The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About040395 PC AgendaAGENDA TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION April 3, 1995, 6:00 PM Rancho California Water District's Board Room 42135 Winchester Road Temecula, CA 92390 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Ford ROLL CALL: Blair, Fahey, Slaven, Webster and Ford PUBLIC COMMENTS A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address the commissioners on items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Commissioners about an item not listed on the Agenda, a pink "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and flied with the Commission Secretary. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name and address. For all other agenda items a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the Planning Secretary before Commission gets to that item. There is a three (3) minute time limit for individual speakers. COMMISSION BUSINESS 1. Approval of Agenda 2. Approval of minutes from the March 6, 1995 Planning Commission meeting. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS Case No.: Applicant: Proposal: Planner: Recommendation: Nicolas Valley Special Study (PA94-0098) City of Temecula The study examines issues that relate to the future development of the Valley. The study will present potential land uses alternatives. Craig Ruiz Recommend to the City Council No Change in Land Uses within the Study Area Case No.: Applicant: Proposal: Planner: Recommendation: Development Code City of Temecula Review of the Development Code John Meyer Approval to City Council Next meeting: Johnson Ranch - April 17, 1995, 6:00 p.m., Rancho California Water District's Board Room, 42135 Winchester Road, Temecula, California. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION OTHER BUSINF~S ADJOURNMENT R:\WIMBERVG\PLANCOMM\AGENDAS\4-3-95 3/30/95 vow 1 ITEM #2 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 6, 1995 A regular meeting of the City of Temecula Planning Commission was called to order on Monday, March 6, 1995, 6:00 P.M., at the Rancho Califomia Water District's Board Room, 42135Winchester Road, Temecula, California. Chairman Steve Ford called the meeting to order. PRESENT: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: Fshey, Slaven, Webster, Ford Blair Arrived at 6:10 PM NONE Also present were Planning Director Gary Thornhill, City Attorney Peter Thorson and Joan Price, Recording Secretary. COMMISSION BUSINESS 1. ADDroyal of A;enda On a motion made by Commissioner Slaven and seconded by Commissioner Fahay the 8genda was approved. The motion carried as follows: AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Slaven, Webster, Ford NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 2. Plannine Aoolication No. 94-0131 (Plot Plan) - Temecula Museum Matthew Fagan, Assistant Planner, presented the plan for the Temecula Museum. A finding was made that the project which is consistent with the City's General Plan. Staff recommends approval. The wording "to be constructed in two ohases" is to be stricken from the proposal. Commissioner Webster asked if this building was subject to school building fees as a commercial building. The consensus was that the project was subject to school fees; however, other arrangements could be worked out with the school district. R:%Minutee~O30695.pc 1 Temecula Iqannina Commission March 6. 1995 Commissioner Ford asked about the difference in square footage on two sets of plans. Staff responded that the second floor had not been taken into account on the document Commissioner Ford was referring to. Commissioner Ford requested that for the record this should be so noted. Also the parking spots reserved for the Fire Department should be noted. Russell Rumensoff, 27349 Jefferson, Temecula spoke to the Commission regarding conditions requiring clarification as to parking areasldrivewayslcurbsAandscaping. He stated this is the responsibility of the City as it is the scope of the Master Plan. Staff was requested to revise//32 in "Conditions of Approval" to be added "not orooosed in the Master Ran' and//37 to be added "not proposed in the Master Plan'. Planning Director Thornhill stated that a lease agreement would be drafted and all terms would all be made clear. It was moved by Commissioner Fahay and seconded by Commissioner Blair to approve the Planning Application N. 94-0131 -Temecula Museum. The motion carried as follows: AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Slaven, Webster, Ford NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None Planning Aoolication No. PA94-0095. Conditional Use Permit and Planning ADolication No. PA94-0097, Tentative Parcel Mao Assistant Planner Craig Ruiz presented the staff report. Commission Chairman Ford excused himself from the panel on the basis of a possible "conflict of interest" and Commissioner Fahey presided as acting chairperson. Sam Marasco, representative of the applicant, addressed the Commission and thanked everyone involved for the informative workshop concerning this project. William W. Barrett, 45549 Corte Narbone, expressed the residents' need for a community shopping center. David Lopez, 31921 Calla Tiara, spoke in favor of the shopping center. Valerio Garrett, 32146 Corte El Dorado, spoke in favor of the shopping center. R:~Minutee1030695.l~ 2 Temecul8 Plannine Commission March 6, 1995 Linde Wright, Temecula spoke in favor of the project. COMMISSION INPUT Commissioner Slaven asked staff to work through on changing the primary colors. Commissioner Blair had a concern with the large parking lot and asked staff to work through this. After discussion the following items were recognized as changes everyone could abide by: No sign to be illuminated. Elimination of primary red and blue color except the blue stripe on the Chevron station and the red on the Ralphs sign. Additional landscaping in the perking lot. Shops F and I, to be constructed at the same time as the theater/Major Four building. Attractive benches as respite areas along main drive aisle. Facia on theater/Major Four constructed to appear as several small buildings. Shopping cart collection areas to be made more attractive by Ralphs. MacDonalds canopy to be styled to fit in with the entire center. Pedestrian walk-way approaching from the southwesterly corner of the center. It was moved by Commissioner Blair and seconded by Commissioner Slaven to approve the Planning Application No. PA94-0095CUPand Planning Application No. PA94-0097,Tentative Parcel Map. The motion carried as follows: AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Slavart, Webster NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSTAIN: I COMMISSIONERS: Ford Chairperson Fahey called for a recess at 9:20 p.m. The meeting of the Temecula Planning Commission was reconvened at 9:30 p.m. with Commissioner Ford presiding. 4. Nicolas Valley Special Study {PA94-0098) Associate Planner Salad Naaseh-Shahry presented the staff report which highlighted the background for the study. Representatives from NBS Lowray presented the draft opportunities and constraints analysis and the alternative land uses for the Nicolas Valley. R:%Minutee%O30695.pc 3 Temecda Rannine Commission March 6. 1995 PUBLIC HEARING The public hearing was opened at 10:00 PM Dennis Fitz, 39910 Jeffrey Hights Road, stated he was in favor raising density and wants the study to go forward to find alternatives for the property in Nicolas Valley. Helen Lasangna, P.O. Box 1136, spoke against raising density or paving the roads in Nicolas Valley. Tom Koleuch, 5433W. 117th Street, Inglewood, spoke in opposition to increased land use in Nicolas Valley. C. E. Edwards, 39675 Nicolas Road, spoke in opposition to increased density. Vic Deforest, 39675 Cantroll Rd., opposed development for economic,, environmental and other reasons. Jerry Montante, 31606 Calla Geresol, was in favor of a possible change in land use due to proposed build-out in the eastern portion of the study area. Lynn Owen, P. O. Box 1991, Nuevo opposed change in the area of Nicolas Valley. Ron Rauch, 25301 Cabot Rd., Lagun8, acting as spokesman for owners of nine parcels in the Nicolas Valley stated the group would like to have a separate increased land use designation for their parcels. The public hearing was closed at 10:20 PM Commissioner Slaven asked that staff provide information on the emergency vehicle passage way on the dirt roads in Nicolas Valley. Commission concerns for staff investigation were as follows: · Alternatives in density · Roripaugh/Johnson Ranch status · Current Assessment Districts and how the changes in future roads will be funded. · What standards are included in the Master Plan · Clarification on how A,D. 161 was formed · Status on flooding and elevation It was moved by Commissioner Blair, seconded by Commissioner Slaven to continue this matter to April 3, 1995. R:%Minutes%O30695.p¢ 4 Temecula Planning Commission The motion carried as follows: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: 5 COMMISSIONERS: 0 COMMISSIONERS: 0 COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT March 6, 1995 Blair, Fahey, Slaven, Webster, Ford NONE NONE Planning Director Thornhill reported on the following: Data will be received on the school mitigation plan issue on the 28th of March. City Council conducted the first reading of the Vendor Ordinance for approval. Council has awarded the contract for user fees. Janet Brock has been hired as the Main Street Coordinator and the Planning Department is looking forward to working with her. PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION The Commission asked staff to request the Traffic Commission look into the abuse by motorists making "U" Turns by the Wells Fargo Bank on Ynez Road. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner Fahey and seconded by Commissioner Slaven the meeting be adjourned at 10:40 p.m. to a Johnson Ranch Workshop, March 13, 1995 6:00 p.m., Vail Elementary School District's Multipurpose Room, 29915 Mira Loma Drive; Temecula, California. Next regular meeting, March 20, 1995, 6:00 p.m., Rancho California Water District's Board room, 42135 Winchester Road, Temecula, California. R:%lVinutes~O30695.loc 5 ITEM #3 CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: FROM: DATE: Planning Commission Gary Thornhill, Director of Planning~~' April 3, 1995 SUBJECT: Continued Public Hearing for Planning Application No. PA94-0098, Nicolas Valley Special Study Prepared By: Craig D. Ruiz, Assistant Planner RECOMMENDATION: RECOMMEND to the City Council that no Changes be Made to the Land Use Designation within the Nicolas Valley Study Area. BACKGROUND The Nicolas Valley Special Study was previously heard by the Planning Commission at their March 6, 1995 meeting. Planning staff and the City's consultant presented the report and the Commission heard public testimony before continuing the item to the April 3, 1995 meeting. Prior to .continuing the item, the Commission directed staff to respond to concerns raised by the Commission and members of the public at the April 3, 1995 meeting. DISCUSSION Public Services Commissioner Slaven exl~ressed concern regarding the provision of public services in the Nicolas Valley area due to the unpaved roads. Goal 3.1 of the Public Safety Element of the General Plan requires that the City ensure the provision of adequate facilities and police and fire service personnel. The current City requirement is that paved, all-weather access be provided for new development. At the present time, during situations when the roads are impassable, the residents do not receive adequate public services (trash, fire, police). Potential Reouirements for Johnson Ranch and Rorioaueh Ranch Commissioner Webster requested that staff provide the Commission with the infrastructure requirements for the Johnson Ranch Specific Plan (SP) and the Roripaugh Ranch SP. The Johnson Ranch SP draft conditions of approval require the developer to provide for two-lanes, paved, all-weather access on Nicolas from Joseph Road to Butterfield Stage Road. The Roripaugh SP is still in the initial stages and draft conditions of approval have not been prepared for the project. However, staff anticipates that, at a minimum, the Roripaugh Ranch SP will have a similar two-lane, paved all weather access requirement as the Johnson Ranch SP (resulting in four lanes of improvements in total). R:\FORMS\KEMO 3/30/95 kLb 1 Assessment Districts Members of the public and Commission raised questions regarding the existing assessment districts in the area and the requirements to form a district. The Nicolas Valley study area does not lie within an Assessment District. The nearest Assessment District (AD), AD 161 ends at the westerly boundary of the study area. However, there are City-wide assessments that the City does charge property owners through their property tax bill. These charges include: Operation and Maintenance of City parks, facilities, programs and activities; Service Level A, arterial street lighting, medians, and traffic signal lighting; and Service Level D, refuse collection and recycling. As for the formation of an assessment district, a