The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About021605 PC Agenda eg /J14rfr' 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 II] AGENDA TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 43200 BUSINESS PARK DRIVE February 16, 2005 - 6:00 P.M. ******** Next in Order: Resolution No. 2005-08 CALL TO ORDER Commissioner Mathewson Flag Salute: RollCall: Chiniaeff, Guerriero, Mathewson, Olhasso, and Telesio PUBLIC COMMENTS e 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. 1 Aqenda RECOMMENDATION: e 1.1 Approve the Agenda of February 16, 2005 R\PLANCOMMlAgendas\2005\02-16-05.doc 2 Director's Hearinq Case Update . RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Approve the Director's Hearing Case Update for January, 2005 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. Continued from February 2, 2005 3 A General Plan Update to comprehensively update the followinq elements of the General Plan: Land Use, Open Space/Conservation, Growth ManaqemenVPublic Facilities, Public Safety. Noise, Air Quality, Communitv Desiqn, and Economic Development. David Hoqan, Principal Planner. 3.1 Recommend that the City Council approve the Updated General Plan . New Items 4 Planninq Application No, PA04-0178, a Tract Map. submitted by Scott Carino, to subdivide 28.6 acres into 71 sinqle-family residential lots with a minimum lot size of 7,200 square feet and will include a pedestrian trail alonq the southern portion of the proposed subdivision. near the creek: located on north side of Nicolas Road, east of Joseph Road, Christine Damko, Associate Planner. CONTINUED TO MARCH 16. 2005. COMMISSIONER'S REPORTS PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT ADJOURNMENT Next regular meeting: Wednesday, March 2, 2005, 6:00 PM, Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Ternecula, California. . R:\PLANCOMM\Agendas\2005\02-16-05.doc 2 . ITEM #2 . . . TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: . CITY OF TEMECULA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING DIVISION MEMORANDUM Planning Commission Debbie Ubnoske, Director of Planning February 16, 2005 Director's Hearing Case Update Planning Director's Agenda items for January 2005. January 6, 2005 January 13, 2005 January 27, 2005 Attachment: PA04-0565 PA04-0498 PA02-0371 A Conditional Use Permit to operate an educational use in 1,626 square feet of an existing 76,886 square foot building in the Light Industrial Zone. Concordia University will occupy two classrooms (1,087 square feet), an office (348 square feet), and conference room (191 square feet), located at 28780 Single Oak Drive A Development Plan to construct a 5,296 square foot office building on .018 acres, located at 41888 4th Street, generally located at the southeast corner of Mercedes Street and 4th Street. A Tentative Parcel Map application to subdivide 4.57 gross acres into four (4) single-family residential lots averaging 1.08 net acres, located on the east side of Ynez Road opposite Quiet Meadow Road and approximately 470 linear feet north of the centerline of Santiago Road. 1. Action Agendas - Blue Page 2 . R:\DIRHEARIMEM0\2005l2-2005.doc Barbara Howard, Concordia University Russell Rumansoff, Herron and Romansoff Architects Craig Way, Marchand Way Development Inc. Approved Approved Approved . . . ATTACHMENT NO.1 ACTION AGENDAS R,IDIRHEARIMEM0\200512-2005.doc 2 . . . ACTION AGENDA TEMECULA PLANNING DIRECTOR'S HEARING REGULAR MEETING January 6, 2005 1 :30 PM TEMECULA CITY HALL MAIN CONFERENCE ROOM 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 CALL TO ORDER: Don Hazen, Principal Planner PUBLIC COMMENTS A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address the Principal Planner on items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Principal Planner about an item not listed on the Agenda, a white "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the Principal Planner. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state vour name and address. . Item No.1 1 :30 PM Project Information: Project Number: Project Type: Project Title: Applicant: Project Description: PA04-0565 Conditional Use Permit Concordia University Barbara Howard A Conditional Use Permit to operate an educational use in 1,626 square feet of an existing 76,886 square foot building in the Light Industrial Zone. Concordia University will occupy two classrooms (1,087 square feet), an office (348 square feet), and conference room (191 square feet). 28780 Single Oak Drive Categorically Exempt, CEQA Section 15301, Class 1 - Existing Facilities Cheryl Kitzerow . APPROVED Location: Environmental Action: Project Planner: ACTION: R:\DIRHEAR\Agendas\2005\OI-06-05 Action Agenda.doc ACTION AGENDA . TEMECULA PLANNING DIRECTOR'S HEARING REGULAR MEETING January 13, 2005 1 :30 PM TEMECULA CITY HALL MAIN CONFERENCE ROOM 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 CALL TO ORDER: Don Hazen, Principal Planner PUBLIC COMMENTS A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address the Principal Planner on items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Principal Planner about an item not listed on the Agenda, a white "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the Principal Planner. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state vour name and address. Item No.1 1 :30 PM Project Information: Project Number: Project Type: Project Title: Applicant: Project Description: Environmental Action: PA04-0498 Development Plan Penny Dome Office Building Russell Rumansoff, Herron and Rumansoff Architects A Development Plan to construct a 5,296 square foot office building on 0.18 acres. 41888 4th Street, generall~ located at the southeast corner of Mercedes Street and 4' Street Categorically Exempt, CEQA Section 15332, Class 32, In- Fill Development Project Stuart Fisk APPROVED . Location: Project Planner: ACTION: . R:\DIRHEAR\Agendas\2005\OI-13-05 Action Agenda.doc . . . ACTION AGENDA TEMECULA PLANNING DIRECTOR'S HEARING REGULAR MEETING January 27,20051 :30 PM TEMECULA CITY HALL MAIN CONFERENCE ROOM 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 CALL TO ORDER: Don Hazen, Principal Planner PUBLIC COMMENTS A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address the Principal Planner on items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Principal Planner about an item not listed on the Agenda, a white "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the Principal Planner. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state vour name and address. Item No.1 1 :30 PM Project Information: Project Number: Project Type: Project Title: Applicant: Project Description: PA02-0371 Tentative Parcel Map Quiet Meadow Tentative Parcel Map 30169 Marchand Way Development, Inc. A Tentative Parcel Map application to subdivide 4.57 gross acres into four (4) single-family residential lots averaging 1.08 net acres in size. East side of Ynez Road, opposite Quiet Meadow Road and approximately 473 linear feet north of the centerline of Santiago Road Categorically Exempt, CEQA Section 15315 - Minor Land Divisions Matt Peters APPROVED Location: Environmental Action: Project Planner: ACTION: R:\DIRHEAR\Agendas\2005\Ol-27-0S Action Agenda.doc . ITEM #3 . . . . . STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION Date of Meeting: February 16, 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, Grow1h Management/Public 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: CEQA: (Check One) o Recommend Approval with Conditions o Recommend Denial I2SI Recommend Approval to the City Council o Categorically Exempt (Class) o Negative Declaration o Mitigated Negative Declaration with Mitigation Measures I2SI Recommend that the City Council Certify the EIR BACKGROUND 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. R:IGeneral PlanlComp Plan UpdatelStaff Report PC2.doc The Planning Commission began the public hearing on the Community Advisory Committee's . recommended draft of the Updated General Plan and Draft Environmental Impact Report at its February 2, 2005 meeting. At that meeting, the Commission received public testimony and made a recommendation on the draft Circulation Element, and continued the public hearing on the remaining Elements to the February 16th Planning Commission. Since the finalization of the Public Review Draft of the General Plan, there are several additional recommended changes to the draft Plan. Some of these changes represent minor factual updates, while others are a result of the Planning Commission's previous direction. These recommended changes include a minor modification to the Land Use Plan to adjust a CAC- supported property owner request, the inclusion of the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for French Valley Airport, additional policy and implementation measure language addressing cultural resources, law program changes related to earthquakes in the Public Safety Element, and additional text for the Circulation Element to incorporate the Commission's recommendation on North General Kearny. The list of recommended changes to the Public Review Draft of the General Plan are contained in Attachment NO.2. The Commission's North General Kearny Road recommendation is contained in Attachment NO.3. 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 . R:IGeneral PlanlComp Plan UpdatelStaff Report PC2.doc 2 . . . . 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 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 to the 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 2V2 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. R:\General Plan\Comp Plan Update\Staff Report PC2.doc 3 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. . 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.4. Letters for the Land Use Map amendment requests that are not included in the draft General Plan are contained in Attachment NO.5. Letters on the deferred requests are contained in Attachment No.6. 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.7. A copy of the request letters is contained in Attachment No.8. 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 Management/Public 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. . R:IGeneral PlanlComp Plan UpdatelStaff Report PC2.doc 4 . . . 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. Economic Development Element No major policy changes are proposed within the Economic Development Element. 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. 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 (SaC) by the City Council. A sac 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. R:IGeneral PlanlComp Plan UpdatelStaff Report PC2.doc 5 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, Rancho California Water District, the Southern California Association Governments, Riverside Transit Agency, San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board, Eastern Municipal Water District, Metropolitan Water District, Bureau of Land Management, Riverside County Flood Control District, Riverside County Planning Department, Riverside County Transportation Department, the Native American Heritage Commission, State Clearinghouse, T emecula Vailey Unified School District, a nd the P echanga Band 0 f L uisefio Indians. Copies of these letters were provided to the Commission at the February 2, 2005 meeting and are provided again in Attachment NO.1 O. A copy of the Draft Environmental Impact Report was provided to the Planning Commission under separate cover in January, 2005. ATTACHMENTS 1. PC Resolution No. 2005-_ - Blue Page 7 2. List of Commission Recommended Changes to the Draft General Plan - Blue Page 10 3. Planning Commission Recommended Changes to the General Plan Related to the Extension of North General Kearny Road - Blue Page 13 4. Summary of CAC considered Land Use Map Change Requests - Blue Page 15 5. Change Request Letters for sites that are not included in the Draft Plan - Blue Page 21 6. Change Request Letters that were deferred and are not included in the Draft Plan - Blue Page 22 . 7. Additional Land Use Change Requests - Supplemental Information - Blue Page 23 8. Additional Land Use Change Request Letters - Blue Page 25 9. Other General Plan Comment Letters - Blue Page 26 10. EIR Comment Letters - Blue Page 27 . R;IGeneral PlanlComp Plan UpdatelStaff Report PC2.doc 6 . . . ATTACHMENT NO.1 PC RESOLUTION NO. 2005-_ R:\General Plan\Comp Plan Update\Slaff Report PC2.doc 7 . . . 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 Traffic Safety 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 PC2.doc 8 - 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, and February 16, 2005, at duly noticed public hearings, 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 16'h 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 b~ the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 16' day of February, 2005, by the following vote: ABSTAIN: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary . R:IGeneral PlanlComp Plan UpdatelStaff Report PC2.doc 9 . . . ATTACHMENT NO.2 LIST OF RECOMMENDED CHANGES TO THE DRAFT GENERAL PLAN R:IGeneral PlanlComp Plan UpdatelStaff Report PC2.doc /' 10 . . . Attachment No.2 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE - ADDITIONAL CHANGES 1. To the General Plan Land Use Map (Figure LU-2) make the following changes: A. Modify the General Plan Land Use Designation for Planning Area 9A of the Margarita Village Specific Plan from Low-Medium Density Residential to Low Density Residential. B. Add the letters "BLM" to the map in areas where much of the land is owned by the Bureau of Land Management is located. Specifically, these are the Open Space areas located in the southern Planning Area. One area is between Rainbow Canyon Road and Pechanga Parkway, and the other west of 1-15 south of south of the City limits. 2. Add a copy of the Final French Valley Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan into the Land Use Element after the discussion on French Valley Airport. 3. Add the following policies to Open Space/Conservation Element: A. "Policy 6.10 Work with the Pechanga Band of Luiseiio Indians to identify and appropriately address cultural resources and tribal sacred sites through the development review process." B. "Policy 6.11 Encourage voluntary landowner efforts to protect cultural resource and tribal sacred sites consistent with State requirements." 4. Add the following Implementation Measure to the Open Space/Conservation Element. "08-39 Tribal Cultural Resources Development projects proposed on previously undeveloped property which involve earth-disturbing activities or which are located in areas with previously identified cultural resources need to comply with the following requirements to appropriately address tribal cultural resources. . All projects shall be evaluated by a 'qualified archeologist by conducting a site records search, and if feasible, a Phase I walk-over survey, and if necessary, a Phase II survey prior to project approval to identify the potential for the presence of significant cultural resources. . If significant resources are located on the project site, or a high probability for cultural resources exists, the Pechanga Band of Luiseiio Indians shall be consulted in the identification of mitigation measures to address impacts consistent with State requirements, including provisions to address inadvertent discoveries. . During on-site grading activities in areas with cultural resources, or with a high potential for cultural resources, a qualified archeologist and tribal monitors shall be on-site to monitor grading operations. R:\General PJan\Comp Plan Update\Staff Report PC2.doc 11 . In the event of the discovery of a burial site, human bone or suspected human bone, grading in the immediate area shall be immediately halted and the site protected, and the County Coroner and representatives from Pechanga Band of Luisefio Indians notified. . Agency/Department: Planning Related Policy: 6.10" 5. Update some of the references within the Public Safety Element to reflect law and program changes. The modifications are as follows: A. Page PS-3, Replace the discussion of the Seismic Hazard Mapping Act to read: "The purpose of the Act is to reduce the threat to public safety and minimize the loss of life and property by identifying and mitigating these seismic hazards. The Seismic Hazards Mapping Act (Public Resources Code Section 2690, et. seq.) directs the State Geologist to identify and map areas prone to earthquake hazards of liquefaction, earthquake-induced landslides and amplified 'ground shaking. The Act requires site-specific geotechnical investigations be conducted identifying the hazard and formulating mitigation measures prior to permitting most developments designed for human occupancy within the Zones of Required Investigation." B. Page PS-3, delete the discussion on the Landslide Hazard Identification Program. . C. Page PS-9, Replace the Plans in Action discussion with the following: "California law requires disclosure of Liquefaction, Landslide, and Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault zones as a part of all real estate transactions within identified areas." . R:\General Plan\Comp Plan Update\Slaff Report PC2.doc 12 . . . ATTACHMENT NO.3 PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED CHANGES TO THE GENERAL PLAN RELATED TO THE EXTENSION OF NORTH GENERAL KEARNY ROAD R:\General Plan\Comp Plan Update\Staff Report PC2.doc 13 . . . NORTH GENERAL KEARNY ROAD RECOMMENDATIONS To the Circulation Element make the following changes: A. Add North General Keamy to the Roadway Plan (Figure C-2) as a Limited Secondary Arterial between Nicolas Road and end of the existing segment of North General Keamy. Also, put a "*,, next to the Limited Secondary Arterial portion of the roadway. B. Add a note on Figure C-2 that states: "* Prior to an approval to construct any part of the Limited Secondary Arterial segment of North General Keamy, a traffic study described in Implementation Measure C-20 shall be completed and approved by the City Council." C. Add Implementation Measure C-20 to read as follows: "C-20 North General Keamy Circulation Study To ensure that the circulation system benefits for the implementation of the Limited Secondary Arterial segment of North General Keamy, the City shall complete a detailed traffic analysis. The Study shall, at a minimum, analyze the traffic impacts on the perimeter and connecting streets for the area surrounded by the following roadways: Winchester Road, Nicolas Road, Calle Medusa, La Serena Way, and Margarita Road. The study will analyze current and future roadway conditions both with and without the construction of proposed segment of North General Keamy Road. This study may be performed in conjunction with studies related the possible opening of previously closed street in this area. Agency/Department: City Manager, Public Works, Planning Related Policy: 3.7 and 3.8" R:\General Plan\Comp Plan Update\Staff Report PC2.doc 14 . . . ATTACHMENT NO.4 SUMMARY OF CAC CONSIDERED LAND USE MAP REQUESTS R:IGeneral PlanlComp Plan UpdatelStaff Report PC2.doc 15 . . . GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP AMENDMENT RECOMMENDATIONS BY THE CAC .NO: ;:',:,\.