HomeMy WebLinkAbout101800 PC Agenda In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this
meeting, please contact the office of the City Clerk(909)694-6444. Notification 48 hours prior to a meeting will
enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to that meeting (28 CFR
35.102.35.104 ADA Title II]
AGENDA
TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION
A REGULAR MEETING
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
43200 BUSINESS PARK DRIVE
OCTOBER 18, 2000—6:00 P.M.
Next in Order:
Resolution: No. 2000-037
CALL TO ORDER:
Flag Salute: Commissioner Guerriero
Roll Call: Chiniaeff, Mathewson, Telesio, Webster, and Chairman Guerriero
PUBLIC COMMENTS
A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public may address the Commission
on items that are listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes each.
If you desire to speak to the Commission about an item not on the Agenda, a pink
"Request to Speak"form should be filled out and filed with the Commission Secretary.
When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name for the record.
For all other agenda items a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the
Commission Secretary prior to the Commission addressing that item. There is a three
(3) minute time limit for individual speakers.
CONSENT CALENDAR
NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC
All matters listed under Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and all will
be enacted by one roll call vote. There will be no discussion of these items unless
Members of the Planning Commission request specific items be removed from the
Consent Calendar for separate action.
R:\PLANCOMM\Agendas\2000\10-18-OO.doc
I
1 Agenda
RECOMMENDATION:
1.1 Approve the Agenda of October 18, 2000.
2 Director's Hearing Update
RECOMMENDATION:
2.1 Receive and file.
COMMISSION BUSINESS
3 Workshop
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
Any person may submit written comments to the Planning Commission before a public
hearing or may appear and be heard in support of or in opposition to the approval of
the project(s) at the time of hearing. If you challenge any of the projects in court, you
may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public
hearing or in written correspondences delivered to the Commission Secretary at, or
prior to, the public hearing.
4 Planning Application No 98-0481 (Wolf Creek Specific Plan No. 12)w No. 98-0484 (Wolf
Creek General Plan Amendment)• and No 00-0052 (Wolf Creek Tentative Tract Map No.
29305) on parcels totaling 557 acres located on the east side of Pala Road between Loma
Linda Road and Fairview Avenue— Carole Donahoe
4.1 Adopt a resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000-34
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY
COUNCIL DENY THE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FOR
WOLF CREEK (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA98-0484),
AND DENY THE WOLF CREEK SPECIFIC PLAN (PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. 98-0481) ON PROPERTY TOTALING 557
ACRES LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF PALA ROAD,
BETWEEN LOMA LINDA ROAD AND FAIRVIEW AVENUE,
AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NOS. 950-110-002, -
005, -033 AND 950-180-001, -005, -006 AND —010; FOR AND
UPON THE FACTS AND EVIDENCE SET FORTH HEREIN.
RAP LANCOMM\Agendas\2000\10-18-00.doc
2
4.2 Adopt a resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000-035
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA00-0052 (TENTATIVE
TRACT MAP NO. 29305) TO SUBDIVIDE 557 ACRES INTO 47
PARCELS WHICH CONFORM TO THE PLANNING AREAS,
OPEN SPACE AREAS, SCHOOL AND PARK SITES OF THE
WOLF CREEK SPECIFIC PLAN, LOCATED ON THE EAST
SIDE OF PALA ROAD, BETWEEN LOM ALINDA ROAD AND
FAIRVIEW AVENUE, AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL
NOS. 950-110-002, -005, -033 AND 950-180-001, -005, -006
AND—010.
4.3 Adopt a resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000-036
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING AGAINST THE CITY
COUNCIL'S CERTIFICATION OF THE PROPOSED FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT.
COMMISSIONER'S REPORTS
PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT
ADJOURNMENT
Next regular meeting: November 1, 2000, Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
RAPLANCOMM\Agendas\2000\10-18-OO.doc
3
ITEM #2
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillilillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillI
CITY OF TEMECULA
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PLANNING DIVISION
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Debbie Ubnoske, Planning Director
DATE: October 18, 2000
SUBJECT: Director's Hearing Case Update
Planning Director's Agenda items for September, 2000
Date Case No. Proposal Applicant Action
Sept. 7, 2000 PA00-0154 Tentative Parcel Map request Woodbridge Continued to
to subdivide 6.12 acres into Development October 26,
four (4) residential lots in an 2000
area zoned Low Density
Residential (L-1)
Sept. 7, 2000 PA00-0227 Request to build four different Howard Roberts Approved
two-story single family homes Development
with three variations of each Co.
on twenty-four (24)
residential lots.
Sept. 28, 2000 PA00-0296 The reconfiguration of a Kearney Real Approved
portion of Tentative Parcel Estate Co.
Map No. 28657, combining
five (5) parcels into one (1)
lot.
Attachments:
1. Action Agendas - Blue Page 2
RADIRHEAR\MEM0\2000\September 2000.memo.doc
1
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
ACTION AGENDAS
UDIRHEAR\MEM0\2000\September 2000.memo.doe
2
ACTION AGENDA
TEMECULA DIRECTOR'S HEARING
REGULAR MEETING
SEPTEMBER 7, 2000 1:30 PM
TEMECULA CITY HALL MAIN CONFERENCE ROOM
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
CALL TO ORDER: David Hogan, Senior Planner
PUBLIC COMMENTS
A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address to the Planning Manager on
items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes each. If you
desire to speak to the Senior Planner about an item not listed on the Agenda, a pink "Request to
Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the Senior Planner.
When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name and address.
For all other agenda items a "Request to Speak"form must be filed with the Senior Planner before
that item is heard. There is a three (3) minute time limit for individual speakers.
1. Case No: Planning Application No. PA00-0154
Case Name: Tentative Parcel Map Woodbridge Development
Applicant: John Svalbe, Woodbridge Development
27285 Las Ramblas, Ste 230, Mission Viejo, CA 92691
Location: Located on the north side of Santiago Road between Margarita Road
and John Warner Road (Assessor's Parcel Numbers 945-100-002)
Proposal: PA00-0154 is a Tentative Parcel Map request to subdivide 6.12 acres
into four(4) residential lots in an area zoned Low Density Residential
(L-1).
Environmental Action: Exempt per CEQA Sec. 15315 (Minor Land Divisions— Four or fewer
lots.)
Case Planner: Thomas Thornsley
Recommendation: Approval
ACTION: CONTINUED TO OCTOBER 26, 2000
2. Case No: Planning Application No. PA00-0227
Case Name: Product Review for Award Series Tract
Applicant: Mr. James Didion, Howard Roberts Development Co.
17250 Orange Tree Lane #C, Redlands, CA 92374
Location: Located on the south side of Via La Vida between Margarita Road and
Solana Way (Assessor's Parcel Numbers 921-660-026 through 921-
660-037)
Proposal: PA00-0227 is a request to build four different two-story single family
homes with three variations of each on twenty-four (24) residential
lots.
Environmental Action: Exempt per CEQA Sec. 15162 (Subsequent EIR's and Negative
Declarations). This project is in compliance with the Mitigated
Negative Declaration for PA98-0447 which anticipated the
development of these homes at the time of the tract map's approval.
Case Planner: Thomas Thornsley
Recommendation: Approval
ACTION: APPROVED
P:\PLANNING\DIRHEAR\200ON9-7-OO.AGENDA.doe
I
ACTION AGENDA
TEMECULA DIRECTOR'S HEARING
REGULAR MEETING
SEPTEMBER 28, 2000 1:30 PM
TEMECULA CITY HALL MAIN CONFERENCE ROOM
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
CALL TO ORDER: Debbie Ubnoske, Director of Planning
PUBLIC COMMENTS
A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address to the Planning
Manager on items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3)
minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Senior Planner about an item not listed on the
Agenda, a pink "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the Senior
Planner.
When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name and address.
For all other agenda items a "Request to Speak"form must be filed with the Senior Planner
before that item is heard. There is a three (3) minute time limit for individual speakers.
1. Project Information:
Case No: Planning Application No.00-0296 (Tentative Parcel Map No.
29895)
Case Name: Scott's Manufacturing Co.
Applicant: Kearny Real Estate Company
Location: Southeast corner of the extension of Winchester Road and the
extension of Dendy Parkway
Proposal: The reconfiguration of a portion of Tentative Parcel Map No. 28657,
combining five (5) parcels into one (1) lot
Environmental Action: Reaffirmation of a Mitigated Negative Declaration previously adopted
Case Planner: Carole K. Donahoe, AICP, Associate Planner
Case Engineer: John Pourkazemi, Associate Engineer
Recommendation: Approval
ACTION: APPROVED
P:\PLANNING\DIRHEAR\2000\9-28-GO.AGENDA.doc
1
ITEM #3
PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP
(Materials available on night of meeting)
RADEBBIE\PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP.October 18,2000.doc
11
ITEM #4
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
RESOLUTION NO. 00-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL
DENY THE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FOR WOLF CREEK
(PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA98-0484), AND DENY THE
WOLF CREEK SPECIFIC PLAN (PLANNING APPLICATION NO.
98-0481) ON PROPERTY TOTALING 557 ACRES LOCATED ON
THE EAST SIDE OF PALA ROAD, BETWEEN LOMA LINDA
ROAD AND FAIRVIEW AVENUE, AND KNOWN AS
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NOS. 950-110-002, -005, -033 AND 950-
180-001, -005, -006 AND-010; FOR AND UPON THE FACTS AND
EVIDENCE SET FORTH HEREIN.
WHEREAS, SP Murdy, LLC filed Planning Application Nos. PA98-0481, -0482 and -0484
(the "Application"), in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan, Development
Code, CEQA Guidelines and California State CEQA Guidelines;
WHEREAS,the Application was processed including, but not limited to public notice, in the
time and manner prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the Application on September 6, 2000,
September 20, 2000, and October 4, 2000, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law,at
which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in
support or opposition to this matter;
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing and after due consideration of the
testimony both oral and written, the Commission recommended the City Council deny,collectively,
the Application, Certification of the EIR and Adoption of the Mitigation Monitoring Program on the
basis of the facts and evidence set forth below; and
WHEREAS, all legal preconditions to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby incorporated by
reference.
