Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout022900 CC Minutes WorkshopMINUTES OF AN ADJOURNED WORKSHOP MEETING OF THE TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 29, 2000 The City Council convened in an adjoumed workshop meeting at 6:10 P.M., on Tuesday, February 28, 2000, in the City Council Chambers of Temecula City Hall, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. Present: Councilmembers: Comerchero, Naggar, Pratt, Roberts, and Stone. Absent: Councilmember: None. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS A. Commenting on Pauba Ranch, Councilman Pratt advised that in 1962 he had appraised the property at $185,897,000.00 and noted that he would make the report available for public viewing. With regard to a moratorium, Councilman Pratt stated that, in his opinion, a moratorium would give the City the necessary time to plan for a change, noting that a City Plan to slow residential growth must be implemented to ensure proper traffic mitigation, local mass transportation, and open space. B. Mayor Stone commended and thanked staff in particular Assistant to the City Manager Yates and Management Analyst Adams for their associated efforts with the City's State of Address video. COUNCIL BUSINESS I Growth ManaClement Workshop RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Receive staff's presentation and provide direction. City Manager Nelson reviewed the purpose of the Growth Management Strategy Workshop, advising that it would be the goal to identify realistic, tangible strategies that will set a course of action, within the City as well as outside the City and in the County of Riverside, with respect to future growth. He advised that staff will provide background information relative to planning and traffic since the City's incorporation, will discuss various growth management tools that may be effectively utilized, and will address future growth in an effort to reach a consensus as to how the City should address future growth within the City. By way of a PowerPoint presentation and maps, Public Works Director Hughes addressed past traffic flow, current traffic flow, and future/anticipated traffic flow throughout the City. Proceeding with the presentation, Mr. Hughes referenced the following: · independent review of the City's intersection operations R:\Minutes~322900 · traffic engineering terms (Peak Periods, Level of Service, Gridlock, Traffic modeling) · three main problem corridors (I-15 & Winchester Road, 1-15 & Rancho California Road, 1-15 & SR 79 South), advising that currently the City has no intersections operating at a Level of Service (LOS) F during peak periods; that all intersections are currently operating at a Level of Service D or better during peak periods with the exception of the Winchester/Ynez intersection and the Winchester/Margarita intersection, which are currently operating at LOS E; and that Winchester/Jefferson and Rancho California Road/Old Town Front Street intersections are currently operating between LOS D and E and that these four intersections have scheduled improvements, within the next 6 to 12 months to ensure a LOS of D or better · City will be well equipped to handle its buildout. By way of PowerPoint presentation, Deputy City Manager Thornhill discussed growth management and the City's strategies to address growth management, noting the following: · Importance of a General Plan - General Plan determines buildout · Buildout (population) - originally predicated at 112,000 within City limits; subsequent amendments to the General Plan have reduced that number to 106,000, noting that actual approvals are at a lower density than the General Plan and, therefore, it is estimated that buildout population will be between 95,000 - 100,000 · Buildout (timeframe) - typically population slows down as a City matures; referenced urban sprawl/leap frog development, noting that this type of development usually creates serious traffic circulation problems; livable urban places, noting that this type of development clearly defines urban core areas · Future Vision - cities and County must cooperatively work to develop new land use patterns · Growth Management - solutions are regional in nature and require intergovernmental cooperation to succeed a controlling urban sprawl; General Plan most significant growth management tool. In conclusion, City Manager Nelson noted that the City, within the next 12 to 18 months, has a unique oppodunity to participate in the changing of Temecula. As was addressed by Deputy City Manager Thornhill, Mr. Nelson reiterated that the City is well equipped to address the impacts of growth within the City but that it is apparent, the City will not be able to effectively mitigate the traffic impacts and to provide the necessary levels of urban municipal services within the unincorporated areas of Riverside County. Therefore, it is staff's recommendation to the City Council to consider the growth management strategies. which include redirecting the urban development to urban areas, preserving open spaces, continuing to pursue traffic circulation improvements, maximize transportation network, which includes effectively utilizing mass transit and other public transportation opportunities and to pursue interagency cooperation/coordination by completely engaging in the Riverside County Integrated Plan process. Councilman Pratt suggested to proceed with a moratorium until the development and proper implementation measures are in place to ensure proper enforcement of the Growth Management Program. R:wlinutes\022900 2 Due to his inability to attend the City Council meeting, City Clerk Jones read into the record a letter from Mr. David Robinson who spoke in support of a moratorium until the completion of a comprehensive traffic study and until reasonable and responsible growth can be accomplished. At this time, Mayor Stone invited public input. The following individuals spoke in opposition to the City imposing a moratorium on building: Mr. Louie DiBernardo 44168 La Paz Mr. Larry Green 36340 Linda Rosea Mr. Thom Curry 38595 Calaveras Road Mr. Paul Jacobs 32370 Corte Zamora Mr. John Fill 43350 Business Park Drive representing Southwest Riverside County Manufactures Council Mr. Gene Wundedich 36286 Province Drive Mr. Dennis Frank 37820 Spring Valley Road Mr. David Phares 31782 Via San Cados Mr. Jack Henz 43009 Manchester Court Ms. Tomi Arborgast 27450 Ynez Road representing Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce Mr. Darrell Connerton 31618 Corte Rosario Ms. Kathleen Newton 30903 Riverton Lane Mr. William Griffith 15751 Rockfield Blvd representing Wolf Creek Specific Plan Mr. Sam Alhadeff 27555 Ynez Road Mr, Robert Wheeler 29090 Camino Alba Mr, Robert Newsom 28910 Rancho California Road Ms. Joan Sparkman 40213 Colony Drive Mr. Jim Horn 31467 Sonoma Lane Mr, Gary Youroans 