Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout051893 CC AgendaAGENDA TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL A REGULAR MEETING TEMECULA COMMUNITY CENTER - 28816 Pujol Street May 18, 1993 - 7:00 PM At approximately 9:45 PM, the City Council will determine which of the remaining agenda items can be considered and acted upon prior to 10:00 PM 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 PM CALL TO ORDER: Mayor J. Sal Mu~oz presiding Flag Salute Councilmember Birdsall ROLL CALL: Birdsall, Parks, Roberts, Stone, Mu~oz PUBLIC COMMENTS A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address the Council on items that are not listed on the Agenda or on the Consent Calendar. Speakers are limited t0 two (2) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Council about an item net listed on the Agenda or on the consent Calendar, 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 and address. For all other agenda items a "Request To Speak" form must be filed with the City Clerk before the Council gets to that item. There is a five (5) minute time limit for individual speakers. COUNCIL BUSINESS 1 Award of Contract for Soecial Counsel RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Award a professional services contract, to address employee relations, to the law firm of Rexon, Freedman, Klepetar and Hambleton. 1 06112/83 2/aOende/061893 PUBLIC HEARINGS Any person may submit written comments to the City Council 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 City Clerk at, or prior to, the public hearing. City of Temecula General Plan. Implementation Program. Environmental Imoact Report and Mitiaation Monitoring Proaram RECOMMENDATION 1.1 Review the Parcel specific Land Use Requests, take public testimony, and direct staff to incorporate the element as presented into the final General Plan which will be presented for City Council adoption at the conclusion of the Public Hearings. CITY MANAGER REPORT CITY ATTORNEY REPORT CITY COUNCIL REPORTS ADJOURNMENT Next regular meeting: May 25, 1993, 7:00 PM, Temecula Community Center, 28816 Pujol Street, Temecula, California 2/aOemle/O61893 2 06112/93 ITEM 1 CITY OF TEMECULA MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: City Council ~ ...... /1 David F. Dixon "~ May 12, 1993 Consideration of Special Counsel - Labor Relations Pursuant to direction of the City Council, I conducted interviews with three firms for special labor relations counsel. Interviews were completed on April 28 and, based upon their experience and expertise, I am recommending the appointment of Jeff Freedman as special counsel. Jeff Freedman is a partner of Rexon: Freedman, Klepetar & Hambleton. I am recommending the appointment of Jeff Freedman because I feel he can serve the City of Temecula better than the other two attorneys who we interviewed. He is a senior partner and has great depth of experience as noted by his correspondence to us dated April 5. We have also been able to confirm through personal contacts that he has served his clients especially well. The material which is attached contains my original memorandum dated May 7, the questions which were used in the interview process, and the individual proposals from Burke, Williams & Sorensen; Rexon, Freedman, Kiepetar & Hambleton; and Best, Best & Krieger. DFD:ss Attachments CITY OF TEMECULA MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: City Council David F. Dixon May 7, 1993 Agenda Item 10, Award of Contract for Special Counsel Several weeks ago I shared with the City Council my desire to seek special counsel to address employee relations se~ices. During 'the discussion I indicated we would be interviewing several firms including Burke, Williams & Sorensen. Interviews with three firms were held on April 28. The firms were Burke, Williams & Sorensen; Rexon, Freedman, Klepetar & Hambleton; and Best, Best & Krieger. The interview panel consisted of the Assistant City Manager, Woody Edvalson, and the City Manager, David Dixon. Ron Parks, the administrative liaison on the City Council, was invited to participate but due to circumstances beyond his control was unable to attend. Each firm was asked a series of questions which are attached. I have also attached each. firm's proposals which outline their qualifications, expertise, and experience in labor related issues. You will note from the attachments that Burke, 'Williams & Sorensen and Best, Best & Krieger are full service organizations representing a wide diversification of disciplines. The firm of Rexon, Freedman, Klepetar & Hambleton specializes in labor and employment relations law and provides services to public and private corporations. Upon completion of the interviews, staff took time to review the responses and came to a unanimous recommendation. Staff is recommending the law firm of Rexon, Freedman, Klepetar & Hambleton to represent the City in its labor and employment activities. The City will be represented by Jeff Freedman, a partner in the law firm. We were comfortable with his background and expertise and believe that he will provide us with excellent service for the costs associated with that service. The fees associated with his service (as noted in his proposal) are: $160 per hour for partners, $150 per hour for associates, and $90 per hour for paralegals~ DFD:ss Attachments PERSONNEL/LJU~OR RELATIONS LEI31ed, COUNSEL INTERVIEWS (4/28/93) 2:00 PM - BURXE, WILLI]~,HB & SORENSEN Scott Field Brenda Diederichs SUGGESTED QUESTIONS: What are the respective roles that the' City Council and Management Staff should play in'labor relations? (2) Being faced'with an organizing attempt by the Teamsters, how would you advise the City to proceed if selected as legal counsel? The City is preparing to adopt an Employer-Employee Relations Resolution addressing a recognition process. (3) If selected as the City's labor relations/personnel legal counsel, other than the employee organization effort what would be the first few issues that you would make sure the City has addressed/or recommend that we address? I, AW OWIrlCF, S :B~T~rE, WZT-T-Z~S & SO~aqS~-N (it3) z3e-oeloo April 26, 1993 WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL °""" '(~:L*3') 236-2704 Mr. David F. Dixon City Manager CITY OF TEMECULA 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, California 92590-3606 Re: Dear Mr..Dixon: Proposal to Provide Labor Relations Services to the City of Temecula Burke, Williams & Sorerisen is pleased to submit this proposal to provide labor relations services to the City of Temecula. In response to your Request for Proposal, the following information is submitted: 1. Firm Qualifications A. Expertise and Experience B. Labor Negotiations Philosophy and Approach Personnel and Qualifications; 3. Schedule of Fees and Costs. We are also submitting the following Exhibits to provide more detailed information to supplement the terms of this proposal: 53g09.1 Mr. David F. Dixon City Manager April 26, 1993 Page 2 Exhibit 1. Exhibit 2. Exhibit 3. Individual Resumes of Harold A. Bridges and Brenda L. Diederichs; References; Sample Computer Billing Statement. 1. FIRM OU~T.IFICATIONS a. Firm ~x~ertise ~nd Experience Burke~ Williams & Sorensen is-a full service law firm, with expertise in all areas of public law, i.e., counties, cities, special districts, redevelopment agencies, and other governmental entities. The firm's Employment and LabOr Practice Group offers complete services to its public and private clients in the related fields of labor relations, personnel administration, benefit issues, grievance proceedings, the defense of wrongful termination and discrimination claims, disability retirement matters and employee training, as well as advice on the management and protection of confidential personnel files. Our services. include development of personnel rules and policies, discipline and grievance. procedures and representation in administrative and legislative arenas. Our litigators handle all aspects of employment and labor litigation. We also possess expertise in the negotiation of labor contracts, contract administration and enforcement. We also provide services in all aspects of workers' compensation matters, including trial, subrogation and defense of serious and willful allegations. Our Los Angeles office, staffed by in excess of fifty attorneys supported by state-of-the-art word processing and telecopy facilities, legal assistants/paralegals and a full support staff, including a full-time librarian, has the legal resources and requisite expertise to provide the City with prompt responses to its needs. Members of our Employment and Labor Practice Group include Harold A. Bridges, B. Derek Straatsma, Brenda L. Diederichs, Steven J. Dawson, F. Daniels Crawford, IV, Mark D. Hensley and John J. Welsh. .~3809.1 Mr. David F. Dixon City Manager April 26, 1993 Page 3 B.' Labor and Employment taw Philosophy And Approach Every city has unique characteristics which impact its relationship with its employees. The City of Temecula is presently facing organizing efforts by an aggressive union, the Teamsters. As a management firm, we provide our clients with strategies to prevent or discourage employees from organizing. We recommend that our clients campaign to encourage employees to remain unrepresented. However, should the employees vote in favor of an employee organization, we will represent management in its employer-employee relations with the employee organization(s). We see our role as advising the city of the options available to achieve labor agreements that are to your satisfaction. This advice may be especially helpful during times when there are difficult issues to address at the bargaining table, i.e., economic issues. The election and negotiation process can be segmented into phases and accordingly we would propose the following plan of work: Pre-ReDresentation ~lection Review Recognition Petition· The review of the recognition petition is done to determine whether the petition complies with the requirements of the Employer-Employee Relations Resolution (EER) and if the proposed unit is an appropriate unit per the EER. Manauement Campaiun. During the thirty (30) day waiting period, following a finding by the Personnel Officer that both the petition and the proposed unit are appropriate, management can run a "campaign" to educate employees on the benefits of remaining unrepresented and to encourage employees to vote to remain unrepresented. We provide guidance on what actions and written materials are permissible communications with employees. Holdina the Rlect~on. The election is scheduled and can take the form of a voting booth or a mail ballot. Management may continue to conduct a campaign to encourage employees to remain unrepresented. Mr. David F. Dixon City Manager April 26, 1993 Page 4 Election Results. After the election, the ballots are counted and a determination is made whether the employees are represented. If the employees have remained unrepresented, no further action is required. If the employees have voted in favor of an employee organization, then management must prepare for and respond to the employee organization's request to meet and Confer. Post-Representation Election Development of City Proposals and Strateav. Review would include but not be limited to ~he Personnel Rules, 'discussion 'with management, review of association proposals, development of strategy, .contingency plans and contract language. Review and Advise Manaaement and Citv Council. Extensive review of strategy and expectations with City Council and Management. We anticipate working with the City Council and Management to establish parameters .and contingency plans. Table Neaotiations. This phase would include the service as chief negotiator or as an advisor to the. chief negotiator in the meet and confer process. TmDasse. Whether or not impasse is anticipated, the City should have an impasse plan. We would provide City management and the City Council with (a) an interpretation of the impasse procedure and the strategies to avoid impasse, but if impasse is inevitable, (b) the strategies to address the impasse issues. Management Orientation. Provide all management and supervisory employees with an orientation of the MOUs upon achievement of a memorandum of understanding. As labor attorneys, we encourage, and are able to assist, the City in developing a negotiation strategy that will ensure that bargaining progresses smoothly. Also, we can provide a firm sense of direction to keep both the association and management team 538G9.1 Mr. David F. Dixon City Manager April 26, 1993 Page 5 focused on the goals to keep issues from being continually revisited. After a memorandum of agreement has been reached with the respective employee organization, we are equipped to address any labor issues that the City may face. Our staff of attorneys provide the following services: (1) Prompt response to labor and employment law questions .... (2) Representation at due'process "Skelly" disciplinary or termination-~earings. (3) Representation for appeals of disciplinary or termination hearings. (4) of the City. Review and advice on procedures, policies and rules efforts. (5) Representation in response to employee organizing (6) Representation in the meet and confer process: (a) Development of bargaining proposals; (b) Draft memorandum of agreement language; (c) Serve as chief spokesperson for the City; (d) Aid chief spokesperson in the meet and confer process. (7) Litigation services. (8) procedures. Preparation of personnel. policies, rules and records. (9) Review of requests for personnel and medical (10) Training on labor and personnel topics. Mr. David F. Dixon City Manager April 26, 1993 Page 6 ~3S09.1 2. PBRBONNwT. AND OUALZFZCATIONS Scott F. Field is a partner with Burke, Williams & Sorensen and City Attorney of Temecula and, as such, is the partner responsible for the overall performance of our services and for assuring that all the legal services required by the City were timely and properly delivered. Harold A. Bridges is the partner in charge of the Employment and Labor Group. He has extensive experience in the defense of management in personnel 'and labor disputes, including defending employers in state and federal court and before numerous administrative.agencies. Ms. Brenda Diederichs will be assigned as the primary provider of the labor services to the City. Ms. Diederichs is an associate. in 'the Employment and Labor Group." She has extensive experience in labor and 'personnel law. She served as Labor Relations Manager for the Southern California Rapid Transit District for eight years. Prior to joining the law firm, Ms. Diederichs served as Personnel Director for the City of West Covina. This "in-house" experience gives her a unique understanding of the consequences to the City of labor decisions. She has experienced both the short and long-term consequences of various labor relations actions and decisions. Since joining the firm, she has provided labor and employment services for more than 28 public agencies. Ms. Diederichs has specific experiencein addressing the efforts of unions to organize employees. While at the Southern California Rapid Transit District, she addressed the organizing efforts of the dispatchers, security guards and transit police. She negotiated the original agreements with the Teamsters, representing the Security Guards, and the Transit Police Officers' Association and handled all related labor issues with these unions. She has specific experience with Teamsters Local 911, which is the same Teamsters' local presently organizing your employees. Also, she has negotiated against the legal counsel representing this Teamsters' local as they represented the Transit Police Officers' Association during her tenure at the Southern California Rapid Transit District. Since joining our firm, she has advised the Chino Basin Community Water District (District) on the decertification of an employee organization, the modification of an employee unit, the Mr. David F. Dixon City Manager April 26, 1993 Page 7 election and campaign process for the recognition of employee organizations. Her advice to the District resulted in one unit going from represented status to unrepresented status. She has served as their chief labor negotiator and has successfully defended the District against the allegation of an unfair labor practice. She serves as advisor to the District for all of their labor issues. Ms. Diederichs is presently representing the City of Chino Hills, which like Temecula is a new city, in its labor relations matters. The City of Chino. Hills acquired represented employees from the County of San Bernardino as one of the conditions'of i~s incorporation and this employee organization is attempting to expand its representation to include other classifications of employees. Ms. Diederichs has designed the Employer-Employee Relations Resolution and has advised the City through this representation process. Once the representation issues are decided by an election, she will represent the City as its chief negotiator. She also advises the City on all of its labor issues and represents them in disciplinary appeals. She has negotiated with the following unionsand employee associations: Teamsters, Local 911 - Security Guards Chino Basin Muhicipal Water District San Bernardino Public Employees' Association Chino Basin Municipal Water District Supervisors' Unit 4. Chino Basin Municipal Water International Union of Operating Local 501 District - Engineers, 5. United Transportation Union - Bus Drivers 6. Amalgamated Transit Union - Mechanics Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks - Clerical, Paraprofessional and Janitorial Transportation Communications Union - Clerical, Paraprofessional and Janitorial ~3809.1 Mr. David F. Dixon City Manager April 26, 1993 Page 8 9. Transit Police Officers Association - Police Officers 10. Office and Professional Employees International Union - Dispatchers 11. West Covina Police Officers' Association 12. United Transportation Union - Schedule Checkers 13. Wes~ covina Public safety Dispatchers' Association 14. .West Covina City General Employees' Association 15. Service Employees' International Union - Mechanics 16. United Professional Fire Fighters Local #2415,' I AFF, AFL-CIO In addition to Mr. Bridges and Ms. Diederichs, other attorneys are made available to the City as required by workload or absence of one of the primary attorneys assigned to the City. The Individual resumes of Harold A. Bridges and Brenda L. Diederichs are attached as Exhibit 1. FEES 3. FEES AND COSTS Ms. Diederichs' hourly rate is $145.00. Services performed by other labor attorneys will be billed at their standard hourly rates. COSTS We would expect to be reimbursed for expenses which are customarily a part of a public agency legal service contract, such as telephone, fax, photocopying and other similar expenses, subject to review, verification and approval by the City. In line with our existing retainer agreement, we will cap travel costs at one hour, plus mileage. 53809. l Mr. David F. Dixon City Manager April 26, 1993 Page 9 C. STATEMENTS We provide monthly computerized statements which contain a description of the services rendered, the date rendered, the amount of time expended, and the name of the attorney, clerk or paralegal performing the service. Such statements also contain itemized descriptions of any expenses. A sample of our computer billing statement is attached hereto as Exhibit 3. We will be pleased to respond have regarding this proposal. to any questions you may Very truly yours, ~ng Partner of BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN cc: Harwood Edvalson Resume HAROLD A. BRIDGF, LEGAL EXPI~RII~CF, 1980 to Present BURKE, WILLIAlViS & SOBSEN Partner and Chair of the ~rm's Litigation Division. General business, public law and litigation practice with emphasis in employment, business and commercial litigation, representing large and small pubh'c and. private corporations, public agencies, colleges and universities. Mr. Bridges has headed litigation teams that have defended numerous public and private corporations against a variety of business,' commercial, civil rights and employment claims, including a successful representation of a public entity against a palxern and practice discrimination suit by the Uniuxi States Department of hstice. · Mr. Bridges serves as lead insurance counsel for twenty-me cities who are seeking defense and indemnification for CERCLA response costs and indemnification suit brought by industrial generators in connection with a Superfund landfill closure. Mr. Bridges also served as investigative counsel to a City faced with-numerous sexual harassment. claims against high ranking police officers PROFEq,qlONAI, AFFH ,!'ATIONS: Los Angeles County Bar Association American Bar Association Member:. Corporation, Banking and Business Law Sections State Bar of California Member: Business Law; Labor and Employment Law; and Real Property Law Sections Admitted to: EDUCATION Law School: Undergraduate: State Bar of California, 1980 United States District Court, Central District of California, 1980 United States District Court, Northern District of California, 1982 U.S. Tax Court, 1984 Practice before: All state and federal courts and administrative tribunals LOYOLA LAW SCHOOL, Los Angeles, California J.D.~ magna cure hude (1980) Loyola of Los Angeles Law R~iew Member: (1978-79) Recipient: American Jurisprudence Book Award in Corporations, Remedies and Secured Transactions in Personal Property LOYOLA MARYMOUNT UNIVERSITY, Los Angeles, California B.A. Political Science, magna cum hude (1977) BRENDA L. DIEDERICHS WORK EXPERIENCE: 2/9 - present Associate, Labor and Employment Section of Burke, Willjams & Sorensen, specializing in providing personnel and labor relations services to municipalities, public agencies and special districts .and corporations, including meet and confer, development of personnel rules and policies, discipline and grievance procedures, and litigation and arbitration of employee disciplinary actions. 2/9o- 2/9 City of West Covina - Director of Personnel Duties: Direct-personnel function, serve as chief negotiator, develop policies and procedures, prepare depar.~ment budget, design training programs, develop staff, advise City on complex personnel matters. 12/82- 2/90 Southern California Rapid Transit District - Labor Relations Manager Duties: Serve as chief negotiator, 'supervise a staff of six employees~ prepare department budget, serve as the third level hearing officer and prepare cases for arbitration, interpret labor contracts, design and conduct labor relations training, prepare oral and written reports, mediate complex discipline and grievance cases, and advise executive personnel and the Board of Directors on labor issues. lo/8o- z2/82 Southern California Rapid Transit District - Employment Manager Duties: Supervise a staff of.eighteen employees in test administration, job analysis, classification, outreach recruitment, test construction and test validation; prepare written procedures and develop programs; serve as member of collective bargaining teams; administer labor contracts; serve as third level hearing officer; assist supervisors in union related matters. 9/77- ZO/80 San Bernardino County Personnel -Analyst I Duties: Conduct job analysis, prepare job announcement-s; design oral and written tests; conduct classification studies; write job descriptions; conduct salary surveys and make salary recommendations, prepare Board agenda items; present classification appeals. 51190.1 EDUCATION: Loyola MarymountUniversity Law School - Juris Doctor 1989 Moot Court Honors Program 1988 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona - Bachelor of Arts in Political Science - 1979 PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS: .California State Bar Association L. A. County Bar Association California Public Employer Labor Relations Association TRAINING: Presented papers and conducted.training seminars for the following organizations: · Calif0rnia~Public Employees Labor Relations Association (CALPELRA) --1992 · American Arbitration Association (AAA) - 1993 · California League of Cities - City Attorney Conference 1992 · City of Hope - Business Management 1993 · Inland Area Personnel Management Association (IAPMA) - 1992 · Southern California Public Labor Relations Associations. (SCPLRA) - 1992 · Professional Industrial Relations Association (PIRA) - 1992, 1993 · Southern California Personnel Management Association (SCPMA) - 1991 511~0.1 -2- REFERENCES City of Camarillo Larry R. Davis, Assistant City Manager 601 Carmen Drive Camarillo, California 93011 (805) 388-5309 City of West Covina Ronald E. Holmes, Chief of Police 1444 W. Garvey Avenue WestCovina, California 91793 (818) 814-8501 City of West Covina Harry Thomas, Division Chief-Administration 1444 W. Garvey Avenue West Covina, California 91793 (818). 814-8401 Southern California Rapid Transit District Roger Kundert, former Director of Employee Relations, presently Assistant Human Resources Manager Texaco Refining and Marketing, Inc. 10 Universal City Plaza Universal City, California 91608 (818) 505-3135 Chino Basin Municipal Water District Diana M. Leach, Assistant General Manager 8555 Archibald Avenue Rancho Cucamonga, California 91729 (714) 987-1712 City of E1 Segundo Tim Grimmond, Police Chief 348 Main Street E1 Segundo, California 90245-0989 (310) 322-4670 IN ACCOUNT WITH: JR FZLE NO: O0 - CZTY OF DESCRZPTZON OF SERVXCES RENDERED /03 WORKED ON ZSSUES RE EXEMPTZONe TELEPHONE CALLS I04 REVZEWED UTZLZTY USEReS ORDZNANCF... ATTENDFED CZTY COUNCZL MEETZNG REVZSED DRAFTt RESEARCHED RE SAME '-' NEETZNG WZTH STAF'Ft REVZEMED AND DZSCUSSED OPZNZON FOR HEETZNG /07 WORKED ON ZSSUE$ RE 'TAXZNG AUTHORZTY AND WESTHZNZSTER CSE REVZSED UTZLZTT USER TAX ORDZNANCE TO REFLECT COUNCZL'S UECZSZON$ RESEARCH RE:. EFF.ECTZVENES$ OF. P~R$ TAX PREPARED ORDZNANCE RE:: PERS TAX REVXSED ORDZNANCE RE: PERS TAX /ZZ OZ,~CUSSED ZSSUES, WORKED ON ORDZNANCE AND OPZNZON REVZSED UTZLZTY USERS TAX PREPARED ~ALLO! LANGUAGE 'lJ FZNALZZ~D OROZNANCE, RESEARCHED RE ZSSUESe OZSCUS~&D NITH STAF.F REVZSED UTZLZTY USERS TAX ORDZNANCE PREPARED MEMOI. IANUUN TO COUNCZL RE: UTZLZT~ USERS TAX ORDZNANCE /Z7, WORKED ON MtNOe NESEARCM RE LAMe DXCTATE0 FXNAL DRAF.T R~VZSED UTZLZTT USERS TAX PREPARED eALLOT LANGUAGE RE: UTXLZTY USERS TAX PREPARED MEMORANDUM RE: UTXLZTT USERS TAX /~8 FZNALZZED ORDZNANCCS AND COUNCXL MEMOe WORKED ON SANe ATE DESCRXPTZON OF DZSBURSERENT AROUNT /2~J WORU PROCES 'USERtS TAX 5o20. DATE REF: ~781 HOURS .6 .8 · , e7 1,0 .7 TOTAL F.EES TOTAL DZSBURSEHEIITS RF_..XON, F'I::tE;;'DM AN, I,(.LF_.PE:TAR & I-'IAIvIBL;'TON I~'100 WILSHIR[ BOULEVARD, SUITE 730 LOS ANGEL[S, CALIFORNIA g, 00:='5-7107 TILe'IBNONI[ (310) 8;6-8300 FAX (31C)) 6ze.-o333 April 5, 1993 VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS AND FAX Mr. David F. Dixon City Manager City of Temecula 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 Re= Proposal re counsel labor and emplol~nent relations law legal Dear Mr. Dixon: Thank you for the opportunity, as communicated through Assistant City Manager, Mr. Woody Edvalson, to present this proposal to provide labor and employment relations law services to the City of Temecula. Our firm limits its practice to the representation of employers only in both the public sector and in private industries .in matters involving labor, equal employment opportunity (EEOC) and employment relations law, including, but not limited to, collective bargaining and the meet and confer process, interpretation of memorandum of understanding (MOU), grievances and arbitrations, employment discrimination/fair employment, age discrimination, Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA), California and U.S. Family Care Leave, Fair Labor Standards/Wage and Hour matters, workers' compensation, occupational safety and health matters, employee discipline matters as well as matters arising before federal and state courts and administrative litigation involving all forms of employment relations law issues. The partners in the firm are Brian L. Rexon, Jeffrey C. Freedman, Ronald J. Klepetar and Debby R. Hambleton. The associates with the firm are Alyce A. Rubinfeld and Wendy K. Genz. The-firm's paralegal/legal assistant is Jill A. Porcaro. It is our understanding that the City desires to retain a firm to provide services in connection with the City's relationships with its employees and potentially employee organizations (unions) seeking to represent such employees. The firm has experience and regularly practices on behalf of both Mr. David F. Dixon April 5, 1993 Page 2 public agencies and private companies in every aspect of this field. We understand that the City is presently confronting a situation where a labor organization (union) has made a demand upon the City that it be recognized as the representative of a group of City employees. In this regard, the firm would be prepared to provide services to the City including: advising the City on the propriety of this petition; arranging, if appropriate, for a secret ballot election among the employee group affected; advising the City of its proper and .permissible scope of response to such a petition such as in communicating with the employees about such representation; if and when necessary, acting as the City's chief negotiator in representing the City in meet and confer'planning and reporting sessions; consulting with the City on any MOU and issues relating thereto ~ncluding bargaining proposals; representing the City in any impasse proceedings; consulting with City staff regarding.the implementation of strike planning 'strategy if necessary; advising the City concerning all aspects of the City's on going employer- employee relationships. The firm proposes to provide to the City the services necessary at its current hourly billing rate of $160.00 per hour for partners and $150.00 an hourfor'associates and $90.00 per hour for paralegal services. In addition, our firm normally bills its municipal clients for expenses incurred such as photocopying, express mail, messenger service and computer assisted research time but not for normal telephone calls or for faxing. If litigation is involved, this firm would advance and thereafter invoice for reimbursement for such items as court filing fees, court reporter costs, process server fees, etc. Because of the distance of the City from the firm's offices in Metropolitan Los Angeles, the firm would be prepared to discuss modified billing rates for items such as off-hours travel time. The firm submits the following list of references who may be contacted to verify the firm's successful history of experience in employment relations and labor law matters. The firm is currently providing or within the recent past has provided labor Mr. David F. Dixon April 5, 1993 Page 3 and employment relations law services to each and all of the agencies and entities listed. City of Pasadena Victor J. Kaleta, Esq. City Attorney (S18-405-4141) Larry Newberry, Esq. Assistant City Attorney (SIS-405-4000) 'Dorothy Kirkland Employee Relations Admin. (sls-4os-4o12) Laura Susman Armor Employee Relations Admin. (81S-405-4013) Kaya Pekerol Fire Chief (81S-405-4675) City of Newport Beach Robert L. Burnham City Attorney (714-644-3131) City of South Gate Duane Munson Personnel Director (714-644-3300) Robert Turner Assistant City Manager (310-563-9503) Ronald P. George Chief of Police (310-563-5452) Mr. David F. Dixon April 5, 1993 Page 4 City of Torrance Elizabeth G. Clark, Esq. Assistant City Attorney (310-328-5310) Elaine Winer Director of Personnel (310-328-5310) City of Brisbane Robin Leiter City Manager (415-467-1515) City of Moreno Valley Gene Rogers Assistant City Manager (714-243-3021) County of Inyo C. Brent Wallace County Administrator (619-878-2411) County of Mono William Mayer County Administrator (619-932-5228) R. Scott Adams Fire Chief (310-781-7034 Gary Baugh Human Resource Manager (714-924-7155) Gayle J. Todd Director of Personnel Services (619-87S-2411) Neil McCarroll Assistant County Counsel (619-932-5220) Mr. David F. Dixon April 5, 1993 Page 5 City of Bell John E. Bramble Chief Admin. Officer (213-588-6211) James Edwards Chief of Police (213-585-1245) Elizabeth Van Note Director of Personnel and Administrative Services (213-588-6211) City of Santa Fe Springs Donald Powe11 City Manager (310-868,0511) Fred Latham Assistant City Manager (310-868-0511) Donald Nuttall Director of Finance and Administrative Services (310-868-0511) City of Oxnard Gary L. Gillig City Attorney (805-984-4601) City of Lakewood, Howard Chambers City Administrator (310-866-9771) Michael Stover Assistant City Administrator (310-866-9771) Patricia Stover' Director of Personnel (310-866-9771) City of Bell Gardens Michael Martinet Director of Personnel (310-806-4500) In addition to the public agencies mentioned, the firm is also counsel for such private institutions as Carrier Corporation, United Technologies Corporation, Westin Hotel Company, Mitsubishi Warehouse Corporation, Wynn's International, Inc., Federal Express Corporation, Certified Grocers of Mr. David F. Dixon April 5, 1993 Page 6 California, Mission Energy Company and private companies in virtually every industry doing business in Southern California. A firm biography on the firm's partners and associates is attached. Again, thank you for the opportunity to present this proposal to the City of Temecula. Please feel free to contact the undersigned at your convenience if any further information or explanation is required. Very truly yours, Enclosure jcf\prop\dixon REXON, FREEDMAN. KLEPETAR & HAMBLETON A Professional Corporation 12100 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 730 Los Angeles, California 90025 (310) 826-8300 BRIAN L. REXON holds a B.A. degree from the University of California, Berkeley (1966), and both his law degree and a Masters in Industrial Relations from the University of California at Los Angeles (1969)-. Mr. Rexon spent two years after graduation from law school representing labor unions. The last nineteen years he has been representing management exclusively. Mr. Rexon is a member of the California Bar and is admitted to practice before all federal and state courts and has been a practicing labor lawyer since 1970. He devotes the majority of his time to collective bargaining, arbitrations, contract administration and union related matters. Mr. Rexon has been involved in many union organizing campaigns representing management exclusively. He is a regular instructor on labor and employment law matters for the U.C.L.A. program on management, labor and business. Mr. Rexon regularly lectures on labor related areas for the American Arbitration Association and PIRA, as well as numerous employer associations. JEFFREY'C. FREEDMAN is a graduate of Occidental College (A.B. 1966), and of the University of California at Los Angeles School of Law (J.D. 1969). He is.a member of the California Bar and is admitted to practice before all federal and state courts in California as well as the United States Supreme Court. Mr. Freedman is a former California Deputy Attorney (1969-74). He has published articles and is a frequent lecturer on labor relations matters before public and private management groups including the League of California Cities and the California Commission on Peace Officers Standards and training. He has served as president of the Century City Bar Association and as a Trustee of the Los Angeles County Bar Association. Mr. Freedman represents public sector and private enterprise clients in civil and administrative litigation arising from employment related matters. He has spent a substantial portion of his practice representing public sector agencies in their labor and employment relations matters. He has represented public and private sector employers in state and federal court and jury trials and appeals in EEO litigation, employment termination cases, writs of mandate to review public agency employee discipline cases, arbitrations, Civil Service Commission hearings and other forms of litigation involving employment issues. He devotes a substantial portion of his practice to representing public sector agencies, primarily cities, in the Southern California area. In this regard he has assisted agencies in. negotiating MOUs, dealing with their employee unions, civil litigation and administrative hearings such as arbitrations, advisory arbitrations and Civil Service Commission hearings, and providing general and ongoing advice on MOU interpretation and other matters of labor employment relations law. This has 'included matters arising under the Federal Fair Labor Standards · Act since its provisions have become applicable to public sector agencies. RONALD J. KLEPETAR is a graduate of the University of Illinois (1968) and of DePaul University School of Law (J.D. 1971). He also received a Masters of Law Degree in Labor Law.from New York University in 1973. Mr. Klepetar is admitted both to the Bars of the States of California and Illinois and is admitted to practice before all of the courts of the state, as well as the U.S. Supreme Court. He was a member of the Law Review at DePaul University and is a former attorney with the National Labor Relations Board'in Washington, D.C. and in Los Angeles.. Mr. Klepetar devotes a significant amount of time to collective bargaining, arbitration and NLRB'related matters. He has been a frequent lecturer on labor relations matters at U.C.L.A. and before public and private management groups, 'and has served as a hearing officer'for Los Angeles County. Mr. Klepetar also has been an instructor on labor relations at U.C.L.A. Extension School of Industrial Relations since 1975. He devotes the majority of his time to negotiating on behalf of client employers with unions and employee organizations in both the public and private sectors. He is also heavily involved in representing employers in wrongful termination and employment discrimination litigation, and arbitrations involving employee disciplinary and contract interpretation disputes. He has also developed expertise in legal developments affecting drug and alcohol abuse problems in the workforce. DEBBY R. NAMBLETON is a graduate of University of Nevada, Reno (1981), and received her Juris Doctorate Degree from Pepperdine University in 1984, graduating cum laude. Ms. Hambleton is admitted to the Bars of both the State of California and the State of Nevada. She was previously a labor attorney for Southern California Edison Company where she acquired experience in all areas of labor law with emphasis in litigation and arbitration. She has been involved in representing both private and public sector employers. In addition to representing clients before federal, state and administrative tribunals, she is extensively involved in providing day-to-day advice and drafting and updating employer policies and contracts. Ms. Hambleton also provides assistance to employers to ensure compliance with the requirements of such laws and regulations as COBRA, WARN, IRCA and D.O.T. drug testing. Ms. Hambleton is a frequent quest speaker for the American Arbitration Association and UCLA extension programs, as well as for various public and private sector groups. ALYCE A. RUBINFELD earned her bachelor of arts degree, magna cum laude from California State University at Northridge in 1978. She received her juris doctorate degree from Hastings College of Law, University of California in 1982. Ms. Rubinfeld served as senior trial attorney for the Los Angeles District Office of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission from 1985-1988. During her term, she headed two task forces investigating discriminatory employment practices in the entertainment and defense'induStries. Ms. Rubin~eld concentrates her practice in the areas of employment discrimination and wrongful termination litigation. Ms. Rubinfeld is a member of the California Bar Association and is admitted to practice before all federal and state courts in california. She has been a guest speaker for the University of California at Los Angeles extension program on such topics as sexual harassment and pregnancy discrimination. WENDY K. GENZ received her undergraduate degree from Brigham Young University (B.A. 1980). Her law degree (1988) is from Louisville University. She was formerly with the labor law. department of General Electric Corporation. Ms. Genz is admitted to practice before all courts in the State of California. Ms. Genz has .an expertise in formulating injury and illness prevention programs under SB 198. JILL A. PORCARO, the firm es paralegal, completed a paralegal program and received her certification in 1985 from Kingsborough College in New York. She is currently awaiting graduation from the University of California at Los Angeles with a bachelor of arts degree in English. She has substantial paralegal experience both in New York and Los Angeles encompassing a broad range of contract and labor litigation law. She will be attending law school in the fall of 1993. firm\gen-l\bio Jury 1~1 BEST, BEST & KRIEGER LAWYERS ARTHUR L. LITTLEWORTH" GLEN E. STEPHENS' WIllIAM R. D~WOt. FE· BARTON C. GAUT" PAUL T, S[LZER" DALLA~ HOLMES* CHRISTOPHER L. CARPENTER* RICHARD T, ANDERSON" JOHN D. WAHUN" MICHAEL D, HARRIS* W. CURT EALYe THOMAS S. $LOVAK" JOHN E. BROWNe MICHAEL T. RIDDELL* MEREDITH A. JURY" MICHAEL GRANTe FRANCIS J. BAUM* ANNE T. THOMAS* G, MARTIN NETHER'f" GEORGE M, REYE$ WIllIAM W. FLOYD. JR. MICHAEL A, CRISTE" GREGORY L, HARDKE KENDALL H, MSeVEY CLARK H. ALSOP* DAVID J. ERWIN° MICHAEL J. ANDEl, SON= · A RqQFE3IIION/,L C~RKXATION DOUGLAS S. PHILLIPS" ANTONIA GRAPHO~ GREGORY K, WILKINSON WYNNE S, FURTH DAVID L. BARON EUGENE TANAKA BASIL T. CHAPMAR TIMOTHY M. CONNOR VICTOR L. WOLF DANIEL E. OLIVIER DANIEL J. MgHU{)H HOWARD B. GOLDS STEPHEN P. OEITSCH M~RC E. EMP(Y JOHN R. ROTTSCHAEFER MARTIN A. MUELLER J. MICHAEL SUMMEROUR VICTORIA N. KING JEFFERY J. CRANDALL ~COTT C. SMITH JACK e. CLARKE. BRIAN M, LEWIS JEANNETTE A. PETERSON BRADLEY E. NEUFELD KANDY LEE ALLEN ELLS;' K, TRAYNUM WILLIAM D. DAHLING, JR, JEFFREY v, DUNN STEV~N C. DeGAUN GRANT H. DV[IRIN ERIC L. GARNER JUUE HAYWARD 81GGS ROOERT W. HARGREAVET, JARICE L. WEIS PATRICK W. PEARCE JASON D, DABAREINER MARK A. EASTER MICHELL[ OUELLETTE DAVID P. PHIPPEN, SR. KENNETH R, WEISS CHRISTOPHER DOGSON BERNIE L. WILLIAMSON KEVIN K, RAROOLPH MAR'~HAL/S. RUDOLPH KIM A. 8YRENS CYNTHIA M. GERMANO MARY E. Gla eTRAP NGUYEN 0, PHAN DANIEL C. PARKENo JR. GINEVRA C. M/RUM CHARLES E. KOLIFR GLENN P. GABIN[ CHRISTIN[ L. RICHARDSON JOAN[ GAROIA-COLSON PHILIP J, KOEHLER DIANE C. WIES[ G. HENRY WELLES RAYMOND BEST ( 1868-1957 ) JAMES H. KRIEGER (1913-3975) EUGENE BEST (1893-1981) ,APR; = ~--- 400 MISSION SQUARE 3750 UNIVERSITY AVENUE PO~T OFFICE BOX 1028 RIVERSIDF,, CALIFORNIA 92502 TEL/PHONE (714)686-1450 TILECOPIERS (714) 686-3083 · 682-46Z2 OF COUNSEL JAMES D. CORISON OFFICES IN PALM SPRINGS (619)325-7254 RANCHO MIRAGE (619)5M-26l ONTARIO (714) 989-8584 April 2, 1993 David F. Dixon City Manager City of Temecula 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula,'CA 92590 Re: Employee Relations Services Dear Mr. Dixon: Thank you very much for the opportunity to be considered for the position of employee relations legal counsel for the City of Temecula. In my telephone conference with Mr. Edvalson, he indicated that the Teamsters union has made a demand for recognition to represent some of the City's employees. We represent a number of public and private employers in all aspects of labor and employment law, including employee relations and Collective bargaining. We assist them in opposing union organizing campaigns, and we provide negotiating services to many of our clients. We have carried matters through the various impasse resolution procedures and have assisted our clients during strikes and other concerted activities. We regularly represent clients in civil rights litigation and in employee discipline hearings and litigation. We practice before the National Labor Relations Board, the Agricultural Labor Relations Board, the Public Employment Relations Board, and in the state and federal courts. WF 160~69 LAW OFFICES OF BEST, BEST & KRIEGER David F. Dixon, City Manager City of Temecula April 2, 1993 Page 2 A list of public agency clients for which we perform labor and employment law services includes: City of Barstow City of Big Bear Lake City of Colton City of Corona City of Desert Hot Springs City of Fontana City of Indio .City of Needles City of Palm Desert City of Redlands City of Shafter City of Victorville Desert Water Agency Western Municipal Water District of Riverside County Lake Hemet Municipal Water District Big Bear City Community Services District Cucamonga County Water District Rtmning Springs Water District Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District Jurupa Community Services District Mr. San Jacinto Winter Park Authority (Palm Springs Tram) As you can see from the foregoing information, Best, Best & Krieger has a wealth of experience in representing cities and other public employers in labor and employment law matters. We also represent a number of private sector employers. We believe that this gives us a much broader perspective on labor and employment law issues and makes us better counselors and advocates for our public agency clients. We are confident 'that we can provide a full range of quality labor and employment law services to the City of Temecula, including representation during a nnion organizing campaign. If you were to select Best, Best & Krieger as the City of Temecula's employee relations legal counsel, I would serve as principal attorney. I have attached my biography for your review. In addition, my associates Brad Neufeld and Bernie Williamson both devote substantially all of their practices to representing public and private employers in labor and employment law matters and would be available to assist in my absence. ~F160669 LAW OFFICES OF BrST, BI='ST & KRIF"GrR David F. Dixon, City Manager City of Temecula April 2, 1993 Page 3 · I am sure that any of the following individuals would be pleased to give you a reference on our labor and employment law services. Stephen Wright City Manager City of Big Bear Lake 39707 Big Bear Boulevard Post Office Box 10000 Big Bear Lake, CA 92315-8900 (909) 866-5831- -- .Mark wiS City Manager City of Colton 650 North La Cadena Drive Colton, CA 92324 (909) 370-5051 William Garrett City Manager City of Corona 815 West Sixth Street Post Office Box 940 Corona, CA 91718-0090 (909) 736-2372 James Wheaton City Manager City of Redlands 1270 West Park Avenue Post Office Box 3005 Redlands, CA 92373 (909) 798-7510 James Cox City Manager City of Victorville 14343 Civic Drive Victorville, CA 92392-2399 (619) 245-3411 ~F160~69 l_Aw OFFICE:':: OF BEST, BEST & KRIEGER David F. Dixon, City Manager City of Temecula April 2, 1993 Page 4 Sandi Tannen Personnel Director City of Barstow 220 East Mountain View Street Barstow, CA 923 11 (619) 256-3531 In addition, we invite you to contact any of the other clients listed in this letter. Our fee for our services would be on an as-needed basis at the following rates: $165.00 per hour for_partners (including Mr. Floyd); $150.00 per hour for senior associate attorneys (including Mr. Neufeld); and $135.00 per hour for junior associate attorneys (including Mr. Williamson). Our fees include all routine secretarial and 'office costs associated with the provision of legal services. Travel, telephone, copying expenses, and ~ing and expert witness fees incurred on your behalf would be bffied in addition to our fees. Our fees are generally subject to change on an annual basis to reflect changes in the value of the dollar. Best, Best & Krieger is an equal oppo~mity employer. We employ attorneys and others of many races and ethnic backgrounds and have several women and minority partners. We thank you for the Opporl~mity tO provide you with this information, and we would be happy to meet with you at your convenience to answer any questions you might have. We look forward to hearing from you. Very truly yours, amW. . of Best, Best & Krieger WWF/cb Attachment WWF160469 NAME W'dHam W. Floyd, Jr. Partner Best, Best & Krieger 3750 University Avenue. Riverside, California 92501 (909) 686-1450 BORN San Bernardino, California August 5, 1950 UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION California State University, San Diego B.A., 1972 LEGAL EDUCATION McGeorge College of Law J.D., 1979 LEGAL AND OT!:fE-R ASSOCIATIONS Member, American Bar Association (Labor Law Section) Member, State Bar of California (Labor and Employment Law Section) Member, Riven/de County Bar Association Merchants and Manufacturers Association (Inland Empire Regional Board Member) City of Riverside Personnel Board (past President) Greater Riverside Employer Advisory Council (Board of Director) Industrial Rehtions Research Association (Inland Empire Chapter) AREAS OF PRACTICE Representing F-mployers in Labor and Employment Law (Private and Public Sectors) Employee Termination and Discipline Employment Discrimination Drug and Alcohol Issues Collective Bargaining and Employee Rchtions Counsel Unfair Labor Practice and Arbitration Cases Wage-Hour Matters F-mpioyee Sdety PUBLICATIONS "Employee Termln~,ions - a Trap for the Unwary," The Siren. News of the Emergency Medical Transvortation Industry. "Employee Handbook - An hvestment in Good Personnel Manage- merit," Inland Emvire Manzine and Inland Empire Business Journal. Supen, isory Training Manuals and Materials: Performance and Evaluation, Progressive Discivline, Employment Termination, Due Process and Related Issues. Employment Discrimination: Prevention at the Supervisory Level. An Ounce of Prevention: The Contn'bution of Supervisors in Avoidine Liability. Drug and Alcohol Use in the Workplace. ManaeementAJnion Relationships. Waee and Hour Issues. First Amendment Riehts of Public Employees. Police Officers' Bill of Rights. Superdsorial Seminar Hypotheticals. Frequent Lecturer on labor and employment law topics. LAW FIRM MANAGEMENY Member, Recruitment Committee Chair, I.