Section 2. Findings. That the Planning Commission, in recommending denial of the
Application, hereby makes the following findings as required in Section 16.09.140 of the Temecula
Municipal Code:
A. The project as proposed and conditioned is not compatible with the health, safety
and welfare of the community. The project has been reviewed by agencies and staff and
determined to be in conformance, in part,with the City's General Plan, Development Code, Design
Guidelines and Growth Management Program Action Plan. These documents set policies and
standards that protect the health, safety and welfare of the community. The overall concept and
general development proposal is of high quality. The proposal has the potential of providing an
enhancement to the quality of life for the City as a result of the proposed amenities and the
foreseeable quality of design and improvements within the development. However, the specific
C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\WOLF CREEK-ATTACH 1 RESOLUTION.DOC
1
plan (PA-98-0481) does not adequately address certain factors in relation to the General Plan,
Development Code, Design Guidelines and Growth Management Action Plan. This Commission
has determined, after deliberation upon the testimony, and has identified the following matters
which it believes are not adequately addressed. This Planning Commission finds all matters not
addressed in the following to be compatible with the regulatory documents of the City and finds that
such matters will not be detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of the community. The areas
within the proposed specific plan that require either clarification or augmentation, or both, are:
1. Zoning based Development Standards. The property development
standards
set forth in Specific Plan No. 12 are not consistent with the adopted City Development Code and
Design Guidelines. The Specific Plan proposes residential lot sizes below those authorized by the
Development Code. The Planning Commission has reviewed the standards and understands the
Applicants desire to offer a wide range of housing options. However, this Commission has not
received testimony that it believes warrants a deviation from the City's current development
standards. The City's development standards reflect the implementation of the mandates in the
General Plan and should not be deviated from unless the alternate proposal substantially conforms
to the goals and policies in the General Plan, provides first class design attributes and assists the
community in achieving satisfaction of the intent of the Development Code. This Planning
Commission is aware of and has balanced the following policies within the City's General Plan for
Land Use in reaching its conclusion that the project should not be approved.
Policy 1.1 of Goal 1 of Section III of the Land Use Element in the General Plan
requires this Commission to "review all proposed development plans for consistency with the
community goals, policies and implementation programs of this General Plan;"
Policy 1.2 identifies the policy to "Promote the use of innovative site planning
techniques that contribute towards the development of a variety of residential product styles and
designs including housing suitable to the community's labor force"; and,
Policy 3.1 "consider the compatibility of proposed projects on surrounding uses in
terms of the size and configuration of buildings, use of materials and landscaping, preservation of
existing vegetation and landform, the location of access routes, noise impacts, traffic impacts, and
other environmental conditions." The development proposal does not offer project amenities and
innovative site planning techniques and certainty of design so as to justify deviation from the City's
existing standards.
Further this Commission believes the overall development presents an overabundance of
medium density residential development and an inadequate amount of Low-medium housing
densities, thus failing to satisfy the goals inherent in Land Use Policy 1.2.
In summary, the Planning Commission recommends utilizing the existing 7,200 square foot
lot size with a maximum thirty-five (35) percent lot coverage standard based upon the testimony.
2. Design and Development Guidelines. The Design Guidelines set forth in
Specific Plan No. 12 present a valuable starting point but are inadequate. The inadequacy is the
lack of detailed goals and policies that will direct those future persons developing the various tracts
within Specific Plan No. 12. The deficiencies in the Guidelines are:
CAWINDOWS\TEMP\WOLF CREEK-ATTACH 1 RESOLUTION.DOC
2
A. Identify standards allowing for narrower public streets (revise street
sections);
B. Develop criteria for locating sidewalks both at back of curb and
behind a landscaped right-of-way area and identify Homeowners Association maintenance
alternative;
C. Develop architectural guidelines that:
1. Provide for enhanced definition of architectural
criteria to assure diversity rather than uniformity in housing type, including a mix of one and two
story housing, and comprehensive "architecture forward" design criteria and a variety of alternate
garage configurations;
2. Provide for and define alternate roofing styles and materials,
siding materials and treatments, front porches, and alternate construction materials and
technologies;
3. Provide detailed landscape and architectural standards for any
parcel under five thousand (5000) square feet.
3. Land-Use. The land use matrix for the Neighborhood Commercial and
Community Commercial zoning districts shall be modified as set forth on Attachment 1.
4. Village Center. The City of Temecula General Plan identifies and
encourages the creation of Village Centers. Village Centers are discussed within Goal 5 of Section
3 and within Section B of Part IV of the Land Use Element of the General Plan. The Village Center
proposed in Specific Plan No. 12 represents a valuable starting point for the ultimate design of a
Village Center that conforms to the General Plan. However, this Commission cannot recommend
approval until refinements are made to the proposed development. The necessary refinements are
consistent with the following General Plan policy statements:
5.2 'Require the provision of pedestrian and bicycle linkages from
residential areas to open space/recreation facilities, commercial and employment centers." The
proposed Village Center, as configured is not conducive to pedestrian and bicycle usage. The
Applicant should consider a redesign that integrates higher density(medium density)residential in
the area between Pala Road and the loop road together with low-medium density residential
development adjacent thereto. An emphasis on maintaining a reasonable distance from residential
areas to the Village Center must be integrated into the specific plan land use distribution so as to
encourage non-vehicular travel.
5.6 "Encourage higher density residential, mixed use development, and
supporting public and community facilities within Village Centers." The Applicant should reconsider
the proposed density and mixture of uses in light of the foregoing policy. A greater mixture of uses
should be considered so as to provide incentive for the residents to utilize the Village Center for
service and commercial needs.
5.7 "Establish design guidelines, development standards, and incentive
programs for uses within Village Centers." The Specific Plan No. 12 standards must either conform
to the Development Code or alternatively, present a more thorough and detailed set of
development code and architectural design standards. The present plan is without sufficient detail
so as to provide reliable guidance to future users of the Specific Plan.
C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\WOLF CREEK-ATTACH l RESOLUTION.DOC
3
5.10 "Ensure that adequate public gathering areas or plazas are
incorporated within Village Centers to allow for social interaction and community activities." The
proposed plan does not demonstrate the presence of adequate public assembly areas.
B. The project is not compatible with surrounding land uses because of the deficiencies
identified in Section A above. The project does propose, generally, residential development
adjacent to existing, surrounding neighborhoods with interface buffers and substantial to complete
roadway improvements. The commercial component does attempt to implement the Village Center
concept at a site located across from the Pechanga Casino.
C. The proposed project will have an adverse effect on the community because of the
areas of inconsistency with the General Plan identified in Section A above. The General Plan
Amendment is a relocation and reallocation of existing land use designations that conforms to the
design of the specific plan. In light of the identified need to augment the Specific Plan, no General
Plan Amendment should occur unless and until Specific Plan No. 12 is revised consistent with
these recommendations.
Section 3. Environmental Compliance. The City Council of the City of Temecula must
approve and adopt the Final Environmental Impact Report and Mitigation Monitoring Program for
the Wolf Creek Specific Plan in order to approve the Application. On the basis of the foregoing
recommended revisions to the plan this Commission cannot recommend current action on the Final
EIR.
Section 4. Recommendation and Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning
Commission hereby recommends denial of the Application, to develop 557 acres of land with a
mixed use specific plan known as the Wolf Creek Specific Plan No. 12, certification of the Final
Environmental Impact Report and adoption of the Mitigation Monitoring Program, on property
located on the east side of Pala Road, between Loma Linda and Fairview Avenue, and known as
Assessor's Parcel Nos. 950-110-002, -005, -033 and 950-180-001, -005, -006 and —010 for the
reasons set forth in this Resolution. In the event the City Council determines that the Application
should be approved in substantially the form as presented this Commission recommends the City
Council impose the conditions of approval attached hereto.
Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 18th day of October, 2000.
Ron Guerriero, Chairperson
HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning
Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 18th day of October,
2000 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
CAWINDOWS\TEMP\WOLF CREEK-ATTACH I RESOLOTION.DOC
4
PC RESOLUTION NO. 00-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING AGAINST
THE CITY COUNCIL'S CERTIFICATION OF THE
PROPOSED FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PREPARED FOR THE WOLF CREEK SPECIFIC PLAN.
WHEREAS, in conjunction with Planning Applications Nos. PA 98-0481, -0482
and -0484, as filed by SP Murdy LLC, an Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") was
prepared in the manner required by law;
WHEREAS, the EIR was prepared and has been reviewed by the public and the
Temecula Planning Commission at a Public Hearing that was commenced and continued
from September 6, 2000 to September 20, 2000 to October 4, 2000.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the EIR together with all
associated findings, determinations and conclusions required by Sections 15091 and
15093 of the State CEQA Guidelines, as set forth in the draft Resolution attached hereto
as Attachment 1;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has determined that certain augmentation
of the EIR should occur and accordingly has concluded to recommend that the City
Council not certify the EIR because of this need for augmentation, clarification or further
analysis of certain facts or analysis;
WHEREAS, all legal preconditions to the adoption of this Resolution have
occurred;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby
incorporated by reference.
Section 2. The EIR requires review, clarification and, as necessary,
augmentation in the following subject matter areas:
a. Traffic and circulation. The base traffic data utilized in the Traffic
Impact Analysis should be examined and confirmed as being
accurate and reliable.
b. The interim roadway improvements should be confirmed as being
11086\0006\629772 1
adequate measures to respond to Project-related and cumulative
impacts.
C. The traffic impact at the junction of Interstate 15 and Highway
79 South should be reevaluated to ensure the proposed mitigation
measures and derivative conditions of approval are appropriate.
d. All required mitigation measures arising under the City of
Temecula General Plan should be incorporated as mitigation
measures with corresponding conditions of approval to implement
the same. Examples include inclusion of the Energy Star/Edison
Comfort Wise Programs; inclusion of solar roof panels;
compliance with the requirement to seek maximum energy/utility
efficiencies, not the minimum that may be authorized by Title 24
of the California Code of Regulations; air quality enhancement
measures and all other applicable mitigation measures. The
Mitigation Monitoring Program in the EIR should be revised to
include all such measures with corresponding requirements to
impose the mitigation measures by conditions of approval.
e. Augment the Mitigation Measures and Mitigation Monitoring
Program to include:
1. Coordination with the Metropolitan Water District's tie-in
of the San Diego Pipeline No. 6 in Fairview Road;
2. The developer(s) shall install landscaping and irrigation
devices that conform to the California Model Water
Conservation Ordinance;
3. Sound attenuation measures as required to satisfy the
General Plan and City ordinances.
f The Cumulative Impacts analysis in the EIR be evaluated to
(i) ensure the base data utilized is accurate; (ii) ensure inclusion of
an Energy/Utility component; and (iii) to ensure the traffic data
and analysis is accurate.
11086\0006\629772 2
Section 3. PASSED,APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 18th day of
October, 2000.
Ron Guerriero, Chairperson
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning
Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 18th day of
October, 2000 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
11086\0006\629772 3
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
PC RESOLUTION NO. 00-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. PA00-0052 (TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO.
29305) TO SUBDIVIDE 557 ACRES INTO 47 PARCELS WHICH
CONFORM TO THE PLANNING AREAS, OPEN SPACE AREAS,
SCHOOL AND PARK SITES OF THE WOLF CREEK SPECIFIC
PLAN, LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF PALA ROAD,
BETWEEN LOMA LINDA ROAD AND FAIRVIEW AVENUE, AND
KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NOS.950-110-002,-005,-033
AND 950-180-001, -005, -006 AND —010.
