4• r.r � % `\ � I A
a au 111 I� I
• n .r atvllnr � «�•�• .TDL'Is'. Y ��1 t
• n P. � a. '� I I � ;�..
Ra A a wr
a :a�:TANRr:d : c II1T1l1�
.aDn
tAi.r• 4au�
4 O
RO1Ofi OOON'/A[r. • • A` jP,yY Q
vpyy' - EMERGENCYVEHICLEACCESS
UTILITIES: NOTE: an R�70•
'••• Y CI NOII U fattM [DON IiMQO/13
',- r ..5r
CAS SOUII0l1 ("()"M'As T
mE1wr 1T✓-M XAMMWU
CAW IT Sr1CTwAN
DATA TABLE: 11A11R OAWE . Mtn EASEMENT NOTES:
APR Mf-010-0u SEW Ex rA"ON' MRA Di1NU
AODRSS: 45100 Ia1M RVNXW QFA CAAIES FOR EITHWIC OR pTN PDXSM. LINES.FA OOF IISSW OR TAEORMOAD 1 CAI. MI IA NO ONCI WANT I IN IN T IN FAVOR Or D FEI Al Ai ILW O000wpXt ". 1 a►Y 10. OaSS1 M fun-70 BUILDING SUMMARY: OIL IrOMIA WIS011 OOIww, IN INSIwaOlr t0Or StI CRSIK T xs. .MI . L01Ni OOfD110EIK v: 0 IS IW WINISTMTIa Or10E: 2. S7S S.F. AS 1161RIA011 10. •IAA OT OTICIAL R[OORDS V RITQSIK aWRT.
MTwOfillift IWI trX COUT O M 0001IAM1': • &AN CAm011 FOR M 1QIMIFTR SIECIrIC Fkfft% AND IICICOITAL • • a lS . • , • , • [Ns1R10 U1,0 USE:: O COUY hrE Or OO¢1RCf ION CO O FR/I[ PAV'OSES, IN FAVOR Or RN00 CALIFORNIA MIM DISTRICT. A fO0.IC .� ARIW K WD USE: OUT COIAR.s[, [1D11 CENTER ! ICE(NO rKTIIFT Iq fIK 9RIIILE1tS CgIrORATkIl. IN INSIRROIT KOMO[D .A�14011tT 24. 1101 AS INSTN" \ TOW ��. wt>?>7 MAW Of STORIES 1 W.2'M Or OfICIAL ICONTDS Or RI\OLS1K OW, , CALIrO1NIA. SAID \ TOOL OAOS9 AKA WO,7= Sr. AU AIMAORIES ICIOu: r• USO�IT IS FOR ►IPELINE Oft ►IR IKS, TOEfIQ CI IN IIICIDOITAL , . • •' . • • • • • • • • • . • . ' ' . ' • • TOOL 1[T ArLA J63,T22 Y, 0.10 p0[S AIRR1E1was. OOICCT IO S AND stk0toe5 IN. OSQ. IAOR, •ow. r�
J LOOTn � NA11MJ AREA 1JASS Sr. L; EXISTING IRO SNY- I.A30 S.F. ALOK, ITOW" APO ACROSS NE tK IIgRRIT SITWED IN IK OXIN T' y� � DWINO OUODNO ARA I3M0 Y, ale[ TTK x Daa11UCTlOt ROOD rRMc Or ITITrTSIK, STAR Or CA AFONIA.
II rM11011/NMOXAff AIM' 1Q.r7 Y. U MOM 41.f[ rf C,Cr 9NSINXT5 ©M EFFECT Of A OW Cr EASEMENT 40 MIMpWCI 001OMMS tl IMEOCM'NO AAfA I= Sr. ♦.S'aM SLTTI RS/R Of sTOtl[4 1 CICOVIm h OtAT AIONCAN K%M*PWM OCTANT w0 4.0. r[IOSS IM: O.OM OOIfIrIT RLDOKD .M( IS, IDW AS INSTROON 10. t077M Or IClpl: 23' OFFICIAL KWIDS Or RIVERS CC O" T. MWONIA. SAID EASEIOR IS 1 yR PARKING CALCULATIONS: nIs11No Cwa11W s» S.F. roN vls"a IDCIW. MINTOW" NO AOQMI ^ *8113. 1 t•. T� .' .' .' . . ' . An IrASEARL AYCk 2.170 S.F. - 1 S1Mrt/200Y Tor or ooslROellae ROOD F RM E LEGEND y s Vp?' IcWIOLp S►A?M 11 ID r oc 9R1rLFR5 COpI 110YL I.6E FMIT ONIONY 1'J" R NV t!S!R or STORIES: 1 EXIST INS AOA PAN Of 1MNL 1 's o Doll: sEpv:No ICIOAI: r•
FEWI� SPAAOM It S.F. - 1 YAQ/C S.F. rK S NO MINIDVAM A. too S.F. t*Is11TK 10' rwNING 1.104 M Or N � Elm NO file YRIrLEMTItlI ROOD I1tM(
OS FLOOR MCA 2.100 S.F. - I vAer/m S.F. "AM orSTORIES I EXISTING MASON" Vll IOS
tOVIKD SPACM t0 ICie.: r' O EXISTING SALAlATS
ETOR PAVILION, ERISTINO PAVILION, 3.200 S.F.
ASSIIRT AKA 3.200 S.F. - I AAmm S.F. OOOJWCA:N EXISIIN�. LA009CW tWIRm WACM 107 rrK or COISTNACT ION Sim
NO rlt soltioLDt3 SrH APR rise ITA[PAw
IOTIL tW IR10 YAC13: 147 " m O' 31011ES I l' LANC6C K
TOTAL MMIDED VA= 111,6 ICIOO': N'
WST RoomAEA 9AC[S tWIQt $
AM VAX$ INOYIOM S TOTAL 13.1M S.r. r. EKISTINO
ro FLOW AREA M110
Temecula Ev, ; ,ring CoA.
Kimley»>Horn
Noise Background
Sound is technically described in terms of amplitude (loudness) and frequency (pitch). The standard unit of sound amplitude measurement is the decibel (dB). The decibel scale is a logarithmic scale that describes the physical intensity of the pressure vibrations that make up any sound. The pitch of the sound is related to the frequency of the pressure vibration. Since the human ear is not equally sensitive to a given sound level at all frequencies, a special frequency -dependent rating scale has been devised to relate noise to human sensitivity. The A -weighted decibel scale (dBA) provides this compensation by discriminating against frequencies in a manner approximating the sensitivity of the human ear.
Noise, on the other hand, is typically defined as unwanted sound. A typical noise environment consists of a base of steady ambient noise that is the sum of various distant and indistinguishable noise sources. Superimposed on this background noise is the sound from individual local sources. These can varyfrom an occasional aircraft or train passing by to virtually continuous noise from traffic on a major highway.
Several rating scales have been developed to analyze the adverse effect of community noise on people. Since environmental noise fluctuates over time, these scales consider that the effect of noise on people is largely dependent on the total acoustical energy content of the noise as well as the time of day when the noise occurs. For example, the equivalent continuous sound level (Leq) is the average acoustic energy for a stated period of time; thus, the Leq of a time -varying noise and that of a steady noise are the same if they deliver the same acoustic energy to the ear during exposure. The Day -Night Sound level (Ldn) is a 24-hour average Leq with a 10 dBA "weighting" added to noise during the hours of 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. to account for noise sensitivity in the nighttime. The Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) is a 24-hour average Leq with a 10-dBA weighting added to noise during the hours of 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. and an additional 5 dBA weighting during the hours of 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. to account for noise sensitivity in the evening and nighttime.
Kim ey>>> Horn Page 5
Regulatory Setting
State
California Government Code
California Government Code Section 65302(f) mandates that the legislative body of each county and city adopt a noise element as part of its comprehensive general plan. The local noise element must recognize the land use compatibility guidelines established by the State Department of Health Services. The guidelines rank noise land use compatibility in terms of "normally acceptable", "conditionally acceptable", "normally unacceptable", and "clearly unacceptable" noise levels for various land use types. Single-family homes are "normally acceptable" in exterior noise environments up to 60 CNEL and "conditionally acceptable" up to 70 CNEL. Multiple -family residential uses are "normally acceptable" up to 65 CNEL and "conditionally acceptable" up to 70 CNEL. Schools, libraries, and churches are "normally acceptable" up to 70 CNEL, as are office buildings and business, commercial, and professional uses.
Title 24 — Building Code
The State's noise insulation standards are codified in the California Code of Regulations, Title 24: Part 1, Building Standards Administrative Code, and Part 2, California Building Code. These noise standards are applied to new construction in California for interior noise compatibility from exterior noise sources. The regulations specify that acoustical studies must be prepared when noise -sensitive structures, such as residential buildings, schools, or hospitals, are located near major transportation noise sources, and where such noise sources create an exterior noise level of 65 dBA CNEL or higher.
Acoustical studies that accompany building plans must demonstrate that the structure has been designed to limit interior noise in habitable rooms to acceptable noise levels. For new multi -family residential buildings, the acceptable interior noise limit for new construction is 45 dBA CNEL.
Local
City of Temecula General Plan
The City of Temecula General Plan Noise Element (Noise Element) identifies noise -sensitive land uses and noise sources, defines areas of noise impact, and contains policies and programs to achieve and maintain noise levels compatible with various types of land uses. The element addresses noise which affects the community at large, rather than noise associated with site -specific conditions.
The Noise Element identifies land use guidelines to protect residential neighborhoods and noise - sensitive receptors such as schools and hospitals from potentially harmful noise sources. The noise standards for various land uses in the City are shown in Table 1: Temecula Land Use Noise Standards.
Kimley»>Horn
Table 1: Temecula Land Use Noise Standards
Property Receiving Noise
Maximum Noise Level (Ld„ or CNEL, dBA)
Type and Use
Land Use Designation
Interior
Exterior3
Hillside
Rural
Very Low
45 65
Residential
Low
Low Medium
Medium
45 65/701
High
45 701
Neighborhood
Community
70 Commercial and Office
Highway Tourist
Service
Professional Office
50 70
Light Industrial
Industrial Park
55 75
Public/Institutional
Schools
50 65
All others
50 70
Vineyards/Agriculture
-
70 Open Space
Open Space
70/652
1. Maximum exterior noise levels up to 70 dB CNEL are allowed for Multiple -Family Housing.
2. Where quiet is a basis required for the land use.
3. Regarding aircraft -related noise, the maximum acceptable exposure for new residential development is 60 dB CNEL.
Source: City of Temecula, Noise Element, 2005.
City of Temecula Municipal Code
The following sections of the Temecula Municipal Code (TMC) are applicable to the proposed project.
Section 9.20.040 General Sound Level Standards
No person shall create any sound, or allow the creation of any sound, on any property that causes the exterior sound level on any other occupied property to exceed the sound level standards set forth in Tables N-1 (see Table 1 above) and N-2.
Section 9.20.060(C) Special Sound Sources Standards
The general sound level standards set forth in Section 9.20.040 of this chapter apply to sound emanating from all sources, including the following special sound sources, and the person creating or allowing the creation of the sound is subject to the requirements of that section. The following special sound sources are also subject to the following additional standards. Failure to comply will constitute separate violations of this ordinance.
Kimley»>Horn
C. Sound Amplifying Equipment or Live Music
It is unlawful for any person to cause, allow or permit the emission or transmission of any loud and raucous noise from any sound -making, sound -amplifying device or live music under his control or in his possession:
Upon any private property;
Upon any public street, alley, sidewalk or thoroughfare; In or upon any public park or other public place or property.
The words "loud and raucous noise," as used in this section, shall mean any sound having such intensity or carrying power as to unreasonably interfere with the peace and quiet of other persons, or as to unreasonably annoy, disturb, impair or endanger the comfort, repose, health or safety of other persons.
3. The determination of whether a sound is "unreasonable," as used in subsection (C)(2) of this section, shall involve the consideration of the level of noise, duration of noise, constancy or intermittency of noise, time of day or night, place, proximity to sensitive receptors, nature and circumstances of the emission or transmission of any such loud and raucous noise.
Existing Setting
Existing noise levels at the project site and the nearest residential uses are primarily impacted by roadway traffic, parking lot activity, and stationary (e.g., mechanical equipment) noise sources.
Redhawk Parkway is located approximately 900 feet west of the project site is the primary source of traffic noise in the project vicinity. Parking lot activity immediately to the west and mechanical equipment (e.g., heating, ventilation, and air conditioning [HVAC] equipment) at the clubhouse and other Redhawk Golf Course buildings to the east are also noise sources that affect the existing noise environment. Other ancillary noise sources in the project vicinity include golf course patrons talking, the use of car radios, and golf cart movements/activity. The noise associated with these sources may represent a single -event noise occurrence or short-term noise.
It is also noted that golf -related events currently occur at the Pavilion and are the primary noise source during their operation. Such events typically include amplified music, speeches, and gathering of large crowds that generate noise.
Kimley»>Horn
Noise Measurements
To quantify existing ambient noise levels in the project area and obtain reference noise levels for event speaker noise at the Pavilion, Kimley-Horn conducted seven short-term (10-minute) measurements on June 15, 2024; see Appendix A: Noise Data. Three noise measurements were taken to obtain existing ambient noise levels without Pavilion events, and four noise measurements were taken during a private event to obtain reference levels for speaker noise and see the effect of Pavilion events at the nearest residential uses. The 10-minute measurements were taken between 2:10 p.m. and 9:10 p.m. The DJ was positioned in the southeastern corner of the Pavilion with two speakers approximately six feet aboveground and oriented to the northwest. The noise level data for each noise measurement is listed in Table 2: Existing Noise Measurements and the noise measurement locations are shown on Exhibit 3: Noise Measurement Locations.
Table 2: Existing Noise Measurements
Measurement
Leq
Lmin
Lmax
Site
Location
Period
Duration
(dBA),
(dBA)
(dBA)
Ambient Noise Measurements
End of cul-de-sac on Camino Carmargo,
2:10 p.m., Saturday,
ST-1
10 min
48.0 39.4
57.8 approximately 450 feet northwest of Pavilion.
June 15, 2024
Redhawk Golf Course parking lot, approximately
2:41 p.m., Saturday,
ST 2
200 feet west of the Pavilion.
June 15, 2024
10 min
48.1 37.5
60.7 East of the Pavilion, across the golf course
3:17 p.m. Saturday,
ST 3
adjacent to residences along Tiburco Drive.
June 15, 2024
10 min
46.5 41.3
65.7 Event Noise Measurements
End of cul-de-sac on Camino Carmargo,
8:05 p.m., Saturday,
ST-1
10 min
50.0 43.5
58.0 approximately 450 feet northwest of Pavilion.
June 15, 2024
In Redhawk Golf Course parking lot area,
8:23 p.m., Saturday,
ST-2
approximately 200 feet west of the Pavilion.
June 15, 2024
10 min
50.1 45.9
56.5 East of the Pavilion, across the golf course
8:41 p.m., Saturday,
ST 3
adjacent to residences along Tiburco Drive.
June 15, 2024
10 min
48.7 43.0
55.1 End of drive aisle in the northern portion of
8:59 p.m., Saturday,
ST-4
Pavilion area, approximately 140 feet from the
10 min
74.6 66.0
80.8 DJ speakers/area.
June 15, 2024
Source: Noise measurements taken by Kimley-Horn and Associates, June 15, 2024. See Appendix A for noise measurement results.
Sensitive Receptors
Noise exposure standards and guidelines for various types of land uses reflect the varying noise sensitivities associated with each of these uses. Residences, hospitals, schools, guest lodging, libraries, and churches are treated as the most sensitive to noise intrusion and therefore have more stringent noise exposure targets than do other uses, such as manufacturing or agricultural uses that are not subject to impacts such as sleep disturbance. Sensitive receptors near the project site are shown in Table 3: Sensitive Receptors.
Kimley»>Horn
Table 3: Sensitive Receptors
Receptor Description
Distance and Direction from the Project
Single -Family Residences
300 feet to the west
Single -Family Residences
350 feet to the southwest
Single -Family Residences
450 feet to the southeast
Single -Family Residences
kS.7u7rce7Google
835 feet to the east
Earth, 2024.
Noise Impact Analysis
The project would allow for weddings, banquets, meetings, corporate events, and other private events at the Pavilion that would produce noise from amplified music and crowd noise. Private events would be allowed seven days per week (no more than four times per week) with all amplified music ending at 9:45 p.m. The DJ and speaker system would be setup in the southeastern corner of the Pavilion as indicated in Exhibit 2. Mobile musicians (e.g., guitarist, violinist, etc.) may also perform at private events along the grass area immediately east of the Pavilion with a speaker setup in the southernmost portion of the Pavilion area. However, the mobile musicians and the DJ would perform exclusively and the DJ music/speaker noise is usually the loudest.' Thus, DJ music/speaker noise was conservatively modeled and analyzed in this analysis as a worse -case condition.
The primary noise sources from private events at the Pavilion are amplified music and crowd noise.
Pavilion event noise was modeled with the SoundPLAN software. SounclPLAN allows computer simulations of noise situations, and creates noise contour maps using reference noise levels, topography, point and area noise sources, mobile noise sources, and intervening structures.
As shown in Table 2, the measured noise level from the amplified music/speaker system at the Pavilion is 74.6 dBA at 140 feet. One point source representing the DJ speaker system was modeled in SoundPLAN in the southeastern corner of the Pavilion. The point source was oriented in a northwest direction consistent with the observed condition by Kimley-Horn on June 15, 2025. One area source representing crowd noise covering the entire Pavilion area was modeled using a reference noise level of 89 dBA at 3 feet.2, 3
1 Per e-mail coordination with the project applicant on May 15, 2024. z Elliott H. Berger, Rick Neitzel, and Cynthia A. Kladden, Noise Navigator Sound Level Database with Over 1706 Measurement Values, 2015.
3 It is noted the crowd noise level modeled in Sound PLAN (89 dBA at 3 feet) is most representative for weddings and other large gatherings/events that would be allowed as part of the CUP. The measured event noise levels obtained by Kimley- Horn on June 15, 2024, did not include a large or "loud" crowd and was not identified as a primary noise source.
�m t"- .��� ♦% ., °= r.. • e� � I � sue,,
FIf
All
vOt
bar �`0
C�ammo�San{iago •
it 1
At
hort-Term Measurement
kimley-horn.com 1100 W. Town and Country Road, Suite 700, Orange, CA 92868 714 939 1030
Kim ey>>> Horn Page 11
Inputs to the SouncIPLAN model also included existing elevations and topography, ground surfaces, walls, and the surrounding residences and Redhawk Golf Course buildings/structures to best represent acoustic conditions at the project site and surrounding area. A total of 35 receivers were modeled to analyze single -point noise levels at the surrounding residences. The modeled noise levels for the project are provided in Table 4: Private Event Noise Contours and Exhibit 4: Operational Noise Cnntni i rc
As shown in Table 4, Pavilion event noise levels at the would range from approximately 31.6 dBA to
64.7 dBA at the surrounding residences and would not exceed the City's 65 dBA noise standard. In addition, interior noise levels would reach a maximum of 38.7 dBA at the surrounding residential uses and would not exceed the City's 45 dBA interior noise standard. However, due to the variability of speaker noise levels (i.e., DJ's can set or increase speaker noise to their desired level) and the general difficulty in managing or controlling crowd noise, it is recommended the maximum noise level from amplified speakers at the Pavilion be limited to 84 dBA at a distance of 50 feet; see Mitigation Measure NOI-1. This maximum speaker noise level would ensure the surrounding residences are not be exposed to noise levels above the City's noise standards.
Table 4: Pavilion Event Noise Levels
Receptor No.'
Land Use
Modeled Exterior
Noise Level (dBA)
Interior Noise
Level (dBA)
1 Single -Family Residential
62.8 36.8
2 Single -Family Residential
61.9 35.9
3 Single -Family Residential
61.7 35.7
4 Single -Family Residential
59.2 33.2
5 Single -Family Residential
56.6 30.6
6 Single -Family Residential
59.9 33.9
7 Single -Family Residential
62.2 36.2
8 Single -Family Residential
61.5 35.5
9 Single -Family Residential
64.7 38.7
10 Single -Family Residential
61.7 35.7
11 Single -Family Residential
61.4 35.4
12 Single -Family Residential
56.4 30.4
13 Single -Family Residential
49.3 23.3
14 Single -Family Residential
50.1 24.1
15 Single -Family Residential
50.9 24.9
16 Single -Family Residential
53.0 27.0
17 Single -Family Residential
49.7 23.7
18 Single -Family Residential
51.0 25.0
19 Single -Family Residential
43.6 17.6
20 Single -Family Residential
45.4 19.4
21 Single -Family Residential
45.0 19.0
22 Single -Family Residential
44.4 18.4
23 Single -Family Residential
31.5 5.5
24 Single -Family Residential
38.5 12.5
25 Single -Family Residential
38.8 12.8
Kimley»>Horn
Table 4: Pavilion Event Noise Levels
Receptor No.'
Land Use
Modeled Exterior
Noise Level (dBA)
Interior Noise
Level (dBA)
26 Single -Family Residential
39.7 13.7
27 Single -Family Residential
51.6 25.6
28 Single -Family Residential
54.1 28.1
29 Single -Family Residential
52.0 26.0
30 Single -Family Residential
49.3 23.3
31 Single -Family Residential
48.6 22.6
32 Single -Family Residential
49.8 23.8
33 Single -Family Residential
50.8 24.8
34 Single -Family Residential
53.4 27.4
35 Single -Family Residential
53.6 27.6
Notes:
1. Interior noise levels were calculated assuming an exterior -interior sound reduction of 26 dBA from standard construction practices, per Barbara Locher, et al., Differences between Outdoor and Indoor Sound Levels for Open, Tilted, and Closed Windows, International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, January 2018.
Source: SoundPLAN version 9.0. See Appendix A for noise modeling data and results.
Mitigation Measure N0I-1
Noise levels from amplified speakers shall be limited to a maximum of 84 dBA Leq at a distance of 50 feet, and the speaker location shall be limited to the southeast corner of the Pavilion as shown in Exhibit 2. The DJ, event coordinator, or designated appointee shall complete a noise measurement at 50 feet downstream from (or directly in front of) the amplified speakers prior to event commencement and ensure the noise level does not exceed 84 dBA Leq. The speaker volume shall be iteratively adjusted until a maximum noise level of 84 dBA Leq is achieved.
Conclusion
As discussed above, the project's operational noise levels would comply with TMC noise standards based on measured noise levels for existing events at the Pavilion. However, Mitigation Measure N01- 1 is recommended to ensure noise levels from new private events, such as weddings and banquets, do not exceed the City's noise standards at the surrounding residences. With implementation of Mitigation Measure N01-1, a less than significant noise impact would occur.
