific Plan, advising that each area
has been designed by a different architect, each differentiated by varying colors on the
map (i.e., green, pink, blue, and yellow); relayed that each architect was proposing three
design plans, specifying the diverse styles; provided an overview of the materials which
would be utilized and the enhanced architectural features, noting the applicant's submitted
data which identifies the Public View Elevation Enhancement Plan which would provide
assurance that the applicant would provide enhancements on the elevations that are
within the public view; advised that staff has had numerous meetings with the applicant to
discuss architectural enhancements and has had significant input since the first submittals;
and specified that staff was recommending that Condition No. 19 (regarding provision of
electric meters for the purpose of providing power for fire alarm systems and exterior
lighting) be deleted.
Mr. Bill Storm, representing Lennar Communities, provided an update on the status of the
project; introduced the representatives available for questions; reiterated the applicant's
provision of the exhibit identifying each lot and the public view of each elevation, if any;
enumerated the elements beside the architectural treatments which were included in the
project and would contribute to the neighborhood aesthetics, as follows: landscaped
parkways, nostalgic lighting, mini-parks, architectural forward designs, single-story
elements, short street lengths, trails, front porches, and narrower streets; concurred with
Commissioner Olhasso, that iow fencing could provide a positive visual appearance; and
provided additional information regarding cable and fiber services within the project.
Mr. David Viggiano, architect representing the applicant, noted, for Chairman Chiniaeff,
that typically the fencing would be five to six feet in height, advising that a portion
(approximately one foot) of the first story windows would be visible above the fencing; for
Commissioner Olhasso, confirmed that every plan included curb separated parkways; for
Chairman Chiniaeff and Commissioner Guerriero, provided additional information
regarding the plan to utilize composition roofing materials on particular design styles;
relayed that a high quality composition material has a profile with shape and shadows,
with a 40-50 year warranty, advising that the costs of installing this type of roofing were
similar to the costs of installing tile roofing.
Ms. Maureen Kohal, representing the applicant, relayed that her experience with the
higher quality composition roofing material was that buyers were opting for this roofing
style, that it was included as an optional element and would be implemented dependent on
the consistency with the design styles, and that the roofing would be installed in groups,
Mr. Viggiano advising that there was a tremendous desire for diversity in the market, Mr.
Storm relaying that it was not his desire to restrict the architects to one roofing style,
advising that marketing issues will determine whether the roofing material would be
implemented in the future phases.
With respect to roofing, Commissioner Telesio opined that if on the same street within the
same type of housing, composition roofs and tile roofs were both installed, the composition
roofing would be perceived as a lesser quality, Commissioner Guerriero opining that with
the higher quality composition roofing the appearance was visually pleasing.
For Commissioner Guerriero, Mr. Storm relayed that with respect to the homes with
alleyways, that the alleys would be landscaped, that the primary view of the home from the
alley would be the garage, and that the socializing in these homes would predominantly
take place in the front of the house.
Commissioner Mathewson advised that the landscape treatments in the alley would be
just as important as the rear architectural enhancements.
In response to Chairman Chiniaeff's queries, Mr. Viggiano clarified the difference between
the standard architectural features verses the enhanced elevation designs which would be
implemented when the elevation was visible from the public's view, Chairman Chiniaeff
relaying that it would be his desire that there be additional articulation to break up the
massing, e.g., pop-out treatments, window trim.
For Commissioner Mathewson, Mr. Storm relayed that with respect to Plan One which was
The Craftsman, the side elevations which were exposed to the public view would typically
be the elevation with the wraparound porch and not the blank elevation, and that on the
side elevation, the stucco first-story wall would be screened by the fencing; and for
Chairman Chiniaeff, reiterated that at the beginning of the alleyway on the corner there
would be enhanced landscaping to screen the alley view, as well as enhanced side
elevations.
Regarding Product L, Chairman Chiniaeff relayed a desire for the corner lots to have
enhanced first floor elevations as well as second floor enhancements due to the view of
the first floor above the fencing, recommending that the materials utilized on the front of
the building wrap around to the side of the house; relayed the expectation that all the
windows on the first and second floor be enhanced when that particular elevation was in
the public view; and referencing the map denoting Harveston Neighborhood N-21,
specified that in the Product L Plan, the following lots should have additional
enhancements on the rear elevations due to being located within the public view: Lot Nos.
1, 15, 19, 29, 30, 43, 44, 56, 57, 69, 70, 71, and 72.
For Commissioner Olhasso, Chairman Chiniaeff confirmed that the plans denote second-
story rear elevation enhancements for the elevations in the public view.
Reiterating the Planning Commission's direction, Chairman Chiniaeff specified that in the
Cottage Homes (Product L) where there was public exposure there should be wraparound
materials (on the side elevations), and fenestration on the first and second floors; and
advised that it was the general consensus of the Commission that the composition roofing
material would be acceptable while it would not be satisfactory to install all composition
roofing.
In response, Mr. Storm relayed his concern regarding the recommendation for fenestration
on the first floor where there would be fencing which aided in screening this area,
Commissioner Olhasso recommended that there simply be a foam pop-out around the
windows on these particular elevations, to which the Planning Commission concurred. Mr.
Storm agreed that this type of enhancement (window surrounds on the first floor) would
not be too costly.
For informational purposes, Mr. Storm advised that the varying roof forms would add more
visual interest to the street scene than any other element.
With respect to the Product F Plan, and referencing a map denoting Harveston
Neighborhood N-'I0 and a map denoting Harveston Neighborhood N-22, Chairman
Chiniaeff recommended that the following elevations on these specified lots be enhanced
architecturally due to being located in the public view: Lot No. 107: the side elevation; Lot
No. 94: the rear elevation; the side elevation between Lot Nos. 94 and 95; Lot Nos. 102
and 103: the rear elevations; Lot No. 38: the rear elevation; Lot 40: the side elevation; Lot
No. 13: the side elevation; and on Lot Nos. 3 and 4: one side elevation.
For clarification, Mr. Storm noted that the exhibits do not reflect the actual plotting, but
indicate the building envelopes; and while generally agreeing with the recommendations
for enhancement, noted that when the actual plotting was completed some of these
recommended enhancements might not be necessary.
The Commission considered Product D at this time.
Due to the proposed placement of one-story homes, accommodating Commissioner
Mathewson's previous recommendation, and due to this product being wider, Mr. Storm
relayed that the applicant will most likely need to come back to staff for a few minor
setback modifications even though the homes will be plotted on the bigger lots; and for
Commissioner Mathewson, advised that if the minor exceptions were not granted, two-
story homes would be plotted on these particular lots.
Commissioner Mathewson noted his disappointment for the following two reasons: first,
due to solely fifteen percent (15%) of the homes being proposed as one-story, and
secondly, due to the reduction of those one-story homes if an exception to the setback
was not granted.
For clarification, Deputy City Manager Thornhill relayed that staff could only approve a
fifteen percent (15%) variance in the setback requirements, with the exception of a twenty
percent (20%) variance in the cul-de-sacs, recommending that if there were a number of
lots, which would require a setback variance, the lots should be presented together as one
package. In response, Mr. Storm relayed that he was still working on the precise plotting of
these homes.
With respect to the design elements, Chairman Chiniaeff relayed that it appeared that with
the Craftsman Plan, the stucco proposed above the garage should be a siding material to
be true to form.
In response to Chairman Chiniaeff, Mr. Viggiano relayed the approach implemented in
this design, specifically to represent the house design and materials from all views,
advising that since a significant amount of stucco would be placed on this home, some
stucco would also be represented on the front of the buildings, and the front accent siding
material would be placed on the sides, advising that this plan creates an honest
representation with a tasteful blend of the materials, Chairman Chiniaeff noting that the
siding was not carried through on the side elevations.
Mr. Viggiano advised that when developing these design guidelines, architects were
directed to return materials to an inside corner, specifying the design process on this plan.
Commissioner Olhasso concurred that the side elevations should not be so void. In
response, Mr. Storm noted his intention for the front yard landscaping to bleed into this
area, noting his plan to indicate landscaping between the houses and to push the walls
back as much as feasible in order to improve the streetscape.
In response to Planning Commission's comments, Mr. Viggiano was agreeable to
removing the wood trim denoted on the front elevation of the one-story American
Farmhouse design, advising that there were eight alternate design styles and it was not
necessary to implement the American Farmhouse one-story design. With the Planning
Commission's concurrence, Mr. Storm relayed that Mr. Viggiano would work together with
Assistant Planner Preisendanz to address the recommendation for revision.
With respect to Product D Plan, referencing the map denoting Harveston Neighborhood
N-8A, Chairman Chiniaeff recommended that the rear and side elevations should be
enhanced on the extreme left and right lots located on Date Street, as well as the rear
elevations on the three right lots; with respect to the lots located on Westchester Court,
that the lot with the yellow triangle symbol (in the cul-de-sac) should have the rear
elevation enhanced; referencing the map denoting Harveston Neighborhood N-8B,
recommended the following: that the lot with the single-story designation located next to
the blue dot and proximate on the mapping to the N-a-n in the spelling of the street name,
the side elevation on this particular lot should be enhanced (where the street breaks away
at this location); that on Lot No. 93, the rear elevation be enhanced; that on Lot Nos. 87
and 98, the rear elevation should be enhanced (proximate to the Open Space), unless
landscaping is installed to screen these elevations from the public view; and advised that
various homes located at the corner backing Date Street at Margarita Road should have
enhanced elevations when in public view, Mr. Storm advising that these homes may be
screened by the slope and the six-foot wall on Margarita Road.
With respect to Product B, Commissioner Olhasso relayed that she was disappointed with
the architectural design, additionally opining that the product should be larger i.e., over
4,000 square feet in size due to these homes being designed for move-up buyers.
Regarding square footage, Chairman Chiniaeff relayed that since the Planning
Commission had previously approved the square footage, he was not making
recommended revisions regarding this element, Mr. Storm noting, for Commissioner
Olhasso, that the marketing results from the first phase may impact a determination to
increase the square footage of this product in the next phase.
The following comments were expressed regarding Product B:
Commissioner OIhasso recommended that this padicular product go back for re-design,
opining that the Cottages were better designed than this product.
Commissioner Guerriero concurred that the architectural design should be improved on
this product.
With respect to Style 2B, Commissioner Mathewson relayed that he had no objection to
this design.
Commissioners Guerriero and Olhasso emphasized that this product was the largest
product being offered, advising that the buyers for this product would be professionals
coming from Orange and San Diego Counties with an expectation for a high level of
architectural design.
In response, Mr. Storm concurred that the market has significantly evolved recently,
advising that if the market dictates a need for larger homes, the second phase product
would be larger.
Chairman Chiniaeff reiterated that it was his opinion that the Planning Commission not
dictate the size of the product due to this issue being related to marketing factors.
Concurring with the need for architectural improvement, Chairman Chiniaeff advised that
Styles lA and 3C needed wraparound enhancements.
In response, Mr. Viggiano concurred that Styles lA and 3C should be redesigned; for
Commissioner Guerriero, noted the difficulties in designing a one-story plan with this
project; provided additional information regarding the concept of designing a home with a
one-story appearance, predominan[ly with one-story features, and a few two-story
components which provided benefits with respect to the streetscape, the livability of the
residence, and the opportunity to place the project on a narrower lot, advising that at least
fifty percent (50%) of the product would have a one-story roof, and that the second story
on this padicular unit would be towards the rear elevation.
In response to Chairman Chiniaeff, Mr. Storm relayed that it would be his desire to make
revisions within the existing footprint, advising that he would appreciate Mr. Viggiano's
input regarding implementing changes; and noted that he would bring back to the Planning
Commission revised elevations for this particular product.
Commissioner Telesio relayed that it was his understanding that one-story homes would
be included for the purpose of providing a true one-story unit for buyers who preferred a
one-story residence, and not solely for the provision of a pleasing street ambience.
Summarizing the Planning Commission's direction, Chairman Chiniaeff reiterated that
modifications were made to the plotting at various locations in terms of elevations, that the
enhanced articulation should extend down to the first floor, i.e., wraparound window
treatments, that on various projects the materials utilized on the front elevations would be
wrapped around the sides of the homes, in particular on the first product type, i.e., The
Cottages; and advised that the Planning Commission concurred with the recommendation
to delete Condition No. 19 (regarding provision of electric meters for the purpose of
providing power for fire alarm systems and exterior lighting.)
In order to clarify his opinion, Commissioner Mathewson relayed that implementation of
fifteen percent (15%) one-story homes does not constitute a diligent effort at providing a
satisfactory mix, additionally noting that if the predominant one-story homes (which were
homes with a few two-story elements) were going to take the place of fifty percent (50%)
of the proposed one-story homes, many of the architectural designs would not be suitable
for revision to implement this concept (the predominantly one-story unit), specifically The
Spanish Colonial, The Monterey, and The Cottages; advised that while architecturally,
overall, the proposals were excellent, it was his fear that the lack of single-story homes
would create a canyon-like appearance, reiterating that he did not understand the
reluctance to implement one-story homes; and recommended that the proposed two-story
homes should be revised to create a softer appearance, and a roof which appeared to be
primarily one-story.
Commissioner Telesio opined that, overall, the proposal was excellent and consistent with
what the applicant originally relayed.
For Commissioner Mathewson, Deputy City Manager Thornhill relayed that it was his
understanding that a specific number of one-story homes could not be dictated; advised
that it would be pleasing to staff and the Planning Commission if the applicant could
demonstrate on the site plan a mix of single-family projects, incorporating various
concepts expressed by the applicant's architect; and relayed that due to the diversity in
architectural style, the canyon effect (which was a concern of Commissioner Mathewson's)
would be minimized.
Additional discussion ensued regarding the lot sizes and the placement of one-story
homes.
For an improved street scene and in light of the narrower streets, Commissioner OIhasso
noted the importance of a mix with one-story product.
In response to Commissioner Olhasso, Mr. Storm provided additional information
regarding the applicant's marketing data, Commissioner Olhasso advising that both she
and Dr. Husing could provide additional marketing information to the applicant's marketing
analysis provider.
Chairman Chiniaeff relayed hopes that in the plotting for the next product there would be a
larger number of single-story homes.
Deputy City Manager Thornhill noted that when the precise plotting was brought before the
Planning Commission the views of the roofs from the street could be reviewed,
recommending that the applicant focus on a few sections of street, bringing forward line
drawings of these street sections, demonstrating the roof elevations from the public's view.
Acknowledging that the number of one-story homes could not be dictated, Commissioner
Mathewson recommended that when the precise plotting plans were developed that staff
and the applicant create a diversity of setbacks and that the number of two-story homes,
which have more of a boxed-appearance, be few, in order to improve the streetscape.
In response, Mr. Storm reiterated that the project was not conditioned to provide any one-
story homes, and that if Commissioner Mathewson was correct, and if the market revealed
a high demand for one-story units, the number would be increased in the next phase.
MOTION: Commissioner Telesio moved to close the public hearing; to approve staff's
recommendation with respect to Item Nos. 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, and 5.4 as discussed during the
public hearing, and subject to the deletion of Condition No. 19 (regarding provision of
electric meters for the purpose of providing power for fire alarm systems and exterior
lighting); and to continue Item No. 5.5 (regarding Planning Application No. 02-0236) to the
September 18, 2002 Planning Commission meeting. The motion was seconded by and
voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Commissioner Mathewson who
abstained.
With respect to the comment regarding the Planning Commission raising the bar with
respect to design expectations with this project and holding other developers to the same
standard, Commissioner Olhasso relayed, for informational purposes, that this design level
was now the standard and that this was the minimal expectation.
COMMISSIONER'S REPORTS
For Commissioner Olhasso, Deputy City Manager Thornhill provided an update
regarding the Code Enforcement issue at the furniture use located adjacent to the
1-15 Freeway; and relayed that he would request Director of Planning Ubnoske to
report back regarding this issue.
Commissioner Guerriero noted that there was no flagging taking place during the
road construction activity on Rancho California Road, resulting in the backing up of
traffic.
For Chairman Chiniaeff, Deputy City Manager Thornhill relayed that at the Guidant
property it was his understanding that the property was being graded in
conformance with the approved Tentative Parcel Map, providing additional
information regarding these parcels.
PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT
Deputy City Manager Thornhill updated the Planning Commission regarding the
staff recruitment process.
ADJOURNMENT
At 9:18 P.M. Chairman Chiniaeff formally adjourned this meeting to the next reqular
meetinq to be held on Wednesday, September 18, 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
R:Pla~Comm/minutes/090402 13
ITEM #3
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
October 30, 2002
Planning Application No. 02-0472 (Development Plan)
Prepared By: Dan Long, Associate Planner
ADOPT a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. 02-0472; Pursuant to Section
15301 of the California Environmental Quality Act.
ADOPT a Resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002-__
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 02-
0472, A DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO MAKE A MINOR
MODIFICATION TO AN EXISTING 77,500 SQUARE FOOT
INDUSTRIAL BUILDING ON 5.65 ACRES, LOCATED AT THE
NORTHEAST CORNER OF COUNTY CENTER DRIVE AND YNEZ
ROAD KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 910-110-041
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
PROPOSAL:
LOCATION:
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION:
EXISTING ZONING:
SURROUNDING ZONING:
EXISTING LAND USE:
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
FFF Enterprises, Inc., Ross McCune
To design and construct a new loading door, drive aisle and
associated landscaping to an existing 77,500 square feet
industrial building located at 41093 County Center Drive
Located at the northeast corner of County Center Drive and
Ynez Road.
Business Park (BP)
Light Industrial (LI)
North: Light Industrial (LI)
South: Public Institution (PI)
East: Business Park (BP)
West: Service Commercial (SC)
Industrial Building
North: Industrial Building
South: County Administrative Center, library
East: Commemial Offices
West: New Covenant Fellowship Church and Vacant lot
R:~,D P~2002\02-0472 FFF, Loading Doo~Staff Report PA02~472.doc
PROJECT STATISTICS (DEVELOPMENT PLAN)
Lot area (gross):
Lot area (net)
Building addition square footage:
Existing building square footage:
Building height:
Landscaped area:
Parking required:
Parking provided:
Lot coverage:
Floor area ratio:
BACKGROUND
262,666 sq. ft. (6.03 acres)
246,114 sq. ft. (5.65 acres)
None proposed
77,500 square feet
31'-0" (No changes proposed)
88,100 square feet (35%) as proposed
131 vehicular, 5 handicapped, 7 bicycle, and 5 motorcycle
137 vehicular, 6 handicapped, 3 bicycle, and 2 motomycle
27%
.31
The original project, a 77,500 square foot industrial building, was approved by the Planning
Commission in September of 1996 and completed in April of 1997. Because the Development Code
does not permit minor modifications to building designs, the City Attorney has advised that the
hearing body that granted the initial approval review all design changes.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Planning Application No. 02-0472 (Development Plan) is a request for the construction of a new roll-
up loading door, drive aisle and landscaping located on a 5.65-acre site. The project is located at
the northeast corner of County Center Drive and Ynez Road. The underlying zoning for the site is
Light Industrial.
The roll-up door will be constructed on the northern side of an existing building, approximately 30-
feet from the northwest corner of the building. It will be constructed of a metal material made to
match the existing building colors. A concrete drive aisle will be constructed from the parking area
abutting Ynez Road to the roll-up door on the side of the building, creating an L-shape. Landscaping
is proposed along the site entrance along with a landscaped berm between the roll-up door and the
street for screening purposes. Staff has included Conditions of Approval ensuring the correct
species will be provided for optimal screening of the roll-up doom and loading area.
The applicant has indicated to staff that the location of the proposed roll-up door and drive aisle,
currently a flat landscaped area, will eventually provide for an expansion to the existing building.
ANALYSIS
The Development Code requires loading doors to be located on the side and or the rear of buildings
and screened from the public view. The applicant has proposed a landscape berm approximately
three to four feet in height with shrubs and trees between the loading area and the public street in
order to screen the loading area (Berm is conditioned to be no less than 4 feet from finished grade
R:~D P~2002\02-0472 FIEF, Loading Da~r~Staff Report PA02~472.doc
2
of loading area). The five-gallon shrubs conditioned for approval (No. 12) planted on top of the
landscaped berm grew up to ten feet in height and in width in approximately 4-5 years. The 24-inch
box trees conditioned for approval (No. 13) nearest the street will grew up to 20-30 feet in height and
can spread up to 30 feet wide at full maturity in approximately 6-8 years. The existing landscaping
along with the proposed landscaping and those included in the Conditions of Approval will provide
optimal screening for the loading door area.