WHEREAS, SP Murdy, LLC filed Planning Application No. PA00-0052(the"Application")in
a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan, Development Code and Subdivision
Ordinance;
WHEREAS, the Application was processed including, but not limited to public notice, in the
time and manner prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, at a regular meeting, considered the Application on
September 6, 2000, September 20, 2000, and October 4, 2000, at a duly noticed public hearing as
prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and
did, testify either in support or opposition to this matter;
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing and after due consideration of the
testimony, the Commission recommended denial of the Application subject to and based upon the
findings set forth hereunder;
WHEREAS, all legal preconditions to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby incorporated
by reference.
Section 2. Findings. That the Temecula Planning Commission, in recommending denial
of the Application, hereby recommends the following findings as required in Section 16.09.140 of
the Temecula Municipal Code.
A. The proposed subdivision and the design and improvements of the subdivision is
inconsistent with the Development Code, General Plan, any applicable specific plan and the City of
Temecula Municipal Code for the following reasons:
1. The Planning Commission has recommended against the adoption of
Specific Plan No. 12, as presented. Accordingly, the proposed subdivision map, which was
designed to be consistent with the subject specific plan and related General Plan Amendment, is
inconsistent with the current General Plan land use designations. In the event the City Council
adopts the General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan No. 12 in a form substantially consistent
with the Applicants
C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\WOLF CREEK ATTACH 2 RESO.DOC
1
submittal, then the following new or revised conditions of approval should be imposed by the City
Council:
a. The designation of the category of street improvement for Pala Road
must be resolved. This Commission recommends Pala Road be improved as an Urban Arterial
from State Route 79 South to Fairview Road.
b. The maximum length of cul-de-sac streets should not exceed 600 feet
in length on the subject map and all subsequent subdivision maps.
C. A provision for payment of the Applicant's fair share of the costs for
sound attenuation measures adjacent to Pala Road should be included as a condition of approval.
B. The tentative map does not propose to divide land which is subject to a contract
entered into pursuant to the California Land Conservation Act of 1965, or the land is subject to a
Land Conservation Act contract but the resulting parcels following division of the land will not be too
small to sustain their agricultural use;
C. The site is physically suitable for the type and proposed density of development
proposed by the tentative map as proposed by the Applicant;
D. The design of the proposed subdivision and the proposed improvements, with
appropriate conditions of approval, is not likely to cause significant environmental damage or
substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. There are no known fish,wildlife or
habitat on the project site, and the project will not affect any fish,wildlife or habitat off-site. The site
is surrounded by development and is an infill site;
E. An environmental impact report has been prepared and must be certified and
considered prior to action on the Application;
F. The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements are not likely to cause
serious public health problems;
G. The design of the subdivision provides for future passive or natural heating or
cooling opportunities in the subdivision to the extent feasible;
H. The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements will not conflict with
easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the
proposed subdivision, or the design of the alternate easements which are substantially equivalent
to those previously acquired by the public will be provided.
I. The subdivision is consistent with the City's parkland dedication requirements
(Quimby).
Section 3. Environmental Compliance. The City Council of the City of Temecula must
approve and adopt the Final Environmental Impact Report and Mitigation Monitoring Program for
the Wolf Creek Specific Plan in order to approve the Application.
C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\WOLF CREEK ATTACH 2 RESO.DOC
2
Section 4. Conditions. The City of Temecula Planning Commission recommends denial of
the Application (Tentative Tract Map No. 29305) for the subdivision of a 557 acre parcel for all of
the foregoing reasons. In the event the City Council determines the Application should be
approved then the approval should be subject to the project specific conditions set forth on Exhibit
A, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference together with any and all other
necessary conditions that may be deemed necessary.
Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 18th day of October, 2000.
Ron Guerriero, Chairperson
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning Commission
of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 18th day of October, 2000 by the
following vote of the Commission:
AYES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\WOLF CREEK ATTACH 2 RESO.DOC
3
PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP
OCTOBER 18, 2000
AGENDA
1. Planning Commission's role according to State Law
A. Planning Commission — 8 step approach
B. The 12 Planning Commission pitfalls
C. How to make tough decisions
2. Responsibilities the City Council has delegated
A. Finding of Public Convenience or Necessity
B. Compliance with Growth Management Action Plan
3. Ex parte communications
4. Who answers what questions
5. Results of Questionnaire
6. Topics for future Workshops
7. Appendix
A. Enhancing your Commission's Productivity
B. Who Do You Work For?
C. Homogeneous Commissioners in Heterogeneous
Communities
D. Building a Better Commission
R:\DEBBIE\PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP.October 18,2000.doc
Planning Commission's Role
According to State Law
RADEBBIEPLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP.Oc[ober 18,2000.doc
2
2.40.010
Chapter 2.40 2.40.040 Applications.
The city clerk shall maintain all applications
CITY COMMISSIONS GENERALLY submitted to the city for commission positions for
a period of two years. (Ord. 90-02 § 1 (2.06.040))
Sections:
2.40.010 Commission established. 2.40.050 Members—Appointment and
2.40.020 Number of members. removal.
2.40.030 Qualifications. Members of each commission shall be nominated
2.40.040 Applications. by an ad hoc committee of two council members
2.40.050 Members—Appointment and subject to the approval of a four-fifths majority of
removal. the city council. A majority of the council may
2.40.060 Term. remove an appointee for good cause. The chairper-
2.40.070 Vacancies. son and vice-chairperson of each commission shall
2.40.080 Meetings/quorum. be selected by a majority of the membership of that
2.40.090 Absence from meetings. commission. (Ord. 90-02 § 1 (2.06.050))
2.40.100 Compensation.
2.40.060 Term.
2.40.010 Commission established. The term of each commission member shall be
There shall be established within the city a plan- three years with staggered terms. Initially, all five
ning commission. For purposes of state planning members may be selected at once. In order to
law, the planning commission shall serve as the achieve staggered terms, one member shall be ap-
planning agency, unless another official or body is pointed for a term of three years; two for terms of
specifically designated to perform that function or two years; and two for terns of one year; such
make a particular decision as provided by ordinance terms to be determined by drawing lots. At the
of the city. Division of land use decisionmaking completion of any term,a commission member may
authority shall be as set forth in Ordinance No. 92- be reappointed pursuant to the procedures set forth
14.The city council may establish by ordinance and in Section 2.40.050. (Ord. 90-02 § 1 (2.06.060))
resolution such other commissions as it deems nec-
essary.(Ord.93-04§ 10:Ord.90-02§ 1 (2.06.010)) 2.40.070 Vacancies.
If vacancies in any commission occur, other than
2.40.020 Number of members. by expiration of tern, such vacancies shall be filled
Unless otherwise specifically provided, each by appointment for the unexpired portion of the
commission shall consist of five members.(Ord.90- term. (Ord. 90-02 § 1 (2.06.070))
02 § 1 (2.06.010))
2.40.080 Meetings/quorum.
2.40.030 Qualifications. The city council shall establish meeting schedules
Unless otherwise specifically provided by law,or for each commission by resolution. A quorum of
by ordinance or resolution of the city council, all three shall be required for the transaction of any
members of commissions of the city shall, at all business. (Ord. 90-02 § 1 (2.40.080))
times during their incumbencies, be bona fide resi-
dents and registered voters of the city. No member 2.40.090 Absence from meetings.
of any commission shall be a city employee, nor Should any commission member be absent from
shall any person be a member of more than one any three consecutive meetings of the commission,
commission at any one time. (Ord. 96-08 § 2: Ord. without excuse acceptable to the city council, that
90-02 § 1 (2.06.030))
27 (r�Ia 5-99)
THE 8 STEP APPROACH
1. Prepare, prepare, prepare. Study the entire packet
thoroughly.
2. Review the agenda to get an idea of the number of items,
controversial issues, difficult procedural items, and issues
you know little about.
3. As you go through the packet, focus on unusual items and
try to identify the three to five most important items
requiring the most preparation.
4. Start a list of questions for staff such as, is this meeting a
hot one, are there volatile items, what happens if. . ., what
is the history if this item, and what is staffs perspective on
this item. These questions should be delivered to staff
before the meeting!
5. Study individual agenda items.
6. Visit the site(s) or facility you will be discussing.
7. Go Over the agenda in a practice session, handling each
item as you will at the meeting.
8. Think TEAM WORK, and keep your comments brief.
RADEBBIETC workshop October 18.doc
THE TWELVE COMMISSION PITFALLS
L Intertia: Failing to accomplish tasks.
2. Politically Reactive: Submitting to undue elected official
pressure.
3. Factionalism: Permitting cliques to form, and always
voting with your friends.
4. Staff Clashed: Failing to work with and/or utilize staff
and their expertise.
5. Attacking Staff: If you have a problem, work it out before
the meeting. No surprises.
6. Member Dominance: Abrogating control to one person
or subgroup.
7. Destructive Conflict: Failing to manager conflict.
8. Unequal Participation: Failing to involve all members
and tap group potential.
9. Special Interest Dominance: Falling under the sway of
powerful groups.
10. Loss of Interest: Becoming bored or disinterested.
Speaking even when you have nothing to say. Why are
you here?
11. Staff Dominance: Rubber stamping staff proposals.
12. Aloofness: Becoming alienated with or disrespectful of
the public/Grandstanding.
RADEBBIETC workshop October 18.doc
2
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiillillillillillim-
MAKING TOUCH DECISIONS
Ask yourself:
1. Are there ethical issues involved?
2. Is it permitted/prohibited by law?
3. Is it a matter of public safety?
4. Is it within the commission's power to decide?
5. Can I live with my decision?
6. Who might be hurt by my action? Who might benefit?
7. Am I reacting politically?
8. Do I have a conflict of interest in this matter?
9. Do I have enough information to make a decision?
10. Is the proposed action consistent with my city's general
plan?
11. What past practices relate to this issue?
12. If I am hesitating — Why?
RADEBBIETC workshop October 18.doc
3
Responsibilities the City Council has
Delegated
RADEBBIE\PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP.Oc[ober I8,2000.doc
3
Public Convenience or Necessity
RADEBBIE\PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP.October 18,2000.doc
8
Teen ,
Alcohol
Prevention
Project July 10, 1995
A Program of the
North Bay Health
Resources Center
City Council
City of Petaluma
11 English Street
Petaluma, CA 94952
Re: Implementation of new Bus. & Prof. Code section 23958.4,
regarding undue concentration of liquor licenses
Dear Madam Mayor and Members of the City Council:
The Teen Alcohol Prevention Project is pleased that the City Council will
be establishing a process for making determinations of public convenience or necessity for
new liquor licenses in areas of Petaluma that already have an undue concentration of such
licenses, as defined in the new statute. We anticipate that many people in the community
will wish to have input into the procedures and the criteria that the City Council
establishes to carry out this task, and we expect that the final product will be all the better
because of the this public input. In undertaking this project we expect that the City
Council will discover that it is navigating largely in uncharted territory. For this reason,
and to provide a concrete proposal that can be the subject of comment by interested
parties, we offer below a proposed framework for implementation of the new statute in
our community.
