HomeMy WebLinkAbout011601 CC/PC Jnt. Workshop AgendaIn compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this
meeting, please contact the office of the City Clerk (909) 694-6~,d. 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 III
AGENDA
JOINT CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION
AN ADJOURNED REGULAR WORKSHOP
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
43200 BUSINESS PARK DRIVE
JANUARY t6, 2001 - 7:00 P.M.
At approximately 9:45 P.M., the City Council will determine which of the remaining agenda items
can be considered and acted upon prior to 10:00 P.M. and may continue all other items on which
additional time is required until a future meeting. All meetings are scheduled to end at 10:00 P.M.
CALL TO ORDER:
Mayor Jeff Comerchero
Invocation:
Councilman Naggar
ROLL CALL:
Councilmembers Naggar, Pratt, Roberts, Stone, Comerchero
Planning Commissioners Chiniaeff, Mathewson, Telesio, Webster,
Guerriero
PUBLIC COMMENTS
A total of 30 minutes is provided so members of the public may address the Council on
items that appear within the Consent Calendar or ones that are not listed on the agenda.
Speakers are limited to two (2) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Council on
an item which is listed on the Consent Calendar or a matter not listed on the agenda, a
pink "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the City Clerk.
When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name for the record.
For all Public Hearing or Council Business matters on the agenda, a "Request to
Speak" form must be filed with the City Clerk prior to the Council addressing that item.
There is a five-minute (5) time limit for individual speakers.
CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT,~
Reports by the members of the City Council/Planning Commission on matters not on the
agenda will be made at this time. A total, not to exceed, ten (10) minutes will be devoted
to these reports.
R:~Agenda\011601
1
COUNCIL/COMMISSION BUSINESS
1 The Roripau,qh Ranch Specific Plan
RECOMMENDATION:
1.1 Consider the information provided by staff and provide direction to staff.
ADJOURNMENT
City Council next regular meeting: Tuesday, January 23, 2000, 7:00 P.M., City Council
Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California.
'Planning Commission next regular meeting: Wednesday, January 17, 6:00 P.M., City Council
Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California.
R:~Agenda\011601
2
ITEM 1
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
APPROVAL
ClTY ATTORNEY
DIRECTOR OF FINA~E'~'~---~
CITY MANAGER ..,4¢z"~
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
City Manager/City Council and Planning Commission
Gary Thornhill, Deputy City Manager
January 16, 2001
The Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan Joint City Council/Planning
Commission Workshop
PREPARED BY: Saied Naaseh, Project Planner IV
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the City Council and the Planning Commission consider the information
provided by staff and provide direction to staff.
BACKGROUND:
On September 12, 2000, the City Council directed staff to proceed with the processing for the
Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan and its annexation (refer to Attachments 1 and 2 for the Staff
Report and Minutes). This direction was based on the Ad hoc Committee's findings that the
fiscal impacts to the City's budget from annexing this project would be negligible, the formation
of the assessment district for construction of Butterfield Stage Road, Murrieta Hot Springs Road,
and Nicolas Road would be feasible and would benefit the City. In directing staff to proceed
with the processing of the project, the City Council observed the following:
The project as it is currently being proposed is at approximately 2.0 dwelling units per
acre. Additionally, the plan proposes lower density residential along the project's
eastern and southern boundaries as a buffer and transition to the lower density lots to
the east and the wineries.
With the monies generated from the proposed assessment district, the project will be
conditioned to construct the required infrastructure improvements prior to development
of the project.
The project proposes to preserve 201 acres of open space which will directly tie into the
Johnson Ranch preserve area and protect on-site habitat for the California Gnatcatcher
and the Quino Checkerspot Butterfly.
· The commercial and high-density component on the project could potentially be
integrated into the County's Oasis Transit Plan.
R:\S P\Roripaugh Ranch SP\pcccworkshop staff report 11601 final,doc 1
At the City Council's direction, staff has proceeded with processing the Specific Plan and all the
other associated applications for the project. This project consists of:
· An annexation request of 640 acres (154-acre panhandle portion of the project is already
located within the City);
· A General Plan Amendment to the Land Use Element to identify the location of specific
land uses on the General Plan Land Use Map;
A General Plan Amendment to the Circulation Element to eliminate the Calle Contento
as a General Plan Road and reduce the right-of-way width for Nicolas Road from 110' to
78';
A Specific Plan to provide the standards and guidelines for the development of 1700
units, a 45 acre Village Center, 2 school sites, 3 park sites totaling approximately 23
acres, and approximately 290 acres of open space including natural open space, slopes,
and drainage areas on 804 acres (refer to Attachment 3 for the Land Use Plan and
Attachment 4 for the Land Use Category Acreage);
· A tentative map subdividing the project site into 29 parcels;
· An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to address the environmental impacts of the
project which will be re-circulated for comments later this month; and
Formation of a Community Facilities District (CFD) to construct the necessary roads to
serve this project including Butteffield Stage Road, Murrieta Hot Springs Road, and
Nicolas Road.
DISCUSSION
History of the Area
Since it was first submitted in 1994, the project land use plan has gone through several
revisions and has evolved through the years. For example, one of the earlier land use plans
included 2053 dwelling units with a fragmented open space plan compared with 1,700 units and
201 acres of preserved open space habitat. Since its first submittal, staff had insisted on a
larger more coordinated open space dedication from this project and other projects in this
vicinity long before the US of Fish and Wildlife Service and California Fish and Game started on
the AD 161 Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP).
