HomeMy WebLinkAbout101701 PC AgendaIn compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this
meeting, please contact the office of the City Clerk (909) 694-6444. Notification 48 hours prior to a meeting will
enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to that meeting [28 CFR
35.102.35.104 ADA Title II]
AGENDA
TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
43200 BUSINESS PARK DRIVE
OCTOBER 17, 2001 - 6:00 P.M.
Next in Order:
Resolution: No. 2001-037
CALL TO ORDER:
Flag Salute:
Commissioner Guerdero
Roll Call:
Guerriero, OIhasso, Telesio, Mathewson and Chairman Chiniaeff
PUBLIC COMMENTS
A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public may address the commission
on items that are listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes each.
If you desire to speak to the Commission about an item no.._~t on the Agenda, a pink
"Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the Commission Secretary.
When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name for the record.
For all other agenda items a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the
Commission S~cretary prior to the Commission addressing that item. There is a three
(3) ,minute time limit-for individual speakers.
CONSENT CALENDAR
NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC
All matters listed under Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and all will
be enacted by one roll call vote. There will be no discussion of these items unless
Members of ~he Planning Commission request specific items be removed from the
Consent Calendar for separate action.
A.qenda
RECOMMENDATION:
1.1 Approve the Agenda of October 17, 2001
R:\PLANCOM M~Agendas~001\10-17-01 .doc
1
2 Minutes
RECOMMENDATION:
2.1 Approve the Minutes of August 22, :2001
COMMISSION BUSINESS
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
Any person may submit written comments to the Planning Commission before a public
hearing or may appear and be heard ir~ suPport of or tn opposition to the approval of
the project(s) at the time of hearing. If you challenge any of the projects in court, you
may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public
hearing or in written correspondences delivered to the Commission Secretary at, or
prior to, the public hearing.
3
Plannincl Aol31ication No. PA01-0460 ('ChanCle of Zone) to chanqe the zoninc~ on 14
grol3erties located alon(~ both sides of Rid(3e Park Drive from LiClht Industrial (LI) to Business
Park (BP) - David H0(~an. Senior Planner
RECOMMENDATION
3.1 The Community Development Department - Planning Division Staff recommends the
Planning Commission:
3.2 Adopt the Final Environmental Impact Report for the General Plan pursuant to Section
15162 of the California Environmental Quality Act;
3.3 Adopt a Resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2001-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN
ORDINANCE ENTITLED "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE
OFFICIAL ZONING MAP ALONG A PORTION OF BOTH SIDES OF
RIDGE PARK DRIVE (PLANNING APPLICATION 01-0460)"
WORKSHOP
4 Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan Land Use Plan Workshop
COMMISSIONER'S REPORTS
PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT
ADJOURNMENT
Next Regular Meeting:
November 7, 2001, Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
R:~PLANCOMM~Agendas~001\10-1~-01 ,doc
ITEM 2
R:\PLANCOMM~Agendas~2001\10-17-01 .doc
3
MINUTES OF AN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING
OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
AUGUST 22, 2001
CALL TO ORDER
The City of Temecula Planning Commission convened in an adjourned regular meeting
at 6:00 P.M., on Wednesday, August 22, 2001, in the City Council Chambers of
Temecula City Hall, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California.
ALLEGIANCE
The audience was led in the Flag salute by Commissioner Olhasso.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Commissioners Guerriero, Mathewson, Olhasso, *Telesio,
and Chairman Chiniaeff.
Absent: None.
Also Present: Director of Planning Ubnoske,
Attorney Alexander Abe,
Deputy Director of Public Works Parks,
Senior Planner Hazen,
Associate Planner Thornsley, and
Minute Clerk Hansen.
*(It was noted that Commissioner Telesio arrived at 6:04 P.M.)
PUBLIC COMMENTS
No comments.
CONSENT CALENDAR
1 Aqenda
RECOMMENDATION:
1.1 Approve the Agenda of August 22, 2001
2 Minutes
RECOMMENDATION:
2.1 Approve the Minutes of July 11, 2001
2.2 Approve the Minutes of July 12, 2001
MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1-2.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Olhasso and voice vote reflected approval
with the exception of Commissioner Telesio who was absent
COMMISSION BUSINESS
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM
3 Plannina Application No. PA-00-0363 (Development Plan)
Thomas Thornsley
RECOMMENDATION
3.1 Adopt a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. PA00-0363 pursuant
to Section 15332 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines;
3.2 Adopt a Resolution Entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 01-032
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. 00-0363 - A DEVELOPMENT PLAN
FOR AN 11,200 SQUARE INDUSTRIAL BUILDING ON
.96 ACRES, LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF ROICK
DRIVE WEST OF WINCHESTER ROAD (APE 909-320-
o52).
Via overhead maps, Associate Planner Thornsley presented the project plan (of record),
highlighting the specific location, the primary access point, the loading areas, the trellis-
covered employee area, the security wall and rolling gate, the architecture, the building
colors, the enhanced articulation, and the landscape plan.
It was noted that Commissioner Telesio arrived at 6:04 P.M.
Mr. Richard Waltz, the applicant, noted that this use would be a manufacturing facility,
relaying that he has been operating his business in the City of Brea since 1968; and for
Commissioner Olhasso, specified that the business was oriented towards the medical
field.
MOTION: Commissioner Mathewson moved to close the public hearing; and to approve
staff's recommendation. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Guerriero and
voice vote reflected unanimous approval.
COMMISSIONER'S REPORTS
No additional comments.
PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT
For Director of Planning Ubnoske, the Planning Commission confirmed that the
January, 2002, Planning Commission meetings would be held on January 16~h
and January 30th.
Recommending that the Planning Commission appoint a Commissioner to serve
on the General Plan Community Advisory Committee, Director bf Planning
Ubnoske relayed that there would be approximately 3-5 meetings held,
approximately once every other month. In response, Commissioner Mathewson
volunteered to serve in this capacity, and it was the consensus of the Planning
Commission to appoint Commissioner Mathewson to the General Plan
Community Advisory Committee.
With respect to the Village Center component of the Home Depot Project,
Director of Planning Ubnoske noted that in the original approved plan Building A,
and B had been connected, relaying that the applicant was requesting to either
move Building A to the corner, or to completely remove it from the site plan; and
requested the Planning Commission to provide staff direction after further review
via either an e-mail, or a phone call.
ADJOURNMENT
At 6:18 P.M. Chairman Chiniaeff formally adjourned this meeting to the next reqular
meetin,cl to be held on Wednesday, Sel~tember 5, 2001 at 6:00 P.M., in the City
Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula.
Dennis W. Chiniaeff,
Chairman
Debbie Ubnoske,
Director of Planning
ITEM 3
R:\PLANCOMM~Agendas~2001\10-17-0~ ,doc
3
STAFF REPORT- PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
Date: October 17, 2001
Planning Application No. 01-0460 (Change of Zone)
Prepared By: David Hogan, Senior Planner
RECOMMENDATION: The Community Development Department - Planning Division Staff
recommends the Planning Commission:
1. ADOPT the Final Environmental Impact Report for the General Plan pursuant to
Section 15162 of the California Environmental Quality Act;
2. ADOPT a Resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2001-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN
ORDINANCE ENTITLED "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE
OFFICIAL ZONING MAP ALONG A PORTION OF BOTH SIDES OF RIDGE
PARK DRIVE (PLANNING APPLICATION 01-0460)"
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT: City of Temecula
PROPOSAL: To change the zoning on 14 properties located along both sides of
Ridge Park Drive from Light industrial (LI) to Business Park (BP).
