Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout110292 PC Agenda AGENDA TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING November 2, 1992 6:00 PM VAIL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 29915 Mira Loma Drive Temecula, CA 92390 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Fahey ROLL CALL: Blair, Chiniaeff, Ford, Hoagland and Fahey PUBLIC COMMENTS A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address the commissioners on items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Commissioners about an item not listed on the Agenda, a pink "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the Commission Secretary. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name and address. For all other agenda items a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the Planning Secretary before Commission gets to that item. There is a three (3) minute time limit for individual speakers. COMMISSION BUSINESS 1. Approval of Agenda PUBLIC HEARING Case No: Applicant: Location: Planner: Proposal: General Plan City of Temecula City Wide John Meyer The Planning Commission will consider the following Elements of the proposed Draft General Plan on this date: OPEN SPACE & CONSERVATION HOUSING CIRCULATION LAND USE Next meeting: November 16, 1992, 6:00 p.m., Vail Elementary School, 29915 Mira Loma Drive, Temecula, California. PLANNING DIRECTOR REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION OTHER BUSINESS ADJOURNM~NT ITEM #2 STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION November 2, 1992 Case No.: Draft General Plan Prepared By: The Planning Center John Meyer David Hogan RECOMMENDATION: RECOMMEND Certification of the Draft Environmental Impact Report and the Adoption of the Draft General Plan to the City Council. BACKGROUND On October 19, 1992, the Planning Commission began the public hearing process on the Draft City General Plan. At that meeting, the Public Safety, Noise, Air Quality, Community Design, Economic Development, Growth Management/Public Facilities, and Open Space and Conservation Elements the elements were reviewed by the Commission. The Planning Commission tentatively approved .all except the Open Space and Conservation Element. The Commission requested that a number of changes be made and that the Open Space and Conservation Element be reconsidered on November 2nd along with the Housing, Circulation and Land Use Elements. INTRODUCTION According to State Law, the General Plan is the primary document required of a City as a basis for regulating land use. Consequently, the Development Code, future Specific Plans, the Parks and Recreation Master Plan, and other development projects in the City must be consistent with the Goals, Policies, and standards contained in the Temecula General Plan. In addition, all City capital improvements and public works projects must be consistent with the General Plan. The City's approach to preparing the General Plan involved substantial guidance by the Planning Commission and City Council, a Community Participation Program, and technical review and guidance by City staff and Technical Subcommittees. The Planning Commission and City Council, through joint workshops, essentially functioned as a general plan advisory committee throughout the preparation process. This allowed for very meaningful direction on the Goals and Policies of the elements, and land use, circulation, open space/conservation, and other issues. The Citizen Partii:ipation Program was designed to provide a high level of communication between City officials, citizens, landowners, and the consultant team. The Program offered numerous opportunities for the public to attend workshops at key milestones during the formulation of the Plan. The community outreach meetings included a series of four Neighborhood Meetings and two Town Hall Meetings. In addition, staff met individually with concerned citizens and landowners throughout the process. Five Technical Subcommittees met on two occasions during the process to provide a more detailed and technical review of the General Plan elements. The City also disseminated information on the draft components of the General Plan through a series of newsletters, press releases, newspaper articles, and radio announcements. REPORT/PUBLIC HEARING FORMAT: This report is intended to provide an introduction and background on the City of Temecula's Draft General Plan Program. This report is intended for the general public, whom may not be familiar with the General Plan work program. As indicated previously in this report, a number of Elements to the General Plan have already been reviewed by the commission. The meeting of November 2, 1992 will address the following Elements: Open Space/Conservation, Housing, Circulation and Land Use. REVISIONS ADDENDUM: A second Revisions Addendum has been attached for the Commission's review. The addendum consists of all recommended changes to the Open Space/Conservation, Housing, Circulation and Land Use Elements of the Draft General Plan dated July 22, 1992. Only those pages of the Draft General Plan where modifications are recommended were included in the Revisions Addendum. A second attachment includes comments received on the General Plan. DRAFT GENERAL PLAN ELEMENTS: Individual Elements of the Draft General Plan contain: An Introduction A Summary of Issues Goals and Policies Implementation Programs The introduction provides the legal framework and requirements of the Element. The Summary of Issues highlights those areas that have been identified as issues. The Goals and Policies demonstrate how those issues will be addressed. The Implementation Programs describe how the Goals and Policies are intended to be implemented. The Housing, Circulation, and Land Use Elements are mandated by the State Planning And Zoning Law. In addition, State Law allows the City to adopt any additional element is deems necessary. The following sections address each Element individually. Each section contains a brief background summary, and a brief description of the key aspects of the element. R:~S\GENPt~N\DRAFTGP, M2p 2 SECTION 1. DRAFT OPEN SPACE/CONSERVATION ELEMENT Background The purpose of an open space element is to address the preservation and maintenance, management, and use of open space. In addition, a conservation element is to address the conservation, development and utilization of natural resources. Discussion The City received a number of comments and concerns on the Open Space and Conservation Element at the. October 19th public hearing. As a result of the public testimony and Commission direction, Staff was instructed to make a number of changes to the Element. The changes to the Element include: Revisions to Figure 5-3, Draft Recreation Trails, to more broadly depict trail connections. Modifications to Section II.C to address the issue of resource conservation in a more balanced manner. Remove Policies and Implementation Measures addressing the preparation of a Comprehensive Open Space Plan and consideration of establishing mitigation bank. SECTION 2. DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT Background The purpose of a housing element is to address local and regional housing needs. A housing element is expected to: (1) assess local housing needs, resources, and constraints; (2) identify sites to meet future housing needs; (3) provide goals and objectives to maintain, improve and develop local housing; and (4) provide a five-year master plan to meet the City's share of regional housing needs. Discussion The primary issues addressed in the Housing Element that affect the City of Temecula include the following: community population trends and demographic information; inventory the existing housing stock; assess special community housing needs; identify the City's regional housing allocation; and a address constraints to providing adequate housing. The Draft Housing Element has been circulated to the Department of Housing and Community Development as required by Sate Law. The Department of Housing and Community Development has reviewed the Draft and provided a number of comments which have been addressed in the Draft General Plan and the Addendure Report. R:\S\GENPLAN~)RAFTGP. M2P 3 The key aspects of the Housing Element are: · To provide housing opportunities to meet the needs of existing and future residents; · To provide affordable housing; · To remove governmental constraints in maintaining and developing housing; · To conserve the existing housing stock; and, ® To provide equal access to local housing opportunities and prohibit discrimination. The City has received few comments regarding the Housing Element. As a result, only minor modifications have been made to the final draft element. SECTION 3. DRAFT CIRCULATION ELEMENT Background The purpose of a circulation element is to address streets, highways, airports, public transit routes and terminals, trails, and other local public transportation facilities and issues. A circulation element is expected to: (1) describe the existing transportation system; and (2) identify transportation needs within the community; and (3) identify the future public circulation system. Discussion The primary issues addressed in the Circulation Element are the location and size of streets and highways within the City's Planning Area. The key aspects of the Circulation Element are: · To maintain the peak hour Level of Service at level "D" or better: · To enhance traffic safety on City streets; · To integrate the local transportation network into the regional transportation system; To ensure an efficient circulation system; and, To provide adequate parking. · · The City has received a number of comments regarding the Circulation Element. most significant concerns include the following: · Extension of North General Kearney The R:%S%GENPt, AN',DRAFTGP.M2P 4 To address these issues new revised goals, policies and implementation measures have been added to the Circulation Element. SECTION 4. DRAFT LAND USE ELEMENT Background The purpose of the land use element is to address the issue of the distribution, and location of land for housing, business, industry, open space, public, and agricultural uses. The land use element is expected to: (1) identify the intensity of land use; and (2) to specify how private land may be used and developed. Discussion The primary issues addressed in the Land Use Element include the following: the existing land use pattern; special land use areas (such as rural and estate scale housing or Old Town Temecula); land use compatibility; community facilities; and the need to provide pedestrian and human scale amenities. The key aspects of the Land Use Element are: To provide an integrated mix of residential, commercial, industrial, recreational, and public land uses; · To ensure compatibility between different land uses and areas; · To protect and enhance the character of residential neighborhoods; · To preserve and enhance environmental resources; To provide a land use pattern which encourages alternative modes of transportation; · To improve, enhance, and maintain the character of Old Town Temecula; To ensure the orderly annexation and development of. the City's Sphere of Influence; and, To develop in a manner which is compatible and coordinated with regional land use patterns. The City has received numerous comments on the draft Land Use Element. The majority of these comments address the designations on the Land Use Map. Some modifications have been made to the text of the element in response to these comments. In response to direction given at the last joint Planning Commission/City Council Meeting, staff has established a special study overlay. This designation is intended for those areas in the community that require a comprehensive, detailed evaluation of development opportunities and constraints. R:~S%GENPtAN%DRAFTGP.M2P 5 DP,,4FT LAND USE PLAN Staff has received numerous requests from property owners to amend the land use designation on their property. To facilitate the review of these requests, staff has developed the attached Parcel Specific Land Use Request Matrix. The matrix provides the applicant, a location or parcel number, the proposed land use designation, the requested land use designation and a staff recommendation. Each request is numerically keyed on an accompanying exhibit. Also attached is written justification of staff's recommendation. Only those recommendations in support of amending the draft land use plan have been included. The letters of request from the applicants, stating their positions have also been attached for the Commission's review. When reviewing the requests, the Commission may consider: Compatibility with adjacent land uses Consistency with the Village Centers Concept Impact on the local circulation system Fiscal viability Therefore, staff recommends the Commission review the requests geographically rather than sequentially in order to consider the requests in context of a region as well as on their individual merit. RECOMMENDATION The General Plan Consultants and Planning Department believe the draft General Plan has been adequately revised to respond to comments received by individuals, groups and other agencies. Comments on the draft General Plan document that enhanced and strengthened the General Plan were incorporated into the General Plan. In addition, the City has prepared the DEIR and responded to public comments on the DEIR in a manner which is consistent with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. Therefore, staff recommends that the Planning Commission review the Draft General Plan Elements and Revisions Addendure, consider the environmental report, and forward a recommendation of approval to the City Council to certify the Environmental Impact Report and adopt the Draft General Plan. Attachments: 2. 3. 4. 5. Revisions Addendum - blue page 7 General Plan Comment Letters o blue page 10 Parcel Specific Land Use Request Matrix - blue page 11 Staff's justification of proposed amendments - blue page 12 Applicant's letters of request - page 13 R:',S%GENPt,AN\DRAFTGP. M2P 6 ATTACHMENT NO~ 1 REVISIONS ADDENDUM R:'~S%GENPLAN\DRAFTGP. M2P 7 City of Temecula DRAFT GENERAL PLAN Revisions Addendum October 14, 1992 THE PLANNING CENTER R:\S\GENPLAN\DRAFTGP, M2P CITY OF TEMECULA INTRODUCTION The Revisions Addendum consists of all recommended changes to seven elements of the Draft General Plan dated July 22, 1992. These seven elements, including Open Space & Conservation, Noise, Air Quality, Public Safety, Growth Management/Public Facilities, Community Design, and Economic Development, will be discussed at the first Planning Commission hearing on October 19, 1992. The pages included in the Revisions Addendum are only those pages of the Draft General Plan where additions or deletions to language or mapping are recommended. The additions are shown in bold italics and deletions are show with a ~'~';c, c,'.'-L The recommended changes are the result of input received during Joint Planning Commission/City Council Workshops, Technical Subcommittee Meetings and staff review, and from written comments by the public. In essence, the changes in the Revisions Addendum are intended to supersede the Draft General Plan. The letters received containing General Plan comments are in Attachment A. Those recommendations that enhance and strengthen the General Plan were incorporated in the Revisions Addendum. Other recommendations were not incorporated for one or more of the following reasons: The recommendations for a particular element would have caused inconsistencies with other elements of the General Plan; · The recommendations conflicted with specific Goals or Policies; · The recommendations were premature in light of ongoing or future planning efforts; · The recommendations were either legally Or financially infeasible; or The recommendations are already being covered through state, federal and regional permitting and review processes. It is important to note that letters received pertaining to the EIR will be responded to in a separate document as a supplement to the Draft EIR, and will be considered by the Planning Commission at the second hearing on the General Plan/EIR. R:~S%GENPt_AN\DRAFTGP.M2P OPEN SPACE & CONSERVATION CITY OF TEMECULA Open Space/Conservation Element I. INTRODUCTION The Open Space/Conservation Element contains goals, policies and implementation programs to encourage the conservation and proper management of the community's msoumes. Furthermore, the purpose of this Element is to ensure the provision of parks and recreation opportunities for the community's residents. Open space is one of the key features that defines the character of Temecula and contributes to the quality of life that residents want to maintain. Open space performs a multitude of functions that are beneficial to the community. Open space functions to: provide for outdoor recreation areas; protect viewsheds; preserve important natural resources; provide flood control; protect public health and safety; and establish buffers between incompatible land uses. Approximately 8 percent of the City is presently devoted to open space uses including parks, golf courses, passive open space and agricultural uses. Large lot subdivisions and rural residential areas (2½-acre lots or larger) contribute to the open space character within several areas of the City. Although approximately 42 percent of the City is currently vacant or undeveloped, the majority of this acreage is committed through approved projects. The City has a much greater opportunity to shape the open spaces of development annexing to the City. The challenge facing Temecula is to create a multipurpose open space system that does not solely consist of the unusable spaces leftover from development, but encourages viable agriculture lands outside the City, preserves wildlife habitats, maximizes water resources, and secures recreational, historic and cultural resources. The City will benefit from connection with the open spaces ensured through ownership by federal and state government, such as the Cleveland National Forest, the U.S. Bureau of Land Management and the California State University at San Diego. The goals and policies of this Element were formulated to ensure that City benefits from the existing and future open space resources. The purpose of the Temecula Open Space/Conservation Element is: To assure the continued availability of predominantly open land for the enjoyment of scenic beauty, for recreation, and for conserving natural resources and agriculture; To guide development in order to make wise and prudent use of the City's natural, environmental and cultural resources; · To'maintain and enhance the City's valuable natural resource areas necessary for the continued survival of significant wildlife and vegetation through proactive open space planning; establishment of a proactivdy planned, coherent and TEM.OIg)SGP.OPN.SPA , Date: October 29, i992 Page S-i CITY OF TEMECULA Open Space/Conservation Element To provide the foundation for a comprehensive open space management system involving designated categories of open space; To establish the basis for City collaboration with adjacent state, national, and non-profit agencies and organizations in broader open space and environmental resoume management, including establishment of linkages with adjoining open spaces and trail systems; and To maintain and promote the cultural, historic, and archaeological heritage of the City. A. Authorization and Scope State legislation requires the inclusion of an Open Space Element (Government Code Section 65302(c)) and a Conservation Element (Government Code Section 65302(d)) in all local government general plans. Due to the interrelationship of the goals and policies of the Open Space Element and Conservation Element and the overlap in State requirements, these two Elements are combined into a single all-encompassing Element. The Open Space Element must contain goals and policies concerned with managing all open space areas, including undeveloped "wilderness" lands and outdoor recreation uses. The Government Code defines that open space should be preserved: · For the preservation of natural resources; For the managed production of resources; · For recreation; and · For public health and safety. The intent of the Open Space Element requirements is to assure that cities and counties recognize that open-space land is a limited valuable resource which must be conserved wherever possible. The purpose is also to assure that every City and County will prepare and carry out open-space plans which, along with State and regional open-space plans, will accomplish the objectives of a comprehensive open-space program. Government Code Section 65302 (d) requires that all General Plans include: "...A Conservation Element for the conservation, development and utilization of natural resources including water and its hydraulic force, forests, soils, rivers and other waters, harbors, fisheries, wildlife, minerals, and other natural resources." The Conservation Element may further cover the control of soil erosion, the conservation of watersheds, and flood control methods to protect land in floodplains. TEM-01xOSGP-OPN.SPA · Date: October 2.8, 1992 Page 5-2 CITY OF TEMECULA Open Space/Conservation Element The conservation component of the General Plan overlaps with provisions found in the open space, land use, public safety, and growth management portions of the General Plan. It differs, however, in that it is almost exclusively oriented toward natural resources. The conservation component contains goals and policies that further the protection and maintenance of the State's resources in the Temecula Study Area such as water, soils, wildlife, minerals, and other natural resources, and prevents their wasteful exploitation, degradation, and destruction. California State law does not mandate the preparation of a Parks and Recreation Element or Trails Element of the General Plan. However, these topics are often included in a general plan due to the concern of providing sufficient parkland for residents. The Open Space/Conservation Element incorporate goals, policies and implementation programs related to parks and recreation. This section of the Element focuses on the relationship of park space to a city's entire open space system and on the dedication and provision of parkland, trails and recreation facilities. B. Related Plans and Programs There are a number of plans and programs which have been adopted or are under preparation, that are directly applicable to the aims and objectives of the Open Space/Conservation Element. The relevant goals and policies from these plans and programs, where appropriate, have been adapted and incorporated into the Element to ensure the continued preservation of local and regional open space resources. In addition, there are State and Federal regulations including the California Endangered Species Act, the California Environmental Quality Act, the Federal Clean Water Act, and the Federal Endangered Species Act, that are applicable to proposed projects within the Study Area. Appendix __ of the General Plan provides a description of the intent and provisions of the related State and Federal regulations. In total, these plans and regulations help form the open space system for Temecula as well as the regional open space system for southwest Riverside County. 1. City of Temecula Parks and Recreation Master Plan The City has prepared a Master Plan of Parks and Recreation to comprehensively address long-term park and recreation needs of residents. The Master Plan contains: current and projected recreational needs; park development and design standards; a park and trails classification system; parks, trails and recreation facilities improvements; target locations for acquisition of future parkland; future trail connections to the regional trail system; a Citywide bicycle route and recreation trails system; timing and phasing of parks, recreation facilities and trails; cost estimates for park acquisition and development costs; and a five-year capital improvement program that identifies funding and prioritizes the implementation of the Master Plan. Relevant material from this document has been incorporated into the General Plan. The Master Plan of Parks and Recreation will support the implementation of the goals and policies contained in the Open Space/Conservation Element. TEM-01~05OP43pN,$PA · Date: October 28, 1992 Page 5-3 CITY OF TEMECULA Open Space/Conservation Element protect species which may be listed in the near future. Two of the proposed reserve areas are within (or partially within) the Temecula Study Area. The Skunk Hollow vernal pools are in the City's northern Sphere of Influence. The reserve area in the Santa Rosa Plateau/Santa Margarita River area includes Murrieta Creek and Temecula Creek which is in the City and Sphere of Influence. 6. County of Riverside Agricultural Element The County anticipates completion of an Agricultural Element in 1993. The Element will contain programs and policies to ensure long-term protection in areas where agricultural lands may be threatened by other uses and to limit the adverse effects of growth on areas determined appropriate for long-term agricultural uses. 7. EPA Advanced Identification Study of the Santa Margarita River Watershed As part of an effort to protect and manage wetlands, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region IX has initiated the Advanced Identification (ADID) process in the Santa Margarita River watershed. This process fosto~s coopcration among EPA, the Army Corp9 of Engineers (COE), and other foaloral, statc, and local agencies to colloct information, id~,ntify and evaluate lovatisns, natural fun6tion& and potontial valucs of n~tcrs of the Unitod Statos~ insluding their wotlands and assooiatod riparian aroa6x This ADID project will identify and evaluate the waters of the U,S. in the Santa Margarita River watershed ompha~izing their wetlands and associatod riparian areas. Thc rdativc fanctional importanse of thcsc areas will bc evaluatod, and tho~c most threatonod by human aotivitics in the watershed will bc idonttfiod. Results will assist Regional IX in dcvdoping and implomonting useful indicators of w~ttands fitnctions. The ADID study will z!:~ provide valuable background and analytical information for use in the proposed Santa Margarita River Watershed Management Study described below. The City of Temecula is part of the Watershed Planning Program which will benefit from the information in the ADID study as it untakes long-term planning of the watershed. 8. Santa Margarita River Watershed Management Study The City is involved in a coordinated Watershed Management Program for the Santa Margarita River in conjunction with Federal, State, Regional and other local agencies. One of the ~rst tasks of this body is the preparation of a study on watershed management. This is a proposed The purpose of this study will be to develop a comprehensive, cooperative management program to balance the diverse functions and values of the Santa Margarita River system, while maintaining its integrity as a unique ecosystem. The Santa Margarita River is the only remaining free-flowing river TEM~IXOSGP-OPN SPA · Date: October 29, 1992 Page 5-5 CITY OF TEMECULA Open Space/Conservation Element in the coastal plain of Southern California. The river supports an essentially unbroken riparian corridor from the Peninsular Range to the Pacific Ocean. While the river is highly valued as a major wildlife corridor connecting coastal and interior habitat areas, it also provides a critical source of drinking water for Camp Pendleton and functions as a groundwater recharge area. The purpose of undertaking a coordinated resource management effort is to achieve the following: Reduction of potential conflicts among diverse projects such as flood control, endangered species protection, groundwater recharge, and water supply facilities; · Enhanced protection of habitat values and biodiversity; Cost savings through identification of potential partnemhips to achieve common goals; An improved approach to protecting the species of the riparian corridor; Early identification of potential issues and mitigation agreement opportunities; Identification of opportunities to enhance cultural, scenic, and recreational resources; and Information to assist local governments and agencies in multiple-use planning of the river. The resource value of the Santa Margarita River and the need for a coordinated management effort is recognized within the Goals and Policies of the Open Space and Conservation Element. The results of the future watershed management study will assist the City in long-term planning along Temecula, Murrieta, and Pechanga Creeks and other waterways within the Study Area. 9. Multi-Purpose Corridor Planning Task Force - Water Resource Management The Planning Task Force is comprised of representatives of cities within western Riverside County, the County of Riverside, and water agencies. Temecula is a participant. The Planning Task Force provides a forum for inter-agency collaboration to assure the long-term availability of resources. The goal of the Task Force is to develop planning strategies which integrate water and environmental resources with land use plans, and policies of local jurisdictions. In addition, the Task Force intends to formulate programs that are cost-effective. address environmental issues, and encourage economic development. Future guidelines for water resource management developed by the Task Force may supplement the resource conservation and.development policies of the General Plan and other plans and ordinances of the City. TEM-01~0$GP-OPN,SPA * Date: October 28, 1992 Page 5-6 I CITY OF TEMECULA Open Space/Conservation Element Establishment of P,2~:'.':.g, Equestrian, Hiking, and Bicycle Trails and Bicycle Routes The City presently does not provide a formal bicycle route or recreation trail system for bicycling, walking, or horseback riding. Many informal recreation trails exist that are used for equestrian and mountain bike riding and hiking. In order to implement a formal trail system, the City will need to take advantage of the remaining opportunities to obtain trail easements, obtain leases for trails along utility corridozs, acquire right-of-way, require dedication of land from new development, and resolve trail conflicts. Temecula residents participate in hiking, walking, and bicyeling more frequently than any other recreation activities (derived from the Community Survey results for the Parks and Recreation Master Plan, 1992). In planning for future bike and recreation trail facilities, residents express a strong desire for well-defined trails that link with regional routes and connect neighborhoods to parks, schools and commercial uses. Trails should be designed to provide access to key destination points within the City and region, and serve as both recreation and transportation routes. Residents place a high priority on the development of trails that provide loops wherever possible and follow the creeks and utility easements where feasible. The Parks and Recreation Master Plan includes a Draft B4k-~ Bicycle Routes map (Figure 5-2) and a Draft R~creation Trails Trail Planning Corridor map (Figure 5-3). Trail Planning Corridors are possible trails or linkages that have been identified by way of public workshops and site visits which in concept are important but will require specific planning negotiating with landowners or purchase of land. Proposed alignments are not precise and permit a degree of latitude in trail placement to avoid land use constraints and to take advantage of acquisition opportunities. The Master Plan calls for the preparation of a subsequent Recreation Trails Plan to refine route alignments, provide design standards and establish implementation mechanisms to achieve a comprehensive system of trails within the City. The recreation trails planning corridors identified in Figure 5-3 will be the basis for the final trails plan. A key to trail implementation is the establishment of procedures with the Planning and Public Works Department to ensure that recreation trail improvements become an integral pan of new road and infrastructure improvements. An issue that should be addressed in the Recreation TraiIs Plan is the environmental impacts of trails (and resulting hhman intrusion) on existing plant and animal life. TEM4)IX05GP-OPNSPA · Date: October 29, 1992 Page 5-12 TRAIL PLANNING CORRIDOR ~Trail Planning Corridor -Th City of TIfMECULA General Plan Program CITY OF TEMECULA Open Space/Conservation Element C. Conservation of Resources Although much of the City of Temecula is comprised of urbanized and/or disturbed areas which are expected to have low habitat value for native wildlife, a great variety of sensitive biological resources are known to exist or potentially exist within the remaining undeveloped areas of the Study Area. Some of these sensitive biological resources, including wildlife corridors and certain species, still are found in the City. The sensitive resourcis in the Study Area are closely associated with coastal sage scrub and riparian communities (Figure 5-4). In general, the resources identified below are either threatened, deteriorated or damaged primarily due to the effects of urbanization and an expanding population base. To fully understand and approoiato the signi~oanoo of the natural resouroc area~ in the Study Ar~a, it is noocssary to understand the esologioal t~ontext within whioh T~mo~ula and thc larger study area are located. Tom~cula sits eatride the ~on~uon~e of Murriota and Tomoeula Cr~olcs~ of tvhieh is the Santa Margarita River. This riparian system is of 'r-c importanoc to a muoh lar&x,r area~ not only b~,~au~c of its intrinsio habitat ~luos, including habitat for the endangered least Bctl's vireo and many candidate and sensitive spcoics such as the willotv flycatcher and thc southtv~tern pond turtle, but als~ besausc of its function ~ a t,qldtife mo~oment corridor connearing such major biorogional areas as thc Cleveland National Forest, Santa Rosa Plateau, Camp Pendleton Marine Ba~x~ and the Palemar Mountain~ With the loss of this wildlifo corridor along the Santa Margarita River, Tcmecula Credo, and Pechanga Credo, thc bioregional areas would bc fragraentod and thcir habitat ~lu~ adversely irapeered, The fatc of thc Santa Margarita River, in turn, is linked to future land use and watcr rcsouree management practices in its watershed. Numerous publiv entities ore im~olv~d in tvater. s, hed management issues including the Eastern Munioipal Water Distrist, Ran~ho California Water Distriot, the Riversidc County Flood Control District, thc San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board, local jurisdictions within the 750 square mile u~ter basin, and other state and federal agcacic& General dc~lopmt, nt policics~ flood oontrol policies, and drainah'c polieics infiuc~tee the long term viability of the Santa Margarita River habitat and biorogionally critical wiMlifo movement corridor. Thu~ proarticle planning, including cff~ctive watcrMaed management polivic~ trill bo needed to protoot the Santa Margarita River system and to provide a soherent open spapc system for the protection of other scnsiti~c species and biodiversity in general. Other sensitive and significant habitats, such as coastal sage scrub, v~rnal pools~ and grasslands, arc also found in the study area (Figure 54). Volume II of the General Plan describes the natural setting of the Temecula area and the data base upon which this Element has been prepared. The following is a brief summary of those resources and open spaces that require conservation, management and/or enhancement in the Study Area. The Study Area also contains significant ~ ~ landforms and cultural and historic resources that require cor~servation. In TEM-01~05GP-OPN.SPA · Date: October 28, 1992 Page 5-15 CITY OF TEMECULA Open Space/Conservation Element The Federal Endangered Species Act of 1973 prohibits any action that would harm, harass, kill, or further endanger a listed species or its habitat. If the mountain lion is listed as endangered or threatened by the USFWS, then proposed projects within the Study Area which may affect the mountain lion or its habitat, must enter into a formal consultation process with the USFWS (as stipulated by the Endangered Species Act). The USFWS makes a determination of whether or not a proposed project would impact the species or its critical habitat. The agency also sets 'forth any terms and conditions necessary to fully mitigate the impact to the species. The mountain lion's range in the Santa Ana Mountains includes southern portions of the Study Area. If the mountain lion is listed, development within those portions of the Study Area may be subject to the approval of the USFWS. Surface waters requiring conservation and management to protect quality and quantity include, the Santa Margarita River, Temecula Creek, Murrieta Creek, Pechanga Creek, and Santa Gertrudis Creek. The ground water basin which requires conservation and management is the Murrieta-Temecula Basin which is the largest groundwater basin in the San Diego region. The basin underlies Murrieta, Pauba and Wolf Valleys. The aquifers are recharged by underflow from the Lancaster Basin, surface flow from the creek in the area, and by direct precipitation in the valleys. Agricultural resources including Prime Farmlands, Farmlands of Statewide Importance, Unique Farmlands, and Farmlands of Local Importance (see Figure 5-5). The Study Area contains areas of each of these farmland categories. The Sphere of Influence and Area of Interest also contain agricultural preserves as allowed under the California Land Conservation Act (Williamson Act) (Figure 5-6). Under a Williamson Act contract, the local jurisdiction and landowners agree to continue agricultural activities for at least ten years. In return, the jurisdiction agrees to assess the property at its agricultural value rather than at market value. Termination of the contract may be initiated by either the property owner or jurisdiction. Eleven wineries are located adjacent to the Study Area in Temecula Valley which are important to the City in terms of trade, tourism and the aesthetic character of the area. In addition, one winery is located in the Environmental Study Area. These wineries constitute the most important wine making region in Southem California. The farmlands of the Study Area and the wine country offer the potential for agricultural innovation and business development within the City. TEIM-OI~X}SGP-OPN.SPA · Date: October 2,8, 1992 Page 5-18 CITY OF TEMECULA Open Space/Conservation Element Historic and Culturally Significant Resources including: 23 recorded archaeological sites; 47 properties listed on the Historic Resources Inventory prepared by Riverside County; four listings on the California Inventory of Historic Resources; and several historic resources of local importance including the Butterfield Overland Stage Route. The Temeeula properties listed in the California Inventory of Historic Resources are the Murrieta Creek Archaeological Area, Temecula's first Post Office, Temecula Quarries, and the Little Temecula Rancho Adobe. The archaeological sites include prehistoric sites, sites occupied by Native Americans, and historical sites associated with the occupation of Temecula Valley by Europeans and Euro-Americans. Figures 5-7 and 5-8 identify the sensitive archaeological and paleontological resources of the Study Area. Due to the presence of reliable water sources and a fertile valley floor, the Temecula area has always been a desirable place to live. Temecula contains many older structures, historic sites and districts, and archaeological evidence which may he threatened with demolition or removal as urbanization continues. 10. Nighttime skies within the Mr. Palomar Observatory conservation areas. The City is within close proximity to the Palomar Observatory which requires unique nighttime lighting restrictions. Generally, Observatory sites need to be 30 to 40 miles from large lighted areas so that the nighttime sky will not be brightened. The County of San Diogo City of Temecula has adopted an ordinance which restricts nighttime lighting for areas within a 15-mile radius and a 45-mile radius of Palomar Observatory. Southeastern portions of the Study Area are within a 15-mile radius of the Observatory and should be are subject to stringent lighting controls and some limitation of uses that may generate significant amounts of light and glare to preserve nighttime skies (Figure 5-9). The Open Space/Conservation Plan (Figure 5-10) identifies the undeveloped areas of the Study Area which, at a minimum, should remain as open space or extremely low density development for the conservation of resources, including water, wildlife, and slopes. Policy guidance for the dedication of open space for public health and safety is provided in the Public Safety Element. TEM-011ISGP-OPN.SPA · Date: October 28, 1992 Page 5-21 CITY OF TEMECULA Open Space/Conservation Element IlL GOALS AND POLICIES Goal 1 A high quality parks and recreation system that meets the varying recreational needs of residents. Discussion A quality parks and recreation system is a high priority for both the City and Temecula residents. Implementation of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan is a critical first step in achieving this goal. The Parks and Recreation Master Plan strives to attain a balance between quantitative and qualitative levels of service. This balance involves providing an acceptable amount of useable parkland, in close proximity to residents, as well as the appropriate type and number of facilities to meet the recreation needs and desires of residents. The City's parks and recreation facilities are supplemented by other local and regional facilities, which may be influenced and fostered through intergovernmental cooperation. Po~cy 1.1 Apply the policies and standards contained in the City's Park and Recreation Master Plan to acquire sufficient parkland and recreation facilities to support new development. Policy 1.2 Require the dedication of parkland and development of facilities to be consistent with the Parks and Recreation Master Plan. Policy 1.3 Require developers of residential projects greater than fifty dwelling units to dedicate land based on the park acre standard of five (5) acres of usable parkland to one thousand (1,000) population, or the payment of in lieu fees in accordance with the Parks and Recrection Master Plan. Policy 1.4 Park credit for land with floodplains shall be given in accordance with the Local Park Code Parks and Recreation Master Plan. Policy 1.5 Pursue the joint use of public lands available and suitable for recreation purposes including lands under the jurisdiction of the Riverside County Flood Control District, Southern California Edison, water districts and other public agencies. Policy 1.6 Encourage the enhancement and preservation of significant natural features including, riporion areas, rock outcroppings, sensitive habitat areas and viewpoints through park design and site development. Policy 1.7 Encourage the enhancement and preservation of historic structures and landscape features in the design, development and use of parks. Policy 1.8 Encourage public safety and compatibility with adjacent use in park design and development. including location of buildings, activity arias, lighting and parking. TEM-OI~$GP4:)PN.SPA · Da~c: October 28, 1992 Page 5-26 CITY OF TEMECULA Open Space/Conservation Element Policy 1.9 Policy l.lO Policy 1.11 PoHcy 1.12 Coordinate long range park and open space planning with Riverside County and the City of Murrieta. in tho preparation of the Ccunty's Tsn Ysar Park Mastar Plan. Maximize pedestrian and bicycle access to existing and new parks as an alternative to automobile access. Encourage joint recreational use between school and park facilities when appropriate. Consider the establishment of development impact fees to cover the cost of capital improvements for parks and recreation facilities needed to serve new development. Goal 2 Discussion Conservation and protection of surface water, groundwater and imported water resources. As the General Plan Study Area builds-out over the next 20 to 40 years, the impact on water resources and water quality may be significant. The protection of waterways within the community, particularly the Temecula, Pechanga and Murrieta Creeks, and the Santa Margarita River, not only provides for recreation and scenic enjoyment, but also c,?,ntair, a conserves sensitive plant and animals species. In addition, given Temecula's reliance on groundwater as a water supply for the community, it is important to ensure that recharge areas are protected and that water conservation measures are implemented to reduce the City's dependence on imported water. Policy 2.1 Policy 2.2 Policy 2.3 Policy 2.4 Coordinate with the Riverside County Flood Control District to design flood control improvements for Murrieta Creek and Temecula Creek that preserve the important natural features and resources of the local creeks and the riparian forest of the Santa Margarita River, to the maximum extent feasible. Identify and protect groundwater resources from depletion and sources of pollution in cooperation with the Rancho California Water District. Conserve potable water by requiring water conservation techniques in all new development. Use reclaimed water for the irrigation of parks, golf courses, publicly landscaped areas and other feasible applications as service becomes available from RCWD and EMWD. TEM-01X05GP-0PN.SPA · Date: October 2,8, 1992 Page 5-27 CITY OF TEMECULA Open Space/Conservation Element Policy 2.5 Policy 2.6 Policy 2.7 Policy 2.8 Policy 2.9 PoHcy 2.10 Require the use of soil management techniques to reduce erosion, eliminate off-site sedimentation, and prevent other soil-related problems that may adversely affect waterways in the community. Regulate and manage lands adjacent to or affecting watercourses as stipulated by the Regional Water Resources Control Board. Ensure that approved projects have filed a Notice of Intent and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan in accordance with the Federal Clean Water Act, prior to issuance of building permits. Ensure adequate inspection and enforcement of the requirements of General Construction Permits, particularly related to erosion control during grading and construction. Participate in a coordinated Watershed Planning Program for the Santa Margarita River Watershed in conjunction with Federal, State, Regional and local agencies, and non-profit organizations. Participate in water resource management planning with the Multi- Purpose Corridor Planning Task Force to facilitate the long-term availability of water resources for western Riverside County. Goal 3 Discussion Conservation of iraportant biological habitats and protection of plant and animal species of concern, wildlife movement corridors, and general biodiversity. The interrelationship between the built and natural environments has a strong influence on the character and quality of life in Temecula. The permanent dedication of open space within the Study Area should be to conserve resources of significance, as well as to provide recreational opportunities, and to ensure viable ecological connections between significant natural areas. The preservation of natural resources helps to preserve biological diversity; provide passive recreation and educational opportunities; facilitate the maintenance of natural, life- sustaining systems; and provide residents with the opportunity to observe wildlife in natural environs. Wildlife corridors can exist in conjunction with recreation trails and other open space uses. This multiple function leverages the protection of ~pecies of concern by simultaneously providing open space and meeting recreational needs. The intent of this goal is to identify, preserve and properly manage natural resources within and adjacent to the community. TF.M-OB0$GP-OPN.SPA · Date: October 2.8, 1992 Page 5-28 CITY OF TEMECULA Open Space/Conservation Element Policy 3.1 Policy 3.2 Policy 3.3 Policy 3.4 Policy 3.5 Policy 3.6 Policy 3.7 Require development proposals to identify significant biological resources and provide mitigation including the use of adequate buffering; selective preservation; the provision of replacement habitats; the use of sensitive site planning techniques including wildlife corridor/recreational trails; and other appropriate measures. Work with State, regional and non-profit agencies and organizations to preserve lind enhance significant biological resources on publicly owned lands. Coordinate with the County of Riverside and other relevant agencies in the adoption and implementation of the Riverside County Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan. Encourage developers to incorporate native drought-resistant vegetation, mature trees, and other significant vegetation on-site into the site and landscape design for proposed projects. Maintain an inventory of existing natural resources in the City through periodic updates of the Master Environmental Assessment. Limit the recreational use of designated open space areas where sensitive biological resources are present. Maintain and enhance the resources of the Temecula Creek, Santa Margarita River, Pechanga Creek and other waterways to the ensure the long-term viability of the habitat, =n~ wildlife, and wildlife movement corridors. Goal 4 Discussion Policy Policy Conservation of energy resources through the use of available technology and conservation practices. As with many other communities, Temecula is facing increased energy costs from an environmental and economic standpoint. The intent is to encourage the use alternative energy sources such as solar, wind, and thermal systems as they become economically feasible. Energy efficiency in the design of buildings and use of materials and fixtures is also important in reducing energy demand in the near-term. 4.1 Encourage the use of site planning techniques, building orientation and building design that reduce energy use. 4.2 Require the use of energy efficient building materials to reduce energy use. TEiM-01X05GP43PN,SPA · Date: Oczober :28, 1992 Page 5-29 CITY OF TEMECULA Open Space/Conservation Element Goal 5 Discussion Policy Conservation of open space areas for a balance of recreation, scenic enjoyment, and protection of natural resources and features. The natural features of the Study Area provide a scenic setting for the community. Topographical features such as the western ridgeline, hillsides in the northern Study Area, and natural drainage courses should be protected from insensitive development. The'environmental resources of the Santa Margarita River should also be protected from insensitive activities upstream. Public views to these areas should also be maintained to the extent possible. The City's built environment contains parkways and slopes along roadways which function as an open space amenity. These corridors should be well landscaped and maintained. The linkage of open space corridors to parks and regional recreation opportunities serves to tie the community together, as well as encourage bicycling, hiking, and equestrian activities. Such linkages simultaneously encourages other environmental benefits by using the same pathways for wildlife connections. 