Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout121691 PC Minutes~INUTES OF ~ RE~UL~P. ~EET~N~ OF THE C~TY OF TEMECUL~ PL~NNIN~ COl~ISSION MONDAY, DECEMBER 16, 1991 A regular meeting of the City of Temecula Planning Commission was called to order Monday, December 16, 1991, 6:05 P.M., at Vail Elementary School, 29915 Mira Loma Drive, Temecula, California. The meeting was called to order by Chairman John E. Hoagland. PRESENT: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey, Ford, Chiniaeff, Hoagland ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Blair Chairman Hoagland advised that Commissioner Blair was absent during the November 16, 1991 and December 16, 1991, Planning Commission meetings due to medical reasons. Also present were Assistant City Attorney John Cavanaugh, Director of Planning Gary Thornhill, Senior Planner Debbie Ubnoske, Planner John Meyer, Planner Mark Rhoades, Planner Saied Naaseh, Planner Matthew Fagan, Deputy City Engineer Doug Stewart, Robert Righetti, Department of Public Works, and Minute Clerk Gail Zigler. PUBLIC COMMENT None COMMISSION BUSINESS 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA CHAIRMAN HOAGLAND reviewed the agenda. COMMISSIONER FAHEY moved to approve the agenda, seconded by COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF. AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey, Ford, Chiniaeff, Hoagland NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Blair MINUTES 2.1 Approval of minutes of November 16, Commission Meeting. 1991 Planning COMMISSIONER FORD amended Page 2, sixth paragraph, to read "...being proposed by the applicant, due to the fact PCMIN12/16/91 -1- DECEMBER 18, 1991 COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER X6, 3.993. that any future construction along the freeway would block the sign coming southbound, and suggested...". ROBERT RIGHETTI amended Page 7, seventh paragraph, to read "...when the public impact fee condition was drafted...". COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF moved to approve the minutes of November 16, 1991 as amended, seconded by COMMISSIONER FORD. AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey, Ford, Chiniaeff, Hoagland NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Blair NON PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS OLD TOWN SPECIFIC PLaN SELECTION COMMITTEE 3.1 Appoint Commissioner to Committee to select Old Town Consultant for Specific Plan. JOHN MEYER summarized the staff report. By unanimous consensus the Commission approved Commissioner Chiniaeff to serve on the Committee to choose a consultant for Old Town and Commissioner Fahey to serve on the Old Town Advisory Committee. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 4. TELEVISION/RADIO ANTENNA ORDINANCE 4.1 Proposal for an ordinance establishing regulations for Television/Radio Antennas City Wide. JOHN MEYER summarized the staff report. John Meyer advised the Commission that after meeting with the local amateur radio club to review the ordinance and discussions with the city attorney's office, staff was recommending a continuance to the Planning Commission meeting of January 6, 1992 in order to incorporate some of the recommendations. PCMIN12/16/91 -2- DECEMBER 18, 1991 PL~TIN~ COI~lSSlON XlNUTE8 DECEI~ER 26, L992 JOHN CAVANAUGH advised that there are still issues that need to be reviewed under the section of conditional uses as they pertain to satellite receiving antennas. CHAIRMAN HOAGLAND opened the public hearing at 6:25 P.M. The following individuals were present to represent the various local Amateur Radio Clubs in support of the ordinance: Robert Berg, 42701 Via Del Campo, Temecula Joseph Terrazos, 31160 Lahontan Street, Temecula Michael Tucci, 42325 Via Conduelo, Temecula Rick Savage, 43120 Vista Del Rancho, Temecula Robert Sherman, 23635 Kettle Road, Murrieta Ron Perry, 29879 Camino Del Sol, Temecula, member of RACES, thanked staff for their work on the ordiance, and expressed concurrence with the amateur radio portion of the ordinance. COMMISSIONER FORD asked Mr. Perry if a list of local radio operators could be provided to the City. Ron Perry advised that he was in the process of preparing a list of operators for Fire Stations 12 and 73. Joe Terrazos presented the Commission with a magazine which referenced an article about an amateur radio operation, much like the one that is being coordinated with the Temecula police department. COMMISSIONER FORD expressed a concern for clustering