The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About091492 PC Agenda AGENDA TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING September 14, 1992 6:00 PM VAIL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 29915 Mira Loma Drive Temecula, CA 92390 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Hoagland ROLL CALL: Blair, Fahey, Hoagland, Ford, Chiniaeff PUBLIC COMMENTS A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address the commissioners on items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Commissioners about an item not listed on the Agenda, a pink "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the Commission Secretary. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name and address. For all other agenda items a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the Planning Secretary before Commission gets to that item. There is a three (3) minute time limit for individual speakers. COMMISSION BUSINESS 1. Approval of Agenda Minutes 2. 2.1 Approval of minutes of August 17, 1992 Planning Commission meeting. PUBLIC HEARING 3. Case No: Applicant: Location: Proposal: Planner: Recommendation: Specific Plan I (Campes Verdes) Change of Zone 5617 Environmental Impact Report No. 348 Bedford Development Company Southeast corner of Winchester and Margarita Roads Specific Plan proposing 206 single family, 644 multi-family, 23.9 acres of commercial, and a 13.5 acre park on 132.9 acres. Accompanying the Specific Plan is a Zone Change from R-R (Rural Residential) and A-2-20 (Heavy Agriculture, 20 acre minimum lot size) to SP (Specific Plan) and three tentative maps. Debbie Ubnoske Continue to November 16, 1992 Cese No: Applicant: Location: Proposal: Planner: Recommendation: Case No: Applicant: Location: Proposal: Planner: Recommendation: 4. Case No.: Applicant: Location: Proposal: Planner: Recommendation: Specific Plan 263 (Temecula Regional Center) Change of Zone 5589 Environmental Impact Report No. 340 Bedford Development Company Southeast corner of Winchester Road and Ynez Road Specific Plan proposing a 1,375,000 square foot commercial core, 298,000 square feet of retail, and 810,000 square feet of office, institutional, and mixed use residential on 201.3 acres. Accompanying the Specific Plan is a Zone Change from R-R (Rural Residential) and A-2-20 (Heavy Agriculture, 20 acre minimum lot size) to SP (Specific Plan). Debbie Ubnoske Continue to November 16, 1992 Specific Plan 255 (Wanchester Hills) Environmental Impact Report No. 324 Change of Zone 5532 Bedford Development Company East side of Interstate 15, north of Winchester Road Specific Plan proposing 1092 single family, 532 multi-family, 15.6 acres of commercial, 11.4 acres of commercial/office, 120.1 acres of business park, an 11.2 acre school site, and two neighborhood parks consisting of 16.8 acres and 6.1 acres. Accompanying the Specific Plan is a Zone Change from R-R (Rural Residential) and I-P (Industrial Park) to SP (Specific Plan) and five tentative maps. Debbie Ubnoske Continue to November 16, 1992 Tentative Parcel Map 25213 Vesting Tentative Tract Map 25214 Vesting Tentative Tract Map 25215 Bedford Development Company Southeast corner of Winchester and Margarita Roads Tentative Parcel Map 25213 proposes the subdivision of 166.3 acres into 12 parcels and.one remainder parcel in conformance to the land use plan for Specific Plan No. 1. Vesting Tentative Tract 25214 proposes the subdivision of 27.7 acres within Specific Plan No. I into 139 residential lots. Vesting Tentative Tract 25215 proposes the subdivision of 21.5 acres within Specific Plan No. I into 65 residential lots. Debbie Ubnoske Continue to November 16, 1992 ~G'd=LANCOMIAg-14,PC Revised September 9, 199:) vgw 2 5. Case No.: Applicant: Location: Proposal: Planner: Recommendation: Vesting Vesting Vesting Vesting Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 25321 Tentative Tract Map 25322 Tentative Tract Map 25323 Tentative Tract Map 24324 Tentative Parcel Map 25464 Bedford Development Company East of I-15, north of Winchester Road Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 25321 proposes the subdivision of 130 acres within Specific Plan No. 255 into 50 commercial/industrial parcels. Vesting Tentative Tract 25322 proposes the subdivision of 91.5 acres within Specific Plan No. 255 into 402 residential lots. Vesting Tentative Tract 25323 proposed the subdivision of 152 acres within Specific Plan No. 255 into 437 residential lots, 1 school site and 1 park. Vesting Tentative Tract 25324 proposes the subdivision of 165.5 acres within Specific Plan No. 255 into 458 residential lots, 7 multi- family residential lots and I park. Vesting Tentative Parcel Mal3 25464 proposes the subdivision of 27 acres within Specific Plan No. 255 into 9 commercial/office parcels Dabble Ubnoske Continue to November 16, 1992 Next meeting: September 21, 1992, 6:00 p.m., Vail Elementary School, 29915 Mira Loma Drive, Temecula, California. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION OTHER BUSINESS ADJOURNMENT ITEM #2 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, AUGUST 17, 1992 A regular meeting of the City of Temecula Planning Commission was called to order Monday, August 17, 1992, 6:00 P.M., Vail Elementary School, 29915 Mira Loma Drive, Temecula, California, Chairman John E. Hoagland presiding. PRESENT: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Chiniaeff, Fahey, Ford, Hoagland ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None Also present were Assistant City Attorney John Cavanaugh, Planning Director Gary Thornhill, Senior Planner Debbie Ubnoske and Minute Clerk Gall Zigier. PUBLIC COMMENT None COMMISSION BUSINESS 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Chairman Hoagland requested Item No. 6 be taken as the first item of business after approval of the agenda. It was moved by Commissioner Blair, seconded by Commissioner Fahey to approve the agenda with Item No. 6 as the next order of business. The motion was unanimously carried. NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEM PlanninQ Commission Chairman and Vice Chairman Election Commissioner Ford nominated Dennis Chiniaeff as Chairman. Commissioner Blair nominated Linda Fahey as Chairman. Commissioner Chiniaeff withdrew his name from nomination and Commissioner Fahey's nomination as Chairman was unanimously approved as follows: PCMINB/17/92 -1 - 919192 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: AUGUST 17, 1992 Blair, Chiniaeff, Ford, Hoagland, Fahey None Commissioner Chiniaeff nominated Steve Ford as Vice Chairman. Commissioner Hoagland nominated Billie Blair as Vice Chairman. The nomination of Billie Blair as Vice Chairman was approved as follows: AYES: 3 NOES: 2 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Hoagland COMMISSIONERS: Chiniaeff, Ford Commissioner Hoagland turned the gavel over to Chairman Fahey who presided over the remainder of the meeting. MinUtes 2.1 It was moved by Commissioner Hoagland, seconded by Commissioner Ford, to approve the minutes of August 3, 1992 as mailed. The motion carried as PCMIN6/17/92 2.2 2.3 follows: AYES: 3 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey, Ford, Hoagland NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSTAIN: 2 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Chiniaeff It was moved by Commissioner Chiniaeff, seconded by Commissioner Blair to approve the minutes of July 20, 1992 as mailed. The motion carried as follows: AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Chiniaeff, Ford, Hoagland NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSTAIN: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey it was moved by Commissioner Blair~ seconded by Commissioner Hoagland to approve the minutes of July 6, 1992 as mailed. The motion carried as follows: AYES: 3 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Hoagland NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None 919192 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ABSTAIN: 2 COMMISSIONERS: PUBLIC HEARING Chiniaeff, Ford AUGUST 17, 1992 Variance No. 12 Proposal to erect two freestanding signs-one six foot high sign adjacent to Jefferson Avenue and one twenty-five foot high sign adjacent to Interstate 15 with copy for the Hungry Hunter and Jan Weilert R.V. on each sign. Matthew Fagan presented the staff report. Chairman Fahey opened the public hearing at 6:10 P.M. Larry Bradley, Sign Tech Electrical Advertising, representing the applicant, concurred with the staff report. It was moved by Commissioner Chiniaeff, seconded by Commissioner Blair to close the public hearing at 6:10 P.M. and adopt Resolution No. 92-(next) approving Variance No. 12 based on the analysis and findings contained in the staff report and subject to the Conditions of Approval. The motion was unanimously approved as follows: AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Chiniaeff, Ford, Hoagland, Fahey NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None Tentative Tract Map No. 25277 and Change of Zone No. 5724 Proposal is a request to subdivide a 47.7 acre parcel into 96 single family lots and 5 open space lots and a zone change from R-R to R-1. Saied Naaseh advised that the item has been rescheduled to the meeting of September 21, 1992. It was moved by Commissioner Chiniaeff, seconded by Commissioner Hoagland to continue Tentative Tract Map No, 25277 and Change of Zone No. 5724 to the meeting of September 21, 1992. The motion was unanimously approved. 5. Develooment Agreement No. 92-1 (DA 92-1), Chanoe of Zone No. 21 and Tentative PCMINB/17/92 -3- 9/9192 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 17, 1992 Parcel MaD No. 27314. Amendment No. 2 Proposal is a request to subdivide a 96.9 acre parcel into 4 parcels and a 48.4 acre remainder parcel, A Development Agreement to ensure the development of the project as senior housing, congregate care facility, skilled nursing, personal care, a nine hole private golf course and dedication of a 2.3 net acre parcel to the City of Temecula, and a Zone Change from R-R (Rural Residential) to R-3 (General Residential). Commissioner Blair stepped down due to a conflict of interest. Saied Naaseh presented the staff report. Roger D. Prend of Albert A. Webb Associates, 3788 McCray Street, Riverside, architect representing the applicant, stated that they are in concurrence with the staff report, however, commented on the severity of the five (5) year time limit and suggested some additional language allowing the Planning Commission or the City Council to use their judgement based on the amount of financial contribution or improvement to the property instead of a five year limit, in the event of financial difficulties. Mr. Prend added that the idea behind the development is to have a zone change and a conceptual site plan/parcel map to allow a developer to come in and finance a project and the development agreement is the guarantee for the right to do the development as it is being proposed. Commissioner Ford questioned whether the golf course is proposed to be public or private. Roger D. Prend stated that although it is proposed as private, the applicant would like not to restrict it at this time and give the developer that option. Chairman Fahey opened the public hearing at 6:30 P.M. John Telesio, 31760 Via Telesio, Temecula, stated that he is in support of the project, however requested clarification of the following: what is the meaning of senior housing, and that the school portion will remain zoned R-R. Mr. Telesio also expressed concern