Staff can make the required findings necessary to approve the proposed project for the existing
industrial building located in the Light Industrial zoning district. The proposed site plan and
landscaping is consistent with the industrial development pedormance standards in the
Development Code. As conditioned the landscape plan, including a berm along with the existing
landscaping will adequately screen the loading area from the public view. Additionally, the project
will provide additional mature landscaping for future development on the project site.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
The project has been determined to be Categorically Exempt from CEQA Guidelines, Class 1,
Section 15301. The project is a minor alteration to an existing industrial structure.
CONCLUSION/RECOMMENDATION
As conditioned, the project is consistent with all-applicable City ordinances, standards, guidelines,
and policies. The project is compatible with surrounding developments in terms of design and
quality and staff recommends approval.
FINDINGS
Development Plan (Section 17.05.010F)
The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan for Temecula and with all
applicable requirements of state law and other ordinances of the city.
The proposal is consistent with the land use designation and policies reflected for Light
industrial (LI) development in the City of Temecula General Plan. The General Plan has
'listed the proposed use, light manufacturing as a typical use in the Business Park
designation. The proposed project is consistent with the use regulations outlined in the
DevelopmentCodefortheLightlndustrialzoningdist#ct. Theprojecthasbeenconditioned
by the Building Department and Fire Prevention Bureau to comply with all applicable
Building and Fire Codes.
The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health,
safety, and general welfare.
The proposed project is consistent with the development standards outlined in section
17.08.070 of the City of Temecula's Development Code. The project proposes a roll-up
loading door on the north side of the building elevation that does not face directly into the
public view and is screened with landscaping and berms that minimizes the view from the
street and will provide mature landscaping for future development on the site. The roll-up
door is designed to match the existing building colors and will blend into the building
naturally. The proposed project has met the performance standards in regards to circulation,
architectural design and site plan design.
R:',D P~2002\02-0472 FFF, Loading Door~Staff Repor~ PA02~472.doc
3
Attachments:
PC Resolution No. 2002- - Blue Page 5
Exhibit A - Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 8
Exhibits - Blue Page 13
A. Vicinity Map
B. General Plan Map
C. Zoning Map
D. Site Plan
E. Detail Plan
F. Building Elevations
G. Landscape Plan
H. Color Board
I. Color Elevation
ATrACHMENT NO. 1
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002-
R:'xD PX20~2\02-0472 FFF, Loading DoofiStaff Report PA024)472.doc
5
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 02-
0472, A DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO MAKE A MINOR
MODIFICATION TO AN EXISTING 77,500 SQUARE FOOT
INDUSTRIAL BUILDING ON 5.65 ACRES, LOCATED AT THE
NORTHEAST CORNER OF COUNTY CENTER DRIVE AND YNEX
ROAD KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 910-110-041.
WHEREAS, FFF Enterprises, Inc., filed Planning Application No. 02-0472 (Development
Plan Application), in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development
Code;
WHEREAS, the Application was processed including, but not limited to a 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 30, 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 in opposition to this
matter;
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing and after due consideration of the
testimony, the Commission recommended approval of the Application subject to and based upon
the findings set forth hereunder;
WHEREAS, all legal preconditions to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES
HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1.
by reference.
That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby incorporated
Section 2. Findinqs. The Planning Commission, in approving the Application hereby
makes the following findings as required by Section 17.05.01 OF of the Temecula Municipal Code:
The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan for Temecula and with all
applicable requirements of state law and other ordinances of the city.
The proposal is consistent with the land use designation and policies reflected for Light
industrial (LI) development in the City of Temecula General Plan. The General Plan has
listed the proposed use, light manufacturing as a typical use in the Business Park
designation. The proposed project is consistent with the use regulations outlined in the
Development Code for the Light Industrial zoning district. The project has been
conditioned by the Building Department and Fire Prevention Bureau to comply with all
applicable Building and Fire Codes.
The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health,
safety, and general welfare.
R:'~D P'~2002~02-0472 FieF, Loading Door~Staff Report PA02-0472.doc
6
The proposed project is consistent with the development standards outlined in section
17.08.070 of the City of Temecu/a's Development Code. The project proposes a roll-up
loading door on the north side of the building elevation that does not face directly into the
public view and is screened with landscaping and berms that minimizes the view from the
street and will provide mature landscaping for future development on the site. The roll-up
door is designed to match the existing bu/Tding co/ors and will b/end into the building
naturally. The proposed project has met the performance standards in regards to circulation,
architectural design and site plan design.
Section 3. Environmental Compliance. A Notice of Exemption has prepared and
adopted by the Planning Commission. Whereas, no further environmental review if required for the
proposed project.
Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby
approves Planning Application 002-0472 subject to the Conditions set forth on Exhibit A, attached
hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference.
Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning
Commission this 30th day of October 2002.
ATTEST:
Dennis Chiniaeff, Chairperson
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
[SEAL]
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss
CITY OF TEMECULA )
I, Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary of the Temecula Planning Commission, do hereby certify that
PC Resolution No. 2002- was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City
of Temecula at a regular ~eeting thereof held on the 30th day of October, 2002, by the following vote
of the Commission:
AYES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
NOES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
ABSTAIN:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
R:'xD P'2.002\02~0472 FFF, Loading DoofiStaff Report PA02~472.doc
7
EXHIBIT A
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
R:~D Pt2002\024)472 FFF, Loading Doof~Staff Report PA02-0472.doc
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Planning Application No.:
02-0472 (Development Plan)
Project Description:
A Development Plan to design and construct a
roll-up door and drive aisle to an existing 77,500
square foot industrial building located at 41093
County Center Drive
DIF Category:
Assessor's Parcel No.:
Approval Date:
Expiration Date:
Business Park/Industrial
910-110-041
October 30, 2002
October 30, 2004
PLANNING DIVISION
Within Forty-Eight (48) Hours of the Approval of this Project
The applicant/developer shall deliver to the Community Development Department- Planning
Division a cashier's check or money order made payable to the County Clerk in the amount
of Seventy-Eight Dollars ($64.00) for the County administrative fee, to enable the City to file
the Notice of Determination with a DeMinimus Finding for the Mitigated or Negative
Declaration required under Public Resources Code Section 21108(b) and California Code of
Regulations Section 15075. If within said forty-eight (48) hour period the applicant/developer
has not delivered to the Community Development Department - Planning Division the check
as required above, the approval for the project granted shall be void by reason of failure of
condition (Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c)).
General Requirements
The permittee/applicant shall indemnify, defend with counsel of City's own election, and hold
harmless, the City and any agency or instrumentality thereof, and/or any of its officers,
employees, and agents from any and all claims, actions, or proceedings against the City, or
any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers, employees, and agents, to
attack, set aside, void, annul, or seek monetary damages resulting from an approval of the
City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal board or legislative
body including actions approved by the voters of the City, concerning the Planning
Application which action is brought within the appropriate statute of limitations period and
Public Resources Code, Division 13, Chapter 4 (Section 21000 et seq., including but not by
the way of limitations Section 21152 and 21167). The City shall promptly notify the
permittee/applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding brought forth within this time period.
The City shall estimate the cost of the defense of the action and applicant shall deposit said
amount with the City. City may require additional deposits to cover anticipated costs. City
shall refund, without interest, any unused portions of the deposit once the litigation is finally
concluded. Should the City fail to either promptly notify or cooperate fully, permittee/
applicant shall not, thereafter be responsible to indemnity, defend, protect, or hold harmless
the City, any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers, employees, or agents
R:',D PL2002\02-0472 FFF, Loading Doo~Staff Report PA02-0472.doc
9
3. No outdoor staging/storage of any kind shall be permitted outside of the delineated staging
area.
=
The finish grade of the landscape berm shall be no less than four feet from the finish slab
grade of the staging area.
All conditions shall be complied with prior to any occupancy or use allowed by this
Development Plan.
All conditions of approval for Planning Application 96-0176 shall apply unless superseded by
these conditions of approval.
The permittee shall obtain City approval for any modifications or revisions to the approval of
this development plan.
o
This approval shall be used within two (2) years of the approval date; otherwise, it shall
become null and void. By use is meant the beginning of substantial construction
contemplated by this approval within the two (2) year period, which is thereafter diligently
pursued to completion, or the beginning of substantial utilization contemplated by this
approval.
=
The development of the premises shall substantially conform to the approved Exhibits D
(Site Plan), E Detail Plan, F (Building Elevation), G (Landscape Plan), and H (Color Board)
contained on file with the Community Development Department - Planning Division.
10.
Landscaping installed for the project shall be continuously maintained to the reasonable
satisfaction of the Planning Director. If it is determined that the landscaping is not being
maintained, the Planning Director shall have the authority to require the property owner to
bring the landscaping into conformance with the approved landscape plan. The continued
maintenance of all landscaped areas shall be the responsibility of the developer or any
successors in interest.
11.
The 5-gallon Xylosma congestum Compacta' shrubs shall be replaced with 5-gallon Xylosma
congestum in order to provide optimal screening from the street. Alternative shrubs may be
provided with the approval of the Planning Director.
12.
The 24-inch box Pistachia Chinense trees proposed at the entrance of the site shall be
replaced with 24-inch box California Pepper trees. Alternative tree species may be provided
with the approval by the Planning Director.
13.
The colors and materials for the project shall substantially conform to those noted in the
initial project approval (PA96-0176) and with Exhibit "1' (Color Board), contained on file with
the Community Development Department - Planning Division.
Prior to Issuance of Building Permit
14.
The construction landscape drawings shall indicate coordination and grouping of all utilities,
which are to be screened from view per applicable City Codes and guidelines.
15.
The applicant shall sign both copies of the final conditions of approval that will be provided
by the Community Development Department - Planning Division staff, and return one signed
set to the Community Development Department - Planning Division for their files.
R:~D P~2002\(Yg4M72 FPP, Lcading Door~taff Report PA024)472.doc
10
16.
The applicant shall submit to the Community Development Department - Planning Division
for permanent filing two (2) 8" X 10" glossy photographic color prints of the approved Color
and Materials Board and of the colored version of approved Exhibit "G", the colored
architectural elevations to the Community Development Department - Planning Division for
their files. All labels on the Color and Materials Board and Elevations shall be readable on
the photographic prints.
17, A Consistency Check fee shall be paid per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule.
18.
Three (3) copies of Construction Landscaping and Irrigation Plans shall be submitted to the
Community Development Department - Planning Division for approval. These plans shall
conform substantially with the approved Exhibit "l", or as amended by these conditions. The
location, number, genus, species, and container size of the plants shall be shown. The
plans shall be consistent with the Water Efficient Ordinance. The cover page shall identify
the total square footage of the landscaped area for the site. The plans shall be
accompanied by the following items:
a. Appropriate filing fee (per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule at time of submittal).
b. Water usage calculations per Chapter 17.32 of the Development Code (Water
Efficient Ordinance).
c. Total cost estimate of plantings and irrigation (in accordance with the approved
plan).
19. The Planning Director shall approve the Construction Landscaping and Irrigation Plans.
Prior to Building Occupancy
20.
The property owner shall fully install all required landscaping and irrigation, and submit a
landscape maintenance bond in a form and amount approved by the Planning Department
for a period of one-year from the date of the first occupancy permit.
21.
The property owner shall submit a landscape maintenance plan that will insUre that the
landscaping will be maintained at heights sufficient to screen bay doors visible from the
public right of way.
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
22. No Conditions
FIRE DEPARTMENT
23. No Conditions
BUILDING AND SAFETY
24.
All design components shall comply with applicable provisions of the 1998 edition of the
California Building, Plumbing and Mechanical Codes; 1998 National Electrical Code;
California Administrative Code, Title 24 Energy and Disabled Access Regulations and the
Temecula Municipal Code (For building plans submitted prior to November 1, 2002.
Plans submitted for review after November 1, 2002 shall comply with applicable
provisions of the 2001 edition of the California Building, Plumbing and Mechanical
RAD PX2002\02q)472 FieF, Loading DoofiStaff Report PA02q)472.doc
1!
Codes; 1999 National Electrical Code; California Administrative Code, Title 24 Energy
and Disabled Access Regulations and the Temecula Municipal Code).
25.
Obtain all building plans and permit approvals prior to commencement of any construction
work.
26.
All building and facilities must comply with applicable disabled access regulations. Provide
all details on plans (California Disabled Access Regulations effective April 1, 1998).
27.
Provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on plans prior
to permit issuance.
COMMUNITY SERVICES
28.
The developer shall contact the City's franchised solid waste hauler for disposal of
construction debris. Only the City's franchisee may haul construction debris.
OUTSIDE AGENCIES
29.
The applicant shall comply with the attached letter dated March 23, 2002 from the Riverside
County Flood Control and Water Conservation District.
30. The applicant shall comply with the attached letter dated May 30, 2002 from Rancho Water.
31.
The applicant shall comply with the attached letter dated May 29, 2002 from County of
Riverside Department of Environmental Health.
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's Signature
Name printed
Date
R:'~D PX2002\02~472 FFF, Loading DoofStaff Report PA0'2~472.doc
ATFACHMENT NO. 3
EXHIBITS
R:'~D PX2002\02-0472 FFF, Loading DoofiSmff Report PA02-0472.doc
13
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO. - PA02-0472
EXHIBIT - A
~ PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - October 30, 2002
VICINITY MAP
R:~D P',2002~02-0472 FFF, Loading Door~Staff Report PA02-O472.doc
~4
CITY OF TEMECULA
EXHIBIT B - GENERAL PLAN MAP
DESIGNATION -(BP) Business Park
EXHIBIT C - ZONING
DESIGNATION - ~ustrial
CASE NO. - PA02-0472
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - October 30, 2002
R:'~D 1:'~,?.002~02-0472 FFF, Loading Doo~taff Report PA02-0472.doc
CITY OF TEMECULA
eCASE NO. - PA02-0472
EXHIBIT- D
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - October 30, 2002
SITE PLAN
R:~D P~2002~02-0472 FFF, Loading Door~St~ff Report PA02-0472.doc
16
CITY OF TEMECULA
4
CASE NO. - PA02-0472
EXHIBIT - E
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - October 30, 2002
DETAIL
R:~D P~2002~02-0472 FFF, Loading Door~Staff Repori PA02-0472.doc
17
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO. - PA02-0472
EXHIBIT- F
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - October 30, 2002
BUILDING ELEVATIONS
R:~D P~2002~02-0472 FFF, Loading Door~Staff Report PA02-o472.doc
CITY OF TEMECULA
YNEZ
F----' ~' ~ T
~ PLANTING. PLAN
CASE NO. - PA02-0472
EXHIBIT - G
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - October 30, 2002
LANDSCAPE
R:~D P',2002~02-0472 FFF, Loading Door~Staff Report PA02-0472.doc
]9
ITEM #4
CITY OFTEMECULA
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Planning Commission
Debbie Ubnoske, Planning Director
October 30, 2002
Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan and Related Projects
On October 16, 2002, the Planning Commission took public testimony, provided direction to
staff on a number of issues, and continued this item to the October 30, 2002 hearing. Staff has
been working with the applicant to finalize the Conditions of Approval and the Development
Agreement. The purpose of this meeting is to address issues raised by the Planning
Commission at the last meeting.
Because of the time constraints, instead of providing an analysis of the issues in the Staff
Report, staff will include the analysis as part of the oral presentation to the Commission. Staff
will also provide the Planning Commission with an updated list of Conditions of Approval and
other components of the project. It should be noted that these materials should not be
substantially new infori-nation but rather clarification of items. In addition, Attachments 1 and 4
include a number of letters submitted at the night of the Planning Commission and the Lotting
Study and Cross Sections, respectively.
Attachments:
2.
3.
4.
5.
List of Issues - Blue Page 2
Community Correspondence on the Project - Blue Page 3
Errata Sheet dated October 16, 2002 - Blue Page 4
October 16, 2002 Staff Report - Blue Page 5
Lotting Study and Cross Sections (Attached as Exhibits) - Blue Page 6
R:\S P~Roripaugh Ranch SP~new~PC staff Report 10-30-02.doc
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
LIST OF ISSUES
R:\S P~Roripaugh Ranch SP~new~PC staff Report 10-30-02.doc
2
Summary of Community Concerns
October 16, 2002
Planning Commission Hearing
1. The developer should pave Jessie Circle and Liefer Road.
2. The developer should arrange to make the private recreation centers available to the
general public by charging a fee.
3. The pavement of Liefer Road with associated drainage improvements should be
included in the CFD for the project.
4. The Nature walk should be eliminated.
5. Nicolas Valley property owners should not be included in a future assessment district for
the improvement of Nicolas Road.
6. The developer should be responsible to improve Nicolas Road to 4 lanes.
7. The developer should pave Vista Del Monte and provide a gate to eliminate the passer
by traffic, which exists today. The project will increase this traffic.
8. Some residents were opposed to the project because of the density of the project.
9. The total number of units should be 400 dwelling units not 2,015 units.
10. The buffering to the south and east should be 2.5-acre minimum lots. However,
minimum 2-acre lots are an acceptable compromise, which will result in a total of 1,995
dwelling units.
11. The developer and Council member Roberts promised the residents minimum 2.5-acre
lots along the east side. The residents would like these promises to be kept.
12. The developer should provide landscaping for the 30' fuel modification zone including
trees to provide privacy for the residents since many people will be using the Multi
Purpose Trail.
13. The project should address the requirements of SB 221 and SB 610.
14. The traffic flow on the interchanges will continue to get worse with the approval of
additional projects.
15. The Traffic Study underestimates the number of trips on Nicolas Road.
16. The City should require the developer to improve 4 lanes for Nicolas and reduce the
improvement to Butterfield Stage Road from 6 lanes to 4 lanes.
17. How long will the construction traffic last?
18. Construction traffic on Nicolas Road should not be permitted.
R:~S P~Roripaugh Ranch SP~ncw~PC StaffRcport 10-16-02~PC summa~ 10-16-02.doc
1
19. If the dust generated from the unimproved portion of Nicolas Road causes health
hazards, the City will be held liable for it.
20. Access to all existing lots and residences should be kept.
21. The two school sites should not be next to each other.
Planning Commission Comments
1. Staff should re-examine the proposed varied width improvements to Nicolas Road and
ButterT3eld Stage Road.
2. The shared access driveways in the "B' Map need further consideration.
3. Staff should provide additional analysis on curb-separated sidewalk on major and local
streets.
4. Split Rail (PVC) fencing with wire mesh is an alternative to the chain link fencing along
the southern property line of the Plateau.
5. Staff needs to provide input on the applicant's proposal to change the timing for the
completion of improvements from 107th building permit to the 250th building permit.
6. Staff should provide the Planning Commission additional information regarding the
elevation difference between the project and the existing residences in the perimeter.
7. The Design Guidelines lack graphics.
8. Which section of the Design Guidelines provides information regarding the requirement
of single story and 2 story houses?
R:~S PkP. oripaugh Ranch SPkncwkPC Staff Report 10-164)2LPC summmy 10-16-02.doc
2
ATFACHMENT NO. 2
COMMUNITY CORRESPONDENCE ON THE PROJECT
R:\S P~Roripaugh Ranch SFSnew~PC staff Report 10-30-02.doc
3
10/16/02
Mike Knowlton
39130 Pala Vista Dr/ve
Temecula, CA 92591
(H) 909.694.6848
(W) 949.368.5260
Attn: Planning Commission Members
City Of Temecula
43200 Business Park Drive'
Temecula, CA 92589
RE: Roripaugh Ranch Specifi~ Plan Proposal Comments and
Proposed Conditions of Approval
Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan (Planning Application No. 94-0075)
General Plan Amendment (Planning Application No. 99-0298)
Change of Zone (Planning Application No. 94-0075)
Development Agreement (Planning Application No. 99-0299)
Tentative Tract Map 29353 (Planning Application No. 01-0230)
Tentative Tract Map 29661 (Planning Application No. 01-0253)
My thanks to the Planning Commision, Roripaugh Subeommitte members, Mr.
Thomhill, Mr. Parks, Ms. Ubnoske, Mr. Naeesh and all of the CitY Staff for their
patience, persistence and significant effort to bring a quality project of this magnitude
before the Planning Commission.
