HomeMy WebLinkAbout031799 PC Minutes MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
MARCH 17, 1999
CALL TO ORDER
The City of Temecula Planning Commission convened in a regular meeting at 6:00 P.M., on
Wednesday March 17, 1999, in the City Council Chambers of Temecula City Hall, 43200
Business Park Ddve, Temecula, California.
ALLEGIANCE
The audience was led in the Flag salute by Commissioner Naggar.
At this time, City Clerk Jones duly swore
in the newly re-appointed Planning Commissioner,
Linda Fahey.
ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Fahey, Naggar, *Soltysiak, Webster, and
Chairman Guerfiero.
Absent: None.
Also Present: Planning Manager Ubneske,
Deputy Director of Public Works Parks,
Attorney Cudey,
Senior Planner Fagan,
Assistant Planner Anders,
Project Planner Thornsley, and
Minute Clerk Hansen.
*(Commissioner Soltysiak arrived at 6:35 PM.)
PUBLIC COMMENTS
No comments.
COMMISSION BUSINESS
1. Approval of A~lenda
Commissioner Webster recommended agendizing the issue of appointing a Vice-Chairman for
the Planning Commission at a future meeting.
MOTION: Commissioner Naggar moved to approve the agenda. The motion was seconded by
Commissioner Webster and voice vote reflected unanimous approval with the exception of
Commissioner Fahey who abstained and Commissioner Soltysiak who was absent.
2. Approval of Minutes-February 11, 1999
MOTION: Commissioner Naggar moved to approve the minutes. The motion was seconded by
Commissioner Webster and voice vote reflected unanimous approval with the exception of
Commissioner Soltysiak who was absent.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
3. Planning Application No. PA98-0517 {Development Plan)
Request to design, construct and operate a 32,000 square foot office, warehouse
and manufacturing building on two parcels (0.94acres/parcel) totaling 1.88 acres.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended by the Planning Department that the Planning Commission
approve the request.
By way of overheads and color renderings, Assistant Planner Anders presented the staff report
(of record); for Commissioner Naggar, noted that the loading zone would be screened with
landscaping, specifying the dimensions of the landscape buffer, further clarified the location of
the chain-linked fencing, relaying the location of the existing, adjacent chain-linked fencing; and
for Commissioner Fahey, clarified the rationale for the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) exemption, relaying that the proposed project was consistent with the General Plan.
Mr. Allan Young, the applicant, was available for questions.
Mr. Kenneth Keane, representing the applicant, specified, for Commissioner Naggar, that the
material of the canopy would be a painted dark gray metal, coordinating with the color of the
building; presented the proposed building's design and articulation; and clarified the location of
the loading zone, specifying the location of the slope, the landscape provisions, and the
adjacent undeveloped property.
Mr. Lon Brusegard, representing the applicant, relayed, for Commissioner Fahey, that the
company currently employees 27 people, proposes to increase employment to 30 at the time of
relocation, and forecasted the employment rate to be at 35 within a year; noted the hours of
operation from 7:00 A M. to 3:30 P.M., with the potential of an extension of operating hours after
relocation; and further clarified, with regard to Commissioner Naggar's comments, the
specifications of the chain-linked fencing, relaying that the slatting matedal would be plastic;
noted the location of the landscape buffer, relaying the plan to install 15-gallon pine trees to
buffer the view of the loading area; and noted that the aforementioned area of discussion is
located adjacent to an undeveloped parcel.
Commissioner Naggar recommended that the chain-linked fence be replaced with a wrought
iron fence, and that additional articulation be added on the building's frontage (i.e., sandblasting
or texturing) for the provision of additional visual interest.
Assistant Planner Anders reiterated the location of the existing chain-linked fencing on the
adjacent property; and specified the difference between wood slats and plastic slats with regard
to maintenance and visual appearance.
The applicant further relayed that due to the location, the proposed fencing would not be visible
from the street; and specified the building design, relaying the architectural accents and
articulation, noting that he was not in favor of adding additional articulation to the building's
frontage, specifically sandblasting.
Commissioner Fahey relayed that due to staff's clarification, she was not opposed to this
particular project's chain-linked fencing.
