Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout112800 CC MinutesMINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL NOVEMBER 28, 2000 The City Council convened in Closed Session at 5:30 P.M. and convened in a regular meeting at 7:02 P.M., on Tuesday, November 28, 2000, in the City Council Chambers of Temecula City Hall, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. Present; Councilmembers: Comerchero, Naggar, Pratt, Roberts, Stone Absent: Councilmember: None PRELUDE MUSIC The prelude music was provided by Amanda Madrid. INVOCATION The invocation was given by Pastor Steven Leinhos of New Community Lutheran Church. ALLEGIANCE The salute to the Flag was led by Councilman Pratt. PUBLIC COMMENTS A. Ms. Diane Bainbridge,.29800 Camino del Sol, extended an invitation to the City Council, staff, and the community to attend and participate in a Temecula/Murrieta Candlelight Tribute Remembering our Children on Saturday, December 2, 2000, at 5:00 P.M., at the Promenade Mall, in the courtyard area. Advising that this tribute would be in honor and in remembrance of all the children that many families, in both communities, have lost in the last decade and beyond. Ms. Bainbridge suggested to those individuals who choose to attend to bring a Teddy Bear with a ribbon of a loved one's name on it, advising that these Bears will then be given to local hospitals, public/safety agencies and children's charities in both communities. Advising that he will be in attendance, Mayor Pro Tern Comerchero welcomed the public to attend this special event. B. Ms. Michelle Anderson, 43797 Barletta Street, representing Citizens First of Temecula Valley, commended Deputy City Manager Thornhill on his efforts associated with the Growth Management Plan. Because, in her opinion, the Plan is not being adhered to, commenting on Temecula Ridge Apartments and Wolf Creek and advising that these developments do not meet the elements of the Growth Management Plan, Ms. Anderson advised that an initiative (copies of which were presented to the City Clerk) is being petitioned in an effort to place it on the November 2001 ballot and in an effort to ensure implementation of the City's Growth Management Plan. In response to Ms. Anderson, Councilman Roberts noted that the City Council had not yet discussed/considered Wolf Creek. R:\Minutes\112800 1 C. Ms. Shannon Murdaugh, 43600 San Fermin, as President of the Three Lakes Foster Parent Association, addressed the Association's on-going financial needs and requested that the City Council consider them during funding deliberations in an effort for them to achieve their goal of a permanent location for the Association. D. Ms. Kathy Koslan, 31890 Via Tatalla, representing Body in Balance Massage Therapy, requested that the City Council review its current procedure to impose a $500 business establishment fee on massage business and a $200 yearly renewal fee, stating that, in her opinion, her business as well as many others in the City are legitimate business but are being isolated as it relates to the imposed fees. City Manager Nelson noted that staff would set up an appointment with Ms. Koslan. E. With delight, Mr. Bob Ritchie, 44773 Tehachapi Pass, thanked the City Council for its support and efforts with regard to the Vail Ranch Annexation. Deputy City Manager Thornhill confirmed that the annexation should be finalized by July 1, 2001. For Councilman Naggar, Mayor Pro Tern Comerchero noted that a ribbon-cutting ceremony will be scheduled. F. Mr. Robert Wheeler, 29090 Camino Alba, addressed what he would view as the County's embarkment on urban sprawl and commented on the detrimental impacts of such action to the cities within the County. Mr. Wheeler requested that the City take a more proactive approach to ensure the interests of the City and its residents are protected, suggesting that the County be asked for an injunction against any further development approval in the French Valley and along Highway 79S until the Riverside County Integrated Plan has been completed and that no additional residential tracts be built until the necessary infrastructure is in place (of record) until there is assurance that such infrastructure will be built within a reasonable timeframe and that agreement must be reached between the Riverside County Integrated Plan and the City's Growth Management Plan. Noting that the City Council has requested the County to postpone any upzones until the completion of the Riverside County Integrated Plan, Councilman Naggar advised that he will requesting that the City Council address this matter in Closed Session. In response to the above-made comments, Mayor Stone advised that the City has chosen to proceed, with the County, in a diplomatic manner in an effort top ensure development along the City's periphery will be properly mitigated; that the City Council will take prompt and appropriate action to ensure mitigation of projects, if approved, and to apply remedies necessary to protect the best interests of all citizens. G. Mr. Jason Braeger, 33468 Hidden Hollow Drive, a San Diego University senior student, informed the City Council of his attendance in order to obtain some first-hand experience as to the procedures of a City Council meeting. H. Mr. Wayne Hall, 42131 Agena Street, praised the City in its archaeological efforts. R:\Minutes\112800 2 CITY COUNCIL REPORTS A. Commenting on the good attendance at a recent Waterpark Workshop, Councilman Naggar advised that he would keep the City Council and public apprised of the progress and noted that a Trails Master Plan meeting has been scheduled for Monday, December 4, 2000, at City Hall and welcomed public