of antennas on the roof and asked that the city attorney look into controlling this problem, as well as looking at stronger enforcement of regulations of the building permits, before bringing this' item back before the Commission. COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF moved to continue Television/Radio Antenna Ordinance to the Planning Commission meeting of January 6, 1992, seconded by COMMISSIONER FAHEY. AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey, Ford, Chiniaeff, Hoagland NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Blair PCMIN12/16/91 -3- DECEMBER 18, 1991 PL~NNZNG COHNZBBZON MXNUTEB DECEH. BER 16, 1991 5. VARZANCE NO, $ 5.1 Variance to City sign code to allow two (2) free-standing signs at project location, 29760 Rancho California Road, between Lyndie Lane and Moraga Road. B~IED N~BEH summarized the staff report. COMMIBSIONER CHINIAEFF asked if anyone who has their shopping center on a corner come before the Commission and request that they move both of their signs to one frontage. GARY THORNHILL stated that sign would be looked at on a case-by-case basis; however, there is a potential for a precedent. In this case, staff negotiated the height of the sign. CHAIRMAN HOAGLAND opened the public hearing at 6:35 P.M. ~OEL BERNSTEIN, HWGA California, 31784 Casino Drive, Lake Elsinore, concurred with the staff report. BOB NEWBOM, Century 21 Newsom, 29760 Rancho California Road, #107, Temecula, tenant in this center, supported the staff recommendation. Mr. Newsom stated that alot of the small businesses in the center are failing due to the lack of advertisement. COMMISSIONER FAHEY moved to close the public hearing at 6:50 P.M. and Adopt Resolution No. 91-(next) approving Variance No. 8 based on the analysis and findings contained in the Staff Report, subject to the Conditions of Approval, seconded by COMMISSIONER FORD. COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF expressed a concern for making the legal requirements for findings that this property is being deprived of priveleges which are enjoyed by other properties in the same vicinity within the zone, and is granting special priveleges which is inconsistent within the zone. CHAIRMAN HOAGL]tND stated that although he shared some of the same concerns as Commissioner Chiniaeff, this property is unique and the signage is being consolidated, therefore he can support this particular Variance. G~RY THORNHILL suggested that the Commission consider an additional finding, that because of the topography of Lyndie Lane, any sign would not be visible to thru PCMIN12/16/91 -4- DECEMBER 18, 1991 PLANNING CO]~ISSION XINUTES DECKER 26, ~99L traffic, which is a special circumstance applicable to this property. COMMISSIONER F~HEY stated that she concurred that this was an appropriate finding to add to the findings in the staff report, and COMMISSIONER FORD concurred. AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONERS: The motion was voted as follows: AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: NOES: 0 ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: Fahey, Ford, Chiniaeff, Hoagland None Blair Fahey, Ford, Chiniaeff, Hoagland None Blair CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 18; ~ND SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 219, ~%MENDMENT NO. 2 6.1 Proposal to amend the boundary of the Paloma Del Sol Specific plan to include Planning Area f36, located on the southeast corner of Margarita Road and DePortola Road. MARK RHOADES summarized the staff report. He advised the Commission of an error on the agenda referencing Bedford Properties as the applicant. Mr. Rhoades also advised that the Los Ranchitos Homeowner's Association submitted a letter requesting a continuance to February. C~AIRMANHOAGL]%NDopened the public hearing at 6:55 P.M. KEITH MCCANN, JR., 43121 Margarita Road, Temecula, read verbatim from the attached Exhibit to the Planning Commission. The following individuals spoke in opposition to the Change of Zone: TERI GASLEN, 44501 Verde Drive, Los Ranchitos, representing the Los Ranchitos Homeowner's Association, addressed the Commission with the concern that if this PCMIN12/16/91 -5- DECEMBER 18, 1991 PLANNING COI~lSS~ON M~NUTES DECEMBER L6, L99L change of zone is approved, others parcels will follow. The Association is very concerned with what type of commercial is going to be at this location. Ms. Gaslen stated that the Association was requesting a postponing of any decision to allow