Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout120600 PC MinutesMINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 6, 2000 CALL TO ORDER The City of Temecula Planning Commission convened in a regular meeting at 6:00 P.M., on Wednesday December 6, 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 *Mathewson, Telesio, Webster, and Chairman Guerriero. Absent: Commissioner Chiniaeff. Also Present: Deputy City Manager Thornhill, Director of Planning Ubnoske, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks, Development Services Administrator McCarthy, Attorney Curley, Attorney Paula Gutierrez Baeza, Fire Captain McBride, Project Planner Saied Naaseh, Associate Planner Donahoe, Project Planner DeGange, and Minute Clerk Hansen. *(Commissioner Mathewson arrived at 6:20 P.M.) PUBLIC COMMENTS Mr. John Lynn, 32237 Placer Belair, relayed his comments regarding Agenda Item No. 3 at this time since the item was not a public hearing item; read into the record his comments (which were submitted to staff at the meeting) regarding his recommendation for the Planning Commission to recommend a change to the City Code to eliminate compact parking spaces for the following reasons: that vehicles of all sizes utilized the compact spaces, the frequent damage to vehicles, and the narrowed access lanes. For Commissioner Webster, Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that staff would be bringing forward a Development Code amendment in approximately two to three months. Commissioner Webster recommended that the Commission discuss this item at this time in order to provide direction to staff, recommending that when Development Code R:Pla nComrn/min utes/120600 Amendment is brought before the Planning Commission, that this matter could be addressed at that time. Commissioner Telesio relayed that primarily people are driving larger cars at this time, concurring with Mr. Lynn that vehicles of all sizes do utilize the compact parking spaces; and noted that he was not opposed to consideration of one standardized size for all parking spaces. Mr. Lynn relayed that there are existing compact parking spaces in the City that are below the minimum size (per Code requirements). Chairman Guerriero concurred with Mr. Lynn, recommending that after additional investigation, that the Planning Commission consider making modifications with respect to allowing compact parking spaces. It was determined that the compact parking spaces issue would be agendized for a future meeting. Agenda RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Approve the Agenda of December 6, 2000. 2 Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Approve the minutes of October 4, 2000. MOTION: Commissioner Webster moved to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1, and 2. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Telesio and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Commissioners Chiniaeff and Mathewson who were absent. COMMISSION BUSINESS 3 4 Compact Parking Spaces It was determined that this issue would be agendized for a future meeting. Planning Application No. 98-0484 (Wolf Creek General Plan Amendment); No. 98- 0481 (Wolf Creek Specific Plan No. 12); No. 00-0052 (Wolf Creek Tentative Tract Map No. 29305); No. 00-0029 (Wolf Creek Development Aqreement); and 98-0482 (Wolf Creek Environmental Impact Report) on parcels totaling 557 acres located on the east side of Pala Road between Loma Linda Road and Fairview Avenue - Carole Donahoe RECOMMENDATION: 4.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: 2 R:PlanComm/minutes/120600 PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000-037 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. 98-0484), AND APPROVE THE WOLF CREEK SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 12 (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 98-048t) ON PARCELS TOTALING 557 ACRES LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF PALA ROAD, BETWEEN LOMALINDA ROAD AND FAIRVlEW AVENUE, AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR PARCEL NOS. 950-110-002, -005, -033 AND 950-180-001, -005, -006 AND -010. 4.2 Adopt a resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000-038 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF 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 LOMALINDA ROAD AND FAIRVlEW AVENUE, AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR PARCEL NOS. 950-110-002, -005, -033 AND 950-180- 001, -005, -006 AND -010. 4.3 Adopt a resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000-039 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE WOLF CREEK DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DEAL POINTS (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-0029) AS NOTED IN EXHIBIT A, ON PARCELS TOTALING 557 ACRES LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF PALA ROAD, BETWEEN LOMA LINDA ROAD AND FAIRVlEW AVENUE, AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR PARCEL NOS. 950-110-002, -005, -033 AND 950-180-001, -005, -006 AND -010. 4.4 Adopt a resolution entitled: 3 R:Pla nComm/minut esi120600 PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000-040 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 FAIRVlEW AVENUE, AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR PARCEL NOS. 950-110-002, -005, -033 AND 950-180-00t, -005, -006 AND -010. By way of overheads, Associate Planner Donahoe presented the staff report (of record), noting that the project had been presented to the Planning Commission on September 6, September 20, and October 4, 2000, advising that at the October 4th Planning Commission meeting the Planning Commission moved to recommend denial of the project; relayed that at the October 16, 2000 Planning Commission meeting the Planning Commission considered the Resolutions of denial prepared by the City Attorney's office, noting that during consideration of the Resolutions, the Planning Commission moved to reconsider the project which was the rationale for the project being presented at this time; advised that it had been the Planning Commission's request for the developer to address the items specified in the Findings associated with the Resolutions of denial for this hearing; noted that Attachment No. 6 (per agenda material) was the developer's full written response regarding the resolutions, advising that she would be summarizing the data; and relayed that Project Planner Naaseh would present the Development Agreement points for the Planning Commission's consideration in order for the Planning Commission to provide a recommendation and comments to the City Council. Associate Planner Donahoe recapitulated the recent modifications to the project, as follows: · Noted the revision from the planned high school site to the proposed 40-acre sports park which triggered the following revisions: the modification of the Community Park to the current proposed Neighborhood Park, and the Neighborhood Park which was now proposed as an activity node. · Relayed that the multi-family apartments were removed as one of the options, noting that there still existed an option for senior multi-family housing in Planning Area No. 18. · Advised that the small lots (4,000-4500 square foot lots) have been eliminated, noting that the minimum lot size would be 5,000 square feet. Noted that the single-family dwelling Courtyard Housing in Planning Areas, 7, 10, and 18 would come forward with Planned Development Overlay (PDO) zones. 4 R;PlanComm/minutes/120600 With respect to the implementation of narrower streets, noted the exhibit entitled "Option 2 - Through Local Streets," advising that this element would be implemented, where feasible, in the neighborhoods, noting that the parkway landscaping would need to be maintained by an HCA. With respect to the revisions to the Commercial Areas in Planning Area No. 12, and 13, noted that the applicant did provide a revised list of commercial uses in response to the Commission's previously expressed comments. Advised that the applicant updated the matrix with the Zoning Ordinance, reflecting the lot size changes, noting that the lot coverage was not modified, advising that it was the applicant's opinion that with the existing setback standards the lot coverage would not be a significant factor. Associate Planner Donahoe relayed that she would not address the issues which were covered in the Development Agreement, while noting that the cul-de-sac length was revised to reflect a 600-foot maximum in lieu of 1320 feet; with respect to the request to have Energy Conservation Measures implemented into the Specific Plan, relayed that Conditions of Approval were added to address this issue; with respect to the request for coordination with Metropolitan Water District regarding the pipelines at the south end of the project, noted that mitigation measures and conditions have been included to address this matter; noted the request of the Temecula Community Services District to add three additional conditions to the Specific Plan (presenting the conditions via overheads), advising that these conditions would ensure that if the Development Agreement was not approved, that there would be the ability to revert back to the original format in terms of the Community Park and the Neighborhood Park in order to meet Quimby requirements; and relayed that Development Services Administrator McCarthy was available for questions from the Planning Commission regarding these particular conditions. For Chairman Guerriero, Associate Planner Donahoe clarified the rationale for the language if feasible being added to the document, noting the need for flexibility. Commissioner Webster queried why a joint City Council/Planning Commission workshop regarding this project was never held, referencing comments from previous meetings. In response, Director of Planning Ubnoske noted that staff did meet with the City Council regarding the Development Agreement. Associate Planner Donahoe noted, additionally, that there have been several meetings held with the Subcommittee, relaying that Councilman Naggar and Councilman Pratt served on this