Kimley)))Horn
Figure 3: Private Event Noise Contours
\N
0 70
Noise levels Leq,d dB(A)
■ —50
45 �
�=5
50 ¢
—55
55 ¢
—60
60 r
-�=65
65 <
—70
70 E
<=75
75 <�
—8080
<
<=85
85 x
Point Source - DJ/Speakers
— 65 dBA Limit Line
Date 7/10/2024
Length Scale 1 :4289
0 20 40 80 120 160
m
.4 1111�
Kimley»)Horn
Appendix A
,11c•11-14 "Millf_l
Noise Measurement Field Data
Project:
Redhawk Golf Course
Job Number:
95382005
Site No.:
ST-1 - Ambient
Date:
6/15/2024
Analyst:
Miles Eaton
Time:
2:10 PM
Location:
End of cul de sac of Camino Carmago,approximately 450 feet northwest of Pavilion Noise Sources:
Ambient roadway noises
Comments:
Results (dBA):
Leq:
Lmin:
Lmax:
Peak:
48.0 39.4 57.8
87.0 Equipment
Weather
Sound Level Meter: LD Sound Expert LxT
Temp. (degrees F):
90 Calibrator: CAL200
Wind (mph):
SSW @ 10 mph
Response Time: Slow
Sky:
Clear
Weighting: A
Bar. Pressure:
29.83 Microphone Height: 5 feet
Humidity:
36%
Photo:
4 ps �
q`s
y.:
4 t
N
j F -
+ imie )l HLrn
Report Summary
Meter's File Name ST-_.141.s
Meter LxT SE 0007061
User
Job Description
Note
Start Time 2024-06-15 14:10:49
End Time 2024-06-15 14:20:49
Pre -Calibration 2024-06-1514:05:04
Measurement Report
Computer's File Name LxTse_ST-1.ldbin
Firmware 2.404
Location
Duration 0:10:00.0
Run Time 0:08:25.4
Post -Calibration None
Results
Overall Metrics
Lp6q
48.0 dB
LAE
75.0 dB
SEA --- dB
EA 3.5 NPa2h
Leak
87.0 dB
2024-06-15 14:15:39
LASmax
57.8 dB
2024-06-15 14:18:13
LASnin
39.4 dB
2024-06-15 14:15:10
LP6q
48.0 dB
LCIq
59.1 dB
LCeq - LPIq 11.1 dB
LA6q
51.5 dB
LALq - LN, 3.5 dB
Exceedances
Count
Duration
LAS > 85.0 dB
0 0:00:00.0
LAS > 115.0 dB
0 0:00:00.0
LApk > 135.0 dB
0 0:00:00.0
LApk > 137.0 dB
0 0:00:00.0
LApk > 140.0 dB
0 0:00:00.0
Community Noise
LDN
May
48.0 dB
48.0 dB
LDEN
May
48.0 dB
48.0 dB
Any Data
A
Level
Time Stamp
Leq
48.0 dB
Limax)
57.8 dB
2024-06-15 14:18:13
L�min)
39.4 dB
2024-06-15 14:15:10
LPeak(max)
87.0 dB
2024-06-15 14:15:39
Overloads
Count
Duration
0 0:00:00.0
Statistics
LAS 5.0
53.6 dB
LAS 10.0
51.3 dB
LAS 33.3
47.3 dB
LAS 50.0
45.9 dB
LAS 66.6
44.6 dB
LAS 90.0
42.2 dB
L.Night
0.0 dB
LEve
--- dB
C
Level
59.1 dB
--- dB
--- dB
--- dB
OBA Count
0 Pause Time
Calibration Deviation
LNight
--- dB
Time Stamp
None
None
None
OBA Duration
0:00:00.0
Z
Level
--- dB
--- dB
--- dB
--- dB
0:01:34.6
Time Stamp
None
None
None
Time History
140
120 -
100 -
80 -
V n�1yJ 9
40 20 -
0 — —
14:11 14:13 14:15 14:19
14:12 14:14 14:18 14:20
Noise Measurement Field Data
Project:
Redhawk Golf Course
Job Number:
95382005
Site No.:
ST-2 - Ambient
Date:
6/15/2024
Analyst:
Miles Eaton
Time:
2:41 PM
Location:
Redhawk Golf Course parking lot, approximately 200 feet west of the Pavilion Noise Sources:
Ambient from roadway
Comments:
Results (dBA):
Leq:
Lmin: Lmax: Peak:
48.1 37.5 60.7 85.8
Equipment
Weather
Sound Level Meter: LD SoundExpert LxT
Temp. (degrees F): 90
Calibrator: CAL200
Wind (mph): SSW @ 14 MPH
Response Time: Slow
Sky: Clear
Weighting: A
Bar. Pressure: 29.79
Microphone Height: 5 feet
Humidity: 36%
Photo:
s
1 1 I
imley,>> Horn
Report Summary
Meter's File Name ST-1.055.s
Meter LxT SE 0007061
User
Job Description
Note
Start Time 2024-06-15 14:41:25
End Time 2024-06-15 14:51:25
Pre -Calibration 2024-06-1514:05:02
Results
Overall Metrics
Lp6q
48.1 dB
LAE
75.9 dB
EA
4.3 NPa2h
Leak
85.8 dB
LASmax
60.7 dB
LASnin
37.5 dB
LP%q
48.1 dB
Measurement Report
Computer's File Name LxTse_ST-2.ldbin
Firmware 2.404
Location
Duration 0:10:00.0
Run Time 0:10:00.0
Post -Calibration None
SEA --- dB
2024-06-15 14:43:19
2024-06-15 14:47:30
2024-06-15 14:46:41
LCIq
61.7 dB
LCeq - LAIq
LA6q
52.0 dB
LALq - LN,
Exceedances
Count
Duration
LAS > 85.0 dB
0 0:00:00.0
LAS > 115.0 dB
0 0:00:00.0
LApk > 135.0 dB
0 0:00:00.0
LApk > 137.0 dB
0 0:00:00.0
LApk > 140.0 dB
0 0:00:00.0
Community Noise
LDN
May
48.1 dB
48.1 dB
LDEN
May
48.1 dB
48.1 dB
Any Data
A
Level
Time Stamp
Leq
48.1 dB
Limax)
60.7 dB
2024-06-15 14:47:30
L�min)
37.5 dB
2024-06-15 14:46:41
LPeak(max)
85.8 dB
2024-06-15 14:43:19
Overloads
Count
Duration
0 0:00:00.0
Statistics
LAS 5.0
54.4 dB
LAS 10.0
52.3 dB
LAS 33.3
44.5 dB
LAS 50.0
42.9 dB
LAS 66.6
41.2 dB
LAS 90.0
38.8 dB
13.6 dB
3.9 dB
L.Night
0.0 dB
LEve
--- dB
C
Level
61.7 dB
--- dB
--- dB
--- dB
OBA Count
0 Pause Time
Calibration Deviation
LNight
--- dB
Time Stamp
None
None
None
OBA Duration
0:00:00.0
Z
Level
--- dB
--- dB
--- dB
--- dB
0:00:00.0
Time Stamp
None
None
None
Time History
140
120 -
100 -
v
80 ro
60 40
20 -
0 14:42 14:44 14:46 14:48 14:50
14:43 14:45 14:47 14:49 14:51
Noise Measurement Field Data
Project:
Redhawk Golf Course
Job Number:
95382005
Site No.:
ST-3 - Ambient
Date:
6/15/2024
Analyst:
Miles Eaton
Time:
3:17 PM
Location:
East of the Pavilion, across the golf course adjacent to residences along Tiburco Drive Noise Sources:
Ambient
Comments:
Results (dBA):
Leq: Lmin:
Lmax:
Peak:
46.5 41.3
65.7 83.3
Equipment
Weather
Sound Level Meter: LD SoundExpert LxT
Temp. (degrees F):
90 Calibrator: CAL200
Wind (mph):
SSW @ 11 mph
Response Time: Slow
Sky:
Clear
Weighting: A
Bar. Pressure:
29.76 Microphone Height: 5 feet
Humidity:
36%
Photo:
Y
t
e .
A
S�rN'
sy nv 7
}2 a
C
�z
J�
i
imley,>> Horn
Report Summary
Meter's File Name ST-1.056.s
Meter LxT SE 0007061
User
Job Description
Note
Start Time 2024-06-15 15:17:04
End Time 2024-06-15 15:27:04
Pre -Calibration 2024-06-1514:05:02
Measurement Report
Computer's File Name LxTse_ST-3.ldbin
Firmware 2.404
Location
Duration 0:10:00.0
Run Time 0:10:00.0
Post -Calibration None
Results
Overall Metrics
Lp6q
46.5 dB
LAE
74.3 dB
SEA --- dB
EA 3.0 NPa2h
Leak
83.3 dB
2024-06-15 15:17:08
LASmax
65.7 dB
2024-06-15 15:17:04
LAST ir,
41.3 dB
2024-06-15 15:23:53
LP6q
46.5 dB
LCIq
58.7 dB
LCeq - LPIq 12.2 dB
LA6q
51.1 dB
LALq - LN, 4.6 dB
Exceedances
Count
Duration
LAS > 85.0 dB
0 0:00:00.0
LAS > 115.0 dB
0 0:00:00.0
LApk > 135.0 dB
0 0:00:00.0
LApk > 137.0 dB
0 0:00:00.0
LApk > 140.0 dB
0 0:00:00.0
Community Noise
LDN
May
46.5 dB
46.5 dB
LDEN
May
46.5 dB
46.5 dB
Any Data
A
Level
Time Stamp
Leq
46.5 dB
Limax)
65.7 dB
2024-06-15 15:17:04
L�min)
41.3 dB
2024-06-15 15:23:53
LPeak(max)
83.3 dB
2024-06-15 15:17:08
Overloads
Count
Duration
0 0:00:00.0
Statistics
LAS 5.0
49.9 dB
LAS 10.0
48.4 dB
LAS 33.3
45.9 dB
LAS 50.0
45.0 dB
LAS 66.6
44.2 dB
LAS 90.0
43.1 dB
L.Night
0.0 dB
LEve
--- dB
C
Level
58.7 dB
--- dB
--- dB
--- dB
OBA Count
0 Pause Time
Calibration Deviation
LNight
--- dB
Time Stamp
None
None
None
OBA Duration
0:00:00.0
Z
Level
--- dB
--- dB
--- dB
--- dB
0:00:00.0
Time Stamp
None
None
None
Time History
140
120 -
100 -
v
80 -
ro
60 40
20 -
0 15:18 15:20 1 5:22 1 5:24 1 5:26
15:19 15:21 15:23 1 5:25 1 5:27
Noise Measurement Field Data
Project: Redhawk Golf Course Job Number: 95382005
Site No.: ST-1 - Event Date: 6/15/2024
Analyst: Miles Eaton Time: 8:05 PM
Location: End of cul de sac of Camino Carmago,approximately 450 feet northwest of Pavilion Noise Sources: Ambient roadway noises. Event music.
Comments:
Results (dBA):
Leq: Lmin: Lmax: Peak:
50.0 43.5 58.0 80.8
Equipment
Weather
Sound Level Meter:
LD SounclExpert LxT
Temp. (degrees F):
72 Calibrator:
CAL200
Wind (mph):
SSW @ 6 mph
Response Time:
Slow
Sky:
Clear
Weighting:
A
Bar. Pressure:
29.82 Microphone Height:
5 feet
Humidity:
1 58%
Photo:
imley,>> Horn
Report Summary
Meter's File Name ST-1.057.s
Meter LxT SE 0007061
User
Job Description
Note
Start Time 2024-06-15 20:05:42
End Time 2024-06-15 20:15:42
Pre -Calibration 2024-06-1514:05:02
Measurement Report
Computer's File Name LxTse_ST-1.ldbin
Firmware 2.404
Location
Duration 0:10:00.0
Run Time 0:10:00.0
Post -Calibration None
Results
Overall Metrics
Lp6q
50.0 dB
LAE
77.8 dB
SEA --- dB
EA 6.7 NPa2h
Leak
80.8 dB
2024-06-15 20:11:51
LASmax
58.0 dB
2024-06-15 20:06:37
LAST in
43.5 dB
2024-06-15 20:11:07
LP6q
50.0 dB
LCIq
62.2 dB
LCeq - LPIq 12.2 dB
LA6q
52.6 dB
LALq - LN, 2.6 dB
Exceedances
Count
Duration
LAS > 85.0 dB
0 0:00:00.0
LAS > 115.0 dB
0 0:00:00.0
LApk > 135.0 dB
0 0:00:00.0
LApk > 137.0 dB
0 0:00:00.0
LApk > 140.0 dB
0 0:00:00.0
Community Noise
LDN
May
50.0 dB
50.0 dB
LDEN
May
--- dB
--- dB
Any Data
A
Level
Time Stamp
Leq
50.0 dB
Limax)
58.0 dB
2024-06-15 20:06:37
L�min)
43.5 dB
2024-06-15 20:11:07
LPeak(max)
80.8 dB
2024-06-15 20:11:51
Overloads
Count
Duration
0 0:00:00.0
Statistics
LAS 5.0
53.1 dB
LAS 10.0
52.2 dB
LAS 33.3
50.4 dB
LAS 50.0
49.5 dB
LAS 66.6
48.5 dB
LAS 90.0
46.2 dB
L.Night
0.0 dB
LEve
50.0 dB
C
Level
62.2 dB
--- dB
--- dB
--- dB
OBA Count
0 Pause Time
Calibration Deviation
LNight
--- dB
Time Stamp
None
None
None
OBA Duration
0:00:00.0
Z
Level
--- dB
--- dB
--- dB
--- dB
0:00:00.0
Time Stamp
None
None
None
Time History
140
120 -
100 -
0 v
ro
80 -
60 40
20 -
0 ---F-
20:06 20:08 20:10 20:12 20:14
20:07 20:09 20:11 20:13 20:1 5
Noise Measurement Field Data
Project:
Redhawk Golf Course
Job Number:
95382005
Site No.:
ST-2 - Event
Date:
6/15/2024
Analyst:
Miles Eaton
Time:
8:23 PM
Location:
Redhawk Golf Course parking lot, approximately 200 feet west of the Pavilion Noise Sources:
Ambient from roadway, music, patrons
Comments:
Results (dBA):
Leq: Lmin:
Lmax:
Peak:
50.1 45.9
56.5 83.0
Equipment
Weather
Sound Level Meter: LD SoundExpert LxT
Temp. (degrees F):
75 Calibrator: CAL200
Wind (mph):
SSW @ 6 MPH
Response Time: Slow
Sky:
Clear
Weighting: A
Bar. Pressure:
29.75 Microphone Height: 5 feet
Humidity:
51%
Photo:
y y�
y 6 yp
N
j
1 tlI
r
1 imley,>> Horn
Report Summary
Meter's File Name ST-1.058.s
Meter LxT SE 0007061
User
Job Description
Note
Start Time 2024-06-15 20:23:06
End Time 2024-06-15 20:33:06
Pre -Calibration 2024-06-1514:05:02
Measurement Report
Computer's File Name LxTse_ST-2.ldbin
Firmware 2.404
Location
Duration 0:10:00.0
Run Time 0:10:00.0
Post -Calibration None
Results
Overall Metrics
Lp6q
50.1 dB
LAE
77.9 dB
SEA --- dB
EA 6.8 NPa2h
Leak
83.0 dB
2024-06-15 20:32:50
LASmax
56.5 dB
2024-06-15 20:32:59
LASt ir,
45.9 dB
2024-06-15 20:29:40
LP6q
50.1 dB
LCIq
64.8 dB
LCeq - LPIq 14.7 dB
LA6q
52.2 dB
LALq - LN, 2.1 dB
Exceedances
Count
Duration
LAS > 85.0 dB
0 0:00:00.0
LAS > 115.0 dB
0 0:00:00.0
LApk > 135.0 dB
0 0:00:00.0
LApk > 137.0 dB
0 0:00:00.0
LApk > 140.0 dB
0 0:00:00.0
Community Noise
LDN
May
50.1 dB
50.1 dB
LDEN
May
--- dB
--- dB
Any Data
A
Level
Time Stamp
Leq
50.1 dB
Limax)
56.5 dB
2024-06-15 20:32:59
L�min)
45.9 dB
2024-06-15 20:29:40
LPeak(max)
83.0 dB
2024-06-15 20:32:50
Overloads
Count
Duration
0 0:00:00.0
Statistics
LAS 5.0
52.2 dB
LAS 10.0
51.7 dB
LAS 33.3
50.4 dB
LAS 50.0
49.7 dB
LAS 66.6
49.1 dB
LAS 90.0
48.1 dB
L.Night
0.0 dB
LEve
50.1 dB
C
Level
64.8 dB
--- dB
--- dB
--- dB
OBA Count
0 Pause Time
Calibration Deviation
LNight
--- dB
Time Stamp
None
None
None
OBA Duration
0:00:00.0
Z
Level
--- dB
--- dB
--- dB
--- dB
0:00:00.0
Time Stamp
None
None
None
Time History
140
120 -
100 -
Ln 80
v
ca
klo�L
60 -
40 20 -
0 20:24 20:26 20:28 20:30 20:32
20:25 20:27 20:29 20:31 20:33
Noise Measurement Field Data
Project:
Redhawk Golf Course
Job Number:
95382005
Site No.:
ST-3 - Event
Date:
6/15/2024
Analyst:
Miles Eaton
Time:
8:41 PM
Location:
East of the Pavilion, across the golf course adjacent to residences along Tiburco Drive Noise Sources:
Ambient, event
Comments:
Results (dBA):
Leq: Lmin:
Lmax:
Peak:
48.7 43.0
55.1 78.8
Equipment
Weather
Sound Level Meter: LD SoundExpert LxT
Temp. (degrees F):
75 Calibrator: CAL200
Wind (mph):
SSW @ 6 mph
Response Time: Slow
Sky:
Clear
Weighting: A
Bar. Pressure:
29.75 Microphone Height: 5 feet
Humidity:
51%
Photo:
w,Y
imley,>> Horn
Report Summary
Meter's File Name ST-1.059.s
Meter LxT SE 0007061
User
Job Description
Note
Start Time 2024-06-15 20:41:34
End Time 2024-06-15 20:51:34
Pre -Calibration 2024-06-1514:05:02
Measurement Report
Computer's File Name LxTse_ST-3.ldbin
Firmware 2.404
Location
Duration 0:10:00.0
Run Time 0:10:00.0
Post -Calibration None
Results
Overall Metrics
Lp6q
48.7 dB
LAE
76.5 dB
SEA --- dB
EA 4.9 NPa2h
Leak
78.8 dB
2024-06-15 20:41:51
LASmax
55.1 dB
2024-06-15 20:44:48
LASt in
43.0 dB
2024-06-15 20:41:35
LP6q
48.7 dB
LCIq
61.5 dB
LCeq - LPIq 12.8 dB
LA6q
50.7 dB
LALq - LN, 2.0 dB
Exceedances
Count
Duration
LAS > 85.0 dB
0 0:00:00.0
LAS > 115.0 dB
0 0:00:00.0
LApk > 135.0 dB
0 0:00:00.0
LApk > 137.0 dB
0 0:00:00.0
LApk > 140.0 dB
0 0:00:00.0
Community Noise
LDN
May
48.7 dB
48.7 dB
LDEN
May
--- dB
--- dB
Any Data
A
Level
Time Stamp
Leq
48.7 dB
Limax)
55.1 dB
2024-06-15 20:44:48
L�min)
43.0 dB
2024-06-15 20:41:35
LPeak(max)
78.8 dB
2024-06-15 20:41:51
Overloads
Count
Duration
0 0:00:00.0
Statistics
LAS 5.0
50.8 dB
LAS 10.0
50.3 dB
LAS 33.3
49.0 dB
LAS 50.0
48.5 dB
LAS 66.6
47.9 dB
LAS 90.0
46.8 dB
LNight
0.0 dB
LEve
48.7 dB
C
Level
61.5 dB
--- dB
--- dB
--- dB
OBA Count
0 Pause Time
Calibration Deviation
LNight
--- dB
Time Stamp
None
None
None
OBA Duration
0:00:00.0
Z
Level
--- dB
--- dB
--- dB
--- dB
0:00:00.0
Time Stamp
None
None
None
Time History
140
120 -
100 -
0 80
�1�1L
•1 ram. � --
40 20
0 -
20:42 20:44 20:46 20:48 20:50
20:43 20:45 20:47 20:49 20:51
Noise Measurement Field Data
Project:
Redhawk Golf Course
Job Number:
95382005
Site No.:
ST-4 - Event
Date:
6/15/2024
Analyst:
Miles Eaton
Time:
9:00 PM
Location:
End of driveway, north of the pavilion
Noise Sources:
Ambient from roadway, music, patrons
Comments:
Results (dBA):
Leq:
Lmin:
Lmax:
Peak:
74.6 66.0
80.8 94.6
Equipment
Weather
Sound Level Meter: LD Sound Expert LxT
Temp. (degrees F):
69 Calibrator: CAL200
Wind (mph):
SSW @ 5 mph
Response Time: Slow
Sky:
Clear
Weighting: A
Bar. Pressure:
29.79 Microphone Height: 5 feet
Humidity:
63%
Photo:
Report Summary
Meter's File Name ST-1.060.s
Meter LxT SE 0007061
User
Job Description
Note
Start Time 2024-06-15 20:59:46
End Time 2024-06-15 21:09:46
Pre -Calibration 2024-06-1514:05:02
Measurement Report
Computer's File Name LxTse_ST-4.ldbin
Firmware 2.404
Location
Duration 0:10:00.0
Run Time 0:10:00.0
Post -Calibration None
Results
Overall Metrics
Lp6q
74.6 dB
LAE 102.4
dB
SEA --- dB
EA 1.9 mPalh
Leak
94.6 dB
2024-06-15 21:03:07
LASmax
80.8 dB
2024-06-15 21:03:10
LASinir,
66.0 dB
2024-06-15 21:05:16
LP%q
74.6 dB
LCIq
83.8 dB
LCeq - LPIq 9.2 dB
LA6q
77.4 dB
LALq - LN, 2.8 dB
Exceedances
Count
Duration
LAS > 85.0 dB
0 0:00:00.0
LAS > 115.0 dB
0 0:00:00.0
LApk > 135.0 dB
0 0:00:00.0
LApk > 137.0 dB
0 0:00:00.0
LApk > 140.0 dB
0 0:00:00.0
Community Noise
LDN
May
74.6 dB
74.6 dB
LDEN
May
--- dB
--- dB
Any Data
A
Level
Time Stamp
Leq
74.6 dB
Limax)
80.8 dB
2024-06-15 21:03:10
L�min)
66.0 dB
2024-06-15 21:05:16
LPeak(max)
94.6 dB
2024-06-15 21:03:07
Overloads
Count
Duration
0 0:00:00.0
Statistics
LAS 5.0
77.9 dB
LAS 10.0
77.2 dB
LAS 33.3
74.9 dB
LAS 50.0
74.0 dB
LAS 66.6
73.1 dB
LAS 90.0
71.1 dB
LNight
0.0 dB
LEve
74.6 dB
C
Level
83.8 dB
--- dB
--- dB
--- dB
OBA Count
0 Pause Time
Calibration Deviation
LNight
--- dB
Time Stamp
None
None
None
OBA Duration
0:00:00.0
Z
Level
--- dB
--- dB
--- dB
--- dB
0:00:00.0
Time Stamp
None
None
None
Time History
140
120 -
100
80 60
40 20
0 21:00 21:02 21:04 21:06 21:08
21:01 21:03 21 :05 21 :07 21 :09
Redhawk Golf Course Events
SoundPLAN Receiver Table
Limit
Single Point
No.
