HomeMy WebLinkAbout101000 CC MinutesMINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL
OCTOBER 10, 2000
The City Council convened in a Closed Session at 5:30 P.M. and reconvened in a regular
meeting at 7:00 P.M., on Tuesday, October 10, 2000, in the City Council Chambers of
Temecula City Hall, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California.
Present:
Councilmembers: Comerchero, Naggar, Pratt, Roberts, and Stone.
Absent: Councilmember: None.
PRELUDE MUSIC
The prelude music was provided by Jennifer Taft.
INVOCATION
The invocation was given by Pastor Sofia Sadler of Harvester Church of Temecula.
ALLEGIANCE
The salute to the Flag was led by Councilman Pratt.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
A. Mr. Pat Vesey and Mr. Jack Grimsley, representing Best of the Best, thanked the City
Council for its support of the recent Temecula Revisited Rod Run and Cruise to the Blues event
in Old Town and as well acknowledged the individuals involved in making this a successful
event, noting that the Old Town merchants seemed to be pleased with the event.
B. Ms. Adrian McGregor, 34555 Madera de Playa, requested that a letter be sent from the
City to other cities, requesting that their support of opposition to the placement of power lines,
that such letter be placed on the City's Website, and that additional advertising of the letter be
placed at local businesses and in local newspapers.
City Manager Nelson referenced the letter of opposition the City had previously sent to
SDG&E with regard to the issue, noting that it had been placed on the City's Website.
C. Presenting Concert on the Green memorabilia to the City Council, Ms. Martha Minkler
and Mr. Jon Laskin, P.O. Box 954, representing the Arts Council, extended a thank you for the
City's support; noted that the Duck Pond was a wonderful location for the event; advised that
public participation was exceptional; advised that the Philharmonic will be playing at next year's
event; and suggested that a Swing Jazz Festival be considered for next year.
D. Ms. Julie Watts, 42163 Rubicon Circle, commented on her desire that the City develop
at a lower density, acquire more open space, green belt areas, and parks.
' E. Ms. Ana Vlahos, 30600 Feather Court, commented on the City's continued growth and
'its impacts on traffic and schools and requested that the City develop at a lower density.
R:\Minutes\101000
1
CITY COUNCIL REPORTS
A. Referencing his Emergency Traffic Circulation Plan (ETCP), Councilman Pratt
commented on statistics relative to the City's increased traffic and requested that the matter be
agendized for the next City Council meeting.
B. Advising that Councilman Pratt and he are working on a SMART Shuttle type system for
the City, Councilman Roberts noted that effods are underway to aid in the transportation of
school children, advising that on October 18, 2000, a meeting has been scheduled with a RTA
representative and a School District representative. Mr. Roberts stated that he would provide a
City Council update within a month.
C. Councilman Naggar thanked those who participated in the worthwhile, regional Make a
Difference Day program.
D. Commenting on the high public participation at the Trails Master Plan, Councilman
Naggar as well addressed the excellent response of the citizen survey and advised that the next
workshop will be at the Community Recreation Center on Saturday, October 28, 2000 at 10:00
A.M., welcoming the public to attend.
E. Advising that Councilman Roberts and he attended a Transportation Conference (Rail
Volution) in Denver, Colorado, Mayor Pro Tem Comerchero noted that although the primary
focus of the conference was rail transportation, other issues of discussion pertained to mass
transit, commenting on the Walking School Bus method utilized in Brisbane, Australia, and
encouraging the City to explore innovative solutions.
F. Both Councilmembers Naggar and Pratt relayed their concurrence with exploring
innovative ideas such as the Walking School Bus.
G. At this time, Mayor Stone advised that Agenda Item No. 6 (Purchase of Microsoft Office
2000 Professional) will be continued to the October 24, 2000, City Council meeting and that
Agenda Item No. 8 (Margarita Road Widening) would be pulled for separate discussion.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Standard Ordinance and Resolution Adoption Procedure
RECOMMENDATION:
1.1 Motion to waive the reading of the text of all ordinances and resolutions included in the
agenda.
2
Minutes
RECOMMENDATION:
2.1 Approve the minutes of July 18, 2000;
2.2 Approve the minutes of July 25, 2000;
2.3 Approve the minutes of August 1, 2000;
R:\Minutes\101000
2
2.4 Approve the minutes of August 8, 2000;
2.5 Approve the minutes of August 22, 2000.
3 Resolution Approvinq List of Demands
RECOMMENDATION:
3.1 Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 2000-69
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS
AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A
4 City Treasurer's Report as of Auqust 31, 2000
RECOMMENDATION:
4.1 Receive and file the City Treasurer's Report as of August 31, 2000.
5 Purchase of large Format Scanner
RECOMMENDATION:
5.1 Authorize the purchase of a large format scanner for Records Management and GIS
for use in scanning blue prints, pJans, maps, and other large documents that require
retention by the City from DLT Solutions, Inc. of Herndon, Virginia, in the amount of
$30,243.27.
6 Purchase of Microsoft Office 2000 Professional
RECOMMENDATION:
6.1 Authorize the purchase of 165 licenses of Microsoft Office 2000 Professional Suite
from Jaguar Computer Systems, Inc., Riverside, California, in the amount of
$33,090.02.
(Continued to the October 24, 2000, City Council meeting.)
7 Authorize temporary partial street closures for the Race for the Cure Event, October 22,
2000 in the Promenade Mall area (Marqarita Road, Solana Way, Ynez Road, and
Overland Drive)
RECOMMENDATION:
7.1 Adopt a resolution entitled:
R:\Minutes\101000
3
8
RESOLUTION NO. 2000-70
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING PARTIAL STREET
CLOSURES FOR INLAND EMPIRE RACE FOR THE CURE
EVENT ON OCTOBER 22, 2000, AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY
ENGINEER TO ISSUE PERMITS FOR THIS SPECIFIC SPECIAL
EVENT
(Councilman Naggar encouraged the public to attend this event.)
Approval of the Plans and Specifications and authorization to solicit Construction Bids for
Marqarita Road Wideninq - Phase I - Project No. PW99-01
RECOMMENDATION:
8.1
Approve the Construction Plans and Specifications and authorize the Department of
Public Works to solicit construction bids for Margarita Road Widening - Phase I -
Project No. PW99-01.
(Pulled for separate discussion; see page 5-6.)
9 Approval of the Plans and Specifications and authorization to solicit Construction Bids for
Pavement Manaqement System - Project No. PW99-17 - Jefferson Avenue Pavement
Rehabilitation
RECOMMENDATION:
9.1
Approve the Construction Plans and Specifications and authorize the Department of
Public Works to solicit construction bids for Pavement Management System -
Project No. PW99-17 -Jefferson Avenue Pavement Rehabilitation.