that the senior housing portion of this development is proposed adjacent to the high school which might present a problem due to noise and lighting from football and other school oriented events. Bob Pipher, 41825 Green Tree Road, Temecula, expressed his concern that the area remain zoned R-R. Bob Kosslyn, representing Temecula Valley Unified School District, also expressed a reservation with the proposed senior project adjacent to the high school which may generate noise and light pollution during school events. Mr. Kosslyn requested that a disclaimer be presented in any purchase or rental agreement. PCMINBI17~92 -4- 919192 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 17.1992 Commissioner Ford expressed the following concerns: Is there adequate parking for a public golf course? A reciprocal access agreement is in place until the future plans for the school are completed. What is the definition of a completed golf course as referenced in the development agreement? Commissioner Ford expressed these concerns regarding the development agreement: Page 18, 16.1 The number of units proposed in the development agreement is not concurrent with that stated in the market report, clarify the request. * Page 22, 18(E) Correct to read Pauba and Rancho Vista Road. Page 23, 19(C) States that the grading must all be at one time and asked if the developer been conditioned for immediate adherence to an erosion control condition. Page 24, 21 (A) Suggest that instead of "developer" should read "owner" or "successor". Page 26, (31) Request staff to clarify the reference to specimen trees. * Page 26, (36) should read "entrance gates". Page 26, (42) should include a requirement for clearances from the Army Corp of Engineers, Fish and Game, and Fish and Wildlife. Page 29, review and clarification of access points. Commissioner Chiniaeff stated that conceptually the project appears to be good for the community, however, he felt that the Commission was being asked to make environmental findings that the Commission is not able to make regarding the following matters: grading impacts and erosion control number of units planned public vs. private golf course traffic impacts impacts of dividing parcel 2 whose property line is on the lake traffic impacts impact of the stadium adjacent to the project and the proposed mitigation a general plan presumption that this area will be zoned high density Commissioner Chiniaeff also expressed these concerns regarding the development agreement: PCMINa/17/92 -5- 91gl92 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 1 ?, 1992 * requested clarification of Page 3, M-2 and M-3. reference to the potential for amendment and interpretations; suggest outlining what cannot be amended. * makes reference to maximum building heights and sizes of proposed buildings, however, the Commission has not been provided that information. Commissioner Chiniaeff concluded that he feels that the request was premature based on the information provided to the Commission to make a recommendation. Commissioner Hoagland stated that he concurred that the project appeared good conceptually, however, this is a major development and requires a major development review. Commissioner Hoagland expressed concern regarding the following: * what the impacts to the project and the surrounding residents would be if the school relocates the gym and other facilities as stated. * buffering of the school and the project with respect to noise, lighting, etc. It was moved by Commissioner Hoagland, seconded by Commissioner Chiniaeff to continue off-calendar, Development Agreement No. 92-1 (DA 92-1 ), Change of Zone No. 21 and Tentative Parcel Map No. 27314, Amendment No. 2 to allow the developer to work with staff on some of the specific items discussed. Commissioner Ford added that the specifications of the senior center should be included in the development agreement. The motion was unanimously approved as follows: AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Chiniaeff, Ford, Hoagland, Fahey NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None PLANNING DIRECTOR REPORT Gary Thornhill reported the following: Final technical sub-committee meeting scheduled for Tuesday, August 18th, on Growth Management. Also planning a Town Hall meeting for August 27th and a joint City Council/Planning Commission meeting for September 3rd. Anticipate going to public hearing with the General Plan the third week of October. * Temporary Sign Ordinance will come back to the Commission in three weeks. Staff has been authorized to enforce removal of signs in public right-of-way and PCMINa/17/92 -6- 919192 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 17, 1992 vehicle mounted signs. PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT None OTHER BUSINESS None ADJOURNMENT The next regular meeting of the City of Temecula Planning Commission will be held on Monday, September 14, 1992, 6:00 P.M., Vail Elementary School, 29915 Mira Loma Drive, Temecula. Chairman Linda Fahey Secretary PCMIN8/17/92 -7- 919192 ITEM #3 STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION September 14, 1992 Case No.: Environmental Impact Report No. 324, Change of Zone No. 5532, Specific Plan No. 255, Environmental impact Report No. 340, Change of Zone No. 5589, Specific Plan No. 263, Environmental Impact Report No. 348, Change of Zone No, 5617 and Specific Ran No. 1 Prepared By: Pebble Ubnoske, Senior Planner RECOMMENDATION: CONTINUE Environmental Impact Report No. 324, Change of Zone No. 5532 and Specific Plan No. 255 to November 16, 1992; CONTINUE Environmental Impact Report No. 340, Change of Zone No. 5589 and Specific Plan No. 263 to November 16, 1992; CONTINUE Environmental Impact Report No. 348, Change of Zone No. 5617 and Specific Plan No. 