RECOMMENDATION: I recommend that the Planning Commission recommend
approval to the City Council with the Proposed Conditions of ApprOval adopted.
Provided direction to staff, as a condition of approval, tO add Defer Road
construction as a two lane asphalt road with drain culverts on both sides of' its entirety
into the assessment district being formed for the construction of Butteffield Stage
Road, Murrieta Hot Springs Road, and Nicolas Road as this would be feasible and
would benefit the City.
Basis for condition: Road and bridge construction on Nicolas Road will place the
entire burden on Liefer Road as the single access road for all residents. As well,
Liefer Road will see an increased burden from traffic outside the area when Nicolas
Road is opened from Butterfield Stage Road. Service Level R assessments and
associated maintenance impacts would be unduly borne by Nicolas Valley Residents.
Service Level R maintenance has negatively impacted the grade of Nicolas, Liefer
and Pala Vista Drive Roads and the City needs to take some responsibility and
support residents with this mitigation consideration.
Provided direction to staff, as a condition of approval, to remove the I0' walking trail
along the lower panhandle and that landscaping be completed in this area prior to the
first foundation slab being poured in the project.
Basis for condition: This, in conjunction with plans efforts to create a hardy, dense
landscaped buffer, will complete the expected mitigation for this aspect of the project.
3. Provided direction to staff to create, as a condition of approval, the necessary
documents stipulating that Nicolas Valley Property holders of record, on the date of
· the formation of the assessment district to fund the road construction described in ·
item (1) above, will not be assessed for future improvements to Nicolas Road: This
condition is applicable to properties zoned rural/residential. This condition is null
and void for those properties that are approved for any aspect of property subdividing
or change in zoning use from Rural/Residential to any form of business use
expectation.
Basis for condition: Rural/Residential property owners do not want to be assessed for
the future Nicolas Road improvements/widening. Concerns exist that the City will
start assessing these owners for the Nicolas Road improvements at some future date
do to unforeseen impacts. As such, something in writing from the City to guarantee
this is requested to back up the report'from staff and engineering that they have
adequately assessed this aspect of the application.
· I still have general concerns regarding the following issues, but have not
formulated effective considerations or suggestions for resolution outside of the conditions
for approval offered above as mitigation.
· Housing numbers at 2015 dwelling units vice the 1721 of Aug 2001.
· Circulation/access for the schools and parks
· Parking adequacy for the parks
· Street parking dedication to support schools and parks
· Significant density imbalance between the entire project versus the panhandle
Traffic safety and circulation concerns on Nicolas Road
· Drainage estimates, engineering, control and management and access
structures along and across the Santa Gertmdis and Long Valley watersheds
· Traffic control adequacy at Nicolas Road and Liefer, Calle Girasol and
Butterfield Road
We the undersigned, as property owners next to the Southern & Eastern boundaries of the
Rofipaugh Ranch project, collectively seek to have the following conditions or issues
mitigated by the City of Temecula phnning Commssion:
1) Re-establishment of the originally pJanned 2.5 acre peripheral buffer lots along the
Southern & Eastern boundaries as was promised by then City Councilman Ron
Roberts in the July, 2001 meeting and by Developer Ashby himself directly to
Property Owner Bill Vazz~ns This element of the project was unjustly reneged on.
The currently planned 1 acre lots are not buffers but constitute a blatant and abrupt
development intrusion into already established rural properties, some of which are as
large as 10-20 acres. The tentative Riverside County General Land Use Plan for the
project area already establishes that all lots be minimum 2.5 acres.
2) Assurance that the emergency "orash gate'; or authorized automatic gate with clicker,
to remain permanently and be maintained by the city with the further stipulation that.
the planned cul-de-sac adjacent to the end of Calle Contento never connect and
become an arterial street.
3) Our SeCurity and privacy will be greatly impacted. There is no security or privacy
buffer betwee~ our property lines and the "multi-use" trail which will be accessed by
thousands of strangers. The Developer & PI ~anning Commission needs to address
how the lack of security and privacy for the neighboring propeaies can be restored.
4) Reduction of wind driven dirt and dust: South and East neighboring properties to the
project will be subject to undue hardships during construction. The combination of
such large scale carving up and grading on the valley floor and the prevailing winds
that persistently buffet the ~windward slopes of the Eastern hills continually, makes
for unwarranted property damage and poses health b_~7~rds, not to mention dirt and
debris onto the houses, decks, pools, etc. in the area. We request special hours and
additional restraints to the grading, as weoJng down the soil during this process will
not be enough to solve this problem.
Name (printed) & Address
mitigated by the City ofTemectda pl*nning Com~nssion:
1) Re-estab~i~tnne~ of the ori~n~ly planned 2.5 acre peripheral buffer lots along the
Southern & Eastern bo_mdaries as was promise! by then City Copn~ilman Ron
Robe~ ill tho J~y, 2001 .me~ill~ _~nd by Developer Ashby himseff direly to
Prop~y Owner Bill Vazza~ This elome~ of the project was unjustly reneged on.
Tho cunwtly planned I acm lots are not buffers but constitute a b ~bt~nt 0nd abrupt
development intrusion into already esmblisbod rural ~ some of which are as
large as 10-20 acres. The tentative Riverside Co_tory General Land Use Plan for the
project area ah'eady establishes th~ all lots be minimum 2.5 ac~s.
2) Assurance that the emergen~] ~crash gate~, or ~;nhozized
tO re~n~in pe~anelRly and bo maintained by the city with the ~e~' stil~dsrth~ tha~.
tl~ planned od-d~sa~ adjacent to tbo e~l of Call¢ Comento never connect and
3) Om, s~curity and privacy will be greatly impacted. The~isno securityor privacy
buffez between our property lines and the '¥aUlti-use~ h-~il which will be accessed by
thousands of ~i~aaso~s. Tbo Developer & pbnnln§ Commission need~ to address
4) Redu~on of wind driven dirt and du~ South and East neighbozi~ properties to tho
project ~ be ~abject to undue hardships du, i~g constm~o~ The combination of
soch lar~ scale carving up and grading on tbo valley floor and tbo Pr~vailin§ winds
tha~ ~ buffet thc willdward slopes of tho w~te~ll hillg ~fili~lly, maices
for unwarmmed property damage and poses health h~rds, nOt to memion ~ and
debris onto the houses, decks, pools, etc. in the are~ We request ~ hou~ and
additional re~_~ints to tl~ grading as w~ilag down the soil during this pro. ss will
~ bo ~lough to solvo thin problem
We the undersigned, as property owners next to the Southern & Eastern boundaries of the
Roripaugh Ranch project, collectively seek to have tho following conditions or issues
mitigated by the City of Temecula Planning Commssio~
1)
Re-establishment of the originally planned 2.5 acre peripheral buffer lots along the
Soutbem & Eastern boundaries as was promised by then City Councilman Ron
Roberts in the luly, 2001 meeting and by Developer Ashby himseff directly to
Property Owner Bill VA~ana. This element of the project was unjustly reneged on.
The corrently planned 1 acre lots are not buffers but constitute a blatant and abrupt
development intrusion into already established rural properties, some of which are as
large as 10-20 acres. The tentative Riverside County General Land Use Plan for the
project area already establishes that all lots be minimum 2.5 acres.
Assurance that the emergency "crash gate", or anthorized automatic gate with clicker,
to remain permanently and be maintained by the city with the further stipulation that,
the planned cul-de-sac adjacent to the end ofCalle Contento never connect and
Our security and privacy will be greatly impacted. There is no security or privacy
buffer between our property lines and the "multi-use" trail which will be accessed by
thousands of strangers, The Developer & planning Commission needs to address
how the lack of security and privacy for the neighboring properties can be restored.
)
Reduction of wind driven dirt and dust: South and East neighboring properties to the
project will be subject to undue hardships during construction. The combination of
such large scale carving up and grading on the valley floor and the prevailing winds
that persistently buffet the windward slopes of the Eastern hills continually, makes
for unwarranted property dama~ and poses health hazards, not to mention dirt and
debris onto the houses, decks, pools, etc. in the area. We request special hours and
additional restraints to the grading, as wetting down the soil during this process will
not be enough to solve this problem.
Name (printed) & Address
Si~nature
We the undersigned, as property owners next to the Southern & Eastern boundaries of the
Roripangh Ranch project, collectively seek to have the following conditions or issues
mitigated by the City of Temecula Planning Commssion~
1) Re-establishment of the originally planned 2.5 ao'e peripheral buffer lots along the
Southern & Eastern boundaries as was promised by then City Councilman Ron
Roberts in the July, 2001 meeting and by Developer Ashby himself directly to
Property Owner Bill Vo~zana. This element of the project was unjustly reneged on.
The currently plo~ned 1 acre lots are not buffers but constitute a blatant and abrupt
development in~xusion into already established rural properties, some of which are as
large as 10-20 acres. The tentative Riverside County General Land Use Plan for the
project area already establishes that all lots be minimum 2.5 acres.
" e" or e~horized automatic gate with clicker,
2) Assurance that the emergency crash gat ,
to remain permanently and be maintained by the city with the further stipulation thaL
the planned cul-de-sac adjacent to the end of Calle Contento never connect and
become an arterial street.
3) Our security and privacy will be greatly impacted. There is no security or privacy by
buffer between our property lines and the "multi-use" trail which will be accessed
thousands of strangars. The Developer & Plsnnlng Commission needs to address
how the lack of security and privacy for the neighboring propeflies can be restored.
4) Reduction of wind driven dirt and dust: South and East neighboring properties to the
project will be subject to undue hardships durin~ construction. The combination of
such large scale carving up and grading on the valley floor and the prevailing winds
that persistently buffet the windward slopes of the Eastern hills continually, makes
for unwarranted property damage and poses health hazards, not to mention dirt and
debris onto the houses, decks, pools, etc. in the area. We request special hours and
additional re~h ~tints to the gradings, as wetting down the soil during this process will
not be e~ough to solve this problem.
Signature
We the undersigned, as property owners next to the Southern & Eastern boundaries of the
Roripaugh Ranch project, collectively seek to have the following conditions or issues
mitigated by the City of Temecula Planning Commssion:
1) Re-establishmem of the origimdly planned 2.5 acre peripheral buffer lots along the
Southern & Eastern boundaries as was promised by then City Councilman Ron
Roberts in the July, 2001 meeting and by Developer Ashby himself directly to
Property Owner Bill Vazzana. This element of the project was unjustly reneged on.
The currently planned 1 acre lots are not buffers but constitute a blatant and abrupt
development intrusion into already established rural properties, some of which are as
large as 10-20 acres. The tentative Riverside County General Land Use Plan for the
project area already establishes that all lots be minimum 2.5 acres.
2) Assurance that the emergency "crash gate", or m~thorized automatic gate with clicker,
to remain permanently and be maintained by the city with the further stipulation that,
the planned cul-de-sac adjacent to the end of Calle Contento never connect and
become an arterial street.
3) Our security and privacy will be greatly impacted. There is no security or privacy
buffer between our property lines and the "multi-use" trail which will be accused by
thousands of ~h uagers. The Developer & Plannlng Commission needs to address
how the lack of security and privacy for the neighboring properties can be restored.
4) Reduction of wind driven dirt and dust: South and East neighboring properties to the
project will be ~bject to undue hardships during conatmction. The combination of
such large scale carving up and grading on the valley floor and the prevailing winds
· .that persistently buffet the windward slopes of the Eastern hills continually, makes
for unwarranted property damage and poses health hazards, not to mention dirt and
debris onto the houses, decks, pools, etc. in the area. We request special hours and
additional restraints to the grading, as wetting down the soil during this process will
not be enough to solve this problem.
Name (printed) & Address Signature
We the t.~aersig~l, as property owners next to the Southern & Eastern b~,-a?s of the
Rmipaugh l~,mh projo~ oolleefively seek to have the following conditions or ~u~s
mitigated by the City of Temeaga p~i~g Commssion:
1) ~li~hment of the ori'~nally planni~d 2.5 IKa'e peripheral bu~ lots along the
Rober~ inthe 3uly, 200 ! me.i_ _'rig and by Developer Ashby himself directly to
Property Owner BBI Vazzan~ This element oftho p~ect was unjuatly reneged om
~ao ogl'eutly planned 1 aero lots are not buffe~; bat co~]i~e a blatant ~ abrupt
development inuuaion into akeady established mfal properti~ sonm of which are as
large as 10-20 am~s. The teatativ~ Riverside Coumy Cmneral Land Use Plan for tho
project area already establishes that all lots bo mini~lttm 2.5 a~a'e~.
2) Am.~ ttm the ~ ..crash gate', or ~,~horized amomafic gate with dieke~.
tO remcmin p~ nmnently azld bo maJntahled by tho ~ with tl~ ~ stipglafi~ that.
the p~ned cul-de-sa~ adjacent Ua the end of Calle Comento never connect and
3)
4)
thou~nd~ of strange~ The Develol~ & Planning Commi.~ion needs to address
such ~ scale carv~ up s,~ gr._ding on the valley floor and the pm~,'ling winds
that persJstel~y buffet the windward slopes of the Eastelal hillg ¢oBcimudly, makes
for unwaw~iia:! property damage and po~e~ health l~rd~, not to mention ~ and
additlonal re~h ~ to th~ grading, as wetting down the soil dm ing this prooess will
not be ~ to solve thig problem.
We the undersigned, as property owners next to the Southern & Eastern boundaries of the
Ruripaugh Ranch project, collectively seek to have the following conditions or issues
mitigated by the City of Temecola Planning Commssion:
1)
Re-establishment of the o6~nally planned 2.5 acre peripheral buffer lots along the
Southern & Eastern boundaries as was promised by then City Councilman Run
Roberts in the July, 2001 meeting and by Developer Ashby himself directly to
Property Owner Bill Vagina. This element of the project was unjustly reneged on.
The currently planned 1 acre lots are not buffers but constitute a blatant and abrupt
development intrusion into already established rural properties, some of which are as
large as 10-20 acres. The tentative Riverside County General Land Use Plan for the
project area already establishes that all lots be minimum 2.5 acres.
2) Assurance that the emergency "crash gate", or authorized automatic gate with clicker,
to tel:hain permanently and be maintained by the city with the further stipulation that.
the planned cul-de-sac adjacent to the end of Calle Contento never connect and
become an arterial street.
3) Our security and privacy will be greatly impacted. There is no security or privacy
buffer between our property lines and the "multi-use" trail which will be accessed by
thousands of strangers. The Developer & Planning Commission needs to address
how the lack of security and privacy for the neighboring properties can be restored.
4) Reduction of wind driven dirt and dust: South and East neighboring properlies to the
project will be subject to undue hardships durin~ construction~ The combination of
such large scale carving up and grading on the valley floor and the prevailing winds
that persistently buffet the windward slopes of the Eastern hills continually, makes
for unwarranted property damage and poses health b~7~rds, not to mention dirt and
debris onto the houses, decks, pools, etc. in the area. We request special hours and
additional resh'aints to the grading, as wetting down the soil during this process will
not be enough to solve this problem.
Name (printed) & Address Signature
We the undersigned, as property owners next to the Southern & Eastern boundaries of the
Roripaugh Ranch project, collectively seek to have thc following conditions or issues
mitigated by the City of Temecula Planning Commssion:
1)
Re-establishment of the originally planned 2.$ acre peripheral buffer lots along the
Southern & Eastern boundaries as was promised by then City Councilman Run
Roberts in the Suly, 2001 meeting and by Developer Ashby himself directly to
Property Owner Bill Vazzana. This element of the project was unjustly reneged on.
The currently planned 1 acre lots are not b~ but constitute a blatant and abrupt
development intrusion into already established rural properties, some of which are as
large as 10-20 acres. The tentative Riverside County General Land Use Plan for the
project area already establishes that all lots be minimum 2.5 acres.
2)
Assurance that the emergency "crash gate; or authorized automatic gate with clicker,
to remain permanently and be maintained bythe city with the further stipulation that,
the planned cul-de-sac adjacent to the end of Calle Contento never connect and
become an arterial street.
3)
Our security and privacy will be greatly impacted. There is no security or privacy
buffer between our property lines and the '~nulti-use' trail which will be accessed by
thousands of ~hangers. The Developer & Planning Commission needs to address
how the lack of security and privacy for the neighboring properties can be restored.
4)
Reduction of wind driven dirt and dust: South and East neighboring properties to the
project will be subject to undue hardships during consirucfion. The combination of
such large scale carving up and grading on the valley floor and the prevailing winds
that persistently buffet the windward slopes of the Eastern hills continually, makes
for unwarranted property damage and poses health h~7~rds, not to mention dirt and
debris onto the houses, decks, pools, etc. in the area. We request special hours and
additional re~h~ints to the grading, as wetting down the soil during this process will
not be
We the undersigned, as prope~y owners next to the Soutbem & Eastern boundaries of the
Roripaugh Ranch project, collectively seek to have the following conditions or issues
mitigated by the City of Temecula Planning Commssion:
l)
Re-establishment of the ori~nslly planned 2.5 acre peripheral buffer lots along the
Southern & Eastern boundaries as was promised by then City Councilman Ron
Roberts in the July, 2001 meeting and by Developer Ashby himself directly to
Property Owner Bill Vazzana. This element of the project was unjustly reneged on.
The curnmtly planned ! acre lots are not buffers but constitute a blatant and abrupt
development intrusion into already established rural properties, some of which are as
large as 10-20 acres. The tentative Riverside County General Land Use Plan for the
project area already establishes that all lots be minimum 2.5 acl'es.
2)
Assurance that the emergency "crash gate", or authorized automatic gate with clicker,
to re~in permanently and be maintained by the city with the further stipulation that,
the planned cul-de-sac adjacent to the end of Calle Contento never connect and
become an arterial street.
3) Our security and privacy will be greatly impacted. There is no security or privacy
buffer between our property lines and the "multi-use" trail which will be accessed by
thousands of strangers. The Developer & planning Commission needs to address
how the lack of security and privacy for the neighboring properties can be restored.
4) Reduction of wind driven dirt and dust: South and East neighboring properties to the
project will be subject to undue hardships during construction. The combination of
such large scale carving up and grading on the valley floor and the prevailing winds
that persistently buffet the windward slopes of the Eastern hills continually, makes
for unwarramed property damage and poses health ha~rds, not to mention dirt and
debris onto the houses, decks, pools, etc. in the area. We request special hours and
additional reahaints to the grading, as wetting down the soil during this process will
not be enough to solve this problem.
Name (printed) & Address Si~nature
We the rmdersigned, as prope~ owners next to the Southern & Eastern boundmies °f the
Rofipaugh ~eh project; collectively seek t~ bav~ tho ~ollowing conditioas or issues
miliga~t by the City of Temecula Pl"nninE Commssion:
Re-establishment of the od~nally planned 2.5 acre peripheral buffer lots along the
Robertsin-tl~ ~uly, 200I meefimZ and bY D~-~lop~r A~hby hlm-~lfdi~t°
Propmy Own~ Bill Yazza~ This element of the proje~ was unjustly rea~'ed o~
The ~ently p~sn~t 1 ~ lots are not buffe~ but oo~te a bl~t ~t abrupt
development intrusion into already established ~m'al prope~ies, some of
larg~ as 10~20 a~re~. The temative Riverside County General Land Use Plan for th~
proj6~t ~r6a ~ ~,b]i~h~ ~h~ si] ]ot~ minimum 2.~
the plsnned ~d-de-sa~ adjacent to the end of Call¢ Con~ento never cmmect and
3)
Our security snd privacy will be greatly impacted. There is no s~urity or privacy
tho-~-~ls of ~angers. 'the Developer & p~in§ Commission needs ~o address
4)
for unwar~r~ed property damage and poses health hs~rds, not to menIion dirt and
debris onto the houses, decks, pools, etc: in tl~ area We request spcchd hours and
additional resh~ts to tho grnefinE. ~ wetting down the ~ during thi~ process will
- not b~ enough to solve this problem.
Roripaugh Ranch proieet, collectively seek to have the following conditions or issues
mitigated by the City of Temecola Planning Commssion:
1) Re-establishment of the originally planned 2.5 acre peripheral buffs, lots along the
Southern & Eastea'n bo~mdaries as was promised by then City Councilman Pon
Roberts in the ]'uly, 2001 meeting and by Developer Ashby himseff directly to
Property Owne~ Bilt Vazzana~ This elemeot of the project wasunjustly reneged on.