Floor Name
Usage
Direction Lr,lim
Leq,d
dB A
dB A
1 G 1
GR
65 62.8
2 G 2
GR
65 61.9
3 G 3
GR
65 61.7
4 G 4
GR
65 59.2
5 G 5
GR
65 56.6
6 G 6
GR
65 59.9
7 G 7
GR
65 62.2
8 G 8
GR
65 61.5
9 G 9
GR
65 64.7
10 G 10
GR
65 61.7
11 G 11
GR
65 61.4
12 G 12
GR
65 56.4
13 G 13
GR
65 49.3
14 G 14
GR
65 50.1
15 G 15
GR
65 50.9
16 G 16
GR
65 53.0
17 G 17
GR
65 49.7
18 G 18
GR
65 51.0
19 G 19
GR
65 43.6
20 G 20
GR
65 45.4
21 G 21
GR
65 45.0
22 G 22
GR
65 44.4
23 G 23
GR
65 31.5
24 G 24
GR
65 38.5
25 G 25
GR
65 38.8
26 G 26
GR
65 39.7
27 G 27
GR
65 51.6
28 G 28
GR
65 54.1
29 G 29
GR
65 52.0
30 G 30
GR
65 49.3
31 G 31
GR
65 48.6
32 G 32
GR
65 49.8
33 G 33
GR
65 50.8
34 G 34
GR
65 53.4
35 G 35
1 GR
I 1 651
53.6 Kimley-Horn, 1100 Town and Country Rd, Suite 700, Orange, CA 92868 1/1
Sound PLANnoise 9.0
Redhawk Golf Course - Specific Plan Amendment
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2025
Appendix B
Traffic Memorandum
C41=
Kimley»>Horn
July 3, 2024
Eric Jones
City of Temecula
Planning Department
41000 Main Street
Temecula, CA 92590
Subject: Traffic Memorandum for the Proposed Redhawk Specific Plan Amendment Project in the City of Temecula
Dear Mr. Jones:
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. has prepared a traffic memorandum to evaluate trip generating characteristics and a qualitative Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) assessment of the proposed Redhawk Specific Plan Amendment Project (the "Project").
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Project site is located in the southern portion of the City of Temecula (City). The Project proponent is seeking a conditional use permit (CUP) to allow for additional event types to be hosted within the existing Redhawk Golf Course Pavilion. Currently, the Redhawk Golf Course Pavilion is used to host golf -related events. The previous minor modification allowed the existing Pavilion to host up to 144 guests, according to Statement of Operations from the previous minor modification. The golf course is adequately parked with 204 parking stalls total, inclusive of 5 accessible parking stalls. Generally, according to historical operational information provided by the Project Applicant, during events the majority of guests will arrive with multiple people in one vehicle or utilize rideshare services, reducing the demand on parking spaces at the golf course.
The CUP would allow other events similar to the current golf -related events, such as weddings, banquets, birthdays, community outreach events, or any other private events. No new structures are proposed or would be developed as part of the Project. The CUP does not propose changes to the existing hours of operations, lighting, or parking for the Pavilion. Private events would be allowed 7 days per week. Events would continue to be allowed from 3:00 pm to 10:00 pm with all amplified noise ending at 9:45 pm, and subject to the City's noise ordinance.
TRIPS AND TRAFFIC
A summary of the existing golf course operations trip generation is provided in Table 1, Summary of Existing Project Trip Generation. Trip generation rates were determined based on data provided by the Project Applicant and the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition. ITE Land Use designations are limited and may not
Kimley»>Horn
encompass the utility of certain land uses, as not enough real -world data have been collected to provide a representative trip rate. The ITE Land Use for golf courses (ITE Code 430) is used. The ITE Trip Generation Manual does not contain trip generation rates for special events. To provide accurate trip generation estimates, the Project Applicant, Redhawk Golf Course, provided information related to the maximum number of attendees allowed during any specific event.
Under the previous minor modification to construct the Pavilion, up to 144 guests were allowed per special event. The previously defined assumption that guests would arrive one to a vehicle would represent 144 one-way trips per event. However, based on information obtained from the project Applicant, most guests arrive via carpool or ride share services and therefore would result in fewer trips per event. To maintain a conservative analysis, a carpool rate of 40 percent is assumed, resulting in 86 trips in and 86 trips out of each event (172 event trips total), with the incoming trips occurring during the evening peak hour. As events are planned to end at 10:00 pm, the outbound trips would not occur during the evening peak hour.
Table 1, Summary of Existing Project Trip Generation
Land Use
ITE
Code
Unit
Trip Generation
Rates'
Dail y
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
In
Out
Total
In
Out
Total
Golf Course
430
Holes
30.38 1.39
0.37 1.76
1.54 1.37
2.91 Special
Events
N/A
N/A
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Land Use
ITE
Code
Unit
Trip Generation Estimates
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
Daily
In
Out
Total
In
Out
Total
Golf Course
Holes
547
25 7
32 28
25 53
Special Events
N/A
172
0 0
0 86
0 86
Total Project Trips
719
25 7
32 114
25 139
' Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers ITE Trip Generation Manual 11th Edition.
Project -related traffic would be identical to the existing condition at the Redhawk Golf Course and existing Pavilion. As such, the Project would not increase traffic or trips at the Pavilion for special events; rather, the proposed Project would allow these special events (and associated trips) to be non -golf related events. Further, the Project does not propose an expansion of uses, facilities, or other factors of the existing site that could possibly result in increased intensity of uses and associated trips. Therefore, for the purposes of environmental analysis under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Project would not result in an "increase" in daily traffic at the Redhawk Golf Course or its Pavilion during Project operations. Further, special event guests would likely use carpooling or ride sharing services at a greater percentage than that which has been assumed in this Memorandum.
Kimley»>Horn
VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED
SB 743 was approved by the California legislature in September 2013. SB 743 required changes to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), specifically directing the Governor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to develop alternative metrics to the use of vehicular "Level of Service" (LOS) for evaluating transportation projects. OPR has updated guidelines for CEQA and written a technical advisory for evaluating transportation impacts in CEQA and set a deadline of July 2020.OPR has recommended that Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) replace also as the primary measure of transportation impacts. OPR Technical Advisory suggests that the City may screen out VMT impact using project size, maps, transit availability, and provision of affordable housing to quickly identify when a project should be expected to cause a less -than significant impact without conducting a detailed study. The City of Temecula has published the Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines (May 2020) as recommended guidelines for analyzing transportation impacts of proposed projects. The City provides screening criteria for CEQA VMT analyses for land use projects which consist of seven total criteria. These criteria are:
1) Small residential and employment projects
a. Projects generating less than 110 daily vehicle trips (trips are based on the number of vehicle trips after any alternative modes/location-based adjustments are applied) may be presumed to have a less than significant impact absent substantial evidence to the contrary.
2) Projects located near a major transit stop/high quality transit corridor a. Projects located within a half mile of an existing major transit stop or an existing stop along a high -quality transit corridor2 may be presumed to have a less than significant impact absent substantial evidence to the contrary. This presumption may not be appropriate if the project:
i. Hasa Floor Area Ratio of less than 0.75.
ii. Includes more parking for use by residents, customers, or employees of the project than required by the City.
iii. Replaces affordable residential units with a smaller number of moderate- or high -income residential units.
3) Projects located in a VMT efficient area
a. A VMT efficient area is any area with an average VMT per service population 15% below the baseline average for the WRCOG region. Land use projects may qualify for the use of VMT efficient area screening if the project can be reasonably expected to generate VMT per service population that is similar to the existing land uses in the VMT efficient area. Projects located within a VMT efficient area may be presumed to have a less than significant impact absent substantial evidence to the contrary.
4) Locally serving retail projects
a. Local serving retail projects less than 50,000 square feet maybe presumed to
Kimley»>Horn
have a less than significant impact absent substantial evidence to the contrary.
Local serving retail generally improves the convenience of shopping close to home and has the effect of reducing vehicle travel.
5) Locally serving public utilities
a. Public facilities that serve the surrounding community or public facilities that are passive use may be presumed to have a less than significant impact absent substantial evidence to the contrary.
6) Redevelopment projects with greater VMT efficiency
a. A redevelopment project may be presumed to have a less than significant impact if the proposed project's total project VMT is less than the existing land use's total VMT.
7) Affordable housing
a. An affordable housing project maybe presumed to have a less than significant impact absent substantial evidence to the contrary.
Based on the VMT screening criteria and the assumed trips generated as a result of hosting additional events at the pavilion, the Project would meet criterion one as a small residential and employment project as it would not generate or add new trips in excess of 110 daily trips. Refer to Table 1. As previously discussed, the Project is consistent with the existing operations of the golf course special events and Project related traffic would be identical to the existing conditions. Therefore, the Project would not result in an increase in daily traffic or VMT at the Redhawk Golf Course. Further, it is likely that special event guests would carpool or use ride share services at a greater rate than what has been assumed for this Memorandum which would have a further VMT reducing effect. Therefore, the Project would not cause a significant impact with respect to VMT.
Conclusion
Per the City of Temecula's published Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines, projects that generate or add fewer than 110 daily vehicle trips do not require a VMT analysis and the VMT impact is considered less than significant. The Project would operate consistently with the existing operations and would not add new trips at the Redhawk Golf Course. As such, the Project impacts related to transportation would be less than significant.
Sincerely,
KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
Miles Eaton, P.E.
OWNER &APPLICANT:
SITE PLAN FOR CONDITIONAL
RAINBOW BRIDGE MANAGEMENT, LLC
45100 REDHAWK PARKWAY
TEMECULA, CA, 92592
PHONE: 760-250-1718
ATTENTION: RANDY WOOD
EMAIL: [email protected]
40 20 0 40 80 120
CIVIL ENGINEER:
TEMECULA ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC. SCALE: 1"=40'
29377 RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD, STE 202
TEMECULA, CA 92591
TEL:951-676-1018 FAX:951-676-2294
CONTACT: MR. STANLEY D. HEATON, PE
EMAIL: [email protected]
v 1 / & O�Q�OQ
O � �
EX. GOLF
COURSE
00 EXISTING
MAINTENANCE
90 ► ` C: �'
F
F
MEWS RR
EX. LS
E
00 cn
c,w
r-1
00 00
USE PERMIT No. PA23-0251
w
CITY OF
G
�y
�
T E M E C U L A
o
o
79 �'v
•off � yam~ ��
SITE
Q
15 RE
�yfMF�
oROgp
44 VICINITY MAP
1 y� \ I
h� 8 Sv�EX. LS - ----"' � 2 � 0\
5 , I
�h(L 7 I r - ��� os
EX PARKING �O�Q°� �Od I
NO3°55'00"W 272.00'
LS EX. 3' RETAINING WALL
'74
CITY OF TEMECULA
RAINBOW BRIDGE MANAGEMENT, LLC
PORTION OF PARCEL 1 OF P.M. NO.24387 PMB 164/5-70
IN THE CITY OF TEMECULA CALIFORNIA
�v
I �
\ \ I
o N30°48'42"E
C � 27.01'
6=920
a38 GD
° I�g EX. LS
'Y- NO2 ° 46 ' 59 "E
0' 00, 22. 19' 212 26
N 69.85 ' 0 29 ° 23 29 R 5' cS�±
L-1 0 '�
o� �j /
# / G
��
EX. LS 5 EX. LS 5 U4 0 v
F F 2S' EX. PARKING / �, OO�� ����,
27 EX. LS a,
F 16 EX. LS 10
\ EX. LS 30' F�- 1 ° I
F �s s , I
5 E E ��
13 F�" 4S 26 EX. PARKING b
cS
EX. SFH
COEX. LS �o, ----- E F <- E E E
I
EX. LS
E E E ® ® ® ® ® 1 I
F 18
(0 - / N66°59'28W
F F F F F F 6 55.45 ' \
F--
�
��Q� -- < - - 12 �---___- EX. 3' RETAINING WALL
c� EX. MONUMENT SIGN
��� E E E <- E � E E E E E E E E E E
0) �(� - - - - - - - - - - - - - EX. SFH /
...........
rn WOMEN'S RR F F F F F F F F F F F 6' °
z 99.9 ' F F F F F F F F F EX. LS F F F F F F F F F ��py 3�`.
EX. TRASH ENCLOSURE
F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F
19' EXISTING E E < E E E E E E E
ADMINISTRATION
OCCUPANCY: B F EX. LS
1 0 1 . 2' <- E E E E E E E E E E ��
\� -
' 7 _ ® ® E E
7 - EXISTING
F F < EVENT PAVILION E E
F F F EX. LS - F 1►, l� O F F F F F F F F F F F F F -
F F F WEDDING FACILITY F F F <LIMITS OF C.U.P. F F F
<- <- <- <-< F F F < <-F OCCUPANCY: A3 F < F F F F F F < <- F F ° 47' 35"W 552.50 EX. SFH ---- E ® ® F F F F F F F F N06
F F F
F F < EXISTING <- cp- �d &
E E PROSHOP F -' C� O EX. GOLF F!y
\�G • • • OCCUPANCY: B E 0'� Qp°' meow Q9 � COURSE EMERGENCY VEHICLE ACCESS MEN S RR F o� Q o O
\\\ F - X. RETAINING WALL 2 -9 HIGH Qo�'�������
GG�QP� �6' Q INTERIOR R=37'
°��'2g UTILITIES: NOTE: WHEEL CUT R=50'
- N22 ELECTRIC SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON NO PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS EXTERIOR R=56' `D
GAS SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS
EX. LS
TELEPHONE FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS
- -
CABLE TV SPECTRUM
DATA TABLE:
WATER RANCHO WATER
EASEMENT NOTES:
SEWER EASTERN MUNICIPAL WATER
DISTRICT
E E
APN: 962-040-012
�AN EASEMENT FOR EITHER OR BOTH POLE LINES, CONDUITS OR UNDERGROUND
EXISTING WALKWAY
\
ADDRESS: 45100 REDHAWK PARKWAY
BUILDING SUMMARY:
FACILITIES AND INCIDENTAL PURPOSES IN FAVOR OF SOUTHERN LEGAL DESCRIPTION: PARCEL 1 OF P.M.
NO. 24387 PMB
164/5-70
CALIFORNIA ED I SON COMPANY, IN INSTRUMENT RECORDED FEBRUARY 25, 1991
F F F E E
ZONING DESIGNATION: S.P.-9
EXISTING ADMINISTRATION OFFICE:
2,578 S.F.
AS INSTRUMENT NO. 61704 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY.
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: OS
EXISTING LAND USE: GOLF COURSE
OCCUPANCY: B
� AN EASEMENT FOR THE HEREINAFTER SPECIFIC PURPOSE AND INCIDENTAL
SHEET INDEX
TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION: WOOD FRAME
PURPOSES, IN FAVOR OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT, A PUBLIC PROPOSED LAND USE: GOLF COURSE, EVENT CENTER &WEDDING
FACILITY
NO FIRE SPRINKLERS
CORPORATION, IN INSTRUMENT RECORDED JANUARY 24, 1991 AS INSTRUMENT ACTIVE PERMIT: PP19277
TOTAL GROSS AREA:
355,722 SF,
8.16 ACRES
NUMBER O STORIES: 1
HEIGHT: 16
1 I I DE IFOI D
OCIAL
1. SITE PLAN
co
TOTAL NET AREA:
355,722 SF,
8.16 ACRES
EASEMENT I S FOR P I PELINEOORSPOI PEL I NES , TOGETTHERYW I THL I NCIDENTALA N
TOTAL EXISTING BUILDING AREA:
13,868 SF,
3.9 %
EXISTING PRO SHOP:
2,450 S.F.
APPURTENANCES, CONNECTIONS AND STRUCTURES I N , OVER, UNDER, UPON,
2. FLOOR PLANS
c
LOT COVERAGE
ALONG, THROUGH AND ACROSS THE REAL PROPERTY SITUATED IN THE COUNTY �
EXISTING BUILDING AREA:
13,868 SF,
3.9% OCCUPANCY: B
TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION: WOOD FRAME
OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA.
3. REQUIRED DJ AREA LOCATION
PAVEMENT/HARDSCAPE AREA:
147,167 SF,
3.4 ACRES,
41.4% NO FIRE SPRINKLERS
A3 THE EFFECT OF A GRANT OF EASEMENT AND MAINTENANCE COVENANTS EX. LS o
LANDSCAPING AREA:
194,687 SF,
4.5 ACRES,
54.7%
EXECUTED BY GREAT AMER I CAN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY AND J.M. PETERS FAR: 0.039
NUMBER OF STORIES: 1
COMPANY RECORDED JUNE 15, 1989 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 197707 OF %�
HEIGHT: 23
OFFICIAL RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. SAID EASEMENT IS 5-28-2025 CUP PA23-0251 SHEET 1 O F 3
PARKING CALCULATIONS:
FOR VISUAL FENCING, MAINTENANCE AND ACCESS PURPOSES.
DATE:
EXISTING CANTINA:
870 S.F.
ADMINISTRATION OFFICE
OCCUPANCY: B
LEGEND
NET LEASEABLE AREA: 2,170 S.F.
- 1 SPACE/20OSF
TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION: WOOD FRAME
�T �
�°FM7(0U
REQUIRED SPACES: 11
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT BOUNDARYT
E
NOUMBEREOFPRINKLERSTORIESS 1
CANTINA:
HEIGHT: 16'
EXISTING ADA PATH OF TRAVEL
0alqP5U1L L.aT�T9,
�
17N0°
J�
SERVING AREA: 870 S.F. - 1 SPACE/45 S.F.
REQUIRED SPACES: 19
EXISTING MAINTENANCE:
4,100 S.F.
EXISTING 10' PARKING LIGHT
LAND PLANNING, CIVIL ENGINEERING, CONSTRUCTION CONSULTANTS TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION: WOOD FRAME
29377 RANCHO CALIFORNIA RD.' STE. 202 TEMECULA CA 92591 PROSHOP:
NO FIRE SPRINKLERS
EXISTING MASONRY WALL
* TELEPHONE 951-676-1018 * FACSIMILE 951-676-2294
GROSS FLOOR AREA: 2,100 S.F. -
1 SPACE/200 S.F.
NUMBER OF STORIES: 1
REQUIRED SPACES: 10
HEIGHT: 16'
EXISTING WALKWAYS
EVENT PAVILION•
EXISTING PAVILION•
3 200 SF
51 ASSEMBLY AREA: 3,200 S.F. - 1 SPACE/70 S.F. OCCUPANCY:A3 EXISTING LANDSCAPE \�0 REQUIRED SPACES: 46 TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION: STEEL
+22 W EX. GOLF NO FIRE SPRINKLERS SFH SUPER FIRE HYDRANT COURSE GOLF COURSE: NUMBER OF STORIES: 1 LS LANDSCAPE
�125 6SPACES /HOLE HEIGHT: 16' RR REST ROOM
REQUIRED SPACES: 108 EX. EXISTING
TOTAL REQUIRED SPACES: 194 TOTAL: 13,198 S.F. DATE BY MARK APPR.
TOTAL PROVIDED SPACES: 194 (INCLUDES REQUIRED 5 ADA SPACES) FAR FLOOR AREA RATIO ENGINEER REVISIONS COI DESIGNED BY. SDH DRAWN BY. CHECKED BY.
P:\TEC\1100's\1180-1\DWG\1180-1_CUP.dwg, 10/17/2023 11:42:06 AM, DWG To PDF.pc3
05,
. ....... ......
4 EXISTING TRASH ENCLOSURE
16'-0"
8" 14'-8"
4x4 ,T.S.
CDTRL1_IS .POST,'' -
14 S4OOTH FINISH C,QNC.
° W/SEALER
° N
Val
d
° 6" 'CONC. APRON d
`MEOIUM BROOM FINISH d d
d
10' -8" 1 2'-
3 1..J -vi l w Y L I 11 .
PROOF LINE ABOVE
'
CO
MASONRY OR
CAST -IN -PLACE
CONCRETE WALL -PAINT
TO MATCH BUILDING TYP.
4x6 PT WOOD AT 42"
Oct
o AFF ATTACHED TO WALLS
O0
Io W/ J" WEDGE ANCHORS
024"OC. MIN. 3"
EMBEDMENT
6"THK. CONCRETE
SLAB-#5 REBAR @ 24" OC
EA. WAY. -SMOOTH FINISH
T
W/ CONC. SEALER
C-CHANNEL/METAL
°D
PANEL GATE TYP. GALV.
0 o AND FULLY PAINTED
0 6"THK. CONCRETE
N
SLAB-#5 REBAR @
24" OC EA. WAY.-
o
MEDIUM BROOM
FINISH
2 oGGup anc i7 ti/
constructtn tl pe: V-N
area: 504 sf
occupant load factor: 15
rumer of occupan s: 20.5
0 Womar'5 re5troom5
OGGU anG i:7
Gonet�ruGtlyon type: V-N
area: 401 sf
occu ant load factor: 100
num ar o oGGupan 5: 4
EXISTING ADMINISTRATION BUILDING
FLUM51NO FIXTURE GALGULATl0N5
OFFICE ..........................(2,150 S.F./200 5.F JOGG.) =11 OCCUPANT5 MEN EMPL0YEE5.................5.5
YrATER GL05ET5 REO V; I
LAVATORIE5 I
AOMEN EMPLOYEE5.......... 5.5
WATER GL05ET5 REOV-
LAVATORIE5 REOV: I
NO DRINK 1 NG FOUNTAIN REGtU I REP
3 Gd
w
0 N
cm
1 mar's restrooms
oGGU anG b
Gons�ructiyon type: V-N
area: 28G sF a
oGGuoant load Factor: 100
num er of occupan s: 2.ci
;ISTING PROSHOP
- EXIST.. SIZED ROOF ABOVE� -------------
REMOVE WINDOW 4 FINISH I
I INSIDE 4 OUT TO MATCH
I ADJ., SURFACES I
Nb r DUST. SEWHt CJIO•, I
EXISTING TRASIi I /N I
TELEPHONE AREA j O L
Ewlpr. —Z1KLff8RMMT-------------------------,
(D(ISTING)
I I
DRY SHELF STORAGE
rXSTING � -; �_ �' � NEW LOCATION GAS METER I 1 - - - -� - - NOR TELEPHONE �TV CONNECTION - LOCATION TV CONNECTION - LOCATION I EQUIP.. REMOVED TO BE DETERMINED TO BE DETERMINED 1
I .r FROM STORAGE RM. , 3T WIRE DUST., LIGHT FIXTURE 1
I I TO OTHER KITCHEN LIGHTING I
Eas>"g Elec. / NEW TILE T w�DOORR INDE
WA OPENING
LL
CH ADJ..
DUST'G
� WOMEN R.A.G. �
--------
NEW SHELVES FOR
DU5T'GFLOOR DRAIN TSOODA DISS�FTT
IM
I REMOVE EI45T., SPACE
REPLACE GUST., SINK W7 WAi 4 MOP SINK EXIST- CO2 I
REMOVE ELEC. WIH NEW 3 COMPARTMENT INSTALL NEW MOP TANKS TO REMAIN REPLACE W/ �.• SINK. SINK I
PLUMB TO ALL SINKS571 ---- ---
I { NEW N
MODIFY DUST., CLOSET ` ` 0 0 0 STAIN / I
PROVIDE MOP SINK I FIREPLACE I
(VERIFY) --- r - r F-- -- T- 71� I
I I s�, � I n l I mo• I C\ .l I I
L
E�asbng Met. Hood I
L-�------ Iron I
EX15T. KITCHEN IL J I
I I FOLE --DDmO DAMAGE � — —__—_ — _ =1= _ 0
I I EXIST., TILE I I I I I
I I L_ -�_JL _I--J I
I , MEN I L------- - - - - - I
I I 1 I I
I 1 EG STORAGE
l i A r--� UNDER COUNTER. -
I L
I I I I I 'l � I Ems. I - - - I , CONNECTION - LOCATION TV CONNECTION - LOCATION -----IExis I TO BE DETERMINED TO BE DETERMINED
/-TV
-� I
J' I L--_j
L EXISTING — — — WINDOW
-
---{� ( —-------- r------------
I�---_-��i I I I I I I
NOTE: I
+ EwstnxJ KAd:en equpment slwwm drhrd.
