[{"_1":2,"_122":-5,"_123":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,74,86,98,110],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":56,"_73":56},"mediaId",6645765,"mediaKeyId","3479639-b6b25c18dfa50f5376c7747ee4fe685f","parentId",3479639,"title","Commission approves Altair private recreation center and Village C1 park; developer aims to open amenities early","audioSeconds",523,"startMs",2634000,"endMs",3157000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3479639-b6b25c18dfa50f5376c7747ee4fe685f&start=2634&end=3157","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3479639-b6b25c18dfa50f5376c7747ee4fe685f/thumbnail_2634000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6645765/Temecula/Riverside-County/California/Commission-approves-Altair-private-recreation-center-and-Village-C1-park-developer-aims-to-open-amenities-early","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6645765-d73c8a5ac7a11e7eb798230005290f6b/orig.mp4?Expires=1771113088&Signature=IAuMdD7Uj3yDotC3dqTjcEt-txxVv2Zxpfbvao1nH-FqoHutbOipFDGaOoy3BP5nbyAa51edHUCSLObn3RhQygth1Io27jAhmpNDNLBa26e72-ka82~woONWHutv~LwHHjtjIRIEjorM7DtnR-kxIFixxQZBtepwF1B7sQXMuCgLYjjG~OdbsQgxurGtfKmZVgW7yeWl7YCcSzJXtTyt3ha3ptnDEBi3LUxcLPmWxXrOnCmHPhCEHQ7RKyJJL~EnRfMYzgrLA~qvmUUCfb1bXBgFecWczK0rE55~YfXc-xI~TErx0LnO00-uBj0cPWRjifDVUS46iPvxbmWhCHDePw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","","date","2025-05-24T02:25:02.807Z","article","The Planning Commission approved a development plan for the Altair private recreation center and the adjacent Village C1 park within the Altair (Altair/Altaira) community. The motion passed at the hearing while Commissioner Hagel was recused, yielding a 3-0 vote in favor.

Scott Cooper, senior planner, described the recreation center as a two-acre private facility that includes a clubhouse (approximately 1,991 square feet per staff materials), a 1,437-square-foot multi-purpose building, a 1,017-square-foot pool building, pool and spa, cabanas, fire-pit and barbecue areas, shade structures, bike racks and paved parking. Cooper said the project provides 33 parking spaces where the specific plan requires 32. The Village C1 park is shown as a 2.5-acre public park with two pickleball courts, a half basketball court, shaded picnic areas, open turf, seating, and bike racks; Cooper noted the community services district identified the basketball court as an important local need.

Applicant representative Colin Cook of Brookfield told commissioners the developer intends to open the recreation center and park early in the buildout so potential buyers will have immediate amenity access. He said a project condition derived from the tentative map and specific plan requires the recreation facilities to be constructed before the 300th building permit; Cook said the developer intends to be well ahead of that requirement and to open models and amenities early next year.

In response to a question about the pool, a commissioner asked whether the pool would require a lifeguard; the applicant and staff indicated the pool area is under 5,000 square feet and that lifeguard requirements are tied to size thresholds. The applicant provided a pool area figure of about \"4,900\" (square feet) when asked.

Staff recommended approval; Commissioner Solis moved to approve and Commissioner Watson seconded. The motion passed 3-0 with Commissioner Hagel recused during deliberations. The staff report treated environmental review under the city's adopted Altair EIR approach for subsequent EIR considerations (staff referenced the subsequent EIR/negative-declaration guidance in the report). Brookfield's design team was present for questions and had no unresolved issues with conditions of approval.

