Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout100400 PC MinutesCALL TO ORDER MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 4, 2000 The City of Temecula Planning Commission convened in a regular meeting at 6:01 P.M., on Wednesday October 4, 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 Webster. ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Also Present: PUBLIC COMMENTS No comments. 1 Agenda RECOMMENDATION: Commissioners Chiniaeff, Mathewson, Telesio, Webster, and Chairman Guerriero. None, Deputy City Manager Thornhill Director of Public Works Hughes, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks, Senior Engineer Alegria, Attorney Curley, Associate Planner Donahoe, Project Planner Thornsley, and Minute Clerk Hansen. 1.1 Approve the Agenda of October 4, 2000. Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Approve the minutes of August 2, 2000. 2.2 Approve the minutes of August 16, 2000. R: PlanCom m/minut es/lCO400 MOTION: Commissioner Chiniaeff moved to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1, and 2. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Webster and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. COMMISSION BUSINESS PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 3 Planning Application No. 00-0261 (Specific Plan Amendment) located north of Rancho California Road off of Promenade Chardonna¥ Hills and Meadows Parkway south of Parducci Lane and qenerally north of Rue Jadot consisting of all lots in Tract No.'s 23100-6, 23100-7 and 23100-8 - Thomas Thornsley RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 Adopt a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. 00-0261 pursuant to Section 15061 (b) (3) and make a determination of consistency with a project for which an EIR was previously certified (Section 15162 - subsequent EIRs and Negative Declarations of the CEQA Guidelines); and 3.2 Adopt a resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000-033 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-0261 (SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 5) TO AMEND THE TEXT WITHIN THE MARGARITA VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN'S DESIGN GUIDELINES, FOR VILLAGE "B", RELATED TO THE SIZE AND VARIATION OF RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS TO BE BUILT IN PLANNING AREAS 8, AND '101111t2, GENERALLY LOCATED NORTH OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD OFF OF PROMENADE CHARDONNAY HILLS, EAST OF MEADOWS PARKWAY SOUTH OF PARDUCCI LANE AND NORTH OF RUE JADOT CONSISTING OF ALL LOTS IN TRACT NO'S. 23100-6, -7, AND -8. Chairman Guerriero and Commissioner Mathewson advised that they would be abstaining from this item, and therefore left the dais, Commissioner Telesio presiding over the meeting at this point. For Commissioner Webster, Project Planner Thornsley specified the noticed radius for this particular project, relaying that the residences of Commissioner Webster and Commissioner Telesio were adequately distanced from this project's noticing parameters. Project Planner Thornsley presented the staff report (of record), relaying that the request for amending the Specific Plan was in order to allow for larger units than currently indicated in the Specific Plan; noted the applicant's request to add a condition allowing the Director of Planning to permit minor changes to floor areas; and specified the remaining undeveloped area within this Specific Plan. For Commissioner Telesio, Project Planner Thornsley noted that with this proposal there would be no modifications to lot sizes or to the number of proposed units. Mr. Grant Fwegge, representing the applicant, was available for questions from the Commission. Mr. Mathew Fagan, representing Lennar Homes, thanked Project Planner Thornstey for his efforts regarding this particular proposal; reiterated that the request for the amendment was to allow for the construction of larger homes, noting that this area currently consisted of larger lots; for Commissioner Webster, relayed that with respect to lot coverage, this proposed particular product (the larger units) would be comparable to the existing lot coverage, noting that the largest lot coverage would be approximately forty-five percent (45%) which would be for a single-story footprint, noting that the two- story project would be proximate to the thirty-five to forty percent (35-40%) range for the maximum lot coverage. Mr. John Lynn, 32237 Placer Belair, relayed his opposition to this proposal for the following reasons: 1) the City notification was faulty which did not advise residents of the increased size of the homes to be built, 2) the notification did not specify the number of single-story units proposed before and after this amendment's proposal, 3) concern with respect to the larger homes generating the need for additional energy resources, 4) the proposal's inconsistency with the Growth Management Plan since larger homes equate to additional people residing in the homes which would have a negative impact on traffic, and 5) advised that the City should be involved in developer-marketing decisions due to the impacts on the community. Commissioner Chiniaeff relayed that the proposal of larger homes would improve the value of the neighboring homes; noted that the lot coverage issue was addressed in the City's Development Code which provides rear, front, and side yard setback requirements; with respect to energy uses, acknowledged that with larger homes there may be additional water usage due to additional toilets, while noting that with larger homes there would be less landscaping, thereby reducing water usage; and relayed his support of the proposal. With respect to the notification issue, Project Planner Thornsley specified the details of the noticing for this proposal. Mr. Lynn provided a copy of the notice he received regarding this project. In response, Project Planner Thornsley clarified that the particular recent notice which was distributed with regard to a hearing that the applicant would hold after review of the proposal by the Planning Commission and the City Council if the proposal was approved; relayed that the notice that was distributed approximately a month ago did specify the proposed amendments which were before the Commission at this time. Commissioner Telesio provided additional information regarding the notice he had received at his residence prior to the September 20, 2000 meeting, relaying that the notice had specified the proposed amendment. Attorney Curley clarified the purpose of the second notice, relaying that this particular notice that Mr. Lynn had provision of was not regarding the particular proposal before the Commission at this time. Commissioner Telesio relayed that in his opinion larger homes did not necessarily equate to larger families with additional vehicles, noting that larger homes could attract residents with higher incomes; noted alternate areas of the City there were small homes with numerous people residing in them; with respect to the Growth Management Plan (GMP), relayed that the GMP was concerned with densities which this proposal had not modified; and relayed his support of the project. MOTION: Commissioner Webster moved to close the public hearing; to approve staff's recommendation. Commissioner Chiniaeff seconded the motion and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Chairman Guerriero and Commissioner Mathewson who abstained. 4 Planninq Application No. 98-0481 (Wolf Creek Specific Plan No.12); No. 98-048? (Wolf Creek Environmental Impact Report); No. 98-0484 (Wolf Creek General Plan Amendment); and No. 00-0052 (Wolf Creek Tentative Tract Map No. 29305) on parcels totalin.q 557 acres located on the east side of Pala Road, between LomR Linda Road and Fairview Avenue - Carole Donaho~, RECOMMENDATION: 4.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FOR WOLF CREEK (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 98-0484), AND APPROVE THE WOLF CREEK SPECIFIC PLAN (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 98-0481) ON PARCELS TOTALING 557 ACRES LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF PALA ROAD, BETWEEN LOMALINDA ROAD AND FAIRVlEW AVENUE, AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NOS. 950-110-002, -005, -033 AND 950-180-001, -005, - 006 AND-010. 