LOCATION: Crystal Ridge Business Park, south of Rancho California Road along
both sides of Ridge Park Drive.
Light Industrial (LI)
EXISTING ZONING:
SURROUNDING ZONING:
PROPOSED ZONING:
GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION:
EXISTING LAND USE:
ADJACENT LAND USES:
North:
South:
East:
West:
Professional Office (PO) and Light Industrial (LI)
Westside Specific Plan (SP-8)
Light Industrial (LI)
Professional Office (PO) and Open Space (OS-C)
Business Park (BP)
Business Park
Office Buildings and vacant
North: Industrial
R:\C Z\01-0460~Staff Report PC.doc
1
BACKGROUND
Staff has recently identified the need to modify the zoning designations along most of Ridge Park
Drive (the C~stal Ridge Business Park). This need is based upon the idea that the future land uses
in this area would be better as office type buildings given its location
ANALYSIS
When the City of Temecula adopted the Development Code in 1995 (to regulate private
development consistent with the 1993 General Plan), two zoning districts were created to implement
the City's Business Park General Plan Land Use Designation. The two districts are Light Industrial
(LI) and Business Park (BP). The primary key differences between these two zones is that the LI
zone allows a wider range of manufacturing and assembly activities and the BP Zone allows smaller
office buildings. The Business Park zone also allows warehousing and less intensive manufacturing
uses in addition to the smaller office buildings.
In considering this change of zone, staff is suggesting that the Commission consider the following
factors in making their decision:
· Consistency with the General Plan
· Suitability of the site for office uses
· Land use buffering and compatibility
· Existing land use pattern
Consistency with the General Plan
Land Use Map: The Business Park Land Use Designation is implemented by two zoning
districts. This zone change would transfer this area from one industrialzoning distdct to another
under the same General Plan Land Use Designation.
Economic Development Element: Specifically, the proposed change of zone is consistent with
Goal 2 which calls for the "Diversification of the economic base to include a range of
manufacturing, retail and service activities." There is currently a limited amount of vacant BP
zoned property available for development within the City and changing the zoning in this area
would immediately provide additional sites.
Suitability of the Site
Some of these sites have topographic constraints that would make the construction of larger
office buildings (greater than 50,000 square feet) infeasible without extensive grading on the
escarpment area.
The site is elevated, with a good view over the valley making it more desirable for office type
buildings.
R:\C Z~01-04S0~Staff Report PC.doc
2
Land Use Bufferina and Compatibilitv
The differences in elevation between this area and the properties to remain Light Industrial to
the east provides a logical land use buffer.
The surrounding area contains other office, warehousing, and manufacturing uses and would
not create a land use compatibility problem.
Existina Land Use Pattern
The area is developing with primarily office uses already (all of the 6 developed sites are a/ready
developedwithofficebuildings). Twooftheseprojectscontainsmallerofficebuildingthatwere
developed under the County Zoning Ordinance. In addition, two other sites have received
previous approvals for development consistent with the Business Park zone.
Based upon these criteria, staff believes that this zone change is appropriate, would continue to
implement the General Plan, and would enhance future economic development in the City.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
The proposed project is a change of zone from one industrial zone to another that does not require
a general plan amendment. Staff has reviewed the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for
the General Plan and has determined that no additional impacts beyond those identified in the FEIR
are anticipated to occur. As a result, no additional environmental analysis is required.
GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY
The Business Park General Plan Land Use Designation is implemented by two different zoning
districts; Light Industrial and Business Park. Changing the zoning in this area from one zone to
another is consistent with the General Plan. Therefore, the proposed zone change is consistent
with the adopted City General Plan.
SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS
Based upon these factors, staff is recommending that the Planning Commission recommend that
the City Council amend the City's Official Zoning Map and redesignate this area from Light Industrial
(LI) to Business Park (BP).
Attachments:
PC Resolution - Blue Page 4
Proposed Ordinance - Blue Page 8
Exhibits - Blue Page 10
A. Zoning Map
B. General Plan Land Use Map
C. Existing Land Use Map
D. Proposed Zoning Map
R:\C Z',01-0460\Staff Report PC.doc
3
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2001-
R:\C Z~01-0460~Staff Report PC.doc
4
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2001-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY
COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED "AN
ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE OFFICIAL
ZONING MAP ALONG A PORTION OF BOTH SIDES OF RIDGE
PARK DRIVE (PLANNING APPLICATION 01-0460)"
WHEREAS, the City of Temecula filed Planning Application No. 01-0460, in a manner in
accord with the Development Code;
WHEREAS, Planning Application No, 01-0460 was processed including, but not limited to a
public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, at a regular meeting, considered Planning
Application No. 01-0460 on October 17, 2001, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law,
at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in
support or in opposition to this matter; and
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing and after due consideration of the
testimony, the Commission recommended to the City Council that the Official Zoning Map for the
City of Temecula be amended;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES
HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Findinqs. The Planning Commission, in approving Planning Application No.
01-0460 hereby finds that the amendment to the Official Zoning Map is consistent with the adopted
General Plan for the City of Temecula, the site is physically suitable for the type of development that
could eventually occur in this area, and the proposed change of zone would further the City's long-
term economic development goals.
Section 2. Environmental Compliance. An environmental initial study has been prepared
for Planning Application No. 01-0460 in accordance with California Environmental Quality Act. As a
result, staff is recommending that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council make
a finding of the consistency with the Final Environmental Impact Report for the General Plan.
Section 3. Recommendation. The Planning Commission of the City of Temecula hereby
recommends that the City Council approve Planning Application 01-0460 and adopt an Ordinance
amending the Official Zoning Map for the City of Temecula, substantially in the form contained in
Exhibit A.
Section 4. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning
Commission this 17th day of October 2001.
Dennis Chinieaff, Chairperson
R:\C Z~D1-o460'~Staff Report PC.doc
5
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning
Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 17~ day of October,
2000, by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES: 0
NOES: 0
ABSENT: 0
ABSTAIN: 0
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: NONE
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: NONE
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: NONE
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: NONE
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
R:\C Z~Ol-O460~Staff Repo~l PC.doc
6
Crystal Ridge
Existing Zoning
N
c ~gis~etli~arcviev, l:xopcls~taJridge2.ap*'
ATI'ACHMENT NO. 2
PROPOSED ORDINANCE
R:\C Z~lo0460~Staff Report PC.doc
7
ORDINANCE NO. 00-
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE OFFICIAL
ZONING MAP ALONG BOTH SIDES OF A PORTION OF RIDGE
PARK DRIVE (PLANNING APPLICATION 01-0460)
WHEREAS, Section 65800 of the Government Code provides for the adoption and
administration of zoning laws, ordinances, rules and regulations by cities to implement such general
plans as may be in effect in any such city; and
WHEREAS, Sections 65860 of the Government Code requires that a zoning ordinance shall
be consistent with the adopted General Plan of the city; and
WHEREAS, there is a need to amend the Zoning Map to accurately reflect private property
and to be consistent with the adopted General Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held duly noticed public hearings on October 17,
2001, and recommended that the City Council approve the attached amendments to the City Zoning
Map and Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, notice of the proposed Ordinance was posted at City Hall, Temecula Library,
Pujol Street Community Center, and the Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council has held a duly noticed public hearing on ,2001 to
consider the proposed amendments to the City Zoning Map and the Temecula Municipal Code.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS
FOLLOWS:
Section 1, Amendments To The City Zonina Map The City Council hereby amends the
Official Zoning Map for the City of Temecula for the following parcels by changing the zoning
designations from Light Industrial to Business Park:
A. 940-310-015;
B. 940-310-016;
C. 940-310-027;
D. 940-310-028;
E. 940-310-029;
F. 940-310-030
G. 940-310-031
H. 940-310-032
I. 940-310-040
J. 940-310-044
K. 940-310-045
L. 940-310-046
M. 940-310-047; and,
N. 940-310-048.
R:\C Z~01-0460~Stafl Report PC.doc
8
Section 2. Environmental Review. The City Council, based upon the information contained
in the Initial Environmental Study, and hereby finds that the environmental impacts associated wtith
this change of zone were identified, analyzed and addressed in the Final Environmental Impact
Report for the General Plan that was certified on November 9, 1993.
