Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout112801 PC MinutesMINUTES OF AN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 28, 2001 CALL TO ORDER The City of Temecula Planning Commission convened in an adjourned regular meeting at 6:00 P.M., on Wednesday, November 28, 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 Telesio. ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Also Present: PUBLIC COMMENTS No comments. CONSENT CALENDAR 1 AClenda RECOMMENDATION: Commissioners Guerriero, Mathewson, Olhasso, Telesio, and Chairman Chiniaeff. None. Director of Planning Ubnoske, Assistant City Attorney Curley, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks, Senior Planner Hogan, Senior Planner Hazen, Associate Planner Harris, and Minute Clerk Hansen. 1.1 Approve the Agenda of November 28, 2001. 2 Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Approve the Minutes of October 17, 2001. 2.2 Approve the Minutes of November 7, 2001. R: PlanComrWminutes/112801 MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1-2. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Telesio and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Commissioner Mathewson who abstained with regard Item No. 2.2. COMMISSION BUSINESS 3 Director's Hearinq Case Update RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 Approve the Director's Hearing Case Update. For Commissioner Guerriero, Director of Planning Ubnoske noted that the rental car use on Solana Way had withdrawn their application. The Planning Commission received and filed this report. 4 Appointment of two Plannina Commissioners to the Rancho Community Church Subcommittee It was the consensus of the Commission that Commissioner Guerriero and Chairman Chiniaeff be appointed to serve on this particular Subcommittee. Senior Planner Hazen relayed that there was a Subcommittee meeting scheduled for December 11, 2001 from 1:30-2:30 P.M. in the Community Development Conference Room, recommending that the Subcommittee Members arrive an hour earlier in order to receive a briefing regarding the project. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 5 Plannina Application No. PA01-0109 (General Plan Amendment) Planninq Application No. PA01-0102 (Paloma del Sol Specific Plan Amendment No. 8) and Plannincl Application No. PA01-0117 (Vestina Tentative Tract No. 24188 Amendment No. 4). Matthew Harris, Associate Planner. The Proposal is, as follows: .Planning Application No. PA 01-0109 proposes to amend the General Plan Map to reflect the proposed Specific Plan amendments. Planning Application No. PA01-0102 proposes to amend Specific Plan No. SP-4 (Paloma del Sol), Planning Areas 5, 23, 24, 27, 28, 29, 38; and eliminating Planning Area 29B. Planning Application No. PA01-0117 proposes Amendment No. 4 of Vesting Tentative Tract No. 24188 to create 293 single-family residential lots, 1 recreation center lot, 1 park site lot and 16 open space lots located within Planning Areas 26, 27, 28 and 29. RECOMMENDATION: 5.1 Adopt a Resolution Entitled: R:PlanComm/minute~112801 2 RESOLUTION NO. 2001-040 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL DO THE FOLLOWING: (1) CERTIFY ADDENDUM NO. 4 TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE PALOMA DEL SOL SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 8; (2) APPROVE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FOR THE PALOMA DEL SOL SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 8 (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 01-0109); AND APPROVE PALOMA DEL SOL SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 8 (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 01-0102) AND ADOPT AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE PALOMA DEL SOL SPECIFIC PLAN ZONING STANDARDS FOR PLANNING AREA 38 (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 01-0102; 5.2 Adopt a Resolution Entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2001-041 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 01- 0117 - VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 24188 AMENDMENT NO. 4 FOR THE SUBDIVISION OF A PORTION OF THE PALOMA DEL SOL SPECIFIC PLAN LOCATED EAST OF MEADOWS PARKVVAY, NORTH OF DE PORTOLA ROAD, WEST OF BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD AND SOUTH OF PAUBA ROAD, AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR PARCEL NOS. 955-030-002, 955-030-003, 955-030-004, 955-030-006, 955-030-032. Commissioner OIhasso advised that she would be abstaining from this issue, and therefore left the dais. Discussion ensued re(~ardin(~ the noticinq of this project Assistant City Attorney Curley advised that just prior to the start of this hearing, staff received a letter dated November 28, 2001 (the date of this hearing) written by Mr. Darren W. Stroud, an attorney representing the Corona family; relayed that the primary concern expressed in the letter was regarding the improper noticing of this project; confirmed that noticing was a key element of the hearing process; relayed that the letter asserted that the Corona family was not noticed, and that the site was not properly posted; and requested staff to address this issue. Providing