Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout112392 PC AgendaCAIJ~ TO ORDER: ROLL C/kLL~ PUBLIC COMMENTS AGENDA TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING November 23, 1992 6:00 PM VAH, EL~ARY SCHOOL 29915 Mira Loma Drive Temecula, CA 92390 Chairman Fahey Blair, Chiniaeff, Ford, Hoagland and Fahey 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 fried 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 Spesk" form must be ~ed 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 Minutes 2.1 Approval of mlnutes of November 2, 1992 Plannin_~ Commigsion meeting. PUBLIC HEARING Case No: Applicant: Location: Planner: 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: CIRCULATION LAND USE Next meeting: December 7, 1992, 6:00 p.m., Vail Elementary School, 29915 Mira Loma Drive, Temecula, California. PLANNING DIRECTOR REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION OTHER BUSINESS ADJOURNMENT W1MBERVG~,..ANCO~O~AG~I-II23.PC l~v/sed November 18, 1992 ITEM #2 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 2, 1992 A regular meeting of the City of Temecula Planning Commission was called to order Monday, November 2, 1992, 6:00 P.M., at Vail Elementary School, 29915 Mira Loma Drive, Temecula, California. The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Linda Fahey. PRESENT: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Chiniaeff, Ford, H0agland, Fahey ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None Also present were Assistant City Attorney John Cavanaugh, Planning Director Gary Thornhill, Senior Planner John Meyer and Minute Clerk Gall Zigler. PUBLIC COMMENTS Councilmember Mu~oz advised the Commission that he has met with a group of Meadowview residents and committed to support the majority opinion of the Meadowview Homeowners regarding the North General Kearney Road extension. COMMISSION BUSINESS 1. ADoroyal of Aoenda It was moved by Commissioner Blair, seconded by Commissioner Ford to approve the agenda. The motion carried as follows: AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Chiniaeff, Ford, Hoagland, Fahey NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None PUBLIC HEARING 2. General Plan Assistant City Attorney John Cavanaugh provided clarification and direction on conflict of interest issues. It was moved by Commissioner Chiniaeff, seconded by Commissioner Hoagland to eliminate the map (5-3) of the trail system from the Open Space/Conservation Element of the General Plan and let the element relate to policies rather than the specific PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES diagram. The motion carried as follows: AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: NOVEMBER 2. 1992 Blair, Chiniaeff, Ford, Hoagland, Fahey None Section 1. Draft Open SoacelConservation Element John Meyer presented the staff report. He advised that staff had received a letter from the "Preserve Our Plateau" commending the changes to the draft general plan and stating they would like to make other important additions in terms of environmental protection and wildlife habitat. The items they are commending are some of the items that the Commission has directed staff to remove, which has been done. Chairman Fahey reopened the continued public hearing at 6:30 P.M. Barbara Ryan, 40340 Paseo Sereno, Temecula, representing the equestrian community, addressed the issue of equestrian safety the affect loud noises and moving vehicles has on horses and suggested that the proposed equestrian trails are not safe and should be walked to determine whether they are safe for horses. Kristy Varella, 43910 Flores, Temecula, advised that she is a trail committee member for District One, Riverside County. She reported a recent phone survey and trail workshops show that people want more biking, jogging and nature trails. Ms. Varella advised that she has had the opportunity to look at a very good alternate trail route that provides a north/south intersection through the City. The route is an aqueduct that runs north and south just outside of Meadowview and utilizes existing trails that have been built by developers. Ms. Varella advised that she attends the annual state trails conference and a guest speaker provided a presentation on the trail system in Susanville. The people who live adjacent to the trail system have found that the trail users are very environmentally consciencious and take care of the trails. Mike Butler, 29760 Pasado Road, Temecula, expressed concern regarding crime and safety liability and the proposed trail system through Meadowview. Maria Hetzner, 40657 Carmelita Circle, Temecula, expressed opposition to the proposed trail system through Meadowview. John Meyer advised the trail map has been removed per the recommendation to the City Council by the Planning Commission. PCMINT1102192 -2- 11113/92 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 2, 1992 Gary King advised that the Parks and Recreation Commission will prepare the Parks and Recreation Master Plan and comments made by the homeowners tonight will be presented to the Commission. Maria Hetzner asked that the City involve the homeowners in the planning of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan. Bob Lemons, 31040 Avenida Buena Suerte, Temecula, expressed strong opposition to the proposed trail and advised that the trail is shown running through the back of his property on the utility easement. Greg Treadway, 40550 Calle Madero, Temecula, opposed the trail and recommended that the older existing residential areas with their own trail systems be left off the master plan for trails. Commissioner Chiniaeff suggested Policy 2.1, page 5-27, be amended to ensure that public health, safety and welfare is also being addressed. Commissioner Hoagland recommended the policies reflect the city's participation in groups and tasks force in general and not specifics. Commissioner Hoagland suggested Goal 5, regarding the environmental resources of the Santa Margarita River, should provide more a specific policy. A straw vote was taken and the overall consensus of the Commission was to delete the map (5-3) from the open space element and add language to Policy 2.1 to ensure the public health, safety and welfare is addressed. Section 2. Draft Housino Element John Meyer presented the staff report. Commissioner Ford asked staff to correct Table 4-19, page 4-34, which reflects interior side yard dimensions as 7 ft. for Low-Medium density as opposed to 10 ft. for both Low and Medium densities. Commissioner Ford asked that Transitional Housing and Emergency Housing be addressed on Table 4-25, page 4-50 and 4-51, showing funding sources. Commissioner Hoagland questioned Table 4-22, (page 4-44), which refers to the Planning Department as the responsible agency in areas that are under County authorization (such as Section 8 housing, mobile home parks). Gary Thornhill suggested amending Table 4-22 to say "Planning Department, Redevelopmerit Agency or other responsible agency". PCMINT 1102/92 -3- 11113/92 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 2. 1992 Chairman Fahey opened the public hearing at 7:30 P.M. Sandy Wilson, 40390 Carmelita Circle, Temecula, asked for clarification of the emergency fund. Chris Bryant, Avenida Buena Suerte, Temecula, asked for clarification of the recluirement to provide housing for the homeless. A straw vote was taken and the overall consensus of the Commission was to approve the Draft Housing Element correcting Table 4-19, side yard dimensions for Low- Medium densities; reference to transitional and emergency housing and funding sources on Table 4-25; and, Table 4-22 amended to read "Planning Department, Redevelopment Agency or other responsible agency" under Responsible Agency. Section 3. Circulation Element Chairman Fahey and Commissioner Chiniaeff advised they would be abstaining from discussions regarding North General Kearney Road because of a potential conflict of interest due to the proximity of their personal residences. John Meyer presented the staff report. Commissioner Hoagland asked what the impact would be if the link was not made between the northern part of town (Nicolas Road) and the more central part of town (Margarita Road). Bob Davis, representing Wilbur Smith and Associates, traffic consultants to the City, advised the impact would be an additional 7,000 to 8,000 vehicles placed on Winchester Road which is currently operating at capacity. Vice Chairman Blair opened the public hearing at 7:40 P.M. Mark Kramer, 40646 Calle Fiesta, Temecula, representing the Meadowview Homeowners Association, advised that at the last HOA meeting the Meadowview Homeowners Association Board of Directors was mandated by the homeowners to oppose the North General Kearney Road extension. The following individuals expressed their opposition to the North General I(:earney Road extension. Their oppositions were directed towards issues of safety of children, equestrian, and pets, noise and exhaust pollution, decrease of property values, invasion of privacy, loss of rural environment, and homes fronting and abutting main roads. Kevin McKenzie, 40557 La Colima, (Meadowview). Jess Hetzner, 40657 Carmelita Circle, (Meadowview). Sandy Wilson, 40390 Carmelita Circle, (Meadowview). Maria Hetzner, 40657 Carmelita Circle, (Meadowview). PCMffill 1/021B2 -4- 11/13/92 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 2, 1992 Chris DiFederico, 40645 Calle Madero, (Meadowview). Ron Guerriero, 41510 Chenin Blanc, Temecula. Barbara Ryan, 40340 Paseo Sereno, (Meadowview). Dennis Jackson, 30903 Avenida Del Reposo, (Meadowview). Bob Johnston, 29760 Valle Verde, (Meadowview). Lee Putnam, 31180 Kahwea Road, Temecula. Virginia Kelly, 30460 Cabrillo, Temecula. David Ciabattoni, 41646 Avenide de la Reina, (Meadowview). Greg Treadway, 40550 Calle Madero, (Meadowview). Richard Moriki, 40445 Carmelita Circle, (Meadowview), distributed a map offering an alternative route to the North General Kearney Road extension. Paul Nelson, 40685 La Colima, (Meadowview). Nelson Bettancamp, 40835 Calle Medusa, Temecula. Lorna Santoro, Meadowview property owner. Jeff Stone, 43136 John Warner, Temecula. Victor Santoro, Meadowview property owner. Commissioner Hoagland questioned the impact on the circulation element if a North General Kearney Road extension is eliminated. Bob Davis advised that one of the plans under the Congestion Management Program identifies certain roads within the County that need to adhere to certain level of service standards and Winchester Road is part of that Congestion Management Program system. If Winchester Road drops to a level of Service E or better, the City will be responsible for trying to mitigate the impacts or possibly lose funding (currently approximately $130,000 a year) from Proposition 111 Gas Tax. Commissioner Hoagland stated that per the information that he has, the City will not be able to meet it's goal, so why create two problems. He also questioned the alternatives available if there was no North General Kearney Road extension. Commissioner Ford stated that unless all the reports reflect that everything has been mitigated, he cannot support going forward with the North General Kearney Road extension. Vice Chairman Blair stated that she was not satisfied with the data presented to support the need for the road and would support deferring until further information could be provided to support the extension. Commissioner Ford stated the map distributed by Richard Moriki showing a Nicolas Road to Date Street connection was a good recommendation, however, the Joint Temecula/Murrieta Traffic Committee is not sure if they will be able to get a crossing at Date Street and if it will have on and off ramps. PCMIN 11/02192 -5- 11 I13/92 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 2, 1992 Commissioner Hoagland stated he would like to see a model run without the North General Kearney Road extension and with the Nicolas Road to Date Street connection. It was moved by Commissioner Hoagland, seconded by Commissioner Ford to continue the extension of North General Kearney to the next scheduled public hearing on the Draft General Plan. AYES: 3 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Ford, Hoagland NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSTAIN: 2 COMMISSIONERS: Chiniaeff, Fahey Gary Thornhill advised that the Draft Land Use Element would be continued to the next schedule public hearing on the Draft General Plan. Chairman Fahey declared a recess at 9:15 P.M. The meeting reconvened at 9:20 P.M. Chairman Fahey advised that the next scheduled public hearing on the Draft Land Use Element would be November 23, 1992, 6:00 P.M., Vail Elementary School, 29915 Mira Loma Drive, Temecula. Jim Meyler, 29930 Santiago Road, Temecula, (Los Ranchitos), advised that there is a identical proposal for Santiago Road which will present the same problem as the one discussed for Meadowview. Mr. Meyler stated that after reviewing the map there are five, parallel secondary highways that run east to west and asked that Santiago Road be down graded to two lanes. Dale Wooding, 41979 Alton Court, Temecula, representing Channell Commercial Corporation, which is adjacent to planned development in Winchester Hills. He advised that there are a number issues relative to the planned development changes, other than those conveyed to the firm when the property was purchased, and a manufacturing site was built, which will be in direct conflict with the goals and policies of the General Plan. Ed Burke, 30944 Wellington Circle, Temecula, representing Charmell Commercial Corporation, stated that when the property was purchased it was shown to be part of a commercial/industrial park. It is now directly adjacent to a housing development. Bill Channell, 26040 Ynez Road, Temecula, owner of Channell Commercial Corporation, addressed the negative impacts to the financial value of the facility. Bernie Thomas, 31525 Avenida Del Reposo, Temecula, stated that the overall problems are being related to the Campos Verde specific plan. He asked that specific plan be looked at with respect to the impacts it has on existing developments. PCMIN11/O2/92 -6- 11113192 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 2. 1992 Nayree Davis, 28895 Vallejo Avenue, Temecula, representing the Los Ranchitos Homeowners Association, addressing concerns with regards to the widening of Santiago Road, Ynez Road and Jedediah Smith Road, which are all located in a very low density area that includes Los Ranchitos and Santiago Estates. She asked that the rural environment be maintained and these roads remain two lanes. Lettie Boggs, representing the Temecula Valley Unified School District, proposed that it is safer for young pedestrians not be directly adjacent to the roadway, and suggested that the landscape median be between the sidewalk and the landscaped roadway. Bev Stone, 43136 John Warner Road, Temecula, questioned if the boundaries of the Chaparral Area have been corrected and expressed her support of Santiago, Ynez and Jedediah Smith Roads remaining two lane roadways. John Meyer advised that they have been corrected. Louis Tood, 30645 Southern Cross, Temecula, representing New Lutheran Community Church, expressed support of Los Ranchitos maintaining its rural environment. Commissioner Hoagland questioned why secondary four lane roads were being proposed for Jedediah Smith, Santiago Road, North General Kearney, in general, as opposed to secondary two lane roads. Bob Davis advised that a lot the roads were taken off of the County's General Plan and kept in there original state. Santiago was originally classified as an arterial, and was dropped down two classifications to a secondary. The volumes are low for a secondary, however, there are concerns about the levels of service for Rancho California Road and Highway 79 South. He stated that ~Jedediah Smith Road could be down graded to a two lane road, however, he would be concerned with down grading Santiago Road. Chairman Fahey questioned Ynez Road reflected on the map as a four lane major in one section and a four lane secondary in another section from Rancho California Road to Santiago. Chairman Fahey stated she would recommend leaving the portion from Pauba Road to Santiago Road as four lane major. Bob Davis stated there is a significant drop in volumes from Pauba Road to Santiago Road. Robert Righetti advised that several projects north of Santiago have already been conditioned for 100' right-of-way. Commissioner Chiniaeff suggested the issue of truck circulation through Old Town should be addressed. PCMIN11/02192 -7- 11/13/92 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 2, 1992 Larry Markham, Markham Associates, 41750 Winchester Road, Temecula, suggested the Ynez/Jackson connection be tied into Whitewood. A straw vote was taken and the overall concensus of the Commission was to continue the public hearing on the North General Kearney Road extension and approve the remainder of the Draft Circulation Element, directing staff to address truck traffic through the Old Town area. Chairman Fahey continued the public hearing at 10:15 P.M. to the meeting of November 23, 1992. PLANNING DIRECTOR REPORT Gary Thornhill reminded the Commission of the ioint Planning Commission/City Council meeting on November 18, 1992, 6:30 P.M., Temecula City Hall Main Conference Room, 43174 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION None OTHER BUSINESS None ADJOURNMENT Chairman Fahey declared the meeting adjourned at 10:20 P.M. The next regular meeting of the City of Temecula Planning Commission will be held on Monday, November 16, 1992, 6:00 P.M., Vail Elementary School, 29915 Mira Loma Drive, Temecula. Chairman Linda Fahey Secretary PCMIN t t 102192 -8- 11/13/92 ITEM #3 STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION November 23, 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 Adoption of the Draft General Plan to the City Council. BACKGROUND On October 19, 1992 and November 2, 1992, the Planning Commission held Public Hearings on the Draft General Plan. To date, the Commission has tentatively approved the Public Safety, Noise, Air Quality, Community Design, Economic Development, Growth Management/Public Facilities, Open Space and Conservation, and Housing Elements. The Circulation Element has also been tentatively approved, except for the issue regarding the North General Kearney extension on the Circulation Plan. The Commission requested a supplemental analysis regarding this issue be provided, and will reconsider it on November 23, 1992, along with the Land Use Element. 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 Pplan Advisory Committee throughout the preparation process. This allowed for very meaningful direction on the Goals and Policies of the elements, such as land use, circulation, open space/conservation, and other issues. The Community Participation Program was designed to provide a high level of communication between City officials, citizens, landowners, and the consultant team. The Program offered numerous opportunities for the public to attend workshops at key milestones during the formulation of the Plan. Community outreach meetings included a series of four Neighborhood Meetings and two Town Hall Meetings. In addition, staff R:~S\GENPLAN~DRAFTGP, M3P 1 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, who 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 23, 1992 will address the Circulation Plan and the Land Use Element. REVISIONS ADDENDUM: A third Revisions Addendum has been attached for the Commission's review. The addendum consists of the supplemental analysis of North General Kearney and recommended changes to the Land Use Element 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 recluirements of the Element. The Summary of Issues highlights those areas that have been identified as issues pertinent to the respective elements. 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 following sections address each Element individually. Each section contains a brief background summary and a brief description of the key aspects of the element. SECTION 1. CIRCULATION PLAN - NORTH GENERAL KEARNEY Background During the November 2, 1992 Public Hearing, the Commission received extensive public testimony requesting that the North General Kearney extension be removed from the Circulation Plan. The Commission requested staff to perform a supplemental analysis prior to making a recommendation on the issue. R:~S~GENPf. AN~DRAFTGP. M3P 2 Discussion The supplemental analysis included an assessment of build-out traffic forecasts for two roadway network alternatives as follows: The removal of the North General Kearney extension without additional network modifications. The removal of the North General Kearney extension with the extension of Nicolas Road west to Margarita. A select link analysis was also performed to identify where the trips that use the extension begin and end. Alternative A resulted in an increase of 4,500 vehicle trips per day along Winchester, between Margarita and Nicolas Roads. The level of service remains at F only because service levels are not defined below F. The increase in daily volume to capacity ratio indicates severe congestion over longer periods during the day. Alternative B resulted in a lower increase of trips on Winchester. Although the analysis suggests that the Nicolas Road extension would offset most of the traffic increase on Winchester, th'e select link analysis indicates that the shift in traffic from North General Kearney is still being added to Winchester, between Margarita and Nicolas, and other traffic on Winchester is being shifted to the Nicolas Road extension. Both alternatives would result in lowering the level of service on Margarita between Winchester and North General Kearney, from C to D. The select link analysis indicates that 10 percent of the trips that would use North General Kearney, start or end at the "Regional Center" project, while 3 percent start or end in the "Campos Verdes" project. SECTION 2. 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. R:%S%GENPf, AN%DRAFTGp, M3p 3 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 is intended for those areas in the community that require a comprehensive, detailed evaluation of development opportunities and constraints. The inclusion of this Overlay is referenced in Staff's response to parcel specific land use recluests. DRAFT LAND USE PLAN Staff has received numerous requests from property owners to amend the land use designation on their property. To facilitate the review of these requests, staff has developed the attached Parcel Specific Land Use Request Matrix. The matrix contains the applicant, a location or parcel number, the proposed land use designation, the requested land use designation, and a staff recommendation and response. Each request is numerically keyed on an accompanying exhibit. The order of the letters is chronological. Letters received for a single parcel were all assigned the same map number. Because some letters include requests for various parcels, decimal places were used to separate the requests. The applicants' letters of request, stating their positions have also been attached and numbered for the Commission's review. R:%S%GENPLAN~:)RAFTGP. M3P 4 When reviewing these requests, the Commission may consider: Compatibility with adjacent land uses Consistency with the Village Centers Concept Impact on the local circulation system Fiscal viability Staff recommends the Commission review the requests in geographical groupings, in order to consider the requests in context of an area, as well as on their individual merits. To facilitate this, staff has divided the requests into 6 area groups. The following table indicates in which group the individual requests are located: I Hwy. 79 South 1, 2.1, 2.2, 3, 7, 9, 10, 21, 22, 28, 29, 32, 36, 37, 40, 45 and 52 4, 11, 14, 17, 18, 19, 24, 25, 26 and 38 5, 6, 13, 20, 30, 33, 42.2, 42.3, 42.4, 42.5, 42.6, 42.7, 42.8, 47, 48, 48.9, 49 and 50 II Chaparral III Urban Core IV V VI Westside Foothills Nicolas Valley Meadowview/Winchester 15, 39, 42.1, 43, 44, 46 and 51 8, 16, 23, 27 and 35 12, 41, 53.1 and 53.2 During the public testimony, the Chairperson may wish to consider hearing the speakers by area group. In order to allow applicants to present their case before the Commission, staff recommends each request be heard individually. 