Section 3. Severabilitv. If any sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any
reason held to be unconstitutional or otherwise invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of
the remaining provisions of this ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have
passed this ordinance and each sentence, clause or phrase thereof irrespective of the fact that any
one or more sentences, clauses or phrases be declared unconstitutional or otherwise invalid.
Section 4. Certification. The City Clerk of the City of Temecula shall certify to the
passage and adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same to be published in the manner
required by law.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this th day of
,2001.
ATTEST:
Jeff Comerchero, Mayor
Susan W. Jones, CMC
City Clerk
[SEAL]
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss
CITY OF TEMECULA )
I, Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the
foregoing Ordinance No. 01 - was dully introduced and placed upon its first reading at a regular
meeting of the City Council on the __th day of ,2001 and that thereafter, said Ordinance was
duly adopted and passed at a regular meeting of the City Council on the th day of
2001, by the following vote:
AYES:
0 COUNCILMEMBERS:None
NOES:
0 COUNCILMEMBERS:None
ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS:None
Susan W. Jones, CMC
City Clerk
R:\C Z~01-0460~Staff Report PC.doc
9
A'I'rACHMENT NO. 3
EXHIBITS
R:\C Z~01-0460'~Staff Report PC.doc
10
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO. - PA01-0460
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE -October 17, 2001
ZONING MAP
R:\C Z~01-0460~Staff Report PC.doc
11
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO. - PA01-0460
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - October 17, 2001
GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP
R:\C Z~01-0460~Staff Report PC.doc
12
ClTY OFTEMECULA
V
V
CASE NO. - PA01-0460
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - October 17, 2001
EXISTING LAND USE MAP
R:\C Z~01-0460~Staff Repot1 PC.doc
13
CITY OFTEMECULA
CASE NO. - PA01-0460
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - October 17, 2001
PROPOSED ZONING MAP
R:\C Z*~1-0460\Staff Report PC.doc
14
ITEM 4
R:\PLANCOMMV~gendas~2001\10-17-01.doc
3
ClTY OFTEMECULA
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTDEPARTMENT
PLANNING DIVISION
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
Subject:
Planning Commissioners
Debbie Ubnoske, Director of Planning
October 17, 2001
Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan Land Use Plan
PREPARED BY:
Saied Naaseh, Project Planner
RECOMMENDATION: Provide Direction on the issues identified in the Staff Report
BACKGROUND:
On August 15, 2001, the Planning Commission heard the Roripaugh Specific Plan and
continued it to the October 17, 2001 meeting. The Planning Commission directed staff and the
applicant to resolve remaining issues and bring forward a complete and comprehensive
package for Planning Commission's review. Attachment 1 provides a summary of the
Commission's concerns and comments. The focus of staff has been on generating a Land Use
Plan that makes good planning sense and is acceptable to the Subcommittee and the
surrounding residents. Several meetings have been held between staff, the applicant, the
Subcommittee, and the residents to arrive at the proposed Land Use Plan.
On September 12, 2001, staff held a meeting with the surrounding residents to present them
with a revised Land Use Plan. Their input from this meeting is summarized in Attachment 2. As
a result of this input, the applicant made additional refinements to the Land Use Plan. This
Land Use Plan was subsequently presented to the Subcommittee on September 24, 2001
(Refer to Attachment 9 for the Current Land Use Plan).
The Subcommittee's complete recommendations are included in Attachment 3 with major
recommendations discussed in the Analysis Section of this Staff Report. Staff feels the
proposed Land Use Plan adequately addresses most of the Planning Commission's concerns
from the August 15rn meeting, as well as the Subcommittee's and residents' concerns. Some
fine-tuning of the Land Use Plan may be necessary and staff would like to obtain input from the
Planning Commission on the Land Use Plan and any other concerns the Planning Commission
may have. However, the primary purpose of this Workshop is to finalize the Land Use Plan.
After developing a final Land Use Plan, based upon the input received at this Workshop, the
process of preparing the Specific Plan can be initiated.
R:~S P~Roripau~h Ranch SiAncw~ staffreporl 10-17-Ol.doc
1
ANALYSIS
ChanQes to the Land Use Plan
The total number of units for the entire project has increased from 1721 to 1986, an increase of
265 units or about 15%. All the proposed product types are now single family detached. A
lotting study will determine a more precise distribution of the units within the Planning Areas.
The applicant has not submitted a copy of the lotting study to staff. The following provides a
comparison of the August 15th Land Use Plan and the currently proposed Land Use Plan. The
project area has been broken into three sub-areas for this discussion. Attachment 4 provides a
summary of the changes in the number of units for the project.
The Panhandle Neighborhood (PAs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5,and 6)
The total number of units in this area has increased from 460 to 485, an increase of 25 units or
5%. The increase is a result of moving the elementary school site due to the site's proximity to
the French Valley Airport. This school is now located in PA 22 adjacent to the Middle School
site in the 640-acre area. An additional 3-acre neighborhood park and a 2.5-acre private
recreation area have replaced a portion of the 12-acre elementary school site. The remainder
of the school site has been converted to 25 residential lots with minimum 5,000 square foot lot
sizes.
The West Butterfield Stage Road Neighborhood (PAs 1 lA, 1 lB, 12, 27, and 30)
This area lays between the MWD easement and Butterfield Stage Road. The total number of
units in this area has decreased from 490 to 237 dwelling units, a decrease of 253 units or 51%.
The number of units in PA 12 has decreased from 300 attached units to 180 clustered courtyard
units. The number of units in PA 27 has decreased from 135 attached units to 12 single-family
units. Buffering the surrounding areas was the main reason for the change. One acre lots will
be proposed followed by 1/~ acre lots. The number of units in Planning Area (PA) 30 has
deceased from 45 to 9. This change was result of staff's continued concern about the density of
this PA and the Subcommittee's concurrence with staff's position. The Subcommittee
recommended transferring the balance of the units from PA 30 (36 units) to PA 1 lB which used
to be a Neighborhood Commercial site. In addition, PA 29 has been removed from the Specific
Plan.
East Butterfield Neighborhood (640 Acre Area)
The total number of units in this area has increased from 771 to 1,252 an increase of 481 units
or 62%. The applicant is proposing two gates on the Loop Road. The gate concept was not
presented to the Subcommittee. While this concept is acceptable to the Fire Department staff, it
is subject to further review and approval. Some of the Fire Departments concerns regarding
providing adequate service to the area could be addressed by providing Opticom and Knox gate
controllers which will provide access through the gates in case of an emergency.
