Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout121200 CC MinutesMINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL DECEMBER 12, 2000 The City Council convened in Closed Session at 5:30 P.M. and convened in a regular meeting at 7:01 P.M., on Tuesday, December 12, 2000, in the City Council Chambers of Temecula City Hall, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. Present: Councilmembers: Comerchero, Naggar, Pratt, Roberts, Stone Absent: Councilmember: None. PRELUDE MUSIC The prelude music was provided by Jordan Bellino. . INVOCATION The invocation was given by Youth Pastor Scott Treadway of Rancho Community Church. ALLEGIANCE The salute to the Flag was led by Councilman Roberts. PRESENTATIONS/PROCLAMATIONS Presentation on future traffic proiections for Interstate 15 by Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) and Caltrans At the request of Councilman Naggar, Assistant to the City Manager Yates advised that representatives from SCAG and Caltrans were present to provide an overview of future traffic projections along Interstate 15 as it parallels the City of Temecula. By way of overheads, Mr. Arnold San Miguel from SCAG advised that SCAG, as a metropolitan planning organization, is required to prepare a 20-year transportation plan every three years as well as a regional transportation improvement program which is a three- to seven-year program which provides specific elements of a Highway/Transit project, noting that a transportation plan has been drafted but has not yet been approved. Mr. San Miguel reviewed SCAG's role in the planning process as it relates to growth on Interstate 15. Councilman Roberts reiterated that the Regional Transportation Improvement Program is just that a regional plan - one which does not solely reflect the City of Temecula. Advising that her responsibilities pertain to forecasting of Caltrans and intergovernmental review (CEQA review), Ms. Linda Grimes, representing Caltrans, addressed the following: Level of service - years 2000 - 2020 · High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Lanes · Demand per hour · State Capital Improvement Program - sources and mechanisms with which to approve infrastructure · Proposed and current condition of Interstate 15 R:\Minutes\121200 1 · Ridesharing Program - mass transit - need for park and ride lots · Highway 91 - level of service F1 during peak hours (1 to 2 hours congestion) · Toll lanes (Highway 91) under franchise - toll booth In light of past Caltrans funding, Mayor Stone expressed concern with Caltrans actually being able to meet the traffic demand and would foresee a level of service E and F sooner than actually predicted. Mayor Pro Tern Comerchero encouraged that consideration be given to the distribution of Federal Highway Funding, noting that the largest percentage of those funds are distributed toward highway projects and a small percentage is distributed toward public transit. By way of exhibits, Mr. Saied Raza, representing Caltrans, reviewed recently completed Caltrans projects on Interstate 15 relative to the City of Temecula and advised that current condition demand is less than capacity because service of level, through the City of Temecula, is C and continued success of that service level will depend on funding. Councilman Naggar requested that staff identify a list of prioritized projects necessary to keep traffic flowing on Interstate 15 to ensure Interstate 15 will not turn into a Highway 91. PUBLIC COMMENTS A. Because she has received no information from the City with regard to her relocation/location of her new fence, Ms Juliet-Anne:Boysen, 44060 Margarita Road, apologized for having to do so but informed the City Councilmembers that she has installed her new fence. In response to Mayor Stone, Director of Public Works Hughes advised that, as had been requested at the last City Council meeting, a surveyor had been ordered and was to survey her property this Friday or Monday; that City staff does not include a surveyor; that all outside surveying activities are completed by outside services/outside contracts; and that staff contact with Ms. Boysen has been through her attorney. Mayor Stone noted that staff should be responsive to the citizens and if delays occur, that the individual should be apprised by staff. Director of Public Works Hughes stated that he has always been available to Ms. Boysen and that he, personally, has not been contacted by her either. B. Ms. Pamela Miod, 31995 Via Saltio, suggested that the vacant Costco location be considered for alternative uses such as a site to hold University classes, an ice skating rink, a YMCA facility, etc. With both Mayor Stone and Mayor Pro Tem Comerchero responding to Ms. Miod, Mayor Pro Tem Comerchero advised that the Costco building has recently been sold and encouraged Ms. Miod to contact the new owners to relay her suggestions. City Manager Nelson stated that staff would provide the appropriate contact for the Costco building to Ms. Miod. R:\Minutes\121200 2 C. As owner of the commercial shopping center at Highway 79 and Bedford Court, Mr. David Phares, 27710 Jefferson Avenue, stated that although the widening of Highway 79 is a Caltrans widening project, he discussed the concerns of his tenants as well as his with regard to an accident that occurred in November which rendered the signal at Bedford Court inactive, Caltrans has since taken a position to not activate the signal until after the widening project has been completed. Therefore, Mr. Phares requested City Council assistance in the resolution of this matter with Caltrans, noting that access from Highway 79 to the Center is right turn in and exit is right turn out which tends to create an inconvenience to the patrons as well as tenants. CITY COUNCILREPORTS A. Having attended the Student of the Month ceremony, Councilman Pratt commended Ms. Sally Myers on a job well done and informed the City Council that Ms. Myers has requested that this event be publicized on television. B. Commending City Clerk Jones on an outstanding soloist performance, Councilman Pratt advised that he had attended the Messiah at the local Mormon Church. C. Advising that it has been one year since he has requested the City Council to allow a period of review of City residential growth policies, Councilman Pratt commented on certain