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 Addendum, 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. R:~S~GENPLAN~DRAFTGp. M3p Attachments: 2. 3. 4, Revisions Addendum - blue page 7 General Plan Comment Letters - blue page 10 Parcel Specific Land Use ReQuest Matrix - blue page Applicant's letters of request - page 12 R:~S~GENI~,AN~0RAFTGP, M3P 6 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 REVISIONS ADDENDUM R:\S%GENPLAN~DRAFTGP. M3P 7 City of Temecula DRAFT GENERAL PLAN Revisions Addendum November 23, 1992 THE PLANNING CENTER R:%S~GENPLAN%DRAFTGP. M3P CITY OF TEMECULA INTRODUCTION The Revisions Addendum consists of the supplemental analysis for the North General Kearney extension and all recommended changes to the Land Use Element of the Draft General Plan dated July 22, 1992. These will be discussed at the third Planning Commission hearing on November 23, 1992. The pages included in the Revisions Addendure are only those pages of the Draft General Plan where additions or deletions to language or mapping are recommended. The additions axe shown in bold italics and deletions are show with a a~z Gut. 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 Addendure are intended to supersede the Draft General Plan. The letters received containing General Plan comments are in Attachment 2. 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\GENPLAN\DRAFTGp, M3p SUPPLEMENTAL TRAFFIC ANALYSIS GENERAL KEARNY ROAD EXTENSION City of Temecula General Plan Circulation Element Introduction At the request of the City of Temecula Planning Commission and Staff, Wilbur Smith Associates has prepared supplemental analysis relative to the potential exclusion of the General Kearny Road Extension between Margarita Road and Nicolas Road. In more specific terms, the supplemental analysis included the development and assessment of build-out traffic forecasts for two roadway network alternatives which eliminate the General Kearny Road Extension. The two network alternatives identified by the Planning Commission to be studied are as follows: A. Removal of General Kearny Road Extension without addition roadway network modifications; and B. Removal of General Kearny Road Extension and additional of Nicolas Road Extension easterly to Margarita Road. The supplemental analysis also included a "select link" analysis to identify the zonal (geographic) origins and destinations of vehicle trips projected to use General Kearny Road under the currently recommended Circulation Plan. This addresses the basic question regarding who (e.g. which development areas) would use the General Kearny Road Extension if it were implemented. Build-Out Daily Traffic Forecasts Daily traffic forecasts representing build-out conditions within the City of Temecula and surrounding communities were developed for the two roadway network alternatives using the Temecula Circulation Element traffic model. The results of the traffic forecasting procedure are illustrated in Figure 1 through 3. Traffic forecasts for key roadway segments impacted by the elimination of the General Kearny Extension are as follows: COC ocoooooOooO ~CQOCC o o O o o 0 o o o O~ OR'Z, '0 ._ Z o o o o 0 o o 0 o 0 o o 0 o Alternative A - Without General Kearny Extension · Winchester Road between Margarita Road and Nicolas Road wouId serve between 81,000 and 83,000 vehicles per day. · Nicolas Road between Winchester Road and Roripaugh Road would carry an average of 26,000 vehicles per day. · Margarita Road between Winchester Road and General Kearny Road would serve an average of 35,000 vehicles per day. Alternative B - Without General Kearny Extension and with Nicolas Road Extension to Margarita Road · Winchester Road between Margarita Road and Nicolas Road would serve between 78,000 and 80,000 vehicles per day. · Nicolas Road between Winchester Road and Roripaugh Road would carry an average of 28,000 vehicles per day. · Nicolas Road between Winchester Road and Margarita Road would carry an average of 10,000 vehicles per day. · Margarita Road between Winchester Road and General Kearny Road would serve an average of 34,000 vehicles per day. Other shifts in traffic would occur as a result of eliminating the General Keamy Extension which are not explicitly noted on Figure 1. These generally include increases in traffic along the following roadways: the Butterfield Stage Road corridor between Borel Road and Paula Road; the Bore1 Road/Hunter Road corridor west of Butteffield Stage Road; the La Serena Way corridor west of Butterfield Stage Road; and the Margarita Road corridor between Rancho Way and Rancho California Road. 2 Draft Circulation Plan - With General Kearny Extension · Winchester Road between Margarita Road and Nicolas Road would serve between 76,000 and 79,000. · Nicolas Road between Winchester Road and Roripaugh Road would carry an average of 21,000 vehicles per day. · Margarita Road between Winchester Road and General Kearny Road would serve an average of 30,000 x~ehicles per day. Traffic Oneration Ironacts The assessment of foretasted volume to capacity ratios and corresponding Level of Service is summarized in the following table: Winchester Road Draft Circulation Plan Alternative A Alternative B V/C LOS V/C LOS V/C LOS 1.02-1.06 F 1.09-1.12 F 1.05-1.08 F Nicolas Road (East) 0.50 A 0.62 B 0.67 B Nicolas Road (Extension) N.A. N.A. Margarita Road 0.71 C N.A. N.A. 0.59 A 0.83 D 0.81 D V/C - Volume to capacity ratio LOS - Level of Service N.A. - Not applicable to alternative Select Link Analysis The "select Link" analysis is a tool offered by the traffic forecasting computer model which allows the user to identify the origins and destinations of vehicle trips assigned to a roadway segment (link) or segments in the highway network. This procedure was used to identify the general geographic location of origins/destinations of vehicle trips which would use the General Kearny Extension. The results of the General Kearny Extension "select link" analysis are illustrated in Figure 4. For the purpose of graphically showing geographic origins/destinations of trips which would use General Kearny, the Temecula Circulation Element Traffic Model traffic analysis zones were grouped into larger zones which represent the geographic locations of the trip ends. The numeric value shown in each area represents the number of vehicle trip ends either "originating in" or destined to" the area which would use the General Kearny Extension. Number shown next to arrows indicate the general directional location and magnitude of trip ends outside of the City. In response to questions ~egarding the general contribution of trips to and from the proposal Kemper Urban Core Projects (e.g. Temecula Regional Center, Campos Verdes, and Winchester Hills), the contn'bution would total approximately 1,620 trip ends for the three projects. Temecula Regional Center, which will offer shopping and employment opportunities to area residents in the principal contributor of the three Urban Core Projects. It should be noted however, that ff these shopping and employment opportunities are not · provided at this location, residents would seek these opportunities elsewhere in the community or outside the area. Since most other shopping and employment opportunities are oriented along the 1-15 corridor (within and outside the City) the trip routings would still maintain the same general orientation. Findings The projected build-out traffic volume and traffic operation analysis result in the following key findings: 1. Alternative A, which eliminates the General Kearny Extension would result in approximately 4,500 vehicles per day being added to the critical Winchester Road segment. The projected volumes on the segment of Winchester Road would result in volume to capacity ratios ranging from 1.09 to 1.12. Level of Service remains at F (as compared to the Draft Circulation Plan) only because se~wiee levels are not defined beyond the point that traffic volu,me exceed the maximum roadway capacity. The increase in daily volume to capacity ratio essentially indicates that severe congested traffic conditions could be expected during extended periods of the day. Alternative B, which also eliminates the General Kearny Extension but provides an extension of Nicolas Road to Margarita Road, results in a smaller increase of approximately 1,400 vehicles per day on Winchester Road. Traffic operation on Winchester Road would worsen by extending the period of severe traffic congestion, but not to the degree resulting from Alternative A. Although the analysis suggests that the Nicolas Road Extension would offset most of the traffic increase on Winchester Road resulting from the elimination of the General Kearny Extension, data generated by the General Kearny "select link" analysis indicates that the Nicolas Road Extension serves less than i400 of the approximate 11,000 vehicle trips which would otherwise have used the General Kearny Extension. In other words, the shift in traffic from General Kearny is still being added to the critical Winchestcr Road segment, and other traffic on Winchester Road is being shifted to the Nicolas Road extension. Both Alternative A and B would result in a significant increase in traffic volume on Margarita Road (between Winchester Road and General Kearny Road) and would degrade the Margarita Road level of service from "C' to "D". 1400 500 450 150 250 1600 109 114 254 248 3391 40 50 682 249 42 145 2150 20 Select Link Analysis Vehicle Trip Origins And Destinations City of Temecula General Plan Program Figure 4 Chapter Two LAND USE CITY OF TEMECULA Land Use Element there is a need to ensure that as in~ll or reuse 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 be'.~ 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. Compatibility between residential projects of different densities is also a major concem. 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 ::'~!! 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-01~02~P-LND.USE · Draft Date: October 2.8, 1992 Page 2-7 CITY OF TEMECULA Land Use Element III. GOALS AND POLICIES Goal 1 Discussion A complete and integrated mix of residential, commercial, industrial, recreational, _"nd public and open space land uses. 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 Policy 1.2 Policy 13 Policy 1.4 Policy 1.5 Policy 1.6 Policy 1.7 Policy 1.8 Policy 1.9 Review all proposed development plans for consistency with the community goals, policies and implementation programs of this General Plan. 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. Require the development of unified or clustered community-level and neighborhood-level commercial centera and discourage development of strip commercial uses. Consider the impacts on surrounding land uses and infrastructure when reviewing proposals for new development. Support the development of light industrial, manufacturing, research and development, and office uses to diversify Temecula's economic base. Provide well defined zoning and development standards and procedures to guide private sector planning and development. Require the preparation of specific plans as designated on the ~ Plan Specific Plan Overlay to achieve the comprehensive planning and phasing of development and infrastructure. Consider taking the lead on preparing specific plans for areas designated on the Land Use Plan that have multiple landowners. Encourage planned unit dev~lopmentc 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-OI~02Op-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 along 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 Pcchanga, Tcmccula 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 through other ordinances a package of incentives to encourage development to include: 1. Additional active parkland 2. Development of parkland and trails 3. Preservation of historic building or sites 4. Additional open space 5. Preservation and enhancement of natural habitat 6. Additional public or community facilities 7. Additional or improved public spaces or plazas for community use. g. An in public places 9. Additional arechilies in multifamily developments 10. Transit facilities and/or additional right-of-way along future transit corridors. 11. Housing that meets the needs of very low and low income households. 12. PrOvision of cultural facilities. TEM-01~2UP-LND.USE · Draft Dat~: Octol:~r 2.8, 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. Ahhough 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~,~5~ 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 approve& 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-0I'O2Qp-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) and General Plan Land Uses CDw, olling Units/Aere~) Existing Conditions~ Land Use plan2 Change in Dwelling Units Land Use I)d~SI DE'NTI&I.,' .hit..,:::: '.,~'.,. I;:'.".~,[.', ...-~ ,.. :~;'A %,I;:.: .::: 2::;,.:, .';"': :'. ~ ..... ~.';:2 ;".. ."'.(..4;~.: :... ':t,...'~' ..'. ]~'~..' ."';.'.::S '~ : "'2':, .,J '!C' 2(g:' ~;.. '.&~, ~.. '.tX3,'~ ,'.. TOUll i I.J68 till 39.6-~8 dU 28.19(I IhS NDN-I~I;SHIF..~TIAL Change in Acres ,.::~J:' ~:~,' ~'~ .%~"'~.....:: ~::~, :. ~t)2 ~.c 2.21:~ ~.~ ~}2(~ ,.c I'otal 2.M6 ,c 6.1W0 ac .~.~4 ac Hil~id~w iaciud~ Hilhi~, Ve~ ~w and ~w Genffal Plan dgiF~o~; ~w~um tefe~ m ~w M~um and M~um TEM-01%02GP-LND.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) and General Plan Land Uses (Dw~Hing Units/Acres) Land Use RI:SiDI'.~;TIAI,: Existing Conditionsx Land Use Plan High Density (~4-20 du/ac) 0 du 'Fatal ~1~ da Change in Dwelling Units ..'. ~ .,.,~.~, , ~ 22,993 du 22,993 du 3,].51 du 3,].51 du 28,854 du 28,339 du Change in Acres Neighborhood Commercial 0 ac 30 ac 30 ac Community Commercial 0 ac 190 ac 90 ac Highway/Tourist &Service Commerciala 0 ac 137 ac 137 ac Office 0 ac 53 ac 53 ac Business Parkandustriai 0 ac 1,005 ac 1,005 ac Public/Institu~onal 205 ac 512 ac 307 ac Open Space/Agriculture(a6res) 0 ac 2,350 ac 2,350 ac Total 205 ac 4,277 ac 4,672 ae refers to Low Medium and Met"urn TEM-01~02GP-LND.USE · Draft Date: October 2,8, 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. (Dwolling Units/Aer4~g) Land Use '[ RESEDEper!ALa I. Hillside/Low Density (.1-2 da. ac) Existing Conditions Change in Land Use Dwelling Planz Units Low, Medium Density (2-14 du/ac) High Density (14-20 du/ac) 1,592 du! 1.(~.5.2:: s (527) 1,273 du (319) du 672 du ~ t, ~ ,~,, '~ rnn ,~,. 7,633 du 6,961 du 0 du 1,195 d= , ,n~ ~,. Total 2,~ du ~ ~ ~" ~ ~ ~" I~,~8~ du 8,~3 du Change in Acres B~in~ P~d~tdal 0 ac 149 ac 149 ac Public~mtitu~o~Z 0 ac 37 ac 37 ac ~pen Spacc/A~l=(acms) 76 ac 2~ ac 1~ ac Toml 101 ac 592 ac 491 ac Based on probable level of development - target density/intensily. TEM-01~02GP-La%'D.USE · Draft Date: October P..8, 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 service; 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). '::.h. ic~ 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-01~02GP-LND.USE * Draft Date: Oaober .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 Land Use Designation RESn)F_.NTIAL 'Hillside Very Low Low Low Medium Medium High NON-RESIDENTIAL Neighborhood COmmercial COmmunity COmmercial Highway/Tourist Commercial Service Commercial Office Business Park Public/Institutional Range of Development Target Intensity/ Intensity/Densityx . Densityz DWELLING UNITS/ACRE DWt~!-I-ING UNITS/ACRE 0 - .1 DU/AC MAX .1 .2 - .4 DU/AC MAX .3 .5 - 2 DU/AC MAX 1.3 3 - 6 DU/AC MAX 7 - 12 DU/AC MAX 9.5 13 - 20 DU/AC MAX 16.5 FLOOR AREA RATIO FLOOR ARF, A RATIO .20 - .40 FAR .25 .25 - 1.0 FAR 30 .25 - 1.0 FAR 30 .25 - 1.5 FAR 30 .30 - 1.0 FAR .50 .30 - 1.5 FAR .20 - .70 FAR .30 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 arc determined to be compatible with residential areas may also be allowed in accordance with the Development Code. TF, M.Orl02OP-LND.USE · Draft Dam: O,"tober 28, 1992 Page 2-24 CITY OF TEMECULA Land Use Element The Land Use Plan provides for six residential designations as defined below. a. I-lill~ide Residential (0 - .1 Dwelling Unit per Acre Maximum) 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 cencems. 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. b. 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 Fading 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. d. 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 development. Typical housing types may include single family zero lot line, patio homes, TEM-01M)2GP-LND.USE · Draft Date: Oaober 28, 1992 Pag~ 2-25 CITY OF TEMECULA Land Use Element duplexes, townhouses, and multi-family garden apartments. Congregate care facilities could 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. Draft Dam: October 28, 1992 Page 2-26 CITY OF TEMECULA Land Use Element Figure 2-2 Description of Housing Types Single Fanally Dehtch,d . One hous~ per lot · Each horn individually own~ · Conventional Buildiag 8e~b-;h [tom Front, R~ar and Site Ptope~y l,,im · '~ell Delaity up to 6 d~vslling traits ~r am l~pCinl Single Family Detached Single-Family Detached Single Family D,ta=h~i - Z~ro Lot Lln, · One iaome (unit) p~r lot · Each Hou~ and Lot individnally owned · 7~/pical Dunsittea range from 6 to 8 dwelling units pet acre Angled Zero Lot Line Narrow Zero Lot Line Single Family Detached Single-Family--Zero Lot Line Wide & Shallow Single Family Detached TEM-Ot~O2GP-LND.USE · Draft Date: Oczober 28, 1992 Pag~ 2-27 CITY OF TEMECULA Land Use Element Figure 2-2 Description of Housing Types (Continued) Sistie Family - Patio Homes · One house per lot · Each house individually owned · Flexible building sefiselm, buildlag o~enmtioo andlotsizm · EmpImi$ m creating gardens and Imt/cs through the use or leoca and saeess · Silllima a deeelo]msent inetudes common open slmals owoed by -ml rmidmm ~ · home ~ uao~at/on. · ~/giml Densaim mg~ gram 5 to 8 d~eHing unia per sac Paao Home~uster Single-Family Patio Duplex . Oae unit pet lot .smgleOwnashipottmizmsdlot .3etmrsteturamisideyardforeachuniz · A Cornmoo Wall bern tmil~ · 3~iotl Dem/tim my rags/ram 6 to 10 dwelling units pa aae · If Duplex lots all wide enough, swing in garages in combination wills slrdlght-in garages are encouraged to vm7 the street scene. Duplex Duplez Duplex with swing-in garage TI~I~Z~0~-L/~D.US~ · Draft Date: Octeber 2.8, 1992 Page 2-28 CITY OF TEMECULA Land Use Element Figure 2-2 Description of Housing Types (Continued) Townhome Townhouse M~dtlple F.ndly (Gardtn UnJls) · Units grouped withill i~dildtnp whi''~ ate rimally · Each unit ~uslly ocmtpim one floor, th~refot~ separate units ar= available on each level of the building · The~ is uually uin~lo owns~hip o/all th~ units and land, unlms a ~c~omiuimn fore of ownsship is established. · 'l~ical Denuilils may mags Ion~ 12 to 20 dwetling units pe~ ae~ · CDmmt~ areas which may ilgludo op~ sFaee arexs and m~t=ationaJ fauililiea are lands~aFed and maintsin~d Garden Apartments Multiple-Family/Garden Apartment Tnd,0t'a2OP*LND. USE· Draft Date: Octo~:r 28, 19~2 Page 2-29 CITY OF TEMECULA Land Use Element Figure 2-2 Description of Housing Types (Continued) (lot,~ eilt,e~ I'~'--~_ ot sold) · Spacing standarch to mute I~vney and pdvae: open 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 Zew Lot Line Single-Family Patio Duplex Townhouse Multiple-Family/Garden Apar~nent Mobile Home Hillside Very Low .1 DU/AC .4 DU/AC Wax. DleX. Low 2 DU/AC 6 DU/AC Medium 12 DU/AC High 20 DU/AC TEM-0lX02Gp-LND.U~E · Draft Date: October 28, 1992 Page 2-30 CITY OF TEMECULA Land Use Element Highway/Tourist Commercial (Floor Area Ratio of .25 to 1.0) The HighwayfFourist 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 enthusiasm. Highway/Tourist Commercial development should be located at appropriate locations, and developed as elnsters 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 Commercial (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 dealemhips and light auWmotive 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-0i~2GP-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 loaalforsueh uses as: parks, golf courses and ~oodwayc along Murrieta, Tameoula and Pechanga croolc~. recreation facilities, natural open space, recreation trails, greenbelts, lakes, utility easements, active fault zones, and undevelopable portions of floodplains along wareNays. This designation is intended to include lands acquired by ~ 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's 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 ~/s intended for a wide range of public and private uses including schools, transportation facilities, government offices, public utilities, libraries, museums, public an galleries, hospitals, and cultural facilities. To the extent possible, public and institutional facilities' should be clustered in activity centers to reinforce 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 Cede. 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 Centera 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-01~O2GP-LND.USE · Draft Date: October 2,8, 1992 Page 2-34 SPECIFIC PLAN AREAS F General Plan Program 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 Teraecula will lead the preparation of a special audy for the Chapanal area and Nicolas Valley area as shown on Figure 2-6. The land use designations identified on the Land Use Plan are based on existing lot patterns, access constraints, lack 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 offiood 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 wildlife resources; and · the provision of recreation trails and open space linkages. The special study(s) shouM'also identify 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. Should development be proposed prior to completion of the study, the land use should be consistent with the existing General Plan designation. TF, M~IIO2GP-12VD.LtSE · October 28, 1992 Page 2-41 SPECIAL STUDY OVERLAY F~ Special Study Overlay General Plan Program THE R_ANNING 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. The interface of the improvement with the Pechanga C, reelc alc, o noeds 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 General Plan should be maintained, in accordance with State law. TEM-01~D'26P-LI~.USI~ · Draft Date: October :28, 19~2 Page 245 CITY OF TEMECULA Land Use Element H. Incentive Programs Incorporate incentives within the Development Code, incentiv~t: to proporty oxvners to encourage property owners to provide the provision of additional park and recreation facilities, preservation of preserve natural habitat, additional public faeilitiss or improvemenu:, additional provide additional open space linkages to adjacent habitat preserves or parkland, a':~ 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-LA'D.USE · Draft Datc: October 21t, 1992 Page 2-46 ATTACHMI~NT NO. 2 GENERAL PLAN COMMENT LETTERS R:%S\GENPLAN\DRAFrGp. M3p 10 17 October 1992 (name and address) RECEIVED 0C12 3 ~992 And ............ To Temecula City Council (signed) OCT 2 1 1992 Ans'd ......~. .... 