them time to study the proposed project and work with Mr. McCann. CHAIRMAN HOAGLAND stated that he was concerned with the Association's request for a continuance, due to the cost implecations to the developer. DON ROHRABACHER, 44281 Flores Drive, Temecula, opposed the zone change and stated that in order for Mr. McCann to change his zoning, it must be approved by a 51% majority vote from the members. Mr. Rohrabacher stated that if 51% of the members voted to approve the zone change then he would not oppose it. REBECCA WERSING, 41775 Yorba Avenue, Temecula, opposed approving the zone change without getting 51% of the vote of the Association members. KEITH MCCANN advised that in his correspondence to the Board he suggest that he only needs one of anyone of the following anchors: mini market, gas station or fast food, to satisfy the lenders, and he would be willing to sit down and discuss with the Board which one of these they would feel most comfortable with. Mr. McCann added that he would be willing to postpone submitting a plot plan for the parcel until February or March. COMMISSIONER CHINIAEPF stated that the Commission's role is to make the best planning decision, and keeping the properties on the east side of the street residential, surrounded by commercial is not reasonable planning decision; however, he did express a concern for the premature planning of that parcel. Mr. Chiniaeff stated that he felt the zone change was appropriate; however, the list of uses should be reviewed and decided on which are good and which are bad for this parcel. COMMISSIONER FAHEY stated that she has expressed concern in the past about going against CC&R's; however, Mr. McCann has made some significant effort to work with the Association. The general plan will be determining what the specific boundaries of Los Ranchitos will be and it would oppose the zone change at this particular time. COMMISSIONER FORD stated that he was not looking at this from the stand point of taking away the authority of the PCMIN12/16/91 -6- DECEMBER 18, 1991 PLMq'NIN~ COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER CC&R's; however, this property was cut-off and seperate from Los Ranchitos. GARY THORNHILL stated that with resepect to the useage issue, staff had been contemplating that. Mr. Thornhill suggested that staff come back with a list of uses that staff feels are appropriate for this location. COMMISSIONER FORD suggested providing the Los Ranchitos Homeowner's Association with the list and getting their input as well. COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF moved to continue Change of Zone No. 18 and Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment No. 2, to the second meeting in January, and direct staff to look at the permitted uses in the existing specific plan and come back with a recommendation as to the type of uses that would be most appropriate, as well as provide that list to the Los Ranchitos Homeowner's Association so that they can make comments as far as what they would like to see, and continue the public hearing until that date, seconded by COMMISSIONER FORD. AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Ford, Chiniaeff Hoagland NOES: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Blair CHAIRMAN HOAGLAND declared a recess at 7:55 P.M. reconvened at 8:05 P.M. The meeting COMMISSIONER FAHEY asked to be excused due to medical reasons. 7. TENTATIVE TRACT PARCEL HAP NO. 22515, SECOND EXTENSION OF TIME 7.1 Proposal for a three lot commercial subdivision of 3.86 acres located on the northeast side of the southerly terminus of Front Street. MARK RHO~DES summarized the staff report. COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF asked if there were any dedications required for re-alignment of Front Street in the area of the project. ROBERT RIGHETTI stated that there is some work to be done with Front Street with the possible alignment of the PCMIN12/16/91 -7- DECEMBER 18, 1991 PL~I~ZNG COI41,XXSSXON MZNOTES DECF.,HBER X6. xggx future by-pass corridor. There will be some work that has to be done with the adjacent freeway off-ramps and Front Street. COMI~ISSIONER FORD asked if the flood control issue has been resolved. ROBERT RZGHETTZ stated that staff is in the process of redesigning the storm drain line in this area. CHAIRMAN HOAGLAND opened the public hearing at 8:05 P.M. KEZTH MCCJ~I~TN, 43121 Margarita Road, Temecula, applicant, advised that he acquired the property under the assumption that this was an