citizens' continued opposition to residential density and its impacts on traffic congestion, noting that he shares this opposition and is of the opinion that the City Council and staff has not recognized, with regard to this issue, the desires of the citizens. D. Councilman Naggar informed the City Council and the public that Mr. Ed Elder's wife has had heart surgery and wished her well. E. Having attended the National League of Cities/Congress of Cities meeting in Boston, Mayor Pro Tern Comerchero advised that the National League has as well identified for its 2001 workplan SMART Growth and controlling urban sprawl as a number one priority. F. Mayor Stone informed the public that Consent Calendar Item No. 7 (Agreement for Use of Flood Control Property) will be pulled off calendar and that Council Business Item No. 12 will be considered after Consent Calendar. CONSENTCALENDAR Standard Ordinance and Resolution Adoption Procedure, RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Motion to waive the reading of the text of all ordinances and resolutions included in the agenda. 2 Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Approve the minutes of October 17, 2000. R:\Minutes\121200 3 3 Resolution approvinq List of Demands RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO, 2000-80 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A 4 City Treasurer's Report as of October 31, 2000 RECOMMENDATION: 4.1 Receive and file the City Treasurer's Report as of October 31, 2000. 5 Financial Statements for the three months ended September 30, 2000 RECOMMENDATION: 5.1 Receive and file the Financial Statements for the three month~ ended September 30, 2000. 6 Contract Inspection Services for Buildinq and Safety RECOMMENDATION: 6.1 Approve a First Amendment to an Agreement for Consultant Services with P & D Consultants in an amount of $108,000 to provide supplemental building inspection services to the Building and Safety Department; 6.2 Approve a 10% contingency in the amount of $10,800. 7 ARreement for Use of Flood Control Property RECOMMENDATION: 7.1 Approve the License Agreement between the City of Temecula and the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (RCFWCD) for use of approximately 33.5 acres of property located adjacent to Jefferson Avenue. (This item was continued off calendar.) 8 Parcel Map No. 29895 (located south of Dendy Parkway, east of Winchester Road, and north of Reminqton Avenue) RECOMMENDATION: 8.1 Approve Parcel Map No. 29895 in conformance with the conditions of approval; R:\Minutes\121200 4 8.2 Approve the Subdivision Improvement Agreement; 8.3 Approve the Subdivision MonL~ment Agreement and accept the Faithful Performance Bond, Labor and Material Bond as security for the agreements. 9 Consideration of Amendment to the Boys and Girls Club Loan RECOMMENDATION: 9.1 Approve an amendment to the loan to the Boys and Girls Club of Temecula, Inc. that would provide for funding of approved programs in lieu of cash loan payments. 10 Emerqency Manaqers Ass stance (EMA) Grant Receipt RECOMMENDATION: 10.1 Consider appropriating $11,505.99 to purchase emergency management communication equipment. MOTION: Councilman Naggar moved to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1 - 6 and 8 - 10 (Item No. 7 was pulled off calendar). The motion was seconded by Councilman Roberts and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. At this time, Mayor Stone advised that Council Business (Item No. 12) will be discussed at this time. COUNCIL BUSINESS AGENDA ITEM DISCUSSED OUT OF ORDER 12 Community Services Commission Appointment RECOMMENDATION: 12.1 Appoint one applicant to an unexpired term through October 10, 2001 and two applicants for three-year terms through October 10, 2003 to serve on the Community Services Commission. MOTION: Councilman Naggar moved to reappoint Mr. Tom Edward to a full three-year term, serving through October 10, 2003. The motion was seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Comerchero and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. In response to Councilman Naggar's support of Mr. Herrera, Mayor Pro Tem Comemhero noted that the subcommittee had a difficult time in making its recommendation because of the number of qualified candidates. Having personally interviewed just about every candidate, Mr. Comerchero as well encouraged Mr. Herrera to continue to apply and noted that some of the other candidates merely have been City residents for a longer period of time and, therefore have had a longer opportunity to demonstrate their commitment to the City. MOTION: Councilman Naggar moved to appoint Ms. Janet Yorke to a full three-year term, serving through October 10, 2003 and to appoint Ms. Felicia Hogan to fill the unexpired term, serving through October 10, 2001. The motion was seconded by Councilman Roberts and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. At 8:05 P.M., Mayor Stone convened as the Community Services District and the Redevelopment Agency; after which, Mayor Stone called a short recess and reconvened the City Council meeting at 8:19 P.M. R:\Min utes\121200 5 PUBLIC HEARINGS 11 Reconsideration of Plannin,q Application No. 99-0317 (Development Plan) - Temecula Ridqe Apartments RECOMMENDATION: 11.1 Reconsider previous denial of the Temecula Ridge Project. Planning Director Ubnoske provided a brief staff report (as per written material), noting that the following changes have been made to the project as a result of the November 28, 2000, City Council meeting: · Reduction in the number of units from 246 to 220 · Removal of the third floor from Type I buildings · Reduction in the size of the recreation center to accommodate a tot lot at that location · Lowering the higher portion of the site by 5' in an effort to reduce potential view impacts Further commenting on the project, Ms. Ubnoske advised of the following: · That 43% of the site will remain open space · That the School District will provide an additional bus in order to accommodate the potential students generated by this project · That as per the Development Code, 44 trees are to be planted in the rear (south side) of the properly and that the developer is proposing to plant 118 trees and that according to the City's landscape architect, the trees will quickly grow and should screen this area within two