majority vote of the property owners is required. At the last Commission hearing, some members of the public stated that, in the case of A D 161, many property owners were unaware they were within the District. Generally, large land owners form assessment districts to fund the improvements for future subdivisions. · These newly subdivided parcels then become part of the assessment district. As required by the State Department of Real Estate, the seller must provide the buyer with a disclosure statement (White Report) indicating that the land is within an assessment district. Unfortunately, it is possible that buyers either do not completely read their White Report or may not understand the implications of being within a district. Flood Elevation Difference for Nicolas Road Commissioner Ford requested that staff determine how high Nicolas Road would need to be elevated to be removed from the 100-year flood plain. Neither the City nor the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) have done a detailed analysis of the limits of the 100-year flood plain. However, based upon preliminary information, staff estimates that Nicolas Road would need to be elevated a minimum of three feet on average to be elevated out of the flood plain. Access Restriction on Nicolas Road Commissioner Ford requested that staff provide information regarding how the General Plan access restriction requirement would affect current and future development along Nicolas Road. While an existing legal parcel along Nicolas Road would be allowed to take access from Nicolas Road, future subdivisions along Nicolas Road may, as a condition of approval, be required to provide an alternative access or create a single public/private access road to several properties. General Plan Circulation Several Commissioners questioned how it is determined that certain projects are constructed by the City while other projects are not. As part of the City's annual budget process, the City prepares a Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for the provision of public improvements over five year period. Projects are scheduled based upon a priority ranking system ultimately approved by the City Council. Projects are ranked Priority I (highest) through Priority 4 (lowest). For circulation projects, all Priority 1 projects are again ranked by their priority. The CIP circulation projects in the Nicolas Valley include the Walcott Corridor (Priority 1 ), Nicelee Road (Priority 4) and Butterfield Stage Road (Priority 4). Ih\FORMS~MEHO 3/30/~5 ktb 2 Reauest for Hiaher Density As shown in Attachment No. 2, a representative for the property owners of Study Areas G & J is requesting that this area receive increased density {Medium Residential, 7-12 Dwelling Units Per Acre). The representative feels that this designation would be both a logical extension of the existing single family development to the south of Study Area J, and would facilitate the necessary infrastructure improvements need for the area. In reviewing this request, staff has examined the land use patterns in this area. While Study Area J is bounded by single family "tract" housing to the south, the study area is also bounded by R-A-2~ zoning (2 ~ acre minimum parcel size) on the north, east and west. It is staff's opinion that the creation of an "island" of medium density residential development among R-A-2~ parcels would create inconsistent land use patterns. Also, the development to the south of Study Area J ends at the top of a ridge. The ridgeline creates a natural topographical boundary for the Study Area. Therefore, staff does not support this request. CONCLUSION As stated in the March 6, 1995 staff report, it is staff's opinion that the Nicolas Valley could support an increase in land use intensity. However, based upon the input of the majority of area residents, it is staff's recommendation that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that the Very Low Residential Land Use Designation for the Nicolas Valley remain unchanged. Attachments: March 6, 1995 Planning Commission Staff Report - Blue Page 4 Letters Requesting Increased Density - Blue Page 5 R:\FORMS\NENO 3/30/95 kLb .3 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 MARCH 6, 1995 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT R:\FORNS\N~NO 3/30/~5 ktb 4 FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: !~rming Commi~on CaW Thcrr~ill, Direotor of Ptanning~~ March 6, 1995 Planning Application No. PA94-0098, The Nicoias Valley Special Study Prepared b~ Czaig D. 'Ruiz, Assistant Ranher RECOMMENDATION: - 1. IM:tq)MMEND that the City Council Receive the Special ;' Study Report end ~ no Change be Made to the Land Use Designation within the Study Area BACKGROUND The Nicolas Valley is located in the northeasterly limits of the City. The area boundary is roughly Joseph Rood in the west, Butterfield Stage Rood in the east, approximately 100 0 faet north of Ijefer Rood in the north and the northern edge of the Tierre BriMs and Pavilion Home developments to the south. : The Nic'olas Valley Study area consists primarily of 2½ acres parcels, consistent with the zoning for the area. The Study Area is approximately 650 acres in size, with approximately 150 individual property owners and 240 individual parcels. Over the past few year~. there has been 'typical" single family home development (one family homes. 7.200 square foot parcels) to the West and South of the study area. In addition, them is similar single family development proposed for the areas to the North and East (Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan and Johnson Ranch Specific Ran}. When the City of Temecula adopted the General Plan, Nicolas Valley was given a land use designation of Very Low Residential, .2-.4 dwelling units per acre. However. prior to the adoption of the General Plan, some Nicolas Valley residents expressed a desire to have a higher density land use designation for the area. Thus. when the Gensrel Ran was adopted, the area was designated as a Special Study Overlay. The overlay designation was intended to allow staff to re-examine the carrying capacity of land to determine what the appropriate land use designation should be. Ultimately. the study was intended to provide a framework for future development of the Valley. Should the study determine that an increased land use intensity is appropriate, staff would then initiate a Gecerel Ran Amendment. In March of 1994, the Planning Department issued five Requests-for-Proposal (RIP) to planning firms in the Tamecues area. In response, the City received three proposals. After a prelirninsry screening of the proposals by staff, a consultant election committee was established. The committed was comprised of the Director of Public Works, Director of Planning, and the Senior Piannsr. Base upon the committee'e recommendation, the City Council awarded · professional earvices contract to the consulting firm of NBS Lowry in October of 1994. DISCUSSION in analyzing the carrying capacity of the Valiey, the study area was divided into 4 major sub- areas (See Attachment No. 2). Sub-areas were ide.;:;'nld by way of major road divisions, distinct topography, or parcel and study area limitations. The sub-area were orated to allow a grouping of common areas together which can then be evaluated based upon a fixed set of issues. The subsme ere: Ares I in the southwest quadrant of the study area; Area 2 is located along the Valliy floor; Ares 3 is the northerly petion of the study area; and Area 4 is located in the southeeaterly portion of the study are. The first major task of the Study was for the consultant to develop the Opportunities and Constraints Analysis (OCA). The OCA examines such issues as: lind use density, traffic and road improvements, drainage improvements, sewer and water improvements, and the impacts of surrounding development, Each iasue was evaluated to determine, as the name implies, where development may or may not be suitable (See Attachment "4"). Once the OCA was complete. the next step was to develop lind use alternatives. The consultant and staff then developed four lind use alternatives (See Attachment '4, Exhibit 2'). Alternative "A' prom l& acre development along the valley floor and 2~ acre development in the neth and south hill side areas. This alternative would pv&emliIly allow 742 dwelling units. Alternative "B" would allow ½ acre development along the vetliy floor and 1 acre development in the north and south hill side areas. This alternative would patend.ally allow 944 dwelling units. Alternative "C" would allow ~ acre development along the valley floor and ½ acre development in the noah and aouth hill side areas. This alternative would potentially allow for 1888 dwelling units. Allera "D' would be no change to the existing land use designation. in addition to the above asks, a goal of the Study was to discuss what the residents of the Valley envisioned for the future of this area. TO this end, staff held two public workxhopa with area residents. The firat meeting was held in December of 1994 end was artended by approximately 65 people. At this meeting, staff and the City's consultam presented the preliminary opportunities and constraints analysis and diso-_amld the existing and proposed development for the surrounding ames. At the conclusion of the workshop, staff took an informal poll of the meeting mendMs to assess the residents views on future land use designations. Staff determined that approximately 1/3 of the attendees wanted no change to the land use designation, 1/3 would consider "some" increased land use designation end 1/3 were undecided, pending further information. A second workshop was held in FebmaW of 1995 which was eftended by approzj,,mtsly 35 leopie. The second meeting further discussed the oppoftunide and constraints of the am and discussed various land use alternatives. in addition, staff provided prefiminaW information on costs for various levels of street and drainage improvements. Specifically, rough cost estimates were provided to cotrob uct heff4tmet improvementsto the circulation elirnent reds within the study am and for drainage improvement, to Sam Gertrudli Creel STaff stated that ff Them were no increases in lind use dea'goatio~s, or no funding ,,,cchenik,e were ide,,~;;i, ed to provide the above improvements, the roads would continued to be unimproved 2 end the drainage problems would continue. At the conclusion of this meeting, the overwhelming majority of attendees were opposed to any increase in land use intensity. As mented at 'the wodaho~, the OCA ~.t,.,,,;,h.;.:J that even the most constrained ereas, h hillside payoff of Areas 1,3 and 4, could absorb increased land use intensity. Typically. pamela of a heft-acre of 0remar do not require sewer improvemerits. Therefore, any land use intensity graoter then 2 dwelling units par acre would not require the installation of sewer lines. As for street improvements, ell subdivisions require half-section street improvements. in addition, subdivisiop.~ of one-acre or less would require additional paved access to the · nearest publicly mainreined street (Subdivision Ordinance No. 460). Finally, drainage improvements would be dependent upon esch developments impsot and proximity to a particular drainage course. As an addition note, in 1994, the Depa,L~,ent of Public Works conducted two mail suneye of the residents in the area of I.iefer Road, The purpose of the surveys were to determine if the residents of the eme were imamstad in forming an mssment d;ab'~ for purpose of improving Uofer Road.' The majority of ~e reapondents indicated they did not wish to form an aseesemeot district. CONCLUSION The Special Study has dotereined that the Nicolas Valley could support an increase in lend use intensity. However, the anticipated cost aseonimad with any increase in land use imansit:y greater than one dwelling unit par acre would make such an increase cost prohib'~ve at this time. Therefore, the alternative would be to allow for a density of one dwelling unit par acre. in contrast, it is clearly the opinion of the majority of the Valley residents (those who have contacted staff) that they do not support any increases in land use intensity. While this opinion may represent a minority of the overall total number of land ownam within the study area, staff considers their input to be significant. Therefore, based upon the input of the area residents, it is staff's recommendation that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that the Very Low Residential Land Use Designation for the Nicolas Valley remain unchanged. Attachments: 2. 3. 4. 5. Study Area Map - Bus Page 4 General Plan Land Use Designations of the Study Area - Blue Page 5 Draft Opportunities and Constraints Analysis -Bius Page 6 Letters Opposing Increases in Lend Use Designation - Blue Page 7 Letters Supporting Increases in Lend Use Designation - Blue Page 8 L'~T~ANA~ ~ kl 3 --i~IICOLAg -V~ Y ,I.EY .... SPF~L ST[J'DY A]I~,~ BOUI~AllY DRAFT O~t a ,-~ AND OON.~'1RAEal~ ANALYZE -~ NICOLAS VAII I=y SPECIAL STUDY OVERLAY AREA Draft Report March 2, 1995 TABLE OF CONTENTS II. III. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................ I INTRODUCTION ....................... ; ............. 3 BACKGROUND ...................................... 5 Location ...................................... 5 Existing Setting ................................. 5 Proposed Land Use .......... ' ..................... 5 Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan ....................... 7 Ares end Subarea Units ..................... ' ....... 7 IV. JURISDICTION ..................................... 10 Existing and Proposed Circulation .................... 10 Existing and Proposed Parks and Open Space ............ 1:2 Existing and Proposed Public Facilities ................. 12 PHYSICAL ........................................ 15 A. Area 1 B. Area 2 C. Area 3 D. Area 4 VI. ENVIRONMENTAL ................................... 20 A. Area 1 B. Area 2 C. Area 3 D. Ares 4 VII. LAND USE ALTERNATIVES ............................ 23 Land Use Alternatives ............................ 23 Preliminary Cost Evaluation ........................ 24 VIII. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION ................... '30 EXHIBITS 3. 4. 5. 6. Lociion lisp ................... Opportunity and Constraints - I ....... Opportunity and Constmirrm - 2 ....... Land Use Alternative A ............. Land Use Alternative B ............. Land Use Alternative C ............. ..... 8 .... 11 .... 27 .... 28 .... 29 TABLES 1, Land Use Alternatives ................................ 26 'INTRODUCTION The purpose of this report is To evaluate The issues related m The future development of Nicolal Valley (heroin referred m is The Study Area). The Study Area is preently identified 8s s Special Study Overlay area in the Temecula General Plan. Such s designation requires · comprehensive, detailed eveluation of the area's deveinprnent opportunities and Constraints. This evaluation will allow the City to further undermend the issues that effect the ere such that appropriate decisions can be made to determine the future use of the area and to recommend any changes to the General Plan land uses. The General Plan Contains the following list of issues to be evaluated: e e I O e o e e · The provision of flood control, seer, water and other services; Impact on surrounding development in tam of traffic, light, noise, end other impacts; Methods to provide a Trap. sition between rural and suburban/urban development; Topography and related visual impacts of development; Existing lot patterns; Traffic circulation end impacts of level of service; Vegetation and wildlife resources; The provision of recreation trails and open space linkages; and Identify a strategy for financing and phasing of infrastructure and other public improvements. This report is divided into five (5) distinct subjects that will outline the approach utilized to evaluate the issues listed above. The five (5) subjects include: III. Beckaround: This Section is intended To provide The reader with an overview of the Study Area and will act as a framework for understanding the issues which affect the Study Area. IV. Jurisdictional: This Section will identify the various governmental regulations and proposed projects which affect the use and development of the Study Area. The issues TO be discussed include the General Plan Land Use and Circulation, zoning, park end open space ames, bicycle trails, schools and other public facilities. Phvsi~l: The information in this Section focuses upon the landforms and infrastructure facilities which exist or are proposed. This Section is To be separmed into four (4) geographic ames in an effort to group common or like ames Together which can then be evaluated based upon a fixed set of issues. This process will occur by comparing the effect of the existing or proposed facilities upon the Study Araa's physical envimnrnent and rating it as either low, moderate or high in 3 · Vlm VII. VIII. sensitivity. The definition of These Sensitivity mum am note in Section III Background. The issue TO be discussed in ~his Section include The Study Ama's geography, slopes, landfo~, pe~cal;,ation pattern, and road ram. Environn a~,I: This Section contains information related TO biological end drainage issues which con~boin the use of the land. The issues to be discussed include native plant communities, animal habii~ end drainage courses. The evaluation criteria will be The same as That noted in Section V Physical. Lmnd Use Alternatives: This Section evaluates potential land use intensities far various portions of tN Study Area and eatimmes a cost distribution for mad and drainage facilities. The purpose of This section is To understand the financial implications of selecting different developreact options for The Study Area. Conclusion and Recommendation: This Section corrmins 8 brief summary of the issues presented previously and provides the City with a specific recommendation. el. BACKGROUND The Nico/s Valley Study Area contains approximately 680 acres and is locatad in the northeaat comer of The City. The Study Ama is ;h.gular in shape since IT iS an outgrowth of ad)oining development patterns ;reatm:l by either existing or proposed development. Project boundaries include ButterfieM Stage Fload on the east end proposed Leon Road along a portion of the westerly boundary. The northern boundary of The STudy Area abuts the Floripaugh Ranch Specific Plan. The Study Are8 iS bisected by Nicolos Road which runs generally in an east/west direction. (See Exhibit 1) B. Existing Setltng The Study Area iS bordered by h~iS To The north and south and traversed by several drainage courses which merge .near Nicoiss Road, lust east of proposed Loon Road. Nicolas Road iS fully improved from approximately Winchester Road to proposed Loon Road where it narrows to a two (2) lane paved road between Loon Road and Calla Girasol. Nicolas Road easterly of Calle Girasol iS a two (2) lane graded dirt roadway. Butterfield Stage Road and Calle Medusa are also graded dirt roads within the Study Area. The Study Area can be characterize as rural in nature based upon the existence of large lots, horse corrals, dirt or graded dirt streets, and the lack of public improvements. C. Proposed Lond Use Study Area: The Study Area is currently designated VL (Very Low, .2 to .4 dwelling units per acre) on the City General Plan Land Use Map. It is also a Special Study Overlay area, as noted in the General Plan text. The property is zoned R-R-1 and 2½ (Rural Residential, I and 2)~ acre minimum lot sizes); R-1-1 (One Family Dwellings, 1 acre minimum lot size); and R-A-21~ (Residential Agriculture, 2~ acre minimum lot size.) Adiacent I ends: The Study Area borders a variety of General Plan Lond Use designations: RH (HillSide, 0 to .1 dwelling units per acre); L {Low, .5 to 2 dwelling units per acre); LM (Low Medium, 3 to 6 dwelling units per acra); and OS {Open Space). --NICOI~g -VAT J~l~y .... · ~ 'STUDY Al~tf.& BOUNDARY Adjacent City zoning is R-A-5 hetde. AisI-Agriculture, 5 acre minimum lot abe); It-1 (One Family I:hvegingl), R-T (Mobil.home Subdivision and Mobil.home Fetid; and the Rodpaugh 800 Specific Plan. Roril~ugh Ranch Spedtic Plan The Rod.ugh Specific Plan is 8ppmximately 790 acres in size end is propoead to ~ontain 2,370 units. IT includes 160 acres within the City limits with the balance in the urdncorporated County area. The project is propomKI to improve Eutterrekl Stage Road to an Urban Arterial ( 134 foot right-of-wsy) or Art~risl Highway ( 110 foot fight-of- we/) depending upon its iocation. Several Secondary Streets (88 foot right-of-My) and 8 Principal Collector (78 foot right-of-way) are proposed within the project end will intersect with Butterfield Stage Road adjacent the Study Area boundary. The isnd uses proposed within the Specific Plan adjacent to the easterly end of the Study Am include commercial, residential, perk, middis school, and open apace. The northern portion is proposed for commercial and residential u~es, although both are to be separated from the Study Am by an open space buffer. Ares end Subam Units Research within The Study Area has been divided into 8 series of geographical areas. Sections V end Vl of this report contain 8 discussion of the physical and environmental issues associated with four (4) distinct areas (See Exhibit 2). Each area boundary was formed based upon · signfficant identifiable feature, such es the hills or the location of the flood plain. Section VII contains land use alternatives which further divide the Study Area into smaller subareas. These subareas reflect potential development 8mas or units. Due to The separate function of each area and sub.tea analysis, the boundaries of each are nOT intended to be corerruinous. The overall objective of dividing The Study Area into smaller components is an ~errlpt tO more easily define the relevant issues which affect the Study Area and weigh their level of importance. The evaluation criteria for the physical and envirenme~i~l issues contained in the four (4) major geographical areas are based upon the following scale: 7 ~ZO Low Sensitivity: An issue affects either a minimal amouriT of land or is not aignificam with rtsFxmt to maintaining The integrity or composition of a facility or resource. Madlure Sensit4vitv: An issue effects either a sizable am of land or could Mereely effect the integrity or composition of 8 facility or resource, High Sensitivity: An issue will effect a signfficant amount of land or will adversely effect the integrity or composition of a facility or resource. - 9 IV. JURISDICTIONAL A number of issues affect the Study Area which am either regulated by the City of Temecula or ,,.-~Lt ' ~3d by other local agencies. Although these regulations me/be unseen by s member of the public, they have s significant effect upon the potential use of property. A. Existing end Propend Circultion The STudy Area is currently Traversed by The following identifiable roadways: · · Nicoias Road - 2-lens graded dirt road · Butterfield Stage Road - Graded dirt road · -. Cab Medusa - 2-lens paved road · Calls Gjrssol - Graded dirt/paved mad · WalcoTt Road - 2-lane graded dirt road · Calls Chapos - Graded dirt road · Riverton Lane - 2-lane paved road · Liafer Road - 2-lens graded dirt mad A number of addition streets are noted on Assessor's Map pages but not recognizable in the fiald. Them streets provide access-TO individual parcels within the Study Area. Although soma of These streets are dedicated TO the City the balance am private roads and are identified as s lettered lot on the County Assessor maps. The private roads have been offered for dedication but not accepted by the CITy for maintenance. Various circulation improvements are identifmd for the Study Area and contained in the City General Plan Circulation Element. These circulation improvements include the following {See Exhibit 3): Butterfield STaoe Road: This roadway is to be a 6-lane Urban Arterial (134 foot right-of-way).' The westerly one-haft of Butterfmld Stage Road, south of Calle Chapos, has been dedicated to the City at 8 haft-width right-of-way of 55 feet. Additional dedication of land will be required to meet the General Plan mquiremant. Nicolas Road: This roadway is to be a 4-lens Arterial Highway (110 foot right-of-way) with a raised landscape median. Within The street right-of-way is to be included a Class II or III bicycle lane. Nicoias Road, east of proposed Leon Road, is primarily a non-dedicated roadway. The beianca of the roadway is noted as a separate lettered lot on The County 10 -Assessor maps and has been often for dedication to the City but not accepted for ;,,ai, dcenance. ':-fin Road: -This roadway is propoNd to be a $cconclNy Highway (88 foot fight-of-way). No portion of this roadway hasimend~dh:mmltotlrmCiWmthb,inm. Calla Girasol/Calle CimoosNValcott I erie: These streets have been identified on the City General Plan Circulation Element as 8 2-lane Principal Collector (78 foot fight-of-my). In the Spring of 1995, the City intends to construct road improverne,~ on these ereeta m provide for two (2) lan~ ~ traffic within 32 feet of paving. The improvements will extend from 1.8 Serana Way to Nicolas Road. Bicycle Facilities: In addition to the bicycle lane described above, a Class I bicycle lane ls 8lso proposed north of Nicoles Road. This facility would be separate from Nicoles Road and located outside of the street right-of-way. Exbtlng and Proposed Parks and Open Space No parks or open space areas exist or are proposed within the Study Area. However, ex'ming Riverton Park and a number of proposed parks and open space areas are planned in the areas immediately beyond the STudy Area boundary. The park and open space ereas noted on the Cltys General Plan north of the Study Area overlap those planned for the Roripaugh Specffic Plan. The drainage courses in the Roripaugh Specific Pin, which ultimately extend into the Study Area, have been identffied as open space with the intent of preserving their drainage and biologicel characteristics. The City collects park development fees for the purpose of developing new parks or rehabilitating existing ones. Although no parks are proposed in the Study