Subcommittee, confirming that no Planning Commissioners were on this particular Subcommittee. For Commissioner Telesio, Associate Planner Donahoe clarified that the courtyard option would not be restricted to seniors only, noting that these dwellings would be single family units, advising that there was no language added which would preclude the developer from designating this area for seniors only. It was noted that Commissioner Mathewson arrived to the meeting at 6:20 P.M. Project Planner Naaseh presented the Development Agreement Deal Points (per supplemental agenda material), noting that staff has been negotiating with the applicant for the past few months, advising that the City Attorney and the applicant's attorney are still working out the legal details of the Development Agreement document; relayed that the Deal Points represented in the data were sufficient information for the Planning 5 R:PlanComm/minut es/120600 Commission to make a recommendation to the City Council; presented a detailed overview of the Deal Points of the Development Agreement; and for Commissioner Telesio, clarified that the ten percent (10%) was added to the DIF component for the parks, advising that the City would be receiving ten percent (10%) more than the current DIF for parks, noting that this amount was included in the $2,800,000 figure. For Commissioner Mathewson, Deputy City Manager Thornhill relayed that a DIF component was adopted, advising that there was a component related to park improvements. With respect to the meeting held on Monday, December 4, 2000 with the Subcommittee, Project Planner Naaseh relayed that the Subcommittee's comments had been added to the Deal Point summarization data (per supplemental agenda material). For Commissioner Webster, Project Planner Naaseh relayed that the proposed Administrative Facility would be located adjacent to the Fire Station site, noting that the specific plan for this site was undetermined at this point in time. In response to Chairman Guerriero, Project Planner Naaseh relayed that the proposed Fire station would enhance the emergency response times for the annexed Vail Ranch area; and noted that the City was in charge of the construction of the Fires Station site, advising that the project was conditioned to have the Fire Station be completed by the 400th building permit or the applicant would not be issued any additional building permits due to the impact with respect to the 5-minute response time. Fire Captain McBride relayed that the emergency response times for Vail Ranch would not effect this particular project, advising that this proposed Fire Station would aid in the service of the Vail Ranch area; and via overhead maps provided additional information regarding the response times, which would only be improved with the proposed Fire Station with this particular project. For Commissioner Telesio, Project Planner Naaseh noted that the entities contributing to the cost of the sound wall could potentially be Assessment District No. 159, the Pechangas, or alternate sources. In response to Commissioner Webster, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks relayed that the 134' ROW improvement of Pala Road was a right-of-way dedication, noting that the City would be in control of the improvement plans, advising that it had not yet been determined whether Pala Road would be constructed as six lanes all the way to Wolf Valley Road, noting that this issue would be addressed with the City Council. For Commissioner Webster, Project Planner Naaseh provided additional information regarding the Subcommittee's recommendation with respect to the applicant being responsible to pay the future Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) Fee when it was adopted, noting that the impacts addressed were regional and not based on a project by project basis; for Commissioner Telesio, clarified that various Subcommittee comments had not been agreed to by the applicant; in response to Commissioner Webster's queries, relayed that the Deal Points provided as supplemental agenda material were the same Deal Points provided in the agenda packets with the exception of the addition of the Subcommittee's comments; and clarified Condition No. 65 (referencing page 15), which stated no occupancies will be allowed that will result in a service level of less than "D' on Pala Road, or at any of the Pala intersections from Rainbow Canyon Road to Wolf Valley Road. For Commissioner Webster, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks provided additional information regarding the Deal Point regarding LOS Level D associated with Planning Areas 20, 21, 22, and 23, noting that the alternate portions of the subdivision would be developed within the limits of the LOS at this time; and noted that the casino's plans had been taken into consideration in the traffic projections presented. In response to Chairman Guerriero's queries, Project Planner Naaseh noted that the Wolf Valley 12' median installed between Pala Road and the easterly boundary of Planning Area No. 14 would be landscaped, advising that if language was not included in the Specific Plan document to address the landscaping issue, that it would be added. Deputy Director of Public Works Parks noted that this issue was addressed in Condition No. 26c. (of the Tentative Map) which required a raised landscaped median. For Commissioner Telesio, Project Planner Naaseh provided additional information regarding the permitted uses within Planning Area No. 12 addressed in the Deal Point data. With respect to the Neighborhood Commercial Zoning, Commissioner Webster noted that he had previously recommended that taverns, and bar uses not be excluded, querying the rationale for these existing exclusions; and relayed that during the previous public hearing associated with this item, that there had been a verbal agreement between the developer and the Pechanga tribe with respect to utilizing an Indian monitor in lieu of an archeologist, noting that he did not see this agreement referenced in the Specific Plan Condition No. 20, or in the Mitigation Monitoring Program. After additional investigation, Associate Planner Donahoe relayed that it was determined to leave the condition as stated, advising that staff was of the opinion that the applicant's agreement to work with the Pechangas was sufficient; and provided additional information regarding Condition No. 20 (of the Specific Plan) which addressed this matter. With respect to the narrow road option, in response to Commissioner Webster's queries, Associate Planner Donahoe relayed that the Public Works Department would make the final determination with respect to this implementation, advising that it was anticipated that, where feasible, this element would be installed in the local neighborhoods. Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that if certain criteria were met with respect to the Average Daily Trips (ADTs) then this element would be implemented. Deputy Director of Public Works Parks clarified the nexus between the ADTs and the feasibility of this option. Associate Planner Donahoe relayed that the Planning Commission would have the opportunity to review the street widths at the time the Tentative Maps are brought forward for the particular planning areas. For Commissioner Webster, Public/Traffic Safety Commissioner Edwards relayed that the narrower streets for the Wolf Valley Project were discussed at a recent Public/Traffic Safety Commission meeting, noting that it was a receive and file item, clarifying that no action was taken with regard to this item; and provided additional information regarding the negative impacts associated with the implementation of 36' wide streets (referencing the public speaker comments where residents relayed concern with respect to the impacts regarding the narrower streets implemented in their neighborhood), advising that it was the consensus of the Public/Traffic Safety Commission that a wider street width would be more appropriate for reasons of safety. With respect to Condition No. 17 (of the Specific Plan conditions), regarding reclaimed water usage, Commissioner Webster queried whether this would need to be in compliance with Senate Bill 2095 which was the new law recently enacted which was the Water Recycling and Landscaping Act. In response, Associate Planner Donahoe relayed that this condition reflected comments received during the environmental review process, advising that this element was encouraged, where feasible. With respect to the Findings in the Resolutions for the Tentative Map, specifically Finding No. G (regarding energy conservation), Commissioner Webster queried how this issue was implemented in the Specific Plan. In response, Associate Planner Donahoe noted that the applicant was required to address conservation issues, where feasible. With respect to Commissioner Webster's queries regarding to the Mitigation Monitoring Program included with the Findings for the Environmental Impact Report, Associate Planner Donahoe noted staffs intent to have an inclusive condition in order to be able to refer back to the General Plan EIR Mitigation Monitoring Measures without increasing the Mitigation Program, advising that the condition in the Specific Plan referencing this matter made it subject not only to the Mitigation Measures in the Program but also to the General Plan. With respect to Commissioner Webster's queries with regard to the revised densities, Associate Planner Donahoe relayed that she had utilized the actual dwelling units per acre of each of the planning areas to obtain the densities in the categories. In response to Commissioner Mathewson's queries relayed to staff prior to the meeting, Associate Planner Donahoe relayed that with respect to the densities data, that she had utilized the net acreage in those areas in her density figure analysis, whereas the applicant was utilizing a gross number, as opposed to a net figure, advising that she could understand the rationale for the applicant's figure analysis. With respect to the Pala Road improvements, Commissioner Mathewson queried whether staff