Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout092000 PC MinutesMINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 20, 2000 CALL TO ORDER The City of Temecula Planning Commission convened in a regular meeting at 6:00 P.M., on Wednesday September 20, 2000, 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 Telesio. ROLLCALL Present: Commissioners Chiniaeff, Mathewson, Telesio, Webster, and Chairman Guerriero. Absent: None. Also Present: Deputy City Manager Thornhill, Director of Planning Ubnoske, Director of Public Works Hughes, Attorney Curley, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks, Development Services Administrator McCarthy, Fire Safety Specialist Davidson, Associate Planner Donahoe, Assistant Planner Anders, Project Planner Thornsley, and Minute Clerk Hansen. PUBLIC COMMENTS No comments. 1 A.qenda RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Approve the Agenda of September 20, 2000. 2 Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Approve the minutes of August 1, 2000. It was noted that Commissioner Webster abstained with regard to this item. R:PlanCom rn/minut es/092000 3 Director's Hearin,q Update RECOMMENDATION 3.1 Receive and File MOTION: Commissioner Webster moved to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1-3. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Chiniaeff and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Commissioner Webster who abstained with respect to Item No. 2.. COMMISSION BUSINESS 4 Date for Planninq Commission Workshop In response to the Commission's desire to address certain topics of discussion (i.e., ex- parte communications) via a Commission Workshop, Director of Planning Ubnoske queried the Commission for a desired scheduled date. After additional discussion the Planning Commission Workshop was scheduled for October 18, 2000. 5 Topics for Discussion Chairman Guerriero relayed that the Commission would forward any suggested topics for discussion at the workshop via e-mailing staff. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 6 Planning Application No. 00-0261 (Specific Plan Amendment) located north of Rancho California Road off of Promenade Chardonnay Hills and Meadows Parkway south of Parducci Lane and ,qenerally north of Rue Jadot consistin,q of all lots in Tract No.'s 23100-61 23100-7 and 23100-8 - Thomas Thornsley RECOMMENDATION: 6.1 Adopt a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. 00-0261 pursuant to Section 15061 (b) (3) and make a determination of consistency with a project for which an EIR was previously certified (Section 15162 - subsequent EIRs and Negative Declarations of the CEQA Guidelines); and 6.2 Adopt a resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-0261 (SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 5) TO AMEND THE TEXT WITHIN THE MARGARITA VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN'S DESIGN GUIDELINES, FOR VILLAGE "B", RELATED TO THE SIZE AND VARIATION OF RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS TO BE BUILT IN PLANNING AREAS 8, 10, 11, AND 12, GENERALLY LOCATED NORTH OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD OFF OF PROMENADE CHARDONNAY HILLS, EAST OF MEADOWS PARKVVAY SOUTH OF PARDUCCI LANE AND NORTH OF RUE JADOT CONSISTING OF ALL LOTS IN TRACT NO'S. 23100-6, -7, AND -8. Chairman Guerriero and Commissioner Mathewson advised that they would be abstaining from this agenda item. Commissioner Telesio relayed that he had received notice regarding this project at his residence, querying the boundary radius of this project. In response to Commissioner Telesio, Project Planner Thornsley relayed the boundaries of the noticing for this project. Attorney Curley advised that it would be appropriate to continue this matter until there was further investigation to determine whether Commissioner Telesio's residence was located within the noticed radius, noting that if Commissioner Telesio was required to abstain, the Commission would not have a quorum, and the Rule of Necessity would become applicable. After additional discussion, Attorney Curley provided the parameters for determining whether a Commissioner should abstain from an item, recommending that if it was the Commission's desire, this item could be considered out of sequence in order for staff to further investigate the distance parameters that encompassed this project. MOTION: Commissioner Chiniaeff moved to consider Agenda Item No. 6 out of sequence, after hearing Agenda Item No. 7. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Webster and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. Agenda Item No. 6 was considered after Agenda Item No. 7; see page 5. 7 Planninq Application No. 00-0350(Specific Plan Amendment) located in Old Town Temecula - Patty Anders RECOMMENDATION: 7.1 Adopt a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. 00-0350 pursuant to Section 15061 (b) (3) of the CEQA Guidelines;. and 3 R:PIa nComntt minut e~'092000 7.2 Adopt a resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000-032 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-0350 (SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT) TO AMEND THE SIGN STANDARDS IN CHAPTERS III AND IV OF THE OLD TOWN SPECIFIC PLAN. Via overheads, Assistant Planner Anders presented the staff report (via agenda material), relaying the rationale for the modifications; noted that the revisions would be inclusive of additional flexibility with respect to the following: 1) permitted monument signage (for uses with a front setback of ten feet or greater), 2) allowance for signage to be placed on a creative architectural element with an antiquated appearance (consistent with the Old Town Western motif), 3) the increase of permitted sign colors from three to four colors, and 4) the utilization of generic directional signage which would be brought back to the Commission for review; and indicated that on page 2 of the staff report, in Section A, the proposed amendment should be corrected to read as follows: Anyproject that proposes to provide space for more than one tenant shall provide a comprehensive sign plan prior to approval of a planning application. For Commissioner Mathewson, Assistant Planner Anders confirmed that the above- mentioned correction would also apply to the ordinance; relayed that clarification could be added to the text of the ordinance in Section D to specify that the 16 square-foot permitted size of the monument sign would apply to the signage being double-faced; and noted that on page 14 of the resolution in Section 3.E. there was language regarding the allowance of four colors on a single sign, relaying that the ordinance would also be inclusive of this language. In response to Commissioner Webster, Assistant Planner Anders confirmed that this proposed amendment had been reviewed by the Old Town Local Review Board. For Commissioner Chiniaeff, Assistant Planner Anders relayed that the Old Town merchants' expressed comments had been the impetus for beginning the process of amending the Old Town Specific Plan in order to meet their desire for additional flexibility with respect to sign standards. MOTION: Commissioner Webster moved to approve staffs recommendation inclusive of staff's modifications. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Chiniaeff and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. It was noted that at 6:19 P.M. the meeting recessed, reconvening at 6:31 P.M. At this time the Commission considered Agenda Item No. 6. 6 Planninq Application No. 00-0261 (Specific Plan Amendment) located north of Rancho California Road off of Promenade Chardonnay Hills and Meadows Parkway south of Parducci Lane and generally north of Rue Jadot consistinq of all lots in Tract No.'s 23100-6, 23100-7 and 23100-8 - Thomas Thornsley RECOMMENDATION: 6.1 6.2 Adopt a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. 