This area has been divided into the following three sub-areas:
· Inside the Loop (PAs 19A, 19B, 20, 21A, 21 B, 22, 23, 24, 26, and 32)
The total number of units in this area has increased from 270 single-family
units with minimum 5,000 square foot lots to 584 with minimum 3,500 square
foot lots (478 units) and the clustered courtyard product (106 units). The total
increase in this area is 314 units or 116%. In addition, the elementary school
site and the new 4-acre private recreational facility are new to this area.
· Outside the Loop to the South and East (PAs 16, 17, and 18)
The total number of units in this area has increased from 111 to 130, an
increase of 19 units or 17%. Most of the change in this area is due to
inequitable buffering issues. The buffering to the east and south of this area
is a row of 1 -acre lots followed by one row of ~ acre lots. The previous Land
Use Plan proposed minimum 2 1/~ acre lots along the east side and only
minimum 20,000 square foot lots along the south side. In addition, a 30' fuel
modification zone is required along the eastern and southern boundary of the
area which includes a multi- purpose trail including a home trail.
· Outside the Loop to the North (PAs 13A, 13B, 14, and 15)
The total number of units in this area has increased from 390 to 550 an
increase of 160 units or 41%. The previous Land Use Plan provided a
mixture of product types in this area including 105 attached single-family
dwellings, 205 detached single-family dwellings with minimum 6,000 square
foot lots, and 80 detached single-family dwellings with minimum 7,200 square
foot lots. The current product mix includes 200 clustered courtyard units, 240
detached single-family dwellings with minimum 3,500 square foot lots, and
110 detached single-family dwellings with minimum 7,200 square foot lots.
Subcommittee's Recommendations
Following are the major recommendations from the Subcommittee. For a complete list of
subcommittee's recommendations, please refer to Attachment 3.
Village Center Concept
The Subcommittee discussed moving the commercial center from Planning Area (PA) 11A to
PA 13A since PA 11A is not accessible to pedestrians unless a safe route is provided.
However, the subcommittee's final recommendation was to keep the commercial in 11A since
selling alcohol next to the school could be inappropriate. In addition, the Nicolas Valley
neighborhood and the developer prefer the commercial center at its present proposed location.
Staff sees some merit in moving the commercial center to create a Village Center which was
recommended by the Planning Commission. However, moving the commercial center could
trigger the 600-foot separation between some alcohol serving uses in the commercial center
and the school sites as mentioned in Section 23789 of the California Business and Professions
Code (Attachment 7). The Alcohol and Beverage Control (ABC) enforces this Section.
According to ABC, this Section is more used as a guide than an absolute requirement. When
ABC receives an application for an alcohol license, they consider a number of issues, including
but not limited to, the access points of the school in relation to the use and the nature of the
proposed use. The ABC would then notify the School District of the proposed application.
Conditions may be imposed upon the use based on the ABC's determination and School
District's input. Attachment 8 delineates the 600' radius around the school sites. In fact, the
rear portion of the 10- acre commercial site is outside the 600' radius. Therefore, since this
information about Section 23789 was not available to the Subcommittee, staff feels additional
R:~S P~Roripaugh Ranch Sl~ncvApc staff report 10-17-01 .doc
discussion is warranted regarding the location of the commercial center. Alcohol uses can be
regulated through the Specific Plan Zoning Section. Additional input is requested from the
Planning Commission on the location of the commercial center.
Buffering
South, East, and PA 27
The Subcommittee felt that the buffering in this area is adequate. The surrounding residents
initially had concerns regarding the buffering on the previous Land Use Plan; however, they did
not express concerns about the buffering of the current Land Use Plan. In all three PAs, one
row of 1-acre lots is followed by one row of ~ acre lots. The Subcommittee also recommended
that in PAs16, 17, and 18, the 1-acre lots and Y2 acre lots should have the same lot width. In
addition, horses should be permitted in the 1-acre lots in PA 16, 17, and 18 with direct access to
the trail from the rear yard fence. Staff concurs with the Subcommittee's recommendations.
South of the Panhandle
The Subcommittee determined that the elevation and distance separation in this area provides
some buffering; however, the following measures could be incorporated into the project to
reduce visibility of the Panhandle lots from the Nicolas Valley. The Subcommittee directed the
applicant to conduct a Visual Impact Study to determine the visibility of these Iots. The
mitigation measures to reduce the impacts could include:
· An additional 40' to 50' of building setback or landscaped buffer for all lots with pad
elevations higher than the top of the slope.
· Additional landscaping at the bottom of the slope.
· Use of single story units along the south edge.
Staff has not received a copy of the Visual Impact Analysis to obtain input from the
Subcommittee and provide an analysis. Despite the lack of adequate information, staff would
like to receive further input from the Planning Commission on this issue.
Number of Units
The Subcommittee was split on their recommendation for the total number of units. Council
Member Roberts and Commissioner Chiniaeff needed more information on the amenities
(paseos, private recreational areas, trails, and other improvements), the mitigation measures,
and the lotting study for the proposed project prior to consenting to the proposed number of
units. However, Mayor Comemhero and Commissioner Telesio supported the proposed Land
Use Plan. The Subcommittee will need to provide more specific direction on this issue when the
applicant develops a more detailed project description.
Staff requests the Planning Commission provide input regarding the proposed number of units.
The General Plan permits 3 dwelling units per gross acre which translates to approximately
2,400 dwelling units for the whole site. Staff is supportive of the total number of units for the
project as long as the applicant provides the level of amenities, the design detail and quality,
and the buffering that has been discussed. The amenities for the project include 2 private
recreational facilities, off street multi purpose trails throughout the site, and detailed Design
Guidelines which will result in cohesive and attractive community.
R:XS P~Roripaugh Rar~¢h SP~new~c staff repo~ 10-17-01.doc
Religious Institution Site
The Subcommittee had no specific recommendations on this subject. Therefore, this will
become a future topic of discussion for them. Staff believes that a 5-acre site designated as
Public Institutional needs to be provided. Staff would like to receive Planning Commission's
input on this issue.
Park-N-Ride and Transit Station
The off-site Park-N-Ride facility on SR-79 South was discussed as a possible alternative to the
on-site mitigation. Staff has not yet determined the consistency of this recommendation with the
project EIR and if this participation will represent complete mitigation for the project.
Trails
The Subcommittee recommended that the project should provide paseos that do not cross
major streets throughout the site. In addition, horse trails should be a minimum 10' to 15' wide
(15' is the preferred width). Staff will determine the precise width and surface of all trials at the
tentative map stage. Staff has not received a copy of the proposed trials from the developer;
therefore, the following provides a discussion of staff's preferred off-street trails and paseos.
Staff would like to receive input from the Planning Commission on the trail network proposed by
staff.
South of the Panhandle (PA 7)
This trail will be constructed by the developer and will be maintained by the HOA. It will
connect the two extreme ends of the panhandle along Murrieta Hot Springs Road
sidewalks. Additional access points will be provided from the panhandle residential
areas. It will be a multi purpose trail; however, horses will not be permitted on this trail.
The immediate area in the vicinity of trail will be landscaped and will include fencing to
discourage the trail users from moving downhill towards the Nicolas Valley.
Along the MWD Easement
This multi-purpose trail will be constructed by the developer and will be maintained by
the City. It will connect the sidewalk on Murrieta Hot Springs Road in the Panhandle to
the southerly point of PA 27.
