Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout050300 PC MinutesMINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 3, 2000 CALL TO ORDER The City of Temecula Planning Commission convened in a regular meeting at 6:06 P.M., on Wednesday May 3, 2000, in the City Council Chambers of Temecula City Hall, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. ALLEGIANCE The audience was led in the Flag salute by Commissioner Webster. ROLLCALL Present: Commissioners Fahey, Mathewson Telesio, Webster, and Chairman Guerriero. Absent: None. Also Present: Deputy City Manager Thornhill, Planning Manager Ubnoske, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks, Attorney Curley, Senior Planner Hogan, Associate Planner Donahoe, Associate Planner Thomas, and Minute Clerk Hansen. PUBLIC COMMENTS No comments. CONSENT CALENDAR The Consent Calendar Items were considered separately. 1 Approval of Aqenda RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Approve the Agenda of May 3, 2000. MOTION: Commissioner Webster moved to approve the agenda. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Telesio and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. R:PlanMinutes050300 1 2 Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Approve Minutes from February 16, 2000 Commissioner Mathewson indicated that on pages 7, and 8 it was indicated that he had made the motion and had seconded the motion, relaying that this section needed to be corrected. MOTION: Commissioner Mathewson moved to approve the minutes, as amended. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Webster and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. COMMISSION BUSINESS PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 3 Planning Application No. PA99-0478 (Development Plan) to design and construct three (3) speculative industrial buildings totaling 66,116 square feet on 4.72 acre of vacant land and Planning Application No. PA00-0084 (Tentative Parcel Map No. 29643) to subdivide 4.72 vacant acres into three (3) parcels within the Light Industrial (LI) Zone. RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 Adopt a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. PA99-0478 pursuant to Section 15332 of the CEQA Guidelines; 3.2 Adopt a resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000-017 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA99-0478, A DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF THREE (3) SPECULATIVE INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS TOTALING 66,"1'16 SQUARE FEET ON 4.72 VACANT ACRES WITHIN THE LIGHT INDUSTRIAL (LI) ZONE LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF BUSINESS PARK DRIVE APPROXIMATELY 800 FEET SOUTH OF THE BUSINESS PARK DRIVE/RANCHO WAY INTERSECTION AND KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 921-020-068; 3.3 Adopt a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. PA00-0084 pursuant to Section 5315 of the CEQA Guidelines. 3.4 Adopt a resolution entitled: R:PtanMinutes050300 2 PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000-018 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA09-0084, TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 29643 TO SUBDIVIDE 4.72 VACANT ACRES INTO THREE (3) PARCELS WITHIN THE LIGHT INDUSTRIAL (LI) ZONE GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF BUSINESS PARK DRIVE APPROXIMATELY 800 FEET SOUTH OF THE BUSINESS PARK DRIVE/RANCHO WAY INTERSECTION AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 921-026-068; Via overheads, Associate Planner Thomas presented the staff report (per agenda material), providing an overview of the proposed three speculative industrial buildings; highlighted the location, and the revised plan to provide two driveway aprons in lieu of the three existing; relayed that since the easterly portion of the site had a fault line traveling through it, the buildings had been located at the back of the site; advised that based on the parking ratios included in the staff report, the applicant had exceeded the requirements; advised that a condition had been included requiring the applicant to submit a use synopsis; specified the architectural articulation (i.e., pop-outs, decorative glass, and scored concrete); and with respect to the landscaping, relayed that each site would provide more landscaping than required, noting that the applicant would preserve some of the existing mature trees located on the slope area. For Commissioner Fahey, Associate Planner Thomas relayed that the entryways were recessed, noting that there were pillar-like structures at this location; and advised that the design of this project was compatible with alternate projects in this area. With respect to parking ratios, Commissioner Mathewson queried what parking provisions would be provided if there was additional office space proposed for use with a potential tenant. In response, Associate Planner Thomas relayed that at the time a tenant had been identified the applicant would be required to provide a use matrix in order to demonstrate whether the tenant would meet the parking ratios. Regarding the hazard zone, Commissioner Mathewson queried whether that was a setback required from that zone. In response, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks relayed that it was a fault zone and that there was a fifty-foot setback required. Mr. Luis Aguilar, representing the applicant, provided additional information regarding the corner design where the entranceways were located. With respect to the large area above the second floor window that had not been treated, for Commissioner Mathewson, Mr. Aguilar relayed the applicant's intent to create a contemporary design, noting the recessed treatment at the top of the building; for Commissioner