HomeMy WebLinkAbout071800 CC Minutes WorkshopMINUTES OF AN ADJOURNED WORKSHOP MEETING
OF THE TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL
JULY 18, 2000
The City Council convened in an adjourned workshop meeting at 6:07 P.M., on Tuesday, July
18, 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.
ALLEGIANCE
The salute to the Flag was led by Mayor Pro Tem Comerchero.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
None.
CITY COUNCIL REPORTS
Advising the public of the passing of former Planning Commissioner Tim Miller, Mayor Stone
requested that the City Council support the planting of a tree along with a plaque in a City park
in Mr. Miller's memory.
COUNCIL BUSINESS
1 Third Workshop for the Riverside County Inteqrated Plan (RCIP)
RECOMMENDATION:
1.1 Receive and file.
City Manager Nelson briefly introduced the item and advised that the County will be providing a
status report regarding the various components of the RCIP as well as an update to the City's
recommended policy, requesting that the County not approve any General Plan amendments or
changes of zones that intensify land uses without being able to demonstrate that traffic impacts can
be mitigated to a level of service D or better. Mr. Nelson advised that the City's request has been
forwarded to the County's Transportation Land Management Department and noted that the Board
will be considering the policy request on July 25, 2000.
At this time, Mr. Nelson introduced Mr. Richard Lashbrook, Agency Director of the Transportation
Land Management Department, who proceeded with an overview of the RCIP, noting the following:
· County continuing to work on all three elements of the Integrated Plan, primarily, this
evening, focusing on the Southwest Area Plan (SWAP)
· City's policy request has been filed with the Board, noting that the request is
generally consistent with the current General Plan and, therefore, will not represent a
significant change in policy
· County's current policy requires the County to study any City intersections which
may be impacted with a 5% or greater increase in traffic; that cumulative impacts
would be addressed in traffic studies.
R:\Minutes\071800
1
By way of a PowerPoint presentation, Mr. David Lashbrook, Mr. Brian James, and Mr. Steve Smith,
representing the County, provided additional information with regard to the RCIP,
noting/commenting on the following:
· Anticipated increased population growth within the next 20 years in an effort to
achieve a balance (transportation, infrastructure, open space requirements)
· Land Use Plan, General Plan Map/General Plan, Habitat Conservation,
transportation
· Stakeholder driven
· Southwest Area Plan (SWAP) boundaries
· Unincorporated sectors
· Alternatives for Special Study Area, noting that overall densities are not being
changed within the planning area but they are being redistricted in a more efficient
manner
o Trends (Alternative No. 1 - existing area plan land use and specific plan
designations accommodating Habitat Conservation Corridors) - allowable
residential units 40,000 - 83,000
o Sphere (Alternative No. 2 - Cities of Murrieta and Temecula Sphere of
influence designations) - allowable residential units 41,000 - 86,000
o Vision (Alternative No. 3 - proposed the creation of a New Town, focused on
a mixed use town center and airport business park) - allowable residential
units 44,000 - 92,000 - primary focus will be on the Vision Alternative
· Transit Spine Network - proposes the creation of additional transit throughout
Riverside County
· Circulation Network
· Riverside County Transit Commission's identified Corridors (four)
· Habitat Transaction Method zones (HTM)- voluntary program
· Vail Lake - should be planned for Iow density development
Expressing concern with the County's ability to mitigate traffic impacts, Councilman Pratt
commented on the need for mass public transportation. It was noted that the County's transit
initiative is an aggressive effort - one which is tied to the RTA plans.
With regard to the various alternatives, it was noted for City Manager Nelson that the intent was to
first model Alternative No. 3 (Vision Statement) and then model the other two alternatives in an
effort to determine potential impacts to which Mr. Nelson advised that a model for Alternative No. 1
(existing) should be modeled first.
In response to City Councilmembers and City Manager Nelson, the County representatives
provided the following information:
R:\Minutes\071800
Intent to create the opportunity for high-density development which would assist in
the long-term development of transit
Circulation Element - mass transit will not be taken into consideration in terms of
maintaining service level D
That significant General Plan amendments/zone changes/upzones will impact the
transportation development balance and as well change the vision ·
That once the Plan is adopted, major/cumulative changes to .the Plan will be
reviewed on a five-year cycle and that minor zone changes and General Plan
amendments could be addressed on an as-needed basis
Overall density of this Plan will basically remain the same
With respect to Alternative No. 3, challenge will be a timing issue (planning and
funding), noting that major/new corridors are multi-year efforts
Major challenge will be to accommodate future development.
