HomeMy WebLinkAbout050597 PC MinutesMINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
May 5, 1997
A regular meeting of the City of Temecula Planning Commission was called to order on Monday, May 5, 1997,
6:02 P.M., at the City of Temecula Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California.
Chairman Fahey presiding.
PRESENT: Fahey, Miller, Slaven, Soltysiak, Webster,
ABSENT: None
Also present were Principal Engineer Ron Parks, Assistant City Attorney Mike Estrada, Planning Manager
Debbie Ubnoske, Senior Planner Dave Hogan, Senior Planner John Meyer, Associate Planner Matthew Fagan,
Associate Planner Naaseh, Project Planner Carole Donahue, and Minute Clerk Pat Kelley.
PUBLIC COMMF~NTS
Chairman Fahey called for public comments on non-agenda items. There were no requests to speak.
COMMISSION BUSINESS
1. Approval of Agenda
It was moved by Commissioner Slaven, and seconded by Commissioner Miller, to approve the agenda
as amended.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES: 5
NOES: 0
ABSENT: 0
COMMISSIONERS: Miller, Slaven, Soltysiak, Webster, Fahey
COMMISSIONERS: None
COMMISSIONERS: None
2. Approval of Minutes
a. April7, 1997
It was moved by Commissioner Webster, and seconded by Commissioner Miller to continue this
item to May 19, 1997 pending a verbatim transcript of the motions made by Commissioners Miller
and Webster for Planning Application PA96-0345.
The motion was carried unanimously.
Planning Application PA96-0345
Commissioner Miller, "I move the approval of Planning Application... and as those conditions have been
augmented and amended tonight..."
R:\PLANCOMM\MINUTES\1997\5-5-97.WPD 6/26/97 vgw i
Chairman Fahey, "... Clarification on the conditions was...tanker coming through the center vs Yukon
with an appropriate time to be determined in the daytime limitation in low traffic times in the center, but
not nighttime."
Assistant City Attorney Weiner, "You may want to discuss actually what the appropriate time at this point
because there may be a disagreement among the people voting on the motion on that."
Commissioner Webster, "Give a time range."
Chairman Fahey, "10 A to 4 P."
Commissioner Miller, "This is petrol deliveries; if I inadvertently made that a part of my motion, I
apologize. I think it is an inherently bad idea to run a gas truck through that parking lot .... "
Chairman Fahey, "...the two things under discussion are the tankers through the center vs around Yukon
and then the hours as far as delivery of fuel. Does the maker of the motion want to clarify what they
intended for that condition?"
Commissioner Miller, "Until there is a left-turn lane provided..."
Chairman Fahey, "The next question was hours of delivery. I had suggested that staff determine hours
of delivery that would be had the least noise impact to evening and nighttime hours as far as a truck
coming in there. And someone asked that we clarify that for discussion and so I pulled numbers out of
the hat which were 10 A to 4 P. Is it, would you like that not to be in there?"
Commissioner Miller, "I don't know that it if we are talking about wanting to reduce traffic, I would
assume it should be at the later hours."
Commissioner Soltysiak, "I think the concern about the later hours is how much noise it would make."
Commissioner Miller, "Perhaps we should add an additional condition that I don't know that this
happens, but when the trucker is there to drop the fuel...there is no noise involved."
Chairman Fahey, "Probably you need to clarify most...are you making a motion that included limited
hours or does not include limited hours?"
Commissioner Miller, "I am not making that part of my motion."
Chairman Fahey, "So the maker of the motion would not include any limits to the hours. Does the
second concur with that?"
Commissioner Soltysiak, "I don't think I am knowledgeable to make that determination...our intent which
is to minimize the impact."
Chairman Fahey, "Do you have a problem with staff making that."
R:\PLANCOMM\MINUTES\1997\5-5-97.WPD 6/26/97 vgw 2
PT,~TNTNG CO~TBSTON
I~,Y 5, 1997
Commissioner Miller, "Not at all."
Chairman Fahey, "Staff work on minimizing the noise and traffic impact by narrowing down the hours
of fuel delivery..." Do you agree that those are the conditions that you were requesting, second..."
The motion did not pass.
Commissioner Webster, "I'd like to move to make the same motion, but just to change the hours of
operation till 12 o'clock midnight for the gas station."
