The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About020205 PC Agenda /)PjrJ 1}:o(;.5 e. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the office of the City Clerk (951) 694-6444. Notification 48 hours prior to a meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to that meeting [28 CFR 35.102.35.104 ADA Title IIJ AGENDA TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 43200 BUSINESS PARK DRIVE February 2, 2005 - 6:00 P.M. ***"'**** Next in Order: Resolution No. 2005-07 CALL TO ORDER Flag Salute: Commissioner Guerriero Roll Call: Chiniaeff, Guerriero, Mathewson, Olhasso, and Telesio e PUBLIC COMMENTS A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public may address the Commission on items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Commission about an item not on the Agenda, a salmon colored "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the Commission Secretary. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name for the record. For all other agenda items a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the Commission Secretary prior to the Commission addressing that item. There is a three (3) minute time limit for individual speakers. CONSENT CALENDAR NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC All matters listed under Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and all will be enacted by one roll call vote. There will be no discussion of these items unless Members of the Planning Commission request specific items be removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action. e R:\PLANCOMMlAgendas\2005\02.02-05.doc 1 Aqenda . RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Approve the Agenda of February 2, 2005 2 A request to rescind Planninq Commission Resolution 2004-066 which approved Planninq Application No. PA04-0260. a Development Plan for an additional 20 units at the approved Temecula Ridqe Apartments to result in the desiqn. construction and operation of a 240- unit. two and three-storv apartment complex with a pool. clubhouse. workout buildinq and tot lot on approximatelv 21 acres located at the southeast corner of Rancho California Road and Moraqa Road. known as Assessor's Parcel No. 944-290-011. Chervl Kitzerow. Associate Planner. COMMISSION BUSINESS PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS Any person may submit written comments to the Planning Commission before a public hearing or may appear and be heard in support of or in opposition to the approval of the project(s) at the time of hearing. If you challenge any of the projects in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing or in written correspondences delivered to the Commission Secretary at, or prior to, the public hearing. . 3 A General Plan Update to comprehensivelv update the followinq elements of the General Plan: Land Use Circulation. Open Space/Conservation. Growth ManaqementlPublic Facilities. Public Safety. Noise. Air Quality. Community Desiqn. and Economic Development, David Hoqan. Principal Planner. 3.1 Recommend that the City Council approve the Updated General Plan COMMISSIONER'S REPORTS PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT ADJOURNMENT Next regular meeting: Wednesday, February 16, 2005, 6:00 PM, Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. . R:\PLANCOMMlAgendas\2005\02-Q2-05.doc 2 . ITEM #2 . . . . . CITY OF TEMECULA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: Planning Commission Cheryl Kitzerow, Associate Planner February 2, 2005 SUBJECT: Temecula Ridge Apartments Modification - Planning Application PA04-0260 On December 15, 2004 the Planning Commission voted 3-2 to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 2004-066, approving Planning Application No. PA 04"0260, a Major Modification to an approved Development Plan (PA99-0317-Temecula Ridge Apartments) for the addition of a third floor to buildings 12, 17,27,35 & 38 (Building Type One) for a total of 20 new apartment units added to the approved 220 units for a total of 240 units. The project site is approximately 21-acres located at the southeast corner of Rancho California Road and Moraga Road. On December 20, 2004, staff received an appeal of the Planning Commission approval for the project, Since that time the applicant has decided not to pursue construction of the additional 20 units and has submitted a request for the Planning Commission to rescind PC Resolution No. 2004-066 (see Exhibit B). In effect, the original approval and conditions for PA99-0317, as extended by PA02-0627, would remain unchanged. ATTACHMENTS 1. PC Resolution No. 2005-_- Blue Page 2 2. Letter from AG Kading, dated January 7, 2005 - Blue Page 3 R:\D P\2004\04-0260 Temecula Ridge Apartments\PC Memo 2.02-05 rescind approvaJ.doc 1 . . . ATTACHMENT NO.1 PC RESOLUTION NO. 2005-_ R:\D P\2004\04-0260 Temecula Ridge Apartments\PC Memo 2-02-05 rescind approval.doc 2 . . . PC RESOLUTION NO. 2005- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RESCINDING PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2004-066 WHICH APPROVED PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA04-0260, A DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR AN ADDITIONAL 20 UNITS AT THE APPROVED TEMECULA RIDGE APARTMENTS TO RESULT IN THE DESIGN, CONSTRUCTI9N AND OPERATION OF A 240-UNIT, TWO AND THREE-STORY APARTMENT COMPLEX WITH A POOL, CLUBHOUSE, WORKOUT BUILDING AND TOT LOT ON APPROXIMATELY 21- ACRES LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AND MORAGA ROAD, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 944-290-011. WHEREAS, AGK Group LLC filed Planning Application No. PA04-0260 Development Plan (the "Application") in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code; WHEREAS, the Application was processed including, but not limited to public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, at regular meetings, considered the Application, on November 17,2004, and December 15, 2004, at duly noticed public hearings as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support or in opposition to this matter; WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing and after due consideration of the testimony, the Commission approved the Application by adopting Resolution 2004-066, subject to the conditions after finding that the project proposed in the Application conformed to the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code; WHEREAS, an appeal of the project approval was filed in accord with the City of Temecula Development Code; WHEREAS, AGK Group LLC request that the Planning Commission rescind Planning _ Commission Resolution 2004-066 for Planning Application No. PA04-0260, Development Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby incorporated by reference. Section 2. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby rescinds PC Resolution No. 2004-066 conditionally approving Planning Application No. PA04-0260, for the design, construction and operation of 20 additional units atTemecula Ridge Apartments, located on the south side of Rancho California Road, southeast of the intersection of Rancho California Road and Moraga Road, and known as Assessor's Parcel No. 944-290-011. Therefore, the project will be subject to the previously adopted Conditions of Approval for Planning Application Nos. PA99-0317 and PA02-0627. R:\D P\2004\04-0260 Temccula Ridge Apartments\PC FINAL RESO RESCINDING APPROV AL.doc I Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 2nd day of February, 2005. . David Mathewson, Chairman ATTEST: 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. 2005- _was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 2nd day of February, 2005, by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: 0 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: NOES: 0 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: 0 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: 0 Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary . R:\D P\2004\04-0260 Temecula Ridge Apartments\PC FINAL RESO RESCINDING APPROV AL.doc 2 . . . ATTACHMENT NO.2 LETTER FROM AG KADING DATED JANUARY 7,2005 R:\O P\2004\04-0260 Temecula Ridge Apartments\PC Memo 2-02-05 rescind approval.doc 3 AGK Group LLC . . . IIriH~ ri~ ! ~ i I W r:; I'~n \]11 IlL' ..... "-" I Iu~ JAN J. 9 Z005 &'1 ;3y I -----,..~_..; . .- co.., "-.d January?,2005 Debbie Ubnoske Director of Planning City of Temecula 43200 Business Park Drive Teme~lJla; CA 92589-9033 RE: Planning Application No. 04-0260 (Development Plan Modification) Dear Ms Ubnoske . This letter will serve as notice that we will not pursue the above application and we rescind out planning application no 04"0260 for the extra 20 units on the Temecula Ridge ProjecL - ," Reg. a~~? /~ ,- d/"' ~. Kading - President AGK Group LLC. Managing Partner Temecula Ridge LLC. CC Martin Collier . . GC Enterprises 949-661-7292 - Fax 949-661-8501 35411 Paseo Viento, Capistrano Beach, California, 92624 . ITEM #3 . . . . . STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION Date of Meeting: February 2, 2005 Prepared by: David Hogan Title: Principal Planner File Number N/A Application Type: GPA Project Description: Update of the General Plan A comprehensive update of the General Plan for the following Elements: Land Use, Circulation, Open Space/Conservation, Growth ManagementlPublic Facilities, Public Safety, Air Quality, Noise, Community Design, and Economic Development. Recommendation: (Check One) o Approve with Conditions o Deny o Continue for Redesign o Continue to: o Recommend Approval with Conditions o Recommend Denial CEQA: (Check One) [gJ Recommend Approval to the City Council o Categorically Exempt o Negative Declaration o Mitigated Negative Declaration with Mitigation Measures (Class) [gJ EIR BACKGROUND The City hired Cotton/Bridges Associates to assist in updating the General Plan. Since this process began, the Council appointed the Community Advisory Committee (CAC) to work with the staff and the consultant. The CAC completed its work efforts in mid-2004. Their recommended Plan was then presented to the City Council and Planning Commission at a joint workshop on August 10, 2004, where additional direction was provided. This public review draft of the updated General Plan incorporates the supplemental direction provided by the Commission and Council at the August 10th Workshop. The draft updated General Plan was also presented to the Community Services and Traffic Safety Commissions for their review and comment. The public review draft of the updated General Plan incorporates all previous comments on the earlier versions of the document. Copies of the public hearing draft of the updated General Plan and the Draft Environmental Impact Report were provided to the Planning Commission in early January, 2005. R:\General Plan\Comp Plan Update\Staff Report PC1.doc INTRODUCTION . The original City General Plan was adopted in November, 1993. This updated General Plan continues the overall policy direction identified in the City's original 1993 General Plan. Most of the changes in the updated Plan represent shifts in format as well as minor text clean-ups. The most common clean-up items include: the incorporation of changed facts and circumstances, a more careful delineation of goal and policy statements and implementation measures, and updating the implementation program for each element. New policy areas include: identification of rural preservation areas, expansion of the planning area into wine country, and identification of future mixed use development in some of the City's older commercial and industrial areas. The updated Plan also incorporates new arterial roadways identified in the recently approved Riverside County Integrated Plan. The changes within each Element are summarized below. Land Use Element The primary changes in the Land Use Element are the inclusion of discussions for Mixed Use Development and Rural Preservation Areas. The Mixed Use provisions are expected to provide additional opportunities to revitalize some older areas of the City and to help meet the City's Housing Element goals. Goal 2, Encouraging Mixed Use, provides the framework for future mixed use projects. The Rural Preservation discussion is intended to identify areas that need to stay rural to protect the character and quality of life in the area. Goal 3, Preserving Rural Areas, discusses how these areas should be protected. The direction provided by the remaining Goals and Policies remains the same. Much of the southern and eastern Planning Areas are included within Rural . Preservation Areas. Land Use Desiqnations In the General Plan Update, several new Land Use Designations are proposed to respond to changes in the City and the Planning Area. The new Land Use Designations are as follows: . The Rural Residential Designation would establish a 5 acre minimum lot size. This new designation is intended primarily to help maintain lower density development in more rural areas in and around the City. Much of the eastern Rural Preservation Area is proposed to receive this designation: . The Vineyards/Agriculture Designation is intended to identify areas used for agriculture in the Planning Area. The General Plan currently has no way of designating areas for long term agricultural use. This new designation is proposed for many areas in the Eastern and Southern Rural Preservation Area. . The Tribal Trust Lands Designation is proposed for properties that have been designated as lands held in trust for the Pechanga Band by the Federal Government. These areas have important economic and environmental impacts on the City. By identifying them as Tribal Trust Lands, it is the City's goal to recognize tribal sovereignty while indicating the City's interest in cooperating with the Pechanga Band in these areas. At this time, all tribally owned properties are located in the southern portion of the City and Planning Area. . A Commercial Recreation Overlay for golf courses, resorts, as well as, RV resorts and campground facilities. This would be used as an overlay on areas designated Open Space to indicate that non-open space accessory commercial uses are envisioned to . R:\General Plan\Comp Plan Updale\Slaff Report PC1.doc 2 . . . occur in these areas. A good example of this is Temecula Creek Inn; most of the site is used for open space purposes. However, there is also a small area of visitor serving resort and commercial uses that form an integral part of the facility. This change is being suggested because the current Open Space Designation does not adequately address resort types of open space uses. The final change is a proposal to rename the Business Park Land Use Designation to Industrial Park to eliminate confusion with the Business Park Zone. No changes are being proposed to the types of development that would be allowed in these areas with this name change. Land Use Map The most significant change tothe Land Use Map is the expansion of the Planning Area east toward Anza Road. This was undertaken in an effort to begin protecting this area from the encroachment of urban land uses. In conjunction with this, the General Plan identifies several Rural Preservation Areas. The Eastern and Southern Rural Preservation Areas are located within this expanded Planning Area. Most of these areas are proposed to be designated as Vineyard/Agriculture and Rural Residential. An exception to this is along part of Calle Contento where the existing 2% acre lots would be designated as Very Low Density Residential. Another major change to the Land Use Map is in the French Valley area. Since the initial adoption of the City General Plan, the County made many land use changes without notifying the City. As a result, the City General Plan bore little resemblance to the land use pattern being developed in this area. In modifying the Land Use Map in the French Valley, a great deal of effort was spent trying to work within the context of the granted entitlements trying to ensure the creation of a desirable and livable urban area. To date, 17 land use requests have been submitted by various property owners. Fourteen of these requests were considered by the CAC. During the plan development process, the CAC recommended five of the fourteen original requests. Requests 1, 3, 7, 10 and 12 have been incorporated into the draft General Plan Update. Four of the earlier requests (Nos. 4, 5, 8 and 9) are not being incorporated into the Updated General Plan because of the uncertainty with either the future for the Nicolas Valley area or the Temecula Education Project. Staff continues to recommend that these changes not be made. The following five property owner requested changes were not supported by the Community Advisory Committee and are not included in the Updated General Plan. Staff continues to recommend that these changes not be made to the Land Use Map. Request 2. Seventy-three acres located between the northeast edge of the Meadowview and the tract homes along Nicolas Road. The CAC ultimately did not support the request to increase the density in this area from Very Low Density to Low Density Residential. Request 6. Seven acres immediately south of the Temecula Creek Village. The CAC did not support the requested change from Open Space to some more developable designation. . R:\General Plan\Comp Plan UpdatelStaff Report PC1.doc 3 Request 11. Three acres at the northwest corner of Margarita and Dartolo Roads. The CAC . did not support the requested change from Professional Office to Community Commercial. Request 13. Three hundred four acres at Temecula Creek Inn. The CAC did not support the request to change for parts of the site from Open Space to Low Medium Density Residential or for the request to specify the preparation of a Specific Plan on the property. Request 14. Two acres at the northeast corner of SR-79 South and Jedediah Smith Road. The CAC did not support the requested change from Very Low Density Residential to Professional Office. A summary of the CAC's recommendation is contained in Attachment NO.2. Letters for the Land Use Map amendment requests that are not included in the draft General Plan are contained in Attachment NO.3. Letters on the deferred requests are contained in Attachment NO.4. Additional Land Use Map Request Three new Land Use Map amendment requests were received since the Community Advisory Committee completed its work. Staff is not making a recommendation on these requests and asks that the Commission provide direction on their possible incorporation into the General Plan being recommended to the City Council. Summaries of these subsequent Land Use Map change requests are contained in Attachment NO.5. A copy of the request letters is contained in Attachment NO.6. . Circulation Element The primary changes to the policy direction in the Circulation Element are provisions to allow for additional street dedication (beyond the standardized rights-of-way) around higher volume key intersections and a discussion on re-opening closed connecting streets to improve citywide circulation. Roadwav Cross-Sections In an effort to fine tune the road network in some of less urban portions of the City, two new roadway cross sections are being proposed. Both of the. new cross sections are based upon the standard 8S-foot Secondary Arterial right-of-way. The first is the Modified Secondary Arterial, initially assigned to De Portola and Ynez Roads through Los Ranchitos, which would have two divided lanes in each direction with no curb, gutter or sidewalk to maintain the rural character of the area. The second is the Limited Secondary Arterial which would have one lane in each direction, with a left turn lane and a separated trail. This cross section would be used in areas where lower traffic volumes are expected and where'the separation of equestrian and pedestrian traffic is important. This is proposed for portions of Nicolas Road and Santiago Road. This cross section was also proposed for the extension of North General Kearny. To better match the County Circulation Plan, a Rural Highway standard is also being proposed. Rural Highways generally have one lane in each direction with left turn