EXISTING CANTINA
I
C. -F--} j= -�+- • • i PLUMBING FIXTURE CALCULATION:
� � U i • • • • i DINING 1140 S.F./30 S.F. = 38 OCCUPANTS LiI I KITCHEN 500 S.F./200 S.F. = 2.5 OCCUPANTS
- - - - - - __--_-_--- STORAGE 70 S.F./300 S.F. = 0.2 OCCUPANTS L COST., ROOF ABOVE
---°-------------
---- - - - -
- - - - - - ■ --
-
- - -
°°
°. d
°
°d
4 Q d d d
° ° °
° d °
B
° B
,d B d.
° d •d B
° B
C
d
°d
a
°
p
d
°d
d. ° d
d °
4 d
3 1/2" CONIC SLAB w/
4 °
#3 REBAR @18" O/C, E.W.
d d °
°
d
d
° a
.d° °
a'
vd.
4. O�
d °
. , a O�
4 ?
°
4 d Q'
°
d
1 ° .. •
° d d.d
°
_
O
4 O
L
O
-d —L---
— ------
— — — —-------------
,L----=
-UT-vIE31 N6 FIXTURE CALGULAT I ONS
FIGE .......................... b06 5.FJ200 5.F. = 3 00CUPANT5 MPLOYEE UN15EX RE5TROOM REa'D
TAIL ..........................a41 5.F./200 5.F.=4.2 OCCUPANT5 F G UN I SE?G RESTROOM REGt'D
STORAGE....................300 5.F.%3000 S.P.=0.1 OCCUPANTS NO DiZINKIN FOUNTAIN REQUIRED
PLUMBING FIXTURE FACILITY SUMMARY:
MEN
TOTAL WATER CLOSESTS REQ'D: 5
TOTAL WATER CLOSESTS PROVIDED: 3
URINALS PROVIDED 2
TOTAL LAVATORIES REQ'D: 5
TOTAL LAVATORIES PROVIDED: 5
WOMEN
WATER CLOSESTS REQ'D: 5
WATER CLOSESTS PROVIDED: 7
LAVATORIES REQ'D: 5
LAVATORIES PROVIDED: 5
DRINKING
FOUNTAIN
REQ'D 1
DRINKING
FOUNTAIN
PROVIDED 1
MEN GUESTS 21
WATER CLOSESTS REQ'D: 1
LAVATORIES REQ'D: 1
WOMEN GUESTS 21
WATER CLOSESTS REQ'D: 1
LAVATORIES REQ'D: 1
EXISTING EVENT PAVILION
PLUMBING FIXTURE CALCULATION:
ASSEMBLY AREA
3,200 S.F./25 S.F.=130 OCCUPANTS
MEN GUESTS
65 WATER CLOSESTS REQ'D:
2 LAVATORIES REQ'D:
2 WOMEN GUESTS
65 WATER CLOSESTS REQ'D:
2 LAVATORIES REQ'D:
2 1 DRINKING FOUNTAIN REQ'D
DATE: 5-28-2025 CUP PA23-0251 SHEET 2 OF 3
P:\TEC\1100's\1180-1\DWG\1180-1_CUP.dwg, 10/17/2023 11:42:09 AM, DWG To PDF.pc3
P:\TEC\1100's\1180-1\DWG\1180-1_CUP.dwg, 10/17/2023 11:42:06 AM, DWG To PDF.pc3
1 801_011 5
209-011 2 209-0" 3 209-0" 4 201_011
A a A 4 040
Q OA
4<4
a I• 4 a Q Q.' a 4,
4 a.
a ..
I. 4 a 4 a a Q 4
. 4 a 4 a a 4
�/ ° .B ' 4 'Oa ate/" 4
Q a �a 4 4 a�
4'
I °4 4 a a' °d 4 • `°
16 o a • 4 .a 31 /2" CONC SLAB wl • °' 4
Q #3 RE BAR a@ 18" O/C, E .W.
Q 4 ° a °
a 4 a a Q 4. a a 4
° °
ca a 4
/ EA
B a
4 4
4. a
EXISTING EVENT PAVILION
FLOOR PLAN
From:
Heather Porter
fflpp���
Sent:
Friday, May 1,
To:
Planning Commission
Subject:
Hawks Pointe
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click lii unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
City of Temecula Planning Commission
To whom it may concern,
Supplemental Correspondence Raa2ired
06X612026 Public Hearing
Itleni #3 (PA23-0327, PA23-OZ-31)
L'.?CUL A 7,1
Planning Ccrnrnission
Chairperson Tu�le_, -Trejo
Vice -Chairperson Nagel
Commissioner klatics
Commissioner Solis
Commissioner Watson
City Staff;
r.tatt Peters Direcbr of CD)
Brandon Rabidou �Asst. Dir, of CD)
Scat Cooper (Planning Manager)
rtarkela Marrcquin Oa-zL CikAtb2mey?
Ron Moreno (Diredw cf P,e.
Va,erie Carragan (Sr. Cirs, Eng•.)
Den'ue Jacoho (Sr. AdminAsst)
Public Binder Com/
01herfs) Case Planner -Project Fe
Last month my family was left scrambling to find a location for my brother-in-law's Celebration of Life after his church could not accommodate the service. As a long-time resident of Temecula living in the Redhawk neighborhood, it was essential to find a venue worthy of a husband, father, veteran, and friend. Outside of wineries, suitable options were scarce, many were beyond our budget, and few met our accessibility and logistical needs.
We found Hawks Pointe at Redhawk Golf Club, and it was immediately clear this was the right place. The venue's ample parking, accessible restrooms, convenient location, and indoor -outdoor spaces allowed our family to focus on honoring my brother-in-law rather than managing logistics. The setting was beautiful and familiar —reminding many of us of his weddingjust a few years earlier —and the staff, led by Robbie and his team, welcomed us in our time of grief and guided the planning with compassion and professionalism.
Hawks Pointe consistently demonstrates responsible event management and a commitment to the community. Allowing events at the golf course supports important Local needs:
• Community gatherings for memorials, fundraisers, and celebrations • Economic support for local vendors and service providers • Safe, accessible spaces for residents of all ages and abilities • Strengthening neighborhood ties by keeping events local and family -friendly For these reasons, I respectfully request that the Planning Commission allow Hawks Pointe to continue hosting events at the golf course. Doing so preserves an important community resource that served my family in a moment of need and benefits many others across Temecula.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely Heather Porter
Maureen O. Jacobsen
Temecula, CA 92592
City of Temecula Planning Commission
41000 Main Street
Temecula, CA 92590
Supplemental Comesporxienca ReceAred
OSIOS12026 Pubilc Hearing
Itern 43 (PA23-0327. PA23-0251'1
7,1
Planning Cororrission
Chairperson Turley-Trejo
Vice -Chairperson Hargel
Commissioner Mati: s
Commissioner Solis
Commissioner 'Afats Dn
City Staff;
Matt Peters (Direcfcr of CD)
Brandon Rabldou (Asst. Dir_ of CD)
Scott Cooper (Planning Manager)
Maricela. Marroquin (A� C*Atbnney
Ron Moreno tiDirecicr of I'M
Vaterie Caragan {Sr. Civil Eng€.?
Denise Jacoho (Sr. AdrninAsstl
Public, Binder Copy
Olhen;sj Case Planner -Project Re
Subject: SUPPORT FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ICO HAWKS POINTE WEDDING VENUE To Whom It May Concern,
May 4, 2026
I aryl a resident of the Redhawk HOA Community and am writing 1n support of the Conditional Use Permit for Hawk's Pointe Wedding Venue at Redhawk Golf Course, scheduled for consideration on May 6, 2026. 1 have visited the new venue space and found it to be a beautiful and thoughtfully designed addition to our community, It reflects positively on the Redhawk area and provides an attractive local option for families and couples seeking a wedding venue in Temecula. After seeing the space, I felt comfortable recommending it to friends who are looking for a wedding location.
I have also met with Venue Director Robbie Snider and received outstanding service. He was professional, attentive, and clearly mindful of both guest experience and the surrounding community. My interaction with him reinforced my view that Hawk's Pointe is being managed responsibly and with care.
As a nearby resident, I am aware that music and sound from events can occasionally carry beyond the venue. However, in my experience, the noise has not been disruptive or an annoyance. The activity has been reasonable and consistent with a well -managed event venue.
I understand that some residents have raised concerns about neighborhood compatibility. In my view, Hawk's Pointe is compatible with the character of the Redhawk community. Located within an established golf course setting, gatherings and celebrations are a natural fit for the property and enhance the area by making productive use of an existing community destination.
Hawk's Pointe is a valuable addition to our community. It supports local business, strengthens the reputation of the Redhawk area, and offers residents another high -quality venue option. I respectfully encourage the City of Temecula to approve the Conditional Use Permit and allow Hawk's Pointe Wedding Venue to continue operating in its new event space.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincer ly,
MauVoiacobsen
Thank you for considering my support.
Sincerely,
Annalists Bujas
Temecula, CA 92592
May 5, 2026
Dear Temecula Planning Commission,
I am writing to express my strong support for Red Hawk Golf Club and the meaningful role it plays within our community.
Red Hawk Golf Club is for more than a golf course —it is a beautiful and welcoming venue that serves as a valuable resource for residents throughout Temecula. Having access to such a well -maintained and inviting space enhances the quality of life for our community as a whole. It provides a place not only for recreation, but also for gathering, celebration, and connection.
In particular, the benefit to the Red Hawk community cannot be overstated.
Having such a lovely venue nearby offers residents a unique opportunity to come together in a setting that feels both special and accessible. It fosters a sense of pride and belonging that is difficult to replicate. would also like to express deep appreciation for Robbie Snyder's generosity and community spirit. His willingness to donate the space for high school sports banquets, teachers' retirement dinners, and other meaningful events speaks volumes about his commitment to building community. These gestures go beyond simple hospitality —they create Lasting memories and provide a beautiful setting where people can honor achievements, celebrate milestones, and recognize one another.
Red Hawk Golf Club stands as a shining example of how a local venue can positively impact a community. Its presence enriches Temecula, strengthens neighborhood connections, and reflects the values of generosity and togetherness that make this area so special.
Supplemental Correspondence Reeked
MOV2026 Public Nearing
Item 43 (PA23 0327, PA23-0251 'I
Planning Corninissicn:
Chairperson Turley-Trejo
'Vice -Chairperson Nagel
Commissioner klatirs
Cormissioner Solis
Commissioner Watson
City Staff:
rfatt Peters (Diracbr of GD)
Brandon Rabidou (ksst. Dir, of GD1
Scott Cooper (Planning Manager)
rfarkela Marmquin (Asa. C*AdDnnE �;
Ron Moreno (Director of P'ier)
'Valerie Carragan (Sr. Civil Eng=.}
Cenise Jaoobo (Sr. AdminAsstj
Public. Binder CWj
DtherW Case Planner-Projed FIR
From: Caroline Del Mazzio
To: Planning Commission
Subject: Fwd: Letter of Support- Hawk"s Pointe
Date: Wednesday, May 6, 2026 9:49:48 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear City of Temecula Planning Commission,
Supplenr�� Correspondence Retched
0510612026 Public Nearing
Ifem 93 (PA23-=. PA23-0251)
CIRCULATION COPIES -
Planning Commission:
Chairperson Turley -Trey
Yce-Chairpemw Hagd
Comm�sioner Matics
Commissioner Saks
Commissioner Wat& n
City Staff:
MaH Peters (Director of CD)
Brandon Rabidou (Asst. Di, of CD)
SmM Cooper (Planning Manager)
Mantel. Marroq,uin 4q,s Ck Aik y)
Ron Moreno Orec.r & PW)
Valerie Canagan (ar- Cui Engr.)
Dena- Jacotm (Sr. Admn Asst )
Public Bind. Copy
Oth.,N) Case PLanner-Projed R.
I am writing to express my support for the Hawk's Pointe venue located within the Redhawk Golf Club. I understand that a small number of community members have voiced concerns about Hawk's Pointe operating as an event space, and I would like to share my perspective as a long-time Redhawk resident who values both our neighborhood and our local businesses.
I am a second -generation homeowner in Redhawk; my in-laws built our home in 1993 during the early development of the community. Over the years, we have watched Temecula grow and evolve, and the Redhawk Golf Club, along with its iconic waterfall, has remained a central and cherished part of our neighborhood identity.
The primary concerns I have heard regarding Hawk's Pointe involve potential increases in noise and traffic. While these concerns are understandable, they do not reflect my experience as a resident living approximately 0.8 miles from the Golf Club. The venue is situated deep within the "RedhawkNail Loop," surrounded by greenway and natural buffers that help contain sound. Additionally, Hawk's Poinet is required to follow the City of Temecula's established noise regulations, and the Golf Club has consistently demonstrated itself to be a respectful and responsible member of the community. I am confident they will continue to uphold these standards.
Regarding traffic, the design of the Redhawk/ Vail Loop —thanks to thoughtful original city planning —supports a smooth and logical flow of traffic. Hawk's Pointe also has ample on -site parking, which further minimizes any potential impact on surrounding streets. Based on the venue's location, layout, and available infrastructure, I do not anticipate traffic becoming an issue.
As the original generation of Redhawk and Temecula homeowners gradually transitions, it is important that we continue to support the local businesses that contribute to the vitality of our community. Hawk's Pointe has the potential to serve not only as a wedding venue, but also as a space for school dances, sports banquets, community celebrations, and other events that strengthen our connection as neighbors.
Thank you for your time and consideration. I hope you will view Hawk's Pointe as an asset to South Temecula and a positive addition to the community we all care deeply about.
Warm regards,
Caroline Del Mazzio
From: Claudia Candray - TVEA Membership
Subject: Letter of Appreciation
Date: May 5, 2026 at 9:07 PIS
To: Plannin [email protected]
Bcc
May 5, 2026
Redhawk Golf Course Cup
Subject: Thank You for Your Generous Support of TVEA Recognition and Retirement Ceremony
Dear Robbie Snider,
On behalf of Temecula Valley Educators Association (TVEA), I would like to extend my sincerest gratitude for your generous sponsorship of this year's Temecula Valley Educators Association (TVEA) Recognition and Retirement Ceremony
Your support played a pivotal role in the success of our retirement party for over 48 educators from Temecula Valley Unified School District. Thanks to your contribution of allowing us to use your venue, we were able to honor, recognize and celebrate a lifetime of dedicated individuals who have served our community for decades here in the Temecula Valley.
It is partners like Redhawk Golf Course Cup that allow us to continue to recognize, honor and celebrate the dedication of our certificated staff.
Temecula Valley Educators Association (TVEA) is proud to consider the Redhawk Golf Course Cup a valuable partner in our community who is willing to give back to the community.
We would be honored to attach a few photos from the event so you can see the direct impact your support had on the educators of this community. We look forward to the possibility of working together again in the future.
With deep appreciation,
Claudia Candray
TVEA Membership Coordinator
TEMECULA VALLEY EDUCATORS ASSOCiAPON
May 5, 2026
To Whom It May Concern,
I am excited to endorse the venue Hawks Pointe at the Red Hawk Golf Club. As educators throughout Temecula, this venue is a resource to the families, students, and larger community.
There are few venues that commit to serve the community at large by providing a space to gather and celebrate the accomplishments of the students that are residents and from the surrounding area.
This venue adds value to the Redhawk Community by providing a safe and reasonable space for community members to hold their events without traveling deep into wine country and competing with out of town visitors and out of reach pricing. That is important for student and family groups who are celebrating milestones!
The Temecula Valley Educators Association appreciates the opportunity to partner with a venue and community that values its residents and community members. This venue takes the opportunity to emphasize and highlight the roots it has grown in the larger Temecula community, by investing in the heart of our community, our students.
Sincerely,
Edgar Diaz
TVEA President
Temecula Valley Educators Association
29377 Rancho California Rd Suite 206, Temecula, CA 92591
From: Vivi Souvanlasy
Subject: RedHawks GolfCourse CUP
Date: May 5, 2026 at 8:33 PM
To: [email protected]
Dear Planning Commission,
I am writing to express my support for the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) application on behalf of Robbie Snider for the proposed event venue at Redhawk Golf Course.
This venue represents a valuable resource for local residents. Having a well -managed, thoughtfully designed event space within the community provides a convenient and accessible location for weddings, celebrations, and gatherings without requiring residents to travel outside the area It offers families and neighbors a place to come together, celebrate milestones, and build stronger community connections in a setting that is both and appropriately planned.
In addition, the venue brings meaningful benefits to the broader Temecula community. It supports local economic activity by attracting events that utilize nearby vendors, caterers, florists, and small businesses. This type of development enhances Temecula's reputation as a destination for events while keeping revenue within the local economy. It also creates opportunities for local employment and partnerships.
Importantly, the proposed location within Redhawk Golf Course appears to have been carefully considered. With ample parking and a setting that is set back within the property, the design helps minimize potential impacts such as noise or congestion for surrounding residents. This balance between functionality and respect for the neighborhood is a key strength of the proposal.
Finally, the addition of this venue adds value to the Redhawk community itself. It enhances the usability and appeal of an existing asset, contributes to property value stability, and offers a shared amenity that residents can take pride in. Thoughtful enhancements like this help communities remain vibrant, relevant, and connected.
For these reasons, I respectfully encourage the Planning Commission to approve the Redhawk Golf Course as an event venue.
Thank you for your time and consideration
Sincerely,
Vivi Souvanlasy
Temecula School Teacher
r--=ed
0.5:06l2U2t3 isU[2f�c �f�a�an�
Item #3 (PA,23-0327, PA23-02-51)
Planning Commission,
vha: rswa Tur$-4-Trmp
w-Chairrarsona HagW
Qmnis%barer Maks
onvmLas oner Scas
rAww,jasiener "f,'atson
city Staff;
Mad Peters Oirvaztnr d W)
Prasdon Rawdau �Yasit. Diir rACO)
Scott uoaper (Rannin hlanajec)
ASar; 4a Ata:ogur:6;sst C.*A.tor WJ
Ron M,k enb 'Mroav .f P.'f;
`d erre Carragan far :ark .7
Dtervse Jw-*bo (Sr AA4nAssfj
PalAic 9in;e• COP/
��r1 Sl �5a' 1=•3n'e:^ii. E
From: Brandon Rabidou
Sent: Tuesday, February 3, 2026 12:45 PM
To: Eric Jones ; Denise Jacobo ;
Scott Cooper
Subject: FW: Request a NO Vote for Amendment to Redhawk Specific Plan Please include.
Brandon Rabidou
Assistant Director of Community Development
City of Temecula
(951) 506-5142
brandon.rabidou(cDTemeculaCA.gov
TemeculaCA.gov
Please note that email correspondence with the City of Temecula, along with attachments, may be subject to the California Public Records Act, and therefore may be subject to disclosure unless otherwise exempt.
From: Aaron Adams
Sent: Tuesday, February 3, 2026 12:45 PM
To: Brandon Rabidou
Subject: FW: Request a NO Vote for Amendment to Redhawk Specific Plan Supplemental correspondence Received
02/04/2026 Public Hearing
Item #2 (PA23-0327, PA23-0251)
ORCULATIoiv COPIES:
Plann°ng Commission:
Chairperson Turley-Trejo
Vice -Chairperson Hagel
Commissioner Matics
Commissioner Solis
Commissioner Watts
City Staff:
Matt Peters (Director of CD)
Brandon Rabidou (Asst. Dir. of CD)
Scott Cooper (Principal Planner)
Maricela Marroquin (Asst. City Attorney)
Ron Moreno (Director of PW)
1Valerie Carragan (Sr. Civil Engr.)
Denise Jacebo (Admin Asst.)
Public Binder Copy
0ther(s) Case Planner -Project File
Aaron Adams
City Manager
City of Temecula
(951) 694-6419
aaron.adams(cDTemeculaCA.gov
TemeculaCA.gov
Please note that email correspondence with the City of Temecula, along with attachments, may be subject to the California Public Records Act, and therefore may be subject to disclosure unless otherwise exempt.
From: Stacey Brown
Sent: Tuesday, February 3, 2026 9:30 AM
To: Matt Rahn ; Aaron Adams ; Kevin
Hawkins ; Luke Watson ; Matt Peters
; Betsy Lowrey
Cc: Luisa Saylor
Subject: Request a NO Vote for Amendment to Redhawk Specific Plan Mr. Steve Schwartz, TVUSD School Board Member, called asking for MPT Rahn, then asked for the City Manager (in a meeting at the time), and finally (speaking quickly and sounded angry) said like he would like his message to vote "no" for events at Redhawk to be forwarded to the entire City Council. I recall Mr. Schwartz also said he has lived in Redhawk for 22 years and does not want the noise at night.
Upon my research, I believe Mr. Schwartz may be speaking of the February 4, 2026, Planning Committee Meeting Agenda Item 2 (see screenshot below).
2. (Continued from the Planning Commission meetings of October 15, 2025, November 19, 2025, and January 7, 2026) Planning Application Numbers PA23-0327, an amendment to the Redhawk Specific Plan to allow a wedding and special event center associated with the golf course and add related standards for those uses. PA23-0251, a Conditional Use Permit to allow a wedding/event center to be operated as part of the existing golf course between the hours of Noon and 9:00 p.m. no more than three days per week. The project is located at 45100 Temecula Parkwav within the Redhawk Snecifie Plan. Eric Jones Recommendation: Adopt resolutions entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADOPT THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND
REPORTING PROGRAM PREPARED FOR THE REDHAWK
SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT GENERALLY LOCATED
APPROXIMATELY 1,500 FEET FROM THE REDHAWK PARKWAY
AND VAIL RANCH PARKWAY INTERSECTION (APN:
962-040-012)
PC RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL
ADOPT AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED "AN ORDINANCE OF THE
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING THE
REDHAWK SPECIFIC PLAN TO ALLOW WEDDINGISPECIAL
Stacey Brown
Senior Office Specialist
City of Temecula
(951) 694-6413
stacev. brown aaTemeculaCA. aov
41000 Main St., Temecula, CA 92590
17 The fear[ of Southern Cation a
wine Country
Please note that email correspondence with the City of Temecula, along with attachments, may be subject to the California Public Records Act, and therefore may be subject to disclosure unless otherwise exempt.
-----Original Message -----
From: Sandi Kimmel
Sent: Tuesday, February 3, 2026 10:38 AM
To: Zak Schwank ;
Jessica Alexander ;
James Stewart ;
Matt Rahn
Cc: Council Assistant
Subject: Redhawk Golf Course, Event Pavillion
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
To the Esteemed Members of the City Council:
I am writing to ask for your assistance on an issue that is very close to home, literally.
Supplemental Correspondence Received
02/04/2026 Public Hearing
Item #2 (PA23-0327, PA23-0251)
CiRCOLATION COPIES:
Planning Commission:
Chairperson Turley-Treio
Vice -Chairperson Hagel
Commissioner Matics
Commissioner Solis
Commissioner Watts
City Staff:
Matt Peters (Director of CD)
Brandon Rabidou (Asst. Dir, of CD)
Scott Cooper (Principal Planner)
Maricela Marroquin (Asst. City Attorney)
Ron Moreno (Director of PVV)
Valene Carragan (Sr. Civil Erg.)