5.1 Policy 5.2 Policy 5.3 Policy Policy 5.6 Policy 5.7 Policy 5.8 Policy 5.9 Pursue the conservation of the western and southern ridgelines, the Santa Margarita River, slopes in the Sphere of Influence, and other important landforms and historic landscape features through the development review process and as a condition of project approval. Identify significant viewsheds to proposed projects that may be preserved through the dedication of open space or the use of sensitive grading, site design and building techniques. Encourage the use of clustered development and other site planning techniques to maximize the preservation of open space. Retain and improve the quality of landscaping in parkways, public slopes, rights-of-way, parks, civic facilities and other public open areas. Coordinate with Homeowner's Associations to maintain landscaping along slopes adjacent to public right-of ways. Require the dedication and improvement of parkland in accordance with the policies and standards of the Park and Recreation Master Plan. Require adequate open space in new development for both passive and active recreation. Require the revegetation of graded slopes concurrent with project development to minimize erosion and maintain the scenic character of the community. TEM-OI~05GP-OPN. SPA· Date: Oaober ,28, 1992 Page 5-30 CITY OF TEMECULA Open Space/Conservation Element Policy 5.10 Policy 5.11 Policy 5.12 Policy 5.13 Polioy 5.14 Require the connection of open space and recreation areas to adjacent developments and publicly owned recreation areas where appropriate. Study the feasibility of establishing a System of Transferable Development Credits, in conjunction with the County, to conserve open space or agricultural uses. Incorporate seismic hazard safety zones into valley-wide open space and park systems. Encourage the use of native vegetation where re-vegetation and ~ landscaping is to occur. Prepare a Comprehon4vo Open Space Plan for the Study Area that contains measures to eona~r~ significant habitats, inoluding the development of buffer standards, and contributcs to thc conservation of regional biodi~wrsity through the protection of nqMlifc movement Goal 6 Discussion Preservation of significant historical and cultural resources. Cultural and historical resources are defined as buildings, structures, landscape features, roads, trails, objects and sites that represent significant contributions of culture and history. Temecula's heritage lies in the abundance of cultural and historical resources still remaining in the Study Area. The intent is to ensure that these resources are preserved because they provide a link to the community's past, as well as a frame of reference for the future. Development of an Indian Cultural Interpretive Center, for example, would be a source of pride for the City of Temecula and Indian community. There is also the need to take a comprehensive approach to historic preservation that seeks to establish linkages between historic sites or buildings via other historic features such as roads, trails, ridges, and seasonal waterways. The intent of the goal is also to protect and minimize disruption of the City's archaeological resources. All such resources need active protection and preservation or they will be lost. Policy 6.1 Policy 6.2 Maintain an inventory of areas of sensitive archaeological/paleontological sensitivity in the planning area. Require sites proposed for future development to be evaluated for archaeological resources in accordance with the procedures established in a Memorandum of Agreement with the Eastern Information Center at UC Riverside. TEM-OlllSGP-OPN.SPA · Date: October 29, 1992 Page 5-31 CITY OF TEMECULA Open Space/Conservation Element Policy 6.3 Policy 6.4 Policy 6.5 Policy 6.6 Policy 6.7 Policy 6.8 Policy 6.9 Policy 6.10 Policy 6.11 Require sites proposed for future development that are identified in this Element as being of high or undetermined paleontological sensitivity to be evaluated by a qualified vertebrate paleontologist. Require sites containing significant archaeological or paleontological resources to either preserve identified sites or provide for the professional retrieval of artifacts prior to development. Require that a certified archaeologist and/or paleontologist and Native American observers be present on site during grading, earth moving, or demolition of structures when these resources have been discovered during construction, and for sites designated or potentially designated as culturally significant in order to ensure these sites are preserved and protected. Native American observers will be requested to be present on site to observe and retrieve cultural resources when deemed necessary by a certified archaeologist or paleontologist. Preserve and reuse historical buildings in accordance with the Old Town Specific Plan. Pursue the acquisition and preservation of historical buildings for public facilities in accordance with the Old Town Specific Plan. Ensure compatibility between land uses and building designs in the Old Town Specific Plan Area and areas adjacent to the Specific Plan area. Encourage the use of California's Historic Building Code when preserving/rehabilitating historic structures. Support an integrated approach to historic preservation in coordination with other affected jurisdictions, agencies, and organizations for areas within the Study Area and surrounding region that seeks to establish linkages between historic sites or buildings with other historic features such as roads, Wails, ridges, and seasonal waterways. Encourage the preservation and re-use of historic structures, landscape features, roads, landmark trees, and trails associated with Los Alamos Road and its vicinity. TEM-01',OSGP-OPN.SPA · Date: October .28, 1992 Page 5-32 CITY OF TEMECULA Open Space/Conservation Element Prepare and adopt an implementation and improvement plan for a city-wide bicycle system to ensure that bike mutes are implemented or reserved concurrent with new development. C. Conservation of Water Resources Work with the Rar. c,~e water districts to promote water conservation and ultimately reduce the demand for peak-hour water supply and wastewater capacity. Work with the San Diego Regional Water Quality Board and other state and federal agencies to identify opportunities and techniques for maintaining or improving water quality. Require new developments to be monitored in compliance with AB 3180 ("Mitigation Monitoring Program") and report to the City on the completion of mitigation and resource protection measures required for each project. Review individual development projects to ensure that adequate stormwater detention facilities are provided to accommodate surface water runoff generated by the project, and where needed, incorporate detention of stormwater run-off at the point of origin. Review the City adopted Uniform Building Code and require the use of water conservation measures to reduce water consumption. Such measures may include, but are not limited to, the use of plumbing fixtures that reduce water usage, low- flow toilets, drip irrigation systems and xeriscape landscaping which maximizes the use of drought-tolerant plant species. Work with the County and other appropriate agencies on the preparation of a Coordinated Resource Management Plan(s) for Temecula Creek, Pechanga Creek, Santa Margarita River and other important ecological areas. The Coordinated Resource Management Plan would identify sensitive resources, reflect active and passive recreational areas, define management responsibilities, establish site development standards, and provide for enhancement of vegetation where needed. 6. Require drought-tolerant landscaping in new development. Where feasible, incorporate reclaimed water systems into landscape irrigation plans.' 8. Begin consultation ~th thc California D~partmont of Fish and Came and tho ' r t ~2 ~[ c~ ~/~'~imp o~ents o maximizc the i~e~a~on of rc~uroc oonse~aon ,dth ~od ~ con~ol objocave~ TEM.01~05GP43pN.SPA · Date: October 28, 1992 Page 5-36 CITY OF TEMECULA Open Space/Conservation Element Evaluate and incorporate into the General Plan where appropriate the Water Resource Management Guidelines drafted by the subcommittees comprised of Eastern Municipal Water District and local jurisdictions. The water resource management subjects that should be integrated with the General Plan development policies include: · Water harvesting; · Floodplain management; · Watershed management; · Groundwater basin management; · NPDES requirements; · Retention basins; · Drainage facility design; · Landbanking; and · Reclamation. D. Conservation of Biological Resources Require development proposals in areas' expected to contain important plant communities and wildlife habitat to provide detailed biological assessments, assess potential impacts, and to mitigate significant impacts. Require the establishment of open space areas that contain significant water courses, wildlife corridors, and habitats for rare or endangered plant and animal species. Require appropriate resource protection measures to be prepared in conjunction with specific plans and subsequent development proposals. Such requirements may include the preparation of a Vegetation Management Program that addresses landscape maintenance, fuel modification zones, management of passive open space areas, provision of corridor connections for wildlife movement, conservation of water courses, and rehabilitation of biological resources displaced in the development process. Develop Open Space zoning classifications that effectively regulate the types of uses and activities allowed in open space areas to minimize the impacts of grading and development in open space areas. Require new developments to be monitored in compliance with AB 3180 ("Mitigation Monitoring Program") and report to the City on the completion of mitigation and resource protection measures required for each project. Evaluate and pursue the acquisition of areas of high biological resource significance. Such acquisition mechanisms may include acquiring land by development agreement or gift; the dedication of conservation, open space and scenic easements; joint acquisition with local agencies; the transfer of TEM-01~05GP-OPN,SPA ° Date: October 28, 1992 Page 5-37 CITY OF TEMECULA Open Space/Conservation Element development rights; .~n~ lease purchase agreements; state and federal grants, and impaa fees. Utilize the resources of national, regional, and local conservation organizations, corporations, associations and benevolent entities to identify and acquire environmentally sensitive lands, and to protect water courses and wildlife corridors. Continue participation in multi-species habitat conservation zff~.rt..c. planning, watershed management planning, and water resource management planning efforts. 9. Explore the potential of ostabliahing a land mitigation banh to provide an ;. , ~ opportunity for off alto mitigation of development impaot~x The mitigation bank ~ ' ~ '~. may bc established jointly .4th the I)epartmont of ' and Camt~ U.S. the City may then hav~ the opportunity of purchasing land or purctu~sing credits within the mitigation banIt to off~t impacts of development. The City ~ould also haw the opportunity to require a project to mitigate impacts through thc land mitigation banl6 particularly if on ~te prc~ervaaon of open space gs not the biologically superior approach, E. Conservation of Energy Resources 1. Actively participate in the formation of regional siting plans and policies for energy facilities. Coordinate with Southern California Edison and the Southern California Gas Company to jointly determine what new energy options are appropriate as development proceeds. 3. Implement land use and building controls that require new development to comply with the California State Energy Regulation requirements. Enforce all current residential and commercial California Energy Commission energy conservation standards. Ensure that schools and other public institutions are designed to benefit from high efficiency heating and cooling systems, advanced lighting systems and passive solar design. 6. Coordinate with utility districts in energy-related educational media programs. Adopt project-related energy conservation guidelines that would be incorporated into the development approval process to promote and require-conservation strategies as development proceeds. Tg_,M-01~05GP~Z)PN.SPA · Dale: October 28, 1992 Page 5-38 CITY OF TEMECULA Open Space/Conservation Element F. Conservation of Open Space 1. Where feasible, secure permanent open space through dedication, easements or other acquisition mechanisms as a pan of the discretionary review process. 2. Impose conditions on new development within scenic corridom or viewsheds to preserve unique visual features. 3. Require that natural landforms be respected as part of the site planning process. Prepare a City Hillside Grading Ordinance to provide for the preservation of sensitive hillside and canyon areas, and require the use of proper soil management techniques to reduce erosion, sedimentation and other soil-related problems. Preserve the natural open space character of the City through the development of effective land development regulations. Such regulations may include limiting grading of natural land forms, limiting the intensity of development in certain areas, regulating setbacks, requiring vegetation, and conserving mature trees. Provide for a Planned Unit Development process in the Development Code to allow clustering of development and the dedication of open space for conserving natural resources, views, and providing additional recreational opportunities. Require new developments to be monitored in compliance with AB 3180 ("Mitigation Monitoring Program") and report to the City on the completion of mitigation and resource protection measures required for each project. The Comprchcn~sive Opcn Space Plan shouM Mcntify proposed significant habitats in the Study Area, including potential |vildlife movement corridors, and . consult with appropriate agcnoios, including thc Dc~partment of Fish and Came, tha US Fish and Wildlife Sorviat~ on the caablishmont of buffer standards around natural aroa~ Include an implementation plan that ktenti~o8 strategies and actions nt~essary for the development of an open ~pacc system that conserves loom and regional biological resources. G. Preservation of Historical and Cultural Resources Enter into a Memorandum of Agreement with the Eastern Information Center of UC Riverside to establish procedures for reviewing the archaeological sensitivity of sites proposed for development. Utilize the development and environmental review process to ensure that appropriate archaeological and paleontological surveying and documentation of findings is provided prior to project approval. TEM-OI~05GP-OPN.SPA * Date: October .28, 1992 Page 5-39 CITY OF TEMECULA Open Space/Conservation Element 3. Require effective mitigation where development may affect archaeological or paleontological resources. Require that an archaeologist or paleontologist be retained to observe grading activities in areas where the probable presence of archaeological or paleontological resources is identified. Enforce the provisions outlined in Appendix K of the California Environmental Quality Guidelines with regard to the preservation or salvage of significant archaeological and paleontological sites discovered during construction activities. Implement a low interest loan program through the Redevelopment Agency, when feasible, for the rehabilitation and maintenance of significant architectural, historical, and cultural buildings and districts. Consider the adoption of a Historic Preservation Ordinance to protect architocturally and historically significant buildings, sites, roads/trails, and other landscape elements, ma4-pta~os while encouraging their appropriate re use. re-use where appropriate. e Apply for recognition of local sites in the State Historic Resources Inventory, as Riverside County Landmarks, as State Points of Historic Interest, as State Landmarks, and as sites on the National Register of Historic Places, as deemed necessary. 89. Require new developments to be monitored in compliance with AB 3180 ("Mitigation Monitoring Program") and report to the City on the completion of mitigation and resource protection measures required for each project. H. Conservation of Agricultural ResOurces Develop effective zoning regulations or other land use mechanisms which control the expansion of intensive non-agriculture development onto productive or potentially productive agriculture lands. Recognize existing agriculture preserve contracts and promote the inclusion of additional prime agriculture land. Scenic or resource conservation easements should be evaluated as suitable means for protecting prime tamland that is located adjacent to residential areas and where the property does not qualify for inclusion in an agriculture preserve program. 4. Implement a program that uses the Village Center concept to reduce urban sprawl into agricultural areas. TEM~)I~SGP-OPN.SPA · Date: October 29, 1992 Page 5-40 CITY OF TEMECULA Open Space/Conservation Element Require new developments to be monitored in compliance with AB 3180 ("Mitigation Monitoring Program") and report to the City on the completion of mitigation and resource protection measures required for each project. I. Conservation of Dark Skies/Astronomic Observation Resources Adopt appropriato ordinances to control sourcec of light that adv6rsely affact th6 Palomar Obzorvatory, including the ar, a with th{~ dark sky conservation zone d{~ned by tho Obc, srvatory. Ensure that the City's Light Pollution Control Ordinance is complied with when building plans are submitted for permits and when projects are field inspected. Ensure that Environmental Impact Reports for proposed projects address the issue of light pollution. Coordinate with Caltech in the review of draft EIR's for projects within 45 miles of the Palomar Observatory. TEM4)I~SOP43PN.SPA · Date: October .28, 1992 liagc 5-41 Chapter Four HOUSING CITY OF TEMECULA Housing Element provided as a range to reflect development at minimum as well as maximum permitted densities. Utilizing a generation factor of 2.83 persons per dwelling unit, this corresponds to a population between .7o o-,~ 78,671 and ~Ae r,,~ 145,650 persons. Table 4-2A summarizes the number of dwelling units and projected population by residential designation. Projections for the Sphere of Influence and Area of Interest are also shown in Table 4-2A. The City has established target development density/intensity standards for some residential designations and all non-residential land use designations. Future residential development for Very Low, Low and Low Medium designations is expected to occur at target density levels shown in Table 4-2B. Development at a density between the target and maximum level for these designations may occur at the discretion of the Planning Commission/City Council in exchange for special public benefits. Dev61opment of affordabl6 housing has b88n idsntifi~d as such a benofit. A target density standard is not applied to the Medium (8 - 12 du/ac) and High (13 - 20 du/ac) density designations. Table 4-2B shows the number of dwelling units and projected population at buildout. As shown, development of target densities will yield 29,422 39,658 dwelling units at buildout, and a population of IH,592 112,254 in the City. Projected dwelling units and populations are also provided for the Sphere of Influence and Area of Interest. TEM-0B04GP-HOU.SNG · October 29, 1992 Page 4-4 CITY OF TEMECULA Housing Element industry is dependent on a skilled labor force, and according to the Temeeula Valley Chamber of Commerce's Community Economic Profile. the majority of the labor force has either a bachelor degree or received technical school training. Temecula Creek Inn which is a prominent component of the City's tourist industry, is the largest service- oriented employer. Temecula Valley Unified School District is the largest public employer, with over 600 employees. D. Household Characteristics 1. Average Size 1990 Census indicates that the average household size for the City of Temecula was 2.97 persons. This figure is slightly higher than the average household size for both the incorporated and unincorporated portions of Riverside County of 2.91 persons. According to the Department of Finance, the average household size in 1991 for Temecula and Riverside County is 3.0 and 2.9 respectively. 2. Income The median income for the 1991 Fiscal Year for the Riverside-San Bernardino Metropolitan Statistical Area, which includes the City of Temecula, is $36,000. The median income is less than that estimated for the nation and the State of California. The Department of Housing and Urban Development estimates the national median income at $38,000 and State median income at $42,700. The following table identifies the number of households in Temecula by income. Th~se income ~timat~ were prepared by disaggregating 19e,0 and 1990 csnzus data? Table 4-4 shows the number of households in the City by 1989 income, as reported in the 1990 Census. The median household income was reported at $44,270. and is significantly higher than the 1991 median income estimate for all of Riverside County at $36,000.4 The number of households in the table do~ not cx:lual the 1990 Ccn*~us figure. This discrepane,/is unavoidable as previous Census data is not available for the City alone. Tho.rcforo income estimato~ had to be derived from 1980 Census data and projoctio~ for the previous census arce that generally corresponds to City bounckqrtos~. The household income data shown in Table 4-4 is derlved from self-reported Census questions regarding 1989 income. The median income eaimaZe for Riverside County is for the year 199.1. Therefore, the comparison between Temecula and Riverside County median income is only of a general nature, and cannot account for the difference in time periods. TE.M-OB04GP-HOU.SNG * October 29, 1992 Page 4-8 CITY OF TEMECULA Housing Element ..-~,.,^ A A City Of Tom~eula Estimato of Handhold ti317 Percent of Total Houooholdo L~ GLz.q- ..~ Table 4-4 City of Temecula 1990 Estimate of HousehoM Income Income Category I Householas f Percent of Total Households 0-14,099 929 10.1 15,000-29,999 1,672 18.2 30, 000-49, 999 2, 751 30. 0 50.000-79,999 2,277 24.9 75,000.and up 1,535 16.8 Median Income $44,270 Average Income $49,894 To calculate existing and future housing need by income level, the following household income classifications are established by State Law: Very Low Lower Moderate Above Moderate less than 50% of median income 50% - 80% of median income 80% - 120% of medina income more than 120% of median income Low - a combination of very low and lower households The area median income established by HUD, $36,000 was utilized in calculating the number of households by income group. This method is consistent with definitions of low-and moderate-income households used in various Federal and State housing programs, e.g., Section 8 and State Density Bonus Law. To estimate the number of Very Low, Lower, Moderate and Above Moderate income households in the City of Temecula, the 1990 household income estimates derived from Census data, and shown in Table 4-4 were used. Table 4-5 TEM-01',04GP-HOU.SNG · Oc[obcr 29, 1992 Page CITY OF TEMECULA Housing Element provides a break-down of Temeeula households in terms of the four income classifications.s City of Tameenid 1990 Number of Households by Income Croup V0ry Low In00m0 I.oomo ~:laaoifloallon ae Poreant of County Modinn Inoomo Crltorie: .%"_' .-. ~.' Income Group Table '4-5 City of Temecula 1990 Number of Households by Income Group Income Classification as Percent of Coun~ Median Income Very Low Income leas than 50% Lower 50%,80% income Moderate 80%-120% income Above Moderate greater than 120% Medimn Income for ~e C~unly of Rivehide b $3~,000. Income Criteria less than $18,000 $18,000-28,800 $28,800-43,200 $43,200 and up Number 1,210 Percent 13.2 1,299 14.2 1,943 21.2 4,712 51.4 As shown in Table 4-5, approximately one-quarter of all households in Temecula are classified as low income, or earning less than 80 percent of the median area income. Three-fourths of all households in the City are Moderate or Above Moderate. The Above Moderate category constitutes the largest income category, accounting for slightly more than 50 percent of all Temecula households. The income categories shown in Table 4-4, e.g., 0-S14,999, do not correspond directly to the income criteria for Very Low, Lower, Moderate and Above Moderate income households shown in Table 4-5. In order to estimate the number of households within each of these classifications, the income categories in Table 4-4 were broken down into smaller in~ements, I.e., a span of $100. The total households w. ere then alicedied to each of these increments, assuming a uniform distribution. The increments were then added according to the income criteria for Very Low, Lower, Moderate and Above Moderate income households. TEM~)I't)4GP-HOU.SNO · October 29, 1992 Page 4-10 CITY OF TEMECULA Housing Element The range of rental prices by unit type are provided in the Table 4-11. Table 4-11 Rental Prices of Market Units Age of 1 Bed 2 Bed 3 Bed TOtal ~u~,~ Apartment Complex Structure Price I Unite Price ~ Unite Price ~ Unite Units Acreage Acacia 6 yrs. $625-635 128 $775-785 192 none none 320 16.0 20.0 29605 Soiana Margarita Summit 5 yrs. none none $675-770 140 $850 3 143 17.4 8.2 42200 Margarita Morning Ridge 4 yrs. $535 48 $635 152 none none 200 15.2 13.2 30660 Milky Way Oak Ridge 5yrs. none none $510-545 318 none none 318 15.2 21.0 42168 Stonewood Rd. Park Manor 5 yrs. $344 280 $413 120 none none 400 21.5 18.7 29477-29483 Rancho California Rancha West 4 yrs. $470 38 $530 112 none none 150 10.5 14.2 28680 Pujol Summerbreeze 5yrs. none none $680 ' 124 none none 124 9.5 3.0 29489 Via Las Colinas Sycamore Terrace 5 yrs. $555-570 48 $600-645 176 none none 224 12.8 17.5 41770 Marganta Terrace Temecula Villas 5 yrs. $427 24 $514 24 none none 48 10.9 8.9 28801 Pulol Vintage ',Aew 6 yrs. $560 84 $625 136 none none 220 8.8 25. 1 29500 Mira Loma WoodCreek 6yrs. $525 172 $550 110 $675 62 344 20.7 16.7 42200 Moraga rTOTA' I I I tl,80'iI 851 2,'9tl t58.31 8.7f Utilizing HUD's definition of affordability i.e., 30 percent of monthly household income towards housing costs, an analysis of the number of apartment units that provide affordable rental rates per income group was estimated. In order to relate household size to housing affordability, income levels for both two and four person households were utilized.7 Household income is a function of family size. Households with fewer persons have lower income thresholds in terms of income classifications, e.g., Very Low, Lower. Two and four person households are used in this analysis in order to relate household and unit size to market rate affordability. The median income used in determining future housing need is based on the median income of all households in Temecula, and is not specific to household size. TEM~I~D4GP-HOU.SNG · October 29, 1992 Page 4-15 CITY OF TEMECULA Housing Element Table 4-12 shows the maximum rent for a two-person household (provided as a range to provide upper and lower thresholds) that could be charged relative to each income group in order for the unit to be considered affordable. TEM.01M)4GP-HOU.SNG * October 29, 1992 Page 4-16 CITY OF TEMECULA Housing Element Income Group Very Low - < Lower - 50 - 80% Moderate - 80 - Above MOderate. 100-120% Table 4-12 Market Rate Affordability of Rental Units: Two Person Household I Yearly Income I Max. Rear I Totel Unite I Percent of Total Unite I lea than $14,400 < than $360 280 11 $14,400.23,050 < than $575 1,378 55 $53,050-28,800 < than $720 2, 156~ 86 I28,800-$34,550 < than $860 2,491 (all) 100 According to the above analysis, 280 units in the City are affordable to Very Low income, two person households. To fall within an affordable rent range for a two person household earning less than $14,400, or a Very Low income household, a unit must be priced below $360. Park Manor is the only complex with units priced within this range. The majority of units that would accommodate two persons i.e., one and two bedroom apartments, are affordable to Lower income; two person households. Moderate and Above Moderate income two person households are availed of most, if not all, rental units at affordable rents including larger units, i.e., three bedroom units which exceed minimum space requirements. Four person households generally require a two or three bedroom unit. Exact size specifications, as discussed in the Overcrowding analysis, is dependent on the ages of persons in that household. To account for minimum size requirements, the following affordability analysis of market rate rental units is restricted to two and three bedroom units, and does not include the one bedroom units. Table 4-13 shows the market rate of affordability of two and three bedroom units relative to each income classification. Table 4-13 Market Rate Affordability of Rental Units: Four Person Household income Group Yearly Income Max. Rent~ Total Units Percent of Total Two and T-we Three Bedroom Units VeryLow-<50% less than $18,000 <than$450 4.2,4120 t-77 Lower - 50 - 80% $18,000-28,800 < than $720 2,!5~ 1,33i 86 80 Moderate - 80-100% $28,800-36,000 < than $1.080 2,~.9! 1,669 (all) 100 Above Moderate - $36,0~0-$43,200 < than $1.080 2.;9! 1,669 (all) 100 100 - 120% TEM-01X04GP-HOU.SNG · October 29. 1992 Page 4-17 CITY OF TEMECULA Housing Element As shown Table 4-13, a total of ~2~· 120 units (or seven percent) are affordable to Very Low income four person households. Affordable housing for this group are those units charging rents less than $450 per month. Such units can ~e are located only at Park Manor. and Tsm~eula Villas. Rsnts for a minimum 2,156 units fall within the range considered affordable to Lower income households, i.e., $450 to $720. As noted in Table '1 12, two bedroom units at Mnrgnrita Summit range $650 to $770, which indicates that some of the 140 units would also be affordable to Lowsr income households, (Abesat n specific breakdown of units by rent, tho~ units were excluded from the figure of 2,156 affordable units.) Units at Acacia and Margaritn Summit Apartments, two nnd throe bedroom units respectively, would not bs in an affordable price range to Lower income houssholds. The majority of two and three bedroom units, 80 percent, are affordable to Lower income, four person households. As noted in the table, this figure is likely to be higher as it does not include units located at Margarita Summit. All of the two and three bedroom apartment units in the City are affordable to Moderate and Above Moderate four person households. The above analysis is intended only to provide a general comparison between prevailing rental rates, household size, and income characteristics. of Temeeula households. The actual affordability of a unit is dependent on the actual income of a household and other factors which influence housing choices such as amenities space rsquiremonts and deposits/conditions of leases. 5. Housing Condition The majority of the City's housing stock is less than 30 years old - the standard for rehabilitation of units. However, a number of older residential tracts exist in the City. A windshield survey of the older residential portions of the City was conducted to assess the need for rehabilitation and replacement. The assessment was based on exterior ground level inspection, and focused on the identification of units in need of major rehabilitation or replacement. A unit in need of major rehabilitation was defined as one which, in its present state, materially endangers the health, safety, or well-being of its occupancy in one or more respects, and which is economically feasible to repair. Major structural features such as roofing, exterior wails and porches were assessed in making this determination. A unit in need of replacement utilizes the same standard, with the exception that the unit is not economically feasible to repair. A number of units near the Old Town, west of the 1-15 freeway were characterized as in poor condition, and in need of major rehabilitation or replacement. Approximately six units were determined as in need of replacement, and twelve in need of major rehabilitation. Units in the Old Town area, as well as other pockets of the City, exhibited the need for minor rehabilitation. These units, (approximately seventy-five such units throughout the City) are structurally sound, yet are in need of painting, window repair or overall general maintenance. TEM-01xl)IGp-HOU $NG · October 29, 1992 Page 4-18 CITY OF TEMECULA Housing Element City of Temecula, approximately 14 percent of all owner households are over 65, and 6.2 percent of all renter households are over 65. According to the State Department of Finance, the majority of elderly persons in California. The high rate of ownership would appear to place the elderly an advantage relative to other population groups in terms of housing needs. However, many elderly live on fixed incomes and occupy older homes. These factors make paying for needed home repairs and maintenance difficult. Obtaining affordable housing is particularly difficult for elderly renters living on a limited, fixed income. First, their incomes do not keep pace with increasing rental prices due to inflation. Second, elderly rentors have a more limited range of options to address increasing housing costs compared to homeowners. For example, renters do not have accumulated home equity nor can they typically obtain additional income by subletting their units. Creekside Apartment on Pujol Street provides 48 senior citizen Section 8 units. As of August 31, 1992, there were seven households in need of rental assistance on the Section 8 waiting list maintained by the County of Riverside Housing Authority. This provides some indication of the need for affordable rental housing for this group. In addition to directly subsided units, the City should promote living arrangements, such as Second Units and Shared Living, that provide low-cost living alternatives for the elderly. 2. Handicapped Households Two major housing needs of the disabled am access and affordability. Access is particularly important for the physically handicapped. Physically handicapped persons often require spegially designed dwellings to permit access both within the unit as well as to and from the site. The California Administrative Code Title 24 mandates that structural standards of public buildings, including motels and hotels, permit wheelchair access. These standards, however, are not mandatory for either new single or multifamily residential construction. Like the elderly, the handicapped also have locational needs. Many desire to be located near public facilities, particularly public transportation facilities. A number of disabled persons receive Supplemental Social Security Income (SSI) and are on fixed incomes. Increasing inflation and housing costs adversely affect these individuals in terms of securing housing. Census data on the number of handicapped persons in the City of Temecula is not available. According to the Handicapped Law Compliance Office, there are approximately 27,000 handicapped persons in Riverside County. The population of the Temecula, according to 1990 Census data, accounted for approximately 2 percent of the total population in the County. Utilizing this percentage, there are TEM-01'/MGP-HOU.S~G · October 29, 1992 Page 4-20 CITY OF TEMECULA Housing Element potentially approximately 540 handicapped persons in Temecula. As of August 31, 1992, there were six households in need of rental assistance on the Section 8 waiting list maintained by the County of Riverside Housing Authority. 3. Single Parent Households The number of single parent households, and female-headed households in particular, has rapidly increased over the past few decades. Divorce has been a major factor in the rise of Single parent households. When a couple splits, two households are created, and the money available for each new household for housing is reduced. The problem of finding affordable housing is exacerbated for female-headed households as the following characteristics prevail in this group: low rate of home ownership, high poverty rate, and lower incomes.s According to the 1990 Census, there are 223 single male parent households, and 530 single parent, female headed households in Temecula. The Census provides data on the number and type of households in the City that are below the poverty line. Poverty status is a function of the relationship of income to number of children in a household. The average poverty threshold in the 1990 Census was $12,674 for a family of four. The 1990 Census shows 227 female headed households below the poven*y line, or 2.5 percent of all households in the City. This figure represents, at minimum, the number of female headed households that may experience difficulty in obtaining affordable housing. Alternative living arrangements such as shared living provide low cost housing options for single parent households. In addition, these arrangements can provide support in rearing children. 4. Large Households Large households are defined as households with five or more persons. The 1990 Census reported 1,336 households with five or more persons. Of this total number 911 households were comprised of five persons, 294 of six persons and 131 households of seven or more persons. A breakdown of large households by tenure is provided in Table 4-14. For a discussion of housing needs of women headed households see "Women and Shelter: Needs and lisu~:, Housing Issues of the 1990s, Eugenic Ladher Birch, edited by Sara Rosenberry and Chester Hartman, Praeger Publishers, I989. TEM-0B0IGP-HOU.SNG · October 29, 1992 Page 4-21 CITY OF TEMECULA Housing Element Table 4-14 City of Temecula Large Households by Tenure Owner Occupied 664 204 68 936 Renter Occupied 247 90 63 400 Large households are included as a special needs group because they require larger dwelling units. In addition, this special needs group experiences a high incidence of poverty. Difficulties in securing housing large enough to accommodate all members of a household are heightened for tenters, because rental units are typically smaller than single-family units. According to Table 4-11, which lists apartment units by size, there are relatively few units in the City that could accommodate large households, without creating overcrowded conditions. The majority of apartments are one and two bedroom units, which can accommodate no more than 3 and 5 person households respectively to avoid overcrowding, as defined by Census.9 There are only a total of 65 three bedroom rental apartment units in the City, which could provide sufficient space to accommodate other large households. In terms of households in need of affordable housing the Housing Authority and Section 8 property managers note a strong demand for Section 8 assisted, two and three bedroom units. As of August 31, 1992, there were six large households in need of rental assistance on the Section 8 waiting list maintained by the Riverside County Housing Authority. Thi, v provides some indication of the need for affordable rental housing for this group. 5. Farm Workers Agriculture is a predominant industry in Riverside County, and the area is divided into four distinct agricultural districts. The City of Temecula is located within the San Jacinto/Temecula agricultural district. The 1990 Census reports 339 persons employed in farming, forestry and fishing occupations. There are no current agricultural operations in the City, but nearby wineries represent an employment base for migrant farmworkers. A one bedroom unit is assumed to have one kitchen, one dining and one living area for a total of four rooms; and a two bedroom unit is likewise assumed to have one kitchen, one dining and one living area for a total of five room. See Section IV.D.3 for discussion of overcrowding. TEM-01~34GP-HOU.SNG · October 29, 1992 Page 4--22 CITY OF TEMECULA Housing Element Several farmworker advocacy groups were contacted in preparation of the Housing Element for information on the number of farmworker households within the City, as well as the housing needs of this group, including the California Rural Assistance League, County of Riverside Community Action Agency and Housing Authority and Coachella Valley Housing Coalition. These organizations address the needs of farmworkers throughout the County and do not maintain statistics for individual jurisdictions. It is estimated that there are 30,000 farmworl~ers in the County in need of seasonal housing. The need for farmworker housing, documented throughout the County, indirectly impacts the City; in terms of overcrowding (see Chapter II.D.3.), and the homeless population (see discussion below). According to the City Code Enforcement Officer, migrant farworkers often double up in apartment units during harvest season, resulting in overcrowded conditions. However, such overcrowded apartments are a very minor problem in Temecula according to the Officer. 6. Homeless The homeless population referS to persons lacking consistent and adequate shelter. Homeless persons can be considered resident (those remaining in an area year- round), or transient. Emergency and transitional shelters can help to address the needs of the homeless. Emergency shelters provide a short-term solution to homelesshess and involve limited supplemental services. Transitional shelters, in contrast, are directed towards removing the basis for homelessness. Shelter is provided for an extended period of time, and is combined with other social services and counseling to assist in the transition to self-sufficiency. According to the 1990 Census, there were no homeless persons reported visible on street locations in Temecula. However, the County of Riverside Department of Community Action estimates that there are 901o 106 homeless persons in the Temecula area. Of these figures, approximately 25 to 30 are living "on the streets".~° The remaining homeless live in overcrowded homes and motels. C. Future Housing Need 1. Units Eligible for Conversion In 1989, the Government Code was amended to include a requirement that localities identify and develop a program in their Housing Elements for the preservation of affordable multifamily units assisted under various federal, state and/or local programs. In the preservation analysis, localities are required to This terms also refers to persons living in cars, abandoned houses, vacant lots, under bridges and in the creekbed. TEM~)I',O4GP-HOU.S~G * October 29, 1992 Page 4-23 CITY OF TEMECULA Housing Element IV. RESOURCES A. Vacant Land The vacant land inventory was conducted as pan of the formulation of the General Plan Preferred Land Use Plan. The City of Temecula has a substantial amount of vacant, developable residential land. As shown in Table 4-18, development of this land at target densities could result in 25,525 26,586 additional dwelling units within the City. The vacant land ~ inventory identt~fies adequate sites to accommodate development of housing that meet the future housing need estimated at: 259129 Very Low; 165137 Lower; 16117/Moderate; and 2~°5~33 Above Moderate income households. The proposed zoning designations for residential uses are consistent with the General Plan residential designations, as discussed further in Section V of the Element. Table <1 18 City of Temocula Dwelling Unit Projectlone at Targeted Densities Flooidcmlal Land UOO C:.."~k"; Tatgotaa Inoorno Foturo Dwolllng Mocioratc'/Modorato Table 4-18 City of Temecula Future Dwelling Unit Projections Hillside 0 .. I Above Moderate/ 250 25 Moderate Very Low .2 - .4 Above Moderate/ 1,8t18 554 Moderate Low .5 - 2. Above Moderate/ 123 160 Moderate Low Medium 3 - 6 Moderate 3,481 15,665 Medium 7-12 Moderate 488 4,638 High 13.20 Lower/Very Low 336 5,544 TEM-0B04GP-HOU.SNG · October 29, 1992 Page 4-30 CITY OF TEMECULA Housing Element The residential densities identified in the Land Use Plan are generally lower than other urbanized areas primarily due to the existing rural nature of the community. The abundance of relatively cheap land in Riverside County has allowed for the development of housing that sells for less than the housing in Orange, Los Angeles and San Diego counties. In addition, the rental survey demonstrates that households earning the income limit for Lower income households can afford the majority of current multi-family rental housing at market rate. The net density of the apartment complexes indenttried in Table 4-11 ranges from 8.2 to 25.1 du/ac. The majority of these complexes fall within the General Plan's High Density designation (13 - 20 du/ac). Provision for exceeding this maximum are discussed below. Over 80 percent of the apartment complexes in the rental survey were cor~'tructed between four and five years ago, which is one indicator of the density ranges needed to produce affordable housing in the current market. Continued multi-family development would likely continue serving Lower income households. Development of housing affordable to low income groups, earning less than 80 percent of the area median income, is attainable within densities lower than that required in other areas to facilitate the production of low income housing. As discussed a4eB~, above, development of rental housing at low medium, medium and high densities (3,126 du/ac, 7-12 du/ac, and 13-20 du/ac, respectively) could provide housing affordable to low income groups. However, the difficulties of producing housing affordable to Very Low income households, i.e., below 50 percent of the median income, is acknowledged. Several mechanisms can effectively increase the density of development on vacant land, and thereby provide housing opportunities for low income households. ~ City has established target development standards far both residential and non re,~;idemtial land uses, and the,'~ targets were u~d in projecting future development potential. Development at maximum densities/intensiti~ may occur at the discretion of the Planning Commission/City Council provided a public purpose is served, Development of affordable housing is recognizsd by the Land Use and Community D~ign Elements as one condition by which this maximum density/intensity will ba permitted. In addition, First, the City will grant a 25 percent density bonus for developers that provide affordable housing as required under certain conditions by the State Density Bonus Law. The6 two mechanisms combine This would yield a permitted density of up to 25 units per acre. Development of housing in the Village Centers also provides additional opportunities for development of low-income housing. A number of Village Centers are designated throughout the General Plan Study Area. The intern of the Village Center Concept is to provide opportunities for development of mixtures of commercial and residential uses that will minimize vehicle trips, avoid sprawling commercial development patterns, and provide incentives for high quality urban design, ~ One of the criteria for considering density/intensity in the Village Centers is the provision of affordable housing. The higher floor area ratios and residential density permissible in these areas facilitate production of affordable housing. Joint parking is another feature of the Village C. entets that could effectively reduce the cost of development, thereby increasing the feasibility of low-income TEM-OIM'~4GP-HOU.SNG * October 29, 1992 Page 4-31 CITY OF TEMECULA Housing Element V. CONSTRAINTS A. Governmental Constraints Governmental constraints are policies, standards or requirements imposed by the various levels of govemment on development. Although federal and state agencies play a role in the imposition of governmental constraints, these agencies are beyond the influence of local government and are therefore not addressed in this document. The following factors constrain the maintenance, improvement, and/or development of housing in Temecuta: land use controls; building codes; processing procedures; and development fees. 1. Zoning Code The General Plan is the foundation of all land use controls in a jurisdiction. The Land Use Element identifies the location, distribution and intensity of land uses in the City. The primary instruments for implementing the General Plan will be the Zoning Code and Subdivision Ordinance. The proposed Temecula Development Code contains sLr residential classifications, which correspond to the six General Plan Land Use designations. In addition, the Code provides for a Village Center Overlay and a Planned Development Overlay. The Development Code regulates such features as building height and density, lot area, setbacks, and open space requirements per zoning distn'ct. The overlay zones are a special designation which are subject to site-specific regulations. Approval for development in the Village Center Overlay requires satisfaction of performance standards articulated in the Development Code. These standards reflect a focus on unique and creative development that promotes integration of retail, open space and residential uses. Diversity of housing, including affordable housing is one factor in the performance standards. The Planned Development Overlay also provides flexibility in development standards. Development standards for the six resMential zoning classifications are provided in Table 4-19. TEM~)I~4GP-HOU.,SNG · October 29, 1992 Page 4-33 CITY OF TEMECULA Housing Element Table 4-19 Residential Development Standards Residential Development Standards Minimum Lot Area Average Lot Ares per Dwelling Unit Maximum Dwelling Units Per Acre · Ldt Di,ltenslon~ Mk~imum Wintit at Required Front SetDsck Area Minimum Average Width Front Yard Corner Side Yard interior Side Yard Rear Yard Accessdry Building on Interior Site Boundary Separation Between Buildings One Story Two Story Three Stories Maximum Height Maximum % of Lot Coverage High Low 10 acres .5 tieras 10 acres .5 acres .I .4 2 Very Low 2.5 acres 2.5 scras ,,o~ Med, um ,,gh Medium 7000 aq. tt Tooo sq. it 7000 sq. tt J Tooo sq. it 3500 tiq. ~t. 2200 sq. ft. 6 12 20 .~.~ 100 ft. 80 ft. 50 ft. 6Oft 50 it. 40 ft. 30 ft. 50 P,. 50ft. 50ft. 40,it. 25 ~. 2Sit. 20f1. 20It. 20ft. 40 ft. 15 it 15 ft. 15 ft. 15 ft. 15 ft. loft. I0f1. loft. 7ft. loft. I0f1. 2Oft, 20ft. 20ft. 2Oft 20it 20ft. loft. loft. lOlL 5it 5 fL 5ft. 10ti. loft. loft. 15 ft. 15 fl. 15 it 20ft. 20fL 35 ft 35 ft. 35 ft. 40 fL 50 it 6096 35% 20% Open Space Required ~0 % 70 % 60% 25 % 25% 30% Private Open Space/Per Unit 500 sq. ft Common Open Space/Per Unit 1000 sq. ft ,%;;.,, ,, ,,,e dra, ds,,d A.g.a, Development standards may add to the cost of housing because the standards may necessitate additional construction and building materials and labor. These standards are enacted for the protection of the community's health, safety and welfare. Modification of development standards can reduce the cost of housing construction, which may in turn, result in lower housing prices. Residential development in both the Planned Development and Village Center Overlay Zones can take advantage of greater flexibility in development standards for these areas. It is expected that development in these areas will promote a wider range of housing opportunities in comparison to the traditional zoning districts. The identification of affordable housing as a factor in the performance TE~4..01',O4GP-HOU.SNG · October 29, 1992 Page 4-34 CITY OF TEMECULA Housing Element standards for the Village Center Overlay provides a mechanism for the realization of this objective. 2. Subdivision Ordinance State law requires local governments to adopt a Subdivision Ordinance. The Subdivision Ordinance governs the process of converting raw land into 'tes x2 development st . State Law grants local governments the authorities to regulate the design and improvements of subdivisions and to impose dedication and exactions on developers. The Subdivision Map Act establishes statewide uniformity in local subdivision procedures; standards for design and improvements are left to local government discretion. The Subdivision Ordinance like all land use controls, can be so restrictive as to increase cost of development and stifle development interest. Temecula conforms to the procedural requirements established in the Subdivision Map Act and does not impose additional requirements. 