HomeMy WebLinkAbout101602 PC Minutes MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
OCTOBER 16, 2002
CALL TO ORDER
The City of Temecula Planning Commission convened in a regular meeting at 6:02 P.M.,
on Wednesday, October 16, 2002, in the City Council Chambers of Temecula City Hall,
43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California.
ALLEGIANCE
The audience was led in the Flag salute by Commissioner Olhasso.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Absent:
Also Present:
PUBLIC COMMENTS
No comments.
CONSENT CALENDAR
1 Aqenda
RECOMMENDATION:
Commissioners Guerriero, Mathewson, Olhasso, Telesio,
and Chairman Chiniaeff.
None.
Director of Planning Ubnoske,
Assistant City Attorney Curley,
Deputy Director of Public Works Parks,
Fire Captain McBride,
Development Services Administrator McCarthy,
Associate Engineer Jimenez,
Principal Planner Hogan,
Project Planner Naaseh, and
Minute Clerk Hansen.
1.1 Approve the Agenda of October 16, 2002.
2
Minutes
RECOMMENDATION:
2.1 Approve Minutes from August 21,2002.
R:PlanComm/minut es/101602
3 Director's Hearin.q Case Update
RECOMMENDATION:
3.1 Approve the Director's Hearing Case Update for September 2002.
With respect to the minutes of August 21,2002 (Item No. 2), Commissioner Telesio
indicated that on page 11, in the penultimate bullet, that the term coyotes should be
replaced with the phrase red-tailed hawks.
MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1-3,
subject to the modifications to Item No. 2, as specified above. The motion was seconded
by Commissioner Olhasso and voice vote reflected unanimous approval.
COMMISSION BUSINESS
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
Piannin.q Application No. PA02-0217 Development A.qreement that would
.quarantee the ability of Guidant Corporation to expand their operations in
Temecula, by developin.q up to 481,260 square feet of buildinq area, allowinq an
increase in the maximum buildings hei.qht to 80 feet and establish a supplemental
buildinq setback zone adiacent to public streets; establishinq future buildin.q and
landscape quidelines, and quaranteeinq the riqht to expand for 15 years located
East of Ynez Road, South of Overland Drive, West of Marqarita Road and north of
Solana Way - Dave Hoqan, Principal Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
4.1 Adopt a Resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002-044
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE
CITY COUNCIL APPROVE AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING
A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR, AND
APPROVING THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH,
ADVANCED CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS, INC, A
SUBSIDIARY OF GUlDANT CORPORATION
(PLANNING APPLICATION 02-0217).
Principal Planner Hogan provided a brief overview of the staff report (of record), noting
that this particular Development Agreement primarily addressed the design issues for a
potential future expansion of the Guidant use.
Mr. Dave Ranals, representing Guidant, introduced the development team members
who were available for Planning Commission questions.
Mr. Paul Danna, architect representing Guidant, noted the applicant's request regarding
the development of this project plan, specifically that the project plan be efficient,
flexible, with a campus-like setting rather than a business park setting, with pedestrian
elements, and compatible with the surrounding uses; relayed the boundaries of the site
(for the potential future expansion) which encompassed 27 acres, noting that the current
Guidant site was approximately 26 acres in size; presented the conceptual plan,
highlighting the five proposed buildings, the parking proposed at a ratio of five stalls per
1,000 square feet, the landscaping plan which would provide a street buffer, and the
pedestrian bridge which would aid in facilitating pedestrian flow between the two sites
(i.e., the existing Guidant use site, and the site for the potential expansion project);
advised that the Design Guidelines addressed the maximum allowable height of the
buildings, the colors, and the materials; and relayed the proposed entry point, and the
four ingress and egress points;
Mr. Ken Carlisle, representing the applicant, thanked staff for their diligent efforts
associated with the potential expansion project; and reiterated that the development
team was available for questions.
At this time Chairman Chiniaeff closed the public hearing.
Referencing the Design Guidelines and Approved Architectural and Landscape Palettes
(Exhibit C - Addendum), Commissioner Guerriero relayed that he was pleased with the
presented products.