clarification, Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that the site was posted, and that staff was gathering the data regarding this matter, noting that approximately 4,000 notices were mailed and that staff was additionally in the process of investigating the 4,000 names for the Coronas mailing address, reiterating that this letter was received just prior to the hearing. Presenting additional information, Assistant City Attorney Curley defined the concept of actual notice, relaying that the party raising this concern was present at the Planning Commission's last meeting where it was stated that this matter would be noticed for tonight's meeting; advised that the party is present at this hearing; and since the mailing lists are prepared by the applicant, queried whether the applicant could address the thoroughness of this list, as prepared. Mr. Barry Burnell, representing the applicant, relayed that the applicant works with the title company to prepare the mailing labels, clarifying that the request was that the notices be distributed to all individuals within the City's required distance around the Specific Plan boundary and within the Specific Plan; clarified that when the labels come back from the title company, the maps are double-checked to ensure that the labels were made for all of those parcels; and concluded that to the best of his knowledge the proper mailing notices were prepared and distributed. Assistant City Attorney Curley additionally noted that the Planning Commission's action would be a recommendation to the City Council and not a final adjudicative action, relaying that if ultimately it is determined that in spite of the efforts to comply, the project had not been noticed properly, there would be further opportunities to address the matter; and noted that it was within the purview of the Planning Commission to determine whether to proceed at this point, relaying that it would appear to be safe to move forward. For Chairman Chiniaeff, Assistant City Attorney Curley advised that notice needed to be provided, clarifying that the notices would be required to be dispatched, but not necessarily received; and relayed that that mailing would need to be conducted within the distance parameters that the City's Code requires. In response to Commissioner Telesio, staff confirmed that his property was not within the parameters of creating a conflict of interest (per the Brown Act). For Commissioner Mathewson, Assistant City Attorney Curley provided additional information regarding the process if it was determined that the project was not properly noticed. Due to staff's investigation, Director of Planning Ubnoske announced that a label had been located for Mr. Stephen Corona and read into the record the address denoted, confirming that this mailing was sent. Mr. Sam Alhadoff, attorney representing the applicant, noted that at the last hearing (November 7, 2001), Mr. Darren W. Stroud, attorney representing the Corona family submitted a 67-page document; advised that both the attorney and the Coronas were present at that hearing, as well as at tonight's hearing; suggested that actual notice has taken place; and clarified that it would be the applicant's desire to move forward. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to move forward with this item. R: PlanComm/minutes/112801 4 The staff report was presented Via overheads, Associate Planner Harris provided an overview of the project plan (of record); relayed the proposed amendments in the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan, the General Plan Land Use Map, and the Tentative Tract Map; specified the location of the drainage channel, noting the identified wetlands within this boundary and the applicant's effods to preserve this area; relayed the School District's decision to relocate the elementary school site outside of this Specific Plan's boundaries; noted alternate revised features, as follows: the nine-acre Open Space corridor established along the wetland area, the relocation of the five-acre park, and the one-acre private park proposed south of the corridor; relayed the applicant's proposal to change the Medium High Residential in Planning Area (PA) No. 38 to Community Commercial (in the area to the rear of the Home Depot use); provided additional information regarding the proposed Tract Amendment, noting that the tract would encompass PA Nos. 24,26, 27, 28, and 29, relaying the plan to reduce the single-family residential lots from 321 units to 293; with respect to pedestrian links, identified staff's recommended connections, as follows, 1 ) a link between G and K Streets, 2) a link at the terminus of D Street to Butterfield Stage Road, and 3) a link at the terminus of O Street to Butterfield Stage Road; specifying that while the applicant was in agreement with respect to the interior G and K Streets connections, that it was the applicant's opinion that the D and O Streets connections were inappropriate; and requested the Planning Commission to provide direction regarding this matter. Continuing his presentation, Associate Planner Harris noted that the applicant had requested that various Public Works' and Planning's Conditions of