Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout081600 PC MinutesCALL TO ORDER MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST '16, 2000 The City of Temecula Planning Commission convened in a regular meeting at 6:00 P.M., on Wednesday August 16, 2000, in the City Council Chambers of Temecula City Hall, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California~ ALLEGIANCE The audience was led in the Flag salute by Commissioner Chiniaeff. ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Also Present: PUBLIC COMMENTS No comments. CONSENT CALENDAR 1 Agenda RECOMMENDATION: Commissioners Chiniaeff, Mathewson, Telesio, Webster, and Chairman Guerriero. None. Director of Planning Ubnoske, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks, City Attorney Thorson, Associate Planner Donahoe, Assistant Planner Anders, and Minute Clerk Hansen. 2 1.1 Approve the Agenda of August 16, 2000. Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Review and approve the minutes of June 21, 2000. 2.2 Approve the minutes of July 5, 2000. R:Plan C om rolm inut es,~81600 3 Director's Hearin.q Update RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 Receive and file. MOTION: Commissioner Webster moved to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1-3. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Mathewson and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Commissioner Chiniaeff who abstained with regard to Item No. 2.1. COMMISSION BUSINESS PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 4 Planning Application No. 00-0300 (Development Plan) Product review approval for building elevations, floor plans, color and material boards and colored elevations for 38 lots (Tentative Tract Map 29286) ranging in size from 2,943 to 3,398 square feet, located on the southeast corner of Date Street and Margarita Road, at the northern City limit - Patty Anders RECOMMENDATION: 4.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000-030 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-0300, A DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR PRODUCT REVIEW APPROVAL CONSISTING OF BUILDING ELEVATIONS, FLOOR PLANS, COLOR AND MATERIAL BOARDS AND COLORED ELEVATIONS FOR 38 LOTS (TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 29286) ON 9.75 ACRES LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF DATE STREET AND MARGARITA ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO, 9'1 '1-640-003; 4.2 Adopt a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. 00-0300 pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b) (3), as the project does not have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Assistant Planner Anders presented the staff report (as per agenda material), highlighting the elevations and floor plans; noted that all of the proposed homes would be two stories; and relayed the architectural elements, noting the additional enhancements on the 20 perimeter lots that were highly visible from either the Winchester Creek Park, Margarita Road, or Date Street. Commissioner Chiniaeff recommended that the four reverse corner lots, specifically Lot Nos. 10, 12, 19, and 21 should also be enhanced architecturally due to the visible rear and side portions of the homes on these particular lots. For Commissioner Telesio, via overheads, Assistant Planner Anders specified that the enhanced architectural elements on the 20 perimeter lots would be inclusive of varying roof heights, and an additional pop-out element. Mr. Jim Baggarly, representing Lennar Homes, thanked Assistant Planner Anders and staff for their diligent efforts with respect to this proposed project; provided an overview of this particular project; for Commissioner Chiniaeff, provided additional information regarding Lot Nos. 10, 12, 19, and 21; relayed that the maintenance of the landscaping outside the wall area on the reverse corner lots would be the homeowner's responsibility; for Commissioner Mathewson, provided the rationale for proposing all two-story units, noting the economic considerations; for Commissioner Webster, relayed that each unit was inclusive of a three-car garage, noting the varying design on one plan with a two-car garage door; specified the enhanced articulation on the 20 perimeter lots; for Chairman Guerriero, noted that there were nine color schemes for the roof tiles, relaying that the material would be concrete roof tile; and for Commissioner Mathewson, provided additional information regarding the front setbacks with respect to Plan Nos. 2, and 3, relaying that the minimum setback was approximately 20 feet. For Chairman Guerriero, Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that typically the Commission would not be conducting product reviews, while noting that staff could provide a criteria list for this type of review. Ms. Trisha Stephens, 27014 Raven Hill Court, relayed a desire for the slope which had previously existed at this site to be restored; and queried the proposed height of the homes in relation to her neighborhood homes. For Ms. Stephens, Chairman Guerriero relayed that staff would contact her in order to provide the additional information she requested regarding the project. For Commissioner Telesio, Ms. Stephens provided information regarding the noticing of this particular project. Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that she would confirm that the project had been noticed properly. Ms. Rosalie Harmon, 26823 Abaco Court, Murrieta, relayed a preference for the existing mountain view rather than the view of tract housing; and noted her concern regarding the project's impact with respect to the generation of additional traffic. The Commission relayed the following concluding remarks: Commissioner Telesio commended the architect for the design of the project; and queried staff with respect to provision of a mix of single-story and two-story homes for future proposals. In response, Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that currently the Design Guidelines did not address a mixing of single and two-story homes, noting that if this was a concern of the Commission, this issue could be addressed at a future point when the Design Guidelines were revised. Commissioner Webster relayed that the mix of one and two-story homes should be addressed at the time of the Specific Plan approval; noted that since there currently was no associated requirements within the Design Guidelines, he would be reluctant to require a mix; with respect to architectural detail, relayed a desire for similar enhanced articulation to be included on all 38 homes, rather than solely on the 20 perimeter lots; concurred with Commissioner Chiniaeff with respect to the four reverse corner lots; with respect to garage placement, relayed his preference for rear placement, noting that within the three model plans proposed, it was his recommendation that two of the model plans include rear placement of the garages and that solely one plan be inclusive of garage front placement. Commissioner Mathewson concurred with Commissioner Webster's comments regarding the placement of the garages; relayed that, overall, it was his opinion that from an architectural standpoint this was a great project; noted that the mix of one and two- story homes was of vital importance, relaying a desire for the applicant to consider inclusion of one-story homes in this project, acknowledging that this was not a requirement of the Design Guidelines at this point in time. With respect to the lack of a mix of one and two-story homes, Commissioner Chiniaeff advised that this was typically determined at the time of the approval of the Tentative Tract map at which point in time the lot sizes were set; with respect to the garage placement matter, relayed that at times this was determined by marketing issues; and with respect to the reverse corner lots, recommended that there be an added condition requiring the applicant to articulate the rear and the sides of the homes constructed on these four lots. Chairman Guerriero commented on the garage placement, recommending that for future projects, staff consider rear placement of garages; concurred with Commissioner Chiniaeffs comments regarding the reverse corner lots; and relayed a concern with respect to Commissioner Chiniaeffs previously mentioned comments regarding the maintenance of the area outside of the perimeter wall. Commissioner Chiniaeff relayed that there were elements that would aid in addressing the maintenance of the area outside of the wall (which was the responsibility of the homeowner), providing the following suggestions: developer installed landscaping, requiring relatively Iow maintenance, and developer installation of an automatic irrigation system. MOTION: Commissioner Chiniaeff moved to approve staff's recommendation with the following added conditions: Add- That the applicant be required to apply the articulation utilized on the perimeter lots to Lot Nos., 10, 12, 19, and 21. · That the applicant install landscaping (via staff recommendation) and an automatic irrigation system in the area outside the wall of the project. The motion was seconded by Chairman Guerriero. (Ultimately this motion passed; see page 5.) Commissioner Webster reiterated his desire for the applicant to modify an additional model plan to include rear placement of the garage. In response to Commissioner Webster's comments, Commissioner Chiniaeff relayed his reluctance to require this modification, noting that this would be requiring the applicant to change product, querying whether that was within the purview of the Commission. For clarification, City Attorney Thorson confirmed that the footprint was part of the Subdivision Map, relaying that if the request would require a reconfiguration of the building, it would be difficult to support this request. Commissioner Webster relayed that in his opinion the footprint did not affect his request, noting that currently one of the three models proposed rear placement of the garage, clarifying that he was recommending that two of the three models propose rear placement of the garages. For Commissioner Mathewson, Director of Planning Ubnoske provided additional information regarding the predetermined lot sizes. Commissioner Mathewson relayed that he would support Commissioner Webster's recommendation with respect to the rear placement of the garage on two of the model plans. Commissioner Chiniaeff provided additional information regarding the relationship between the size of the lot and the proposed housing units, noting the marketing analysis associated with the proposal; and commented on the varying setbacks currently proposed. Mr. Steve Shepard, representing Lennar Homes, provided an overview of the project's conformance to the City's requirements; relayed a willingness to address the reverse corner lots per Commissioner Chiniaeff's comments; and in response to Commissioner Webster's specific recommendation, relayed that from a marketing point of view, the applicant could not support the recommendation to include 23 lots (in lieu of the proposed 17 lots) with rear placement of the garage. Commissioner Webster provided