32206 Corte Chatada representing the Southwest Riverside Economic Development Corporation Ms. Mary Jane Olhasso 31333 Heitz Lane The above-mentioned individuals spoke in opposition to a moratorium and in support of the proposed Growth Management Program for the following reasons: · ImpactJconsequences on the overall City · Continue to follow planned growth/growth management program · Pursue regional solutions, continued interagency cooperation · Encourage the County to work with impacted cities · People have a choice of where to live · Support programs to preserve and improve the City's current quality of life · No positive benefits to the City · Traffic issues/concerns will not be rectified by a moratorium The following individuals spoke in support of a moratorium: Mr. Tom Stillings Ms. Michelle Anderson Ms, May Lorah Ms. Christi Johnson 35595 Glen Oaks Road 43797 Barletta Street 41886 Corte Lara 45631 Caminito Olite R:~vlinutes~022900 3 The above-mentioned individuals spoke in suppod of a moratorium, noting the following: · City to be more proactive than reactive with regard to traffic issues · Responsible growth Mr. Rodolfo Martinez, 43655 Buckeye Road, addressed the City Council, commenting on progress, sectors of the economy in the City, construction spending, and demography. Ms. Pamela Miod, 31995 Via Saltio, provided information with regard to the use of an electric trolley and new trolley technologies and offered her assistance in further pursuing this matter. Ms. Adrian McGregor, 34555 Madera del Playa, addressed her concerns relative to water flow and inquired what the County's vision is with regard to water flow. Mr. David Mathewson, 31293 Dumey Court, encouraged the City Council to continue the process of identifying and responding to growth issues in this community and suggested a General Plan update to facilitate in this process. At 8:44 P.M., Mayor Stone called a bdef recess and at 9:03 P.M., the City Council convened as the Temecula Community Services District and the Temecula Redevelopment Agency. At 9:05 P.M., the City Council resumed with regularly scheduled City Council business. By way of overheads, Mayor Pro Tem Comerchero, as the newly appointed City Council representative to the RTA, commented on efforts being explored with the RTA to increase bus service throughout the City. Ms. Susan Heffner, representing the RTA, commended the City on its proactive stand in addressing future growth and addressed efforts being undertaken to achieve funding necessary to fulfill the vision of the Temecula representatives at the RTA Board level. Mayor Pro Tem Comerchero commended Deputy City Manager Thornhill and Public Works Director Hughes on their detailed and comprehensive staff reports, noting that staff precisely articulated the City's overall vision since incorporation, Since staff, this evening, described the City's goals with regard to growth management and since these strategies clearly paralleled with the desirous of numerous individuals, Mayor Pro Tem Comerchero suggested that efforts be undertaken to ensure better communication with the public. Mr. Comerchero relayed his support of a General Plan update; reiterated that Level of Service D is an acceptable level; and commented on the need for interagency cooperation (County, City of Murrieta, Lake Elsinore, Hemet, San Jacinto, Perris, Canyon Lake, and Pechanga). As the City representative on the Riverside County Transportation Commission, Councilman Robeds commented on the following: · Measure A Funds · Establishment of a Regional Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee · Expansion of public transit options · Providing non-automotive circulation options · Participation in the Integrated Planning Process · Providing quarterly City Council Workshops with the County as it relates to the CETAP process R:~,4inutes~022900 4 Councilman Naggar relayed his concurrence with the updating of the City's General Plan; requested that the possibility of a Design Review Board for residential construction be explored; commented on the need for a regional traffic and growth plan, one which encompasses the County as well; suggested the phasing of projects and that each phase must mitigate traffic to a LOS D or better; noted that the State/County/Cities must address the traffic issues on I-15 and 215; supported the electric trolley system; favored quarterly growth management meetings with the County; supported a study to explore an apartment density reduction; opposed a moratorium and clustering; relayed his support of urban limit lines; and expressed some concern with the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee. Concurring with many of the previously made comments made by the City Councilmembers, Councilman Pratt requested that staff explore the following: responsible growth, open space, local traffic circulation management for the existing conditions, existing traffic circulation calming, and local public transportation. Mr. Pratt recommended that the imposition of a moratorium be delayed to the March 21, 2000 City Council meeting in order to further address key issues. Providing some City history relative to growth and population and its impacts on the City, Mayor Stone commented on the City's successes such as the parks, recreation center, paramedic units, Fire Station, City Hall, etc. and addressed projects undertaken to address traffic challenges, noting that those challenges have been adequately addressed. Viewing this workshop as extremely beneficial, Mayor Stone suggested that the proposed Growth Management Program be implemented and that it be reviewed in a year to determine its SUCCESS. Additional City Council discussion ensued as to the agendizing of a moratorium at the March 21, 2000 City Council meeting with Mayor Pro Tem Comerchero and Councilman Roberts noting that this matter must be resolved. With regard to potential zone changes at lower SR 79, which could potentially result in more housing, Councilman Roberts requested that the County be apprised that the area of discussion is a farming area and that it should remain as such. In closing, City Manager Nelson recapped the City Council's direction, noting the following: · Consider information and testimony provided · Direct staff to agendize formal consideration of the Growth Management Strategies at the March 21, 2000 City Council meeting · Separately agendize for the March 21, 2000 City Council meeting the elimination of a moratorium CITY MANAGER'S REPORT No comments. CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT No comments. R:~J%4inutes\022900 5 ADJOURNMENT At 10:06 P.M., the City Council meeting was formally adjourned to Tuesday, March 21, 2000, at 7:00 P.M., City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. ATTEST: Susan W. Jones "ity C)erk [SEAL] Jeffrey E. Stone, Mayor R:'~4inutes~022900 6