pockets, though in some areas two lanes may be needed. . R:IGeneral PlanlComp Plan UpdalelSlaff Report PC1.doc 4 . . . Other changes include combining the previous Arterial and Major Arterial Roadway categories into a single roadway designation and the creation of a Rural Highway cross section. Because there was little difference between the Arterial and Major Arterial cross section and functionality, there is no need for two nearly identical cross sections. The Rural Highway roadway would be primarily applied in the Rural Preservation Areas. The intent of this cross section is to protect future rights-of-way while maintaining the present rural characters. The City's proposed standard is consistent with the equivalent Riverside County standard. Circulation Map Overall the Circulation Plan is not substantially changing within the City. Only one new General Plan roadway is being proposed within the City, the Loma LindalAvenida de Missiones connection between Pechanga Parkway and Highway 79S. In the Planning Area, there are two new roadways are identified on the Circulation Map. These two new arterial roadways are: . . Eastern Bypass - Consisting of Anza Road, Deer Hollow Way, and a connection (referred to as the Southern Bypass) to Interstate 15 via a new interchange. This is consistent with the proposed County Circulation Plan. . Sky Canyon Road/Briggs Road - A parallel route along Winchester Road past the future bottleneck area by French Valley Airport. In addition, the following roadways are proposed to be expanded in size to meet projected circulation needs: . Winchester Road from Jefferson Road to Hunter Road - Urban Arterial 6-lane to Urban Arterial 8-lane. . Rancho California Road from Old Town Front Street to Ynez Road - Urban Arterial 6-lane to Urban Arterial 8-lane. . Rancho California Road from Ynez Road to Margarita Road - Arterial (4-lane) to Urban Arterial 6-lane. . Ynez Road from Rancho California Road to Rancho Vista Road - Arterial (4-lane) to Urban Arterial 6-lane. . Jefferson Avenue from Winchester Road to the City Limits - Arterial (4-lane) to Urban Arterial 6-lane. . Western Bypass Road - Secondary Arterial to a Major Arterial. Both these cross sections have four lane configurations. Staff has received several letters from residents in the Rainbow Canyon area concerning keeping Rainbow Canyon Road a Secondary Arterial. The primary resident concern appears to the difference between the current size of Rainbow Canyon Road, a collector with a 66-foot right-of-way, and the roadways current designation as a Secondary Arterial with an 88-foot right- of-way. At this time, staff recommends that the future roadway designation remain as a Secondary Arterial. Once the Southern Bypass is completed, the City will have an opportunity to re-examine the designation of this roadway. These letters are included in Attachment No.7. R:\General Plan\Comp Plan Update\Staff Report PC1.doc 5 The Community Advisory Committee also recommended the connection of North General Kearny between Nicolas and Margarita Roads as a Limited Secondary Arterial to provide a . route to Day Middle School and for local residents to get around some of the congestion along Winchester Road. This proposed roadway segment is not included in the proposed Circulation Element. However, this alternate route is included as a project alternative in the Environmental Impact Report. If the Commission feels that North General Kearny should be added to the new Circulation Map, a specific recommendation will need to be made to the City Council to include that segment on the General Plan Circulation Map. Staff has also received several letters on this item. These letters are included in Attachment NO.8. Letters that relate to other General Plan issues are contained in Attachment No.9. Housing Element The Housing Element is not being updated as part of this program. The current schedule for the next update of the Housing Element is expected to begin in 2006 or 2007. The current approved Housing Element will be incorporated into the final General Plan after it is adopted by the City Council. Open Space and Conservation Element No major policy changes are proposed within the Open Space and Conservation Element. However, additional information regarding the location of historic structures as well as additional policy language on tribal cultural resources have been provided. The additional policies and implementation measures will be provided to the Commission at the meeting. Growth ManagemenVPublic Facilities Element The only policy change is the addition of a statement discouraging street closures that may limit or delay access to emergency services. . Public Safety Element No major policy changes are proposed within the Public Safety Element. Noise Element No major policy changes are proposed within the Noise Element. Air Quality Element No major policy changes are proposed within the Air Quality Element. Community Design Element No major policy changes are proposed within the Community Design Element. However, there is some additional discussion on the Mixed Use Design Concept, public spaces, and public art. The interim Chaparral Area policies that were adopted by the City Council in 2004 have also been incorporated into the updated General Plan. . R:IGeneral PlanlComp Plan UpdatelStaff Report PC1.doc 6 . . . Economic Development Element No major policy changes are proposed within the Economic Development Element. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION As part of the process of updating the General Plan, an Environmental Impact Report has been prepared. The Notice of Preparation was prepared and distributed on June 6, 2003 and a public scoping meeting was held on June 25, 2003. Responses on the scope of the EIR were received from the Air Quality Management District, Riverside County Transportation Department, Riverside Transit Agency, Airport Land Use Commission, Caltrans - Aviation Division, Department of Fish and Game, Metropolitan Water District, Rancho California Water District, the City of Murrieta, and the Southern California Association of Governments. A public scoping meeting was also held on June 25, 2003. Based upon this feedback a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) was prepared for the project which evaluated the following subjects: aesthetics, agricultural resources, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, noise, population and housing, public services, recreational resources, transportation, and utilities and public services. The analysis in the DEIR indicated that adoption and implementation of the General Plan update will result in unavoidable significant impacts with regard to air quality and transportation. As a result, the Certification of the Environmental Impact Report for the General Plan will require the adoption of a Statement of Over-riding Considerations (SOC) by the City Council. A SOC was also adopted when the EIR for the original General Plan was certified in 1993. The implementation of mitigation measures specified in the DEIR are expected to reduce the potentially significant impacts to aesthetics, agricultural resources, biological resources, cultural resources, geology/soils, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, noise, public services and recreation, and utilities and service systems to a less than significant level. The mitigation measures are included in the Implementation Measures identified within the General Plan. In all other areas of environmental concern, the project was found to result in either no impact or a less than significant impact. The DEIR was made available for public review and comment between December 17, 2004 and March 12, 2005. Comments were received from the Rancho California Water District, Caltrans - Aviation Division, the Southern California Association Governments, Riverside Transit Agency, and the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board. prior to the finalization of this staff report. Copies of the EIR comments letters are contained in Attachment No. 10. Comment letters that were received following the preparation of the Staff Report will be provided to the Commission at the meeting. A copy of the Draft Environmental Impact Report was previously provided to the Planning Commission under separate cover. R:\General Plan\Comp Plan Update\Staff Report PC1.doc 7 ATTACHMENTS 1. PC Resolution No. 2005-_ - Blue Page 9 2. Summary of CAC considered Land Use Map Change Requests - Blue Page 12 3. Change Request Letters for sites that are not included in the Draft Plan - Blue Page 18 4. Change Request Letters that were deferred and are not included in the Draft Plan - Blue Page 19 5. Additional Land Use Change Requests - Supplemental Information - Blue Page 20 6. Additional Land Use Change Request Letters - Blue Page 22 7. Circulation Element Comment Letters - Rainbow Canyon Road - Blue Page 23 8. Circulation Element Comment Letters- North General Kearny Road - Blue Page 24 9. Other General Plan Comment Letters - Blue Page 25 10. EIR Comment Letters - Blue Page 26 R:\General Plan\Comp Plan Update\Staff Report PC1.doc 8 . . . . . . ATTACHMENT NO.1 PC RESOLUTION NO. 2005-_ R:IGeneral PlanlComp Plan UpdatelSlaff Report PC1.doc 9 . . . PC RESOLUTION NO. 2005-_ A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL CERTIFY THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT FOR THE GENERAL PLAN AND APPROVE THE COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE OF THE GENERAL PLAN WHEREAS, the City of Temecula adopted its first General Plan on November 9, 1993; WHEREAS, Section 65300 of the State Planning and Zoning Law requires that all jurisdictions adopt and periodically update a General Plan; WHEREAS, the City Council decided to undertake a comprehensive update of the adopted General Plan in 2001; WHEREAS, the City Council appointed an 11-member Community Advisory Committee to assist in updating the General Plan; WHEREAS, the Community Advisory Committee in meetings held on January 7, 2002, January 28, 2002, February 25, 2002, April 01, 2002, May 6, 2002, May 15, 2002, May 30, 2002, April 29, 2003, May 20, 2003, June 11, 2003, March 1, 2004, April 26, 2004, May 3, 2004, and July 6, 2004 to consider the current General Plan and to recommend appropriate changes to the Planning Commission and City Council; WHEREAS, the City Council and Planning Commission in a joint workshop to consider the recommendation of the Community Advisory Committee on August 10, 2004 and provided a number of comments and suggestions on the recommended Plan; WHEREAS, the Community Services Commission met to consider and provide comments on the proposed General Plan on September 13, 2004; WHEREAS, the Traltic Salety Commission met to consider and provide comments on the proposed General Plan on September 28, 2004 and January 27, 2005; WHEREAS, the City held community meetings on December 26, 2001, January 12, 2002, April 4, 2002, and November 4, 2004 to solicit input, comments, and concerns from members of the community; WHEREAS, based upon all the suggestions, comments, concerns and direction received, a final public review draft of the Updated General Plan was prepared; WHEREAS, an Initial Environmental Study was prepared to identify the potential issues of concern to be evaluated within an environmental impact report; WHEREAS, a Notice of Preparation was distributed on June 6, 2003; WHEREAS, a public scoping meeting was held on June 25, 2003; R:\General Plan\Comp Plan Update\Staff Report PC1.doc 10 WHEREAS, based upon the Initial Environmental Study, the responses to the Notice of . Preparation, and the public scoping meeting, a Draft Environmental Impact Report was prepared to evaluate the possible impacts associated with implementing the public review draft of the Updated General Plan; WHEREAS, the Draft Environmental Impact Report was circulated for public review and comment between December 17, 2004 and March 12, 2005; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered this matter on February 2, 2005, at a duly noticed public hearing, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to, and did, testify either in support or opposition to this matter; NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND RECOMMEND THAT THE CITY COUNCIL CERTIFY THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE UPDATED GENERAL PLAN AND ADOPT THE UPDATED GENERAL PLAN SUBSTANTIALLY IN THE FORMS ATTACHED HERETO. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning Commission this 2nd day of February 2005. David Mathewson, Chairman ATTEST: . 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. 2005-_ was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 2n day of February, 2005, by the following vote: NOES: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: AYES: ABSTAIN: Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary . R:\General Plan\Comp Plan Update\Slaff Report PCl.doc 11 . . . ATTACHMENT NO.2 SUMMARY OF CAC CONSIDERED LAND USE MAP REQUESTS R:IGeneral PlanlComp Plan UpdatelStaff Report PC1.doc 12 . . . 'NO.' 1. GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP AMENDMENT RECOMMENDATIONS BY THE CAC ". "'~'."REQUESmiiNE0RMAmIONi ""~;L<: ''','/<,'''i::",,';y<>!-;';YC,;;'A '/"",;,,::, ':,'''';'',, ,'v,',; ',;,-ii' ,". REQUESTOR: Peter Stirling, WM 11 Partners, LP LOCATION: Northside of the Santa Gertrudis channel between Margarita Road and Rustic Glen Drive 911-090-003 5.4 Ac From Industrial Park (IP) and Public Institutional (PI) to Professional Olfice (PO) DISCUSSION: The property consists of a long thin remnant piece left over from the channelization of Santa Gertrudis Creek. At the northeastern end, there is a developable Industrial Park designated site adjacent to Rustic Glen Drive. At the southwestern end there is a much smaller Public Institutional zoned site that could be developed adjacent to Margarita Road. In between these two sites is narrow' strip of land approximately 35 feet wide that connects these sites. APN(s): SIZE: REQUEST: CAC RECOMMENDATION: Unanimous support for Professional Office. This has been shown on the draft Land Use Plan. . 2. REQUESTOR: Boy Scouts of America LOCATION: Southeast of the intersection of Nicolas Road and Via Lobo APN(s): 919-350-017, 018, 019, and 020 SIZE: 72.3 Ac REQUEST: From Very Low Density Residential (VL) to Low Medium Density Residential (LM) and Open Space (OS) DISCUSSION: The property consists of 4 large parcels located between the northeast edge of the Meadowview area between the tract homes along Nicolas Road and the Nicolas Valley area. The applicant has indicated a desire to concentrate future development adjacent to Nicolas Road consistent with the tract homes along Via Lobo and leave most of the site as permanent open space. CAC RECOMMENDATION: A majority of the CAC felt that keeping the property Very Low Density was appropriate. No changes were made to Land Use Plan. R:IGeneral PlanlComp Plan UpdatelStaff Report PCt.doc 13 NO. REQUESTlNFORMATI0N< .:_^<e, <, < .......". -,c"..', "";".""-,; 'I; ,"-",',;Jir' ,."'....;' ,; . REQUESTOR: Melinda Smith LOCATION: Southeast of the intersection of Margarita Road and Solana Way APN(s): 921-330-005,024, 025, 026, and 027 SIZE: 9.2 Ac REQUEST: From Medium Density Residential (MD) to Professional Office (PO), Neighborhood Commercial (NC), and Open Space (OS) DISCUSSION: The property consists of the vacant area east of Margarita Road and west 3. of the ABC Preschool. The proposal would designate the frontage adjacent to Margarita Road as Neighborhood Commercial and the frontage along Solana Way as Professional Office. The frontage along Via La Vida, including most of the existing stream channel would be the Open Space area. CAC RECOMMENDATION: A majority supported Professional Office and Open Space. The Professional Office and Open Space designations have been shown on the draft Land Use Plan. REQUESTOR: Steve Galvez LOCATION: Between Butterfield Stage Road and Walcott Lane north of Solana Way APN(s): 957-170-032,033,034,035, and 036 SITE: 22 Ac REQUEST: From Very Low Density Residential (VL) to Low Density Residential 4. DISCUSSION: The proposal is to increase the density to allow for Y2 acre lots immediately north of the new Shea Homes development along Walcott Lane. This site is located within the Nicolas Valley area. CAC RECOMMENDATION: No Action Recommended. This request was put off until the uncertainty over dirt roads and the Roripaugh Ranch project are resolved. No changes were made to Land Use Plan. . REQUESTOR: Markham Development Management Group LOCATION: South of Nicolas Road between Calle Medusa and Calle Girasol APN(s): 957-150-001, 002, 003, and 016 SIZE: 18.0 Ac REQUEST: From Very Low Density Residential (VL) to Low Medium Density 5. Residential (LM) DISCUSSION: The proposal is to increase the density to allow for the creation of additional suburban density lots within the Nicolas Valley Area CAC RECOMMENDATION: No Action Recommended. This request was put off until the uncertainty over dirt roads and the Roripaugh Ranch project are resolved. No changes were made to Land Use Plan. . R:\General Plan\Comp Plan Update\Staff Report PC1.doc 14 . . . NO. .. . . .- - ... REQl:JES7FINF0RMA7F10N. REQUESTOR: Markham Development Management Group LOCATION: South of the Temecula Creek Village project and west of the extension of Jedediah Smith Road APN(s): 961-010-004 SIZE: 7.5 Ac 6. REQUEST: From Open Space (OS) to Unspecified Designations DISCUSSION: The property consists of a long thin strip of land between the Temecula Creek Village project and wetland mitigation areas adjacent to Temecula Creek. CAC RECOMMENDATION: A majority of the CAC felt that Open Space was the correct use for this property. No changes were made to Land Use Plan. REQUESTOR: Markham Development Management Group LOCATION: Northside of Loma Linda Road, east of Temecula Lane APN(s): 961-010-016,018,019,020, and 021 SIZE: 45.5 Ac REQUEST: From Professional Office (PO) to Medium Density Residential (MD) DISCUSSION: The property is located between Loma Linda Road and Temecula Creek 7. between Rawhide Park and the existing single family residences across from Erie Stanley Garner Middle School. The applicant has provided a preliminary plan that suggests a combination of detached and attached units in this area. CAC RECOMMENDATION: Supported Low Medium Density on the eastern-third and Medium Density on the western two-thirds. This has been shown on the draft Land Use Plan. 8. REQUESTOR: Markham Development Management Group LOCATION: Southwest of the City's Northwest Sports Park (Temecula Education Project) 909-370-018 52.8 Ac From Industrial Park (IP) to Community Commercial (CC), High Density Residential (HD), and Medium Density Residential (MD)/Mixed Use. DISCUSSION: This site is immediately adjacent to the proposed Temecula Education Project. The proposal is for a combination of commercial and residential land uses that would be intended to complement the proposed Education Project. CAC RECOMMENDATION: No action recommended. Staff felt that changes in this area should not be considered until after more was known about the Temecula Education Project and it effects on the surrounding area. APN(s): SIZE: REQUEST: R:IGeneral PlanlComp Plan UpdatelSlaff Report PC1.doc 15 NO. ..... .~.~qtJE.~WiIN~~R~~TIg;t! REQUESTOR: Ray Hanes, Spanos Group LOCATION: South and west of the City's Northwest Sports Park (Temecula Education Project) adjacent to Request NO.8. APN(s): 909-370-032 SIZE: 32.6 Ac REQUEST: From Industrial Park (IP) to either High Density Residential (HD) or 9. Medium Density Residential (MD) DISCUSSION: This site is south of the property identified in Request NO.8. The proposal is for additional residential land uses that would be intended to compliment the proposed Education Project. CAC RECOMMENDATION: No action recommended. Staff felt that changes in this area should not be considered until after more was known about the Temecula Education Project and it effects on the surrounding area. . REQUESTOR: May Group LOCATION: West of Butterfield Stage Road between Chen in Clinet and Ahern Place APN(s): 935-390-007 and 009 SIZE: 18.3 Ac REQUEST: From Very Low Density Residential (VL) to Low-Medium Density Residential (LM) 10. DISCUSSION: The site is a long thin piece immediately adjacent to Butterfield Stage Road within the Margarita Village Specific Plan. The approved Specific Plan for this area describes the density as one unit per acre. The General Plan identifies 2 Y2 acre lots. Realistically, the change would be from Low Density to Low Medium Density. CAC RECOMMENDATION: Supported a change to Low Medium Density Residential. This has been shown on the draft Land Use Plan. . 