MOTION: Commissioner Fahey moved to close the public hearing; adopt Resolution No. 99-
008 approving Planning Application No. PA98-0517 based upon the Analysis and Findings
contained in the Staff Report, and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval; and adopt a
Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. PA98-0517 per the California Environmental
Quality Act Guidelines Section 15332.
PC RESOLUTION NO. 99-008
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA98-0517
(DEVELOPMENT PLAN) FOR THE DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION AND
OPERATION OF A TWO-STORY, 32,000 SQUARE FOOT OFFICE,
WAREHOUSE AND MANUFACTURING BUILDING ON TWO PARCELS
TOTALING 1.88 ACRES LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF RIO NEDO,
APPROXIMATELY 1300 FEET SOUTHWEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF
TIERRA ALTA WAY AND RIO NEDO AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S
PARCEL NOS. 909-290-043 AND 909-290-044.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Webster and voice vote reflected unanimous
approval with the exception of Commissioner Soltysiak who was absent.
4. Plannin¢; A;)olication No. PA98-0511 (General Plan Amendment and Zone Change)
Request to Change the General Plan Land Use designation from Business Park
(BP) to Professional Office (PO) and change the Zoning designation from
Business Park (BP) to Professional Office (PO) for a proposed development of a
244 unit senior's only apartment complex.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended by the Planning Department that the Planning Commission
approve the request.
It was noted that Commissioner Soltysiak arrived at the meeting at 6:35 P.M.
By way of overheads, Project Planner Thomsley presented the staff report (per agenda
material); highlighted architecture, access, parking, and landscaping, relaying that thirty-five
percent (35%) of the site would be landscaped; for the record, noted that staff had received five
letters (four prior to the hearing) in opposition to the project from adjacent property owners,
relaying that the pdmary concem expressed was the obstruction of their view; presented a line-
of-sight drawing, clarifying that due to the change in elevations at the site, the proposed project
would not impede the view of the adjacent neighbors; relayed that staff is requesting that the
Conditions of Approval be modified to reflect a revision in the Development Impact Fee cafecjory
from Multi-family to Professional Office; and noted that staff recommends the addition of an
additional Condition of Approval (COA), regarding the permitted use of the property (read into
the record, as follows: This approval is issued and granted to ~Senior Citizen Housing
Development" as the same is defined in the California Civil Code. No other residential use,
except as permiffed by California Civil Code 51.2, 51.3,and 51.4 in relation to Senior Citizen
Housing Development is authorized or permitted to occur by or through this approval. Any other
residential use will require further review and action under the laws of the City of Temecula.)
For Commissioner Naggar, Project Planner Thomsley cladfied that while the permitted use of
the amended zoning map would allow both types of facilities, that this particular project would
be for the provision of a Senior Housing Facility, and not for congregate care; relayed that while
there is a need in the City of Temecula for this type of use, that residents of this particular
project could potentially come from outside areas; specified the potential generated trip counts,
as follows: Business Park Zoning (as currently zoned) would generate 180 tdps a day, and
Senior Housing would generate 129 tdps a day; and cladfied that the project's proposed density
would not exceed the permitted high-density residential use, referencing the Development Code
(under Residential Section, under permitted uses for Senior Citizen Housing, page 39)
For Commissioner Naggar, Attorney Curiey relayed that there were two issues before the
Commission, as follows: 1) a legislative Land Use decision to amend the Zone Designation and
the General Plan, as well as, 2) the proposed Development Plan; noted that the law has made
provision for Senior Citizen facilities, designed to meet the specific needs of Seniors, enabling
those facilities to limit the residential occupancy to qualifying residents of a specific age (55
years or older), relaying that this particular project wes designed as a Senior Citizen facility,
limiting its occupancy to qualifying senior citizens (age 55 years or older); and cited Civil Cede
Sections 51.2, 51.3, and 51.4, relaying the criteria for the aforementioned facility, specifying the
design of the use would be for the provision of accommodating the needs of senior citizens.
In response to Commissioner Fahey's querying, Deputy Director of Parks advised that the
current proposed project would have a less than significant impact upon traffic due to this type
of facility pdmadly not utilizing peak hour access; and noted that if this particular proposed
Development Plan did not go forward, while the amended Zone Designation changed the zoning
from Business Park (BP) to Professional Office (PO), and at a future point in time was fully
developed under permitted uses for Professional Office (PO) Zoning, the uses would have a
greater traffic impact, noting that there has been no study to determine precisely what the traffic
impact would be, or if the Level of Service (LOS) would be affected.