Chairman Fahey, "So what about the opening time?"
Commissioner Webster, "Opening time I want to clarify this. Any route, any time just that the hours
of operation end at 12 midnight...beginning of 6 AM."
Chairman Fahey, "We have a motion for of the previous motion and conditions with one additional
condition that the hours of operation are 6 AM to midnight. Is there a second?"
Commissioner Webster, "Actually, let me modify that. Speaking more of a 5 AM to 12 midnight due
to the number of commuters .... "
b. April 21. 1997
It was moved by Commissioner Miller, and seconded by Commissioner Slaven, to approve the
minutes of April 21, 1997, with the following corrections:
Page 3, 4th paragraph, 2nd sentence - ...can issue citations, but has not done so...
Page 3, 1 lth paragraph, last sentence - Mr. Roripaugh agreed he would not need any further
extensions if he received 105 days.
The motion was carried unanimously.
Director's Hearing Update
Planning Manager Ubnoske stated she had nothing further to report.
Commissioner Miller stated he needed additional information regarding the Development Plan for
Vineyard Crest Subdivision to be able to ask a question. Ms. Ubnoske answered actual product on the
lots, the siting of the building, and footprints for the various products to ensure they would meet setbacks
were approved.
R: \ PLANCOMM\MINUTES \ t 997 \ 5- 5- 97. WPD 6/26/97 v~ 3
PT,ANN~NG CON~TSSTON N~Y 5~ ~997
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
4. Planning Application PA97-0033 (Tentative Tract Map No. 28503)
Project Planner Carole Donahoe presented the staff report and corrected Condition 6a. to read ... lots and
10 open space lots.
Commissioner Slaven expressed concern over the lack of access for maintenance to the common area
around Lots 34 and 35. Commissioner Webster mentioned a level walkway shown on the east side of Lot
16 could provide access to those lots at the end of the cul-de-sac as well as La Serena Way.
Commissioner Webster questioned the location of the equestrian trail as Condition 56 states it is adjacent
to existing MWD right-of-way, yet the map shows it inside MWD's easement. Principal Engineer Ron
Parks stated the trail is suppose to be outside MWD's easement. Commissioner Webster suggested the
map be corrected.
Commissioner Miller asked if staff considered this tract to be a transitional area between the larger
Meadowview lots and the smaller Temeku Hills lots and what are the lot sizes. Ms. Donahue stated it
is felt the amount of slope and open area compensate for the smaller lots; and the lots range from 7,204
sq. ft. to 20,841 sq. ft. with a 1.9 target density.
Chairman Fahey opened the public hearing at 6:24 PM.
Brian Johnson, 23333 Avenida la Caza, Coto de Caza, CA, applicant, stated he agreed with the
Conditions of Approval and regarding maintenance access to the area mentioned by Commissioner Slaven,
maintenance crews can get access at the end of the cul-de-sac to maintain the natural and slope areas. He
stated the equestrian trail is outside MWD's right-of-way, and staff requested it be kept as close to the
lots as possible.
Commissioner Slaven asked about including access in the middle of the main street down the center to
the back of hills in Meadowview; what kind of slope landscaping is planned; and do you have a landscape
plan. Mr. Johnson replied he does not have a landscape plan at this time; there are two storm drain
easements within Lots 10 and 13, which take drainage from the terraced drain to the street, but a
homeowner would probably prefer that to be just an easement and landscaped, and not have maintenance
crews walking through, especially since they can enter at the cul-de-sac. Landscaping material will be
consistent with what is planted in Chardonney Hills so the entire area is similarly landscaped.
Commissioner Slaven expressed concem about the difficulty of getting equipment into the area even with
the drainage ditch easement. Mr. Johnson replied the Meadowview Homeowner Association was
concerned about the maintenance of these areas and by being open space, they will be consistently
maintained throughout the project.
Commissioner Slaven asked if an access sidewalk could be put in alongside the drainage culvert easements
between Lots 10 and 11 and 11 and 13. Mr. Johnson stated it is doubtful homeowners will want
maintenance crews going through that area.
R: \ PLANCOMM\MINUTES\ 1997 \ 5- 5- 97. WPD 6/26/97 v~ 4
Commissioner Soltysiak inquired about the type of fencing for individual lots while allowing access. Mr.