Area, development fees provide · mechanism for new development in the Study Area to pay their proportional sham of new park facilities. Eximing end Proposed Public Facilities No schools exist or am proposed within the Study Area. However, one elemehb, ry school exists to the northwest of the Study Area and several schools am proposed within the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan. The Raripaugh Plan includes both a K-Bth grade school and 8 middle school. As was noted above for park facilities, each new development is messed school fees for The purpose of paying their proportionel sham of new school facilities. These facilities may be 12 Iocstad beyond-The :immediate geographic area of individual development projects. A number of infrastructure improvements .are proposed and include the following: ~: A 115 volt electrical line is proposed along the westariy edge of the STudy Area. Fxistina Sewer: No leer lines exist within the Study Area. Proeased Sewer: Two (2) seer lines am proposed through The STudy Area. e e An 18-inch line is proposed along me southerly side of: Nicoias Road extending easterly through the Study Area, tO C, alle Girasol. AT this point the line size'decreases to 15-incr-,,s and continues easterly through the Study Area into the Roripaugh Specific Plan. A 12-inch line is proposed to branch off of the 18-inch line (described above) |ust easterly of the intersection of Nicola8 Road and Calla Girasol. The 12-inch line will run parallel with Calle Girssol until it intersects with Calla Chepos, where it will extend easterly until it terminates st the intersection of Calla Chapas and Walcott Road. Existing Water: A water well owned and operated by the Roncho California Water District exists just north of the intersection of Nicoias Road and' Calla Girasol. Water lines exist in the -following locations: e e -e An 8-inch line in Liefer Road. An 8-inch line along the north side of Nicolas Road extending from the San Diego Aqueduct westedy to a point just west of the intersection section of Calle Girasol and Nicolas Road. This line intersects with the Liafer Road line. An 8-inch line extending southerly and easterly from the 8-inch line in Nicoles Road along the east side of Calla Girasol and the north side of Calle Chapas to a point just east of the intersection of We*cart Road and Calle Chel~os, A .12-inch line in Calla Medusa, which extends south of its intersection wtffi the extension Nicoias Road· This line connects to the B-inch line in Uefer Road, 13 Pronosed Water: A number of mr lines are proposed in the Study Area. A 48-inch line is proposed through the length of the Study Area along the southerly aide of Nicolas Road. Intersecting This line juST east of ButTerfield STage Road, is · proposed 16-loch line extending north and south of Nicolas Road. An additional 30-inch mr line is proposed to connect to The existing B-inch line which parallels Calla Girasol and Calla Chepos, The line will run south along Walcot't road and north along the San Diego Aqueduct. 14 V. ' PHYSICAL The Study Area has been divided into four (4) pdrnBry.areal for purposes of evaluating specific aim issues. The boundaries of each. are warn determim~d by establishing a geographY: boundBn/which reflected aimllr land uses, geography, drainage foatures or other significant environmental characteristics. A. Amal Geogmohv Are I is in The Southwest Quadrant of the Study Are and is primarily characterized as hillside are; This Area is geographically. homogeneous due to the ridgeline which forms a spine and Traverse: the property from the east to west. Slopes in The area are averaging approximately 17 percam and range between 5 percam and 30 percam. This area borders the flood plain created through the convergence of the many drainage courses which enter the Study Area from The east. Parcelizmion Pattern The percelization perttern is fairly uniform with respect to size throughoutthe area although some parcel configurations have narrow widths when compared TO their depth, Road System This area includes only a portion of Nicolas Road and Calla Medusa, Only a small portion of these roads are improved, Nicolas Road is the only General Plan Circulation roadway within the area. The most significant physical feature is the gently sloping ridge which . generally divides the area in half from east to west. The high points which create the ridge characteristics are not aigniflcant within the comext of the topographic configuration of the entire Study Area, However, the ridge does help TO divert some local drainage around the Study Area to avoid further impacting the Study Area's drainage problems, .16 Mansum Due m the moderate scala of the srea's to'pogmphy and the fact it could hmm Iotas effect upon the development of the area, the physical issues in this area would rate as moderate on The sensitivity Area2 Geograohv The boundaries of This area wore derive from the configuration of the Valley floor, which is primarily eftacted by me storm water drainage course which traverses The Study Area generally along the alignment of Nicolas Road, This ficodpioin is probably the most signfficant and defining feature within the entire Study Area. The floodplain boundary is also the location of numerous master planned physical improvements identffied in Section II Background, including Nicolas Road, portions of Leon Road and Butterfield Stage Road, a Class I bicycle lane and proposed water and sewer lines. SIoDes/l-~ndform The combination of the proposed improvements discussed above are reflective of the physical characteristics embodied in the fact this area is a floodplain and relatively tim. As a low-lying area it is subject to receiving stormwater run-off from tributary areas. In addition, a low point is the logical location for the placement of facilities, such as sewer lines, which am designed based upon achieving a gravity flow. The location of the road also reflects the path of least resistance to Traverse for man and vehicles, Parcelizetion Pattern The subdivision pattern abutting Nicolas Road reflects an !ntent to use the street as the primary access for existing parcels. The planned road improvements and The installation of a bicycle lane could significantly affect the use of these properties. In addition, the intent of designating Nicolas Road a 4-lane Arterial Highway is to provide a major east-west circulation link designed To carry 8 signfficant number of vehicles through this portion of the CITy. AlloWing individual lots to meimain access to Nicolas Road would severely hemper its effectiveness to achieve this goal. 16 Road System' as s spine from which other portions of the Study Area can be accessed. Roadways within this srea are primarily graded dirt roads. Proposed master planned stree~ in ~ am include Nicolas Road, 8 small portion of Calls Girssol branching south of Nicolas Road and s portion of Butterflea STage Road which abuts-the STudy Area boundary. -SensiTivitv Msasure Due to the significant effect of the proposed improvements upon the areas existing subdivision pattern and storm mr drainage courses, the existing physical issues in this am would rate high on the AFea3 Geooraohv Area 3 consists of the most northerly portion of the Study Area and abuts the Roripaugh Specific Plan to the north and east. This ares also contains the greatest amount of developmare within the Study Area. Slooes/I.andform The topographic configuration of this area consists of an irregular sloping tarrain which descends To the south. Slopes within the area range between 10 and 15 percent. Isolated high points exist but are not significant in respect to The amount of land They encompass or Their height. The subdivision pattam has attempted to make the greatest use of These high points by subdividing around Them and incorporating Them into individual lots. Parcelization Pattern The' subdivision pattam within this area is uniformh/irregular except for Soma of the parcels located north of Liefar Road. Soma of the parcels in this area do not heve access to 8 public street. This may not be s significant concam, however, sinca private streets, denoted as s lettered lot on The County Assessor maPS, have been approved securing Them access to public streets. 17 Road System Uefer Road is the only existing public street in the area. CLvdar,,ent within the area must obtain access from Liefar Road. Sensitivity Measure The Topographic configuration in this area is not as dramatic as that contained within Are8 4. As such, The hillside area is mere suited To development than .Area 4. Slopes within'this area am moderately step. However, they do not prohibit development, as evidenced by the current number of homes. No other significant physical issues exist which constrain development, such as a drainage course or flood plain. Due To these factors The effect of existing physical issues in This area would me as moderate on The sensitivity scale. Area4 GeograohvlSIooes Area 4 is located in .the southeasterly portion of the Study Area, This area offers the greatest topographic variety within the' Study Are since it does include a relatively fiat portion of land north of Calls Chapos which Transitions into moderately steep terrain as one progresses south, Land forms Within the overall setting of the Study Area the low lying area north of Calle Chapos represents a terrace or bench which Sits above the actual floodplain area (Subarea 2), The high points within This area represem the highest elevations within the entire Study Area, Parcelization Pattern This area contains the most irregular shaped parcels within the Study Area. The number of "flag lots" are reflective of The area's terrain. Road System This area is traversed by a number of existing roadways, Several master planned streets am also panned in the area including Butterfield Stage Road and Calle GirasollCalle Chapos/Walcott Lane which are grouped in the City General Plan as a Principle Collector Street and therefore would be the seme width. Road improvements within This area would be expensive due TO The existing topography. Existing drainage courses which Traverse the roadways will also 18 recluim improvement. The combiS of Catlie GirasoUCalie Chapos/Walcott Lens is'to be improved to an interim condition consisting .of · 2-1ans madway within 32 hint of paving. Consmm~.n is scheduled to start in the Spring of 1995. Sensltivttv Measure This am represents the greatest change in topographic elevation in the Study Area. The level-of improvements necessary for both existing end proposed roads am 8iso propably The moat extensive, based upon the length of the roadways, Due to these factors the physical issues 8ffBCTing development in this ,,me would be rated as high on the sensitivity scale. 19 ENVIRONMENTAL The previous section identified physical i~ue$ related to each primary geographic area of the Study Area, The purpose of this section is m focus upon and identify those envimnrnenTal issues which are significant within each Subam. General Chamctar This are is the entry point to the Study Area and was formed as a remainder am created by The residential development to the southeast, the floodplain to the north and the project boundary to the south, As such, the predominate feature of this area is the sloping' hillside ridge which slices through the area. Biolooical Resources The most significant environmental component of this area is the location of a smell Coastal Sage-Scrub community located just TO the west of Calla Medusa. It is unknown at this time whether any threatened or endangered species exist in this area. Dminaae Characteristics As noted in the previous discussion on physical issues, the topographic configuration of The hillsides helps To divert drainage around the Study Area. This drainage course is only partially within the Study Area and does not possess significant environmemal attributes. Sensitivity Measure Due to the isolated location of the Coastal Sage-Scrub, the relatively minimal site area It effects, and the lack of other environmental factors, the environmental issues within this area Would rate low on the sensitivity scale. $. Atom2 General Character The southerly boundaW of this area generally borders the floodplain while the northerly portion primarily reflects a transition in grade (grade break) from the flat valley floor to The sloping hillsidea. Biolooical Resoumes/Drainaoe Characteristics Themostsigni~cantenvtronmentelfettntofthlaatealathedminaOe Course-outlined by the floodplain boundeqf.- The drainage Course is Comprised of two-(2) blue line stream which not only signify aignfficanT drainage Courses but also the potential existence of various biological resources such as plants and trees or'animals which use the vegetation for habitat. IT is unknown at This time whether any threatened or endangered species exist in this Subarea. Sensitivity Measure The most significant environmental factor within The Study Area is the floodplain and its associated envimnma.