11. REQUESTOR: Westfall Construction LOCATION: Northwest corner of Margarita and Dartolo Roads APN(s): 950-100-003 and 016 SIZE: 2.8 Ac REQUEST: From Professional Office (PO) to Community Commercial (CC) DISCUSSION: The site is located west of the proposed hospital site and east of the Albertons/Home Depot Shopping Center along the north side of Dartolo Road. CAC RECOMMENDATION: The CAC felt that retaining PO made the most sense in this location. . R:\General Plan\Comp Plan Update\Staff Report PC1.doc 16 . . . NO. , , REQUEST INF0f!MAT:ION,. , ..,' ,... ,', " .', ...' .' , , ' 12. REQUESTOR: Pacific Development Partners LOCATION: Northeast corner of Winchester and Nicolas Roads APN(s): 920-100-001 and 013 SIZE: 20.2 Ac REQUEST: From Neighborhood Commercial (NC) to Community Commercial (CC) DISCUSSION: The site part of the Roripaugh Estates Specific Plan. Under the original Specific Plan, the land use regulations referenced the C-1/CP (General Commercial) in County Ordinance 348. The text description in the SP described it as Neighborhood Commercial and it was designated as Neighborhood Commercial in the City General Plan. CAC RECOMMENDATION: The CAC supported this change. This has been shown on the draft Land Use Plan. REQUESTOR: Temecula Creek Inn LOCATION: Rainbow Canyon Road west of Pechanga Creek APN(s): 922-220-002,003,008,031, and 922-230-002, 003, 004, 007 and 008 SIZE: 304.8 Ac REQUEST: From Open Space (OS) and Highway Tourist Commercial (HT) to Open Space (OS), Highway Tourist Commercial (HT), and Low-Medium Density 13. Residential (LM) DISCUSSION: Temecula Creek Inn is proposing expand the golf course resort facilities, add time share units, and construct several hundred additional single family residences, and designate this area as a future Specific Plan in the Land Use Element. Their plans also include reducing the number of holes from 27 to 18 to improve the overall quality of the golf experience. CAC RECOMMENDATION: The CAC did not support this change. REQUESTOR: Mel Malkoff for Rancho Community Church LOCATION: SR-79 South east of Jedediah Smith Road APN(s): 959-030-010 SIZE: 2.5 Ac REQUEST: From Very Low Density Residential (VL) to Professional Office (PO) DISCUSSION: In the process of obtaining drainage easements from the adjacent property owner, Rancho Community Church was forced or purchase the property at the northeast corner of SR-79 and Jedediah Smith Road. As a result, the Church would like to change the designation on this property to match the designation on the rest of their property. There is a concurrent proposal to include this property into the previously approved Planned Development Overiay. , CAC RECOMMENDATION: The CAC did not support this change. No changes were made to Land Use Plan. 14. R:IGeneral PlanlComp Plan UpdatelStaff Report PC1.doc 17 . . . ATTACHMENT NO.3 CHANGE REQUEST LETTERS FOR SITES THAT ARE NOT INCLUDED IN THE DRAFT PLAN R:\General Plan\Comp Plan Update\Staff Report PC1.doc 18 . . . " BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA CALIFORNIA INLAND EMPIRE COUNCIL 1230 Indiana Court. Redlands, California 92374-2896 (909) 793-2463 or 825-8844 . FAX: 793-0306 6 November 2002 Mr. Gary Thornhill, Deputy City Manager City of Temecula Planning / Community Development Dept. P.o. Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 Attn: Mr. Dave Hogan, General Plan Update Manager Re: City of Temecula General Plan I Zooe Designation Modification for 73 acre site located at the corner Of Nicolas Road and Via Lobo, Temecula APN# 919-350- 017,018,019,020 Mr. Hogan, This letter is a formal request to the Planning Department for the consideration of rezoning the above described property from "Very Low Residential Density" (VL) to "Low Medium Residential" (LM) as part of the City's current review and revision of the City's General Plan. We believe that this density is compatible with the surrounding property and would be beneficial to both the City and ourselves. Please direct all communications, or any questions that you may have to: . The California Inland Empire Council of the Boy Scouts of America Attn: Donald Townsend . 1230 Indiana Court Redlands, CA 92374-2896 . Mr. Rob Partin, Correspondent The Garrett Group, LLC 43592 Ridge Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 . Ronald Bradley, Correspondent 30348 Via Canada Temecula, CA 92592 909/693-0036 Thank you for your consideration of ~ndOUIExeCUtive request. A program for Cub Scouts, Boy Scouts, Co-ed Ventures, and Co-ed Explorers Supported by Friends of Scouting, Endowment 'Funds, and United Way Remember Scouting in your will. ,/ ./ b M -lVIGi MARKHAM DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT GROUP, INC. . January 8, 2004 . Mr. David Hogan, Principal Planner City of Temecula 43200 Business Park Drive P.O. Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 Request for General Plan Designation Change Jedediah Smith Road, adjacent to Temecula Creek APN: 961-010-004 Rainbow/BL V #877,1 Dear Dave: The subject property lies immediately south of the Temecula Creek Village (TCV) project currently under construction. Attached you will find the site constraint exhibit that defines the FEMA 100 year floodplain and the jurisdiction areas for both the Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) and the California Department ofFish and Game (CDFG). The portion' of the subject property that we are requesting a land use change are outside of all constraint areas. . Rainbow/BL V has negotiated a reciprocal ingress and egress easement for access and utility . services. Consequently, we are requesting a change of the land use designation to better reflect the unconstrained land use opportunities that are available to the subject property. The current land use designation of open space affords no economic use of the subject property whatsoever. With the construction of the commercial and multifamily components of Temecula Creek Village this property becomes a viable development site. The uses that we would pursue would be lower intensity uses in nature with minimal ground disturbance and would provide a good buffer between TCV and the truly constrained areas within the floodplain, which have recorded conservation easements within the ACOE and CDFG areas. Rainbow/BL V has always been cooperative with the City of Temecula in seeking solutions to City of Temecula ACOE and CDFG issues that have arisen in the past. ~in.c c.e eJrely, ?... 2 . ~ //,~/'-- /arry R. Markh~ . Cc:. J. Heffernan, BLV, LLC. C, Ewing, Peninsula Retail 41635 Enterprise Circle North, Surte B . Temecuia, CA 92590-5614 (909) 296-3466 Fax: (909) 296-3476 www.markhamdmg.com ...... = ...... ..0 0- , , .. .. ~&~~ .), '" ~ "" c-.. = i v> ~::5 J--~ I == c-..~ ~ cn~ ~o roi': ~ t _u S r-- !ti <.> I ~@ ~ v> ~ CJ ;.., ~ ~ ~ ~leib . J" ....' -< '" ...: =5"'; ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ;;~~ I;~ !z~~ ~~~ ~t3 e~~ ~:;;; ....:r~ j;i..... --- i:;'~ -~" ~~i ~~;:- . ~@ 5 ~ c..~~M '" ~ i@ ~ ~ ~ ~ \::JY -, o ",'" " ~ :.g ~:8 c:::o t:O en..... c:::i~:gCO~~~~ ~~t:di:;::~~~ !;.!iHil'lUl'lt4 l'=~c:I~c:I-"~~ !:i<-> ~u.o.......... T.....~;:r~~COCD ~~.....toClD;;:',b __;:::.-::;.r:::.._~-IO ~_...,::;:to:gS;;a !!!il"ififil""';; ~ ;5 '" \}P" ~ r;;D \JY ~ . i ~ ~ '" @?J ~ . ~ ~ - - .- ~5 - . -"" ~ g -~ ~:; . - " ~ .; ~~ j I . WESTFALL Construction Company, Ine, 24190 Washington Ave. Murrieta, CA 92562 909-676-8272 P.O. Box 1550 Wildomar, CA 92595 909-639-6062 Fax ~~ @ ~ 0 ill ~f[\) W MAR 2 2 2004 IJ!) March 19,2004 By City ofTemecula Planning Department PO Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 Attn: David Hogan, AICP . Ref: APN's 950-100-003 & 950-100-016 . Dear Mr. Hogan, I am writing M behalf of the owner's of the above referenced parcels, Dan Atwood and Dirk Westfal\. They are requesting a General Plan Amendment and zone change to Community Commercial (CO). Their parcels are on the Northwest comer of Margarita Road and Dartolo Road. Presently both parcels are zoned Professional Office (PO). Across the street to the south is the Arco Gas Station. Across Margarita Road to the east is a commercial mixed-use proj ect. Considering that the properties located across both Margarita and Dattolo Roads are zoned commercial and the fact that the city is in the process of perfonning a General Plan Update, we ask that this request be given prompt attention. Very truly yours ~~ Patrick E. Fay WESTFALL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INe. Attachments: Four (4 ea.) copies of Parcel Map page 950-10 Thomas Guide Map Page 979, Grid E2 with location ofPIQ . ,'. . . , . .. ::t ~:: !: . , . @ ~ ~"'."." ,--' ~ ~'" u, 18 " -I> '" ~ :s~~~ ~ ~~.... ~ ~..... I ~ tJ) "'''' ' '" ~ ::: ::: :=. ~ cl' ';j .. , :: li; .. ..~ " , , , 'il' ~......... . ....{i"'<OO' ~-hC)~~ -I> <::>i:0\u, ~ '" <::> I . @ lli..'O"'" . ~ ~ @ ;0 ~ , ~ S64..d-:. BI>7.F ~, ~....... ~ - . ..,_,.,9 "@ , , ~ , '" . ~ ' ~ ~@~ ~ ~ .., '-I "" 't " ~G~ ; ... ... 651.45 1.4/.46 . h ,..~ ~ tj~" .",," .' ~ '. '~~ ,." ... ~ ... ~ :13 ~, 'J',~~ "'f"~& 1'f'_.z4 .. ':; , ~ 1 ~ , . , . '" ~ ~ ~ "& ~- to. ." Q r- , ' ~ ' . ~ ~ .'- ;t~'~ , .. r14.'J. \\ 1:': I; >:1: l) ;; ~ :e ~ . , . ~ is .. b ~ ~.';."' ~ ..~....li: , ~ , .' .~ o - <> . ~ ::: '" :::~ ~~ "," ~~ ~~ ~' ~.. ~~ :::" ~ ~ '" ~ ;g~)) <:)!0Q <....... ""-J, I"tj.'-l ~ t)....);; 'I ., &~ ~ ~ ~ A"', @ \() ..<J) ~C) !, I .......... C) '1 '" " <> (;; , <> <> .. . . . 1:3-- Lati~~n~~ :;Engineering . File: 716.00 April 21, 2004 Mr. David W. Hogan, Principal Planner City of Temecula Community Development Department - Planning Division 43200 Business Park Drive P.O. Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 SUBJECT: General Plan Update - Request for Change to General Plan Land Use Plan for the Temecula Creek Inn (see attached) located east of/-15 and south of Highway 79 Dear Mr. Hogan: Our firm represents JC Resorts, the owners and operators ofthe Temecula Creek Inn (TCI). We are writing this letter on their behalf. The purpose of this letter is twofold; 1) to bring to your attention an "oversight" in the Draft Proposed Land Use Policy Map (Figure LU-2) of the current General Plan update; and 2) to make a formal request to the Planning Division to change the City of Temecula's General Plan Land Use designation for the Temecula Creek Inn property during the current General Plan Update. Regarding the first item, it has come to our attention after reviewing the referenced map (Figure LU-2) that the entire Temecula Creek Inn project has mistakenly been designated as Open Space (OS). As you are aware, the current General Plan recognizes the existing hotel and conference facility and designates this area of the project as Highway Tourist Commercial (HT). We assume since the hotel and conference facility continue to operate, at a minimwn it should be shown as HT and was merely a graphic error. Regarding the second item, we would like to formally request a redesignation of the property from HT and OS to a Specific Plan Area (SPA) in the current General Plan update. The SPA designation would provide for a resort community incorporating an expanded hotel, timeshare units, a conference/spa facility and single family residential uses. We believe there are several logical reasons in support of said request, including but not limited to the following: 1. The existing General Plan designates the adjoining property to the south (APN 922-230-025, 922-230-026) as mediwn density (7-12 du's/ac) and neighborhood commercial (NC), allowing approximately 700 total du's. It is our understanding that the current project application for that property is 400 to 450 du's or :t300 du's less than allowed in the existing General Plan. Additionally, although permitted by the current General Plan, no J:\Job716OQ\Hogan Letter,doc 4933 Paramount Drive, Second Floor. San Diego, CA 92123 (858) 751-0633 . Fax (858) 751-0634. email:mailbox@latitude33.com Mr. David W. Hogan, Principal Planner April 21, 2004 Page 2 . neighborhood commercial uses are proposed. Further, the adjoining property to the east (Temecula Band of Luiseno Indians APN Nos. 918-180-005, 918-180-019, 918-180-020, 918-180-021 and 918-180-022) is currently designated for low-density residential. As you are aware, this property will instead be developed as a golf course, rather than residential as part of the Pachanga Casino project. TCI's total proposed single-family du's will be :t350, substantially less than that already analyzed in the current General Plan for the adjoining sites. Therefore, traffic impacts, etc., would already have been analyzed in the existing General Plan and are less than anticipated, even with the additional dwelling units. 2. A large percentage of the trips resulting from an expansion ofTCI will be non-peak hours. Customers using the golf, hotel, conference, spa and timeshare facilities will instead be arriving and leaving the property at non-peak times when adequate traffic capacity exists. 3. The existing traffic congestion is primarily a result of the adjoining casino/hotel use, not TCI. A solution, potentially involving a new interchange on 1-15 (eastern bypass) is far beyond the ability of TCI to solve alone. While TCI can assist in its pro-rata share of the improvements, it is unreasonable to preclude our project from being able to pursue entitlements until the larger, more complex traffic solution is solved. 4. Environmental review, addressing issues such as traffic, visual and noise impacts will be required when a specific project application is submitted for TCI. Designating the Temecula . Creek Inn now as a SPA for a resort community in the General Plan will not preclude this future CEQA review process. 5. As part of the expanded project, we will participate in the realignment and improvement of Rainbow Canyon Road, a much needed circulation road improvement. 6. Given the tremendous market competition for golf and hospitality in the area, it is critical that TCI initiate the required City General Plan Amendment and entitlement process to reposition the project as a true resort community now. As you can see from the above justifications, the proposed change to the City's General Plan Land Use designation from HT and OS to Specific Plan (describing a resort community) represents a logical designation in the area and should be integrated into the General Plan update. We would appreciate an opportunity to make a more detailed presentation at the next . Community Advisory Committee and to you and/or other staff. Lastly, it would be our desire to submit a discretionary application to allow for the much needed expansion ofTCI into a true resort community during the calendar 2004 year. We fully understand that we would be doing so contingent upon approval of a SPA designation for our property as part of the General Plan update. . \\LA TSERV l\OmCEADMlN\Job716OO\Hogan Letter.doc . .' . Mr. David W. Hogan, Principal Planner April 21, 2004 Page 3 We look forward to working with you and request that you keep us apprised of all discussions and meetings pertaining to the City's General Plan update. Sincerely, Q Co~<;:J::' Randi~ersmith Principal cc: Paul Reed, J.C. Resorts Douglas Leiber, General Manager, TCI \\LATSERVI\OffiCEADMIN\Job71600\Hogan Letter.doc O"N NN qq 00 . COCO ..~";" ltlCOCO .0......... qO)O) o " . CO 0)..- .........N cOq~ /,;~~ (>' .' z CO CO '. . , '''-.. '0( - .J / " -" / Y ......... " ~ .., '. ..... . '. .... '.~ ~ .' --- ....../. .....'... ..... . .'. ; .'. . . --'-I _. '-..:..' ". "'-. '. '" . ~ "'" ,J_ .... "'.:'. -.'. /'.~.. ".. "'.'-. . '. '-- ..Jo-. .' '. ' . '. '.' " .... ~. - .' .' . L- '.~~ . ---. .... ~ ~ ~I.. '.' QlD ~C~ --:-' '.. .. Cll--:-'" ..... .... ........ ~~ ." "..~~: ~I ~~ ' ./ cE.;,. z"" . ~.~U ~_~""\.'.'" .....< ,)(- ~~j :", ~<:;l_ '. '. \; .....~.... ~~~~- ' /'\. ./: - , - '.. . ." . . . . . . . ' ~ X '."" -~-E .~.._ . . '" ,. '- "'y" . " ~ ~;;,~ . . . . ' / . , "'" ~ . - . ' I CC~.. . r -Y', . " ',' 0 0 ~ ~ , . . \ '~~. '::" "---'--~ ....~l-A _ ~'_ , ~~!~\\ 1 ,', . .,' " u '.r .r . . .~ . "" ... ..' . . --.,' - ! I- Z w Z:E ~c ~z lli~ 5' ::5:5 ::)c.. U..J ~~ Ww I-z W C) ,.11 ~ON Z, ..,. . . . Selected Lanl!ual!e toInsert into the General Plan Uudate for the Temecula Creek Inn File: 716.00 May 14, 2004 . The approximately 300-acre property is proposed for a Resort Community (RC) designation. The existing hotel/golf course development is anticipated to be expanded into a full Resort Community with uses to include 18 holes of golf, additional hotel rooms, fractional ownership units, a day spa, an event/meeting facility and single-faJ1lily detached dwelling units. A Specific Plan shall be prepared which addresses the realignment of Rainbow Canyon Road, the potential for an "easterly bypass" from 1-15 and the comprehensive design of a 300-acre Resort Community. ....'.n.-......,,"..nod SertinlU\Imtr):bam\1..owl Scttingt\TempontY Inte~1 Filw.conttntlH'.TOKZ1TBL\TCl Project De9criplion.doe , 3-2 . . '" July 30, 2004 City of Temecula 43200 Business Park Drive P.O. Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 SUBJECT: General Plan Update - Request for Change to General Plan Land Use Plan for the Temecula Creek Inn located east ofI-15 and south of Highway 79 To Whom It May Concern: On behalf of JC Resorts we are requesting an inclusion to the City of Temecula General Plan Update. In the past few months we have coordinated with the City of Temecula's Planning Staffto modify the current Draft General Plan as it relates to the Temecula Creek Inn project. The site is located at the southern portion of the City of Temecula and includes Assessor's Parcel Numbers 922-220-002, 922-220-003,922-220-008,922-220- 031,922-230-002,922-230-003,922-230-004,922-230-007, and 922-230-008. We are providing this letter to request that the below suggestions be incorporated in the City of Temecula General Plan Update. We have reviewed the June 2004 Draft General Plan in detail and we offer our suggestions to specifically address the Temecula Creek Inn project site. . In the cUrrent Draft General Plan, the site has been changed to a land use designation of Open Space with a Recreational Commercial Overlay from Highway Tourist. After reviewing the Draft General Plan, it appears that this Overlay is the only area in the City of Temecula that has this designation. The site presently includes an approximate 300-acre resort golf course with 129 hotel rooms, a restaurant, and conference facility. As you are aware, JC Resorts is requesting to have a Specific Plan Overlay on the subject site to provide additional facilities that will enhance the site as a Resort Community, similar to the resort communities in the Coachella Valley such as La Quinta, Palm Desert, and Rancho Mirage. In order to achieve a "diverse, high quality land use," as desired in the current General Plan, various sections, both text and maps, need to be updated. We have provided a summary of the various sections in the Draft General Plan that apply to the Temecula Creek Inn Resort project. 1. Figure LU-2 Proposed Land Use Policy Map: The plan currently shows the project site as Open Space (green) with a RC-Recreation Commercial Overlay (stripes). Please refer to number 2 for suggested modifications. . JC RESORTS . 533 COAST BOULEVARD SOUTH LA JOLLA, CALIFORNIA 92037 . 858.454.9793 FAX 858.459.6758 . . . City of Temecula July 30, 2004 Page Two 2. Page LV-21 RC- Recreation Commercial Overlay Text describing the allowed uses: Change the text to read, "permitted uses include commercial recreation, conference centers, golf courses, clubhouses, hotels, resorts, fractional ownership units, restaurants, parks, (eliminate camp grounds), open spaces, community facilities, and residential uses. 3. Table LV-3 Development Capacity: Include the Temecula Creek Inn proposed 1.2 . dwelling unit per gross acre capacity in the Development Capacity Table. 