The commission's approval authorizes the rec center and park plans to proceed under the specific-plan and tentative-map conditions; the developer and staff said the construction sequencing aims to provide amenities to early residents rather than postponing them.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Temecula Planning Commission Meeting - May 21, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","The commission approved the Altair Recreation Center and adjacent Village C1 park (PA24-0363). Applicant Brookfield said the recreation center, pool and park are intended to be available to early buyers and will be constructed ahead of or with early phases; the permit passed 3-0 with one commissioner recused.","taxTitle","Temecula, Riverside County, California","taxId",4198,"location","headline","shortSummary",{"_33":75,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":76,"_41":77,"_43":78,"_45":79,"_47":80,"_49":81,"_51":82,"_53":83,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":84,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":85,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":56,"_73":56},6645767,"Commission backs third amendment to Winchester Hills development agreement, restoring original term",340,2029000,2369000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3479639-b6b25c18dfa50f5376c7747ee4fe685f&start=2029&end=2369","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3479639-b6b25c18dfa50f5376c7747ee4fe685f/thumbnail_2029000.jpg","/articles/6645767/Temecula/Riverside-County/California/Commission-backs-third-amendment-to-Winchester-Hills-development-agreement-restoring-original-term","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6645767-493fd4000f635c8896f8960093e36171/orig.mp4?Expires=1771113088&Signature=cem0UcZ-7PD03A3i9u8I6PFyTR8MO0wTnlkOQaT1TovtGgkXl0hK6t1vVhhXJFzAGLQXpyJh5hfJZkyMk~3wWf-chd92BKrq2rkAu7YSrhNVunJyfpu-1kwC3c0CsfYdGltfd8qSrNTnLkpYerJ41MiOzynoTFTGwu-2nlg9bT8FC~nWXJEngzGjknsPBfyLPeeDWcFhgVVZh8ReVEdXEEoZrm4q3OlmvEuEVktlDxP8oGkoPB613fngzGnTFBaSyjv880SgVMUCYKw0Ec-IYwwuWlqPC-sGFUZ4NyaNvZV-QlDaXUBkXeTcXDhx8wf2PKBCN-vKWbIfcRVvtb7nDw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Planning Commission recommended that the City Council approve a third amendment to the development agreement affecting the Winchester Hills/Harveston property. Planning staff said the amendment rescinds a prior extension and reinstates the original term of the development agreement, which staff said would allow the property owner to seek an exemption from regional fees.

Scott Cooper, senior planner, described the amendment as requested by the applicant and noted that rescinding the first amendment would return the agreement to its original terms. Cooper explained that Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) and the Riverside County Agency (RCA) had taken the position that any change to the original development agreement could remove the owner’s fee exemption; by rescinding the extension and reinstating the original term, staff said the project again qualifies for the exemption process with WRCOG and RCA.

Cooper summarized the administrative history: the city council previously approved the original development agreement and a first amendment that extended its term; the second amendment (approved January 2023) had the same text as the third amendment but applied to a different parcel; the third amendment before the commission mirrors that second amendment and was requested by the applicant.

Steve Berry, who identified himself as owner of Winchester Hills 1 and related Harveston entities, confirmed the project's historical ownership and the chain of entities, saying the staff report was \"very accurate.\" Berry explained the ownership changes were done to satisfy lender requirements when the project was refinanced.

After limited public comment (none), Commissioner Hagel moved to recommend approval of the third amendment; Commissioner Solis seconded. The motion passed 4-0.

Staff recommended the Planning Commission adopt the proposed resolution recommending City Council approval of the amendment. Cooper said the project is exempt under CEQA statistical treatment cited in staff materials (staff referenced CEQA section 15163/the general rule for subsequent EIRs in the report). The amendment affects property within portions of planning area 12 of the Harveston Specific Plan and does not change development standards beyond reinstating the original term.","Planning staff said rescinding a prior extension reinstates the original development agreement terms and allows the property owner to pursue fee exemptions from WRCOG and RCA; the commission recommended approval 4-0.",{"_33":87,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":88,"_41":89,"_43":90,"_45":91,"_47":92,"_49":93,"_51":94,"_53":95,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":96,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":97,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":56,"_73":56},6645771,"Planning commission adopts amended objective design standards to cover certain single-family and ADU projects",411,1294000,1705000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3479639-b6b25c18dfa50f5376c7747ee4fe685f&start=1294&end=1705","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3479639-b6b25c18dfa50f5376c7747ee4fe685f/thumbnail_1294000.jpg","/articles/6645771/Temecula/Riverside-County/California/Planning-commission-adopts-amended-objective-design-standards-to-cover-certain-single-family-and-ADU-projects","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6645771-f2d8e2e8cb4a8ea380681af7382a9855/orig.mp4?Expires=1771113088&Signature=Sn0JVlL2Xkcd5a90upfZMm~NAAC2CFH8~QCatsP73g3GfFmYfF8vQYOo8vRQ~U7R9OkryxHxmLuWqxHukFFjuZ7Yvl-mNrfI95Ll8RLaHATJBYZjdFMWyoTH6A8wtPIpPlbwm5NPVoETD41WH7VijwiwMdchVH5ibCkTd920U4~~99nXm4gqOETDKNM6CcIb8QziZHNIf~m6MmukeY6~2R~M8ebphprlPvvKbW9LCE3pID6kseFnc4c8~S-eiz7R5tSHJ58VNmNa1vUVtsQZ5zOetAtum1rtkHY0Q9JAavlKcDy79yzuiFTGtQRuJwYJk8mKrBRd0DO1NlWc8YQGlg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Temecula Planning Commission voted 4-0 to adopt amendments that expand the city’s objective design standards to cover certain single-family residential projects and accessory dwelling units (ADUs) when those projects are being processed under state “streamlined” pathways.