The curr~ pl.nned 1 acre lots are not buffers but constitute a bl~tsnt ~ abrupt
~ as 10-20 ac~es. The temaiive Riverside County General Land Use plan for tbe
pro~ct area already ei~:ab[ishes that ail lots be minim.m 2.5 ac~s.
2) Assurance tl~ the emergency ~crash gate", or ~horized automatic gate with clicke~,
to remsln permsneotly and be mninisined by the city with the fulther Stil~lalion thai.
the plsnned 0~l-do-sac adjacent to the e~d of Calle Contento never comleot snd
3)
Our secmity and privacy will be greatly impacted. There is no secor~ or privacy
Ix~er between our property lines and'the 'multi-use" trail which will be accessed by
thou~na.~ of ~h al~oers. The Developer & plannlngCo~nmissi°n needs t° address
4)
.such large scale carving up and grading on the valley floor ~md the prewHing~ winds
· that persisto~ly buffet th~ windward slopes of the Eastern hills continually, mk~s
for unwanamed prupeny damage and poses health b~,'~rds, not to mention dirt and
debris onto tbe house, decks, pooLs, etc. in the are~.We request special hours and
additiollal Ir~z,ints to the gradiI~ as w~n~g dowll th~ soil durhlg this process will
not be enough to solve this problem
Name (printed) & Address
We the undersigned, as property owners next to the Southern & Eastern boundaries of the
Roripangh Ranch project, collectively seek to have the following conditions or issues
mitigated by the City of Temecula Planning Commssion:
1)
Re-establishment of the originally planned 2.5 acre peripheral buffer lots along the
Southern & Eastern boundaries as was promised by then City Councilman Ron
Roberts in the July, 2001 meeting and by Developer Ashby himseff directly to
Property Owner Bill Vazzana. This element of the project was unjustly reneged on.
The currently planned 1 acre lots are not buffers but constitute a blatant and abrupt
development intrusion into already established rural properties, some of which are as
large as 10-20 acres. The tentative Riverside County General Land Use Plan for the
project area already establishes that all lots be minimum 2.5 acres.
2)
Assurance that the emergency "crash gate", or authorized automatic gate with clicker,
to remain permanently and be maintained by the city with the further stipulation that,
the planned cul-de-sac adjacent to the end ofCalle Contento never connect and
become an arterial street.
3)
Our security and privacy will be greatly impacted. There is no security or privacy
buffer between our property lines and the "multi-use" trail which will be accessed by
thousands of strangcrs. The Developer & Planning Commission necds to address
how the lack of secofity and privacy for the neighboring properties can be restored.
4)
Reduction of wind driven dirt and dust: South and East neighboring properties to the
project will be subject to undue hardships during construction. The combination of
such large scale carving up and grading on the valley floor and the prevailing winds
that persistently buffet the windward slopes of the Eastern hills continually, makes
for unwarranted property damage and poses health hazards, not to mention dirt and
debris onto the houses, decks, pools, etc. in the area. We request special hours and
additional restraints to the grading, as wetting down the soil during this process will
not be enough to solve this problem.
Name (printed) & Address
· /
e eet,,Lo, Cz/ /g
Signature
thousands of ~i.~ns'ers. Th~ Developer & planning Commiaaion nexis to address
how th~ ~¢~ of security and priv~ for the neigh~rin~ properties can bo re~ored-
and East neighboring properlie~ m the
4) Reduetionofwinddrive~dittanddusC So, ah The eombinmion of
project will be subject to undue hardships during
~ach largo scale: caxving up and-grading'on tho valle~y floor wad tho prevailing willds
that persistently btaT~ tho windward slopes of the Eastern hills eontS'nually, maka~d
additiollal l'e~ ~,,~LS to th~ grading, as wetting down the soil du~mg this process
not be eao~gh to solve this problem-
Name (printed) & Address
a) Ourse~ultY~Privacy will be greatly impa~d' There is n° security °r priva~ by
The I)~,eloper & pl~mning Co~ralssion needs to address
proje~ wrtl be subject to und~ebardships during ~ons~u~ion. Thc ~ombination o~
such larg~ scale carving uP and gradln~ on the valley floor and the prevaili~ winds
dd)ris onto the houses, decks, pooL% crc. in thc area. We request sPe64al b°ms and
addifioml re.aims to the grad/ag, as w'~ih~g dowe the s°il dm'ing this pr°cess w/U
not be enough to solve this problem.
N,,me ~fi,,~d) & Address
mitig~ed b~ the City of Temecula p~.u~b~ Com~aa~ion:
1)
Roberts in ~he July, 2001 meeting _~a I~y Developer Ashby him.~Jf
Prope~ Own~ Bill Vazza~ This el~n~t of~e projea was unjus~ ~ 6n.
Th~ cun-~aly p!,m-,,d 1 aore lots are not Imffers but comaiiilte a b!~~a and abrupt
development intrusion into aire_~dy established rural pro1~aies, som~ of which ~ as
large as 10-20 acres. The tentafivo Riverside Coup. Gem~lamd Use Plan for tho
project area almuty establisTM that ail lo~s be m~.i,uum 2.5 acres. .
m'remain nemmnentlv and be maln~aln-~d bythe city. with tho fur'd~ s~pma~on-
the plnnned_ cul.de=sac adjacent to the end of Chile Contmto ~tevef connect -.
3) Our secmitynndprivacywill be l~tly impacted' Thereisno security or privacy
buff~ ~. ~ om. prol~ty lines n_nd the ~nul~.u~t~ trail which will be accessed by
thousands of stranger~. The Dev~lope~ & pl~nnln~C_,ommi~.~ion need~ to~nadtess ....
4) ~on of wind driven dirt ~nd dust S°_uth and East n~. ~ Pr°..P~.. t° ot~e
project will be ~bject t~ undue hardships drain8 ~tm~o~ The combina~on o
that persistently buffet tho w~ slop~ of tho ~q~t~n hill.~ CO~im~nlly, mnke~
Name (p~.t ~..~) & .~aa_~
October 16, 2002
Response to Notice of Public Hearing-City of Temecula-
Roripaugh Ranch Project Specific to the Butteffield Stage Road
Respondents:
Milan & Jean Wagner
40030 Walcott Lane
Temecula, CA 92591
(909) 693 0949
Subject: Butterfield Stage Road Easement
Concerns:
/ti. Because of the Butterfield Stage Road design, unrealistic elevations and encroaching
slopes are causing concern for many of us whose property is adjacent to Butteffield Stage
Road.
#2. This easement does not define height limitations for the proposed roadway.
#3. Exhaust from several thousands ofveMcles passing by daily will flow down onto our
property bom the elevated roadway. As the property now exists there is a significant
swale that allows air currents to flow from east to west and is particularly noticeable
during the fall and winter months. Because of the radical elevation proposed on our
easterly side, the interruption of normal airflow into the area surrounding our residence
could result in a trap for vehicle pollution. Changing the flow of air currents is similar to
changing the direction of water mn-off bom one property to another.
/bi. There is also a concern about the high level of noise we will be exposed to as
thousands of cars and large tracks pass daily; this will increase dramatically as more
people become aware of this passage way.
#5. The possibility of a vehicle crashing down from an approximate 40' high elevated
roadway onto our home and the damage it could inflict, or a life it could take are real
concerns. The construction of an attractive block wall of sufficient strength, length and
height to help minimize these concerns is an absolute necessity.
#6. Terrain changes could affect compaction and drainage and also cause flooding.
#7. We are requesting the use and installation of Keystone Planter Units on all slopes to
minimize encroachment; the cells of these units are to be planted with shrubbery and
trees, and be irrigated and maintained by the city. A look of continuity is especially
important so we do not have a different look at different levels.
Page 1 of 2 pages
#8. We request a rendering showing the Butterfield Stage Road, the use of Keystone
planter units on the slopes, and treatment of our driveway along with the upper pad area
as it relates to our property so we can visualize how the project will look when
completed. We would like this rendering to show how this will tie into our neighbors
property to the north and the south.
#9. Our pat~icuiar property offers views, a place of peace and tranquility with beautiful
sloping terrain> lots of trees, approximately 18,000 sq. ft. of lawn and a lovely cottage
home. If all of this is going to be compromised we expect remuneration; we also expect
to be paid for any of our land used outside of the easement.
#10. Other concerns are the encroachment on our circular driveway; grading for the upper
S/E pad which is adjacent to the B.F.R. easement; relocation of a 12' X 13" tool shed
including the electrical and water hook-ups; relocation of mature trees which would
interfere with the toe of the slope; relocation of the propane tank gas line that supplies the
residence.
The mailer "Notice of Public Hearing for the Roripaug)... project" .r~..eived Thursday
P.M. Oct. 10, 2002 advising us of the upcoming Oct 16 TM meeting did not allow for
sufficient time to seek legal counsel. Should this be necessary in the future, we reserve
this right.
We want to thank the city planning commissioners for their efforts and dedication to the
City of Temecula, a beautifully planned community.
Sincerely,
Milan Wagner Jean Wagner
Page 2 of 2 pages
A3'I'ACHMENT NO. 3
ERRATA SHEET DATED OCTOBER 16, 2002
R:\S P\Roripaugh Ranch SP~new~PC staff Report 10-30-02.doc
4
CITY OF TEMECULA
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Planning Commission
Saied Naaseh, Project Planner
October 16, 2002
Roripaugh Ranch, Supplement to the Staff Report and Errata Sheet
Staff requests the following amendments to the Staff Report and the Errata Sheet:
Amend #3 of the Errata Sheet, Page i-7. Volume I and II. Table of Contents. Section
5.6.2. There is no text under this section. Provide text to read: "Planning Areas 28 and
29 shall only be designated to be used as an Elementary School site and a Middle
School site, respectively. Change the page number to 5-21.
Amend #9 of the Errata Sheet, Page 1-20, Table 1-1, Procedural Approval Authority,
also add that the following needs to be deleted from the 1st line at the bottom of the
table:
"Product Review for Planning Commission Approval"
3. Delete #43 of the Errata Sheet.
4. Delete #81 of the Errata Sheet
5. Delete #82 of the Errata Sheet
6. Add new #2 to the Final EIR Errata Sheet, Delete any references to restricting
construction traffic on Nicolas Road.
7. Add new #3 to the Final EIR Errata Sheet, Mitigation Monitoring Program, Page 27, (2),
6th line, delete "on the project site".
8. Add new #4 to the Final EIR Errata Sheet, Mitigation Monitoring Program, Page 40, (2),
6th line, add: "and to set forth treatment for Native American remains and cultural items
found on the project site .... ". Incorporate the attached California Indian Legal Services
letter dated October 15, 2002 into the record confirming this change.
9. Amend Exhibit A of the Errata Sheet, Design Guidelines, Page 4-121, Front Yard
Landscape and Hardscape, second bullet, add Planning Areas 23 and 24.
10. Corrections to the Staff Report:
a. Page 15, Mitigation Measures, 6a and b, references to Joseph Road should be
replaced with Liefer Road which refer to the location of the existing terminus of
the paved section of Nicolas Road.
R:\S P~Roripaugh Ranch SP~ew~PC Staff Report 10-16-02\Errata Sheet 2.doc
1
b. Page 13, The MWD Property and RCWD Easement, the Staff Report should be
amended to states that the 50' MWD easement is a part of the Specific Plan.
Consequently, all Figures for the Specific Plan have to be amended to include
this easement in the Specific plan.
c. Attachment 3, Exhibit A, Conditions of Approval for Tentative Tract Map 29353,
renumber the Conditions of Approval to start with number 1.
R:\S P~Rodpaugh Ranch SP~new~PC Staff Report 10-16-02\Errata Sheet 2.doc
2
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
OCTOBER 16, 2002 STAFF REPORT
R:\S P~Roripaugh Ranch SP~new\PC staff Report 10-30-02.doc
5
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
October 16, 2002
Planning Application
Planning Application
Planning Application
Planning Application
Planning Application
Planning Application
Planning Application
Planning Application
No. - 94-0073 - Annexation
No. 99-0298 - General Plan Amendment
No. 94-0075 - Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan
No. - 94-0075 - Change of Zone
No. 94-0076 - Environmental Impact Report
No. -01-0253 - Tentative Tract Map No. 29661
No. 01-0230 - Tentative Tract Map No. 29353
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 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:\S P~Roripaugh Ranch SP~new~PC Staff Report 10-16-02~PC Staff Report 10-16-02.doc
1
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 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 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.
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
Bu'rI'ERFIELD 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~Roripaugh Ranch SP~new~PC Staff Report 10-16-02~PC 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 Notion, The Keith Companies
Patrick Hirsch, Hirsch 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
Circulation 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\Rodpaugh Ranch SP~new~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: Residential/Vacant Land/Open Space
South: ResidentialNacant Land
East: ResidentialNacant 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 Planninq 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 try to
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'tRoripaugh Ranch SP~new',PC Staff Report 10-16-02\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.
Commun ty 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.
Subcommittee 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 on 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\Rodpaugh 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 Chan.qe
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\Roripaugh Ranch SP~new~C'C Staff Report 10-16-02\PC Staff Report 10-16-02.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 3,000 9.4
Cluster (M2) and 31 167 zero lot
line units
permitted
Total
Residential NA 2,015 412.8 NA 4.9 (G ross
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 lB 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~oripaugh Ranch SP~new~PC Staff Report t0-16-02\PC Staff Report 10-16-02.doc
7
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 prior to the
issuance of the 700t~ building permit for the entire project.
Private 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 exemise 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~Rodpaugh Ranch SP~new~PC Staff Report 10-16-02\PC Staff Report 10-16-02.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 exercise 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 2-11 and 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 commercial areas. (See Figure 4-34A, 4-34B and 4-34C). These
landscaped areas will not be irrigated.
SchoolFac~Ees
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:~S P~Rodpaugh 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 priortotheissuanceofthe
75th 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-O2~PC Staff Report 10-16-02.do¢
10
Residential Architectural 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 room 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
Architectural 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
ara 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~ew\PC Staff Report 10-16-02~PC Staff Report 10-16-02.doc
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 lA, 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 250th 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 primary 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
· Butterfield 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~':~or~paugh 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 exercise 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-acra 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 restroom 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 howthe 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~'%ripaugh Ranch SP~new~PC Staff Report 10-16-02\PC Staff Report 10-16-02.doc
13
Development Aqreement
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:
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
purchase 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~new~PC Staff Report 10-16-02",PC Staff Report 10-16-02.dcc
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 MW D 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: 1 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~new~PC Staff Reporl 10-16-02\P0 Staff Report 10-16-02.doc
15
c. Eastbound Nicolas Rd: I Left Turn Lane, 2 Through Lanes, 1 Right Turn Lane.
d. Westbound Nicolas Rd: I Left Turn Lane, 2 Through Lanes, I 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, I Right Turn Lane.
c. Eastbound Nicolas Road: 1 Left Turn Lane, I Through Lane, I 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 510th building permit.
a. Northbound BSR: 1 Left Turn Lane, 2 Through Lanes
b. Southbound BSR: I Left Turn Lane, 2 Through Lanes
c. Eastbound RCR: 2 Left Turn Lanes, 2 Through Lanes
d. Westbound RCR: 1 Left Turn Lane, 2 Through Lanes
5. Murrieta Hot Springs Road at Butterfield Stage Road to be constructed by the 510th 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 right 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 CIP 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 right tum lane, and southbound free right-turn
lane.
R:\S P',Rodpaugh 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 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.
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\Roripaugh Ranch SP~new\PC Staff Report 10-16-02\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 6.8 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
Calle 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\Roripaugh Ranch SP~new~PC Staff Report 10-16-02~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 FSRor[paugh Ranch SP~new~PC Staff Report 10-16-02\PC Staff Report 10-16-02.doc
19
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 Buttedield Stage Road from Murdeta 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 read improvements. Therefore, in staff's opinion,
the benefits and amenities provided by the project justify the proposed number of units.
Bufferin.q
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 P\Ro~paugh Ranch SP~ew\PC Staff Report 10-16-02\PC Staff Report 10-16-02.doc
20
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 Large 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 Light Impacts
The residents expressed concerns regarding light and noise from the parks and the private
recreation centers. 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.
Increasinq the Size and Amount of Landscapinq 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 private Natu re 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'~odpaugh 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.
Horse 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
horses and staff has done everything that is practical to facilitate the movement of horses in the
area. It should be noted that currently there are no designated horse 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 horse 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
bythe public. The applicant is required to seek approval of a Habitat Management Plan (HMP) pdor
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.
Neighborhood 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 area. 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
pdor 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~new~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.
Corner 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), at the 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\Roripaugh Ranch SP~ew~PC Staff Report 10-16-02\PC Staff Report 10-16-02.doc
23
Parkway Widths
The project is proposing limited parkway widths, which are one of the few design shodcomings 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\R6ripaugh Ranch SP~new~°C Staff Repor~ 10-16-02~PC Staff Report 10-16-02.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 part of the Resolution for the Certification of the FEIR. The Mitigation Monitoring
Program is included in Attachment 1.
The DEIR was circulated 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
of the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR). Notices were sent to individuals who commented
on the DEl R 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 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 set for the treatment for Native American remains and
cultural items found on the proiect site .................. "
This letter is included in Attachment 4. The Planning Commission recommendation needs to
incorporate this change to the City Council.
SUMMARWCONCLUSIONS
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 read improvements that may not happen without the
development of this site. The following provides a summary of the project's benefits:
R:\S P'~o~ipaugh 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 Buttedield 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~oripaugh Ranch SP~new\PC Staff Report 10-16-02~PC S~aff Report 10-16-02.doc
26
FINDINGS
Planning Application No. 94-0076 - Roripauqh Ranch Environmental Impact Report
The Environmental Impact Report was prepared and cimulated in conformance with the
provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act and Guidelines.
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.
Plannin.q 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 cimulation 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 P~Rodpaugh Ranch SP~new\PC Staff Report 10-16-02\PC Staff Report 10-16-02.doc
27
Planninq Application No. 94-0075 - Roripau,qh 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 communitywith
specific design guidelines and standards that ensure compatibility and interface with the
surrounding community in terms of density, design and circulation. Therefore, as proposed,
conditioned and designed, the Specific Plan is compatible with the health, safety and welfare
of the community.
The subject property is physically suitable for the requested 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 Pamel in accordance with the "Applicable Rules" (as hereinafter
defined) and this Agreement.
R:\S P~Roripaugh Ranch SP~,~ew~PC Staff Report 10-16-02\PC Staff Report 10-16A32.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 provisions 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
Properly, 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.
Plannin,q Application Nos. 01-0230 and 01-0253--Tentative Tract Maps
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 City's parkland dedication requirements.
R:~S P~Rodpaugh Ranch SP~new\PC Staff Report 10-16-02~PC Staff Repod 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 Rodpaugh 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. Planning 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'~Roripaugh Ranch SP~new',F'C Staff Report 10-16-02~PC Staff Report 10-16-02,doc
30
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
PC RESOLUTION FOR EIR
R:\S P\Rodpaugh Ranch SP~ew\PC Staff Report 10-16-02'~PC Staff Repor110-16-02.doc
31
A'I-I'ACHMENT NO. I
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
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 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.
Environmental Review Process
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,
R:XS I~Roripaugh Ranch SPXnevAPC Staff Report 10-16q)2~Resos and oral (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 PXRofipaugh Ranch Sl~new',PC Staff Report ] 0-16-02~Resos and ord (EJP)-final
3
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 I 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.
R:XS P'uRofipaugh Ranch SP~aew~PC Staff Report 10-16-02~Resos and ord (EJP)-final
4
Section 2. Findinqs 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.