4. Figure LV-3 Specific Plan Areas: Add a new Specific Plan Area designation for Temecula Creek Inn Resort and provide the following language, "To achieve a Resort Community including a golf course, additional hotel rooms, fractional ownership units, a day spa, ballrooms, and single family detached dwelling units not to exceed 1.2 dwelling units per gross acre." 5. Table LV-7 Rural Preservation Areas: Add text to number 4 (Rainbow Canyon and Great Oak Ranch) to read, "Preserve the hillsides in the southern portion for the Planning Area and prevent residential encroachment upon BLM preservation areas by promoting Hillside, Rural, Very Low or Low Density residential development, and conserving a significant portion ofthe area as open space (does not applv to those portions within the Temecula Creek Inn Resort proiect site)." 6. Preserving Rural Areas (pg. LV-41): Add to text to read ".. .Nicolas Valley, the winery and agricultural properties east ofTemecula , Anza Road at SR-79 South, and the Rainbow Canyon and Great Oak Ranch areas (does not applv to the Temecula Creek Inn Resort proiect)." We believe the above mentioned suggestions will provide substantial benefits to the Temecula community and will allow the expansion of the Temecula Creek Inn to occur and create a Resort Community. We look forward to working with the City of Temecula to move forward with the General Plan Amendment. If further information is needed, please contact me at (858) 454-9793. Sincerely yours, QJ~ Paul L. Reed President . THE TEMECULA CREEK INN AND RESORT COMMUNITY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY To Whom It May Concern: In response to a changing market, the Temecula Creek Inn is embarking on a program to reposition itself into a true RESORT COMMUNITY. As a result of said improvements, the Temecula Creek Inn will expand the number of hotel rooms from 129 to 225 and add a significant conference/meeting area and a day spa facility. Similar to other Resort Communities, the Temecula Creek Inn will also include timeshare units and upscale single family homes. These improvements will significantly increase the TOT revenues to the city and include the participation in the much needed road improvements to Rainbow Canyon Road. In support of this repositioning effort, we believe it is fundamental that the current General Plan update program designate the property as a Specific Plan (SPA 1,2 dulacre). The SPA designation would provide for a resort community incorporating an expanded hotel, timeshare units, a conference facility, spa and single family homes at a density not to exceed 1.2 du's/gross acre of the property. As part of this request, we have included the following items for your review: . . A conceptual Development Plan indicating the location of the various land uses within the proposed expansion. · A copy of a letter to Mr. Davis Hogan, Principal Planner, requesting a change to the General Plan Land Use Plan to SPA 1,2 dulac. · Draft language to include the General Plan update to accommodate the repositioning of the property into a RESORT COMMUNITY. . A Draft General Plan Land Use Exhibit We look forward to working with you on the upcoming effort. Sincerely yours, Paul L. Reed President . Je RESORTS . 533 COAST BOULEVARD SOUTH. LA JOLLA, CALIFORNIA 92037. 858.454.9793 FAX 858.459.6758 . . . Is-3 ALHADEFF & SOLAR, LLP 41607 MARGARITA ROAD, SUITE 103 TEMECUlA, CALIFORNIA 92591-2984 MAIN TELEPHONE: (951) 719-3640 FACSIMilE: (951) 719-3650 Offices in San Diego and TemecuJa, California November 17, 2004 SAMUEL C. ALHADEFF SALHADEFF@A-SLAw,COM 10435.001 HAND DELIVERED - NOVEMBER 17, 2004 Mr. Shawn Nelson City Manager City of Temecular 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92589-9033 Ms. Debbie Ubnoske Planning Manager City of Temecula 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula. California 92590 Re: Temecula Creek Inn Hotel Expansion P A98-0309 Dear Mr. Nelson & Ms. Ubnoske: Bill Curley had the opportunity to review our letter of August 9, 2004 in which we provided an analysis which concluded that placing a Specific Plan Overlay on the Temecula Creek Inn property would not create a vested right for the development ofthe Temecula Creek Inn property. Bill confirmed, via e-mail dated October 30, 2004 his understanding of our analysis, and further stated that neither he nor Debbie have any difficulty with the concept that an overlay will not create a vested right. We appreciate their taking the time to review this matter with us. Given that understanding we believe it is appropriate to proceed with our suggested Specific Plan Overlay. In summary, the new Temecula General Plan would provide for a designation that the Temecula Creek Inn property be treated as a "Future Specific Plan Area," and would further change the Recreation-Commercial Overlay text to more accurately described the "Potential For Further Project." In addition, the text would provide that all future development would, of S:\Data From Sherry\Clients\Temecula Creek Inn\Nelson Ubnoske Letter 11.16.04.doc ALHADEFF & SOLAR, LLP Shawn Nelson Debbie Ubnoske November 17,2004 Page 2 . course, be subject to full discretionary review and approvals, technical studies and the appropriate CEQA process. For your convenient reference, attached is a copy of our August 9 letter and Bill's October 30 e-mail. We have also attached some suggested text and graphics which we believe should be included within the General Plan Updates and which accurately reflect the proposed "Future Specific Plan Overlay". Thank you so much for working with us. SinljelY, I II'---- Samuel C. Alhadeff, of.,. Alhadeff & Solar, LLP SCA:sld Enclosures . cc: Temecula Mayor and City Council Temecula Planning Commissioners Doug Leiber Paul Reed Randi Coopersmith Larry Markham . . . . ALHADEFF & SOLAR, LLP 41607 MARGARITA ROAD, SUITE 103 TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA 92591-2984 MAIN TELEPHONE: (951) 719-3640 FACSIMILE: (951) 719-3650 Offices in San Diego and Temecula, California August 9, 2004 SAMUEL C. AlHADEFF SALHADEFF@A-SlJ>,W.COM 10435.001 Peter Thorson, Esq. Richards Watson & Gershon 355 South Grand A venue 40th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-3101 Re: Temecula Creek Inn Hotel Expansion P A98-0309 Dear Peter: As you will note, my office has moved and we have changed our address, fax and phone number. We still are not up yet with the internet, so hopefully by the end of this week we will have email. Just returning from vacation and participating in a move was exciting to say the least. The purpose of this letter is to discuss the language for an overlay in the proposed revisions to the Temecula General Plan. The language we suggest and I believe Dave Hogan is comfortable with is as follows: "The Recreational and Commercial Overlay designation may be applied to properties designated for Open Space use. This designation provides for operation and development of resort or amusement oriented commercial and recreational use of regional interest that draw visitors from throughout the City and region. Permitted uses include corrunercial recreation, conference centers, golf courses, clubhouses, hotels, resorts, restaurants, parks, camp grounds, open spaces and community facilities. Restaurants, hotels, and resort uses are accessory to the underlying open space uses." I think there is some concern by various representatives of the staff that our client, the Temecula Creek Inn, may be receiving "vested rights" as a result of this proposed overlay language. We have specifically reviewed the issue of whether the adoption by the City of Temecula of a General Plan Update that included a Recreation and Commercial Overlay would give our client any vested rights. We do not believe that any vested rights would be received by our client based simply on the overlay. The only right we would receive is the right to have the City approve or disapprove a subsequent development application according to the ordinances, policies and standards in effect at the date the City determines the application is complete, S:\Data From Sherry\Clients\Temecu!a Creek Inn\Thorson Letter 08.09.04.doc ALHADEFF & SOLAR, LLl' Mr. Peter Thorson August 9, 2004 Page 2 . pursuant to Government Code Section 65943. This procedure is provided for in Section 66474.2 of the Government Code. For your convenience I have attached a copy of that particular section. As you know better than anyone, the A vca Section, decided in 1976, clearly states the rules applicable in this kind of a situation. Under A vca a property ovvner has a vested right under common law to develop only if the property OViller has obtained a building permit for an identiflable viable building and has expended a substantial sum in reliance on that permit. Government Code Section 66474.2(a) gives the property owner the right to request the City consider their development application under the then existing land use regulations, but does not give the property owner the right to require the City approve that application. We believe that Government Code Section 66474.2(b) is also instructive with regard to this particular situation. Accordingly, it does not appear that the City's adoption of the General Plan Update that includes this proposed Recreation and Commercial Overlay would bestow any vested rights on our client, other than a procedural right to have the development application approved or disapproved under the General Plan Updates and Recreation and Commercial Overlay as provided for in Government Code Section 66474.2. . As I indicated, this letter is to give you this information as you are working with staff and there is a hearing tomorrow evening on the General Plan. \Ve wanted to make certain that we had your consensus with these thoughts regarding this matter. If we had a consensus we believe staff would feel more comfortable in working with us on the Overlay. Again, as I indicated, Mr. Hogan feels that he could work with the proposed language. We simply need to make sure that staff understands we are not trying to "over reach" on this matter. Peter, I would like to just briefly discus this question with you on the telephone so that if any Commissioner or Councilmember asks you about this issue you would be comfortable with the thoughts expressed in this letter. Thank you again. Best regards. I am looking forward to seeing you tomorrow evening. Sincerely, So- 0{,4r' Samuel C. Alhadeff, of Alhadeff & Solar, LLP SCA:sld Enclosure as noted cc: Mr. Larry Markham (with enclosure) . . . . Recreation Commercial Overlay (Text and Exhibit) Change text to read "permitted uses include Commercial Recreation, conference centers, golf courses, clubhouses, hotels, resort, fractional ownership units, restaurants, parks, open spaces, community facilities and residential uses. C:\Docllmer\lS and Seningsisalhadeff\Local Settings\Temporary Intemet FiIes\OLKB7IRecreation Commercial Overlay Text Changes.doc ~ " .. .. < c .... " ~c:: ...:I~ t.:: Oc;:j ...J .. = Co <rIl E--il ~ o .. Co Co < ~ ",. r-- " ",. .. " < ~ .. ~ ;:J .'0 C '" ...J C '" lfJ 0:: 0 -;; .. 0. .. C :;;: .. 0 ...J ~ .3 '2 " t 0 "- Co 0 gf '';; " 0 ~ .c " -;; .:: c 13 .g " :D' :0 0 '0 ~ '" c " .sa '0 0. .;: .;: 0 .. " Co ~ " 0 a E-- '0 . >> -c.t:: '" .g U 0 "- cG 0 cG .. '" ~ .c N ~ ..~ ~~"Et; c <.c" ~ "- t> ~ .sa '" 0 0 ~ .. "' ~ c .c " ~ '0 0 " .. 0 ~ c :;;: 0 ...J '" ~ 8 0:: " ~ " .. c. :E en '0 c .. 0. '" OIl 0 .. '0 0 < :;;: '" ::J ...J oil '" <i: - '" .S "" v -'" " ...J ~ " .. .. < "T C ;:::J's ...Jc.. [;;o;l~ ...J .- = ~ <Co E--rIl .. .. " ;; "" ~ .. .. " < - ~ " ~ ;:J '0 C '" ...J C '" 0:: -;; .. .. C " o - ~ " .~ " " :D' o '" .sa 0. .;: " ~ " a I------ C .sa "' " o ...J - C '" 0:: " '" 'u .. "- rIl .. .. " " "- -.. " C .. " '= .s o ",. U U :;;: ;{ ...J o ",. en o :;;: :;;: ...J U U c5 c.. "- '0 o .. ~ Vl ~ B Vl IU ~ -Vi Vl >>. <u 1-0::3 II,) U 1-0 0.. d ...... vi (]..l ""0 !U ro o ~ .~ .g .0 IU'O' 8 (; ~ ~ ~ ~ E i::] .D P:: c -g .~ .g ~ -Vi E =' ~ ~ rn t; ....:;.,2 (OJ - .: c: ::3 ~ 8..0....""0 ;G{;.3 t:3~:::g Vl ] 'c 0 ~ a3 s:: g "'d C 0 <) q d .g -0 IU u "2 E ro~ v c:..g 0.. on:-;::: ~ U c: ~ -0 ~ --a :g ~ or;; g- c:~:E.:! '-" .~ dOt:: -0 0.'- Vl IU 0 0.0 ...... "in ~ -'=.: i g g ] ~.~ ~.~ ~ ~ [ ~ _ .... ~ ~ "r;j:;:: Vl'- t:: 0 >.. en ~ 3: ii 0.2 IU Eo] :3,.g U E ::3 ~i~~~';~~~e.ss~~~ -a E ~ .2: o..'u ~ 0 5 ~.:: IU 0 0 .~ ~.~ ~ ~ ~.~ ~ en ~t\ 8 a -E ~ ........OJJ..::4..e>J- :E~[..s2~ o ~.5 e -5 E .8 -8 ~ E rn 4.) ...e E cti x - - 0..'- 0 ...... ...... 0 CI1 C .i; O.ll (OJ "r::. 'S: ~ ~ 3: U S::...c:: _ > 11) .- I- 11) t:: t:: t::1UbJ),.D""Oo."'OO:UIUt:;:; d ro -etj 8 E 0 ~ 'v -,;= ro 0 '0 c: ..c: IU Q) gf 12 (1) (1) ~ ~..c g" ~ ~ Co .gf_ o~ ~ -a:.;::; ~ ~ E ::3 ro .5 E ~ .". -- .; '-' ,:;, "'" 0.. Of} r.n .... 1-0 .- "'0 gp...... o g ~ :.c 0 ~ 0 -0 8 -a 0 ~ c: ..... ...... a.. 01: = g v 8 .~.g 11.)"5 e- c: g :u g > ~ 0 E..o 0 8 .~ t: ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ .g '0 0: :::: -8 -;;.5 S ~ 1; E ";' ;:J ...J oil <i: .S v -'" '" ...J '0>- .. .. " ~ rIl --g ~~ .. .. .. OIl E '" oUi U'O tidi ~t;::: "€~ o " zoo .c ".c rS:.~ "'0 "'0 ,,~ "'0 C ro ..s:::0'\ aJ roo 5r---c::l-c::lO::: o~~~.s CZI CZI fiO:::'i: ~ OJ) aJ..s::: ~ "0 g ~.~ a ~4:.,gcn~ >- " .. .. < C '" 0:: " '" 'u .. Co en N '" " ..( C '" 0:: " ,- - -u " "- en N '" o '" U cG ~ :c i ...J en o ~ Q)~ ~'a ~ -c::l ~ o '" OIl " . C ........ CIl'- -0 .~:::: 0.03~~ ~ 0..."'0 ti ~:E ~ : :.a~..c8 ~ aJ U b _ c ro '-" g ~ 0 I... ._ 0 :' ~ ;;..-a ...~- .-:: ~] .t:c~ C .9 ro ::s t ~ ~ ~ ~t.5 o CIl~ c ::::: U E'- " 1:: 0 ~ ~ o 0 C "'0 r1~ roC'! 0::: ..... en- rooE-o 01)..c:: 0 ~ ~-ag ~ ~ .~_c --;;; d) U _..0 0 ~:.a d::: [-"g srg '" "," -; '2 -g .5 "E ~ :s U 01) Q) CIl E-...c: ~ n ~ ;.U .E ..... ~ ro ~~~~ en t:: ~ E Cl$ 0 I... Q) wZUf-< N N '" " .. < 8 0:: " :-5 " .. "- lfJ N N . . o o ~ ~ '" . " o ~ ! , , ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ " ~ ~ ~ j [ ~ ~ ., ~ ~ ~ ~ ~. I ~ ~ o . " ~ , 9 " ,-~:;,=;_:;:':-<=_:<'::.-' :;C:;..:::_J~- I T-- ---r 1 1~.!'!. fr~J'\~i _1 ~. ji l("fJy-c)I""IUTif!~ SP"'('.nt..a~ InOt}(: Cvtl.<lfJ-".d ~1v..~.;,,-t(' ,/' / 'ftgUi'.c LU-J :)f.h~Z:lficPL1~l. r\ieas -- "~,_--"""_--_,,,,,,,'_"~'-'''.""P'_'- (-'-;'r~~e"";.!L.....-.. , f I, . --,--~-,,-.:::' ~,;~_.- un O=' TfM?CU!.l. -GE:':tR,~t Pi.A.:"" ApP'''';'\ll::.-d S-1.J1:c-fi,: P:<". il~ "-"'L..___ , I 1___- "~~.'~'. p',~,.;>.1'1\;:' Io:~,',<i', ~.,,\...h~. h~U..,.~-. ..... "?~,,t~ '''-''1,'~1'_' "..i..JI,...:I';.,~.. [_,' . :'i" 7<.:.... i ~.~" 1 1. " !>,' ~\ :'; ,.",,,,..., ',<.,;... ~;" :~"'''' .;1.. It.,~~~_". ':-."~ ~::. I:, ~~'{~<,;:~'::';: ,..,II.,~~~ ~, (;I.! ''''-0 . ',:"'_1" \ .,-1 ;._~." t, .,~ ',;.\ i '.....,). (,.,.:" i I ~ I II ',,".,.,!......i W :;;' :>::::,':~:;,.""'.. \ "~,' ;;.~b~\~~ Sp~<,;;:( ,11:1 ~ .t"-"'...... 1'_) ~d /"../'J ! U. p. ? i 1'__ '....&'\. L,[--.f'.""'.n.. '\._.~rr:~~:-'~,~:~ , ~. '.- ;' \I-" ~;.;. ; '.' I' .,. .,' .,.~.,. ,. \ :.;., I ~ fi r;',,"~' ,)\1', 1\."".1, :':::..",-1 IN.''....';,.. '.'~,.~ \,;)~~. PL<; 'i F....,~,."r"..\.'. .. I'~,,_, 1)..,..1, va.l:l" r 1~.1 ."...;.:"'.,b":"h~l.' . :' I J ~". ,,,d,.:~"" ~'.~t'f .,,~; ~ :'i:~' (.,!,,,: A'P'd:' : ;~:l. ~~::;;"'''~'L~,l;':;.~,~ ,-r.:Jn<.(Ji ~> /M.unij.~' , ~.~.. I , I i"'.---,,-,,- .".----_._---_.-._~ "'-.." I ." ..,..... -"._._.~. '~.' ...~ .. i ! ......~ " -'-"-", i I -, ; I I I I , I --.--- " -/ f ! (.. "./ ..... " ,,' '>+'.~.. ) " '_,.~...' ..~.-'- -} '\. -~~ '~." , ..." }"'.. '. . "'~ ~~. -, i i j ......1 -1 ---..- :--:~".... :.j);~.!- j.., " .~ . J..u:'?;.~;;;'.~!~.. _____..J I L: , v k r '--1 ,t .'~ ~, ;~; .,p ._~"- '~~ , __.J. / , r<'. , ! zz {, TEMECULA CREEK INN & RESORT t."..,.':;."!, ., ',' '" '. ".~ > \i. " -;-,^{ :."}I '"~I if .:...... ~L- ~, , \1 ~ ~ '''''', "i" ':"'0 l" ,."'''~ "', i iO< ..'..,.:r-----..d] I 'fll( ~.. , III ~y>! i i . II i~ : :>t; ,I ,.\., UP 1 ._",1..__ It.... _l='~~'~';~:'_J ..1_____.._ I i-'- I ';r.'!'~'" f,.' '"l'"....:~ ll..-.~~k... "'~~ ,'1.,;,,;,.,,:-,"..'" . \_;'~'~';-'_:~':::__~'~ .:".~. :~~~:~~:::::.:~. ~:~': -:':~_ .-.-J .-----...........,- . _L " i~~.-:.1 . ,. "t-{(!i:~:'~ o ~.,(:(,:") 10.00(' E.~l::::.i -~'''._ --~-=--j r..",': :-=i..:..~F}.~.~J.:~.~=::~=-.::=J (, l:j.~~ , t 'r ('I L, \:\ '" , , /\ E r~ l~ /\ ! " ;1 H l..~ ,. '.-; U.1J .~,-~t:~~s ~:...._y-.".,f:r)-,. _.~.=\~.Gt:<:,::.{v ,\ i \ f"~ I) 11 ,.J \~:. ..... L . . _._---~~- -~ . g- :.> :S "- ~ ~ ~:l ~~ d Jj ~ ~ ~ g'~ ~ .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' I :~:~ ~ 1 7?, -.:.. ~ IJ "l :::i.t I) <;; tJ iJ f) ~ ... T-; l~ 1:::: I {; &] ~ ~ ')':i' ,? ~ :.:,\ (] ~ ~;;.t ~ !E ~ ~3.'2 ~ ~~ ~ l' ~ ..... ,-t...'l.'.:~"...~(.J.~ol.J?~;:0 .~~"~~ lC"'IPr!-.~' \/'<;/~- ~ _ "" ~ _ ,_ "_, J' ,_, _ ~ ~ ~~::;;:- .:: .~ :::~ f< iF -F ~ {}. /> ~ -s .....: ;I.; ~-; ~=-:. g ~ --= .:.- tiE ~~ ~ \ 1';1....... -~. > ~ ~'" ft' t:: n ,..; l'"J ... ;.. ..J '" or.( " r_ ~ '>.r o. .., y~ '..J 0;:. .. ~ ~ C;J. ~ ~ ,] ~~ -~ ~~- ~,~ ~ ~ ~ ~1 ~ :~1 .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~S .t; ~~ ~: ~ ~ ~~ r ~ i N =l~ t:: $'i'cc,,'J..:. "Ttz,J:~~'io:~ ,".~,?::;a-,L~ ~~$-~~' , t 0 ~ 'Z'I'-1111-1~II!tII~II~I:='II~111",I""" ~ .<(....; I .~ E ~ ~ I~ !~I,s:I!"1 ?i ~ ~ "' ~ ~ ~ . \: ~~ PI ! I ': ), u.. 0... ....; .:.::!li. t.I L L J ,,>.,.) J;l......: ':1- :;,.:j 1. J .~-,---------~------ - ----~- ~-_._._. -- ----. ; ____ __L._..l.__ ~... .. .il"\ ""''C"SJ''; ~~,: I ,_::] . . . . fr ~ :1 ~i . Ml MALKOFF AND ASSOCIATES ,::~~ 18456 Lincoln Circle . Villa Park, California 92861 . Fax (714)288-6210 . (714)288-6200 t+ if;) Rom f... <,0 Ie; J l!J~. JUN 2 9 2004 :11 J June 28, 2004 David Hogan, Senior Planner Community Development Department City of Temecula 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92589 Subject: Request for Change in General Plan Designation of Property owned by Rancho Community Church: APN: 959-030-010, aka 30275 Jedediah Smith Road Dear Dave: As Authorized Agent for, and on behalf of, Rancho Community [Reformed] Church, we would like to formally request a Change of General Plan designation for our property at 30275 Jedediah Smith Road (map attached) from LM to Professional Office ("PO"). The Church acquired this property in Fee Simple on March 3,2004 (hence, the City's GIS database is now incorrect (see attached printout)). As the Church owns the 39-acre property contiguous to this land, and that property is general planned and zoned PO, we would simply like that PO designation extended to our newest property. This is a logical extension of compatible use on adjacent properties, We are confident that community concerns and traffic circulation issues can be worked out in a satisfactory manner to all concerned - just as we did when addressing many other issues with our neighbors about our Church and Schools Project, including their complete support for contiguous, lighted sports fields! It is my understanding that such letters as this needed to be into the City prior to the next Advisory Committee meeting on July 6th. Please let me know if you have any questions in this regard. Respectfully submitted, MALKOFF AND ASSOCIATES Mel Malkoff, President cc: Pastors Steve Struikmans & Scott Treadway, Rancho Community Church Shawn Nelson, City Manager 9811 City. General Plan Amendment lor ReC.dOc . / (/ \.1 /\ \- . '''^ ~'- ---- -~ .1, A\J..... I. . / . ~ ~ ,'~ \- . . . . ATTACHMENT NO.4 CHANGE REQUEST LETTERS THAT WERE DEFERRED AND ARE NOT INCLUDED IN THE DRAFT PLAN R:IGeneral PlanlComp Plan UpdatelStaff Report PC1.doc 19 . . . 