Approval be amended and/or deleted, advising that after review the applicant's requests, the Public Works' conditions have incorporated all of the requested revisions, and all but two of the applicant's requests were incorporated into the Planning Conditions; specified that the two revisions (in the conditions) that staff disagreed with were, as follows: 1) the request to delete Condition No. 26 which requires that a conceptual landscape plan be provided Prior to Recordation of the Final Map, noting that the applicant has advised that the Specific Plan includes a conceptual landscape plan that would provide adequate detail for the review of landscaping, relaying that staff's position was that this condition has . been a standard condition in all of the previous tract maps in the Paloma del Sol area, advising that staff was of the opinion that the specific design issues need to be addressed, and 2) the request to delete Condition No. 29, which requires that only one- story buildings be constructed on parcels within PA Nos. 26, and 28, fronting Butterfield Stage Road with a Landscape Development Zone (LDZ) with a width of less than 32 feet, advising that this condition would address aesthetic issues, noting that it was the applicant's position that since none of the affected parcels will have an LDZ of less than 32 feet that this condition was not necessary, while staff was of the opinion that there was a potential for various parcels along this frontage to have an LDZ of less than 32 feet. Associate Planner Harris provided additional information regarding the applicant's proposal to change the Medium High Residential to Community Neighborhood Commercial, relaying the applicant's conceptual plan for this particular area (PA No. 38), reiterating the request for the Planning Commission to provide direction regarding the connection points in this area; specified the applicant's proposal to revise the Development Standards for PA No. 38 to allow for Commercial Office and Neighborhood Zoning; advised that it was staff's opinion that modifying PA No. 38 for commercial R: PlanComm/rninutes/112801 5 zoning would enhance the overall Village Commercial core; noted that for consistency, the General Plan Land Use map was additionally proposed to be amended; and advised that the applicant has prepared, and staff has reviewed a Final EIR (Addendum No. 4 to the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan final EIR), noting that the environmental impacts resulting from the proposed amendments would either stay the same, or decrease. Referencing the correspondence staff received on November 7, 2001, written by Mr. Stroud, attorney representing the Corona family, Associate Planner Harris relayed that the primary contentions are that the applicant failed to construct flood facilities which were required as previous Conditions of Approval and mitigation measures in accordance with the original Specific Plan approval, noting their concern regarding flood hazards on their property resulting from not meeting the conditions; noted that the Coronas were requesting that the City require the construction of the required flood control facilities prior to the Issuance of any additional Building Permits, or that the applicant be required to prepare a subsequent Environmental Impact Repod to evaluate the hydrology of this area; and advised that the Public Works Depadment has reviewed these comments, relaying that it was staff's opinion that both the timing and the construction of the flood control facilities has already been addressed, and are controlled by different factors, beyond what could be addressed as part of this proposal. Noting Mr. Alhadoff's (the applicant's attorney) letter, written in response to the letter written by the Corona's attorney, Associate Planner Harris relayed that this correspondence was provided in the agenda packets. Advising that both typographical and numerical errors were found within both the Specific Plan text and the EIR Addendum text, Associate Planner Harris noted staff's recommendation that these errors be rectified prior to City Council presentation, specifying staff's recommended changes. In response to Commissioner Mathewson, Mr. Burnell relayed that the density was being reduced by 174 units (from the time of Amendment No. 7 to Amendment No. 8), providing additional information regarding available options with the original submittal; and relayed that since the original inception of the project, over time there have been additional decreases in density culminating into a total 8-10% decrease in the Specific Plan. For Chairman Chiniaeff, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks confirmed that staff has reviewed the retention basin, the drainage, and the installation of flood control improvements associated with A.D. 159; clarified that although improvements have not been installed at this time, the developer has been working within A.D. 159 and the Coronas in an attempt to address the issue, relaying that the amendments presented with this agenda item will not affect this issue. The applicant provides the proiect presentation Mr. Burnell thanked staff, and in particular, Associate Planner