~bor Law Department PERSONAL Married to Diane L. Floyd Riverside, CA ITEM 1 CITY OF TEMECULA MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: May 12, 1993 Consideration of Special Counsel - Labor Relations Pursuant to direction of the City Council, I conducted interviews with three firms for special !abor re!ations counsel. Interviews were completed on April 28 and, based upon their experience and expertise, I am recommending the appointment of Jeff Freedman as special counsel. Jeff Freedman is a partner of Rexon, Freedman, Klepetar & Hambleton. I am recommending the appointment of Jeff Freedman because I feel he can serve the City of Temecula better than the other two attorneys who we interviewed. He is a senior partner and has great depth of experience as noted by his correspondence to us dated April 5. We have also been able to confirm through personal contacts that he has served his clients especially well. The material which is attached contains my original memorandum dated May 7, the questions which were used in the interview process, and the individual proposals from Burke, Willlares & Sorensen; Rexon, Freedman, Klepetar & Hambleton; and Best, Best & Krieger. DFD:ss Attachments CITY OF TEMECULA MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: City Council David F. Dixon May 7, 1993 Agenda Item 1 O, Award of Contract for Special Counsel Several weeks ago I shared with the City Council my desire to seek special counsel to address employee relations senices. During the discussion I indicated we would be interviewing several firms including Burke, Williams & Sorensen. Interviews with three firms were held on April 28. The firms were Burke, Williams & Sorensen; Rexon, Freedman, Klepetar & Hambleton; and .Best, Best & Krieger. The interview panel consisted of the Assistant City Manager, Woody Edvalson, and the City Manager, David Dixon. Ron Parks, the administrative liaison on the City Council, was invited to participate but due to circumstances beyond his control was unable to attend. Each firm was asked a series of questions which are attached. I have also attached each-firm's proposals which outline their qualifications, expertise, and experience in labor related issues. You will note from the attachments that Burke, Williams & Sorensen and Best, Best & Krieger are full service organizations representing a wide diversification of disciplines. The firm of Rexon, Freedman, Klepetar & Hambleton specializes in labor and employment relations law and provides services to public and private corporations. Upon completion of the interviews, staff took time to review the responses and came to a unanimous recommendation. Staff is recommending the law firm of Rexon, Freedman, Klepetar & Hambleton to represent the City in its labor and employment activities. The City will be represented by Jeff Freedman, a partner in the law firm. We were comfortable with his background and expertise and believe that he will provide us with excellent service for the costs associated with that service. The fees associated with his service (as noted in his proposal) are: $160 per hour for partners, $150 per hour for associates, and $90 per hour for paralegal~, ~ DFD:ss Attachments PERSONNEL/LABOR RELATIONS LEGAL COUNSEL INTERVIEWS (4/28/93) 2:00 PM - BURXE, WILLIAMS,& SORENSEN Scott Field Brenda Diederichs SUGGESTED QUESTIONS: What are the respective roles that the City Council and Management Staff should play inlabor relations? (2) Being faced with an organizing attempt by the Teamsters, how would you advise the City to proceed if selected as legal counsel? The City is preparing to adopt an Employer-Employee Relations Resolution addressing a recognition process. (3) If selected as the City's labor relations/personnel legal counsel, other than the employee organization effort what would be the first few issues that you would make sure the City has addressed/or recommend that we address? L. AW O!I'IrICES LOS ANI31rLI',S, CAl, llrOIqNIA April 26, 1993 o,.,,, '('2:Z'3') 236-2704 Mr. David F. Dixon City Manager CITY OF TEMECULA 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, California 92590-3606 Re: Proposal to Provide Labor Relations Services to the City of Temecula Dear Mr. Dixon: proposal Temecula. Burke, Williams & Sorensen is pleased to submit this to provide labor relations services to the City of In response to your Request for Proposal, the following information is submitted: 1. Firm Qualifications A. Expertise and Experience B. Labor Negotiations Philosophy and Approach 2. Personnel and Qualifications; 3. Schedule of Fees and Costs. We are also submitting the following Exhibits to provide more detailed information to supplement the terms of this proposal: 531O9. Mr. David F. Dixon City Manager April 26, 1993 Page 2 Exhibit 1. Exhibit 2. Exhibit 3. Individual Resumes of Harold A. Bridges and Brenda L. Diederichs; References; Sample Computer Billing Statement. 1. FIRM OUALIFICATION8 A. Firm _~w~_ertise ~nd Experience Burke, Willjams & Sorerisen is+a full service law firm, with expertise in all areas of public law, i.e., counties, cities, special districts, redevelopmerit agencies, and other governmental entities.' The firm's Employment and Labor Practice Group offers compkete services to its public and private clients in the related fields of labor relations, personnel administration, benefit issues, grievance proceedings, the defense of wrongful termination and discrimination claims, disability retirement matters and employee training, as well as advice on the management and protection of confidential personnel files. Our services include development of personnel rules and policies, discipline and grievance. procedures and representation in administrative and legislative arenas. Our litigators handle all aspects of employment and labor litigation. We also possess expertise in the negotiation of labor contracts, contract administration and enforcement. We also provide services in all aspects of workers' compensation matters, including trial, subrogation and defense of serious and willful allegations. Our Los Angeles office, staffed by in excess of fifty attorneys supported by state-of-the-art word processing and telecopy facilities, legal assistants/paralegals and a full support staff, including a full-time librarian, has the legal resources and requisite expertise to provide the City with prompt responses to its needs. Members of our Employment and Labor Practice Group include Harold A. Bridges, B. Derek Straatsma, Brenda L. Diederichs, Steven J. Dawson, F. Daniels Crawford, IV, Mark D. Hensley and John J. Welsh. 53809.1 Mar. David F. Dixon City Manager April 26, 1993 Page 3 B. Labor and Employment T.aW PhilOSOphY And Approaoh Every city has unique characteristics which impact its relationship with its employees. The City of Temecula is presently facing organizing efforts by an aggressive union, the Teamsters. As a management firm, we provide our clients with strategies to prevent or discourage employees from organizing. We recommend that our clients campaign to encourage employees to remain unrepresented. However, should the employees vote in favor of an employee organization, we will represent management in its employer-employee relations with the employee organization(s). We see our role as advising the city of the options available to achieve labor agreements that are to your satisfaction. This advice may be especially helpful during times when there are difficult issues to address at the bargaining table, i.e., economic issues. The election and negotiation process can be seqmented into phases and accordingly we would propose the following plan of work: Pre-Representation Election Review Recognition Petition. The review of the recognition petition is done to determine whether the petition complies with the requirements of the Employer-Employee Relations Resolution (EER) and if the proposed unit is an appropriate unit per the EER. Manauement CamDaiun. During the thirty (30) day waiting period, following a finding by the Personnel Officer that both the petition and the proposed unit are appropriate, management can run a "campaign" to educate employees on the benefits of remaining unrepresented and to encourage employees to vote to remain unrepresented. We provide guidance on what actions and written materials are permissible communications with employees. Hold~nu the Rlection. The election is scheduled and can take the form of a voting booth or a mail ballot. Management may continue to conduct a campaign to encourage employees to remain unrepresented. 53809.1 Mr. David F. Dixon City Manager April 26, 1993 Page 4 Election Results. After the election, the ballots are counted and a determination is made whether the employees are represented. If the employees have remained unrepresented, no further action is required. If the employees have voted in favor of an employee organization, then management must prepare for and respond to the employee organization's request to meet and confer. Post-Representation Election Development of City Proposals and Stratea~. Review -would include but not be limited to the' Personnel Rules, 'discussion 'with management, review of association proposals, development of strategy, contingency plans and contract language. Review and Advise Management and CitV Council. Extensive review of strategy and expectations with City Council and Management. We anticipate working with the City Council and Management to establish parameters .and contingency plans. Table Necotiations. This phase would include the service as chief negotiator or as an advisor to the chief negotiator in the meet and confer process. Impasse. Whether or not impasse is anticipated, the City should have an impasse plan. We would provide City management and the City Council with (a) an interpretation of the impasse procedure and the strategies to avoid impasse, but if impasse is inevitable, (b) the strategies to address the impasse issues. Manauement Orientation. Provide all management and supervisory employees with an orientation of the MOUs upon achievement of a memorandum of understanding. As labor attorneys, we encourage, and are able to assist, the City in developing a negotiation strategy that will ensure that bargaining progresses smoothly. Also, we can provide a firm sense of direction to keep both the association and management team 53~9.1 Mr. David F. Dixon City Manager April 26, 1993 Page 5 focused on the goals to keep issues from being continually revisited. After a memorandum of agreement has been reached with the respective employee organization, we are equipped to address any labor issues that the City may face. Our staff of attorneys provide the following services: (1) Prompt response to labor and employment law questions (2) Representation at due process "Skelly" disciplinary or termination .~earings. (3) Representation for appeals of disciplinary or termination hearings. (4) of the City. Review andadvice on procedures, policies and rules efforts. (5) Representation in response to employee organizing (6) Representation in the meet and confer process: (a) Development of bargaining proposals; (b) Draft memorandum of agreement language; (c) Serve as chief spokesperson for the City; (d) Aid chief spokesperson in the meet and confer process. (7) Litigation services. (8) procedures. Preparation of personnel. policies, rules and records. (9) Review of requests for personnel and medical (10) Training on labor and personnel topics. 53809.1 Mr. David F. Dixon City Manager April 26, 1993 Page 6 S38~9.1 2. PERBONN~-T. ~ND O~T. IFICATIONS Scott F. Field is a partner with Burke, Willjams & Sorensen and City Attorney of Temecula and, as such, is the partner responsible for the overall performance of our services and for assuring that all the legal services required by the City were timely and properly delivered. Harold A. Bridges is the partner in charge of the Employment and Labor Group. He has extensive experience in the defense of management in personnel 'and labor disputes, including defending employers in state and federal court and before numerous administrative.agencies. Ms. Brenda Diederichs will be assigned as the primary provider of the labor services to the City. Ms. Diederichs is an associate in 'the Employment and Labor Group. She has extensive experience in labor and personnel law. She served as Labor Relations Manager for the Southern California Rapid Transit District for eight years. Prior to joining the law firm, Ms. Diederichs served as Personnel Director for the City of West Covina. This "in-house" experience gives her a unique understanding of the consequences to the City of labor decisions. She has experienced both the short and long-term consequences of various labor relations actions and decisions. Since joining the firm, she has provided labor and employment services for more than 28 public agencies. Ms. Diederichs has specific experiencein addressing the efforts of unions to organize employees. While at the Southern California Rapid Transit District, she addressed the organizing efforts of the dispatchers, security guards and transit police. She negotiated the original agreements with the Teamsters, representing the Security Guards, and the Transit Police Officers' Association and handled all related labor issues with theseunions. She has specific experience with Teamsters Local 911, which is the same Teamsters' local presently organizing your employees. Also, she has negotiated against the legal counsel representing this Teamsters' local as they represented the Transit Police Officers' Association during her tenure at the Southern California Rapid Transit District. Since joining our firm, she has advised the Chino Basin Community Water District (District) on the decertification of an employee organization, the modification of an employee unit, the Mar. David F. Dixon City Manager April 26, 1993 Page 7 election and campaign process for the recognition of employee organizations. Her advice to the District resulted in one unit going from represented status to unrepresented status. She has served as their chief labor negotiator and has successfully defended the District against the allegation of an unfair labor practice. She serves as advisor to the District for all of their labor issues. Ms. Diederichs is presently representing the City of Chino Hills, which like Temecula is a new city, in its labor relations matters. The City of Chino. Hills acquired represented employees from the County of San Bernardino as one of the conditions'of i~s incorporation and this employee organization is attempting to expand its representation to include other classifications of employees. Ms. Diederichs has designed the Employer-Employee Relations Resolution and has advised the City through this representation process. Once the representation issues are decided by an election, she will represent the City as its chief negotiator. She also advises the City on all of its labor issues and represents them in disciplinary appeals. She has negotiated with the following unionsand employee associations: 1. Teamsters, Local 911 - Security Guards Chino Basin Muhicipal Water District San Bernardino Public Employees' Association Chino Basin Municipal Water District Supervisors' Unit 4. Chino Basin Municipal Water International Union of Operating Local 501 District - Engineers, 5. United Transportation Union - Bus Drivers 6. Amalgamated Transit Union - Mechanics Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks - Clerical, Paraprofessional and Janitorial Transportation Communications Union - Clerical, Paraprofessional and Janitorial 53109.1 Mr. David F. Dixon City Manager April 26, 1993 Page 8 9. Transit Police Officers Association - Police Officers 10. Office and Professional Employees International Union - Dispatchers 11. West Covina Police Officers' Association 12. United Transportation Union - Schedule Checkers 13. Wes~ covina Public safety Dispatchers' Association 14..West Covina City General Employees' Association 15. Service Employees' International Union - Mechanics 16. United Professional Fire Fighters Local #2415, i AFF, AFL-CIO In addition to Mr. Bridges and Ms. Diederichs, other attorneys are made available to the City as required by workload or absence of one of the primary attorneys assigned to the City. The Individual resumes of Harold A. Bridges and Brenda L. Diederichs are attached as Exhibit 1. A. FEES 3. FEES AND COSTS Ms. Diederichs' hourly rate is $145.00. Services performed by other labor attorneys will be billed at their standard hourly rates. COSTS We would expect to be reimbursed for expenses which are customarily a part of a public agency legal service contract, such as telephone, fax, photocopying and other similar expenses, subject to review, verification and approval by the City. In line with our existing retainer agreement, we will cap travel costs at one hour, plus mileage. S3809.1 Mr. David F. Dixon City Manager April 26, 1993 Page 9 C. STATEMENTS We provide monthly computerized statements which contain a description of the services rendered, the date rendered, the amount of time expended, and the name of the attorney, clerk or paralegal performing the service. Such statements also contain itemized descriptions of any expenses. A sample of our computer billing statement is attached hereto as Exhibit 3. we will be pleased to respond to any have regarding this proposal. questions you may Very truly yours, ~ng Partner of BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN cc: Harwood Edvalson 53 ~. 1 Resume HAROI,D A. BRrDGF, S LEGAL EXPERIENCE 1980 to Present BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN Partner and Chair of the ~rm's Litigation Division. General business, public law and litigation practice with emphasis in employment, business and commercial litigation, representing large and small public and private corporations, public agencies, colleges and universities. Mr. Bridges has headed litigation teams that have defended numerous public and private corporations against a variety of business, commercial, civil rights and employment claims, including a successful representation of a public entity against a pattern and practice discrimination suit by the United States Department of Justice. · Mr. Bridges serves as lead insurance counsel for twenty-me cities who arc seeking defense and indemnification for CERCLA response costs and indemnification suit brought by industrial generators in connection with a Superfund landfill closure. Mr. Bridges also served as investigative counsel to a City faced with numerous sexual harassment claims against high ranking PROFE, ISIONAL AFF ,IA ONS: Los Angeles County Bar Association American Bar Association Member: Corporation, Banking and Business Law Sections State Bar of California Member: Business Law; Labor and Employment Law; and Real Property Law Sections "~ Admitted to: State Bar of California, 1980 United States District Court, Central District of California, 1980 United States District Court, Northern District of California, 1982 U,S. Tax Court, 1984 Practice before: All state and federal courts and administrative tribunals EDUCATION Law School: Undergraduate:. LOYOLA LAW SCHOOL, Los Angeles, California J.D.~ magna cure laurie (1980) 'Member: Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review (1978-79) Recipient: American Jurisprudence Corporations, Remedies and Secured Personal Property Book Award in Transactions in LOYOLA MARYMOUNT UNIVERSITY, Los Angeles, California B.A. Political Science, magna cure laurie (1977) BRENDA L. DXEDERIC:H:B WORK EXPERIENCE: present Associate, Labor and Employment Section of Burke, Williams & Sorensen, specializing in providing personnel and labor relations services to municipalities, public agencies and special districts and corporations, including meet and confer, development of personnel rules and policies, discipline and grievance procedures, and litigation and arbitration of employee disciplinary actions. 2/9o- City of West Covina - Director of Personnel Duties: Direct-personnel function, serve as chief negotiator, develop policies and procedures, prepare department budget, design training programs, develop staff, advise City on complex personnel matters. 12/82- 2/90 Southern California Rapid Transit District - Labor Relations Manager Duties: Serve as chief negotiator, 'supervise a staff of six employees, prepare department budget, serve as the third level hearing officer and prepare cases for arbitration, interpret labor contracts, design and conduct labor relations training, prepare oral and written reports, mediate complex discipline and grievance cases, and advise executive personnel and the Board of Directors on labor issues. lo/so- 12/82 Southern California Rapid Transit District - Employment Manager Duties: Supervise a staff of.eighteen employees in test administration, job analysis, classification, outreach recruitment, test construction and test validation; prepare written procedures and develop programs; serve as member of collective bargaining teams; administer labor contracts; serve as third level hearing officer; assist supervisors in union related matters. 9/77- ~O/SO San Bernardino County Personnel -Analyst I Duties: Conduct job analysis, prepare job announcement-s; design oral and written tests; conduct classification studies; write job descriptions; conduct salary surveys and make salary recommendations, prepare Board agenda items; present classification appeals. 51100.1 EDUCATION: Loyola Marymount University Law School - Juris Doctor 1989 Moot Court Honors Program 1988 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona - Bachelor of Arts in Political Science - 1979 PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS: California State Bar Association L. A. County Bar Association California Public Employer Labor Relations Association TRAINING: Presented papers and conducted..training seminars for the following organizations: California ]Public Employees Labor Relations AssociatiOn (CALPELRA) - 1992 · American Arbitration Association (AAA) - 1993 · California League of Cities - City Attorney Conference 1992 City of Hope - Business Management 1993 Inland Area Personnel Management Association (IAPMA) - 1992 Southern California Public Labor Relations Associations. (SCPLRA) - 1992 Professional Industrial Relations Association (PIRA) - 1992, 1993 Southern California Personnel Management Association (SCPMA) - 1991 -2- REFERENCES City of Camarillo Larry R. Davis, Assistant City Manager 601 Carmen Drive Camarillo, California 93011 (805) 388-5309 City of West Covina Ronald E. Holmes, Chief of Police 1444 W. Garvey Avenue West Covina, California 91793 (818) 814-8501 City of West Covina Harry Thomas, Division Chief-Administration 1444 W. Garvey Avenue West Covina, California 91793 (818). 814-8401 Southern California Rapid Transit District Roger Kundert, former Director of Employee Relations, presently Assistant Human Resources Manager Texaco Refining and Marketing, Inc. 10 Universal City Plaza Universal City, California 91608 (818) 505-3135 Chino Basin Municipal Water District Diana M. Leach, Assistant General Manager 8555 Archibald Avenue Rancho Cucamonga, California 91729 (714) 987-1712 City Of E1 Segundo Tim Grimmond, Police Chief 348 Main Street E1 Segundo, California 90245-0989 (310) 322-4670 IN ACCOUNT WITH: LOS A~K~S, ~:AIJIrOIIENIA ~17 Tgi4CDIqlR (a ! 33' Im3..I,1,I ;.JR F:iLE NO: CO - CZTY OF ATe:' OESCRZPTZON OF SERVXCES RENDERED /03 WORKED ON XSSUES RE EXEHPTZON, TELEPHONE CALLS /0~ REVZEMELI UI'ZLZTY USEReS ORDZNANCE ATTENDEL1CXTT COUNCZL MEETZNG REVZSED DRAFTf RESEARCHED RE SAME -, MEETZNG VZTH STAFFe REVZEMED ANO DZSCUSSED OPZNZON FOR MEETZNG /07 WORKED ON ~SSUES RE TAXZNG AUTHORZTT AND MESTRXNZSTER CSE REVZSED UTZLZTT USER TAX ORDXNANCE TO REFLECT COUNCZLe~ UECX~ZONS RESEARCH RE: EFFECTXVENESS OF PERS TAX PREPARED ORDZNANCE RE: PERS TAX REVXSEO ORLIZNANCE RE: PER$ TAX /ZZ OZ~CUSSED ZSSUESe VORKED ON ORDXNANCE AND OPXNXON REVZSED UTXLZ'rT USERS TAX PREPARED ~ALLOI LANGUAGE 'Z~ FXNALXZ~D ORUZNANCEe RESEARCHED RE XSSUES, DXSCUSS~D ~XTH STAFF REVZSED UTZLZTT USERS TAX ORDZNANCE PREPARED RE. MOHANDUH TO COUNCZL RE: UTZLXTT USERS TAX ORDZNANCE /Z7 ~ORKED ON MLROe RESEARCH RE LAMe DX~TATEO FZNAL ORAFT R~VZSED UTXLZTY USERS TAX PRLPARED BALLOt. LANGUAGE RE: UTZLZTT USERS TAX PREPARELI MEMORANDUM RE: UTXLXTY USERS TAX /Z8 FZNALZZEU OROXNANCC$ AND COUNCXL MEMO, MORKED ON 5AR~ ATE OESCRXPTZON OF OXSBURSEMENT AMOUNT /2~ WORD PgOCES 'USER*$ TAX 5°20. DATE REF: 178 HOURS -6 ~..4 3, eI- o8 · - e7 -12 1.0 ,.,7 213., TOTAL FEES TOTAL OXSBURSEMENTS LAW QFFICrS OF REXON, I='REEDM AN, KLEPETAR & HAMBLETON 12100 WIL.SNIRr eeOULrVARD, SUITr 730 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 9OO25-7107 TELEPHONe. {310) 8Et6-8300 WAX (310) 818-0333 April 5, 1993 VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS AIeD FAX Mr. David F. Dixon City Manager City of Temecula 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 Re: 'Proposal re counsel labor and employment relations law legal Dear Mr. Dixon: Thank you for the opportunity, as communicated through Assistant City'Manager, Mr. Woody Edvalson, to present this proposal to provide labor and employment relations law services to the City of Temecula. Our firm limits its practice to the representation of employers only in both the public sector and in private industries in matters involving labor, equal employment opportunity (EEOC) and employment relations law, including,- but not limited to, collective bargaining and the meet and confer process, interpretation of memorandum of understanding (MOU), grievances and arbitrations, employment discrimination/fair employment, age discrimination, Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA), California and U.S. Family Care Leave, Fair Labor Standards/Wage and Hour matters, workers' compensation, occupational safety and health matters, employee discipline matters as well as matters arising before federal and state courts and administrative litigation involving all forms of employment relations law issues. The partners in the firm are Brian L. Rexon, Jeffrey C. Freedman, Ronald J. Klepetar and Debby R. Hambleton. The associates with the firm are Alyce A. Rubinfeld and Wendy K. Genz. The firm's paralegal/legal assistant is Jill A. Porcaro. It is our understanding that the City desires to retain a firm to provide services in connection with the City's relationships with its employees and potentially employee organizations (unions) seeking to represent such employees. The firm has experience and regularly practices on behalf of both Mr. David F. Dixon April 5, 1993 Page 2 public agencies and private companies in every aspect of this field. We understand that the City is presently confronting a situation where a labor organization (union) has made a demand upon the City that it be recognized as the representative of a group of City employees. In this regard, the firm would be prepared to provide services to the City including: advising the City on the propriety of this' petition; arranging, if appropriate, for a secret ballot election among the employee group affected; advising the City of its proper and .permissible scope of response to such a petition such as in communicating with the employees about such representation; if and when necessary, acting as the City's chief negotiator in representing the City in meet and confer'planning and reporting sessions; consulting with the City on any MOU and issues relating thereto including bargaining proposals; representing the City in any impasse proceedings; consulting with City staff regarding-the implementation of strike planning 'strategy if necessary; advising the City concerning all aspects of the City's on going employer- employee relationships. The firm proposes toprovide to the City the services necessary at its current hourly billing rate of $160.00 per hour for partners and $150.00 an hour for'associates and $90.00 per hour for paralegal services. In addition, our firm normally bills its municipal clients for expenses incurred such as photocopying, express mail, messenger service and computer assisted research time but not for normal telephone calls or for faxing. If litigation is involved, this firm would advance and thereafter invoice for reimbursement for such items as court filing fees, court reporter costs, process server fees, etc. Because of the distance of the City from the firm's offices in Metropolitan Los Angeles, the firm would be prepared to discuss modified billing rates for items such as off-hours travel time. The firm submits the following list of references who may be contacted to verify the firm's successful history of experience in employment relations and labor law matters. The firm is currently providing or within the recent past has provided labor Mr. David F. Dixon April 5, 1993 Page 3 and employment relations law services to each and all of the agencies and entities listed. City of Pasadena Victor J. Kaleta, Esq. City Attorney (SIS-405-4141) Larry Newberry, Esq. Assistant City Attorney (818-405-4000) Dorothy Kirkland Employee Relations Admin. (818-405-4012) Laura SusmanArmor Employee Relations Admin. (818-405-4013) Kaya Pekerol Fire Chief (S18-405-4675) City of Newport Beach Robert L. Burnham City Attorney (714-644-3131) City of South Gate Duane Munson Personnel Director (714-644-3300) Robert Turner Assistant City Manager (310-563-9503) Ronald P. George Chief of Police (310-563-5452) Mr. David F. Dixon April 5, 1993 Page 4 City of Tortante Elizabeth G. Clark, Esq. Assistant City Attorney (310-328-5310) Elaine Winer Director of Personnel (310-328-5310) City cf Brisbane Robin Leiter City Manager (415-467-1515) City of Moreno Valley Gene.Rogers Assistant City Manager (714-243-3021) County of Invo C. Brent Wallace County Administrator (619-87S-2411) County of Mono William Mayer County Administrator (619-932-5228) R. Scott Adams Fire Chief (310-781-7034 Gary Baugh Human Resource Manager (714-924-7155) Gayle J. Todd Director of Personnel Services (619-878-2411) Neil McCarroll Assistant County Counsel (619-932-5220) Mr. David F. Dixon April 5, 1993 Page 5 City of Bell John E. Bramble Chief Admin. Officer (213-588-6211) Elizabeth Van Note Director of Personnel and Administrative Services (213-588-6211) James Edwards Chief of Police (213-585-1245) City of Santa Fe Springs Donald Powe11 City Manager (310-868-0511) Fred Latham Assistant City Manager (310-868-0511) Donald Nuttall Director of Finance and Administrative Services (310-868-0511) City of Oxnard Gary L. Gillig City Attorney (s05-984-4601) City of Lakewood Howard Chambers City Administrator (310-866-9771) Michael Stover Assistant City Administrator (310-866-9771) Patricia Stover Director of Personnel (310-S66-9771) City of Bell Gardens Michael Martinet Director of Personnel (310-806-4500) In addition to the public agencies mentioned, the firm is also counsel for such private institutions as Carrier Corporation, United Technologies Corporation, Westin Hotel Company, Mitsubishi Warehouse Corporation, Wynn's International, Inc., Federal Express Corporation, Certified Grocers of Mr. David F. Dixon April 5, 1993 Page 6 California, Mission Energy Company and private companies in virtually every industry doing business in Southern California. A firm biography on the firm's partners and associates is attached. Again, thank you for the opportunity to present this proposal to the City of Temecula. Please feel free to contact the undersigned at your convenience if any further information or explanation is required. Very truly yours, Enclosure j cf\prop\d i xon REXON, FREEDMAN. KLEPETAR & HAMBLETON A Professional Corporation 12100 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 730 Los Angeles, California 90025 (310) 826-8300 BRIAN L, REXON holds a B.A. degree from the University of California, Berkeley (1966), and both his law degree and a Masters in Industrial Relations from the University of California at Los Angeles (1969). Mr. Rexon spent two years after graduation from law school representing labor unions. The last nineteen years he has been representing management exclusively. Mr. Rexon is a member of the California Bar and is admitted to practice before all federal and state courts and has been a practicing labor lawyer since 1970. He devotes the majority of his time to collective bargaining, arbitrations, contract administration and union related matters. Mr. Rexon has been involved in many union organizing campaigns representing management exclusively. He is a regular instructor on labor and employment law matters for the U.C.L.A. program on management, labor and business. Mr. Rexon regularly lectures on labor related areas for the American Arbitration Association and PIRA, as well as numerous employer associations. JEFFREY'C. FREEDMAN is a graduate of Occidental College (A.B. 1966), and of the University of California at Los Angeles School of Law (J.D. 1969). He is.a member of the California Bar and is admitted to practice before all federal and state courts in California as well as the United States Supreme Court. Mr. Freedman is a former California Deputy Attorney (1969-74). He has published articles and is a frequent lecturer on labor relations matters before public and private management groups including the League of California Cities and the California Commission on Peace Officers Standards and training. He has served as president of the Century City Bar Association and as a Trustee of the Los Angeles County Bar Association. Mr. Freedman represents public sector and private enterprise clients in civil and administrative litigation arising from employment related matters. He has spent a substantial portion of his practice representing public sector agencies in their labor and employment relations matters. He has represented public and private sector employers in state and federal court and jury trials and appeals in EEO litigation, employment termination cases, writs of mandate to review public agency employee discipline cases, arbitrations, Civil Service Commission hearings and other forms of litigation involving employment issues. He devotes a substantial portion of his practice to representing public sector agencies, primarily cities, in the Southern California area. In this regard he has assisted agencies in. negotiating MOUs, dealing with their employee unions, civil litigation and administrative hearings such as arbitrations, advisory arbitrations and Civil Service Commission hearings, and providing general and ongoing advice on MOU interpretation and other matters of labor employment relations law. This has · included matters arising under the Federal Fair Labor Standards -'Act since its provisions have become applicable to public sector agencies. RONALD J. KLEPETA~ is a graduate of the University of Illinois (1968) and of DePaul University School of Law (J.D. 1971). He also received a Masters of Law Degree in Labor Law.from New York University in 1973. Mr. Klepetar is admitted both to the Bars of the States of California and Illinois and is admitted to practice before all of the courts of the state, as well as the U.S. Supreme Court. He was a member of the Law Review at DePaul University and is a former attorney with the National Labor Relations Board'in Washington, D.C. and in Los Angeles. Mr. Klepetar devotes a significant amount of time to collective bargaining, arbitration and NLRB~related matters. He has been a frequent lecturer on labor relations matters at U.C.L.A. and before public and private management groups, 'and has served as a hearing officer for Los Angeles County. Mr. Klepetar also has been an instructor on labor relations at U.C.L.A. Extension School of Industrial Relations since 1975. He devotes the majority of his time to negotiating on behalf of client employers with unions and employee organizations in both the public and private sectors. He is also heavily involved in representing employers in wrongful termination and employment discrimination litigation, and arbitrations involving employee disciplinary and contract interpretation disputes. He has also developed expertise in legal developments affecting drug and alcohol abuse problems in the workforce.. DEBBY R. HAMBLETON is a graduate of University of Nevada, Reno (1981), and received her Juris Doctorate Degree from Pepperdine University in 1984, graduating cum laude. Ms. Hambleton is admitted to the Bars of both the State of California and the State of Nevada. She was previously a labor attorney for Southern California Edison Company where she acquired experience in all areas of labor law with emphasis in litigation and arbitration. She has been involved in representing both private and public sector employers. In addition to representing clients before federal, state and administrative tribunals, she is extensively involved in providing day-to-day advice and drafting and updating employer policies and contracts. Ms. Hambleton also provides assistance to employers to ensure compliance with the requirements of such laws and regulations as COBRA, WARN, IRCA and D.O.T. drug testing. Ms. Hambleton is a frequent quest speaker for the American Arbitration Association and UCLA extension programs, as well as for various public and private sector groups. ALYCE A. RUBINFELD earned her bachelor of arts degree, manna Cum laude from California State University at Northridge in 1978. She received her juris doctorate degree from Hastings College of Law, University of California in 1982. Ms. Rubinfeld served as senior trial attorney for the Los Angeles District Office of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission from 1985-1988. During her term, she headed two task forces investigating discriminatory employment practices in the entertainment and defense'industries. Ms. Rubinfeld concentrates her practice in the areas of employment discrimination and wrongful termination litigation. Ms. Rubinfeld is a member of the California Bar Association and is admitted to practice before all federal and state courts in California. She has been a quest speaker for the UniVersity of California at Los Angeles extension program on such topics as sexual harassment and pregnancy discrimination. WENDY X. GENZ received her undergraduate degree from Brigham Young University (B.A. 1980).. Her law degree (1988) is from Louisville University. She was formerly with the labor law. department of General Electric Corporation. Ms. Genz is admitted to practice before all courts in the State of California. Ms. Genz has an expertise in formulating injury and illness prevention programs under SB 198. JILL A. PORCARO, the firm's paralegal, completed a paralegal program and received her certification in 1985 from Kingsborough College in New York. She is currently awaiting graduation from the University of California at Los Angeles with a bachelor of arts degree in English. She has substantial paralegal experience both in New York and Los Angeles encompassing a broad range of contract and labor litigation law. She will be attending law school in the fall of 1993. fin.\gen-l\bio JuLy 1W1 GLEN [. STEPH[NS~ WILLIAM R. DeWOLFE* BARTON C. GAUT' PAUL T, SEL.ZER" CHRISTOPHER L. CARPENTER" MICHAEL D. HARRIS" THOMAS S. SLOV~IC* JOHN E. BROWNe MICHAEL T, RIDO~LL" MEREDITH A. JURY* ANNE T, THOMAS* GEORGE M. REYES GREGORY L, HARDKE CLARK H. ALSOP* BEST, BEST & KRIEGER LAWYERS DOUGLAS S. PHILLIPS' ANTONIA GRAPH(:)~ GREGORY K. WILKINSON WYNNE S. FURTH DAVID L. BARON EUGENE TANAKA BASIL T. CHAPMAR TIMOTHY M. CONNOR VICTOR L. WOLF DANIEL E. OUVIER DANIEL J. MeNUGH HOWARD 8. GOLDS STEPHEN P. DEITSCH MARC E. EMPgY JOHN R, ROTTSCHAEFER MARTIN A. MUELLER J, MICHAEL SUMMEROUR VICTORIA N, KING JEFFERY J, CRANDALL SCOTT C, SMITH JACK B, CLARKE, JR, BRIAN M. LEWIS JEANNETT[ A. PETERSON BRADLEY E. NEUFELO KANDY LEE ELISE K. TRAYNUM WILLIAM D, DANLING. MATT N. MORRIS JEFFREY V. OUNN STEVEN C. OeBAUN 8RANT H. DV[IRIN ERIC L. GARNER DENNIS M. GOTA JUUE HAYWARD BIGGS RACHEL.L[ J, NICOLLE ROOERT W. HARGREAVES JANIC~ L. WEIS SNARYL WALKER PATRICK W, P[ARCE KINK W, ~klITH JA~:)N O. DABAREINER KYLE A. SNOW MARK A, EASTER DIANE L, FINLEY MICHELL[ OUELLETTE PETER M. BARMACK DAVID P, PHIPPEN. SR, KENNETH R. WEISS SUSAN C. NAUSS CHRISTOPHER DOOSON BERNIE L. WILLIAMSON ELAINE E. HILL KEVIN K, RANDOLPH JAMES S, GILPIN MARSHALL S. RUDOLPH KIM A. 8YRENS CYNTHIA M. GERMARO MARY E. GILSTRAP NGUYEN D. PHAN DANIEL C. PARKER, JR. GINEVRA C. M/RUM CHARLES E. KOLa rR GLENN P. SABINE CHRISTINE L. RICHARDSON JOANE GARCIA-COe~ON PHILIP J. KOEHLER DIANE C. WIESE ET~VEN S. KAUFHOLD REBECCA MARES OURNEY ALLISON C. HAFtGRAVE DOROTHY I. ANDERSON G. HENRY WELLES JAME~ R. HARPER DINA O. HARRIS RAYMOND BEST (1868-1957) JAMES H. KRIEGER (3913-2975) EUGENE BEST (1893-1981) APR r .; ~--, 400 MISSION SQUARE 3750 UNIVERSITY AVENUE PO~T OFFICE BOX 1028 RIVERSIDE, CAJJFORNIA 92502 TELEPHONE (714)686-1450 TEJ,ECOPIERS C714) 686-3083 · 682-4612 OF COUNSEL JAMES B. CORISON OFFICES IN PALM SPRINGS (619)325-7264 RANCHO MIRAGE (B19)068-2611 ONTARIO (7 141 989-8584 April 2, 1993 David F. Dixon City Manager City of Temecula 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 Re: Employee Relations Services Dear Mr. Dixon: Thank you very much for the opportunity to be considered for the position of employee relations legal counsel for the City of Temecula. In my telephone conference with M~. Edvalson, he indicated that the Teamsters union has made a demand for recognition to represent some of the City's employees. We represent a number of public and private employers in all aspects of labor and employment law, including employee relations and collective bargaining. We assist them in opposing union organizing campaigns, and we provide negotiating services to many of our clients. We have carried matters through the various impasse resolution procedures and have assisted our clients during strikes and other concerted activities. We regularly represent clients in civil rights litigation and in employee discipline hearings and litigation. We practice before the National Labor Relations Board, the Agricultttrai Labor Relations Board, the Public Employment Relations Board, and in the state and federal courts. M~F160~69 LAW 0FFICE;S OF BrST, BE;ST & KRIg'GrR David F. Dixon, City Manager City of Temecula April 2, 1993 Page 2 A list of public agency clients for which we perform labor and employment law services includes: City of Barstow City of Big Bear Lake City of Colton City of Corona City of Desert Hot Springs City of Fontana City of Indio " .City of Needles City of Palm Desert City of Redlands City of Shafter City of Viaorville Desert Water Agency Western Municipal Water District of Riverside County Lake Hemet Municipal Water District Big Bear City Community Services District Cucamonga County Water District Running Springs Water District Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District Jurupa Community Services District Mt. San Jacinto Winter Park Authority (Palm Springs Tram) As you can see from the foregoing information, Best, Best & Krieger has a wealth of experience in representing cities and other public employers in labor and employment law matters. We also represent a number of private sector employers. We believe that this gives us a much broader perspective on labor and employment law issues and makes us better counselors and advocates for our public agency clients. We are confident 'that we can provide a full range of quality labor and employment law services to the City of Temecula, including representation during a union organizing campalp. If you were to select Best, Best & Krieger as the City of Temecula's employee relations legal counsel, I would senre as principal attorney. I have attached my biography for your review. In addition, my associates Brad Neufeld and Bernie Williamson both devote substantially all of their practices to representing public and private employers in labor and employment law matters and would be available to assist in my absence. ~4F160469 LAW OFFICES OF BEST, BEST & KRIEGER David F. Dixon, City Manager City of Temecula April 2, 1993 Page 3 t41dF 160469 I am sure that any of the following individuals would be pleased to give you a reference on our labor and employment law services. Stephen Wright City Manager City of Big Bear Lake 39707 Big Bear Boulevard Post Office Box 10000 Big Bear Lake, CA 92315-8900 (909) 866-5831 Mark Lewis City Manager' City of Colton 650 North La Cadena Drive Colton, CA 92324 (909) 370-5051 . William Garrett City Manager City of Corona 815 West Sixth Street Post Office Box 940 Corona, CA 91718-0090 (909) 736-2372 James Wheaton City Manager City of Redlands 1270 West Park Avenue Post Office Box 3005 Redlands, CA 92373 (909) 798-7510 James Cox City Manager City of Victorville 14343 Civic Drive Victorvii/e, CA 92392-2399 (619) 245-3411 LA'~/OFFIC;Irc; OF BEST, BEST & KRIEGE::R David F. Dixon, City Manager City of Temecula April 2, 1993 Page 4 C' Sandi Tanhen Personnel Director City of Barstow 220 East Mountain View Street Barstow, CA 92311 (619) 256-3531 In addition, we invite you to contact any of the other clients listed in this letter. Our fee for our services would be on an as-needed basis at the following rates: $165.00 per hour for.partners (including Mr. Floyd); $150.00 per hour for senior associate attorneys (including Mr. Netfield); and $135.00 per hour for junior associate attorneys (including Mr. Williamson). Our fees include all routine secretarial and 'office costs associated with the provision of legal services. Travel, telephone, copying expenses, and filing and expert witness fees incurred on your behalf would be billed in addition to our fees. Our fees are generally subject to change on an annual basis to reflect changes in the value of the dollar. Best, Best & Krieger is an equal oppommity employer. We employ attorneys and others of many races and ethnic backgrounds and have several women and minority partners. We thank you for the opportunity to provide you with this information, and we would be happy to meet with you at your convenience to answer any questions you might have. We look forward to hearing from you. Very truly yours, amV~/. . of Best, Best & Krieger WWF/cb Attachment ¢ ~F 160z,69 N~ W'dliam W. Floyd, Jr. Partner Best, Best & Krieger 3750 Univerdty Avenue. Riverside, California 92501 (909) 686-1450 BORN San Bernardino, California August 5, 1950 UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION California State University, San Diego B.A., 1972 LEGAL EDUCATION McGeorge College of Law J.D., 1979 LEGAL AND OTHER ASSOCIATIONS Member, American Bar Association (Labor Law Section) Member, State Bar of Calirornia (Labor and Employment Law Section) Member, Riverside County Bar Association Merchants and Manufacturers Association {Inland Empire 'Regional Board Member) City of Riverside Personnel Board (past President) Greater Riverside Employer Advisory Council (Board of Director) Industrial Rehtious Research Association {Inland Empire Chapter) AREAS OF PRACTICE Representing Employers in Labor and Employment Law (Private and Public Sectors) Employee Termination and Discipline Employment Discrimination Drug and Alcohol Issues