was of the opinion that the improvements denoted under the CFD were consistent with the infrastructure improvements in the Conditions of Approval on Phase I, and II, referencing Condition No. 87a, regarding this issue. In response, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks relayed that it was the opinion of Director of Public Works Hughes that if the CFD was formed and the City had control of the improvements, then building permits would be issued based on the fact that the road system was in the hands of the City at the time, and was fully funded which meant that the building of the improvements could proceed, advising that staff was of the opinion that this would constitute a process similar to bonding for subdivision improvements, ensuring that it would be built; relayed that in the COAs there still was a requirement to have Pala Road constructed as four lanes Prior to the Issuance of the first building permit; and advised that the sound wall would be part of the funded improvements under the control of the City at that time (via the CFD), noting that it would be completed with the widening and the ultimate improvements of Pala Road. It was noted that at 7:18 P.M. the meeting recessed, reconvening at 7:28 P.M. 8 R:PlanCornm/minut es/120600 After additional investigation, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks relayed that the project was conditioned so that the developer was required to have in place the interim four-lane improvements (to Pala Road) prior to the issuance of the first building permit; noted that there was a traffic study submitted to the City that revealed that in excess of 615 dwelling units could be built on this site without exceeding LOS D on Pala Road with the four-lane improvement; advised that it was the intention of the City to have in place the CFD to fund the Pala Road improvement (the ultimate improvements), noting that if the CFD was in place prior to the issuance of the first building permit then the City would be in control of the funding mechanism for the road, relaying that the improvements plans were 70-80% complete at this time, advising that at this point bonds could be sold, and under the direction of the City staff, the ultimate improvements of Pala Road would be constructed inclusive of the median and the sound wall; relayed that it would take approximately 3-6 months to obtain the funding, and approximately 12-18 months to complete the improvements; confirmed that it was the plan to have these improvements in place prior to the first occupancies at Wolf Creek, relayed that there was a stop gap in the Specific Plan which required that prior to the 473rd building permit the fundin_~] mechanism would have to be in place, and prior to beginning Phase B (the 823ru building permit) the improvements would have to be completed; and noted that as the Tentative Tract maps are presented that there would be the opportunity to revisit this issue. With respect to Commissioner Webster's queries at to whether or not the Development Agreement was an equitable deal, Associate Planner Donahoe noted that by comparison, alternate Development Agreements have been set at $500 per dwelling unit, and that this Development Agreement would be at $1500. Via overhead slides, Mr. Barry Burnell, representing the applicant, provided an overview of the Village Center overlay from the General Plan, noting that this project plan was consistent with the configuration; presented the park sites, and alternate recreational facilities; specified the location of the canter median, the Fire Station, and the provisions for turning motions; presented the option plan for the narrower streets, and the separated parkways; reiterated that the 4,000-4500 square foot lots have been eliminated which addressed numerous Commission concerns; clarified the use of the phrase if feasible denoted in the documents, relaying that when there was a menu of options that would address a particular issue, the phrase if feasible was utilized due to the situations where it would not be an applicable element; in response to Commissioner Webster's queries, referenced the section of the Specific Plan under Residential Orientation where it was stated siting of buildings shall take advantage of natural elements such as topography, soil orientation, and prevailing breezes, providing assurance that there was language in the Specific Plan to address this matter, as well as in the Conditions of Approval; with respect to the recommendation to add bars or tavern uses to the permitted uses in the commercial area, relayed that the applicant would have no objection to this addition; and provided additional information regarding the proposed densities, noting the plan for approximately 1900 units unless the senior housing option is constructed whereby the densities would be over 2,000 units. Mr. William Griffith, representing the applicant, relayed that this project plan has had significant amount of changes to the plan, noting the removal of the 4,000-4500 square foot lots which was an issue of concern for the Commission and the community; and clarified that the only apartment alternative would be for the senior housing option, relaying that the courtyard housing would be units for sale, and not rental housing. Mr. Griffith provided an overview of various issues addressed in the Development Agreement, as follows: · Relayed that with respect to the bullet point addressing the Deer Hollow improvements, that it was the applicant's desire that this project not be accelerated, noting that it was the applicant's opinion that the land dedication of 12.37 acreage with a real value of $2.25 million was a generous and adequate gift to the City, advising that in light of the alternate circulation priorities, the Deer Hollow project should not be accelerated; With respect to the Administrative Facility, noted that this element was included in response to Commission recommendations for there to be opportunities for civic or public uses within the Village core; · With respect to the Fire Station, relayed that the dedication of 1.5 acres for a credit of $114,000 represents an additional gift to the City of approximately $150,000- 160,000; · With respect to the CFD description, advised that it would be his desire to amend the description, as follows: The Pala Road improvements shall include pavement, curb, gutters, sidewalk, lights, and median landscaping, with the addition of the sound wall, and the underground utilities improvements, advising that this was a vital issue as it pertains to the applicant's commitment to the neighborhood concerns; with respect to the Subcommittee's comments regarding this issue, noted that the developer offered to advance 100% of the cost of the sound wall in relation to any interim improvements of Pala Road, noting that the applicant has met with Mr. Lucier and other members of the community, advising that the applicant was concerned with the interim improvements of Pala Road not including the sound wall, providing the rationale for this commitment; · With respect to the Commercial DIF fees, clarified that to the degree that available credits are not utilized for the residential area, it would be the applicant's' desire to have the benefit of applying any residual credits to the commercial area, thereby reducing the cost of developing this particular area; · With respect to the Subcommittee's recommendation regarding the Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) Fee, advised that at this point the applicant was not in agreement with this request, relaying that this particular property has no habitat issues, noting that it was the applicant's opinion that it would not be equitable for the City to impose this fee since at this point did not exist, and since this fee would be designed to share the cost of habitat among those developing habitat; With respect to the LOS D in Planning Areas No. 20, 21, 22, and 23, relayed that as indicated by the Public Works Department, that via the current lien of $2 million on this property, and the prior cash commitment to the development of Highway 79, that the applicant has a right to certain capacities within this system; advised that the applicant only anticipated those conditions being exceeded via development of the County residential developments, clarifying that the applicant was not in agreement that this issue should be part of the Development Agreement, noting that the project was conditioned regarding the LOS Level D obligation, and would not desire to have this project's development stopped via traffic capacity being utilized by the County developments; · With respect to the Wolf Valley median, advised that the applicant has agreed to a 12' landscaped median; and Noted that the applicant has worked diligently with staff with regard to the Deal Points, relaying appreciation to staff for their hard work, advising that this was an excellent opportunity for the City to obtain improvements, financing, and infrastructure upfront, and to address issues of concern with respect to fire stations, schools, drainage, and parks. For Commissioner Mathewson, Mr. Griffith clarified the applicant's concern regarding the Commercial DIF, providing an example, noted that if the number of residential units developed was reduced, that the applicant would desire to have the residual credits considered for the commercial area. In response to Commissioner Telesio, Mr. Griffith clarified that the Adminstrative Facility would be a public use, noting the potential uses at this site. Attorney Curley clarified the linkage of uses for this type of DIF fee, noting that this was a Corporate Facilities Fee that was being negotiated; and relayed that this fee, as sefforth in the City's Ordinances has limitations on its use which would be for government public, as opposed to a general community type of use. For Commissioner Telesio, Mr. Griffith relayed that in discussions regarding the sports park, there has been discussions with respect to placing clubhouse meeting-type areas at this site; and noted that one of the permitted uses in the Commercial