Chairman Chiniaeff reopened the public hearing in order that the applicant could
address Commissioner Guerriero's queries.
For Commissioner Guerriero, the applicant's representative noted that the photographs
on pages 11, 13, and 17 of the Design Guidelines and Approved Architectural and
Landscape Palettes (Exhibit C - Addendum) were representative of color standards and
not design standards, relaying assurance that the buildings would not have a
warehouse-type appearance.
Commenting on the Design Guidelines and Approved Architectural and Landscape
Palettes (Exhibit C - Addendum), Commissioner Mathewson concurred that the
architectural treatments and designs set forth were pleasing; relayed his enthusiasm
regarding the campus-type setting; advised that Guidant was a tremendous asset to the
community, noting hopes of this expansion project going forward; and with respect to the
southwest corner parking area, recommended that this area be realigned or moved
further into the property due to the proximate location of the multi-family property across
the street.
From an economic development standpoint, Commissioner Olhasso noted the important
role the Guidant use had in the City of Temecula, relaying pleasure with the potential
expansion project.
In response to Commissioner Telesio, the applicant's representative confirmed that while
Temecula was included as an area of choice for the Guidant expansion project, that the
decision to expand in the City of Temecula had not been finalized.
Echoing previous comments, Chairman Chiniaeff noted his desire for the Guidant use to
expand in the City of Temecula.
MOTION: Commissioner Mathewson moved to close the public hearing; and to approve
staff's recommendation. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Olhasso and voice
vote reflected unanimous approval.
5
Planninq Application No. PA94-0073, PA99-0298, PA94-0075, PA94-0076, PA01-
0253, PA01-0230, and PA99-0299 - The annexation of 634 acres to the City of
Temecula; a General Plan Amendment to the Land Use Element to incorporate the
proposed land uses, and to include Plannin.q Areas 33A and 33B to the Specific plan
Overlay Fiqure; a General Plan Amendment to the Circulation element to eliminate
the connection between Nicolas Road and Calle Contento through the project and to
change the desi,qnation of Butterfield StaRe Road between Murrieta Hot Springs
Road and Nicolas Road from 4 lanes Specific Plan Road; a Zone Change to pre-
zone the annexation property to the SP zoninq desiqnation and to amend the
DeveLopment Code Section 17.16.070 of the City of Temecula Development Code to
adopt a Specific Plan for 804.7 acres to provide zoninq and development standards
for the development of 2,015 dwellinq units within several gated communities,
110,000 square feet of neiqhborhood commercial retail space, a 12 acre elementary
school site and a 20 acre middle school site, two public parks sites includinq a 19.7
acre Sports Park with liqhted playing fields and a 4.8 acre neiqhborhood park with
passive uses, three private recreation facilities, private and public trails and paseos,
a fire station site, and 202.7 acres of natural open space to be preserved as
permanent habitat, related flood control improvements to Santa Gertrudis Creek and
Long Valley Wash; a tentative map to subdivide the proiect for conveyance
purposes; a tentative map to create 509 residential lots within a gated community, a
4.8 acre private recreational facility, a .3 acre private mini park, private paseos and
trails, a 5.1 acre public park site, and two open space lots (21.9 acres) to be
preserved as permanent habitat; and a Development Agreement to grant the
developer development ri.qhts for ten years and secure the construction of certain
infrastructure improvements by the developer located Northeast of the City near the
eventual intersection of Buttedield Stage Road and Nicolas Road - Saied Naaseh-
Shahry, Project Planner V
RECOMMENDATION:
5.1 Adopt a Resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002 -
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA,
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL CERTIFY
THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND
RELATED ACTIONS AND RECOMMENDING
ADOPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS
PURSUANT TO TIlE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY ACT, A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
CONSIDERATIONS, AND A MITIGATION MONITORING
AND REPORTING PROGRAM IN CONNECTION
THEREWITH FOR THE RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC
PLAN, LOCATED NEAR THE EVENTUAL
INTERSECTION OF BUTrERFIELD STAGE ROAD AND
NICOLAS ROAD, (PLANNING APPLICATION 94-0076).