For Commissioner Fahey, Project Planner Thomsley relayed the uses permitted under Business
Park (BP) Zoning, and Professional Office (PO) Zoning, noting that PO Zoning permits a less
intensive use; advised what while this particular project would generate less traffic, the PO
Zoning, generally generates a higher tdp count, specifying that BP Zoning (current zoning)
would generate additional traffic at peak hours, and less activity dudng work hours, while PO
Zoning would generate additional traffic dudng various hours of the day; confirmed that if the
project was approved in conjunction with approval of the proposed Zone change, and if at a
future point in time the developer chose not to develop this particular project, the Zone change
could potentially permit a use generating a higher traffic impact; and specified the generation of
trips, as follows: the current Business Park (BP) Zoning would potentially generate 180 trips,
per acre, per day; Professional Office (PO) Zoning would potentially generate 240 tr/ps, per
acre, per day; Senior Housing would potentially generate 129 tr/ps, per acre, per day; and
Multifamily would potentially generate 210 tr/ps, per acre, per day; relayed that with regard to
traffic, noise and pollutants, this particular project would generate a less negative impact on the
adjacent neighbors than current permitted uses under the existing Zoning; with regard to the
potential future school stadium project on the adjacent School District property, relayed that the
School District responded two days before the hearing on March 15, 1999 via letter
correspondence (per agenda material), stating that a lighted stadium may be built at a future
point in time, advising that the owner of the property be informed of the preposed stadium
projecL
For Commissioner Soltysiak, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks relayed that the potential
School District's stadium project would be permitted by the State, not the City, noting that the
potential project would be subject to cooperation with the State's Architect, and would go
through the process of an Environmental Study.
In response to Commissioner Naggar's comments with regard to the Environmental Study for
the potential School District's stadium project, Attorney Curiey relayed that the proposed Senior
Housing Facility could conceivably hinder the project.
For Commissioner Soltysiak, Project Planner Thomsley relayed that the permitted height of
development permitted for uses under the existing BP Zone would be 50 feet (50'), and under
the proposed PO Zoning would be 75 feet (75').
For Commissioner Webster, Project Planner Thomsley clarified the Environmental Study Report
(of record), regarding the acoustical survey (page 46, Section: Noise.)
For Commissioner Webster, Planning Manager Ubnoske advised that the 25-foot easement on
the Site Plan was a portion of the property granted to the City of Temecula for provision of a
future transportation corridor, noting it was part of the General Plan.
For Commissioner Webster, regarding Condition No. 60, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks
relayed that the pad for this particular project had been previously graded to raise it to the
existing level, specifying the grading on the adjacent School Distdct property.
For Chairman Guerriero, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks clarified that Nicolas Road is a
private road, noting that the street had been voluntarily built by the developer; relayed that the
road is not maintained by the City; and advised that maintenance of the road easement,
additionally, would involve the School District. Project Planner Thomsley noted that the
developer had created the easement, and granted access rights to the School DistricL
Chairman Guerdero opened the public hearing; and for the record reiterated that staff and the
Commission had received five letters, relaying opposition to the project from the following
individuals: Mr. Jeff Sechler, Mr. Chito Topacio, Mr. Arthur C., Ms. Brenda Bickerstaff, and
William and Cindy Walker.
For the record, an additional letter expressing opposition to the project was submitted to the
clerk from Ms. Patdcia Mariano, who spoke at the hearing.
Mr. Curtis Miller, the applicant, relayed a brief history of the Pacific Gulf Properties Inc., relaying
the rationale for the development of active Senior Housing Facilities; noted that a similar project
recently completed in Rancho Santa Margarita (166 units) was 100% leased within a month of
project completion; noted that the bulk of the residents occupying that facility came from the
immediate area or had family located in that area; specified the intedor building design, inclusive
of eight elevators, billiard rooms, activity rooms, creating an environment for provision of the
needs of the residents; for Commissioner Fahey, clarified the rationale for the location of this
type of use, noting the preference to locate adjacent to residential areas, creating a home-like
setting for the occupants; and relayed that the landscape buffering and circumferential gating
will inhibit cross traffic problems with the adjacent high school.
