Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout101800 PC MinutesMINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER t8, 2000 CALL TO ORDER The City of Temecula Planning Commission convened in a regular meeting at 6:00 P.M., on Wednesday October 18, 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 Chiniaeff. ROLLCALL Present: Commissioners Chiniaeff, Mathewson, Telesio, Webster, and Chairman Guerriero. Absent: None. Also Present: Director of Planning Ubnoske, Attorney Curley, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks, and Minute Clerk Hansen. PUBLIC COMMENTS Mr. Doug Haserot, 40976 Avenida Alvarado, representing Temecula Valley Soccer Clubs, noted the desperate need for ball fields in the City of Temecula, specifically lighted fields, relaying that he was a proponent of the Wolf Creek Project due to the proposed sports park included in the project plan. Mr. Mark Bailey, 44763 Calle Banvelos, representing Temecula Valley Pop Warner Football, relayed his desire for the Wolf Creek Project to be approved, noting the need for lighted ball fields for football. Ms. Katherine Runkle, 32070 Corte Bonilo, noted that she was a proponent of the Wolf Creek Project for the following reasons: 1) this was a great in-fill development, 2) with respect to densities, relayed that in the City of Temecula, there existed a need for a wide range of densities, 3) the amenities the project proposed, including the dedication of a 40-acre sports park, 4) with respect to Pala Road, noted the need for the proposed road widening associated with this project plan, 5) the proposed fire station, 6) the proposed senior housing, and 7) the proposed commercial area which was needed in this area of the City. Mr. Mark Broderick, 45501 Clubhouse Drive, thanked the Planning Commission for the efforts to hear the citizens concerns regarding the Wolf Creek Project, and for the thorough review of the plan; and relayed that he was opposed to the project due to the proposed densities, and the traffic impacts. R: PlanCom mlmin ut es/101800 CONSENT CALENDAR It was noted that the Consent Calendar Items were considered separately by the Commission. 1 Agenda RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Approve the Agenda of October 18, 2000. MOTION: Chairman Guerriero moved to approve Consent Calendar No. 1 (the Agenda), noting that Item No. 3 would be considered after Item No. 4. Commissioner Telesio seconded the motion and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. 2 Director's Hearing Update RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Receive and file. MOTION: Commissioner Webster moved to receive and file the Director's Hearing report. Commissioner Telesio seconded the motion and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. COMMISSION BUSINESS 3 Workshop This Agenda Item was considered out of order, after consideration of Item No. 4; see page 7. 4 Planning Application No. 98-0481 (Wolf Creek Specific Plan No. 12); No. 98-0484 (Wolf Creek General Plan Amendment); and No. 00-0052 (Wolf Creek Tentative. Tract Map No. 29305) on parcels totaling 557 acres located on the east side of Pala Road, between Loma Linda Road and Fairview Avenue - Carole Donahoe 4.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL DENY THE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FOR WOLF CREEK (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA98-0484), AND DENY THE WOLF CREEK SPECIFIC PLAN (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 98-0481) ON PROPERTY TOTALING 557 ACRES LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF PALA ROAD, BETWEEN LOMA LINDA ROAD AND FAIRVIEW AVENUE, AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NOS. 950-1t0-002, -005, -033 AND 950-180-00t, -005, - 006 AND -010; FOR AND UPON THE FACTS AND EVIDENCE SET FORTH HEREIN. 4.2 Adopt a resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA00-0052 (TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 29305) TO SUBDIVIDE 557 ACRES INTO 47 PARCELS 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'S PARCEL NOS. 950-1'10-002, -005, -033 AND 950-180- 001, -005, -006 AND -0'10. 4.3 Adopt a resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING AGAINST THE CITY COUNCIL'S CERTIFICATION OF THE PROPOSED FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT. Commissioner Chiniaeff advised that he would be abstaining from this issue, and therefore left the dais at this time. Attorney Curley noted that at the October 4, 2000 Planning Commission meeting the public comment portion of the meeting was closed with regard to this item, relaying that subsequently the Commission deliberated, and directed staff to return with resolutions, recommending denial of this project; advised that since the Commission desired to have the resolutions brought back in final form to ensure that the Commission's input was correctly reflected, that these resolutions were before the Commission for review and 3 R:PlanComm/minutes/1ol 8(30 action at this time; confirmed for Chairman Guerriero, that this was not the final action for this project, but that this was the Commission's recommendation to the City Council; relayed in response to Chairman Guerriero's query, that since this action was a recommendation, that if it was the Commission's desire after weighing the evidence and reviewing the resolutions, to reconsider the recommendation, that it was within the Commission's jurisdiction to do so. MOTION: Chairman Guerriero moved to reconsider the Commission's action on this item. Commissioner