Johnson stated fencing is at the top of the slope for access directly off the street; and fencing in the area
under discussion would be along the toe of the slope or adjacent to the terraced drain.
Chairman Fahey closed the public comment section at 6:33 PM.
Commissioner Soltysiak stated it is a 2:1 slope so it has to be accessed by foot and it is not unusual for
the refuse bags and equipment to be handcarried.
Commissioner Slaven said plant material needed to be low maintenance, such as ice plant which is also
fire retardant.
Commissioner Miller commented he thought the project was over dense given its proximity to
Meadowview. Ms. Donahoe stated Planning Area 2's smallest lots is 8,200 sq. ft., with a majority in
the 10,000 sq. ft. range, and the Specific Plan labels Area 2 as the buffer area between Meadowview and
Temeku Hills Specific Plan.
It was moved by Commissioner Slaven, and seconded by Commissioner Webster, to adopt Resolution No.
97-Next approving PA97-0033, based upon the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report; to
approve Planning Application No. PA97-0033, subject to the attached Conditions of Approval as
corrected; and to close the public hearing.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES: 5
NOES: 0
ABSENT: 0
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
Miller, Slaven, Soltysiak, Webster, Fahey
None
None
Planning Application PA97-0030 (Amendment and Restatement to Development
Agreement No. 5)
Associate Planner Matthew Fagan presented the staff report.
Chairman Fahey opened the public hearing at 6:45 PM.
Brian Johnson, 23333 Avenida la Caza, Coto de Caza, CA, applicant, stated he agreed with the
Conditions of Approval and asked that the development fee be left open in the event a lower fee is
approved by the City Council on May 8, 1997.
Assistant City Attomey Estrada recommended the Commission not make any changes to the fee because
the matter will come before the City Council and Mr. Johnson can bring up the issue at that time.
Chairman Fahey closed the public comment section at 6:48 PM.
Chairman Fahey clarified the attorney's recommendation is for the Commission to review the
development agreement as written and if the City Council makes a different decision, it can be
incorporated into the language before the final agreement is approved by the City Council.
R:\PLANCOMM\MINUTES\1997\5-5-97.WPD 6/26/97 vgw 5
PT,ANNTNG CO~MTSSTON N~Y 5, ~997
Principal Engineer Parks clarified the 309 lots in the packet is incorrect and the staff report and approval
should be based on 305 lots.
It was moved by Commissioner Miller, and seconded by Commissioner Slaven, to adopt the Negative
Declaration for Planning Application No. PA97-0030; to adopt Resolution No. 97-Next approving
recommending approval of Planning Application No. PA97-0030 to the City Council, based upon the
Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval;
to correct documents to indicate 305 lots; and to close the public hearing.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES: 5
NOES: 0
ABSENT: 0
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
Miller, Slaven, Soltysiak, Webster, Fahey
None
None
Chairman Fahey called a recess at 6:51 PM and reconvened the meeting at 6:58 PM.
6. Planning Application PA97-0007 (Development Plan
Commissioner Soltysiak stated he is a consultant to the applicant and he stepped down from the dais.
Project Planner Carole Donahue presented the staff report.
Commissioner Webster asked if the 6' wall around the parking area on the west side is consistent with
the Police Department's requirements to have hedges and planters no higher than 3' Ms. Donahue
answered the Police Department's letter of January 29, 1997 stated they wanted landscaping down to a
low level for visibility from the street. The wall forms a secured area with gates locked during
nonbusiness hours.
Commissioner Miller questioned whether or not storage areas are planned. Ms. Donahue replied there
is no proposed storage area.
Chairman Fahey opened the public hearing at 7:04 PM.
Dean Davidson, 28441 Rancho Califomia Road, Suite A, representing the applicant, stated the applicant
agrees with the Conditions of Approval.
Chairman Fahey asked for clarification regarding planned storage areas. Mr. Davidson replied there are
no plans for outside storage areas and the second gate was required by the Fire Department.
Commissioner Webster suggested a 3' high solid fence with a 3' ornamental iron fence on top, and Mr.
Davidson stated he had no opposition to that suggestion.
Chairman Fahey closed the public comment section at 7:06 PM.