PA 27
This Class I multi-purpose trail within PA 27 will be constructed by the developer and will
be maintained by the HOA, It will connect the western boundary of PA 27 at Nicolas
Road to Butterfield Stage Road,
Butterfield Stage Road Under-Crossing
The developer will be responsible for constructing an under crossing for a trail from the
west side of Butterfleid Stage Road into the Sports Park (PA 24).
R:~S P~Roripaugh Ranch Sl~new~oc s~,ff repor110-17-01.doc
5
Butterfield Stage Road Class I Trail
This trail on the east side of Butterfield Stage Road will provide a connection from the
under crossing to the multi-purpose trail in PA 18.
South and East Side of the 640-Acre Area (PAs 16, 17, and 18)
The developer will construct a multi-purpose trail within the 30' fuel modification zone.
This trail will be maintained by the HOA. The balance of the fuel modification zone will
be landscaped. This trail will provide access from the Nicolas Valley via PA 27, the
under crossing, and the Class I trail along Butterfield Stage Road to the University of
California Riverside (UCR) property.
Long Valley Trails and Pedestrian Bridge (PAs 25 and 26)
The developer will construct two multi-purpose trails (excluding horses) on both sides on
the Long Valley channel. A pedestrian bridge will connect these two trails over Long
Valley channel. This pedestrian bridge will provide access to the schools, the Sports
Park, and the private recreational facility (PA 32) from the Butterfield Stage Road under-
crossing. In addition, they will connect to the multi-purpose trail along the PAs 16 and
17.
Additional Off-Street Paseos
In addition to the above trails, the project needs to provide off-street, paseos that provide
access to the above trail and to the other parts of the development.
Residents Concerns
Since the August15th Planning Commission meeting, the residents have provided their input
into the planning process for the Land Use Plan. Most of their concerns relating to the Land
Use Plan have been addressed. Following are some of their other concerns about the project:
Improvement of Calle Chapos instead of Nicolas Road as one of the primary access
point to the project.
· Improvement of Nicolas Road to 4 lanes by the developer.
· The projected Nicolas Road traffic volumes are not realistic.
· The safety of Nicolas Road needs to be ensured by adding sidewalks, bike paths, and
possible Class I trails (off street).
· No Arizona crossing should be proposed for Nicolas Road.
· An improved landscaped buffer for the south side of the panhandle needs to be
proposed.
· Equestrian trails are needed along selected portions of Butterfield Stage Road, Calle
Chapos, and Nicolas Road to provide a comprehensive horse access in the area.
R:xS I'~Rodpaugh Ranch SP~ne'.~Apc staff report 10-]7-0!.doc
6
· Drainage issues for Santa Gertrudis and Long Valley channels and Liefer Road need to
be adequately addressed.
· Restrictions on park lighting should be included.
· Adequate parking for the parks and schools needs to be provided.
· The project will generate a lot of traffic.
DesiQn Guidelines
The Design Guidelines are not a discussion item for this Workshop. However, Attachment 5
includes staff's concerns and direction to the applicant. If the Planning Commission would like
to see some specific provisions within the Design Guidelines, individual Commissioners should
contact staff.
AdeQuacy of the EIR
Due to the changes to the Land Use Plan, staff needs to examine the adequacy of the current
draft EIR. This determination cannot be completed until the Land Use Plan is complete and a
detailed project description is developed. After the Land Use Map is finalized, staff will
determine whether the Traffic Study or other studies would need to be updated.
Summary
Staff would like to receive direction on the following issues from the Planning Commission:
General comments on the Land Use Plan
· The appropriateness of the location of the Commercial Center in PA 1 la
· Adequacy of the buffering along the south side of the Panhandle
· The total number of units of the project
· The need to add a designated Public institutional site
· The trail network
Attachments:
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Planning Commissions Concerns from the August 15, 2001 Meeting - Page 8
Summary of the September 12, 2001 Community Meeting - Page 11
Revised Summary of the September 24, 2001 Subcommittee Recommendations
Page 13
Summary Table for the Changes to the Land Use Plan - Page 16
Staff's General Comments on the Design Guidelines - Page 18
Letters from the Residents - Page 20
Section 23789 of the Business and Professions Code - Page 21
Land Use Plan Delineating the 600' radius around the School - Page 22
Current Land Use Plan - Page 24
R:~S P~Rofipaugh Ranch SP~ncvApc staff report 10-17-01.doc
7
ATFACHMENT 1
PLANNING COMMISSIONS CONCERNS
FROM THE AUGUST 15, 2001 MEETING
R:~ P~Roripaugh Ranch SP~new~pc s~aff repor~ 10-17-01.doc
Comment
Equitable buffering is needed all
around the site
Does the revised
LU Plan address
the comments
One acre buffering
to the south and
east plus a 30'
landscaped buffer
along the edge.
One acre buffering
to the west
South of Panhandle
buffering is
achieved through
OS, grade
separation, and
landscaping.
Comments
Additional input requested from
the Planning Commission on the
panhandle buffering.
The Core should be moved to
within the Loop Road
The intensity of the
core has been
reduced and
transferred to the
640-acre area.
The Commercial site in PA 1 la is
still within the core. Additional
input is requested from the
Planning Commission on this
issue.
Village Center should be proposed
within the Loop Road
The Commemial
site is still proposed
in PA 11a.
The Middle School
site needs to be a
minimum of 600'
from commemial
areas.
Additional input requested from
the Planning Commission on the
Village Center concept.
Move the Multi-Family away from
the Core
Multi-Family not appropriate
' Private Recreational Facilities are
needed
Multi-family has
been eliminated
Multi-family is
eliminated
2 private
recreational
facilities are
proposed
R:~S P~Roripaugh Ranch SP~new~c staffrcpot110-17-01.doc
9
Comment
The School Site issues with ALUC
need to be resolved
Does the revised
LU Plan address
the comments
The Elementary
school site has
been moved out of
the French Valley
influence area.
Comments
Trail connections need to be
provided as recommended by the
Subcommittee which is
constructing a connection between
off-site Santa Gertrudis Creek and
the UCR property through Nicolas
Road, under crossing at BSR, and
through the perimeter of the project
on the south and east sides. In
addition, MWD easement trail
needs to be provided.
The trail along the south of the
panhandle needs to be provided
Consistency with the Growth
Management Program Action Plan
needs to be determined
Staff's proposed
trail plan addresses
all the trail issues.
Staff's proposal
includes a trail on
the south side of
the Panhandle with
connections to the
panhandle.
Staff needs to make
this determination
after the completion
of all the
components of the
project.
Staff has not received applicant's
trails exhibit.
Staff has not received applicant's
trails exhibit.
Incomplete
R:~S P'~Roripaugh Ranch SP~ncw~pc slaff report I0-1'/-01 .doc
ATTACHMENT 2
SUMMARY OF THE SEPTEMBER 12, 2001 COMMUNITY MEETING
RAS P~Rofipaugh Ranch SP~new~oc staff rcporl 10-lT-01.doc
Summary of 9-12 Meeting with the Community on the Land Use Plan
Over 20 people attended the Community Meeting that lasted approximately 3 hours. First, the
applicant presented their proposed Land Use Plan totaling 1986 dwelling units, Staff
presentation followed identifying the areas that the applicant and staff need to further negotiate,
including:
1. The total number of units appropriate for the project;
2. The location of the Park N Ride and the transit station;
3. The lack of a dedicated site for Public Institutional uses such as religious institutions;
4. The number and location of the private recreational facilities of the project;
5. The location of the trails along Nicolas Road and the type of trail crossing at Butterfield
Stage Road.