1 to November 16, 1992. APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: Bedford Properties, Mesa Homes and Kemper REPRESENTATIVE: T & B Planning Consultants PROPOSAL: Specific Plan No. 255 is a proposed mixed use development on 569 acres and consists of Single Family Residential, Multi-Family Residential, Business Park, Commercial, Commercial-Office, School Site and Parks. Specific Plan No. 263 is a proposed Regional Center on 201 acres and consists of Regional Commercial, Office Commercial and Retail. Specific Plan No. I is a proposed Mixed Use Development on 133 acres and consists of Single Family Residential, Multi-Family Residential, Commercial, Office/Commercial and a Park/Retention basin. LOCATION The projects are located east of Interstate 15 (I-15) along Winchester Road, Specific Plan No. 255 (Winchester Hills) is adjacent to Interstate 15 north of Santa Gertrudis Creek. Specific Plan No. 263 (Regional Center) is south of Winchester Road between Margarita and Ynez Roads. Specific Plan No. 1 (Campos Vetdes) is at the northeast corner of Margarita and Winchester Roads. ZONING AND SWAP DESIGNATIONS Existina Southwest Area Plan Desianations The City of Temecula does not have an adopted General Plan. Currently, the City is utilizing Riverside County's Southwest Area Plan (SWAP) as a policy guide. The SWAP was approved by Riverside County in November, 1989. According to the SWAP Growth Management Concept, all three specific plans are located within an urban area. More specifically, the Winchester Hills site is designated with the following uses as depicted on the Southwest Area Community Plan Allocation Map: Light Industrial (LI); 2-5 du/ac Residential; 5-8 du/ac Residential; and 8-16 du/ac Residential. The entire Ternecula Regional Center site is designated on the Southwest Area Community Plan Allocation Map as Commercial (C), The Campos Verdes site is designated as Commercial (C); Office-Commercial {CO); 2-5 du/ac Residential; and 8-16 du/ac Residential. Surroundino Southwest Area Plan Desionations The land to the northwest of the Winchester Hills Specific Plan, bordered by I-15 on the west and the Warm Springs Specific Plan on the east, is designated on the Southwest Area Community Plan Allocation Map as Restricted Light Industrial (RLI). Further north, this vacant area is recommended for designation for residential development at a density of 5-8 du/acre. The area immediately south of the Winchester Hills Specific Plan site, between Ynez Road and Margarita Road, and north of Winchester Road, is designated for Commercial (C) use by the SWAP. The SWAP designates the land between the Winchester Hills Specific Plan site, I-15, and the "C" use as "LI" and 2-5 du/ac Residential. The property located between the Temecula Regional Center site and I-15 is shown on the Allocation Map as "C" and "RLI". South of this site, the land is designated as "C" and 8-16 dulac Residential. SWAP allocates residential uses to the surrounding land which lies to the south and southeast of the Carnpos Verdes site: 2-4 du/ac Residential; 2-5 du/ac Residential; and 1/2-acre minimum. Existincl Zonina The eastern portion of the Winchester Hills property is currently zoned for Rural-Residential (R-R) use and the western portion for Industrial Park (I-P) use. The existing zoning for the Temecula Regional Center is Rural Residential (R-R) for the northern two-thirds of the project and Heavy Agriculture (A-2-20) for the southern portion. Likewise, the existing zoning for Campos Verdes is R-R for the northern portion and Heavy Agriculture (A-2-20) for the southern portion. Surroundinq Zonina All three projects are located in an area which supports many approved Specific Plans. Immediately north of Winchester Hills is the Warm Springs Specific Plan (SP No. 220). The 475 acre Warm Springs Specific Plan, which is located generally south of Murrieta Hot Springs Road and west of Winchester Road, has been approved for construction of 1,886 dwelling units, as well as 20 acres of retail and neighborhood commercial uses, an elementary school site, a middle school site, and 15 acres of parkland. Other approved Specific Plans in the vicinity include the 205 acre Roripaugh Estates Specific Plan (SP No. 164), located east of Route 79, near Nicolas Road, and the 1,108 acre Winchester Properties Specific Plan (SP No. 213), located north of Roripaugh Estates and east of Winchester Road. Roripaugh Estates has been approved for the construction of 710 dwellings and 73 acres of industrial uses, located adjacent to Nicolas Road. Some construction has already occurred within Specific Plan No. 164. The Winchester Properties Specific Plan is approved for the construction of 2,478 residential units and 28 acres of industrial/commercial uses. To the northwest of Winchester Hills is a large vacant area zoned R-R. This area is bordered by 1-15 on the west and the Warm Springs Specific Plan on the east. The area immediately south of the Winchester Hills Specific Plan site, east of Ynez Road is designated as M-SC (Manufacturing-Service Commercial). The land located south of this zone and north of Winchester Road is currently vacant and is zoned C-P-S, The property located south of Winchester Road, between I~15 and Ynez Road, is zoned Scenic Highway Commercial (C-P~S) and, further to the south, Medium-Manufacturing (M-M). The parcel located at the northeast corner of the intersection of Solann Way and Ynez Road is designated as C-1/C-P (General Commercial). The land located directly adjacent to the borders of the Ternecula Regional Center to the northeast, east and south is R-R and A-2~20. ProPosed Zonina The proposed zoning for all three projects (i.e., Winchester Hills, Temecula Regional Center and Carnpos Vetdes) is Specific Plan (SP) Zone. Existinn