3. Building Codes Building Codes regulate the physical construction of dwellings and include plumbing, electrical and mechanical divisions. The purpose of the Building Code and its enforcement is to protect the public from unsafe buildings and unsafe conditions associated with construction. The City of Temecula enforces the Uniform Building Code as established by State Law. State affords local government with some flexibility when adopting the uniform codes: the building codes can be amended based on geographical, topelogical or climatelogical considerations. Further State Housing Law provides that local building departments can authorize the use of materials and construction methods other than those specified in the uniform code if the proposed design is found to be satisfactory and the materials or methods are at least equivalent to that prescribed by the building codes. The Building Code adopted by Temecula is similar to those used by other local governments, and therefore does not pose any special constraints on the production or cost of housing. 4. Processing Procedures The California Government Code establishes permitted time periods for local agencies to review and act upon private development proposals. Those t/me restrictions for discrotionary permits are identified in TabIs 4 20. These time restrictions are identified in Table 4-20. Local processing time frames are within State guidelines and are further deFtned in Table 4-21. Tho City is abl~ to proc~cs projects within the statutory time periods, and estimat~ that a subdivision takes approximately 4 to 6 months to processo, Note: Condominiurn and stock c.t~perative conversions are also subject to the Subdivision Map Act, TEM-0IX04GP-HOU.SNG · October 29, 1992 Page 4-35 CITY OF TEMECULA Housing Element through the approval stage. Although the City does not conduct concurrent processing, this ability exists with existing staff levels. Table 4-20 State Development Processing Time Limits Generat Ran Amendment Zone Change Subdivision Action on Tantmive Map Environmental Documentation/CEQA Additional DGto Noodod Notioo to Applioont Review of Application for Completeness Determination of Negative Declaration or EIR Requirement Completion of Negative Declaration Cer~fication of Final EIR DiGorotionGry Pormitc Additiord Data Nc~dod Notioo to ApplioQnt Final Aotion on Projoot State Maximum None None 50days 30 days 46 30 days 105 days (when Application deemar~ complete) 1 year (when Application deemed complete) Table 4-21 Local Development Processing Time Limits item Condi~onal Use Permit (CUP) Plot Plan Tenta~e Parcel Map Tentative Tract Map Variance Zoning Amendments Approximate Length of Time to Public Hearing1 t 1 weeks 11 weeks 8 - 10 weeks 11 weeks 11 weeks 16 weeks Discretionary projects arc reviewed by both the Planning Commission and City Council, and the City does not have special design or environmental review procedures. The processing periods are not considered a constraint to the production of housing. The City processes residential projects within statutory timeframes, and therefore requests for time extensions from the State have not been necessitated. The processing period is expedited for projects within Specific Plan areas as environmental review has been conducted and standards have been !reposed, e.g., exactions and payment schedules, design, for the entire area. TEM~)IM)4GP-HOU.SNG · October 29, 1992 Page 4-36 CITY OF TEMECULA Housing Element Goal 2 Discussion Policy 2.1 Policy 2.2 Policy 2.3 Policy 2.4 Affordable housing for all economic segments of Temecula. The relative affordability of housing in Riverside County has attracted homebuyers to the County, including the City of Temecula. The diversification of the City's economic base is of primary importance to the community, as many residents commute to these surrounding counties for employment and commercial/recreational opportunities. Housing that accommodates the full spectrum of income groups facilitates an economically diverse community. Promote a variety of housing opportunities that accommodate the needs of all income levels of the population, and provides opportunities to meet the City's fair share of low- and moderate-income housing. Support innovative public, private and nonprofit efforts in the development of affordable housing, particularly for special needs groups,. Encourage the use of non-traditional housing models, including single-room occupancy structures (SRO) and manufactured housing, to meet the needs of special groups for affordable housing, temporary shelter and/or transitional housing. Pursue all available forms of private, local, state and federal assistance to support development and implementation of the City's housing programs. Goal 3 Discussion Policy 3.1 Policy 3.2 Policy 3.3 Removal of governmental constraints in the maintenance, improvement and development of housing, where appropriate and legally possible. Governmental constraints are policies, standards, or requirements imposed by local government that constrain the production of affordable housing. Development fees, processing procedures, and development standards are cited as factors that impact the ability to provide for market rate affordable housing. Provide reasonable processing time and fees for new construction or rehabilitation of housing. Consider mitigating development fees for projects providing affordable and senior citizen housing. Periodically review City development standards to ensure consistency with the General Plan and to facilitate high-quality affordable housing. TEM-0B04OP-HOU.SIqG · October 29. 1992 Page 4-42 CITY OF TEMECULA Housing Element As shown in Table 4-24 the quantified objectives are 8 40 Very Low; 315 Lower; 940 Moderate; and 1,520 Above Moderate units provided through construction. Objectives for preservation of units am targeted at 292 Very Low; 86 Lower; and 10 Above Moderate income households. Finally, the objective through the planning period is rehabilitation of 85 Very Low; 125 Lower; and 215 Moderate units. A description of objectives by topical area is provided below. New Construction State law requires that jurisdictions estimate the maximum number of units that can be constructed within the planning period, by income group. The number of new units that will be constructed through 1994 was estimated bused on existing development trends. It was assumed that new construction would continue to provide a higher percentage of units at market rate that would accommodate Moderate and Above Moderate income households. Development of multi-family rental units provide housing opportunities for low-income housing. As indicated in Table 4-12 and 4-13, approximately 17 and 86 pt$rcent of all apartment units fall within affordabl~ rangoa for Very Low incomo households, respectivoly the majority of rental units at market rate are affordable to Lower, Moderate and Above Moderate income households. It was assumed that 350 additional apartment units could be constructed in the City by July 1, 1994. The existing percentages of low-income households potentially served by apartment units was applied to this figure to calculate the breakdown of Very Low and Lower income households that could be served through new construction. Rehabilitation The majority of the City's was built within the past thirty years, and is therefore considered in good condition. However, units in need of rehabilitation exist in older residential amos of the City. The Code Enforcement and Tool Lending programs address the rehabilitation of both multi-family and single-family units in these areas. The primary beneficiaries of these programs would be renters and low income households. It is assumed that Moderate and Above Moderate income households will rehabilitate units as needed through private efforts. Preservation There are 119 affordable, assisted units in the City of Temecula that are eligible to convert to market rate within ten years. The Preservation of At-Risk Units Program (D.1) is the primary vehicle by which these units will be attempted to be preserved. Temecula Villas is a Section 8 project which provides 48 units. With regard to these units, the Preservation of At-Risk Units Program calls for the continued communication with property owners of Section 8 project-based housing to determine his/her interest in terminating the Section 8 contract. The City will encourage the TEM*Or, O4GP-HOU.S~O · October 29, 1992 Page 4-45 CITY OF TEMECULA Housing Element Housing Program Tool Lending Program Intent Maintain integrity of housing stock. Lowqnterest Preserve existing Residential housing stock. Rehabilitation Loans Sectjan 8 Housing CerdficatesNouchers Homesnaring Provide housing subsidies for low-income households. Assist seniors and ol~ers w~h limited incomes in obtaining housing. Mobile Home Park Preserve tow-cost Assmance housing options for Cih' residents Mortgage Credit Cerlficate Asset first-time homebuyers. Table 4-25 City of Temecula Housing Plan Summary Plan Objective (# Units to De Assisted) Establish a Tool Lending CDBG Program. Adverljse the availabiltiy of home repair informaf~on and tool lending. Funding Source EstaOllsh a low-interest residential rehabilitation progrem. Provide progrsro referrals through code enforcement activities. Responsible Time Agency Frame Planning Cepament Two years Support efforts to increase HUD the amount of funding allocated to HUD programs. Provide referrals to apartment complex owners for thformatjon on the various Section 8 programs. Increase housing CDBG oppomnities for senior c~zeas, and other low income residents, by supporting SHARE and the homesharing activities of the Senior C~izens Service Center. The objective is 40 matches a year: 15 Ven/ Low InCome households; 15 Lower Income households;and 10 Moderate Income households. Provide technical HCD assistance to mobilehome park residents in pursuing MPAP funds. Assist at least 50 ~rst-fime homebuyers by providing tax credits, 10 of which are lower households. CDBG; Planning Two yesre Redevelopment Department Set°Aside MRB allocation Rivemide County Ongoing Housing Authority; Planning Department SHARE; Senior Ongoing Citizens Service Center HCD; Banning As needed. Department Riverside County Two years Economic Development Agency TEM~)I%e4GP-HOU SNG · October 29, 1992 Page 4-50 CITY OF TEMECULA Housing Element Housing Program Program intent Low income Home Utilities assistance and Energy Act Program reduction of ~fities cost EQUAL HOUSING OPPORTUNITY Equal Housing Compliance wi~ National OpponuniW Fair Housing Law. Housing Referral Dispense intormation on Directory local, state and federal housing programs. Housing Element Monitoring end Reporting Annual Reporting Ensure that the Housing Element retains its viability and usefulness thorough annual review and monitoring. Housing Needs Data Accurate assessment of Base housing needs in the Table 4-25 City of Temecula Housing Plan Summary Plan Objective (# Units to be Assisted) Support the County of CDBG Riverside Department of Community Aclion and Temecula Senior CiUzen Services Center in providing utjfitjes assistance and weatherizaf~on to 30 very low income households. Allocate CDBG funding to the DCA for continued adminis~ation of the LIHEAP. Funding Source Support the activitjes of the CDBG Fair Housing Program. Develop a directory of Department services and resources for Budget low-and moderete-income households and special needs groups. Provide informa'don and referrals to Develop monitoring program and report annually to the C~ Council on implemente~on progress. Forward the monitedng repod to HCD. Require social senAce agencies/non-profit organizations receiving CDBG funding from the City to record information on the residences of clients served. Assist in this effort by developing a reporting form. None Necessary None necessary Responsible Tlme Agency Frame Rivemide County Ongoing Department of Community Action Riverside County Ongoing Housing Authority l~lennlng One year Department Planning Ongoing Depamllent Planning One year Department TEM~)I%04GP-HOU.SNG · October 29, 1992 Page 4-51 CITY OF TEMECULA Housing Element A. Provision of Adequate Housing Sites 1. Land Use Element/Zoning Ordinance The Land Use Element of the General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance provide the planning and regulatory framework necessary to achieve adequate housing sites. The Land Use Plan provides for development of a range of housing, at varying densities. The densities range from .1 units per acre for lands in areas designated Hillside Residential, to 20 units per acre in the High Density category. The Zoning Ordinance can provide regulatory incentives for the development of affordable housing. The Density Bonus allows for additional intensity in residential development which includes affordable housing. With regard to the needs of the homeless, the Zoning Ordinance will allow for development of emergency and transitional shelters in specified areas. Objective: Adequate residential sites to accommodate the regional fair share determined at 250129 Very Low; 165137 Lower; 161171 Moderate; and 29433 AbOve Moderate income households. 2. Sites for Emergency and Transitional Shelters The homeless population refers to persons lacking consistent and adequate shelter. Homeless persons can be considered resident (those remaining in an area year- round), or transient. Emergency and transitional shelters can help to address the needs of the homeless. Emergency shelters provide a short-term solution to homelessness and involve limited supplemental services. Transitional shelters, in contrast, are directed at removing the basis for hometessness. Shelter is provided for an extended period of time, and is combined with other social services and counseling to assist in the transition to self-sufficiency. Objective: Adopt a Zoning Ordinance which permits transitional and emergency housing in commercial and industrial zones. These uses will be subject to discretionary approval. 3. Landbank~g Landbanking is the acquisition of land by public agencies in anticipation of future development. This technique serves as a hedge against speculation and inflation as ii secures land for affordable housing, until further resoumes are available for their development. Where development of the land is not feasible, the local agency can sell the land at market rate, and capture the increase in value for such public uses, e.g., senior/low-income housing. Landbanking can be conducted with undeveloped or developed property. Sites containing dilapidated units that should be cleared for public safety reasons, are TEM-0BO4GP-HOU.SNG · October 29, 1992 Page 4.52 CITY OF TEMECULA Housing Element Objective: Develop an expenditure plan for redevelopment set-aside monies. Programs that focus on the rehabilitation of units occupied by low-and moderate-income households, preservation of assisted units, and construction of affordable housing will receive priority in the expenditure plan. 3. Code Enforcement The City maintains a Code Enforcement Program, with one full-time code enforcement officer. The officer enforces provisions of the City's Nuisance Abatement Ordinance. The majority of complaints relate to negligent housekeeping in several apartment complexes in the City. According to the code enforcement officer, occasional complaints regarding overcrowded conditions are also received; these complaints primarily involve migrant farmworkers. Because the single-family housing stock is relatively new, few substandard single-family units have been identified. The code enforcement officer has two avenues of pursuing a code violation: citation, and Public Nuisance Abatement Order (PNAO). Typically after receiving a complaint, the perpetrator is given 30 days to fix the violation. If, after this period no action is taken, the officer may cite the property owner or, issue a PNAO. Under a PNAO, the City will fix the code violation, but charge the property owner for these services. A citation is remedied through the courts via the imposition of fines. Objective: Develop a Housing Inspection Program for multifamily complexes. Inspect all complexes within two years. 4. Tool Lending Program During the housing condition survey, a number of units in need of rehabilitation were identified. The City will establish a tool lending program to assist occupants who may not have the resources to hire a third party to make repairs. The program will provide home repair information and lend a variety of hand and power tools to occupants who seek to make home repairs. Objective: Establish a Tool Lending Program. Advertise the availability of home repair information and tool lending, and provide assistance to 50 households yearly; 10 Very Low; 25 Lower; and 15 Moderate. 5. Low-Interest Rehabilitation Loans Preventing the loss of housing from physical deterioration is an important component in maintaining the existing stock of affordable housing. The City will develop a residential rehabilitation loan program which will provide low- TEM-01M)4GP-HOU.SNG · Oi:tober 29, 1992 Page 4-59 CITY OF TEMECULA Housing Element interest loans to be used for property and structural repairs/rehabilitation. The program will be available to Low andModerate-income owner-households. The City will also consider extending low-interest loans to multi-family owners, in exchange for a commitment to maintain a percentage of units as affordable to low income households. CDBG and redevdopment set-aside funds are funding sources for this program. Objecave: Esiablish a low-interest residential rehabilitation program. Provide program referrals through code enforcement activities. 6. Section 8 Rental Assistance Payments/Housing Vouchers The Section 8 program provides rental assistance to low- and moderate-income families, elderly, and disabled persons who spend more than 30 percent of their monthly income on rent. The subsidy represents the difference between the excess of 30 percent of the recipients monthly income and the federally approved fair market rents (FMR). In general, the FMR for an area is the amount that would be needed to rent privately owned, decent, safe and sanitary rental housing. Section 8 assistance is available in the following forms: Section 8 Existing Housing Certificate Program - Under the certificate program, the landowner enters into a contract with the local Housing Authority which limits rent for the very low-income unit to the FMR. Eligible tenants must pay the highest of either 30 percent of adjusted income, 10 percent of gross income, or the portion of welfare assistance designated for housing. Housing subsidized through this program must meet standards of safety and sanitation established by HUD. Section 8 Existing Housing Voucher Program - This program is similar to the Certificate Program, however, rent for the units are not restricted. The tenant instead must pay the difference between the FMR standard and the actual rent. Section 8 Moderate Rehabilitation - Designed to preserve the existing housing rental stock, this program guarantees Section 8 payments for eligible tenants of landlords who agree to rehabilitate their properties to meet HUD safety and sanitation standards. The program does not provide financing for rehabilitation, and the units must be placed under the Section 8 Program for 15 years. Section 8 Rental Rehabilitation - Landlords receive a matching grant from CDBG funds to rehabilitate substandard units. In return, the units must be placed under the Section 8 Program for at least one year, and the rents must be in accordance with the FMRs. TEM-0B04GP-HOU.SNG · October 29, 1992 Page 4-60 Chapter Three CIRC~TION CITY OF TEMECULA Circulation Element B. Related Plans and Programs The basic framework for the highway component of the Circulation Element was established by Riverside County's Southwest Area Plan (SWAP). This plan which was adopted in 1989, defined a roadway network to accommodate traffic flows which would be generated at build-out of the land uses designated in the Southwest Area Community Plan. While the City of Temecula Circulation Element redefines the planned roadway network within the City's jurisdiction, the SWAP Cimulation Element continues to influence roadway improvement plans outside the City of Temecula. In addition to the SWAP Circulation Plan, the following plans and programs are also relevant to the City's Circulation Element. 1. City of Temecula Five Year Capital Improvement Program (1992-96) This document is the first Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) for the City. It serves as a guidance and planning tool for the provision of public improvements over the next five years. Projects included in the CIP generally include land and right- of-way acquisition, design, construction or rehabilitation of public buildings, public infrastructure, and other public facilities. The document serves to coordinate the financing and scheduling of major public projects to be undertaken or overseen by the City. Not all projects included in the CIP have budget approval. The City's CIP will be revised on an annual basis to meet changing needs priorities and financial conditions. The following CIP designated projects have particular relevance to the Circulation Element: Butterfield Stage Road extension from La Serena Way to Nicolas Road; Diaz Road extension from Winchester Road' to Cherry Street (funded by Assessment District 155); Ynez Road corridor improvements; Margarita Road interim extension from Winchester Road south to current terminus at General Keamy Road; Calle Chapus improvement between Nicolas Road and Walcott Road; Overland Drive overcrossing of 1-15; Pala Road Bridge at Temecula ~ Creek; Rancho California Road interchange loop ramp; Rancho California Road widening between L yndie Lane and Comic Drive; Winchester Road interchange improvements; Ynez Road extension to Date Street; and Date Street overcrossing of 1-15. TEM-01xD~GP-CIRCUL · October 29, 1992 Page 3-2 :. , CITY OF TEMECULA Circulation Element 2. Riverside County Congestion Management ~ Program The Riverside County Congestion Management Program (CMP) was adopted in September, 1991 in response to the passing of Proposition 111 (June 1990). Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) has been designated by Riverside County as the Congestion Management Agency (CMA) responsible for preparation and implementation of the C.x.~.P Congestion Management Program. Proposition 111 legislation e~tablished a number of n~w mquiromont~ governing the State-wide process, for planning and funding transportation improvements. Various mechanicms ar~ provided through the legislation, for the maintenance and improv~mentg of local roado- and highways as well th~ funding of mass transit and congestion relief programs. The CMP component promot~ growth management program~ whioh most effectively utilize new transportation funds, relieve traffic congostion, and improve air quality. RCTC ic in the procee~c of defining the CMP roadway ~y~t,gm which will at the basis for tecting and monitoring th~ performance of the CMP. All local juri~dictione will be re~ponsible~ for determining the impacts of local developmentAand tree decioiong on th~ CMP roadway system. Thi~ a~seo~m~nt must include the resultant impacts on C~IP system Leve~l of S~rvice (LOS g is standard) as well as co~t e~timates to mitigate the identified impacts. Only jurisdictions which have adopted a Transportation Uniform Mitigation CYUMF) would be e~x~mpt from the~ Deve~lopment Impact Study require~mentc. All jurisdictions within Rivereid8 County ~vitl be required to adopt and implement a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Ordinance (by September 1992) and develop a deficiency plan when Level of Service on the~ CMP syste~m falls below "E". Adoption and conformanco to transit performance~ standards will alto be u r~quirement of the CMP. Under the CMP cenformance and monitoring proce~, the Southern California A~sociation of Governments (SCAG) mu~t find the9 CMP consietent with the~ Regional Mobility Plan (RMP) and Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). Conformance with the CMP by local juri~ictions would facilitate qualifying for ~ligibility for new gas tax moni~ generated through Proposition 111 gas tax Proposition Ill legislation established a number of new requirements governing the State-wide process for planning and funding transportation improvements. Various mechanisms are provided through the legislation, for the maintenance and improvements of local roads and highways as well as the funding of mass transit (e.g. bus and rail transportation systems) and programs which relieve traffic congestion. The Congestion Management Program is a component of Proposition 111 which promotes measures aimed at managing growth including programs which most effectively utilize new .transportation- related funds, relieve traffic congestion, and improve air quality. TEM4)I~3GP-CIR. CUL · October 29, 1992 Page 3-3 CITY OF TEMECULA Circulation Element The Riverside County Transportation Commission is currently in the process of defining the County roadway system components which will become the official CMP roadway system. Traffic operating conditions on the CMP roadway network will serve as a basis for testing and monitoring how well the Congestion Management Program is performing. All local jurisdictions will be responsible for determining the impacts of local development/land use decisions on the CMP roadway system. This assessment must include the resultant impacts on CMP system Level of Service (LOS E is standard) as well as cog estimates to mitigate any identified impacts. Only jurisdictions which have adopted a Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) would be exempt from the Development Impact Study requirements. All jurisdictions within Riverside County will be required to adopt and implement a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Ordinance (by December 1992) and develop a deficiency plan when Level of Service on the CMP system falls below "E". Adoption and conformance to transit performance standards will also be a requirement of the Congestion Management Program. Under the Congestion Management Program conformance and monitoring process Southern California Association of Governments (SCA G) must find the program consistent with the Regional Mobility Plan (RMP) and Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). Local jurisdictions which conform with the Congestion Management requirements would be eligible for new transportation- related funds generated through Proposition 111 gas tax increases. 3. SCAG 1989 Air Quality Management Plan and Regional Mobility Plan The goal of this ~lan Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) 1989 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) is to set forth a 20-year action program for attainlnT, meeting improved the National ~m-biom Air Quality Standards in the South Coast Air Basin by the year 2007. Section 176 (c) of the Federal Clean Air Act states that metropolitan planning organizations (SCAG in the South Coast Air Basin) may not approve any proj~::t, program, or plan which dog not conform to the State Implementation Plan (SIP). The fedorally required Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP) is a seven year program of transportation projects for the geographic area which includes the South Coast Air Basin. The RTIP must be consistent with SCAG's Regional Moblilly Plan (RMP) as well as the approv~xt SIP in this region. Transportation projects included in the 1989 Regional Mobility Plan, by definition, meet the test of AQMP and SIP conformity for years 3 through 7 of the RTIP program. Conformity for years 1 and 2 of the RTIP program roquire special air quality analysis procedures to be performed on all transportation projects prior to their inclusion in the short range element of the RTIP. Federal and State funding for transportation projects cannot be obtained until these projects are included in the short range element (year 1 and 2) of the RTIP. TEM4}I\03GP-CIR.CUL · October 29, 1992 Page 3-4 ; , CITY OF TEMECULA Circulation Element The primary goal of the Regional Mobility Plan (RMP) is to ~ improve the transportation mobility levels cf 198~.. The RMP is part of an overall regional planning process and is linked directly to SCAG's Growth Management Plan, the Hous!ng Allocation Process, and the SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District's Air Quality Management Plan. The RMP consists of four separate elements: · Growth management · Transportation demand management · Transportation system management · Facilities development The intent of the RMP is to give priority to all transit (bus and rail) and ride sharing (HOV) projects over mixed flow highway capacity expansion projects. Transit and ridesharing facilities are exempt from conformity review. Some other projects exempt from conformity assessment include: Modification to ramps/interchanges Ramp metering projects Signals and/or interSection improvements Primary and Interstate system safety projects The active participation of local governments in transportation conformity is important to ensure that there is consistency between local general plans and the conformity criteria described in the regional Air Quality Management Plan (A QMP). All local jurisdictions are required to submit their new or updated general plans to SCAG for a conformity review with the AQMP/Ev.P. In order to b~ considered with the SIP, a A General Plan should include a program to implement, at the local/regional level, the transportation, land use, and energy conservation control measures contained in the AQMP. Once a local jurisdiction has established its General Plan to be consistent with the AQMP/E.vP, further conformity reviews would be limited to annual cumulative impact review performance. If the local jurisdiction General Plan is determined to be non-conforming, then the general plan would need to either be modified to bring it into conformance or the local jurisdiction would be required to submit environmental studies for all regionally significant general development projects to SCAG for review. 4. Caltrans District 8 Regional Transportation Strategies Plan This Caltrans District 8 document updated in October, 1991 is a key component of the District's long-range comprehensive transportation planning effort. The primary objective of the Regional Transportation Strategies Plan (RTSP) is to provide information concerning future trends and expected com.rnunity impacts and to develop a coordinated program to alleviate traffic congestion. TF~M-01~0:!GP42IR.CUL · October 29, 1992 Page 3-5 ~ J CITY OF TEMECULA Circulation Element In the past, new residential developments were someames designed in a manner which over-emphasized on-site circulation system efficiency. These layouts often resulted in local residential street continuity "through" the project. Although at the site level, the circulation system design appeared to be very efficient, little thought was given to the interaction of the on-site circulation system with the off-site system. More specifically, the potential for outside traffic using the continuous local residential streets within the project as "short cuts" was not considered. A better balance needs to be maintained between project circulation system efficiency and potential traffic impacts on residents. This needs to be given more consideration during project review. The efficiency of the future transportation system would be maximized through the provision of a well-balanced system which incorporates multiple modes of transportation as well as a program of Transportation System Management (TSM) and Transportation Demand Management (TDM) techniques. While some forms of transportation, such as fixed light rail transit, may not be economically feasible for some time, advanced planning in the form of corridor identification and right-of-way opportunities needs to be addressed in the very near future. The coordinated and timely implementation of roadway system improvements in the community has been lacking due to several factors including funding problems. The City should identify and develop alternative funding mechanisms to allow more control of implementation. Such alternatives could include: an Off-Site Road Fee Program for new development; additional Assessment/Community Facility Districts for improvements not included in existing Districts; gas tax revenues; and Measure A revenues. TEM~}lX03GP-CIR~CUL · October 29, 1992 Page 3-8 ,. CITY OF TEMECULA Circulation Element III. GOALS AND POLICIES Goal 1 Discussion Strive to maintain a Level of Service "D " or better at aH intersections within the City during peak hours and Level of Service "C" or better during non- peak hours. The level of service concept is defined as a qualitative measure describing operating conditions at an intersection or along a roadway segment. A level of service definition generally describes operating conditions in terms of factors such as speed, freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions, delay, comfort and convenience, and safety. Level of Service "D" is typically considered tolerable if limited to the peak hour periods when traffic flows are heaviest. The stated level of service goal serves as the foundation for providing a street network that moves people and goods safely and efficiently throughout the City while ensuring that traffic delays are kept to a minimum. Policy 1.1 Policy 1.2 Policy 13 Policy 1.4 Policy 1.5 Establish street standards and all new roadway facilities shall be constructed or upgraded to meet City standards where feasible. Require an ~ evaluation of potential traffic impacts associated with new development prior to project approval, and require adequate mitigation measures prior to, or concurrent with, project development. Use the Circulation Element Roadway Plan to guide detailed planning and implementation of the City's roadway system. Pursue trip reduction and transportation systems management measures to reduce and limit congestion at intersections and along streets within the City. Periodicall), Update every three years, or as needed, "build-out" traffic forecasts to monitor the impact of development approvals and the adequacy of the Circulation Element Roadway Plan. Goal 2 Enhance traffic safety on City streets. Discussion The safe operation of vehicular traffic on City streets is a concern of both City officials and residents of the community. The following policies are directed towards minimizing safety hazards and encouraging safer operating conditions on City streets. Policy 2.1 The City shall enforce speed restrictions throughout the City. TEM-OIxD~GP-CIR.CUL · October 29, 1992 Page 3-9 _- CITY OF TEMECULA Circulation Element Policy 2.2 Policy 23 Policy 2.4 Policy 2.5 Require that future roads and improvements to existing roads be designed to minimize traffic conflicts such as those which result from curb parking maneuvers and uncontrolled access along heavily traveled roadways. Require that the development of new private driveways do not introduce significant traffic conflicts along major streets and primary residential collectors roads. Require that vehicular and pedestrian traffic be separated to the maximum extent feasible. Establish an ongoing maintenance program to ensure the safety of the City's roadway system. Goal 3 A regional transportation system that accommodates the safe and efficient movement of people and goods to and from the community. Discussion Future development within the City will create additional travel between Temecula and other population and employment centers within the region. Special efforts will be needed to adequately and efficiently provide for regional travel demand. Policy 3.1 Support the completion of the Riverside County Master Plan of Arterial Highways. Policy 3.2 Actively pursue the construction of a new interchange north of Winchester Road and other recommended system improvements outside th~ City limits its jurisdiction in cooperation with Caltrans, the City of Murrieta, and Riverside County, and local developers. Measures should be taken to preserve anticipated right-of-way needs and to identify funding mechanisms for the interchange improvement. Policy 3.3 Actively pursue the improvements to existing interchanges within the City and construction of new overpasses as required to achieve the adopted service level standards. Policy 3.4 Coordinate with the Riverside Transit Agency to provide fixed route transit service (bus or shuttle) along major transportation corridors connecting to regional employment and commercial areas, airports, health care facilities, and major recreation areas. Policy 3.5 Provide for express transit service through implementation of park-and-ride facilities along regional transportation corridors. TEM-01~JGP<~IR.CUL · October 29, 1992 Page 3-10 CITY OF TEMECULA Circulation Element Policy 4.6 Policy 4.7 Policy 4.8 Policy 4.9 PoHcy 4.10 Policy 4.11 Provide a comprehensive system of Class I and/or Class II bicycle lanes to meet the needs of eyelist traveling to and from work and other destinations within the City. Encourage a oomplimantary mix of uses within a project designed to maximize internal trip making, maximize the use of parking facilities, and to promote a shift from auto use to pedestrian and bicycle modes of travel. Encourage the provision of additional regional public transportation services and support facilities, including park-and-ride lots near the 1-15 freeway and within village centers. Rsquir$ all major non r~idential and mixed uso projocm with high traffic g~nsration potential to dsv~lop a trawl d~mand management plan. which can bo impt~msnt~d by tho project t~nants Require transportation demand management plans to be submitted for preliminary review at the Specific Plan or Plot Plan stage of site development and submitted for final approval prior to the issuance of building permits, in accordance with the City's Transportation Demand Management Ordinance. Encourage the implementation of employer Travel Demand Management (TDM) requirements included in the Southern California Air Quality Management District's Regulation 15 of the Air Quality Management Plan. The City shall establish a local Congestion Management Plan and monitor the performance and effectiveness of travel demand management programs within the City. Goal 5 Discussion An adequate supply of private and public parking to meet the needs of residents and visitors to the City. The need for adequate private and public parking is fundamental to good community planning. A shortage of parking can cause circulation problems and loss of business activity. Zoning ordinances which specify the minimum parking requirements for various types of land uses should be periodically updated to respond to the dynamics of trip generation and parking characteristics throughout the City. As the City develops it will become increasingly important to provide adequate off-street parking in non-residential areas to minimize the disruption to traffic flows caused by curbside parking activity along heavily traveled streets. Policy 5.1 Enforce City parking ordinances and standard design requirements which apply. TEM~]IX0:3GP-CIR. CUL · October 29, 1992 Page 3-12 CITY OF TEMECULA Circulation Element Policy 5.2 Policy 5.3 Policy 5.4 Policy 5.5 Policy 5.6 Policy 5.~-6 Require the consolidation of parking, and related circulation facilities, where appropriate, to minimize the number of ingress and egress points onto arterials. Provide additional public parking in the Old Town area where feasible through common parking ~ areas or establishment of a parking district. Require project developers to provide adequate on-site parking and/or to contribute to a program to acquire and maintain off-site facilities. Encourage underground parking or parking structures where economically feasible in commercial areas. Establish a parking district in Old Town arsa. Encourage joint development of parking facilities (e.g. joint-use of parking facilities) where feasible to maximize the efficient use of available parking. Goal 6 Safe and efficient alternatives to motorized travel throughout the City. Discussion The successful promotion of alternative modes of transportation such as bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian modes require that facilities which support these modes provide convenient access and are designed in a manner which promotes safety. Policy 6.1 Promote the safety of pedestrians and bicyclist by adhering to uniform trail standards and practices and communicating safety practices to the public. Policy 6.2 Off-street bicycle and equestrian trails should minimize the number of locations where automobile cross traffic will be experienced. Policy 6.3 Ensure accessibility of pedestrian facilities to the elderly and disabled Policy 6.4 Traffic signals located along bike routes and where significant pedestrian activity is present shah be properly timed and periodically adjusted to allow for the safe movement of these non-motorized modes. Policy 6.5 Adequate linkages shah be provided for non-motorized modes, between residential areas and commercial/employment activity centers, public institutions, and recreation areas. TEM~}Ix,03GP~IR, CUL · Ottobelt 29, 1992 Page 3-13 CITY OF TEMECULA Circulation Element Policy 6.6 Motorized vehicles and motorized cycles shah be prohibited from using the City's recreation trail system. Goal 7 A truck circulation system that provides for the safe and efficient transport of commodities and also minimizes noise, air pollution and traffic impacts to the City. Pollcy Z1 Designate primary truck routes on selected arterial streets to minimize the impacts of truck traffic on residential areas. Policy 7.2 Require loading areas and access ways for trucks that minimize or eliminate conflicts with automotive and pedestrian areas to maintain safe and efficient traffic circulation. TEM-OI~03GP-CIR.CUL · October 29, 1992 Page 3-14 CITY OF TEMECULA Circulation Element IV. CIRCULATION PLAN The Circulation Plan developed for the City of Temecula has been designed to meet the following objectives: To provide adequate capacity to accommodate the travel needs resulting from the General Plan Land Use Element as well as from anticipated development in adjacent Riverside County and City of Murrieta areas; and · To maintain a positive quality of life in Temecula. The proposed Cimulation Plan for the City of Temecula and Sphere of Influence and Area ~ Sphere/Area of Interest is illustrated in Figure 3-1. Figure 3 1 depicts the recommended circulation system for areas outside the City and Sphere and illustrates the continuity and interaction of the City's Circulation Plan with the surrounding circulation system,. Figures illustrating the planned continuity and interaction of the City's Circulation Plan with the surrounding circulation system are included in the General Plan EIR Appendix, Volume III. A. Principal Plan Features While all components of the Circulation Plan are important, some of the Plan features are being highlighted in this section. These features have been selected based on one or more factors: · The facility serves as a primary traffic carrying arterial within the City; The facility represents a significant change from the previous SWAP Circulation Element; and/or · The facility/corridor includes special design features or serves a special function. The principal features of the Circulation Plan include: Designation of Winchester Road, east of Jefferson Avenue, as an "access restricted" Urban Arterial with special added easements reserved for future transit or travel demand management use. Designation of State Route 79 (south), east of 1-15, as an "access restricted" Urban Arterial to Butterfield Stage Road and an "access restricted" Arterial east of Butterfield Stage Road. Designation of Butterfield Stage Road as an "access restricted" Arterial north of State Route 79 (south) except for the segment between Nicolas Road and Borel Road which would be an "access restricted" Urban Arterial. TEM-OB03GP-CIRCUL · October 29, 1992 Page 3-15 TYPICAL ROADWAY CROSS SECTIONS URIlAN AERIAL HIGHWAy (8-LANE) 134' ROW UF~&N ARTERIAL HIGHWAy (6-LANE) 14' - MAJOR HIGHWAY SFCO NDARY HIGHWAy '4"' 78' ROW "'T" 11' 56* 11' i PRINCIPAL COLI FCTOR HIGHSNAY General Plan Program CITY OF TEMECULA Circulation Element VI. GLOSSARY OF TERMS AQMP (Air Quality Management Plan): A comprehensive policy document that delineates goals, policies, pollution reduction strategies, and implementation responsibilities for improving air quality in the South Coast Air Basin. CIP: Capital lmprovement plan. CMA (Congestion Management Agency): A long-range comprehensive transportation planning document prepared by Caltrans District 8. CMP (Congestion Management Program): A program overseen by the Riverside County Transportation Commission which promotes growth management policies, development of mass transit, traffic congestion relief programs and improved air quality throughout Riverside County. HOV (High Occupancy Vehicle): Used to describe special lanes on freeways and other roadways which are reserved for carpool vehicles and buses. LOS (Level of Service): A qualitative measure of traffic operating conditions. Level of Service range from A (free-flow conditions with no congestion) to F (gridlock conditions with severe congestion). RCTC (Riverside County Transportation Commission): A commission appointed by Riverside County to administer the Measure A Transportation Improvement Program. RCTC has also been designated by Riverside County as the Congestion Management Agency responsible for preparation and implementation of the County's Congestion Management Program. RMP (Regional Mobility Plan): A comprehensive policy document prepared by the Southern California Association of Governments which consists o f four elementsmgrowth management, transportation demand management, transportation system management, and transportation facilities development. RTIP: Regional Transportation Improvement Plan RTSP (Regional Transportation Strategies Plan): A long-range comprehensive transportation planning document prepared by Caltrans District 8. SCAG (Southern California Association of Governments): The metropolitan planning organization for the six-county region which includes Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ventura Counties. SWAP (Southwest Area Plan): The land use/circulation plan developed by Riverside County for the southwest portion of Riverside County. The currently incorparated Cities of Temecula and Murrieta make up a large portion of the S.outhwest Area Plan. TEM-OI~D3GP-CIR. CUL · October 29, 1992 Page 3-30 CITY OF TEMECULA Circulation Element TDM (Transportation Demand Management) : Themanagement(reduction) of vehicular traffic generation through measures which promote carpooling, use of alternative modes of transportation and staggered work hours or fiex time (which reduce trips during traffic periods). TSM (Transportation System Management): Involves low-cost measures which maximize the efficiency of the local roadway system (e.g. intersection improvements, smart signal systems, completion of missing links or bottlenecks, etc.). TUMF (Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee): A standardized fee schedule applied to new development for the purpose of mitigating development related traffic impacts. Fees collected under this type of mitigation program are used to implement areawide transportation improvement. TEM-0B03GP-CIR.CUL · October 29, 1992 Page 3-31 -~ Chapter Tv~o LAND USE CITY OF TEMECULA Land Use Element there is a need to ensure that as infill or rouse occurs, the role and character of Old Town is preserved and enhanced. The City has initiated the preparation of a specific plan for Old Town which is scheduled to be completed in the Fall of 1992. The Specific Plan will address future land use and design, as well as issues related to road improvements, parking, and flood control. D. Proposed Specific Plans The General Plan Study Area includes some 34 square miles of unincorporated territory. Within this area are approximately nine proposed specific plans, which when developed, will have a direct impact on the City in terms of traffic, noise, the demand for community facilities, the demand for employment and commercial activities, and other impacts. It is the City's desire to annex many of these proposed developments prior to or concurrent with project approvals, in order to exercise control over the use, quality and design of development, and the public facilities and amenities provided. Several of the specific plans will be approved by the County of Riverside and built under the County's jurisdiction. Therefore, inter-governmental coordination with the County and the City of Murrieta to influence projects to the benefit of bath the City of Temecula, City of Murrieta, and the County, is strongly needed. E. Land Use Compatibility Compatibility between adjacent land uses is essential to achieve a safe, efficient, and well-organized community. The issues involved in examining the compatibility of proposed projects includes traffic generation, access locations, noise impacts, public service demands, site design and visual appearance, and public safety. Land use compatibility is expected to become a greater issue as the community builds out and commercial/employment uses locate nearer residential areas. Residents want adequate buffering from non-residential uses in terms of light, noise, traffic impacts and negative visual impacts. Compati'bility between residential projects of different densities is also a major concern. The development of standard single family subdivisions within rural residential areas or adjacent to the wine country for example, can negatively impact the overall character of the area. Site design that involves a gradual transition of densities within a project or an adequate open space buffer ,.,.,ill should be important considerations in future residential projects. F. Community Facilities Residents of the City of Temecula desire community facilities or gathering areas that provide for social, civic-related, cultural and recreational opportunities. The development of such facilities can foster civic pride and enhance the City's identity. Most of the existing commercial areas lack adequate public places or plazas to accommodate cultural and social events. The commercial development in Temecula also needs a broader range of uses that creates day and evening activity areas. Furthermore, the City lacks large-scale commercial recreation opportunities such as an amusement park, stadium, concert hall or performing arts center. It is important that TEM.01X02OP-LND,USE · Draft Date: October 28, 1992 Page 2-7 CITY OF TEMECULA Land Use Element IlL GOALS AND POLICIES Goal 1 A complete and integrated mix of residential, commercial, industrial, recreational, ~n_J public and open space land uses. Discussion A well-balanced community provides a broad range of land uses that are planned in desirable patterns and intensities. By providing for a balanced mixture of land uses, the City can achieve a suitable inventory of housing for a range of income groups, a viable commercial and employment base for residents and surrounding communities, ample open space and recreational opportunities, and adequate public facilities and services. Policy 1.1 Review all proposed development plans for consistency with the community goals, policies and implementation programs of this General Plan. Policy 1.2 Promote the use of innovative site planning techniques that contribute towards the development of a variety of residential product styles and designs including housing suitable to the community's labor force. Policy 1.3 Require the development of unified or clustered community-level and neighborhood-level commercial centers and discourage development of strip commercial uses. Policy 1.4 Consider the impacts on surrounding land uses and infrastructure when reviewing proposals for new development. Policy 1.5 Support the development of light industrial, manufacturing, research and development, and office uses to diversify Temecula's economic base. Policy 1.6 Provide well defined zoning and development standards and procedures to guide private sector planning and development. Policy 1.7 Require the preparation of specific plans as designated on the Land Ur, e Plan Specific Plan Overlay to achieve the comprehensive planning and phasing of development and infrastructure. Policy 1.8 Consider taking the lead on preparing specific plans for areas designated on the Land Use Plan that have multiple landowners. Policy 1.9 Encourage planned unit developments flexible zoning techniques in appropriate locations to preserve natural features, achieve innovate site design, provide open space and recreation facilities, and to provide necessary amenities and facilities. TEM-01~02GP-LND.USE · Draft Date: October .28, 1992 Page 2-9 CITY OF TEMECULA Land Use Element Policy 4.4 Policy 4.5 Policy 4.6 Policy 4.7 Work with the utility districts to develop a trail system and enhance the natural resources a!ong the San Diego Aqueduct, creeks, and other utility easements where feasible. Work with the Riverside County Flood Control District and other responsible agencies on the design of the flood control project for Murrieta Creek, Temecula Creek, Pechanga Creek, and other waterways in the City. Consider alternative flood control methods to reduce capital and maintenance costs and provide recreational and open space opportunities. Conserve the resources of Pechanga, Temecula and Murrieta Creeks through appropriate densities of development, setbacks, landscaping, and site design of surrounding projects. Goal 5 Discussion Policy A land use pattern and intensity of development that encourages alternative modes of transportation, including transit, bicycling, and walking. Future levels of traffic congestion within the community will be influenced by the land use pattern. The level of congestion can affect the convenience of walking, biking, using a shuttle or bus service, or a fixed rail system that links Temecula to other communities. The architecture, landscape design, and site planning of projects should emphasize a pedestrian orientation and convenient access between uses, to support alternative transit methods. 