-" ,',.:_.:,' .."",_,'...... ..,-....'..:. ,',"',"._,j"_'"_.Y',,,:.:_<',....:.f,, .REQUEST INFORMATION. < ~.,":j;:' .'- '''-''',.,' .-'/~-,.'"<,i' -- ',-. , .. ""C""\'<> ,- ,,<. <~;;.-.--; REQUESTOR: Peter Stirling, WM 11 Partners, LP LOCATION: Northside of the Santa Gertrudis channel between Margarita Road and Rustic Glen Drive APN{s): SIZE: REQUEST: 1. 911-090-003 5.4 Ac From Industrial Park (IP) and Public Institutional (PI) to Professional Office (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. 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:\General Plan\Comp Plan Update\Staff Report PC2.doc 16 NO. REQUEST'INfORMATION . . 3. 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 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:IGeneral PlanlComp Plan UpdatelStaff Report PC2.doc 17 'REaUESTINi=ORMAi'foN"', '" / ,;/ . .-'.' ;.',"" ""..,' T.,-,.O.:. ..,-"'",'._;c,:,'-,c"',,",,'<'<>.'_:.'.'f.,';,,,(,,,,i+::...-'0:">:-,:,,;,,:>,,:,,,:-;, > ;;:,.\,'< ~:,)>~>:, .",0,'.,_,..',',: -;/.<~~,-";,,,~ j"C. ""~ . NO'1' ,,<:, ,';+; 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. APN(s): SIZE: REQUEST: 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 (CG), 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. 8. . R:IGeneral PlanlComp Plan UpdatelStaff Report PC2.doc 18 :N0: ;:i' '.-. ~ _, 'C" -'. .':-: -. - -. '." ..~.- :-..- ,-':-:," ',Y:"">fi"';" ,,-:.-,:..--.--:y-"':"':---' "' Q=lEQUESl'iiNFORMATloN ". .. _. _..",_ ,.... M.-' _ ..,_:)::,,)~>:,+<:,<,,;:>,_:,....,._., C' ,0:;.-'."..,,' ;>)':t}:,"7 \/: :<i.':;; '.<',c':, . -,,'..-'<,;- .- 9. REQUES1'0R: Ray Hanes, Spanos Group L0CAl'I0N: South and west of the City's Northwest Sports Park (Temecula Education Project) adjacent to Request NO.8. 909-370-032 32.6 Ac From Industrial Park (IP) to either High Density Residential (HD) or Medium Density Residential (MD) DISCUSSI0N: 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 REC0MMENDATI0N: No action recommended. Staff felt that changes in this area should not be considered until after more was known about the l'emecula Education Project and it effects on the surrounding area. APN(s): SIZE: REQUESl': 10. REQUES1'0R: May Group L0CAl'I0N: West of Butterfield Stage Road between Chenin 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) DISCUSSI0N: 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 JI2 acre lots. Realistically, the change would be from Low Density to Low Medium Density. CAC REC0MMENDAl'I0N: Supported a change to Low Medium Density Residential. This has been shown on the draft Land Use Plan. . 11. REQUES1'0R: Westfall Construction L0CAl'I0N: Northwest corner of Margarita and Dartolo Roads APN(s): 950-100-003 and 016 SIZE: 2.8 Ac REQUESl': From Professional Office (PO) to Community Commercial (CC) DISCUSSI0N: 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 REC0MMENDAl'I0N: l'he CAC felt that retaining P0 made the most sense in this location. . R:IGeneral PlanlComp Plan UpdatelStaff Report PC2.doc 19 . 'NO. . . REQUESTINFORMATION^ ,',',.'<".' .' ,. .'."',,-'~' ",'" 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. 13. 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 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. 14. 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 Overlay. CAC RECOMMENDATION: The CAC did not support this change. No changes were made to land Use Plan. R:\General Plan\Comp Plan Update\Staff Report PC2.doc 20 . . . ATTACHMENT NO.5 CHANGE REQUEST LETTERS FOR SITES THAT ARE NOT INCLUDED IN THE DRAFT PLAN R:\General Plan\Comp Plan Update\Staff Report PC2.doc 21 . . . 2. 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 Tbornhill, Deputy City Manager City of Temecula Planning / Community Development Dept. p.o. Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 Attn: Mr. Dave Hogan, Genernl Plan Update Manager Re: City of Temecula General Plan I Zone Designation ModificatioD for 73 acre site located at the corner Of Nicolas Road and Via Lobo, Ternecula 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 '~ery 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 Gar.rett Group, LLe 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 ~doutExeCUtive .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. - ] . . 'fi'+==~ b M -lVIGi MARKHAM DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT GROUP, INC, January 8, 2004 . Mr. David Hogan, Principal Planner City ofTemecula 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 RainbowlBL 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. . RainbowlBL 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 ofTemecula 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. RainbowlBL 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. ~elY~J----;~ 7MMkh= Cc: J. Heffernan, BLV, LLC. C. Ewing, Peninsula Retail 41635 Enterprise Circle North, Suite B . Temecula, CA 9259(}-5614 (909) 296-3466 Fax: (909) 296-3476 www.markhamdmg.com @ ~ :!@~ W .<11 II~ ~ -- 'j' I \ :5 'I, \ \ -< : \ @j ~ = "" <'-' "" ~ <r> 00< .~ >-~ ~ =l:ll ""~ O>~ ~O ~ oo!:: -~ r-- <...> ~ <r> ;., , ~ . @}) ~ 1 eitJ . i" lOot: ..-- = ..-- ..0 0- "" '"' ~!i~ ~..J~ ::-;....gj g~~ .t:l... ~E~ o 0 t3~~ !;~= =:5: 8"~ ~~~ ;a;S "il~ ou~ ~;~ ~""!Io --- !Q~<t ;~S ~~~ i=~~ r ~ .. .. i> '~ . . 'i0 l; " I2J ~ H " ~~ ."" , , , ~ , " ~ , ( @" \ ~ , , , ~ \ , , \ Q ... ~ ~ '" " . "r.;.. \::.I" ~ " ~ ~0i; ~ ~ ,... $ ~ fQ@ ! @ <'" .."" 1lP-, . cgy' . i @B (fE) . , llII":; !-.. ~ :1-.... ,-, I .' ~ .. i~;_ :-: ;"' " c. !-4At.:>M " '" "'<l ~ "q,. ~ ~ !g 5l :a! c::;j~~aQ~:g~~ ~~&;~~~~~ ~n8~~8~ ~r;jcl~--'--'~~ !:i!:i ~tfD..a... ~D,...D-~~~COCO ~~~J..r-:;;J;"? _S::.-.r::::..~~_:2 ~_~:;:t;~:;;a- -~ !!!iii!~E:S!~~SI % ~ a . ~ ~= ~~ 1l~ -~ ~;; - " ~ .~ - - " . WESTFALL Construction Company, Ine. 24190 Washington Ave. Murrieta, CA 92562 909-676-8272 P.O. Box 1550 Wildomar, CA 92595 909-639-6062 Fax ~~@~D\1J~~ W MAR 2 2 2004 ~ March 19,2004 By City of Temecula 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 on' behalf of the owner's of the above referenced parcels, Dan Atwood and Dirk Westfall. They are requesting a General Plan Amendment and zone change to Community Commercial (CO). Their parcels are on the Northwest corner 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 project. Considering that the properties located across both Margarita and Dartolo Roads are zoned commercial and the fact that the city is in the process of performing a General Plan Update, we ask that this request be given prompt attention. Very truly yours ~~ Patrick E. Fay WESTFALL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, lNC. Attachments: Four (4 ea.) copies of Parcel Map page 950-10 Thomas Guide Map Page 979, Grid E2 with location of PIQ . ~, . . " ~ ::: ::: ",ij! ~~ h ~~ ~~ <:, 'i:'" ~~ ..~ '" ~ ~ '" " ~ ~ ~~ ~'" t>~ .. "'- g~ ~ .., .., '" :<~ ..,.. ~t> , .., ...., ~ . , , , ". ". " ~:: ~: " @ ~ ..- t> @ . . .. "- , f..r' I ~ @~ " ~ . . 9.,.,~9 'tJ ~ ~t:l)) ig!-)~ ,-'- ':'i,'-I~ ~:'i~ <l:lC) ~ ~@:!' a ~ ~ 't ~ ~G~ ~ " ~ 145 68. 46 ~41. @ ."" ~ ::\:.J ~ ~ A:J". "';":,, ..,.., ~~'t~~ ~ ~~~~ ~~,,,, ~ ~~:i:~ I ...... I." Ut 0) I\) . '" ~ @ .., , , , '!l " .. , , . ~ . 'Cl " , , . ,'" () , ~~~~ '" " .fl:C}~..... '" -t...."'''' ... <J'" " 'l> '" t> ~ ~ " ~~~~ ::: :: .. ;;: ~ a .. G , , . iii; - .. ~ .....111 .. ~ ~ ~ , .' ~ ~- g ~ ..<.1) r;:CJ , I t> .., CJ . . . 13- 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 ofI-15 and south of Highway 79 Dear Mr. Hogan: Our firm represents JC Resorts, the owners and operators of the Temecula Creek Inn (TCI). We are writing this letter on their behalf. The purpose of this letter is twofold; I) 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 minimum 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: I. The existing General Plan designates the adjoining property to the south (APN 922-230-025, 922-230-026) as medium 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:\Job71600\HoganLetter.doc 4933 Paramount Drive, Second Floor. San Diego, CA 92123 (858) 751-0633 . Pax (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. TCl'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 of TCI 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 primanly a result of the adjoining casino/hotel use, not TCl. A solution, potentially involving a new interchange on 1-15 (eastern bypass) is far beyond the ability ofTCI 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 TCl. 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 TSERVI \OFFICEADMJNIJob71600\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 Lo~SJ'0 Randi~rsmith Principal cc: Paul Reed, J.C. Resorts Douglas Leiber, General Manager, TCI \\LA TSERVl\OFFICEADMIN\Job71600\Hogan Letter.doc O'N NN q~ goo ..";" "':" 11)0000 0,...,... qmm o . . ',- 00 m N ";'oq ..' "OOQO A"~ . ,,;~~ /...."."..~.: a:~~ ". . "l <Cmv. " .' . ".' '.~ . . "~ k',V~ ..~~ ......... ,.~ ..... .' i . .... J. I . . . '. I . I .. -'~ " .'."lTA .. IJ.. I. ','. .J ~ .'. ~ . . ,,' ..... // .... ..~...... . . . '...~....~ ~ - ,;.. ~ ~""iB' .... ". ." ~""""I..""..'.'."',""',. ................":'~..... ".,..'," '.' .., .' ..... ..... ..........-. . . ..... ....,. .............~\;...... I, . . . I. ,.,.., . .... ~~ ,'. ~~-' ...,.,.....,.... .~....,D.'.,... .,;.uL.;..... ......:~ ~~;.i4.. ~~,.. ~ ~~.i.. '... ........ ;;C' j' ",.. ..... C' r"c . . .' .... '. .""":; '.J..... ~r , ~~ . . ........ .':- .:'. '. .'." . . . /..... ~ .... 'II,r.' \ \.' , . '. /i.....:... .' )-.. . "'_ .r.... .:.:....... -,-,". . - '-- '- .:n . . ' . ." ~ -L...--c ..... ..~ .... ....... . ~.--.;.; ...,..,. . 0 CD .... ~ - ~ - '.- -'_ ::l N :".y ~cH . >_ h " /r.. - ~ ~ i I... .;.... _. '. .;._ '" Y~E-'~Jt-l _-_ .. '\. 00_" I. . '~hh -.................. . .' aC'~ld _ " C Q) .c (I) ," , .... . I. , . J! ~~ a _ . . _' . -'~ I -' 00 t~ _ . ._ _' ,. "':..-.\..-' I.... ~ . .'.. '. / .... . J- Z w Z:E ~c ffiffi 5' :5:5 =>a. ()....I ~~ Ww I--z W C) ,.€, 10.._ ON ~z~ . . . Selected Lane:uae:e to Insert into the General Plan Update 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 hoteVgolf 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-faI1lily 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..,.,'"'~..t<. aM settinu\lmW:hlun\U>cDI Settingt\TeDlpom)' lnleu'l~1 Files\ContcnUE5\TDKZIT8L\TCI PKIjed De5criplion.doe 13-2 . . ,. 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 ofTemecula General Plan Update. In the past few months we have coordinated with the City of Temecula's Planning Staff to 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. i. Figure LU-2 Proposed Laud 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 2for suggested modifications. . JC RESORTS I . I 533 COAST BOULEVARD SOUTH LA JOLLA, CALIFORNIA 92037 . 858.454.9793 FAX 858459.6758 . . . City of Temecula July 30, 2004 Page Two 2. Page LU-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 LU-3 Development Capacity: Include the Temecula Creek Inn proposed 1.2 dwelling unit per gross acre capacity in the Development Capacity Table. \ 4. Figure LU-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 LU-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 uponBLM preservation areas by promoting Hillside, Rural, Very Low or Low Density residential development, and conserving a significant portion of the area as open space (does not applv to those portions within the Temecula Creek Inn Resort proiect site)." 6. Preserving Rural Areas (pg. LU-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 apply 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 ofthe 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, 0~ 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 langnage 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 . I 533 COAST BOULEVARD SOUTH. LA .JOLLA, CALIFORNIA 92037 . 858454.9793 fAX 858.459.675B . . . 1'5-3 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 Temecufa, California November 17,2004 SAMUEL C. ALHAOEFF SALHAOEFF(a)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 PA98-0309 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 of the 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 Ubno*e Letter I t.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. SiiT1Y, f 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 . . . . 13 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 SALH,A,DEFF@A-SLAW.COM 10435.001 Peter Thorson, Esq. Richards Watson & Gershon 355 South Grand Avenue 40th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-3101 Re: Temecula Creek Inn Hotel Expansion PA98-0309 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 commercia! and recreational use of regional interest that draw visitors from throughout the City and region. Permitted uses include commercia! 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 ofthis 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\Temecula Cree~ Inn\Thorson Letter 08.09.04.doc ALHADEFF & SOLAR, LLl' Mr. Peter Thorson August 9, 2004 Page 2 . pursuant to Goverrunent 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 VCO Section, decided in 1976, clearly states the rules applicable in this kind of a situation. Under A VCO a property owner has a vested right under common law to develop only if the property ovmer has obtained a building permit for an identifiable viable building and has expended a substantial sum in reliance on that permit. Government Code Section 66474.2(a) gives the property ovmer 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 Goverrunent 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 Goverrunent 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. We 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, SLL ~~. 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\Documents and Settings\salhadeff\Local Settings\Temporary (nterne! Fi!esIOLKB7IReereation Commercial Overlay Text Changes,doc ~ " .. ... < c -,>.s '"" ::> .. ...lo.: w.- ...l ~ ell 10. <rJl ,..1l .. o ... 10. 10. < ~ .,. t"- " .,. ... " < ~ " ~ ::l "0 C CO ....J " '" rJl 0:: 0 e c: " " t " 0 ....J ~ .3 '" " t:: 0 10. 10. 0 Ol) " 'Vi " 0 ~ -= " '" .~ " " .g " :i5' 'i3 0 "0 <= '" " .S! :s 0. .. .c 0 " ... ~ 10. " 0 Q !- "0 . >. -o.~ '" ~U 0 4-. ct: 0 ct: " '" - -5 ~ N .. .. 4-. c~'E 0 " <-=" - 4-.;:> ~ .S! '" o 0 ~ .. ~ 'in " -= .. " "0 i3 '5 0 3: " ~ 0 ....J '" ~ " '" 0:: " t;:: 'u '" 0. J: rJl "0 " "'. 0. '" Ol) 0 ... "0 0 < ~ M ::J ....J cb M t;: - M .S 'It U -= '" ....J ~ '" " ... < .,. <: , '" ::>c: ....J .. "'0.: ~ 'u = .. <10. ,..rJl " ... E " ... ~ '" ... " < - ~ " ~ ::l "0 " '" ....J '" '" c: '" ... .. " " o - ~ .. .~ " '" :i5' o ~ " .S! 0. 'c " ~ " Q - <: .S! ~ " o ....J - " '" 0:: " t;:: 'u " 0. rJl ~ " '5 "" - '" .,. '" .,. U U ~ ~ ....J r/J o t ~ ....J u. U c5 0.. 4-. "0 o .. V'i </l C .8 "'.. Ol) Vl <l,) I-< "m <Il >. g. a ::3.<l,)a)U ~ >- -::: .'8 ~ .0 -0 .~ 0 t5 -J,.... '" .9 0 0 ...... (tI 0 01) 'u v E > -;:; ~ 0: c -g c u C ~ tn C 15 ~ d .'- ~:E .2 ~ .~ 'C E :t d </l rn .s:: ~ 5 ~ ~ :g Vl oousv-c:-oorn.....t:: >-,""OC ..c";:: 0 ~ <1) C U -0 C 0 ~ :t::; d.2 -0 1} U "'E E d~ Z c..g c.." rn ~ ~ u : g ] ~ ~ ~ ] .~.~ ~.~ ~ "g.'~ <uu_cc<l,)l-ol-ol:lO:::l~o..~~ ~ -s.:g c 0 "'0 ~ 9 c .9'" ""0 E 0 -::: ";: ~ ~ ~ or.;;...... rn:.;::; C '1) 0 ~ <Il ,,,;;:.Qjo..ooEoc::S...c:u ::s '.o,-~!;:!;>..::Cl-...s::::::lll)""" Eb: ~ ~ ~ ~ .~~~ ~ ~ t ~ ~ "5 -g vl "(ii ....~ -u; e ~ gf (\) ~ 0"; E ~ e o 8 a 5 0 0)",,_ c ...c: 4) u 0.. t ::s ~ ~~ .s:: u _ rn 0 ...... ~ Cl:l 0 0 ~ o ro c ~..c: E S o'~ 5 ~~ ~ 0 <Ii .~ ~:; g.'~ g E .E ~ ~ a3.g .~ ~ ~ E {OJ == 5 </l t:: 8 .:=9~ -0 0........ g.,g a ro e u E 0 (OJ 0 d ro 0 0 ...... <l) <l,) grct:: 0 0 8::~..s::: 0. <1.1 E c gp 0 ~ ~ ~ !(l :> E :J ro 5 S ~ d 0'- oJ}..c: > ;;.~ 0. CI) en' 0.........0 -0 C ..... 2 5 ~ -5 0 1J t ~ u -0 e. ~ 5'~ u o.O..::.=:dQ')UV......ru::i CO~O 1:: - :> ~ '0"-..0 0 0 Q) 1:: (,j..i (5 2 :3 ~ o:~ V 4-0 l-. .5 o..c: g'c ;::l =' !=:: c- U) ;> c- '"0 0 0... _ ...... U) -..... 0 U) ..D .... "0 oj '0 ~ ..c:~ lo-.o 0 S ..c: 001) o~'"O Ero CI)~c::-g ~~_......-g~.g~~ - OO:::-'oS ~ ~ fJ} CI) c: ~.C o 0"1 0 ro ..c: li3 t- 01) o..c: 0..0 t::t:"og~-~lo-.o :i~~:;;:]J3~ r N '" oj " " ... ... < < " " oj '" a:: a:: " " ~ ~ .u .u .. .. 0. 0. r/J rJl M ::J ....J cb t;: .S " -= oj ....J " " " " " <;:: .s ~r N " ... " ~ r/J (', '" M U ct: .-: :r: ~. ....J en o ~ a) ~.a ~ '"0 ~ o '" Ol) u ." ~ U).- -o:=::=' o(l3~(1.) ctt p.,'"O ti 0..0....... '"0 ro c...c:: 0 U) :.e~..c:8 =' 0 () b. _ c ro """ ~ ~ t) lo-.o ._ 0"0 :g ~ - >-. ..... ..o~:-:::za - 0 8'- 3 .- ro C c t t+.=< ~ " '" ' 'e! E ~ ~.s o rn~ c:::::: U 8'- '" t:: 0 ~ ~ ooc"'O a3l..oro<,,! 0:::"0 U)~- cttoE-g ~ ~ g 8 Q) c'=: )( ~.g] 8 i:Q ~ cd' 0'"0 0. 0 E- ro rn C '" tr\~] C -0 .5 ..8 -'" ~ Q) lU 0 <Il E-..c: 0 ~~ ;"U e...... ~ 'J1 -<O~3 'O..c:~~ en t:: :E E i:Q 0 l..o Q) wZU,.. N N '" .. ... < [ii c: " ,- - 'u .. 0. r/J N N e e o ~ ~ ~ . :.: ~ ~ ~ . o ~ , ~ "[ ~ " m ~ ~ ~ j i ~ ~ W Jl ~ ~ t Ie ~ ~ o o ~ '" " " ~~w' ._.""::::"::.'=--=:L~:::::.:::{ 1 fig",.~ J [l,J JI~2Z-,fic fll_l~_l. f~i",ea~,_~"..,_._ ~;;~~:-T;~~~~!..~ ('B..'rR~t PL4S 'I ;\rJP.....>'la1 ~V1,;'C'r.;,: P,.i': I : ~ p~, ",.,.: ,,~, < '1:;1' ;.>,,,~h~. ;"5"1,''''1;. ~,' ,'.\ ",:~"l~ ....-11..;:(. 'c' :'i":L',,'! ,:."'",.-,-,1'1(.,1,--, ,:_~',:; ~~:~;.' '~:;'I~~~."~:'" ~::{~J\"'!~~ ,,,'. . 'I ;,~.' :"".,"'"u r h"<J".l'.,~ ',. 1 \ :,-! ~.~." I, "t" v.',j- (..:,.~ i ", "''',.,."" ~i'.1 ~ ;;-",,,)~,,..", ,,_,:..;1. t T ,;\., '.I~'" '. "~~- ~ ~i:::', ~ l-:~,r...~';.<, P",.L'; I' "l'~"., i)',l,.I. ';,:!.I;\" . 1 ~.I !'...,;,'j,:. ~.-.:" \,,1.' "N'l~ : ;~.1, ~:~::~;~~,:;:'~,~,r.i" "",; '",.,..,1'_1"'; "'1'.1 (,~.,"'" D,;t...y:., . ~ ?". \", .,.,' ~.t'>!l" . l~t:;; ~ ~>~ \.,~,.,,, \-,,'!.", '.,'; .~.. .,,-, ')""'_"11;:1 \"\ - I ;:;li'~\,,,: $9l?C1;:( f\:1.:. i ., T' ---[--.-. \ i ,.~~..L,_. I ,. [,,"-_ r'-~'~-:- ---i----;i ! I I!i ",.J.. , , Ir:fty":d.:..,urrie~' SP~,~~..!tljj~ i I i , i i---;,~~e:~L...-~-- ; i ..__!_-~.;::'............. IJ-- ....~--_. --, , i Cl~I,r.rft1)'f ".....~ioI-tt. .' ! .. l :-.-:..... , \,.J<-'""~ ~.._.._" .__J- -J,r,--n /,./ ,." &) ,.-.-- .:/&'\,.. I ""'_.j L~{--.)""'~\ \.._~_rr.....':,......."......,..: "I'-.~-- /.......... r-" i 1._' I ~--c;t,..fJf \., ._ / Mw-H~~' , ~~,~ I , i i '''"'''--~ .________.___J --..,..-..",:,,~_., i , ! ; I _._-~"':--j " . y ? 'f ,- ".I" ~"'.) , -'~\'" . "'<1 '-..... ", "-" ---- .--, 1.,,1t"">-- " '~~"'" ';';:':.!- ..-i- it .l..?:,:.~~_~-:t ....-"_ , " t --' . ~ .'~ i ,. k' ....J.' , .. f ZZ " TEMECULA CREEK INN & RESORT ..1--------.-. __~_ j ~ ~ "..... '_Ii" <:" -,' (', ,,-,,...: ,,', i =:-:: -'r--i,~". c.'I,>J,.,..~:,.lk-.1d.,..... 1_ ~;;'~'~/~":~~;:'~-~~~'~_:'-~'~~': ~':~~.~ .i i -;,,:-... /" ,~.,., ., '-'-~--'-~ "'t.