Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout080497 CC Minutes INDEX CITY OF TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL AUGUST 4, 1997 SUBJECT PAGE CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL FLAG SALUTE PUBLIC COMMENTS PUBLIC HEARING REGIONAL SHOPPING CENTER CITY MANAGER'S REPORT CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT ADJOURNMENT 12 2-12 12 12 R:\minutes\080497 MINUTES OF AN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL AUGUST 4, 1997 An adjourned regular meeting of the Temecula City Council was called to order at 7:07 P.M. at the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. Mayor Birdsall presiding. ROLL CALL Present: 5 Councilmembers: Ford, Linderoans, Roberts, Stone, Birdsall Absent: 0 Councilmembers: None Also present were City Manager Bradley, City Attorney Thorson, and City Clerk Greek. FLAG SALUTE The audience was led in the salute to the Flag by Mayor Pro Tem Roberts. PUBLIC COMMENTS None. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS Mayor Birdsall informed the attending and viewing audience that she and Councilmembers Roberts and Stone had attended a very informative and educational Mayor and Councilmember Conference in Monterey. PUBLIC HEARING Mayor Birdsall reviewed the public hearing process. PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0118 (APPEAL OF DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR A REGIONAL SHOPPING CENTER AND POWER CENTER) Community Development Director Thornhill briefly reviewed the appeal, advising that the appellant's, Mr. Albert S. Pratt, decision to appeal the Planning Commission's approval for the construction of a regional shopping center and power center is based on his opinion that inadequate traffic analyses have been conducted; that the Planning Commission had R:\minutes\080497 reviewed the project on June 2, and July 7, 1997, at which time only Mr. Pratt had voiced any opposition to the approval; and that shortly prior to this evening's meeting, Planning Department Staff received a letter from the City of Murrieta, signed by the Mayor, supporting Mr. Pratt's appeal. In closing, Director Thornhill reviewed staff's recommendation to overturn the appeal and adopt the resolution upholding the Planning Commission's approval of regional shopping center and power center. City Manager Bradley responded to Mr. Pratt's appeal, noting the following: that both the City of Murrieta and Mr. Pratt base the appeal on Mr. Pratt's interpretation and disagreement with the results of the environmental documents and traffic analyses; that certified traffic engineers are required to obtain specific training in traffic engineering; that a regional center, for this particular location, has been planned for more than 24 years (earliest recordation date March 1973); that the appellant is demanding the completion of a supplemental Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and that the City of Murrieta has joined him in this demand; that the EIR study was prepared May 15, 1997; that additional traffic analyses were prepared January 1997 and updated May 1997; that potential impacts of this project were included and consistent with those environmental impacts identified in the previously prepared environmental documents; therefore, staff, as confirmed by the City Attorney, is of the opinion that no supplemental Environmental Impact Report would be required; that the traffic forecast for City build-out was prepared by qualified traffic engineering firms; that the City's traffic forecast results have been confirmed by Southern California Association of Governments, (SCAG), the County of Riverside, Riverside County Transportation Commission (letter dated May 31, 1994), and Western Riverside Council on Governments; that, according to qualified traffic engineers, traffic flow at project build-out is not based on assumption of compound traffic growth but on comprehensive forecasting study of future traffic conditions resulting from cumulative development in the study area; that, according to the Temecula Regional Center Environmental Impact Report traffic study, the City's cumulative development assumptions for project build-out are conservative to ensure all infrastructure needs were addressed; that the Rancho Bella Vista development was included in the completed traffic study and that it was considered at a higher-density rate; that annual traffic growth rates have no relevance to the analysis of cumulative R:\minutes\080497 traffic condition at project build-out; that those traffic improvements required by build-out are actually being completed prior to build-out; that each traffic analysis contains a summary written in laymen's language; that staff has attempted to clarify, to no avail, on numerous occasions, the completed documents/studies to Mr. Pratt; that the proposed shopping center will have some immediate impact on the businesses but that the long-term impact should be very positive for all merchants, noting that regional centers compete with regional centers; that the mitigation costs for this project will not exceed those revenues generated from the project, referencing one-time developer fees, sales tax, property taxes, franchise fees, business license fees, etc. By way of overheads, City Manager Bradley reviewed the required mitigation measures and associated costs as reflected in the EIR; advised that the City is, as well, proceeding with additional improvements such as the widening of southbound off-ramp on Winchester Road, widening of Ynez Road (south of Rancho California), SR 79/Interstate 15 improvements, and the Traffic Signal Interconnect Project; and noted that one interchange project has been completed and that the City is anticipating to complete two more. If this project were approved, City Manager Bradley noted that the Overland Drive Overpass will be constructed and paid for by the new sales tax revenues generated from the Mall and other merchants. Mayor Birdsall clarified that the Mello Roos bond will pay for the Overland Overpass only if this Regional Shopping Center or another Shopping Center were approved at Ynez/Winchester Roads. In closing, City Manager Bradley recommended that the City Council reject the appeal and approve the construction of the Regional Shopping Center and Power Center. In response to Councilmember Lindemans, City Manager Bradley advised that the City Council of the City of Murrieta had no official meeting with regard to this matter; that the matter was not discussed in closed session; and that the letter received from the City of Murrieta was signed by the Mayor. Councilmember Lindemans, echoed by Councilmember Stone, noted that, in his opinion, the letter from the Mayor of the City of Murrieta solely reflects