4.2 Adopt a resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-0052 -TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 29305, THE SUBDIVISION OF 557 ACRES INTO 47 LOTS WHICH CONFORM TO THE PLANNING AREAS, OPEN SPACE AREAS, SCHOOL AND PARK SITES OF THE WOLF CREEK SPECIFIC PLAN, LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF PALA ROAD, BETWEEN LOMALINDA ROAD AND FAIRVlEW AVENUE, AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NOS. 950-tt0-002, -005, -033 AND 950-180-001, -005, -006 AND -010. 4.3 Adopt a resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING CERTIFICATION OF THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED FOR THE WOLF CREEK SPECIFIC PLAN AND RELATED ACTIONS (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 98-0482) AND RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM IN CONNECTION THEREWITH FOR THE WOLF CREEK SPECIFIC PLAN, LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF PALA ROAD, BETWEEN LOMA LINDA ROAD AND FAIRVlEW AVENUE, AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR PARCEL NOS. 950-1'10-002, -005, -033 AND 950-180-001, -005, -006 AND-010. Commissioner Chiniaeff advised that he would be abstaining from this item and therefore left the dais at this time. Associate Planner Donahoe presented the staff report (of record), noting that this item had been continued from the September 6, 2000 Planning Commission meeting and subsequently from the September 20, 2000 Planning Commission meeting; relayed the Commission's desire to continue this matter from the previous meeting in order for the applicant to reassemble the documents, noting that prevision of this data has been provided in the binders that the Commission received last week; provided an overview of the corrections to a few pages that should be re-inserted into the new binders, noting that the modifications provide additional detail regarding the private recreation facility, and the applicant's response to the garage and carport issue addressed at the last meeting; noted the receipt of two letters from Ms. Miod and Mr. Lucier which have been provided to the Commission per supplemental agenda material; with respect to the alternate issues that the Commission commented on at the September 20t~ meeting, noted that the applicant would be addressing those issues; referencing the Specific Plan Section entitled Planning Application Development Standards in Section 3-54, which addresses the specific planning areas, relayed that Planning Area 12 was described as Neighborhood Commercial on page 374, noting that staff was in agreement with the description of the development plan; relayed that with respect to the Zoning Ordinance section which addressees Planning Area 12, staff was requesting that this reflect the description and intent in the Specific Plan itself; noted that on page 13 of the Zoning Ordinance this particular area was described as a Community Commercial zone, advising that staff was recommending that this be changed to a Neighborhood Commercial zone; provided additional information regarding the elimination of various permitted uses; per supplemental agenda material, provided the recommendation for permitted and prohibited uses in the Neighborhood Commercial (Planning Area 12) and Community Commercial (Planning Area 13) areas; and noted,the highlighted uses, relaying that these particular uses were automotive bases and that due to the previous comments of the Commission, staff was requesting the Commission's direction with respect to the inclusion of these uses, relaying that although the Design Guidelines for the City did call for the minimal use of vehicular traffic, that it was staff's recommendation that these particular uses be eliminated or permitted solely under a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). Mr. Samuel Alhadeff, attorney representing the applicant, noted that at the last meeting the public comment period had been closed with respect to this particular item, querying the rationale for the re-opening of the public comment period since the Commission had solely requested additional information regarding the following three areas: a list of permitted uses within the commercial areas, the one-story verses two-story element, and the 4,000-4500 square foot lots. Attorney Curley confirmed that at the last meeting, there was a closure to the public comment section, noting that subsequent to that there had been a great deal of Commission discussion regarding further analysis, acknowledging that the comments were concentrated on the issues previously mentioned by Mr. AIhadeff; relayed that as a result of that new information and concepts being discussed (i.e., the modifications to the list of permitted uses), that the public should have an opportunity to comment; and noted that the remainder of the issues appear to have been resolved to the Commission's satisfaction. Mr. Alhadeff clarified for the record that he was in disagreement with Attorney Curley, noting that it had been made clear that the public comment portion of the meeting had been closed at the time of the continuance; relayed that in response to Commissioner Webster's request, all of the provided data had been compiled into one document; and provided additional information regarding the list of permitted uses which had been discussed at the previous Commission meeting, relaying that it was his understanding that the applicant would solely be answering questions with regard to the previously mentioned issues. At this time Chairman Guerriero opened the public comment portion of the meeting. The following individuals were in opposed to the project, as proposed: Mr. Joe Terrazas 31160 Lahontian Street Mr. Rick Barrera 45639 Corte Lobos Mr. Mark Broderick 45501 Clubhouse Ddve The above-mentioned individuals were in opposition to the project for the following reasons: The need for the construction of a sound wall. The traffic impacts---challenged the traffic analysis associated with this project. A desire for Pala Road to be constructed as a six-lane road. Commended the developer for deleting the proposal for a multi-family apartment complex. Opposed to any Iow-income housing areas due to the blight it ultimately brings to the area. Recommended lowering the density from 2,000 units to 1,000-1500 units. Recommended lots ranging from 7,000-8,000 square feet with the sole construction of executive homes. Challenged the developer's previous comments regarding wide-range support of the project by surrounding communities. Mr. Broderick submitted to the clerk a petition with over 500 signatures of individuals opposing the project due to concern regarding the traffic circulation and the proposed densities. The need for an additional arterial route out of this area. At this time the public comment portion of the meeting was closed. In response to Mr. Terrazas's comments, Commissioner Webster relayed that the plan did include an option for a multi-family apartment complex. In response to Commissioner Webster's queries for the traffic issues to be addressed, Director of Public Works Hughes relayed that the referenced study (per Mr. Broderick's comments) was a draft study conduct in 1999 which was never accepted by the City Council, noting that the City was in the process of contracting for a new traffic study encompassing the entire City, clarifying that staff could not rely on or insist that the applicant utilize that data in the project's analysis. For Commissioner Webster, Deputy City Manager Thornhill relayed that the 1999 traffic study was abandoned due to questions that arose regarding the integrity of the study, noting that since the City Council decided to begin the entire General Plan update it was determined that there would be studies completed in conjunction with both the General Plan and the Circulation Element, noting that the City would be seeking a consultant for this effort proximately; clarified that the Council's concern regarding the 1999 traffic study was regarding the manner in which the data was gathered; confirmed that the 1999 study was the first Circulation Plan Update since the General Plan was completed; for Commissioner Mathewson, relayed that traffic studies are based on modeling of some sort, noting that a link analysis was utilized in the 1999 study, and it has been determined that the City would prefer utilization of intersection analysis which would be more accurate. Director of Public Works Hughes relayed that the 1999 analysis was general and was conducted City-wide, clarifying that the traffic analysis required for this particular EIR was much more detailed and focused, noting that staff has reviewed this technical traffic analysis and appreved this data; for Commissioner Mathewson, clarified that staff was of the opinion that the