The following is a summary of the community's main points:
1. One-acta lots should be proposed along the southerly property line of the Panhandle.
2. The impacts from the light and noise from the athletic fields need to be addressed.
3. The proposed number of units is not consistent with the current rural atmosphere of the
area.
4. The developer should be responsible to improve Nicolas Road to four lanes.
5. The applicant should not make a threat to go to the County.
6. The City should look at Calle Chapos as an alternate route to Nicolas Road to avoid the
drainage issues associated with the construction of Nicolas Road.
7. The proposed schools and the parks ara important and necessary features of this
project.
8. The equestrian trails issues still need to be addressed.
9. City staff should be present in all meetings involving the Community and the developer.
10. The City will create a better project than the County.
R:~ P',Roripaugh Ranch S[~ncw~pc staffrepon 10-17-01.doc
12
ATFACHMENT 3
REVISED SUMMARY OF THE SEPTEMBER 24, 2001
SUBCOMMITFEE RECOMMENDATIONS
R:xS P~Roripaugh Ranch SPXnew~c staff report 10-17-01.doc
13
Revised Summary of the
Roripaugh Subcommittee Recommendations
9-24-01
1) Village Center Concept
Some discussion took place regarding moving the commercial center from Planning Area (PA)
1 lA to PA 13A since PA 1 lA is not accessible to pedestrians unless a safe route is provided.
However, the subcommittee's final recommendation was to keep the commercial in 1 lA since
selling alcohol next to the school could be inappropriate.
2) Location of the Schools
The Subcommittee supported the locations of the schools as proposed.
3) Buffering
South, East, and PA 27
The buffering for the south, east, and PA 27 is adequate with 1-acre lots and a transition to ~,5
acre lots. In Planning Areas 16, 17, and 18, the 1-acre lots and ~/~ acre lots should have the
same lot width. Horses should be allowed in the 1-acre lots in PA 16, 17, and 18.
South of the Panhandle
Elevation and distance separation provides some buffering; however, the following measures
could be incorporated into the project to reduce visibility of the Panhandle lots from the Nicolas
Valley. A Visual Impact Study is needed to determine the visibility of these lots. Mitigation
measures to reduce the impacts include:
· An additional 40' to 50' of building setback or landscaped buffer for all lots with pad
elevations higher than the top of the slope.
· Additional landscaping at the bottom of the slope.
· Use of single story units along the south edge.
4) Number of Units
The Subcommittee was split on their recommendation for the total number of units. Council
member Roberts and Commissioner Chiniaeff needed more information on the amenities
(paseos, private recreational areas, trails, and other improvements), the mitigation measures,
and the lotting study for the proposed project prior to consenting to the proposed number of
units. However, Mayor Comemhero and Commissioner Telesio supported the proposed Land
Use Plan. This issue will need to be a future topic of discussion.
5) Religious Institution Site
The Subcommittee had no specific recommendations on this subject. Therefore, this should
become a future topic of discussion.
R:~S P~Roripaugh Ranch SP~ncw~oc staffrepola 10-17-Ol.doc
6) Private Recreational Facilities
A 2.5-acre private recreational facility will be added to PA 3.
7) Park-N-Ride and Transit Station
The off-site Park-N-Ride facility on SR-79 South was discussed as a possible alternative to the
on-site mitigation. Staff needs to determine the consistency of this recommendation with the
project EIR and determine if that participation will represent complete mitigation.
8) Zoning Designations
The Zoning Designation for PA 30 should be changed to Low Density. The Zoning Designation
of PA 11B should be changed to M2 and the units from PA 30 should be moved to PA 1 lB.
9) Trails
Paseos that do not cross major streets should be created throughout the project site. in
addition, horse trails should be a minimum 12' to 15' wide (15' is the preferred width).
10) Design Guidelines
The level of detail of the Design Guidelines should be sufficient to require the builders to build
what was presented to the Subcommittee.
11 )Nicolas Road
Nicolas Road should have an all weather 12-month crossing.
R:XS P~Roripaugh Ranch SP~nevApc staff report 10-17-01 .doc
ATrACHMENT 4
SUMMARY TABLE FOR THE CHANGES TO THE LAND USE PLAN
R:~ I~Roripaugh Ranch SP~nevApc staffrcpor[ 10-17-01.d~c
16
Original # of
Units
Panhandle (PAs
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 460
6)
West Butterfield
Stage Road
(PAs 11A, 11B, 490
12, 27, and 30)
East Butterfield
Stage Road,
Inside the Loop
(PAs 19A, 19B, 270
20, 21A, 21B,
22, 23, 24, 26,
and 32)
East Butterfield
Stage Road,
outside the
Loop to the 111
South and East
(PAs 16, 17, and
18)
East Butterfield
Stage Road,
Outside the
Loop to the 390
North (PAs 13A,
13, B, 14, and
15)
Current # of
Units
485
237
584
130
55O
Change in # of
Units
+25
-253
+314
+19
+160
Changein %
+5%
-51%
+116%
+17%
+41%
TOTAL 1721 1986 +265 +15%
R:~g P~Roripaugh Ranch SP~ne~Apc staffreport 10-174}1 .doc
17
ATTACHMENT 5
STAFF'S GENERAL COMMENTS ON THE DESIGN GUIDELINES
R:~S P~Roripaugh Ranch SP~new~oc stuff report 10-17-01.doc
18
General Design Guideline Comments to the Applicant
· Architecture forward concept should be utilized
· Garage layout and treatments need to be specified
· Appropriate plotting locations for 1 story vs. 2 stories should be considered
· Enhanced details for mail boxes, Stop Signs, street, paseos, and pedestrian lights, street
name signs, etc need to be provided.
· Side and rear elevations will require architectural enhancements. Lot layout will be
important for determining the visible areas that need architectural enhancements.
· Corner lots should be proposed with two facade elevations.
· Diversity of architectural themes should be included
· The design of the homes should include entry courtyards, covered entries, covered
porches, etc.
· Materials used for the front entry or the main feature of a single-family dwelling should
be diverse and should standout from the remainder of the house.
· Ornamental features such as wrought iron features, exterior lights, other architectural
features, etc. should be used to create interest and dimension to the front of the house.
· The dominant features of the front of the house should use several architectural features
to dress it up. For example, the ground floor windows should have substantial trim, the
roof over the window should be extended to create an oversized overhang, the window
could be pop-out, or have a built-in planter, second story windows should include similar
designs or balconies.
R:xS P~Rofipaugh Ranch SP~ncw~pc staffrepor~ 10-17-01.doc
19
ATTACHMENT 6
LETTERS FROM THE RESIDENTS
R:~S I~Roripaugh Ranch SP'mcw~c slaffrepor[ lO-17-01.doc
2O
SEP-~-8001 0~: 19P FE~31'I:D~ ROBINSON,D.O., U~ ~gL~9474 TO:GB46477
Temecula. Valley Citizens For Responsible Government
September 24, 2001
Temecula Planning Commission
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
RE: Planning Application No. PA94-0075 Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan
Dear City Planner:
The revised Conceptual Land Use Plan dated 09/18/01 for the Roripaugh Planning
Application #PA94-0075 is inadequate.
The Temecula Valley Citizens For Responsible Government feel that the buffer zones on
Planning Area 16, 17, 18, and 27 consisting currently of one acre minimum lots adjacent
to property boundaries and one-half acre minimum lots adjacent is inadequate. We,
therefore strongly urge the City Council and City Planning Commission to deny the
current applicant with this proposal on grounds of unmitigated impact on the rural
surcoundings.
