Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout060299 PC MinutesCALL TO ORDER MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 2, 1999 The City of Temecula Planning Commission convened in a regular meeting at 6:00 P.M., on Wednesday June 2, 1999, in the City Council Chambers of Temecula City Hall, 43200 Business Park Ddve, Temecula, California. ALLEGIANCE The audience was led in the Flag salute by Commissioner Webster. ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Also Present: PUBLIC COMMENTS No comments. COMMISSION BUSINESS 1. Approval of A~ienda Commissioners Fahey, Naggar, Webster, and Chairman Guerdero. Commissioner Soltysiak. Planning Manager Ubnoske, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks, Attorney Cudey, Senior Planner Fagan, Senior Planner Hogan. Associate Planner Donahoe, Project Planner Thomsley, and Minute Clerk Hansen. MOTION: Commissioner Naggar moved to approve the agenda. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Fahey and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Commissioner Soltysiak who was absent. 2. Approval of Minutes-April 21, 1999 MOTION: Commissioner Naggar moved to approve the minutes, as wdtten. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Webster and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Commissioner Soltysiak who was absent and Commissioner Fahey who abstained. 3. Commissioner Attendance ~ Council Meetinas Planning Manager Ubnoske queried the Commission for their input regarding establishment of a policy regarding designation of one member of the Planning Commission to attend the City Coundl Meetings and an altemate member to serve in their stead should the initial member not be able to attend. It was the consensus of the Commission to establish a policy designating the Chairperson of the Planning Commission to attend City Coundl Meetings; and recommended that in his or her inability to attend that the Vice-Chairperson would attend. 4. Public Convenience or Necessity for Trader Jce's Senior Planner Fagan presented the staff report (of record); specified the proposed location of this particular use; relayed that the use proposes to sell beer, wine, and liquor; noted that State Law requires a local finding of public convenience or necessity prior to the issuance of an alcoholic beverage sales license; indicated that the third response on the questionnaire (denoted on page I of the agenda material) should be corrected to indicate within proximity to the Winchester MarketPlace in lieu of within the Winchester MarketPlace; for Commissioner Webster, provided additional clarification regarding vadance in licensed establishments, relaying the difference between ddnking establishments (i.e., bars) and markets and restaurants; and for Chairman Guerdero, relayed that there will be no consumption of alcoholic beverages on site at this particular use. MOTION: Commissioner Naggar moved to approve the finding, based upon the analysis provided. Commissioner Fahey seconded the motion. (This motion was ultimately amended.) For Commissioner Webster, Attomey Cudey provided clarification as to the Commission's charge with regard to the specifidty of the finding, relaying that although it was not necessary, if it was the desire of the Commission the motion could include the specific cdteda that the finding was based on. Chairman Guerdero recommended that the motion encompass the Commission's rationale as to the cdteda for determination of the finding for this particular use, relaying that he could support the finding due to the use being a specialty store. MOTION: (Amending his odginal motion) Commissioner Naggar moved to approve the finding of convenience and necessity based on the following: the use being a specialty store, on the responses to the questionnaire, and upon the analysis provided. (This motion ultimately died for lack of a second.) Commissioner Fahey relayed that she could not support a finding of necessity. MOTION: Commissioner Naggar moved to approve the finding of convenience based on the following: the use being a specialty store, on the responses to the questionnaire, and upon the analysis provided. Commissioner Fahey seconded the motion and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Commissioner Soltysiak who was absent. 5. Power Center Comer Monument ~ $WC Maraarita Winchester Roads Associate Planner Donahoe presented the preliminary re-design plan for the Power Center Comer Monument; relayed that the materials for this particular project would be similar to the approved freestending multi-tenant sign; specified that the balloon and backdrop portion of the monument would be constructed of mosaic tile; and highlighted the landscape design. Mr. Cydl Cook, architect representing the applicant, provided additional clarification regarding the design of the project; specified the lighting of the monument, providing a dramatic effect; for Commissioner Webster. relayed the rationale for the placement of the logo and the address entities, noting that the address portion of the monument would not be lighted; for Chairman Guerdero, provided clarification as to the size of the monument in proportion to the building size; and relayed the general landscape plan, inclusive of berming, shrubbery, and the dense installation of trees. Commissioner Webster recommended removal of one of the listed entities, specifically the logo or the address portion of the lettering on the monument design. In concurrence, Commissioner Fahey, echoed by Commissioners Naggar and Guerdero, recommended specifically, removal of the stone brown lettering, indicating the address. Chairman Guerdero expressed a desire to have provision of a line-of-sight diagram at the time the project is brought back to the Commission, relaying concam with respect to the view of the loading docks from Margadte Road. Senior Planner Fagan relayed the rationale of bdnging this particular design forward to the Commission, solely in order to receive input, affirming Commissioner Fahey's comments that the project has already been approved. 