HomeMy WebLinkAbout031605 PC Agenda
Gwyn Flores
..
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to
participate in this meeting, please contact the office of the City Clerk (951) 694-6444.
Notification 48 hours prior to a meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements
to ensure accessibility to that meeting [28 CFR 35.102.35.104 ADA Title II]
AGENDA
TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
43200 BUSINESS PARK DRIVE
March 16, 2005 - 6:00 P.M.
********
Next in Order:
Resolution No. 2005-013
CALL TO ORDER
Flag Salute:
Commissioner Guerriero
RollCall:
Chiniaeff, Guerriero, Olhasso, Telesio and Mathewson
PUBLIC COMMENTS
.
A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public may address the Commission
on items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes
each. If you desire to speak to the Commission about an item not on the Agenda, a
salmon colored "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the
Commission Secretary.
When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name for the record.
For all other agenda items a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the
Commission Secretary prior to the Commission addressing that item. There is a three
(3) minute time limit for individual speakers.
CONSENT CALENDAR
NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC
All matters listed under Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and all will
be enacted by one roll call vote. There will be no discussion of these items unless
Members of the Planning Commission request specific items be removed from the
Consent Calendar for separate action.
1 Aoenda
RECOMMENDATION:
.
1.1 Approve the Agenda of March 16, 2005
R:\PLANCOMMlAgendas\2005\03-16-05.doc
2 Minutes
RECOMMENDATION:
.
2.1 Approve the Minutes of December 15, 2005
COMMISSION BUSINESS
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
Any person may submit written comments to the Planning Commission before a
public hearing or may appear and be heard in support of or in opposition to the
approval of the project(s) at the time of hearing. If you challenge any of the
projects in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone
else raised at the public hearing or in written correspondences delivered to the
Commission Secretary at, or prior to, the public hearing.
Continued from February 2, 2005
3 A General Plan Update to comprehensively update the followino elements of the General
Plan: Land Use. Open Space/Conservation. Growth ManaoementlPublic Facilities. Public
Safety. Noise, Air Quality. Community Desion, and Economic Development. David Hooan.
Principal Planner.
3.1 Recommend that the City Council approve the Updated General Plan
.
Continued from February 16, 2005
4 Plannino Application No. PA04-0178. a Tract Map. submitted by Scott Carino. to subdivide
28.6 acres into 71 sinole-family residential lots with a minimum lot size of 7.200 s~uare feet
and will include a pedestrian trail alono the southern portion of the proposed subdivision,
near the creek; located on north side of Nicolas Road. east of Joseph Road. Christine
Damko. Associate Planner.
COMMISSIONER'S REPORTS
PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT
ADJOURNMENT
Next regular meeting: Wednesday, April 6, 2005, 6:00 PM, Council Chambers, 43200 Business
Park Driye, Temecula, California.
.
R:\PLANCOMMlAgendas\2005\03-16-05.doc
2
.
ITEM #2
.
.
.
.
.
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 15,2004
CALL TO ORDER
The City of Temecula Planning Commission convened in a regular meeting at 6:14 P.M., on
Wednesday, December 15, 2004, in the City Council Chambers of Temecula City Hall, 43200
Business Park Drive, Temecula, California.
ALLEGIANCE
Commissioner Olhasso led the audience in the Flag salute.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Commissioners Chiniaeff, Olhasso, and Chairman Telesio.
Absent:
Guerriero and Mathewson.
CONSENT CALENDAR
1 Aqenda
RECOMMENDATION:
1.1 Approve the Agenda of December 15, 2004
2 Minutes
RECOMMENDATION:
2.1 Approve the Minutes of October 6, 2004
3 Director's Hearinq Case Update
RECOMMENDATION:
3.1 Approve the Director's Hearing Case Update for November 2004
MOTION: Commissioner Chiniaeff moved to approve Item Nos. 1.1 and 3.1. Due to a lack of
quorum, Item No. 2.1 will be rolled over to the following meeting. Commissioner Olhasso
seconded the motion and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Commissioner's
Guerriero and Mathewson who were absent.
R:\MinutesPC\121504
1
COMMISSION BUSINESS
Continued from November 17, 2004
4 Planninq Application No. PA04-0260. a Development Plan. submitted bv AGK Group LLC.
for the addition of a third floor to each of the approved buildinqs 12. 17.27. 35 & 38 for a
total of 20 new apartment units added to the approved 220 units for a total of 240 units.
located on the southeast corner of Rancho California Road and Moraqa Road
Associate Planner Kitzerow presented a staff report (of record), noting the following:
. That the proposed project was presented to the Planning Commission on November
17, 2004; and that staff recommended denial of the project based on the
determination that it did not substantially conform to the approved project and is
inconsistent with the Growth Management Action Plan and Multi-Use Trails arid
Bikeways Master Plan
. However upon receiving testimony, the Planning Commission voted to continue the
item and requested that staff prepare a Resolution with Findings and Conditions of
Approval for the project
. That staff has worked with the applicant to include a condition to ensure that the
project will be consistent with the Bikes Master Plan and Trail-Ways
. That the project has been determined to be exempt under CEQA; that additional
traffic analysis was prepared; and that the additional 20 units will not create any
significant impacts.
Commissioner Olhasso noted for the record that although she was not at the previous Planning
Commission regarding this item, she has reviewed the audio of record and is able to participate
in discussion.
For Commissioner Chiniaeff, Ms. Kitzerow relayed that Condition Nos. 17, 41, 42 and 45 are
new conditions.
City Attorney Thorson stated that what is before the Planning Commission would be the
Resolution which would approve the project along with all 45 conditions.
Mr. Thorson also stated that because the Public Hearing is still open from the previous meeting,
public comments should be confined to comments regarding conditions.
Mr. A.G. Kating relayed that he has reviewed the Conditions and is in agreement with all of
them plus the new added four Conditions; he also stated that he will be providing the 8-foot wide
multi-use trail easement, provided that anytime in the future if the City were to build a path, that
it would be paid for by the City; and that all costs associated with the easement will be paid for
by the developer.
Chairman Telesio noted a typo in COA No. 42; that east side should be south side.
Mr. Robert Oder, Temecula resident noted that he is in favor of the proposed project and would
desire that the Planning Commission approve the applicant's request.
Mr. Paul Runkle expressed his excitement of the proposed project.
R:\MinutesPC\121504
2
.
.
.
.
.
.
Mr. Chris Pedersen, Temecula resident, relayed that although he has no disagreement with the
proposed project, he did express disappointment that this item has been brought forward again.
City Attorney Thorson relayed that the project was approved four (4) years ago; that once it is
approved that becomes the project; and that any changes to it would need to go through the
Public Hearing process.
MOTION: Commissioner Olhasso moved to approve the adopted resolution subject to the
correction of COA No. 42 and that COA No. 45 reflects that the irrevocable offer of dedication
will be outside of the existing utility easement. Commissioner Chiniaeff seconded the motion
and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Commissioner's Guerriero and
Mathewson who were absent.
PC RESOLUTION 2004-066
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION
NO. PA04-0260, A DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR AN
ADDITIONAL 20 UNITS AT THE APPROVED TEMECULA
RIDGE APARTMENTS (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA99-
0317 - DEVELOPMENT PLAN) TO RESULT IN THE DESIGN,
CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A 240-UNIT, TWO AND
THREE-STORY APARTMENT COMPLEX WITH A POOL,
CLUBHOUSE, WORKOUT BUILDING AND TOT LOT ON
APPROXIMATELY 21 ACRES LOCATED AT THE
SOUTHEAST CORNER OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AND
MORAGA ROAD, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 944-
290-011
5 Plannina Application No. PA04-0472. a Development Plan. submitted bv McArdle
Associates Architects. to desian and construct a 20.416 sauare foot two-stOry office buildina
on a 1.21 acre site in the Liaht Industrial Ill) zone. located at the southwest corner of
Winchester Road and Diaz Road
Associate Planner Kitzerow presented a staff report (of record), noting the following:
. That staff has reviewed the proposed Development Plan and has determined that the
project is in conformance with the Development Code, Design Guidelines and all
applicable City ordinances
. That the project has been determined to be exempt from CEQA and as an infill
development under five (5) acres and that staff is recommending that the Planning
Commission recommend that the City Council approve the Development Plan
. That staff is also adding a Condition of Approval regarding: Prior to Issuance of a
Grading Permit (see staff report).
Commissioner Chiniaeff queried if staff has concerns with the project being pushed-up into the
corner of Diaz and Winchester Road.
R:\MinutesPC\121504
3
For Commissioner Chiniaeff, Ms. Kitzerow relayed that staff would prefer to have the building .
with the enhanced corner treatments and that the existing signage will remain, rather than have
a portion of the driveway or parking along the frontage.
At this time, the Public Hearing was opened.
Mr. Ed McArdle, architect for the proposed project clarified that in regard to the building pushed
up into the corner; that access was not allowed from the main road along Diaz Road; that the
only access would be from Winchester at the rear of .the property which would dictate the site
plan; that the parking in the back will be screened; and that there will be no street parking along
Winchester Road.
For Mr. Mc Ardle, Commissioner Olhasso expressed excitement with the proposed architecture.
At this time, the Public Hearing was closed.
MOTION: Commissioner Chiniaeff moved to approve staff's recommendation subject to the
addition of a Condition regarding: Prior to Issuance of a Grading Permits, as recommended by
staff (see staff report). Commissioner Olhasso seconded the motion and voice vote reflected
approval with the exception of Commissioner Guerriero and Mathewson who were absent.
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2004-067
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY
COUNCIL ADOPT A RESULTION ENTITLED "A RESOLUTION
OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA04-0472, A
DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO CONSTRUCT A 20,416 SQUARE
FOOT OFFICE BUILDING ON 1.21 ACRES IN THE LIGHT
INDUSTRIAL ZONE," LOCATED AT 41900 WINCHESTER
ROAD, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR PARCEL NO. 909-310-001-1
.
6 Planninq Application No. PA04-0512. a Development Plan. submitted bv McArdle
Associates Architects. for the development of 12 corporate office buildinqs. consistinq of one
and two storv buildinqs ranqinq in size from 3.725 square feet to 6.912 square feet desiqned
in a campus like settinq: located on the northeast corner of Roick Drive and Via Industria
Assistant Planner Damko presented a staff report (of record), noting the following:
. That the proposed project as conditioned is consistent with the City's General Plan,
Development Code, and Design Guidelines
. That staff is requesting to delete Conditions 83-88 dueto it being a duplication of 77-
82
. That staff recommends approval of the development plan as conditioned with the
deleted Conditions 83-88.
At this time, the Public Hearing was opened.
.
R:lMinutesPC\121504
4
.
.
.
Mr. Phil Oberhansley, representing the applicant noted that the project is a for-sale project and
maintenance will be handled by the property owner's association.
Mr. Ed McArdle, applicant, relayed that the buildings will not be identical and will offer three
different varieties of brick veneer along with stone and enhanced landscaping.
At this time, the Public Hearing was closed.
MOTION: Commissioner Olhasso moved to approve staff's recommendation and delete
conditions 83-88. Commissioner Chiniaeff seconded the motion and voice vote reflected
approval with the exception of Commissioner's Guerriero and Mathewson who were absent.
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2004-068
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION
NO. PA04-0512, A DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO CONSTRUCT 12
PROFESSIONAL OFFICE BUILDINGS ON A 4.39 ACRE SITE
IN THE LIGHT INDUSTRIAL (L1) ZONE LOCATED ON THE
NORTHEAST CORNER OF ROICK ROAD AND VIA
INDUSTRIA. (ASSESSORS PARCEL NOS. 909-321-004, 005,
AND 006)
7 Plannina Application No. PA04-0361. a Development Plan. submitted bv Smith Consultina
Architects. to construct an 86.175 sauare foot. concrete tilt-up. liaht industrial warehouse
buildina on a 5.55 acre vacant site in the Liaht Industrial Ill) zone, located on the northeast
side of Reminaton Avenue, west of Diaz Road
Assistant Planner Damko presented a staff report (of record), noting the following:
. That the proposed one-story building will be constructed of concrete tilt-up panels
finished and painted with a smooth matte finish
. That the building will be providing both parapet height variations and building
articulations as required by the City's Design Guidelines
. That staff has determined that the proposed project as conditioned is consistent with
the City's General Plan, Development Code and Design Guidelines; and therefore,
staff is recommending approval.
At this time the public hearing was opened but due to no speakers it was closed.
MOTION: Commissioner Chiniaeff moved to approve the proposed project subject to the
Conditions as proposed by staff. Commissioner Olhasso seconded the motion and voice vote
reflected approval with the exception of Commissioner Guerriero and Mathewson who were
absent.
R:\MinutesPC\121504
5
.
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2004-069
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
BASED ON THE INITIAL STUDY AND ADOPTION OF THE
ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FOR
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA04-0361, A DEVELOPMENT
PLAN TO DESIGN AND CONSTRUCT AN 86, 175 SQAURE
FOOT LIGHT INDUSTRIAL WAREHOUSE BUILDING ON A
VACANT 5.55 ACRE SITE IN THE LIGHT INDUSTRIAL (LI)
ZONE LOCATED AT THE NORTH EAST SIDE OF REMINGTON
AVENUE WEST OF DIAZ ROAD. (ASSESSORS PARCEL NO.
909-370-024).
8 Planninq Application No. PA No. PA04-0486. a Specific Plan Amendment. submitted bv M-A
Temeku Hills Development. LLC. to the Marqarita Villaqe Specific Plan to reduce the
buildinq setback requirement from adioininq properties in Planninq Area 46
Principal Planner Hogan presented a staff report (of record), noted the following:
. That the item before the Commission would be a minor amendment to the Temeku SP to
facilitate the transfer of some of the recreational facilities from the master developer to
the HOA
.
. That all involved at this time would be a change in the setback standards for Planning
Area 46 which would eliminate the setbacks around the clubhouse.
At this time, the Public Hearing was opened.
Mr. Barry Burnell, of T&B Planning, offered the following comments:
. That the intent would be to split off the clubhouse building so that it would not be a
burden to the Homeowners Association in terms of ownership and that functionally
everything will run as it currently does
. That this is an agreement between the HOA and McMillin and that they will have joint
use of the facilities.
At this time, the Public Hearing was closed.
MOTION: Commissioner Chiniaeff moved to approve the Resolution. Commissioner Olhasso
seconded the motion and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Commissioner's
Guerriero and Mathewson who were absent.
.
R:\MinutesPC\ 121504
6
.
.
.
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2004-070
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY
COUNCIL APPROVE PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA04-
0486 (SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT NO.6) TO AMEND THE
TEXT WITHIN THE MARGARITA VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN'S
(SP NO. 199) DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS OF THE ZONING
ORDINANCE FOR PLANNING AREA 46.
9 Planninq Application No. PA04-0351. a Tentative Tract Map. submitted bv Lennar
Communities. to sub-divide 53.28 acres into 247 lots (242 residential units). located alonq
the east side of Ynez Road. north of Date Street
Associate Planner Harris presented a staff report (of record), noting the following:
. That since the writing of staff's report, there have been a couple new issues that have
been risen that are not included in staff's report
. That a new COA stating: In accordance with Figure 1110 of the Harveston SP a
landscape interface buffer shall be established in the rear yards of all lots within the tract
that abut the Murrieta City boundary; that CC&Rs shall identify the specific lots to be
improved with the landscape buffer and shall stipulate that the tract HOA shall be
responsible for insuring that the buffer is established and maintained; that the design of
the landscape buffer shall conform to figure 1019 which will also be incorporated into the
CC&Rs
.' That staff has received two letters of correspondence expressing many concerns of the
proposed project
. That Planning and Public Works staff are of the opinion that the tract conforms to all SP
and subdivision ordinances requirements in terms of design and layout; that moreover,
the project has been determined consistent with the Harveston EIR which was part of
the original SP; therefore, staff is recommending approval of tract 32437 subject to the
80 conditions in Exhibit A and the one added Condition recommended by staff.
Commissioner Chiniaeff is of the opinion that it may be difficult to implement a Condition that
states that the HOA maintains the maintenance of the slopes.
To address Commissioner Chiniaeff's concern regarding slope maintenance, Principal Planner
Hogan noted that the intent would be to have the HOA oversee the slopes and inform property
owners that it would be their responsibility to maintain the slopes; that the HOA would be
responsible for being in compliance with the SP but that the maintenance of the slopes would be
responsibility of the individual pr~perty owners.
R:\MinUlesPC\ 121504
7
For Principal Planner Hogan, Commissioner Chiniaeff is of the opinion that the obligation should .
be established by the developer to install the landscaping; that it be maintained by the individual
property owner; and that the maintenance could be enforced through CC&Rs.
Commissioner Olhasso echoed Commissioner's Chiniaeff's comment.
At this time, the Public Hearing was opened.
Mr. Kevin Lynch, representing Lennar Communities, highlighted the following:
. That the slopes are to be maintained by the homeowners
. That the applicant does not have any concerns with the developer installing the
landscaping; and that the street connection at the corner of Murrieta was always
determined to be a connection into the community.
Commissioner Chiniaeff queried on the true intent of the Condition.
For Commissioner Chiniaeff, Mr. Harris stated that the true intent of the Condition would be to
provide a buffer between the two; however, at the writing of the SP, there was no way to
determine which way the slope was going to fall I.e. rise up in the back of the new homes or rise
up in the back of the existing homes.
Mr. Lynch noted that the Conditions states: that on-side up, up-side, and down slope conditions
will be created by a 2:1 manufactured slope along the northern residential edge boundary; and .
that the slopes will be maintained by the individual homeowners and will be landscaped per City
of Temecula standards.
Commissioner Chiniaeff reiterated his opinion that the developer should be th.e one installing the
proper landscaping to ensure that it be uniform.
The following individuals expressed concern with traffic circulation through the area and
requested a continuance so that other community members would be able to attend and voice
their concerns:
Mr. Chod Long
Mr. Ronald Finch
Mr. Mike Lopez
Mr. Kevin Lynch and John Tanner, representing Lennar Communities, offered the following
comments:
. That a traffic analysis on the potential impact for the connection - street RR which will
connect to north end road
. That it is anticipated that approximately 28% of the population of the new tract will be
traveling in the east bound direction and that the remaining 72% would be traveling in
the west-bound direction over toward the Ynez Road access
.
R:\MinulesPC\121504
8
.
.
.
. That during peak hours (am, pm peak), that approximately 50 to 60 additional cars would
be generated down north end which is equivalent of one(1) per minute over these two
peak hours
. That the applicant is of the opinion that impacts (based on findings) would be minimal
. That in the future when Ynez Road and Jackson Avenue are connected into Murrieta,
this connection will function better
At this time, the Public Hearing was closed.
For the Commission, Mr. Harris stated that the map is in conformance with the approved
Specific Plan.
Director of Planning Ubnoske stated that Arroyo Park has always been envisioned to be a
natural open space and spanning it with a bridge would detract from what the intent is and that if
staff were to consider that option, staff would be inconsistent with the Specific Plan.
Commissioner Chiniaeff queried if staff has entertained other options on now to get another
access point into the tract.
For Commissioner Chiniaeff, Ms. Ubnoske relayed that a street has always been envisioned to
go through that area and that the tract is consistent with the Specific Plan.
For the audience Chairman Telesio apologized for having to limit speakers, but noted that each
individual speaker is only allowed three (3) minutes to speak on items listed on the agenda.
Commissioner Chiniaeff stated that he is of the opinion that the Planning Commission is in a
position that would have to allow the proposed project noting that the original intent was to have
a landscape buffer, but queries on how wide it would be.
For Commissioner Chiniaeff, Ms. Ubnoske relayed that she is not prepared to given an exact
number of footage of what the landscaped buffer would be; but understanding what the
Commission's concerns are, staff will work with the developer to ensure that there is an enough
useable backyard and that here is sufficient mitigation to screen the properties.
Commissioner Chiniaeff suggested that a Condition be added that requires the landscape on
lots adjacent to the tract boundary on the north to the east; that the slopes be landscaped and
installed with an irrigation system tied to the house; and that the Planning Director determine
how wide the landscape buffer would be where it is flat.
For Commissioner Chiniaeff, Ms. Ubnoske responded that she would happy to add such a
Condition.
MOTION: Commissioner Chiniaeff moved to approve the proposed project, subject to a
buffering being installed. Commissioner Olhasso seconded the motion and voice vote reflected
approval with the exception of Commissioner's Guerriero and Mathewson who were absent.
R:\MinutesPC\121504
9
.
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2004-071
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION
NO. PA04-0351, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 32437
SUBDIVIDING PLANNING AREA 10 OF THE HARVESTON
SPECIFIC PLAN INTO 242 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS, 4 OPEN
SPACE LOTS AND ONE PARK LOT FOR LENNAR
COMMUNITIES ON 53.3 VACANT ACRES GENERALLY
LOCATD EAST OF YNEZ ROAD AND NORTH OF DATE
STREET KNOWN AS PORTIONS OF ASSESSORS PARCEL
NOS. 916-040-099 & 910-110-013.
At 7:54, the Planning Commission took a 10 minute break.
At 8:03, the Planning Commission reconvened.
10 Planninq Application No. PA04-0550. a Maior Modification to a Development Plan.
submitted bv Brian Price. Breckenridqe Group. to allow exterior elevation chanqes and the
conversion of a Coco's Restaurant to a Ruby's Diner. located at 26495 Ynez Road. .west of
Ynez Road between Winchester Road and Overland Drive in the Palm Plaza Shoppinq .
Center
Associate Planner Peters presented a staff report (of record), noting the following:
. That staff has worked with the applicant, however, the following issues have not
been resolved to the satisfaction of staff:
o That the proposed tower element and color changes do not meet the
Development Code or City-wide Design Guidelines
o That in other Cities, the Ruby's Corporation has shown a willingness to
modify their buildings to fit the local area, rather than relay on franchise
architecture designs
o Allowing major changes to a single building within an approved center would
set a bad precedent for this center, and other as well
o That language in the City's Code state: That a consistent design theme must
be used throughout the project; that the Palm Plaza Shopping is an
integrated shopping center and franchise architecture is discouraged,
especially to promote a single structure, and that exterior design colors and
materials should be consistent amount all buildings in a complex and overly
bright colors should be avoided
. That overall, the exterior changes are not consistent with the City's Development
Code or Design Guidelines; therefore, staff recommends denial of this application or
continue for redesign to incorporate elements as deemed acceptable to the Planning
Commission. .
R:\MinutesPC\ 121504
10
o
.
.
.
. For the Commission, Mr. Peters noted that the applicant submitted their application in October
or 2004.
At this time, the Public Hearing was opened.
Mr. Brian Price, representing the applicant, offered the following comments:
. That Ruby's Diner is a 1940s themed restaurant which is known for its burgers, fries and
fountain drinks
. That the applicant has attempted to work with staff but that when staff discovered that
the original Design Guidelines were in existence, staff could no longer approve the white
building, red, accents or the tower plaza above the entry door
. That it is the applicant's position that the Design Guidelines are 10 years behind the
direction that the City has taken with new developments; and that this has put the project
at a competitive disadvantage with restaurants directly across the street and elsewhere
around the town
. That the applicant would request that the Planning Commission support change with
major modification highlighting the following:
o That the applicant noted their willingness to remove the tower if the other design
elements could be considered; that the owner of the Palm Plaza, Kimco, have
approved the proposed elevations and also stated that they do not have any
plans to redesign the center
o That without the brand identity of the exterior of the building, the investment to
strip and refurnish the interior of the building would not be a viable alternative.
Mr. Ralph Kosimides, representing Ruby's Diner noted the following:
. That Ruby's Diner has been around for 15 to 20 years
. That currently there are 37 Ruby's Diner restaurants, mainly in Southern California
but also in a few other states
. That the Ruby's brand is an American, modern classic tradition of quality,
wholesome, warm, honest, real and based on substance not flash
. That it is important that Ruby's Diner remain with its theme if it is going to compete
with the restaurants at the mall.
Mr. John Grantes, Franchise Principal for the existing Coco's and proposed Ruby's Diner, made
the following comments:
. That it is very important to be able to keep the Ruby's them to be able to compete
effectively with all the competition across the street and the rest of the City.
R:\MinutesPC\ 121504
11
. That the applicant is of the opinion that the Ruby's brand is a logical fit for the community .
noting and that it will be a family oriented restaurant. .
At this time, the Public Hearing was closed.
For Commissioner Chiniaeff, Mr. Peters relayed that the City's Development Code and Design
Guidelines apply to all commercial zones.
Ms. Ubnoske relayed that the Palm Plaza is a cohesive center and that staff's concerns would
be to have the proposed building that would be very different from every other building along the
street and in the center would set a bad precedent.
Ms. Ubnoske also noted that she is of the opinion that staff and the applicant can work to keep
as much as the Ruby's Diner through some signage, soften the red colors, and doing some
different detail.
The Commission expressed their excitement for having a Ruby's Dine come to town but queried
if the applicant would be willing to work with staff to ensure that the proposed project meets the
City's Design Guidelines.
At this time, the Public Hearing was opened.
Mr. Ralph Kosimides stated that the applicant would be willing to work with staff to meet the
Design Guidelines.
Ms. Ubnoske relayed that the project could be brought back to the Planning Commission at the .
January or February meeting.
Commissioner Chiniaeff volunteered to with staff and the applicant on the redesign of the
project.
MOTION: Commissioner Chiniaeff moved to continue the proposed project to January 13,
2005. Commissioner Olhasso seconded the motion and voice vote reflected approval with the
exception of Commissioner's Guerriero and Mathewson who were absent.
11 Planninq Application Nos. PA04-0369. PA04-0370. PA04-371 and PA04-0590. submitted by
Ashby USA. llC. a General Plan Amendment is a request to amend the land use
desiqnation from Open Space (OS) to low-Medium. Residential (lM): Specific Plan
Amendment to request the Fuel Modification Zone. Development Standards. Desiqn
Guidelines and various descriptions of the individual Planninq Areas: Amendment to a
Development Aqreement to include lanquaqe to modify the timinq of improvements and
construction of a new fire station: and a Tentative Tract Map #32004 request to subdivide
approximately 2.0 acres into 6 additional lots. located in ,PA1A of the Roripauqh Ranch
Specific Plan. in the northeast area of the City of Temecula. Murrieta Hot Sprinqs Road at
Butterfield Staqe Road
Associate Planner long presented a staff report (of record). noting the following:
.
R:\MinutesPC\ 121504
12
.
. That the proposed General Plan Amendment is a request to change the Land Use
Designation for Planning Area 76.from Open Space (OS) to low-medium density
residential
. That the current Specific Plan includes two detention basins within the Pan-handle
designated as OS
. That the adjacent landowner to the west has designed a storm drain system capable
of directing the flow from the Roripaugh Ranch project site
. That as a result, the two-acre detention basin in Planning Area 76 is no longer
necessary; and that the General Plan Amendment, if approved, would allow six (6)
additional lots in Planning Area 1 A
. That the primary reason for the SP Amendment would be to modify the fuel
medication boundary
. That the proposed SP Amendment also includes a request to modify the location and
description of the Fuel Modification Zone adjacent planning area; that the Fuel
Modification Zone was initially located within the City's owned OS habitat area; that
subsequent to the adoption of the SP, state and federal resource agencies
determined that the fuel modification zone could not be located within the OS habitat
area; and that the Fuel Modification Zone is proposed entirely within the residential
Planning Areas
. That in addition, the applicant has requested language that provides flexibility in the
type of potential product type permitted in Planning Areas 12, 14, and 15; that these
Planning Areas will maintain the zoning designation of M2; however the amendment
will allow standard and/or clustered products as opposed to only clustered products,
as the current SP requires
. That clustered type products will be required in Planning Area 22 and 31
. That an amendment to the Design Guidelines will read: required additional style
elements shall appear as integral parts of the home rather than tack-on features
. That inspirational photos have be been included in the SP Amendment
. That the majority of the amendments were clean-up items s.uch as fencing and trail
plans
. That the maximum lots within a SP will not exceed 2,015 per the EIR adopted by the
City Council .
. That staff has determined that the proposed project is consistent with the EIR and
notice of determination, and staff recommends that the Planning Commission
recommend that the City Council approve the project with the COA.
For the Commission, City Attorney Thorson relayed that Mello Roos is scheduled to be funded
in the early part of February of 2005.
.
At this time, the Public Hearing was opened.
.
R:\MinutesPC\ 121504
13
Mr. Mathew Fagan and Kevin Everett, representing Ashby, relayed that the applicant in .
agreement with the Conditions of the Approval and is seeking the support of the Planning
Commission to move this project forward with the proposed changes.
Ms. Ubnoske clarified that the Planning Commission would only be approving staff's
recommendations as stated in staft's report.
At this time, the Public Hearing was closed.
MOTION: Commissioner Chiniaeff moved to approve the Tentative Tract Map, the Development
Agreement Modifications as proposed and the Design Guidelines. Commissioner Olhasso
seconded the motion and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Commissioner's
Guerriero and Mathewson who were absent.
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2004-073
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY
COUNCIL ADOPT THE FOLLOWING ITEMS ENTITLED: "A
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING A
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (PA04-0370) TO CHANGE THE
LAND USE DESIGNATION OF PLANNING AREA 78 IN THE
RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN FROM OPEN SPACE
(OS) TO LOW MEDIUM, RESIDENTIAL (LM)", A RESOLUTION
OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
APPROVING A SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT (PA04-0371) TO
CHANGE PLANNING AREA 78 FROM OPEN SPACE (OS) TO
LOW MEDIUM, RESIDENTIAL (LM), PLANNING AREA 10
FROM LOW DENSITY, RESIDENTIAL TO LOW-ESTATE,
RESIDENTIAL (LE), AND MAKE OTHER CHANGES TO THE
RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN", AN ORDINANCE OF
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADOPTING
REVISED RESIDENTIAL ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT
STANDARDS (PA04-0371) FOR THE RORIPAUGH RANCH
SPECIFIC PLAN", "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING A FIRST
AMENDMENT TO THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (PA04-
0590) FOR THE RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN" AND
"RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA APPROVING-TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 32004
(PA04-0369), GENERALLY LOCATED NEAR THE FUTURE
INTERSECTION OF MURRIETA HOT SPRINGS AND
POUR ROY ROAD."
.
.
R:\MinulesPC\ 121504
14
.
.
.
COMMISSIONER'S REPORTS
For Commissioner Olhasso, Ms. Ubnoske relayed that the General Plan Update is tentatively
scheduled to come to the Planning Commission on February 2, 2005.
Commissioner Chiniaeff stated that he would expect to receive Planning Commissioner's packet
in a timely manner.
Chairman Telesio thanked staff for all their hard work and wished everyone a Happy Holiday Season.
PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT
None at this time.
ADJOURNMENT
At 9:10 p.m., Chairman Telesio formally adjourned this meeting to the next reQular meetinQ to
be held on Wednesday. Januarv 5. 2005 at 6:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, 43200
Business Park Drive, Temecula.
John Telesio
Chairman
Debbie Ubnoske
Director of Planning
R:\MinutesPC\ 121504
15
.
ITEM #3
.
.
.
.
.
CITY OF TEMECULA
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Members of the Planning Commission
David Hogan, Principal Planner
March 16, 2005
General Plan Update
The Planning Commission began the public hearing on the Community Advisory Committee's
recommended draft of the Updated General Plan and Draft Environmental Impact Report at its
February 2, 2005 meeting. At that meeting, the Commission received public testimony and
made a recommendation on the draft Circulation Element, and continued the public hearing on
the remaining Elements to the February 16th Planning Commission. The consideration of the
proposed General Plan Update was continued from the February 16, 2005 meeting due to the
absence of several Commissioners.' Attached to this memorandum is a copy of the February
16, 2005 staff report and attachments. Several letters that were received after the previous staff
report was completed have been inserted into the appropriate attachment within the Staff
Report. In addition, the Errata Sheet of additional corrections to the General Plan has also
been updated to reflect several minor corrections resulting from comments on the Draft EIR.
Staff's recommendation continues to be that the Commission consider the remaining eight
Elements of the General Plan, make any necessary changes, and recommend to the City
Council that they approve the Updated General Plan.
R:IGeneral PlanlComp Plan UpdatelStaff Report PC3.doc
.
.
.
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
Date of Meeting:
February 16, 2005
Prepared by: David Hogan
Title: Principal Planner
File Number N/A
Application Type: GPA
Project Description: Update of the General Plan
A comprehensive update of the General Plan for the following Elements: Land Use, Circulation,
Open Space/Conservation, Growth ManagemenVPublic Facilities, Public Safety, Air Quality,
Noise, Community Design, and Economic Development.
Recommendation:
(Check One)
o Approve with Conditions
o Deny
o Continue for Redesign
o Continue to:
o Recommend Approval with Conditions
o Recommend Denial
~ Recommend Approval to the City Council
CECA:
(Check One)
o Categorically Exempt
(Class)
o Negative Declaration
o Mitigated Negative Declaration with Mitigation Measures
~ Recommend that the City Council Certify the EIR
BACKGROUND
The original City General Plan was adopted in November, 1993. This updated General Plan
continues the overall policy direction identified in the City's original 1993 General Plan. Most of
the changes in the updated Plan represent shifts in format, as well as, minor text clean-ups.
The most common clean-up items include: the incorporation of changed facts and
circumstances, a more careful delineation of goal and policy statements and implementation
measures, and updating the implementation program for each element. New policy areas
include: identification of rural preservation areas, expansion of the planning area into wine
country, and identification of future mixed use development in some of the City's older
commercial and industrial areas.
R:IGeneral PlanlComp Plan UpdatelStaff Report PC2.doc
The Planning Commission began the public hearing on the Community Advisory Committee's .
recommended draft of the Updated General Plan and Draft Environmental Impact Report at its
February 2, 2005 meeting. At that meeting, the Commission received public testimony and
made a recommendation on the draft Circulation Element, and continued the public hearing on
the remaining Elements to the February 161h Planning Commission.
Since the finalization of the Public Review Draft of the General Plan, there are several additional
recommended changes to the draft Plan. Some of these changes represent minor factual
updates, while others are a result of the Planning Commission's previous direction. These
recommended changes include a minor modification to the Land Use Plan to adjust a CAC-
supported property owner request, the inclusion of the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for
French Valley Airport, additional policy and implementation measure language addressing
cultural resources, law program changes related to earthquakes in the Public Safety Element,
and additional text for the Circulation Element to incorporate the Commission's recommendation
on North General Kearny. The list of recommended changes to the Public Review Draft of the
General Plan are contained in Attachment NO.2. The Commission's North General Kearny
Road recommendation is contained in Attachment NO.3.
Land Use Element
The primary changes in the Land Use Element are the inclusion of discussions for Mixed Use
Development and Rural Preservation Areas. The Mixed Use provisions are expected to provide
additional opportunities to revitalize some older areas of the City and to help meet the City's
Housing Element goals. Goal 2, Encouraging Mixed Use, provides the framework for future
mixed use projects.
The Rural Preservation discussion is intended to identify areas that need to stay rural to protect
the character and quality of life in the area. Goal 3, Preserving Rural Areas, discusses how
these areas should be protected. The direction provided by the remaining Goals and Policies
remains the same. Much of the southern and eastern Planning Areas are included within Rural
Preservation Areas.
.
Land Use Desiqnations
In the General Plan Update, several new Land Use Designations are proposed to respond to
changes in the City and the Planning Area. The new Land Use Designations are as follows:
. The Rural Residential Designation would establish a 5 acre minimum lot size. This new
designation is intended primarily to help maintain lower density development in more rural
areas in and around the City. Much of the eastern Rural Preservation Area is proposed to
receive this designation.
. The Vineyards/Agriculture Designation is intended to identify areas used for agriculture in
the Planning Area. The General Plan currently has no way of designating areas for long
term agricultural use. This new designation is proposed for many areas in the Eastern
and Southern Rural Preservation Area.
. The Tribal Trust Lands Designation is proposed for properties that have been designated
as lands held in trust for the Pechanga Band by the Federal Government. These areas
have important economic and environmental impacts on the City. By identifying them as .
Tribal Trust Lands, it is the City's goal to recognize tribal sovereignty while indicating the
R:IGeneral PlanlComp Plan UpdatelStaff Report PC2.doc
2
.
.
.
.
City's interest in cooperating with the Pechanga Band in these areas. At this time, all
tribally owned properties are located in the southern portion of the City and Planning Area.
A Commercial Recreation Overlay for golf courses, resorts, as well as, RV resorts and
campground facilities. This would be used as an overlay on areas designated Open
Space to indicate that non-open space accessory commercial uses are envisioned to
occur in these areas. A good example of this is Temecula Creek Inn; most of the site is
used for open space purposes. However, there is also a small area of visitor serving
resort and commercial uses that form an integral part of the facility. This change is being
suggested because the current Open Space Designation does not adequately address
resort types of open space uses.
The final change is a proposal to rename the Business Park Land Use Designation to Industrial
Park to eliminate confusion with the Business Park .zone. No changes are being proposed to
the types of development that would be allowed in these areas with this name change.
Land Use Map
The most significant change to the Land Use Map is the expansion of the Planning Area east
toward Anza Road. This was undertaken in an effort to begin protecting this area from the
encroachment of urban land uses. In conjunction with this, the General Plan identifies several
Rural Preservation Areas. The Eastern and Southern Rural Preservation Areas are located
within this expanded Planning Area. Most of these areas are proposed to be designated as
Vineyard/Agriculture and Rural Residential. An exception to this is along part of Calle Contento
where the existing 2% acre lots would be designated as Very Low Density Residential.
Another major change to the Land Use Map is in the French Valley area. Since the initial
adoption of the City General Plan, the County made many land use changes without notifying
the City. As a result, the City General Plan bore little resemblance to the land use pattern being
developed in this area. In modifying the Land Use Map in the French Valley, a great deal of
effort was spent trying to work within the context of the granted entitlements trying to ensure the
creation of a desirable and livable urban area.
To date, 17 land use requests have been submitted by various property owners. Fourteen of
these requests were considered by the CAC.
During the plan development process, the CAC recommended five of the fourteen original
requests. Requests 1, 3, 7, 10 and 12 have been incorporated into the draft General Plan
Update. Four of the earlier requests (Nos. 4, 5, 8 and 9) are not being incorporated into the
Updated General Plan because of the uncertainty with either the future for the Nicolas Valley
area or the Temecula Education Project. Staff continues to recommend that these changes not
be made.
The following five property owner requested changes were not supported by the Community
Advisory Committee and are not included in the Updated General Plan. Staff continues to
recommend that these changes not be made to the Land Use Map.
Request 2.
Seventy-three acres located between the northeast edge of the Meadowview and
the tract homes along Nicolas Road. The CAC ultimately did not support the
request to increase the density in this area from Very Low Density to Low Density
Residential.
R:\General Plan\Comp Plan Update\Staff Report PC2.doc
3
Request 6.
Seven acres immediately south of the Temecula Creek Village. The CAC did not
support the requested change from Open Space to some more developable
designation.
.
Request 11. Three acres at the northwest corner of Margarita and Dartolo Roads. The CAC
did not support the requested change from- Professional Office to Community
Commercial.
Request 13. Three hundred four acres at Temecula Creek Inn. The CAC did not support the
request to change for parts of the site from Open Space to Low Medium Density
Residential or for the request to specify the preparation of a Specific Plan on the
property.
Request 14. Two acres at the northeast corner of SR-79 South and Jedediah Smith Road.
The CAC did not support the requested change from Very Low Density
Residential to Professional Office.
A summary of the CAC's recommendation is contained in Attachment NO.4. Letters for the
Land Use Map amendment requests that are not included in the draft General Plan are
contained in Attachment NO.5. Letters on the deferred requests are contained in Attachment
NO.6.
Additional Land Use Map Request
Three new Land Use Map amendment requests were received since the Community Advisory .
Committee completed its work. Staff is not making a recommendation on these requests and
asks that the Commission provide direction on their possible incorporation into the General Plan
being recommended to the City Council. Summaries of these subsequent Land Use Map
change requests are contained in Attachment No.7. A copy of the request letters is contained
in Attachment NO.8.
Open Space and Conservation Element
No major policy changes are proposed within the Open Space and Conservation Element.
However, additional information regarding the location of historic structures as well as additional
policy language on tribal cultural resources have been provided. The additional policies and
implementation measures will be provided to the Commission at the meeting.
Growth ManagemenUPublic Facilities Element
The only policy change is the addition of a statement discouraging street closures that may limit
or delay access to emergency services.
Public Safety Element
No major policy changes are proposed within the Public Safety Element.
Noise Element
No major policy changes are proposed within the Noise Element.
.
R:IGeneral PlanlComp Plan UpdatelStaff Report PC2.doc
4
.
.
.
Air Quality Element
No major policy changes are proposed within the Air Quality Element.
Community Design Element
No major policy changes are proposed within the Community Design Element. However, there
is some additional discussion on the Mixed Use Design Concept, public spaces, and public art.
The interim Chaparral Area policies that were adopted by the City Council in 2004 have also
been incorporated into the updated General Plan.
Economic Development Element
No major policy changes are proposed within the Economic Development Element.
Housing Element
The Housing Element is not being updated as part of this program. The current schedule for the
next update of the Housing Element is expected to begin in 2006 or 2007. The current
approved Housing Element will be incorporated into the final General Plan after it is adopted by
the City Council.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
As part of the process of updating the General Plan, an Environmental Impact Report has been
prepared. The Notice of Preparation was prepared and distributed on June 6, 2003 and a public
scoping meeting was held on June 25, 2003. Responses on the scope of the EIR were
received from the Air Quality Management District, Riverside County Transportation
Department, Riverside Transit Agency, Airport Land Use Commission, Caltrans - Aviation
Division, Department of Fish and Game, Metropolitan Water District, Rancho California Water
District, the City of Murrieta, and the Southern California Association of Governments. A public
scoping meeting was also held on June 25, 2003.
Based upon this feedback a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) was prepared for the
project which evaluated the following subjects: aesthetics, agricultural resources, air quality,
biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials,
hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, noise, population and housing, public
services, recreational resources, transportation, and utilities and public services.
The analysis in the DEIR indicated that adoption and implementation of the General Plan
update will result in unavoidable significant impacts with regard to air quality and transportation.
As a result, the Certification of the Environmental Impact Report for the General Plan will require
the adoption of a Statement of Over-riding Considerations (SaC) by the City Council. A sac
was also adopted when the EI R for the original General Plan was certified in 1993.
The implementation of mitigation measures specified in the DEIR are expected to reduce the
potentially significant impacts to aesthetics, agricultural resources, biological resources, cultural
resources, geology/soils, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, noise, public
services and recreation, and utilities and service systems to a less than significant level. The
mitigation measures are included in the Implementation Measures identified within the General
Plan. In all other areas of environmental concern, the project was found to result in either no
impact or a less than significant impact.
R:IGeneral PlanlComp Plan UpdatelStaff Report PC2.doc
5
The DEIR was made available for public review and comment between December 17, 2004 and .
March 12,2005. Comments were received from the Rancho California Water District, Caltrans-
Aviation Division, Rancho California Water District, the Southern California Association
Governments, Riverside Transit Agency, San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board,
Eastern Municipal Water District, Metropolitan Water District, Bureau of Land Management,
Riverside County Flood Control District, Riverside County Planning Department, Riverside
County Transportation Department, the Native American Heritage Commission, State
Clearinghouse, Temecula Valley Unified School District, a nd the Pechanga Band of Luisefio
Indians. Copies of these letters were provided to the Commission at the February 2, 2005
meeting and are provided again in Attachment No.1 O. A copy of the Draft Environmental Impact
Report was provided to the Planning Commission under separate cover in January, 2005.
ATTACHMENTS
1. PC Resolution No. 2005-_ - Blue Page 7
2. List of Commission Recommended Changes to the Draft General.Plan - Blue Page 10
3. Planning Commission Recommended Changes to the General Plan Related to the
Extension of North General Kearny Road - Blue Page 13
4. Summary of CAC considered Land Use Map Change Requests - Blue Page 15
5. Change Request Letters for sites that are not included in the Draft Plan - Blue Page 21
6.
Change Request Letters that were deferred and are not included in the Draft Plan - Blue
Page 42
.
7. Additional Land Use Change Requests - Supplemental Information - Blue Page 23
8. Additional Land Use Change Request Letters - Blue Page 25
9. Other General Plan Comment Letters - Blue Page 26
10. EIR Comment Letters - Blue Page 27
.
R:IGeneral PlanlComp Plan UpdatelStaff Report PC2.doc
6
.
.
.
ATTACHMENT NO.1
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2005-_
R:\General Plan\Comp Plan Update\Staff Report PC2.doc
7
.
.
.
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2005-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY
COUNCIL CERTIFY THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
FOR THE GENERAL PLAN AND APPROVE THE
COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE OF THE GENERAL PLAN
WHEREAS, the City of Temecula adopted its first General Plan on November 9,1993;
WHEREAS, Section 65300 of the State Planning and Zoning Law requires that all
jurisdictions adopt and periodically update a General Plan;
WHEREAS, the City Council decided to undertake a comprehensive update of the
adopted General Plan in 2001;
WHEREAS, the City Council appointed an 11-member Community Advisory Committee
to assist in updating the General Plan;
WHEREAS, the Community Advisory Committee in meetings held on January 7, 2002,
January 28, 2002, February 25, 2002, April 01, 2002, May 6, 2002, May 15, 2002, May 30,
2002, April 29, 2003, May 20, 2003, June 11, 2003, March 1, 2004, April 26, 2004, May 3, 2004,
and July 6, 2004 to consider the current General Plan and to recommend appropriate changes
to the Planning Commission and City Council;
WHEREAS, the City Council and Planning Commission in a joint workshop to consider
the recommendation of the Community Advisory Committee on August 10, 2004 and provided a
number of comments and suggestions on the recommended Plan;
WHEREAS, the Community Services Commission met to consider and provide
comments on the proposed General Plan on September 13, 2004;
WHEREAS, the Traffic Safety Commission met to consider and provide comments on
the proposed General Plan on September 28,2004 and January 27, 2005;
WHEREAS, the City held community meetings on December 26, 2001, January 12,
2002, April 4, 2002, and November 4, 2004 to solicit input, comments, and concerns from
members of the community;
WHEREAS, based upon all the suggestions, comments, concerns and direction
received, a final public review draft of the Updated General Plan was prepared;
WHEREAS, an Initial Environmental Study was prepared to identify the potential issues
of concern to be evaluated within an environmental impact report;
WHEREAS, a Notice of Preparation was distributed on June 6, 2003;
WHEREAS, a public scoping meeting was held on June 25, 2003;
R:\General Plan\Comp Plan Update\Staff Report PC2.doc
8
WHEREAS, based upon the Initial Environmental Study, the responses to the Notice of .
Preparation, and the public scoping meeting, a Draft Environmental Impact Report was
prepared to evaluate the possible impacts associated with implementing the public review draft
of the Updated General Plan;
WHEREAS, the Draft Environmental Impact Report was circulated for public review and
comment between December 17, 2004 and March 12,2005;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered this matter on February 2, 2005, and
continued the matter from the February 16, 2005 meeting to March 16, 2005, at duly noticed
public hearings, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to, and did, testify either in
support or opposition to this matter;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND RECOMMEND THAT THE CITY COUNCIL
CERTIFY THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE UPDATED GENERAL
PLAN AND ADOPT THE UPDATED GENERAL PLAN S UBSTANTIALL Y I N THE FORMS
ATTACHED HERETO.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning Commission
this 16th day of March 2005.
David Mathewson, Chairman
.
ATTEST:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
[SEAL]
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss
CITY OF TEMECULA )
I, Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary of the Temecula Planning Commission, do hereby certify
that PC Resolution No. 2005-_ was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning Commission
of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 16th day of March, 2005, by the
following vote:
AYES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
NOES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
ABSTAIN:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
.
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
R:IGeneral PlanlComp Plan UpdatelStaff Report PC2.doc
9
.
.
.
ATTACHMENT NO.2
LIST OF RECOMMENDED CHANGES TO THE DRAFT GENERAL PLAN
R:IGeneral PlanlComp Plan UpdatelStaff Report PC2.doc
10
.
.
.
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE - FINAL CHANGE ADDENDUM
Introduction
1. Add a general discussion of regional, subregional, and local planning
relationships to pages 1-6 through 1-8, per Southern California Association of
Governments comments on Draft EIR.
land Use Element
1. To the General Plan land Use Map (Figure lU-2) make the following changes:
A. Modify the General Plan land Use Designation for Planning Area 9A of
the Margarita Village Specific Plan from low-Medium Density Residential
to low Density Residential.
B Modify the General Plan land Use Designation for the three parcels on
the east side of Butterfield Stage Road immediately south of Rancho
Vista Road from Rural Residential to Public Institutional.