to three years · That staff has readdressed the noise study and advised that an additional noise study will be completed at the time of issuance of building permits; that consultants of the noise study have indicated that at the worst case scenario, some of the project's windows may need to remain closed but that they will not be permanently closed · That Community Services Department has made revisions/additions to the conditions of approval which primarily deal with parkland dedication and landscaping of the median in front of the property, noting that although the developer is only required to pay 50% of the Quimby requirements, the developer has agreed to pay 100%. Senior Planner Hogan briefed the City Council on a meeting that Mr. Kading had with the neighboring Homeowners Associations, noting that .14 residents were in attendance and advising that discussion included the following: · Size and type of buildings being proposed · Removal of three-story buildings closest to the single-family homes · Total number of units - all of which have garages · Guest parking spaces · Perimeter walls versus fencing, noting that along the transition area closest to the single-family homes will be partially block and partially view fence; that the potentially impacted residents indicated satisfaction with that proposal; · Project may be gated R:\Minutes\121200 6 · Rents will be similar to those at the Spanos project · Trail route to Mira Loma is not being proposed with this project · Residents expressed a concern with future development of the neighboring property to the east, indicating that this would not be a part of this proposal · Design issues, property value concerns, and infrastructure needs. In response to Mayor Pro Tem Comerchero, Mr. Hogan confirmed that only 14 residents were in attendance and noted that to his understanding, the applicant did make follow-up phone calls and sent written communication apprising of the scheduled meeting. For Councilman Naggar, Mr. Hogan advised that the meeting was in the Main Conference Room at City Hall at 6:30 P.M. but that the meeting did not actually start until a little after 7:00 P.M., advising that the two homeowners associations closest to the project appeared to have no problem with the project. Referencing the number of meetings that have been scheduled with regard to this project, Mayor Stone noted that in his opinion the residents of this City have been properly and adequately noticed with regard to this project. At this time, Mayor Stone opened the public hearing. Mr. Sam Alhadeff, 41530 Enterprise Circle, representing the applicant, offered a PowerPoint presentation to the City Council with regard to this project. Never having seen the PowerPoint presentation, Mayor Pro Tern Comerchero spoke in support of proceeding with it. By way of a PowerPoint presentation, Mr. A.G. Kading proceeded with a detailed overview of the proposed project, noting the following: · That in June of 1998 the project was presented to the City · That a market study was completed to determine needs which indicated apartment housing · That neighboring properties are zoned as follows: o West side- professional office o East side - professional office with a 70' height limit o Back side - zoned 20 units per acre - existing apartment project o Southwest side - 22 units per acre apartment project · That a three-dimensional study model was created for the project site; displaying this three-dimensional model, Mr. Kading reviewed various elements of the projects such as location, landscaping (location and one-year plant growth as well as five-year plant growth), product, project entrance, recreation center and its configuration, 25 yard pool, tot lot, fire truck accessibility requirements, various building types, three- story buildings reduced to two-story buildings, addition of three-bedroom units, etc. · That landscaping study boards were completed and neighboring residents had the opportunity to address plant material as it relates to the boundary lines as well as project landscaping · That the closest neighboring resident will be 175' from the subject site · That the height of the finished floor level was reduced by 5' · That a previous condition had been imposed by staff with regard to not impacting view shed · That the type of project meets the needs of the community R:\MJnutes\121200 7 For Mayor Stone, Mr. Mike McGanig, landscape architect, reviewed the proposed plant material, commenting on the proposed sizes ranging from 5-gallon to 24"- box trees, noting that the proposed landscaping will provide an instant screen and would provide good coverage within a short period of time. Mr. Gary Wiggle, Irvine, project architect, apprised the Councilmembers that he was in attendance and available to answer any questions with regard to this project. Addressing density issues that were raised by residents in the early 1980s, Mr. David Lowry, 27349 Jefferson Avenue, #201, encouraged the City Council to address and consider the quality of a project as well as its density and encouraged the City Council to approve this project. Mr. Tom Stultz, 32076 Corte Soledad, general manager of a manufacturing company in the City, relayed his support of this project and commented on the need for such housing in order to attract the right individuals needed to build the manufacturing future in the City of Temecula. Ms. Michelle Ash, 31370 Paseo De Las Olas, commented on the desirable amenities being provided by the developer and spoke in support of the project. In response to Ms. Ash, Mayor Pro Tern Comerchero provided his definition of old traditions and new opportunities. Ms. Debbie Lindberg, 32519 Bergano Court, and son DJ and daughter Shannon, spoke in support of the project; commented on the lack of such housing in this City; and noted that the term affordability has a different meaning to everyone. Clarifying his definition of affordable housing, Councilman Naggar stated that affordable housing references subsidized housing, noting that the proposed project would not be subsidized housing and stated that he would not view these apartments as affordable. Mr. Naggar stated that the issue is density and not whether to build or not to build apartments. Disagreeing with Councilman Naggar's comments, Mayor Stone stated that the definition of affordable housing