17 Uc[ooer ~ ~,~ From: cc: G, Thornhill To Temecula City Council "~ f 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- bliity 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 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 Carmelita 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 cogent 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 PECHANGA INDIAN RESERVATION Temecula Band of Luise~o Mission Indians Post OfficeBox 1477 Ternecu]a, CA. 92593 Telephone {714) 676-2768 FAX {714) 695-1778 Spokeswoman; Jennie Miranda Council Members: Betty Barffcntos Lucille IAnkcr Mark Macarm Patricia Maldonado Patrick Murphy. Jr. Doffs Whited October 19, 1998 City of Temecula A3174 Business Park Drive Temecula, California 92590 Attention: Mr. John 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. B. During all archaeological surveys and excavations, a 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 Luiseno Indians receive another copy of the City of Temecula General Plan Draft EIR and a copy of the ginal EIR. I am confident the Planning Commission will respond to my comments and recommendations made in this letter. Respectfully, Lucille Linker Tribal Council Member Sierra Club San Gorgonio Chapter Serving Riverside and San Ber~ardlno Counties Tlahquitz 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 RECEIVED · OCT 2 3 1992 And ............ :-~r. John Meyer, Senior Planner FlanninE Dpartment City of Temecula ~217~ Business Park Drive Temecula, Ca. 92590 October 15,1992 Re: NOC/Temecula GP/EiR Dear MT. Meyer: In going through a basket of copies of recently commented EIRS today, I discovered the enclosed original copy of comments on the above referenced document. I believed iT had gone out in the mail on 9/30/92. I apologize for this problem. I assure you that the San Gorgonio Chapter of the Sierra Club is deeply interested in the future growth and dev- elopment of the Temecula area. I hope that our comments will still be of value to you. Sincerely yours, · .. To explore. enjoy and preserve the nation's forests, wa~ers, wildlife, and wilderness... (~)Printed on Recycled Paper. Sierra Club San Gorgonio Chapter Serving Riverside and San Bernardino Counties Tahquitz Group · Los Serranos Group San Bernardino Mtn& Group · Mojave Group Moreno Valley Group 668 N. Mountain View Ave,, Suite 130 San Bernardino, CA 92401 (714) 381-5015 ~!r. John Meyer, Senior Planner Planning Department City of Temecula ~3174 Business Park Drive Temecula, Ca. 92590 September 30,1992 Re: NOC/Temecula GP/EIR Sear Mr. ~deyer: The Sierra Club, San Gorgonio Chapter, appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Temecula GeneTal Plan EIR. ~ie believe strong emphasis must be placed on the preservation of the natural resources in the Temecula area. We -oncur with Project Alternative III- Conservation, as best for the en ronment. We also concur with other suggestions and comments regarding needed protection of the Santa Margarita Reserve. We would like to see - strong policies and guidelines in the Final EIR regarding the appropriate development of recreation trails and habitat/riparian corridors. We:' ' would encourage planning for passive parklands and. reseTves. ----:~:-.~-~: The Sierra Club urges care and restraint in planning any development of ..... current watershed areas. We believe a natural water system is best for zhe environment and oppose any cement channelization. We suggemt, where '- necessary, a subst'itution of an Armorflex type product or use of water retention basins. There is a positive opportunity in the GP to plan greenways and bike -' &/'or equestrian trails alon~ the river. An effective buffer from any riparian vegetation area should be 100 feet or more. ~e are encouraged by your comprehensive Circulation Element and especiall~ ..... the Public Transit component including the proposed Transit Centers. : "~ i4e would like to see (in the FEIR) an outline for a formal City Trails ..... system incorporating walkways/bikeways throughout the city. Not only will .:.--: ~hls system provide recreation and enjoyment for residents, it will also provide an alternative for vehicle travel. ~7 It ~ppears that your GP is designed on the premise of developing currently ','~ nt land. Much of this land is Prime Ag. lands or preserves. If one of ~ne goals is to preserve A~ricultural and open space lands, how will you accom-~these two very different goals in harmony ? What is the justif- ~a~i- developmen~ of these lands ? . ...Toexplor~e~oy~dp~leffe~e~fiods~res~ wmten, wlidlife, andwgderoeM...(~)PrintcdonRcc~lcd ~ The Sierra Club would like an incentives program included in the cizy's Congestion Management Plan. in the development desi~xxs for the oily, development with a mixed residential/commercial style. detrimental to both Air Quality and Transportation. This concludes the Sierra Clu6 comments. Again thank you for'this opportunity to comment. w~ encoura~ the use of cluster This is the least ~ ~ ' = ' dinator ~ ,% lqq~ ezS'?z- 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 with Ynez Road being a major access road to the project. We feel this 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) 694-9168. Very truly yours, Edward J. Burke Director of Engineering EJB/sld Attachment cc: Debbie Ubnoske William Charmell, Sr. Dale Wooding CHANNELL COMMERICAL CORPORATION · 26040 ¥.ez Road. P.O. Box 9022. Temecula. CA 92589-9022 714/694-9160 · 800/423-1863 · FAX 714/694-9170 CHAN October 23, 1992 Ms. Debbie Ubnoske Senior Planner Planning Department City of Temecula 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 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 rules 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 trucks 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 Ynez Road, P.0 Box9022, 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 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. 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 EJB/sld William Channell, Sr., CCC Dale Wooding, CCC Pete Olhasso, Equity Management Group Ray Casey, Principal Engineer, Public Works Department Steve Jiannino, Project Planner, Planning Department John Meyer, Senior Planner, Planning Department Bob Righetti, Senior Project Manager, Public Works Department Gary Thornhill, Director of Planning, Planning Department October 23, 1992 Mr. John Meyer Senior Planner Planning Department City of Temecula 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 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. P.lease 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.O. Box 9022, Temecu~a, CA 92589-9022 714/694-9160 · 800/423-1863 · FAX 714/694-9170 ATTACHMENT NO. ~ PARCEL SPECIFIC LAND USE REQUEST MATRIX R:%S\GENPLAN\DRAFTGP, M3P 1! Z Z ;... :::::::::::::::::::::::: .................. · :::~ o > ~= ~. ,./ '\. / / SlOt ATTACHMENT NO. 4 APPLICANT'S LETTERS OF REQUEST R:\S\GENPLAN%DRAFTGP. M3P ]2 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 o~ners of the following parcels= APN 950-080-001 APN 950-080-002 APN 950-080-003 /LPN 950-080-004 APN 950-090-001 APN 950-090-002 APN 950-090-003 APN 950-090-004 APN 950-090-005 APN 950-080-006 The property is located at State Highway 79 and Constance Street (which I named after my mother), known as Riverside County tract 15211. Enclosed is a copy of our final tract map for your convenience. We feel that a designation of light ~ndustrial would 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 Co~uaercial on the SWAP Plan. This designation was in consideration of the following points: The subject property is not subject ~o either the Los Ranchitos of Santiago Ranchos CC&Rs. The subject property has no access through residential streets. The property is directly across from coE~ercial, industrial and high density residential within the Red Hawk, Vail Ranch and Old Vail Ranch Plans. The property is subject to acoustic contours Mr. Gary Thornhill August 27, 1991 Page 2 substantially higher than 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 ligh~ industrial and commercial use for this proper~y. Your consideration in this matter is appreciated.' Enclosure President LOS RANC~iTOS HO)~.~-~ ~qSOCIATION PO BOX 471 TM~I~.CUs~. 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 c~nsider in the next revision of The Plan. The majority of Our community suppor~cs 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 Ranchitos property owners are aware of the many constraints of the borders of this neighborhood. Additionally, most are in favor of maintaininc the current borders for the residents of the future. He are finding substantial homeowner opposition to commercial development because it is in direct violation of the CC&RS which govern the property owners here. * Homeowners in Los Ranchitos seek the City of Temecula's assistance in protecting our borders through the Master Plan process. We look forward to meeting with you again in the future to discuss some of the specific issues which follow. Please advise us of any other steps we may take to cooperate with the City in this Master Plan process. contact persons are Nayree Davis @ 676-2466 or Rek~cca Weersing @ 699-7814. Sincerely, ~., ~..~, ~- j,.. /./ ':.,. , The Board of Directors Los Ranchitos HomeownersAssociation 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 shouldbe included in any planning efforts since they obviously are harder to obtain and costlier than plain metal signs. Los Ranchitos is one of the communities which takes pride in its unique wooden street markers. PALAROAD: Los Ranchitos would not support any effort to re- align Pala 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 Warner Roads, along withal1 roads throughout Los Ranchitos. Further, we would support any effort to avoid the punched through completion of Santiago Road. However, several of our residents experience severe drainage problems at their properties 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 up. INTERSTATE 15: Residents in Los Ranchitos near the 15 Fwy would ultimately request a freeway block wall along the portion of the freeway which is adjacent to Los Ranchitos. Do you have suggestions of how to get such a beast or is this a city planning issue? Issue 5- ODDOrt,,nity A~ea~4 Los Renchitoswould'supportthe proposed"Professional Office" designation in the proposed a0~ax)~Lunit~r Pla~nin~ Areer#4" alone]t' Hwy79 South withtheconditionthat no access is made available to =his commercial. office designa~i~--f~ any' road"-within-Lo~ Ranchitos... Any. accesa~points~.shculd be made from Hwy 79 only. Secondly, we would request full['lendscaped?-wa-lled, bUffers .' between Los Ranchitos residents and-any. proposed--office-bUildings;~ ~uggestions have been made for low density, double s~Z-/, rilmM=k st~le..aZ~te~L~a~,r-takincri.~v account the horse tl-ail div~dingLos Ranchitos from the proposed office sites. We are very much in favor of t~s beingan.el~portunity 8roe where the city can place ~rchitec~ural, buffer, access, and.tyle reguirements on any development abutting the neighborhood on this strip. Los Ranchitos LOS RANCHITOS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION PO BOX 471, TB~4~CULA, CA. 92593 COMMENTS AND CONCER~S TEMECULA MASTER PLAN Issue 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 number _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 ¥nez 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 n-mher _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 Margerita and De Portola~ 3. Assessors parcel number ,'!=)~i~o) is incorrectly a coded Highway/Tourist Commerci 1 (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 Hw7. 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 16ts are the home of Rancho Community Church, and should be coded Public/Institutional Facility (blue.) Please note that all' five of these parcels are current}y subject to the Los Ranchitos CC&Rs. Issue 2-CC&R Jurasdiction Assessors parcel numbers _926120006_&_926120005_ -are both currently subject to the Los Ranchitos 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. Issue 3-Recreational Trails We have an existing Horse Trails System throughout Los Ranchitos that we would like to 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 unigue community as well as adding a special quality to the city and its newly planned trails. A map of our trails 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 s speed limit no higher than 45mph and stop signs placed at La Paz/Ynez and Jedediah Smith/De Portold 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 Portold Corridor, many homeowners feel unsafe turning into or out of their driveways due to the excessive speed of people using this road to "pass through." VALLEJO: vallejo Avenue between La Paz/Vallejo and Ynez/Vallejo (near Rancho Community Church) has no speed limit posted and a dangerous curve. People use this street as a cut through to 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 .suppert the placement of "NO PARKING" signs on their easements to help abate the problematic parking problems associated with the church!s school and its other activities all week long and on Sundays. · HIGHWAY 79 SOUTh: 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 rob e entrances into the neichborhood, 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? MARKHAM & ASSOCIATES Development Consultants Date: October 30, 1992 To: Mr. John Meyer - City of Temecula Subject: DEVAssociates General Plan Designation S.H. 79 South APN 950-080-001 - 004 APN 950-090-001 - 006 Temecula, CA Dear John, The current designation of Professional Office Commercial with the specific plan overlay for the subject property imposes an unrealistic economic limitation to the future development of these parcels. These parcels have the only tWO existinu dedicated street access Points onto S.H. 79 south. This fact, along with the fact that these lots all have frontage on the State Highway would indicate a wider variety of uses would be appropriate for these parcels. I would suggest the following mix of uses (see attachment) to better address the economic development of this project. Basically, Highway/Tourist Commercial clustered around the two access points, and a mix of Medium and Higher Density Residential Designation at east and west ends. 41750 Winchester Road, Sui~ N · Temecula, California 92590 · C/14) 676-6672 · FAX (714) 699-1848 \\I\ \\I Peter W. Edelmann 15135 Paso de1 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 Parmere. 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 RsversiOe 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 Trans-gacific 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 Parmen had recently discussed the above ~eferenced property with you relative to the'City's General Plan efforts. Based on your c,mversation. the City is apparently leaning towards placing an Office Commercial (OC) l)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 properP/with a commercial designation and offer the following for your consideration: On November 28, 1989, Th~ 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 th. is 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 ovcrlayed 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 Superv~sor'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 Rjverside 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 (AID 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 CRy of Temecula l~ave made a commitment tc~. the subject site for commercial ]and uses by verture of the assessments placed on the property. Further it is. our opinion that to propose a general plan designation thai wouid result in the reduction of properly 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. *ro circumvent potential inconsistencies between the subject site's A.D. 159 assessments and tPe 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 Femec-ia 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 ¢ oncems, please do not hesitate to contact me at Enension 212. Very truly yours, TRANS-PACIFIC CONSULTANTS, INC. Assistant D~anning Enclosures cc: Mr. Peter Edelman, Old Vail Partners Mr. Gary Thornhill, City of Temecula Planning Department Chron (619) 5230 587-1060 Old Vail Partners Carroll Canyon Road, Suite 310 San Diego, CA 92121 (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 l 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 fezone 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 3oh 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 Lj~ f-, .. 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 n.,l ;ZN)-/,li;/619 a:~mO 090t-l, ll~ /619 T;TZ6 V~ 'ogal(l ue~ OIl a].tn~; peo~I uo~u~3 lloa-w3 b"~lar-~Dd !!DA QIO Commercial Property Offering 39.80 Acr~ | I I | C Sit~i Location Map North North February 26, 1992 Mr. John R. Meyer, AICP Senior Planner City of Temecula 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 Dear Mr. Meyer, Thank you for taking the time to meet with me of February 3rd. Per your request I have enclosed the information on the property located at the northeast coraer of Highway 79 and Interstate 15 adjacent to the Rancho Community Church. (Assessor's Parcels/t922-170-006, 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. 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. 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 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. 5l 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 Paz. Attached for your information are: 1) A map showing the location of our lots. 2) The map of the proposed widening of Highway 79. 3) 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. Again, thank you .for your time. Sincerely, John A. Moramarco, Sr. JOHN A. MORAMARCO, SR. POST OFFICE BOX 906 TEMECULA, CA 92593 September 21, 1992 Planning Director Gary Thornhill City of Temecula 43174 Business Park Dr. Temecula, CA 92590 Dear Gary: The enclosed letter to the City of:Temecula Senior Planher was previously sent regarding the zoning of five parcels located at the northeast intersection of Interstate 15 and Highway 79. My understanding was that this would be sent on to you. Recently, however, I learned that it has not been. As I believe is self-explanatory in the attached, with the review of the General Plan, I am respectfully 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. Sincetel). ~ John A. Moramarco. St. EXHIBIT. \ \ 'rF{/-~-Y NO, 37~0 L D'F., . J " 922 - JTD :ODB ..-..-' k (~l O00 APN ~2_2- J7O-- "EXHIB 2- Handling more traffic on 79 ....... ; ':':""'."~,-~ ."". ,'., ' ~'e:' :~:.' -~. ~R~'~'""'!:'.': "~,~"'..~."'!!;~:: :.~,~L"..'!..' am~m~'i'N~.~~~.~.~.~.! Se~, ..i, ":.'" '. ., ,~ .. I LIsmra ~ I T~ pr~ts-Enterprise 8.-le REC;. ~:OPEN SPACE B DU/ 5-20-92 City of Temecula 43174 Business F'ark Temecula, Ca 92590 Drive Subject: F'arcel 2 of PM 8455 Book 41 Pages 56 and 57, AP No. 945-110-001 Vacant Land (approxo 2.56 acres) Temecula. Ca. Referred to as Lot 869 of Romala Farms Attention: Mr. John Meyer, Senior Planner Gentlemen: Subject property is presently zoned R-Rand On the Southwest Area Community Plan dated August 25, 1989, its designated use is for 1-2 DU/AC. 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 highly tra~ficed street(Pauba) for which ingrees and egress would be difficult. 2. The property is adjacent toCPS 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. 5. Prom a tax income standpoint. for the city, it would ~e mare desirable to have a commercial enterprise on the property. I am requesting that the .property be de_~ignated on the new c. rooosed general plan of the City for other uses'than O~,c.l!lng Limits. The following uses are actively being considered for the ~roDertv: 1. Rest Home. Families are moving int~ the large home developments in the area having older parents who would be most conviently located close 2. Day Care Center. Both members of the family are ~o~;lng and a faci. llty t~ care for their children would Oe deslaDle. 3. Church. It is known that several denominations in the local area are lool~ing for locations. 4. Commercial Offices sucl~ as real estate and others, 5. A ~'rofessional Office Complex. ~. ~ecreational facilities, such as batting practice. as mIGht be oriented to the needs of the local schools in the area. Your consideration for the above is sincerely requested. co: Debble ~lbnoske 28828 Via Roja Murrieta. Ca 9256~ Tel. 677-5820 eneral Plan Program ELLZOTT UHRICH CONSULTING ENGINEER 37161 VAN GAALE LANE MURRIETA, CALIFORNIA, 92395 (714) 696-0901 % October 2,1992 To:City of Temecula Planning Department 43174 Business Park Dr. Temecula, California, 92590 Attn.Mr. John Meyer Subject: Draft Preferred Land Use Plan Parcel 2, Parcel Map 8455 A.P.N. 945-110-001 Dear Mr. Meyer; i have been requested by the owner of the above parcel of land to contact your department concerning the designation of their property as shown on the Draft Preferred Land Use Plan Dated May 6, 1992. The property in question is located on the South side of Pauba Road approximately 400 feet West of Margarita Road. The total net acreage of the property in question is 2.56 acres. (see attached photos) The present designation of this parcel on the Draft Preferred Land Use Plan is Very Low Density Residential (0.5 DU/AC, see attached Draft Preferred Land Use Plan). We strongly disagree with the assigned designation for this property. The property immediately to the East, which consist of two, 2 1/2 acre parcels, is designated as Neighborhood Commercial. A major watercourse transverses the property along the Southerly boundary. A tributary watercourse is located West of this property. The elevation differential from zhe existing pad and roadway, to the flow line of the watercourses is approximately 60 feet. We feel that the area shown on the attached sketch, which is bounded by the two datercourses to the South and West, PauOa Road on the North and MarGarita Road on the East, should be designated as Neighborhood Commercial. This area is just under 7.5 acres net and due to the site topoGrapmy would yield 3 to 5 acres cf developable property, which is more in line with the proposed Guide lines for a Neighborhood Commercial Development. The existing wazercourses ~ould act as a buffer between the our proposed commercial designation and the residential development with smaller icts to the South and West of this property. The Community Sport Park and Temecula Valley High School is located immediately North of this property on the North side of Pauba Road. The nearest developed property with a commercial designation is located approximately 11/2 miles North of this site on Rancho California Road. Thus to better serve the Sport Park and proposed Community Recreation Center Complex and to provide more services to the surrounding residential neighborhood, a more substantial neighborhood commercial center is desirable at this location. Circulation presently exists to support larger commercial development for this property. The property is bound on the East by Margrarita Road, a I10 foot arterial highway, and on the North by Pauba Road, a 88 foot collector. It is 'the owner's intention to develop this property with a resthome and/or professional offices and related commercial uses. Attached is our present preliminary site plan for the development of this property. it is hoped, that your department would consider using property lines that correspond to the defined natural terrain as boundaries between commercial and residential development in-lieu of the arbitrary property boundary lines presently used for this site. With that consideration in mind the owner of this subject property would like to request a revision of the present Very Low Density Residential designation of his property to a Neighborhood Commercial Designation on the Draft Preferred Land Use Plan. Your consideration of this matter at this time would be greatly appreciated. if you have any questions concerning this matter please contact my office at 969-090i or Mr.Paul Silverstone at 677-5820 (owner). lly Submitted Elliott Uhrich R.C.E 22031 Exp. Date 9/30/93 cc: The Planning Center co/Ms. Karen L. Gully Paul Silverstone © SAFA R. Mta-rrAEs & NAYEF R. NIUHTASEB VIA MONTALVO, MURRIETA, CALIFORNIA. 92563. U.S.A. TELEPHONE C714)677-332~. FACSIMILE C/14)677-3325. March. 20. 