area id Planning Area No. 12 would be a church use. Commissioner Telesio queried the legal issues associated with the Subcommittee's recommendation that the applicant be responsible to pay the future Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) Fee when it is adopted. In response, Attorney Curley relayed that this fee would be implemented at the point in time that the applicant was building when the MSHCP was adopted, advising that the fee would not recapture fees for dwellings that have been built prior to the adoption. For clarification, Deputy City Manager Thornhill relayed that this fee would become applicable when building permits were issued, confirming that prior construction would not be subject to the fee; noted that there was an interim fee being proposed at this time, relaying that the fee was not solely applied to development with habitat, but that all development paid into the program to aid in the acquisition of the huge amount of land that would be required as part of the MSHCP. With respect to Commissioner Webster's previous recommendation to introduce civic uses proximate to the Village core, Deputy City Manager Thornhill relayed that at the Administrative Facility site there was the potential to place a police substation, a building permitJPlanning Services facility, a Community Services facility (due to the proximity to the parks), noting that there may be an opportunity to create a mini-annex to City Hall; and relayed that as a fallback, if the City determined not to utilized this area, then the type of uses Commissioner Telesio mentioned could be constructed in this area (i.e., a church use, a daycare use). Commissioner Webster clarified his recommendations at the previous meeting, specifically to implement the Village Center Plan with a public use type of element in this area, specifically recommending that there be a dedicated church site; relayed that with the Zoning Codes and Laws, a church use is conditionally permitted in all zoning areas; and advised that in his opinion it was unlikely a church would be developed in the Commercial areas due to the lack of retail in this area, clarifying that it was his recommendation to have a designated church site in the Village core, but not in the commercial area. 11 R:Pian Comm,'minutes/120600 In response to Commissioner Webster, Mr. Griffith relayed that if a churc~ came forward with an interest to develop a site, he would be willing to convert a portion of the residential area for a church use, clarifying the impacts of designating a site for a specific church use which would tie up the property if there was not a church interested in locating at this particular site; and provided additional information regarding potential sites for church uses. Commissioner Webster recommended that there be a church site designated for a specific period of time. In response, Mr. Griffith relayed that the applicant would be agreeable to a designated church site in Planning Area No. 12 for a reasonable period of time as part of the Development Agreement. Commissioner Telesio noted the potential need for a church site at this site. With respect to the Pechanga archeological issues, Mr. Griffith relayed that the applicant intended to work with the Pechangas regarding this issue. With respect to Commissioner Webster's queries regarding the applicant's written response to the Findings associated with the Resolutions (per agenda material), specifically with respect to page 3, second paragraph, at the end where it stated itmust be assumed that some relief from the City's Development Standards would be granted, Mr. Burnell noted the following: the elimination of the smaller lots, that certain Open Space standards have been added, that the Design Standards were extremely comprehensive, and that the courtyard housing was implemented in lieu of apartment complexes; and clarified that the applicant was requesting minor areas of relief form the standards. With the exclusion of the courtyard housing area, Commissioner Webster queried whether zero lot lines would be permitted in the project. In response, Mr. Burnell relayed that a zero lot line would be allowed, noting that it would typically not be utilized in this project's lot sizes (5,000, 6,000, and 7200 square foot lots), relaying that the applicant would be agreeable to prohibiting zero lot lines. At this time Chairman Guerriero opened the public comment period. It was noted for the record that the following individuals opted not to speak, filling out a request to speak form solely to register that they were proponents of the project: [] Mr. Doug Haserot [] Ms. Lynette Dent [] Mr. Hugh Young [] Mr. Donald O. Lohr [] Mr. Tony Terich 41976 Avenida Alvarado 24970 Carancho Road 45254 Esplendor Creek 43503 Ridge Park Drive 31132 Dog Leg Circle The following individuals were opposed to the project: [] Mr. Rick Barrera [] Ms. Pamela Miod [] Mr. Mark Broderick 45639 Corte Lobos 30995 Via Saltio 45501 Clubhouse Drive 12 R:PlanComm/minut esl120600 The above-mentioned individuals were opposed to the project for the following reasons: Opposed to the proposed densities, specifically with respect to the Courtyard Housing option. Recommended limiting the density to a maximum of 1500 homes. Queried the Councilman's recent argument with the County's plan to implement the Morgan Hills project if this particular project with a higher density was being considered for approval within the City limits. Noted concern with respect to the cumulative impacts of this project not being addressed. Relayed concern regarding traffic impacts generated from this project without a plan for alternate transportation plans. Noted the lack of Open Space between the Redhawk area and this project for trails. Advised that this project was not consistent with the Growth Management Action Plan. Applauded the developer for the reduction in densities. Referenced an article in the Californian newspaper from September 10, 1999, reading the following: Mr. Deputy City Manager Thomhill says a lot of things that are going to impact us we don~t have a lot of control over, adding that City staff members will have to talk with County officials to study the effects of projects outside City limits,; and advised that the City did have control over this particular project. For Mr. Barrera, Commissioner Webster clarified that with respect to the Councilman's comments referenced, that his comments had been relayed as a private citizen, and not as a representative of the City. In response to Ms. Miod, Commissioner Webster relayed that the trail referenced was located on the Redhawk side of the property line. The following individuals were proponents of the project: Mr. Jason Parks Mr. John Stanlil Mr. Wayne Hall 32828 Caseda Drive 45299 Paseo Durango 42131Agena Street The above-mentioned individuals were proponents of the project for the following reasons: Relayed that the City of Temecula needs more space for children to be able to play sports, noting the benefits of the sports park. Noted that the traffic would be reduced with the sports park proposal due to families traveling a shorter distance for sporting activities. Complimented the City of Temecula for its exemplary park system. Noted that the proposed Fire Station would be a great asset to this portion of the city. Applauded the developer for his agreement to work with the Pechangas regarding the monitoring issues. Noted opposition to any alcohol being sold in the permitted uses in the Commercial area. Relayed a desire for Pala Road to be constructed as six lanes. 13 R:Pla nComm/min utesJ120600 Mr. Joseph R. Terrazas, 31160 Lahontian Street, relayed his concern with respect to the inadequate EIR and Traffic analysis; queried the ability to sell bonds for the necessary road improvement projects; noted concern with respect to the additional traffic generated due to the sports park proposal; recommended that Pala Road be constructed as six lanes to Wolf Valley Road; and noted that he was pleased with the applicant's comments regarding the sound wall issue. Mr. Peter Lucier, 31257 Hiawatha Court, representing the Wolf Valley HOA, thanked the Commission, staff, and the developer, for their diligent efforts with respect to this project; relayed concern with respect to the potential sale of liquor at any of the uses in Planning Area Nos. 12, and 13; noted the need to widen Pala Road to six lanes to Wolf Valley Road; relayed that although the sound attenuation had been addressed in the Developer Agreement, that there were no Conditions of Approval addressing this matter; and relayed concern with respect to the traffic, specifically in conjunction with the casino project. Mr. Charles Hankley, 31745 Via Cordoba, applauded the developer for the project plan, relayed his concern with respect to the traffic impacts associated with this project, noting the heavy traffic flows existing on Loma Linda Road, and Via Cordoba, relaying the additional traffic that the school would generate; and advised that the streets in this area could not afford to be impacted negatively with respect to additional traffic. For Mr. Lucier, Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that the referenced permitted uses of the Commercial area were excluded uses, clarifying that on page 15 (of the agenda material) that this was a list of prohibited uses. For Mr. Hankley, Commissioner Webster concurred that cut-through traffic on Via Cordoba and Lorna Linda Road was a significant problem, noting that the proposed improvements to Highway 79 South, the Pala Bridge, as well as the improvements to Pala Road and Wolf Valley Road would direct traffic away from Loma Linda Road; and advised that the City had no control over the location of the school sites. In response, Mr. Hankley noted the need for additional Police enforcement in the Via Cordoba area. At this time Chairman Guerriero closed the public comment portion of the meeting. The applicant's representatives provided the following rebuttal comments in response to the Commission and community comments: Mr. Camille Bahri, representing the applicant, clarified the intent