additional comments regarding the issue of marketing. At this time voice vote was taken reflecting unanimous approval. It was noted that at 6:58 P.M. the meeting recessed, reconvening at 7:08 P.M. 5 Planning Application No. 99-0317 (Development Plan) The design, construction and operation of a 246-unit, two and three story apartment complex with pool, clubhouse, workout building and tot lot on approximately 21 acres, located on the south side of Rancho California Road southeast of the intersection of Rancho California Road and Moraga Road - Carole Donahoe RECOMMENDATION 5.1 Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for Planning Application No. 99- 0317; 5.2 Adopt a resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000-03"1 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 99-0317 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE TEMECULA RIDGE APARTMENTS) - THE DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A 246- UNIT, TWO AND · THREE STORY APARTMENT COMPLEX WITH POOL, CLUBHOUSE, WORKOUT BUILDING AND TOT LOT ON 20.88 NET ACRES, LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD SOUTHEAST OF THE INTERSECTION OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AND MORAGA ROAD, AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 944-290-0tt, AND ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION RELATED THERETO. Commissioner Webster advised that he would be abstaining with regard to this Agenda Item, and therefore left the meeting at 7:09 P.M. Via overhead maps, Associate Planner Donahoe presented the proposed project (of record); provided an overview of the meetings and discussions related to the Growth Management Plan and its relation to this project, reiterating the Council's direction to the Planning Commission with respect to making a determination based on the proposed amenities in relation to the proposed densities; noted the inclusion in the staff report of the data related to this particular project's proposed densities and amenities; relayed that with respect to the rear yard fencing, the applicant has agreed to increase the size of the wrought-iron fence from six feet to eight feet; with respect to the correspondence received from the Pechanga Cultural Resources Supervisor regarding their desire for a "walkover" at the sight, noted that the initial study and the Mitigation Monitoring Measure have been revised to include provision for the "walkover;" regarding the Conditions of Approval, noted the following corrections: with respect to Condition No. 6B, relayed that the phrase Olympic-sized swimming pool should be replaced to reflect Junior Olympic-sized swimming pool, 25 meters in length and six lanes wide; with respect to Condition No. 9 (regarding the colors and materials), noted that the "$" denotation should be corrected to indicate "#;" with respect to Condition No. 99, noted that the existing factors should be removed, adding 6 the following language after the phrase "through the payment of in-lieu fees": in accordance with the parkland dedication formula in the Temecula Subdivision Ordinance; and relayed that the applicant has provided the colored drawings which had been presented at the May 3r°Planning Commission meeting (via supplemental agenda material), briefly reviewing the renderings. With respect to Condition No. 10 (regarding the agreement with the local swim club), Commissioner Chiniaeff queried whether this condition should be more clearly defined; Commissioner Mathewson queried whether the reference to the local swim club should be more specific as to a specified entity. In response, Associate Planner Donahoe relayed that to the best of her knowledge there was solely one swim club in the City of Temecula, advising that the applicant would previde additional information with respect to the agreement with the Swim Club. For Commissioner Mathewson, Associate Planner Donahoe clarified the modification with respect to Condition No. 99 (regarding the parkland requirements); and confirmed that the Resource Agencies had reviewed the Environmental Assessment. For the record, Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that a letter dated August 15, 2000 from Mr. Stan Wright, noting his opposition and concerns with respect to the project had been copied and distributed to the Commission; and for Chairman Guerriero, provided Mr. Wright's address. For the record, Commissioner Chiniaeff relayed that he had participated in ex-parte communications with Mr. Markham (the applicant's representative). Mr. Larry Markham, representing the applicant, provided an overview of the applicant's discussions with the Swim Club's representative, noting the modification of the size of the pool in order to satisfy the request of the Swim Club, relaying that a fee would be charged for the maintenance of the facilities, advising that in conjunction with an aquatic approval board the days and hours of use would be arranged; for Chairman Guerriero, relayed that a length of time for the Swim Club Agreement had not been specified, noting that the applicant would be willing to establish specifications; for Commissioner Chiniaeff, provided additional information regarding the export of 42,000 yards of material, relaying that the material would be exported off-site; with respect to area proximate to A Street, advised that the applicant has worked with the adjacent preperty owner to develop an agreement that would entail the developer who first preceeds with development in this area to previde the other with reciprocal ingress/egress utility easements; with respect