Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout030794 PC AgendaAGENDA TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION March 7, 1994, 6:00 PIW VAIL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 29915 Mira Loma Drive Temecula, CA 92390 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Ford ROLL CALL: Blair, Fahey, Hoegland and Ford PUBLIC COMMENTS A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address the commissioners on items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Commissioners about an item not listed on the Ageride, a pink "Request to Speak' form should be filled out and filed with the Commission Secretary. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name and address. For all other ageride items a 'Request to Speak" form must be filed with the Planning Secretary before Commission gets to that item. There is a three (3) minute time limit for individual speakers. COMMISSION BUSINESS 1. Approval of Agende 2. Approval of minutes from the February 7, 1994 Planning Commission meeting. 3. Changes in Residential Production Unit Sizes 4. Update of 1993 Amendments to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) 5. Director's Hearing Update NON-PUBLIC HEARING Case No: Applicant: Location: Proposal: Environmental Action: Project Planner: Sam Hicks Monument Park Master Plan City of Temecula Northeast of the intersection of Moreno Road and Mercedes Street Master Plan for the Sam Hicks Park that will include a concert stand/gazebo, picnic tables, benches, renovation of an existing church, play equipment, a rose garden, a restroom and other amenities, along with provisions for approximately 22,425 square feet of museum space (to be constructed in three phases) Proposed Negative Declaration Phyllis Ruse, Senior Management Analyst Next meeting: March 21, 1994, 6:00 p.m., Vail Elementary School, 29915 Mira Loma Drive, Temecula, California. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION OTHER BUSINESS ADJOURNMENT R:%WIMBERVGUq..ANC~ENDAS~3-7-94 3/3/94 vgw 2 ITEM #2 MINUTES OF THE CiTY OF i r. MECULA PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 7, 1994 A meeting of the City of Temecula Planning Commission was called to order on Monday, February 7, 1994, 6:05 P.M., at Vail Elementary School, 29915 Mira Loma DHve, Temecula, California. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Steve Ford. PRESENT: 3 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Ford ABSENT: I COMMISSIONERS: Hoagland Also present were Assistant City Attorney Greg Diaz, Planning Director Gary Thornhill, Principal Engineer Ray Casey and Recording Secretary Gall Ziglet. PRESENTATIONS City Clerk June S. Greek delivered the oath of office to incoming Planning Commissioner Art Solyet. PUBLIC COMMENT None COMMISSION BUSINESS 1. Amx~val Of Aoenda It was moved by Commissioner Blair, seconded by Commissioner Fahey to approve the agenda. The motion carried as follows: AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Salyer, Ford NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Hoagland APProval Of Minutes from January 3, 1994 Planning Commission Meeting Commissioner Blair asked for a correction on Page 4, paragraph 6, to delete the word "out" and replace with the word "lot". It was moved by Commissioner Fahey, seconded by Commissioner Blair to approve the minutes. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES The motion carried as follows: AYES: 3 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fshey, Ford NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: I COMMISSIONERS: Hoegland ABSTAIN: I COMMISSIONERS: Salyer FEBRUARY 7, 1994 3. I)irector's Headno Update No report. NON-PUBUC HEARING I II:MS 4. 