Harris, noting that while being new to the project his presentation was comprehensive; clarified that he would not reiterate this data, but was available for questions; for Commissioner Mathewson, specified that in February of 1999, the applicant received a letter from the School District which provided notification that the School District did not need the noted site for an additional elementary school; relayed that the drop in 8-10% dwelling units over time R; PlanCornmhninutes/112801 6 could have contributed to the lack of a need for this school site; with respect to Condition No. 66, which required pedestrian connections to Butterfield Stage Road, noted that there are existing connections to Butterfield Stage Road, and that after additional review the concern was due to the cul-de-sac opening directly onto Butterfield Stage Road, and the fear that children in this area would not be safe in the connections at D, and O Streets, if this connection was implemented; with respect to the request of the applicant regarding Condition No. 26, relayed that this condition requires detailed elements such as landscape plans for front yards, clarifying that the merchant builders, and not the developer, would provide the plans for front landscaping and that these plans should be required prior to the Issuance of a Building Permit (per typical City procedures), noting that it was the applicant's recommendation that this requirement not be required Prior to Recordation of the Tract; and with respect to Condition No. 29, which required an LDZ of 32 feet along Butterfield Stage Road or a single-story home, noted that it was the applicant's desire that the language be clarified to reflect that if a 32-foot buffer was provided there would be no requirement for single-story homes. The public is invited to comment Ms. Michele Staples, attorney representing the James and Mary Corona family, opined that the City had no legal authority to approve this particular application due to the applicant not being in compliance with mitigation measures, Conditions of Approval, and the Specific Plan; opined that the City was in control of the timing of the construction of the interceptor channel facilities; specified the location of the Corona Ranch, and the significant negative impacts this project would have on the ranch with respect to potential flooding; provided additional information regarding A.D. 159 which has determined that there are insufficient funds to construct the needed facilities; and requested that no further approvals be issued regarding this project without either the facilities being constructed, or a new Environmental Impact Report being conducted. Mr. Darren W. Stroud, attorney for the Corona family, contested the project was not noticed correctly, and that the address previously read into the record was not Mr. Stephen Corona's address, clarifying the Mr. Corona had not been noticed regarding this application; referenced the City ordinance addressing the noticing issues (inclusive of the required noticing parameters); advised that any action taken by the Planning Commission at this time would be beyond the authority of the Commission due to the improper noticing; clarified that the only information the Coronas received regarding this hearing, and the hearing on November 7, 2001, was from a friend; and reiterated that this applicant had not met the Conditions of Approval, or the mitigation measures which were part of the original Specific Plan, requesting the Planning Commission to deny this application. For Commissioner Guerriero, Senior Planner Hogan relayed that the Code required the noticing information to be taken from the most recent assessor's records which is where this address was obtained; and confirmed that he compared the Assessor's Parcel Numbers on the Mr. Stephen Corona's mailing label, confirming that the address was associated with the Coronas' commercial property. In response to Commissioner Guerriero, Mr. Stroud confirmed that Mr. Corona did live at the referenced address at one time. R: PianComrNminutes/112801 7 Mr. Steve Corona, son of the Corona property owner of discussion, 33320 Highway 79, relayed that over the past two years the Coronas have collected a plethora of records which designate Newland Communities as the responsible party for the eventual construction and payment of the Butterfield East Interceptor Channel; referenced Mr. Alhadoff's letter of November 21, 2001 (per agenda material) which quoted the staff report which stated that while the staff agrees that the issue needs to be resolved, we do not feel that there is a nexus between the Butte/field Stage Interceptor Channel and the fourcases ...; opined that there was a nexus, noting that it was from Newland Communities that the funding for the facility would be derived; provided a history of A.D. 159; noted the condition previously imposed which stated that if A.D. 159 was unable to build the much-needed channel facility, then the developer would take on this responsibility; and clarified that lack of adequate facilities. For Commissioner Guerriero, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks clarified that nothing in this particular amendment