1992. City of Temecule 43174 Business Perk Drive Temecula, California 92590 Attention: Mr. Gary Thornhill, Pinning 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 · letter to you regarding our intent for filing a change of zone on the above described parcel.' · 'We would like to proceed; at this Time, wITh a change of zone only. This Is due to financial reasons; thus, at the time the zone change Is approvsd additional funding would be available and ws would be able to move forward with marketing, Seasing, etc. At this time we would then coordinate and submit for a plot plan approval. It is Our plan to develop this site into s commercial retail neighborhood center with potential retailers and/or uses such as the following: (s) Gasoline Station & Mini Market, (b) Restaurant(s).(c) Dry Cleaners. (d) Mall Services Center, is) Photo Shop, if) Video Store, (9) Dental & OpTomstrist Clinics, (h) Ice Cream end Frozen Yogurt Shop, (i) Donut and Begel shops, (J) A Day Care Canter, and (ki Other Commercial Uses. Markham and Associates will be submitting the Change of Zone package within two weeks, Should you have any further questions, please contact Sandre Finn st (714)676-6672. Your understanding and cooperation is greatly appreciated. Respectfully Safe R. Muhtaseb Property Owner cofzl / kLIFO ILl,,. nUfAC SP 180 'X 1/2 AC MIN ..~i.i2Ac II COMMUNITY PARK It ~RITA 9ILLAGE ,t SP 1l I AC SAFA R. MUHTASEB & NAYEF R. MUHTASEB 39484 VIA MONTALVO, MURRIETA, CALIFORNIA. 92563. U.S.A. TELEPHONE (714)677-3325. FACSIMILE (714)677-3325. 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 artended the General Plan Public Workshop Town Hall Meeting of Thursday, April 16, 1992. Per that meeting I was instructed to address 8 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 Proper~y, Our Property would provide shopping for the present and future residents of such housing with in a walking distance. 2. Once Moraga Road is developed all the way to meet with Via Las Colinas, Our Property will have three aidea 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 problema for a reaidential use. 3. Our Property will provide a great location for a Day Care Center for all the Apartment and Professional Office residents immediately surrounding Our Property. 4. As you are well aware, there is a traffic signal at the intersection of Rancho California Road and Moraga Road which makes the South west corner of that intersection {which lies in Our Property} an ideal location for a Gas Station. Our Property would make an ideal site for a commercial retail neighborhood center with potential retailers and/or uses such as the following: (a) Gasoline Station & Mini Market, (b) Restaurant(s),{c) Dry Cleaners, (d) Mail Services Center, (e} Photo Shop, {f) Video Store, {g) Dental & Optometrist Clinics, (h} Ice Cream and Frozen Yogurt Shop, {i} Donut and Bagel shops, (j} A Day Care Center, and {k) Other Commercial Uses. Your understanding and cooperation is greatly appreciated. Respectfully COT-DLUP Safa R. Muhtaseb Property Owner SAFA R. MUItTASEB & NAYEF R. MUHTASEB 39484 VIA MONTALVO, MURRIETA, CALIFORNIA. 92563. U;S.A. TELEPHONE (714)677-3325. FACSIMILE (714)677-3325. April. 30. 1992. City of Temecula 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, California 92590 Attention: Mr. John R. Meyer, AICP, Senior Planner Regarding: TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN DRAFT PREFERRED LAND USE PLAN IN SPECIFIC: Property Description: 6.12 ACRES GRS IN PARS A, B & 2 PM 076/068 PM 1346 APN: 944-290-009 Dear Mr. Meyer I am writing this letter as a follow up and an amendment to the letter (dated April. 17. 1992.) which I have addressed to you. First, I would like to make a correction to the previous letter (dated April. 17.1992.). On the previous letter I have stated that the Draft Preferred Land Use Plan (DPLUP) recommends a Residential High Density Max. 20 DU/Acre Land Use Designation (Zone) for the above described property {Our Property) and that is incorrect, and I apologize for this mistake. The DPLUP actually recommends an Office-Commercial Land Use Designation (Zone) for Our Property. Second, with all due respect, I would like to reiterate That the best land use and the best Land Use Designation (Zone) for Our Property is either Communi~ Commercial or Neighborhood Commercial for the reasons I have pointed out in my Previous Letter (dated April. 17. 1992.). Finally, I would like To extend my greatest appreciation for your understanding and cooperation. Respectfully DLUP2 Safa R. Muhtaseb Proper~y Owner SAFA R. MUHTAST, 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 I ? 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, Sara R. Muhtaseb JOHNSON + JOHNSON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION Temeeula. CA 9259 I FAX (714) 699-3117 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 o~fice commercial in the S.W.A.P. development. A portion of the property (parcel i of the 3 parcel property) was mis-labeled during the Southwest Area Plan (S.W.~.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, the application along with zone change fees were transferred from the County of Riverside to the City of Temecula. When we resubmitted to the City of Temecula, we revised our requirements to be consistent with surrounding property by requesting zoning that allows condominiums at 12/units per acre on the back (easterly) parcel No. 1. Letter to Mr. John Meyer March 25, 1992 Page -2- Our property is included in the Community Facilities District No. 88-12, an Ynez Road widening project. This District calls for assessments and sales tax contributions based on an office commercial zoning for this property which we have agreed to. October 10, 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 & PaulArchitects to provide such a design concept. 6) When the site plans were completed, we met with the City and began working with Debbie Ubnoshe as the senior planner. At this time we were informed a policy change would not allow our project to proceed as previously indicated by Steve Jiannino and that to move forward we would be required to do expanded engineering studies and building designs. Furthermore, it was requested 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. On March 12, 1992 a DRC review was held for our property and at that meeting we learned the project was incorrectly classified as a Change of Zone to CPS rather than as originally requested to be Commercial Office and R-3. Our concern is that the lack of continuity in review has caused this project to be misrepresented in the General Planning Process. we believe on further analysis you will agree the zoning of these properties should be C-O (conunercial 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 I(~uv|ln t"'llf.tft~. ('.% i.Tt.X ('/14) tr,*'-"/*-3117 Mr. Marshall Lee Riverside County Office Planning Department 4080 Lemon Street Riverside, CA 92501 July 28, 1989 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 connnercial. Evidently 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 =his correction. I would also note that the property directly east of the sub- 3oct property is apartment houses 16~ DU"s/Acre already con- strutted. Sincerely, ". BUYER'S COP~ APPLICATION FOR LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT INCOMPt. ETE APPUCATIONS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED. Date: CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 5570 PUBLIC USE PERMIT NO. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. TEMPORARY USE PERMIT NO. PARCEL MAP NO. PLOT PLAN NO. VARIANCE NO. PRQJECT INFORMATION: , I. Pu~ose of Request (project deeeiption) (Ord. 348 ref. No.) C~.g~ nf 7nn~ f,, ..~ I~-A-5 tO C-O (~.,.,=rcial office) for T:~r=els 2 & 3 R-3 (general residential) for Parcel 1. 2. RelaTed cases flied in conjunction with this requesT. PROPERTY INFORMATION: Assessor's Parcel Nmber(s): 923-590-015, 016, 017 Location: Street Address etc.) Northeast corner of Ynez Road and Rancho Vista Approx. Gross Acreage: 18..49 Thomas Brothers Pg. No. & Coordinate{s) pc=. 125 APPLICANT/OWNEPJREPRESENTATIVE INFORMATION: Applicant Name: Mailing Address: Telephone No.: RANCMO VT~.TAGE ASSOCIATES, a California Limited Peership WilLiam P. Johnson, Chairman of ~ Board ~74=,('} Vv~? lqrl,. ~n'i~-~ 200 T~N~I~, CA 92591 STREET CITY STATE ZIP (7334) 676-3.604 (8 a.m. - 5 o.m. 2. Owner Name Mailing Address: Mailing Address: .Telephone No.: JOH SON + JOHNSON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, SheNATURE OF APPLICANTX ~S.~. By: Wi o s~i B a d rman o± one o r DATE SIGNED March 23, 19 27450 Ynez Road Suite 200, TEmecula, CA 92591 STREET CITY STATE ZiP (714) 676-1604 (8 a.m. - 5 p.m.) RANC~O V~LLAGE ASSOCIATES, a California Limited Partnershi; GENERAL P/LR~ '~R' Authority for this application is hereby given: SIGNATURE OF PROPERTY OWNERS(s) IWdtten Authmbedon my be Attached) ff more than one person is involved in the ownership of the property being developed · separate page must be attached to this application which lists the names end 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 pant to Section 1094.6 of the California 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 toeing label within 600 foot radius property owners' mailing notification addresses. Have Homeowners/Property Owners been notFed of your project? No x SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT DATE SIGNED RANCHO VILLAGE ASSOCIATES, a California Limited Partnership Authority for this application b hereby g~en: SIGNATURE O,' PROPERTY OWNER{S) JOHNSON + JOHNSON DEXrELOpMENT CORPORATION RECEIVED September 14, 1992 SEP 15 1992 :Ans'd ............ Mar. John Meyers City of Temecula P.O.Box 3000 Temecuia, CA 92390 RE: Zone Change Case No. 5570, parcels 923-590-015, (714 1676-161}4 F.A.~, (714) 699-3117 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 information in the General Plan process along with our March 25, 1992 .letter summarizing the history of Zone Change 5570. Should you have any questions or require. additional information please contact me. Sincerely, JOHNSON + JOHNSON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION D&~n~-Kr-Kllen President CITY OF TEMECULA ~317~ BUSINESS PARK DRIVE TEMECULA, CA 92590 Attention: Mr. John R. Meyer, AICP April 11, 1992 Dear Mr. Meyer: In reference to our telecon yesterday, the pending Apri) 16 public workshop on land use, and our ownership of a 2 1/2 acre lot in Los Ranchitos, adjacent to Highway 79, we submit these comments to support our appeal for a land use revision: Thank you for the opportunity to speak and hopefully correct a zoning problem with property we own in Temecula. These are the related facts: 1. We purchased lot #33, tract 3646, in Temecula, hoe Ranchitos in August 1977. 2. The tot is zoned RA 2 1/2 and is subject to the hoe Ranchitos CC&R's. 3. The lot has a 525' frontage with Highway 79, a ~48' frontage on Va))ejo Ave., shares a 162' contiguous line with lot 3~ to the West and a 329' contiguous line with lot 32 to the East. ~. The elevation of the lot is very irregular with the highest elevation at the West end, adjacent to lot 3~, and the lowest elevation ]ocated in an ancient flood plain in the Easterly 1/3 of the property. 5. The e]evation change from the high, Westerly end of the property to the lower Easterly end is approximately 30' to 6. Any development of the property has to allow the conveyance of water from a culvert under Vallejo Road to a culvert under Highway 7. We contracted with TO-MAC Engineering in 1989 to develop a grading plan and conduct percolation tests of the property. The TO-MAC grading plan drawing is enclosed for your information. 8. tn 1990 we were advised Highway 79 would be widened dedicate a triangular section 4' by 30' at the Easterly end This dedication would reduce lot to approximately 158'. by the County of Riverside that to 8 lanes and they wishedus to of the lot measuring approximately of the property, along highway 79. the EasterIy property line of the Page 2 of 3 Given the above facts. we have concluded that we cannot develop the property for residential use for these reasons: A. A single family residence has to be sited at the narrow, Easterly end of the property because: · 1. Drainage has to be provided across the Westerly end. 2. The Westerly end of the property is an unstable flood plain. 3. Percolation tests confirmed that the only suitable site for a septic system is at the Westerly end of the property. 4. Filling is not an option in the lower lot elevations because of the instability of the soil, the need to convey water through the area, the massive amounts of fill that would be required and the need to locate the septic system in the desired fill area. B. A single family residence located at the Easterly end of the property is not desirable or compatible with other Los Ranchitos properties because the Southerly side of the structure would be located approximately 80' from a 6 lane highway. C. No other developed property in Los Ranchitos has a residence located within 80' of Highway D. A single family residence located within 80' of a 8 lane highway is completely out of character with the rest of Los Ranchires. The open, remote character of Los Ranchitos was the reason why we origlnal]y purchased the property. We conclude with the observation that we have never reoeive'd any interest in our property for residential uses. We were dedicated to improve the property in compliance with the RA 2 1/2 zoning requirements but we, and many other Los Ranchitos property owners have been victimized by the decision to widen Highway 79. We are sympathetic to the Los Ranchitos property owners on the North side of Vailsic Ave who fear they are facing some type of intrusive commercial development between themselves and Highway 79. Out of respect for their concerns, we need to discuss alternative uses that will protect their isolation but not at the unreasonable expense of the property owners along Highway 79. We cannot develop lot 33 as a residential property. We can, with your help, develop plans to provide, berms, plantinEs, low structures, and minimal intrusive uses of the property. However, the alternative uses will be commercial of some sort, with acceptable restrictions. You had mentioned "Garden Offices" as a type of development that might be acceptable. We are not sure if tha~ is the best alternative but it is an alternative that needs to be openly discussed without the emotional "no-commercial" rhetoric that has dogged these discussions. Page 3 Thank you plan to attend points above. for your time and attention to these matters. We the public workshop next Thursday and discuss the Sincerely yours, Richard R. Denno 2256 Sunnyside Ridge Road Rancho Palos Vetdes, CA 90274 (310) 5~7-3887 POR. TEIV!ECUIA RAIVCHO '~ (POR. RANCHO CAllE) ~ , Pt~O dEC TED "' ' ~ °°' YNEZ ~9 T. BS R. BPY _/ Z CALI,F 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 cies~gned 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. 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 -ViCe President Reslclential Development JKF/ar cc: Mr. David Dixon April 23, 1992 DF'.LJF ,.JlM.-J FI .LJI']31<I izD Mr. John Meyer Planning Department CITY OF TEMECULA 43174 Business Park Drive Temecuia, CA 92590 RE: GENERAL PLAN COMMENT SOUTH SIDE / ~w~ 79 SOUTH & PALAROAD 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, ironring Hwy 79 South and Pala Road, would be suitable for highway service-type commercial development (for which there is already a demand). The balance of the property lies within the flood plain. We would request that 15 acres of commercial/retail zoning be approved here. This would include the Bedford holdings on both sides. of the street to be created by the Pala Road realignment. Commercial/retail uses will benefit from the traffic and exposure, while residential.(single or multi-family)would suffer from the noise and congestion. '. Please ie= me knob your =nough=s on =he above. Sincerely, BEDFORD PROPERTIES DEVELOPMENT COMPANY Gregory A. Erickson Area Manager GAE/dh · D.ver~i,eJ Real Esrax~ De'.'el,,Dmenr and Mailing Addless P.O. Box 9016 Temerula. Caliinrm.~ 92589-07'1o 28765 Sinl~le Oak Drive Suite 2(10 Temecula C.,hf~,rnsa 925~ Telephone 714 ~,76 7,641 Fac-srnde 714 67~ 3'tR'~ 'COUN REALTY May 1992 iDE\I John R. Meyer, AICP Senior Planner CITY OF I t~MECULA 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 "Preferred General Plan" designation of Lots 1, 2 & 3 of PM 9036; AKA Assessor Parcels 2, 3 & 4 of Assessor's Map Book 950, Page 10 Dear Mr. Meyer? The undersigned represents the owners of the referenced.properties, Ladd and Margaret Penfold as to Lots 1 and 3 and Mr. and Mrs. Lyle Knode as to Lot 2. Lots 1 and 3 were purchased by the Penfolds in anticipation of the use changes ultimately adopted under the SWAP eflbrts undertaken by the County of Riverside. Lot 2, on the other hand, was purchased by the Knodes in the belief that they would retire there in the peaceful surroundings of thc countn.'. The interesting consequence is that both parties are now unanimous in their desire, alter seeing the City's version of a land use element, to have their properties incorporated into the prt,tl~:rcd plan as a commercial application. What appears to bc counter to most land use elements we have seen is that the City would choose to create what amounts to an "island" of low-density residenual..surrounded on three sides byvaWing degrees of commercial use. It would also appear to be the only rcSidential fronting on Margarita Road. a major arterial corridor, planned for the entire City. Ot:r r'cr::cption is that this may have been an oversight. If not. please let us know your position and hat steps wc need to undertake to proceed with encouraging you to reconsider your position. I am looking forward to working with you on this project. Sincerely. COUNT'RYSIDE REALTY Tom A. Lccvcrs Mr. and Mrs. Ladd Penfold Mr. and Mrs. Lyle Knode ' 28266 Front Street · Temecula. CA 92590.- (714) 676-2191 ELLZOTT UHRZCH CONSULTING ENGINEER 37161 VAN GAALE LANE MURRIETA, CALiFORNZA, 92395 ( 714 ) 696-0901 REOI!y_Ep · lff OF TEMEULA September 16,!992 To.~;~, · ~by o, Temecula Planning Department 43174 Business Park Dr. Temecula, California, 92590 Attn.Mr, John Meyer Re: Draft Preferred Land Use Plan Parcels 1,2,& 3, Parcel Map 9036 Dear Mr. Meyer; I have been requested by the owners of the above parcels. to contact your department concerning the designation of their property as shown on the Draft Preferred Land Use Plan Dated May 6, t992. The property in question is located north of Highway 79 South on the west slde of Margarita Road between De Potrole Road and Daraolo Road. The assessor parcel numbers for these parcels are 950-100-004,005, & 006. The total net acreage of these parcels is 7.95 acres. The present designation of the~e parcels on the Draft Preferred Land Use Plan is Low Dense ( 2DU/Ac.) Residential (see attached Draft Preferred Land Use Plan). We strongly feel that the assigned designation for this property does not follow sound planning princip!es. The property would be surrounded on three sides by commercial development, Community Commercial to the east, Highway/Tourist Commercial -to the south, and Professional Office to the west. Circulation presently exist to support commercial development of this property. The property is bound on the east by Margrarita Road, a IIC foot arterial highway, and on the South by Dantolo Road, a 78 foot industrial collector.and is situated 300 feet north of State Highway 79 South. These parcels are not within the Los Rancintos Property Owners Associates and therefore ere not governed by their C,C, & Re. This ~ould eliminate the concerns voiced by the Associates after the recent rezoning of the property on the southeast corner of De Potrole Road and Margarita Road. A Change of Zone Application and Plot Plan were recently prepared for the southerly por:io% o accordance with the presently adoptec Southwest Are~ Community Plan des_~naLion .:If ~=:ice/'Cernmercial. applic~ticnE We~'e rejecte: by the Planning !De;~rtment because they were inconsistent with the proposed Draft Preferred Land Use Plan. We therefore request at this time ,that your department consider a revision of the present Low Density Residential designation of this property to a Commercial Designation on the Draft Preferred Land Use Plan, thus bring the proper%y into a more consistent use with the proposed surrounding designations and allowing the owners to proceed with the development of their property. Your consideration of this matter at this time would be greatly appreciated. If you have any questions concerning this matter please contact my office at 969-0901 or Mr. Ladd Penfold at 676-2081. f~lly Submitted Eliiott Uhrich June 5, 1992 City of Temecula Community Development Office 43172 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 To Whom It May Concern: Regarding the rezoning of the property. by Bedford Properties on Pauba Road, east of Ynez Road, R-R - 20,000 sq. ft. minimum changed to R-1 - 7,200 subdivide 56.6 acres to 102 lots. Please be advised that we feel that it would not be in the best interest for the City of Temecula or the surrounding neighborhoods to allow a rezoning of the above pwperty. Our city is experiencing a huge over growth and an economic recession. We have just come out of an acute water shor.~gc, there are over crowded schools. The land in question, if cr6wded with all these additional homes would present a drainage pwblem as well as a traffic problem! This is one of Temecula's _finest residential areas_! Why would the City Development Office or the City Council members allow anyone to change this special area of the city. All of the people who surround this parcel of land would be affected by this rezoning. We request that you be very concerned for the residences who now live in mis area and who, in good faith, paid the price for this particular location. The type of zoning we now have would best maintain the quality of living that we all enjoy. It is 3:our obligation to see that this is maintained. We cannot believe you would want less' for the people who now reside here. Thank you, Name Address ca: G. Thornhill June 17, 1992 RECEIVFq Ju~ Z O i,e.~ A~s'a ........... City of Temecula Community Development Office · 3172 Business Park Drive Tam-cult, CA 92590 To Whom it May Concern: Reffardin:7 the rszoning of the property by Bedford Properties on Pauba Road, east of Ynoz Road, R-R-20,O00 sq. ft. minimum chcnSed to R-!-7, ZOO subdivir!e 56.6 acres zo 102 lots. P!~ase be pdvised that we feel that it ~ould not be in the best interest for the City cf Tem.'cula or the surroundin~ neighborhoods ~ allosz a rezoninS of she above property. Our city ic oxperiencinT a huCe over-~rowth ~nd an eccnc==c re=ession. We have just come out of ~ acute water s!~ortzT:., there sr-~ ~"~r-cro::ded sckool:. The land in question, if crou:ed ::ith el! t'~e:e a~:~-:~nrl homes, would present n drainage Trob!~m ss ue!l ~n e. traffic Th:: ca- of Temecula'o finest r~identi~l are=s~ ~y would the City DeveloTment Office or the City Council members want to change this special area of ~he city. All of the ~eople who surrcun~ this parcel of land would. be affeC=ed by this rezoning. We request that you be very concerned for the residence who now. live in this ar~a -"nd ::ho, in 'food faith, :'rid the price for this :.:rticular location. The type of zoning ~re now h&ve"aould best m~incrin the quality of living that we all enjoy. It ic your oblijetion to see that this is maintained. We canno$ believe you would want less for the people who now reside here. Thank. you, .-- _ .. ,......,/, .,'::'.;+ :..,: "/C x~'~"~x' .- '?