to the proposed landscaping on the slopes, provided additional information regarding the landscape plan on the southerly property line which has been coordinated with Mr. Oder (the adjacent property owner) relative to his concerns with respect to drainage, eresion, screening, and security; and for Commissioner Telesio, provided additional information regarding the landscaping. Commissioner Mathewson noted his concern with respect to the grading quantities of 200,000 cubic yards. With respect to the exported material, Chairman Guerriero relayed concern with respect to the number of truck trips, and the route to be utilized, noting his concern regarding traffic disruption on Rancho California Road. In response, Mr. Markham relayed that the developer would have to obtain permits, which would require submittal of a route plan, times and days of operation, and traffic provisions, in accordance with the Public Works Department. For informational purposes, Chairman Guerriero commented on the lack of adequately trained flagmen on alternate projects within the City. In response to Commissioner Chiniaeff, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks relayed that at the Moraga Road/Rancho California Road proposed signal site, staff would investigate the timing of the installation with respect to aiding in the construction truck traffic. For Commissioner Telesio, Mr. Markham provided additional information regarding the extension of La Colina to Moraga Road, relaying that the direction of truck travel had not been established, advising that the applicant would be willing to add a condition requiring the applicant to work with staff to ensure a safe travel route, noting that if this required accelerating the four-way signal at Moraga Road or placing the signal under manual control, that the applicant would be agreeable; and provided additional information regarding the grading plan. With respect to Chairman Guerriero's queries regarding the corner monumentation, Mr. Markham provided additional information regarding the proposed extensive monumentation program, noting the enhanced landscaping along Moraga and Rancho California Roads in order to screen the buildings from the roadway; and confirmed that the applicant has been conditioned to improve the existing landscaped median. For Commissioner Mathewson, with respect to the habitat issues, Mr. Markham provided additional information regarding the applicant's current process to acquire off- site mitigation lands, noting that there were no Checkerspot Butterflies sited in either season; and with respect to the grading issues, noted the applicant's assiduous efforts with staff to develop the project which was now before the Commission, providing additional information regarding the issues that have been addressed. The following individuals relayed their opposition to the project: o Mr. David Michael o Ms. Pamela Miod (representing Citizen's First of Temecula Valley) r~ Mr. Don Leonard [3 Mr. Charles Rich 30300 Churchill Court 31995 Via Saltio 31336 Paseo De Las Olas 42403 Carino Place The above-mentioned individuals were opposed to the project for the following reasons: Concern with respect to the proposed densities, increased traffic, and the impact on the schools. Challenged the credibility of Mr. Markham (the applicant's representative), stating that his interest was solely involved with the project's development. · Queried which amenities were for the provision of community benefits. 8 · Noted the negative impact with respect to the existing residents' view. Queried the rationale for the lack of consideration regarding the neighboring residents' comments. Concern regarding the availability of water and utilities due to the existing shortages. Relayed that numerous residents located in the City of Temecula to avoid dense development, and to enjoy a more rural lifestyle. Concern regarding the impact the project would have with respect to lowered property values. Noted that the standard of living for the existing neighboring residents would decrease. The following individuals were proponents of the project: Mr. Lon Brusegard r, Dr. Robert Wheeler (representing EMA and the Resources Consen/ation District) o Mr. Bob Oder [] Ms. Helon Oder [] Mr. Robert Oder (representing the Mira Loma Apartments) [] Ms. Evie Hughes 23766 Via Madrid, Murrieta 29090 Camino Alba, Murrieta 29911 Mira Loma Drive 29911 Mira Loma Drive 29911 Mira Loma Drive 27727 Jefferson Avenue, Murrieta The above-mentioned individuals were proponents of the project for the following reasons: · The need for affordable housing in the City of Temecula. Noted the importance of a mix of different types of housing developments within the overall City development. Relayed the importance of constructing apartments within the City rather than solely in the rural areas. · Noted the economic need for this type of housing, referencing the Husing Rep~)rt. · Opposed a "No Growth Policy," relaying the negative impacts. Relayed that this high quality proposed project was a far greater project than previously proposed projects at this site. Noted that the applicant worked diligently with the neighboring property owners, addressing the concerns. Advised that this was an overall superlative apartment project plan, which would enhance the community. Relayed strong opposition to the previously proposals at this site. Via overheads, compared the densities of alternate apartment complexes in this area. Relayed a desire for an apartment development with attached garages, noting the safety issues associated with the