Councilman Naggar requested that information with regard to the Multi-Species Habitat
Conservation Plan, as it relates to the Region, be provided to the City Council at the next RCIP
Workshop.
Deputy City Manager Thornhill expressed concern with regard to the following:
With regard to the City's Growth Management Plan - no reference has been made,
by the County, as to the Urban Growth Boundary issue
Recommend to increase parcel Sizes in agriculture area east of the City; if interested
in protecting agriculture, 10-acre zoning will be insufficient; it was noted by the
County that larger requirements could be addressed
With respect to the land use plans, how can it be determined whether or not a land
use pattern will work unless it is compared and contrasted to something; therefore,
should model existing trends and compare it to Alternative No. 3 in order to
determine derived benefits; it was noted by the County that it would be the intent to
complete modeling, noting that the order in which each Alternative will be modeled
has not been determined.
Addressing agricultural preserve, Ms. Anne Burrell, 37623 Leon, French Valley, referenced the
Williamson Act (agricultural preserve) and the Habitat Transaction Methodology (HTM) and relayed
concerns with regard to the Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan.
In response to Councilman Naggar, County representatives noted the following:
· Intent of the Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan is to achieve coverage for
a large number of species and to create a plan that takes it out of State/Federal
control and places it into local control and, thereby, streamlining the process; intent
not to condemn or take anyone's property
· Habitat Transaction Methodology (HTM) is being explored; it is an overlay, not
intended to replace existing land uses nor to stop anyone from continuing to occupy
and use their property or develop it; concerns have been expressed with regard to
HTM
By way of written communication (copies provided to the City Council), Ms. Beatrice DuBeckman,
' 38800 Via de Oro, Glen Oaks area, advised the Councilmembers that her property is zoned R-A5
and that she opposed the possible rezoning of 5 acres to 2.5 acres.
MOTION: Councilman Roberts moved to receive and file the provided information. The motion
was seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Comerchero and voice vote reflected unanimous approval.
2 Resolution of the City Council regarding the French Valley Airport
RECOMMENDATION:
2.1 Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 2000-58
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA SUPPORTING THE INTEGRITY OF THE FRENCH
VALLEY AIRPORT
R:\Minutes\071800
3
Deputy City Manager Thornhill provided the staff report (as per agenda material), advising that if
the proposed resolution were adopted, staff will orally present it to Airport Land Use
Commission on July 20, 2000.
Considering the proposed County zone changes near the airport violate the Southwest Area
Plan as well as Alternative No. 3, Councilman Roberts questioned why this matter is even being
considered.
Providing background information with regard to the airport, Ms. Joan Sparkman, 40215 Colony
Drive, Murrieta, referenced the protection of the safe zones of the French Valley Airport,
supporting the resolution to ensure completion of the RCIP before considering any zone
changes which may affect valuable assets of this County.
With regard to residential property in the French Valley Airport Mr. Borre Winkle, Executive
Director of the Building Industry Association, advised that the area has a lot of vested properly
and entitlements which would not accommodate an expanded airpod.
In light of Dr. Husing recent report regarding industrial land, Councilman Naggar noted that
industrial land is a significant aspect to the City's future.
Relaying his support of the resolution, Mayor Pro Tern Comerchero, echoed by Councilmembers
Naggar and Stone, relayed his concern of rezoning of land that is currently zoned industrial and the
potential impacts of such action, commenting on economic impacts to the City in its efforts to create
that needed job base.
MOTION: Councilman Roberts moved to adopt Resolution No. 2000-58. The motion was
seconded by Councilman Naggar and voice vote reflected unanimous approval.
CITY MANAGER'S REPORT
No comments.
CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
No comments.
ADJOURNMENT
At 7:57 P.M., the City Council meeting was formally adjourned to Tuesday, July 25, 2000, at
7:00 P.M.,.C'[ty Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California.
[SEAL]
R:\Minutes\071800
~ I~) ~.~JeffreyE. Stone, Mayor