Underlying this framework are four basic principles which we believe
should guide the decision-making process for any new alcohol outlet in an unduly
concentrated area. They are:
1. The City must determine that a proposed alcohol outlet will not contribute to
public health and safety problems associated with increased alcohol availability;
2. The City must determine that a proposed outlet will not contribute to public
health and safety problems associated with increased alcohol outlet density;
❑ 55 Maria Drive, Ste. 837 ❑ P.O. Box 3524 ❑ P.O. Box 1314 ❑ 776 South State St.
Petaluma, CA 94954 Napa, CA 94558 Lower Lake, CA 95457 Suite 102-A
(707) 762-4591 (707) 259-1409 (707) 263-8162 Ukiah, CA 95482
FAX (707)762-5814 FAX (707)259-1409 (707) 994-6494 (707) 468-3472
FAY 17071 9AI_0 19
3. The City must determine that alcohol sales are a necessary component of the
proposed alcohol outlet; and
4. The City must determine that the proposed outlet will create concrete social
and economic development benefits to the community.
With respect to both on-sale and off-sale licenses, the process adopted by the City
for making determinations of public convenience or necessity should contain timelines so
that it is not so protracted as to be burdensome to applicants, but not so expedited as to
preclude meaningful review and comment by all relevant City departments and by the
public.
A. ON-SALE LIQUOR LICENSES
1) Initial Screening To Confirm Existence Of Undue Concentration.
As you know, Bus. & Prof. Code section 23958.4 defines"undue
concentration' in terms of census tracts and numbers of existing licenses. For purposes of
determining undue concentration of on-sale licenses, existing restaurant licenses are
counted. We realize that when applied to a city of the size and character of Petaluma, the
arbitrariness of census tract lines and the inclusion of restaurant licenses may in some
instances produce findings of undue concentration that are not warranted by actual
conditions. In order not to place unnecessary burdens on applicants seeking liquor
licenses in areas that clearly do not have undue concentration problems -- even though
they might be considered unduly concentrated under state law --we propose an initial
screening of applications, as follows.
When an application for a new on-sale license is received, and it is
determined that it is located in a census tract considered unduly concentrated under the
new statute, then a simple screening test would be administered. The screen would be
whether the proposed business is within 1300 feet of two or more existing on-sale
licenses, not counting beer/wine restaurant licenses. We understand that this is a
substantial distance, but the purpose of the screen is to exempt from more detailed
scrutiny only those applications which clearly do not present any real problem of undue
concentration. And 1300 feet is an appropriate distance to use because experience in this
town demonstrates that patrons will walk that far between bars that are part of a drinking
"scene." In particular, 1300 feet is the approximate distance from Holidaze to the old
Kickers; when Kickers was in operation, there was substantial foot traffic between it and
the major downtown bars,of which Holidaze is the closest.
If a proposed license is not within 1300 feet of two or more existing non-
restaurant on-sale licenses, the City could then make a finding of public convenience or
necessity without any need to engage in the more detailed analysis discussed below. The
only exception to being able to skip further analysis would be if the Police Department, in
its own discretion, determined that the proposed license posed a significant risk of
2
generating increased police calls; in that case, the more detailed analysis would be
performed.
2) Analysis To Consider Whether Finding Of Public Convenience Or Necessity
Is Appropriate Despite Undue Concentration.
If the initial screening does not end the inquiry, then a more thorough
analysis should be undertaken before a determination is made as to whether the public
convenience or necessity would be served by the issuance of a new liquor license. We do
not believe that this analysis can be reduced to a single formula; in the end, each
application will no doubt involve a subjective weighing of many different factors.
However, it is possible to delineate what factors should and should not be taken into
account, and how they should be viewed. We offer the following thoughts on this subject:
a) An alcohol outlet at the location proposed should not contribute to increased law
enforcement problems. Of primary concern are the number of disturbances in, and the
amount of police resources devoted to, the area in which the new liquor outlet is
proposed. Consideration should be given to the level of calls for police service, incidents
and arrests in the area for infractions that are frequently alcohol related (e.g., disturbing
the peace, public intoxication, assault, vandalism, loitering). Consideration should also be
given to whether the amount of police resources devoted to the area during peak periods
is disproportionately high relative to other areas of Petaluma. This inquiry need not be
overly formal and should be based on whatever statistics and more qualitative information
are readily available to the Police Department. However, the inquiry should consider the
nature of the area over at least the past two or three years. Also, proposals submitted in
the near future, while the Police Department still has grant funds from the ABC to combat
alcohol related problems in town, should be considered in terms of what the situation will
look like after those grants end.
b) Claims that a new liquor license is necessary for a commercial entertainment business
to open should be examined carefully. We anticipate that some applicants will argue that
they should receive a liquor license because they will then provide a new, and possibly
different, form of commercial entertainment that would benefit the community. In such
cases the focus should be on whether an additional alcohol outlet would serve the public
convenience or necessity. Whether the opening of a proposed new business would serve
the public convenience or necessity is not the question to be addressed. Admittedly, these
two issues may sometimes be linked, but if the applicant wishes to link them, the applicant
should affirmatively demonstrate that a liquor license is necessary to the economic viability
of the overall business (i.e., the applicant should provide acceptable documentation that
potential customers of the proposed business would require that alcohol be sold in order
to patronize the business). This will presumably require, among other things, a showing
by the applicant that liquor sales are projected to be more than a nominal percentage of
revenues. However, this'is a two-edged sword: if liquor sales are projected to be a
substantial portion of revenues, then the proposed use looks more like a bar with an
ancillary entertainment use, and less like an entertainment business that happens to have a
3
liquor license. In any case, we would suggest that when an applicant premises its request
for a finding of public convenience or necessity on an entertainment business that it
proposes to provide, the applicant should be required to submit a business plan showing
projected liquor sales as a percentage of revenue so that these issues can be examined
carefully.
c) The applicant should demonstrate that the proposed business cannot practically locate
in an area of town that is less concentrated with alcohol outlets.
d) Proximity to residences should be considered. State regulations already prohibit new
liquor licenses within 100 feet of residential structures, even if the surrounding area is not
unduly concentrated. For proposed non-restaurant on-sale licenses in areas that are
unduly concentrated under both the new statute and the initial screen discussed above,
there should be a presumption that a finding of public convenience or necessity will not be
made if the site is within 200 feet of residences.
e) The applicant's personal qualities and character should not be considered relevant
because businesses are often sold and owner-to-owner transfers of liquor licenses are
routinely approved by the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control. (This is analogous
to, but distinct from, the concept of use permits "running with the land.")
f) The existence of a liquor license on the same premises at some point in the past should
be of no weight if the non-conforming use (or"grandfather") rights for the previous use
have expired.
B. OFF-SALE LIQUOR LICENSES
The analysis for off-sale liquor licenses should be different from the
analysis for on-sale licenses because the nature of the problems presented by undue
concentration of the two types of licenses is different. For instance, and unlike the
situation with on-sale licenses, the existence of several off-sale licenses within easy
walking distance of each other will not, in itself, create an alcohol "scene" that can cause
exceptional law enforcement problems. Thus, an initial screen, as we are proposing for
on-sale licenses, is probably not practical for off-sale licenses.
Nevertheless, we can offer some suggestions. Certain types of off-sale
licenses are likely to be more problematical than others. Thus, it is hard to imagine how a
finding of public convenience or necessity could be made for a gas station-mini mart
wishing to sell alcohol in an area considered unduly concentrated under the statute.
Conversely, a liquor license for a grocery store should generally be unobjectionable,
especially if it is not open late at night. Liquor stores and convenience stores fall
somewhere in between, and the question of whether findings of public convenience or
necessity should be made for them to obtain liquor licenses would turn in significant part
on the nature of the area in which they wish to locate.
4
This leads to an important point: the interaction of on-sale and off-sale
licenses should be considered in determining public convenience or necessity for proposed
off-sale licenses. Problems created by an undue concentration of on-sale licenses can be
severely exacerbated by off-sale outlets in the same area. Bar patrons in an area where
there is a party scene -- including those minors kept out of the bars by bouncers -- will
typically buy, or try to buy, liquor at off-sale stores to drink on the streets in the area.
Thus, in an area where the number of on-sale licenses is unduly concentrated -- under both
the new statute and the screening test proposed above -- it should be very difficult to
locate any new off-sale licenses.
Thank you for your consideration of these matters. We look forward to
working with staff and with other interested parties to assist you in implementing the new
statute. We also invite the organizations receiving copies of this letter to contact us and
provide us with their thoughts on the points discussed above.
Sincerely,
Barbara Graves
cc: Mr. Dennis DeWitt, Chief of Police
Mr. Jeff Harriman, Downtown Merchants
Mr. James McCann, Principal Planner
Ms. Onita Pelligrini, Chamber of Commerce
Mr. John Scharer, City Manager
Ms. Pamela Tuft, Planning Director
5
,t x'
DRAFT CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING
PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY
Criteria for Determining Whether an Alcohol Retail Premises Provides a Substantial
Benefit to the Community:
-- The proposed alcohol retail premises will contribute substantially to a comprehensive
economic development plan for the local jurisdiction; and
-- There are no alternative uses available which do not include alcohol and which would
provide substantially the same economic benefits; and
- The proposed alcohol retail premises [with the possible exception of bona fide
restaurants] will not duplicate existing services related to the sale of alcoholic beverages in
the immediate area, there are no premises of the same type that exist within [500-1,000]
feet of the proposed site, and the proposed premises will add to the diversity of retail
establishments;
-- With the addition of the proposed new premises, the percentage of physical retail space
devoted to the sale of alcohol will not exceed --% of the total physical retail space within
the development district where it is to be located;
-- The proposed premises cannot reasonably be located in a census tract that has not been
designated as having an overconcentration of alcohol retail establishments; and
-- If the proposed alcohol retail premises is located in a high crime reporting district as
defined in Business and Professions Code § 23958.4(a)(1), it cannot reasonably be located
in a crime reporting district not so designated.
Criteria for Establishing Whether a Proposed Alcohol Retail Premises Will Not Contribute
to Public Safety and Public Health Problems in the Immediate Vicinity and in the
Community as a Whole:
Criteria Applicable to Both On-Sale and Off-Sale Retail Premises:
-- adequate security measures are taken to reduce risk of crime and violence;
-- no person under the age of 21 is permitted to sell or serve alcoholic beverages, and all
staff are trained in Responsible Beverage Service practices;
5
-- such additional measures as deemed necessary by [the city or county planning commission,
police or sheriffs department] to insure that the premises does not encourage or tolerate
public nuisance problems, including but not limited to public drunkenness, loitering,
littering, drug dealing, harassment of passersby, drinking in public, gambling, and
excessive noise.