Section3. 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 b,¥hthe Planning Commission
of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 16 day of October, 2002, by
the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
R:',S PXRofipaugh Ranch S P'mcwXPC Staff Report 10-16-02'~,esos and ord (EJP)-final
5
EXHIBIT A
CiTY COUNCIL RESOLUTION FOR FEIR CERTIFICATION
R:\S P\Rodpaugh Ranch SP~new\PC Staff Report 10-16-02~°C 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 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
CaJle 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 Ger'trudis 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 re§ulatory
agencies, organizations and individuals pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines section 15082; and,
R:XS P~Roripaugh Ranch SP~new~PC Staff Report 10-164)2LResos and ord (EJP)-final
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 cimulation. 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 economic, 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:XS P',Roripaugh Ranch SI&nevAPC Staff Report 10-16-02LResos 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 PXRofipaugh Ranch Sl~new~C Staff Report 10-164)2~Resos and ord (EJP)-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 Resoumes 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:k5 PXRoripaugh Ranch SF'XnewWC Staff Reporl 10-16-02YRcsos and ord (ElP)-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
Measu res 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
aircraft 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 Depariment (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:XS PuRoripaugh Ranch SPXnewXPC StaffReport 10-164}2XResos and ord (EJP)-final
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 P~oripaugh Ranch SP'~newX. PC Staff Report l 0-16~02'uRcsos and ord (EJP)-final
]2
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 ear/h-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
R:XS PXRofipaugh Ranch SPXnewXPC Staff Report 10-16-02XResos and ord (EJP)-final
t3
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 P~Roripaugh Ranch Sl~ewWC Staff Report 10-16~)2~Resos and ord (EJP)-~nal
Conservation District (RCFCWCD), and the Home Owners Association (HCA). 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 HCA.
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 force 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 EI'~ND. (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.) Aisc, 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:XS P'xRofipaugh Ranch SP~new~PC StaffReport 10-16-02hResos and ord (EJP)-final
15
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 resources. (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 resoumes,
(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 resources 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 PXRoripaugh Ranch SI?~ewM~C StaffReport 10-16~02MResos and ord (EJP)-final
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...
1 st building permit PA 3, 4A, or 4B
1st building permit in PA lA, 2, or 3 PA lA (PA 7B)
250th building permit in PA lA, 2, or 3 (PA 13)
I st 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-Mamh
R:kS I~Roripaugh Ranch SI~evAPC Staff Report 10-16-02LResos and ord (EJP)-final
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 161 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 UOR 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 SHOP area
R:XS P~oripaugh Ranch SP*ulewXPC Staff Report 10-16q)2XResos and old (EJP)-final
(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 resources. 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 resources, 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
resources. (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:~S PXRofipaugh Ranch SP~newXPC Staff Report 10-16-02~Resos and ord (EIP)-final
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 current 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 1 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 are 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 I 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 l'~Rofipaugh Ranch SPXnevAPC Staff Report 10-16-02hResos and ord (EJP)-final
2O
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 PkRoripaugh Ranch SPmew~°C Staff Report 10-16-02~Resos and ord (EJP)-final
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 Butteriield 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:'S PXP, ofipaugh Ranch SI~newXPC Slaff Report 10-16-02XResos and ord (EJP)-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. (Ibid.)
BB. Schools: At present, all local school sites of the Temecuia 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 Butter[ield 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
th
permanent utilities, prior to issuance of the 250 building permit within Planning Areas lA, 2, or
R:~S PXRoripaugh Ranch SPXnevAPC Staff Report 10-16-02'~Resos and ord (ErP)-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 251s~ 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
developerFrVUSD 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 TVUSD'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:~S I~Rofipaugh Ranch Sl~ncwkPC Staff Report 10-16-02XRcsos 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, all 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.
the private
satisfaction
Prior to the issuance of the 350th building permit, the building and pool portion of
recreation area in the Plateau area (Planning Area 5) will be completed to the
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.
-Fr. 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.
RfiS P~Roripaugh Ranch SP~nevAPC Staff Report 10-16-02~Resos and ord (EJP)-final
25
VV. 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 roads 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 75th 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:XS PXRoripaugh Ranch SP~ew~PC Staff Report 10-164)2hResos and oral (EJP)-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 (¥CSD) 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:~S P~Roripaugh Ranch SP~new~PC StaffReport 10-16-02~Resos and ord (EIP)-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.
TTT. The developer has provided the City with adequate documentation from the local
water purveyors (EMWD 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 F~Roripaugh Ranch SPxnewX~X~C Staff Report 10-I6-02kResos 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
ZZZ. 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 resoumes 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 surficial 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. (Ibid) 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 resoume(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 P~Roripaugh Ranch SP~newWC StaffReport 10-164)2XResos and ord (EJP)-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 Sand 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?~Roripaugh Ranch SP~newkPC Staff Report 10-16-02LResos and ord (EJP)-final
30
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 Resoumes Conservation Service (DEI R, 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:XS P~Roripaugh Ranch SP~ncw'u~C Staff Report 10-164)2'~Resos 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:~ PXRoripaugh Ranch SP~ncw~PC Staff Report 10-16-02hResos and ord (FJP)-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 Buttedield 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.
R:~S l~Roripaugh Ranch SP~new~C Staff Report 10-16-02LResos and ora (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 off-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 off-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.
R:~ P~oripaugh Ranch Sl~ncwX, PC Staff Report 10-16-02X, Resos 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
R:~S P~Roripaugh Ranch SI~newXPC Staff Report 10-16-02XResos 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 soumes 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.
R:XS l%Roripaugh Ranch S P~ncwkPC Staff Report I0-16-02XResos and ord (EJP)-final
36
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
OO. 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:XS P~.oripaugh Ranch SP~new~PC Staff Report 10-164)2XResos 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:X.S PMR. oripaugh Ranch SP~newXPC Staff Report 10-16-02~Resos 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:
1. Northbound N General Kearney Rd: I Through Lane, 1 Right Turn Lane
2. Southbound N General Kearney Rd: 1 Shared Left, Through, Right Turn
Lane
Lane
Eastbound Nicolas Rd: 1 Left Turn Lane, 2 Through Lanes, 1 Right Turn
4. Westbound Nicolas Rd: 1 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.
Turn Lane.
Northbound Winchester: 2 Left Turn Lanes, 4 Through Lanes, 1 Free
Southbound Winchester: 2 Left Turn Lanes, 4 Through Lanes, I Right
Turn Lane.
Eastbound Nicolas Road: 1 Left Turn Lane, I Through Lane, 1 Right
Turn Lane.
Westbound Nicolas Road: 3 Left Turn Lanes, I Through Lane, 1 Right
P. Butterfield Stage Road at Rancho California Road by the 510th building permit.
1. Northbound BSR: I Left Turn Lane, 2 Through Lanes
2. Southbound BSR: I Left Turn Lane, 2 Through Lanes
R:~S P~Rofipaugh Ranch SP~new~C Staff Report 10-! 6~2~Resos and ord (EJP)-final
39
3. Eastbound RCR: 2 Left Turn Lanes, 2 Through Lanes
4. Westbound RCR: I Left Turn Lane, 2 Through Lanes
Q. Murrieta Hot Springs Road at Butterfield Stage Road to be constructed by the
510th building permit.
permit.
S.
permit.
Nicolas Road at Butterfield Stage Road to be constructed by the 510th building
Calle Chapos at Butterfield Stage Road to be constructed by the 510t~ 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 PXRorlpaugh Ranch SP~¢w~?C Staff Report 10-164)2LResos 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
northbound left-turn lane, northbound free
westbound free right-turn lane
(northbound ramps) at Winchester Road
right-turn lane, westbound through lane, and
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, Bufterfield 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 offsite properties from historical
flooding.
R:~S PXRoripaugh Ranch S~newh°C Staff Report 10-16-02hResos 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
I1. 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.
FISCAL/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 provision 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:x.S P~oripaugh Ranch SP~newXPC Staff Report 10~l 6*02XResos and ord (EJP)-fiual
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.
TT. 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 commemial uses. (DEIR, p. 2-20)
R:\$ P~Roripaugh Ranch SPXnew~C SlaffReport 10-]6~02~Resos and ord (EJP)-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:\~ l~Roripaugh Ranch Sl~ew~C StaffReport 10-16-02~Resos and ord (EJP)-final
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 S~tage 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 I 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 SP~new~PC SmffReport 10-16-02~Resos 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. All 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:KS PkRoripaugh Ranch SP~newkPC Staff Report 10-164)2~Resos and ord (EJP)-final
46
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:~S PXRoripaugh Ranch SP~new~C Staff Report 10-16q)2kResos and ord (EJP)-final
47
Susan W. Jones, CMC
TABLE 1
PHASE 1 (Planning Areas 1-4B, 6, and 32)
Onsite
Prior to issuance of the 34th 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. Butterfield 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. Butterfield 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 MWD 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 Butter[ield 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
9.
10.
11.
12.
issuance of the 400" building permit, the following improvements shall be completed:
"A" Street - Construct full-width from Murrieta Hot Springs Road to Buttedield Stage
Road.
"B" Street - Construct full-width improvements from Nicolas Road to "A" Street.
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.
Traffic Signals - Construct traffic signals and related intersection improvements as
warranted at:
(a) Murrieta Hot Springs Read and Pourroy Road and
(b) All project entrances on Murrieta Hot Springs Road.
R:~S P'~Roripaugh Ranch SP~new~PC Siaff Report 10-16-02~Resos and ord (EJP)-final
48
Off site
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:XS PhRoripaugh Ranch SP~nevAPC Staff Report 10-16-02XResos and ord (EJP)-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.
Buttedield 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:
Murrieta Hot Springs Road at Butterfield Stage Road,
Butterfield Stage Road at North Loop Road, and
Buttedield Stage Road at South Loop Road.
Offsite
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 Butterfleld Stage Road
to the existing paved terminus at Calle Girasol.
R:XS PXRoripaugh Ranch SP~ncvAPC Staff Report 10-164)2~Resos and ord (EJP)-final
50
TABLE2
PHASE 1 (prior to issuance of Ist building permit in Planning Areas 1-4B, 6, and 32)
1-15 Freeway (southbound ramps) at Rancho California Road - southbound left turn lane,
ccuthwestbound free right-turn lane, and eastbound free right turn lane, 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, eastwestbound 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:~S P~Rofipaugh Ranch SP~new~PC StaffReport 10-16~}2~°.esvs and ord (EIP)-final
5~
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 overlap
9. 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
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
...... ~.lane, westbound left-turn lane, northbound through lane, southbound left-turn
lane, southbound through lane, and eastbound right-turn overlap~a~
12.
Winchester Road at Murrieta Hot Springs Road - northbound through lane, southbound
through lane, and westbound through lane
13.
Butter[ield 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
R:kS PxRoripaugh Ranch SP~nevAPC Staff Report 10-164)2~Resos and ord (EJP)-fiaal
52
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 Serena 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 2r~ Revised DEIR)
N:\31367~doc\EI R\SOC&Findings5.doc
R:~S P~Roripaugh Ranch SP~ncw~t~C StaffReport 10-16-02XResos and ord (EJP)-final
53
EXHIBIT A (FOR ATTACHMENT 1)
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
R:~S P~Rofipaugh Ranch SPmew~PC StaffReport 10-164)2XResos and ord (EJP)-final
54
,.~ o E~
o
¢
~= o8:~
o..~ o ~ ~ o*-~. ~ o~ ~ ~.~ o ~ o ~o~ ~ .~ =
--~ -=5
.... m ,-El >'~ ~ o'~ C
,* ~ >~o ~ ~ ~.~~ ~
Z
Z
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
RESOLUTION FOR APPROVING THE PROJECT
R:\S P\Rodpaugh Ranch SP~new\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:\S P~P, ofipaugh Ranch SI~newXPC Staff Report 10-16-02~Resos and ord (EJP)-final
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:~S I?xP. oripaugh Ranch SP~¢w~C Staff Report 10-16-02~Resos and ord (EJP)-final
complementary and compatible with the surrounding neighborhood by providing a transition in
lot sizes.
Development Aqreement Findinqs
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 Parcels 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:~ ?xRoripaugh Ranch SPkaew'xPC Staff Repoflt 10-16-02'~R. 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 Butteffield 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:XS Pq?.oripaugh Ranch S P~nevAPC Staff Report 10-16-02kResos and orfl (ElP)-final
59
EXHIBIT A
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION FOR THE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS AND
SPECIFIC PLAN
R:'~S P'~'~odpaugh Ranch SP'mew~PC 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
BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD AND NICOLAS ROAD, AND
KNOWN AS ASSESSOR PARCEL NOS. 957-130-001 and 002,
957-340-001,003, 007, 008, AND 958-260-001 and 002 BASED
UPON THE ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS CONTAINED IN THIS
RESOLUTION.
WHEREAS, Ashby USA, LLC filed 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
the time and manner prescribed by State and local law;
~ublic notice, in
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~Rofipaugh Ranch SP~new~PC Staff Report 10-164)2XResos 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 P~,oripaugh Ranch SP~nevAPC Staff Report 10-16-02~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 Butterfield 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'uRofipaugh Ranch Sl~ew'xPC Staff Report 10-164)2'xResos aad ord (EJP)-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 )
COUNTY OF 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:~ P~Roripaugh Ranch SP~new~t~C Staff Report I0-16-02~Resos and ord (EJP)-final
64
EXHIBIT A-1
CITY OFTEMECULA
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 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,
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 Resources 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:~S PXRoripaugh Ranch Sl~newh°C Staff Report 10-! 6-02~Resos and ord (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 supercedes 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~cw~C Staff Report 10-16-02kResos and ord (EJP)-final
67
Propsed General Plan Land_U._s._e.,De,,_s_ig_.nati_~o_ns_
Proposed General Plan Circulation Ele_rn~e~t.,_A~m~.e.,~ndme~nt.
EXHIBIT B
CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT AND
ZONING STANDARDS FOR THE RORIPAUGH SPECIFIC PLAN
R:~S P~Roripaugh Ranch SP~new~PC Staff Report 10-16-02~°C 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 RORIPAIJGH 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 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
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:~S PXRoripaugh Ranch S P'~new'u~C Staff Report 10-16-02W, esos and ord (EIP)-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 force and effect thirty (30) days after its
passage; and within fifteen (15) days after its passage, together with the names of the City
Council members voting thereon, it shall be published in a newspaper published and circulated
in said City.
Section 9.
of Temecula this __
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED, by the City Council of the City
day of 2002.
Ron Roberts, Mayor
ATTEST:
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:LS PXRoripaugh Ranch SP~ewkPC Staff Report 10-16-02kResos and ord (EJP)-final
73
FIGURE 1-2
OF RIVERSIDE
OS-R
OS-R
CH
JOHN~ ~NCH/
UC AREA .
t)
r
CITY
~ CITY LIMITS
V L Very Low Residential (0.4-2.0 du/ac)
LM Low Medium Residential (l_2-14du/ac)
PF Public Facilities
SP Spesific Plan (Rodpaugh Ranch Panhandle)
OS Open Space
~ PROJECT SITE
COUNTY SOUTHWEST AREA PLAN DESIGNATION
RR Rural Residential (<0.2 dWac)
A Agriculture
CH Conservation Habitat
SP Specific Plan (Rancho Bella Vista)
Vt. Very Low Density (0.4-2.0 du/ac)
L Low Density (2.0-5.0 du/ac)
M Medium Density (5.0-8.0 du/ac)
BP Business Pad~
CC Community Center
0S-4~ Open Space- Recreation
RC Reta~ Commercial
PI: Public Facilities
The Keith Compa.ie,l111~C
Ueld esFI puB'1 pesodoJd
EXHIBIT C
CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
R:~S P\Roripaugh Ranch SP~ew\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 PXRofipaugh Ranch SP~new~PC Staff Report 10-16~02hRcsos and ord (EIP)-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
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 exemise 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:~S P~Ro~ipaugh Ranch Sl~new~PC Staff Report 10-16~)2~Resos and ord (EJP)-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.
A']I'EST:
Ron Robe,s, Mayor
Susan Jones, CMC
City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF 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: COUNClLMEMBERS:
ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:
SUSAN JONES, CMC
CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Peter M. Thorson
City Attorney
R:~S l%Rofipaugh Ranch SPmew~°C StaffReport 10-164)2W, esos and ord (EJP)-final
78
ATrACHMENT NO. 3
PC RESOLUTION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT MAP Nos 29661 & 29353
R:\S P~Flodpaugh 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 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
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 FXRodpaugh Ranch SI%aewXPC Staff Report I 0-164)2~Resos and ord (EJP)-final
81
Bo 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 hot 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. 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 FLRoripaugh Ranch SPXnewkPC Staff Report 10-16-02~Resos and ord (EIP)-final
82
Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula
Planning Commission this 16t" day of October 2002.
A'I-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, db hereby certify
that PC Resolution No. 2002- was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning Commission
of the City of Temecula at a ~egular 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 PxRofipaugh Ranch Sl~new~C Staff Report 10-164)2kP. esos and ord (ElP)-final
83
EXHIBIT A
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 29353
R:\S P~Roripaugh Ranch SP~new~PC Staff Report 10-16-02\PC 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 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 headng 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.
RSS P~Roripaugh Ranch SP~nevAPC StaffReport 10-164)2LResos and ord (FJP)-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-1 ) 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:XS I%Roripaugh Ranch SPMcwkPC Staff Report 10-164)2XResos 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 .day of
,2002.
ATTEST:
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~Rofipaugh Ranch SP~new~X~C Staff Report 10-16-02~Resos and ord (EIP)-final
87
EXHIBIT A-1
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 29353
R:~S F~Rodpaugh Ranch SP~new~C Staff Report 10-16-02\PC Staff Report 10-16-02.doc
39
EXHIBIT A-2
ClTY OFTEMECULA
CONDITIONS OFAPPROVAL
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 P~Roripaugh Ranch SF'mcw~PC Staff Report 10-1(~02~Resos and ord (EJP)-final
9O
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 MVVD 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~Roripaugh Ranch SP~new~PC S~aff Report 10-16-02~Resos and ord (EJP)-fiaal
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 apd 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, ail 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:~S l%Roripaugh Ranch SP~newXPC Staff Report 10-16-02LResos and ord (EJP)-fmal
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 (HCA). 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 PXRofipaugh Ranch SP~new~PC Staff Report 10-16-02W, e$os 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~Rofipaugh Ranch Sl~new'u~C Staff Report 10-164)2hResos and ord (F-JP)-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 Monitoring Proqram is not to re-define mitiqation
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 inlpacts.
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:~S P~Rofipaugh Ranch SP~ncwhn~ Staff Report 10-164)2~Resos and ord (ElP)-final
95
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
the homeowners 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 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.
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
force 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:~S P~Rofipaugh Ranch SP~new~PC StaffReport 10-16-02~Resos and ord (EJP)-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 lo 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:~S PXP. oripaugh Ranch SPXnewkPC Staff Report 10-16-02~.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, th~ 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~Roripaugh Ranch Sl~new~C Staff Report 10-16~)2~Resos and ord (EJP)-final
98
63.
64.
65.
66.
67.
68.
69.
70.
71.
exposed soil surfaces, and adding chemical binders or surtactants 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.
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
R:xS P~Rofipaugh Ranch SI~nevAPC StaffReport 10-16-02~Resos 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.
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.
74.
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 rvlVVD 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. Ail
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 Butterfield
Stage Road (Modified Arterial Highway - 110' RA, V) to include dedication
of full-width street right-of-way, installation of half-width street
R:~S PxRoripaugh Ranch SP~new~C Staff Report 10-164)2kResos and ord (EIP)-flnal
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.
ill
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).
iv.
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).
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, ~urb 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) 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' RAN) 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 400th building permit, the following improvements shall be
completed:
Improve "FTM 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 l~Roripaugh Ranch SP~nevAPC Staff Report 10-164)2~Resos and ord
101
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' RJW, 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.
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 grad~ offsite
letters, blanket or specific right of entry letters, and temporary
construction easements.
Xo
Provide secondary access by constructing improvements for one of the
following options:
a=
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 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
510th building permit if is not. Nicolas Road will not be
R:~g P~oripaugh Ranch SP~evAPC Staff RepoR 10-16~02'~Resos and ord (F.,IP)-fima I
102
accepted into the City's maintained street system until all
offsite channel improvements ara 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 Fira Chief and City Engineer, from
Walcott Lane to the existing Nicolas Road/Calle Girasol
intersection.
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 straet improvements, including a 14-foot
wide raised landscaped median and a 14-foot wide t?avel 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.
Prior to issuance of the Ist building permit in Lots 1-7, 8, and 22
iii.
1-15 Freeway (Southbound Ramps) at Rancho California Road:
southbound left-turn lane, southbound frae right-turn lane, westbound frae
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.