C
Modify the General Plan land Use Designation for southwest corner of
Butterfield Stage Road and Pauba Road from Neighborhood Commercial
to low Medium Density Residential to match the approved Specific Plan
designations.
D. Add "(BLM)" to the map in areas where much of the land is owned by the
Bureau of land Management is located. Specifically, these are the Open
Space areas located in the southern Planning Area. One area is between
Rainbow Canyon Road and Pechanga Parkway and the other area is
west of 1-15 south of south of the City limits.
2. Add a copy of the Final French Valley Airport land Use Compatibility Plan into
the land Use Element after the discussion on French Valley Airport.
3. Page lU-21, Vineyards/Agriculture discussion. Delete the sentence that begins
with "One dwelling unit".
Circulation Element
1. Page C-11, add the following to the first paragraph under the Principal Arterial
Section: "An exception to the standard cross section is found in the French Valley
area. According to an agreement between Caltrans and the County of Riverside,
the right-of-way for Winchester Road, between Hunter and Keller Roads, needs
to be 184 feet wide."
Open Space Conservation Element
1.
Page OS-12 - Replace second paragraph with the following: "One groundwater
production well was contaminated by a MTBE plume but subsequent aquifer
remedial cleanup activities have allowed this facility to be placed back into
R:IGeneral PlanlComp Plan UpdatelFinal PC General Plan Addendum Document with CBA additions. doc 1
service. Furthermore, other groundwater production wells were nearly .
contaminated by a separate MTBE plume, but subsequent aquifer remedial
cleanup activities have allowed these facilities to remain in operation."
2. Page OS-18 - Revise Plans in Action to identify that there are Williamson Act
contracts in the unincorporated portions of the Planning Area.
3. Add the following policies below Goal 6:
A. "Policy 6.10 Work with the Pechanga Band of Luisefio Indians to
identify and appropriately address cultural resources and tribal sacred
sites through the development review process."
B. "Policy 6.11 Encourage voluntary landowner efforts to protect cultural
resource and tribal sacred sites consistent with State requirements."
4. Add the following Implementation Measure:
"OS-39 Tribal Cultural Resources
Development projects proposed on previously undeveloped property
which involve earth-disturbing activities or which are located in areas with
previously identified cultural resources need to comply with the following
requirements to appropriately address tribal cultural resources.
. All projects shall be evaluated by a qualified archeologist by
conducting a site records search, and if feasible, a Phase I walk-over
survey, and if necessary, a Phase II survey prior to project approval to
identify the potential for the presence of significant cultural resources.
. If significant resources are located on the project site, or a high
probability for cultural resources exists, the Pechanga Band of
Luisefio Indians shall be consulted in the identification 0 f mitigation
measures to address impacts consistent with State requirements,
including provisions to address inadvertent discoveries.
· During on-site grading a ctivities in areas with cultural resources, or
with a high potential for cultural resources, a qualified archeologist
and tribal monitors shall be on-site to monitor grading operations.
. In the event of the discovery of a burial site, human bone or
suspected human bone, grading in the immediate area shall be
immediately halted and the .site protected, and t he County Coroner
and representatives from Pechanga Band of Luisefio Indians notified.
.
Agency/Department: Planning, Public Works
Related Policy: 6.10"
.
R:IGeneral PlanlComp Plan UpdatelFinal PC General Plan Addendum Document with CBA additions.doc 2
.
Growth Manaqement / Public Facilities Element
1. Pages GM-9 and GM-14 - Revise to indicate that a portion of the City of
Temecula (primarily the Westside Business Centre area) is within the RCWD's
wastewater service area and these wastewater flows are treated at RCWD's
Santa Rosa Water Reclamation Facility, per Rancho California Water District
comments on Draft EIR.
2. Page GM-16 - Update Table GM-2 to include current data provided by the
Temecula Valley Unified School District as shown below.
.
Student
Name Location Enrollment as of
January 2005
ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS K-5)
Alamos Elementarv' 38200 Pacific Park Drive 593
Barnett Elementary 39925 Harveston Drive 387
French Valley Elementary' 36680 Cady Road 1,037
Jackson Elementary 32400 Camino San Dimas 928
Nicolas Valley 39600 N. General Kearney 918
Elementary' Road
Paloma Elementary 42940 Via Rami 789
Pauba Valley Elementary 33125 Regina Drive 884
Rancho Elementary 31530 La Serena Way 812
Red Hawk Elementary' 32045 Camino San Jose 642
Reinke Elementary 43799 Sunnv Meadows Drive 1,122
Sparkman Elementarv 32225 Pio Pico Road 704
Temecula Elementarv 41951 Moraqa Road 792
Vail Elementarv 29915 Mira Loma Drive 773
Vintage Hills Elementary 42240 Camino Romo 1,069
MIDDLE SCHOOLS (6-8)
Bella Vista Middle 31650 Browninq Road 697
Day Middle 40775 Camino Campos Verde 978
Gardner Middle 45125 Via Del Coronado 789
Margarita Middle 30600 Marqarita Road 982
Temecula Middle 42075 Meadows Parkwav 1,349
Vail Ranch Middle 33340 Camino Piedra Roio 952
HIGH SCHOOLS (9-12)
Chaparral Hioh 27215 Nicolas Road 2,882
Great Oak Hiqh' 32555 Deer Hollow Wav 1,253
Temecula Vallev Hiqh 31555 Rancho Vista Road 2,868
Rancho Vista Continuation 31340 Rancho Vista Road 227
ADULT SCHOOL
Temecula Adult School 131350 Rancho Vista Road I n/a
Table GM-2
School Facilities
.
1. Located within sphere of influence.
Source: Temecula Valley Unified School District, 2004.
R:IGeneral PlanlComp Plan UpdatelFinal PC General Plan Addendum Document with CBA additions. doc 3
3.
.
Page GM-17, update Figure GM-2 to indicate the correct location of French
Valley Elementary School.
4. Page GM-18 - Update Table GM-3 to include current data provided by the
Temecula Valley Unified School District as shown below.
Estimated
Name Comoletion Date
ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS
Quinta Do LaQo (in French Valley) 2005
MorQan Hill 2005
Crowne Hill 2005
Wolf Creek 2006
Old Town Bevond 2006
Rorioauah Ranch Bevond 2006
MIDDLE SCHOOLS
Rorioauah Ranch Bevond 2006
Middle School #8 (in French Valley within Beyond 2006
the Winchester 1800 Specific Plan)
HIGH SCHOOLS
High School #4 (in French Valley) Beyond 2006
Table GM-3
Future TVUSD Schools
Source: Temecula Valley Unified School District, November, 2004.
.
Public Safety Element
1. Page PS-3, Replace the discussion of the Seismic Hazard Mapping Act to read:
"The purpose of the Act is to reduce the threat to public safety and minimize the
loss of life and property by identifying and mitigating these seismic hazards. The
Seismic Hazards Mapping Act (Public Resources Code Section 2690, et. seq.)
directs the State Geologist to identify and map areas prone to earthquake
hazards of liquefaction, earthquake-induced landslides and amplified ground
shaking. The Act requires site-specific geotechnical investigations be conducted
identifying the hazard and formulating mitigation measures prior to permitting
most developments designed for human occupancy within the Zones of Required
Investigation."
2. Page PS-3, delete the discussion on the Landslide Hazard Identification
Program.
3. Page PS-9, Replace the Plans in Action discussion with the following: "California
law requires disclosure of Liquefaction, Landslide, and Alquist-Priolo Earthquake
Fault zones as a part of all real estate transactions within identified areas."
.
R:IGeneral PlanlComp Plan UpdatelFinal PC General Plan Addendum Document with CBA additions.doc 4
.
.
.
ATTACHMENT NO.3
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED CHANGES TO THE GENERAL PLAN
RELATED TO THE EXTENSION OF NORTH GENERAL KEARNY ROAD
R:\General Plan\Comp Plan Update\Staff Report PC2.doc
13
.
.
.
NORTH GENERAL KEARNY ROAD RECOMMENDATIONS
To the Circulation Element make the following changes:
A. Add North General Kearny to the Roadway Plan (Figure C-2) as a Limited
Secondary Arterial between Nicolas Road and end of the existing segment of
North General Kearny. Also, put a "." next to the Limited Secondary Arterial
portion of the roadway.
B. Add a note on Figure C-2 that states: ". Prior to an approval to construct any part
of the Limited Secondary Arterial segment of North General Kearny, a traffic
study described in Implementation Measure C-20 shall be completed and
approved by the City Council."
C. Add Implementation Measure C-20 to read as follows:
"C-20 North General Kearny Circulation Study
To ensure that the circulation system benefits for the implementation of the
Limited Secondary Arterial segment of North General Keamy, the City shall
complete a detailed traffic analysis. The Study shall, at a minimum, analyze the
traffic impacts on the perimeter and connecting streets for the area surrounded
by the following roadways: Winchester Road, Nicolas Road, Calle Medusa, La
Serena Way, and Margarita Road. The study will analyze current and future
roadway conditions both with and without the construction of proposed segment
of North General Keamy Road. This study may be performed in conjunction with
studies related the possible opening of previously closed street in this area.
Agency/Department: City Manager, Public Works, Planning
Related Policy:
3.7 and 3.8"
R:IGeneral PlanlComp Plan UpdatelStaff Report PC2.doc
14
.
.
.
ATTACHMENT NO.4
SUMMARY OF CAC CONSIDERED LAND USE MAP REQUESTS
R:\General Plan\Comp Plan Update\Staff Report PC2.doc
15
.
.
.
NO.
GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP AMENDMENT RECOMMENDATIONS BY THE CAC
REQUEST INFORMATION
REQUESTOR: Peter Stirling, WM 11 Partners, LP
LOCATION: Northside of the Santa Gertrudis channel between Margarita Road and
Rustic Glen Drive
1.
911-090-003
5.4 Ac
From Industrial Park (IP) and Public Institutional (PI) to Professional Office
(PO)
DISCUSSION: The property consists of a long thin remnant piece left over from the
channelization of Santa Gertrudis Creek. At the northeastern end, there is
a developable Industrial Park designated site adjacent to Rustic Glen
Drive. At the southwestern end there is a much smaller Public Institutional
zoned site that could be developed adjacent to Margarita Road. In
between these two sites is narrow strip of land approximately 35 feet wide
that connects these sites.
APN(s):
SIZE:
REQUEST:
CAC RECOMMENDATION: Unanimous support for Professional Office. This has
been shown on the draft Land Use Plan.
2.
REQUESTOR: Boy Scouts of America
LOCATION: Southeast of the intersection of Nicolas Road and Via Lobo
APN(s): 919-350-017, 018, 019, and 020
SIZE: 72.3 Ac
REQUEST: From Very Low Density Residential (VL) to Low Medium Density
Residential (LM) and Open Space (OS)
DISCUSSION: The property consists of 4 large parcels located between the northeast
edge of the Meadowview area between the tract homes along Nicolas
Road and the Nicolas Valley area. The applicant has indicated a desire to
concentrate future development adjacent to Nicolas Road consistent with
the tract homes along Via Lobo and leave most of the site as permanent
open space.
CAC RECOMMENDATION: A majority of the CAC felt that keeping the property
Very Low Density was appropriate. No changes were made to Land Use Plan.
R:IGeneral PlanlComp Plan UpdatelStaff Report PC2.doc
16
NO.
REQUEST INFORMATION
.
REQUESTOR: Melinda Smith
LOCATION: Southeast of the intersection of Margarita Road and Solana Way
APN(s): 921-330-005,024,025,026, and 027
SIZE: 9.2 Ac
REQUEST: From Medium Density Residential (MD) to Professional Office (PO),
Neighborhood Commercial (NC), and Open Space (OS)
DISCUSSION: The property consists of the vacant area east of Margarita Road and west
3. of the ABC Preschool. The proposal would designate the frontage
adjacent to Margarita Road as Neighborhood Commercial and the
frontage along Solana Way as Professional Office. The frontage along
Via La Vida, including most of the existing stream channel would be the
Open Space area.
CAC RECOMMENDATION: A majority supported Professional Office and Open
Space. The Professional Office and Open Space designations have been shown on
the draft Land Use Plan.
REQUESTOR: Steve Galvez
LOCATION: Between Butterfield Stage Road and Walcott Lane north of Solana Way
APN(s): 957-170-032,033,034,035, and 036
SITE: 22 Ac
REQUEST: From Very Low Density Residential (VL) to Low Density Residential
4. DISCUSSION: The proposal is to increase the density to allow for Y2 acre lots
immediately north of the new Shea Homes development along Walcott
Lane. This site is located within the Nicolas Valley area.
CAC RECOMMENDATION: No Action Recommended. This request was put off
until the uncertainty over dirt roads and the Roripaugh Ranch project are resolved.
No changes were made to Land Use Plan.
.
REQUESTOR: Markham Development Management Group
LOCATION: South of Nicolas Road between Calle Medusa and Calle Girasol
APN(s): 957-150-001,002,003, and 016
SIZE: 18.0 Ac
REQUEST: From Very Low Density Residential (VL) to Low Medium Density
5. Residential (LM)
DISCUSSION: The proposal is to increase the density to allow for the creation of
additional suburban density lots within the Nicolas Valley Area
CAC RECOMMENDATION: No Action Recommended. This request was put off
until the uncertainty over dirt roads and the Roripaugh Ranch project are resolved.
No changes were made to Land Use Plan.
.
R:IGeneral PlanlComp Plan UpdatelStaff Report PC2.doc
17
.
NO.
,
,
" .
REQUEST INF0RMA'nON
;
--,-
.
REQUESTOR: Markham Development Management Group
LOCATION: South of the Temecula Creek Village project and west of the extension of
Jedediah Smith Road
APN(s): 961-010-004
SIZE: 7.5 Ac
6. REQUEST: From Open Space (OS) to Unspecified Designations
DISCUSSION: The property consists of a long thin strip of land between the Temecula
Creek Village project and wetland mitigation areas adjacent to Temecula
Creek.
CAC RECOMMENDATION: A majority of the CAC felt that Open Space was the
correct use for this property. No changes were made to Land Use Plan.
.
REQUESTOR: Markham Development Management Group
LOCATION: Northside of Loma Linda Road, east of Temecula Lane
APN(s): 961-010-016,018,019,020, and 021
SIZE: 45.5 Ac
REQUEST: From Professional Office (PO) to Medium Density Residential (MD)
DISCUSSION: The property is located between Loma Linda Road and Temecula Creek
7. between Rawhide Park and the existing single family residences across
from Erie Stanley Garner Middle School. The applicant has provided a
preliminary plan that suggests a combination of detached and attached
units in this area.
CAC RECOMMENDATION: Supported Low Medium Density on the eastern-third
and Medium Density on the western two-thirds. This has been shown on the draft
Land Use Plan.
8.
REQUESTOR: Markham Development Management Group
LOCATION: Southwest of the City's Northwest Sports Park (Temecula Education
Project)
909-370-018
52.8 Ac
From Industrial Park (IP) to Community Commercial (CG), High Density
Residential (HD), and Medium Density Residential (MD)/Mixed Use.
DISCUSSION: This site is immediately adjacent to the proposed Temecula Education
Project. The proposal is for a combination of commercial and residential
land uses that would be intended to complement the proposed Education
Project.
CAC RECOMMENDATION: No action recommended. Staff felt that changes in this
area should not be considered until after more was known about the Temecula
Education Project and it effects on the surrounding area.
APN(s):
SIZE:
REQUEST:
.
R:IGeneral PlanlComp Plan UpdatelSlaff Report PC2.doc
18
N0.
- ~.~-,. ,"".'~ ;<'.' " ','i. ;/'",' ',,' .. .;';.~ ,,,_'''~_' ',"" .>"" ". ".n_ ...'-, ___,
;REQUESTINE0RMATI0N
"on " ..... "-_i.-_;~ '..^,.,"::-.:,,';d.";" " ,-- ",,"
.
REQUEST0R: Ray Hanes, Spanos Group
L0CATI0N: South and west of the City's Northwest Sports Park (Temecula Education
Project) adjacent to Request NO.8.
APN(s): 909-370-032
SIZE: 32.6 Ac
REQUEST: From Industrial Park (IP) to either High Density Residential (HD) or
9. Medium Density Residential (MD)
DISCUSSI0N: This site is south of the property identified in Request No.8. The proposal
is for additional residential land uses that would be intended to compliment
the proposed Education Project.
CAC REC0MMENDATI0N: No action recommended. Staff felt that changes in this
area should not be considered until after more was known about the Temecula
Education Project and it effects on the surrounding area.
REQUEST0R: May Group
L0CATI0N: West of Butterfield Stage Road between Chenin Clinet and Ahern Place
APN(s): 935-390-007 and 009
SIZE: 18.3 Ac
REQUEST: From Very Low Density Residential (VL) to Low-Medium Density
Residential (LM)
10. DISCUSSI0N: The site is a long thin piece immediately adjacent to Butterfield Stage
Road within the Margarita Village Specific Plan. The approved Specific
Plan for this area describes the density as one unit per acre. The General
Plan identifies 2 16 acre lots. Realistically, the change would be from Low
Density to Low Medium Density.
CAC REC0MMENDATI0N: Supported a change to Low Medium Density Residential.
This has been shown on the draft Land Use Plan.
.
REQUEST0R: Westfall Construction
L0CATI0N: Northwest corner of Margarita and Dartolo Roads
APN(s): 950-100-003 and 016
SIZE: 2.8 Ac
REQUEST: From Professional Office (PO) to Community Commercial (CC)
11. DISCUSSI0N: The site is located west of the proposed hospital site and easi of the
Albertons/Home Depot Shopping Center along the north side of Dartolo
Road.
CAC REC0MMENDATI0N: The CAC felt that retaining P0 made the most sense in
this location.
.
R:\General Plan\Comp Plan Update\Staff Report PC2.doc
19
.
NO.
.
.
12.
REQUEST I NI'OFlIv1A,..1 9N ... .../<<</ ,</.
REQUESTOR: Pacific Development Partners
lOCATION: Northeast comer of Winchester and Nicolas Roads
APN(s): 920-100-001 and 013
SIZE: 20.2 Ac
REQUEST: From Neighborhood Commercial (NC) to Community Commercial (CC)
DISCUSSION: The site part of the Roripaugh Estates Specific Plan. Under the original
Specific Plan, the land use regulations referenced the C-1/CP (General
Commercial) in County Ordinance 348. The text description in the SP
described it as Neighborhood Commercial and it was designated as
Neighborhood Commercial in the City General Plan.
CAC RECOMMENDATION: The CAC supported this change. This has been shown
on the draft land Use Plan.
13.
REQUESTOR: Temecula Creek Inn
lOCATION: Rainbow Canyon Road west of Pechanga Creek
APN(s): 922-220-002, 003, 008, 031, and 922-230-002, 003, 004, 007 and 008
SIZE: 304.8 Ac
REQUEST: From Open Space (OS) and Highway Tourist Commercial (HT) to Open
Space (OS), Highway Tourist Commercial (HT), and Low-Medium Density
Residential (LM)
DISCUSSION: Temecula Creek Inn is proposing expand the golf course resort facilities,
add time share units, and construct several hundred additional single
family residences, and designate this area as a future Specific Plan in the
Land Use Element. Their plans also include reducing the number of holes
from 27 to 18 to improve the overall quality of the golf experience.
CAC RECOMMENDATION: The CAe did not support this change.
14.
REQUESTOR: Mel Malkoff for Rancho Community Church
lOCATION: SR-79 South east of Jedediah Smith Road
APN(s): 959-030-010
SIZE: 2.5 Ac
REQUEST: From Very Low Density Residential (VL) to Professional Office (PO)
DISCUSSION: In the process of obtaining drainage easements from the adjacent
property owner, Rancho Community Church was forced or purchase the
property at the northeast comer of SR-79 and Jedediah Smith Road. As a
result, the Church would like to change the designation on this property to
match the designation on the rest of their property. There is a concurrent
proposal to include this property into the previously approved Planned
Development Overlay.
CAC RECOMMENDATION: The CAC did not support this change. No changes were
made to land Use Plan.
R;IGeneral PlanlComp Plan UpdatelSlaff Report PC2.doc
20
.
.
.
ATTACHMENT NO.5
CHANGE REQUEST LETTERS FOR SITES THAT
ARE NOT INCLUDED IN THE DRAFT PLAN
R:\General Plan\Comp Plan Update\Staff Report PC2.doc
21
.
.
.
2..-
BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA
CALIFORNIA INLAND EMPIRE COUNCIL
1230 Indiana Court. Redlands, California 92374-2896
(909) 793-2463 or 825-8844 . FAX: 793-0306
6 November 2002
Mr. Gary Thornhill, Deputy City Manager
City of Temecula
Planning / Community Development Dept.
p.o. Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
Attn: Mr. Dave Hogan, General Plan Update Manager
Re: City of Temecu1a General Plan / Zone Designation
Modification for 73 acre site located at the comer
Of Nicolas Road and Via Lobo, Temecula APN# 919-350-
017,018,019,020
Mr. Hogan,
This letter is a formal request to the Planning Department for the consideration of rezoning the above described property
from '~er:y Low Residential Density" (VL) to "Low Medium Residential" (I..11) as part of the City's Cillrent review and
revision of the City's Genernl Plan.
We believe that this density is compatible with the surrounding property and would be beneficial to both the City and
ourselves.
Please direct all communications, or any questions that you may have to:
. The California Inland Empire Council of the Boy Scouts of America
Attn: Donald Townsend
1230 Indiana Court
Redlands, CA 92374-2896
. Mr. Rob Partin, Correspondent
The Garrett Group, ILC
43592 Ridge Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
. Ronald Bradley, Correspondent
30348 Via Canada
Temecuh, CA 92592
909/693-0036
Thank you far your cansideration of
~doutExeCUtive
A program for Cub Scouts, Boy Scouts, Co-ed Ventures, and Co-ed Explorers
Supported by Friends of Scouting, Endowment Funds, and United Way
Remember Scouting in your will.
-
, -' ,------ ""'=- \ '\d3--,~~ p: ./'tA~ ~
~r7 n~~-~--[~~-~ . \' ~&~f ~W~
' J. . " "'.-.'. .. ., ------~ Tmi~. 'F::3i~k&:,~;)'
~,.' '","'~'H'" .... - -', \ \JJ,.J",.'. '-.j\~\1i.l1.J~Y.AY -.
" I - 'm\~LF <'f\}" _
' "L " -- ", ~~7, "'.-
"~ ",,". f',...-- '/ >r /
. ",.' "'''"', A I ! ' ~C"l
" ,! . .,' ",\ ,C"... \ ,,~~
--
'~-; ~ I if- i~J -1! 1 L :l- 1 rc~
<C':r<' I IlL " 1\_ . ':-"" "~ -L ::: f
~ :m-H'H'FfIWB.....:::IE ~ ' -' ~
l\illLllllli.!./~ It: C:EE it-t-:, uLLiI !P=!r::: ; \ ~ L----
\frrrm1T'l. "-'h."I;~I-Jt;: jt:~l..,__..".-\^. ~,\K." l=\'::~j \~, en ~1' ~ _-:&< J-
~!l;:" ,IIU '"UU: IE\"; "J 'r' " I \ _
~"\) ~~~''''~ io. \ U. II Lill !H"U.,.Y" i,. .=.. -\, V" \. 1-.1
~z '/'H, ,"0:":'1., "'O'l,fi:,l1LUiI~F~>-,JY'.' 7~,~. lii.tpA \~\. ,........." ,
t:(F " ~";: ~ r- ' ..ill r-I~ ~ '" ~ "
\\ \ \ \.L 1Jl (NJ. ~ '/:. '/ I 7
@\m......-t.'>lc: :::ii ~,e;~ A"'" r"H-rlLj;h'{(.~,ry \ ~ \~~,,-\,;r<:- ,N
' '~Ie;- ..", ~' ~.~ \~ '\,~-...,
J '" \ .]9c I "" I~ it e; Y "' ( "'-' \ \ ~ It' ,\ \ I'C\\.JI:<::~ , ,
J Ul. LllU ~ I '- --: \ \ \ l~ tH:::~~\ '
- 'BI" ;11"~w-n1 I /~ \--:).\ I\~ \~!E~~ 'Ilk '\ ;),..".1<" :<>_, ~
i i. ,,"-.- \ \ \t\~; /-y \ \ l,t: ~ ,\, __ \;:::1...";,<< I '~_ .J,
I ~ I '~,~,I.Y/.c-..~l, -^'~' }.\.~_}\~ \ '-'1Ir;:a ;~ \\\&<.'\ li~ 1\\
'.-'1 -..- i ~\' ~ 11-^\~tt'~~W\ . 'w .. ?<""- _ ',_ V;,
/ 'W-""'.V>I, \ ,n ~~h\W\~~~ ' \ ~ ~ ~
-;/ ~~'{u ~),ilS /~ ", >d~~ ~~~"~<'\ ~\~\~1,r; \ ,lti--'--' ,,\~V :::::J.,/~~, ./
~ ~~, ^ ;";, '''Pr'Ji ;r> :/<,)>~ ~ \ \::j \ '1\ It- _, ._
1\ ,,,,1& . ~'" ,'" ~ '" \~ \:, \ -'''1' / -,r .,
I lll":..,\?( : I:{I~ ~/ ~~\ '"f ';):i-= \ ';; \ ,~<1\\; [c0 / ~ !
., 1L~)1=tl:rI~-'- ~,/ ~~\~,)~,~z;:x(\\y~v)\'~~ '~_-" \~~~~ '~~D- '\1' J.-. "
' -- ,,~t__: Uj iJ::1j),J /. ~ \--,:?~\~ ,~~C-"vy '-\\ "'-I 1=l1 ,\~*\! ':X:/~ : 7'...:::::,.
IIi .. ".~~~~ \fful~'/~1\~~ \-~\; ~~~~fg _S,Wl7\'rrjint,",,\~ /- \, J'v~--J
I !E=r:::rIJJr..~'-._~~, I::: \'C \ 1ft: '::::QY' ~~~;"--,- .,I\~!~)[U 'F \r~~
..! '''''"~li~J:::1t ~~;<:~,~f'r-~\~~\~\ ~f;j--A.,;#"t&~R'/;~/S".".'\\\ ~~~\, J I U
-ojC:i'_,', I ,~ ~ 10/J{--'~lt \ ffJ., I>--~ I ,01 \~~, .>"'_~ r;J
E: lit:: Y. "., I ,/ .l,(~ \ ~.~/'),,,~j< f---- t~ /. ",'\ y~ " I' "'\ ,-;, ~ ,,:' ,
-., -~O;,~ -\ . , U +i.(j)' l~-" \1:';.1' ;r<';;..:. '
~ 1'1W..L~~~~/' il'~, ~ ~:' \::;~. ~, '"
~-~ Y/.I-, '~,..u\ 'J /fr~. ,"7~' ~~ 9,;" ~-1 I!~'__, -,' ",
,'<I.lI ~, ,r.{C"::;, . "''-t1IJ ' , "'-/.1.'",<", , fY!1 'I ' I . "f ,
"'-"""Un.n "".,,~ A"'-'\rr'7il'_u;;q,./ , l;'~" ; i'fiii r J~' ~"'"
'~~'X.Ull illl/, ?J)Y~ , ~"",/ YJ ,~, JIs:tt':. KJ\)\.L '"
V>' sY ,I v{~, 7:X 'I i. ![;[!t ;.(" ,r" _'"
" , " /; ~ W~{!l5" ,,/ f fg"."'" J. 11-- \'"
I-'V ' A. ~ {l '. t!;fJj l"~ ~~7"",\:--:r
~ /X~~~~i/. l,." :<:\.k~~ r-:\~
'~~~~~~@~Y0r1--L" "'. ,~." n >-
- I ... 'v ";;S~ "~, v,...,
~ ~..'
~. -
]
.
.
.
~.2.
The Garren Group, llC
An Investment Management Company
February 15, 2005
City of Temecula
Planning Commisioners
432000 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
Subject:
Planning Commission Meeting of February 16, 2005
Public Hearing Item 3 - General Plan Update as it pertains to the
Nicolas 73 Project - Planning Application 01-0415 (Re-submitted
11/1212004) with request for Change of Zone and General Plan Land Use
Designation change. (Tentative Tract Map 32196)
Dear Commissioners:
We are in receipt of Mr. Hogan's letter of January 21 , 2005 with regard to the above application.
Further to the original request with regard to the Land Use designation, which was made by the
previous owners on November 6, 2002, (a copy of which is enclosed) we respectfully request the
Planning Commission review the General Plan Update currently under consideration, and change the
land use designation for this property from "Very Low Residential Density" (VL) 0.2-0.4 Units/net acre to
"Low Residential Density" ILl 0.5-2.9 Units/net acre.
As called out in the General Plan Update Land Use Section "Typical lot sizes (in the "L" designation)
range from 0.5 to 2.0 acres, however, clustering of development may be appropriate to minimize
grading requirements and impact to environmentally sensitive areas". Our proposed use will be
consistent with the Land Use designation of "Low Residential Density" (L) which has been included in
the General Plan Update for the neighboring property in the Meadowview development on the southern
boundary.
As other surrounding land uses are of a higher density, we feel that this designation suggests an
effective and smooth transition to the rolling hills of the Meadowview area, will be beneficial to the City
and provide for a quality community. Specifically, by carefully placing home sites, the proposed project
will preserve 51.75 acres of open space.
At your suggestion, we held a Community Meeting for the surrounding residents on November 17,
2003, and our project was well received by the attendees. Subsequently another meeting was held in
the early part of 2004 by the Citizens Advisory Committee (as detailed in a letter dated July 28, 2004 by
Mr. Greg Monrison). Unfortunately, our project was absorbed by concerns over three other projects,
thus we were unable to gain a positive recommendation at that time from CAC to the City.
We then met with Planning staff at a Development Review Committee meeting on July 15, 2004, a
summary of which is detailed in a letter from the Planning Department dated July 22, 2004 (attached
hereto) in which we were advised that the "CAC was supportive of the concept of clustered
development, they supported taking primary access from the intersection of Nicolas Road and
Via Lobo, and they supported the gross density of one dwelling unit per acre". We were also
asked to consider revising our Tentative Map to support lots of not less than 10,000 square feet.
43529 Ridqe Park Drive
www.TheGarrettGroupLlC.com
T emecula. CA 92590
Phone 951.506.6556
The Garren Group, LLC
An Investment Management Company
.
Then, a letter dated July 27, 2004 from the Planning Department advised us that the information in the
previous letter was 'incorrect', and that the CAC was not in support of a change in the gross density for
the project.
In an effort to continue to move our project forward in anticipation of the General Plan Update, we
prepared a revised Tentative Map to include the Low-Density designation, and this was submitted to
Planning on November 12,2004. Since that time the Tentative Map re-submittal has been on hold
pending the General Plan Update consideration.
Through continued communication with the City representatives, we believe our proposed project
presents a balanced development with a great deal of open space as a buffer to Meadowview, high
quality homes with beautiful elevations on all sides, and larger lots than previously proposed.
Specifically, our proposed project contains 70 buildable lots averaging 12,959 sq. ft. Those 70 home
sites constitute a density of 0.98 units per net acre, as defined in the "L" land use designation.
Enclosed for your review is an exhibit of the proposed land use area for the property.
Should you require any additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me.
since~ .
~:D;mO"d~
Director
Land and Forward Planning Division
.
Cc:Bradley Hay, Hunsaker & Associates
.
43529 RidQe Park Drive
Temecula. CA 92590
Phone 951.506.6556
www.TheGarrettGrouoLLC.com
o
Wz
(1)0
0_
Q.~
Oc
a:z
Q.e"
-
Q.(I)
:)W
00
a:W
e,,(I)
1-:)
1-0
Wz
a:c
a:...1
c
e"
i
.
..
o
'"
o
-
..I
-
'i<
II
:Ii
(.)
~
~
g
:;
;
.
II:
......
.
o
!
c
&
o
c:-
.q
-
~
..I
K:~1lI
~ I:IP
i - ~ li~
,:CO 11~
C
I-
-
m
-
%
><
W
8~
;;:
~.,.,
o
Wz
(1)0
0_
a.1-
Oct
a::z
a.CJ
-
a. (I)
::)W
00
a::W
CJ(I)
1-::)
1-0
Wz
a::c(
a::....
c(
CJ
.....
i d
.
lJ
.....
=
::I
~
......
S
~
aq
....
~
9
K:p!
>= 1~5l!
i~ll~ ·
m
I-
-
I .
><
W
8~
:;::
''''
o
5
iii
i~ .
o
o
.
.
.
BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA
CALIFORNIA INLAND EMPIRE COUNCil
1230 Indiana Court. Redlands, California 92374-2896
(909) 793-2463 or 825-8844 . FAX, 793-0306
6 November 2002
Mr. Gary Thornhill, Deputy City Manager
City of Temecula
Planning / Community Development Dept.
Po. Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
Attn: ML Dave Hogan, General Plan Update Manager
Re: City of Temecula General Plan / Zone Designation
Modification for 73 acre site located at the corner
Of Nicolas Rood and Via Lobo, Temecuta APN# 919,350-
017,018,019,020
Mr. Hogan,
This letter is a formal request to the Planning Department for the consideration of rezoning the above described property
fcom "Very Low Residential Density" (VL) to "Low Medium Residential" (LM) as part of the City's current review and
revision of the City's General Plan.
We believe that this density is compatible with the surrounding property and would be beneficial to both the City and
ourselves.
Please direct all communications, or any questions that you may have to:
. The California Inland Empire Council of the Boy Scouts of America
Attn: Donald Townsend
1230 Indiana Court
Redlands, CA 92374-2896
. Mr. Rob Partin, Correspondent
The Garrett Group, LLC
43592 Ridge Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
. Ronald BradleyJ Correspondent
30348 Via Canada
Temecula, CA 92592
909/693-0036
Thank you for your consideration of
~ndoutExeCUtive
request.
A program for Cub Scouts, Boy Scouts, Co-ed Vemures, and Co-ed Explorers
Supported by Friends of Scouting, Endowment Funds, and United Way
Remember Scouting in your will.
.
November 3, 2003
Dear Neighbor:
The Garrett Group, LLC, a locally based real estate investment management company
recently purchased a 73 acre property at Nicolas Road and Via Lobo. As result of the
recent fires in the Riverside/San Diego areas, we needed to reschedule our forum date.
Thus, we are cordially inviting you to participate in a discussion about our exciting plans
for the development of this property.
Community Forum: Planned Discussion
*** REVISED DATE ***
Monday November 17, 2003
6:00pm Reception - 6:30pm Meeting
Location:
Nicolas Valley Elementary School
Multipurpose Room
39600 N. General Kearny Road
Temecula, CA 92591
.
Our professional consultants will be on hand to discuss such issues as the land plan, open
space, traffic circulation, landscaping, and architecture. This first meeting will enable you
to tell us how you feel about our ideas. We encourage you to attend and invite you to
offer your opinions and suggestions. Your feedbackwill be incorporated into further
planning discussions with the city as we proceed through the development process.
This is the first step in our commitment to keep you informed of the details and status of
the process. To ensure that you remain informed there will be a registration point at the
meeting. Please RSVP by November 12, 2003 by calling Chris Allies at (909) 506-6556.
The Garrett Group is proud of its association with our neighbors in Temecula, and this
process represents our commitment to the city we all call home. We welcome your
involvement.
Very Truly Yours,
Robert Reynolds
Manager, Land Division
.
......l
.
.
.
July 28, 2004
Bob,
Please find outlined below a brief description of the discussion that took place a couple of
months ago at the General Plan Citizens Advisory Committee (CAe).
This is my best recollection of the discussion that took place during the review of the
Nicolas 73 project. City staff asked the Committee to review Nicolas 73 and make
recommendations for staff to forward to the Planning Commission and City Council.
After careful consideration by the CAC, a motion was made and seconded to approve
Nicolas 73 with a Planned Development Overlay (PDO). The project was approved with
the PD~.
Several points were made with regard to the project that played a key role in approving
Nicolas 73 and the PD~.
They are as follows:
I. In order to preserve the natural landscape of the project area, the PD~ suggested a
density of one-acre net with a 7,200 average lot size. This would allow the project
to make a smoother transition to the rolling hills of Meadow view and surrounding
development.
2. Precedent had already been set by a similar recommendation from the CAC for
future development in Chaparral Estates; east ofYnez Road. That
recommendation went forward with a similar PD~ of one-acre net lot size to
maintain the surrounding natural landscape.
3. Nicolas 73 would also make flood control improvements to the blank channel,
saving the City of Temecula approximately $25,000 to $30,000 a year in
maintenance costs.
4. The project is already bordered on three sides by much higher density residential
development and the CAC believed Nicolas 73 would provide the City with a
beneficial model for future development in Nicolas Valley east of Calle Medusa.
Especially with the encroaching development from the east, like Roripaugh Ranch
and others.
Later that evening, the CAC was presented with two or three additional considerations for
zone changes east of Calle Medusa. During that discussion, several CAC members felt
that since their decision could impact the future development and zoning for the entire
eastern portion of the Nicolas Valley, a town hall meeting should be scheduled to obtain
community input on what kind of development should be considered.
. .
"
There was general consensus to have this town hall meeting, since the CAC was
considering more substantial zoning changes for the whole Nicolas Valley. However, a
couple of CAC members also believed that Nicolas 73 should be included in that
discussion. .
.
Myself as well as several other CAC members disagreed with this viewpoint, because we
felt that Nicolas 73 was more of an "infill" project that already had high density
residential on three sides and Meadowview on its southern boundary. Myself and a few
other CAC members were concerned that the Committee was not comparing "apples to
apples" with Nicolas 73 and the rural Nicolas Valley. We were also concerned because
we had already approved Nicolas 73 with a PD~.
However, a motion was made and seconded to reverse our approval of Nicolas 73 and
combine all four projects for future consideration by the CAC after the town hall
meeting. The motion passed.
I hope this helps with your discussion with City Council members and staff. I would be
happy to discuss this with you and/or staff in more detail.
Sincerely,
Greg Morrison
Chairman, General Plan Citizens Advisory Committee
909-376-1318
.
.
b
M -lVIGi
MARKHAM DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT GROUP, INC.
January 8, 2004
.
Mr. David Hogan, Principal Planner
City of Temecula
43200 Business Park Drive
P,O, Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
Request for General Plan Designation Change
Jedediah Smith Road, adjacent to Temecula Creek
APN: 961-0 10-004
Rainbow/BLV #877.1
Dear Dave:
The subject property lies immediately south of the Temecula Creek Village (TCV) project
currently under construction.
Attached you will find the site constraint exhibit tlTat defines tlTe FEMA 100 year floodplain and
the jurisdiction areas for botlT tlTe Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) and tlTe California
Department ofFish and Game (CDFG).
The portion of tlTe subject property that we are requesting a land use change are outside of all
constraint areas.
.
Rainbow/BL V has negotiated a reciprocal ingress and egress easement for access and utility
. services. Consequently, we are requesting a change of tlTe land use designation to better reflect
tlTe unconstrained land use opportunities tlTat are available to the subject property,
The current land use designation of open space affords no economic use of tlTe subject property
whatsoever. WitlT tlTe construction oftlTe commercial and multifamily components of Temecula
Creek Village this property becomes a viable development site. The uses tlTat we would pursue
would be lower intensity uses in nature witlT minimal ground disturbance and would provide a
good buffer between TCV and tlTe truly constrained areas witlTin the floodplain, which have
recorded conservation easements within tlTe ACOE and CDFG areas.
Rainbow/BL V has always been cooperative witlT tlTe City of Temecula in seeking solutions to
City of Temecula ACOE and CDFG issues that have arisen in tlTe past.
~eIY~!---I/'--
7M~lli-
Cc: J. Heffernan, BLV, LLC.
C. Ewing, Peninsula Retail
41635 Enterprise Circle North, Surte B
. Temecula, CA 92590-5614
(909) 296-3466
Fax: (909) 296-3476
www.markhamdmg.com
.;
.-
-0
0-
~ ~.
CiEJ . .~0 .~
g I ;-<f
~ I I "I \
, \
\
@i)
~
"" !
v>
~:5
o-B
=a5
""~
=~
_0
eo!::
-~
r-
<->
~
v>
><
~ f
@?J :t J~
. J"
....'
.-
=
~
'"'
-'
;5'"
~~~
~~~
.:::l~
~:a;;;
~~l!
E~=
ii:"::ii
8~~
~,,~
!ill!;~
s;::.....
s~g
~~~
~>-.
:e~
~e~
~!!!l_
",!il~
;:~;::
.~
t '
.. ~
~
."
~~ ~
J! '0 !.i
9
"
...' .""
I
I
I 1
I i @ 5
\ I ~ ,
I I :
, I
, I
C.~~M
Q
..
}
~
.
~
~
~
,,~
~
'(D
,.,..,
s
~
j. ~ @
t
o
./
~ ~ ~~
c:::> a:> 0).....
c:::a::.::;ClOC1i~~~
~~~~:=~?i~
~nsnss
eg~d....t~~
~2i c..ooC3 .....
Tc.......~~~OD-
~~~.....r-ca:J:~
__~.r:::..~~-~
~_....,::;:ta:1~a
~S!~E!~~;;
~,
.
~
CiB
~
~
'"
.:. p"L"
r.il\ ~
~: :
.
~
@
.
~
~=
S8
- ,;.
1:;~
~~
~~
~~
'I
WESTFALL
. Construction Company, Inc.
24190 Washington Ave.
Murrieta, CA 92562
909-{j76-8272
P.O. Box 1550
Wildomar, CA 92595
909-{j39-6062 Fax
~~@~D\1J~~
W MAR 2 2 2004 ~
March 19,2004
By
City ofTemecula
Planning Depar\ment
PO Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
Attn: David Hogan, AICP
. kef: APN's 950-1'00-003 & 950-100-016
.
Dear Mr. Hogan,
I am writing on' behalf of the owner's of the above referenced parcels, Dan Atwood and Dirk
Westfall. They are requesting a General Plan Amendment and zone change to Community
Commercial (CO). Their parcels are on the Northwest corner of Margarita Road and Dartolo
Road. Presently both parcels are zoned Professional Office (PO). Across the street to the
south is the Arco Gas Station. Across Margarita Road to the east is a commercial mixed-use
project.
Considering that the properties located across both Margarita and Dartolo Roads are zoned
commercial and the fact that the city is in the process of performing a General Plan Update,
we ask that this request be given prompt attention.
Very truly yours
~~
Patrick E. Fay
WESTFALL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC.
Attachments:
Four (4 ea.) copies of Parcel Map page 950-10
Thomas Guide Map Page 979, Grid E2 with location ofPIQ
.
...;
.
,
,
,
..
"
"
~~
a-
.'
,
@
"';"0\) ."
~~~~~
t.oi ~ ~ ~l\)
~ ~~~~
~ vll\).........
I I ..... I ;~
\.li ...... I I\) vI
"'''' '
'" ~
'lJ
"'~
"
..
,
:". ~ :z :".~
"
, , ,,<:
, ~
~ ~.... to
" <i ~ I:l~
tl..l ~..tl. <,ij"'"
... C) '" '" '"
,
, ,
'"
);
'.
Cl
I l:::Ti;;::'1>
:'I~ :: ~
.
Lil
.
.
@
11(.:0""
..
.
t.
@
~o ~
~ ~
8<S4.4~
8#7. ~
~~
~--..
~
"
.
,.,_,.,9
.
~~~
~w...
~
~@~ Il\
:- ... a
'" .....
.
.
~ t:;\ ..
,VI '
; '"
... 681.45
~41.46
'i'l~
,
~
.~
.~~
..
'!'-"':::.
~
-,..,-
sf)!?'
i4-
-
&~
t .
,~~~ >c
,-r6.:.d
4::J1.
S~ ~
t ..
~
li~,d
l.
,.
~~~
. '"
- '"
~!'O ~
'& ~'.
..'" tS '"
. '
~
@
.
~ ~
.,~
-'
. .
.
. ...
,
.
.
.
.,
;
~\ . 1"~\
~@.. ~t \ 1! ",.11
" ' ,_"\ 7 ~
c... - .. '
. .)._ ,. ~ --If
<, z66." . ~-----.
,<. .~~_..-.;Q.?'.?If ~
\...------ . tfVV _ c.,,' .
\\
--
@
, 0
'" a .. ;;
~
~3~~
Ol; ~ .. "
,-
'-lO
.'
... -;;z.
" -
"
.
~
...
~~
~~
...~
~~
~.
~~
!i'
~~
~~
:::~
~
~
~
::\)
~~'tI
<;)f)~
<...'
r:rJ."l;:t)
() h
'i:'i~
~~~
::0<;)
I\)'i
~~.
~
~
h
~
..<.1)
:l:\:)
;, I
.."
\:)
'1
'"
>.
"
'i'
~
"
, ,
I
.
.
.
February 16,2005
City of Temecula
Planning Commission
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
REAL EST ATE TEMECULA
Patrick E. Fay
REALTOR@
31805 Highway 79 South #640
Temecula, CA 92592
951.676.8272 - 951.639.6062 Fax
pats re temecula@mac.com
Ref: Request to Change the General Plan Land Use Designate on property located on
Dartolo Road APN 959-080-012 and 013 (Request No. 11)
Dear Sir or Madam:
At the request of my clients, ATWOOD & WESTFALL DEVELOPMENT, the owners of the
above reference properties, we request the committee's approval for a change in zoning for
APN 959-080-012 and 959-080-013 from Professional Office (PO) to Community
Commercial (CC).
Very truly yours,
~~~
Patrick E. Fay
Real Estate Temecula
r-.;:"\
....~'
,.-'";'
.v""'-
.. -"
\'~;.
\,:,,-;
,
k'
tc::;r.:..
'. ,~;~~: ::r'
~ .~i ,.::~\
'; ..','i,,~;:;;:~~r ~.
, ,;. j "d"'>rJ~
,~. . ' . _" ~''';::,~\ ""'17
,""=":A' ~('rl;" Yt""":
~; :':' '~,.~}\' \)
, " ,," <I
:',,;., ~.
~\)~.
,~f~~~' , _
"
Coo''''
.0
;'0::
'\";,.::'
;:J!;
~~,: . .Y;$','~'-
~ffi~~
, "i:
r~~~~~\ . .
'(5:: ::..'
\i~,:'r~" :"',
~,..-.-: "
-:.-,;'
.'
'0"'C' .
-., :'>"
"
'. q.;:'
<:
r
ti:
~
.'
\:~/'
-',
,
f')'
~~ ~{"- :~',
~k'
......~
\-?
I,
:'-~. "
-' .~ :
'...V.".
\';'> >\'";;", ",,~~-"~",'..~:..~',. ....:.;,~','-',..;..;,:
L>:~~.~~"; ~ - .... ,""
;.~_,~'j_--:: >i~":-;u.
.
.
.
\3-
Lati~~n~~ ~;Engineering .
File: 716.00
April 21, 2004
Mr. David W. Hogan, Principal Planner
City of Temecula
Community Development Department - Planning Division
43200 Business Park Drive
P.O. Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
SUBJECT: General Plan Update - Request for Change to General Plan Land Use Plan for the
Temecula Creek Inn (see attached) located east ofl-15 and south of Highway 79
Dear Mr. Hogan:
Our firm represents JC Resorts, the owners and operators of the Temecula Creek Inn (TCI). We
are writing this letter on their behalf.
The purpose of this letter is twofold; I) to bring to your attention an "oversight" in the Draft
Proposed Land Use Policy Map (Figure LU-2) of the current General Plan update; and 2) to
make a formal request to the Planning Division to change the City of Temecula's General Plan
Land Use designation for the Temecula Creek Inn property during the current General Plan
Update.
Regarding the first item, it has come to our attention after reviewing the referenced map (Figure
LU-2) that the entire Temecula.Creek Inn project has mistakenly been designated as Open Space
(OS). As you are aware, the current General Plan recognizes the existing hotel and conference
facility and designates this area of the project as Highway Tourist Commercial (HT). We
assume since the hotel and conference facility continue to operate, at a minimum it should be
shown as HT and was merely a graphic error.