5.2 Adopt a Resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE
CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE FOLLOWING:
1) GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FOR THE
RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN (PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. 99-0298);
2) THE RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN
(PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 94-0075);
3) ADOPT AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE
RORIPAUGII RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN ZONING
STANDARDS (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 94-
0075);
4) ADOPT AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING A CHANGE
OF ZONE TO AMEND THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP
OF THE CITY (PLANNING APPLICATION 94-0075);
AND
5) ADOPT AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE
RORIPAUGH RANCH DEVELOPMENT
AGREEMENT (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 99-
0299); ON PARCELS TOTALING APPROXIMATELY
804.7 ACRES, LOCATED NEAR THE FUTURE
INTERSECTION OF BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD
AND NICOLAS ROAD AND FURTHER IDENTIFIED
AS ASSESSOR PARCEL NOS. 957-130-001 and
002, 957-340-001, 003, 007, 008, AND 958-260-001
AND 002.
5.3 Adopt a Resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THE CITY
COUNCIL APPROVE PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 01-
0230 - TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 29353 FOR THE
SUBDIVISION OF 804.7 ACRES INTO 39 LOTS AND 8
STREET LOTS, PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 01-
0253- TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 29661, FOR THE
SUBDIVISION OF A PORTION OF 158 ACRES INTO 509
RESIDENTIAL LOTS AND 20 OPEN SPACE LOTS
WITHIN PLANNING AREAS lA, 1,B, 2, 3, 4A, 4B, 5, 6,
7A, 7B, 7C, 8, and 9A OF THE RORIPAUGH RANCH
SPECIFIC PLAN LOCATED NEAR THE EVENTUAL
INTERSECTION OF BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD AND
NICOLAS ROAD, AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR
PARCEL NOS. 957-130-001 and 002, 957-340-001,003,
007, AND 008, 958-260-001 AND 002.
Staff presented the proiect plan
Project Planner Naaseh provided a detailed overview of the project plan (per agenda
material), relaying the following:
Reviewed staff's efforts regarding this project's process through the years;
highlighted the Planning Commission hearings held in October of 2001, whereas the
Commission provided staff direction; noted the input received from the
Subcommittee members and the neighbors; and advised that various
recommendations from these entities had been incorporated into the project;
· Specified the changes in the project plan being proposed, noting the differences from
last year's proposal;
Referenced the memorandum from staff dated October 16, 2002 (per supplemental
agenda material), which outlined amendments to the staff report and errata sheet,
specifying various revisions included in this document, in particular deleting
references to restricting construction traffic on Nicolas Road (denoted in item No. 6),
adding a requirement for the developer to install sound walls to mitigate noise
impacts (denoted in Item No. 7), and an amendment to the mitigation measures to
address archaeological mitigation (as denoted in Item No. 8);
Relayed receipt of a letter from Lilan and Jean Wagner dated October 16, 2002
which outlined their concerns regarding the project and was provided to the Planning
Commission via supplemental agenda material;
· Via overheads, specified the location of the site, and the surrounding properties;
· Noted the required road improvements associated with this project's development
including mitigation from the impacts outside the City of Temecula;
Relayed the visual appearance of the project from outside the project, noting the
applicant's reluctance to provide larger parkways (currently proposed at 6-feet) due
to space constraints, advising that to mitigate this matter staff has offered alternate
implementation options, i.e., larger trees placed in the parkways, a green wall on the
major roads (e.g. Butterfield Stage Road, and Murrieta Hot Springs Road);
Advised that while it was staff's desire that curb-separated sidewalks be provided on
all streets, the applicant has proposed this element along portions of the major
routes;
Specified that 2,015 units were being proposed;
Provided additional information regarding the buffering, noting that this proposal was
consistent with the Subcommittee's recommendations, relaying that to the south and
east of the valley, and the lots would be one acre, followed by 20,0000-square foot
lots, that at the southern and eastern edge of the valley, a 30-foot landscape buffer
zone would be provided; with respect to the Plateau Area (previously referred to as
the Panhandle Area), noted that there would be a combination of natural slopes
and/or a landscaped manufactured slope which would be between 80-170 feet wide
with a 25-foot setback on top of the slope for all the houses backing up to Nicolas
Valley which would increase the buffer to 105 feet and 195 feet; and relayed the
addition of enhanced landscaping along the Plateau Area to further restrict the view
of the future homes from Nicolas Valley;
Noted the basic land uses proposed, relaying the following:
That in the Plateau Neighborhood, there would be a private recreation
center surrounded by residential lots (with a minimum lot size of 5,000
square feet), a neighborhood park, a retail/commercial center, and a fire
station;