Webster, advised that the recessed decorative band was approximately eight inches wide and would be consistent with the color of the building; and for Commissioner Telesio, further specified the location of the band, noting that the scored concrete was a separate element. The Commissioners relayed the following conclusions: While relaying that she was not pleased with the entryway design, Commissioner Fahey concurred that it was fairly consistent with projects in this area. R:PlanMinutes050300 3 Commissioner Mathewson relayed that overall he would support the project, while noting that the three-quarter inch deep recessed accent feature at the top of the building would not provide an adequate treatment for this area, relaying that it would be his desire that the applicant work with staff to address this issue. Commissioner Telesio relayed that this building was consistent with the surrounding uses, while noting that the design had a stark appearance; and concurred with Commissioner Mathewson's comments that the applicant provide additional articulation at the top of the building. Commissioner Webster advised that the Commission focus more on the intent of the Design Guidelines than on the consistency with the surrounding development, since numerous projects were approved by the County; specified that the two main points of the Design Guidelines were requirements for entry statements (as referenced by Commissioner Fahey) and for the building to have a top, a base, and a middle; concurred with Commissioner Mathewson's recommendation, noting that the top element needed to be further addressed; and relayed that both these issues could be addressed by staff. Mr. Mike Linkletter, the applicant, relayed that the window treatments were added for enhanced articulation; noted that the renderings did not accurately reflect the entryway statements, and provided additional information with respect to the design of the entranceways; and via overheads, provided an overview of the design element at the top of the building. In response Commissioner Mathewson relayed that it was his desire that the applicant provide definition in this area, and not a variant paint color application, noting the large wall expanse that had not been treated. Commissioner Telesio relayed concurrence with the need for additional textural treatment at the top of the building. MOTION: Commissioner Mathewson moved to close the public hearing; and to approve the project adding that the applicant be required to work with staff to address the treatment at the top portion of the building and the entry statements.. Commissioner Webster seconded the motion and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. Planninq Application No. PA99-0317 (Development Plan) to desi,qnl construct and operate a 246-unit, two and three-story apartment complex with pool, clubhouse, workout buildinq and tot lot. RECOMMENDATION: 4.1 Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program for Planning Application No. PA99-0137. 4.2 Adopt a resolution entitled: R:PlanMinutes050300 4 PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA99-0317, DEVELOPMENT PLAN - THE DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A 246-UNIT, TWO AND THREE STORY APARTMENT COMPLEX WITH POOL, CLUBHOUSE, WORKOUT BUILDING AND TOT LOT ON APPROXIMATELY 21 ACRES, LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AND MORAGA ROAD, AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 944-290-0t'1 Commissioner Webster advised that he would be abstaining with regard to this issue, and therefore left the meeting at this time. By way of overheads, Associate Planner Donahoe presented the staff report (of record), highlighting the project's location, amenities, and the adjacent uses; specified the zoning as Medium Density, noting that per the General Plan, 7-12 units per acre would be permitted, noting the target density with respect to the General Plan was 9.5 dwellings per acre; presented the site plan, highlighting the proposed 22 separate residential buildings, the garage buildings, and the recreational facilities, advising that the buildings had been clustered to avoid a large visual expanse of apartment complex; specified the access points, and the meandering main entranceway; noted that the dwelling units were one, two, and three stories, relaying that the three-story units encompassed a two-story unit located above an enclosed garage area, advising that enclosed garage parking provisions would be provided for all the units; noted that the dwelling units ranged in size from 775-1,380 square feet; further specified the amenities located in the center of the project area, as follows: a swimming pool/spa, a workout room, and a recreation clubhouse inclusive of meeting rooms, recreation areas, and a kitchen; advised that in light of staff's concern regarding the interface with the adjacent property, specifically on the south side, the buffer in this area was particularly scrutinized; with regard to the property adjacent to the single-family units, specified that there would be a distance of 112 feet to the building; via a diagram denoting the berming and landscaping, specified the slope in this particular area; noted that the parking areas would be buffered with a four-foot screen wall, and berming; reiterated that staff focused efforts to de-emphasize a large mass visual impact with the implementation of a clustering affect, created variety and visual interest with the elevation and building orientation variations, and in order to obtain a differentiated streetscape, the setbacks were varied; relayed that the project proposed a variety of roof lines while achieving strong vertical and horizontal articulation, and broken facades; noted that stairwells had been enclosed and