padicipation. B. Councilman Councilman Pratt commended those involved on the Safety Expo at Chaparral High School. C. Although the completion of the Overland Overcrossing provided numerous benefits, Mayor Pro Tem Comerchero advised that it as well placed additional traffic on Margarita Road, noting some relief may be attained by the future completion of Butterfield Stage Road. As an interim measure, Mr. Comerchero had identified five streets that access Margarita Road on the east side and, thereby, making it very difficult to make a left-hand turn in light of the increased traffic; noted that for each of those five streets a painted median is present; suggested to explore the possibility of restriping the median area in order to provide a merge lane. Mr. Comerchero suggested that the matter be explored for feasibility by Public Works Director Hughes prior to it being forwarded to the Public/Traffic Safety Commission. D. ' Mayor Pro Tern Comerchero informed the public that the City's Annual Christmas Parade is this Friday, December 1, 2000. ~ E. Advising that the Mobile Source Air Pollution Reduction Review Committee (MSRC) receives substantial funding from the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) in order to alternative fuel projects, advising that RTA will receive $2.5 million to retrofit 57 buses to alternative fuel transit buses rather than diesel buses. F. Having visited Germany to receive an orientation on the magnetic-levitation train, Councilman Roberts noted that he viewed this train as the next generation of high-speed rail. Mr. Roberts apprised the Council and the public that Southern California is one of seven area in the United States to attempt its efforts on obtaining a $950 million Federal grant which would be utilized to put such a train into operation. Mr. Robeds proceeded with a description of the first proposed from Los Angeles Airport to March Airrorce Base. G. Commending the Police Department on its efforts associated with Enfome Responsible Alcohol Consumption in Temecula (ERAClT), Mayor Stone advised that five people were apprehended, last week, for driving under the influence. H. Commenting on the number of e-mails he had received with regard to a freeway plan traveling through Wolf Valley and Rainbow Canyon communities, Mayor Stone advised that he has consulted with a Caltrans representative and noted that no freeway will be constructed on the south side of the City. Confirming Mayor Stone's comment, Councilman Roberts advised that as part of the Community Environmental Transportation Acceptability Process (CETAP) various freeway options were explored but that the environmentalist oppose the option of Wolf Valley/Rainbow Canyon and clarified that CETAP is not proceeding with this option. I. Mayor Stone informed the City Council and community that a youngster in the City by the name of Nicolas Flint has been stricken with cancer, advising that he is hospitalized at St. Joseph's Hospital; that a fundraiser for Nicolas has been scheduled for December 6, 2000, at Stadium Pizza, in an effort to assist the family with the surmounting medical bills. R:\Minutes\112800 3 CONSENT ~ALENDAR 1 Standard Ordinance and Resolution Adoption Procedure RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Motion to waive the reading of the text of all ordinances and resolutions included in the agenda. 2 Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Approve the minutes of October 10, 2000. (Councilman Naggar voted in opposition to the approval of the minutes.) 3 Resolution approvinq List of Demands RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 2000-76 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A 4 Liability Insurance Renewal RECOMMENDATION: 4.1 Approve the City of Temecula Liability Insurance Policy Renewal with Insurance Company of the West in the amount of $113,170 for general liability and automobile physical damage insurance for the period of December 1, 2000 through December 1, 2001. 5 First Amendment to the Aqreement with Meiad and Associates RECOMMENDATION: 5.1 Approve a First Amendment to the agreement with Melad and Associates in the amount of $40,000; 5.2 Approve a 10% contingency in the amount of $4,000.00. R:\Minutes\112800 4 6 Public Works Maintenance Aqreements RECOMMENDATION: 6.1 Approve the minor maintenance and construction agreements with Monteleone Contractors, Inc. in an amount not to exceed $100,000, with Walter K. Becker (dba Becker Engineering) in an amount not to exceed $100,000, and with Rene's Commercial Management in an amount not to exceed $100,000. 7 Purchase of a Portable, Self-Contained Vacuum Catch Basin Cleaner for the Public Works Maintenance Division RECOMMENDATION: 7.1 Approve the purchase of a portable, self-contained vacuum catch basin cleaner in the amount of $48,847.43 from Ditch Witch of Southern California. 8 Authorize Temporary Street Closures for Temecula's Electric Liqht Parade on December 1, 2000, and delegate authority to issue Special Events/Street Closures Permit to the Director of Public Works/City Enqineer RECOMMENDATION: 8.