has a different meaning for everyone and in light of the average home prices in the City ($200,000), he noted that a monthly rental payment would appear to be more affordable; that the issue is about the construction of apartments; and that the proposed project is a quality project with the least amount of density than any other apartment complexes in the City and with the highest architectural standards. Mr. David Rosenthal, 40516 Via Estrada, Murrieta, Vice President of the Southwest Riverside Manufacturing Council, commented on the need for such housing, especially one of this quality. Dedicating her comments to her friend, Mr. Jim Hollywood, who unexpectedly died last night, Ms. Kay Kading, Capistrano Beach, noted that her friend was a respected man but not necessarily always liked because of his commitment to truth and his ability to solve problems without an agenda - political, personal, or otherwise. Sharing specific examples such as statements made by residents, opposing developers, Presidents of Homeowner Associations, and Councilman, Ms. Kading stated that, in her opinion, Temecula Ridge has become a political issue and not one based on truth. She requested that a decision be made based on the facts and the truth. Mr. Tom Dodson, 2150 N. Arrowhead Avenue, San Bernardino, environmental consultant representing the applicant, noted that he would reserve his time if there were the need for Council questions. R:\Minutes\121200 8 Mr. Bob Oder, 29911 Mira Loma Drive, thanked the City Council for its efforts with regard to this project and relayed his support of the project. Mrs. Helen Oder, 29911 Mira Loma Drive, commented on the quality of the proposed project and its asset to the community and, therefore, encouraged the City Council to approve the project. Mr. Robed Oder, 30221 Mira Loma Drive, thanked the City Councilmembers for their efforts as it relates to this project; provided background information with regard to this site, including the appeal and denials of other previously pending projects; commented on the City's need for more apartment housing, specifically ones built at this quality level; and, therefore, encouraged the City Council to approve this project. Referencing a letter from Ms. Tamar Stein, attorney representing the Oder Family, Ms. Monica Sams, 30221 Mira Loma Drive, provided copies of Ms. Stein's letter to the City Clerk and relayed Ms. Stein's support of the recommended conditions of approval as well as staff's recommendation to approve the project. Considering the quality of this project and the amount of staff time this project has required, Mr. Les Shaw, Rancho California Road, property owner of the vacant property to the east of the subject site, spoke in support of the project and questioned if this project were denied, what would be go there. Mr. Paul Runkle, 4187 Enterprise Circle North, viewed the proposed project as an ideal in-fill project that will be compatible with existing zoning and one which will reduce urban sprawl and potentially traffic congestion. Addressing the noted concerns of density, Mr. Runkle stated that the proposed project will be at less than 10.6 units per acre which would be substantially less than neighboring apartment complexes and other newly constructed projects in the City. Mr. Bart Buchalter, 30000 Rancho California Road, commended the developer on a high-quality project; viewed the proposed project as a rather Iow-density project in comparison to other apartment projects; and encouraged the promotion of balanced housing in the City. Viewing the project as an award winning project, Mr. David Phares, 27710 Jefferson Avenue, Suite 301, stated the proposed project would only further enhance the quality of life and development for this City; advised that the Southwest Riverside County Economic Development Corporation supports economic growth in this community and, therefore, would support the proposed project in an effort to provide balanced housing which, in turn, would provide affordable housing which, in turn, is necessary to attract the needed individuals for the manufacturing business. Mr. Burlie Cole, 42567 Remora Street, President of the Alta Vista Community Association, thanked the developer for the organized community meeting with regard to this project; noted that the timing of a meeting will further determine the attendance of a meeting, noting the meeting was scheduled too early; viewed the proposed project as a changed project from what was presented in October; and stated that the project provides marketing amenities but not ones which truly benefit the local citizens. As per the City's Growth Management Plan, Mr. Cole discussed density, approving it at the lower end of the density range of 7 to 12 units per acre. In response to Councilman Roberts who had referenced a flier which had been distributed to the neighboring residents and reflected Mr. Cole's name, Mr. Cole advised that he had neither written nor passed out the flier; that he agrees and disagrees with some of the comments on the flier; and that he did not contribute to the content of the flier. With regard to the Growth Management Plan, Mayor Stone advised that the Plan is not an ordinance that it is a policy; noted that different Councilmembers have different interpretations of the policy as it pertains to the definition of public amenity. R:\Minutes\121200 9 In light of the amount of grading the proposed project will require, Ms. Adrian McGregor, 34555 Madera de Playa, expressed concern with regard to environmental impacts; thanked Councilman Roberts for walking the property; expressed concern with the planting of as many pine trees as are being proposed; and encouraged the use of existing landscaping such as sage. In response to Ms. McGregor, Mr. Tom Dodson, environmental consultant representing the applicant, informed the public that two site surveys (1999 and 2000) were completed with regard to the Quino Checkerspot Butterfly - both of which found negative evidence of the butterfly; and advised that 1999 survey which included the entire site (22 acres) indicated one pair of gnatcatchers and that the 2000 survey indicated a pair of gnatcatchers. Because of the project's location, Mr. Dodson advised that site review with the Fish and Wildlife Service will be ongoing. Expressing appreciation to the City