6. Capital Improvement Program-Project Descriptions and Maps Senior Planner Hogan presented the steff report (per agenda material); relayed that the City's Capitel Improvement Program (CIP) is a five-year plan, regarding infrastructure, park issues, housing issues, and issues related to the continued development of Old Town; specified that the projects have been designated in terms of pdodty levels; noted that it was the Commission's charge to review the CIP for consistency with the City of Temecula's General Plan; and for Commissioner Webster, clarified the rationale of listing projects that are currently under construction. Planning Manager Ubnoske clarified the Planning Commission's purview with regard to review of the CIP; and confirmed, for Commissioner Webster, that as a community member he could present his pdodty concerns to the City Council at the June 10, 1999 CIP Workshop. With regard to Commissioner Webster's comments querying the CIP's lack of inclusion of various projects that have been recommended by the Publicrrreffic Safety Commission, Deputy Director of Public Works spedfled that the Rancho California Road Widening Project between Ynez and Moraga Roads would be addressed by the Public/Traffic Safety Commission in approximately two months; and relayed that although numerous circulation projects have not been listed in the CIP, that the projects have been approved by the City Council and will be initiated after completion of review. In response to Commissioner Fahey's querying as to the timing-of the projects, Planning Manager Ubnoske relayed that the City Council would be reviewing and re- pdodtizing the projects, which would culminate into the final determination of timing and pdority schedules for the listed entities. Providing additional clarification as to the timing of the projects, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks relayed that for the projects that encompass the first two years of the five-year CIP, funding has been established. In response to Chairman Guerdero's comments, regarding the Bddge Crossing Project from Diaz Road to Jefferson Avenue, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks relayed that a bddge between Rancho California Road and Winchester Road has been identified, relaying that this particular project will be designed next year; and noted that the second bddge crossing that would be funded for design would be located north of Winchester Road, extending from Diaz Road to either Date Street or Cherry Street. Having reviewed the CIP for consistency with the General Plan, Chairman Guerriero relayed that no formal action was necessary with regard to this agenda item. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS Plannina ADDliCatiOn No. PA98-0511 (Zone Chanae) and Plannina ADDlication No. PA98-0512 (Development Plan) PA98-0511: Request to change the Zoning designation at this location from Business Park (BP) to Planned development Overlay (PDO); and, PA98-0512: Request to develop a 244 unit senior's only apartment complex with a two and three story buildings on 8.3 of the 12.3 acre site. RECOMMENDATION it is recommended by the Planning Department that the Planning Commission approve the request. By way of overheads and color renderings, Project Planner Thomsley presented the staff report (of record); provided the rationale for bdnging this particular project back before the Commission after reevaluation, relaying that staff has determined that this application should be modified to include a Planned Development Oreday (PDO) which would permit less intensive uses; noted that the PDO is proposed to be adopted through a Zoning Amendment; highlighted the location, the site design, the landscape plan, amen)ties, architecture, and parking; relayed that additional access points have been added for the purpose of improved circulation, specifically, the addition of a second ddveway on Nicolas Road, and an altemate key gate access; and noted that the traffic studies for this particular project revealed that at AM peak traffic hours (between 7:00 and 7:15 A.M.) the Senior Housing Project would generate an additional 11 trips per hour. Project Planner Thomsley addressed the Commissioners comments, as follows: For Commissioner Naggar, dadrid that the daily overall trip generation for this particular project would be between 800 and 900 trips per day; and provided additional clarification with regard to the conditional permiffing of a Religious Institution use (denoted on page 26 of the staff report, Section: Schedule of Permitted Uses). For Commissioner Webster, provided additional information regarding the carports on the site design; relayed that this project would be classified as high density (30 units per acre); noted that the applicant has provided a noise study which has been ceded to the Building Department for their review; and dadfled that the Development