treffic analysis for this project was reasonable and had been reviewed thoroughly; noted that staff could not utilize the 1999 draft study as a formal gauge. Deputy City Manager Thomhill clarified that the 1999 traffic study was not adopted by the City Council. The applicant's representatives addressed the comments of the community and the Commission, as follows: Mr. Samuel Alhadeff, attorney representing the applicant, relayed that with regard to the traffic report, that the assumptions the applicant had utilized were conservative, requesting confirmation from Director of Public Works Hughes. Director of Public Works Hughes noted that the applicant's traffic report was a more focused and detailed study than the General Plan Circulation Elements; and confirmed that staff had reviewed the traffic study and determined that it was acceptable and reasonable to move forward with the traffic study previded by the applicant. Chairman Guerriero noted that the public comment portion of this meeting had been closed, querying whether it was necessary for it to be re-opened. For Chairman Guerriere, Attorney Curley relayed that it was within the Commission's discretion to re-open the public comment period while noting that the criteria for hearing comments regarding the issues had been met. In light of the fact that no Commissioners opposed the closing of the public comment period, Chairman Guerriero relayed that it would remain closed. At 6:52 P.M. the meeting recessed, reconvening at 7:02 P.M. Commissioner Mathewson requested that the applicant address the issue of the 4,000- square foot lots with respect to architectural treatments and the streetscape issue; and queried the status of the applicant's agreement with respect to the sound wall. Mr. Barry Burnell, representing the applicant, relayed that he would be addressing the 4,000 square-foot lot issue, noting that Mr. William Griffith would be addressing the alternate issues; referenced the Commission's supplemental agenda material, noting the letter from Mr. Alhadeff addressed to Deputy City Manager Thomhill pertaining to the issues regarding the proposed 4,000 square-foot lots, inclusive of information related to the applicant meeting the goals of the General Plan which required a diversity of housing; advised that the applicant has reduced a portion of that diversity by reducing the numbers of 4,000-4,500 square-foot lots, and by eliminating all of the multi-family units that are non-senior units; clarified for Commissioner Webster, that with respect to the referenced documents, that for the record the applicant was solely preposing either courtyard housing or multi-family senior housing, relaying that if the document referred to alternate multi-family units, that this would be corrected; with respect to the proposed 4,000-4,500 square foot lots, noted the applicant's desire to maintain the current preposed housing mix inclusive of those two products; presented a PowerPoint presentation which provided an overview of a similar project (i.e., a mix of 4,000, 4,500, 5,000, 5,500, and 7,200 square-foot lots) currently existing in the City of Temecula (Paloma Del Sol Master Plan inclusive of the Paloma Del Sol project and the Paseo Del Sol project), clarifying that the projects depicted did not have the same level of amenities or a true Village Center in a central pedestrian-oriented location as the proposals in the Wolf Creek Project; noted that more than fifty pement (50%) of the homes in Phase I of the Paloma Del Sol area were in the 4,000-4,500 square foot category; relayed data from the Paloma Del Sol website, noting the favorable comments from the residents residing in this area; presented photographs of the Paloma Del Sol project's varied housing streetscapes; provided additional information regarding the existing market for these type of homes (i.e., homes built on smaller lot sizes), noting that in Phase I, and II of this development that all 18 homes of each phase were sold within an hour; concluded his comments, relaying that the applicant believes it is important to meet the City's goals with respect to diversity, and that a good Master Plan would retain value with the 4,000, and 4,500 square foot lots. Mr. Samuel Alhadeff reiterated that there were quality neighborhoods within the City of Temecula that included 4,000-4,500 square foot lots, relaying that when Paseo Del Sol project began its development it was under the County's guidelines, noting the differential with the development under the City's guidelines; provided additional information regarding the guidance of the developer by the City's General Plan and the Elements, reiterating the requirements for diversity of housing; noted the design elements that contributed to the overall pleasing visual impact inclusive of varied elevations, and varied roof planes; noted the applicant's desire to address the concerns of the proximate residents, reiterating that there would only be courtyard homes or senior multi-housing units, clarifying for the record that there would be no alternate multi- family units; and advised that the product mix proposed in the Wolf Creek Project was the culmination of the requirements of the Development Code, and staffs efforts and input in working with the applicant. Mr. William Griffith, the applicant, commented on the 4,000-4,500 square foot lots, noting the applicant's efforts to achieve balance with respect to the General Plan, the Growth Management Plan, and the desires of the surrounding residents; relayed that with respect to the primary concerns expressed at the neighborhood meetings regarding housing and density was the issue of ownership, noting that the applicant's sole rental attached project would be the senior's apartments; advised that the Wolf Creek Project, as proposed, was 700 units under the target densities of the General Plan, and 1700 units under the maximum densities; reiterated that the photographs previously presented (inclusive of 4,000-4,500 square foot lots) demonstrated pride of ownership and preservation of value; asserted that the proposed amenities in the Wolf Creek Project (i.e., the paseos, the grass-lined channel, the schools, the shopping) would add value to the entire community; noted that in working with staff, the applicant has proposed a general recreation facility inclusive of a Junior Olympic-sized pool, aquatic play area, and a meeting reom; noted the applicant's commitment to work with the City with respect to the Agreement regarding the Regional Park; with respect to architectural design, relayed that the Planning Commission and the City Council would have the opportunity to review single-story and two-story elements, lot coverage, architectural elevations, and landscaping when the architecture was brought forward for the housing tracts; with respect to the sound wall issue, and the widening of Pala Road matter, noted that the applicant would provide right-of-way provisions for a six-lane road in the event that the City determines that this width was necessitated, relaying that the applicant had agreed to pay its share of the costs associated with the sound attenuation along Pala Road as determined by the Public Works Department; with respect to traffic concems, noted the applicant's provision of a detailed analysis, noting the associated mitigation measures, relaying that the improvements to Pala Road and the associated drainage project would not be completed without the cooperation of this property, advising that this project was an integral part of these improvements; relayed that the project had met the expectations of the Growth Management Plan; advised that with respect to permitted uses in the commercial centers, that the applicant would support staff's recommendations and revisions regarding the permitted uses (as denoted in the supplemental agenda material) with the exception of the applicant's desire to include a medical office in the permitted uses for the northern commemial center, noting that due to the senior component of the project this may be an appropriate location for this type of use. For Commissioner Mathewson, Mr. Griffith relayed that the project would be inclusive of CC&R's, noting that the developer would be on the amhitectural committee which would aid in controlling builders; noted that the City guidelines provided parameters as to what should be developed within the property; and advised that numerous elements had been addressed in the Specific Plan ensuring that the application would be consistent. In response to Commissioner Mathewson, Mr. Burnell