00-0261 pursuant to Section 15061 (b) (3) and make a determination of consistency with a project for which an EIR was previously certified (Section 15162 - subsequent EIRs and Negative Declarations of the CEQA Guidelines); and Adopt a resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-0261 (SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 5) TO AMEND THE TEXT WITHIN THE MARGARITA VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN'S DESIGN GUIDELINES, FOR VILLAGE "B", RELATED TO THE SIZE AND VARIATION OF RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS TO BE BUILT IN PLANNING AREAS 8, t0, 11, AND 12, GENERALLY LOCATED NORTH OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD OFF OF PROMENADE CHARDONNAY HILLS, EAST OF MEADOWS PARKWAY SOUTH OF PARDUCCI LANE AND NORTH OF RUE JADOT CONSISTING OF ALL LOTS IN TRACT NO'S. 23100-6, -7, AND -8. Chairman Guerriero relayed that staff had determined that this matter would be continued to the October 4, 2000 Planning Commission meeting. At this time the Commission resumed the regular order of the Agenda and heard Agenda Item No. 8. 8 Planninq Application No. 98-0481 (VVolf Creek Specific Plan No.12); No. 98-0487 (Wolf Creek Environmental Impact Report); No. 98-0484 (VVolf Creek General Plan Amendment); and No. 00-0052 (Wolf Creek Tentative Tract Map No. 29305) on parcels totalinq 557 acres located on the east side of Pala Road, between Loma Linda Road and Fairview Avenue - Carole Donahoe RECOMMENDATION: 8.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FOR WOLF CREEK (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA98-0484), AND APPROVE THE WOLF CREEK SPECIFIC PLAN (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 98-0481) ON PARCELS TOTALING 557 ACRES LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF PALA ROAD, BETWEEN LOMALINDA ROAD AND FAIRVlEW AVENUE, AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NOS. 950-tt0-002, -005, -033 AND 950-180-00t, -005, - 006 AND -010. 8.2 Adopt a resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-0052 (TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 29305) THE SUBDIVISION OF 557 ACRES INTO 47 LOTS WHICH CONFORM TO THE PLANNING AREAS, OPEN SPACE AREAS, SCHOOL AND PARK SITES OF THE WOLF CREEK SPECIFIC PLAN, LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF PALA ROAD, BETWEEN LOMA LINDA ROAD AND FAIRVlEW AVENUE, AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NOS. 950-110-002, -005, - 033 AND 950-180-001, -005, -006 AND -010. 8.3 Adopt a resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING CERTIFICATION OF THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED FOR THE WOLF CREEK SPECIFIC PLAN AND RELATED ACTIONS (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 98-0482) AND RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM IN CONNECTION THEREWITH FOR THE WOLF CREEK SPECIFIC PLAN, LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF PALA ROAD, BETWEEN LOMA LINDA ROAD AND FAIRVIEW AVENUE, AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR PARCEL NOS. 950-1'10-002, -005, -033 AND 950-'180-00'1, -005, -006 AND -010. Commissioner Chiniaeff advised that he would be abstaining with respect to this matter, and therefore left the dais at this time. Associate Planner Donahoe presented the staff report (of record), noting that the applicant has prepared a document report (provided via supplemental agenda material) which outlined the responses to the Commission comments that were expressed at the September 6, 2000 Planning Commission meeting; reviewed the memorandum provided by staff (per supplemental agenda material) which was inclusive of the following 1) Addendum No. 2 to the Final Environmental Impact Report by Cotton-Beland which was inclusive of analysis related to the proposed park in lieu of the previously planned school site, 2) Revised Conditions of Approval for Planning Application No. 98-0481-Wolf Creek Specific Plan No. 12, which was inclusive of two revisions with respect to Condition No. 64 (regarding the Fire Station site), and the addition of Condition No. 63 (regarding funding mechanisms), 3) Revised Conditions of Approval for Planning Application No. 00-0052 Tentative Tract Map No. 29305, 4)(Original) Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Wolf Creek Final Environmental Impact Report which had not been revised, and 5) Revised PC Resolution for Planning Application No. 00-0052 (Tentative Tract Map No. 29305), which had been modified per the City Attorney's advisement due to this approval going before the City Council; noted the provision of a copy of a letter dated September 20, 2000 from Ms. Pamela Miod (her third correspondence) outlining her concerns regarding the negative impacts of the project; relayed that the Pechanga Indian Reservation had also provided a correspondence dated September 20, 2000 addressing their comments regarding the Environmental Impact Report, noting that this was their third correspondence; reiterated that the applicant's representatives would provide a presentation to address the Commission's previously expressed comments; with respect to the Development Code requirements for Water Conservation techniques regarding Industrial and Commercial projects in the City, advised that with respect to residential projects, the requirement was applicable to apartment complexes, as well as slopes, medians, and common areas within a residential project, clarifying that the requirement was not imposed on individual homeowners; noted that staff did request that one of the model homes in a residential project demonstrate water conservation techniques, and plantings to serve as an educational tool; relayed that on page 15 of the applicant's report (which outlined the responses to the Planning Commission comments) there were revisions to the Specific Plan regarding the design and the content of the private recreation facility; and provided additional information regarding the Pala Road portion of the project, detailing the design for the proposed meandering sidewalks. In response to Commissioner Webster, Deputy City Manager Thornhill relayed that the park site had been discussed during Closed Session with the City Council, advising that while he could not disclose specific details, that at this point in time the progress with the applicant seemed to be moving along favorably, providing additional information regarding the upcoming Developm, ent Agreement process, and the 40-acre size of the park site; advised that once the deal points have been finalized, specific factors regarding the agreement would be disclosed; for Commissioner Telesio, relayed that the data the applicant would present would reveal a reduction in peak hour trips and average daily trips with the proposed park site in comparison to the previously planned school site; and relayed that staff was comfortable with the proposed densities of the project. For Commissioner Telesio, Associate Planner Donahoe relayed that on page 3 of the Addendum (per supplemental agenda material), there was a revised Specific Plan table, which represented the amount of dwelling units proposed with the park site proposal. For Commissioner Webster, Associate Planner Donahoe relayed that on page 12 of the Conditions of Approval for the Specific Plan that Condition No. 70 addressed cul-de-sac lengths which had not been revised, relaying that the standards were also denoted on page 18, Condition No. 103 of the Conditions of Approval for the map. In response to Commissioner Webster's queries, Fire Specialist Davidson relayed that additional research was conducted regarding the cul-de-sac length standards, providing additional information regarding the associated City ordinance, advising that the Fire Department's condition requiring that the maximum cul-de-sac length not exceed 1320 feet for this particular project was due to the area currently being in a high fire area, noting that after this development project was completed, this area would no longer be considered a high fire area; and noted that if it was the City's desire to reduce the length of the cul-de-sacs on the individual maps to 660 feet, the Fire Department would have no objections. Commissioner Webster noted that it was his recollection that the City's ordinance associated with cul-de-sac lengths had been linked to zoning classifications. In response to Commissioner Mathewson's queries regarding Condition No. 64 (regarding the Fire Station site), Deputy City Manager Thornhill relayed that this issue would most likely be addressed in the Development Agreement, providing additional information regarding the possibility of the developer being reimbursed for a portion of