10 Modification No. 2 to Assistance Aqreement No. AG8J5000051 - U.S. Department of
Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs & City of Temecula - Pala Road Bddqe Improvement
Proiect - Project No. PW97-15
RECOMMENDATION:
10.1 Approve Modification No. 2 to Agreement No. AGSJ5000051 between the U.S.
Department of Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and City of Temecula
providing for a totaJ amount not to exceed $5,622,293.00.
11 Award of Construction Contract for the Pala Road Bridqe Landscape Environmental
Mitiqation/Median & Parkway Landscapinq - Project No. PW97-15 (Landscape)
RECOMMENDATION:
11.1 Award a construction contract for the Pala Road Bridge Landscape - Project No.
PW97-15 (Landscape) to Diversified Landscape Co. for a base amount of
$174,961.75 and authorize the Mayor to execute the contract;
R:\Minutes\101000
4
11.2 Authorize the City Manager to approve change orders not to exceed the
contingency amount of $17,496.00 which is equal to 10% of the base contract
amount.
12 Amendment to Cooperative Aqreement between the City of Temecula and County of
Riverside for the construction of the traffic siqnal and safety liqhtinq improvements at
Rancho California Road and Butterfield Staqe Road - Proiect No. PW98-11
RECOMMENDATION:
12.1 Approve the amendment to the Cooperative Agreement with the County of Riverside
for the installation of a traffic signal and safety lighting at the intersection of Rancho
California Road and Butterfield Stage Road - Project No. PW96-11;
12.2 Approve an advance of $33,150.00 from the General Fund Reserves for the
installation of the traffic signal and safety lighting improvements in cooperation with
the previously approved Cooperative Agreement with the County of Riverside.
13 Second Readinq of Ordinance No. 2000-11 (Sign requlations for the Old Town Specific
Plan)
RECOMMENDATION:
13.1 Adopt an ordinance entitled:
ORDINANCE NO. 2000-11
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING PORTIONS OF
CHAPTERS III AND IV SIGN REGULATIONS FOR THE OLD
TOWN SPECIFIC PLAN PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA00-
0350 (SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT)
(Mayor Stone abstained with regard to this Item.)
MOTION: Councilman Naggar moved to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1-5, 7, 9-13
(Consent Calendar Item No. 6 was continued and Item No. 8 was considered for separate
discussion). The motion was seconded by Councilman Roberts and voice vote reflected
approval with the exception of Mayor Stone who abstained with regard to Consent Calendar
Item No. 13.
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS CONSIDERED UNDER SEPARATE DISCUSSION
8
Approval of the Plans and Specifications and authorization to solicit Construction Bids
for Marqarita Road Widenin~ - Phase I - Proiect No. PW99-01
RECOMMENDATION:
8.1
Approve the Construction Plans and Specifications and authorize the Department
of Public Works to solicit construction bids for Margarita Road Widening - Phase
I - Project No. PW99-01.
R:\Minutes\101000
5
Public Works Director Hughes presented the staff report (of record).
Ms. Juliet-Anne: Boysen, 44040 Margarita Road, relayed her concerns with regard to the widening
of Margarita Road as it relates to access to her business as well as the reconstruction of her
existing fence.
Advising that the work in this area has been conducted by a private developer/contractor not the
City, Public Works Director Hughes advised the City's contract with the developer includes a
provision, requiring the maintenance of access at all times to adjacent properties. With regard to
Ms. Boysen's fencing, Mr. Hughes noted that the fence currently encroaches into the public right-of-
way for this widening project; that provisions for the removal of the fence are underway; and that
once these provisions have been completed, the property owner will be contacted.
City Attorney Thorson advised that Ms. Boysen's attorney has been contacted with regard to the
issue, noting that the fence is located on City property and that he will further discuss the matter
with Ms. Boysen's attorney.
Speaking in support of Ms. Boysen's request to have her fence reconstructed, Mr. Dale Carothers,
44060 Margarita Road, requested that the matter be resolved prior to the Holiday season and that
the fence be reconstructed in its existing condition.
Mayor Stone requested that the matter be agendized for a Closed Session.
MOTION: Councilman Naggar moved to approve the staff recommendation for Consent Calendar
Item No'. 8. The motion was seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Comerchero and voice vote reflected
unanimous approval.
At 7:37 P.M., the City Council reconvened as the Temecula Community Services District and the
Temecula Redevelopment Agency. At 7:46 P.M., Mayor Stone called a short recess and resumed
the City Council meeting at 8:00 P.M. with regularly scheduled City Council business.
PUBLIC HEARING
14 Planninq Application No.99-0317 (Appeal of Development Plan) - Temecula Ridge
Apartments (located on the south side of Rancho California Road, southeast of the
intersection of Rancho California Road and Moraqa Road)
RECOMMENDATION:
14.1 Adopt a resolution entitled:
R:\Minutes\101000
6
RESOLUTION NO. 2000-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA DENYING THE APPEAL OF PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. 99-0317 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN) AND
UPHOLDING THE APPROVAL OF THIS PROJECT BY THE
PLANNING COMMISSION, FOR THE DESIGN,
CONSTRUCTION, AND OPERATION OF A 246-UNIT, TWO-
AND THREE-STORY APARTMENT COMPLEX WITH POOL,
CLUBHOUSE, WORKOUT BUILDING, AND TOT LOT ON 20.88
NET ACRES, LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF RANCHO
CALIFORNIA ROAD, SOUTHEAST OF THE INTERSECTION OF
RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AND MORAGA ROAD, AND
KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 944-290-011, BASED
UPON THE ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS CONTAINED IN THE
STAFF REPORT AND SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS OF
APPROVAL ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK,
AND ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
RELATED THERETO
Advising that the project had been appealed by Councilman Nagger, Mayor Stone reviewed
established ground rules for the applicant, members of the public, and City Councilmembers;
noted that Planning Director Ubnoske will present the staff report; that the property owner and
applicant and representatives will be given the opportunity to address the City Council; that
members of the public who support the project will be given the opportunity to speak (limited to
five minutes each); that then members of the public who oppose the project will be given an
opportunity to speak (limited to five minutes each); and that the applicant and his
representatives will be given the opportunity to rebut. Following each presentation or speaker,
Mayor Stone advised that the City Councilmembers may address questions.
Advising that the City Council has received two sets of objections from the applicant's attorneys,
contending that the appeal is invalid because a Notice of Appeal does not comply with the
provisions of the Temecula Municipal Code and that City Councilman Naggar should not
participate in the appeal because he has filed it, City Attorney Thorson noted that having
reviewed the correspondence from the applicant's attorneys and having researched the
objections, his opinion would be that the Notice of Appeal complies with all the requirements of
the Temecula Municipal Code for appeal and that Councilman Naggar may participate in the
hearing because the Temecula Municipal Code specifically authorizes appeals by City
Councilmembers and because Mr. Naggar's appeal does not express a position or opinion on
the merits of the appeal. Mr. Thorson stated that this particular procedure has been utilized in
two previous City Council appeals in 1997 and 1998.