94-0001 Proposed 20 foot high free standing sign for Norm Reeves Auto Dealership. Located at 26755 Ynez Road. Planner Craig Ruiz presented the staff report. Commissioner Fahey said she does not see anything restricting the visibility of s six foot high sign and she feels a 20 foot high sign is inappropriate at this location. Director Thornhill said staff and the City Council have expressed a desire to see six foot high monument signs to reduce the visual impacts of signage as you travel the roadway in the vacinity of the auto dealerships. Commissioner Hoegland arrived at 6:20 P.M. John Marsten, 1225 E. Johnston, Hemet, representing the dealership, advised the Commission the dealer is not requesting approval of a 20' pole sign, however, corporate procedure for Chrysler Corporation is to direct their auto dealers to apply for a 20' sign. Mr. Marsten said the smallest monument sign Chryder Corporation builds is 10 feet tall. He distributed a copy of the details and dimensions for a 10 foot tall sign. Dick Kennedy, 30650 Cabffilo, General Manager of the Norm Reeves Auto Dealerships, advised the Commission the auto dealership will not own the Chrysler sign which is built and paid for by the dealer. Mr. Kennedy said there are several obstructions that would make the six foot high sign difficult to view. PCMINO2/O71M -2- O2/11 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 7. 1994 Director Thornhill said staff is trying to remain consistent and informs all applicants that monument signs can be no higher than six feet. He said the sign base may be raised however, The sign face should not exceed six feet. It was moved by Commissioner Fehey, seconded by Commissioner Blair to direct staff Ta maintain consistency wiTh regard to monument sign applications and deny requests which exceed The maximum six foot height limit. The motion carried as follows: AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Hoagland, Sslyer, Ford NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None 5. General Ran Consistency Handbook Proposed Guidance Handbook for implementing the City General Plan, Planner David Hogan presented the staff report. Commissioner Fahey said she feels the handbook is well organized. Commissioner Fahey said she is concerned that the staff reports usually address the land use issues and do not address some of the other concepts. Director Thornhill said he will be working on a checklist for the planners to use as they review an application, Commissioner Blair said she feels a checklist would be ideal. It was moved by Commissioner Fahey, seconded by Commissioner Blair to Adopt Resolution No. 94-02 recommending that the City Council approve the General Ran Consistency Handbook, The motion carried as follows: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: 5 COMMISSIONERS: 0 COMMISSIONERS: 0 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Hoagland, Salyer, Ford None None 6. Water Efficient Landscane Ordinance Proposed Local Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance. PCMINO2JOT;g4 02/11/M PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 7. 1994 Senior Planner John Meyer presented the staff report. Commisioner Hoagland complimented staff on the ordinance. Commisioner Hoegland recommended the following reviions: 3.02. |B) 3.03. (A) 'Water systems deigned to utilize non-potable water shall be deigned to meet all applicable standards of the City of Temecula, the local reclaimed water purveyor, the California Regional Water Quality Control Board ..... ". "Thirty percent Of all model homes in residential subdivisions, or no less than one, shall comply with the provisions of this Ordinance." 3.03. (D) "This is a demonstration of a water efficient landscape.' Commisioner Salyer asked why Rancho California Water District did not comment on the Ordinance. Planner Meyer said they were aware of the ordinance however, they did not respond. Commisioner Salyer suggested staff ask Rancho California Water Distdct to comment on the draft again. Chairman Ford asked why golf courses were not included in Section 1.02 (B). Chairman Ford asked what percentage of a project must be rehabilitated before the ordinance applies. Commissioner Hoagland said reclaimed water users are exempt and golf courses utilize reclaimed water. Planner Meyer said staff had not considered the issue regarding rehabilitation and suggested staff add a section pertaining to reclaimed water. It was moved by ,Commissioner Fahey, seconded by