Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout101701 PC MinutesMINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 17, 2001 CALL TO ORDER The City of Temecula Planning Commission convened in a regular meeting at 6:00 P.M., on Wednesday, October 17, 2001, 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 Guerriero. ROLLCALL Present: Commissioners Guerriero, Mathewson, C)lhasso, Telesio, and Chairman Chiniaeff. Absent: None. Also Present: Deputy City Manager Thornhill, Director of Planning Ubnoske, Assistant City Attorney Curley, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks, Development Services Administrator McCarthy, Deputy Fire Marshall McBride, Senior Planner Hogan, Associate Planner Thornsley, Project Planner Naaseh, and Minute Clerk Hansen. PUBLIC COMMENTS No comments. CONSENT CALENDAR 1 AFlenda RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Approve the Agenda of October 17, 2001. R:PlanComrNminutes/101701 2 Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Approve the Minutes of August 22, 2001. MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1-2. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Telesio and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. COMMISSION BUSINESS PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 3 Planning Application No. PA01-0460 (Chan.qe of Zone) to chanqe the zoninq on 14 properties located along both sides of Ridqe Park Drive from Li,qht Industrial (LI) to Business Park (BP) - David Ho,qan, Senior Planner RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 Adopt the Final Environmental Impact Report for the General Plan pursuant to Section 15162 of the California Environmental Quality Act; 3.3 Adopt a Resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2001-037 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP ALONG A PORTION OF BOTH SIDES OF RIDGE PARK DRIVE (PLANNING APPLICATION 01-0460)" Via overheads, Senior Planner Hogan provided an overview of the proposed zone changes (per agenda material), advising that in staff's opinion the area is more suitable for office-type uses due to its elevated position and the views from the site; noted a properly owner's contact with staff, relaying the desire to construct a 35,000 square foot office building on the site which currently is not allowable in the Light Industrial Zone (i.e., the building would have to be a minimum of 50,000 square feet); and reiterated staff's opinion that this particular zone change was logical, specifying the proposed zoning for each area. For Commissioner Telesio, Senior Planner Hogan provided additional information regarding the area that could potentially be utilized for the Western Bypass; specified the area with the potential for the highest development on the western portion; and for Chairman Chiniaeff, noted that the exact alignment for the Western Bypass has not been determined. R:PIanComm/minute~101701 2 Mr. Bill Bachelor, 30270 Santiago Road, relayed his enthusiasm with the potential to construct a professional office building on a parcel that would be positively impacted by this zone change. MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved to close the public hearing; and to approve staff's recommendation. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Mathewson and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. 4 Roripauqh Ranch Specific Plan Land Use Plan Workshop · The staff report is presented Staff presents the Land Use changes By way of overheads, Project Planner Naaseh provided an overview of the meetings held with the applicant, the Subcommittee, and the community since the August 15, 2001 Planning Commission meeting; reviewed the revisions in the Land Use Plan, specifying that the elementary school site has been removed from the Panhandle area (due to the proximity to the airport) and has been replaced with a park and a private recreation facility, noting the increase in density by 25 units in this area; relayed the decrease in density in the West Butterfield Stage Road Neighborhood by 253 units, advising that Planning Area (PA) No. 27 would provide an improved buffer for the surrounding areas with one-acre lots followed by half-acre lots; with respect to the 640- acre area, relayed the increase in density by 481 units, noting that the elementary school site has been placed in this area, adjacent to the middle school site; specified that overall the project has increased in density from 1721 units to 1986; clarified that the attached units have been deleted from the Plan, noting that the product types will include the clustered courtyard design, small lot single-family with a minimum of 3,500 square feet, minimum 5,000 square foot lots in the Panhandle, and other larger lot projects; and relayed that there would be two private recreation facilities proposed (i.e., one four-acre facility, and one 2.5 acre facility). Staff presents the proposed trails plan Project Planner Naaseh presented staff's proposed trails plan, noting that the applicant has not yet submitted a trail plan, specifying the Murrieta Hot Springs connector trail, the multi-purpose trails with a Butterfield Stage Road undercrossing, and the trail continuing along Butter'field Stage Road and connecting to the