Denise ,facobo (Admin Asst.)
Public Binder Copy
other(s) Case Planner -Project File
For the past 23 years, I have lived in Redhawk right above the waterfall, enjoying my beautiful, peaceful neighborhood. My backyard is a stone's throw from the Redhawk Golf Course parking lot, and aside from the occasional noise from a live band when there has been a tournament event at the course, I have had no complaints. Until now.
I attended the public meeting in October regarding the permit for the golf course to expand the range of uses for the pavilion for all kinds of events, including weddings, banquets, meetings, corporate events and other private events. There were many residents attending, voicing their opposition. No one wants the golf course to default and close, but neither do we want the disruption that is already apparent. We were promised that the events would end by 9 PM, and that the speakers would face down to mitigate the sound transmitting through the neighborhood. I left that meeting with high hopes.
Unfortunately, there have already been loud parties with music heard throughout the neighborhood.
While they might have been within the city's noise ordinance level, they were totally unacceptable in my backyard. I am not the only resident who talked about it or called Randy Woods.
Though I cannot attend the meeting tomorrow morning, February 4, due to a prior commitment, I do want to go on the record as being adamantly opposed to this plan. Not only does the noise from the golf course carry long distances, but the noise after the events continues as inebriated participants continue their partying into the parking lot. There is often yelling, revving engines, and other disruptive sounds that can be heard even through closed windows.
I moved to Redhawk because it promised to be the kind of neighborhood that would be respectful of the needs of the residents. I absolutely did not choose to live in a commercial area next to a popular event venue. Please deny the golf course this permit.
Thank you for your attention to this matter and I so appreciate your consideration.
Sincerely,
Sandi Kimmel
Temecula, CA 92592
-----Original Message -----
From: Aaron Adams
Sent: Tuesday, February 3, 2026 12:12 PM
To: Steve Schwartz
Cc: Luke Watson ; Matt Peters ;
Brandon Rabidou ; Randi Johl
Subject: RE: Redhawk
Supplemental Correspondence Received
02/04/2026 Public Hearing
Item #2 (PA23-0327, PA23-0251)
CIRCULA T;ON COPIES:
Planning Commission:
Chairperson Turley-Trejo
Vice -Chairperson Hegel
Commissioner Matics
Commissioner Solis
Commissioner Watts
City Staff:
Matt Peters (Director of CD)
Brandon Rabidou (Assf. Dir. of CD)
Scott Cooper (Phncipal Planner)
Maricela Marroquin (Asst. Cory Attorney)
Ron Moreno (Director of PVV)
Valerie Carragan (Sr. Civil Engr.)
Denise Jacobo Admin Asst.)
Public Binder Copy
Other(s) Case Planner -Project File
Mr. Schwartz- email received and I will make sure your concerns are logged as part of the public record for the Planning Commission meeting scheduled tomorrow.
Regards,
-----Original Message -----
From: Steve Schwartz
Sent: Tuesday, February 3, 2026 9:52 AM
To: Aaron Adams
Subject: Redhawk
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Hi, I'm just calling to express my concern about allowing Redhawk to have weddings and other events at night on the golf course. A month or so ago I don't remember the exact date there was a trial and the noise was horrendous and it was after 10 o'clock at night. If you're gonna allow them to have events, they should end by 8 o'clock at the latest. Unfortunately, I can't come to the meeting as I am on the school board and I have a School Board meeting at the same time. Thank you.
Sent from my iPhone
From: Marcel Tsai
Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2025 4:50 PM
To: Eric Jones
Suppiemental Correspondence Received
02I04J2026 Public Hearing
Item ##2 (PA23-0327, PA23-0251)
CIRCULATION COPIES:
Planning commission:
Chairperson Turley-Trejo
Vice -Chairperson Hegel
Commissioner Matics
Commissioner Solis
Commissioner Watts
City Staff:
Matt Peters (Director of CD)
Brandon Rattidou (Asst. Dir. of CD)
Scott Cooper (Principal Planner)
Maricela Marroquin (Asst My Attorney)
Ron Moreno (Director of PN!)
Valerie Carragan (Sr. Civil Engr.)
Denise Jacobo (Admin Asst.)
Public Binder Copy
Other(s) Case Planner-Projeot File
Subject: Opposition to Case Nos. PA23-0251 and PA23-0327 — Redhawk Golf Course Wedding/Special Event Proposal
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Eric,
Thank you for allowing our voices to be heard. Please see my formal opposition letter to the Planning Commission below.
In short, please imagine this proposal borders right on your backyard. Would you be okay with weddings and events taking place right behind your home three days a week, from noon to 9 p.m.? The noise and crowds would seriously disrupt your weekends among other peace, safety, and property rights concerns.
To: Temecula Planning Commission
41000 Main Street
Temecula, CA 92590
Dear Planning Commissioners,
I am a homeowner whose backyard directly borders the Redhawk Golf Course. My address is 45408 Calle Los Mochis, Temecula Redhawk. I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed Specific Plan Amendment and Conditional Use Permit that would allow weddings and special events at the golf course (Case Nos. PA23-0251 and PA23-0327).
The proposal would permit events from 12:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m., up to three days per week. While I understand the applicant's interest in diversifying operations, this plan poses serious and ongoing impacts for residents living adjacent to the course.
My primary concerns are:
Noise: Amplified music, microphones, and large gatherings will disrupt the quiet enjoyment of nearby homes and backyards.
Frequency: Up to three events per week, often on weekends, will subject residents to recurring disturbances.
Traffic and Parking: Large events will increase congestion and may push overflow parking into surrounding neighborhoods.
Neighborhood Character & Property Values: Converting a golf course into an event center undermines the residential character of Redhawk and risks diminishing property values.
For these reasons, I strongly urge you to deny this proposal. Please protect the peace, safety, and property rights of the community.
Thank you for your attention and for considering the voices of residents who will be most directly affected.
Respectfully,
Marcel Tsai
Temecula CA, 92592
From: Wm Kelley
Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2025 1:26 PM
To: Eric Jones
Subject: Response to RedHawk golf course Proposal for Special Event Outdoor Pavilion Use.
Case No. PA23-0251 and PA23-0327
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Hi Eric,
Supplemental Correspondence Received
02/04/2026 Public Hearing
Item #t2 (PA23-0327, PA23-0251)
CIRCULATICN COPIES:
Planning Commission:
Chairperson Turley-Trejo
Vice -Chairperson Hagel
Commissioner Matics
Commiss€over Solis
Commissloner Watts
City Staff:
Matt Peters (Director of CD)
Brandon Rabidou (Asst. Dr. of CD)
Scott Cooper (Principal Planner)
Maricela Marroquin (Asst. City Attorney)
Ron Moreno (Director of PVV)
Valerie Carragan (Sr. Civil Engr.)
Denise Jacobo (Admin Asst.)
Public Binder Copy
Other(¢) Case Planner -Project File
I am not sure if I will be able to attend the meeting tonight due to health reasons however I wanted you to have this information.
I am in favor of the proposed RedHawk golf course special event pavilion which can be an asset to the community if the homeowners concerns outlined below are addressed. Please note that RedHawk golf course management has been very cooperative and demonstrates a willingness to address any issues that arise with a sense of urgency.
Per our previous conversation, the major concern from homeowners has been the noise levels of the events. Attached below are voice recordings taken on 10/25/25 from inside my home on Tiburcio Drive which is across from the RedHawk golf course outdoor open air pavilion.
This is one recorded example however there have been other events at the pavilion with similar noise levels.
Homeowners in close proximity to this outdoor open air pavillion do not want the possibility of potentially having to hear this level of noise on Friday, Saturday and Sunday from 12pm to 9pm every weekend. Even if a noise meter determines it is at the noise level approved by the city, the echo across the sloped terrain tends to amplify the sound. The community just wants to maintain the residential quality of life we all value. A safe and peaceful community was a major determining factor in us investing in a home in the RedHawk community.
Not being able to open your windows or enjoy your outdoor space in relative peace is of major concern.
Our homeowners request for your consideration, the following suggested options to mitigate our noise level and safety concerns.
1). Lower the noise level standard, limit the number and/or direction of speakers, no commercial disc jockey, rave or concert level equipment allowed, install sound baffling, enclose the space and any other proposals that will mitigate the noise and reverberations. 2). Homeowners would like to confirm that there is on site supervision from RedHawk golf course event management at all events and that homeowners be given a phone number to contact RedHawk Golf course onsite event management directly should any issues arise during an event.
I am in favor of this proposal if mitigation options are addressed.
We appreciate your attention to our communities concerns. Please feel free to contact me if you need clarification or additional feedback.
Respectfully,
William Kelley
President
The Fairways at RedHawk Homeowners Association
Sent from my iPhone
From: Marcel Tsa
Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2025 3:48 PM
To: Eric Jones
Subject: Re: Redhawk Golf Course
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Hi Eric,
Merry Christmas and happy holidays!
Supplemental Correspondence Received
02/04/2026 Public Hearing
Item #2 (PA23-0327, PA23-0251)
CIRCULATION COPIES:
Planning Commission:
Chairperson Turley-Trejo
Vice -Chairperson hagel
Commissioner Matics
Commissioner Solis
Commissioner Watts
City Staff:
Matt Peters (Director of CD)
Brandon Rabidou (Asst. Dir. of CD)
Scott Cooper (Principal Planner)
Maricela Marroquin (AsM. City Attorney)
Ron Moreno Orector of PW)
Valede Carragan (Sr. Civil Engr.)
Denise Jacobo (Admin Asst.)
Public Binder Copy
Other(s) Case Planner -Project File
Thank you for hearing me out and for including our community's voices, including my formal opposition letter, in the Planning Commission packet.
Unfortunately, the February 4, 2026 hearing at 10:00 a.m. is not workable, as it falls during standard work hours for me and perhaps many directly impacted residents.
Our request is straightforward and common sense. The proposal would allow weddings and special events immediately adjacent to residential backyards with the following frequency:
• Up to 3 events per week
• Up to 9 hours per event (12:00 p.m. — 9:00 p.m.)
• Up to 27 hours of event activity per week
• Approximately 12 events per month
• Over 150 events per year
Most homeowners would not consider recurring amplified music, large crowds, and event traffic just feet from their homes to be reasonable —particularly on weekends.
We hope the Commission will seriously consider the ongoing impacts to neighborhood peace, safety, and property rights.
Thank you for your time. And wishing you much warmth, peace, and joy this holiday season.
Best regards,
Marcel
Get Outlook for iOS
City of Temecula
Community Development
41000 Main Street • Temecula, CA 92590
Phone (951 ) 694-6400 • Fax (951 ) 694-6477 • TemeculaCA.gov
VIA -ELECTRONIC SUBMITTAL
[email protected]
July 14, 2026
Supervising Legal Certification Clerk
County of Riverside
P.O. Box 751
Riverside, CA 92501-0751
SUBJECT: Notice of Determination for Planning Application Nos. PA23-0327, an amendment to the Redhawk Specific Plan to provide a revision to uses associated with the golf course and add related standards for those uses. PA23- 0251, a Conditional Use Permit to allow a wedding/event center to be operated as part of the existing golf course. The project is located at 45100 Redhawk Parkway within the Redhawk Specific Plan
Dear Sir/Madam:
Enclosed is the Notice of Determination for the above referenced project. In addition, pursuant to Assembly Bill 3158 (Chapter 1706) please find a receipt in the amount of $2,966.75 for the County Administrative fee to enable the City to file the Notice of Determination for a Mitigated Negative Declaration. The City of Temecula is paying the $50.00 filing fee under protest. It is the opinion of the City that the administrative fee has been increased in a manner inconsistent with the provisions of State Law. Under Public Resources Code Section 21152 and 14 California Code Regulations 1507, the County is entitled to receive a $25.00 filing fee.
Please email a copy of the Notice of Determination within five working days after the 30-day posting to the email listed below.
Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Eric Jones at (951) 506-5115 or email at [email protected]
Sincerely,
Matt Peters
Director of Community Development
Attachments: Notice of Exemption Form
Electronic Payment - Filing Fee Receipt
City of Temecula
Community Development
Planning Division
Notice of Determination
TO: County Clerk and Recorders Office FROM: Planning Division County of Riverside City of Temecula
P.O. Box 751 41000 Main Street
Riverside, CA 92501-0751 Temecula, CA 92590
SUBJECT: Filing of a Notice of Determination in compliance with the provisions of Section 21152 of the Public Resources Code
State Clearinghouse No.: 2025061421
Project Title: Redhawk Specific Plan Amendment and Conditional Use Permit Project Location: Located at 45100 Redhawk Parkway
Project Description: PA23-0327, an amendment to the Redhawk Specific Plan to provide a revision to uses associated with the golf course and add related standards for those uses. PA23- 0251, a Conditional Use Permit to allow a wedding/event center to be operated as part of the existing golf course.
Lead Agency: City of Temecula, County of Riverside
Contact Person: Eric Jones
Telephone Number: (951) 506-5115
This is to advise you that the City Council for the City of Temecula has approved the above -described project on , 2026 and has made the following determinations regarding this project:
1. The project will not have a significant effect on the environment.
2. That a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA.
3. Mitigation measures were made a condition of the approval of the project.
4. A Mitigation Monitoring or Reporting Program was adopted for this project.
5. A Statement of Overriding Consideration was not adopted for this project.
6. Findings were made pursuant to the provisions of CEQA.
Staff has reviewed the project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and based on an initial study, it has been determined the project will not have a significant impact on the environment; therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared for the project.
A Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was prepared under staffs direction by Kimley-Horn and was distributed to responsible agencies, interested groups, and organizations. The Draft MND was made available for public review and comment for a period of 30 days. The public review and comment period for the Draft MND commenced on June 30, 2025, and concluded on July 30, 2025. Notices were mailed to surrounding property owners, a sign was placed on the property, and a notice was placed in the local paper to provide the 30-day noticing period for the public. The City of Temecula received two written comments and responded to each comment in the Final MND, which includes all timely received written comments and responses thereto. Comments were provided by Southern California Gas Company and Riverside Transit Agency.
The environmental analysis identified 19 areas where impacts were found to be less than significant or had no impact at all. These areas are: Aesthetics, Agricultural and Forest Resources, Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Energy, Geology and Soils, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Land Use and Planning, Mineral Resources, Population and Housing, Public Service, Recreation, Transportation, Tribal Cultural Resources Utilities and Service Systems, and Wildfire. The MND recommends a feasible mitigation measure for those environmental impacts that can be mitigated to a less than significant impact. This mitigation is located in the following area: Noise.
This is to certify that the Negative Declaration with comments, responses, and record of project approval is available to the General Public at the City of Temecula, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California 92590.
Signature: Date:
Matt Peters
Director of Community Development
Date received for filing at the County Clerk and Recorders Office:
Notice of Public Hearing
THE CITY OF TEMECULA
41000 Main Street
Temecula, CA 92590
A PUBLIC HEARING has been scheduled before the CITY COUNCIL to consider the matter(s) described below.
Case Nos.: PA23-0327 and PA23-0251
Applicant: Robbie Snider with Hawk's Pointe (Redhawk Golf Course) Location: 45100 Redhawk Parkway
Proposal: PA23-0327, an amendment to the Redhawk Specific Plan to allow a wedding and special event center to be associated with the golf course and add related standards for those uses. PA23-0251, a Conditional Use Permit to allow a wedding/event center to be operated as part of the existing golf course between the hours of Noon and 9:00 p.m. no more than three days per week.
Environmental Action: Mitigated Negative Declaration w/ Monitoring Plan PLACE OF HEARING: 41000 Main Street, Temecula, CA
City of Temecula, Council Chambers
DATE OF HEARING: July 14, 2026
TIME OF HEARING: 3:00 PM
Any person may submit written comments to the City Council before the hearing or may appear and be heard in support of or opposition to the approval of the project at the time of hearing.
Any petition for judicial review of a decision of the City Council shall be filed within the time required by, and controlled by, Sections 1094.5 and 1094.6 of the California Code of Civil Procedure. In any such action or proceeding seeking judicial review of, which attacks or seeks to set aside, or void any decision of the City Council, shall be limited to those issues raised at the hearing or in written correspondence delivered to the City Clerk at, or prior to, the public hearing described in this notice.
The proposed project application may be viewed at the public information counter, Temecula Civic Center, Community Development Department, 41000 Main Street, Monday through Friday from 8:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. Questions concerning the project(s) may be addressed to Eric Jones, City of Temecula Community Development Department, (951) 506-5115 or [email protected].
Item No. 21
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO: City Manager/City Council
FROM: Ron Moreno, Director of Public Works/City Engineer DATE: July 14, 2026
SUBJECT: Establish All -Way Stop Control at the Intersection of Wolf Creek Drive South and Cottonwood Drive -Silver Mine Way
PREPARED BY: Nick Minicilli, Principal Traffic Engineer Erick Escobedo, Associate Traffic Engineer
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA ESTABLISHING AN ALL -WAY STOP CONTROL
AT THE INTERSECTION OF WOLF CREEK DRIVE SOUTH
AND COTTONWOOD DRIVE -SILVER MINE WAY AND
FINDING THAT THE ACTION IS EXEMPT FROM
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA)
UNDER SECTION 15301(C) OF THE CEQA GUIDELINES
BACKGROUND: In 2025, City of Temecula staff received a request via Councilmember Matt Rahn to consider the feasibility of implementing all way stop controls to address concerns of excessive speeding and lack of safe pedestrian crossings on Wolf Creek Drive South at Cottonwood Drive -Silver Mine Way (Exhibit A). The request for an all -way stop and pedestrian controls at the intersection of Wolf Creek Drive South and Cottonwood Drive -Silver Mine Way would be to provide controlled access for residents to cross Wolf Creek Drive South.
In January 2026, field reviews were performed by staff at this intersection and, based on vehicular and pedestrian activity observed, it was determined that the intersection of Wolf Creek Drive South and Cottonwood Drive -Silver Mine Way warranted further analysis for stop and pedestrian controls.
Wolf Creek Drive South is a forty-four (44) foot wide residential collector roadway providing access to numerous single-family residences between Wolf Valley Road and Pechanga Parkway.
The posted speed limit on Wolf Creek Drive South is 35 MPH and the Average Daily Traffic (ADT) volume on is approximately 6,000 ADT. Recent speed data collection confirmed an 85th percentile speed of 39 MPH for this stretch of Wolf Creek Drive South.
ADT refers to the total number of vehicles that travel on a specific road or highway on an average day over a year. This metric is essential for understanding traffic flow patterns, planning
transportation infrastructure, and evaluating traffic trends in various regions.
The 85th percentile speed is the speed at or below 85% of drivers travel under free -flow conditions on a roadway. This metric is crucial for traffic engineers as it reflects the typical speed of "reasonable and prudent" drivers, helping to determine appropriate speed limits and traffic calming measures.
Cottonwood Drive and Silver Mine Way are thirty-six (36) foot wide local residential roadways that provide access to Wolf Creek Drive South for numerous single-family residences located within the neighborhood. Cottonwood Drive and Silver Mine Way both have a speed limit of 25 MPH and carry approximately 700 ADT.
In May 2026, staff generated speed and volume data between January 2025 through December 2025 using Streetlight Data software. Over this one-year period, review of prevailing (85th percentile) speeds indicates that speeds vary from 39 to 41 miles per hour during peak AM and PM hours on posted 35 MPH segments of Wolf Creek Drive South. The results of the speed data review indicate that speeding is occurring consistently throughout the day.
The collected volume data was used to evaluate entering volumes and prevailing speeds for the intersection of Wolf Creek Drive South and Cottonwood Drive -Silver Mine Way. In addition to the data collection, a review of intersection characteristics and conditions was performed, which included an evaluation of sight distance, collision history, and completion of a multi -way stop warrant analysis at both intersections.
An evaluation of sight distance was performed at the intersection of Wolf Creek Drive South and Cottonwood Drive -Silver Mine Way. A minimum unobstructed sight distance of 250 feet is required for the posted 35 MPH speed limit on Wolf Creek Drive South. The results of the evaluation are shown in the table below:
Location
Sight
Distance
Required Visibility
(Posted 35 MPH)
Cottonwood Dr (Southbound)
• Looking East
500'
250'
• Looking West
400'
250'
Silver Mine Way(Northbound)
• Looking East
530'
250'
• Looking West
450'
250'
As shown, the visibility at the intersection of Wolf Creek Drive South and Cottonwood Drive - Silver Mine Way is more than adequate for the posted speed limit.
A review of the collision history for the three (3) year period from January 1, 2023, to December 31, 2025, indicates there was one (1) reported collisions at the intersection of Wolf Creek Drive South and Cottonwood Drive -Silver Mine Way.
The Multi -Way Stop Sign Installation Policy (Policy) for Residential Streets' warrant criteria was
used to evaluate the need for multi -way stop signs at the intersection. The warrants allow for the installation of multi -way stop signs when the following conditions are satisfied:
1. Minimum Traffic Volumes
a. The total vehicular volume entering the intersection from all approaches is equal to or greater than three hundred (300) vehicles per hour for any eight (8) hours of an average day; and
b. The combined vehicular volume and pedestrian volume from the minor street is equal to or greater than one hundred (100) per hour for the same eight (8) hours.
2. Collision History
a. Three (3) or more reported collisions within a twelve (12) month period of a type susceptible to correction by a multi -way stop installation. Such accidents include right and left -turn collisions as well as right-angle collisions.
3. Roadway Characteristics
a. The traffic volume on the uncontrolled street exceeds two thousand (2,000) vehicles per day,
b. The intersection has four (4) legs, with the streets extending 600 feet or more away from the intersection on at least three (3) of the legs, c. The vehicular volumes on both streets are nearly equal to a forty/sixty percent (40/60%) split, and
d. Both streets are 44 feet wide or narrower.
Warrants for Minimum Traffic Volumes, Collision History and Roadway Characteristics must be met to justify the installation of a multi -way stop. Other criteria that may be considered when evaluating the need for multi -way stop signs include:
4. Visibility
a. The intersections sight distance is less than:
■ 150 feet for 25 MPH
■ 200 feet for 30 MPH
■ 250 feet for 35 MPH
5. The need to control left -turn conflicts.
6. The need to control vehicle/pedestrian conflicts near locations that generate high pedestrian volumes such as schools, parks and activity centers.
7. The roadways and intersection appear on a Suggested Route to School plan.
8. There are no traffic signals or all -way stop controls located within 600 feet of the intersection.
9. The installation of multi -way stop signs is compatible with overall traffic circulation needs of the residential area.
The multi -way stop warrant analysis determined that the required Warrants 1, 2 & 3 were not
satisfied and all -way stop controls are not justified at the intersection based on quantitative data.
The Policy does however provide the flexibility to consider the need to control vehicle and pedestrian conflicts near locations that generate high pedestrian volumes such as schools, parks and activity centers. During field reviews, staff noticed elevated amounts of pedestrian traffic based on Wolf Creek Drive South having activity centers like Temecula Luiseno Elementary School, Wolf Creek Park, and Patricia H. Birdsall Sports Park. Staff also observed some elevated speeds by motorists on Wolf Creek Drive South. Based on the review of the intersection under these criteria, and the fact that it acts as a suggested school route, staff have determined there is justification for all -way stop controls at the intersection of Wolf Creek Drive South and Cottonwood Drive -Silver Mine Way.