City Attorney Thorson noted that the record before the City Council is extensive; that it contains
a study submitted to the City by the applicant, staff analysis of the project and its impacts,
applicant's analysis of the project and its impacts, the Planning Commission minutes of the
hearings of the project, and the recommended findings for approval and advised that the
Temecula Municipal Code authorizes the City Council to affirm, reverse, or modify the Planning
Commission action; that the Code also provides that the City Council may take any action that
the Planning Commission may have taken on this project in the first instance. Whatever action
the City Council may decide to take with respect to this project, Mr. Thorson stated that the City
Council must justify its decision with written findings based on the facts which are contained in
the record.
R:\Minutes\101000
7
Mr. Thorson as well advised that copies of the following have been provided to the City Council
and will be considered as part of the record: a copy of Mr. Alhadeff's letter dated May 8,
September 25, and October 10, 2000; a copy of Mr. Edmonds letter dated October 5, and
October 10, 2000; and a copy of Mr. Thorson's letter to the City Council responding to these
concerns.
Councilman Naggar reiterated that he had appealed this project because, in his opinion, a
project of this magnitude should be considered by the City Council; stated that he has not made
a decision on the project; and noted that after all the testimony has been presented, he will
make an educated decision.
At this time, Planning Director Ubnoske presented, in detail, the staff report (of record), noting
the following:
· That approximately 43.2% of the subject site will be landscaped; that the City's
Development Code requires a minimum of 25% landscaping;
· That the proposed project would be an extremely high-quality project;
· That the applicant is proposing 11.7 units per acre; that the General Plan
designation for this site is medium density with a range of 7 to 12 dwelling units
per acre; that the proposed project would be at the lesser density range of any
other approved apartment complexes in the City;
· That at the Iow end of the density range, the site would accommodate 146 units
and at the high end, the site would accommodate 251 units, noting that
construction at minimum density would not be feasible for the developer;
· That as per the General Plan, target density provisions do not apply to the
medium/high density designations;
· That the proposed use will be in conformance with the Zoning Code, noting that
multi-family housing is permitted in medium residential and that the City does not
currently have multi-family in existing medium density zones;
· That the City's Housing Element has been based on a calculation at the high end
of the medium density and the high-density zoning designations;
· That the project was approved by the Planning Commission on August 16, 2000
with a 3-1-1 vote with Planning Commissioner Mathewson voting for denial and
Commissioner Webster abstaining;
· That those Planning Commissioners who voted in support of the project did so
for the following reasons:
o High quality project which will provide substantial amenities in
conformance with the Growth Management Plan;
o Swimming pool will be utilized by the Swim Club;
o Other on-site amenities such as a tot lot, pool, barbeque area will lessen
impacts on other City parks;
o Provides diversity of housing and has been conditioned to provide for 2%
of Affordable Housing;
· That the Planning Commissioner speaking in opposition to the project noted the
following concerns:
o Amount of on-site grading;
o Insufficient amenities to warrant higher density
o View impacts from Rancho California Road
In conclusion, it was noted that staff recommends that the City Council deny the appeal and
uphold the Planning Commission's approval of the project.
R:\Minutes\101000
8
For Councilman Roberts, Planning Director Ubnoske noted that there are no other three-story
apartments in the City of Temecula.
In response to Councilman Naggar, Planning Director Ubnoske provided information as to which
amenities of the General Plan (Policy 5.1) are provided by this project, commenting on the
additional amount of landscaping, Olympic-sized pool, widening and improvement of Moraga
Road, three-way signal to a full signal, and a bus turnout. Ms. Ubnoske noted that she would
have to check as to whether the proposed 2% of Affordable Housing will meet State
requirements. With regard to the 50% Quimby Fee Reduction, Ms. Ubnoske noted that multi-
family complex developments are entitled to a reduction in Quimby fees; that the Subdivision
Ordinance refers to subdivisions; that subdivisions may be multi-family developments, which
allow for higher density on small lots; that the Development Plan meets the Quimby
requirements and, therefore, is entitled to a 50% credit because of the amount of open space
and the amenities being provided, noting that an apartment would not be considered a
subdivision.
Deputy Director of C~mmunity Services Ruse provided information with regard to the City's
Quimby Ordinance, which is an extrapolation of the State's Quimby Act, which reflects that any
residential development may receive Quimby credit and must meet Quimby requirements. Ms.
Ruse advised that other apartment complexes throughout the City have adhered to the same
process and noted that the 50% Quimby fees for this padicular project would amount to
$135,000.
Deputy City Manager Thornhill noted that it would be difficult to request a project, such as the
proposed - an in-fill development, to adhere to large-scale Specific Plan Development
standards.
In response to research completed by staff at the request of Councilman Naggar, Ms. Ubnsoke
noted that approximately 191 students will reside at this complex (131 Vail Elementary School
students, 30 James L. Day middle school students, and 30 Temecula Valley high school
students). Councilman Naggar expressed concern of how these students will travel to school,
particularly to the elementary school, commenting on possible traffic impacts through Starlight
Ridge to which Ms. Ubnoske noted that school capacity/availability/and travel route are issues
that are addressed by the School District, not City staff.
Providing a brief background on the reasoning of permitting multi-family housing in a medium
residential zone, Deputy City Manager Thornhill commented on City staff efforts, during the
recession, to work with developers on development alternatives, noting that by such action the
City had reduced density by approximately 400 dwelling units. In light of the location of the
particular site and its immediate adjacent properties (commercial and apartments), Mr. Thorhnill
stated that staff was of the opinion that the proposed project would be appropriate, noting that
this would be the City's fourth multi-family housing application since incorporation.
response to Councilman Naggar, Planning Director Ubnoske addressed the following issues:
· Noise impacts - because some of the proposed units are within close proximity
to Rancho California Road, a noise study was completed and mitigation
measures were provided to ensure interior compliance with the General Plan's
provision of 45 decibels, noting that for a mixture of ground floor units (those
closest to Rancho California Road) fixed windows (unable to open) will be
installed;
· Landscaping - landscaping requirement for this project would be 25%;
· Traffic study- study addresses other developments on Rancho California Road.
R:\Minutes\101000
9
At Mayor Stone's request, Planning Commissioner Mathewson articulated his concerns with
regard to this project, commenting on the following:
· Amount of grading
· View impact of the three-story structure, noting removal of the bottom floor
(garage) was discussed but it was mentioned that such removal would have
impact on open space as well as on landscaping; removal of the garage level as
well prompted discussion with regard to safety and carports;
· Provisions of on-site recreation facility - amenities provided would not meet the
criteria of the Growth Management Plan;
· Quimby Fee requirements - applicant should provide 100% of the Quimby Fees
to the City, noting that if the applicant were to pay 100% of the Quimby Fees, one
of his concerns with regard to this project would be addressed;
· Roadway improvements were discussed as an amenity; widening of Moraga
Road would solely benefit the access to the project site; traffic mitigations
proposed would not provide a community-wide benefit with the exception of
some benefit to the immediate area behind the Medical Center
· Growth Management Plan was a primary consideration in his denial of this
project but another issue of concern would relate to view impact, referencing the
existing ridgeline.