- ~" ~ ' -, - ' Job No. 168-072 June 17, 1992 Gary Thomh'~l John Meyer City of Temocuh Planning Dept. 43180 Business Park Dr. Temecula, CA 92390 RE: 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 drafx General Plan 'preferred land u~e 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. I. PHYSICAL ORIENTATION AND CHARACTER From a physical orientation standpoint, the progeny lies on the southern edge of a valley which runs cast/west bonycon Rancho California Road and Pauba Road. Pauba Road adjacent to Parkview is the southern boundary of-an area which 'has hislorically supported conventional residential development. This area has been developing over the last 25 yean on In3th 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 to the north, all of which have developed at what would be a 'low" density on your current General Plan Land Use Map. 2. PREVIOUS GF. NERAL PLANS/SOUTH WEST AREA PLAN We recogniz,- that the City of Temocula is not neces.~arily bound to follow Riverside County's past planning designalions, but from a historic smnapoint, it has always been anticipated that the Parkview site would be developed as part of the 'Ratwho Village* area which was conceived as part of a *Village Core' on the 1974 County General Plan. The Parkview property t~ll within the 'Medium Urban (3-10 dulac)' designation which extended southward to Pauba Road. After development had taken place north, east at~d west of the Gary Thornhill John Meyer iune 17, 1992 Page 2 Parkwiew site, the County'designated the ParkvieW site on the Southwest Area Plan in 1989 as 'Low Density Residential - 2-5 dulac'. ~. ADJACFjq'r LAND USES AND DI~N'SH1P...S Pursuant to the 1974 General Plan and subsequen~y the Southwest Area Plan, adjacent properties have developed w the south, west, norahwest and north at conventional residential densities u~liTing the County's R-1 Zone. When the projects adjacent to the Parkview site (namely Starlight Ridge to the north, AIm Vista w the nor, hwest, I-~t~e Village to the west and an named project south of Pauba Road adjacent to Parkview) were developed, the minimum housing pad criterion for all of these projects was 60xl00 or 6,000 sq. f~.. In addition, the Tomecub Valley High School has been developed and consu'uction 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 apprecime your time to consider our request. Certainly, if you have any questions or would like further information, please don't hesitate to contact us. Very u-uly yours, T&B PLANNING CONSULT, ,NTS, xc: Csaba Ko ~']-\sl'i.:l-~ PLA\ DE\'ELOPMENT~; June 30, 1992 RECEIVED JUL O 2 1992 Ans'd ............ Mr. Gary Thoe'nhill Director Of Planning CITY OF TEMECULA 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 RE: Request for Land Use Downzoning Dear Mr. Thornhill, On behalf of Mr. Leo Roripaugh and pursuant to our earlier phone conversations and meeting, we 'hereby formally request a downzoning for Planning Area's 7, 8 lind a portion of Area 9 in Specific Plan 149, located on the Nollhwest side of Nicoles Road, near Winchester Road. The current land use des~jnations as a,oproved 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. '(Al~ffoximate portion) As we discussed. as soon as the Ass_~__,uTtent D~ 161 has commenced construction of the Santa Gearutica Flood Channel rnprovement, we are prepared to formally sul3mit a Land Use and Site Plan that wm rezone the land to residential uses with approximately 9-10 Units/ac~e density. Based on our meeting, we un0erstand thks ConceDtual land use to be consisterr( with the Current policies and goals of the City, and l:}endmg review of a fOfTnal subm~al, staff has indK;ated that the preferrad land use designation 5rtould be R-3 As you know. the I~ming of our submittal is contingent on the above referred A.D. 161 improvement, while concomrlanlly. the Assessment District is prasenlly recalculating the Sul~lemental ASsessment tax. We now hnd ourseves in a position where the tax assessment may be based on a land use designation that wdl not be m effect when the tax is ultimately levied. Therefore, will you please consida' rezoning the ex~shng land use designation as part of your current draft General Plan and adoption process? We look forward to continuing to work with you and staff in the coming months. Thank yoU for your Conslderalaon S~ncerely. MASTER PLAN DEVELOPMENTS ,~., - , ,.;//,J SanrOT'O/Edward. President SE/cD cc Mr Leo Ror~paugh MASTER PLA\ DE\ ELOI'ME\I'N 15. 1992 RECEIVED 0 C T 2 0 1992 Arts 'd .......... Mr. John R. Meyer Semot Planner City of Temecula 43174 Business Padc Dr Temectda, CA 92590 RE: Land Use Modification for Tentative Tract 26232. Zj3t 12" 38.8 act~ Dear ZVb'. Meyer, ~ you for taking the time to meet regarding lvh'. Leo Roripaugh's property. Tentanve Tact 26232. and the land us~ downzoning request we have before the Cit3, of Tensecub. have enclosed ,~'o sketches that detail: 1. The curt'era land use status of Tract 26232. and 2. The proposed land use mvision. A~ we ds~cuss~i. Tract Map 26232 will creme a remmnde~' parcel. ~ 12" ~ch c~ists d 38.8 a~ ~ ~ a cu~ml i~d ~ t~t ~1~ a ~1 ~ ofCo~ ~ ~ ~. ~ ~xin~ly 19 ~ of Htgh dens, y residential. h ~o~d ~ n~ ~t ~t 12 ~ ~1~ ~ ~e. S~ G~is C~ a~ge. ~d Nlctll~ R~d ~ge: ~ s~l ~ mm ~ ~ ~ ~ ~. The' land u.~ requ~ per Yne TemecuJa General Plan consists of basicaJly downzoning the ennre Lot 12 to High rus~dem~al. Thss rtsslts m changing the 7 acre Commercial renmant and the 4.8 Office portion to residenilnl. The currant hsgb Icyel of Assessmot Distact 161 taxes and the very slow absorptson tn the CotnmerciaYOf~ce mabel ar~ me primary res.~4ts we ar~ malung this mqus~. As we have discusancl w~th Mr. Gary Thornhill and your~lt. we antsclpale working vnth the City-to develop single f~znil7 ruiden,at pt~vJuct on these parcels. Thank you lm your coopera,on. Please call if you have any questions. Smcc'r~iy. %iu..ler Plan i)evelopment~ S~/cb Enclo~u~, CC: Mr. Leo Ronpaugb ;/ U TMOCAL INC. c/o Morgan, Lewis and Bockius act. Mr. R. Fraser 801 South Grand Avenue Los Angeles, GA 90017-3189 Tel.: (213)612-1086 Fax~ (213)612-2554 RECEIVED JUL 0 2 1992 A s'd ............ 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: 1. As you may know, IMOCAL INC. is a California.corporation, having its headquarters in Los Angeles. It is the owner of three properties in your community, and we understand that you have now taken note of our correct mailing address, as identified above. We are particularly'interested to know how the City of Temecula is legally required to notify.non-resident property owners of land within the City of TemeCula about any changes =hat 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 relates to lmocal's property: it 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, ~nd reflect, the proposed and existing zoning on the west side of Margarita Road, which is"'Commercial Offices". In this way, a consistent character can be developed along both sides of this new major boulevard. The proposal to have low density housing on all of Imocal's property frotrinE 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 pl.anning to build single family houses in front of a high density commercial area, and also frotrinE 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 cc~nmercial, offices, and high-density zoning. Such a re-zoning of Imocal's property may also be considered as unequal treatment, via-a-via neighbouring property owners, because their properties will be changed to, or will remain, higher zoned, even though these neighbouring properties are of equal character and equal location when compared to Imocal's property. ./. IMOCAL INC., Los Angeles, CA 90017 June 25, 1992 p~ge - 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 boundaryof 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 to this property. 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, IMOCAL, INC. R. Hilb (Secretary of Imocal Inc.) JOHNSON + JOHNSON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION September 15, 1992 Suile 200 Temeeuia. CA 92591 ( 714 ) 676- I(M)4 FAX ~714 ) 69~-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 Roa~. 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 propertyto 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 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 REC, i VED 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 "io Dalance the utilization of open space,parks,trail facilities;" The five housing tracts, Woodcrest Country, Ranco Solano, Verano, Rancho del Sol, and the northern sector of Costain's Signet have not been provided with playgrounds or parks. All parks in the City of Temecula are presently located south Of Rancho California Road. We are taxed for parks and maintainance for same on our Tax Bill. There is not a park to serve the needs of our area. What does the ~eneral Pran contain to correct this inequity'. I will be "'grateful for your attention to these matters and willalso appreciate an answer,in writing, from your department regarding these concerns. ~espectfully yours/ Charles C, May JUNE 30, 1992 RECEIVED .n, O 7 1992 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 CURRENT COUNTY ZONING PURSUANT TD THE S.W.A.P. WHICH AS DEVELOPED, PERMITS CONSTRUCTION DF A DWELLING PER ONE HALF ACRE DF LAND. I FEEL THAT THE CITY OF TENECULA SHOULD ADOPT A PLAN WHICH IS CO;,SiS,'E~ ~ilH THE PLAN ADOPTED BY THE COUNTY FORTHiS AREA. IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THERE ARE OTHER PARCELS IN THIS ZONING AREA WHICH HAVE ALREADY BEEN APPRDVED FOR SUBDIVISION INTO ONE HALF ACRE LOTS. IT WOULD BE INCONSISTENT, AT THIS TIME, FOR THE CITY DF TEMECULA TO LIMIT THE AREA TD TWO ACRE RESIDENTIAL ZONING. IF 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 SIt~cRELY, , CC: KAREN GULLEY PLANNING CENTER 1300 DOVE ST., SUITE 100 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 \ ~' 0 ® JUly 6, 1992 Mr. Tim Setlet City Engineer CITY OF TEMECULA 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 WESTERN CORRIDOR ~LIGNM~NT Dear Tim: We have hired RBF to investigate the proposed Western Corridor alignment as well as the RCFC Murrieta Creek alignment for our Margarita Canyon property at Hwy 79 South and Front Street. The NBS road alignment does not benefit our property and we will be providing our preferred alternative to you for review. We are also concerned with the proposed zoning for the proper~y~ 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 aSility to contribute to construction and the acquisition of the right of way for the corridor. Please give me a call to discuss these matters. Sincerely, BEDFORD PROPERTIES DEVELOPMENT COMPANY G.jegory A. · Erickson Area Manager Batty Sumerr, T & S Planning ConsuLtants ~EC~IY~D 101 Corral de TierraRd. Salinas,Ca 93908 J U L O 9 lSS2 Ans 'd ............ July 8, 1992 Mr. Gary Thornhill Director of Planning City of Temecula 4133374 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 9.2590 Dear Mr. Thornhill: I own a twenty acre parcel that I split over ten years ago into four parcels: f/cJ14 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 ~operty who wants to process a map for haft acre lots also. I think this would be an appropriate density for my propercy 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 units per acre seems reasonable. I have enclosed a copy of an area map. My proparty is between Walcott Lane and Butterfield Stage Road;' Karen Lynn Lane i$ the access road: Phone: (408) 4:84-2236 Sincerely, George T. Starcevich '=-~'. =el ,.z,-. P4,f //4~. 4G *:~ ,, - - · *,'3' ' ¢ c · - ,, P A4 ,, ,, lQ8~/ ~-lOO ,-..- 7SII ,P44. ~7/IG-17 /~ Moo A~C ?556 75~.~ ,T.,,::'. LANDBANK THE LANDBANK COMPANY 41593 WINCHESTER ROAD. SUITE 101 TEMECULA. CALIFORNIA 923~0 714/694-1111 FAX 714/694-1112 July 15, 1992 RECEIVED JUL I 6 1992 Mr. Steve Jiannino Senior Planner Planning Department city of ~emocuia 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. Stev., ~ i detailed to you, X and my neighbors nave been personally involved' in retaining the 1/2 acre (RR Zoning) in this particular area through many public hearings as well as numerous S.W.A.P. meetings. Subsequent to that, I paid for and processed a 34 lot 1/2 acre Tentative Tract Map in this immediate area through the City of Temecula. Furthermore, I am paying a Park assessment fee on several properties in this area at a rate of $58 per possible residential unit through a formula already presuming my ability to build two residential units per acre. It seems ludicrous that the City would contemplate reversing the zoning and existing development trend in this area. It appears even more unfounded to assess the property throughthe 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/uTs ~&r~uly, DP:lmg A.J. TERI CH EN G INEERIN G CIVIL ENGINEERING · SURVEYING · LAND PLANNING August 2i, 1992 John Meyer, Senior Planner City of Temecula 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, California 92590 RECEIVED am'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 recogn2t2on be given to this development by re-designating the subdec= area to something between 0.5 acres and 1.0 acres with The final determination to be decided at the time of development review. In the parnicular case of Tentative Tract 23513, this same ba=nle was fought at the Board of Supervisors level with SWAP and =he subgecr Eract was approved by the County Planning Commlsszon and by the Temecula City Council. The sub2ect and surrounding properties have unique topography. The :opography is such that in some cases 0.5 acre lots are appropr2ate whi.le in other cases 2.5 acre lots are ~pproprla=e. The determination for nhe specific appropriateness should be at the ~enZative map stage. TE 1 i,A I M AI\ %TREET · MECULA. CA ~2590 - (714) 676-5715 / i714) hTe.-5716 · FAX G14) 67e~-631)6 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. Teri~ Engineering Ant~rl~'ch~ AJT/sm CC: Gary Thornhill, Planning Director Debbie Ubnoske, Senior Planner Craig Ruiz, Assistant Planner Kumar Sawh A.J. TERI CH EN G INEERIN G CIVIL ENGINEERING · SURVEYING · LAND PLANNING September 15, 1992 RECEIVED SEP I 7 1992 City of Temecula Planning Department 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, California 92590 Re: Tentativ~ Tre~t 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 adjacent property owners are in support of a designation on the proposed General Plan ofl 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 ~he extension of time move forward. 41~34 MAIN 5'rREET · TEMECULA. CA 92.'%~~ · (714) 676-5715 / (714) 676-5716 ~, FAX {714) 676-6306 However, if you have been directedby the City Council to judge projects with respect to conformante with =he proposal, unofficial plan, adopted, we wish Co keep our extension on hold while we work with the general plan process Co express our concerns. Very truly yours, A. J. TERICH ENGINEERING Anthony J. Ter h AJT/lp CC: City councilmembers City Attorney Craig Ruiz Kumar Sawh 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 ~o ~he subject tentative map, we respectfully request your consideration of our support for this project. Augus~ 4, 1992 City of Temecula P.0. Box 3000 Temecula Ca. 92590 Attn: City Council Re: Tentative Map 23513 Ladies & Gentleman: Pieass be advised that we have reviewed the subject. tentative man and support its approval. As an owner of property which is contiguous to the subject tentative map, we respectfully reGuest your consideration of our support for this project. TRIGON ENGINEERING, INC. CIVIL ENGINEERING LAND PLANNING 3002~ SANTIAGO ROAD, T~4ECULA, CA, 9 2 5 g 2 ( 714 ) 6 9 1001 EVONDA STP~ET, 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 2 4 FJ92 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, Thisis in reference to the above APN 945~060-010, changing the existing zoning from very low density to medium low density. The County of Riverside recommends 2 D.U-/acre in our area. Note that Parcel N0.1 and Parcel No. 5 was approved for % acre subdivision by the City of Temecula just recently. If you look at Parcel 1 by visual inspection and compare the terrain to ours, Parcel 1 is more mountainous in comparison and theres no reason why we can not get the same zoning as Parcel 1. We have a wide frontage at Santiago Road. I also suggest to 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 .~ urs, F nK F. estas MARK H PROPERTIES October~,'i991 Mr. Gary Thornhill Director of Planning City of Temecula 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 Dear Mr. Thornhill: Thank you for meeting with me and Cheryl Cunningha~ yesterday to discuss the annexation of our Vail Ranch Commercial property to the City of Temecula. We are hoping that this annexation can be completed and will be a benefit to all the parties. 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 copies of the Council minutes approving this Zone Change Number 5446 and a copy of Ordinance Number 90-15 regarding the zone change. Could you please have someone see that the zone change has in fact been completed, and reflect this information the next txme zoning maps are prepared? Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Enclosure thornhil.sr .Y 9474 KEARNY VILLA ROAD, SUITE 203 * SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92126 · (619) 695-II09 * FAX (610~ ~' 0.4n8 CALXFORjNXA CONTXVkL'I'OR LXC~'~SE NO. ~ '~ O) ORDINANCE NO. 90-1 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCI~ 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 COMIVik~CIAL) ON PROPERTY LOCATED ON 6.~1 ACRES AT THE WEST SIDE OF YNEZ ROAD, NORTH OF WINCHESTER ROAD. The City Council of ~he City of Temecula, State of California, does ordain as follows: SECTION 1. Public hearing have been held l~fore 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 attachod ~xhibit 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 Tcmccula, and' the City of Temccula 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 hercto and incorporated heroin. 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 placts in the City. SECTION 3. Taking effect. This ordinance shall take effect 30 days after the date of its adoption. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOFrED this 281h .day of Augusi, 1990. Ronald J. Paxks, Mayor ATTV~T: June S.r~k,~pLt~rk [SEAL] 3/OrdsgO-IS STATE OF CALIFORNIA) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) CITY OF TEMECULA )SS I lune S. Greek, Deputy City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 90-15 was duly introduced and placed upon its tint reading at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 14th day of August, 1990, and that thereafter, said Ordinance was duly adopted and passed at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 28th day of August, 1990, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: NO~: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: Deputy City Clerk / / ,:~M~C'I3LA C~2:'ZvZ COUlqG3:L Nszt in Orderz Ordinance: No. 90-15 ResoltItionz No. 9o-R~ ~ TO OILO~RS Invocation Flag Salute Pastor T. ~. Mercer Rancho Community Church ROLL CaLLs Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, MuAoz, Parks · PRESENTATIONS/ PROCLAMATIONS Proolamation - Red Ribbon Week .October 21-22, 1990 Proclamation - ~nergy Awareness Month - October 1990. A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address the Council on items Chat 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 ~he City Clerk. ~hen you are called tO 'speak,· please come forward and State your name and address. For all other agenda items a sRequest To Speak"' form must be filed with ~he City Clerk before the Council gets to that item. There is a five (5) minute time limit for individual speakers. ZOne RECOHMSqDATION: 21.1 Read by title only and introduce an ordinance entitled: O]U3ZIiI, NeI NO. aNOnDINING! OF TH3ClTYQO~NOILOFTH3CITYOF TEMEC~LA, IN~JDING "l~ll OFFICIAL IONINg MAP OF laID CITY IN ClXANSE OF lOllS 2LPPLICaTION CONTaINED IN C~ANSE O~ ZOnE APPLICATION NS. 5446, C~ANQINQ ~HE IO1TE FROll (INDUSTRIAL PARE) TO CPB (SCENIC ~ISlIWAY COMXERCIAL) ON PROPERTY LOCATED ON ~o51 ACXES aT TBZ WElT SIDE OF ROAD, NORT~ OF WlNCEFaTER ROAD. 22 Development A~reement Procedures RECO~fi~ENDATION: 22.1 Approve a resolution entitled: RFJOL~TZON NO. tO- , A RESOLUTION OF TH~ CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECUEX REGARDINS D~VELOPMENT ASItEEMZNTB 23 Flood Control A~reement rot Mesa Homes: Trscts 24131, 24332, 24133, 24334 and 24135. Located North of HereaFteR and Seat of P~ba Road RECO~D~ENDATION: 23.1 Approve the Flood Control Agreement betveen Mesa Homes ~he Riverside County Flood control District and the City of Temecula 23.2 Approve the Memorandum of Understanding between Mesa Homes and the City of Temecula 23.3 Authorize the Mayor to execute the same. m Consideration of Extension of Ordinance 90-08, Establish~n~ a Xoratorium on Billboar~s. RECOHHENDATION: 5.1 Adopt an urgency ordinance entitled: OaDINialeE NO. 90- URGENCY ORDI!iI~NCE OF ~BX CITY COUNCIL OF TIlE CITY OF T~MECULX~ F. TTENDING l~ ICING O~I~CE NO S0-08 ~T~NING TO ~G~TZONB FOR OWDOOR' DX/~Y2 ~i~ TO ~ PROVZBZONB OF C~ZFO~IX GO~ CODE BB~ZON ISlSl{b) ~ ~ZNG B~ORT ~OF 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 Anneal No, 1, - F1Ot Plan No, 1~607 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:. Uphold the appellant'm appeal, subject to the recommendations of the City Traffic Engineer, based on findings and analysis contained in the County report. Approve Plot Plan No. 11607, based on the analysis and findings contained in the county Staff report, subject to=he 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 MuAoz to adopt an urgency ordinance entitled: OP. DZBDIaICl.NO. 10-09 · N URG~'ICY ORDINAtTOE OF TH~ CITY COUNCIL OF Tile CITY OF TEMECULA, EXTENDING INTERIM ZONING ORDIN~a~CE NO. 90-08 PERTAINING TO ~EGUIaTIONB FOR OUTDOOR ~VERTIBING DISPI.%YS PURSUanT TO ~ PROVISIONS OF CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65858(B) AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THeREOF The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: '5 NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBFRS-~ · ~ Birdsall, Lindsmarts, .. Moore, MuAoz, Parks None ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: 4 Chan~e of ~one No. a5446 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. 33'728 and approval of change of Zone Change Application No. 5446. Councilmember Mu~oz asked the reason 'for the requested zone change and what the possible impacts would be. Ross Gellet stated this was approved by the CoUnty some time a~o and consists of two parcels, one of which has an industrial building on it. He said the probable cause for the change o[ zone request is that the existing building w~s vacant for over a year. He advised that Mr. Larry Markum was available to answer questions regarding this request. Larry Markum, 'Markum and Associata~, stated utilities are 'a]ready installed, and this is an active plot-plan. }Is said the b~llding vacancy illustrates commercial usage is more appropriate for this area. Counc].lmember MuAoz asked what type of tenants would likely be housed in this building. Mr. Markum responded there wcu].d be some offices and some show room commercial. He said when the -S- 0811&1~ City Council Minutes June 5. 1990 parcel map was approved it was originally zoned commercial and later changed to IP. Councilmember MuAoz asked if this would impact the scenic nature of the area. i Mr..:.Markum said the building would have more glass and significantly more ldndscaping as a commercial rather than an industrial building. Be 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 Mufioz asked is the City Council could get assurance that this would not be full retail.~Mr..Markum said the builder would be required tosubmit a traffic study as part of the process of approving the plot plan. At this time the Council could condition the uses. Councilmember Mufioz said with the assurance of staff that the Council can look at the type of usage, he is in favor of this zone change. 