Establishing all -way stop controls and striped pedestrian crosswalks at the intersection of Wolf Creek Drive South and Cottonwood Drive -Silver Mine Way supports the City's core values in the Quality -of -Life Master Plan (i.e., A Safe and Prepared Community).
At the Planning Commission Traffic Subcommittee meeting on May 20, 2026, the Traffic Subcommittee considered the all -way stop and agreed with the staff recommendation that the City Council adopt an Ordinance establishing the all -way stop at the intersection of Wolf Creek Drive South and Cottonwood Drive -Silver Mine Way.
Staff recommend establishing all -way stop controls and striped pedestrian crosswalks at the intersection of Wolf Creek Drive South and Cottonwood Drive -Silver Mine Way.
FISCAL IMPACT: Minor cost associated with the recommended action.
ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution
2. Exhibit A - Location Map
3. Exhibit B - Multi -Way Stop Warrant Analysis
RESOLUTION NO.2026-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA, ESTABLISHING AN ALL -WAY STOP
CONTROL AT THE INTERSECTION OF WOLF CREEK
DRIVE SOUTH AND COTTONWOOD DRIVE -SILVER
MINE WAY AND FINDING THAT THE ACTION IS
EXEMPT FROM CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY ACT (CEQA) UNDER SECTION 15301(C) OF
THE CEQA GUIDELINES
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The City Council has considered the facts justifying the need for stop signs at the location described in this resolution.
A. The City Council hereby finds and determines the installation of the stop signs pursuant to this resolution will enhance public health, safety, and general welfare at the intersection.
B. The City Council hereby finds the proposed stop signs will not create any adverse conditions in the area and the action is exempt from California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Section 15301(c) of the CEQA Guidelines.
Section 2. Pursuant to Section 10.12.100 of the Temecula Municipal Code, the following All -Way Stop Intersection is hereby established in the City of Temecula:
Wolf Creek Drive South and Cottonwood Drive -Silver Mine Way PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula this 14t' day of July, 2026.
Jessica Alexander, Mayor
ATTEST:
Randi Johl, City Clerk
[SEAL]
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss
CITY OF TEMECULA )
I, Randi Johl, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2026- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a meeting thereof held on the 14th day of July, 2026, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Randi Johl, City Clerk
�PIF ti
46 in s
IL
y i
-*L ti Opp
► }
wv
#` a dop
#�
}
di
k
r
. F ''
MULTI -WAY STOP WARRANT (Residential Streets)
Major Street: Wolf Creek Drive South Critical Approach Speed 35 MPH Minor Street: Cottonwood Dr -Silver Mine Way Critical Approach Speed 25 MPH Wararnts 1, 2, and 3 Must Be Satisfied
1. Minimum Vehicular Volume Satisfied Yes No X�
MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS I 7:00 AM 8:00 AMI 1:00 PMl 2:00 PM1 3:00 PMl 4:00 PMl 5:00 PMl 6:00 PM1 Hour Total All
Ap roaches
300
408
557
372
450
598
522
521
491
Combined Vehicular
Ped Volume
Minor Street
100
68 89
28 32
47 31
27 32
2. Collision History Satisfied
MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS NUMBER OF ACCIDENTS
3 OR MORE 1
3. Roadway Characteristics Satisfied
(All Parts Below Must Be Satisfied)
A. The traffic volume on the uncontrolled street exceeds two thousand (2,000) vehicles per day,
B. The intersection has four (4) legs, with the streets extending 600 feet or more away from the intersection on at least three (3) of the legs, C. The vehicular volumes on both streets are nearly equal to a forty/sixty percent (40/60%) split, and
D. Both streets are 44 feet wide or narrower.
Options (Other Criteria That May Be Considered)
4. Visibility
The intersection sight distance is less than:
150 feet for 25 MPH
200 feet for 30 MPH
250 feet for 35 MPH
5. The need to control left -turn conflicts.
6. The need to control vehicle/pedestrian conflicts near locations that generate high pedestrian volumes such as schools, parks and activity centers.
7. The roadways and intersection appear on a Suggested Route School plan.
8. There are no traffic signal or all -way stop controls located within 600 feet of the intersection.
9. The installation of multi -way stop signs is compatible with overall traffic circulation needs of the residential area.
Yes No X�
Yes No �X
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No �X
Yes No
Satisfied
Yes No �X
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes �X No
Item No. 22
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO: City Manager/City Council
FROM: Matt Peters, Director of Community Development
DATE: July 14, 2026
SUBJECT: Adopt Resolution Declaring Certain Real Property Located at 44987 Old Town Front Street (APN 922-210-057) as Surplus Land Pursuant to Government Code Section 54221
PREPARED BY: Haide Urias, Housing and Real Estate Analyst RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA DECLARING PURSUANT TO
GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54221 CERTAIN REAL
PROPERTY OWNED BY THE CITY LOCATED AT 44987 OLD
TOWN FRONT STREET IS SURPLUS LAND AND NOT
NECESSARY FOR THE CITY'S USE, TAKING RELATED
ACTIONS, AND FINDING THE ACTION EXEMPT FROM THE
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA)
PURSUANT TO CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15061(b)(3)
BACKGROUND: The City of Temecula owns approximately 1.07 acres of real property located at 44987 Old Town Front Street, identified as Assessor's Parcel Number 922-210- 057 ("Property"). The Property was formerly developed as a gasoline service station. All improvements have since been removed, and the site is currently vacant.
The City initially acquired the Property in connection with the planned construction of the Temecula Parkway Interchange Expansion Project. Following completion of the project planning and evaluation process, the Property was no longer needed for that purpose and has remained undeveloped.
The Property carries a General Plan Land Use Designation of Highway/Tourist Commercial.
Permitted uses within this designation include tourist accommodations, lodging facilities, restaurants, convenience retail uses, automobile service stations, food stores, and related commercial activities.
As part of the City's ongoing review of publicly owned real property assets, staff evaluated whether the Property is currently being used or planned to be used pursuant to an adopted written plan, for City work or operations. Following this review, staff determined that the Property is not necessary for the City's use as defined by the Surplus Land Act (Government Code Sections 54220 through 54234).
Before the City may dispose of the Property through sale, lease, or other conveyance, State law requires the City Council to formally declare the Property either surplus land or exempt surplus land. Adoption of the proposed resolution satisfies this statutory requirement and initiates the Surplus Land Act process.
DISCUSSION: The proposed resolution does not authorize the sale, transfer, or development of the Property. It constitutes the formal finding required by State law that the Property is surplus land and not necessary for the City's use.
Once declared surplus, the City must follow the procedures established by the Surplus Land Act prior to negotiating with or disposing of the Property to any private party.
The Surplus Land Act was enacted to prioritize the development of affordable housing, parks, schools, and other public serving uses on surplus public lands. The Act requires local agencies to provide specified public entities an opportunity to acquire or lease surplus properties before they are offered on the open market.
Surplus Land Act Process and Timeline
Upon adoption of the proposed resolution, staff will initiate the following statutory process:
Step 1— Notice of Availability (Within Approximately 30 Days) The City will prepare and transmit a Notice of Availability ("NOA") to all entities identified in Government Code Section 54222, including:
• The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) • Local public agencies
• Housing authorities
• Park and recreation districts
• School districts
• Regional Park authorities
• Nonprofit affordable housing developers meeting statutory qualifications The NOA will describe the Property and invite eligible entities to express interest in acquiring or leasing the site for purposes identified in the Surplus Land Act.
Step 2 — 60-Day Response Period
Following issuance of the NOA, interested entities have sixty (60) days to submit a written notice of interest. If no eligible entity responds within the statutory 60-day period, the City may proceed with disposition of the Property consistent with applicable law.
Step 3 — Good Faith Negotiation Period (Minimum 90 Days) If one or more eligible entities submit a timely notice of interest, the City is required to enter into a good -faith negotiation process.
The Surplus Land Act requires a minimum ninety (90) day negotiation period before the City may pursue another disposition option.
During this period, the City and responding entity or entities will evaluate acquisition terms, proposed uses, development feasibility, purchase price, lease conditions, and other relevant considerations.
The Act does not require the City to sell or lease the Property if mutually agreeable terms cannot be reached. Rather, it requires that the City engage in good -faith negotiations for the prescribed period.
Step 4 — Notice to HCD Regarding Negotiation Outcome
Following completion of the negotiation process, the City must provide documentation to HCD demonstrating compliance with the requirements of the Surplus Land Act.
Documentation generally includes:
• A copy of the NOA
• A list of entities that received notice
• Copies of responses received
• Records of negotiations conducted
• The ultimate disposition decision made by the City
Step 5 — HCD Review
Before completing any disposition of the Property, the City must submit required compliance documentation to HCD.
HCD reviews the materials to determine whether the City complied with the Surplus Land Act's noticing and negotiation requirements. HCD may request additional information or clarification during its review.
Upon satisfactory completion of HCD's review, the City may proceed with disposition of the Property consistent with State law and City Council direction.
The estimated timeline assuming adoption of the resolution in mid-2026, the anticipated timeline is as follows:
• City Council Declaration of Surplus Land — July 14th
• Notice of Availability Distributed — By August 13th
• Statutory Response Period — August 13th — October 121h (60 days) • Good Faith Negotiation Period (if required) — October 13, 2026 to January 11, 2027 (minimum 90 days)
• Submission of Compliance Package to HCD — January 2027 • HCD Review and Response — January — March 2027 (varies based on workload and complexity)
• Potential Future Disposition Consideration by City Council — Following HCD compliance review
Actual timing may vary depending on the number of responding entities, complexity of negotiations, and HCD review schedules.
Following adoption of the resolution, staff will coordinate with HCD throughout the process to ensure compliance.
Key communications with HCD will include:
1. Transmission of the NOA as required by Government Code Section 54222
2. Consultation regarding statutory requirements and compliance questions that may arise during implementation
3. Submission of documentation demonstrating compliance with the noticing and negotiation provisions of the Act
4. Receipt of HCD feedback regarding compliance before any final disposition of the Property
Maintaining communication with HCD throughout the process will help ensure the City satisfies all procedural requirements and avoids delays associated with future property disposition actions.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The proposed action is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), the common-sense exemption.
Adoption of the resolution declares the Property surplus for purposes of the Surplus Land Act and initiates statutory noticing procedures. No development project, entitlement, or physical change to the environment is authorized by this action. Any future development proposal or disposition of the Property will be subject to separate environmental review, as appropriate.
FISCAL IMPACT: Adoption of the resolution will result in minor administrative costs associated with compliance with the Surplus Land Act, including preparation and distribution of notices, staff coordination, legal review, and HCD compliance documentation. These costs can be accommodated within existing departmental budgets.
Future fiscal impacts associated with disposition of the Property will be presented to the City Council for consideration at a later date once the Surplus Land Act process has been completed.
ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution
2. Exhibit A — Legal Description & Property Location Map
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA DECLARING PURSUANT
TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54221 CERTAIN
REAL PROPERTY OWNED BY THE CITY LOCATED AT
44987 OLD TOWN FRONT STREET IS SURPLUS LAND
AND NOT NECESSARY FOR THE CITY'S USE, TAKING
RELATED ACTIONS, AND FINDING THE ACTION
EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY ACT (CEQA) PURSUANT TO CEQA
GUIDELINES SECTION 15061(b)(3)
WHEREAS, the City of Temecula ("City") is the owner in fee simple of a property located at 44987 Old Town Front Street (Assessor's Parcel No. 922-210-057), and further described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto ("Property"); and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 54221(b) of the Surplus Land Act (Government Code Section 54220-54234) ("Act"), surplus land is land owned in fee simple by the City for which the City Council takes formal action in a regular public meeting declaring the land is surplus and not necessary for the City's use; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the Act, land is necessary for the City's use if the land is being used, or is planned to be used pursuant to a written plan adopted by the City Council, for City work or operations; and
WHEREAS, the Act specifies that the City's use shall not include commercial uses or activities, or property disposed of for the sole purpose of investment or generation of revenue; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the Act, land must be declared either surplus land or exempt surplus land, as supported by written findings, before the City may take any action to dispose of it consistent with the City's policies or procedures; and
WHEREAS, City staff have evaluated the potential for the Property for the City's use, as defined in the Act; and
WHEREAS, the Property is not being used, nor is it planned to be used pursuant to a written plan adopted by the City Council, for City work or operations; and WHEREAS, the Property is a former gas station site that has been cleared of all improvements and is currently vacant. The City's General Plan Land Use Designation for the Property is Highway/Tourist Commercial, which permits the Property to be developed with tourist accommodations and lodging facilities, automobile service stations, restaurants, convenience shopping, and food stores, and gift shops; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to declare that the Property is surplus land as defined under the Act and not necessary for the City's use pursuant to Government Code Section 54221
and to send a written notice of availability of the Property to the entities designated in Government Code Section 54222 for the uses designated in Section 54222 in accordance with the Act; and WHEREAS, the staff report accompanying this Resolution provides supporting information upon which the declaration and findings set forth in this Resolution are based.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The above recitals are true and correct and are a substantive part of this Resolution.
Section 2. The City Council hereby declares pursuant to the Act that the Property is surplus land, as defined in the Act, and not necessary for the City's use.
Section 3. The City Manager or his designee is hereby authorized and directed to send a notice of availability of the Property, in the form and manner required by the Act, to the entities designated in Government Code Section 54222 and to take any other such actions as deemed necessary or proper to effectuate the purposes of this Resolution. Such actions include, without limitation, negotiating in good faith in accordance with the requirements of the Act with designated entities that submit, in compliance with the Act, a written notice of interest in response to the notice of availability.
Section 4. The City Council hereby finds that the adoption of this Resolution will not have a significant environmental impact and is exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. It can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility the declaration of the Property as surplus may have a significant effect on the environment, as no development is authorized by this Resolution, and any future disposition will require separate environmental analysis if and when the details of such disposition are known.
Section 5. The City Clerk shall certify as to the passage and adoption of this Resolution by the City Council.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula this 14th day of July, 2026.
Jessica Alexander, Mayor
ATTEST:
Randi Johl, City Clerk
[SEAL]
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss
CITY OF TEMECULA )
I, Randi Johl, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2026- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a meeting thereof held on the 14th day of July, 2026, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Randi Johl, City Clerk
al
Exhibit "A"
Legal Description
EXHIBIT "A"
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
PARCELI
That certain parcel of land in the City of Temecula, County of Riverside, State of California, being a portion of the Remainder Parcel of Parcel Map 28627-1, as shown on map filed in Book 200, Pages 100 through 102, inclusive, of Parcel Maps, in the Office of the County Recorder of said Riverside County, Together with a portion of Parcel "A" of that certain Grant Deed, recorded November 14, 2000, as Document No. 2000-453434 of Official Records of said Riverside County, lying within Section 13, Township 8 South, Range 3 West, San Bernardino Base and Meridian, being more particularly described as follows:
at the Southwest corner of said Parcel "A';
Thence along the southerly line of said Parcel "A", North 82042' 10" East, 46.49 feet, to the Northeasterly comer of that certain Water and Access Easement described in Grant of Easement, recorded February 19, 2016, as Document No. 2016-0066087 of Official Records of said Riverside County, and to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; Thence along the Easterly line of said Water and Access Easement the following two (2) courses:
1) South 07014'03" East, 21.62 feet, to the beginning of a tangent curve concave Easterly, having a radius of 45.00 feet; 2) Thence Southerly, along said curve 12.16 feet through a central angle of 15029'05", to the Southeasterly comer of said Water and Access Easement;
Thence leaving said Easterly line, South 20°00'05" East, 20.00 feet, to the most Northerly comer of that certain Sewer, Water and Access Easement described in Grant of Easement, recorded February 19, 2016, as Document No. 2016-0066086 of Official Records of said Riverside County;
Thence along the Northeasterly line of said Sewer, Water and Access Easement and its Southeasterly prolongation, South 72017'S0" East, 152.68 feet, to the Westerly line of that certain Grunt of Deed, recorded January 30, 2025, as Document No. 2025-0029794 of Official Records of said Riverside County; Thence along said Westerly line, North 01 °00'47" West, 272.60 feet; Thence along the Northwesterly prolongation of the Northerly line of said Grant Deed, North 35037'39" West, 51.84 feet, to the beginning of a non -tangent curve concave Southerly, having a radius of 743.94 feet, a radial line to said curve bears North 00°43'35" East, and to a point on a line that is parallel with and 56.00 feet Southerly, as measured at right -angles, from the centerline of State Routhe 79 South as shown on said Parcel Map 28627-1; Thence Westerly, along said parallel line and along said non -tangent curve, 104.18 feet through a central angle of 08°01'25'; Thence continuing along said parallel line, South 82042' 10" West, 45.55 feet, to the Easterly line of that certain Water and Access Easement described in Grant of Easement, recorded February 19, 2016, as Document No. 2016-0066088 of Official Records of said Riverside County;
Thence leaving said parallel line along the Easterly line of last-mentioned Water and Access Easement, South 07°14'03" East, 206.20 feet, to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING.
CONTAINING: 1.07 Acres, more or less. H
5 EXHIBIT `B" attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof. U�? —� This description was prepared by me or under my direction. Lk oil�k 3I(7 �Z� sTJ R. Duquette, PLS 6 Date q H:\pdata\213368\Admin\Legals\213368-EX-OOI.docx
MICHAEL BAKER INTERNATIONAL March 17, 2026
40810 County Center Drive, Suite 200 213368
Temecula, CA 92591
Page I of 1
PLAT TO
LEA
W
[XI
EXHIBIT "B"
ACCOMPANY LEGAL DESCRIPTION
DENOTES RECORD DATA PER R.S.137/16-18
DENOTES RECORD DATA PER GRANT OF
EASEMENT, REC'D 02/19/2016, AS
DOC# 2016-0066086, O.R.
DENOTES RECORD DATA PER GRANT OF
EASEMENT, REC'D 02/19/2016, AS
DOC# 2016-0066087, O.R.
PARCEL 1 CONTAINS_t1_07 ACRES
SATE ROUTE
N82-42'10"E
II I
II
40'
I
N
I
O
7O
I
N
Z
� O op •m
I
Zro�
NI
Q�� N
I
..N
_
3I
IW1yr�O N
�QO
I oOt�D 3
`r
,� POR. REMAINDER
`'J PARCEL MAP 28627-1
P.M.B. 200 / 100-102
DATA TABLE
®
BEARING/DELTA
LENGTH
RADIUS
1 2
N20°00'OS"W
20.00'
--
3 N35°37'39"W
51.84'
--
4 1
N82°42.10--
NOD °43'35"E (�
\ 3
3 1
1 I
39' 1 39'
O
I
\
a�N
n
a z
a
�
z3
c
116
� W
W. se
GRANT OF EASEMENT \ \
REC'D 02/19/2016
DOC# 2016-0066086, O.R.
60 30 0 60
SCALE: 1"=60'
\ 1 y
GRANT DEED
REC'D 01/30/2025
DOC# 2025-0029794, O.R.
SHEET 1 OF 1 SHEETS
INTERNATIONAL%
m
Item No. 23
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO: City Manager/City Council
FROM: Peter Thorson, City Attorney
Randi Johl, Director of Legislative Affairs/City Clerk
DATE: July 14, 2026
SUBJECT: Adopt Resolution of Opposition to the San Diego Gas & Electric Golden Pacific Powerlink Project and Receive Status Update on the City's Efforts to Oppose the Project and Provide Information About City Impacts to San Diego Gas & Electric, California Independent System Operator and California Public Utility Commission PREPARED BY: Peter Thorson, City Attorney
Randi Johl, Director of Legislative Affairs/City Clerk
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council:
1. Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, OPPOSING THE GOLDEN
PACIFIC POWERLINK PROJECT AS CURRENTLY
PROPOSED THROUGH THE CITY OF TEMECULA AND
TEMECULA VALLEY, MAKING LEGISLATIVE FINDINGS,
URGING THE EVALUATION OF FEASIBLE ALTERNATIVES,
AND DIRECTING CITY STAFF TO TAKE ALL LAWFUL
ACTIONS TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY,
WELFARE, ENVIRONMENT, AND ECONOMIC INTERESTS
OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
2. Receive a status update on the City's efforts to oppose the Project and provide information about City impacts to San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E), California Independent System Operator (CAISO), and California Public Utility Commission (CPUC); and
3. Approve public outreach as needed; and
4. Provide general direction to the staff regarding the Project.
BACKGROUND: The California Independent System Operator (CAISO) and San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) have proposed the Golden Pacific Powerlink Project, which includes construction of a new 500-kilovolt (kV) extra -high -voltage transmission line and
associated facilities. As currently proposed, the project would traverse the southern portion of the City of Temecula, including the Temecula Creek corridor, residential neighborhoods, schools, parks, businesses, agricultural lands, and Southern California Wine Country.
On May 26, 2026, the City Council held a publicly noticed meeting during which representatives from CAISO and SDG&E presented information regarding the project and responded to questions from the City Council and members of the public. The meeting was attended by hundreds of residents, many of whom expressed significant concerns regarding the proposed alignment.
Following public testimony, the City Council unanimously expressed its opposition to the project as currently routed through Temecula.
On June 4, 2026, the City submitted a detailed comment letter to SDG&E and CAISO outlining the City's concerns and requesting that those issues be fully evaluated during the environmental review process required under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The proposed resolution formalizes the City's position and establishes legislative findings supporting its continued participation in the environmental and regulatory review processes.
The proposed resolution does not oppose electrical reliability improvements or modernization of California's electric grid. Rather, it expresses the City's opposition to the currently proposed alignment through Temecula and urges responsible agencies to evaluate feasible alternatives that avoid or substantially reduce impacts to established communities and sensitive environmental resources. The legislative findings contained in the resolution identify numerous concerns associated with the proposed alignment, including:
Potential impacts to public health, safety, and emergency response; Increased wildfire risks within the Temecula Creek corridor; Impacts to scenic resources, community character, and Southern California Wine Country; Potential effects on tourism, agriculture, and local businesses; Potential impacts to biological resources and wildlife corridors; Concerns regarding tribal cultural resources;
Potential reductions in residential and commercial property values; Lack of meaningful public participation during the early planning stages; and The need for a comprehensive analysis of feasible alternatives as required by CEQA and NEPA.
The resolution further authorizes the City Manager, City Attorney, and appropriate staff to continue participating in environmental review, retain technical and legal experts as necessary, coordinate with public agencies and tribal governments, and undertake other lawful actions to protect the City's interests throughout the regulatory process.
It is therefore recommended that the City Council approve the proposed resolution of opposition.
FISCAL IMPACT: Adoption of the proposed resolution has no direct fiscal impact.
Should additional environmental review, regulatory proceedings, technical analyses, or legal representation become necessary, any future expenditures will be presented to the City Council for consideration through the City's normal budgetary and contract approval processes.