Similarly, when reviewing the Johnson Ranch Specific Plan, staff insisted on a permanent green
belt around the Johnson Ranch property. This 500-acre permanent open space provided critical
habitat linkages between the wildlife corridors in the region including those on the Roripaugh
Ranch project. Staff invited the US Fish & Wild Life Service and California Fish and Game to
the City to share our proposal for the green belt. The Service staff commended City staff in
being proactive in preserving these critical linkages. This open space/greenbelt system was
such a critical habitat linkage that a large portion of the Johnson property has now been
included in the AD 161 HCP. Through staff's initial efforts we now have a true open space
corridor and buffer at the perimeter of our City. This permanent open space is provided to our
residents at no cost to them or the City. These areas will be permanently preserved now
instead of collecting fees to purchase land in the future.
R:\S P\Roripaugh Ranch SP\pcccworkshop staff report 11601 final.doc 2
General Plan Land Use Consistency
The General Plan Land Use Element states the following key objectives for this project:
"To develop a master planned residential community that provides a variety
of housing types suited to the terrain and shall not exceed an average of 3
dwelling units per acre; grading that is sensitive to the natural landforms;
and development that protects sensitive natural resources of the area"
The proposed project provides a wide range of housing:
· 460 5,000 square foot lots
· 343 6,000 square foot lots
· 83 7,200 square foot lots
· 85 10,000 square foot lots
· 65 15,000 square foot lots
· 115 20,000 square foot lots
· 2 5 acre lots (existing)
· 381 multi-family units
The project's density is 2.1 dwelling units per acre which includes a total of 290 acres of open
space. A total of 201 acres of open space is being dedicated to the County of Riverside as a
permanent open space habitat preserve. Therefore, staff finds the proposed project consistent
with the General Plan Land Use Element. However, staff is concerned regarding the extension
of the development in Planning Area 15. We believe the area could potentially be unsuitable for
development because of existing and future potential for erosion. Staff would like to receive
input from the City Council and the Planning Commission on the lot sizes, the mixture of lot
sizes, the overall density of the project, and extension of development in Planning Area 15.
Vision for the Project
This project was submitted in 1994 and has gone through many revisions. Staff requested the
applicant to totally rewrite the specific plan. One of the basic design elements missing from the
specific plan was the commitment to a cohesive design in terms of architecture, streetscape,
and landscaping. In other words, what will Roripaugh Ranch look like when it is built? Since
this project area is designated as a specific plan, the City has the opportunity to completely
~;ontrol the future design of the project. The applicant will be providing an overview at the
workshop on their vision for the project. Staff would like to receive input from the City Council
and the Planning Commission on this issue.
Land Use Plan
The land use plan has been designed with several constraints in mind. First, the alignment of
Butterfield Stage Road is fixed since Murrieta Hot Springs Road is already designed with a
potion of it currently under construction. Therefore, Butter[ield Stage Road creates a physical
barrier between the Village Center (VC), parks, schools, and the residential areas. Second, the
approval of the Assessment District 161 HCP has created the permanent habitat areas shown
on the land use plan as open space. Third, Santa Gertrudis and Long Valley Creeks run
through the property and along with the detention basins provide the drainage system for the
area. A 10' x 12' storm drain box collects all the water collected in Santa Gertrudis Creek's
detention basin and takes it under Butter[ield Stage Road and releases the water into the
Planning Area (PA) 27 park. In addition, MWD easement separates the residential areas within
the panhandle from the VC. The site topography has played a role in the design of the project.
The major ridgeline of the site runs on the northerly side of PAs 13,14, and 15. With these
R:\S P\Roripaugh Ranch SP~pcccworkshop staff report 11601 final.doc 3
constraints in place, the following discussion focuses on the compatibility of this project with its
surroundings.
The land use plan has been designed to "fit" the established land uses in the project perimeter.
The following analysis looks at the relationship between the project's land uses and its
surroundings:
No~h
The property to the north of the panhandle is the Rancho Bella Vista Specific Plan. The
proposed 5,000 square foot lots within the panhandle are consistent with the suburban
development proposed by Rancho Bella Vista.
The property to the north of the 640-acre portion is open space which is compatible with the
proposed open space within the project. Staff believes the proposed land uses in this area are
compatible with the surroundings.
East
The properties to the east of the site are open space or 2.5 acre lots. The project proposes
open space next to the open space consistent with the AD 161 HCP. In addition, staff has
required the applicant to provide a land use transition from the 2.5-acre lots adjacent to the
project site. As a result, 2.5-acre lots are proposed at the perimeter of the site, followed by a
series of 1.5-acre lots, and further transitioning into 0.5-acre lots. Staff believes the proposed
land uses in this area are compatible with the surroundings.
Sou~
The properties to the south of the 640 acres are 5-acre lots. The proposed lot sizes on the
perimeter of the project are 0.5-acre lots to the east and 15,000 square foot lots to the west.
These lots sizes do not seem to be compatible with the surrounding areas. It should be noted
that the properties outside the project site are significantly higher than the proposed lots within
the project. Staff would like to obtain input from the City Council and Planning Commission on
this buffering issue. The issue at stake here is to discourage further urbanization and
subdivision of existing parcels beyond this project.
The properties to the south of the panhandle are 2.5 acre and 5.0-acre parcels. A natural open
space slope buffers this area. The elevation of these parcels is considerably lower than the
project site. Staff believes the proposed land uses in this area are compatible with the
surroundings.
