Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout081000 DH MinutesMINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING DIRECTOR AUGUST 10, 2000 A regular meeting of the City of Temecula Planning Director was called to order on Thursday, August 10, 2000 at 1:30 PM, at the City of Temecula Main Conference Room, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. Senior Planner, Dave Hogan presiding. Also present were Associate Planner, Denice Thomas, Senior Engineer, Gerald Algeria, Bill Curley, Assistant City Attorney and Minute Clerk, Lesa Hoover. Senior Planner, Dave Hogan opened the public hearing for items not listed on the agenda at 1:40 P.M. There were no requests to speak. Planning Application No. PA99-0395 Request to Modify the Operational Statement Associate Planner, Denice Thomas presented the staff report for PA99-0395 Senior Planner, Dave Hogan opened the public hearing at 1:45 P.M. Nancy Davis, c/o Avalon Management 31608 Railroad Canyon Road, Canyon Lake representing the Rohripaugh Hills Homeowners Association. Ms. Davis is in opposition to the project. There is a concern with noise level that will be generated by additional older children outside at all times of the year especially by the neighboring homeowners association pool, the position of the wall around the facility and what type of wall will it be? There are also concerns regarding the drainage. Staff responded with the following: first, this is an approved use, not a conditional use permit, hours of operation with regard to the hours that the older children will be at the facility, and the drainage was reviewed by the Public Works department in the original Conditions of Approval, there would be wrought iron and solid block wall fencing. Jerry Algeria, Senior Engineer advised that a grading permit will be required for the project and part of the review process will include review of a hydrology study with regard to the drainage. Applicant, Paul Frahm, Childtime Childcare Inc., 38345 West Ten Mile Rd, Farmington Hills, MI 48335, advised that the operational statement originally included infants and children up to five years of age; the new operational statement includes after school care for children ages six through twelve. Outdoor play for the before/after school program would typically be between four and five PM. The applicant expects approximately 30 children to be involved in the before/after school program. Nancy Davis requested information on the plan for the children during vacation time in the before/after school program during vacation time. Noise is of great concern. Staff responded with information that the applicant provided and stated that noise levels could be as high as 75 dba from a distance of 35 ft. as compared to a noisy office or four air conditioning condensers running at the same distance. Senior Planner closed the public hearing at 1:55 P.M. Senior Planner, Dave Hogan approved PA99-0395 subject to the attached conditions of approval, with the understanding that after the facility is built and in use, staff will review it again. R:\DIRHEAR\MINUTES\20~O\08-104)0.minutes.doc Planning Application No. PA99-0175 ( Tentative Parcel Map to subdivide 53.41 acres into ten industrial lots and one open space lot) Associate Planner, Denice Thomas presented the staffreport for Planning Application No. 9943175 Senior Planner, Dave Hogan asked whether Quino Checkerspot Butterfly and California Gnatcatcher biological studies were performed for this year per the general biological assessment indication. The applicant provided a study during the hearing for the California Gnatcatcher and indicated that the project is out of the zone that requires a study for the Quino Checkerspot Butterfly. Dave Hogan asked staff whether there will be an Association to maintain the slope areas proposed to the west of the pads, or will they be the responsibility of the individual developers? Staffstated they will check conditions of approval. Bill Dendy, 50 Center City Associates concurred with the conditions of approval except for Item no. 55 on the conditions of approval dated 6/1/00. Mr. Dendy states that he would be required to purchase property off-site and to develop someone else' s property. Mr. Dendy had the same type of project in "City II" three years ago using the same language that he litigated with the City. He stated that this was the same type of thing word for word that was litigated in Mr. Dendy' s favor three years ago. At that time, the City Attorney and Mr. Dendy' s attorney decided that it was an illegal act to require Mr. Dendy to purchase property and improve it. Mr. Dendy then introduced Mr. Bragg, President of Kearney Properties that is currently in escrow with Mr. Dendy on this property. Denice Thomas responded to the Senior Planner Dave Hogan' s questions in regard to the slope maintenance. Condition No. 8 page 3 of the staff report states that the developer is required to landscape the slopes and provide erosion controls. Condition No. 18 states that the maintenance of all landscaped areas shall be the responsibility of the developer and goes on further to reference a POA. Dave Hogan requested information from Bill Curley, Asst. City Attorney to provide additional information in regard to Condition No. 55. Mr. Curley stated that Section 66462 is the subdivision improvement agreements that are typical to Temecula as they are in most cities. The City won' t hold up a final map until specified improvements need to be done. Section 66462.5 is the subdivision map act provision that says ifa developer is required to obtain off-site land and can' t through negotiation, they come back to the city and disclose that and the city has a period of time whether to condemn that land at the developer' s cost or to terminate that condition. The two sections have been in the map act for a long time. The specific application m this situation, Assistant City Attorney questioned the Senior Engineer what offsite property interests are we talking about? The connection of the access road, the improvement of the west half of Winchester Road between Dendy Parkway and Remington (approx. 