Collective Bargaining and Employee Relations Counsel Unfair Labor Practice and Arbitration Cases Wage-Hour Matters Employee Safety PUBLICATIONS "Employee Terminations - a Trap' for the Unwary," The Siren. News of the Emerl~ency Medical Transportation Industry. "Employee Handbook - An Investment in Good Personnel Manage- merit," Inland Empire Magazine and Inland Empire Business Journal. Supervisory Training Manuals and Materials: Performance and Evaluation, Progressive Discipline, Employment Termination, Due Process and Related Issues. Employment Discrimination: Prevention at the Supervisory Level. An Ounce of Prevention: The Contribution of Surervisors in AvoidinE Liability. Dru~ and Alcohol Use in the Workplace. Management/Union Relationships. Waee and Hour Issues. First Amendment Rights of Public Emvloyees. Police Officers' Bill of Rights. Suvervisorial Seminar Hwotheticals. Frequent Lecturer on labor and employment law topics. LAW FIRM MANAGEMENT Member, Recruitment Committee Chair, Labor Law Department Married to Diane L. Floyd Riverside, CA ITEM 1 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Council/City Manager Gary Thornhill, Director of Planning May 18, 1993 City of Temecula General Plan, Implementation Program, Environmental Impact Report and Mitigation Monitoring Program. PREPARED BY: John Meyer and David Hogan RECOMMENDATION: It is requested that the City Council review the Parcel Specific Land Use Requests, take public testimony, and direct staff to incorporate the element as presented into the final General Plan which will be presented for City Council adoption at the conclusion of the Public Hearings. .BACKGROUND On February 16, March 16, April 6, and April 20, 1993, the City Council held public hearings on the Draft City General Plan. To date the Circulation, Economic Development , Public Safety, Noise, Air Quality, Community. Design, Open Space/Conservation, Growth Management/Public Facilities and Land Use Elements have been reviewed by the Council. At the May 18, 1993, meeting, the Council will review the Parcel Specific Land Use Requests. INTRODUCTION On July 9, 1991, the City Council approved a contract with the Planning Center to assist the City in preparing its first General Plan. State Law requires that the General Plan be comprehensive, internally consistent, and long-term. The General Plan must address land use, housing, traffic circulation, resource conservation, open space, noise and public safety. In addition, the City Council has elected to include chapters on growth management, air quality, public facilities, economic development, and community design. According to State Law, the General Plan is the primary document required of a City as a basis for regulating land use. Consequently, the Development Code, future Specific Plans, the Parks and Recreation Master Plan, and other development projects in the City must be consistent with the Goals, Policies, and Standards contained in the Temecula General Plan. In addition, all City capital improvements and public works projects must be consistent with the General Plan. R:\S~STAFFRPT~Gp. CC5 5111193 trb 1 The City's approach to preparing the General Plan involved substantial guidance by the Planning Commission and City Council, a Community Participation Program, and technical review and guidance by City staff and Technical Subcommittees. The Planning Commission and City Council, through joint workshops, essentially functioned as a general plan advisory committee throughout the preparation process. This allowed for clear direction on the Goals and Policies of the elements, so they related to land use, circulation, open space/conservation, and other issues. The Citizen Participation Program was designed to provide a high level of communication between City officials, citizens, landowners, and the consultant team. The Program offered numerous opportunities for the public to attend workshops at key milestones during the formulation of the Ran. The community outreach meetings included a series of four Neighborhood Meetings and two Town Hall Meetings. In addition, staff met individually with concerned citizens and landowners throughout the process. Five Technical Subcommittees met on two occasions during the process to provide a more detailed and technical review of the General Plan elements. The City also disseminated information on the draft components of the General Plan through a series of newsletters, press releases, newspaper articles, and radio announcements. REPORT/PUBLIC HEARING FORMAT This report is intended to provide a brief introduction and background into Temecula's Draft General Plan. The Public Hearing for the Draft General Plan will be considered over several City Council meetings to provide ample opportunity for public input and comment. REVISED GENERAL PLAN EDITION A Revised General Plan Edition, dated February 16, 1993, has been produced for the Council's consideration. This revised edition contains all of the changes and additions that were presented to the Planning Commission. Additions to the text are shown in bold italics and deletions are shown with a otrikc out. The recommended changes are the result of input received during Joint Planning Commission/City Council Workshops, Technical Subcommittee Meetings and staff review, and from written comments by the public. Additions and revisions directed by the Planning Commission are presented in the same manner, but noted in the margins. DRAFT GENERAL PLAN ELEMENTS Individual Elements of the Draft General Plan contain: An Introduction A Summary of Issues Goals and Policies Implementation Programs The Introduction provides the legal framework and requirements of the Element. The Summary of Issues highlights those areas that have been identified as issues. The Goals and Policies demonstrate how those issues will be addressed. The Implementation Programs describe how the Goals and Policies are intended to be .implemented. Individual elements contain additional sections. R:~S~TAFFRP~Op. CC3 5111/93 klb 2 1. DRAFT LAND USE PLAN Staff has received numerous requests from property owners to amend the land use designation on their property. To facilitate the review of these requests, staff has developed the attached Parcel Specific Land Use Request Matrix· The matrix contains the applicant, a location or parcel number, the proposed land use designation, the requested land use designation, and a staff recommendation and response. Each request is numerically keyed on an accompanying exhibit. The order of the letters is chronological. Letters received for a single parcel were all assigned the same map number. Because some letters include requests for various 'parcels, decimal places were used to separate the requests. The applicants' letters of request, stating their positions have also been attached and numbered for the Council's review. Staff recommends the Council review the requests in geographical groupings, in order to consider the requests in the context of an area, as well as on their individual merits. To facilitate this, staff has divided the requests into 6 area groups. The following table indicates in which group the individual requests are located: GROUP J LOCA 170N MAP NUMBERS I I Hwy. 79 South 1, 2.1, 2.2, 3, 7, 9, 10, 21, 22, 28, 29, 32, 36, 37, 40, 45, 52, 54 and 63 II Chaparral III Urban Core IV Westside Foothills V Nicolas Valley VI Meadowview/Winchester 4,11,14,17,18,19, 24, 25, 26, 38 and 60 5, 6, 13, 20, 30, 31, 33, 42.2, 42.3, 42.4, 42·5, 42.6, 42.7, 42.8, 42.9, 47, 48, 49, 50, 58 and 62 15, 39, 42.1,43, 44, 46 and 51 8, 16, 23, 27, 35, 55, 56, 57, 59, and 61 12, 41, 53.1 and 53.2 During the public testimony, the Council may wish to consider hearing the speakers by area group. In order to allow applicants to present their case before the Council, staff recommends that each request be heard individually. CONCLUSION The General Plan Consultants and Planning Department believe the Community Design, Open Space/Conservation, Growth Management/Public Facilities Elements have been adequately revised to respond to comments received by individuals, groups, and other agencies· Attachments: Parcel Specific Land Use Request Matrix - Page 4 Applicants' Letters of Request - Page 5 R:~S~STAFFRPT~GP. CC5 5111/93 ki , 3 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 PARCEL SPECIFIC LAND USE REQUEST MATRIX R:~S~TAI~FRPT~OP.CC~ 5111193 j~ : ' · .'i :. ::.!: !':!::!: ::::~.~i.::'~:~.:: ': .:: .: :..:'.! '~.': ?:'..... · .. :.::: :': ':.~:~ · ....~..::! :i: i i'::: i' ::.'::'::" .' ':: i':':'!:~'.' ":: :"':'::""':":" · '.':...I :::: :! '~.:: .: ': !: .. i:'! :i..' ':..'! "! ::i: ,/ ,/ t / / A'I'I'ACHMENT NO. 2 APPLICANTS' LETTERS OF REQUEST R:~S~STAFI;R.P'~OP.CC5 ~111/~3 Iflb 5 Mr. Gary Thornhill Planning Director City of Temecula P. 0. Box 3000 Temecula, CA 92390 July 30, 1991 Dear M.r. Thornhill: I'm writing on behalf of the owners of the following parcels= APN 950-080-001 APN 950-080-002 APN 950-080-003- APN 950-080-004'. APN 950-090-001 APN 950-090-002 APN 950-090-003 APN 950-090-004. APN 950-090-005 APN 950-080-006 The property is located at State Highway 79 and Constance Street (which I named after my mother), known as Riverside County tract 15211. Enclosed is a copy of our final tract map for your convenience. · We feel that a designation of light industrial would be appropriate, as it would provide an area ~or. jobs on the.eastern side of 1-15, and would also provide offices', hotels and restaurants to service people working on the property. The property is currently designated Office Commercial on the SWAP Plan. This designation was in consideration of the following points: The subject property is not subject to either the Los Ranchitos of Santiago Ranchos CC&Rs. The subject property has no access through residential s~reets. The property is directly across from commercial, industrial and high density residential within the Red Hawk, Vail Ranch and Old Vail Ranch Plans. The property is subject to acoustic contours Mr. Gary Thornhill August 27, 1991 Page 2 substantially higher than accep=able residential levels. These points and the need for Jobs and services east of 1-15 and along the state highway corridor in a developing area would indicate an appropriate ligh= industri'al and commercial use for this property. Your consideration in this matter is appreciated. Enclosure nc e · ~eSie~nn ' '\ illis I .-- LOS RANalTOS H(DMBOW!FERS ASSOCIATION PO BOX 471 TEMECULA, CA 92593 RECEIVED APR 02 199,t Council Members City of Temecula 43170 Business Park Dr. Temecula, CA 92590 'General Plan Adoption - Land Use April 1, 1993 Dear Mayor Munoz, The Los Ranchitos Homeowners Association fully supports the Temecula Planning Commission recommendations with regard to the Land Use Element of the General Plan, especially where the plans relate to Los Ranchitos properties. The Association has made every effort to work with homeowners and vacant parcel owners within Los Ranchitos. We have sought legal council, we have conducted a survey of the members, and we held a meeting for members regarding the land use issue on March 13, 1993. Based on this recent homeowner contact, our CC&Rs, and the advise. of legal council, The Association must continue to pursue its stand against the commercialization of Los Ranchitos properties. We look forward to fully addressing this issue with you at the April 6, 1993 General Plan -.Land Use hearing. If you have any concerns or questions regarding the specific parcels within Los Ranchitos requesting zone changes, or need more information before the hearing, please feel free to contact Nayree Davis at 676-2466. Nayre~avis, President Los Ranchitos Homeowners Assoc. cc | Temecula City Council Members Birdsall Parks Robertson Stone Gary Thornhill, Planning Dept. John Meyer, Senior Planner Tn,c: l~m, miCBr-rTOR H0i(~'j'Ydili~-q ~ct-,~0CTm,,P'rON ~ IcL,'~X 471 ,l, mamfma,~-,tyr.mx. CA. 9)593 John R. Meyer, AICP Senior Planner 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA. 92590 May 13, 1992 Dear Mr. Meyer, Thank you for taking the time to meet withthree. Los Ranchitos homeowners last week to discuss the proposed Master Plan Draft and how Los Ranchi~os fits into the overall plan. Los Ranchitos homeowners are very pleased with'the Proposed Master Plan continuing a designation of Very Low Density for our portion of the plan. However, we have outlined a few concerns and corrections for you to review and consider in the next revision of The Plan. The majority of our community. supports the issues we have presented here. We feel all"these issues together help to preserve our rural designation and improve propez~cy values for ourselves and ultimately improve and benefit the City of Temecula. A handful of Los Ranchitos property owners would like to sell their parcels for commercial uses. However these owners knowingly purchased their properties with .conditions, covenants and restrictions against commercial uses. The Board of Directors of the Los Ranchitos HOA is attempting to assist homeowners in finding an amiable resolution to the problem intended commercial development is posing to the neighborhood. However, you should be aware that the .rights provided by Los Ranchitos CC&Rs, including the prohibition of commercial development, belong to each individual property owner. The majority of Los Ranchitos property owners are aware of the many constraints of the borders of this neighborhood. Additionally, most are in favor o3 ma~nta~n{ng the current borders for the residents of the future. Me are finding substantial homeowner opposition to commercial development because it is in direct violation of the CC&Rs which govern the property owners here. * Homeowners in Los Ranchitos seek the City of Temecula's assistance in protecting our borders through the Master Plan process. We look forward to meeting with you again in the future to discuss some of the specific issues which follow. Please advise us of any other steps we may take to cooper&re with the City in this Master Plan process. Contact persons are Nayree Davis @ 676-2466 or Rebecca Weersing @ 699-7814. Sincerely, The Board of Directors Los Ranchitos Homeowners Association LOS RANCH'I'TOS HGJfEGJO/ERS ASSOCXATION PO BOX 471, T~fECI~-_,A, CA. 92~93 COMMENTS AND CONCERNS TEMECULA MASTER PLAN TSS2~-l-Correct~on-~ · 'Five- Los Ranchitos parcels are currently showing incorrect color codes on the Preferred Land UsePlanDraft. (The Draft which is for view and sale at the front desk, also presented on 4/16/92) 1.. Assessors parcel number 922130002 is incorrectly Coded as a Public/Institutional Facility(blue.) [t should be coded Very Low (light yellow.) The parcel is on the southwest comer of Ynez and Santiago, and is currently part of a 2 1/2 'acre single residence. La Petite Academy is adjacent to ~his site. 2. Assessors parcel number _926120006_ is .incorrectly coded Highway/Tourist Commercial (darkest red.) The city changed its zone on March 24th to Neighborhood Commercial (lightest pink.) This parcel is located on the southeast corner of Margarita and De Portola, 3. Assessors parcel number ( !~uA~ ] is incorrectly coded Highway/Tourist Commercial (darkest red.) This parcel is an undeveloped lot and should be coOed Very Low (light'yellow.) This parcel is located on the west 'side of Jedediah Smith at Hwy. 79 south. (Across the street from #4) 4. AsseSsors parcel number _926100022_ is incorrectly coded Highway/Tourist Commercial (darkest red.) A home currently occupies this RA 2 1/2 lot.. It should be coded Very Low (light yellow.) The parcel is located on the east side of Jedediah Smith a~ Hwy. 79 south. 5. Assessors parcel numbers are incorrectly coded as Very Low (light yellow.) These lots are the home of Rancho Community Church, and should be coded Public/Institutional Facility (blue.) Please note that all' five of these parcels are currently subject to the Los Ranchitos CC&Rs. Issue 2-CC&R Jurasdiction Assessors parcel numbers _926120006_&_926120005_ .are both currently subject to the Los Renchitos CC&Rs. Neither property owner has sought the legal approval of any of the other individual community members to have commercial zones. Ona~V the City of Temecula recognizes these two parcels as commercial in this proposed plan. Tssue 3-Recrest~ onsl TTa~ I s We have an existing Horse Trails System throughout Los Ranchitos that we would like to have incorporated into theCity's new Parks and Recreation "Recreational Trails System." .Maintenance, .mapping and use, especially where our trails connect with other city trails would greatly enhance the whole Temecula trail system. 'Los Ranchitos trails help make us'a unique community as well as adding a special' quality to the city and its newly planned. trails. A map of our ~rails is enclosed. Issue 4-Roads YNEZ/DE PORTOLA CORRIDOR: Our first choice would be that Ynez/De Purtola remain a 2-lane road between Santiago and Margarita. Additionally, we would ultimately request a speed limit no higher than 45mph and stop signs placed at La Paz/Ynez and Jedediah Smith/De Por~ola to slow traffic~/1Tough our neighborhood. Even though a recent traffic study arthess locations did not meet city standards for placement of stop signs or reduced speed -limit signs along the Ynez/De Por~cola Corridor, many homeowners feel unsafe turning into or out of their .driveways due to the excessive speed of people using this road to "pass through." VALLEJO: Vallejo Avenue between La Paz/Vallejo and Ynez/vallejo (near Rancho Community Church) has no speed limit posted and a dangerous curve. People use this street as a cut through to Hw~ 79 south and also to get to .the church. A speed limit of 25 mph should be posted here since it is a residential street, has a dangerous curve and a school housed in the church. Additionally, neighbors. near the church would .suppor~c the placement of "NO PARKING" signs on their easements to help abate the problematic parking problems associated with the church's school and its other activities all week long and on Sundays.. HIGHWAY 79 SOU~: We are fully aware of the impact of the widening of Hw~ 79. Our concerns lie in the access points into Los Ranchitos at La 'Paz and Jedediah Smith. These were originally designed =o be entrances ~nto the ne~gh~orhooa, not throughways and shortcuts to other places. Given the proposed improved circulation elements throughout the city, such as widening Margarita, the Old Town back loop, additional overpasses etc., we respectfully request that ~he smaller, neighborhood style entrances of La Paz and Jedediah Smith be preserved to discourage routing through Los Ranchitos. Also, assuming the continuance of Lowest Density Residential along this strip, can a buffer zone such as landscaping or walling be provided for in the widening of Hw~ 79 South? WOODEN STREET SIGNS: The city holds'a certain western style and rural flavor which it seems the Master Plan is trying to maintain. The wooden s~reet signs of several Temecula neighborhoods shouldbe included in any planning efforts since they obviously are harder to obtain and costlier than plain metal signs. Los Ranchitos is one of the communities which takes pride in its unique wooden street markers. 'PALAROAD: Los Ranchi~oswould not support any effort to re- align Pale Road at an intersection with.aedediah Smith. (If this becomes and option) Once again, this would create a reason for non-residents 'to cut through the neighborhood. DEDICATED.AND NON-DEDICATED ROADS: We support the continued rural (no curb and gutter) less wide, less travelled use of Santiago and John Warner Roads, along withal1 roads throughout Los Ranchitos. Further,. we would support any effort to avoid the punched through completion of Santiago Road. However,'several of our residents experience severe drainage problems at their properties becauseof changes "up the street." Orange sandbags 'ere the norm along .with roadside silt because of' poor maintenance etc. Whether the control and maintenance lies with the County.or the City, we have neighbors who need help now in getting these drainage problems cleaned up. INTERSTATE 15: Residents in Los Ranchitos near the 15 Fwy would ultimately request a freeway block wall along the portion of the freeway which is adjacent to Los Ranchitos. Do you have suggestions of how to get such a beast or is this a city planning issue? Los Ranchitos would support the proposed eprofessional Officen desi~F~atio. in the proposed e~po. L~,ity Plenning Are~#4e alon~ Hw~79 Southwith the condition'that no access is made available to this commercial. offAce designation--~- any- road"-within-..Lof Ranchitoso.. Any.~c~a~n~e .should be made from Hwy 79 only. Secondly, we would request fUll['landscapedF-wa.l-led, bUffers between LosRanchitos residents and-any. proposed--o~fice-buildings~: Suggest/one have been made for low density,. aingia.'or--~rm~stf double story, rsnck'st~le. arc~itectura~:.taking-}axt~raccount.the horse trail dividingLosRanchitos from the proposed o=fice sites. We are very much in £avor of tkts baingan.op~ty area where the city can place architectural, buffer, access, and stTle requirements on any development abutting the neighborhoed on this strip. I . l~C\ t\z.f l. .~k,. \ c.~cx-~cc v- Los Ranchitos MARKHAM & ASSOCIATES Development Consultants Date: October 30, 1992 To: Fur. John Meyer - City of Temecula Subject: DEVAssociates General Plan Designation S.H. 79 South APN 950-080-001 - 004 APN 950-090-001 - 006 Temecula, CA Dear John, The current designation of Professional Office Commercial with the specific plan overlay for the subject property imposes an unrealistic economic limitation to the future development of these parcels. These parcels have.the only two.ex~stina dedicated street access Doints onto S.H. 79 south. This fact, along with the fact that these lots all have frontage on the State Highway would indicate a wider variety of uses would be appropriate for these parcels. I would suggest the following mix of 'uses (see attachment) to better address the economic development of this project. Basically, Highway/Tourist Commercial clustered around the two access points, and a mix of Medium and Higher Density Residential Designation at east and west ends. Sincerely, 417~0 Winchester Road, Suit~ N · Temecula. California 92590 · (714) 676-667/· FAX 014) 699-1848 ./ o./' Peter W. Edelmann 151,35 Paso del Sol Del Mar, California 92014 Phone: (619) 793-0126 Fax: (619) 560-2094 August 9, 1991 Mr. Gary Thornhill ' Planning Director, City of Temecula 43174Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 Dear Mr. Thornhill: I have met with Don Lohr and Ron Parks of Lohr Engineering regarding the property on Highway 79 in Temecula owned by Old Vail Partners. I am one of the two partners of Old Vail partners, the other being Sports Arenas, Inc. The two' parcels comprising the property are: Parcel A - Parcel B - A total 39.80 acres made up of those portions of Parcel I and 2 in Lot 'A'.of Parcel Map No. 18993 as recorded in Book 134 at pages 13 through 18 inclusive. A total 32.64acres made up of that portion of Parcel 2 in 'Lot "D" of Parcel Map 18993 as recorded in Book 134 at pages 13 through 18 inclusive. In discussing development plans on these parcels with Mr. Lohr, it WaS brought to my attention that although Riverside County approved and recorded a zoning designation of CPS for both parcels, the current Southwest Area Plan indicates office commercial use. It is my understanding that the City of Temecula is reviewing the General Plan for this area and that it would be appropriate to request that the new General Plan reflect our R~versicle County CPS zoning. I would appreciate meeting with you to discuss our preliminary plans regarding these parcels. Also, we hereby request that your department supply us with any notices of pending actions affecting these parcels. Thank you for your attention to these matters. Sincerely, Peter W. Edelmann I look forward to meeting with you soon. CC: Harold Elkan, Sports Arenas, Inc. Don Lohr Trans -Factfie COll. SltllltS April 16, 1992 Mr. John Meyer, Senior Planner City of Temecula 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 Rc: OLD VAIL RANCH COMMERCIAL PROPERTY (A.P.N. 950-120-004 AND 9S0-110-014) Dear Mr. Meyer: , )ur client Mr. Peter. Edclmann of Old Vail Parmen had ~:eccntly discussed the above ,ererented property with you relative to the'City's General Plan efforts. Based on your v,mversation, the City is apparently 'leaning towards placing an Office Commercial (OC) l)csignation over the above referenced site. As the City's General Plan efforts continue to progress, we respectfully ask that you provide the above referenced property with a commercial designation and offer the following for your consideration: On November 28, 1989, ThE Riverside County Board of Supervisors approved change of Zone No. 5477 over the subject. site from R-R and C-P-S to C-P-S. The change of Zone process in this instance was anything 'but routine~ The case was held in abeyance for several months pending resolution of the Southwest Area Community · Plan (SWAP). In addition the area applied for under change 'of Zone No. 5477 was not confined within a stand alone legal lot, but overlayed a portion of a larger area. This condition would have created a legal parcel with multiple zoning designations. In spite of there being no legal justification for their request, Riverside County Planning staff refused to process the change of zone application until the area proposed under change of Zone No. 5477 was defined by a legal parcel. To achieve this end, we applied for and received approval for lot line adjustment Nos. 3033 and 3034 (see lot line adjustment package contained herein). Mr. John Meyer, Senior Planner April 16, 1992 Page Two Subsequent to the Riverside County Board Of Supervisor's approval of change of Zone No. S477, a final change of zone plat and corresponding legal description had been prepared and adopted by the Riverside County Board of Supervisors. This action officially amended Ordinance 348 relative to the subject site's zoning designation (scc enclosed change zone plat contained herein). As we understand it, the City of Temecula is only considering Riverside County zone change approvals as complete if the final plat and associated legals had been adopted by the Board amending Ordinance No. 348 for the property in question. The subject site is located within the Rancho Villages Assessment District (AD 159). The site is being assessed based on the highest and best use of the property which is commercial. As of this writing, there is also a supplemental assessment package being prepared for A.D. 159. The additional assessment per the supplemental package will also be based upon a commercial designation for the subject site. The subject site's assessments are fixed per the adoption of the Engineer's R~!~ort/Assessment Spread by the Riverside County Board of Supervisors in cooperation with Bond Council: The majority of the properties participating in AD 159 are now within the City of Temecula. Although the District is still being managed by the County of Riverside, the City of Temecula has adopted and accepted th~ District as the financing mechanism for infrastructure improvements within the State Highway 79 Corridor. Therefore, it is our opinion that the County of Riverside, and now more recently, the City of Temecula have made a commitment to. the subject site for commercial land uses by verture of the assessments placed on the property. Further it is our opinion that to propose a general plan designation thai would result in the reduction of property values relative to assumptions made in the assessment district spread is inappropriate. A commercial general plan designation would permit an array of commercial/retail uses that would yield a financial return commensurate with the site's A.D. 159 assessments which could not be achieved through the office commercial designation. 'Fo circumvent potential inconsistencies between the subject site's A.D. 159 assessments and tP.c subject si!e's general plan designation and concomitant consistency zoning designation; we respectfully ask for your support in identifying the site as commercial in the City of Fcm~cula General Plan Land Use Allocation Map. Mr. John Meyer, Senior Planner April X6, 992 Page Three Thank. you for your consideration in this matter. Should-you have any questions and/or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me at Extension 21Z Very truly yours, TRANS-PACIFIC CONSULTANTS, INC. Assistant D~anning Enclosures CC: .Mr. Peter Edelman, Old Vail Parmen Mr. Gary Thornhill, City of Temecula Planning Department Chron .' - -' Old Vail Partners 5230 Carroll Canyon Road, Suite 310 San Diego, CA 92121 (619) 587-1060 (619) 587-0425 Fax March 13,.1992 Councilmember Ronald J. Parks City of Temecula City Hall 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 Re: Old Vail Commercial sites' Dear Councilmember Parks: Attached please find a small plat showing our two parcels of CPS Commercially zoned property being 39.80 acres and 32.64 acres respectively. It has come to our attention that the City of Temecula'is considering a dOwn-zoning of this property along. with our neighbors properties. First, let me point out that property located on the, "Going home side of the street", is the most desirable retail property. The south side of 79 (South) conforms to this requirement which includes our property while the north side or the going to work side does not.. Second, this property has been taxed for years based on its value as commercial. Third, a down-zoning of property is a taking of private property that has been tested in the courts. To do so the taking body must adequately compensate the property owner. In our case, our property has been recently appraised for $20,300,000.00. If you plan to' downgrade' our proper=y, we will be happy to cooperate with the City in that effort in return for fair and adequate compensation. Anything to the contrary will find us and every other property owner faced with such a downgrading attempt, at odds with the City. In which case I can assure you of a long and arduous battle. There is simply too much money at stake for any property owner to sit back and quietly allow this to happen. Councilmember Parks March 13,. 1992 Page 2 On the othe~ hand, we and I'm certain our neighbors, stand ready to. workwith the City in its attempt to.project and plan for the. future growth of Temecula. No one welcomes a battle between property owners and a City government- However, we do stand ready to protect our interests and investments which were made based on reliances from the government based on zoning approvals and then taxed as such for years. In fact, the Assessment District #159 has improvement projects going forward based upon the current zoning needs and it is assessing us for same. The implications of tax and assessment refunds plus fair and adequate compensation to property owners should cause the City to reconsider any such rezone attempt. At least I would hope that rational minds would so reconsider. Further, we are in the middle of hegotiations for the development of this property. Even rumors of a possible down-zoning could seriously damage those negotiations. I offer that with our economy in its current state, this is. no time to kill development and job opportunities. Again, we stand ready to meet-with you and work with you in a cooperative spirit to better plan the future of Temecula. However, that cooperation does not include a down-zoning of 'our property unless we are fairly and adequately compensated for the loss incurred plus refunds 'for taxation and assessments these past years. we are available if yOu wish to meet- cc: Mr. Peter Edelmann Mr. Tyler Cramer Mr. Dave James With kindes gards Harold S. Elkan, President RCSA, Inc. General Partner Old Vail Partners, Ltd. For: Sale Lease Joint Venture Zoned CPS Commercial Parcel "B" 32.64 Acres Parcel "C" 39.80 Acres Total 72..44 Acres Appraised June 1991 Parcel "B" $9,950,000 Parcel nC" $10,400,000 xe~I S"/I~)-/.ll; 1619 a=s-/JO 0901-/.li~ 1619 IZ:tZ6 V:) 'oga!(i ue$_ 0I£ a3!nS Peol uoXueD ilo-ue:) saa~and !!DA QIO Commercial Property Offering C Sites Location Map North North February 26, 1992 Mr. JOhn R. Meyer, AICP Senior Planner City of Temecula 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 Dear Mr. Meyer, Thank you for taking the time to meet with me of February 3rd. Per your request I have enclosed the information on the property located at the northeast comer of Highway 79 and Interstate .15 adjacent 'to the Rancho Community Church. (Assessor's Parcels/~:)22-170-006,. 922 - 170-007, 922 - 170-008, 922170-009, 922-190-025. ) We understand that the City of Temecula is revising the MEter Plan-and ,this process is scheduled to be completed by early 1993. We are requesting that the above referenced parcels be zoned commercial in the revised plan for the following reasons: ' l) 2) 3) 4) 5) The property on the opposite side of Highway 79 is currently zoned and used for commercial purposes as most properties are on the freeway off ramps. 6) The lots are fairly narrow and this situation will be exacerbated with the upcoming widening of Highway 79. The lots are currently not desirable for residential use and the future widening will make them less desirable for this purpose. Adjacent to the property is the Rancho Community Church which is currently completing construction of a new school. The additional activity caused by this school would be more compatible with a commercial use on our parcels rather than a residential use. We have owned the lots for approximately 12 years and during that period we have put them up for sale at various times. We have had interest from several panics if the lots could be used for commercial purposes but, we have never had anyone interested in acquinng the property on which to build a home. In 1989 the county revised the master plan for the southwest area. Although this plan was not adopted by the City of Temecula the Southwest Area General Plan Advisory Committee had proposed~ that these parcels be zoned commercial. We will have a 20 ft. landscape buffer along Vallejo and put in two (2) monuments to the entrance to Los Ranchitos on La PaL Attached for your information are: 1) 2) 3) A map showing the location of our lots. The map of the proposed widening of Highway 79. Again, thank you ..for your time. Sincerely, The final map from the Southwest Area General Plan Advisory Committee reflecting a 'proposed designation of commercial for our parcels. Please let me know if you require any further information. John A. Mommarco~ St. jon A. MOnAMARCO, SR. POST OFFICE BOX 906 TEMECULA, CA 92593 September 21, 1992 Planning Director Gary Thornhill City of Temecula 43174 Business Park Dr. Temecula, CA 92590 Dear Gary: The enclosed letter to the City of: Temecula Senior Planher was previously sent regarding the zoning of five parcels located at the northeast intersection of Interstate 15 and Highway 79. My understanding was that this would be sent on to you. Recently, however, I learned that it has not been. As I believe is self-explanatory in the attached, with the review of the' General Plan, I am respectfull), .requesting that these parcels be rezoned commercial from residential. This zoning would be consistent with other parcels in the City of Temecula adjacent to freeway overpasses. If yOu have any questions, please .feel free to contact me. SincerelY. ~ John A. Moramarco. Sr. ;f EXHIBIT. '.rFU-',c-f' .AP.N ~22 .. J7O ,e i k ~'9 O00 ; '\ ./-\PN 922- J70-- "EXHIB Z Handling more traffic on 79 .| It ,° CAI. IFCIINm& /" /: &milling)lIT I% 8 n ~///,J_ ---jr,,RE I ' I 5-20-92 City of Temecul. a 45174 Business Park Drive Temecula, Ca 92590 Subject: Parcel 2 of PM 8455 Book 41 Pages 56 and 945-110-001 Vacant Land (approx. 2.56 acres) Temecula, Ca. Referred to as Lot 869 of Romala Farms #9.. Attention: Mr, John Me~/er, Senior Planner Gentlemen: Subject ~roQerty is p.resently zoned ~-R. and on the Southwest Area Community Plan dated August 25, 1989, its designated use is for 1-2 DU/AC. It is suggested'that subject Dro~erty is not suitable ~or use designation as a single dwellino ~or the f'ollowino reasons: - 1. the Dro~erty fronts on a designated 4 lane highl~ ~ra~iced street<Pauba) ~or which inorees and eoress would be Oi~.icult. - - 2. The ~oQerty is adjacent to 'CPS zoning on the East sloe and as such should be used to Industrial activities on the surroundino residences to ~he South and West. ~. From a tax income standpoint. for the'city, it would be more desirable to have a commercial enterprise on the DroDerty. I am ~equesting that the.property be de~ignatled on the ne~ P~oDo~eO general plan of the City ~or other uses'than 0~,et~lno unlt~. - The ~Ollowing uses are actively beino considered for the DroDertV: ' - 1. Rest Home. Families are moving into the large home Oevelopments in the area having older Darents who would be most conviently located close by. 2. Day Care Center. Both members of the family are wo~ lno. and a faci-llt~ to care for their children would Oe OesiaDle. -'.- Church. It is known that several denominations in the local area are loo;.~ing for locations. ' 4. Commercial O~lces such as real estate and others. 5. A ;'ro~essional O~lce ComQle::. Recreational facilities, such as batt:ng I~ractice, as mlO~t be oriented to the need~_ of the local schools in t~e area. Your cons:deratlon for the above is sincerely requested. co: DeOble Mbnoske Sincerely, vetstone, Owner 28828 Via Roja Murrieta, Ca ~2565 Tel. 677-5820 ELLIOTT UHRICH CONSULTING ENGINEER 37161 VAN GAALE LANE MURRIETA, CALIFORNIA, 92395 (714) 696-0901 October 2,1992 To:City of Temecula Planning Department 43~74 Business Park Dr. Temecula, California, 92590 Attn.Mr. John Meyer Subject: Draft Preferred Land Use Plan Parcel 2, Parcel Map 8455 A.P.N. 945-110-001 Dear M'r.. Meyer; i have been requested by the owner of the above parcel of land to contact your'department concerning the designation of their property as showr, on the Draft Preferred Land Use Plan Dated May 6, 1992. The property in question is located on the South side of Pauba Road approximately 400 feet West of Margarita Road. The total net acreage of the property in question is 2.56 acres. (see attached photos) The present designation of this parcel on the Draft Preferred Land Use Plan is Very Low Density Residential (0.5 DU/AC, see attached Draft Preferred Land Use Plan). We strongly disagree with the assigned designation for this property. The property i'mmediately to the East, which consist of two, 2 1/2 acre parcels, is designated as Neighborhood Commercial. A major watercourse transverses the property along the Southerly boundary. A tributary watercourse is located West of this property. The elevation differential from :he existing pad and roadway, to the flow line of the watercourses is approximately 60 feet. We feel that the area shown on the attached sketch., which is bounded by the two watercourses to the South and West, PauDa Road on the North and Margarita Road on the East, should be designated as Neighborhood Commercial. This area is just under 7.5 acres net and due to the site topography would yield 3 to 5 acres of developable property, which is more in line with the proposed guide lines for a Neighborhood Commercial Development. The existing watercourses would act as a buffer between the our proposed commercial designation and the residential development with smaller lots to the South and West of this property. The Community Sport Park and Temecula Valley High School is ~ocated immediately North of this property on the North side of Pauba Road. The nearest developed property with a commercial designation is located approximately 11/2 miles North of thls site on Rancho California Road. Thus to better serve the Sport Park and proposed Community Recreation Center Complex and to provide more services to the surrounding residential neighborhood, a more substantial neighborhood commercial center is desirable at this location. Circulation presently exists to support larger commercial development for this property. The property is bound on the East by Margrarita Road, a I10 foot arterial highway, and on the North by Pauba Road, a 88 foot collector. It is the oWner's intention to develop this property with a resthome and/or professional offices and related commercial uses. Attached is our present preliminary site plan for the development of this property. it is hoped that your department would consider using property lines that correspond to the defined natural terrain as boundaries between commercial and residential development in-lieu of the arbitrary property boundary lines presently used for this site. With that consideration in mind the owner of this subject property would like to request a revision of the present Very Low Density Residential designation of his property to a Neighborhood Commercial Designation on the Draft Preferred Land Use Plan. Your consideration of this matter at this time would be greatly appreciated. if you have any questions concerning this matter please contact my office at 969-0901 or Mr.Paul Silverstone at 677-5820 (owner). s ~c fu ly Submitted Eliiott Uhrich Exp. Date 9/30/93 cc: The Planning Center co/Ms. Karen L. Gully Paul Silverstone Nole: Thc D~' ~l~ccil'.: Uvfihy rL'fcrcnc~ I lilJ.,Jd. , I): ^( kt.,,,; L.(lv. ,: :;. '..' M.,~. ) ~/nw ,%J,,~lum It, I)lh#%C' M.s,,, ) //l'LJllllll f I 2 I)~tfAC.' k,l.s~, | NcLgl;i~crnood.Cc}mmcrci.ll g Ctlnlnluz1:ty Cnmmcrci:,l W Hsgh'.i.'.%~ Tour,sz Commcrc,al ~Prolc,,.,.iu::~l OIl,co r ~Businu~, P~rk I Scrv~cc Commc~cF~] ~Publ,clh~shtutjonal Facilmc,, he City of ?2M2C'JLA eneral Plan Program ill Ii · lee:e~mlmem;k mikelie, LOT 8 LOT.~ · l°ot O. 3. Lef l~ ZI~.2,0 ~ot. 2 ~or. 3 a. REA: Pac 3 Par. i.53,4c:N/. Pot. i 3.~4~N~ Pot. I -.® Z26 A=A~. 1. 0 5 At ~4~. r_., E.704c. ht' ...'}> Le Sf,e'~'4r Pot 3 ,© SAFA R. MUm'ASEB & NAYEF R. MUHTASEB 394~4 VIA MONTALVO, MURRIETA, CALIFORNIA. 92563. U.S.A. TELEPHONE (714)677-3325. FACSIMILE C/14)677-3325. March. 20. 1992. City Of Temecula 43174 Business Park Drive Temecule, Celifomle 92590 Attention :' Mr. Gary Thornhill, Planning Director Regarding: Proposed Change of Zone From "R-3 4000" to "C-I/C-P". Property Description: 6.12 ACRES GRS IN PARS A, B & 2 PM 076/068 PM 1346 APN: 9.44-290-009 Coordinating Consultant: Markham &Associates .- zil 750 Winchester Rd., Suite "N", Temecula, CA. 92590. Dear Mr. Thornhill Per your meeting with Ida Sanchez, Markham & Associates, I was instructed to address a letter to you regarding our intent for filing a change of zone on The above described parcel.' "We would like to proceed; at this time, wITh a change of zone only. This is due to financial reasons; thus, at the time the zone change Is approved additional funding would be available and we would be able to move forward with marketing, leasing, etc. AT this time we would then coordinate and submit for a plot plan approve1. It is our plan to develop this site into a commercial retail neighborhood center with potential retailers and/or uses such as the following: (e) Gasoline Station & Mini. Market, (b) Resteurant(s),(c) Dry Cleaners, (d} Mail Services Center, (e) Photo Shop, (f) Video Store, (g) Dental & Optometrist Clinics, {h) Ice Cream and Frozen Yogurt Shop, (i) Donut and Bagel shops, U) A Day Care Center, and (k} Other Commercial Uses. Markham and Associates will be submitting the Change of Zone package within two weeks. Should you have any further questions, please contact Sandre Finn at (714)676-6672.' Your understanding and cooperation Is greBtly appreciated. · ' Respectfully Sofa R. Muhtaaeb Property Owner cofzl. ..Dur&c. SP 180 | /' ""':-,PK. .112 \. AC MIN COMMUNITY PAF - .Z ~/I LLAt SP I AC -. ---, \ SAFA R. Mtr~rAEn & NAYEF R. MUHTASEB 39484 VIA MONTALVO, MURRIETA, CALIFORNIA. 92~63. U.S.A. TELEPHONE (714)677-3325. FACSIMILE (714)677-3325. April. 17. 1992. City of Temecula 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula~ California 92590 · - N Attention: Mr. John R. Meyer, AICP, Senior Planner Regarding: ' TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN DRAFT PREFERRED LAND USE PLAN IN SPECIFIC: Property Description: 6.12 ACRES GRS IN PARS A, B & 2 PM 076/068 PM 1346 APN: 944-290-009. Dear Mr. Meyer I have artended the General Plan Public Workshop Town Hall Meeting of Thursday, April 16, 1992. Per that meeting I was instructed to address a letter to you regarding the Land Use Designation that has been recommended by the Draft Preferred 'Land Use Plan (DPLUP) for the above described property (Our Property). The DPLUP recommends a High Density Max. 20 DU/Acre Land Use Designation for Our Property. Further, it recommends a 'Professional Office Land Use Designation for the properties immediately East and West of Our Property along Rancho California Road. Also, the DPLUP recommends a Community Commercial Land Use Designation for the properties opposite to Our Property on Rancho California Road. We feed that the best land use and therefore the best Land Use Designation for Our Property is either Community Commercial or Neighborhood Commercial for the following reasons: 1. It is an extremely' compatible use. Due to the large high density apartment housing south of Our Property, and the condominium housing that has been approved on the site immediately East of Our Property, Our Property would provide shopping for the present and future residents of such housing with in a walking distance, 2. Once Moraga Road is developed all the way to meet with Via Las Colinas, Our Property will have three sides bordering on roads {Rancho California Road, 'Moraga Road, and Via I,as Colinas) and therefore will have maximum road accessibility and' exposure. Further, the high flow of traffic surrounding our property may create' safety problems for a residential use, 3. Our Property will provide a great location for a Day Care Center for all the Apartment and Professional Office residents immediately surrounding Our Property. 4. As you are well aware, there is a traffic signal at the intersection of Rancho California Road and Moraga Road which makes the south west corner of that intersection (which lies in Our Property) an ideal location for a Gas Station. Our Property would make an ideal. site for a commercial retail neighborhood center with potential retailers and/or uses such as the following: (a) Gasoline Station & Mini Market, (b) Restaurant(s},(c) Dry Cleaners, (d) Mail Services Center, '(e) Photo Shop, (f) Video Store, (g) Dental & Optometrist Clinics, {h) Ice Cream and Frozen Yogurt Shop, (i) Donut and Bagel shops, {j) A Day Care Center, and (k) Other Commercial Uses. Your understanding and cooperation is greatly appreciated. Respectfully COT-DLUP Safa R. Muhtaseb Property Owner SAFA R. MUHTASEB & NAYEF R. MUIfFASEB 39484 VIA MONTAL;VO, MURRIETA, CALIFORNIA. 92563..U;S.A. TELEPHONE (714)677-3325. FACSIMILE (714)677-3325. April. 30. 1992. City of Temecula 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, California 92590 Attention: Mr. John R. Meyer, AICP, Senior Planner Regarding: TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN DRAFT PREFERRED LAND USE PLAN IN SPECIFIC: Property Description: 6.12 ACRES GRS IN PARS A, B & 2 PM 076/068 PM 1346 APN: 944-290-009 Dear Mr. Meyer I am writing this letter as a follow up and an amendment to the letter (dated April. 17.1992.) which I have addressed to you. First, I would like to make a correction to the previous letter (dated April. 17.1992.). On the previous letter I have stated that the Draft Preferred Land Use Plan (DPLUP) recommends a Residential High Density Max. 20 DU/Acre Land Use Designation (Zone) for the above described property {Our Property) and that is incorrect, and I apologize for this mistake. The DPLUP actually recommends an Office-Commercial Land Use Designation (Zone) for Our Property. Second, with all due respect, I would like to reiterate That The best land use and the best Land Use Designation (Zone) for Our Property/is either Community/Commercial or Neighborhood Commercial for the reasons I have pointed out in my Previous Letter (dated April. 17. 1992.). Finally, I would like to extend my greatest appreciation for your understanding and cooperation, Respectfully DLUP2 Safa R. Muhtaseb Property Owner SAFA R. MU~FASEB & NAYEl? R. MUtITASEB Post OffiCe Box 1004 Murrieta, California. 92564-1004. TelephOne (714)677-3325 Facsimile (714)677-332S August. 14. 1992. City of Temecula 'Mr. John R. Meyer, AICP 43174 Business Park Drive Temeeula, CA. 92590 Regarding: Assessor's Parcel Number: 9~.~ 290-009 RECEIVED AU6 17 1992 ~'d.' ..... Dear John Our Address Has Changed Date Effective: A~ugust. 20. 