that the windows and entrances had been extended in order to provide additional articulation; specified the location of the monument signage; reviewed the mitigation proposed with respect to the traffic analysis (per agenda material); advised that in light of community concern regarding the amount of accidents in this area, a Traffic History Collision Report had been prepared revealing that there had been 25 collisions during a 9-year period which calculated to .555 collisions per million vehicle miles, noting the average rate for this type of road was 2.4; with respect to grading, relayed that staff worked with the applicant in an attempt to blend the topography with the proposed units, noting that since the applicant opted to provide enclosed garages and to upscale the project this feature was not achieved. In response to Chairman Guerriero's queries, Associate Planner Donahoe confirmed that there were corrections by the Public Works Department (per agenda material) regarding Condition Nos. 44, and 51, and the addition of Condition No. 52; referenced the letter from the Pechanga Cultural Resources received on May 3, 2000 (per supplemental agenda material) which outlined R:PlanMinutes050300 5 their request with respect to having a walk over; and noted that the applicant would be agreeable to the request, advising that this request be incorporated into Condition No. 12. Deputy City Manager Thornhill addressed the Commission regarding the Growth Management Program Action Plan which was adopted by the Council at the March 21, 2000 City Council meeting, reading into the record the Council directive as stated on page 5, 3rd paragraph of the staff report, stating that project approval should be at the lowest allowable density with the exception of a project providing onsite or community amenities; relayed the Council's intent to develop projects at the lowest end of the density range unless there were significant benefits to the project; for Commission Telesio, confirmed that staff's recommendation with respect to this project was approval, noting that staff and the applicant had spent approximately one-and-a-half years working on this particular proposal; and advised that if the Commission approved the project, there would need to be consideration given to the amenities provided by the project. Noting the lack of clarity with respect to the Council directive, Chairman Guerriero commented on the vagueness of the term amenities; and queried what specific amenities warranted the exception in densities. In response to Chairman Guerriero, Deputy City Manager Thornhill recommended that those queries be directed to Council with this project, advising that in the Commission's findings or deliberations those comments be denoted in order to be forwarded to Council. For Commissioner Telesio, Deputy City Manager Thornhill clarified that staff's recommendation for approval was based on the fact that the project was consistent with the General Plan and zoning, advising that the Council directive regarding growth management was to be determined by the Planning Commission, noting that perhaps having staff address this issue with respect to the Growth Management Plan should be addressed at a future date. In response to Commissioner Telesio's comments that if this project had been proposed without the amenities, staff would not have recommended approval, Deputy City Manager Thornhill provided confirmation; acknowledged that it was a subjective judgement to make a recommendation with respect to qualifying amenities, confirming that this project proposed numerous amenities, specifically in light of the small size of the development; and relayed that whether the amount of amenities justified the increase of approximately 100 units, was the decision before the Commission. Commissioner Fahey commented that the amenities factor seemed to apply to extraordinary provisions; and queried whether staff had compared this project to other similar uses, evaluating whether the amenities provided were above and beyond the norm. In response, Deputy City Manager Thornhill relayed that the amenities exceeded provisions of alternate similar uses, noting the provision of enclosed garages, improved landscaping, improved circulation, and numerous onsite amenities; and clarified that it was within the Commission's purview to request that the project be re-designed or that additional amenities be provided. Referencing the Growth Management Plan with respect to Policy No. 2, regarding Redirect Urban Development to Urban Areas, Commissioner Mathewson relayed the inconsistency with that portion of the plan when applied to approving projects at the lowest level of density. In response, Deputy City Manager Thornhill relayed that at the General Plan Advisory Committee meeting that this issue was brought up regarding portions of the plan that appeared to be contradictory; and advised that the Commission direct those questions to the Council; and relayed various benefits regarding the placement of higher density housing proximate to commercial areas (i.e., which could increase the feasibility for future transit). R:PlanMinutes050300 6 In response to Commissioner Mathewson, Deputy City Manager Thornhill relayed that the General Plan would be updated, noting that it had been placed on the budget for this fiscal year. For the record, Commissioners Fahey, Telesio, and Guerriero relayed that they had individually had previous conversations with the applicant's representatives regarding this project. Mr. Larry Markham, representing the applicant, provided a brief history of the property, noting that in 1989 the County had approved an application for 335 apartments on this site, relaying that after an appeal process it was ultimately approved as a 260-unit project