Criteria Applicable Specifically to Off-Sale Retail Premises:
-- shelving or other display area allocated to the display of alcoholic beverages shall not
exceed ten percent of the total shelf or display area within the premises;
-- quarterly gross sales of all alcoholic beverages shall not exceed 25% of quarterly gross
sales of all food products;
-- no beer, ale, or malt liquor is sold in containers with a volume greater than thirty-two
ounces, not including kegs or other types of containers with a volume of two or more
gallons which are clearly designed to dispense multiple servings,
-- no wine, wine cooler or distilled spirits is sold in containers smaller than 375 milliliters
unless in 4-pack containers;
-- no wine with an alcoholic content greater than fifteen percent volume shall be displayed,
sold or served unless the alcohol content is solely the result of a natural fermentation
process or the wine is sealed and capped by cork closure and aged for two or more years;
and
- consumption is prohibited on the premises and in the business parking lot.
Criteria Applicable Specifically to On-Sale Retail Premises
-- alcoholic beverages are sold for consumption on the premises only;
-- the primary purpose of the premises is sit-down dining with table service and take-out
food service, in any, is only incidental to the primary purpose as a sit-down dining
establishment;
-- the premises contains a fully equipped kitchen which is utilized each day of business
operation for preparation of meals to be served to patrons;
-- sixty-five percent of the quarterly gross sales is derived from sales of food products and
non-alcoholic beverages; and
-- no separate bar or cocktail lounge is located on the premises.
6
CITY OF VALLEJO
C DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
Planning Division
t -
555 SANTA CLARA STREET • P.O.BOX 3068 • VALLEJO • CALIFORNIA 94590-5934 (707)648-4326
FAX(707)552-0163
GUIDELINES FOR DETERMINING
"PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY"
Approved by the Planning Commission on October 16, 1995
The City finds that no single formula can be used to determine
public convenience or necessity; however, the Planning Commission
did unanimously agree that the subjective weighing of the answers
to the following questions (and any others that the Commission
may in the future determine to be appropriate) will assist in
making this determination:
1. How significant is the "undue concentration"?
In census tracts with only one or two excess licenses, it may be
easy to justify a need for one more; however, in areas with a
significant number of excess licenses, the City should not make
the requested finding.
2 . How close is the proposed site to a residential neighborhood?
If there is a significant "undue concentration" in close
proximity to a residential neighborhood, then the finding of
"public convenience or necessity" should not be made. However,
if the proposed site in a major commercial or industrial area, it
may be easier to justify the finding.
3. How close are the other alcohol outlets?
Are all of the outlets in close proximity or are they spread
throughout the census tract. In some areas, there are a large
number of businesses in close proximity. As a result, the impact
on the adjacent residential areas is greater than if the same
number of businesses were spread throughout the census tract. In
these instances, the finding should not be made.
4. Are there similar businesses already in the area?
Is this the first business of this type or are there several
similar businesses nearby. If the product is already available,
then it would be harder to justify "public need" .
S. Do similar businesses have a liquor license?
Would denial of the application give an unfair competitive
advantage to the other businesses in the area, and likely result in
the applicant's business failing?
The City recognizes that it would be possible for a business to
open and not ask for a liquor license - because of an existing
"undue concentration" - and then come in later and request "the
finding" based upon the other businesses having an unfair
competitive advantage. However, we do not have a solution for this
problem except to suggest that the businessman should have done his
homework prior to opening the business.
6. Is alcohol sales a normally part of the business?
A "dinner house" would normally sell alcohol; however, a gas
station or a breakfast cafe normally would not. The case of the
latter businesses it would seem to be harder to justify "public
necessity" .
7. What is the history of alcohol-related problems in this area?
Applications for liquor licenses in census tracts that have a
"higher than average crime rate" will be denied by the ABC unless
the City makes the finding of "public convenience or necessity" .
Likewise, the proposed location may have a local crime problem even
though the census tract does not have a "higher than average crime
rate" . The Commission and the public will want to be aware of this
situation and take that information into account.
8. How many outlets are within 21500 feet of the proposed site?
On November 6, 1995, the Planning Commission suggested that when
evaluating applications for Public Convenience or Necessity, that
the use of a census tract to determine over concentration may not
be that appropriate, because there may be more outlets "cross the
street" in another census tract than there are nearby in the same
census tract. As a result, the Planning Commission asked that
staff also identify how many alcohol outlets are located with 2 , 500
feet of the proposed business.
The City notes that the applicant's personal qualities and
character should not be considered relevant because businesses are
often sold and owner-to-owner transfers of liquor licenses, which
are routinely approved by the ABC, are not subject to review by the
City.
FACTORS RELATING TO
"PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY" TOOL
From AB 2897 Caldera, passed in 1994, added to Section 23958.4 of
the Business and Professions Code, relating to alcoholic beverages.
Expands local authority around licensing, under certain conditions.
• Law requires ABC to deny an application for a license if the
issuance would create a law enforcement problem*, or would
result in or add to an undue concentration** of licenses, unless
the local governing body of the jurisdiction in which the
applicant premises are located determines that public
convenience or necessity would be served by the issuance.
• Exemptions: the ABC may issue a license if it is for nonretail
license, a retail on-sale bona fide eating place license, a a retail
license associated with a hotel, motel, or other lodging
establishment, a retail license in conjunction with either a beer
manufacturer's license or a winegrower's license, if the
applicant shows that public convenience or necessity would be
served by the issuance.
* the applicant premises are located in a crime reporting district that
has a 20% greater number of reported crimes than the average
number of reported crimes in all districts within the jurisdiction.
** on-sale: the ratio of on-sale retail licenses to population in the
census tract or census division of the applicant premises exceeds the
ratio of on-sale retail licenses to population in the county.
off-sale: the ratio of off-sale retail licenses to population in the
census tract or census division of the applicant premises exceeds the
ratio of off-sale retail licenses to population in the county.
LEGAL AID FOUNDATION OF LOS ANGELES
SOUTH OFFICE
8601 SOUTH BROADWAY •LOS ANGELES,CALIFORNIA 9000301213) 971-4102
August 8, 1995
Honorable Members
Los Angeles City Council
City Hall
212 N. Spring Street
Los Angeles, CA 90012
Re : City' s Implementation of the Caldera Bill
Business and Professions Code Sec . 23958 , et . seq.
Alcoholic Beverage Legislation
Members of the Council :
You are currently considering the manner in which the City will
implement the provisions of Sec . 23958, et. seq. of the Business
and Professions code, (known as the Caldera bill) concerning the
issuance and transfer of liquor licenses . Please take into
account the following points during you deliberations .
The Caldera bill requires the ABC (Department of Alcohol Beverage
and Control) to deny applications for licenses and applications
for transfers of licenses where the premises in question is in a
high crime area or an area with an undue concentration of
licenses. Clearly the Legislature' s adoption of the bill signals
recognition that licenses cannot continue to be issued in
neighborhoods which already have a glut of alcohol outlets, and
where there is too much crime.
Note too, that the bill concerns the issuance of liquor licenses,
and beer and wine licenses, issued by the State of California,
not land use permits issued by the City to alcohol merchants.
The state, not the city, will be making the ultimate
determination. Yet the input of local governments, in this
instance the City, is being sought by the ABC. The only time the
ABC will issue a license in a high crime or overconcentrated area
is where the local government finds that there is a need (termed
"public convenience or necessity" in the statute) for the
license.
Given the history surrounding the overconcentration of alcohol
outlets in L.A. , the Council must not take lightly the
opportunity to be heard on the question of "need" . Over ten years
ago, Los Angeles enacted an ordinance designed to limit new
outlets, while acknowledging the importance of reversing the
overconcentration that existed even at that time. The focus of
that ordinance was South Central Los Angeles; although somewhat
effective in containing the overall number of alcohol outlets,
the ordinance did not provide the capacity to reverse or reduce
the total number of stores . Meanwhile, other areas of the city
have begun to experience overconcentration and the constellation
of public safety and crime problems that accompany it .
Against this backdrop, the Caldera bill is recognized as a
valuable tool . Community based organizations and residents know
that overconcentration is not limited to any one area of town. It
is a citywide problem; they also realize that public safety and
crime problems are not limited to any one section of the city.
For this reason, they are urging the City to use the tools
Caldera provides to consider each application fora new or
transferred license and to only find "public convenience or
necessity" in rare cases where need can be established based on
a clearly articulated and narrow process .
Moreover, the Caldera bill applies both to applications for new
licenses and to applications for transfers . This is important, as
previous efforts at addressing overconcentration have focused
only on new applicants . Community organizations realize that
overconcentration cannot be reduced unless some existing licenses
are retired.
The perspective of residents and community organizations is
vital to this determination, and warrants your careful
consideration.On Tuesday, August 7, 1995, you heard testimony
from community based organizations from throughout the city, from
neighborhoods such as Pico Union, Van Nuys, East L.A. and South
Central Los Angeles . Many of these organizations are involved in
issues related to alcohol policy. For example, my client, the
Community Coalition for Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment
(referred to here as the Community Coalition) represents
community residents, service providers, and individuals
recovering from addiction to drugs and alcohol . For the past 4
years, Community Coalition members have worked to reverse the
extreme overconcentration of liquor stores in South Los Angeles,
and to address the crucial public safety and health concerns
associated with the operation of problem alcohol outlets .
It is significant that these community organizations from all
quadrants of the city are all expressing the same point to you:
the "need" neighborhoods plagued by overconcentration and high
crime rates have is for measures that will improve the quality of
life. Make recommendations to the ABC that are consistent with
the spirit of the Caldera bill, in other words, which discourage
the issuance of a license in communities with high crime rates or
overconcentration.
The fact that many community organizations and residents seek to
decrease the number of alcohol outlets in their areas should not
be construed as an anti-business sentiment . To the contrary,
crime and overconcentration are barriers to attracting a diverse
array of business and commercial enterprises that can promote
economic revitalization and development
The Council must now develop a process by which the
existence of Public Convenience or Necessity can be considered
and the outcome communicated to the ABC, which will in turn take
action on the application for a license. This task is complicated
by the fact that there are several applications from merchants
who have already come into the City' s land use process - seeking
Conditional Use designations for example. These pending cases
have become a cause for concern as the ABC apparently is awaiting
action by the City before acting upon the liquor licenses . To
address these cases quickly, the Planning Department has
recommended the adoption of language declaring that, among other
things, where a city agency has approved a alcohol outlet, the
approval will be "deemed to have included" a determination of
public convenience or necessity.
We urge you to reject the Planning Department' s recommendation on
several grounds . First, before any blanket language is adopted,
the Council should be given of the location of each alcohol
outlet, and be assured that the action taken by any City agency
is indeed final . Moreover, there should be no assumptions made
that Public Convenience and Necessity was actually considered in
these cases, and certainly not from the perspective of the
Caldera bill, which emphasizes public safety. Remarks made in the
August 7, 1995 Council meeting in fact reveal the opposite to be
true, that crime data and public opposition were not given weight
by the decision-makers . Finally, creating a process just to apply
to a few cases (the exact number remains unclear) is a poor
precedent ; if it must be done the language should be tied to
specific cases, described by number in the motion, and only where
a final decision has been rendered. The other pending cases
should be reconsidered and an analysis of public convenience and
necessity consistent with the spirit of the Caldera bill should
be applied.
