Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout080100 CC/PC Jnt. Workshop Minutes MINUTES OF AN ADJOURNED REGULAR JOINT CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP AUGUST 1, 2000 CALL TO ORDER The City Council and Planning Commission convened in an adjourned regular joint workshop at 6:00 P.M., on Tuesday, August 1, 2000, in the City Council Chambers of Temecula City Hall, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. ROLL CALL Present: Councilmembers: Planning Commissioners: Mayor Pro Tem Comerchero, Naggar, Pratt, Roberts, and Mayor Stone. Chiniaeff, Mathewson, Telesio, and Chairman Guerriero. Absent: Planning Commissioner: Webster. INVOCATION The invocation was given by Councilman Naggar. ALLEGIANCE The audience was led in the Flag salute by Mayor Stone. PUBLIC COMMENTS No comments. CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION REPORTS Chairman Guerriero relayed thanks to the City Council for holding this Joint Workshop with the Commission. Commissioner Mathewson expressed his appreciation to staff and to the Council for the street-capping project completed in the Chardonnay Hills area. Councilman Naggar noted his gratitude to the Firemen who were battling the Pechanga fire, acknowledging their sacrificial efforts to save life and property. Providing an update regarding the August 1, 2000 CETAP meeting, Councilman Roberts relayed that the Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) had provided a presentation with respect to Transportation; and noted that there were also discussions regarding a specific proposed project within the County which was a proposal for a residential tract which was not proximate to any commercial development, and would also encompass a zone change. R:\Minutes\080100 1 Mayor Pro Tem Comerchero noted that this particular project would be' reviewed in conjunction with the new County Policy, which passed last week. With respect to RTA, Mayor Pro Tern Comerchero relayed that the agency was holding a three-day rail review meeting from July 31St-August 2nd, noting that three of the world's · leading authorities on public transportation would assist the County in evaluating the existing mass transit, and future plans for mass transit. COUNCIL/COMMISSION BUSINESS 1 Housinq Element Proqress Report RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Receive the Housing Element Needs Assessment and provide comments regarding issues to be addressed in the updated Housing Element. Senior Management Analyst Brown provided an overview of the staff report (per agenda material), noting that the revised Housing Element would be processed prior to the General Plan Update due to State Law requiring every Housing Element in this particular region to be updated by December 31, 2000; relayed that the City had hired a consulting firm to aid in the update of this complex element; provided additional information regarding the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA), noting that some of the numbers reflected in the assessment could potentially be revised; and introduced Mr. John Bridges, from Cotton Beland and Associates, who would provide an overview of the Housing Element Update. Mr. Bridges relayed the request of the consulting firm for direction from the Council and the Commission regarding the regional housing needs numbers; noted the provision of a summary of the report (per supplemental agenda material); via overheads, provided an overview of the 2000-2005 Housing Element, highlighting the RHNA, noting that the State density guidelines reflected 25 units per acre for developing housing for the very Iow income category, acknowledging that at this time the City of Temecula did not have existing zoning at 25 units per acre; relayed that in 1993, the City of Temecula's Housing Element had proposed 20 units per acre for this category, adding on the density bonuses and mixed use development; and queried the Council and Commission for input regarding the densities desired to be included in the 2000-2005 Housing Element. Mr. Bridqes addressed the concerns and comments of the Council and Commission, as follows: In response to Mayor Pro Tem Comerchere's queries with respect to submitting to the State an Element proposing 20 units per acre for the development of the very Iow income housing, clarified the process of submitting the Draft Element to the State, noting that after a review period the Element could come back with comments; noted that at that time the City could respond to the comments by modifying the Element, if necessary, or the Element could be adopted without revisions, and Findings would be developed to clarify the manner in which the Element conforms with State Law in spite of the comments; and provided additional information regarding possible litigation issues associated with adopting an Element without HCD's concurrence that it did comply with State Law. For Commissioner Chiniaeff, clarified the process of developing the RHNA numbers, acknowledging the current appeal regarding the represented numbers; provided additional information regarding the City's values not being reflected in the RHNA figures; provided R:\Minutes\080100 2 additional data regarding if the proposed Element's housing unit goals were not met at the end of the five-year period; and noted the requirement for the City to provide available land for housing within each of the categories. Councilman Roberts commented on the appeal of the RHNA numbers for Riverside County, providing additional information regarding the associated issues. For Councilman Roberts, relayed that at the subsequent Housing Element Cycle there would be an evaluation of whether the previous Element's goals had been met which would be inclusive of reports regarding changes in the community (i.e., agricultural changes); advised that