Standards would remain consistent with the standards that are currently in effect under the Business Park zoning designation, referendng page 20, Section B1, of the staff report; and indicated that the footnotes denoted on pages 25 and 27 (per agenda material) should be corrected to indicate "1 ." For Chairman Guerdero, with regard to the recommendation to install a median in the entranceway of the project, provided additional information regarding the restrictions imposed by emergency access requirements. For Commissioner Naggar, Attomey Cudey further clarified the proposed zoning permitted uses with respect to the PDO, relaying that the pro;~osed zoning amendment would not permit conversion of this project to Multiple Family using units. For Commissioner Fahey, Planning Manager Ubnoske advised that any future development at the high school would not require City approval, relaying that a potential project would be permitted by the State; and advised that a Condition of Approval (COA) could be added to require that the tenants of this particular senior housing project be notified of the potential projects at the adjacent high school (i.e., stadium). w'rffi regard to the State approval of future projects at the high school site, Attomey Cudey advised that the process would subject the project to adherence to CEQA requirements, relaying that there would be notidng of any future proposed projects. For Commissioner Webster, Planning Manager Ubnoske provided additional information with respect to the closed dght-in and right-out access located at the high school site on Winchester Road, relaying that this closure is assodated with the School District, and not the City of Temecula. For Commissioner Naggar, with regard to permitted uses in the PDO, specifically as it relates to Religious Institutions, Planning Manager Ubnoske provided additional clarification with respect to that particular use being conditionally permitted in every district of the City of Temecula. Mr. Curtis Miller, representing the applicant, addressed the concerns and comments of the Commission, as follows: for Commissioner Webster, relayed that while this project does not have particular designated affordable housing units at this time, the project could potentially accommedata such housing; with respect to the noise impact generated from the study, relayed general mitigating measures that may be required for this particular project; for Commissioner Fahey, addressed the noise impact from the high school; and for Chairman Guerdero, specif'~l the location of the air conditioning units. Mr. James Mickhartz, architect representing the applicant, addressed the concerns and comments of the Commission, as follows: for Commissioner Webster, provided additional clarification regarding the carports, relaying that the intent of the design was to detract attention from the carports, directing visual focus to the building design due to the enhanced articulation (i.e., balconies, recessed windows); confirmed that the photograph representation presented by Project Planner Thomsley is consistent with the carport design for this particular project; in response to Chairman Guerdero's comments with regard to further articulation on the end walls, advised that the design intent was to implement enhancements that would affect the quality of life for the residents (i.e., landscaping, pool and recreational areas); relayed the specifications of the stone application at the entdes; for Commissioner Fahey, noted that due to the small size of the units, the addition of windows on the end walls would restdct needed wall spaca for the tenants; advised that from an architectural standpoint the suggestion to add pop-outs for additional articulation would not be desirable due to the intent to provide a visual appearance reflecting solidity; relayed that the landscaping would ultimately provide some screening of the end walls; further specified the enhanced articulation on alternate building elevations; for Commissioner Webster, specified the paint application (via the color board); provided the approximate location of the transit stop; specified the location of the easement, relaying that if at a future point in time the entire transportation corddor was utilized, the remaining landscape easement would be approximately five (5) to six (6) feet; and provided additional clarification with respect to the roof-mounted air conditioning units. For Commissioner Webster, regarding the open space requirement associated with Multiple Family Housing, Planning Manager Ubnoske clarified that this project would not need to adhere to that requirement due to the following: the applicable PDO standards, the extensive landscaping, and the fact that this project is categodzed as Senior Housing, and not Multiple Family Housing. Attorney Cudey provided additional information with respect to the standards and requirements associated with the PDO for this proposed project, reiterating that this particular project would not be categodzed as Multiple Family Housing. Mr. John Boarman, transportation engineer representing the applicant, addressed the concerns and comments of the Commission, as follows: for Commissioner Webster, relayed that the Level of Service (LOS) at Nicolas and Winchester Roads is currently at Level C dudng peak pedods, noting that this LOS would not be modified by this particular project; advised that at build-out the LOS would be at Level D dudng peak pedods; in response