R: \PLANCOMM\MINUTES\1997\5-5-97.WPD 6/26/97 vgw 6
PT,ANNTNG CO~MTSSTON ~Y 5, 1997
It was moved by Commissioner Webster, and seconded by Commissioner Slaven, to adopt the Negative
Declaration for Planning Application No. PA97-0007; to adopt the Mitigation Monitoring Program for
Planning Application No. PA97-0007; to adopt Resolution No. 97-Next approving recommending
approval of Planning Application No. PA97-0007 based upon the Analysis and Findings contained in the
Staff Report and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval as amended by having a 3' high solid
fence with a 3' ornamental iron fence on top; and to close the public hearing.
Commissioner Miller commented he preferred the solid fence on a purely aesthetic basis -- a heavily
landscaped wall has a better appearance.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Miller, Slaven, Webster, Fahey
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSTAIN: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Soltysiak
Planning Application
PA95-0127 (Sign Ordinance
Chairman Fahey stated the public hearing remains open.
Window Coverage
Commissioner Soltysiak expressed concem that the Commission may be creating a lot of nonconforming
signs by limiting window areas to 10%. Commissioner Miller stated he suggested 10% after considering
the magnitude, and the intent is to clear out sign clutter.
Chairman Fahey asked if staff could provide unidentifiable photos illustrating windows with 10 to 25
percent coverage.
Commissioner Soltysiak asked if it was decided handpainted signs are not acceptable. Commissioner
Miller replied non-day glo-colored handpainted signs are acceptable within the 10%.
17.28.070 General Requirements for Permanent Signs
(4) Design
h. - Commissioner Miller stated he did not understand why a center's identification signs had to be one
sided. Mr. Naaseh replied the intent is to have the center's ID sign built into the landscaping. Chairman
Fahey clarified a one-sided sign is to encourage landscaping and monument-type signing.
(5) Landscaping
c. - Commissioner Miller questioned the wording in the last sentence, and if the goal is year-round color,
replanting is required every six to eight weeks which is unreasonable and unenforceable and suggested
the sentence be removed.
Chairman Fahey stated she would leave the sentence in to encourage seasonal changes.
R: \PLANCOMM\MINUTES\1997\5-5-97.WPD 6/26/97 v~w 7
PT,~'~NTNG COM~TSSTON MAY 5, 'i997
It was the consensus of the Commission to eliminate the last sentence.
Commissioner Miller questioned the intent of "similar proportions" in the first sentence. Chairman Fahey
suggested the sentence end at "...which provide additional color."
It was the consensus of the Commission to end the sentence after color.
(7) Illumination
Commissioner Webster mentioned Palomar Light Pollution Ordinance may not be the correct title; staff
will check on the correct title.
(8) Width
Introduction, last sentence - Commissioner Webster asked for an explanation of "... width calculated by
the sign width coefficient." Mr. Naaseh stated there is a maximum area and height, but not a maximum
width for a freestanding sign and the coefficient puts the sign in proportion to the height.
(b) Standards for Permanent Wall Mounted Signs for Buildings with Two (2) Stories or Less
(1)a. - Commission Miller questioned why require a sign on a specific wall rather than at a logical place
to view the sign. Mr. Naaseh replied the intent is to prohibit a business from putting a sign on the
freeway-facing side when their actual office area is located on another side. Ms. Ubnoske stated staff will
clarify the language regarding a wall definition, if an overhang is considered a wall, and flexibility for
sign locations.
Commissioner Miller stated he could not support this item.
It was the consensus of the Commission to eliminate (a).
(3) b. and c. - Commissioner Webster questioned the definition of scale; i.e., is there a certain ratio or
is it a Planning Department scale, and is there a maximum. Mr. Estrada suggested deleting "be in scale
with the building."
Commissioner Webster mentioned there are signs with large letters which are out of scale with the
building and asked what is the correct percentage. Mr. Naaseh answered 75 % is a standard percentage
used in other cities' ordinances.
Commissioner Miller asked how the 75 % in (3) b is applied when the building is essentially all glass.
Mr. Naaseh replied office buildings are covered in another section and is not affect by these standards.
Ms. Ubnoske suggested a beginning paragraph stating these are general standards with specifics found
in subsequent sections.