In response to Commissioner Naggar's comments, Attorney Curley advised that the Senior
Project could not be conditioned to have the residents of the facility waive their dghts to oppose
the potential school stadium project, relaying that the occupants could be noticed of the
potential stadium project pdor to leasing, providing assurance that the residents would be
cognizant of the School District's plan; and for Commissioner Webster, clarified that the State
Statute sets the minimum age for residents at this type of facility at 55 years.
Mr. James Mickartz, architect representing the applicant, further cladfied the buffer between the
project and the adjacent residential property (via photographs), specifying the approximate 40
foot differential in the elevations, noting the distance of over 300 feet between this particular
project and the adjacent property; advised that the project would have no negative effect with
regard to noise, differentiating this particular use from the current permitted uses which could
potentially have a negative effect with regard to noise; further cladfied the design of the project;
advised that there are no primary peak hours of traffic use by this type of facility, relaying that a
study relayed that at maximum peak this use would generate approximately 11 tdps per hour,
alleviating the concem of the high school's current traffic impact dudng peak hours; and
addressed the querying of the Commissioners, as follows:
· For Commissioner Soltysiak, specified the location of the gating on the project; clarified
the portion of the property to be developed for this particular project; advised that the
intent for the undeveloped portion of the property was for separate ownership at a future
point in time, specifying the design for provision of access on that parcel.
· For Commissioner Webster, specified the stucco coloring, additionally, relaying the
articulation at the base of the building and the window detail for provision of additional
visual interest; noted the rationale for the lack of windows and additional articulation on
Building No. 2; and relayed the dimensions of the balconies.
· For Commissioner Fahey, noted that the peak traffic generated from the adjacent high
school, specifically between 7:00 A.M. and 7:30 A.M would not be significantly impacted
by this use, indicating that an alternate permitted use under the current zoning would
potentially generate additional peak hour traffic; and clarified that access to the site was
directed by Caltrans.
· For Commissioner Naggar, relayed that the Fire and Police Departments would direct
the specifications of the address identification.
· For Chairman Guerdero, relayed that the applicant would be agreeable to modify the
secondary access point, for provision of access to the residents; and cla~rified the
architecturel retionale for the carport design and coloring to detract attention, relaying
that if it was the desire of the Commission, the applicant would be agreeable to adding
additional color, or striping.
Commissioner Fahey commended the architect for his excellent work with regard to the building
design.
Mr. Peter Sterling, the current owner of the project's preperty, cladfied for Commissioner
Webster, that both Rodpaugh and Nicolas Roads have been privately developed, relaying that
there is a joint maintenance agreement with the School District to maintain the aforementioned
reads.
At 8:01 P.M. a short recess was taken, and the meeting reconvened at 8:13 PM.
The following individuals spoke in opposition to the project as currently preposed:
Patricia Mariano 39750 Knollddge Drive
Chito Topacio 39726 Knollridge Drive
Glen Zdanowski 39614 Knollddge Drive
Rick Fila 39680 Knollridge Drive
Jeff Sechler 39714 Knollddge Drive
The above-mentioned individuals spoke in opposition to the project for the following reasons:
Location (adjacent to the high school)
Concem for the safety of the seniors driving in an area heavily impacted with teenage
ddvers and the dsk of additional accidents
Noise
ri Additional traffic
The potential for non-seniors residing in the facility
Height of the three-story building obstructing the view
Concern regarding development of alternate permitted uses if the Zoning Designation
modification was adopted and this particular project was not developed
[3 Concern regarding the lack of community involvement by the project's representatives,
specifically with the adjacent homeowners
[3 Location of the air conditioning units
For Commissioner Naggar, Mr. Curtis Miller relayed the rationale for the signage, advertising for
an assisted-care facility use for the undeveloped portion of the propertT.
Mr. Curtis Miller, addressed the voiced and written concerns of the community, as follows:
,~ VV'~h regard to traffic and noise, relayed that an alternate permitted usa under the current
Business Park Zoning could create a greater negative impact for the adjacent preperty
owners.
,~ With regard to the height of this particular preject, reiterated that the line-of-sight
diagrem clarified that due to the change in elevations and the distance frem the preject
to the adjacent preperty, that the homeowners would not have their view impeded.