approved project. He advised that the construction of the storm drain is being doneby Tomac Engineering at the direction of staff. LARRY F~kRKHAM, Markham & Associates, 41750 Winchester Road, Temecula, advised that there was a timely filing of the second time extension; however, due to the change of ownership there was some problem relative to the fees; however, that has been resolved. The concerns for the drainage are relative to the inadequacy of the structure under the freeway. Regarding the Conditions, Mr. Markham requested that Condition 6 be deleted or a dimenimous finding be made relative to the Fish and Game fee and Condition 12 requesting CC&R's, would suggest reciprocal accessment agreements. JOHN KAVANAUGH recommended that Condition 12 not be deleted. COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF moved to close the public hearing at 8:15 P.M. Re-Affirm the Negative Declaration for Environmental Assessment No. 31724 adopted by the County of Riverside for Tentative Parcel Map 22515 and Adopt Resolution 91-(next) approving the Second Extension of Time for Parcel Map No. 22515 based on the Findings contained in the staff report and subject to the Conditions of Approval with the deletion of Condition No. 6, seconded by COMMISSIONER FORD. AYES: 3 COMMISSIONERS: Ford, Chiniaeff, Hoagland NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: 2 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey PCMIN12/16/91 -8- DECEMBER 18, 1991 PLi%IqNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 1.6, 1991 CHAIRMAN HOAGLAND requested that staff present both Items 8 and 9 together. 8. EXTENSION OF TIME TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 22761 8.1 Second Extension of Time for a 80 lot residential subdivision on 28 acres within Specific Plan 180, located on the west side of Ynez Road, North of Pierce Lane. 9. EXTENSION OF TIME TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 22762 9.1 Second Extension of Time for a 50 lot residential subdivision on 16.86 acres within Specific Plan 180, located on the west side of Terra Vista Road, South of Ynez Road. MARK RHO~DE8 summarized the staff report. Mr. Rhoades handed out Conditions of Approval pertaining to the Recreation Center and park-site and read them into the records. CHAIRMAN HOAGLAND requested clarification of the Conditions of Approval of the Recreation Center and park- site. COMMISSIONER FORD asked who the improvement bond would be made out to. JOHN C&VAN&UGH stated that the bond should be made out to the City. CHAIRMAN HOAGLAND opened the public hearing at 8:25 P.M. LARRY SMITH, Coleman Homes, stated that the had just received the revisions and wanted clarification. He stated that in his discussions with staff, he understood that Coleman Homes would be required to build the recreation facility, to be completed by the 250th Certificate of Occupancy, or July 1, 1993, not at the 250th Building Permit as stated in the Conditions of Approval. Also, he had that same understanding regarding the completion of the improvements to Ynez Road. COMMISSIONER FORD asked if staff had any problems with the completion of the recreation center at the Issuance of Certificate of Occupancy for the 250th unit. GARY KING concurred with the amendment to the Condition. PCMIN12/16/91 -9- DECEMBER 18, 1991 PLi~N~N~ CO1~88~ON N~NUTE8 DECEMBER ~6, ~99L ROBERT RIQHETTI stated that the improvements to Ynez Road were required prior to the issuance of Building Permits because this is a key portion of the Ynez Corridor Project, and the city Engineer would like this key portion completed first. JIM ALLMON, 43954 Gatewood Way, Temecula, stated that the developer had been very cooperative with the homeowners and thanked the developer and staff for all their efforts. COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF stated that the improvement of the roads should be tied to the Certificate of Occupancy. No Certificate of Occupancy issued until roads are complete. COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF moved to close the public hearing at 8:40 P.M. and Adopt Resolution No. 91-(next) recommending that the City Council approve Second Extension of Time for Tentative Tract No. 22761 based on the analysis and findings contained in the staff report, including those presented at the public hearing, with the following modifications, that prior to recordation of the final map, said agreement shall require construction and completion of the recreation center and private park prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy on the 250th unit in Specific Plan No. 180 or by July 1, 1993, whichever comes first; a bond in an amount set by the Public Works Department shall be provided; prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy of any unit in either tract, Ynez Road shall be improved with A/C paving, seconded by CHAIRMAN HOAQLAND. COMMISSIONER FORD requested clarification of the bond requirement. COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF stated that the developer shall post a bond with the City or shall show proof that a bond has been posted in sufficient amount to construct the recreation facility, CHAIRMAN HOA~LANDconcurred with the amendment. AYES: 3 COMMISSIONERS: Ford, Chiniaeff, Hoagland NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: 2 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF moved to close the public hearing at 8:45 P.M. and Adopt Resolution 91-(next) Approving the PCMIN12/16/91 -10- DECEMBER 18, 1991 PL~,'NIN~ COI,~ISSION ~INUTES DECEMBER ~6, 199L Second Extension of Time for Tentative Tract No. 22762 based on the analysis and findings contained in the staff report, including those presented at the public hearing, with the following modifications, that prior to recordation of the final map, said agreement shall require construction and completion of the recreation center and private park prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy on the 250th unit in Specific Plan No. 180 or by July 1, 1993, whichever comes first; the developer shall post a bond with the City or shall show proof that a bond has been posted in sufficient amount to construct the recreation facility; prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy of any unit in either tract, Ynez Road shall be improved with A/C paving, seconded by COMMISBION FORD. AYES: 3 COMMISSIONERS: Ford, Chiniaeff, Hoagland NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: 2 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey 10. TENTATIVE TP~CT MAP NO. 26521 10.1 10 Lot residential subdivision on 11 acres, located on the northeast corner of Green Tree Road and Grapevine. MARK RHOADES summarized the staff report. CHAIRMAN HOAGLAND opened the public hearing at 8:55 P.M. KEN WINCH, 2440 South Hacienda Boulevard, Hacienda Heights, representing the applicant, provided a brief summary of the project. Mr. Winch indicated the applicant's concurrence with the staff report and Conditions of Approval; however, requests that the condition requiring 36' street width, street lights and sidewalks be deleted to maintain the rural environment on the private streets and Green Tree Road. BOB PIPHER, 41825 Green Tree Road, Temecula, stated that although he would like to see the development approved there were some issues he would like clarified. Mr. Pipher advised that he had submitted a petition to staff from the Association requesting that the area retain it's rural qualities. He also requested that if Green Tree was not going to be maintained by the City, that the maintenance of the road be addressed within the CC&R's, PCMIN12/16/91 -11- DECEMBER 18, 1991 PLYING COI~f~S~XON MINUTES DECEMBER so that the Homeowner's Association is required to pay their fair share of the maintenance costs. COI~IISSIONER CHINIAEFF expressed a concern for emergency vehicle access into the project and drainage as it relates to Pauba Road. JOHN TELESIO, 31760 Via Telesio, Temecula, supported the development however, requested that the area retain it's rural standard. ROBERT RIGHETTI advised that the City standard for Rancho Vista Road requires 32' of asphalt concrete, with curb and gutter and sidewalk, and street lights. The City standard for the private street requires A/C pavement with an A/C burm, no sidewalk, curb, gutter, or street light. This is the requirement for Green Tree Road as well. COMMISSIONER FORD suggested that the turn-around bulb be enlarged near the gated entrance rather than the intersection. ROBERT RIGHETTI suggested amending Condition 37 by adding the following sentence, "A turn-around bulb with a minimum 38' radius shall be provided outside the gated entrance."; and amending Condition 80 by deleting the requirement for the turn-around bulb in the intersection. KEN WINCH stated that the applicant concurred with the amendment proposed; however, indicated that they were unaware that they were being required to provide paving to Pauba. He stated that through all their meetings they understood that they would be required to pave to Calle Cedro. ROBERT RI~HETTI advised that the Ordinace required paving to the nearest maintained road. COl.