Land Use The Winchester Hills Specific Plan project site is generally comprised of sloping terrain with 11.5% of the site containing isolated areas of slopes in excess of 25%. The entire site is devoid of structures and is covered by introduced grassland vegetation. There is limited and disturbed ripefinn habitat along the eastern project boundary. The majority of the topography in the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan project site is generally less than 10% in gradient with moderate slopes (10-25%) situated along the southeastern property boundary. The project site has most recently been used for dry land farming; formerly the land was used as pasture. The Carnpos Vetdes Specific Plan project site is characterized by low rolling hills and associated southwest-trending drainages with a maximum relief of about 1 O0 feet. Like the Ternecula Regional Center property which it adjoins, the Campos Vetdes project site has also been used for dry land farming and previously as pasture. There is a temporary senior center located on the Carnpos Vetdes project site, This facility will be relocated when the project develops. Surroundina Land Use As previously mentioned, the project sites are located in an area which contains several adopted Specific Plans. North of Winchester Hills is the Warm Springs Specific Plan (SP No. 220). South of the Winchester Hills project site, along the north side of Winchester Road is the planned Winchester Meadows Business Park. The Winchester Highlands Business Park and Koll Rancho California are office developments planned and partially constructed adjacent to Winchester Hills on Ynez Road. The Roripaugh Estates Specific Plan (SP No. 164) lies directly adjacent to the northeastern portion of Campos Verdes, south of Winchester Road. Much of the land surrounding the three project sites is either developed, under construction, or in the process of being planned for construction. The three project sites are basically surrounded by existing development and are in essence "in-fill" projects. There are already several shopping centers existing in the vicinity of Winchester Road. A small shopping plaza containing a Carl's Jr. is located on the north side of Winchester Road at I-15. To the north and northeast is a Gold's Athletic Club and library and community facilities. COSTCO is located further to the east on Winchester Road; a Pep Boys store is planned just to the west of this facility. Palm Plaza which is located west of the Temecula Regional Center is a large existing retail center containing a Mervyn's, multi-plex cinema, and other support retail uses. PROJECT STATISTICS A. WINCHESTER HILLS The Winchester Hills Specific Plan proposes a total of 1,948 dwelling units on 339.6 acres throughout the site as follows: Sinale Family Residential Uses: The project will include 7,200 sq. ft. lots on 54.9 acres (Planning Area 12); 6,000 sq. ft. lots on 91.6 acres (Planning Areas 2 & 13); 5,000 sq. ft. lots on 92.3 acres (Planning Areas 3 & 9); and 4,500 sq. ft. lots are proposed on 29.5 acres (Planning Area 5). Mobilehome Park Uses: 318 units on 39.7 acres are planned (Planning Area 14). Multi-Family Residential: 538 units on 31.6 acres are proposed in Planning Areas 1 &4. Business Park Uses: 120.1 acres located in Planning Areas 15 & 16. Office-Commercial Uses: 11.4 acres (Planning Area 7). Neiclhborhood Commercial Uses: 15.6 acres (Planning Area 8). School Site: An elementary school will be constructed in Planning Area 11 on 11.2 acres. The school may share facilities with the park in Planning Area 10. Park Uses: A 7.2-acre neighborhood park site and an 18.6-acre park site will be Park Uses: A 7.2-acre neighborhood park site and an 18,6-acre park site will be constructed in Winchester Hills in Planning Areas 6 & 10, respectively. Greenbelt/Paseos, Roadway Paseos & Slopes: Approximately 23.8 acres of the project site will be retained as greenbelt/paseos, roadway paseos and slopes. The paseos will generally follow drainage courses and, in many cases, will continue to function in a drainage capacity. They will link the various neighborhoods to each other and to major destination points (e.g., schools, recreational facilities, etc.) Roads: The project will implement major roadways totalling 21.9 acres B. TEMECULA REGIONAL CENTER The Temecula Regional Center is envisioned as a high quality, commercially-oriented mixed use center, offering the convenience of retail, office, institutional, mixed use residential and hotel uses. The project will be identified and unified through design elements such as architecture, signage, landscaping, color, walls and fencing, and entry treatments consistent with themes already established in the area. Variability of design will be allowed so that individual development areas will be identifiable and compatible with the overall project while being able to establish their own individual design character. The land uses within the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan include: Retail Commercial Core: 1,375,000 square feet of gross leasable floor area, The project applicant anticipates developing either a "Regional Mall" or a "Power Center" as a main component on the site. Retail: Detached clusters of retail uses will comprise approximately 298,000 square feet of gross leasable floor area on several parcels located throughout the entire site. Office/Institutional/Mixed Use Residential: Office and institutional use will consist of approximately 810,000 square feet of gross leasable floor area, Institutional uses envisioned may included quasi-public agencies, local, state or federal offices (i,e., postal service, economic development, social services, museum, library, etc,). Residential uses will be limited to specific planning areas