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. lie 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 MuAoz expressed his desire to continue to give final approval to plot plans, especially for the next couple of months. Hjnutes%6\S\90 -6- 0811&190 City Council Minutes June 5, 1990 Councilmember Birdsall suggested directing staff to have the City Council review all Planning Commission decisions for the next six months. It was moved by Councilmember Birdsall, Councilmember Mufioz to approve Zone Change No. the negative Declaration for Environmental 33728. seconded by 5446 and adopt Assessment No. The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: .5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, 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. He said Don Peck oversees the agricultural water conservation program and great gains have been made through irrigation efficiency and education of growers. Also available through Rancho California Water District, are brochures on drought resistent landscaping listing over 200 varieties of plants and water saver kits (shower heads, attachments for toilets}. Mr. Henniger asked the City's help in disseminating this information. Hinutes\6~5\90 -7- 12 Resolution Designatlna the'Rlverslde:'CounwTmnsoortatlon Commission to Preoare the County Congestion Management Program 12.1 DireC~ ;,t~.ff to 'p~r~'i~si"~'uest'~ ~ep~'es~ntation by the City of Temecula on the Riverside County Transportation Commission. · , . ;. ~. ,~"' ..~-',.i~ ~.; ~...-.' '. .',.,. :q,,:';.-... · DES~GNA T~NG ~;~E~IVERS~DE~ , COUN~ . · TRANSPORTA RON COMMiSSiON ~ ~;~TO~;~REPARE;~T~E , COUN~ CONGESTION ~ .,. ::~. ,.:.: ,. :~ "; C~t .' ~ ~~;" · . execute the agreement.~:~,~ ' :~;~;,,~;,~ ~ .... "; ; ~', :':' ;;~:.~' ' ~; · "'. '~ '~-~ ', u'~q..' "" ' .' :~';~ ~:' .~',~:;~ ' ,~ ~;~:':"F;. ~:",, ' '.. ..- - ~..'.', :..;.~::n.;:J.- .':~ ~:-'u ..~- . · RECOMMENDATION: .~;:.~,~:;' ~.r't:~' ;?.~',;"':;:'," ~,'~': . . . L.;",.. -. ;. , ~ INANCENOj,'9~ISt .:~; ..:~ '. AN ~;':"; :: ''' : '~:~'-!~'~'(~r~ q~;.~"' :~',":' ~: ORDINANCE OF ~E C~'COUNCIL OF THE C~ OF ~MECUM, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF ~ID CI~ CONTAINED IN CHANGE OF ZONE APPU~RON NO. ~6, CHANGING ~E ZONE FROM I-P flNDU$~IAL PAR~ TO CP$ (SCENIC · HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL/ON PROP~R~ LO~D ON 6.51 ~CRE$ A T THE WEST SIDE OF YNEZ ROAD, NOR~ OF WINCHaSeR ROAD. ~A ~ENDA ? T~MECULA CITY COUNCIL - A REGULAR MEETING TEMECULA COMMUNITY CENTER AUGUST, 28,~. 1990 -:7:00 PM AUG27mE0 MARKHAM & ASSOCJ'4~,~ TEMECULA. CA 92 ~ CALL TO ORDER: Invocation: . Pastor Tim Rite~ · ' · ./""'-;~ ~;i~::i:,Ranch~' Christian ChiJrch ' ' ' ?~ ~ :~ :"~ ~ '~ 'i i :*' 'i. "," ·: ·. PRESENTATIONS/ PROCLAMATIONS Next in Order: Ordinance: No. 90-16 Resolution: No. 90-98 Birdsall, UndemanS,;Moore, MuAoz, Parks 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 Ageride. 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. .!:~..~ .~!.; . .. .. ;..... - ...."'~ ,." '. · ,.,.~.,%,,L'f.:~": ~:~:..:~'.~'~.,!.~/..,- ;~' ~i.,,!:· When you,are ~alled to 8peel~,.please come,forward a~l'~hstate your name and ~";~'~"" ,~.t"":' Cia~' "' "' ' ' ~='~ ~ ' ~ "' ;';'. ' . ' · ,~k~,~. :.... " """ .I.d ,he five (5) minute t melimit for Individual speakers. :,;~..~;':~.~:.:~.~..,~,';!~t..{,.· -:~: .. ' .;:;.~"::":':".":~', :Z:' '.."." NOTICE ~'~ TH~'~UBLIC 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, August 26, 1992 Mr. John Meyer The City of Temecula Plannin~ Department 431Y~ Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 RECEIVED AUG 2 8 1992 ............ Dear Mr. Meyer: I hope to attend the August 31, 1992, meetin~ and have artended some of the other meetings. My concern has been drainaRe mostly, alone with ocher infrastructure concerns. There are two areas I would llke 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 seejoE is the 1/2 to 1 acre type lots on flat useable land, under develonment in the City of Temecula. There are plenty of 2 1/2, 5, 10, 20 acre lots, but no family tvne larRe residential ranch "tract type" lots to choose from. I feel there must be a nreservation of*the open, roomy, ranch tvne life Style for ~he weekend cowboy and/or country family without hayJoE to take on the maintenance and un keen of a 2 1/2 to In acre place. The Plannin~ Department consideration would he to our communitv's benefit. 2. Over the PaSt 3 years, I have lived at 31625 DePortols Road. Inadeouate drainaRe has damaRed my DroParty and made much of it unuseable. I am two lots west of Mar~arita and lust north of HiRhvsv 79, where I am sure the City and your Department is very aware of the floodjoE onto Private home sites and out to Highway 79. Adiacent to .the above and a contributinR factor in the poor drainaRe layout is the culvert constructed under Snarkman Elementary School,. which drains between 24~ to 60~ acres of Palomar Del ~ol Develotnnent water waste. Some o~ ~hich I ouestion the purity Of. I am the last Dronetry do~rn stream and receive water flow daily since ~he completion of their Eradine. There no doubt needs to be modifications to addres~ this develoDin~ problem. I realize often a solution is found (like a storm drain dovn MarEari:a Dicklot un all of Palomar Del Sol and adiacent water vas~e and Roin~ under HiRhway 79 and on throuRh to Temecula Creek.) then fundinE such a nroiect is the next hurtle. I am addressinR the Senoral Plan because I feel that if we are lookjoE into the next 10 to 20 years that the lots Pa~e 2 August 26, 1992 Mr. John Meyer from my house to the corner of Mar~arita and south to Highway 79 should all be zoned co~=nercial property. Thus givin~ the: City the means of neRotiering and mandating develo~nent expeni=ures and added fundine for those badly needed and corrective measures. I also feel with the high impact of residential develo~nent adjacent Co this area Chat this would be of benefit to the community and tax payers on the south wes~ side and soon to be annexed east ward area. Your consideration and response would be apnrecisced. Sincerely, Don L. Rhodes 31625 DePortola Road Temecula, CA 92592 (714)69~-7539 September 15, 1992 RECEIVED 8CT1 1992 Arls'li 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 ~ract 3752 at the northeast corner of the intersection of Margarita Road and DePortola Road. with Margarita Road soon to become a major thoroughfare and the proposed commercial designations adjacent to the property, the 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 subject property CC: Temecula Planning Commission Gary Thornhill, Planning Director John Meyer, Senior Planner 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 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. 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 =hat the Bidden Bills area would develop along similar lines. With the very low density classification, Bidden HAlls 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 c~ty. It is also likely that pressure would develop for land uses that are not consistent with a residential area. We have already seen this cccur on Leifer 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 tracta of houses between Meadow~iew and Hidden Hills with lots as small as 7000 square fee=. To immediately jump from medium density to 2.5 acre lots does not make sense. I main=axn that there should be a transition from mealum 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 the city and please its residents. 39910 Jeffrey Bts. DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION 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 attended the Town Hall meeting on August 31st with the expectation that comments from the audience would be used to help ~nalize 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 llke: here it ...e've done our best. and you don't llke it be ,s to oi,t meetin, of the Commission and City Council. A number of people raised serious concents about General Plan that were treated like this. I did not see staff noting lhese concerns and was left with the impression that they were basically unrcceptive to any further changes. Several people addressed my concerns about the very low density residential classification. It appears that since the writers of the Draft General Plan could not control residential development in the many Specific Plans that have been approved. they want to stop it entirely in other areas by imposinpolots with a minimum of 2.5 acres. Th~'s was recommended even in areas already zoned r half acre lots. This objective to stop all residential development in thc m~reas not covered by specific plans is clearly shown in Tnblc 2-4 where no change in the number of dwelling units is expected under the General Plnn. As I have outlined in my letter to Mr. Meyer. this rigid 2.5 acres per dwelling units does nol make sense and will not contribute to the aesthetic beautv of the City. I urge you to seriously consider the impact of the yen., low density lan~ use classification in your meetings with the Planning Commission. Sincerel,x. Denni.~. Fitz Homct~wner 39Q10 Jcllrey Heights Rd. AGANA. GUAJVl 96910 TEL. {671 ) 646-7132 FAX (671) ~6-630~ TELEX 6160 R~)TH GM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION NJP/072 September 4, 1992 Subject: Public Bearing Monday/8-31-92 Temecula Town Hall and Plan Co Re-zone ~:he General Plan. r ECEIVED SEP I 6 1992 A.s'd ....... To: The Honorable: Patricia H. Birdsall, Mayor Ronald J, Parks, Forger Mayor Karel K. Lindeman's, Council Member Peg Moore, Council Member J. Sal Munoz, Council Member David F. Dixon, City Manager Reference: 1. Fax: (71~) 694-1999 Message from Dan and Denese Naron, 43350 Fermin Place Temecula, CA 92592, ~haC the subject Public Hearing and meeting had been held. 2. Representing Land Ovnership Below China Sea Development Corporation P. O. Box 3093 Agana, GU 96910 Tel: (671) 666-7132/1681 Fax: (671) 646-630~ THE INVESTOR Cost Cod~ Description of Land 904 905 907 906 APN ~945-080-01Q P/M #13889 Via E1 Delora, and Ornsby Road/Santiago Road APN #9~5-080-007-1 Parcel #1 of: " " " 008-2 Parcel #2 of: " " " 012-5 Parcel 14 Of: " " " 013-6 Parcel ~3 of: i.25 acres 1.35 acres. 1.12 acres 0.84 acres 4.56 acres 801 Santiago Estates Corporation 6363 E. Via Arboles Anahetm Hills, CA 92807 Tel: (714) 921-9721 APN #945-100-005 P/M 6607, Parcel 10, of: P/M 8804 Parcels I & 2 of: Located between Santiago Road and Pauba Road Fax: (714) 998-3622 20.50 acres 11.5 acres 32.0 acres NJP/072 Sap=ember 4, 1992 Page 2 802 903 ~2N t945-080-010 P/H 16705 parcel t3 of: TPH 25538 by Hike Benash (1/2 acre) wi=h '3650 SF Cue=om Home a= 30565 Eetero Street, Tomecull TPM 25538 (1/2 acre) 1.43 acres 80.~ 805 APN W945-080-010 P/H 16705 Parcel ~1 of: 1TH 24633 by Hike Benash (1/2 acre) with 3700 SF Custom Home st 30540 Escero Street, Temecula TPM 24633 ~stero Sorest. Tamsouls (1/2 acre) 1.43 acres Ovned by Dr. ChingLee 901 902 APN {945-080-010 P/M 16705 Parcel #4 of: TPM 25607 By MAke Benash (1/2 acre) TPM 25607 "' " " " was disapproved by the City 1.43 acres Approximately 40.85 acres Dear Madam flayor & Council Members: h has been brough= ~o my attention rha= the draft of =he General Plan as now recommended is co re-zone che presen= lo~ size from own lots per acre to lot size of two acres per lot. I object co this re-zoning to larger size lots for the following reasons and I hope that the Mayor and Che City Council in their collective wlsdom shall see fir Co agree and ~ha= my objections be regiscared a= the next Public Hearing. nmmely: Adjacent =o our: AYN/945-100-005 P/M 6607 Parcel 10 of 20.5 acres and P/M g804 parcels I & 2 of 11.5 acres = 32 acres. there are =wo lots: one.of 20 acres wlth approved tentative map Of I/2 acre lots and anogher of 11-1 acre approved lots, owned by: David Pearson - 1/2 acre loce x 20 acres Komar Sawh - I acre 1ors x 13 acres NJP/072 September 4, 1992 Page 3 We and other land owners have been working on an Assessmann Dis=ricE ~o up-grade and improve Santiago, Ornsby and John Warner Roads, =hat are a liability because of rheir poor unsafe condition, plus Santiago Road is planned plus needed as a main traffic ar=er~ =o Interstate-15. The draft General Plan to increase lot size is reducing the City and CountyEs tax base and ability =o up-grade and better Santiago roads and drainage. It will, if approved, retard growth and development of the infrastructure in =he Chapparal. Good City Management, I know will prevail in this recessionary period and it is reasonable for the City, State and Federal Governments no 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. Our family is a good example. SinCe 1988, we have invested ~,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 Eo re-commence building step by seep, im 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 entitlements the Santiago roads and infrastructure receives substantial ~inancial help from our continued investment in Temecula. Half acre lots are a substantial piece of property and in some cases more than a home ok~ner 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 ~eadow View Estates, located in Chapparal will enhance the City of Temecula and provide work and business for the people of ~emecula. Finally, if the new General Plan re-zones our land in the Chapparal to two acres per lot, then our S30,000,000 investment is no longer viable and our land shall sit idle inhabited by the occasional K-Rat, deeded =o our heirs, all of which shall not benefit the City oI 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 ~, ~992 Page ~ fur will agree with me, and · ~:- ~n n re , ~'- s'- ~' ~. N. J. Paine ~~ ' N~/jbp cc: Mr. John Meyer Planning Officer City of Temecula Bob Righetti Allan Marshall Chris Winchak Debbie Ubnoske Craig D. Kuiz Bobby & Judy Dan & Denese Naron David & Elizibeth Pearson Tony Terich Mike Benesh MB3/706 NjP/218 MARKHAM & ASSOCIATES Development Cons-llants 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, Change Zone 14) Dear Mr. Meyer: I am writing this letter to address my concern with the City.'s' Draft General Plan designation for the above parcel. It is currently designated as "Very Low Density" '(.5 DU per acre). The above map and change of zone was approved at City Council September 10, 1991. .The gross acreage is'3.68. The parcel is approved for (4) parcels with R-A 20,000 zoning. I feel that the best land use designation for this area is "Low" (2 DU/AC Max.) due to the fact that there are previously approved maps in this area with R-A 20,000 zoning. It is extremely compatible and would serve as a buffer to the Los Ranchitos home owners from the parcels to the North currently designated as "Low Medium". Thank you for your consideration. Please call if you have any questions or require additional informatrion. Sincerely, MARKHAM AND ASSOCIATES · .' / '~. ~ Sandra L. Finn Pro3ect Manager cc: James Meyler 41750 Winches,-r Road, Suit: N · Temecula, CaJifornia 92~90 · C/M) 6766672 · FAX 014) 699-184~ Mr. Roger- Jaeger 30978 Mira Loma Dr. Temecula, Calif. 92592 ~ept. 9,1992 City of Temecula Planning DeOt. 43174 Business Park Dr. Temecula, Calif. 92590 Mr. John Meyer Dear- Mr. Meyer I am writing to you with regard to the proposed zoning plan for- the City of Temecula. Specifically the area immediately adjacent and'to the East of Linfield School's property. Your plans are to zone this area as low density meaning 2~5 minimum acres per dwelling. I believe this area should remain as it always has as rural residential with a density of approximately one half to 1 dwelling units per- acre. Nearly all of the homes built in this area are on one acre parcels. I recently sold my previous home at 41995 Calle Cedral in the same area, which was on a net .8 Acres and bought a parcel on Posse Way which is a net 1.6 acres/gross 2.2 acres. I would like to split this parcel as 2 acres are more than t care to maintain. This area is totally surrounded by tract homes. Values of homes in this area run from the low 200's to the high 300's. Houses are comparable to the Meadowview area which has primarily 1/2 acre lots. People who purchase homes in this price range typically can not afford the expense of landscaping and maintaining 2+ acres as say people who live in areas zoned like the Rancho Santiago or Los. Ranchitos areas. Those areas will sustain homes in the 600 to 700 range where people have the financial resources to groom and care for 2.5 acres. This area will never support those kinds of relative values. If left as is I would invision cheaper homes on large lots left unlandscaped in the middle of town creating eyesores. Please reconsider your- current plans and zone this area accordingly. Additionally I believe that the city has neglected to create enough 1/2 to 1 acre custom home areas in Temecula. These particular size lots make really nice residential areas as demonstrated by Meadowview. Currently it seems that you either have to buy a tract home or a mansion with not a lot of choices in between. Thank you for your- consideration, RECEWED S,;p ~ : T,:'~, September 10, 1992 Dave and Sue Paton 40303 Walcott Lane Temecula,Cal 92591 714-699-8979 City of Temecula 43174 Business Park Dr. Temecula,Cai ,92590 Attn. John Meyers Re: Zone change for lot size requirements Dear Mr. Meyers, We purchased our home in December of 1991. When we were investigating the purchase, we were shown swat maps of projections of the area as planned and approved by the city. Basically it stated that the lots could be divided down to half 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 headng in reference to a 80 acre parcel d~rectly across the street from our property. One of the owners, Mike Lundln. 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 ionget go under two and one haft acre lots, we became very confused and upset. How can this happen when it is directly 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, w~th a sea of houses on small lots surrounding us ! Our intentions when we purchased this five acre property was to subdivide to half acre parcels as we were told could be done. We dico~ submit a Tentative'~,,\arcel Map ( # 26563), and when were informed the vast array of expenses and improvements needed to split the property the city told us that the mason for the exorbitant costs in constructing a mini freeway in this pert of.Temecula was that there needed to be an emergency access to al! 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 geffing a royal runaround. Why does this problem exists ? We want nothing .more than to simply submit our tentative parcel map for the half acre parcels and do as our neighbor contractor was granted. By changing the General Plan, we are assuming that these 221 homes are not going to be built. On top of all this. the property which we purchased now is even less versatile which decreases the value. Do we assume your 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 ! 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 heanngs concerning this area where we live as we were asked to at the General Plan meeting last week at the library. S~ncerely Dave and Sue Paton RECEIVED OCT 0 ~ 1992 CITY OF TEMEC/JLA 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 1614 North Quince Upland, CA 91786 September 11, 1992 Mr. John Meyer Planning Department City of Temecula 43174 Business Park DriVe Temecula, california 92590 SEP ! /992 Freeway Lot Dear John: I understand that the city is working on a new general plan. I have about three acres in Los Ranchitos on Vallejo. It is next to the Rancho Community Church and runs between ValleJo and the freeway. I have had several people contact me about buying the property. The problem is that because I amen the LoS Ranchitos association, no one will pursue the purchase because they are quickly made aware of the few individuals in the tract that want absolutely no use other than a home on the proper~cy. My property is severely undesirable as a home site because of being next to the freeway and all of the as~0ciated noise. The general plan could designate the area for uses that would be compatible with Los Ranchitos, if not even enhance it. (A community hall, senior citizen activity center, church, etc.) Please 'let me know if I can come down and meet with you or attend a hearing. My parcel number is Lot 9, Tract 3552. Max Trenkle 'V" M.O. 56/6'3-~'~ M.B, 597100 RECEIVED SEP 15 1992 Ans'd ............ September 11, 1992 Mr. John Meyer Planning Deparnnent 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 Dear Mr. Meyer: I own a 2.75 acre parcel of land within the Temecula city limits ne~t 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 fami]y seeking peace and quiet. It just does not make any sense any longer. 'l'be properly falls within the Los Ranchitos Homeowners Association, therefore, the CC&Rs for that tract 3552 apply. Unfortunately, in the last 25 years or .so, since those CC&Rs were adopted (September 1966), the highest and best use has changed from a single-family 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. Mr. John Meyer September 11, 1992 Page 2 I would enjoy the opportunity to meet with a representative from the city to discuss what might be accomplished in eonjunclion with the city's desire to create a general plan that meels the needs and requirements of the 90's and not the 60'~ Please telephone me at your convenience at 676-5736. Thank you very much. Sincerely, Steve Snow SS:dm I I '{eraper Real F,~ate Management Company 28765 Single Oak Drive, Suite 200, Temecula, California 92590 · 714/676-5641 · Fax 714/676-3385 P.O. Box 9016, Teml~-ula, California 92S89-0736 September 11, 1992 RECEIVED 5Ep151992 Mr. Gary Thornhill Director of Planning CITY OF TEI~C~ 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 Ans'd ............ RE: GENEP~ PIa&N I~Q~EBT Dear Gary: I have reviewed the City's.designation.for the properJzy 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, BEDFOR]) DEVELOPMENT COMP/~ Gregory A. Erickson Area Manager i'1,' \ ·// ,/ ...///' PROPOSED HIGH SCHOOL 6 BUS MAINTENANCE FACIUTY APRIL 13, 1992 J,N. 400354 JOHNSON + JOHNSON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION September 14, 1992 Mr. John Meyers City of Temecula P.O.Box 3000 Temecula, CA 92390 RECEIVED SEP 15 1992 AWd ............ 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 recpaestthis 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 D~an'K. Allen President JOHNSON + JOHNSON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION' 27450 %hcz Suite 200 Tomecub. CA 92591 ( 714 ) b76-1(~O4 F,~X ( 714 ) 69~-31 ]7 September 14, 1992 Mar. John Meyers city of Temecula P.O.Box 3000 Temecula, CA 92390 RECEIVED 5EP I 5 lg'::i Arts '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 yo~ may have. Sincerely, JOHNSON + JOHNSON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION Dean ]<. Allen President MARKHAM & ASSOCIATES Development Consultants September 30, 1992 John Meyer Senior Planner City of Temecula 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 RECEIVED OCT 0 1 1992 CiTY GF TE.'.:;:CBi .. 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.I 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 zoned.as I-P (see attached exhibits). we would like to include both 059 and 060 to be designated as Service Commercial (both are a portion of parcel 2 of parcel map 19677) on the City's General Plan. Due to the fact that parcel 1 (including the park & ride lot), parcel D (flood control channel) and the northerly portion of parcel 2 (059) are zoned CPS, I feel it only sensible.to.include the southerly portion of parcel 2 (060) into the Service Commercial designation. T.hank you for your consideration. Please call if you have any questions or require additional information. Sincerely, MARK,HAM AND ASSOCIATES · '/, ,'.