Eric Jones, a city planning staffer, told commissioners the amendment responds to recent state legislation that requires objective standards for some residential projects. Jones said the city previously applied the standards to multifamily and mixed-use development and is now inserting a single-family module so certain single-family projects and larger ADUs will use the objective checklist.

Jones said: \"The state continues to pass multiple housing bills all aimed at trying to streamline and increase housing production,\" and that the revision adds single-family scaled projects and accessory structures to the existing standards while retaining the previously adopted architectural-material rules.

Alan (PlaceWorks), the consultant who drafted the module, explained the standard’s structure: the document now identifies the specific pages relevant to single-family projects and contains two pages of general building standards that apply only to single-family development. He said one requirement is that if a development consists of more than 25 individual single-family buildings, applicants must apply multiple architectural styles rather than repeating a single style. Alan described that requirement as intended to avoid large, repetitive monocultural neighborhoods.

Commissioners asked for clarifications about which projects would be subject to the standards (Jones said they apply to multifamily, mixed-use, and certain single-family projects using streamlined state processes, and that SB 9 projects are excluded). Commissioners also discussed phased developments and whether the total number of homes across phases or each phase’s release schedule would trigger the multi-style threshold; staff said they would treat the total number regardless of phasing.

Staff recommended adoption of the revised standards; Commissioner Watson moved to approve and Commissioner Hagel seconded. The motion passed 4-0.

The adopted changes give staff and applicants a tailored checklist for single-family-scale projects processed under state streamlining provisions and maintain the document’s architectural style options and material standards.","Commissioners approved revisions adding single-family and accessory-unit modules to the city’s objective design standards and left architectural-style rules largely unchanged; the motion passed 4-0.",{"_33":99,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":100,"_41":101,"_43":102,"_45":103,"_47":104,"_49":105,"_51":106,"_53":107,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":108,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":109,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":56,"_73":56},6645775,"Planning commission finds draft $900 million CIP generally consistent with Temecula general plan",314,128000,442000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3479639-b6b25c18dfa50f5376c7747ee4fe685f&start=128&end=442","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3479639-b6b25c18dfa50f5376c7747ee4fe685f/thumbnail_128000.jpg","/articles/6645775/Temecula/Riverside-County/California/Planning-commission-finds-draft-900-million-CIP-generally-consistent-with-Temecula-general-plan","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6645775-ad6091b5fb929f6b6dbe9d1947dc9156/orig.mp4?Expires=1771113088&Signature=YzUsTsI1VU-yvBGjClaNTXXTdGRuaRrcX724FL9kXpH0~TH7q5UNHV~V0Z4cQoRfReTRXQuJwm-oOQ8A1UfEWaA51rR0GPYDtHIYMgYb-4KCvnFV0G4OzkRiKAqvzUFdZjBnTg-lSNv4gqQ0I2IH7olMddRCToGHbfQAC2RehJthSdxMJqfi1teeTDOjE~cTLq2scXT6UmWt6VY-g1xJnCuELvr5LJNRDIsZjVpGbPx1Vfv5SHvJepoK8M2YjCjndr20hr6EKCHMnWBTFCMRrFeBifVitYMZ09UelDGzU55n3FOo8pKRDIUGGPx2O89cYQ6yYpZDYOmcDckhzmCohA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","At a Planning Commission meeting in Temecula, staff presented the draft fiscal years 2026–2030 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and recommended a resolution finding the draft CIP consistent with the city’s adopted general plan. The commission voted 4-0 to adopt the staff recommendation.

Katie Garcia, a city planner presenting the item, told commissioners that the draft CIP contains 100 projects across five categories and a total funding level \"just under $900,000,000.\" She detailed the breakdown: 25 circulation projects, four affordable-housing projects, 50 infrastructure projects, 19 parks and recreation projects, and two community facilities district bond-funded projects. Garcia noted a last-minute addition: the La Paz Road roundabout.