With respect to the permanent process for complying with Caldera
bill, we ask that the following concerns be considered: 1) that a
standardized approach, which includes a consistent definition of
"public convenience and necessity" be taken in reviewing
applications that fall within the parameters of the Caldera bill;
2) that the public, residents of effected neighborhoods as well
as alcohol merchants be made aware of the approach that is
adopted; and 3) that the process will afford residents of the
neighborhood where the alcohol outlet is located an opportunity
to comment on the issue of "Public Convenience and Necessity" .
We request that the process be standardized in order to avoid
outcomes that differ widely from council district to council
district . We have been advised that one approach under
consideration is to let the responsibility for making findings
of "Public Convenience and Necessity" rest with each council
member. Although support the active participation of council
representatives in these cases, it is problematic to leave these
matters solely to their discretion.
The problems of overconcentration of liquor stores and high crime
rates do not fit neatly into discreet council areas . A store
could be located in one council district but be on the border of
another, causing problems across the street or around the block.
Moreover, the overconcentration of liquor stores is a citywide
problem. . . there are pockets in several sections of the city that
are now contending with the effects of overconcentration: on one
hand, increased criminal activity such as public drunkenness,
drug sales, prostitution, robbery and other threats to public
safety; on the other hand, decreasing potential for economic
revitalization and investment, as other businesses avoid
neighborhoods dominated by alcohol outlets . Any assessment of
"Public Convenience and Necessity" required by the Caldera bill
must consider these effects, not just in from the perspective of
any one council district, but from the perspective of each
community.
We have no objection to the assessment being made by the Zoning
Administrator, Board of Zoning Appeals or Planning Commission.
Those forums may be best suited to apply the appropriate analysis_
and to view the applicant objectively within the context of the
City' s general need to reverse overconcentration of alcohol
outlets . What is essential is a clear definition of the meaning
of the key phrase public convenience and necessity " in this
context, one that can be consistently utilized each time an
applicant falls within the parameters of the Caldera bill .
Once you have determined where the responsibility for making the
decision will rest, the public must be advised, and the process
explained. Alcohol outlets and the policies that regulate them
have been the subject of controversy in recent years;
establishing expectations, and clarifying rights and
responsibilities should reduce the potential for conflict .
It is also essential that an opportunity for public comment be
included in any approach ultimately adopted. Although often
criticized for being time consuming, public comment is in fact an
opportunity to craft community solutions to community problems.
Neither business owners nor residents can thrive unless a spirit
of interdependence and cooperation is fostered. Public comments
needn' t require a lengthy process, and are not inherently
adversarial . To the contrary, they are typically evidence of
concern, illustrating willingness to improve the quality of
neighborhood.
It will take hard work from all segments of our communities to
overcome the problems that confront us. Thank you for the'
opportunity to have input into the development of this important
policy.
Sincerely,
Mary M. Lee, Esq.
LEGAL AID FOUNDATION
OF LOS ANGELES
Attorneys for the Community Coalition
for Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment
Growth Management Action Plan
R:\DEBBIE\PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP.October 18,2000.doc
9
City of Temecula
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM ACTION PLAN
As Adopted by the City Council on March 21, 2000
This Action Plan is intended to serve as the City Council's policy for the study and
implementation of growth management measures for the City of Temecula. Each
development project shall be studied by Staff, the Planning Commission and City
Council in light of the concerns expressed in this Plan and its action programs. Each
project shall be considered on its own merit and in accordance with all applicable federal
and state laws and under the City's General Plan and zoning ordinances.
1. Inter-Aaencv Coordination
A. Engage actively in the Riverside County Integrated Plan (RCIP)
1. Appoint Council representatives to monitor the following three (3)
Advisory Committees:
a. Community and Environmental Transportation Acceptability
Process (CETAP)—Ron Roberts.
b. General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC)—Jeff Comerchero
c. Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) — Mike
Naggar
2. Provide monthly committee reports to the City Council regarding the
status of the respective committees the second meeting of each month.
Staff should also participate and summarize meetings to assist the
Council representatives.
3. Dedicate staff resources to monitor the Riverside County Integrated
Plan(RCIP) process.
a. Create Senior Management Analyst position dedicated to the
Riverside County Integrated Plan. - Steve Brown
b. Hire Project Consultant to completely interface and represent the
City of Temecula's interests in every facet of the RCIP. — Sandra
Massa-Lavitt
FAD"U\PLANNING\BRO WNS\growth metugementT uml Growth Management Program 2000.dw
t
c. Preserve significant amounts of land outside of the urban areas as
open space.
d. Establish urban growth boundaries for Temecula and other
communities within the RCIP Planning Area.
e. Establish greenbelts and open spaces around communities.
B. Collaborate with the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians.
1. Cooperate regarding infrastructure improvements for the betterment of
the community.
2. Support the Tribe's efforts to promote self-reliance for the reservation
while promoting and preserving Temecula's quality of life.
C. Collaborate with other agencies.
1. Take a strong position against proposed recreational improvements on
the Diamond Lake Reservoir unless appropriate traffic mitigation and
phasing measures are a condition of approval for those improvements.
2. Redirect Urban Development to Urban Areas
A. Focused Review of City/County General Plan Opportunities.
1. Form a City Council General Plan Sub-Committee — Jeff Comerchero
and Mike Naggar
2. The Sub-Committee will work with the staff and advisory committee
(if an advisory committee is appointed by the Council) to address the
following General Plan issues:
a. Redistribution of land uses.
b. Cluster densities related to Specific Plans.
c. Review multi-family housing issues throughout the City.
d. Evaluate opportunities for open space.
e. Update the Circulation Element
f. Consider other areas as necessary.
FAD"ft\PLANNING\BROWNS\growth manage ffutat Growth Maeagemmt Pmgam 30N.dw
3
2. Implement Category 1 and 2 street striping and paving improvements.
3. Pursue Measure A and discretionary funds for regional traffic
improvement projects.
a. Involve CETAP representative.
b. Utilize Southwest Riverside Coalition to position region for
funding allocation opportunities.
4. Work with other jurisdictions to establish programs and funding
sources for construction of required traffic improvements.
a. Maximize infrastructure dollars by teaming with other local
jurisdictions, particularly the City of Murrieta and the Pechanga
Tribe.
b. Establish a regional Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee
(TUMF) for construction of regional circulation improvements and
work with the City of Murrieta to build a consensus on proposed
traffic projects.
c. Work with the County to ensure that County development impact
fees collected in this area are spent in the southwest area of
Riverside County.
B. Work with Cal-Trans to develop regional improvements to circulation
system.
1. Determine how the RCIP and CETAP will mitigate and address the
impact that future growth will have on the I-15 and I-215 freeway
system.
2. Continue to pressure the State to fund new highway and freeway
construction.
3. Analyze feasibility to realigning SR-79 North between Murrieta Hot
Springs Road and Interstate 215/15 and making that portion of
Winchester Road a city-controlled street.
C. Continue to condition new development to ensure that infrastructure
is constructed in conjunction with development impacts.
1. Require comprehensive traffic studies for project specific and regional
impacts.
a. Identify thresholds/criteria to require traffic studies.
F:\D"U\PLANNING\BROWNS\Wow1h mvoagemmi\Fuu1 Omwth Manzpmmt Program 2000.dw
5
2. Identify and determine feasibility of internal public transit options,
working with outside agencies, as appropriate, including:
a. Expand Bus Program in coordination with RTA.
b. Acquire alternate fuel vehicles such as electric fuel cell or
natural gas (example: electric trolley) where appropriate,
through working with transportation agencies.
c. Provide direction to staff regarding an electric trolley system.
d. Explore the option to integrate the RTA bus system with the
school district system to achieve economies of scale and avoid
duplication of services.
e. Establish a Dial-a-Ride/Smart Shuttle.
f. Support a program to provide bus passes to students and the
elderly. Support could be in the form of either a direct or
partial subsidy to the transit providers.
g. Provide Fixed Rail—Monorail—Light Rail.
h. Establish a shuttle system to move employees from the west
side of the freeway to commercial areas/restaurants within the
City.
i. Support vanpools for major employers in the Temecula area
and support efforts to facilitate ride sharing.
4. Identify Funding Sources for Public Transit options.
5. Develop clean fuel facilities and infrastructure to support new
technologies in clean fuel development.
ADMINISTRATION
The Growth Management Program Action Plan will be annually reviewed by the City
Council.
FADgU\PLANNING\BROWNS\growth m&n&g=mt\Fi W Growth Manage t Pmgam 1000AW
• 7
Ex parte communications
R:\DEBBIE\PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP.October 18,2000.doc
4
EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS, SITE 'VISITS, AND OFF-TME
RECORD INFORMATION
Due process requires that a person affected by a decision know the evidence on
which the decision is to be based and have an opportunity to comment on it and, if need be,
to rebut it. When one party to a dispute contacts a decision-maker outside the presence of
another, that contact is known as an "ex parte" communication.l' While ex parte
communications are forbidden in more formal contexts, like some formal adjudications by
federal agencies,'0' they are a fact of life in local government and are not illegal in and of
themselves.`—" When a whole neighborhood is up in arms about a land use appeal, chances
are some one will talk to a Councilmember about it outside a Council meeting.
Similar issues arise when decision-makers glean relevant information about a matter
outside the hearing, either by chance, research, or on a site visit.
Ex parte communications, while sometimes unavoidable, are nonetheless risky.
First, these off-the-record discussions can lead to the fact or appearance of prejudgment
("Don't worry! There's no way I'll vote for that CUPP). Second, off-the-record
discussions which later come to light can create an appearance of unfairness. Third, the
decision must be based on the evidence adduced at the hearing and to which the affected
parties had opportunity to respon021 While off-the-record evidence can be placed on the
record, human psychology is such that we.sometimes absorb and act on information without
being conscious that we are doing so. Thus, relying on decision-makers to note for the
record all the off-the-record information which may,affect their decisions and to which the
affected parties have a right to respond may be psychologically unrealistic.
Further, it is important that a person affected by a decision have an opportunity to
comment on the basis of a proposed decision. In the Clark case discussed above, the Court
found a violation of the fair hearing requirement in that Councilmembers raised objections to
the proposed condominium project on two theories which had not been raised prior to the
close of the hearing -- lot coverage and open space requirements.u' Effectively, the Clarks
never had a hearing on these issues because they were not raised until after the hearing was
closed.
Some practical tips;
• It is best to avoid ex parte communications on sensitive or controversial
matters. Elected officials can tell constituents that "The City Attorney tells
me that I cannot decide this case on anything I hear outside the Council
meeting. If you really want your opinion to count, you should come to the
meeting, or send us a letter. This isnot always politically feasible, but
when it is, this tactic can get you home from the market before your ice
cream melts!