600 ft). This is needed because there is no other paved access. Senior Planner Dave Hogan requested Mr. Dendy give a status of that section of Winchester Road. Mr. Dendy has acquired all of the right of way and improved the westerly half to satisfy the conditions of City II property 28657. This is tied to Phase II map of City II property. They will complete the phase II portion of Dendy Parkway as it comes up in front of of lots 7,8, and 9 and then it turns on Winchester and ties into Remington. Mr. Dendy has no qualms with that. Now they are being asked to improve someone else' s property all over again. Per Jerry Algeria, Senior Engineer PM 29162 is conditioned to improve the (north) half of Dendy Parkway adjacent to their parcel. It is the remaining unimproved half. Assistant City Attorney Bill Curley asked what the necessity of improving this half of the road through this map. Will this map create traffic demand? Senior Engineer, Jerry Algeria stated that there is no paved R:\DIRYlEAR\MINUTES\2000\08-10-00.minutes.doc 2 access to this parcel. The applicant would either have to improve a portion of this or a shorter distance between this and Remington. The half width that was referenced in front of Milgard, will that give access? Yes, and it' s paved. Bill Curley asked if we are asking them to pave the other half of it? No, per Jerry Algeria, we are asking them to pave the west half of Winchester Road between this point on Winchester Road and Remington Avenue. There is a conversation going on between Mr. Bill Curley, Assistant City Attorney, Mr. Jerry Algeria, Senior Engineer, Mr. Bill Dendy, Applicant and Mr. Max Harrison, Applicant concerning potential paving and the lack thereof along Dendy Parkway and the extension of Winchester Road. A break was taken off the record. Resumed the hearing at 2:34 PM. It was decided ihat this hearing would be continued until August 17, 2000 at 1:30 PM so that these reports and discrepancies could be addressed. Laura Miranda, Pechanga Band of Indians is concerned about preservation of the archaeological site Cal RIV 273 within the hearing parcel The Pechanga Band would like a change in the language of either Condition 12 or 13 or a new condition added to add this mitigation. They would like the terms" and sacred items as determined by the Pechanga Band" added to Condition 13. They also request that any human remains, any burial goods not to be transported to a laboratory at all. They request that any remains be returned to the Pechanga Indians immediately. Would like to strike the word" analysis." The tribe is opposed to any type of invasive analysis or destruction. Condition 12, the first sentence should be changed to read "per condition of approval of condition 13 and strike the rest of the paragraph. Inserted in condition 12 after first sentence paragraph 2 "such mitigation shall include a requirement that the developer/subdivider enter into a pre-excavation agreement with the Pechanga Band. This agreement wil include the following requirements: 1. all cultural items and Indian remains found within the project area shall be immediately relinquished to the Pechanga Band. No invasive analysis shall be performed on any sacred items. 2. All cultural items and Indian remains shall be treated in accordance with the religious beliefs and practices of the Pechanga band. 3. All grading and groundbreaking activities shall he monitored by representatives of the Pechanga Band who will be compensated by the developer. Benjamin Masicel, Pechanga, Pechanga Cultural Resources, 26811 Comell, Hemet, CA, is in concurrence with Pechanga legal representatives and had no further comments. Dave Hogan questioned Mr. Masiel on invasive analytical techniques on artifacts identified on the site. Are there any analytical techniques that are acceptable to you? Per Mr. Masiel, usually there is enough evidence found with the item that is not considered an artifact that can be broken down and tested, like charcoal. Charcoal is another means of getting the same information rather than destroying the human remains. John Gomez, Pechanga Cultural Resources, 30176 Pechanga Drive, Temecula, CA stated that they have worked out something with Mr. Dendy regarding the Phase III mitigation measures, and also oppose any invasive testing of any artifacts, human remains or sacred items and the determination for those items should be made by the Pechanga Band themselves and would like to retain the rights to ownership of the items that are uncovered during Phase III mitigation and during development of the project. This item will be continued to August 17, 2000. Mr. Hogan requested of the Applicant if he is comfortable with the changes that are proposed for Conditions 12and 13. Mr. Dendy has no opposition to R:\DIKHEAR\MINUTES\2000\08-104)0.minutes.doc 3 this if it is legal. Staff will make a copy and review the biological study of the Quino Checkerspot Butterfly for the meeting of August 17, 2000. Ms. Miranda and Mr. Curley will work out a redraft of the terms and conditions of the items 12 and 13 to include the language of the Pechanga Indian Band. This item will be continued to August 17, 200 at 1:30 PM. R:\DIRHEAR\MINUTESX2000\08-104}0.minutes.doc 4