That in the Valley Neighborhood, there would be a lighted sports park, an
elementary and middle school, a recreation center, the remaining area
being residential with the larger lots (1-acre lots) on the perimeter, and
the smaller lots on the interior;
That the neighborhood areas were connected via a series of paseos and
trails; and
That the community would be gated with the exception of the schools, the
public parks, and the commercial center;
Referencing the EIR, provided additional information regarding the environmental
impacts resulting from this particular project and the associated mitigation;
Summarized the primary benefits of the project, listed as follows: major road
improvements, two park sites, i.e., a lighted sports park and a neighborhood park,
over 200 acres of Open Space (which would be transferred to County ownership to
be maintained by the Habitat Agency), the provision of a fire station site with $2
million towards the construction costs and the cost of purchasing a fire truck, and the
inclusion of sidewalks separated with parkways;
R:PlanComm/min ut es/101602 7
Staff noted concerns which have been expressed re.qardinq the proiect
Specified that there were various issues of concern (raised by the Commission, the
neighbors, and/or the Subcommittee) regarding the project which should be further
discussed, listed as follows:
o The improvements to Nicolas Road;
o The total number of units proposed (noting that the proposal was
consistent with the General Plan);
o The proposed buffering plan (which was consistent with the
Subcommittee's direction);
o The on-site transition from small lots to the larger lots;
o The neighbors' concerns regarding light and noise impacts from the
sports park and the private recreation facilities (noting that Musco lighting
would be installed at the park);
o The neighbors' recommendation for an increase in size for the fuel
modification zone, as well as increased landscaping elements;
o The elimination of the nature walk due to privacy issues; and
o The valley residents' desire for the project to include a designated
equestrian trail (noting the requirement for the applicant to investigate
whether the agency maintaining the Open Space would allow the public
to use this area), additionally relaying that an unimproved path on Nicolas
Road could be utilized by horses;
With respect to the approval authority, relayed that the private recreation centers, as
proposed, would be approved by staff, additionally noting that while the products for
residential units were proposed to be approved by the Planning Commission, that
due to the strong Design Guidelines staff was requesting that the Planning
Commission consider having this component approved by staff.
Staff answers the questions of the Commission
Addressing the queries of the Planning Commission, staff relayed the following:
Noted that the residential pads will be lower than the street, that the wall would be
placed at the top of the slope, that if curb-separated sidewalks were installed in this
area, the sidewalk would be adjacent to the wall which was undesirable, that to gain
additional room for an increase in landscaping the slope would have to be pushed
back three or four feet which would reduce the buildable pad area, and that while
staff opined that it would be feasible to increase the landscaping, the applicant has
not been agreeable. In response, Commissioner Olhasso queried whether it was
necessary to install the wall.
· Clarified that the green wall (a wall with vines growing on it) softened the visual
impact of the wall;
Provided additional information regarding the circulation improvements associated
with this project, including improvements to Nicolas Road, Butterfield Stage Road,
and improvements to intersections, specifying that the funds collected (as a fair
share amount based on this project's impacts) for a pementage of many intersection
R:PlanComr~rnin ut es/101602 8
improvements were being channeled together to improve off-site intersections which
could be completed projects, advising that all of the circulation improvements for this
project will be installed prior to receipt of the Issuance of the 510th Building Permit;
Provided additional information regarding the Open Space and public art credits
which were credited due to the City obtaining these elements with the proposal
upfront;
· Relayed that staff would investigate whether there was a specified percentage of
single-family units required;
Advised that a portion of the cimulation improvements (approximately $30 million)
would be funded via the CFD, and that the CFD would be required to be funded prior
to the issuance of the first building permit, that the total costs for the required
infrastructure were approximately $65 million, and that the developer would fund the
differential between what the CFD funds and the costs of the improvements;
· Confirmed that the 30-foot buffering along the southern and eastern boundary was in
addition to the one-acre lots;
· Provided additional information regarding the specificity of this project's Design
Guidelines;
Via overheads, presented the circulation improvements, advising that the traffic study
required that Butterfield Stage Road be six lanes between Nicolas Road and
Murrieta Hot Springs Road which would address traffic demands in this area at future
build out, specifying the improvements required to be implemented prior to the
issuance of the 108th building permit, and improvements required to be implemented
prior to the issuance of the 510th building permit; and
· Relayed that staff would provide the Planning Commission with the lotting study.