1992. Please forward all of your. statements, assessments, notices, correspondence, letters, inquiries, questions, invoices,.billings, and payments to: SAFA R. MUHTASEB NAYEF R. MUHTASEB POST OFFICE BOX 1004 MURRIETA, CA. 92564-1004. TELEPHONE:' (714) 677-3325 FACSIMILE: (714) 677-3325 Sincerely, /(,'~ Sara R. Muhtaseb JOHNSON + JOHNSON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION 274~0 ~hcz Rcmd Suite 200 Teme~ula. CA 92,~9 l {714) (}76-1(~ F.~X (7i4) ~-3117 March 25, 1992 Mr. John MeYer,'Senior-Planner CITY OF TEMECULA 43174 Business Park Drive 'Temecula, Ca 92590 Re: Zone Change Case No. 5570 Dear Mr. Meyer, On March 12, 1992 Dean Allen and I met with Saied Naaseh and Debbie Ubnoshe from .the City of Temecula Planning Department in a DRC reviewlfor Rancho Village, the above mentioned project. At that meeting the issue was raised regarding the current designation for this project. in the proposed General Plan. In an attempt to clarify this.matter we would.like tO provide you with a summary of the history of the zoning application for this project. The following is a recap for Zone Change Case No. 5570: 1) An application for zone change along with the required application fee of Three Thousand Four Hundred Five Dollars ($3,405.00) was submitted to the County of Riverside in August of 1989. 2) Parcels 2 & 3 were designated office commercial in the S.W.A.P. development. A portion of ~he property (parcel i of the 3 parcel property) was mis-labeled during the Southwest Area Plan (S.W.A.P.) review (see attached letter dated July 28~ 1989). The appropriate designation for all three parcels was Office Commercial. Once Temecula was incorporated as a City, the application along with zone change fees were transferred from the County of Riverside to the City of Temecula. When we resubmitted to the City of Temecula, we revised our requirements to be consistent with surrounding property by requesting zoning that allows .condominiums at 12/units per acre on the back (easterly) parcel No. 1. er, e~.war ,erA.' ~ ~:"/t'~..~" esrJ~ e$ "' BUYER'S COPY Letter to Mr. John Meyer March 25, 1992 Page -2- 4) Our property is included in the Community Facilities District No. 88-12, an Ynez Road widening project. This District calls for assessments and sales tax contributions based on an office .commercial zoning for this property which we have agreed to. October 10, I990 we met with Steve Jiannino, a senior planner for the City of Temecula and were instructed to provide display maps giving a-general concept for the project. At this time we commissioned echoell & PaulArchitects to provide such a design concept. 6) When the'site plans were completed, we met with the City' and began working with Debbie Ubnoshe as the senior planner. At this time we were informed a policy change would not allow our project to proceed as previously indicated by Steve Jiannino and that to move forward we would be required to do expanded= 'engineering studies and building.designs. Furthermore, it was requested ~e coordinate common entries where ever possible with the Bedford Specific Plan tothe north. Subsequently, we made an agreement with Bedford to share access with their commercial and multi-family project on the north side of the subject parcels. 7) On March 12, 1992 a DRC review was held for our property and at that meeting we learned the project was incorrectly classified as a Change of Zone to CPS rather than as originally requested to be Commercial Office and R-3. Our concern is that the lack of continuity in review has caused this project to be misrepresented in the General Planning Process. we believe on further analysis you will agree the zoning of these properties should be C-O (commercial office) on Parcels #'2 & #3-and R-3 (residential) on Parcel #1. Please consider our Pequest as you continue with the General Plan development process. We would like to meet with you to discuss any issues you may have with this request. Sincerely, Curtis E. Lively CEL/dmd _JOHNSON ~--JOHNSON I)I"-VI,'-I,()!,Mb'-N-r July 28, 1989 Mr. Marshall Lee Riverside County Office Planning Department 4080 Lemon Street Riverside, CA 92501 Dear. Marshall: During the last review of the Southwest Area Plan held in Murrieta on July 12, 1989, Jack BYesson, You'and I discussed the change of zone designation on the property located on drawn incorrectly on our Preliminary copy of the Southwest Area Plan-map showing Parcel W1 of the 3 parcel property as no= being included in its office commercial. We would greatly appreciate you reviewing this correction. I would also note that the Property directly east of the sub- Sincerely, APPUCATION FOR LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT INCOMPLEIE APPUCATIONS WILL NOT BE AC~,~: =u. 'Date: PUBLIC USE PERMIT NO. TEMPORARY USE PERMIT NO. TRACT MAP NO. VARIANCE NO. CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 5570 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. PARCEL MAP NO. PLOT PLAN NO. forparcels2&3 and PROJECT INFORMATION: 1. Pumose of Request (project dee~qation) (Ord. 348 ref. No.) 2. Related cases filed in conjunction with This request. PROPERTY INFORMATION: Assessor's Parcel Number(s): 923-590-015, 016, 017 Location: Street Address etc,) Nor~east o:xrne.~ of Y. ne~ :Road a.~ Rm,,cho V~sta Apprcx. Gross Acreage: 18.-49 Thomas bothers Pg. No. & Coordinate{s) APPUCANTIOWNER/REPRESENTATIVE INFORMATION: 125 F-3 Applicant Name: Mailing Address: Telephone No,: RANCHO VTT.T~GE ASSOCIATES, a California Limited Partnership u~nson + aonnson DeVP_L~t ~O . William P. Johnson, Chairman of ~' ~enera~ yarnner ~74~0 V~=? R~., ~,it'~, ~l')O TRn=~d~. CA 9P59l STREET CITY STATE (714) 676-1604 (8 8.m. - 5 O.m. 2. Owner Name Mailing Address: Mailing Address: .Telephone No,: 274b0 Ynez Road SUite 200, TEmecula, CA 92591 STREET CITY STATE ZIP (71 4} 676-1604 (8 8.m. - 5 p.m.) RANCHO VZLLAGE ASSOCIATES, a California Limited Partnershi] JOH~SON + JOHNSON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, GENERAL PAR" '~R SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT)(' By: Wil~K.~Jo . s~n, DATE SIGNED March 23, 19 Chairman o= the Board Authority for this 'application is hereby given: SIGNATURE OF PROPERTY OWNERS(s) RVHtTBn AMIF/,dUm my be Attached) If more than one person is involved in the ownership of the property being developed a separate page must be attached to this application which lists the names and addresses of all persons having an interest in the ownership of the property, 'Note: Persons desiring to seek jUdicial review of the decision of the City Council have ninety (90) days to file a complaint in the court seeking such review pursuant to Section 1094,6 of the CaI~omla Code of Civil 'Procedure, De HOMEOWNERS/PROPERTY OVWERS ASSOCIATION is your parcel subject to CC&R's or Homeowner/Property Owner review and approval? Yes No x If yes, include HomeOwner/Property Owner Association or Management Company maffing label within 600 foot radius property owners' mailing notification addresses, Have Homeowners/Property Owners been notified of your project? No x SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT DATE SIGNED RANCHO VILLAGE ASSOCIATES, By: William P./Johnson, Chairman of the Board M~Tch 93. 1~9~ Author~y forthis application thereby g~en: a California Limited Partnership Partner SIGNATURE 0,' PROPERTY OWNER{S) IwRrr'lTN AUTNORIZAI'ION MAY M A.TT&CNF, D) I~meWee,emW/$1 2 JOHNSON + JOHNSON DE%,rE~LOPMENT CORPORATION September 14, 1992 Mr.-John Meyers City of Temecula P.O.Box 3000 Temecula, CA 92390 RECEIVED S E P 15 1992 :Ans'd ............ RE: Zone Change Case No. 5570, parcels 923-590-015, 016 and 017. Dear Mr. Meyers, This is a-follo~ up to our September 2, 1992 meeting where it was discovered that your General Plan Consultant has inaccurate information regarding the status of a fault along the west border of the above mentioned parcels. As we discussed" the fault in question has an inactive designation based on a recent study and our site design reflects any setbacks required by this designation. Please include this information in the General Plan process along with our March .25, 1992 .letter summarizing the history of Zone Change 5570. Should you have any questions or require. additional information please contact me. Sincerely, JOHNSON + JOHNSON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION D~;~F'KT-K11 en President CITY OF TEMECULA 4317~ BUSINESS PARK DRIVE TEMECULA, CA 92590 Attention: Mr. John R. Meyer, AICP April 11, 1992 Dear Mr. Meyer: In reference to our teletch yesterday, the pending April 16 public workshop on land uss, and our ownsrship of a 2 1/2 acre lot in Los Ranchitos, adjacent to Highway 79, we submit these comments to support our appeal for a land use revision: Thank you for the opportunity to speak and hopefully correct a zoning problem with property we own in Temeoula. These are the related facts:' 1. We purchased lot #33, tract in August 1977. 38~6, in Temecula, Los Ranohitos 2. The CC&R's. lot is zoned RA 2 1/2 and is subject to the Los Ranchitos 3. The lot has a S2S' frontage with Highway 79, a AA8' frontage on ValleJo Ave., shares a 162' contiguous line with lot 34 to the West and a 329' contiguous line with lot 32 to the'East. ~. The elevation of.the lot is very elevation at the West end, adjacsnt elevation located in an ancient flood of the property. irregular with the highest to lot 3~, and the lowest plain in the Easterly 1/3 S. The elevation change from the high, Westerly end of the property to the lower Easterly end is approximately 30' to 6. Any development of the property has to allow the conveyance of water from a culvert under Vallejo Road to a culvert under Highway 79. 7. We contracted with TO-MAC Engineering in 1989 to develop a grading plan and conduct percolation tests of the property. The TO-MAC grading plan drawing is enclosed for your information. 8. In 1990 we were advised by the County of Riverside that Highway 79 would be widened to 6 lanes and they wished. us to dedicate a triangular section of the lot measuring approximately ~' by 30' at the Easterly end of the property, along highway 79. This dedication would reduce the Easterly property line of the lot to approximately 158'. Page 2 of 3 Given the above facts, we have concluded that we cannot develop the property for residential use for these reasons: A. A 'single family residence has to Easterly end of the property because: be sited at the narrow, 1. Drainage has to be provided across the Westerly end. 2. The Westerly end of the property is an unstable flood plain. 3. Percclation tests confirmed that the only suitable site for a septic system is at the Westerly end of the property. 4. Filling is not an option in the lower lot elevations because of the instability of the soil, the need to 'convey water through the area, the massive amounts of fill that would be required and the need to locate the septic system in the desired fill area. B. A single family residence located at the Easterly end of the property is not desirable or compatible with other Los Ranchitos properties because the Southerly side of the structure would be located approximately 80' from a 6 lane highway. C. No other developed property in Los Ranchitos has a residence located within 80' of Highway 79. D. A single family residence located within 80' of a 6 lane highway is completely out of character with the rest of Los Ranchitos. The open, remote character of Los Ranchitos was the reason why we originally purchased the property. We conclude with the observation that we have never received any interest in our property for residential uses. We were dedicated to improve the property in compliance with the RA 2 1/2 zoning requirements but we, and many other Los Ranchitos property owners have been victimized by the decision to widen Highway 79. We are sympathetic to the Los Ranchitos property owners on the North side of Vallejo Ave who fear they are facing some type of intrusive commercial development between themselves and Highway 79. Out of respect for their concerns, we need to discuss alternative uses that will protect their isolation but not at the unreasonable expense of the property owners along Highway 79. cannot develop lot 33 as a residential property. We can, with your help, develop plans to provide, berms, planrings, low structures, and minimal intrusive uses of the property. However, the alternative uses will be commercial of some sort, with acceptable restrictions. You had mentioned "Garden Offices" as a type of development that might be acceptable. We are not sure if that is the best alternative but it is an alternative that needs to be openly discussed without the emotional "no-commercial" rhetoric that has dogged these discussions. Page Thank you for .your time and attention 'to these matters. We plan to attend the public workshop next Thursday and discuss the points above. Since~ely yours, Richard R. Denno Mari lyn Jean Denno 2256 Sunnyside Ridge Road Rancho Palos Vetdes, CA 90274 (310) 5~7-3687 :/ i.X \ ~F° ~ I ,\ · i.i:i'/ : ;'-~-;'. ,;;,.;.~:Z;-': DE'.",-',: O?:-.;Z;',FF CO. Use PRD Area RO. CALl F. "' ; '::-: :.!5 ;:' .'. j 3.,: .. ';;L '. ~ ~ ~ ~ Circui.::~n PALA':ILt '~-..'; 2~'-m~l:t · "---r---,--S ! , ' I '= 800' I st. Sup. Dist. ;, .;::,,,,;._:,;;'..-. c;..~.~-; -~ AR'fEP. IAL I]0~ .... ~_, F.X~RE__.SV:;.:'.Y VARIABLE Rd, .,'j;t. ;.".'J. 56A I~ .::.::; l/1 /,.'.4 L'. '~":n G7 ic':~ ,~'.'!/,".~:57z3E' CGL,.'."2';' FL ~iV.:.~/.. ;G "-,:~'P,.'-.'t/7Z,~."7,"T POR. TEIVlECU/A RA IVCHO T. 85 R. ~ W '1~ (POR, RANCHO CA l IE~ (PoR. SEC. I~, T. 8 S. R. 2 ~.V) ~ ) l ,PRO dEC TED T3141 Z ~. .5,,~ PG. /~ , CALIE : ..,..-,;,, RANCON REALTY FUNDS April 14, 1992 · Mr. Gary Thorrihill Planning Director City of Temecula 43174 Business. Park Drive Temecula, CA 92591 Re: Temecula View Estates Dear Gary: We appreciate this opportunity to provide comment to the City's General Plan process. We are developers of this 800 acre property, commonly referred to as Roripaugh Ranches. Simply stated, our vision of the property is the creation of a distinctive community composed of a series of interconnected villages which are sensitively desIgned around open space,· and which appeal to a broad cross-SectIon of homel3uyers. The key to this community is to work with its outstanding physical beauty, and to "fit" that design into the local surroundings. To this end, we look forward t0 working with the City. community and surrounding property owners on issues such as: regional 'transportation and infrastructure regional open space systems and parks adequate schools "edge" or buffer conditions creation of residential villages, with sufficient densities, so as to balance achievement of the above. with the marketplace Gary, we look forward to applying the broad policies of the draft General Plan to the unique aspects of Temecula View Estates. Mr. Gary Thomhill. April 14, 1992 Page 2 Given the significance of this project, and the preliminary nature of both the General Plan and our project plans, perhaps we can schedule a workshop at which time Temecula View 'Estates can be carefully studied. We are anxious to solicit the views of the community, and to make our project a reality. Very truly yours, James K. Fergus · Vice President Res~0ential Development JKF/ar cc: Mr. David Dixon MPD MASTER P[,XN D'EVELOPMENTS February 4, 1993 RECEIVED FEB O 9 1993 Mr. Gary Thornhill Mr. John Meyer CITY OF TEMECULA 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 RE: Request for Draft General Plan Land Use Designation Gentlemen: Pursuant to our recent meetings and phone conversations, we have reconfirmed the underlying A.D. 161 method and rateof tax assessment regarding the 160 acres owned by Mr. Leo Roripaugh. As you know, these parcels lie within the City just south of the future Murrieta Hot Springs Road extension. We have reviewed m basis for tax with Mr. Paul Thompson, Senior Assessment Engineer for Riverside County and Webb Associates. After reviewing his records, Mr. Thompson confirmed by telephone yesterday that the spedal tax has bc,?n set and based on a three (3) units per acre calculation. Thus, the existing annual special tax which will remain fixed for the durmion of the 24 year Assessment Bond accounts for 480 residential units. Mr. Thompson stated that rather than answering our request for written verification, he will be happy to meet with the appropriate City offidais and the landowner, if need be, to confkTn this data. He stated this was how he handled past situations regarding this matter. It is our understanding that the City's Draft General Plan land use element incorporated recommendations that reflected underlying special tax conditions. We were not able to coordinate ~is issue with you and your staff at an earlier die, however, 'as a result of the continued efforts of your department, we have been able to rectify this situation. We appreciate every effort made by the City Planning Staff and hereby request that the City Council's upcoming review of the Land Use element be revised to incorporate the above. information. Thank you again for your cooperation. Please call if any questions arise related to this matter. Sincerely, MASTER PLAN DEVELOPMENTS Sanford Edward, President SE/cb I I(} Ncx~porl Center Drive. Suite 20(} · Newport Beach. CA 92660 · (714} 729-1500 · Fax (714) 499-2752 RANCON', ,~ REALTY FUNDS December 7, 1992 City of Temecula Planning Commission RE: Comments on the General Plan at the November 23, 1992 Meeting Dear Council Members: My name is David Crowder and I am in the employ of Rancon Financial at 27720 Jefferson Ave, who is the developer of a portion of the 800 acre Roripaugh Ranches property known more recently as Temecula View Estates located at the end of Nicolas Road at Butterfield Stage Road. 160 acres (the Panhandle) is located within the city and on the southerly border of the future extension of Murrieta Hot Springs Road. The balance of the project, 640 acres, is situated easterly of the future alignment of Butterfield Stage Road. That is the piece that is not within the city and the city has currently shown in its sphere of influence.. My concerns relative to the General Plan at this time' relate primarily to the issue of land use designations shown on our project on your current Preferred Land Use Plan. Over the past several months, we have presented the Temecula View Estates project to many, if not all, of the city's decision makers and met with a very favorable response from all, not withstanding a few minor comments. In light of the extremely low densities shown on the plan for our property, I feel it is necessary to go on record and request that the General Plan be changed to reflect the following: Provide for a variety of uses ranging from lot sizes of 4,000 s.f. to 2 acres and attached units ranging from duplexes up to 18 units per acre. Provide for the ability to provide community servicing commercial uses (Village Center concept.). Downsize, based on projected traffic volumes, Nicolas Road west of Butterfield Stage Road. Currently the General Plan Circulation element illustrates this as a four lane highway which connects to Calle Contento. Calle 27720 Jefferson Avenue Temecula, California 92590 f714~ 676-6664 Contento services very rural estate lots behind the vineyards. We would like to have the opportunity to provide emergency access to this area via an intract street or collector and turn Nicolas in to our project. The alignment of Murrieta Hot springs Road as it heads east past Butterfield Stage Road should stay sufficiently north of the northern boundary of Temecula View Estates so that the environmentally sensitive area in the northeastern portion of the site can be preserved. The General Plan should also give consideration to the environmentally sensitive area in the northeastern portion of the site as a regional resource. There should also be some consideration for providing a regional trail system of which Temecula View Estates can become an integral part. The staff recommendations summarized in the 'Parcel Specific Land Use Request Matrix' do not adequately describe these changes, although it does address the basic spirit of the changes by recommending approval of a change from 2 to 3 dwellings per acre. I would like to ask that the Commission adopt these changes, as I have outlined, when approving item #8 on the matrix. In all, we look forward to participating in the General Plan process with the City of Temecula and wish to thank each of you in advance for your consideration of our comments. Particularly in these economic times it is important to keep in mind the economic feasibility of the General Plan. We feel our development is fiscally sound and will make a great addition to this fine city. This concludes my comments this evening. David Crowder PLANCOMM.MTG April 23, 1992 DiZJ_JFUiIJ_J l-'i t)r'nK 1 ir-,D · Mr. John Meyer Planning Department CITY OF TEMECtFLA 43174 Business Park Drive Temecuia, CA 92590 GENERAL PLAN COMMENT SOUTH SIDE / HWY 79 SODlt~ & PALA ROAD Dear John: Bedford Development Company owns 83 acres at the above location. Plans are underway to relocate Pala Road further east, thus creating two separate properties.. A 12-15 acre portion of this land, fronting Hwy 79 South and Pala Road, would be suitable for highway service-type commercial development (for which there is already a demand). The balance of the property lies' within the flood plain. We would request that 15 acres of commercial/retail zoning be approved here. This would include.the Bedford holdings on both sides of the street to be created by the Pala Road realignment. Commercial/retail uses will benefit from the' traffic and exposure, while residential.(single or multi-family)'would suffer from the noise and congestion. Please let me know your =~ough'ts on =he above. Sincerely, BEDFORD PROPERTIES DEVELOPMENT COMPANY Gregory A. Erickson Area Manager GAE/dh Mailing Address P.O. Box 9016 Tc'merula. Calif~rn,., 92589-07.% 28765 Single Oak Drive Suite 200 Temecula, 92590 Telephone 714 676:~,41 Fac-emiic 714 67~ 3~R~ CO UN ,'RYS ID E, REALTY May 22~ 1992 John R. Meyer, AICP Senior Planner CITY OF TEMECULA 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 Re.' "Preferred General Plan" designation of Lots 1, 2 & 3 of PM 9036; AK~ Assessor Parcels 2, 3 & 4 of A.ssessor's Map Book 950, Page 10 Dear Mr. Meyer: The underSigned represents the.owners of the referenced.properties, Ladd and Margaret Penfold as to Lots 1 and 3 and Mr. and Mrs. Lyle Knodc as to Lot 2. Lots 1 and 3-were pro:chased by the Penfolds in anticipation of the use changes ultimately' adopted und~'r the SWAP efforts undertaken by the County of Riverside. Lot 2. on the other hand, was purchased by the Knodcs in the belief that they would retire there in the peaceful surroundings of the' countn'. The interesting consequence is that both panics are now unanimous' in their desire, alter seeing thc City's version of a land use element, to have their properties' incorporated into the prollCrcd plan as a commercial application. Wh;tt appears to bc counter to most land use elements wc have seen is that the City would choose to create what amounts to an 'island" of low-density residenual,-surrounded on three sides by van/ing degrees of commercial use. It would also appear to be the only residential fronting on Margarita Rnad. a major arterial corridor. planned for the entire City.. Or:; ;,cry:option is that thi.~ mav have been an oversioht If not. please let us know your position and ~ h:tt steps wc need to undertake to proceed with encoura~ng you to reconsider your position. I am It~t,km,~ l't~rward to working with you on this project. Sinccrcl)'. COUN'TRYSI DE REALTY Tom A. Lccvers CO.' Mr. and Mrs. Ladd Penfold Mr. and Mrs. Lyle Knode 28266 Front Street · Temecula. CA 92590 · (714) 676-2191 ELLZOTT UHRiCH CONSULTING ENGINEER 37161 VAN GAALE LANE MURRIETA, CALIFORNZA,.92395 (714) 696-0901 · lff TEMECULA September 16,1992 To:City of Temecula Planning Department 43174 Business Park Dr. Temecula, California, 92590 Attn.Mr. John Meyer Re: Draft Preferred Land Use Plan Parcels 1,2,& 3, Parcel Map 9036' Dear Mr. Meyer; I haQe been requested by the owners of the above parcels. to contact your department concerning the designation of their property as shown on the Draft Preferred Land Use Plan Dated May 6, 1992. The property in question is located north of Highway 79 South on the west side of Margarita Road between De Portola Road and Daraolo Road. The.assessor parcel numbers for these parcels are 950-100-004,005, & 006. The total net acreage of these parcels is 7.95 acres. The present designation of these parcels on the Draft Prefer.red Land Use Plan is Low Dense ( 2DU/Ac.) Residential (see attached Draft Preferred Land Use Plan). We strongly feel that the assigned designation for this property does not follow sound planning principles. The property would be surrounded on three sides by commercial development, Community Commercial to the east, Highway/Tourist Commercial --to the south, and Professional Office to the west. Circulation presently exist to support commercial development of this property. The property is bound on the east by Margrarita Road, a IIC foot arteT-ial highway, and on the South by Dantolo Road, a 78 foot industrial collector.and is situated 300 feet north of State Highway 79 Scuth. These parcels are not within the Los Rancintos Property Owners Associates and therefore are not governed by their C,C, & Rs. This would eliminate. the concerns voiced by the Associates after the recent rezoning of the property on the southeast corner of De Portola Road and Margarita Road. A Change of Zone Application and Plot Plan were recently prepared for the southerly portion of this prcpertV in accordance with the presently adopted Southwest Area Community Plan designation of Office/Commercial. The applications were rejecteC by the OlanninS Department because they were inconsistent with the proposed Draft Preferred Land Use Plan. We therefore request at this time that your department consider a revision of the present Low Density Residentlal designation of this property to a Commercial Designation on the Draft Preferred Land Use Plan, thus bring the property into a more consistent use with'the proposed surrounding designations and allowing the owners to proceed .ith the development of their property. Your consideration of this matter at this time would be greatly appreciated, If you have any questions concerning this matter please contact my office at 969-0901 or Mr. Ladd Penfold at 676-2081.  %lct ly Submitted Eliiott Uhrich ~une 5, 1992 City of Temecula Community Development Office 43172 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 To Whom It May Concern: Regarding the rezoningof the property.. by Bedford Properties on Pauba Road, east of Ynez Road, R-R - 20,000 sq. ft. minimum changed to R-1 - 7,200 subdivide 56.6 acres to 102 lots. Please be advised that we feel that it would not be in the best interest for the City of Temecula or the surrounding neighborhoods to allow a rezoning of the above property. Our city is experiencing a huge over growth and an economic r~cession. We have just come out of an acute w~.:er shortage, there art over crowded schools. The land in question, if crdwded with all these additional homes would present a drainage problem as well as a traffic problem! This is one of Temecula's finest residential areas_! Why would the City Development Office or the City Council members ~llow anyone to change this special area of the city. All of the people who surround this parcel of land-would be affected by this rezoning. We request that you be very concerned for the residences who now live in this area and who, in good faith, paid the price for this particular location. The type of zoning we now have would best maintain the quality of living that we all enjoy It is your obligation to see that this is maintained. We cannot believe you would want less' for the people who now reside here. Thank you, '- Address cc: G. Thornhill June 17, 1992 RECEIVFr3 JUN 2, 0 k,s'L .......... City of Temecula Community Development Office z3172 Business Park Drive Tem.--cul=, CA 92590 To Whom it--Hey Concern: Re~ardin:.-. th.- rszoni~S of the property by Bedford PropertY,= on Pauba Roe. d, east of Ync: Road, R-R-20,OOO sq. ft. minimum chsnS-ed to R-!-7, ZO0 subdivi,-'..e 56.6 acres =o 102 lots. F!:ase be .~viSed that we feel that it ~ould not. be i'n the best inter=st for the Ci+.y cf Tem.-cule or the surroundin~ nei~J:borhoods to ello~ e rezoninS of the a~ove property. Our city i= experiencin.T a huCe over-~rowth ~-nd an eccnc-_~_c recessmen. We have just come out of ~ acu+.e water s!:ortc. T~-. the. re sr-.~ ="~-r-cro~:de~ sol:eels. The lcnd in question, if cro:r:=ed ::ith :1! t'~e~e a~=:'~on:! hom?s, :.:ould present n dr,~ina~e Trob!~m ~s :~e!l ,-n e-iraffic '~;: cn~ of Temecul-' · ',ty would the City --- , s fin.st r~identi~l areas' DeveloTment Office or the City Council members want to change this special area of %he city. All of the ~eople who surroun~ this parcel of land would. be affeC=ed by this rezoning. We request that you be very concerned for the resident: who now live in this ar~a ~nd :the. in -rood faith,.iTid the price for this urrticular location. The ty;e of zoning ~re now have'would best meinurin th~ cuality of living that we all enjoy. ' It ~-c your oblijation to see that this is maintained. We cannot believe you would want less for the people who now reside here. Thann ycu. Job No. 168-072 June 17, 1992 Gary Thornhill John Meyer City of Temecuh Planning Dept. 43180 Business Park Dr. Temecula, CA 92390 P,E: PARKVIEW PROPERTY GF. NERAL PLAN DgSlGNATION Dear Gary and John: I am writing on behalf Of Bedford Properties regarding their 'Parkview propeny,-which is a 56.6- acre parcel located north of Pattin Road and west of Margarita Road. In reviewing the draft General Plan. "preferred land use plan' released by the City in early May, we noted that this property had been designated for Very-Low Residential (.5 du/ac maximum). For the reasons enumerated below, we feel that this designation is inappwpriate and would request that the City reconsider and redesignate the land use for the Parkview property. 1. PHYSICAL ORIENTATION AND CHARACTER From a physical orientation standpoint, the propeny lies on the southern edge of a valley which rims east/west between Rancho C. alifomia Road and Pauba Road. Pauba Road adjacent to Parkview is the southern boundary of. an area which 'has historically supported conventional residential development. This area has been developing over the last 25 years on both sides of Rancho Vista Road between Margarita Road and Ynez Road. The Parkview site orierfts northward toward this valley. With respect to general landform 'and topngraphic charaaeristi~, it is very similar to Lake Village on the West, AIm Vista to the northwest and Starlight Ridge to the north, all of which have developed at what would be a 'low' density on your current General Plan I..and Use Map. PREVIOUS GENERAL PLANS/SOUTH WEST AREA PLAN We recognizt that the City of Temecula is not necessarily bound m follow Riverside County's past planning designations, but from a hiswric stanopoint, it has always been anticipated that the Parkview site would be developed as part of the "Rancho Village' aria which was conceived as part of a 'Village Core' on the 1974 County General Plan. The Parkview property fell within the 'Medium Urban (3-I0 du/ac)' designation which extended southward to Pauba Road. After development had taken place north, east and west of the ~ Thon'~il John Meyer 17, 1992 Parkview site, the County'designated the Parkview site on the Southwest Area Plan in 1989 · as. 'Low Density Residential- 2~5 dulac'. 3. ADIACENT LAND USES AND DENsrrms Pursuant to the' 1974 General Plan and subsequen~y the Southwest Area Plan, adjacem properties have developed to the south, west, northwest and north at conventional residential densities utilizing the County's R-1 Zone. V~en the projects adjacent to the Parkview site (namely Starlight Ridge to the north, Alta Vista to the northwest, Lake Village to the west and an unnamed project south of Pauba Road adjacent to Parkview) were developed, the minimum housing pad criterion for all of these projects was 60xl00 or 6,000 sq. ft.. In addition, the Tcmccula Valley High School has been developed and conslxuction has begun on Paloma [:)el Sol, a rnaster-plarmed community with an overall density of 3.8 du/ac which places it in the "low* category as weLL It is obvious, therefore, that the Parkview site is surrounded .by examples of *conventionar' development that set the tone for the area. Based on our own land use studies and based on the Tentative. Tract No. 25320 which was prepared and submitted in mid-1989, we know that it is feasible and appropriate to plan and develop the Parkview site in a manner similar to the adjacent projects. For these reasons, we would respectfully request that the City change the General Plan Designation from Very Low to Low in order that the Parkview site might appropriately develop in a manner. consistent with adjacent development. We appreciate your time to consider our request. Certainly, if you have any questions or weuld like further information, please don't hesitate to contact us. Very truly yours, T&B PLANNING CONSULT~,NTS;INC; BR:undA:)O4 Atllch~qcnt xc: Csaba Ko .M-~.~Ti~R PLAX June 30, 1992 DE \'EL()PMENTS RECEIVED J U L O 2 1992 Mr. Gary ThornhiD Director of Planning CITY OF TEMECULA 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 RE: Request for Land Use Downzoning Dear Mr. Thornhill, On behalf of Mr. Leo Roripaugh and pursuant to our earlier phone conversations and meeting, we 'hereby formally request a downzoning for Planning Ama's 7, 8 and a portion of Area 9 in Specific Plan 149, located on the Northwest side of Nicolas Road, near W'mchester Road. The current land use designations as approval by Riverside County are as follows: Area 7 very High Residential 18.16 ac. 14.9 units/ac. Area 8 Office 8.79 ac. Area 9 Commercial 10.00 ac. '(Approximate ~rtm) As we djscussed, as soon as the Assessment District 161 has commenced construction of fie Santa Genrudas Flood Channel rnprovernent, we are prepared to formally submit a Land Use and Site Plan that will fezone the land to residential uses with al~proxirnately 9-10 unitslac~e density. Based on our meeting, we understand thks conceptual land use to be consistent with the current policies and goals of the City, and pending revew of a formal submittal, staff has indicated ~ the preferred land use designation should De R-3 · As you know. lhe t,ming of our submittal is contingent on the above referred A.D. 161 improvement, while concomnantly. the Assessment District i$ presently rec=icul~.jng the Sul3Olemental Assessment tax. We now find ourselves in a position where the tax assessment may be based on a land use designation that wdl not De ~n effect when the tax is ultimately ivied. Therefore, will you please consider rezoning the extslmg land use designat,on as part of your current draft General Plan and adol:Xion process? We look forward to continuing to work with you and staft in the coming months. Thank you for your cons,Oerat,on S~ncerely. MASTER PLAN DEVELOPMENTS i , ,j , Sanh~d/Edward. President SE/cb cc Mr Leo Rormpaugh ~'].-\STE!{ PL,.-x~ DE\'ELC)I'.~IE\T.,, October IS, 1992 Mr. John R. Meyer Semor Planner City of Temeeula 43 174 Businert Park Dr Temecula, CA 92590 RECEIVED 0 C T 2 0 1992 Ans'd ............ RE: l. and Use Modification for Tentative Tract 26252, Lot 12, 38.8 acres Dem' I~ Meyer, Thank you for taking the time to meet rewarding Mz Lm Roripaugh's property. Tentative Tract 26232. and the land use clownzonmg reqtmst we have before the City ofTrotunda. have enclosed two sketches that detail: 1. The cur~nt land use smtm of Trgt 26232,and 2. Theproposedlandusemv/sion. A.~ we da~ussed. Tract Map 26232 wiU ereate a remainder parcel. Lot 12. which consists of 38.g acres and has a current land ,,~e that include~ · nnell portion of Connmrcial acreage, Office act~ge. and approximately 19 act~ of H~h dcn.~ty rcssdennal. it should be noted that Lot 12 also includes Park acreage. Santa Gertrudis Creek acreage, and Nscnln..~ Road acreage: these small sK:Tmge~ remain the sense on boffi sketches, Thr land u.,~ request per the Temecula General Plan consists of basically downzonlng the entire I.~ 12 to High r~sdentsal. Th~s results m changing the 7 acre Commercial remnant and the 4.8 Office portion to residential. The curn:nt h,gh level of Assessment Dismet 161 taxes and thevery dow ·bsorlXion m the CommacidlOffice marketaretbelmmarYtza'vmsweal~mlkmg thisrequest. As we have discussed with Mr. C, aryThomhilland .v.ur~elt. we antsczpale working with the City-to develop single famii.v rmidentml lmxluct on these parcels. Thank y-u mr yore' coopent$on. Please call if you 'have any qtmstions. Smcerdy. %la,ler Plan Developments · // SE/cb Encict,~m~ CC: Mr. i. zo Ronpaugh OvOII ]:J,L{~3H:)NIN~ I Z .<. IMOCAL INC. c/o Morgan, Lewis and Bockius art. Mr. R. Fraser 801 South Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90017-3189 Tel.: (213)612-1086 Fax~ (213)612-2554 RECEIVED J UL 0 2 1992 June 25, 1992 RH/M1 City of Temecula 43174 Business Park Dr. Temecula, CA 92590 Attn: Mr. John R. Meyer, AICP Gentlemen: It was a Pleasure to have the opportunity to meet Mr. 3..R. Meyer and Mr. D. W. Hogan on the occasion of my recent vi~i~ to Temecula. We thank you for the friendly reception and appreciate very much receiving your information about the property developments in the City of'Temecula. As discussed with you, we are submitting to you information on two important topics: 1. As you may know, IMOCAL INC. is a California.corporation, having its headquarters in Los Angeles. It is the owner of three properties in your community, and we understand that you have now taken note of our correct mailing address= as identified above. ' · We are Particularly'interested to know how the City of Temecula is legally required to notify.non-resident property owners of land within the City of Temecula about any changes that may have an impact on their property. We are of the opinion that the City is required to notify already in a preliminary phase in time by registered mail a non-resident property owner to the latest known. mailing address. Your formal written answer to this question will be most appreciated. 2. IMOCAL's Property at Margarita Road is described as follows: "Parcel Map No. 20278 recorded in book 127, pages 35, 36 of parcel maps and a portion of lot 39 of tract no. 333~, recorded in book 54, pages 25 thru 30 inclusive, of maps, all records of Riverside County, State of California." IMOCAL INC., Los Angeles, CA 90017 - page - 2 - June 25, 1992 On the occasion of our recent visit to your offices, you provided us with a copy of a "Draft Preferred Land Use Plan" dated May 6, 1992, being part of the City of Temecula's General Plan Program. On this plan IMOCAL's property, as described above, was shown as "Low-Medium Density Housing - 6 units per acre". This is in conflict with the existing zoning of Imocal's property, the frontage portion of which is presently zoned "C-O - Commercial Office", and the rear portion of which is presently zoned "R-2 - Medium Density Housing - 12 to'15 units per acre". It is odr opinion that the-.following matters should be considered in .regard to the Preferred Land Use Plan as it relates to Imocal's property: a. The frontage portion of Imocal's property is presently zoned "C-O - Commercial Office", generally consi'stent with the zoning catagory'of "Professional Offices" used in the "Preferred Land Use Plan" for the property adjacent to Imocal's, along Margarita Road. b. The frontage portion of Imocal's property' should relate to, ~nd reflect, the proposed and existing zoning on the west side of Margarita Road, which is-"Commercial Offices". In this way, a consistent character can be developed along both sides of this new major boulevard. c. The proposal to have low density housing on all of Imocal's property fronting on the major commercial boUlevar~ of Margarita Road would be inconsistent, and would be harmful for 'the future prospective residents of such single family houses. It does not make for good -Planning to build single family houses in front of a high density commercial area, and also fronting onto a very busy traffic'arterial. Further, it would leave such a single family development surrounded, like a peninsula, by incompatible land uses, such as' commercial, offices, and high-density zoning. d. Such a re-zoning of Imocal's property may also be considered as unequal treatment, vis-a-vis neighbouring property owners, because their properties will be changed to, or will remain, higher zoned, even though these neighbouring properties are of equal character and equal location when compared to Imocal's property. ./. IMOCAL INC., Los Angeles, CA 90017 - page - 3 - June 25, 1992 e. The "Preferred Land Use Plan" shows a small Property immediately north of Imocal's property which has been classified as "Professional Offices". This small property is located.in the flood control plain that is adjacent to, and below, the northerly boundary'of Imocal's property. Retaining the existing "C-O - Commercial-Office- zoning (or its equivalent zoning) for the frontage of Imocal,s property would be consistent with the proposed "Professional Office" zoning of this small adjacent property. Please keep us regularly informed, to the above mentioned address, abo~t any developments of importance with regard to this property. Expecting your answers, we thank yo~ for your assistance. We are looking forward. to cooperating with the City of Temecula in a constructive way also in the future. Very truly yours, IMOCAL, INC. ~ I " R. Hilb (Secretary of Imocal Inc. JOHNSON + JOI-i:NSON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION 274,';0 Yncz R, md Suhe 200 Tem~cula. (.~ 92.q91 Septembe~ 15, 1992. (714) 676-1604 FAX (714) 699-3117 Mr. John Meyers City of Temecula · P.O'.Box 3000 Temecula, CA 92390 'RE: General Plan designation for A.P.N. 921-090-038 Dear Mr. Meyers, We are writing this letter on behalf of the property owners of the above mentioned property (Imocal Inc.), as a follow up to a June 25, 1992 letter you received from Mr. Milb outlining his concerns with the current designation-of "Low-Medium.Density Housing" for their property along Margarita Road. In addition to.the concerns with "Low to Medium. Density" fronting Margarita Road, please consider that CFD 88-12 has plans to locate an 1-15 Highway overpass that will connect with Margarita Road directly across from this property. For this reason we feel the property fronting Margarita Road will be better suited to a Commercial Office use and the remainder of the property behind the frontage area should be a medium residential density housing 12 to 15. units per acre, making it consistent with the .property. to the south. This .would create a zoning .pattern consistent with simiiar properties in the area and make a better transition from a major' circulation corridor to a lower residential.housing area. Please include this information in the General Plan process and contact us with any questions or comments you may have. Sincerely, JOHNSON + JOHNSON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION Dean K. Allen President cc: Mr. Ludger Kneer Charles C. May 29662 Amwood Way Temecula, Ca. 92591 676-8348 Mr. John Meyer Senior Planner City of Temecula 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula,Ca. 92590 RECEIVED eaPR I992 April 12,!992 Dear Mr. Meyer: I will not be able to attend in person the upcoming Town Hall Meeti~.~n April' 16,1992 There are some concerns I would like to ~'considered at this meeting. Firstly: The reference in The Draft Land Use Plan for Temecula states, "the protection of existing single family residential areas" and "Location of higher density residential near employment and commercial centers.,, Woodcrest Country Tract (228 single family detached homes) 'located east of Margarita-Road and north of Solana Way. is in very c~ose 'proximity to .areas that have been developed as an Auto Center, Manufacturing, and Retail Malls. How will the implementation of The Draft Land Use Plan serve to protect our homes from high density residential or commercial development. Secondly: The City's Mission Statement reference to: "io Dalance the utilization of open sPace,parks,trail facilities;" The five housing tracts, Woodcrest Country, Ranco Solano, verano, Rancho del Sol, and the northern sector of Costain's Signet have not been provided with playgrounds or parks. All parks in the City of Temecula are presently located south of Rancho California Road. We are taxed for parks and maintainance for same on our Tax Bill. There is not a park to serve the needs of our area. What does the General Plan contain to correct this inequity'. I will be "'grateful for your attention to these matters and will'also appreciate an answer,in writing, from your department regarding these concerns. Respectfully yours/ Charles C. May JUNE 30, 1992 RECEIVED O 7 1992 JOHN .MEYER SENIOR'PLANNER CITY OF TEMECULA 43.172 BUSINESS.PARK DRIVE TEMECULA, CA 92590 RE: LOT 6 OF TRACT 8211 APN 923-360-006 DEAR MR. MEYER: I AN THE OWNER OF THE ABOVE-DESCRIBED PROPERTY AND IT HAS CONE TO MY ATTENTION THAT THE CITY OF TEMECULA IS ABOUT TO CONSIDER THE ZONING FOR THE AREA IN WHICH NY PROPERTY ZS LOCATED, PLEASE BE ADVISED':THAT I FAVOR THE CURRENT COUNTY ZONING PURSUANT TO THE S.W.A,P, WHICH AS DEVELOPED, PERMITS.CONSTRUCTION OF A DWELLING PER ONE HALF ACRE OF 'LAND,. I FEEL THAT"THE. CZTY OF TEMECULA SHOULD ~DOPT A .PLAN WHICH IS COr~SZS;Ei~I WiTH THE PLAN ADOPTED BY THE COUNTY FOR THiS AREA. IT I5 MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THERE ARE OTHER PARCELS IN THIS ZOr~ING AREA WHICH HAVE ALREADY BEEN APPROVED FOR SUBDIVISION INTO ONE HALF ACRE LOTS. IT WOULD BE INCONSISTENT, AT THIS TIME, FOR THE CITY OF TEMECULA TO LIMIT THE AREA TO TWO ACRE RESIDENTIAL ZONING. Zr THE CITY INTENDS TO HOLD HEARINGS REGARDING THE ZONING OF THIS TRACT WOULD YOU KINDLY NOTIFY NE AT THE FOLLOWING ADDRESS: 2041 ELMWOOD DR, S. SALEM, OR 97306 SI~RELY, , . CC: KAREN GULLEY PLANNING CENTER 1300 DOVE ST., SUITE 100 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 ~ ~vF# 'F ®- J 't IlVWI#L SNiVel · r .3 \ t /~ ,/ JUly 6, 1992 Mr. Tim Setlet City Engineer CITY OF TEM~CUlat 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 RE: WESTERN CORRIDOR ALIGlqHENT Dear Tim: We have hired RBF to investigate the proposed Western Corridor alignment as well as .the RCFC Murrieta Creek alignment for our Margarita Canyon property at Hwy 79 South and Front Street. The NBS road alignment does not benefit our property and we will be providing our preferred alternative to you for review. We are also concerned with the proposed zoning for the propertyf The designation 'is presently shown as low density residential. It seems that commercial is much more in line with.a freeway offramp, freeway.frontage and a major transportation corridor which this property enjoys. In addition, low .density residential zoning would not have any benefits to the City. Funding for the Corridor may come from some sort of assessment district. There is a tremendous difference in both trip generation and land values which will affect this property's anility to'contribute to construction and the acquisition of the right of way. for the corridor. Please give me a call to discuss these matters. Sincerely, BEDFORD PROPERTIES DEVELOPMENT COMPANY G-jegory A. 'Erickson Area Manager GAEICJhllO17 co: Jon. Ce-rl~sen, RBF Batty 6urnel t, T & B Ptannin9 C~nsutT/n~s 8,tl 8utter, ,esa Homes RECEIVED Mr. Gary Thornhill Director of Planning City of Temecula 4133374 Business Park Ddve Temecula, CA 9.2590 101 Corral de TierraRd. Salinas,Ca 93908 July 8, 1992 O 9 ............ Dear Mr. Thornhill: I own a twenty acre parcel that I split over ten years ago into fouT' parcels: ,f914 300 051 through 054 parcels .1,2,3,4 PM 094/077 PM 10891. I plan to process a subdivision map with two dwelling units per acre. I believe that this would be consistent with the S.W.A.P. map. I heard from a property owner across Walcott Lane from my property who wants to process a map for half acre lots also. I think this would be an appropriate Q~nSity for my property given the type of jingle family subdivisions that have been approved to the south of my parcels 1-and 2,. (approximately one quarter acre lots). This property has always been an investment for me and I hope to keep the value up for future development. Half acre lots are much larger than much of what has been planned and built in Temecula and I think adequately preserves 'a rural character in the neighborhood..Compared to the density of the 80 acre subdivision to the south of my property, two dwelling units per acre seems reasonable. I have enclosed a copy of an area map- My property is between Walcott Lane and Butterfield Stage Road;' Karen Lynn Lane ~s the access road: Phone: (408) 4;84-2236 Sincerely, George T. Starcevich I,,.  .~ &, t ~~ ~' ';:-- 7' '.,'%," '~:V ,~ ...""": :. e ,,,.. _- .,I'..¢~ ~ At.*/! "" "' ""~ ..zf~, ,~ "'--""t: %;: LNID NEST REALTT P0 BOX 4S6 714-676-21)4~ TEHECIJLA. C,', LANDBANiC ..... THE LANDBANK COMPANY 41593 WINCHESTER ROAD. SUITE 101 TEMECULA. CALIFORNIA 92390 714/694-1111 FAX 714/694-1112 July 15, 1992 RECEIVED J U L f I; f992 Mr. Steve Jiannino Senior Planner Planning Department City of Temecuia 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 Dear Steve: Approximately five weeks ago, 'I conducted several telephone conversations and a sit down meeting with yourself regarding property I own in the City of Temecula. -This conversation focused on the City's current designation of 2 '1/2 acre minimum lot sizes (in the proposed General Plan) instead-of 1/2 acre zoning that currently exists in the area bordered by Pauba Road to the North, Margarita to the East, Santiago Road to the South and Ormsby Road to the West. In Our meeting you 'indicated that you had spoken to The Planning Center regarding this designation and had concluded that in light of already existing 1/2 acre lots and I acre lots that this designation had been an oversight on the Planning Center's part. Nevertheless, you also indicated that a change could not be made to correct this error prior to the Planning Commissions vote on the entire General plan. Ste~, =3 i detailed to you, X 'and my neighbors nave been personally involved' in retaining the 1/2 acre (RR Zoning) in this particular area through many public hearings as well as numerous S.W.A.P. meetings. Subsequent to that, I paid for and processed a 34 lot 1/2 acre Tentative Tract Map in this immediate area through the City of Temecula. Furthermore, I am paying a Park assessment fee on several properties in this area at a rate of $58 per possible residential unit through a formula already presuming my ability to build two residential units per acre. It seems ludicrous that the'City would contemplate reversing the zoning and existing development trend in this area. It appears even more unfounded to assess the proper~y through the C.S.D. at a rate based upon two units per acre but then only allow one home per 2 1/2 acre type development.' I strongly urge you to change this designation as soon as possible an hereby submit the following APN # 945 090 004 'APN # 945 090 005 APN # 945 08~ 010 APN # 945 090.007 Please forward this letter to the Planning Commission, the Board of Supervisors and The Planning Center for review. I look forward to your immediate response to this matter. Y/.u~e~ruly, \ '//d,~O ~~ ' '/ ~avld DP: ll~g c: %-p51%~T~t ex t.\ i · t t ers %20Poula%c i tyL t r A.J. TERI CH EN GINEERIN G CIVIL ENGINEERING · SURVEYING ° LAND PLANNING August 2i, 1992 John Heyer, Senior Planner City of Temecula 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, California 92590 RECEIVED b't, .......... Re: Draft Preferred Land.Use Plan APN 945-010-001, 003, 004 Tent. Tract 23513 (JN 2335-A) Dear John:_ For your information, we have obtained assessor's maps for the area South of Pauba Road, West of Margarita Road and North of Santiago Road to demonstrate that there is significant development of parcels which are less than the 2.0 acres .designated on the above referenced plan. We fee/that recognit2on be given to this development by re-designating the subject area to something between 0.5 acres and 1.0 acres with Eke final determination to be decided at the time of developmen: review. In the parnicular case of Tentative Tract 23513, this same battie was feught at the Board of Supervisors level with SWAP and the subject tract was approved by the County Planning Comm2ssion and by the Temecula City Council. The sub3ec= and surrounding properties have unique topography. The topography is suc.~ that in some cases 0.5 acre lots are appropr2ane while in other cases 2.5 acre lots are dpproprlaEe. 'The d~termination for the specific appropriateness should be at the ten:ative map stage. I~ ,a: MAI% .~TREET · TEMECULA. CA q25911 · f714} 676-5715 / {714l hT.-STlh · FAX (714t 67b-63|}~ We, therefore, respectfully request Chat the subject area be seriously considered for a 0.5 acre or 0.75 acre designation for =he proposed General Pi~u. Four consideration will be appreciated. Very truly yours, A.J. Terich Engineering Anthony J ~c AJT/sm Gary Thornhill, Planning Director Debbie Ubnoske, Senior Planner Craig Ruiz, Assistant Planner Kumar Sawh A.J. TERI CH EN G INEERIN G CIVIL ENGINEERING · SURVEYING · LAND PLANNING September 15, 1992 City of Temecula Planning Department 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, California 92590 RECEIVED SEP I 7 1992 Attention: Dear Gary: Gary Thornhill, Planning Director Re: Tentative Tre~.t 23513 (JN 2335 A) Enclosed herewith please find additional letters of support for the subject tentative. map which is currently up for an extension of time. ' In addition, it may be further construed that the subject adjacent property owners are in support of a designation on the proposed General Plan of 1 dwelling unit per gross acre. We have requested Craig Ruiz to delay the processingof the extension of time since staff has taken the position that maps for which extensions of time are being processed are conform to the proposed General Plan lnstead of the existing, adopted SWAP designations. However, we feel that because the map conforms'to the General Plan currently effective and because we are merely asking for an extension of time for a map which received its original approval from the City, that it ls appropriate for you to continue processing the extension of the tentative map in the rou:ine fashion that ordinarily would accompany such a requesn. If you concur with our view, we respectfully request that =he exnension of time move forward. 41~434 MAIN STREET * TEMECULA, CA 925cm * (714) 676-5715 / (714) h7h-5716 * FAX [714) 676-6306 However, if you have been directed by the City Council to judge projects with respect to conformance with the proposal, unofficial plan, adopted, we wish to keep our extension on hold while we work with the general plan process'to express our concerns. Very truly yours, A. J. TERICH ENGINEERING Anthony J. T h cc: City counCilmembers City Attorney Craig Ruiz Kumar Sawh August 4, 1992 Cjry of Temecuia P.O. Box 3000 Temecula Ca. 92590 Attn: City Council Re: Tentative Map 23513 Ladies & Gentleman: Please be advised that we have reviewed the subject tentative map and support its approval. As an owner of prope~t~ which is contiguous to the subject tentative map. we respectfully request you~ consideration of our support for this project. August 4, 1992 Cit.v of Temecu/a P.0. Box 3000 Temecula Ca. 92590 Attn: City Council Re: Tentative Map 23513 Ladies & Gentleman: P:ease be advised that we have reviewed the subject tentative man and support its approval. As an owner of property which is contiguous to the subject tentative map, we'Tespec~uiiy request .your consideration of our support for this project. A.J. TERICH ENGINEERING CIVIL ENGINEERING · SURVEYING · LAND PLANNING December 4 · 1992 RECEIVED City of Temecula Planning Department 43174 Buslness Park Drive Temecula, California 92590 DEO 07 C TY DJ: TEJ ECULA Re: General Plan - Group II Matrix #18 - (JN 2335 A) Tentative Tract.23513 Ladies and GenCiemen of the Planning Commission: Since our origlnal letters were sent to the City concerning the above reference Tract Map, Staff has reconsidered their position and will- now support the "Low" designation for the subject property. We support this position for the following reasons: The existing approved tentative map is sensitive to the topography. Cuts and fills are kept to a minimum and 44% of the site remains natural and undisturbed. While two lots are 1.0 acre gross, the remaining nine lots are larger so that the average is 1.31. The tentative map is a map that received its original approval from the Temecula City Council not Riverside County. We would appreciate your support designation on the SUbjeCt property. Very truly yours, for a "Low Density" A. J. TERICH ENGINEERING CC: John Meyer, Planning staff Kumar Sawh 41934 MAIN STREET · TEMECULA, CA 92590 · (714) 676-5715 / (714) 676-5716 · FAX (714) 676-6306 / TI IGON ENGINEERING,. INC. 7 CIVIl. E~INI~F. RIN~ ~ PLANNING [7 3~ $A~IAGO ROAD, T~EC~A, CA. 9 2 5 9 2 ( 7 14 ) 6 9 1~1 ~O~A ~ SA~A ANA, CA 92~3 · (714) 5~-3621 .AUgust 24, 1992 John R. Meyer City of Temecula Planning 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, Ca 92592 Department RECEIVED AUB'2 4 1992 CITY OF TEMECULA Re: Change the Exist. ZOning from very low to medium low. APN'945-060-010 Tract ~ 8211 Par 8. Dear John R. Meyer, This is in reference to the above APN 945-060-010, changing the existing zoning from very low density to medium low density, The County of Riverside recommends 2 D U./acre in our area-. ' Note Chat Parcel N0.1 and Parcel NO. 5 was approved for % acre subdivision by the City of Temecula .just recently. If you look at Parcel 1 by visual inspection and compare the terrain to ours, Parcel 1 is more mountainous in comparison and theres no reason why we can not get the same zoning as Parcel 1. We have a wide frontage at Santiago Road. I also suggest to inc}ude Parcels 4, Parcel 6 and Parcel ~ of the same tract which are adjacent to Parcel 5 for % , approved acre subdivision. Hoping for your kind consideration. If you have questions please call (714J 699-9108. ' SAIl I'I4GO · MARK H PROPERTIES October Mr. Gary Thornhill Director of Planning City of Temecula 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590' Dear Mr. Thornhill: Thank you for meeting with me and Cheryl Cunningham yesterday to discuss the annexation of our Vail Ranch Commercial property to the City of Temecula.: We are hoping that this annexation can be completed and will be a benefit to all the parties. I'n our meeting, I mentioned that we had another piece of .proPerty located on Ynez Road, north of Winchester that had had a zone change from IP to CPS completed last year. Your current zoning maps are still showing the property an IP. Enclosed please find copies of the Council minutes approving this Zone Change Number 5446 and a copy of Ordinance Number 90-15 regarding the zone change. Could you please have someone see that the zone change has in fact been completed, and reflect this information the next txme zoning maps are prepared? Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Enclosure thornhil.sr ,~74 KEARNY VILLA ROAD, SUITE 203 · SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92126 · (619) 695-I109 · FAX (619~ ~nc °.~q8 ORDINANCE NO. 90-15 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, ~ING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF SAIl CITY CONTAIN~-D IN CHANGE OF ZONE APPLICATION NO. 5446, CHANGING THE ZONE FROM I-P (INDUSTRIAL PARK) TO CPS (SCENIC HIGHWAY COMMerCIAL) ON PROPERTY .LOCATED ON 6.$1 ACRES AT THE WEST SIDE OF YNEZ ROAD, NORTH OF WINCHF. ST!~ ROAD. The City Council of the City of Temecula, State of California, does ordain as follows: SECTION 1. Public hearing have been held before the Riverside County Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Temecuh, State of California, pursuant to the Planning and Zoning law of the Stale of California, and the City Code of the City of Temecula. The applicable land use district as shown on the attached exhibit is hereby approved and ratified as part of the Official Land Use map for the City of Temecula as adopted by the City and as may be amended hereafter from time to time by the City Council of the City of Temecula, and' the City of Temecula Official Zoning Map is mended by placing in affect the zone or zones as described in Change of Zone No. $446' and in the above rifle, and as shown on zoning map attached hereto and incorporated herein. SECTION 2. Notice of Adoption. Within 15 days after the adoption hereof, the City Clerk of the City of Temecula shall certify to the adoption of this ordinance and cause it to be posted in at least three public places in the City. SECTION 3. Taking effect. This ordinance shall take effect 30 days after the date of its adoption. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 28th-day of Augusi, 1990. Ronald J. Parks, Mayor ATTF_.~T: June S. 6/reek, Deputy City Clerk [SEAL] 3 IOrd:90- ! 5 STATE OF CALIFORNIA) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE') CITY OF ~ ) SS · -,,, I ~fune S. Greek, Deputy City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing OrdinanCe No. 90-15 was duly introduced and placed upon its tint reading at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 14th day of August, 1990, and that thereafter, said Ordinance was duly adopted and passed at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 2gth day of August, 1990, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: 5 'COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS:' Greek, Deputy City Clerk AGwM~A 'ZZXBGOZA 23:'Z2' C'C)Ulia3:Z, '~BIIZOITZA co,NxTr/rz,rx', cml'zg. _geum: 3.4,,3.990 ?tO0 PM ';i'L'.e~f'I,;I . )lezt ~l.n Ordert Or,'~'!nz~nce: No. 90-15 Reno)t,t~on: No. 90-94 Invocation Flag'Salute' 'Pastor T. ~. HerGet Rancho Community Church ROLL Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, .Mu~oz, Parks PRESENTATIONS/ PROCLAMATIONS Proolamation - Red .October 21-28, 1990 Ribbon Week - Proclamation -. ~nergy Awareness Month - October. 1990. A total of 1S minutes iS provided so members of the public can address the Council on items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to two (2) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Council about an item 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 ~Rme m~a mddremm. For all other agenda Atsms a "Request To Speak,, form must be filed with the City Clerk ~e fore the Council gets to that item. There is a five (5) minute time limit for individual speakers. 22A~.:r~,na~ ot' r. One ' RECOmXTI ON: 21,1 Read by tttle only and introduce an ordinance entitled: ORDZIi),NCl NO. ]I]OILDlliNOI OF~CITYBOUNCTLOFTHECITyOF TEMEOUIa, ~Z~G THI OFFICIAL IONING MAP OF BAlD CITY ZN OI/ANQ~ OF ION~'APPLZCaTZON 2ONTAINED ZN Cll]~gE OY ZOnE APPLICATION NO, 5446t C~NGZNG ~HE BOt]E FDOll l-~ (XIiDDBTJIXILP32X) TO ~i (BQ~XO~IY CO~ERCI~L) PROP~TY L~TED ON 6,51 I~NB AT TH=~BT BIDE OF 22 A REBOLUTION OF T~CITYOOUNOIL OF'THE CITY OF TEMECULA REQARDING DEVELOPMENT kGIE~B 23 Flood Control Agreement for Mess Homes: Tracts 94131. 24132. 24133, 24334 and 24135..T.oc~ted North of Marqartta end East of Paba Road RECOMMENDATION: 23.1 23.2 23.3 Approve the Flood Control Agreement betroan Mesa Homes ~he Riverside County Flood Control District and the City of Temecula Approve 'the Memorandum of Understanding betveen Mesa'Homes and the City of Temecula Authorize the May&r to execute the same. l/~14M~ Consideration of wwtens~on of Ordinance 90-0'8, ~stab3ishinc a Norator~um on n.~.ll~^ar~s. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt an urgency ordinance entitled: ORD3::MMICIIIO. aN URGeNCy ORDZ]I:MIC] OF ~ CITY CO~C~ OF ~E CITY OF T~C~t ~~g l~~ 20~NG O~l~CE NO 90-08 P~T~NG TO ~TX~B FOR O~R ~V~TIBING DXBP~Y8 P~8~ ~ ~' PRO~BXON8 OF ~IFO~IA SO~~ SODS SS~I~ 25828{b) ~~ING FI~INGS IN A Zone Change for 6,51 acre site on the west side of Ynez Road at the terminus of County Center Road, from existing IP to CPS, ' RECOMMENDATION: 6.1 6.2 Adopt the negative Declaration for Environmental Assessment No. 33728. Approve change of Zone APplication No. 5446 7. ADDeal No, 1, - Plot P3an'No. 11607 APPeal'flied by Opto.22, of condition by the Riverside County Road Department to construct lane Improvements at Rancho California Road and Front Streets· RECOMMENDATION:. el Uphold the appellant, s appeal, . subject to the recommendations of the City Traffic Engineer, based Approve Plot Plan No. 11607, based on the analysis and findings contained in the County staff report, subject to the conditions of apprSval as revised in Appeal No. 1. Ct tv Co-nc~ 1 Mt n-tes It was moved by Councilmember Birdsall, seconded by Councilmember Mufioz to adopt an urgency ordinance entitled: ORDIID~CZ-~Oo 90-09 ~N URG~CY ORDINAtTCE OF TE2 CITY COUNCIL OF TIIE CITY OF TEMECUTA, EXTENDING INTBRIM SONING ORDINANCE NO. 90-08 PERTAININg TO aEgULATIONB FOR OUTDOOR ADVERTISING DIS~IaYB. PURSUANT TO TR~ PROVIBIONB 'OF CALIFORNIA .gOVEKNHENT CODB SECTION 658Sa(B) AND MAKINg FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THERZOF The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 5 COUNCIIREMBERS: '~ Birdsall, Lindsmarts, .. Moore, Mufioz, Parks NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS~ None ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: 4 Chmn~e O.~ ~o~e No. i5446 = None ~ayor Parks opened the public hearing at 7:55 PM. Ross Gellet stated this is a zone change for a 6.51 acre site o, the west side of Ynez Road at the terminus of County Center Road, from existing IP to CPS. He recommended adopting the negative Declaration for Environmental Assessment No. 33'~2S and approval of change of Zone Change .Application No. 5446. Councilmember Mu~oz asked the reason 'for the requested zone change and what the possible impacts would be. Ross Gellet stated this was approved by the CoUnty some time ago and consists of two parcels, one of which has an industrial building on it. He said the probable cause for the change of zone request is that the existing building was vacant for over a year· He advised that Mr. Larry Markum was available to answer questions regarding this request. Larr7 Markum, 'Markum and Associate~, stated utilities are 'already installed, and this is an active plot-plan. }Is said the building vacancy illustrates commercial usage is more appropriate for this area. CouncJ. lmember Mu~oz asked what type of tenants would likely be housed in this building. Mr. Markum responded there wou].d be some offices and some show room commercial. He said when the N | r~jt es%6%5%90 0811&190 City Council Minutes J-he 5. ~990 parcel map was approved.it was originally zoned commercial and later changed to IP. CoUncilmember Mufioz asked if this would impact the scenic nature of the area. i Mr...Narkum said the building would have more glass and significa~tly more landscaping as a commercial .rather than an industrial building. He stated the restrictions as far as signage are covered in an agreement with the builder and are more stringent than those in the Scenic Highway regulations. A letter from Steve Silla, 28765 Single Oak Drive, representing Bedford Properties, in opposition to the zone change, was presented to the City Clerk. Councilmember Lindemans said the IP designation provides for many business uses. He expressed his concern with traffic problems generated by a full retail operation. Mr. Markum stated' the original zoning was commercial and 'street widths. were.designed 'in accordance with that zoning. He stated he felt traffic would not be adversely impacted. Councilmember Mu~oz asked is the City Council could get assurance that this would not be full retail. Mr.-Markum said Councilmember Mufioz said with the assurance of staff that the . Council can look at the type of usage, he is in favor of this- zone change. Counc{lmember BirdSall asked if this.woUld go through the new Planning. Commission. City Manager Aleshire explained the reason this is before the Council is the City did not have a Planning CommiSsion at the time it was received by the City. }ie said in the future plot plans will not come before the City Council unless there As an appeal. Mr. Aleshire saida letter of explanation would be forthcoming. Mayor Parks asked how the procedure will change as a result of having a Planning Commission. He asked if the City of Temecula Planning Commission would act in the same manner as the Riverside Planning Commission having final approval authority for plot plans. ' Councilmember Mufioz expressed his desire to continue to give final approval to plot plans, especially for the next couple of months. llirutes\6\S%90 I)8/1&/90 C{tv Council M~nutes June 5. 1990 Councilmember Birdsall. suggested. directing staff to have the City Council review all Planning Commission decisions for the next six months. It was -moved -by Councilmember Birdsall, Councilmember Mu~oz to approve Zone Change No. the negative Declaration for Environmental 33728. seconded by 5446 and adopt Assessment No. The' motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Parks Moore, Mu~oz, NOES: i COUNCILMEMBERS: Lindemans % ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None RECESS Mayor Parks called a recess at 8:20 PM. The meeting was reconvened at 8:35 PM. Mayor Parks stated Item No. 9 was scheduled for 8:00 PM and would be heard at this time. RJncho California Water District and Eastern'Municipal Water District Presentations John Henniger, General Manager of Rancho California Water District gave a presentation to the City Council. He stated the new Santa Rosa Reclaimed Water 'Treatment Plant is being built and he invited the City Council tO tour this facility. He also outlined the two basic water conversation programs that are in place. He said Donna Powers, concentrating on Urban water needs, is the Water Education Speciaiist. Mr. Henniger stated Rancho Water has visited all four elementary schools and both middle schools. He reported this is a very effective educational program.. He said Don Peck oversees the agricultural water conservation program and great gains have been made through irrigation efficiency and education of growers. Also available through Rancho California Water District, are brochures on drought resistent landscaping listing over 200 varieties of plants and water saver kits '(shower heads, attachments for toilets). Mr. Henniger asked the City's help in disseminating this information. 14 i nutes.~6\S \90 -7- 0811&190 ansOortatlon Commission to Prenare the Count"v ~onnestlon Mxn~gement Program Temecula ~n the Riverside County Transportation Commission, . .:====================== -. :~he Ci Mana er · . ' ' ~ .~ .'~ 'v ~' .~ '~,~1....1 ~.; .. '.. - · CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE OFFIC~ ZONING MAP OF ~ID CI~ CONTAINED IN CHANG~ OF ZONE APPU~ON NO, ~6, CHANGING ~E ZONE FROM I-P flNDU$~IAL PAR~ TO CP$ (SCENIC HIGHWAY COMMEECIA~I ON PROP~R~ LO~D ON &5~ ACRES A T THE WEST SIDE OF YNEZ ROAD, NOR~ OF WINCHE$~R ROAD, ~ ... ,' "~', ": .. ;.::., ' ~'L";~' .~'t . .'j,~..;.;': ..- .-. · , .. '....,,',.~.~ -':'.' :'.~; ,~- CALL TO ORDER: ROLL CALL:. · A nFNDA -', TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL A .REGULAR MEETING .' TEMECULA COMMUNITY CENTER AUGUST, 28,.:. 1990 .-.- 7:00 PM . , MARKHAM & ASSOC/ATE$ TEMECULA. CA 923.9(L:~,_. Next In Order: · rtrfqnAnce: No. 90-16 Resol-tton: No, 90-98 Invocation: . . Pastor Tim Rite;. · "'.'.'.'-" .'~:7;i:~:!.:¢,.enc.~.' Christi.a. chbrch · · "'- ,,- .,, Flag S;tlu~e:; Councilmember' Moo~il' LindemanS,;'~oor.; Mu~oz, Parks ...' PRESENTATIONS/ .' - PROCLAMATIONS PUBLIC COMMENTS . A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address the Council on items that are not listed on the Agenda, Speakers: are limited to two (2) minutes each, If you desire to speak to the Council about an item not listed on the Agenda, a pink "Request To Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the City Clerk, Xll 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 City Council request specific Items be removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action, 2#i~eeille&,ll31~ August 26, 1992 Mr. John Meyer · The City of Temecula' Plannin~ Depar~nent 4317~ Business Park Drive Temecula, CA '92590. Dear Mr. Me.vet: RECEIVED I hope to attend the August 3I, 1992, meetln~ and have atEended some of the other meetings. M.v concern has been dralna~e mostly, alonz with other Infrastructure concerns. There are two areas I would like to address and have my input on record: '1. There are to date many homes of all sizes, shanes to choose from some with small lots and some with larEe ones. What I mn not seeln~ is the 1/2 to I acre tYPe lots on flat useable land, under develonment in the Clty of 'Temecula. There are plenty of 2 1/2, 5, 10, 20 acre lots, but no family tvve larZe residential ranch-"tract tvve" lons to choose from. I feel 'there must be a nreservation of'the ooen, room~, ranch =vve life Style for =he weekead cowboy and/or country family wlthout.havln~ to take on the maintenance and uD keen of a 2 1/2 to 1~ acre place. The Plannin~ Department consideration would be to our communitv's benefit. 2. Over the vast 3 years, I have lived at 31625 DePortola Road. Inadeouate drainaee has damazed my nronerty and made much of it unuseable. I am two lots west of MariaflEa and ~ust north of Hiehwav 79, where I am sure the City and your Deoartment is very aware of the floodin~ onto Drivate home sites and out to Hiehoar 79. Adiacent to-the above and a contributin~ factor in the poor drainage layout is the culvert constructed under Sparkman Elementary School,-which drains between 2~ to 6On acres of Paloraar De1 ~ol Develooment water waste. Some o~ .which I ouestion the hurley of. I am the last oronertv doom stream and receive water {low dally since the completion of their zradin~. There nn doubt needs to be modifications to address this dev~lopin~ vroblem. I realize often a solution is found (like a Storm drain down MariaflEa pickin~ un all of Palomar Del Sol and adiacent water waste and ~oin~ under Hiuhway 79 and on throu[h to Temecula Creek.) then fundinz such a nroiect is the next hurtle. I am addressJoe the tenera1 Plan because I feel that if we are lookin[ into the next 10 to 20 years that the lots Page 2 August 26, 1992 Mr. John Meyer from'my house =o =he corner of MarKari=a and south =o Highway 79 should 'all be zoned commercial property. Thus givin~ the City the means of ne2otiating and mandatin~ development expeni=ures and added fundin~ for those badly needed and corrective'measures. I also feel with the high impact of residential development adjacent to this area that this would be of benefit to the community and tax pa.vers on the south west side and soon =o be annaxed eas~ ward-area. Your consideration and response would be appreciated. Sincereiv, Don L. Rhodes 31625 DePortola Road Temecula, CA 92592 (71~)A99-7539 September 15, 1992 RECEIVED O Cl 1 City Council .City of Temecula 43173 Business Park Drive Temecula, California 92590 Re: Proposed General Plan Designation (JN 2631 ) Dear co un ci linetubers : The purpose of this letter is to express my support for the proposed designation of Lot 24 of ~ract 3752 at the northeast corner of the intersection of Margarita Road and DePortola Road. With Margarita Road soon to become a major thoroughfare and. the proposed commercial designations adjacent to the property, the ~eighborhood commercial is appropriate. The residential use ~s no longer desirable since the property has become an isolated "island" separate from the remainder of the parent tract. Your consideration in preserving the proposed designation will be appreciated. Very truly yours, Iris Abernathy, Owner of subject property cc: Temecula Planning Commission Gary Thornhill, Planning Director John Meyer, .Senior Planner · August 31, 1992 Mr. aohn Meyer The City of Temecula Planning Department 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 Dear-Mr. Meyer, · This letter is in response to your request 'for comments on'~he Temecula Draft General Plan. I live in ~he Hidden Hills area of the city. The Draft General Plan shows a large part of this area classified as very low density residential (.2-.4 Du/Ac). I would favor a more flexible classification such as a low density residential {.2-2 Du/Ac]. There are many reasons why I think that this would be more appropriate. When I purchased my home, I had hoped that the area would develop along the lines of the adjacent Meadowview area. This area has a similar topography and has also been classified as very low density. Lot sizes are limited to one half acre and vary in size from the minimum to nearly ten acres. The Meadowview area has developed into a highly prized neighborhood of custom homes. Some of the lots are full~ landscaped, o~hers have corrals and space for horses, while .others are left mostly natural. The result is a pleasing degree of variety. with a low density designation, it is likely ~hat the Hidden. Hills area would develop along similar lines. With the very low density cl&ssification, Hidden ~ills is likely to take much longer to develop since the cost of purchasing 2.5 acres would require the building of very expensive homes. Much of the land would need =o be left in itsoriginal state since it is. not feasible to landscape such a large lo=. In the meantime, the area would be covered with mobile homes, many of which.are totally inappropriate for such a luxury residential area. Another reason that the very 'low density classification does not seem appropriate is that Hidden Hills is', after all, in the city and is not really suinable for agricultural purposes. Not only are agricultural operations not feasible, but in many cases are prohibited by CCRs. Many of the homeowners would ~herefore be permanently bounded by acres of weeds which I am sure the city would no~ find esthetically pleasing. The slowed development that is likely to result from the ver~ low densi=~ classification would suppress land values and result in a lowered tax base for the clty. It is also likely that pressure would develop for land uses that are not consistent with a residential area. We have already seen this occur on Leifer Road where a resident faces the potential of having churches built on e~=her side of him. Finally, there is the current zoning that has created tracts of houses between Meadowview and Hidden Hills with lots as small as 7000 square feet. To immediately jump from medium density to 2.5 acre lots does not make sense. I maintain that there should be a transition from mea~um density to low density in the Hidden Hills area with the zoning for each parcel in line with its topography and access. The result ing development would both enhance city and please its residents. 39910 aeffrey Hts. Rd. 1 September 1992 Ms. Patricia Birdsall Mayor City of Temecula 43175 Business Park Drive Temecula,CA 92390 Dear Mayor Birdsall: Enclosed is a copy of comments on the Draft. General Plan that I submitted to John Meyer after seeing an article in the Californian. I artended the Town Hall meeting on August 31st with the expectation that comments from the audience would be used to help finalize the plan. While the meeting was informative, Mr. Thomhill did not seem very receptive to comments that would lead to changes in the plan. His attitude was more Hke: here it i3. Commission and City Council. A number of people raised serious concems about General Plan that were treated like this. I did not see staff noting these concems and was left with the impression that they were basically unreceptive to any further changes. Several people addressed my concerns about the very low density residential classification. It appears that since the writers of the Draft General Plan could not control residential development in the many Specific Plans that have been approved. they want to stop it entirely in other areas by imposin lots with a minimum of 2.5 acres. ' recommended even in areas already zoned for half acre lots. This objective to This was s~op all residential development in the rural areas not covered by specific plans is clearly shown in Table 2~4 where no change in the number of dwelling units is expected under the General Plan. As I havc outlined in mv letter to Mr. Meyer. this rigid 2..5 acres per dwelling units does not make sense and will not contribute to the aesthetic beauty of the City. I urge you to seriously consider the impact of the very low density land use classification in your' mcclin~s ,,vilh the Planning Commission. Sincerely. D.':nni.{. Fit: H ~ }lTIt'l 39010 Jc!lrev Heights Rd. 23 November 1992 Mr. John Meyer · The City of Temecula Planning Department · 43 t74 Business Park Drive Temecuia, CA 92590 RECEIVED Dear' Mr. Meyer: During the process of preparing a General Plan for Temecula, your department has asked for comments from-concerned citizens. I and several other land owners in the Hidden Hi!Is area have raised a concern about the rJ~c. inn~riOn of i-nr. ar~a for very low density housing. Whil" our r~qu=s~ to change tne iand use from very low to low denslr. y hOUSing. has not received staff 5uDPoFt i.understand that the area is now in a special study area. After- addendina the last two public hearings on the general plan I noticed that my request appeared in the "Requests Matrix" as number 23. Actually, I · own two aJoining p~-l= -c. i4-480-010 and Q14-480-01¢ If pOSSible, I WOUld like these numbers to be reflected in any updated lists. I also have a few additional thoughts that I would to add. Hidden Hills and tile nelghbo!'~ng Meadowview area share the same PFOpOSed v ""y 'Ow dens .... ~ . , ,. . ~, ~ itv land use deslonation and similar tosocraonv of rolliris hills. The two areas have deveioped quite differently. bleadowview consists primarily of residences with lots typically one half acre in size and a com;,'qor, area "oper, space" ~' of ~, hundreds acres while Hidden Hills lots are typically five acres, many of which are vacant or currently occupied by moble homes. Including the open space in Meadowview, and average lot rx would contain app o imately 1 I/4 acres. Imposing a 2.5 acre minimum lot size will have virtua!ly no affect on Meadowview since the land has already been subdivided. (generally into much smaller lots). On the other hand, Hidden Hills parcels would most ilkely be further subdivided into 2.5 acre lots since no provision has been made to provide a common open space during its development. I cannot see how single residences on 2.5 acres can be compared to open space since it it quite clear that it would be private property, unavailable for hiking, horseback riding or other activities. it is very expensive ~o properly lanascape and maintain Iol:s of this size. "· ......':,' the ;=-r':-'-, ,.-- best. oescrlbed by an area of moDi!e i~omes surroun,.'.~ed ~.,J~ ~ ,,",;I/,i.~ ,,. ,.~ ~ ....,..~.;,~,_- .'r~-.~.-~r,.~ ~.; r-,- .""r'~'.~f.ql, d~Se!".ve c,e. EEer. ~,¥ - ...... ~,::.=.r~.~.:.~:....,...;.. ,,,.,v .~, ' ' - Reducing the land'use designatIOn 'i;o low density will result In smaller lots that are based on topography as'in Meadowview: Indeed, the very low '- designation does nOt fit Meadowview since including the open space the lots' · would average slightly over one acre. The smaller Iots would spur the development of custom homes such as those in Meadowview. It is feasible to maintain landscaping on lots of this size.. Confined to 2.5 acre minimum lot size the area will develop only slowly. I and several other homeowners do not want our neighborhood to remain an area of weed-fi l led lots occupied by mobile homes. I ask the planning staff how they expect this area to develop and why the very low designation is desireable. I believe we need flexlble land use based on topography. Lots could vary from half to two acres with an average of about one acre as in Meadowview. We should also investiclate the possibility of developing an open space. The area in the flood plain ~f the Gertrudis cree'k is certainly one possibility since extensive flood control would be necessary to develop residences on even 2.5 acre lots. Finally, many of the lots In the Hidden Hills area are owned by non- residents, most of which have been totally left out of the General Plan development process since they generally do not read local papers. I think thai~ they should be notified of this proposed land use designation since they deserve to be involved with a procedure that may result in a lasting change that will affect their future~ I look forward_.to the next public meeting on the General Plan. Sincerely yours, Dennis Fitz 39910 ,Jeffrey Heights Road Temecula, CA 92591 AGANA. GUAM 96910 TEL. (671) 646-7132 FAX f671 ) 646-6307' TELEX 6160 BrX)TH GM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION NJP/072 SepCember 4, 1992 Subject: Public Hearing Monday/8-31-92 Temecula Town Hall and Plan to Re-zone the General Plan. To: The Honorable: Pacricia H. Birdsall, Mayor Ronald J. Parks, Former Mayor Karel R. Llndeman's, Council Member Peg Moore, Council Hembet J. Sal Hunoz, Council Hembet David F. Dixon, City Manager ReferenCe: 1. Fax: (714) 694-1999 Hessage from Dan and Denese Naron, 43350 Fermin Place Temecula, CA 92592, ~ha~ =he subJec~ Public Hearing and meeting had been held. 2. Representing Land Ownership Below China Sea Developmen= Corporation P. O. Box 3093 ASana, GU 96910 Tel: (671) 646-7132/1681 Fax: (671) 646-630~ THE INVESTOR Cost Codd Description of Land. 904 905 907 906 APN #945-080-01Q P/H #13889 Via E1 Delora, and Ornsby Road/Sancia~o Road APN ~945-080-007-1 Parcel #1 of: " " " 008-2 Parcel #2 of: " " " 012-5 Parcel #4 of: " " " 013-6 Parcel #3 of: i.25 acres 1.35 acres. 1.12 acres 0.84 acres 4.56 acres 801 Santiago Estates Corporation 6363 E. Via krboles knahetm Hills, CA 92807 Tel: (714) 921-9721 Fax: APN #945-100-005 P/M 6607, Parcel 10, of: P/H 8804 Parcels 1 & 2 of: Located be=ween San=iago Road and Pauba Road (714) 998-3622 20.50 acres 11.5 acres 32.0 acres RECEIVED "" SEP I 6 Anti ............ NJP/072 September 4, 1992 Page 2 802 903 Escero Street ABN t945-080-010. P/M 16705 parcel #3 of: TPM 25538 by Mike Benesh (1/2 acre) with '3650 SF Custom Home ac 30565 Escero StreeT, Tamerule TPM 25538 (1/2 acre) 1.43 acres 804 805 APN 19~5-080-010 P/M 16705 Parcel #1 of:' TPM 24633 by Mike Benesh (1/2 acre) wlch 3700 SF Custom Home mT 30540 Escero StreeT, Temecula TPM 24633 Escero STreet, Tessrule (1/2 acre) 1.43 acres Owned by Dr. Chins Lee 901 902 ' APN #945-080-010' P/M 16705'Parcel t4 of: TPM 25607 By Mike Benesh (1/2 acre) TPM 25607 " " " " was disapproved by the City 1.43 acres ApproximaTely 40.85 acres Dear Madam Mayor & Council Members: I= has been brought co my attention 'chat the draft of'the General Plan as now recommended is to re-zone the 'present loc size from two lots per acre to lot size of two acres per lot. I object co thls re-zoning Co larger size lots for the following reasons and I hope char The Mayor and the City Council in chair collective wisdom shall see fit Co agree and ChaC my objections be registered ac the next Public Hearing, namely: Adjacent to our: APN #945-100-005 P/M 6607 Parcel 10 of 20.5 acres and P/H 8804 parcels I & 2 of 11.5 acres = 32 acres, there are' two lots: one.Dr 20 acres with approved tentative map of 1/2 acre lots and another of ll-I acre approved lots, owned by: David Pearson - 1/2 acre lore x 20 acres Komar Sawh - 1 acre lots x 13 acres NJP/072 September 4, 1992 Page 3 We and other land owners have been workinZ. on an Assessment District to up-grade and improve Santiago, Ornsby and John Warner Roads, Chat are a liability because of their poor unsafe coMiCion, plus Santiago Road is planned plus needed as a main traffic .artery to Interstate-15. The draft General Plan to increase lot size is reducing the City and County's tax base and ability co up-grade and better Santiago roads and drainage. It will, if approved, retard growth and development of the infrastructure in the Chappetal. 4.._.Good City Management, I know will prevail in this recesslonary period and it is reasonable for the City, State and Federal Goverrunents to do everything possible co stimulate the housing. industry.and revive employment in the construction and real estate business, in Temecula and for the people of Temecula. Increasing =he lot sizes will have the opposite effect killing economic recovery and the up-grading and betterment of the infrastructure and drainage on Santiago roads and hurts business a~d the people of Temecula. Our family is a good example, SinCe 1988, we have invested 2,000,000 in Temecul'a, and our family plan is to build approximately 60 executive homes in the $500,000 class on 1/2 acre lots, in the Chappa~l area. This plan is still in place, providing we can maintain the two homes per acre zoning approval. We plan =o re-commence building step by step, in 199~, and this means an infusion of 60 x ~00,000 or ~30,000,000 into Temecula's economy from 1994 to the year 2000. This means with these entl~lements the Santiago roads and infrastructure receives subsnan=ial financial help from our continued investmenc in Temecula. Half acre'lots are a substantial piece of property and in some cases more than a home owner usually wants to take care of. In all events, a custom developed half acre lot certainly is not the usual tract concept and custom developed 1/2 acre estates, similar, bur better than ~eadow View Estates, located in Chapparal will enhance the City of Temecula and provide work and business for the people of Temecula. Finally, if the new General Plan re-zones our land in the Chapparal to two acres per lot, then our ~0,000,000 investm~nc is no longer viable and our land shall sic idle inhabited by the occasional K-Rat, deeded to our heirs, all of which shall not benefit the C~y oi Temecula. With best wishes and as I have stated, I feel sure Chat the Mayor and City Council in its wisdom and planning for the betterment of the City's economic NJP/072 'September 4, 1992 Page 4 fu ~ wi11.aSree with me, and N. 3. Paine ~~ NJP/Jbp co: Mr. John Meyer Plannin8 Officer City of Temecula Bob Righecri Allan Marshall Chris Winchak Debbie Ubnoske CraiE D. Ruiz Bobby & Judy Dan & Denese Naron David & Elizibeth Pearson Tony Terich Mike Benesh MBj/706 NJP/218 RECEIVED NJP/262 February 24, 1993 HAR 0 3 1993 .... Mr. Tim D. Setlet Director of Public Works/City Engineer City of Temecula ~'DE~I4~T~CORpORATION Rt~[DeNT U.S. RiP. OPRCB: OUAM OFFICE: NJ. ~ PD, BOX :X)93 'IM: ('/14) ~ k Td. (t?l) 646-1111 '~tm: tlIO I(XiI'H OM Fax: (909) 694-1999 ' At t ant i on: 1. Mr. John Meyer, Special Projects Officer for General Plan 2, Ms. Debbie Ubnoske, Senior Planner 3. Mr, Robert Righetti, Senior Project Manager of Public Works 4. Mr. Jack L. Hodson, Senior Public Works Inspector 5. Mr. Lou Hachnuen, Code Enforcement Officer 6, Mr, Chris Winchak, Plan Check Officer 7. Mathew Fagan, Assistant Planning Officer Subject: Your/2-10-93 letter and questionnaire on Proposed Road Construction received on Guam/2-23-93 Dear Mr, Setlet, Ladies and Gentlemen: Our representatives ~n Temecula are: Larry Markham 676-6672 Michael L. Benesh (619) 728-6938 Planning Consultant Engineer of Record Dan & Denese Naron .676-6382 Our Permanent Representat. lye Jim Paine 699-0032 OUr Personal Representative At your option, please contact any and/or all of the above, representatives. Providing we retain our present zoning of two homes per acre in the "Restricted Chaparral Planning Area" North of Santiago Road, we are prepared to cooperate and support an Assessment District, 100%. The reasoning is the same as your good self, we want all of Ornsby Road, and all of Santiago Roads up-graded with proper drainage and all weather capability, come rain or shine. We reason, if we retain the current two homes per acre zoning, of which, 80% of the land is now zoned and sub-divided, for medium density, in the Restricted Chaparral Planning Area, North of Santiago Road, we shall be able to afford the Proposed.Assessment District and we can afford to supDort.,'it 100~. Our sub-divided lots from Santiago Road North to Estero Street bordering Ornsby Road on the West, are now 1/2 acre to 1.25 acre in size. We are perhaps the only and owners who have invested $80 - 1OO,000 in drainage and road betterment at Estero Street and Ornsby Road· Even so, we still have erosion and drainage problems. Many of the City Officers listed above have knowledge of this and have been helpful, know of our great efforts and expense to up-grade the Restricted Planning Area North of Santiago Road. Our interest and offer to participate takes into consideration all of the Chaparral Restricted Planning Area North of Santiago Road, from the San Diego Viaduct in the E~7'to Ornsby Road on the West heading to Y.nez Road. ~'~ The Restricted Chaparra] P]anning Area North of Santiago Road, is currently medium density or sometimes cal~ed low density, of two homes per acre. Whereas, the zoning and homes South of Santiago Road are genera~3y zoned 2.5 acres per home and much ]arger in size. We see Santiago ROad as the natural division, a~ready in place, that protects all 3and and. home owners ]eading from Winsor Crest, high density of 1/4 acre 3ots, to 1/2 and one acre ~ots buffering and Orotecting Santiago Ranchos and./.os Ranchitos, with Santiago Road acting as the protective and natura] buffer. Therefore, we describe this area as the Restricted Chaparral P}anning Area North of Santiago Road. With I~est wishes, we remain appreciative of your efforts and we Sincerely, N .. J. Pal ne NJP/jbD cc: As st at ed enclosures: Proposed Road Construction Questionnaire / 7. MARKItAM & ASSOCIATES Development Consullares -September 8, 1992 John Meyer Senior Planner City of Temecula 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 RECEIVED SEP ! I 1992 .......... RE: Temecula General Plan Draft Preferred Land Use Plan (Tentative Parcel Map 26845, Change of Zone 14) Dear Mr. Meyer: I am writing this letter to address my concern with the City.'s. Draft General-Plan designation for the above parcel. It is currently designated as "Very Low Density" '(.5 DU per acre). The above map and change of zone was approved at City Council September. 10, 1991. .The gross acreage is'3.68. The parcel is approved for (4) parcels with R-A 20,000 zoning. I feel that the best land use designation for this area is "Low" (2 DU/AC Max.) due to the fact that there are previously approved maps in this area with R-A 20,000 zoning. It is extremely compatible and would serve as a buffer to the Los Ranchitos home owners from the parcels to the North currently designated as "Low Medium". Thank you for your consideration. Please call if you have any questions or require'additional informat:ion. Sincerely, MARKHAM AND ASSOCIATES / j · ' ". ', e/ ~ ,- Sandra L. ~ihn Project Manager cc: James Meyler 41750 Winchester Road, Suite N - Temecula, California 92590 · (714) 676-6672 · FAX C/14) 699-1848 Mr. Roger Jaeger 30978 Mira Loma Dr. Temecula, Calif. 92592 Sep t. 9, 1992 City of Temecuia Planning Dept. 43174 Business Park Dr. Temecula, Calif. 