Telesio seconded the motion. (Ultimately this motion passed; see page 5.) Commissioner Webster relayed that he had no desire to reconsider this issue, noting that the Commission had examined all the data, and had provided clear comments in response; and advised that in his opinion the Commission's recommendation for denial should be forwarded to the City Council. Chairman Guerriero relayed the reasons for his desire to reconsider this matter: 1) the phasing of the project would provide an opportunity for the City to review each phase of development prior to proceeding further, 2) the high quality of the proposed project with numerous amenities, and 3) noted that the project plan met the criteria of the City's General Plan, the Growth Management Plan, and the City's mission statement. Commissioner Mathewson commended staff for the excellent work in drafting the resolutions of denial in a brief turnaround time, which accurately reflected the Commission's input. For Commissioner Mathewson, Attorney Curley noted that if it was the Commission's desire to reconsider this matter, that the reconsideration tonight would be based on the data, analysis, and evidence that has already been presented to the Planning Commission regarding this issue; and advised that if it was the Planning Commission's desire to reopen the public comment portion of the meeting, and/or to obtain new information and additional analysis, he would strongly recommend that the matter be re- noticed. Commissioner Mathewson relayed that based on the issues previously addressed by the Planning Commission which have been accurately contained in the resolutions, that he would not support a reconsideration of the matter, while advising that if it was the applicant's desire to address the concerns contained in the resolutions, he could support a continuation. Attorney Curley provided additional information regarding the project being presented to the City Council, noting that the City Council would take into consideration the recommendation of the Planning Commission, relaying that the City Council could reverse the decision, agree with the decision, or the decision could be modified; noted that if the modifications were substantial the City Council would redirect the issue back to the Commission; and clarified the purpose of the Planning Commission's recommendation and the associated resolutions. Commissioner Telesio relayed that it was his opinion, after further consideration, that the action of the Planning Commission should have been to continue the matter until the issues of concern could be further explored, noting that various issues of concern were brought forward for the first time at the last meeting which did not provide the applicant the opportunity to address the concerns; noted that the Commission should have taken additional time to review the project rather than moving the project forward with a recommendation at that time; and relayed that he supported the motion to reconsider the Planning Commission's action. Commissioner Webster relayed that City Council direction was necessary with respect to this project; with respect to approval of the proposed densities, noted the confusion with the Council's departure from the General Plan in the guidelines setforth in the GMP; and advised that it was not a prudent use of time for the Commission or for the applicant to attempt to fine tune this project, recommending that this matter be forwarded to the City Council Chairman Guerdero relayed the benefits to the City this project would provide, noting, among other elements, the 40-acre sports park; and advised that he queried the detail in which the Commission had addressed the specific housing product at this early stage in the process. Noting that after re-reading material (per agenda material regarding Agenda Item No. 3) regarding the role of the Commissioner, Commissioner Telesio relayed that the Planning Commission should not anticipate the Council's direction, but make an independent determination based on whether the project is consistent with the General Plan, and the guidelines setforth in the Growth Management Plan (GMP). In terms of the GMP, and its relationship to the General Plan, Commissioner Mathewson noted the Council's struggle with these important issues, relaying the Council's arduous process of reviewing a project last week until 1:30 A.M.; concurred with Commissioner Telesio's comments, noting that it was the Planning Commission's charge to make a determination based on the General Plan, and the GMP guidelines, and not to simply forward the project to the City Council; relayed hopes that the City Council would recognize that the Planning Commission has been struggling to meet the intent of the GMP, recommending that there be direction provided with respect to resolution of some of the vital issues; and advised that if it was determined by the Planning Commission that this issue be continued, that the applicant address the numerous concerns setforth by the Planning Commission, noting his willingness to continue this matter. At this time voice vote was taken reflecting a split vote, Chairman Guerriero and Commissioner Telesio voting yes, Commissioner Mathewson and Commissioner Webster voting no, and Commissioner Chiniaeff abstaining. (Ultimately this voice vote was amended.) In response to Commissioner Mathewson, Attorney Curley clarified the motion being voted on at this time, noting that prior to moving to continue this matter the Commission first needed to move to reconsider the Planning Commission's past action regarding this project. Commissioner Mathewson noted that he had misunderstood the motion and requested to modify his vote. ,At this time voice vote was taken reflecting approval with the exception of Commissioner Webster who voted no and Commissioner Chiniaeff who abstained. 