provided additional information regarding lot sizes. Mr. Griffith relayed that an average lot size at the location where the 4,000 square foot lots were proposed would most likely be approximately 5,000 square feet and above; relayed that with a wider lot width (i.e., an 50-foot by 80-foot configuration), a 4,000 square foot lot had an improved street scene; confirmed that typically in today's building industry the smaller-sized lots were generally wider due to the improved street scene, and buyer appeal. Mr. Burnell advised that when the smaller lot-sized projects come forward, that the approval process could be inclusive of standards with respect to the landscape plan, relaying that in the photographs previously presented that a fast growing species of tree was utilized which contributed to the positive visual appearance of the streetscape; and for Commissioner Mathewson, provided additional information regarding the likelihood of construction of approximately 1400-1600 square foot homes on the 4,000 square lots. For Commissioner Telesio, Mr. Burnell clarified that in the senior-housing area there was an option for the development of courtyard homes, reiterating that regular multi-family housing would not be permitted. In response to Commissioner Telesio, Mr. Griffith reiterated that with respect to the width of Pala Road that the applicant has offered to provide the necessary right-of-way for a six-lane width to be extended to Wolf Valley Road. Mr. Burnell noted that if the Specific Plan did not include this right-of-way provision, it would be noted for the record that the applicant would add that notation. For Commissioner Webster, Mr. Griffith relayed that the issue of one-story verses two- story homes would be addressed by the City as the architectural elements were addressed; noted that with respect to the market place there was a demand for one- story homes, advising that those units would be placed on the larger lots due to lot coverage and square footage issues; and advised that in his opinion, for the developer to anticipate or restrict this element at this point in time would be inappropriate. For informational purposes, Mr. Burnell noted that eleven years ago while there were no requirements in the Paseo Del Sol project for inclusion of one-story homes, that one- story homes were constructed and were selling well, providing additional information regarding the standards of the design element. For the record, Mr. Alhadeff noted that with regard to the Pechanga Cultural Resources' concern with respect to monitoring, that the applicant desired to go on record stating that the applicant would work with the Pechanga Reservation representatives, coordinating a pre-construction meeting, and the monitoring process. In response to Chairman Guerriero's query, the Pechanga representative confirmed that the applicant had agreed to the aforementioned comments. For record keeping purposes, Attorney Curley relayed the request for the applicant to provide a copy of the PowerPoint presentation to staff (It was noted for the record that a copy of the PowerPoint presentation was obtained from the applicant and filed in the City Clerk's office.); and queried the Commission as to whether at this time the Commission was closing the rebuttal comment period, and initiating Commission deliberations. In response, Chairman Guerriero confirmed that the Commission would begin its deliberations. The Commission began its deliberations, as follows: With respect to the permitted uses within the Community Commercial (CC) zone, Commissioner Mathewson relayed that in order to maintain a pedestrian-oriented center it was his opinion that the following uses should not be permitted: Auditoriums, Automobile repair, Automobile rental, Car wash, Convenience market, and Hotels/motels. For Commissioner Mathewson, Associate Planner Donahoe relayed that the Parcel delivery services use was to allow the storefront type of mailboxes, noting that Postal distribution would not be permitted; and confirmed that it had been recommended that the Restaurant, drive-in/fast food use be stricken from the list of permitted uses. For Commissioner Telesio, Associate Planner Donahoe noted that Alcoholic beverage sales would not be permitted in the Neighborhood Commercial (NC) zone, relaying that in the Community Commercial (CC) zone it was recommended that Automotive service stations selling beer and/or wine, and Liquor stores be conditionally permitted. Associate Planner Donahoe advised that while staff was recommending that the Automobile rental be eliminated as a permitted use that the applicant had previously not been in agreement. Commissioner Webster queried the rationale for not allowing Alcoholic beverage sa/es, and Nightclubs/taverns/bars as conditionally permitted uses in the NC zone, recommending that these uses be permitted. In response to Commissioner Webster's recommendation, Commissioner Telesio relayed concurrence if the above-mentioned uses were conditionally permitted. For Chairman Guerriero, Mr. Griffith reiterated the applicant's desire to permit Hospitals in the CC zone, relaying no opposition to the use being permitted under a Conditional Use Permit. Chairman Guerriere concurred with Commissioner Mathewson's recommendations. Additional discussion ensued regarding eliminating the Convenience market from being permitted in the NC zone, Commissioner Mathewson recommending that it solely be conditionally permitted in the CC zone. Commissioner Webster relayed that since there were no Grocery stores permitted in the NC zone, it was his opinion that the Convenience market should be permitted in this zone. In response to the Commission comments, Deputy City Manager Thomhill suggested that a specialty food market less than 5,000 square feet be permitted in the NC zone. The Commission concurred with Deputy City Manager Thornhill's recommendation. The applicant was agreeable to the Commission's recommendations with respect to the revisions to the permitted uses in the NC and CC zones. Chairman Guerriere queded the Commission with respect to the issue of the preposed 4,000 square-foot lots. With respect to the applicant's presentation which depicted existing 4,000 square-foot lots in the City of Temecula, Commissioner Telesio relayed that this area was maintaining its value, noting the impreved appearance due to the maturity of the landscaping, advising that based on his work experience in this particular area (Paloma Del Sol) that it had not become a rental home zone; advised that with respect to the proposed mix of housing, that it was consistent with the General Plan, and the Growth Management Plan, noting the need for smaller homes in the community; relayed that it might be helpful in the future if an informational period was held informing the public of the guidelines (General Plan) which the City was bound to uphold; noted that it was the Commission's charge to administer the standards of the General Plan; and relayed no opposition to the proposed divereity of housing products. Concurring with Commissioner Telesio's comments regarding the Commission's charge to ensure that the standards of the General Plan were met, in addition to the guidelines of the Development Code, and the Design Guidelines, Commissioner Webster relayed that with respect to the Specific Plan that there was a major differential between the proposed Zoning Code and the Development Code, advising that this should be the focus of the Commission with respect to lot sizes and Land Use; relayed that the primary issue of concern with respect to the size of lots was the Land Use designations within the Land Use Plan; noted that there were 14 residential planning areas within the document, nine of which were Medium Density, and five of which were Low Medium Density; advised that in his opinion, there was provision of a divereity of housing types but there was an overabundance of Medium Density housing, noting that while there was a need for both Medium Density, and Low Medium Density housing, that this Land Use Plan was not satisfying the Low Medium housing needs; relayed that in order to be able to support the Village Center concept, he would recommend residential planning areas between Pala Road, and the interior loop read, recommending placement of Medium Density housing within that area, and Low Medium Density housing outside of this area (on the alternate side of the loop road); with respect to the Low Medium Housing regulations, noted that the Development Code specified a minimum lot size of 7200 square