and will be implemented as either multi-family residential or residential flats over office or commercial uses. Hotels: Two hotels with a total of 375 rooms and possible conference facilities are planned. Roads: The project will implement 26°0 acres of roads that will adequately serve traffic volumes for both the site and the region. On-site traffic will be handled by a hierarchiel roadway system consisting of Urban Arterial, Arterial, Major, Secondary, Collector and Local Roadways. An internal loop street will connect interior traffic to higher traffic carrying Major and Arterial Roadways. C. CAMPOS VERDES The land uses within the Campos Verdes Specific Plan will include: Medium Low Residential: Approximately 65 dwelling units will be developed on 21 acres at a density of 3.0 du/ac. The single family detached homes will be located adjacent to the off-site residential uses. Medium Residential: There will be approximately 141 units planned at a density of 5.2 du/ac on 27.1 acres. This project type will help provide a transition from the lower density to higher density products on-site. Multi-Family Residential: This product type, developed at a density of 17.0 du/ac will be located along Margarita Road between North General Kearny Road and Campos Verdes Lane. These units will serve as a transition between the commercial and single family land uses. A total of 644 units on 37.9 acres are planned on these parcels. Commercial and Commercial/Office: Planning Area 4 will be developed as 13.5 acres of commercial property along Margarita and Winchester Roads. Planning Area 2, located next to the park/detention basin along North General Kearny Road, will be developed with commercial/office uses on 10.4 acres, Park/Detention Basin: A 13.5-acre park/detention basin is planned along North General Kearny Road. It is anticipated that this park will contain softball/soccer fields, on-site parking, tot lots, picnic areas, etc. The park will serve the purpose of not only providing a much needed park to the community, but it also will serve as a detention basin. This basin will help protect adjacent land uses during a lO0-year storm with minimum disruption to park facilities. Roads: The project will implement major roadways totalling 9.5 acres. ANALYSIS A workshop for the Planning Commission was held May 4, 1992. At the workshop the Planning Commission indicated they had concerns with the following items: CONCERN Agreement between the City of Murrieta and the County of Riverside as to the extension of both Date Street and Margarita Road to Murrieta Hot Springs Road. Dumping of traffic into dead end roads if future projects are not built. Extension of North General Kearny Road to Nicolas Road. Effect of the additional 90 acres of Regional Center on the overall economic/commercial balance for the City, and approving this large amount of commercial land without knowing the proposed uses. Timing and phasing of the proposed development. RESPONSE The City and the Developer have been meeting with both the City of Murrieta and the County of Riverside to discuss the impacts of these projects on the regions road system. The applicants Traffic Engineer is completing a Traffic Study using the modeling proposed in these joint meetings so the percent of impact from the projects can be determined and appropriate mitigations can be applied that all interested parties are in concurrence with. The applicant's traffic engineer is completing the new studies which will include timing requirements and the amount of building that can occur without completion of off-site roads. The developer's traffic engineer will be developing information on the effect of not providing the extension. The traffic consultants for the City believe that the extension will improve the circulation pattern for the City. Staff has requested information from the General Plan Economic Development Consultant on this matter. Also, the Commission and City Council will need to determine if the land uses proposed are the most appropriate for the site. This is the same function the Commission and Council will be performing during the General Plan process, City staff and the applicant are working with the applicant to provide information regarding phasing of backbone infrastructure. When the additional traffic and drainage analysis are completed and received more phasing information will be available. Ray, Se~tefnber 9, 1992 CONCERN Design of the Regional Center and the proposed WaFMart. NAP areas within the Winchester Hills project, Designs for the Regional Center (Specific Plan No. 263), especially the large parking areas along streets and the appearance of large boxy buildings. Park in the proposed detention basin within the Campos Verdes project. Proposed drainage plans and patterns for the project. RESPONSE The WaI-Mart project has been put on hold for now and the design guidelines and development standards adopted for the Specific Plan should provide for controlled development of the area. The NAP areas will be provided with appropriate access and the developer will submit conceptual designs for the NAP within the residential area to show how these areas can be developed to be compatible with the proposed Specific Plan. City staff has worked with the applicant on the design issues. The Design Guidelines and Standards contain provisions to provide for siting and design that will address some of the Commissions concerns. Staff is also concerned with the development of this highly visible site as a window or gateway to the City. Staff has worked with the developer on this park concept for some time now and staff is supportive of the combined use of the detention basin. Staff is · recommending that the developer only be given partial credit for the proposed park and will need