92590 Mr. John Meyer Dear Mr. Meyer I am writing to you with regard to the proposed zoning plan for- the City of Temecula. Specifically the area immediately adjacent and'to the East of Linfield School's property. Your plans are to zone this area as low density meaning 2'.5 minimum acres per dwelling. I believe this area should remain as it always has as rural residential with a density of approximately one half to 1 dwelling units per- acre. Nearly all of the homes built in this area are on one acre parcels. I recently sold my previous home at 41995 Calle Cedral in the same area, which was on a net .8 Acres and bought a parcel on Fosse Way which is a net 1.6 acres/gross 2.2 acres. I would like to split this pa~-cel as 2 acres are more than I care to maintain. This area is totally surrounded by tract homes. Values of homes in this area run from the low 200~s to the high 300's. Houses are comparable to the Meadowview area which has primarily 1/2 acre lots. F'eople who purchase homes in this price range typically can not afford the expense of landscaping and maintaining 2+ acres as say people who live in areas zoned like the Rancho Santiago or Los Ranchitos areas. Those areas will sustain homes in the 600 to 700 range where people have the financial resources to g~-oom and care for- 2.5 acres. This a~-ea will never support those kinds of relative values. If left as is I would invision cheaper homes on large lots left unlandscaped in the middle of town creating eyesores. F'lease reconsider your cur~'ent plans and zone this area accordingly. Additionally I believe that the city has neglected to create enough 1/2 to 1 acre custom home a~'eas in Temecula. These particular size lots make really nice residential areas as demonstrated by Meadowview. Currently it seems that you either have to buy a tract home or a mansion with not a lot of choices in between. Thank you fop your- consideration, September 10, 1992 ~'ECE~VE'_n SEP 7 Dave and Sue Paton 40303 Walcott Lane Temecula, Cal 92591 714-699-8979 City of Temecula 43174 Business Park Dr. Temecula,Caj ,92590 Attn. John Meyers Re: Zone change for lot size requirements Dear Mr. Meyers, We purchased our home in December of 1991. When we were investigating the purchase, we were shown swat maps of projections of the area as planned and approved by the city. Basically it stated that the lots could be divided down to haft acre parcels. We now live in one of those areas on Walcott Lane, just behind the Mirada housing tract. In June, we at'tended a city headng in reference to a 80 acre parcel d~rectly across the street from our property. One of the owners, Mike Lundm, had his plan approved to put in 221. homes on 7500 square feet to half acre lots. When we read that the general plan is being changed that we can no longer go under two and one haft acre lots, we became very confused and upset. How can this happen when it is d~rectly across the street from our home ? How come we cannot benefit from this same agreement ? We were told by Craig Ruiz, who has been at your office under two months, that the reason for the change was to stay consistent with the lot sizes in the area and the topography of the land was too hilly. Why was that not a condition back at the hearing when 221 homes were approved ? If any of the lots are going to be inconsistent ,it will be ours, with a sea of houses on small lots surrounding us ! Our intentions when we purchased this five acre property was to subdivide to haft acre parcels as we were t01d could be done. We did ' submit a Ten rcel Map ( 26563),. nd when were ~nformed the vast array of expenses and improvements needed to split the property the city told us that the reason for the exorbitant costs in constructing a mini freeway in this pert of Temecula was that there needed to be an emergency access to all new developments so that the city would not be liable. Walcott Lane, where our house is located, is not maintained by the city at ~is time, are you still liable ? Common sense keeps telling us that we are getting a royal runaround. Why does this problem exists ? We want nothing ,more than to simply submit our tentative parcel map for the half acre parcels and do as our neighbor contractor was granted. By changing the General Plan, we are assuming that these 221 homes are not going to be built. On top of all this. the property which we purchased now is even less versatile which decreases the value. Do we assume your reepensible for that ? A final point in to this matter. Why would you want to stifle the growth in this area by making the lots unattainable because of the extreme high cost to improve them and the constant zone changes ! We respectfully request that the zoning stay exactly like it was when we purchased the land. We have a great deal to lose in this arrangement and may be forced to sell our home for much less than we paid for it. Your supportive response to this would be greatly appreciated concerning this matter. We want to be aware of any upcoming hearings concerning this area where we live as we were asked to at the General Plan meeting last week at the library. S~ncerely Dave and Sue Paton RECEIVED OCT 0 6 1992 CITY OF TEMECULA October 4,1992 City of Temecula 43174 Business Park Dr. Temecula,Cal,92590 Attn. Craig Ruiz Re: Cancelation of Tent. Parcel map #26563 Dear Craig, Please let this letter serve as our request that you cancel Tentative Parcel Map # 26563 due to the fact that the cost of the improvements to split the land are more than the value of the land itseft. We feel this is extremely unfair to' ask us to improve the city streets to the degree that we have been asked to do when we pay already very high city tax' s. There's nothing wrong with paying your fair share with any development or improvement, but this request by you is absolutely out of balance. We are not the Rockefe!lers or a large housing contractor and yet we are asked to pay costs-that would be extremely high for them. Since we see no end in sight in the outrageous costs you are requesting, we are FORCED to cancel this parcel map and ask that our deposits and costs are refunded to us immediately. We are not happy about this,we only live here. Dave and Susan Paton 1614 North Quince Upland, CA 91786 September 11, 1992. Mr. John Meyer Planning Department City of Temecula 43174 Business Park DriVe Temecula, California 92590 RECEIVED' SEP I 4 1992' les'd. .......... Re: Freeway Lot Dear John: I understand that the city is working on a new general Plan. I have about three acres in Los Ranchitos on ValleJo. It is next to the Rancho Community Church and runs between ValleJo and the freeway. I have had several people contact me about buying the property. The problem is that because I amen the Los Ranchitos association, no one will pursue the purchase because they are quickly made aware of the few individuals in the tract that want absolutely no use other than a home on the property. My property is severely undesirable as a home site because of being next to the freeway and all of the as~0ciated noise. The general plan could designate the area for uses that would be compatible with Los Ranchitos, if not even enhance it. (A community hall, senior citizen activity center, church, etc.) Please let me know if I can come down and meet with you or attend a hearing. My parcel number is Lot 9, Tract 3552. Sincerely, Max Trenkle :,.,.,;. k,~ t31~o tf#4J' ~ el&.al' T.R.,4. O ®¢ :. %. M.B. M. a -q g/lO0 Troc 13558. -Tr#ct37,~O. RECEIVED' SEP 15 1992 hs'd ............ September 11, 19~)2 Mr. John Meyer Planning Deparunent 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 Dear Mr. Meyer: I own a 2.75 acre parcel of land within the Temecula city limits next to th'e 1-15 freeway (lot 8/3552). I purchased the property many years ago.. Now, in 1992, I find the traffic noise from 1-15 has virtually rendered the property useless as a homesite. The road noise from tens-of-thousands of cars, trucks and big-figs presents factual problems for anyone who uses the property; especially for a family seeking peace and quiet. It just does not make any sense any longer. The property falls within the Los Ranchitos Homeowners Association, therefore, the CC&Rs for that tract 3552 apply. Unfortunately, in the last 25 years or so, since those CC&Rs were adopted (September 1966), the highest and best use has changed from a single-family rural homesite to that of something different:, possibly a church (Rancho Community Church is one parcel away -just to the east)'or a mortuary, tennis club. day care or other similar user. I am not sure what zoning designation within the City of Temecula is appropriate, but I can say, without question, that a "rural homesite" designation is absolutely inappropriate for my parcel. Mr. John Meyer September 11, 1992 Page 2 I would-enjoy the opportunity to meet with a representative from the city to discuss what might be accomplished in conjunction with the eity's desire to create a general plan that meets the needs and requirements of the 90's and not the 60's.' Please telephone me at your conVenience at 676-5736. Thank you very much. Sincerely, Steve Snow SS:dm Kemper Real Estate M~naEement Company 28765 Single Oak Drive, Suite 200, Temecula, California 92590 · 714/676-5641 · Fax 7141676-3385 P.O. Box 9016, Temecula, California 92589.0736 September 11, 1992 RECEIVED SEP 15 1992 Mr. Gary Thornhill Director of Planning CITY OF TEM~CaLA 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 Ans 'd ............ RE: GENERAL PLAN REQUEST Dear Gary: I have reviewed the City's designation.for the property along Winchester Road to the northeast of Margarita Road. As you know, the School District is purchasing a portion of the site for a high school. we agree with the business park zoning for most of the property; however, we would request an 8-10 acre commercial component (CPS zone) at the corner of Margarita and Winchester Roads. Your consideration in this matter is greatly appreciated. Sincerely, BEDFORD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY Gregory A. Erickson Area Manager co: Bult Butter ESM'T 1.48 57.87Ac. 55.04Ac. NET a£.¸ IO.O]Ac. NET "='MDOR~Y U'JS FACILITY ",CCE:S5 E SMT .6~ PROPOSED HIGH SCHOOL It BUS MAINTENANCE FACILITY APRIL 13, 1992 JN. 400354 JOHNSON + JOHNSON D~V'F, LOPMIz'-NT CORPORATION 274~0 1he: R~md Smtc 200 Temecula. CA 92591 (714) 676-Item F~X (714) 6~-3117 September 14, 1992 Mr. John Meyers City of Temecula P.O.Box 3000 Temecula, CA 92390 RECEIVED SEP 15 1992 Arts 'd ............ RE: General Plan designation for A.P.N. 921-090-022,023,024 & 025 Dear Mr. Meyers, We are providing this letter to document our intentions for the above mentioned parcels and to request this information be included in the General Plan process. This property has an approved Vesting Tentative Map #23316 which was approved on October 25, 1988. This Vesting Tentative Map includes 284 condominiumunits including.a recreational facility on 18.9 acres. Please inform your General Planning consultant of our intentions for this property and feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you may have. Sincerely JOHNSON + JOHNSON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION Dean'K. Allen President ,,---- JOHNSON + JOHNSON DEVELOPMENT CORPO!~TION 27450 '~hez R~md Suite 200 Temeeula. CA 92591 (714) 676-1004 FAX (714) 699-3117 September 14, 1992 Mr. John Meyers City of Temecula P.O.Box 3000 Temecula, CA 92390 RE: General Plan designation for Zone Change No. 5691 Dear Mr. Meyers, RECEIVED SEP I 5 15:=Z Ans'd ............ We have had a Change of Zone application in with the city of Temecula since incorporation requesting a C-P-S (Highway Scenic) designation for the above mentioned parcels. It is our understanding that the planning consultant for the General Plan currently list officeas the use for this property. Based on discussions with city planning staff, similar properties along Highway 79 have been zoned C-P-S (Highway Scenic) and a · similar designation for this property would be appropriate. It is our intention to move forward with a zone change for C-P-S (Highway Scenic) on this property and would appreciate your planning cOnsultant. incorporating this designation into the General Plan. Please include our request in any discussions or planning sessions affecting this parcel and contact me with any questions or comments you may have. Sincerely, JOHNSON + JOHNSON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION President MARKHAM & ASSOCIATES Development Consultants September 30, 1992 John Meyer senior Planner city of Temecula 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 RECEIVED OCT 0 1 ~992 CiTY I}F RE: Temecula General Plan Draft Preferred LandsUse Plan Dear Mr. Meyer: I am writing this letter to address my concern with the City's Draft General Plan designation for parcels. 910-200-059 and 060.. Parcel 059 was' approved at City Council from I-P to CPS June 5, 1990 (COZ 5446). Y0urDraft Preferred Land Use Plan is designating this site as Business Park. Also, please note Temecula's zoning map is currently showing parcel 2 zoned.as I-P (see attached exhibits). We would like to include both 059 and 060 to be designated as Service Commercial (both are a portion of parcel 2 of parcel map 19677) on the City's General Plan. Due to the fact that parcel 1 (including the park & ride lot), parcel D (flood control channel) and the northerly portion of parcel 2 (059) are zoned CPS, I feel it only sensible to.include the southerly portion of parcel 2 (060) into the Service Commercial designation. Thank you for your consideration. Please call if you have any questions or require additional information. Sincerely, MARKHAM AND ASSOCIATES '/'-.'~t,~- J" ·/~d'-" '-' L- Sandra L. Finn Project Manager enclosures 41'7~0 Winchester Road. Suite N · Ternecula, California 92590 · (714) 676-6672 · FAX (714) 699-1848 Notice of P-hBc HMrfqf, 43172 Business Park Drive Temecuh, Culif'onsh g2390 A PUBLIC HXARING has been scheduled before the CITY COUNCIL to consider .the matter(s) described below. CAse No:. Change 'of Zone No. 5446 Applicant: lVlDC - California Location: West side of Yncz Road at the terminus of County Center Road Proposal: Change existin2 IP zone on 6.:51 acre site to CPS ]Environmental Action: Negative Declaration Any person may submit written cornmenU to the City .Council before the hearing(s) or may appear and be heaxd in support of or oplxmmition to the Ipprova] of the project(s) at the time of hearing. If you challenge any of the projectm in court, you may be timlied to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing(s) dascTibed in this notice, or in wriucn correspondence delivered to 'the City Council at, or ]xior to, the pubtic hearing(s). , u Park Dnve, Monday through Friday from 9:00 AM until 4:00 PM.' Questions concerning the project(s) may be addre$ra:! to Samuel Reed, City of Temecula Planning Department, (714) 694-1989. The time, place and dam of the hcaxing(s) are as follows: PLACE OF HEARING: DATE OF HEARING: TIME OF HEARING: Rancho c-alifomia Water nistrict Community Room 28061 11i=, Road Temecula Tuesday. tune 5. 1990 7:00 PM A-2-20 II II II II h '. C-P;S ,,- ,;, II ii/ #, II II I1~, II ~, ,// // // // /~,// // // // ME 8/"t59 ,.~D Temecz//c7 Lcn:f 8 PYoler Co~'rpo~ RA~ 135/85-86 Porcei Mep No.l,q6'T7 P.M./J5/26-29" ' ' 20490,1 P/if:/44/34-35 ° ° ' 21606 .PM. Pr14/91- 92 ° ' ' 21670 MARKHAM & ASSOCIATES Development Consulants September 30, 1992 John Meyer Senior Planner City of Temecula 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 RE: Temecula General Plan Draft Preferred Land Use Plan Dear Mr. Meyer: I am writing this letter to address my concern with the City's Draft General Plan designation to specify floor to building ratio which would af£ect the Vail Ranch Specific Plan (SP 223). We would like to preserve this SpeCkfic Plan Community in its currently approved form. Please also note that this Plan has a developers agreement. Thank you for your consideration. Please call if you have any questions or require additional inforlnation. Sincerely, MARKHAM AND ASSOCIATES /Sandra L. Finn Project Manager enclosures 41750 W~nchest~r Road, Suite N · TunecuLt, California 97.590 · Oi4) 676-6672 - FAX GM) 699-1848 I · 1 4 5 7 8 9 10 (3) Except as Provided above. all other zoning requirements shall be the same.as those requirements identified in Article ~IIIe of Ordinance No. 348, Plannina Area 17. '(Historical Commercial A) (1)' The uses permitted in Planning Area 17 of · specific Plan No. 223 shall be the.same as those uses Permitted in Article XXb, Section 9.50'of Ordinance No. 348 except that the uses Permitted Pursuant to Section 9.50(a)(3). (6), and (16); and not be permitCad. (b)(1) through (21) shall 11 13 14 (2) The development standards for Planning Area 17 of Specific Plan No. 2'23-shall be.the same as those Standards identified in Article XXb, Section 9.53 of Ordinance No. 348. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 (3) Except as Provided above. all other zoning requirements shall be the same as those requirements identified in Article IXb of Ordinance. No. 348. r. Planninc Area 18. (Historical Commercial B) (1) The uses Permitted in Planning Area 18 of Specific Plan No. 223 shall be the same as those uses Permitted in'Article XXb. Section 9.50 of Ordinance No. 348 except =ha= nhe uses permitted pursuant to Section 9.50(a)(3). (6). and (16): and(b)(1) through (21) shall not be Permitted. 25 28 su'~3ao (2) The developmenU standards for Planning Area 18 of Specific Plan No. 223 shall be the same as those standards iden=ified in Article IXb. Section 9.S3 of Ordinance No. 348. -15- 1 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 (3) Except as provided above, all other zoning requirements shall be the same as those requirements identified in Article XXb o~ Ordinance No. 348. s. Plannina Area 19. ~CouetciaX Area A) (~) The uses Permitted'in Planning Area 19 of SpeciZic Plan No, 223 shall be the same as chose uses Permitted in Article IXb,. Section 9.S0 o~ Ordinance No. 348. In addition, the Permitted uses identified under Section 9,50(a) also shall include congregate care residential facilities. (2) The development standards for Planning Area 19 of Specific Plan No. 223 shall be the same as those standards identified in Article IXb, Section 9.53 of Ordinance No. 348. (3) Except as Provided above, all other zoning requirements shall be the same as those requirements identified in Article IXb of Ordinance No. 348. t. Planninu Area 20. (Commercial Area'B) (1) The:uses~permitued in P-lanning Area 20 of Specific Plan No. 223 shall be the same as those uses PermitUed in Article XXb, Section 9.50 of Ordinance No. 348. (2) The development standards ~0r Planning Area 20 of Specific Plan No. 2'23 shall be the same as those s. tandards identified in Article IXb, Secuion 9.53 o[ Ordinance No. '348. (3) Except as provided above, all other zoning requirements shall be the same as those requiremenus -16- 1 4 7 8 9 10 !1 15 14 15 16 idenfified in Article lXb of Ordinance No. 348. u. Plannin~ Area 21. (Business Park) (1) The uses Permitted in Planning Area 21 of Specific Plan No. 223 shall be the sane as those uses Permitted in Article XI, Section ~1.2 and 11.3 of · Ordinance No..348 except:that the uses Permitted Pursuant to S~ction 11.2(c)(1) through (17) shall not be Permitted. (2) The development standards for Planning Area of Specific Plan No~ 223 shall be the sane as those standards identified in Article XI, Section 11.4 of Ordinance No. 348. (3) Except as Provided above, all.other zoning requirements shall be the sane as those requireme'nts identified in Article Xi of Ordinance No. 348. Section 3. This ordinance shall Cake effect 30 days after its adoption. 17 18 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE. STATE OF CALIFORNIA 19 'ATTEST: By 20 21 22 23 GERALD A.' MALONEy Clerk of the Board BY: Deputy (SEAL) 24 Chairman 25 26 KLW:bln 813PLAN27 ~/28/88 -17- October ~,.Z992" RECEIVED OCT 0 2 1992 ........ :_ City of Temecula.Planning C~mission 43174.Business Park Drive Temecula, Ck 92590 Attention: Mr. Meyer Approximately one year ago we received notice in the mail that Mr. Vanderwall was requesting city permission to sub-divide 4 acres into 1 acre parcels. We were asked to express our opinions and concerns at that time. This is exactly what I did (see attached letter). We opposed the split for fear it would generate more mobile homes into the valley, which we oppose.' We also expressed concerns about the maintenance of the road due to the extra traffic. This was of ~oncernto me because I'm the one that grades the road during the rainy season and I also place the.gravel onthe.hills to make it passable during heavy rains. Recently we made a decision to split our property into two 1 & 1/4 acre parcels and build two homes. I had n~ wife call the planning department to obtain more information as to the procedure. At that time she was informed that a split would definitely not be allowed. This concerns me very much. Only 15 months after Mr. Vanderwall was allowed to split his property against our protests, our request is now rejected. - Recently I artended a meeting at the library regarding the cities proposed general plan. The area where I live and own two parcels of property was discussed very briefly. The comments were"it was a difficult area and that-no 4mmediate plans were being considered for that area". I'm now concerned that the cities attitude toward this area of the city will further suppress property values, create more of a dumping ground for mobile homes, illegal sheds, etc. We are tax pa~ers, so why are we refused the luxury of paved streets, lights, etc? Why is the city going to ignore this area and lastly, why am I being told I can not split my property when Mr. Vanderwa11 was allowed to only 15 months ago, against my protests? October 1, 1992 Page City of Temecula Planning Cot~Lssion 43174 Berries Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 Attention: M~. Meyer I urge the cit= to give this area more consideration, the area is surrounded b~-rolling hills and vineyards. This could be an exclusive e R~b/e~j .~~ RG/jw Attac~unent Cert. Mail No. P 791 172 198 June 20, 1991 CtLT of Temecula ~1---~-s Counlsston 43180 Business Park Drive Temec,,3 ,,, Ca 92390. Case' No: C~n~ge of Zone No. 15/Ten~aCtve Pxrcel Nap No. 26488 (c= so. lS/TFH 26488) Gentlemen: We .ovn the 2~ acre to ~he south, adJo~-4-g lfi'. Va~erull's properry and 5 acres across ~he street from the southwest corner of ~he Vanderea~l proper~y. Our major concern is whether ~he Fl=v-',~.~ Commission pl,~ to impose a house only restrict~on. a~l of ~he properties sou~h of w~. VandervaJ~'s property have custom homes built on them. North and west of ~he propert-y, Che area is spattered w~Ch mobfie homes, many o~ Mxich a~e ~n serious need o[ upkeep. lf~st have Ltle~xl barns and sheds which &re an eyesore co the area, Another concern is M, at doe ~he Planning C6,,dasion plan to do wlch the road? Allowing a properry spllt u~13 generate more traffic on our dirt road. As ic stands now, ~ perso~-~3y (with no help from the neighbors and cerca~,~7 noc ~rom the tiLT) grade one (1) sdle of ~ road co make ~his accessible during the rainy season. Note Cra~ic ~ create more ~ork £or me. This is not f~aC I pay ~v~s for. In s,---,ry, ve ~ould not oppose ~he proparry split providing the Planning Counission paces an ix-revocable "homes onl" y restriction on Che property and providing the city is committed to a~ least maince---~e of ~he dirt road ff payinE is noc a consideration. If the above concerns are' noC incorporated es conditions Co the spllt, we then adamamcly oppose ~h4~ subdivision. SLncerely. ..-/ · ob anne Corham P. O. Box 1680 40095 Walcott Lane Temecula, Ca 92390 Certified Haft No. P754 681 484 Notice of Public Hearinq THE CITY OF TEMECULA q3180 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92390 A PUBLIC HEARING has been scheduled before the. PLANNING COMMISSION to consider the matter l s ) described below. Case No: Applicant: Location: Proposal: Change.of Zone No. 1S/Tentativ~ Parcel Map No, 26~88 I CZ No. 15/TPM 26~88) Mr. Jay Vanderwall Southeasterly corner of Waicott Lane and Calle Chapos Zone change from R-A 2-112 I Residential-Agricultural 2-1/2 Acre - Minimum Parcel Size) to R-1-1 lSingle Family Res'idential, 1 acre minimum parcel size) and subdivison of l&.5 +/- acres into ~ parcels. Environmental Action: Negative Declaration Any person. may submit written comments to' the Planning Commission before the 'hearing l s) or may appear and be heard in support of or 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 hearingis) described in this notice, or in written correspondence. delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearingis). The proposed project applicationis) may be viewed at the public information counter, Temecula Planning Department. q3180 Business Park Drive, Monday through Friday from 9: 00 AM until q :00 PM. Questions concerning the projectl s) may be addressed to Mr. Charly Ray. City of Temecula Planning Department, 171q) 69~-6~00. The time. place and date of the hearing{s) are as follows: PLACE OF HEARING: DATE OF HEARING: TIME OF HEARINC:. · ' -'- · "~- L/~J '/.L,- ~-~,.-~.; for~'~ii~.'ii .~... Vail Elementary School Auditorium 29915 Mira Loma Drive, Temecula, CA Monday, July 1st, 1991 6:00 p.m. siTE (:czts/ 'm zuta6) _ \ . .-.-:,.,?,,,., ,,,, ENGINEERING VENTURES LAND PLANNING · CIVIL ENGINEERING · LAND SURVEYING October 2~, 1992 RECEIVED Mr. John R. Meyer, AICP City of Temecula 43174. Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 RE: APN: 914-300-076 Parcel 1, PM 13923, -PM 58/49 Acre Parcel on Walcott Lane Temecula, California Dear Mr. Meyer: Engineering Ventures is formally requesting, for and on the behalf of Mr. Robert' J. Gorham, owner of the above-referenced parcel, a land use designation and proposed zoning for the subject parcel of Low Density and R-1-1 respectively.' The justification for this request is based on existing current lend uses end densities and per the enclosed Exhibit "A". This .exhibit was obtained and compiled from City records of Parcel Map 26488, whichwas approved by the City of Temecula Planning Commission on August 5, 1991. This parcel is directly adjacent to Mr. Gorham's parcel. In brief summary, the following analysis were made by the City of Temecula Planning staff: Parcel Map 26488 will "probably be consistent with the proposed general plan"; Projects in this vicinity have been approved at densities similar and greater to this proposal; Densities at this range are "considered appropriate at present extension of necessary support services, primarily roads and sewers, to the area in question". Engineering Ventures requested this land use density utilizing proper and reasonable land planning guidelines. This request is compatible with neighborhood uses and ideals. We will attend the public hearing meeting, regarding this general plan request, to answer any questions or comments you or the City staff may have. Please do not hesitate to call if you have any comments. Sincerely, Ra.ndol. ph F. Fleming, E. Prlnclpa~ Enclosure Anita L. Miller Project Coordinator 43500 RIOGE PARK OF:liVE. SUITE 202 - TEMECULA. CA 92590 ,, (714) 699-6450 · FAX: 699-3569 ~l~: ~14-300-076 ANALYSIS: on the project site is primarily native grasses with evident disturbance by human activity: e.g., off- road trails, litter, etc. Mature landscaping exists on adjacent properties. No significant animal habitat was detected though the site is likely inhabitated by common species of rodents, small reptiles and insects, Further consideration of this proposal's specific merits is contained in the following project .analysis, Land Use Coml~atibility The requested Change of zone district from R-A-2 112 to R-1-1 reflects on-going urbanization of the general area surrounding the subject site. Recent project approvals in the vicinity of Tentative Parcel Map No. 26488 (e.g., CZ 56631, TPM 25212) have allowed subdivision of land at densities similar to that requested by this proposal. Further to the south, land has been subdivided at even greater densities in conjunction with larger scale tract home developments. Additionally, the recommended Southwest Area Plan density for the subject site is 1-2 dwelling units/acre. Densities at the lower end of this range are considered appropriate at present .pending extension-of necessary support services, primarily roads and sewers, to the area in question. As such, the proposed change in land use designation allowing residential subdivision of property at a density of one dwelling unit/acre is considered compatible with land use( s } currently in the vicinity of the subject site. AcceSS Legal access to the site as a whole is provided by dedicated City rights-of-way. e.g., Walcott Lane and Calle Chapos, both of which are currently recommended as 66' width right-of-way dedications adjacent to the subject site (reference Exhibit D) . Both road frontages as well as the cul-de-sac indicated on Exhibit D will be improved to provide all weather access prior to occupancy of residences which may be eventually constructed on the proposed parcels. Improvement of affected rights-of-way per Schedule H map standards will, as a minimum, be bonded for prior to final map recordation. A: PM26488 4 Adequate access exists for the proposed residential land use from Walcott Lane and Ca!le Chapos. Additional internal access and required road improvements abutting proposed lots will be designed and constructed in conformance with City standards, That said findings are supported by analysis, minutes, maps, exhibits, and environmental documents associated with this application and herein incorporated by reference. Tentative Parcel Mal~ No. 26488 The proposed Parcel Map will not have significant negative impact on the environment, as determined in the Initial Environmental Assessment prepared for Tentative Parcel Map No. 26~88. A Negative Declaration is recommended for adoption. There is a reasonable probability that this proposal will be consistent with the General Plan being prepared at this time. The map .together with the attendant zone change request are consistent with applicable subdivision and .land use ordinances, and conform with the City's Southwest Area Plan · (SWAP} guidelines affecting the subject property. There is not a likely probability of substantial detriment to, or interference with, the future adopted General Plan, if the proposed use is ultimately inconsistent with the plan, The project is consistent with surrounding development, and does not logically have the potential to generate. significant adverse environmental impacts. The proposed use or action complies with City and State planning and zoning laws. Reference local Ordinances No. 348, LI60. California Governmental Code Sections 65000- 66009 ( Planning Zoning Law }, and Government Code Title 7, Division 2. A: PM26488 10. The site is suitable to accommodate the proposed land use in te~rns of the size and shape of parcel configurations, access, and density. The project has access to public rights-d-way, and is designed with sufficient parcel acreage allowing appropriate building pad sitings. The project a-designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the built or natural environment as determined in the initial study prepared for this project. Reference the attached Initial Environmental Study and Conditions of Approval for Tentative Parcel Map No. 26488. The design of the subdivision, the type of improvements and the resulting street layout are such that they are not in conflict with easements for access through or use of the property within the proposed project as conditioned. Easement dedications are not . evident in grant deeds describing the property .,. The site for the proposed use is provided legal access via. Walcott Lane and Calle Chapos public rights-d-way. Development of these roads shall comply with City Engineering Conditions of Approval contained herein. The proposed project will not inhibit or restrict future ability to use active or passive solar energy systems. Adequate lot areas and exposures are provided for these alternatives .. · The proposed use will not have a substantial adverse affect on abutting properties or the permitted use thereof. The. proposed map provides for residential development similar in character and densities evident on vicinity properties. Land. use incongruities and associated adverse affects arising from implementation of this proposal are unlikely. A: PM26488 Trans-F dac CIIIlllAIll Apr 2S, -'Mr. John Me3~r, Senior'Planner City of Temecula 43174 Business Park Drive Tcmccula, California 92590 Butterfield Station 18.9 Acre Commercial Property (A.P.N/s 952-200-002, 011, 012 and 013) Dear Mr. Meyer: On behalf of our client, Mr. Emil Nowak, I artended the April 16, 1992 General Plan Workshop. Upon examining the proposed "preferred plan" land use allocation map I observed that' the above referenced property had received a General Plan designation of 2 dwelling units per acre. Ix is acknowledged that the above referenced land use designation is very preliminary. Therefore as the City of Temecula's General Plan efforts continues to progress, we respectfully ask that you consider providing the above referenced property with a community commercial land use designation and offer the following for your consideration. On April 16, 1990, Change of Zone No. I from R-R to C-P-S was filed over the subject site with the City of Temecula, see Change Of Zone application contained herein. The intent of the zone'change request was to bring the subject site's zoning designation into conformancc with the site's Southwest Area Plan (SW. AP) designation.' Subsequent to filing the change of zone request we have had several meetings with Planning Staff to discuss the most appropriate strategy to pursue relative to procuring the' C-P-S zoning designation. Planning Staff conceded that the most logical use of the property was commercial. However, Planning Staff was.initially hesitant to take the case forward, due to the fact that in the absence of a plot plan there was .no mechanism to condition a stand alone change of zone and therefore no means of' insuring the site would develop in a high quality manner in terms of architecture, landscaping, site design, etc., (see attached correspondence dated October 23, 1991). Mr. John Meyer April 28, 1992 Page two As indicated in the above referenced correspondence Planning Staff offered the following three (3) alternative strategies: 0 Hold the change of zone in abeyance until the City of Temecula adopts a General Plan and.then proceed with the stand-alone change of zone request providing the subject. site ultimately receives a favorable (commer.cial) general plan land use designation. 0 Commit to a plot plan at this juncture with sufficient land use and 'architectural detail to convince the decision making bodies that a commercial development is the highest and best use for the subject site and can be achieved without sacrificing land use compat~ility. Prepare architectural/landscape guidelines in lieu of an up front commitment to a plot plan. The guideline package would run with the change of zone approval and provide the necessary controls to ensure that future developments are. of high quality in terms of architecture, landscaping, site design and compat~ility. Our client elected to pursue the change of zone request via the architectural/landscape guidelines alternative. 'Enclosed for your review is a copy of the guidelines which were submitted to City Staff. In all of our meetings Planning Staff conceded that given the site's location relative to circulation issues, available infrastructure and area development trends, the only practical 'use for the subject site was commercial. Our client has 'invested a considerable sum of money into this effort based on Planning Staffs conditional support of the commercial zoning designation. : It is acknowledged that nothing is ever a sure thing and our client has always stood a chance .of having the zone change request'denied-by the Planning Commission and/or City Council. However, our client would not have continued in the process and committed to the expenses inherent therein without clear support and direction from Planning Staff. At this juncture, we have been asked to modify the design guidelines prior to the case being cleared for a public hearing, (see attached correspondence dated January 3, 1992). As of this writing the above referenced modifications are in process and the amended guideline text is anticipated for resubmittal by mid-May, 1992. Mr. John Meyer April 28, 1~J2 Page three · The subject site is located within the Rancho Villages Assessment District (AD, 159), The majority of the properties participating in A,D, 159 are now within the City of Temeculn, Although the District is still being managed by . :--..~ .. the County of Riverside, the City of Tetneath has adopted and accepted the ...--~ ...;. District as the finnncjng .mecbnniem for inf'rlBtructtlre improvements within the : ~. :. State Highway 79 Corridor,. - ..-...: = As I am sure you are aware hssessments are secured by a lien against .the ...;= respective properties participation in the district.-The security of assessment : .'~ bonds nnd the long term financial health of the district is therefore dependent on the-successful development of properties .within. the district, both _. individually and collectively, It is our opinion that. the subject site lends itself far more readfly to a commercial development than a single family residential detached product. Further, it is our opinion that the preliminary 2 DU/acre residential general plan designation will result in a product that is far less marketable than the requested commercial designation and therefore significantly reducing the development potential of the. property and conversely increasing the likelihood of assessment default. Given the fact that the City of Temecula and the County of Riverside are Ultimately liable for A.D. 159 bond sa~es it is' prudent, in our opinion, to support general plan land use designations within the district that have the highest potential of translating into successful projects. From an ;'ar~'a development'/marketing perspect'iVe, the sut~ject site is located within the State Highway 79 Corridor which exhibits an established pattern of urban development .primarily within the .context of Master. Planned Communities. Within a .very conservative primary market radius of 2.5 miles, there are approximately 18,000+ dwelling units in combination of existing developments and entitlements, (see area development exhibit contained herein). Applying a factor of 2.4 persons per dwelling unit a population of 44,083 persons-are projected within the State Highway 79 Corridor at build- OUt. 2.4 persons per dwelling units x 18,368 dweilinll units = 44,083 corridor population In terms of size, configuration and location, the subject site represents a community commercial facility. Community level commercial cen:ers 'are generally located on sites ranging from 15 acres to 30 acres in size and require a population base of 35,000 to support the facility. Given the projected Mr. John Meyer April 2~, 1992 Page four construction of 18,368 dwelling units within the Highway 79. Corridor exclusively, there will be sufficient population within th/s limited area alone to support a community level commercial center on the subject site. In addition, the site is lo~ted adjacent to State Highway 79 which provides an important and .popular transportation !ink :-to-the heavily tourist oriented desert communities, in addition to recreational resources within the corridor From a circulation/transportation penpective, the subject site is located at the intersection of State Highway 79 and Butterfield Stage Road. State Highway 79 is designated as an urban arterial with a 142 foot right-of- way. This facility is slated for full width improvements along the subject site's frontage per A.D. 159 Bond Series "C'. Butterfield Stage Road fronts the subject site's western boundary and is d~signated as an arterial highway. This facility is slated for full width improvements including the Temecula Creek Bridge per A.D. 159; Bond Series "B". Upon build-out of the district Butterfield Stage Road and State Highway 79 are projected to have 27,600 ADT and 36,600 ADT respectively.at the subject site. As I understand it, Butterfield Stage Road is anticipated tO function as a · parallel corridor, ultimately tieing into Winchester Road north of Keller by way of Washington Avenue. Should this parallel transportation corridor come to fruition it will make the Butterfield Station site that much more attractive for commercial development. It should be noted that there are four (4) large master planned communities located south cff State Highway 79 that have vehicular access to the Butterfield Station Commercial site without needing to utilizing the highway. The site is located in what can best be described as the urban fringe. This condition provides the site with some rather unique opportunities relative to probable future commercial uses. In this regard, it is anticipated that the ultimate commercial center development will possess commercial components in combination of conventional retail, tourist oriented retail, in addition to rural oriented uses such as feed stores, tack and saddle shops, etc. Given the unique combination of commercial opportunities this site affords, the property lends itself extremely well to a 'Mllage" pedestrian oriented development scheme. An example of this concept can be found in the aforementioned guidelines. During the course of our meetingS. with Planning Mr. John Meyer Apr~ 28, 1992 Page five Staff it had been expressed numerous times that the City is leanixt towards the "village" commercial concept on comrncKial sites of the community commercial variety. It was Planning Staffs opinion that the "village*' commercial concept from an architectural/land use perspective would have a much longer life span than the 1~5 to 20 ye~ar cycle typical of'conventional retail centers. However, Planning Staff also inclicatcd that they arc aware of the difficulties commercial developers may experience in attempting to promote the *'village" concept with the various end users. Planning Staffs concerns are legitimate, however, it is our opinion that of the various potential commercial properties within the State Highway 79 corridor, the subject site exh~its the best characteristics towards achieving the City's .desires of a 'Milage" commercial center. It should be noted that the previously referenced architeciural guidelines under prepar~ition for the subject site has been designed to meet this end. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Should you have any questions and/or concerns do not hesitate to contact me at extension 212. Very truly yours, TRANS-bACIFIC CONS LTANTS ,lame o ° Assistant Dir~or of Planning DA3:lmm Enclosures cc: Mr. Emil Nowak~ Applicant Mr. Ernest Egger, TPC Mr. Ga~ Thornhi!l, City of Temecula RECEIVED MAY 1 O 1993 Ans 'd ............ May 10, 1993 John R. Meyer, AICP Senior Planner City of Temecula 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 RE: Temecula General Plan Dear John: Due to the lack of support from the neighboring residents and City Council, I have decided to change the direction of development on my two parcels of land that I own in the City of Temecula. Therefore, I formally request a change of designation on Parcel No. 2 of FM 21769 from Open Space to Medium Density Residential and Neighborhood Commercial and Parcel No. 3 of FM 2 1769 from Highwayfrourist Commercial to Medium Density Residential and Neighborhood Commercial. A map is enclosed indicating the approximate locations of each use. This requested change of designation is compatible to the residents of Rainbow Canyon, Wolf Valley and California Sunset as stated by letter ( a copy is enclosed for your records). We have also meet with Gus Colachis and Paul Reed from the Temecula Creek Inn on this subject as well. Although they would not respond in writing, they did verbally agree they would rather have Medium Density Residential-and Neighborhood Commercial than a Waterpark and a Hotel. I feel we have covered all the bases with the City Council but if you have any questions please contact any of the City Council for clarification. Although, Jeff Stone, Ron Robcrts and Ron Parks are probably the most up to date on this project. John, thank you for your cooperation with us in the past and I hope this doesn't cause too much of a problem with you to change the GP Designation Plan for the May 18 meeting. If you have any questions for myself please do not hesitate to call me at (714) 974-3472 or Phil Jones at 676-4940. Very truly yours; Herinder Grewal, M.D. 500 S. Anaheim Hills Rd. Suite 200 ~ Anaheim Hills ~ CA 92807 Ma.y i. 0, 1.993 .IeJm/g. Meyer, AI(':~' Sctdor Planner City ot a'3 174 B~l~;,.'~.~s Palk l)llv; Te,necala, CA 92S9t:. -RE; 7~.:z; ~r. cula (.i en,::t'.fl John: i.~.~tz ;o dtr.: i~l; ol' sul:p,,i t frc:m Iho ndgllbormo. residents u. ml ¢'.itv L:ou rt;i3. I M've. dccidc,j c};;:}i~?, Ih:. '-' dit=,.:l ion t:l' d~:vd'.u'~flltn'l! on I|tV two Duh'c)g Of land '}[. I ' c-, ,., i~i ~tn'. f 'it" '~" 'I'{.'LU~t'U{a. ' ' ' .'., ... ' .. ' :' ' ' ' ..... - -... , , I htt'J:elu.,, I f.,,m..tl{~, N,~tlUtZ:lt a chax,gc of d~:.si..anal,on Oi, Pa,'ccl k:', 2 t,.i {:%! 21 '/,'='/ frn;:i Opeit ::;pa:e to \.r,. ,.{iuJa D:zasitv Residefilial anti Nciglt~,rh:,,r:.i/(.'erathe.: cial a:~d Ptu'cei Nu. <,/'Ff,.'! 21769 from H~.ghw,Lv:'ru,,.ist (':'.mnlercial t..> A, lcdit,,n I),:::,>,ty 2~.c-sl,J:.:ntial arid Yeighboxh. ~,,d Gun:re..-, vi,fl. A nt:qn is cnt'ius:M ill~th'tq|ag ll:c .-xpl~.:rt::in:-..tt:.,. Io:ati<mt; uf each use. ';',his rg,luc;~t,Jd :h;.mgo ,,,f ,:,.:,xignat,on is c.ompalii~lc to fh,' t:~idcn~s or' !{cif b<r-.v (~;.tllyOI;.. XVOII' x.':xtl.-:y and C'aHf~,,':,,a .e,t,.xct ~x.,. slallt:d by le:(ex-t' tt uupy .;s ercln,$¢d ;br ;'Qu,' r.'curds'.). ',",'c ha:.c aloe t.uce{ ,dlh C'~us (.'nla,:hi; ~:nd I'axfl Rcc~j flora di~' 'fe:'u~,la Creek- rh,: o., -.'ni~ .~ubiect c~ ,,veil. Ahinmgh lixcy wuuh[ nci rcSpu~,l in :wiling. the).. did w-rbally t~tcc thc. y wntJd ra~r i,ax.e ,',,te. ium Dcr. sily !t-¢~,i:lcmial ;'ha ,";ci;Jh~t:,rha,'~d Comnr:rcial tha, a W~:t,:.rpa,-L t, xld n l.l'j Lci. t'c:l wc t!ave cuve, cd all ~h~ L.:,se:~ wi(h .;h.- ('ity Ct.uncil '.:'u.'. iryotx hay:: ally ct:tnact r. xa>' ,Jfd~, City C.,tn~.'il fnr clari~uat mn. A:th,.;ugli, Je. llf St,>un.. i{.un I,':nberl'.q t~ttti Rnn .Pinks ave ptOlx;bly the most up to date t:;ll/his l.,x'~,jc:ct. ' J'oi-n, tf,ank yt~ll for .%'Otll O'?..'DI:)fz UftO|~ ,,ith ,,.., in lhc paat ;tied I i~:',p~ It,is dc. es:}t cause i.~, m,..ach problem with yo:m To cha,,:.:c {1~.-. (;p ~ )e~i~,j:.ttio.,,. Pla;l ft.>:' qu~slicms tot n.tvs;zif l>!e.q~e dt~ nul hrr. iuitc to ,/all me a, t. 71.4'} 97,l-'3,4V2 ,31' Phil J~m~s ;~: 676-.19d-0. ' . Very :ruly yours; ( ...z;., ..... '-'- k..' .Lterin:tcr G~ cwal. M.D. " " 50t) ::~..:mul,::itn t l. ilt:~ Rd. Suite 200 - Ariahelm Hili~ ..- ,':'A 92S07 Z Pm4nh~w.Canyon Villages Homeounerts Association Post Office Box 1675, Temecula, Ca 92593 April 28, 1993 Mr. Phillip M. Jones Project Manager 33100 Pauba Rd. Temecula, CA 92592 Dear Mr. Jones: Regarding our discussions, our Board is willing to work with you on an alternative project of an upscale, quality retirement community which would replace the current proposed Waterpark and Family Recreation Center. It's our understanding this alternative project will comprise 400 to 450 dwelling units and one restaurant and some small commercial entities, such as a salon, etc. our cooperation includes changing the zoning to R-2. Again, this alternative project is subject to our review of your plans, including environmental concerns such as traffic and visual impacts. The above matters have been discussed with the Presidents of the Wolf Valley and California Sunset HOA's who have concurred with the general outline above. ~nt Rainbow Canyon Villages HOA CO: Gary Thornhill, Temecula Planning Department Temecula City Council David Dixon, Temecula City Manager Don H. White, Wolf Valley HOA ~' Michael C. Carnohan, California Sunset HOA Randall C. Sterling, Attorney at Law RECEIVED IIAR161993 I II E :Z'EMECULA Rainbow Canyon Villages Bomeowner's Association Post Office Box 1675, Temecula, Ca 92593 March 16, 1993 Temecula City Council 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 Dear Councilmembers: It is our understanding the Temecula City Council is holding a Public Hearing tonight onthe Draft General Plan for the Temecula Planning Area, specifically discussing Noise, Public Safety, Air Quality, Open Space/Conservationamong other topics. By now you are aware of our opposition to the proposed Water Park [Rainbow Canyon Family Park (CUP-12) - Applicant: Dr. Harinder Grewall to the west of us .and just south of the Temecula Creek Golf Course. Asa matter of record we wish to again submit to you our letter of December 2, 1992 to Gary Thornhill, Planning Director, City of Temecula, together with other documents, including our attorneys' letters to Gary Thornhill - all of which details our opposition including the subjects you are discussing tonight, as above. on April 6 and April 29, 1993, it is our understanding you are again holding public hearings concerning "land use," at which time we wish to have our attorneys present our opposition to the designation, "active recreational" to that open space where the above Water Park is proposed to be placed; and related matters. Very truly yours, Eric Brown, President cc: Higgs, Fletcher & Mack Attorneys at Law Attention: Mr. Randall Sterling CALIFORNIA SUNSET HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION c/o Elite Community Management 27710 Jefferson Avenue, Suite 106 Temecula, CA 92590 Administrative (909) 699-1220 Accounting (909) 699-4225 'March 16, 1993 Temecula City Council 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 Dear Councilmembers: According to the announcement in the Sunday edition of The Californian, it is our understanding that the Temecula City Council will be holding meetings, beginning tonight, regarding the General Plan-for the: Temecula Planning Area. This letter, as does our last letter to you dated February 12, is to state our unequivocal opposition to the proposed water park in Rainbow Canyon. Rather than reiterate our specific concerns regarding this proposed park, let it be known that we are in full agreement with the Rainbow Canyon Villages Homeowner's Association who strongly oppose this proposed park. When "land use" concerning this area is discussed at your future April meetings, we, the people of the California Sunset Homeowners Association, will support the attorneys representing the Rainbow Canyon Villages in presenting the opposition to this project. Sincerely, Michael Ca~e~Carnohan President, CA Sunset Homeowners Assoc. sb cc: John Meyer Louis '~olf 1833-1887 WOLF VALLEY HOMEO~,V'NERS ASSOCIATION c/o blission Re. ally ; Property Management 337 Eat ,Mi.