With regard to traffic issues, relayed the potential for additional generation of traffic trips
dudng the high school's peak hours would be impacted by approximately ten to f'~een
percent of the working residents, occupying the senior facility, specifically by
approximately 24 people; and advised that if there was a significant impact due to the
additional generation of traffic, the applicant was agreeable to placing a reciprocal
easement restriction on the adjacent site for provision of access to Winchester Road, if
approved by Caltrans.
W'~h regard to the issue of safety during construction, relayed that dudng construction
there would be on-site fencing, on-site superintendent supervision, and on-site safety
control.
With regard to property values, noted that this particular project would generate a less
negative impact than alternate permitted Business Park uses.
Commissioner Naggar expressed that although he concurred with the need for this type of
facility in the City of Temecula, recommended that the project not be located at this particular
site, relaying concem with regard to the Zoning Redesignation, as follows: a) incompatibility with
the existing land use (specifically, adjacent to the existing high school), b) the potential of
development at the site with uses being permitted at a height of 75 feet under the amended PO
Zoning, and c) the impact of additional traffic in a currently heavily impacted area; and clarir~d
that if additional studies were provided (i.e., traffic studies, Environmental Impact Report)
addressing the aforementioned concems he could support the project.
Wf[h regard to the General Plan Amendment, Commissioner Fahey expressed concern with the
potential of uses permitted under the proposed PO Zoning; relayed the rationale for the current
BP Zoning, noting that this particular area would need provision of access to W~nchester Road
for adequate circulation, specitying that one allowable access would be potentially permitted by
Caltrans with uses zoned under the current BP Zoning, relaying that access would provide
compatibility with the existing use; advised that the potential for PO permitted uses would not
provide provision for the aforementioned access, rendering a condition whereby use for this
particular parcel generates a negative impact with regard to circulation; with regard to this
particular Development Plan, expressed concern with respect to incompatibility, specifically,
regarding traffic and cimulation; relayed that although this particular project was designed well, it
was incompatible on this particular site, due to the following: a) negative environmental impact
with regard to height, and traffic intensity, b) negative impact with regard to ingress and egress,
and c) incompatibility with the adjacent uses, specifically with noise and the potential future
development of the School District; and specified that she could not support the General Plan
Amendment or the proposed Development Plan due the aforementioned concems.
~Ar~th regard to the issue of incompatibility with the existing high school use, Commissioner
Soltysiak queded the Commission as to what type of use developed under the current zoning
would be compatible on this particular parcel; and advised that if a potential Business Park use
was proposed there would be a greater negative impact with regard to peak hour traffic.
Chairman Guerdero concurred with the potential negative impact a permitted BP use could
generate in comparison with the impact this particular project proposes.
Commissioner Naggar relayed that any future .development on this particular parcel would come
before the ..... Planning Commission for appm~/.~l~ ~'~.... would be approved or denied on the merit of
that particular project and ~ts pa~cu ar ~mpaCt.
Commissioner Webster relayed that this particular project would not have a negative impact
with respect to the issues of concern voiced by the adjacent property owners; regarding the
Development Plan, recommended that there be minor modifications with respect to the
architectural and site design; and with respect to the General Plan Amendment expressed
concun-ence with the aforementioned Commission comments, specifically, as follows: a)
incompatibility with the existing land uses, and b) the impact the Zone Redesignafion would
generate under PO Zoning with respect to increase in traffic counts, Floor Area Ratio (FAR)
increase, and building height.
MOTION: Commissioner Webster moved to deny approval of the change in the General Plan;
and deny the change in the Zoning designation for the proposed development, (This motion
ultimately died due to lack of a second.)
Planning Manager Ubnoske advised that due to the difficulties associated with the particular site
and the General Plan Amendment recommended that the General Plan not be amended;
recommended that the Commission reconsider the project subject to adoption of a Plan
Development Oveday (PDO) Zone, which would enable the appiicent to address the issues of
concern (i.e., height, compatibility); relayed that the PDO Zone would provide flexibility for
provision of necessary standards for this particular project (i.e., height, buffering, access); and
clarified that the recommendation would be to continue the matter, allowing the applicant fo
withdraw the General Plan Amendment, submit a Zone Change to PDO and bdng the matter
back to the Planning Commission at a future point in time.