Commissioner Hoagland to Adopt Resolution No. 94-03 recommending that the City Council establish standards for Water Efficient Landscape Deign. The motion carried as follows: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: 5 COMMISSIONERS: 0 COMMISSIONERS: 0 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Hoagland, Salyer, Ford None None PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES PUBUC HEARING .. ,-MS 7. FEBRUARY 7.1994 Contiauous Parcel MerGer Ordinance Proposed amendment to Ordinance No. 460 to simplify the current rules for merging substandard parcels. Planner David Hogan presented the staff report. Chairman Ford opened the public hearing at 7:20 P.M. Chairman Ford suggested a definition of property owner be included in the ordinance or draft the ordinance to refer to the owner of record. Commissioner Hoagland suggested a definition of owner be included and state the owner is the 'title holder of record or all title holders of record". Assistant City Attorney Greg Diaz asked if the Commission prefers consent or notice of the first or second trust deed property owners. The overell consensus of the Commission is to accept notice of additional title holders. It was moved by Commissioner Hoaglsnd, seconded by Commissioner Blair to close the public hearing at 7:20 P.M. and Adopt Resolution No. 94-04 recommending that the City Council adopt an ordinance amending Section 16.7 of Ordinance No. 460 pertaining to the merger of contiguous parcels. The motion carried as follows: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: 5 COMMISSIONERS: 0 COMMISSIONERS: 0 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Hoagland, Salyer, Ford None None An Amendment to Secljon No. 18.28.A.C.(10) of Ordinance No. 348 Proposal TO amend Drdinsnce No. 348 pertsining to the type of psving matedsl(s) required for access to second dwelling units, Planner Matthew Fsgsn presented the staff report. Chairman Ford opened the public hearing et 7:25 P.M. Commissioner Hoagland questioned the legality of Section (B) of the amendment regarding recordation of a waiver. PLANNING COMMISSION MINU I,-S FEBRUARY 7, 1994 Assistant City Attomey Greg Diaz said recording s waiver against the property, provides evidence the property owners is accepting some risk. Commissioner Hoegland suggested staff ask the Fire Department for their comments regarding section (A) of the amendment. He said he feels the City should have input regarding acceptable materials. Commissioner Hoegland suggested the City should evaluate a couple of alternatives or guidelines for conforming to Section (A) of the amendment. Commissioner Hoegland Mid he feels the language is fine however, he liked the previous requirement for a 28' A/C road and if this condition was not met then a second unit is not acceptable. Principal Engineer Ray Casey said staff is concerned with making design recommendations. Chairman Ford expressed concern there is no timing related to the recordation of the waiver against the property and suggested amending the ordinance to read 'prior to issuance of building permit". Chairman Ford added that he feels a maintenance clause stating the property owner is responsible for the maintenance of the roadway should be included. It was moved by Commissioner Fahey, seconded by Commissioner Blair to close the public hearing at 7:30 P.M. and to Adopt Resolution No. 94-05 recommending approval of an amendment to Section 18.28.A.C.(10) of Ordinance No. 348, with the following changes/additions: 9. It is the applicant's responsibility to maintain the access such that it will continue to support a 30,000 pound emergency vehicle.: C. The applicant agrees to record a waiver against the property pdor to the issuance of building permit, releasing the City of Temecula of any liability in the event emergency vehicles cannot utilize the drive lane, prior to the issuance of building permits. The motion carried as follows: AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Salyer, Ford NOES: I COMMISSIONERS: Hoegland ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT Planning Director Gary