Regarding the second item, we would like to formally request a redesignation of the property
from HT and OS to a Specific Plan Area (SPA) in the current General Plan update. The SPA
designation would provide for a resort community incorporating an expanded hotel, timeshare
units, a conference/spa facility and single family residential uses. We believe there are several
logical reasons in support of said request, including but not limited to the following:
I. The existing General Plan designates the adjoining property to the south (APN 922-230-025;
922-230-026) as medium density (7-12 du's/ac) and neighborhood commercial (NC),
allowing approximately 700 total du's. It is our understanding that the current project
application for that property is 400 to 450 du's or :BOO du's less than allowed in the existing
General Plan. Additionally, although permitted by the current General Plan, no
J:\Job716OO\Hogan Letter.doc
4933 Paramount Drive, Second Floor. San Diego. CA 92123
(858) 751-0633 . Fax (858) 751-0634 . email:mailbox@latitude33.com
Mr. David W. Hogan, Principal Planner
April 21, 2004
Page 2
.
neighborhood commercial uses are proposed. Further, the adjoining property to the east
(Temecula Band of Luiseno Indians APN Nos. 918-180-005, 918-180-019, 918-180-020,
918-180-021 and 918-180-022) is currently designated for low-density residential. As you
are aware, this property will instead be developed as a golf course, rather than residential as
part of the Pachanga Casino project. TCl's total proposed single-family du's will be :t350,
substantially less than that already analyzed in the current General Plan for the adjoining
sites. Therefore, traffic impacts, etc., would already have been analyzed in the existing
General Plan and are less than anticipated, even with the additional dwelling units.
2. A large percentage of the trips resulting from an expansion ofTCI will be non-peak hours.
Customers using the golf, hotel, conference, spa and timeshare facilities will instead be
arriving and leaving the property at non-peak times when adequate traffic capacity exists.
3. The existing traffic congestion is primarily a result of the adjoining casino/hotel use, not TCI.
A solution, potentially involving a new interchange on 1-15 (eastern bypass) is far beyond the
ability ofTCI to solve alone. While TCI can assist in its pro-rata share of the improvements,
it is unreasonable to preclude our project from being able to pursue entitlements until the
larger, more complex traffic solution is solved.
4. Environmental review, addressing issues such as traffic, visual and noise impacts will be .
required when a specific project application is submitted for TCI. Designating the Temecula
Creek Inn now as a SPA for a resort community in the General Plan will not preclude this
future CEQA review process.
5. As part of the expanded project, we will participate in the realignment and improvement of
Rainbow Canyon Road, a much needed circulation road improvement.
6. Given the tremendous market competition for golf and hospitality in the area, it is critical that
TCI initiate the required City General Plan Amendment and entitlement process to reposition
the project as a true resort community now.
As you can see from the above justifications, the proposed change to the City's General Plan
Land Use designation from HT and OS to Specific Plan (describing a resort community)
represents a logical designation in the area and should be integrated into the General Plan update.
We would appreciate an opportunity to make a more detailed presentation at the next
Community Advisory Committee and to you and/or other staff. Lastly, it would be our desire to
submit a discretionary application to allow for the much needed expansion ofTCI into a true
resort community during the calendar 2004 year. We fully understand that we would be doing so
contingent upon approval of a SPA designation for our property as part of the General Plan
update.
.
\\LA TSERVl\OFFICEADMIN\lob 11600\Hogan Letter.do<:
.
.
.
Mr. David W. Hogan, Principal Planner
April 21, 2004
Page 3
We look forward to working with you and request that you keep us apprised of all discussions
and meetings pertaining to the City's General Plan update.
Sincerely,
Q Lo-S-J0;
Randi~rsmith
Principal
cc: Paul Reed, J.e. Resorts
Douglas Leiber, General Manager, TCI
\\LA TSERVJ\OFFtCEADMIN\1ob 716OO\Hogan Letter.doc
O~N
.. N
.. No
'. '. 9,.
'. ". gg.
." ~~
'. II) co co
0......
.' 9 en en
o ~ ~
co~N
";'09
. ...S('. .... ........ '. ; g g
'. 'IT',,~, ..' .' z ~ ~
a........
,,>,..' -. <C en en
........_,~
....... 'fj
~..V
..,......
'-
j~ri...............................................i................
. .. '-".- ',' "::. ......-
. ."> ...... .....~. i
.... . ..... '.... "'<>".<
'. . ..... .' ............. "',
...... .
.......
:. .,'
~..'. .
.
..
'., +.... ..
....... . .... ". "....
'. . J','~
~2iR....~"..
'i
'."
....yi;..
?''t.r;;.
""iii' ~ ~. . ....'-.'
.;..!.'././00L-. . '........,
ii.. ... ...... .../, ii'.. .
'-"':. ....._ ..2....;. I......'.
....... I...........
...>i:1{. ~
~2..S
~
1f~;(~fJ.."
............' ....
"~"
.... /+................>
. .'., ..... .........;.../.?...........-+f~' '-~"T
....-.~.. ==." '.' ......170. '. ....N .
< .'.....~"tL.. .i.~i6l.....~/.'/9i.. .
i@.,.;~""h':li~;....';>;~~~ !i. .
.. ~'i)li~"""~:i - ~ 0; Z ";';i"i;.;;," !)'
~ i'i'~:,.~, ""'c;.' ,~ii' iJr ..... '. . ,., ""'i~~
;.,k1 "0i"",,';:'J;<'I;..'.~ i;1 ~ :ll ~ _
,bZ-;"Y'iy '. 4'i~;.;;',~ 'i. i"',"., ;:; E ;: j :., lii!i"i.;2ivr'ci
i'.t;..\,. .;:;.";...; e 0 - ~ 1~.l;;i>.;~~...,...,................:.yi,..,.....
'./' ...~..;;~ 0 ;'..'i;;~ i~ h is
\, ,,/, · c · ~ Ul i
' 'i"">;'i .!! o.l!' o i.'
' Xii. '/,'i. 'ii. ~. Ii;'
'"
',,, .;0.
",' ....
J '':'. '. ....
~~c_.9J___, ,."
.21,:'.' ". 'I J b '. * '.
"lYJr/8 ,tm .' .
.....~.; I.,.....
/~ ." .... '.i...,.' 'I .
~~ ...,.I~.~....<.:"
: ~"L)'.:,.",
;.;
:....c
-
~.
""..,..
1 :--:'
....
Z
W
Z:E
~C
~Z
WW
w:E
5.
:5:5
=>c..
O..J
~~
Ww
....z
W
C)
,.€,
\..._ON
~Z..l-
.
.
.
File: 716.00
May 14, 2004
Selected Lanl!:ual!e to Insert into the
General Plan Update for the Temecula Creek Inn
. The approximately 300-acre property is proposed for a Resort Community (RC) designation.
The existing hotel/golf course development is anticipated to be expanded into a full Resort
Community with uses to include 18 holes of golf, additional hotel rooms, fractional
ownership units, a day spa, an event/meeting facility and single-faIllily detached dwelling
units.
A Specific Plan shall be prepared which addresses the realignment of Rainbow Canyon
Road, the potential for an "easterly bypass" from 1-15 and the comprehensive design of a
300-acre Resort Community.
"'."",",.",~n,.."nd Seltimzs\bnuJ.1wn\Loclll Sdtings\TanponJ)' Intcm:t Files\ContcnUES~TOKZITBL\TCJ Project Description-doc
13-2
.
.
.
July 30, 2004
City of Temecula
43200 Business Park Drive
P.O. Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
SUBJECT: General Plan Update - Request for Change to General Plan Land Use Plan
for the Temecula Creek Inn located east ofI-15 and south of Highway 79
To Whom It May Concern:
On behalf of JC Resorts we are requesting an inclusion to the City of Temecula General
Plan Update. In the past few months we have coordinated with the City of Temecula's
Planning Staff to modify the current Draft General Plan as it relates to the Temecula
Creek Inn project. The site is located at the southern portion of the City of Temecula and
includes Assessor's Parcel Numbers 922-220-002, 922-220-003, 922-220-008, 922-220-
031,922-230-002,922-230-003,922-230-004,922-230-007, and 922-230-008. We are
providing this letter to request that the below suggestions be incorporated in the
City of Temecula General Plan Update. We have reviewed the June 2004 Draft
General Plan in detail and we offer our suggestions to specifically address the Temecula
Creek Inn project site.
.
In the cUrrent Draft General Plan, the site has been changed to a land use designation of
Open Space with a Recreational Commercial Overlay from Highway Tourist. After
reviewing the Draft General Plan, it appears that this Overlay is the only area in the
City of Temecula that has this designation. The site presently includes an approximate
300-acre resort golf coUrse with 129 hotel rooms, a restaurant, and conference facility. As
you are aware, JC Resorts is requesting to have a Specific Plan Overlay on the subject
site to provide additional facilities that will enhance the site as a Resort Community,
similar to the resort communities in the Coachella Valley such as La Quinta, Palm Desert,
and Rancho Mirage. In order to achieve a "diverse, high quality land use," as desired in
the current General Plan, various sections, both text and maps, need to be updated. We
have provided a summary of the various sections in the Draft General Plan that apply to
the Temecula Creek Inn Resort project.
1. Figure LU-2 Proposed Land Use Policy Map: The plan currently shows the
project site as Open Space (green) with a RC-Recreation Commercial Overlay
(stripes). Please refer to number 2for suggested modifications.
.
JC RESORTS
r .
533 COAST BOULEVARD SOUTH LA JOLLA. CALIFORNIA 92037 . 858.454.9793 FAX 856.459.6758
.
.
.
City of Temecula
July 30, 2004
Page Two
2. Page LV-21 RC- Recreation Commercial Overlay Text describing the allowed
uses: Change the text to read, "permitted uses include conunercial recreation,
conference centers, golf courses, clubhouses, hotels, resorts, fractional ownership
units, restaurants, parks, (eliminate camp grounds), open spaces, conununity
facilities, and residential uses.
3. Table LV-3 Development Capacity: Include the Temecula Creek Inn proposed 1.2
dwelling unit per gross acre capacity in the Development Capacity Table.
4. Figure LV-3 Specific Plan Areas: Add a new Specific Plan Area designation for
Temecula Creek Inn Resort and provide the following language, "To achieve a
Resort Conununity including a golf course, additional hotel rooms, fractional
ownership units, a day spa, ballrooms, and single family detached dwelling units not
to exceed 1.2 dwelling units per gross acre."
5. Table LV-7 Rural Preservation Areas: Add text to number 4 (Rainbow Canyon
and Great Oak Ranch) to read, "Preserve the hillsides in the southern portion for the
Planning Area and prevent residential encroachment upon BLM preservation areas
by promoting Hillside, Rural, Very Low or Low Density residential development,
and conserving a significant portion of the area as open space (does not applv to
those portions within the Temecula Creek Inn Resort proiect site)."
6. Preserving Rural Areas (pg. LV-41): Add to text to read "...Nicolas Valley, the
winery and agricultural properties east ofTemecula , Anza Road at SR-79 South,
and the Rainbow Canyon and Great Oak Ranch areas (does not applv to the
Temecula Creek Inn Resort Droiect)."
We believe the above mentioned suggestions will provide substantial benefits to the
Temecula community and will allow the expansion of the Temecula Creek Inn to occur
and create a Resort Community. We look forward to working with the City of Temecula
to move forward with the General Plan Amendment.
If further information is needed, please contact me at (858) 454-9793.
Sincerely yours,
QJ~
Paul L. Reed
President
.
THE TEMECULA CREEK INN AND RESORT COMMUNITY
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
To Whom It May Concern:
In response to a changing market, the Temecula Creek Inn is embarking on a program to
reposition itself into a true RESORT COMMUNITY. As a result of said improvements,
the Temecula Creek Inn will expand the number of hotel rooms from 129 to 225 and add
a significant conference/meeting area and a day spa facility. Similar to other Resort
Communities, the Temecula Creek Inn will also include timeshare units and upscale
single family homes. These improvements will significantly increase the TOT revenues
to the city and include the participation in the much needed road improvements to
Rainbow Canyon Road.
In support ofthis repositioning effort, we believe it is fundamental that the current
General Plan update program designate the property as a Specific Plan (SPA 1.2 du/acre).
The SPA designation would provide for a resort community incorporating an expanded
hotel, timeshare units, a conference facility, spa and single family homes at a density not
to exceed 1.2 du's/gross acre ofthe property. As part ofthis request, we have included
the following items for your review:
.
· A conceptual Development Plan indicating the location ofthe various land uses
within the proposed expansion.
· A copy of a letter to Mr. Davis Hogan, Principal Planner, requesting a change to
the General Plan Land Use Plan to SPA 1.2 du/ac.
· Draft language to include the General Plan update to accommodate the
repositioning of the property into a RESORT COMMUNITY.
. A Draft General Plan Land Use Exhibit
We look forward to working with you on the upcoming effort.
Sincerely yours,
Paul L. Reed
President
.
Je RESORTS
.
533 COAST BOULEVARD SOUTH. LA JOLLA, CALIFORNIA 92037 . 858.454.9793 FAX 858.459.6758
.
.
.
1'5-3
ALHADEFF & SOLAR, LLP
41607 MARGARITA ROAD, SUITE 103
TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA 92591-2984
MAIN TELEPHONE: (951) 719-3640
FACSIMILE: (951) 719-3650
Offices in San Diego and Temecula, California
November 17, 2004
SAMUEL C. ALHAOEFF
SAlHADEFF@A-SLAW.COM
10435.001
HAND DELIVERED - NOVEMBER 17,2004
Mr. Shawn Nelson
City Manager
City of Temecular
43200 Business Park Drive
. Temecula, CA 92589-9033
Ms. Debbie Ubnoske
Planning Manager
City of Temecula
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula. California 92590
Re: Temecula Creek Inn Hotel Expansion PA98-0309
Dear Mr. Nelson & Ms. Ubnoske:
Bill Curley had the opportunity to review our letter of August 9, 2004 in which we
provided an analysis which concluded that placing a Specific Plan Overlay on the Temecula
Creek Inn property would not create a vested right for the development of the Temecula Creek
Inn property. Bill confirmed, via e-mail dated October 30,2004 his understanding of our
analysis, and further stated that neither he nor Debbie have any difficulty with the concept that
an overlay will not create a vested right. We appreciate their taking the time to review this
matter with us.
Given that understanding we believe it is appropriate to proceed with our suggested
Specific Plan Overlay.
In summary, the new Temecula General Plan would provide for a designation that the
Temecula Creek Inn property be treated as a "Future Specific Plan Area," and would further
change the Recreation-Commercial Overlay text to more accurately described the "Potential For
Further Project." In addition, the text would provide that all future development would, of
S:\Oata From Sherry\Clients\Temecula Creek Inn\Nelson Ubnoske Letter 11.16.04.doc
ALHADEFF & SOLAR, LLP
Shawn Nelson
Debbie Ubnoske
November 17,2004
Page 2
course, be subject to full discretionary review and approvals, technical studies and the
appropriate CEQA process.
For your convenient reference, attached is a copy of our August 9 letter and Bill's
October 30 e-mail. We have also attached some suggested text and graphics which we believe
should be included within the General Plan Updates and which accurately reflect the proposed
"Future Specific Plan Overlay".
Thank you so much for working with us.
SinelY,
/
II'------
Samuel C. Alhadeff, of'").
Alhadeff & Solar, LLP
SCA:sld
Enclosures
cc: Temecula Mayor and City Council
Temecula Planning Commissioners
Doug Leiber
Paul Reed
Randi Coopersmith
Larry Markham
.
.
.
.
.
.
13
ALHADEFF & SOLAR, LLP
41607 MARGARITA ROAD, SUITE 103
TEMECULA, CAliFORNIA 92591~29B4
MAIN TELEPHONE: (951) 719-3640
FACSIMILE: (951) 719-3650
Offices in San Diego and Temecula, California
August 9, 2004
SAMUEL C. ALHADEFF
SALHADEFFra>A-SLAW.COM
10435.001
Peter Thorson, Esq.
Richards Watson & Gershon
355 South Grand Avenue
40th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071-3101
Re: Temecula Creek Inn Hotel Expansion PA98-0309
Dear Peter:
As you will note, my office has moved and we have changed our address, fax and phone
number. We still are not up yet with the internet, so hopefully by the end of this week we will
have email. Just returning from vacation and participating in a move was exciting to say the
least.
The purpose of this letter is to discuss the language for an overlay in the proposed
revisions to the Temecula General Plan.
The language we suggest and I believe Dave Hogan is comfortable with is as follows:
"The Recreational and Commercial Overlay designation may be applied to
properties designated for Open Space use. This designation provides for
operation and development of resort or amusement oriented commercial and recreational
use of regional interest that draw visitors from throughout the
City and region. Permitted uses include commercial recreation, conference
centers, golf courses, clubhouses, hotels, resorts, restaurants, parks, camp
grounds, open spaces and community facilities. Restaurants, hotels, and
resort uses are accessory to the underlying open space uses."
I think there is some concern by various representatives of the staff that our client, the
Temecula Creek Inn, may be receiving "vested rights" as a result of this proposed overlay
language. We have specifically reviewed the issue of whether the adoption by the City of
Temecula of a General Plan Update that included a Recreation and Commercial Overlay would
give our client any vested rights. We do not believe that any vested rights would be received by
our client based simply on the overlay. The only right we would receive is the right to have the
City approve or disapprove a subsequent development application according to the ordinances,
policies and standards in effect at the date the City determines the application is complete,
S:\Data From Sherry\Clients\Temecu(a Creek tnn\Thorson Letter 08.09.04.doc
ALHADEFF & SOLAR, LLP
Mr. Peter Thorson
August 9,2004
Page 2
.
pursuant to Goverrunent Code Section 65943. This procedure is provided for in Section 66474.2
of the Goverrunent Code. For your convenience I have attached a copy of that particular section.
As you know better than anyone, the A VCO Section, decided in 1976, clearly states the
rules applicable in this kind of a situation. Under A VCO a property owner has a vested right
under common law to develop only if the property O~TIer has obtained a building permit for an
identifiable viable building and has expended a substantial sum in reliance on that permit.
Goverrunent Code Section 66474.2(a) gives the property owner the right to request the
City consider their development application under the then existing land use regulations, but
does not give the property owner the right to require the City approve that application. We.
believe that Goverrunent Code Section 6647 4.2(b) is also instructive with regard to this
particular situation.
Accordingly, it does not appear that the City's adoption of the General Plan Update that
includes this proposed Recreation and Commercial Overlay would bestow any vested rights on
our client, other than a procedural right to have the development application approved or
disapproved under the General Plan Updates and Recreation and Commercial Overlay as
provided for in Goverrunent Code Section 66474.2. .
As I indicated, this letter is to give you this information as you are working with staff and
. there is a hearing tomorrow evening on the General Plan. We wanted to make certain that we
had your consensus with these thoughts regarding this matter.
If we had a consensus we believe staff would feel more comfortable in working with us
on the Overlay. Again, as I indicated, Mr. Hogan feels that he could work with the proposed
language. We simply need to make sure that staff understands we are not trying to "over reach"
on this matter. Peter, I would like to just briefly discus this question with you on the telephone
so that if any Commissioner or Councilmember asks you about this issue you would be
comfortable with the thoughts expressed in this letter.
Thank you again. Best regards. I am looking forward to seeing you tomorrow evening.
Sincerely,
Se!- ~~
Samuel C. Alhadeff, of
Alhadeff & Solar, LLP
SCA:sld
Enclosure as noted
cc: Mr. Larry Markham (with enclosure)
.
.
.
.
Recreation Commercial Overlay (Text and Exhibit)
Change text to read "permitted uses include Commercial Recreation, conference centers, golf
courses, clubhouses, hotels, resort, fractional ownership units, restaurants, parks, open spaces,
community facilities and residential uses.
C:\Documents and Senings\sall1adeft\Local Setriogs\Temporary lnlernet Files\OLKBlIRecreation Commercial Overlay Text Changes_doc
~
"
"
..
<(
c
.., "
, 0::
::;>
...J "
'"
'" '"
...J "
= 0.
<( '"
.... "
"
;.
0
..
0.
0.
<(
~ <r
r-
" <r
..
"
~
~
"
~
::>
."
c
"
..J
c
" (/]
0:: 0
e 0::
"
c :2
"
0 ...J
~
.~
."
"
t
0
0.
0.
0
0/)
c
'V;
"
0
~ .e
" ~
;.
t; :~
"
B "
0 "
~ "
c "
.2 :s
'5. ;.
.;: 0
..
" 0.
~
" 0
Q ,...
" ^c
'" "C ._
0 '- gu
r:G 0 r:G "
" ~ .e
~ " ~
NlU""Oto-
C ~ I.., 0
c <..eo.....
~t::>~
.2 o 0 <I.) It)
'iii 'in c~.e
u " 1:16-=
0 ~ a:2 0
..J ~
c
'"
a:
"
~
"
"
0- :;:
C/l
"C c
"'.
'5. '"
0/)
0 ..
"C 0
< ::;:
M
:J
...J
00 M
0;: -
M
.!O ""
<l
.D
"
...J
~
"
"
..
<(
..,. c
, "
::;>0::
...J
'"
...J
=
<(
....
~
"
..
"
~
-
~
'"
~
::>
"
c
"
..J
c
"
a:
..
..
'"
c
'"
o
-
u
'"
'"
..
0-
'"
..
..
"
:;
'"'
~
"
.~
"
'"
B
o
~
c
.2
'5.
.;:
"
~
"
Q
-
c
.2
'iii
u
o
...J
-
"
'"
a:
u
'"
'1l
"
0.
'"
~
"
:;
'"
-"
"
c
"
"
'"
.5
'"
<r
'"
<r
'"
'"
M
u
u
:2
::;:
..J
r/)
o
:2
::;:
..J
u^
U
c5
0..
U
r:G
f-:
:t
:2
..J
<If
o
'- "
o " ~
vi In C .8 v>-,.t:::
ttl 11) 0.0 <Il ttl c::::
~ ~ _ 0 .~ ~ ~:3 -0 ::l
_.__ t:; a1.o -0 .~ 0 -= ~ 8 ttl~ gf
'" .~ 0 0 ...... .'" <I.) '+-< en._
U 0"5 >~.oo: o-g:;j C U O'~::::
E~~~~~]~'~~~~~ ~~~~
Q) E <I) E "'0 d) r/l E t:: e;; >.. ""O.~ 0.0..... "0 C'\S
'2ou.~o8~g~ooo..~~ttl_ ~~~cno~
" 8 rO...."'Oo. ::::~u .....:;.......
>-0 ~~~ttl.~oa.o.-- 2c~b
(/] g a "2 c. -.= ~.~ ~ (U.::.o'~ g.'~ g:: ';) ;:
UU c::::ECl..,l..,o.o::l~c.ee ._o""O~
~ ~:g ~ 8 ~ b ~ .5 .[""0 g ~ ~ ~ ~ B ;
~'~5~~~'~o~::l~U~::l "a.9g"E
Es.::9b:9~tf!2;g.M~ <Ilb ::l-~::l
oBiGo<U-;;v...I-.-.....E-oVl~ eg,,..,,
"'0 C I-. .~ o.'u - 0 5 ~ C 01) 0 11) E tl:: ~.s
.~~_r~el..,~O<llo.~egl.., 0.:_::::
11) ..... c:..... <1) C 0 u 0. "t:::l u~,....
~o--~8E.~o~~doo~ e'~~
og~e..eEB8~~~v,oom~g~"o
.~ - _ o..-=: 0.... (1) a c > ~ E ca en I... ttl N
~.~<IlE~uc~->o~.-l..,eu~ .
c ctl ~ 0 2l 1:: 8 .~:g""O 15"'- ~.,g ttl a:: 0 cnr_
rl0, ~ ~ ~~.csaJ ~i ~ ~.~ ~i ~ ~ ~]
~~.~~~~. o-~~~c-.gc-~
::3 ::.. ..c: 0 ~ 0""0 u -0 c.. S ::::l 'C t) -C; .g ca (1)
o~u-aJ(1)saJ-~co<1)aJu-~8
t: = ro (1) ~'~'-.D ::3 0 4) t: tf: - ('l;J:a c:f.....
roo~EeE ]u.-:::l:::l~o"Oo.o
~3~""Oo~=B~.5~~~~~~~c
~
"
0..
C-
o/)
"
'V;
"
o
.e
"
"
'"
'"
"
:s
;.
o
..
0-
o
I--
"C
"
ti~
.. "
" 0/)
E '"
o Cii..J:::
U :;
_"C 0
u:l"i) Cf}
~'to\
.e"r-
tt:"
o " "
ZCil",
..!!
'1";' B '2
-(1) .=
,,8 -'"
Z! 4) 11.)
u:l~~ 11.)
L.. 4) -'u"
" .e '"
.5 - ~ ro
r.o~""5
o..c:~~
~ t ou E
'" 0 ~ 4)
wZUI--
~
:;.e
,.~.:2 '"0 "'0
V~ '"0 c: '"
0\ 4) ro 0
r-""C-oCr::
~~gs
Cf} c ~'C
~~~bh
,,~ ..
..9 o'E '"
<.DC/l::;:
>
'"
~
<
c
'"
a:
"
""
'1l
"
0.
r/)
N
N
'"
"
.:;:
"
'"
a:
"
,-
-
'u
"
0.
r/)
N
'"
"
..
-<
"
'"
a:
u
""
'"
"
0-
r/)
M
:J
..J
00
0;:
.5
N
N
N
<l
.D
'"
..J
'->
o
"
..
"
~
.
.
.
~
.
:0
'"
.
~
.
~
.
~
~
.
,
&
5
"
~
~
~
~
"
~
~
~
!
-'
<-
;
J
;:.;
~
ij
~
,
o
~
I
i.
"
~
~
o
.
~
~
"
i
I'" /':r--'--~,',"J I
II," ~,f, ,
I r .Y,," "
, I
;, :' I
I"~ . :":,- r I'
-'\'1' . .......'un,', '
I. ...,,1..._ H._'
1 '" ;:' '~':> ...' _,' ~ lj j
..,.:,'~~":':_,, -"
T'
I
/
/
i
,
f
~"~~;:~"~)'~l'~:::-':;::~::::~."l--'
5p..;-clfic Pi':l~l. I\"t'(~a:; I
______'___'_~".,,-- I
:'1 CIn 0-" Ti;~.,I["Cl/, !/. -GE,":eu~t I>L4.:\' \ ~ --.:i---'~-
~~PP'''~YIo'~1 ::'l,1(-C'f:,~ }",>:-; : I 1:
I ~....; p.'J..;>.,....;:.I\",'.,. \.,~'" I J
I', ~.. ~ .",d,~. ;'_~IJ..I1,"!-. ,1-1-'. --...- ,"I' c",'Iy]"'''~''
~,' 1 ...~",:~J1I~'i'~..~1': ~ ro ...""....
:.," -l f',!,'I'.,"f';",-.[.,..., ;._.,' )f1"euwJ} IntltH.'
,\';~ ,""" ,'""" II, ,- L,____" '''r''''t;'
'>''''''-,1 'it..;,., 1
s". >"'~' .~., k~~~~.'.; :O!.
:';'. r, ~\-,.".~,!,: ,.','I.,~... .' Ole! ."". . ..~.~-
'oj." ,', r':"'ln.l','"
.1~' \ .,., ~ ~." I;
,,1. ',;.\; \-', '.:' (,~..~
I""',' """'-"'"
~
~
\
il
II ~",. '_'~""" \",'::'" \ ,.;,,~.,
N.:,'",,,,,,,,,''''
~ ;:;Jil~\ ''': $!=l?C;;-:'; rl:l;"
i--?".~~i--.__.-
, f
I.
___L_!.-=.~.=:t~.~_.
C,,"wlyll'f
1?;....n~h,
r.~,,, .~"___
{ lI---
i,
i
~('..i"-.........,\.
. \...
,....
J<...-
:',;:-1 ~ ;;,,,,,,~,:...", 10:_.;><:1.
." -t T ~""..,,;I.,..., ~t~ \ di,....
"i.":' ~ ~:_,'-,nf' p",.L', -
Ir '->,' i)-.I'''' \',:!..,\~
. ,~,\ f..,;,:i".,b-':" ,,,L.
~ :'1 J ',:'.,;,,'h.:~"', f'.r.j-, -"';; ''''',,',l-.n;
: ~~:~ ~~;,',:,~'6~Lr."
. ~;>... \".,...;,,-,1,., 'I:C;:
/"--Cj~.?f ')'
. MJ,JItIt.y'
~~,~
I
i
L.
1"'---"
..,_._._~._____..._J
_..--,....:>:".:;~~_..,..
i
!
I
-'--="-j
'.,/
~~ .'
",I"
"
"'J
.
"
},....~
-
.,.\....
"
i '1
..!
r '"
i
i -
I j
.-
,
"
f- .\
t l'
.:/~:~-""'.'"::!.!
j.,
,\
4
.J...:~~=:t.
"
:~
~
.'~
,
} zz
; TEMECULA CREEK
INN & RESORT
\
f'-----------'-- , -------,-
j
1 -;r.~'~'" t.'I")I.,..",,.lk-.'.-I.,,,
\- ~;":':.:.~~":~;:;~~~~-~:.~.~;~:': ~'::...~
~ : '''''', "h ':" '.' l'. .,-"..: "',
.
.-:~...
" ,L~h~l
" t--...... ~:
.{iL'"
R~ j=1~.C2 __ _._3i~:~~~:
:-=i..~:.T:3.~~J:::.~=:~~:..~ r,l:j.:s
-....................
i ': C' , " ;' \'\ L C I 1 !\ E N
r I " l__~ ., '_.i ,
i.U'31
!.
11
/\
,
,--,
j
. -.,J'-"~
('_.1 ....__fl
,., J ~
/'.J
tfii
~j'i...\..
. \',",~
(.I ......S'.~."'\l'....:
, '
.~!
-"
i
r/J
i
I
I
.i
---,,- I
,
I
I
I
.'i
,1
, ,
,
i
J
I
"'~'1
f
--,
L ;\
~-r-~.
~/~}~~$~
-',-{"f.'>,'
~.';":-.::-\~.~!:.:.',::~0
.t.
,\
.I \
, ,
'"
, ,
[)
It
,J
i...
I....
L:
t...j
i
__ _ __L_ ._._ .1.._...._....__.
'i . P-.~!J .
~1' ~...,:tlS".
\". G -?: "'ii' "" ?,
\/~ ~ Ii, l.. j f, ~,~ l ~r-;~
(''4....J d
. '"
;:) "'0 ~
I ..... l~
N -a;.'- '
.~! j ~ ~ ~~II~IH[~]~11 ~II~II;I illlll~l~~I>i 'i I J;
-"_.._.___.....___...._........... _..___. .____._._.._._lllJ___..
I
-j
'-~,._""
.
.
.
.
.
.
/3-5
ALHADEFF & SOLAR, LLP
41607 MARGARITA ROAD, SUITE 103
TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA 92591-2984
MAIN TELEPHONE: (951) 719-3640
FACSIMILE: (951) 719-3650
B I
y ----==J
Offices in San Diego and Temecula, California
January 31,2005
SAMUEL C. ALHADEFF
SALHAOEFFIalA-SlAW.COM
10435.001
HAND DELIVERED
Planning Commissioners
City ofTemecula
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
Re: Temecula Creek Inn - General Plan Update February 2, 2005
Dear Commissioner:
We represent J.c. Resorts, the owners and operators of the Temecula Creek Inn (TCI).
We are writing this letter on their behalf.
The purpose of this letter is to make a formal request to the Planning Commission that at
your February 2,2005 hearing, you amend the City of Temecula's General Plan Land Use
Designation for the Temecula Creek Inn property.
We know you are aware, the Temecula Creek Inn isand has been an important partner
with the City ofTemecula for many years. TCI wants to continue to grow with the City and
reposition itself into a true Resort Community, similar to those in the Palm Springs, Palm Desert
and Rancho Mirage areas. In response to a changing market, TCI would like to propose a full
service resort facility with a spa, golf, hotel, fractional ownership, dining and residential living.
This resort community would result in increased hotel TOT revenues to the City, an improved
golf course quality and experience, improve safety of Rainbow Canyon Road and maintain a
high-quality project which reflects the Temecula community character.
In order to accomplish our goal of a Resort Community, we would like to formally
request a re-designation of the property from HT (Highway Tourist Commercial) and OS
(open space) to a Specific Plan area (SPA 1.2 du/ac) as part of the current General Plan
update. The SPA designation would provide for a resort community incorporating an expanded
hotel, fractional ownership units, a new conference/spa facility and single-family residential uses
at a maximum density of 1.2 dwelling units/gross project area.
S:\Data From Sherry\Clients\Temecula Creek Inn\Commissioner letter] .31.05.doc
ALHADEFF & SOLAR, LLP
Planning Commissioners
January 31,2005
Page 2
.
We would additionally request that a change to the Recreation Commercial Overlay
text be made to more accurately describe the opportunity for the potential for a future
project. We also believe our request reflects comments made and direction given by the City
Council, Planning Commission and CAC at the August 10,2004 Joint General Plan meeting.
For your convenience and use we have attached both text and graphics which we believe
accurately reflect our request to create a true Resort Community.
We look forward to working with you and fully understand that placing a Specific Plan
Overlay on the Temecula Creek Inn property would not create a vested right for development
and would require both future environmental review and discretionary approvals.
Thank you in advance. We are looking forward to working with you on this exciting
opportunity, one which benefits both the citizens of Temecula and the Temecula Creek Inn.
Sincerely,
0>1 .., /}.} ;j. _,J ," -';; .d.;/
/'(..., '-",'! i' (I 'I( f/.I t/t : ..x-~('....,
:.j~v)/l. -d._/___::' ._Y''';':' ---'l> l
Samuel C. Alhadeff, of/,"
Alhadeff & Solar, LLP
.
SCA:sdb
Enclosures
cc: Mr. Gary Thornhill, Deputy City Manager (w/encls.)
Ms. Debbie Ubnoske, Director of Planning (w/encls.)
Mr. Dave Hogan, Principal Planner (w/encls.)
Paul Reed, JC Resorts (w/o encls.)
Douglas Leiber, Temecula Creek Inn (w/o encls.)
Randi Coopersmith, Latitude 33 (w/o encls.)
Larry Markham (w/encls.)
.
.
.
.
Recreation Commercial Overlay (Pg LU-21) (Text and Exhibit)
J:\Job716OO\Recreation Conunacial Overlay Text Changes_doc
RC-RECREATION COMMERCIAL OVERLAY
Intensity Range:
Target Intensity:
Varies
N/A
The Recreation Commercial Overlay designation may
be applied to properties designated for Open Space
use or to Specific Plan areas. This designation
provides for operation and development of resort
communities or amusement oriented commercial and
recreational uses of regional interest that draw
visitors from throughout the City and region.
Permitted uses include commercial recreation,
conference centers, golf courses, clubhouses, hotels,
resorts, fractional ownership units. restaurants, parks,
camp grounds, opens spaces, ftftd-community
facilities and residential uses. Re'ta"rant', hmeh,
and re,,,a ",e, III e ace.::""IY r<> the tInderl) in1\ "pen
3pae:.[ tl3t:3.
~
"
..
..
<
'"
.., "
~ii:
~~
~ 'y
..l ..
=0.
<'"
I-o-g
>-
o
..
0.
0.
<
~ "
r-
" "
~
<.>
-<
~
"
~
;::J
'"
'"
OS
-l
'"
OS '"
c:: 0
OJ c::
~
"
'" :i
"
(;) -l
~
:1
0
0.
0.
0
00
.5
~
::l
0
~ ..c:
" OJ
.:: "
u .,8
"
:E' '6
~ ~
"
.2 '"
C. .;;
.;: 0
~
<.> 0.
~
" 0
0 1-0
'" -c:f.E
" ~U
0 ....
'" 0 '" "
- ..c:
~ VI v....
~v"Ol+-o
~ ~ 0
" -
" ....'€> ~
0 os
.~ 00" "
1;; " -..c:
" -
<.> ,,'" o ::l
0 ~ ;j::E 0
-l ~
;j
c::
<.>
""
'0
"
a. X
CIl
"" "
"
c. gj,
0 ~
'" 0
-< ::E
M
;:)
-l
oil M
0;: -
M
.5 ..
"il
.c
os
-l
~
"
"
...
<
" "
, "
;J-
..l""
~~
..l'-
= ~
<0.
1-0'"
..
...
::l
:;
l>.
~
"
~
u
-<
f--
~
"
::J
'"
"
os
-l
;j
c::
e
"
"
"
(;)
f--
~
"
.::
u
"
:E'
~
.2
C.
.;:
u
~
"
o
-
"
o
.~
u
o
-l
-
;j
c::
u
""
'0
"
0.
'"
"
i!
::l
""
-
<::>
"
<::>
"
u
u
:i
:i
-l
CIl
o
:i
:i
-l
U
U
cS
c..
.... '"
~ 0 ~ B
<<I ~ 0.0
VI u .... 'u) J1 ?--
u ~ a ~ u 0 ~ a
~ - >( u.D "0 .~ 0 _ ~
blJ .~ u "g 'E ~ ] ~ ~"O ~ ~
.5 ii ~ j>-. u ~ ~ ...... ~:€.g g
gi:~-oB;~~3~..2~:e~
oX: '2 0 ~ ~ a (,,) "C c: 0 e c -g 0
""0 u (,,) 's- S" _r j 5 .g c.. en == o"€
c > '"0 ...., ..... ..... c.. C ..Q .= .-
Cd C "'0 -;::: '_~'Vi Ill" :G 0 00''= ~ J::::
Vl g Cd U s- V I- v..... to C'" en
"u ~ C ~.~ ~ ~ ~ ~ e
~ .c -.os_ 0 v >. 0 0.0 C"..... S -
::s .... (,,) "'0 _ .... c._"O ...... 0
3 'i 5 c.. ~ .~ 'F: ~ ] 3 V 0 cu;g
"''''0 ;>...0 I- @ ;;e ;::S Q) -:5 U e l-
e 1-0._ _..... r'" +::; o..c:: 0 . VI 0
cuB~u1ii~~""I:::__'E"'O ...
""0 C I- .:: c.'u - 0 :3 tp.,.5 Q) 0 ~
'Uj 8 2f VI e I- ~ C) II) 0 Q) E 0 3
e u.5..c:E 8 o~'<n 6-5 ~~ g.~ a
.... 00-" 0'- os Q.-.c
o ,;g.s ~;S ... g ~ c Vl U..c: s" .;
.~ :-: - 0..''''' 0 .... ... u aJ C > Oil tU
S > ~ E ~ 0 C::...c; - :> Q.J -8'0 .... e
C'I:l''''' 0 on t:: 8 OJ)..c"O o,to... C u as
Cd ('OS (,,) C 0 to 'OJ ',g to 0 0 -S 11)
" 005 ~ 0 U o.:.o-..c: 0.. 0 u C gf 0 ~
:g. ~ > E go tU C E ~ ~ 0''''' tJi)..s::
> "'C ~ 11) 0.. VI VI''''' 0 ... ........."0 S -
2 3 i:t :.s 0 u 0 11 (,,)"'tj oe- 19 5 'I- t)
....0,.:.:: "'i)uU....IU-::: couo
- l: os > ''='"1'-.0 - 0 0,) ~ "" -
o:itUOoEBE 00__ ~o
f-o en ~ f-o "'CJ 0 c.. :.::: B ~.5 6 en.o 5.
'"
os
~~ ..d'
.....0,) ::;..c
ll) bI) ~'~"'O"'O
~S..c::0\-g8~
u(/')"'r;--g"'OcG
...:251X-.t'jt'j
~~{I')(/')c~.~
~ ..... 0\ o.o:::..c:: ~
t: ~ r- " "'." ~
O::i"O.2::;~tO
:z.co;j-<~~::E
>-
os
~
;j
a::
u
'"
'0
"
0.
CIl
N
os
"
-<
;j
c::
<.>
""
'0
"
0.
VJ
"
M <.>
::J 5
-l .g
ob .5
0;:
.5
'0>-
"
"ii t
j !~
N
N
<::>
M
u
'"
.:
:r:
:i
-l
. ~
ll) >..~
~ {l 3
OOSbll
u . C
'- V).-
-0 _t=:=:
003~~
t'j p. "'0 u
bI)'-""O cu
c..c Q) en
.- ~..c en
-g a.> u e
u ~ ~ ~
.5 0"'0 ~
~- ~.....
o~~ 2
'2 _9: E-2
:::l"" c.f! ::::s
~~ ~.~
ourc=
US'- "
t::o~:.t
00 c '"
~ ..... m~
0::: '0 vr-
~ (5 E"tj
O,)..c:: 0 :::
ii tU ~ ~
:Eg~ll)
C,) -;::..D 0
to -- ~-
0"'0 C'I:l -
f-o --g 5r g
'"
~] ]
"S -"
!i V IV
u:l E- ~ e
ta.>"""U
.s-5J: cu
'- ~ -!! -;
O..c:: ~ ~
t; t:: ~ E
to 0 .... u
",:z.UI-o
N
N
"
"
-<
;j
c::
u
""
'0
"
0.
'"
N
N
.
.
.g
.
:;;
~
~
s
~
~
Oil
~
~
.
~
~
~
~
.
~
1
~
~
~
'"
u
it
9
;;
'"
'"
~
~
<
~
~
.
Figure lU-3
Specific Plan Areas
.
ern' Of TEMECUlA GENERAl PUN
Appto\led $pi!cific Plotm
sp. 1 1I0000p;\,,~h ""r\Ch
Sf'. ~ Rd"cho Hlghl...,,!'
~t'. ) :,'Mg~"1.l 'J1II;>g~
~p_ ~ !'_,~.''',,\..o Oe' ~t.I
~f'. 5 C1d To..."
~P. .; c..mpo~ Vt.<.IM.
SP. " 1""'P("I"R('!tlOIl"lC,:,nt~
sr. l;I W....,"Ol..,V,ll;>~.....lt 01<.1 Tow"
sr. 'J R':'dn.~",~
~~P.1O 11..,1 ~""d,
?' 5f'.11 WohCI('t~
:O;P.ll H..,v..,"n,
~P.14 lIonp,,,,ghR.\nd.
roo." T..mr<;ltl..C'~". V,!t..S"
prn-s Ril'lrhOI'ud;"
",Ot> Outd,\',Il..,>~
"184 It\fochol!P1I;>V...''>
'\ "~1) \':,,,(1),,,,,., P'oP"'''l~IS,k,'fl,.,...'~
"~65 B"ltl ^"p,;,l
. 2l)4 Ou"";o[)Ql,,..-o
_:801 W,,,(h~11:1 feOO
"~JI:l ('0'0'11 V~IIt";Vdl,}!!('
'1'''' "~",,H,"
"~I
fl1i';re Specifk flaAS
,
,
'\'"
'.
.-=-
.\'
'-
./
J7
, ZZ
r TEMECULA CREEK
INN & RESORT
1.""<<,,1,, elly ltO\J1"I~t~
5p"~'" o~ ln~".."co:' a""O'1ci..~
__ f',,'I\I1"'~^":"
--"<<_l_ul>CI\~""'(""""'Il<w.....''',_",,,
N
w&\;6.1'
~
S
o 5,000
I=LH
HH
o
._w
---
,.
-
-
----
....
,-.--.J
10,000
--.1 feet
J Miles
,
'-
',i
~
,
.
o F
C ENE R. ^ L
I' L ^ N
c
T Y
TEMEClIL^
LlI.33
.~
1{~
L
^
N
o
u
S
E
Ml MALKOFF AND ASSOCIATES
18456 Lincoln Circle . Villa Park, California 92861 . Fax (714)288-6210
fr ~
,/ ~i
~L.! I.J
!~ ~ 0 ill [j;" 'Ii If.
KIN 2 9 2004' I
J.
. (714)288-6200
!Jy
June 28,2004
David Hogan, Senior Planner
Community Development Department
City of Temecula
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92589
Subject: Request for Change in General Plan Designation of Property owned by
Rancho Community Church: APN: 959-030-010, aka 30275 Jedediah Smith Road
Dear Dave:
As Authorized Agent for, and on behalf of, Rancho Community [Reformed] Church, we would
like to formally request a Change of General Plan designation for our property at 30275 Jedediah
Smith Road (map attached) from LM to Professional Office ("PO"). The Church acquired this
property in Fee Simple on March 3, 2004 (hence, the City's GIS database is now incorrect (see
attached printout)). .
As the Church owns the 39-acre property contiguous to this land, and that property is
general planned and zoned PO, we would simply like that PO designation extended to our
newest property. This is a logical extension of compatible use on adjacent properties. We
are confident that community concerns and traffic circulation issues can be worked out in
a satisfactory manner to all concerned - just as we did when addressing many other
issues with our neighbors about our Church and Schools Project, including their complete
support for contiguous, lighted sports fields!
It is my understanding that such letters as this needed to be into the City prior to the next
Advisory Committee meeting on July 6th. Please let me know if you have any questions
in this regard.
Respectfully submitted,
MALKOFF AND ASSOCIATES
Mel Malkoff, President
cc: Pastors Steve Struikmans & Scott Treadway, Rancho Conununity Church
Shawn Nelson, City Manager
9811 City. General Plan Amendment for RCC.doc
.
.
.
.
,\
~l
-,~
.
.
.
ATTACHMENT NO.6
CHANGE REQUEST LETTERS THAT WERE DEFERRED
AND ARE NOT INCLUDED IN THE DRAFT PLAN
R:\General Plan\Comp Plan Updale\Slaff Report PC2.doc
22
.
.
.
4-
Steve Galvez
45621 Corte Royal
Temecula, CA 92592
909-855-3338
General Plan Advisory Committee
City of Temecula
CIO Dave Hogan
43200 Business Park Dr
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
Re: APN 957-170-032,033,034,035,036
Dear Mr. Hogan:
My partners and I spoke to you back in October of 2003. You may also recall the letter
in regards to the above mentioned parcel numbers. Over the last few months we have
been working with Markham Development Management Group on our 22 acres that is
adjacent to the new Shea Development and just west of Roripaugh. I have enclosed a
parcel map to further illustrate where our property is located.
We would like to request a modification to the General Plan from our existing zoning of
VL to LM. Once the zoning is changed to LM we will fully develop and beautify this
parcel. This enhancement to the parcel will greatly improve the aesthetic value as
compared to its current state.
Our parcels have access to all utilities, sewer, water, etc. The parcels are located next
to a major subdivision, Shea Development. In addition, infrastructure support exists in
the form of a major transportation corridor. This corridor is the Butterfield Stage Road
and Walcott Lane.
We are residents of Temecula. We definitely have an interest in our City. If the zoning
remains as VL status, the enormous cost to improve the land could not feasibly be
absorbed. However, if the zoning is changed to LM status, such costs to improve the
land would be feasible.
We are formally requesting a Modification to the General Plan from VL to LM, to help
offset the enormous costs that will be incurred to improve this parcel and the
surrounding area.
I appreciate the consideration that will be given to this project and I look forward to
working with you in the future.
Z".~ t /
~:Ve Galvez <'\rv'((
CC: Ulf Grefelt, Ed Galvez
4-
-
t
!.
I
!
j
.-
;-.~
,--
"- &,
?l .-.
~ ~ ,]
. ~'l'
000,.
'0
'"
~o~ ~
"99? ~
~~~
c;c:;;:;;
.<
=
'" ~
... ::@~
~ . - -
~ ~
I.
@
~
i
;
~
.
.
--
.m
~.
~.~
5::~~Sl
:I mlr
.
,~
~~
:; 9
"
- Ii
~:!
Z:'Y:; .
i
-
('if'
~. . ,.. !;!
i@~~ .i j i@~
Il:: "'<:: .~~ ..!
1l'~U
'" -
'"
III <>
~.
@ <:>
>
<:>
Z
~~s "~~.
".' ~.jl-'
.. nl Q; V 1.
~'a. );;;..,;
"'1'
.t:::\ ~<:' l
i6 9::!".
~.~
\;f-\~
;; ~\Y~
i
~
~@~
- N .
~ .
..
..."
.. ~ @
~l i@~
- .
..
-.
:;r;
~
;c;;~~~
CQU':> :gco~~
:Bon co__
""'~_oa~~;::;;O~!iH~
C:>-OO,...,~o.o::c::
~ !i:E::=~S:---~ii:a:s:
'1~ ~a:li!~~~~ Iz:t_,...,
..-_g~~~S:~S!7.Z~I
!!~*~~~~~SS~~
;;~~~;:;;~:?;~Q;-:::~-
!;:: -~.:E:::I!~if~6:g:E!:~
.... ~a:B:a.;.a.;.n..
.-
-~-
. .
! i'-' ~
\VD
~ :i
..
:;: ~
j" S
I/@
:t'. ~.
OJ llI:tc:;'\<.lJ:
l:&.cs
2 ! · f-\~ ~
...oe ~\Vg ,f~
I: ! :; .s I
ij@~ I ~
.*
-
@
i
I .
@ I
,
i
!
;;;=
""
~<
~
'=
V>~
""=a
o-~
"'15
""~
=-
"" <>
c..>
.....
V>
/
@
@J , ~~/ ~
../}'
... I rr~/@ / w
diN
f
=-
~....... -~ - -
- ~....-
::;'Iii
,,~-
~~~
~~i 0
~~3
-"-
~~l2
b!~:t
~I@
!I,,~
ii!-o;
~!!~
~~9
~~~
~~::I
. .