to Commissioner Naggar's comments with respect to the traffic impact due to weekend and evening school activities, relayed that the Traffic Study did not address weekend and night impact due to the insignificance of the impact, noting that Rodpaugh Road would be accessible to accommodate the traffic associated with weekend and evening activities; in response to Chairman Guerdero's and Commissioner Fahey's expressed concern with respect to the open entranceway accessed on Nicolas Road potentially being utilized by high school traffic, advised that the residents could utilize alternate exits dudng peak traffic hours; and relayed that the entranceway would prohibit left-turns out of the project onto Nicolas Road dudng peak hours. For Chairman Guerdero, Project Planner Thomsley specif'md the location of the gates on the site plan. The following individuals spoke in opposition to the project: z:z Ms. Shad Crall 31524 Bdtton Circle z3 Ms. Debby Fischer 31251 Felidta Road o Mr. Glen Zdanowski 39614 Knollridge Ddve The aforementioned individuals voiced their concems, as follows: · ,' The potential for this project to impede the proposed high school's stadium · ,- The traffic impact assodated with the project · / Mixing of teenage ddvers with senior ddvers ,/Incompatible with the adjacent use, specifically the high school · ,' The height of the building / Recommended installation of a stop sign on Rustic Glen Ddve Ms. Crall relayed that the previously discussed closed ddveway at the high school site was due to a Caltrans determination. For Ms. Crall, Commissioner Webster queded whether notification to the Senior Housing tenants regarding the school's proposed stadium project would allay her COnceITIS. With respect to Ms. Crall's comments, Attomey Cudey provided clarification as to the effect of providing disclosure of the proposed stadium project on the rental agreements for the Senior Housing tenants, which would limit the recourse the tenants would have to impede the proposed high school projects. For Mr. Zdanowski, Project Planner Thomsley clarified that the additional ddveway would allow only dght-in and right-outs, per Caltrans' and the City's recommendation. The following individuals spoke in favor of the project: o Mr. Peter Steding landowner of the property in discussion o Mr. Wayne Hall 42131 Agena Street ~ Mr. Wayne Bershaw 30149 Corte Cantera The aforementioned individuals expressed their comments, as follows: · / The proposed project is a more compatible use with the adjacent uses than other current permitted uses (i.e., business park) ,/The shopping canters proximate location to the Senior Center providing easy access for the Seniors ,,' Commended the design of the project ,,- Recommended that the project be conditioned to participate in the Affordable Senior Housing Program · ,' The need for this type of facility in the City of Temecula Wfth respect to Commissioner Webster's querying whether the applicant would be agreeable to participate in the construction of a pedestrian overpass at Winchester Road, Mr. Miller advised that further analysis would be required before the applicant could relay agreement to partialpate in the proposal. Deputy Director of Public Works Parks advised that there is a Capital Improvement Project that will be initiated next fiscal year that would extend the Santa Gertrudis travelway underneath the bddge at Winchester Road; and relayed that there will be provision of crossing Winchester Road without accessing the street. Wrd~ respect to conditioning the project to partialpate in the Affordable Senior Housing Project, Attorney Cudey relayed additional clarification as to placing this particular requirement on the project without provision of further analysis. Project Planner Thomsley relayed that staff had received numerous calls from the public, expressing comments in favor of the project, noting that one phone call relaying opposition to the project was recaived. Mr. Curtis Miller noted that the applicant has worked diligently to address the Commission's concerns which were relayed at the March 17, 1999 Planning Commission meeting; and thanked the Commission for their consideration. Commissioner Fahey relayed that the additional alternate exit onto Winchester Road adequately addressed her concern with regard to access; recommended that the project be conditioned to appropriately notify the tenants of the proposed high school projects; and advised that she could support the project. After thorough review of the project, Commissioner Webster noted that this particular use was compatible with the adjacent land uses; in order to obtain Commission input, relayed concern with respect to the width of the landscape easement if the transportation corddor was utilized at a future point in time; concurred with Commissioner Fahey's recommendation to condition the project to provide tenant disclosure with regard to the existing uses and future uses at the high school site; with respect to the mitigating CEQA requirements, recommended an additional mitigation measure, regarding the noise study; with respect to the high school parking lot, suggested that the City initiate discussion with Caltrans regarding consideration to open the closed ddveway on Winchester Road at the high school which would alleviate traffic concerns; and relayed that the additional landscaping, and the two-color paint application will adequately buffer the previously discussed end walls. While acknowledging the