Thomhill reported the following: Keeper Development is planning to resurrect some of their dormant projects and staff would like consensus from the Commission on holding an additional meeting on March 21, 1994 to review some of these projects. The consensus of the Commission was to meet on March 21, 1994. PCIRINO2/07194 -6- 02/11/94 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 7, 1994 The City of Temecula General Plan received an award at the Livable Communities Conference. Temecula was one of six cities receiving an award. The annual Planning Insljtute is being held in San Diego, and attendance should be acknowled with Planning Department secretary. The Old Town Specific Plan was continued January 25, 1994 and will go before the City Council on Tuesday, February 8, 1994. PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION None OTHER BUSINESS None ADJOURNMENT Chairman Ford declared the meeting adjourned at 8:00 P.M. The next regular meeting of the City of Temecula Planning Commission will be held on Monday, March 7, 1994, Vail Bementary School, 29915 Mira Loma Ddve, Temecula, California. Secretary Chairman Steve Ford PCMIN02/07184 -7- O2'11/94 ITEM #3 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: MEMORANDUM Planning Commission Gary Thornhill, Director of Planning March 7, 1994 Changes in Residential Production Unit Sizes RECOMMENDATION Discussion and direction on the preparation of an ordinance regulating the reduction in size of residential units in existing tracts. PURPOSE On February 22, 1994, the City Council directed staff to prepare an ordinance to address changes in the size of residential units in existing subdivisions (downsizing). The purpose of this agenda item is to familiarize the Commission with the different types of ordinances and allow the Commission to share any concerns they may have with respect to this issue. BACKGROUND In the last month, there have been a number of proposals by residential builders to downsize previously approved residential subdivisions. As a result, the Planning Department has received numerous phone calls from property owners expressing concerns about the impact these smaller homes may have on their property values. Currently, Ordinance No. 348 has no provisions for staff to regulate changes to approved subdivisions, with the exception of R-2 subdivisions. While staff recognizes the current economic climate and its effect on the development community's efforts to market larger homes, we also recognize the potential impacts on existing homes. Staff has reviewed sample ordinances from other communities. However, because staff wanted to get this matter before the Commission at the earliest possible time for direction, we have not yet prepared a draft ordinance. Attached to the staff report for the Commission's review are downsizing ordinances from the cities of Moreno Valley and Murrieta. During the meeting, staff will make a presentation on the various aspects of a downsizing ordinance. PROCESS After receiving input from the Commission, staff will begin preparation of a draft ordinance. However, prior to bringing the draft ordinance back to the Planning Commission, staff will present it to the Temecula Coordinating Committee and the local Building Industry Association Chapter for review and input. Attachments: 1. City of Murrieta, Downsizing Ordinance - Blue Page 3 2. City of Moreno Valley, Downsizing Ordinance - Blue Page 4 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 CITY OF MURRIETA DOWNSIZING ORDINANCE ORDINANCE NO. S0 dWmm, AN ORDINANCE OF TH~ CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MURRIErA, CALII~)RNIA, A]~END~ ORDINANCE 348, ARTIC:LB X'V~. TO ADD A NEW SECIION 18.4e FROVIDING REGUIATIONS TO ~W FOR THE REDUCTION OF SQUARB B:)OTAGB TO PKEVIOUSLY APPROVED HOUSING UNtx~ IN I~:IDBNTIAL SUBDIVISIONS. Tl~ City Council of the City of Murrieta do~ ordain as follows: SECT/ON 1. ~MENT.. Amendment m Article XVI~ of Ordinanc~ 348. Ordinance No. 348 of the County of Rivehide, as ina~lm, axal and adopted by Ordinance of the City of Rutrim, and as amended thami~ f~sn