in December of 1990 by the City Council, advising that that particular owner did not proceed with the project; noted that this particular proposal was submitted approximately one-and-a-half years ago; referenced the allowable densities per the Development Code; specified the zoning of the adjacent properties; advised that this complex was designed as a luxury apartment complex; and relayed the arduous efforts of the applicant to address staff's concerns, noting, additionally, the community meetings which were held. Mr. Jim Keisker, representing the applicant, via overheads, provided an overview of the proposal, specifying the project location, adjacent streets, circulation aspects, differentials in elevations, slopes, and amenities; noted the location of the berm placed to mitigate sound adjacent to the single family units; relayed that the closest project building to an existing offsite family residence was 160 feet; presented the view of the project from various vantage points, noting the articulation, the grade changes, and the winding road; provided a line of sight view from two adjacent residential homes; highlighted the site plan, specifying the location of the amenities, the floor plans, inclusive of plans with two patio areas; noted the goal of the applicant to provide a good living environment, to create a serene residential scale, and to develop a project that was sensitive to the neighboring built environment. For Commissioner Mathewson, Mr. Keisker relayed that the height of the three-story building was approximately 36 feet; clarified that the berm on the southerly property line was eight feet in height, specifying the location of the four-foot walls; and noted that the greenbelt along Rancho California Road was approximately 150 feet. In response to Commissioner Telesio, Mr. Keisker confirmed that the Moraga Road entrance would be gated, as well as the alternate entry; with respect to public access to the pool, confirmed that this would be via a pre-arranged schedule; and provided additional information regarding the line of site view of the project. In response to Chairman Guerriero, Mr. Markham relayed that per discussions with the Swim Club, the pool has been modified to be lengthened by five feet, and has been widened to accommodate an additional lane; elaborated on the various improvements that the project has been conditioned to complete with respect to Moraga Road; with respect to the eastern end of the project, noted that the applicant would share a driveway connection with the adjacent property owner, relaying that this entry would be primarily a tenant only entranceway; provided additional information regarding a bus turnout, in response to Mr. Thornhill's previous comments, relaying that the applicant would have no objection to installing a turnout, noting that typically the turnouts were placed per RTA's recommendation; and provided additional information regarding the applicant's efforts to work with the Oder family who owned the apartments to the south of the project, addressing drainage issues, existing cut-through pedestrian traffic, and landscaping matters, R:P[anMinutes050300 7 With respect to Commissioner Telesio's queries regarding the connection of Moraga Road to Via Las Colinas, Mr. Markham provided additional information. Deputy Director of Public Works Parks relayed that the project had also been conditioned to construct the intersection at Rancho California Road/Moraga Road; and for Chairman Guerriero, confirmed that there would be no additional widening of Rancho California Road. For Commissioner Mathewson, Mr. Markham relayed that the quantity of grading would be 200,000 cubic yards; provided additional information regarding the view of the project from Rancho California Road; in response to Commissioner Mathewson's queries regarding the differential in the elevation from Rancho California Road to the southerly property line, noted that the road drops down 38 feet in that area, relaying the constraints of the project with respect to tying into the existing pavement at Via Las Colinas. Mr. Keisker relayed that the average grading over the entire site would be approximately 12 feet; provided additional information regarding the quantities of grading if the site had been relatively fiat. Mr. Markham relayed that the applicant was in agreement to the Conditions of Approval, as modified, and with the request of the Pechanga Cultural Resources as denoted in the letter of May 3, 2000 (per supplemental agenda material). In response to Commissioner Mathewson's queries regarding staffs estimations of the average number of persons per dwelling unit, Deputy City Manager Thornhill relayed that 3.3 was an average for a single family dwelling unit, noting that for multiple family dwelling units the average would most likely be under 3, approximately 2.8 or 2.9; and with respect Quimby requirements, relayed that for this project there would be a fee payment. For Commissioner Fahey, Deputy City Manager Thornhill relayed that the average daily trip generation per unit would be approximately nine, or ten trips, advising that with respect to this project the number could be lower due to the proximity to services. Commissioner Mathewson relayed that the traffic analysis indicated that the Level of Service (LOS) would be Level "D' or better at project build-out, querying whether there was a specific degradation of service with this particular project. Mr. Bob Davis, traffic engineer representing the applicant, relayed that with respect to the multi- family residential units, the average daily trip generation was just over five trips; in response to Commissioner Mathewson's queries regarding degradation of the LOS, noted that without the project Rancho California Road/Moraga Road