With regard to the proposed amenities and how they relate to the General Plan, Planning
Director Ubnoske, for Mayor Pro Tem Comerchero, advised that staff would view the garages,
the Olympic-sized pool, the amount of open space, the road improvements a City-wide benefit.
For Councilman Pratt, Ms. Ubnoske noted that the proposed project would adhere to the height
requirements of the zone as per the City's Development Code, noting that the General Plan
does not address height requirements.
With regard to the proposed three-story structure, Deputy City Manager Thornhill reiterated that
the Development Code identifies minimum ceiling height and advised that a three-story
structure (garages on the bottom level) would minimize the impacts remaining area, noting that
lowering the height and spreading the units out would significantly require more grading, lot
coverage, and loss of open space.
It was noted by staff that if this application were denied, the applicant could apply for a new
application to develop a Iow-moderate income development and, thereby, construct one and a
half times above the highest density allowed by the General Plan (18 units per acre).
Confirming the above-noted comment, City Attorney Thorson advised that under the Density
Bonus Statute of the Government Code, a Iow-moderate income housing project would be
entitled to a density bonus, restricting the units to the affordability requirements of the
Government Code, compliance with the Quimby Act requirements, and minimum requirements
of the Zoning Ordinance but not require the construction of a recreation center, a pool,
additional landscaping, barbeque pit, etc. Mr. Thorson stated that the City Council would as
well be required to provide additional findings in denying a Iow-moderate income housing
project and, thereby, making it more difficult to deny.
In response to Councilman Naggar, Deputy City Manager Thornhill addressed infrastructure,
commenting on the City's General Plan indicates an approximate total of 112,000 units, noting
that this figure has been reduced through City staff efforts and advised that in light of past
reductions, the City is actually under the allowable units as per the General Plan. Although
confident with the City's land uses, Mr. Thornhill did not display the same confidence with
R:\Minutes\101000
10
County projects, noting that approximately 45,000 to 50,000 dwelling units are to be constructed
in the French Valley area.
City Attorney Thorson, for Councilman Pratt, clarified that this developer would not be required
to set aside units for Iow and moderate housing.
At this time, Mayor Stone opened the public hearing and invited the applicant and his
representatives to speak.
Referencing his pamphlet entitled the proposed development Temecula Ridge Apartment
homes (copies of which were presented to the City Council), Mr. Sam Alhadeff, 41530
Enterprise Circle South, counsel for the applicant, presented a copy of the pamphlet to the City
Clerk as part of the record;.addressed the City's procedural process for developing a piece of
property within the City, noting that the applicant has adhered to this process and advising that it
has been a two-year process. Further addressing the project, Mr. Alhadeff noted the following:
· That the plan was originally submitted in June 1999 at which time after
discussions with staff, redesigns, field trips, etc., it had been determined that the
project would not be constructed as a Iow-moderate housing project;
· That on March 14, 2000, the project application process was deemed complete;
· That the Growth Management Plan was discussed on March 21, 2000 by the City
Council (a week after the project was deemed complete);
· That on May 2, 2000, a memo to the Planning Department staff was sent, by
Senior Management Analyst Brown, apprising them of the official version of the
Growth Management Plan (two months after the completion of the project
planning);
· That on May 3, 2000, the Planning Commission begins its discussions with
regard to the Temecula Ridge project; at which time, the issue of the Growth
Management Plan was addressed; that the Commission continued the project in
June and in Ju~y; that on August 1, 2000, a joint City Council/Planning
Commission meeting was scheduled at which time the City Council requested
the Commissioners to exercise best judgment, exercise their discretion, and
exercise their knowledge; that on August 16, 2000, the Commission discussed
the project, followed the City Council's direction, added and extricated conditions,
which resulted in a 3-1-1 vote for approval; that three members of the Planning
Commission, after the joint meeting, thought this project not only qualified under
the General Plan but also under the Growth Management Plan and zoning
requirements;
· That the proposed plan is now being scrutinized by the Growth Management
Plan - a Plan which did not exist during the review process of this project and
was adopted after the completion of this project's planning process; therefore, it
raises the question of whether the Growth Management Plan should apply to this
particular project, noting that the applicant is being required to meet the
requirements of this Plan.
Referencing the minutes of the joint City Council/Planning Commission meeting, Mr. Alhadeff
noted that each City Councilmember had a different opinion of the term amenity; commented on
a verbatim transcript of the September 26, 2000, City Council meeting, Mr. AIhadeff further
addressed the varying City Council views as it relates to amenities; and stated that the Growth
Management Plan should be viewed as an action plan for the City Council to implement growth
management techniques but that it should not serve as a mechanism to require projects to be
constructed at the lowest density, noting that such action would require a change in the General
Plan and that a change in the General Plan would require a CEQA process. If this project were
R:\Minutes\101000
11
denied, Mr. AIhadeff addressed the State's Bonus Density for Iow-moderate housing and
advised that such housing would create one and a half times the number of proposed units. In
response to Councilman Naggar's appeal as it relates to the magnitude of this project, Mr.
Alhadeff noted that this project meets the General Plan requirements; that this project is a plot
plan; and that this project was a consensual project.
Mr. Larry Markham, 41750 Winchester Road, representing the applicant, addressed the project,
noting the following:
· That vacant land to the east is zoned Professional/Office and another medium
multi-family project further to the east;
· To the south, there are existing duplexes - high density (12 - 20 units per acre);
· To the west, Summer Breeze Apartments (12 - 20 units per acre);
· Additional vacant land zoned Professional/Office;
· Small commercial center with a car wash, existing church, elementary school;
· Another apartment project (12 - 20 units per acre);
· Portofino project which was approved by the County just prior to incorporation
(12 - 20 units per acre);
· Project abuts two single-family lots, part of Alta Vista, which has been a major
focus of staff's direction as to how to design this project.
Providing additional background information with regard to this property, Mr. Markham stated
the following:
· Actually zoned for multi-family residential in 1985 by the County, which permitted
up to 17.42 units per acre (386 units);
· August 8, 1989, approval by the Planning Director for 335 units; project appealed
by the Oder family but ultimately approved by the City Council as a 265-unit
project;
· Three or four other apartment projects have been approved in the City after
incorporation; these projects were not built and ultimately were recycled as two of
the new apartment projects plus the ultimate construction of the Portofino project;
· Extensive research by the applicant, consultant, and staff including the review of
similar projects as it relates to site design, grading, drainage, architecture;
· Olympic-sized pool would be available to the Swim Club, specifics have not been
finalized; Councilman Naggar suggested that the usage of the pool be regulated
by the Community Services Department; Mr. Alhadeff advised that there will not
be a fee associated with the usage of the pool with the exception of intense use
of chemicals, etc.;
· Public spaces provided to the residents of this project - recreation areas, tot lots,
and barbeque spaces;
· Added conditions - widening of the right-of-way on Rancho California Road and
providing a bus turnout and widening of Moraga Road to provide an additional
lane of traffic;
· Planning Commission conditioned the 2% Iow/moderate and/or senior-income
housing (5 to 6 units) and that the applicant had agreed;
· Quimby Fee Reduction - a standard provision and qualitative by the Community
Services Department;
· School availability/location - applicant has no control of where the School District
draws its boundaries, noting boundaries could change at any point in time;
· In order to address staff's concerns relative to acoustics on the north side of the
project and view shed on the south side, additional grading was necessary;
R:\Minutes\101000
12
Would be willing to accept a condition lowering the roof pitch;
Distance between the two single-family homes and the nearest three-story
building would 250';
Initial traffic study was completed to encompass the proposed project as well as
a proposed project to the east; that the project to the east has not come to
fruition and, therefore, at staff's request, a separate traffic study was completed;
that the extension of Rancho Way had not been considered in the traffic study for
this particular project.