West
The properties to the west of the site are 5.0-acre lots. The Village Center, the Community
Park, and Butter[ield Stage Road abut these properties. The Village Center will include an
access road which will provide access to these properties. Staff believes adequate buffering is
provided by the park and Butterfield Stage Road. However, staff would like to receive City
Council's and Planning Commission's input on the buffering with the Village Center.
The Villaqe Center
The Village Center is approximately 45 acres with 35 acres of usable space. The VC includes
approximately 15 acres of retail and office and 20 acres of multi-family residential resulting in
approximately 381 units. The VC could also include the proposed 1.5-acre site for the fire
station which will be jointly paid for by the developer and the County. Staff is recommending to
R:\S P~Roripaugh Ranch SP~pcccworkshop staff report 11601 finaLdoc 4
include a 5-acre religious facility site in the VC. The only use for this site would be a religious
facility. According to the General Plan, other appropriate uses for the VC would be day care
centers, libraries, post offices, and police stations.
The City has the opportunity to expand on the guidelines proposed in the General Plan by using
our experience in reviewing projects with the VC concept. What specific guidelines should we
include in the Specific Plan to make this a successful VC? Attachment 5 includes the General
Plan guidelines on the ¥C concept. The following are some of the components of a VC:
· Site Design including building and parking orientation, i.e. Main Street
· Building mass and signage
· Pedestrian connections within the VC and access from outside the VC
· Pedestrian plaza and focal points of the VC
· The manner in which the multi family units and the religious institution is built into the VC
· Integration of the activities of the community into the VC
· Intensification of land uses to support the VC and mass transit
· Appropriate land uses surrounding the VC and the manner in which they are designed
Staff would like to spend some time at the Workshop on the VC concepts and how it applies to
this project. As mentioned in the Constraints on the Site Section of the Staff Report, Butterfield
Stage Road is a major barrier in the design of the VC. Butterfield Stage Road and the MWD
easement hinder pedestrian movement from the residential areas.
Circulation Improvements and Fundin,q
One of most important benefits of this project is the construction of the roadway system
associated with this project (refer to Attachment 6 for the Road Improvements Exhibit). The
approval of this project and its associated CFD will cause the construction of:
· Nicolas Road from its terminus to Butterrield Stage Road
· Murrieta Hot Springs Road from its terminus which is now under construction to Butterfield
Stage Road
· Butterfleld Stage Road from Rancho California Road to Murrieta Hot Springs Road
Currently, three major property owners are participating in the CFD with Roripaugh Ranch being
the largest contributor. Without the formation of this CFD the construction of these
improvements would be cost prohibitive for the City and the property owners.
SUMMARY
Staff would like to receive input from the City Council and Planning Commission on the
following:
· The VC concepts and how they apply to this project.
· Buffering the properties to the west of the VC from the VC.
· Buffering the properties to the south of the 640 acres.
· Vision of the project.
· Lot sizes, the mixture of lot sizes, the overall density of the project.
· Extension of development in Planning Area 15.
We would like to make this a "hands on workshop" without long presentations from staff or the
applicant.
R:\S P\Roripaugh Ranch SP~pcccworkshop staff report 11601 final.doc 5
FISCAL IMPACT
The fiscal impacts associated with this project have been addressed in a Fiscal Impact Analysis
prepared by Stanley R. Hoffman Associates. This report indicates that the annexation of the
Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan area will have neither a negative nor a positive fiscal impact on
the City of Temecula.
Attachments
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
September 12, 2000 City Council Staff Report
September 12, 2000 City Council Minutes
Roripaugh Ranch Land Use Map
Land Use Category Acreage
General Plan Village Center Guidelines
Road Improvement Exhibit
Correspondence from Adjacent Property Owners
R:\S P~Roripaugh Ranch SP~pcccworkshop staff report 11601 final.doc 6
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
SEPTEMBER 12, 2000 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
R:\S P\Roripaugh Ranch SP~pcccworkshop staff report 11601 final.doc 7
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE
CITY MANAGER
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
City Manager/City Council
Gary Thornhill, Deputy City Manager
September 12, 2000
Findings and Report from the Ad Hoc Subcommittee Formed to
Evaluate the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan and Annexation
Proposal
PREPARED BY: John De Gange, GIS Administrator
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council consider the recommendation
of the Ad hoc subcommittee and proceed with the processing of the Rofipaugh Ranch Specific
Plan and its associated annexation based on the sub-committee's findings following their
evaluation of the assessment distdct feasibility study.
BACKGROUND: The Rodpaugh Ranch Specific Plan !s comprised of 1,625 dwelling units
on approximately 788 acres that is a gross density of 2.06 dwelling units per acre. The land
uses proposed within the project include: 215 acres of standard single-family residential lots
(530 units) including 5,000 and 7,200 square foot minimum lots, 84 acres (222 units) of larger
lot single-family residential lots including 10,000 and 15,000 square foot minimum lots, 96 acres
of large lot single-family residential lots (118 units) including 20,000 square foot minimum lots,
and 17.5 acres (315 units) of multi-family residential uses. In addition, the project includes ten
acres of neighborhood commercial uses, two schools sites totaling 32 acres, three parks totaling
20 acres and 270 acres of open space. The applicant is proposing to annex 634 of the project's
788 acres into the City. Currently, a 154-acre portion of the project is already located within the
City.