with respect to the new census results, the data utilized for this Element would come from the previous census information, noting that the data actually utilized was developed approximately three years after a census was taken, noting that it was specific with regard to the block group level, advising that this information would not be available from the new census results for approximately three years. In response to Councilman Naggar's queries regarding RHNA's gauging of the City's infrastructure, noted that once the RHNA numbers were established, the State established the expected growth in the region and each community's share of that growth, advising that the State's position was that the City's responsibility was to ensure that there was land and infrastructure available to accommodate the numbers; with respect to development within the County that impacted the City, advised that the infrastructure issues could be addressed via agreements with the County regarding Development Fees to offset the impacts, clarifying that the State would not take this matter into account when providing RHNA numbers; noted that if the RHNA numbers were revised as a result of the appeal process that the Element could be updated in response to that condition; and reiterated additional information regarding the process if the City did not meet the goals of the Element. For Commissioner Mathewson, provided additional information regarding legal challenges associated with adopting an Element in spite of negative comments from HCD; confirmed that the Housing Programs (i.e., rental assistance) would be included in the Housing Element Report that would go forward to HCD for review; and relayed that the Housing Element was unique from alternate elements encompassed in the General Plan, confirming that at times there was conflict between the Housing Element and alternate elements in the General Plan, and the values of the community. For Mayor Pro Tem Comerchero, provided additional information regarding the State Guidelines for the very iow income housing being 25 units per acre, advising that these guidelines were also utilized in coastline communities; relayed the benefits with respect to HCD's review, if there was data reflecting that in certain areas the City would consider (via approval of Specific Plans) zone changes (i.e., to 25 units per acre) in exchange for additional established Open Space areas, noting the likelihood of obtaining a favorable response from HCD if the 25 units per acre density level was included in the Element. The Council and Commission relayed the followin,q closinq remarks: In concurrence with Mayor Pro Tem Comerchero's comments, Commissioner Chiniaeff recommended that the City incorporate the higher densities via agreements with developers in exchange for additional open space areas, rather than modifying the General Plan to reflect the higher densities; and recommended that the City strengthen the Housing Programs to encourage a wide level of income levels, via subsidizing the purchase of the housing units. R:\Minutes\080100 3 Chairman Guerriero expressed concurrence with Commissioner Chiniaeff's statements regarding Housing Programs within the City. Mayor Pro Tem Comerchero relayed that he would not support revising the General Plan to incorporate a higher density of 25 units per acre, recommending that the City propose the 20 units per acre for this particular housing need; and recommended including language in the Element regarding the willingness of the City to consider modifying certain zoning areas (i.e., 25 units per acre) with proposed Specific Plan's in exchange for additional Open Space areas. Councilman Naggar relayed concurrence with Mayor Pro Tem Comerchero, noting that he would not support upzoning areas within the General Plan; and commented on the concept of subsidizing housing. In response, Commissioner Chiniaeff provided additional information regarding the concept. In response to Councilman Naggar's comments, Deputy City Manager Thornhill provided additional information regarding incentives for developers to construct units which would encompass a portion of units for affordable housing, noting the goal to create affordable housing while the visual external appearance of the housing would not appear to be differentiated due to minor variances within the unit being reduction in squarefootage and/or interior amenities. Commissioner Mathewson relayed for discussion purposes, the concept of financial transfers within communities whereby one community did not desire to fully address very Iow income housing and would provide financial transfers to address the housing need in an alternate community, noting his concern that the City having some control with respect to housing in response to the desire of the community. In response to Commissioner Mathewson's comments, Councilman Roberts relayed additional information regarding the financial transfer concept being implemented in the Rancho Mirage area. For informational purposes, and in response to Councilman Roberts' previous comments, Mr. Samuel Alhadeff clarified that the financial transfer agreement was made was made with the City of Coachella, providing additional information regarding the issues associated with the concept; and suggested contacting the City of Coachella for additional information regarding the agreement. Commissioner Telesio commented on the variant levels of income required for housing development at 25 units per acre dependent upon the area of the development (i.e., Newport Beach Coast); and queried whether the State took this variance into consideration. In response, Mr. Bridges relayed that in the City of Temecula, the development of 20 units per acres would proximately equate to meeting the Iow income level, clarifying that at 25 units per acre the Iow