R:\PLANCOMM\MINUTES\1997\5-5-97.WPD 6/26/97 vgw 8
pT,ANNTNG COI~TSSTON I~,Y 5~ ';997
Mr. Naaseh stated a large building can be broken into small elevations and a sign installed on only one
elevation overwhelms the building. For large buildings, the maximum area of the sign would probably
be met before the 75 % building ratio.
(4) Letter Height
Commissioner Webster asked if a maximum letter height is needed. Mr. Naaseh stated letters are
restricted by sign height and the building mass.
(5)
Commissioner Soltysiak inquired into the intent of (5) A, B and C. Mr. Naaseh stated the section is to
encourage creativity.
(6) Illumination
Commissioner Miller noted there is not indication of any conclusion taken rearding his suggestion, white
should also be permissible for a channel letter. Mr. Naaseh stated if the channel letter background and
neon tubing is the same color, the sign is easier to read during the day. Chairman Fahey stated this issue
will be revisted when reviewing the final draft ordinance.
Commissioner Webster noted an inconsistency in the day glo color definition as it seems to apply to neon
and suggested rewording the definition to exclude neon.
It was the consensus of the Commission to have neon excluded under day glo color definition.
17.28.210 Freeway Oriented Signs in Commercial Districts
Chairman Fahey stated freeway oriented signs will be addressed at a later date. Mr. Naaseh stated an
issue dealing with center size, (a)(1)(b), was raised and staff needs direction regarding minimum acreage.
Chairman Fahey remarked that if seven (7) acres are the minimum, parcels will be broken up to be able
to have more signs and is in favor of three (3) acres.
Commissioner Webster expressed an interest in looking at Mr. Markham's proposal of a three-acre
minimum with an option of having a freeway sign and then not allowing wall mounted signs.
Ms. Ubnoske stated staff is looking into incentive programs and available options and will report to the
Commission.
17.28.220 Requirements for Freestanding Shopping Center Identification Signs in Commercial Districts
Commissioner Miller asked why the differential between seven (7) acres and less than seven-acre sites.
Mr. Naaseh stated seven acres was the Sign Committee's break up of large and small centers.
Commissioner Miller stated smaller centers have the same need for signage as the large ones and adequate
R:\PLANCOMM\MINUTES\1997\5-5-97.WPD 6/26/97 vgw 9
P?,ANNING COMMTSSTON M~Y 5, ~997
spacing between signs is more important than the depth/width of a lot. Mr. Naaseh said the Sign
Committee gave centers as many identification signs as they could -- two (2) per major entrance. Mr.
Naaseh mentioned that 20 sq. ft. is the area around the letters, not the sign structure. Chairman Fahey
stated since all interested parties reviewed and agreed with this section, the Commission should proceed.
17.28.230 Freestanding Tenant Identification in Commercial Districts
(a)(1) - Commissioner Miller asked the purpose of the statement "... at least half...shall be single
tenant..." Mr. Naaseh answered the Sign Committee, in calculating the number of signs a shopping
center could have, did not distinguish between single and multi-tenant signs and they said one sign per
1,000' of frontage.
Mr. Hogan explained the Sign Committee looked at total frontage and believed a combination of multi
and single-tenant signs eliminated visual and monotonous clutter.
Commissioner Miller expressed his disagreement.
It was the consensus of the Commissioner to leave (a)(1) as written.
(a)(6) - Commissioner Webster remarked there are cases where two signs per panel is well designed.
Commissioner Slaven and Chairman Fahey expressed they had no problem if letters are sufficient size
to be read, and Chairman Fahey suggested changing (a) (6) to read "The maximum number... shall be
two.
It was the consensus of the Commission to change to "two."
(a)(7) - Mr. Naaseh reported it should read ..minimum panel ~ should...
17.28.240 Requirements for Wall Mounted Business Identification Signs for Buildings with 2 Stories or
Less in Commercial Districts
(b) - Commissioner Webster questioned if there is a requirement for spacing between individual tenant
signs or does each individual sign take up 75 % of the area. Mr. Naaseh replied there are no standards
addressing that issue, but the 75 % requirement could apply to a multi-tenant building. Staff will review
wording to make certain the intent for appropriate spacing is clearly worded.
(c) - Commissioner Miller asked when would there not be a tenant identification of a building. Mr.
Naaseh stated "proposed" may be a better word than permitted.