5 R: PlanCom rm*minat es/l 01800 MOTION: Commissioner Mathewson moved to continue this item, directing the applicant to work with staff to address the issues encompassed in the resolutions of denial. Commissioner Telesio seconded the motion. (Ultimately this motion was amended.) In response to Attorney Curley, Mr. Bill Griffith, representing the applicant, thanked the Commission for the vote to reconsider the Commission's past recommendation regarding this project; highlighted various positive aspects of the project plan, noting the comments relayed during the public comment portion of the meeting regarding the much-needed sports park; relayed the applicant's desire to move forward to the City Council with a clearly defined project, noting that at this point, the Commission's input had not been fully addressed; and advised that the applicant would support continuing the matter in order to address the issues that remain outstanding. In response to Attorney Curley, Mr. Alhadeff, attorney representing the applicant, relayed that the applicant would address the issues denoted in the findings (per the findings encompassed in the resolutions of denial), and would respond to these concerns without reopening the public hearing. Attorney Curley relayed that the applicant was asserting that the record was complete, advising that if the resolutions contain further new information it would require reopening the public comment portion of the meeting at the continued meeting. In response, Mr. Alhadeff relayed that the applicant would submit to re-opening the public comment portion of the meeting if it was determined that this was necessary, noting that it was his understanding that keeping the public comment portion closed was the desire of the Planning Commission. Attorney Cudey provided clarification regarding the criteria determining whether the public comment period should be re-opened when this matter was brought back before the Commission. Commissioner Mathewson relayed that he was of the strong opinion that the public should have an opportunity to address the information presented to the Commission, noting that he would amend his motion to include this element. AMENDED MOTION: Commissioner Mathewson moved to continue this matter to the December 6, 2000 Planning Commission meeting, and to reopen the public comment period at that time. Commissioner Telesio seconded the motion. (Ultimately this motion passed; see page 7.) Commissioner Webster relayed that it was his opinion that continuing this matter would not be prudent without gaining City Council input, querying whether there would be an opportunity for the Planning Commission to receive input prior to this item being brought back to the Planning Commission. Attorney Curley advised that the City Council would ultimately be considering this item in a deliberative adjudicative basis, noting that if specific input was received prior to that time it would askew the process. Commissioner Webster clarified that he was recommending a joint workshop. Attorney Curley noted that there were alternative methods of receiving direction from the City Council (other than polling the City Council with respect to this project), reiterating 6 R: PlanCom m/minutes/101800 Director of Planning Ubnoske's suggestion that a Subcommittee could be formed, noting that staff would explore the alternatives. Director of Planning Ubnoske recommended that there be a Subcommittee rather than a Joint City Council/Planning Commission Workshop due to the timing issues. Commissioner Mathewson noted his desire to provide ample time for the applicant to address the previously mentioned issues, and for staff to schedule a meeting between the Planning Commission and the Subcommitee. Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that on November 15th staff would provide an update on this project; and in response to Commissioner Mathewson, relayed that she understood the Commission's desire (per Commissioner Webster' s comments) to gain input from the Subcommittee. At this time voice vote was taken reflecting approval with the exception of Commissioner Chiniaeff who abstained. It was noted that at 6:56 P.M. the meeting recessed, reconvening at 7:06 P.M. At this time the Commission considered Item No. 3 (Workshop). 3 Workshop Director of Planning Ubnoske recommended that as staff proceeded through the Workshop Agenda (as per agenda material), that the discussions be interactive, inviting the Commission to provide comments. Topic of discussion: The Role of the Planning Commissioner Attorney Curley provided an overview of the Planning Commission's role (per agenda material), noting that under State Law the Planning Commission was the body charged with carrying out a city's planning function, noting that these determinations were final in some cases, and advisory in others. Commissioner Chiniaeff provided an overview of his understanding of the role of the Planning Commission, noting that the Government Code provides the City Council the authority to approve certain matters, and to delegate various responsibilities to a lower body (i.e., the Planning Commission) relaying that some issues were delegated for final approval, while others were finally approved by the City Council, advising that various issues were mandated to be dealt with at a City Council level; noted that the Planning Commission was to advise the City Council with respect to the issues directed to the Planning Commission body for recommendation; and relayed that the Planning Commission follows the guidelines setforth via the laws and ordinances passed by the City Council. Attorney Curley noted that there were also certain abilities of the Commission to adopt its own procedural guidelines, providing additional information. For Commissioner Chiniaeff, Attorney Curley confirmed that the Planning Commission did not have the authority to set land use decision policies. 