[il attributes. which can act as a fife source for plants and a resulting Mbitat for animals. In addition, the floodplain represents both a aignfficant danger to development and a aignfficent Cost tO overcome. Due tO these environmental factors, the environmental issue within this area would rate high on the sensitivity scale. Ares3 General Character The easterly bounden/of this area is formed by the City limits with the northerly bounden/abutting the Roripaugh Ranch Specffic Pan. The area contains a fairly irregular slope pattern. Blolooical Rssoumes The most signfficant environmental aspect of this area is the extensive amount of land covered by Coastal Sage-Scrub which occurs primarily within the north half of the area. In addition, the Coastal Sage-Scrub overlaps an area located at the northwest comer of the area .that has been identffied as having the potential for palaontaological (prs-hlstoric) resources. · Draineoe Characteristics The Topographic configuration of the area has created several notable drainage courses'through the area. These drainage courses are not idenTffied as blue line streams On the U.S,G,S, map and therefore do not rapresent the same- level of stormwater run-off or potential vegetation as other .drainage areas within Study Area. 21 Sensifivttv Measure Due To the extensive existence of Coastal SapScrub, the potential existsrice of palsontologic81 8rtjfam, and drainage concerns, the environmeal issues within this area would rate as moderate on the Ame4 General Character This area is reflective of many features wtthin the Study Area in That it contains flat land as well as relatively steep slopes. Since Area 4 represents an are with both floodplain and hillside charecteriatics, it is appropriate that it contain attributes found in both. Bioloaical Resources That .portion of the ares south of Calls Chapos and primarily east of Walcott Red contains a fairly large geographical area with Coastal Sage-Scrub. It is unknown whether any threatened or endangered species exist in This area. Drainaoe Characteristics That portion of the area north of Calle Chapos contains a blue line stream which represents the drainage course which Traverses the area and connects-to the defined floodplain along Nicolas Road to the north, The blue line stream is parallel to or within the same alignment as Calla Chapos. Sensitivity Measure The significance of drainage issues and the designation of blue line streams have been previously noted, Due to these and the other environmental factors. noted, the environmarrtal issues within This area would rate as high on the sensitivity scale. Vii. - LAND USE ALTERNATIVES For the purposes of evaluating and use klandUel within the Study Area, · sea of 13 Sulareas have been forfled, Each Subarea is geographically distinct duelo its unique chafm, ladeUcs, such as major roadways, parcel con~guradons or/and .Study Area limitstigris. To help understand the relationship between the previous four (4) geographic areas represented in the opportunities end corei~eints analysis and the new Subareas, please refer to The following comparison: Opportunity and Constraint Area Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Area 4 Land Use AITamative Subareas I, J, and portions of F and G H and portions of C, D, E, F and G A, B and portions of D and E K, L, M and a portion of J The combination of various physical and environmental issues, including The influence of poTenTial developmenT, warranted this reconfiguration and further analysis of the study area. A. Land Use AltsmaTives. The approach to evaluating various land use intensities is based upon The previously compieTed opportunity and constraints aneWsis and a further analysis of potential access alignments throughout the Study Area. The delineation of each land use alternative is sensitive TO the issues raised in. those previous sections, Four (4) differanT residenTial. parcel sizes have been utilized in developing each land use alTamstiva starting with the existing zoning of R-R 2 1/2 acre minimum, and transitioning to R-R 1 acre minimum, R-R 1/2 acre minimum, and R-R 114 acre minimum lot sizes, Starting with a existing base of 260 allowable units for the area (based upon the existing zoning), Aitemstives A, B, and C would intensify the to.~l lot cOuntto 742 lots, 944 lotS, and 1888 lots, raspoctively (see Table I and ExhibiTs 4, 5 and 6). The three alternative lind use intensities ware chosen in order to (lenarate varying unit cOunts within the STudy Area; The goal of generating these 'alTernative intensities is to establish 8 method of distributing the cOst of road and storm drain improvements for the STudy Area among the existing and/or future residents and to idenTiTy those dollar values~ As pert of this analysis existing end future improvement programs for the Study Area were also evalured, This includes the future disposition .of the Roripaugh Specific Plan, which boarders licolas Valley to the north and east, es well as the character of the existing NBS/LDwry approached the cost analysis as a preliminary means of' evaluating the relative costs of required infrastructure. The major infrastructure elements considered in The cost analysis included the rrm)or roads and drainage facilities required by The City of Temecula General Plan and necessary to provide for the health, safety and welfa. ra of the local community. The roads included a haft section of Nicolas Road, 8 half section of Butterfield Stage Road, a. half section of Leon Rood, and a full section of Liefar Road, The drainage improvements included in the analysis were the (3) three blue lir~ streams which traverse the property from east to wast, as wall as a half portion of the bridge necessery for a crossing near the intersection of Nicolas Road and Calla Girasol. Three (3) different types of channels ware considered for evaluation; a naturalized channel, a dirt sided trapezoidal channel, and a concrete sided trepezoidal channel. Each Type of channel has significant cost and land area implications. The principle difference in design is between the trepezoidal channel and The naturalized channel, Examples of the designs .are evident in both the Study Area and adjoining properties, The Study Area has an improved concretelriprap sided trapezoidal channel along the north side of Nicolas Road at the southwesterly entrance to the Study Area. The proposed Roripaugh Specific Plan, located easterly and upstream of the Study Ares, proposes the use of naturalized channels for each of the existing blue line streams, The Temecula General Plan also included a Class 1 bicycle trail along the north side of Nicolas Road which could be aligned with the existing drainage course or proposed drainage facilities, Due to the potential dual functions of these channels it was deemed appropriate To include mere than one type of channel improvement cost, The re;~;ve costs of these improvements and their associated cost allocation would range as follows:' Roadway costs wouM .lienemily vary between $300.00 and $800.00 per unit per annualbed assessam. Drainage costs would generally vary between $100.00 and $1,300.00 per acre .per 8nntmlized assessment depending upon the type of canal deign selected. These costs am preliminary jn nature end are only intended to identify potential improvement costs such That property owners and decision- makers will hBve a general understanding of the implications of different land use decisions. These do not represent preliminary engineering studies for assessment district purposes. NICOLAS VALLEY LAND USE ALTERNATIVE LEGENDS AL-x~=If~IATIVE A IA., A~, z~,~yD.u.~ I K0 L0 a8 ~ La '~2 21.0 1~2 42 72.0 1~2 144 161) 112 12 gad I/1 IS0 ~9.0 L0 ~9 _~f~_a L0 20 ~ L0 /~ 34.0 L0 34 AL'r~,NATIVE C ~ Dsmsi~ D.U.'s SS..O IJ2 176 30~ 1/4 120 210 1/4 S4 16.0 1/4 ~4 SO~) Y4 320 ff~.O 1/2 I10 ~ 1/2 Lq6 34O I j2 6S TABI-r- I I'j;ll VIII..CONCLUSION The purpose of This study was to undertake an additional level of analysis, beyond that recently completed for the new General Plan, to define the sraa's future lend use. The current General Plan Land Use designation for the Study Area is VL (Very Low Density, .2 to .4 units per acre). A variety of goals, objectives, end leolicles am contained in the Clty's General Plan which curre,U~, have an ,;;,c't upon the use of lend veitl,in the STudy Area. However, the City felt the unique attributes of the Study Area wenanted further analysis pr'mr to signing a more appropriate land use designation. The Study Ares is affected by a broad range of issues due to its location, current use, and adjacent uses, The documentation contained in the previous sections has identifmd Those issues in an effort to gain a greater. understanding of the area. Although some potentially significant environmental issues exist, such es drainage and topography, they do not represent constraints severe enough to restrain development to a level less Than the adjoining residential areas. In addition, several workshops have been held with area residents to obtain their input on The potential use of the area. The 'majority of residents in attendance at the meetings expressed a desire that the level of development allowed within the Study Area remain at or near the level currently permitted. The latter portion of the report contained development intensity and improvement cost information in an effort to link the improvements required by the General Plan and/or new development to the ability TO pay for the cost of construction. If the City is to further the circulation and associated drainage improvements specified in the Temecula General Plan, a proportional level of development will need TO occur which can bear the financial burden of paying for the cost of construction. The cost will generally lessen for more intensive development due to the ability TO spread the cost over a greater number of people and/or the property ownere will realize a greater value and potemial profit for their land. Recommendation Due to The intensification of the land surrounding the Study Area and the r.:.;:t to meimain the goals, objectives and policies of Clty's General Plan, it is recommended: The Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that the Nicoles Valley Study Area be allowed to intensify TO bermlt lots 1/4 acre and larger, consistent with Land Use Alternative C. C:%~l~meeiedm L,c:: c:HS OPPOSING INCREAgES IN LAND USE DESIONATION , ,~, 2_:zJ- 75 Crat9 ~uiz Assistant Pl=--er Pl=rm4"9 Del~arcmemt 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590-3606' Pebruary 23, 1995 RECEIVED FEB2 As proper~y owners at the far east ~nA_ of Nicholas Road withim the city of Tecula, we are writin~ to express our concerns with items that the p]~.f4.g Deemfit is considering. We are very .~.h against idea of re=Pm4-g the area for parcels snm31er rh=. two and. one-h~f (2 1/2) acres ~ T. he idea of creatiD~ an asses~t: district to pay for impru~ements caused by ~he rezoning. My wife ana I, beth bern =-a raised in the ~iverside/San..Bernardino area, purchased our pr~r=y co~sistin9 of 3.79 acres in 1976 with the intent of buildi~ ~ residence on it to retire to. Like us, the people who ow~ pro~rty on the east end of Nicholas Road are either retired persons on fixed incomes or fm~4 lies trying to raise children. Along with all the fees incurred by being ---exed into the city of T~c~la, intosing additic=ml assessments on the pretty, whether by the parcel or the acre, will either break the backs of these owners or wmke it vel7 h~rd to fix~ a buyer for the property if az~ when =hey decide to sell. To be honest with you, our bottom line is leave -N A'lt'm~ - we are cr-w~ort~hle wi~h rh~y w~ rhinos Thank you for your consideration in this matter. David j.~~onua' . Lazier 7020 Halesworth Court Citrus Heights, CA 95610 (916) 725-6195 Febnssry 14, 199~ FROM: Temecuh lbmsix~ 43174Bu~nessPsrkDrive Temecuhv CA AndyCano Manlzr, C, mlifionforaknulTana:uh(CmlZ:D S9445 Pub Vats Drive Temec~ ~k 92591 ~rfl:n'TlON: Study sre2. The inf,,,s~ation was ,",di,?~"'nln,~ and valuable. The individuals from the city~s~werealwaysp~ofessionalsndmm-~ms~owl~wnldbedss2~sdsss no chan~ be m.~ ~ ~he Ozrnn~ Ni~olss Vsll~v Ax~ ~iR~- rouZhly 20% of the property ownen. Roughly 8096 were opl__-"~,~__d to increased density. A handful d residents were in favor d doh~ 'somefid~Z' and this fiosied I believe that there is an overaft ne~ive value-,AA,.A uscx~tted with i.nczT. ssed populstion density in what is now pre,t',mi,,a+ely a 2 1/2acremlnimumpar0daze& The following ere pexeeived to be the neStfives ~ with mn increue in ~ Furthereradieationdanunlisted~stzdez The 'Rnral Temeeulan ~ohs vml~y special study r~-~.,,.,~,a~ Pas~ r cCEIVED FTB 2 71995 Fe,~ 14, 1995 39140 l~da VisUt Drive Tem~ CA 92591 ~.L z"u, rl1ON: people". All i~volved ~zld ~ ~ We ,. N .......J i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ the ~ N~ V~ ~ ~. Webelieveit~the~issnoveraDne~iwvalue-sddeds=ocis~withincs~d pqm,l~onacnaityinwh~isP, ow~-mk*iya2 1/2sc~mix, dmumpszce]sru. The foIlowi~arep~'ceivedtobethene~stives~with~tincresseinzol~density RECE VED FEB 8i S February 14, 1995 Tem~ds PhnninX Cerpmi~,~ 4~I74 Busiz~s ParkDriv~ ATFENTION: Blair, Fthey, Shven and I would 1~, to thank you and the city sta~ for nnde~lrlng' the ~,~s,~, effort of ox~he~;,,~nS the special study meetinSs for the ruidents of the Nicolas Valley Special Study area. The inf~,,,mtion was enlit~nin~ and v'sluable. The individusls ~,~,,, the sometimes 'lively' crow& This is exemplary city ~overmnent, "of the lxople, for the people and by the people". All involved should b~ co~m~2~led. I re~.unend that no chsn~ be made to the Current Nicolu Vsllev Ares Zoning. roughly 2096 of the p,opcn'y owner~ RouZhly 8096 were opposed to incr*---,~ zoni~ density. A handful of residents wer~ in favor d doix~ :somethix~ and this ~oatr. d along the lines d improvements to clninaZe and circulation, but not neceuan~ I believe that there is an overall neBztive vslue--~iA-~l usociated with increased populationdensit~inwhstisnowpredominst~ya2 l/2~minimumpsr~lsr~. The followi~g ar~ l~x~iv~l to be tl~ x~ves assodat~l with an her--- in zoning ~nsity and are conh-ary to the 'hi_et~t and bes~ use' of the Nicolas Valley ares: Nicobu vsne~ specitl stud~ necmmnendmion l am not s developer, lmismmb. ma~wx~rmidln~inthelmmetgenei~hoots of the Nicolss Vmlley Spm:ial Study mid my lifestyles are directly imlz't~ by the results and recoramend~'irms tb~ ~ F,~,:ess will produoe. I intmld to be ,.,'k,,.