-t(::/ . r~Ji~it~~~#~:;:'::,,,, ------........... , (I ': ,\'\ L '" ' I /\ C' I '., I,," L U 11 E N g !. /\ I -~! , ,-" I I -, I I i I -"1 , I ---.- I I -'j' /...~ , L j\ /;~;p ~~.-;..,~"t:..'\~ ..'?)~?~.S~!}i& /\ r'~ u u < ,.... L 1 i \ t,j '. . .--- \ ..., u . j.JIIH1 ++ '.. ._.....__~. _.____c__._.........._...._........._____..... .~.~_.J.._ ~. g.".~t"" r-l1 "'~"Y_. _ ::...::.. ~;> 'cc~' .,,' ~, /' \.) -S ""." 'n ,,'< ,,'" I'" -- on I '-~~l~ f ~ ~.] i ~d ~ ~ .~~ I.~ ~ ~ .~ '~ I ~}~ ~ I \/'</ ,1\ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~. i. ~. ~ ~ ] .~'l i ~ ~ :~ ! l! g .~ .~! I:H J \ ~ ~" q ~ ...; ,.;: f- ,."\ .'-'. 6 \ ;.- IJ :;J :"... .{;" l'_ c: ...:; 1:J- t:: .9. U!.::. ':; Ii " ~4..oJ 8 ~ :i~"-~ ~-'.i; ~.~ ~.'~; ~~l ~.~ ~l.~ ~ ~.;. ~~ ~.: ~ m Ie ~~ ~:i~ t. r~.: I ::>" l~ - . - oJ ,. ,,- - -.... ~ ~- <IJ ... "".' ::s '-. J;"t.. .- (1J ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ 11'..c.~..'1 ['.:.1['.'1 i~'."l fJ ~ ~ ~ I'" 115 I:'~. ; ~ 1.0 ~ ~ ~ 10 1'~.lf'~.;~.> l~: ~. ~Il i . ~ L~_~.3_?~.!~!L~llj~~_~ 8 lSi El g .~~~...~\:~~ liiJ_L . . . "u rc: 0 nn r . .. !h I~ \'J Lf. !: JUN 2 9 2004 ,', 'I j fr ~ , i i! rR '^' MALKOFF AND ASSOCIATES 18456 Lincoln Circle . Villa Park, California 92861 . Fax (714)288-6210 . (714)288-6200 ~Jy 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 qur 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 for RCC.doc l+ "- '-- " . . ~\, \ ~ ~ I. "\ . . ~ . . . . ATTACHMENT NO.6 CHANGE REQUEST LETTERS THAT WERE DEFERRED AND ARE NOT INCLUDED IN THE DRAFT PLAN R:IGeneral PlanlComp Plan UpdatelStaff Report PC2.doc 22 . . . 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. Z";J t /' ~:Ve Galvez ",rv1 cc: Ulf Grefelt, Ed Galvez - ~ ------" d: ::;:;'j' 0-;;; ~o~ 999 ~~~ oco -< '" ~ 3= "" "':..., ~ '= "'[:;l <--:21 t-_ =\s ""~ =- ""<> O. ..... '" s...." _~ _ - - ~...- -. iii 51!" ii~;;; 11(.:;\ ~~~ 6 ~a3 ~~i.' 1>h.'" ~~g ~I~ ~~ "'8~ ii-a ~~" -~- S~31 '0 '" ... ... <5 ~ "Au ~~t . @ n ~ i@~ .~ .. -~- ~ ~ ! ~'-' ~ .. '-=1 ~ ~ . @ :1:- ~. i ~@~ i ~ ! ~- ~ '~Hi J'J~ / ... t = i 1\' ~ ~e: ~ . ~ ~ ~ . ~o~ ~v~ ~ . -~ . . .~. ,] 4- t , . f r .uo ~ - , .~ ~ ..."""liE ~~ ii@:d~! ~~i ~}; ~ Ii - ~. I ... ~ ~ ~ :::@.<': I ~~ ~ ~..., :t-.4 \, ..I '" :i!: ,. = ; '" - OJ" ; ....., @ ;- '" .@~~5 1i~... ~ Z ~:::J 5~.!1l 1I!.;@5 i ~ ~!;l. ~&5!1l i i ~ ;@~ it , . I; , ..." :;:a~; o;,b. -..., ~....ca~ on mm co___ ~ ,...,r-_oo::J~c:;=-~~~ CIo-_~~""::i:: ~ ~=~s;---~~E:S: "If= if:~!i!~g!i!~ _ c:> r-::s::z =:II E! &!~''T cr y -~~_a....a..a... rlr-.~_ !Im**~~~~SS-ci'"s. ~~-;g..;::-;;~~~c;_;=~~ ~ ~~ ....... ::e;:e::l!!Zf:~5!~~6!~ ... !!n~~a..I:La.. :;: ~ it.!i 5 it@ @ . @ @J (,J:\ W ~ ~~~.\ ~ · ~ o~ t 1 ! ~ \.:.13. \ i ~ ~. m_ ~ ~ ~ ~- :;:;8 !O! .. "''' "", ~ . @i~ fa E ~ - ~c;;; . o @Y t. r l L . 11/03/03 l~OV 5 2J)03 City of Temecula David Hogan, AICP 43200 Business Park Drive P.O. Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 Dear Mr. Hogan I want to thauk 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 Ulf 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 additional 8 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 of the 22 acres is not conducive to the proposed zoning. However, we intend to spend approximately two hundred thousand dollars in grading and in fIll dirt to alter the topography that is more suitable for rancbette style bomes and will 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 buffer zone to tbe current Sbea Development and tbe 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 fOlWard to attending the Public Hearing meetings and working with tbe 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 tbe City of Temecula and believe in taking an active participation in the area that we live in. . Since;s ~ 1.. /" ~~GaIVCZ or"J 909-855-3338 4"2 M -lVICJi 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 ofthi: 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 rougWy 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 8 Temecula. CA 92590-5614 (909) 296-3466 Fax: (909) 296-3476 cc: attachments B. Newsom www.markhamdmg.com ~ ~i~ ~ ; ~ c=. ~ti~~ ~: 1ft t~~\~ : ~ IN :'a'~ ~ i ,- c t~~~~ t l'!~ _ ~.\I~1I1o.' ~ r:;:~~ - ~ll~~~ ~ ~~til\. I.... ~~t~>> i ~~~~ ~::! ~itl~~ ~i~~ I ClI:: 'II~~' ~ IL..- ~.~1ll ~ J: ,r- ,.'t' ~! ~~i~t~ i~ _ -":,,!J1 ~'__ .... ';:i~ ~ ~~" ICC..... ~~ '-"I'~ lh- \:.s ~ I.. ~/!...t ....' . \l '<J ~}: \i~:- :Z:..\l~":t ~~~ ~ ~ ; ~~~,~ ~ ~,k r- Ii h\~a ,~t~~ i " i ~ t l. 11 Q ...... 1, ~!\ fl' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -J~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ! a ~ ~ 9 ~~5~ ;~; 1I~' \I B ~ '\ & ~ ~ ~'t-~ ~~ ~ j..:- I:. ~ \I~~...." l..~;'!. .I\!v.':' i a l ~ II .. '" t'> 'to l:I ~~ \I ~-J!'l l'l ' ~ Cj" 'G ~ ~ ~ ~;s ~!<l I..'~ ~ ~ ~~ , ." ," 1," ~ b !' d ii' " } " "C~. \:: \Ii L :( 10\" ~ ~.. ~ !~~ ~h \1 t ~ ~ ~ ~~ -t. ~~~~ ~ ' ,!~' W ~ H ~ \ 1~ ~ ~::~~:i~~~l~,'i: ~ ~ '-e~: tJh~~: \I~ ~ S :" 'i ~ ~~~ i;i'l~ \1 ~ ~ ,~ 1 ~ ii :: Ii ..., !l l,I, l,l1 t lit C1 ~ Ii 1l! ~ :!. ~ "} i:J Q~ ". IA!~~~""~ )~~1~ ~~~ ~~~~ I: ~ ~ ~ Ii l ; ~ ~ ~ ~~~'!! I~"~ ;": 1,d,l ;dn~l.l~~I~'I'~~1 _~;; ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ I ~ it ~!~~ ~ ah~ ~ .... \0 1'\ .. .. ., ., ..; ll' ~ ~~ ~" aj ~l ~~, ~~~ ~i~ ~~~ ~,' l~~ "'I!~ ~ ~~~ ~ tt, ~ ~~ ~h- ;! I ~' ~,~ ~.. ~ 'iij~ I!;)! ~~":t ...... II "" ."~ ;:,~~ , ~ ~ H! ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i i \' h, P. % ,." I " :t % Hll: ~ '< ~[Ij III ~ ~i h ~~i ~ I H ~ i~ 'i~l!!a~, ~ ~"l' '0' ~1,\~'fI~....,~ i ~t ...~ <t" G G h ~ ~~ ~~~ s; ~~ ~ t! t ~ ~ ~ Si < " l't"~' ~ ,e 1 ~I , ~ ~ pd i; ,,~! l~ l ~q ~~. ~ ~ ~ :~ qPi~~ h ~ ~~ H~ I " { ~! ~ ,~ "~~ \~" ~!,' Il , vii~ ~ ,'{" '~." ~ I ,~" ~ , f ~ ~.l ,q 1,' ~ li; 'I ! .' h~' ; \ ~,~ d~ l ~ lP!~ ~~'!~ & h ~p h' l h ~ l. ~!J~, " ~I ; j. 'I "1,, l'~"'~'~ >l ,,~ ,,'~,,~ '10 l$.~,~~~'lI"'~~ "t :t~ ~,~ h. ~ ~~ ~',1; ~~ ':. ~~ ~':i~~~ t~t~\i - ! .i i:.!~ t:H ~!.; ;'11 I s =]i ~ i!i It I i d nJ! "I!' ~ h . 11 ~ ! t .'1 'Jlt. i .~i i: \" i. I l~ i! } ir i !i H~I I~i i f ;.- - I J1 ~ u - r - r !,.1' 'u~ I-II ,~!, iUI~: If 1 .! I ", ,llil till!' : -' - ,u. I)- r 't i h - ),;- l I lit ;'I~l';i r---l ) -. 1; -;j -j H -j""e III t: i I f:- !!i ,,~ iJ I I- ': ~li !! i I vI ' Ii' I" ~~ll-il r,l ;' II ,I ;dJ. ;i', I " ~ _"]~,ll.,,h:! '~iI "I :i h ,Ii'! It I j I. !r- g~-I!~lh~; ~~ ~~I i Ii J111"1! -.:11 [I. ~"I ;;1 lU!li~ Ji I;! ;:r '.'J !.:I,f 1'1.: 'i I" llJ!llilll"'I;! llil oj :Iii; ,'i>- If;U Ii ~ -,~b- .', -1' I' ~ ;,' If I,d !1_~ I ~~ !~;:U~d~ ~ U,i gl hni j;U1 i~H Ii 11 li!=j!h ~ i. '!'l 1. IJiit :UI ~ li-: ~i ~~J i;I!~p i! d I~' ii ~!;l~ ill!! iilf-l Ii '~ ,.li-'I' f2;ill ~.i _ Il!l~ H~f: ~~.l[._ IU: "1 "'1'- d Ii ).i'-=f. } 1lil -ilr "..j"Ii I' I;_.~ ~r:lp,.t~I~:!l cl {~Iis!-=::,t. ~ltii [Iii!..j l:i{ ;,!:!:~~j~:i ;t'-tI'H1:Pjl.!Ei!' 'ijl,ll~!; =n' 1=, :m~J= -1 lil3!llr";lll.!p.rro.1 ....~ I "I ", 'jI"l --....m~l!''i..''jl..... '.1'1 ' Ji~: I~ I gp:1-J t:-:I"tl=!,il'!lli II }.1 if l~ il~fF.i_'ii"i!i~ dlfld!i;.~r"; IIJljiifi -s:.. !- I'" Ii'..... 1 '.I--e.,"'I_ U'I-'-' =... .=~ ..~. II...:: "...1:..1::' ..=15.= ~I:: __1':_::'.. ._ _ _u _ _ _ j d ~.~ i i:ili ~~~~~~ '$. . ~ ' ~il!~ ~~:t~3~N~~ a n ~~ . I!" Jill! l~.Hn n ~ ~~~ ~~~ ~,~ , ~'J:Hmi~\l !\" h, I~' ~l ~ I! I t i < ~ t G G l "~ I ~f~,~ ~I ,l~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ ! ! l,t ~~ " lh \ " h'~ l'~ ~ , ~ ~ ' ~ . ~ I" :: ~ 'I";:; \i ~"l ~ ..h ~". i " " l ~ ' ! ~ I i ~ ~~~~ I~ , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ I ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~Hl ~~ , , t~ ... t ~~ i l~H ~.~ . .' . ." @:. .il! <a~ ? ' ~ :\ .:":". " -~,. 0> lij1 . @~~ ' .~'? \ ~C!!ffi =, ~.v " @! <;l? Ii ~! ~ . :o!. _ ,~\)V A:1lS6~""" . ..--.... \ ..... IV r - \ .~ ~. ~~ g~ ~ I!: .~\~' /~~ J 4' II s . l:J o '" N g l- i!: ~ c: 1! ~ ; ~ -In .'J liT e III ~ :!I ~ I. I HI II, 'I EI u- . I I I , Ie \ \. 3 .M -lVIG January 9,2004 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 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 (TEe), 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 of these applications. We would envision this designationIPDO 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 desigu would provide for either the success or failure of the TEe and the resulting impacts on the subject property. Cc: R. Haskins, TERC 52 635 Enterprise Circle North, Suite B Temecula, CA 92590-5614 (909) 296-3466 Fax: (909) 296-3476 www.markhamdmg.com , "'-.""- '" " '" ", \ ~ \ ',\ \\ \ \\ , , , ' \ " ~,\ ~\\> ~/ \, / I . ," /' <"".'~ ~, ',"'<', I (:j", " I \ ~, " \. ! '~"> ~/. """.., , ~ z 0 ~N j ..J "' c( -:~~ . r ...J UJ<tm ~~ ....=<( 8 Z ~(j ~ 0 ~~i - ",. :E t- ~N'E ~ ~C:( ~~~ :e ~ 8 :e z ;i ;;: ..J ~tt ..J w ~~ ell ~ :a6 Q :\'" :;) ill ~ I " . . {gJ. ...o"~'" - ~ ~ ~ ,I .iJ ~.1 .' I , C'l'lI ::; ~; , , , g., " I ,'. ... I~ ,-.r--.~- L' ...... .... -'" . ~ ----...--- . - - ... - - - ~ -, i - - -I I :,- ! :: , : " . r' - ..~-. -- - - ..-----rr. __ @ .i: - - -... --. - - - -, :1 - - -- -; I I' ,I f I ~1J!iI .....if Jd~ r-:"<:!a " ;:!;:;iii ,', :llI ,I :a~t!r I I <.!i~"" " !If;o t.,' , G, r - ~ - - , 'Ii ...._-1,1, I , .I , F'" @ ",' ".~ ; ,~ . '~@ @ _illAi J!Illl/!"'il!Ell!! iiiO 1l!1I!li!II!II!IUI "'- '1\ .. . ifP' I I a J---" . - --... .. ". \\ @"" 1 ., I ,~ @ "/1, I J.i ~ ,. - -........,.~--- .-..... ti" '" ($).,. , @, I I I I ,tl t , ... I r I , I' .." - @ .t 1> ffJ ~ 0 "'d::. " ')(Y~!r s . --- . .,,,.O'_''''''''''"'__',~'~ '1 -- 'I . i !l . f ... ..... , .... ... ... ... @ II "I .... G"; At .. .21 III .' 1I.;j 'j . . . . ATTACHMENT NO.7 ADDITIONAL LAND USE MAP CHANGE REQUESTS - SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION R:\General Plan\Comp Plan Update\Staff Report PC2.doc 23 . . . SUMMARY OF GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP REQUESTS POST-CAC .NO; " '. . . ,'\-," .; REQUEST.INFORMAfi0Nc '" .' .... .' --c~ '. '" .,. .; 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 southside of 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 PC2.doc 24 . . . ATTACHMENT NO.8 ADDITIONAL LAND USE CHANGE REQUEST LETTERS R:IGeneral PlanlComp Plan UpdatelStaff Report PC2.doc 25 I. , . 15 Realty Pro's Since 1977 . ~~[Q5~D\fl~rm ,\ill JUL 2 9 2004 ~ July 21,2004 By David Hogan, AICP Principal Planner, Planning Department City ofTemecula 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula Ca 92590 Re: Parcels 147, 148, 149, & 150, 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 prop~rty 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 Teinecula. This is because the CountY will not consider any amendments to their new GeneraIPlanJor.fi~eYears.' , ' These properties have been zoned commercial for many years, and are ,in the early stages of development for offices, restaurants and hotels. I understand that the City of Temecuhi tyPically ret~ins existing zoning on properties that are annexed. This would be a condition of the annexation. ", "",." ;-:i;' :.':\i: "; i:." ,r".. ',' , -..."".,.; .'1'; ". '1'>;:" '" ";'.'/;:.C ;;,';;:;":1:.'.',: , ~,' l '.. .J' , ' , ,-,,' ,"', : ;' ,r ;':',' .' '.' --. '.' ,",.;.j. ....: ..... ",-, , . r.;;,'- ;;." '" ~-;..; . ,'" .' . :; ;'~"'.'(;' ';(\').1;'; P','." " "'1" ".,(' ", ;;.;,,~ ;.:;! ,,,;l.- 1'" l"".~ J~n,-. I;:. iJ-'''!':' r"' -:,:p'::.:r . ..', r ;"'\ . . ,'r.. ,~ .' r. Email:mailfi)brucehomme.com)... "__"; Internet: www.brucehomme.com . ..........: ;...... "",;' 45230 Corte Varela, Suite 100 Temecula, Ca 92590 (951) 694-9209 I. . 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, ~---_. -/~. - Bruce Homme Broker Attachment ", Email: rnail@brucehomme.com Internet: www brucehomme.c~m 45230 Corte Varela, Suite 100 Temecula, C. 92590 . (951) 694-9209 IS . .. . . lii~ ~ ~iil :1 aE~ . ~(glll , '<2 g 'I ~:;I6 :i!d ~~~ ..5... lii~!i: co'" s...!lI (I>~!ll im!ll ~ i~~ Cl~m III !i:"'i 2~~~ pl' (l>i5 IllE.... . ~~ iSE ....~ . :1 'I :1 PARCEL MAP'S835 -fl1-~c~ (4'7 IN THE UNINCORPORATEDTlftRITOIlY OF IlJVERSIDi COUNTY. mTE 0' eALlFOlINlA 1 . .1 IOAl..loI'.WOO' " "- ... . 1 \ 11+ ........ . JIII---' ~ 0-... M'Wn" ...' ...... JZ8 . . . ~'1 tI'~ 123 =~~~ Description: Riverslde,CA Parcel Map 29.38 Page: 1 of 1 - Order: lIor Comment: o '15 , ,.Pfo eft L-I f fO frp Ii-, July 23,2004 fi;I;::--'~'"- If/,I}) j; i!i' r r-~,;---,' 1-'] Ii :/ ~- , :: i l rJ 'I h' -, " ., p ,IIU JUL 2 J Z::JDD4 Wi By -~ '~n_--.,._:..-:-::::=:::~::::.:___:::-----....... . Debbie Ubnoske Community Development Director City ofTemecula 43200 Business Park Drive Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 RE: Change of Zone for 80134 Winchester Road. APN 911-150-005 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 corner 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. In addition to the zone change request, this letter serves as a request that we be provided with written notice of any 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. Sincerely, ~ fI (i d~[;. ~ Hsiao-Feng Chao Louisa H. Chao cc: David Hogan . . . . 1'1 .. AMERICAN PROPERTY .. ENTERPRISES September 14, 2004 ~' ~'-I'-;-' I"" r? ii nn It; 1m I 1'\ ,:1 ! ~:::. ! ~ ':1 I\.: ' l~: I U L'," \'! ,." .' Li '--': ~ ~u SEe 1 '2nn. :0\ 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 # P A 03-0584 Dear Mr. Hogan: Rancho Highlands, LLC is the owner of the above-referenced parcel, which I will refer to herein as the Remainder Parcel. The Remainder Parcel is regulated by SP-2, which designates it Office/Professional. 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 determined that residential use would best utilize the site for the following reasons. I. 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 ofthe 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, ECURezone Request 5465 Morehouse Drive, Suire 200 . San Diego, CA 92121-4713 . (858) 54&7474 Fax (858) 546-7472 . . . ATTACHMENT NO.9 OTHER GENERAL PLAN COMMENT LETTERS R:IGeneral PlanlComp Plan UpdatelStaff Report PC2.doc 26 . . . <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 Eastem 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 documenL 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 Califomia Water District, Eastem 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, Califomia 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 ;,;;;;;~..~. '~J, ::'fJ~:~\. ~OG~ Temecula, California 92590 U \,..1 L!;,",-._-'_'-:-~ Dear Members of Temecula City Council 13' T(,riiecu\~9ity!I~~~g~Jl~SSion, '--,.;.~,.~ ~-- The Roripaugh Hills Homeowners Association (RHHA) represents 439 families. This letter forwards our formal opposition to the opening of Sanderling Way, as proposed in the General Plali. Amendment Preliminary Draft, Page C38.C-7, as presented at the joint meeting on August 10, 2004. . cc: B. Hughes G. Thornhill Four years ago the homeowners of Roripaugh Hills petitioned the Temecula Planning Commission and the Ternecula 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 tbePromenade 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 numbers 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 numbers 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 Temecnla 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 of Directors; ec: Shawn Nelson, City of Temecula September II. 2004 Mr. John Telesio Cbainnan Planning Commission City of Temecula P.O. Box 9033 Temecula California 92589 . Dear Mr. Telesio: Earlier this week, my neighbor Mr. Hayden Porter and I met with Mr. Ron PaIks of the City Planning department. The purpose of our meeting was to discuss the progress of paving Santiago road and what we could do to expedite getting pavement to our properties. In our discussions, we discovered that 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 years since they have requested a zoning change to increase the density of their proposed development. It is my understanding that current zoning requires lot sizes no smaller than one or two acres. Ron mentioned that the intent was to go to one half acre or less. I caonot leD you bow important it i.tbattbe lot .ize zoning cbange not be approved. We purchased our home in early 2003 and Mr. Porter purchased his in late 2003. We were oflhe understanding, (I checked with the city), that this area is zoned as nnaI horse properties not track housing. I believe that 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 intprovements until it is paved. My house is 23 years old. Ron Pades bas told me that one option is a special assessment district. But the planning department is overwhelmed and could not work with us to begin the process. So we can't do the road and we can't get permits. In addition to the above problems I would like to bring to your attention the following issues: Santiago road bas 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 hilltops. 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 neighborhoods as well. Any help that you or your fellow commissioners could provide regarding clarification ancllor resolution of these issues would be greatly appreciated. Respectfully yours, ~~ 30680 Santiago Rd. Temecula, Ca. 92592 951.699.4682 . cc: Mr. Ron PaIks (City ofTemecula Planning Dept) Ms. Mary Jane OIhasso (City Planning Commissioner) Mr. Dennis Chiniaeff (City Planning Commissioner) Mr. Ron Guetriero (City Planning Commissioner) Mr. David Mathewson (City Planning Commisser) Mr. Hayden Porter . ---- . . . 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 Thu~ay, November4,2004 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 necessalV to orevent such thresholds beina reached." . California Environmental 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 ../ / / / 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 ASSOCIATION of GOVERNMENTS Main Office 818 West Seventh Street 12th Floor Los Angeles, California 90017-3435 t (213) 236-1800 f(ZI3) 236-1825 Officers: Pf=~lXa~~~r~~e~ R(lll Roberts, Temewla0 FjrstViccPresident: (ouneilmember TOlli Young, Pori Hu!.'neme . Second Vice ~'II. .Vacanl 1m nty:loShields,Brawley Los County: Yvonne Brathwaite Burke, Los Angeles County' Zev Yaroslavsky, Los Angeles County' lim Aldinger. Manhollan Beach' Harry Baldwin. San Gabriel' Paul Bowlen,Cerritos'TonyCardenas,losAngeles' Margaret Clark, Rosemead . Gene Daniels, Polamount. Mike Dispenza, Palmdale' Judy Dunlap,lnglewood' Rae Gabelich,Long Beach . Eric Garcetti, LosAngeles' WendyGreuel,lo$ Angeles' Flank Gurule, Cudahy' James Hahn, Los Angeles 0 lanice Hahn, Los Angeles' Isadore Hall, Compton 0 Tom laBonge, LoS Angeles 0 Martin Ludlow, Los Angeles' Llewellyn Miller, Claremont 0 Cindy Misdkowski, Los Angeles . Paul Nowatka, Torrance' Pam O'Connor, Sanla Monjea..Alex Padilla, Los Angeles 0 Bernard Parks, Los AngelesolanPerrv,LosAngelesoBeatrieeProo, Pico Riv~ra 0 [d Reyes, Los Angeles ~ Greig SmHh,LosAflgeles'DickStanlord,AzusaoTom Sykes, Walnut 0 Paul Talbot,Alhambra oSldfley lYler,'Pasadenao Tonia Reyes Uranga, long Beach, Antonio Villaraigosa, Los Angeles. DenflisWashbum,CalabasasolackWeisS,Los Angeles 0 Bob Yousefian, Glendale 0 Dennis line,LosAngeles Orange County: Chris Norby, OrangeCountv. JOhfl Beauman, Brea . Lou Bone, Tustin' Art Brown, Buena Park 0 Richard Chavez, Anaheim o Debbie Cook, Huntington Beach 0 Cathryn OeYot.tng,laguna Niguel' Richard Dixon, Lake Forest. Marilyn POl', Los Alamitos 0 Tod Ridgeway, Newporl Beach Riverside County: Jeff Slone, Riverside Counlvo Thomas Bucklev, Lake Elsinore 0 Bonnie Flickinger, Moreno Valley 0 Ron loveridge, Riverside 0 Greg Petlis, Cathedral City 0 Ron Roberts, Temecula San Bernardino County: Gary Ovitt, San Bernaldino Counly 0 Bill Alexander, Rancho Cucamonga o Lawfeoce Dale, Bilf Slow 0 LeeAnn Gilrcia, Glafld Terrace 0 Susan LOflgvllle, San B'iln'ooDeborahRObeltSOfl,RiaItO \Ie n1y: Judy Mikels, Ventura County. Gl ,SimiValleyo Carl MOfehouse, San Bue ura 0 Toni Young, Port Huefleme Orange County Transportation Authority: Vacant Riverside County Transportation Commission: Robin lowe, Hemel Venturi CoUflty Transportation Commission: KeilhMillhollse, Moorpark ~ Prfntedon Re<ydl'dPiiper SYrl/l0fo\ FE8 0 7 2005 February 2, 2005 Mr. David Hogan Principal Planner City of Temecula Planning Department 43200 Business Park Drive P. O. Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 Dear Mr. Hogan: Thank you for submitting the Public Hearing Draft of the Updated General Plan for the City of Temecula to the Southern California Association of Governments for review and comment. A description of the proposed plan was published inSCAG's December 16-31, 2004 Intergovernmental Review Clearinghouse Report for public review and comment Inadditi6n, SCAG staff reviewed and commented on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the City of Temecula General Plan Updateurider separate cover on January 10, 2005. Each of our reviews is from a regional perspective with an intent to share information, data and adopted plans and programs that set forth regional policy. . . It is important to note that requests, such as yours, to review a local government general plan covering a 62 square mile planning area in a fast growing county, represent a significant opportunity to identify where regional policy can be implemented through local action, thereby benefiting your community, subregion and region in the future. It may, therefore, be beneficial to include a short section in your Purpose of General Plan section (pages 1-6 through 1-9) to discuss the regional/subregional/local planning relationships. We were pleased to note your mention of the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and the Hegional Comprehensive Plan, SCAG'sGrowth Vision Compass andSCAG's GroMhManagemenl Rlanlhrough'i>utlhe'Dfaft'GeneraIPla'n: .'. . .' 'c' . . ,.,. J, " ',..' \, " i.-. > ':~ ".>.':1 ' We. recognize youreffortsta support regi6nal>g6als and. poliCies with tfleinclusiOriofheW,rario'use'catego'riElSifClr'mixed"'use ;.,' / . development; thelirikagesvvith multi-tisEifhiils'ai1C1'futimi goals for new transportation opportunities through the extent ion of . Measure A. DOCS#76190v7 MeB SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION of GOVERNMENTS Main Office 818 West Seventh Street 12th Floor Los Angeles. California 90017-3435 1(213) 2-36-1800 f(213) 236.1825 OffKl!rSl Pr~n~~~~~~prooT~m Ron Roberts, Temecula0 First Vice f'1esident:Coundlmember Toni Young, .Port Hueneme 0 Second Vice President: Vacant Imperial County: 10 Shields, Brawley los Angeles County: Yvonne Brathwaite Burke, los Angeles COunty 0 Zev YafOslavsky, los Angeles County 0 Um Aldinger, Manhattan Beach 0 Harry Baldwin, San Gabriel 0 Paul Bowlen,Cerritos-TonyCardenaS,losAngeles- Margalet Clark"Rosemead - Gene Daniels. Paramount 0 Mike Dispenza, Palmdale -Iudy Dunlap, Inglewood 0 Rae Ga,belich, long Bl'ach o EricGarcelli,LosAngeles-WendyGreuel,Los Arlgeles -FrarlkGunrle, Cudahy 0 ]aml's Hahn. Los Angeles 0 lanio, Hahn, Los Angetes 0 Isadore Hall.. Compton 0 Tom LaBonge, Los Angeles 0 Martin ludlow, los Angeles' Llewellyn Miller, Claremont 0 Cindy Misdkowski, Los Angeles 0 Paul" Nowatka. Torrance-Pam O'Connor, Santa Monica -Alex Padilla, Los Angeles 0 Bernard Parks, los Angeles olan Pl'flV, Los Angeles 0 BealriceProo, Pi((lRiverao[dReyes,LosAngelcsor.,pig Smith,LosAngeles-Oickstanford,Aws"oTom Sykes,Walrlul-PauITalbot,AlhambraoSidney Tyler, Pasadena 0 Tonia Reyes Uranga, Long 'B~ch. Antonio Vitlaraigosa,-Los Angeles- Dennis WashbulIl. Calabasas 0 jack Weiss, Los Angeles 0 BobYousenan, GIl'ndale - Dennis line,LosAogeles Orange County: Chris Norby, Orange County 0 'ohn Beauman, Brea -Lou Bone, Tustin - Arl Brown, Buena Park 0 Richard Chavez, Anaheim o Debbie Cook, Huntington Beach o Cathryn DeYoung, Laguna Nigueto Richard Dlxlin, Lake Forest 0 Marilyn Poe, Los Alamitos - Tod Ridgeway, Nl'Wport Beai:h RiversideCounty:]effSlone, Riverside County 0 Thomas Buckley, Lake Elsinore. Bonnie nlckingl'r, Moreno Valley 0 Ron loveridge, Riverside-GregPellis,CathedraICityoRon Roberts,Temecula ~n Bernardino County: GalY Ovitt. San Bernardino County 0 Bill Alexander.. Rancho Cucamonga 0 lawren(e Dale. BarSlow-leeAnn Garcia, Grand Terrace 0 Susan Longvilte, San Bernardino o Deborah Robertson, Rial\o Ventura Coonty:]udy Mikels, Ventura COunty 0 Glen Becelra, Slmi Valley 0 Carl Morehouse, San Buenavenlura o ToniYoung, PorI Hueneme Orange County Transportation Authority: Vilcant Riverside County Transportation Commission: Robin Lowe, Hemet Ventura County Transportation Commission: Keith Millhouse, Moorpark @PlioredonRe<y<ledPa"", 5\9"111(10) Overall, Temecula's Draft General Plan acknowledges and supports Southern California Growth Vision Compass Principles of: . Mobility -Improve MobiJityfor All Residents Livability - Fosler Livability in All Communities Prosperity - Enable Prosperity for All People Sustainability - Promote Sustainabilityfor Future Generations The City of Temecula's effort to maintain consistency with regional plans such as, the Regional Comprehensive Plan and Regional Transportation Plan is highly commendable. We appreciate your commitment to the regional vision and look forward to hearing of your land use/transportation successes as you realize your local vision through your newly revised General Plan. Thank you again for the opportunity to review this most important city planning document. Sincerely, C~~<A; L~ Harris Managerof Community Development Planning and Policy Department . . DOCS#76190v7 MCB . . . ATTACHMENT NO. 10 EIR COMMENT LETTERS R:\GeneraJ Plan\Comp Plan Update\Staff Report PC2.doc 27 STATE OF CALIFORNIA--BUSINESS, TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY ARNOLD SCHW ARZENEGGER, Governor DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 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. Weare 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. The role of regional comprehensive planning and the airport land use conullission 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 anyafiIendments 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 mobility 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/planning/ aeronau t/htrnlfile/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.- aCaltrans improves 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://wwwlJaa.gov/ats/ata/ATA400/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 1l01O of the Business and Professions Code, and Sections 1102.6, 1103.4, and 1353 of the Civil Code (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.htrnl) 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://wwwlJaa.gov/arp/. For further technical information, please refer to the FAA's web site at http://wildlife- mittigation.tc.faa.gov/public html/index.htrnl. You may also wish to contact the ns. Department of Agriculture, Wildlife Services at (916) 979-2675. 11.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 ($1l0.7 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 "Caltrans 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, . ]). c... <-- DAVID COHEN Associate Environmental Planner c: State Clearinghouse French Valley Airport Riverside County ALUC . "'Caltrans improves TTWbility across California" '. @ Rancho Water Board of Dircrtors John E. Hoagland President Csaba F. Ko Sr, Vice President Stephen J. Corona Ralph H. Daily Ben R. Drake Lisa D. Herman Michael R. McMillan Officers: Brian J. Brady General Manager Phillip L. Forbes Director of Finance-Treasurer E.P. "Bob" Lemons Director vf Engineering Perry R. Louck Director of Planning JeffD. Armstrong Controller Linda M. :Fregoso District Secretary/Administrative Services Manag",.. C. Michael Cowett Best Best & Krieger LLP General Counsel December 30, 2004 ~1 ~t ~..~ ;;o~ r~j , i B ~.O:==;.:;_._.. . .. :"::.:::.,,,,=::1 David Hogan, Principal Planner City of Temecula Planning Department 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92560 SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN PUBLIC REVIEW OF DRAFT GENERAL PLAN AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMP ACT REPORT Dear Mr. Hogan: Rancho California Water District (RCWD) appreciates the opportunity to provide comments for the Public Review of the Draft City of Temecula General Plan and the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR). RCWD's comments are as follows: Water Resources The first sentence of the second paragraph on page 08-12 of the Draft General Plan is misleading, since pollution of the underground aquifer is not limited to only industrial sites. The third and fourth sentence of the second paragraph on page OS-12 of the Draft General Plan should be updated as follows: "One groundwater production well was contaminated by a MTBE plume but subsequent aquifer remedial cleanup activities has allowed this facility to bep!aced back into service. Fu!thermore, other groundwater production wells were nearly contaminated by a separate MTBE plume but subsequent aquifer remedial cleanup activities has allowed these facilities to remain in operation." Wastewater Service As previously noted in RCWD's comments to the Notice of Preparation, a portion of the City of Temecula (primarily the Westside Business Centre area) is within RCWD's wastewater service area and these wastewater flows are treated at RCWD's Santa Rosa Water Reclamation Facility. Pages GM-9 and GM-14 of the Draft General Plan as well as the EIR should be revised accordingly. Rancho California Wate.. District 42135 Winchester Road . Post Office Box 9017 . Temecula, Califomia 92589-9011 . (951) 296.6900 . FAX (951) 296-6860 David Hogan/City of Temecnla December 29, 2004 Page Two If you should have any questions or need additional information, please call us at this office at (951) 296-6900. Sincerely, RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT All!!~ Planning & Capital Projects Manager 04IAW:at130IFEG c: E. P. "Bob" Lemons, Director of Engineering Mike Meyerpeter, Development Engineering Manager Enclosure @ Rancho California Water District 42135 Winchester Road . Post Office Box 9017 . Teme<:ula, California 92589-9017 . (909) 296-6900 . FAX (909) 296-6860 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 Officers: President: Counctlmember Ron Roberts, Temewla . first Vice President: CouJldlmember Toni Young, Port Hueneme . s"liPreSidenl:vacant 1m ty: 10 Shields, Brawley 1.05 County: Yvonne BralhwaiteBurke, Los Angele~ County' 2ev Yaroslavsky, Los Angeles (ot/nly . Jim Aldinger, Manhallan Beach' Harry Baldwin, San Gabriel' Paul Bowlen,CenitosoTonyCardenas,losAngeles' Margalel (Ialk, Rosemead' Gene Daniels, Paramount. Mike Dispenza, Palmdale' Judy Dunlap, Inglewood0 Rae Gabelich, Long Beach . EricGarcetti,LosAngeles'WendyGreuel.los Angeles.frankGurule, Cudahy ']ames Hahn, Los Angel~ 0 laniee Hahn, Los Angeles' Isadole Hall, Compton' Tom LaBonge, Los Angeles . Martin Ludlow, Los Angeles' Llewellyn Miller, Claremont . Cindy Miscikowski, Los Angeles 0 Paul Nowatka, Torrance' Pam O'(onnor,Sanla Monica-Alex Padilla, Los Angeles 0 Bernard Parks, Los Angeles'lanPeffy,LosAngetes'BeatriceProo, Pico Rivera 0 {d Reyes, Los Angeles 0 Greig Smith,LosAngeles' OickSlanturd,Azusa o Tom Sykes,Watnul 0 Paul Tatbot, Alhambra o Sidney Tyter,Pasadena'TonraReyesUlanga,Long Beach 0 Antonio Villaraigosa, Los Angeles 0 Dennis Washbulll,Calabasas 0 Jack Weiss, Los Angeles. Bob Yousefian, Glendale 0 Dennis Zine,LosAngeles Orange County; Chris Norby, OrangeCounly' John Beauman, Blea 0 Lou Bone, Tustin' All Brown, Buena Park- Richard Chavez, Anaheim o OebbieG:lok,Huntington Beach o Cathryn DeYoung,LagunaNiguel-Ri(haldDixon, Lake Forest - Marilyn POl', Los Alamilos - Tod Ridgeway, Newport Beach Riverside County: leffStone, Riverside County. Thomas Buckley, Lake {jsinore 0 Bonnie flickinger, Moreno Valley' Ron Loveridge, RivelSide' Greg Pettis, Cathedral City 0 Ron Roberts,Temewla San Bernardino County: Paul Biane.San Bemaulino County 0 Bill Alexander, Rancho ClKamonga -lawrence Dale, Barstow 0 lee Ann Garcia, Gland T~face 0 Susan Longville, San '_IIl'oOO€borahRobertson,Riillto V nty: ludy Mlkels, Ventura Counly' GI . Simi Valtey' (arl Morehouse, San Bue uraoToniYoung.PortHueneme Orange County Transportation Authority; Vacant Rlverslde County Transportation Commission: RobinLowe,Hemet Ventura County Transportation Commission; BillOavis,SimiValley i) PrjnledonReq.:If\lPaJl!" 5\9'11/nlo;, January 10, 2005 -----_.-~-::-:'" \;~;\ I:)! 1\: n l;: 1.UU ~. , Iny _..... \."_~C""-_._- ~.---1 ,-'." \ ~ \.\ t \ ~ JAN 1 8 2005 "1 /"1 , \ , ...~--=~::J 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: . . Thank youUirSubfnitling .theOraftEmiil'OnmsnhlltmPl'lctRepert fer thE! City of T:emecula 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 responsibilities 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 policies. 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 outlined in our September 2, 2004 letter on the Notice of Preparation (NOP) for this Draft EIR. 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 applicable 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. . " you have any questions, please contact me at (213) 236-1867. Thank you. ..", ~~ ;- - Riverside Transit Age. 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 ~\\'~~\Tf-~~-Ti \fK0\\\1 L'!'--- - 1\\: ,,;\ 4' , 1'1 i 'i Ii' JAN 1 2005 i Ii II uU i~J' 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. RTA 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:ldatalPlanninglMikeMlWordlOev ReviewlTemecula\20051RTA Llhd - DraftEIR-Gen'IPlan.doc . . . January 12,2004 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 Community 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. RT A 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. RT A 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 Temecula. These are routes along which RTA 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 RT A route. Example: Pauba Rd; o Some collector streets in high-density, special design or institutional-use areas may carry transit. Example: Old Town Front St. . The Growth Visioning principles, pp 5-9.20 & 21 are strong policy statements in favor of transit alternatives where possible and practical; F:ldalaIPlanning\MikeMlWord\Dev ReviewlTemecula\2005\DraftEIR - Gen'l Plan.doc eCalifornia Regional Water Quality Control Board San Diego Region Alan C. Lloyd, Ph.D. Secretary for Environmental Protection. Over 50 Years Serving San Diego, Orange, and Riverside Counties Recipient of the 2004 Environmental A ward for Outstanding Achievement from USEP A @'~"" . . . .','~.> 9174 Sky Park Court, Suite 100, San Diego, California 92123-4340 (858) 467.2952' Fax (858) 571.6972 http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/sandiego Arnold Schwa~ Gave. January 18, 2005 ~:'~ (c. if: ~ m fE ~~ I .J' JAN 2 4 200S ~ I In reply~t!fer to: WPN:l@~?0~5;.~2:~O:~b__ _ Mr. David Hogan, Principal Planner Planning Division . City Of Temecula 43200 Business Park Dice Temecula, California 92590 De~o::J SUBJECT: SCH# 2003061041 CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the Draft Environmental hnpact Report (ElR) 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 appropriate 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 ElR, these changes to stream hydrology could result in adverse impacts to water quality and the beneficial uses of water in the Santa Margarita River 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 ~ater discharges. I 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 draft ElR overlooks the benefits of a low" I United States EPA. 1999 Part 11. 40 CPR 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, bioretention swales, and wet swales as part of deve!()pment 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 appropriate BMPs to mitigate the projected increases in pollutant loads and flows. California Environmental Protection Agency &cled 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, imd 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 in proximity to M8HCP conservation areas within the planning area of the Citv of Temecula shall incorporate measures, including measures required bv the Citv pursuant to throllgh the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit No. CAS0108766, felJ.lIimffi0ntG to ensure that the quantity . and quality of runoff discharged does not cause or contribute to the violation of water Qualitv standards (designated beneficial uses and water Quality 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 . Califomw Environmental Protection Agency 6yded Paper . Mr. David Hogan SCH # 2003061041 - 4- January 18, 2005 runoffto 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. R9-2004-00l. Please call Mr. Robert Morris at (858) 467-2962 or e-mail atbmorris@waterboards.ca.gov if you have any questions regarding this matter. Respectfully, HN H. ROBERTUS Executi ve ,Officer Regional Water Quality Control Board .' JHR:mpm:rwm . California Environmental Protection Agency 6"ycled Paper . 