Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout012902 CC/PC Jnt. Workshop Minutes MINUTES OF AN ADJOURNED REGULAR JOINT CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP JANUARY 29, 2002 CALL TO ORDER The City Council and Planning Commission convened in an adjourned regular joint workshop at 7:00 P.M., on Tuesday, January 29, 2002, in the City Council Chambers of Temecula City Hall, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. ROLL CALL Present: Councilmembers: Planning Commissioners: Absent: Planning Commissioner: ALLEGIANCE The audience was ied in the Flag salute by Councilman Comerchero. PUBLIC COMMENTS No comments. CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION REPORTS No comments. CITY COUNCIL/COMMISSION BUSINESS 1 General Plan Update RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Receive and file the information and provide direction as appropriate. Providing a brief overview of the staff report (of record), Deputy City Manager Thornhill advised that the current process of updating the General Plan would be the first update since the General Plan was adopted in 1993; and introduced Mr. John Bridges, from Cotton/Bridges/Associates, who would present information regarding the updating procedure. Via overheads, Mr. Bridqes presented the followinq data reqardinq the General Plan, and the updatin.q process: · Defined a General Plan as a long-range document that guides growth and development in a City or County, which was required per State Law; · Specified the ten elements of the City's General Plan, some of which were required by law; · Relayed the implementation program, which consists of daily activities, which work toward achieving the goals and policies of the General Plan; Comerchero, Naggar, Pratt, Stone, and Roberts Mathewson, Olhasso, Telesio, and Chiniaeff Guerriero R:\Minutes\012902 1 · Noted the importance of managing and proactively planning for expected growth, advising that established goals, policies, and programs will guide that growth and development over the next 10-20 years; · Specified the process of updating the General Plan, which was an approximate 14-month process, inclusive of community participation; · Relayed the exploration of options for the Land Use, Housing, and Circulation elements, specifically noting the efforts aimed towards improving transportation; · Advised that an EIR would be prepared in association with the General Plan Update. · Elaborated on the tentative schedule for this particular update, noting the various tasks to be completed, and the meeting schedule (4-Joint City Council/Planning Commission Meetings, 3-Community Workshops, 5-Citizens Advisory Meetings); · For informational purposes, noted that via the City's website, information would be able to be attained regarding this evolving updated General Plan document during this process; · Relayed that each Councilmember and Planning Commissioner had received a notebook for the purpose of keeping all the General Plan update information together, requesting that Councilmembers and Planning Commissioners write any comments regarding the documents in the space provided, advising that feedback would be extremely helpful in the early stages of the program; and · Read the Preliminary Draft Vision for the Future (per agenda material), noting the process of developing this document, which involved obtaining aid from the Community Advisory Committee (CAC) regarding priorities; and requested input with respect to the vision statement, which could be provided either tonight or via notes forwarded at a future point. In response to the readinq of the Draft Vision Statement, the Commissioners and Councilmembers offered the followin,q comments: · Chairman Chiniaeff queried the inclusion of language, which stated promoting agricultural industries, noting that preserving a large amount of agriculture land within the City boundaries would be difficult. · With respect to Village Centers, Chairman Chiniaeff relayed that although this concept had been implemented in the original General Plan, it was his opinion that this was a goal, which had not been truly realized. · Regarding the phrase the local circulation meets the needs of Temecula residents, Councilman Pratt expressed his disagreement with this statement, while opining that there were avenues that had not been utilized which could address this issue more effectively. · Providing clarification, Commissioner Mathewson noted that although this document was a compilation of the Vision Principles that were prioritized at the Community Advisory Committee (CAC), that the CAC had not had an opportunity to review this document in this form, advising that he had similar concerns regarding agriculture and the Village Center as has been expressed. · Mayor Pro Tem Stone recommended that there be a stronger emphasis on recreational facilities and programs developed to attract all age groups within the City of Temecula. · With respect to the reference to higher education, Commissioner Olhasso advised that attracting higher education to this community would require an aggressive pursuit; relayed that she noticed the omission of a reference to the relationship of the City with the surrounding region, and/or Temecula's significant role in the State of California; and due to the importance of economic factors, recommended that there be a strong economist working with the development of the revised General Plan. In response, Mr. Bridges noted that Mr. Stan Hoffman was the economist working with the consultants on this document. · Councilman Naggar recommended that there be a stronger emphasis on job creation, advising that in 2020 the goal should be for the City of Temecula to be a place where one R:\Minutes\012902 2 can live, work, go to school, and play; specifically recommended that there be additional emphasis regarding the trails system, and open space; and concurred with Commissioner Olhasso with respect to the importance of a quality