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 2000-77 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AUTHORIZING TEMPORARY STREET CLOSURES FOR JEFFERSON AVENUE AND ABUTTING STREETS FROM DEL RIO ROAD TO OVERLAND AVENUE FOR TEMECULA'S' ELECTRIC LIGHT PARADE ON DECEMBER 1, 2000, AND AUTHORIZING THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEER TO ISSUE A SPECIAL EVENTS PERMIT INCLUDING STREET CLOSURES 9 Trees for the Millennium Grant Application for FY 2000-2001 RECOMMENDATION: 9.1 Receive and file the report regarding the City's Trees for the Millennium Grant Application for the planting of street trees within the Winchester Creek Development and authorize the Director of Public Works to forward said application to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection; R:\Minutes\112800 5 9.2 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 2000-78 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA SUPPORTING THE FILING OF AN APPLICATION FOR THE URBAN FORESTRY GRANT PROGRAM AS PROVIDED THROUGH THE CALIFORNIA TREES FOR THE MILLENNIUM INITIATIVE FUNDED THROUGH THE FOREST RESOURCE IMPROVEMENT FUND FOR THE WINCHESTER CREEK DEVELOPMENT 10 Second Amendment to agreement with Davidson + Allen Architects City Maintenance Facility Modifications - Phase III- Project No. PW00-16 RECOMMENDATION: 10.1 Approve the second amendment to the Consultant Services Agreement between the City and Davidson + Allen Architects, increasing the contract amount by $9,549.02. 11 Tract Map No. 29286 - Findinq of Conformance with its oriqinal approval (located on the southeast corner of Date Street and Marqarita Road) RECOMMENDATION: 11.1 Approve Tract Map No. 29286 in conformance with the conditions of approval; 11.2 Approve the Subdivision Improvement Agreement; 11.3 Approve the Subdivision Monument Agreement and accept the Faithful Performance Bond, Labor and Material Bond, and Monument Bond as security for the agreements. 12 Benefit Allotment Change - Effective January 1, 2001 RECOMMENDATION: 12.1 Approve an increase of the City of Temecula employee benefit monthly allotment from $496 to $650, effective January 1, 2001. This increase is intended to keep the Temecula's benefit package competitive and to offset the ever-rising costs of medical, dental, and vision plan inflation. 13 Calle Medusa - Results of Residential Survey RECOMMENDATION: 13.1 Accept the survey results received from residents living on or near Calle Medusa; abandon the concept of closing this roadway to through traffic; and continue ongoing enforcement of existing traffic laws in this area. (Item No. 13 was pulled for separate discussion; see page 7.) R:\Minutes\112800 6 14 Second Readinq of Ordinance No. 2000-13 - Rezoninq approximately 32.6 acres of property on the south side of State Route 79 (South) east of Jedediah Smith Road; Adopt a resolution approvinq a General Plan Amendment removinq the western portion of Via Rio Temecula from the General Plan Circulation Element; and approve a Settlement and Release Aqreement between the City and Old Vail Partners RECOMMENDATION: 14.1 Adopt an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 2000-13 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA FOR THE SOUTH SIDE OF STATE ROUTE 79 (SOUTH) EAST OF JEDEDIAH SMITH ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 961-010-006 AND ADDING SECTIONS 17.22.130 THROUGH 17.22.138 TO THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE FOR PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY DISTRICT NO. 4 (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 99-0261) 14.2 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 2000-79 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA REMOVING THE WESTERN PORTION OF VIA RIO TEMECULA FROM THE GENERAL PLAN CIRCULATION MAP (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 99-0371) With regard to Item No. 14, City Attorney Thorson advised that a revised Settlement Agreement, reflecting minor changes, has been distributed to the City Councilmembers and that the City Council's action include the approval of the Settlement Agreement. No opposition was noted by the City Councilmembers. MOTION: Councilman Naggar moved to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1 - 12 and 14 (Item No. 13 was pulled for separate discussion. The motion was seconded by Mayor Pro Tern Comerchero and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Councilman Naggar who voted n_9o with regard to Item No. 2 CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM CONSIDERED UNDER SEPARATE DISCUSSION 13 Calle Medusa - Results of Residential Survey RECOMMENDATION: 13.1 Accept the survey results received from residents living on or near Calle Medusa; abandon the concept of closing this roadway to through traffic; and continue ongoing enforcement of existing traffic laws in this area. R:\Minutes\112800 7 Public Works Director Hughes reviewed the survey and its results (as per written material), recapitulating that 607 surveys were mailed; that 362 responses were received; that of those received, 80 were"in favor of the road closure; that of those received, 277 were not in support of the road closure. For Mayor Stone, Mr. Hughes advised that the Meadows Parkway will be opened in the near future and that opening may further relieve some traffic as well as the future opening of Butterfield Stage Road. Living in the area of discussion, Councilman Pratt noted that a combination of the stop signs and increased enforcement has created a reduction in speed. MOTION: Mayor Pro Tem Comerchero moved to approve the staff recommendation. The motion was seconded by Councilman Roberts and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. At 8;15 P.M., Mayor Stone convened as the Community Services District and the Redevelopment Agency and reconvened the City Council meeting at 8:22 P.M. COUNCIL BUSINESS 15 Temecula Ridqe Reconsideration RECOMMENDATION: 15.1 Reconsider previous denial of the Temecula Ridge project. For Councilman Naggar, City Attorney Thorson clarified that if the City Council were willing to reconsider this project, it must be agendized for a future meeting for voting and if the City Council were desirous to not reconsider the