DISCUSSION: Since the formation of the Ad hoc subcommittee by the City Council on
August 24, 1999, the committee has met on several occasions, the most recent being August
22, 2000. At this latest meeting, the results of the assessment distdct feasibility study
evaluating the feasibility of the formation of an assessment district for the construction of
improvements for the backbone road system associated with this project was reviewed and
discussed. These backbone improvements include the extension of Butterfield Stage Road,
Murdeta Hot Spdngs Road and Nicolas Road. In addition, the fiscal impact analysis prepared
for the project was discussed. Based on the evaluation of these studies the subcommittee is
recommending that staff be instructed to proceed with processing the project on the following
basis:
R:\S P~Roripaugh Ranch SP~Rofipsp~tatus2 CC.doc
1
The project as it is currently being proposed is at approximately 2.0 dwelling units per
acre. Additionally, the plan proposes lower density residential along the project's
eastern and southern boundaries as a buffer and transition to the lower density lots to
the east and the wineries.
With the monies generated from the proposed assessment district, the project will be
conditioned to construct the required infrastructure improvements prior to development
of the project.
The project proposes to preserve 270 acres of open space which will directly tie into the
Johnson Ranch preserve area and protect on-site habitat for the California Gnatcatcher
and the Quino Checkerspot Butterfly.
The commemial and high density component on the project could potentially be
integrated into the County's Oasis Transit Plan.
FISCAL IMPACT: The fiscal impacts associated with this project have been addressed in a
Fiscal Impact Analysis prepared by Stanley R, Hoffman Associates. This report indicates that
the annexation of the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan area will have neither a negative or a
positive fiscal impact on the City of Temecula.
R:~S P~Roripaugh Ranch SFARoripspstatus2 CC.doc
2
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
SEPTEMBER '12, 2000 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
R:\S P\Rodpaugh Ranch SP\pcccworkshop staff report 11601 final.doc 8
Mr. Berger provided information regarding the factors to be addressed pdor to the development
of an interim fee; relayed that as soon as the alternate agencies adopt the Implementation
Agreement, the City could begin charging a fee; and noted that it was feasible that this process
could be ready in a 60-day period of time.
Mayor Stone thanked Supervisor Buster, Ms. Berger, and Mr. Haley for the excellent
presentation.
Councilman Naggar relayed gratitude to Supervisor Buster for his support of the City's Growth
Management Polices.
16 Juvenile Loiterinq Ordinance
RECOMMENDATION:
16.1 Introduce and read by title only an ordinance entitled:
ORDINANCE NO. 2000-10
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA ADDING CHAPTER 9.t6 TO THE TEMECULA
MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO JUVENILE LOITERING AND
PARENTAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR JUVENILES
Police Chief Domenoe provided an overview of the staff report (of record), relaying that this
ordinance would provide Police Officers with a law which allows them to provide sanctions on
students (and their parents), who are truant and/or are found in public places within the City
during school hours; and advised that the existing procedure of returning the students to school
was not serving as a deterrent to truancy.
Referencing the ordinance, Mayor Pre Tem Comerchero queded the adherence requirements
for students who have been expelled or suspended. In response, Mr. John Malloy, from the
District Attorney's office, advised that individuals who have been expelled were still required to
go to school, noting that there were expulsion schools, and alternate programs available for
these individuals; and advised that the objective was to keep the youth off the streets and out of
public places when they should be in school.
City Attorney Thorson introduced and read by title only Ordinance No. 2000-10.
MOTION: Councilman Naggar moved to approve staff's recommendation. Mayor Pro Tern
Comerchero seconded the motion and voice vote reflected unanimous approval.
17 Findinqs and Report from the Ad hoc Subcommittee formed to evaluate the RoriDauqh
Ranch Specific Plan and Annexation Proposal
RECOMMENDATION:
17.1 Approve the recommendation of the Ad hoc Subcommittee and proceed with the
processing of the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan and its associated annexation
based on the subcommittee's findings following their evaluation of the assessment
district feasibility study.
R:~Minutes~091200
13
Deputy City Manager Thornhill relayed the process of determining whether this project (which
was primarily located in the County at this point in time) was viable, noting the concerns
regarding the density of the project, the infrastructure financing, and alternate issues; relayed
that the Subcommittee addressed these issues at the August 22, 2000 meeting, noting that the
results of the Assessment District Feasibility improvements for the backbone read system (i.e.,
the extension of Butterfield Stage Road, Murrieta Hot Springs Road, and Nicholas Road)
associated with this project were reviewed; advised that there were also concerns with respect
to the fiscal impacts associated with the project, noting the subsequent request that a Fiscal
Impact Analysis be performed, relaying that the results of that study revealed that this would be
a faidy neutral project in terms of the fiscal impacts; based on the fact that the City would have
control over the project, and the creation of an Assessment District to construct the
infrastructure, it was determined by the Subcommittee that it would be in the best interests of
the City to process the application and not allow it to go to the County due to the uncertainty
which would be created with respect to the density the project, relaying that at this point the
proposal was at a density level of approximately 2 units per acre across the entire property,
noting that there would be approximately 270 acres that would be permanently preserved; and
advised that the recommendation of the committee was to consider the recommendation of the
Ad hoc Subcommittee and to proceed with the processing of the project and the associated
annexation based on the Subcommittee's findings following their evaluation of the Assessment
District Feasibility Study.