The applicant provided an overview of the project
Mr. Kevin Everett, representing the applicant, provided a brief synopsis of the project,
relaying the following:
· Noted the changes implemented into the project since this proposal was presented
at the October 2001 hearing;
Via overheads, specified the location of the 201 -acre Open Space Area, the Plateau
Area which would encompass 509 units, the location of the nature walk, the buffer
area, the trail system which provided connectivity to other portions of the project, the
pedestrian bridge, the recreational facility, the detention basin, the main entry staffed
gate, the two Opticom gates, the nine half-acre unit lots, the park site with a view, the
area with 150 units of clustered development, the area with 14 unit lots with one-acre
lots on the outside, followed by half-acre lots, the ridgelines, the loop road, the
channels, the sports park, the schools, and the second recreation center;
· Provided additional information regarding the circulation improvements to be
implemented with the project, specifying the timing of such;
R:Pla~ComnYminutes/101602 9
· Noted that the project would be completed in two phases;
Confirmed that the circulation improvements would cost approximately $62-65
million, advising that the applicant was anticipating that the CFD would provide
approximately $40 million towards these improvements;
· Provided additional information regarding the project's intersection fees; and
· Advised that this project, as revised, was more upscale than the previous proposal,
and that the anticipated value of the homes in this area has increased.
The public was invited to speak
The following individuals spoke as proponents of the project:
Mr. Brian K. McClung
Ms. Karen Bales
Mr. Mike Knowlton
Mr. Stephen Jansen
Ms. Baillargeat Reine
31147 Brussels Street
39340 Jessie Circle
39130 Pala Vista Drive
32100 Vista Del Monte Road
31220 Nicolas Road
Winchester
The above-mentioned individuals were in favor of the project, due to the following
reasons:
This particular project was well-planned;
Opposed to the strong anti-growth comments recently reflected in the newspaper
expressed by various citizens and/or citizen groups in which all development is
opposed;
Requested that there be consideration for the proximate neighbors to have the
opportunity to be part of the Homeowner's Association (HOA), contributing towards
the HOA fees and having access to the HOA facilities;
Noted the benefits of processing this project in the City, rather than it being
processed through the County;
Specified the project's benefits to the community, e.g., circulation improvements, fire
station, and schools;
Recommended that Liefer Road be incorporated as part of the Assessment District
and be paved as a two-lane road with culverts;
Requested that the walking trail proposed along the canyon be removed;
Queried whether Nicolas Valley residents would be assessed with higher fees,
requesting that there be consideration to not further assess these residents for future
improvements unless there was a subdivision or rezoning;
Recommended that there be a buffer between the dirt roads which will connect into
two-lane or four-lane roads;
Relayed a desire for lower density;
Recommended that the developer aid in providing access to property on Nicolas
Road
For Mr. Jansen, Chairman Chiniaeff and Commissioner Olhasso noted that alternate
development projects have had the cost of cimulation improvements equate to a fee of
approximately $30,000 per house.