lime to time by the City Council, is hereby ammdal by adding Section 18.48 to tmi as foaows: ~ectio~ 18.48. RI~nUCTION IN SQUARE FOOTAGE,SINGLE FAMILY UNITS. following provisions aze intended to ensure that such nxlumts to 'downsize' units ax~ adequately reviewed, ~ established, and findings made m ensure compatibility with exislinZ units. APPLICABILITY. Thes~ n~gula~om shall apply only ~o tmidmti~ subdivisions that have been partially built out, in llz R-I, R-2, or other approval process. Projects whiGb have tmmeived plot plan or other dm~gn approval by City staff, the Planning C0mmimdnq, CiL]r Colmgil, or the Corntry of Riverside, prior to the effective d_nu, ofn'xis Ordinance, and whos~ nppmval is still valid, shall b~ exempt f-ram em a~qui~emmu h~tdn. APP~,TCATION REQUIRED, Requests for xzduclion o~quarc foomge for pwviously spprov, d units shall be fikd with UM~ Planning Department on forms provided by the Planning Department. Th~ application requited shall provici~d shall includ~ at a minimum: ZCA 92-1~ 2. Floor plans. Ot~r information ~ nenn~ by the Planning D~artment w adeqtmWly pauent and/o~ supplement the ~ mtuiml above to tho Planning Commission and/or City Council. _D~FINFFIO. NS. Throughout this oniinancc, ~he following words and phrases shall have the mmnlngs ascribed in ~his s~on. ~!~shallmea~the~ntlotmthermrofamvenecomerlot. whether nrnot scl:mud byan all~y.(~em Exha'ntt Aarmched) Reverse Corn~ Lnt shall n~.sn · nn'ner lot. h~o ~ar o~ which abuls t~ side of anot~r ~, (Sin DJdMt A attached) Side-On shall mean slawhose side lot line abuts the sMe lot line of another lot. (See Exhibit A 5, Tra~. shall include all the area within an approved tmtstiv~ traa or firel map, including all phases contained tha~n. E~TABLISh'M~-NT OF TRAK~ITION 7ON~ For pro-poses of this Ordinance, a trsnsi6an zone shall be established W ensure eompe~bility between the existing unim and ~e proposed nmv units. The Transition Zone Any lot which is located directly saoss · stnn from sn ff. is6ng unit, plus thr~ (3) additional tots on either side,. 2. ARevened Corner lot ~e a g~ Lot has an exis~g unit. 3. Any lot which "sides4m' to a lot with an existing unit on it plus four City Council Meetin~ ZCA 92-142 (I)ownsizin~) 4. A Key Lot when a ReveAe~l Corner lot has st existinl unit Excludes lou which "bsck-on' to Ion wtl ~xisiing units on them. D~OPMI~FF CRITERIA 'WrI"HIX THR TRAIq~IITION z. Olq~__.. The followinI criteria shall apply m lhos~ ~ts locsled within a Transition Zone u The maximum amount of reduction that can be approved by the P!ann'mg Direaor between the existing smiu and the proposed units sha]l be filemen Ixrcent (1~1). The method to ealnalate the maximum I~% nstuaion silowed is to ta~ the avenge square foot~ ot 1t~ floor plus of the existing units and cornpars it mle averag~ square footap ofO~pmposed fioor plans tobs locat~d in ths transitim zon= only. For purposes of this ~l,n~hklO~, only th~ number of different floor plans shall be used,.and not the total number Of units within the subject tra~ New units in th~ tnnsition zone shall be compatible in terms of mass, scale, color, materials, roofing, streetrdzne, and hndscaphg with ths ~xisting units. ~)EVELOPMENT CRI~'ERIA OUTSIDE Tt~ TRANSITION 7-OJ~., Th~ following critem. shall apply so thos~ lots !ocamd within the subjea tract but which zre not locazd within the transition zon~ desre'bed in Paragraph "D" All units shall be comlmfible in Inns of mass, scale, color, matethis, roofing, strmsc~oe, and landscaping with the ~tisting units in the subject u'aa. H. APPROVAL AUTHORITY: 1. For re~!ucfioos in squa~ foomge of fifteen pe, t~nt (15t) or !en, City Council Meesifig ZCA 92-142 (l~awmizinl) Page 4 For reductions in sipare ft~age of artinter than approval shall be tequL-mt by ~he Planning PUBIJC HI=&RING REOUIRED AND NOTI!:ICATION. Public hearings For Planning Did'tot ACtions: a) No public heating shall bs required unless an appmd is filed as descr~zd inPangmph *K'below. At least fifteen (1~) calendar days prior to lIB date in which the Planning Ditzctor or is/her deai~ intends to make · decision