would degrade one LOS, going from Level "C" to "D" in the morning, and from "B" to "C" in the evening; at Lyndie Lane the LOS would go from Level "A" to "B" in the morning and would remain unchanged in the afternoon, at Via Las Colinas there would be no affect, at Rancho California Road/Ynez Road the LOS would not change with or without the project; clarified that the analysis included the impacts of the commercial development; relayed that this portion of the project would generate 1,380 trips on a daily basis, noting that during AM Peak hours there would be 98 trips generated, and during the PM Peak, the project would generate 128 trips per day; in response to Commissioner Fahey's queries as to whether there were any measures as far as traffic management that could be implemented to reduce the trip generation by approximately 500 trips a day, advised that some traffic could be reduced by allowing an interconnection between this project and the adjacent project, particularly the commercial center, relaying that the applicant was making efforts to implement this access, clarifying that there was no concept that would reduce the trip generation by 500 trips a day. It was noted that at 7:55 P.M. the meeting recessed, reconvening at 8:10 P.M. R:PlanMinutes050300 8 Attorney Curley relayed that in light of the letter from the Pechanga Cultural Resources, staff was requesting that whatever action the Commission ultimately decided to take with respect to this issue that the Commission allow staff to bring back at a subsequent meeting a revised resolution that adequately addresses the environmental findings regarding the issues the letter raised, noting that the letter was received by staff today which did not allow time for addressing the matter; for Commissioner Mathewson, clarified that the recommendation was for the Commission to take no final action tonight in order for staff to develop a resolution addressing the Commission's comments, and the environmental findings. The following individuals spoke in opposition of the project: ~ Mr. Burlie Cole 42567 Remora Street [] Mr. David Michael 30300 Churchill Court [] Mr. Stan Wright 42415 Carino Place [] Mr. David Boucher 42797 Twilight Court [] Mr. Scott Bruce 41395 Rue Jadot The above-mentioned individuals opposed the project for the following reasons: Concern regarding the potential for vandalism. Relayed that a covered garage area would not compensate for higher densities. Increased traffic. Disappointed with the community meetings held regarding this project, expressing a desire to have a representative representing their concerns. · ,'The impact with respect to overcrowding the schools. z Recommended a 100-unit complex development at this site. z Opposed to additional density. z Relayed that this project was not in accordance with the Growth Management Plan. ,/ The negative impact with respect to the view of the project due to the proposed height of the buildings. Lowered value of surrounding properties. Offered to get a signed petition with neighboring residents' signatures expressing opposition to the project. ,~ Overabundance of apartments in this particular area. For Mr. Michael, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks relayed that this project's traffic study was reviewed by Senior Engineer Moghadam, noting that the information had been verified; and clarified that his previous comment was regarding the fact that he personally did not review it. R:PlanMinutes050300 9 The following individuals spoke in favor of the project: Ms. Helen M. Oder Mr. Robert L. Oder Ms. Evelyn H. Hughes 29911 Mira Loma Drive 29911 Mira Loma Drive 27727 Jefferson Avenue The above-mentioned individuals were proponents of the project for the following reasons: The project would be an asset to the community and the adjacent uses. The applicant had adequately addressed the concerns of the community. Advised that this is the best project that could be proposed at this site, providing a historic overview of past proposals. Specified the fencing that the applicant would provide between the project and the adjacent properties. With respect to landscaping, relayed that Sequoia trees would be utilized which would provide fuller screening. With respect to drainage issues, noted that the applicant has an adequate drainage plan and has addressed the concerns of the adjacent property owners with respect to this matter. Commenting on Condition No. 33, regarding the sewer lines, relayed that while not desiring to burden the applicant with the cost, expressed a desire for the completion of the referenced drainage study. With respect to density, relayed that prior proposed projects on this site had higher densities. Concern with respect to an alternate proposal at this site if this project was denied. Commended the design of this project, noting the need for this quality type of apartments with enclosed garages. Ideal location for this type of project. Relayed that there is a shortage of homes and apartments for the present need in this area. In response to community concerns and comments, Mr. Markham relayed the following: Via overheads, presented an inventory of the apartment projects in the surrounding area, specifying densities ,rent amounts, and the need for this type of project in the City of Temecula. + With respect to the interface, noted the heavy landscaping plan along the interface boundary, specifying the location of the walls and fencing. + With respect to slope maintenance, relayed that the project's slopes would be maintained within the project boundaries. R:PlanMinutes050300 10 + With respect to vandalism issues, noted that the provision of fencing would address the concern of trespassers. + With respect to Commissioner Mathewson's questions, relayed that