the associates costs; for Chairman Guerriero, advised that the City would likely coordinate the development of the Fire Station, relaying that it could potentially be constructed within a 1.5-2.5 year period. Mr. William Griffith, representing the applicant, addressed the park issue, noting that the applicant has made an offer to the City regarding the park site land; advised that this particular project would meet the new park standards, and not be grandfathered with the old park standards; relayed that the project would meet the Quimby requirements and the Development Impact Fee obligations through a combination of dedication and improvement of parks within the City, as well as, the land dedicated for the City to develop the regional park; noted that Mr. Burnell would provide visuals to specify the components of the proposed 40-acre regional park site; for Commissioner Mathewson, provided additional information regarding the total project density of 2022 dwelling units with the Senior Housing complex component verses a total project density of 1881 units with the Courtyard or Patio home component, advising that under the Iow density range of the General Plan (without the high school) the Iow density range would be 1889 units. For Commissioner Mathewson, Mr. Camille Bahn, the applicant's representative, clarified the calculation of the Iow-density range, noting the variables, Associate Planner Donahoe confirming the applicant's utilized analysis to develop the Iow-density range. Mr. Barry Burnell, the applicant's representative, presented a detailed overview of the applicant's response to the Commission comments which had been relayed at the September 6, 2000 Planning Commission meeting. (It was noted that via supplemental agenda material, the applicant additionally provided a document report book outlining the applicant's detailed responses to the Commission comments in written form.) Mr. Burnell addressed the previous comments and queries of the Commission, as follows: Provided an overview of the Land Plan. With respect to the queries regarding the potential regional park, provided a detailed project plan of the City Sports Park on a 40.0 acre site in Planning Area 24, noting that the City would be holding community workshops prior to the final design of the park site; provided additional information regarding the revisions to the alternate parks with the 40-acre park site; and provided data regarding the density changes if the park proposal did not go forward. For Commissioner Webster, advised that there was not a proposed collector road in between the residential area and the park site along the north boundary, while relaying that there could potentially be roads fronting the park site, noting that this would be addressed during the subdivision planning. With respect to the recommendation that Pala Road be constructed as six (6) lanes to Wolf Valle,/Road, advised that the developer would provide the right-of way for a 6-lane road. Mr. Griffith provided additional information regarding the 6-lane road dedication of Pala Road to Wolf Valley Road, noting that the applicant has committed to participate in the improvements to Pala Road including noise attenuation. With respect to the feasibility of traffic circles on the project loop road, provided the rationale for not proposing a traffic circle with this particular project; for Commissioner Telesio, noted that traffic circles are most effective when the traffic volumes are equal on both streets. Mr. Griffith provided additional information regarding traffic circles located in alternate cities. Director of Public Works Hughes relayed that the Public Works Department was of the opinion that traffic circles would not be appropriate for this particular project plan, provided additional information regarding the installations. Mr. Burnell noted that traffic calming would be addressed in an alternate portion of the presentation. With respect to the EIR issues, noted that the applicant's representative from Cotton Beland and Associates (CBA) would address these matters at a later point in the meeting. With respect to the recommendation to update the SP Zone Ordinance, relayed that the text has been revised to conform to the Zoning Matrix. With respect to the recommendation to provide additional specificity in the lan.quaRe of the Desi.qn Guidelines with respect to density bonuses, provided additional information regarding the relationship between the potential senior housing component and the density bonuses. With respect to the recommendation to utilize narrower local streets and separated sidewalks, relayed data noting the pros and cons of narrower streets, advising that the City's Public Works Department was opposed to the use of narrower local streets. For Commissioner Webster, Director of Public Works Hughes relayed additional information regarding the City's adopted street standards for the various classifications of streets, noting that the option for a 36-foot curb-to-curb width was typically utilized on short cul-de-sacs, noting that the option for a 32-foot curb-to- curb width was utilized with restricted parking on one site of the street, or if there was no need to park on both sides of the street; advised that if this project was to revise the street widths, there would be negative impacts with respect to emergen(~y access issues; additionally provided data regarding the separated sidewalk issue, noting that the primary concerns were the maintenance costs, and the liability issues; in response to Commissioner Mathewson, relayed that even if there were non-evasive rooting trees designated for planting in this area, that historically various homeowners replace the trees with an alternate tree that would create the negative impacts with respect to maintenance issues. For Commissioner Mathewson, Mr. Burnell relayed that there was no plan to have the HO^ be responsible for the neighborhood parkway maintenance. For Commissioner Mathewson, Director of Public Works Hughes provided additional information regarding the standard mailbox installation. Mr. Burnell clarified that in the locations where the City allowed the narrow street widths, the applicant was proposing this element. With respect to the recommendation to include the "modified grid" in the Design Standards., relayed that this element would be added to the Specific Plan as a design guideline. With respect to the recommendation to provide more options for qara.qe placement, noted that the applicant has provided six options (included in the supplemental agenda report) which would be included in the Specific Plan as samples for garage placement. With respect to the recommendation to provide a certain percentaqe of single story homes., advised that there was a lengthy response included in the report document addressing this issue on page 7. With respect to allowance of granny fiats on larger lots, relayed that this provision was denoted in the Design Guidelines. For Commissioner Telesio, Director of Planning Ubnoske provided additional information regarding the permitting process for construction of a second unit, noting that at times the granny fiats were attached. With respect to the recommendation for lar.qer sin.qle family detached lots, and the recommendation to provide alternating lot widths within a single tract, presented the land plan for the first two tract layouts, providing additional information regarding the proposed lot sizes, noting the goal to keep a range of values within the project. For Commissioner Webster, Mr. Bahn provided additional information regarding "H-H" Street represented on the site plan rendering (included in the supplemental agenda report documents). 