~ISSIONER CHINIAEFF suggested that the applicant pursue the an easement to Pauba Road from the property owner on Grapevine. COMMISSIONER FORD moved to continue Tentative Tract Map No. 26521 to the second meeting in January to allow the applicant time to address the issues raised pertaining to access, seconded by COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF. PCMIN12/16/91 -12- DECEMBER 18, 1991 PLANNING COI~SS~ON HINUTE8 DECF~BER ~6, ~99~ AYES: 3 COMMISSIONERS: Ford, Chiniaeff, Hoagland NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: 2 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey CONDITIONAL USE PERHIT NO. L4 11.1 Proposal to construct a gas station, car wash and mini- mart, located on the northwesterly side of Winchester Road and South of Margarita Road. (Pad 7/Plot 224) I(ARX RHOADES summarized the staff report. COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF suggested placing planters at both ends of the building. CHAIRMAN HOAGLAND opened the public hearing at 9:45 P.M. ~IKE LUCCI, representing Chevron, U.S.A., expressed concurrence with the staff report, and requested clarification on Item 54, Page 17 of the second amendment, referring the fee to be paid, requested that the square footage of the building include the food mart and the car wash and not the canopy. Additionally, Item 58, relative to the 25' easement, would request postponing the dedication until it becomes part of the general plan. Mr. Lucci gave a brief description of the characteristics of this site. Mr. Lucci stated that he would suggest more trees rather than larger trees to enhance the landscaping. COMMISSIONER FORD moved to close the public hearing at 10:05 P.M. and Adopt the Negative Declaration for Conditional Use Permit No. 14; and Adopt Resolution No. 91-(next) approving Conditional Use Permit No. 14 based on the analysis and findings contained in the staff report and subject to the Conditions of Approval, clarifying the payment of fees for Condition 54 (Gary Thornhill indicated that fee would be computed on the square footage of the food mart), and staff to work with the applicant on the landscape planter(s) for the project, seconded by COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF. AYES: 3 COMMISSIONERS: Ford, Chiniaeff, Hoagland NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: 2 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey PCMIN12/16/91 -13- DECEMBER 18, 1991 PLANNING COMMISSION HINUTES DECF, NBER 16, 1991 12. 2S,~ENDMENT OF ORDIN2S, NCE 90-19 12.1 Proposal to amend Ordinance 90-19 which established decision making authority for sub-division and land use applications. GARY THORNHILL reviewed the proposed amendment to Ordinance 90-19 and requested that the Commission provide input individually. COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF moved to continue Amendment Of Ordinance 90-19 to the second meeting of January, seconded by CHAIRMAN HOAGLAND. AYES: 3 COMMISSIONERS: Ford, Chiniaeff, Hoagland NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: 2 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey ADJOURNMENT COMMISSIONER FORD moved to adjourn at 10:25 P.M. to the next Planning Commission meeting on January 6, 1992, 6:00 P.M., Vail Elementar School, 29915 Mira Loma Drive, Temecula. ~/~Secretary PCMIN12/16/91 -14- DECEMBER 18, 1991 December 16, 1991 Hr. Chairman, Planning Commission Hembets... My name is Keith L. HcCann, Jr. I reside at 43121 Margarita, Temecula. in I would like to report to you regarding your recommendation of October 7, 1991, that I and the Los Ranchitos Homeowners Association engage in additional dialogue regarding release from the C.C.&Rs. During my first meeting with the Association Board Members, I was instructed by the board to meet with certain homeowners to ascertain what, if anything, might be required of me to obtain their cooperation. Thereafter I was to report back to the board my findings and to make a proposal for being released from the C.C.