Mr. AIhadeff addressed the legal aspects of nexus and noted that the applicant exceeded has
exceeded his legal requirements.
Addressing the nexus issue, City Attorney Thorson noted that he would split the issue, noting
that some nexus requirements were met to accommodate the impacts of the project and other
proposed road improvements will be above and beyond what would be required to mitigate the
impacts of this project.
In response to Mayor Pro Tem Comerchero's request of the applicant to provide shuttle/bus
service, Mr. Alhadeff advised that the applicant would be willing to accept an additional
condition, requesting the applicant to work with the School District with City assistance to
accommodate such a shuttle specifically to the elementary school.
Concurring with Mayor Pro Tem Comerchero's recommendation of a shuttle, Councilman Pratt
noted that such traffic circulation solutions should be addressed with all future projects.
At this time, Mayor Stone invited those individuals in support of the project to speak, noting that
there will be a five-minute time limit.
Commenting on the shortage of pools and pool time, Mr. Bruce Furniss, representing Unites
States Swimming/Southern California Swimming, referenced his letter of support, dated May 2,
2000, to the Planning Commission and commented on the positive impacts sports has on an
entire community.
In response to Mr. Furniss, Councilman Naggar advised that two Olympic-sized pools are being
constructed -- one by the City in conjunction with the School District and one is being
considered by the County in Vail Ranch.
Commenting on the need for apartment housing and on the long-waiting lists for such housing,
Ms. Michelle Ash, 31370 Paseo de las Olas, as a single mom, spoke in support of the project.
Ms. Evelyn Hughes, 27475 Ynez Road, senior citizen, commented on the amenities which the
proposed project would provide in particular the garage; addressed the need for apartment
housing within the City; and encouraged the City Council to support the project.
Mr. John Fili, representing Southwest Riverside County Manufacturing Council, as well
commented on the need for apartment housing and addressed the difficulty of businesses to
attract certain types of employees because of the lack of available apartment housing.
Referencing a letter, dated October 4, 2000, (copies were sent to the City Councilmembers), Mr.
John Fili, an employee for Solid State Stamping, readdressed the difficulty in recruiting
employees because of the lack of apadment housing, the reduction in the vacancy rate for
affordable apartments, and the growth and average cost of rental property. Mr. Fill spoke in
support of the project and requested the City Council to approve the project.
R:\Minutes\101000
13
Although sympathetic to the need for additional apartment housing, Councilman Naggar noted
that he would not view the proposed project as affordable housing and commented on the fact
that two-thirds of the City's residents commute to their jobs.
Addressing the Iow vacancy rate, Mayor Pro Tem Comerchero commented on the lack of
apartment housing and, therefore, limiting places to live for individuals who work in the City,
viewing that as a traffic generator.
Mrs. Helen Oder, 29911 Mira Loma Drive, provided information with regard to previous denials
with regard to this site; commended the City on its accomplishments; and relayed her support of
the project.
Mr. Robert Oder, 2911 Mira Loma Drive, spoke in support of the project and commended the
applicant on the provided amenities.
Mr. Robert Oder, Jr., 29911 Mira Loma Drive, (Oder family owners of the property to the south
of the subject site) advised that the proposed project would be located immediately above his
property; that his family would be the most affected property owners; commented on the need
for additional apartment housing in the City; provided background information with regard to a
previously proposed development for the subject site; addressed Iow-moderate income and
associated impacts; and noted that the proposed project would not create a densely populated
development; and, therefore, encouraged the City Council to approve the project.
Mr. Wayne Hall, 42101 Moraga Road, representing the First Baptist Church, advised that the
Church has taken no position with regard to this item.
At 10:25 P.M., Mayor Stone called a recess and reconvened the meeting at 10:32 P.M. at which
time, individuals in opposition of the project were invited to speak.
Mr. Clark Kegiey, 41796 Humber Drive, representing the Village Homeowners Association,
relayed the Association's concerns with regard to the proposed density which would not be
consistent with managed growth, impact on property values, local traffic, and schools. Although
not opposing the development of the subject site, Mr. Kegley noted his preference for single-
family homes or a development closer to the 7 units per acre range.
Addressing the City Council as the current President of the Starlight Ridge Homeowners
Association, Mr. Mike Burton, 30366 Santa Cecilia, relayed the Association's concerns with
regard to the proposed project, as follows:
,, Site best suited in current medium-density residential use (Iow end of 7 dwelling
units per acre, not 246 units);
· Site best suited for single-family homes/condos or any other application than the
proposed density for apartments;
· Too many apartments within one mile of the proposed area;
· Current impact of student access to Vail Elementary School on Starlight Ridge.
Addressing the City Council as a resident, Mr. Burton noted the following concerns with the
proposed project:
· Increased traffic and increased students attending Vail Elementary and,
therefore, increased impact on Starlight Ridge;
R:\Minutes\101000
14
· Too many apartments within one mile of the proposed area; opposes an
apartment complex for the proposed site;
· Current Vail Elementary traffic situation is a dangerous situation.
Mr. Burlie Cole, 42567 Remora Street, representing Alta Vista Community Association, relayed
the Association's concerns, noting the following:
· Worsening of current traffic conditions and speeds;
· Slope slippage/destruction of vegetation;
· Children vandalism;
· Trading amenities for high density is a no-win situation.
Ms. Robyn Wright, 42415 Carino Place, addressed Land Use, referencing Chapter 2
(Preparation of Land Use Element) and Chapter 17.06 of the Temecula City Development Plan
(criteria for acceptable public amenities in order to increase project density), noting that the
proposed project violates policies of that Chapter as it relates to size, bulk, and configuration.
She advised that the proposed apartments, in her opinion, would not meet the definition of
medium-density housing per Chapter 17.06 of the Development Plan and stated that the
proposed project would as well not comply with 17.06.050 of the Development Plan (not
meeting amenity requirements), noting that the project would only offer amenities to the
occupants, that only 1% of the total occupants would be granted a reduced rate and, therefore,
being of the opinion that the proposed project would only attract high-paying customers.