For Mayor Stone, Director of Public Works Hughes relayed that the preliminary estimates for the
infrastructure necessary would be approximately $24 million for drainage, street improvements
and some utilities; advised that it was not the intent to fund the entire amount via the financing
district, relaying that there would be guarantees in place that the alternate portions would be
.provided by other means; provided additional information regarding the applicant's portion of
that figure as the Assessment District was formed which would be approximately $16-18 million;
confirmed that there would be a substantial amount of grading required for the read
improvements; and relayed that the word prior could be changed to reflect concurrent with
respect to the requirement to condition the project to construct the required infrastructure
improvements pdor to development of the project.
Mayor Pro Tern Comerchero provided an overview of the Subcommittee's process of
determining whether to move forward with the processing of this project; specified the criteria
that was met with respect to densities, open space areas, infrastructure, and a feasible
Assessment District; and advised that the project fulfilled all of these elements.
In response to Councilman Naggar, Director of Public Works Hughes provided clarification with
respect to the timing of the roadway work with respect to development.
In response to Councilman Naggar's queries as to whether the Open Space area would be
useful, Deputy City Manager Thomhill relayed that it was useful in providing habitat and wildlife
connections; relayed that the alternate space would be part of the Quimby requirements and
part of the active components of the plan; and noted that it was likely that there would be some
limited access allowed in terms of horseback riding.
Clarifying the density proposal, Councilman Pratt additionally relayed that the residents would
be pleased with the Open Space area.
Mayor Stone commended the Subcommittee for their diligent efforts with respect to this project.
Deputy City Manager Thornhill commented, for the record, that he had received a call from the
applicant relaying his queries with respect to an alternative project, clarifying that this was not
R:~,linutes\091200
14
the issue before the Council tonight, relaying that any alternate plans would need to go back to
the Subcommittee for review.
Councilman Roberts relayed that he would be voting on the proposal at hand, with no changes.
Mr. John Mize, 32850 Vista Del Monte, noted his opposition to this development; relayed that in
his opinion the County should deal with this proposal; and noted concern regarding the
proposed densities in light of the surrounding development, relaying a desire for 2.5 acre lots.
Mr. W. Vazzana, 39605 Avenida Lynell, noted that he had been in contact with the developer;
relayed that the developer had addressed some of his concerns; and with respect to the impact
to Region 2 County Service Area, advised that density would be the primary concern.
In response to Mr. Mize, Mayor Pro Tem Comerchero noted that the proposed density was 2.06
units per acre; with respect to the desire for 2.5 acre lots, relayed that the General Plan's zoning
designated this property at a density of 3 units per acre.
Councilman Naggar relayed that he was pleased with the potential of having an additional
offramp.
For Councilman Naggar, the developer's representative relayed that much of the infrastructure
would be completed pdor to the issuance of building permits.
MOTION: Mayor Pro Tem Comerchero moved to approve staff's recommendation. Councilman
Roberts seconded the motion and voice vote reflected unanimous approval.
18 Appointment of Ad Hoc Council Subcommittee to review future electrical needs for the City
of Temecula
(Placed on the agenda at the request of Mayor Pro Tem Comerchero. and
Councilman Naggar.)
RECOMMENDATION:
18.1 Appoint two members of the City Council to serve on an Ad Hoc Council
Subcommittee for the purpose of investigating future electrical needs and options
that may be available to the City of Temecula.
MOTION: Councilman Roberts moved to appoint Mayor Pro Tern Comerchero and Councilman
Naggar to an Ad Hoc Committee to review future electrical needs. Mayor Stone seconded the
motion and voice vote reflected unanimous approval.
CITY MANAGER'S REPORT
City Manager Nelson relayed that Make A Difference Day was scheduled for September 23rd,
from 8:00 A.M. to 1:00 P.M. Assistant City Manager O'Grady noted that the focus would be to
clean up the creeks and other Open Space areas, relaying that interested individuals could call
City Hall for additional information.
R:V~inutes~091200
15
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
RORIPAUGH RANCH LAND USE MAP
R:\S P\Roripaugh Ranch SP\pcccworkshop staff report 11601 finaLdoc 9
Proposed L~,@d Us~e_PJ~Q
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
LAND USE CATEGORY ACREAGE
R:\S P\Roripaugh Ranch SP~pcccworkshop staff report 11601 final.doc 10
Land Use Category Acreage
Land Use Category
Total Open Space
Habitat Open space
Slope Open Space
Drainage Open space
Total Parks
PA 26 Park
Acres
294.8
201.0
23.6
35.1
23.5
10.4
PA 27 Park 10.1
Neighborhood Park 3.0
Total Schools 32.0
Elementary School 12.0
Middle School 20.0
Total Residential 406.1
5,000 s( uare foot Lots 89.6
6,000 sc uare foot lots 85.1
7,200 sc uare foot lots 67.2
10,000 sc uare foot lots 30.5
15,000 sc uare foot lots 31.8
20,000 sc uare foot lots 94.7
5 acre parcels (existing) 7.2
Total Village Center 45.5
Retail/office 15.0 (150,00 square feet)
Multi-Family 20.0
Fire Station 1.5
Slopes 9.1
R:\S P\Roripaugh Ranch SP~pcccworkshop staff report 11601 final.doc 11
ATTACHMENT NO. 5
GENERAL PLAN VILLAGE CENTER GUIDELINES
R:\S P\Roripaugh Ranch SP~pc~'workshop staff report 11601 final.doc 12
~ OF TEIV~CULA Community Design Element
C. Village Center Concepts
The Land Use Element describes the concept of the development of Village Centers
thi'oughout the T~mecula area. The inmnt of the Village C~nter Concept is to provide
opportunities for development of mixtures of commercial and residential uses that will
minimize vehicular circulation trips, avoid sprawling of commercial development, and
offer incentives for high quality urban design. While each of the Village Centers may
develop with different criteria, regulations, and visual themes, there are certain
common elements that should be addressed as a part of each Village C~nter Plan. The
following illustrates these common considerations, or what could be described as the
"palette of design concepts" for a Village C.~nter area. Many of these design concepts
are also applicable to development, projects outside the Village C~nters. The
development of beneficial mixtur~ of uses, shared parking facilities, and pedestrian-
' oriented design, are examples of the concepts that should be encourag~ throughout
the community.