~..Kide. d when establish ~ ms a ,kl-i,,z exampl~ for others on how to rasiu~ as a canununi~ -' 1~_-~ ~l~-xue to maimin a questioninS sititud~ reSardinS the merit of hiSh ~ re.,ident~ Srow~ propo~.d by ~,d ~ e,,pecisUy in the Johnson and P,~'ipauf, hprojectzwhichixnpactmyimmedistearm. IamamemberofaZrowin8 ,tevel~l~,,,mmt of rural Temeeuh and its era'rent spheres of influence. We sr~ collectively known as ~ - Coalition for a Rnral T~ Use my yoke to value to Teme~uh throuZh lems.-delue, xmu-a]-remideut~ d~ve]uF,,,~mL ATTACHMENT NO. B I..l: I: ~ SUPPORTING INCREASES IN LAND USE DESIGNATION 2/17/95 TO: Craig Ruiz Business Park Dr. Temecula, Ca. 92590-3606 General Plan / Nicolas Valley Study Area Assessor Parcel No's 914-500-~2,13,14,15,8,& 10 Dear Craig As ~ointed out at T, he 2/13/95 work shop, =here is a nremendous drs;nage and future infrastruc=ure impac~ along Nicolas road. The burden is greater on my property then most ot. her's. Density intensifica~ion is necessary to ever hope to bear =he cost associated wi=h any future development for my proper~y. In order the= I n~ght'be able to carry =hose cos~3 I respecEfully.~ reques= a medium to high density designs=ion for this en=ire block, including AP~ 914-500-8,9,10,12,13,14,15,16,& 17, This block is bordered by Nicolas Rd.,Nor=h - Calle Medusa, Wesu and Calle Girasol, Easn. Trac= #'s 18518,23483,22148, and 23220 (nmp included} are directly adjacent and border my block to the sou=h. These trac~s are 7200 sq. f=. lots wi~h a total of 584 plus homes and are occupied now. The ci=y park site is also adjacen= to =his block. Please review the exhibi=s enclosed and prepare a copy for each conunissioner for themee=ing. Thank you for your help in =his ma=~er. regarding any of the above, please feel a= 583-0441 (714) If you have any ques=ions free to call Ron Rauch, Sincerely, 2/17/95 To: Craig Ruiz City of Temecula 43174 Business Perk Dr. Temecula, Ca, 92590-3606 General PIss / Nicolas Valley Study~rea Assessor Parcel Nots 914-500-12,13,14,15,8,& 10 Dear Craig As pointed out at ~he 2/13/95 work shop, ~here is a Uremendous drainage ssd future infrastructure impac~ along Nicolas road. The burden is greater on my property =ban most o=herts. Density intensifica~ion is necessary to ever hope to bear the cost associated wi~h ssy future development for my property. In order =hat I might be able to carry =hose cost, I respectfull~ request a medium to high density designation for This entire block, including APe 914-500-8,9,10,12,13,14,15,16,& 17, This block is bordered by Nicolas Rd.,North - Calle Medusa, West and C~lle Girasol, East. Trac~ #'s 18518,23483,22148, ssd 23220 (map included) are directly adjacent ssd border my block to the south. These tracts are 7200 sq. ft. lots with a total of 584 plus homes and are occupied now. The city park site is also adjacent to this block. Please review the exhibits enclosed and prepare a copy for each commissioner for the meeting. Thank you for your help in ~his matter. If you have any questions regarding any of the above, please feel free to call Ron Rauch, a= (714) 583-0441 Sincerely, 4~174BusiszssPmtDdvz Ttszcuh, CA 92590 R~ r~ci~m VaUey sr,~-, Study RECEIVED N~,R 0 1 1995 b'L,__.., if Ial~odonotagx~ethaxacome~suswasx~furalll~Valleylam~atthe mee~_~.Mauyoftbelo~ownezswezeabsemeesamtcouldnotmaketbemeeHn_~.Iknow drcambouses ormake remenzmmo~comfonable. We did not hear fiom tbese fogcs. road fmmt~unitto~xis~ing all-vn~lt~rxtmd. Wh~n Call=Gitasol/Ca~Chap~and could not compeW wi~l~e ma~az sulxlivisions. Giveu the va~ownez~ fxom laud followed. Ipwposca~spptoachbasedontbefollowhr. %exp.~:stlm as a condilion lo ab,dopn..~. 2. Palow zonln~-fi'om 1/2io2 lf2m intbeGeueml~~gontbe s~ mpoim~yof~mepmpe~mdzbewillingnessd~hsowneru~lzrfomam~necesssry in~asa.~4,icd~aforlotsplimmlesstlmnthecummt21r2m=~s. 5. lffmfin-'.,mpm~ts aze mquimd, mlla:t fees per lat as apaz~ofthe spli~pmcess and put them in as they can ~nancecL I hope that you will consid~rthspointsraissd, I think most of us pmpeny ownets in the Nicolas Valley, spsciall thtms ofus who live hsm now, wantths mto nnnainnnl in Tha~ we desire. Pleasedon~mshmad~cisio~Leta~-~2elandownen(whichlam be ptoud of. Ten CA 9~91 cc: Planning Commission ATTACHMENT NO. 2 Li:i w ERS REQUESTING INCREASED DENSITY R:\STAFFRPT\98PAg/,.PC2 3129195 kLb 5 ~ ~rouup lute, A Real ~ & Devdopme~t Compef, y March 16, 1995 Mr. Craig Ruiz Assistant Planner Planning Dept. City of Temecula 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, Ca. 92590-3606~ Ref: General Plan / ~icolas Valley Study Area Assessor Parcel NO~s 914-500-8,9,10,12,13,14,15,16 & 17. ~ Nine (9) Parcels, Totaling Forty (40) +/- acres. Dear Craig: The above properties are currently owned by Mr. Robert DroieC, Ms. Be LaForce, and Mr.& Mrs. George Starcevich; and RSD Group, Inc. has been asked to represent their interests in this matter. The above named owners have been involved in the Nicolas Valley area in excess of Thirty (30) years and have submitted the appropriate requests seeking a "density intensification" for their entire block. The designation requested is M 7-12 (Medium Density Seven to Twelve Dwelling Units per Acre), Single Family Residential Units, and the entire block is buffered on Three (3) sides by the existing roads known as: Nicolas Rd.- North; Calle Medusa- West; and Calla Girasol- East. The Southern boundary to the entire block is adjacent to Medium Density (7,200 Sq. Ft.Lots), Single Family Residential Units. These properties represent an assemblage of necessity, and collectively will be condi=ioned upon improvements to: Calla Medusa; Calla Girasol; and Nicolas Rd. As you know, there are flood plain, drainage, and flood control issues tha~ can be mitigated in a feasible manner; providing the enEire Forty (40) +/- Acres, the full block, can be developed simultaneously. For example, the Nineteen (19) Acres fronting Nicolas Rd. are primarily in the £1ood plain area, and studlee have indlcet~d · need for approximately Sixty Five Thousand (65,000) cu. yds. of 25301 Cabot Road, Suite 216 · Laguna Hills, CA 92653 · (714) 583-0441 -2 - import dirt. This will then acconunodate the raising o[ both Nicolas Rd. and the Sixteen (16) Acres in the flood plain, approximately Two (2) Feet in elevation. This import yardage requirement is available from the subject Forty (40) Acres. In addition; at some future date, there willbe a need for a major drainage device to be installed at the intersection of Calle Girdsol and Nicolas Rd. Through "density intensification", of the subject FOrty 140} Acres, this project will be capable of mitigating all improvements and cost issues, as well. The current HECStudy submitted by the Robert Bein, William Frost & Associate's engineers for The City, reflects a Cu. Ft./Sec. of 8,800. This Study krea targeted is the Santa Gertrudls Creek at Calle Girdsol. The impact is tremendous on the subject properties, and the total costs must be amortized over approximately Two Hundred (200) Units, or the proposed project feasibility will be in serious doubt. These improvements can most likely be conditioned and agreed during the Tentative Map process; and again, the project could then amortize the total costs within the project. ~o Melio-Roose and no assessment Districts would be neoessa~7. The properties are adjacent and congruent to each other; and on behalf of the owners, we respectfully request a M 7-12 (Medi~T, Density Seven to Twelve Dwelling Units per Acre), Single Family Residential Unit designation. Craig, we've enclosed Six (6) additional copies of this correspondence for any and all individuals who may have an interest in the project, and we thank you in advance for your time and consideration. Sincerely, RSD Group, Inc. Ronald J. Rauch President ITEM #4 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: MEMORANDUM Planning Commission Gary Thornhill, Director of Planning~ April 3, 1995 Draft Development Code Prepared by: John Meyer RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission review the draft Development Code, take I~ublic testimony, and direct staff to make any modifications in order to make a recommendation of approval to the City Council. INTRODUCTION On March 20, 1995, the Planning Commission began the Public Hearing Process for the Temecula Development Code. The Development Code is the primary instrument for implementing the General Plan. Temecula's General Plan is a 20-year plan, while the Develol~ment Code and the Zoning Map respond to shorter-term needs and conditions. Each of the residential, commercial, business park, and other land use designations are detailed by land use zones which specify permitted uses, conditional uses, and development standards for each zone. At it's March 20, 1995 meeting, the Commission reviewed and commented on the following chapters of the Code: Chapter 9.01 General Provisions Chapter 9.02 Establishment of Zoning Districts Chapter 9.03 Administration of Zoning Chapter 9.04 Permits Chapter 9.05 Development Plan Process The Commission also agreed on the following program schedule: ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION Chapter 9.06 Residential Districts Chapter 9.08 Commercial/Industrial Districts Chapter 9.12 Public/Institutional Districts Chapter 9.14 Open Space/Recreation Districts MEETING DATES Meeting II April 3, 1995 Cha Cha Cha Cha Cha Cha Cha ~ter 9.16 Specific Plan Oveday District }ter 9.18 Village Center Oveday Distdct 3ter 9.20 Roodplain Overlay District 3ter 9.22 Planned Development Overlay District >ter 9.24 Off-street Parldng and Loading ~ter 9.26 Covenants for Easements ~ter 9.34 Definition of Terms Meeting III May 15, 1995 Consistency Zoning (Zoning Map) General Plan Amendment Revisions Addendum Meeting IV June 19, 1995 REPORT/PUBLIC HEARING FORMAT This report is intended to provide · brief introduction end background of Temecula's Draft Development Code. The following sections address each chapter individually. Each section contains a purpose summary, · brief description of the key aspects of the chapter, and any recommended changes to the draft section. Although only highlights of the Code are discussed here, staff envisions a broad discussion of each chapter as determined by the commission. Upon completing its review of the code, the Commission will then forward a recommendation to the City Council. Additional Public Hearings will be held by the Council. ZONING DISTRICTS The chapters pertaining to the Zoning Districts provide the standards and regulations for development and use of property in Temecula. Each chapter contains a schedule of uses. these schedules determine which uses are permitted, conditionally permitted or prohibited. Each chapter also contains a table of development standards. These standards setforth physical standards such as lot size, lot dimension, and setbacks. Additional regulations are given including landscaping regulations and performance standards. The schedules of permitted uses found in each district provide a stronger distinction between the various zoning districts. This provides for a full range of housing opportunities and reinforces and maintains the economic viability of our commercial and industrial districts. In Staff's opinion, the County Ordinance's broad spectrum of uses created potentials for incompatible permitted uses within the same building or on adjacent properties. The City's interest in including performance standards within the Development Code is to preserve the stability of Temecula through orderly growth and enhancement of a quality living and business environment. It is recognized that the quality of the built environment directly impacts the health, safety and welfare of Temecula's citizens. The performance standards ere intended to provide uniform criteria for the design and development of property within the community. In September of 1994,staff received a letter from Russell Rumansoff of Herron and Rumansoff Architects raising a dozen or so questions sod comments on the August 1994 draft Code. Staff discussed these issues with Mr. Rumansoff aod