Ms. Pamela Miod, 31995 Via Saltio, addressed the Open Space and Conservation Element
(Chapter 5) of the City's General Plan, noting that this Element encourages the conservation
and proper management of the community's resources and to ensure the provision of parks and
recreation. Referencing figures 5-3, 5-6, and 5-7, Ms. Miod noted that the land site of
discussion is a sensitive habitat to coastal sage scrub and is an archeological sensitive area.
Referring to the Community Design Element, Ms. Miod discussed Goal No. 1 (land use and
development decisions capitalize on and monitor the natural assets of a given location), noting
that the preservation of the remaining hill sides and ridge lines of the City and of the surrounding
area is important to many residents which results in a more enjoyable and satisfying urban
environment. Ms. Miod proceeded with discussing Policy 1.1 (promote the development of a
comprehensive system of trails and open space areas to connect schools, public recreation
areas, residential areas, and commercial centers) and Policy 1.5 (maintain and incorporate
natural amenities into the development project to protect the environment and provide natural
landscaping, protect views, and to provide recreational opportunities). In conclusion, Ms. Miod
stated that although the property of discussion is zoned M (medium residential), it currently '
functions as a proper buffer for the single-family homes in Starlight Ridge and Alta Vista.
Because of the unique topography and habitat of this property, it would be impossible for the
developer to adequately mitigate the associated damages of an apartment complex, noting that
the General Plan requires that all seven Chapters must be equally considered and noting that
as per Government Code Section 65860 and 65567, one Chapter may not be mitigated over
another. She, therefore, requested that the property of discussion be adopted into the Open
Space and Conservation Plan as a protected area.
Viewing it as a safety concern, Ms. Miod expressed concern with the proposed closed
windows for those units facing Rancho California Road.
Addressing Chapter 10 (Community Design), Mr. Scott Bruce, 41395 Rue Jadot, noted that the
proposed project would not adhere to the existing goals and policies, specifically with regard to
Goal No. 3 (Preservation of the character of the single-family neighborhoods and protection
from intrusion from buildings that are out of scale and incompatible land uses and excessive
R:\Minutes\101000
15
vehicular traffic); referenced Policy 3.2 (Preserve the scale and character of the residential
development by creating appropriate transitions between lower density and rural areas and
higher density development); and referenced Goal No. 5 (Protection of public view of significant
natural features). Mr. Bruce noted that apartment complexes, in his opinion, never enhance the
designs or character of a single-family neighborhood.
Ms. Nyrene Smith, 30090 Lavande Place, addressed air quality issues as it pertains to Chapter
9, Goal No. 1, of the General Plan; referenced Policies 1.3 and 1.4 of Goal No. 1 (to minimize
land use conflicts between emission sources and sensitive receptors or single-family homes and
to reduce air pollution emissions by mitigating air quality impacts associated with the
development projects to the greatest extent feasible). Ms. Smith requested that the project be
rejected and that the site of discussion be limited to single-family homes, a school, a park, a
church, a horse ranch, or open space.
Although not relevant to the matter, Ms. Smith requested that the City Council consider
providing more entertainmentJnight life in the City for people her age.
Addressing Chapter 8 of the General Plan with regard to noise and its affects on sensitive
receptors or single-family homes, Ms. Nannette Kosonen, 30090 Levande Place, noted that, in
her opinion, locating apartments next to single-family homes is a violation of Goal No. 1 of the
General Plan.
Ms. Kosonen referenced Policies 1.1 and 1.8 (discourages the placement of noise
generators near sensitive receptors) and Goal No. 2 (control noise between land uses) and
Policy 2.1 (limit noise between property lines). Noting that as per Goal Nos. 3 and 4, Ms.
Kosonen noted that the Planning Department is required to protect single-family homes from
noise impacts, stating that apartment complexes due to their structure and density could only be
classified as noise generators. She requested that the City Council uphold the General Plan
and reject the project and encourage the construction of single-family homes.
Ms. Michelle Anderson, 43797 Barletta Street, representing Citizens First of Temecula Valley,
noted that the residents in the City of Temecula are not desirous of any future high-density
developments and that the Planning Department has a responsibility to relay that to the
developers in the early planning stages. Expressing concern with regard to zoning and housing
types, Ms. Anderson referenced Chapter 17, Section 6, (e) of the General Plan (medium-density.
residential) and Chapter 17.06.020 (f) - high density which includes the term apartments.
Because the site of discussion is reflected on the General Plan Map as medium density, Ms.
Anderson noted that the developer should be required to build medium-density types, noting
that apartment complexes are not reflected as medium density. She as well noted that there is
no other three-story medium density type housing throughout the City.
Mr. Nancy Rich, 42403 Carino Place, referenced Chapter 6 (Growth Management of public
facilities - focusing on schools); referenced Goal No. 4 (a quality School System that contains
adequate facilities and funding to educate the youth of Temecula); referenced Policy 4.1
(provide information to Temecula Unified School District when considering General Plan
amendments, Specific Plan, zone changes, etc. in order to support the District in providing
adequate school facilities for students for new developments to the extent permitted by law);
referenced Policy 4.2 (to promote and to encourage the phasing of project development so that
the School District may plan finance and construction of school facilities intended to serve the
development); Policy 4.3 (land use decisions); and referenced Goal No. 2 (orderly and efficiently
patterns of growth within Temecula that enhance the quality of life for residents). Not opposing
the project as a whole, Ms. Rich relayed her opposition to the location of the project.
R:\Minutes\101000
16
Mr. Randall Kosonen, 30090 Levande Place, presented to the City Clerk a 395-signature
petition in opposition of the Temecula Ridge Apartments and stated that he viewed the
proposed site as inappropriate.
Ms. May Lorah, 42189 Monte de Oro, referenced Chapter 3 (Circulation); referenced Policy 1.10
(City to pursue opportunities to locate higher-density housing with supporting commercial and
public uses on west side of Interstate 15; referenced Chapter 4 (Housing), stating that the site of
discussion should be controlled under the Transfer of Development Rights Program to ensure
the proper compatibility of the open land and neighboring single-family homes; that the
proposed structure would be inconsistent with the type of structures depicted for medium-
density sites; that a three-story apartment structure would be inconsistent with currently existing
apartment complexes; that the City has a responsibility to protect existing single-family homes
from incompatibility and devaluation of property as the result of a high-density development; and
that an appropriate use would be eithe[ condominiums, a park, or a bike trail.