~sion Rd. FaUbrOok, CA 92028 telephone O14) 699-3344 P,.amona Place Wolf 1846.~17 March, 15, 1993 Temecula City Council City of Temecula Temecula, Ca 92591 Dear Councii Members, Please:note that the majority of homeowners in the Wolf Valley Homeowners Association are in accord with the Rainbow Canyon Village Homeowners Association and the California Sunset Homeowners Association, in opposing the building of the Water Park slide to be built on Rainbow Canyon Blvd next to~the Temecula Creek Inn. We, the WVHOA ere opposed to the noise this project will create, and it will lower the air quaiity as wei1 as lower the amoun.t,of open space in the area, and etc. This letter ~s,~written as referenced in a letter dated December 2, 1992, accompanied by documents attached. The construction of the Water Park will serve no logical purpose if it is built in that area. No homeowner taxpayer in the City will benefit from anything the Park could demonstrate except ~ to kiiI the use of Bainbow Canyon Blvd end the Pale Rd. bridge among other negative features as stated above. If any further assistance is needed, please contact me at (909) 676-4263. Don H. White, Pres."' WVHDA HIGGS, FLETCHER & MACK ATTOIINEYI AT LAW UEMBER. AMERr, MLAWFIRMASSOCIAll~ 813 WEST VALLEY PARKWAY SUITE 345 ESCONDIDO, CNJFORNIA 9~25-2552 4 December 1992 CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING DEPARTMENT c/o JOHN MEYER, SENIOR PLANNER 43174 BUSINESS PARK DRIVE TEMECULA CA 92590 RECEI'VEO llc,..C O 7 1992. RE: GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT HEARINGS Members of the Planning commission: This firm represents the Rainbow Canyon Villages Homeowner's Association ("Association") which owns property adjacent to the site upon which the Rainbow Canyon Water Park (Change of Zone No. 2, Conditional Use Permit No~ 12) is proposed. The Association has only recently become aware and informed us that the City of Temecula is currently considering the General Plan Land Use Element as it applies to the proposed Water Park site. We contacted Saied Naaseh of the Planning Department and were informed that the present Land Use Element draft designates the subject site for Open Space, but that such designation would allow the Water Park which is to be zoned General Commercial and Tourist Commercial. The Association concurs with the recommended Open Space designation. The expansive site features extensive steep hillsides and is highly visible from surrounding areas. It also contains native vegetation which may include sensitive plant species or critical habitat areas for endangered or threatened species such as the Stevens Kangaroo Rat or the Gnatcatcher. It is surrounded by peaceful rural residential developments and open space recreational areas. For these reasons the Association believes that the site is suitable for rural residential and/or passive recreational uses which will protect and preserve the area's natural environment and healthy, peaceful atmosphere. Neither the proposed Water Park nor the commercial zoning necessary to implement it are consistent with an Open Space designation. The proposed Water Park would be a high intensity, full-scale commercial enterprise which would attract huge volumes of people and traffic; generate air, noise and visual pollution; CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING DEPARTMENT 4 December 1992 Page 2 HIGGS, FLETCHER & MACK and otherwise degrade the quality of life for local residents. The commercial zoning would permit development of strip commercial malls, gas stations, fast food restaurants and other high intensity commercial uses which could not be considered open space.. The Association urges the Planning Commission to approve the Open Space designation, but to limit uses and zoning classifications which would be allowed under the designation. Only true open space and passive recreational uses such as parks, trails and golf courses should be permitted. Such uses can satisfy some of the new General Plan goals for the provision of open space. Shopping centers and amusement parks cannot. Thank you for allowing the Association to be involved in the .planning process. If you have any questions or comments, please call me. Sincerely, HIGGS, FLETCHER & MACK CHARLES LE PLA, AICP Land Use Law Clerk CC: Rainbow Canyon Village Homeowner's Association Helen Holmes Peak, Esq. Randall C. Sterling, Esq. CS1/CAL war pet. mavedmTSmS~~- Thequaiyofife. Can the people who want No, wq~don'tlhlnk~. Can lheY i~wanmee ww wcnl hwve lo fi~hX to dnve om~car crtme ln our mwhk~h is ne~door? NO, w~donml. INnk t,~. Th~mayli~d plx almadylt'mre. W®ama!ltorparkslorchMmn- Wehavmmiw~. IlsaOandkteabuta ~. Eanhquakelaulmslwmmdktn'tknowabmX). 2. Fioodl~alnlwmmclicrr~mo~abouq. 3. BcnSerP-ab-~andlNmxtroadslsevwltteatjv.)- Firmr.. pteseieaveueandNC,/yofTewec~dathefew~r. kteevmhaveM{t RECEIVED DEC 0 3 1992 Ans'd. ....... .......,. Torn and Denlee Fereme 45551 C:deteag~ Ternecuta, CA22582 gOg-87~7 Thank You [Xl)l 'NTRIAI. (~t)XIN!I:R(21AI SePtember 22, 1992 RECEIVED SEP 2 5 1992 John R. Meyer, AICP Senior Planner City of Temecula Planning Department 43172 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 Re: City.of Temecula General Plan Dear: John I represent Dr. Herinder Grewal on CUP.Application No. 12 (The Park at Rainbow Canyon, Parcel 2, of Parcel Map No. 21769) and the 30 acre property to the north (Parcel 3, of Parcel Map No. 21769). Please refer to enclosed authorization letter. When Dr. Grewal purchased the 43.5 acre, Parcel 2, property, it was zoned RR with a designation of Office Commercial on the Southwest Area Plan. The 30 acre, Parcel 3, property was and is currently zoned R2 (Please refer to enclosed copy of the SWAP plan). Before submitting our CUP'application to the City of Temecula on the family recreational project, "The Park @ Raznbow Canyon", we had a meeting with Mayor Ron Parks, Czty Manager Dave Di~kson and Planning Director Gary Thornhill. At that meeting we presented our concept'which was favorably received because of the overall community benefit of the project. At that same time we discussed our desires to develop a compatible commercial project on the northern contiguous property, Parcel 3. This project would include such uses as a hotel, restaurants, shops and other family oriented recreational uses. Mr. Thornhill had suggested a proper zoning designation of Tourist Commercial would be the appropriate designation for both parcels. we then submitted our CUP application to the City in Julyof 1991, which is still in process, and are currently working on a concept plan for the Parcel 3 property. Sandalwood C,rcle. Murr,eta. Cahlorma 92562 · (714) 699-7777 Fax (714) 698-9223 - beauty. The Project would require one main structure to handle the foo8 services, restrooms, dressing rooms and the indoor events. Two additional structures would be required.. One maintenance building and one gazebo. I have not had a chance to review the allowable uses under the Open Space designation tQ see if structures are allowed under that.designation. I would like to request a proper land use to accommodate this use or a policy statement within the Open Space designation that would allow for this use. When you and I discussed this parcel last week, you mentions the possibility of allowing a private picnic facility in the Open Space/.Recreation designation. This policy statement would work as long as structures would be allowed on site. We feel all three parcels will provide high quality destination resort facilities. that will provide revenue for the'City of Temecula, employment for the local residents and recreation for all. Like our City Brochure states, TemeCula will have "Everything under the Sun" and "The Place Where Fun Begins and Never Ends". Please call me at 676~4940 or 699-7777 if you have any questions or comments. My address is: Phillip Jones 33100 Pauba Rd Temecula, CA 92592 Thank you for your time and cooperation. Sincerely; · Phillip Jones Pro3ect Manager cc: Saied Naaseh ../ ~ .... I T I '., / / ,.// i/' II I! // II 2-5 DU / AC PIgNAN / INDIAN I!BIRVATIO -- '----- SOUTHWEST---AR~' ~~~."NI'I~ PLA~.:' 'CGPA 52,.-EXHI~IT'A' RESOLUTION 89-536 ' '- ~..~-=-= .o,,.',.,... :.0. '~';..':,,-.= =..=E,..-E. ,.. -, t m~ = z RECEIVED OCT I 9 1992 October 19, 1992 JohnR. Meyer, AICP '- Senior Planner City of Temecula Planning Department 43172 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 Re: City of Temecula General Plan Concerning Final Map No. 21769 Parcels 1,2'&3. Dear: John Thank you fo~ taking the time to discuss our Rainbow Canyon projects last week. 'As we discussed, when Dr. Grewal purchased.Parcel No. 2 she had the specific purpose to build. a waterpark and fam/ly fun center. If the General Plan would allow these use in the policies, we would not have an objection to this. I would like to review any policies in draft form when available. When Dr. Grewal purchased Parcel No. 3 (the 30 acre landfill site), she accepted the responsibility of the landfill clean-up. The parcel was already zoned.R2 but she felt a more compatible use with the existing golf course and proposed waterpark would be more appropriate. Our intentions for this site are to develop a destination commercial project which would include a hotel, restaurants and other. family recreational uses. We feel the Highway/Tourist Commercial designation would be the appropriate deslgnation. If this is. not an acceptable designation, we will keep the existing R2 zoning and work within those allowable uses. As far as Parcel No. 1 (the 17+/- acre parcel in the canyon), which myself and my other two partners own, is currently zoned RR, has a SWAP designation of Resort Commercial and has a City of Temecula designation of Open Space/Recreation. Our intent for this property is to develop a Wedding, Reception and Special Event facility. we are currently working on a concept plan for this use and will review this with you when available. Because of the extensive amount of easements and oak trees this pro3ect would be very environmentally sensitive and heavily landscaped to take advantage of the natural On the May 6, 1992 release of the Draft Preferred Land Use Plan for.the City of Temecula General Plan Program (copy enclosed) the proper land use designation of Highway/Tourist Commercial is indicated for both Parcels 1 and 2 . On the most recent plan that I saw at the planning counter on September 18 showed both properties as Open Space/Recreation. I am not awareof the reasons why this change occurred, but I would like to formally request these two properties, Parcels 2 and 3 of Parcel Map 21769 be. changed back to the original Temecula General Plan Program designation of. Highway/Tourist Commercial. The Open Space/Recreation designation would not give us the flexibility required for the family recreation project on Parcel 2 and-is totally inconsistent with current R2 zoning or our proposed Resort Commercial project on the adjacent parcel 3 property. I would be available to discuss any questions or concerns you may have on either-project at any time convenient for you. Please call me at 699-7777 to set up a time to meet at your convenience. Thank you for your time and cooperation. Sincerely; Phillip Jones Pro3ect Manager cc: Saied Naaseh October 6, 1992 Mr. John Meyer Senior Planner City of Temecula' 43174'Business Park Drive Temecula, California 92590 'RE: Temecula General Plan Draft Preferred Land Use Plan (Tentative Parcel Map 25981, Change of Zone 14) Dear Mr. Meyer, I am writing this letter to address my concern with the City's Draft General Plan designation for the above parcel. It is currently designated as "Very Low Density" (0.5 DU per acre). The above map and change of zone was approved at City Council April'2, 1991. The gross acreage is 3.10. The parcel is approved for 3 parcels with R-A 20,000 zoning. I feel that the best land use designation for this area is "Low" (2 DU/AC Max..) due to the fact that there are previously approVed maps in this 'area with R-A 20,000 zoning. It is extremely compatible and would serve as a buffer to the Los Ranchitos home- owners from the parcels to the North currently designated as "Low Medium." Thank you for your attention to this matter. Please contact me if you have any questions or require additional information. SIncerely, ~ William Kouvelis 30675 Pauba Road Temecula, California 92592 (714) 676-2502 RECEIVED OCT 1 199't. t TY OF TEMECtlLA October 1, 1992 John Me or, Senior Planner CITY O~ TEMECULA 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, California 92590 RE: Assessors Parcel Number 940-310-014 Dear Mr.. Meyer, I am writing you m protest the proposed general Inn designation of the above referenced parcel to a medium density rcsidenti~Y-oning. The property was purchased in October of 1989 with the intention of developing an office building for a future location of our advertislng company. At the time of the purchase we petitioner the County Board of Supervisors and Planning Commission to designate a oftion of the parcel for office/commercial use and the balance of the site would be ~ft as open space. This designation request was accepted by the County under the South West Area Plan. Shortly after the South West Arcs Plan was adopted by the County Board of Supervisors we were told by the County that our zone change and buildin a plications would have to be submitted to the newly incorporated City o~ '~'Pemecula. · Seeing the start of economic recession in early 1990 and after several meetinlzs with planrang consultants in Te'mecula we decided'to wait for a while before startihg to build our building. We felt that time would be needed for the City to settle some of it's traffic problems and decide whether or not to propose the western corridor road which would have a substantial effect on our property. We could also use some time to see how the economic recession would effect our advertising business. Now that we are secure with our business and ready to consider expansion, we are faced with the problem of zoning designation with the City's proposed eneral plan. By zoning this parcel medium residential this totally eliminates our abil~ty to use the ropetry for our intended purpose and greatly disheartens us as to the thought of FJcating our advertising business in Temecula. The only alternative we will have is to sell the property to an apartment building developer and after some investigation in this direction we find this to be an impossib!!ity. -% We are not real estate developers, we are in the advertising business, and are not ca able of building apartments nor do we want to. We also feel, by speaking with o~:r property owners in the area, that aparunents on this site would be a detraction to the area and to the Ci~. The only type of renters who would be willin to live on this site, which is located xn a business park area, would mostly likely be [e · to hang their laundry out on the balcony similar to the tenements you see alongt~jol Street. . This site has a ~eat deal of exposure which we are attraaed to by bein in the advertising busxness. The site ~s highi~t visible from many areas of the ~ity and it would be detrimental to the surrounding property owners and the image of Temecula to build apartments here. We sincerely, request that you reconsider your proposed general plan designation and zone this property for office commercial use. BK:rmr "~' Western Redohal Office 3817 Ginger Court Auburn, C~llfornla 9560~ Phone/Fax: 916 878-8206 Mobfi: 916 76&.0321 October 5, 1992_ Mr. John Meyer Planning Department 43 174 Business Park Drive Tcmecula, CA 92590 RECEIVED ocT0 8 1992 .......... Re: APN/t922-170-001 Dear Mr. Meyer, ! hax'c acquired a 2.83 acre parcel of land within the TemeCula city limits at 28915 Vallejo Drive next to the 1-15 freeway (lot 78552). Presently I find that this property is no longer desirable as a home site because of the freewaynoise. Bccau,~c the property falls within the Los Ranchitos Homeowners Association the general plan c~,uld use the property to enhance Los Ranchitos, such as a church, tennis club, day care center or communstv hall. ' Ptc;x,c gt~ c mca call at the above number to discuss the possibilities on this par~:cl.' S~nccrclx. ) , .~/.-..~ --~,. - 'LINDAL CEDAR HOMES, INC. B~II Bn,wn. Western Rcg,onal Mgr. Trans-raci~c COBSllLfIllS October 6, 1992 Mr. John Meyer, Senior Planner City of Temecula 431~4 Business Park Drive Temecula, California 92590 General Plan DeSignation Applied to Assesson Parcel Number 911-150-005 (H-C Property) Dear Mr. Meyer: On behalf of my clients, Mr. Jim E. Shimozono and H.C. Properties, I have examined the "Draft Preferred Plan"land use designation as it relates to the above referenced property. As of this writing, the Draft General Plan reflects a medium residential designation (12 DU/Acre maximum density) over the subject site. As the City of Temecula's General Plan efforts continue to progress, on behalf of my clients we respectfully request that the above referenced property be given a neighborhood commercial land use designation and offer the following for your consideration. O Upon examining the various commercial General Plan land use designation descriptions it 'is our opinion that the subject site lends itself more readily to the neighborhood commercial designation. The neighborhood commercial designation description states that "Neighborhood Commercial centers usually are developed on less than ten acres of land and range between 25,000 and 75,000 square feet. Property should be compatible in design and scale with adjacent residential areas and should be designed to encourage pedestrian usage.': The subject site at 6.70~ acres falls within the 10 acreage criteria as described by the Neighborhood Commercial designation General Plan policies. Mr. John Meyer October 6, 1992 Page two 0 The subject site has an appropriate size and con~m'ation to support a low intensity neighborhood oricntatcd commercial development. A low intensity mixed use commercial development at this location is entirely cg. nsistcnt with existing residential developments and the established pattern of residential development within the Winchester Road corridor. The subject site backs up to the proposed Tucalota Creek channel which will provide' a land use buffer between commercial uses anticipated for the subject site and the single family residential uses to the east approved within the Winchester Properties Specific Plan (SP 213). In addition the contiguous parcel to the north of the subject site is designated as open space per S.P. 213 and as such will provide a land use transition between the proposed commercial land uses and multiple family land uses to the north approved with S.P. 213, see attached exh~it. It should be noted that the current Draft Preferred Plan has designated the properly immediately north of the subject site as medium residential. However, this parcel has already been committed to open space pursuant to SP 2-13. With respect to the encouragement of pedestrian uses criteria; the subject site can be linked on the eastern side of Winchester Road to a series of recreation trails and class II bike lanes proposed within the Roripaugh-Estates Specific Plan (S.P. 164) and the Winchester Properties Specific Plan (S.P. 213) making the commercial development accessible by alternative modes of travel. Upon examining the "Draft Preferred Plan" it was observed that the Roripaugh Estates Commercial'Center currently reflects a Neighborhood Commercial designation. The Roripaugh Estates' Commercial Center property is separated from the subject site by the proposed Santa Genrudis Creek Channel. Never the less, an argument could be made that granting the subject site a Neighborhood Commercial designation in combination with the Roripaugh Commercial Center would result in an excess of contiguous neighborhood orientatcd commercial property in this particular area of the City. However, it should be noted that the Roripaugh Commercial component is 27 acres in size and is intended to support a supermarket, drug store and other more intensive commercial land uses consistent with the community commercial land use description and criteria. Mr. John Meyer Oaober 6, 1992 Page three O Therefore, it is our opinion that the Neighborhood Commercial designation currently applied to the Roripaugh Estates Commercial component is inappropriate and should be redesignated to reflect the community commercial designation. Once the Roripaugh Commercial site has been redesignated as community commercial the prospect of having excessive' contiguous neighborhood oriented commercial property in the area will no longer be an issue. .The subject site is located within Assessment District No. 161, (Winchester .Properties). AD 161 consist of properties within the unincorporated areas of Riverside County in addition to areas within the City of Temecula and the City of Murrieta. Although AD 161 continues to be managed by the County of Riverside, the City of Temecula has adopted and accepted AD 161 as the financing mechanism for infrastructure improvements within the Winchester Road Corridor north of the Interstate-15 freeway and south of Auld Road. As I am sure you are aware messmenu are secured by a lien against the respective properties participating in AD 161. The .security of assessment bonds and the long-term financial health of AD 161 and similar assessment districts within the City of Temecula are therefore dependent on the successful development of properties within the respective districts, both individually and collectively. The subjea site is currently below the grade of Winchester Road. For the property to develop for any use other' than open space the site will need to be elevated to an at grade condition with Winchester Road. Given the subject site's ultimate relationship to Winchester Road and it's inherent noise impacts it is our opinion that the property lends itself for more readily to a neighborhood commercial development than a medium density residential product. The site is too small to cluster units away from Winchester Road and still maintain sufficient density to have a viable project. This condition is further exacerbated in that the current property owners purchased the site based on the property's existing manufacturing / service commercial zoning designation and the potential land uses permitted therein. Further, it is our opinion that Mr. John Meyer October 6, 1992 Page four o the current' medium residential general plan designation will result in an end product that is only marginally marketable relative to the requested neighborhood commercial designation, therefore significantly reducing. the-development potential of the property and conversely increasing the likelihood of assessment. dcfnulL Given that the City of Temecula and the County of Riverside have a lot at stake, relative to AD 161 bond sales, it is prudent, in our opinion, to support general plan land use designations within AD 161 that have the highest potential of translating into successful projects. From an area development / marketing perspective, the subject site is located within a segment of the Winchester Road corridor which exhibits an established pattern of urban development primarily in the contex~ of master planned communities. Within a primary market radius of 2..5 miles, there are approximately 6,747 dwelling units in combination of existing residential developments and entitlements. In addition there is also a significant amount of property within the market radius which has an industrial zoning designation and/or industrial specific plan designation. Applying a factor of 2.4 persons per dwelling unit a population of 16,192 individuals are projected within the aforementioned 2.5 mile market radius at buildout. 2.4 persons per dwelling unit X 6,747 dwelling units = 16,192 market ' radius population. As previously indicated neighborhood level commercial centers are generally located on sites of 10 acres or less. In addition, neighborhood commercial centers as a general rule of thumb require a population base of 2,500 to support the facility. Given the projected construction of 6,747 dwelling units within the 2.5 mile market radius exclusively, there will be a sufficient population to theoretically support six (6) neighborhood centers. It should be noted however, that within the subject site's 2..5 mile market radius there are only two (2) additional properties which meet the neighborhood commercial criteria one of which is within an area of the Winchester Properties Specific Plan (S.P. 213) that is located outside of the Temecula City boundary. Mr. John Meyer October 6, 1992 Page five Thank you for your consideration in this matter. We look forward tO the continued progress of the City of Temecuh's General Plan. Should you have any questions .and/or concerns with respect to our request, please dO not hesitate to contact me at extension 212. Very truly yours, PAC C SUE ANTS vi Jam , Assistant Di..~ctor of Planning ' / DAJ:lmm Enclosures cc: Mr. Jim E. Shimozono, Architects Design Consonium' / III, 1.11 Ill!l~~ (s.p. 11 City of Temecula Draft General Plan Current "Preferred Plan" Designation (Medium Density Residential) Requested "Preferred Plan" Designation (Neighborhood Commercial) N Not to Scale Tmns-Eaci~c .OF., T 15 1992 ns'd ........... LORENZ ALHADEFF & OGGEL A F&~TNrRSM.~ INCUd~NG ~ROF~SS~NAL CORFOR&T~NS SAN DieGO OrrlC[ CABOT. CABOT & IFOIICS BUILDING October 7, 1992 HAND DELIV~-PMD John R. Meyer, AICP Senior Planner City of Temecula 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 Re: Proposed Land Use Designations For Kemper -'ProDert~'es Under nrsft ~eneral Plan 6961.1026 Dear John: As you know, this firm represents Kemper Real Estate Management Company ("Kemper") in connection with the above- referenced matter. You were kind enough last Wednesday to discuss with Barry Burnell and I certain proposed land use designations under the Draft General Plan for various Kemper properties we would like the City to reconsider. The four (4) specific properties we would like to address are commonly referred to as the "Meadows Property," the "Rainbow Canyon Property," the "Margarita Canyon Property" and the "Escarpment Property." Attached to this letter for your consideration is an outline covering the salient issues for each of'these properties. A brief summary is as follows: 1. Meadows Property. This Property is located at the Northeast corner of Margarita and Winchester Roads. As you know, a portion of the Meadows Property will be conveyed to the Temecula Valley Unified School District. Kemper is requesting that the remainder of the Meadows Property (located across Margarita Road from the Costco commercial site) be designated Community Commercial. 2. Rainbow Canyon Property. This property is located at Pala Road and Highway 79 South. As you will recall, we briefly discussed the Rainbow Canyon Parcel with you, and provided you with a map depicting the "after condition" that will exist on this parcel following the realignment of Pala Road. In addition, I understand that Norm Thomas at RanPac has also provided you HAND D~LIV~-RED October 7, 1992 Page 2 LOI ENZ ALHADEFF & OGGEL with a map showing the condition of the Rainbow Canyon PrOperty after such' realignment. We have previously advised Dave Dixon that we would negotiate in good faith to convey a portion of the Rainbow Canyon 'Property for wetlands mitigation. Obviously, Kemper needs to discuss this issue further with the City, but it is my understanding that a'draft letter of intent is being prepared in this regard. Kemper is asking the City (i) to designate'both portions of the Rainbow Canyon Property lying on either side of Pala Road (as realigned) as Community and/or Neighborhood Commercial, and (ii) for help with the State to obtain appropriate ingress and egress to the Rainbow Canyon Property in connection with the realignment of Pala Road. 3. Marcarita Canyon Property. This property is located at Interstate 15 and Front Street South. We believe the current Neighborhood Commercial designation should be extended from Front Street South to the creek along the Interstate 15 frontage. 4. EscarPment property. This property is located on the hillside west of the International Rectifier site. We would like the City to limit the current Community Commercial designation to the approximately three (3) acres adjacent to Rancho California Road, and to'designate the remainder of the Escarpment Property as Business Park. We would welcome the opportunity to discuss these issues with you further at'your earliest convenience. In the meantime, should you have any questions 'or concerns regarding the above, or the enclosed outline, please do not hesitate to call. pdo [kewqi:~r.gnl:)|n} Sincerely, Samuel. C. Aihadeff, ' p.C., LORENZ ALHADEFF & OGGEL of co: Gary Thornhill 4 Propez~.iea k~ec~ed I~ DIme1: general Pla.u: (a) Northeast corner of Winchester and Margarita Roads ( the "Meadows' Property" ) ;' (b) Southwest corner of Highway 79 and Pala Road (the "Rainbow Canyon Property"); (c) Interstate 15 and Front Street South (the "Margarita Canyon PToperty"); and (d) Hillside west of International. Rectifier (the "Escarpment Property"). Current SWAP Designatioasz '(a) Meadows Proper~y - Light Industrial; (b) Rainbow Canyon Property - Office Commercial; (c) Margarita Canyon Property - Northeast portion designated Commercial; Southwest portion designated Mountainous (10 acre minimums); and (d) Escarpment Property - Approximately 3 acres at Rancho California Road designated Commercial; Remainder designated as Restricted Light Industrial. Draft General Plan would change land use designations for 3 of the 4 properties: (a) Meadows Property maintains Industrial designation. Portion of Meadows Property to be used as new high school. Remainder of Meadows Property would be ideal for commercial designation; (b) Rainbow Canyon Property would be part Neighborhood Commercial and part Low Medium Residential (3 to 6 units per acre). With realignment of Pala Road, both properties are ideal for commercial designations; (c) Margarita Canyon Property would be part Neighborhood Commercial and part Very Low Residential (.2 to .4 units per acre)· Because this property is located between Interstate 15 and (d) the creek, it is not well suited for residential development. Commercial designation should be extended from Front S~reet South to the creek along Interstate 15; and Escarpment Property would be Community Commercial. This is an appropriate designation for approximately 3 acres at Rancho California Road. Business Park designation would'be more appropriate for remainder. of Escarpment Property. Requested Xotionz (a) Change land use designation for portion of Meadows .Property (all but school site) to Community Commercial; (b) -(c) (d) Change land use designation for portion of Rainbow Canyon Property from Low Medium Residential to Community Commercial; Change land use designation for portion of .Margarita Canyon Property from Very Low Residential to Community Commercial; and Change land use designation for portion of Escarpment Property from Community Commercial to Business Park. emper Real Estate Management Company 555 Ynez Road, Suite 200, Temecula, California 92591 · 714/676-7290 · Fax: 714/694-5687 March 22, 1993 Mr. Gary Thornhill Planning Director City of' Temecula 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, California 92590 Mr. John R. Meyer, AICP Senior Planner City of Temecula 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, California 92590 Illell IdtiL'llil I I I I RE: Proposed Lane Use Designations for Kemper Properties Under Draft General Plan Dear Gary and John: Now that the Draft General Plan. has been approved by the Planning Commission, and is now before the City Council for further hearings and consideration, we thought we would take this opportunity to raise the remaining concerns Kemper has with respect to the proposed land use designations for its properties. The four (4) specific properties we would like the City to reconsider are commonly referred to as.the "Rainbow Canyon Property," the "North Jefferson Business Park - Freeway Property, the "North Jefferson Business Park Phase III Property," and the "Front Street Commercial Property". 1. Rainbow Canyon Property. This property is located at the intersection of Pala Road and Highway 79 South. As you will recall, the configuration of this property will be altered by the realignment of Pala Road. Following realignment, the remaining two (2) parcels will be ideal for commercial uses. As you may recall, the Planning Commission redesignated the portion east of Pala Road as Highway Commercial, but left the western two acres as Professional Office. Consequently, we are asking the City to designate that portion of the Rainbow Canyon Property lying to the west of Pala Road (as realigned) as Community or Neighborhood Commercial. 2. North Jefferson Business Park - Freeway Property. All of Kemper's North Jefferson Business Park is designated Service Commercial. We believe the Service Commercial designation is appropriate; however, such designation should be expanded to include most, if not at all, of the uses contemplated by the Business Park designation as well. For example, at a minimum, the Service Commercial designation should contemplate stand alone manufacturing and related activities. Given the realities of the real estate market, and the need for local jobs, manufacturing should be allowed in this zone. Mr. Gary Thornhill/Mr. John R. Meyer City of Temecula March 22, 1993 Page 2 3. North Jefferson Business Park-Phase III Property. This property is on the west side of Jefferson and south of the Freeway Property, and is currently designated · Business Park. Because Jefferson is such a commercial corridor for the City, we believe it makes sense to redesignate the Jefferson frontage portions of this property (approximately 200 feet in depth running from Cherry Street south to Santa Gertrudis Creek) to Service Commercial, with the remainder of the property maintaining the Business Park designation. This would preserve appropriate commercial uses along Jefferson. eif~4. Front Street Commercial Property. This approximately 12.3 acre property is located between Front Street and Interstate 15 generally north of Rancho California Road. While it is appropriately designated Highway/Tourist Commercial, we would like to see the uses authorized under this designation expanded to allow some incidental office uses as well. For example, this site would be well-suited for a company headquarters office location. This would be consistent with the existing C-P-S zoning. We would welcome the opportunity to discuss these issues with you further at your earliest convenience. In the meantime, should you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, Bryan C. Noreen General Manager BCN/kl cc: Csaba Ko Suzanne Hurley CABOT, CABOT i FOlllEe* BUli,DING LORENZ ALHADEFF OGGEL A Fa~ITNE~RSNiI~ INCLUDING PlqOFtSSION&L. CORIIOR&TIONS October 19, 1992 OCT 2 0 19S2 CITY OF TF-..~*-"CULA TIMICULA O~WICI~ 6961.1026 B2k_ND D~T.T'g~n John R. Meyer, AICP Senior Planner' City of Temecula 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 Re: Dear John: Proposed Land Use Designations For Kemper Properties Under ~v~ft General Plan This is a supplement to my previous letter to you dated October 7, 1992. In reviewing the land use component of the Draft Temecula General Plan, we have determined there are several additional properties (identified on the Map attached hereto) owned by Kemper Real Estate Management Company ("Kemper") that should be considered for land use redesignation by the City of Temecula as follows: 1. ~urrieta Creek Property. As you may how,. Kemper owns approximately 15 acres along Murrieta Creek south of Winchester Road ~hat will be outside the final Murrieta .Creek alignment. Kemper is not opposed to the Open Space/Recreation designation for that portion of the propercy necessary for the Creek itself. However, such designation should not apply to any propercy not required for the Creek, and Kemper should be able to utilize such remaining propercy consistent with the Business Park designation shown for the surrounding proper'ties. 2. winchester Hiahlands Business Park Property. Kemper owns three remaining lots in the Winchester Highlands Business Park, which is designated Professional Office on the Draft Preferred Land Use Plan. Consistent with the existing zoning in place, and consistent with existing uses in the Business Park, Kemper would like these lots redesignated to Business Park in order to allow for manufacturing ac~civities. Such a redesigna=ion would permit the likely manufacturing uses contemplated for these proper%ies, along with professional office uses as well. LOI ENZ ALHADEFF & OGGEL John R. Meyer, AICP October 19, 1992 Page 2 .3. North Jefferson ~e~nees P~k-FreewaV Property.' All of Kemperrs North Jefferson Business Park-Freeway property is designated Service Commercial. We believe the Service Commercial -.designation is appropriate; however, such designation .should be expanded to include most, if not all, of the uses contemplated by the Business Park designation as well. For example, at a minimum, the Service Commercial designation should contemplate stand-alone manufacturing and related activities. 4. North Jefferson Bus~ness P~rk-Phase 3 Property. This property is on the west side of Jefferson, south of the Freeway Property, and is currently designated Business Park. Because Jefferson is such a commercial corridor for the City, we believe it makes sense to redesignate the Jefferson parcels (approximately 200 feet in depth) to Service Commercial, with the remainder of this property remaining Business Park.. This would preserve the Business Park character of the area, while allowing for appropriate commercial .uses along Jefferson. 5. Rancho California Bus.~ness Park PropertV. Parcel I of this property is designated Business Park even though the City approved a Change of Zone to Community Commercial thereon less than a year ago. We believe the City should honor the rezoning obtained through this zone change, and therefore request a redesignation under the land use element of the Draft General Plan to Community Commercial. 6. Front Street Commercial Property. This approximately 12.3 acre property is located generally at Front Street and Interstate 15. While it is appropriately designated Highway/Tourist Commercial, we would like to see the uses authorized under this designation expanded to allow some incidental office uses as well. This would be consistent with the existing C-P-S zoning. 7. Tnformation Center Property. This is the Information Center for Paloma De1 Sol, and is part of. Specific Plan 180. We believe the entire property should be designated Highway/Tourist Commercial (and eliminating the High Density Residential designation on a portion of the property). 8. Plaza Office II Property. This property is located on the northwest corner of Rancho California and Ynez Roads. I believe this property is also a part of a'specific plan, and for LORENZ ALHADEFF & OGGEL John R. Meyer, AICP Oc=ober 19, 1992 Page 3 consistency purposes should be redes~gnated Highway/Tourist Commercial and Professional Office. I would welcome ~he opportunity to discuss these properties with you at your earliest convenience. In the meantime, should you have any questions or concerns regarding the redesignation we have requested in connection with these properties, please do not hesitate to call me. Sincerely, PDO/js (kemper2.Ltr) co: Dennis Klimmek, Esq. Greg Erickson Csaba Ko Lisa Peterson, Esq. Barry Burnell Samuel C. Alhadeff, Esq. Samuel C. Alhadeff, P.C., of LORENZ ALHADEFF & OGGEL August 7, 1992 RECEIVED Mr. Gary Thornhill Director of Planning CITY OF'Tw-MEC~LA 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 RE: TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN AUG I 0 1992 Ans'd,...,,, Dear Gary: Based on the draft of the General Plan, I am requesting further review of the following three properties: Pala Road / Hw~ 79 S: We request that this be designated retail commercial. A small portion is high density residential and it seems inappropriate to designate the property as residential due to being adjacent to heavy auto traffic and'.in close proximity to major arterials. Front Street / 1-15 / Hw~ 79 S: This property was shown as commercial on swap. It is the southern access to the western Corridor. 'The plan shows low density residential between 1-15 and the creek. We are requesting commercial zoning south to the Temecula sign. We feel commercial is appropriate due to the freeway frontage and the Western Corridor. Winchester Road between Margarita & Nicholas Roads: ·A green belt is shown along Winchester Road between Margarita and Nicholas. I believe that this is incorrectly drawn and the green belt should be along the Santa Gertrudis Creek as planned in the past.' Please led me know what further informaUion you may require regarding these properties. Sincerely, BEDFORD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY C~'~. / Gregory A. Er. ickson Area Manager GAE/dh/1089 co: Bltt Butter Batty Burnsit 2Z5765 S~nglc Oak Drive. Suttc 200 Tcmccula. CA 92,590 Phone: 714/676-5o41 Fax: 714/676-3385 tw~r. ADOW~EW · -e- C. THE ' ~ v. V|NEY, ARD ~,~ eCAUFC)N~NIA ,, MARSARITA :lja/ VILLAP,,,d VtLLAGE RA~ CINTIA~. tl CANYON VILLAGE ' ""', · ' ' _~,a~,..-.:;-- _ ,~,,,.e./* ..~, ,t OGober ~, 1992 JN 168~74 John l~yer City of Temecola Banning .Depaaa,ent 43174 Business Park Dr.. Temecuh, CA 92590 RE: RANCHO HIGHLANDS GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION Dear John: Attached, please find an excerpt from the Rancho Highlands Specific Plan which pertains to the Office Professional portions of the Rancho Highlands Specific Plan. As you can see from the text I have provided, and as we have discussed in our recent meeting, the lake and grassy area on the southeast comer of Ynez and Rancho California Road a~ not expected nor r~quired to be retained in their current configuration. The future configuration and character of the open space area on that comer will only be determined in conjunction with htu~ plot plan subminals for office professional uses on that comer. I think it is important that the General Plan r~..ognize the flexibility and uncertain nature of the open space area on this comer and on the southwest comer as well. As you may or may not be aware, the southwest comer is allowed under the Specific Plan to increase the office area and to acid a restaurant in the area where some of the open space exists now. In my opinion, it is important that the City of Temecula through its General Plan not imply to the public that what exists now will remain for the long term future. I would suggest this be handled through a textual notation in the final version of the General Plan which would save both the City and the Developer significant headaches in the future. If you need further information, or if I can .be of any help otherwise with regard to this matter, plPa~e don't hesitate to ask. Very truly yours, T&B PLANNING CONSULTANTS, INC. ! ,# Barry Bumell Princip-~ RECEIVED BB:tmchO07 Enclosures xC: Sam A!hadeff Greg Erickson Dennis Klimmek 0 C T i 7 An: ............ Very HiGh Planning Areas 3, 4/5, and 6 shall be developed with very high density residential (14-20 du/ac) land uses, similar to the densities (10-20 du/ac) originally proposed in the approved Specific Plan. Planning Area 7 was also originally designated for residential development at a density of 4-10 du/ac. Planning Area 7 is now designated for very high density uses in order to provide 'a land use transition between the office/professional land uses in Planning Area 1 and the medium density. residential uses. to the south (Planning Area 8/9). The. total target number of dwelling units has been reduced from 20 to a maximum of 17 dwelling units per acre to better reflect market concerns and to increase private open space-within multi-family Planning Areas. Overall, the approved Specific Plan shows 18.3 acres to be developed with residential land uses at a density of 10-20 du/ac. This Amendment proposes that 22.5 acres be developed with very' high density residential development (14-20 du/ac), representing a 4.2 acre (12%) increase. Total dwelling units for Planning Areas 3, 4/5, 6, and 7 increased by 17, from 366 to 383 (8%). These Planning Areas have been reconfigured slightly to accommodate a better road system which is. configured as a loop with a larger radius than previously shown. Please note that no density transfer of residential dwelling units shall be allowed between Planning Areas within the Rancho Highlands Specific Plan project area. b. Office/Professional Development This Amendment proposes two locations for development with office/professional land uses, one of .which remains un- changed (Planning Area 1), however the other site (Planning Area 2) has been expanded Total acreage has increased by 3 acres, from 11.8 to 14.8. The office/professional portion of the site centers around two lakes adjacent to Rancho California Road. These lakes may be modified or reduced once the actual site plan has been determined. These planning areas will be comprised mainly of medium intensity office/professional uses that are intended to complement the Plaza, a retail commercial development north of Rancho California Road. Hotel/restaurant uses may also be allowed within the office/professional uses. Please refer to the land use 'regulations and development standards in Section III.B., Planning Area Development Standards. 15 A.J. TERICH EN G INEERIN G CIVIL ENGINEERING · SURVEYING · LAND PLANNING October 13, 1992 John Meyer, Senior'Planner City of Temecula Planning Dept. 43174'Business Park Drive Temecula, California 92590 Re: Assessoros Parcel Nos. 940-310-015 & 016 General Plan Land Use Designation (JN 2334-E) Dear John: Per our conversation on October 12, 1992, I am enclosing information relati. ve to the recent zone change on the subject property relative to the proposed General Plan Designation. The proposed designation calls for high density and 'medium density residential. However, please note that the surrounding uses North and northwest are office buildings and more 2mportantly the zone change which was approved within the las= year by the City Council designated the property as I-P and R-5. Mr. Firestone, the property owner, respectfully requests that 'the zone change which he applied for and obtained be recognized and adopted as a part of the City's General Plan. However, Mr. Firestone would be amenable to a 50/50 split of I.P. and high density residential and hereby requests that =he high density, if applied, would 'not be restrictedbyheight. Your consideration will be appreciated. Very truly yours, A.j. Terich Engineering AJ T/siny . ..'.~e r i ch CC: John Firestone Gary Thornhill C~ty Council Planning Commission MAIN STREET · TEMECULA. CA 92590 · (714) 676-5715 ] (714) 676-5716 · FAX (714) 676-6306 CALL TO ORDER: AGENDA TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL A REGULAR MEETING · TEMECULA TEMPORARy COMMUNITY CENTER 27475 COMMERCE CENTER DRIVE NOVEMBER 12, 1991 - 7:00 PM Next in Order: Ordinance: No. 91-42 Resolution: No. 91-109 Invocation Flag Salute ROLL CALL: PRESENTATIONS/ PROCLAMATIONS PUBLIC FORUM Pastor Erik Krag, Temecula Evangelical Free Church Councilmember Moore Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Mur~oz, Parks Certificate of Valor -Andrew Gonzales Proclamation - Great American Smokeout Day This is a portion of the City Council meeting unique to the City of Temecula. At the meeting held on the second Tuesday of each month, the City Council will devote a Deriod of time (not to exceed 30 minutes) for the purpose of providing the public with an opportunity to discuss topics of interest with the Council. The members of the City Council will respond to questions and may give direction to City staff. The Council is prohibited. by the Provisions of the Brown Act, from taking any official action on any matter which is not on the agenda. If you desire to speak on any matter which is not listed on the agenda, a pink 'Request to Speak' form should be filled out and filed with the City Clerk. For all other agenda items a "Request to Speak' form must be filed With the City Clerk ~ the Council gets to that item. There is a five (5) minute time limit for individual sDeakers. 