was affected by this drainage course, advising that the parties needed to come to an agreement to build an affordable interceptor channel, clarifying that the issue at this time was the cost of the facility. Dr. Robert Wheeler, representing the Elsinore-Murrieta Resource Conservation District, 29090 Camino Albon, Murrieta, noted the merit of the Coronas' concern regarding the negative flooding and drainage impacts; and recommended that until this matter is addressed that the Planning Commission deny approval of any additional applications for this project. Ms. Mary Jane Olhasso, 32644 Favara Drive, requested that staff and the Planning Commission be diligent when reviewing conditions regarding the landscaping installed by Newland Communities; and noted that the landscaped areas (in other surrounding tracts) where the houses are adjacent to internal thoroughfares, which are typically the homeowner's responsibility, create a negative visual appearance due to the lack of various homeowners to maintain this property. Mr. Edward Lindsey, 42375 Camino Merano, commended the developer regarding the plan to construct homes in PA No. 28; and applauded the Planning Commission for their diligent work in thoroughly reviewing development in the City, which has had successful results. For Mr. Lindsey, Mr. Burnell confirmed that the previously proposed inlets off of Camino Merano would be closed off with this proposal. The applicant provides rebuttal Mr. Sam Alhadoff, attorney representing the applicant, offered the following rebuttal: Relayed that the Coronas' counsel has raised the same requests raised in the OctobedNovember, 1999 series of comments regarding the channel and flood control issues. Requested that the staff report from the Planning Application related to Specific Plan Amendment No. 7 be incorporated into the record, as well as letters submitted by the applicant's representatives (and other parties), listed as follows: the October 26, 1999 letter, the October 29, 1999 letter (submitted by Keith Companies), the R: PlanComm/minutes/112801 8 November 1, 1999 letter (submitted by the A.D. engineers), and the November 3, 1999 letter. Noted that while the Coronas own approximately 161 acres, only 19.17 acres are within A.D. 159. Referenced a letter dated February 17, 2000 (from the County of Riverside) written to Mr. Corona, which stated that the Butterfield Interceptor was included as an A.D. 159 facility to be located at the eastern district's boundary, additionally stating that if Mr. Corona was willing to place the required financial burden on the remainder of his property outside of the district's boundaries, that the Transportation Department was willing to recommend a certain alternative; and clarified that the Coronas' counsel has acknowledged that A.D. 159 is responsible for these improvements in a letter dated August 13, 2001. Noted that Newland Communities has paid all of its assessments, relaying that there exists $2.2 million of authorized bonds via A.D. 159 for the design and construction of the Butterfield Interceptor Channel, advising that the applicant supports the use of authorized but un-issued bond capacity on the Newland Communities property. Concluded that there was no nexus with the Coronas' concern, relaying that this particular proposal being presented will have no impact on the Corona property. For Commissioner Mathewson, Mr. Alhadoff relayed that if it was the Coronas' intent to solely protect their 19.17 acres within A.D. 159, there was a solution which consisted of an open channel; advised that the Coronas were in opposition to this plan due to the interference with their farming operation; and noted that the applicant has been meeting with the Coronas and their representatives for over two years, providing additional information regarding the Coronas' desire to protect all their property (including the property outside of A.D. 159). In response to Commissioner Mathewson, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks confirmed that staff concurred with Mr. Alhadoff's comments. With respect to the issue of a nexus, Commissioner Telesio noted that it was his understanding that the Coronas' contention was that each approval was for another podion of the project, which subsequently reduces the ability to bond for the improvements. In response, Mr. Alhadoff noted that the ability to bond ran with the land; relayed that the applicant had 20 acres in a detention basin and 188 lots that were not useable, clarifying that the applicant, along with the Coronas, desired a solution; reiterated that there was no nexus regarding the Coronas' concern and this particular application; and reiterated that the Coronas were attempting to seek protection of all their property, inclusive of that which was not part of A.D. 159, while additionally being unwilling to place this property in the district, or to levy any assessments of this property. The Planninq Commission deliberates Noting that the raised concerns were of a legal nature, Commissioner Telesio requested clarification. With respect to the issue of notification, Assistant City Attorney Curley noted the required use of the latest available County Assessor's role, relaying that if this data was R: PlaaComm/minutes/112801 9 not accurate, the Code was still satisfied, and the City was acting within its requirements if this data was utilized; and reiterated staff's ability to link the Coronas' mailing address with the Assessor's Parcel Numbers, advising that it appeared that notice was conducted properly. Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that there were six signs posted for the site, specifying the locations, advising that she had photographs of the referenced signage, which was presented to the Planning Commission. In response, Chairman Chiniaeff advised that the property appeared to have been property noticed. With respect to the nexus issue, Assistant City Attorney Curley relayed that typically when considering imposition of a condition on a project there needed to be a relationship with the project (i.e., the project's impacts needed mitigation); noted that engineering staff from both the County, the City, and the applicant have reviewed these issues at length, relaying that the last time this issue was brought forward, it was determined that there was an insufficient linkage to impose a condition, requiring this applicant to take action to resolve [*later in the discussions it was noted that the City Council did place an added condition regarding PA No. 6(see below, two paragraphs down)], advising that circumstances have remained static from that 1999 date until today, clarifying that this particular application involved property further removed from the area of concern, advising that staff has advised that this proposal will not have any significant impact to the drainage issues; noted that while there might be difficulty in developing findings that this particular proposal had a bearing on the issue, the Planning Commission could opt to view the area as a whole, and recommend attaching the obligation to this application, advising that the better argument was most likely that there was no nexus between these particular amendments and the solution to the drainage issues, which has been affirmed by the Public Works' determination. For Commissioner Telesio, Assistant City Attorney Curley clarified that numerous far- ranging, more tenuous nexus-based issues have been handled via a Development Agreement on other projects; and relayed that the required conditions of a project were based on analysis regarding the associated impacts of the project (i.e., the linkage which would create a nexus with the project). For clarification, Ms. Staples noted that in the agenda material (located under Tab C), there was information related to the additional condition imposed on the applicant, regarding withholding Building Permits until such time as the improvements were constructed. In response, Chairman Chiniaeff relayed that the referenced information was not related to the proposal presented at this hearing, Mr. Bumell confirming that there were no proposed density changes, or development patterns in the southern area of the project, confirming that the amendment encompassed wording corrections, and changes in acreage, additionally confirming that the added condition Ms. Staples referenced was applicable to PA No. 6 which was the multi-family area which was not the subject of any discussion at this hearing, advising that this condition still exists. Chairman Chiniaeff clarified that A.D. 159 was controlled by the County, and formed by the property owners for the benefit of a much larger area than just the Paloma del Sol project, and was beyond the scope of the issue presented at this hearing. Noting that the Planning Commission would be providing a recommendation to the City Council, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks noted that in 1999, the City Council added the additional condition previously referenced, withholding approval of 188 lots until the storm drain issue is resolved; relayed that it was likely that when this proposal was presented to the City Council that the status of the drainage issues would be questioned; and advised that it was staff's opinion that the current condition adequately addressed the issue, enabling this proposal to move forward. With respect to the landscaping issue, and for Commissioner Telesio, Chairman Chiniaeff relayed that typically when a developer was seeking approval of a tract map, it was not known who would buy that parcel, and it was this party who would be the one to design the frontyard and sideyard landscaping in conformance with the Specific Plan concepts, advising that it would more appropriately be required Prior to Approval of Building Permits; with respect to the applicant's request to amend Condition No. 29, regarding the requirement for single-story homes where the LDZ was less than 32 feet, concurred with the request that the language be clarified to state that if the LDZ was 32 feet, there would be no requirement for the single-story buildings; and with respect to Condition No. 66, regarding pedestrian connections, concurred that if the connection opened the cul-de-sac to a major arterial, that this connection could create a safety hazard for children at play. Commissioner Telesio concurred with