the Expediting Committee of the Economic Development Corporation. Staff clarified the questions, and responded to the comments by either changing the Code or explaining the City's position. Attached to the staff report is a letter from the Murristarremecula Group requesting the removal of the performance standards from the various chapters of the Code. The letter cites what they believe to be the subjectivity and unfair competitivenasa of the standards as justification for their removal. Staff will provide a more thorough explanation of it interest (as stated above) during the public hearing. ZONING STANDARDS The antenna standards have been removed from the body of this code and will be included as an appendix. The standards will be identical to those established in Ordinance 92-04, adopted by the City Council in March, 1992. Staff is still researching special use regulations to assist reviewing conditional use permit for churches process. These will be presented to the Commission as part of the Revisions Addendum. Section 6. Residential Districta Purposq This chapter provides the standards and regulations for residential use and development. Descdpfion Seven residential zoning districts have been established to provide a full range of housing opportunities. The Code maintains a more pure residential approach, greatly limiting non- residential uses in the residential districts. ' The Code establishes Family Day Care Standards consistent with State Law. The Code requires Large Day Care Homes (7-12 Children) to receive conditional use permit approval. Although State Law would allows these to be permitted uses, staff feels the added review through a CUP will insure better compatibility and noticing with surrounding residential users. A question has been raised as to the appropriateness of Bed and Breakfast uses in residential districts. Staff believes, through conditional use permit approval and special use regulations such as minimum site area and increased setbacks and adequate parking. With these regulation, these uses should be compatible in residential areas. If the Commission concurs, staff will develop the special use regulations for Commission review in the revisions addendum. Changes The following changes are proposed: Table 9.06(b) Development Standards - Residential Districts Minimum Net Lot Area HR VL L1 L2 10 ooroo 2.E ooroo I ooro ,5 ooro Ma,xim4m~ Dwelling Units par Acre Section 9.06.050 (a)(1) on page 6 Remove reference to table 9.06(c). Section 9.06.050 (n)(1)(a)(6) on page 19 change 6. to b. and renumber there after. SECTION 8. Commerclal/Industdal Purpose This chapter provides the standards and regulations for commercial and industrial use and development. Desc~p~on As briefly described above, these districts am a distinct departure from the corresponding district~ in the County Ordinance. Staff has worked with various community interests in establishing the current draft schedule of permitted uses. A key feature of this chapter is the distinction between development within 8 planned development and development on a separate lot. As setforth in tables 9.08(b) and (c) the standards are reflective of the needs of the different scenarios. Attached is a letter from Art Pelka and Jon Hoxtar representing the chaparrel and Paloma del Sol neighborhood committees, requesting certain changes to the schedule of permitted uses within the Neighborhood Commercial Zoning District. Staff met twice with this group to discuss their concerns. During the second meeting the group presented staff with the attached letter. At the end of the meeting it was summarized, they wanted any use that may result in some form of congregating to be eliminated from the neighborhood commercial district. Staff agreed to review the requested changes and make recommendations to the Commission. Upon review, changes were made to remove those uses that posed 8 potential incompatibility with nearby residential uses. The change that were not made were seen as compatible or properly regulated through a conditional use permit. Staff believes the uses represent a set of uses compatible with surrounding residential uses while insuring economic viability to a commercial development. A letter dated March 20, 1995 was distributed at the meeting from Fred Grimes representing the Rancho California Business Center - 1 Association. The letter requests all property within the association be designated as service commercial and delete the performance standards. The change of zoning designation is best addressed during the Zoning Consistency discussion. As stated above, Staff will address the performance standards in further detail at the public hearing. Changes The following changes are proposed: Schedule of Permitted Uses As noted above the Antenna standards will be placed in an appendix. AS a result, the City Attorney has recommended a footnote be added to "Communication and Microwave Installations (page 6)" to advise these are subject to the subject standards. The City Attorney also recommends re-evaluation of "Fortune Telling, Spiritualism, or Similar Activity (page 7)." This will be brought back in the revisions addendure. SECTION 12. Public/Institutional Districts Purpose, This chapter provides the standards and regulations for public/institutional use and development. Description This is a straight forward chapter. The standards and regulations are typical of those found in other zoning ordinances Changes No changes are suggested. SECTION 14. Open SoacelRecreation Districts Purpose This chapter provides the standards and regulations for open space and recreational uses and developments. Description The Development Code creates three zoning districts to implement the Open Space/Recreation General Plan Designation. The intent is to provide three levels of open space use and development. They are passive, recreational and conservation81 intensities. R:~DEVCODE~DRAFrI~.I~I ~ ~, ~ Changes No changes are suggested. Attachment: 1. Letters Received Regarding the Draft Development Code - Blue Page 7 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 LETTERS RECEIVED REGARDING THE DRAFT DEVELOPMENT CODE i RECEIVED L J HAR231995 · 21, .995 AIft_. ..... Murrietafiemecula Group Ron Suffivan Inland Planning Vice president Samuel C. Alhadeff Lorenz, Nhadeff, Cannon & Rose M,m'khem & Ass~atss Tmss~rs' De~®k l'homss F, tsb4~', 'l'homss & Company Hudson Raspiratomy Cars ~nc. Dennis Chiniaeff Kernper Roal Estate Management Robert Edwa~ds Sharp HealthCare Murrieta C.M 'Max' Giltis Property Investments Terry Gilmore P~radise Che~'olet M~rc Grisham Grlsham & Associates, Inc. Bill Harker Harker Enterprises Nick Jone~ Miller Jones Mortuary Bob K~rkp6trick Rancon Financial Corporation Roy Muon, Ed, D Mt San Jecinto College Jeff Minkle~ MJM Management Callsway Vineyards & Winery Stewarl Morris Merril Lynch am Senechal FLancho Calilornia FinanciaJ Corp Joan Sparkman Sharp HealthCare Murrieta Won YOO TPCIRanpac 750 W~nchester Rood. 5ute N Terneculo, CA 92590 [909) 676 6672 [909} 699 1848 Fox Steve Ford,-Chairman Planning Commission City of Temecula 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 Subject: Proposed Development Code Performance Standards Dear Chairman Ford: The Murrieta Temecula Group, by a unanimous vote, at their regular meeting of March 17, 1995, went on record requesting the deletion of the performance standards from the proposed Development Code. The Murrieta Temecula Group's concerns are primarily based on the degree of subJectivity that would rest in the hands of Staff, the Planning Commission and the City Council depending upon their makeup at any one given time. This concern lies with the subjectivity of the personal nature of architectural aesthetics and is something that we do not feel is appropriate at this time. The lack of an extremely detailed set of objective performance standards renders the proposed Development Code standards inadequate. Additionally, the Murrieta Temecula Group has a definite concern regarding relative competitivehess with the City of Murrieta and the surrounding unincorporated areas and how these performance standards could inadversly effect the City of Temecula's competitive position, especially for industrial users. The Murrieta Temecula Group feels that the current system of requiring color rendered elevations, schematic landscaping plans and material and color boards is more than adequate. We would propose that this Staff level policy requirement should be codified into the ordinance so each applicant would be fully aware of those requirements. c: \WPDOCS \ JOYCE \ FORD. MTG March 21, 1995 Steve Ford Page 2 We look forward to the adoption of the Development Code and the completion of the Consistency Zoning which will truly personalize developments within the City of Temecula and eliminate the last vestiges of the outdated County Zoning Ordinance. I look forward to responding to your comments at the public hearing. 'Since~e~y' ~/~ ~- ~ R. Markham, Secretary ' ~livan, President Murrieta Temecula Group LRM/jag cc: Billie Blair, Commissioner Linda Fahey, Commissioner Marcia Slavin, Commissioner ~ndrew Webster, Commissioner Gary Thornhill, Planning Director John Meyer c: \WPDOCS \ JOYCE \ FORD. MTG RANCHO CALIFORNIA BUSINESS CENTER - 1 ASSOCIATION 27~11 Jefferson Avenue, suite 10~ Temecula, CA 92590 March 20, 199~ Mr. John Meyer Senior Planner CITY OF TEMECULA 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, Ca 92590 RE: PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT CODE Dear John: I am writing to you in my capacity as President of Rancho California Business Center - 1 Association to express our strong opposition to the provisions in Chapter 9.08 of the Development Code, particularly the Business Park designation and performance standards. Rancho Califomia Business Center - 1 is comprised of the 50 parcels outlined on the attached map. Generally speaking, the Association includes those parcels located west of jefferson Avenue extending from the Santa Gertrudis Creek southerly to plaTa Seville Shopping Center and then westerly to the Murrieta Creek Channel. This subdivision was approved under the County of Riverside regulations and properly zoned MSC. The subdivision map is subject to very slxingent CC&R's and development regulations. The quality of development that has occurred in the Association boundaries reflects the wisdom of the CC&R's and development regulations. The property owners in our Association are extremely dissatisfied with the proposed development code for the following reasons: 1. Permitted Uses: As currently proposed, the Development Code would disallow many of the uses currently existing in the Park. We have surveyed the current business and have determined that twenty seven of them would no longer be allowed. A list of those businesses is attached for your revieW. Additionally, numerous others may not be allowed because of the fifteen (15) percent Retail Support Use Limitation. While we understand the proposal would grandfather in those businesses that don't comply with the BP designation, it nonethaless creates a tremendous marketing impediment to attracting new occupants to fill vacant spaces. The net restfit would be economic devastation for numerous property owners and a blighted condition for the city Meyer, Rancho California Business Center - I Association March 20, 1995 Page 2 in general as buildings sit vacant and become attractive targets for vandalism, etc. We believe the uses that currently exist nre entirely appropriate for the Rnncho California Business Center. · 2. Performance Standards. Due to the stringent CC&R's currently in place in Rancho California Business Center - I Association, we believe any additional performance standards would only duplicate or conflict with ofir own and create confusion and unnecessary in delays in getting projects approved. The result will be more failed projects. We are satisfied that our own standards are more than sufficient to meet the needs and expectations of the community at large and are extremely proud of the development that has occurred. Therefore, we propose the following as it relates to Rancho California Business Cemer - I Association. All parcels comained within the Association be zoned Service Commercial to allow for uses that are appropriate for the overall theme of the existing development. The performance standards be waived for our Association due to our existing stringent CC&R's and architectural design guidelines. We welcome the opportunity to discuss this matter with members of the Planning Staff, Planning Commission, and City Council. Please feel free to call me should you have any questions or comments. Very truly yours, Fred D. Grimes President FDG:jss cc: Board Members Martha Minitier Planning Commissioners BUSIN'RSSF, S NOT AI J ,OWED IN np DESIGNATION 41662 Enterprise Circle North Sherwin Williams Paints Southern California Elite Gymnastics Temecula Valley Florists. Carpet Service, Inc. 41890 Enterprise Cimle West Nutone Stereo Systems Oriental Comer 41860 Emerprise Cimle West Big 'A' Auto Parts 41830 Enterprise Circle West Petrolane 41735 Rider Way Crown Carpet and Draperies 27470 Commerce Center Drive TemecuIa Cycles 27464 Commerce Cemer Drive Sparks Furniture Company Castaways Thrift Shop Jodee's Bakery 41875 Enterprise Circle South Temecula Carpets and Interiors 41770 Enterprise Circle South Hank's Hardware 41740 Enterprise Circle South Hank's Hardware 41680 Enterprise Circle South Dunn Edwards Paints 41625 Enterpri~ Circle South The Pell Window Store Windwalker Gallery Family Room Furniture Company Moo- Ye-Do Karate 41630 Enterprise Circle South Beds and Threads Furniture for Less 41669 Winchester Road Fabrics for Design Furniture To Go 41670 Winchester Road M & M Tire Enterprise Circle North Leonard's Carpets February 24, 1995 Mr. John Meyer, Senior City Planner City of Temecula 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, Ca. 92591 Subject: City of Temecula Development Code Dear Mr. Meyers, With regards to the City of Temecula zoning districts draft, chapter 9.08, we the representatives of the Chaparral and Paloma Del Sol neighborhood committees want to make the following recommendations: 1. It is our understanding that a 'C' code applied to the neighborhood commercial district (NC) indicates a conditional use permit will be required for permit approval. While this may be necessary for businesses selling alcoholic beverages, we have attached a list of commercial business that would not be appropriate for a NC class and recommend a '-' prohibited mark be applied to these businesses. Some of these - businesses include: Automobile service stations with or without a car wash, convenience market, delicatessen, dry cleaning plant, general merchandise store, grocery'store retail, laundromat, liquor stores, movie theaters, nightclubs, religious institutions, restaurants and other eating institutions and restaurants and ddve/in fast food. We do not feel these businesses are consistent with the neighborhood commercial zone classification. 