to provide an additional six to seven acres of parkland to fulfill the Quimby requirement for the project. The TCSD staff and the applicant are still holding discussions on how to provide the additional acreage, either within the project or through fees. Staff also shares similar concerns about the proposed drainage and the analysis used to develop the proposed plan. The Developer agrees with the need to address these concerns and has assigned a point engineer to work directly with City Staff on the drainage analysis and proposed plans. Rev. Se~tetnber 9, 1992 CONCERN RESPONSE Need to provide a suitable buffer between the Campoe Verde Project and the Meadowview Development to the east. Staff raised this concern and recommended that an open space buffer a minimum of forty (40) feet in width be provided along the east boundary. The buffer is to include an equestrian trail, The applicant agrees that a transition zone needs to be provided and is investigating incorporating staff's request into the Specific Plan. The developer is also working with staff to address other concerns raised by the Planning Commission and staff including inconsistencies between the projects and the current proposed Draft General Plan. In addition, both the City of Temecula and the City of Murrieta have joined in an agreement to have a consultant investigate the feasibility of an interchange for I-15 at Date Street. A draft report from the consultant was presented on September 2, 1992 which indicated that the interchange may be feasible. Staff is currently investigating how this will impact the current projects, particularly with respect to Specific Plan No. 255 (Winchester Hills). Finally, staff has received letters from concerned citizens in regards to the projects, specifically the Campoe Verdes project. These letters mainly address the concerns of providing a buffer to the rural residential properties to the east, the increased density including multiple family and the mass grading of the site changing the existing rolling hill topography. The letters have been attached as part of the staff report. SUMMARY These projects were scheduled for Public Hearing with the anticipation that all the necessary information and studies would be completed and a full staff report with all the documentation would be available for the Planning Commission. Because of the complexity of these projects and the analysis which needed to be completed, all the information is not available for consideration at this time. The developer, along with City staff, has been working diligently to address the issues, but has not been able to complete all the analysis and reviews necessary for a public hearing determination. The developer and staff have met on many occasions to discuss the issues for the project and have made substantial progress on addressing the concerns raised. Staff is recommending that the cases be continued for further consideration. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: CONTINUE Environmental Impact Report No. 324, Change of Zone No. 5532 and Specific Plan No. 255 to November 16, 1992; CONTINUE Environmental Impact Report No. 340, Change of Zone No. 5589 and Specific Plan No. 263 to November 16, 1992; CONTINUE Environmental Impact Report No. 348, Change of Zone No. 5617 and Specific Plan No. 1 to November 16, 1992. Attachments: Letter from Lorenz Alhadeff and Oggel, dated September 9, 1992 - blue page 11 Letter from Mr. and Mrs. Southward, dated August 25, 1992 - blue page 12 Letter from Mr. Benson, dated September 1, 1992 - blue page 13 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 LETTER FROM LORENZ ALHADEFF AND OGGEL, DATED SEPTEMBER 9, 1992 S\STAFFRPT\ISP.PC Idb Rev, September 9, 1992 11 LORENZ A September 8, 1992 6961.1026 VIA T~LEFAX (~4)e~-lP~e Mr. Gary Thornh~ll pl~n-~ ng Dj=ector City of Temecula 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 Re: Bedfor~ Entitlements As you how, representatives of Kernper Real Estate Management Company (Kernper) met wi~h various City Staff members on AUnt 24, August 25, a~d August 26, to ~/souss the ~hvee Urban Core Projects. As a result of those meetings we obtained w~itten comments from the Staff concerning the projects. We received final comm~ts from the Department of Public Works on AUgtuft 31, concerning Specific Plan 263 (The Regional Canter) and agai~ on September 3, from the Department of Public Works concerning Joint Transportation Committees comments on the Date Street Intercha/~ge. In a September 3, memo, ~r. Righett~ asked that draft recommendations from the Joint Transpartation Committee meeting be discussed within uur Specific Plan Documents end on Tentative Maps. In addition to receiving written eommen~s on all three projects, Ve a/so received both oral and written comments concerning issues the City would like to ~iscuss with Kernper in exchange for ~jLSCU~SlSng and perhaps agesing to Development Agreements. ~ou also advised Batty Burnell and I last Tuesday you were anticipating hearing from the State hopefully by Friday, September 4, as to whether the City could have a -Exemp=ion" from the recent OPR Directire to allow for ~evelopment Agreements on these projects. Bare you receivea an answer to you= incl~i~'~ as of t~y? Finally, F~.