income level would definitely be met; provided additional information regarding density bonuses; and relayed the potential of the State commenting that even with density bonuses the goal should be 25 units per acre. For Councilman Pratt, Mr. Bridges relayed that if there was a recession at a future date affecting income levels that there would most likely be a reduction in the cost of housing units, confirming that the ratio would remain the same. It was the consensus of the Council and the Commission to have the consultant move forward with the Element with a density level of 20 units per acre for the very Iow-income housing levels. R:\Minutes\080100 4 2 Growth Manaqement Plan RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Provide direction to the Planning Commission and staff on the density and amenity issues associated with the Growth Management Plan (GMP). Deputy City Manager Thornhill provided an overview of the Council's adoption of the Growth Management Plan (GMP), noting the implementation of the program, relaying that staff and the Commission desired to have additional clarification with respect to Policy No. 2, Section B (regarding the Planning Commission's approval of projects above the lowest densities if the project provided onsite or community amenities), specifically regarding what constitutes an amenity;, and relayed Councilman Naggar's query with respect to the Council's and Commission's view regarding tentative tract and parcel maps that have been previously approved, and are now requesting time extensions. Chairman Guerriero relayed that on the Commission there was not a consensus with respect to what the Council viewed as an amenity, and referenced the General Plan, page 222, Section 5.1 regarding this issue which sited examples of amenities. Mayor Pro Tem Comerchero clarified that with respect to the Planning Commission's approval of the lowest density levels, that the GMP pertained to Specific Plans and large development plans; noted that the Council was seeking, in terms of amenities, major infrastructure improvements, and community benefits; clarified that the policy was not a mandate to approve projects solely at the lowest density range, noting his concern if there was no flexibility in the approval process; and recommended that although guidelines were necessary, each project should be approved on a case-by-case basis. Councilman Naggar relayed that his recommendation would be to not add additional specificity to the guidelines, but that the Planning Commission should initially consider the minimum densities in relation to the project's benefits to the community; advised that he had every confidence that the Planning Commission could adequately make the determination whether the qualifying amenities were certain road improvements, or other community assets; concurred with Mayor Pro Tern Comerchero's comments, that the City did not desire to limit development strictly based solely on the lowest densities (siting Mayor Pro Tern Comerchero's example that if a developer proposed a project with higher densities while offering to build a City Library), and that the City did not desire to remove all flexibility, basing approval only on the lowest end of the density range if the project had alternate merits. In addition to referencing the amenities denoted in the General Plan, Chairman Guerriero provided examples of amenities that had been presented to the Commission on previous projects (i.e., a community pool which was increased in size and permitted via written agreement to be utilized by the Swim Team, and specific road improvements); clarified that the Commissioners' opinion differed with respect to qualifying amenities, relayed that in his opinion additional landscaping should be a qualifying amenity, siting a project that had been presented which proposed a forty-seven percent (47%) landscape plan in lieu of the twenty percent (20%) requirement, advising that at this time there was no data to support this asset as a qualifying amenity. Referencing the GMP, and the General Plan, Commissioner Chiniaeff queried that variance in the language of the documents, noting that the General Plan reflected that the target density was mid-range, while the GMP reflected that the target range was the lowest range, questioning R:\Minutes\080100 5 whether the General Plan needed to be amended to reflect the GMP guidelines. In response, City Attorney Thorson advised that the GMP indicated that each project shall be considered on its own merit in accordance with the General Plan and the City's Zoning Ordinance, confirming Commissioner Chiniaeff's comments that the direction of the GMP in Section 2, B, was for the Planning Commission to consider approval with these guidelines; specified that the direction was for the Planning Commission to focus on whether or not the density was creating a negative impact, and whether or not there could be Findings under the General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance to address this factor; clarified that the GMP was not an amendment to the General Plan, and therefore could not compel the Commission or the Council to solely approve a project at the lowest density; and provided additional information regarding staff's direction to developers. Referencing the General Plan which stated that Future residential development is expected to occur at the target levels of density, as stated in the table (which denoted mid-range densities), Commissioner Chiniaeff recommended that if this was not the City's desire, that the General Plan should be amended. In response, City Attorney Thorson clarified that the General Plan did not state that the density would be mid-range, but that it was expected; relayed that on a case- by-case basis each project would be reviewed in order to determine if the