1. Mixtures of Uses
A Village Center is intended to include a diversity of different types of land uses.
While retail development may be the primary land use, it is envisioned that the
Village Center will also include additional employment opportunities such as,
of:flees, and personal service shops. Community meeting centers could be
included /or private or public activities. Residential development ceuld be
integrated with the non-residential uses. The mixtures of land usa could be in
separate structures or combined within a single building. One possibility is to
have retail use on the ground floor level, of/icc uses on thc second level, and
residential units on the upper levels.
........ TF.M-01U0~P-COM.nSH · Dat~: November 9, 1993 Page 10-12
CITY OF TEM~CUI.~ Communi~ Design Element
2. Bnildln~ _Scale and Design
A Village Center Area is not intended m be a suburban shopping center or strip
commercial plaza. Bccausc of thc mixture of usca, and the conccnu'ation of
activities, the height and scale of the structures may be greater than that/ound
in typical shopping pln?~L<. Multi-story structures rang/ng/rom two to five stories
may be appropriate. By increasing the height of buildinga, thc ground floor area
is then made available for open space, plazas and increased pedestrian uaes. Thc
allowable beight increases in the Village Center Areas should not adversely
impact surrounding areas with low density residential uses. If a Village Center
Area abuts a single family area, new development should be stepped back and
reduced in. height to remain sensitive to the existing acalc of the existing
residential neighborhood.
Stl~ I'~,;~ away from existing ~ev~lopment
H~ht mquimmenm ma/main
By increming 6uilding
hmght ra'd'mr lhBn ir esing
building ~otpfint
:rpeaa ices ~a~l=.fl~ableand~r.s
Benefit of increased I~eigms
Date: November 9, 1993 Page 10-13
CITY OF TEMECULA Community Design Element
3. Intensification
By increasing thc height of thc building in thc Village Center areas, thc
commercial development intensity and residential densities could be increased.
This intensification would allow for mom innovation in architectural and
landscape design. In addition, thc higher density development would increase thc
fcusibility of mass transit scrviec options for thc Village Center Areas, By
allowing thc possibility of higher density housing in thc Village Center Areas, the
opportunities for diverse housing types can bc increased.
al,,I
......... T-c~-01U0Op.COM ~ * Dat.: November 9, 1993 Page 10-14
CITY OF TEMECUI~ Community Design Element
4. Parking Design
A fundamental clement in achieving cffactive design of a project is thc manner
in which parking areas are u-eared. In the Village Center Areas, the parking
facilities should not be thc dominant visual image of the project. Vast expanses
of paving for parking, without thc visual relief of landscaping, is not aesthetically
pleasing. Because of thc mixture of uses and potential intensification of
development in thc Village Center areas; there may be opportunities for creative
approaches for thc provision of parking. Efforts should bc made to minimize thc
~nmber of required parking spaces by use of shared parking where the adjacent
uses cream parl~ing d~mand at different time p~riods. Joint parking facilities
should be encouraged t~ avoid-proliferation of parking lots. Subterranean
parking/parking structures should also be encouraged. Surface parking areas
should be oriented internal to the Village Center rather than on the perimeter of
the development as typically seen in suburban s'hopping malls.
'i'I~M-01~I~P.COM,I~ · Dst~l November 9, 19~3
Pag~ 10-15
CITY OF TEIVIECT. J-"L.A Community Design Element
Incentives for Innovative Design
A Village Center Plan may bc implemented through a Specific Plan process or
other discretionary permitting procedures established by thc City. It is thc intent
of the Village Center Concept to encourage more innovative approacbes to
design. High quality design is considcrexi to be a mia/mum rcquircmcn! for
development apprcval. 'While thc development procedures of the City will
provide basic rccluircments for development approvals, the following suggestions
focus on additional incentives that may result in Cxcept/onal design.
Development in thc Villasc Center Areas may receive consideration for increased
Floor Area Rat/ns for commercial development and increased densities if the
project is determined to meet thc following criteria:
Exceptional efforts to cncoura~c mixtures in land usns, c.g., rnsidcntial uses
that will result in decreased traffic generation from thc project;
Pr/vate efforts to develop transit systems such as, local jitney services,
shuttle loops, non-motor/zed vehicle trails within the project areas;
Special landscape design improvements including: strcetscape design in thc
public right of way, pcdastrian plazas, sidewalk cafes, and overall landscape
design;
· Special opportunities for the pmvlsioo of affordable housing; and
Public park facilities, pedestrian casements, and bicyclc routas, that
complement thc open space linknges between activity centers and Village
Centers.