Mr. Bob Eilek, 42471 Carino Place, relayed issues of concern such as high density, increased
crime, increased traffic, adverse impacts on school population and resources, restriction of
views, and devaluation of property. To his understanding, Mr. Eilek noted that the approval of
this project would indicate a violation of all nine Chapters of the City's General Plan. Mr. Eilek
noted that the site of discussion has been zoned as medium density; that apartment complexes
are not reflected as an acceptable building structure under the medium density zone; that if
approved, it would violate Policies 2.1, 2.2, 2.3 and 2.5 of the Community Design Element. In
closing, he noted that a three-stoW structure would be inconsistent with high density areas for
which apartments have been previously approved; that apartments would be imposing,
intrusive, and out of scale; that approval would be in violation of Goal No. 5 of the Design
Element, noting that apartments do not protect or enhance the views of the neighboring single-
family homes; that privacy would be disturbed; that property would be devalued; and, therefore,
requested that the proposed project be denied.
Appreciating the steps the City Council has taken with regard to the Growth Management Plan,
Mr. Gary Watts, 42163 Rubicon, stated that more people would mean more cars and that more
cars would mean more traffic and, therefore, requested that the City Council deny this project.
Rebuttal by the Applicant
In response to Mr. Alhadeff, City Attorney Thorson reiterated that Councilman Naggar does not
have to abstain from this matter; that the Planning Department has calculated the distance
between his home and the proposed project; that it exceeds a distance of 2,500'; and that,
therefore, as per the Political Reform Act and the regulations of the Fair Political Practices
Commission, it has been determined that Councilman Naggar may partake in the proceedings.
At the request of Mr. Alhadeff, Mr. Tom Dodson, Environmental Consultant, addressed
environmental issues with regard to this project, noting the following:
Noise issues - noise levels associated with this project reflect noise levels that may
impact the project site from the traffic of adjacent roads, not noise being generated
by this project itself; noted that noise levels within the apartment complex, because
of the way the buildings are structured around the periphery, will be no louder than
adjacent single-family residences; that fixed windows are being proposed only for
those units which face Rancho California Road; that noise levels, within the complex,
would not be significant; that if issues were to arise after construction, concerns
could be mitigated at that point in time; therefore, would not view noise levels to be in
conflict with the General Plan;
R:\Minutes\101000
17
· Air quality - that insufficient residences for individuals working in the City will
generate more air pollution; that the project site is designated for medium residential
density; and that the proposed project, even at maximum density level, would not
conflict or be inconsistent with the air quality management plan for the Basin; and
that every three years, South Coast Air Quality Management District updates its
General Plan;
· Open Space - an issue reflected in the City's adopted Open Space and
Conservation Element which addresses location of trails/parks/designated open
space; that the subject site has not been designated as Open Space; and that it was
intended to function as a medium density development;
· Traffic - traffic study for this particular project had been prepared; that it has been
determined that with the proposed short- and long-term improvements, there will be
not significant, adverse impacts on the community as a result of the proposed
project;
· Endangered species and biological resources - that the proposed site is an in-fill
parcel; that it is a degraded habitat; that discussions have occurred with the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service to address the coastal sage scrub as well as the gnat
catchers.
Mr. Larry Markham, representing the applicant, referenced the Land Use Element, Table 2-8,
particularly addressing allowable uses as per the General Plan (Residential/Housing Type
Correlation) and the City's Development Code, noting that medium density is an allowable use.
With regard to the noise study, Mr. Markham clarified that the study is project specific. As per
the Southwest Area Plan (SWAP), Mr. Markham advised that in 1989, when SWAP was
adopted, the allowable units for the project site were reduced from 17.42 units per acre to a
range of 8 to 16 units per acre. As to the Starlight Ridge development, Mr. Markham noted that
the initial phase of construction began within the 1984 to 1986 timeframe at which time the
subject site was still zoned at the higher density level of 17.42 units per acre and that the White
Report would have indicated the parcel of discussion. In closing, Mr. Markham advised that he
got involved with this project in May of 1999; that Mr. Alhadeff got involved in May of 2000; and
that the swimming pool was added to the project in December 1999 or January 2000.
In closing, Mr. AIhadeff noted that the Planning Commission used its discretion in determining
the balance between greater density and amenities as was suggested by Councilman Naggar at
the August 1, 2000, joint City Council/Planning Commission meeting, briefly referencing
Planning Commission discussion with regard to that issue. Mr. Alhadeff stated that the
proposed project meets the City's rules, policies, and guidelines and thanked City staff on an
outstanding job.
City Council comments
Although viewing the proposed project as a high quality project, Councilman Roberts referenced
the adoption of the City's Growth Management Plan, stating that the proposed project would not
adhere to this Plan. With regard to the proposed Olympic pool, Mr. Roberts noted that he would
not view that as a community amenity and as to the landscaping, he noted that the topography
of the site demands the amount of proposed landscaping. In his opinion, Mr. Roberts stated
that he has not been able to determine the community amenities that are being proposed.
Concurring with Councilman Roberts' concerns as they relate to the Growth Management Plan
and also viewing it as a high quality project, Mayor Pro Tern Comerchero noted that in-fill
parcels, such as the one of discussion, create serious conflicts with the Growth Management
Plan, noting that the Plan was not formulated to address such projects and stating that this
issue must be resolved. Mr. Comerchero relayed his desire for the development of a
R:\Minutes\101000
18
condominium/townhouse project or a small lot single-family project in the range of 7 units per
acre. Although it would be a School District issue, Mr. Comerchero relayed concern with
bussing school children a substantial distance. Further addressing the project, Mr. Comerchero
noted the following:
· Expressed concern with the City's .5% vacancy rate for rental units;
· Referenced statistics as it relates to rental units within the City and the
comparison of other cities (approximately 17,007 City's housing stock of which
20.3% are apadments [3,451 units]);
· Denial of the project may result in an affordable Iow-income housing project,
noting that there are an insufficient number of multi-family units;
· Project would meet the City's demographics
· Project would not depreciate property values.
Councilman Pratt referenced his Emergency Traffic Circulation Plan (ETCP) of record.
Concurring with Councilmembers Comerchero and Roberts comments, Councilman Naggar
stated that a Iow-income housing project would still be required to follow the Planning
Department's approval process. Questioning what significant aspect of this project would
warrant the increased density, Councilman Naggar stated the following as it relates to the
project:
· Impacts on school overcrowding and associated traffic
· Encroachment on single-family residential not compatible with adjacent land
uses; development on the hillside, destruction of the ridgeline;
· Three-story structure not appropriate
· Impact on property values
· Incompletion of the Housing Element
· Could support the project at the lowest medium density range
· Encouraged exploration of a different use
Mayor Stone reiterated that the density of the subject site prior to the construction of Starlight
Ridge was at a higher density than what is being proposed at this time, referencing the White
Report; viewed the Growth Management Plan as a tool to address large Specific Plans, not a
20-acre parcel; noted that adjacent land uses of the project site and Starlight Ridge are
apartment buildings (multi-family) and office/professional; concurred that the view of the two
homes in Starlight Ridge should be retained; reiterated that the applicant has agreed by way of
grading and roof pitch to not affect the ridgeline for those two landowners; that traffic generation
of the proposed multi-family site would not generate the number of trips that a single-family
development of equal magnitude would generate; the site of discussion would not be, in his
opinion, an appropriate location of single-family homes; and that the completed traffic analysis
indicated levels of service C and D. Referencing consistency with the Growth Management
Plan, Mayor Stone commented on the proposed traffic improvements. In order to make the
proposed site viable, Mayor Stone noted that a low-moderate housing project may be presented
for review to the City Council, advising that such a project would result in one and a half times
the number of the proposed units and that no pool, recreational facility, tot lot, etc. would be
provided. Being a supporter of the Growth Management Plan, Mayor Stone stated that the
impetus of this Plan was formulated as a result of the development at the City's periphery
(County) and not the City's development. In closing, Mayor Stone commented on the need for
variable types of housing; addressed the goals of the City's General Plan; commented on how
the proposed project would comply with the goals of the General Plan; and viewed the approval
of this project to be in the City's best interest.