on at request filed pun,u~ to titis Orditance, notice (~) Mailing of notice to all ownen of md property located within rib subject tract and thos~ property ownen bx:ated within the arcs of the transition zooe established by the Piannina l::~u~zaent pursuant to ParaSraph The posting of a sign in a eonsp~ loca~cm within the subject uact. Location, si--, and content of the sign shall be de~ by the Planning Department. The Notice shall include a description of the proposed ~quest, including adequat~ dmils and information necess~ to fully describe the proposed request as detm'mined by the Planning Departm~t. The Notice shall also contain a rdatcment that details of the proposed rcqucst at~ available at the Planning Department for tevicw and inspection by affected property owners, and s~r~ the dates and limes the information is available for For Phnning Commission Actions and Appuls of Plam~ Director and PLantring Commissima Dccisiop. s: (a) Publication in at ~ one nmvspsper of getreal circulation that Clly Coum:~ Meeting ZCA 92-142 (Downaizing) Notk~ofheaflngshallbsmaikdotdeliveredatkast fitk~n (15) okndar days prior m u'~ hearing u> all ownen of rut property u shown on the latest equalized essessmmt roll within a ~0 foot radius of the boundaries of t!~ ms:t if there a~ 100 ptOpe~ Ow~erl lOt~ll~l within th~ 600 foO~ fadlug, rhea no6~a:mkm shall be provided within a 1000 foot rddiUS Of the boundaries of the rat. and; Th~ po~!ing of the publt~ nonce in a eonslgcuous location within the aubj~'t traa at Imat fif~s~_ (15) calendar days prier sip shall he th:~rmined by the Planning Deparm~nt. FINDINGS REOU~'P~ FOR APPROVAL: The fo!!m~f~ Findin~ ~ ~ ~ing D~ ~ hi~ d~, ~ ~ ~m~, ~ Ci~ Co~: Conformance with Genend Plan Polk:~ - The proposed ~queit in it~ design and improvemenU is ctmsis~nt with goals, ob]_,y~_ve~ and poliele~ of whe General Plan. Conformante with Zoning Ordinance * Th~ proposal is consistrot with all applic~ie provisions of Ordinance No. 348. Site Suitabilily and C_,ompntibilit~ wilh Surrounding Uses - Th~ si~ is suitable for th~ type Of development propmeal. Th~ prn~ would not impair the integrity and character of tl~ surrounding development, cornpan'hie in terms of mass and scale with lun~%djng us~ and SIFuct~tU, Archizemral Styl~ and Design - The proposal is compattbin with surroondin~ development in ms Of mass, scale, crUX, matezinlth s~o~ng, street.sc~, and landscaping. City ~ M_-~;nl ZCA 92-142 (Downsizing) be sppealed to the City Council The decision of the Planning Commission is final unless an appeal is filed within ten (10) calendar days after the date of the decision. L. ~ LIMITS OF APPROVAl. Construction must co~ within tam (2) yen from ~ date of Planning Director, Planning Commission or City CountnI approval (whichever is htff) or the spproval Irsntmt shall becom~ nttH and void, unlus a dme extension ia p-dntCd by the City purerant to Ordinance 348. SEC1lON2~DA'lT..:This orditmnoo shall bectm~ e~eaxive thirty CJ0) days from tim date of its adoption. SECTTON 3. S!~Vi~RABXI, ITY: If any provi~ of titis ordinance or the applicatima thereof to amy person or ciacumsunce is hem invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other pmvisi~s or ap~lica~ons, and ~o ~s end ~e provis~us ~ lids ordinance az~ dec]an~ m SF, L"I]ON 4. NOTICE OF ADOPTION: ]~rithin ~ft,"M~ (15) days afire' the adoption hereof, me City Clerk shall cm'tify to dm adopdon ofthis Otdinanee and cause itto be posted in at least dafee ('3) public places in the ~ty. Clerk rids i~cb day of throb . 1~3. ) APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO CO~: x, ^. r, ay vinrdm. c~ C*~k of ~ City of X~un'i~ hem:by c~fy mat ~ ordinnn~ ,ram duly and xegul~,ty inuuduced at a mee~inl uf lira City Courtall on~reh 2, 199~, and thsx tha~sl~z h~ ssjd ordjnss~ ~ duly ss~d r~ulsdy sdolj~ st · of ~he City Coand] on ~e i6ch day of March ,1993, by ~h~ fullovAng Noes; Abien~ h~th and ~alsh IN WrrNK~ WHERF~F, I bav~ I~n~unm s~ my ~ and ofi~ial seal of 8~ City of Minieta, Califon~ tiffs lf~ ~ay of Batch .1993. CByC~k~~aty of Mu~ ATTACHMENT NO. 2 CITY OF MORENO VALLEY DOWNSIZING ORDINANCE D~'Ig, O~na~ COD~- SECTION 9.0e.