7 R:PianCommlminutes/101800 Discussion ensued regarding the $100 payment the Planning Commissioners received monthly as project employees of the City. Topic of discussion: The 8 Step Approach of the Planninq Commission Director of Planning Ubnoske presented the 8 Step Approach regarding the Planning Commission (via workshop material). With respect to Step 4, Chairman Guerriero recommended that if a Planning Commissioner had numerous queries regarding aspects of a project, that the Commissioner schedule a meeting with staff prior to the hearing. Director of Planning Ubnoske advised that staff would be holding workshops to aid in the review process of the Planning Commission, specifically, as two additional Specific Plans move forward in the review phase, noting that clarification would be provided with respect to the role of the Commissioner, the review process, and the product review phase; relayed that rather than presenting a Specific Plan in its entirety, that there would be a series of workshops to consider smaller components of the Specific Plan; advised that the Commissioners could schedule a time to discuss with staff issues regarding the plans, noting that she and Deputy City Manager Thornhill would be willing come in early, or stay late to accommodate the Commissioners schedules. Attorney Curley advised that the Planning Commission could also contact him by email or at his office, noting that if a question posed was not regarding a personal conflict of interest, that he would respond to the entirety of the Commission. For Commissioner Telesio, Attorney Curley advised that the General Plan, any Specific Plan, the GMP, and alternate instruments utilized were tools to assist the Planning Commission in making a finding, providing additional information regarding the Planning Commission actions and its associated findings, relaying that the action needed to be supported by logical and supportable findings which are setforth in the resolutions in order to undergird the action. Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that per discussions with the General Plan Subcommittee, there was a consensus that there existed confusion between the General Plan and the guidelines of the GMP, advising that the General Plan may be amended at this point in time to provide clarification. Commissioner Mathewson concurred with the plan to present the upcoming Specific Plans in smaller components. In response to Commissioner Mathewson, Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that she could email the Planning Commissioners with upcoming controversial projects. In response to Director of Planning Ubnoske, Chairman Guerriero noted that the Planning Commission needed an updated staff contact list, Commissioner Chiniaeff relaying that he had not received this list. Topic of discussion: The Responsibilities the City Council has deleqated to the Planning Commission (i.e., Findings of Public Convenience or Necessity, and Compliance with the Growth Management Action Plan) Director of Planning Ubnoske presented the City Council delegated responsibilities of the Planning Commission, relaying the data (of record) regarding the Finding of Public Convenience or Necessity (PCN), and compliance with the Growth Management Action Plan. Chairman Guerriero commented on granting alcohol licenses, the ABC's role in this matter, and the recent modification in the census tracts; relayed his opposition in making the PCN Findings based on the applicant's desire to raise the value of his property; advised that with each granted license there was another opportunity for an minor individual to buy and consume alcohol; and queried how many licensed alcohol establishments were needed in the City of Temecula by build out. In response to Chairman Guerriero's comments, Commissioner Chiniaeff recommended that the zoning ordinances be revised if there was a desire to not allow liquor licenses in certain areas due to a saturation of such uses, in order to provide property owners and developers with this information in advance. Director of Planning Ubnoske provided additional information regarding Conditional Use Permits (CUPs), noting that these permits can be revoked. For Commissioner Mathewson, Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that at the DRC level, staff clarified to applicant's proposing alcohol serving uses, that the Planning Commission was concerned with alcoholic establishments in the City. Commissioner Telesio noted that the establishment of uses selling alcohol was market driven, relaying that the City had a successful program to detect uses that would sell to minors, noting that the incidents were rare; and advised that it was his opinion that the policing of the uses was effective, relaying that the CUPs could be pulled for uses not in compliance with the standards. Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that staff had implemented a new component in the process of obtaining a license to sell alcohol, noting that the plan was routed to the Police Department who held meetings with the applicants to discuss training, hours of operation, and security. Chairman Guerriero relayed that with a proliferation of uses selling alcohol, there would not be adequate numbers of Law Enforcement Officers to control the liquor sales to minors. Commissioner Telesio commended uses that had a self-regulating program within their company policies. With respect to licensed uses, Commissioner Webster advised that making the PCN Findings was a subjective process, providing additional information. At this time discussions ensued regarding the Growth Management Action Plan (GMP). 9 R: PlanCom mlminut esl101800 With respect to the GMP, Commissioner Webster noted that there was direct conflict with the guidelines setforth, and the General Plan; relayed that there was a Growth Management Element encompassed in the General Plan which included policies and goals; and relayed that in his opinion the City Council should introduce new policies when the General Plan was updated, noting that he was pleased that there was a plan to update the General Plan with respect to the GMP guidelines at this time, advising that this was necessary. Commissioner Mathewson relayed that Section 2A, subsection 2a and c (regarding redistribution of land uses, and review multi-family housing issues throughout the City) of the GMP was unclear. Commissioner Telesio relayed that there was still uncertainty with respect to qualifying "amenities" per the GMP. Commending Deputy Director of Public Works Parks who sat on the original City Council for the City of Temecula, Chairman Guerriero relayed that the list of amenities denoted in the General Plan was the specific document that he utilized as a guide, noting that the GMP was too vague. Commissioner Chiniaeff advised that if the General Plan was amended to reflect the Council's desired policy standards, the Planning Commission and the development community would have the necessary guidance. Director of Planning Ubnoske noted that staff had relayed to the Subcommittee that staff was unsure how to direct developers, advising that Mayor Pro Tern Comerchero concurred that there needed to be some rules in place in order for the Planning Commission, staff, and the City Council to all be on the same page. In response to Commission comments, Attorney Curley relayed that the Findings associated with the Commission's action would articulate the Planning Commission's interpretation of acceptable amenities to the City Council; clarified that Council would then be able to view in the written findings the Commission's concepts, and subsequently address points of disagreement; noted that at the joint meeting, the City Council had relayed that the Council trusted the Planning Commission to apply the guidelines and move forward with recommendations. Commissioner Mathewson noted that with the Temecula Ridge Project, the City Council determined that the amenities encompassed in the project did not meet the criteria, although the Planning Commission had recommended approval (noting that the vote was not unanimous). In response to Commissioner Mathewson, Attorney Curley noted that as the Council considers the Planning Commission's action and subsequently responds, that new information is obtained which aids staff in further defining the City Council's desired direction. Commissioner Chiniaeff relayed that with the Temecula Ridge project the City Council did not specify amenities that would meet the criteria, advising that political issues also play a part in the approval of projects, reiterating that a true definition of a qualifying amenity was not revealed. 10 R:PlanComm/minutes/101800 Director of Planning Ubnoske noted that the Subcommittee had also discussed dividing the in-fill projects from the large Specific Plan projects, recognizing that the amenities associated with a Specific Plan would be quite different than for an in-fill project. In response to Commissioner Mathewson, Attorney Curley advised that a General Plan revision would come before the Planning Commission for recommendation. Commissioner Chiniaeff recommended that the Zoning Map and the Land Use Map be explored in order to identify the remaining vacant parcels in the City. Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that if the Planning Commission had a desire for provision of a GIS map at any time that requests be relayed to staff, advising that this was a helpful tool. Commissioner Telesio noted that one of the individual speakers during the public comment portion of this meeting had referred to the Wolf Creek Project as an in-fill project, relaying that there was a broad understanding of what constitutes an in-fill project. Additional discussion ensued regarding in-fill projects. For informational purposes, Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that during the Subcommittee meetings, the request for the City Council to learn more in order to address the genuine lack of knowledge with respect to planning issues had been relayed, advising that the City Council desired information to aid in making more informed decisions. Topic of discussion: Ex Parte Communications Attorney Curley provided an overview of ex parte communications, and due process, which ensured that all parties rights were protected; (referencing the agenda material) provided a definition of due process; advised that if