R:~S P~Rofipaugh R~ach SP~ncvAPC Staff Rcpo~ 10-16-02~Resos and ord (EJP)-final
103
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
Construct detention basin west of Lot I 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 MVVD Easement to Butterfield
Stage Road (Modified Arterial Highway- 110' R/VV) 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 Butterfield Stage Road from Murrieta Hot Springs Road to Nicolas
Road (Augmented Arterial Highway- 122' R/W) to include installation of
R:~S P~Roripau~h Ranch SP~ew~C Staff Repo~ 10-16-02~Res~ and ord (F~P~-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/VV) 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/VV) 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 s~wer).
vi.
Improve Nicolas Road from Butterfield Stage Road to the western project
boundary (Modified Secondary Highway - 110' RAN, 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.
R:~ I~Roripaugh Ranch SP~evAPC Staff Report 10-16-02'xResos and ord (E-JP)-final
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).
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
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.
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: con~struct 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.
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 (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:~S PXRofipaugh Ranch SI~evAPC Staff Report 10-16~02~Res(~ and ord (EIP)-final
106
xiv.
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.
f. ONSITE DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS
ii.
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.
iii.
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,
iV,
Construct Santa Gertrudis Creek 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.
Vo
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. The channel shall be
R:~S l~Roripaugh Ranch SI~ncvAPC Staff Report l 0- l (~02~Resos and ord (EJP)-final
107
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 current 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 P~Roripaugh Ranch Sl~new~C S~ff Report 10-1tyO2~Resos and ord (F2P)-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.
84.
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.
R:XS P~Roripaugh Ranch SI~aevAPC Staff Rcpo~ lO-16-02~Re~os and ord (F2P)-final
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 roads 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:~ P',Roripaugh Ranch SP~ncwkPC Staff Report 10-164)2hResos and ccd (EIP)-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 350th 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 400t~ 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 400th 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 700~h 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 1150th 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 75th building permit in Lots
23, 24 and 25.
R:~S P~Rofipaugh Ranch Sl~new~PC Staff Repo~ 10-16-02'uRescs and ord (E.lP)-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 ali information as provided. (CFC 903.2, Appendix
H~-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:~S P~Roripaugh Ranch SP~ew~PC Staff Report 10-16-02~Resos and ord (EJP)-final
112
iii-b)
120.
The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set a minimum fire flow for commercial land
division per CFC Appendix Ill-A, Table A-III-A-I. 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
imm-A)
121.
The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set minimum fire hydrant distances per CFC
Appendix Ill-B, Table A-III-B-I, 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 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
III-B)
122.
Maximum cul-de-sac length shall not exceed 1320 feet. Minimum turning radius on any
cul-de-sac shall be thidy-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 18 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 roads 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 Depadment 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~V 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
R:~ PkRofipaugh Ranch SPtnew~PC Staff Report 10-16-02kResos and oral (FJP)-£mal
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 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
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:~ P~Roripaugh Ranch SP~new~PC StaffReport 10-16~)2~Resos and ord (EJP)-final
114
EXHIBIT B
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 29661
R:\S P\Roripaugh Ranch SP~new~PC Staff Report 10-16-02\PC Staff Report 10-16-02.doc
CC RESOLUTION NO. 2002-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO.
PA01-0253 ('I-I'M 29661), B Map FOR THE SUBDIVISION OF
158 ACRES INTO 509 RESIDENTIAL LOTS AND 20 OPEN
SAPCE LOTS WITHIN PLANING AREAS tA, 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 law, at ~vhich 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:~S P~Roripaugh Ranch SPhnew~PC Staff Report 10-164)2~.esos 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 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 environmeqtal 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 projegt 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,
P~AS P~Roripaugh Ranch SP~new~PC StaffReport 10-164)2~Resos and ord (EJP)-final
117
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.
Section5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of
,2002.
ATTEST:
Ron Roberts, Mayor
Susan W. Jones, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
[SEAL]
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss
CITY OF TEMECULA )
I, Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that Resolution
No. 2002- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a
regularmeetingthem~heldonthe
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
of
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
OUNCILMEMBERS:
2002, by the following vote:
Susan W. Jones, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
R:XS PW, oripaugh Ranch SP~newkPC StaffReport 10-16~02~Resos and ord (EJP)-final
118
It
EXHIBIT B-1
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 29661
R:~ P\Rodpaugh Ranch S P",n ewe° C Staff Report 10-16-02\PC Staff Repofi[ 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.
R:~S P~Roripaugh Ranch SP~new~PC Staff Report 10-16~)2kResos and ord (EJP)-finaI
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 artedal 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 65664
through 65669.5 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 adepts an ordinance for such
reimbursement pursuant to and consistent with California Government Code Sections
66495 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 MVVD 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 PkRoripaugh Ranch SPXnewkPC Staff Report 10-16-02kResos 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 P~Roripaugh Ranch SP~newXPC Staff Repor[ 10-16-02~Resos 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.
Pdor 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 Buildinq 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
(VVater 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:~S P~.oripaugh Ranch SP~new~PC Staff Report 10-16~)2~Resos and ord (F~lP)-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.
18.
19.
b. Wall and Fence Plans consistent with the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan and the
Conceptual Landscape.
c. Precise Grading Plans consistent with the approved rough grading plans
including all structural setback measurements.
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.
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.
21.
22.
If deemed necessary by the Director of Planning, the applicant shall provide additional
landscaping to effectively screen various components of the project.
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.
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 10-16-02~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 pdor 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 where,by 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 signaJ, intersection,
landscape, and fire station improvements in accordance with the Rodpaugh 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 (It~/VD) proposed driveways. Driveway access shall be
provided to MVVD 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 properly ·
interests, and if he or she should fail to do so, the Developer shall, prior to submittal of "
RSS PLRorlpaugh Ranch SPXnewXPC StaffReport 10-16-02~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:
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
k.
I.
m.
n.
o.
p.
City of Temecula Department 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 California Edison Company
Southern California Gas Company
San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board
U.S. Fish & Wildlife
Department of Fish & Game
RSS PXRor/paugh Ranch SPhnew~PC 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
R:~S P~Rofipaugh Ranch SP~new~PC Staff Report 10-16~)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 449 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.
48.
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 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 TTM 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 'VFM 29661.
50.
Improve Private Streets "A", "B", "C", "D', "E", "F", "G", "H", "1", "J", "L', "O', "P", "Q", "R",
"S", "T', "U", "V", "W", "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.
51.
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).
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/W)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 SP~newkPC StaffReport I0-16-02~Resos and ord (EJP)-final
129
54.
Improve Murrieta Hot Springs Road (Specific Plan Modified Arterial Highway- 110'
R/W) 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 rvlWD access driveways shall be constructed on both
the north and south side of the street.
55.
56.
Improve Butterfield Stage Road (Specific Plan Augmented Arterial Highway- 122' R/W)
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 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, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer).
Dedicate full-width right-of"way and bond for the grayling and street improvements for
Butterfield Stage Road (Specific Plan Arterial Highway- 110' R/W) from Murrieta Hot
Springs Road to the northern project boundary.
57.
Improve Butterfield Stage Road (Specific Plan Arterial Highway- 110' RNV) from
Nicolas Road to the southern project boundary to include dedication of fgll-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' R/W) from
Butterfleld 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 Butterfield 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' R/W) along
R:~ PW. orip augh Ranch SP~n~w~PC Staff Report 10-16-022~,esos and ord (E3P)-final
130
62.
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).
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).
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' RNV, 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.
65.
Calle Chapos/Calle Girasol Alternative
improve Calle Chapos (Specific Plan Modified Collector Road - 66' R/W, Section L) from
Butterfield 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).
Butterfield Stage Road Alternative
Improve Buttedield 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~ncw~PC Staff Report 10-164)2q~-¢sos and ord (E.lp)-final
131
BridRes
66.
Bridges shall be designed and constructed full-width on Butterfield Stage Road and
North Loop Road over Santa Gedrudis Creek including channel improvements in the
vicinity of the bridge structure pdor to issuance of the 108th building permit. Bonds shall
be posted to secure bridge improvements prior to recordation of final maps.
67.
Bridge 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 108~ building permit. Bonds shall be posted to secure bridge
improvements prior to recordation of final maps.
68.
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, dp/and wet utilities, future utilities including but not
limited to conduit for fiber optic cable or traffic signa! 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~.oripaugh Ranch SP~new~PC StaffRepovt 10-I 6-02~Resos and ord (ElP)-final
132
All 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 to 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
R:~S P~Roripaugh Ranch SP~new~PC StaffReport 10-16-02h°.esos 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 ag?eement 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 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.
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:~S P~Roripaugh Ranch SP~newWC Staff Report 10-16~2~Resos 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 !he 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 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.
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 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.
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~new~PC StaffReport 10-164)2~Resos and ord (EJP)-final
135
96.
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.
97. 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 ~ecuring drainage easements, as
necessary.
98. 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.
99.
100.
101.
102.
103.
104.
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 108~' building
permit if Nicolas Road is chosen to provide secondary access and the 510t~ 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 .
cdteria:
R:xS P~oripaugh Ranch SP~newkPC Staff Report 10-164)2~>~esos and ord (EJP)-final
136
a. Drainage and flood protection facilities which will protect all structures by
diverting site runoff to streets or approved storm drain facilities.
b. Adequate provision shall be made for the acceptance and disposal of surface
drainage entering the property from adjacent areas.
c. 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.
d. Identify and mitigate impacts of grading to any adjacent floodway or floodplain.
e. 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:XS pW. oripaugh Ranch SPXnew~PC Staff Report 10-16~)2~Resos 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 Repod 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
cdtical 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 dght 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
510~ 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 PXRoripaugh Ranch SP~nevAPC Staff Report 10-16d)2~Resos and ord (ElP)-final
138
ii. Improve Private Street "N' (Specific Plan Private Street Standards
- 60' PJE 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 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
']-DM 29661-2.
iv,
Improve Private Street "R' (Specific Plan Private Street Standards - 47'
R/E to 60' PJE) to include installation of full-width street improvements,
paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage fagilities, 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 'I-EM 29661-4
and/or TTM 29661.
Improve Private Streets "A", "B", "C', "D", "E', "F', "G', "H', "1', "J", "L",
"O', "P', "Q", "R', "S", "T", "U', "V", "W', "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 P~Ror/paugh Ranch SP~new~PC StaffReport 10-16-02W. esos mad ord (EJP)-final
139
b. OFFSlTE ROAD IMPROVEMENTS
Prior to issuance of the 108th 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' 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, uti~ifies (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' RAN) 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 Butter'field Stage Road from Nicolas Road to Murrieta Hot Spdngs
Road (Specific Plan 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
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).
xii.
Dedicate full-width right-of-way on Butterfield Stage Road from rvlurrieta
Hot Springs Road to the northern project boundary (Specific Plan Modified
Arterial Highway- 110' RAN).
Improve Butterfield Stage Road from Nicolas Road to the southern project
boundary (Specific Plan Arterial 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 Butterfield Stage Road to the western project
boundary (Specific Plan Modified Secondary Highway - 110' RAN) to
include dedication of full-width street right-of-way, installation of the
northerly half-width street plus 10 feet improvements including paving,
R:kS PhRoripaugh Ranch SPknew~PC Staff Report 10-16-02hRcsos 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).
XV.
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' R/VV) 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 Butterfield Stage Road to the end of the
fire station site frontage (Specific Plan Modified Principal Collector Road -
76' RNV) 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
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.
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 SPXnew~PC StaffReport I0-I (>02W, esos and ord (EJP)-final
141
permission to grade offsite letters, blanket or specific right of
entry letters, and temporary construction easements.
If Calle Chapos from Butterfield 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/W, 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'
R/W) 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 add 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' RNV) 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 Butteffield Stage Road to the east side of
Santa Gertrudis Creek (Specific Plan Modified Principal Collector Road -
76' PJVV) 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).
PcKS PkRorlp augh Ranch SP~new~PC Staff Report 10-16-02kResos 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.
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.
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)
R:~S P~Roripaugh Ranch SP~new~PC Staff'Report 10-16-02~Resos and ord (EJP)-fina!
143
i. Install sewer main in Murrieta Hot Springs Road from Pourroy Road to the
MWD Easement.
(Prior to issuance of the 108"~ 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 TTM 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 108"~ building permit)
iii.
Install full width box culverts or equivalent drainage facilities where Santa
Gertrudis Creek crosses North Loop Road and Butteffield Stage Road.
The drainage facilities shall be designed to convey the tribiatary 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 Butterfieid 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~Ror[paugh Ranch SP~new~PC Staff Report 10-16-02~Resos and ord (EJP)-final
144
Eastern Municipal Water District
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 pedes~[rian
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~R. oripaugh Ranch SP~new~PC Staff Report 10-16~)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 repod 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:XS P~R. odpaugh Ranch SP~new~'C Staff Report 10-16-02~Resos and ord (E.IP)-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 350~ residential building permit.
145.
The 5.1 acre neighborhood park (Lot 518) shall be iml:;roved, 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
R:~S PW, oripaugh Ranch SP~new~PC StaffReport 10-16-02~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 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
H~-B)
The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set a minimum 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 resi~:lual 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)
The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set minimum fire hydrant distances per CFC
Appendix Ill-B, Table A-III-B-I. 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 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
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 read level.
R:XS PLRo~paugh Ranch SP~new~PC Staff Report 10-164)2~Resos 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 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.
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. GVW. (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 flrefighting personnel. (CFC 902.4)
Special Conditions
RSS P~oripaugh Ranch SP~newhUC StaffReport 10-16-02~esos 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 II-A)
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 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:~S PW. oripaugh Ranch SP~ncw~PC Staff Report 10-16-02W. esos and ord (E.Ip)-final
150
ATrACHMENT NO. 4
CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED
R:~S P~Rofipaugh Ranch SP~new~C Staff Report 10-16-02~PC Staff Report 10-16-02.doc
~. ...... 42 ....
Donna J. Renaux-Morris 805 969?964
p.2
the Southern &East¢m boundaries-oftbe
We the undm'si~ned, as prop~ty own~s next to following conditions or issaes
l~,$h Ranch project, collectively seek to have the
mifigaled by the City of Temecula Planning Commssinn:
1) Re-establishmeut of the originally pl,nned 2.5 ac~e peripheral buffer lots along the
Southern & Eastern boundaries as was promised by thlm City Coun~lman Ron
Roberts in the July, 2001 meeting and by Developer Ashby himseff d/reotly to
Property Owner Bill Vazzans- Tiffs element of the p~jeot was unjusI|y rene~ed or~
The curremly planned I acre lots are not buffers but consfimie a bi,Ant and abrupt
devdopmeni intrusion into alrea~ established mrel propemes, some of which are as
~ as 1020 acres. The te~afive Riverside County General l~_nd Use Plan for the
project area already establishes thal all lots bo minimum 2.5 ac~es.
2) Amuance that the emergency "crash sate", or ;,~hofized automatic ~te with clicker,
to l.~mln per~y a~d be ~intained by the city with the further stipulation that.
the planned cul-de-sac adjacent to the end of Calle Con~ento never conneot and
become an arterial street.
3) Our security and piiva~y will be greatly impacted. There is no security or privacy
buffer between our propen'y lines end the "multi-use" trail which will be ac~ssed by
tho~ of ~b~0~ers. The Dt~/¢l°Per & P[~nnlng c°-mmissiOn needs tO eddress
how the lack of security and privacy for the neighboring properties call be restored.
4) Reduction of wind driven dirt and dust: South and East neighboring properges to the
project will be subject to undue hardships duri~ constn~tio~ The combination of
such ~ scale carving up and grading on the valley floor and th~ prevailing winds
that persistently buffet the windward slopes of the Eastern hills co~y, makes
for unwarranted pmpel~y damage and poses health hazards, not to mention dirtan~
debris omo the houses, doc2,s, pools, etc. in the area. We r~luest special hours
additimlal restraints to file gr~din5 as wetting down the soll during this process will
not bo ~llOtl~h to serve ~his problem.
Name (pried) & ,a. dd~ss SiSa~
10/08/2002 89:28 760746i815 CILS ESC
PAGE 02
CALIFORNIA INDIAN LEGAL SERVICES
BI3HOP
EUREKA
E$CONDIDO
Escondido Office
609 South Escondido Boulevard, Escondido, CA 92025 4` Phone 760/746-8941 4- Fax 760/746-1815
,~,w. calindian.org + cilsescondido~kalindian.org
Laura Y. Miranda, Senior Staff Attorney
760/746-8941, Ext. 110
IIglra0d a~,calindlan.or g
O,~KLs, ND
SANTA. ROSA
WASHINGTON) D.C.
October 8, 2002
Mr. Saied Naaseh
City of Temecula, Planning 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
Dear Mr. Naaseh:
We are submitting these comments on behalf of our client, the Pechanga Band of Luisefio Indians
("Tribe"), a federally recognized Indian tribe, wliose traditional territory included the geographical
area of the Roripaugh Ranch Project ("Project").
CILS and our clicm are in receipt of the Final ELK 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 treatrAent for Native American remains and
cultura! itergs found on the Pmiect site ..... "
The tribe believes it important to clarify that the Pre~Excavation Agreeraent will not only contain
provisions with regard to monitoring, but also treatment provisions for the possible finds of remains
and cultural items (art/facts) 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.
18/08/2082 89:28 76074G1815 CILS ESC
PAGE 83
Mr. Saied Naaseh
City of Temecula, Planning Dept.
October 8, 2002
Page 2
Thank you for this opportunity to comment. Please contact me with any questions at the number
above.
Sincerely, // //
,CAI~FORNI,'A/I~I~ LEGAL SERVICES
Attorneys ~r ~e Pech~ga Tribe
cc: Kent No,ton, Keith Companies, Fax: (909) 653-5308 .
ATrACHMENT NO. 5
SPECIFIC PLAN ERRATA SHEET
R:~,.S P~Rodpaugh Ranch SP~new~PC Staff Report 10-16-02~C Staff Report 10-16q32.doc
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. Pagei-10. Volumetandll. Tableof Contents. Listof Figures. Figure4-34A. 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. Page 2-13. Section 2.2.3. Arterial Highway. Line 2. 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 cross
section, as it applies to Murrieta Hot Springs Road, shall be coordinated with the existing
County cross 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 Report 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 property 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 cress sections. Revise the first street cross section to
apply to the North Loop Road Primary Gated Entry. Revise street dimensions. Revise third
street cress 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 2n~ line of the 1st paragraph, delete the
line under "a". In the 1st line of the 3rd paragraph, add "public" before "parkland" and delet~
"on-site". In the 2~d line of the 3r~ paragraph, change "shall" to "may". Delete the 4'"
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 '1or the project" after "permit".
28. Page 2-54, #10, In the 1st 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 Upedestrian 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~iofipat~gh Ranch SP~new~PC 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 Paseo 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 4-20C, 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 Pasco 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 5t~ line of the 4th bullet add a period after "City". Add the beginning of
the next sentence "Building to be made". In the 2"d line of the 5th bullet, correct the spelling
of '~vith". Add to the end of the 7th and 8th 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 3r~ line of the 1 st paragraph, delete the line under "a".
In the last sentence of 2"d and 3rd bullet, put a period after "cover" followed by "Landscape
Structures or equal."
49. Page 4-6, In the last 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 3rd line of the 1st 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'~Roripaugh Ranch SP~new'tPC Staff Report 10-16-02~PC Staff Report 10-16-02.doc
46
53. 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".
54. 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 nodh and west side of PA 32. Delete "(TCSD Maintained) Landscape" under
Fire Station Planning Area 32.
55. 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.
56. 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 Gertrudis Creek. Also, delete the
words "Right of Way" and arrow line shown for North Loop Road.
57. Figure 4-20B. Change the title of the figure to: "Bridge Monumentation Cross Section".
58. Figure 4-21. Provide street, sidewalk, parkway dimensions for Murrieta Hc;t Springs Road
and the entrance street to Planning Area 1^. 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".
59. 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.
60. 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.
61. 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 (-rCSD Maintained)".
Also, revise Note 2 at bottom of figure to delete the letters "ed" after the word "Maintained".
62. 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~J:todpaugh Ranch SP~new~PC Staff Report 10-16~)2~PC 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 2.18. Also, revise figure to show curb
separated sidewalk along the north and west perimeters of Planning Area 11. Also, 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 2-5A-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 "W" 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 "HOA
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 figur~ 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 HOA
Maintained.