5.1 Include in the Development Code and !hrough other ordinances a package of incentives to encourage development to include: 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. E. 9. 10. 11. 12. Additional active parkland Development of parkland and trails Preservation of historic buildings or sites Additional open space Preservation and enhancement of natural habitat Additional public or community facilities Additional or improved public spaces or plazas for community use. Art in public places Additional amenities in multifamily developments Transit facilities and/or additional right-of-way along future transit corridors. Housing that meets the needs of very low and low income households. Provision of cultural facilities. TEM-01X02GP-L.ND.USE · Draft Date: October .28, 1992 Page 2-12 CITY OF TEMECULA Land Use Element IV. LAND USE PLAN The Land Use Element defines the location and general standards for future development in the Study Area. The Study Area includes the incorporated city of Temecula, its adopted Sphere of Influence and an additional Area of Interest. Although the City does not have land use authority over the Sphere and Area of Interest, the City intends to utilize the Land Use Element and other elements of the General Plan to review development and annexation proposals within these unincorporated areas. The geographic locations of specific land uses are presented on the Land Use Plan (Figure 2-1). The Land Use Plan, in conjunction with the policies of the General Plan, are intended to reflect local and regional growth trends, provide a sufficient jobs to housing balance, provide retail and services close to housing, and provide adequate open space for recreation and the protection of important environmental and aesthetic resources. The Land Use Plan shows the arrangement of land uses at the time the City is fully matured. It does not suggest anything about the timing of development. Some projects are currently under development, others are currently being planned and are expected to be built in the next ten years. Based on current market trends, some land uses are not anticipated to be fully developed for the next 20 to 40 years. The timing of future development will impact infrastructure and services, the fiscal stability of the City, the circulation system and other aspects of the community which are considered in the policies and programs of the other General Plan elements. The Land Use Plan provides for a range of 27,853 to 51,555 dwelling units in the City and between 20,654 and 40,217 dwelling units in the Sphere of Influence at buildout (Table 2-2). The target or probable number of dwelling units within the City and Sphere of Influence is 39,658 and 28,854, respectively. Based on a factor of 2.83 persons per household, the number of dwelling units at the target density equates to a projected population of 112,254 persons in the City and 2-8;g-54 81,655 persons in the Sphere of Influence (Table 2-3). The Land Use Plan also provides for an anticipated 570 acres of Community Commercial uses, 520 acres of Professional Office uses, and 1,611 acres of Business Park uses within the City. Employment uses within the Sphere of Influence are primarily located around the French Valley Airport. Approximately 1,005 acres of Business Park and 337 acres of Neighborhood, Community and Highway Commercial uses are anticipated in the Sphere of Influence. Approximately 14 percent (2,318 acres) of the City and 27 percent (2,350 acres) of the Sphere of Influence are devoted to Open Space/Recreation uses. Such uses include: parkland, golf courses, steep slopes, open space for unique and sensitive resources, hazardous fault zones, and waterways. Additional public parkland and open space is anticipated to be provided as projects are planned and approved. Tables 2-4, 2-5 and 2-6 provide a comparison of the Land Use Plan to existing uses in the City, Sphere of Influence, and Area of Interest, respectively, as of Winter, 1991. TEM-OI',D2Gp-LND.USE · Draft Date: October :28, 1992 Page 2-16 CITY OF TEMECULA Land Use Element Table 2-4 City of Temecula Land Use Comparison Between Existing Uses (Winter 1991) Land Use . . ...,,,.,..,...~:.. ,..: ,,.. ~....:...'7',..'7..7..'' '. ..,_. Higt~ Density (14-20 du/ac) Total Cornmumty Commercial Highway/Tourist & Service Commercial4 Office Business Park/Industrial Public/Institutional Open Space/Agriculture(acres) Total and General Plan Land Uses (Dwelling Units/Aercs) Existing ' Land Use Conditionsx Plans Change in Dwelling Units ,11 ac 121 ac 171 ac 570 ac I 44 ac 309 ac 145 ac 520 ac 224 ac 1,611 ac 229 ac 641 ac 1,392 ac 2,318 ac 2,246 ac 6,090 ac Change in Acres 80 ac ' 399 ac 265 ac 375 ac 1,387 ac 412 ac 926 ac 3,844 ac H.utd on pn:~able level of development - target density/intensity. Hillside/Low includes Hillside, Very LOw and Lt3w General Plan designations; Low/Medium refers to Low Medium and Medium General Plan designations. High Density is High General Plan designation. Includes Highway/'Tounst Cornmerc~aJ and Service Commercial General Pian Designations. TEM-01x~2GP-LBD.USE * Draft Date: October 28, 1992 Page 2-20 CITY OF TEMECULA Land Use Element Table 2-5 Sphere of Influence Land Use Comparison Between Existing Uses (Winter 1991) Land Use RESIDENTIAl] Hi:Isidc/Low Density (.!-2 Low/Medium Density (2-14 du/ac) High Density (14-20 du/ac) Total and General Plan Land Uses Dwelling Units/Acres) Existing Conditionst Land Use Plan Change in Dwelling Units 515 du 2310 cu 2,195 du 0 da ~ c, tv.? ,~,, ~ nn"? 22,993 du 22,993 du 0 du 3,151 du 3,151 du 28,854 du 28,339 du NON-RESIDENTIAL Ne:gnborkood Cornmere:a; 0 ac 30 Community Commercial 0 ac 190 ac Highway/Tourist & Service Commercial3 0 ac 137 ac Office 0 ac 53 ac Business Parlqlndnstrial 0 ac 1,005 ac Public/Institutional 205 ac 512 ac Open Space/Agriculture(acres) 0 ac 2,350 ac Total 205 ac 4,277 ac Acre~ munded~f[ to the nearest whole number. 2 Change in Acres 30 ac 90 ac 137 ac 53 ac 1,005 ac 307 ac 2,350 ac 4,072 ac Hillside/Low includes Hillside, Very Low and LOw General Plan designations: Low/Medium refers to Low Medium and Medium General Plan designations. High Density is High General Plan designation. Includes Highwayf tourist Commercial and Service Commercial General Plan Designalions. TEM-01',02GP-LND.USE · Draft Date: October 2&' 1992 Page 2-21 CITY OF TEMECULA Land Use Element Table 2-6 Area of Interest Land Use Comparison Between Existing Uses (Winter 1991) and General Plan Land Uses (Dwelling Unit~A~rec) Land Use Low Dcn~;ty (.:-2 d:t. ac) Existing Conditions Land Use planz Low/Medium Density (2-14 du/ac) High Density (14-20 du/ac) Change in Dwelling Units , tv.~ ,.. (527)-4u 1,592 du ........... 1,273 du (319~ du 672 du ~,~ii ~" ~ ran ~,, 7,633 du 6,961 du 0 du ~ ~n¢ .4.. 1,105.4.. 1,881 du 1,881 du Total 2,264 du ~ .,o, a.. A ~,., A_ 10,787 du 8,523 du NON-RF'SII) ENTI,~I. · (~t~rum:.":ily Ct;:rm'.'rc:a~ 0 ac ~ i0 at: · ; Higl:v. ay'rtu,s: & Se."vtcc (;~>n'.mcrc:a;" 25 ac 8 ac. Of~ce 0 ac 19 ac Business Park/Industrial 0 ac 149 ac Public/Institutional 0 ac 37 ac Open Space/Agxiculmre(acres) 76 ac 260 ac Total 101 ac 592 ac Change in Acres : |(] ac ( '." ac'~ ,. 19 ac 149 ac 37 ac 184 ac 491 ac 2 Based on probable level ot development - target density/intensity. 3 Hillside/Low includes Hillside, Very Low and Low General Plan designations; Low/Medium refers 1o Low Medium and Medium General Plan designations. High Density is High General Plan designation. 4 Include5 Highway/Tourist COmmercial and Service COmmercial General Plan Designations. TEM-01~2GP-LND.USE · Draft Date: October 28, 1992 Page 2-22 CITY OF TEMECULA Land Use Element A. Land Use Designations Land use designations define the amount, type and nature of development that is allowed in a given location on the Land Use Plan. While terms like "residential", "commercial", and "industrial" are generally understood, State General Plan law requires a clear and concise description of the land use designations or categories shown on the Land Use Plan. In addition, population and intensity standards must be specified in accordance with State General Plan law. Based upon the land use designations of the General Plan, specific zoning districts will be established in the Development Code. There may be one or more zoning districts for each land use designation. The Development Code will contain the detailed regulations and requirements for permitted uses and development standards to implement the goals and policies of the Land Use Element. 1. Residential Designations Each of the residential use categories includes a range of allowable densities. The maximum density defines the maximum number of units per net acre at which development can occur within a given area. Net acre is defined as the gross project or lot area, less that portion of the site to be used for the following: arterial, major, secondary and collector roads; and the floodway portion of a flood plain. Determination of precise density, development location, and lot coverage on any residential property is a function of: Opportunities and constraints presented by natural, cultural or scenic features; Policies and implementation programs. of the General Plan intended to maximize public safety; achieve high quality site planning and design; provide sufficient levels of public sewice; retain significant natural resources; ensure compatibility between uses; and encourage development of Village Centers. Building and development standards contained in the Development Code, pubic works standards, and other regulations and ordinances. Future residential development is expected to occur at the target level of density stated in Table 2-7 for each residential designation. Development at a density between the target and maximum level may only occur for the Hillside, Very Low, Low and Low Medium designations, at the discretion of the Planning Commission/City Council in exchange for special public benefits (as identified in Policy 5.1). v,'hieh The amenities or public benefits provided are intended to satisfy a need over and above the minimum requirements of the General Plan and other city policies and regulations. It is assumed that some residential development will occur below the target level of density and some development TEM-OIX02GP~L.ND.USE · Draft Date: October .28, 1992 Page 2-23 CITY OF TEMECULA Land Use Element will occur above the target level based on the provision of public amenities or benefits. For purposes of analyzing the impacts of the General Plan, the target level of density for the above identified designations is assumed. A target level of density is not established for the Medium and High designations so as not to preclude or discourage the development of affordable housing. However, for purposes of analyzing the impacts of the General Plan, a probable level of development within the Medium and High designations is assumed. Table 2-7 Development Intensity/Density Standards Target Intensity/ Land Use Designation Density2 RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS/ACRE Hillside .1 Very Low .3 Low 12, Low Medium 4.5 Medium 9.5 High 16.5 NON-RESIDENTIAL FLOOR ARF_A RATIO Neighborhood Commercial .25 Community Commercial .30 Highway/Tourist Commercial .30 Service Commercial .30 Office .50 Business Park .40 Public/I~titutional .30 Range of Development Intensity/Densityx DWELLING UNITS/ACRE 0 - .1 DU/AC MAX .2 - .4 DU/AC MAX .5 - 2 DU/AC MAX 3 - 6 DU/AC MAX 7 - 12 DU/AC MAX 13 - 20 DU/AC MAX .20 - .40 FAR .25 - 1.0 FAR .25 - 1.0 FAR .25 - 1.5 FAR .30 - 1.0 FAR .30-1.5 FAR .20 - .70 FAR Range of allowable level of development on individual parcels of land. Assumed overall level of development City-wide. Since the developmenl which has occurred to date has not reached the m~ximum allowed level of density or intensity, future developsanne is expected to be less than the maximum on a City-wide basis. Therefore. a 'target" level of density/intensity is used in projecting total future development6~:. ::.~:). In addiXion, the target for Hillside, Very Low, Low, and Low Medium designations eaablichtr a ceiling wahin the range which cannot be exceeded without Planning Commission/City Council approval in exchange for spec,'~l public bentfat (its identified in Policy 5.1). Residential uses are intended to be the principal and dominant use within each of the residential designations. Other uses such as public facilities/utilities, churches, schools, agriculture, community care and family day care facilities (as defined in the California Health and Safety Code), which are determined to be compatible with residential areas may also be allowed in accordance with the Development Code. TEM-OIM)2GP-LND.USE * Draft Date: Oaober .28, 1992 Page 2-24 CITY OF TEMECULA Land Use Element The Land Use Plan provides for six residential designations as defined below. Hillside Residential (0 - .1 Dwelling Unit per Acre Maxhnum) The Hillside Residential category is intended to provide for the development of very low density housing in areas that are best suited for open space or have severe constraints for development, such as steep hillsides with slopes over twenty-five percent, limited access and public services, fire hazards and other environmental concerns. The typical lot size for the Hillside Residential designation is 10 acres with one dwelling unit permitted per lot, however, clustering of development may be appropriate to minimize grading requirements and impacts to environmentally sensitive areas. Very Low/Rural Density Residential (.2 - .4 Dwelling Units per Acre Maximum) The Very Low Density designation is intended to provide for the development of single family detached homes on large lots with a rural ranchette character of development. This designation is also consistent with large lot residences that keep horses and other animals, or utilize a portion of the land for agricultural production. Typical lot sizes are 2.5 acres, however, clustering of development may be appropriate to minimize grading requirements and impacts to environmentally sensitive areas. c. Low Density Residential (.5 - 2 Dwelling Units per Acre Maximum) The Low Density designation is intended to provide for the development of single family detached homes on larger lots with a custom character of development. Typical lots size may be .5 to 2.0 acres, however, clustering. of development may be appropriate to minimize grading requirements and impacts to environmentally sensitive areas. Low Medium Density Residential (3 - 6 Dwelling Units per Acre Maximum) The Low Medium Density designation is intended to provide for typical single-family neighborhoods. The range of housing types includes single family detached, single family zero lot line, patio homes and duplexes. Congregate care facilities could be approved as a conditional use in accordance with the provisions of the Development Code. e. Medium Density Residential (7 - 12 Dwelling Units per Acre Maximum) The Medium Density Residential designation is intended to provide for the development of attached and detached residential develop. ment. Typical housing types may include single family zero lot line, patio homes, TEM-01~0213P-LND. USE· Draft Date: October 2.8, I992 Page 2-25 CITY OF TEMECULA Land Use Element duplexes, townhouses, and multi-family garden apartments. Congregate care facilities couM be approved as a conditional use in accordance with the provisions of the Development Code. f. Higher Density Residential (13 - 20 Dwelling Units per Acre Maximum) The High Density designation is intended to provide for the development of attached residential developments. Typical housing types include multi- family or garden apartments. Congregate care facilities couM be approved as a conditional use in accordance with the provisions of the Development Code. Increases in the density for congregate care may be allowed under special provisions of the Development Code. These residential designations allow for a wide range of housing types as illustrated below in Figure 2-2. The housing types that may be built within each General Plan residential designation is shown in Table 2-8. TEM4II~O2Gp-LND.USE · Draft Date: October 28, 1992 Page 2-26 CITY OF TEMECULA Land Use Element Figure 2-2 Description of Housing Types 'lN~pcial Single Family Detached Single-Family Detached · One hou.~ (unit) pet lot - · Each House amt Lot individually owned a yud on ~hte~ side~ of bo~ · Permi~ mote usable sideyard, smaller lots and · Tyl~cal Densities range born 6 to 8 dwelling units per acre · Has greatut flexibility on lot con~guralion Angled Zero Lot Line Narrow Zero Lot Line Single Family Detached Single,Family--Zero Lot Line Wide & Shallow Single Family Detached TEM-OI~02GP-LND.USE · Draft Date: Octolgr 7..8, 1992 Page 2-27 CITY OF TEMECULA Land Use Element Figure 2-2 Description of Housing Types (Continued) Patio Home Cluster Single-Family Patio Duplex Duplex Duplex with swing-in garage TEM-01MI2GP-LND.tJS~" Draft Date: October 2.8, 1992 Page 2-28 CITY OF TEMECULA Land Use Element Figure 2-2 Description of Housing Types (Continued) Attaelmi Slngk Fanally - Townhouse · A housing sv/ie with each unit having two stode~ and usunily attached with othcr units by common walls · Each unit anti lot may be in~ividueliy owned · Usually ineludes common open speces owned by a Home Owners Assdziatima · ~rpicni Densities may range from 8 to 12 dwelling Units per acze Multiple Family (Garden Units) · Units grouped within tmilthnge which are usually two to four stones in height facilities are t,,~ped ned maintained " Garden Apartments Multiple-Family/Garden Apartment TIg~.eVe2GP-L.ND.USE · Draft Date: October 28, 1992 Page 2*29 CITY OF TEMECULA Land Use Element Figure 2-2 Description of Housing Types (Continued) Mobile Home Lot Angled Mobile Home Lot Mobile Home Table 2-8 General Plan Residential Densities/Housing Type Correlation Housing Type Single-Family Detached Single-Family Zero Lot Line Single-Family Patio Duplex Townhouse Multiple-Family/Garden Aparunent Mobile Home Hillside .I DU/AC Very Low .4 DU/AC LoW 2 DU/AC Low-Med. 6 DU/AC Medium 12 DU/AC High 20 DU/AC TEM-01~02Gp-L.ND.USE · Draft Date: October 2.8, 1992 Page 2-30 CITY OF TEMECULA Land Use Element c. Highway/Tourist Commercial (Floor Area Ratio of .25 to 1.0) The Highway/Tourist Commercial designation is intended to provide for those uses that are located adjacent to major transportation routes and may be oriented to the needs of tourists and recreation enthusiasts. Highway/Tourist Commercial development should be located at appropriate locations, and developed as clusters of commercial development rather than as shallow commercial frontage along major streets. Typical uses may include tourist accommodations and lodging facilities, automobile service stations, restaurants, convenience stores, gift shops, and entertainment centers. The facilities should be well-landscaped and provide an attractive visual image. d. Service Conunerciai (Floor Area Ratio of .5 to 1.5) The Service Commercial designation is intended to provide for commercial uses that typically require extensive floor area. Typical uses include home improvement stores, discount retail stores, furniture stores, and auto dealerships and light automotive service. Warehousing and manufacturing may be incidental uses within a business that is consistent with the Service Commercial designation. e. Business Park (Floor Area Ratio of .4 to 1.5) It is the intent of the Business Park designation to develop well designed business and employment centers that offer attractive and distinctive architectural design, innovative site planning, and substantial landscaping and visual quality. Typical uses may include professional offices, research and development, laboratories, light manufacturing, storage, industrial supply, and wholesale businesses. The development of mixed-use projects including compatible/complementary mixtures of office, support commercial, residential, and services, is allowed through the Planned Development Overlay process of the Development Code. f. Professional Office (Floor Area Ratio of .3 to 1.0) The Professional Office designation includes primarily single or multi-tenant offices and may include supporting uses. Office developments are intended to include low rise offices situated in a landscaped garden arrangement and may include mid-rise structures at appropriate locations. Typical uses include legal, design, engineering or medical offices, corporate and governmental offices, and community facilities. Supporting convenience retail and personal service commercial uses may be permitted to serve the needs of the on-site employees. The development of mixed-use projects including compatible/complementary mixtures of office, support commercial, residential, and services, is allowed through the Planned Development Overlay process of the Development Code. TEM-OI~2(~p-LND.USE · Draft Date: October ;28, 1992 Page 2-33 CITY OF TEMECULA Land Use Element g. Open Space/Recreation (Floor Area Ratio of .01 to .1) The Open Space/Recreation designation includes both public and private areas of permanent open space inoluding looalfor such uses as: parks, golf courses and floodways along Murriota, Temecula and Peehanga crooks. recreation facilities, natural open space, recreation Wails, greenbelts, lakes, utility easements, active fault zones, and undevelopable portions of floodplains along waterways. This designation is intended to include lands acquired by 6 easement, fee and other methods sanctioned by state and federal law for parkland, for preservation of biological and cultural resources, and for protecting public safety from flood, seismic and other hazards. Only accessory buildings or those structures related to parks and recreation facilities are intended for open space lands. under the City'$ jurisdiction. This designation may also accommodate certain commercial outdoor recreation uses as a conditional use in accordance with the Development Code. h. Public and Institutional Facilities (Floor Area Ratio of .4 to .7) The public and institutional facilities designation i,w,t-udes is intended for a wide range of public and private uses including schools, transportation facilities, government offices, public utilities, libraries, museums, public art galleries, hospitals, and cultural facilities. To the extent possible, public and institutional facilities should be clustered in activity centers to reinfome other uses and benefit from access to alternative modes of transportation. The public/institutional uses designated on the Land Use Plan are either existing facilities or planned uses based on the best available information. Additional public and institutional uses, including churches and daycare facilities, may be developed in the residential or non-residential land use designations under' the procedures established in the Development Code. B. Village Center Overlay - Conceptual Boundaries A primary concept of the General Plan is to promote the development of special Village Centers, with an urban character, at key locations in the City. These centers will help to provide a sense of place and focal points for community activity. The location of the Village Centers are shown on a separate map which is an overlay to the Land Use Plan (Figure 2-4). The overlay defines the conceptual boundaries of future Village Centers. This map is not intended to preclude the creation of other Village Centers within the Study Area, should they be deemed appropriate by the City. The Village Centers are intended to contain a concentration and mixture of compatible uses including retail, office, public facilities, recreation uses and housing, designed to encourage non-automotive modes of transportation. In addition, each Village Center should have design guidelines and development standards to ensure a cohesiveness in development. Several Village Centers are designated within proposed specific plans TEM-OI',O2Gp-LND.USE · Draft Date: October 2,8, 1992 Page 2-34 SPECIFIC PLAN AREAS ~Approved Specific Plan Areas Proposed Specific Plan Areas Not~: Scc nam~ of Sg~c Plan General Plan Program '[~E~ THE PLANNING CENTER FIGURE 27 CITY OF TEMECULA Land Use Element D. Special Study Overlay The Special Study Overlay designation is intended for those areas in the community that require a comprehensive, detailed evaluation of development opportunities and constraints. The City of Temecula will lead the preparation of a special study for the Chaparral area and Nicolas Valley area as shown on Figure 2-6. The land use designations identt)eied on the Land Use Plan are based on existing lot patterns, access constraints, la~k of infrastructure, topography, and other considerations. The purpose of the special study is to recommend any changes to General Plan land uses based on a detailed evaluation of the following: the provision of flood control, sewer, water and other services; impacts on surrounding development in terms of traffic, light, noise, and other impacts; methods to provide a transition between rural and suburban/urban development; topography and related visual impacts of development; existing lot patterns; traffic circulation and impacts on level of service; vegetation and willlife resources; and the provision of recreation trails and open space linkages. The special study(s) shoull also identUy a strategy for financing and phasing of infrastructure and other public improvements. Future development must be consistent with the adopted recommendations of the special study. Shoull development be proposed prior to completion of the study, the land use shoull be consistent with the existing General Plan designation. TEM-OItO2GP-LND. USE· October 28, 1992 Page 2-41 SPECIAL STUDY OVERLAY Special Study Overlay -Th i of TI~M~~LA General Plan Program CITY OF TEMECULA Land Use Element Local and sub-regional traffic generation, circulation patterns and improvements, including the development of transit projects; 3. Location of schools; timing of school development; and related traffic, noise and safety issues; 4. Extension of services and infrastructure,' particularly in the Sphere of Influence; Design and development of flood control improvements; habitat conservation, and recreation uses along Murrieta Creek, Temecula Creek, and other waterways. Th8 intsrfaoe of the improv~m6nt with th~ Pochanga Cr6~lc also needs multi jurisdictional coordination; 6. Preservation of significant biological resources in cooperation with the State Department of Fish and Game, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 7. Mitigation of seismic risks in the location of development in cooperation with the State Division of Mines and Geology; 8. Mitigation of fire hazards, including wildfire hazards, with the County of Riverside; Regional transportation and air quality improvements in cooperation with the California Department of Transportation, Southern California Association of Governments, and the South Coast Air Quality Management District; 10. Regional housing needs assessment for Temecula, prepared by the Southern California Association of Governments; 11. Use and update of the SOuthwest DiStrict Traffic Model in coordination with the County of Riverside; 12. Preparation and implementation of the Western Riverside Council of Government (WRCOG) plans and programs. The WRCOG's plans and programs relevant to the General Plan are discussed in the Circulation Element, Air Quality Element, and the Growth Management/Public Facilities and Services Element; and 13. Preparation of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan and the Master Facilities Plan for the French Valley Airport by the Airport Land Use Commission. G. Capital Improvement Program The City's Five-Year Capital Improvement Program should be reviewed and updated on an annual basis to meet changing needs, priorities, and financial conditions. Consistency between the Capital Improvement Program and the Gene. ral Plan should be maintained, in accordance with State law. TEM-OIxD2GP-LND.USE · Draft Date: October 28, 1992 Page 2-45 CITY OF TEMECULA Land Use Element H. Incentive Programs Incorporate incentives within the Development Code, incentives to proparty ownors to encourage property owners to provide the provision of additional park and recreation facilities, preservation of preserve natural habitat, additional public faciliti~ or improv~m6nts, additional provide additional open space linkages to adjacent habitat preserves or parkland, and or provide other public benefits as indicated in Policy 5.1 of the Land Use Element. Such incentives may include, but are not limited to density bonuses, height bonuses, and reduced parking requirements. TEM-01',02OP-LND.USE · Draft Date: October 28, 1992 Page 2-46 ATTACHMENT NO~ 2 GENERAL PLAN COMMENT LETTERS R:\S\GENPL, e,N~,DRAFTGP. M2P ]0 From: 17 October 1992 RECEIVED 0 C 12 S 1992 Jns'd ............ (signed) OCT 2 _'1 '1992 17 October 1992 From: cc: G. Tho~'nhill To Temecula City Council October 22, 1992 Phone message from: Mrs. Gloria Renneker 30325 Via Norte Temecula, CA 92591 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 1416 Temecula, CA 92593 This is Gloria Renneker. My husband Michael and I are residents of Meadow- view and we are opposed to any public use of the Meadowview area by the public. We have paid a premium to live in this area and continue to pay a premium in property taxes each year. We do not think that because Riverside County was derelict in their responsi- bility to require developers to provide adequate parks for their residents, that the residents of Meadowview should have to provide public access to their common area for the City of Temecula. We are also opposed to the General Kearney Road extension. This increased traffic will endanger children and pets and is totally unnecessary as Margarita Road is being extended and will accommodate the same areas. Requests copies to: City Council Parks & Recreation Commission Planning Director Director of Parks and Recreation /kc cc: Gary lnornn~ll Shawn Nelson October 19, 1992 Leroy O. & Peggy J. Storaasli 40600 Carmelita Circle Temecula, California 92591 (714) 676-0074 Temecula City Council 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, California 92590 Members of the City Council: The recent action of the City of Temecula Planning Commission and City Council concerning the extension of North General Kearny Road and Equestrian Trails in Meadowview are both adamantly opposed by these property owners who have lived in Meadowview for the past five years. The reason we selected Meadowview is due to the unique characteristic of being an isolated community which would not be affected by the growth of tract homes in Temecula. After five years we now find that due to inadequate planning by the County of Riverside and the City of Temecula the very reason we selected Meadowview is being threatened. The extension of North General Kearny Road has a direct impact on our way of life due to the proximity of the proposed road to Carmetita Circle. This extension will contribute to noise, lighting pollution, congestion, traffic safety problems and crime. The proposed 17,000 vehicles per day will severely degrade the ability to peacefully enjoy our neighborhood and property. The proposed use of Municipal Water District easements throughout the Meadowview area for the purpose of Equestrian and Hiking Trails is considered an infringement upon property ownership rights and privacy and use of their property. A comment was made by Councilman Sal Munoz that "the main issue facing City officials would be convincing property owners who have easements on their properties to allow other uses for the easements." Please note that we are actively encouraging other Meadowview homeowners to oppose the use of easements for uses other than prescribed. When existing or future homeowners chose Temecula as a place of residence, they were well aware of the lack of recreational facilities associated with their tract or area of development. Now Meadowview homeowners are being asked to give up portions of the common area which was one of the attractive features to buy in Meadowview. The Meadowview area is one of the most attractive neighborhoods in Temecula because of the privacy, openness, lack of congestion and common facilities for the use of property owners. -The two proposals would severely impact the uniqueness and the accessibility to common areas and facilities for Meadowview residents. The common area is held in common to all property owners within the Meadowview Community. Both proposals would devalue property and a way of life which residents paid premium prices to obtain. If we had not desired this type of quality of life, ~hen we would have been willing to pay considerably less and purchase in a tract area. Therefore, we are opposed to the above proposals and are requesting that City Council deny approval for both proposals. Sincerely, LOS/pjs c: Temecula Planning Commission Temecula Parks & Recreation Commission Meadowview Homeowners Association Sierra Club San Gorgonio Chapter Serving Riverside and San Bernardino Counties Tahquitz Group · Los Serranos Group San Bernardlno Mtns. Group * Mojave Group Moreno Valley Group 568 N. Mountain View Ave., Suite 130 San Bernardino, CA 92401 (714) 381-5015 RECEIVED 0 C T 2 3 1992 I~n~'d ............ '.: . _: .:. :5':: . Zsr.'_::' ;: :; · - _ r Z'T ~t.. . To explore. enjoy and preserve the nation's forest, waters, wildli~e, and wilderness.. . {~)Prinlcd on Rccyclcd Paper. Sierra Club San Gorgonio Chapter Serving Riverside and San Bernardino Counties Tahquitz Group · Los Serranos Group San Bernardino Mtns. Group · Mojave Group Moreno Valley Group 568 N. Mountain View Ave., Suite 130 San Bernardino, CA 92401 (714) 381-5015 ::z'. Z:L-,!. ~'!-t'~:-, 2~r._~::' _=Zs:-/ :' Z' EL:'.Z.=,;' ,rE,:':' ~':L'.'=- ;~: 17iS 72:v9-':27 :Z SiR 7..: EL-rifts EL'j: :szuZz ZLk-5 _=.n Lnzsr_~Lv=__= F-r:~:'-=z Lnziu~e; L;. ur.-~ zEu-''= :irsir. rl-.sr.,- -':,.: f::' :r. is :Nl-rrnunii" 6Y s:mmeY-~. PECHANGA INDIAN RESERVATION Temecula Band of Lutsefio Mission India PostOff'iceBox 1477 Temecula, CA, 92593 Telephone (714} 676-2768 FAX (714) 695-1778 Spokeswoman; Jennie Miranda Council Members: Betty Barrientos Lucllle Linker Mark Macafro patricia Maidor, ado Patrick Murphy, Jr. Doris lYhited October 19, 1998 City of Temecula 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, California 98590 Attention: Mr. 5ohn Meyer, AICP Senior Planner Re: City of Temecula's General Plan Draft and EIR Dear Mr. John R. Meyer: As a member of the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians, and a Tribal Council member representing the Band, I have reviewed the City of Temecula's draft General Plan and EIR. The draft EIR General Plan for the City of Temecula is deficient in the following ways: General Plan does not incorporate cultural resources mitigations. During all archaeological surveys and excavations~ Native American Monitor must be retained. If recorded sites are in the vicinity of trenching and grading of any project in the Temecula General Plan, a Native American Monitor must be retained to recover any Cultural Materials that are exposed so they can be properly evaluated. Any cultural artifacts that are encountered during grading, trenching, and any other construction activities in any projects, and this area is an unsurveyed sector, the Native American Monitor will recommend a cultural resource survey to be done at the earliest possible date. If the project can not be redesigned to avoid the resource, then 100% data recovery, (excluding burials) might be necessary. Please ensure that the Pechanga Band of Luise~o Indians receive another copy of the City of Temecula General Plan Draft EIR and a copy of the Final EIR. I am confident the Planning Commission will respond to my comments and recommendations made in this letter. Respectfully, Lucille Linker Tribal Council Member ATTACHMENT NO. 3 PARCEL SPECIFIC LAND USE REQUEST MATRIX R:\S\GENPLAN\DRAFTGP, M2P ]1 Z ' ' c~ c~ c~ 0 UO co o o a~ > Z Z Z ~Z :~z(..) > > ;> ;> > m~..1 ~0 O cq o 0 o L) ~,1 ,1 ,1 ,.1 Z Z ~ Z nZ o 0 0 0) 0 ~ (j 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 > > > _l ,l o ~Z _.! bz~I'' ~ [-- .< ,..., ~ ~ o o ~_ z >, ~ z z ~,.] (_) c~(....) c~ < ~ ~ Z Z Z Z Z ~ o~ o~ o o > ~ > ~'~ 0 0 ~o0 ~ < ~Z Z r~ ..\ F,. f II II II ·., .........:',il_".'..', ......................., ** ATTACHMENT NO. 4 STAFF'S JUSTIFICATION OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS R:\S~GENPLAN',DRAFTGP, M2P 12 STAFF'S JUSTIFICATION OF PROPOSED AM~,NDMENTS TO THE LAND USE PLAN 2.1 2.2 3,7 4, 16, 17, 18, 19, 22 5 6 7 8 9, 10, 21 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Staff would support a variety of land uses under a Specific Plan as proposed in the General Plan. However, until such time, incremental development should conform to proposed office land use. Staff supports change to community commercial. The site is within a village centers overlay and will serve surrounding neighborhoods. The change from High Density Residential to Community Commercial will not adversely impaci Hwy 79 South. See No. 1. Highway Commercial may have been supportable on a limited portion of these sites, however, no access from Hwy 79 is likely and therefore significant impacts to the immediate neighborhood may result. This site is located within a special study area. No change to land use designation is supportable prior to study. Applicant latest request for Commercial Office is supported by staff. A continuation of existing offices along Rancho California Road will not impact the local circulation system. Staff concurs with removal of the Low Designation but recommends Medium Residential. See No. 3. Staff supports modification of land use designations, so long as impacts resulting from increased density can be prope~y mitigated. The Draft Land Use Plan contains an inventory of commercial land use with an absorption rote that exceeds a 15 year time period. Placing commercial land use designations on the subject properties would be inconsistent with the village centers concept. Significant expansion of commercial development may lead to degradation of the local circulation system. Additional commercial land use designations cannot be justified. City now owns property, request to amend map no longer necessary. Staff supports enlarging Residential Designation, but recommends a Medium Designation (7~ 12) DU/AC. See No. 9. See No. 4. Staff supports Highway Commercial at freeway interchanges. See No. 4. See No. 4. STAFF'S JUSTIFICATION OF PROPOSED AMF, NDMENTS TO THE LAND USE PLAN 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 See No. 4. See No. 4. Consistent with City Council action, staff support Service Commercial. See No. 9. Consistent with proposed land use plan. See No. 4. See No. 4. Consistent with City Council Action. No support for request. See No. 4. No support for request. No support for request. Support Commercial Service, is allowed in Business 'Park designation. No change to land use map. See No. 9. See No. 20. See No. 20. See No. 4. See No. 9. Support Parcel 3 as Medium. See No. 4. No support for request. No support for request. See No. 9. ' S~GENPLAN~LANDUSE.JUS October 29, 1992 42.1 42.2 42.3 42.4 42.5 42.6 42.7 42.8 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 STAFF'S JUSTIFICATION OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE LAND USE PLAN The Business Park designation provides The Business Park designation is compatible with adjacent land uses and will not create adverse impacts on the local circulation system. Expanding description of land use could lead to incompatibility within land use designation. Consistent with City Council action. See 42.4. No support for request. No support for request. See No. 22. No support for Business Park designation. Staff supports Highway Commercial. See No. 4. This area is inconsistent with description of Hwy Commercial land use designation. See No. 48. See No. 48. Service Commercial will allow for expansion of car dealerships. Lot pattern is no with land use. Consistent with City Council action. ATTACHMENT NO. 5 APPLICANT'S LETTERS OF REQUEST R:\S\GENPLAN\DRAFTGP. M2P Trans-Pacific April 16, 1992 Mr. John Meyer, Senior Planner City of Temecula 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 Re: OLD VAIL RANCH COMMERCIAL PROPERTY (A.P.N. 950-120-004 AND 950-110-014) Dear Mr. Meyer: , )ur client Mr. Peter Edelmann of Old Vail Partners had recently discussed the above l eferenced property with you relative to the City's General Plan efforts. Based on your ,',mversation, the City is apparently leaning towards placing an Office Commercial (OC) I)esignation over the above referenced site. As the City's General Plan efforts continue to progress, we respectfully ask that you provide the above referenced property with a commercial designation and offer the following for your consideration: On November 28, 1989, The Riverside County Board of Supervisors approved change of Zone No. 5477 over the subject site from R-R and C-P-S to C-P-S. The change of Zone process in this instance was anything but routine. The case was held in abeyance for several months pending resolution of the Southwest Area Community Plan (SWAP). In addition the area applied for under change of Zone No. 5477 was not confined within a stand alone legal lot, but overlayed a portion of a larger area. This condition would have created a legal parcel with multiple zoning designations. In spite of there being no legal justification for their request, Riverside County Planning staff refused to process the change of zone application until the area proposed under change of Zone No. 5477 was defined by a legal parcel. To achieve this end, we applied for and received approval for lot line adjustment Nos. 3033 and 3034 (see lot line adjustment package contained herein). Mr. John Meyer, Senior Planner April 16, 1992 Page Two Subsequent to the Riverside County Board Of Supervisor's approval of change of Zone No. 5477, a final change of zone plat and corresponding legal description had been prepared and adopted by the Riverside County Board of Supervisors. This action officially amended Ordinance 348 relative to the subject site's zoning designation (see enclosed change zone plat contained herein). As we understand it, the City of Temecula is only considering Riverside County zone change approvals as complete if the final plat and associated legals had been adopted by the Board amending Ordinance No. 348 for the property in question. The subject site is located within the Rancho Villages Assessment District (AD 159). The site is being assessed based on the highest and best use of the property which is commercial. As of this writing, there is also a supplemental assessment package being prepared for A.D. 159. The additional assessment per the supplemental package will also be based upon a commercial designation for the subject site. The subject site's assessments are fixed per the adoption of the Engineer's Report/Assessment Spread by the Riverside County Board of Supervisors in cooperation with Bond Council. The majority of the properties participating in AD 159 are now within the City of Temecula. Although the District is still being managed by the County of Riverside, the City of Temecula has adopted and accepted the District as the financing mechanism for infrastructure improvements within the State Highway 79 Corridor. Therefore, it is our opinion that the County of Riverside, and now more recently, the City of Temecula have made a commitment tO' the subject site for commercial land uses by verture of the assessments placed on the property. Further it is. our opinion that to propose a general plan designation that would result in the reduction of property values relative to assumptions made in the assessment district spread is inappropriate. A commercial general plan designation would permit an array of commercial/retail uses that would yield a financial return commensurate with the site's A.D. 159 assessments which could not be achieved through the office commercial designation. 