proposed changes, a resolution would be drafted for denial along with its supported findings and it would be forward k to the next City Council meeting for final action. Planning Director Ubnoske presented the staff report (as per agenda material), reviewing the proposed changes to the site plans, as follows: · Reduction in the number of units from 247 to 220, noting that this number of units would yield the same number of trips as a single-family project constructed at the lowest end of the permitted density range · Removal of the third floor from all Type I buildings, which will result in a reduction of 32 two-bedroom, two bathroom units · Addition of 6 three-bedreom, two-stow units · Reduction in size of the recreation center to accommodate the tot lot at the new location · Lowering of the elevation on the south side by 4' to reduce visual impacts. Ms. Ubnoske noted that developer will retain the 43% of open space; advised that the School District has committed to providing an additional bus which will service the children from the proposed project as well as those children from two other apartment complexes, who are currently being picked up at the Duck Pond. Councilman Roberts noted that he was under the impression that the site elevation was to be reduced by 5'. R:\Minutes\112800 8 City Attorney Thorson advised that he had received a letter this evening from Mr. B. Dwight Warden, an attorney, who is presenting a coalition of homeowners opposed to the Temecula Ridge project. Mr. Thorson relayed Mr. Warden's opinion that the City Council has no legal authority to reconsider a decision which has already been made. Mr. Thorson advised that he does not agree with Mr. Warden's position, noting that the City Council has the authority to consider whether it wants to examine the modifications made to the project, to schedule the resolution for denial and to make the findings, or to notice for a public hearing to consider these modifications to the project. City Attorney Thorson noted that Mr. Warden is making an assumption that a final decision was made on October 10, 2000, to deny the project, advising that his position is that the action the City Council took was to direct the City Attorney to prepare the resolution to deny and to prepare the findings, advising that under California Law and, specifically, a case Topanqa Association vs. the County of Los Anqeles, a project may not be denied or approved without making those findings and that until those findings are made, the decision is not final. Councilman Naggar relayed that he as well, as, in his opinion, reflected in the minutes, was under the impression that the City Council had denied the project. Referencing the minutes, City Attorney Thorson clarified that the minutes reflect a motion by Councilman Pratt to deny the project and to direct the City Attorney to prepare the resolution containing the findings of denial. Having consulted with various homeowners associations and individuals as well as the Temecula Unified School District, Mr. A. G. Kading, applicant, reiterated, as per Planning Director Ubnoske's comments, the proposed changes, noting the following: · That 8 of the 16 three-story structures were reduced to two-story structures · That the foundation in the southeast corner was lowered by 5' · That an easement, along the southern boundary of the property, will be dedicated for the trails system Clarifying a previously prepared sound report, as had been requested by Planning Department staff, Mr. Kading noted that the requirement of fixed glass on windows is an inaccurate statement; that the project will require no dampening of any sound; that all windows on this project will be able to be opened; that the fixed glass issue came at the request of staff for the patio areas - to construct a glass wall to serve as an element of protection for those on the balconies. With the proposed improvements to Moraga Drive and connection to Via Los Colinas, Mr. Kading noted that the School District will be able to provide bus transportation for the school children. In light of the substantial changes, Mr. Kading noted that the changes warrant a reconsideration of the project. In response to Councilman Naggar, Mr. Kading apprised the City Council with which homeowners associations he had met and with those, although to no avail, he attempted to meet with. Mr. Naggar advised that the School District is potentially considering charging for bus transportation service. Mr. Kading informed Mr. Naggar that he has not made any progress with regard to obtaining an easement located on the Oder property so that the children could access school by way of this easement. Echoing Mr. Kading's comments, Mr. Sam Alhadeff, 41530 Enterprise Circle South, requested reconsideration of this project; advised that the applicant would be willing to meet with any interested individuals or groups; and readdressed the specifics of the motion of October 10, 2000, concurring that a resolution of denial is not final until the supporting findings have as well been adopted. R:\Minutes\112800 9 Viewing it imperative that the City Council readdress its decision of October 10, 2000, Mr. Dennis Frank, 37820 Spring Valley Road, relayed his support of the project; stated that to put a halt on housing would as well close the opportunities for job creation/expansion; and noted that Temecula Ridge would address a City housing need. Mrs. Helen Oder, 29923 Mira Loma Drive, thanked the City Council for its efforts with regard to this project; relayed his support of the project; and viewed the proposed project as a quality project. Having been in the apartment business for many