to have differentiated permitted uses in the two commercial areas (Planning Area Nos. 12, and 13.) Mr. William Griffith, representing the applicant, relayed the following: In response to previously made comments, specified the differences between the Wolf Creek Development and the Morgan Hill Development (which is in the County), noting that the Morgan Hill Project was currently zoned for one unit per ten acres, under the Regional County Plan, which would enable the Morgan Hill Developer to develop 45 units, with a total of 1300 units, relaying that by comparison, the target density under the General Plan for the Wolf Creek Project would be for 2601 units, clarifying that the presented proposal was for approximately 1900 units, or with the senior housing option, just over 2000 units; relayed that the Wolf Creek property was currently zoned for a combination of Low, Low Medium, Medium, and High densities, noting the applicant's determination to comply with the Growth Management Plan, proposing the lower end of the density range while still providing a broad spectrum of amenities (i.e., school site, fire station, civic centers); advised that the Morgan Hills Project would not be inclusive of an commensurate measure of amenities; With respect to traffic, noted staff's review and support of the traffic analysis; relayed that the road system in this portion of the City was designed based on the General Plan's target density of over 2600 units, advising that due to this particular project's proposal to develop substantially below that density that there was the creation of a potential excess capacity; Relayed that this property was not environmentally sensitive; Advised that in his opinion this particular project plan meets the guidelines of the City (per the General Plan documents, the GMP, and meeting all of the criteria with respect to issues that staff has raised regarding the project over the past three years); Noted the applicant's previous involvement in the development of numerous award- winning Master Planned communities; Provided additional information regarding the circulation plan; In response to Mr. Broderick's, comments, reiterated that the project was being developed within the policies of the General Plan, and the GMP; in response to Mr. Lucier's concerns, relayed that the applicant has held numerous meetings with Mr. Lucier, noting that it was the applicant's desire to work in cooperation with both the City and the neighborhood with respect to defining solutions to the noise on Pala Road, the widening of Pala Road, and the associated congestion relief; Advised that the assiduous efforts of the applicant, the staff, and the revisions incorporated in response to Commission comments have culminated into this proposed project plan; Thanked the Commission for its consideration of this matter, relaying hopes of support for this particular proposal. At 8:45 P.M. the meeting recessed, reconvening at 8:54 P.M. The Commission relayed the following closing remarks: Commissioner Mathewson noted the following: Relayed appreciation to the applicant for addressing the Commission's concerns since this project was last visited; For the record, noted that he had participated in ex-parte communications, meeting with the applicant and staff on December 4th in order to discuss the proposed modifications to the project plan; 15 R:Pla nComm/min utes/120600 Advised that his primary concerns had been addressed with the proposed revisions to the project. With respect to the density issues, relayed that he was a strong advocate of following the GMP and the General Plan, noting that in comparison to what the minimum density designation allowed (per the General Plan), that this particular project proposed a seven percent (7%) increase from the minimum density, noting that if the senior multi-family element was implemented, the project would propose a thirteen percent (13%) increase in density above the absolute minimum density allowed; advised that he could support the proposed densities in conjunction with the numerous amenities proposed (i.e., a 40-acre park, land dedication for the fire station, the linear parkway), relaying that the proposed amenities would not solely benefit the project itself, but the community, as a whole; relayed that the sole multi- family area would be limited to senior housing, noting that the senior housing and the courtyard homes would have a significantly less negative impact with respect to school enrollment in this area; With respect to lot sizes, clarified that the discussions pertaining to the smaller lots were regarding the minimum lot size and not the average lot sizes, noting that in the first two areas to be developed the average lot size would be dramatically higher than the minimum; With respect to the Village Center proposal, relayed that with the siting of the courtyard housing around this center, this planning element aided in achieving the ultimate purpose of a Village Center, as identified in the General Plan; advised that the permitted uses that have been identified for the commercial areas were adequate, noting that he could support Commissioner Webster's recommendation for adding a tavern, or bar use in the Neighborhood Commercial area, noting that with respect to the community concern expressed regarding excessive alcohol consumption, that in his opinion this issue was an enforcement matter, advising that to attract residents to the pedestrian center in the evening hours a tavern, or bar use would be appropriate; With respect to the architectural guidelines for the residences, and the issue of a mix of one-story, and two-story dwellings, relayed that after additional investigation of the voluminous Design Guidelines which were inclusive of language encouraging one-story homes, that it was his opinion that the Specific Plan was not the document best-suited for regulating these specific elements; recommended that if this project goes forward and is approved, that all product reviews come back to the Planning Commission for review and approval; with respect to Deputy City Manager Thornhill's previous comments regarding the option to hire an architect consultant for aid in the project review, recommended that this option be utilized; noted that these provisions would address garage setback issues and alternate architectural treatments that have been previously sited as concerns by the Commission; With respect to the proposed traffic improvements, advised that the data presented earlier in the meeting by staff addressed this issue, ensuring that this matter would be addressed adequately; noted that the Development Agreement (if it goes forward, as proposed) provided him with a great level of confidence that the traffic issues would be properly addressed (inclusive of the sound wall); in response to a community resident's comments regarding concern with respect to funding issues and the potential for the interim traffic improvements to not be completed, for Commissioner Mathewson, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks provided additional information. Commissioner Mathewson relayed that the funding would ultimately be available due to the applicant's willingness to loan funds upfront for these improvements; in response to Commissioner Mathewson's request for confirmation of this agreement, the applicant's representative nodded affirmatively; and With respect to the previously expressed desire of the Commission to implement smaller streets and sidewalk setbacks, advised that he strongly recommended that these elements be incorporated into the project plan. Commissioner Telesio noted the following: Commended the applicant for continuing to work with staff and the Commission in order to meet the goals of the Commission, the General Plan, and the GMP; Noted that in his opinion, the applicant has met the standards relayed by the Commission with the recent revisions to the project plan; Relayed that he was comfortable forwarding this project to the City Council with a recommendation for approval; With respect to the community resident's expressed comments, noted that the majority of these concems were based on misinformation, relaying hopes of the Commission or staff providing clarification to the community; Regarding the proposed courtyard homes, and the multi-family senior housing, noted the need for diversity with respect to the provision of housing products; Concurred with Commissioner Mathewson's recommendation with respect to the product reviews being brought forward to the Planning Commission; With respect to traffic issues, relayed that this matter had been adequately addressed; Regarding the concern with respect to allowing a bar or tavern use in the commercial area, relayed that he concurred with Commissioner Mathewson that the excessive use of alcohol was an enforcement issue, noting that in his opinion these uses should be permitted under a Conditional Use Permit (CUP); and Relayed that in his opinion, the applicant has done an excellent job planning a project appropriate for this area, noting that the proposal was well under the densities allowed for this area (per the General Plan). Commissioner Webster noted the following: For the record, relayed that he had not met with staff or the applicant to discuss the project plan since the Planning Commission's workshop, which was held on 17 R:PlanComm/mir~ut es/120600 October 18, 2000, noting that the sole staff member he had discussed this issue with was the City Attorney. Noted his extreme disappointment with staff due to the exclusion of the Planning Commissioners in the Subcommittee that worked on this project. Advised that in order for this project to receive his support for conformance with the City's General plan, General Plan EIR, the Development Code, the Design Guidelines, and the GMP, that the project would need to incorporate the following elements: · With respect to Condition No. 6a, and 6b (regarding the mitigation measures within the Specific Plan conditions), recommended that the language if feasible be deleted from the conditions due to violating the intent of the CEQA