T~.OI~IOOP-COM.D~ * Date: Nowmb~r 9, 1~23 Page 10-16
CITY OF T~.,IV~t,]-L,A Cornmu~ty Design Element
6. Pedestrlnn.Oriented Design
A significant el:fort should be.placed upon encouraging site planning and design
in commercial and business areas that is sensitive to the nexis of the pedestrian.
Typically, commercial development has emphasized the automobile rather than
the needs of pedestrians. Building design can more effcaivety serve pedestrian
needs through awhReaure that provides relief, and articulation at the first floor
level. Retail uses at this level can provide s~reetscapc contiguity that arc
amenable to the pcdcsu'ian. Continuous expauses of blank walls or sharp
unbroken vertical sudaces create a uncomfortable aunosphere for the pedestrian.
Examples of pedc-~trian-oriented design guidelines may include the following:
a. Pedestrian Circulation
Site planning for commercial areas should carefully consider the relationship
between parking areas and pedestrian circulation patlcms. Pedestrian areas
should be linked whenever possible to the city-wide open space and trail
system to facilitate travel by walking, biking or other non-motorized means.
b. Building Facades
The design of building facades should be architecturally interesting and in
scale with the pedestrian. The ground floor elevations should avoid large
blank walls, and windows and entrances should be located at frequent
intervals. Large wall surfaces should be divided with offsets to create
distinctive shadow lines. The linear pedestrian lini~sge of building facades
along major streets should not be disrupted.
c. Sig~mge
A coordinated signagc plan for development can be an attractive
enhancement to thc project area. If thc area has an overall theme, thc
signage plan should be consistent with this concept. Signagc should
designed at a scale that is not overpowering from thc pedestrian's
pcrspoctive. For example, small signs with a unique texture, shape, or
interesting features can be more effective than large, massive or glaring
signagc.
d. Streec~cupe Desig~
Thc design of thc stree~capc is one factor that can contribute to thc needs
of thc pedeslrian. Thc cffcctivc design of thc strectscapc along exterior
streets, as well as interior streets is essential for the creation of a convcuicut
pedestrian cnviromncnt. Continuity in landscape design, placement of street
furniture, sitting areas, and usc of interesting paving patterns, lighting are
factors to bc considcrccl in development streetscapc design.
Date: Nov~'abcr 9, 1993
10-17
CITY OF TEM~CULA Community Design Element
Pedestrian Plazas
Ped~trian pl.-an that. are effectively placed within a commercial
development can be pleasant spaces for resting or having lunch between
shoppiug uips or eh'ands. Employees should have convenient access to
places for lunch br--.~, Placemem of pedestrian plazas must be carefully
plnnned to assure their most effective use. For this reason, consideration
must be given to the location of plazas relative to the uedestrian circulation
patterns, sunlight couditions, wiud patterns and thc selection of buildiug and
landscape materials,
L Org-ni.~,tion of Activities.
The most important element in creating viable pedestrian spaces has little
to do with the actual physical design of the space; ii' a space is to be
conducive m pedestrian activity, there must be opportunities for pedestrian
events and activities. Therefore, efforts to planning and organizing festivals,
events, special sidewalk sales, entertainment and cultural displays should be
made to help create desired pedestrian activity. Private marketing efforts
should be encouraged to promote these types of community events.
P~:~estrian Oriented D~i~n
· Open air markuL~' are an example of an organized
event whicfl helps create pe~es'a-ian activity.
'rEM.01U0OP.,COta. DS~ * Da'": Nownnber ~, 1993 Page 10-1S
CITY OF TEIv~CUI..A Communit~ Design Element
7. Signage
A compreJacnaive signag~ program is ~e_~"ssary to aasur~ a coordinated visual
irnag~ in thc Village C~ncr Are, as. Thc details of thc signagc plan can I~
formulated based upon thc spex:ial design characcr and theme of thc Village
Ce, ncr Plan. However, thc compr~hcnsiv~ signag¢ plan should include, at a
minimum, ~ hierarchies of signag~. Flint, a minimum number of signs should
announce thc identity of thc Village C.~ncr. At thc second level, a common
identification sign or kiosk could loc. am the individual tenants within thc C~nter.
Finally, each use within thc Village C~nter should be identified with a siga that
is consistent with the scale and mass of thc building. Materials :[or signage
should be uniform through the projcct area.
$1gnage
Slgnage requirements in village centers should
maximize creativity and Ihn~li,a~
Slgnage.
A common identity sign element should be
~ ~roughout ~lage centare to create unity.
TEM~II~I0UP-COM.D~ * Dal~: November 9, 1993
Page 10-19 '
CITY OF TEMECUI.~ Community Design Element
8. Transit Alternatives/Options
One of thc primary objectivc~ for establishing Village C, cntcrs is thc crcatinn of
density threshold and a mixtur~ of uses that could support the linkage of the
centers with mass trn-,it facilities. The typ~ of ma.ss transit faciliti~ could
range from a simple taxi or loop shuttle system with connection for city-wide and
regional bus routes in the short mrm, to connections for regional light rail transit
along the 1-15 corridor in the long-term.