~e= is also in the process of p~eparing the necessary models and studies for compliance with the requirements of the RCTC conce~n~-g a Congestion Management Plan. As you mey know, the challenge of preparing such model for the RCTC is that it ie the first t~me a~y applicant bac gone ~h~ough eh~s process and certain studies that are suppose to be utilized in the model have not yet been completed by the appropriated governing agencies. Bob D~vis is doing his best to complete ~h{s study in an exped/ted fashion. It appears that while City Staff and Kernper Consultants have worked ver~ closely on all of ~hese projects it would be inappropriate to go before a Pl~-~tng C~esion hearing on September 14, 1992. There are certain issues which need to be finalized by Kernper a~a reviews which need to be done by City Staff. When those issues have been finalized and appropriate reviews accomplished, S~aff will be ~. a position to prepare its final report with conditions. Then a session before the pla-ning Commission would ha meaningful and result in an orderly processing of these projects. Therefore, we asked Ba~y Burns11 to discuss with you the issue of whether the hearir~ now scheduled for September 14 could be taken off calendar or continued until a mutually convenient date, hopefully within the first two weeks of November. I wanted to let you know we are supportive of Staff in approaching the realistic hearing dates and sChedrdae for reports and Conditions of approval. I will give you a call tomorrow to discuss any questions you may have as a result of 't'h'IS letter or to review the process and procedure for revising our calendar. Again, thank you fer ~our cooperation. sincerely, Samuel C. x]h~de[f, P.C., of LORENZ 'ALHADEFF & eGGEL SCA/ac ~onorable Pat Birdsall Dave Dixon, City Manager Bill Butler ATTACHMENT NO. 2 Lb/IER FROM MR. AND MRS. SOUTHWARD, DATED AUGUST 25, 1992 S%STAFFRPT%1SP.PC Idb Rev. Seprernber 9, 1992 I 2 From: Beverly and Melvin Southward 8-25-92 To: Planning Staff Attn:Debbie Ubnoske Re: Case # Specific Plan I (Campos Verde) Change of Zone 5617 Tentative Parcel Map 25213 Vesting Tentative Tract Map 25214 Vesting Tentative Tract Map 25215 We reside at 40755 La Colima Rd. Temecula, Ca. Tract 3883 Lot # 2. Our property borders the Campos Verde tract and we have seen the preliminary plans. What is being proposed causes us ma3or concern. 6' stucco block wall. We spent $18,000.00 to build fence around our property that was dictated by Meadowview's C C & R's. The portion of fence that borders the Campos Verde area represents 1/3 or $6,000.00 worth of fencing. This block wall would hide our fence which we do not want to happen. No Buffer Zone. Meadowview is RURAL HORSE PROPERTY. Wlth~ut a buffer zone there is no safe trail for Meadowview residents to get to the Association Horse Arena. They would have to come down La Collma or N. General Kearney which would create a SAFETY HAZARD. Our lot is 1.79 acres, which according to plans would put five homes bordering our property. 'That would be 5 non-rural home owners right against our fence. 5 non-rural, non horse property owners to try to keep peace with. That would be impossible to do. We feel the first row of homes should be an average of 1/2 acre each, mixing them up, some smaller lots and some larger. That would take away the rigid tract appearance. There should be a buffer zone to separate the horse property from the non-horse property, while at the same time provide a place for Meadowview horse owners to travel SAFELY to the Association arena. Why do we need to build more homes, apartments, and stores? Our shopping centers are full of empty shops, our apartments 30~40% empty. In Headowvlew alone there are over 60 homes for sale. The papers are full of foreclosures and homes for sale, There are developments started and shut down. Why destroy our hills when there ls no need? Beverly and Melvin Southward cc: Pat Birdsall - Mayor, City Council Linda Fahey - Chairperson, Planning Commission ATTACHMENT NO. 3 L~; I ER FROM MR. BENSON, DATED SEPTEMBER 1, 1992 S\STAFFRPT\ISP.PC Rev. SepreT;ber 9, T992 13 RECEIVED SEP-0 2 ~992 ~s'd ............ ITEM #4 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Planning Commission Gary Thornhill, Director of Planning September 14, 1992 Tentative Parcel Map No. 25213, Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 25214 and Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 25215 RECOMMENDATION: CONTINUE Tentative Parcel Map No. 25213, Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 25214 and Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 25215 to November 16, 1992. The above mentioned projects are related to Specific Plan No. I (Campos Verdes). In that the City staff and the applicant are still working on gathering and processing information for the Specific Plan, staff is recommending that the Planning Commission continue the above cases. The applicant and staff are making every effort to complete the Specific Plan process which will allow for the processing of the associated maps. klb S%STAFFRFT%25213VPM.MEM ITEM #5 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Planning Commission Gary Thornhill, Director of Planning MEMORANDUM September 14, 1992 Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 25321, Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 25322, Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 25323, Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 25324 and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 25464 RECOMMENDATION: CONTINUE Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 25321, Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 25322, Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 25323,Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 25324 and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 25464 to November 16, 1992. The above mentioned projects are related to Specific Plan No. 255 (Winchester Hills). In that the City staff and the applicant are still working on gathering and processing information for the Specific Plan, staff is recommending that the Planning Commission continue the above cases. The applicant and staff are making every effort to complete the Specific Plan process which will allow for the processing of the associated maps. klb