4- Steve Galvez 45621 Corte Royal Temecula, CA 92592 909-855-3338 General Plan Advisory Committee City of Temecula C/O Dave Hogan 43200 Business Park Dr Temecula, CA 92589-9033 Re: APN 957-170-032,033,034,035,036 Dear Mr.. Hogan: My partners and I spoke to you back in October of 2003. You may also recall the letter in regards to the above mentioned parcel numbers. Over the last few months we have been working with Markham Development Management Group on our 22 acres that is adjacent to the new Shea Development and just west of Roripaugh. I have enclosed a parcel map to further illustrate where our property is located. We would like to request a modification to the General Plan from our existing zoning of VL to LM. Once the zoning is changed to LM we will fully develop and beautify this parcel. This enhancement to the parcel will greatly improve the aesthetic value as compared to its current state_ Our parcels have access to all utilities, sewer, water, etc. The parcels are located next to a major subdivision, Shea Development. In addition, infrastructure support exists in the form of a major transportation corridor. This corridor is the Butterfield Stage Road and Walcott Lane. We are residents of Temecula. We definitely have an interest in our City. If the zoning remains as VL status, the enormous cost to improve the land could not feasibly be absorbed. However, if the zoning is changed to LM status, such costs to improve the land would be feasible. We are formally requesting a Modification to the General Plan from VL to LM, to help offset the enormous costs that will be incurred to improve this parcel and the surrounding area. I appreciate the consideration that will be given to this project and I look forward to working with you in the future. 7rel':1 t / ~e-;-GaIVeZ (J\TV'Q" CC: Ulf Grefelt, Ed Galvez - ~..------7 ?l .....- 1r>:l 0--;;; ;;;= "" "':< ~ '= V>1';l 1--:2j 0-_ =l5 "";,;:: 0_ ""<.> <..:> ...., V> ~:j.... ~~... - ""5",,_ --15 "ll_ ,~- g~~ ~li" _q,o ~;;! g;= "'-'" ~..,,; 'i.i,,_ ~~1=i -,,- ~~~ ~;;= ;a-~ ~~~ g~; ,0 ~or-. ~ 999 ~ ~~~ u ..;, '" @ @ / iP , " ,] 'm ~~u tHll: " ':t.:\ ~ S~S~il'&~ II .r It'll ~~S ~.. ::. "'" ~jl-' II; ~ r,;. V" '" .... .... is . "Au ~&~ ~ . ~@~ < n . "@u ~ ~ ~ . "~ - .,..... -- J::; ~ . ~Q, ~ "'~e ~ < ~ ~ !. j ~@~ a :I ~ ! ~ r-\~ /i. .- i \::JSl. I ,be ~ . !!VYm" -2 " .~ -- @J " ~ ~ = . _Qu ~\.J : ~ ~ = :I It'Q!;l a. ~V: - ~. -I @ Ii :@: ~ ~ ,.." .... s_ @ w 4- i~ ~~ t ; . i~ - I ;; I .. . .:r~ [ ! ! i ! '" ~ "i1 '" ~. @ <:> ,.. <:> Z -- .....g "j ~:! 2;0: II i i - <<p ~. ~ ~ ~ ~(.:\.<: ft ~ ~. ~~~... \, f ;EO ~ 2: ~ ~ . . f @ 'I :;&:!~; co co:>U":> :gClO~~ ~:gln ~c.o__ = ......:e_ClO8~~o~~~ ~ ~~~~:2_::!;:::E:::es: ~~~ ,.~ ~g:~~g~!S! _ .-ca g!;:::i:!~S!a!a!~.i~:t "'"'-T I "'"'on...... c:nec> -+:; ~ ~:~.:~..~~~ss-c;--~ ;;'::=-~~;;;~~~~c:n;::~_ !;:::: ::::!l::ll:::l! CIO::::E;;Z6!:s:a::S!a::~~lLQ..CL. .... :::ac....c... .. :;: ~ " ~ I/~ 20 @ . @ I ~ ~ I i \ ~ ~ w ~ ~= :n;3 s~ fti~ ~ . 5~ fa ~ ~ .= ~ ~ . w i' t l I I. I . . . 4"2 11/03/03 \~OV 5 2003 City of Temecula David Hogan, AICP 43200 Business Park Drive P.O. Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 j :.:_;:~:;;:.:..:~.::;::.:.:..;::-;:.J ._..._-~...-" Dear Mr. Hogan I want to thank you for the time that you spent with us last Thursday the 30th of October. Your input was appreciated by all of us. I, along with my partners Ed ,Galvez and mf Grefelt , am writing this letter to you in regards to our parcel numbers 957-170-032-36. These parcels total 22 acres that border Butterfield Stage Road and Walcott Lane; it is adjacent to the Shea Homes development. We are currently in negotiations to purchase an additionalS acres on the North end ofthese parcels. The current zoning is 2.5 acre minimums. We will be petitioning in the very near future for zoning amendment to Yz acre minimums. The current topography ofthe 22 acres is not conducive to the proposed zoning. However, we intend to spend approximately two hundred thousand dollars in grading and in fm dirt to alter the topography that is more suitable for ranchette style homes and wm give greater appeal to the area and more importantly to the surrounding neighborhoods. We envision this area to be an extension ofMeadowview that would serve as a butTer zone to the current Shea Development and the Roripaugh Specific Plan. We have already started the engineering process with Mr. Randy Fleming of Engineering Ventures. Through our initial meetings with Mr. Fleming we believe that cooperating with the City of Temecula we could speed up and help reduce the cost to construct Butterfield Stage Road. We look forward to attending the Public Hearing meetings and working with the City of Temecula in this venture. I, as well as my partners, have a special interest in this project because we are not outside investors. We all live in the City of Temecula and believe in taking an active participation in the area that we live in. }~ce~ L., / /S:veGalveZ OJ-"'r 909-855-3338 M -lVIQ 5 MARKHAM DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT GROUP, INC. December 30, 2003 Mr. David Hogan, Principal Planner City ofTemecula 43200 Business Park Drive P.O. Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 . Subject: Request for General Plan Designation Change APN# 957-150-001,002,003,016 Newsom # 1191 Dear Dave, The subject parcel is bounded by Nichols Road, Calle Medusa and' Calle Girasol. Prior entitlements include the compost facility and unapproved tentative map for 7,200 SF lots (TM 25082 & CZ 5613). We had discussions with staff about a proposed 10,000 SF subdivision in late 1999 (TM 29557). These were not pursued in light of the Council policy regarding density ranges. During the interim period, the City of Temecula has moved forward to approve the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan and two nearby churches. These approvals bring with them the extension of sanitary sewer in Nicolas Road along with enhanced water service, channelization of Santa Gertrudis Creek and the improvement of Nicolas road to connect to Butterfield Stage Road and Butterfield north to Murrieta Hot Springs Road. . The property is directly adjacent to the Calle Medusa residential community and Riverton Park on the south and an existing and proposed church on the west. The property is buffered from the existing 2.5 acre parcels in the Liefer Road area by both Santa Gertrudis Creek and Nicolas Road. Only two residences exist easterly of Calle Medusa on 2.5 acre parcels. Topographically the property lies below the Calle Medusa community and roughly at grade with the churches. Combining all these factors brings us to the conclusion that this property is logically suited for a land use designation of Low Medium to Medium Density Residential. We would like to discuss this proposal at the next committee meeting, which you indicated would take place in late January. Sincerely, Markham Development Management Group, Inc. Larry R. Markham President 41635 Enterprise Circle North, Suite B Temecula, CA 92590-5614 (909) 296-3466 Fax: (909) 296-3476 www.markhamdmg.com cc: attachments B. Newsom ~ Hhl U"S lln" IN ~'a~~ d ~l~~a :z ..~~~ II- ~~tt~ : ~ "~~'l'~ :c: :\i'" 'I ..~...' II. I c:: l'~ ~ !.... ,~\tt" \;\~!t?: ... !!.. .p~ =- '5<<;"' _l...~" ~ ....t;l~ I :5 ~ '\~l' ~ r- ~ ",\" ~ :z: ...~~ C;: loW; 5,'~, t- ~ ~~~~a ,,~~~~a ~ ~;:l~~~~~B~ , - . ~ ~ P I ~~.~L~ n q~ij~~l ~~ ~ ' l ~ "~' ~ b ~ ~ ~ l. If ~ ~ ~ i ~~n~'~ II " n ~. ij 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ t n\~ ~~ :; " :1:l~ '~ >. <;?'W?'. ~!!! ' @!:~,,.,1 GiJ' ~..: '" \ ~ ~ ~ ~ . : G ~ i ~~ , . !. l! 1oJ~\!~ a ~ t I~ W ~~~r ~ h~~ \l1J'<.~t. " ~~ ~~ .. ~~~ ,h', l., -t is'" ~ ~ ~~n ~ '~i~ "' . ~ ~~ ';'. '; H~l:' -~ ... CQO ," <'l"'~ \' ." '"' ~.~m i ~ ~ k l' ~ a ~ & i~ Ji ~ ~ t ~ ~~. ~ ~ ~ ; ~ !~~ t.l is' ~ .., 'II' ~ ~ '" \J ~ ". t l '" III t'l" ",t-" i i ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~.~ t<.., ~~~ J/b:~ l ~ ! S ~ ~~'i~' , i }'>:it- ~ \ . \; !,l \'I I.. .'t II t ~~~ h~ ,; ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ t "l'''~~"'' , I~ ~ ~~i~~'~~!~~!~ ~ ~ I~~~ t:'1.~~~~:~\l~ ~ ~. I ~ ,~ HI:' I;\~:i ? ! ~ \ ~ i ~ ~" io:."~-'- ~\lllll l ~ ~ ~ ....\isq :i~",}i:l I~~ "\:I" ",I ~~~~ ",~~~'t ~'t~ ~3~~ .' l'"' '.' ' '.' ,", l:" , ' I!~~'l' P'i~ ~~~'!'~~".~'; 1'h h ~ ; d p ~ !'~l~~~"i'~t~' '0'1", ""S'."~'~' ~: ? ! ~ ~ ~ ~ :J ( " '" I \l ~~ 4i aft ~ .,.~~"':.~v. ~~~~Ii .... 'II \'I ~ .. ., " ~ " ~ ~~ p. J ~~ a~' ~~' li1 II~ ~ ~,' it' , td I:. It. ~ t~ ~h' 1~ lti .~~'t ii~ ~~~ ~l~ . ~ ~~,~ , , . , ~~~ ~'t~ " ,n, ~!,,'; , "~. ~1 ~~ .\~\Ii" 'fIh~ il ~ ' l ~ ~t I ~u hi h~ In ~ ~~~ h~ ,~~ ili' ~ n""I' ~. ,!Q ~ ,~. '~~ ~~ 't' htll ~~l ij~~ h~ 5.\'\ i~t.t\".~ ~~il . ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ q ~~ i IW ~~ fi ~ ~'..i to !}.." ~~~t, ! ~l!'i Dmi- ~ III w I, ~ I~ ~~ ~.Ii">=> @:o .!!!! '"::~ , ~~~, ' .. . \~ .. ~ ~ .. ~ 't ~ ~- _ ~C;:)J'-' A-1$l'\- ~ ,~ U~ ~ ! ~ ~. · 'I \' 1-, B ,; .,' i , '~ ~'l 3 ' t" 1 ~l h ~~~ ~ ~ .n i; ~d ~p$~ ~ ~ ~q I' 7 G dn ~~ ~j~ ~~ \ ~i d ' 00 t' . to !,~~ r,- r ,e 11': ~ ~~. _11~ ~ ~l \l't ;s ij~ It ~s ~ ~"'I\ J ~ n~ m ~i~l ~n ~,~;~ ~ ~ l q~ ~ H ~ll! ;i i ~H lp ~ ~ H H~ ~~~~ ~~ ~d' q~ "'&, ~ l~ ~ ~~ Ill' U ;1 ~l ,;!~ l H n~ U~~!;~ ~~ ~in~ 1 "~'"." 'l'"~~,'" h ~ h, ~~ ~ ~~ ~~ <;:j~ t '!\i ~~1:~~ ~~'t<:Hi " , - , , 4' II 5 . .. .. 0 " .. 51 ... '" ... '" ,. '" ~ '" ~ i ! - 1 ' i,u .! . . I ell! ~ iI, f" .Il Iii II &:' ---~ " . " l ;il , JII .Ii J~ i ';1 lb ~ ~p \.. 11=1 ~ l~ ~ i~ ! 1.1 i !r~ \i 'lli li't:: II ''',l " Stii . Il/' ! , J ~ 'n, , r, ,~ la ~ '''' . i;. ~~ ~:i! i; "i i ~ =i ~ it, h J i _', Jilt fi h . ,. , 1! I .S, '1111. I ~l. ~ I' 3 1 r -. 1.:1; I I 'U 1 i! I .1 ~~~l fit i 1 f~U~ it; H :~ i ;11 11' ~aH h!.! J : :.11 uIJ' I-'~I,J} J " ~I .j i =.1.... ~I ' I . J -. l I J . . ~ - - - IlliSir,!.ft lil ~. Ill! ;~il! ;~! I., ..!~lj...JI =, .Ill - Oi h ,q" jlll j I~ 51:i~'h 1'1"' ::ilJ ~ "Ii 11 II.:-!'! ~t=j f II. ; \j'!'-'!iUIl;,. .: ,.~:i ], I . !ot-, !d, - I" . ~. !' ~l' '1.1.- I J~ . , j )!f1jji"!l ~ ii1 ; ~tlli lii~ .i;L~ Ii ,:.ii!-: '.1 .:1 ~II! ;! =1 :I 1-" =?iiJ I. 1;'1f.!!~ !' 1~ H ; "i, ll'll': -J:W 1;~11 I] - .'.~- J!.ra i:l':: ,.!! ..l;l !~ I II iU:=lf";,' =, ':'1 ( 'II;! ~lJ! ~~l.i;_'i I-J ~ " hi! ...:J' I !~:i~H. ~ n i~j ~ ;lii!1 iHII i!Ifti:l ell..!J1J _rl' U lli~ill Is;'! ~!"'t~ --::liJI" '~I~PI" OJ 'l~ H' "I' l'i.1 .' ~;;!,r.i. ;: !5;;lll~qd!l! -,.J-i!i, ..ltll~ I! ;.J', :ljI 11:'t"' r.3-:'jii.di:1.:.;:!:m ;! ..(- --, .I:am; : ~I !;t3~J'-=::!Jij'J".l?'; -'= -, ' " -' J -, 'm' il'~ '1......11 ' ~Cl~~!ii Mlb~~ ~:;~ltI~i!I~I!m~ i nt,H, i.._~:L I~:!! -~ =d: rL' J: h' I 'J !iiU' h:JiH- In~l.nHhh.il;;iU!4!::1 dIU!:,:i! , _ _ ,,:02 _._ Ii..i ,'li J~--~~O- I \i I ~.",....-: '-,'" 1 , i ; ,~ 1.- i . ,,,-.... \ " N ,.. \ ,.. ..... ",' .e{ .~~ ~ ~ 11/ '~i "- .,,\</,\6- . / ~...... \ , 85 .M -lVICI MARKHAM DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT GROUP, INC. . Mr. David Hogan, Principal Planner City of Temecula 43200 Business Park Drive P.O. Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 January 9,2004 Subject: Request for General Plan Designation Change Diaz Road and Dendy Parkway APN: 909-370-018 TERC 52 # 1196 Dear Dave: The subject property is immediately contiguous to the proposed Temecula Education Complex (TEC), the existing Westside Business Park; the Rancho California Water District reclaimed water storage ponds in the City of Murrieta, and the escarpment open space area. We are requesting that the designation be changed from Industrial Park to a Multiple Use designation. The requested change will provide the subject property with the ability to address the opportunities that will present themselves as the TEC develops. . Alternatively, a Planned Development Overlay (PDO) designation could be applied to the subject property. The PDO could be designed to produce a mixed use zone to accommodate the same goals as the proposed Multiple Use designation. The PDO would be approved either separately from a development application for a plot plan, conditional use permit and or parcel/tract map or concurrently with one ofthese applications. We would envision this designation/PDO to encompass Business Park, Professional Office, Public/Institutional, uses along with both Medium and High density housing. This land use mix would allow for the expansion of the TEC to the west should that need arise. The sub planning areas within the subject property would be tailored to provide for the effective transition of land uses from the TEC into lower and lower land use intensities in a westward direction. This design would provide for either the success or failure of the TEC and the resulting impacts on the subject property. Cc: R. Haskins, TERC 52 35 Enterprise Circle North, Su~e B Temecula, CA 92590-5614 (909) 296-3466 Fax: (909) 296-3476 www.markhamdmg.com /' ", " " ./ "" " , ", " " ",", ''--, \ ---' . . . ~ ~ "'... 00; ~~ Q'" ...~ ~ hl ~ I ~z Og:N :5 ..J '" c( ~j~ ..J W<ct> ::::) A. ~:fttj ~2 ~l~ :!... ti ~.;: ....LJJc:( ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ C!l c:c Q 8 {$) .,,0"'\'" II ,I }J.. ~) ~. I , C'f'lI ,:; ~; I I , oa ", I .'. llh ,i I.....-~-~- L' ..,... -.....-. ~ ----.....-- --... I i - - - .... - - -, I : I - I : I , , ' , I . . . r J __~_d --. - - ...-----rr __ @ ,1: __-..."":.__----, ,J1 - - - -; I " . J " ~~ii ....." Jdci .....:~a r, ;:i~i;i : I :ill " :3'~_ I I .~...J~ I e..="" I ~""'<;I ~I: , " - ~. - I " - _ _ oJ ,0 . I $ ",' .....@ ",' @ I , , !' I I I :1 a", . @ .----=-i1'~.,,-- .a'(!) ,,'" , -lIa . g I":' , I B J--'--- . - --... .. - .... @ '1' 1> H"l~ o"'d:. '. '~~!rs _filii! 11IIE&'lil!EiI! iimH II1!lI!tI!EB!iI!lI! ...- ,. .,.. ....1 ~' ~ @J..... . ... ..... , , ... ... , I t \1 ... @ Ii " III M!!oJ B" .a III " II~ 11 -".-'"-.^ ."-'-" .,. .'-"-'1'!O , - '1 . . .. 'I~ .. i It . . . . . ATTACHMENT NO.5 ADDITIONAL LAND USE MAP CHANGE REQUESTS - SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION R:IGeneral PlanlComp Plan UpdatelStaff Report PC1.doc 20 . . . SUMMARY OF GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP REQUESTS POST-CAC ,,!O, ..',. .. REQUEST INFORMATIOr-;. . . .... . ',0-.' > 15. REQUESTOR: Bruce Homme LOCATION: Southside of Rancho California Road, east of the city limits APN(s): 940-020-001 and 002, 940-030-002 and 003 SIZE: 76.6 Ac REQUEST: From Hillside Residential (HR) and Open Space (OS) to some form of commercial. DISCUSSION: The properties are located on the slope of the escarpment along the southsideof Rancho California Road up through the first large 1800 curve. The land use designations in the proposed City General Plan are consistent with the designations on the new County General Plan. 16 REQUESTOR: Hsiao-Feng Chao LOCATION: East side of Winchester Road at Rustic Glen Drive APN(s): 911-150-005 SIZE: 6.2 Ac REQUEST: From Neighborhood Commercial (NC) to Professional Office (PO) DISCUSSION: The site is a relatively small area on the east side of Winchester Road at the intersection with Rustic Glen Drive. The property is surrounded on three sides with open space uses. The Neighborhood Commercial designation does not appear to be appropriate given the traffic volumes along Winchester Road and the lack of adjacent residential uses. REQUESTOR: American Property Enterprises LOCATION: Northeast corner of Ynez Road and Tierra Vista Road. APN(s): 944-330-007 SIZE: 3.17 Ac 17 REQUEST: From Professional Office (PO) to High Density Residential (HD) DISCUSSION: The site has about 500 feet of frontage on Ynez Road and an average depth of about 225 feet. According to the representative, the purpose of this request is to incorporate this property into a future attached residential project immediately east of the subject property. R:IGeneral PlanlComp Plan UpdatelStaff Report PC1.doc 21 . . . ATTACHMENT NO.6 ADDITIONAL LAND USE CHANGE REQUEST LETTERS R:\General Plan\Comp Plan Update\Staff Report PC1.doc 22 . . . I, , , 15 Realty Pro's Since 1977 July 21,2004 ~~ @ ~ 0 ill ~Ili\ till JUL 2 9 2004 ~ By David Hogan, AICP Principal Planner, Planning Department City ofTemecula 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula Ca 92590 Re: Parcels 147, 148, 149, & ISO, PM 6835, County of Riverside Dear Mr. Hogan: I represent the three different owners of the referenced properties, Mrs. Lucille Cords (parcels 147 & 148), Dr. and Mrs. James Stark (parcel 149), and Mr. Samuel Barragan (parcel 150). These properties are adjacent to the Temecula city limits, and front on Rancho California Road, just west of the city past Ridge Park Drive, going up the hill on the left side of Rancho California Road. As such, these are prime properties, and have outstanding views overlooking the city. I am writing you at the request ofKnute Noland in your Community Development Department, to explore the possibility of annexing these four parcels, totaling. approximately 80 acres, into the City of Temecula. Mr. Noland indicated that you are in the process of revising the city's land usage and this could be incorporated into your report, I believe at the end of this year. . .... ',' . ..... -' As you may know, without notifYing the current property owners, the County of Riverside . downgraded many properties to residential, including these in the new General Plan approved late last 'year: In 'order to preserve the current commercial zoning. (C- P-S. designation in the County), these owners are desirous of exploring annexation into the City of Temecula. This is because the County will not consider any amendments to their new General Plan fOr five years. . These properties have been zoned commercial for many Years;imd. are ;inthe early stages of development for offices, restaurants and hotels. I understand that the City of Temecula typically ret~ins existing zoning on properties that are annexed. This would be a condition of the annexation. ',. . :"1: -, :;,- . '. '. . ,.": , ":.", '!l" -""- i :. : ;; u. ~- : ; :'; i/.' ......' , . . j_;L.~;:.!:I DJ.~;~-'J.; J;..'{,L'i' '" ,", . n:. (>.t~j;';}~):':, ,... . ~.; ':1.1...", L" : ~ !, . .... '. ,., ";.- ,"', ; !.: ':, r. ~ I ~I. ;;: ;-'::l.-'(:' f';(.':U~i' ;~b ;:,'):; ;,L.',i'.' '-:':;1 !.,~.'t"; _',(....'... ,~.,'..,".., ..,.. . . ,', ';...!;:',c' '{~-: :;,,'(;";v " ,::' ,,~ '.'1 " ;" '", i.,' Errrcail:mailtbbrucehomme.COffi;,',"., " '-,.'.': f',: - Internet: WINW.brucehomme.com . . :., 45230 Corte Varela, Suite 100 Temecula, Ca 92590 (951) 694-9209 I. . . This would be a terrific potential tax base for the city. For example, on Parcel 149, one study showed six commercial pads possible including a Hilton-class hotel with meeting facilities on one, a fine dining restaurant on another and multi-story office buildings on the rest. Please let me know your thoughts on the annexation, how the zoning would be impacted, and what actions are necessary to implement it. I look forward to hearing from you. Sincerely, ~~~ It-. - Bruce Homme Broker Attachment Email: mailtbbrucehomme.com Internet: www.brucehomme.com 45230 Corte Varela, Suite 100 Temeculo, Ca 92590 (951) 694-9209 I~ . . . . liii II i! :~ Lg 'I ~!il6 :t~1!I ~R~ d~ h~ "im ~mz 1M g~~ ~~lJl !ilU !2l')r- ip:l:< li!(o~ \ll~r- '<~ ~E ""::;! . :1 'I :1 ( , . 'I . 0-- JIIIt--- ., -"" o PARCEL MAP'6835 -f'(J--KCk. (41 IN'lllE UNINCORPOA4TEDTlRRITOlIY Of' RlVEllSIDE COI.WrY, $'DITr Of' CAUI'lllIH!A 1DTalII" 1m IOALI.,..IOO' . . .1.11. fxMDlI~N ."'""\-~ ) RANCHO /ofO =217 -... " "- '" . i H+ "'. '-.... ......... I ~ \ M~' ~. \,\ \ ~ , . 'lot ........ lZ13 . , , ~\\ ,..,.; J2J AUo~~~ .HcIIrliltr.lM' ~tM... ,.,. ,..- Descr/ptlon: Riverslde,CA Parcel Map 29.38 Page: 1 of 1 - Order: I/or Comment: 15 , f.-Cff(j cfrL-(F , fO fr.P I~ July 23, 2004 li3~::;::~---,--,.____ II U i u: "'~", -~I';)J-r' II ./ t.., '1 " ,;-) r ') "",',' -. -'::-"/1" 1,'1: II _. , I II'': Jut ::: ~ 7,/11 ~'Ii - tJ JJ04 Iii: . I U I L_J By__ -c:..-=::c---___ J ---"'__v.