provision. Mr. Samuel Alhadeff, representing the applicant, thanked staff and the Commissioners who have worked diligently with respect to this matter; for the record, noted that this project has been under review for approximately two years; sited various goals, policies, amenities, and Land Use Elements represented in the General Plan; provided an overview of the amenities that this project would provide in the community; relayed the need for apartment housing in the City of Temecula, siting a one-percent (1%) vacancy factor in existing units; and provided additional information regarding the Growth Management Plan and its relation to this project. In rebuttal of the community comments, Mr. Markham addressed Mr. Leonard's concerns, with respect to the water and utilities issues, relaying that this project would be immensely more water efficient, and energy conserving than existing older developments; with respect to the neighboring residents' view, via overheads, displayed the existing topography, and the proposed landscaping with the proposed project, noting the efforts of the applicant to address the viewshed issue; relayed that there were three community meetings held in order to hear the concerns of the residents; and provided an overview of the previously proposed project and subsequent approval at this site, noting the reduction in the current proposed densities, and the improved site and design plans. For Chairman Guerriero, Mr. Alhadeff, and Mr. Markham provided additional information regarding the community meetings, which the applicant held regarding the project. Mr. Tom Dodson, CEQA consultant representing the applicant, provided an overview of the analysis of the energy consumption, water consumption, and waste water generation issues, providing additional information regarding the ability to meet water and energy demands, additional information regarding the existing and proposed power plants which would provide the electricity to supply power for the long-term range, and additional data regarding the waste water treatment systems. The Commission relayed concluding remarks, as follows: For informational purposes with respect to the residents who had expressed concern with the development of a project proximate to their neighborhood, Commissioner Telesio relayed that some growth was inevitable unless one purchased the surrounding properties; noted that in his opinion, the applicant had addressed the concerns of the neighboring properties, specifically commending the landscape plan; commented on the previously proposed projects for this parcel, relaying that this project far exceeds previous proposals; commented on the timing of the Growth Management Plan's (GMP) adoption in relation to this project which has been in the review process for approximately two years; advised that this project supercedes the 10 City's requirements; with respect to amenities, noted that the quality of the project would be an asset to the community; relayed that this particular project would, additionally, improve the view along Rancho California Road (i.e., per the landscape plan); noted the availability of the pool for community use; and referenced Councilman Naggar's comments relayed at the City Council/Planning Commission Workshop at which time he stated that if you are going to increase the density above the minimum, make sure it is a "darn good project," advising that in his opinion, "This was a dam good project." Commissioner Mathewson relayed that his concern was not based on the quality of the project, the diversity of housing provisions, or the comparison between alternate projects proposed for this site; relayed that his focus was to determine the following: 1) whether this project on this site was appropriate, meeting the criteria of the General Plan, the GMP, and "good planning sense," and 2) whether it met the criteria of that site based on the current Land Use regulations; with respect to the proposed amenities qualifying for the criteria to grant the density bonus, noted that in his opinion the proposed amenities do not warrant the densities proposed per the GMP, acknowledging that this determination was subjective; noted his rationale in drawing this conclusion was based on the following: 1) that garages were proposed as an amenity, while acknowledging the positive visual aesthetic element, and the safety provisions, advised that in his opinion this was not a qualifying amenity, 2) the development of three-story buildings on the site would have significant negative impacts on viewsheds (i.e., from Rancho California Road), 3) with respect to the pool being available to the Swim Club, noted that in his view, this was a limited community benefit, relaying that it was an on-site amenity, advising that in his opinion a qualifying amenity would be a community benefit over and above what would normally be associated with the development, noting that the tot lot, the barbecues, and the pool/spa area were standard amenities for this type of project, relaying that the developer would get a credit for these on-site amenities relative to the Quimby requirements, providing additional information regarding the lack of reciprocity, 4) with respect to the additional landscaping proposed, relayed that in relation to the significant amount of grading and degradation of the natural environment it was not his opinion that the landscape plan balanced this significant impact, and 5) with respect to the monumentation and decorative elements, relayed that these features did not supercede alternate development's proposals; and