feet, relaying that he did not support revising this standard with regard to this project; with respect to lot coverage, noted the requirement of thirty-five pement (35%), relaying that there was greater lot coverage in this particular proposed Zoning Code; recommended that the Zoning Code within the Specific Plan be consistent with the City's Development Code; advised that the Temecula residents expected the Commission to implement the General Plan, the Development Code, and the Design Guidelines; with respect to the Medium Density Housing, relayed that with the exception of the courtyard homes he would favor a lower limit of 5,000 square feet lots, advising that the applicant could recoup the land differential if narrower streets were proposed, noting that narrower streets were an identified desirable element within the General Plan, the Development Code, and the Design Guidelines; advised that narrower roads provided an improved street scene; reiterated that it had been his previous recommendation that there be an improved treatment of the garages, providing an architecturally forward design philosophy with the front door visible from the front of the house, and the garage setback behind the front door, noting that the applicant had chosen not to address these elements; and relayed that in addition to the previously mentioned revisions, he was also in favor of the sidewalks being separated from the curb with a parkway. Commissioner Mathewson relayed concurrence with Commissioner Webster's recommendation with respect to the narrower street element, and sidewalks being separated from the curb with a parkway; with respect to the 4,000 square-foot lot size, relayed that the matter of pride of ownership was not the primary issue, but the enhanced architectural treatment was, noting his opposition to garages placed proximate to the street, relaying his recommendation that there be front porch elements added; noted the need for a variety of quality architectural treatment, recommending that the project propose a variety of siding elements; advised that he was reluctant to support the 4,000-4,500 square-foot lots without specific Design Guidelines that would ensure architectural treatment appropriate for a Village Concept (i.e., garages placed in the rear, alleyways, balconies, pomhes, varied roof types); with respect to the issue of one-story homes, relayed his desire for additional specificity in the Specific Plan to ensure the construction of one-story homes; and advised that Product Review was currently conducted at the staff level. In response to the Commission's comments, Deputy City Manager Thornhill proposed that with respect to varying product type and setbacks, that prior to any Tentative Map being approved for this project that the Design Guidelines could be modified to establish standards which could be reviewed and approved by the Commission which would provide the Commission the authority to ensure the development of specific standards. Mr. Griffith relayed that while he had no objection to Deputy City Manager Thornhill's proposition, it was his recommendation that with respect.to the 4,000-4,500 square-foot lots, the project be conditioned to have the Product Review conducted by the Planning Commission rather than at a staff level; advised that it would be difficult to develop specific detailed standards at the Tentative Map level with respect to architectural treatments; noted that architectural guidelines could be established prior to construction of the housing units; and relayed that from a timing perspective, it was the applicant's desire to move forward in order to initiate the Pala Road improvements; For Commissioner Mathewson, Mr. Griffith relayed that it would be approximately 18-24 months before any houses would be occupied, noting that in Phase I of the project, that there was solely one product category that was inclusive of 4,500 square-foot lots. Deputy City Manager Thornhill commented that the Commission's concerns could be addressed via more stringent Design Guidelines, rather than at the Project Review level; relayed the cumbersome agenda schedule that would be necessitated with Commission Product Review, advising that if there were specific concerns, that the Commission could appeal a decision to the Planning Commission level, recommending that the concerns be addressed via the development of standards within the Design Guidelines; for Commissioner Mathewson, confirmed that it was his recommendation that the Design Guidelines be submitted to the Planning Commission in conjunction with the approval of the Tentative Tract; and in response to Mr. Burnell's queries, relayed that this recommendation was solely associated with the 4,000-4,500 square-foot lot product since this was the area of Commission concern. Mr. Griffith relayed that while he was not opposed to Deputy City Manager Thornhill's recommendation with respect to the 4,000-4,500 square-foot lot project, that since there were solely three areas with 4,000-4,500 square-foot lots, that in his opinion a Planning Commission level of Product Review would not saturate the Planning Commission's agenda schedule. Deputy City Manager Thornhill relayed that incorporated into the standards there could also be established guidelines for alternate elements recommended by the Commission (i.e., varied elevations, porch elements, architecturally forward designs). For Commissioner Telesio, Mr. Burnell relayed that the applicant has provided several cross sections with narrower streets, separated sidewalks, options for garage locations, and guidelines recommending architectural forward designs on the project, clarifying for the record that these elements were included in the Design Guidelines; and noted the restrictions related to City staff not permitting various proposed elements. Deputy City Manager Thornhill relayed that while the provision of narrower streets was a pleasing element, that there were standards required with respect to Fire Department accessibility to the lots; advised that the Fire Department staff has agreed to consider a slightly reduced paved section, relaying that accessibility to the houses could not be compromised; with respect to landscape strips and trees, noted that there were negative impacts associated with this element, advising that there were innovative solutions (i.e., utilization of smaller trees with root barriers), noting that staff could address this issue. While acknowledging the impacts staff was attempting to address with the proposal of narrower streets, and sidewalks separated with parkways, Chairman Guerriero relayed that there were numerous benefits to the elements (i.e., reduction in speeding, improved streetscapes), noting that with respect to Fire Department access, that historically tract housing had included these elements and had been accessible; and relayed his strong opposition to wide streets. Deputy City Manager Thomhill relayed that the Commission could add a condition requiring staff to review options available for reduced cross-section streets, noting that when the Tentative Tract Maps were brought forward, staff could bring additional information regarding this element. Mr. Griffith relayed that he concurred with the elements recommended by the Commission (i.e., narrow streets, parkways), advising that the applicant would be agreeable to a condition requiring further investigation regarding the feasibility of the implementation of these elements; noted that the applicant was restricted by the policies of the City Departments; with respect to Deputy City Manager Thornhill's recommendation with respect to adding specificity to the design standards in conjunction with the approval of the Tentative Tracts for the 4,000-4,500 square-foot lot areas, or if it was the Commission's desire to review these areas during a Product Review prior to the issuance of Building Permits, that the applicant was agreeable; with respect to the recommendation for narrower streets, advised that the applicant was required to adhere to the Fire Department Standards, noting that the applicant was willing to work with staff to include this element. Mr. Alhadeff relayed that the applicant would bring the 4,000-4,500 square-foot lot design back to the Commission, while advising that bringing this forward at the Tentative Map stage would be difficult. For Commissioner Mathewson, Mr. Burnell provided additional information regarding the standards setforth in the applicant's proposal, advising that the project would undergo a thorough design review; and