Council with regard to its efforts associated with this project, Mr. Clark Kegley, 41796 Homber Avenue, representing the Villages Homeowners Association, relayed his concern with density; requested because of its location to single-family homes, that the project be reduced to the lower end of the medium density range (7 to 12 units per acre). Mayor Pro Tern Comerchero reiterated that a multi-family project of the proposed density creates less density impacts than a single-family detached project at 7 units per acre. Echoing Mr. Comerchero's comments, Public Works Director Hughes noted that single-family homes tend, on the average based on nationwide trip generation factors, to produce more trip generation, stating that 147 single-family homes would generate a comparable amount of trips generated by a 226- unit apartment complex. Councilman Naggar stated that, in his opinion, averages are subjective. Concurring with Public Works Director Hughes' comment, Mr. Tom Dodson further clarified traffic data used in the determination of average trip generations; stated that Southern California Association of Government (SCAG) as well as other jurisdictions are mandated to rely upon the ITE Manual as a basis for determining trip generation calculations. Public Works Director Hughes, for Mayor Pro Tem Comerchero, stated that local factors were considered during the trip generation calculation for this particular project such as land uses within the study area which would lessen the driveway trips to Ranch California Road but that amenities such as higher level of recreational were not used in the calculation to lower the trip generation factor for this project. In response to Councilman Naggar who expressed concern with regard to inconsistencies in numbers as it relates to trip generation in the Wilbur Smith report for the project and the City and the ITE Manual, Mr. Hughes further clarified trip generation calculations; noted that 5.19 trips per dwelling unit would be a reasonable estimate of trips generated onto Rancho California Road as a result of this project. He advised that the industry standard for residential component with mixed use would be 6 to 7 trips per unit and 10 trips per single-family residence. Appreciating Councilman Naggar's efforts to discuss issues in the public forum versus solely by staff, Mr. Carl Ross, 43886 Butternut, expressed concern with the depreciation of property values were this project approved. Referencing the General Plan, Mr. Ross commented on the following: · Chapter 1 - demands consistency in zoning · Chapter 2 - emphasizes compatibility of future development with existing single-family homes; single-family homes are to be protected from out-of-scale buildings, noise impacts, traffic impacts, light, and density · Chapter 3 - high density housing project to be placed west of Interstate 15 R:\Minutes\121200 10 · Chapter 4 - ensures that a consistent set of policies within the General Plan are implemented by zoning and zoning code In closing, Mr. Ross encouraged the City Council to follow the guidelines; stated that the proposed project is a good project but is being proposed in the wrong location; that the project will be too dense for the zoning; and that the Planning Department should have rejected the project two years ago. For Mayor Stone, Deputy City Manager Thornhill reiterated that staff is recommending approval of the project; that the project will be 100% in conformance with the City's General Plan; that the General Plan identifies the site zoning as 7 to 12 units per acre; that the General Plan permits the development of apartments in zoning of 7 to 12 units per acre; and that this project is not at the maximum density. Mayor Stone stated that until now there hasn't been a market for the development of apartment complexes in medium density zoned areas. Deputy City Manager Thornhill stated that, in his opinion, for Councilman Naggar, this project would be in conformance with the City's Growth Management Plan. For Mayor Pro Tem Comerchero, Planning Commissioner Matthewson stated that the Growth Management Plan was in place at the time the Commission approved this project and that the Commission did consider the Plan and its policies while making its decision. Advising that his name is on the flier that was distributed to the neighboring residents, Mr. Dave Boucher, 42797 Twilight Court, noted that he viewed the flier as a means to disseminate information and to make the public aware. Relaying his interpretation/understanding of the Growth Management Plan, Mr. Boucher stated that every residential project should be presented at the lowest density range and that a higher density range may be considered if amenities were provided; that the proposed project has not been required to adhere to those policies; and that the approval of this project would create value depreciation on neighboring properties. Councilman Roberts noted that this project started through the planning process prior to the City having adopted its Growth Management Plan. Councilman Nagger stated that, in his opinion, the Planning Commission was ill advised by relaying that the project should be offset by on-site/community amenities and, therefore, warranting the increase of approximately 100 units. Having had several Growth Management Plan meetings, Mayor Stone stated that he viewed on-site amenities as an amenity. Referencing the City's General Plan, Mr. Bob Eilek, 42471 Camino Place, stated the following: · Chapter 5 - no environmental impact has been conducted for this project, stating that the project site is located in a paleontological/archaeological area; promotion of a comprehensive system of trails and open space area that connect to schools and residential areas; protection of view of single-family homes, noting the proposed three- stoW buildings, although reduced in height, will impact the views; · Chapter 6 - maintaining the quality of life expected by the citizens of this community; provides a quality school system with adequate facilities, noting that the Vail Elementary School population is at or near capacity and, therefore, questioning where the children of this project will attend school. R:\Minutes\121200 11 Further addressing the City Council, Mr. Eilek stated that there are no true community amenities being provided by the