We have outlined specifically, and in great detail, our review of the Environmental
Impact Report specifically addressing the land use and surrounding rural area with
specific reeommandations for buffering zones. To date, the current application fails
greatly in alleviating the specific land use rights of the surrounding neighborhood with
high-density housing.
We look forward to working with you in the future to resolve these differences in
buffering in a way that will accommodate many and not few.
Sincerely,
id C Robinson, D O
DCR/Ih
cc: Saied Naaseh, Case Planner
40941 Winchester Road · Temeoula, CA 92591 · (909) 695-1079, Fax: (909) 699-5335
August 28, 2001
Saied Naaseh VI, Project Planner
Community Development Planner
City of Temecula
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92589
RE: Roripsugh Ranch Specific Plan Proposal Comments
Dear Mr. Nasseh:
As you are aware, a few of the residents of the Nicolas Valley met with
Kevin Everett last night to discuss the latest changes to the Roripaugh Specific
Plan. Most of the time was spent focusing on the latest map drawn up by Ashby
Development. While the new plan attempts to mitigate the adverse land use
impacts caused by the project, I believe it is important to point out to you, City
Staff, Planning Commissioners and the City Council that several major design
deficiencies still exist and that these impacts are currently are unmitigated and
unresolved.
From the beginning, Nicolas Valley residents have expressed concern
regarding the amount of traffic that the Roripaugh project will generate. This
concern is compounded by the notion that Nicolas Road, which is, or is projected
to be, a four-lane road both East and West of the Valley, will only be a two lane
road without sidewalks, curb and gutter and bike lanes. This will be a major
safety concern for the residents and their children when Nicolas Road becomes
one of routes into and out of the Roripaugh project. In addition, how will the
residents along Nicolas Road be expected to merge onto Nicolas Road when
12,000 cars per day are using it? I have suggested in the past and again last
night that Ashby Development and the City consider a full buildout of the 110'
right of way on the North half only of Nicolas Road. Since no residences
currently exist directly adjoining the South half of Nicolas, our children's safety
would be protected.
Last night we learned that it is the intention of Ashby Development to build
an "Arizona crossing" where Nicolas Road and the Santa Gertrudis Creek meet.
As you know, the DEIR for the project outlined a box culvert scenario for this
area. If an Arizona crossing is considered by the City, my concern is that the
road will wash out or that, at the very least, sediment deposits will require
constant maintenance by the City, for which Nicolas Valley residents will have to
pay for. Since Nicolas Road is currently unpaved, it is fairly easy and
Page I of 2
inexpensive to repair it after every rainstorm. Once the road is paved, it will
surely be uneconomical to fix it each time.
A suggestion was made last night regarding the closure of Nicolas Road
from the project, similar to Calle Contento on the East end. In the past, the City
has resisted this option since Nicolas Road is designated in the General Plan as
a major thoroughfare. In light of the drainage issue on the West end of Nicolas,
the traffic concerns and horse access issues, it would be prudent to consider this
option once more. If the monies that would be spent on the construction of
Nicolas Road, whether two or four-lane, could be applied to widening Calle
Girasol and Calle Chapos, then several major incompatibilities would be
mitigated. For one, Calle Girasol and Calle Chapos are already part of the
Walcott corridor, a route specifically constructed to relieve traffic through existing
subdivisions. Secondly, this route is already a two lane paved road, thus the
impacts of widening the road are much less severe than improving an existing,
dead end dirt road (Nicolas). Thirdly, it would create one major four lane
corridor, as opposed to two two-lane roads. In my opinion, the overall circulation
of the project is actually improved. At the very least, this option should be
considered at the next sub-committee meeting as an alternative.
Due to the proposed land use changes to the Specific Plan, revised traffic
distributions, relocated school site and the changes to the DEIR such as the
aforementioned drainage issue, it is my belief that a revised DEIR should be
recirculated with a reasonable comment period. In addition, I hereby request a
copy of the existing DEIR, and ask to put on the mailing list for any future
documents and notices concerning the Roripaugh project.
I would like this letter cc'd to the following City representatives:
City Council Members
Planning Commission Members
Ron Parks, Deputy Director of Public Works
Shawn Nelson, City Manager
Bill Hughes, Director of Public Works
Saied Naaseh, Project Planner (Roripaugh Project)
Sincerely,
Hans Kernkamp
Page 2 of 2
Mike Knowlton
39130 Pala Vista Drive
Temecula, CA 92591
(H) 909.694.6848
(W) 949.368.5260
knowltmv @ songs.sce.com
08/28/01
Attn: City Clerk
City of Temecula
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92589
RE: Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan Proposal Comments
8/28/01 "Oscar's Informal Meeting"
The purpose of this letter is to share with those concerned our perspective
following the informal meeting between the developer and several Nicolas Valley
residents on the current proposals for the following planning applications.
Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan (Planning Application No. 94-0075)
General Plan Amendment (Planning Application No. 99-0298)
Change of Zone (Planning Application No. 94-0075)
Development Agreement (Planning Application No. 99-0299)
Tentative Tract Map 29353 (Planning Application No. 01-0230)
Tentative Tract Map 29661 (Planning Application No. 01-0253)
An informal meeting was held 8/27/01 at Oscar's restaurant with the Roripaugh
Project Manager, Kevin Everett and about 10 residents of the Nicolas Valley area. The
meeting was made at the request of the developer and was set-up to discuss the issues and
impacts we have previously communicated to the city. It is our understanding that the
developer would consolidate our input into the creation of a revised tentative map, EIR
and attendant required documents that could then be used to conduct planning review
meetings per the formal planning process with staff, concerned citizens, the planning
commission and the developer.
Page 1 of 5
It is somewhat difficult to communicate our understandings and positions as our
discussions last night were free ranging and revolved around varied elements and
numerous details relative to:
· What we'd like to see versus what the developer can do,
What cost impacts the developer would bear and
· What would the city/public works support and
· Most importantly what is going to be redrawn relative to land use.
Mr. Everett indicated that senior city staff (including the City Manager) had met
earlier in the day with his team to also work out issues previously raised. He shared
several of these with us. We provided comments and feedback, most notably that the gas
station not be located in the core of the development. Additionally, we were all shell
shocked to hear that staff was re-introducing of the use of an Arizona crossing on Nicolas
Road where it crosses the Santa Gertrudis Creek. This kind of on-again, off-again
planning only makes us more skeptical of the stability of other key aspects of this plan.
Important significant positive changes that we believe will be in the next
documents for review:
· Apartments removed entirely from the project
· Some density shift into the center of the project
· Village core concept dropped
· 1 acre lot buffers, then ~/2 acre lot buffers along the east, south and the lower
portion of the west side (not the panhandle)
· Improved landscape profile buffering along the panhandle
· An equestrian trail loop around the entire perimeter of the project
· Equestrian zoning for the parcels which are used as 1 acre lot buffers, then I/2
acre lot buffers along the east, south and the lower portion of the west side
· An equestrian friendly, rural type road design similar to Pauba Road for
selected sections of Butterfield Stage Road, Calle Chappos and Nicolas Road
· Deletion of the walking trail along the lower panhandle
Page 2 of 5
Issues of significance that are at a pemeived impasse:
· Re-introduction of the use of an Arizona crossing on Nicolas Road where it
crosses the Santa Gertrudis Creek versus a bridge
· Density increase (vice the requested decrease) in the panhandle (brought on
by movement of the school from this area)
· Significant imbalance of density between the entire project versus that of the
panhandle
· Traffic safety and circulation concerns on Nicolas Road
· Concerns about the Nicolas Road construction plan
· Redisgn, expansion and improvement of Calle Chappos in lieu of Nicolas
Road as an arterial for routing traffic off of the Eastern Bypass to Winchester
via the current Nicolas Road improvement
· Concerns regarding drainage estimates, engineering, control and management
and access structures along and across the Santa Gertrudis and Long Valley
creeks watershed
· Concerns regarding drainage estimates, engineering, control and management
from the Panhandle watershed onto Liefer Road.