advised that if the standards needed to be more detailed with respect to the smaller lots that the applicant would be willing to comply. After additional Commission comments, Deputy City Manager Thornhill relayed that the Commission could receive specific Design Guidelines for the entire project, inclusive of specific provision regarding the treatment of the 4,000 and 5,000 square-foot lot areas. In response to Mr. Burnell's queries, Deputy City Manager Thornhill relayed that if the Commission was satisfied with the project type proposed on the larger lots then there would be no need to further address these areas. Attorney Curley clarified the process before the Commission, noting that the Commission was to make a recommendation on this planned proposal, relaying that the City Council would consider the Commission's recommendation and make a final determination; advised that it was not necessary to re-write the document, relaying that the Commission's action should reflect its support or lack of support of the project which could be subject to specific changes; noted the rationale for moving the project forward to the City Council, reiterating that the Commission was a recommending body; with respect to the discussion regarding the Design Guidelines, advised that if it was the opinion of the Commission that the Specific Plan was inadequate, that there should be specific recommendations for revisions that would warrant the Commission's support of the project, if that was the desire of the Commission, noting that there could be a recommendation for denial if the applicant did not comply; relayed that the Commission's actions could state its support of the project subject to the Design Guidelines being augmented with respect to included specific standards; noted that the City Council would then review the applicant's proposed project in conjunction with the Commission's response to this particular project; and reiterated that the Commission would need to clarify the areas that were being recommended to be augmented. Commissioner Mathewson relayed his concern with respect to the lack of specificity regarding elements such as one-story verses two-story housing, varied roof styles and types; advised that overall, it was his opinion that the applicant had done a great job in terms of the provision of amenities, and meeting the expectations of the Growth Management Plan; noted that with the lack of specificity with respect to architectural treatments, that he would be reluctant to support the project, recommending that there be a percentage of one-story homes required, standards with respect to varied roof styles, and standards with respect to requiring that 1400-1600 square-foot homes be constructed on the smaller lots. Deputy City Manager Thornhill relayed that he concurred with Commissioner Mathewson's desire to ensure that the homes did not have a uniform appearance, reiterating that if there were specific concerns the Planning Commission could appeal a Project Review to the Commission level; suggested that the Commission could require varied setbacks, providing additional information; relayed that there were options for the Commission to consider; advised that the item before the Commission at this time was for the Master Plan for the development of this entire community, acknowledging that all of the details were not presented at this point in time; reiterated that the Design Guidelines/Standards could be brought to the Commission for approval, relaying that staff could hire an independent architect to present concepts that would enhance the City's Design Guidelines. Mr. Burnell relayed that with the type of architectural specificity desired by the Commission, the applicant would be required to dictate architectural styles, noting that certain design aspects preferred at one point in time are not desired at another point in time, advising that it would be appropriate to present this type of specific detail with the builder package; and noted that since this was an approximate 10-year project, if specificity was developed to this extent at this point in time, those elements would need to be breught back to the Planning Commission at a future point in time due to antiquated architectural requirements. Mr. Grifflth concluded his comments, relaying that the single greatest concern in a Master Planned Community which encompassed 2,000 units was the difference between policy, and implementation, with regard to Master Planned Community development, land development, infrastructure, and architecture; advised that architecture could be addressed prior to construction, noting the difficulties with plotting 2,000 homes to demonstrete varied setbacks and alternate elements; and clarified that these specific architectural elements would need to be the purview of staff and the Planning Commission during the Preduct Review at some time in the future. The Commission relayed the following closin.q remarks' Commissioner Webster relayed that he was still of the opinion that the project did not implement the Village Center as envisioned in the General Plan, Development Code, and the City's Design Guidelines; with respect to the General Plan, referenced the map denoting the Village Center overlays within the City, noting that this was the sole area in the City that included undeveloped land with the Village Center area overlay; advised that the alternate areas had previously approved Specific Plans, noting the City's efforts in the past to implement the overlay in these areas, while advising that in his opinion it had failed due to a lack of implementation; noted that the City had received awards with respect to the Village Center concept included in the General Plan; relayed that his primary concern with respect to this particular proposal was the lack of assurance that there would be a functional Village Center; advised that while the proposed project did propose a fine Commercial Center it did not meet the criteria for a Village Center element; noted that a primary objective in the Village Center would be to maintain a quarter-mile walking radius, advising that this project did not include this element; 16 R:Plan Com rn/min~t es/1 oo4oo relayed that essentially the project proposed two separate villages bisected by Wolf Valley Road, advising that the optimum solution would be to split the Village Center; noted that if the Village Center was to remain, as proposed, in the middle of the project then Wolf Valley Road should not traverse through this area, relaying the major conflict between the placement of a major roadway, and a pedestrian-oriented area, advising that this was not acceptable; relayed that the project did not meet the goals with respect to the proposed mix uses; with respect to provisions for civic uses and gathering areas, provided additional information regarding the goals; and concluded his comments, relaying that with respect to the numerous goals, elements and requirements within the City Documents, that this project did not propose a satisfactory amount of these elements. Chairman Guerriero requested Commissioner Webster to clarify his comments by providing a recommendation. Commissioner Webster relayed that he could not support the project, as proposed; noted that he did not agree with Deputy City Manager Thornhill's recommendation that the issues previously discussed be brought back to the Commission, relaying that with respect to past projects that this had not been effective. Commissioner Telesio relayed the geographical restrictions placed on the project, noting the difficulties developing the optimum Village Center element; advised that in alternate projects, the Village Center element had not been created due to the lack of a feasible solution; and relayed that if the Village Center was divided, it would negate the feasibility of having a viable commercial center. For informational purposes, Chairman Guerriero noted that there was a project developed in the City of Sacramento where the ideal Village Center concept was constructed, advising that it was failing with respect to creating a pedestrian-oriented center, and that the residents were continuing to drive. Deputy City Manager Thornhill relayed that the goal was not solely to create a Village Center, but to redirect traffic; advised that if the Village Center element was removed from this project as suggested by Commission comments, and replaced with a strictly residential area, that there would be irreparable traffic congestion impacts; and noted that all of the traffic would then