~,::;-.:::::-..,-:::::::- . Debbie Ubnoske Community Development Director City of Temecula 43200 Business Park Drive Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 RE: Change of Zone for 80134 Winchester Road. APN 9] ]-]50-005 Dear Ms. Ubnoske: I am writing as one of the owners of this parcel to request that the City consider rezoning it from the current Neighborhood Commercial designation to Professional Office. The property is located at the comer of Winchester Road and Rustic Glen Drive, adjacent to the Tucalote Creek flood control channel. Earlier this week, our representative, Mei Mei Ho, met with the Principal Planner on your staff, David Hogan, to discuss the status of this project. Mr. Hogan indicated that the City will embark on a review of its General Plan and Zoning Ordinance in the near future and that it would be appropriate to submit an informal request for consideration because it might be addressed in the overall review process and not require a formal application for . a Zone Change. He also stated that the General Plan update would probably begin with workshops in August of this year. ]n addition to the zone change request, this letter serves as a request that we be provided with written notice ofany workshop or public hearing affecting the future use of the parcel. In light of the rapid growth in French Valley and the surrounding area, we believe that there is a more pressing need for professional offices and other personal services than for additional local retail outlets. We also believe that this type of use will generate less traffic than a retail use. If you need any additional information, please contact our project architect, Jack Wu, at (626) 524-3164 or project enginyer, Charlie Chen, at (626) 280-8765. 2~(l ct2 Hsiao-Feng Chao Louisa H. Chao cc: David Hogan . . . . Ii .. AMERICAN PROPERTY .. ENTERPRISES September 14, 2004 ruJ[f: r~; r1; 0 ~n IL \~ in! SEP 1 6 1004 ;" II ULJ LJ By .. Mr. David Hogan, AICP Principal Planner CITY OF TEMECULA PO Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 RE: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FOR THE REMAINDER PARCEL OF TRACT 23992, CITY OF TEMECULA 3.07 NET ACRES, APN 944-330-007-6, CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE # PA03-0584 Dear Mr. Hogan: Rancho Highlands, LLC is the owner ofthe above-referenced parcel, which I will refer to herein as the Remainder Parcel. The Remainder Parcel is regulated by SP-2, which designates it OfficefProfessional. I understand that the City of Temecula is currently reviewing and updating its General Plan and hereby request that the City re-designate the Remainder Parcel to High Density Residential as part of the General Plan update. We have spent considerable time investigating the feasibility of developing the Remainder Parcel for either commercial or residential uses and have detennined that residential use would best utilize the site for the following reasons. 1. Residential will generate less traffic than office/professional use. 2. Residential is more compatible with surrounding residential and park uses. 3. Residential use will better take advantage of the site's proximity to the park - the Duck Pond - adjacent to the north. 4. Residential development will generate more fees for the City. We hope you will concur with our findings and recommend to the City Council that the Remainder Parcel be rezoned to High Density Residential. Thank you for your help with this matter. Very truly yours, I-'H~ r=s' LLC Eri C. Luna Vic President ECURezone Request 5465 Morehouse Drive, Suite 200 . San Diego, CA 92121-4713 . (858) 546-7474 Fax (858) 546-7472 . . . ATTACHMENT NO.7 CIRCULATION ELEMENT COMMENT LETTERS - RAINBOW CANYON ROAD R:\General Plan\Comp Plan Update\Staff Report PC l.doc / 23 MAX AND AGNES BOSETTI . 08-10-04A07:32 RCVD FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL SHEET TO: T emecula City Council/Planning Commission FROM: . Max C. and Agnes M. Bosetti 45155 Putting Green Ct DATE: 8/9/04 COMPANY; PAX NUMBER: 951-694-1999 TOTAL NO. OF P~GES INCLUDING COVER: 1 PHONE NU:MBER: 951-694-4444 SENDER'S REFERENCE NUMBER: RE, YOUR REFERENCE NUMBER: Rainbow Canyon Rd. Widening o URGENT o FOR REVIEW o PLEASE COMMENT o PLEASE REPLY o PLEASE RECYCLE NOTES/COMMENTS: . Planning Corrunission members: We object to the plan which would 1TlJIk:e Rainbow Cyn. Rd. a four lane highway. Growth is inevitable. However, why does it have to be at the expense of homeowners who bought these properties many years ago? We support a plan (Limited Secondary Arterial) which: 1. Increases road traffic capacity 2. Allows Limited future growth in the area south ofPechanga Creek. 3. Preserves the beauty of the existing road We do not support the four lane plan which uproot fiunilies, decrease the values of homes in the area and invites more traffic. .. When will this unbridled growth be put under control? Please show us that citizens have at least as much power as developers. Thank you, .. . Max C. and Agnes M. Bosetti Jeff and Shiela Noble 30552 Bridgeview Circle, Temecula, CA 92592 951-506-2534 . August 10, 2004 Fax: 9S 1-694.1999 Altn: Michaela Ballreich RE: Rainbow Canyon Road We travel Rainbow Canyon Road four to six times daily and the only congestion appears at the intersection of Pechanga Road at evening rush hour. Widen that final 200 feet and the problem would be solved. The entire stretch ofroad from the ISlRainbow exit to Pechanga Road is fast moving except when behind the occasional slow driver. Why destroy the beauty of a rural road with an unnecessary paving of nature? Keep development maintained. . R~ )./h~ Jeffand Shiela Noble . . . . Charles L. Hodge 731 LaCross PI. Escondido, Ca. 92025 [0'-;c.- August 16, 2004 i ,-~ ! !.;; r2: -:7-~'~'~-_~..~ ."Ii 'r ., II' '-..J -. ',';) ,-, I'" "I;, I ):1 !,' '.. ",' ':, nil t")! '" I ','ii AUG 1 8200 1'1 L U 4 " ,"",I .:';:} t:~L~.:.~.___.____. ::' Mr. Daye Hogan Temecula City Planning Dept. 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, Ca. 92592 Re:: Future widening of Rainbow Canyon Road Dear Mr. Hogan: On August 10, 2004 I attended the joint City Council and Planning Commission workshop held at City Hall. I wanted to speak, but was not aware that it was necessarky for me to sign up for that priYilege. My view was partially expressed, but I would like to elaborate on the issue of turning Rainbow Canyon road into a four lane road. I own two properties in the Rainbow Canyon Villages sub" one located at 45644 Rainbow Canyon Road which would be directly affected, and one located at 45500 Clubhouse Drive which would be indirectly affected. I would like to express my Yiew that turning Rainbow Canyon Road into four lanes and promoting high density building projects would exaserbate an already critical traffic conjestion problem where Rainbow Canyon Road intersects with Pechanga Parkway. I think we can learn from the extreme problems on Winchester Road and Rancho California Road that foresight needs to be used when planning for the future. As you are aware, Temecula is fast changing from a quaint rural town into a metropolitan city. The reason that I purchased where I did is because of the beautiful surroundings near the mountains on the south side of town that seemed to protect that area from the overgrowth and subsequent problems, I.e. traffic, etc. I was favorably impressed with the planning commission when there was concern expressed for advanced planning for future development. I would ask you to also reserve some areas so as to reflect the rural nature of T emecula which is a major attraction to the area. Possibly restricting the area of the foothills in south Tem- ecula to one acre single family homes, thus allowing growth whileClt the same time maintaining the natural beauty of the area wouldbe a Yiable option. As tothe issue of Rainbow Canyon Road, I am sure that you noticed, as did I, that the overWhelming feeling at the meeting was to use a more conservative approach by designating Rainbow Canyon Road a "limited secondary arterial (two lanes, divided with a center lane for turning movements), This would allow for 20,000 yehicles, would drastically reduce construction costs, would facilitate reasonable growth while at the same time preserving the rural atmosphere of this area, It . would also protect the homes directly affected by widening Rainbow Canyon Rd. This would also somewhat limit the conjestion at Pechanga Parkway, hopefully preyenting the traffic problems found at other major thoroughfares in the City. I understand that you have a MAJOR project on your hands with many yiews to consider. I hope that you will put special emphasis on the views of those most directly affected by your decisions. Thanking you in adyance for taking the time to consider this letter, I am Sincerely, /--j-L...d'~~ Charles L. Hodge cc: Mayor Mike Naggar . . . . . ATTACHMENT NO.8 CIRCULATION ELEMENT COMMENT LETTERS - NORTH GENERAL KEARNY R:\General Plan\Comp Plan Update\Staff Report PC1.doc ~- ./ /- //. 24 . de~ Meadowview Community Association August 9, 2004 City of Temecula City CouncillPlanning Commission 43200 Business Park Drive P.O. Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92591 Re: Proposed extension of North General Kearney Rd. through Meadowview Dear Council and Committee members: . Members of Meadowview Association are greatly distressed to learn that the City of Temecula is once again considering extending North General Kearney Rd. through our community. As you are aware, the City Council, in 1993, assured Meadowview's homeowners that this road extension would be removed from the City's general plan. Meadowview Community Association represents 896 property owners. As one of the oldest established communities in the City of Temecula, it is unconscionable to even consider dividing our community in order to mitigate traffic problems created by later developments. Extending North General Kearney through our community would do exactly that. This proposed extension would effectively isolate some of our owners from the majority of the community, curtail their access to many of our equestrian and hiking trails and as an added insult, they would literally have a thoroughfare in their back yard. Additionally, their property values would decline along with their quality of life while the noise factor would increase. The impact on our community would be devastating to our way oflife. As Board of Directors of Meadowview Community Association, we urge you to uphold the promise made to Meadowview in 1993. Remove this road extension from the General Plan and uphold the values that Temecula is know for. Values like maintaining a safe, clean, healthy and orderly community; preserving natural resources and maintaining a balanced and environmentally sensitive community. Very truly yours, Board of Directors, . Meadowview Community Association 41050 Avenida Verde · Temecula, CA 92591 . (909) 676-4429 · Fax (909) 695-2409 i . . I . . .' cki; '5-.8 - .;;;" {} (}Y.' . '},'a, . , . . . 0 ~ ~ ~ G ~ ~ Iml . . '. ~ ~~. . . '. .' . ,NOV03_Z004~' . '. ". J~ ~.~~ . '-~'. '.' .'.; '. ". .' '., ," BY./ ..' '. ~~~cA-~ iJ' .. .. . .... .--P~d'~ ~.~~..~. ....~..~. 'ti~.~. .~PA>>.:. n'.J:u~. . .; .\V 'U '," "'J ,".,.; .,J ._"_' ( '.' 'r'-:~"~v~ ,': I ," .~ ....' ..,....,. , .' '" '. ~'" .'--k.... "-~' .... .'. ....'- ....' ./.' ' .' . . . ~ - . .' . . .... ,,' .' ....,.,...~..,~:~ '. ..' ~'. >, .' .'. ", '(J I-' .' '. . ....~.. . ~~. CLaJ ~;'.~.;ct'.~ ~'tu: ~~~>'~j;s~'~\~;> '.. ~.,~ ..~~.~,~....~......~:.~,~ 5~~. , . ......, .:.;A;,~A~~~;-rri;.n' . ~~//^AJ)~ ~~"_~~ ....... ~V{~ .u~..fL~,..~.~.+;b..~, ....., ,..,.............~.'~....~...~...~ ...~.~ ~.~~~(. ... ...... .... ..~ ..........~,~~~~......... .......... rJJ;4ff\i#~,.,:' '. '. . ......'. .' .'., ."..~....'.o".... ~.'~.',;-,.~..~.......~..~.Ja~.~. '~;~'~A':--(}-' .';:f'~ . (). F-~ '. '. ....:.....-...,. ~-g- .... .... .',' {J~~S- .~..~ ~: '. . . " . ~ RECEIVED. . NOV 0 1 2004 . -, .. . CITY OFTEMECULO. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT l I I ~.~.~r~...~........... 3M~q~~;~~' '. 4VW~'~ og.'~' ~..', ~~~.,x;t~.~,"." ~'~~J:;J1u.~L . " .... ...... '.' b0~~~~~~'GUZ ;"'~.~~;J; ~~~~ '~~..~~0~~, ~~~.-t-L.~ P~~'" . ~"",""."~J~'cLo~,,~' : ~.~.~~~.~ ~~~~.~9~.~ bL~~"~~'~I~'~' .' ~~ 'b(J:'~~..~.~ ~u' .... .-1 (hJ < ~~. . . &-,c::. '6' " ~ 306?-' 5: ~ J!JJ- ~. '. . > ~.~ , .;..-.---.". Wi~'\.-----/" . Planning Commission 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92589-9033 i':. JAN 2 1 2005 ((,J:.: Sherry RedoniJ,o 40175 Paseo S-~feiio:' Temecula, CA 92591 January 17,2005 ):: Dear Committee Members, Because of a scheduling conflict I am unable to attending the public hearing scheduled for February 2, 2005 regarding connecting the two ends of North General Keamy. I would, however, like to voice my strong objection to this. Meadowview is an old community and the roads are not made to handle the amount of traffic you would subject it to by connecting the two ends. For the safety of our children and to eliminate a potential future liability for city should the two ends be connected, I respectfully request the roads not be connected. I feel that connecting the two roads given Meadowviews inability to safely handle the additional traffic could result in an accident and a subsequent lawsuit against the city. c~/') tJ~ Sherry Redondo /7 i ;' ~Lc-----<,i_r . . . . . -----Original Message----- From: Joanie Hollingsworth Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2005 4:15 PM To: Mike Naggar; Jeff Comerchero; Ron Roberts; Maryann Edwards; Chuck Washington Cc: Denise Carayelli; Anita Pyle Subject: Re: Kahwea & North General Kearney To all Council Members: I just want to express my concern that this topic is being revisited again. In the past twelve years, we have been to both Traffic and Safety Commission meetings, and City Council Meetings numerous times. I can remember at least three occasions when the Public Traffic and Safety Commission voted to keep Kahwea Road closed. I urge this council to abide by the earlier decisions and permanently close the road as was promised. You can't possibly think it is a good idea to allow more traffic in Meadowview. If you are not familiar with the roads then I would encourage you to drive through Meadowview at night. Via Norte and Del Rey connect and are both narrow and winding roads. In addition, there are no street lights and many houses are extremely close to the road making it unfeasible for the road to be widened. Talk about an accident waiting to happen. It's not even really safe in the daytime. This is a rural community and it needs to stay that way. Adding more cars on unsafe roads is ludicrous. I really would like to think that you Council Members would have more sense, and not bow to pressure by making an unsound decision which could have repercussions for years to come. I urge you to seriously consider not allowing any more traffic into Meadowview. I am a parent too and understand that it sometimes inconvenient to get around this town, but opening up Meadowview will solve nothing. People don't need a short cut across town. We all have to go out of our way to get where we have to be in this city. Safety needs to come first!! I implore you to think about this and yote to keep the roads closed! Thank you for your attention to this matter. . . . ATTACHMENT NO.9 OTHER GENERAL PLAN COMMENT LETTERS R:IGeneral PlanlComp Plan UpdatelSlaff Report pel.doc 25 . . . <Sent via E-mail> August 9, 2004 Dear Planning Commission and City Council; Please accept the following comments for your consideration as part of the public record in the City review of the General Plan Update. 1) I understand Caltrans is doing a special, first of it's kind capacity study of the Temecula Valley Freeway. I also understand the freeway operates now and is 'expected to be operating in the future at unacceptable levels of service. Before the City adopts a new freeway connection such as the one proposed for the Eastern Bypass/Casino Shortcut Road, alternatives should be analyzed and full mitigation should be provided for cumulative traffic impacts on 1-15. It doesn't make any sense to dump projected future regional traffic onto 1-15' when there is no capacity available to accommodate increased future volumes which are not currently addressed as part of an approved Caltrans Project Report and supporting environmental document. 2) Please provide and evaluate an alternative to the proposed alignment of the Eastern Bypass through historic and environmentally sensitive Rainbow Canyon. One alternative would be to orient traffic to State Route 76 along the alignment of Pala Road to the 1-15/SR 76 Interchange, designate segments of Pechanga Parkway and State Route 79 South as "Super Streets" with 8-10 lanes and plan for a future grade separation at Pechanga Parkway and SR 79 South. Jamboree in Orange County is an example of a super street that currently operates at 70,000 ADT. All small parcels currently designated for future commercial land uses on SR 79 South west of Pechanga Parkway should be identified as future right-of-way as necessary to accommodate the expansion of the roads. A program should be developed to acquire the property needed along these roads for public use at fair market value as any future commercial development on them may be difficult to access and add to problems such as is currently evident at the intersection of Bedford Court and SR 79 South. 3) Designate all know areas of historic or environmental significance as "Open Space" on the Land Use Element. As you know, participation in the County MSHCP is not adequate mitigation for local impacts which should be clearly identified as part of the environmental process for the General Plan Update. Two elections ago when facing a potential no growth initiative, the Council promised to start acquiring open space land. The only such acquisition to date has been the Roripaugh property on Santa Gertrudis Creek which would have been set aside through the specific plan process anyway. The City of Temecula should plan for Green Belt Buffers completely surrounding the City to protect the original master plan integrity of Temecula. These greenbelts should be linked to the planned and existing County open space system via a multipurpose trails system. 4) Identify lands which are critical watershed or overlay groundwater aquifers for open space or restricted land use. The environmental document should clearly identify potential impacts of development on water quality and significant areas of natural habitat. Cumulative water availability and quality impacts should be fully disclosed and mitigation proposed as part of the environmental process for the General Plan Update. The City should work with other responsible agencies such as Rancho California Water District, Eastern Municipal Water District . and the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians to prepare a surface and groundwater protection program to mitigate impacts of the proposed Land Use and Circulation Elements. 5) Identify locations, alignments and funding programs for development of a Regional Park and multipurpose trails system. The City is now a regional City and it's time we had a Regional Park and trails system linked to regional open space resourcesl With the development of the all the existing and new parks currently planned, we will have plenty of neighborhood and "sports parks" but no Regional Park. This is a deficiency which should be addressed in the General Plan Update. Thank you very much for your consideration of these matters. David Dillon 45862 Hopactong Street Temecula, California 92590 . . . RORIPAUGH HILLS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION C/O The Avalon Management Group, Inc. 29379 Rancho California Road, Suite 206, Temecula, California 92591 (951) 699-2918 Fax (951) 699-0522 Email: temecula@avalonl.com - ..-.. ~ \ I \'' rc U'F ," iJffi : i\' Lt: C' r--:--~ ' , ,": : -', ,- \ III ,'c r:-\.,,\ 'J'n~ I,ll 'I'.: G \~1 \ r\ \ ft. r. - 1.\1~. L..tv\" U 1 \\ \, D\j i (diG 2004" . Temecula, California 92590 : ' " r:"_ ."__t,I..~::_.