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 RT A 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 RT A 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 RT A 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 NIA; Thomas Guide Map page grid: Not applicable; . F:ldataIPlanningIMikeM\WordIDev ReviewlTemecula\2005lDraftEIR. Gen'l Pian.doc . . . Case Numbers: State Clearinghouse Number is unknown; Contact Planner: Principal Planner David Hogan, (951) 694-6477; Applicant: City of Temecula, CA Applicant's Consultant: Cotton Bridges Associates of Pasadena CA RTA PLANNING FOLLOW-UP: Standard "Acceptable" letter to jurisdiction without comments -fJ- Standard "Acceptable" letter to jurisdiction with compliments or positive advisories letter with advisories re transit issues letter sent: Date: tlfz.los I ' SECOND REVIEW: Review materials placed in archive files: Date: F:ldalalPlanninglMikeMIWordlDev ReviewlTemecula\2005lDraftEIR - Gen'l Plan.doc Board of Directors President Randy A. Record Vice President David J. Slawson Richard R. Hall Rodger D. Siems Ronald w. Sullivan Board Secretary Rosemarie V. Howell General Mallager Anthony J. Pack Director of the Metropolitan Water District of So. Calif. Randy A. Record Treasurer Joseph J. Kuebler, CPA Legal COlll/Sel Redwine and Sherrill JAN 3 1 Z005 . SINCE 1950 . . Mailing Address: Post Office Box 8300 Perris, CA 92572-8300 Telephone: (951) 928-3777 Fax: (951) 928-6177 Location: 2270 Trumble Road Perris, CA 92570 Internet: www.emwd.org January 25, 2005 Mr. David Hogan, Principal Planner City of Temecula 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 RE: Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) City of Temecula General Plan Update Dear Mr. Hogan: Eastem Municipal Water District (EMWD) appreciates the opportunity to review the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the City of Temecula's General Plan Update. EMWD offers the following comments. Paae 5.14-2. Table 5.14-2. EMWD Current and Proiected Water SUDDlles The Future (2020) Purchased Water figure of 11,012 is incorrect. The correct figure is 110,012. Page 5-14-4 Wastewater Environmental Settina The correct term for effluent pumped from the Temecula facility is recycled water. The third sentence of this paragraph should be revised to read, "Because the Temecula facility is the smallest of EMWD's five reclamation plants, some recycled water is pumped from the Temecula facility ten miles north to a 450- million-gallon storage facility in Winchester". Thank you for the opportunity to review the DEIR. Please forward any subsequent documents regarding the project to my attention at the mailing address below. Thank you. Sincerely, . l)aUf0i/~ Karen Hackett Environmental Compliance Analyst J:\WOROPR:0C\WP\ENGINEER31\HACKET1\$CEQA\$CollllMnblCtyTemGl1!P1nUpd.wpd . . . MWO METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA JAN 3 1 2005 Executive Office January 26, 2005 Mr. David Hogan, Principal Planner City of Temecula 43200 Business Park Drive Temccul.:i, Ci\ 92590 Dear Mr. Hogan: Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Citv of Temecula General Plan Update The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (Metropolitan) has reviewed a copy of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft ErR) for the City of Temecula General Plan Update. The city of Temecula (City), as the Califomia Environmental Quality Act lead agency, proposes to adopt and implement the City's General Plan Update. The updated General Plan wiII address the seven State-mandated general plan elements (land use, housing, eirl'ulation, safety, open space, conservation. and noise), as well as other issues that are important to the community, including growth management, economic development, air quality, and community design. The Housing Element was recently updated in 2002, and thus is not being comprehensively updated as part of this project. The updated General Plan, establishes an overall development capacity for the City and surrounding areas, and serves as a policy guide for determining physical development and character through the year 2025. This letter contains Metropolitan's response to the Initial Study and NOP as both a potentially affected agency and responsible agency. Metropolitan staff has reviewed the Draft EIR and determined that our existing San Diego Pi!,eli!1~ nos 1,2,-3,4. ane' 5 need '(1 he cbssitieol?-s P,lhlic ID~tit!ltiou'll E~cjJjties (PT) on Figure 3-2. Additionally, Metropolitan's facilities are within both pernJanent easement and fee-owned property within the boundaries of the General Plan Update area and Metropolitan also owns property to the west of Lake Skinner, a portion of which is located outside of the city limits, but within the Planning Area for this document. This property is part of the operations area for Lake Skinner and serves to accommodate releases from Lake Skinner. Metropolitan requests that the EIR note that neither private nor public developers have any entitlements to build over our fee- owned rights-of-way or properties and there are limited allowances on our permanent easements for private or public improvements. If the City does not feel that the PI land use designation is appropriate, Metropolitan requests that' our facilities and property be given a land use designation similar to the City's public facilities (e.g., roadways). This land use designation should set forth that development in and around Metropolitan's facilities shall be consistent with the express use of our pipelines as public 700 N. Alameda Street, Los Angeles, California 90012. Mailing Address: Box 54153, Los Angeles, California 90054-0153. Telephone (213) 217-6000 THE METROPOLITAN WA TER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA Mr. David Hogan, Principal Planner Page 2 January 26, 2005 . facilities. Metropolitan requests this designation based on the land uses shown on Figure 3-2 of the Draft EIR, which indicates "Open Space" across Metropolitan's San Diego Pipeline Nos. I through 5 in numerous locations. In addition, Figure 3-2 also identifies Metropolitan's property west of Lake Skinner as Open Space. These lands are not intended for open space use nor should they be implied as such. Metropolitan requires unobstructed access to our pipelines and property for routine and emergency maintenance and operations, and the possible installation of additional pipelines and above-ground facilities including but not limited to water treatment facilities, therefore, any designation other then "Public Facilities" is inaccurate. We appreciate the opportunity to provide input to your planning process and we look forward to receiving future environmental documentation, including a copy of the Final EIR, for this project. Ifwe can be of further assistance, please contact Mr. John Vrsalovich at (213) 217-6066. Very truly yours, ~mj S'~ Manager, Environmental Planning Team . 1IM/rdl (public FoldersIEPUlLetters/25-JAN-05A.doc - David Hogan) . -~ . m~U3~om~m W JAN 2 8 2005 ~ United States Department of the Interior . BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT Palm Springs-South Coast Field Office 690 West Garnet Avenue P.O. Box 581260 North Palm Springs, CA 92258.1260 (760) 251-4800 Fax (760) 251-4899 By Visit us on the Internet at www.ca. blm.gov/palmspring s 1610 (CA 660.03) JAN 2 72005 Mr. David Hogan Principle Planner City of Temecula 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, California 92592 Dear Mr. Hogan: . Thank you for sending the Bureau of Land Management (ELM) a copy of the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the City of Temecula General Plan Update Project. The BLM would like to offer the following comments on this document. This draft EIR indicates that public lands managed by the BLM are included within the project planning area (Sphere of Influence Boundary). However, the document makes little or no mention of these lands, or possible impacts to the resources on these public lands. The only reference to BLM lands is under 3.0 Project Description, Page 3-1, Regional Setting, "The City is bordered by the unincorporated De Luz area to the west, ... and the Pechanga Indian Reservation, Bureau of Land Management lands, and unincorporated portions of San Diego County to the south." The BLM lands, though not identified, are shown in various maps, such as Figure 3-2, Proposed Land Use Policy Map, as "Open Space." Two BLM managed parcels are located within the project boundary, parcel # 219-291, approximately 911 acres, and parcel # 218-231, approximately 300 acres. Parcel # 218-231 is also within the Santa Margarita River Ecological Reserve and Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) These public lands are managed under the BLM's South Coast Resource Management Plan (RMP), adopted in 1994, and are considered core habitat under the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP). Some of the resource condition objectives for these lands under the South Coast RMP are to emphasize protection and enhancement of sensitive species habitats and open . space values, provide recreation opportunities which are compatible with sensitive species management objectives, and protect Native American values and cultural resources. In addition, lands -.. within the Santa Margarita ACEC (parcel # 218-231) are unavailable for mineral material sales and . livestock grazing, are a right-of-way avoidance area, and are closed. to motorized vehicle use. The BLM would like to see the EIR include a brief description, such as above, of the public lands within the planning area, and identify the BLM lands in the appropriate land use maps. Since public lands contain a variety of important resources, impacts to these resources could be discussed in the sections on Aesthetics, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, and Public ServicesIRecreation. Cumulative and long-term effects to these resources from increased population and urbanization could also be discussed. Some examples of potential impacts might include domestic cats and dogs which may stray onto public lands and kill bird and reptile species resulting in "habitat sinks", night lighting of natural areas which upsets the diurnal pattern of species, and uncontrolled off-highway vehicle use from new residents riding on adjacent public lands. Another concern, resulting from recent wildfires, is the potential construction by new homeowners of fire breaks on public lands instead of clearing vegetation on their private property. The BLM encourages community planning for recreation uses on public lands such as hiking, horseback riding, nature study and other activities compatible with the Western Riverside County MSHCP. Our office would welcome the opportunity to work with the City of Temecula to establish a cooperative recreation and natural resource management strategy to maximize the benefits of living near natural areas, protect natural resources, and minimize threats to life and property from wildfires. We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this ElR and General Plan Update. If you would like . more information on BLM managed public lands, our land use management plan, or the resources on these lands, please contact Greg Hill, Planning and Environmental Coordinator at (760) 251-4840. Sincerely, ~~ Gail Acheson Field Manager . RECEIVED: 1/31/05 2:27PM; ->CITY OF TEMECULA; #335; PAGE 2 JRN. 31. 2005 3:33PM WARllD'D. WILLIAMS Qf1l.ral Managcr.ChicfEngineer . . . NO. 831 P .2/3 1995 MARKET STREET IUVERSJDE, CA 92501 951.955.1200 951.788.9965 FAX RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT January 31, 2005 FAXED TillS DATE TO 951.694.6477 Mr. David Hogan, Principal Planner City of Temecula Post Office Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 Dear Mr. Hogan: Re: Notice of Completionl Availability of a Draft Environmental Impact Report for the City ofTernecula General Plan Update This letter is written in response to the Notice of Completion/Availability of a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the City of Temecula General Plan Update. The proposed project consists of the adoption and implementation of the City of Temecula General Plan update. The General Plan update addresses thc seven State mandated general plan elements (land use, housing, circulation, safety, open space, conservation. and noise), as well as other issues that are important to the community, including growth management, economic developmellt, air quality, and community design. The project planning area encompasses approximately 62 square miles (39,680 acres) and consists of properties contained within the City's corporate limits and sphere of influence in southwestern Riverside County. The Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District has the following comments/concems that should be addressed in the DEIR: I. Pages 4-2 and 5. I 4-6 - References are made concerning the District's jurisdiction of regional flood control facilities, including major channels and storm drains. Page 5.14-6 inoorrectly states that the District "/;Ioes not maintain storm drain inlets or pipes less than 42 inches in diameter." For clarification, the District does not maintain, and in most cases does not have jurisdiction over, storm drain inlets or pipes less than 36 inches in diameter. 2. Pages 5.8-3, 5.8-5, and 5.14-7 . It is stated that the stonllwater in Temecula is "governed" by the District qnd that "all proposed development projects within the Planning Area are reviewed" by the District prior to approval by the City of Temecula or Riverside County. It should be clarified in the DEIR that, while strongly recommended, the Districts review of future development within the corporate limits of the City of TemecuJa is not a requirement for approval and is condncted at the request of the City. Additionally, it should be noted in the DEIR that the Planning Area is located within the District's Master Drainage Plan (MDP) for the Murrieta Creek area. When fully implemented, these MOP facilities will provide flood protection to relieve those areas within the plan of the most seriolls flooding problems and will provide adequate drainage outlets. The DistriCT'S MDP facility maps can be viewed online at www.f1oodcontro1.co.riverside.ca.us/mdp.asp.To obtain further information on the MDP and the proposed District facilities, contact All Diaz of the District's Planning Section at 951.955.1345. RECEIVED: 1/31/05 2:27PM; .>CITY OF TEMECULAj #335; PAGE 3 JAN.31.2005 3:33PM NO.831 P.3/3 Mr. David Hogan Re: Notice of Completion/Availability of a Draft Environmental Impact Report for the City of Temecula General Plan Update -2- January 31, 2005 . 3. Pages J -6 and 3-19 - The District should be listed as an agency that may use the General Plan document for approval of future flood control facilities. 4. Page 1-37, Table I-I - It appears the "8tormwater Drainage" section under "Utilities and Service Systems" is mislabeled and should read "Energy". 5. Future connections of storrowater facilities constructed for new development to eXlstmg District facilities should be included and evaluated as part of the overall project in the CEQA approval process. Any work that involves District right of way, easements, or facilities will require an encroachment permit from the District. The construction of facilities within road right of way that may impact District storm drains should also be coordinated with us. To obtain further information on encroachment permits or existing facilities, contact Ed Lotz of the District's Encroachment Permit Section at 951.955.1266. Thank you for the opportunity to review the Notice of Completion/Availability and DEIR. Please forward any subsequent environmental documents regarding the project to my attention at this office. Any further questions concerning this letter may be referred to me at 951.955.1233 or Marc Mintz at 951.955.4643. Very truly yours, 0ku4~u TERESA TUNG Senior Civil Engineer . c: Greg Neal Art Diaz Bob Cullen Ed Lotz MAM:cw PC\92796 . COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE TRANSPORTATION AND LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY Tony Carstens Agimey Director JG11fuJ.Miller Director George A. JClhTUOn. '.E. Dir'elor January 31, 2005 City of Temecula Ann: Mr. David Hogan, Principal Planner 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92592 . Dear Mr. Hogan: . Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Draft EIR for the City of Temecula General Plan update. Attached you will find comment letters from the County of Ri verside Planning andTransportation Departments, outlining issues that need to be adequately addressed within your EIR .and General Plan Update documents. We look forward to your responses to these comments and the opporrunity to work with you to reach a COnsensus on how to move forward to address the important issues that affect both of aUf jurisdictions. Please let me know if you have any questions or wish to discuss any comment we have provided. I can be reached at (951) 955-3266. Sincerely, ..~ rZ a..p TU1A Adrninistnltive Manager . 4080 Lemon Streel, 14th Floor. Riverside; California 92501 . (951) 955-6838 P. O. Box 1605. Riverside, California 92502-1605. FAX (951) 955-6879 '""---,-_. C;O"7d , .~.. 6L89-SS6~606:xe~-- ~Wll-3aIS~3~I~ JO'OJ OS:9! SO, l~ ue[ COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE TRANSPORTATION AND LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY Tony C.o.rstens Agency Director Planning Department Robert C. Johnsr:m Planning Director January 31, 2005 City ofTemecula ATrN: Mr. David. Hogan, Principal Planner 43200 Business Park Drive , Ternecula, CA 92592 RE: NOTICE OF COMPLETION/NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY OF A DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE Dear Mr. Hogan: Thank you for providing the Riverside County Planning Department the opportunity to review the draft Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) for the City of Temecula General Plan Update (hereafter "PrOjecl"), As indicated in the PEIR, subsequent activities which may be considered within the scope of this PEIR may include: revisions to the City's Development . Code; rezoning for consistency with the updated Land Use Policy Map; approval of specific plans, development plans, development agreements, facility and service master plans, public improvement projects and resource management plans; acquisition of property by purchase or eminent domain; issuance of municipal bonds and permits for public and private development projects as well as other permits necessary for implementation of the General Plan. This letter provides County ,staff's comments on the draft PEIR, and the County reserves the right to provide further comments on the City's'General Plan and any other subsequent implementation activities. The PEIR indicates that the Project Planning Area consists of approximately 62 square miles (or 3,9,680 gross acres), of which approximately 28 square mUes (or 17,955 gross acres) lie within the city limits of the City of Temecula. The remaining 34 square miles of planning area are located in the unincorporated areas of Riverside County and includes approximately 24 square miles (or 15,360 gross acres) of properties located within the City's sphere of influence and approximately 10 square miles (or 6,400 gross acres) of properties located outside its sphere of influence. The Riverside Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) has no current proposal to change the City's sphere of influence, but is overseeing the preparation of Municipal Service Reviews (MSRs) as part of a reassessment of spheres of influence, Under Population and Housing, the PEIR indicates that approximately 77,460 persons resided in 24,984 residential units within the corporate City limits in 2004. Future development over the next 20 years, or to 2025. pursuant to the proposed General Plan may result in an additional 25,005 new residential units (includes detached Single-family residential, attached single-family Riverside Office' 4080 Lemon Street. 