thirty-foot (30') easement. Staff presents the residents' concerns With respect to the residents' concerns, Project Planner Naaseh relayed that the majority of the issues have been addressed with the exception of the following: the need for additional buffering of the Panhandle (to the south) which was additionally recommended by the Subcommittee, the incorporation of mitigation measures to reduce the visibility from Nicolas Valley, *drainage issues, and *traffic impacts (*It was noted that these items will be addressed at a future point in time since the primary focus at this time was the Land Use Plan). R;PlanComm/minutes/101701 3 Staff presents the Subcommittee's recommendations Specifying various Subcommittee recommendations, Project Planner Naaseh relayed that with respect to the Village Center, the recommendation was to keep the commercial area in PA No. 1 lA; and with respect to the increase in density, the Subcommittee was split regarding this matter. Continuing his presentation, Project Planner Naaseh relayed staff's desire to obtain the Planning Commission's direction with respect to the following: the Land Use Plan, the commercial site being moved to PA No. 13A, the buffering for the Panhandle, the densities, and the need for a public institutional site. Addressing the Planning Commission's questions, for Commissioner Olhasso, Project Planner Naaseh noted that the trail along Butterfield Stage Road would include a compilation of a horse trail and a sidewalk, Development Services Administrator McCarthy specifying that a Class I trail is separated from the street, whereas a Class II trail is a striped bike lane that is part of the road. For Commissioner Mathewson, Project Planner Naaseh relayed that once the Land Use Plan is finalized, the additional impacts from the increase in density would be assessed; and for Chairman Chiniaeff, specified that the original EIR was conducted for 1721 dwelling units. · The applicant's presentation Noting the revisions in the plan, Mr. Kevin Everett, representing the applicant, highlighted the following modifications regarding the project: The added private recreation facility and public park located in PA Nos. 6A, and 6B. The new location for the elementary school. With respect to staff's proposed trails plan, noted the mixed response from the Nicolas Valley residents, as well as the builders, advising that if the Panhandle area was gated, the access to the trails could be controlled, limiting access to members of the HOA; presented trail concepts with view look-out areas, meandering trails, benches, and landscaping; noted that with the gated concept, the width of the road that fronts the lots could be reduced, and deeper lots could be created; For Chairman Chiniaeff, relayed that the applicant has conducted visibility studies for the Panhandle area, presenting the data which provided the project views from various locations, noting the fifty-foot (50') difference in elevation in various areas; for Commissioner Mathewson, specified the area where the lots have reversed slopes; Noted the desire of the applicant to relocate one of the park sites to PA No. 1 lB in order to enlarge the private recreation area, advising that it would be the applicant's desire to install a view ridge park; for Chairman Chiniaeff, advised that the applicant is working with Development Services Administrator McCadhy regarding the parks issue, confirming that all the parkland requirements will be met; Relayed the applicant's agreement to include two recreational facilities in the project plan, noting that the facility in the Panhandle has been designed, and the applicant consultant is in the process of designing the second one; noted that this particular consultant will additionally be designing the entries, noting that this architectural detail will be carried throughout the development; R:PlanComm/rr'Jnutes/101701 4 Provided an overview of the types of dwelling units being proposed, specifying the planning areas which would be comprised of lots approximately 4,000 square feet in size; noted the enhance design elements, inclusive of architecture forward treatments, architecture on two sides, front porches, single-story units mixed with two-story units, frontyard HOA landscaping for all lots under 5,000 square feet, and open space ~ots. With respect to the proposed clustered courtyard housing with zero lot lines, relayed that these lots would range from 3,500-4,000 square feet, presenting photographs of a similar product to what the applicant was planning, noting the detailed architecture. With respect to design, relayed the agreement with the School District which would allow the project's architectural elements to be implemented at the school sites, noting the applicants desire to additionally implement these design elements at the Fire Station in order to create community cohesiveness; Relayed the potential to construct a mega recreation facility similar to a San Diego facility in the La Mirage Development, relaying the 13,000 square foot recreation room, the ballroom facility, the weightliffing room, the various pools, the five to six saunas, and an outdoor cabana; noted the applicant's desire to locate this facility in PA No. 32, requesting the Planning Commission