Condition No. 93 addressed the Quimby issues. With respect to the traffic issues, relayed that staff had reviewed the analysis that the applicant provided; and provided the background information regarding the reputation of the firm the applicant utilized for the traffic study. + With respect to school issues, noted that the project was required to pay school mitigation fees pursuant to State Law. With respect to the Growth Management Plan, relayed that this project was consistent, as follows: 1) with respect to concentrating urbanization along transportation corridors, and 2) with respect to the amenities proposed, noting the applicant's efforts to provide community access to the pool; and specified that this project would be an upscale development. With respect to the recommendation to develop a lO0-unit complex, noted that typically a project of that scale would not provide amenities due to a lack of justification. + Noted that the applicant had receipt of a letter from an Olympic swimmer applauding the applicant's efforts with respect to the pool's shared use. + Concurred with Attorney Curley's recommendation to address the concerns of the Pechanga Cultural Resources letter. + For Commissioner Telesio, relayed that currently there was an approximate one- percent (1- %) vacancy rate in apartments in the City of Temecula. Durin,q Commission discussion, the Commissioners relayed the following comments: Commissioner Fahey relayed that this project was well-designed, noting that an apartment complex was appropriate at this location; advised, however, that the Planning Commission had an obligation to implement the policies that have been passed by the City Council, noting that while the amenities issue was not clearly defined, the policy did state lowest density allowed; relayed that the lowest density allowed would be seven to eight dwelling units per acre; with respect to amenities, it was her interpretation that the amenities should be provisions that addressed the additional volumes or densities; since the primary concern was traffic impacts with respect to the impact of the densities, recommended that there be a mitigating factor to address the additional approximate 300-500 trips a day the higher density would generate, recommending that investigation be conducted to implement a plan to reduce the additional trip generation impacts (i.e., van transport). Commissioner Mathewson relayed a desire to defer action on this issue until the City had addressed the housing, circulation, and land use element updates; noted that if the project was to be considered at this time he had concern regarding the following; with respect to the pool issue, noted that this was not an amenity provision above the norm, acknowledging the shared use with the Swim Club; noted concern with respect to the amount of grading proposed on the site which would remove the ridgeline which was a visually pleasing aesthetic along Rancho California Road; relayed concern with respect to the view of the three-story structures, noting that the benefit of the enclosed garage area was nullified by the view impact; with respect to R:PlanMinutes050300 11 transportation improvements around the site, noted that in his opinion, this did not add value to the community but solely addressed the project impacts; and advised that the project, as proposed, did not meet the City Council policy in terms of providing amenities that would warrant higher densities. Commissioner Telesio advised that this was a high quality project; relayed confusion with respect to an amenity that would warrant the higher densities, noting the lack of clarification per the City Council policy; noted that this project was initiated long before this new policy, advising that with respect to equity and fairness there needed to be consideration regarding this matter; commented on the nexus between the densities and the amenities provided with a project; advised that prior to taking action, it would be his desire to obtain additional clarification with respect to the Council's definition of an amenity which justified a higher density; relayed that the traffic improvements that this project would implement would benefit the community as a whole; with respect to the recommendation to add an amenity such as a van pool, advised that most likely the residents would still utilize their own vehicles; and relayed that in his opinion the new policy should solely impact new development applications. With respect to economic development, Chairman Guerriero noted the need to offer affordable housing for employees in order to attract business to the City of Temecula; relayed that in his opinion, this project meets all the requirements, including the Growth Management Plan's policies; reiterated the lack of clarity regarding the term amenities; referencing the policy, stated that the Commission may consider approving a project above the lowest density if the project provided project or community amenities, noting that this proposal offered both in some aspects; relayed that this was one of the best projects he had seen in twenty yearn; relayed concern regarding alternate projects at this site if this project was not approved; recommended that there be City Council/Planning Commission Workshop in order to address the Growth Management Plan; and noted that in his opinion the shared use of the pool was a qualifying amenity, relaying the alternate view of his fellow Commissioners, reiterating the need to clarify the term amenities, as it pertains to warranting approval of a higher density. In response to Commissioner Fahey's queries with respect to conditioning the project regarding a transportation management plan, Planning Manager Ubnoske advised that additional investigation would need to be