in conclusion, advised that due to the previously mentioned rationale in his opinion this project did not qualify for a maximum density under this land use designation. Commissioner Chiniaeff relayed that with respect to the pool issue, that the availability of the pool to the Swim Club was a community benefit; with respect to the provision of the on-site amenities (i.e., the pool, tot lots, barbecues), noted that these proposals would lessen the impact on the community parks and recreational facilities; with respect to the proposed garages in lieu of carports, relayed that this amenity aided in the creation of an upscale project, providing a multi-housing opportunity that has not been provided with alternate similar projects (siting one exception); with respect to the viewshed issue, concurred with Commissioner Telesio that there was no guarantee that when one purchased property that the adjacent property would remain undeveloped, noting the rights of the property owner to develop their property, advising that grading was a part of this aspect of the property owner's rights; relayed that this project would be an attribute to the community, providing numerous amenities as denoted in the General Plan; and advised that he would support the project. 11 Chairman Guerriero relayed that when the City Council/Planning Commission Workshop was held that he had referenced this project numerous times since in his opinion this project merited exactly what the General Plan stated, as in Policy 5. 1 (regarding the denoted amenities), advising that after queries to the Council for direction, it had been confirmed that the General Plan's denotations for amenities were acceptable, relaying that the GMP was not in contradiction with the General Plan; advised that the reason for people locating in the City of Temecula was due to the diligent efforts thus far in developing the City; clarified that it was not the City of Temecula's desire to change property rights; commented on the City's efforts to address a multitude of issues when development proceeds (i.e., water and electricity needs); noted the desire of the City to provide housing for all income levels; relayed that he would request the applicant to provide one-percent (1%) of the project for senior housing, and/or Iow-income housing; applauded the developer for increasing the size of the pool to accommodate the Swim Club, advising that the availability to swim clubs should extend for a specific duration (i.e., the life of the project) rather than for a short duration; commented on the loss of view, relaying that this was inevitable with growth in a community, advising that this project had addressed this issue; commended the applicant for the increased landscape plan, advising this was a community amenity; applauded the developer for the proposed monumentation at the intersections; and relayed that he would support the project, noting that this was a great project; and reiterated his recommendation for the applicant to provide one to two percent (1-2%) of the project for Senior Housing and/or Iow income housing units. MOTION: Commissioner Chiniaeff moved to approve staffs recommendation, subject to the following: Add- The amended conditions recommended by staff (see page 6 of the minutes, specified in Associate Planner Donahoe's staff report presentation). That the applicant work with the Public Works Department in accelerating the modification of the signal at Moraga Road to provide for traffic control for truck traffic. That the applicant's agreement with the Swim Club continue for the life of the project, modifying the arrangement in order to not negatively impact the use for the residents. That the applicant provide two percent (2%) of the units for either Senior or Low/Moderate Income Housing. Commissioner Telesio seconded the motion.(Ultimately this motion passed; see page '13.) Mr. Alhadeff noted that he had a handicapped son, and advised that without reservation the applicant has relayed that he would be agreeable to the two percent (2%) provision of housing for seniors and/or Iow-moderate income levels; with respect to the pool, relayed the applicant's commitment to make the pool available to the Swim Club; and for Chairman Guerriero, relayed that the applicant would work with staff regarding the 12 specificity of the Agreement with the Swim Club in order to address his recommendations. At this time voice vote was taken, reflecting approval with the exception of Commissioner Webster who abstained and Commissioner Mathewson who voted n~o. COMMISSIONER REPORTS No input. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT A. Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that the American Planning Association (APA) would be holding a Planning Commissioners Forum on September 9, 2000, noting that she would have additional information regarding the forum on August 20, 2000. Director of Planning Ubnoske noted that there would be a tour of developments in Orange County to review developments similar to what was being proposed in the Harveston Specific Plan; and invited two Commissioners to attend the tour. For informational purposes, Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that Senior Planner Rockholt had resigned, noting that the staff was holding interviews, seeking individuals to fill the position. ADJOURNMENT At 9:32 P.M. Chairman Guerriero formally adjourned this meeting to Wednesday, September 6, 2000 at 6:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula. i~,on~G~, u erri~~ ~' ~_ ~,~.~ Chairman Debbie Ubnoske, Director of Planning 13