-:::~':_,._.._-~ Dear Members ofTemecula City Council i3d--T;'riiecu\f.Z~_~I~~~~1l~SSiOn, The Roripaugh Hills Homeowners Association (RHHA) represents 439 families. This letter forwards our fonnal opposition to the opening of Sanderling Way, as proposed in the General PlaIi Amendment Preliminary Draft, Page C38.C-7, as presented at the joint meeting on August 10, 2004. . August 16, 2004 cc: B. Hughes G. Thornhill City ofTemecula 43174 Business Park Drive Four years ago the homeowners of Roripaugh Hills petitioned the Temecula Planning Commission and the Temecula City Council to gate both residential streets at the perimeter of RHHA properties. The City Council agreed that opening these streets would give drivers an unsafe "cut through" avoiding Margarita and Winchester Roads to reach the Promenade Mall, Chaparral High School, and James L. Day Middle School. The City Council concluded that this would create an unsafe situation, as Sanderling and Starling are local residential streets, not designed to carry through-traffic speeds and high nwnbers of vehicles. In the four years since the City Council made that wise decision to gate these residential routes, the only change has been the vastly increased nwnbers of vehicles on Nicolas, Winchester, and Margarita Roads. These vehicles' drivers are all looking for an expedient short-cut: Roripaugh Road already provides that unfortunate and unanticipated expedient. The City of TemecuIa should not accept the potential dangers of opening two additional streets. The liabilities such action would pose and the risks to . human lives and residential neighborhoods are not acceptable. Opening our residential streets to "cut through" drivers will endanger unnecessarily our children, our selves, our property, and' will adversely impact our overall quality of life in Roripaugh Hills. Do not approve the proposal to open the gates at Sanderling Way and Starling Street. We urge you to help us keep our residential neighborhood safe. , . Sincerely, ers Association, by the Board ofDirecturs; . cc: Shawn Nelson, City of Temecula September 11, 2004 . Mr. John Telesio Cbainnan Planning Commission City of TemecuIa P.O. Box 9033 Temecula California 92589 Dear Mr. Telesio: Earlier this week, my neighbor Mr. Hayden Porter and I met with Mr. Ron Parl<s of the City Planning department. The purpose of our meeting was 10 discuss the progress of paving Santiago road and what we could do 10 expedile getting pavement 10 our properties. In our discussions, we discovered thai the neighboring properties north of Santiago road and south of our lots are owned primarily by Seaway Properties. Ron mentioned that Seaway would likely be working to pave the road in the next two year.; since they have requested a zoning change 10 increase the density of their proposed development II is my Wlderstanding thaI currenl zoning requires 101 sizes no smaller than one or two acres. Ron mentioned thai the intent was 10 go 10 one half aae or less. I cannot teD you bow impor1ant it is tbat the lot size zoning mange not be approved. We purchased our home in early 2003 and Mr. Porter purchased his in late 2003. We were of the Wlderstanding, (I checked with the city), thallhis area is zoned as nuaI horse properties not track housing. I believe thai changing the zoning to higher density would negatively affect our property values. I would very much appreciate any feedback and information regarding this very critical matter. We have been struggling with Santiago road in its current condition and have discovered that we cannot obtain building permits for improvements untiI it is paved. My house is 23 years old. Ron Paries has told me that one option is a special assessment district. But the planning department is ovenvhelmed and could not work with us to begin the process. So we can'l do the road and we can't get permits. In addition to the above problems I would like 10 bring to your attention the following issues: Santiago road has become a dumping area for people who have no respect for others property. I have enclosed a few photographs. We have called the police regarding this and about the off-roading and groups of people partying on the hilllOps. I don't mind people enjoying the hills. But we have a clear fire risk with this kind of activity. As a retired reserve police officer, I do not believe that our lack of attention is the fault of the local Police. I see them sitting two and sometimes three deep at the intersections in town writing tickets for left turns. They have their marching orders. I would hope that they would include frequent patrolling and enforcement in our neighbomoods as well. Any help that you or your fellow commissioners could provide regarding clarification and/or resolution of these issues would be greatly appreciated. Respectfully yours, Gary.R~eidman ~~ 30680 Santiago Rd. Temecula, Ca. 92592 951.699.4682 . cc: Mr. Ron Parl<s(City of Temecula Planning Dept) Ms. Mary Jane Olhasso (City Planning Commissioner) Mr. Dennis Chiniaeff (City Planning Commissioner) Mr. Ron Guerriero (City Planning Commissioner) Mr. David Mathewson (City Planning Commisser) Mr. Hayden Porter . --- . . . ALBERT S. PRA IT "Since 1919" 40470 Brixton Cove Temecula, CA 92591 (Email: sampratt@yahoo.com) (951) 699-8689 California Registration: Civil Engineer No. 7697 Structural Engineer No. 650 Thu~a~ November 4, 2004 Temecula General Plan Workshop Temecula City Hall Temecula, CA Subject: Comments on the Circulation Element of the Temecula Final Draft of the General Plan. Reference and comments: . Government Code Section 65088 (a) "Although California's economy is critically dependent upon transportation, its current transportation system relies primarily upon a street and highway system designed to accommodate far fewer vehicles than are currently using the system." This statute is known as the Congestion Management Program (CMP) . California Environmental Quality Act Statutes (CEQA), Public Resources Code, Section 21000(d) "The capacity of the environment is limited, and it is the intent of the Legislature that the government of the state take immediate steps to identify any critical thresholds for the health and safety of the people of the sate and take all coordinated actions necessary to orevent such thresholds beina reached." . California EnYironmental Quality Act Statutes (CEQA), Public Resources Code, Section 21000(e) "Every citizen has a responsibility to the preservation and enhancement of the environment". . Project: An activity directly undertaken by any public agency. CEQA, Public Resources Code Section 21065. . CEQA Statue 21168, Subsequent or Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, applies to the changes in conditions in the Circulation Element proposed in the final Draft of the City of Temecula General Plan. The current Circulation Element of Temecula General Plan of January 1993 has been downgraded as to the control of traffic congestion and requires a CEQA Subsequent or Supplemental Environmental Impact Report. . Oath of office taken by Temecula permanent staff and elected officials: I do solemnly affirm that I will support and defend the Constitution of 1 // // c./ / ALBERT S. PRATT "Since 1919" 40470 BriXton Cove Temecula, CA 92591 (Email: sampratt@yahoo.com) . (951) 699-8689 California Registration: Civil Engineer No. 7697 Structural Engineer No. 650 the United States and the Constitution of the State of California against all enemies foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties upon which I am about to enter." · Government Code 65089.6. Failure to complete or implement a congestion management program shall not give rise to a cause of action against a city or county for failing to conform with its general plan, unless the city or county incorporates the congestion management program into the circulation element of its general plan. The final draft of the Circulation Element of the General Plan is a project under CEQA and has been unlawfully gutted with the elimination of the Circulation, Element E. Local Congestion Management Program in our present General Plan, a changed condition under CEQA. This is non-feasance, failure to what ought to be done, an attempt to avoid any action that may be brought against the City by disregarding Government Code Section 65089.6. . Effective implementation of the State Congestion Management Program is the tool to maximize the safe use of our current and future roads and streets. It is impossible for me to comprehend why the City Staff and City Council during the past fourteen years continued to ignore the full implementation of a Congestion Management Program in the General Plan to protect the physical safety of the citizen and our economy. . 2 . . . ATTACHMENT NO. 10 EIR COMMENT LETTERS R:IGeneral PlanlComp Plan UpdatelStaff Report PC1.doc 26 STATE OF CALlFORNIA-.BUSINESS, TRANSPORT A nON AND HOUSING AGENCY ARNOLD SCHW ARZENEGGER, Governor DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTA nON DIVISION OF AERONAUTICS M.S. #40 1120 N STREET - ROOM 3300 _OX 942873 AMENTO. CA 94273-0001 6) 654-4959 FAX (916) 653-9531 TTY (916) 651-6827 . . December 29, 2004 Mr. David Hogan City of Temecula 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 Dear Mr. Hogan: Re: City of Temecula General Plan Update SCH# 2004121041 Thank you for including the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), Division of Aeronautics in the environmental review process for the above-referenced project. We reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Report, dated December 2004, with respect to airport land use compatibility planning issues pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Division of Aeronautics has technical expertise in the areas of airport operations safety, aviation system planning, and airport land use compatibility planning. We are a funding agency for airport development plans and projects, and we have permit authority for public and special use airports. We offer the following comments for your consideration. 1. The project is the comprehensive update to the City of Temecula General Plan, except for the Housing Element that was updated in 2002. French Valley Airport is located adjacent to the northern boundaries of the City of Temecula. TheroIe of regional comprehensive planning and the airport land use commission is heightened if an airport is located in one city, and may have noise and safety impacts on another. 2. In accordance with the Public Utilities Code (PUC) 21676 et seq., local General Plans and any -amendments must be consistent with the adopted airport land use compatibility plans developed by ALUCs. The Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission's consistency review will be required of the City of Temecula's proposed general plan update. This requirement is necessary to ensure that General Plan policies and recommendations for noise impact assessment and land use densities are appropriate, given the nature of airport operations. "Caltrans improves mcbiUty across California" @ Flex your power! Be energy efficient! Mr. David Hogan December 29,2004 Page 2 . 3. As mentioned in State Law, the PUC Section 21676 et seq., Caltrans reviews and comments on the specific findings a local government intends to use when proposing to overrule an ALUC. Caltrans specifically looks at the proposed findings to gauge their relationship to the overrule. The findings should show evidence that the city is "minimizing the public's exposure to excessive noise and safetyhazards within areas around public airports to the extent that these areas are not already devoted to incompatible uses." 4. General Plans and their elements must clearly demonstrate the intent to adhere to ALUC policies to ensure compliance with compatibility criteria. Any direct conflicts between mapped land use designations in a General Plan and the ALUC criteria must be resolved. A General Plan needs to include policies committing the city to adopt compatibility criteria essential to ensuring that such conflicts will be avoided. The criteria do not necessarily need to be spelled out in a General Plan. There are a number of ways for the city to address the airport consistency issue, including: . Incorporating airport compatibility policies into the update . Adopting an airport combining zone ordinance . Adopting an Aviation Element into the General Plan . . Adopting the Airport Compatibility Plan as a "stand-alone" document or as a specific plan 5. The General Plan must acknowledge that until ALUC compatibility criteria are incorporated into the General Plan, proposals within the airport influence area must be submitted to the ALUC for review. These provisions must be included in the General Plan at a minimum for it to be considered consistent with the airport land use compatibility plan. 6. In accordance with CEQA, Public Resources Code 21096, the Caltrans Airport Land Use Planning Handbook (Handbook) must be utilized as a resource in the preparation of environmental documents for projects within the boundaries of an airport land use compatibility plan, or if such a plan has not been adopted, within two nautical miles of an airport. The Handbook provides a "General Plan Consistency Checklist" in Table 5A, and "Airport Combining Zone Components" in Table 5B. For your reference, our Handbook is published on-line at http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/planningl aeronaut/htmlfile/landuse.php. 7. The planned height of buildings, antennas, and other structures should be checked relative to the Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 77 criteria if development is close to the airport, particularly if situated within the runway approach corridors. . "Caltrans improues mobility across California- Mr. David Hogan December 29,2004 Page 3 . General Plans must include policies restricting the height of structures to protect navigable airspace. To ensure compliance with FAR Part 77, "Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace," the filing of a Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration (Form 7460-1) with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) may be required. For further technical information, please refer to the FAA's web site at http://wwwl.faa.gov/ats/ataJATA400/oeaaa.html. 8. The Education Code, Section 17215 requires a school site investigation by the Division of Aeronautics prior to acquisition of land for a proposed school site within two miles of an airport runway. The Division's recommendations are submitted to the State Department of Education for use in determining the acceptability of the site. This should be a consideration prior to designating residential uses in the vicinity of an airport. 9. The Section 11010 of the Business and Professions Code, and Sections 1102.6, 1103.4, and 1353 of the Civil Code (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.html) address buyer notification requirements for lands around airports. Any person who intends to offer land for sale or lease within an airport influence area is required to disclose that fact to the person buying the property. . 10. Land use practices that attract or sustain hazardous wildlife populations on or near airports can significantly increase the potential for wildlife-aircraft collisions. The FAA recommends that landfills, wastewater treatment facilities, surface mining, wetlands, and other uses that have the potential to attract wildlife, be restricted in the vicinity of an airport. The FAA's Advisory Circular (AC 150/5200-33) entitled "Hazardous Wildlife Attractants On or Near Airports" and AC 150/5200-34 entitled "Construction or Establishment of Landfills Near Public Airports" address these issues. These advisory circulars can be accessed at http://www1.faa.gov/arp/. For further technical information, please refer to the FAA's web site at http://wildlife- mittigation.tc.faa.gov/public html/index.html. Y oumay also wish to contact the U~S. Department of Agriculture, Wildlife Services at (916) 979-2675. I1.Aviation plays an important role in California's transportation system. This role includes the movement of people and goods within and beyond our State's network of over 250 airports. Aviation contributes nearly 9% of both total State employment (1.7 million jobs) and total State output ($110,7 billion) annually. These benefits were identified in a recent study, "Aviation in California: Benefits to Our Economy and Way of Life," available on-line at http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/planning/aeronaut. Among other things, aviation improves mobility, generates tax revenue, saves lives through emergency response, medical and fire fighting services, annually transports . <Lealtrans improves mobility across California" Mr. David Hogan December 29,2004 Page 4 . air cargo valued at over $170 billion and generates over $14 billion in tourist dollars, which in turn improves our economy and quality of life. 12. The protection of airports from the encroachment of incompatible land uses is vital to the safety of airport operations, the well being of the communities surrounding airports, and to California's economic future. French Valley Airport is an economic asset that should be protected through effective airport land use compatibility planning and awareness. Consideration given to the issue of compatible land uses in the vicinity of an airport should help relieve future conflicts between airports and their neighbors. These comments reflect the areas of concern to the Department's Division of Aeronautics. We advise you to contact Ms. Rosa Clark in our District 08 office at (909) 383-6908 regarding surface transportation issues. We appreciate the opportunity to review and comment on this project. If you have any questions, please call me at (916) 654-5253, Sincerely, . j). c... <---- DAVID COHEN Associate Environmental Planner c: State Clearinghouse French Valley Airport Riverside County ALUC . .Caltrans improves mobility across California" ASSOCIATION of GOVERNMENTS Main Office 818 West Seventh Street 12th Floor Los Angeles, California. 90017-3435 t (213) 236-1800 f(213) 236-1825 www.scag.ca.gov Offictrs: Plesidenl: Courlcilml'mber ROll Roberts. Teml'cula . First VitI' President: (ouncilmember Toni Young. PorI Huenl'me . S"JinOPfeSidenl:Vi!Cant 1m ty: !o Shields. Brawley Los unty:YvonneBralhWilileBurke. los Angeles Counly' levYaroslavsky, Los AngelH Counly' lim Aldinger. Manhallan Beach' Harry Baldwin. San Gabriel' Palll Buwlen.Cerrilos'TonyCardenas.LosAngeles' Margaret Clark, Rosemead . Gene Oaniels. Paramount. Mike DispenziI, Palmdale. judy Dunlap,lnglewood' Rae Gabelich. LOllgBeach . Eric Garcelli.losAngeles'WendyGreuel,los Ang('les' FrankGurule,Cudahy']amesHahn, losAngeles"]anieeHahn,losAngetes" Isadole Hall, Compton" Tom LaBonge, Los Angeles "Marlin Ludlow, Los Angeles" Llewellyn Millcr, Claremont 0 Cindy Miselkowsld, Los Angeles" Paul NowaU,a, Torrance 0 Pam OTonnor, Santa Monka 0 A1eA Padilla, Los Angeles" Bernard Parks, Los Angeles 0 Ian Pf'HY, loSAngeles " BeatriceProo, PieD Ri~era 0 Ed Reyes, Los Angetes " Greig SmHh, Los Angeleso DickStanlord,AzusaoTom Sykes,WalnutoPauITalbot,Athambra"Sidney Tyler. Pasadena 0 ToniaReyesUranga,Long Beach 0 Antonio Viltaraigosa, Los Angeles 0 Dennis Washburn. Calabasas o]ackWeiss, Los Angeles " BobVouselian, Glendale o Dennis line.losAngetes OlangeCounty: Chris Nurby, Orange County' lohn Beauman, Brea 0 Iou Bone, Tustin 0 Arl Brown. Buena Palk "Ri(hardCha~el.Anaheim o OebbieCook,HuntingtonBeach 0 Calhryn DeVoung,l.ilguna Niguel " Richard DixOll,Llke FOlest 0 Marl1yn POl'. Los Alamltos 0 Tod Ridgeway, Newport B!.'ach RJyersideCounty:lctfStone,Ri~mideCounty" Thomas Buckley. Lake Elsinole 0 Bonni!.' F1icking!.'I, Moreno Valley" ROil Lo~eridge. Riverside 0 Greg Pellis, Cathedral City" Ron Roberts. Temecula 5~n Bernudino County: Paul Biane, San Bemardino County 0 Bill Alexander, Rancho Cucamonga 0 lawrence Dale, Barstow o lee Ann Garcia. Grand Terrace o Susan Longville, San .'_na'.~bOlahROber1S0n'Riillto Ve ly:]udy Mikels. Ventura Counly" Gle ,Simi Valley 0 Cilrl Morehouse,san Buen ra o Toni Young, Port Hueneme Orange County Tlansportatlon Autholity: Vacant IliYelSide County Tr~nsportalion Commission: Robin Lowe, Hemel VenlufiI County Tr;rnsportation Commission: Bill Da~is,SjmjValley ~Prinl!'dO"R"<id'dl'app, \S9'11121Io~ January 10, 2005 '--\rl..,~f.~.. ("-0 \:-'f0 \ 'I ~ L', -. ! i II [\ 1'" !'. ,\ 1,\ I{ JAN 1 8 2005: I 'I 'j'" , "J" ,.