Act, noting that either this language could be deleted, or there would need to be provisions for a performance standard, recommending the deletion of this language; · With respect to Condition No. 17 (regarding the feasibility of a reclaimed water system within the Specific Plan conditions), recommended that there be assurance that this condition was in accordance with Senate Bill 2095; · With respect to traffic impacts and accumulative impacts, relayed that in order to agree with the analysis, that there should be assurance that the Deal Point Item (per the Development Agreement) stating that no additional occupancy is allowed when traffic reaches levels less than a Level of Service (LOS) D, for 1- 15 Interchanges, as well as Highway 79 South (between the freeway and Pala Road), recommending that this requirement should be placed on all phases of the project; advised that if the project's EIR analysis, and the City's traffic analysis is correct, this is a mute point, while noting that in order to alleviate the concerns and issues expressed with respect to traffic impacts and cumulative impacts, it was his opinion this Deal Point should be included. · Noted that this project should have a complete Mitigation Monitoring Program inclusive of the applicable portions of the General Plan EIR; · With respect to the Specific Plan, regarding the street options referenced in Condition Nos. 12, 12a, 31 and 75, recommended that there should be one option for this element (rather than the two street options indicated), recommending that the one option be for narrower streets, specifically with a thirty-six foot (36') road right-of way which would provide for two eighteen foot (18') lanes, a four foot (4') sidewalk, and a six foot (6') parkway (with the sidewalk separated from the curb); With respect to the CFD Deal Point (within the Development Agreement), regarding the Pala Road improvements, concurred with the inclusion of the requirement to widen Pala Road to six lanes to Wolf Valley Road, noting the applicant's requirement to provide the dedication of the right-of-way, and not to pay for all the improvements. Concurred that an architect consultant should be hired by the City to review the PDO, noting that an independent review would be beneficial. · With respect to the Land Use Plan map, regarding Planning Area No. 24 (the proposed regional park area), recommended that if the park plan did not go forward, the option to construct 5500 square foot lots should be revised to require 7200 square foot lots; with respect to Planning Area No. 23, recommended that this be revised to require a 6,000 square foot lot minimum 18 R:PlanComm/minut es/120600 to provide a better transition between the Village Center core to less dense residential; with respect to Planning Area No. 21, recommended revising this to require 7200 square foot lot minimums, noting the lack of 7200 square foot lots which should be implemented to create consistency with the Development Code. · Noted that he was pleased with the applicant's previous expressed response regarding the agreement to include a church site designation for a specified period of time, recommending that staff and the applicant work together to establish an appropriate period of time for this designation. · Recommended that there be no allowance for zero lot line houses for the single- family residential area. · With respect to the Zoning Ordinance, regarding the 5,000 square foot lots which stated the request to use the Zoning Ordinance of Medium Density Residential, noting that the City's Development Code for Low Medium Density is basically 5, 000 square foot lots and above, recommended that this be kept at the Low Medium Density zoning in order to be consistent with the Development Code. · With respect to the minimum sideyard requirements, within the Residential Development Standards, relayed that for the 5,000 square foot lots, it was his recommendation that this standard be revised to be consistent with the City's Low Medium requirement which is a five foot (5') minimum sideyard, with a fifteen foot (15') minimum for the sum of the two sideyards; · With respect to lot coverage, regarding the 6,000 and 7200 square foot lots, recommended that there be a maximum thirty-five percent (35%) lot coverage for the lots with two-story dwellings, and forty-five percent (45%) maximum for the lots with one-story dwellings; regarding the 5,000 square foot lots, recommended that there be a maximum lot coverage of forty percent (40%) for the lots with two story dwellings, and forty-five percent (45%) for the lots with one-story dwellings; · With respect to architectural forward requirements that the Commission addressed in the past, recommended that on the exhibits denoting the garage options, that the split garage option be deleted which does not comply with an architectural forward element, noting that with this configuration the front door was tucked inside the house; and · With respect to the Design Standards, regarding the option for multi-family senior housing in Planning Area No. '18, recommended that if this option is implemented that garages be a requirement for this development, in lieu of carports. Chairman Guerriero noted the following: Thanked all the citizens who came forward during the past months to address the Wolf Valley Project, noting that their comments were appreciated by the Commission, and specifically by him; Thanked the applicant for taking the time to meet with the community residents; and Advised that all of his concerns have been addressed by staff, the applicant, and the citizens that have relayed their comments, noting that in his opinion this was a good project, and his recommendation would be to pass it on to the City Council, recommending approval. Commissioner Telesio requested the applicant to address the recommendations setforth by Commissioner Webster. Addressing Commissioner Webster's previously mentioned recommendations (See pages 17-19 of the minutes.), Mr. Griffith, representing the applicant, relayed the following: With respect to the street option recommendation, and the church designation issues, relayed that the applicant had agreed to incorporation of these elements. Relayed that at this stage of the process, he would be reluctant to revise the Land Uses, noting that these elements have been carefully planned, advising that the 4,000-4500 square foot lots had been eliminated due to Commission concern; reiterated that the lot sizes denoted were minimums, noting that in the 8,000 square foot lot area, that the average lot size would be approximately 8,000 square feet. In response, Commissioner Mathewson noted that his concern was regarding Planning Area No. 24 (the potential sports park site). For Commissioner Mathewson, Mr. Griffith relayed that he was convinced that the City would go forward with the proposed sports park, noting that to accommodate the Commission's concern he would agree that for an alternative (if the sports park plan did not go forward) that Planning Area No. 24 could be revised to maintain a minimum lot size of 7200 square feet, reiterating that it was not his desire to revise Planning Area Nos. 21, and 23, providing additional information regarding the rationale for his reluctance. With respect to the church site designation, reiterated that the applicant would work with staff for an appropriate period of time for this designation. With respect to the Design Standards, specifically, regarding the recommendation for sideyard requirements, noted that he would be reluctant to agree to this element, relaying that the Design Standards are consistent from product category to product category. With respect to maximum lot coverage requirements, noted that it was the applicant's opinion that the critical variables are the setbacks which are internally consistent, relaying that he would not desire to agree to a lot coverage reduction without a clear understanding of the impact this element would have on other variables. With respect to the recommendation for narrower streets, relayed that the courtyard area would be a great opportunity for this element since the streets could be reduced further, noting that with respect to the neighborhood streets, the applicant would support the thirty-six foot (36') section that Commissioner Webster recommended. Advised that it was his opinion that this project package was well-defined, noting the new and modified criteria, recommending that the project go forward with the recommendations he has relayed. MOTION: (Ultimately the following motion died for lack of a second.) Commissioner Webster moved to dose the public hearing; and to approve staffs recommendation, adopting PC Resolution Nos. 2000-037, -038, -039, and -040 with the following modifications: Add- That the three added Community Services conditions be added to the Conditions of Approval (as per supplemental agenda material via a memorandum from the Community Services Department). That all of his previously mentioned recommendations (see pages 17-19 of the minutes) be incorporated into the project plan. That Commissioner Mathewson's recommendation for the product review to be conducted at the Planning Commission level be implemented. It was noted that this motion was not seconded and therefore died. In response to Commissioner Mathewson's queries, Commissioner Webster relayed his desire to include the Land Use revisions for Planning Area Nos. 21, 23, and 24 in the motion for approval, providing additional information regarding the rationale for his recommendation. Commissioner Telesio reiterated that the minimum lot sizes would not be the average lot sizes, noting that Commissioner Webster's Land Use recommendation may restrict the variability in the housing products, and may additionally discourage the development of one-story homes. Commissioner Webster was not in agreement that his recommended Land Use revisions would have an impact on the development of one-story homes. With respect to the one-story verses two-story dwelling units issues, Commissioner Mathewson noted that he, too, was of the opinion that the recommended lot coverage requirements would negatively impact the potential for one-story homes, although he shared Commissioner Webster's concerns, it was his desire to provide the flexibility in order to encourage the development of one-story dwellings, relaying that in his opinion the additional lot coverage issue could be addressed in the Design Guidelines. Commissioner Webster reiterated that the Development Code standard was basically a thirty-five percent (35%) maximum lot coverage, noting that he was opposed to some of the existing development in the City where there were houses filling the entire lot, located proximate to the neighboring houses (i.e., the Temeku Hills Development), relaying that in these developments the residents were unable to park their vehicles in their own driveway due to the housing unit filling the lot; and advised that his recommendation was to ensure that the general policy goal for design excellence on all developments be implemented, while still providing flexibility. 