years, Mr. Bob Oder, 29923, Mira Loma Drive, spoke in support of this project. In response to Mayor Stone, relayed his open-mindedness to possibly dedicating a portion of his property for the purpose of an easement. By way of overheads, Mr. Robert Oder, 30221 Mira Loma, clarified the location of his family's property (to the south of the applicant's property); relayed his support of the project; supported the reconsideration of it; and echoed his father's comments that the family would remain open about the consideration of an easement dedication. Because of liability issues, Mr. Kading informed the City Councilmembers that the School District had expressed some concern with such a pathway and preferred bus transportation. In response to Councilman Naggar's request, Mayor Stone requested that if this matter were continued, that a School District representative be present at the next City Council meeting. Concurring with City Attorney Thorson's opinion that the City Council's decision to deny the project would not be final until the City Council approves the findings, Ms. Tamar Stein, Esq., 2049 Century Park East, representing the Oder Family, noted that the proposed project has been redesigned and concerns have been addressed and, therefore, would encourage the City Council to reconsider the project. Ms. Stein stated that her clients are open to discussing the possible dedication of an easement but that such discussion should not be considered under the approval of the proposed project. Mr. Paul Runkle, 41877 Enterprise Circle North, viewed the proposed project as an ideal in-fill project which would be compatible with existing zoning and which would be surrounded almost on all four sides by other commercial properties; commented on the need for all types of housing throughout the City; noted that the proposed project would provide more value to the City than problems; that most such projects average at 20 units per acre; and that he has never seen a developer willing to share a project's recreational benefits; that the developer has offered affordable housing although he was not requested; and that the amount of landscaping proposed is not typical of such projects. Advising that he is neither for nor against the project, Mr. Carl Ross, 43886 Butternut Drive, stated that the proposed issues are about density and not whether to build or not to build an apartment complex. By way of a chart from the General Plan, Mr. Ross addressed units per acre, expressing concern with constructing projects at maximum density, and stated that the proposed project does meet the requirements of the General Plan/Growth Management Plan. In response to Mr. Ross, Mayor Stone addressed a portion of the Growth Management Plan which permits additional density in lieu of community amenities, stating that the proposed project will provide the following: · 100% Quimby fees · road improvements · swimming pool offered to local swim clubs R:\Minutes\112800 10 · higher-end product to attract a higher-end base Mr. Stone stated that the proposed project will be a benefit those citizens currently renting and those wanting to rent within a quality complex and those young families desirous of owning in the future but unable to meet the down payment requirements at this time; and, therefore, the project would serve as a lay station. Mr. Stone noted that this project would be one of the lowest density apartment complexes in the City. Addressing Mr. Ross' concern with regard to density, Mayor Pro Tern Comerchero advised that this project would create fewer average daily trips on the City's infrastructure than would a single-family project at 7 units per acre. Commenting on the General Plan chart referenced by Mr. Ross, Deputy City Manager Thornhill advised that all traffic figures were computed at the higher ends of the density range and that since incorporation, the City has reduced its density by approximately 8 to 10% overall. In response to Councilman Naggar, Deputy City Manager Thornhill noted that 65% of the City's traffic problems are external problems; that if the City were to build out to its General Plan, the density impacts could be mitigated but because 65% of those impacts are external, the City cannot control those problems related to the City of Murdeta, the County, etc. Questioning the accuracy of the figures with regard to average daily trips generated by a single- family project and a multi-family project, Councilman Naggar noted that building at maximum density would create gridlock. For Mayor Pro Tem Comerbhero, Public Works Director Hughes further commented on the most recognized source in determining trip generations (ITE Manual), advising that a multi-family unit would produce, at an average, 6 to 8 daily trips per ur~it and that a single-family unit would produce, at an average, 10 to 12 trips per unit. Mr. Hughes advised that these trip generation studies are prepared by registered engineers who are responsible for providing accurate and professional information. Councilman Naggar stated that, in his opinion, there are certain elements which cannot be factored into a traffic study (turn movements and opening of a shopping center). In response to Deputy City Manager Thornhill's comment with regard to traffic figures computed at the higher end of the density range, Mayor Stone noted that this project at 10.5 units per acre would actually create less traffic impact than allowed by the General Plan. As President of the Alta Vista Community Association, Mr. Burlie Cole, 42567 Remora Street, noted that because of violations of Chapters/Goals/Policies of the General Plan, as reviewed at the October 10, 2000, City