densities proposed were appropriate under those certain circumstances, and to determine the impacts to the community. Councilman Naggar relayed that with respect to the General Plan dens!ty table figures which were previously referenced, that he interpreted that to mean that these figures would represent the expected average densities with Citywide development; noted that he viewed the GMP as a philosophy that the Council was communicating to the Planning Commission, relaying that upon review of development proposals the Council would begin with the concept of approving projects in the lower density level, but would take into account other aspects of the project. Commissioner Chiniaeff relayed that the General Plan was specific in that the expected density was the mid-range, based on the previously mentioned table, advising that a process was followed with the development of that language in the General Plan at that point in time; and reiterated his recommendation that if there was a change in the Council's philosophy, that the new policy ought to go through the same process. Deputy City Manager Thornhill clarified that the referenced density range (via the General Plan) did not apply to medium and high density, advising that it was it was the desire to not discourage the development of affordable housing. In light of the desire to not discourage development of affordable housing, Commissioner Mathewson queried how a high density development proposal that would have rents not qualifying for affordable housing should be viewed; and queried whether the target range would be applicable in a case such as this. In response to Commissioner Mathewson's comments, Chairman Guerriero relayed that in the past, the Commission had questioned whether an applicant would be willing to designate a portion of a development for senior housing or Iow-income housing, advising that if the applicant was not agreeable that this would eliminate one of the amenities that the City was seeking. Chairman Guerriero advised that the Commission desired to have a more definitive direction with respect to the specific amenities that would qualify for approving a higher density, or to incorporate a General Plan amendment. R:\Minutes\080100 6 Councilman Pratt advised that in his opinion the Planning Commission was qualified to struggle with these issues in determining whether or not a project should be approved; and noted that since the future held additional growth in the City there would need to be plans for improvement with respect to transportation issues. For Councilman Naggar, Deputy City Manager Thornhill clarified the density levels represented on the referenced table in the General Plan, noting that due to the calculations the City utilized in the circulation modeling that there was a buffer, since the medium and high-density projects have never been developed at the highest level; relayed that if it was the desire of the Council to amend the General Plan in order to revise the target density levels, that there would still be flexibility within that range during the approval process; recommended processing an amendment to the General Plan prior to the update process in order to create clarity with respect to targeted densities, noting that staff needed information in order to direct applicants who would begin planning projects that could encompass a one to one-and-half year period of time. Mr. Robert Oder, representing Mira Loma Apartments, relayed his concern with the lack of definition of what the Council considered an amenity with respect to an apartment complex, or rental housing; advised that there was a universal understanding in the industry that an amenity was an asset to the property which enabled the property owner to receive higher rents (i.e., swimming pool, recreation center, microwave ovens); referencing the Temecula Ridge project, noted that this proposal had multiple amenities; and concurred with Commissioner Chiniaeff's comments that the GMP appears to state that the lowest density range was the desire of the Council, whereas the General Plan codifies what has to be done, relaying that he would be more comfortable applying the GMP if it was submitted to the same review procedure as the General Plan. In response to Mr. Oder, and for informational purposes, Councilman Naggar commented on the Temecula Ridge Project, noting that this proposal was near the high end of the density range; and relayed that he could support changing the term amenity, noting that in his opinion the amenities the Council were seeking were for the purpose of attaining community value. Councilman Roberts relayed that in his opinion, amenities could refer to internal amenities that would reduce the generation of traffic (i.e., a proposed 25-meter pool, a large tot Iht, and barbecues) which would reduce the need to leave the complex. Mayor Pro Tern Comerchero relayed that it was clear to him that the term amenity was not viewed the same by the Council as it was by the apartment development industry, advising that it might be appropriate for the GMP to change the word amenity;, and noted that the Council, when adopting the GMP, was seeking major community Citywide amenities, relaying a desire to clarify this issue. In response, Mr. Oder relayed that an apartment complex with multiple amenities created a higher quality of life, and thereby was an improvement to the community. For Councilman Naggarl Mr. Oder relayed that it was his opinion that including affordable housing in a luxury apartment project (i.e., the Temecula Ridge Project) would not be appropriate, noting that it was his opinion that Iow income housing was better suited in single detached dwellings. Mr. William Griffith, representing the Wolf Creek Specific Plan, viewed the GMP as an implementation document via growth management (i.e., balancing the issue of establishing roads, and ensuring adequate traffic circulation); noted that the General Plan was a legislative document providing density ranges, identifying amenities, trade-off elements, and housing R:\Minutes\080100 7 elements; noted his difficulty with Section B1 of the GMP due to the application process, the environmental review, and the design of infrastructure; noted the confusion with respect to when a development application was deemed complete, relaying the process; noted that per an anonymous phone call to staff, it had been relayed that the densities were to be at the lowest end of the range in future development proposals; provided an overview of the proposals in the Wolf Creek Specific Plan, noting the planning period of approximately two years; and recommended that the GMP and the General Plan be disconnected, reiterating that the GMP was solely an implementation tool. Mr. Barton Buchalter, 30000 Block of Rancho California Road, relayed that from a developer's standpoint, if it was the desire of the Council to approve projects at the lowest densities that the General Plan should be amended, noting that there was certainty needed which would affect property rights, and the individual's due process; opposed the inconsistencies between the GMP and the General Plan, reiterating his recommendation that the General Plan be amended in order to create an equitable situation for developers; noted that required amenities.should be differentiated on smaller sites; relayed the acceptable density ranges in alternate areas (i.e., the City of Irvine); and advised that the City may lose quality development if this issue was not resolved. Councilman Pratt relayed his support of the GMP, noting the importance of the community's comments with respect to the issue of growth management. Councilman Naggar relayed that he did not view the GMP as inconsistent to the General Plan, noting that if the viewed inconsistency had been the target density, that this issue had been clarified; with respect to Mr. Griffith's queries, recommended that when preparing a project for the approval process that the developer ensure that if the densities were higher than the lowest range that there be an accompanying excellent project package (i.e., road improvements, fire stations, libraries); and reiterated that the GMP was a philosophy, relaying that if growth was not managed it could create a crisis situation especially in light of the County's developmental impacts on the City of Temecula. In response to Councilman Roberts, City Attorney Thorson relayed that the GMP specified that each project must be determined on its own merit in terms of its consistency with the General Plan, the Zoning Ordinance, and with State and Federal Law, advising that there was not a conflict with the General Plan, noting that it would not create legal liability issues. Mayor Pro Tem Comerchero concurred with Councilman Naggar, noting that he did not view the GMP as inconsistent with the General Plan, clarifying that the language of the GMP stated direct the Planning Commission to consider, advised that the Council's direction to the Planning Commission was that the Council trusted the Commission to make the decisions within the parameters of the direction provided; clarified that the direction was for the Planning Commission to initially consider development at the Iow end of the density range and to take into account proposed community benefits; with respect to the amenities represented in the General Plan which Chairman Guerriero had presented, noted that he concurred that those denotations as acceptable amenities; and relayed that the target density level could still be the mid-range if there were community benefits proposed with the project. Chairman Guerriero clarified that the density issue was not the issue needing clarification, advising that the matter of confusion was with respect to a clear definition of qualifying amenities; noted that if the Council desired to utilize the 11 amenities denoted in the General Plan, that the Planning Commission could move forward with a clearer understanding; recommended adding an additional qualifying amenity to the list: an increased percentage of R:\Minutes\080100 8 landscaping, relaying that in his opinion if a project proposed an approximate fifty percent (50%) landscape plan this amenity should qualify as a community asset. In response to Chairman Guerriero, Mayor Pro Tem Comerchero advised that the Council did not desire to limit the qualifying amenities, directing the Commission to determine whether a proposed amenity qualified as a community benefit. Commissioner Mathewson relayed that with respect to the amenity of proposed increased landscaping, that there would need to be a balance on a case-by-case basis, advising that there may be projects that have significant impacts on the site (i.e., significant grading impacts), reiterating the need for a balancing effect; relayed that he could move forward with the Council's direction, noting that the GMP did not state shall consider, but may consider, advising that there was flexibility; and with respect to qualifying amenities, concurred with Councilman Roberts' comments that a reduction in the generation of vehicular trips should be considered an amenity, while noting that some amenities (i.e., a swimming pool ) could reduce trips for residents not needing to leave the complex, that if the facility was open to the public it could also be an attractor of traffic. Commissioner Chiniaeff concurred that a reduction in vehicular trips was a public benefit; relayed that it was his opinion that there was a lack of information available to the development community; noted that via the development community, roads, houses and commercial centers were built in a community, advising