70. Figure 4-24, Label the parkway adjacent to PA 14 HOA Maintained.
71. Figure 4-25A, the cross section for Murrieta Hot Springs Road outside the curb needs to be
consistent with the 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 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.
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'~Roripaugh Ranch SP~ew',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".DC Staff Report 10-16-02.doc
49
EXHIBIT A
R:~S P~Rodpaugh Ranch S P~new~PC Staff Report 10-16-02~PC Staff Report 10-16-02.doc
50
DESIGN GUIDELINES
4.10 ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN GUIDELINES
4.10.1 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
he required to comply with relevant design standards applicable to each use. Although each
project should relate to the overall community design themg, 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 property 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.t0.3 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 styles 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 next 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)
Rodpaugh 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)
I. Colonial (See Figure 4-50)
Il. French Cottage (See Figure 4-54)
Ill. East Coast Traditional (See Figure 4-53)
IV. Monterey (See Figure 4-58)
~ (Planning Areas 10, 19, 20, 21,33A and 33B only)
I. Mediterranean (See Figure 4-56)
II. American Farmhouse (See Figure 4-47)
Ill. Contemporary Southwest (See Figure 4-51)
Desiqn Group D. (Planning Areas 10, 19, 20, 21,33A and 33B only)
I. Italianate (See Figure 4-55)
ii. Mission (See Figure 4-57)
Iii. Craftsman (See Figure 4-52)
~ (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:
Shallow Recessed Garages. (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 Garaqe~ (See Figure 4-63)
Setting the garage back to the middle or rear of the lot.
4-97
Roripaugh Ranch Specflic Plan ~
C:\Docurnents and Settings~aasehs\Local Settings\Temp\SPSect41-doc
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.
Rodpaugh 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 shail vary to
provide visual interest along street scene. See Figures 4-69A through 4-69D. Please 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 reck, 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% l-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.
RodDauah Ranch SDeCific Plan 4-121
C:\Documents and Settings~naasehs~Lccal Settings\Temp\SPSect4ScreencheckgPC.doc October 7, 2002-DRA~- I
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 ~Jary 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.
Rofipauqh Ranch Specific Plan 4-122
C:\Documents and Settings\naasehs\Local Settings\Temp\SPSect4Screencheck9PC.dcc October 7, 2002-DPJ~FT
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.
Intedockinq 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.
Roripauqh Ranch Specific Plan 4-124
C:\Documents and Settings~nsasehs\Local Settings\Temp\SPSect4Screencheck9PC.doc October 7, 2002-DRAI- I
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 architectural 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.
Roripeuqh 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 doom 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.
RodDau~h Ranch Specific Plan 4-127
C:\Documents and Settings~naasehs\Local Settings\Temp\SPSect4Screencheck9PC.doc October 7, 2002-DRAI- I
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 amhitectural 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.
AIl 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 amhitectural 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.
Rodpauqh 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.
Architectural detail consisting of cornices, applied molding or trim or applied headers shall
be used. There shall be an 8" recess. (See Exhibit 4-73)
Roripauqh Ranch Specific Plan 4-129
C:\Documents and Settings\naasehs\Local Settings\Ternp\SPSect4ScreencheckgPC.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 Proiections 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.
Rorioau(]h Ranch SDecific Plan 4-133
C:\Documents and Settings~naasehs~ocal 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.
Rodpauqh Ranch Specific Plan 4-134
C:\Documents and Settings\naasehs\Local Settings\Temp\SPSect4Screencheck9PC.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 relatedL
· 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 consideretion 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.
Rorioauah Ranch Specific Plan 4-137
C:\Documents and Settings~naasehs\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 o[ 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.
RoriDauah Ranch Specific Plan 4-140
C:\Documents and Settings~naasehs\Local Settings\Temp\SPSect4ScreencheckgPC.doc October 7, 2002~DRAFT
DESIGN GUIDELINES
4.11
4.12.1
SITE DESIGN
Cluster Courtyard (Planning Areas 12, t4, 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.
4.12.2 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 compleme~ary 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.
Rorinauclh Ranch Specific Plan 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 architec!ural 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 commercial 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 fiat
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.
Rodcauqh Ranch Specific 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 commercial 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.
Roripauqh Ranch Specific Plan 4-155
C:\Documents and Settings~naasehs\Local Settings\Ternp\SPSect4Screencheck9PC.doc October 7, 2002-DRAFT
DESIGN GUIDELINES
4.14.2 Streetscene
Provide adequate separation between parking and store fronts to allow 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 short 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-friendly spaces, 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
· Adiculate facades with insets, canopies, window recesses and arches
· High quality wall materials
· Courtyards and plazas with trellises .--
Roripauqh Ranch Specific Plan 4-156
C:\Documents and Settings~naasehs\Local Settings\Ternp\SPSect4ScreencheckgPC.doc October 7, 2002-DRAFT
DESIGN GUIDELINES
· Tower elements
BuildinR elements that shall be avoided include the followinq:
· 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 Commemial 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.
Unit,/
All buildings within the Neighborhood Commercial center shall be designed so they are
amhitecturally 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, Doom and Openings
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.
Buildinq Entries
Ail 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 ether 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 fiat roofs. Parapets
should be finished with cornices or and/or other decoration treatment enhancing the building
design.
Materials and Colors
Rodpauqh Ranch Specific Plan 4-157
C:\Documents and Settings~naasehs\Local Settings\Temp~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.
Landscapinq
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, Buttedield Stage Road and
Nicolas Road.
4.14.5 StreetJPlaza Furniture and Bus Shelters
RodDau(]h Ranch Specific Plan
C:~Documents and Settings~naasehs\Local Settings\Temp\SPSect4ScreencheckgPC.doc
4-158
October 7, 2002-DRAFT
DESIGN GUIDELINES
Street, bus and plaza furniture and bus shelters 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 oppodunities 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 amhitecture 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 walls and metal doors and
Rodpauqh Ranch Specific Plan 4-15q
C:\Documents 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 pad of the building design. '
Fig 4.90 neigh commercial
RoriDauah Ranch Specific Plan
C:\Documents and Settings~naasehs\Local Settings\Temp\SPSect4Screencheck9PC.doc
4-160
October 7, 2002-DRAFT
A~-rACHMENT NO. 6
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SUMMARY, AUGUST 15, 2001
R:\S P~Rodpaugh Ranch SP~new~PC Staff Report 10-16-02~PC Staff Repo~ 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' ~anhandle 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 1 la is
within the Loop Road core has been still within the core. Additional
reduced and input is requested frbm the
transferred to the Planning Commission on this
640-acre area. issue.
Village Center should be proposed The Commemial 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 commemial
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
i proposed
R:\S P~Roripaugh Ranch SP~new~°C Staff Report 10-16-02~C 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:~ P\Roripaugh Ranch SP~ew~PC Staff Report 10-16~2\PC Staff Report 10-16-02.doc
53
ATTACHMENT NO. 7
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING STAFF REPORT, AUGUST 15, 2001
R:~S P'~Roripaugh Ranch SP~new\PC Staff Report 10-16-02~PC Staff Report 10-16-02.doc
54
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
Roripaugh 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 Buttedield 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 Roripaugh
Specific Plan Land Use Map and provided direction to staff on a number of issues.
On April 24, 2001, the City Council directed staff to expedite the processing of the Roripaugh
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 hearing 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 28~. 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 buffering 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 1~. 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'~Ro~ipaugh Ranch SP~ew~PC Staff report 8-15-01 A.doc
1
This connection should be a multi-purpose trail with an under-crossing on Butterfield Stage Road
and a trial head and ~,:~tering area in the vicinity of Calle Contento. In addition, the MWD easement
trail consistent with th~ Cites 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 resident's concerns
regarding Nicolas Road. In addition, Attachment I 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 concems:
The recent changes to the Land Use Plan were done without input from the community.
The proposed buffering 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 {uture two lanes for the Nicolas Road
ultimate width. They have been concerned for a long time that the City will start assessing thers
for the Nicolas Road improvements. They want something in writing from the City to guarantee
that they will not have to pay future assessments.
o**o 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 Murfieta 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 "eastern 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 concerns 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 tO 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.
°.% 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.
°.% A Pedestrian/non-motorized vehicle undemrossing at Butterfield Stage Road.
o.'* An off-site trail on the north side of Nicolas Road.
· Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
The EIR has identified many mitigation measures that need to'be complied with prior 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 prior 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 9t~, 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 P~Ro~ipaugh Ranch SF~new~PC Staff report 8-15-01 A.doc
5
SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS
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:
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
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 I:~Roflpaugh Ranch SF~nev,~PC Staff report 8-15-01 A.doc
7
ATFACHMENT 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 10-16-02.doc
55
Wa~
staff',~
proposed revisions to the Development Code
it was the Planning Commission's recommendation to concu
With respect to the
Commercial Building
to concur with staff's
language be added
to the Development (
recommendation
~g that
more than fifty feet (50'.)
> With respect to the proposed the
Coverage, it was the
recommended revision.
Code regarding Lot
MOTION: Com~ moved to close the public hearing, to
recommen( ~ Council that the Development Code be amended
(denoted in the bullets on pages
) The motion was seconded by Commissioner Mathewson and voice
reflected 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.
Roripauqh Ranch
Saied Naaseh, Proiect Planner
RECOMMENDATION
6.1 Review and Provide Direction to Staff
Staff presents the project 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 Road; 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 was 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 of 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 addilionally 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 amhitectural 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 nec-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.
Specifying 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 HCA, 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 private recreational 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 o! 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 teda~y 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 the 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 if 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 that the document does not
comply with CEQA due to the lack of analysis for the project 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-cimulation, 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 middte 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 i§ 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 factors 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 same 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 of 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 of 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
commemial sites totaling 21.3 acres, a 1.5 acre Fire Station site, the 5-acre church 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.
Wilh 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 frail, 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 concern;
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, specifying 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 Road to the horse trail, and out through the UCR
properly); 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
concept to 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 various 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 denotin{I 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 funding 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 horoe
trail where the Park and Rid~ 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 horae 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
CounciVPlanning Commission meeting as well as the Ad hoc Committee meeting;
- relayed concern with 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 FJnal 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 there 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 thai 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 ti.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 lixed 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 Mathewsen 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 Chiniaefl qu;ried 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 Specific 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
lor this plan.
Chairman Chiniaeff noted the inconsistencies, relaying the applicant's expressed desire
lo 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 all 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 queried the time schedule the project was on.
Providing clarification, Deputy City Manager Thomhill 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 that 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 that 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 Mathewsgn
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 with 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
Communit{es, 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 read 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 wou~ld
require off-site grading easements on the forty-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 concem 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 Knowiton
Mr. Ronald Knowles
Mr. John Mize
Mr. Hans Kernkamp
Mr. Ed Picozzi
Mr. Ladd Stokes
Ms. Jill Stokes
Mr. Joe Turgeon
39130 Pala Vista Drive
39675 Cantrell Road
32850 Vista Del Monte
30055 Liefer Road
31480 Nicolas Road
39426 Jessie Circle
39426 Jessie Circle
Cantrell Road
representing 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, relaying 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.
Relayed concern regarding water flow issues (along the Santa Gertrudis Creek),
noting the need for a bridge.
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 townhomss.
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.
Opposed to the development of apartments, as proposed.
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.
,' 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
Butterfield 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 Ior 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.
in response to Mr. Turgeon's comments, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks advised
that the referenced area could be a 60' feet dedication on his property which would be
the right-of-way for his half of the roadway, clarifying that the right-of-way (with various
slope easements) has been reserved along the City boundary; confirmed that he would
be notified prior to the construction of any roads involving his property, Deputy City
Manager Thornhill 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 was noted for the record that Mr. Knowlton submitted a letter to staff outlining c6ncems
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 Plannin,q Commission relayed 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., sen/lng 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 City Council by August 28"', 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 act on 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 ssues at
hand, confirming 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 c rcumstances it would be impossible to have this
project ready for presentation to the City Council by August 28th, clarlf.y, ing that the
commitment was to make ever~ effort to have this project before the City Council on the
28Ih 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 28th. .
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 Chiniaeff 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 Buttedield 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 thet
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, clar'dying 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 woefulty 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 De noticed and brought back to the
Planning Commission sooner.
Chairman Chlnlaeff relayed hopes that at the next headng 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 Curley 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,
2001 meeting, with the caveat that if 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 al an earlier date.
At this time voice vote was taken reflecting approval of the motion with the exception of
Commissioner Guerdero 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 Chiniaelf,
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 there were approximately 20-
30 half-acre lots in this development.
PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT
Alter discussion, the Planning Commission determined to hold the January 2002
meetings on the 16t~ and the 30~, 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 reqular meetin.q to be held on Wednesda¥~ Auqust 22~ 2001 at 6:00 P.M.,
in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula.
C'~hainrimS a~n~ Chini.~eff~~
Debbie Ubnoske,
Director of Planning
A'I-rACHMENT NO. 9
PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 17, 2001 PROPOSED LAND USE
R:\S P\Rodpaugh Ranch SP~new~PC Staff Report 10-16-02\PC Staff Report 10-16-02.doc
56
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO. - PA94-0075 (Specific Plan) - Roripaugh
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - October 17, 2001
LAND USE PLAN
R:~ P~Roripaugh Ranch SP~nevApc staffreport 10-17-01.d~c
25
ATFACHMENT NO. 10
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SUMMARY, OCTOBER 17, 2001
R:\S P~Ror~paugh Ranch SP~new~PC Staff Report 10-16~02\PC Staff Report 10-16-02.doc
57
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
SUMMARY OF PC RECOMMENDATIONS 10-17-01
Viewpoints should not be utilized.
Moving the park to 11B could work if paseos connected it to PA 1 lA and PA4.
A specific church site not necessary.
Drainage issues should be resolved with staff.
Arizona crossing on Nicolas Road is not acceptable.
Complete 4 lane improvements to Nicolas Road is probably needed.
Gate on Loop Road should be re-examined.
Gates will need to be manned 24 hours a day.
Mega center concept is acceptable but additional units will not be granted.
SB 221 issues need to be addressed.
Traffic concerns need to be addressed.
Number of units for the project is dependent on the 'amenities, improvements, and the
benefits to the community.
The visual transition from large lots to small lots need to be looked at carefully.
Architectural design of the homes need to be improved from those shown on the pictures.
PA5 Neighborhood Park should be converted to a small private park to maintain the current
balance of parks.
The changes to the project need to ge back to the Subcommittee.
The commercial site should stay in PA 1 lA.
The buffering to the south and east is adequate.
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~'%dpaugh Ranch SP',new\PC Staff Report 10-16-02~C Staff Repor110-16-02.doc
58
ATFACHMENT NO. 11
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT, OCTOBER 17, 2001
R:\S P\Roripaugh Ranch SP~ew\PC Staff Report 10-16-02\PC Staff Report 10-16-02.doc
59
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
Subject:
CITY OF TEMECULA
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 0~/~/~1~4~
PLANNING DIVISION
MEMORANDUM
Planning Commissioners
Debbie Ubnoske, Director of Planning
October 17, 2001
Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan Land Use Plan
PREPARED BY:
RECOMMENDATION:
BACKGROUND:
Saied Naaseh, Project Planner
Provide Direction on the issues identified in the Staff Report
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 (~omprehensive
package for Planning Commission's review. Attachment I 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 Current 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 concerns
from the August 15t~ 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:~S P~Roripaugh Ranch SP~ew~pc s~aff report 10-17-OI.doc
1
ANALYSIS
ChanRes 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 park 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 will
be proposed followed by ½ 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 1 lB which used
to be a Neighborhood Commercial site. In addition, PA 29 has been removed from the Specific
Plan.
East Buttedield 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 Depad..'~ent 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, 21 B, 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~Roripaugh Ranch SP~neuApc staff report 10-17-01.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 aroa.
Outside the Loop to the South and East (PAs 16, 17, and 18)
The total number of units in this aroa has increased from 111 to 130, an
increase of 19 units or 17%. Most of the change in this aroa is due to
inequitable buffering issues. The buffering to the east and south of this aroa
is a row of 1-acre lots followed by one row of ½ acro 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 eastem and southern boundary of the
aroa which includes a multi- purpose trail including a horse 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 canter 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 commemial 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) enfomes 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 District 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 commercial site is outside the 600' radius. Therefore, since this
information about Section 23789 was not available to the Subcommittee, staff feels additional
R:~8 P~Roripaugh Ranch Sl~evApc staff report lO-17-Ol.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.
Buffedng
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 concerns 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 distan(~e 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 ail 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 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. 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:~g l~Roripaugh Ranch S]~ncvApc staff repoR 10-17-01.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 trials 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 Murrieta Hot Springs Road
sidewalks. Additional access points will be provided from the panhandle residential
areas. It will 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 MWD 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~Roripaugh Ranch SP~new~ staff report lO-17-OI.doc
Butterfield 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 Sports
Park, and the private recreational facility (PA 32) from the Butterfield Stage Road under-
crossing. In addition, they will connect to the mu/ti-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 pase~3s 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 Buttedield Stage Road, Calle
Chapos, and Nicolas Road to provide a comprehensive horse access in the area.
· 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 parking for the parks and schools needs to be provided.
· The project will generate a lot of traffic,
The Design Guidelines are not a discussion item for this Workshop. However, Attachment 5
includes staff's concems 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.
Ade uac of the EIR
Due to the changes to the Land Use Plan, staff needs to examine the adequacy of the current
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 Concerns 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 1§
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'xRoripaugh Ranch $1Anev/~c staff report lO-17-Ol.doc
7
ATTACHMENT NO. 12
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES, OCTOBER 17, 2001
R:\S P\Roripaugh Ranch SP~new\PC Staff Report 10-16-0Z, PC Staff Report 10-16-02.doc
60
~ Road, relayed his e~
~tiveiy impacted by
~ic he-"adf~j;,~nd to approve
~~mmissioner Ma~n and
v~ous 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 airpod) 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 thai
overall the project has increased in density from 1721 units to 1986; clarified that the
attached units have been deleted from the Plan, noting that the product types will include
the clustered courtyard design, small lot single-family with a minimum of 3,500 square
feet, minimum 5,000 square foot lots in the Panhandle, and other larger lot projects; and
relayed that there would be two private recreation facilities proposed (i.e., one four-acre
facility, and one 2.5 acre facility).
Staff presents the proposed trails plan
Project Planner Naaseh presented staff's proposed trails plan, noting that the applicant
has not yet submitted a trail plan, specifying the Murrieta Hot Springs connector trail, the
multi-purpose trails with a Butterfield Stage Road undercrossJng, and the trail continuing
along Butlerfield Stage Road and connecting to the thirly-foot (30') easement.
Staff presents the residents' concerns
With respect to the residents' concerns, Project Planner Naaseh relayed that the
majority of the issues have been addressed with the exception of the following: the need
for additional buffering of the Panhandle (to the south) which was additionally
recommended by the Subcommittee, the incorporation of mitigation measures to reduce
the visibility from Nicolas Valley, *drainage issues, and *traffic impacts (*It was noted
that these items will be addressed at a future point in time since the primary focus at this
time was the Land Use Plan).
Staff presents the Subcommittee's recommendations
Specifying various Subcommittee recommendations, Project Planner Naaseh relayed
that with respect to the Village Center, the recommendation was to keep the commercial
area in PA No. 1 lA; and with respect to the increase in density, the Subcommittee was
split regarding this matter.
Continuing his presentation, Project Planner Naaseh relayed staff's desire to obtain the
Planning Commission's direction with respect to the following: the Land Use Plan, the
commercial site being moved to PA No. 13A, the buffering for the Panhandle, the
densities, and the need for a public institutional site.
Addressing the Planning Commission's questions, for Commissioner Olhasso, 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 striped bike lane that is part of the road.
For Commissioner Mathewson, Project Planner Naaseh relayed that once the Land Use
Plan is finalized, the additional impacts from the increase in density would be assessed;
and for Chairman Chiniaeff, specified that the original EIR was conducted for 1721
dwelling units.
· The applicant's presentation
Noting the revisions in the plan, Mr. Kevin Everett, representing the applicant,
highlighted the following modifications regarding the project:
The added private recreation facility and public park located in PA Nos. 6A, and 6B.
The new location for the elementary school.