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 City Council request specific items be removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action. 21a~e~48/I 1121t 1 PUBLI.C HEARINGS Any person may submit written comments to the City Council 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 City Clerk at, or prior to, the public hearing, 12 Chanae of Zone No. 5631 - Vestina Tentative Tract No. 25320 Property located north of Pauba Road, between Ynez Road and Margarita Road, RECOMMENDATION: · ! 2.1 Continue the Public Hearing to the meeting of December 10, 1991. \ 13 henae of Zone No. 5740 . . . . , operty located on the west smde of Rmdgepark Drmve south of Rancho California Road. RECOMMENDATION: 13.1 13.2 Adopt a Negative Declaration for Change Of Zone No, 5740. Adopt a Resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO, 91- 13.3 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY-OF TEMECULA APPROVING CHANGE OF ZONE NO, 5740 CHANGING THE ZONE FROM R-A- 20 TO I-P AND R-5 ON PROPERTY LOCATED .ON THE WEST SIDE OF RIDGEPARK DRIVE AND SOUTH OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NOS. 940-310-020 AND 021. Read by title only and introduce an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO, 91- AN ORDINAN. CE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF SAID CITY IN THE CHANGE OF ZONE APPLICATION NO, 5740 CHANGING THE ZONE FROM R-A-20 TO I-P AND .4-5 ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF RIDGEPARK DRIVE, SOUTH OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NOS. 940-320-020 AND 021. 21egerms'111211 1 I,~)1,'11 EXHIBIT' LEGAL DESCRIP'EION CHANGE OF ZONE 5740 PARCELS. OF LAND BEING A PART OF PARCELS 20 AND 21, PARCEL MAP 18254, AS S.]{OWN BY MAP ON FILE IN PARCEL MAP BOOK 116, PAGES 69 THROUGH 78, INCLUSIVE, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: R-5ZONING BEGINNING AT THE NORTHWESTERLY CORNER OF SAID PARCEL 20, AS SHOWN ON SAID MAP; THENCE NORTH 47'36'58" EAST 2~LONG THE BOUNDARY LINE OF SAID PARCEL 20 A DISTANCE OF 617.95 FEET; o THENCE SOUTH 51'47'51" EAST DEPARTING SAID LINE A DISTANCE OF 1073.56 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE, CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY, HAVING A RADIUS OF 3500.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY, ALONG SAID CURVE, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 08'26'51", AN ARC LENGTH OF 516.03 FEET TO A POINT ON THE BOUNDARY LINE OF SAID PARCEL 21; THENCE SOUTH 11'06'14" .WEST .ALONG SAID LINE A DISTANCE OF 525.58 FEET; THENCE NORTH 66'42'29" WEST A DISTANCE OF 1331.05 FEET TO THE SOUTHWESTERLY CORNER OF SAID PARCEL 20; THENCE NORTH 31'23'58" WEST ALONG THE BOUNDARY LINE OF SAID PARCEL 20 A DISTANCE OF 684.92 FEET TO THE POINT OF'BEGINNING. THE HEREIN DESCRIBED PARCEL OF LAND CONTAINS 28.39 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. IP ZONING COMMENCING AT THE NORTHWESTERLY CORNER OF SAID PARCEL 20, AS SHOWN ON SAID MAP;' THENCE NORTH 47'36'58" EAST ALONG THE BOUNDARY LINE OF SAID PARCEL 20 A DISTANCE OF 617.95 FEET: THENCE DEPARTING SAID LINE SOUTH 51'47'51" EAST A DISTANCE OF 130.76 FEET TO A POINT ON THE BOUNDARY LINE OF SAID PARCEL 20, SAID POINT BEING THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE NORTH 82'01'31" EAST A DISTANCE OF 679.55 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHWESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF EATHLEEN' WAY AS SHOWN ON SAID MAP; ' 1 THENCE NORTH. 64'46'46" EAST A DISTANCE OF 33.00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE CENTERLINE OF SAID KATHLEEN WAY, SAID POINT BEING A POINT ON A CURVE, CONCAVE NORTHEASTERLY, HAVING A RADIUS OF '400.00 FEET AND ARADIAL'WHICH BEARS NORTH 64'46'46" EAST~ THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY, ALONG SAID LINE AND ALONG SAID CURVE, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 65'12'23-", AN ARC T.~-NGTH OF 455.23 THENCE NORTH 89'34'23" EAST A DISTANCE OF 162.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 00'25'37" EAST A DISTANCE OF 33..~0 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHWESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF SAID KATHLEEN WAY; THENCE SOUTH 07'51'31" WEST ALONG THE BOUNDARY LINE OF SAID PARCEL 21 A DISTANCE OF 765.-87 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 11'06'14" WEST ALONG SAID LINE A DISTANCE OF 19.57 FEET TO A POINT ON A NON-TANGENT CURVE, CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY, HAVING A RADIUS OF 3500.00 FEET AND A RADIAL WHICH BEARS SOUTH 46'39'00" WEST; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY, ALONG SAID CURVE, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 08'26'51", AN ARC LENGTH OF 516.03 FEET; THENCE NORTH 51'47'51" WEST A DISTANCE OF 942.80 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING'. THE HEREIN DESCRIBED PARCEL OF LAND CONTAINS 12.73 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. ~E OF C,~Y OMDAHL ENTERPRISES Dave Dixon, City Manager City of Temecula 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 11-25-92 RE: Proposed zoning on the General Plan for the Firestone Property Map no. 43 & 44 on the "PARCEL SPECIFIC LAND REQUESTS MATRIX" Dear Mr. Dixon As indicated on the enclosed Matrix on maps 43 & 44, Staff is supporting a zoning that calls out medium and high residential for the Firstone Property. In representing John Firestone and as the adjacent property owner, we feel that this zoning will make it very difficult to proceed with any current or future development proposals on this property. As you know we are attempting to attract certain parties to consider this site for their specific need. Timing is crucial to this proposed use, if we show them a zoning of medium/high residential on the General Plan it could easily demonstrate an unacceptable timing restraint (time to process an amendment to the General Plan). Any other future uses, involving either high-density housing or I-P, would require the West Corridor Road to be built. The cost of this road would have to come partly from this property. High density housing would not support such an assessment, where as an I-P zoning would. An i-P zoning would also give us the greatest variety of potential uses. This would allow for us to continue to market the property for a use that could afford the participation in a West Corridor Road assessment. We are pursuing uses that would complement the Old Town Specific Plan. This property, with its highly visible location from the freeway, will be a landmark with whatever is built. We believe that high or medium density housing would be low to medium income housing. We would then have the Temecula landmark location in apartments. This would not only damage the quality that has gone into the Crystal Ridge Park but also have an enormous negative impact on the future development of Old Town as a tourist/commercial area. Upon the completion of the West'Corridor Road, this property will become the most desirable and valuable property in Temecula. We .believe, obviously, it would make the best Civic Center location for Temecula. Medium or high density housing would be a terrible mistake, please take a serious look at this site before you decide. Our "Requested Land Use" is I-P. We hope that Staff will concur as the "Draft Land Use" and support it. Thank you. Sincer 1 Howard Om ahl cc John Firestone Gary Thornhill Fron'~: Jc'.,-.n F.:re~.tcne 10592 Ladera Senda San~:aAna Ca92785 .No.~-'.25. '19S2 81:51 PM ~EBTEMB[R 30~ .'19~2 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: I HEREBY AUTHORIZE ANTHONY J, TERICH OF A.J. TERICH ENGINEERIN8 TO SIGN ANY NECESSARY DOCUMENTS IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE PROCESSING OF THE EXTENSION OF TIME FOR PARCEL I~P ~1548, ON MY BEHALF. SINCERELY, ..~ .,,' '/~~ F~TONE / A.J. TERICH ENGINEERING CIVIL ENGINEERING · SURVEYING · LAND PLANNING October 13, 1992 RECrsur," [OCT 16 1997. John Neyer, Senior Planner City of Temecula 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, California 92590 Re: Assessor's Parcel Number's: 940-310-013, 940-320-001,-002, -003,-004,-005,-006 & -007 General Plan Land Use Designation. (JN 2334 E) Dear John: On behalf of John Firestone, owner of the above. referenced proper=y, we respectfully request that the City seriously =onsider redesignatlng the subject property to a mixed use of commercial, light industry and office. In Nr. Fireston.e's opinion, the professional office designation is too large to be used in the foreseeable future with the abundance of vacant office space now available. Any delays in constructing a viable project further delays the construction of-the.much needed Southwest Corridor.. Per our conversation on October 12, 1992, you said the open space designation shown' on APN #940-320-002 is intended to reflect the steep na'=~ral slope along the property's northeasterly boundary. That being the case, the designation on the land use map does not match the actual steep sloped property. I have enclosed a topo for your review. In addition, he respectfully requests that the medium and high denslay residential designation to the South be redesignated as all high density with no height restriction. 41934 MAIN S'i'REET · TEMECULA, CA 92590 * (714) 676-5715 / (714) 676-5716 * FAX (714) 676-6306 To summarize, we are requesting a designa=ion =hat would allow offices, light industry and commercial {as allowed perhaps by the IP zoning), a refinemen= Of =he proposed open space designation Co resemble the actual topography and a designation of high density residenCiai without height limitation for the southerly boundary. Your consideration will be appreciated. Very truly yours, A.J. Terich Engineering An ch AJT/snm CC: John Firestone Gary Thornhill City Council Planning Commission -% --,,>\ October 2e, 1~2 Nr, John Nyers · 'Planning Departmeat City of Temecula Temeculao Cal=fornia RECEIVED Dear Hr, Hyerst We have been made aware recently of certain changes that may occur in the City's General Plan regarding our property located at 3332e Highway 79, Temecula, Ca,. Assessment #95215see3-5, we understand that the City is considering changing the zoning from Commercial on le acres on the corner of Highway 79 and Butterfield Stage Rd,, to residential zoning, We have a great deal of concerns regarding these possible changes and they are as follows# 1. In 1982 we were 'compelled by the CoUnty to change the zoning from Agricultural zoning to Commercial, if we wanted co continue to sell produce from our building, .We paid all the fees necessary Co change the. zonlng so that we could continue our .business. 2. During the last lO months, we have, been in 'the process of leasing our present buildings to retail 'businesses. We have stressed to them that if their business gro. ws that they will have the opportunity. to move into a new complex referring Co our future plans regarding the.property, and its present ' commercial zoning,' If the property 'was rezoned on the General Plan to residential it would restrict our ability to continue to lease the property and restrict the expansion of any business that exists. This would place the property as zoned today (commercial) totally useless until we could sell the property as residential, since there is no assurance in the future char any new City staff members would agree with the future concept. 3. The commercial property (9, 61 acres) on the corner of Highway 79 and Butterfield Stage ad.. was assessed by Assessment D~strict #159 on the basis of a Commercial zoning, Ic would appear to us that down-zoning the property would create a problem both from ~he standpoint of monies already paid and the responsibility of monies to be paid in the future. 4. Ano=ber concern =ha= we have is =be fac= =ha= a decision by =he Ci=y Council in November of I99e. has been preemp=ed and an addi=ional 2e acres has been placed in =he Sphere of Influence wi=bou=. our knowledge.. We believe we have valid concerns nbaC would ~eopardize our business. as well as o=bers in =be building. We feel rha= i= 'would be grossly unfair Co fezone propergy )us= norgh of us Cha= have hog gone =brough. ~e public hearing process nor have pa~d any zone :hange fees. We also feel =ha= if you were =o down-zone our properCy. iC would p/ace 'us in 'double jeopardy' forcing us =o ref=le for commercial zoning and having =o pay Che fees =wine. we would apprecia=e your consideration on our concerns. [ours very James Coro Meadowview Community Association '~vember 2, 1992 RECEIVED NOV O .q Ans'd ............ Mr. John Meyer, Senior Planner Planning Department City of Temecula 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, California 92591 Re: General Plan Land Use Designation In reviewing the General Plan Land Use Designation Map, we have noted the following inconsistencies: Parcels within the Meadowview Homeowners Association, east of Ave. Sonoma and north of Margarita should be shown as very low residential density, not medium low density. The common area of Meadowview ahould be the same density (very low) as the rest of the development since it is 'jointly owned by each of the other lots in the Meadowview development (currently rural residential throughout). The portion of the proposed Campos Verdes Specific Plan adjacent to Meadowview should be low medium density (as is the Roripaugh development) to provide consistent transition to the lower density Meadowview development. We request to review the above issues and make the requested changes in the Draft. General Plan Use prior to submission to the city council. CC: Dave Dixon Gary Thornhill City Council Planning Commission Meadowview Board of Directors RO. Box 788 · Temecula, California 92390 · (714) 676-4429 INGEBORG A. HYDE ANNA & Elfriede OSENBRUNNER 17847 S.LAKEWOOD Blvd. BELLFLOWER, CALIF. 90706 NOVEMBER 19 1992 TO THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MR. JOHN MEYER 43174 BUSINESS PARK DRIVE TEMECULA, CALIF. 90290 RECEIVED N nv ? rl 1992 Ans 'd ............ Dear MR. MEYER: Regarding our Phone call with Mr. David Hogan, we would like to ask you, to put our Property, 4.58 Acres ,Lot 23, MB o57 - 086 TR 3646 ASSESSMENT PARCEL. NO. 922200009-6 , on your proposed MASTER PLAN: LAND USE ELEMENT , AS AN COMMERCIAL PROPERTY. The Property wouldmake an ideal Location for the nice Homes behindus, for convenient Stores and a fine Food Restaurant.As it is an corner Property on THE high way .(Corner jeddimah Smith Street ). We are Owners of a Fine Dinner House now, wich Mr.'Tedd Thomey from the LONG Beach PRESS_Telegram wrote" Inge's is a famous ELEGANT LANDMARK " Mostly all of the Properties on THE 79 HIGHWAY listed on your Mater Plan wish to be Commercial. THANK YOU ~j Sincerely y s, From: GBL ~NTERPRIS~S RHOHE No.: 714 ~9,~ ~979 D~.82 1992 5:24PM 2 December 1992 Mr. John Meyer The City of Temecula Planning DepartmA. t: 43174 Business Park Drive · Amecula, CA 9~590 RECEIVE 1992 Dear Mr. J. Meyer W~ have recently read ~n article in the Ca]Jfornian newspaper eonc, e~ning future plane for the city of Teme~ula. To date we have never received any correspoudenc~ from your o~flce or ~or that mattor from any office concernAn2 our property. w~ l~v~ ~. the so called Hidden Hills urea of Temecula on 4.03 Acre~ cf land. Parcel ~ 914-300~045-8. W~ feel that the propneed zontn~ calling for homes on each 2 1/2 Acre p~rn~]. ~.e unJun~if~od and unfair.' The area we live in is ~urrounded on three aides by tract'homes with lose ~/4 Acre of 3and. We recommend that the ~oxaj. rl; be changod to loT. e n~ 1/2 TO 1 Acre of land thereby incre&ain5 revenues for the city which hopefully would decrease our present tax burden. We look at our ~early tax bill =nd it roads JJks 8 menu, W~ m,,~t look toward8 ~he £uture growth of Temecula with ov~r ~noroa.=ing Population and the arcs we lj. ve in A~ be~tor eUi%ed ~or this growth. We look forward to the u,eettng on December 7~h, to the Getaer~l Plan. Bincerely yours, ...-' __ . .... 31547 Enfteld ~ane Tnmccula, CA 92~91 FAX: ( i)09 ) 694-0979 December 5, 1992 Mr. John Meyer City of Temecula Planning Commission 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, Ca, 92590 RECEIVED DEO 0 l' 992 Dear Mr. Meyer: As a property owner of parcel #3, P.M, 073/085- P.M. 13678, we desire the commission to uphold the existing 2 1/2 acre minimum lot s~ze for the Hidden Hills area of Temecula, The rural nature of this area should-not-be changed to accommodate the speculative plans of one property owner. Zf this property owner desires the Meadowview ascetics then he should of purchased in that area and not in the Hidden Hills area. Z have no desire to give upmy flood plain property in order to create open space for his personal benefit. Our family enjoys the rural setting of Hidden Hills versus the residential atmosphere of a community like Meadowview. In desiring to raise our family in a rural area we hope the commission will see our view of this matter as the only va'lid argument. Thank you for your consideration. Kirk and Lori Bates 31290 Tommy Lane Temecula, Ca 92591 Hr, John fieyet The CIty of Tensrule Planning DePartment 43174 Business Park erive Tamerule. Ca 9257D Dear Mr. Heyer; Tills ]attar. Is jR ragarcs to u!..r pfior;e conversation this evening concerning the ciaselfj;ation of our r, ra~,~i ~y. As you may recall our propsi./i~; :orated on Mefer ~oac, Par. ~Q~4-280-032. This i8 In ;he Rural Hisash !;:~; ~cctjOn Of the city. After speaking uith my hUBD~, ~y Dro~her~ih-law, ~r;::Jh,~' sifter-in law. ~e eli feet ~hat it uoulO De jR the Deot interest of t~e cu:rc, r;: residences as eli as our gun if this area ~as clasSifiea aS a ]ou der,~;;t~' reSiaentia] (.2-2 DulAc) as Nr Dennis Fit; su99e5~s. Although ~e have not visatag the property for fifteen years, I gatnerea from our coRversatjoR that ]itt]~ :::: riu in~rDvement has taken piece in this area. Perhaps. ~e shouJO take this ~p~,~,'t~nity to st;mulate this section of the c4ty. We feel that Dy a}le~.'inp tr:~. zesjaenoee/o~nere the opportuni;y to ca-clasSify this area ~uvir:o Th~ p~nning phase of ~he city, ]et positive ~tep i~ [fiat area. ~e ca~ appreciate the time .=ho effort that the planning oot~ittee ~il] ~pene ;0 re-c]assjjy this ave& ~t fh:=: rime. However. ~e believe that oy focusinS on vaJJ3 arOt~e~ts such as t. ho~= n'~er. tivneo Vy Nr. FJtz a~a other~ ~o~, outing this Planning phase o~ the vi~... ~cmg term cest-effectlvenes~ exampie. DV allovenS ~o~ the, r,~ve~opment st ~m~iler IotO~ 3uch ai. one acre, the c/ty has the potential tc, z..,:.:~ :n~, Oouble the money it current:y receives In resiaentJa) taxes atone. ~c,: ~i,c local residents. ~treet lightS, paves roAOn and the increasecl ~ee~tt,c:~cm ;outs Deccm~ e reatity. HOv~ever. Dy riot seizing this unique opportunity. tr, 'upSrose .... HlOOen H!llS". we as a community are nct utiiizin9 our Again. ~han~ you for your ca:rio. ~.;.u sincere canals I~Put regaraJng t~i8 vet/ important matter that conc~z,:b v:. all. We trust [fiat you aria the planning committee ~tll ~criouOl~ COnt;i~t'F DLJC request. 5) ~cere~. ~vucs, ~uzanne E. ~uo~ano Ou~ C. & Tere~lta 1330 ~noilwooC Drive Monroevi;le, Pa 15146 Ph: 412-85E-1445 May 6, 1993 Honorable Members of the City Council City of Temecula 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA. 92590 Attention: Mr Gary Thornhill, Planning Director RECEIVED MAY 0 7 1993 Ans'd ....... ..... Subject: General Plan Re-Classification of our 20 acre parcel on Margarita Road, being APN 921-370-005 Dear Mr. Thornhill It has been brought to our attention that at the recent Planning Commission hearing relative to General Plan and Zoning for prop- erties within the City, and that one individual stood up and sta- ted that she objected to the existing zoning and density of the subject parcel. As a result of one person stating their personal objections to what she may believe is an unjust and or proper zoning classification, the Planning Commission simply agreed with her and arbitrarily reduced the density classification from High Density (13-20 DU/AC) to Median Density (7-12 DU/AC). The ration- al of the Planning Commission was cited as transition of density and neighborhood compatibility as their reason for the change. When the land use designation was originally made by the Riverside County Planning Commission the caring commission did in fact in- sist upon a transition density designation R-3,3000 for our prop- erty to R-3,2500 density for the next parcel to the west of the subject property. May we ask how one individual has the power to convince a public service commission-that what they want is in the best interest of all concerned? We were unaware that we lived in Russia or maybe China where no one has a voice in their community other than what is jammed down our throats by those in power. We have quietly watched the General Plan process for more than a year and believe that the Planners are doing a credible job in assessing the future needs of the Community altho we may not per- sonally agree with every decision made. Even tho we may disagree with some of the determinations we do not believe it is our right and or responsibility to tell others what they may or may not do with their property. Remember folks, this is still America whether some of us acknow- ledge it or not. It is quite evident that more and more of our development rights are being taken from us and we no longer have the right to pursue our own agenda in the free enterprise system. The General Plan Committee had no problem with the land use des- ignation on the property and in our opinion their experience fac- tor far exceeds the political appointments of Planning Commis- sioners. It is our considered opinion that more than 35,000± citi- zens of this community do not have a p~obtem with the land use designation , nor the zoning that exists for the subject proper G.P. Re-Classification of APN 921-370-005, page 2 It has also become quite evident that regardless of the fact'that previous planning submittals that have met every aspect of the City, County and State ordinances and codes along with conforming with the California Subdivision Map Act have been rejected seem to be the underground work of a few who have some hidden agenda and stand in as the spokespersons for our entire community. (35,000± vs a very few) seems reasonable! Isn't it time for a change? What are these august individuals doing to enrich the quality of life and economic stimulus for the City of Temecula? Our agenda if approved would generate fees and permits for the Planning Department, Engineering Department and Building Depart- ment more than 1.25 million dollars along with another 1.75 mil- lion in infrastructure improvements. In addition an indeterminate amount of building permit fees would be generated during the con- struction phase. The project would also provide some 10 to 12 million dollars in payroll within the project to be spent within this community. The above comments may not be directly relevant and paramount to the basic issue before us, however they are related and it is time to speak out for those who can actually help to improve the City and stop listening to all the drivel from the do-gooders that do not actually produce any positive results. In conclusion, we ask that you leave us with some measure of dig- nity and retain the zoning density andland use as it has been designated long before the City was incorporated. Our rights as citizens have been abridged once too often in this matter and we expect the City Council will uphold what little rights we do have in this matter as it will be much appreciated. We are hopeful that this decision will be made on our behalf at the City Council meet- ing of May 11, 1993. Very truly yours, The City of Temecula ,, .~ ..... n~ ::epartment · '= ~Tj Bt:SineS~, Park Dr!re ?~mec.J!a. CA 92~90 RECEIVED DEC 0 7 1992 Put:no u~e l~rpC~zs ~ preparing aGeneral Plan for T~,'n. ecu!a, youF d~p,r;m~t has ~k~C for COmmerlt~ frO~l C~Dear~;.~ a~d ........... -. ..... , citizens. i severa~ ot~e~ ]and ownePs In t~e H}dden H)li$ are~ have raiser ~ concern 8~c,jt t~ deslqna~lon or tDe area for yen/low density housing. Whl~e our reOu~src. te c~ange the land use from ve~ low [o low density nous:ng has no[ receive} s~arr support I undegs[and that [~e area Is now In a special $tud~ area. HIdden H111S and l:he neighboring Meadowview area snare the same proposed very low densl[y land use designation and similar topography of roi lino hills. The two areas have developed quite differently. MeadOwview consists primarily of residences with lots typically one 'half acre in size and a common area "open space" of hundreds of acres while Hidden HIlls lots are typical ly five acres, many of which are vacant or currently occupied by toohie homes. Including the open space in Meadowview, and average lot would contain approximately 1 !/4 acres. Imposing a 2.5 ~cre minlm..um'tot size will have virtually no affect on Meadowview since the land has already been subdivided. (generally Into much smaller lots). On the other hand. Hidden HIlls parcels would most likely be further subdivided into 2.Sacre lots since no provision has been made to provide a common open space during its development. I cannot see how single residences on .2.5 acres.can be compared to open space since It It quite clear that It would be private property, unavailable for hiking, horseback riding or other activities. It. is very expensive to properly landscape and maintain lots of this size. Currentiy the area i.= beS~ descrfbe,g by an area of mob'.. le homes SurrOuncle~ Dy weeds. This area and the City cerr..a~nly ,;eserve better. ~r, at are D~ed on ~opogr~r,y ~5 ~n ~eadow vf ew ~r, deed. ' wou~ a~ge slightly ov~ one acre. The sma;ier deve~pmen~ of c~om heroes ~,~ as those ~n mam:~a:r, ~ar'.aScap;ng On l~ '~ l~s s~ze. C.:~nr;ned s~:e ear ~rea .,,~[[ a~.,.~,:p. eT' ':.' s!Dw~y . an~ several ~.: w',E~:~; ~,~ ne~h;¢ft~ca ~;, ffl~,a'r. ~, area ~ ar~ wrr':~ tr, e 'very iow de~t~at~ ~ ~e.s~re~. I la~ ~se ~a5.es or. tc. pogra&h:/, Lob ,:ou]~ vary frSr,~ averace or about one acre as In Me~dowv~ew, Finally, many or the lots In the HIdden HIlls area are owned bv non- residents, most of which have been totally left out of. the Ger~erai Plan development process since they generally do not read local papers. I think thar~ they should Ioe notified of this proposed land use designation since they deserve to be involved with a procedure that may result in a lasting change that will affect their future. Sincerely yours, Mr. & Mrs. Tm KOlerich 5433 W. 11/th Street tnglewood, CA ~0304 PArce-[ iv'o. February 18, 1993 Mr. John Meyer, Senior Planner The City of Temecula 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, Ca 92590 Re: Notice of Public Hearing - 1-21-93 Tentative Tract Map #23513 Dear Mr. Meyer: FEB 18!9 3 Ans ............. It is my understanding that a Public Hearing before the Planning Director on January 21, 1993 that the Tentative Tract Map #23513 subdividing 14.37 acres into ll single family lots was approved. The location of this subdivision is on the North side of Santiago Road, east of John Warher Road, west of Avenida De San Pasqual. It is also my understanding that my property of 6.12 acres identified as parcel number 4, in the County of Riverside, parcel map #8755 and assessment number 945100002-7, is to be restricted to a mini- mum of 2-1/2 acre parcels if re-subdivided. I find this discriminating since the value of my property would be reduced because of. this approval of this subdivision on tentative mau number 23513. Since the lots are smaller the homes ere going to be smaller and of the "tract" variety. Knowi~ that the subdivision was taking place, to protect myself, I had an engineering company sketch what possibilities I had in subdividing my site of 6.12 acres and they came up with the sketch I have attached, which would give me 6 family lots. I did not proceed with these plans because I was advised to wait and see what decision would be made on the subdivision in question. I felt time was on my side especially with the status of the current housing market in the area. I would like to see the decision reversed in my case which boarders or is a corner of County of Riverside parcel map #8755 and that I be allowed to sub- divide into a maximum of 6 family lots at a future date. I would appreciate hearing from you as to what procedure I should follow at this time. Sincerely, (909-593-0211 MarCh 29, 1993 Mr. John Myer Senior Planner City of Temecula 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590. Re: General Plan Correction Mountain View Specific Plan Dear John: We understand the General Plan land use public hearing will begin Tuesday, April 6, 1993 and be continued to Apri! 20, 1993. We are writing as a reminder of .our desire to have a technical correction made to the Mountain View Property (Approved Specific Plan Area E). Attached am'copies of our previous correspondence. ,,//' · If we knov~this matter will definitely be corrected, we will not make a presentation before the City Council, please advise. / Sincerely, !'---Larry D./l:.~;nch President, Property Analysis Division LDL:dh Enclosure cc: Mr. Jeff Tartaglino 14352 CHANDLER BOULEVARD · VAN NUYS, CALIFORNIA 91401 · (818) 905-1450 · FAX (818) 784-5059 KOREK LAND COMPANY, INC. o A~OCOeJTIOM I~IVetT?G/tTIOIV ~'nC~IAI T All Lenders Mortgage Service. Inc+ DBA: HELlo-t j,SELL OF TEMECtJLA 27483 Jefferson Avenue Temecula, CA 92390 Telephone (714) 699-0366 May 5, 1993 John Meyers Senior Planner City of Temecula Dear Mr. Meyers: I am writing this letter in behalf of my client Lien Betzler would owns and operates two ARCO AM/PM's and is in the process of building another. It is her desire to build a station and mini-mart at the comer of Pala Road and Jeridiah Smith Road, in Temecul~L The ARCO AM/PM would certahly be an asset to the area as it would provide twenty- four hour avafiability for fuel milk and eggs for the community. I am writing this letter because I understand that the present C1-CP ZOning that the property enjoys is being considered for down grading to office commercial. This would greatly limit the free trade for the area. While I can understand your feeling that some medical offices would fit in very nicely there, I do not feel that it represents the best use for this area. I know that some communities look down on a mini-market in the area of a school, church or park. However, the restriction apply any where as to the age that one must be to acquire beer or wine. ARCO will not permit a store to be constructed ff it cannot obtain the ABC license necessary for the sale of beer and wine. However, most young people go there to get ~Big Gulps" not high balls. I feel it would be an advantage to the proposed park that is being planned at this time. It would provide a place for all ages to fill their fuel tank-~ and get refreshments at the same time. My client may also be considering putting in a restaurant or fast food in this location as well. We are not talking about the small town concept of a bfiliard parlor like portrayed in the "Music Man" musical comedy. We are talking about a convenient stop on the way home for just a few needs that you don't need to go to the grocery store for. This would be an asset to the area - not a detriment! Each Office Indel~en~nlly Owned and Ol~rat~d Wright 27420 Jefferson Avenue, Suite 100 · Temecula, California 92590 Fax (909) 694-5401 Business (909) 694-5300 RECEIVED CITY OF TEMECULA Mr. John Meyers Senior Planner City of Temecula 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, Calif. 92590 May 5.1993 Dear Mr. Meyers: In 1989, many of us living 'here in this community, were able to ~itness the birth of a new city. The City of Temecula. Becoming a city is a lot more than just voting and announcing that we are now a city. There is much to do about the management of the present and future. One of these tasks is to review the overall area of the city and deTelope a plan for growth and controlled progress. This is usually rsferred to as a "General Plan", and Temecula is no exception to the usual plan. The preparation of such a plan requires a lot of thought and planning as this is to be a guideline for. many years to come. One thing to be taken into consideration is the impact that change will have. This change could be zoning, or growth paterns or possibly in traffic paterns, to mention just a few. Many times a parcel of land is purchased with the thought 'of value based on the current land use designation, and the anticipated growth in the s~rrounding area, and having a' specific use in mind for that parcel. A:change in that desig- nation could have adevistating effect on the value of the land. It has recently come to my attention that .iust such a change is about to take place on a parcel of land the owner has authorized me to sell. That land is located at 44700 Pala Road, APN# 950-110-020. This parcel is currently C1-CP~ and an offer has been submitted to purchase this parcel for the purpose of building an AM-PM Mini-Market, sellin~ ARCO products. The current zoning permits a gasoline service station and with a CUP, the sale of beer and v~Lne for off-premises consumption is permitted. It is my understanding that this parcel of land is identified as being redesignated to Office use only. If this is done this property ~'~ll become useless for many years to come, as well as being financially devestating to the owner. Each Office is Inde~endentl)/ Owned and Of 3erated ~ John Meyers Page 2 The area where this parcel is located, while being within the city limits, is still quite rural and undeveloped. If we were to think of Pala Road as an East West Road, the South side of the road, through to the mountains, is built up almost sol~id with approximately one thousand homes (1000). This is from Hi- way 79 South Via Eduardo, almost two miles. While on the North side, there are only two ranch hQuses and open fields for several miles. through to the Pechanga Indian Reservation. My home is within one mile of this location, and I have watched the area grow since 1987 when I moved there. This area still is and ~robably will remain a rural part of our city for many years to come, and I feel to reserve this location for the future development of offices will stagnate this ~roperty,. while the productive use of this land to the benefit of the local and future residents by allowing the land to retain it's present zoning of C1-CP and the installation of the proposed facility will provide a much needed service and the highest and best use of this ~arcel at this time and the foreseeable future. along with the most com~atable use for the community. Therefore I, on behalf of my client, the owner of this subject property, Mr. Chulie Park request that the city in it's concern for the development of our community, allow this parcel to retain it's. present zoning of C1-CP~ and permit the buyer to proceed with the normal ~roceedure of acquiring permits and the' necessary licenses to develope this property as specified. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely: Tom Adams T & B Planning Consultants Santa Ana· San .Diego 3242 HALLADA Y, SUITE 100 SANTA ANA, CA 92705 (714) 662-2774 FAX # (714) 662-2708 JN 168-056 February 18, 1993 Gary Thornhill Planning Director City of Temecula Planning Dept. 43174 Business Park Dr. Temecula, CA 92590 RECEIVEO - '? Ans'd ............ RE: REGIONAL CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN/GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION Dem Gin'y: Pursuant to our recent discussions, this letter summarizes the discussions Between the KRDC project team and City staff and the direction you recommended we take with regard to General Plan designations for the Regional Center property. The General Plan indicates uses for the Regional Center site which although consistent in allowed !and use are not consistent with regard to location within the Specific Plan. Specifically, the General Plan designates professional office uses along Ynez Road and at the comer of Ynez and Winchester Roads. Office uses in this location are not consistent with those uses proposed within our Specific Plan nor are they consistent with the uses already established across Ynez and Winchester Roads for this location. The General Plan depicts public/institutional uses centrally located within the Regional Center Specific Plan. As you know, our document specifies that those uses would be permitted within certain planning areas of the Specific Plan, the location of which is not consistent with that shown on your General Plan. Furthermore, we have no commitments from the City or any other public agencies to locate such public/institutional uses within the Specific Plan site, so we feel it is inappropriate to specify a site at this time. In your staffs presentations of the General Plan land use to the Planning Commission, John Meyer indicated that the Specific Plan as submitted can be found to be consistent with the General Plan !and use as currently drawn. It is our belief that such a conclusion might not always be drawn in the future. Therefore, pursuant to your suggestion we request that the City Counril redesignate the General Plan land uses such that they are more consistent with those shown in our Specific Plan. We will provide the City with a written request to this effect, and it is our understanding that you will support this request. If you have any questions, please just give me a call. Very truly yours, T& PLANNING CONSULTANTS, INC. Prin BB:tmd/009 XC: Debbie Ubnoske Steve Jiannino SPECIFIC LAND. USE PLAN Legend Mixed Use 71.97 AC. Retail Commercial Core/Support Retail 97.80 AC. Retail/Office 5.49 AC. Subtotal 175.26 AC. Roads PROJECT TOTAL 26.04 AC. 201.3 AC. TEMECULA REGIONAL CEI~T~.'i~ I!I-6 FIGURE 3 o BEDFORD PROPERTIES, INC. 28765 Single Oak Dr,.'ve, Suite 200, Temecula, CA 92390 December 28, 1992 Mr. Gary Thornhill Planning Director City of Temecula 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 RECEIVED DEC 3 0 1992 Ans'd ............ Re: General Plan, Draft July 22, 1992 Dear Mr. Thornhill: We represent the landowner of the property covered by the Mountain View Specific Plan #184 shown on Page 2-37 of the Draft General Plan as Approved Specific Plan "E". The following comments are provided for the Planning Commission and staff's consideration concerning the Draft General Plan: Page 2-40 - The approximate acreage of Mountain View is 800 rather than the 1,763.0 shown; Page 2-35 - Paragraph C-1 Approved Specific Plan Acres - We would appreciate clarifying the last sentence in this paragraph to state that Approved Specific Plans are consistent with the General Land Use Plan; and Page 2-42 - Paragraph D - We would appreciate clarifying this paragraph to state that entering into a Development Agreement is an administrative act which in and of itself does not require an amendment to the General Plan. We will be available to address any questions you may have at the January 4, 1993 Planning Commission meeting. In.the meantime, if you have any questions please call. Sincerely, President, Property Analysis Division LDL:dh pc: Mr. Jeff Tartaglino KOREK LAND COMPANY, INC. 14352 CHANDLER BOULEVARD · VAN NUYS, CALIFORNIA 91401 - (818) 905-1450 · FAX (818) 784-5059 MRY-~-1993 08:24 FROM T&B PLANNING · [ T & B Planning Consultants S_anta Ana· San Diego 32~2 HAL~.4E)AY, S~JlTT :'L~ $A.NrAANA, C~ e2~05 T5 2708 TN 16~-056 March 9, 1993 · Chty Tb. omh.m Planning Director City of Terne~a PlannLu8 13~p~ 43174 Business Pmrk Dr. Tem~ula, CA 92590 leE: REGIONAl, CEN~R SP!~C1FIC PLAN/GENERAL PLAN DESIGNAnON Dear Gary: On behalf of KRDC, Inc., we hereby formally request that ~e General Plan Designation for the Regional Center Specific Plan site be amended on 'the Draft General Plan Preferred Land Use Plan to conform to th~ land uses shown on the March 5. 1993 draft of the Tertmcuh Regional Center S.P. No. We are making this request pursuant to our Febmat), 18. 1993 letter to you in which we s',Lmms. rized the purpose of this request and your concurrence with it. A copy of this letter is attached. In light of the City Manager's direction that we aceeIerate fie procasing of the WAL-MART Development Plan ahead of the Specific Ply for the Temecula Regional Center, it is important Sat this request be initiated immediately sach that it can be considered by the City Counc~ prior to their consideration of the WAL-lvL~,RT Development Plan. We believe the designations for Planning Area 1 are appropriate, but we would requeSt '.he Professional Office and Publie/~nstihational Faeiliti=s designations be changed tO Community Commen:ial in Planning Area 2° The Draft Preferred Land Use Plan currently depicts Professional Office for Planning Area 3, but we . would request that this designation be changed to Business Park pursuant to your .,-ecem suggestions and in conformsnee with ACS's expressed future contemplated uses for that site. We trult that you can still support these changes. Please give mca call if you have any questions. Very truly yours, B PLANNING CONSULTAiNTS, INC. · as:~a~ot0 ' XC: Dave Dixon Debbie Ubnoske Steve Jiannino M~-,.hew F~an Bdan Norcon TC?AL P.02 MOUNTAINVIEW LAND USE TABLE PLANNING AREA/USE 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 17. 18. SINGLE FAMILY/DET. SINGLE FAMILY/DET. SINGLE FAMILY/DET. SINGLE FAMILY/DET. SINGLE FAMILY/DET. SINGLE FAMILY/DET. SINGLE FAMILY/DET. SINGLE FAMILY/DET. SINGLE FAMILY/DET. SINGLE FAMILY/DET. SINGLE FAMILY/DET. SINGLE FA,MILY/DET. SINGLE FAMILY/DET. SINGLE FAMILY/DET. SINGLE F.~_MILY/DET. SINGLE FAMILY tATT. MULTI-FAMILY MULTI -FAMILY WETLAND PRESERVE 19. OPEN SPACE 20. NEIGHBORHOOD CORM. 21. SCHOOL/PARK SITE 22. OPEN SPACE 23. OPEN SPACE 24. OPEN SPACE 25. OPEN SPACE 26. RESERVOIR SITE 27. SCHOOL/P.~RK 28. PARK TOTAL ACRES ACREAGE 58 AC. 78 AC. 16 AC. 38 AC. 18 AC. 48 AC. 29 AC. 35 AC. 11AC. 13 AC.' 30 AC. 15 AC. 15 AC. 25 AC. 60 AC. 34 AC. 12 AC. 39 AC. 3 AC. 13 AC. 15 AC. 5 AC. 106 AC. 12 AC. 43 AC. 2 AC. 19 AC. 6 AC. 798 AC. DENSITY 3.47 4.46 7.00 5.55 4.83 4.48 4.14 3.85 3.27 3.07 3.30 2.47 3.20 3.00 3.43 13.11 13.33 LOT SIZE MIN. 7200 5000 4000' 4000 4000 5000 5000 6000 7200 7200 7200 7200 7200 7200 7200 TH APT. TOTAL UNITS TOTAL NO. UNITS 195 348 113 211 87 215 120 135 36 40 9g 37 48 ID 206 160 2571 7 LAND USE TABULATION MEDIUM HIGH DENSITy HIGH DENSITy WETLAND PRESERVE NeOleOINOOO/COMM. SCHOOLS/PARKS OPEN SPACE LEGEND ARTERIAL HIGHWAY mace MAJOR HIGHWAY SECONDARY HIGHWAy " PEDESTRIAN WALK ..... BICYCLE TRAIL ReeideelldSublolel COMPREHENSIVE FeClSIleK SUbtotal PROJECT TOTAL ACRES 435.0 54.0 46.0 535.0 39,0 13.0 40.0 171.0 257.0 798.0 'il~<"~ DENSITY UNITS 3.8 DU/AC, 1641 6.0 DU/AC. 324 13,0 DU/AC. 606 2s71 2571 MED~IM SCHOOL/PARK SITE MEUR)M MEDIUM \ / MEDIUM MEDIUM LAND USE PLAN January 6, 1993 RECEIVED JAN f 0 1993 Ans'd ...... . ........ Mr. John Myer Senior Planner City of Temecula 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 Re: General.Plan Correction Mountain View Specific Plan Dear John: As we discussed at your office, we pointed out that the General Plan Draft Preferred Land Use Plan does not accurately depict the County's approved Specific Plan No. 184 (Approved Specific Plan Area E). We would appreciate having the Land Use Plan corrected. Attached is a copy of the approved Comprehensive Land Use Plan (page 6) and Mountain View Land Use Table. This data shows planning area sixteen (16) as high density. The high density designation in planning area 16 should be depicted on the City's Land Use Plan. As discussed, this technical correctionmay be made after the conclusion of the Planning Commission proceedings, but prior to adoption of the General Plan by the City Council. As we discussed, this technical correction is connected to the previous commits we made in our December 28, 1992 letter to Gary Thornhill (c enclosed). I~ you have any questions or need any additional information, ..please call. Sincerel , '~pr~~~perty Analysis Division LDL:dh Enclosures KOREK LAND COMPANY, INC. 14352 CHANDLER BOULEVARD · VAN NUYS, CALIFORNIA 91401 · (818) 905-1450 · FAX (818) 784-5059 December 28, 1992 Mr. Gary Thornhill Planning Director City of Temecula 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 Re: General Plan n~aff July 22 1992 Dear Mr. Thornhill: We represent the landowner of the property covered by the Mountain View Specific 'Plan #184 shown on Page 2-37 of the Draft General Plan as Approved Specific Plan "E". The following comments are provided for the Planning Commission and staff's .consideration concerning the Draft General Plan: Page 2-40 - The approximate acreage of Mountain View is 800 rather than the 1,763.0 shown; Page 2-35 - Paragraph C-1 Approved Specific Plan Acres - We would appreciate clarifying the last sentence in this paragraph to state that Approved Specific Plans are consistent with the General Land Use Plan; and Page 2-42 - Paragraph D - We would appreciate clarifying this paragraph to state that entering into a Development Agreement is an administrative act which in and of itself does not require an amendment to the General Plan. We will be available to address any questions you may have at the January 4, 1993 Planning Commission meeting. In the meantime, if you have any questions please call. Sincerely, President, Property Analysis Division LDL:dh pc: Mr. Jeff Tartaglino I~\thmhll1.llf KOREK LAND COMPANY, INC. 14352 CHANDLER BOULEVARD · VAN NUYS, CALIFORNIA 91401 · (818) 905-1450 · FAX (818) 784-5059 MEDIUM DENSITy qL:;HUM HIGH DENS/Ty ~GH DENSEly J~ WETL'a'ND PRESERVE ~ NEIGaQORHOOD/COMM. ~ SCHOOLS/PARKS '~ OPF. H SPACE LEGEND ARTERIAL HIGHWAy MAJOR HIGHWAy SECONDARy HIGHWAy PEbSSTRIAN WALK BICYCLE TRAIL ReeklemlaiS~blolet Far-IlleeSublolal PROJECT TOTAL ACRES 436.0 S4.0 46.0 535.0 30.0 13.0 40,O I/tO 25Z.O 198.0 MgOIUM DENSITY 3.8 OU/AC 6,0 OU/AC 13.0 DU/AC NtOH UNITS 114 I 324 lOS SS71 3S11 MEOIUM ~' .... ' ............ MEDIUM tECHOOL/PARK SITS ,,.: t. ,tl{ It I' , I. ,em.oo.Hooo :! .', . .,,~ ,,,o. o COM., ........... SCIIOOL/PARK RESERVOIR SITE see acres I.e &Call OPEN SPACE MIDNIl OPEN gPAq MEDIUM COMPREHENSIVE LAND. iUSE:'sPLAN MountainView Ir- e/Kuhn Pacific Communides PROJECT CONSULTANTS · THE gRANADA OROUP PERIOIAH gROUP MOUNTAINVIEW LAND USE TABLE PLANNING kREA/USE 1. SINGLE FiM!LY/DET. 2. SINGLE FiMiLY/DET. 3. SINGLE FiMILY/DET. 4. SINGLE FiMILY/DET. 5. SINGLE FiMILY/DET. 6. SINGLE FiMILY/DET. 7. SINGLE FAMILY/DET. 8. -SINGLE F.~M!LY/~ET. 9. SINGLE FtMILY/DET. 10. SINGLE FAMILY/DET. 11. SINGLE FiMILY/DET. 12. SINGLE FiMILY/DET. 13. SINGLE FAMILY/DET. 14. SINGLE FtMILY/DET. 15. SINGLE F.~MILY/DET, 16. SINGLE FAMILY/ATT. MULTI-F~MILY 17. MULTI-FiMILY 18. WETLAND PRESERVE 19. OPEN SPACE 20. NEIGHBORHOOD CORM. 21. SCHOOL/PARK SITE 22. OPEN SPACE 23. OPEN SPACE 24. OPEN SPACE 25. OPEN SPACE 26. RESERVOIR SITE 27. SCHOOL/P.4_RK 28. PARK TOTAL ACRES ACREAGE 58 AC. 78 AC. 16 AC. 38 AC. 18 AC. 48 AC. 29 AC. 35 AC. 11AC. 13 AC. 30 AC. 15 AC. 15 AC. 25 AC. 60 AC. 34 AC. 12 AC. 39 AC. 3 AC. 13 AC. 15 AC. 5 AC. 106 AC. 12 AC. 43 AC. 2 AC. 19 AC. 6 AC. 798 AC. DENSITY 3.47 4.46 7.00 5.55 6.83 6.48 4.14 3.85 3'.27 3.07 3.30 2.~7 3.20 3.00 3.43 13,11 13.3.3 LOT SIZE MIN. 7200 5000 4000 4000 4000 5000 5000 6000 7200 -7200 7200 7200 7200 7200 7200 TH TOTAL UNITS TOTAL NO. UNITS 195 348 113 211 87 215 120 135 36 40 9g 37 48 /} 206 4.4.6 160 2571 January 6, 1993 Mr. John Myer Senior Planner City of Temecula 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 Re: General Plan Correction Mountain View Specific Plan Dear John: As we discussed'at your office, we pointed out that the General Plan Draft Preferred Land Use Plan does not accurately depict the County's approved Specific Plan No. -184 (Approved Specific Plan Area E). We would appreciate having the Land Use Plan corrected. Attached is a copy of the approved Comprehensive Land Use Plan (page 6) and Mountain View Land Use Table. This data shows planning area sixteen (16) as high density. The high density designation in planning area 16 should be depicted on the City's Land Use Plan. As discussed, this technical correction may be made after the conclusion of the Planning Commission proceedings, but prior to adoption of the General Plan by the City Council. As we discussed, this technical correction is connected to the previous comme ts we made in our December 28, 1992 letter to Gary Thornhill (~Tenclosed) - I~. you have any questions or need any additional .information p1 1 ' S ease caT . incerel yn resident, Property Analysis Division LDL:dh Enclosures KOREK LAND COMPANY, INC. 14352 CHANDLER BOULEVARD - VAN NUYS, CALIFORNIA 91401 - (818) 905-1450 - FAX (818) 784-5059