developer, noting the following: · Improvements to Moraga Road - will function as the project's main entrance · Swimming pool - not open to the entire public · Landscaping of 49% - a necessity due to the amount of required grading Because no community amenities are being offered, the project should only be approved at 7 units per acre. In response to Mr. Eilek, Mr. Dodson addressed environmental issues pertaining to this project, advising of the following: · That an initial study was prepared; based upon the date obtained in this study, a conclusion was reached that this project could be implemented without causing any significant adverse impacts and, therefore, no Environmental Impact Report was required · That Fish and Wildlife Services commented on the study and indicated that specific issues required completion; that if Fish and Wildlife Services had concern with this project, representatives would be in attendance of this meeting · That the Quino Checkerspot Butterfly does not exist on the property of discussion · That the pair of gnatcatchers will be dealt with in accordance with the Fish and Wildlife Services protocol and that there are no archaeological resources · That a mitigation measure was imposed, requiring the on-site services of a paleontologist to collect and curate any specific resources discovered during grading activities. Deputy City Manager Thornhill referenced Condition Nos. 13, 14, and 15 which require the services of a qualified Native American Resource expert as well as a qualified paleontologist/archaeologist prior and during grading activities. For Mayor Stone, Mr. Kading advised that of the 226 units over 50% are one-bedroom units and that this project will result in approximately $640,000 to $700,000 in school mitigation fees. With regard to a previously made comment that no community amenities are being provided by the developer, Mayor Stone voiced his opposition and stated that the Moraga Drive/Los Missiones improvements were not imposed by the City and that this improvement was a voluntary decision by the developer and one which he would view as a community amenity. Mr. Stone also noted that the developer would be paying 100% of the Quimby fee that equates to $150,000, which he would as well consider to be a community amenity. Mr. Charles Rich, 42403 Carino Place, stated that at the October 10, 2000, City Council meeting, the citizens debated against this project for violations of the General Plan, its goals, and policies, and the Development Code; noted that, as outlined in the General Plan, apartment complexes should not be constructed next to single-family residential units; and that the citizens were under the impression that the City Council had rejected this project at the October 10, 2000, City Council meeting. Referencing Sections of the General Plan which support the denial of apartments being constructed in a medium density zone because of land use compatibility issues and density issues, Mr. Rich commented on the following Chapters of the General Plan: · Chapter 8 - includes single-family homes as noise sensitive land; that single-family homes are frequently considered the most sensitive to noise; that noise studies, conducted in 1993 for the site of discussion, indicate noise levels to exceed the maximum allowable exterior noise level for residential use; that motor vehicles are the R:\Minutes\121200 12 dominant soume of continuous noise; provides for the separation of significant noise generators from sensitive receptor areas; discourages noise sensitive land uses and to minimize noise conflict between land uses; limits the maximum permitted noise levels which cross property lines and impact adjacent land uses; requires proper evaluation of potential noise conflicts; to minimize noise impacts from transportation and noise sources and to construct barriers and maintain buffers to ensure the piece of quiet; Chapter 9 - emphasizes the importance of air quality through proper land use planning; to minimize land use conflicts between emission sources and single-family homes; to reduce air pollution emission to the greatest possible extent, questioning the lack of adherence, in his opinion, to the Growth Management Plan; to locate sensitive receptors away from major air pollution sources, noting that proposed density would create a high concentration of cars in a centralized area. Based on the requirements of Chapters 8 and 9 of the General, Mr. Rich stated that the Planning Commission, the Ptanning Department, and certain City Councilmembers are not interested in adhering to the City General Plan as well as the Growth Management Plan. Mr. and Mrs. Robyn and Stan Wright, 42415 Carino Place, referenced the following Chapters of the City's General Plan: Chapter 10 - emphasizes a Community Design Element, creating balance with surrounding areas; that the Planning Department originally agreed to proceed with the construction of a three-story building next to single-story homes; promote a cohesive development for large tracts of land; ensures high quality design that would be well integrated; limits light and glare pollution; preserves positive quality of individual neighborhoods; protects single-family homes from buildings that would be out of scale and provides, for appropriate transition areas between a lower and a higher-density development; protects the public views of significant natural features - neighborhood compatibility between character of existing single-family neighborhoods and adjacent proposed projects; provides a density buffer transition to ensure compatibility with adjacent neighborhoods. Having personally completed a neighborhood analysis, Mr. and Mrs. Wright advised that the analysis includes four local neighborhoods on four random streets as well as a comparison of rental homes on the streets to regular homeowners, noting that the study was completed to determine how many cars were at each residence and to establish the ratio of cars per bedroom. Referencing the data obtained, the Wrights noted the following: · Streets surveyed were Twilight Court in Starlight Ridge, Corina Place in Alta Vista, Churchill Court in the Villages, and Butternut in Rancho Highlands · Homeowners surveyed were 56 - 204 bedrooms with 109 cars · Rentals surveyed were 9- 29 bedrooms with 31 cars · Homeowners reflected 1.9 cars