'kansll mm
- 'I'EM-01~10C~p.~OM.DS~ * Date: November 9, 1993 Page 10-20
ATTACHMENT NO. 6
ROAD IMPROVEMENT EXHIBIT
R:\S P\Roripaugh Ranch SP~pccoworkshop staff report 11601 final.doc 13
ATTACHMENT NO. 7
CORRESPONDENCE FROM ADJACENT PRPOERTY OWNERS
R:\S P\Roripaugh Ranch SP~cccworkshop staff report 11601 final.doc 14
To: Members of the Temecula City Council
From: John Mize
Subject: A protest against the excessive density of the Roripaugh development
Date: 1/9/01
Gentlemen:
The property to the North of the development is to remain open land for protection of
endangered species. To the East and South, the properties are homes with minimum two-
and-one-half acres, some of which are on twenty acres, including a twenty acre vineyard.
It does not seem reasonable to inject into this country setting a project with the proposed
density ora bit more than two units per acre. When one contemplates the added traffic to
our roads, the added demand on water and electricity, and the increased air pollution,
~then one must-reconsider-this.density~ .... · ........
The developers have prepared a study of the impact,of their project. It is not pleasant
reading. Consider the following evidence which they offer.
3.5 Transportation: The project will generate a total of 28,047 daily vehicle trips, which
they say will have significant cumulative impact.
3.6 Air Quality: Grading and construction will generate as much as a ton/day of air
pollutants and exceed SCAQMD thresholds. The project occupancy will generate 2.37
tons/day of air pollutants and exceed the thresholds. On page 6, the report says that the
project will generate 75,000 lbs/day of CO.
3.12 Utilities: water consumption 1.1 MGD
sewage generation .6 MGD
electricity 36,700 KWH/day
solid waste 11.7 tons/day
Another point needs to be mentioned. The developers have given a limited amount of
buffering of several acres for some homes on part of the East side, yet they have nine
pads next to my property line, none over an acre, and some less than half an acre. It
would be reasonable to combine those smaller pads into bigger pads to provide me with
some buffering.
--I w~ffl~e Un-fi~ ~o-attend the workshop on Jan. 16~, as 1 Will be ~)ut~o~tt~W~, but r~y
attorney will be there.
32850 Vista Del Monte
Temecula, CA 92591
Phone (909) 699-5504
Email NMize1729 g~aol.eom
Councilmen
January 9, 2001
My husband and I live adjacent to the southeast corner of the Roripaugh project. We purchased
our property in 1978. At the time, all the parcels in this area were twenty acre parcels. In the
years since, some owners have divided their parcels into four five-acre parcels and sold them off
as homesites. We also divided ours into four five-acre parcels but have not yet sold any. The
properties on either side of us are still twentytacre parcels. The buffering that is proposed in the
Rb/i]~augh prdject ~db~ adjacent to-us affd6ther flue, ten, hn-d tw-'~Yy acre t~arc-el~ is inadequate.
The proposed homesites are all less than one acre and in some instances less than one-half acre.
On the east side of the project and just north of the area in which we live, are two and one-half
acre homesites. They have been given a buffer of two to three acres. It is illogical and inequitable
that smaller acreage be given a larger buffer. We should at least be receiving the same amount of
buffer as the smaller acreage.
I submit this to the City Council as a protest of the Roripaugh Project as currently proposed. I
request the City Council to address this is,~ue prior to approval of the project.
Thank you,
Nancy Mize
Attn:
W~ ~lylan
470 E. Harrison
Co~ona, CA 92879-1314 '
Mike Knowlton
39130 Pala Vista Drive
Temecula, CA92591
(H) 909.6~.6848
0/f) 949.368.5260
(Imcmet) ~
RE: Roripangh Project Mitigation Considerations
Mi. Hylan.
I spoke with ~ou by phone this morning and am following up via ~ letler to put in to'words the
conversation we had regarding potcn6al Roripaugh Project Mitigation Considetalions.
Last year following a Temecula City Council meeting rega,ding.th¢.Roripaugh Housing Project
we dissuseed poicnhal nnUgauon considerations, m the form of road improvements, for specific roads in
the Nicolas Valley area. (Att discussion was about trying to fred a way to have Liefer Road and Pala Vista
Drive. improved from din roads to paved ~ountry roads with simple drainagc'~-ulver~s.
The City had de,ermined several years earlier that the expense for improving these'roads would be
about 0fone million dolLaxs. It is my belief, and one I believe you held following that Council meeting
mentioned.above, that the cost could be slgmficantly less ~t performed by contracts managed by you and
your assocmtes vs. thc cfly. The Rofipaugh project went idle shortly aflex thi~ council meetm8 and I sent
0ifa fax to one of your rcpzesentafiveS, but dichl't pursue this any further.
With the recent approval of the City to move on with this project, my goal is to ~e~inttocklce this
conslderation as a Condition of Approval fur the Roripaugh Project as a mitigation considemfon
'undar the same thrust that I °riginall~ pr°P°sed' I ara l°°k/ng for you:and your associates.to take on th/s
~mprovement, with thc approval of the City, and to have the Cit~ work with you in obtai~ joint funding
fox th/s concern, with available City, CountY, State and/or Federal fumds.
Your sx~purt in th/s matter is greatly appreciated. Please feel rice to con~c~ me to discuss this
iSsue as needed_ I have scut copies of this. letter to the lbllowing Temeeula City rgprc~entatives: '
DeputyD/rcctur of Public Works, RonParks
City Manager, Shawn Nelson
Director of Public Works, Bi/l Hughes
Project Planner~ Rofipangh Project, Saied Naaseh
Project P/anner, Roripangh Project, John Dc Gauge
owlton
IN/IN',4 fiN, 7. ^ON ~'qa:x~'4 Rear '"'-'~' ~qHINrl