-/,~'. j' - />/," ',' L* Sandra L. Finn Project Man. ager enclosures 41750 Winchesmr RDad, Suit- N - Temecula, CaJifonm 92590 · O14) 6'76-66'72 · FAX ('714) 699-1848 Notice of Public Benfine THE CITY OF TEMXCULA 43172 Business Park Drive Temecula, California 92390 A FUBLIC HEARING has been scheduled before the CITY COUNCIL to consider the marter~s) described below. Cue No:. L"l'mnge 'of Zone No..5446 Applicant: MDC - California Location: West side of Yna Road at the mus of County Center Road Proposa/: Change existing ~P zone on 6.51 acre site to CPS Environmental Action: Negative DeclanIion Any person may submit writlen comments to the City Council before the bearing(s) or may appear and be heard in supporl of or opposition to the approval of the project(s) at the time of hearing. If you challenge any of the projects in court, yau may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public bearing(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 counter, Temecula City Hall, 43172 Business P~k 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 hearing(s) are as follows: PLACE OF HEARING: DATE OF HEARING: TIME OF HEARING: Rancho C'tifornia Water Distric~ Communily Room 28061 Din, Road Tuesd~,. June 5. 1990 7:00 PM A-2-20 C-P:S II II ~, ,/I m MARKHAM & ASSOCIATES lik'v~lopment Consulmats 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 SpeCkfic Plan Community in its currently approved form. Please also note that this Plan has a developers agreement. Thank you for your consideration. Please call if you have any questions or require additional information. Sincerely, MARKHAM AND ASSOCIATES /Sandra L. Finn Project Manager enclosures 417~0 W~nchester Road, Suile N · Temecuh. Csiifomis 92590 · C/M) 676-6612 · FAX C714) 699-1848 i~ 1 2 4 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 !5 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 ~llle of Ordinance No. 348. plxnnina Area 17. (Historical Commercial A) (1)' The uses permitted in Planning Area 17 of specific Plan No. 223 Shall be the same as those uses permi[ted in Article IXb. Section 9.50'of Ordinance No. 348 except t~at 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 lXb. Section 9.53 of Ordinance No. 348. (3) Except as provided above. all other zoning requirements shall be the same as those requirements identified in Article XXb of Ordinance No. 348. r. Plannina Area 18. (Historical Commercial B) (1) The uses permitted in Planning Area 18 of Specific Plan No. 223 shall be the same as those'uses permitted in Article XXb. Section 9.50 of Ordinance No. 348 except 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 of Specific Plan No. 223 shall be the same as Chose standards identified in Article IXb. Section 9.53 of Ordinance No. 348. -1S- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 i! 12 13 14 15 16 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 (3) Except as provided above, all other zoning requirements shall be the same as those requirements identified in Article IXb of Ordinance No, 348, s, Plannine Area 19, (Commercial Area A) (1) The uses ~etmitted in Planning Area 19 of Specific Plan No, 223 shall be the same as those uses permitted in Article IXb, Section 9.50 of Ordinance No, 348, In addition, the permitted uses identified under Section 9,SO(a) also shall include congregate care residential facilities, (2) The development standards for Planning Area of Specific Plan No, 223 shall be the same as those standards identified in Article IXbo Section 9,53 of ordinance No, 348, (3) Except as provided above, all other zoning requirements shall be the same as those requirements identified in Article IXb of Ordinance No, 348, r, PlanninQ Area 20, {Commercial Area'B) (1) The uses permitted in P.lanning Area 20 of Specific Plan No. 223 shall be the same as those uses permitted 348, of Specific in Article XXb. Section 9.50 of Ordinance No. The development standards for Planning Area 20 Plan No. 223 shall be the same aS those s.tandards identified in Article lab, ordinance No, 348, (3) Except aS provided above. requirements Section 9,S3 of all other zoning shall be =he same as those requirements 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 Section 3. This ordinance shall after its adoption. identified in Article IXb of ordinance No. 348. u. planning Area 21. (Business Park) ~ (1) The uses permitted in Planning Area 21 of Specific Plan No. 223 shall be the same as those uses permittedin Article XI. Section ~1.2 and 11.3 of · Ordinance No..348 except that the uses permitted pursuant to S~ction 11.2(c)(1) through (17) shall not be permitted (2) The development standards for Planning Area 21 of SpeCific Plan No. 223 shall be the same as those standards identified in Article XI. Section 11.4 of Ordinance No. 348. (3) Except as provided above, all other zoning requirements shall be the same as those requireme'nts identified in Article Xi of Ordinance No. 348. ta~e effect 30 days BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA -ATTEST: GERALD A. MALONEY Clerk of the Board BY: Depu~F (SEAL) Chairman -17- October Z, ~992 RECEIVED OCT O 2 1992 Ans'd .......... City of TemeculaPlanning Commission 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 Attention: Mr. Meyer Approximately one year ago we received notice in the ~11 that Mr. Vanderwall was requesting city permission to sub-divide 4 acres into 1 acre parcels. We were asked to express our opinions and concerns at that time. This is exa~ly what I did (see attached letter). We opposed the split for fear it would generate more mobile homes into the valley, which we oppose. We also expressed concerns about the maintenance of the road due to the extra. traffic. This was of concern to me because I'm the one that grades the road during the rainy season end 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 1 & 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 vet7 much. Only 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 lAbrat[ regarding the cities proposed general plan. The area where I live and own two parcels of property was discussed very briefly. The comments were"it was a difficult area and that no immediate 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.vers, 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. Vanderwall was allowed to only 15 months ago, against my protests? Page Two October 1, 1992 City of Temecula Planning Commission 43174 Berries Park Drive ~emecula, CA 92590 Attention: Mr. Meyer I urge the city to give this area mere consideration, the ares is surrounded by rolling hills sad vineyards. This could be sa exclusive art o~T/~,y with your help, inc Reb, / ~'~ham/ RG/Jw not · dumping ground. Attachment Cert. Mail No. P 791 172 198 Jtme 20, 1991 43180 Business I'a=k Drl~e Tm~-culxo Ca 92390 Case No: C~-Ze of Zane No. 15/7en~Clve Y~rcel Nap No, 26488 (cz No. i~/~ 2~88) Gentlemeu: We o~n the 2t acres Co the south, adJo4w4eg Vn-. Vandarsm11's properry and 5 acres across the street froa the sou~tsC corner of the V~uder.~ll proper~y. Our m~jor coucern is whether ~he p1=,~4,~ Cc,~-4estou plane to ~ose a ho~e o~y restricted. All o~ ~e ~o~tes s~ of ~. V~e~v~11 's property ~ve cu~ h~s b,,~3~ ~ ~. Noah ~ ~s~ of ~e prope~, ~he area ~ spattered ~h ~b~e ~, ~ of ~ch ~e ~ se~ou need of up~ep. bsC ~ve ~3eg~ b~ ~ she~ ~ch ~e u eyesore ~o the area. ~ocher conce~ ~ ~c does the Fq---4-g ~st~ p~ ~o do ~h the road? ~lo~g a proper~ sp~ ~]q g~eraCe ~re ~r~ ~ o~ d~ road. ~ i~ s~ds n~, I pers~-~y (~h ~ help fr~ ~e net~rs ~d cer=a~l~ no~ ~r~ ~he ct~) F~e ~ (1) ~e of ~4r~ r~ ~o ~ =h2 accessible dur~K ~he racy sm~- ~re traffic ~ cru~e ~re ~ork ~or me. ~ls ~ noC ~c I PaY rn--s for. In s,~ry, ve smuld not oppose the property sp].it prov~a~-g r~e Commission paces ~u irrevocable ehomes onlyw restriction on r. he property and providing the city is cc-~{Cced ~o aC least malncen~-ce of the road ff paving is noC a consideration. If the above concerns are' noC incorporated xs coudtCious Co Che split, ve then adan~u~ly oppose t~ subdtv~slon. Si~3cerely, ob ~--e Corkam P. O. Box 1680 40095 Valcoct T~e Temecula, Ca 92390 Certified ~ail No. P754 681 484 Notice of Public Hearincl THE CITY OF TEMECULA I;3180 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92390 A PUBLIC HEARING has been scheduled before the-PLANNING COMMISSION to consider the matter(s) described below. Case No: Applicant: Location: Proposal: Change*of Zone No. 15/Tentativ~ Parcel Map No. 26~,88 (CZ No. 15/TPM 26q88) Mr. Jay Vanderwall Southeasterly corner of Walcott Lane and Calle Chapos Zone change from R-A 2-1/2 ( ResidentiaI-Agricul.tural 2-1/2 Acre - Minimum Parcel Size) to R-1-1 (Single Family Residential, I acre minimum parcel size) and subdivison of 4.5 +/- acres into ~ 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 hearingIs) described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearingIs). The proposed project application(s) may be viewed at the public information counter, Temecula Planning Department. 43180 Business Park Drive, Monday through Friday from 9:00 AM until z~ :00 PM. Questions concerning the project(s) may be addressed to Mr. Charly Ray, City of Temecula Planning Department, [71u,) 69~-6u,00. The time, place and date of the hearingIs) are as follows: PLACE OF HEARING: DATE OF HEARING: TIME OF HEARING:. ~::: forL~,~Ei Vail Elementary Scheol Auditorium 29915 Mira Lame Drive, Temecula, CA Monday, July 1st, 1991 6:00 p.m. ""'j;" 2 J ENGINEERING VENTURES LAND PLANNING e CIVIL ENGINEERING e LAND SURVEYING October 27, 1992 RECEIVED 0Cr271 E Mr. John R. Meyer, AICP City of Temecula 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 Re: APN: 914-300-076 Parcel 1, PM 13923, PM 58/49 Acre Parcel on Walcott Lane Temecula, California Dear Mr. Meyer:' Engineering Ventures is formally requesting, for and on the behalf of Mr. Robert' J. Gotham, 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 lend 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 guestion". Engineering Ventures requested this land use density utilizing proper and reasonable land planning guidelines. This request is compatible with neighborhood uses and ideals. We will attend the public hearing meeting, regarding this general plan request, to answer any questions or comments you or the City staff may have. Please 'do not hesitate to call if you have any comments. Sincerely, Ra.ndol. ph F. Fleming, E. Prlnclpa~ Enclosure Anita L. Miller Project Coordinator z~35C)O RIDGE PAI::IK DI:=IIVE. SUITE EO2 '"' TEMECULA. CA 9259C) - (714) 699..6450" FAX 599-3569 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 proposaPs specific merits is contained in the following project analysis. Land Use Coml~atibility 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. 26~88 (e.g., CZ 56631, TPM 25212) have allowed subdivision of land at densities similar to that requested by this proposal. Further to the · south, land has been subdivided at even greater densities in conjunction with larger scale tract home developments. Additionally, the recommended· Southwest Area Plan density for the subject site is 1-2 dwelling units/acre. Densities at the lower end of this range are considered appropriate at present .' ·pending extension-of necessary support services, primarily roads and sewers, to the area in question. As such, the proposed change in land use designation allowing residential subdivision of property at a density of one dwelling unit/acre is considered compatible with land use(s) currently in the vicinity of the subject site. Access Legal access to the site as a whole is provided by dedicated City rights-of-way, e.g., Walcott Lane and Calle Chapos, both of which are currently recommended as 65~ width right-of-way dedications adjacent to the subject site (reference Exhibit D} . Both road frontages as well as the cul-de-sac indicated on Exhibit D will be improved to provide all weather access prior to occupancy of residences which may be eventually constructed on the proposed parcels. Improvement of affected rights-of-way per Schedule H map standards will, as a minimum, be bonded for prior to final map recordation. A: PM26u,88 I~ Adequate access exists for the proposed residential land use from Walcott Lane and Calla 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 MaD No. 26488 The proposed Parcel Map will not have significant negative impact on the environment, as determined in the Initial Environmental Assessment prepared for Tentative Parcel Map No. 26488. 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 CityJs 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 p6tential 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, 460, California Governmental Code Sections 65000- 66009 ( Planning Zoning Law ), and Government Code Title 7, Division 2. A:PM26488 7 10. 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 contai ned 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: PM26~88 8 Trans-rscLfic Tel {'l,t) 6'6 - TO0o Fax (71-~) 6¢N - P,-t13 April 2.8, 1992 'Mr. John Meyer, Senior Planner City of Temecula 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, California 92.590 RE: Butterfield Station 18.9 Am Commercial Property (A.P.N.'s 952-200-002, 011, 012 and 013) Dear Mr. Meyer: On behalf of our client, Mr. Emil Nowak, I artended the April 16, 1992 General Plan Workshop. Upon examining the proposed "preferred plan" land use allocation map I observed that the above referenced property had received a General Plan designation of 2 dwelling units per acre. 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 properly 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 strate~ to pursue relative to procuring the' C-P-S zoning designation. Planning Staff conceded that the most logical use of the property was commercial. However, Planning Staff was initially hesitant to take the case forward, due to the fact that in the absence of a plot plan there was no mechanism to condition a stand alone change of zone and therefore no means of' insuring the site would develop in a high quality manner in terms of architecture, landscaping, site design, etc., (see attached correspondence dated October 23, 1991). Mr. John Meyer April 2,8, 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 unt~ the City of Temecula adopts a General Plan and then proceed with the stand-alone change of zone request providing the subjeeL site ultimately receives a favorable (commercial) general plan land use designation. Commit to a plot plan at this juncture with sufficient land' use and 'architectural detail to convince the decision making bodies that a commercial development is the highest and best use for the subject site and can be achieved without sacrificing land use compat~ility. Prepare architectural/landscape guidelines in lieu of an up front commitment to a plot plan. The guideline package would run with the change of zone approval and provide the necessary controls to ensure that future developments are of high quality in terms of architecture, landscaping, site design and compat~ility. Our client elected to pursue the change of zone request via the architectural/landscape guidelines alternative. Enclosed for your review is a copy of the guidelines which were submitted to City Staff. In all of our meetings Planning Staff conceded that given the site's location relative to circulation issues, available infrastructure and area development trends, the only practical use for the subject site was commercial. Our client has invested a considerable sum of money into this effort based on Planning StafFs conditional support of the commercial zoning designation. It is acknowledged that nothing is ever a sure thing and our client has always stood a chance .of having lhe 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 withoul 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 texl is anticipated for resubmina] by mid-May, 1992. Mr. John Meyer Apr~ :28, 1992 Page three The subject site is located within the Rancho Villages Assessment District (A.D. 159). The majority of ~he properties participating in A.D. 159 are now within the City of Temectfla. Although the District is st~l being managed by · the County of Riverside, the City of Teme~ala has adopted and accepted the District as the financing mechanism for infrastnlcture improvements within the State I-Iighway 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 reach'ly 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 Tcmecula 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 sul~ject site is located within the State Highway 79 Corridor which exhibits an established pattern of urban development primarily within the context of Master Planned , Communities. Within a very conservative primary market radius of 2.5 miles, there are approximately 18,000+ dwelling units in combination of existing developments and entitlements, (see area development exhibit contained herein). Applying a factor of 2.4 persons per dwelling unit a population of 44,083 persops-are projected within the State Highway 79 Corridor at build- out. 2.4 persons per dwelling units x 18,368 d~lling units = 44,083 corridor population - In terms of size, configuration and location, the subject site Irepresents a community commercial facility. Community level commercial centers are generally located on sites ranging from 15 acres to 30 acres in size and require a population base of 35,000 to support the facility. Given the projected Mr. John Meyer April 28, 1992 Page four construction of 18,368 dwelling units within the Highway 79. Corridor exclusively, ther= will be sufficient population within this limited area alone to support a community l=vel commercial c~nter 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 From a circulation/transportation pcrsigctivc, 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 respectivelyat 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 QfState Highway 79 that have vehicular access to the Butterfield Station Commercial site without needing to utilizing the highway. The site is located in what can best be described as the urban fringe. This condition provides the site with some rather unique opportunities relative to probable future commercial uses. In this regard, it is anticipated that the ultimate commercial center development will possess commercial components in combination of conventional retail, tourist oriented retail, in addition to rural oriented uses such as feed stores, tack and saddle shops, etc. Given the unique combination of commercial opportunities this site affords, the property lends itself extremely well to a 'Mllage" pedestrian oriented development scheme. An example of this concept can be found in the aforementioned guidelines. During the come of our meeting~ with Planning j i.! i' i t i i rJ !t Ii il Mr. John Meyer Apr~ 28, ].992 Page five Staff it had been expressed numerou~ times that the City is leaning towards the %illage" 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 'Mllage" 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 2].2. Ve~ truly yours, Assistant Dzr~;ng DAJ:lmm Enclosures CO: Mr. Emil Nowak, Applicant Mr. Ernest Egger, TPC Mr. Gary Thornhill, City of Temecula [NI)l ~;'I'RIAI. (2t)M~.IERCIAI. PROPI!RTIt{~, · September 22, 1992 RECEIVED SEP 2 5 1992 bs'd. .... 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. 2~769) and the 30 acre property to the north (Parcel 3, of Parcel Map No. 21769). Please refer to enclosed authorization ~etter. 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, "~he Park @ Rainbow Canyon", we ~ad a meeting with Mayor Ron Parks, City Manager Dave Dickson and Planning Director Gary Thornhill. At that meeting we presented our concept'which was favorably received because of the overall community beneflt 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. Sandalwood Cartie. Murr,eta, Cahlornsa 92562 · (714) 699-7777 · Fax (714} 698-9223 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 ~ould 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 33]00 Pauba Rd Temecula, CA 92592 Thank you for your time and cooperation. Sincerely; ./ Phillip Jones Project Manager. cc: Saied Naaseh 2-5 DU/AC ,/ ,/ ~ -., pICKAN ~ , / INDIAN_ ., .i. BIIIBVATI 01 -,r, / I RECEIVED OCT 19 1992 Arts '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 fam/ly fun center. If the General Plan would allow these use in the policies, we would not have an objection to this. I would like to review any policies in draft form when available. When Dr. Grewal purchased Parcel No. 3 (the 30 acre landfill site), she accepted the responsibility of the landfill clean-up. The parcel was already zoned.R2 but she felt a more compatible use with the existing golf course and proposed waterpark would be more appropriate. Our intentions for this site are to develop a destination commercial project which would include a hotel, restaurants and other. family recreational uses. We feel the Highway/Tourist Commercial designation would be the appropriate designation. If this is not an acceptable deslgnation, we w{ll keep the existing R2 zoning and work within those allowable uses. As far as Parcel No. 1 (the 177/- 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 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 planniAg 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 Project Manager cc: Saied Naaseh October 6, 1992 Mr. John Meyer Senior Planner City of Temecula 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, California 92590 RE: Temecula General Plan Draft Preferred Land Use Plan (Tentative Parcel Map 25981, Change of Zone 14) Dear Mr. Meyer, I am writing this letter to address my concern with the City's Draft General Plan designation for the above parcel. It is currently designated as "Very Low Density" (0.5 DU per acre). The above map and change of zone was approved at City Council April 2, 1991. The gross acreage is 3.10. The parcel is approved for 3 parcels with R-A 20,000 zoning. I feel that the best land use designation for this area is "Low" (2 DU/AC Max..) due to the fact that there are previously approVed maps ~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, W~lliam Kouvelis 30675 Pauba Road Temecula, California 92592 (714) 676-2502 RECEIVED OOT 1 i5 1 9P-. ~'IX OF October 1, 1992 John Me er, Senior Planner CITY O~r 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 residentitarzoning. The property was purchased in October of 1989 w~th 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 Commiss~on to designate a ortion of the parcel for office/commercial use and the balance of the site would be ~ft as open space. This designation request was accepted by the County under the South West Area Plan. Shortly after the South West Area Plan was adopted by the County Board of Supervisors we were told by the County that our zone change and buildin a plications would have to be submitted to the newly incorporated City If "~Pemecula. ' Seeing the stun of economic recession in earIv 1990 and after several meetimzs with planrang consultants in Te~mecula we 0ecided'to wait for a while before. stani:ag to build our building. We felt that time would be needed for the City to settle some of it's traffic problems and decide whether or not to propose the western corridor road which would have a substantial effect on our property. We could also use some time to see how the economic recession would effect our advertising business. Now that we are secure with our business and ready to consider expansion, we are faced with the problem of zoning designation with the City's proposed eneral plan. By zoning this parcel medium residential this totally eliminates our ability to use the ropetry for our intended purpose and greatly disheartens us as to the thought of fc~cating our advertising business in Temecula. The only alternative we will have is to sell the property to an apartment building developer and after some investigation in this direction we find this to be an impossibility. 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 Cit~. The only ~/pe of renters who would be willin to live on this site, which is located xn 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~u3ol Street. This site has a great deal of exposure which we are attraaed to by bein in the advertising business. The site Ls highly visible from many areas of the aty and it would be detrimental to the surrounding property owners and the image of Temecula to build apartments here. We sincerely request that you reconsider your proposed general plan designation and zone this property for office commercial use. Sincerely, / BK:rmr October 5, 1992_ RECEIVED OCl'0 8 1992 Mr. John Meyer Planning Department 43174 Business Park Drive Tcmecula, CA 92590 Ans'd...