. t::\ ~
· io;
~ ~. ~
i
~
@~
- N
=
~
~ -
~ .,
:i=i8
s~
~5
~ -
3~
ia ~
t? .~
~ ~
. .
iG~
~ y;
~
.
@Y
[
L
@
.
.
.
4"
-~
-..,-....
11/03/03
:. ,'~
5 l003
\~OV
. ,
)\
;
City of Temecula
David Hogau, AICP
43200 Business Park Drive
P.O. Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
.._.-.~.-
i
,-._;:::::":,:;,::,,~:,,.::~::,::,::'::::J
Dear Mr. Hogan
I want to thank you for the time that you spent with us last Thursday the 30th of
October. Your input was appreciated by all of us.
I, along with my partners Ed Galvez arid mf Grefelt , am writing this letter to you
in regards to our parcel ~umbers 957-170-032-36. These parcels total 22 acres that
border Butterfield Stage Road and Walcott Lane; it is adjacent to the Shea Homes
development. We are currently in negotiations to purchase an additional 8 acres on
. the North end of these parcels.
The current zoning is 2.5 acre minimums. We will be petitioning in the very near
future for zoning amendment to Yz acre minimums. The current topography of the
22 acres is not conducive to the proposed zoning. However, we intend to spend
approximately two hundred thousand doDars in grading and in fIll dirt to alter the
topography that is more suitable for rancbette style homes and will give greater
appeal to the area and more importantly to the surrounding neighborhoods. We
envision this area to be an extension ofMeadowview that would serve as a butTer
zone to the current Shea Development and tbe Roripaugh Specific Plan.
We bave already started the engineering process with Mr. Randy Fleming of
Engineering Ventures. Through our initial meetings with Mr. Fleming we believe
that cooperating with the City of Temecula we could speed up and help reduce the
cost to construct Butterfield Stage Road.
We look forward to attending the Public Hearing meetings and working with the
City of Temecula in this venture. I, as weD as my partners, have a special interest in
this project because we are not outside investors. We all live in the City of
Temecula and believe in taking an active participation in the area that we live in.
}~ce~ L~ /
/s~veGaIVeZ 0-/-"'0
909-855-3338
IVI -lVIQ
5"
MARKHAM DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT GROUP, INC.
December 30, 2003
.
Mr. David Hogan, Principal Planner
City ofTemecula
43200 Business Park Drive
P.O. Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
Subject:
Request for General Plan Designation Change
APN# 957-150-001, 002; 003, 016
Newsom # 1191
Dear Dave,
The subject parcel is bounded by Nichols Road, Calle Medusa and Calle Girasol.
Prior entitlements include the compost facility and unapproved tentative map for 7,200
SF lots (TM 25082 & CZ 5613). We had discussions with staff about a proposed 10,000
SF subdivision in late 1999 (TM 29557). These were not pursued in light of the Council
policy regarding density ranges,
During the interim period, the City of Temecula has moved forward to approve the
Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan and two nearby churches. These approvals bring with
them the extension of sanitary sewer in Nicolas Road along with enhanced water service,
channelization of Santa Gertrudis Creek and the improvement of Nicolas road to connect
to Butterfield Stage Road and Butterfield north to Murrieta Hot Springs Road.
.
The property is directly adjacent to the Calle Medusa residential community. and Riverton
Park on the south and an existing and proposed church on the west. The property is
buffered from the existing 2.5 acre parcels in the Liefer Road area by both Santa
Gertrudis Creek and Nicolas Road, Only two residences exist easterly of Calle Medusa
on 2.5 acre parcels. Topographically the property lies below the Calle Medusa
community and roughly at grade with the churches,
Combining all these factors brings us to the conclusion that this property is logically
suited for a land use designation of Low Medium to Medium Density Residential.
We would like to discuss this proposal at the next committee meeting, which you
indicated would take place in late January.
Sincerely,
Markham Development Management Group, Inc.
Larry R. Markham
President.
41635 Enterprise Circle North, Su~e B
Temecula, CA 92590-5614
(909) 296-3466
FIDe (909) 296-3476
cc:
attachments
B. Newsom
www.markhamdmg.com
~ .
N "'l! !.
~ ~~I~s ~ ~
an 1\1\' "
N ='U~~ ~ i "
= tl~tl ' l'!~
:z: ;~~!~' ~ ~1~~
!..... ~!~~~ ~ l~~~'
: sa ~"~i" ~ h"
..... ,~, \lb.:.'fl'-..-
I = :t~ ~
I ~"~ I.. '"
...... ,~lIt\,; 'f;
.... ~~it~ ~~
>!'tl~' .~
- "~\l' ~ \j....
.... ~l~" ~~~
~ ~ "'Jl'~ 1..-
r- ~ ....\:... ~ ~ ~~~~
::z: ",~\l ~ ~ ~!l~
UoI; ~"~~~ (1,,~
.... ~ f~~~~ 'I: ~;:~,~
~~~~~~ ~
~~~~~~~~~
, ~ I ! ~
~ ~ " ~ ~ , l l
~ ~ ~ G a ~ a 'I
~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ I I ~ ,
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~
I ~ ~ G ~ ~ ~ ~ l ~
~ ~ ~ ~ " " l ~ \ ~
<at
\
" ~~
" @~_.
~~'"
:.l~' I
@::l!I i'l
o:w ~":
~ \
@,
-~,
..
mQ "
""";:' \'
."~
~~1Bli
i ,~ i ~
~. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~
~' ~ ~ : t ~ ~~ ~
n ; :, -; · ~ ,~~.
,,"' ~ '1\" ~ ! I.; ~1" l'
~~_ ~ ~ t1l.'~'l:~ ~~'"~
i ~!:l\'i""::'I:I~~ ~~\I..
N~' ~~~ i~~ ~ ~ ! ~ ~,hh:lt
'i ~ ," ",'., ~. ~
~ ~ ~ ~ h ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ t
I.a ' ~.~ - H~ ~ ..,j ~ ~ ~
I~ ~ ~!~l~qqh ~ G
'\~~; t~h~ti~~~~ ~ i
:\I,~ ~~~l:\l~\1~~\~ 1; ~ l'\
i:Ii~~ ~111~~ lQ~ 14 ~
I"~~',~ ~~~~~ h~~ ~~~~
~,i"!q! ,,'" '_ 'J,~~,~,
~:~~I~~t ~:o"l}....t \\';S'~\Ji~\I.,.:"L
~!v ~ ~ ~,. : ~ i ~,~ ~~~~~I~~J'~~I'
~'::~S~~ ~~~~~!~~~~~~h~t
.~:~~{~~ (~~~~
... ... 1'1 .. " ., " ~ '" li!
"l '
~ ~ 1,~
a~~~~~~ ~ ~::
I '~~:H m s~1i
,!;~, h, H~ I,ll
~ ~~ '" I 51' l'
! ~i~ 'I'~i~ !~i il:;
s::'( ~ lib ~~
:1,l'li ~ ,~I'"'~ ~~
... l'~ ~11...1t\
~ ~ ~ ~ '<:l~ ~
~~ a IW
~'t ~ !~H
l)." to ""'l'-It-Il-
q
, ,
..:. ~
,
'"
..
.
.,
'"
1Ill~
~""
'?~-~
,
, ,
~!~
tl;~
11,
I(~ ~
~!w~
,\I~...
"n~
~'r:i::-.
~n~
'Il!l
~l:!i
G 1I1i.
~\\~
..
..
..~
~%'
is
~,li":>
@:'
.il!!
I~
"
~ ~ ~. V 'A
~ ~ \&
~
_ 'CL,\)'-' .A:~\.......
~,
'"
"
I
J
~l
~h
hl
~ i ~
~,'
li~
, l
, '" \;
~l\ ~r, ~
~,":::lh-
:'~ lsi
~~~ ~h
'-'~~ ...." ~
'. ~ ~~~
,
5 ~ il~ ~~- ! ~ n "
, ,. h, % ~ .,
~ ~ ~ ~H ti " ~ '4 ~
m ~ ~~i ~ l ~! i i;
'>'l~~~ll R ~. I'
~a ~ ~~ ~ t ~t..~ '7
Gt~~%~!~~~ ;1 ~@~t! ~
H Si nj!,~! ~l' I ~~ PH ~
i ~ ~, " ~'~ ~l I'll ' ~,~ !
'(t \I ~ M'ti~ ~ if \I}lil f
~ ~ ~. l.il ~& . ~ j ill Ii
" ~ 'I " e& \'! \~ ~ Ii: 1" ·
~ ~~ h! ihnl ~ ~d II " ~
· " I ~ >~la' ~l~' " ~l"
~ ~~ qn'ld ;dl ': l~
I ~H in~Mqp: ~~ w
, '" ""~">""""
~ ~~ ~ ~~~).,. ~ ~.. ~~ ~~ ~ "I
~ "~ '''' ~'ll ~ ~~ ,,~ tit( ~ Vl
~ ~'!:~~ ~~'t<:!\i1l
1 i ~ ~ ~ J
~ ~ j I: I, S
l,
. .;:{.: II
~il
,! I.
.11 i. <
B
hI I!;, ." e
~~
Iii\.' ~!(l
~!i
'1111..; ~l'
-.J
,-
<"
,".
. I ~"i
'"
'"
o
"'
'"
!1
i-
'"
i-
'"
".
"'
>!
"
'"
i-
~
"
p'i
! ji!
'I'll
J~t
lb
'" ~p
~ t.l
n:
-"
\~ ~ij
, ,1.0
jj Iii.
i liJ!
~ ~ r.;
'\ l~i
~ !1!j
~ ifll
1 IJ:t
.~ 14
, "..
,
jj~ !:d~"ii~! ,t~! I
~:. ~~ ~t!t'~ h . 1- ~ ; J 'J~ i:I!. I
j!i; 1.11; ill.! I !I !!~! .;;,!; I
-=JI .=.11 13 tI . r. ! !J. ,tft
f!;u" iPI;i I! i i~ i Jf IHlJ ~:,' :
:.!iIJ!i M ~~ i! :!i ;! ~! ii~~ ill ~ I
:"l~~~!il bi ~: Ii I! j:ll1 ij;! I "
",'1,.1,,1, :1 ':11 ~ :1 I, _Ij~' iI" I !,
~1i!J!lh~~; III ~I Iii !i jl1!~I! i."1- I i'
iij1tuI11'i ji lq .' ! .1.. LI!~ -'I,; Ii
inmili:~tl g! i=;til, ~!ili li~~ j~ti Ii :~
I~:i Mli~ '~Il;j ~,l!;! -i'li",! Ii*' ~"'~~~!""
llr! s~ s. ~ 5 ' ~. t[1 l'~ll I)
! '~:"'I'I!i i:J\ ~l if Ii H.t;l !~I' I'j
jP~iH. " ~ ~iJI r ~Jiij :H~. ~!~; Ii
h:!l!H ;: n i~I ~ ;j;ii HUI ~lfti H
,tjl""J H J! n !!~'..:p 1.;1, .;ilt' ~l'!I' I'
:~jJihIS:!l ~ [~:L~:ii;.; ;lhi till!. ~i
: J~ ~~: j i~j !t. I ~d! ~'n H 11 11 !j~i =,llh L
j",htH -;\ ~l3!;f;~fJI.!iJJ.:i~:: :..-=It ;1
! ,,:; I '" m':z;:r.:- a.1. I"~ 1- ,
.j/l,.l ", ~ - ,''',,-\'!'' "" 'I'l!'k
;. . f". EI;!!~ ':'0 =~!I"JU!! i!i !.
!PJt:L! Ii v!1 :;; f=!riliu::l".', 'I.:1J~il
l~~UH sd~Isb;I;!-;;.iii:;gh!C. !Jln:n!
:i:i i:ii _.M
il'l...
"'eo
~
i 1 j
.l! Of..J
,t...; "
I
Ii;ili
e III
~ oil
. I.
<I!
. .1
. "1
11&1
,-
I
E'
.._-..-
"
e
j rf--"'~c--
;[-1"
I~, t~"'-
.."" .
\
\
.i!>
"'~
,.'
11i!{
.~~
:.l
~
,q,\6-'
.<\5
15" -..,.
i
lIe
;.,
;
\
\
8
.M .lVQ
January 9,2004
MARKHAM DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT GROUP, INC.
. Mr. David Hogan, Principal Planner
City of Temeculil
43200 Business Park Drive
P.O, Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
Subject:
Request for General Plan Designation Change
Diaz Road and Dendy Parkway
APN: 909-370-0] 8
TERC 52 # 1]96
Dear Dave:
The subject property is immediately contiguous to the proposed Temecula Education Complex
(TEe), the existing Westside Business Park; the Rancho California Water District reclaimed water
storage ponds in the City of Murrieta, and the escarpment open space area.
We are requesting that the designation be changed from Industrial Park to a Multiple Use
designation. The requested change will provide the subject property with the ability to address the
opportunities that will present themselves as the TEC develops.
.
Alternatively, a Plaruned Development Overlay (PDO) designation could be applied to the subject
property. The PDO could be designed to produce a mixed use zone to accommodate the
. same goals. as the proposed Multiple Use designation. The PDO would be approved either
separately from a development application for a plot plan, conditional use permit and or
parcel/tract map or concurrently with one of these applications.
We would envision this designation/PDO to encompass Business Park, Professional Office,
Public/Institutional, uses along with both Medium and High density housing. This land use mix
would allow for the expansion of the TEC to the west should that need arise. The sub planning
areas within the subject property would be tailored to provide for the effective transition of land
uses from the TEC into lower and lower land use intensities in a westward direction.
This design would provide for either the success or failure of the TEC and the resulting impacts on
the subject property.
Cc: R. Haskins, TERC 52
635 Enterprise Circle North, Suite B
Temecula, CA 92590-5614
(909) 296-3466
Fax: (909) 296-3476
www.markhamdmg.com
'\. /
?/
'/ '~"
"
"'~
""
"
~
.
r
~
11
Ii"
;:ll:
~!
fi)S
:3'"
=>
lrl
~
I
.
.
~ Z (J!!N
j ..J-'"
<( ~j~
.J m<m
_ CL ... ",<
_ z g!"o
Wo U ~~!!!-
- ",-
I-~~ ~~~
::= :!;
::= :!;
~ ~
"
~
Q
~ II
,I
a
'.il
~)
.' /
, l'l"lI
:1 ~;
I I
. g..
" I
..-.
.".
~
I
!;!::--~---,- L'
~ -----...-:
,--"'-- ,
i - ~ - - -,
I : I -
! :: ,
: ,I
. __ _ - r I
- - __ u________ ../___
i,
__ @ Ii:
_ _ -.. _ I'
-.....__--- ,.81
- - - IS
.
I'
,I
"
~~i
--If
Jdci
....:~a "
~~ii III
~ "
:;?f'O?_ ~ '
~~~ II
~lPI5 ~I I
, 1I, I
- ~ - - I II:!
_ _ _ ~ ,0
,
,
$
,p'
......@
,,'
@
I
I
,l
I
,
I
:f
-..
.
-----=-i1'~--- ------
P'rJf
","
Jtidl
illlE&'!I!Ell!!
@ iiiD
mElI!liI!EI!E ,.
-Ra "'-
..-
....1
'@ r
'" .
.,'
"0
.,....
-
-
...
...
, ...
...
...
...
I
t
\1
...
@
I
@ 't
~ HA~ o"'d:.
'- '~~!rs
-,
1lI
M!.
Ii'"
,a
... .'
III~
'1
f
.,.,.....--r..
,
,.......
'I.
.. ,
.~.~
I
!I.
.
.
.-/
.
.
.
ATTACHMENT NO.7
ADDITIONAL LAND USE MAP CHANGE REQUESTS - SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
R:\General Plan\Comp Plan Update\Staff Report PC2.doc
23
.
.
.
SUMMARY OF GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP REQUESTS POST-CAC
NO.
REQUEST INFORMATION
15.
REQUESTOR: Bruce Homme
LOCATION: Souths ide of Rancho California Road, east of the city limits
APN(s): 940-020-001 and 002, 940-030-002 and 003
SIZE: 76.6 Ac
REQUEST: From Hillside Residential (HR) and Open Space (OS) to some form of
commercial.
DISCUSSION: The properties are located on the slope of the escarpment along the
southside of Rancho California Road up through the first large 1800 curve.
The land use designations in the proposed City General Plan are
consistent with the designations on the new County General Plan.
Applicant subsequently withdrew his request on February 12, 2005.
16
REQUESTOR: Hsiao-Feng Chao
LOCATION: East side of Winchester Road at Rustic Glen Drive
APN(s): 911-150-005
SIZE: 6.2 Ac
REQUEST: From Neighborhood Commercial (NC) to Professional Office (PO)
DISCUSSION: The site is a relatively small area on the east side of Winchester Road at
the intersection with Rustic Glen Drive. T he property is surrounded 0 n
three sides with open space uses. The Neighborhood Commercial
designation does not appear to be appropriate given the traffic volumes
along Winchester Road and the lack of adjacent residential uses.
REQUESTOR: American Property Enterprises
LOCATION: Northeast corner of Ynez Road and Tierra Vista Road.
APN(s): 944-330-007
SIZE: 3.17 Ac
17 REQUEST: From Professional Office (PO) to High Density Residential (HD)
DISCUSSION: The site has about 500 feet of frontage on Ynez Road and an average
depth of about 225 feet. According to the representative, the purpose of
this request is to incorporate this property into a future attached residential
project immediately east of the subject property.
R;\General Plan\Comp Plan Update\Slaff Report PC1.doc
21
.
.
.
. ATTACHMENT NO.8
ADDITIONAL LAND USE CHANGE REQUEST LETTERS
R:\General Plan\Comp Plan Update\Staff Report PC2.doc
25
I .
15
Realty Pro's
Since 1977
.
~~~~Dill~~
till JUL 2 9 2004 W
July 21,2004
By
David Hogan, AlCP
Principal Planner, Planning Department
City of Temecula
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula Ca 92590
Re: Parcels 147, 148, 149, & 150, PM 6835, County of Riverside
Dear Mr. Hogan:
I represent the three different owners of the referenced properties, Mrs. Lucille Cords (parcels 147 &
148), Dr. and Mrs. James Stark (parcel 149), and Mr. Samuel Barragan (parcel 150). These
properties are adjacent to the Temecula city limits, and front on Rancho California Road, just west of
the city past Ridge Park Drive, going up the hill on the left side of Rancho California Road. As such,
these are prime properties, and have outstanding views overlooking the city.
.
I am writing you at the request ofKnute Noland in your Community Development Department, to
explore the possibility of annexing these four parcels, totaling approximately 80 acres, into the City
of Temecula. Mr. Noland indicated that you are in the process of revising the city's land usage and
this could be incorporated into your report, I believe at the end of this year.
. . . .. "':'.:.'.
As you may know, without notifying the current property owners, the County of Riverside
downgraded many properties to residential, including these in the new General Plan approved late
lastyem-: In 'order to preserve the current commercial zoning (C-P-S, designation in the County),
these owners are desirous of exploring annexation into the City of Teinecula. This is because the
County'willnot consider any amendments to their new GeneralPlanforfiyeyears..
These properties have' been zoned commercial for many years, and are ;in the early stages of
development for offices, restaurants and hotels. I understand that the City of T emecula typically
ret~ns existing zoning on properties that are annexed. This would be a condition of the annexation.
:.-";. ,"
. "
. "
.'y' :;: ;:F" i.; .l
., ~;i
>." <,;i':", :/:;'.
... "'";L':. C
;;":.!!':,;.'>
. "
. ~ J ' -;
:","', ~~: t; L
(,.,'
''-,.-,
'.1..,.--,-1:
. ".,'
!.~ ': ,. _ r_; ;: .,'
,..,'.-....,...
,{.".,-.....
.,:/",:11;;':
, .
. c' '"
, '!; ~ ,"
;~~. '! .r:' ~;[.':~!f: r~b it.::; :.i~H (.::! !i.'f; v.~.: .~~q~~
<.. ':~ :,\ {'.' ;.~.L:~:;
i :-~-/,'~o
/? ::q'::;r
.' .'", Email: maillfi)brucehomme.com ;""," ,",- '~';
Internet: WYJW.brUcehomme.com . - .,
" ",.'.'; ;'.:
'.. .
45230 Corte Varela, Snite 100 Temecula, Ca 92590 (951) 694-9209
I. . I
This would be a terrific potential tax base for the city. For example, on Parcel 149, one study
showed six conunercial pads possible including a Hilton-class hotel with meeting facilities on one, a
fine dining restaurant on another and multi-story office buildings on the rest.
Please let me know your thoughts on the annexation, how the zoning would be impacted, and what
actions are necessary to implement it. I look forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely,
,! J I __
JI)~ ~ - Idv-
-
Bruce Honune
Broker
Attachment
Email: mail@brucehomme.com
Internet: www.brucehomme.com
45230 Corte Varela, Suite 100 Temecula, Ca 92590 (951) 694-9209
15
.
.
.
.
1A:;! ,I
U :~
tg 'I
~iEi
:i!h
~~~
..5."
lii~~
"'0'"
S...!ll
~:;!!:l
im!:J
'ii
~ ~
Q gJ
~~g
~t'l!:(
J!!'
..~
, ~~
ij-
..~
.
IS
j
:1
:i
PA ReEL MAP '6835 -fl+l<.-c~ (4'7
INllIE UNINCORPOAA"EDTlIIII/TOIlY 01'
RlViRIllDi COUNTY. S'IlITE 01' CAUI'llRNlA
1
.
'I
ID'I'IMU" 1m IOALltI'-IDO'
. .ll!llMDlIIU' .---
) RANCl-lO
~ffO
eft cJ f.
, fi7 frp
"
'-
"
.
I
"
!
.
,
.
--
\
,...
........
JZ8
. ,jM--- T I
0-... .--n- ."" 10..'
.'
, . ~\\
fII'~
123
~~ ....,~. .!t~~
NIO.:::&~;:;M;;a."Ra...tM.#
Description: Riverslde,CA Parcel Map 29,38 Page: 1 of 1 - Order: lIor Comment:
~
Realty Pro's
Since 1977
February 12, 2005
David Hogan, AICP
Principal Planner, Planning Department
City ofTemecula
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula Ca 92590
Re: Parcels 147, 148, 149, & 150, PM 6835, County of Riverside
Dear Mr. Hogan:
In July I made a request to consider annexing the above parcels into the City of Temecula predicated
on retaining the existing zoning. This was done with the hopes that the staff would include this in the
general plan recommendations. As it was, our request was not timely enough to be incorporated.
Given a window for presentation of our proposal of three minutes before the Planning CommisSion,
this is not sufficient time to do justice to what we want to accomplish.
Rather than take the chance that we would (most likely) be turned down, I am withdrawing my
request and postponing to some future date when the developer can make an in-depth presentation to
the staff and Planning Commission. This project is too important to set a precedent with the City
that would hurt a future effort.
Thank you for your time and I will contact you when we wish to pursue this again.
Sincerely,
~~ .
-let-.
-
.
Bruce Homme
Broker
Emall: manlbbrucp1lomrne com
Intemet: W\NN brucehommB com
45230 Corte Varela, Suite 100 Temecula, Ca 92590 (951) 694-9209
1S--2
.
.
.
'I':
lb
.
July 23, 2004
/Fn~::-7"-~---:-::-___
/1')1' ,',' " ' 'I"n
lui; JUt 2 'l2;','I~
~--
_._.-...=::::-:::-.::::::~
Debbie Ubnoske
Community Development Director
City ofTemecula
43200 Business Park Drive
Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
RE: Change of Zone for 80134 Winchester Road. APN 911-150-005
Dear Ms. Ubnoske:
I am writing as one of the owners of this parcel to request thatthe City consider rezoning
it from the current Neighborhood Commercial designation to Professional Office. The
property is located at the corner of Winchester Road and Rustic Glen Drive, adjacent to
the Tucalote Creek flood control channel.
.
Earlier this week, our representative, Mei Mei Ho, met with the Principal Planner on your
staff, David Hogan, to discuss the status of this project. Mr. Hogan indicated thafthe City
will embark on a review of its General Plan and Zoning Ordinance in the near future and
that it would be appropriate to submit an informal request for consideration because it
might be addressed in the overall review process and not require a formal application for
a Zone Change. He also stated that the General Plan update would probably begin with
workshops in August ofthis year. In addition to the zone change request, this letter serves
as a request that we be provided with written notice of any workshop or public hearing
affecting the future use of the parcel.
In light of the rapid growth in French Valley and the surrounding area, we believe that
there is a more pressing need for professional offices and other personal services than for
additional local retail outlets. We also believe that this type of use will generate less traffic
than a retail use.
If you need any additional information, please contact our project architect, Jack Wu, at
(626) 524-3164 or project engin~er, Charlie Chen, at (626) 280-8765.
Sincerely, ~ /I (I
d~(;. ~
Hsiao-Feng Chao
Louisa H. Chao
. cc: David Hogan
Ii
.. AMERICAN
PROPERTY
.. ENTERPRISES
.
September 14, 2004
~' j-RL:7, [i" ff, r ~n::; \~
u ~::\ .'! ; ':"J _' _;:J .
, '
uU SEP 1 Ii 2004 l0J
Mr. David Hogan, AICP
Principal Planner
CITY OF TEMECULA
PO Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
By
RE: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FOR THE REMAINDER PARCEL OF TRACT
23992, CITY OF TEMECULA 3.07 NET ACRES, APN 944-330-007-6,
CERTIFICA TE OF COMPLIANCE # P A 03-0584
Dear Mr. Hogan:
Rancho Highlands, LLC is the owner of the above-referenced parcel, which I will refer to herein
as the Remainder Parcel. The Remainder Parcel is regulated by SP-2, which designates it
Office/Professional. I understand that the City of Temecula is currently reviewing and updating
its General Plan and hereby request that the City re-designate the Remainder Parcel to High .
Density Residential as part of the General Plan update.
We have spent considerable time investigating the feasibility of developing the Remainder Parcel
for either commercial or residential uses and have determined that residential use would best
utilize the site for the following reasons.
I. Residential will generate less traffic than office/professional use.
2. Residential is more compatible with surrounding residential and park uses.
3. Residential use will better take advantage of the site's proximity to the park - the Duck
Pond - adjacent to the north.
4. Residential development will generate more fees for the City.
We hope you will concur with our findings and recommend to the City Council that the
Remainder Parcel be rezoned to High Density Residential.
Thank you for your help with this matter.
Very truly yours,
L-Y~ r::s' LLC
Eri C. Luna
Vic President
.
ECURezone Request
5465 Morehouse Drive, Suite ZOO. San Diego, CA 92121-4713 . (858) 546-7474 Fax (858) 546-7472
.
.
.
ATTACHMENT NO.9
OTHER GENERAL PLAN COMMENT LETTERS
R:IGeneral PlanlComp Plan UpdatelSlaff Report PC2.doc
26
.
.
.
<Sent via E-mail>
August9,2004
Dear Planning Commission and City Council;
Please accept the following comments for your consideration as part of the public record in the
City review of the General Plan Update.
1) I understand Caltrans is doing a special, first of it's kind capacity study of the Temecula
Valley Freeway. I also understand the freeway operates now and is 'expected to be operating in
the future at unacceptable levels of service. Before the City adopts a new freeway
connection such as the one proposed for the Eastern Bypass/Casino Shortcut Road,
alternatives should be analyzed and full mitigation should be provided for cumulative traffic
impacts on 1-15. It doesn't make any sense to dump projected future regional traffic onto 1-15
when there is no capacity available to accommodate increased future volumes which are not
currently addressed as part of an approved Caltrans Project Report and supporting
environmental document.
2) Please provide and evaluate an alternative to the proposed alignment of the Eastern
Bypass through historic and environmentally sensitive Rainbow Canyon. One alternative would
be to orient traffic to State Route 76 along the alignment of Pala Road to the 1-15/SR 76
Interchange, designate segments of Pechanga Parkway and State Route 79 South as "Super
Streets" with 8-10 lanes and plan for a future grade separation at Pechanga Parkway and SR
79 South. Jamboree in Orange County is an example of a super street that currently operates
at 70,000 ADT. All small parcels currently designated for future commercial land uses on SR
79 South west of Pechanga Parkway should be identified as future right-of-way as necessary to
accommodate the expansion of the roads. A program should be developed to acquire the
property needed along these roads for public use at fair market value as any future commercial
development on them may be difficult to access and add to problems such as is currently
evident at the intersection of Bedford Court and SR 79 South.
3) Designate all know areas of historic or environmental significance as "Open Space" on the
Land Use Element. As you know, participation in the County MSHCP is not adequate mitigation
for local impacts which should be clearly identified as part of the environmental process for the
General Plan Update. Two elections ago when facing a potential no growth initiative, the
Council promised to start acquiring open space land. The only such acquisition to date has
been the Roripaugh property on Santa Gertrudis Creek which would have been set aside
through the specific plan process anyway. The City of Temecula should plan for Green Belt
Buffers completely surrounding the City to protect the original master plan integrity of
Temecula. These greenbelts should be linked to the planned and existing County open space
system via a multipurpose trails system.
4) Identify lands which are critical watershed or overlay groundwater aquifers for open space
or restricted land use, The environmental document should clearly identify potential impacts of
development on water quality and significant areas of natural habitat. Cumulative water
availability and quality impacts should be fully disclosed and mitigation proposed as part of the
environmental process for the General Plan Update. The City should work with other
responsible agencies such as Rancho California Water District, Eastern Municipal Water District .
and the Pechanga Band of luiseno Indians to prepare a surface and groundwater protection
program to mitigate impacts of the proposed land Use and Circulation Elements.
5) Identify locations, alignments and funding programs for development of a Regional Park
and multipurpose trails system. The City is now a regional City and it's time we had a Regional
Park and trails system linked to regional open space resourcesl With the development of the all
the existing and new parks currently planned, we will have plenty of neighborhood and "sports
parks" but no Regional Park. This is a deficiency which should be addressed in the General
Plan Update.
Thank you very much for your consideration of these matters.
David Dillon
45862 Hopactong Street
Temecula, California 92590
.
.
.
.
.
September II, 2004
Mr. John Telesio
Chairman Planning Commission
City of Temecula
P.O. Box 9033
Temecula California
92589
Dear Mr. Telesio:
Earlier this week, my neighbor Mr. Hayden Porter and I met with Mr. Ron PaIks of the City Planning
department. The pmpose of our meeting was to discuss the progress of paving Santiago road and what we
could do to expedite gelting pavement to our properties. In our discussions, we discovered that the
neighboring properties north of Santiago road and south of our lots are owned primarily by Seaway
Properties. Ron mentioned that Seaway would likely be working to pave the road in the next two years
since they have requested a zoning change to increase the density of their proposed development. It is my
understmding that current zoning requires lot sizes no smaller than one or two acres. Ron mentioned that
the intent was to go to one half acre or less. I caunot teU you bow importaDt it is tbat the lot size
zoning cbange not be approved. We purchased our bome in early 2003 and Mr. Porter purchased his in
late 2003. We were of the W1derstanding, (I checked with the city), that this area is zoned as ruraI horse
properties not track housing. I believe that changing the zoning to higher density would negatively affect
our property values.
I would very much appreciate any feedback and information regarding this very critical matter.
We have been struggling with Santiago road in its current condition and have discovered that we cannot
obtain building permits for improvements W1tiJ it is paved. My house is 23 years old. Ron Pmks has told
me that one option is a special assessment district. But the planoing department is overwhehned and could
not work with us to begin the process. So we can't do the road and we can't get permits.
In addition to the above problems I would like to bring to your attention the following issues:
Santiago road has become a dumping area for people who have no respect for others property. I have
enclosed a few photographs. We have called the police regarding this and about the off-roading and
groups of people partying on the hilltops. I don't mind people enjoying the hills. But we have a clear fire
risk with this kind of activity. As a retired reserve police officer, I do not believe that our lack of attention
is the fault of the local Police. I see them silting two and sometimes three deep at the intersections in town
writing tickets for left turns. They have their marcbing orders. I would hope that they would include
frequent patrolling and enforcement in our neighborhoods as well.
Any help that you or your fellow commissioners could provide regarding clarification and/or resolution of
these issues would be gready appreciated.
Respectfully yours,
Gary, R -lVeidman
~~
30680 Santiago Rd.
Temecula, Ca.
92592
951.699.4682
cc: Mr. Ron PaIks (City of Temecula Planoing Dept)
. Ms. Mary Jane Olhasso (City Planoing Commissioner)
Mr. Dennis Chiniaeff (City Planoing Commissioner)
Mr. Ron Guerriero (City Planning Commissioner)
Mr. David Mathewson (City Planning Commisser)
Mr. Hayden Porter
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
ASSOCIATION of
GOVERNMENTS
Main Office
818 West Seventh Street
12th Floor
Los Angeles, California
90017"3435
t (213) 236-1800
(.(213) 236-1825
Officers: pr=[1fa~o~~;8?~m Ron Roberts,
Teme<ula-FirstVicePresident:Councilmember
Toni Young, I'1lft Hueneme - Second Vice
P1esident:Vacant
Imperl~ICountv:loShields,Braw1ey
Los Anseles County: Vvonne Brathwaite Burke,
L~ Angeles County - ZevYarostavsky. Los
Angeles (ounly . lim Aldillger, Manhattall
Bea(h ' Harry Baldwin. San Gabriel - Paul
Bowlell,Cerritos-TonyCardena"Los Angeles ,
Margaret Clark, Rosemead - Gene Daniels,
Paramount - Mike Dispenza, Palmdale - Judy
Dunlap, Inglewood ' Rae Gabelich, Long Beach
'[rkGarcetti,LosAngeles'WendyGreuel,los
Angeles- Frank Gurule, Cudahy-James Hohn,
Los Angeles' lanice Hahn, Los Angeles -
Isadore HaIL Complon - Tom LaBonge, Los
Angeles . Marlin ludlow. Los Angeles'
Llewellyn Miller. Claremont . Cindy
Miscikowski, Los Angeles - Paul Nowalka,
Torrance- Pam O'Connor,Sanla Monica~Alex
Padilla,losAngeles-BelllardParks,los
Angeles-Ian Perry,losAngeltx.>' Beatri~e Proo,
Pi(OR~ra-EdRl'\'es,LosAngeles'Gfeig
Smilh,LosAngeles'OickSlanford,Azus;J'Tom
Sykes,Walnllt-PallITalbot,Alhambra'Sidnev
lYter.Pasadena- Tonia Reyes Uranga. tong
Beach' Antonio Villaraigosa, Los Angeles.
DennisWashburn,Calabasas-lackWl'iss,Los
Angeles' Bob Vousenan, Glendale' Dennis
Zine,LosAngeles
OJ;lngeCounty: Chlis tlorby, OlangeCounty'
lohn Beauman, Bleil --Lou Bone, Tustin - All
Brown, Buena Park- RlchardChavel,Anilheim
'OebbieCook,HuntingtonBeilch-Cathryn
DeYoung,lagllna Niguel'Richard Dixon, Lake
Forest - Marilyn Poe, Los A1amitos . Tad
Ridgeway, Newport Beach
RiverSideCounty: leflStone, Riverside County ,
Thomas Buckley, Lake Elsinore - Bonnie
Flickinger, Moreno Valley - Ron Loveridge.
Rive~ide - Greg Pettis, Cathedral City ,'Ron
Roberts, Teme(ula
San Bernardino County: Gary Ovitt. San
BernardinoCounty'BiIIAlexander,Rancho
Cucamonga 0 Lawn~lKe Dale, Barstow -Lee Ann
Garda, Grand Terrace - SusallLongville, San
Bernardino 0 Oebora~ Robertson, Rialto
V!nturaCounty:]udy Mikels,Venlura County-
Glen Bererra. Simi valley 0 Carl Morehouse, San
Buenaventufa 'ToniYOllng.l'1lrt Hueneme
Orange County TransportatIon Authority:
Vacanl
Riverside County Transportation Commission:
Robin Lowe, Hemet
Ventura County Transporliltion Commission:
Keith Millhouse, Moorpark
i}PrinredonR~f<lP3pe,
Wr1f20lo-,
FEB 0 7 2005
.
February 2, 2005
Mr. David Hogan
Principal Planner
City of Temecula Planning Department
43200 Business Park Drive
P. O. Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
Dear Mr. Hogan:
Thank you for submitting the Public Hearing Draft of the Updated
General Plan for the City of TemecuJa to the Southern California
Association of Governments for review and comment. A description'
. of the proposed plan was published inSCAG's December 16-31,
2004 Intergovernmental ReviewClearinghouseReport for public
reviewatJdcomment. Inadditioh,SCAG staff reviewed and, ..'
commented on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the City of
T emecula General Plan Updaieunder separate .cover on January .
10, 2005. Each of our reviews is from a regional perspective with an
intent to share information, data and adopted plans and programs
that set forth regional policy. " .
.
It is important to note that requests, slich as youn;,to review a local
government general plan covering a 62 square mile planning area in
a fast growing county, represent a significant opportuility to identify
where regional policy can be implemented through local action,
thereby benefiting your community, subregion and region in the
future. It may, therefore, be beneficial to include a short section in
your Purpose of General Plan section (pages 1-6 through 1-9) to
discuss the regionaVsubregionaVlocal planning relationships.
We were pleased to. note your mention of the Regional
Transportation Plan (RTP) and the Regional Comprehensive Plan,
SCAG'sGrbwth Vision Compass arid-SCAG's GrbWth Management
Plan 'lhrbughoutthei oraft'Geiia-~aIPla~n:< . _. . '"
. .,~! .' ;, ',i:.<:' .:" . ...., . '. . \. .' ': ~ ",; ':~i ::.:!;..! !-;.(: . , ...;
We.recogniieyotireffoi'fs,to siipporfregicinalg6als:and pc>ik:ies with.
their'lclusi6nofheW::rand -use'eategcirieS(fCSr mixed"'use ;' '.'C '
development; thelirikages Withinulti~Us~ trails' afid'futuregoals for
new transportatfon opportunities through the exten~ic>n of -
Measure A. .
.
OOCS#76190v7
MeB
ASSOCIATION of
GOVERNMENTS
Main Office
818 West Seventh Street
12th Floo'r
Los Angeles. California
90017-3435
t (213) 236-1800
f(213) 236-1825
www.scag.ca.gov
Omcefs~ Plesident: Mayor Pro Tern Ron Roberts,
Temewla'f'irstVjeel>resident;(ouncilmember
TORi Young, ,Port Hueneme' Second Vice
_'Vacant .
.' nty:JoShields.Brawley'.
Los s County: Yvonne Bralhwalle Burke.
losAngelesCounty'ZevYaroslavsky,los
Angeles Counly . Jim Aldinger, Manhattan
Beach' Harry Baldwin, Sail Gabriel' Paul
Bowlen,Cerrltos'TonyCardenas, Los Angeles'
Margaret Clark,. Rosemead . Gene Daniels.
Paramount' Mike Dispenza. Palmdale' hldy
DUlllap,lnglewood'RaeGabellch,longBeach
. EricGafcelti,tosAngeles'Wendy Gfeuel,tas
Angeles' frank Gurule,Cudahy')ames Hahn,
Los ARgeles . laJlice HahR, los Angeles'
Isadore Hall, ComploJl . Tom LaBonge, Los
Angeles . Martin Ludlow, Los Angeles'
Llewellvrl Miller, Claremont . Cirldy
Miscikowsld, Los Arigeles . Paul" Nowatka,
Tonance' Pam,Q'Connor, 5anta Monila'Alex
Padilla,LosAngeles' Bernard ParkS,los
Ang~es'JanPerry,LosAngeles'BeatriceProo,
PicoRive.a'[dReyf's,LrlsAngeles.r:rFii:
Smith,LosAngeles'DickSlanlord,Azusil'Tom
Syke~Willnut'PauITillbot,Alhambril'Sidney
lIler,Pasadena'TonJaReyesUranga,Long
'Beach, Antonio Vil1araigosa,-Los Angetes'
OennisWashburn, Calabasas' lack Weiss, Los
Angeles' Bob YOlisellan, Glendale' Dennis
Ilne,losAnge\es
Or.lnge County: Chris Norby, Orange County'
loho Beallman,Brea'lou Bone, Tustin' All
Brown, BlIena Park' Richa,d Chavez, Anaheim
. Debbie Cook, Hlintington Beach 'CathlYn
. DeYoung, Laguna Niguel' Richard Dixon,lake
FOH!SI . Marilyn POl', Los AlamilOS . Tod
Ridgeway, NeWport 8earh
RiY'l!rsldeCounty:JeIfStone,RiversideCounly'
Thomas Buckley, Lake Elsinore' Bonnie
nickinger, Moreno Valley' Ron Loveridge,
Riverside' Greg Penis, Cathedral City. Ron
Roberts, Temewla
S.ln Bernardino County: Gary Ovitt, San
BernardinoCounly'BiIlAtexander"Rancho
Cucamonga. Lawrence Dale, Barslow' Lee Ann
Garcia,GrafldTerrace'SusanLongville,San
'Jlr'o.oeborahRObertson,RiilUO
V nty: Judy Mikels, Ventura [ounty.
G il,Simi VaUey' Cilft Morehouse, San
Bue nlura' Toni,Young, Port Hueneme
Orange Counly Transportation Authority:
Vacant
RiYerside County Transportation Commission:
Robin lowe, Hemet
Ventura County Transportation Commission:
l<eilhMillhouse,Moorpark
(j)PrillledonRtotytledl'ilpel
~~9.1110Io~
Overall, Temecula's Draft General Plan acknowledges and supports
Southern California Growth Vision Compass Principles of:
Mobility - Improve Mobility for All Residents
Livability - Foster Livability in All Communities
Prosperity - Enable Prosperity for All People
Sustainability - Promote Sustainabilityfor Future Generations
. The City of Temecula's effort to maintain consistency with regional
plans such as, the Regional Comprehensive Plan and Regional
Transportation Plan is highly commendable. We appreciate your
commitment to the regional vision and look forward to hearing of
your land use/transportation successes as you realize your local
vision through your newly revised General Plan..
Thank you again for the opportunity to review this most important
city planning document. .
Sincerely,
C'~
. .~~ ~arris .
Manager of Community Development
. Planning and Policy Department
~~
DOCS#76190v7
MCR
.
.
.
ATTACHMENT NO. 10
EIR COMMENT LETTERS
R:\General Plan\Comp Plan Update\Staff Report PC2.doc
27
STATEOFCALlFORNIAnBUSINESS, TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY
ARNOLD SCHW ARZENEGGER, Governor
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTA nON
DIVISION OF AERONAUTICS M.S. #40
1120 N STREET - ROOM 3300
IBOX 942873
RAMENTO, CA 94273-0001
6) 654-4959
FAX (916)653-9531
TTY (916) 65 I -6827
.
.
December 29,2004
Mr. David Hogan
City of Temecula
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
Dear Mr. Hogan:
Re: City of Temecula General Plan Update
SCH# 2004121041
Thank you for including the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), Division
of Aeronautics in the environmental review process for the above-referenced project. We
reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Report, dated December 2004, with respect to
airport land use compatibility planning issues pursuant to the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA). The Division of Aeronautics has technical expertise in the areas of
airport operations safety, aviation system planning, and airport land use compatibility
planning. We are a funding agency for airport development plans and projects, and we
have permit authority for public and special use airports. We offer the following
comments for your consideration.
1. The project is the comprehensive update to the City of Temecu1a General Plan, except
for the Housing Element that was updated in 2002. French Valley Airport is located
adjacent to the northern boundaries of the City of Temecu1a. The role of regional
comprehensive planning and the airport land use commission is heightened if an
airport is located in one city, and may have noise and safety impacts on another.
2. In accordance with the Public Utilities Code (PUC) 21676 et seq., local General Plans
and any amendments must be consistent with the adopted airport land use
compatibility plans developed by ALUCs. The Riverside County Airport Land Use
Commission's consistency review will be required of the City of Temecula's
proposed general plan update. This requirement is necessary to ensure that General
Plan policies' and recommendations for noise impact assessment and land use
densities are appropriate, given the nature of airport operations.
"Caltrans improves mobility across California"
@
FLex your power!
Be energy efficient!
Mr. David Hogan
December 29,2004
Page 2
.
3. As mentioned in State Law, the PUC Section 21676 et seq., Caltrans reviews and
comments on the specific findings a local government intends to use when proposing
to overrule an ALUC. Caltrans specifically looks at the proposed findings to gauge
their relationship to the overrule. The findings should show evidence that the city is
"minimizing the public's exposure to excessive noise and safetyhazards within areas
around public airports to the extent that these areas are not already devoted to
incompatible uses."
4. General Plans and their elements must clearly demonstrate the intent to adhere to
ALUC policies to ensure compliance with compatibility criteria. Any direct conflicts
between mapped land use designations in a General Plan and the ALUC criteria must
be resolved. A General Plan needs to include policies committing the city to adopt
compatibility criteria essential to ensuring that such conflicts will be avoided. The
criteria do not necessarily need to be spelled out in a General Plan. There are a
number of ways for the city to address the airport consistency issue, including:
· Incorporating airport compatibility policies into the update
· Adopting an airport combining zone ordinance
. Adopting an Aviation Element into the General Plan .
· Adopting the Airport Compatibility Plan as a "stand-alone" document or as a
specific plan
5. The General Plan must acknowledge that until ALUC compatibility criteria are
incorporated into the General Plan, proposals within the airport influence area must be
submitted to the ALUC for review. These provisions must be included in the General
Plan at a minimum for it to be considered consistent with the airport land use
compatibility plan.
6. In accordance with CEQA, Public Resources Code 21096, the Caltrans Airport Land
Use Planning Handbook (Handbook) must be utilized as a resource in the preparation
of environmental documents for projects within the boundaries of an airport land use
compatibility plan, or if such a plan has not been adopted, within two nautical miles
of an airport. The Handbook provides a "General Plan Consistency Checklist" in
Table SA, and "Airport Combining Zone Components" in Table 5B. For your
reference, our Handbook is published on-line at http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/planning/
aeronau t/htrnlfilellanduse. php.
7. The planned height of buildings, antennas, and other structures should be checked
relative to the Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 77 criteria if development is
close to the airport, particularly if situated within the runway approach corridors. .
"'Caltrans improves rrwbility across California"
.
.
.
Mr. David Hogan
December 29,2004
Page 3
General Plans must include policies restricting the height of structures to protect
navigable airspace. To ensure compliance with FAR Part 77, "Objects Affecting
Navigable Airspace," the filing of a Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration
(Form 7460-1) with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) may be required. For
further technical information,' please refer to the FAN s web site at
http://www1.faa,gov/ats/ata/ATA400/oeaaa.html.
8. The Education Code, Section 17215 requires a school site investigation by the
Division of Aeronautics prior to acquisition of land for a proposed school site within
two miles of an airport runway. The Division's recommendations are submitted to the
State Department of Education for use in determining the acceptability of the site.
This should be a consideration prior to designating residential uses in the vicinity of
an airport.
9. The Section 11010 of the Business and Professions Code, and Sections 1102.6,
1103.4, and 1353 of the Civil Code (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.html) address
buyer notification requirements for lands around airports. Any person who intends to
offer land for sale or lease within an airport influence area is required to disclose that
fact to the person buying the property.
10. Land use practices that attract or sustain hazardous wildlife populations on or near
airports can significantly increase the potential for wildlife-aircraft collisions. The
FAA recommends that landfills, wastewater treatment facilities, surface mining,
wetlands, and other uses that have the potential to attract wildlife, be restricted in the
vicinity of an airport. The FAA's Advisory Circular (AC 150/5200-33) entitled
"Hazardous Wildlife Attractants On or Near Airports" and AC 150/5200-34 entitled
"Construction or Establishment of Landfills Near Public Airports" address these
issues. These advisory circulars can be accessed at http://www1.faa.gov/aro/. For
further technical information, please refer to the FAA's web site at http://wildlife-
mittigation.tc.faa.gov/public html/index.html. You may also wish to contact the U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Wildlife Services at (916) 979-2675.
11. Aviation plays an important role in California's transportation system. This role
includes the movement of people and goods within and beyond our State's network of
over 250 airports. Aviation contributes nearly 9% of both total State employment
(1.7 million jobs) and total State output ($110.7 billion) annually. These benefits were
identified in a recent study, "Aviation in California: Benefits to Our Economy and
Way of Life," available on-line at http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/planning/aeronaut.
Among other things, aviation improves mobility, generates tax revenue, saves lives
through emergency response, medical and fire fighting services, annually transports
"Caltrans improves mobility across California"
Mr. David Hogan
December 29,2004
Page 4
.
air cargo valued at over $170 billion and generates over $14 billion in tourist dollars,
which in turn improves our economy and quality of life.