10 R: PlanCom nVminut es/092000 With respect to the recommendation to coordinate the maximum home size with the lot size., Mr. Burnell relayed the associated analysis, noting that it was standard to provide requirements for a percentage of lot coverage. With respect to the recommendation to provide standards re,qardinc~ (3ara(~es in lieu of carports, noted that the Design Guidelines do encourage garages, relayed that language had been added stating that if carports were planned the design element should resemble garages from a visual perspective. With respect to the recommendation to split the villaqe commercial areas relayed the importance of ensuring a viable commercial center, providing additional information regarding the proposed commercial centers; and advised that the applicant was strongly opposed to separating the commercial centers. Mr. Griffith provided additional data regarding the uses proposed in the centers and the goal to provide synergy between the centers, noting that these areas would not be a significant Citywide attraction to the site due to the scale of the project. With respect to the recommendation to incorporate civic and public uses into the village center, and to set aside land for a church and a village square, noted that the Plan did provide for a neighborhood park, an elementary school, a l-ire Station site, a private recreation facility, options for a public library, daycare facilities, community halls, churches, and colleges (university branches). With respect to the recommendation for provision of a raised landscape median on Wolf Valley Road, via site plan overheads, relayed that there would be provision of a median on Wolf Valley Road at the point where one is entering the village center, noting the break in the median due to the location of the Fire Station, advising that this design pan had not been finalized. With respect to the recommendation for a raised median on Pala Road prior to build out of Phase I, relayed that the design for Pala Road was inclusive of a median, noting that the difficulty with installing the median at an early point in time due to the need for the road to be cut and re-crowned to provide for the ultimate width. With respect to recommendation for provision of an additional signal on Pala Road between the project loop road and Wolf Valley Road, noted that signals would be installed based on warrants, advising that there would be provision of merging lanes (acceleration and deceleration lanes). Director of Public Works Hughes provided additional information regarding the potential for this refuge area. For Commissioner Telesio, with respect to the six lanes on Pala Road, Mr. Griffith noted the applicant's desire to alleviate loading traffic onto Pala Road; and provided additional information regarding the circulation plan. With respect to inclusion of soccer fields in the regional park plan, noted the design for four soccer fields on the preliminary plan; for Commissioner Mathewson, Deputy City Manager Thornhill relayed that it was the Council's desire to get input from the community prior to the development of the final plans on the park project. Mr. Burnell provided an overview of the entire preliminary park plan. With respect to the recommendation to provide enhanced corner monumentations, relayed that the entry areas were set aside, advising that there were concepts for this element included in the Specific Plan. Chairman Guerriero commented on the importance of this element. In response, Mr. Gfiffith relayed that one of the most significant monument elements of the project would be the grass-lined channel at the entry to the project. With respect to the recommendation to refer future density modifications to the Planning Commission, noted that there would be no density increases in this project without Commission review. 11 R:PlanComrrttminut es/092000 With respect to AQMD requirements, advised that these requirements would be met, noting that this data would be brought forward into the Final EIR. With respect to the desire for an equestrian trail, which a resident had commented on at the September 6th meeting, specified the location of the proximate equestrian trails. It was noted that at 8:13 P.M. the meeting recessed, reconvening at 8:27 P.M. The applicant's representative from Cotton Beland Associates (CBA) addressed the EIR issues which had been raised by Commissioner Webster at the September 6, 2000 Planning Commission meetinq, as follows: With respect to the General Plan's requirement for a Transportation Demand ManaRement (TDM) Plan for Specific Plans, relayed that TDM Plans are typically required for non-residential plans to address employee trips, advising that since this project was primarily residential, the EIR does not require a TDM Plan; noted that Mitigation Measure Nos. 6, and 7 (on page 53 of the FEIR) and No. 10 (on page 68) address transit needs; and relayed the elements the project incorporates to encourage non-motorized transportation. Commissioner Webster clarified that his query was based on the General Plan's requirement. With respect to the recommendation to incorporate further definition in the Air Quality Miti,qation Measure, specifically with respect to Ener,qy Conservation measures and Southcoast Air Quality ManaRement District Rule Nos. 402, and 403, noted that the FEIR refers to Rule Nos. 402, and 403 on page 53 of the document, advising that the measure does not specify what the rules require since the rules may be amended during the construction life of the project; advised that the manner in which the mitigation is stated accommodates any potential rule changes; noted that, additionally, Measures 3, 4, and 5 provide specificity regarding control of soil amounts, unpaved areas, and dirty trucks; with respect to Energy Conservation, relayed that City ordinances require compliance with Title 24 of the Health and Safety Code, reiterating that the mitigation measure did not specify precise requirements, but instead provided for flexibility in the event that those change in the future; and with respect to Rule Nos. 402, and 403, advised that this was related to any sort of noxious air emission, and to fugitive dust, noting the associated existing requirement imposed on all projects within the Southcoast Air Basin. With, respect to the recommendation to specify the time of the required studies for Noise Miticlation No. 4, relayed that Condition No. 17 of the Specific Plan indicates that such studies shall be required prior to an issuance of building permits. With respect to queries regarding DrainaRe Miti,qation Measure No. 8, specifically the timeframe for downstream improvements, noted that Measure No. 8 specifies that the timing shall be specified by the director of Public Works, relaying that per the City and County requirements, the developer will be required to construct any and all improvements necessary for protection of the downstream properties; and advised that this issue was addressed on Condition Nos. 31-38 of the Specific Plan. With respect to the queries regarding the FEIR not respondinq to Comment 11-1 (Utilities Section), and the lack of inclusion in the MMRP, relayed that the Specific Plan conditions would address MWD's concerns; noted that the MMRP only contains mitigation measures from the FEIR, and not from Specific Plan conditions; and advised that the City had a separate program for ensuring implementation of Specific Plan conditions. With respect to the queries regarding the September 6, 2000 letter from the Pechan,qa Indian Reservation with respect to dissatisfaction with the mitigation measure for Cultural Resources, noted that Mitigation Measure No. 1 of the FEiI~ responded directly to comments received from the Pechangas, relaying that the measure was revised to include by name a representative of the Pechangas to be on site monitoring and involved with recovery operations, as needed; provided additional information regarding the developer's willingness to involve the Pechangas in the pre-construction meetings; relayed that under CEQA requirements, it was not necessary to include this element in the FEIR. Mr. Bahn noted that the applicant desired to relay for the record his willingness and commitment to work with the Pechangas with respect to monitoring. Chairman Guerriero noted the Commission's receipt of a letter dated September 20, 2000 from the Pechangas, relaying their desire to be involved in the initial excavation process. Mr. John L. Macarro, attorney for the Pechanga Indian Reservation, relayed the concern with respect to the desire for the developer to enter into a pre-excavation agreement and construction-monitoring plan, providing additional information regarding the FEIR. Commissioner Webster recommended that to address the Pechangas' concerns that the developer contract with the Pechangas to provide monitors. Mr. Griffith