ATTACHMENTS: Resolution
RESOLUTION NO.2026-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, OPPOSING THE GOLDEN
PACIFIC POWERLINK PROJECT AS CURRENTLY
PROPOSED THROUGH THE CITY OF TEMECULA AND
TEMECULA VALLEY, MAKING LEGISLATIVE
FINDINGS, URGING THE EVALUATION OF FEASIBLE
ALTERNATIVES, AND DIRECTING CITY STAFF TO
TAKE ALL LAWFUL ACTIONS TO PROTECT THE
PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY, WELFARE, ENVIRONMENT,
AND ECONOMIC INTERESTS OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA
WHEREAS, the California Independent System Operator ("CAISO") and San Diego Gas & Electric Company ("SDG&E") have proposed the Golden Pacific Powerlink Project, consisting of new 500-kilovolt extra -high -voltage transmission facilities, towers reaching approximately 191 feet in height, substations, and associated infrastructure; and WHEREAS, the currently proposed route traverses the southern portion of the City of Temecula and Temecula Valley, including the Temecula Creek corridor, established residential neighborhoods, schools, parks, businesses, agricultural lands, Wine Country, recreational facilities, and other sensitive community resources; and WHEREAS, on May 26, 2026, the Temecula City Council conducted a duly noticed public meeting at which representatives of SDG&E and CAISO presented information regarding the Project, after which hundreds of residents, businesses, organizations, and other stakeholders provided testimony expressing overwhelming opposition to the proposed route; and WHEREAS, following the public hearing, the City Council unanimously declared its opposition to the proposed alignment; and
WHEREAS, on June 4, 2026, the City transmitted a comprehensive comment letter to SDG&E and CAISO summarizing numerous concerns regarding the Project and requesting those concerns be incorporated into the environmental review required under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
WHEREAS, the City Council makes certain legislative findings as follows:
Section 1. Need for Reliable Energy Infrastructure. The City Council recognizes the importance of maintaining a reliable electric transmission system capable of serving California's future energy needs. Nothing in this Resolution shall be interpreted as opposition to electrical reliability or modernization of California's electric grid. Rather, the City opposes only the currently proposed routing of the Golden Pacific Powerlink Project through the City of Temecula and Temecula Valley.
Section 2. Established Community. The City finds that the proposed Project would introduce industrial -scale transmission infrastructure into one of Southern California's most established residential, commercial, recreational, and agricultural communities, affecting thousands of residents and businesses that have invested in Temecula based upon its carefully planned character.
Section 3. Scenic Resources. The City finds that Temecula Valley possesses unique scenic resources recognized throughout California, including Wine Country, open space, scenic vistas, and rural landscapes. The proposed transmission towers and conductors would permanently alter these scenic resources and substantially diminish the visual character that defines the Temecula Valley.
Section 4. Tourism and Economic Vitality. The City finds that tourism serves as a cornerstone of Temecula's economy. Tourism in City of Temecula and the Temecula Valley injects roughly $1.1 billion into the local economy and the region draws over 3.4 million annual visitors, supporting nearly 9,600 jobs. The proposed transmission corridor threatens wineries, resorts, hospitality businesses, special events, agritourism, outdoor recreation, and numerous small businesses dependent upon the community's scenic character.
Section 5. Hot Air Balloon Industry. The City finds that Temecula's internationally recognized hot air balloon industry represents an iconic cultural, recreational, and economic asset.
The proposed transmission facilities are incompatible with safe balloon operations and threaten one of Temecula's most recognizable attractions.
Section 6. Wildfire Hazards. The City finds that the proposed route traverses portions of the Temecula Creek corridor and other high fire severity areas. The City further finds that:
• Extra -high -voltage transmission facilities may impede aerial firefighting operations; • Emergency response may be delayed while electrical hazards are addressed; • Transmission facilities create additional operational challenges during wildfire incidents; and
• Any increase in wildfire response time places residents, businesses, schools, and critical infrastructure at greater risk.
Section 7. Public Health and Safety. The City finds that residents have expressed substantial concerns regarding:
• public safety;
• electrical hazards;
• emergency response;
• operational noise;
• electromagnetic fields;
• construction impacts;
• quality of life; and
• long-term compatibility of industrial transmission facilities within developed neighborhoods.
These concerns warrant comprehensive study during environmental review.
Section 8. Biological Resources. The City finds that Temecula Creek functions as an important wildlife movement corridor supporting sensitive habitat, native vegetation, and ecological connectivity. The proposed Project has the potential to fragment habitat, disrupt wildlife movement, and permanently affect biological resources.
Section 9. Tribal Cultural Resources. The City recognizes the sovereign authority of the Pechanga Band of Indians. The City finds that protection of tribal cultural resources is of paramount importance and supports full government -to -government consultation throughout the environmental review process.
Section 10. Property Rights. The City finds that residents have expressed legitimate concerns regarding reductions in residential and commercial property values associated with proximity to extra -high -voltage transmission facilities. The City further finds these concerns deserve objective economic analysis.
Section 11. Public Participation. The City finds that neither the City nor its residents were provided meaningful opportunities to participate during the early planning and route selection process despite decisions affecting Temecula having occurred years before public disclosure.
Transparent public participation is fundamental to sound governmental decision -making.
Section 12. CEQA and NEPA. The City finds that CEQA and NEPA require comprehensive evaluation of feasible alternatives capable of avoiding or substantially reducing environmental impacts. The City further finds that alternatives should not be dismissed solely because they may increase project costs.
Section 13. Feasible Alternatives. The City finds that SDG&E is legally required to provide a comprehensive study of feasible alternatives to the Temecula route that include:
• alternative transmission corridors;
• co -location with existing utility infrastructure;
• undergrounding where technically feasible;
• distributed energy resources;
• battery storage;
• smart grid technologies;
• flexible AC transmission systems;
• grid modernization; and
• other emerging technologies.
Section 14. General Plan Consistency. The City finds that the proposed Project is inconsistent with numerous goals and policies contained within the Temecula General Plan relating to:
• preservation of community character;
• scenic resources;
• open space;
• public safety;
• environmental stewardship;
• economic development; and
• quality of life.
Section 15. Cumulative Impacts. The City finds that the Project must be evaluated in conjunction with other existing and reasonably foreseeable public and private projects to determine cumulative environmental effects.
Section 16. Public Welfare. Based upon testimony received during the May 26, 2026 public hearing, written correspondence received by the City, information presented by SDG&E and CAISO, and the City's June 4, 2026 comment letter, the City Council finds that routing the Golden Pacific Powerlink Project through Temecula is contrary to the public health, safety, and welfare of the City's residents.
Section 17. Reservation of Rights. The City expressly reserves all rights to participate in, comment upon, appeal, intervene in, or otherwise challenge any aspect of the Project before the California Public Utilities Commission, California Independent System Operator, California Energy Commission, state and federal agencies, courts of competent jurisdiction, or any other governmental body. The City further reserves the right to supplement the administrative record as additional information becomes available.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The City Council formally opposes the Golden Pacific Powerlink Project as currently proposed through the City of Temecula and Temecula Valley.
Section 2. The City urges SDG&E, CAISO, the CPUC, and all responsible agencies to comprehensively evaluate and select feasible alternatives that avoid or substantially lessen impacts to the City of Temecula and Temecula Valley.
Section 3. The City requests full compliance with CEQA, NEPA, and all applicable federal, state, and local laws governing environmental review, public participation, and tribal consultation.
Section 4. The City Manager, City Attorney, and appropriate City staff are authorized and directed to retain technical experts, environmental consultants, legal counsel, engineers, economists, and other specialists necessary to represent the City's interests in all regulatory and judicial proceedings relating to the Project.
Section 5. The City Manager and City Attorney, and their designees, are authorized -to intervene in the proceedings before the California Public Utilities Commission, California Independent Service Operators, California Energy Commission, and any other public entities required to approve the Golden Pacific Powerlink Project and to prepare, submit, and prosecute comments, objections, protests, administrative appeals, litigation, amicus briefs, or any other lawful actions deemed necessary to oppose the Project as currently proposed.
Section 6. The City shall continue coordinating with the Pechanga Band of Indians, neighboring jurisdictions, county, state and federal elected officials, community organizations, business leaders, and residents in protecting the public interest, to the extent allowed by law.
Section 7. The City Clerk shall transmit certified copies of this Resolution to the California Public Utilities Commission, California Independent System Operator, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, California Energy Commission, California Independent Systems Operator, Governor of California, Riverside County Board of Supervisors, Pechanga Band of Indians, and all state and federal legislators representing the City of Temecula.
Section 8. All of the recitals set forth at the beginning of this Resolution are hereby approved and incorporated herein.
Section 9. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of the Resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula this 14th day of July, 2026.
ATTEST:
Randi Johl, City Clerk
[SEAL]
Jessica Alexander, Mayor
5 STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss
CITY OF TEMECULA )
I, Randi Johl, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2026- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a meeting thereof held on the 14th day of July, 2026, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Randi Johl, City Clerk
Item No. 24
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO: City Manager/City Council
FROM: Matt Peters, Director of Community Development
DATE: July 14, 2026
SUBJECT: Community Development Department Monthly Report RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council receive and file the Community Development Department monthly report.
The following are the highlights for Community Development for the month of May 2026.
CURRENT PLANNING ACTIVITIES
In May 2026, Planning has processed thirty-two (32) new applications (not including Home Occupations) and four (4) Public Hearings were conducted. A detailed account of planning activities is attached to this report.
Flaming statistir's
ids
Long Range
5 cessory Duelling Unit
1 Bingo
I
Maps
1 Massage
1 Modifications
13 Pre -Application
2 Reasonable Accommodation
1 Temporary Use Permit
6 Zoning ,' Planning Letter
1 TOW
32 Tierra Vista Road Townhomes (PA25-0263): A Development Plan application for an approximately 54,444 square foot townhome development that consists of six (6) new buildings that will provide 23 units, a pool, a play area, BBQ area and dog park at an existing vacant lot west of Ynez Road and north of Tierra Vista Road (944-330-008). (MARQUEZ)
-1-
Lantern Crest Retail Center (PA25-0355) and Conditional Use Permit for Drive-Thru (PA25-0356):
A Development Plan application for an approximately 12,260 square foot one-story retail center. The retail center will consist of four individual retail units and one restaurant with a drive-thm at the east of the building. The project is generally located at the northwest corner of Equity Drive and Ynez Road (APN:
916-400-068) (MARQUEZ)
Panera Bread (PA25-0049) and Conditional Use Permit (PA25-0050): A Development Plan to allow for a Panera Bread restaurant (with drive-thru) totaling approximately 3,145 square feet. The project is generally located at the northwest corner of the Temecula Parkway and Bedford Court intersection (APN: 922-170- 035) (MARQUEZ)
Rancho-12 Tentative Tract Map (PA22-0047): The City is processing a 12-lot single-family development located at 31670 Rancho California Road. (JONES)
Be Good Hotel (PA22-0995): The City is processing a Development Plan application to review a four-story hotel featuring nine rooms, restaurant, and subterranean parking. The project is generally located on the northwest corner of Fourth Street and Mercedes Street. (JONES) Redhawk Specific Plan Amendment (PA23-0327): The City is processing an amendment to the Redhawk Specific Plan to provide a revision to uses associated with the golf course and add related standards for those uses. The project is located at 45100 Redhawk Parkway within the Redhawk Specific Plan (related Planning Application number PA23-0251 CUP). The project is scheduled for City Council on July 14, 2026. (JONES)
Front and Main (PA23-0492): The City is processing a Development Plan application for an approximately 13,600 square foot structure totaling three -stories. The project is generally located approximately 130 feet east on the corner of Old Town Front Street and Main Street intersection at APN 922-034-037. (JONES) CubeSmart AT&T Wireless Antenna Facility (PA22-0470): Proposed 40' mono -eucalyptus wireless antenna facility located behind the existing CubeSmart Self Storage facility located at 44618 Pechanga Parkway. (CARDENAS)
Tony's Car Wash (PA23-0321): The City is processing a Development Plan application for a proposed 6,828 square -foot car wash facility consisting of a car wash tunnel, detailing tunnel, an office, and vacuums on the vacant 1.99-acre property located approximately 200 feet southwest of Temecula Parkway and Jedediah Smith Road. (MARQUEZ)
Vertical Bridge Wireless Antenna Facility (PA23-0351): The City is processing a Wireless Antenna Facility application (Conditional Use Permit) for a new 77-foot wireless tower facility and associated ground equipment at the Redhawk Golf Course open space area between Camino Rubi and Corte Mislanca. (CARDENAS)
Small Steps Industrial (PA24-0180): The City is processing a Development Plan application for a proposed 8,000 square foot industrial building on the vacant .59-acre parcel located on the northwest corner of Felix Valdez Avenue and Baldaray Circle. (MARQUEZ)
-2-
MS Mountain View Building 17 (PA24-0246): The City is processing a Development Plan application for Building 17, a 69,095 square foot building located on the west of the corner of Via Industria and Avenida Alvarado. (MARQUEZ)
Butterfield Stage Residential: A Planned Development Overlay (PA25-0232), Tentative Tract Map (PA25-0230), and a Development Plan (PA25-0231) to allow for a 158-unit single-family market rate residential project. Units will range in size from 1,615 to 2,434 square feet. The project is generally located on the northeast corner of Butterfield Stage Road and De Portola Road. (JONES) Temecula Town Center Residential: A General Plan Amendment (PA25-0331) to remove Table LU-6 from the Land Use Element (Mixed Use Overlays); a Development Plan (PA25-0332) to review 85 attached townhomes within 14 structures, each structure is three stories; and, a Tentative Tract Map (PA25-0333) to reconfigure an existing parcel to allow for an attached residential project. (JONES)
LONG RANGE PLANNING
General Plan Update: The Long Range Planning Division has developed a four -phase, multi -year process to update the General Plan. Phase I is complete and included updates to Housing and Public Safety Elements.
Phase I also included an update to the City's Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) Guidelines to analyze Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) for the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Phase II is in process and includes an update to the Quality of Life Master Plan (QLMP), reconciling the City's GIS Maps on a parcel - by -parcel basis, a baseline EIR analysis of the City's Circulation Element, and developing a Complete Streets Policy document. Phase III will include a Fiscal Land Use Study to analyze the City's remaining development capacity and market absorption potential for residential, commercial, and industrial development. The RFP for the General Plan managing consultant was awarded to Sagecrest Environmental (contract approved January 28, 2025). The RFP for the General Plan consultant was released and interviews held with the top applicants the week of April 28, 2025. The selection committee chose De Novo Planning Group to lead the General Plan effort. The contract was approved by the City Council on May 27, 2025. A General Plan visioning workshop is being held in each of the five Council Districts, and the first GPAC meeting was held on October 9, 2025, at the Conference Center. This first meeting focused on presenting the "Vision and Values" that was gathered from 5 District outreach events. The second GPAC meeting was held on November 13, 2025; this meeting focused on the Circulation Element and the priorities of the community regarding transportation. The third GPAC meeting was held on January 8, 2026, and focused on Economics. The fourth GPAC meeting was held on February 12, 2026, specifically focused on Land Use.
Staff and the consultant team presented a draft land use alternatives plan to the CC General Plan Update Subcommittee on March 24, 2026, and followed up on March 31, 2026, based on feedback provided. The fifth (5th) GPAC meeting was held on April 9, 2026, and focused on these land use alternatives. (PETERS) Local Hazard Mitigation Plan AB 2140 Compliance (LR25-0056): A proposed City Council Resolution to include reference to the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) in compliance with AB2140. The proposed resolution would reduce the City's costs in circumstances where FEMA declares an emergency. Staff is working with the City Attorney's office to ensure documents comply with both state and federal requirements. Documents were presented to the City Council General Plan Update Subcommittee on May 26, 2026, and are tentatively scheduled for a City Council review on July 28, 2026. (COLLINS) Citywide CWPP (LR25-0464): Staff drafted the RFP and is preparing its release. (COLLINS) -3-
Administrative Use Permit (LR24-0417): Staff is preparing a draft ordinance to implement an administrative use permit (AUP) specifically for alcohol uses (primary and secondary) that are not permitted by right such as grocery stores, restaurants serving beer and wine, etc. Staff is working with the City Attorney and CMO to ensure proposal is in line with Council direction related to alcohol. (COLLINS) ADU Ordinance (LR26-0136): The Ordinance has been drafted to be complaint with updated/new state laws. Staff is preparing supporting documents to include staff report and environmental documents. Once complete will be scheduled for Planning Commission and City Council Subcommittees for their review. (COLLINS)
Wayfinding Guide (LR23-0167/LR24-0344): The City was working with a consultant, Alta Planning + Design, Inc., to implement a bicycle wayfinding system for the bike lanes and trails throughout the city. The Multi -Use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan that was adopted in 2016 will act as an implementation and style guide to create an interconnected network designed to encourage more residents to use active transportation. Alta drafted a wayfinding strategy memo that outlines best practices for destination selection, sign placement, and sign programming in 2024, however, for ease of production and cost purposes, staff decided to open a contract with Brand Assassins to finish out the project. A kickoff meeting with Brand Assassins was held in February 2025, and designs are underway. Staff and the consultant presented a draft design to the City Council Trails/Open Space Ad Hoc Subcommittee on May 13, 2025. Staff has been working with the consultant on finalizing a design based off of the feedback received. A project update meeting with the City Council Trails/Open Space Ad Hoc Subcommittee was held on February 24, 2026.
The subcommittee directed staff to explore opportunities to rename the trails to ensure the names are more relevant and intentional. Staff had four (4) mockup signs prepared with proposed new design and will present to Trails/Opens Space Subcommittee on May 5, 2026 for review and comment. (COLLINS) SB 1186 (LR24-0090): A draft Ordinance has been prepared to implement the requirements of SB 1186.
This item is scheduled to be heard at the Planning Commission meeting on October 15, 2025, and City Council on November 18, 2025. The item was tabled by the City Council to allow for additional research before being brought back for future consideration. at future date. (COLLINS) Old Town Parking Sensors (LR22-0857): The project is a continuation of the Old Town Parking White Paper that discussed various technology solutions designed to track and report on parking in Old Town in real time. The white paper recommended that the City utilize parking sensors to monitor parking in Old Town. Staff has circulated a Request for Proposal from companies offering parking sensors. Responses were received and reviewed by staff. The companies that submitted the top two highest rated proposals were invited to provide a demonstration to staff. Demonstrations were held in April and a vendor was selected (Frogparking, Inc.). The agreement for the Frogparking Sensors was taken to City Council on November 12, 2024. Sensor installation for the pilot program (Phase I) was completed on February 11, 2025. The pilot covered parallel parking spaces along Old Town Front Street between Main Street and the northern entry arch. On August 5, 2025, staff made a presentation to the City Council Old Town Steering Committee updating them on the results seen during the pilot program. Staff also discussed with the committee their thoughts on bringing before the entire council a recommendation to move forward with Phase II of the project. The subcommittee was in favor of this idea. Implementation of Phase II was presented to the City Council on October 28, 2025 for consideration. The City Council approved moving forward with Phase Il.
The system is currently being calibrated and the App is being tested. (JONES) -4-
Private Paid Parking in Old Town (LR25-0295): Staff presented an update to the Old Town Local Advisory Committee (OTLAC) on January 22, 2026, and received direction related to ongoing concerns surrounding privately owned parking lots within Old Town. At the hearing the 3 committee members were supportive of regulating the legal non -conforming parking lots while ensuring not approved/unpermitted lots would be dealt with through the City's normal nuisance abatement process. Staff met with the Old Town Steering Subcommittee on March 31, 2026, to provide an update on feedback received from OTLAC and for additional direction. Staff will continue business, stakeholder and visitor outreach to finetune a proposal to implement the Subcommittees direction. (COLLINS)
Shopping Cart Ordinance Amendment (LR25-0444): An ordinance amending Title 9 (Public Peace, Morals and Welfare) of the Municipal Code to implement the requirements of SB 753 which amends the fees City's may charge for shopping cart recovery among other changes. Staff is working to identify needed changes and will bring forward an ordinance for subcommittee review in the near future. (COLLINS) Annual Municipal Code MX Ordinance (LR26-0008): An annual effort to "cleanup" the municipal code by adopting an ordinance to correct minor errors, omissions, and clarify policy that have been identified as deficient. Staff has prepared an ordinance and will present it to the Planning Commission on June 3, 2026 and City Council on July 14, 2026. (COLLINS)
HOUSING
Uptown Temecula Request for Proposal (RFP): The City has been working closely with the Supportive Housing and Services Ad Hoc Subcommittee to draft an RFP for the vacant, City -owned land parcel in Uptown Temecula. The RFP was made live on June 4, 2025. The City received six (6) proposals. City Council has decided to update the RFP to include two City owned parcel in the RFP which would make the buildable area larger than the original RFP. Staff will be working with the Supportive Housing and Services Ad Hoc Subcommittee to draft a new RFP and re -issue. The parcel is right next to the French Valley off ramp headed south on the I-15 Freeway and it is planned to be used for an affordable housing project. (URIAS)
BUILDING & SAFETY
Building and Safety statistics for May 2026 are highlighted in the following table. 5-
Building & Safety Statistics I May
Permits
283
New Single Family Units
41 Accessory Dwelling Emits (ADU)
3 New Commercial Building
0 Photovoltaic - SolwAPP+{imtmtper=_t,
23 Photovoltaic (Standard Expedited)
z6
Tenant Improveineirt 3
Non Construction C of 0
Number of Active Plan Checks
163
Number of New Plan Checks
Number of Finaled Permits
176
Inspections Per Day 126
Inspections Per Person Per D
Stops Per 1\1onth 656
Visitors to Counter
Non -Construction Certificate of Occupancy
❑ Wine Country Escrow (1,160 SF)
❑ Herling Construction (6,390 SF)
Tenant Improvement
❑ Nora's Empanada Factory (1,234 SF)
❑ Pho-U Noodle Grill (1,330 SF)
CODE ENFORCEMENT
During the month of May, Code Enforcement responded to 95 web inquiries. In addition, the division opened 173 code cases and conducted 460 regular inspections.
M
Cade Enforcement Statistics
Mav
Abandoned or Inoperable Vehicle
9 Vacant Home l Prop_ Maintenance /Infestation/ Mold
32 Business or Home Occupation vv o license CUP
9 Trash and E?ebris m Dumping
11 OvergrouYn Vegetation . '�`eels r Fire Hazard
30 Green Pool l %rector Control 1 Staff Water
5 Graffiti
11 I+ toiselNuisance:'Azvmal Control
23 Trailer/ KV Stored Boat. Farkinz
9 Con_-huction w:'a Pe=t:Building Cade
S
Encroach Public FLOW; Trash Cans
9 �g.:Signs
15 Public Safetv & Health
3 Total Number o€ Cases
173
Foreclosure Tracking: Code Enforcement works with the local real estate community to monitor foreclosures, defaults and real estate owned properties.
ATTACHMENT:
Foreclosure Statistics
May
Residential -
Default
48 Residential -
Foreclosure
2.6 Residential -
RE-0
12 Total -Residential
36 Commercial
- Default _
14 Commercial
- Foreclasure
10 Commercial
- RED
2 Total
- Commercial
26 Current Planning Activity Report
7-
PLANNING ACTIVITY REPORT
Assigned Planner Approval
PA Number Project Address APN Apply Date Date Applicant PA26-0186 42089Agena St 944-274-011 Jaime Cardenas 05/01/2026 05/26/2026 Lorena Garcia Temecula, CA 92592
Case Title / Description: 42089 Agena Sunroom MOD: A Modification Application for a proposed 174 square foot sunroom attached to the rear of the existing single-family home located at 42389 Agena Street.
PA26-0187 41115 Winchester Rd 910-281-003 Jaime Cardenas 05/01/2026 05/27/2026 Ramon Sanchez Temecula, CA 92591
Case Title / Description: La Carniceria Door MOD: a Modification Application to change the entry doors to sliding doors for a future "La Carniceria Meat Market" located at 41115 Winchester Road, Suite B4-A Company Owner Plan Type Status
Jacquelyn PL Modifications Approved
Urbanski
STANDARD PL Modifications Approved
INSURANCE
COMPANY
PA26-0188 29405 Rancho California Rd 944-290-007 Marcella Mills 05/01/2026 Carlos Medina TEMECULA PL Modifications Out Temecula, CA 92591 GARDENS
Case Title / Description: Temecula Garden Apartments Dog Park MOD: a Modification Application for the conversion of a grass area into an enclosed dog park and miscellaneous equipment at Garden Apartments located at 29405 Rancho California Road.