21 R:Pla nComm/min ut es/120600 Commissioner Telesio advised that by limiting the lot coverage, this standard would be encouraging the development of two-story homes. MOTION: (Ultimately the following motion was amended.) Commissioner Telesio moved to close the public hearing; and to approve staff's recommendation, adopting PC Resolution Nos. 2000-037, -038, -039, and -040 with the following modifications: Add- That the three added Community Services conditions are added to the Conditions of Approval (as per supplemental agenda material via a memorandum from the Community Services Department). That all of Commissioner Webster's previously mentioned recommendations (see pages 17-19 of the minutes) be incorporated into the project plan with the exception of the revisions to Planning Area Nos. 21, and 23. That Commissioner Mathewson's recommendation for the product review to be conducted at the Planning Commission level be implemented. Commissioner Webster seconded the motion. In response to Mr. Griffith's queries, Commissioner Telesio confirmed that the motion on the table was inclusive of the recommended revision in lot sizes in Planning Area No. 24 (to a minimum lot size of 7200 square feet) if the proposed sports park did not go forward, noting that Planning Area Nos. 21, and 23 would not be revised, additionally, noting that the lot coverage and the setbacks would not be revised. Commissioner Mathewson queried what the Commission's action should be with respect to the Development Agreement, which had not been finalized at this point in time. Commissioner Telesio relayed that the Development Agreement was still in the draft mode. Commissioner Mathewson noted that there were certain issues addressed in the Deal Points of the Development Agreement that he had strong opinions about, querying what action was expected by the Planning Commission with respect to this document. Commissioner Webster relayed that it was his opinion that the Planning Commission recommendation to the City Council should not be inclusive of the Development Agreement since the Planning Commission was not involved in the process, and due to the Development Agreement going before the City Council at a future point in time. Attorney Curley relayed that it was recommended that the Planning Commission provide comments in response to the Deal Points of the Development Agreement (as per the supplemental agenda material) in order to provide Planning Commission input to the City Council. For Commissioner Mathewson, Attorney Cudey relayed that the Development Agreement would be a consensual document, noting that if the document was agreed to, it would become a legal document; and advised that proposing the Deal Points as Conditions of Approval would be problematic. Commissioner Mathewson noted that he would support the Development Agreement as proposed to the Planning Commission, strongly encouraging that the habitat fee be included in the Deal Points, providing additional information regarding previou~ comments the Commission presented regarding the Deal Points. With respect to the Development Agreement, Chairman Guerriero noted that the applicant had expressed several concerns, as follows: 1) the applicant was not in favor of accelerating on Deer Hollow, and 2) with respect to the CFD, the applicant had expressed concerns. Commissioner Webster relayed that during the ensuing process, these points of disagreement would be worked out. Commissioner Telesio requested confirmation that the Planning Commission was not supporting all of the Deal Points in the Development Agreement. Chairman Guerriero, echoed by Commissioner Telesio, relayed that this document should be excluded in the Planning Commission recommendation due to the existing contention on certain points, and since it was still a work in process. Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that the Planning Commission to the City Council should relay a recommendation regarding the Development Agreement. Attorney Curley relayed that the numerous motions have become convoluted, advising that when there is a consensus to move forward with a motion, that the Planning Commission should provide clarification so that all parties had a clear idea of the Planning Commission's recommendation to the City Council, noting that it would be recommended that Commissioner Webster's recommendations be articulated in the final motion. Mr. Samuel Alhadeff, attorney for the applicant, specified his understanding of the motion. Attorney Curley relayed that as the Planning Commission discussed the motion it was clear that the specificities included in the motion needed to be clarified prior to the vote being taken. Commissioner Webster relayed that the motion was inclusive of all of his previous recommendations with the exception of revising the lot sizes for Planning Area Nos. 21, and 23. Commissioner Telesio relayed that the setback standards and lot coverage requirements were also excluded. Commissioner Webster noted that the setback standards and lot coverage requirements were not excluded from the motion, clarifying the motion that he had seconded. For clarification, Attorney Curley provided the following elements included in the motion that he had noted, requesting that the Commission add additional input if there were alternate conditions desired to have included in the recommendation to the City Council, listing the elements, as follows: That staff's recommendation be approved with the attached modifications. With respect to Condition No. 6a, and 6b, to delete the phrase iffeasib/e. With respect to Condition No. 17, to review conformance to S.B. 2095. With respect to the traffic and cumulative impacts, to ensure that the Deal Point in the Development Agreement was followed through regarding the maintaining of the Level of Service "D.' The Mitigation Monitoring Program would be augmented. With respect to the street option concerns, requested specificity regarding these particular associated recommendations. In response, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks relayed that the recommendation was to not have options, but to implement a thirty-six foot (36')standard. To incorporate the Land Use Map revisions to Planning Area No. 24; and That the three added conditions from TCSD be added (per supplemental agenda material). Commissioner Webster relayed that the following recommendations were also included in the motion: The recommendation that the split garage option would be removed from the Design Guidelines, The recommendation to incorporate garages, in lieu of carports, for the multi-family senior housing. The recommendation for the City to hire an architect for the review of the PDO, and The recommendation for the Product Review to be presented to the Planning Commission for review and approval. In response to Attorney Curley, Commissioner Webster confirmed that all of the above elements were included in the motion. Commissioner Webster relayed that the lot coverage requirements were also included in the motion. In response, Commissioner Telesio noted that this recommendation had been excluded. Commissioner Webster advised that the sole exclusions were regarding Planning Area Nos. 21, and 23; advised that if Commissioner Telesio desired to modify the motion in order to exclude the residential Design Standards, the motion could be amended. For Commissioner Telesio, Commissioner Webster noted that there was a differential between the recommendation of minimum lot sizes for planning areas, and the recommendations for revisions to residential development standards for planning areas, 24 R:Pla nComm/min ~tes/120600 clarifying that these were two separate recommendations, noting that if it was the desire to exclude these two recommendations, this exclusion would need to be denoted. The following discussion ensued regarding the Planning Commission recommendation to the City Council regardinq the Deal Points of the Development Aqreements: Cbmmissioner Mathewson noted that the Planning Commission recommendation had become convoluted, relaying that there appeared to be a consensus to approving the project plan with certain modifications; advised that he was concerned with respect to the recommendation regarding the Development Agreement; and queried the Commission for its desire with respect to recommending the Development Agreement in its conceptual form. Commissioner Telesio relayed that the Planning Commission was provided the Deal Points of the Development Agreement, and subsequently the Subcommittee's comments, noting that these comments had not been incorporated into the document. Commissioner Mathewson relayed that it was his opinion that it was expected that the Planning Commission would provide a recommendation regarding the Development Agreement in its conceptual form, noting that the Subcommittee comments were fairly straight forward, and that he was comfortable recommending approval with the attached comments. For clarification, Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that the Planning Commission had received the Deal Points of the Development Agreement in the agenda material, noting that the supplemental agenda material was inclusive of the same Deal Points with the Subcommittee's recommendations. Chairman Guerriero relayed that if the Planning Commission was to approve the conceptual form of the document, he could support that action, as long as the points could be rebutted with the City Council, noting that the developer was in disagreement with various Deal Points, advising that he was in agreement with the developer. Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that the developer would have an opportunity to relay his points of disagreement with the City Council. Commissioner Mathewson noted various Deal Points that the Planning Commission had commented on. For clarification, Attorney Curley relayed that the Deal Points of the Development Agreement were the core elements that would be placed in the final Development Agreement which would be a voluminous document, noting that the presented points were the planning elements that the Planning Commission needed to provide input on for the City Council's consideration; clarified that these points were more than mere concepts, noting that these points were the core elements that would be incorporated into the legal document; noted that the Planning Commission did not need to redraft the document, but to relay to the Council comments, clarifying that specific points could be recommended for removal. Commissioner Telesio relayed that he was not in agreement with the Subcommittee's comment regarding the multi-species issue, noting that he could support approval without this element, relaying that it was his desire for the applicant to have the opportunity to address this issue without the approval of the Planning Commission. Chairman Guerriero noted the applicant's disagreement with respect to permitted uses in Planning Area No. 12, relaying that he agreed with the developer. Commissioner Mathewson noted that with respect to the habitat issues, he was of the opinion that the plan should go forward. In response, Commissioner Telesio relayed that the applicant should have an opportunity to address the habitat issue without the weight of the approval of the Planning Commission. For clarification, Attorney Curley relayed that the Planning Commission could specify the points that were not suppoded, listing the elements of disagreement while approving the document in its entirety, in concept. Commissioner Mathewson relayed that there were differences of opinion within the Planning Commission. Mr. Alhadeff relayed that it was his opinion that the Development Agreement could be approved by the Planning Commission in concept and principle, relaying that the points of disagreement could be specified. Attorney Curley relayed that the Planning Commission has mentioned the following Deal Points as items of concern: the level of service, the habitat issue, and Planning Area No. 12; advised that if the previous three points were the sole elements to be addressed that the Planning Commission could provide input regarding these specific elements, subsequently approving the remainder of the document. The Planning Commission relayed the following specified recommendations regarding the following listed elements of the Development Agreement, recommending approval regarding the remainder of the document: With respect to including habitat issue in the Development Agreement, it was noted that Commissioner Telesio and Commissioner Mathewson were proponents of having this element included, while Commissioner Webster and Chairman Guerriero were opposed to the inclusion of this element. With respect to the area in Planning Area No. 12, the developer provided additional information, noting that this issue could be worked out and that the Planning Commission need not address this matter. With respect to the recommendation regarding the requirement that the LOS not go below LOS "D" during any phase of the project it was the consensus of the Planning Commission that this element should be included. (It was noted that Commissioner Chiniaeff was absent.) 26 R:Pla nComm/minutes/12C600 At this time the Planning Commission resumed to the previous discussions, addressing the motion for approval for the proiect, as follows: With respect to the motion, Commissioner Mathewson relayed that he could not support modifying the lot size coverage. AMENDED MOTION: (Ultimately the following motion died for lack of an amended second.) Commissioner Telesio moved to close the public hearing; and to approve staffs recommendation subject to the modifications clarified by Attorney Curley and subsequently by Commissioner Webster (see page 25 of the minutes in the bulleted comments of Attorney Curley and Commissioner Webster), noting that Commissioner Webster's recommendation regarding lot coverage standards would not be included. For Commissioner Webster, Commissioner Mathewson relayed that he could not support Commissioner Webster's proposed modification to the maximum lot coverage, or the sideyard setback requirements. For Commissioner Mathewson, Director of Planning Ubnoske provided additional information regarding the setback standards implemented in the Temeku Hills Development, which had been referenced at an earlier point in the meeting. Commissioner Telesio relayed that with Commissioner Webster's recommended sideyard setbacks the houses would be smaller and stacked. Commissioner Webster noted that he would not amend his second on the motion to include these exclusions. FINAL MOTION: (Ultimately this motion passed; see page 28)Commissioner Telesio moved to close the public hearing; to recommend approval of the presented Development Agreement with the exception of the specified comments relayed with regard to three of the Deal Points (denoted on page 25 of the minutes); and to approve staffs' recommendation, adopting PC Resolution Nos. 2000-037, -038, -039, and -040, subject to the following modifications: Add- That the three Community Service conditions (as per supplemental agenda material) be added into the Conditions of Approval. With respect to Condition No. 6a, and 6b (regarding the mitigation measures within the Specific Plan conditions) that the language if feasible be deleted. With respect to Condition No. 17 ( regarding the feasibility of a reclaimed water system within the Specific Plan conditions) that there be assurance that this condition was in accordance with S.B. 2095. That the Mitigation Monitoring Program be augmented to include the applicable portions of the General Plan EIR. With respect to the references in Condition Nos. 12, 12a, 31, and 75, that there be one option for narrower streets, specifically with a thirty-six foot (36') road right-of-way, with a parkway separating the sidewalk from the curb. That the City hire an architect consultant to review the PDO. 27 R:PlanComm/minut es/120600 That Planning Area No. 24 (the proposed regional park area) be revised to maintain a minimum lot size of 7200 square foot lots (if the proposed park plan does not go forward). That there be a church site designation in Planning Area 12 for a specified period of time (to be determined by staff and the applicant). That a tavern orbar use be added to the list of permitted uses in the commercial area (via a Conditional Use Permit). With respect to the garage options denoted in the exhibits, that the split garage option be deleted from the Design Guidelines. With respect to the Design Standards, regarding the option of multi-family senior housing in Planning Area No. 18, that garages be a requirement, in lieu of carpods. That the product review be forwarded to the Planning Commission for review and approval. Chairman Guerriero seconded the motion and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Commissioner Webster who voted no, and Commissioner Chiniaeff who was absent. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT Director of Planning Ubnoske queried whether the Planning Commission would support an additional workshop meeting on January 31, 2001, noting that dinner would be provided. In response, it was the general consensus of the Planning Commission to schedule an additional meeting on January 31, 2001. With respect to queries the Planning Commissioners have with respect to any projects, Director of Planning Ubnoske recommended that there be call to staff in advance of the meeting, relaying that concerns could be addressed without utilizing the audience time. With respect to the Joint Planning Commission/City Council Subcommittee meeting that was discussed, Director of Planning Ubnoske apologized that this meeting was never scheduled, relaying that it was an oversight on staff's part, noting that it was unfortunate that no individual called to remind her of the desire to hold this meeting, advising that the Planning Commissioners should feel free to call her regarding any issues of concern. COMMISSIONER REPORTS For Chairman Guerriero, Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that the upcoming workshop with the City Council was scheduled in order to address the Roripaugh Project, providing additional information. In response to Commissioner Webster, Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that there was a full agenda for the December 20, 2000 Planning Commission meeting. 28 R:PlanComm/minut es/120600 C. Commissioner Mathewson commented on the unresolved issues at the Cosco site with respect to signage and landscaping. In response, Direc{or of Planning Ubnoske relayed that she would provide an update at a future point in time. Chairman Guerriero noted that he had met with City Manager Nelson and Deputy City Manager Deputy City Manager Thornhill, relaying that he had requested that a list be compiled regarding the medians that had been targeted for landscaping, but had not yet been landscaped, requesting additional information regarding this matter. ADJOURNMENT At 10:14 P.M. Chairman Guerriero formally adjourned this meeting to Wednesday, December 20, 2000 at 6:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula. Ron C~ernero, Chairman Debbie Ubnoske, Director of Planning