2. We would like the city to establish a reasonable operating time zone for the approved businesses, such as from 7:00am to 11:00pm weekdays and 8:00am to 9:00pm Sundays. Further we would like the City of Temecula to establish reasonable noise limits for the approved businesses so as not to disturb the surrounding residents. We feel strongly that these businesse types listed above and on the attached pages, would not provide any worthy contribution to the neighborhood classification in Temecula. They could have a direct negative effect on the safety, health, crime, aesthetic appearance and property values of the surrounding neighborhoods. We recommend these businesses be placed in the 'Highway/Tourist commercial' or 'Community commercial' zone categories. Mr. John Meyer, Senior City Planner City of Temecula Page two We again appeal to the members of the Planning office, Planning commission, City Council members and citizens of Temecula to give these recommendations their urgent consideration and strike these businesses from the Neighborhood Commercial category. We will await you reply. Thank you for your consideration of these matters. Sincerely yours, 43185 Margarita Rd. Temecula, Ca. 92592 676-0173 i~~Sox~~Y;rra BonitYrF/~'~~a Temecula, Ca. 92592 699-4240 CC: City Council Members .Des, dopm~ 9.08.030 Use Regulations 'P' the use ~hall be a permitted use. Where indicated with · '---', the use is prohibited within the ztme. A letter "~' indicates the me shall be conditionally pennL-?_~ subject to the approval of a Conditional Use Pennft. Table 9.08(a) Schedule of Permitted Uses Commercial/Office/Industrial Districts C P P P C -C Aembics/DanceB~,~-~cise/Manial Arts Studios Oess than 5,000 sq. fL) A~mbics/Dance/J~'~,~rcise,/Manial Arts Studios (Jr~ater than 5,000 sq. Airpore Alcoholism or Drug Treatment Facilities Alcohol and Drug Treatment (outpatient) Alcoholic Beverage Sales and Service Ambulance S~n~ic~s Animal Hospital/Shelter Antique Restoration Antiquc Sales Apparel and Accessory Shops Appliance Sales and Repairs (Household and Small Appliance) Arcades (Pinball and Video Games) An Supply Stores Auction Houses Anditor~-,,,-~ and Conference Facilities Automobile D~alezs (New and Used) Automobile Sales (brokerage) - Showroom Only (New and Used) -- P P P -- C -- C C C -- -- C C C C C -- ~r,,_C] C C C -- -- __ __ P P -- p P -- P P P -- P P -- C C C C P P P P P -- __ P P P P -- __ P P -- P -- C C -- C C C -- -- P P P P -- __ -- -- C P -- C C -- C C C C C C' -- C C P -- -- C Tsble 9.08(a) Schedule of Permfff~d Uses Commercial/OfilceJJlldustrlld Districts DesatplionefUse NC CC HTC SC PO BP l.J Automobile Repair Services -- C C r -- -- r Amomob~c Rental -- C C P -- -- P Automobile Painting sad Body Shop -- -- -- C P Automobfle Salvage Ymxisfimpound Yards ...... C Automobile Service Stations with or without Car Wash P P P ' ' P Automotive Parts-Sales P P P P -- -- C Baker/Goods, Disln'bution Bakery Retail Bakery Wholesale Banks and Financial Institutions Barber and BeauW Shops Bed and Breakfast Bicycle ,(Sales, ~,cnlals, Services) Bllliard :Parlor/Pool Hall Binding of Books and Similar Publications Blood Bank Blueprint and Duplicating and Copy Services Bookstores Bowling Alley BuLldinE Material Sales (with exterior storage/sales areas greater than 50~ of total sales arcat) Buffcling Material Sales (with ex~rior stomgeJsales areas less than 50~ of total sales area) Butcher Shop __ __ __ P -- P P P P P P -- __ __ __ __ __ P -- __ P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P~ -- C P -- -- C -- P P P P -- __ p- -- C C C -- -- -- -- C P -- r r P r C r -- p P P P P P P P P P -- -- P P P -- -- p P -- C C P P P P P P Cabinet Shop Careers Shop (Sales/Minor Repairs) Candy/Confectionery Sales Car Wash I ~/5/~/~-,:::~JtC_~ Carlzt and Rug Cisaning Catering Servic~ .... P~ ~ -- _. P P P -- P -- _ _ ~ C C C -- -- C -- -- -- P -- C P -- r -- r -- r P C/,~m- P.~ · Commm~Va'sds, m~ ~ · S Dm or Use C~Othin~ Coin,.% Fu~hasc and SaJcs Cold Storagg Facilities Com~tmjcsdoM sod Mjc~wtvc COrnml~jty ClfC F~cilities Computer Sales snd Sewice Congogate Care Housing for the Elderly Consmtction Equipment Seles, Sewice or Rental Contnctor's Equipment, Sales, Service or Rental Convenience lV~rkct Cesmme Rentals Crcmntoriums i Data processing Equipment and S.vstems Day Care Ccntex~ ,,.~. ~ Delicatessen Discount/Department Store Distribution Facility Drug Store/Pharmacy Dry Cleanexs -~ Dry Cleaning Plant : Emergency Shelters ~Equipment Salts and Rentals (No Outdoor Storage) F.,quipment Sales end Rentals (Outdoor Storage) NC CC HTC SC PO lIP P P -- P -- __ P P -- P -- __ __ -- C -- C -- P P P P r P -- __ __ C P -- P P P P P P P P P -- -- -- C ~ -- P ~ P P P C -- -- -- p -- p -- __ -- -- -- C %~ C -- P P P P P P C P P P P P P P -- p -- p -- __ -- C -- C P P P P P P -- __ P P P P P P C ~C~ C C C -- -- P Iclc c c c c c -- P P P -- C P -- -- -- C -- -- Feed and Grain Sales Financial. Insunnce, Peal bate Of Sces FLre and Police Stations Floor Coveting Sales Florist Shop __ __ __ p -- __ p P P P P P P -- P P P P P P P -- P P P -- __ __ P P P P P -- __ ':,o6-Gas Distribution, Meter and Control Satlad General Memhandise/Retal| Store<lOk sq. Glass and Mirrox~, Retail ..~e.~Oovcrnmcnml Offices Grocery Store, Retail Grocery .Store, Wholesale . Hardware Stores a Health and Exer:ise Clubs 0ess than 5000 sq ft.) Health and Exercise Clubs (greater than ..q)00 sq. ft) Health Food Store Health Care Facility Hcljpons Hobby Supply Shop Homc and Business Maintenance Scrvicc Hospitals Hotels/Motels) Ice Cream Parlor Impound Yard Interior Decorating Scrvice Development Code Table 9.08(a) Schedule of Permitted Uses CommerciayOfltce/lndustrtal IMstrl~s-- Description of Use NC CC Food Pm~ssing ...... P Fortune Telling, Spiriraslism, or Similar Activity Fxelght te~t.=!,~ ...... p Fuel Storage and Distxibmion ...... C Funeral Parlors, Mortnary . -- P P P -- --- C Furnimxe Sales Furniture Transfer and Storage -- --- -- C -- P P ' "~ "G',,,-..-.'.~,:Z:.;~: :~Tis;.~,~.~i~.!';.:~?.~::~.~.'~..,..~.j~li...~Lt~..~.~ ,~.':,~.:~!....: "~V~ Ga~!cn Suppt,es and Equipment Sales & Service -- C P P -- -- C ' - __ P C P P C C P P -- __ P P -- __ P P P, P P P P C -- --. -- -- -- P -- C P P C ] P -- P P P -- p P P P P C -- P P P -- P P P ..... C C P P P P -- __ __ __ __ p -- p -- C C C C C C -- C P -- C C i P P P P P P P P P P P -- CITY OF TEMECULA Developmer~ Code Table 9.08(a) Schedule of Permitted Uses Commercial/Office/Industrial District~ Description of Use [ NC [ CC IHTCI SC [ PO ~ BP ILI I z.,-. o~ s~v,g~ v~I - I -I -t - I -I -I c · ! ""Ks ~''.' , ......' "'." ~""~"" :" ...........~ ,...:*"' "' . .' ,"~:"~',~..,~b,~.:'!.;.,.,,, .)::'~"<:;.,,.~1;:.. :.... :~"'..'..;' '. ~'i"";.'~ '~..!i~ ,.,,.~,; "'1 'iK.c.-,'e: I -- I C I--I C !--i r I r ' · L~boraton~, Fi'-m, Merits:, R~e. arch or TP~ung . Centcn Laundry Se~ (~I) ~q~ Pe~leu~ Salu a~ D~bu~on i~,.~ -~ ~quor Sm~ ~o~phic Se~ ~c~ j Machmc Shop Machinc~ Storage M~I O~cr B~ineu~ Manufactu~ng of pmduc~ si~lar to, but not li~t~d to, ~e following: I __ __ __ p P CP~ P P P -- .._ -- p -- __ p -- C C C C C C O_)..... C C C C -- -- -- P -- p P P P P P -- __ p __ __ __ p .... C P P -- p P P P Custom-made product, processing, a.~embling, pack~ng, and fabrication of goods within enclosed building, such a~ jewelry, furniture, an object, clotting, labor inmnsivc manufacmrinE, asscmbly, and r~pair processes which do not involve fi'cqucnt truck traffic. P CITY OF TEMBCULA De~elo, vmem Code Table 9.08(a) Schedule of Pea mitted Uses Commercial/Office/Industrial Distrieta Description of Use NC CC HTC SC M. nnf~:'~,ri~g Of produc~ 2~ 2o, but not compounding of materials, pro,~!~___~ng, a.~cmbiin2, pachging, trcatmcnx or fabrication of materials and px~luc~ which rcqu~e fi'cqucnt mw.k activity or xhc manfief of hcavy or bulk~ ticms. WholesalOng, storage, and warehousing within enclosed bufiding, freight handing, sMppin2, u-uck sexyices and tcrmhals, s~oragc and wholes~ling L, om the premises of un-re~ned, xaw or semi- refined producxs requiting further processing or manufacturing, and ouxside smx~gc. Medical Equipment Sale~lP, cntal Membership Clubs, OrEanizaXions, LodEes Mini-Storage .or Mini-Warehouse ~iobile Home Sales & Sexyice ~viotion Picture Studio Motorcycle Sales and Service Mo~.'e Theaters ' g Studio . Musical and Recordm ~ Nil~htclubs,'Tavcm~/Bars/Dance Club/Teen Club 1 Nurscrie~ (Retail) Nursing Homes/Convalescent Homes 'l ;Office Equjpmcnt~Supplics, Sales/Senncm Offices, Adminisu'a~vc or Corporaxe Headquarters with ~r..amr than 50,000 sq. ft. Offices, Professional Services with less ~han 50,000 sq. ft., includinE, but not limited Business, Law, Medical, Demal, Veterinarian, Chiroprac~ic, A~kixccmral, EnEineering, P. cal Estate, Insurancc P P P P C C C C -- C -- P -- P P -- C C C (,C~' C -- C C C C C C P C C P P C C C P -- C PO BP LI -- C P. P C -- C P _ __ p -- p P -- -- C -- p P -- C -- P C C P P P P C P P P P P P CITY OF TIEIVIECUI,A Development Code Table 9.08(a) Schedule of Permitted Uses Commercial/Office/Industrial Districts I Description of Use [ NC [ CC IHTCI SC ~ PO [ BP 'r~'. '. '.-.. ?.v .v.!-~..... ,,...........~.~., .........: '..~' ~:.!~"..4;~..~'.~: ,"' '.~....~"':: .. Pain: an-"- Wallpapsr Slorcs I' P ' P P Parcel Delivery Services P P P P P Puking Lots and Parking Su'uctures -- 'C C C C Pawnshop -- P P P -- Personal Service ShOps (~_P ] P P P P Pest Control Services -- C -- C -- Pet Grooming/Pet Shop P P P P -- Photographic Studio P P P P P Plumbing Supply 'Yard (enclosed or unenclosed) -- C Postal Distribution -- -- Postal Services P P P P P Pr~n~jng and Publishing (newspapcn, periodicals, __ C -- P C boo.ks, etc.) Private Utility Facilities ( Regulated by the Public P P P P P ~ Utilitic~ Commission) ~t · Radio and Broadcasting Studios, Offices Recreational Vehicle Trailer, and Boat Storage within an enclosed building Recreational Vehicle Trailer and Boat Storage - cncrior yard Recycling Collection Facilities R~cycling Processing Facilities Rcligioes Institutions Residential (one dwelling unit on the nsmc parcel es a comrra~l~ial or hxduslxial use for nsc of the proprictur of the bnsiness) Residcatil, Mnltipln Family HOosIllg LI ;_ P P P P p -- P P P P P .p P P P P P P i -- P P P P P P __ __ p P C C C C ~ P P C C -- P -- -- -- C P. ..... C P d'a;,c c cc cc C C C C C C C Chalger 9.08 · Covvntrz~lndmvial Disv~ · 10 CITY II II Table 9.08(a) Schedule of Permitted Uses Commercial/Office/Industrial DIstricts Description or Use NC CC RTC SC PO BP LI P P P P C C Retail Support Ume (]J~ d total dc, velopmnt ..... C C ~uarc foota~c in BP mud/.J) Rooming and Boarding Hour,~ -- C -- C Scale, Public ..... Schools, Busham and hofe~ioanl -- P P P C Scientific Ruuzch and Dc~iopmcnt Office~ and Laboratories Senior Citizen Housing (sec also Con~cplc C~c) P P P -- P Solid Waste Disposal Facility -- Sports and Recreational Facilitie Swimming Pool Supplie$/~uipment Sai~ -- P -- P -- C C C P P Tailor Shop [ P [ P [ -- [ -- 'q'axa or ~'.mousme Sen'ace [ -- P P [ P 'Tile Salc~ ~ -- P -- P Tobacco Shop P P P P Tool and Die C~fing -- -- C -- C -- -- C P C C P P P -- Transfcr, Moving and Storage Transportation TerminaLs and Stations Truck Sales/Rentals/Service TVNCR Repair C C Warehousing/Distribution -- P -- P P Cka~fr 9,08' · Cmumm:ifd/l~ ~ · 11