be redirected out to Highway 79. Chairman Guerriero clarified that the Commission was not advocating removing the commercial element, relaying that the manner in which the centers were situated within the project attracted residents to drive and not walk which defeated the Village Center concept. Deputy City Manager Thornhill clarified that this was an attempt to provide residents with options to driving, creating some areas where residents could walk to a center; asserted that pedestrian use was encouraged if the environment was suitable, noting the interior loop road that was primarily for the benefit of the residents living in the development, and the proposed paseo and bicycle system along the loop road which connected to the center; advised that if the commercial areas were not located at the corners, it would be improbable for a commemial buyer to develop the area, advising that the commercial center would likely fail; provided additional information regarding the intent of the Village Center; and relayed that in his opinion the element that this project was lacking was a multi-family area which would aid in the viability of the project. Querying the reference to the compact commercial area proposed in this project, Commissioner Webster relayed that there was a Neighborhood Commercial area proposed on one side of the street, and a Community Commercial area on the alternate side of the street; with respect to the recommendation to locate the commercial center on the corner sites, relayed that this was for visibility purposes, advising that there would be equal visibility with his recommended reconfiguration; advised that the Neighborhood Commercial area, as proposed, was not satisfying any neighborhood; with respect to Deputy City Manager Thornhill's comments regarding higher density housing, noted that with the reconfiguration of the commercial centers, a multi-family housing element could be implemented; advised that this property was one of the last opportunities for the City to implement a Village Center concept, relaying that he felt strongly regarding this issue, noting that it was important that this comment was relayed to staff, the applicant, and to the City Council for consideration. Chairman Guerriero reiterated Attorney Curley's comments with respect to the Planning Commission making a recommendation regarding this proposed project, querying whether the Commission's comments were for the purpose of encompassing recommendations to the City Council. Attorney Curley confirmed that the Planning Commission had the applicant's proposal before it, and that it was the Commission's charge to comment, and make recommendations as the planning advisory body in order to aid the ultimate decision makers, the City Council, in its deliberations; recommended that the Commission provide a consensual recommendation (i.e., recommendation of approval, recommendation of denial, or recommendation of approval subject to the addition or deletion of certain elements); advised that the plan would not need to be redrafted, noting that if there were weaknesses, or if the Commission could not support the project, then the recommendation would go forward to the City Council; and relayed that the Council would then review the project, the Commission's recommendation, and subsequently agree, disagree, or make modifications. Commissioner Webster relayed that there were a host of issues that had not been addressed with respect to this proposed project; relayed that even if he was satisfied with the Land Use Plan, that there were still areas that need to be addressed with respect to the proposed zoning, the proposed Design Guidelines, the Conditions of Approval, as well as, the Mitigation Monitoring Program for the CEQA document. With respect to the Conditions of Approval, Commissioner Webster relayed that the wrong length was still represented regarding cul-de-sac lengths; with respect to improvements to Pala Road, recommended that Pala Road be improved as an urban arterial to Wolf Valley Road at a minimum, if not to Fairview Road; with respect to the Circulation Element, noted the policy in the General Plan requiring that this element be updated every three years, noting his disappointment with the efforts with respect to adhering to this update process; noted that numerous letters written pertaining to the project had relayed that the project was not being mitigated properly; noted that the Mitigation Measures Report stated that the interim improvements that have been and are in the process of being completed would satisfy this project, noting his disagreement with this analysis, recommending that there be a condition that this project tie in with the Ultimate Interchange Improvements for Highway 79 South, and the 1-15; and advised that these issues were not adequately addressed with the CEQA analysis, or within the Conditions of Approval. With respect to the alternate CEQA issues that had not been adequately addressed, Commissioner Webster relayed that the City's General Plan EIR had a Mitigation Monitoring Program that all subsequent projects were required to adhere to, including this project; noted that a major issue was the Energy Resources and Air Quality element, relaying that requirement to maximize energy conservation measures for subsequent projects, advising that this project was solely providing mitigation measures that complied with Title 24 requirements which are minimum energy standards, relaying that this was not adequate in light of the General Plan's EIR requiring maximum energy conservation measures; noted that there were two specific measures that could be included within the Mitigation Monitoring Program, listed as follows: 1) compliance with the EPA's Energy Star Program which was the same as Edison's Comfort Wise Program, and 2) the use of small roof tile panels on houses utilized to generate their own electricity, relaying that the California Energy Commission has set up funding to subsidize these programs, advising that these elements should be included as feasible and economical measures; noted that in the applicant's Design Guidelines there was a provision for blending solar panels with the Housing Element; cited a Iow-income project in the City of Compton that had provision of this energy conservation element; with respect to Air Quality, noted that one of the specific measures required by the Air Quality Management Department (AQMD) was Land Use Development that minimized vehicular travel, relaying that if the Village Center was intended to satisfy the CEQA requirements, it would have to be designed properly, referencing his previous recommendation to create a more pedestrian friendly area. With respect to Utility issues, Commissioner Webster noted the response to Metropolitan for a requirement for coordination of San Diego Pipeline No. 6 within Fairview Road, advising that this element should be included within the Mitigation Monitoring Program. With respect to the developer-installed landscaping and irrigation complying with the Water Conservation Ordinance within the City, Commissioner Webster advised that the City's Ordinance needed to be revised with respect to the specific plan, in order to require that all developer-installed landscaping and irrigation (for the Commercial, the general landscape, and the single-family, and multi-family projects) be in conformance with the State's Model Water Conservation Ordinance, noting the significance of this issue; and advised that it could be addressed with respect to this project within the Mitigation Measures. With respect to the Cumulative Impacts regarding this project, Commissioner Webster relayed that numerous letters have been written with respect to this issue; noted that there have been previous discussions regarding the baseline data, as well as Mitigation Measures that are now feasible; advised that the Cumulative Impact Analysis was incomplete, noting that a primary focus should be Energy Resources; relayed that due to development increase demands, Edison was corresponding with respect to the future negative impacts regarding meeting these demands, noting that this was a cumulative impact that had not been addressed; with respect to traffic, noted that these cumulative impacts have not been adequately addressed, recommending a thorough analysis. Reiterating recommendations that he had made earlier in the meeting, Commissioner Webster reiterated the recommended Land Use changes in zoning, in order for the Low Medium Zoning to comply with the Development Code; with respect to