---\ ll'u \ I \ \?v --:::::-::c------------- -,::.,::-;.1 Mr. David Hogan Principal Planner City of Temecula Planning Department 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92592 RE: Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the City of Temecula General Plan Update - SCAG No. I 20040834 Dear Mr. Hogan: - - - Tiiank you-16;s-JbrnitllngtheDrliftEmii;orims~jQlljnp&l:t_Aepcrtfcr the City of TemecuJI! General Plan Update to SCAG for review and comment. As areawide clearinghouse for regionally significant projects, SCAG reviews the consistency of local plans, projects, and programs with regional plans. This activity is based on SCAG's responsibiiities as a regional planning organization pursuant to state and federal laws and regulations. Guidance provided by these reviews is intended to assist local agencies and project sponsors to take actions that contribute to the attainment of regional goals and poiicies. It is recognized that the proposed Project considers the comprehensive update of the City of Temecula General Plan. SCAG staff has evaluated the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the City of Temecula General Plan Update for consistency with the Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide and Regional Transportation Plan. The Draft EIR includes a discussion on the proposed Projects' consistency with SCAG policies and applicable regional plans, which were outiined in our September 2, 2004 letter on the Notice of Preparation (NOP) for this Draft ErR. - - The Draft EIR, in Section 5.9: Land Use and Planning, cited SCAG policies and addressed the manner in which the proposed Project is consistent with appiicable core policies and supportive of applicable ancillary policies. This approach to discussing consistency or support of SCAG policies is commendable and we appreciate your efforts. Based on the information provided in the Draft EIR, we have no further comments. A description of the proposed Project was published in the December 16-31, 2004 Intergovernmental Review Clearinghouse Report for public review and comment. If you have any questions, please contact me at (213) 236-1667. Thank you. jlnF'...t i" .'~ Riverside Transit Agee 1825 Third Street P.O. Box 59968 Riverside, CA 92517-1968 Phone: (951) 565-5000 Fax: (951) 565-5001 January 12, 2005 David Hogan, Principal Planner Community Development Department City of Temecula 43200 Business Park Dr Temecula CA 92592 ~\C~"I-\!'--llrnT~ ,n ,Wi-~[~\I,I I' ..~ '.OJ lb ... -' L I::' \,1 Ii': JA~ I 4 1005 : ~ I UlJ I..:) By . ~______~_ SUBJECT: Draft EIR, Temecula 2025 General Plan - Comments from RTA Thank you for the opportunity to review the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the 2025 Temecula General Plan update. A copy of Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) staffs' internal review memo on this project is attached for your information, providing more detail and analysis. RTA strongly supports the content of the General Plan with respect to transit. The following positive policy positions are noted: . Requiring developments to incorporate transit-friendly amenities such as bus turnouts, shelters and paths for pedestrian connectivity where possible and practical; . Including a well-written description of RTA's mission and services; . Linking alternative transportation to air quality improvement measures; . . Voicing strong support for pedestrian connectivity between bus stops and surrounding commercial and residential neighborhoods; . Continuing commitment to consultation with RTA staff on transit-related issues; . Support for all modes of alternative transportation, including pedestrian, bicycle, ride- sharing, park-and-ride facilities, public and private transit, and future commuter and high- speed rail service Recent information confirms availability of a Federal funding component for establishing a Transit Center in Temecula. RTA suggests this site be chosen in the very near future and in consultation with the transit agency so that the location could be depicted and mapped in the General plan. RT A staff suggests the visionary Project Objectives on page 1-2 could be modified slightly to include mention of Temecula's commitment to transit. Perhaps the bullet point about the Local Circulation System could incorporate the phrase "transit-friendly community" or similar language. We look forward to receiving the final documents. If you need additional clarification or if I can be of further assistance, please call me at (951) 565-5130 or contact me onlineat apalatino@.riversidetransit.com. S~~ Anne Palatino Director of Planning . F:\datalPlanninglMikeMlWordlDev ReviewlTemecuia\2005\RTA Llhd - DraftEIR-Gen'IPlan.doc . . . January 12,2004 .. Riverside Transit Agency PLANNING DEPARTMENT MEMO DEVELOPMENT REVIEW To: Anne Palatino, Director of Planning Michael McCoy, Senior Planne~ Draft EIR for Temecula General Plan Update -- RTA Comments Bus routes affected: 23, 24, 79, 202, 206, 208 and future additional routes From: Subject: Summary: The City of Temecula Comll)unity Development Dept has issued the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for its year 2025 General Plan update. This DEIR will be one of the most important policy documents guiding land use and development decisions in Temecula over the next 20 years. RTA staff reviewed the Plan's Notice of Preparation in and the Initial Study in 2003 and suggested additional attention to transit .alternatives be forthcoming in the General Plan. The Draft EIR now fully addresses transit in nearly all its aspects, from conveniently placed bus stops to transit-friendly development practices. RTA believes the document now sends a strong, pro-active 'welcome' to transit as one of the viable remedies for the congestion and pollution that plagues the Inland Counties. RTA staff makes the following observations about the Draft EIR: . Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures affecting transit, pp 1-8 to 1-15: o Measure T-3 underscores the City's financial commitment to transit facilities; o Pro-transit measure T -5 requires developments to incorporate transit-friendly design features such as bus turnouts, shelters and pedestrian connectivity to residential areas; o Measure T -11 encourages ride share, park-and-ride and transit oasis features; o Air Quality measures AQ-7, AQ-8, AQ-14 and AQ-17 voice a strong commitment to excellence in transit planning, especially in regards to transit-friendly development practices, the Trip Reduction Ordinance, and new park and ride facilities, transit corridors, transit oases and other strategies to reduce vehicle trips and lower mobile source emissions. of unhealthful pollutants. . Implications the Roadway Plan would have on future transit, pp 3-11: o This map is an excellent tool for transit planning. It helps determine future bus routes; o As transit service improves in Southwest Riverside County over the coming years, the "density" of routes will increase from the current two local routes to several routes: o All of the first 3 road categories (Urban Arterial, Principal Arterial, and Major Arterial) are likely candidates for future bus routes in T emecula. These are routes along which RT A Planning will recommend future transit amenities. Example: Butterfield Stage Rd; o A relatively smaller portion of Secondary Arterials will also be selected for bus service. Some already carry an RTA route. Example: Pauba Rd; o Some collector streets in high-density, special design or institutional-use areas may carry transit. Example: Old Town Front SI. . The Growth Visioning principles, pp 5-9.20 & 21 are strong policy statements in favor of transit alternatives where possible and practical; F:ldataIPlanning\MikeMlWord\Dev ReviewlTemecula\2005\DraftEIR - Gen'l Plan.doc . The Proposed Land Use Policy Map, pp 3-5, will help transit planners correlate future development patterns with potential transit routes; . . The description of Temecula's RT A services on pp 5.13-2 is entirely accurate; . In the Existing Traffic Conditions portion, on pp 5-13.18, the text accurately describes ongoing cooperation between the City and public and private transit. The text continues by emphasizing key City policies that encourage transit use and transit-friendly development practices; Overall, the Draft EIR is one of the most supportive General Plans in Riverside County that RTA staff has reviewed in regards to a general upgrading of and encouragement for new transit facilities. The entire General Plan team is to be commended for this vision. The Plan's approach also underscores Temecula's acclaimed transition from a small rural node to a more mature urban environment known for its equidistant satellite center status relative to Los Angeles, San Diego and Riverside. Most planners believe a strong commitment to transit at this point in the planning process is a hallmark of the leading cities of the future and will provide a significant "livable communities" payback. Indeed, this strong commitment to transit alternatives deserves to be incorporated into the Project Objectives list on page 1-2. Perhaps the words "transit-friendly community" could be incorporated in some form into the bullet about the local circulation system. Recent information developed by RTA indicates the federal government has set aside funds towards establishment of a full-feature Temecula Transit Center. Ms Palatino, the RTA Director of Planning is now working with Temecula Planning staff to determine the best site for this transit center. The consensus, so far, is for a Center location some- where close to the Interstate 15 corridor and at or near any proposed commuter or high- speed rail station. However, since the station may be too far in the future to be located with certainty, an interim site should be selected as part of the General Plan process. . Identification of the Transit Center site would be a distinct benefit to planners, develop- ers and the overall community mobility. When the Center location is determined and if publishing schedules permit, the site should be described and mapped in the final General Plan documents. Also, at this opportunity, RT A staff wants to commend the City of Temecula's elected and appointed officials and their supporting staff for their growing cooperation with the tran- sit agency over the last several years. Temecula was one of the first of the 15 jurisdic- tions in Western Riverside County to partner with RTA on routine development review for transit amenities and was one of the first to begin incorporating the agency's Design Guidelines for Transit-Friendly Development into the planning process. In summary, RT A strongly supports the Draft EIR and encourages the City of Temecula to go forward with adoption and implementation of the General Plan for 2025. INITIAL REVIEW INFORMATION - Review completed date: January 12, 2005. Documents received at RTA: December 20,2004; Reply-by Date: January 30, 2005; City Council Agenda Date: Unknown at present or N/A; Thomas Guide Map page grid: Not applicable; . F:ldataIPlanning\MikeMIWordlDev ReviewlTemecula\20051DraftEIR - Gen'l Plan.doc . . . Case Numbers: State Clearinghouse Number is unknown; Contact Planner: Principal Planner David Hogan, (951) 694-6477; Applicant: City ofTemecula, CA Applicant's Consultant: Cotton Bridges Associates of Pasadena CA RTA PLANNING FOLLOW-UP: Standard "Acceptable" letter to jurisdiction without comments -f2 Standard "Acceptable" letter to jurisdiction with compliments or positive advisories Letter with advisories re transit issues Letter sent: Date: rI, z./OS { I SECOND REVIEW: Review materials placed in archive files: Date: F:\dataIPlanningIMikeM\WordlDev ReviewlTemecula\20051DraftEIR - Gen'l Pian.doc ~California Regional Water Quality Control Board San Diego Region Alan C. Lloyd, Ph.D. _ecretary for vironmental Protection. Over SO Years Serving San Diego, Orange, and Riverside Counties Recipient of the 2004 Environmental Award for Outstanding Achievement from USEPA 9174 Sky Park Court, Suite 100, San Diego. California 92123-4340 (858) 467-2952' Fax (858) 571-6972 hltp:/1 www.waterboards.ca.gov/sandiego Arnold Schwarreneg Governor January 18, 2005 o=-c-- Ilr-1 :;; C' r-F: n III Is ~ I, !' ,~ 'j I.: L!; ~ ",,/ l' :'; JAN 2 4 2005 In repl~[f[fer to: WPN:~~ 700S.02:morrb t::.:..._.;:=_ _c:::::~--_-- - Mr. David Hogan, Principal Planner Planning Division City Of Temecula 43200 Business Park Dice Temecula, California 92590 De~ SUBJECT: SCH# 2003061041 CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE . We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the City of Temecula's General Plan Update. The City's projected growth rate makes this a critical time for the City to include appropnate water quality and watershed protection principles and policies in its General Plan. As discussed on page 5.8"5 of the report, construction of new housing units and commercial and industrial projects will increase the amount of impervious surfaces throughout the Planning Area, resulting in a potential changes to local stream hydrology. In addition to the potential nuisance flooding impact described in the draft EIR, these changes to stream hydrology could result in adverse impacts to water quality and the beneficial uses of water in the Santa Margarita Ri ver Watershed. The quality of surface and groundwater in the watershed depends on various factors including the interaction of different physical and biological processes, each of which is strongly influenced by the degree of impervious cover present in the watershed. In many cases, changes in hydrology can have more significant impacts on receiving waters than those attributable to the contaminants found in storm water discharges.! These hydrologically related impacts include stream bank erosion, benthic habitat degradation, and decreased diversity of macroinvertebrates. By limiting the discussion of impacts from increased impervious surfaces to potential flooding without including the water quality, the dnift EIR overlooks the benefits of a low- . I United States EPA. 1999 Part II. 40 CFR Parts 9, 122, 123, and 124. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System - Regulations for Revision of the Water Pollution Control Program Addressing Storm Water Discharges; Final Rule. Federal Register. Washington D.C. California Environmental Protection Agency 6ycled Paper Mr. David Hogan SCH # 2003061041 -2- January 18,2005 . impact development approach to stormwater management. Instead, the draft EIR focuses on a conventional stormwater approachrequiring new development projects to ensure that adequate flood control capacity is available by providing on-site drainage and paying fees for expansion of the storm drain system. In contrast to conventional stormwater management approach, the low-impact development approach is to manage runoff at the source in discrete units throughout the site to emulate the predevelopment hydrologic regime. Low-impact development technology utilizes onsite management practices. including bioretention facilities, dry wells, filter or buffer strips and other multifunctional landscape areas swales, bioretentionswales, and wet swales aspart Of development design. . . - . In adopting Order No. R9-2004-001 (the MS4 waste discharge requirements), the SDRWQCB acknowledged the importance of local general plans as part of a comprehensive municipal storm water program. Specifically, Provision F.l requires the City to include water quality and watershed protection principles in its General Plan that will direct land-use decisions and require implementation of consistent water quality protection measures for development projects. This Provision is consistent with Government Code Section 65302( d) that identifies the "prevention and control of the pollution of streams and other waters" and the "protection of watersheds" as items to consider as part of the General Plan's conservation element. Examples of the principles and policies listed in Provision F.l that are consistent with a low-impact development approach and should be considered by the City include: a. Minimize the amount of impervious surfaces and directly connected impervious surfaces in areas of development and, where feasible, slow runoff and maximize on- site infiltration of runoff. b. Implement pollution prevention methods supplemented by source control and treatment control BMPs. Use small collection strategies located at, or as close as possible to, the source (i.e., the point where water initially meets the ground) to minimize the transport of urban runoff and pollutants offsite and into an MS4. c. Preserve, and where possible, create or restore areas that provide important water quality benefits, such as riparian corridors, wetlands, and buffer zones. Encourage land acquisition of such areas. d. Limit disturbances of natural water bodies and natural drainage systems caused by development including roads, highways, and bridges. e. Prior to making land use decisions, utilize methods available to estimate increases in pollutant loads and flows resulting from projected future development. Require incorporation of appropriateBMPs to mitigate the projected increases in pollutant loads and flows. . . California Environmental Protection Agency O'Ycled Paper . . . Mr. David Hogan SCH # 2003061041 - 3 - January 18, 2005 f. A void development of areas that are particularly susceptible to erosion and sediment loss; or establish development guidance that identifies these areas and protects them from erosion and sediment loss. g. Reduce pollutants associated with vehicles and increasing traffic resulting from development. h. Post-development runoff from a site shall not contain pollutant loads that cause or contribute to an exceedance of receiving water quality objectives and which have not been reduced to the MEP. We urge the City to review the above examples of water quality and watershed principles and policies and to include in the General Plan and/or list as mitigation measure(s) in the Hydrology and Water Quality section of the EIR those actions that are applicable in the City of Temecula. We noted that the mitigation measures listed for Biological Resources already contain some elements of a low-impact development approach. For example, the City will require the establishment of open space areas that contain significant watercourses, wildlife corridors, and habitats for rare or endangered plant and animal species (Mitigation Measure B-2) and require appropriate resource protection measures to be prepared in conjunction with specific plans and subsequent development proposals (Mitigation Measure B-3). Mitigation Measure B-lO contains a key statement related to water quality protection. It states "Proposed developments in proximity to MSHCP conservation areas shall incorporate measures, including measures required through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements to ensure that the quantity and quality of runoff discharged is not altered in an adverse way when compared to existing conditions." We recommend that this statement be modified as follows: "Proposed developments ill pr-oximity ts MSHCP oOllservatisll lIfeas within the planning area of the Citv of Temecula shall incorporate measures, including measures required bv the Citv pursuant to tJ'lf{H1g/1 the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination' System (NPDES) Permit No. CAS0108766, reqllir-emellts to ensure that the quantity' and quality of runoff discharged does not cause or contribute to the violation of water Quality standards (designated beneficial uses and water qualitv obiectives necessary to protect those beneficial uses) and is not altered in an adverse way when compared to existing conditions." In conclusion, the report states on page 5.8-6 that all development proposals must prepare a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP), outlining how the project will minimize water quality impacts during project operation. To be effective in reducing pollutants in urban California Environmental Protection Agency eycled Paper Mr. David Hogan SCH # 2003061041 -4- January 18, 2005 runoff to the maximum extent practicable, these project specific WQMPs must address City requirements that are based upon sound urban runoff management policies and principles and a commitment by the City to enforce these requirements in accordance with Order No. R9-2004-001. Please call Mr. Robert Moms at (858) 467-2962 or e-mail atbmoms@waterboards.ca.gov if you have any questions regarding this matter. Respectfully, HN H. ROBERTUS Executive Officer Regional Water Quality Control Board . JHR:mpm:rwm California Environmental Protection Agency (fjYc1ed Paper . . .