The following individuals spoke in opposition of the project:
Ms. Shirley Lassley
Mr. John Mize
Ms. Jeannie Morris
Mr. Tom Stillings
Mr. Bill Vazzana
Mr. Mark Broderick
Mr. Hans Kernkamp
Mr. Andrew Zun
Mr. Drake Haskins
Mr. Tom Edwards
32850 Vista De Ora
32850 Vista Del Monte Road
33007 Vina Way
35595 Glenoaks Road
39605 Avenida Lynell
45501 Clubhouse Drive
39055 Liefer Road
33105 Vista Del Monte Road
3200 Vista Del Monte Road
31250 Nicolas Road
The above-mentioned individuals were opposed to the project, due to the following
reasons:
Opposed to the proposed density;
Requested that Vista Del Monte Road not be completely closed-off where it
intersects with Butterfield Stage Road, recommending that a gate be installed for the
residents' use;
Noted the need for a greater buffer on the south and east sides of the project;
Recommended that there be two-and-a-half- or two-acre lots on the east and south
ends of the project, additionally recommending additional trees in these areas for
further screening;
Submitted a petition with the signatures of approximately 50 neighboring residents,
relaying their desire for the project to be further conditioned;
Concurred with the concerns outlined in the letter from Roger and Jeannie Morris
which was submitted at tonight's hearing (October 16, 2002);
Expressed concern regarding the negative impact this project would have on the
water supply;
Opposed to the placement of two schools adjacent to one another due to the traffic
impacts and the associated safety risks for the children attending these schools;
Traffic impacts, both cumulatively, and on the neighboring streets;
Queried how long there would be construction traffic on Nicolas Road; and
Environmental impacts during construction, i.e., dust and dirt in the air.
For Commissioner Telesio, Ms. Morris relayed that the parcels outside the project on the
south side were from two-and-a-half to twenty acres in size.
For informational purposes, and for Ms. Reine, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks
provided additional information regarding the circulation improvement projects, advising
that there would be consideration with respect to all the connecting driveways and
roadways; additionally provided information regarding the assessment district in this
area, which was formed by the County to maintain the roads in the wine country area;
It is noted that the following submittals regarding the project were received on October
16, 2002, the day of the hearing:
1) a petition with approximately 50 signatures, specifying four
recommendations regarding the project,
2) a letter dated October 16, 2002, written by Roger and Jeannie Morris,
outlining their concerns regarding the project,
3) a note from Ron and Rose Alvarado, noting their request to be able to
review a rendering of the proposals adjacent to their property,
4) a letter dated October 16, 2002, written by Milan and Jean Wagner,
outlining their concerns regarding the project, and
5) a letter dated October 16, 2002, written by Mike Knowlton,
recommending that the project be further conditioned.
The meeting recessed at 8:15 P.M., reconvening at 8:25 P.M.
The applicant presented rebuttal
Providing rebuttal to the previously expressed comments, Mr. Everett relayed the
following:
With respect to the desire for two-and-a-half acre lots on the east side of the project,
and specifically the comments referencing a commitment by the developer to
maintain the proposal for these larger lots, clarified that previously there were two-
and-a-half acre lots proposed on one side, and half-acre lots on the Vista Del Monte
side, specifying the location of the previously proposed clustered housing,
commercial center, apartments, and elementary school; provided additional
information regarding the compromise that was reached which would address the
neighbors' concerns as a whole, relaying that the revisions incorporated with the
efforts of the Subcommittee and staff would create a more proportionate distribution
with the land use;
With respect to concerns regarding the water supply, advised that the project's Water
Quality Plan which was an extensive document has been approved by the Water
Quality Control Board;
With respect to gating Vista Del Monte Road, noted that it was his understanding that
the residents in this area with the aid of an attorney could revert the street back to
private use, and install a gate with the residents' monies;
· Provided additional information regarding the alignment of Nicolas Road, the location
of the bridge, and the road improvements in this area;
For Commissioner Mathewson, Mr. Everett relayed that the previous proposal for the
area with the proposed 12 one-acre lots (on the southern portion of the project) was five
or six two-and-a-half acre lots; specified the stair step approach with the elevations of
these lots which would provide each home with a view; for Chairman Chiniaeff,
confirmed that he would provide the Planning Commission with the lotting layout; for
Commissioner Olhasso, updated the Planning Commission regarding the schools within
the project, noting the meetings held with staff, the applicant, and the School District,
whereby the siting of the schools was discussed; and advised that the architectural plans
have been approved by the State Architect's office.