diligent efforts of the applicant in attempting to address the concams of the Commission- (referendng the Commissions comments relayed at the March 19,1999 Planning Commission meeting), Commissioner Naggar relayed that due to the concam with regard to this use being incompatible with the adjacent use, specifically the high school (i.e., proposed lighted stadium, noise impact, numerous school activities), with great reluctance relayed that he could not support this project at this particular location. Chairman Guerriero recommended that at the main entranceway off Nicolas Road, the applicant work with staff to investigate design of a median with additional stop signs controlling outbound traffic. Project Planner Thomsley spedfled that the ddveway is currently 30 feet wide, that due to required provision for emergency access the recommended project would need to encompass two 20-foot driveways, and then additional width for provision of a median. Chairman Guerdero recommended that staff investigate mitigating measures to slow down the in-and-out traffic at the aforementioned entranceway. Per Commissioner Webster's suggestion, Project Planner Thomsley advised that the radius of the curvature in the area of discussion is required to provide provision for the turning radius of the Fire Department trucks, relaying that this turning radius could not be lessened. The applicant relayed that he would be agreeable to work with staff to investigate measures to address Chairman Guerdero's concern with regard to the entranceway. W'rth respact to Chairman Guerriero's comment regarding the landscaping issue along Winchester Road, Project Planner Thomsley provided additional darffication with respect to the long-range ineffectiveness of increasing the tree size. Commissioner Fahey expressed reluctance to require additional landscaping along the Winchester corddor due to the requirement not being placed on other projects; and suggested that a specific width landscape easement be maintained, ensudng an adequate buffer if the transportation corddor was utilized. In concurrence with Commissioner Fahey, Planning Manager Ubnoske relayed a reluctance to require provisions for this particular project in light of other uses not being conditioned for those requirements. For Chairman Guerdero, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks advised that there would be adequate provision for acceleration with respect to exiting the ddveway onto Winchester Road, relaying that due to the approaching signal at Nicolas Road the traffic would be slowing down; and with respect to the transportation corridor, relayed that the potential transportation system in the corridor may not utilize the complete corddor (i.e., a monorail system). While concurring with Commissioner Webster's recommendation to construct a pedestrian overpass, Commissioner Fahey advised that she would not recommend placing a nexus on this particular project. Commissioner Webster clarified that it was his desire that the City initiate the process of designating the specific location for the overpass project, and to then initiate the design portion of the project; and recommended adding the project to the CIP. Mr. Miller suggested that the landscape easement be modified to incorporate a denser landscape buffer, in lieu of a wider one. Commissioner Webster relayed that it was his recommendation that the applicant work with staff to create a landscape easement that would be consistent with the General Plan, providing adequate width if the transportation corddor was developed. For Commissioner Webster, Attomey Cudey advised that if it was the desire of the Commission to address the aforementioned landscape easement in the COA's that on page 35, Condition No., additional language could be added to reflect "Landscaping shall conform substantially with the approved Conceptual Landscape Plan, Exhibit F, and with the General Plan..." Planning Manager Ubnoske recommended that an additional COA be added to state that the project shall comply with the mitigation measures contained in the noise study pdor to the issuance of building permits. With regard to the Commission's desire to condition the project with respect to disclosure, Attorney Cudey read into the record an additional Condition, as follows: Condition No. 106: The applicant shall prepare and submit for the approval of the Planning Manager a disclosure statement icientify/~g the adjacent high school use, and those uses and activities thereon reasonably anticipated to occur. The applicant shall provide a copy of the approved disclosure statement to each petson occupying a unit in the project, and clarified the rationale for the use of broad language. The applicant expressed agreement to the aforementioned Condition No. 1 (::)6. MOTION: Commissioner Fahey moved to close the public headng; adopt Resolution No. 99-015 recommending approval of Planning Application No. PA98-0511 (Zoning Amendment, Planned Development Oveday) based upon the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report; adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration for Planning Application Nos. PA98-0511 (Zoning Amendment, Planned Development Oveday) and PA98-0512 (Development), including mitigation measures for the noise study; adopt the Mitigation Monitoring Program for Planning Application No. PA98-0512 (Development Plan), addressing the new study as well; and adopt Resolution No. 99-016 approving Planning Application No. PA98-0512 (Development Plan) based upon the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. 