12. The protection of airports from the encroachment of incompatible land uses is vital to
the safety of airport operations, the well being of the communities surrounding
airports, and to California's economic future. French Valley Airport is an economic
asset that should be protected through effective airport land use compatibility
planning and awareness. Consideration given to the issue of compatible land uses in
the vicinity of an airport should help relieve future conflicts between airports and their
neighbors.
These comments reflect the areas of concern to the Department's Division of
Aeronautics. We advise you to contact Ms. Rosa Clark in our District 08 office at
(909) 383-6908 regarding surface transportation issues.
We appreciate the opportunity to review and comment on this project. If you have any
questions, please call me at (916) 654-5253.
Sincerely,
']), c.,.~
.
DAVID COHEN
Associate Environmental Planner
c: State Clearinghouse
French Valley Airport
Riverside County ALUC
.
"Caltrans improves mobility across California"
@
Rancho
Water
Board of Directors
John E. Hoagland
President
Csaha F. Ko
Sr. Vice President
Stephen J. Corona
Ralph 1-1. Daily
Ben R. Drake
Lisa D. Herman
Michael R. McMillan
Officers
Brian J. Brady
General Manager
Phillip L. Forbes
Director of Finance-Treasurer
E.P. "Bob" Lemons
Director of Engineering
Perry R. Louck
Director of Planning
Jeff D. Armstrong
Controller
Linda M. Fregoso
District Secretary/Administrative
Services Manager
C. Michael Cowett
Best Best & Krieger LLP
General Counsel
December 30, 2004
U ~~1~: i:~ ;~o;. ml ~ I
ilJ 'J
BL,=::oc:..,c::',:,:,~".
David Hogan, Principal Planner
City of Temecula
Planning Department
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92560
SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
PUBLIC REVIEW OF DRAFT GENERAL PLAN AND
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Dear Mr. Hogan:
Rancho California Water District (RCWD) appreciates the opportunity to
provide comments for the Public Review of the Draft City of Temecula General
Plan and the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR). RCWD's comments are
as follows:
Water Resources
The first sentence of the second paragraph on page 08- I 2 of the Draft General
Plan is misleading, since pollution of the underground aquifer is not limited to
only industrial sites,
The third and fourth sentence of the second paragraph on page 08-12 of the
Draft General Plan should be updated as follows:
"One groundwater production well was contaminated by a MTBE plume
but subsequent aquifer remedial cleanup activities has allowed this
facility to bep!aced back into service, FU1ihennore, other groundwater
production wells were nearly contaminated by a separate MTBE plume
but subsequent aquifer remedial cleanup activities has allowed these
facilities to remain in operation,"
Wastewater Service
As previously noted in RCWD's comments to the Notice of Preparation, a
portion of the City of Temecula (primarily the Westside Business Centre area) is
within RCWD's wastewater service area and these wastewater flows are treated
at RCWD's Santa Rosa Water Reclamation Facility. Pages GM-9 and GM-14 of
the Draft General Plan as well as the EIR should be revised accordingly,
Rancho California Water District
42135 Winchester Road . Post Office Box 9017 . Temecula, California 92589-9017 . (951) 296-6900 . FAX (951) 296-6860
David Hogan/City of Ternecula
December 29, 2004
Page Two
If you should have any questions or need additional information, please call us at this office at
(951) 296-6900.
Sincerely,
RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT
@/IJ--
^ .... On. T' . ""...0
r:lil rcW.L.J. Webst........, i.E.
Planning & Capital Projects Manager
04\A W:atIJO\FEG
c: E. P. "Bob" Lemons, Director of Engineering
Mike Meyerpeter, Development Engineering Manager
Enclosure
@
Rancho California Water District
42135 Winchester Road . Post Office Box 9017 . Temccula, California 92589-9017 . (909) 296-6900 . FAX (909) 296-6860
ASSOCIATION of
GOVERNMENTS
Main Office
818 West Seventh Street
12th Floor
Los Angeles, California
90017-3435
t (213) 236-1800
f(213) 236'1825
WWW.5cag.ca.gov
Officers: President: Council member Ron
Roberts, Tem('{ula . firsl Vice Presjdent
Counej\member Toni Young. Pori Hueneme .
S"_PfeSidenl:Vilcanl
1m ty:lo$hields,Brawley
10s County: Yvonne Brathwaite Burke.
los Angeles Coullly . Zev Yaroslavsky, Los
Angeles (ounly . Hm Aldinger, Manhattan
Beach' Harry Baldwin, San Gabriel' Pau!
Bowll'fl,Cerritos'TonyCardenas,losAngeles'
Margaret Clark. Rosemead . Gem? Daniels.
Paramount. Mike Dispenza, palmdale' 'udy
Dunlap,lnglewood' Rae Gabeli(h, Long Bfilch
. EricGarcelli,losAngeles'WendyGreuel,Los
Angeles' FrankGuJule, Cudahy. james Hahn,
Los Angeles' lanice Hahn, Los Angeles'
Isadore Hall, Compton' Tom laBonge, Los
Angeles . Martin Ludlow. Los Angeles'
lIewellyn Miller, Claremont . Cindy
Misdkomki, Los Angeles' Paul Nowatka,
Torrame' Pam O'Connor,Sanla Monica " Alex
Padilla, LosAngeles'Bemard Parks,los
Angeles" Ian Perry, Los Angeles 0 Beatrite Proo,
PieD Rivera" Ed Reyel>. Los Angeles" Greig
Smith,LosAngeles"OickStanlord,Alusa'Tom
Sykes"WalnutoPauITalbo1.A1hambra'Sidnl?y
Tvter, Pasadena 0 Toma Reyes Uranga, Long
Beach" Antonio Villaraigosa, Lcs Angeles 0
Dennis Washburn, Calabasas' lack Weiss, Los
Angeles. Bob Youselian, Glendale' Dennis
Zine,LosAngeles
Orange Counly: Chris Norby, Olange Counly'
John Seauman, Blea' Lou Bone, Tustin oM
BlOwn, Buena Park' RichardChavez,Anaheim
. Debbie Cook, Huntington Beach' Cathryn
DeYoung, Lagu/la Niguet. Ri(hard Dixon. Lake
Forest 0 Malilyn Poe, Los Alamitos " Tod
Ridgeway, Newport Seach
Riverside County: !effStone, Riverside County.
Thomas Buckley, Lake Elsinore" Bonnie
Flickingel, Moreno Valll?y' Ron Loveridge,
Rivel"5ide' Greg Pet1is, Cathedral City. Ron
Robells, Temecuta
Silln Bl!rnillfdlnoCounty:PaulBiane,San
Bernardino County' Bill Alexander, Rancho
(lIcamonga . Lawrence Dale, Barstow . lee Arm
Garcia, Grand Terrace' Susan Longville, San
"lIn'oODeborahRobertson,Rialto
Ve nty: judy Mikels, Venlura County 0
Gl ,SimiValleyoCarlMorehouse,San
Bue ura o Toni Young, Port Hueneme
Orange County Transportation Authority:
Vacant
Rive~deCountyTranspOltrtion CommIssion:
Robin Lowr:oo Hemet
Venturill County Transportation Commission:
BiHOavis,SimfValley
!)Priflle<:lonRl'tI'<ltdPape.
Wrl1!n{OII
January 10, 2005
~;-r:~
\';:. \~, \ [' ,~
:~) : d \1
11\1\
\\1\\
'I::;
,',:1
I-'i
--c=J
~~~\ fs (.(.
\\'lle."" "
jl '-'J
;\ i'! \
\i]';'
;1 U
,
\" y --------
f'~-:--
JAN i 8 2005
Mr. David Hogan
Principal Planner
City of Temecula
Planning Department
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92592
RE:
Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the City of Temecula
General Plan Update. SCAG No. I 20040834
Dear Mr. Hogan:
. . .
.' .
- .
Thank yOU" !OlsiJbfnitling th6 Draft EmilroninGn;mI'hnplictRep~rt fer thE! City of Temecull!
General Plan Update to SCAG for revieW and comment. As areawide clearinghouse for
regionally significant projects, SCAG reviews the consistency of local plans, projects, and
programs with regional plans. This activity is based on SCAG's responsibilities as a
regional planning organization pursuant to state and federal laws and regulations.
Guidance provided by these reviews is intended to assist local agencies and project
sponsors to take actions that contribute to the attainment of regional goals and policies.
It is recognized that the proposed Project considers the comprehensive update of the City
of Temecula General Plan.
SCAG staff has evaluated the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the City of
Temecula General Plan Update for consistency with the Regional Comprehensive Plan and
Guide and Regional Transportation Plan. The Draft EIR includes a discussion on the
proposed Projects' consistency with SCAG policies and applicable regional plans, which were
outlined in our September 2, 20041eller on the Notice of Preparation (NOP) for this Draft EIR.
The Draft ErR, in Section 5.9: Land Use and Planning, cited SCAG policies and addressed the
manner in which the proposed Project is consistent with applicable core policies and
supportive of applicable ancillary policies. This approach to discussing consistency or support
of SCAG policies is commendable and we appreciate your efforts. Based on the information
provided in the Draft EIR, we have no further comments. A description of the proposed
Project was published in the December 16-31, 2004 Intergovernmental Review Clearinghouse
Report for public review and comment.
If you have any questions, please contact me at (213) 236-1867. Thank you.
~
~~~
c'.....-
.~
.".
January 12, 2005
Riverside Transit Age
1825 Third Street
P.O. Box 59968
Riverside, CA 92517-1968
Phone: (951) 565-5000
Fax: (951) 565-5001
David Hogan, Principal Planner
Community Development Department
City of Temecula
43200 Business Park Dr
Temecula CA 92592
~'I~~"I"'~;I;;;;'IT'i:: .['1 "\l."i:i;l; i~
. II' I'" r. I I 1,\,
'! L, "J .~ .C'. ,._:, \, ,
O}"""" . 1\'
'i ii'l JAN 1 4 Z005 : J I
U,lt I..J
U "
8y
.---_.__.~. ~-- ~._-
SUBJECT: Draft EIR, Temecula 2025 General Plan - Comments from RTA
Thank you for the opportunity to review the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the 2025
Temecula General Plan update. A copy of Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) staffs' internal review
memo on this project is attached for your information, providing more detail and analysis.
RT A strongly supports the content of the General Plan with respect to transit. The following
positive policy positions are noted:
. Requiring developments to incorporate transit-friendly amenities such as bus turnouts,
shelters and paths for pedestrian connectivity where possible and practical;
. Including a well-written description of RTA's mission and services; .
. Linking alternative transportation to air quality improvement measures;
. Voicing strong support for pedestrian connectivity between bus stops and surrounding
commercial and residential neighborhoods;
. Continuing commitment to consultation with RT A staff on transit-related issues;
. Support for all modes of alternative transportation, including pedestrian, bicycle, ride-
sharing, park-and-ride facilities, public and private transit, and future commuter and high- .
speed rail service
Recent information confirms availability of a Federal funding component for establishing a Transit
Center in Temecula. RTA suggests this site be chosen in the very near future and in consultation
with the transit agency so that the location could be depicted and mapped in the General plan.
RTA staff suggests the visionary Project Objectives on page 1-2 could be modified slightly to
include mention of Temecula's commitment to transit. Perhaps the bullet point about the Local
Circulation System could incorporate the phrase "transit-friendly community" or similar language.
We look forward to receiving the final documents. If you need additional clarification or if I can be
of further assistance, please call me at (951) 565-5130 or contact me online at
aoalatino@riversidetransit.com.
Sincerely,
~~
Anne Palatino
Director of Planning
.
F:ldatalPlanninglMikeMlWordlOev ReviewlTemecula\2005lRTA Lthd - OraftEIR-Gen'IPlan.doc
*,"'w
1.-
i!IIII
Riverside Transit Agency
January 12, 2004
.
PLANNING DEPARTMENT MEMO
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
From:
Anne Palatino, Director of Planning
Michael McCoy, Senior Planner~
Draft EIR for Temecula General Plan Update -- RT A Comments
Bus routes affected: 23, 24, 79, 202, 206, 208 and future additional routes
To:
Subject:
Summary: The City of Temecula Community Development Dept has issued the Draft
Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for its year 2025 General Plan update. This DEIR
will be one of the most important 'policy documents guiding land use and development
decisions in Temecula over the next 20 years. RTA staff reviewed the Plan's Notice of
Preparation in and the Initial Study in 2003 and suggested additional attention to transit
alternatives be forthcoming in the General Plan.
The Draft EIR now fully addresses transit in nearly all its aspects, from conveniently
placed bus stops to transit-friendly development practices. RTA believes the document
now sends a strong, pro-active 'welcome' to transit as one of the viable remedies for the
congestion and pollution that plagues the Inland Counties. RT A staff makes the
following observations about the Draft EIR:
.
. Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures affecting transit, pp 1-8 to 1-15:
o Measure T-3 underscores the City's financial commitment to transit facilities:
o Pro-transit measure T -5 requires developments to incorporate transit-friendly design
features such as bus turnouts, shelters and pedestrian connectivity to residential areas;
o Measure T-ll encourages ride share, park-and-ride and transit oasis features:'
o Air Quality measures AQ-7, AQ-8, AQ-14 and AQ-17 voice a strong commitment to
excellence in transit planning, especially in regards to transit-friendly development
practices, the Trip Reduction Ordinance, and new park and ride facilities, transit
corridors, transit oases and other strategies to reduce vehicle trips and lower mobile
source emissions of unhealthful pollutants.
. Implications the Roadway Plan would have on future transit, pp 3-11:
o This map is an excellent tool for transit planning. It helps determine future bus routes:
o As transit service improves in Southwest Riverside County over the coming years, the
"density" of routes will increase from the current two local routes to several routes;
o All of the first 3 road categories (Urban Arterial, Principal Arterial, and Major Arterial) are
likely candidates for future bus routes in Temecula. These are routes along which RTA
Planning will recommend future transit amenities. Example: Butterfield Stage Rd;
o A relatively smaller portion of Secondary Arterials will also be selected for bus service.
Some already carry an RT A route. Example: Pauba Rd;
o Some collector streets in high-density, special design or institutional-use areas may carry
transit. Example: Old Town Front St.
.
. The Growth Visioning principles, pp 5-9.20 & 21 are strong policy statements in
favor of transit alternatives where possible imd practical; ,
F:ldatalPlanninglMikeMIWordlDev ReviewlTemeculal20051DraftEIR - Gen'l Plan.doc
. The Proposed land Use Policy Map, pp 3-5, will help transit planners correlate
future development patterns with potential transit routes;
.
. The description of Temecula's RT A services on pp 5.13-2 is entirely accurate;
. In the Existing Traffic Conditions portion, on pp 5-13.18, the text accurately
describes ongoing cooperation between the City and public and private transit.
The text continues by emphasizing key City policies that encourage transit use
and transit-friendly development practices;
Overall, the Draft EIR is one of the most supportive General Plans in Riverside County
that RTA staff has reviewed in regards to a general upgrading of and encouragement for
new transit facilities. The entire General Plan team is to be commended for this vision.
The Plan's approach also underscores Temecula's acclaimed transition from a small
rural node to a more mature urban environment known for its equidistant satellite center
status relative to Los Angeles, San Diego and Riverside. Most planners believe a strong
commitment to transit at this point in the planning process is a hallmark of the leading
cities of the future and will provide a significant "livable communities" payback.
Indeed, this strong commitment to transit alternatives deserves to be incorporated into
the Project Objectives list on page 1-2. Perhaps the words "transit-friendly community"
could be incorporated in some form into the bullet about the local circulation.system.
Recent information developed by RTA indicates the federal government has set aside
funds towards establishment of a full-feature Temecula Transit Center. Ms Palatino, the
RT A Director of Planning is now working with Temecula Planning staff to determine the
best site for this transit center. The consensus, so far, is for a Center location some- .
where close to the Interstate 15 corridor and at or near any proposed commuter or high-
speed rail station. However, since the station may be too far in the future to be located
with certainty, an interim site should be selected as part of the General Plan process.
Identification of the Transit Center site would be a distinct benefit to planners, develop-
ers and the overall community mobility. When the Center location is determined and if
publishing schedules permit, the site should be described and mapped in the final
General Plan documents.
Also, at this opportunity, RT A staff wants to commend the City of Temecula's elected and
appointed officials and their supporting staff for their growing cooperation with the tran-
sit agency over the last several years. Temecula was one of the first of the 15 jurisdic-
tions in Western Riverside County to partner with RT A on routine development review for
transit amenities and was one of the first to begin incorporating the agency's Design
Guidelines for Transit-Friendly Development into the planning process.
In summary, RT A strongly supports the Draft EIR and encourages the City of Temecula to
go forward with adoption and implementation of the General Plan for 2025.
INITIAL REVIEW INFORMATION - Review completed date: January 12, 2005.
Documents received at RTA: December 20,2004;
Reply-by Date: January 30, 2005;
City Council Agenda Date: Unknown at present or N/A;
Thomas Guide Map page grid: Not applicable;
.
F:ldatalPlanninglMikeMIWordlDev RevlewlTemecula\2005lDraftEIR . Gen'l Plan.doc
.
.
.
Case Numbers: State Clearinghouse Number is unknown;
Contact Planner: Principal Planner David Hogan, (951) 694-6477;
Applicant: City ofTemecula, CA
Applicant's Consultant: Cotton Bridges Associates of Pasadena CA
RTA PLANNING FOllOW-UP:
Standard "Acceptable" letter to jurisdiction without comments
-fJ. Standard "Acceptable" letter to jurisdiction with compliments or positive advisories
letter with advisories re transit issues
letter sent: Date: dIdos
f I
SECOND REVIEW:
Review materials placed in archive files: Date:
F:\data\Planning\MikeM\Word\Dev ReviewlTemecula\2005\DraItEIR - Gen'l Plan.doc
}
eCalifornia Regional Water Quality Control Board
San Diego Region
Alan C. Lloyd, Ph.D.
Secretary for
Environmental
Protection.
Over SO Years Serving San Diego, Orange, and Riverside Counties
Recipient of the 2004 Environmental A ward for Outstanding Achievement from USEP A
9174 Sky Park Court, Suite 100, San Diego, California 92123-4340
(858) 467-2952' Fax (858) 57!-6972
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/sandiego
Arnold Schw2g
Gave.
January 18, 2005
=
Ii.'! r: (': jl DIJ rc;~]
" I! ,,-- . " l LS ~
p ;; ) ~
i ,. JAN 2 4 200
In rePlykttfer to: 5
WPN:1[~Z~0~.~2:~O_~~~__ _
Mr. David Hogan, Principal Planner
Planning Division
City Of Temecula
43200 Business Park Dice
Temecula, California 92590
De~o:9
SUBJECT: SCH# 2003061041 CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
UPDATE
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Report
(ElR) for the City of Temecula's General Plan Update. The City's projected growth rate
makes this a critical time for the City to include appropnate water quality and watershed
protection principles and policies in its General Plan. As discussed on page 5.8,5' of the
report, construction of new housing units and commercial and industrial projects will
increase the amount of impervious surfaces throughout the Planning Area, resulting in a
potential changes to local stream hydrology. In addition to the potential nuisance flooding
impact described in the draft ElR, these changes to stream hydrology could result in
adverse impacts to water quality and the beneficial uses of water in the Santa Margarita
River Watershed.
.
The quality of surface and groundwater in the watershed depends on various factors
including the interaction of different physical and biologiCal processes, each of which is
strongly influenced by the degree of impervious cover present in the watershed. In many
cases, changes in hydrology can have more significant impacts on receiving waters than
those attributable to the contaminants found in storm water discharges.! These
hydrologically related impacts include stream bank erosion, benthic habitat degradation,
and decreased diversity of macroinvertebrates.
By limiting the discussion of impacts from increased impervious surfaces to potential
flooding without including the water quality, the draft ElR overlooks the benefits of a low-
1 Uniled States EPA. 1999 Part II. 40 CFR Parts 9,122,123, and 124. National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System - Regulations for Revision of the Water Pollution Control Program Addressing Storm
Water Discharges; Final Rule. Federal Register. Washington D.C.
.
California Environmental Protection Agency
eycled Paper
.
.
.
Mr. David Hogan
SCH # 2003061041
-2-
January 18, 2005
impact development approach to stormwater management. Instead, the draft EIR focuses
on a conventional stormwater approach requiring new development projects to ensure that
adequate flood control capacity is available by providing on-site drainage and paying fees
for expansion of the storm drain system. In contrast to conventional stormwater
management approach, the low-impact development approach is to manage runoff at the
source in discrete units throughout the site to emulate the predevelopment hydrologic
regime. Low-impact development technology utilizes onsite management practices.
including bioretention facilities, dry wells, filter or buffer strips mid other multifunctional
. landscape areas swales, bioretentionswales, and wet swalesaspart of development design.
In adopting Order No. R9-2004-001 (the MS4 waste discharge requirements), the
SDRWQCB acknowledged the importance of local general plans as part of a
comprehensive municipal storm water program. Specifically, Provision P.I requires the
City to include water quality and watershed protection principles in its General Plan that
will direct land-use decisions and require implementation of consistent water quality
protection measures for development projects. This Provision is consistent with
Government Code Section 65302( d) that identifies the "prevention and control of the
pollution of streams and other waters" and the "protection of watersheds" as items to
consider as part of the General Plan's conservation element. Examples ofthe principles
and policies listed in Provision P.I that are consistent with a low-impact development
approach and should be considered by the City include:
a. Minimize the aInount of impervious surfaces and directly connected impervious
surfaces in areas of development and, where feasible, slow runoff and maximize on-
site infiltration of runoff.
b. hnplement pollution prevention methods supplemented by source control and
treatment control BMPs. Use small collection strategies located at, or as close as
possible to, the source (i.e., the point where water initially meets the ground) to
minimize the transport of urban runoff and pollutants offsite and into an MS4.
c. Preserve, and where possible, create or restore areas that provide important water
quality benefits, such as riparian corridors, wetlands, and buffer zones. Encourage
land acquisition of such areas.
d. Limit disturbances of natural water bodies and natural drainage systems caused by
development including roads, highways, and bridges.
e. Prior to making land use decisions, utilize methods available to estimate increases in
pollutant loads and flows resulting from projected future development. Require
incorporation of appropriate BMPs to mitigate the projected increases in pollutant
loads and flows.
California Environmental Protection Agency
~cled Paper
Mr. David Hogan
SCH # 2003061041
- 3-
January 18, 2005
.
f. A void development of areas that are particularly susceptible to erosion and sediment
loss; or establish development guidance that identifies these areas and protects them
from erosion and sediment loss.
g. Reduce pollutants associated with vehicles and increasing traffic resulting from
development.
h. Post-development runoff from a site shall not contain pollutant loads that cause or
contribute to an exceedance of receiving water quality objectives and which have
not been reduced to the MEP.
We urge the City to review the above examples of water quality and watershed principles
and policies and to include in the General Plan and/or list as mitigation measure(s) in the
Hydrology and Water Quality section of the ElR those actions that are applicable in the
City of Temecula. We noted that the mitigation measures listed for Biological Resources
already contain some elements of a low-impact development approach. For example, the
City will require the establishment of open space areas that contain significant
watercourses, wildlife corridors, imd habitats for rare or endangered plant and animal
species (Mitigation Measure B-2) and require appropriate resource protection measures to
be prepared in conjunction with specific plans and subsequent development proposals
(Mitigation Measure B-3).
.
Mitigation Measure B-1O contains a key statement related to water quality protection. It
states "Proposed developments in proximity to MSHCP conservation areas shall
incorporate measures, including measures required through the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements to ensure that the quantity and
quality of runoff discharged is not altered in an adverse way when compared to existing
conditions." We recommend that this statement be modified as follows:
"Proposed developments in preximit)' te MSHCP eenservatien areas within the
planning area of the Citv of Temecu]a shall incorporate measures, including measures
required bv the City pursuant to thr-ough the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination'
System (NPDES) Permit No. CAS0108766, requirements to ensure that the quantity'
and quality of runoff discharged does not cause or contribute to the violation of water
Qualitv standards (designated beneficial uses and water Qualitv obiectives necessary to
protect those beneficial uses) and is not altered in an adverse way when compared to
existing conditions."
In conclusion, the report states on page 5.8-6 that all development proposals must prepare a
Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP), outlining how the project will minimize water
quality impacts during project operation. To be effective in reducing pollutants in urban
.
California Environmental Protection Agency
~cled Paper
.
.
.
Mr. David Hogan
SCH # 2003061041
-4-
January 18, 2005
runoff to the maximum extent practicable, these project specific WQMPs must address
City requirements that are based upon sound urban runoff management policies and
principles and a commitment by the City to enforce these requirements in accordance with
Order No. R9-2004-001.
Please call Mr. Robert Morris at (858) 467-2962 or e-mail atbmorris@waterboards.ca.gov
if you have any questions regarding this matter.
Respectfully,
~
HN H. ROBERTUS
Executive Officer
Regional Water Quality Control Board
. JHR:mpm:rwm
California Environmental Protection Agency
{fJycled Paper
Board of Directors
President
Randy A. Record
Vice Preside"t
David J. Slawson
Richard R. Hall
Rodger D. Siems
Ronald W. Sullivan
Board Secretar)'
Rosemarie V. Howell
Gel/eral Manager
Anthony J. Pack
Director oftlte
Metropolitall Water
Di.itrict of So. Calif
Randy A. Record
Treasurer
Joseph J. Kuebler, CPA
Legal COlll1sel
Redwine and Sherrill
,.
. .:'. - {~'~"\~1:;~1
~ j . : ,,:,. \ ~ \ \
JAN 31 2005',:1
'::J
.
;. .\:.
SINCE 1950
i. ~
:' \
\~.,-'
,
i
l-~.. .
January 25, 2005
Mr. David Hogan, Principal Planner
City of Temecula
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
RE:
Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR)
City of Temecula General Plan Update
Dear Mr. Hogan:
Eastem Municipal Water District (EMWD) appreciates the opportunity to review
the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the City of Temecula's General Plan
Update. EMWD offers the following comments.
Paae 5.14-2. Table 5.14-2. EMWD Current and Prolected Water SUDDlles
The Future (2020) Purchased Water figure of 11,012 is incorrect. The correct
figure is 110,012.
.
Page 5-14-4
Wastewater
Environmental Settlna
The correct term for effluent pumped from the Temecula facility is recycled water.
The third sentence of this paragraph should be revised to read, "Because the
Temecula facility is the smallest of EMWD's five reclamation plants, some
recycled water is pumped from the Temecula facility ten miles north to a 450-
million-gallon storage facility in Winchester".
Thank you for the opportunity to review the DEIR. Please forward any
subsequent documents regarding the project to my attention at the mailing
address below. Thank you.
Sincerely, .
l)aUIG II~
Karen Hackett
Environmental Compliance Analyst
J:\WORDPROCIWPlfNGINEER.31\HACKETTl$CEQA.ISCommenb\CtyTlmGnIPlnVpd,wpd
.
Mailing Address: Post Office. Box 8300 Perris, CA 92572-8300 Telephone: (951) 928-3777 Fax: (951) 928-6177
Location: 2270 Trumble Road Perris, CA 92570 Internet: www.emwd.org
111
.
.
MWO
METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
i ' " : ~!
, JAN 3 1 Z005
" .
Executive Office
January 26, 2005
Mr. David Hogan, Principal Planner
City of Temecula
43200 Business Park Drive
Temc~ulc~, CA 92590
Dear Mr. Hogan:
Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Citv of Temecula General Plan Update
The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (Metropolitan) has reviewed a copy of the
Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft FIR) for the City of Ternecula General Plan Update,
The city of Temecula (City), as the Califomia Environmental Quality Act lead agency, proposes to
adopt and implement the City's General Plan Update, The updated General Plan will address the
seven State-mandated general plan elements (land use, housing, eirl'ulation, safety, open space,
conservation, and 110ise), as well as other issues that are important to the community, including
growth management, economic development, air quality, and community design, The Housing
Element was recently updated in 2002, and thus is not being comprehensively updated as part of
this project. The updated General Plan, establishes an overall development capacity for the City
and surrounding areas, and serves as a policy guide for determining physical development and
character through the year 2025, This letter contains Metropolitan's response to the Initial Study
and NOP as both a potentially affected agency and responsible agency.
Metropolitan staff has reviewed the Draft EIR and determined that our existing San Diego
Pi"eEr>~ nos 1.1,.3 4. anc1 5 need '.0. he cl~ssifte.J?os Pilhlic hlstitntiooa1. F:AriE\ies (pn on Fi<:mn:
~ . - . , . .. '--
3-2, Additionally, Metropolitan's facilities are within both pernwnent easement and tee-owned
property within the boundaries of the General Plan Update area and Metropolitan also owns
property to the west of Lake Skinner, a portion of which is located outside of the city limits, but
within the Planning Area for this document. This property is part of the operations area for Lake
Skinner and serves to accommodate releases from Lake Skinner. Metropolitan requests that the
EIR note that neither private nor public developers have any entitlements to build over our fee-
owned rights-of-way or properties and there are limited allowances on our permanent easements
for private or public improvements.
If the City does not feel that the PI land use designation is appropriate, Metropolitan requests that
our facilities and property be given a land use designation similar to the City's public facilities
(e.g., roadways). This land use designation should set forth that development in and around
Metropolitan's facilities shall be consistent with the express use of our pipelines as public
700 N. Alameda Street, Los Angeles, Califomia 90012 . Mailing Address: Box 54153, Los Angeles, California 90054-0153 . Telephone (213) 217-6000
THE METROPOLITAN WA TER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
Mr. David Hogan, Principal Planner
Page 2
January 26, 2005
.
facilities. Metropolitan requests this designation based on the land uses shown on Figure 3-2 of
the Draft EIR, which indicates "Open Space" across Metropolitan's San Diego Pipeline Nos. I
through 5 in numerous locations. In addition, Figure 3-2 also identifies Metropolitan's property
west of Lake Skinner as Open Space. These lands are not intended for open space use nor should
they be implied as such. Metropolitan requires unobstructed access to our pipelines and property
for routine and emergency maintenance and operations, and the possible installation of additional
pipelines and above-ground facilities including but not limited to water treatment facilities,
therefore, any designation other then "Public Facilities" is inaccurate.
. .
We appreciate the opportunity to provide input to your planning process and we look forward to
receiving future environmental documentation, including a copy of the Final EIR, for this project.
If we can be of further assistance, please contact Mr. John Vrsalovich at (213) 217-6066.
Very truly yours,
r.:;;:mj S'~
Manager, Environmental Planning Team
.
LIM/rdl
(Public FoldersIEPUlLetters/25-JAN-05A.doc - David Hogan)
.
-~
.
~~@~om~m
W JAN 2 8 2005 W
United States Department of the Interior
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
Palm Springs-South Coast Field Office
690 West Garnet Avenue
P.O. Box 581260
North Palm Springs, CA 92258-1260
(760) 251-4800 Fax (760) 251-4899
By
Visit us on the Internet at
www.ca.blm.gov/palmsprings
1610
(CA 660.03)
JAN 2 7 2005
Mr. David Hogan
Principle Planner
City of Temecula
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, California 92592
Dear Mr. Hogan: .
. Thank you for sending the Bureau of Land Management (ELM) a copy of the Draft Environmental
Impact Report for the City of Temecula General Plan Update Project. The BLM would like to offer the
following comments on this document.
This draft EIR indicates that public lands managed by the BLM are included within the project
planning area (Sphere of Influence Boundary). However, the document makes little or no mention of
these lands, or possible impacts to the resources on these public lands. The only reference to BLM
lands is under 3.0 Project Description, Page 3-1, Regional Setting, "The City is bordered by the
unincorporated De Luz area to the west, ... and the Pechanga Indian Reservation, Bureau of Land
Management lands, and unincorporated portions of San Diego County to the south." The BLM lands,
though not identified, are shown in various maps, such as Figure 3-2, Proposed Land Use Policy Map,
as "Open Space."
Two BLM managed parcels are located within the project boundary, parcel # 219-291, approximately
911 acres, and parcel # 218-231, approximately 300 acres. Parcel # 218-231 is also within the Santa
Margarita River Ecological Reserve and Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) These
public lands are managed under the BLM's South Coast Resource Management Plan (RMP), adopted
in 1994, and are considered core habitat under the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat
Conservation Plan (MSHCP). Some of the resource condition objectives for these lands under the
South Coast RMP are to emphasize protection and enhancement of sensitive species habitats and open
. space values, provide recreation opportunities which are compatible with sensitive species .
management objectives, and protect ~ative American values and cultural resources. In addition, lands
_r
within the Santa Margarita ACEC (parcel # 218-231) are unavailable for mineral material sales and .
livestock grazing, are a right-of-way avoidance area, and are closed. to motorized vehicle use.
The BLM would like to see the EIR include a brief description, such as above, of the public lands
within the planning area, and identify the BLM lands in the appropriate land use maps. Since public
lands contain a variety of important resources, impacts to these resources could be discussed in the
sections on Aesthetics, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, and Public Services/Recreation.
Cumulative and long-term effects to these resources from increased population and urbanization could
also be discussed. Some examples of potential impacts might include domestic cats and dogs which
may stray onto public lands and kill bird and reptile species resulting in "habitat sinks", night lighting
of natural areas which upsets the diurnal pattern of species, and uncontrolled off-highway vehicle use
from new residents riding on adjacent public lands. Another concern, resulting from recent wildfires,
is the potential construction by new homeowners of fire breaks on public lands instead of clearing
vegetation on their pri vate property.
The BLM encourages community planning for recreation uses on public lands such as hiking,
horseback riding, nature study and other activities compatible with the Western Riverside County
MSHCP. Our office would welcome the opportunity to work with the City of Temecula to establish a
. cooperative recreation and natural resource management strategy to maximize the benefits of living
near natural areas, protect natural resources, and minimize threats to life and property from wildfires.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this EIR and General Plan Update. If you would like .
more information on BLM managed public lands, our land use management plan, or the resources on
these lands, please contact Greg Hill, Planning and Environmental Coordinator at (760) 251-4840.
Sincerely,
~~
Gail Acheson
Field Manager
.
REceIVEO: 1/31/05 2:27PM; ->CITY OF TEMECULA; #335; PAGE 2
JAN.31.2005 3:33PM
W AJUll;N D. WILLIAMS
General Manager-Chief Engineer
.
.
.
NO. 831 P. 2/3
1995 MARKET STREET
RIVERSIDE, CA 92501
951.955.1200
951.788.9965 FAX
RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL
AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
January 31, 2005
FAXED TIDS DATE TO 951.694.6477
Mr. David Hogan, Principal Planner
City of TemecuJa
Post Office Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
Dear Mr. Hogan:
Re:
Notice of Completion/Availability
of a Draft Environmental Impact
Report for the CitY ofTemecula
General Plan Update
This letter is written in response to the Notice of Completion/Availability of a Draft Environmental Impact
Report (DE1R) for !he City ofTemecula General Plan Update. The proposed project consists of the adoption
and implementation of the City of Temecula General Plan update. The General Plan update addresses the
seven State mandated general plan elements (land use, housing, circulation, safety, open space, conservation,
and noise), as well as other issues that are important to the community, including growth management,
economic development, air quality, and community design. The project planning area encompasses
approximately 62 square miles (39,680 acres) and consists of properties contained within the City's corporate
limits and sphere of influence in southwestern Riverside County.
The Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District has the following comments/concerns
that should be addressed in the DEIR:
I.
Pages 4-2 and 5.14-6 . References are.made concerning the District's jurisdiction of regional flood
control facilities, including major channels and storm drains. Page 5.14-6 incorrectly states that the
District "does not maintain storm drain inlets or pipes less than 42 inches in diameter." For
clarification, the District does not maintain, and in most cases does not have jurisdiction over, storm
drain inlets or pipes less than 36 inches in diameter.
2.
Pages 5.8-3, 5.8-5, and 5.14-7 . It is stated that the stoffilwater in Temecula is "governed" by the
District aud that "all proposed development projects within the Planning Area are reviewed" by the
District prior to approval by the City of Temecula or Riverside County.
It should be clarified in the DEIR that, while strongly recommended, the Districrs review of future
development within the corporate limits of the City of Temecula is not a requirement for approval and
is conducted at the request of the City. Additionally, it should be noted in the DEIR that the Planning
Area is located within the District's Master Draillage Plan (MDP) for the Munieta Creek area. When
fully implemented, these MDP facilities will provide flood protection to relieve those areas within the
plan of the most seriolls flooding problems and will provide adequate drainage outlets. The District's
MDP facility maps can be viewed online at www.f1oodcontro1.co.riverside.ca.us/mdp.asP.To
obtahl further information on the MDP and the proposed District facilities, contact Art Diaz of the
District's Planning Section at 951.955.1345.
RECEIVEO; 1/31/05 2:27PM; ->CITY OF TEMECULA; #335; PAGE 3
JAN.31.2005 3:33PM
NO.831
P.3/3
Mr. David Hogan
Re: Notice of Completion/Availability
of a Draft Environmental Impact
Report for the City of Temecula
General Plan Update
-2-
January 31, 2005
.
3. Pages I -6 and 3-19 - The District should be listed a.~ an agency that may use the General Plan document
for approval of future flood control facilities.
4. Page 1-37, Table I-I - It appears the "Stormwater Drainage" section under "Utilities and Service
Systems" is mislabeled and should read "Energy".
5. Future connections of stormwater facilities constructed for new development to existing District
facilities should be included and evaluated as part ofthe overall project in the CEQA approval process.
Any work that involves District right of way, easements, or facilities will require an encroachment
pennit from the District. The construction of facilities within road right of way that may impact
District stonn drains should also be coordinated with us. To obtain further information On
encroachment permits or existing facilities, contact Ed Lotz of the District's Encroachment Permit
Section at 951 ,955.1266.
Thank you for the opportunity to review the Notice of Completion/Availability and DEIR. Please forward any
subsequent environmental documents regarding the project to my attention at this office. Any further
questions concerning this letter may be referred to me at 951.955.1233 or Marc Mintz at 951.955.4643.
Vety truly yours,
~~~u
TERESA TUNG
Senior Civil Engineer
.
c: Greg Neal
Art Diaz
Bob Cullen
Ed Lotz
MAM;cw
PC\92796
.
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
TRANSPORTATION AND LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY
Tony Carstens
AgenCy Director
JG11JtS ]. Miller
Din"or
Gt()rge A. Joh~on, '.E.
DVlt'''r
January 31,2005
City of Temecula
Ann: Mr. David Hogan, Principal Planner
43200 Business Park Drive
TemecuJa, CA 92592
. Dear Mr. Hogan:
.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Draft ElR for the City of TemecuJa
General Plan update. Attached you will find comment letters from the County of Riverside Planning
and-Transportation Departments, outlining issues that need to be adequately addressed within your EIR
and General Plan Update documents.
We look fOlWard to your responses to these comments and the opportunity to work with you to reach a
COnsensus on how to move fOlWard to address the important issues that affect both of our jurisdictions.
Please let me know if you have any questions or wish to discuss any comment we have provided. I can
be reached at (951) 955-3266.
Sincerel y,
Gr~ r2 {kp
Tl.l\1A. Administrative Manager
.
4080 Lemon Street, 14th Floor. Riverside, California 9250] . (951) 955-6838
P. O. Box ]605. Riverside. California 92502-1605. FAX (95]) 955-6879
':"..
GO'd
,.;.',
OS:91
SO, 1~ U1?[
6L89-SS6-606:X1?3
~Wll-3aIS~3~I~ fo'oJ
Tony tArstens
'Agency Director
.
Planning Department
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
TRANSPORTATION AND
LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY
Rob<!rt C. Jolzn.".on
Plan.ning Director
January 31, 2005
City ofTemecula
ATTN: Mr. David. Hogan, Principal Planner
43200 Business Parl< Drive
. Temecula, CA 92592
RE: NOTICE OF COMPLETION/NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY OF A DRAFT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL
PLAN UPDATE
Dear Mr. Hogan;
Thank you for providing the Riverside County Planning Department the opportunity to review the
draft Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) for the City of Temecula General Plan
Update (hereafter 'Project"). As indicated in the PEIR, subsequent activities which may be .
considered within the scope of this PEIR may include; revisions to the City's Development
Code; rezoning for consistency with the updated Land Use Policy Map; approval of specific
plans, development plans, development agreements, facility and service master plans, public
improvement projects and resource management plans; acquisition of property by purchase or
eminent domain; issuance of municipal bonds and permits for public and private development
projects as well as other permits necessary for implementation of the General Plan. This letter
provides County .staff's comments on the draft PEIR, and the County reserves the right to
provide further comments on the City's General Plan and any other subsequent implementation
activities.
The PEIR indicates that the Project Planning Area consists of approximately 62 square miles (or
39,680 gross acres), of which approximately 28 square miles (or 17,955 gross acres) lie within
the city limits of the City of Temecula. The remaining 34 square miles of planning area are
located In the unincorporated areas of Riverside County and includes approximately 24 square
miles (or 15,360 gross acres) of properties located within the City's sphere of influence and
approximately 10 square miles (or 6,400 gross acres) of properties located outside its sphere of
influence. The Riverside Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) has no current
proposal to change the City's sphere of influence, but is overseeing the preparation of Municipal
Service Reviews (MSRs) as part of a reassessment of spheres of influence.
Under Population and Housing, the PEIR indicates that approximately 77,460 persons resided
;n 24,984 residential units within the corporate City limits in 2004. Future development over the
next 20 years, or to 2025, pursuant to the proposed General Plan may result in an additional
25,005 new residential units (includes detached single-family residential, attached single-family
Riverside Office. 4080 Lemon Slree~ 9th floor
P.O. Box 1409, Riverside, California 92502-1409
(95J) 955-3200. Pax (951) 955.3157
.
Indio Office' 82.675 Hwy 111, 2nd FlOOr
Room 209, Indio, Californio 92201
(760) 863.8277 . fax (760) 863-7555
Murrie.. Office. 39493 Los Alamos Road
Municta, California 92563
(951)600.6170. Fax (951)600.6145
m.d
,." ..,.,,:
QS:91
SO, l~ U1?[
6L89-SSi>=-606,'X1?.:l -'~wli.:'-::ia-iS<l:3riI~ JD 'OJ
City of Temecula
Draft EIR - City of Temecula General Plan Update
Page 2 of8
.
. resiaential ana mUlti-family residential) and 36.2 million square feet of net new nonresidential
development, resulting in up to 54,687 total residential units and 78.3 million square feet of
nonresidential development and provide for a total population capacity of 169 ,184 persons
within the Planning Area.
County Planning staff offers the following comments for your consideration and incorporation
into the draft PEIR:
1. Approximately 34 square miles of the Planning Area lie outside the city limits, within the
unincorporated area of Riverside County. The City's proposed land use designations do
not reflect existing County land use approvals within the unincorporated areas. For
example, the site of an approved high-density senior housing project is proposed for the
City's Rural designation (maximum intensity 0.2 dwelling units per acre). (See the
discussion under item.15 below.) Failure to reflect existing County land use and land
division approvals may be expected to lead to an underestimate of overall, cumulative
impacts on traffic. air pollutant emissions, noise, water supply, and nonrenewable
resource consumption.
.
2. The Alternatives analysis should include consideration of an alternative that utilizes the
City's proposed land use designations within its existing jurisdictional boundaries and the
County's land use designations within its existing jurisdictional boundaries. This study is
merited in that it would provide an analysis of potential development in the event that the
City were to adopt its proposed General Plan, but not annex any additional land.
3. The portion of the Planning Area outside city limits includes approximately 10 square
miles of unincorporated areas not currently located within the City's sphere of influence.
. The Project Description of the draft PEIR should cite under what authority the City is
including the 10 square miles of area outside its sphere of influence as part of its
Planning Area and whether the City intends to file a proposal to expand its sphere of
influence and annex this area.
4. There are inconsistencies throughout the draft PEIR when discussing population.
dwelling units, and nonresidential square footage within the City limits and Planning
Area. For example, the Executive Summary discussion of the Land Use Element
identifies total nonresidential development pursuant to the proposed General Plan as
78.3 million square feet (page 1-3), while the Project Description on page 3-8 identifies
total nonresidential development as 75.4 million square. feet (page 3-8). Such
discrepancies need to be resolved. .
5. The environmental document utilizes Southern Califomia Association of GOvernments
(SCAG) 2000-2025 growth forecasts, build-out capacity of the proposed General Plan
within the City limits and within the Planning Area. the City of Temecula 2004 Population
Profile for Cities of Temecula (for areas within City limits only). Murrieta and Western
Riverside County, and the 2004 State Department of Finance City/County Population
and Housing Estimates (for areas within City limits only). Please include a comparison
table for these different factors in the Executive Summary or Project Description Section
of the draft PEIR so that the reviewer can clearly understand the relationship between
these factors and whether they support the analyses and findings in various parts of the
draft PEIR.
.
170'd
....,..;
lS:9l
SO, l~ ue[
6L89~SS6":606-:xe~'.-8'W\L":3(iIS~:3r\I~ .fo'OJ
"City 'of Temecula
Draft EIR - City of Temecula General Plan Update
Page 3 of 8
6.
.
page 4-1, under Environmental Setting, identifies the unincorporated portions of the'
Planning Area as being comprised of 16,480 acres (or 26 square miles). Please provide
an explanation of why this number is inconsistent with the Project Characteristics
discussion in the Executive Summary of the PEIR.
7. On Page 5-1, under Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures, the draft PEIR
slates that mitigation, in addition to measures that the lead agency will implement, can
also inclUde measures that are within the responSibility and jurisdiction of another public
agency pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(2). To cite the applicable CEQA
section:
"No public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has
been certified which identifies one or more Significant environmental effects of
the project unless the public agency makes one or more written findings for
each of those significant effects, accompanied by a brief explanation of the
rationale for each finding:
It is a violation of CEQA to defer mitigation. This section clearly does not excuse the
lead agency from identifying all feasible mitigation and considering a reasonable range
of alternatives to reduce significant impacts resulting from the lead agency's authority to
use its discretionary powers.
8.
Under Section 5.2 Agricultural Resources, the draft PEIR states that the project will
result in a less than significant impact with regard to Williamson Act contract lands, as
there are no Williamson Act contracts in the Planning Area. This statement is incorrect
There are a number of agricultural preserves located in the unincorporated areas of the
Planning Area. Consequently, there are numerous parcels located within the boundaries
of an agricultural preserve, many of them under active Williamson Act contracts.
Easterly of Butterfield Stage Road, there are several large development projects
currently being processed through the County of Riverside. each involving large lot
residential development and proposing cancellation of the affected agricultural preserve
ro~~ ' ,
.
9. Please indicate in the discussion under Carbon Monoxide Hot Spots in Section 5.3 Air
Quality whether all existing roadways that are currently operating below an acceptable
level of service (LOS D), as well as all future impacted roadways, were monitored and
included in Appendix B. If all impacted roadways haven't been evaluated and/or if
factors used to calculate traffic impacts are revised, this study should be revised
accordingly and included in the appendix and draft PEIR.
The discussion under 5.4 Biological Resources states on page 5.4-17 that
implementation of the Clty.s proposed General Plan will result in "significant and
adverse" impacts on rare, threatened. and endangered species. The discussion under
5.9 Land Use and Planning states on page 5.9-1 that the General Plan "was found to
conflict with" the adopted Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat
Conservation Plan. However, both sections then make the finding of less than
Significant impact to biological resources and to an adopted regional plan with
implementation of mitigation measures. One such mitigation measure is that future
projects comply with the MSHCP. For example, if a future proposed project is
inconsistent with the MSHCP because avoidance of riparian/riverine areas or vernal
10.
.
SO'd
.' , .."..~: ,'.i .,
~S:9~
so. ~~ ue[
H'6L89:ssi;=606: xe~---~vm -3GIS<'l31\I<'l }O'OJ
e
12.
.
13.
City of Temecula
Draft EIR - City of Temecula General Plan Update
Page 4 of8
11.
POOlS i$ unfeasible, a finding of biologically equivalent or superior preservation must be
made in accordance with guidelines contained in the MSHCP. Therefore, a finding of
less than significant impact to biological resources cannot be made at this program level
due to the lack of future projects' specificity. .
Section 5.10 Noise uses level of service (LOS) C for adjacent roadways to estimate
maximum level future noise impacts. However, Sections 5.3 Air Quality and 5.13
Transportation indicate that several intersections and freeway ramps are currently
operating at LOS E and LOS F. These intersections and ramps will be further
exacerbated by additional traffic resulting from ultimate build-out of the Planning Area.
Future traffic will also impact new areas of the existing roadways by exceeding
acceptable levels of service. The analysis in this section of the PEIR should utilize a
realistic level of service in determining project and cumulative noise impacts. Please
revise Appendix E and the Noise Section of the draft PEIR.
.