R:PlanCornm/min ut es/101602 12
The Plannin.q Commission offered closinq comments
Chairman Chiniaeff relayed that the Planning Commission needed additional information
from the applicant regarding the issues raised at this meeting; advised that he would be
reluctant to recommend revisions for buffering in the area where there was a substantial
variation in the elevations of the lots; and noted that it would be his desire to know the
timing of the road improvements on Nicolas Road, querying the adequacy of the two
lanes proposed west of the project.
In response to Chairman Chiniaeff, Project Planner Naaseh confirmed that staff did
receive a letter from EMWD regarding this proposed project, indicating that there was an
adequate water supply, advising that Rancho Water would also be providing service to
approximately 15 units.
Regarding the concern expressed with respect to the deletion of the two-and-a-half acre
lots, Commissioner Mathewson concurred with Chairman Chiniaeff, that with a
substantial grade elevation difference, the neighbors' view would not be directly down on
these parcels; and relayed that he would desire additional information regarding these
lots.
Commissioner Telesio requested that staff outline the areas in the current proposal
where staff and the applicant disagreed (i.e., the curb-separated sidewalk element on
the local streets, the chain-linked fencing adjacent to the nature walk), specifically
elements, which staff viewed as needing revision.
In response, Project Planner Naaseh relayed that at this time staff was not requesting
that the applicant revise the sidewalk/street plans, advising that staff was satisfied with
the compromise the applicant met, proposing the curb-separated sidewalks on the major
roads; confirmed that on the routes to the commercial area, the park and the school,
curb-separated sidewalks have been proposed; specified that the vinyl-coated chain-link
fencing was proposed on the south side of the Plateau Area at the property line, on
Buttedield Stage Road and Murrieta Hot Springs Road, adjacent to the habitat area,
clarifying that the uncoated chain-link fence was solely proposed as temporary fencing
separating the residential area from Planning Area 13, the Open Space area; advised
that the errata sheet document included revisions to the proposal that staff opined as
necessary; and confirmed that staff would summarize the changes to this particular
project in order to provide the Planning Commission with clarification.
For Commissioner Telesio, Project Planner Naaseh confirmed that horses would be
permitted on the one-acre lots, advising that at the rear of these lots there would be
access to the multi-purpose trail; clarified that the developer would be required to enter
into negotiations with the Habitat Agency, confirming that equestrian access to the UCR
property and the Johnson Ranch property would be addressed by the Agency at that
time. Mr. Everett speciifed environmental issues the Habitat Agency would be
considering i.e., damage to the gnatcatchers habitat.
Commenting on the future approval process for the Product Review for this project,
Commissioner Olhasso relayed her desire for this review to take place at the Planning
Commission level.
R:PlanComrWr~nutes/101602 13
Regarding the tract maps, Chairman Chiniaeff recommended that there be further
investigation regarding the proposed driveways close to Murrieta Hot Springs Road.
For Commissioner Mathewson, Project Planner Naaseh confirmed that there were no
curb-separated sidewalks proposed on the internal neighborhood streets, including the
streets proximate to the one-acre sites. Commissioner Mathewson relayed a desire for
this issue to be revisited.
With respect to the Development Agreement, Project Planner Naaseh advised that while
staff and the applicant agreed with the major deal points, there would be some minor
revisions, Assistant City Attorney Curley noting that staff has not had word back from the
applicant regarding final agreement with the Development Agreement.
MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved to continue this item to the October 30, 2002
Planning Commission meeting. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Mathewson
and voice vote reflected unanimous approval.
COMMISSIONER'S REPORTS
No comments.
PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT
Updating the Planning Commission regarding the current staff recruiting process,
Director of Planning Ubnoske advised that within the next month a decision would most
likely be made regarding the addition of a senior planner to the Planning Department.
ADJOURNMENT
At 9:05 P.M. Chairman Chiniaeff formally adjourned this meeting to the Joint City
Council/Plannin.q Commission Workshop to be held on Tuesday, October 29~ 2002
at 7:15 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, the next adiourned regular meeting to be
held on Wednesday, October 30, 2002 at 6:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers,
43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula.
"~'~is W. ~;hiniaeff,
Chairman
Debbie Ubnoske,
Director of Planning