10 RESOLUTION NO. PC 99-015 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING THE ZONING MAP AND DEVELOPMENT CODE OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA FOR PROPERTY KNOWN AS LOTS 166 AND 181 OF THE TEMECULA LAND AND WATER COMPANY; ALSO KNOWN AS PARCEL "A" OF LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT PA98-0477, PREVIOUSLY ASSESSOR'$ PARCEL NOS. 911-170-078 AND 911-170-085. (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA98-0511 ) RESOLUTION NO. PC 99-016 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA98-0512 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN) A PROPOSAL TO BUILD A 244 UNIT SENIOR HOUSING COMPLEX WITH TWO AND THREE STORY APARTMENT BUILDINGS ON 8.3 ACRES; LOCATED ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF NICOLAS ROAD AND WINCHESTER ROAD, KNOWN AS LOTS 166 AND 181 OF THE TEMECULA LAND AND WATER COMPANY; ALSO KNOWN AS PARCEL "A" OF LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT PA98-0477, PREVIOUSLY ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NOS. 911-170-078 AND 911-170-085 Add That the applicant work with staff to design an appropdata landscape easement consistent with the General Plan (adding additional language to Condition No. 8, as worded on page 10 of the minutes.) That the applicant provide a disclosure statement to the tenants of the Senior Housing complex (with the addition of Condition No. 106, as worded on page 10 of the minutes.) · That the applicant work with staff to design a median or other mitigating measure to control in-and-out traffic at the main entranceway. The addition of a Condition with language stating that prior to issuance of building permits, the project shall comply with the mitigation measures contained in the noise study. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Webster and voice vote reflected approval with the exceg>tion of Commissioner Naggar who voted n_9o and Commissioner Soltysiak who was absent. At 8:42 P.M. a short recess was taken, and the meeting reconvened at 8:56 P.M. 11 PLANNING MANAGER'S REPORT Planning Manager Ubnoske informed the Commission that staff will be distributing a Planning Guide to the Commission on a monthly basis to provide an overview of upcoming projects and workshops. Ms. Ubnoske relayed that the City Coundl/Commission Workshop regarding: Brown Act/Conflict of Interest will be held on Tuesday, June 15, 1999. For informational purposes, Ms. Ubnoske relayed that the City Coundl will consider the matter of hidng a recommended consultant for the purpose of updating the City's Housing Element at the next City Coundl meeting. Ms. Ubnoske relayed that staff will be bdnging to the Commission a conceptual site plan of the Home Depot proposed to be located at Highway 79 South in the Village Center, for the purpose of obtaining preliminary Commission input. COMMISSIONER REPORTS A. In response to Commissioner Naggar's comments, Senior Planner Hogan advised that it is the goal of staff to provide an end-of-year summary at the end of this calendar year. With respect to the Rodpaugh Ranch Workshop, Commissioner Webster recommended providing the matedal to the Commissioners as soon as possible. In response to Commissioner Webster's comments regarding the Southem Califomia Moving and Storage Project's deviation from the grading plan that was approved by the Planning Commission, and with respect to the applicant filling in the area adjacent to the retaining wall located on the adjacent property without permission from the property owner, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks relayed that he would further investigate the matters. For informational purposes, Chairman Guerdero relayed that per phone correspondence with the Alcohol Beverage and Control Agency in Riverside the following facts wore obtained regarding alcoholic establishments in the Census Tract that pdmadly encompasses Temecula: The alcoholic establishments are divided into two categories. On-Sale Establishments (where the alcohol is consumed on site) a. The State allows 28 of these particular uses. b. The Census Tract (which encompasses pdmadly the City of Temecula) currently has 82 of these particular uses, with three pending. Off-Sale Establishments (where there is no alcoholic consumption on site) a. The State allows 21 of these particular uses. b. The Census Tract currently has 34 of these particular uses, with no pending uses due to the fact that the State will not approve additional sites. 12 Planning Manager Ubnoske provided additional clarification regarding allowable alcoholic establishments; and relayed the City's eftotis to maintain a criteda for allowance that is legally defensible. Attomey Cudey advised that the alcoholic establishments be evaluated as individual uses based on the analysis provided for each particular project, rather than basing the approval solely on numbers; and provided additional clarification with regard to the development of a more specific criteda for making a finding of convenience of necessity. ADJOURNMENT At 9:17 P.M. Chairman Guerdero formally adjoumed this meeting to a City Coundl/Commission Workshop regarding: Brown Act/Conflict of Interest on Tuesdav, June 15, 1999 at 6:00 P.M., and the next regular meeting Wednesdav, June 16, 1999 at 6:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Ddve, Temecula. Debbie Ubnoske, Planning Manager 13