higher education facility. Councilman Comerchero relayed a desire for the concept of Culture and Cultural Arts to be elevated, specifically recommending that there be mention of an aim towards expansion of museums, and art in public places. Commenting with regard to the economic impetus of the City, Mayor Pro Tern Stone noted the importance of developing the necessary infrastructure network in order to attract high end industries; and advised that another vital element impacting the economics of the City would be air transportation (i.e., the French Valley Airport, and the future public use of March Air Force Base.) Chairman Chiniaeff recommended that there be an emphasis on the creation of jobs, specifically with respect to the process of acquiring new businesses. Concurring with Commissioner Olhasso's comments, Councilman Comerchero recommended that the elements that business Iocators are seeking be identified (not necessarily in the vision statement) in order to ensure that these particular elements are being addressed in the City. For Mayor Roberts, Mr. Bridges advised that while the 2n~ Joint City Council/Planning Commission meeting should be scheduled as soon as possible, that postponing the meeting from the month of February to March would not be critical. For informational purposes, Deputy City Manager Thornhill advised that at the CAC Meeting, Mr. Greg Morrison had been appointed as Chairman of the Committee, and Mr. Chuck Washington as Vice Chair; and relayed that both Chairman Morrison and Committee Member Connerton were present at tonight's meeting. Senior Planner Hoqan provided a presentation regarding the Housinq Element Update, as follows: · Noted that while other elements included in the General Plan were long-term documents regarding future plans, that the Housing Element was more of a midterm-housing program of five to seven years. · As part of this process, relayed that the Regional Housing Needs Assessment identified for cities and counties a specified required number of housing units in various income categories, which typically served as a precursor for the Housing Element Update. · In order to improve the coordination of the update of the General Plan and the Housing Element, advised that the City was utilizing the same consultants for both documents. · Relayed that at this time, staff and the consultants have developed a Draft Housing Element which assessed the special needs, and addressed the Housing Program, and was subsequently submitted to the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD); and advised that in response to the submittal, HCD has requested the City to demonstrate that Temecula has sufficient property zoned at appropriate densities to accommodate the City's share of the regional housing needs for all income groups. · For State certification of the Housing Element, noted the necessity to demonstrate appropriate provisions for higher densities in the designated high-density zones, as well as adding additional acres for this purpose, relaying the challenge associated with accomplishing this due to the lack of a plethora of vacant land. Referencing the current litigation matters between the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) and various cities due to the determined allocation of each city's fair R:\Minutes\012902 3 share of affordable housing, Councilman Naggar queried how this issue would impact the City of Temecula's Housing Element's and General Plan's updating processes. In response, Senior Planner Hogan noted that while it was difficult to predict the outcome of the litigation that there could be some reduction in the amount of high-density requirements; and opined that with diligent efforts (noting the "can do" attitude the City has always had) it was possible to meet the requirements of the HCD, advising that the upcoming Villages of Old Town Project would aid in satisfying a portion of the high density requirements, additionally noting that there may be some areas in the City appropriate for consideration of transitioning land uses. Further commenting, Assistant City Attorney Curley concurred that the current litigation could result in a change in the allocations (of required high density areas) or not, advising that it would not be advantageous for the City to wait for this determination; noted that since HCD has provided comments, the most prudent avenue for the City processing through certification would be to address these remarks; and advised that if the litigation were to result in a change, there could be amendments made at that time. Addressing the density issue, Deputy City Manager Thornhill advised that while these required allocations would provide a challenge, that there were certain shopping centers in the City which potentially could provide opportunities for mixed uses which would aid in addressing the high density concerns; and noted that there were significant negative impacts for a city if the Housing Element were not certified (i.e., imposed sanctions, potentially financial sanctions). Reiterating that the update process included investigating Land Use, Housing, and Circulation alternatives, Mr. Bridges noted that there would be efforts to aid the City in identifying areas feasible for increasing the density in order to fulfill housing element obligations, relaying that the high density zones would be limited to meeting these requirements, acknowledging the concerns regarding an abundance of high density areas in the community; and advised that the consultants would provide economic information regarding satisfying the requirements of HCD. For Councilman Comerchero, Senior Planner Hogan advised that the information provided in the Regional Housing Needs Assessment was categorized by household income, and not by housing type or density, adding that while the City of Temecula relates more to the San Diego housing market than that of Riverside County, it was relayed that this could not be taken into consideration