conducted with respect to traffic analysis, relaying that it could be feasible. Commissioner Fahey relayed that if this amenity could be addressed, she could support the project; and recommended that this issue be addressed when the item was brought back to the Commission. In response to Commissioner Fahey's comments, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks relayed the possibility of the applicant mitigating traffic in alternate portions of the City in order to compensate for the higher densities. Commissioner Fahey concurred with Deputy Director of ' Public Works Parks' suggestion; and relayed that the applicant could contract with employers to provide mass transit or develop an alternate plan to address the additional trips generated between the minimum and the maximum densities. Deputy Director of Pubtic Works Parks relayed that perhaps there could be transportation provided at the Senior Center or the Boys and Girls Club or for an alternate nonprofit organization. With respect to the above-mentioned recommendation, Commissioner Mathewson reJayed that he would concur if the transportation provision would actually be utilized. For Chairman Guerriero, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks confirmed that staff had reviewed the applicant's traffic data, concurring with the analysis; and relayed that if it was the R:PlanMinutes050300 12 Commission's desire, staff could provide data reflecting the additional number of trips generated by this project. Regarding transportation provisions with respect to this project's requirements, Commissioner Telesio noted the lack of utilization of the RTA busses. Commissioner Fahey clarified that if the transportation issue could not be mitigated, she could not support the project. Relaying concurrence with pursuing the feasibility of an amenity addressing traffic, Commissioner Mathewson recommended additionally pursuing investigation regarding the enhancement of Quimby fees as a source of a qualifying amenity. Chairman Guerriero reiterated staff's recommendation to continue the matter in order for the legal staff to address CEQA and sovereignty issues. Requesting additional direction from the Commission, Planning Manager Ubnoske queried whether it was the Commission's desire to postpone the matter until there could be a scheduled joint workshop with the City Council, noting that then the matter would need to be continued off calendar. MOTION: Commissioner Fahey moved to continue this issue to the June 7, 2000 Planning Commission meeting. Chairman Guerriero seconded the motion. (This motion ultimately passed; see below.) In response to the Commission, Planning Manager Ubnoske relayed that staff would bring back several different options for the Commission's consideration. Attorney Curley provided additional information regarding the findings associated with the Development Plan. In response to Commissioner Mathewson's queries regarding whether the issue would come back without additional guidance from Council, Planning Manager Ubnoske relayed that staff would attempt to obtain additional information, noting that potentially staff could solely bring back a recommendation from staff. For Commissioner Fahey, Attorney Curley recommended that the Commission keep the public hearing open. At this time voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Commissioner Webster who abstained. COMMISSIONER'S REPORTS With respect to the corner treatment at the mall, Chairman Guerriero relayed that the fountain element did not appear to be consistent with the approved design, requesting staff to investigate. B. Regarding the interior fountain area in the proximate area of the theater (at the mall site), Chairman Guerriero relayed that them was now a plant placed on the fountain area with no active water treatment, requesting that staff address this issue; and additionally noted that the interior landscaping in the mall should be upgraded. R:PlanMinutes050300 13 PLANNING MANAGER'S REPORT Planning Manager Ubnoske relayed that there was a letter, which had been provided to the Commission, that addressed the Park and Ride facility in the mall area. Planning Manager Ubnoske noted that the Commission may start to see some projects which were under 10,000 square feet in size being developed, clarifying that due to the size these buildings, the development could be approved via administrative approval if there was compliance with the Specific Plan; and relayed that if the Commission was not comfortable with this approval process the Development Code would need to be amended to modify the approval authority. Chairman Guerriero commented that it was his recollection that this approval process had been set up due to the attempt to expedite staff's time due to being inundated with numerous projects in the past. Commissioner Fahey recommended that this issue be readdressed when the full Commission was present. (Commissioner Webster had left the meeting.) In response to the Commission, Planning Manager Ubnoske relayed that staff was busier now than at any other time; noted that this approval process was following the strict letter of the Development Code; relayed that if a developer were to review the code with the approval authority matrix, and understood CEQA, one would query why a project was being taken before a Director's Hearing or the Planning Commission since clearly the Development Code stated that these projects qualified for an administrative approval; and provided additional information regarding the process. ADJOURNMENT At 9:37 P.M. Chairman Guerriero formally adjourned this meeting to Wednesday, May 17, 2000 at 6:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula. Ron Gue~¢C'h"a'~"~n -- Debbie Ubnoske, Planning Manager R:PlanMinutes050300 14