R:\Minutes\101000
19
Although this project does conform to the City's General Plan, Mayor Pro Tern Comerchero
noted that it does not comply with the City's Growth Management Plan; that the Growth
Management Plan does not allow the construction of an in-fill project such as the one proposed;
that, therefore, the City Council should not apply the Growth Management Plan to this project,
address the project on a standard of quality, and determine whether or not the construction of
this project would be an overall betterment to the community.
MOTION: Councilman Pratt moved to deny the project and to direct the City Attorney to
prepare a resolution and findings denying the project and upholding the appeal. The motion
was seconded by Councilman Naggar and voice vote reflected approval of the motion as
follows:
AYES:
Comerchero, Naggar, Pratt, Roberts_
NOES: Stone
ABSENT: None
15 Planninq Application No. PA00-0261 - a request to amend the text of the Marqarita Village
Specific Plan, Planninq Areas 8, and 10/11/12 to increase the maximum size for thc,
homes from 2,600 square feet to 3,700 square feet and to reduce the number of floor
plans provided from five (5) to three (3)
RECOMMENDATION:
15.1 Approve the categorical exemption under Section 15061(b)(3) by making a
determination of consistency with a project for which an EIR was previously certified
per Section 15162 - subsequent EIRs and Negative Declarations of the CEQA;
15.2 Introduce and read by title only an ordinance entitled:
ORDINANCE NO. 2000-12
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO.
PA00-0261 (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 AND 10/11/12
GENERALLY LOCATED NORTH OF RANCHO CAEIFORNIA
ROAD OFF PROMENADE CHARDONNAY HILLS, EAST OF
MEADOWS PARKWAY, SOUTH OF PARDUCCI LANE, AND
NORTH OF RUE JADOT CONSISTING OF ALL LOTS IN
TRACT NOS. 23100-6, -7, AND -8
Deputy City Manager Thornhill presented the staff report (as per agenda material).
At this time, Mayor Stone opened the public hearing.
Mr. Matthew Fagan, 42011 Avenida Vista Cordera, reviewed the request to increase the home
sizes in the Specific Plan, clarifying that no lots are being added; that the lot coverage for a two-
story residence would be approximately 35% to 40% and that the lot coverage for a single-story
R:\Minutes\101000
2O
residence would be approximately 45%; that this request would only pertain to the remaining 79
Iots; that of the 79 lots, 20 would be single-story residences; and that there are a variety of
home sizes within the Margarita Village Specific Plan. Because of a timing issue for Lennar, Mr.
Fagan requested that the proposal be approved by way of a resolution versus an ordinance.
Mr. Grant Fluegge, representing Lennar Homes, readdressed the request as noted by Mr.
Fagan.
Mr. Robert Patterson, representing Lennar Homes, reiterated previously made comments by Mr.
Fagan and requested approval of the request by way of a resolution.
Mr. John Lynn, 32237 Placer Belair, relayed his opposition to the proposed increase in home
sizes, noting that the Chardonnay Hills Homeowners Association has no other homes of that
large size.
There being no additional input, Mayor Stone closed the public hearing.
Because the City Council will be changing the zoning for the area of discussion, City Attorney
Thorson recommended that the request be approved by way of an ordinance versus a
resolution.
For Councilman Naggar, Deputy City Manager Thornhill stated that he was of the opinion that
the larger-sized homes would not create any negative concerns/impact to the community.
MOTION: Councilman Naggar moved to approve the staff recommendation. The motion was
seconded by Mayor Pro Tern Comerchero and voice vote reflected approval with the exception
of Councilman Pratt who abstained.
COUNCIL BUSINESS
16 Pala Road Interim Improvements and Wideninq - Project No. PW99-11 (Interim), includinq a
traffic siqnal at Pala/Loma Linda (PW98-14) and a traffic siqnal at Pala/Wolf Valley
(PW98-15)
RECOMMENDATION:
16.1
Review the Project Plans and Specifications for the construction of Pala Road
Interim Improvement - Project No. PW99-11 (Interim) including road widening, a
traffic signal at Pala/Loma Linda (PW98-14) and a traffic signal at PalaNVolf Valley
(PW98-15);
16.2 Continue the matter to November 14, 2000, and direct staff to prepare a response to
the comments of residents and interested parties to the proposed project for the
November 14, 2000, meeting.
Mr. Peter Lucier, 31257 Hiawatha Court, representing Wolf Valley Homeowners Association,
noted that, in his opinion, the proposed widening of Pala Road would accommodate the
additionally anticipated traffic to the Pechanga Casino; that the proposed project does not
address sound mitigation for Pala Road, advising that the sound decibel level for Pala Road
currently exceeds the California State Law standards as per the draft EIR for Wolf Creek
Specific Plan; that the current Pala Road noise level impact the residents' living environment as
it relates to internally as well as externally as it relates to backyard usage; and that the
congestion issue of concern pertains to Loma Linda/Pala Road. Mr. Lucier briefly referenced
R:\Minutes\101000
21
his letter of concern with regard to this project, noting that copies were faxed to the City
Counciimembers, Public Works Director Hughes, City Manager Nelson, and Mayor Stone. In
closing, Mr. Lucier advised that he would further address the issue at the November 14, 2000,
City Council meeting.
MOTION: Councilman Naggar moved to continue the matter to the November 14, 2000, City
Council meeting. The motion was seconded by Mayor Pro Tern Comerchero and voice vote
reflected unanimous approval.
CITY MANAGER'S REPORT
City Manager Nelson apprised the public of the Fourth Quarterly Workshop for the Riverside
County Integrated Plan on Tuesday, October 17, 2000, at 6:00 P.M., in the City Council
Chambers.
CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
City Attorney Thorson advised that there were no reportable actions from Closed Session.
ADJOURNMENT
At 1:16 A.M on October 11, 2000, the City Councit meeting was formally adjourned for the
purpose of a quarterly Riverside County Integrated Plan Workshop, to Tuesday, October 17,
2000, at 6:00 P.M., City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California.
Susan W.~Oones,
~,Citv Cl~k
[SEAL]
~ ~(~ (~ffrey"E-".Stone, Mayor
R:\Minutes\101000
22