that in his opinion the City owed the developers a fiduciary responsibility to have a degree of certainty as to a more specific direction with respect to densities; noted that the General Plan was not clear if in the approval process the GMP was included; reiterated that the General Plan specifically stated that the target density was mid- range, relaying that in exchange for special public benefits the Council and the Planning Commission might allow the densities to be between the target density and the maximum density; advised that due to the explicit direction in the General Plan, that if the densities desired have changed, the General Plan should be amended; noted that it was the Planning Commission's charge to enforce the guidelines and policies in the General Plan; relayed that in his opinion, the Council's direction was leaving the development community in a no-man's-land; and recommended that if the Council's desire was to have a Growth Management Policy it should be part of the General Plan. At Councilman Naggar's request, City Attorney Thorson noted the preceding policies of the General Plan which listed eight or nine policies to be considered; clarified that the General Plan addressed a range of densities, not specifying one density for each land use area; advised that the General Plan provided a mechanism to determine the manner that densities would be adjusted in the preceding policies; confirmed that it stated that the expected target density range was mid-range, advising that guidelines could be developed determining the evaluation of varying densities; and relayed that the General Plan was acceptable, as written, as a legal minimum. Advising that it was not his desire that anyone should be left in a no-man's-land, Councilman Naggar advised that any individual who was considering making a sizeable investment by virtue of development in this City, one should be able to bank on something, and to have a certain degree of certainty. Commissioner Chiniaeff reiterated the lack of clarification with the direction for developers to pursue. R:\Minutes\080100 9 In response to discussion comments, Deputy City Manager Thornhill relayed that most of the apartment projects that have been constructed in the City of Temecula have been in the 14-16 units per acre range, advising that to the best of his knowledge there were no development projects close to the 20 units per acre range. In response to City Manager Nelson's queries with respect to the consistency of the GMP with the General Plan, Deputy City Manager Thornhill relayed that while he concurred with City Attorney Thorson's comments from a legal perspective, that from a planner's point of ~iew it was his preference that there be cedainty in the General Plan, and that the language of the General Plan (which was the bible for development direction for developers) clarify the basic policy standards; recommended that the language of the General Plan include additional specificity with respect to the amenities; and relayed that clarification would aid in staffs communication with the developers. In response to Mayor Pro Tern Comerchero, Deputy City Manager Thornhill confirmed that if the amenities were more cleady defined there would still not be absolute certainty, but that the ambiguity would be reduced if there were no conflicts between the General Plan and the GMP; and advised that if the two documents (the General Plan and the GMP) were consistent, then the negotiations could begin with the amenities issue. Mayor Pro Tem Comerchero suggested that there be development of a matrix, whereby 20 qualifying amenities could be denoted, and prioritized in order of the most important assets to the community, and then have that data be placed in the form of a table; noted that it could be specified that for a certain amenity there could a be certain percent increase in density. In response, Deputy City Manager Thornhill relayed that this was a feasible concept, noting that staff could work with the Commission and bring forward to the Council recommendations. Councilman Pratt commented on the importance of the concepts expressed from the community residents with respect to growth management. Councilman Naggar relayed that although the City Council could meet to determine additional specificity with respect to qualifying amenities, that it would reduce the flexibility the Planning Commission currently had, querying whether that was the desire of the Commission; and noted that he could support the concept of developing a matrix table as suggested by Mayor Pro Tem Comerchero. Commissioner Mathewson relayed concern with respect to identifying specific standards, advising that General Plans were intended to be general; noted that there was subjectivity in the approval process; and relayed that if standards were further specified, the approval process may be bound to specifics that were not applicable for some projects, while clarifying that he would support expanding the list of qualifying amenities. Commissioner Chiniaeff relayed that while the General Plan did not have to have language that was specific, it should provide guidance with respect to siting the amenities that would be considered when approving densities above the densities outlined in the General Plan; and recommended that during the General Plan update process that there be revisions to reconcile the GMP with the densities, and to provide what community benefits (i.e., trip reductions) could be utilized to offset increase in densities. In response to Councilman Naggar, Commissioner Chiniaeff relayed that with clear direction in the General Plan, the approval process would still have flexibility. R:\Minutes\080100 10 Commissioner Telesio relayed the desire to review the projects with definite guidelines on a case-by-case basis, with an element