&Rs. I was informed by the contiguous property owners that they would be willing to see me go forward with my project, and without the performance of any mitigating measures. In my discussion with Mr. Pacitto, he added that he would like to see my project developed with the community in mind. I then made a proposal to the Board which included the following: 1) to personally assist the association with its endeavors to up-grade its community, 2) to make a financial contribution of $ 10,000 to the Association, 3) and to involve the board in my plot plan submission, relative to tenant-mix and building configuration. During my second meeting with the board I was asked if I would also be willing to assist in the cost of making certain specified improvements at the northwest and southwest corners of Deportola and Margarita which would serve as monumentation and define the entry to Los Ranchitos. I agreed that I would also be willing to participate in those costs. It would appear that we are moving ever closer to a resolve. However, in its letter to the Planning Commission, dated December 10, 1991, the board requested a further delay by the Planning Commission. The Board stated as its reasons for a further delay as follows: 1) desire to speak with the school district, 2) desire to speak with Santiago Estates, 3) desire to speak with adjacent neighbors to the proposed site, 4) desire to speak with other community members, 5) desire to understand set backs, landscaping, buffers, special uses, etc. Regarding item ~1; desire to speak with the school district: I spoke to Bob Costland, who represents the school board, on Thursday, December 12, and his only comment was that he did not want to see beer and wine sold within 200 feet of the school. Further, Dr. David Eurich, a school board member and member of Los Ranchitos has stated his willingness to see the project go forward. Regarding item #2; desire to speak with Santiago Estates: Santiago Estates is so far removed from the site, and in as much as Santiago Estates did not take a position regarding Bedford's forty acres of commercial property, it hardly seems fair to seek their opinion regarding this matter. Regarding item ~3; desire to speak with the adjacent property owners: The board has met with the adjacent property owners and pursuant to the board's letter, dated December g, 1991, I quote in part, "The Board has also had an opportunity to speak with Mrs. Abernathy and Mr. Pacitto regarding your development plans...Our understanding of their positions is similar to yours, but with some important clarifications", namely Mrs Abernathy feels like its a moot issue, given that Bedford's project is going forward, and, as I said before, Mr. Pacitto wants the site developed with the community in mind. Regarding item #4; desire to speak with other community members: Pursuant to its letter addressed to all homeowners, dated September 20, 1991, which I quote in part, "The board is studying the ramifications of his request and asks that you refrain from giving him a signature at this time... we sincerely hope that you will communicate your opinions and concerns to us so that we can represent you in a responsible manner." Again, that letter is dated September 20, 1991. If in three months the Association members have not communicated their position, it is most likely because the matter is insignificant. Finally, regarding item ~5; desire to understand set backs, landscaping, etc: The Board has been in possession of a copy of the Specific Plan for longer than one month, yet only two Board members have reviewed it. That is understandable given that it looks like an encyclopedia and is difficult, if not boring reading. The point that I wish to make is that item ~5 is covered in substantial detail, and provides for more substantial buffers, landscaping, and set backs than could be possibly contemplated by the Association for its own community. The Specific Plan provides for an attractive and continuous buffer, beginning at Hwy 79 and continuing to the high school. Further, the planning staff has required compliance with Specific Plan 219 to assure continuity in development. I will admit that certain details need to be addressed between myself and the Association, but it is not necessary to delay the zone change. My objective is to comply with the desires of the Association, so far as it is possible, so that I may be released from the C.C.&Rs. While I was not anxious to receive your direction in October, I have, never the less, complied with it, I intend to involve the Association in the building orientation and in determining tenant mix, with the only exception being that the project must be able to be financed. I, therefore request that the Commission vote this night in favor of Specific Plan, Amendment #2. May I address questions or concerns at this time?