Under Section 5.13 Transportation, it appears that existing traffic conditions were based
on stUdies conducted within the City limits and not within the proposed Planning Area to
arrive at average daily trip (ADT) volumes. These ADTs were then added to future ADT
volumes based on residential and nonresidential build-out under the proposed General
Plan. ihe traffic analysis should address existing conditions of the Project Planning
Area. within the City and unincorporated areas. Please revise the analyses under this
section as well as all affected sections of the draft PEIR (i.e., air quality, noise, etc.).
Under the Environmental Setting and Section 5.13 Transportation, the draft PEIR
identifies several intersections and freeway ramps that currently operate at LOS E and
LOS F. Impacts to these same intersections and freeway ramps resulting from
implementation of the proposed Generai Plan are then determined not to be significant
since unacceptable LOS already exists at these roadways and no new impacts will result
from the additional ADT volumes. Implementation of the Project' will result, at a
minimum, in doubling existing ADTs. It cannot accurately be stated that the Project will
not have direct impacts on existing roadways resulting from increased ADT volumes.
This is an inappropriate application of CEQA, where it states that the environmental
baseline is established at the time the Notice of Preparation is distributed to the public.
This section of the draft PEIR is inadequate and fails to fully disclose and analyze
existing and future traffic impacts. Please revise this section as well all affected sections
of the draft PEIR (i.e., air quality, carbon monoxide hot spots, noise, etc.) and identify
mitigation measures which will reduce said impacts.
14. The draft PEIR Identifies that implementation of the Project will result in significant,
unavoidable, project-level and cumulative impacts to Air Quality and Transportation, but
that noise impacts will be less than significant with mitigation. However, page 1-44 of the
Executive Summary states that "increased traffic noise may have significant impact ... in
the long term" and that "residual impacts will remain significant." Please clarify whether
of not noise impacts will be significant and adverse and include mitigation measures to
reduce said impacts.
15. The draft PEIR and the City's Land Use Policy and Focus maps should be revised to
reflect the following existing County land use approvals within the unincorporated area.
.
I~, ,
6L89-SS6-606:xp~'--SNll~3aIs~3~i~ }O'O)
90'd
(;S:91
SO, 1~ uP[
City of Temeeula
Dr~ft EIR - City of Temecula General Plan Update
Page 5 of 8
An 11.51-acre area at the southeast comer of the intersection of Rancho
California Road at Rancho Vista Road (Assessor's Parcel Numbers 951-140-016
through 951-040-018) is the site of a senior housing and health care complex
approved through Public Use Permit No. 791, as modified by Substantial
Conformance No.1. This property is designated Very High Density Residential
(14-20 dwelling units per acre) within the Community Development Foundation
Component on the Southwest Area Plan. The City proposes a designation of
Rural - 0.2 dwelling units per acre on the City's proposed land Use Map, within
Rural Preservation Area No.2. This site should be designated High Density
Residential (13-20) on the City Plan. However, whether or not the City chooses
to acknowledge this approvedprojecl in its Land Use Plan, any cumulative
impact analyses and traffic models need to reflect this project approval.
b. An 84.34-acre area southerly of the Morgan HIli development (Assessor's 'Parcel
Numbers 952-250-008, -012, and -044 through -046) is the site of a 143-lot
subdivision map approved through Tentative Tract Map No. 29473. This property
is designated Medium Density Residential (2-5 dwelling units per acre) within the
Community Development Foundation Component on the Southwest Area Plan.
The City proposes a designation of Vineyards/Agricultural on the City's proposed
land Use Map, within Rural Preservation Area No.3. This site should be
designated Low Density Residential (0.5-2.9 dwelling units per acre) on the City
Plan. However, whether or not the City chooses to acknowledge this approved
project in its Land Use Plan, any cumulative impact analyses and traffic models
need to reflect this project approval.
a.
16.
The boundaries of the Rural Preservation Areas should be modified, at least to the
extent necessary to recognize existing County approvals pre-dating ttie release of this
Plan.
17. The above specified projects in the Rural Preservation Areas reflect only the major
projects that have been approved. There are a number of other projects in process that
may need to be addressed in cumulative impact analysis. Staff offers the following
information for your consideration:
Rural Preservation Area - Temecula Wine Countrv/East Rancho California
.
.
Consider the area bounded by De portola Road on the north, Anza Road on the east,
State Highway Route 79 South on the south, and the Temecula city limits on the west.
This area is designated for Community Development Foundation Component uses on
the Southwest Area Plan - Medium Density Residential (2-5 dwelling units per acre) and
Commercial Tourist. The City proposes a designation of Vineyards/Agricultural (O.1
dwelling units per acre). In this area, the eight westerly parcels are designated Medium
Density Residential, but are not the site of any major planning cases. However, the
easterly area is characterized by smaller parcels, and those in the southerly portion have
been the location for a number of planning cases. These include an approved Iman;
Temple on APN 952-170-005 located northwesterly of the Calle Arnaz cul-de-sac. The
parcel located at the northwesterly comer of State Highway Route 79 South and Anza
Road {APN 952-170-007) was formerly approved for a Church through Public Use Permit
No. 764. That permit has since expired, but the County is processing a change of zone .
and conditional use permit (Change of Zone Case No. 6654 and Conditional Use Permit
----....:..---.----
,..
~S:9, SO.,~ u~[
6L89~SS6:606:X~~--.ljNll:3dis~3AI~ }o'OJ
LO'd
City of Temecula
Draft EIR - City of Temecula General Plan Update
Page 6 of8
.
NO. 3357) to establish a gas station, mini-mart, and car wash at this location, which is
designated Commercial Tourist.
.
Except for the areas southerly of De Portola Road and the Public Use Permit site
referenced above, the County designations within the area identified by the City as East
Rancho Califomia or Temecula Wine Country fall within the Rural Community and
Agriculture Foundation Components. However, there are a number of differences
between the County and City provisions.
The County designates properties located westerly of Anza Road. southerly of Pauba
Road, and northerly of De Portola Road as Estate Density Residential - Rural
Community (EDR-RC: one dwelling unit per two acres). The City proposes to designate
this area as Rural Residential with a density standard of 0.2 dwelling unit per acre. or
one unit per five acres, with a small area along the northerly side of De Portola Road
designated VineyardsfAgriculture (0.1 dwelling unit per acre). However, a review of
existing lot size pattems indicates that the predominant lot size in this area. other than
the area along the northerly side of De Portola Road, is in the 2Y:z - 5 acre range. Thus.
use of the density standard of 0.2 dwelling units per acre may result in an underestimate
of the actual intensity of this area, with consequent impacts on the accuracy of projected
levels of traffic and secondary impacts on the accuracy of noise and air quality modeling.
(The area on the northerly side of De Portola Road is characterized by larger lot sizes;
however. this area is also designated EDR-RC on the County's Plan.) It is
recommended that this area be designated and modeled as within the City's Very low
(density) Residential, 0.2 - 0.4 dwelling units per acre.
Northerly of Pauba Road is a large area designated as Agriculture within the Citrus
Vineyard Policy Area on the SWAP. with some exceptions in the area southerly of
Rancho California Road. This Policy Area flanking Rancho California Road between
Butterfield Stage Road on the west and Anza Road on the east differs from most
agricultural areas in the County in its allowance for a five acre minimum lot size for tract
maps and parcel maps. In contrast. the City's proposed Vineyards/Agriculture
designation provides for a maximum development intensity of 0.1 dwelling units per acre
(one dwelling unit per ten acres). While some of the area depicted as Citrus Vineyard on
'the SWAP is proposed as Very low Residential or Rural Residential on the City's land
Use Policy Map, most of this area is proposed as within the Vineyards/Agriculture
designation on the City's Map. It is recommended that this area retain the
VineyardsfAgriculture designation, except where the County designation is for a higher
intensity than Agriculture. but that the development intensity for this designation be
Changed to 0.2 dwelling units per acre.
Northerly of the Citrus Vineyard Policy Area is another area designated Estate Density
Residential- Rural Community on the SWAP. The portion of this area southwesterly of
Calle Contento is proposed for a designation of Rural Residential (0.2 dweliing units per
acre) on the City's Plan. It is recommended that this area be designated as Very Low
(density) Residential. 0.2 - 0.4 dwelling units per acre on the City's Plan.
.
Rural Preservation Area - SouthAnza Road ail SR-79
Tentative Tract Map No. 29473 referenced in 15b. above affects five of the parcels
within an area of fifteen parcels located southeasterly of the Morgan Hill development
...~ .
80'd
cS:91 SO. l~ ue[
6L89-SS6=6ci6:xe.:l-'tJj;jl.l':'3(jIS~3i\I~ ~o 'OJ
. City of Temecula
Draft ErR - City of Temecula General Plan Update
Page 7 of 8
ano OesignateO Medium Density Residential on the SWAP. At this time, there is no
urban development within this area. However, tentative tract maps have been filed on
five of the other ten properties (APNs 952-250-005, 006, 007, 013, and 015), These
tract maps (32226, 32227, 32778, and 32988) together propose 275 lots on 93,2 acres.
These tract maps are presently in the review process, although none is ready to be
scheduled for hearing as of this writing. An additional four parcels established tihrough
Parcel Map No. 28289 (APNs 952-380-001 through -004) are five acres in gross area.
Only one of the fifteen parcels is 10 acres or larger and is noUhe subject of a proposed
subdivision.
.
We recommend thatlhe area designated Medium Density Residential on the SWAP be
removed from the Rural Preservation Area and be designated for Low or Low Medium
Density Residantial developmgnt on the City's l..nd Use Policy Map. In any event,
consideration should be given to the County designations of this land in cumulative
impact analysis and traffic modeling.
The County does not object to the inclusion of the remainder of the depicted area
southerly and easterly of the Morgan Hill development within the Rural Preservation
Area, as depicted. However, bearing in mind that the majority of this area is designated
Rural Residential on the SWAP, the City should either designate the properties Rural
Residential or change the density within the Vineyards/Agricultural designation to 0.2
dwelling units per acre as recommended above.
The City's Policy Map and Focus Map differ with respect to the treatment of the area .
located on the south side of State Highway Route 79 South, westerly of Anza Road.
The Focus Map depicts this area as being inCluded within the Rural Preservation Area,
while the Land Use Policy Map depicts this area as being designated for Low Medium
and. Low density residential development. We recommend that the area located
southerly of State Highway Route 79 South, northerly of Temecula Creek, and westerly
of Anza Road be removed from the Rural Preservation Area.
French Valley Future Growth Area
In general, the City's proposed land use designations for this area appear to conform to
County land use designations. Given the differences in ranges between tihe City and
County designations, direct comparison for the urban density areas is not simple.
However, we have identified one area where there are discrepancies. The northeast
quarter of the northwest quarter of Section 4 consists of sixteen parcels, each about 2Y:z
acres in size. This area is designated as Estate Density Residential within the Rural
Community Foundation Component (one dwelling unit per two acres) on the SWAP.
The City proposes a designation of Rural Residential (0.2 dwelling units per ~cre);
however, if a residence is allowed on each existing lot, this area will build out at a
density of 0.4 dwelling units per acre. This should be considered in analyzing
cumulative impact and traffic analysis. Given the existing lot size pattern, we
recommend that this area be designated Very Low density Residential on the City's
land Use Policy Map.
The City may also wish to consider re-designation of the southeast quarter of the
southwest quarter of Section 33 as Very Low density Residential, as this area is also .
designated Estate Density Residential- Rural Community on the SWAP.
60'd
. ".,...,'
~S:91
SO, 1~ Ul?[
. -1...-__---"_..____......
6L89~SS6-606:Xl?~ ~Wll-3aIS~3AI~ JO'OJ
e
.
.
. City of .Temecula
Draft EIR - City of Temecula General Plan Update
'Page 8 of 8
The Draft PEIR provides an analysis of the potential environmental impacts of the City's
proposed General Plan. As the General Plan is a policy document, many of the mitigation
measures identified to mitigate potential impacts are policies and may not be effective as
mitigation. The draft PEIR should clearly identify actions required by the City to make said
policies viable (i.e., resolution, ordinance, etc.).
Thank you for considering our comments and for the opportunity to review the draft PEIR for the
City of Temecula General Plan Update. If you should have any questions regarding these
comments, please contact Kathleen Browne, Urban Regional Planner III, at (909) 955.4949.
Sincerely,
NING DEPARTMENT
nson, Planning Director
Y:\TM2\KBFtOWNE\DER Log\RelWLvs'WOOOO Temr:cula GP _EIR.doo.
'.:' .'.
. ".- ..-.--.-.-.-"-------:...-..-----..-......
6l89-SS6-606:xej ~Wll-3aIS~3AI~ JO'OJ
OT'd
~S:9T so. T~ ue[
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
TRANSPORTATION AND
LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY
Transportation Department
.
G.o'8' A. Joho$ofl, P.E.
D;rt.c,or of Transportation
January 31, 2005
Mr. David Hogan, Principal Planner
City of T emecula
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
RE: Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the City of Temecula
General Plan Update
Dear Mr. Hogan.
The Riverside County Transportation Department has reviewed the Draft EIR for the
City of Temecula General Plan Update. We appreciate the opportunity to review and
comment on this document. .
In ongoing discussions with the County, the City as been an advocate of developing
strategies to address the impacts of growth on the regional arterial and freeway system
throughout southwest Riverside County. The City has consistently emphasized the
need to plan and implement a circulation system (regional arterials and freeways) that
can accommodate future traffic. As such, the City has challenged the County to
develop a performance based circulation improvement program to ensure adequate
capacity will be provided on the arterials and freeways to accommodate growth in the
region. The City's General Plan does not evaluate freeway capacity or impacts. The
proposed General Plan also lacks a performance based infrastructure improvement
program. Please show us how the City intends to address the freeway and regional
arterial challenges with an adequately funded infrastructure phasing program.
Based upon our review of the document, the Transportation Department has the
following comments:
1. The traffic analysis does not address traffic impacts to the freeway system.
Neither the Existing ADT Volumes (Figure2-1), nor the 2025 ADT Volumes
(Figure 4-1) indicate any traffic volumes on either 1-15 or 1-215, There is no
analysis anywhere in the report of impacts to the freeway mainline. The only
analysis of freeway impacts is limited to local access interchanges. The
.
4080 Lemon Street, 81b Floor. Riverside, California 92501 . (951) 955-6740
1'.0. Bo~ 1090. Riverside. CalifOrnia 92502-1090. FAX (951) 955-3198
n'd
~S:9T SO, T~ U~[
6L89-SS6-606:X~~ ~Wll-3aIS~3AI~ }O'O)
.
.
.
January 31, 2005
Mr. David Hogan, Principal Planner
RE: DEIR for City of Temecula General Plan Update
Page 2
analysis should be expanded to evaluate and address impacts to the freeway
system.
2. Land. use assumptions for the unincorporated area of French Valley are
inconsistent with the County's Highway 79 Policy Area (C 2.7, copy
enclosed), which calls for a 9% reduction in residential trip generation. The
plan should be revised to recognize and implement this trip reduction strategy
for the French Valley area.
3. The traffic analysis for the unincorporated portions of the City's plan should
also be consistent with the County's policy relative to commercial
development (LU 23.2, copy enclosed). The policy requires that once 40% of
all designated commercial properties have developed, further commercial
development must demonstrate a market need, as well as provide for the full
mitigation of traffic impacts. It is further assumed that the remainder of the
commercially designated properties may need to convert to medium density
residential. County policies call for a program to monitor and implement such
limitation, as should the City's General Plan for the unincorporated areas.
The Draft EIR Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures
(Table 1-1) indicates that the City will implement certain procedures and
programs to monitor and mitigate impacts to transportation infrastructure,
however, there are no policies contained in the General Plan nor in the Draft
EIR which would indicate a commitment to implement such procedures and
programs.
4.
The table further indicates that six interchange locations will operate at LOS
F. Additionally, the levels of service reported in Table 1-1 do not coincide with
levels of service reported in the traffic study or in other sections throughout
the draft EIR. These inconsistencies must be reconciled,
Further, the statement attached to Table 1-1 that mitigation measures are
required to reduce the level of impact is vague and ambiguous. Mitigation
measures should he specific and performance-based to link infrastructure
improvements to development impacts.
5.
The Roadway Plan (Figure 3-3) contains a number of inconsistencies when
compared to the County General Plan Circulation Element (copy enclosed)
for the unincorporated areas included in the City's General Plan.
a. SR 79 (Winchester Road) in the City's Roadway Plan is designated as an
a-lane Urban Arterial within the City, and as a 6-lane Principal Arterial in
iTd
'.
17S:91
~Wll-3aIS~3AI~ fO'OJ
SO, 1~ U.,[
6L89-SS6-606:X"~
January 31, 2005
Mr. David Hogan, Principal Planner
RE: DEIR for City of Temecula General Plan Update
Page 3
.
the County Area. The County currently has an MOU with Caltrans and the
City of Murrieta (copy enclosed), which defines future access, right of way
and imprpvements for SR 79 between Hunter Road and Domenigoni
Parkway. The MOU calls for a 184' r/w from Hunter Road to Keller Road,
and a 220' r/w from Keller Road to the Domengoni Parkway. Both typical
cross sections call for 6-lane improvements that could be expanded to
accommodate a-lanes within the designated right of way. The City's plan
should be revised to be consistent with this MOU.
b. The City plan has upgraded the designation of Anza Road to a 6-lane
Principal Arterial as the planned roadway approaches the new planned
interchange on 1-15 southerly of SR 79 South. We agree with this revision
and commend the City for this circulation network enhancement. However,
the City plan designates Anza Road in the unincorporated area as a 2-
lane Rural Highway, while the County designates Anza Road as a 4-lane
Major Highway. The remainder of the City portion carries a similar 4-lane
Major Arterial designation. Anza Road, in combination with or as an
alternative to Butterfield Stage Road, could function as the "Eastern
Bypass. which has been the topic of much discussion between the City
and the County. The traffic analysis assumes that the 2-lane Rural .
Highway has a capacity of 20,000 vehicles per day. Our analysis and
experience with such 2-lane rural roadways indicates that this is an overly
optimistic estimate of capacity, which is more in the range of 13,000
vehicles per day. More over, the 2025 forecast traffic volumes on the
northerly reach of Anza Road indicates daily traffic volumes approaching
nearly 30,000 vehicles per day. By either standard, the forecast volumes
clearly exceed 2-laoe capacity. It is our recommendation that the City
adopt a designation that more" closely reflects the County 4-lane Major
Highway designation.
c. Rancho California Road in the City Roadway Plan is also designated as 2-
lane Rural Highway. The County designates this facility as a Mountain
Arterial (110' r/w) , which has a number of optional cross sections ranging
from two to three to four-lanes, depending upon traffic demand and local
conditions. At present the road is already 3-lanes, which includes a: center
left turn lane. It is our recommendation that the City develop a standard to
match the County's Mountain Arterial designation.
6.
The traffic study utilizes the ICU methodology to calculate level of service and
indicates, on page 2-5, that the leu values are calculated on the basis of
ideal operating conditions, while suggesting that physical constraints may
prevent ideal conditions from occurring. The use of the leu methodology to
.
_.______.. -...--:....-1. .
~1.d VS:91 SO, 1~ ue[
6L89-':SS5-606:X;j---tJwil-3(j-i&l3~I~- JD'OJ
.
.
.
January 31, 2005
Mr. David Hogan, Principal Planner
RE: DEIR for City of Temecula General Plan Update
Page 4
7.
8.
9.
calculate level of service is inconsistent with current transportation industry
standards for traffic impact analysis and the City's own guidelines for the
preparation of traffic impact studies. The County of Riverside requires
Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodologies to assess the Jevel of
service measurement.
We believe that the use of the ICU method produces unrealistically optimistic
results at several locations. For example, the study reports an existing LOS C
at the 1-15 NIB ramps! Winchester Road intersection. The HCM method for
this same location indicates LOS E, which is more consistent with actual
observed operations at this intersection. Similarly, the Winchester
RoadlMargarita Road intersection is reported to operate at LOS 0 for the
existing PM peak hour. The HCM method indicates LOS F, again more
consistent with actual observed operation. As such, we believe that the ICU
method has consistently understated traffic impacts for both existing
conditions and future year forecasts.
In addition, the Draft EI R is internally inconsistent with respect to the
methodology used to determine traffic impacts, as the Noise and Air Quality
sections of the Draft EIR have used the HCM method and report different
levels of service for the same intersections. We recommend that the level of
service calculations be revised to consistently utilize the HCM method
throughout the document.
The traffic analysis only addresses impacts within the City boundaries, while
other elements such as Noise and Air Quality consider the entire Planning
Area, including unincorporated areas adjacent to the City. Omitting the
analysis of traffic impacts for the unincorporated areas is inconsistent with the
remainder of the draft General Plan. The traffic study needs to be revised and
expanded to address the whole Planning Area.
The baseline data used to establish existing conditions is very outdated
(2000/2002). Generally baseline data should be no more than one year old.
The baseline data needs to be updated to reflect current traffic volumes.
The traffic study forecasts future volumes only to the year 2025. It is typical
when analyzing General Plan impacts to evaluate build out of the General
Plan. While the City may assume that the entire City area will be buildout by
2025, that is not a reasonable assumption for the surrounding area. We
recommend that the analysis be revised and expanded to include a build out
scenario.
17t'd
.,' .
17S:9t SO, t~ uef
6L89-SS6-=606:-xe~ ... -tiwli=-3arS~3I\I<J JO'OJ
January 31. 2005
Mr. David Hogan, Principal Planner
RE: DEIR for City of Temecula General Plan Update
Page 5
.
10. The traffic study, page 1-1, indicates that the traffic forecasts for the analysis
were derived from the City of Temecula Traffic Model. We would like to verify
that this model is consistent with the County's RCIP traffic model, particularly
with respect to land use and network assumptions for the adjacent County
unincorporated areas, as the future year forecasts do not appear to match
with forecasts obtained from the RCIP model.
For example, the future year peak hour volumes at the Winchester
Road/Murrieta Hot Springs Road intersection are very low compared to
forecasts whioh have used the RCIP model as a basis, Specifically, the
northbound left turn movement Is shown to be 0 and the eastbound left tum is
shown as 100 vehicles, while recent count data indicates current volumes of
187 and 315, respectively. We can see no logical explanation such a drastic
reduction in tuming movements for future year scenarios. All RCIP model
output has projected significant increases in volume for future years.
We recommend that the traffic analysis be reviewed for consistency with the
RCIP model.
We are prepared to work with the City to address these issues and reach a mutual
understanding of the traffic impacts associated with the City's new General Plan, along
with the City's approach to policies and programs which the City plans to implement in
ordeno mitigate traffic impacts.
.
Please feel free to contact Ed Studor, Administrative Manager, at (951) 955-6767
should you have any questions or wish to discuss these commenlS further.
Sincerely,
~~~
Director of Transportation
GAJ:ES:es
Enclosures
cc: . Supervisor Jeff Stone, Third District
. Tony Carstens, TLMA Direclor
Greg Neal, Agency Program Administrator
.
s. 'd
..
ss:g.
so, .~ Ul?[
6L89:SS6:'606:Xl?j--tjWl.i:=3aIS~()i<J }O 'OJ
~1:::I..=-a.":::I.
.
.
.
_~.._..... --'.':.1'"
____._=-_:::11'11:::::11....__ I_r!!..._=r."EI=-
01/31/2005 17:34 FAX 916 657 5390.
NAHC
1aJ001
~TATF OF CAIIFORNI,A
GOlIS/Dlll
An"lnlctSr.h.W$!lI"'7~
NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION
915 CAPrrOL MALL, ROOM 384
SACRAMENTO, CA. 95814
(916) 653-4082
(916) 657-5390 - Fax
'I
January 31. 2005
Mr. David Hogan
City ofT emecula
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula. CA 92590
He: proposed City of Temecula General Plan Update
SCH# 2003061041
Dear Mr. Hogan:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the above-menlioned document The Commission
was able to conduct a Sacred Lands File search for this project, which identified no recorded sites within
the project area. The absence of recorded sites, on either the Sacred Lands File or the State or National
Historic Register, however, does not preclude the possibility that unrecorded sites may exist on the
property.
On March 1 of this year. Local Governments will be required to comply wtth Senate Bill 1 B
(Chapter 90S, 2004 statules), which requires consultation wtth appropriate Native American tribes
regarding any amendment to a General Plan or Specific Plan. The General Plan Guidelines will be
amended to reflect the new law, which includes a requirement to contact the Native American Heritage
Commission for the appropriate tribal contacts. Because this law will be implement shortly, we encourage
you to initiate the consultation process now for the General Plan Amendment currently under
consideration. (To read a copy of the chaptered law, please go to httD:/Iinfo.sen.ca.gov/c!!i-
bin/Dostquerv?bjll number=sb 18&sess=PREV &house=B&site=senl
Early consultation with tribes in your area is the best way to avoid unanticipated discoveries once
a project is underway. Enclosed is a list of Native Americans individualslOfQaniZations that may have
unique knowledge of cultural resources in the project area. The Commission makes no recommendation
of a single individual or group over another. By contacting all those listed, your organization will be better
able to respond to claims of failure to consult with the appropriate tribe or group. If you have not received
a response within two weeks' time, we recommend that you foIlow~P with a telephone call to make sure
that the information was received.
Lack of surface evidence of archeological resources does not preclude the existence of
archeological resources. Lead aaencies should consider avoidance. as defined in Section 15370 of the
CEOA Guidelines. when sianifocant cullural resources could be affected. Provisions should also be
included for accidentally discovered archeological resources during construction per Califomia
Environmental Quality Act (CEOA). Public Resources Code !j15064.5 (t). Health and Safety Code
!j7050.5; and PUblic Resources Code !j5097.9B mandate the process to be followed in the event of an
accidental discovery of any human remains In a location other than a dedicated cemetery and should be
included in all environmental documents. If you have any questions, please contact me at (916) 653-
6251.
Sincerely.
'-tla-{
Carol Gaubatz
Program Analy
Cc: Slate Clearinghouse
,
RECEIVED:
1/31/05
4:31PMj ->CITY OF TEMECULA; #340j PAGE 2
01/31/2005 17:34 FAX 916 657 5390
NABC
Native American Contacts
Riverside County
JanuaIY 31, 2005
Cupa Cultural Center (Pala Band)
William J. Contreras. Archaeology and Cultural Res.
P.O. Box 455 Luiseno
Pala . CA 92059
(760) 742-3784
Pala Band of Mission Indians
Robert Smith. Chairperson
P.O. Box 50
Pala ' CA 92059
(760) 742-3784
(760) 742-1411 Fax
Luiseno
Cupeno
Pechanga Band of Mission Indians
Paul Macarro, Cultural Resource Center
P.O. Box 2183 Luiseno
Temecula . CA 92593
(951) 308-9295
(951) 506-9491 Fax
Thlalbt 10 current only a. of the _ of this document.
Distribution of this list dOd nOI",lIeve any person Of stalutory responsibility "" defined In _on 7050.5 of the Health and
5llfety Code, 5_on 5097.94 of the Public ResoUtC<l$ Code and $Getlon 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code.
Thlallst 10 only appll""blO for c;onf8Ctlng Iocol NaIlva Ame"cons with regard to culturel","","" a_men! tor the proposed
City of TamacuJa Gena",1 Plan Update, SCIV 2003061041, RIv....lde county. .
~002
.
.
.
S TAT E OF C. A L I FOR N I A
Governor's Office of Planning and Research
. State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit
~\lfP~4-q .
f~l
'f.,.....1f/A ,I
.." -..
"ft01CAUfO'i''"
"'0"
. Arnold
Schwarzenegger
. Governor
Jan Boel
Acting Director
February I. 2005
~.!T~r(~--n. ',fl [II rp I Jill
f~~ FEBO 3' ;~O~S ! liil
I ~,'.:
By~
David Hogan
City ofTemecula
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
'"')
Subject: City ofTemecula General Plan Update
SCH#: 2003061041
Dear David Hogan:
The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named Draft EIR to selected state agencies for review. On the
enclosed Document Details Report please note that the Clearinghouse has listed the state agencies that
reviewed your document The review period closed on January 31,2005, and the comments from the
responding agency (ies) is (are) enclosed. If this comment package is not in order, please notify the State
Clearinghouse immediately. Please refer to the project's ten-digit State Clearinghouse number in future
cOITespondence so that we may respond promptly.
.
Please note that Section21104(c) of the California Public Resources Code states that:
"A responsible or other public agency shall only make substantive comments regarding those
activities involved in a project which are within an area of expertise of the agency or which are
required to be carried ant or approved by the agency. Those comments shall be supported by.
specific documentation."
These comments are forwarded for use in preparing your final environmental document. Should you need
more information-or clarification of the enclosed comments, we recommend that you contact the
commenting agency directly.
This letter ,cknowledges that you have complied with the State Clearinghouse review requirements for draft
enviroIllll.ental ~ocuments, pursuant to the California Enviromnental Quality Act. Please contact the State
Clearinghouse at (916) 445-0613 if yon have any qnestions regarding the environmental review process.
Sincerely,
~~.
Director, State Clearii1ghous~
Enslosures
(C'; 'Rcsollrces Agency
.
1400 TENTH STREET P.O. BOX 3044 SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95812-3044
TEL (916) 445-0613 FAX (916) 323-3018 www.opr.ca.gov
SCH#
Project Title
Lead Agency
Document Details Report
State Clearinghouse Data Base
2003061041
City of Temecula General Plan Update
T emecula, City of
.
Type EIR Draft EIR
Description The Cily of Temecula has completed a comprehensive update program for the General Plan. The
updated General Plan addresses the seven State mandated General Plan elements, as well as other
issues that are important to the community, Including growth management, economic development, air
quality, and community design. The Housing Element was recently updated in 2002, and thus is not
being comprehensively updated as part of this program.
Lead Agency Contact
Name David Hogan
Agency City of Temecula
Phone (951) 694-6400
email
Address
City
Fax
43200 Business Park Drive
T emecula
State CA Zip 92590
Project Location
County Riverside
City . T emecula
Region
Cross Streets N/A
Parcel No. N/A
Township
Range
Section
Base
.
Proximity to:
Highways SR-79, 1,15, 1-215
Airports French Valley Airport
Railways None
Waterways Temecula, Murrieta, Tucalota Creeks and Santa Margarita River
Schools All TVUSD Schools
Land Use Varies
Project Issues
AestheticNisual; Agricultural Land; Air Quality; Archaeologlc-Historlc; Cumulative Effects;
Drainage/Absorption; Flood Plain/Flooding; Forest Land/Fire Hazard; Geologic/Seismic; Growth
Inducing; Landuse: Minerals; Noise; Other Issues; Population/Housing Balance; Public Services;
Recreation/Parks; Schools/Universities; Septic System; Sewer Capacity; Soil
Erosion/Compaction/Grading; Solid Waste; Toxic/Hazardous; Traffic/Circulation; Vegetation; Water
Quality; Water Supply; Wetland/Riparian; Wildlife
Reviewing
Agencies
Resources Agency; Regional Water Quality Control Board, Region g; Department of Parks and
Recreation; Native American Heritage Commission; Office of Emergency Services; Department of Fish
and Game, Region 6; Department of Water Resources; California Highway Patrol; Caltrans, District 8;
Caltrans, Division of Aeronautics
Start of Review 12/17/2004
End of Review 01/31/2005
Date Received 12/17/2004
.
Note: Blanks in data fields result from insufficient information provided by lead agency.
~
~ECULA VALLEY
Unified School District
BOARD OF EDUCATION
Robert Brown
Maryann Edwards
Stewart Morris
February 2, 2005
SUPERINTENDENT
David 8. Allmen
Kenneth Ray
Barbara Tooker
Mr. David Hogan
Planning Department
City of Temecula
P.O. Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
SUBJECT:
Temecula General Plan Update - Environmental Impact Report
Temecula General Plan ~ Public Review Draft dated December 200~
Dear Mr. Hogan:
The Temecula Valley Unified School District has reviewed the Temecula General Plan Update -
Environmental Impact Report and Temecula General Plan - Public Review Draft dated December 2004
and has the following comments:
.
1. Proposed Land Use Policy Map (Figure 3-2) The map indicates low, medium and high
density residential development in Old Town with a small open space location (apparently
mirroring the proposed Villages of Old Town Specific Plan). With the development
anticipated for that area, the District wili also need an elementary site to service those
students. We have discussed this several times with City staff and provided written
requests to the City on several occasions over the past three years, and the City (most
recently Gary Thornhill) has responded that along with those proposed zone changes,
there would be a designated public institutional (blue) area of at least 10-acres centrally
in that future specific plan area. The map does not indicate the blue area and we request
that it be updated to include it. Please advise as to how I may assist in getting this
designated appropriately.
An elementary site at Auld and Pourroy Roads, previously identified as the future Crown
Valley Village Elementary, is being eliminated from the District's master plan and should
be removed from the land use map. (See attached map).
2. School Facilities Student Enrollment (Table 5.12-2) (See attached updated enrollment
figures as of January 2005)
3. School Facilities Map (Figure 5.12-2) (See corrected location of French Valley
Elementary School)
4. Future TVU~chools (Figure 5.12-4) (Adjust the order of the schools openings to
reflec!.--W15Tf Creek'. Elementary opening in 2006, after the 2005 openings of Quinta Do
Lagif. Morgan Hill and Crowne Hill Elementary Schools)
/
.
ave any other questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me at (951) 506-
31350 Rancho Vista Road / Temecula, CA 92592 / (909) 676-2661
Public Services and Recrearion
j
~{
.1
i
.j
1
I
I
I
1
1
j
I
1
I
1
I
j
I
1
,
1
Schools
Environmental Setting
The Temecula Valley Unified School District (TVUSD) serves the City of Temecula, providing K-12
educational services and many special education programs. TVUSD service boundaries extend
north to Jean Nicholas Road in French Valley, south to the Riverside County-San Diego County line,
east to Vail Lake, and west to the Temecula city limit. TVUSD maintains a full spectrum of
educational facilities from elementary to adult schools' Figure 5.12-2 illustrates the locations of
school facilities. Table 5.12-2 identifies the public educational facilities in the City and lists the
current (WW) enrollment levels of each facility.
02005"
Table 5.12-2
School Facilities
Name location ,S-tudent Enrollment
as of" a..nva.ry ;;"o~r
ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS (K-5)
Alamos Elementarv' 38200 Pacific Park Drive Ooens 2004 593 .
Barnell Elementarv 39925 Harveston Drive 747 3?7
French Vallev Elementarv' 36680 Cadv Road nfa /037
Jackson Elementarv 32400 Camino San Dimas 683 '1M"
Nicolas Vallev Elementarv' 39600 N. General Kearnev Road 801 'l/ff
Paloma Elementarv 42940 Via Rami 829 7&'''
Pauba Vallev Elementary 33125 Regina Drive 820 fiN
Rancho Elementarv 31530 la Serena Wav 780 [f/-k
Red Hawk Elementarv' 32045 Camino San Jose 624 &'1'2.,
Reinke Elementary 43799 Sunny Meadows Drive 846 II';J,
Soarkman Elementarv 32225 Pio Pico Road 646 70'1'
Temecula Elementarv 41951 Moraga Road 820 71"-
Vail Elementary 29915 Mira Loma Drive 639 77~
Vintaoe Hills Elementarv 42240 Camino Romo 969 IO~f
MIDDLE SCHOOLS (6-8)
Bella Vista Middle' 31650 Browning Road Ooens 2004 to '17
Dav Middle 40775 Camino Camoos Verde 1,235 972'
Gardner Middle 45125 Via Del Coronado nfa 7!?9
Maroarita Middle 30600 Margarita Road 1,000 tlP-
Temecula Middle 42075 Meadows Parkway 1,277 13'1'1
Vail Ranch Middle 33340 Camino Piedra Roio 1369 9s:l-
HIGH SCHOOLS (9-12\
Chanarral High 27215 Nicolas Road 2,251 .>>1f J-
Great Oak High 32555 Deer Hollow Wav Ooens 2004 PS3
Temecula Valley High 31555 Rancho Vista Road 3,322 .2111.1
Rancho Vista Continuation 31340 Rancho Vista Road nfa ,;;.;.1
ADULT SCHOOL
Temecula Adult School I 31350 Rancho Vista Road I nfa
1. located within sphere of influence. \
Source: Temecufa Valley Unified School OlstriCI, 2004.
-
.
s City of Temecula website. "Schools." Located at httJ)://\vvl''\v.citvoftemecula.org/homeDage/Residents/tvusd.htrn.
November 1,2004.
CITY Of TEMECULA
5.12-5
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
GENERAL PlAN UPDATE
Figure 5.12-2 ..a..u
School Facilities
. ,.... 0;..
legend
0 Elementary School ...~....
@ Middle School
@ High School
0 Private School
Temecula City Boundary
Sphere of Influence Boundary
- Planning Area -..
] -..
-..
.. ------, ......
J
L_non__o
.
.
,',
N 0 5,000 10,000
W+E H H I I Feet
. H H I [Miles
S 0 2
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT R[PORT
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
5.12-6
C1lY OF TfMECULA
.......
.Q
i:::::
.......
CI)
'-
Q
-l......
8 co
"5~
C/)-
-08
. Q) ..c::
o.+:::Q
'- C/)
SLO
~o
Q)O
:::::::~
~~
~~
::J
Q
Q)
E
~
*
.
~
">0
'to,
'\;."
"
l~nOd
.......
.
a~ N3HtWM
c
'"
~
w
'"
o
c
'"
"
"
"
"
"
6'<_,.,
"
I~ 0 ~~
II ! ,t;
~ c..J}
~ ~o
:a (j
Q
.'!!
0
J- "
t ~ .
0 0
; i:'~i:'~.9 i:' c: i:' ~ ~~ i
" ~ "
'0 . g~~m~ ~ ~~ s " ~ ""' 8:
If C1111 Cli:' l: 0" .... Ii iJ~
.. ~EiEl!!~~i:'C:W~ ~ .!!~~ ..!: ,,~ ~ 0
s.!!-J! UJ l;I CI CI .r;>..9I.r ~. "
. l::WWW >.~ii}~EI~~iIi "0._ 'E: III CI 'g
<; CI-,:i >'lG 1II CI >.G:\ CD .!I ~:i~:g:g~ .r;r~~~ ~ ell. "
0 Ec:~.!!...,'iijE.!!EiIi[.!!J!- t!~~~:i"5 ri~5! . ~. j
~ <
0 .!!"'i) iiii:>..!!"iI..!!l W;i: . ...
"' Wa::ltl>::I:;W>W (I)..!!!Ef 5..JcB..!!!l: H ~
~ ~ rl&f~a~ UH! >-
O/)~]..c:::::C_"'jO u:~.!! 6
,;, ~ gc::8E -5~ w ~
~~II.t!z~~~ 3~~5 ~~~~!~ .. oE l!
c " >-0
,). I ,0.., ',1->' .>- "'
"' '(I)'(/) ,CI)'(I)'(/), ..(1) (I)' " IC/l ,(1)(,1)(1)"5
" (/)~(I)W(l)~(I)~(I)W(l)U)(f)W ~!1!1!1~~ 'i'5~5& .: 11,;, i
<:: ~ ~a:~ ~ ~12!M~~5 0 <::/0
mcC!J.:::E "0 '" "
;]
"
N
.
o
Public Services and Recreation
.
To meet future educational needs, TVUSD prepares Five-Year Facility Construction Plans. future
school construction projects within the current plan are summarized in Table 5.12-4. The projected
opening date of schools may change as a result of changes in school enrollment, levels of new
home construction, and the availability of State funds for school construction/renovation.
Table 5.12-4
Future TVUSD Schools
Name Estimated Completion Date
ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS
Quinta Do Lago (French Valley) 2005
Wolf Creek 2006,
Morgan Hill 2005 J
Crowne Hill 2005/
Old Town Beyond"2006
Roripaugh Ranch Beyond 2006
MIDDLE SCHOOLS
Roripaugh Ranch Beyond 2006
Middle School #8 (In Winchester 1800) Beyond 2006
(French Valley)
HIGH SCHOOLS
High School #4 (French Valley) Beyond 2006
/llt}'>s
-I.~ I--e.
S~? v-t!MCC
Source: Temecula Valley Umfied School Orstnct, November, 2004.
.
With adoption of Senate Bill 50 and Proposition 1 A in 1998, school districts that meet certain
requirements now have the option of adopting alternative school fees, also known as level 2 fees
and level 3 fees (Public Resources Code Sections 65995.S, 65995.6 and 65995.7). In general,
alternative school fees, which are calculated for each school district, apply solely to residential
construction within a school district. In order to impose alternative school fees on new residential
construction within the District, TVUSD annually prepares and adopts a School Facilities Needs
Analysis (SFNA) as required by State law. Additionally, the City works with developers and TVUSD
to designate school facility locations when new residential projects are proposed.. TVUSD meets
the educational needs of its student population through both permanent and interim facilities.
Payment of alternative school fees will be used to offset the cost to TVU5D of providing education
facilities to future students. The environmental effects of expansion, construction, and operation of
additional school facilities will be evaluated by TVUSD in its efforts to plan for construction of new
. schools or expansion of existing facilities. SB SO states that for CEQA purposes, payment of fees to
the affected school district reduces school facility impacts to a less than significant level.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation beyond the payment of school fees is required.
I
,
I
!
. 'T emecula Valley Unified School District. Developer Fees.
ENVIRONMENTAllMPAO REPORT
GENERAL PlAN UPDATE
5.12-8
CITY OF TEMECUlA
i
I
I
I
,
1
Located at hUo:l/vl/\vw.tvusd.k12.cfl.us/. November 2, 2004_
.
PECHANGA INDIAN RESERVATION
Temecula Band oj Lurserlo Mission Indians
Tei~;~~:~~~:I~X6~~7;7~;e,;:~~dr~~~~i9~8 r' :! li; i \\\11.
",' 0 7 ,II,
!'\' I' FEB 2005 " iJ,ii
! 11\ to
t..i:~ L.... j
, I
I
[\V -=~:--=.~----~.:-:~.:.:i
Tribal Chairman:
. Mark Macarro
Council Members:
Mark Calac
Marc Luker
John Magee
Andrew Maslel.Sr.
Donna Masiel
Russell "Butch" Murphy
.
Tribal Secretary:
Darlene Miranda
Sent via Facsimile to (951) 694-6477
Tribal Treasurer:
Christine Luker
February 2, 2004
Ms, Debbie Ubnoske,
Planning Director
City of Temecula
P.O. Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589
RE: Comments on City of Temecula General Plan DEIR
Dear Ms. Ubnoske,
We submit these comments as a federally recognized Indian Tribe and interested party in
this CEQA approval process for the'City's General Plan. Additionally, the Tribe has an
interest in these proceedings as a landholder of properties that are directly adjacent to the
City's jurisdictional boundary, and which appear to be affected by this proposed General
Plan. We request that these comments be incorporated into the official record of
approval for the General Plan.
.
It is our understanding that the proposed General Plan/DEIR contains a proposed major
arterial alignment alternative which passes through and near the Tribe's external
reservation boundaries. This alignment is depicted in Figure C-2 on page C-21 ofthe
proposed General Plan, and appears to be proposed as an entirely new exit from the 1-15
to connect with Deer Hollow Way via traversing Tribal lands.
It is our understanding that this alignment is just one of the proposed alternatives to
address traffic concerns within the City, and that such a major arterial alignment would
be legally required to go though a formal approval and permitting process with the
involvement of other interested agencies and parties, including the Pechanga Tribe.
While the Tribe is understanding and supportive of addressing traffic concerns within the
City, any alignment through Tribal lands is subject to certain legal requirements,
including consultation with and agreement by the Tribe, including possible Bureau of
Indian Affairs involvement;iftriballands are affected.
It appears thai the City is aware of the consultation requirement, as Policy C-II on page
C-40 states that the City will work with the Pechanga Band on these issues. We would
.
.
.
.
like to reiterate the necessity in obtaining the Tribe's agreement and approval on any such
proposals that impact our Tribal lands, and look forward to working with you on a
government-to-government basis to address issues that are of shared concern to the City
and the Tribe.
co1:Q
Mark Macarro
Chairman
Cc: JeffComerchero, Mayor
Ron Roberts, Mayor Pro Tern
Shawn Nelson, City Manager
David Hogan, Principal Planner
.
ITEM #4
.
.
.
.
.
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
Date of Meeting:
March 16, 2005
Prepared by: Christine Damko
Title: Assistant Planner
File Number PA04-0178
Application Type: Tentative Tract Map
Project Description:
Tentative Tract Map No. 32346 to subdivide 28.6 acres into 71
single-family residential lots with a minimum lot size of 7,200
square feet, located on the north side of Nicolas Road, east of
Joseph Road. (APN: 957-080-014 and 019).
Recommendation:
(Check One)
~ Approve with Conditions
o Deny
o Continue for Redesign
o Continue to:
o Recommend Approval with Conditions
o Recommend Denial
CEQA:
(Check One)
o Categorically Exempt
(Class)
(Class)
o Notice of Determination
[8] Negative Declaration
o Mitigated Negative Declaration with Monitoring Plan
DEIR
R:\T M\2004\04-0178 TIM 32346 Serphina TractIPC STAFF REPORT-doc
1
PROJECT DATA SUMMARY
.
Applicant:
Scott Carino
Completion Date:
March 16, 2004
Mandatory Action Deadline Date:
March 16, 2005
General Plan Designation:
Low Medium Density Residential (LM)
Zoning Designation:
Low Medium Density Residential (LM)
Site/Surrounding Land Use:
Site:
Vacant
North:
South:
East:
West:
Residential currently under construction
Vacant! Very Low Density Residential
Vacant! Very Low Density Residential
ResidentialNery Low Density Residential
Lot Area:
28.6 acres
Density:
4.0 du/ac proposed (4.5 du/ac max allowed)
.
BACKGROUND SUMMARY
~ 1. Staff has worked with the applicant to ensure that all concerns have been addressed,
and the applicant concurs with the recommended Conditions of Approval.
The application was submitted on March 16, 2004. A DRC meeting was held on April 8, 2004 to
discuss access and site design issues with the applicant. For the past 9 months, the applicant
and staff have worked together to provide a map that is consistent with the Development Code
and Subdivision Ordinance.
ANALYSIS
The Tentative Map will create 71 new residential lots that meet the Development Code
requirement of a 7,200 square foot minimum lot size. The current zoning and General Plan Land
Use designation on the proposed development is Low Medium Density Residential (LM). which
allows 3-6 dwelling units per gross acre. The project proposes 2.5 dwelling units per gross acre,
including the extensive open space acreage. Without including the open space acreage, the
project proposes 5 dwelling units per gross acre, which is consistent with the current zoning and
General Plan.
Main access to the tract is from Joseph Road, which is located on the north side of Nicolas
Road. Circulation for the Tract Map includes a road connection into the adjacent recorded tract
maps (TR 25004 and TR 26828), which are located north of the project site. The proposed
access and circulation is consistent with the requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance. .
R\T M\2004\04-0178 TfM 32346 Serphina Tract\PC STAFF REPORTdoc
2
.
.
.
The project is mostly level and will require a minimal amount of grading. However, due to the
slopes that will be created below Rita Way and Seraphina Road, staff has added a Condition of
Approval (Condition 17) that will require that all rear yards include 50% usable space for lots 7-
13 and 61-64. Usable space is defined as level space which is designed for the use and
enjoyment of the homeowner and that is not restricted due to topography constraints. Staff
believes that the minimum dimension of any required private usable space should be 15 feet.
A pedestrian trail that connects with the City's trail system will also be provided. The pedestrian
trail and the ten foot wide landscape easement between the homes and the trail will provide
buffering between the residential lots and Santa Gertrudis Creek. The trail also provides two
pedestrian access points for residents of the tract. The City will be taking ownership of the 1.39
acre property located between Nicolas Road and the channel. The City's Community Services
Department will designate this area as a trailhead for the City's trail system.
The Santa Gertrudis Creek is channelized immediately to the west of the project site. The
channel onsite will be preserved as similar open space. The applicant will be required to
reconstruct the soft bottom channel, construct flood improvements, and improve the current
Joseph Road crossing. Staff expects that permits from the Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, and/or the California Department of Fish and Game may be required. The
applicant will be conditioned (Condition 15) to obtain clearances and/or appropriate permits
(such as 1604,401, and 404 permits) from these departments prior to disturbing any soils in or
adjacent to the creek.
The proposed project is within Zone D of the French Valley Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan.
As part of the Riverside County Airport Land Use Cornpatibility Policy Plan (RCALUC) process,
all applications within an RCALUC zone must complete an application which will be approved
through a public Hearing. The subject property was scheduled for the March 10, 2005 hearing.
The RCALUC conditions have been integrated as part of the City's Conditions of Approval
(Condition 7-11). Staff will provide updated information to the Commission at the hearing on
March 16th.