Garcia said staff \"has reviewed the general plan and has determined that all 100 projects are consistent with the goals and policies of the land use, circulation, open space conservation, growth management, public facilities, public safety, air quality, and community design elements of the adopted general plan.\" She reported staff's CEQA determination that the CIP as drafted was \"not a project\" under CEQA Guidelines section 15378(b)(4) and is exempt under CEQA Guidelines sections 15061(b)(3) and 15262.

Commissioners asked detailed questions about specific projects and programmatic elements. Topics included: status of completed projects such as Rainbow Canyon pavement rehabilitation (staff confirmed it is complete and remains listed until warranty closeout), traffic signal optimization and the transition from level-of-service to vehicle-miles-traveled metrics under CEQA, plans to promote alternative fuel vehicles and EV charging installations, the scope of vacant-parcel cleanup placeholder funding (initially tied to a federal funding anticipation for the Olympics), and which bicycle projects in the CIP represented seed money rather than full construction budgets.

On funding sources and partnerships, staff explained the auto mall wayfinding signs would be city-funded in the short term with the expectation that auto mall dealers' sales-tax contributions effectively subsidize the project; the city manager's office characterized dealers' sales tax as the means by which the city would recoup costs.

After questions, Commissioner Hagel moved to approve the staff recommendation; Commissioner Watson seconded. The motion passed 4-0.

The adopted resolution makes a formal finding of general-plan consistency for the draft FY 2026–2030 CIP, including the La Paz Road roundabout addition. Staff noted the CIP retains both long-term projects such as a comprehensive general plan update and near-term infrastructure items including citywide sidewalk and roadway safety plan work.

The commission's approval advances the draft CIP toward city council consideration and formal adoption steps documented in the city’s budget process.","Staff told the commission that 100 draft capital improvement program projects — including circulation, affordable housing, infrastructure, parks and two CFD bond-funded projects— are consistent with the general plan; commissioners approved staff's recommendation 4-0.",{"_33":111,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":112,"_41":113,"_43":114,"_45":115,"_47":116,"_49":117,"_51":118,"_53":119,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":120,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":121,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":56,"_73":56},6645780,"Temecula Planning Commission approves consent calendar on 4-0 vote",160,0,160000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3479639-b6b25c18dfa50f5376c7747ee4fe685f&start=0&end=160","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3479639-b6b25c18dfa50f5376c7747ee4fe685f/thumbnail_0.jpg","/articles/6645780/Temecula/Riverside-County/California/Temecula-Planning-Commission-approves-consent-calendar-on-4-0-vote","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6645780-328a620eccbef8610f8f5509be1b3de3/orig.mp4?Expires=1771113088&Signature=Mljj75siMHUwfvzCcCkbmoiNxAodtEykxD0OWe1rOdZHqtQZj~gzIMPW6I6Kvs8SWhoffuKtImdRuvCrmAm62Ik9vRlLHstokwcnnv1P0DQD7zIvDk4clebvhhKCOHDmD48s1Nd1wX1Q7zC5uTHj0pO93G4Hx8W7X1cF70QlTvgkNniPEl6ozEG898~qyXM-RoS2TE94fr-hZOWyahQsfJmD5B0VgEG~uJc9LT81J-2wdKn~O3eZAtW30mj5Lh0NOtMePhJXvBEzC501LOGuhqoJe9BHXicG~8~Upnq2NqxSr6GLHaa~CthcazqwwfWmCCa2Dr53HVql9MAxoLXESw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","At a Planning Commission meeting in Temecula, commissioners approved the consent calendar on a unanimous 4-0 vote.

The commission chair noted that \"all matters listed under the consent calendar are considered to be routine and all will be enacted by one vote,\" and there were no members of the public who had signed up to speak on consent items.

Commissioner Watson moved to approve the consent calendar; Commissioner Solis seconded. The chair called the vote: \"Aye,\" and the clerk announced a four-zero vote in favor.

The approval enacted the routine items listed on the meeting agenda without separate discussion. No items were pulled from the consent calendar for separate action.","The Planning Commission approved its consent calendar without discussion and by a 4-0 vote after hearing no public speakers.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Commission approves Altair private recreation center and Village C1 park; developer aims to open amenities early

Commission backs third amendment to Winchester Hills development agreement, restoring original term

Planning commission adopts amended objective design standards to cover certain single-family and ADU projects

Planning commission finds draft $900 million CIP generally consistent with Temecula general plan

Temecula Planning Commission approves consent calendar on 4-0 vote