concurred with Commissioner Webster's comments, noting the applicant's willingness to meet with the Pechangas, relaying that as a reciprocal measure the applicant should also be asked to review development plans on the Pechanga site in order to ensure that there would be no negative impacts on the Wolf Creek project site. With respect to the Cumulative Impact Analysis in the FEIR, which utilized the General Plan EIR which incorporated 1989 SCAG baseline data, relayed that the General Plan EIR assesses the impacts associated with full implementation of the General Plan if all properties were to develop in accordance with General Plan Land Use Policy, not SCAG Growth Policy; noted that the number of residential units proposed in this Specific Plan was less than that allowed by the General Plan; provided additional information regarding CEQA requirements. Commissioner Webster relayed that his query was based on the baseline 1989 data that the General Plan EIR utilized, recommending that the cumulative impacts should be more adequately addressed due to the data the analysis was based upon being inadequate. For Commissioner Webster, the applicant's representative relayed that under CEQA requirements, the applicant could utilize the List Approach or the General Plan. At this time the Commission heard the public comments associated with this project, as follows: Mr. Mark Broderick, 45501 Clubhouse Drive, noted his opposition to the project based on the following concerns: 1) the proposed lot sizes under 7200 square feet, 2) traffic, air, and noise impacts, 3) the lack of an additional arterial route to Highway 79 South to accommodate the project's traffic impacts. Mr. Peter Lucier, 31257 Hiawatha Court, noted that he was neither opposed to nor a proponent of the project; thanked the applicant for addressing concerns regarding noise mitigation, and the elimination of the multi-family options in the subdivision; relayed concern regarding the following: 1) the permitted uses in the commercial center, specifically with respect to a gas station or convenience store selling alcohol, 2) traffic and lighting impacts, 3) recommended that Pala Road be constructed as six lanes to 13 R:Pla ncomm/min ut es~092000 Wolf Valley Road, 4) queried the gap in the signal installations, 5) recommended the addition of a pool facility in the City Sports Park, 6) unresolved issues with the City regarding the widening of Pala Road and the use of noise mitigation, and 7) concurred with Mr. Broderick's recommendation for an additional arterial route to Highway 79 South. For Mr. Lucier, Deputy City Manager Thornhill relayed that service station uses, and liquor stores were not permitted uses in the commercial center; and advised that the Commission could address whether mini-markets should be a permitted use. Mr. William Kelley, 31542 Via San Carlos, noted that he was a proponent of this project, relaying that the applicant has addressed three major concerns, as follows: 1) traffic control, 2) densities, and 3) community planning; thanked the Commission, specifically Commissioner Webster, for their thorough review of this project; and relayed that the property rights of this property owner should be respected, and the project should move forward. The following individuals addressed the concerns of the Pechanga Indian Reservation: Mr. John Gomez Mr. Karl Fuller Mr. John L. Macarro 30176 Pechanga Drive 28761VailBrook 31889 Vineya~ Avenue The above-mentioned individuals relayed the following comments and concerns: Noted that while there was no opposition to the project, that it was vital that impacts to Cultural Resources be addressed, relaying a desire for the developer to work with the Pechangas to develop a pre-excavation or treatment plan to address monitoring, the manner in which artifacts will be dealt with, and the handling of native American remains. Queried how the change in densities would impact Air Quality, relaying concern with this project exceeding the standard thresholds, noting the sensitive receptors on the Pechanga property. Queried the lack of reference in the EIR to the elementary school in Redhawk as a sensitive receptor, and the lack of reference to the residences on the Pechanga property being sensitive receptors. Relayed concern regarding drainage impacts. Noted that the Pechanga Indian Reservation has submitted three correspondences which outline the desire for there to be a pre-excavation agreement prior to this project's approval. For Commissioner Telesio, Mr. Gomez provided additional information regarding the potential for artifacts to be discovered at the project site. Mr. Griffith responded to the comments expressed, as follows: Relayed hopes that there was recognition of the work that staff, and the applicant have accomplished to deliver a defining project for this part of the City of Temecula. Noted that when the property was acquired it had been designated as a Town Center in the City's General Plan. 14 R:Pla nCemrr ~min ut es/092CO0 Noted the efforts to work with the neighborhood, the School District, and the various City departments to develop a plan to address many of the needs of the community, both locally, and as a whole. Relayed the excitement regarding the regional park, noting that the commitment to the land dedication was testimony to this fact; relayed that an additional benefit was that the City had funds available to immediately implement the park plan. Noted the elements (i.e., the open space, the greenbelts, and the drainage plan) that the applicant has proposed to create an excellent project. Advised that the applicant has made diligent efforts to cooperate with the City and the surrounding development via the dedication of roads, and drainage easements. Relayed that the applicant has created a plan that addressed many of the local concerns, noting the support of Assessment District 159, the financial support of Pala Road, the financial support of Highway 79, relaying the significant available capacity for this project to develop with the widening of Pala Road, and with Highway 79 South. With respect to the comments from the public, noted that Mr. Lucier, representing his HOA has brought forward valid issues, reiterating his comments which stated that if those issues were addressed he would support the project; advised that he represented a significant amount of homeowners in this area; relayed that the applicant had worked with Mr. Kelley to develop an interim parking facility to aid in the impacts at Kent Hindergardt Park; advised that if Mr. Lucier's, and Mr. Kelley's representation was combined with the representation of the acreage and entitlement within the Wolf Creek site, this support for the project represents a majority of landowners within this segment of the City; noted the efforts of the applicant to also address the issues with respect to the County, relaying the commitment to mitigate all of the environmental, traffic, and drainage issues. With respect to the Pechanga comments, noted the applicant's willingness to work with the Pechangas on Cultural Preservation. In concluding, urged the Commission to support this project, noting that it represented two years of rigorous work, expressing appreciation for the detail in which the Commission has reviewed this project; and requested the Commission's support in allowing this project to move forward to the City Council. Chairman Guerriero noted for the record the receipt of Ms. Pamela Miod's letter dated September 20, 2000. Commission discussion ensued, as follows: Commissioner Mathewson relayed that overall he was pleased with the data presented, and the efforts of the applicant to address the issues raised at the prior Commission meeting; expressed appreciation to staff for aiding in this compilation of information, and to the residents for their comments which generally relayed the acceptance of this proposal; with respect to the density issue, appreciated the commitment to a proposed approximately 2000 dwelling units with the senior component; relayed a desire for additional data regarding the average lot size in each Planning Area; noted a desire for the elimination of the 4,000-4500 square foot lots, and to maintain a 5,000 square foot minimum lot size; provided additional information regarding his