'Fo circumvent potential inconsistencies between the subject site's A.D. 159 assessments and ta~.e subject site's general plan designation and concomitant consistency zoning designation; we respectfully ask for your support in identifying the site as commercial in the City of Femccula General Plan Land Use Allocation Map. Mr. John Meyer, Senior Planner April 16, 1992 Page Three Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Should you have any questions and/or ~oncerns, please do not hesitate to contact me at Extension 212. Very truly yours, TRANS-PACIFIC CONSULTANTS, INC. Assistant D~anning Enclosures Mr. Peter Edelman, Old Vail Partners Mr. Gary Thornhill, City of Temecula Planning Department Chron Peter W. Edelmann 15135 Paso del Sol Del Mar, California 92014 Phone: (619) 793-0126 Fax: (619) 560-2094 August 9, 1991 Mr. Gary Thornhill Planning Director, City of Temecula 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 Dear Mr. Thornhill: I have met with Don Lohr and Ron Parks of Lohr Engineering regarding the property on Highway 79 in Temecula owned by Old Vail Partners. I am one of the two partners of Old Vail Partners, the other being Sports Arenas, Inc. The two parcels comprising the property are: Parcel A -- A total 39.80 acres made up of those portions of Parcel I and 2 in Lot "A" of Parcel Map No. 18993 as recorded in Book 134 at pages 13 through 18 inclusive. Parcel B -- A total 32.64 acres made up of that portion of Parcel 2 in Lot "D" of Parcel Map 18993 as recorded in Book 134 at pages 13 through 18 inclusive. In discussing development plans on these parcels with Mr. Lohr, it was brought to my attention that although Riverside County approved and recorded a zoning designation of CPS for both parcels, the current Southwest Area Plan indicates office commercial use. It is my understanding that the City of Temecula is reviewing the General Plan for this area and that it would be appropriate to request that the new General Plan reflect our R~versic~e County CPS zoning. I would appreciate meeting with you to discuss our preliminary plans regarding these parcels. Also, we hereby request that your department supply us with any notices of pending actions affecting these parcels. Thank you for your attention to these matters. I look forward to meeting with you soon. Sincerely, Peter W. Edelmann CC: Harold Elkan, Sports Arenas, Inc. Don Lohr LOS RANC~ITOS HOB~MOWNKwa i~,qSOCIATION PO BOX 471 TRMECD'T~, CA. 92593 John R. Meyer, AICP Senior Planner 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA. 92590 May 13, 1992 Dear Mr. Meyer, Thank you for taking the time to meet with three Los Ranchitos homeowners last week to discuss the proposed Master Plan Draft and how Los Ranchitos fits into the overall plan. Los Ranchitos homeowners are very pleased with the Proposed Master Plan continuing a designation of Very Low Density for our portion of the plan. However, we have outlined a few concerns and corrections for you to review and consider in the next revision of The Plan. The majority of our community supports the issues we have presented here. We feel all these issues together help to preserve our rural designation and improve property values for ourselves and ultimately improve and benefit the City of Temecula. A handful of Los Ranchitos property owners would like to sell their parcels for commercial uses. However these owners knowingly purchased their properties with conditions, covenants and restrictions against commercial uses. The Board of Directors of the Los Ranchitos HOA is attempting to assist homeowners in finding an amiable resolution to the problem intended commercial development is posing to the neighborhood. However, you should be aware that the rights provided by Los Ranchitos CC&Rs, including the prohibition of commercial development, belong to each individual property owner. The majority of Los Ranchitosproperty Owners are aware of the many constraints of the borders of this neighborhood. Additionally, most are in favor of maintainina the current borders for the residents of the future. Me are finding substantial homeowner opposition to commercial development because it is in direct violation of the CC&Rs which govern the property owners here. · Homeowners in Los Ranchitos seek the City of Temecula's assistance in protecting our borders through the Master Plan process. CHAN OMMERCIAL CORPORATION October 23, 1992 Mr. Bob Righetti Senior Project Manager Public Works Department City of TemeCula 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 Dear Mr. Righetti: Please find attached a copy of the letter which was written to Debbie Ubnoske in reference to the Specific Plan 255 for the Winchester Hills Development. I understand you are involved in the traffic studies with respect to this project. As I have indicated in the previous letter, we have some concerns about the initial phases of this project withYnez Road being a major access road to the project. We feel thfs presents a variety of problems not normally associated with operating a business in an industrial park. Please feel free to call me so we can discuss this matter at your convenience. My telephone number is (714) 694-9160. Very truly yours, Edward J. Burke Director of Engineering EJB/sld Attachment cc: Debbie Ubnoske William Charmell, St. Dale Wooding CHANNELL COMMERICAL CORPORATION · 26040 Ynez Road. P.O. Box 9022. Temecula. CA 92589-9022 714/694-9160 · 800/423-1863 · FAX 714/694-9170 10o The site is suitable to accommodate the proposed land use in terms of the size and shape of parcel configurations, access, and density. The project has access to public rights-of-way, and is designed with sufficient parcel acreage allowing appropriate building pad sitings. The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the built or natural environment as determined in the initial study prepared for this project. Reference the attached Initial Environmental Study and Conditions of Approval for Tentative Parcel Map No. 26~,88. The design of the subdivision, the type of improvements and the resulting street layout are such that they are not in conflict with easements for access through or use of the property within the proposed project as conditioned. Easement dedications are not evident in grant deeds describing the property.. The site for the proposed use is provided legal access via. Walcott Lane and Calle Chapos public rights-of-way. Development of these roads shall comply with City Engineering Conditions of Approval contained herein. The proposed project will not inhibit or restrict future ability to use active or passive solar energy systems. Adequate lot areas and exposures are provided for these alternatives.. The proposed use will not have a substantial adverse affect on abutting properties or the permitted use thereof. The proposed map provides for residential development similar in character and densities evident on vicinity properties. Land. use incongruities and associated adverse affects arising from implementation of this proposal are unlikely. A:PMZ6u, 88 8 Adequate access exists for the proposed residential land use from Walcott Lane and Calle Chapos. Additional internal access and required road improvements abutting proposed lots will be designed and constructed in conformance with City standards. That said findings are supported by analysis, minutes, maps, exhibits, and environmental documents associated with this application and herein incorporated by reference. Tentative Parcel Map No. 260,88 The proposed Parcel Map will not have significant negative impact on the environment, as determined in the Initial Environmental Assessment prepared for Tentative Parcel Map No. 26u~88. A Negative Declaration is recommended for adoption. There is a reasonable probability that this proposal will be consistent with the General Plan being prepared at this time. The map together with the attendant zone change request are consistent with applicable subdivision and land use ordinances, and conform with the City's Southwest Area Plan (SWAP} guidelines affecting the subject property. There is not a likely probability of substantial detriment to, or interference with, the future adopted General Plan, if the proposed use is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. The project is consistent with .surrounding development, and does not logically have the potential to generate.' significant adverse environmental impacts. The proposed use or action complies with City and State planning and zoning laws. Reference local Ordinances No. 3u,8, 0,60, California Governmental Code Sections 65000- 66009 (Planning Zoning Law}, and Government Code Title 7, Division 2. A:PM26488 7 ANALYSIS: on the project site is primarily native grasses with evident disturbance by human activity; e.g., off- road trails, litter, etc. Mature landscaping exists on adjacent properties. No significant animal habitat was detected though the site is likely inhabitated by common species of rodents, small reptiles and insects. Further consideration of this proposal's specific merits is contained in the following project analysis. Land Use Compatibility The requested Change of zone district from R-A-2 1/2 to R-1-1 reflects on-going urbanization of the general area surrounding the subject site. Recent project approvals in the vicinity of Tentative Parcel Map No. 26q88 (e.g., CZ 566:31, TPM 25212) have allowed subdivision of land at densities similar to that requested by this proposal. Further to the south, land has been subdivided at even greater densities in conjunction with larger scale tract home developments. Additionally, the recommended Southwest Area Plan density for the subject site is 1-2 dwelling units/acre. Densities at the lower end of this range are considered appropriate at present pending extension of necessary support services, primarily roads and sewers, to the area in question. As such, the proposed change in land use designation allowing residential subdivision of property at a density of one dwelling unit/acre is considered compatible with land use(s) currently in the vicinity of the subject site. Access Legal access to the site as a whole is provided by dedicated City rights-of-way, e.g., Walcott Lane and Calle Chapos, both of which are currently recommended as 66' width right-of-way dedications adjacent to the subject site {reference Exhibit D). Both road frontages as well as the cul-de-sac indicated on Exhibit D will be improved to provide all weather access prior to occupancy of residences which may be eventually constructed on the proposed parcels. Improvement of affected rights-of-way per Schedule H map standards will, as a minimum, be bonded for prior to final map recordat{on. A: PM26488 4 ENGINEERING October 2~, 1992 RECEIVED Mr. John R. Meyer, AICP city of Temecula 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 Re: APN: 914-300-076 Parcel 1, PM 13923, PM 58/49 2% Acre Parcel on Walcott Lane Temecula, California Dear Mr. Meyer: Engineering Ventures is formally requesting, for and on the behalf of Mr. Robert J. Gorham, owner of the above-referenced parcel, a land use designation and proposed zoning for the subject parcel of Low Density and R-l-1 respectively. The justification for this request is based on existing current land uses and densities and per the enclosed Exhibit "A". This .exhibit was obtained and compiled from City records of Parcel Map 26488, which'was approved by the City of Temecula Planning Commission on August 5, 1991. This parcel is directly adjacent to Mr. Gorham's parcel. In brief summary, the following analysis were made by the City of Temecula Planning staff: Parcel Map 26488 will "probably be consistent with the proposed general plan"; Projects in this vicinity have been approved at densities similar and greater to this proposal; Densities at this range are "considered appropriate at present · extension of necessary support services, primarily roads and sewers, to the area in question". Engineering Ventures requested this land use density utilizing proper and reasonable land planning guidelines. This request is compatible with neighborhood uses and ideals. We will attend the public hearing meeting, regarding this general plan request, to answer any questions or comments you or the City staff may have. Please do not hesitate to call if you have any comments. Sincerely, Principal Anita L. Miller Project Coordinator 43500 RIDGE PARK DRIVE, SUITE 202 o TEMEGULA, CA 92590" (714) S99~8450 · FAX: fPD ?vl \~'1'~ ~ PLA'~ June 30,1992 DEVELOPMENTS JUL I] 2 1992 Ans'd .......... Mr. Gary Thornhill Director of Planning CITY OF TEMECULA 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 RE: Request for Land Use Downzoning Dear Mr. Thornhill, On behalf of ME Leo Roripaugh and pursuant to our earliar phone conversations and meeting, we hereby formally request a downzoning for Planning Area's 7, 8 and a portion of Area 9 in Specific Plan 149. located on the Northwest side of Nicolas Road, near Winchester Road. The current land use designations as approved by Riverside County are as follows: Area 7 Very High Residential 18.16 ac. 14.9 units/ac. Area 8 Office 8.79 ac. Area 9 Commercial 10.00 ac. (Approximate portion) As we discussed, as soon as the Assessment District 161 has commenced construction of the Santa Genrud~s Flood Channel improvement, we are prepared to formally submit a Land Use and Site Plan that will fezone the land to residential uses with approximately 9-10 units/acre density. Based on our meeting, we understand this conceptual land use to de consistent with the current policies and goals of the City, and pending review of a formal submittal, staff has indicated that the preferred land use designation Should be R-3 As you know. the timing of our submittal is contingent on the above referred A.D. 161 improvement. while concom~tantly. the Assessment District is presently recalculsting the Supplemental Assessment tax. We now find ourselves in a position where the tax assessment may be based on a land use designation that will not be ~n effect when the tax is ultimately levied. Therefore. will you please consider rezoning the exLshng land use designation as pan of your current draft General Plan and adoption process? We look forward to continuing to work with you and staft in the ceming months. Thank you for your consideration S~ncerely. MASTER PLAN DEVELOPMENTS Sanf~Edward, President SE/cb cc Mr Leo Roripaugh Parkview site, the County designated the Parkview site on the Southwest Area Plan in 1989 as "Low Density Residential - 2-5 dulac". 3. ADIACF3xlT LAND USES AND DENSITIES Pursuant to the 1974 General Plan and subsequently the Southwest Area Plan, adjacent properties have developed to the south, west, northwest and north at conventional residential densities utilizing the County's R-1 Zone. When the projects adjacent to the Parkview site (namely Starlight Ridge to the north, Alta Vista to the northwest, Lake Village to the west and an unnamed project south of Pauba Road adjacent to Parkview) were developed, the minimum housing pad criterion for all of these projects was 60x100 or 6,000 sq. ft.. In addition, the Temecula Valley High School has been developed and constraction has begun on Paloma Del Sol, a master-planned community with an overall density of 3.8 du/ac which places it in the "low" category as well. It is obvious, therefore, that the Parkview site is surrounded by examples of "conventional" development that set the tone for the area. Based on our own land use studies and based on the Tentative Tract No. 25320 which was prepared and submitted in mid-1989, we know that it is feasible and appropriate to plan and develop the Parkview site in a manner similar to the adjacent projects. For these reasons, we would respectfully request that the City change the General Plan Designation from Very Low to Low in order that the Parkview site might appropriately develop in a manner consistent with adjacent development. We appreciate your time to consider our request. Certainly, if you have any questions or weuld like further information, please don't hesitate to contact us. Very truly yours, T&B PLANNING CONSULTANTS, INC. BBTtmd/004 Attac~tment xc: Csaba Ko ../ Job No. 168-0Z2 June 17, 1992 Gary Thornhill John Meyer City of Temecula Planning Dept. 43180 Business Park Dr. Temecula, CA 92390 PARKVIEW PROPERTY GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION Dear Gary and John: I am writing on behalf of Bedford Properties regarding their Parkview property, which is a 56.6- acre parcel located north of Pauba Road and west of Margarita Road. In reviewing the draft General Plan "preferred land use plan" released by-the City in early May, we noted that this property had been designated for Very-Low Residential (.5 du/ac maximum). For the reasons enumerated below, we feel that this designation is inappropriate and would request that the City reconsider and redesignate the land use for the Parkview property. 1. PHYSICAL ORIENTATION AND CHARACTER From a physical orientation standpoint, the property lies on the southern edge of a valley which runs east/west between Rancho California Road and Pauba Road. Pauba Road adjacent to Parkview is the southern boundary of. an area which has historically supported conventional residential development. This area has been developing over the last 25 years on both sides of Rancho Vista Road between Margarita Road and Ynez Road. The Parkview site orients northward toward this valley. With respect to general landform and topographic characteristics, it is very similar to Lake Village on the west, Alta Vista to the northwest and Starlight Ridge te the north, all of which have developed at what would be a "low" density on your current General Plan [.and Use Map. 2. PREVIOUS GENERAL PLANS/SOUTH WEST AREA PLAN We recognize that the City of Temecula is not necessarily bound to follow Riverside County's past planning designations, but from a historic stanapoint, it has always been anticipated that the Parkview site would be developed as pan of the "Rancho Village" area which was conceived as pan of a "Village Core~ on the 1974 County General Plan. The Parkview property fell within the "Meditan Urban (3-10 dulac)" designation which extended southward to Pauba Road. After development had taken place north, east aud west of the Mr. John Meyer September 11, 1992 Page 2 I would enjoy the opportunity to meet with a representative f~om the city to discuss what might be accomplished in conjunction with the city's desire to create a general plan that meets the needs and requirements of the 90's and not the 60's. Please telephone me at your convenience at 676=5736. Thank you very much. Sincerely, Steve Snow SS:dm RECEIVED SEP 15 1992 Ans'd ............ September 11, 1992 Mr. John Meyer Planning Depa~ tment 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92~90 Dear Mr. Meyer: l own a 2.75 acre parcel of land within the Temecula city limits next to the 1-15 freeway (lot 8/3552). I purchased the property many years ago.. Now, in 1992, I find the traffic noise from 1-15 has virtually rendered the property useless as a homesite. The road noise from tens-of-thousands of cars, trucks and big-rigs presents factual problems for anyone who uses the property; especially for a family seeking peace and quiet. It just does not make any sense any longer. The property falls within the Los Ranchitos Homeowners Association, therefore, the CC&Rs for that tract 3552 apply. Unfortunately, in the last 25years or so, since those CC&Rs were adopted {September 1966), the highest and best use has changed from a single-family tufa! homesite to that of something different; possibly a church (Rancho Community Church is one parcel away -just to the east) or a mortuary, tennis club, day care or other similar user. I am not sure what zoning designation within the City of Temecula is appropriate, but I can say, without question, that a "rural homesite" designation is absolutely inappropriate for my parcel. ESM'T 1+48 57,87 AC. 55.04Ac NET NET r~MPORARY 25' UUS F~CILITY ~CCE55 1.62 Ac. le. i2 Ac, NET ,"'/~ ,g ' , / / / / / '\ ·// ./ PROPOSED HIGH SCHOOL It BUS MAINTENANCE FACILITY APRIL 13. 1992 J.N. 400354 I ! Kemper Real Estate Management Company 28765 Single Oak Drive, Suite 200, Temecula, California 92590 · 714/676-5641 · Fax 714/676-3385 P.O. Box 9016, Temecala, California 92589-0736 September 11, 1992 RECEIVED SEP 15 1992 Mr. Gary Thornhill Director of Planning CITY OF TEMECgLA 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 Ans'd ............ RE: GENERAL PLAN REQUEST Dear Gary: I have reviewed the City's designation.for the property along Winchester Road to the northeast of Margarita Road. As you know, the School District is purchasing a portion of the site for a high school. we agree with the business park zoning for most of the property; however, we would request an 8-10 acre commercial component (CPS zone) at the corner of Margarita and Winchester Roads. Your consideration in this matter is greatly appreciated. Sincerely, BEDFORD DEVELOPMENT COMPAIV/ .., / , / Gregory A. Erickson Area Manager GAE/dh/2OS1 Attachment CO: Bill Butler JOHNSON + JOI-INSON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION 27450 ~hez Road Suite 200 Temecula. CA 92591 {714) 670-1fi04 FAX {714) 6%,'9-3117 September 14, 1992 Mr. John Meyers City of Temecula P.O.Box 3000 Temecula, CA 92390 RECEIVED SEP % 5 Ans'd ............ RE: General Plan designation for A.P.N. 921-090~022,023,024 & 025 Dear Mr. Meyers, We are providing this letter to document our intentions for the above mentioned parcels and to request this information be included in the General Plan process. This property has an approved Vesting Tentative Map #23316 which was approved on October 25, 1988. This Vesting Tentative Map includes 284 condominiumunits including a recreational facility on 18.9 acres. Please inform your General Planning consultant of our intentions for this property and feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you may have. Sincerely JOHNSON + JOHNSON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION President JOHNSON + JOHNSON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION 27450 'fi~ez Raad Suite 200 Temecula. CA 92591 ( 714 } 676-1604 FAX (714) 699-3117 September 14, 1992 Mr. John Meyers City of Temecula P.O.Box 3000 Temecula, CA 92390 RECEIVEI3 SEP I 5 Ans'd ............ RE: General Plan designation for Zone Change No. 5691 Dear Mr. Meyers, We have had a Change of Zone application in with the city of Temecula since incorporation requesting a C-P-S (Highway Scenic) designation for the above mentioned parcels. It is our understanding that the planning consultant for the General Plan currently list office as the use for this property. Based on discussions with city planning staff, similar properties along Highway 79 have been zoned C-P-S (Highway Scenic) and a similar designation for this property would be appropriate. It is our intention to move forward with a zone change for C-P-S (Highway Scenic) on this property and would appreciate your planning consultant incorporating this designation into the General Plan. Please include our request in any discussions or planning sessions affecting this parcel and contact me with any questions or comments you may have. Sincerely, JOHNSON + JOHNSON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION Dean']<. Allen President O~ 0~? · 094- OTZ ,6' ~d- A-2-20 ./,' C-P:S Notice of Public Hearinf THE CITY OF TEMECULA 43172 Business Park Drive Temecuh, California 92390 A PUBLIC HEARING has be~n scheduled before the CITY COUNCIL to consider the matter(s) described below. Case No:. Change 'of Zone No. 5446 Applicant: MDC - California Location: West side of Ynez Road at the t~'minus of County Center Road Proposal: Change existing IP zone on 6.51 acre site to CPS Environmental Action: Negative Declaration Any person may submit written comments to the City Council before the heating(s) or may appea: and be heard in support of or opposition to the approval of the project(s) at the time of hearing. If you challenge any of the projects in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing(s) described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Council at, or prior to, the public hearing(s). The proposed project application(s) may be viewed at the public information countgr, Temecula City Hall, 43172 Business Park Drive, Monday through Friday. from 9:00 AM until 4:00 PM. Questions concerning the project(s) may be addressed to Samuel Reed, City of Temecula Planning Department, (714) 694-1989. The time, place and date of the h~aring(s) are as follows: PLACE OF HEARING: DATE OF HEARING: TIME OF HEARING: Rancho California Water District Community Room 28061 Din, Road Tuesday, June 5, 1990 7:00 PM MARKHAM & ASSOCIATES Developmere Consultants September 30, 1992 RECEIVED OCT 0 1 1992 CITY DF TE,'-::,CL;i. John Meyer Senior Planner City of Temecula 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 RE: Temecula General Plan Draft Preferred Land Use Plan Dear Mr. Meyer: I am writing this letter to address my concern with the City's Draft General Plan designation for parcels 910-200-059 and 060. Parcel 059 was approved at City Council from I-P to CPS June 5, 1990 (COZ 5446). Your Draft Preferred Land Use Plan is designating this site as Business Park. Also, please note Temecula's zoning map is currently showing parcel 2 zonedas I-P (see attached exhibits). we would like to include both 059 and 060 to be designated as Service Commercial (both are a portion of parcel 2 of parcel map 19677) on the City's General Plan. Due to the fact that parcel 1 (including the park & ride lot), parcel D (flood control channel) and the northerly portion of parcel 2 (059) are zoned CPS, I feel it only sensible to.include the southerly portion of parcel 2 (060) into the Service Commercial designation. Thank you for your consideration. Please call if you have any questions or require additional information. Sincerely, MARK,HAM AND ASSOCIATES , ,/, ':/,~ j' · ~/," ',' Z_ Sandra L. Finn Project Manager enclosures 41750 Winchester Road, Suite N · Temecula, California 92590 · C/14) 676-6672 · FAX (714) 699-1848 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 after 18 19 ATTEST: identified in Article lXb of Ordinance No. 348. u. planninq Area 21. (Business Park) (1) The uses permitted in Planning Area 21 of Specific Plan No. 223 shall be the same as those uses permitted in Article XI, Section 11.2 and 11.3 of Ordinance No. 348 except that the uses permitted pursuant to S~ction 11.2(c)(1) through (17) shall not be permitted (2) The development standards for Planning Area 21 of Specific Plan No. standards identified Ordinance No. 348. (3) Except as 223 shall be the same as those in Article XI, Section 11.4 of provided above. all other zoning requirements shall be the same as those requirements identified in Article Xi of Ordinance No. 348. Section 3. This ordinance shall its adoption. 20 GERALD A. MALONEY Clerk of the Board 21 BY: 22 Deputy 23 (SEAL) 24 take effect 30 days BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE. STATE OF CALIFORNIA 25 By Chairman 26 KLW:bln 813PLAN27 ~/28/88 28 -17- 1 2 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 (3) Except as provided above, all ocher zoning requirements shall be the same as those requirements identified in Article Ixb of Ordinance No. 348. s. Plannin6 Area le. (Commercial Area A) (1) The uses ~acmitted in Planning Area 19 of Specific Plan No. 223 shall be the same as those uses permitted in Article lXb, Section 9.50 of Ordinance No. 348. In addition, the permitted uses identified under Section 9.SO(a) also shall include congregate care ~esidential facilities. (2) The development standards fo~ Planning Area 19 of Specific Plan No. 223 shall be the same as those standards identified in Article ZXb, Section 9.53 of Ordinance No. 348. (3) Except as provided above, all other zoning requirements shall be the same as those ~eqUirements identified in Article IXb of Ordinance No. 348. t. Planning Area 20. (Commercial AceaB) (1) The uses pe~mitted in P.lanning Area 20 of Specific Plan No. 223 shall be the same as those uses permitted in Article lXb, Section 9.50 of Ordinance No. 348. (2) The development standards for Planning A~ea 20 of Specific Plan No. 223 shall be the same as those s. tandards identified in Article IXb, Section 9.53 of Ordinance No. 348. (3) Except as provided above, all other zoning requirements shall be the same as those requirements -16- 1 2 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 e (3) Except as provided above, all other zoning requirements shall be the same.as those requirements identified in Article ~IIIe of Ordinance No. 348. Plannine Area 17. (Historical Commercial A) (1) The uses permitted in Planninq Area 17 of .Specific Plan No. 223 shall be the same as those uses permi[ted in Article IXb, Section 9.50'of Ordinance No. 348 except that the uses permitted pursuant to Section 9.50(a)(3), (6), and (16): and (b)(1) through (21) shall not be permitted. (2) The development standards for Planning Area 17 of Specific Plan No. 223 shall be the same as those standards identified in Article IXb, Section 9.53 of Ordinance No. 348. (3) Except as provided above, all other zonin~ Eequirements shall be the same as those requirements identified in Article IXb of Ordinance. No. 348. r. Planninq Area 18. (Historical Commercial B) (1) The uses permitted in Planning Area lS of Specific Plan No. 223 shall be the same as those uses permifted in Article IXb. Section 9.50 of Ordinance No. 348 except that the uses permitted pursuant to Section 9.50(a)(3). (6). and (16); and(b)(1) through (21) shall not be permitted. (2) The development standards for Planning Area 18 o~ Specific Plan No. 223 shall be the same as those standards identified in Article lXb. Section 9.53 of Ordinance No. 348. MARKHAM & ASSOCIATES I)cvctopmcnt Consultants September 30, 1992 John Meyer Senior Planner City of Temecula 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 RE: Temecula General Plan Draft Preferred Land Use Plan Dear Mr. Meyer: I am writing this letter to address my concern with the City's Draft General Plan designation to specify floor to building ratio which would affect the Vail Ranch Specific Plan (SP 223). We would like to preserve this SpeCific Plan Community in its currently approved form. Please also note that this Plan has a developers agreement. Thank you for your consideration. Please call if you have any questions or require additional information. Sincerely, MARKHAM AND ASSOCIATES /Sandra L. Finn Project Manager enclosures a~vso v~.~he~ P,~d. S.i. N- tem.:.~. C~itorni. 92S90. Ca4} 676-6672. FAX 0~4} 699-~s/jj ~N~ Notice of Public Hearin.q THE CITY OF TEMECULA ~13180 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92390 A PUBLIC HEARING has been scheduled before the PLANNING COMMISSION to consider the matterIs) described below. Case No: Applicant: Location: Proposal: Change of Zone No. 15/Tentativ~ Parcel Map No. 26488 {CZ No. 15/TPM 26488) Mr. Jay Vanderwall Southeasterly corner of Walcott Lane and Calle Chapos Zone change from R-A 2-112 ( Residential-Agricultural 2-1/2 Acre Minimum Parcel Size) to R-1-1 (Single Family Residential, 1 acre minimum parcel size) and subdivison of 4.5 +/- acres into 4 parcels. Environmental Action: Negative Declaration Any person may submit written comments to the Planning Commission before the hearing(s) or may appear and be heard in support of or opposition to the approval of the proiect(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(s) described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing(s). The proposed project application(s) may be viewed at the public information counter, Temecula Ptanning Department, q3180 Business Park Drive, Monday through Friday from 9:00 AM until 4:00 PM. Questions concerning the projectIs) may be addressed to Mr. Charly Ray. City of Temecula Planning Department, ~714) 694-6400. The time. place and date of the hearlngls) are as follows: L::; for 'j!i PLACE OF HEARING: DATE OF HEARING: TIME OF HEARING:- Vail Elementary Scheol Auditorium 29915 Mira Lome Drive, Temecula, CA Monday, July 1st, 1991 6:00 p.m. Jane 20, 1991 City of T~mec,,ln Pl=--fng C~mm~-sion 43180 Business Park Drive Temecula. Ca 92390' Case No: Change of Zone No. 15/Tentative Parcel Map No. 26488 (CZ No. 15/TPN 26488) Gentlemen: We ovn the 22 acres to the south, adJotnt-~ Mr. Vander~mll's proper~y and 5 acres across the street from the southwest corner of the Vanderwall proper~y. Our major concern is whether the Fl~--~-~ C~.-...l~sion pin-- to impose a house only restriction. All of the properties souEh of Mr. Vanderwmllss propere7 have cusnom homes built on them. North and west of ~he propert-ys the area is spattered with mobile homes~ mm.y of which are is serious need of upkeep. Most bare ~]leSal barns and sheds wb/ch are an eyesore ~o the area. Another concern is what does. the pl,,,4,= C~.-.-*esion plan to do with the road? Allov~ng a property split will generate more traffic on our dirt road. As it stands now, I perso-=lly (with no help from the neighbors and certa~-ly not from the city) grade one (1) mile of dirt road to make ~bis accessible during the rainy seasan. Mare traffic mill create more work for me. This is not v/nat I pay Mes for. In s,---~ry, we would not oppose the property split prodding the Commission paces an irrevocable "homes only" restriction on ~he property and providing the city is committed to at least maintenance of the dirt road if paving is not a consideration. If Che above concerns are not isCOrporaced us conditions to the split, ve ~hen ad~ntly oppose rht~ subdivision. ~S~~rh~/~ P. O. Box 1680 40095 Walcor= l~-e Temecula, Ca 92390 Certified Mail No. P754 681 484 Page October l, 1992 City of Temecula Planning Commission 43174 Berries Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 Attention: Mr, Me~er I urge the city to give this area more consideration, the area is surrounded by rolling hills end vineyards. This could be an exclusive / // · RG/jw Attachment Cert. Mail No. P 791 172 198 October 1, 1992 RECEIVED OCT 0 2 1992 Ans'd .......... City of Temecula Planning Commission 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 Attention: Mr. Meyer Approximately one year ago we received notice in the mail that Mr. Vanderwall was requesting city permission to sub-divide 4 acres into I acre parcels. We were asked to express our opinions and concerns at that time. This is exaotl~ what I did (see attached letter). We opposed the split for fear it would generate ~re mobile homes into the valley, which we oppose. We also expressed concerns about the maintenance of the road due to the extra traffic. This was of concern to me because I'm the one that grades the road during the rainy season and I also place the gravel on the.hills to make it passable during heavy rains. Recently we made a decision to split our property into two i & 1/4 acre parcels and build two homes. I had my wife call the planning department to obtain more information as to the procedure. At that time she was informed that a split would definitely not be allowed. This concerns me ver~ much. Onl[ 15 months after Mr. Vanderwall was allowed to split his property against our protests, our request is now rejected. Recently I attended a meeting at the library regarding the cities proposed general plan. The area where I live and own two parcels of property was discussed very briefly. The co--~ents were"it was a difficult area and that no innuediate plans were being considered for that area". I'm now concerned that the cities attitude toward this area of the city will further suppress property values, create more of a dumping ground for mobile homes, illegal sheds, etc. We are tax pa~ers, so why are we refused the luxury of paved streets, lights, etc? Why is the city going to ignore this area and lastly, why am I being told I can not split my property when Mr. Vanderwa11 was allowed to only 15 months ago, against my protests? t1' i:I i / i i i rJ Mr. John Meyer April 28, 1992 Page five Staff it had been expressed numerous times that the City is leaning towards the 'MllageH commercial concept on commercial sites of the community commercial variety. It was Planning Staffs opinion that the ~illage" commercial concept from an architectural/land use perspective would have a much longer life span than the 15 to 20 year cycle typical of conventional retail centers. However, Planning Staff also indicated that they are aware of the difficulties commercial developers may experience in attempting to promote the "village" concept with the various end users. Planning Staffs concerns are legitimate, however, it is our opinion that of the various potential commercial properties within the State Highway 79 corridor, the subject site exhibits the best characteristics towards achieving the City's desires of a "village" commercial center. It should be noted that the previously referenced architectural guidelines under preparation for the subject site has been designed to meet this end. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Should you have any questions and/or concerns do not hesitate to contact me at extension 212. Very truly yours, AN'rSAssistant D~r~~ng DAJ:lmm Enclosures CO: Mr. Emil Nowak, Applicant Mr. Ernest Egger, TPC Mr. Gary Thornhill, City of Temecula Mr. John Meyer April 28, 1992 Page four construction of 18,368 dwelling units within the Highway 79 Corridor exclusively, there will be sufficient population within this limited area alone to support a community level commercial center on the subject site. In addition, the site is located adjacent to State Highway 79 which provides an important and popular transportation link to the heavily tourist oriented desert communities, in addition to recreational resources within the corridor itself. From a circulation/transportation perspective, the subject site is located at the intersection of State Highway 79 and Butterfield Stage Road. State Highway 79 is designated as an urban arterial with a 142 foot right-of- way. This facility is slated for full width improvements along the subject site's frontage per A.D. 159 Bond Series "C". Butterfield Stage Road fronts the subject site's western boundary and is designated as an arterial highway. This facility is slated for full width improvements including the Temecula Creek Bridge per A.D. 159, Bond Series "B". Upon build-out of the district Butterfield Stage Road and State Highway 79 are projected to have 27,600 ADT and 36,600 ADT respectively at the subject site. As I understand it, Butterfield Stage Road is anticipated to function as a parallel corridor, ultimately tieing into Winchester Road north of Keller by way of Washington Avenue. Should this parallel transportation corridor come to fruition it will make the Butterfield Station site that much more attractive for commercial development. It should be noted that there are four (4) large master planned communities located south of State Highway 79 that have vehicular access to the Butterfield Station Commercial site without needing to utilizing the highway. The site is located in what can best be described as the urban fringe. This condition provides the site with some rather unique opportunities relative to probable future commercial uses. In this regard, it is anticipated that the ultimate commercial center development will possess commercial components in combination of conventional retail, tourist oriented retail, in addition to rui'al oriented uses such as feed stores, tack and saddle shops, etc. Given the unique combination of commercial opportunities this site affords, the property lends itself extremely well to a "village" pedestrian oriented development scheme. An example of this concept can be found in the aforementioned guidelines. During the course of our meetings with Planning I I I I 1 I t [I ! I II !1 !11 Mr. lohn Meyer AprU 2S, Page thr~e The subject site is located within the Rancho Villages Assessment District (A.D. 159). The majority of the properties participating in A.D. 159 are now within the City of Temecula. Although the District is still being managed by the County of Riverside, the City of Temecula has adopted and accepted the District as the financing mechanism for infrastructure improvements within the State Highway 79 Corridor. As I am sure you are aware assessments are secured by a lien against the respective properties participation in the district. The security of assessment bonds and the long term financial health of the district is therefore dependent on the successful development of properties within the district, both individually and collectively. It is our opinion that the subject site lends itself far more readily to a commercial development than a single family residential detached product. Further, it is our opinion that the preliminary 2 DU/acre residential general plan designation will result in a product that is far less marketable than the requested commercial designation and therefore significantly reducing the development potential of the property and conversely increasing the likelihood of assessment default. Given the fact that the City of Temecula and the County of Riverside are ultimately liable for A.D. 159 bond sales it is' prudent, in our opinion, to support general plan land use designations within the district that have the highest potential of translating into successful projects, From an "area development"/marketing perspective, the subject site is located within the State Highway 79 Corridor which exhibits an established pattern of urban development primarily within the context of Master Planned Communities. Within a very conservative primary market radius of 2.5 miles, there are approximately 18,000+ dwelling units in combination of existing developments and entitlements, (see area development exhibit contained herein). Applying a factor of 2.4 persons per dwelling unit a population of 44,083 persons are projected within the State Highway 79 Corridor at build- out. 2.4 persons per dwelling units x 18,368 dwelling units --- 44,083 corridor population In terms of size, configuration and location, the subject site represents a community commercial facility. Community level commercial cen:ers are generally located on sites ranging from 15 acres to 30 acres in size and require a population base of 35,000 to support the facility. Given the projected 11 1 Mr. John Meyer April 28, 1992 Page two As indicated in the above referenced correspondence Planning Staff offered the following three (3) alternative strategies: o Hold the change of zone in abeyance until the City of Temecula adopts a General Plan and then proceed with the stand-alone change of zone request providing the subject. site ultimately receives a favorable (commerdal) general plan land use designation. o Commit to a plot plan at this juncture with sufficient land use and architectural detail to convince the decision making bodies that a commercial development is the highest and best use for the subject site and can be achieved without sacrificing land use compatibility. o Prepare architectural/landscape guidelines in lieu of an up front commitment to a plot plan. The guideline package would run with the change of zone approval and provide the necessary controls to ensure that future developments are of high quality in terms of architecture, landscaping, site design and compatibility. Our client elected to pursue the change of zone request via the architectural/landscape guidelines alternative. Enclosed for your review is a copy of the guidelines which were submitted to City Staff. In all of our meetings Planning Staff conceded that given the site's location relative to circulation issues, available infrastructure and area development trends, the only practical 'use for the subject site was commercial. Our client has invested a considerable sum of money into this effort based on Planning Staffs conditional support of the commercial zoning designation. It is acknowledged that nothing is ever a sure thing and our client has always stood a chance .of having the zone change request denied-by the Planning Commission and/or City Council. However, our client would not have continued in the process and committed to the expenses inherent therein without clear support and direction from Planning Staff. At this juncture, we have been asked to modify the design guidelines prior to the case being cleared for a public hearing, (see attached correspondence dated January 3, 1992). As of this writing the above referenced modifications are in process and the amended guideline text is anticipated for resubmiual by mid-May, 1992. 1 1 1 Trans-l'acific April 28, 1992 2 '.H' En|t.rpn~t' Orck. ~ esl Temccula. C,~ 02~90 USA Tel ('1~) 6'6 - ?(~1 Fax (714) 6t}~ - 8~13 Mr. John Meyer, Senior Planner City of Temecula 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, California 92590 RE: Butterfield Station 18.9 Acre Commercial Property (A.P.N.'s 952-200-002, 011, 012 and 013) Dear Mr. Meyer: On behalf of our client, Mr. Emil Nowak, I attended the April 16, 1992 General Plan Workshop. Upon examining the proposed "preferred plan" land use allocation map I observed that the above referenced property had received a General Plan designation of 2 dwelling units per acre. It is acknowledged that the above referenced land use designation is very preliminary. Therefore as the City of Temecula's General Plan efforts continues to progress, we respectfully ask that you consider providing the above referenced property with a community commercial land use designation and offer the following for your consideration. On April 16, 1990, Change of Zone No. 1 from R-R to C-P-S was filed over the subject site with the City of Temecula, see Change of Zone application contained herein. The intent of the zone' change request was to bring the subject site's zoning designation into conformance with the site's Southwest Area Plan (SWAP) designation. Subsequent to filing the change of zone request we have had several meetings with Planning Staff to discuss the most appropriate strategy to pursue relative to procuring the C-P-S zoning designation. Planning Staff conceded that the most logical use of the property was commercial. However, Planning Staff was initially hesitant to take the case forward, due to the fact that in the absence of a plot plan there was no mechanism to condition a stand alone change of zone and therefore no means of' insuring the site would develop in a high quality manner in terms of architecture, landscaping, site design, etc., (see attached correspondence dated October 23, 1991). 2-5 DU/AC PICN INDIAN BIll -/ On the May 6, 1992 release. of the Draft Preferred Land Use Plan for the City of Temecula General Plan Program (copy enclosed) the proper land use designation of Highway/Tourist Commercial is indicated for both Parcels 1 and 2 . On the most recent plan that I saw at the planning counter on September 18 showed both properties as Open Space/Recreation. I am not aware of the reasons why this change occurred, but I would like to formally request these two properties, Parcels 2 and 3 of Parcel Map 21769 be changed back to the original Temecula General Plan Program designation of. Highway/Tourist Commercial. The Open Space/Recreation designation would not give us the flexibility required for the family recreation project on Parcel 2 and is totally inconsistent with current R2 zoning or our proposed Resort Commercial project on the adjacent parcel 3 property. I would be available to discuss any questions or concerns you may have on either project at any time convenient for you. Please call me at 699-7777 to set up a time to meet at your convenience. Thank you for your time and cooperation. Sincerely; Phillip Jones Pro3ect Manager cc~ Saied Naaseh INDI WFRIAI. (2t)MMI!R(:IAI I~Rt)l,liR'l'll!:, RECEIVED SEP 2 5 1992 A 'd ........ September 22, 1992 John R. Meyer, AICP Senior Planner City of Temecula Planning Department 43172 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 Re: City of Temecula General Plan Dear: John I represent Dr. Herinder Grewal on CUp Application No. 12 (The Park at Rainbow Canyon, Parcel 2, Of Parcel Map No. 21769) and the 30 acre property to the north (Parcel 3, of Parcel Map NO. 21769). Please refer to enclosed authorization letter. When Dr. Grewal purchased the 43.5 acre, Parcel 2, property, it was zoned RR with a designation of Office Commercial on the Southwest Area Plan. The 30 acre, Parcel 3, property was and is currently zoned R2 (Please refer to enclosed copy of the SWAP plan). Before submitting our CUP'application to the City of Temecula on the family recreational project, "The Park @ Raznbow Canyon", we had a meeting with Mayor Ron Parks, City Manager Dave Di~kson and Planning Director Gary Thornhill. At that meeting we presented our concept which was favorably received because of the overall community benefit of the project. At that same time we discussed our desires to develop a compatible commercial project on the northern contiguous property, Parcel 3. This project would include such uses as a hotel, restaurants, shops and other family oriented recreational uses. Mr. Thornhill had suggested a proper zoning designation of Tourist Commercial would be the appropriate designation for both parcels. We then submitted our CUP application to the City in July of 1991, which is still in process, and are currently working on a concept plan for the Parcel 3 property. J~ ~61 SancJaiwood C,rcle Mumeta. Cahforn~a 92562 · (714) 699-7777 · Fax (714) 698-9223 k, beauty. The Project would require one main structure to handle the food services, restrooms, dressing rooms and the indoor events. Two additional structures would be required. One maintenance building and one gazebo. I have not had a chance to review the allowable uses under the Open Space designation to see if structures are allowed under that designation. I would like to request a proper land use to accommodate this use or a policy statement within the Open Space designation that would allow for this use. When you and I discussed this parcel last week, you mentions the possibility of allowing a private picnic facility in the Open Space/Recreation designation. This policy statement would work as long as structures would be allowed on site. We feel all three parcels will provide high quality destination resort facilities that will provide revenue for the City of Temecula, employment for the local residents and recreation for all. Like our City Brochure states, Temecula will have "Everything under the Sun" and "The Place Where Fun Begins and Never Ends". Please call me at 676~4940 or 699-7777 if you have any questions or comments. My address is: Phillip Jones 33100 Pauba Rd Temecula, CA 92592 Thank you for your time and cooperation. Slncerely; Phillip Jones Project Manager cc: Saied Naaseh RECEIVED OCT 19/992 'd ............ October 19, 1992 John R. Meyer, AICP Senior Planner City of Temecula Planning Department 43172 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 Re: City of Temecula General Plan Concerning Final Map No. 21769 Parcels 1,2 &3. Dear: John Thank you for taking the time to discuss our Rainbow Canyon projects last week. As we discussed, when Dr. Grewal purchased Parcel No. 2 she had the specific purpose to build a waterpark and family fun center. If the General Plan would allow these use in the policies, we would not have an objection to this. I would like to review any policies in draft form when available. When Dr. Grewal purchased Parcel No. 3 (the 30 acre landfill site), she accepted the responsibility of the landfill clean-up. The parcel was already zonedR2 but she felt a more compatible use with the existing golf course and proposed waterpark would be more appropriate. Our intentions for this site are to develop a destination commercial project which would include a hotel, restaurants and other. family recreational uses. We feel the Highway/~Durist Commercial designation would be the appropriate designation. If this is not an acceptable designation, we will keep the existing R2 zoning and work within those allowable uses. As far as Parcel No. 1 (the 17+/- acre parcel in the canyon), which myself and my other two partners own, is currently zoned RR, has a SWAP designation of Resort Commercial and has a City of Temecula designation of Open Space/Recreation. Our intent for this property is to develop a Wedding, Reception and Special Event facility. we are currently working on a concept plan for this use and will review this with you when available. Because Of the extensive amount of easements and oak trees this project would be very environmentally sensitive and heavily landscaped to take advantage of the natural October 6, 1992 Mr. John Meyer Senior Planner City of Temecula 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, California 92590 RE: Temecula General Plan Draft Preferred Land Use Plan (Tentative Parcel Map 25981, Change of Zone Dear Mr. Meyer, Cit ' I am writing this letter to address my concern with the y s Draft General Plan designation for the above parcel. It is currently designated as "Very Low Density" (0.5 DU per acre). The above map and change of zone was approved at City Council April 2, 1991. The gross acreage is 3.10. The parcel is approved for 3 parcels with R-A 20,000 zoning. I feel that the best land use designation for this area is "Low" (2 DU/AC Max.) due to the fact that there are previously approVed maps ~n this area with R-A 20,000 zoning. It is extremely compatible and would serve as a buffer to the Los Ranchitos home- owners from the parcels to the North currently designated as "Low Medium." Thank you for your attention to this matter. Please contact me if you have any questions or require additional information. Sincerely, r William Kouvelis 30675 Pauba Road Temecula, California 92592 (714) 676-2502 We are not real estate developers, we are in the advertising business, and are not ca able of building apartments nor do we want to. We also feel, by speaking with ot~ear property owners in the area, that apartments on this site would be a detraction to the area and to the City. The only type of renters who would be willin to live on this site, which is located in a business park area, would mostly likely be ~e e to hang their laundry out on the balcony similar to the tenements you see alongt)~>u~ol Street. This site has a ~reat deal of exposure which we are attracted to by bein in the advertising business. The site ~s highly visible from many areas of the ~ity and it would be detrimental to the surrounding property owners and the image of Temecula to build apartments here. We sincerely request that you reconsider your proposed general plan designation and zone the property for office commercial use. Sin, cerely, Bl~?m'Urennedy RECEIVED OCT 1 199 . ~'f'l' Ol: IEtlECUtA October 1, 1992 John Me er, Senior Planner CITY O~' TEMECULA 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, California 92590 RE: Assessors Parcel Number 940-310-014 Dear Mr. Meyer, I am writing you to protest the proposed general lan designation of the above referenced parcel to a medium density residenti~aYzoning. The property was purchased in October of 1989 with the intention of developing an office building for a future location of our advertising company. At the time of the purchase we petitioned the County Board of Supervisors and Planning Commission to designate a ortion of the parcel for office/commercial use and the balance of the site would be Felt as open space. This designation request was accepted by the County under the South West Area Plan. Shortly after the South West Area Plan was adopted by the County Board of Supervisors we were told by the County that our zone change and buildin applications would have to be submitted to the newly incorporated City g~ Temecula. Seeing the start of economic recession in earIv 1990 and after several meetings with planrang consultants in Temecula we decidedto wait for a while before startihg to build our building. We felt that time would be needed for the City to settle some of it's traffic problems and decide whether or not to propose the western corridor road which would have a substantial effect on our property. We could als0 use some time to see how the economic recession would effect our advertising business. Now that we are secure with our business and ready to consider expansion, we are faced with the problem of zoning designation with the City's proposed eneral plan. By zoning this parcel medium residential this totally eliminates our ability to use the property for our intended purpose and greatly disheartens us as to the thought of locating our advertising business in Temecula. The only alternative we will have is to sell the property to an apartment building developer and after some investigation in this direction we find thas to be an impossibility. Octo~r5,1~2 RECEIVED 0C108199Z Mr. John Meyer Planning Department 43174 Business Park Drive Tcmecula, CA 92_590 Re: APN #922-170-001 Dear Mr. Meyer, I havc acquired a 2.83 acre parcel of land within the TcmeCula city limits at 28915 Vallejo Drive next to the I- 15 freeway (lot 7/3552). Presently I find that this property is no longer desirable as a home site because of the freeway.noise. Because the property falls within the Los Ranchitos Homeowners Association the general plan could use the property to enhance Los Ranchitos, such as a church, tennis club, day care ccmcr or community hall. Plca_,c g~ x c me a call at the above number to discuss the possibilities on this parcel. Smcclcl',. ) 'LINDAL CEDAR HOMES. INC. Bdl Brmvn. Western Regional Mgr. ,./' Winchester Pr~ · S.P. 213 I / City of Temecula Draft General Plan Cu;rent ,'preferred Plan" Designation (Medium Density Residential) N Not to Scale T~ans*Faci~c Requested ,,preferred Plan" Designation __ orhood Commercial) . (Neighborhood Commercial) Mr. John Meyer October 6, ]992 Page five Thank you for your consideration in this matter. We look forward tO the continued progress of the City of Temecula's General Plan. Should you have any questions and/or concerns with respect to our request, please do not hesitate to contact me at extension 212. Enclosures cc: Mr. Jim E. Shimozono, Architects Design Consonium Mr. John Meyer October 6, 1992 Page four the current medium residential general plan designation will result in an end product that is only marginally marketable relative to the requested neighborhood commercial designation, therefore significantly reducing the development potential of the property and conversely increasing the likelihood of assessment default. Given that the City of Temecula and the County of Riverside have a lot at stake, relative to AD 161 bond sales, it is prudent, in our opinion, to support general plan land use designations within AD 161 that have the highest potential of translating into successful projects. From an area development / marketing perspective, the subject site is located within a segment of the Winchester Road corridor which exhibits an established pattern of urban development primarily in the context of master planned communities. Within a primary market radius of 2.5 miles, there are approximately 6,747 dwelling units in combination of existing residential developments and entitlemerits. In addition there is also a significant amount of property within the market radius which has an industrial zoning designation and/or industrial specific plan designation. Applying a factor of 2.4 persons per dwelling unit a population of 16,192 individuals are projected within the aforementioned 2.5 mile market radius at buildout. 