of flexibility; and advised that after discussion of this issue, he felt comfortable to move forward with the General Plan and GMP, as written. Mayor Stone relayed his complete confidence in the Planning Commission; reiterated that he was a strong supporter of property rights and due process; noted that it was not his desire to limit the approval process with the development of a matrix table; concurred with Commissioner Chiniaeff' comments that there was confusion with respect to the General Plan and the GMP, relaying that potential land buyers should be able to have certain expectations, advising that there was a conflict between the legal verbiage and expectations, recommending that the language be clarified so that a potential land buyer could have provision of expectations within a certain range. Councilman Roberts relayed that he did not support the matrix concept, noting that the latitude in the approval process was necessary. Councilman Naggar commented on the balance between approving greater densities and the amenities a developer proposed; and recommended leaving that discretion to the Planning Commission. In response to Mayor Pro Tem Comerchero's queries, Chairman Guerriero relayed that if it was the City Council's desire to grant latitude to the Planning Commission to determine whether the amenities proposed qualified for approving higher densities, that he could move forward with that direction, In concurrence with Mayor Stone's comments, Commissioner Mathewson recommended that when the update process took place that clarification I~e added with respect to the relationship of the GMP to the General Plan; and relayed that he felt comfortable to move forward with the approval process with his interpretation of the GMP and the General Plan. Mayor Stone queried whether the Commission was clear that the Commission could grant a density incentive for an on-site improvement proposed to be utilized solely for the residents living in the project. In response to Mayor Stone, Commissioner Telesio relayed that he could support granting density incentives for on-site improvements due to fact that a better quality development would be a benefit to the community. In response to Mayor Stone, Commissioner Chiniaeff concurred with the discussion comments regarding provision of density incentives; and relayed the importance of the planning staff having a clear understanding of the development expectations since staff would be addressing future applicants. Councilman Naggar commented on on-site amenities, clarifying that the City desired quality development and that in his opinion microwave ovens or tile floors would not be qualifying amenities. Mayor Pro Tern Comerchero noted that within the subjective judgement of the Planning Commission, certain amenities would carry greater weight than others (i.e., an amenity that benefited the entire community rather than one that benefited solely the project's residents). R:\Minutes\080100 11 Chairman Guerriero recommended that with projects that were highly visible in the community that there be consideration to require some type of a landscape monumentation or a statement element; and provided additional information regarding the visual buffer landscaping could provide. In response to Mayor Stone's previous query regarding a development's provision of an on-site amenity (i.e., a pool), Commissioner Mathewson relayed that he would balance the amenity with how it benefited the community, as a whole. It was noted that at 8:42 P.M. the meeting recessed, reconvening at 8:59 P.M. Deputy City Manager Thornhill reiterated the request for the City Council to provide direction with respect to requests for time extensions on Tentative Tract Maps and Tentative Parcel Maps; and provided an overview of the existing review process of granting the extensions. Councilman Naggar recommended that the Planning Director consider the GMP when considering the request of the time extensions. In response to Councilman Naggar, Commissioner Chiniaeff relayed opposition to changing allowable densities on a previously approved map, advising that the landowner would lose entitlements they had previously obtained; and noted that most likely numerous maps would expire with respect to the ability to request time extensions during the next two-to-three year period. Councilman Naggar advised that the landowner would be able to maintain the density level if there were proposed amenities (i.e., horse trails). Councilman Roberts, echoed by Mayor Stone, recommended that the process of approving the map time extensions remain, as is. In response to Councilman Roberts, Deputy City Manager Thornhill advised that when reviewing the time extensions that staff reviewed the projects with respect to the State Law that pertained to granting those extensions, considering whether it was consistent with the General Plan and whether there were public health and safety issues that may exist now that did not exist at the time of the approval, ensuring that the maps appropriately addressed these two issues. For Councilman Pratt, Deputy City Manager Thornhill relayed staff's efforts to ensure that trail easements were obtained on properties adjacent to the creeks. Deputy City Manager Thornhill relayed that if there were areas of concern in the review process that staff would bump up the approval process of the time extension request to the Planning Commission level. City Attorney Thorson relayed that the City could not condition a map extension, advising that it could either be granted or denied, while noting that the property owner could agree to a condition; provided addiUonal information regarding the remaining lots; advised that when a request for a time extension was submitted, that there was an automatic 60-day extension per State Law, noting that the final map