per house and .53 cars per bedroom · Rentals reflected 3.5 cars per house and 1.1 cars per bedroom, indicating 84% more cars per household and 108% more cars per bedroom in comparison to the homeowners. In light of their findings, Mr. and Mrs. Wright stated that the homeowners have 54% less impact than the rentals and, therefore, the proposed project should be approved at a maximum of 68 apartments units in the medium density zone which equates to 7 units per acre. R:\Minutes\121200 13 With regard to previously made comments as to the lack of apartment vacancies in the community, Mr. David Micheal, 30300 Churchill Court, advised that he had called 15 apartment complexes in the community (Murrieta and Temecula), noting that there were availabilities. Mr. Micheal commented on the efforts of the citizens as it relates to this project. Apprising the City Council that behind her property is a Southern California Edison easement, Ms. Alfreda Lindsey, 30090 Santa Cecilia, advised that if individuals were to access this easement, they would as well be accessing her property; that she is unable to keep individuals from accessing this easement; that this easement would connect with the proposed project; that she would be concerned with children from the apartment complex utilizing this easement in order to travel to Vail Elementary School and to Temecula High School; and that, therefore, expressed a concern for her, her families, and the children's safety. Although viewing the proposed project as a quality project, Ms. Katherine Spignase, 29753 Avenida de Calazada, stated that the project would impact her view and, therefore, requested the construction of single-family homes. At 11:01 P.M., Mayor Stone called a short recess and reconvened the meeting at 11:10 P.M. Rebuttal Period Mr. Sam Alhadeff thanked the City Council and staff for their efforts with regard to this project. In response to comments/questions raised by the residents, Mr. Alhadeff noted the following: · That the Growth Management Plan redirects urban development to urban areas, noting that this project submittal was deemed complete prior to the City Council adopting the Growth Management Plan · That the Planning Commission may consider approving a project above the lowest density if the project provides on-site, community amenities · That the Planning Commission and the Planning Department staff have recommended approval of project · That with regard to the SCE easement, a fencing system will be developed, advising that the Oder Family had expressed a similar concern · That the developer has offered to dedicate the property necessary for a comprehensive trail system · That the current project is a changed project as a result of citizen input such as the reduction in density, the elimination of three-story buildings, and the reduction in building height · That the developer had to observe/adhere to the rules imposed by City staff as it relates to traffic studies; · That this project will be in compliance with the City's General Plan · That he would suspect that the homeowners of the Villages have not and will not experience a depreciation in property values as a result of the neighboring Portofino apartment complex. In light of the concern raised by a resident with regard to the planting of pine trees and the potential of beetles destroying these trees, Mayor Pro Tem Comerchero requested that this matter be addressed prior to planting. At this time, the public hearing was closed by Mayor Stone. R:\Minutes\121200 14 City Council discussion Relaying his passion with regard to traffic congestion in the City of Temecula, Councilman Pratt stated that the cutting of density would immediately relieve some traffic concerns and noted that public transportation would further resolve the City's traffic congestion. Viewing the traffic issue in the City as an emergency situation, Mr. Pratt requested the development of a comprehensive plan to address this issue and advised that until the matter is effectively resolved, he would be voting in opposition to any future development. Councilman Naggar expressed concern with constructing the proposed project basically at maximum density and future projects at maximum densities, noting the impacts such developments would have on the City. In light of the City's traffic issues, Mr. Naggar stated that the Growth Management Plan was created and, thereby, requiring projects to construct at minimum density, off set by community amenities; and that at the October 10, 2000, City Council meeting, the City Council, with the exception of Mayor Stone, had agreed that the developer was not providing any community amenities and, therefore, the project would not be in conformance with the Growth Management Plan. Mr. Naggar expressed concern with what he viewed as discrepancies in the calculation of trip generation averages, the amount of dirt removal, adjacent land use compatibility, the construction of three-story buildings, and school overcrowding. Although it is permitted, Councilman Naggar noted that the City has previously not permitted the construction of apartments in medium-density zones. At this time, Mayor Stone reopened the public hearing. In response to Councilman Naggar, Mr. Jeff Okum, Assistant Superintendent of the Temecula Unified School District, referenced his letter in which he had indicated that bus service to the area of discussion will be impacted and, therefore, an additional bus would be provided if the project were approved; that the District is in the analyzing stages as it relates to whether or not to charge for bus transportation services; that the area of discussion is within walking distance to Vail Elementary School but that because of the lack of sidewalks, bus transportation is provided. At this time, the public hearing was closed by Mayor Stone. In light of the numerous meetings with regard to this project, Mayor Pro Tern Comerchero relayed his confusion as to how individuals are of the opinion that they have not had the opportunity or ability to properly address this project. With regard to apartment vacancy rates, Mr. Comerchero stated that a list he had obtained, which indicated a vacancy rate of less than half of one percent. Because of the various interpretations/understandings of community/on-site amenities, Mayor Pro Tem Comerchero stated