9th floor P,O. Box 1409, Rivenide. California 92502-1409 (95J) 955-3200' Fax (951) 955-3157 . Indio Office' 82.675 Hwy Ill. 2nd Floor Room 209, Indio, California 92201 (760) 863.8277' fax (760) 863.7555 Murrieta Office' 39493 Los Alamos Road Murrieta, California 92563 (951)600.6170' Fax (951)600.6\45 ,.' ",; , m'd OS:9! SO. !~ UP[ 6.!.89-SS6=-606:'XP.:l -'8WlI::--3CfiS~3I\I~ JO'O) City of Temecula Draft ErR - city of Temecura General Plan Update Page 2 of8 . . resiaentlal ana mUlti-family residential) and 36.2 million square feet of net new nonresidential development, resulting in up to 54.687 total residential units and 78.3 million square feet of nonresidential development and provide for a total population capacity of 169,184 persons within the Planning Area. County Planning staff offers the following comments for your consideration and incorporation into tile draft PEIR: 1. Approximately 34 square miles of the Planning Area lie outside the city limits, within the unincorporated area of Riverside County. The City's proposed land use designations do not reflect existing County land use approvals within the unincorporated areas. For example, the site of an approved high-density senior housing project is proposed for the City's Rural designation (maximum intensity 0.2 dwelling units per acre). (See the discussion under item 15 below.) Failure to reflect existing County land use and land division approvals may be expected to lead to an underestimate of overall, cumulative impacts on traffic. air pOllutant emissions, noise, water supply, and nonrenewable resource consumption. 2. The Altematives analysis Should include consideration of an alternative that utilizes the City's proposed land use designations within its existing jurisdictional boundaries and the County's land use designations within its existing jurisdictional boundaries. This study is merited in that it would provide an analysis of potential development in the event that the City were to adopt its proposed General Plan, but not annex any additional land. . 3. The portion of the Planning Area outside city limits includes approximately 10 square miles of unincorporated areas not currently located within the City's sphere Of influence. . The Project Description of the draft PEIR should cite under what authority the City is including the 10 square miles of area outside its sphere of influence as part of its Planning Area and whether the City intends to file a proposal to expand its sphere of influence and annex this area. 4. There are inconsistencies throughout the draft PEIR when discussing population. dwelling units. and nonresidential square footage within the City limits and Planning Area. For example, the Executive Summary diSCUSsion of the Land Use Element identifies total nonresidential development pursuant to the proposed General Plan as 76.3 million square feet (page 1-3), while the Project Description on page 3-8 identifies total nonresidential development as 75.4 million square feet (page 3-8). Such discrepancies need to be resolved. 5. The environmental document utilizes Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) 2000-2025 growth forecasts, build-out capacity of the proposed General Plan within the City limits and within the Planning Area, the City of Temecula 2004 Population Profile for Cities of Temeoula (for areas within City limits only), Murrieta and Western Riverside County, and the 2004 State Department of Finance City/County Population and Housing Estimates (for areas within City limits only). Please include a comparison table for these different factors in the Executive Summary or Project Description Section of the draft PEIR so that the reviewer can clearly understand the relationship between these factors and whether they support the analyses and findings in various parts of the draft PEIR. . 170'd .../; TS:9T SO. T~ ue[ 6.!.89~SS6'::606.:-XE~"-8"W\l:':3afs::i3(\I(j JD'OJ . City of Temecula Draft EIR - City ot Temecula General Plan Update Page 3 ot8 6. . Page 4-1, unCler Environmental Setting, identifies the unincorporated portions of the Planning Area as being comprised of 16,480 acres (or 26 square miles). Please provide an explanation of why this number is inconsistent with the Project Characteristics discussion in the Executive Summary of the PEIR. 7. On Page 5-1, under Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures, the draft PEIR states that mitigation, in addition to measures that the lead agency will implement, can also include measures that are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency pursuant to CEQA GUidelines Section 15091 (a)(2). To cite the applicable CEQA section: . "No public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been certified which identifies one or more si9nificant environmental effects of the project unless the public agency makes one or more written findings for each of those significant effects, accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding." It is a violation of CEQA to defer mitigation. Tnls section clearly does not excuse the lead agency from identifying all feasible mitigation and considering a reasonable range of alternatives to reduce significant impacts resulting from the lead agency's authority to use its discretionary powers. 8. Under Section 5.2 Agricultural Resources, the draft PEIR states tnat the project will result in a less than significant impact with regard to Williamson Act contract lands, as there are no Williamson Act contracts in the Planning Area. This statement is incorrect There are a number of agricultural preserves located in the unincorporated areas of the Planning Area. Consequently, there are numerous parcels located within the boundaries of an agricultural preserve, many of them under active Williamson Act contracts. Easterly of Butterfield Stage Road, there are several large development projects currently being processed through the County of Riverside, each involving large lot reSidential development and proposing cancellation of the affected agricultural preserve contracts. . 9. Please indicate in the discussion under Carbon Monoxide Hot Spots in Section 5.3 Air Quality whether all existing roadways that are currently operating below an acceptable level Of service (LOS D), as well as all future impacted roadways, were monitored and. included in Appendix B. If all impacted roadways haven't been evaluated andlor if factors used to calculate traffic impacts are revised, this study should be revised accordingly and induded in the appendix and draft PEfR. The discussion under 5.4 Biological Resources states on page 5.4-17 that implementation of the City's proposed General Plan will result in .significant and adverse" impacts on rare, threatened, and endangered species. The discussion under 5.9 Land Use and Planning states on page 5.9-1 that the General Plan .was found to conflict with" the adopted Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan. However, both sections then make the finding of less than significant impact to biological resources and to an adopted regional plan with implementation of mitigation measures_ One such mitigation measure is that future projects comply with the MSHCP. For example, if a future proposed project is inconsistent with the MSHCP because avoidance of riparian/riverine areas or vernal 10. . SO'd .' . .......~:....1 ...... IS:91 SO, l~ ue[ --- 6L89"::SS6::606: xe~ ----I:IWll- 3aIS;J31\I;J wm . . City of Temecula Draft EIR - City of Temecula General Plan Update Page 4 018 POOlS is unfeasible, a finding of biologically equivalent or superior preservation must be made in accordance with guidelines contained in the MSHCP. Therefore, a finding of less than significant impact to biological resources cannot be made at this program level due to the lack of future projects' specificity. 11. Section 5.10 Noise uses level of service (LOS) C for adjacent roadways to estimate maximum level future noise impacts. However, Sections 5.3 Air Quality and 5.13 Transportation indicate that several intersections and freeway ramps are currently operating at LOS E and LOS F. These intersections and ramps will be further exacerbated by additional traffic resulting from ultimate build-out of th'e Planning Area. Future traffic will also impact new areas of the existing roadways by exceeding acceptable levels of service. The analysis in this section of the PEIR should utilize a realistic level of service In determining project and cumulative noise impacts. Please revise AppendlxE and the Noise Section of the draft PEIR. Under Section 5.13 Transportation, it appears that existing traffic conditions were based on studies conducted within the City limits and not within the proposed Planning Area to arrive .at average daily trip (ADT) volumes. These ADTs were then added to future ADT volumes based on residential and nonresidential build-out under the proposed General Plan. The traffic analysis should address existing conditions of the Project Planning Area. within the City and unincorporated areas. Please revise the analyses under this . section as well as all affected sections of the draft PEIR (Le., air quality, noise, etc.). Under the Environmental Setting and Section 5.13 Transportation, the draft PEIR identifies several Intersections and freeway ramps that currently operate at LOS E and LOS F. Impacts to these same inte~ections and freeway ramps resulting from implementation of the proposed General Plan are then determined not to be significant since unacceptable LOS already exists at these roadways and no new impacts will result from the additional ADT volumes. Implementation of the Project. will result, at a minimum, in doubling existing ADTs. It cannot accurately be stated that the Project will not have direct impacts on existing roadways resulting from increased ADT volumes. This is an inappropriate application of CEQA, where it states that the environmental baseline is established at the time the Notice of Preparation is distributed to the public, This section of the draft PEIR is inadequate and fails to fully disclose and analyze existing and future traffic impacts. Please revise this section as well all affected sections of the draft PEIR (I.e., air quality, carbon monoxide hot spots, noise, etc.) and identify mitigation measures which will reduce said impacts, 12. 13. 14. The draft PEIR identifies that implementation of the Proje!;t will result in significant, unavoidable, project-level and cumulative impacts to Air Quality and Transportation, but that noise impacts will be less than significant with mitigation. However, page 1-44 of the Executive Summary states that "increased traffic noise may have significant impact... in the long term" and that 'residual impacts will remain significant." Please clarify whether of not noise impacts will be significant and adverse and include mitigation measures to .reduce said impacts. 15. The draft PEIR and the City's Land Use Policy and Focus maps should be revised to reflect the following existing County land use approvals within the unincorporated area. . I~, . ,.", , ".' 6L89-SS6:'606: XI'.:J '-l::IWl1-3(IIS:ii.3;;f~ }o 'OJ 90'd (:S:91 SO, l~ Ul'[ City of Temecula Draft ErR - City of Temecura General Plan Update Pag.e 5 of 8 a. An 11.51-acre area at the southeast comer of the intersection of Rancho California Road at Rancho Vista Road (Assessor's Parcel Numbers 951-140-016 through 951-040-018) is the site of a senior housing and health care complex approved through Public Use Permit No. 791, as modified by Substantial Conformance No.1. This property is designated Very High Density Residential (14-20 dwelling units per acre) within the Community Development Foundation Component on the Southwest Area Plan. The City proposes a designation of Rural - 0.2 dwelling units per acre on the City's proposed Land Use Map, within Rural Preservation Area No.2. This site should be designated High Density Residential (13-20) on the City Plan. However, whether or not the City chooses to acknowledge this approved project in its Land Use Plan, any cumulative impact analyses and traffic models need to reflect this project approval. . b. An 84.34-acre area southerly of the Morgan Hill development (Assessor's Parcel Numbers 952-250-008, -012, and -044 through -046) is the site of a 143-lot subdivision map approved through Tentative Tract Map No. 29473. This property is designated Medium Density Residential (2-5 dwelling units per acre) within the Community Development Foundation Component on the Southwest Area Plan. The City proposes a designation of Vineyards/Agricultural on the City's proposed land Use Map, within Rural Preservation Area No.3. This site should be designated Low Density Residential (0.5-2.9 dwelling units per acre) on the City Plan. However, whether or not the City chooses to acknowledge this approved project in its Land Use Plan, any cumulative impact analyses and traffic models need to reflect this project approval. 16. The boundaries of the Rural Preservation Areas should be modified, at least to the extent necessary to recognize existing County approvals pre-dating the release of this Plan. 17. The above specified projects in the Rural Preservation Areas reflect only the major projects that have been approved. There are a number of other projects in process that may need to be addressed in cumulative impact analysis. Staff offers the following information for your consideration: Rural Preservation Area - Temecula Wine Country/East Rancho California . . Consider the area bounded by De Portola Road on the north, Anza Road on the east, State Highway Route 79 South on the south. and the Temecula city limits on the west. This area is designated for Community Development Foundation Component uses on the Southwest Area Plan - Medium Density Residential (2-5 dwelling units per acre) and Commercial Tourist. The City proposes a designation of Vineyards/Agricultural (0.1 dwelling units per acre). In this area, the eight westerly parcels are designated Medium Density Residential, but are not the site of any major planning cases. However, the easterly area is characterized by smaller parcels, and those in the southerly portion have been the location for a number of planning cases. These include an approved Imani Temple on APN 952-170-005 located northwesterly of the Calle Amaz cul-de-sac. The parcel located at the northwesterly comer of State Highway Route 79 South and Anza Road (APN 952-170-007) was formerly approved for a church through Public Use Permit No. 764. That permit has since expired, but the County is processing a change of zone and conditional use permit (Change of Zone Case No. 6654 and Conditional Use Permit . ....;. 6L89:':ssi;-=-606: XI? T- tJw'll:: 3riiS<l3!\I<l }o'OJ LO'd ~S:9! SO.!~ Ul?[ City of Temecula Draft EIR - City of Temecula General Plan Update Page 6 of 8 . NO_ 3357) to establish a gas station, mini-mart, and car wash at this location, which is designated Commercial Tourist. Except for the areas southerly of De Portola Road and the Public Use Permit site referenced above, the County designations within the area identified by the City as East Rancho California or Temecula Wine- Country fall within the Rural Community and Agriculture Foundation Components_ However, there are a number of differences between the County and City provisions. . The County designates properties located westerly of Anza Road, southerly of pauba Road, and northerly of De Portola Road as Estate Density Residential - Rural Community (EDR-RC: one dwelling unit per two acres). The City proposes to designate this area as Rural Residential with a density standard of 0.2 dwelling unit per acre, or one unit per five acres, with a small area along the northerly side of De Portola Road designated Vineyards/Agriculture (0.1 dwelling unit per acre). However, a review of existing lot size patterns indicates that the predominant lot size in this area, other than the area along the northerly side of De Portola Road, is in the 2% - 5 acre range. Thus, use of the density standard of 0.2 dwelling units per acre may result in an underestimate of the actual intensity of this area, with consequent impacts on the accuracy of projected levels of traffic and secondary impacts on the accuracy of noise and air quality modeling, (The area on the northerly side of De Portola Road is characterized by larger lot sizes; however, this area is also designated EDR-RC on the County's Plan.) It is recommended that this area be designated and modeled as within the City's Very Low (density) Residential, 0.2 - 0.4 dwelling units per acre. Northerly of Pauba Road is a large area designated as Agriculture within the Citrus Vineyard Policy Area on the SWAP, with some exceptions in the area southerly of Rancho California Road. This Policy Area flanking Rancho California Road between Butterfield Stage Road on the west and Anza Road on the east differs from most agricultural areas in the County in its allowance for a five acre minimum lot size for tract maps and parcel maps_ In contrast, the City's proposed Vineyards/Agriculture designation provides for a maximum development intensity of 0.1 dwelling units per acre (one dwelling unit per ten acres). While some of the area depicted as Citrus Vineyard on the SWAP is proposed as Very Low Residential or Rural Residential on the City's Land Use Policy Map, most of this area is proposed as within the Vineyards/Agriculture designation on the City's Map. It is recommended that this area retain the Vineyards/Agriculture designation, except where the County designation is for a higher intensity than Agriculture, but that the development intensity for this designation be Changed to 0.2 dwelling units per acre_ Northerly of the Citrus Vineyard Policy Area is another area designated Estate Density Residential- Rural Community on the SWAP. The portion of this area southwesterly of Calle Contento is proposed for a designation of Rural Residential (0.2 dwelling units per acre) on the City's Plan_ It is recommended that this area be designated as Very Low (density) Residential, 0_2 - 0.4 dwelling units per acre on the City's Plan. . Rural Preservation Area - South Anza Road all SR-79 Tentative Tract Map No. 29473 referenced in 15b_ above affects five of the parcels within an area of fifteen parcels located southeasterly of the Morgan Hill development . . ,..~ . 80'd ~S:91 SO, 1~ ue[ 6L89~SS6-606:xer-tJNll-=-j(jis~3!