opposition to the 4,000- 4500 square foot lots; noted his desire to ensure a mix of one-story, and two-story units; commented on the front yard setbacks, noted that the request to reduce this to fifteen feet was driven by the 4,000-4500 square foot lots, advising that if this element was eliminated, the City's Development Standards could be maintained at a twenty-foot 15 R: Plan Com rn/minut es~)920CO average; relayed his desire for there to be an agreement regarding the noise ,attenuation along Pala Road; with respect to the Pechanga issues, noted concurrence with Commissioner Webster's previous recommendation to utilize monitors from the Pechangas; with respect to amenities, relayed that the overall development met the expectations of the GMP, detailing the proposals; with respect to the Sports Park site, noted that it had been relayed that the Quimby requirement would be met, advising that this issue would be dealt with at the Council level as the Development Agreement proceeds; noted that while the Linear Park did not meet the Quimby requirements in his opinion, that the total park acreage would most likely satisfy the requirements; advised that overall the project was sound, and a benefit for the City and the surrounding area; relayed that the project did address major concerns in terms of traffic; and reiterated the need to focus on the following: 1) the Design Guidelines in terms of a one-story, and two-story mix, 2) to address the noise attenuation, and 3) to increase the minimum lot size to 5,000 square feet. Commissioner Telesio noted that he was pleased with the manner in which the applicant has addressed issues regarding this project; relayed that the housing mix was consistent with the GMP, specifically with the addition of the senior component, and the elimination of the multi-family options; commented on the proposed signalization; with respect to Air Quality issues, noted the efforts to address the associated traffic impacts and to minimize the proposed densities; commented on the market issues with respect to the sale of smaller homes verses larger homes; echoing Commissioner Mathewson's recommendation, relayed that he would favor a minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet, noting that it would be beneficial to have specific data related to the number of smaller lots proposed; relayed that he was concerned with respect to the Linear Park and its relation to the Quimby requirements; and advised that overall, he concurred with Commissioner Mathewson that this project was a good plan that would be beneficial to the City, noting that the infrastructure concerns have been addressed. Noting the numerous revisions made to the documents recently, Commissioner Webster relayed that in order for him to make a decision on this project he would need to have a compiled, complete document, relaying that he would not be comfortable forwarding this segmented data to the Council; recommended that the applicant bring back a final document outlining the final proposal in order to clarify the project plan; with respect to the CEQA issues, noted that there were some mitigation measures that needed to be more detailed, and that the cumulative impact analysis needed to be revised; recommended a continuance; and relayed a desire for staff to resolve the issue with respect to the Commission's desire for implementation of narrow streets and parkways, noting his desire to have these elements incorporated into the plan. In response to Commissioner Webster's comments, Deputy City Manager Thornhill recommended that this be passed on to the Council in order for that body to grapple with the issues. Chairman Guerriero advised that he was comfortable with this project, noting that the proposal was the best use for this site; relayed that there would be negative impacts on the surrounding area if the project was not developed (i.e., drainage impacts, traffic impacts), noting the benefits this project setforth; with respect to the General Plan, relayed that this developer has met and exceeded the requirements, noting the Iow densities, the traffic improvements, the pleasing visual aesthetics which would relate to increased property values; commended the applicant for the regional park proposal 16 R:PlanComrntminut es/092000 which would save the City an exorbitant amount of money; specified numerous elements under the scrutiny of thorough review with this project, as follows: development of parkland and trails, preservation of historic buildings or sites, additional open space, preservation enhancement of natural habitat, additional community public facilities, public spaces or plazas for community use, amenities in multi-family development, transit facilities and additional right-of-way along future transit quarters, meeting the needs of Iow-income households, provision of cultural facilities, bike paths, and designated village centers, relaying the plethora of provisions this project would provide, noting that the project had provisions for all the integral elements with the exception of prevision for light rail; and advised that this proposal was one of the best projects he had seen, commending staff and the applicant for a job well done, relaying that his vote would support this project. Commissioner Mathewson acknowledged Commissioner Webster's concern with respect to obtaining an overall understanding of the project proposal with the compilation of one document; relayed that the overall project was good, noting that there were some issues that needed to be addressed (i.e., the one-story, two-story mix of housing units); noted that he would not be opposed to continuing this matter in order for all the data to be compiled; and relayed that the Commission should further discuss the expectations in the residential units, and the permitted uses in the commemial areas. Commissioner Telesio acknowledged that there were some details of the project which should be addressed; concurred with Chairman Guerriero, that this was a high quality project; relayed that in his opinion it would be helpful for the data to be incorporated into one comprehensive document; and commended the applicant for the diligent work on the project, and the cooperation with the Pechangas and the community. Commissioner Webster reiterated the need for a complete document, which would provide clarification, relaying that this provision would most likely expedite the review process at the Council level. MOTION: Commissioner Telesio moved to continue this matter in order for the data to be compiled into one document, and for the applicant to address the Commission comments. (Ultimately this motion died for lack of a second,) In response to Chairman Guerriero, Attorney Curley relayed that there were several elements comprising the Final EIR, noting the Specific Plan document, and the alternate planning documents; relayed that it was typical for the EIR to be comprised of more than one element; acknowledged the Commission's discomfort with receiving updated data and new information at the meeting tonight, noting that even though the data had been reviewed with great detail, the Commission was relaying a desire to read through the material; noted the Commission's desire for one comprehensive document, relaying that there would not be additional analysis or alternate conclusions, but simply a re- packaging of the information; noted that it was the Commission's charge to make a recommendation to Council; relayed that the Commission was to make recommendations regarding the proposed plan, as presented, advising that the Commission could recommend approval, denial, or changes, noting that this recommendation would go to the Council for consideration; clarified that the Commission was not obligated to re-craft the development proposal in any way, but to comment on what has been presented; relayed that if it was the consensus of the Commission that there should be no small lots, that this could be the Commission's recommendation - to 17 R:PJanComm/minut es/092000 approve the project subject to no small lots; and relayed that if the compilation of the data into one uniform document would provide clarification to the Commission, then recommendations could be relayed with respect to that document. Deputy City Manager Thornhill