PA26-0190 42033 Rio Nedo 909-252-012 Marcella Mills 05/05/2026 Richard Martin SOUTH BAY PL Modifications Out Temecula, CA 92590 REAL ESTATE
CO
Case Title / Description: 42033 Rio Nedo Landscape MOD: a Modification Application for the removal of turf and replacement with drought tolerant landscaping at the property located at 42033 Rio Nedo.
PA26-0191 41958 5Th St 922-033-005 Marcella Mills 05/05/2026 06/10/2026 Jill Nelson Donald Egizi PL Temporary Approved Temecula, CA 92590 Use Permit
Case Title / Description: Blackbird June TUP: a Temporary Use Permit for Blackbird Tavern located at 41958 5th Street to have an event on June 13, 2026 from 9:00 PM to 2:00 AM with a DJ and dancing from 9:00 PM to 11:59 PM.
PA26-0193 28816 Pujol St 922-100-026 Marcella Mills 05/06/2026 05/26/2026 Patti Castillo CITY OF PL Bingo Approved Temecula, CA 92590 TEMECULA
Case Title / Description: TVWC Bingo License: a Bingo License Application for the Temecula Valley Woman's Club to host a bingo event at the Temecula Community Center located at 28816 Pujol Street on July 25, 2026 from 11:00 AM to 2:00 PM.
Assigned Planner Approval
PA Number Project Address APN Apply Date Date Applicant Company Owner Plan Type Status PA26-0194 41910 Pacific Grove Way 953-551-002 Yannin Marquez 05/06/2026 SEAN DAVIS SEAN DAVIS PL Reasonable Approved Temecula, CA 92591 Accommodation
Case Title / Description: Davis Residence Reasonable Accommodation: A Reasonable Accommodation application to allow less than a 25' setback to the property line to keep four (4) hens for therapeutic purposes in the rear of a residential property located at 41910 Pacific Grove Way.
PA26-0195 41770 Margarita Rd 921-330-033 Yannin Marquez 05/07/2026 Vanessa Rico
Packer Pointe
PL Modifications Approved
Temecula, CA 92591
Case Title / Description: Sycamore Terrace Apartments Patio MOD: a Modification Application for a proposed 18'x18' detached patio cover to replace a tennis court at the Sycamore Terrace Apartments located at 41770 Margarita Road.
PA26-0197 27901 Jefferson Ave 921-050-003 Marcella Mills 05/11/2026 05/22/2026 Kevin Fox
HENDO RE
PLTemporary Approved
Temecula, CA 92590
HOLDINGS
Use Permit
Case Title / Description: Hendo's Anniversary Event TUP: a Temporary Use Permit for the one-year anniversary event at Hendo's Barrel House located at 27901 Jefferson Avenue on May 30th & 31 st from 11:00 AM to 9:00 PM. There is no alcohol, food, or live entertainment proposed.
PA26-0198 41067 Promenade 953-512-010 Yannin Marquez 05/11/2026 Joshua Herrick
Chardonnay Hills PL Modifications Approved
Chardonnay Hills
Homeowners
Temecula, CA 92591
Assn.
Case Title / Description: Chardonnay Hills HOA Pool Area MOD: A Modification Application to replace an existing lattice wood overhead structure with alumawood solid insulated on top of existing concrete masonry unit columns and include electrical located in the Chardonnay Hills HOA pool area at 41067 Promenade Chardonnay Hills.
PA26-0199 44605Avenida De Missiones , 961-291-017 Marcella Mills 05/11/2026 Michael Bastian
Parker Medical
PL Temporary Plan Review
202
Center Pro
Use Permit
Temecula, CA 92592
Case Title / Description: Parker Medical Center II Temporary Construction Trailer: a Temporary Use Permit for a construction trailer at Parker Medical Center I I located at 44605 Avenida De Missiones, from 6/1/2026 to 12/31 /2026.
PA26-0204 39530 Winchester Rd 920-110-005 Eric Jones 05/14/2026 Aya Rojnuckarin SRMBD PL Modifications Plan Review Temecula, CA 92591 TEMECULA
Case Title / Description: Sage Senior Apartments MOD: a Modification Application for a revision consisting of railing material, window finishings, private patio spaces, landscaping and a change in the angle of the roof's pitch of the previously entitled Sage Senior Apartments (PA24-0066) located on APN 920-110-005.
Assigned Planner Approval
PA Number Project Address APN Apply Date Date Applicant Company Owner Plan Type Status PA26-0205 27165 Madison Ave 910-272-035 Yannin Marquez 05/18/2026 Kris Reaser Philip Powers PL Modifications Out Temecula, CA 92590
Case Title / Description: Everhome Suites Solar MOD: A Modification Application for the installation of roof mounted solar for 118.90 kW DC, 205 panels, 1 inverter and 2 energy storage systems located at 27165 Madison Avenue.
PA26-0206 39756 Larkspur Terrace 964-860-008 Eric Jones 05/18/2026 Jaime Grajeda
Chris Boeche PL Modifications Plan Review
Temecula, CA 92591
Case Title / Description: Boeche Residence MOD: a Modification Application for the addition of an approximately 190 square foot shed and 450 square foot patio cover at an existing residence located at 39756 Larkspur Terrace.
PA26-0207 40820 Winchester Rd 910-420-030 Marcella Mills 05/20/2026 Gary Sult
Temecula Towne PL Temporary Plan Review
Temecula, CA 92591
Center Assoc Use Permit
Case Title / Description: Off -Road Nights TUP: a Temporary Use Permit for an Off -Road Nights exposition in the parking lot of the Promenade Mall located at 40820 Winchester Road. The event will take place on June 27, 2026 from 1:00 PM to 9:00 PM. There will be entertainment in the form of live music and freestyle motocross demonstrations, and food and alcohol will be served.
PA26-0208 30640 Rancho California Rd 921-700-015 Marcella Mills 05/21/2026 Mike Seymour
Longs Drug PL Modifications Plan Review
Temecula, CA 92591
Stores California
Case Title / Description: Palomar Village Landscape MOD: a Modification Application for the removal of turf and replacement with water efficient landscape at the Palomar Village shopping center located at the corner of Margarita and Rancho California Roads.
PA26-0209 28920 Claret PI 940-310-068 Marcella Mills 05/21/2026 Alan Chik
Colin Koch PL Modifications Out
Temecula, CA 92590
Case Title / Description: Altair Village B MOD: a Modification Application for Altair Village B to remove downspouts, revise the lights at garage doors, omit the first -floor window and revise the right internal and street -facing elevation with enhanced siding and color blocking for P2 Waypoint, and update the CM-1, CM-2, and CM-3 color boards.
PA26-0210 27727 Jefferson Ave 921-400-029 Marcella Mills 05/21/2026 05/22/2026 Chelsea
OLD PL Temporary Approved
Temecula, CA 92590
Freeman
JAYHWAWKER Use Permit
INV
Case Title / Description: Lioness Social TUP: a Temporary Use Permit for Lionheart Gym to host an event with outdoor vendors on May 24, 2026 from 9:30 AM to 1:30 PM in the parking lot of 27727 Jefferson Avenue.
There is no live entertainment or alcohol proposed at this event.
Assigned Planner Approval
PA Number Project Address APN Apply Date Date Applicant Company Owner Plan Type Status PA26-0212 40690 Winchester Rd 910-420-029 Scott Cooper 05/22/2026 Janet Reid EDUCATIONAL PL Modifications Approved Temecula, CA 92591 PROP
Case Title / Description: Texas Roadhouse MOD: A Modification (Planning Review Only) to a previously approved Development Plan (PA23-0341) to shift the trash enclosure out of the path of utilities. The project is located at 40690 Winchester Road.
PA26-0213 959-400-001 Yannin Marquez 05/26/2026
Nicole Balchunas Taylor Morrison
PL Temporary Plan Review
Temecula, CA
of California, LLC
Use Permit
Case Title / Description: Elderberry Park Model Home Complex TUP: A Temporary Use Permit for a Model Home Complex to show four (4) model homes and respective landscape. The model home garages will not be used as sales offices. These buildings are located north of parcels 959-400-001 and 959-400-002.
PA26-0214 28401 Rancho California Rd 921-281-019 Marcella Mills 05/27/2026 Jamie Pulver Lightbox PZR Cubesmart
PL Zoning or Plan Review
Temecula, CA 92590
Planning Letter
Case Title / Description: 28401 Rancho California Road ZL: a Zoning Letter request for the property located at 28401 Rancho California Road (APN: 921-281-019)
PA26-0215 44948 Marge PI 960-241-005 Marcella Mills 05/27/2026 06/09/2026 Holly Williams Mason Munari
PL Modifications Approved
Temecula, CA 92592
Case Title / Description: Munari Residence MOD: a Modification Application for the addition of an approximately 288 square foot sunroom to an existing residence located at 44948 Marge Place.
PA26-0216 29379 Rancho California Rd 944-290-004 Yannin Marquez 05/29/2026 Becky Halley
PL Massage Plan Review
Temecula, CA 92592
Permits
Case Title / Description: Becky Halley Aesthetics MEP: a Massage Establishment Permit for Becky Halley Aesthetics located at 29379 Rancho California Road, Suite 206.
PA26-0217 30559 Pauba Rd 945-070-006 Eric Jones 05/29/2026 Dino San BEMBENEK B
PL Maps Plan Review
Temecula, CA 92592
Buenaventura FAMILY TRUST
DATED
06/16/2014
Case Title / Description: Bembenek TPM: A Tentative Parcel Map to remap three existing parcels into two parcels. The project is located at 30559 Pauba Road and 43096 Ormsby Road.
PA26-0218 39830 Cantrell Rd 957-130-022 05/29/2026
Yonasan Abrams ICE CREAMY
PL Accessory Plan Review
Temecula, CA 92591
VINYARDS
Dwelling Unit
Case Title / Description: Chabad of Temecula ADU: An ADU application for a 1,070 square foot Accessory Dwelling Unit constructed within a future religious facility. The project is located at 39830 Cantrall Road.
Assigned Planner Approval
PA Number Project Address APN Apply Date Date Applicant Company Owner Plan Type Status PREAPP26-0 41955 Main St 922-034-028 Yannin Marquez 05/08/2026 Leah DiBernardo PL Completed 196 Temecula, CA 92590 Pre -Application
Case Title / Description: E.A.T Marketplace and Inferno Distillery Pre-App: A Pre -Application for a restaurant that includes a distillery for cocktail tastings on the property located at 41955 Main Street.
PREAPP26-0 43517 Ridge Park Dr 940-310-033 Yannin Marquez 05/14/2026 Jehu Morales 203 Temecula, CA 92590
Case Title / Description: New 2-Story Commercial Building Pre-App: A Pre -Application for a Development Plan application for a new 24,971 square foot two-story commercial building located at 43517 Ridge Park Drive (940-310-033).
43517 PL Completed
RIDGEPARK Pre -Application
LLC
Item No. 25
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO: City Manager/City Council
FROM: John Crater, Division Chief
DATE: July 14, 2026
SUBJECT: Fire Department Monthly Report
PREPARED BY: Tyren Hundley, Management Analyst
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council receive and file the Fire Department Monthly Report for May and June 2026.
CITY OF TEMECULA
�T FIRE DEPARTMENT -�
4 a
Operations Prevention I Training I Emergency Management MONTHLY REPORT I MAY 202G
2 - F f9 0
5 Stations 5 Engines I LISAR I Truck I Squad Population - 112,194 ISO Rating
MAY CALL BREAKDOWN
MAY 202G
Other False Alarm
TYPE: # TYPE: #
COMMERCIAL FIRE 1 TRAFFIC COLLISION 79 Fires
MULTI -FAMILY FIRE 2 MEDICAL EMERGENCY G81 TC
RESIDENTIAL FIRE 1 OTHER MISCELLANEOUS 11 —��-
PUBLIC ASSIST 51
WILDLAND FIRE O STANDBY IO
VEHICLE FIRE 3 Medical Emergencies
OTHER FIRE 10 TOTAL: 832
RESCUE 3 945
RINGING ALARM 2
FALSE ALARM 91
HAZMAT O
TOTAL: 113
202G Year to Date
Calls
4,G37
CITY OF TEMECULA
�T FIRE DEPARTMENT -�
4 a
Operations Prevention I Training I Emergency Management MONTHLY REPORT I JUNE202E
- F f9
5 Stations 5 Engines I LISAR I Truck I Squad Population - 112,194 ISO Rating
JUNE CALL BREAKDOWN
TYPE:
#
TYPE:
#
COMMERCIAL FIRE
D
TRAFFIC COLLISION
513
MULTI -FAMILY FIRE
O
MEDICAL EMERGENCY
G22
RESIDENTIAL FIRE
3 OTHER MISCELLANEOUS
9 PUBLIC ASSIST
41 WILDLAND FIRE
O
STANDBY
G
VEHICLE FIRE
2 OTHER FIRE
5 TOTAL: 734
RESCUE
3 RINGING ALARM
9 FALSE ALARM
97 HAZMAT
TOTAL:
120
JUNE2026
Other False Alarm
a
Fires
Medical Emergencies
854
202E Year to Date
Calls
5,491
REQUEST TO SPEAK
FORMS AND ELECTRONIC
SUMBITTED PUBLIC
COMMENTS
�.�0, "'',, REQUEST TO SPEAK IAJ # ,. i• CITY OF TEMECULA
r
1989 i 12
Date / 7/ -!/
Public Comment: Non-Agenda Item: Agenda Item:
1171
Item Description or Item No.
Request to Speak forms for Public Comments or items listed on the Consent Calendar may be submitted to the City Clerk prior to the City Council commencing the Public Comment period. For all Public Hearing or Council Business items on the Agenda, a Request to Speak form may be submitted to the City Clerk prior to the City Council addressing that item. Once the speaker is called to speak, please come forward to the podium and state your name for the record. �
Name: tjcc�' Q�"e- `'}� Phone Number: (
Address: /�44Ae4_J (a- (7 42-5 g Email address: , "°
If your representing an or ani ation or group, please give the name:
IE`Mecv la- �Qtl y N ATI V P-* E r viniz.t Please note that all information presented at a City Council meeting becomes public record.
All information provided is optional.
"''�, REQUEST TO SPEAK PEA=Z
CITY OF TEMECULA
e; f ,,,
rFliu( ( 16
Date:
Public Comment: Non-Agenda Item: Agenda Item:
Item Description or Item No. l2,,A 4 d S -I -- V S 0 PC' Request to Speak forms for Public Comments or items listed on the Consent Calendar may be submitted to the City Clerk prior to the City Council commencing the Public Comment period. For all Public Hearing or Council Business items on the Agenda, a Request to Speak form may be submitted to the City Clerk prior to the City Council addressing that item. Once the speaker is called to speak, please come forward to the podium and state your name for the record. 1
Address:
Email address:
If you are representing an organization or group, please give the name: Se o,Q 6.p t f (QA4 l A
Please note that all information presented at a City Council meeting becomes public record.
All information provided is optional.
rt-
RE UEST TO SPEAKI �
CITY OF TEMECULA
1989 7
Date: //3/
Public Comment: Non-Agenda Item: Agenda Item:
Item Description or Item No.
Request to Speak forms for Public Comments or items listed on the Consent Calendar may be submitted to the City Clerk prior to the City Council commencing the Public Comment period. For all Public Hearing or Council Business items on the Agenda, a Request to Speak form may be submitted to the City Clerk prior to the City Council addressing that item. Once the speaker is called to speak, please come forward to the podium and state your name for the record. /-
Name: Pr. Atari qa t�A'a Phone Number: $ ' / Address:
Email address: (•
If you are representing an organization or group, please give the name:
Please note that all information presented at a City Council meeting becomes public record.
All information provided is optional.
.... ........ ........ ... . ..
ft REQUEST TO SPEAK
CITY OF TEMECULA
i989 - .�
Date: l L1 " )_4,0
Public Comment: Non-Agenda Item: Agenda Item: a3 Item Description or Item No.
Request to Speak forms for Public Comments or items listed on the Consent Calendar may be submitted to the City Clerk prior to the City Council commencing the Public Comment period. For all Public Hearing or Council Business items on the Agenda, a Request to Speak form may be submitted to the City Clerk prior to the City Council addressing that item. Once the speaker is called to speak, please come forward to the podium and state your name for the record. ,� ` n -'
� „ &&
, I
Email address:
If you are representing an organization or group, please give the name:
Please note that all information presented at a City Council meeting becomes public record.
All information provided is optional.
01: REQUEST TO SPEAK r/I4cfr
` CITY OF TEMECULA
` :
1989attPX
I z�
Date: -It
Public Comment: Non-Agenda Item. Agenda Item: '7✓ Item Description or Item No. 505 .-S "rO C_\ ,Ci`r& i\\C..
Request to Speak forms for Public Comments or items listed on the Consent Calendar may be submitted to the City Clerk prior to the City Council commencing the Public Comment period. For all Public Hearing or Council Business items on the Agenda, a Request to Speak form may be submitted to the City Clerk prior to the City Council addressing that item. Once the speaker is called to speak, please come forward to the podium and state your name for the r rd. c�
Address:
Email address:
If you are representing an organization or group, please give the name:
Please note that all information presented at a City Council meeting becomes public record.
All information provided is optional.
REQUEST TO SPEAK
to,* CITY OF TEMECULA
1989 7/icy /2 d 2. C p
Date:
Public Comment: Non-Agenda Item: Agenda Item:
Item Description or Item No. CZi pakker (_i \ Request to Speak forms for Public Comments or items listed on the Consent Calendar may be submitted to the City Clerk prior to the City Council commencing the Public Comment period. For all Public Hearing or Council Business items on the Agenda, a Request to Speak form may be submitted to the City Clerk prior to the City Council addressing that item. Once the speaker is called to speak, please come forward to the podium and state your name for the record. (� /
Name: h( �-✓�"rl/ c7 Phone Number:
Address:
Email address:
If you are representing an organization or group, please give the name:
Please note that all information presented at a City Council meeting becomes public record.
All information provided is optional.
7 \CS
•iF"ems< 1
REQUEST TO SPEAK 1
41, CITY OF TEMECULA
Date:
Public Comment: Non-Agenda Item: Agenda Item: jgj p� Item Description or Item No. S 0 C 1
Request to Speak forms for Public Comments or items listed on the Consent Calendar may be submitted to the City Clerk prior to the City Council commencing the Public Comment period. For all Public Hearing or Council Business items on the Agenda, a Request to Speak form may be submitted to the City Clerk prior to the City Council addressing that item. Once the speaker is called to speak, please come forward to the podium and state your name for the record.
Name: \kS C ` \ Sè 1-C Phone Number:
Address:
-
If you are representing an organization or group, please give the name:
Please note that all information presented at a City Council meeting becomes public record.
All information provided is optional.
"''�, .2 REQUEST TO SPEAK r A-�
�` 1 ii. CITY OF TEMECULA
1:
ly tl z6
Date:
Public Comment: Non-Agenda Item: Agenda Item: Fr
Item Description or Item No. a ,J PixoQii-bo kJ__
Request to Speak forms for Public Comments or items listed on the Consent Calendar may be submitted to the City Clerk prior to the City Council commencing the Public Comment period. For all Public Hearing or Council Business items on the Agenda, a Request to Speak form may be submitted to the City Clerk prior to the City Council addressing that item. Once the speaker is called to speak, please come forward to the podium and state your name for the record.co� •
Address: 1 4-7o �4. '� e( 2 S Email address: + _ If you are representing an organization or group, please give the name:
Please note that all information presented at a City Council meeting becomes public record.
All information provided is optional.
REQUEST TO SPEAK
CITY OF TEMECULA
t
ivHv 7/11/70-4:7
Date: -f
Public Comment: Non-Agenda Item: Agenda Item: V(
Item Description or Item No. 1--41"` S
Pb ' t'►‘o -- 1 1 } c-c c Pr`" - I"1�
Request to Speak forms for Public Comments or items listed on the Consent Calendar may be submitted to the City Clerk prior to the City Council commencing the Public Comment period. For all Public Hearing or Council Business items on the Agenda, a Request to Speak form may be submitted to the City Clerk prior to the City Council addressing that item. Once the speaker is called to speak, please come forward to the podium and state your name for the recor•
Address: I_, 1 !
Email address: (4,I.l.�y(� • JV1� v^ 1 SCdu'�.'t y 1 C/A ,e)OJ If you are representing an organization or group, please giv the/ ame:
Kk. r�O,'SOr is;M �2SR-c��� CCDwl r' o cv� u��e Please note that all information presented at a City Council meeting becomes public record.
All information provided is optional.
i __ )\r�
/,�°f TF"ecce REQUEST TO SPEAK
�
y CITY OF TEMECULA
li .
ivxII'�
Date.
Public Comment: Non-Agenda Item: Agenda Item
Item Description or Item No. ,"( lj ��P c LA_ `P / ( /\ /iv --C Request to Speak forms for Public Comments or items listed on the Consent Calendar may be submitted to the City Clerk prior to the City Council commencing the Public Comment period. For all Public Hearing or Council Business items on the Agenda, a Request to Speak form may be submitted to the City Clerk prior to the City Council addressing that item. Once the spe er is called to speak, please come forward to the podium and state your name for the record.„----- �� ��
Name: J /�zi` C/� ` e 7 Phone Number:
Address: / ) ,--,
Email address:
If you are representing an organization or group, please give the name:
Please note that all information presented at a City Council meeting becomes public record.
All information provided is optional.
1 Subject:Council comments
From: Tiffany Wexler
Cc: My Email Email <
Subject: Council comments
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Hello, I’m kind of a newbie. I’v been four years living in Temecula. I am really enjoying it here.
So I just wanna say something that’s important for you to know. We live across the street from the Ronald Reagan sports park and we watched the beautiful hockey rink get reconstructed it turned out wonderful. It’s also equally important to consider some of the unplanned effects that can arise at the park. there are two issues i want to address one is that we constantly hear the banging of the hockey stick hitting the puck on the wall every single day seven nights a week till 10 PM we really just never get a break along with that comes some other things. This one is even more important to me. Now the teenagers or highschoolers are sitting in the parking lot and playing their music the low base very loud and it’s vibrating our house. It’s happening while the park is open and when the park closes at 10pm and they just hang out sometimes till midnight. I just want you to understand the domino effect that is happening and I am honestly a little bit afraid of the new skate park coming next to it because for the past four years it’s been amazing. It’s not open till 10 PM. It’s very quiet. We’ve never had this. I really hope that it’s not gonna be open till 10 PM so maybe we could work on some solutions The most important one
Is maybe we can start by putting up some signs in the parking lot that ask if they could be considerate to the neighbors surrounding. I have seen this in other parks and I will send pictures of some samples. Also it would be nice if we can close the entrances to the parking lot when the park closes. Please let me know if there’s anything I can do. I will help or volunteer anyway I can. We have a great community and beautiful homes up here that have been here for a long time. Thank all of you for all you’ve done. It really is a great place to live.
Tiffany Echavarria
Email :
When you get a chance, please respond or if you have any more questions, I will be happy to answer. Thanks again. P.S some pictures are included.
2 3
4 5