a Planning Commissioner meets with an applicant, visits a project site, or receives information outside of the public hearing, it should be disclosed during the hearing, for the record, noting that the applicant should be provided an opportunity to rebut or provide an explanation regarding the disclosed information prior to Commission deliberations. With respect to ex parte communications, Attorney Curley clarified that while the Planning Commission and the City Council could participate in these meetings, that it was optional, relaying that if an individual elected not to participate in ex parte communications, this was also acceptable; reiterated that if there were meetings, that the Planning Commissioner disclosure could be relayed at the onset of the hearing also, providing additional information. In response to Commissioner Chiniaeff expressing his fear that he would forget to relay the disclosure, noting that he wrote memos as reminders, Attorney Curley noted that if it was the Commission's desire, he could question the Commission at the hearing as to whether there were any disclosures. 11 R:PlanComm/minutesll D1800 (Per the provided agenda material), Attorney Curley relayed helpful tips regarding ex parte communications. For Commissioner Telesio, Attorney Curley advised that the Planning Commissioners could make the applicant aware of the fact that no input would be provided to the applicant during the meeting; and clarified the information that should be disclosed at the hearing. In order to establish the applicant's motivation for the meeting, Commissioner Telesio relayed that he questioned the applicant as to the purpose of the meeting. Commissioner Mathewson relayed that since it had been established that the applicant might attempt to influence the Planning Commissioners, in his view this corrupts the process, noting that the Commission can receive information from staff. Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that the applicant was oftentimes concerned about the Planning Commission not getting enough information regarding the project. Attorney Curley provided information regarding an alternate city's process of holding an informal period after consideration of the regular agenda items to discuss upcoming projects, noting that this period was held in a less formal manner (i.e., at times pizza was provided during the presentation); relayed that the applicant could present the project plan in an approximately 30-minute period and would gain initial Commission input; and relayed that while he was not recommending this procedure for the City of Temecula, it was his intent to let the Commission be aware that there were alternate avenues. With respect to ex parte communications, Commissioner Chiniaeff relayed that there was a fine line between education from an applicant and influence; and noted the benefits of the Planning Commissioners taking the tour to Orange County to visit development projects, advising that this type of knowledge and experience could be utilized while reviewing projects. For informational purposes, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks explained the philosophy of the City Council when setting up the ex parte meeting policy; advised that at that time there were time limits placed on the developer's presentation to the Planning Commission or the City Council, and that due to the complication of the projects and the limited time staff could spend on the presentation, it was the applicant's desire to familiarize the approving body with the project; advised that the City Council was of the opinion that the applicant could explain the project in greater detail during the ex parte communications; and noted that information could be gained regarding architecture, land planning or alternate elements. It was noted that at 8:11 P.M. the meeting recessed, reconvening at 8:19 P.M. Commissioner Webster noted that at times during the hearing, there were questions that the Commission should direct to the applicant instead of to staff. Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that vadous questions could also be directed to the department staff that had the most expertise in certain areas (i.e., traffic questions to Public Works staff). 12 R:PlanComm/minutes/101800 Deputy Director of Public Works Parks noted that on many occasions the applicant had their engineers, architects, and alternate consultants present who were available for questions from the Commission; and relayed that the Public Works Department thoroughly reviewed the applicant's' submitted traffic analysis. In response to Chairman Guerriero, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks relayed that there had been discussions regarding including in the staff report additional traffic data (i.e., an executive summary). Chairman Guerriero relayed the benefits of the ex parte communications, noting that numerous developers were upfront and honest with a desire solely to provide additional information; and noted that it was his opinion that the additional data was helpful in making a more informed determination on the project. In his experience with ex parte communications, Commissioner Mathewson relayed that applicants had requested him for information regarding what issues he had with a development plan, and what he would desire to see included in the project, advising that he would not provide this input outside of the hearing setting. Chairman Guerriero noted that there seemed to be a lack of knowledge within the community with respect to the planning process, property rights, and land use, advising that there would be a positive affect if additional education were provided. Commissioner Telesio concurred with Chairman Guerriero, noting that it would be helpful if there could be an informational source that provided the fundamental elements of the planning process. Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that it was unfortunate that the public did not call staff if there were concerns er questions, advising that one-on-one communications were helpful in informing individuals. Deputy Director of Public Works Parks relayed that the Public Works Department received numerous calls form public members. Additional discussion ensued regarding avenues to educate the public. Director of Planning Ubnoske noted that for larger projects, public meeting have been held to inform the community, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks relaying that several community meetings were held regarding the Wolf Creek Project. With respect to relaying information to the public, Commissioner Webster relayed that it appeared at this point in time that numerous residents had the understanding that projects would only be approved at the lowest densities, advising that these misconceptions needed to addressed. Attorney Curley relayed that a City newsletter was an avenue that could be utilized for providing the public with information (i.e., frequently asked questions). Commissioner Webster suggested that City Manager Nelson could write a letter to the editor of the newspaper, clarifying issues such as the GMP. In response, Commissioner Telesio relayed that since the data was coming from the City it would most likely be perceived as biased. Topic of discussion: The Results of the Questionnaire Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that she had highlighted approximately twenty-five pement (25%) of the questions (where there were two or more points assigned to a question) answered by the Planning Commission; provided an overview of the issues associated with these particular questions (per the questionnaire material which had been distributed to the Planning Commissioners); and advised that she would forward these specific questions to the Planning Commission for adcl, itional review and input. In response to Director of Planning Ubnoske's queries, Commissioner Mathewson noted that it would be helpful if staff could provide additional information in advance for the larger projects with respect to the issues or elements that staff was struggling with. In response, Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that staff could provide this data to the Planning Commission. Director of Planning Ubnoske suggested that it might be helpful for staff and the Planning Commission to set aside a half a day for a retreat-type setting at which time goals could be established, topics for upcoming workshops could be discussed, and the upcoming year could be programmed. Commissioner Chiniaeff advised that it would be helpful if staff could prepare an annual report whereas various elements could be evaluated (i.e., the time it takes a project to be processed through the Planning Commission). Commissioner Webster relayed that in his opinion the aim of the Planning Commission was to implement the goals of the General Plan. With respect to topics for future workshops, Director of Planning Ubnoske noted that the Planning Commissioners could call or email suggestions. Additional discussion ensued regarding the Planning Commission receiving additional training, Director of Planning Ubnoske noting the budget constraints, relaying the potential for additional opportunities in the future; and advised that if the Planning Commission obtained information of interest regarding conferences or workshops that this data could be forwarded to staff, relaying that at times conferences could be attended within the parameters of the budget. For informational purposes, Attorney Curley relayed that if the Commission had interest in obtaining information with respect to legal topics, that a workshop could be scheduled with members of the law firm's staff. COMMISSIONER REPORTS Chairman Guerriero requested staff to address the landscape issue at the Cosco site, in the vicinity of the gas station. In response to Commission queries, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks providing information regarding the grading at Margarita Road and Overland Drive, noting that there was an approved tentative map with grading at this site. Commissioner Mathewson requested staff to investigate the sign at the Cosco site. In response to Chairman Guerriero, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks relayed that landscaped medians throughout the City are installed, as funds become available, providing additional information. Commissioner Telesio queried whether the issue regarding landscape parkways could be addressed since it seemed to be the consensual desire of the Commission to install this element in new developments. In response, Director of Planning Ubnoske noted that this issue would be addressed, relaying that there would be an upcoming policy developed for Citywide implementation. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT No additional input. ADJOURNMENT At 8:56 P.M. Chairman Guerriero formally adjourned this meeting to Wednesday, November 1, 2000 at 6:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula. Rob Guerriero .... Chairman Debbie Ubnoske, Director of Planning 15 R:PlanComrn/minutes/101800