could be perfected during the period, bypassing the extension process altogether; noted that if the City requested trails, there would have to be Findings to justify the fact that there were different circumstances at this time that did not exist R:\Minutes\080100 12 when the map was approved; and for Councilman Naggar, provided additional information regarding the trail system ~being added to the General Plan. 3 General Plan Progress Update RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 Provide comments on the Elements (i.e. Land Use, Circulation, Growth Management) that should be examined during the update of the City's General Plan. Senior Planner Hogan presented the staff report (as per agenda material), noting the request for input from the Commission and the Council with respect to the General Plan update; relayed that the matters staff had preliminary identified for addressing were with respect to the following: 1) the landfill land issues, specifically with regard to the remaining vacant land, 2) the process of addressing Open Space preservation issues, 3) investigating alternate transit options, 4) addressing built-out traffic conditions, 5) investigating the effect of regional growth issues, and 6)ultimately to research the sustainability of the community; relayed that the new traffic analysis would be conducted intersection-based rather than road segment-based; advised that staff would request the consultant to provide a ten-year infrastructure recommendation; relayed that there would be additional noise and air quality studies; and reiterated the request for the Commission and the Council to provide input with respect to any policies, focuses, or issues to address at this time in the updating process. Councilman Roberts recommended that there be a Transit Element investigated during the General Plan update process in order to consider the feasibility of the matter, noting that Councilman Pratt had made recommendations in the past regarding this issue. For Councilman Roberts, Deputy City Manager Thornhill confirmed that there was a transit corridor on Winchester Road, relaying that staff has been ensuring provision of those easements as development occurs. Mayor Pro Tem Comerchero relayed concurrence with including a Transit Element in the update, advising that it should be tied into the Land Use Element, specifically with regard to the relationship between the two; in response to Senior Planner Hogan's query, noted that it was his opinion that the General Plan should, additionally, address art in public places. Chairman Guerriero recommended that there be investigation with respect to underground parking facilities (i.e., in the Old Town area, or in the second phase of the mall), and to investigate tunneling (underpasses) as opposed to overpasses (i.e., in the Highway 79 area); and recommended that the City develop specified truck routes. Commissioner Mathewson recommended that Land Use, Circulation, and the Growth Management clarification be addressed, as well as the Community Design Element, specifically with respect to architecture, landscaping, and monumentation; recommended that the Open Space Element address recreational facilities; and with respect to the Housing Element, recommended investigating financial transfers to alternate communities in order to address the regional housing impacts, querying the Council for their input regarding this issue. In response to Mayor Stone, City Attorney Thorson relayed that staff could bring back the issue of financial transfers in order to provide the Council with additional background information. R:\Minutes\080100 13 With respect to the Western Bypass Project, Councilman Pratt recommended that in order to accommodate the area on the western portion of the creek, that there be a circular circulation route (creating a circular route around the City) whereby the Sport's Park would be accessible from alternate portions of the City witl~out travelling through the center of town. Concurring with Commissioner Mathewson's comments regarding the Community Design and Architecture Element, Commissioner Chiniaeff advised that while the larger projects were scrutinized with respect to this issue that there be closer attention paid to the smaller projects, as well; and recommended that a major issue needing to be addressed in the update was the sphere of influence. In response to Councilman Naggar, with respect to transit issues, Deputy City Manager Thornhill relayed that while it was possibly too late for the planning of fixed routes, that there were numerous options for non-fixed routes. With respect to the process of updating the General Plan, Commissioner Mathewson recommended that there be efforts to incorporate citizen involvement (i.e., workshops in neighborhoods). In response, Deputy City Manager Thornhill relayed that staff had involved the community during the last update, confirming that this was an integral part of the process, noting that staff would incorporate community involvement. Councilman Naggar relayed the importance of expediting the process of completing the update. Mayor Stone relayed that this Joint City Council/Planning Commission Workshop had been productive, recommending that the workshops be held at a minimum of twice a year. ADJOURNMENT At 9:28 P.M., the City Council convened as the Temecula Community Services District and the Temecula Redevelopment Agency, and Mayor Stone formally adjourned the Joint City Council/Planning Commission Workshop to the next City Council regular meeting on Tuesday, Auqust 8, 2000, 7:00 P.M., and to the next Planning Commission regular meeting on Wednesday, Auqust 2, 2000, 6:00 P.M., City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. ATT.EST: ~,_07 , //~ ~- ~?~,.Jones, C~ /-¢ I [SEAL] _~ ¢ J~rey E. Stone, Mayor R:\Minutes\080100 14