to consider allowing the applicant to consider permitting the density to be further increased by 72 lots to aid in funding the upfront costs for these facilities, noting that the HOA would fund the long-term maintenance; and for Chairman Chiniaeff, specified that the additional 72 units would bring the total density up to 2058. Addressing the questions of the Planning Commission, Mr. Everett relayed the following: For Chairman Chiniaeff, noted the applicant's desire for the commercial center to stay in PA No. 1 lA due to the easy access to this area; For Commissioner Mathewson, fudher specified the overall density increase from 1721 to 2058, noting the proposed park and recreational areas; relayed that the previously presented plan for the mega recreation center was not a definite pad of the proposal, advising that the applicant is working with staff regarding this matter. Development Services Administrator McCarthy provided additional information regarding the park requirements, advising that staff had concerns regarding the park site location at PA No. 1 lB, which was proposed by the applicant yesterday; For Commissioner Olhasso, advised that the proposed dwelling units have increased due to the detailed cost studies conducted, advising that in order for the project to include the elements staff was requesting (i.e., the CFD, the Fire Station and fire truck, and other facilities) the units constructed would need to be increased; With respect to the equestrian trail along the southern and eastern portions of the project, relayed that this trail could be accessed from the one-acre lots, on the County area, confirming that it would be publicly accessible; relayed that it would be the applicant's desire that the horse trail be located on a major thoroughfare, and that the crossing be at grade, which the Public Works Depadments was opposed to; and clarified that the final trail plan has not been determined; In response to Commissioner Olhasso's querying if the largest lots were 4,000 square feet (with the exception of the one-acre, and half-acre lots), clarified that the lots would range in size from 3,500 up to one acre, noting the deletion of the 2.5 acre lots; and In response to Chairman Chiniaeff's queries regarding the applicant's comment when it was stated that the dwelling units needed to be increased in order for the CFD to operate, clarified that the funds were needed for Development Agreement R:P[anComrn/minutes/101701 5 , issues, additionally clarifying that if the City staff requested above what the CFD was funding then those additional monies would come from the developer. It was noted that the meeting recessed at 7:06 P.M. reconvening at 7:17 P.M. · The public is invited to comment The following individuals had concerns regarding the project, as proposed: [] Mr. Bill Vazzanza Mr. Ron Knowles Mr. John Mize Mr. Jack Norris Mr. Hans Kernkamp Mr. Mike Payne [] Ms. Joyce Williams Mr. Mike Knowlton 39603 Avenue Lynell 39675 Cantrell Road 32850 Vista Del Monte 33055 Vino Way 39055 Liefer Road 39790 Avenida Arizona 33612 Vino Way 39130 Pala Vista Drive The above-mentioned individuals relayed the following concerns regarding this particular proposal: · -' Opposed to the developer revising the plan to eliminate the 2.5-acre lots proximate to his property, referencing a previous map (provided by the developer) denoting the 2.5-acre parcels. · ,' The location of the recreation center (i.e., in PA No. 32) · ~ Noise, traffic, and light impacts. · -' Adequate water supply. · -' Flood control and drainage issues. ¢' Requested that there be a minimum eight-foot berm on both sides of the creek. · -' Requested Iow density residential for Parcel No. 57130004, due to the proximity to a residence. · -' Concurred with keeping the commercial unit in PA No. 1 lA. ¢' Buffering along the east and south side of the project. · -' Opposed to increased density. · ,' Traffic on Nicolas Road, in particular due to the proximity to the school sites. ,,' Opposed to the proposed viewpoints (i.e., look-out areas), which would defeat the purpose of the buffering elements. Queried where the revenue would be derived from to cover emergency services since this project was primarily a housing development. · -' Concurred that it was better that the City address the impacts of the project rather than the County. · -' Queried whether the Planning Commission was aware of all the comments that residents have expressed to the developer during numerous meetings held over years. ,-' Densities are too high. ~' Referenced a letter (which had been distributed to the Planning Commission via supplemental agenda material) dated October 17, 2001, which detailed additional concerns, listed as follows: the need for a final map to be presented, recommended that the large parcels be designated as horse properties, expressed concern regarding lights, parking provisions (proximate the schools and parks), mitigation in the Panhandle area, traffic, and densities. R:PlanOomrn/minules/101701 6 · -' Queried the developer's rationalization for the need for increased densities, questioning the cost analysis. · The Commission provides concludinq comments Recapitulating the past discussions at the Subcommittee meetings, Chairman Chiniaeff noted the