Chairman Chiniaeff's and the applicant's comments regarding Condition No. 66, specifically with respect to reluctance to opening the cul-de-sac onto an arterial. With respect to Condition No. 66, regarding the pedestrian links inclusive of the one associated with the cul-de-sac, Commissioner Mathewson, echoed by Commissioner Guerriero, noted a desire to maintain this requirement, relaying the need for access from the street. For Commissioner Mathewson, Director of Planning Ubnoske noted that staff was agreeable to changing Condition No. 26 (regarding landscaping), and to require the landscape plans Prior to Issuance of a Building Permit. With respect to the commercial area, Chairman Chiniaeff recommended that between the corner parcel at De Portola/Margarita Roads (which was separately owned), that the applicant consider making provisions for vehicular access between the parking lots. MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved to close the public hearing; and to approve staff's recommendation, adopting Resolution Nos. 2001-040, and 2001-041, subject to the modification of Condition No. 26 (regarding landscaping) to require that the specific landscape plans be approved Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Mathewson and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Commissioner Olhasso who abstained. COMMISSIONER'S REPORTS Commissioner Guerriero thanked staff for addressing the outside storage issue at the Power Center. R: Plar~Comm/mir~utes/112801 11 Requesting staff to investigate, Commissioner Guerriero relayed that the timing of the signal at Cosmic/Humber Drives seemed to be off in the early morning hours. Commissioner Mathewson thanked staff for addressing the plethora of illegally placed Work at home signs in the City. In response to Commissioner Mathewson's queries regarding the Johnson property, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks relayed that the slope has been hydroseeded, and the erosion issue has been addressed to satisfy the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board; and advised that there was a letter of credit that could be drawn upon to ensure that the landscaping is addressed. Commissioner Olhasso commended staff for the efforts regarding the installation of landscaped medians, removing the cones which have been restricting turning movements; and for Deputy Director of Public Works Parks, relayed that she would forward locations of particular concern where these installation were still needed. Commissioner Guerriero recommended that a landscaped median be installed in front of the Post Office, Commissioner Telesio concurring that this area should be addressed due to safety issues. Per her recent attendance of a meeting of the International Council of Shopping Centers, Commissioner Oihasso noted her concern as a moderator described the Temecula Valley as being unfriendly to development, including retail; relayed that need for retail uses due to the sales tax revenues; and recommended that Chairman Chiniaeff, along with City Manger staff, meet to correct this impression. Commissioner Olhasso invited all those present to the Temecula Town Association's sponsored Christmas Dinner Event, advising that any help with the provisions of turkeys in advance would be appreciated. For Commissioner Telesio, Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that the Roripaugh Specific Plan had been delivered to staff on November 27, 2001, and that staff would be conducting review, advising that this project has made tremendous strides recently. Commissioner Telesio recommended that the Public/Traffic Safety Commission address the on-street parking on Solana Way proximate to the auto park area. Chairman Chiniaeff requested staff to address the dirt field utilized for rental truck parking on Old Town Front Street proximate to the truck rental use. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT Director of Planning Ubnoske noted the potential for the December 19th Planning Commission meeting to be cancelled. R: PlanComrrVminuterJ112801 12 In response to Director of Planning Ubnoske, it was the consensus of the Planning Commission to appoint Commissioner Olhasso, and Commissioner Telesio to serve on the Villages of Old Town Project Subcommittee. In an effort to ensure the highest quality of development, Senior Planner Hazen noted staff's ptans to schedule a monthly afternoon field trip for Planning staff; and invited the Planning Commission to attend the trips, noting that the first trip was scheduled for December 17th, relaying the plan to visit Business Park development in the City of Carlsbad, requesting the Planning Commission to respond to staff as to whether they could attend due to the need to notice the meeting if more than two Commissioners will be in attendance. Commissioner Olhasso recommended that the City of Ranch Cucamonga be visited to investigate good examples of retail development. ADJOURNMENT At 8:00 P.M. Chairman Chiniaeff formally adjourned this meeting to the next reqular meetim:l to be held on Wednesday, December 5, 2001 at 6:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula. Chairman Debbie Ubnoske, Director of Planning