• If you receive relevant information about a matter at a site visit or
otherwise outside the hearing and you intend to rely on it, you should
state those facts before the close of the hearing. This allows the affected
parties to react to the information you have heard, give you relevant
background and, sometimes, correct erroneous information.
• It may be best to routinely identify ex parte contacts and off-the-record
information received about matters, so that constituents get the message
that you have to disclose ex parte contacts and so that a decision to
disclose is not so unusual that it draws attention and creates
controversy. This is not legally required, but it is the practice of some
agencies which have relatively formal hearing styles.
• If a decision is to be based on a rationale that was not raised in the staff
report or otherwise put in issue before the hearing closes, affected
persons should be given an opportunity to comment before the decision
is made. For agencies which prepare a resolution of decision for adoption
at a meeting subsequent to the meeting at which the hearing occurred, this
can easily be accomplished. The agency need only allow public comment
on the form of the resolution before it is adopted.
Who Answers What Questions
(Discussion will occur the night of the meeting)
R:\DEBBIE\PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP.October 18,2000.doc
5
Results of the Questionnaire
(To be presented the night of the meeting)
RADEBBIETLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP.Oc[ober 18,2000.doc
6
Topics for Future Workshops
RADEBBIE\PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP.October 18,2000.doc
7
Appendix
RADEBBIE\PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP.October 18,2000.doc
10
PCJ Article: "hnnancmg Y our lAmmSSIonS rr0UUOUv1Ly, Uv tvitcttact � tiauulc j
l-
PLANNING {_. ONIMISSIONERS JOURNAL
The Planning Commission At �Vork,:
Enhancing Your G° t°
Other Articles Online
Commission's Productivity
by Michael Chandler
Do you recall the Aesop's fable about a poor farmer About the Author
who owns a pet goose that suddenly starts laying a Michael Chandler is a
Professor and
single golden egg each morning? Very quicklythe
Community Planning
farmer becomes wealthy, as well as greedy. As the Extension Specialist at
story continues, the fanner decides to kill the goose in Virginia Tech in
He
anticipation of finding olden eggs. To his Blacksburg Virginia.
p g man Y g gg also regularly conducts
dismay, however, the goose contains no golden eggs -- planning commissioner
and the fanner slowly comes to realize that he will training programs and
never et another olden a workshops across the
g g egg. country.
What does this children's tale have to do with planning Chandler's column
commissions? If we draw an analogy from it, we can equate appears in each issue of
the comprehensive plan (and other tasks accomplished by a the Planning
planting commission) with the golden eggs, and the planning Commissioners Journal.
commission itself with the goose. Viewed in this light, we can Take a look at a list of
all his oast columns for
see that while the visible measure of a commission's the PCJ.
effectiveness is what it produces, the commission's capacity
to produce must be nourished if it is to continue to be an
effective producer.
The balance of this column will address three basic strategies
that can help improve your planning commission's capacity to
be productive.
1. New Member Orientation
PCJ Article: "Enhancing Your Commission-s Yrooucnvay, oy 1v11cndc, L.ualluic,
One of the best ways to improve or maintain a planning
commission's productive capacity is to provide new
appointees with a solid orientation immediately upon
appointment. The orientation should cover some combination
of the following topics: the commission's role, including
duties and responsibilities, how the commission is organized,
how the commission works, a review of the commission's
structure, policies and bylaws, and a review of the € CCiICfSSitt`t
commission's relationship with citizens, staff, developers, and
the governing body. Chair SCfouid
In addition to this organizational overview, new g'r`it 1,vith °t�-'w
commissioners should be introduced to the planning process. appolntees
At a minimum, all new appointees should receive a copy of
the locality's comprehensive plan and all related ordinances.
Following a reasonable length of time, the commission chair
should visit with new
appointees to answer
"By clearly setting any questions they
out what the may have. Although
this approach takes
Commission time,the dividend is
intends to substantial because
newcomers will more
accomplish, a quickly feel a part of
work program the commission.
will provide an 2. Mission
ongoing referent Statements
or rally point by In my previous
which the column ["Taking the —_-- --
commission can Planning The value of
Commission's Pulse,
measure its Issue 13], I discussed MISS'on
progress." the idea of an annual states encs
"check-up" for the
commission. The
premise underscoring
this was rather simple: successful organizations know where
they are and, more importantly, where they are headed.
A key attribute of knowing where an organization is headed
(using a principle common to the business world) involves
beginning with the end in mind. An organization's mission
statement helps to assure that the end is always kept in mind.
PCJ Article: "Enhancing Y our k ommisslons rroaucllvnv, UY 1Vll0lIGC1 kuauulul i anc v. J
Planning commissions should develop a mission statement
' r r-
because they need to define for their clients (and for }"fir>°
themselves) what they are doing and why. A missionIa nv cif?7W
statement will also prove invaluable if it captures the r a
community's values, as well as its vision. Finally, a properly S en m�g ou t
drawn mission statement will serve as a constant reminder of what the
what the commission, and the community, want to Commission
accomplish. `'���'��`��€��"
intends to
3. Work Programs accomplish
Another important strategy a planning commission can
employ to maintain or improve its operational effectiveness
involves the development of an annual work program.
Definitionally, a work program is a listing of all the activities
an organization hopes to accomplish during a given period of
time, tied to specific operating dollars. In some respects the
work program functions as an accounting tool for it notes
how much money and/or staff time will be expended on what
items.
Once adopted, a work program details what the commission
will work on during the year. By clearly setting out what the
commission intends to accomplish, a work program will
provide an ongoing referent or rally point by which the
commission can measure its progress. Having a work
program not only better assures that a commission will
accomplish its tasks, but also increases the odds that it will be
working on items that are of real importance to the
community.
Please note that this article is copyright protected by the Planning Commissioners Journal. You
are welcome to download or print the article for your own personal use -- or to provide a link to
this article from another Web site. For other use of the article, please contact the Plannine
Commissioners Journal.
PlannersWeb --� �-- III
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS JOURNAL
PCI Article: "Who Do You work t'Or!" ov l.. uregor_v oare
�, � ve
.. `:. ':'* :,i psi :,
PLANNING COTYINIESSI {tNI- RS JOURNAL
Ethics & The Planning Go to
Other Articles Online
Commission:
Who Do You Work who a You Work For?" is included in
a printed collection of-articles dealing
For?
with -- - —
by C. Gregory Dale anout the Anther r
t`il?At i 5:sve V, -a-, 12, of Lhe "C' 'R(I 1`194
As a planning commissioner you are part of your community's political world.
As such, it should come as little surprise that you may be subject to pressures to show
your political allegiances. Let me present a "hypothetical" situation:
You were appointed to the planning commission because of your strong relationship with
the Mayor. You had worked with the Mayor on a variety of community issues over the
years and developed a sense of mutual trust and friendship. When a vacancy arose on the
Planning Commission, the Mayor asked if you would be interested. You agreed and were
subsequently appointed by the City Council.
Now that you are on the Planning Commission, you find yourself in an awkward position.
The Mayor, who perceives you as a friend and an ally, repeatedly calls you about issues
appearing before the Planning Commission in an effort to influence your opinion and be
sure that you understand the "Mayor's perspective." This seems natural to you since you
are political allies, but you have the vague sense that there is something improper about
these conversations. Is there an ethical issue? How should you respond to the Mayor?
This situation occurs frequently. In most cases, the motivations and intentions of elected
officials engaging in these conversations are honorable. They simply are working within a
political environment that they are accustomed to.
Nevertheless, there are several ethical issues to be aware of. First, as an appointed
planning commissioner you are not designated to represent any special interest group.
Neither are you appointed to represent the "voice" of an elected official. More
specifically, as a planning commissioner you have an ethical obligation to remain in a
position of objectivity and fairness. Your position should not be used to seek political
PCJ Article: "Who uo You worK ror!" by U trregory uaie raeu � v, J
favors, nor should you create a perception that you are seeking political goodwill in your
action. Any time you take a position at the urging of an elected official, you run the risk
of tainting your credibility as an objective decision-maker.
In addition, contacts that you have outside of the public meeting process may fall in the
category of"ex parte contacts." I previously discussed the problems associated with ex
parte contacts (see PCJ, Issue 42) and will not repeat that discussion here. Suffice it to
say that information and opinions that influence your decisions when acting in a "quasi-
judicial" capacity(for example, when reviewing development applications) should all be
part of the public process.
There is no question that planning commission appointments are often made because of
political or personal relationships. However, planning commissions are not (or at least,
should not be) political bodies and are not there to represent particular interests.
OK, talk is cheap. The reality is that planning commissioners have political ties. How is
this practice to be discouraged when it often is not perceived as being improper? I believe
the answer lies in not waiting until a problem arises to address it. It pays to create an
environment in which planning commission members are expected to act according to
high ethical standards. Your commission may wish to incorporate ethical standards into
its bylaws, or to adopt a statement of ethical principles. The American Planning
Association statement of ethical principles may provide a good starting point for your
community.
If your commission has a reputation for holding itself to high ethical standards, then many
ethical problems can be avoided. In the case I discussed, for example, the Mayor would
know that efforts to influence planning commissioners on items pending before the
commission simply are not acceptable.
The immediate problem still requires a response, however. When you face this type of
situation, I believe you are obligated to tell the Mayor (and whoever else is making such
contacts) that you would prefer they not try to influence your opinion outside the public
process. Explain that they are putting you in a situation where you may be violating
ethical principles of the planning commission. They should respect your position and
refrain from such well meaning, but potentially damaging, contacts in the future.
As I have acknowledged in previous columns, planning commissioners often find
themselves faced with ethical dilemmas that may be the result of well intentioned
individuals trying to advance their own beliefs or interests. However, commissioners must
constantly be sensitive to protecting their -- and the commission's -- integrity and
credibility.
Please note that this article is copyright protected by the Planning Commissioners Journal. You
are welcome to download or print the article for your own personal use-- or to provide a link to
this article from another Web site. For other use of the article, please contact the Planning
Commissioners Journal.
pCI Article: ,Homogeneous k-ommissions in nererugeneuus
77
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS JOURNAL
The Effective Planning Commissioner:
Homogeneous 10ther Other Articles Online
Commissions in
Heterogeneous c,1 I �r leTi
download
intorma[ion
Communities
About the Author
by Elaine Cogan
[From Issue 34, page 20, of the PCJ, Spring 1999]
At your next pluming board meeting, look around at your members. How
much do you reflect the different populations in your community? Or are you,
primarily or entirely, representative of only one or two segments?
Not too long ago, most citizen planning commissions were composed of white males
drawn from the upper economic levels of the community. There are many more women
now, and a sprinkling of minorities,but still, most commission members reflect the views
of the "establishment" in their communities and can well afford to donate their time. To
give them credit, planning board members are willing volunteers for positions that are not
only time consuming, but also emotionally and physically draining.