various issues of concern, as follows: buffering issues, re-designation of the land uses, the densities, the previous location of the school in light of the proximity to the airport, the area around the sports park, the best location for the commercial area, the compatibility of the project with the surrounding residential area, advising that addressing various issues was part of the rationale for a few of the design changes; with respect to flood control issues, noted that the Public Works Department and Riverside County Flood Control and Conservation District would determine the sides of the slopes; with respect to the buffer proximate to the Panhandle area, advised that the look-out areas would most likely cause privacy issues; with respect to the proposal to relocate the park, relayed that he was in favor of this concept, noting that with the proposed trails plan individuals would be encouraged to walk to the park; with respect to the trails, advised that an important issue would be whether MWD would allow the use of the waterway for equestrian or pedestrian trails; with respect to a designated church site, clarified that a church use is allowed in any zone via a CUP; and with respect to the increase in density, while relaying that there were some areas where the courtyard housing would be appropriate, advised that he was reluctant to agree with the applicant's request for 2059 dwelling units simply due to this number of units being denoted on a previous plan. In response to Chairman Chiniaeff, Deputy Fire Marshall McBride provided additional information regarding the conditions which would be imposed if a gated community was implemented; and advised that if the determination of planning the gate area was solely dependent on his advisement, it would not be placed on a thoroughfare. Concurring with the previous comments of the residents, Commissioner Guerriero noted his concern regarding water supply, referencing Senate Bill 221. In response, Assistant City Attorney Curley advised that SB 221 would mandate new findings in the City's review and approvals to determine that there was adequate water on a 20-year projection basis to serve the development, providing additional information regarding this review process; advised that the City and the applicant will rely on the local water agencies for this affirmation, relaying that the statute sets out various factors that the water agencies must consider when determining whether there would be adequate water, and subsequently staff would review the agencies' conclusions; provided additional information regarding how CEQA's cumulative clause ties in with the referenced Senate Bill, confirming that there would be a coincidence of analysis; for Commissioner Telesio, confirmed that the water supply entities will take into consideration not only the existing water use but the commitment to water for future development. For Chairman Chiniaeff, Director of Planning Ubnoske noted that for all projects staff requests the water district to provide a letter confirming that an adequate supply exists. Commissioner Mathewson advised that it would be his preference for a final Land Use Plan to be presented to the Planning Commission review, one which has been generally accepted by both the applicant and staff, clarifying that the hearing was not the R:PlanComm/minutes/101701 7 appropriate forum for debating major land use issues; noted his concern regarding the proposed increase in density; opined that compatibility with the surrounding land uses and appropriate buffering needed to be taken into consideration (i.e., the location of the commercial center); with respect to the potential mega recreation facility, concurred that this facility was proposed too close to the boundaries of the project and should be relocated fudher to the center due to the noise, and lighting impacts; opined that if the density is increased, an EIR would need to be re-circulated in order to address the additional impacts; concurred with concerns regarding water supply, traffic, and drainage; concurred with staff's concern regarding relocating the park site to PA No. 11 B; with respect to buffering on the eastern and southern portions of the project, relayed concern regarding the small lot sizes on the interior loop, noting that no criteria has been presented for design standards in this area; and noted that the transitioning from l-acre lots to 10,000 square foot lots is too drastic of a change. In response to Commissioner Mathewson, Mr. Everett specified the location of the natural ridgeline at the southern end of the project, the 30-foot buffer (the fuel break with a horse trail), and then the one- to one-half-acre lots, clarifying that PA No. 18 would solely have one- to one-half-acre lots; with respect to PA No. 17, relayed that there would be one-acre lots, one-half-acre lots, and the fuel break, noting that in the remaining area, closer to the loop there would potentially be 10,000 square foot lots; with respect to PA Nos. 27 and 30, relayed the commitment to one-acre, and one-half acre lots; with respect to the gated area, relayed that there would be substantial provisions for parking, noting that the gate would be manned with guards; with respect to the proposed location