Council meeting, the project was denied. He advised that the developer has not contacted him to address concerns and that access to the schools from the subject site would require children to trespass over private property. Mr. David Micheal, 30300 Churchill Court, advised that at the October 10, 2000, City Council meeting, individuals as well as groups spoke in opposition to the proposed project and petitions were submitted. Mr. Micheal addressed concerns with regard to property value and stated that, to date, apartment complexes have been built in high-density zones. Referencing the Growth Management Plan, Mr. Micheal addressed the City Council's direction to the Planning Commission to consider projects at the lowest density and to take into consideration any amenities. R:\Minutes\112800 11 Mr. Gary Watts, 42163 Rubicon Drive, stated that the City Council already voted on the denial of this project and that local groups are tired of the growth and, therefore, encouraged the City Council to uphold the denial of the project. For Mr. Watts, Deputy City Manager Thornhill clarified and confirmed by City Attorney Thorson that, as per the City's General Plan, multi-family housing is permitted in medium- density zones and briefly referenced other cities which permit multi-family housing in medium-density zones. Providing further clarification as to permissible density, City Attorney Thorson referenced Table 17.06.030 of the Zoning Code (permitted uses by zone), noting that multi-family is a permitted use in both medium- and high-density zones. Advising that some confusion may be created as a result of a the list reflected in Section 17.06.020 which provides a definition of medium density residential and high density residential, noting that on this list, apartment complexes are reflected under high density but that this is not an exhaustive list of permitted uses and that the list reflected in the Zoning Code is. Understanding that the General Plan supersedes the Development Code, Councilman Naggar noted that the Development Code does not list apartment complexes in the medium-density zone and, therefore, requested that the Development Code be amended to ensure accordance with the General Plan. In light of adjacent land use compatibility issues, Mr. Naggar stated that the City has evolved without the construction of apartment complexes in medium-density zones and, therefore, questioned why that should change now. Deputy City Manager Thornhill advised that the City's General Plan is the blueprint for development - one which the developer relies upon - and that the General Plan is the overriding issue as it relates to dealing with project density. Although he would view the proposed project as a quality project, Mr. David Boucher, 42797 Twilight Court, encouraged the City Council to uphold its initial denial of the project, commenting on the close proximity of single-family residences. In response to Mr. Boucher, Mayor Pro Tem Comerchero noted that statistical information reflects that the City's average number of residents per unit is 3.3 and that according to information obtained from the Solana and Tuscany projects, those complexes are experiencing an average of 1.9 residents per unit, indicating a lower density than the City's overall density. Although he is in general support of apartment development and affordable housing throughout the City, Mr. Robert Wheeler, 29090 Camina Alba, Murrieta, noted that the proposed project location is not the right location. Mr. Wheeler encouraged the City to construct some high- density development offset by clustering to develop open space and give economic basis in making public transportation a viable alternative. CITY COUNCIL DISCUSSION Councilman Pratt advised that the City of Temecula has 6.25 more registered vehicles per citizen than Manhattan Island which would be equivalent to 100,000 residents with no interurban public transportation; stated that population and traffic is not always directly proportional to density; and noted that the Public/Traffic Safety Commission will be addressing his Traffic Plan. In light of Councilman Pratt's active efforts to revert the autoculture and promote public transportation, Mayor Stone advised that staff has tried to educate the City Council that density nodes are key components to making public transportation successful. Mr. Stone stated that the proposed project would be located in the core of the City and would be surrounded by denser apartment complexes and commercial uses, noting that the proposed project would be R:\Minutes\112800 12 at almost two units per acre less than was what the traffic calculations were based on. In closing, Mr. Stone noted that the project will as well provide a safer traveling route for the school children. Concurring that the proposed project is a well-designed project, Councilman Pratt reiterated his concern with regard to traffic and the external impacts on the City and stated that the City must resolve its own issues. For Councilman Naggar, Mayor Stone noted that it is the private sector that drives the market in accordance with the City's General Plan, noting that, in the past, there has not been a market for apartment complexes but that the market is changing. Noting that Mr. Kading has followed and adhered to the City's rules, ordinances, and General Plan, Mayor Stone spoke in support of the project, commenting on the need for such housing. Clarifying the term clustering, Mayor Pro Tem Comerchero noted that individuals associate clustering with high density; that SMART Growth and new urbanism is not about high density; and that clustering creates new opportunities and works