that the approval of this project and future projects should be based on the benefits the City is receiving at the specified density (number of bedrooms and number of people). With regard to this project, Mr. Comerchero noted that of the 220 units 20 will be three-bedroom units, 80 will be two-bedroom units, and 120 will be one-bedroom units, noting that the trip generation will be less with the varied mix in bedrooms versus with the construction of a 7-unit per acre single-family detached project. Mr. Comerchero advised that information he had obtained from Solana Ridge apartment complex, which indicated an average of 2.05 people per unit and from Tuscany Ridge apartment complex, which indicated as well 2.05 people per unit. Utilizing the 3.3 average number of people per unit for the various provided housing throughout the City, Mr. Comerchero noted that the difference between a single-family detached project on this site (approximately 21 acres) and the proposed project of 220 multi-family project, with the noted breakdown of bedroom units, would create 485 people for the single-family project at 147 units per acre at the lowest end of the density zone (7 units per acre at 3.3 per unit) and would create 451 people for the proposed project (220 units at 2.05 per unit, commenting on the reduction in multi- family housing even compared to the lowest density for single-family housing. With regard to trip R:\Minutes\121200 15 generation, Mr. Comerchero advised that the proposed project would generate 1,760 trips at 8 to 12 trips per unit and that a 147 single-family detached project at the lowest density would generate 1,764 trips, noting that this project would be lower than the average. Appreciating the residents' concerns with regard to General Plan compliance, Mr. Comerchero noted that this document has been followed by the City since its incorporation. Having met, at his request, with the developer on three separate occasions, Councilman Roberts commented on changes the developer has agreed to such as the lowering of 5' at the southern most end of the project and the reduction of three-story buildings to two-story buildings at the above ridge. Mr. Roberts advised that both residents, most adjacent to the project, are satisfied with the project and voice no additional concern and that there will be a 175' buffer between the existing single-family homes and the closest apartment unit. Concurring with Mayor Pro Tem Comerchero, Mr. Roberts stated that the issue with regard to community/on-site amenities is an issue which must be resolved by the City Council. In closing, Mr. Roberts spoke in support of the project and briefly commented on the roadway extension, the additional school bus that will be provided and will serve two other apartment complexes, and the removal of dirt which will be donated to the City for its sports park. Thanking the residents, those for or against the project, for their input, Mayor Stone stated that this input created an already good project into an even better project and noted that community/on-site amenities should be evaluated when approving a project, stating that he would view the following as amenities being provided by this developer: · Pool · Tot lot · Street improvements · Quimby fees · Garages · Laundry facilities Mayor Stone noted that the City's General Plan reflects the undesirability of urban sprawl, noting that the proposed project would be constructed adjacent to like uses and, therefore, would eliminate urban sprawl. If this project were denied, Mr. Stone commented on the developer's option to proceed with a Iow-moderate project, noting that State could preempt local authority with such projects. In response to Councilman Pratt's concern with regard to traffic and suggestion to proceed with mass transportation, Mayor Stone stated that the City should not hold every land owner victim to the autoculture and that the City of Temecula cannot change the autoculture by itself. In closing, Mr. Stone noted that the project followed the process, complies with the General Plan and the Growth Management Plan and, therefore, relayed his support of the project. For Councilman Naggar, City Attorney Thorson advised that the density bonuses for a Iow-income project would be one and a half time the maximum allowable density; that a Iow-income project would have to complete an environmental review, zoning, etc.; and that denial of such a project would require a higher standard and more detailed findings. R:\Minutes\121200 16 MOTION: C~)uncilman Roberts moved to adopt the resolution approving the project. The motion was seconded by Mayor Pro Tern Comerchero and roll call vote reflected approval as follows: RESOLUTION NO. 2000-81 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 99- 0317 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN), THE TEMECULA RIDGE APARTMENT PROJECT REDESIGNED TO 220 UNITS, TWO AND THREE STORY APARTMENT COMPLEX WITH POOL, CLUBHOUSE, WORKOUT BUILDING AND TOT LOT ON 20.88 NET ACRES, LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD SOUTHEAST OF THE INTERSECTION OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AND MORAGA ROAD, AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 944-290-011, AND ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION RELATED THERETO. AYES: Comerchero, Roberts, Stone NOES: Naggar, Pratt CITY MANAGER'S REPORT No comments. CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT City Attorney Thorson advised that in Closed Session, the City Council gave direction with respect to each of those matters; that there were no actions to report under the Brown Act; and that the real property matter would be forwarded to the City Council for formal approval. In order for the City Council to continue its Closed Session discussion, Mr. Thorson recommended that this meeting be adjourned to Friday, December 12, 2000, at 6:00 P.M. R:\Minutes\121200 17 ADJOURNMENT At 12:10 A.M. on Wednesday, December 13, 2000, the City Council meeting was formally adjourned to Friday, December 15, 2000, for the purpose of continuing discussion of the Closed Session items as noted on the December 12,2000, City Council Agenda, at 6:00 P.M., in the Main Conference Room, at City Hall, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. ~-~ 0J~ff,.~y E. Sto'"~, Mayor R:\Minutes\121200 18