\I<J JO'OJ . Cityi>f Temecula Draft EIR - City of Temecula General Plan Update Page 7 of 8 ano designateo Medium Density Residential on the SWAP. At this time, there is no urban development within this area. However, tentative tract maps have been filed on five of the other ten properties (APNs 952-250-005, 006, 007, 013. and 015). These tract maps (32226, 32227, 32778, and 32988) together propose 275 lots on 93.2 acres. These tract maps are presently in the review process, although none is ready to be scheduled for hearing as of this writing. An additional four parcels established through Parcel Map No. 28289 (APNs 952-380-001 through -004) are five acres in gross area. Only one of the fifteen parcels is 10 acres or larger and is not the subject of a proposed subdivision. . We recommend that the area designated Medium Density Residential on the SWAP be removed from the Rural Preservation Area and be designated for Low or Low Medium Density Residential developm,mt on the City's Lilnd Use Policy Map. In any event, Consideration should be given to the County designations of this land in cumulative impact analysis and traffic modeling. The County does not object to the inclusion of the remainder of the depicted area southerly and easterly of the Morgan Hill development within the Rural Preservation Area, as depicted. However, bearing in mind that the majority of this area is designated Rural Residential on the SWAP. the City should either designate the properties Rural Residential or change the density within the Vineyards/Agricultural designation to 0.2 dwelling units per acre as recommended above. The City's Policy Map and Focus Map differ with respect to the treatment of the area . located on the south side of State Highway Route 79 South, westerly of Anza Road. The Focus Map depicts this area as being included within the Rural Preservation Area. while the Land Use Policy Map depicts this area as being designated for Low Medium and. Low density residential development. We recommend that the area located southerly of State Highway Route 79 South, northerly of Temecula Creek. and westerly of Anza Road be removed from the Rural Preservation Area. French Vallev Future Growth Area In general. the City's proposed land use designations for this area appear to conform to County land use designations. Given the differences in ranges between the City,and County designations, direct comparison for the urban density areas is not simple. However. we have identified one area where there are discrepancies. The northeast quarter of the northwest quarter of Section 4 consists of sixteen parcels, each about 2Y. acres in size. This area is designated as Estate Density Residential within the Rural Community Foundation Component (one dwelling unit per two acres) on the SWAP. The City proposes a designation of Rural Residential (0.2 dwelling units per ~cre); however, if a residence is allowed on each existing lot, this area will build out at a density of 0.4 dwelling units per acre. This should be considered in analyzing cumulative impact and traffic analysis. Given the existing lot size pattern. we recommend that this area be designated Very Low density Residential on the City's land Use Policy Map. The City may also wish to consider re-designation of the southeast quarter of the southwest quarter of Section 33 as Very Low density Residential. as this area is also . designated Estate Density Residential- Rural Community on the SWAP. _. .___ --__.__'0.___.- 60'd , . -.''--.' S:S:91 SO, 1>: Ul:>[ -:...._--1-___...........___...._ . 6L89-SS6~606:Xl:>j ~Wll-3aIS~3AI~ }o'OJ . City of Temecula Draft EIR - City of Temecula General Plan Update Page 8 of 8 . The Draft PEIR provides an analysis of the potential environmental impacts of the City's proposed General Plan. As the General Plan is a policy document, many of the mitigation measures identified to mitigate potential impacts are pOlicies and may not be effective as mitigation. The draft PEIR should clearly identify actions required by the City to make said pOlicies viable (i.e., resolution, ordinance, etc.). Thank you for considering our comments and for the opportunity to review the draft PEIR for the City of Temecula General Plan Update. If you should have any questions regarding these comments, please contact Kathleen Browne, Urban Regional Planner III, at (909) 955-4949. Sincerely, nson, Planning Director Y:\TM2\KBR:OWNE\OER Log\Respt.'\I1WJooo TemtclJla GP _EJR.doc . . :. .'. ,,,_ ._______._.._0..--..___.___."".._...... 6L89-SS6-606:xe~ ~11-3aIS~3AI~ JO'OJ Ol'd ~S:9l SO. l~ ue[ COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE TRANSPORTATION AND LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY Transportation Department Gem1!e A. Johl'lsolt, RE. Dirutor of Transportarion January 31, 2005 Mr. David Hogan, Principal Planner City of Temecula 43200 Business Park Drive TemecuJa, CA 92590 RE: Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the City of Temecula General Plan Update Dear Mr. Hogan, The Riverside County Transportation Department has reviewed the Draft EIR for the City of Temecula General Plan Update. We appreciate the opportunity to review and comment on this document. In ongoing discussions with the County, the City as been an advocate of developing strategies to address the impacts of growth on the regional arterial and freeway system throughout southwest Riverside County. The City has consistently emphasized the need to plan and implement a circulation system (regional arterials and freeways) that can accommodate future traffic. As such, the City has challenged the County to develop a performance based circulation improvement program to ensure adequate capacity will be provided on the arterials and freeways to accommodate growth in the region. The City's General Plan does not evaluate freeway capacity or impacts. The proposed General Plan also laoks a performance based infrastructure improvement program. Please show us how the City intends to address the freeway and regional arterial challenges with an adequately funded infrastructure phasing program. Based upon our reviaw of the document, the Transportation Department has the following comments: 1 . . The traffic analysis does not address traffic impacts to the freeway system. Neither the Existing ADT Volumes (Figure2-1), nor the 2025 ADT Volumes (Figure 4-1) indicate any traffic volumes on either 1-15 or 1-215. There is no analysis anywhere in the report of impacts to the freeway mainline. The only analysis of freeway impacts is limited to local access interchanges. The 4080 Lernoo Street, 8th floor. Riverside. California 92501 . (951) 955-6740 P.o. Box 1090' Riverside, California 92502-1090. FAX (951) 955-3198 n'd ..- ~S:9l SO. T~ UP[ 6L89-SS6-606:XP~ 8Wll-3aIS~3AI~ }O'OJ . . . . . ~ . . . January 31, 2005 Mr. David Hogan, Principal Planner RE: DEIR for City of Temecula General Plan Update Page 2 analysis should be expanded to evaluate and address impacts to the freeway system. 2. Land use assumptions for the unincorporated area of French Valley are inconsistent with the County's Highway 79 Policy Area (C 2.7, copy enclosed), which calls for a 9% reduction in residential trip generation. The plan should be revised to recognize and implement this trip reduction strategy for the French Valley area. 3. The traffic analysis for the unincorporated portions of the City's plan should also be consistent with the County's policy relative to commercial development (LU 23.2, copy enclosed). The policy requires that once 40% of all designated commercial properties have developed, further commercial development must demonstrate a market need, as well as provide for the full mitigation of traffic impacts. It is further assumed that the remainder of the commercially designated properties may need to convert to medium density residential. County policies call for a program to monitor and implement such limitation, as should the City's General Plan for the unincorporated areas. 4. The Draft EIR Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures (Table 1-1) indicates that the City will implement certain procedures and programs to monitor and mitigate impacts to transportation infrastructure, however, there are no policies contained in the General Plan nor in the Draft EIR which would indicate a commitment to implement such procedures and programs. The table further indicates that six interchange locations will operate at LOS F. Additionally, the levels of service reported in Table 1-1 do not coincide with levels of service reported in the traffic study or in other sections throughout the draft EIR. These inconsistencies must be reconciled. Further, the statement attached to Table 1-1 that mitigation measures are required to reduce the level of impact is vague and ambiguous. Mitigation measures should be specific and performance-based to link infrastructure improvements to development impacts. 5. The Roadway Plan (Figure 3-3) contains a number of inconsistencies when compared to the County General Plan Circulation Element (copy enclosed) for the unincorporated areas included in the City's General Plan. a. SR 79 (Winchester Road) in the City's Roadway Plan is designated as an 8-lane Urban Arterial within the City, and as a 6-lane Principal Arteria.l in (;l'd 6L89-SS6-606:XPj ~Wll-3aIS~3AI~ JO'OJ VS:91 SQ, 1~ UP[ January 31, 2005 Mr. David Hogan, Principal Planner RE: DEIR for City of Temecula General Plan Update Page 3 . the County Area. The County currently has an MOU with Caltrans and the City of Murrieta (copy enclosed), which defines future access, right of way and impr~vements for SR 79 between Hunter Road and Domenigoni Parkway. The MOU calls for a 184' r/w from Hunter Road to Keller Road, and a 220' r/w from Keller Road to the Domengoni Parkway. Both typical cross sections call for 6-lane improvements that could be expanded to accommodate 8-lanes within the designated right of way. The City's plan should be revised to be consistent with this MOU. b. The City plan has upgraded the designation of Anza Road to a 6-lane Principal Arterial as the planned roadway approaches the new planned interchange on 1-15 southerly of SR 79 South. We agree with this revision and commend the City for this circulation network enhancement. However, the City plan designates Anza Road in the unincorporated area as a 2- lane Rural Highway, while the County designates Anza Road as a 4-lane Major Highway. The remainder of the City portion carries a similar 4-lane Major Arterial designation. Anza Road, in combination with or as an alternative to Butterfield Stage Road, could function as the "Eastern Bypass' which has been the topic of much discussion between the City and the County. The traffic analysis assumes that the 2-lane Rural . Highway has a capacity of 20,000 vehicles per day. Our analysis and experience with such 2-lane rural roadways indicates that this is an overly optimistic estimate of capacity, which is more in the range of 13,000 vehicles per day. More over. the 2025 forecast traffic volumes on the northerly reach of Anza Road indicates daily traffic volumes approaching nearly 30,000 vehicles per day. By either standard, the forecast volumes clearly exceed 2-lane capacity. It is our recommendation that the City adopt a designation that more closely reflects the County 4-lane Major Highway designation. c. Rancho California Road in the City Roadway Plan is also designated as 2- lane Rural Highway. The County designates this facility as a Mountain Arterial (110' rlw), which has a number of optional cross sections ranging from two to three to four-lanes, depending upon traffic demand and local conditions. At present the road is already 3-lanes, which includes a center left turn lane. It is our recommendation that the City develop a standard to match the County's Mountain Arterial designation. 6. The traffic study utilizes the ICU methodology to calculate level of service and indicates, on page 2-5. that the leu values are calculated on the basis of ideal operating conditions, while suggesting that physical constraints may prevent ideal conditions from occurring. The use of the ICU methOdology to . -- -...---..-.-.--..-..""'"--.-...-..-.-..-- .. 6L89~SS6-606:xe~ ~Wll-3aIS~3AI~ }O.OJ ~Td vS:91 SO. 1~ ue[ . . . January 31,2005 Mr. David Hogan, Principal Planner RE: DEIR for City of Temecula General Plan Update Page 4 7. 8. 9. calculate level of service is inconsistent with current transportation industry standards for traffic impact analysis and the City's own guidelines for the preparation of traffic impact studies. The County of Riverside requires Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodologies to assess the level of service measurement. We believe that the use of the ICU method produces unrealistically optimistic results at several locations. For example, the study reports an existing LOS C at the 1-15 NIB ramps! Winchester Road intersection. The HCM method for this same location indicates LOS E, which is more consistent with actual observed operations at this intersection. Similarly, the Winchester RoadlMargarita Road intersection is reported to operate at LOS 0 for the existing PM peak hour. The HCM method indicates LOS F, again more consistent with actual observed operation. As such, we believe. that the ICU method has consistently understated traffic impacts for both existing conditions and future year forecasts. In addition, the Draft EIR is intemally inconsistent with respect to the methodology used to determine traffic impacts, as the Noise and Air Quality sections of the Draft EIR have used the HeM method and report different levels of service for the same intersections. We recommend that the level of service calculations be revised to consistently utilize the HCM method throughout the document. The traffic analysis only addresses impacts within the City boundaries, while other elements such as Noise and Air Quality consider the entire Planning Area, including unincorporated areas adjacent to the City. Omitting the analysis of traffic impacts for the unincorporated areas is inconsistent with the remainder of the draft General Plan. The traffic study needs to be revised and expanded to address the whole Planning Area. The baseline data used to establish existing conditions is very outdated (2000/2002). Generally baseline data should be no more than one year old. The baseline data needs to be updated to reflect current traffic volumes. The traffic study forecasts future volumes only to the year 2025. It is typical when analyzing General Plan impacts to evaluate build out of the General Plan. While the City may assume that the entire City area will be build out by 2025, that is not a reasonable assumption for the surrounding area. We recommend that the analysis be revised and expanded to include a buildout scenario. 171'd ..' . I7S:91 SO, 1~ ue[ 6L89-SS6-=606:xej m .tjwli=-3arS~31\I;j }O'OJ January 31. 2005 Mr. David Hogan, Principal Planner RE: DEJR for City of Temecula General Plan Update Page 5 . 10. The traffic study, page 1-1, indicates that the traffic forecasts for the analysis were derived from the City of Temecula Traffic Model. We would like to verify that this model is consistent with the County's RCIP traffic model, particularly with respect to land use and network assumptions for the adjacent County unincorporated areas, as the future year forecasts do not appear to match with forecasts obtaimid from the RCIP model. For example, the future year peak hour volumes at the Winchester Road/Murrieta Hot Springs Road intersection are very low compared to forecasts which have used the RCIP model as a basis. Specifically, the northbound left turn movement is shown to be 0 and the eastbound left turn is shown as 100 vehicles, while recent count data indicates current volumes of 187 and 315, respectively. We can see no logical explanation such a drastic reduction in turning movements for future year scenarios. All RCIP model output has projected significant increases in volume for future years. We recommend that the traffic analysis be reviewed for consistency with the RCIP model. We are prepared to work with the City to address these issues and reach a mutual . understanding of the traffic impacts associated with the City's new General Plan, along with the City's approach to policies and programs which the City plans to implement in ordeno mitigate traffic impacts. Please feel free to contact Ed Studor, Administrative Manager, at (951) 955-6767 should you have any questions or wish to discuss these comments further. Sincerely, ~~~ Director of Transportation GAJ:ES:es Enclosures cc: : Supervisor Jeff Stone, Third District . Tony Carstens, TLMA Director Greg Neal, Agency Program Administrator . Sl-d SS:91 so.; l~ ue[ 6L89:SS6=-606:xe.:l---lJWll=-3QIS~3()i<l JD'OJ :I=-..=-.".=-. .~........ ._'.1:.I1TI ____.._.::11111::11...... f_~.._:.r:'~.,=-r 01/31/2005 17:34 FAX 916 657 5390 NAHC ~001 . . . ~TATF nF CAIIR)RNI~ GCll/lllIlQC Arnnlrt ~~r7N'lol!oftAQl' NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION 915 CAPITOL MAll-. ROOM 384 SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 (916) 653-4082 (916) 657-5390 - Fax ~ January 31. 2005 Mr. David Hogan City ofT emecula 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 Re: Proposed City ofTemecula General Plan Update SCH# 2003061041 Dear Mr. Hogan: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the above-mentioned document The Commission was able to conduct a Sacred Lands File search for this project, which identified no recorded siles within the project area. The absence of recorded sites, on either the Sacred Lands File or the State or National Historic Register, however, does not preclude the possibility that unrecorded sites may exist on the property. On March 1 of this year, Local Govemments will be required to comply w~h Senate Bill 16 (Chapter 905, 2004 Statutes), which requires consultation with appropriate Native American tribes regarding any amendment to a General Plan or Specific Plan. The General Plan Guidelines will be amended to reflect the new law, which includes a requirement to contact the Native American Heritage Commission for the appropriate tribal contacts. Because this law will be implement shortly, we encourage you to initiate the consultation process nCIN for the General Plan Amendment currently under consideration. (To read a copy of the chaptered law, please go to htto:/Iinfo.sen.ca.gov/c!!i- bin/Dostquerv?b.i11 nurnher=sh 18&sess=PREV &house=B&site=seul Early consultation with tribes in your area is the best way to avoid unanticipated discoveries once a project is underway. Enclosed is a list of Native Americans individuals/organizations thaI may have unique knowledge of cultural resources in the project area. The Commission makes no recommendation of a single individual or group over another. By contacting all those listed, your organization will be better able to respond to claims of failure to consult with the appropriate tribe or group. If you have not received a response within two weeks' time, we recommend that you foIlow~p with a telephone call to make sure that the information was received. Lack of surface evidence of archeological resources does not preclude the existence of archeological resources. Lead aaencies should consider avoidance. as defined in Section 15370 of the CEOA Guidelines when sianificant cultural resources could be affected. Provisions should also be included for accidentally discovered archeological resources during construction per California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), PubflC Resources Code !j15064.5 (f). Health and Safety Code !j7050.5; and PUblic Resources Code !j5097.98 mandate the process to be followed in the event of an accidental discovery of any human remains In a location other than a dedicated cemetery and should be included in all environmental documents. If you have any questions, please contact me at (916) 653- 6251. Sincerely. 