-- ....... Re: APN ,4/922-170-001 Dear Mr. Meyer, I havc acquired a 2.83 acre parcel of land within the Temecula city limits at 28915 Vallejo Drive next to the 1-15 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 usc the property to enhance Los Ranchitos, such as a church, tennis club, day carc center nr cc~mmumly hall. Plc~.,c gn c me a call at the above number to discuss the possibilities on this parcel.' Slnccrcl',, 'LINDAL. CEDAR HOMES, INC. B~ll Bnnvn. Western Regional Mgr. October 6, 1992 RECEIVED OCT 7 U ~': Mr. John Meyer, Senior Planner City of Temecula 43174 Business Park Drive Tcrnecula, California 92.590 RE: General Plan Designation Applied to Assessors Parcel Number 911-150-005 (H-C Property) Dear Mr. Meyer: On behalf of my clients, Mr. Jim E. Shimozono and H.C. Properties, I have examined the "Draft Preferred Plan"land use designation as it relates to the above referenced property. As of this writing, the Draft General Plan reflects a medium residential designation (12 DU/Acre maximum density) over the subject site. As the City of Temecula's General Plan efforts continue to progress, on behalf of my clients we respectfully request that the above referenced property be given a neighborhood commercial land use designation and offer the following for your consideration. 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 6.702 acres falls within the 10 acreage criteria as described by the Neighborhood Commercial designation General Plan policies. Mr. John Meyer October 6, 1992 Page two 0 The subject site has an appropriate size and configuration to support a low intensity neighborhood orionrated commercial development. A low intensity mixed use commercial development at this location is entirely cOnsistent with b-~isting r~sidential 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 2t3. With respect to the encouragement of pedestrian uses ~'iteria; 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. 16~) 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 intensh, e commercial land uses consistent with the community commercial land use description and criteria. Mr. John Meyer October 6, 1992 Page three o Therefore, it is our opinion that the Neighborhood Commercial designation currently applied to the Roripaugh Estates Commercial component is inappropriate and .should be redesignated to reflect the community commercial designation. Once the Roripaugh Commercial site has been redesignated as community commercial the prospect of having excessive' contiguous neighborhood oriented commercial property in the area will no longer be an issue. The subject site is located within Assessment District No. 161, (Winchester .Properties). AD 161 consist of properties within the unincorporated areas of Riverside County in addition to areas within the City of Temecula and the City of Murrieta. Although AD 161 continues to be managed by the County of Riverside, the City of Temecula has adopted and accepted AD 161 as the financing mechanism for infrastructure improvements within the Winchester Road Corridor north of the Interstate-15 freeway and south of Auld Road. As I am sure you are aware 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 fou~ 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 increus'mg the likelihood of s,~essment.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 hnd 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 muster planned communities. Within a primary market radius of 2.5 miles, there are approximately 6,747 dwelling units in combination of existing residential developments and entitlements. In addition there is also a significant amount of property within the market radius which has an industrial zoning designation and/or industrial specific plan designation. Applying a factor of 2.4 persons per dwelling unit a population of 16,192 individuals are projected within the aforementioned 2..5 mile market radius at buildout. 2.4 persons per dwelling unit X 6,747 dwelling units --- 16,192 market radius population. As previously indicated neighborhood level commercial centers. are generally located on sites of 10 acres or less. In addition~ neighborhood commercial centers as a general rule of thumb require a population base of 2,500 to support the facility. Given the projected construction of 6,747 dwelling units within the 2.5 mile market radius exclusively, there will be a sufficient population to theoretically support six (6) neighborhood centers. it should be noted however, that within the subject site's 7..5 mile market radius there are only two (2) additional properties which meet the neighborhood commercial criteria one of which is within an area of the Winchester Properties Specific Plan (S.P. 213) that is located outside of the Temecula City boundary. Mr. John Meyer October 6, 1992 Page five Thank you for your consideration in this matter. We look forward tO the continued progress of the City of Temecula's General Plan. Should you have any questions and/orconcerns with respect to our request, please dO not hesitate to contact me at extension 212. very truly yours, / DAJ:lrnm Enclosures cc: Mr. Jim E. Shimozono, Architects Design Consonium MU~RiETA ~07' Tm (S.P. 164) City of Temecula Draft General Plan Current "Preferred Plan" Designation (Medium Density Residential) Requested "Preferred Plan" Designation (Neighborhood Commercial) --.Op~Spa~ N Not to S4:3Je Tmns-racific Ans'd ............ LORENZ ALHADEFF & OGGEL October 7, 1992 6961.1026 HAND DELIVEPRD 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 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 Batty 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 "Escarl~ment 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 BAND DELIVERED October 7, 1992 Page 2 LORENZ ALHADEFF & OGGEL with a map showing the condition of the Rainbow Canyon Property after such' realigr~ment. We have previously advised Dave Dixon that we would negotiate in good faith to convey a portion of the Rainbow canyon Property for wetlands mitigation. Obviously, Kemper needs to discuss this issue further with the City, but it is my understanding that a.draft letter of intent is being prepared in this regard. Kemper is asking the City (i) to designate both portions of the Rainbow Canyon Property lying on either side of Pala Road (as realigned) as Community and/or Neighborhood Commercial, and (ii) for help with the State to obtain appropriate ingress and egress to the Rainbow Canyon Property in connection with the realignment of Pala Road. 3. Marcarita Canvon PropertY. This property is located at Interstate 15 and Front Street South. We believe the current Neighborhood Commercial designation should be extended from Front Street South to the creek along the Interstate 15 frontage. 4. Escarpment Property. This property is located on the hillside west of the International Rectifier site. We would like the City to limit the current Community Commercial designation to the approximately three (3) acres adjacent to Rancho California Road, and to designate the remainder of the Escarpment Property as Business Park. We would welcome the opportunity to discuss these issues with you further at your earliest convenience. !n the meantime, should you have any questions or concerns regarding the above, or the enclosed outline, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, Samuel- C. Alhadeff, ' P.O. , of LORENZ ALHADEFF & OGGEL pdo (keq~er.gq~|n) cc: Gary Thornhill ~M~ER REaL ESTAT~ MAH~GEM~T COMPANY 4 PROPERTIES ]&FF~CTED BY PROPOSED LAND USE DESIGNATIONS DRAFT TEM~CULA GENERAL PLaS 4 Properties aZfected by Draft Genera/Plen: (a) Northeast corner of Winchester and Margarita Roads (the eMeadows Property"); (b) (c) (d) Southwest corner of Highway 79 and Pala Road 'Rainbow Canyon Property"); Interstate 15 and Front Street South (the "Margarita Canyon Property")~ and Hillside west of International Rectifier (the "Escarpment Property"). (the current SWAP Designations: (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 lend use designations for 3 of the 4 properties: (a) Meadows Property maintains Industrial designation. Portion of Meadows Property to be used as new high school. Remainder of Meadows Property would be ideal for commercial designation; (b) Rainbow Canyon Property would be part Neighborhood Commercial and part Low Medium Residential (3 to 6 units per acre). With realignment of Pala Road, both properties are ideal for commercial designations; (c) Margarita Canyon Property would be part Neighborhood Commercial and part Very Low Residential (.2 to .4 units per acre). Because this property is located between Interstate 15 and (d) the creek, it is not well suited for residential development. Commercial designation should be ex~cended from Front Street South to the creek along Interstate 15; and Escarpment Property would be Community Commercial. This is an appropriate designation for approx~mstely 3 acres at Rancho California Road. Business Park designation would be more appropriate for remainder of Escarpment Property. Requested Actions (e) 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. LORENZ ALHADEFF & OGGEL October 19, 1992 O( T 2 0 1952 CITY OF TE.Z~ECU~ 6961.1026 BAND DgLzvgP~D 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 Dear John: This is a supplement to my previous letter to you dated October 7, 1992. In reviewing t/le land use component of ~he Draft Temecula General Plan, we have determined there are several additional properties (identified on the Map attached hereto) owned by Kemper Real Estate Management Company ("Kemper") that should be considered for land use redesignation by the City of Temecula as follows: 1. 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 proper%y consistent with the Business Park designation shown for the surrounding proper%ies. 2. Winchester Hiahlands Business Park Property. Kemper owns three remaining lots in the Winchester Highlands Business Park, which is designated Professional Office on the Draft Preferred Land Use Plan. Consistent with the existing Zoning in place, and consistent with existing uses in the Business Park, Kemper would like these lots redesignated to Business Park in order to allow for manufacturing activities. such a redesignation would permit ~he likely manufacturing uses contemplated for these properties, along with professional office uses as well. 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 a 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 Commercial, with the remainder of this property remaining Business Park. This would preserve the Business Park character of the area, while allowing for appropriate commercial uses along Jefferson. 5. Rancho California Business Park Property. 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 Del 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 comer of Rancho California.and Ynez Roads. I believe this property is also a part of a specific plan, and for LORENZ ALHADEFF & OGG John R. Meyer, AICP Oc=ober 19, 1992 Page 3 consistency purposes should be redesignated Highway/Tourist Commercial and Professional Office. I would welcome the opportunity to discuss these properties wi~h you at your earliest convenience. In the meantime, should you have any questions or concerns regarding the redesignation we have requested in connection wi=h these propericles, please do not hesitate to cell me. Sincerely, PDO/js cc: Dennis Klimmek, Esq. Greg Erickson Csaba Ko Lisa PeterSon, Esq. Batty Burnell Samuel C. Alhadeff, Esq. Samuel C. Alhadeff, P.C., of LORENZ ALHADEFF & OGGEL August 7, 1992 Mr. Gary Thornhill Director of Planning CITY OF TBMECULa 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 re,testing 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 show11 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.' PZease let me know what further information you may require regarding these properties. Sincerely, BEDFORD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY Gregory A. Erickson Area Manager 2;~765 Sin,~lc Oak Drive, Sunc 200 Tcmccula. CA 92590 Phone: 7 14/676-5041 Fax: 7141676-3385 C~L41~ 9: - 'TEl October 5, 1992 J'N 168-074 John Meyer City of Temecuh Planning Depamnent 43174 Business Park Dr.. Temecuh, CA 92590 RE: RANCHO HIGHLANDS GENERAL PIAN DESIGNATION Dear John: Attached, pleese find an excerpt from the Rnncho Highlands Specific Plan which pertains to the Office Professional portinns of the Rancho Highlands Specific Plan. As you can see from the text I have provided, and as we have discussed in our ~cem 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 cunznt configuration. The futu~ configuration and character of the open space area on that comer will only be determined in conjunction with future plot plan submittal, for office professional uses on that comer. I think it is important that the Genera] Plan recognize the ~ekibility and uncertain nature of the open space area on this comer and on the southwest comer as well. As you my or may not be awarD. 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 thai what exists now will remain for the long t~rm future. I would suggest this be handled through a textual notation in the final version of the General Plan which would save both the City and the Developer significant headaches in the future. If you need further information, or if I can be of any help otherwise with regard to this rn~ter, please dnn't hesitate to ask. Very truly yours, T&B PLANNING CONSULTANTS, INC. 'B~-~ Bumell Principal RECEIVED BB:und/O0? xc: Sam Aihadeff Greg Erickson Dennis Kiimmek 0 .'*. T i 7 Am'd ............ Verv 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 Specifio 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 n,,mher of dwelling units has been reduced from 20 to a maximum of 17 dwelling units per acre to better reflect market concerns and to increase private open space within multi-family Planning Areas. Overall, the approved Specific Plan shows 18.3 acres to be developed with residential land uses at a density of 10-20 du/ac. This Amendment proposes that 22.5 acres be developed with very high density residential development (14-20 du/ac), representing a 4.2 acre (12%) increase. Total dwelling units for Planning Areas 3, 4/5, 6, and 7 increased by 17, from 366 to 383 (8%). These Planning Areas have been reconfigured slightly to accommodate a better road system which is. configured as a loop with a larger radius than previously shown. Please note that no density transfer of residential dwelling units shall be allowed between Planning Areas within the Rancho Highlands Specific Plan project area. b. Office/Professional Development This Amendment proposes two locations for development with office/professional land uses, one of .which remains un- changed (Planning Area 1), however the other site (Planning Area 2) has been ex~anded~ Total acreage has increased by 3 acres, from 11.8 to 14.8. The office/professional portion of the site centers around two lakes adjacent to Rancho California Road. These lakes may be modified or reduced once the actual site plan has been determined. These planning areas will be comprised mainly of medium intensity office/professional uses that are intended to complement the Plaza, a retail commercial development north of Rancho California Road. Hotel/restaurant uses may also be allowed within the office/professional uses. Please refer to the land use .regulations and development standards in Section III.B., Planning Area Development Standards. 15 A.J. TERICH 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 ChaC 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 and R-5. Mr. Firestone, the property owner, respectfully requests that .the zone change which he applied for and obtained be recognized and adopted as a parr of the City°s General Plan. However, Nr. Firestone would be amenable a 50/50 split of I.P. and high density residential and hereby requests that the high density, if applied, would nor be restricted by height. Your consideration will be appreciated. Very truly yours, A hony J'.~erich A~/sm co: John Firestone Gary Thornhill City Council Planning Commission -I l,n 1 MAIX STREET · TEMECULA, CA 92590 · (714) 676-5715 / (714) 676-5716 · FAX (714) 676,.6306 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, Muf~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 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 and all will be enacted by one roll carl 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, PUBLIC HEARINGS Any person may submit written comments to the City Council before a public hearing or may appear and be heard in support of or in opposition to the approval of the project(s) at the time of hearing. If you challenge any of the projects in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing or in written correspondences delivered to the City Clerk at, or prior to, the public hearing. 12 Chanee of Zone No. 5631 - Vestino Tentative Tract No. 25320 Property located north of Pauba Road, between Ynez Road and Margarita Road. RECOMMENDATION: R 2.1 Continue the Public Hearing to the meeting of December 10, 1991. 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 R-5 ON PROPERTY LOCATED .ON THE WEST SIDE OF RIDGEPARK DRIVE AND SOUTH OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD ~ND 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 N0. 5740 CHANGING THE ZONE FROM R-A-20 TO I-P AND .4-5 ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF RIDGEPARK DRIVE, SOUTH OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NOS. 940-320-020 AND 021. EXHIBIT "A" T.~GAL 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 RI~'ERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, MORE pARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: R-5 ZONING BEGINNING 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 SOUTH 51'47'51" EAST DEPARTING SAID LINE A DISTARCE 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.O5 FEET TO THE SOUTHWESTERLY CORNER OF SAID PARCEL 20; THENCE NORTH 31'23'58" WEST ALONG THE BOUNDARY LINE OF SAID PARCEL 20 A DISTANCE OF 684.92 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. THE HEREIN DESCRIBED PARCEL OF LAND CONTAINS 28.39 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. IP ZONING COMMENCING AT THE NORTHWESTERLY CORNER OF SAID PARCEL 20, AS SHOWN ON SAID MAP:' THENCE NORTH 47'36'58" EAST ALONG THE BOUNDARY LINE OF SAID PARCEL 20 A DISTANCE OF 617.95 FEET: THENCE DEPARTING SAID LINE SOUTH 51'47'51" EAST A DISTANCE OF 130.76 FEET TO A POINT ON THE BOUNDARY LINE OF SAID PARCEL 20, SAID POINT BEING THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE NORTH 82'01'31" EAST A DISTANCE OF 679.55 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHWESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF KATHLEEN WAY, AS SHOWN ON SAID MAP; 1 THENCE NORTH, 64'46'46" EAST A DISTANCE OF 33.00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE CENTERLINE OF SAID KATI{LEEN WAY, SAID POINT BEING A POINT ON A CURVE, CONCAVE NORTHEASTERLY, HAVING A RADIUS OF '400.00 FEET AND A RADIAL WHICM BEARS NORTH 64'46'46" HAST; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY, ALONG SAID LINE AND ALONG SAID CURVE, THROUGH A CENTKAL 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 SOUT~ 00'25'37" EAST A DISTANCE OF 33...00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHWESTERLY RIG}{T 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" NEST; THENCE NORTh'WESTERLY, 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. 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 Chat the City seriously ~onsider redesignating the subject property to a mixed use of commercial, light industry end office. In Mr. Firestone°s opinion, the professional office designation is too large Co be used in the foreseeable future with the abundance of vacant office space now available. A~y 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 Alan #940-320-002 is intended to reflect =he steeR na'thral 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 hlgh density residential designation to the South be redesignated as 411 ~qh density with no height restriction. 4]934/vtAIN STREET · 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 designation 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 October 2e, 1992 Hr. John Hyers *Planning Department City of Temecula Temecula, California RECEIVED Dear Hr. Hyers, We have been made aware recently of certain changes that may occur in the City's General Plan regarding our property located at 3332e Highway 79, Temecula, CA.. Assessment #g5215eee3-5. 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# I. In 1982 we were compelled by the CoUnty to change the zoning from Agricultural zoning to Commercial, if we wanted =o continue to sell produce from our building. We paid all the fees necessary to change the zonlng so that we could continue our business. 2. During =he last le months, we have been in the process of leasing our present buildings to rotall businesses. We have stressed to them that if their business grows that they will have the opportunity to move into · new complex referring Co our future plans regarding the.property, and its present' commercial zoning.' If the property ~as rezoned on the General Plan to residential i= would restrict our ability to continue to lease =he property and restrict the expansion of any business =hat exisrs. 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 tha= any new City staff members would agree with the future concept. 3. The commercial property (9.61 acres) on the corner of Highway 79 and Butterfield Stage ad., was assessed by Assessment District #199 on the basis of · Commercial zoning. It would appear to us that down-zoning the property would create a problem both from =he standpoint of monies already paid and the responsibility of monies to be paid in the future. 4. Another concern ChaC we have is the facC Cha~ a decision hy the CjCy Council in Soyember of J~ge, has been preempced and an additional 2e acres has been placed in the Sphere of Influence v~chouC.our Snowledge. We believe we have valid concerns ChaC would Jeopardize our business, asvell as o~hers in =he bujlding. We feel Cha= i= would he grossly unfair Co rezone property just nor=h of us =he= have no= gone Cbrough~he public hearing process nor have paid any zone change fees. We also feel chac if you were =o down-zone our proper=y, t= would place us in 'double jeopardy' forcing us Co reftle for :ommercial zoning and having ro pay the fees twice. we would apprecla=e your considers=ion on our concerns. [ours very truly, James Ooro Meadowview Community Association ~vember 2, 199'2 RECEIVED NOV Ans'd ............ Mr. John Meyer, Senior Planner Planning Department City of Temecula 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, California 92591 Re: General Plan Land Use Designation In reviewing the General Plan Land Use Designation Map, we have noted the following inconsistencies: Parcels within the Meadowview Homeowners Association, east of Ave. Sonoma and north of Margarita should be shown as very low residential density, not medium low density. The common area of Meadowview ahould be the same density (very low) as the rest of the development since it is 'jointly owned by each of the other lots in the Meadowview development (currently rural residential throughout). The portion of the proposed Campos Verdes Specific Plan adjacent to Meadowview should be low medium density (as is the Roripaugh development) to provide consistent transiLion ~o the lower density Meadowview development. We request to review the above issues and make the requested changes in the Draft General Plan Use prior to submission to the city council. co: Dave Dixon Gary Thornhill City Council Planning Commission Meadowview Board of Directors RO. Box 788 · Temecula, California 92390 · (714) 676-4429