2.4 persons per dwelling unit X 6,747 dwelling units = 16,192 market radius population. As previously indicated neighborhood level commercial centers are generally located on sites of 10 acres or less. In addition; neighborhood commercial centers as a general rule of thumb require a population base of 2,500 to support the facility. Given the projected construction of 6,747 dwelling units within the 2.5 mile market radius exclusively, there will be a sufficient population to theoretically support six (6) neighborhood centers. It should be noted however, that within the subject site's 2.5 mile market radius there are only two (2) additional properties which meet the neighborhood commercial criteria one of which is within an area of the Winchester Properties Specific Plan (S.P. 213) that is located outside of the Temecula City boundary. Mr. John Meyer October 6, 1992 Page three Therefore, it is our opinion that the Neighborhood Commercial designation currently applied to the Roripaugh Estates Commercial component is inappropriate and should be redesignated to reflect the community commercial designation. Once the Roripaugh Commercial site has been redesignated as community commercial the prospect of having excessive contiguous neighborhood oriented commercial property in the area will no longer be an issue. The subject site is located within Assessment District No. 161, (Winchester Properties). AD 161 consist of properties within the unincorporated areas of Riverside County in addition to areas within the City of Temecula and the City of Murrieta. Although AD 161 continues to be managed by the County of Riverside, the City of Temecula has adopted and accepted AD 161 as the financing mechanism for infrastructure improvements within the Winchester Road Corridor north of the Interstate-15 freeway and south of Auld Road. As l am sure you are aware assessments are secured by a lien against the respective properties participating in AD 161. The security of assessment bonds and the long-term financial health of AD 161 and similar assessment districts within the City of Temecula are therefore dependent on the successful development of properties within the respective districts, both individually and collectively. The subject site is currently below the grade of Winchester Road. For the property to develop for any use other' than open space the site will need to be elevated to an at grade condition with Winchester Road. Given the subject site's ultimate relationship tO Winchester Road and it's inherent noise impacts it is our opinion that the properly lends itself for more readily to a neighborhood commercial development than a medium density residential product. The site is too small to cluster units away from Winchester Road and still maintain sufficient density to have a viable project. This condition is further exacerbated in that the current property owners purchased the site based on the property's existing manufacturing / service commercial zoning designation and the potential land uses permitted therein. Further, it is our opinion that Mr. John Meyer October 6, 1992 Page two The subject site has an appropriate size and configuration to support a low intensity neighborhood orientated commercial development. A low intensity mixed use commercial development at this location is entirely consistent with existing residential developments and the established pattern of residential development within the Winchester Road corridor. The subject site backs up to the proposed Tucalota Creek channel which will provide a land use buffer between commercial uses anticipated for the subject site and the single family residential uses to the east approved within the Winchester Properties Specific Plan (SP 213). In addition the contiguous parcel to the north of the subject site is designated as open space per S.P. 213 and as such will provide a land use transition between the proposed commercial land uses and multiple family land uses to the north approved with S.P. 213, see attached exhibit. It should be noted that the current Draft Preferred Plan has designated the property immediately north of the subject site as medium residential. However, this parcel has already been committed to open space pursuant to SP 213. With respect to the encouragement of pedestrian uses criteria; the subject site can be linked on the eastern side of Winchester Road to a series of recreation trails and class II bike lanes proposed within the Roripaugh Estates Specific Plan (S.P. 164) and the Winchester Properties Specific Plan (S.P. 213) making the commercial development accessible by alternative modes of travel. Upon examining the "Draft Preferred Plan" it was observed that the Roripaugh Estates Commercial' Center currently reflects a Neighborhood Commercial designation. The Roripaugh Estates Commercial Center property is separated from the subject site by the proposed Santa Gertrudis Creek Channel. Never the less, an argument could be made that granting the subject site a Neighborhood Commercial designation in combination with the Roripaugh Commercial Center would result in an excess of contiguous neighborhood orientated commercial property in this particular area of the City. However, it should be noted that the Roripaugh Commercial component is 27 acres in size and is intended to support a supermarket, drug store and other more intensive commercial land uses consistent with the community commercial land use description and criteria. October 6, 1992 Mr. John Meyer, Senior Planner City of Temecnia 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, California 92590 RE: General Plan Designation Applied to Assessors Pareel Number 911-150-005 (H-C Property) Dear Mr. Meyer: On behalf of my clients, Mr. Jim E. Shimozono and H.C. Properties, I have examined the "Draft Preferred Plan" land use designation as it relates to the above referenced property. As of this writing, the Draft General Plan reflects a medium residential designation (12 DU/Acre maximum density) over the subject site. As the City of Temecula's General Plan efforts continue to progress, on behalf of my clients we respectfully request that the above referenced property be given a neighborhood commercial land use designation and offer the following for your consideration. O Upon examining the various commercial General Plan land use designation descriptions it is our opinion that the subject site lends itself more readily to the neighborhood commercial designation. The neighborhood commercial designation description states that "Neighborhood Commercial centers usually are developed on less than ten acres of land and range between 25,000 and 75,000 square feet. Property should be compatible in design and scale with adjacent residential areas and should be designed to encourage pedestrian usage." The subject site at 6.70_+ acres falls within the 10 acreage criteria as described by the Neighborhood Commercial designation General Plan policies. (d) the creek, it is not well suited for residential development. Commercial designation should be extended from Front Street South to the creek along Interstate 15; and Escarpment Property would be Community Commercial. This is an appropriate designation for approximately 3 acres at Rancho California Road. Business Park designation would be more appropriate for remainder of Escarpment Property. Requested xot~on: (a) Change land use designation for portion of Meadows Property (all but school site) to community Commercial; (b) Change land use designation for portion of Rainbow Canyon Property from Low Medium Residential to Community Commercial; (c) Change land use designation for portion of Margarita Canyon Property from Very Low Residential to Community Commercial; and (d) Change land use designation for portion of Escarpment Property from Community Commercial to Business Park. KEMPER REAL BSTATE MAHAGEMX!~ COMPANY 4 PROPERTIB2 AFFECTED BY PROPOSED LAND UBB DEBIGNATIONS DRAFT TBMECULAGENERAL PLAN 4 Properties AZZocted by Draft General Plan: (a) Northeast comer of Winchester and Margarita Roads (the eMeadows Property'); (b) Southwest comer of Highway 79 and Pala Road (the "Rainbow Canyon Property"); (c) Interstate 15 and Front Street South (the "Margarita Canyon Property"); and (d) Hillside west of International Rectifier (the "Escarpment Property"). Current SWAP Designationsz (a) Meadows Property - Light Industrial; (b) Rainbow Canyon Property'- Office Commercial; (c) Margarita Canyon Property - Northeast portion designated Commercial; Southwest portion designated Mountainous (10 acre minimums); and (d) Escarpment Property - Approximately 3 acres at Rancho California Road designated Commercial; Remainder designated as Restricted Light Industrial. Draft General Plan would change land use designations for 3 of the 4 properties: (a) Meadows Property maintains Industrial designation. Portion of Meadows Property to be used as new high school. Remainder of Meadows Property would be ideal for commercial designation; (b) Rainbow Canyon Property would be part Neighborhood Commercial and part Low Medium Residential (3 to 6 units per acre). With realignment of Pala Road, both properties are ideal for commercial designations; (c) Margarita Canyon Property would be part Neighborhood Commercial and part Very Low Residential (.2 to .4 units per acre). Because this property is located between Interstate 15 and HAND DELIVERED October 7, 1992 Page 2 LORENZ ALHADEFF & OGGEL with a map showing the condition of the Rainbow Canyon Property after such realignment. We have previously advised Dave Dixon that we would negotiate in good faith to convey a portion of the Rainbow Canyon Property for wetlands mitigation. Obviously, Kemper needs to discuss this issue further with the City, but it is my understanding that a draft letter of intent is being prepared in this regard. Kemper is asking the City (i) to designate both portions of the Rainbow Canyon Property lying on either side of Pala Road (as realigned) as Community and/or Neighborhood Commercial, and (ii) for help with the State to obtain appropriate ingress and egress to the Rainbow Canyon Property in connection with the realignment of Pala Road. 3. Marqarita CanYon Property. This property is located at Interstate 15 and Front Street South. We believe the current Neighborhood Commercial designation should be extended from Front Street South to the creek along the Interstate 15 frontage. 4. Escarpment ProPerty. This property is located on the hillside west of the International Rectifier site. We would like the City to limit the current Community Commercial designation to the approximately three (3) acres adjacent to Rancho California Road, and to designate the remainder of the Escarpment Property as Business Park. We would welcome theopportuni.ty to discuss these issues with you further at your earliest convenience. In the meantime, should you have any questionsor concerns regarding the above, or the enclosed outline, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, Samuel C. Alhadeff, P.C., LORENZ ALHADEFF & OGGEL of pdO cc: Gary Thornhill RECEIVED 0 C l 15 1992 LORENZ ALHADEFF & OGGEL October 7, 1992 HAND DEv. IVERaD John R. Meyer, AICP Senior Planner City of Temecula 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 Re: Proposed Land Use Designations For Kemper Properties Under Draft General Plan 6961.1026 Dear John: As you know, this firm represents Kemper Real Estate Management Company ("Kemper") in connection with the above- referenced matter. You were kind enough last Wednesday to discuss with Barry Burnell and I certain proposed land use designations under the Draft General Plan for various Kemper properties we would like the City to reconsider. The four (4) specific properties we would like to address are commonly referred to as the "Meadows Property," the "Rainbow Canyon Property," the "Margarita Canyon Property" and the "Escarpment Property." Attached to this letter for your consideratiOn is.an outline covering the salient issues for each of these properties. A brief summary is as follows: 1. Meadows Property. This Property is located at the Northeast corner of Margarita and Winchester Roads. As you know, a portion of the Meadows Property will be conveyed to the Temecula Valley Unified School District. Kemper is requesting that the remainder of the Meadows Property (located across Margarita Road from the Costco commercial site) be designated Community Commercial. 2. R~inbow Canyon Property. This property is located at Pala Road and Highway 79 South. As you will recall, we briefly discussed the Rainbow Canyon Parcel with you, and provided you with a map depicting the "after condition" that will exist on this parcel following the realignment of Pala Road. In addition, I understand that Norm Thomas at RanPac has also provided you LORENZ ALHADEFF & OGGEL John R. Meyer, AICP October 19, 1992 Page 3 consistency purposes should be redesignated Highway/Tourist Commercial and Professional Office. I would welcome the opportunity to discuss these properties with you at your earliest convenience. In the meantime, should you have any questions or concerns regarding the redesignation we have requested in connection with these properties, please do not hesitate to call me. Sincerely, PDO/js (km~erZ.Ltr) cc: Dennis Klimmek, Esq. Greg Erickson Csaba Ko Lisa Peterson, Esq. Barry Burnell Samuel C. Alhadeff, Esq. Samuel C. Alhadeff, P.C., LORENZ ALHADEFF & OGGEL of LORENZ ALHADEFF & OGGEL John R. Meyer, AICP October 19, 1992 Page 2 3. North Jefferson Business Park-Freewav Property. All of Kemper's North Jefferson Business Park-Freeway property is designated Service Commercial. We believe the Service Commercial designation is appropriate; however, such designation should be expanded to include most, if not all, of the uses contemplated by the Business Park designation as well. For example, at e minimum, the Service commercial designation should contemplate stand-alone manufacturing and related activities. 4. North Jefferson Business Park-Phase 3 Property. This property is on the west side of Jefferson, south of the Freeway Property, and is currently designated Business Park. Because Jefferson is such a commercial corridor for the City, we believe it makes sense to redesignate the Jefferson parcels (approximately 200 feet in depth) to Service Conunercial, with the remainder of this property remaining Business Park. This would preserve the Business Park character of the area, while allowing for appropriate commercial uses along Jefferson. 5. Rancho California Business Park ProDertv. Parcel i of this property is designated Business Park even though the City approved a Change of Zone to Community Commercial thereon less than a year ago. We believe the City should honor the rezoning obtained through this zone change, and therefore request a redesignation under the land use element of the Draft General Plan to Community Commercial. 6. ' Front Street Commercial PropertY. This approximately 12.3 acre property is located generally at Front Street and Interstate 15. While it is appropriately designated Highway/Tourist Commercial, we would like to see the uses authorized under this designation expanded to allow some incidental office uses as well. This would be consistent with the existing C-P-S zoning. 7. Information Center ProPerty. This is the Information Center for Paloma De1 Sol, and is part of Specific Plan 180. We believe the entire property should be designated Highway/Tourist Commercial (and eliminating the High Density Residential designation on a portion of the property). 8. Plaza Office II Property. This property is located on the northwest corner of Rancho California and Ynez Roads. I believe this property is also a part of a. specific plan, and for LORENZ ALHADEFF & OGGEL October 19, 1992 OCT 2 0 19S2 CITY OF TEijL:CULA 6961.1026 HAND DELXV~RID John R. Meyer, AICP Senior Planner City of Temecula 43174 Business Perk Drive Temecula, CA 92590 Re: Proposed land Use Designations For Kemper Properties Under Draft General Plen Dear John: This is a supplement to my previous letter to you dated October 7, 1992. In reviewing the land use component of the Draft Temecula General Plan, we have determined there are several additional properties (identified on the Map attached hereto) owned by Kemper Real Estate Management Compeny ("Kemper") that should be considered for land use redesignation by ~he City of Temecula as follows: 1. Murrieta Creek Property. As you may know, Kemper owns approximately 15 acres along Murrieta Creek south of Winchester Road that will be outside the final Murrieta.creek alignment. Kemper is not opposed to the Open Space/Recreation designation for that portion of the property necessary for the Creek itself. However, such designation should not apply to any property not required for the Creek, and Kemper shouId be able to utilize such remaining property consistent with the Business Park designation shown for the surrounding properties. 2. Winchester Hiuhlands Business Park ProPertY. Kemper owns three remaining lots in the Winchester Highlands Business Park, which is designated Professional Office on the Draft Preferred land Use Plan. Consistent with the existing zoning in place, and consistent with existing uses in the Business Park, Kemper would like these lots redesignated to Business Park in order to allow for manufacturing activities. Such a redesignation would permit the likely manufacturing uses contemplated for these properties, along with professional office uses as well. MEADOWVIEW VINEY, ARD ZFP August 7, 1992 RECEIVED Mr. Gary Thornhill Director of Planning CITY OF TEMECUL~ 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 AUG 10 1992 Ans'd ............ RE: TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN Dear Gary: Based on the draft of the General Plan, I am requesting further review of the following three properties: Pala Road / HW7 79 S: We request that this be designated retail commercial. A small portion is high density residential and it seems inappropriate to designate the property as residential due to being adjacent to heavy auto traffic and in close proximity to major arterials. Front Street / 1-15 / Hw~ 79 S: This property was shown as commercial on swap. It is the southern access to the Western Corridor. The plan shows low density residential between 1-15 and the creek. We are requesting commercial zoning south to the Temecula sign. We feel commercial is appropriate due to the freeway frontage and the Western Corridor. winchester Road between Margarita & Nicholas Roads: A green belt is shown along Winchester Road between Margarita and Nicholas. I believe that this is incorrectly drawn and the green belt should be along the Santa Gertrudis Creek as · planned in the past.' Please let me know what further information you may require regarding these properties. Sincerely, BEDFORD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY Gregory A. Er. ickson Area Manager GAE/dh/1089 co: Bitt Butter Barry Burner[ 2;S765 S~nglc Oak Drive, Suite 200 Tcmecula, CA 92590 Phone: 714/676-5o41 Fax: 714/676-3385 Very HiGh Planning Areas 3, 4/5, and 6 shall be developed with very high density residential (14-20 du/ac) land uses, similar to the densities (10-20 du/ac) originally proposed in the approved Specific Plan. Planning Area 7 was also originally designated for residential development at a density of 4-10 du/ac. Planning Area 7 is now designated for very high density uses in order to provide 'a land use transition between the office/professional land uses in Planning Area 1 and the medium density residential uses to the south (Planning Area 8/9). The total target number of dwelling units has been reduced from 20 to a maximum of 17 dwelling units per acre to better reflect market concerns and to increase private open space within multi-family Planning Areas. overall, the approved Specific Plan shows 18.3 acres to be developed with residential land uses at a density of 10-20 du/ac. This Amendment proposes that 22.5 acres be developed with very high density residential development (14-20 du/ac), representing a 4.2 acre (12%) increase. Total dwelling units for Planning Areas 3, 4/5, 6, and 7 increased by 17, from 366 to 383 (8%). These Planning Areas have been reconfigured slightly to accommodate a better road system which is configured as a loop with a larger radius than previously shown. Please note that no densitV transfer of residential dwelling units shall be allowed between Planning Areas within the Rancho Highlands Specific Plan project area. b. Office/Professional Development This Amendment proposes two locations for development with office/professional land uses, one of which remains un- changed (Planning Area 1), however the other site (Planning Area 2) has been expanded~ Total acreage has increased by 3 acres, from 11.8 to 14.8. The office/professional portion of the site centers around two lakes adjacent to Rancho California Road. These lakes may be modified or reduced once the actual site plan has been determined. These planning areas Will be comprised mainly of medium intensity office/professional uses that are intended to complement the Plaza, a retail commercial development north of Rancho California Road. Hotel/restaurant uses may also be allowed within the office/professional uses. Please refer to the land use .regulations and development standards in Section III.B., Planning Area Development Standards. 15 October5,1~2 IN 168-074 John Meyer City of Temecula Planning Depal~anent 43174 Business Park Dr., . Temecula, CA 92590 RE: RANCHO HIGHLANDS GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION Dear John: Attached, please find an excerpt from the Rancho Highlands Specific Plan which penms to the Office Professional portions of the Rancho Highlands Specific Plan. As you can see from the text I have provided, and as we have discussed in our recent meeting, the lake and grassy area on the southeast comer of Ynez and Rancho California Road are not expected nor required to be retained in their current configuration. The future configuration and character of the open space area on that comer will only be determined in conjunction with future plot plan subminais for office professional uses on that comer. I think it is important that the General Plan recognize the flexibility and uncertain nature of the open space area on this comer and on the southwest comer as well. As you may or may nut be aware, the southwest comer is allowed under the Specific Plan to increase the office area and to add a restaurant in the area where some of the open space exists now. In my opinion, it is important that the City of Temecula through its General Plan not imply to the public that what exists now will remain for the long term future. I would suggest this be handled through a textual notation in the final version of the General Plan which would save both the City and the Developer significant headaches in the future. If you need further information, or if I can he of any help otherwise with regard to this matter, plPas~ dnn't hesitate to ask. Very truly yours, TAB PLANNING CONSULTANTS, INC. 'Barry Bumell Principal RECEIVED BB:tmd/O07 Enc|osurcs xc: Sam Alhadeff Greg Erickson Dennis Klimmek fi C T i 7 An$ 'd ............ THENCE NORTH. 64'46'46" EAST A DISTANCE OF 33.00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE CENTERLINE OF SAID KATMLEEN WAY, SAID POINT BEING A POINT ON A CURVE, CONCAVE NORTHEASTERLY, RAVING A RADIUS OF '400.00 FEET AND A RADIAL WHICH BEARS NORTH 64'46'46" EAST; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY, ALONG SAID LINE AND ALONG SAID CURVE, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 65'12'23", AN ARC LENGTH OF 455.23 FEET; THENCE NORTH 89'34'23" EAST A DISTANCE OF 162.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 00'25'37" EAST A DISTANCE OF 33.90 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHWESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF SAID KATHLEEN WAY; THENCE SOUTH 07'51'31" WEST ALONG THE BOUNDARY LINE OF SAID PARCEL 21 A DISTANCE OF 765.87 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 11'06'14" WEST ALONG SAID LINE A DISTANCE OF 19.57 FEET TO A POINT ON A NON-TANGENT CURVE, CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY, HAVING A RADIUS OF 3500.00 FEET AND A RADIAL WHICH BEARS SOUTH 46'39'00" WEST; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY, ALONG SAID CURVE, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 08'26'51", AN ARC LENGTH OF 516.03 FEET; THENCE NORTH 51'47'51" WEST A DISTANCE OF 942.80 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. THE HEREIN DESCRIBED PARCEL OF LAND CONTAINS 12.73 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. E~9, I~.I~IBIT "A" LEGAL DESCRIPTION CHANGE OF ZONE 5740 PARCELS OF LAND BEING A PART OF PARCELS 20 AND 21, PARCEL MAP 18254, AS SHOWN BY MAP ON FILE IN PARCEL MAP BOOK 116, PAGES 69 THROUGH 78, INCLUSIVE, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: R-5 ZONING BEGINNING AT THE NORTI{WESTERLY CORNER OF SAID PARCEL 20, AS SHOWN ON SAID MAP; THENCE NORTH 47'36'58" EAST ALONG THE BOUNDARY LINE OF SAID PARCEL 20 A DISTANCE OF 617.95 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 51'47'51" EAST DEPARTING SAID LINE A DISTANCE OF 1073.56 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE, CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY, HAVING A RADIUS OF 3500.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY, ALONG SAID CURVE, ANGLE OF 08'26'51", AN ARC LENGTH OF 516.03 THE BOUNDARY LINE OF SAID PARCEL 21; THROUGH A CENTRAL FEET TO A POINT ON THENCE SOUTH 11'06'14" WEST .ALONG'SAID LINE A DISTANCE OF 525.58 FEET; THENCE NORTH 66'42'29" WEST A DISTANCE OF 1331.05 FEET TO THE SOUTHWESTERLY CORNER OF SAID PARCEL 20; THENCE NORTH 31'23'58" WEST ALONG THE BOUNDARY LINE OF SAID PARCEL 20 A DISTANCE OF 684.92 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. THE HEREIN DESCRIBED PARCEL OF LAND CONTAINS 28.39 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. IP ZONING COMMENCING AT THE NORTHWESTERLY CORNER OF SAID PARCEL'20, AS SHOWN ON SAID MAP; THENCE NORTH 47'36'58" EAST ALONG THE BOUNDARY LINE OF SAID PARCEL 20 A DISTANCE OF 617.95 FEET; THENCE DEPARTING SAID LINE SOUTH 51'47'51" 130.76 FEET TO A POINT ON THE BOUNDARY LINE SAID POINT BEING THE POINT OF BEGINNING; EAST A DISTANCE OF OF SAID PARCEL 20, THENCE NORTH 82'01'31" EAST A DISTANCE POINT ON THE SOUTHWESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY AS SHOWN ON SAID MAP; OF 679.55 FEET TO A LINE OF MATHLEEN WAY, 1 PUBLIC HEARINGS /.~..~j.~ C/ ' Any person may submit written comments to the City Council before a public hearing or may appear and be heard in support of or in opposition to the approval of the project(s) at the time of hearing. If you challenge any of the projects in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing or in written correspondences delivered to the City Clerk at, or prior to, the public hearing. 12 Chanae of Zone No. 5631 - Vestino Tentative Tract No. 25320 Property located north of Pauba Road, between Ynez Road and Margarita Road. RECOMMENDATION: ~2.1 Continue the Public Hearing to the meeting of December 10, 1991. \ 13 hanQe of ZOne NO. 5740 . · Property located on the west side of Ridgepark Drive, south of Rancho California Road. ECOMMENDATION: 13.1 Adopt a Negative Declaration for Change of Zone No. 5740. 13.2 Adopt a Resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 5740 CHANGING THE ZONE FROM R-A- 20 TO I-P AND Ro5 ON PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF RIDGEPARK DRIVE AND SOUTH OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NOS. 940-310-020 AND 021. 13.3 Read by title only and introduce an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 91- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF SAID CITY IN THE CHANGE OF ZONE APPLICATION NO. 5740 CHANGING THE ZONE FROM R-A*20 TO lop AND .4-5 ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF RIDGEPARK DRIVE, SOUTH OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NOS. 940-320-020 AND 021. AGENDA TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL A REGULAR MEETING TEMECULA TEMPORARY COMMUNITY CENTER 27475 COMMERCE CENTER DRIVE NOVEMBER 12, 1991 - 7:00 PM Next in Order: Ordinance: No. 91-42 Resolution: No. 91-109 CALL TO ORDER: Invocation Pastor Erik Krag, Temecula Evangelical Free Church Flag Salute Councilmember Moore ROLL CALL: Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Mur~oz, Parks PRESENTATIONS/ PROCLAMATIONS Certificate of Valor - Andrew Gonzales Proclamation * Great American Smokeout Day PUBLIC FORUM This is a portion of the City Council meeting unique to the City of Temecula. At the meeting held on the second Tuesday of each month, the City Council will devote a period of time (not to exceed 30 minutes) for the purpose of providing the public with an opportunity to discuss topics of interest with the Council. The members of the City Council will respond to questions and may give direction to City staff. The Council is prohibited, by the provisions of the Brown Act, from taking any official action on any matter which is not on the agenda. If you desire to speak on any matter which is not listed on the agenda, a pink "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the City Clerk. For all other agenda items a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the City Clerk b~fqr~ the Council gets to that item. There is a five (5) minute time limit for individual speakers. NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC All matters listed under Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and all will be enacted by one roll call vote. There will be no discussion of these items unless members of the City Council request specific items be removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action. A.J. TERICH ENGINEERING CIVIL ENGINEERING ° SURVEYING · LAND PLANNING October 13, 1992 John Meyer, Senior Planner City of Temecula Planning Dept. 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, California 92590 Re: Assessor's Parcel Nos. 940-310-015 & 016 General Plan Land Use Designation (JN 2334-E) Dear John: Per our conversation on October 12, 1992, I am enclosing information relative to the recent zone change on the subject property relative to the proposed General Plan Designation. The proposed designation calls for high density and medium density residential. However, please note that the surrounding uses North and northwest are office buildings and more importantly the zone change which was approved within the last year by the City Council designated the property as I-P and R-5. Mr. Firestone, the property owner, respectfully requests that the zone change which he applied for and obcalned be recognized and adopted as a part of the City's General Plan. However, Mr. Firestone would be amenable to a 50/50 split of I.P. and high density residential and hereby requests that the high density, if applied, would not be restricted by height. Your consideration will be appreciated. Very truly yours, A.~. Terich Engineering. AjT/smy ...'.~ 2 cc: John Firestone Gary Thornhill City Council Planning Commission · I I~ I M AI,X STI,~EET · TEMECULA, CA 92590 · (714) 676-5715 (714) 676-5716 ° FAX (714) 676.-6306 To summarize, we are requesting a designation that would allow offices, light industry and commercial (as allowed perhaps by the IP zoning), a refinement of the limits of the proposed open space designa=ion to resemble the actual topography and a designation of high density residential without height limitation for the southerly boundary. Your consideration will be appreciated. Very truly yours, A.J. Terich Engineering Anthony~J. rich~~ AJT/snm cc: John Firestone Gary Thornhill City Council Planning Commission A.J. TERICH ENGINEERING CIVIL ENGINEERING · SURVEYING · LAND PLANNING October 13, 1992 1992 John Meyer, Senior Planner City of Temecula 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, California 92590 Re: Assessor's Parcel Number's: 940-310-013, 940-320-001,-002, -003,-004,-005,-006 & -007 General Plan Land Use Designation. (JN 2334 E) Dear John: On behalf of John Firestone, owner of the above referenced property, we respectfully request that the City seriously consider redesignating the subject property to a mixed use of commercial, light industry and office. In Mr. Firestone's opinion, the professional office designation is too large to be used in the foreseeable future with the abundance of vacant office space now available. Any delays in constructing a viable project further delays the construction of the.much needed Southwest Corridor.- Per our conversation on October 12, 1992, you said the open space designation shown' on APN #940-320-002 is intended to reflect the steep natdral slope along the property's northeasterly boundary. That being the case, the designation on the land use map does not match the actual steep sloped property. I have enclosed a topo for your review. In addition, he respectfully requests that the medium and high density residential designation to the South be redesignated as all high density with ~o height restriction. 4] 934 MAIN STREET · TEMECULA, CA 92590 · (714) 676-5715 / (714) 676-5716 · FAX (714) 676-6306 4. Another concern that we have is the fact that a decision by the City Council in ~ovember of 199e, has been preempted and an additional 2e acres has been placed in the Sphere of Influence without our knowledge. We believe we have valid concerns that would jeopardize our business, as well as others in the building. We feel that it would be grossly unfair to fezone property Just north of us that have not gone through the public hearing process nor have paid any zone change fees. We also feel that if you were to down-zone our property, it would place us in 'double jeopardy' forcing us to refile for commercial zoning and having to pay the fees twice. We would appreciate your consideration on our Concerns. Yours very truly, James Core CHAN Z' October 23, 1992 Mr. John Meyer Senior Planner Planning Department City of Temecula 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 9259~ Dear Mr. Meyer: It has been brought to my attention that at the public hearing on November 2, 1992, land use will be addressed on the proposed general plan for the study of Temecula. We have a concern with the portion of the plan known as Winchester Hills Specific Plan 255 which has currently been taken off calendar from the public hearings. My confusion is that, to the best of my understanding, this area is zoned commercial. According to Environmental Impact Report Number 247, SCH Number 87102607 of January 1988, on Page 337, Table D-3, Winchester Hills is listed as industrial. Exhibit V1, Item 10, Winchester Hills Industrial Park, Rancho Villages Policy Plan, P.M. 22686, the status is listed as approved and recorded. It seems strange to me that we are pursuing a general plan with a specific plan which has not been approved. Attached are a couple of letters, one to Debbie Ubnoske and the other to Bob Righetti, with some of our many concerns about the incompatibility of this specific plan with our adjoining property. Please feel free to contact'me so we can discuss this. Very truly yours, Edward J, Burke Director of Engineering Attachments EJB/sld cc: Debbie Ubnoske William Channell, Sr. Dale Wooding CHANNELL COMMERICAL CORPORATION · 26040 Ynez Road, P,0 Box 9022, Temecula. CA 92589-9(122 714/694-9160 · 800/423-1863 · FAX 714/694-9170 October 2e, 1992 Mr. John Myers Planning Department City of Temecula Temecula, California RECEIVED ClI B:IBmU Dear Mr. Myers, We have been made aware recently of certain changes that may occur in the City's General Plan regarding our property located at 3332e Highway 79, Temeculs, CA.. Assessment #95215eee3-5. We understand that the City is considering changing the zoning from Commercial on le acres on the corner of Highway 79 and Butterfield Stage Rd., to residential zoning. We have a great deal of concerns regarding these possible changes and they are as follows, 1. In 1982 we were compelled by the CoUnty to change the zoning from Agricultural zoning to Commercial, if we wanted to continue to sell produce from our building. We paid all the fees necessary to change the zoning so that we could continue our business. 2. During the last le months, we have been in the process of leasing our present buildings to retail businesses. We have stressed to them that if their business grows that they will have the opportunity to move into a new complex referring to our future plans regarding the.property. and its present' commercial zoning. If the property 'was rezoned on the General Plan to residential it would restrict our abillty to continue to lease the property and restrict the expansion of any business that exists. This would place the property as zoned today (commercial) totally useless until we could sell the property as residential, since there is no assurance in the future that any new City staff members would agree with the future concept. 3. The commercial property (9.61 acres) on the corner of Highway 79 and Butterfield Stage Rd., was assessed by Assessment District #159 on the basis of a Commercial zoning. It would appear to us that down-zoning the property would create a problem both from the standpoint of monies already paid and the responsibility of monies to be paid in the future. CHAN COMMERCIAL CORPORATION October 23, 1992 Ms, Debbie Ubnoske Senior Planner Planning Department City of Temecula 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 9259~ Subject, Winchester Hills Specific Plan 255 Dear Debbie, Charmell Commercial Corporation (CCC) relocated to its present location immediately to the south of the project bordered by Ynez Road, County Center Drive and Equity Drive, for a variety of reasons. Some of the deciding factors were to be located in an area which provides an affordable lifestyle to its employees in California. After much evaluation, the present location was selected to facilitate a corporate image while being located in an established corporate park adjoining properties that were zoned commercial. The possible expansion in both facilities and processes to remain competitive in technology and for additional capacity was planned.. The accessibility to freeways and high profile frontage on a major thoroughfare (Ynez Road) was a major factor in our relocation. Upon review of the specific plan, a variety of issues are of a concern to us: The plan calls for the location of a park directly across the street from our facility. This land use brings a variety of possible problems to mind. We have a security issue~ a vandalism issue; an increased liability issue. We are currently 'experiencing difficulties keeping people out of our decorative pond at the entrance of our building. With increased visibility and more traffic, we see this as an increasing problem and are somewhat concerned about whose responsibility it is. It appears that the parking for the prospective park is not adequate, looking at the facilities included, i.e., baseball diamonds. We have specific roles in our Corporate Industrial Park Association which prohibits the use of the street for parking. We see that it will be inevitable that people will be parking on the street, if not our parking lot. We do operate a business and we have company owned trocks and use contract carriers. Having a park atmosphere with industrial traffic seems incompatible. We are concerned that with the proximity of the park and/or adjoining residences, we may be restricted both now and in the future with respect to the process and/or use of our industrial property. The proposed neighborhood shopping center, down the street from the park, seems to be a wonderful' source of activities for children who would not be in school (as this project may be what would force the Temecula School District into year-round school), CHANNELL COMMERICAL CORPORATION · 26040 ¥~ez ROa(I. P.0 BOx 9022. Temecula. CA 92589-9022 714/694-9160 · 800/423-1863 · FAX 714/694-9170 Ms. Debbie Ubnc October 22, 199. Page Two thereby always having stores and playing in ours. the possibility of children going to the the park and adjoining properties--namely we feel that the realignment of Ynez Road is ridiculous. We bought this property to have an identity on a major street. This property was sold to us as a major comer. Now it appears that the developer would like to sell our address again for an additional premium. We have had to reprint our business literature at the. cost of several thousands of dollars several times due to address, zip code, post office box, and very soon, the area code changes. In conjunction with this street change which we feel is incompatible, the plan calls for a minor monument to this residential development to be located at the new intersection of Ynez and "C" Street which appears to be located at one of our major driveways, eliminating any street site identity we might want to have. In view of our frustration, we find it rather strange that we were sold and were developing our property while the people who were describing the future of this whole area and the fact that it was zoned commercial, were also proposing a change of zoning to a residential project. According to Envir0nmen~al .Impact Report Number 247, SCH Number 87102607 of January 1988, on Page 337, Table D-3, Winchester Hills is listed as industrial. Exhibit V1, Item 10, Winchester Hills Industrial Park, Rancho Villages Policy Plan, P.M. 22686, the status is listed as approved and recorded. We would prefer the properties to remain industrial, as zoned, and allow for the future expansion of industry in the City Of Temecula. Very truly yours, Edward J. Burke Director of Engineering E3B/sld cc: William Charmell, Sr., CCC Dale Wooding, CCC Pete 01hasso, Equity Management Group Ray Casey, Principal ~ngineer, Public Works Department Steve Jiannino, Project Planner, Planning Department John.Meyer, Senior Planner, Planning Department Bob Righetti, Senior Project Manager, Public Works Depar~nt Gary Thornhill, Director of Planning, Planning Department LOS RANCHITOS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION PO BOX 471, TI~ECULA, CA. 92593 COMMENTS AND CONCERNS TEMECULA MASTER PLAN Issu~ .1-Corrections Five Los Ranchitos parcels are currently showing incorrect color codes on the Preferred Land Use plan Draft. (The Draft which is for view and sale at the front desk, also presented on 4/16/92) 1. Assessors parcel n-mher _922130002_ is incorrectly coded as a Public/Institutional Facility (blue.) It should be coded Very Low (light yellow.) The parcel is on the southwest corner of Ynez and Santiago, and is currently part of a 2 1/2'acre single residence. La Petite Academy is adjacent to this site. 2. Assessors parcel number _926120006_ is incorrectly coded Highway/Tourist Commercial (darkest red.) The city changed its zone on March 24th to Neighborhood Commercial (lightest pink.) This parcel is located on the southeast corner of Margarita and De Portola~ coded Highway/Tourist Commercial (darkest red.) This parcel is an undeveloped lot and should be coded Very Low (light yellow.) This parcel is located on the west side of Jedediah Smith at Hwy. 79 south. (Across the street from #4) 4. Assessors parcel number _926100022_ is incorrectly coded Highway/Tourist Commercial (darkest red.) A home currently occupies this RA 2 1/2 lot. It should be coded Very Low (light yellow.) The parcel is located on the east side of Jedediah Smith at Hwy. 79 south. 5. Assessors parcel numbers are incorrectly coded as Very Low (light yellow.) These lots are the home of Rancho Community Church, and should be coded Public/Institutional Facility (blue.) Please note that all' five of these parcels are currently subject to the Los Ranchitos CC&RS. Issue 2-CC&R Jurasdiction Assessors parcel numbers _926120006 & 926120005_ are both currently subject to the Los Renchitos CC&Rs. Neither property owner has sought the legal approval of any of the other individual community members to have commercial zones. Only the City of Temecula recognizes these two parcels as commercial in this proposed plan. We look forward to meeting with you again in the future to discuss some of the specific issues which follow. Please advise us of any other steps we may take to cooperate with the City in this Master Plan process. Contact persons are Naytee Davis @ 676-2466 or Rebecca Weersing @ 699-7814. Sincerely, ~ ~. ~., ~_ :.:' i./ , ~., The Board of Directors Los Ranchitos Homeowners Association WOODEN STREET SIGNS: The city holds a certain western style and rural flavor which it seems the Master Plan is trying to maintain. The wooden street signs of several Temecula neighborhoods should be included in any planning efforts since they obviously are harder to obtain and costlier than plain metal signs. Los Ranchitos is one of the communities which takes pride in its unique wooden street markers. PAIAROAD: Los Ranchitos would not support any effort to re- align Pale Road at an intersection with Jedediah Smith. (If this becomes and option) Once again, this would create a reason for non-residents to cut through the neighborhood. DEDICATED AND NON-DEDICATED ROADS: We support the continued rural (no curb and gutter) less wide, less travelled use of Santiago and John Warnet Roads, along with all roads throughout Los Ranchitos. Further, we would support any effort to avoid the punched through completion of Santiago Road. However, several of our residents experience severe drainage problems at their properties because of changes "up the street." Orange sandbags are the norm along with roadside silt because of poor maintenance etc. Whether the control and maintenance lies with the County or the City, we have neighbors who need help now in getting these drainage problems cleaned INTERSTATE 15: Residents in Los Ranchitos near the 15 ~ would ultimately request a freeway block wall along the portion of the freeway which is adjacent to Los Ranchitos. Do you have suggestions of how to get such a beast or is this a city planning issue? Issue 5- ODDort,,nity Area #4 Los Ranchitos wouldsupport the proposed "Professional Office" designation in the proposed a0~l~ortunitF Planning ~#4a alox~g H~79 South with the comditionthet no access is made available to =his commercial. office desigmation-' f~u~ any' roa~-within Ranchitoz... Any. aucese-._point~..ehould be made from Hwy 79 only. Secondly, we would request fUlly'landscape~'F wa-lled, bUffers between Los Ranchitus residents and,any proposed-offfce-bUildings~ 6uggestions have been made for low density, mim~fe double storT, x~[~chst~le..a~te~'ture,r-tski~i~. account the horse trail dividing Los l~anchitos from the proposed office sites. we are very much in favor of this being an.ol~rtunity area where the city dan place architectural, buffer, access, and style requirements on any development abutting the neigb3~orhood on this strip. Issue 3-Recreational Trails We have an existing Horse Trails System throughout Los Ranchitos that we would like ta have incorporated into the City's new Parks and Recreation "Recreational Trails System." Maintenance, mapping and use, especially where our trails connect with other city trails would greatly enhance the whole Temecula trail system. Los Ranchitos trails help make us a unique community as well as adding a special quality to the city and its newly planned trails. A map of our ~rails is enclosed. Issue 4-Roads YNEZ/DE PORTOLA CORRIDOR: Our first choice would be that Ynez/De Portola remain a 2-lane road between Santiago and Margarita. Additionally, we would ultimately request a speed limit no higher than 45mph and stop signs placed at La Paz/Ynez and Jedediah Smith/De Portola to slow traffic through our neighborhood. Even though a recent traffic study at these locations did not meet city standards for placement of stop signs or reduced speed limit signs along the Ynez/De Portola Corridor, many hoaeowners feel unsafe turning into or out of their driveways due to the excessive speed of people using this road to "pass through." VALLEJO: Vallejo Avenue between La Paz/Vallejo and Ynez/vallejo (near Rancho Community Church) has no speed limit posted and a dangerous curve. People use this street as a cut through to Hwy 79 south and also to get to the church. A speed limit of 25 mph should be posted here since it is a residential street, has a dangerous curve and a school housed in the church. Additionally, neighbors near the church would support the placement of "NO PARKING" signs on their.easements to help abate the problematic parking problems associated with the church's school and its other activities all week 10ng and on Sundays. HIGHWAY 79 SOLFT.: We are fully aware of the impact of the widening of Hwy 79. Our concerns lie in the access points into Los Ranchitos at La Paz and Jedediah Smith. These were originally designed robe entrances into the neighborhood, not throughways and shortcuts to other places. Given the proposed improved circulation elements throughout the city, such as widening Margarita, the Old Town back loop, additional overpasses etc.. we respectfully request that the smaller, neighborhood style entrances of La Paz and Jedediah Smith be preserved to discourage routing through Los Ranchitos. Also, assuming the continuance of Lowest Density Residential along this strip, can a buffer zone such as landscaping or walling be provided for in the widening of Hwy 79 South? ~ROV~- COR~ORA. TION July 30, 1991 Mr. Gary Thornhill Planning Director City of Temecula P. O. Box 3000 Temecula, CA 92390 Dear Mr. Thornhill: I'm writing on behalf of the owners of the following parcels: APN 950-080-001 A!0N 950-080-003 APN 950-080-004 AP. 950-090-001 _n-C ,- APN 950-090-002 APN 950-090-003 APN 950-090-004 _ , , ~-,,,,/ APN 950-090-005 _'7/' ~''-] '-' ~:~ ~, APN 950-080-006 The property is located at State Highway 79 and Constance Street (which I named after my mother), known as Riverside County tract 15211. Enclosed is a copy of our final tract map for your convenience. We feel that a designation of light ~ndustrial ~R3uld be appropriate, as it would provide an area for:jobs on the eastern side of 1-15, and would also provide offices, hotels and restaurants to service people working on the property. The property is currently designated Office Commercial on the SWAP Plan. This designation was in consideration of the following points: The subject property is not subject to either the Los Ranchitos of Santiago Ranchos CC&Rs. The subject property has no access through residential st:reets. The property is directly across from commercial, industrial and high density residential within the Red Hawk, Vail Ranch and Old Vail Ranch Plans. - The property is subject to acoustic contours ~'Oa. X Los Ranchitos Ii Mr. Gary Thornhill August 27, 1991 Page 2 substantially higher than acceptable residential levels. These points and the need for jobs and services east of 1-15 and along the state highway corridor in a developing area would indicate an appropriate light industrial and commercial use for this property. Your consideration in this matter is appreciated. President Enclosure 1614 North Quince Upland, CA 91786 September 11, 1992 Mr. John Meyer Planning Department City of Temecula 43174 Business Park DriVe Temecula, california 92590 RECEIVED SEP ! 