clarified that in order for the applicant to address all the comments relayed at the last meeting, the information could not be provided soon enough for early distribution to the Commission; and relayed that if it was the Commission's desire to continue the matter, staff was of the opinion that the information could be re-packaged in a two-week period, advising that at that point the Commission could provide direction to the Council regarding the small lot issues. Director of Planning Ubnoske noted that October 4, 2000 was the next scheduled Planning Commission meeting; and suggested that if it was the Commission's desire to continue the matter that since most of the comments had been clear and would not require additional discussion, she would recommend that the comment regarding concern with respect to the permitted uses within the commercial centers be specified in order for this information to be incorporated into the document presented. Chairman Guerriero relayed that after numerous hours of reviewing this project, the matter would be continued in order for the Commission to receive a comprehensive document, and make a final determination. Mr. Sam Alhadeff, attorney representin,q the applicant responded to the Commission comments, as follows: Requested that the public comment portion of the meeting be closed. Requested that at the October 4, 2000 meeting the Commission move this project forward to the City Council for review. Relayed that there had been Herculean efforts expended by the applicant in order to address the previous Commission comments in a two-week period; requested assurance that the new document would be distributed to the Commission at a point in time where there would be adequate time for review. In response, Deputy City Manager Thornhill noted that as soon as staff received the data it would be hand- delivered to the Commissioners' residences. Reviewed the comments expressed by the Commission that would need to be addressed by the applicant, as follows: 1) the Quimby requirements for the Linear Park, 2) the question of the mix between one-story and two-story homes, and 3) the issue of lot size; noted that it was his understanding that Deputy City Manager Thornhill had clarified the issues related to permitted uses in the commercial centers. Queried whether there were other concerns the Commission desired to have addressed, noting the desire to have a complete understanding of the Commission's concerns. The Commission relayed concluding comments, as follows: Commissioner Mathewson sympathized with the applicant's diligent efforts to address the Commission's previously expressed comments (which had been addressed via an in depth review presentation and via a report document book which outlined in written form the applicant's response to those comments with additional data, and attachments), noting his concurrence that the Commission should clarify and conclude the comments that needed to be addressed; with respect to the permitted uses in the Community Commercial area, relayed his recommendation that liquor store uses not be permitted, noting that in his opinion, hotels, motels, and auditoriums should not be permitted uses, requesting input with respect to these permitted uses. For Commissioner Mathewson, Deputy City Manager Thornhill relayed that he had erred in a previous comment, noting that in the Community Commercial area liquor store uses were not prohibited; in response to Commissioner Mathewson's queries, relayed that it was his opinion that drive-throughs, liquor stores, car washes, and automotive repair facilities should not be permitted uses within this particular Village Center. With respect to his concerns regarding the residential area, Commissioner Mathewson reiterated his recommendation to maintain a minimum 5,000 square foot lot size; with respect to the Development Standards in terms of setback maximum lot coverage, relayed that it was his understanding that if the smaller lots were eliminated the City Development Standards would satisfy the 5,000 square foot lots and greater; and with respect to the one-story, and two-story mix of units, noted that this was a vital concern of his, relaying a desire for assurance of a certain percentage of one-story units, Chairman Guerriero relaying that he would support this recommendation. Commissioner Webster relayed that in order to approve a Village Center complex, he would recommend that with respect to the Community Commercial uses that taverns and pubs be permitted uses; advised that there needed to be additional dedicated public use areas in the Village Center area, noting the desire for a dedicated site for a church, or similar use; noted that in his opinion the church use did not belong in the commercial area, but should be placed in the public, civic center. In response to Commissioner Webster's comments, Associate Planner Donahoe relayed that the Public Facilities Planning Area was to follow the Public Institutional Development Code Zone which would allow church uses with a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). Commissioner Webster relayed his desire, if feasible, to have a dedicated site for a church on the property. In response, Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that the concern with this recommendation was that if there was a required dedicated church site and subsequently there was no church desiring to locate to this area, the requirement would tie up the property. Commissioner Telesio relayed his recommendation that the developer have a clear understanding of what issues should be addressed; and queried what percentage of one-story homes would satisfy the desire of the Commission. In response, Commissioner Mathewson relayed that a thirty-three percentage (33%) of one-story units would satisfy his concerns. With respect to the commercial area, Commissioner Telesio relayed that the scale of the center needed to be considered; relayed that he would not be opposed to a pub, tavern, or specialty wine shop use in this area; relayed a desire for a clearer definition regarding the scope of the proposed establishments; with respect to lot sizes, concurred with the recommendation to maintain a minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet, noting that the units in the courtyard homes could be increased to compensate for the loss of housing units; and reiterated that it was vital that the Commission provide clear direction as to the issues needing to be addressed in order for this project to move forward with recommendations to the City Council at the next Commission meeting. 19 R: PlanCom m/minut es/092000 Commissioner Mathewson concurred that the taverns, and nightclub uses should remain as permitted uses in the Community Commercial area; relayed that the continuance was based on Commissioner Webster's recommendation to compile the data into one document; noted that his concerns were related to the Design Guidelines, the specifics of the commercial element, and the residential; in terms of the proposed lighted Sports Park, recommended that there be a commitment that the buyers of homes within a quarter mile radius of that Sports Park be notified that the Sports Park would be lighted; and reiterated that the alternate issue of concern was with respect to a noise attenuation agreement. In response to Chairman Guerriere, the applicant relayed that the Sports Park Plan (with lights) would be conveyed to homebuyers in this area. Chairman Guerriero relayed that he had no desire to over-review this project, advising that when the documents were accumulated the data should be satisfactory; requested the Commissioners to fax or e-mail any additional concerns to the applicant by September 24, 2000; and relayed a desire to move this project forward to the City Council as soon as possible, with Commission recommendations. The applicant responded to the Commission's concludin.q comments, as follows: Mr. Griffith relayed that with respect to the density issue, it was the applicant's goal to look 5-10 years into the future, noting the increasing energy costs, relaying that the small lot. proposal came forward as a distinct and viable project niche as a replacement for community concerns regarding a multi-family component, advising that this element would