With respect to 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 HOA; presented trail concepts with view look-out areas, meandering trails,
benches, and landscaping; noted that with the gated concept, the width of the road
that fronts the lots could be reduced, and deeper lots could be created;
For Chairman Chiniaeff, relayed that the applicant has conducted visibility studies for
the Panhandle area, presenting the data which provided the project views from
various locations, noting the fifty-foot (50') difference in elevation in various areas; for
Commissioner Mathewson, specified the area where the lots have reversed slopes;
Noted the desire of the applicant to relocate one of the park sites to PA No. 1 lB in
order to enlarge the private recreation area, advising that it would be the applicant's
desire to install a view ridge park; for Chairman Chiniaeff, advised that the applicant
is working with Development Services Administrator McCarthy regarding the parks
issue, confirming that all the parkland requirements will be met;
Relayed the applicant's agreement to include two recreational facilities in the project
plan, noting that the facility in the Panhandle has been designed, and the applicant
consultant is in the process of designing the second one; noted that this particular
consultant will additionally be designing the entries, noting that this architectural
detail will be carried throughout the development;
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-stow 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 weightlitting room, the various pools, the five to six
saunas, and an outdoor cabana; noted the applicant's desire to locate this facility in
PA No. 32, requesting the Planning Commission to consider allowing the applicant to
consider permitting the density to be further increased by 72 lots to aid in funding the
upfront costs for these facilities, noting that the HOA would fund the long-term
maintenance; and for Chairman Chiniaeff, specified that the additional 72 units would
bring the total density up to 2058.
Addressing the questions of the Planning Commission, Mr. Everett relayed the following:
For Chairman Chiniaeff, noted the applicant's desire for the commercial cente¢ 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 Depadments was opposed to;
and clarified that the final trail plan has not been determined;
In response to Commissioner OIhasso's querying if the largest lots were 4,000
square feet (with the exception of the one-acre, and half-acre lots), clarified that the
lots would range in size from 3,500 up to one acre, noting the deletion of the 2.5 acre
lots; and
In response to Chairman Chiniaeff's queries regarding the applicant's comment
when it was stated that the dwelling units needed to be increased in order for the
CFD to operate, clarified that the funds were needed for Development Agreement
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 Nords
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 ihe following concerns regarding this particular
proposal:
~' Opposed to the developer revising the plan to eliminate the 2.5-acre lots proximate
to his property, referencing a previous map (provided by the developer) denoting the
2.5-acre parcels.
· ,' The location of the recreation center (i.e., in PA No. 32)
~' Noise, traffic, and light impacts.
.,' Adequate water supply.
~' Flood control and drainage issues.
.- Requested that there be a minimum eight-foot berm on both sides of the creek.
,' Requested Iow density residential [or Parcel No. 57130004, due to the proximity to a
residence.
· ,' Concurred with keeping the commercial unit in PA No. 11A.
,,' Buffering along the east and south side of the project.
/ Opposed to increased density.
-' Traffic on Nicolas Road, in particular due to the proximity to the school sites.
,,' Opposed to the proposed viewpoints (i.e., look-out areas), which would defeat the
purpose of the buffering elements.
.' Queried where the revenue would be derived from to cover emergency services
since this project was primarily a housing development.
-' Concurred that it was better that the City address the impacts of the project rather
than the County.
.--Queried whether the Planning Commission was aware of all the comments that
residents have expressed to the developer during numerous meetings held over
years.
~' Densities are too high.
.' Referenced a letter (which had been distributed to the Planning Commission via
supplemental agenda material) dated October 17, 2001, which detailed additional
concerns, listed as follows: the need for a final map to be presented, recommended
that the large parcels be designated as horse properties, expressed concern
regarding lights, parking provisions (proximate the schools and parks), mitigation in
the Panhandle area, traffic, and densities,
/ Queried the developer's rationalization for the need for increased densities,
questioning the cost analysis.
· The Commission provides concluding comments
Recapitulating the past discussions at the Subcommittee meetings, Chairman Chiniaeff
noted the vadous 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 privacy issues; with respect to the proposal to relocate the
park, relayed that he was in favor of this concept, noting that with the proposed trails
plan individuals would be encouraged to walk to the park; with respect to the trails,
advised that an important issue would be whether MWD WOLlld 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 McBdde provided additional
information regarding the conditions which would be imposed if a gated community was
implemented; and advised that if the determination of planning the gate area was solely
dependent on his advisement, it would not be placed on a thoroughfare.
Concurring with the previous comments of the residents, Commissioner Guerriero noted
his concern regarding water supply, referencing Senate Bill 221. In response, Assistant
City Attorney Curley advised that SB 221 would mandate new findings in the City's
review and approvals to determine that there was adequate water on a 20-year
projection basis to serve the development, providing additional information regarding this
review process; advised that the City and the applicant will rely on the local water
agencies for this affirmation, relaying that the statute sets out various factors that the
water agencies must consider when determining whether there would be adequate
water, and subsequently staff would review the agencies' conclusions; provided
additional information regarding how CEQA's cumulative clause ties in with the
referenced Senate Bill, confirming that there would be a coincidence of analysis; for
Commissioner Telesio, confirmed that the water supply entities will take into
consideration not only the existing water use but the commitment to water for future
development.
For Chairman Chiniaeff, Director of Planning Ubnoske noted that for all projects staff
requests the water district to provide a letter confirming that an adequate supply exists.
Commissioner Mathewson advised that it would be his preference for a final Land Use
Plan to be presented to the Planning Commission review, one which has been generally
accepted by both the applicant and staff, clarifying that the hearing was not the
appropriate forum for debating major land use issues; noted his concern regarding the
proposed increase in density; opined that compatibility with the surrounding land uses
and appropriate buffering needed to be taken into consideration (i.e., the location of the
commercial center); with respect to the potential mega recreation facility, concurred that
this facility was proposed too close to the boundaries of the project and should be
relocated 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 podions of the project,
relayed concern regarding the small lot sizes on the interior loop, noting that no cdteria
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 there would potentially be 10,000 square foot lots; with
respect to PA Nos. 27 and 30, relayed the commitment to one-acre, and one-half acre
lots; with respect to the gated area, relayed that there would be substantial provisions for
parking, noting that the gate would be manned with guards; with respect to the proposed
location of the recreation center, clarified that there was a half-mile distance between the
proximate neighborhood, noting that the recreation center would not be an intensive
lighted project; and relayed that the private reads and landscaping would be paid for by
the development's residents, and not the public.
Commissioner Olhasso noted that an example of poor developmental planning with
respect to transitioning from one-acre, one-half-acre, to ten thousand square foot lots
was the Woodside Development; and with respect to the comments concerning lighting
at the sports park, clarified that staff was stringent with respect to the type of lighting
required and there rules of use.
In response to Commissioner Oihasso's queries, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks
confirmed that with respect to flooding issues, staff would be thoroughly investigating,
and subsequently would determine a recommendation to address this issue.
Regarding the CFD, Commissioner Olhasso acknowledged that there would be a
financial advisor associated with this mechanism. For Commissioner Olhasso, Director
of Planning Ubnoske advised that the additional increase in density that the applicant
referenced was new data, relaying that both the Finance Department and the Public
Works Department would be carefully scrutinizing the financial analysis, noting that she
could forward Commissioner Olhasso's recommendation for the City to conduct its own
analysis.
Assistant City Attomey 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 podion of the project.
Noting that he served on the Subcommittee associated with this project, Commissioner
Telesio clarified, for Commissioner Mathewson, that numerous significant proposals
presented by the applicant were recent changes, and had not been presented to the
Subcommittee, concurring that the new concepts should first be presented to staff, then
the Subcommittee, and finally to the Planning Commission; opined that the commercial
area should be placed in the center of the project; with respect to the density, advised
that the critical issue would be the alternate elements proposed to offset the density (i.e.,
traffic mitigation, community amenities) which would render the net benefit to the
community; with respect to designating a specific site for a religious institution, clarified
that it was determined that there was no need to specify a site for this type of use; and
concluded that in light of the numerous, significant recent revisions to the Land Use
Plan, the data should not be presented to the Planning Commission at this point in time.
With respect to the location of the commercial center, the following comments were
relayed:
Commissioner Guerriero opined that the commercial area should be located proximate
to the center of the project which would be more consistent with a Village Center
Concept.
Noting the discussions and considerations at the Subcommittee leveJ, Chairman
Chiniaeff relayed his initial recommendation that the commercial center be located at the
southerly location.
For Commissioner Mathewson, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks relayed that at
PA No. 13 there was an open channel adjacent to Butterfield Stage Road which would
limit the access to Butterfield State Road at that site; and with respect to the northerly
location, advised that there would be a road system around the commercial center which
feeds from numerous locations, and would service the Panhandle area well.
In light of Deputy Director of Public Works Parks' comments, Chairman Chiniaeff,
echoed by Commissioner Olhasso and Commissioner Mathewson, concurred with lhe
community cenler being located at the nodherly location.
Assistant City Attorney Curley clarified that per the Brown Act, the Planning Commission
was not making formal decisions, and that the developer should not rely on these
comments being a formal decision.
With respect to density the followinq comments were noted:
Recapitulating the review of recently approved Specific Plans, Commissioner Guerriero
noted concern with respect to the lack of discussion regarding major infrastructure (or a
transit system) being implemented, while the densities continue to be increased,
advising that it would be his recommendation that the densities be decreased; and
clarified that there would be no community benefit regarding the proposed mega
recreation center.
Commenting on the density issue, Chairman Chiniaeff relayed that proximate to the
interior loop where the school was located, that this area should be reinvestigated,
recommending that this podion 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 withoul this information she could not
further comment on the density at this time.
Concurring with the concern regarding the financial data associated with the applicant's
need for the density to be increased, Commissioner Mathewson relayed concern
regarding providing a recommendation with respect to densities at this time.
Assistant City Attorney Curley relayed that when the applicant presents the final plan,
the proposal will be undergirded with the financial machinations based on the
developer's opinion of the density that will be required in order for the project to be
financially feasible, as well as a benefit to the City; clarified that the goal of the Planning
Commission was Io 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 lhe 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 dens(ty, and
the myriad of changes occurring in the project plan; and clarified that the Planning
Commission would desire the applicant Io present a fixed plan on their proposal with the
- supporting justification, having first been analyzed by staff.
For Commissioner Tetssio, 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 Depadmenrs 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, lhe CFD, and the density issues are
closely tied, advising that per the Planning Commission comments these discussions
need to be more finalized prior to Planning Commission presentation.
Commissioner Mathewson reiterated, for the applicant, that the project plan should be
fixed and previously reviewed by staff and the Subcommittee prior to Planning
Commission review.
Mr. Everett relayed that it was the applicant's desire to formulate a final Specific Plan,
EIR, CFD, and the DA elements, and have staff review the data prior to the Planning
Commission presentation.
Chairman Chiniaeff reiterated that the Planning Commission desired to review a fixed
finalized plan.
For Senior Planner Hogan, Chairman Chiniaeff relayed that with respect to buffering
issues the Planning Commission did not make any recommendations regarding
implementing the 2.5 acre lots, but noted the impodance of compatible land uses.
Since this was a workshop item, and no formal action was required by the Planning
Commission this concluded the comments of the Commission.
COMMISSIONER'S REPORTS
Commissioner Guerriero congratulated Commissioner Olhasso (as a member of
the staff of the City of Ontado) and the City of Ontario for the recent attainment of
the Putnam Award.
For Commissioner Guerriero, Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that the
outside storage at the Power Center was being addressed by Code Enforcement,
noting that she would further investigate as to what stage of the citation process
this matter was in; and for Commissioner Olhasso, noted that she would
additionally follow up on the Code Enforcement issue regarding the site
proximate to the 1-15 Freeway and Winchester Road.
In response to Commissioner Mathewson, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks
relayed that staff will investigate the timing of the signals on Rancho California
Road in the early morning hours.
Commissioner Mathewson advised that he would be unable to attend the next
Planning Commission meeting.
Deputy Director of Public Works Parks updated the Planning Commission
regarding staff's evaluation of the traffic concerns at the Hometown Buffet use.
Commissioner Guerriero clarified that the concem was exiting the site across the
street from Hometown Buffet (traveling eastbound). Deputy Director of Public
Works Parks noted that he would investigate the matter.
Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that she would provide the Planning
Commission with information regarding the dates of the November meetings.
PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT
No additional input.
A'I-rACHMENT NO. 13
COMMUNITY MEETING SUMMARY, SEPTEMBER 12, 2001
R:~S P~Rodpaugh Ranch SP~new~C Staff Report 10-16-02\PC Staff Report 10-16-02.doc
61
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:
1. The total number of units appropriate for the project;
2. The location of the Park N Ride and the transit station;
3. The lack of a dedicated site for Public Institutional uses such as religious institutions;
4. The number and location of the private recreational facilities of the project;
5. The location of the trails along Nicolas Road and the type of trail crossing at Butterfield
Stage Road.
6. The following is a summary of the community's main points:
7. One-acre lots should be proposed along the southerly property line of the Panhandle.
8. The impacts from the light and noise from the athletic fields need to be addressed.
9. The proposed number of units is not consistent with ~he current rural atmosphere of the
area.
10. The developer should be responsible to improve Nicolas Road to four lanes.
t 1. The applicant should not make a threat to go to the County.
12. 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.
13. The proposed schools and the parks are important and necessary features of this project.
14. The equestrian trails issues still need to be addressed.
15. City staff should be present in all meetings involving the Community and the developer.
16. 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
ATTACHMENT NO. 14
COMMUNITY MEETING SUMMARY, SEPTEMBER 25, 2002
R:\S P\Roripaugh 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\Rodpaugh Ranch SP~new\PC Staff Report 10-16-02~PC Staff Report 10-16-02.doc
64
ATDACHMENT NO. 15
SUBCOMMITFEE MEETING SUMMARY, SEPTEMBER 24, 2001'
R:~S P\Roripaugh Ranch SP~ev, APC Staff Report 10-16-02'~C Staff Report 10-16-02.doc
65
SUBCOMMITTEE 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, East, and PA 27
The buffering for the south, east, and PA 27 is adequate with 1 -acre lots and a transition to ~ acre
lots. In Planning Areas 16, 17, and 18, the 1-acre lots and Ya'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 PanhandlP,
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:
a. An additional 40' to 50' of building setback or landscaped buffer for all lots with pad
elevations higher than the top of the slope.
b. Additional landscaping at the bottom of the slope.
c. Use of single story units along the south edge.
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:\S P\Rodpaugh Ranch SP~new~PC Staff Report 10-16-02~oC 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 1 lB.
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 sufficien'~ 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~:~oripaugh Ranch SP~new~PC Staff Report 10-16-02~PC Staff Report 10-16-02.doc
67
ATTACHMENT 16
CURRENTLY PROPOSED LAND USE PLAN
R:\S P\Roripaugh Ranch SP~ew~PC Staff Report 10-16-02~oC Staff Report 10-16-02.doc
68
Proposed Land Use Plan
ATrACHMENT 17
EXHIBIT A OF THE SPECIFIC PLAN, TIMING FOR IMPROVEMENTS
R:\S P~Rofipaugh Ranch SP~new~PC Staff Repor110-16-02~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~new\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 250~h 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 sudace, 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
Prior 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 251~t building permit for the entire project.
11. Fuel Modification in PA 13 including all slope landscaping, fire access road, 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 33NB, 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.
13. Flood Control improvements
a. Santa Gertrudis Creek (PA 13) including fencing, access roads, gates, and
landscaping including slope areas
R:'~S P~C{oripat~gh Ranch SP~new~°C 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 unless otherwise indicated.
R:~S P'~Rodpaugh Ranch SP~new~PC Staff Report 10-16-02\PC Staff Report 10-16-02.doc
72
ATTACHMENT NO. 18
DRAFT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
R:\S P\Roripaugh Ranch SP~new~PC Staff Report 10-16-02~PC Staff Report 10-16-02.doc
73
ii~i,~-~,~/i~ ~'ii~; ~. ~:~i~ - ~-'~ ~:.:~- '~'~' ~ .~ ~ ~ .... ........ :~. ~. ~ .... ' ~
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
RELATIONSHI]? 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 AMENDMENT 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
3O
30
31
31
31
31
31
32
32
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
11086X0097\659181.1
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
CITY.
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 future 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 er 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 Binding 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 wdtten 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 Assignments and/or Transfers Involving the Assignment or
Transfer of Certain Specified Ri.qhts, Duties and Obli.qations Arising 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 2.5.1(i) 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 AssiRnment or Transfer. Unless expressly set forth to
the contrary in this Agreement CITY shall require OWNER to perform all premises,
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 Vestin.q.
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 Future 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
11086\0097\65918 I. 1 12/3/01
3.1.2 Limits on Development. The California Supreme Court held in
Pardee Construction Company v. City of Camarillo, 37 Cal.3d 465 (1984), that the
failure of the parties to address certain limits on a CITY's ability to restrict 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 permitted 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 Resource Code and the Guidelines promulgated
thereunder, the CITY shall not impose any environmental land use project alternatives
or mitigation measures on OWNER or the 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 ail 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 12/3/0 !
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 circulation/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
! 1086X.0097\659181.1 12/3/01
may suspend this Agreement for a period 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 QWNER 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 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 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 Re,qardin.q 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 part 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 EIR shall be carried out as set forth therein, or as may be
amended from time to time.
3.5 Amendment of Development A.qreement.
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
3.5.2.1 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
11086~0097\659181. I
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. Obli.qations of the Parties.
4.1 Fee and Exaction Related Responsibilities.
4.1.'1 Development Impact Fees. CITY has adopted an ordinance
requiring the payment of Development Impact Fees CDIF"). 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
l 108oq0097~659181.1 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
I 1086~0097\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 district 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
issuance 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 art 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 510~ 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 flat land usable for development as a CITY fire station. In no event shall
the site be in excess of three (3) gross acres.
22
11086\0097\659181.1 12/3/01
b. Gradinq. 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
11086~0097~659181.1 12/3/01
4.1.7 Other Fees.
a. Processing 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 Mitiqation 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 Financinq 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 12/3/0
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
concerning 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 written
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\659181.1 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 exercise of the parties' resources. Accordingly,
OWNER shall be deemed to have satisfied its good faith compliance when it presents
evidence of substantial compliance with the material provisions 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\659181.1 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 or for 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 bring 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 dght to
seek, and hereby expressly waives, the right to seek damages against CITY for any
action or failure to act under this Agreement.
27
11086X.0097\659181.I 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 resoumes 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 right 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 Legal 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
11086~0097\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, fires, 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
Corona, CA 92879
3O
11086\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.
13. 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 unenfomeable, 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 AuthorizinR 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. ! 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 Governin,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
governmental 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 governmental powers over the
Property or any decision arising 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 Dealin.q. 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 Vestin.q. 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 A.qreement. 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
"CITY"
34
11086~0097\659181.1 12/3/01
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney
Dated:
,2002
CITY OF TEMECULA, a municipal
corporation
By:.
Name:
Title: Mayor
"OWNER"
,a
By:.
Name:
Title:
35
11086~0097\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)
11086X0097~659181.1 6/26/01
ATTACHMENT "2"
(Plat of the Property Described in Attachment 1)
11086~0097\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 Butter[ield 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
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 tane~ 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.
!086\009%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 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
11086\0097\659181.1 6/26/01
16.
Winchester Road at Nicolas Road - northbound left-turn lane, northbound
free right turn lane, westbound leE-turn lane, northbound through lane,
southbound left-turn lane, southbound through lane, and eastbound right-
turn overlap.-
17.
Winchester Road at Murrieta Hot Springs Road - northbound through lane,
southbound through lane, and westbound through lane
18.
Butterfield Stage Road at Rancho California Road - northbound leE-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
19.
Calle Contento at Rancho California Road - eastbound leE-turn lane,
eastbound through lane, westbound left-turn lane, and westbound through
lane
1086\0097\659181.1 6/26/01
ATTACHMENT "6"
(Selected On-Site Improvements)
11086\0097\659181.1 6/26/01
ATTACHMENT 6
SELECTED ON-SITE IMPROVEMENTS
Butterfield 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 Buttedield Stage Road.
Nicolas Road - Full width, including one bridge, from the project boundary
to Butterfield Stage Road.
11086~0097~659181.1 6/26/01
ATTACHMENT NO. 5
LO~I'ING STUDY AND CROSS SECTIONS (A~-rACHED AS EXHIBITS)
R:\S P~Roripaugh Ranch SP~new~PC staff Report 10-30-02.doc
6