of the recreation center, clarified that there was a half-mile distance between the proximate neighborhood, noting that the recreation center would not be an intensive lighted project; and relayed that the private roads and landscaping would be paid for by the development's residents, and not the public. Commissioner Olhasso noted that an example of poor developmental planning with respect to transitioning from one-acre, one-half-acre, to ten thousand square foot lots was the Woodside Development; and with respect to the comments concerning lighting at the sports park, clarified that staff was stringent with respect to the type of lighting required and there rules of use. In response to Commissioner OIhasso's queries, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks confirmed that with respect to flooding issues, staff would be thoroughly investigating, and subsequently would determine a recommendation to address this issue. Regarding the CFD, Commissioner OIhasso acknowledged that there would be a financial advisor associated with this mechanism. For Commissioner Olhasso, Director of Planning Ubnoske advised that the additional increase in density that the applicant referenced was new data, relaying that both the Finance Department and the Public Works Department would be carefully scrutinizing the financial analysis, noting that she could forward Commissioner Olhasso's recommendation for the City to conduct its own analysis. Assistant City Attorney Curley relayed that until the Land Use Plan is finalized the economics of the project cannot be fully analyzed. With respect to the Design Guidelines (which would be developed at a future point), Commissioner Olhasso noted that she was not pleased with the architecture presented R:PlanComm/minute¢101701 8 in the photographs; regarding the parks, recommended that if the park was to be relocated, that a few housing lots be deleted, and that a tot lot park be implemented on the western podion of the project. Noting that he served on the Subcommittee associated with this project, Commissioner Telesio clarified, for Commissioner Mathewson, that numerous significant proposals presented by the applicant were recent changes, and had not been presented to the Subcommittee, concurring that the new concepts should first be presented to staff, then the Subcommittee, and finally to the Planning Commission; opined that the commercial area should be placed in the center of the project; with respect to the density, advised that the critical issue would be the alternate elements proposed to offset the density (i.e., traffic mitigation, community amenities) which would render the net benefit to the community; with respect to designating a specific site for a religious institution, clarified that it was determined that there was no need to specify a site for this type of use; and concluded that in light of the numerous, significant recent revisions to the Land Use Plan, the data should not be presented to the Planning Commission at this point in time. With respect to the location of the commercial center, the following comments were relayed: Commissioner Guerriero opined that the commercial area should be located proximate to the center of the project which would be more consistent with a Village Center Concept. Noting the discussions and considerations at the Subcommittee level, Chairman Chiniaeff relayed his initial recommendation that the commercial center be located at the southerly location. For Commissioner Mathewson, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks relayed that at PA No. 13 there was an open channel adjacent to Butterfield Stage Road which would limit the access to Butterfield State Road at that site; and with respect to the northerly location, advised that there would be a road system around the commercial center which feeds from numerous locations, and would service the Panhandle area well. In light of Deputy Director of Public Works Parks' comments, Chairman Chiniaeff, echoed by Commissioner Olhasso and Commissioner Mathewson, concurred with the community center being located at the northerly location. Assistant City Attorney Curley clarified that per the Brown Act, the Planning Commission was not making formal decisions, and that the developer should not rely on these comments being a formal decision. With respect to density the following comments were noted: Recapitulating the review of recently approved Specific Plans, Commissioner Guerriero noted concern with respect to the lack of discussion regarding major infrastructure (or a transit system) being implemented, while the densities continue to be increased, advising that it would be his recommendation that the densities be decreased; and clarified that there would be no community benefit regarding the proposed mega recreation center. R:PlanComm/rninute~101701 9 Commenting on the density issue, Chairman Chiniaeff relayed that proximate to the interior loop where the school was located, that this area should be reinvestigated, recommending that this portion of the project not be designated for 3,500 square foot lots. Commissioner Olhasso noted a desire to have additional data regarding the analysis associated with the applicant's comments that the density needed to be