4 |gg2 Re: Freeway Lot Dear John: I understand that the city is working on a new general plan. I have about three acres in Los Ranchitos on Vallejo. It is next to the Rancho Community Church and runs between ValleJo and the freeway. I have had several people contact me about buying the property. The problem is that because I am in the Los Ranchitos association, no one will pursue the purchase because they are quickly made aware of the few individuals in the tract that want absolutely no use other than a home on the property. My property is severely undesirable as.a home site because of being next to the freeway and all of the associated noise. The general plan could designate the area for uses that would be compatible with Los Ranchitos, if not even enhance it. (A community hall, senior citizen activity center, church, etc.) Please let me know if I can come down and meet with you or attend a hearing. My parcel number is Lot 9, Tract 3552. Sincerely, Max Trenkle RECEIVED OCT 0 5 1992 CITY OF TEMECULA October 4,1992 City of Temecula 43174 Business Park Dr. Temecula,Cal,92590 Attn. Craig Ruiz Re: Cancelation of Tent. Parcel map #26563 Dear Craig, Please let this letter serve as our request that you cancel Tentative Parcel Map # 26563 due to the fact that the cost of the improvements to split the land are more than the value of the land itself. We feel this is extremely unfair to ask us to improve the city streets to the degree that we have been asked to do when we pay already very high city tax's. There's nothing wrong with paying your fair share with any development or improvement, but this request by you is absolutely out of balance. We are not the Rockefellers or a large housing contractor and yet we are asked to pay costs that would be extremely high for them. Since we see no end in sight in the outrageous costs you are requesting, we are FORCED to cancel this parcel map and ask that our deposits and costs are refunded to us immediately. We are not happy about this,we only live here. Dave and Susan Paton ~'6/6'3-66 Tract 3~52. $97100 Tract37..,'O. the vast array of expenses and improvements needed to split the property the city told us that the reason for the exorbitant costs in constructing a mini freeway in this part of Temecula was that there needed to be an emergency access to all new developments so that the city would not be liable. Walcott Lane, where our house is located, is not maintained by the city at this time, are you still liable ? Common sense keeps telling us that we are getting a royal runaround. Why does this problem exists ? We want nothing more than to simply submit our tentative parcel map for the half acre parcels and do as our neighbor contractor was granted. By changing the General Plan, we are assuming that these 221 homes are not going to be built. On top of all this, the proparty which we purchased now is even less versatile which decreases the value. Do we assume your responsible for that ? A final point in to this matter. Why would you want to stifle the growth in this area by making the lots unattainable because of the extreme high cost to improve them and the constant zone changes f We respectfully request that the zoning stay exactly like it was when we purchased the land. We have a great deal to lose in this arrangement and may be forced to sell our home for much less than we paid for it. Your supportive response to this would be greatly appreciated concerning this matter. We want to be aware of any upcoming hearings concerning this area where we live as we were asked to at the General Plan meeting last week at the library. S~ncerely Dave and Sue Paton September 10, 1992 Dave and Sue Paton 40303 Walcott Lane Temecula,Cal 92591 714-699-8979 City of Temecula 43174 Business Park Dr. Temecula,Cal ,92590 Attn. John Meyers Re: Zone change for lot size requirements Dear Mr. Meyers, We purchased our home in December of 1991. When we were investigating the purchase, we were shown swat maps of projections of the area as planned and appreved by the city. Basically it stated that the lots could be divided down to haft acre parcels. We now live in one of those areas on Walcott Lane, just behind the Mirada housing tract. In June, we artended a city hearing in reference to a 80 acre parcel directly across the street from our property. One of the owners, Mike -Lund~n, had his plan approved to put in 221 .homes on 7500 square feet to half acre lots. When we read that the general plan is being changed that we can no longer go under two and one half acre lots, we became very confused and upset. How can this happen when it is d~rectly across the street from our home ? How come we cannot benefit from this same agreement ? We were told by Craig Ruiz, who has been at your office under two months, that the reason for the change was to stay consistent with the lot sizes in the area and the topography of the land was too hilly. Why was that not a condition back at the hearing when 221 homes were approved ? If any of the lots are going to be inconsistent ,it will be ours, with a sea of houses on small lots surrounding us ! Our intentions when we purchased this five acre property was to subdivide to haft acre parcels as we were told could be done. We did submit a Tentative~P~arcel Map ( if 26563), and when were informed of MARKHAM & ASSOCIATES Development Consultants September 8, 1992 RECEIVED John Meyer Senior Planner City of Temecula 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 SEP 11 1992 Ans'd ............ RE: Temecula General Plan Draft Preferred Land Use Plan (Tentative Parcel Map 26845, Cha~ge of Zone i4) Dear Mr. Meyer: I am writing this letter to address my.concern with the City's Draft General Plan designation for the above parcel. It is currently designated as "Very Low Density" (.5 DU per acre). The above map and change of zone was approved at City Council September 10, 1991. .The gross acreage is'3.68. The parcel is approved for (4) parcels with R-A 20,000 zoning. I feel that the best land use designation for this area is "Low" (2 DU/AC Max.) due to the fact that there are previously approved maps in this area with R-A 20,000 zoning. It is extremely compatible and would serve as a buffer to the Los Ranchitos home owners from the parcels to the North currently designated as "Low Medium". Thank you for your consideration. Please call if you have any questions or require additional informatrion. Sincerely, MARKHAM AND ASSOCIATES · ."'~_ ~ Sandra L. Finn Project Nanager cc: James Meyler 41750 Winchestcr Road, Suite N · Temecula, California 92590 · (714) 6766672 · FAX (714) 699-1848 ~.E. mecuia. Cal ~. T. ~2592 iZZ.., r,, or ]emecuia Pianning Debt,. Temecu i a. Ca i'i f. 92590 =, - ,:=-,s,..., ,q~ aooroximately one half to i owefling ,.- .... _~ ~corOingi_y. Aooitionaliy I believe ~nat the HJP/072 September 4, 1992 Page 2 802 903 Estero Street APN ~945-080-010 P/M 16705 parcel #3 of: TPM 25538 by Mike Benesh (1/2 acre) with3650 SF Custom Home at 30565 Estero Street, Temecula TPM 25538 (1/2 acre) 1.43 acres 804 805 APN #945-080-010 P/M 16705 Parcel #1 of: TPM 24633 by Mike Benesh (1/2 acre) with 3700 SF Custom Home at 30540 Estero Street, Temecula TPM 24633 Estero Street, Temecula (1/2 acre) 1.43 acres Owned by Dr. Ching Lee 901 902 APN #945-080-010 P/M 16705 Parcel #4 of: TPM 25607 By Mike Benesh (1/2 acre) TPM 25607 " " " " was disapproved by the City 1.43 acres Approximately 40,85 acres Dear Madam Mayor & Council Members: It has been brought to my attention that the draft of the General Plan as now recommended is to re-zone the present lot size from two lots per acre to lot size of two acres per lot. I object to this re-zoning to larger size lots for the following reasons and I hope that the Mayor and the City Council in their collective wisdom shall see fit to agree and that my objections be registered at the next Public Hearing, namely: Adjacent to our: APN #945-100-005 P/M 6607 Parcel 10 of 20.5 acres and P/M 8804 parcels 1 & 2 of 11.5 acres = 32 acres, there are two lots: one. Dr 20 acres with approved tentative map of 1/2 acre lots and another of 11-1 acre approved lots, owned by: David Pearson = 1/2 acre lots x 20 acres Komar Sawh I acre lots x 13 acres P.O. BOX 3~.~ AGANA, GUAM 96910 TEL. (671) 646-7132 FAX (671) 646-6307 TELEX 6160 B('X,~TH GM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION NJP/072 September 4, 1992 Subject: Public Hearing Monday/8-31-92 Temecula Town Hall and Plan to Re-zone the General Plan. I ECEIVED SEP I 6 1992 Arts 'd ............ To: The Honorable: Patricia H. Birdsall, Mayor Ronald J. Parks, Former Mayor Karel R. Lindeman's, Council Member Peg Moore, Council Member 3. Sal Munoz, Council Member David F. Dixon, City Manager Reference: 1. Fax: (714) 694-1999 Message from Dan and Denese Naron, 43350 Fermin Place Temecula, CA 92592, that the subject Public Hearing and meeting had been held. 2. Representing Land Ownership Below China Sea Development Corporation P. O. Box 3093 Agana, GU 96910 Tel: (671) 646-7132/1681 Fax: (671) 646-630'7 THE INVESTOR Cost Codd Description of Land 904 905 907 906 APN #945-080-010 P/M #13889 Via E1 Del0ra, and Ornsby Road/Santiago Road APN #945-080-007-1 Parcel #1 of: " " " 008-2 Parcel #2 of: " " " 012-5 Parcel #4 of: " " " 013-6 Parcel #3 of: 1.25 acres 1.35 acres 1.12 acres 0.84 acres 4.56 acres 801 Santiago Estates Corporation 6363 E. Via Arboles Anaheim Hills, CA 92807 Tel: (714) 921-9721 APN #945-100-005 P/M 6607, Parcel 10, of: P/M 8804 Parcels 1 & 2 of: Located between Santiago Road and Pauba Road Fax: (714) 998-3622 20.50 acres 11.5 acres 32.0 acres JOHN A. MORAMARCO, SR. POST OFFICE BOX 906 TEMECULA, CA 92593 September 21, 1992 RECEIVED SEP 2 5 1992 Ans'd .......... :- Planning Director Gary Thornhill City of Temecula 43174 Business Park Dr. Temecula, CA 92590 Dear Gary: The enclosed letter to the City of Temecula Senior Planner was previously sent regarding the zoning of five parcels located at the northeast intersection of Interstate 15 and Highway 79. My understanding was that this would be sent on to you. Recently, however, I learned that it has not been. As I beheve is self-explanatory in the attached, with the review of the General Plan, I am respectfull>' requesting that these parcels be rezoned commercial from residential. This zoning would be consistent with other parcels in the City of Temecula adjacent to freeway overpasses. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Slncerel), J John A. Moramarco. St. February26, 1992 Mr. John R. Meyer, AICP Senior Planner City of Temecula 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 Dear Mr. Meyer, Thank you for taking the time to meet with me of February 3rd. Per your request I have enclosed the information on the property located at the northeast coruer of Highway 79 and Interstate 15 adjacent to the Rancho Community Church. (Assessor's Parcels #922-170-006, 922-170-007, 922-170-008, 922170-009, 922-190-025.) We understand that the City of Temecula is revising the Master Plan and .this process is scheduled to be completed by early 1993. We are requesting that the above referenced parcels be zoned commercial in the revised plan for the following reasons: 1) The property on the opposite side of Highway 79 is currently zoned and used for commercial purposes as most properties are on the freeway off ramps. 2} The lots are fairly narrow and this situation will be exacerbated with the upcoming widening of Highway 79. The lots are currently not desirable for residential use and the future widening will make them less desirable for this purpose. 3l Adjacent to the property is the Rancho Community Church which is currently completing construction of a new school. The additional activity caused by this school would be more compatible with a commercial use on our parcels rather than a residential use. 41 We have owned the lots for approximately 12 years and during that period we have put them up for sale at various times. We have had interest from several panics if the lots could be used for commercial purposes but. we have never had anyone interested in acqumng the property on which to build a home. 5) In 1989 the county revised the master plan for the southwest area. Although this plan was not adopted by the City of Temecula the Southwest Area General Plan Advisory Committee had proposed that these parcels be zoned commercial. 6) we will have a 20 ft. landscape buffer along Vallejo and put in two (2) monuments to the entrance to Los Ranchitos on La PaL Attached for your information are: 1) 2) 3) Again, thank you for your time. Sincerely, A map showing the location of our lots. The map of the proposed widening of Highway 79. The final map from the Southwest Area General Plan Advisory Committee reflecting a proposed designation of commercial for our parcels. Please let me know if you require any further information. John A. Moramarco, Sr. EXHIBIT A I TENET ~\D. ~3750 -/-XawJ\J 9?-?. JTO -ODe5 LOT,...j ooo Lnj-F 2 "EXHIB Z more traffic on 79 ~incmasefNe:~,er~on79Sout~Beginningnextyear, ITNerddeCea~ialanstnwi~lenix~ Traffic voltalie NuebedcamlDr24f~en ~ ; .: O S~na!s -'.- De ' zns-.~.,ea .N I. omall IN~aez I Tht Pre.~-Eruerpn~t 8-16 DU/, A February 26, 1992 Mr. John R. Meyer, AICP Senior Planner City of Temecula 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 Dear Mr. Meyer, Thank you for taking the time to meet with me on February 3rd. Per your request I have enclosed the information on the property located at the northeast corner of Highway 79 and Interstate 15 adjacent to the Rancho Community Church. (assessor's parcels #922-170-006, 922- 170-007, 922-170-008, 922-170-009, 922-190-025). We understand that the City of Temecula is revising the Master Plan and this process is scheduled to be completed by early 1993. We are requesting that the above referenced parcels be zoned commercial in the revised plan for the following reasons: 1) The property on the opposite side of highway 79 is Currently zoned and used for commercial purposes as most properties are on the freeway off ramps. 2) The lots are fairly narrow and this situation will be exacerbated with the upcoming w~dening of highway 79. The lots are currently not desirable for residential use and the future w~dening will make them less desirable for this purpose. 3) Adjacent to the property is the Rancho Community Church which is currently completing construction of a new school. The additional activity caused by this school would be more compatible with a commercial use on our parcels rather than a residential use. 41 ~,Ve have owned the iot~ for approximately 12 years and during that period we have put them up for sale at various times. We have had interest from several parties if the lots could be used for commercial purposes but, we have never had anyone interested in acquiring the property on which to build a home. 5) In 1989 the county revised the master plan for the southwest area. Although this plan v, as not adopted by the City of Temecula the Southwest Area General Plan Advisory Committee had proposed that these parcels be zoned commercial. 61 ~,'e will have a 20ft. landscape buffer along Vellijo and put in two (2) monuments to the entrance to Los Ranchires on La Paz. Attached for your information are: 1) 2) 3) Again. thank you for your time. John A. Moram!ro. Sr~.~ A map showing the location of our lots. The map of the proposed widening of Highway 79. The final map form the Southwest Area General Plan Advisory Committee reflecting a proposed designation of commercial for our parcels. Please let me know if you require any further information. (619) Old Vail Partners 5230 Carroll Canyon Road, Suite 310 San Diego, CA 92121 587-1060 (619) 587-0425 Fax March 13, 1992 Councilmember Ronald J. Parks City of Temecula City Hall 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 Re: Old Vail Commercial sites Dear Councilmember Parks: Attached please find a small plat showing our two parcels of CPS Commercially zoned property being 39.80 acres and 32.64 acres respectively. It has come to our attention that the City of Temecula is considering a down-zoning of this property along with our neighbors properties. First, let me point out that property located on the, "Going home side of the street", is the most desirable retail property. The south side of 79 (South) conforms to this requirement which includes our property while the north side or the going to work side does not. Second, this property has been taxed for years based on its value as commercial. Third, a down-zoning of property is a taking of private property that has been tested in the courts. To do so the taking body must adequately compensate the property owner. In our case, our property has been recently appraised for $20,300,000.00. If you plan to downgrade our property, we will be happy to cooperate with the City in that effort in return for fair and adequate compensation. Anything to the contrary will find us and every other property owner faced with such a downgrading attempt, at odds with the City. In which case I can assure you of a long and arduous battle. There is simply too much money at stake for any property owner to sit back and quietly allow this to happen. Councilmember Parks March 13, 1992 Page 2 On the other hand, we and I'm certain our neighbors, stand ready to work with the City in its attempt to project and plan for the future growth of Temecula. No one welcomes a battle between property owners and a City government. However, we do stand ready to protect our interests and investments which were made based on reliances from the government based on zoning approvals and then taxed as such for years. In fact, the Assessment District #159 has improvement projects going forward based upon the current zoning needs and it is assessing us for same. The implications of tax and assessment refunds plus fair and adequate compensation to property owners should cause the City to reconsider any such rezone attempt. At least I would hope that rational minds would so reconsider. Further, we are in the middle of negotiations for the development of this property. Even rumors of a possible down-zoning could seriously damage those negotiations. I offer that with our economy in its current state, this is no time to kill development and lob opportunities. Again, we stand ready to meet with you and work with you in a cooperative spirit to better plan the future of Temecula. However, that cooperation does not include a down-zoning of our property unless we are fairly and adequately compensated for the loss incurred plus refunds 'for taxation and assessments these past years. we are available if you wish to meet. cc: Mr. Peter Edelmann Mr. Tyler Cramer Mr. Dave James With kindes gards Harold S. Elkan, President RCSA, Inc. General Partner Old Vail Partners, Ltd. For: Sale Lease Joint Venture Zoned CPS Commercial Parcel "B" 32.64 Acres Parcel "C" 39.80 Acres Total 72.44 Acres Appraised June 1991 Parcel "B" $9,950,000 Parcel "C" $10,400,000 Commercial Property Offering II 39.80 Acrts _J L, STATE HIGHWAY 78 North NJP/072 September 4, 1992 Page 3 We and other land owners have been working on an Assessment District to up-grade and improve Santiago, Ornsby and John WarneT Roads, that are a liability because of their poor unsafe condition, plus Santiago Road is planned plus needed as a main traffic artery to Interstate-15. The draft General Plan to increase lot size is reducing the City and County~s tax base and ability to up-grade and better Santiago roads and drainage. It will, if approved, retard growth and development of the infrastructure in the Chappetal. Good City Management, I know will prevail in this recessionary period and it is reasonable for the City, State and Federal Governments to do everything possible to stimulate the housing industry and revive employment in the construction and real estate business, in Temecula and for the people of Temecula. Increasing the lot sizes will have the opposite effect killing economic recovery and the up-grading and betterment of the infrastructure and drainage on Santiago roads and hurts business and the people of Temecula. m Our family is a good example. Since 1988, we have invested 9,000,000 in Temecula, and our family plan is to build approximately 60 executive homes in the $500,000 class on 1/2 acre lots, in the Chapparal area. This plan is still in place, providing we can maintain the two homes per acre zoning approval. We plan to re-commence building step by step, in 1994, and this means an infusion of 60 x ~00,000 or ~30,000,000 into Temecula's economy from 1994 to the year 2000. This means with these entitlemerits the Santiago roads and infrastructure receives substantial financial help from our continued investment in Temecula. Half acre lots are a substantial piece of property and in some cases more than a home owner usually wants to take care of. In all events, a custom developed half acre lot certainly is not the usual tract concept and custom developed 1/2 acre estates, similar, but better than Meadow View Estates, located in Chapparal will enhance the City of Tem~cula and provide work and business for the people of Temecula. Finally, if the new General Plan re-zones our land in the Chapparal to two acres per lot, then our ~30,000,000 investment is no longer viable and our land shall sit idle inhabited by the occasional K-Rat, deeded to our heirs, all of which shall not benefit the City o~ Temecula. With best wishes and as I have stated, I feel sure that the Mayor and City Council in its wisdom and planning for the betterment of the City's economic NJP/072 September 4, 1992 Page 4 fut will agree with me, and N. J. Paine NJP/jbp cc: Mr. John Meyer Planning Officer City of Temecule Bob Righetti Allan Marshall Chris Winchak Debbie Ubnoske Craig D. Ruiz Bobby & Judy Dan & Denese Naron David & Elizibeth Pearson Tony Terich Mike Benesh MBj/706 NJP/218 CAL- " %3 f ~- loo os- ~Ap - O .. ',,.,. 52~o ~,G '. '! T'P LE A ~ YW~ , f'Yl ~,V L= LP ,, ,,,, · x: U,,Ju.L, ' co I'TH 'T/'/~r T)/--t~ FT' ~ 7"/-/,c ,: 9 Loz-"-5 ~ ~ lZ.~,7--,, c c, '~, c... ~ P,,,'v,~ I September 1992 Ms. Patricia Birdsall Mayor City of Temecula 43175 Business Park Drive Temecula,CA 92590 Dear Mayor Birdsall: Enclosed is a copy of comments on the Draft General Plan that I submitted to John Meyer after seeing an article in the Californian. I artended the Town Hall meeting on August 31st with the expectation that comments from the audience would be used to help finalize the plan. While the meeting was informative, Mr. Thornhill did not seem very receptive to comments that would lead to changes in the plan. His attitude was more like: here it is. we ';:e done our best. and if you don't like it he referred us to )oint meeting of the Plannin Commission and City Council. A number of people raised serious concerns about the Draft General Plan that were treated like this. 1 did not see staff noting these concerns and was left with the impression that they were basicall)' unreceptive to any further changes. Several people addressed my concerns about the very low density residential classification. It appears that since the writers of the Draft General Plan could not control residential development in the many Specific Plans that have been approved, they wanl to stop it entirely in other areas by imposin lots with a minimum of 2.5 acres. Thi's x~as recommended even in areas already zoned Por half acre lots. This objective to stop all residential development in the mr"Ti~a areas not covered by specific plans is clearly shown in Table 2-4 where no change in the number of dwelling units is expected under the General Plan. As I ha',c outlined in mv letter to Mr. Meyer. this rigid 2.5 acres per dwelling units does no~ make sense and will' not contribute to the aesthetic beauty of the City. I urge you to seri~,uslx consider the impact of the very low density land use classification in your mccHng,, v, ith the Planning Commission. Sinc~el). 30010 lcllre.x Heighls Rd. AUgUSt 31, 1992 Mr. John Meyer The City of Temecula Planning Department 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 Dear Mr. Meyer, This letter is in response to your request for comments on the Temecula Draft GeneralPlan. I live in the Hidden Hills area of the city. The Draft General Plan shows a large part of this area classified as very low density residential (.2-.4 Du/Ac). I would favor a more flexible classification such as a low density residential (.2-2 DU/AC). There are many reasons why I think that this would be more appropriate. When I purchased my home, I had hoped that the area would develop along the lines of the adjacent Meadowview area. This area has a similar topography and has also been classified as very low density. Lot sizes are limited to one half acre and vary in size from the minimum to nearly ten acres. The Meadowview area has developed into a highly prized neighborhood of custom homes. Some of the lots are fully landscaped, others have corrals and space for horses, while others are left mostly natural. The result is a pleasing degree of variety. With a low density designation, it is likely that the Hidden Hills area would develop along similar lines. With the very low density classification, Hidden Hills is likely to take much longer to develop since the cost of purchasing 2.5 acres would require the building of very expensive homes. Much of the land would need to be left in itsoriginal state since it is not feasible to landscape such a large lot. In the meantime, the area would be covered with mobile homes, many of which are totally inappropriate for such a luxury residential area. Another reason that the very low density classification does not seem appropriate is that Hidden Hills is, after all, in the city and is not really suitable for agricultural purposes. Not only are agricultural operations not feasible, but in many cases are prohibited by CCRs. Many of the homeowners would therefore be permanently bounded by acres of weeds which I am sure the city would not find esthetically pleasing. The slowed development that is likely to result from the very low density classification would suppress land values and result in a lowered tax base for the clty. It iS also likely that pressure would develop for land uses that are not consistent with a residential area. we have already seen this occur on Lelfer Road where a resident faces the potential of having churches built on either side of him. Finally, there is the current zoning that has created tracts of houses between Meadowview and Hidden Hills with lots as small as 7000 square feet. To Immediately jump from medium density to 2.5 acre lots does not make sense. I maintain that there should be a transition from meulum density to low density in the Hidden Hills area with the zoning for each parcel in line with its topography and access. The result ing development would both enhance t~e clty and please its residents. 39910 Jeffrey Hts. Rd. August 31, 1992 Mr. John Meyer The City of Temecula Planning Department 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 Dear Mr. Meyer, RECEIVED SEP 0 3 B92 Ans'd ............ This letter is zn response to your request for comments on the Temecula Draft General Plan. I live in the Hidden 'Hills area of the city. The Draft General Plan shows a large part of this area classified as very low density residential (.2-.4 Du/Ac). I would favor a more flexible classification such as a low density residential [.2-2 Du/Ac). There are many reasons why I think that this would be more appropriate. ~nen i purchased my home, I had hoped that the area would develop along the lines of the adjacent Meadowview area. This area has a similar topography and has also been classified as very low density. Lot sizes are limited to one half acre and vary in size from the minimum to nearly ten acres. The Meadowview area has developed into a highly prized neighborhood of custom homes. Some of the loEs are fully landscaped, others have corrals and space for horses, while other5 are left mostly natural. The result is a pleasing degree of variety. ~.j~tn a low denszty designation, it is likely that the Hidden Hills area would <i.~vel~: along similar lines. With the very low density classification, Hidden H~ils 2s likely to take much longer to develop since the cost of purchasing _.= arras would require the building of very expensive homes. Much Of the land .... ! nce~ to be left in itsoriginal state since it is not feasible to landscape ~;' ~ lares lot. In the meantime, the area would be covered with mobile hon=es~ ml]m. o: which are totally inappropriate for such a luxury residential area. ;,nobher reason that the very low density classification does not seem a::,ro:riate ls that Hidden Hills is, after all, in the city and is not really suitable for agr/cultural purposes. Not only are agricultural operations not ~easlbXe, but xn many cases are prohibited by CCRS. Many of the homeowners would therefore be permanently bounded by acres of weeds which I am sure the c~t~' would not find esthetica'lly pleasing. The slowed development that is likely to result from the very low density c~a~.f~catlon wo~ld suppress land values and result in a lowered tax base fsr tnc c~ty. ]t ls also likely that pressure would develop for land uses that are not consistent with a residential area. We have already seen this occur on Lelfer Road where a resident faces the potential of having churches built or. c~thcr sxde of him. F~nally, there is the current zoning that has created tracts of houses between Meadowview and Hidden Hills with lots as small as 7000 square feet. To Immediately lump from medium density to 2.5 acre lots does not make sense. I mainta/n that there should be a transition from medium ~ensity to low densxty In the Hidden Hills area with the zoning for each parcel in line with ~ts topography and access. The result ing development would both enhance the clty and please its reszdents. Dennis Fitz 39910 Jeffrey Hts. Rd. September 15, 1992 RECEIVED 0 C 'T I 1992 Ans'd ............. City Council City of Temecula 43173 Business Park Drive Temecula, California 92590 Re: Proposed General Plan Designation (JN 2631) Dear Councilmembers: The purpose of this letter is to express my support for the proposed designation of Lot 24 of Tract 3752 at the northeast corner of the intersection of Margarita Road and DePortola Road. With Margarita Road soon to become a major thoroughfare and the proposed commercial designations adjacent to the property, the neighborhood commercial is appropriate. The residential use is no longer desirable since the property has become an isolated "island" separate from the remainder of the parent tract. Your consideration in preserving the proposed designation will be appreciated. Very truly yours, Iris Abernathy, Owner of sub3ect property cc: Temecula Planning Commission Gary Thornhill, Planning Director John Meyer, Senior Planner August 26, 1992 Mr. John Meyer The City of Temecula Plannin~ Department 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 RECEIVED UG281992 u'd ............ Dear Mr. Meyer: I hope to attend the August 31, 1992, meeting and have attended some of the other meetings. My concern has been drainaxe mostly, alon~ with other infrastructure concerns. There are two areas I would like to address and have my input on record: 1. There are to date many homes of all sizes, shades to choose from some with small lots and some with large ones. What I am not seeinZ is the 1/2 to 1 acre tvDe lots on flat useable land, under development in the Citv of Temecula. There are Dlenty of 2 1/2, 5, 10, 20 acre lots, but no family tvDe large residential ranch "tract tvDe" lots to choose from. I feel there must be a nreservation of the oDen, roomy, ranch tvDe life style for 'the weekend cowboy and/or country family without havin~ to take on the maintenance and uD keen of a 2 1/2 to 1~ acre Dlace. The Planning Department consideration would be to our communitv's benefit. 2. Over the past 3 vears, I have lived at 31625 DePortola Road. Inadeauate drainage has damaged mv DroDertv and made much of it unuseable. I am two lots west of Mar~arita and ~ust north of Highway 79, where I am sure the Citv and your Department is very aware of the floodin~ onto private home sites and out to Highway 79. Adjacent to the above and a contributin~ factor in the poor drainage layout is the culvert constructed under Snarkman Elementary School, which drains between 240 to 6On acres of PalOmar Del ~ol DeveloPment water waste. Some o~ which I ouestion the purity of. I am the last property down stream and receive water flow dailv since the comDletion of their mradinc. There no doubt needs to be modifications to addres~ this develoDin~ problem. I realize often a solution is found (like a storm drain down Mar~arita pickinc UD all of Palomar Del Sol and adjacent water waste and ~oin~ under Highway 79 and on throueh to Temecula Creek.) then fundin~ such a Dro~ect is the next hurtle. I am addressin~ the Ceneral Plan because I feel that if we are lookine into the next 10 to 2D years that the lot~ Page 2 August 26, 1992 Mr. John Meyer from my house to the corner of Margarita and south to Highway 79 should all be zoned eon~ercial property. Thus giving the City the means of negotiating and mandating development expenitures and added funding for those badly needed and corrective measures. I also feel with the high impact of residential 'develoPment adjacent to this area that this would be of benefit to the community and tax payers on the south west side and soon to be annexed east ward area. Your consideration and response would be appreciated. Sincerely, Don L. Rhodes 31625 DePortola Road Temecula, CA 92592 (714)699-7539 MARK H PROPERTWoS October,~, 1991 Mr. Gary Thornhill Director of Planning City of Temecula 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 Dear Hr. Thornhill: Thank you for meeting with me and Cheryl Cunningham yesterday to discuss the annexation of our Vail Ranch Commercial property to the City of Temecula. He are hoping that this annexation can be completed and will be a benefit to all the parties. In our meeting, I mentioned that we had another piece of property located on Ynez Road, north of Winchester that had had a zone change from IP to CPS completed last year. Your current zoning maps are still showing the property as IP. Enclosed please find cop~es of the Council minutes apprOving this Zone Change Number 5446 and a copy of Ordinance Number 90-15 regarding the zone change. Could you please have someone see that the zone change has 2n fact been completed, and reflect this information the next t2me zoning maps are prepared? Thank you for your consideration. SIncerely, Enclosure thornhil.sr 9474 KEARNY VILLA ROAD. SUITE 203 · SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92126 · (619) 695-1109 · FAX (619) 695-8608 CALIFORNIA CONTRACTOR LIC~'NSE NO. 50a,5~ ORDINANCE NO. 90-15 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF SAID CITY CONTAINED IN CHANGE OF ZONE APPLICATION NO. 5446, CHANGING THE ZONE FROM I-P (INDUSTRIAL PARK) TO CPS (SCENIC HIGHWAY COMME~RCIAL) ON PROPERTY LOCATED ON 6.51 ACRES AT THE WEST SIDE OF YNEZ ROAD, NORTH OF WINCHESTER ROAD. The City Council of the City of Temecula, State of California, does ordain as follows: SECTION 1. Public hearing have been held before the Riverside County Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Temecula, State of California, pursuant to the Planning and Zoning law of the State of California, and the City Code of the City of Temecula. The applicable land use district as shown on the attached exhibit is hereby approved and ratified as part of the Official Land Use map for the City of Temecula as adopted by the City and as may be amended hereafter from time to time by the City Council of the City of Temecula, and the City of Temecula Official Zoning Map is amended by placing in affect the zone or zones as described in Change of Zone No. 5446 and in the above title, and as shown on zoning map attached hereto and incorporated herein. SECTION 2. Notice of Adoption. Within 15 days after the adoption hereof, the City Clerk of the City of Temecula shall certify to the adoption of this ordinance and cause it to be posted in at least three public places in the City. SECTION 3. Taking effect. This ordinance shall take effect 30 days after the date of its adoption. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 28thday of August, 1990. Ronald J. Parks, Mayor ATTEST: June S.r~k. De~pLt~rk [SEAL} STATE OF CALIFORNIA) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) CITY OF TEMECULA ) SS I June S. Greek, Deputy City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 90-15 was duly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 14th day of August, 1990, and that thereafter, said Ordinance was duly adopted and passed at a regular m~ting of the City Council on the 28th day of August, 1990, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: J uneCe.~Gr. Greek,~'~ Deputy City Clerk MARK H PROPERTIES October 25. 199i Mr. Gary Thornhill Director of Planning C~tv ot Temecula 43]74 Business Par~ Drive ]emecula. CA 92590 bear Mr. Thornhill: ],ank you for meeting with me and Cheryl Cunningham yesterday to discuss the annexation of our Vail Ranch Commercial property to tn~ L~Tv ot Temecula. We are hoping that this annexation can be c',,mu~,.tc~ and will be a benefit to all the parties. jim i,'Jr me.,.T In(. I mentioned that we had another piece of property z. ,',.I ill ~nez Road, north of Winchester that had had a zone ..Ih=.,. 'F.nl IP to ('PS completed last year. Your current zoning n~m,~ ... .~I~1] showing the property as IP. Enclosed please find ,. ,. .,' 'h,. touncxl minutes approving this Zone Change Number , ;;' .r.,: .~, iop~ ot Ordinance Number 90-15 regarding the zone .' ":.. ,,.ld you please have someone see that the zone change h :r Z't. t t,,'er~ c-ml, leted. and reflect this information the next ~r,. ,',.nin~ maps are prepared? 7/,z.,~ ~,u lf>r' your consideration. 9474 KEARNY VILLA ROAD, SUITE 203 * SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92126 * (619) 695-1109 · FAX (619) 695-8608 CALIFORNIA CONTRACTOR HCEN~ NO. ~ TWCUEA OXTY COUNOIw' A RBGULBR M~BTXNG TWOULa QOMMUNXTY O~NTER Next in Orderl Ordinance: No. 90-15 ~esolution= No. 90-Rt CALL TO OP.D~P.t Invocation Flag Salute Pastor T. J- Mercer Ranthe Community Church BOLL CALL: Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Mu~oz, Parks PRESENTATIONS/ PROCLAMATIONS Proclamation - Red Ribbon Week .October 21-28, 1990 Proclamation - Energy Awareness Month - October 1990. A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address the Council on items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to two (2) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Council about an item no~listed on the Agenda, a pink "Request To Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the City Clerk. ~hen you are called to 'speak, please come forward and fitate your name and address. For all other agenda items a "Request To Bpeak" form must be filed with the City Clerk before the Council gets to that item. There is a five (5) minute time limit for individual speakers. 21.1 Read by title only and introduce an ordinance entitled: ORDI~CE NO, aMEndING THE OFFXCX~ ~ONXNG ~ OF SAID CItY IN Y~B C~GE OF ~o~ ~PLICaTION CO~AINED IN C~GE OY ZOnE ~PPLICATION NO, ~446, ~GING ~HE ~O~E FROI! I-~ (I~U2TRX~ P~) TO CP2 (BCDIC NIG~XY CO~=RCI~L) ON PROPERTY L~ATED ON 6.~1 l~BS AT TH~ WEST SIDE OF ~IEZ RO~ MORT= OF WIN~BST~ RO~, 22 Development'Aareement Procedures RECOMMENDATION: 22.1 Approve a resolution entitled: EESOLUTION MOo 90- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF TEE CITY OF TEMECULA REGARDING D~VELOPMENT AGREEMENTS 23 Flood Control ^areement for Mesa Homes: Tracts 24131. 24132. 2413~. 24334 and 24135. Located North of Marqarita and Fast g/ P~ba Ro~d RECOHHENDATION= 23.1 Approve the Flood Control Agreement between Mesa Homes the Riverside County Flood Control Distric= end the City of Temecula 23.2 Approve the Memorandum of Understandin~ between Mesa Homes and the City of Temecula 23.3 Authorize the Mayor ~o execute the same. A~NDA TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL AN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT :~u~E~,S~.Xg90 - 7tO0 PM Next in Order: Ordinance: No. 90-09 Resolution: No. 90-54 CALL TO ORDER: Invocation Pastor T. J. Mercer Rancho Community Church Flag Salute ROLL CALL: PRESENTATIONS/ PROCLAMATIONS Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Mufioz, Parks Certificates of Annreciation: 1) Ad Hoc Law Enforcement Committee 2) Traffic Advisory Committee Negotiating PUBLIC COMMENTS A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address the Council on items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to two (2) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Council about an item not listed on the Agenda, a pink "Request To Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the City Clerk. When you are called .to speak, please come forward and state your name and address, For all other ageride items a "Request TO Speak" form must be filed with the City Clerk before the Council gets to that item. There is a five (5) minute time limit for individual speakers. NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC All matters listed under Consent Calendar are considered to be routine end all will be enacted by one roll call vote. There will be no discussion of these items unless members of the City Council request specific items to be removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action. Consideration of ~xtension of Ordinance g0-O8. Establishina a Noratorium on Billboards. RECOMMENDATION: 5.1 Adopt an urgency ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE N0. 90- ltNURG~NOY ORDINANCE OF TIW CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TF~ECULA, EITBNDING INTERIM 2ONING ORDINANCE NO 90-08 P~RTXlNING TO REGULATIONS FOR OUTDOOR ADVERTISING DISPLAY8 PURBUA!~T TO T~B PROVIEION2 OF CALIFORNIA GOVEKNMENT CODE SECTION 65858(b) AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF A Zone Change for 6.51 acre site on the west side of Ynez Road at the terminus of County Center Road, from existing IP to CPS. RECOMMENDATION: 6.1 Adopt the negative Declaration for Environmental Assessment No. 33728. 6.2 Approve change of Zone Application No. 5446 A~eal No, 1, - Plot Plan No. 11607 Appeal filed by Opto.22, of condition by the Riverside County Road Department to construct lane improvements at Rancho California Road and Front Streets. RECOMMENDATION: 7.1 Uphold the appellant's appeal, subject to the recommendations of the City Traffic Engineer, based on findings and analysis contained in the County report. 7.2 Approve Plot Plan No. 11607, based on the analysis and findings contained in the County staff report, subject to the conditions of approval as revised in Appeal No. 1. City Council Minutes ~June 5; 19~0 It was moved by Councilmember Birdsall, seconded by Councilmember Mufioz to adopt an urgency ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO, 90-09 ~N URGEI~CY ORDIN/~ICE OF T~E CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEHECULA~ EXTENDING INTERIM ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 90-08 PERTAINING TO REGULATIONS FOR OUTDOOR ADVERTISING DIMPLAY8 PURSUANT TO THE PROVISION8 OF CALIFORNIA GOVERN}lENT CODE SECTION 65858(B) ~ND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: '5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Mufioz, Parks NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS.; None ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: Chan~e of Zone No. ~5446 None Mayor Parks opened the public hearing at 7:55 PM. Ross Gellet stated this is a zone change for a 6.51 acre site on the west side of Ynez Road at the terminus of County Center Road, from existing IP to CPS. He recommended adopting the negative Declaration for Environmental Assessment No. 33;28 and approval of change of Zone Change Application No. 5446. councilmember Mufioz 'asked the reason for the requested zone change and what the possible impacts would be. Ross Geller stated this was approved by the County some time duo and consists of two parcels, one of which has an industrial building on it. He said the probable cause for the change of zone request is that the existing building was vacant for over a year. He advised that Mr. Larry Markum was available to answer questions regarding this request. Larry Markum, Markum and Associate~, stated utilities are 'already installed, and this is an active plot.plan. He said the building vacancy illustrates commercial usage is more appropriate for this area. Councilmember Mu~oz asked what type of tenants would likely be housed in this building. Mr. Markum responded there would be some offices and some show room commercial. He said when the City Council Minutes June 5. 1990 parcel map was approved it was originally zoned commercial and later changed to IP. Councilmember Mu~oz asked if this would impact the scenic nature of the area. ]Mr.:Markum said the building would have more glass and significantly more l~ndscaping as a commercial rather than an industrial building. He stated the restrictions as far as signage are covered in an agreement with the builder and are more stringent than those in the Scenic Highway regulations. A letter from Steve Silla, 28765 Single Oak Drive, representing Bedford Properties, in opposition to the zone change, was presented to the City Clerk. Councilmember Lindemans said the IP designation provides for many business uses. He expressed his concern with traffic problems generated by a full retail operation. Mr. Markum stated the original zoning was commercial and street widths were designed in accordance with that zoning. He stated he felt traffic would not be adversely impacted. Councilmember Mu~oz asked is the City Council could get assurance that this would not be full retail. ~Mr. Markum said the builder would be required to submit a traffic study as part of the process of approving the plot plan. At this time the Council could condition the uses. Councilmember Mu~oz said with the assurance of staff that the Council can look at the type of usage, he is in favor of this zone change. Councilmember Birdsall asked if this would go through the new Planning Commission. City Manager Aleshire explained the reason this is before the Council is the City did not have a Planning Commission at the time it was received by the City. He said in the future plot plans will not come before the City Council unless there is an appeal. Mr. Aleshire said a letter of explanation would be forthcoming. Mayor Parks asked how the procedure will change as a result of having a Planning Commission. He asked if the City of Temecula Planning Commission would act in the same manner as the Riverside Planning Commission, having final approval authority for plot plans. Councilmember Mu~oz expressed his desire to continue to give final approval to plot plans, especially for the next couple of months. ISinutes\6\5\90 -6- 08/16/90 City Council Hlnutes June 5, 1990 Councilmember Birdsall suggested directing staff to have the City Council review all Planning Commission decisions for the next six months. It was moved by Councilmember Birdsall, seconded by Councilmember Mufioz to approve Zone Change No. 5446 and adopt the negative Declaration for Environmental Assessment No. 33728. The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Moore, Mufioz, Parks NOES: I COUNCILMEMBERS: Lindemans ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None RECESS Mayor Parks called a recess at 8:20 PM. The meeting was reconvened at 8:35 PM. Mayor Parks stated Item No. 9 was scheduled for 8:00 PM and would be heard at this time. R__ancho California Water District and Eastern Municipal Water District Presentations John Henniger, General Manager of Rancho California Water District gave a presentation to the City Council. He stated the new Santa Rosa Reclaimed Water Treatment Plant is being built and he invited the City Council to tour this facility. He also outlined the two basic water conversation programs that are in place. He said Donna Powers, concentrating on Urban water needs, is the Water Education Specialist. Mr. Henniger stated Rancho Water has visited all four elementary schools and both middle schools. He reported this is a very effective educational program. Me said Don Peck oversees the agricultural water conservation program and great gains have been made through irrigation efficiency and education of growers. Also available through Rancho California Water District, are brochures on drought resistent landscaping listing over 200 varieties of plants and water saver kits (shower heads, attachments for toilets). Mr. Henniger asked the City's help in disseminating this information. NinuZes~6\S\90 -7- 12 Resolution Deslonatln he RIverside'Counfv Transoortation Commission to PrePare the County Congestion Management Prooram RECOMMENDATION:: :.~j:,.'~,~','. ":~ ~.~',~,..'.. ::~:~; 12.1 Direc~ ata.ff to 'p~r~ ,~.'~rmaj"'~;~l'ueSt'~d~ reprea~ntatio. by the City of Temecula on the Riverside County Transportation Commission. · , , ' .:' · ~..~.~ ;";~.~;~!, ~ i' ~;.., ~' ,' '.: · .- - 12.2 ~.'Adopt a 'reSolutl0h:~titlea~ :~i~.~.,;...'~ ~:' ;'. '! :,. ,.::. ,"..,:, . :'~. ;: '~: :~'~ ;.~'~;:,~ .~;' RESOLUTION NO. :90-..; , "~"~'~':h~S~LUnON"d~"~.~OU~IL'~O~ ~E C~ OF TEMECULA DESIGNATING ~i TI~E~IVERSlDE ,,~ ~ COUNTY · TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION.~';:~TO~;.~REPARE~:~'THE' COUNTY CONGESTION .1 ApproVe c~ntr'~Ct for C~l-ld s~id~ '~nd aut~;Sri~ the Ci~ Manager to 14. . one Change No;-5..S AN ORDINANCE OF ~E CI~'COUNCIL OF THE Cl~ OF ~MECULA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF SAID CI~ CONTAINED IN CHANGE OF ZONE APPLICATION NO. CHANGING ~E ZONE FROM I-P flNDUSTRIAL PARK/TO CPS (SCENIC · HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL) ON PROPER~ LOCA~D ON 6.51 ACRES A T THE WEST SIDE OF YNEZ ROAD, NORTH OF WINCHESTER ROAD. I R_ECEIVEb' MARKHAM & ASSOCIATES TEMECULA. CA 92390 TEMECULA CiTY COUNCIL A REGUIJIR MEETING TEMECUL4 COMMUNITY CENTER AUGU$7~.28,~ 1990 -:7:00 PM CALL TO ORDER: ROLL CALL: PRESENTATIONS/ PR 0 CL A MA TIONS Invocation: Pastor Tim Rlte~ ' +': '~':~"':;;iii ':".i;'R"nchs Christian ChUrch Coun~hmernber MooCh Flag S~lute: .; ,.. : . Birdsail, Lindemans,'Moore, Mu~oz, Parks Next in Order: Ordinance: No. 90-16 Resolution: No. 90-98 PUBLIC COMMENTS A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address the Council on items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to two (2) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Council about an item not listed on the Agenda, a pink "Request To Speak" form should be filled out and filed wi[h the City Clerk. ::..,,...!.