4o-{ Carol Gaubatz Program Analy Cc: Slate Clearinghouse RECEIVED: 4:31PM; ->CITY OF TEMECULA; #340; PAGE 2 1/31/05 01/31/2005 17:34 FAX 916 657 5390 NARC Native American Contacts Riverside County January 31,2005 Cupa Cultural Center (Pala Band) William J. Contreras. Archaeology and Cultural Res. P.O. Box 455 Luiseno Pala . CA 92059 (760) 742-3784 Pala Band of Mission Indians Robert Smith. Chairperson P.O. Box 50 Pala . CA 92059 (760) 742-3784 (760) 742-1411 Fax Luiseno Cupeno Pechanga Band of Mission Indians Paul Macarro, Cultural Resource Center P.O. Box 2183 Luiseno Temecula , CA 92593 (951) 308-9295 (951) 506-9491 Fax This list I. cunenl only "" 01 the _ 01 this doCument. Dlstrlbutlon of this fist does not relieve Bny ptIrson of stalUlory ,esponslblll1y.. aenned In SectIon 70s0.s 01 the Heolth ond SQlety Code, Section 5097.94 01 the Public neso_ Code and $<letlon 5097.98 01 tho PublIC -- Code. This list Is only appllcoblalor conlaCtlng locol NolIve Amertcons with regard 10 cultural ""'0"- __men! lOr the proposed CI1y 01 Temacula General Plan Update, SCH# 2003061041. Riverside COunty. ~002 . . . Arnold Schwarzenegger Governor . . S TAT E OF C A L I FOR N I A Governor's Office of Planning and Research State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit Febmary I, 2005 David Hogan City of Temecula 43200 Business'Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 Subject: City of Temecu!a General Plan Update SCH#: 2003061041 Dear David Hogan: ~OfP~~ .~~" I *~~ $.""'~ } 'f~OFCAO';f# JOll Boel Acting Director rlr:\7c~"'------;, [,', r - I 'J '1'1;,--' ;' \1,'1 ' r J co, :! i, c' 'III . Ii / '.', , . '. II il'i _ Iii 1 il Ii i FEB 03 2005 ,. " fUll ",I I p3~/ ~__. The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named Draft EIR to selected state agencies for review. On the enclosed Document Details Report please note that the Clearinghouse has listed the state agencies that reviewed your document. The review period closed on January 31, 2005, and the comments from the responding agency (ies) is (are) enclosed. If this comment package is not in order, please notify the State Clearinghouse immediately. Please refer to the project's ten-digit State Clearinghouse number in future cOlTespondence so that we may respond promptly. ,Please note that Section 211 04( c) of the California Public Resources Code states that: "A responsible or other public agency shall only make substantive comments regarding those activities involved in a project which are within an area of expertise of the agency or which are required to be carried out or approved by the agency. Those comments shall be supported by specific documentation." These comments are forwarded for use in preparing your final environmental document. Should you need more information or clarification of the enclosed comments, we recommend that you contact the commenting agency directly. This letter <1cknowledges that you have complied with the State Clearinghouse review requirements for draft envirornnental documents, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. Please contact the State Clearinghouse at (916) 445-0613 if you have any questions regarding the environrilental review process. Sincerely, ~ Teny Rober Director, State Clearinghouse Enslosures cc:Resources Agency 1400 TENTH STREET p.o. BOX 3044 SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95812-3044 TEL(916)445-0613 FAX (916) 323-3018 www.opr.ca.gov SCH# Project Title Lead Agency Document Details Report State Clearinghouse Data Base 2003061041 City of Temecula General Plan Update Temecula, City of . Type EIR Draft EIR Description The City of Temecula has completed a comprehensive update program for the General Plan. The updated General Plan addresses the seven State mandated General Plan elements, as well as other issues that are important to the community, including growth management, economic development, air quality, and community design. The Housing Element was recently updated in 2002, and thus is not being comprehensively updated as part of this program. Lead Agency Contact Name David Hogan Agency City of Temecula Phone (951)694-6400 email Address City Fax 43200 Business Park Drive T emecula State CA Zip 92590 Project Location County Riverside City T emecula Region Cross Streets N/A Parcel No. N/A Township Range Section Base . Proximity to: Highways SR-79, 1,15, 1-215 Airports French Valley Airport Railways None Waterways Temecula, Murrieta, Tucalota Creeks and Santa Margarita River Schools All TVUSD Schoois Land Use Varies Project Issues Aesthetic/Visual: Agricultural Land; Air Quality; Archaeologic-Hlstoric; Cumulative Effects; Drainage/Absorption; Flood Plain/Flooding; Forest Land/Fire Hazard; Geologic/Seismic; Growth Inducing; Landuse; Minerals; Noise; Other Issues; Population/Housing Balance; Public Services; Recreation/Parks; Schools/Universities; Septic System; Sewer Capacity; Soil Erosion/CompactionfGrading; Solid Waste; Toxic/Hazardous; Traffic/Circulation; Vegetation; Water Quality; Water Supply; Wetland/Riparian; Wildlife Reviewing' Agencies Resources Agency; Regional Water Quality Control Board, Region 9; Department of Parks and Recreation; Native American Heritage Commission; Office of Emergency Services; Department of Fish and Game, Region 6; Department of Water Resources; California Highway Patrol; Caltrans, District 8; Caltrans, Division of Aeronautics Start of Review 12/17/2004 End of Review 01/31/2005 Date Received 12/17/2004 . Note: Blanks in data fields result from insufficient information provided by lead agency. ~ ~ECULA VALLEY Unified School District BOARD OF EDUCATION Robert Brown Maryann Edwards Stewart Morris February 2, 2005 SUPERINTENDENT David B. AlImen Kenneth Ray Barbara Tooker Mr. David Hogan Planning Department City of Temecula P.O. Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 SUBJECT: Temecula General Plan Update - Environmental Impact Report Temecula General Plan - Public Review Draft dated December 2004 Dear Mr. Hogan: The Temecula Valley Unified School District has reviewed the Temecula General Plan Update - Environmental Impact Report and Temecula General Plan - Public Review Draft dated December 2004 and has the following comments: . 1. Proposed Land Use Policv Map (Figure 3-2) The map indicates low, medium and high density residential development in Old Town with a small open space location (apparently mirroring the proposed Villages of Old Town Specific Plan). With the development anticipated for that area, the District will also need an elementary site to service those students. We have discussed this several times with City staff and provided written requests to the City on several occasions over the past three years, and the City (most recently Gary Thornhill) has responded that along with those proposed zone changes, there would be a designated public institutional (blue) area of at least 10-acres centrally in that future specific plan area. The map does not indicate the blue area and we request that it be updated to include it. Please advise as to how I may assist in getting this designated appropriately. An elementary site at Auld and Pourroy Roads, previously identified as the future Crown Valley Village Elementary, is being eliminated from the District's master plan and should be removed from the land use map. (See attached map). 2. School Facilities Student Enrollment (Table 5.12-2) (See attached updated enrollment figures as of January 2005) 3. School Facilities MaD (Figure 5.12-2) (See corrected location of French Valley Elementary School) . 4. Future TVUSD-Schools (Figure 5.12-4) (Adjust the order of the schools openings to reflec!--wUTf Creek'Elementary opening in 2006, after the 2005 openings of Quinta Do L~)l€( Morgan Hill and Crowne Hill Elementary Schools) ave any other questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me at (951) 506- . 31350 Rancho Vista Road lTemecula, CA 92592 / (909) 676-2661 Public SeNices and Recrearion l 1 A J Table 5.12-2 School Facilities ~, 'i - 1 , 1 ! ! j , , 1 1 , j j 1 , j , , ~ i J i j I j j 1 Schools Environmental Setting The Temecula Valley Unified School District (TVUSD) serves the City of Temecula, providing K-12 educational services and many special education programs. TVUSD service boundaries extend north to Jean Nicholas Road in French Valley, south to the Riverside County-San Diego County line, east to Vail Lake, and west to the Temecula city limit. TVUSD maintains a full spectrum of educational facilities from elementary to adult schools' Figure 5.12-2 illustrates the locations of school facilities. Table 5.12-2 identifies the public educational facilities in the City and lists the current (2004) enrollment levels of each facility. .:loa$' Name Location rudent Enrollment ~n~""7" ~oo$" as of" ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS IK-5) Alamos Elementary' 38200 Pacific Park Drive Onens 2004 ">9'3 Barnett Elementarv 39925 Haryeston Drive 747 3ft7 French Valley E1emelltary' 36680 Cady Road ilia 1037 Jackson Elementary 32400 Camino San Dimas 683 9>.? Nicolas Vallev Elementary' 39600 N. General Kearnev Road 801 91ir Paloma Elementary 42940 Via Rami 829 7N Pauba Valley Elementary 33125 Regina Driye 820 I!?i Rancho Elementary 31530 La Serena Way 780 8"1;l. Red Hawk Elementary' 32045 Camino San Jose 624 c.~:;., Reinke Elementary 43799 Sunnv Meadows Drive 846 II')>.~ Snarkman Elementary 32225 Pio Pico Road 646 70'/ T ernecula Elementary 41951 Moraga Road 820 79'- Vail Elementary 29915 Mira Lorna Drive 639 773 Vinta2e Hills Elementary 42240 Camino Romo . 969 IO~t MIDDLE SCHOOLS 16-8) Bella Vista Middle' 31650 Brownin2 Road Onens 2004 (.. 9'7 Dav Middle 40775 Camino Carnnos Verde 1,235 9?f?' Gardner Middle 45125 Via Del Coronado nla 78'1 Mar2arita Middle 30600 Mar2arita Road 1,000 111:1- Temecula Middle 42075 Meadows Parkway 1,277 13~'1 Vail Ranch Middle 33340 Camino Piedra Roio 1,369 9s-"- HIGH SCHOOLS (9-12) Chanarral High 27215 Nicolas Road 2,251 ~ffJ- Great Oak High 32S55 Deer Hollow Wav Ooens 2004 I~j Temecula Valley High 315S5 Rancho Vista Road 3,322 ..23'(,8 Rancho Vista Continuation 31340 Rancho Vista Road nla ,;1;,.7 ADULT SCHOOL T emecula Adult School 31350 Rancho Vista Road I nla 1. located within sphere of influence. \ Source: Temecula Valley Unified School District, 2004. e 5 City of Temecula website. "Schools." Located at htto:f/wvl"w.citvoftemecula.org/homeoaee/Residents/tvusd.htm. November 1, 2004. e CITY OF TEMECULA 5.12.5 ENVlRONMENTAllMPACT REPORT GENERAL PLAN UPDATE Figure 5.12-2 School Facilities . Legend <9 Elementary School @ Middle School <0 High School , 0 Priva,te School J T emecula City Boundary Sphere of Influence Boundary - Planning Area I I I 10.. , ,................ ~u j 1 I I I ] , l l ] 1 J Source; Temecuta GIS and CottonjBlidges/Associates ----.-. J L_n______ ...~... . ! N 0 5,000 10,000 W*E H H I I Feet . H H I I Miles S 0 2 ~ ENVIRONMENtAL IMPACT REPORT GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 5.12.6 CITY OF TEMECULA ....... U ',.... ~ ,~ Q - o~ o "5~ CI)- -08 (1)..s::: \i::U '- CI) SLQ ~o (1)0 ::::::~ ~~ coO -sC\J U (1) E ~ J. N01~NIHSVM lBl:inOd ...... e~ "'~ >- >- ~ ~ ~ ~j~~j ~ i ~ '0 ~"E~.!! c:: 1: ~E ..!!I If Ql 01) QlW ~ Ql "l..! C:- Iii 2:'E~Ec.!!~E~"'EW..!!l E ~ ..!!I.!!-.!!~W..!!l.!!_~QlijC:: Ql il .:::WWW~>.cW"EEE~~iIi ~ ~~i~~~~~~m~.!!..!!I~ o .!!~~~c>.!!~.!!~[WiI w W~m>~~W>W~0~e4> ~ ~>'~TII_~]O~~~.!!m E..oZiC::1;;8~~"fiic~w~ ~ ~~m~~z~~ij~B~~5 o ....)O.I.Q.'a::.-,I->. U) '(J)'U)'U)'U)'lI)"'1I) ~ U)W(I)WOOW<hWU)WWU)(I)W ~ ~~~~~~&~~~~~~5 "NO ..", ID:l N3~~M o 0: ~ ill 0: o . ~ ~ " lD~ ~ .!! ~~~~~~ ::E>.Cl"'C"'C::E ~l3 ~::E~-6 .- '~.!!I..N.:ij >~3'r:: GQ: Jl!llw ~CI"" ~~~lG~~ ,-,w::l!:1- . (I)' ".(1) s:'~~~~~ aJO~:iF> .t -+ . 00; -1i I~ If . i ~ ~ :2- Q ol'! . 1- " . . .~ l " u, & ]!>- 00 . ~. " =Il. .. ~. I .o. "s. ~~ .. . E ~ >-. .>- "! u>. ou> ~ ;:~ z o ~ " '" . ~ < :r..: ,g -a,~l~ {! "5,r>'iij.!!l~ ~ :r:~ 105~ ~ ~~H~ :; a.iilecc: ~c'5,!~~ ." "?d,'d,,g ::E ~6~5g I- UC>~ir~ ~ Public Services and Recreation . To meet future educational needs, TVUSD prepares Five-Year Facility Construction Plans. Future school construction projects within the current plan are summarized in Table 5.12-4. The projected opening date of schools may change as a result of changes in school enrollment, levels of new home construction, and the availability of State funds for school construction/renovation. Table 5.12-4 Future TVUSD Schools Name Estimated Comoletion Date ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS _Quinta Do Lago (French Valley) 2005 Wolf Creek 2006, Morgan Hill 2005 ) Crowne Hill 2005/ Old Town BeyondL006 Roripaugh Ranch Beyond 2006 MIDDLE SCHOOLS Roripaugh Ranch Beyond 2006 Middle School #8 (In Winchester 1800) Beyond 2006 (French Valley) HIGH SCHOOLS High School #4 (French Valley) I Beyond 2006 r1/tj,,, -I."-<L /.>e. S<? v-e"cc Source: T emecu/a Valley Unified School District, November, 2004. . With adoption of Senate Bill 50 and Proposition 1 A in 1998, school districts that meet certain requirements now have the option of adopting alternative school fees, also known as Level 2 Fees and Level 3 Fees (Public Resources Code Sections 65995.5, 65995.6 and 65995.7). In general, alternative school fees, which are calculated for each school district, apply solely to residential construction within a school district. In order to impose alternative school fees on new residential construction within the District, TVUSD annually prepares and adopts a School Facilities Needs Analysis (SFNA) as required by State law. Additionally, the City works with developers and TVUSD to designate school facility locations when new residential projects are proposed," TVUSD meets the educational needs of its student population through both permanent and interim facilities. . Payment of alternative school fees will be used to offset the cost to TVUSD of providing education facilities to future students. The environmental effects of expansion, construction, and operation of additional school facilities will be evaluated by TVUSD in its efforts to plan for construction of new ' schools or expansion of existing facilities. SB 50 states that for CEQA purposes, payment of fees to the affected school district reduces school facility impacts to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measures No mitigation beyond the payment of school fees is required. . 6 Temecula Valley Unified School District. Developer Fees. located at hUo:/iwww.tvusd.k12.ca.lls/. November 2, 2004. ENVIRONMENTAL JMPAQ REPORT GENERAL PIAN UPDATE 5.12-8 CITY OF TEMECUlA , PECHANGA INDIAN RESERVATION Temecula Band oj Luiseno Mission Indians ...--= Te~:~~:~~~:I~X6~~7;7~;e,;~~~dr~n~(~8 r~ ,\ "; !.: Iii'!! !i Ii FEB 0 7 2005 \ 'i ii 'lill i !; t .i'c-j -_.' 1 iJ',' ________.._._~.::::~oi l__.:.-u__..._._ ".," .---- Tribal Chairman: . Mark Macarro Council Members: Mark Calac Marc Luker John Magee Andrew Mas1el.Sr. Donna Mastel Russell "Butch" Murphy . Tribal Secretary: Darlene Miranda Sent via Facsimile to (951) 694-6477 Tribal Treasurer: Christine Luker February 2, 2004 Ms, Debbie Ubnoske, Planning Director City of Temecula P.O. Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589 RE: Comments on City of Temecula General Plan DEIR Dear Ms. Ubnoske, We submit these comments as a federally recognized IndianTribeandinterested party in this CEQA approval process for the'City's General Phin, Additionally, the Tribe has an interest in these proceedings as a landholder of properties that are directly adjacent to the' City's jurisdictional boundary, and which appear to be affected by this proposed General Plan. We request that these comments be incorporated into the official record of approval for the General Plan. . It is our understanding that the proposed General PlanJDEIR contains a proposed major arterial aligrunent alternative which passes through and near the Tribe's external reservation boundaries. This aligrunent is depicted in Figure C-2 on page C-21 ofthe proposed General Plan, and appears to be proposed as an entirely new exit from the 1-15 to connect with Deer Hollow Way via traversing Tribal lands. It is our understanding that this alignment is just one of the proposed alternatives to address traffic concerns within the City, and that such a major arterial alignment would be legally required to go though a fonnal approval and pennitting process with the involvement of other interested agencies and parties, including the Pechanga Tribe. While the Tribe is understanding and supportive of addressing traffic concerns within the City, any aligrunent through Tribal lands is subject to certain legal requirements, including consultation with and agreement by the Tribe, including possible Bureau of Indian Affairs involvement, if tribal lands are affected. It appears thatthe City is aware of the consultation requirement, as Policy C-II on page C-40 states that the City will work with the Pechanga Band on these issues. We would . . . . like to reiterate the necessity in obtaining the Tribe's agreement and approval on any such proposals that impact our Tribal lands, and look forward to working with you on a government-to-government basis to address issues that are of shared concern to the City and the Tribe. .~ Mark Macarro Chairman Cc: JeffComerchero, Mayor Ron Roberts, Mayor Pro Tern Shawn Nelson, City Manager David Hogan, Principal Planner . ITEM #4 . . . . . CITY OF TEMECULA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Planning Commission Christine Damko February 16, 2005 Planning Application No. PA04-0178, Seraphina Tract Map (TM 32346) The proposed project is a Tentative Tract Map to subdivide 28.6 acres into 71 single family residential lots with a minimum lot size of 7,200 square feet, located on the north side of Nicolas Road, east of Joseph Road. The proposed site is located within the French Valley Airport Land Use Compatibility Zone D and therefore needs to comply with the Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission regulations (RCALUC). As part of the review process, the project will need to first go forth to a RCALUC public hearing in order for staff to complete the Initial Study and prepare Conditions of Approval. This item has been scheduled for the March 10,2005 RCALUC hearing. As a result, staff requests continuance of this item until the March 16, 2005 Planning Commission Hearing. R:\T M\2004\04-Q178 TIM 32346 Serphina Trac!IPC Memo.doc 1