The fact that many people simply do not wish to or cannot afford to leave work or other
endeavors to be citizen members of planning boards probably will not change much in the
near future. But that does not excuse them from trying hard to represent all the people in
their community. In increasingly diverse communities, it is essential that all planning
board members reach out beyond their ordinary circles of relationships. There are many
ways you can do this.
. Read the letters to the editor in your community newspaper and listen to the talk shows
on local radio stations. The opinions expressed may be exasperating at times, but they
also are likely to give you insights into the issues and opinions of a wide range of people
you might not otherwise encounter.
PCJ Article: "Homogeneous lAmmisslons In rieterogeucuus L.V111J11 11LL10J, uy a_iamu �"., , uE
. Get out of City Hall or the County Courthouse. It may be convenient for the commission
and staff to hold meetings at the seat of political power and probably close to your
planning office, but they are often inconvenient locations for citizens. Go out into the
neighborhoods occasionally. Hold your planning board meetings in schools or community
centers. Make sure you invite neighborhood activists and others, and listen to what they
have to say.
. Make presentations to neighborhood groups, high school and community college classes,
seniors, business and civic groups. Organize a speakers bureau and take turns talking with
different segments of the community about general planning issues. They are more likely
to be interested in specific matters if they understand the context in which decisions are
made. Your planning staff can help here.
. Before considering sensitive land use changes in an area, informally contact church
leaders, social workers, school principals, local business owners and others to get a sense
of the attitudes of community members and issues related to the matter that are likely to
be controversial or important to them. Take these into consideration when you consider
the specific issues.
. If you find that the Planning Board would really benefit from broader representation,
consider asking your governing body to authorize a subsidy such as payment of child care
or a minimum stipend so that individuals outside the "establishment" may participate.
(Note: this probably will not be possible in most communities, though a case can be
made).
. Always be open to new ideas. Each community is different and most are changing. Rarely
are these social, ethnic and racial dynamics represented adequately on the planning board.
Consider it a challenge and an opportunity to reach out to all members of your
community and you will be well rewarded.
Please note that this article is copyright protected by the Planning Commissioners Journal. You
are welcome to download or print the article for your own personal use -- or to provide a link to
this article from another Web site. For other use of the article, please contact the Planning
Commissioners Journal.
Pl
Aeras " f to a
PLANNINGCOMMISSIONERS JOURNAL
PL ,
Working Relationships
• Although planning deals with the physical features of a community, it is only
accomplished by people working together. This section considers some prac-
tical actions which can make the working relationships between planners and
the public more productive and pleasant.
V—A Building a Better Commission t
Building A Better Coni nussion
Working relationships within the planning commission and with planning
staff and the city council are critical for the city's planning functions to be
effective and efficient. Positive working relationships are based on mutual un-
derstanding of the role of each group:
■ Clear expectations about how each group will relate to the other, as defined
in adopted procedures
■ A common set of goals, as reflected in the general plan and planning work
program
■ And a willingness to solve problems by listening to others, considering
alternatives, and arriving at a consensus.
One way to improve how a commission works together is to hire a profes-
sional facilitator to deal with sensitive problems and to give feedback. Another
approach is to schedule a retreat workshop to identify problems and solutions.
Some suggestions on how to improve a commission's group dynamics:
■ Schedule a workshop on the role of the planning commission; review the
planning commission's role according to state law, responsibilities that the
city council has delegated, and other responsibilities the commission would
like to assume.
■ Review, revise and adopt commission rules of order or bylaws on how meet-
ings will be conducted.
■ In a retreat setting,brainstorm a list of concerns about how the commission's
group dynamics work,and develop a draft list of solutions and improvements.
■ Take a few weeks to think about the problems and solutions,and then finalize
solutions. Make agreements in writing on how the commission will operate;
• adopt the procedures.
■ Depend on the planning commission chair to ensure that the commission
follows adopted procedures, keeps focused on the subject, keeps tuned in
to its responsibilities.
The Institute for Education in Local Government in Berkeley,California,has
developed a list of 14 ways to build a better planning commission.
Fourteen Ways to Build A Better Commission
1. Develop and adopt by-laws and procedures, and stick to them.
2. Develop and make available to anyone who wants them good and reliable
information, data, and maps.
3. Prepare and maintain an adequate general plan, refer to it, and make
decisions that are consistent with its policies and also implement them.
4. Annually reexamine what you are doing as a commission, how well you
are doing it, and how to do it better.
5. Outline a year's work on active planning and stick to it. Don't confuse
development permit processing(reactive planning or plan review)with real
planning.
6. Ask to participate in preparing the planning agency's budget.
7. Meet periodically with your city council or county board to exchange ideas
and to assess your mutual objectives.
8. Consider a public forum every year or so. Ask people (your"clients") how
things are going and what they want done.
9. Tell your staff what you want, and how you want material presented to you.
Don't be a passive commission that waits for"the experts"to tell you what
to do next.
• 10. Attend some short courses on new planning techniques or the latest in
land-use law, and expect your staff to do the same.
11. Tour about as a commission to see what others are doing.Sometimes you
will be uplifted to find out how many light years ahead of your neighbors
you really are, and sometimes you'll get some ideas worth borrowing.
V–A Building a Better Commission 3
• In some cities, the job of running the meeting is delegated to the planning
director, often by default because of an ineffective chairman. Some planning
directors enjoy this because it enhances their authority. However,this situation
is undesirable because it detracts from the responsibilities and stature of the
commission and could place the director in a difficult position. The staff's role
is to provide professional advice, recommendations, and information to the
commission. While the staff should certainly stand behind its recommenda-
tions, they should be careful to avoid the appearance of being advocates for
one side or another. To avoid any appearance of bias, staff should give the
commission both sides of an issue.
The commission should use the staff as a resource. Part of the commis-
sioner's preparation for the meeting should be a careful reading of the staff
reports and other material contained in the commission packets. Each com-
missioner should also visit the site of the more important proposals on the
agenda. Remember, there are legal requirements dealing with the disclosure
of site visits and avoiding pre-meeting contacts with the applicants.
If a commissioner sees something missing from the staff report or ques-
tions some part of it, don't save it for the meeting—call the appropriate staff
member. If something has been overlooked, knowing about it in advance may
avoid a continuance of a proposal to another meeting. Likewise, asking the
question before the meeting may prevent the staff member or the commissioner
from looking foolish or unprofessional at the meeting.
Many cities use the"consent agenda"for routine items, including approval
of minutes,which can be handled in one motion.The items are generally limited
to those where no policy questions are presented. Some cities even use the
• consent agenda for public hearing items which are not expected to elicit public
comment. If a member of the commission or a member of the audience has a
major concern about a consent items, the item is removed from the consent
agenda and placed on the regular agenda.
Regular agenda items include both public hearings and non-hearing items.
Both types of items can be handled in the same basic way. First,the chairman
should ask if the applicant or the applicant's representative is present. Many
commissions will not take any action on an item if the applicant is not present,
except for very minor items. An applicant's approved permit is conditioned not
only by the commission but also by the applicant's representations to the com-
mission. The chairman should also ascertain how many other people are in-
terested in the application and explain what type of application it is. The staff
report should be presented first. Staff need not go into detail if the commis-
sioners, the applicant, and other interested persons have received the staff
report well in advance. However, if there are a number of neighbors present
who have not read the report beforehand, the staff should review it fairly
carefully.
Next the chairman should ask if any commissioners have questions of staff.
When these have been answered the applicant should make a presentation.
There should be another opportunity for commissioners' questions, and then
other interested persons should be allowed to speak. All questions that come
up should be addressed to the chairman rather than to the applicant or staff or
to the opposition neighbors. This avoids a cross-examination situation. How-
ever, this also places a responsibility on the chairman to note these questions
and ensure that they are in fact answered later. The applicant should offer a
rebuttal, and then the matter should come back to the commission for discus-
sion and decision.
• The commission should ensure that all participants in the meeting are
treated fairly and that they understand what happens at the meeting. It may be
appropriate to place a time limit on presentations; if so, this should be made
clear at the beginning of consideration of an item and then fairly enforced.
Courtesy also dictates that an item drawing a large audience or requiring con-
siderable time be scheduled early on the agenda for full and fair consideration.
The commission should state why they are making their decision,and why they
V–A Building a Better Commission 5
• Working With The Private Sector
Planning agencies interact continuously with the private sector as devel-
opers submit their proposals to the city. Often the development proposals are
consistent with the goals and policies of the community. Sometimes they are
different from those envisioned by the planning and development policies of
the city.These instances may prompt the refinement of a development proposal
so that it can be accommodated by the decision-making body.
Because the process of refinement and accommodation is both tedious
and complex, a major function has evolved on the private sector side—that
of the project manager, or proposal processor. Often the private sector has
neither the expertise nor the time or talent to nurture a working relationship
with the public sector, or to meet such requirements as environmental impact
reports and design, traffic-generation, or noise attenuation studies. To handle
these situations and maintain a steady relationship with local government,the
private sector now has project managers.These individuals, often planners or
attorneys, handle the chore of pulling together the expertise of research spe-
cialists retained to design a well-founded development proposal.
Relationships between the public and private sector are characterized by
communication between fellow professionals. Each sector interprets the
needs, desires and aspirations of their clients, and work out or negotiate the
details of an acceptable proposal. In this way, the public sector's relationship
with the private sector is one of continuous communication, interpretation and
negotiation.
For smaller projects, such professional assistance may not be employed
by the applicant, so the city may have to make a greater effort to assist the
• applicant, informing and guiding him through the approval process.
On the other hand,when a smaller city is approached by an applicant with
a professional project manager or other advocate, the city must take special
care to ensure that the applicant follows all appropriate procedures and that
the city is not overpowered or intimidated.
Using Consultants
Local governmental agencies, in the aftermath of Proposition 13 and long-
range budget constraints,confront serious restrictions in staff expansion,while
the demands for public planning,state requirements,and local needs continue
to increase. Within this context, the use of planning consultants has emerged
as a major trend.
Planning consultants are typically used by local governmental agencies for
the following:
■ To complete one-time special studies requiring skills or level of personnel
not available within the agency. An example of this might be a $100,000
specific plan to be done within six months.
■ To relieve city staff from day-to-day duties that do not require a full-time city
employee. An illustration of this is a consultant retained on a contract ser-
vices basis to evaluate zone change requests and prepare staff reports.
■ To prepare studies and analyses required by CEOA, including initial studies,
negative declarations, focus EIRs, and full EIRs.
■ To prepare elements of the general plan not presently within the level of
expertise possessed by city staff. This may include, for example, a noise
consultant or housing consultant.
. In using consultants, the local planning agency should bear in mind the
following questions:
■ Should a statement describing the desired "scope of services'be prepared
before a consultant is retained?
■ What qualifications are desired of a consultant?
■ What should be included in the agency's request for proposal?