· Townhomes across the street (Butterfield Rd.) from very low density
properties just below the panhandle.
· Stop signs on Nicolas Road at Liefer, Calle Girasol and Butterfield Road
Important details which we would like to see in the process are:
· Parking and circulation/access for the schools
· Parking for the parks
· Street parking to support schools and parks
· Park lighting restrictions at night
What we think we need to see next:
· A single revised tentative map and revised EIR that brings together the input
from the last several meetings
· A series of formal planning meetings with concerned residents (all areas), the
developer, the sub-committee and concerned members of the city staff
· A list of known submitted requests/concerns highlighting those yet to be
resolved
· Discussions about alternate mitigation proposals for issues that remain at an
impasse
Page 3 of 5
The planning process for this project has been drawn out over several years for many
reasons. This project has already apparently gone forward through at least two
irreversible points of actions with regard to panhandle density requirements needed to
fund the projects considerable infrastructure expenses and the gifting of land for the
multi-species habitat program. These significant actions, taken too late for
considered public input, froze these two land use items and alone aR now a key part
of the mason we as residents are struggling with attempting to deal with limited
mitigation options. I envision the remainder of this process to be potentially error
likely in that:
· Then remains an unclear picture of the planning process that remains
· Then is an unclear picture of the proof-of-principals used to develop the
Nicolas Road plan
· We believe there are still complex problems to be solved requiring expert
support
· Them have been multiple changes to the plans
· We believe there exists an ovemonfidence in the plan without sufficient
written requirements to back-up the belief that the issues identified to date
will be forthcoming in the final construction effort
· We believe that then is a high workload, fatigue and stress placed on the city
staff to meet unreasonable dead lines which offers up the opportunities for
short cuts and errors.
· We believe that with the recent staff turnover there exists the opportunity for
error due to inexperience with tasks and activities for this type of project.
Again, so as not be unclear in this message, it is the express opinion of the residents
of the Nicolas Valley Community that the staff of the City of Temecula not: recommend
certification of the current Environmental Impact Report. Accordingly they should not:
recommend approval of the following planning applications relative to the applicant
Ashbey Development Co./GRC Development Company. There should not be a grading
permit issued until the formal planning process has run its course through the City
Council vote.
Page 4 of 5
I would like City Clerk to cc this letter in time for the City Council meeting
slated for 8/28/01 to the following City of Temecula representatives so that they can
utilize this as independent feedback regarding the progress-to-date for the Roripaugh
Ranch Specific Plan and bias this against the staff and developer feedback. We
appreciate the opportunity to contribute input and express opinions and support your
efforts to finalize mitigation efforts.
Mayor of the City of Temecula
City Council Members
Planning Commission Members
Sub-Committee Members, Roripaugh Planning Project
Shawn Nelson, City Manager
Bill Hughes, Director of Public Works
Director of Planning
Ron Parks, Deputy Director of Public Works
Saied Naaseh, Project Planner (Roripaugh Project)
Respectfully,
Mike Knowlton
C:X/Vly Documents~VllKELROR2001 _8_28.doc
Page 5 of 5
ATTACHMENT 7
· SECTION 23789 OF THE BUSINESS
AND
PROFESSIONS CODE
R:~S P'~Ro~ipaugh Ranch SP~ncw~vc staff report t0-17-01.doc
CA Codes (bpc:23770-23793) Page 4 of 6
Section 25761.
23789. (a) The department is specifically authorized to refuse the
issuance, other than renewal or ownership transfer, of any retail
license for premises located within the immediate vicinity of
churches and hospitals.
(b) The department is specifically authorized to refuse the
issuance, other than renewal or ownership transfer, of any retail
license for premises located within at least 600 feet of schools and
public playgrounds or nonprofit youth facilities, including, but not
limited to, facilities serving Girl Scouts, Boy Scouts, or Campfire
Girls. This distance shall be measured pursuant to rules of the
department.
23790.
located in any territory where the exercise of the rights and
privileges conferred by the license is contrary to a valid
ordinance of any county or city. Premises which had been used
exercise of those rights and privileges at a time prior to the
effective date of the zoning ordinance may continue
the 'ng conditions:
(a) retain the same type of retail liquor
within a ~se classification.
No retail license shall be issued for any premises which are
premises are operated continuously
in mode or character of operation.
this subdivision, a break in con
not more than 30 days for
:hange the nature of the
(b) The
substantial
For purposes
does not
(1) A closure
that repair does
does not increase
sale of alcoholic
(2) The closure for
partially inaccessible
restoration does not
for the sale of alcoholic
the
operation
footage of the
of repair, if
premises and
51ness used for the
;toration of
act of God
the squaI
rages.
~s rendered totally or
a toxic accident, if the
of the business used
23790.5. (a) It is the intent Legislature in enacting this
section to ensure that local shall not be preempted in the
valid exercise of its land autho~ty pursuant to Section 23790,
including, but not limited enactin~an ordinance requiring a
conditional use permit./ is also the~ntent of the Legislature to
prevent the legislated ~o] bi ion of the~concurrent retailing of
beer and wine for off-/rem es consumption~and motor vehicle fuel
where the retailing~ eac] is otherwise al~wable.
(b) (1) No city/county or city and count~ shall, by ordinance or
resolution adopte~on or after January 1, 1988,~legislatively
prohibit the co~6urrent retailing of motor vehid~e fuel and beer and
wine for off-s~e consumption in zoning districts~where the zoning
ordinance al~6ws motor vehicle fuel and off-sale b~r and wine to be
retailed on/separate sites. ~
(2) On/~nd after January 1, 1989, no city, county,~r city and
county o/dinance or resolution adopted prior to May 5,w1987, shall
have legal effect if it legislatively prohibits the concurrent
retailing of motor vehicle fuel with beer and wine for off-sale
consumption in zoning districts where the zoning ordinance allows
beer and wine and motor vehicle fuel to be retailed on separate
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=bpc&group=23001-24000&file .... 10/11/2001
ATTACHMENT 8
LAND USE PLAN DELINEATING THE 600' RADIUS
AROUND THE SCHOOL
R:~ F0~.oripaugh Ranch SP~ncw~oc s~aff report 10-17-01.doc
22
CITY OF TEMECULA
* DDDD~DD~DID~D ~
CASE NO. - PA94-0075 (Specific Plan) - Roripaugh
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - October 17, 2001
600 FOOT RADIUS
AROUND THE SCHOOL SITE
R:~S P~Rodpaugh Ranch SPu~evApc staff ~pon 10-17-01.doc
23
ATTACHMENT 9
CURRENT LAND USE PLAN
R:~ P',Ror/paugh Ranch SP~nev,~c staff report 10-17-01.doc
24
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO. - PA94-0075 (Specific Plan) - Roripaugh
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - October 17, 2001
LAND USE PLAN
R:~ PxRoripaugh Ranch SP~new~oc staff ~:pott 10-17-01.doc
25