due to San Diego being in a different county as well as having a different council of governments. In response to Senior Planner Hogan's comments, Commissioner Olhasso suggested that the housing market issue be addressed legislatively. Mr. Bridges relayed that most communities have more difficulty finding adequate land for the low, and very Iow-income categories, noting that in these two categories there would be a need to designate land (with a high enough density to make if affordable) for 1788 of these type units, advising that programs could be put in place to subsidize the units to bring these costs down; and additionally noted that with the land costs in Temecula it was difficult to demonstrate that at a market rate Iow income units could be build at 20 units, or less, per acre. In light of his recent trip to New Jersey, Councilman Pratt relayed that in various states (including New Jersey), cities purchase homes that are in foreclosure, subsequently utilizing these units for affordable housing, which reduced the costs associated with the provision. R:\Minutes\012902 4 In response to Council comments, Senior Planner Hogan relayed that density issues would be addressed at this time, and that at the time of the next housing element cycle, or the following, the City's vacant land would be extremely limited. · Noting that while a City does get some credit for past per[ormance, Mr. Bridges relayed that the Regional Housing Need's numbers reflects requirements for new construction, advising that the majority of cities have more difficulty meeting these particular requirements. Commissioner OIhasso queried whether senior housing qualified as Iow-income housing, noting that she had made some recommendations to staff regarding potential locations for senior housing, which would revitalize various shopping centers (as previously indicated by Deputy City Manager Thornhill). Mr. Bridges confirmed that senior housing qualified for Iow-income housing; and additionally confirmed, for Commissioner Mathewson, that all the Iow-income housing could not be senior housing, advising that the housing element which includes a housing needs assessment will determine the future housing needs in the community over the next five years, which will aid in establishing the demand for senior housing, ergo what portion of the new units could be designated for senior housing. Commissioner Olhasso provided additional information regarding the various cites' suit against SCAG and the rationale for pursuing litigation (i.e., the disproportionate requirements for iow- income housing in Riverside County vs. other counties); and recommended that the City get involved with the legislative arm of the Inland Empire Economics Partnership (IEEP). Chairman Chiniaeff noting that as early as the 1970's the requirements for Riverside County were not balanced, advising that at that time some of the older communities' were pushing the demand for Iow-income housing out to the Inland Empire. With respect to the language in the Vision for the Future document, where it states Diverse housing options are available to meet the needs of all segments of the community, while protecting the character and value of single-family neighborhoods, Chairman Chiniaeff relayed that this phraseology clarifies the conflict, concurring that the challenge for this provision would be a great one. For Commissioner Olhasso, Assistant City Attorney Curley noted that he would provide the Planning Commission an update regarding the status of the litigation with SCAG. Updating the City Council and the Planning Commission, Mr. Bridges relayed that the 2"d Community Workshop will be held in March at which time Land Use, Circulation, and Housing Alternatives would be explored (Mayor Roberts recommending that this meeting be scheduled on an evening or Saturday in order to better accommodate the working schedules of the residents); that the 3rd Community Advisory Committee (CAC) Meeting would be held on April 1st from 6:00 to 8:00 P.M. at City Hall in the Main Conference room at which time Land Use, Circulation, and Housing Alternatives would be discussed; that the 4th CAC Meeting would be held on April 22nd from 6:00 P.M. to 8:00 P.M. with the same topic of discussion; that the 5TM CAC Meeting would be held on May 6th from 6:00 to 8:00 P.M. at which time the discussion topic would be Selection of Preferred Land Use, Circulation and Housing Alternatives; and that the 3rd City Council/Planning Commission Joint Workshop would be held in May whereby the subject of discussion would be Selection of Preferred Land Use, Circulation, and Housing Alternatives. R:\M[nutes\012902 5 At this time the public was invited to comment Mr. Greg Morrison, 31045 Oak Hill Drive, Chairman of the CAC, opined that this particular committee had excellent appointees, noting the diligent efforts of this group of individuals, commending the City Council for its appointments;.relayed his disappointment that the CAC was not able to review the Draft Vision Statement documents prior to City Council presentation, advising that the concerns of the City Council/Planning Commission were the same as those that have been expressed by the Committee Members; and requested that staff have the CAC review documents such as this in the future in order for the Committee to fulfill its function; and noted that the Committee has additionally discussed reviewing the Housing Element in conjunction with the Genera~ Plan. Commending the assiduous efforts of the CAC, Councilman Naggar applauded the members who serve on this committee. ADJOURNMENT At 8:20 P.M., Mayor Roberts formally adjourned the Joint City Council/Planning Commission Workshop to the next City Council regular meeting on Tuesday, February 12, 2002, 7:00 P.M., and to the next Planning Commission regular meeting on Wednesday, February 6~ 2002, 6:00 P.M., City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. Ron Roberts, Mayor ATTEST: [SEAL], R:\Minutes\012902 6