The Public Works Department has analyzed the projected traffic impact of the project and has
determined that the impacts are consistent with the traffic volurnes projected for the site by the
previously approved City General Plan EIR. The Fire Department also reviewed the plan and
determined that there is proper access and circulation to provide emergency services to the site.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
i:8J 1. An Initial Study has been prepared and indicates that the project will not have any
potentially significant environrnental impacts. Based on the Conditions of Approval, staff
recomrnends adoption of a Negative Declaration for the project. A copy of the Initial
Study is attached.
CONCLUSION/RECOMMENDATION
Staff has determined that this project is consistent with the General Plan, Development Code
and Subdivision Ordinance and recommends 'approval based on the following findings and
subject to the attached Conditions of Approval.
R:\T M\2004\04-0178 TTM 32346 Scrphina Tract\PC STAFF REPORT.doc
3
FINDINGS
.
Tentative Tract Map
Code Section 16.09.140
1. The proposed subdivision and the design and improvements of the subdivision are
consistent with the Development Code, General Plan, the Subdivision Ordinance and the
City of Temecula Municipal Code.
Tentative Tract Map No. 32346 is consistent with the General Plan, the Subdivision
Ordinance, the Development Code, and the Municipal Code because the project has
been designed in a manner to meet the current codes and regulations.
2. The tentative map does not propose to divide land, which is subject to a contract entered
into pursuant to the California Land Conservation Act of 1965.
Prior agricultural activities consisted of farming on one-acre of the 28.6 acre site, which
ceased in 2002. According to the General Plan (figure 5-4), the proposed project site is
not identified as an agricultural resource, nor is the site zoned for agricultural uses. The
project site is not located in an existing environment which could result in conversion of
farmland to non-agricultural uses because there is not agricultural land uses in the
immediate vicinity. The General Plan (figure 5-5) indicates that the site is not land under
Williamson Act contract.
3.
The site is physically suitable for the type and proposed density of development
proposed by the tentative map.
.
The project consists of a 71 lot Tentative Tract Map on property designated for low
medium density residential uses, which is consistent with the General Plan. The density
for the project falls bel8~ the top of the density range as described in the General Plan.
4. The design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements, with conditions of
approval, will not be likely to cause significant environmental damage or substantially and
avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat.
An Initial Study and Negative Declaration was prepared to address any potential
environmental impacts on the site and concludes that the design of the subdivision and
the proposed improvements, with Conditions'i1of Approval, will not cause significant
environmental damage or substantially avoidably injure fish or wildlife in their habitat.
5. The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements are not likely to cause
serious public health problems.
The project has been reviewed and commented on by the Fire Prevention Division and
the Building & Safety Division. As a result, the project will be conditioned to address their
concerns. Further, provisions are made in the General Plan and the Development Code
to ensure that the public health, safety and welfare are safeguarded. The project is
consistent with these documents.
6.
The design of the subdivision provides for future passive or natural heating or cooling
opportunities in the subdivision to the extent feasible.
.
R:\T M\2004\04.0 178 TIM 32346 Serphina TractIPC STAFF REPORT.doc
4
.
.
.
The design of the subdivision provides for future passive or natural heating or cooling
opportunities in the subdivision to the extent feasible. Prior to the construction of single-
family residences the applicant will be required to submit building plans to the Building
Department that comply with the Uniform Building Code, which contains requirements for
energy conservation.
7.
The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements will not conflict with
easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within
the proposed subdivision.
All required rights-of-way and easements have been provided on the Tentative Map. The
Public Works Department and Community Services District have reviewed the proposed
division of land and adequate conditions and/or modifications have been made to the
Tentative Tract Map.
8. The subdivision is consistent with the City's parkland dedication requirements (Quimby).
Appropriate parkland dedication or in-lieu fees will be required at Building Permit
issuance.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Plan Reduction - Blue Page 6
2.
PC Resolution No. 2005-_ - Blue Page 7
Exhibit A - Conditions of Approval
3. Initial Environmental Study - Blue Page 8
R,IT Ml2004104-01781TM 32346 Serphina TrnctIPC STAFF REPORT.doc
5
.
.
.
ATTACHMENT NO.1
PLAN REDUCTION
R;\T M\2004\04-0178 TIM 32346 Serphina Tract\PC STAFF REPORT.doc
6
I! <I ','
, ill: 1:111
,~ ill! In'l, ,Ii! I.
'. ~ "'1111 ,11Ihll',hl':111:1
~ II It- " I~! "J.. II i
~ll'!"i'll!li lIi1illllllll...I:!
i . '!~"!!I!l<ii 'I!'! "j
. !!!~.. ~il!l!:iml~Ujm,
;011 ~........,.,
d. .:c!"! US! 'I;
'Y -----.r.;- ~ I -'~.-m CD
-"':"-~-= :---'::::.::::"-:-':-"':: ,.:. '~.
-. . ...--. l'~' '.
===== = ....... .........._..__/_..... ~, i
...:....._-~_...,,;.;:,.I"'..-
I
II
ill'il
"I'
,.1,1
__~~OIU.~
--~
oa.;ww:'~____
"""~-
_.<:IWlJMII.W.IIIW
""""'''''''''-
-".."..._.......,
~~,---
..--.....- I
r~ /
X~~\1
".
~~
~ i
'"
w
~
o
~~
"'
'"
~
I, I
' .
=!== ,..-
:
I!
,
~ ltol>lto"'l> ....1..1.... ....lhhllo .. .. .................... ~....
I j;,~ ~; i ill:lr~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ g f:! ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i i Ii i ~ ~
l>l>...........l>~... .1>.....110110110...... llIl>l>l>l>l>ltol>ltoltol>
;~H.1i ~'E~~~I~ ~1I~~~H~>lHHHiiH~
!~ ..,~~ ~.~;.~ ~~ ~~~-
,
1I-:::l S :11I:
.J-~
0"<
c'
~~
_w
u~
<';?
aU)
'" .....,..... ......I...... ...110...... l>to.","Il>"Il>~" ..I>bo...... ~ ~!to
~ ~I~ ~ ~!i ~'ii ~~!~ ~~ S~ ~ ~ ~~gif ~ ~~ ~5~E~~~EE Eg~
~ ",!to lIollo .."'.. ~ ....,,'"........ '" ....III.... ...... ....11I..........11I1'
~ ; 3 ~ i ~ i!@~I~ ~ ~! 5 I B~ ~ g ~ ~.!: ~ II ~~ E ~ ~ g g gE e ~
: :-~ -- r~---:>-""-,,-Il IlIl"AIl 111111
I
lilli!
il!! 111I
~oI0~: il
Q
W
~
'3
'"
W
Q
!
. . r ~ .,
l,';! II I
lii ill' I p
ell" " : Ii
I'l!! I d il:
j.,', '0 Ii I
'1,,1,1;':1
iililjll' Hll ~ i
i,ll "Ill Ii i
",@@@@19@(;)
- ~
'-
~~
~,::
<>'=
<"
::';;C'.
,
I II;
~I;
",
Ut i';
sHh 1"1
~;;; "I.
~. c'
!~
~ I ~J
,.
--~;:;.-- .
I~ SOOZ I Z Nvr lUll
~u\~ ill 0 ~ @JJ~
~
~
~ -.
<-
~-
~
~~
:7i
~
""
:o~
w
~~
Z.'"
VI
-='::::-c----~-^8
.
.
.
ATTACHMENT NO.2
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2005-_
R:\T M\2004\04--0178 TTM 32346 Serphina Tract\PC STAFFREPORT.doc
7
.
.
.
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2005-_
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO.
PA04-0178, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 32346 SUBDIVIDING
28.6 ACRES INTO 71 SINGLE-FAMILY LOTS GENERALLY
LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF NICOLAS ROAD, EAST OF
JOSEPH ROAD, KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 957-080-
014 and 957-080-019. (PLANNING APPLICATION PA04-0178)
WHEREAS, Scott Carino, filed Planning Application No. PA04-0178 (Tentative Tract Map
No. 32346), in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code;
WHEREAS, the Application was processed including, but not limited to a public notice, in the
time and manner prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, at a regular meeting, considered the Application on
March 16, 2005, 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;
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Planning Commission hearing and after due
consideration of the testimony, the Planning Commission approved Planning Application No. PA04-
0178 subject to the conditions after finding that the project conformed to the City of Temecula
General Plan and Subdivision Ordinance;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1.
by reference.
That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby incorporated
Section 2. Findinas. The Planning Commission, in approving Planning Application No.
PA04-0178 (TTM 32346) hereby makes the following findings as required by Section 16.09.140 of
the Temecula Municipal Code:
A. The proposed subdivision and the design and improvements of the subdivision are
consistent with the Development Code, General Plan, the Subdivision Ordinance and the City of
Temecula Municipal Code.
Tentative Tract Map No. 32346 is consistent with the General Plan, the Subdivision
Ordinance, the Development Code, and the Municipal Code because the project has been
designed in a manner to meet the current codes and regulations.
R:\T MI2004\04-0178 TIM 32346 Serphina Trac\\PC RESO & COA'S.doc
1
B. The tentative map does not propose to divide land, which is subject to a contract .
entered into pursuant to the California Land Conservation Act of 1965.
Prior agricultural activities consisted of farming on one-acre of the 28.6 acre site, which
ceased in 2002. According to the General Plan. (figure 5-4), the proposed project site is not
identified as an agricultural resource, nor is the site zoned for agricultural uses. The project
is not located in an existing environment which could result in conversion of farmland to non-
agricultural uses because there is not agricultural land uses in the immediate vicinity. The
General Plan (figure 5-5) indicates that the site is not land under Williamson Act Contract.
C. The site is physically suitable for the type and proposed density of development
proposed by the tentative map.
The project consists of a 71 lot Tentative Tract Map on property designated for low medium
density residential uses, which is consistent with the General Plan. The density for the
project falls below the top of the density range as described in the General Plan.
D. The design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements, with conditions of
approval, will not be likely to cause significant environmental damage or substantially and avoidably
injure fish or wildlife or their habitat.
An Initial Study and Negative Declaration was prepared to address any potential
environmental impacts on the site and concludes that the design of the subdivision and the
proposed improvements, with Conditions of Approval, will not cause significant
environmental damage or substantially avoidably injure fish or wildlife in their habitat.
E. The design of the subdivision.and the type of improvements are not likely to cause
serious public health problems.
The project has been reviewed and commented on by the Fire Prevention Division and the
Building & Safety Division. As a result, the project will be conditioned to address their
concerns. Further, provisions are made in the General Plan and the Development Code to
ensure that the public health, safety and welfare are safeguarded. The project is consistent
with these documents.
.
F. The design of the subdivision provides for future passive or natural heating or cooling
opportunities in the subdivision to the extent feasible.
The design of the subdivision provides for future passive or natural heating or cooling
opportunities in the subdivision to the extent feasible. Prior to the construction of single-
family residences the applicant will be required to submit building plans to the Building
Department that comply with the Uniform Building Code, which contains requirements for
energy conservation.
G. The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements will not conflict with
easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed
subdivision.
All required rights-of-way and easements have been provided on the Tentative Map. The
Public Works Department and Community Services District have reviewed the proposed
division of land and adequate conditions andlor modifications have been made to the .
Tentative Tract Map.
R:IT M\2004104-017B TIM 32346 Serphina TractlPC RESO & COA'S.doc
2
.
.
.
H.
The subdivision is consistent with the City's parkland dedication requirements
(Quimby).
Appropriate parkland dedication or in-lieu fees will be required at Building Permit issuance.
Section 3. Environmental Compliance. An Initial Study has been prepared and has
determined that the project will not have any potential significant environmental impacts with the
incorporated Conditions of Approval. As a result, the Planning Commission hereby approves the
Negative Declaration for this project.
Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby
approves Planning Application No. PA04-0178, a Tentative Map for 71 single-family residential lots
with minimum lot sizes of 7,200 square feet, located on the north side of Nicolas Road, east of
Joseph Road, subject to the conditions of approval set forth on Exhibit A, attached hereto, and
incorporated herein by this reference together with any other conditions that may be deemed
necessary.
Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning
Commission this 16th day of March 2005.
David Mathewson, Chairman
ATTEST:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
[SEAL]
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss
CITY OF TEMECULA )
I, Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary of the Temecula Planning Commission, do hereby certify that
PC Resolution No. 2005- _ was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning Commission of the
City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 16th day of March, 2005, by the following
vote of the Commission:
AYES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
R:IT M\2004104-0178 TIM 32346 Serphin. Tr.ctlPC RESO & COA'S.doc
3
.
.
.
EXHIBIT A
DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
R:\T M12004\04-0178 TIM 32346 Serphina TractlPC RESO & COA'S.doc
4
.
.
.
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF TEMECULA
DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Planning Application No.: PA04-0178
Project Description:
Tentative Tract Map No. 32346 subdividing 28.6 acres
into 71 lots, generally located on the north side of
Nicolas Road, east of Joseph Road.
Assessor's Parcel No.:
957-080-014 and 957-080-019
DIF Category:
MSHCP Category:
Residential
Residential
TUMF Category:
Residential
Approval Date:
March 16, 2005
Expiration Date:
March 16, 2007
PLANNING DIVISION
Within Forty-Eight (48) Hours of the Approval of this Project
1. The applicant/developer shall deliver to the Planning Department a cashier's check or
money order made payable to the County Clerk in the amount of One Thousand Three
Hundred Twenty-Eight Dollars ($1 ,314.00) which includes the One Thousand Two Hundred
and Fifty Dollar ($1 ,250.00) fee, required by Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(d)(3) plus
the Sixty Four Dollars ($64.00) County administrative fee, to enable the City to file the Notice
of Determination for the Mitigated or Negative Declaration required under Public Resources
Code Section 211 08(a) and California Code of Regulations Section 15075. If within said
forty-eight (48) hour period the applicant/developer has not delivered to the Planning
Department the check as required above, the approval for the project granted shall be void
by reason of failure of condition [Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c)].
General Requirements
2. The tentative subdivision shall comply with the State of California Subdivision Map Act and
to all the requirements of Ordinance No. 460, unless modified by the conditions listed below.
A time extension may be approved in accordance with the State Map Act and City
Ordinance, upon written request, if made 30 days prior to the expiration date.
3.
The applicant and owner of the real property subject to this condition shall hereby agree to
indemnify, protect, hold harmless, and defend the City with Legal Counsel of the City's own
selection from any and all claims, actions, awards, judgments, or proceedings against the
City to attack, set aside, annul, or seek monetary damages resulting, directly or indirectly,
from any action in furtherance of and the approval of the City, or any agency or
instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body including actions
R:IT M\2004104-0178 TTM 32346 Serphina TractlPC RESO & COA'S.doc
5
approved by the voters of the City, concerning the Planning Application. The City shall be .
deemed for purposes of this condition, to include any agency or instrumentality thereof, or
any of its elected or appointed officials, officers, employees, consultants, contractors, legal
counsel, and agents. City shall promptly notify both the applicant and landowner of any
claim, action, or proceeding to which this condition is applicable and shall further cooperate
fully in the defense of the action. The City reserves the right to take any and all action the
City deems to be in the best interest of the City and its citizens in regards to such defense.
4. If Subdivision phasing is proposed, a phasinq plan shall be submitted to and approved by
the Planning Director.
5. A Homeowners Association may not be terminated without prior City approval.
6. If, during construction, cultural resources are encountered, work shall be halted or diverted
in the immediate area while a qualified archaeologist evaluates the finds and makes
recommendations. In addition, the developer will coordinate with the Pechanga Band of
Luiseno Mission Indians to allow a representative of the Pechanga Band to monitor and
participate in archaeological investigations if and when resources are encountered, including
participation in discussions regarding the disposition of cultural items and artifacts.
7. Provide Avigation EasemenVDeed Notice to the French Valley Airport prior to sale of any
property to any entity exempt from the Subdivision Map Act, prior recordation of any map, or
issuance of any permit, whichever is first.
8.
Incorporate noise attenuation measures into the building construction to ensure interior
noise levels are at or below 45 CNEL-decibellevels.
.
9. Install hooded or shielded outdoor lighting to prevent either the spillage of lumens or
reflection into the sky (lights must be downward facing).
10. The following uses shall be prohibited:
a. Any use which would direct a steady light or flashing light of red, white, green, or
amber colors associated with airport operations toward an aircraft engaged in an
initial straight climb following takeoff or toward an aircraft engaged in a straight final
approach toward a landing at an airport, other than an FAA-approved navigational
signal light or visual approach slope indicator.
b. Any use which would cause sunlight to be reflected towards an aircraft engaged in
an initial straight climb following takeoff or towards an aircraft engaged in a straight
final approach towards a landing at an airport.
c. Any use which would generate smoke or water vapor or which would attract large
concentrations of birds, or which may otherwise affect safe air navigation within the
area.
d. Any use which would generate electrical interference that may be detrimental to any
operation of aircraft and/or aircraft instrumentation.
11. The Notice shown below shall be given to each prospective buyer or tenant:
NOTICE OF AIRPORT IN VICINITY: This property is presently located in the vicinity of an
airport, within what is known as an airport influence area. For that reason, the property may .
be subject to some of the annoyances or inconveniences associated with proximity to airport
R:IT M\2004\04-0178 TIM 32346 Serphina TractlPC RESO & COA'S.doc
6
.
.
.
operations (for example: noise, vibration, or odors). Individual sensitivities to those
annoyances can vary from person to person. You may wish to consider what airport
annoyances, if any, are associated with the property before you complete your purchase and
determine whether they are acceptable to you. Business & Profession Code 11010 12(A).
12.
Provide a grading plan showing the size of each rear yard and what percent is "usable
space" to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning prior to the approval of the Product
Review application.
Prior to Issuance of Grading Permits
13. A copy of the Rough Grading plans shall be submitted and approved by the Planning
Department.
14. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 8.24 of the Temecula Municipal
Code (Habitat Conservation) by paying the appropriate fee set forth in that ordinance or by
providing documented evidence that the fees have already been paid.
15.
A qualified paleontologisVarchaeologist shall be chosen by the developer for consultation
and comment on the proposed grading with respect to potential paleontological/
archaeological impacts. A meeting between the paleontologisV archaeologist, Planning
Department staff, and grading contractor prior to the commencement of grading operations
and the excavation shall be arranged. The paleontologisVarchaeologist or representative
shall have the authority to temporarily divert, redirect or halt grading activity to allow recovery
of fossils and other significant finds.
16.
Prior to disturbing any'soils directly or indirectly adjacent to' the creek, the applicant shall
obtain clearances and/or appropriate permits (such as 1604, 401 ,and 404 permits) from the
California Department of Fish and Game, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service.
17. Prior to the issuance of Grading Permits, provide a grading plan showing the size of each
rear yard and what percent is "usable space" to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning
prior to the approval of the Product Review application.
Prior to Recordation of the Final Map
18. The Developer shall acquire legal ownership of the easement currently owned by the City of
Ternecula, located just north of Lot 70 and 71.
19. The following shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Department:
a. A copy of the Final Map.
b. A copy of the Environrnental Constraint Sheet (ECS) with the following notes:
i. This property is located within thirty (30) miles of Mount Palomar
Observatory. All proposed outdoor lighting systems shall comply with the
California Institute of Technology, Palornar Observatory recomrnendations,
Ordinance No. 655.
Provide Avigation EasemenVDeed Notice to the French Valley Airport prior to
sale of any property to any entity exempt from the Subdivision Map Act, prior
recordation of any rnap, or issuance of any permit, whichever is first.
ii.
R:IT M\2004\04.0178 TIM 32346 Serphina TractlPC RESO & COA'S.doc
7
v.
c.
iii.
Incorporate noise attenuation measures into the building construction to
ensure interior noise levels are at or below 45 CNEL-decibellevels.
Install hooded or shielded outdoor lighting to prevent either the spillage of
lumens or reflection into the sky (lights must be downward facing).
The following uses shall be prohibited:
a) Any use which would direct a steady light or flashing light of red,
white, green, or amber colors associated with airport operations
toward an aircraft engaged in an initial straight climb following takeoff
or toward an aircraft engaged in a straight final approach toward a
landing at an airport, other than an FAA-approved navigational signal
light or visual approach slope indicator.
b) Any use which would cause sunlight to be reflected towards an
aircraft engaged in an initial straight climb following takeoff or
towards an aircraft engaged in a straight final approach towards a
landing at an airport.
c) Any use which would generate smoke or water vapor or which would
attract large concentrations of birds, or which may otherwise affect
safe air navigation within the area.
d) Any use which would generate electrical interference that may be
detrimental to any operation of aircraft and/or aircraft instrumentation.
iv.
vi. The Notice shown below shall be given to each prospective buyer or tenant:
NOTICE OF AIRPORT IN VICINITY: This property is presently located in the
vicinity of an airport, within what is known as an airport influence area. For
that reason, the property may be subject to some of the annoyances or
inconveniences associated with proximity to airport operations (for example:
noise, vibration, or odors). Individual sensitivities to those annoyances can
vary from person to person. You may wish to consider what airport
annoyances, if any, are associated with the property before you complete
your purchase and determine whether they are acceptable to you. Business
& Profession Code 11010 12(A)
A copy of the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&R's)
i. CC&R's shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director. The
CC&R's shall include liability insurance and methods of maintaining open
space, recreation areas, parking areas, private roads, exterior of all buildings
and all landscaped and open areas including parkways.
ii. No lot or dwelling unit in the development shall be sold unless a corporation,
association, property owner's group or similar entity has been formed with
the right to assess all properties individually owned or jointly owned which
have any rights or interest in the use of the common areas and common
facilities in the development, such assessment power to be sufficient to meet
the expenses of such entity, and with authority to control, and the duty to
maintain, all of said mutually available features of the development. Such
entity shall operate under recorded CC&R's which shall include compulsory
membership of all owners of lots and/or dwelling units and flexibility of
assessments to meet changing costs of maintenance, repairs, and services.
Recorded' CC&R's shall permit enforcement by the City for provisions
R:\T M\2004\04-017B TIM 32346 Serphina Tract\PC RESO & COA'S.doc
B
.
.
.
.
iii.
required as Conditions of Approval. The developer shall submit evidence of
compliance with this requirement to, and receive approval of, the City prior to
making any such sale. This condition shall not apply to land dedicated to the
City for public purposes.
Every owner of a dwelling unit or lot shall own as an appurtenance to such
dwelling unit or lot, either (1) an undivided interest in the common areas and
facilities, or (2) a share in the corporation, or voting membership in an
association owning the common areas and facilities.
Prior to Issuance of Building Permits
20.
.
.
21.
The following shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Department:
a. Three (3) copies of Construction Landscaping and Irrigation Plans. The location,
number, genus, species, and container size of the plants shall be shown. The plans
shall be consistent with the Water Efficient Landscaping Ordinance. The cover page
shall identify the total square footage of the landscaped area for the site. The plans
shall be accompanied by the following items:
i. Appropriate filing fee (per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule at time of
submittal).
ii. One (1) copy of the approved grading plan.
iii. Water usage calculations per Chapter 17.32 of the Development Code
(Water Efficient Ordinance).
iv. Total cost estimate of plantings and irrigation (in accordance with the
approved plan).
v. The locations of all existing trees that will be saved consistent with the
tentative map.
vi. Automatic irrigation for all landscaped areas and complete screening of all
ground mounted equipment from the view of the public from streets and
adjacent property for:
a) Front yards and slopes within individual lots prior to issuance of
building permits for any lot(s).
b) Private common areas prior to issuance of the first building permit.
c) All landscaping excluding Temecula Community Services District
(TCSD) maintained areas and front yard landscaping which shall
include, but may not be limited to private slopes and common areas.
b. Wall and Fence Plans consistent with the Conceptual Landscape Plans showing the
height, location and materials (including any entry monument signage).
i. Decorative block for the perimeter of the project adjacent to a public right-of-
way equal to sixty-six (66) feet or larger and the side yards for corner lots.
c. Precise Grading Plans consistent with the approved rough grading plans including all
structural setback measurements.
The landscape buffer between the creek and the residential home lots shall be planted with
native vegetation to reduce the risk of introduction of non-native species into the MSHCP
Conservation Area.
R:\T M\2004\04-0178 TIM 32346 Serphina TractIPC RESO & COA'S.doc
9
Prior to Issuance of Occupancy Permits
.
22. If deemed necessary by the Director of Planning, the applicant shall provide additional
landscaping to effectively screen various components of the project.
23. All required landscape planting and irrigation shall be installed consistent with the approved
construction plans and shall be in a condition acceptable to the Director of Planning. The
plants shall be healthy and free of weeds, disease, or pests. The irrigation system shall be
properly constructed and in good working order.
24. Performance securities, in amounts to be determined by the Director of Planning, to
guarantee the maintenance of the plantings within private common areas for a period of one
year, in accordance with the approved construction landscape and irrigation plan, shall be
filed with the Planning Department for one year from final certificate of occupancy. After that
year, if the landscaping and irrigation system have been maintained in a condition
satisfactory to the Director of Planning, the bond shall be released.
25. All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use allowed
by this permit.
FIRE DEPARMENT
26. Any previous existing conditions for this project or any underlying map will remain in full force
and effect unless superceded by more stringent requirements here.
27.
Final fire and life safety conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed by
the Fire Prevention Bureau. These conditions will be based on occupancy, use, the
California Building Code (CBC), California Fire Code (CFC), and related codes which are in
force at the time of building plan submittal.
.
28. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set a minimum fire flow for residential land division
per CFCAppendix III.A, Table A-III-A-1. The developer shall provide for this project, a water
system capable of delivering 1500 GPM at 20-PSI residual operating pressure with a 2-hour
duration. The required fire flow may be adjusted during the approval process to reflect
changes in design, construction type, or automatic fire protection measures as approved by
the Fire Prevention Bureau. The Fire Flow as given above has taken into account all
information as provided. (CFC 903.2, Appendix III-A)
29. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set minimum fire hydrant distances per CFC
Appendix III.B, Table A-III-B-1. Standard fire hydrants (6" x 4" x 2 1/2" outlets) shall be
located on Fire Department access roads and adjacent public streets. Hydrants shall be
spaced at 500 feet apart, at each intersection and shall be located no more than 250 feet
from any point on the street or Fire Department access road(s) frontage to a hydrant. The
required fire flow shall be available from any adjacent hydrant(s) in the system. The upgrade
of existing fire hydrants may be required. (CFC 903.2, 903.4.2, and Appendix III-B)
30.
The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set a minimum fire flow for commercial land
division per CFC Appendix III-A, Table A-III-A-1. The developer shall provide forthis project,
a water system capable of delivering 4000 GPM at 20-PSI residual operating pressure with a
4 hour duration. The required fire flow may be adjusted during the approval process to
reflect changes in design, construction type, or automatic fire protection measures as
.
R:\T M\2004\04-0178 TIM 32346 Serphina TractIPC RESO & COA'S.doc
10
.
.
.
approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau. The Fire Flow as given above has taken into
account all information as provided. (CFC 903.2, Appendix III-A)
31.
The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set minimum fire hydrant distances per CFC
Appendix III-B, Table A-III-B-1. Super fire hydrants (6" x 4" x 2-2 1/2" outlets) shall be
located on Fire Department access roads and adjacent public streets. Hydrants shall be
spaced at 350 feet apart, at each intersection and shall be located no more than 210 feet
from any point on the street or Fire Department access road(s) frontage to a hydrant. The
required fire flow shall be available from any adjacent hydrant(s) in the system. The upgrade
of existing fire hydrants may be required. (CFC 903.2, 903.4.2, and Appendix III-B)
32.
Maximum cul-de-sac length shall not exceed 1320 feet. Minimum turning radius on any cul-
de-sac shall be thirty-seven (37) feet for residential and forty-five (45) feet for commercial.
(CFC 902.2.2.3, CFC 902.2.2.4)
33.
All traffic calming devices that could impede or slow emergency vehicle access are
prohibited, except those expressly approved by the fire prevention bureau individually on a
case by case basis when they maintain the required travel widths and radii.
34.
Cul-de-sacs and/or intersections with planters must maintain 24 foot clear unobstructed
travel width around the planters, not including parking. Hardscape areas are permissible
provided that they meet the 80,000 lb. load requirements and are at road level.
35.
Private entry driveways with divider medians must be a minimum of 16 feet wide on each
side unless the median is held back 30 feet from face of curb of perpendicular road.
36.
If construction is phased, each phase shall provide approved access and fire protection prior
to any building construction. (CFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2) This will include all internal
roads, connecting roads between phases, and construction gates. All required access
must be in and available prior to and during ALL construction. Phasing is approved
on a separate map, and is ultimately subject to final approval in the field.
37. Prior to building construction, all locations where structures are to be built shall have
approved temporary Fire Department vehicle access roads for use until permanent roads
are installed. Temporary Fire Department access roads shall be an all weather surface for
80,000 Ibs. GVW. (CFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2.2)
38. Prior to building final, all locations where structures are to be built shall have approved Fire
Department vehicle access roads to within 150 feet to any portion of the facility or any
portion of an exterior wall of the building(s). Fire Department access roads shall be an all
weather surface designed for 80,000 Ibs. GVW with a minimum AC thickness of .25 feet.
(CFC sec 902)
39. Fire Department vehicle access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than
twenty-four (24) feet and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than thirteen (13)
feet six (6) inches. (CFC 902.2.2.1)
40.
Prior to building construction, dead end road ways and streets in excess of one hundred and
fifty (150) feet which have not been completed shall have a turnaround capable of
accommodating fire apparatus. (CFC 902.2.2.4)
R:\T M\2004\04.0178 TIM 32346 Serphina TractIPC RESO & COA'S.doc
11
Prior to building construction, this development and any street within serving more than 35
homes or any commercial developments shall have two (2) points of access, via all-weather
surface roads, as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau. (CFC 902.2.1)
42. Prior to issuance of building permits, the developer shall furnish one copy of the water
system plans to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation. Plans shall be:
signed by a registered civil engineer; contain a Fire Prevention Bureau approval signature
block; and conform to hydrant type, location, spacing and minimum fire flow standards. After
the plans are signed by the local water company, the originals shall be presented to the Fire
Prevention Bureau for signatures. The required water system including fire hydrants shall be
installed and accepted by the appropriate water agency prior to any combustible building
materials being placed on an individual lot. (CFC 8704.3, 901.2.2.2 and National Fire
Protection Association 24 1-4.1)
41.
43. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, "Blue Reflective Markers"
shall be installed to identify fire hydrant locations. (CFC 901.4.3)
44. All manual and electronic gates on required Fire Department access. roads or gates
obstructing Fire Department building access shall be provided with the Knox Rapid entry
system for emergency access by firefighting personnel. (CFC 902.4)
Special Conditions
45.
Prior to map recordation the applicant shall submit to the Fire Prevention Bureau a
georectified (pursuant to Riverside County standards) digital version of the map including
parcel and street centerline information. The electronic file will be provided in a ESRI
Arclnfo/ArcView compatible format and projected in a State Plane NAD 83 (California Zone
VI ) coordinate system. The Bureau must accept the data as to completeness, accuracy and
format prior to satisfaction of this condition.
COMMUNITY SERVICES
General Conditions
46. The developer shall arrange a pre-design meeting with the TCSD Maintenance
Superintendent to obtain TCSD design standards for the parkways and landscaped median
on Nicolas Road.
47. Installation of the landscape improvements within the parkway and median on Nicolas Road
and construction of the trail head (lot 74) shall commence pursuant to a pre-construction
meeting with the TCSD Maintenance Superintendent and monitored in accordance with the
TCSD inspection process. Failure to comply with TCSD procedures may preclude
acceptance of these areas into the TCSD maintenance districts. All fees required by this
process shall be paid by the developer. .
48. The developer, the developer's successors or assignees, shall be responsible for all
landscape maintenance until such time as the maintenance is accepted by TCSD.
49. Developer shall comply with the Public Art Ordinance.
50.
The City of Temecula's Multi-use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan identifies a Class I trail
along Santa Gertrudis Creek and within the easement area of Lot 72 and a Class II bike lane
R:IT M\2004104-0178 TIM 32346 Serphina TractlPC RESO & COA'S.doc
12
.
.
.
.
51.
52.
53.
54.
along Nicolas Road. The street improvement plans for Nicolas Road shall show the stripinq
and signage for the Class II bike lane. The developer shall coordinate with the appropriate
agencies and TCSD to determine the location of a Class I Trail within the easement area of
Lot 72 north of Santa Gertrudis Creek. The developer shall provide a public access
easement for the identified trail location.
The developer may receive Open Space DIF credit for the improvements of Lot 74 (trail
head) as determined by separate agreement.
The developer shall provide a public access and maintenance easement to the TCSD along
the north side of Lot 73 as approved by Riverside County Flood Control and Water
Conservation District.
The trail connection from Lot 74 to the pedestrian trail along the north side of Lot 73 shall
meet ADA requirements.
The developer shall contact the City's franchised solid waste hauler for disposal of
construction debris. Only the City's franchisee may haul construction debris.
Prior to Final Map
55.
56.
.
57.
58.
59.
.
TCSD shall review and approve the CC&R's.
The developer shall file a notice of intention with the TCSD to initiate election proceedings
for acceptance of residential street lighting and perimeter landscaping into the TCSD
maintenance program. All required documentation and costs associated with this process
shall be provided by the developer.
Landscape plans for the proposed TCSD maintenance areas and the trail head (Lot 74)
shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Services.
The developer shall enter into a landscape improvement agreement and post securities for
the proposed TCSD maintenance areas.
The developer shall satisfy the City's park land dedication requirement (Quimby) through
payment of in-lieu fees equivalent to 1.01 acres of park land, based on 71 residential lots.
The amount of the in-lieu fee shall be calculated by multiplying the required park land by the
City's then current appraised land valuation as established by the City Manager.
Prior to Issuance of Building Permit
60. Prior to the issuance of building permits or the installation of the streetlights, whichever
comes first, the developer shall file an application, submit an approved Edison streetlight
plan and pay the appropriate fees to the TCSD for the dedication of residential and arterial
street lights into the TCSD maintenance program.
61. The developer shall provide TCSD verification of arrangements made with the City's
franchise solid waste hauler for disposal of construction debris.
62.
Prior to the issuance of the 50lh building permit, the landscape improvements within the
raised landscape median(s) on Nicolas Road and trail head improvements shall be
completed to TCSD standards, including the 90 day maintenance period.
'.
R:IT M\2004\04-0178 TIM 32346 Serphina TracllPC RESO & COA'S.doc
13
Prior to Issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy
63. Prior to the first Certificate of Occupancy, it shall be the developer's responsibility to provide
written disclosure of the existence of the TCSD and its service level rates and charges to all
prospective purchasers.
.
64. Prior to the first Certificate of Occupancy, the developer or his assignee shall submit, in a
format as directed by TCSD staff, the most current list of Assessor's Parcel Numbers
assigned to the final project.
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
General Requirements
65. It is understood that the Developer correctly shows on the tentative map all existing and
proposed easements, traveled ways, improvement constraints and drainage courses, and
their omission may require the project to be resubmitted for further review and revision.
66. A Grading Permit for rough grading shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works
prior to commencement of any construction outside of the City-maintained road right-of-way.
67. An Encroachment Permit shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to
commencement of any construction within an existing or proposed City right-of-way.
68.
All improvement plans and grading plans shall be coordinated for consistency with adjacent
projects and existing improvements contiguous to the site and shall be submitted on
standard 24" x 36" City of Temecula mylars.
.
Prior to Approval of the Final Map
Unless other timing is indicated, the Developer shall complete the following or have plans submitted
and approved, subdivision improvement agreements executed and securities posted:
69. As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive
written clearance from the following agencies:
a. City of Temecula Fire Prevention Bureau
b. Planning Department
c. Department of Public Works
d. Community Services District
70.
The Developer shall design and guarantee construction of the following public improvements
to City of Temecula General Plan standards unless otherwise noted. Plans shall be
reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works:
a. Improve Nicholas Road (Arterial Highway Standards - 110' R/W) to include
dedication of half-width street right-of-way, installation of half-width street
improvements, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities,
signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer), raised
landscaped median.
.
R:IT MI2004\04-0178 TIM 32346 Serphina TractlPC RESO & COA'S.doc
14
b. Improve Rita Way, Joseph Road, Jons Place and Seraphina Road (Local Road
Standards - 60' R/W) to include dedication of half-width street right-of-way plus
twelve (12') feet, installation of half-width street improvements plus twelve (12') feet,
paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and
striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer).
c. Improve Streets "A", "B", "C", "F", "G"(Local Road Standards - 60' RfW) to include
dedication of full-width street right-of-way, installation of full-width street
improvements, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities,
signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer).
d. All street improvement design shall provide adequate right-of-way and pavement
transitions per Caltrans standards for transition to existing street sections.
Unless otherwise approved the following minimum criteria shall be observed in the design of
the street improvement plans:
a. Street centerline grades shall be 0.5% minimum over P.C.C. and 1.00% minimum
over A.C. paving.
b. Driveways shall conform to the applicable City Standard No. 207.
c. Street lights shall be installed along the public streets shall be designed in
accordance with City Standard No. 800.
d. Concrete sidewalks shall be constructed in accordance with City Standard Nos. 400
and 401.
Design of street improvements shall extend a minimum of 300 feet beyond the
project boundaries to ensure adequate continuity of design with adjoining properties.
Minimum centerline radii shall be in accordance with City Standard No. 113.
All reverse curves shall include a 100-foot minimum tangent section.
All street and driveway centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees.
All knuckles shall be constructed in accordance with City Standard No. 602.
All cul-de-sacs shall be constructed in accordance in City Standard No. 600.
All utility systems including gas, electric, telephone, water, sewer, and cable TV shall
be provided underground. Easements shall be provided as required where adequate
right-of-way does not exist for installation of the facilities. All utilities shall be
designed and constructed in accordance with City Codes and the utility provider.
I. All utilities, except electrical lines rated 34kv or greater, shall be installed
underground.
.
71.
. e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
k.
72. A construction area Traffic Control Plan shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and
reviewed by the Department of Public Works for any street closure and detour or other
disruption to traffic circulation as required by the Department of Public Works.
73. Relinquish and waive right of access to and from Joseph Road & Rita Way on the Final Map
with the exception of 2 opening(s) as delineated on the approved Tentative Tract Map.
.
74.
Corner property line cut off for vehicular sight distance and installation of pedestrian facilities
shall be provided at all street intersections in accordance with Riverside County Standard
No. 805.
R:IT M\2004104-0178 TIM 32346 Serphina TractlPC RESO & COA'S.doc
15
75.
All easements and/or right-of-way dedications shall be offered for dedication to the public or
other appropriate agency and shall continue in force until the City accepts or abandons such
offers. All dedications shall be free from all encumbrances as approved by the Department
of Public Works.
76. Pursuant to Section 66493 of the Subdivision Map Act, any subdivision which is part of an
existing Assessment District must comply with the requirements of said section. Prior to City
Council approval of the Final Map, the Developer shall make an application for
reapportionment of any assessments with appropriate regulatory agency.
77. Any delinquent property taxes shall be paid.
78. An Environmental Constraints Sheet (ECS) shall be prepared in conjunction with the Final
Map to delineate identified environmental concems and shall be recorded with the map. A
copy of the ECS shall be transmitted to the Planning Department for review and approval.
The following information shall be on the ECS:
79. The Developer shall comply with. all constraints which may be shown upon an Environmental
Constraint Sheet recorded with any underlying maps related to the subject property.
80.
The Developer shall make a good faith effort to acquire the required off-site property
interests, and if he or she should fail to do so, the Developer shall, prior to submittal of the
Final Map for recordation, enter into an agreement to complete the improvements pursuant
to the Subdivision Map Act, Section 66462 and Section 66462,5. Such agreement shall
provide for payment by the Developer of all costs incurred by the City to acquire the off-site
property interests required in connection with the subdivision. Security of a portion of these
costs shall be in the form of a cash deposit in the amount given in an appraisal report
obtained by the Developer, at the Developer's cost. The appraiser shall have been
approved by the City prior to commencement of the appraisal.
81. A copy of the grading and improvement plans, along with supporting hydrologic and
hydraulic calculations shall be submitted to the Riverside County Flood Control and Water
Conservation District for approval prior to recordation of the Final Map or the issuance of any
permit. A permit from Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District is
required for work within their right-of-way.
82. All utility systems including gas, electric, telephone, water, sewer, and cable TV shall be
provided for underground, with easements provided as required, and designed and
constructed in accordance with City Codes and the utility provider. Telephone, cable TV,
and/or security systems shall be pre-wired in the residence.
83. The Developer shall notify the City's cable TV Franchises of the Intent to Develop. Conduit
shall be installed to cable TV Standards at time of street improvements.
84. Private drainage easements for cross-lot drainage shall be required and shall be delineated
and noted on the final map,
85.
Easements, when required for roadway slopes, landscape easements, drainage facilities,
utilities, etc., shall be shown on the final map if they are located within the land division
boundary. All offers of dedication and conveyances shall be submitted for review and
recorded as directed by the Department of Public Works. On-site drainage facilities located
outside of road right-of-way shall be contained within drainage easements and shown on the
R:\T M\2004\04.0178 TIM 32346 Serphina Tract\PC RESO & COA'S.doc
16
.
.
.
.
final map. A note shall be added to the final map stating "drainage easements shaff be kept
free of buildings and obstructions. "
Prior to Issuance of Grading Permits
86. As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive
written clearance from the following agencies:
a. San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board
b. Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District
c. Planning Department
d. Department of Public Works
e. Community Services District
87. A Grading Plan shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer in accordance with City of
Temecula standards and approved by the Department of Public Works prior to
commencement of any grading. The plan shall incorporate adequate erosion control
measures to protect the site and adjoining properties from damage due to erosion.
88. A Soils Report shall be prepared by a registered Civil or Soils Engineer and submitted to the
Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The report shall address all
soils conditions of the site, and provide recommendations forthe construction of engineered
structures and preliminary pavement sections.
.
89.
A Geotechnical Report shall be prepared by a registered engineer or engineering geologist
and submitted to the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The
report shall address special study zones and identify any geotechnical hazards for the site
including location of faults and potential for liquefaction. The report shall include
recommendations to mitigate the impact of ground shaking and liquefaction.
90. A Drainage Study shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and submitted to the
Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The study shall identify
storm water runoff quantities expected from the development of this site and upstream of the
site. It shall identify all existing or proposed off-site or on-site, public or private, drainage
facilities intended to discharge this runoff. Runoff shall be conveyed to an adequate outfall
capable of receiving the storm water runoff without damage to public or private property.
The study shall include a capacity analysis verifying the adequacy of all facilities. Any
upgrading or upsizing of drainage facilities necessary to convey the storm water runoff shall
be provided as part of development of this project. The basis for analysis and design shall
be a storm with a recurrence interval of one hundred years.
91.
NPDES - The project proponent shall implement construction-phase and post-construction
pollution prevention measures consistent with the State Water Resources Control Board
(SWRCB) and City of Temecula (City) NPDES programs. Construction-phase measures
shall include Best Management Practices (BMPs) consistent with the City's Grading, Erosion
& Sediment Control Ordinance, the City's standard notes for Erosion and Sediment Control,
and the SWRCB General Permit for Construction Activities. Post-construction measures
shall be required of all Priority Development Projects as listed in the City's NPDES permit.
Priority Development Projects will include a combination of structural and non-structural
onsite source and treatment control BMPs to prevent contaminants from commingling with
.
R:\T M\2004\04.0178 TIM 32346 Serphina TractIPC RESO & COA'S.doc
17
stormwater and treat all unfiltered runoff year-round prior to entering a storm drain. .
Construction-phase and post-construction BMPs shall be designed and included into plans
for submittal to, and subject to the approval of, the City Engineer prior to issuance of a
Grading Permit. The project proponent shall also provide proof of a mechanism to ensure
ongoing long-term maintenance of all structural post-construction BMPs.
92. The Developer shall post security and enter into an agreement guaranteeing the grading and
erosion control improvements in conformance with applicable City Standards and subject to
approval by the Department of Public Works.
93. A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The Area Drainage Plan fee is payable to the
Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District by either cashier's check or
money order, prior to issuance of permits, based on the prevailing area drainage plan fee. If
the full Area Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge has already been credited to this
property, no new charge needs to be paid.
94. The Developer shall obtain letters of approval or easements for any off-site work performed
on adjoining properties. The letters or easements shall be in a format as directed by the
Department of Public Works.
95.
The site is in an area identified on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps as Flood Zone "A" and is
subject to flooding of undetermined depths. Prior to the approval of any plans, the
Developer shall demonstrate that the project complies with Chapter 15.12 of the T emecula
Municipal Code for development within Flood Zone "A". A Flood Plain Development Permit
is required prior to issuance of any permit. Residential subdivisions shall obtain a Letter of
Map Revision (LOMR) from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) prior to
occupancy of any unit. Commercial subdivisions may obtain a LOMR at their discretion.
.
96. A Flood Plain Development Permit and Flood Study shall be submitted to the Department of
Public Works for review and approval. The flood study shall be in a format acceptable to the
Department and include, but not be limited to, the following criteria:
a. Drainage and flood protection facilities which will protect all structures by diverting
site runoff to streets or approved storm drain facilities.
b. Adequate provision shall be made for the acceptance and disposal of surface
drainage entering the property from adjacent areas.
c. The impact to the site from any flood zone as shown on the FEMA flood hazard map
and any necessary mitigation to protect the site.
d. Identify and mitigate impacts of grading to any adjacent floodway.
e. The location of existing and post development 100-year floodplain and floodway
shall be shown on the improvement plan.
97. All lot drainage shall be directed to the driveway by side yard drainage swales independent
of any other lot.
Prior to Issuance of Building Permits
98.
Final Map shall be approved and recorded.
.
R:IT M\2004104-0178 TIM 32346 Serphina TractlPC RESO & COA'S.doc
18
.
.
.
99.
The Developer shall vacate and dedicate the abutters rights of access along Joseph Road &
Rita Way pursuant to the new location of the driveway
100. A Precise Grading Plan shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and
approval. The building pad shall be certified by a registered Civil Engineer for location and
elevation, and the Soils Engineer shall issue a Final Soils Report addressing compaction
and site conditions.
101. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the California Building Code, the
approved grading plan, the conditions of the grading permit, City Grading Standards and
accepted grading construction practices. The final grading plan shall be in substantial
conformance with the approved rough grading plan.
102. The Developer shall pay to the City the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee as
required by, and in accordance with, Chapter 15.06 of the Temecula Municipal Code and all
Resolutions implementing Chapter 15.06.
103. The Developer shall pay to the City the Western Riverside County Transportation Uniform
Mitigation Fee (TUMF) Program as required by, and in accordance with, Chapter 15.08 of
the Temecula Municipal Code and all Resolutions implementing Chapter 15.08.
Prior to Issuance of Certificates of Occupancy
104. As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive
written clearance from the following agencies:
a. Rancho California Water District
b. Eastern Municipal Water District
c. Department of Public Works
105. All necessary certifications and clearances from engineers, utility companies and public
agencies shall be submitted as required by the Department of Public Works.
106. All improvements shall be constructed and completed per the approved plans and City
standards to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works.
107. The existing improvements shall be reviewed. Any appurtenance damaged or broken due to
the construction operations of this project shall be repaired or removed and replaced to the
satisfaction of the Director of Public Works.
OTHER AGENCIES
108. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the County of Riverside
Flood Control District transmittal dated May 28, 2004, a copy of which is attached.
R:\T M\2004\04-0178 TIM 32346 Serphina TractIPC RESO & COA'S.doc
19
109. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Metropolitan Water
District letter dated August 31,2004, a copy of which is attached.
By placing my signature below, I confirm that I have read, understand and accept all the above
Conditions of Approval. I further understand that the property shall be maintained in conformance
with these conditions of approval and that any changes I may wish to make to the project shall be
subject to Planning Department approval.
Applicant's Signature
Date
Applicant's Printed Name
R:IT M\2004\04-0178 TTM 32346 Serphina TractlPC RESO & COA'S.doc
20
.
.
.
WARREN D. WILLIAMS
icncral Managcr-C~iefEngineer
.
.
.
1995 MARKET STREET
RIVERSIDE, CA 92501
909.955.1200
909.788.9965 FAX
51180.1
RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL
AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRIC1f':=::;;:;;--"'~'';''n''''~n-fill'
; I Iii! I'~ r ,-~ : [ \ I, , ! .~. I ., 'II
1,11:;-"1 :'-,:' I"{ i'._ "Ii:.
...'. ........ .,' ,.'
. ,) ~.< i !i P
f,,,. 11"1: 1 "20n4 ". ,I
~! i i [ '. U IJ 0 u ! U !J
IU" .'"