as follows: if a developer had three acres to develop and density permitted four units per acre (total of 12 units), the developer may choose to build all 12 units on one acre and then be required to retain the other two acres as open space or he may develop each acre at 4 units per acre. Concurring with the SMART Growth concept, Councilman Roberts confirmed that clustering does not change the overall, permitted density but that it does permit other methods of transportation other than the car. With regard to the proposed project, Mayor Pro Tern Comerchero clarified that he had initially voted against the project at 246 units and the proposed three-story structures in the hopes that the City Council would permit the developer to present the project in a different form. Because of the number of public meetings with regard to this project and the amount of public input, Mr. Comerchero noted that the project is being presented, at this point in time, in a different form. Commenting on the need for such housing in order to accommodate employee opportunities, Mr. Comerchero noted that the Planning Department itself experienced the difficulty of hiring someone at a certain time because of the inability of that person being able to find housing. Although the economic feasibility of a project should not be his concern, Mr. Comerchero noted that if this project were denied, the developer has an option and a right to construct a Iow- moderate high density project with a 50% State bonus. Advising that the City Council cannot expect each and every resident to attend a City Council meeting to express his/her opinions/concerns regarding projects, Mr. Comerchero noted that this is the responsibility of the elected Councilmembers. In closing, Mr. Comerchero noted that the City must develop as a balanced community, one which will require multi-family housing; that the proposed project is a quality project; and that the noted concerns have been addressed. If this matter were continued, Councilman Roberts requested that Mr. Kading outreach to the homeowners association and in an effort to explain the project and address concerns. Summarizing the proposed changes to the project, Mr. Roberts noted the following: · 100% Quimby fees, noting the requirement would be 50% · easement for a trail along the south portion of the subject site · offering the removed did to the City at no charge which would be used for the Sports Park R:\Minutes\112800 13 · windows closest to Rancho California Road will be open windows and not fixed windows · grading will not restrict view shed and privacy of neighboring properties · three-story structures at high elevation point reduced to two-story structures and to lower the elevation an additional 5' · reduced density from 246 units to 220 · amenities - would not view the pool as an amenity but would view the busing as an amenity because of the children it will service from two other complexes · school district's decision to charge for busing has not been finalized · noise barriers to the single-family homes - closest home will be 175' away from the apartment complex with a green belt separating the two In closing, if this were continued, Councilman Roberts requested that a revised rendering be presented to the City Council to reflect the modification of the three-story structures to two-story structures and requested assurance that a mature landscaping plan. Viewing the construction of apartments not an issue and advising that the City will as well be building true affordable housing in the Redevelopment area, Councilman Naggar stated that the issue with regard to this project is density. As per the Growth Management Plan, Mr. Naggar noted that on-site amenities are not a criteria to increase density, noting that minimum density may be offset by community amenities. Commenting on the threat of a Iow-income project being constructed at this particular site if the proposed project were not approved, Mr. Naggar advised that the developer has a right, under State law, for density bonus but it comes under the same constraints as any other development and must mitigate traffic and land constraints and all other constraints within the General Plan. Viewing this process as an impact on the public, Mr. Naggar noted that it is difficult for many residents to attend these number of meetings and, therefore, the public sentiment is that the City Councilmembers proceed with the responsibility with which they were elected. Mr. Naggar advised that he has requested the developer to meet with the neighboring homeowner associations; that the City Council voted 4 to I to deny the project; and that he will not support a continuance. Commending the developer on his efforts to work with the School District, Mr. Naggar stated that he.would view busing as an amenity as well as the expansion of Moraga Drive but that the amount of landscaping being proposed should not be viewed as an amenity because the amount of slopes on the site requires that amount of landscaping. In closing, Mr. Naggar advised that he may approve a project over 150 units but not one at 220 units. Disagreeing with Councilman Naggar, Mayor Stone relayed his support of on-site amenities as proportion to density; viewed the General Plan as a living document which reflects quality architectural standards and one which exceeds those of most cities; stated that the proposed project is an in-fill project surrounded by like projects with higher density and more traffic volumes; that apartments are permitted in the medium-density zone according to the General Plan. At the last City Council meeting, Mr. Stone advised that he had reviewed the