provide young families an opportunity to purchase a single-detached home; noted that with architectural and site planning some of the ills of the small lots have been corrected, relaying that most builders had an established and well-defined product line that suits the size of the lots; noted that the applicant had made numerous concessions in order to increase the open space areas (i.e., the grass-lined channel), relaying the need to cluster; advised that the differential from a visual perspective between 4,000- 5,000 square foot lots would be minimal, providing additional information regarding the potential streetscape; relayed that this site was fiat, with no habitat issues, noting that the site provided an opportunity to densify without substantial hillside grading; relayed the marketing issues associated with the proposal of smaller lots; advised that the narrower streets worked well with the smaller lots; for Commissioner Telesio, clarified that the 4,000-4500 proposed lots were minimums, relaying that at some point in the future, based on market conditions, the plan may be revised to increase the minimum lot sizes to 5,000-6,000 square feet; noted that in the areas that encompassed the smaller lot sizes, the average lot size would most likely be between 5,500-6,000 square feet, relaying that on the 6,000 square foot lots there would be an opportunity to provide single story units; advised that rather than focusing on the minimum lot size, it may be more appropriate to focus on average lot sizes; with respect to the alternate issues that have been expressed, noted that these matters could be addressed, relaying that it was the applicant's goal to create a City-friendly Town Center, concurring with the recommendation to include a pub use in the center; with respect to the single-story element, advised that this would fit within the lot mix category; and apologized for the plethora of data the applicant recently provided, noting the need to address multiple Commission comments. 20 R:PlanCom m/minut es/O92000 Chairman Guerriero applauded the applicant for the continued diligent efforts to address additional comments, accepting one more delay in order to compile the data for the Commission's consideration. Mr. Burnell clarified that with respect to the CEQA document, that the applicant would not be dissecting the EIR and re-packaging this element with all the fine details of the evolved project; relayed that the design concepts in the provided booklet (per supplemental agenda material) could be incorporated into the Specific Plan document; in response to Commissioner Webster, relayed that it would not be feasible to provide a detailed layout of every Planning Area at this point in time, relaying that this level of detail would come when the tracts came forward. Commissioner Mathewson reiterated that he still was concerned with the proposed smaller lot sizes, providing additional information regarding this issue; and with respect to the separated sidewalk issue, queried the Commission for input regarding this element. In response, Chairman Guerriero referenced the City's Land Use Element, specifically Policy No. 5.3 which stated to encourage a variety in the design of sidewalks and trails with respect to alignment and surface materials to provide a convenient and enjoyable experience for the users, noting that landscaped medians separating the sidewalks was a safer method of foot transportation, relaying that if the concern was maintenance, then there could be a Iow maintenance groundcover installed (i.e., junipers), advising that this element improved the streetscape. Commissioner Mathewson concurred with incorporating this element in the plan. In response to commissioner Mathewson's queries, Commissioner Telesio relayed that he could understand that from a marketing perspective the 4,000-4500 square foot lots would create a saleable, desirable product; noted that if the lots could be addressed via design elements and lot widths he would not oppose the smaller lots; and advised that breaking up the uniformity of the visual appearance would alleviate his concern with respect to the smaller lots. Commissioner Mathewson relayed that there would be no guarantee that the smaller lots would be treated with appropriate design concepts, and lacking that assurance he could not support proposed lot sizes less than 5,000 square feet, Chairman Guerriero relayed that in the Land Use Element under Policy 5.6 it stated encourage higher density mixed use development and supporting public and community facilities within a Village Center, recommending that the Council should consider amending this policy point if this was not the desired implementation; advised that he had seen projects incorporate smaller lots with a pleasing visual appearance, noting his concurrence with Commissioner Mathewson that he would be opposed to all two-story units. In response to Commissioner Telesio, Commissioner Mathewson relayed that he would consider elements that would alleviate his concern regarding the smaller lots; noted that in his opinion the senior housing and courtyard components address the previously mentioned policy statement. Mr. Griffith clarified that the unique feature of this property was that the 4,000-4500 square foot lots would not have slopes included; and noted that the applicant was willing to consider a single-story unit commitment; relayed that the specific details of the tracts would be provided when the City approved the individual housing developments in the future; noted that street scene and architectural elements could be reviewed at the stage that the project was approved for housing, relaying that the Master Plan could not be inclusive of the design of every house in each tact; and provided additional information regarding the impacts of the implementation of street trees, noting the applicant's proposal for large tree plantings in the paseo areas. Deputy City Manager Thornhill relayed that in the Specific Plan various product types demonstrated varied front elevations; and advised that varying height, elevations, setbacks, and architectural elements may alleviate the'concern of the Commission with respect to the smaller lots. MOTION: Commissioner Mathewson moved to continue this matter to the October 4, 2000 Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Webster seconded the motion and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Commissioner Chiniaeff who abstained.. COMMISSIONER REPORTS With respect to the Promenade Mall area, Commissioner Webster relayed that there was a weed abatement issue that needed to be addressed, specifically around the Iccp road, in the area between North General Kearny and the Power Center. With respect to the previously mentioned issues at the mall site, Commissioner Webster queried whether these matters needed to be agendized. In response, Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that staff was aware of the issues, noting that with the current workload there had not been time to address the matters, providing assurance that staff would come back to the Commission with additional information at a future point in time. Chairman Guerriero relayed that he had attended the Inland Empire Economic Development Luncheon held on September 20, 2000, noting that the key speakers were from the Metropolitan Water District, relaying that he had provided the Commissioners with a copy of the handout which had been supplied at the meeting, which describes the proposals around the Diamond Valley Lake; provided additional information regarding the potential for significant negative impacts on Winchester Road due to a lack of adequate infrastructure, noting that there were efforts in the County to address some of the traffic impacts; advised that these impacts should be considered by the City Council due to the potential negative impact this project could have with respect to traffic in the City of Temecula. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT No input. 22 R:PlanCom m/minutes/092000 ADJOURNMENT At 10:42 P.M. Chairman Guerriero formally adjourned this meeting to Wednesday, October 4, 2000 at 6:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula. Ro n 'G u~e r'r{e o¢~,~'-- - Chairman Debbie Ubnoske, Director of Planning