.' u I.---/i
IBV, I
TTM :'> 2- ?> 4 (;-c.tPrr7rQ-=""on '{--.;
The District does not normally recommend conditions for land divisions or other land use cases in incorporated
cities. The District also does not plan check city land use cases, or provide State Division of Real Estate letters or
other flood hazard reports for such cases. Distnct comments/recommendations for such cases are normally limited
to items of specific Interest to the District including District Master Drainage Plan facilities, other regional flood
control and drainage facilities which could be considered a logical componenf or extension of a master plan system,
and District Area Drainage Plan fees (development mitigation fees). In addition, information of a general nature is
provided.
The District has not reviewed the proposed project in detail and the following checked comments do not in any way
constitute or imply District approval or endorsement of the proposed project with respect to flood hazard, public
health and safety or any other such issue:
This project would not be impacted by District Master Drainage ptan facilities nor are other facilities of
regional Interest proposed.
This project involves District Master Plan facilities. The District will accept ownership of such facilities on
written request of the City. Facilities must be constructed to District standards, and District plan check and
inspection will be required for District acceptance. Plan check, inspection and administrative fees will be
reqUIred.
--L This project proposes channels, storm drains 36 inches or larger in diamet r, or other facilities that could be
considered regional in nature and/or a logical extension of the adopted 'f\.f\ll'i T'A (Jztie; I<..
Master Drainage Plan. The District would consider accepting ownership 0 suc aC11 les on wn en reques
of the City. Facilities must be constructed to District standards, and District plan check and inspection will
. be required for District acceptance. Plan check, inspection and administrative fees will be required. , I
VAL<>E.'f
-A- This project is located within the limits of the District's RR..UI\ UtH.... ANI'" G~URUOiS Area /
Drainage Plan for which drainage fees have been adop e ; app Ica e ees s ou e pal y cashier's
check or money order only to tfle Flood Control District prior to issuance 0 building or grading permits,
whichever comes first. Fees to be paid should be at the rate in effect at the time of issuance of the.actual
permit.
City of Temecula
Planning Department
Post Office Box 9033
Temecula, California 92589-9033
Attention: [/-1(\1 STlN~ J)AM k..0
Ladies and Gentlemen:
Re:
GENERAL INFORMATION
This project may require a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDESl permit from the State Water
Resources Control Board. Clearance for grading, recordation, or other final approval should not be given until the
City has determined that the project has been granted a permit or is shown to be exempt.
If this project involves a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) mapped flood plain, then the City should
require the applicant to provide all studies, calculations, plans and other Information re'luired to meet FEMA
re'luirements, and should further require that the applicant obtain a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR)
. prior to grading, recordation or other final approval of the project, and a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) prior to
occupancy.
If a natural watercourse or mapped flood plain is impacted by this project, the City should require the applicant to
obtain a Section 1601/1603 Agreement from the California Department of Fish and Game and a Clean Water Act
Section 404 Permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, or written correspondence from these agencies
indicating the project is exempt from these requirements. A Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification
may be required from the local California Regional Water Quality Control Board prior to issuance of tfle Corps 404
permit.
ALSO l<.efe.~ 101l-lE Arm~HED Urru-
J)l'tH.'> M.N1 2 '61 2..00 L; ,
c:
Very truly yours,
~4
ARTURO DIAZ
. Senior Civil Engineer
Date: ~U'.,/ -t' ::Yq/
SK.t1
'...... v. . ';''''<'':''-''-'L..:\ l '-'II pn.,)
4:J VUl
. ",
~RJ,;-; D. WILLIAMS
-:ral Manager-Chief Engineer
.
U]tll'oll\TT Post-it- Fax Note
"Ii
i TO,,? f\ 6C: ~
~ Co.lDap\. r<- \... F cP
~ Phone #I
c*--=-
~\'AT\' Fax> oJ. Co g <T .84:>
;671
Co.
~~ ~_~ ln2~ ~~
Fax #
.
phone 4i
RIVERSIDE COUNTY. .
RIVERSIDE COUNlY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRlC-T
AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
May 28, 2004
RECEIVED
JUN 0 2 Z004
Mr. Ron Parks,
Deputy Director of Public Works
City ofTemecula
Post Office Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
CITY OF TEMECULA
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
Dear Mr. Parks:
Re:
Tract 32346
Santa Gertrudis Creek Channel
Improvements
This is in responsc to Apex Engineering's letter dated May 3, 2004 in which they requested the
District 1), accept ownership and maintenance responsibility for an extensiDn to Santa Gertrudis
Creek Channel to be consLructcd with Tract 32346, and 2) expedite review times. The proposed
extension of Santa Gertrudis Creek Channel consists of about 2600 lineal feet of trapezoidal channel
along 'Nicholas' Road. Although not shown on the submitted plans, the channel improvements may
need to include a 100 year crossing at Joseph Road and offsite collection facilities at the eastern
terminus of the channel. The plans do indicate that channel maintenance access roads would also be
used as a city trail.' .
.
The District is willing to accept Santa Gertrudis Creek Channel for operation and maintenance. The
District does not object to the inclusion of trails within channel right of way provided a public entity
is able to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the District for that use. The channel plans shall be in
confonnance with District drafting, design and maintenance standards. The District will provide.
comments on all submittals within 15 working days. A plan check fee worksheet may.be found at
hnp:/ Iwww.co.riverside.ca.us/depts/flood! devclopmentreview. asp.
Three items must be accomplished prior to starting construction of the drainage facilities: I) the
developer shall submit to the District the preliminary title reports, plats and legal descriptions for all
right of way to be conveyed to the District and secure that right of way to the satisfaction of the
District; 2) a cooperative agreement between the Developer, District and City must be executed
which establishes the terms and conditions of inspection, operation and maintenance; and 3) plans for
the facility must be signed by the District's General Manager-Chief Engineer. The plans cannot be
signed prior to execution of the agreement. An application to draw up an agreement must be
submitted to the attention of Mark Wills of the District's Administrative Services Section. The
agreement application may also be found at hnp://www.co.riverside.ca.us/deptslflood!
developmentreview:asp. All right of way transfer issues shall be coordinated with Morris Reynolds
of the District's Right of Way Section.
Prior to scheduling a pre-construction meeting the following items shall bc provided to Mark Wills:
1) certificates of insurance, 2) contractor designation and schedule, 3) confined space procedure, 4)
inspection fees and 5) 20-day notice of intent to start construction.
.
'-
v 0 I I ? ' 0;. V V 'I V 0 . J oJ r !L\ :1 V:] U;)... U'i I .J
.
.
.
Mr. Ron Parks
Re: Tract 32346
Santa Gcrtrudis Creek Channel
Improvements
V 111 VI" I J"..illt'ulIL.'\ ruu !H\.:::J
.----
lfY uu..:::
88139.\
-2-
May 27, 2004
Questions concerning this matter may be referred to Kent Allen of this office at 909.955.8215.
c: Apex Engineering
Attn: Rod Emmons
. Mark Wills
Kent Allen
Morris Reynolds
SEM:bj
Very truly yours,
Su~ t:- \\,<( L
STUART E MC KIBBIN
Chief of Planning Division
n--=n MWD
. METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
.
ExecuUve Office
MWD San Diego Pipelines Nos. I and 2
Sta. 1184+00 to 1193+00
R/W Parcels SDN-22-78 and -2P-78
Substr. Job No. 2028-04-009
August 31, 2004
Ms. Christine Damko
Project Planner
City of Temecula
Planning Department
P.O. Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
tT~-
.',
Ii
j!
i V. J
,.
!
')
ill
:,1
"I
'"'.;
. .'J
.-,
Dear Ms. Damko:
.
Tentative Tract No. 32346 - Seraphina Development
Thank you for your undated notice, which we received on July 21, 2004, submitting prints of the
conceptual grading and utility plans (Sheets CI through C5 of C5) for the proposed development
of property located on the north side of Nicholas Road, just east of Joseph Road, in the city of
Temecula.
We have reviewed the submitted plans, and our comments and requirements are as follows:
1. Sheets CI and C4 of the plans delineate the location of Metropolitan's l70-foot-wide
permanent easement right-of-way, which is located along the inside of the eastern
boundary of the subject property. We request that our 54- and 48-inch-inside-diameter
precast concrete San Diego Pipelines Nos. I and 2, respectively, also be shown and
identified accordingly and that our right-of-way be identified on these plans. Enclosed
for your information and use are prints of our Drawing B-69679 and Right-of-Way Map
SDN-22.
2.
Per the proposed grade shown on Sheet C4, our review indicates that up to approximately
6 feet of additional fill would be required for the proposed pads for Lots 53 and 56
through 59 on the west side of our right-of-way. Details illustrating the transition of the
.
700 N. Alameda Slre€t. Los Angeles, California 90012. Mailing Address: Box 54153. Los Angeles, California 90054-0153. Telephone (213) 217-6000
.
.
.
THE METROPOliTAN WATER OISTRICT Of SOUTHERN CAliFORNIA
Ms. Christine Damko
Page 2
August 31, 2004
proposed grade from the existing grade along our right-of-way boundary must be shown
on the plans. The slope of any proposed grading must have a gradient not exceeding
10 percent within our right-of-way.
If a retaining wall is required along our easement boundary to contain the placement of
the above-mentioned proposed fill, we require that no part of the wall, including footings,
encroach into our right-of-way. If this condition applies, details of the proposed retaining
wall must be incorporated into the plans for our review and written acceptance. The note
on Sheet C4 states that no structures or fences will be allowed within Metropolitan's
easement area.
3.
The other applicable issues stated in our April 29, 2004 correspondence to Apex
Engineering for this property development (copy enclosed), in particular the proposed
realignment and improvement of Santa Gertrudis Creek across our right-of-way, must
be addressed and submitted for our review and written acceptance.
4. During construction, Metropolitan's field personnel will make periodic inspections.
We request that a stipulation be added to all pertinent plans to notifY Mr. John Martinez
of our Water System Operations Group, telephone (909) 776-2616, at least two working
days (Monday through Thursday) prior to starting any work in the vicinity of our facil-
ities and right-of-way.
We request that the plans be revised in accordance with our requirements and that prints of the
revised detailed plans, Tract Map No. 32346 and other pertinent plans or other pertinent
information be submitted for our review and written approval. We are returning prints of
Sheets CI and C4 of the submitted plans, stamped "REVIEWED - CORRECTIONS NOTED
- RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED."
Plans for any landscaping, street improvement, utilities or other activities proposed within our
right-of-way must also be submitted for our review and prior written approval. Please note that
no trees are allowed within our right-of-way, but ground cover is permitted. The landscape
plans, including the street improvement plans, must contain provisions to maintain vehicular
access along our right-of-way.
Facilities constructed within Metropolitan's easement shall be subject to the paramount right
of Metropolitan to use the easement for the purpose for which it was acquired. If at any time
Metropolitan or its assigns should, in the exercise of their rights, find it necessary to remove any
THE METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CAliFORNIA
.
Ms. Christine Damko
Page 3
August 31, 2004
of the facilities from the easement, such removal and replacement shall be at the expense of the
owner of the facility.
For any further correspondence with Metropolitan relating to this project, please make reference
to the Substructures Job Number shown in the upper right-hand corner of the first page of this
letter. Should you require any additional information, please contact Mr. Jose Bautista,
telephone (213) 217-6092.
Very truly yours,
?L (?&/
.-/
Kieran M. Callanan, P.E.
Manager, Substructures Team
.
JB/KJMJly
DOC 2028-04-009.
Enclosures (4)
cc: Mr. Rod E. Emmons
Apex Engineering
2601 South 35th Street, Suite 200
Tacoma, WA 98409-7479
.
.
.
.
ATTACHMENT NO.3
INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY
R\T M\2004\04-0178 TIM 32346 Serphina Tract\PC STAFF REPORT.doc
8
City of Temecula
P.O. Box 9033, Temecula, CA 92589-9033
Pro'ect Title
Lead Agency Name and Address
Contact Person and Phone Number
Project Location
Project Sponsor's Name and Address
General Plan Desi nation
Zonin
Description of Project
Surrounding Land Uses and Setting
Other public agencies whose approval
is re uired
.
Environmental Checklist
TIM 32346 Sera hina Tract
City ofTemecula
43200 Business Park Drive
P.O. Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
Christine Damko
951 694-6400
The project is located on the north side of Nicolas Road just east of
Jose h Road in the Cit of Temecula.
Scott Carino
2010 65th Ave. W. #100, Firecrest, WA 98466
LM (Low Medium Densi
LM Low Medium Densi
The project proposes to subdivide Assessor Parcel Numbers 957-
080-014 and 957-080-019 into 71 legal parcels each with a minimum
lot size of 7,224 square feet. The properties total to 28.6 acres net.
The 29 acre site is bounded to the south by Santa Gertudis Creek
which is located north of Nicolas Road, and runs east to west. The
subject site is bounded to the west by Joseph Road, to the north by
Rita Way, Seraphina and Jons Place, to the east by a branch of the
California aqueduct. No structures exist on the subject property, with
the exception of a wooden shack located on the northwest portion of
the site. The site is generally flat, sloping slightly to the south at a
gradient of approximately 1 to 2 percent. The site also has a small
hill approximately 7 to 10 feet in height that is located near the center
of the site. A wood and wire fence is located on the north portion of
the site running south down to the creek. Vegetation onsite is
moderately dense with trash and mounds of debris throughout the
northern portion of the sight. The surrounding area to the west
consists 0 f existing single family residences that a re in the City 0 f
Murrieta. To the north of the site there has been recent grading in
preparation of building additional single family residential homes
which will be adjacent to existing single family residences. To the
east of the project are existing large lot, single family homes located
on in the zoning district, Very Low Density Residential (VL) zone. To
the south of the site is vacant property that is also zoned Very Low
Densit Residential.
US Fish and Wildlife, Department of the Army Corps, Department of
Fish and Game, EMWD Water District
R:\T M\2004\04-0178 TIM 32346 Serphina Tracl\CEQA INITIAL STUOY revised,doc
1
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one
impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
Mineral Resources
Noise
Po ulation and Housin
Public Services
Recreation
Trans ortationrrraffic
Utilities and Service S stems
Mandato Findin s of Si nificance
None
Determination
(To be completed by the lead agency)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
X I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be re ared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not
be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by
the ro'ect ro onent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be re ared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is re uired.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant
unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in
an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation
measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT is re uired, but it must anal ze onl the effects that remain to be addressed,
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all
potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE
DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to
that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are
im osed u on the ro osed ro'ect, nothin further is re uired.
Signature
Date
Christine Damko
Printed name
For
.
R:IT M\2004104-0178 TIM 32346 Serphina TractlCEQA iNiTIAL STUOY revised.doc
2
AESTHETICS. Would the project:
a.
b.
IssUes'aridSiJ' ortih' ':filformati-on Sources
Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not
limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings
within a state scenic hi hwa ?
Substantially degrade the existing visual character or
ualit of the site and its surroundin s?
Create a new source of substantial light or glare which
would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the
area?
. - Po~e)Hially
SignifiCant
Im'act
, - Potentially
: Sig~.ifj~a'~tUnfess.
:,.,."i1i~~lion
lnco;' orated"
less Than
Significant
Ir),ad;
No
Irri act
X
X
c.
X
d.
X
Comments:
1. a, b, d: No Impact: The proposed project is a Tentative Tract Map for 72 single-family lots that conforms to
the General Plan, Development Code, Zoning designation, and the City's Subdivision Ordinance. The
surrounding land uses include residential and the project will be developed in a similar fashion. The project
site does not inciude a scenic vista, or scenic resources such as trees, rock outcroppings, or historic buildings
within a state scenic highway. The project will not block any views protected under state or local ordinance
since the project is not located on or near a state scenic highway. All lighting will be required to conform to the
Riverside County lighting Ordinance 655, which prohibits light spillage onto adjacent properties and certain
~tures which have potential to emit glare into the sky.
1. c: Less than significant impact: No structures exist on the subject property, with the exception of a
wooden shack located on the northwest portion of the site. The site is generally flat, sloping slightly to the
south at a gradient of approximately 1 to 2 percent. The site also has a small hill approximately 7 to 10 feet in
height that is located near the center of the site. A wood and wire fence is located on the north portion of the
site running south down to the creek. Vegetation onsite is moderately dense with trash and mounds of debris
throughout the northern portion of the sight. The surrounding area to the west consists of existing single
family residences that are in the City of Murrieta. North of the site there has been recent grading in
preparation of building additional single family residential homes which will be adjacent to existing single
family residences. East of the project are existing single family homes located in the Very Low Density
Residential (VL) zone. South of the site is vacant property that is also zoned Very Low Density Residential.
The proposed project will not substantially degrade the existing visual character of the surroundings, because
the surrounding area is already developed with single family residences and the proposal is consistent with
the City of Temecula's General Plan and Development Code Guidelines.
.
R:IT M\2004104-0178 TIM 32346 Serphina TractlCEQA INITIAL STUDY revised. doc
3
2. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are
significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural land
Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as
an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project:
b.
Jssuesand Su ortii1 'Information Sources
Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland
of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the
maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency,
to non-a ricultural use?
Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a
Williamson Act contract?
Involve other changes in the existing environment which,
due to their location or nature, could result in conversion
of Farmland, to non-a ricultural use?
J?ot~nti,~lry;:
_::>fgriifi9:anti_';-
~ 1m a-ct'-
~e()te~ti,~lly,::; .::-':
" ~jg~ifiC~;~,t;lJnr~_~,~1
. :Mi~g~_tion' ,:~ "
;1f'lCor 'orated
.. -.
:,j:: Less'Thani"
::::?jgbifi~_afltj-:
;"diTi'aCt
X
a.
. No
1m act-
X
c.
X
Comments:
2. a: less than significant impact: According to the California Department of Conservation Farmland and
Monitorinq Proqram. dated 2002, the project site is located within an area designated as" farmland of local
importance". This site is not currently used for agricultural activities and is surrounded by housing. According
to the applicant, prior agricultural activities consisted of farming on one-acre of the 29 acre site, which ceased
in 2002. Therefore, the proposed project will not have a significant impact on farmland importance. .
2. b-c: No Impact: According to the General Plan (figure 5-4), the proposed project site is not identified as an
agricultural resource, nor is the site zoned for agricultural uses. The project site is not located in an existing
environment which could result in conversion of farmland to non-agricultural uses because there is not
agricultural land uses in the immediate vicinity. The General Plan (figure 5-5) indicates that the site is not land
under Williamson Act contract.
.
R:IT Ml2004104-0178 TIM 32346 Serphina TractlCEQA INITIAL STUDY revised.doc
4
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality
management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following
determinations. Would the project:
Issues::and' Su rtiri:lrifci'rmalj'o'rd;'otrc~s
Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable
air ualit Ian?
Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially
to an existin or ro'ected air ualit violation?
Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any
criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-
attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient
air quality standard (including releasing emissions which
exceed uantitative thresholds for ozone recursors?
Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number
of eo Ie?
E'otentiaJly,
~igni~c<lt1t
~Im 'acf'
Pot~ntially
Significa_nt_Unles_~: .
. ,:~t~,i~ig~tj9~-;
Inca' orated ':-
,No
1m act
Less Than
Sig~jficant
1m act
X
X
X
X
X
Comments:
3. a.-e.: Less than significant impact: The applicant has prepared and submitted an Air Quality Impact
Analysis (Air Quality Impact Analysis, Chambers Group, April 26, 2004) which has concluded that the project
- not have a significant impact on air quality, nor will it have a significant impact on the South Coast Air
.ality Management District (SCAQMD) thresholds for the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB). For project related
emissions, an AIR Resource Board (ARB) air emissions 2002 URBEMIS model was used to' forecast project
related emissions. Said analysis also concluded that the project will not substantially contribute to an existing
or projected air quality violation, or result in a considerable net increase of any pollutants including Reactive
Organic Gases (ROG), Nitrogen Oxides (NOx), Carbon Monoxide (CO), Sulfur Dioxide (S02), or Particulate
Matter (PM-10). The analysis also concludes that the project will not conflict with any secondary sources of
potentially significant impacts including growth projections in underlying regional plans, micro scale "hot spot"
potential, generation of odors, dust or other nuisances, or hazardous or air toxic emissions.
The project is strictly a 71 lot residential subdivision, which will have a less than significant impact on air quality
on a regional scale. Also, the project's construction activities do not exceed any of the thresholds for
pollutants. The project is not located in or near any sensitive receptors such as a retirement community or a
church, or park, and will not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.
The project will not create any long term objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. The
project consists of a 71 lot residential subdivision and no objectionable odors are anticipated to be emitted as a
result of the project. Temporary impacts typically associated with construction activities are anticipated,
however they are considered less than significant with mitigation measures in place.
Temporary impacts due to construction of the site may be expected, however the impacts are not considered
significant and conditions of approval have been incorporated that will mitigate these temporary impacts.
.
R:\T M\2004\04-0178 TTM 32346 Serphina Tracl\CEQA INITIAL STUDY revised.doc
5
4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project?
'lssues'andSurtin :lnforiTlatiori Sources .
a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or
through habitat modifications, on any species identified
as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in
local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service? .
b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat
or other sensitive natural community identified in local or
regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife
Service?
c. Have a substantial adverse effect of federally protected
wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool,
coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological
interru tion, or other means?
d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native
resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors,
or im ede the use of native wildlife nurse sites?
e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance?
f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state ~abitat
conservation Ian?
* Revised comments are delineated through underlining
Comments:
~<?tential1y.
Significant
1m act .'
f'olentiaUy,
Sigitificant Unless
Mitigation
lneoorated
. less"Than."
Sign.ificant -.;
1m "act
X
No
,1m ad
X
X
X
X
.
X
4. a-f: Less than significant impact: According to Figure 5-3 of the City of Ternecula General Plan, areas
adjacent to Santa Gertrudis C reek a re considered to have sensitive habitats. The applicant is required to
submit a Biological Study that examines the biological effects on the site. Chambers Group prepared a report
titled Results of the Bioloqical Resources Survevs for the Seraphina Proiect Site. Riverside County. California.
dated September 28, 2004. The study included walking the project site and recording data on standardized
data sheets as well as a search of the most current versions of the California Natural Diversity Database and
the California Native Plant Society Electronic Inventory. During this time of study, plant communities were
identified, biological resources on the site were inventoried, and the potential for the presence of sensitive plant
and wildlife species and sensitive habitats were assessed, focusing on those species listed as threatened or
endangered by the state and federal agencies. The results of the study determined that none of the sensitive
species identified in the literature were observed within the project site. Eight of the 22 species were
determined to be a bsent from the project site, nine species have a low potential, a nd five species have a
moderate potential to occur on the project site. Due to the limited native habitat and disturbed vegetation that
covers the majority of the site, none of the sensitive wildlife spec[es have a high potential to occur on the
project site. The literature search resulted in a list of 12 sensitive plant species, including nine federal and.
state listed as threatened or endangered species, which have been reported in the vicinity of the site. Several
of these sensitive plant species occur within vernal pool systems, which do not occur on the project site. All of
these plant species were determined to have a low potential of occurring on the project site. None of the
R:IT M\2004104-0178 TIM 32346 Serphina TractlCEQA INITIAL STUDY revised.doc
6
sensitive species identified in the literature search were observed within the project site. Due to the
urbanization' in the region, remaining habitat is considered vital to maintaining habitat connectivity. San
.rtrudis Creek, an ephemeral drainage, serves as a wildlife corridor within the project site. The Santa
rtrudis Creek is channelized immediately west of t he project site and is sparsely vegetated with upland
species throughout much of the creek channel. The creek channel is also associated for many resident wildlife
species, including, coyote, raccoon, small mammal species, and several bird species. The channel is a
tributary to Murrieta Creek and provides a connection between land areas east and west of Interstate 15.
Although Santa Gertrudis Creek is sparsely vegetated and surrounded by residential development, resident
wildlife species would still be expected the utilize the channel. For this reason the map has been designed with
the creek p reserved a s Open Space, with a 1 0 foot w ide landscape buffer a nd a n a dditional1 0 foot wide
pedestrian trail between the creek and the residential lots. However, as Conditions of Approval. the applicant
will be required to reconstruct the channel bottom, improve Joseph Road, and construct flood improvements
which may cause impacts to a portion of the creek and then constitute a permit from the Army Corps of
Enqineers and/or The U.S. Fish and Wildlife. At this time staff has not been contacted by the Army Corps of
Enqineers or US Fish and Wildlife in reqards to obtaininq permits for this proiect. However. in anticipation of a
response from either of these aqencies, there will be a Condition of Approval that requires the applicant to
obtain approval and the proper permits that may be required bv The U.S. Fish and Wildlife and/or the Army
Corps of Enqineers before the issuance of the precise qradinq permit.
5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
':J f!otenti~lly_' ',.
'Sig~Jfic13ht,Ullles~
Mitigation'
lncarorated
Less'Than
Sign_mearit
!rtf-act
X
~No:
1m act
a.
Issues arid Su"oitio' 'IriformatioriSources
Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of
a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5?
Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of
an archaeolo ical resource ursuant to Section 15064.5?
Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological
resource or site or uni ue eolo ic feature?
Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries?
X
c.
X
d.
X
Comments:
5. a.-d.: Less than significant impact: The applicant was not required to submit a cultural resources study
due to the past research of the Eastern Information Center, in which there were no cultural resources identified
within the boundaries of the project area. The research has shown that the project site had been included in a
previous cultural resource study and that no archaeological sites had been recorded within the project
boundaries.
While the Temecula area has been known to include prehistoric, historic and paleontological resources, the
project site is not believed to include any significant resources because the project site does not include tool
quality lithic materials, bedrock outcrops suitable for food processing, rock art, or shelter. The site is also void
of any permanent source of water and there are not any defensive locations of the preferred type for habitation
by nomadic and indigenous peoples. The project site certainly could have produced vegetal and faunal
resources that may have produced food and components for medicines and tool production and construction;
however, this cannot be verified in the current state of the project site. As a precaution, the below mitigation
measure and condition of approval will be implemented into the project.
Ae Environmental Impact Report for the City of Temecula General Plan identifies the project site as a highly
.nsitive area for paleontological resources (figure 5-7). As a condition of approval, the project will be required
to stop all work if any paleontological or archaeological resources are discovered. The General Plan requires
R:IT M\2004104-0178 TIM 32346 Serphina TractlCEQA INITIAL STUDY revised.doc
7
that archaeologists and/or paleontologists be retained where the presence of archaeological and/or
paleontological resources are identified. If in the event any resources of any historical, cultural or
paleontological nature are discovered, the City will be notified as well as the appropriate professionals t.
determine the origin of the resources.
6. GEOLOGY AND SOilS. Would the project:
Issi.Jesand~Su ortin ;lnformatior...-Sources
a. Expose people or structures to potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death
involvin :
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on
the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning
Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based
on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to
Division of Mines and Geolo S ecial Publication 42.
ii. Stron seismic round shakin ?
iii. Seismic-related round failure, includin Ii uefaction?
iv. landslides?
b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of to soil?
c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or
that would become unstable as a result of the project,
and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral
s readin ,subsidence, Ii uefaction or colla se?
d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B
of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial
risks to life or ro ert ?
e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of
septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the disposal of
wastewater?
Potentially-
j,'SJ9itmCantLJnl_~SS
-_~_tli~~tion-..
lncor orated
li~ss:Than
Signiffcant
1m acl
X
'No
;Im act
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Comments:
6. a-e: less than significant impact: The applicant has provided a copy of a geotechnical report
. (Geotechnical Investigation Residential Development Temecula, California prepared for Seraphina
Development Job No. 041063-3) which was prepared on November 30, 2004 by CHJ Incorporated. The
project determined the following:
The site does not lie within or immediately adjacent to an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Zone, designated by the
State of California to include traces of suspected active faulting. No a ctive or potentially active faults are
shown on or in the immediate vicinity of the site on published geologic maps. No evidence for active faulting
on or immediately adjacent to the site was observed during the'geologic field reconnaissance or on the aerial
photographs reviewed.
The potential for ground surface rupture is low.
The potential for liquefaction, seismically-induced settlement, and differential settlement is considered low. .
No landslide deposits were encountered nor were any ancient landslides known to exist on the site.
R:IT M\2004104-0178 TTM 32346 Serphina TracllCEQA INITIAL STUDY revised.doc
8
The possibility of seiches, tsunamis, and inundation due to failure of large water storage facilities is considered
..
The potential of flooding at the site is considered low.
The potential for erosion should be mitigated by proper drainage design. Water should not be allowed to flow
over graded areas or natural areas so as to cause erosion. Graded areas will be protected from erosion by
wind or water as a Condition of Approval.
7. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project:
f=loten~ially c
, ::l.ignincarlLlJnl$s.s
_.Mitigation
Incor - orated
les~Thah"::8
SignifiglOt No .
"elm act' C'" 1m act
X
a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transportation, use, or
dis osal of hazardous materials?
b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment?
c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances; or acutely
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-
quarter mile of an existin or proposed school?
Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment?
e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been adopted, within two
miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the
project result in a safety hazard for people residing or
workin in the ro'ect area?
f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would
the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or
workin in the ro'ect area?
g. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation Ian?
h. Expose people or structures to a significant risk or loss,
injury or death involving wildland fires, including where
wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where
residences are intermixed with wildlands?
'Revised comments are delineated through underlining
Comments:
X
X
X
~
~
X
X
. 7.
a-d g-h: No impact: The proposed project consists of a 72 lot single-family residential subdivision.
There are no hazardous materials beyond those typically used for residential uses to be stored or
maintained on-site. The project site is not located in a manner that would interfere with any emergency
plan. The project site is located in an urbanized area and should not expose people io injury or death
R:\T Ml2004\04-0178 TTM 32346 Selphina Tract\CEQA INITIAL STUDY revised.doc
9
involving wildfires because there are no wild lands located in the immediate vicinity of the project site.
Therefore, it can be anticipated that the result of the proposed project is no impact.
.
8. e-f: Less than SiQnificant Impact: The proposed Droiect is located within Zone D of the French Valley
AirDort Land Use ComDatibility Plan as shown on MaD FV-6 in the Riverside County AirDort Land Use
ComDatibility Policy Plan Document IRCALUC). As Dart of the RCALUC Drocess. all aDDlications within a
RCALUC zone must comDlete an aDDlication which will be aDDroved throuQh a Dublic hearinQ. The subiect
DroDerty is scheduled for the March 10, 2005 hearinq. Below lists the Conditions of ADDroval from the
RCALUC :
a. Provide Aviation Easements to the French Valley A irDort D rior to sale of a nv D roDerty to a ny entity
exemDt from the Subdivision MaD Act, Drior to recordation of any maD. or issuance of any Dermit,
whichever is first.
b. IncorDorate noise attenuation measures into the buildinq construction to ensure interior noise levels are
at or below 45 CNEL-decibel levels.
c. Install hooded or shielded outdoor liqhtinq to Drevent either the sDillaQe of lumens or reflection into the
sky lliqhts must be downward facinq).
d. The followinq uses shall be Drohibited:
(a) Anv use which would direct a steady liqht or flashinq liqht of red, white, Qreen. or amber
colors associated with airDort oDerations toward an aircraft enqaqed in an initial straiqht
climb followinq takeoff or toward an aircraft enqaqed in a straiqht final aDDroach toward a
landinq at an airDort. other than an FAA-aDDroved naviqational siqnal liqht or visual .
aDDroach sloDe indicator.
(b) Any use which would cause s unliqht to be reflected towards a n aircraft e nQaqed in an
initial straiqht climb followinq takeoff or towards an aircraft enQaqed in a straiqht final
aPDroach towards a landinq at an airDort.
(c) Any use which would qenerate smoke or water vaDor or which would attract larQe
concentrations of birds, or which may otherwise affect safe air naviqation within the area.
(d) Any use which would qenerate electrical interference that may be detrimental to anv
oDeration of aircraft and/or aircraft instrumentation.
e. The Notice shown below shall be qiven to each prosDective buver or tenant:
NOTICE OF AIRPORT IN VICINITY
This proDerty is Dresently located in the vicinity of an airDort. within what is known as an airDort influence area.
For that reason. the DroDerty may be subject to some of the annoyances or inconveniences associated with
Droximity to airDort oDerations Ifor examDle: noise. vibration, or odors). Individual sensitivities to those
annoyances can vary from Derson to Derson. You may wish to consider what airDort annoyances, if any. are
associated with the proDerty before yOU complete your Durchase and detemnine whether they are acceDtable to
you. Business & Profession Code 11010 121A)
.
R:\T M\2004\04-0178 TTM 32346 Serphina TractlCEQA INITIAL STUDY revised.doc
10
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project:
Issues and Su ortin 'kiformation:Sources
a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
re uirements?
b. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there
would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of
the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate
of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which
would not support existing land uses or planned uses for
which ermits have been ranted?
c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site
or area, including through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river, in a manner which would result in
substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
d. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site
or area, including through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result
in flood in on- or off-site?
e. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage
systems or provide substantial additional sources of
olluted runoff?
f. Otherwise substantiall de rade water ualit?
g. Place housing within a 1 DO-year flood hazard area as
mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood
Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation
ma ?
h. Place within a 1 DO-year flood hazard area structures
which would im ede or redirect flood flows?
i. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,
injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a
result of the failure of a levee or dam?
Inundation b seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
'Revised comments are delineated through underlining
Comments:
Potentia,Uy
Significant
1m act
, ';P:9!~ntiCllly
SignificaritUiiress
, Mitigation
Ineor orated
No
1m act
X
. less Than
Significant
Irri 'act
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
8. a-j: No Impact: The proposed project is required to comply with all current regulations in regards to
National Pollution Discharge Elimination Systems (NPDES) and the Regional Water Quality Control Board
(RWQCB). Accordinq to the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District. the project
proposes channels, storm drains 36 inches or larqer in diameter. or other facilities that could be considered
reqional in nature and/or a loqical extension of the adopted Murrieta Creek- Santa Gertrudis Valley Master
Drainaqe Plan. Facilities must be constructed to District standards. and District plan check and inspection will
e re uired for District acce tance. Plan check ins ection and administrative fees will be re uired. In addition
aina e fees have been ado ted. A Iicable fees should be aid b cashier's check or mone order onl to
he Flood Control District prior to issuance of buildinq or qradinq permits. whichever comes first. Fees to be
paid should be at the rate in effect at the time of issuance of the actual permit. An encroachment permit shall
R:IT M\2004\04-0178 TIM 32346 Serphina TractlCEQA INITIAL STUPY revised.doc
11
be obtained for anv work within the district rieht-of-wav or with district facilities. The project is not anticipated to
deplete ground water systems because the proposed project will not include the drilling of any new water wells
and there are open space areas proposed on the project site to allow for water percolation. While the drainage.
pattern will undoubtedly change as a result of the project, it is anticipated the result will be less than significant
because the new drainage system will not alter a natural drainage course nor will it increase run-off that would
create flooding on- or off-site. The project site is not located on or near the coast so the possibility of seiches,
tsunamis or mudflow is considered low.
9. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project:
a.
b.
c.
.eotelllialty
Signinca'nt
1m act
P(:jtentiaUy.
Signi@anlUnless
Miti9~,Hon
[MCOT orated
No
1m act
X
X
less,Than
Signific;ant-
kn 'aCt
IssuesandSu rtin InfomfationSO'urces
Ph sicall divide an established communi ?
Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or
regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project
(including, but not limited to the general plan, specific
plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted
for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental
effect?
Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or
natural community conservation plan?
X
Comments:
9. a-c: No Impact: The proposed project complies with the General Plan, Development Code and Subdivision
Ordinance of the City of Temecula. The site is located in an urbanized area adjacent to residential uses and is .
zoned the same or similar (residential) to the surrounding properties. The project site is not located within the
boundaries of a habitat conservation plan or community conservation plan.
10. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a.
b.
',fE'oten.tiaUy~
"~jgnjfic~bt lJnlElss
;:;~itiga.tio.n.
- . ,'hlcol"-oraled
p~t~ntiCl,lIy
;''Sigriifi~nt
"1m aCt:"
..L~s_~,ThCln
'Si9llifi~rlC
- "1m ad -
-:~No
1m act,.
X
C:lssues'and
Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of value to the region and the
residents of the state?
Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important
mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local
eneral lan, s ecific Ian or other land use Ian?
X
Comments:
10. a-b: No Impact: The project site is not located in an area utilized for the excavation of mineral resources.
Nor is the area anticipated to provide for future mineral resources. The General Plan does not denote the
project site as a potential site for mineral excavation.
.
R:IT MI2004104-0178 TTM 32346 Serphina TractlCEQA INITIAL STUDY revised.doc
12
. NOISE. Would the project result in:
Issues'andSD
a. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in
excess of standards established in the local general plan
or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other
a encies?
b. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive
round borne vibration or round borne noise levels?
c. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels
in the project vicinity above levels existing without the
ro'ect?
d. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient
noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the ro'ect?
e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been adopted, within two
miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the
project expose people residing or working in the project
area to excessive noise levels?
f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would
the project expose people residing or working in the
ro'ect area to excessive noise levels?
evised comments are delineated through underlining
omments:
" ~Qt~rlti_~lIy
~'Significant
. !in aCt
POtentially
$ignificaJjt Ui1Jess'
Miligation~
Ineor orated
LessThan
, Sig'nificanl
-1m act
X
No
Irri'act
X
x
x
x
x
11. a-f: Less than significant impact: According to the General Plan EIR, even at complete build out,
measuring 100 feet from the centerline of the road, Nicholas Road is still under the noise level of 65 DSL. This
is consistent with the City of Temecula General Plan of all Low Medium Residential areas not exceeding 65
DSL. With this in mind, the proposed project is more than 220 feet away from Nicholas Road. The proposed
project is not located within 2 miles of a public or private airport, but is located within the French Valley Airport
Compatibility Plan. However. this proiect is located outside of the Noise Compatibility Contours Map as shown
in Map FV-3 of the Riverside County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan Policy Document. In addition, the
project area is not located near a sensitive receptor location, such as a school, library, and/or park, nor is it
located in a future roadway noise contour.
12. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project:
potentially
$jgriificCi.rlt
'Im"act .
potentially
SigriificaritUiiless.
- ",,,M!'jg~ti()n
,. .'In'cor' orated
less Than
Signifi~nt
'-Irri act
X
No
1m' ad
a. Induce substantial population growth in an area, either
directly (for example, by proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension
of roads or other infrastructure?
b. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
c. Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the
construction of re lacement housin elsewhere?
R:\T M\2004\04-0178 TIM 32346 Serphina TractlCEQA INITIAL STUDY revlsed.doc
13
X
X
Comments:
.
12. a-c: Less than significant impact: The proposed project will result in a net increase of 72 single-family
residences. which is not considered a substantial growth in population. The proposed project is consistent with
the current zoning regulation of Low Medium Density (LM). which allows up to six dwelling units per acre.
There will not include the extension of any existing roads and will not cut-off circulation of existing roads. The
project will not include the destruction or replacement of any existing residences as the project site is currently
vacant.
13. PUBLIC SERVICES.
~()~~:nti~lly;
:lSig~Jfica-~t '
'11m act;:
; ~otentially _
:',S,i9I1jfic:antY~1~,s!3:-
" I'Mitigati9n""
Incor orated-'
" Less-Than.
SJgnlfjcant
;:".'!Imact'
, No
Im--'acE
a.
, ,
.1ssuesand'$u ortin :Informatlon-Sources
Would the project result in substantial adverse physical
impacts associated with the provision of new or physically
altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically
altered governmental facilities, the construction of which
could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or
other performance objectives for any of the public
services:
Fire rotection?
Police rotection?
Schools?
Parks?
Other ublic facilities?
x
X
X
X
X
.
Comments:
13. a: The proposed project will add a total of 72 single-family residences to the community. While there will
be public services required for the project, there will not be a significant impact to the c ornmunities public
service system including fire, police, schools, parks, utilities or any other public facilities and/or services. There
are currently adequate public services located in the project area suitable to accommodate the proposed
project. In addition, the Developer Impact Fee will provide for additional services.
14. RECREATION.
--,,- -,,-- --,,- fJ,9tenti<:lJly . ",
~otentially_:r' SignificilrifUnless LessThan :'~~
, ,', - "'dssuesand Sunnortin'n'lnformation'SburCes: .; , ::;ig~ifipa~~ ' ~jtig'~tiQn . - . Sigl)ificant. No
.""lmnact;!': Inoo';o;;orated " ":Imoact - I, 'lmoact
a. Would the project increase the use of existing X
neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational
facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the
facilitv would occur or be accelerated?
b. Does the project include recreational facilities or require X
the construction or expansion of recreational facilities
which might have an adverse physical effect on the
environment?
.
R:\T M\2004\04-0178 TIM 32346 Serphlna Tract\CEQA INITIAL STUDY revlsed.doc
14
Mmments:
~. a-b: Less than significant impact: The proposed project will not result in substantial deterioration of
existing regional or neighborhood parks; however, it can be anticipated that the residences of the proposed
project will utilize the parks in the area. Since the proposed project consists of 72 single-family residential lots,
the impacts are anticipated to be less than significant. The proposed project will be required to pay the
appropriate Quimby fees, in accordance with City of Temecula ordinances, which will provide for future park
facilities.
15. TRANSPORTATIONfTRAFFIC. Would the project:
a.
b.
c.
e.
f.
g.
Jssues'arid su ortin':i'r1fcmmition'Sources'
Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in
relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the
street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in
either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity
ration on roads, or con estion at intersections?
Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of
service standard established by the county congestion
mana ement a enc for desi nated roads or hi hwa s?
Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either
an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that
results in substantial safet risks?
Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature
(e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incom atible uses e. ., farm e ui ment?
Result in inade uate emer enc access?
Result in inade uate arkin ca acit ?
Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs
supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts,
bic c1e racks ?
Comments:
'pot~_~tial1y
~i9~ificallt
"1m aCt
Potentially'
'SignificantYnless
- Mitigation
Incri-rorated
~Nci
1m act
;"' less Than'
. Significc'mt,
1m 'act
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
15. a-g: Less than significant impact: The General Plan EIR quotes that property zoned LM (Low Medium
Density) has a daily trip rate of 10 trips per dwelling unit, which totals to 720 daily trips for the proposed project.
The Environmental Impact Report prepared for the General Plan also forecasts that the average daily trips at
build-out for Nicolas Road; Winchester to General Kearny is 20,600 trips, General Kearny to Calle Medusa is
16,300 trips, and Calle Medusa to Butterfield Stage Road is 16,000 trips. In comparison to build-out daily
forecasts, the proposed project will have a less than significant impact to increased traffic in regards to traffic
load and capacity. The current streets have been designed and constructed to accommodate the proposed
project. The proposed project will have a less than significant impact on the level of service to the roads and
highways because the roads and highways were designed and constructed to handle the proposed project. In
addition, the project site is zoned residential and the project has been designed and proposed at a density that
is consistent with the current Development Code and General Plan. The proposed project does not include
any new public streets outside the project site that will result in a change of traffic patterns, traffic levels or
Ault in a substantial safety risks. The project will not change the street pattern or design that will result in
Wreased hazards due to design features. The project will not result in inadequate parking or emergency
access because the site is located within sufficient response time for Fire and Police Departments and other
R:IT M\2004104-0178 TIM 32346 Serphina TractlCEQA INITIAL STUDY revised.doc
15
emergency agencies. The proposed project is a tentative map for 72 single-family lots which will be required to
provide no less than two off-street parking spaces per unit. Staff has consulted with public transportation
agencies such as Riverside Transit Agency and it was determined that the project warrants a bus turn-out..
The project will be conditioned to place a bus stop turnout adjacent to the proposed trailhead parking lot. The
project will not conflict with any adopted policies, plans or programs. The project is required to provide the
necessary bicycle lanes as shown on the City Master Trails plan.
16. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
", .::..- _..:. -.:.. -",'
"lisuesandSLi ortin -:-lhfC;'rmation soutces
Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
a Iicable Re ional Water Qualit Control Board?
Require or result in the construction of new water or
wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
Require or result in the construction of new storm water
drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the
project from existing entitlements and resources, or are
new or ex anded entitlements needed?
Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment
provider which serves or may serve the project that it has
adequate capacity to serve the project's projected
demand in addition to the provider's existing
commitments?
Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to
accommodate the ro'ect's solid waste dis osal needs?
Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and
re ulations related to solid waste?
P()tentially
Significant
~Im acf
P()tenti~ny
SignJfi,caritUnless
"';::Mitigation -
lnco orated"
Less Than , .
Significant No
1m-act 1m act
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Comments:
16. a-g: Less than significant impact: The proposed project will not exceed wastewater treatment
requirements of the applicable National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and Regional Water
Quality Control Board (RWQCB) standards because the project includes conditions of approval that will verify
the project is consistent with the NPDES and RWQCB standards. The project will not require the construction
of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which
could cause significant environmental effects because the current system was designed and constructed to
handle the maximum output of wastewater of the proposed project. The project will not require or result in the
construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which
could cause significant environmental effects because the project has been conditioned to minimize off-site
flow and the project also includes on-site drainage facilities that will facilitate the necessary drainage from the
project site. The applicant is required to obtain approvals from the necessary water district verifying that water
resources are available for the project. City staff has received a letter from the Eastern Municipal Water
District verifying water is available, however the applicant is required to agree to certain agreements ~
required by the Water District. City staff has also received a letter from County of Riverside Department ...
Environmental Health indicating that the applicant is required to install a water system with plans and
specifications as approved by the Eastern Municipal Water District and the Environmental Health Department.
R:IT MI2004\04-0178 TIM 32346 Serphina TractlCEQA INITIAL STUDY revised.doc
16
The applicant is required to construct any necessary sewer system of adequate size and specification as
required by the necessary agency. The project is required to verify that the solid waste agency is able to be
eed by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs.
, the project is required to comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid
waste standards.
17. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. Would the project:
a.
Issues and-Su ortili" 'Inf6rmati'onsolirees"
Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality
of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a
fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population
to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate
a plant or animal community, reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal
or eliminate important examples of the major periods of
California histo or rehisto ?
Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in connection with
the effects of past projects, the effects of other current
ro.ects, and the effects of robable future ro.ects?
Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directl or indirectl ?
~ole~_~ially
Significant"
1m act
, Potentially
:!3igrij~c;ant_UnlE!ss '"
. Mitig~tion.
lilcororated
less Than
Significant
1m ad
X
No
1m act
b.
X
X
Comments:
17. a: Less than significant impact: The project will not degrade the quality of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory because the project site does not contain any sensitive, threatened or endangered species or
wetlands a nd the applicant h as submitted a Phase I a rchaeological resource study, which determined that
there should not be any cultural resources on the project site. Less than significant impacts are anticipated as
a result of the proposed project.
17. b: Potentially significant unless mitigation incorporated: The project should not have impacts that are
individually limited, or cumulatively considerable that cannot be mitigated accordingly. The applicant has
submitted the necessary studies and documents, which have been reviewed by staff and/or qualified
professionals and it has been determined that any potential impacts can be adequately mitigated. Staff has
included the appropriate mitigation measures as conditions of approval to ensure any potentially significant
impacts are reduced to less than significant.
17. c: Less than significant impact: The project will not have any environmental effects which will cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings directly or indirectly that cannot be mitigated adequately. Staff
I identified the potentially significant impacts to humans as a result of the project and the applicant has
mitted the appropriate studies which have either confirmed that there should not be any effects or have
vided specific mitigation measures that will reduce the effects to less than significant impacts. Mitigation
R:\T M\2004\04-0178 TIM 32346 Serphina Tract\CEQA iNITIAL STUDY revised.doc
17
Measures as well as Conditions of Approval have been applied to ensure all potentially significant impacts
have been reduced to less than significant impacts to humans and the environment directly and indirectly
18. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering program EIR,
or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or
negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following
on attached sheets.
a. Earlier anal ses used. Identif earlier anal ses and state where the are available for review.
b. Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which affects from the above checklist were within the scope
of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state
whether such effects were addressed b miti ation measures based on the earlier anal sis.
c. Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated,"
describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and
the extent to which the address site-s ecific conditions for the roo ecl.
SOURCES
1. City of Temecula General Plan, November 9, 1993.
2. City of Temecula General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report, July 2, 1993
3. South Coast Air Quality Management District CEQA Air Quality Handbook, www.aqmd.qov.
4. Air Quality Impact Analysis, Chambers Group, April 26, 2004
5.
Results of the Biological Resources Surveys for the Seraphina Project Site, Riverside County, CA,
September 28, 2004.
6. Geotechnical Investigation Residential Development, Temecula, CA prepared for Seraphina
Development Job No. 041063-3, dated 11/30/04 by CHJ Incorporated.
R:IT M\2004\04-0178 TIM 32346 Serphina TracllCEQA iNITiAL STUDY revised.doc
18
.
.
.