For Commissioner Webster, with regard impacts the PDO Zone Change would generate,
Planning Manager Ubnoske provided clarification.
Commissioners Guerdero and Soltysiak expressed concurrence with Planning Manager
Ubnoske's recommendation to continue the matter.
Commissioner Fahey relayed that if the PDO Zone change would provide for provision of
ingress and egress of the development in alternate locations, rather than at the high school,
utilizing both parcels to provide adequate access she could support the recommendation to
continue the matter.
Chairman Guerfiero relayed his comments, as follows: with regard to land use issues, noted
that this particular project would create a less negative impact than other permitted uses, with
regard to property values, relayed that property values in Temecula were dsing; noted that while
the adjacent property owners have a desire to leave this particular parcel vacant, growth and
development are inevitable; advised that additional traffic control be added between this parcel
and the high school; recommended that access to the pdvate roads should be granted to the
Police Department; advised that with regard to noise, this particular project would provide
provision of a noise harder; with regard to the air conditioning units, relayed that the applicant
has adequately addressed the issue in the building design and the distance barrier; noted that
the City of Temecula has a need for this type of facility, enriching the quality of life in Temecula,
providing provision for seniors in the community, and family members of community residents;
and relayed that he could support the recommendation to continue the matter for consideration
of a PDO Zone change.
In response to Commissioner Naggar's comments, Planning Manager Ubnoske clarified that the
expressed concerns of the Commission would be addressed when the matter was brought back
before the Commission.
Commissioner Naggar relayed his support of the recommendation to continue the matter.
The applicant relayed that a continuance to the Apdl 21, 1999 Planning Commission meeting
would be agreeable.
MOTION: Commissioner Webster moved to close the public headng; and continue the matter
to the Apdl 21, 1999 Planning Commission meeting. The motion was seconded by
Commissioner Fahey and voice vote reflected unanimous approval.
PLANNING MANAGER'S REPORT
A. Planning Manager Ubnoske introduced the new Project Planner, Mr. Steve Gdffin.
Chairman Guerriero welcomed him aboard.
B. Ms. Ubnoske presented the specific uses proposed on the outlots; relayed that she will
continue to update the Commission regarding these uses since they will not come before
the Commission. Chairman Guerriero expressed a desire to ensure that the design of
the uses was consistent with the City's Standards, and not to adopt the particular uses
prototyped designs if there is a negative visual effect. Attorney Curley relayed the legal
constraints with regard to corporate signage.
C. Regarding the issue of illegal parking of vehicles in the City for the prevision of selling
the vehicles, Ms. Ubnoske relayed that there is an Ordinance prohibiting this display of
such vehicles, noting that it is a Police Department issue; and advised the Commission
to specifically relay problem areas for further addressing. Chairman Guerfiero relayed
that the problem is profuse in the City of Temecula, advising that the issue be addressed
on a regular basis.
D. Senior Planner Fagan presented the comer monument design for the Power Center, at
Margarita and Winchester Roads; relayed that the name for the Development has been
designated The Commons at Temecula; and noted the specification of the design,
clarifying the representation of the design. It was the consensus of the Commission that
the design of the monument would provide a negative visual effect. Mr. Fagan advised
that he would forward the Commissioners comments.
COMMISSIONER REPORTS
A. Commissioner Webster relayed that numerous Diesel trucks are being parked on Diaz
Road. Planning Manager Ubnoske relayed that the issue will be addressed.
B. Commissioner Naggar relayed that he will be absent from the Apdl 7, 1999 Planning
Commission due to family vacation plans, noting a desire for provision of the agenda
packet for the particular meeting.
C. W"~h regard to CEQA modifications, Commissioner Naggar relayed a desire for provision
of informational data regarding the changes.
10
D. Mr. Naggar relayed for informational purposes that the City of Temecula is currently
hosting 30 Japanese foreign exchange students.
E. Chairman Guerriem expressed concem with the apartment complex on Rancho
Califomia Road (east of Moraga Road) with regard to the pad location, with respect to
the proximity of the sidewalk.
11
ADJOURNMENT
At 9:23 P.M. Chairman Guerdero formally adjourned this meeting to Wednesday. A~)ril 7, 1999
at 6:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Ddve, Temecula.
Ron GuerrTef'o, Chairman Debbie Ubn~ske, Planning Manager
12