Development of Menifee's 'Golden Meadow' in question
The site of the Golden Meadows project as seen from a hill at the intersection of Wickerd Road and Bradley Road. By Doug Spoon, Editor In ...
By Doug Spoon, Editor
In a public hearing Wednesday night, the Menifee City Council will consider a proposed housing tract amendment that was previously denied by the Planning Commission.
The Golden Meadows project, which was approved by Riverside County in 2007 before Menifee’s incorporation, is currently an open field in a rural southwest portion of the city. The area is adjacent to acres of ranches zoned Rural Residential and is one of the largest open fields still undeveloped in Menifee.
The project was originally planned for 474 single family lots on 205 acres bordered by Garbani Road to the north, Evans Road to the east and Wickerd Road to the south – the last two being dirt roads.
Richland Planned Communities, Inc., which acquired the land from Woodside Homes in 2008, is finally ready to develop the property. It has planned development in four phases. The Planning Commission’s denial was of Richland’s request to amend the Phase 4 project to add 98 lots, reducing lot sizes in that phase from 6,000 square feet minimum to 3,780 square feet minimum.
The new configuration would place homes within 10 feet of a realigned and paved Wickerd Road and rural property borders. These changes were criticized by many adjacent ranch owners at the Feb. 8 Planning Commission meeting when the denial was issued.
The previous project approval rezones that property from Rural Residential to Medium Density Residential. Critics argue that the addition of 98 lots to the project will further negatively impact adjacent rural homeowners, who have enjoyed the relative quiet of that area for decades. They argue that the increased traffic in an area with no major paved roads will cause gridlock on local roads as well as an already impacted Haun/Scott Road intersection.
“This will make traffic a fiasco,” resident Ken Stiles stated at the Feb. 8 meeting. “We only have Wickerd and Garbani, and these are dirt roads. We are bombarded by school traffic already.”
Several residents who spoke at the meeting stated that the dirt roads are used as a shortcut by parents driving students to nearby Menifee Valley Middle School and Paloma Valley High School. They say that the traffic around MVMS and the Boys & Girls Club already creates a dangerous situation on Garbani Road because there are no sidewalks leading up to the school.
As part of the project, Richland Planned Communities would pay for a traffic signal at Haun Road and Wickerd Road. Residents say that is hardly enough to offset the traffic in that area.
“Twenty years ago, I spoke out against this and asked for more rational lot sizes,” said local resident Craig Gruber. “It turned out, it was a done deal with the County Supervisors. But we’re talking Medium Density Residential vs. what used to be Rural Agricultural.
“You’re going from one extreme to the other. This is one of the last agricultural neighborhoods in the city. The plan doesn’t fit in this neighborhood.”
Speaking on behalf of Richland Planned Communities at the February meeting, Brian Hardy defended the proposed amendment.
“The plan is to bring more of a variety of lot sizes that are affordable,” he said. “We are adamant about following the general plan. We’re only looking for smaller lots sizes in Phase 4. We also have very large hillside buffers (to the northeast) from other housing developments.”
Planning Commissioner Chris Thomas was among the five who voted unanimously to recommend that the City Council deny the amendment.
“We fought to keep this area rural,” Thomas said. “I’m shocked that the county approved this.”
Thomas said he believed that in order to approve the amendment, the City would need some concessions from Richland. That request was made as part of the motion to recommend denial. He suggested that at the least, Richland pay to install sidewalks all along Garbani Road around the middle school.
“There’s nothing we can about what the county approved,” Thomas said. “We’ve got to live with this animal. I understand that paying for a traffic signal isn’t cheap, but in my opinion, there should be more asked for by the city.”
Commissioner Ben Diederich agreed.
“I have concerns already, and now we’re adding 100 more homes,” he said. “We need to do anything we can to offset that.”
Now, four months later, the staff report that will go before the City Council recommends denial of the amendment based on several findings, which include the following:
-- The proposed zone or amendments are not consistent with the intent of the goals and policies of the General Plan. According to Finding 1, “The Vision 2035 of the General Plan specifically called for ‘preservation of established neighborhoods and rural communities essential to the Community’s distinctive character.’”
-- The proposed zone or amendments “does not prescribe reasonable controls and standards to ensure compatibility with other established uses.” According to Finding 2, “One of Menifee’s most important land uses in terms of historic character and lifestyle choice is the rural areas and rural communities. General Plan Goal CD-2 states: ‘preserve and enhance the character of the City’s rural areas.’ This is accomplished by requiring open space and land use buffers to the extent possible between rural/equestrian-oriented land uses and dissimilar uses.”
-- According to Finding 5, “The Project could result in conditions detrimental to the public health,
safety, or general welfare as designed, as the proposed project will lead to an increase in vehicle traffic to the existing rural area.”
The bottom line: Although the City of Menifee can't overturn the County's 2007 approval of Golden Meadows, it can keep the project's impact from growing any larger.
Wednesday’s public hearing will be part of the City Council meeting, which begins at 6 p.m. at City Hall, 29844 Haun Road in Menifee.