~ ... . ;... . . ' City Clerk before the COunCIl G~S ~[~{R~t~ie~:~eFe js'~' five iS) minute time limit for individual ,peaker,.:.;';'-~; · . . ,:.' ':'::',, NOTICE TO All matters listed under Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and all will be enacted by one roll call vote. There will be no discussion of these items unless members of the City Council request specific Items be removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action. I ,,7 TRIGON ENGINEERING, INC. CIVIL ENGINEERING LAND PLANNING 300~ SANTIAGO ROAD, TEMECULA, CA. 9 2 5 9 2 ( V 14 ) 6 9 1001 EVONDA STREET, SANTA ANA, CA 92703 · (714) 554-3621 August 24, 1992 John R. Meyer City of Temecula Planning Department 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, Ca 92592 RECEIVED AUG at 4 1992 CiTY OF TEMECULA Re: Change the Exist. ZOning from very low to medium low. APN 945-060-010 Tract ~ 8211 Par 8. Dear John R. Meyer, This is in reference to the above APN 945-060-010, changing the existing ~oning from very low density to medium low density. The County of Riverside recommends 2 D.U./acre in our area. Note that Parcel NO. 1 and Parcel NO. 5 was approved for ½ acre subdivision by the City of Temecula just recently. If you look at Parcel 1 by visual inspection and compare the terrain to ours, Parcel 1 is more mountainous in comparison and theres no reason why we can not get the same ~oning as Parcel 1- We have a wide frontage at Santiago Road. I also suggest to include Parcels 4, Parcel 6 and Parcel of the same tract which are adjacent to Parcel 5, approved for ½ acre subdivision. Hoping for your kind consideration. If you have questions, please call (714J 699-9108. Sincer _y UrS, F A.J. TERICH ENGINEERING CIVIL ENGINEERING ® SURVEYING · LAND PLANNING September 15, 1992 RECEIVED SEP 17 1992 City of Temecula Planning Department 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, California 92590 Re: Tentatiu~ Trent 23513 (JN 2335 A) Attention: Gary Thornhill, Planning Director Dear Gary: Enclosed herewith please find additional letters of support for the subject tentative map which is currently up for an extension of time. In addition, it may be further construed that the subject ad3acent property owners are in support of a designation on the proposed General Plan of i dwelling unit per gross acre. We have requested Craig Ruiz to delay the processing of the extension of time since staff has taken the position that maps for which extensions of time are being processed are to conform to the proposed General Plan instead of the existing, adopted SWAP designations. However, we feel that because the map conforms to the General Plan currently effective and because we are merely asking for an extension of time for a map which received its original approval from the City, that it is appropriate for you to continue processing the extension of the tentative map in the routine fashion that ordinarily would accompany such a request~ If you concur with our view, we respectfully request that the extension of time move forward. STREET · TE~,tECU[.A, CA 92:~9(I" (714)676-57]5 / (714)h76-5716 · FAX (714)676.-63gh However, if you have been directed by the City Council to judge projects with respect to conformance with the proposal, unofficial plan, adopted, we wish to keep our extension on hold while we work with the general plan process to express our concerns. Very truly yours, A. J. TERICH ENGINEERING Anthon J Ter h CC: City councilmembers City Attorney Craig Ruiz Kumar Sawh July 6, 1992 Mr. Tim Serlet City Engineer CITY OF TEMECULA 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 RE: WESTERN CORRIDOR ALIGNMENT Dear Tim: We have hired RBF to investigate the proposed Western Corridor alignment as well as the RCFC Murrieta Creek alignment for our Margarita Canyon property at }t~y 79 South and Front Street. The NBS road alignment does not benefit our property and we will be providing our preferred alternative to you for review. / We are also concerned with the proposed zoning for the property. The designation is presently shown as low density residential. It seems that commercial is much more in line with a freeway offramp, freeway frontage and a major transportation corridor which this property enjoys. In addition, low density residential zoning would not have any benefits to the City. Funding for the Corridor may come from some sort of assessment district. There is a tremendous difference in both trip generation and land values which will affect this property's ability to contribute to construction and the acquisition of the right of way for the corridor. Please give me a call to discuss these matters. Sincerely, BEDFORD PROPERTIES DEVELOPMENT COMPANY Gregory A. Erickson Area Manager JUNE 30, 1992 RECEIVED .., 0 7 1992 Arts 'd ............ JOHN MEYER SENIOR PLANNER CITY OF TEMECULA 43172 BUSINESS,PARK DRIVE TEMECULA, CA 92590 RE: LOT 6 OF TRACT 8211 APN 923-360-006 DEAR MR. MEYER: I AM THE OWNER OF THE ABOVE-DESCRIBED PROPERTY AND IT HAS COME TO MY ATTENTION THAT THE CITY OF TEMECULA IS ABOUT TO CONSIDER THE ZONING FOR THE AREA IN WHICH MY PROPERTY IS LOCATED. PLEASE BE ADVISED THAT I FAVOR THE TO THE S.W.A.P. WHICH AS DEVELOPED, DWELLING PER ONE HALF ACRE OF LAND. CURRENT COUNTY ZONING PURSUANT PERMITS CONSTRUCTION OF A I FEEL THAT THE CITY OF TEMECULA SHOULD ADOPT A PLAN WHICH IS C~;,SiS,'E,~i WiTH THE PLAN ADOPTED BY THE COUNTY FORTHIS AREA. IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THERE ARE OTHER PARCELS IN THIS ZOr;ZNG AREA WHICH HAVE ALREADY BEEN APPROVED FOR SUBDIVISION INTO DNE HALF ACRE LOTS. IT WOULD BE INCONSISTENT, AT THIS TIME, FOR THE CiTY OF TEMECULA TO LIMIT THE AREA TO TWO ACRE RESIDENTIAL ZONING. ~P THE CITY INTENDS TO HOLD HEARINGS REGARDING THE ZONING OF THIS TRACT WOULD YOU KINDLY NOTIFY ME AT THE FOLLOWING ADDRESS: 2041 ELMWOOD DR, S. SALEM, OR 97306 SIN~RELY, KAREN GULLEY PLANNING CENTER 1300 DOVE ST., SUITE 100 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 ,L o .® Charles C. May 29662 Amwood Way Temecula, Ca. 92591 676-8348 Mr. John Meyer Senior Planner City of Temecula 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula,Ca. 92590 April 12,!992 Dear Mr. Meyer: I will not be able to attend in person the upcoming Firstly: The reference in The Draft Land Use Plan for Temecula states, "the protection of existing single family residential areas" and "Location Of higher density residential near employment and commercial centers." Woodcrest Country Tract (228 single family detached homes) located east of Margarita Road and north of Solana Way. is in very close proximity to areas that have been developed as an Auto Center, Manufacturing, and Retail Malls. How will the implementation of The Draft Land Use Plan serve to protect our homes from high density residential or commercial development. Secondly: The City's Mission Statement reference to: "it, balance the utilization of open space,parks,trail facilities; ~e five housing tracts, Woodcrest Country, Ranco Solano, ',erano, Rancho del Sol, and the northern sector of Costain's Signet have not been provided with playgrounds or parks. All parks in the City of Temecula are presently located south of Rancho California Road. We are taxed for parks and maintainance for same on our Tax Bill. There is not a park to serve the needs of our areas' What does the ~eneral Plan contain to correct this inequity. I will be.'-'grateful for your attention to these matters and will also appreciate an answer,in writing, from your department regarding these concerns. ~espectfully yours,// Charles C. May JOHNSON + JOHNSON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION September 15, 1992 27450 'lhvz R.ad Suite 206 Temecula. (L-X 92591 ( 714 ) 676-1604 F.~X ( 714 ) 699-3117 Mr. John Meyers City of Temecula P.O.Box 3000 Temecula, CA 92390 RE: General Plan designation for A.P.N. 921-090-038 Dear Mr. Meyers, We are writing this letter on behalf of the property owners of the above mentioned property (Imocal Inc.), as a follow up to a June 25, 1992 letter you received from Mr. Milb outlining his concerns with the current designation of "Low-Medium Density Housing" for their property along Margarita Road. In addition to the concerns with "Low to Medium Density" fronting Margarita Road, please consider that CFD 88-12 has plans to locate an 1-15 Highway overpass that will connect with Margarita Road directly across from this property. For this reason we feel the property fronting Margarita Road will be better suited to a Commercial Office use and the remainder of the property behind the frontage area should be a medium residential density housing 12 to 15 units per acre, making it consistent with the property to the south. This would create a zoning pattern consistent with similar properties in the area and make a better transition from a major circulation corridor to a lower residential housing area. Please include this information in the General Plan process and contact us with any questions or comments you may have. Sincerely, JOHNSON + JOHNSON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION Dean K. Allen President cc: Mr. Ludger Kneer IMOCAL INC. c/o Morgan, Lewis and Bockius att. Mr. R. Fraser 801 South Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90017-3189 Tel.: (213)612-1086 Fax: (213)612-2554 June RECEIVED J UL 0 2 1992 Ans'd ............ R./M1 City of Temecula 43174 Business Park Dr. Temecula, CA 92590 Attn: Mr. John R. Meyer, AICP Gentlemen: It was a pleasure to have the opportunity to meet Mr. J. R. Meyer and Mr. D. W. Hogan on the occasion of my recent visit to Temecula. We thank you for the friendly reception and appreciate very much receiving your information about the property developments in the City of Temecula. As discussed with you, we are submitting to you information on two important topics: As you may know, IMOCAL INC. is a California corporation, having its headquarters in Los Angeles. It is the owner of three properties in your community, and we understand that you have now taken note of our correct mailing address, as identified above. We are particularly interested to know how the City of Temecula is legally required to notify non-resident property owners of land within the City of Temecula about any changes that may have an impact on their property. We are of the opinion that the City is required to notify already in a preliminary phase in time by registered mail a non-resident property owner to the latest known mailing address. Your formal written answer to this question will be most appreciated. IMOCAL's Property at Margarita Road is described as follows: "Parcel Map No. 20278 recorded in book 127, pages 35, 36 of parcel maps and a portion of lot 39 of tract no. 3334, recorded in book 54, pages 25 thru 30 inclusive, of maps, all records of Riverside County, State of California." IMOCAL INC., Los Angeles, CA 90017 - June 25, 1992 page - 2 - On the occasion of our recent visit to your offices, you provided us with a copy of a "Draft Preferred Land Use Plan" dated May 6, 1992, being part of the City of Temecula's General Plan Program. On this plan IMOCAL's property, as described above, was shown as "Low-Medium Density Housing - 6 units per acre". This is in conflict with the existing zoning of Imocal's property, the frontage portion of which is presently zoned "C-O Commercial Office", and the rear portion of which is presently zoned "R-2 - Medium Density Housing 12 to 15 units per acre". It is our opinion that the following matters should be considered in regard to the Preferred Land Use Plan as it relates to Imocal's property: The frontage portion of Imocal's property is presently zoned "C-O Commercial Office", generally consistent with the zoning catagory of "Professional Offices" used in the "Preferred Land Use Plan" for the property adjacent to Imocal's, along Margarita Road. The frontage portion of Imocal's property should relate to, and reflect, the proposed and existing zoning on the west side of Margarita Road, which is"Commercial Offices" In this way, a consistent character can be developed along both sides of this new major boulevard. The proposal to have low density housing on all of Imocal's property fronting on the major commercial boulevard of Margarita Road would be inconsistent, and would be harmful for the future prospective residents of such single family houses. It does not make for good planning to build single family houses in front of a high density commercial area, and also fronting onto a very busy traffic arterial. Further, it would leave such a single family development surrounded, like a peninsula, by incompatible land uses, such as commercial, offices, and high-density zoning. Such a re-zoning of Imocal's property may also be considered as unequal treatment, vis-a-vis neighbouring property owners, because their properties will be changed to, or will remain, higher zoned, even though these neighbouring properties are of equal character and equal location when compared to Imocal's property. ./o IMOCAL INC., Los Angeles, CA 90017 - June 25, 1992 page - 3 - The "Preferred Land Use Plan" shows a small property immediately north of Imocal's property which has been classified as "Professional Offices". This small property is located in the flood control plain that is adjacent to, and below, the northerly boundary of Imocal's property. Retaining the existing "C-O - Commercial-Office" zoning (or its equivalent zoning) for the frontage of Imocal's property would be consistent with the proposed "Professional Office" zoning of this small adjacent property. Please keep us regularly informed, to the above mentioned address, about any developments of importance with regard this property. tO Expecting your answers, we thank you for your assistance. We are looking forward to cooperating with the City of Temecula in a constructive way also in the future. Very truly yours, !:qOCAL, INC. R. Hilb (Secretary of Imocal Inc. 5..fFD N~\5;TI~I~ PLA', DI-:\ EL()I'\IE\ I% October 15, 1992 RECEIVED OCT 2 0 1992 Ans 'd . NIt'. John R. Meyer Semor Planner City of Temecula 43174 Business Park Dr Temecula, CA 92590 RE: Laad Use Modi~cation for Tentative Tract 26232, Lot 12,38.8acres Dear Mr. Meyer, Thank you for taking the time to meet regarding Mr. Leo Roripaugh's property. Tentative Tract 26232. and the land use downzonmg request we have before the City of Temecula. have enclose. d lwo sketches that detail: 1. The current land use statusof Tract 26232, and ~ The proposed land use revision. As we d~scussed. Tract Map 26232 will create a reinrender parcel. Lot 12. which consists of 38.8 acres and has a current land u.ce that includes a snlall portion of Conm~efeial acreage. Office acreage. and q,F,.uximatcly 19 acres of HIgh den~.ny res~dentml. It should be noted that Lot 12 also includes Park acreage. Santa Gertrudis Creek acreage. and Nicola_~ Rtmd acreage; these snlall acreages ternran the un~R on both sketches. The land use request per the Temecula General Plan consists of basically downzomng the entire Lot 12 to High t~,tdent~al This result~ m changing the 7 acre Conune~ial reinant mid the 4.8 Office portion to residential. The c urrtrnt hagh level of Assessment District 161 taxes and the very slow absorption m the Commercial/Office market are the primary r~tmus we arc making this request. As we hnve discussed 'w~th Mr. Gary Thonlhill and your~ll. we anticipate working w~th the City to develop single fanuly resadenlxal pnxjuct on these parcels. Thank you lot yotff cooperation. Please call if you have any questsons. Sinoctal). %luNler Plan [)e~elopment~ ..,,/ Sanlord Eth~!ttl. P'/L-~dent SE/cb E,nchx,,urt~ CC: Mr. Ix,,, Ronpaugh ~ , .' .... R ', I;,.,(, ~ \ ,,'¢,,H · e714. '2'LI500 e: 1.;\ ' ~',, _"" ) ~ t / PO BOX 456 714-676-204~ RECEIVED 101 Corral de TierraRd. Salinas,Ca 93908 JUl_ 8 9 And ............ July 8, 1992 Mr, Gary Thornhill Director of Planning City of Temecula 4133374 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 Dear Mr. Thornhill: I own a twenty acre parcel that I split over ten years ago into fouF parcels: #914 300 051 through 054 parcels 1,2,3,4 PM 094/077 PM 10891. I plan to process a subdivision map with two dwelling units per acre. I believe that this would be consistent with the S.W.A.P map. I heard from a property owner across Walcott Lane from my property who wants to process a map for half acre lots also. I think this would be an appropriate density for my property given the type of single family subdivisions that have been approved to the south of my parcels I and 2, (approximately one quarter acre lots). This property has always been an investment for me and I hope to keep the value up for future development. Half acre lots are much larger than much of what has been planned and built in Temecula and I think adequately preserves a rural character in the neighborhood, Compared to the density of the 80 acre subdivision to the south of my property. two dwelling umts per acre seems reasonable, I have enclosed a copy of an area map. My property is between Walcott Lane and Butterfield Stage Road;' Karen Lynn Lane ~s the access road, Phone: (408) ~84-22'36 Sincerely, George T. Starcevich It seems ludicrous that the City would contemplate reversing the zoning and existing development trend in this area. It appears even more unfounded to assess the property through the C.S.D. at a rate based upon two units per acre but then only allow one home per 2 1/2 acre type development.' I strongly urge you to change this designation as soon as possible an hereby submit the following parcels under my ownership which this proposed zoning adversely affects: APN # 945 090 004 APN # 945 090 005 APN# 945 080 010 APN # 945 090 007 Please forward this letter to the Planning Commission, the Board of supervisors and The Planning Center for review. I look forward to your immediate response to this matter. Y/e/urs~&ruly, DP:lmg c:\wpSl%wptext\ketters%ZOPa~/aa\cityttr I,ANDBAN!( THE LANDBANK COMPANY 41593 WINCHESTER ROAD. SUITE 101 TEMECULA. CALIFORNIA 92390 714/694-1111 FAX 714/694-1112 July 15, 1992 I ECEIVED JUL 6 992 Anti ............ Mr. Steve Jiannino Senior Planner Planning Department City of Temocuia 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 Dear Steve: Approximately five weeks ago, 'I conducted several telephone conversations and a sit down meeting with yourself regarding property I own in the City of Temecula. -This conversation focused on the City's current designation of 2 1/2 acre minimum lot sizes (in the proposed General Plan) instead of 1/2 acre zoning that currently exists in the area bordered by Pauba Road to the North, Margarita to the East, Santiago Road to the South and Ormsby Road to the West. In our meeting you indicated that you had spoken to The Planning Center regarding this designation and had concluded that in light of already existing 1/2 acre lots and 1 acre lots that this designation had been an oversight on the Planning Center's part. Nevertheless, you also indicated that a change could not be made to correct this error prior to the Planning Commissions vote on the entire General Plan. Ste~, ~ i detailed to you, Z and my nei'gnDors nave been personally involved in retaining the 1/2 acre (P~R Zoning) in this particular area through many public hearings as well as numerous S.W.A.P. meetings. Subsequent to that, I paid for and processed a 34 lot 1/2 acre Tentative Tract Map in this immediate area through the CIty Of Temecula. Furthermore, I am paying a Park assessment fee on several properties in this area at a rate of $58 per possible residential unit through a formula already presuming my ability to build two residential units per acre. We, therefore, respectfully request that the subject area be seriously considered for a 0.5 acre or 0.75 acre designation for the proposed General Plan. Your consideration will be appreciated. Very truly yours, A.J. Terich Engineering An 't~!~ AJT/sm cc: Gary Thornhill, Planning Director Debbie Ubnoske, Senior Planner Craig Ruiz, Assistant Planner Kumar Sawh A.J. TERICH ENGINEERING CIVIL ENGINEERING · SURVEYING · LAND PLANNING August 21, 1992 John Meyer, Senior Planner City of Temecula 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, California 92590 RECEIVED An 'd ........... Re: Draft Preferred Land Use Plan APN 945-010-001, 003, 004 Tent. Tract 23513 (JN 2335-A) Dear John: For your information, we have obtained assessor's maps for the area South of Pauba Road, West of Margarita Road and North of Santiago Road to demonstrate that there is significant development of parcels which are less than the 2.0 acres designated on the above referenced plan. We feel that recognition be given to this development by re-designating the s~bject area to something between 0.5 acres and 1.0 acres with ~he final determination to be decided at the time of develcpment review. In che parcicu]ar case of Tentative Tract 23513, this same bactle was fought at the Board of Supervisors level with SWAP and che subgect tract was approved by the County Planning Commission and by the Temecula City Council. The sub]oct and surrounding properties have unique topography. The copography is such that in some cases 0.5 acre lots are appropriate while In ocher cases 2.5 acre lots are appropriate. The determination for the specific appropriateness should be at the tentative map stage. i l ~,~; M.'~I\ STREET · TEMECULA. CA 92590 · (714) 676-5715 / (714) hT,',-57]t, · FAX (714) August 4, 1992 City of Temecula P.O. Box 3000 Temecu]a Ca. 92590 Attn: City Council Re: Tentative Map 23513 Ladies & Gentleman: Please be advised that we have reviewed the subject tentative map and support its approval. As an owner of property which is contiguous to the subject tentative map, we respectfully recuest your consideration of our support for this project. August 4, 1992 City of Temecula P.O. Box 3000 Temecula Ca. 92590 Attn: City Council Re: Ientative Map 23513 Ladies & Gentleman: ~/ease be advised that we have reviewed the subject tentative mad and support its approval. As an owner of property which js contiguous to the subject tentative map, we respectfully request your consideration of our support for this project. June 5, 1992 City of Tcmecula Community Development Office 43172 I3~siness Park Drive Temccul:t, CA 92590 'To WhoIl~ II Nlay Concern: Rcg:,rding the rezoning of the property by Bedford Prop, enies on Pauba Road, e4~st of Ynez go.,.L R :~, - 20,000 sq. ft. minimum change._l 1o R-! - 7,200 subdivide 56.6 acres to 102 lets. P:case be advi,.cd tha~ we fee! that it would not be in the best interest for the City of Temccula or the ,.urro~:!jing neigt~borhooUs Io :allow a rezoning of the above ',,-operty. Gut c!ty is cxDcr~cnc n~'., h,.!,p.e over ;.,rov.'th and an economic recess;on. ','.'e have .iust come out of ,qn acute '.,, ;tr :.].u't.:: '. t~:c!c a,tc over crowCod scho. ols. l'i~,z land in question. if crowded wiul ~',L thc,2' n,a.d!tinraJ homes would present ', drainage problem as we!! as a traffic j)rob!clrt! Th,~ as one of Tcmecu!a's _fin. e~,Lrtsj~_e.n. Liiat n._..~rea.~!s! Why would the City Development Office or [' t. C'~x C'ounc:] n!c~bcr~ ;tuow ;tnyt, ,c to ch:..,ge this ~cia~ :~e.q oF the city. All of the pcop~c v.~ c, ,.::r~o..'~c tht~ parcel of ~ c ~vou]d be nfi~t~ by lhjs rczenmb ~,~,c rcc. cs~ tha,. you bc very concerned for the residences who now live in this :,tea and who, in goo,.. I.uth. p~id the pri,:c for th~s Davticular l~ation. 'vhe ly:x' of/fiP~P~ We nO',~ !'aVe WO~'.'i b.".~ ,~:.,. ~ ,hc ~u:fittV Of living '~ ' ' '~ ' ' · a 1: -. you' ob!,g. ::on to see l},a~ P{':s }s mztin::Sn~. We c.'m. not be'.ie,,'r vou would want less for thc ix. op:e wht, now reside here. q.'!lar,;. Name AC31rc',', cc: G. Thornhill June 17, 1992 RECEIVFq Ju, Z 0 i9, 2 Ans'L ........... City of Temecula Community Development Office · 3172 Business Park DriTe Tem~cula, CA 92590 To Whom it Mny Concern: Re~srdin.7 tho rezoning of the property by Bedford Properties on Pauba Road, east of Ynez Road, R-R-20,O00 sq, ft. minimuan chsnjed to R-!-7,rOO subdivir~e 56.6 serfs so 102 lots. F! ,ass be ~dvised that we feel lhat it ~;ould not be in the best interest fcr the C~ty cf Tem-cula or the surrounding nei~hborhoods ~ allo~r e rezoninS of the above property. Our city ic experiencin5 a huCe over-~rowth ~nd sn e~on2nl~ r~2esslon. We have just come out of ?n acute water s!~orta~, th?re ~r.I ?"~r-~r?' dad scL~ools. The lend in question, if cro~rc~ed rith ~l! t'~eLe a~*'_*~n:i hem?s, ~:ould present ~ drainage Frob!~m ~s ~;e!l ~ s ~rnf~ic Th:: sn~ cf Temecula's finest r~sidential arcss~ ~y would the City De~elc?ment Office or the City Council members want to change this special area of ~he city. All of the people who surround' this parcel of land would be affec%ed by this rezoning. We re~ues~ that 2'ou be very concerned for the residents who no~; live in this ar-a ~nd :'he, in °ood faith, i'~id the price for this ~rrtinular location. The type of zoning ~e now here wou~d best mains:in the quality of living that ;~e all enjoy. T' '~ your oblijetion to see that this is maintained. We cannot believe you would wem.: less for the people who now reside here. June 5, 1992 Ci.y of Teme, cula Ct, nn'mnity Development Office ~7, '.72 !3~.s~ncss Park Drive Tcmccui,l. CA 92590 ','c, \vhom Ii May Concern: .ic;,:rd,:::: a~c rczoning of the property by Bedford Propertics on Pauba Road, east of Ynez Rod,h k-~i - 20,000 sq. ft. minimum changed to R-1 - 7,200 subdivide 56.6 acres to 102 lots. P,c.;',c he ac:vthcd thai wc feel that it would not be in the best interest for the City efTemecula or the s~:roundlr.;~ neighborhoods to allow a rezoning of '..he above propcmy. Oar city is c,,'- ': :c:~¢;n. a hk~gc over growth and an economic recession. We have just come out of :'n acuzc ..... .~ r:. ,:,:. ~;.c~c are over crowded schools. The land in queslion, if cro,,.,d~ with all these .~c.:;~;:.. tieinch would prcscnta drainagc problem as well as a traffic problcml ': ..r o,-.. c.' 'Tc.hccuh:s ,%_.!g!q_~.eSi~enti.___al._?::.9~.! Why would the City Developlnent Of~cc or : .< ,~ .'' Cv,;r,cl~ members allow anyone to change d~is special area of the city. All of the people ,, ..t, ~.rro~n,~ tais i}arccl of land would be affectcd by this rezoning. \',c rc, I.,,: tN.~I you be very concerned for the residences who now ;ire in this area and who, .n . , ,,,i f,::n, nald ll'c price for this particular location. The type of zoning we now have would oz:,: z:..la:.hn tac quai,ly of living thai we all enjoy. c,~li;auo:. lo sex that this is r;.ain:ained. Wc c. mnnot believe you would w~t less now rcs~dc iicrc. '1 h,::' ) ~> Jun,: 5, 1992 City of Temecula Community Development Office 43172 Business Park Drive Tcmecula, CA 92590 To Whom :t May Concern: Re~arding the rezoning of the property by Bedford Pro,',:~ies on Pauba Road, east of Yne7 Road, R-P, - 20,000 sq. ft. minimum changexJ to R-1 - 7d200 subdivide. 56.6 acres to 102 lots. Please be advisee that we feel that it would not be in the best interest for the City of Temecula or the ~urrounding neighborhoods to allow a rezoning of the above property7 Our city is experiencing, it huge over growth and an economic recession. We have ius~ com~. ou! ~5an a~ute '.~:.:,'r s ,,"' d;-'. t: .'re :.re o:,'.'r -"r~wd.ed. schoo'.s. The land in ques'.i,.,n, ~f crowded with :,Z. add.:i~.,:::ti :,vines v, ould present a drainage problem as well as a traffic problem: T!li', i', t,,e o!' Tcmecula's fine~, regide'nli~ n-ea~ Why would ~he City Develo;m~cn, CfCce or .... ':~i~ _ ~:~. . , T!ic C.h,, Council m,uuvcrs a!low ~m:'onc :., oh:rage this sI:,,tcial area of the city. A:I of tile .~.:o'~le ~:t~_, hcrrodr.,. this p.~rccl of !:rod would be aftecteu by ti~is rezc,!~iug Wc request that you be very. concerned for the residences who now '.ire in thk area and who, in t'c~Dd !alth,-paid the price for this pai'ticular lOcation. The ty,De o!' zonin: we no~ !,:,vc wo::ld bcs! maintain :hi. qu,":d ty of living that we ~I e,-joy. l: ;3 :,O:- r Ob:ig.itiUI~ tO see that this is matnit. Line. el. We c~mno~ bc!:eve VOLt would w.'m'. lchs for t!,c l~.'n;¢c who now reside here. ' Thank yoc. t\d~,~css RECE:IVED !CITY OF TEMECIJLA BEDFORD PROPERI r25 April 23, 1992 Mr. John Meyer Planning Department CITY OF TEF~ECUIA 43174 Business Park Drive Temecuia, CA 92590 RE: GENE~3~L PI~&N COFa{ENT SOUTH SIDE / HWY 79 SOUTH & PAIA ROAD Dear John: Bedford Development Company owns 83 acres at the above location. Plans are underway to relocate Pala Road further east, thus creating two separate properties. A 12-15 acre portion of this land, fronting H~ 79 South and Pala Road, would be suitable for highway service-type com/nercial development (for which there is already a demand). The balance of the property lies within the flood plain. We would request that 15 acres of co~mercial/retail zoning be approved here. This would include the Bedford holdings on both sides of the street to be created by the Pala Road realignment. Commercial/retail uses will benefit from the traffic and exposure, while residential.(single or multi-family) would suffer from the noise and congestion. Please let me know your ~houghts on ~he above. Sincerely, BEDFORD PROPERTIES DEVELOPMENT COMPANY Gregory A. Erickson Area Manager GAE/dh A Dlver'qi,ed Real Eshue Mailing Address P.O. Box 9016 Temecula. Cahf~rm,, 92589 (173o 28765 Single Oak Drive Suite 200 Temecula Cahforn~a 925~, Telephone 714 676 %641 Fac-lrnHc 714 h76 llR~ :COUN \I REALTY May 22, 1992 John R. Meyer, AICP Senior Planner CITY OF TEMECULA 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula. CA 92590 "Prefeo'ed General Plan" designation of Lots 1, 2 & 3 of PM 9036; AKA Assessor Parcels 2, 3 & 4 of Assessor's Map Book 950, Page lO Dear Mr. Meyer: The undersigned represents the owners of the referenced properties, Ladd and Margaret Penfold as to lots 1 and 3 and Mr. and Mrs. Lyle Knode as to Lot 2. Lots I and 3 wcrc purchased by the Penfolds in anticipation of the use changes ultimately adopted under the SV.'AP cflbrts undertaken by the County of Riverside. Lot 2, on the other hand. was purch.l,~ d t,y the Knodcs in the belief that they would retire there in the peaceful surroundings of nK c,,untn.' The interesting consequence is that both parties are now unanimous in their desire. ittlcr ~c~lng the City's version of a land use element. to have their properties incorporated into the pr,lllt'rcd plan as a commercial application. xAh;~t appears to bc counter to most land use elements we have seen is that the City would choose to create v, hat amounts to an "island" of 10w-density residenual,-surrounded on three sides by varying dc...:'rt'c~ ol commercial use. It would also appear to be the only residential frontlag on Margarita R¢~ad. a nl:al{~r arterial corridor. planned for the entire City. C~t:r ?crL'cpt.m is that .his may have been an oversight. If not. pleast: let us know your position and · .~ h;tt slop', ~,c nccd to undertake to proceed with encouraging you to reconsider your position. I am I,,~,k,ng lorv. ard to working with you on this project. Sincord5. COL'NTRYSIDE REALTY CC: Mr. and Mrs. Ladd Penfold Mr. and Mrs. Lyle Knode _'8_'66 Front Street · Temecula. CA 92590 - (714~ 676-2191 [ ) Mr. Gary Thornhill April 14, 1992 Page 2 Given the significance of this project, and the preliminary nature of both the General Plan and our project plans, perhaps we can schedule a workshop at which time Temecula View Estates can be carefully studied. We are anxious to solicit the views of the community, and to make our project a reality. Very truly yours, James K. Fergus V~ce President Res~Oent~al Development JKF/ar cc: Mr. David Dixon RANCON REALTY FUNDS April 14, 1992 Mr. Gary Thornhill Planning Director City of Temecula 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92591 Re: Temecula View Estates Dear Gary: We appreciate this opportunity to provide comment to the City's General Plan process. We are developers of this 800 acre property, commonly referred to as Roripaugh Ranches. Simply stated, our vision of the property is the creation of a distinctive community composed of a series of interconnected villages which are sensitively designed around open space, and which appeal to a broad cross-section of homebuyers. The key to this community is to work with its outstanding physical beauty, and to "fit" that design into the local surroundings. To this end, we look forward tO working with the City, community and surrounding property owners on issues such as: regional transportation and infrastructure regional open space systems and parks adequate schools "edge" or buffer conditions creation of residential villages, with sufficient densities, so as to balance achievement of the above, with the marketplace Gary, we look forward to applying the broad policies of the draft General Plan to the unique aspects of Temecula View Estates. 2*'720 Jefferson Avenue oevelop the property for' residential use Ior tnese reasons; A. A slngle Tami]y residence has to De sited at trio na row. Easterly end o~ the .property because: Drainage has to De provided across the Westerly on0. The Westerly end of the property is an u]]stable plain. Rerco]ation tests conriPmed that the only sui~aDie rof a septic system is at the Westerly eno or the k:&pefty. Fil~xng is not an option in the iower lot Decause of ~ne instability o~ the soil, the meeo convev water through the area, the massive amounts li:i that would be required and the neeo to the septic system in the deslFecl iii~ area. -'_'r .:~::,'. ;'j.L" or Hlgr, way :-; : -'~i ~2 in:prove lzr, e property in comp. L=nce with the RA 2 I vr;:r r, eip. develop piar, s to provioe, betms. piantimgs, tr. st is the best alternative but it is an alternative that needs to be Openly discussed without the emotional "no-commercial" ZiT~ OF TEMECULA "~' BUS , ,~ INESS PARK DRIVE TEi-iECULA. CA 928g0 ~- ~u: ~r.:=se,.~ let ~33,. tzazt 3646. ir, Temecu~a. Los -- ':":. ~c:ej ~l iF, T_ -M~C Engineer . e .;, 1_:,6_: to, .le'~ :, :- lut to approximateiv 158' . · ULA RANCHO T. 8S R.2W ~R. TEM_HG RANOHO CALl.F) q,O o ,% $ 922 p6. 19 CALIE Thank you for your time and attention to these m~tte_'s. *'e t_o ~ttend the public ~orkshop next Tr. ur. soay and d~ECLISE ~ne · · ,-, , 2256 Su:InysiGe Ridge Roao (3iU B~'-36~,7 , ! I! :"L · Ltl / / / JOHNSON + JOHNSON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION 27450 l'ncz R.ad Suite ~00 Terneeula. CA 92591 (714) 676-1604 FAX (7141699-3117 March 25, 1992 Mr. John Meyer, Senior.Planner CITY OF TEMECULA 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, Ca 92590 Re: Zone Change Case No. 5570 Dear Mr. Meyer, On March 12, 1992 Dean Allen and I met with Saied Naaseh and Debbie Ubnoshe from the City of Temecula Planning Department in a DRC review for Rancho Village, the above mentioned project. At that meeting the issue was raised regarding the current designation for this project in the proposed General Plan. In an attempt to clarify this matter we would.like to provide you with a summary of the history Of the zoning application for this project. The following is a recap for Zone Change Case No. 5570: 1) An application for zone change along with the required application fee of Three Thousand Four Hundred Five Dollars ($3,405.00) was submitted to the County of Riverside in August of 1989. 2) Parcels 2 & 3 were designated office commercial in the S.W.A.P. development. A portion of the property (parcel 1 of the 3 parcel property) was mis-labeled during the Southwest Area Plan (S.W.A.P.) review (see attached letter dated July 28, 1989). The appropriate designation for all three parcels was Office Commercial. 3) Once Temecula was incorporated as a City, along with zone change fees were transferred of Riverside to the City of Temecula. the application from the County When we resubmitted to the City of Temecula, we revised our requirements to be consistent with surrounding property by requesting zoning that allows condominiums at 12/units per acre on the back (easterly) parcel No. 1. JOHNSON + JOHNSON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION September 14, 1992 Mr. John Meyers City of Temecula P.O.Box 3000 Temecula, CA 92390 RE: Zone Change Case No. 5570, RECEIVED SEP 15 199Z Ans 'd ............ parcels 923-590-015, 27450 ~hcz Rl~ad Suite 200 Temecula, CA 92591 ( 714 ) 676 - 1 (~114 016 and 017. Dear Mr. Meyers, This is a follow up to our September 2, 1992 meeting where it was discovered that your General Plan Consultant has inaccurate information regarding the status of a fault along the west border of the above mentioned parcels. As we discussed, the fault in question has an inactive designation based on a recent study and our site design reflects any setbacks required by this designation. Please include this with our March 25, Change 5570. information in the General Plan process along 1992 letter summarizing the history of Zone Should you have any questions or require additional information please contact me. Si~jcerely, JOHNSON + JOHNSON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION De~rF'KT -A1 len President JOHNSON + JOHNSON July 28, 1989 Mr. Marshall Lee Riverside County Office Planning Department 4080 Lemon Street Riverside, CA 92501 Dear Marshall: During the last review of the SouthweSt Area Plan held in Murrieta on July 12, 1989, Jack Bresson, you and I discussed the change of zone designation on the property located on Ynez Road and Rancho Vista. At that time, it was agreed to make the property office co~unercial. ~idently the line was drawn incorrectly on our preliminary copy of the Southwest Area plan map showing Parcel ~1 of the 3 parcel property as not being included in its office commercial. We would greatly appreciate you reviewing this correction. I would also note that the property directly east of the sub- 3ect property is apartment houses 16= DU's/Acre already con- structed. Sincerely, Letter to Mr. John Meyer March 25, 1992 Page -2- 4) Our property is included in the Co~ununity Facilities District No. 88-12, an Ynez Road widening project. This District calls for assessments and sales tax contributions based on an office commercial zoning for this property which we have agreed to. 5) October 10, 1990 we met with SteVe Jiannino, a senior planner for the City of Temecula and were instructed to provide display maps giving a general concept for the project. At this time we commissioned Schoell & Paul Architects to provide such a design concept. 6) When the site plans were completed, we met with the City and began working with Debbie Ubnoshe as the senior planner. At this time we were informed a policy change would not allow our project to proceed as previously indicated by Steve Jiannino and that to move forward we would be required to do expanded engineering studies and building designs. Furthermore, it was requested we coordinate common entries where ever possible with the Bedford Specific Plan to the north. Subsequently, we made an agreement with Bedford to share access with their commercial and multi-family project on the north side of the subject parcels. 7) On March 12, 1992 a DRC review was held for our property and at that meeting we learned the project was incorrectly classified as a Change of Zone to CPS rather than as originally requested to be Commercial Office and R-3. Our concern is that the lack of continuity in review has caused thls project to be misrepresented in the General Planning Process. We believe on further analysis you will agree the zoning of these properties should be C-O (commercial office) on Parcels #2 & #3~and R-3 (residential) on Parcel #1. Flease consider our Pequest as you continue with the General Plan development process. We would like to meet with you to discuss any issues you may have with this request. SIncerely, Curtis E. Lively CEL/dmd APPLICATION FOR LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 5570 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. PARCEL MAP NO. PLOT PLAN NO. ',it of Temecula INCOMR. ETE ~CATIONS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED. Date: PUBLIC USE PERMIT NO. TEMPORARY USE PERMIT NO. TRACT MAP NO. VARIANCE NO. PROJECT INFORMATION: , 1. Purpose of Request (project description) (Ord. 348 ref. No.) Ch~ng~ of ~nn~ f,t.., R-A-5 tO C-O (cu,,~ercial office) for parcels 2 & 3 R-3 (general residential) for Parcel 1. 2. Related cases filed in conjunction with this request. PROPERTY INFORMATION: Assessor's Parcel Number(s): 923-590-015, 016, 017 Location: Street Address etc.) Noctheast comer of Ynez RDad and Rancho Vista Apprcx. Gross Acreage: 18.4~ Thomas Brothers Pg. No. & Coordinate{s) PG. 125 F-3 APPUCANTIOWNEPJREPRF-~ENTATIVE INFORMATION: Applicant Name; Mailing Address: Telephone No.: RANC~O VTT.TAGE ASSOCIATES, a California Limited Partnership + Jonnson DeveloF~P_nt co ., ~eneral Far-cner jonnson P. Johnson, Chairman of ~ Board Willicon 27450 YnP7 Rr],, ,q13it~ 200 T~l]a, CA 92591 STREET CITY STATE ZIP (714) 676-1604 (8 a.m. - 5 o.m. 2. Owner Name I. clff®mmtmm Ap4slkafi~) Mailing Address: PARCEL. M.AP NO. 14395 .' / TO TAZ GROS~ ACS. dO. ,~5, ~' "-BUYER'S COPY SAFA R. MUHTASF. R & NAYEF R. MUHTASEB Post Office Box 1004 Murrieta, California. 92564-1004. Telephone (714)677-3325 Facsimile (714)677-3325 August. 14. 1992. City of Temecula Mr. John R. Meyer, AICP 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA. 92590 Regarding: Assessor's Parcel Number: 944-290-009 RECEIVED AUG 17 1992 Ans'd .............. Dear John Our Address Has Changed Date Effective: August. 20. 1992. Please forward all of your statements, assessments, notices, correspondence, letters, inquiries, questions, invoices, billings, and payments to: SAFA R. MUHTASEB NAYEF R. MUHTASEB POST OFFICE BOX 1004 MURRIETA, CA. 92564-1004. TELEPHONE: (714) 677-3325 FACSIMILE: (714) 677-3325 Sincerely, Safa R. Muhtaseb Representative Namf Curtis Lively Mailing Address: 27450 Ynez Road Suite 200, TEmecula, CA 92591 , STREET C;TY STATE ZIP Telephone No.: (714) 676-1604 (8 a.m. - 5 p,m.) RANCHO VILLAGE ASSOCIATES, a California Limited Partnershi~ JOH SON + JOHNSON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, GENERAL PARTNER SIGNATURE OF APPLICANTX By: Wi O ~irman of the Board DATE SIGNED March 23, 19 Authority for this application is hereby given: SIGNATURE OF PROPERTY OWNERS(s) (WHtten Authorization my be Attached) If more than one person is involved in the ownership of the property being developed a separate page must be attached to this application which lists the names and addresses of all persons having an interest in the ownership of the property. Note: Persons desiring to seek judicial review of the decision of the City Council have ninety (90) days to file a complaint in the court seeking such review pursuant to Section 1094.6 of the Califomia Code of Civil Procedure, HOMEOWNERS/PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION Is your parcel subject to CC&R's or Homeowner/Property Owner review and approval? Yes No x If yes. include Homeowner/Property Owner Association or Management Company mailing label within 600 foot radius property owners' mailing notification addresses. Have Homeowners/Property Owners been notified of your project? Yes No x SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT DATE SIGNED RANCHO VILLAGE ASSOCIATES, a California Limited Partnership By: William P.J~ hnson, Chairman of the Board March 23. 19~2 Authorityforthisapplicationis hereby given: SIGNATURE O,' PROPERTY OWNER(S) Second, with all due respect, I would like to reiterate that the best land use and the best Land Use Designation (Zone) for Our Property is either Community Commercial or Neighborhood Commercial for the reasons I have pointed out in my Previous Letter (dated April. 17.1992.). Finally, I would like to extend my greatest appreciation for your understanding and cooperation. Respectfully Safa R. Muhtaseb Property Owner DLUP2 SAFA R. MUItTASEB & NAYEF R. MUtlTASEB 39484 VIA MONTALVO, MURRIETA, CALIFORNIA. 92563. U.S.A. TELEPHONE (714)677-3325. FACSIMILE (714)677-3325. April. 30.1992. City of Ternecula 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, California 92590 Attention Mr. John R. Meyer, AICP, Senior Planner Regarding TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN DRAFT PREFERRED LAND USE PLAN IN SPECIFIC: Property Description: 6.12 ACRES GRS IN PARS A, B & 2 PM 076/068 PM 1346 APN: 944-290-009 Dear Mr. Meyer I am writing this letter as a follow up and an amendment to the letter (dated April. 17. 1992.) which I have addressed to you. F~rst, I would like to make a correction to the previous letter (dated April. 17. 1992.). On the previous letter I have stated that the Draft Preferred Land Use Plan (DPLUP) recommends a Residential High Density Max. 20 DU/Acre Land Use Designation (Zone) for the above described property (Our Property) and that is incorrect, and I apologize for this mistake. The DPLUP actually recommends an Office-Commercial Land Use Designation (Zone) for Our Property. Property would provide shopping for the present and future residents of such housing with in a walking distance. 2. Once Moraga Road is developed all the way to meet with Via Las Colinas, Our Property will have three sides bordering on roads {Rancho California Road, Moraga Road, and Via Las Colinas) and therefore will have maximum road accessibility and exposure, Further, the high flow of traffic surrounding our property may create safety problems for 'a residential use. 3. Our Property will provide a great location for a Day Care Center for all the Apartment and Professional Office residents immediately surrounding Our Property. 4. As you are well aware, there is a traffic signal at the intersection of Rancho California Road and Moraga Road which makes the south west corner of that intersection (which lies in Our Property) an ideal location for a Gas Station. Our Property would make an ideal site for a commercial retail neighborhood center with potential retailers and/or uses such as the following: (a) Gasoline Station & Mini Market, (b) Restaurant(s),(c) Dry Cleaners, (d) Mail Services Center, (el Photo Shop, (f) Video Store, (g) Dental & ODtometr~st Clinics, (h) Ice Cream and Frozen Yogurt Shop, (i) Donut and Bagel shops, (j) A Day Care Center, and (k) Other Commercial Uses. Your understanding and cooperation is greatly appreciated. Respectfully COT-DLUP Safa R. Muhtaseb Property Owner SAFA R. MUHTASEB & NAYEF R. MUHTASEB 59484 VIA MONTALVO, MURRIETA, CALIFORNIA. 92~65. U.S.A. TELEPHONE (714)677-532~. FACSIMILE (714)677-352~. April. 17.1992. City of Temecula 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, California 92590 Attention: Mr. John R. Meyer, AICP, Senior Planner Regarding: TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN DRAFT PREFERRED LAND USE PLAN IN SPECIFIC: Property Description: 6,12 ACRES GRS IN PARS A, B & 2 PM 076/068 PM 1346 APN: 944-290-009 Dear Mr. Meyer I have attended the General Plan Public Workshop Town Hall Meeting of Thursday, April 16, 1992. Per that meeting I was instructed to address a letter to you regarding the Land Use Designation that has been recommended by the Draft Preferred Land Use Plan (DPLUP) for the above described property (Our Property). The DPLUP recommends a High Density Max. 20 DU/Acre Land Use Designation for Our Property. Further, it recommends a Professional Office Land Use Designation for the properties immediately East and West of Our Property along Rancho California Road. Also, the DPLUP recommends a Community Commercial Land Use Designation for the properties opposite to Our Property on Rancho California Road. We feel that the best land use and therefore the best Land Use Designation for Our Property is either Community Commercial or Neighborhood Commercial for the following reasons: 1. It is an extremely compatible use. Due to the large high density apartment housing south of Our Property, and the condominium housing that has been approved on the site immediately East of Our Property, Our Markham and Associates will be submitting the Change of Zone package within two weeks. Should you have any further questions, please contact Sandra FInn at (714)676-6672. Your understanding and cooperation Is greatly appreciated. Respectfully Safe R. Muhtaeeb Property Owner cofzl SAFA R. MUHTASEB & NAYEF R. MUHTASEB 39484 VIA MONTALVO, MURRIETA, CALIFORNIA. 92563. U.S.A. TELEPHONE (714)677-5325. FACSIMILE C/14)677-332S. March. 20. 1992. City of Temecula 43174 Business Perk Drive Temecula, California 92590 Atlention: Mr. Gary Thornhill, Planning Director Regarding: Proposed Change of Zone From "R-3 4000" to "C-I/C-P". Property Description: 6.12 ACRES GRS IN PARS A, B & 2 PM 076~068 PM 1346 APN: 944-290-009 Coordinating Consultant: Markham & Associates hi 750 Winchester Rd., Suite "N", Temecule, CA. 92590. Dear Mr. Thornhill Per your meeting with Ida Sanchez. Markham & Associates, I was instructed To address a letter to you regarding our intent for filing a change of zone on the above described parcel. We would like to proceed, at this time, with s change of zone only. This Is due to financial reasons; thus, at the time the zone change Is approved additional funding would be available and we would be able To move forward with marketing, leasing, etc. AT this time we would then coordinate and submit for a plot plan approval. It is our plan to develop this site into a commercial retail neighborhood center with potential retailers and/or uses such as the following: (s) Gasoline Station & Mini Market, {b) Resteurant(s),(c) Dry Cleaners, (d) Mail Services Center, (e) Photo Shop, (t) Video Store, (g) Dental & Opxometrist Clinics, (h) Ice Cream and Frozen Yogurt Shop, (i) Donut end Begel shops, fJ) A Day Care Center, and (k) Other Commercial Usos. 1/2 AC MIN TA VILLAGE SP nUr~C SP 180 COMMUNITY PARK I AC MIN -. ~ ~ ~JJ High~.,'.: 'To:J~is~ Commercial ~Opcn Sp,~cc/Rccrcnhnn eneral Plan Program ~o~. Z 2. 12A~. NI. ~ur, 3 2. e 6~ N: P~. 3 Pot. Par. 4 .. © Pot ~ . . J. G4,~Ni S. 6eA~N~ Q 0~ 2tt City of Temecula 45174 Business Park Drive Temecula, Ca 92590 Subject: Parcel 2 of PM 8455 Book 41 Pages 56 and 57, AF' No. 945-110-001 Vacant Land (approx. 2.56 acres) Temecula, Ca. Referred to as Lot 869 of Romala Farms #9. Attention: Mr. John Meyer, Senior Planner Gentlemen: Subject property is presently zoned R-R and on Southwest Area Community Plan dated August 25, 1989, designated use is for 1-2 DU/AC. the its It is suggested that subject property is not suitable for use designation as a single dwelling for the following reasons: 1. the property fronts on a designated 4 lane highiv tra~ficed street(Pauba) for which ingrees and egress would be 0ifficult. 2. The Oroperty is adjacent to CPS zoning on the East side and as such should be used to buffer the effect of Industrial activities on the surrounding residences to the South and West. 3. From a tax income standpoint for the city, it would be more desirable to have a commercial enterprise on the p~opertv. I am ~equesting that the property be designated on the ~/~. p~opose0 genenal plan of the City for ot~er uses than, The following uses are actively being considered for the property: 1. Rest Home. Families are moving into the large home developments in the area having older parents who would be mo~t conviently located close by. 2. Da~ Care Center. Both members of the family are wc,~llnq and a facility to care for their children would De desiable. T. Church. It IS known that several denominations in the local area are loo~lnO for locations. 4. Commercial Offices such as real estate and others. 5. A ~rofesSional Office Comple;~. ~. Recreational facilities, such as batting practice, as ~.loht be oriented to the needs of the local schools in Your consideration for the above is sincerely requested. Co: Debble ~noske Sincerely, - ~ _ ~aul Silverstone, Owner 28828 Via Roja Murrieta. Ca 92565 Tel. 677-5820 5-20-92 Clty of Temecula 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, Ca 92590 Subject: Parcel 2 of PM 8455 Book 41 Pages 56 and 57, AP No. 945-110-001 Vacant Land (approx. 2.56 acres) Temecula, Ca. Referred to as Lot 869 of Romala Farms #9. Attention: Mr. John Meyer, Senior Planner Gentlemen: Subject property is presently zoned R-R and on Southwest Area Community Plan dated August 25, 1989, designated use is for 1-2 DU/AC. the its It is suggested'that subject property is not suitable for use designation as a single dwelling for the following 1. the property fronts on a designated 4 lane highly tra~ficed street(Pauba) for which lngrees and egress would be Oifficult. 2. The 0roperty is adjacent to CPS zoning on the East side and as such should be used to buffer the effect of Industrial activities on the surrounding residences to the South and West. 3. From a tax income standpoint for the city, it would be more desirable to have a commercial enterprise on the propert,... I am requesting that the property be designated on the rl~.,. c. roposeo general plan of the City for other uses than The ~ollowing uses are actively being considered for the property: 1. Rest Home. Families are moving into the large home developments in the area having older parents who would be mo:t conviently located close by. _. Da~ Care Center. Both members of the family are wo-~inq and a facility to care for their children would De desiable. ~. ChurCh. It Is known that several dehominations in the local area are loollno for locations. 4. Commercial Offlces SuCh as real estate and others. 5. A ;'rolessignal Office ComOle::. Recreational facilities, such as batting practice, as ml0ht be oriented to the needs of the local schools in the area. Your Consideration for the above is SIncerely requested. cc: Debbie ~noske ~aj1 Silverstone, Owner 28828 Via Roja Murrieta. Ca 92563 Tel. 677-5820