~10 a T'as applkm for the b,n,4~,,U pennIX shall pay ~o ~h, ~r. st h ~ b mpprma6onksulm'~ed, xllsums neeessary~paythe ndndmrsemsm mand Ix. ~ 9.C8.R10 ChanGroe k Produc, fxm Un~ ~zes wtedn S~n~- l~wd'Xy ~khl Trac'~ SECTION 9.08.210 Do~,,~forwhichehefoissubUnthlopposai~ahallbeevuhmtedada publicheer~beforoamPhnnJnOCoxmxdmonbxaf:~:trdan~withOto n~jm develops__,,_; rmimv v,~:em for ro~owinO plof plans mi with DmiOnRmbwBoard. No devia~os lmssd caxwu~heedavurago, m on weiGhrod avexaOo in my,Ms o/ 3b~ t,~,,G my i:m permitted. of the nai~hbodmod: ~n~rol ohannel, or opera m area, eximinotwo. mmyhomm, fofbrnsttwoloeswlfhintim nnsition arm, is stron~y s~mragsct. L DEVELO~ CODE SECTION ~msidsmd ~hs PsabSd Psdommme AmounO, ITEM #4 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT Planning Commission Gary Thornhill, Director of Planrang March 7, 1994 Update on 1993 Amendments to the California Environmental Quality Act Prepared By: Craig D. Ruiz, Assistant Planner RECOMMENDATION Receive Report BACKGROUND The following information is intended to provide the Planning Commission with an overview of changes made to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in 1993. There were two primary CEQA reform measures: Assembly Bill 1888 (AB 1888) and Senate Bill 919 (SB 919). AB 1888 and SB 919 are designed to streamline the reviews required for manufacturing plants and development projects, make it harder for opponents of development to file "frivolous lawsuits" aimed at stopping a project through court challenges, and require opponents to file court appeals based on substantial evidence, not speculation, that a project needs a full EIR. ITEM #5 lVlInVIORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBIECT: planning Commi.~sion Gary ThornhilL Director of Planning March 7, 1993 DLmctor's Hearing Case Update planning App~cation No. PA93-0151 (Tentative Parcel lVlap No. 27788) was approved at the Planning Director's Hearing on February 9, 1994. Attachment 1. Planning Director's Hearing Action Agenda, February 9, 1994 - Blue Page 2 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 PLANNING DIRECTOR'S I:!~'ARING ACTION AGENDA FEBRUARY 9, 1994 ACTION AGENDA TEMECUIA DIRECTOR'S !~ARING REGULAR I~'s:KrlNG February 9, 1994 1'.30 PM TEM~CULA CITY II~TJ. ~ CONFg, RENCE ROOM 43174 Business Park Drive Temeeula, CA 92390 :' CAT.T. TO ORDER: Debbie Ubnoske, Senior Planner PUBLIC COMMENTS A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address to the Senior Planner on items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Senior Planner about an item not listed on the Agenda, a pink "Request to Speak" form should be ~led out and ~ed with the Senior Planner. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name and address. For all other agenda items a "Request to Spe~k" form must be ~ed with the Senior Planner befOre that item is heard. There is a three (3) minute time limit for individual speakers. Case No: Applicant: Location: Proposal: Environmental Action: Planner: Recommendation: ACTION: Planning Application No. 93-0151 - Tentative Par~ Map No. 27788 Lou Kashmere 29915 From Street, approximately 800 feet north of the intersection of Interstate 15 and State Highway 79 South A four (4) parcol commercial subdivision of 4.36 gross acres with a waiver of the final map. Categorical Exemption Matthew Fagan Approval APPROVED R:\DIRHEAR~AGENDA~2-O-94,AGN 3/3/94 kib ITEM #6 MEMO .... TO: FROM: DATE: REFERENCE: Planning Commission Phyllis L. Ruse~/ Senior Management Analyst March 3, 1994 SAM HICK MONUMENT PARK MASTER PLAN It is my pleasure to represent the Community Services Department this evening in presenting a verbal review of the Master Plan for the improvements at Sam Hicks Monument Park to the Planning Commission. The City's consultant, Vince Di Donato with The Alhambra Group and I will present slides of the site location, restroom elevations, and the rendering of the Master Plan for review and comment. We will be happy to answer any questions the Commission or the public may have relative to this project.