the Design Guidelines, relayed that the project needs to be one hundred percent (100%) architecturally forward; noted that since the initial introduction of this project, he had relayed that he was not in agreement with the location of the Middle School, acknowledging that the City did not have contrel over this placement, advising that now it had been noted that no lights could be installed at this site due to the adjacent residential property; relayed that the applicant did not make efforts to address the school issue; and recommended that the City stand by the General Plan, the Development Code, and the Design Guidelines and solely approve a project that complies with the City documents. Chairman Guerriero reiterated that the Commission was to make recommendations, moving this project forward to the City Council for its consideration; and queried the Commission for input regarding Commissioner Webster's recommendations. In response to Commissioner Mathewson's queries, Commissioner Webster clarified that the design document needed to be redrafted, noting that the Low Medium Density should be in compliance with the Development Code; with respect to the Medium density, advised that there should be investigation to create a new Zoning Code due to the City's standard being inconsistent with these requirements, relaying that he would entertain development of a new code in the Specific Plan for Medium Density; confirmed that in the Medium Density Zone, he could support setbacks and lot dimensions that varied from the City's Development Code, providing additional information, relaying that 7200 square foot lots would not be feasible for Medium Density; relayed that if the applicant was preposing lots smaller than 5,000 square feet, there would need to be additional specificity in the Design Guidelines; noted that the proposed five-foot side yard setbacks on both sides of the house in the Medium Density housing was not adequate; and confirmed that the previously mentioned recommendations regarding lot coverage standards needed to be addressed. Commissioner Mathewson concurred with Commissioner Webster's recommendations; and noted that he recommended that the applicant additionally provide clarification with respect to the sound attenuation agreement. In response to Commissioner Mathewson, Deputy City Manager Thornhill relayed that it was important to note that this Specific Plan Document provides for subsequent approvals of Tentative Maps, noting that during that review process the applicant would be required to comply to specific standards; and advised that there was a Development Agreement moving forward at this time, relaying that there would be language in the agreement addressing Commissioner Mathewson's concern. Commissioner Mathewson relayed the difficulties in the past addressing issues after appreval of a Specific Plan, citing alternate matters. Deputy City Manager Thomhill provided clarification with respect to the Mitigation Measure within the Mall's Regional Specific Plan that had not been incorporated into the Conditions of Approval, relaying the upcoming opportunity that the City would have to impose the condition. Commissioner Mathewson relayed that he could support the applicant's comments regarding addressing architectural treatments during the project Review Process, while noting that the following issues should be addressed in the Specific Plan at this time: the building footprints, garage placement, and the one-story, two-story issue. With respect to the Design Guidelines, Commissioner Telesio relayed that the Design Guidelines issue should be addressed with the builder at the Product Review level; listed the issues that needed to be addressed at this time, as follows: the consideration for narrow streets, and the parkway element; noted that it appeared to him that while the recommendations setforth by the Commission were valid, that the Commission had gotten bogged down in the design details rather that the actual project presented; relayed that some recommendations were related to the internal process (citing a recommendation to modify the Development Code), noting the problem with providing a developer with the Development Code and subsequently addressing issues that were not in the City's documents; and provided additional information regarding his concern with expecting standards that have not been established. In response to Commissioner Telesio's comments, Commissioner Mathewson noted that the applicant had proposed relief from the Development Code with respect to lot coverage elements, and front-yard setbacks. Commissioner Telesio relayed that the applicant had worked in conjunction with City staff and polices with respect to this proposal; noted that he was not aware of the Commission's charge to develop new standards, and create legislation; relayed that his opinion varied with respect to the recommendation to divide the Commercial Center, noting the difficulties with this property meeting the optimum Village Center concept with the existing geography; noted that in his opinion, this overall project met the diversity requirement needed in the City, met the General Plan requirements, and met the Growth Management Plan expectations; relayed his desire for the project to go forward with any recommendations the Commission desired to add, noting that there should come a point in time when the Commission either accepted the proposal recommending approval for the project to go forward, or to state that the project needed to go back to the drawing board. Commissioner Mathewson queried the direction of the Commission's actions if there was concurrence with Commissioner Webster's recommendations. Attorney Curley noted the three resolutions before the Commission, relaying that the Commission's recommendation on each resolution could be for approval subject to the specific changes articulated, or that the Commission's recommendation could be for denial based on the specific comments, advising that either way the Council would have an understanding of the Commission's position; noted that the City Council would review the proposed project, and the Commission recommendation, relaying that if there was a substantial different course taken by the Council that the Commission had not discussed in any way, it would come back to the Commission for further recommendation; clarified that the broader manner in which the issues were relayed to the Council, the more certainty there would be that the Commission had not overlooked elements; relayed that staff would repackage the resolutions in either orientation; advised that there needed to be a majority vote from the Commission, noting that it could be a recommendation for the City Council to deny approval based on the articulated short-failings, relaying that if these elements were rectified at the Council level that there would be a level of comfort approving the project since there would be assurance that the Commission's considerations have been responded to. MOTION: Commissioner Webster moved to recommend that the City Council deny this proposed project which would be reflected in the resolutions of denial based on the detailed comments previously mentioned, noting that the record of the minutes would clarify the findings; briefly recapitulated the rationale for denial, as follows: inadequate analysis and mitigation measures within the CEQA document, the Tentative Map, the General Plan Amendment, and the Specific Plan Document, and due to the issues previously detailed with respect to the zoning, the Design Guidelines, the Land Use, the Circulation, and the Village Center. Commissioner Mathewson seconded the motion. (Ultimately this motion passed, see below.) In response to Attorney Curley, Commissioner Webster confirmed that he would desire to have the revised resolutions brought back to the Commission as a business item in order to ensure that the resolutions were articulated, as intended; and clarified that the denial was primarily based on the lack of compliance with the General Plan, the Development Code, and the Design Guidelines. At this time voice vote was taken reflecting approval of the motion to deny with the exception of Commissioner Chiniaeff who abstained. COMMISSIONER REPORTS No input. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT No input. ADJOURNMENT At 9:38 P.M. Chairman Guerriero formally adjourned this meeting to Wednesday, October '18, 2000 at 6:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula. I~on G uel~i~, Chairman Debbie Ubnoske, Director of Planning