increased to make the project financially feasible, clarifying that without this information she could not further comment on the density at this time. Concurring with the concern regarding the financial data associated with the applicant's need for the density to be increased, Commissioner Mathewson relayed concern regarding providing a recommendation with respect to densities at this time. Assistant City Attorney Curley relayed that when the applicant presents the final plan, the proposal will be undergirded with the financial machinations based on the developer's opinion of the density that will be required in order for the project to be financially feasible, as well as a benefit to the City; clarified that the goal of the Planning Commission was to ensure good planning; and, for Commissioner Olhasso, noted that once the applicant has a final proposal, the density should be defended by the applicant to the Planning Commission in support of the project, and that the Planning Commission will evaluate whether the densities proposed support the project. Enumerating the Planning Commission comments, Chairman Chiniaeff noted, for staff and the applicant, the Planning Commission's struggle with the increases in density, and the myriad of changes occurring in the project plan; and clarified that the Planning Commission would desire the applicant to present a fixed plan on their proposal with the supporting justification, having first been analyzed by staff. For Commissioner Telesio, Director of Planning Ubnoske clarified that at this point staff did not have data regarding the specific infrastructure associated with the project. For informational purposes, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks relayed that staff has been involved in meetings with the applicant regarding the CFD formation, the infrastructure, and the drainage issues; concurred that the applicant would need to justify the need for additiona~ densities to cover the additional costs of these elements; and advised that it was the Public Works Department's recommendation to have four lanes at Butterfield Stage Road and Murrieta Hot Springs Road, and not to have a complete tie-in at Nicolas Road at this time. Commissioner Telesio clarified that density is a concern of his and that it was tied to the amount of infrastructure needed. Director of Planning Ubnoske noted that the DA, the CFD, and the density issues are closely tied, advising that per the Planning Commission comments these discussions need to be more finalized prior to Planning Commission presentation. Commissioner Mathewson reiterated, for the applicant, that the project plan should be fixed and previously reviewed by staff and the Subcommittee prior to Planning Commission review. R:PianComm/minutes/101701 1 0 Mr. Everett relayed that it was the applicant's desire to formulate a final Specific Plan, EIR, CFD, and the DA elements, and have staff review the data prior to the Planning Commission presentation. Chairman Chiniaeff reiterated that the Planning Commission desired to review a fixed finalized plan. For Senior Planner Hogan, Chairman Chiniaeff relayed that with respect to buffering issues the Planning Commission did not make any recommendations regarding implementing the 2.5 acre lots, but noted the importance of compatible land uses. Since this was a workshop item, and no formal action was required by the Planning Commission this concluded the comments of the Commission. COMMISSIONER'S REPORTS Commissioner Guerriero congratulated Commissioner Olhasso (as a member of the staff of the City of Ontario) and the City of Ontario for the recent attainment of the Putnam Award. For Commissioner Guerriero, Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that the outside storage at the Power Center was being addressed by Code Enforcement, noting that she would further investigate as to what stage of the citation process this matter was in; and for Commissioner Olhasso, noted that she would additionally follow up on the Code Enforcement issue regarding the site proximate to the 1-15 Freeway and Winchester Road. In response to Commissioner Mathewson, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks relayed that staff will investigate the timing of the signals on Rancho California Road in the early morning hours. Commissioner Mathewson advised that he would be unable to attend the next Planning Commission meeting. Deputy Director of Public Works Parks updated the Planning Commission regarding staff's evaluation of the traffic concerns at the Hometown Buffet use. Commissioner Guerriero clarified that the concern was exiting the site across the street from Hometown Buffet (traveling eastbound). Deputy Director of Public Works Parks noted that he would investigate the matter. Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that she would provide the Planning Commission with information regarding the dates of the November meetings. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT No additional input. ADJOURNMENT At 8:59 P.M. Chairman Chiniaeff formally adjourned this meeting to the next regular meetinq to be held on Wednesday~ November 7, 2001 at 6:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula. Chairman Debbie Ubno~e, Director of Planning