proposed findings of denial and explained as to how, in his opinion, they were inaccurate and would not stand up in the court of law; that if appropriate findings were not made to deny a project, the developer has options - one being to sue the City for inverse condemnation, advising that he never solely based his decision of approval on this option. Reviewing the location of the site, amenities, reduced trip generation, Quimby fees, road improvements, landscaping, school route, Mayor Stone relayed that for those reasons, he supported the project. In closing, Mr. Stone requested that mature landscaping be provided at the top of the ridge, closest to the adjacent home, and noted that all the input received for and against this project has created a better project for the City. R:\Minutes\112800 14 MOTION: Mayor Pro Tern Comerchero moved to reconsider this matter at a public hearing on December 12, 2000. T. he motion was seconded by Councilman Roberts and roll call vote reflected approval as follows: AYES: Comerchero, Pratt, Roberts, Stone NOES: Naggar 16 Consideration of Emerqency Traffic Circulation Plan (ETCP) (Placed on the agenda by Councilman Pratt) RECOMMENDATION: 16.1 Consider steps as recommended by Councilmember Pratt in his letters of October 10, 2000 (ETCP Plan) and November 6, 2000. Councilman Pratt provided background history as to his experience with traffic and by way of overheads, proceeded with an overview of his Traffic Circulation Plan (as per written material of record) and requested that the Plan be forwarded to the Public/Traffic Safety Commission for review. In response to Mr. Pratt, Public/Traffic Safety Commissioner Connerton noted that several of Mr. Pratt's issues have been addressed by the Commission and will be forthcoming in a traffic report. City Manager Nelson noted that the Traffic Circulation Plan will be continued to the City Council meeting of January 9, 2001. Concurring with some of Councilman Pratt's ideas, Mr. Robert Wheeler recommended the scheduling of a brainstorming workshop to address traffic with economic development. Briefly addressing external and internal traffic problems, Mr. Wheeler encouraged the tourism industry and suggested the placement of a tram way in the Murrieta Creek corridor from the confluence to Lake Elsinore, noting that by doing so, tourism would increase but in a non-polluting way and would as well solve internal traffic problems. Ms. Michelle Anderson, 43797 Barletta Street, concurred with Mr. Wheeler's suggestion of a workshop and expressed concern with the construction of a drive-through Starbucks in a Village concept, noting that such construction would contradict the purpose of the Village concept and, therefore, encouraged the changing of the autoculture and noted that such change must start at school level. Mayor Stone noted that Councilman Pratt's report would be filed and that the matter would be continued to the January 9, 2001, City Council meeting. 17 Discussion of the Western Riverside County Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan Alternatives Development Document RECOMMENDATION: 17.1 Adopt Alternative No. 1 as the preferred alternative and direct the City Clerk to forward the minute order stating the Council's decision to the Western Riverside Council of Governments prior to December 4, 2000. R:\Minutes\112800 15 Although concurring with staff's recommendation, Councilman Naggar advised that the City of Murrieta has expressed some concerns with the Plan; that their concerns are valid; and that he would encourage a Plan that would work for them as well as for the City of Temecula. Deputy City Manager Thornhill noted that the ultimate determination of whether or not a Multi- Species Habitat Conservation Plan were viable would be made by the resource agencies. Councilman Naggar noted that he would keep the City Council and the public apprised of the progress. Mayor Pro Tem Comerchero questioned whether or not consideration has been given by the City as to whether to adopt an interim fee such as the County has proposed. In light of the time, Mr. Comerchero requested that discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of implementing an interim fee be agendized to a subsequent meeting. Councilman Naggar advised that the BIA would be in support of the interim fee. Mr. Robert Wheeler informed the City Council and the public that the Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan process has been paralleled by a scientific review panel, consisting of biologists which are not involved in the political picture; advised that this review panel is not in support of Alternative Nos. 2, 3, and 4 and stated that they could minimally support Alternative No. 1; and noted that final approva~ is being discussed by the Board of Supervisors at their December 19, 2000, meeting. MOTION: Councilman Robeds moved to concur with the staff recommendation to adopt Alternative No. 1. The motion was seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Comerchero and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. DEPARTMENTAL REPORTS No additional comments. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT No comments. CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT City Attorney Thorson advised that there were no actions to report and that the real property negotiations will be forwarded to the City Council in public session for final approval. R:\Minutes\112800 16 ADJOURNMENT At 11:28 P.M., the City Council meeting was formally adjourned to Tuesday, December 12, 2000, at 7:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. ATT;ES.T:__, ~~/)-~f~ey E. S"f~ne, Mayor R:\Minutes\112800 17