17.28.250 Wall Mounted Signs for Buildings with 3 Stores or More in Commercial Districts
Commissioner Soltysiak asked if a controversy remains since the section was revised. Mr. Naaseh stated
the ordinance now distinguishes between a primary and secondary tenant; a primary tenant wanting to
identify the building with their name can have two signs with four additional identification signs for
smaller tenants -- a total of six signs -- as the intent is to limit the number of signs on a building.
R: \ PLANCOMM\MINUTES\ 1997 \ 5- 5-97. WPD 6/26/97 vgw
PT.~B."NTNG CO~TSSTON F,J~Y 5, !997
Mr. Naaseh stated Section A refers to a wall-mounted building identification sign which could also be a
tenant of the building; Section B, wall-mounted secondary tenant business identification sign.
Commissioner Soltysiak asked staff to clarify the section by adding primary tenant in the bold title.
Commissioner Soltysiak asked staff to alert the Commission when a controversial section is under
discussion.
17.28.260 Requirements for Special Signs in Commercial Districts
(a) - Commissioner Slaven asked how can the diesel fuel signs placed in planters be eliminated. Mr.
Naaseh stated gas price signs are regulated by the state, but the new ordinance does not allow separate
price signs for diesel and a diesel price sign placed without a permit, is an illegal sign.
17.28.265 Requirements for Projecting Signs in Commercial Districts
(c) - Commissioner Slaven asked the meaning of "Maximum height of signs shall not exceed 20'..." Mr.
Naaseh replied it means the clearance of the sign; staff will clarify language.
17.28.275 Requirements for Awning Signs in Commercial Districts
(d) - Commercial Miller asked since projection is limited to the right of way, can an awning extend to
the middle of a parking lot. Chairman Fahey stated we are talking about signs on awnings, not awnings.
Mr. Estrada remarked that the ordinance stated no signs in the public right of way so (d) could be
eliminated.
It was the consensus of the Commission to eliminate (d).
17.28.280 On-Site Directional and Directory Signs in Commercial Districts
(b)(2) Commissioner Webster stated he would like to see a maximum area bigger than 3' -- something
around 10 sq. ft. -- because a sign could be providing direction to two or three spots. Mr. Naaseh replied
there are three types of directory signs: (b) and (c) are on-site signs for individual businesses, i.e., drive
up windows; and (c) is for shopping centers. Commissioner Webster mentioned industrial signs refer
back to this section and an individual business could need office/warehouse/delivery directional signs;
perhaps it can be clarified in the industrial section.
Commissioner Slaven mentioned small-sized stop signs in a plaza are difficult to see and should
be addressed. Mr. Naaseh stated he was not certain of the appropriate section, but will look into
it.
(b) - Commissioner Miller stated the introductory sentence of (b), (b)(6) and (c)(5) should be reworded.
Staff will rewrite the sentences.
It was moved by Commissioner Slaven, and seconded by Commission Miller to continue the public
hearing of PA95-0127, Sign Ordinance, to May 19, 1997, beginning with 17.28.300, Signs in
Professional Office District.
R: \ PLANCOMM\MINUTES \ 1997 \ 5- 5- 97. WPD 6/26/97 v~w 11
PT,~N~TNG CO~TSSTON ~¥ 5, 1997
The motion was unanimously carried.
PLANNING MANAGER'S REPORT
Ms. Ubnoske reported the Planning Department's Fast Track process was submitted to the Inland Empire
American Planning Association and won an award for Customer Service.
She stated she mentions the air-conditioning problem after every meeting, and it is to be worked on next week.
PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Chairman Fahey asked if any commissioner would like to attend the award dinner with staff Wednesday, May
21, 5:30 PM, Benedict Castle, Riverside, to let Ms. Ubnoske know as soon as possible.
Chairman Fahey reported it has been over a year since the chair position was addressed and she would like the
item to be put on an agenda for discussion. She invited others to consider the position, but she is willing to
continue.
It was moved by Commissioner Miller, and seconded by Commissioner Slaven, to adjourn the meeting at 8:50
PM. The motion was unanimously carried.
The next meeting will be held May 19, 1997, at 6:00 P.M. at the Temecula City Hall Council Chambers, 43200
Business Park Drive, Temecula, California.
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
LinUa Fahey, Chair'man
R:\PLANCOMM\MINUTES\1997\5-5-97.WPD 6/26/97 v~ 12