one individual's opinion with regard to this project. Mr. Frank Sherkow, traffic engineer representing the City of Murrieta, responded to particular questions from the Councilmembers, noting the following: that since he has only been employed with the City of Murrieta since July 1997, he cannot address why the City did not note issues of concern at the past two Planning Commission meetings; that although the City of Murrieta may not have attended recent Commission meetings, concerns with regard to this project were noted as far back as 1992 -- when the construction of a shopping center was originally proposed and discussed; that because the City of Murrieta cannot comply within the time frame of when these improvements, as a result of this project, are to be completed, these improvements should be completed by the City of Temecula. Considering the existence of the Joint Murrieta/-I'emecula Traffic Committee, founded six years ago, both Councilmembers Roberts and Stone noted that the City of Temecula has worked very hard to be proactive and good neighbors and relayed disappointment with the City of Murrieta that no concerns with regard to this project were voiced at any public hearings over the past four to five years or at the Committee meetings. Having discussed the matter with a traffic engineer from the City of Murrieta, City Engineer Kicak clarified that the City of Temecula was only responsible for completing specific mitigation measures in the City of Murrieta if there were full build-out in the City including Campos Verdes and Winchester Hills. Because the letter from the City of Murrieta was submitted prior to this public hearing, City Attorney Thorson noted that it will be part of the record and, therefore, it would not be necessary to read it into the record. In response to Councilmember Lindemans, City Manager Bradley advised that qualification resumes are on file for Wilbur Smith and Associates, Counts Unlimited. Community Development Director Thornhill advised that the City has not been billed by Wilbur Smith and Associates for the time necessary to reply to Mr. Pratt's concerns as it relates to this appeal; and noted that a guesstimate could be obtained as to associated staff time. Responding to Mr. Pratt's issues of concern and reasons for the appeal, Community Development Thornhill provided extensive clarification and noted the following: that change in intensity was reviewed; that staff requested a new traffic analysis to analyze impacts relating to traffic; that no changes, with the exception of phasing, have been made to the project; that a Mitigation Monitoring Program was adopted for the project which would provide for all post review of any issues relating to environmental issues such as air quality and storm pollution; - that the original EIR encompassed three major projects -- Campos Verdes to the east (intensity has been decreased), regional center site, and a 500 + acre site on the northern end of Ynez Road (no approval yet); that the FEIR assumed build-out of these projects; that the EIR encompassed a higher intensity than the subsequently adopted City of Murrieta General Plan and, therefore, an intersection analysis for roadways within the City of Murrieta had not been addressed; that considering the distance of Murrieta Hot Springs Road at Interstate 215 and Interstate 15, the regional shopping center would have nominal impact on this particular road; that the requirements of Assessment District 161 will be completed and have been budgeted; that as per a letter from the Riverside County Transportation Commission (dated May 31, 1994), the project will be in full compliance with the Riverside County Congestion Management Program. Mr. Colm Macken, Vice President of Forest City Development, extended his appreciation to the community for its support and commented on the benefits this regional shopping center will have on the community. Mr. Macken advised that the plans for this project have been fully analyzed to ensure consistency with the Specific General Plan and Certified Environmental Impact Report and introduced Mr. Bob Davis, Project Engineer representing Wilbur Smith and Associates, who was responsible for preparation of the EIR traffic study and update studies for the project. In response to Mr. Pratt's letter of July 21, 1997, Mr. Bob Davis provided clarification as follows: that the EIR traffic studies encompassed the use of cumulative development (from all approved Specific Plans, additional projects within the influenced area not yet approved, and assumed partial build-out of all other projects identified in the vicinity having any plans at the time) versus compounded traffic growth; that compounded traffic growth is primarily used for short-range projects; that both the Winchester property and Rancho Bella Vista have been reduced in intensity in terms of land use assumed; - that the Domenagoni Project is not within the sphere of influence; that after review of several traffic counts, it was determined that the 3% annual compounded traffic growth rate is an accurate reflection; that Mr. Pratt's traffic counts do not reflect a study of the entire intersection; that his method of counting is not a recognized standard, noting that cycle lengths dramatically vary during peak periods; that the proposed roadway improvements for Phase I, opening of the Mall, and full build-out are not piecemeal and are adequate to address the impacts; that level of service (LOS) is not based on timing of the traffic signal but on the demand of the intersection which is influenced by timing of the traffic signal and capacity of the intersection; that Wilbur Smith and Associates is very familiar with forecasting modeling; that mitigation measures have been identified for the Jefferson/Winchester Road intersection in order to bring the LOS of this intersection within acceptable limits; that Pala Road improvements have no impact on the regional center; Concurring with Councilmember Stone's comment, Mr. Davis confirmed that individuals will travel to the mall by way of least resistance such as Winchester Overpass and that Murrieta residents will either travel by way of Jefferson/Margarita Roads, Murrieta Hot Springs Road, or exit the freeway by way of Winchester Road. For Councilmember Lindemans, Mr. Davis briefly reviewed his qualifications necessary to be a licensed traffic engineer. At 8:25 P.M., Mayor Birdsall called a recess and reconvened the meeting at 8:40 P.M. Responding to Mr. Pratt's letter (received this evening), Community Development Director Thornhill noted the following: although the Summerfield tract has been reduced from high density multi-family apartments to 10 units per acre - a reduction of 7 units per acre -- this tract was calculated in the EIR at the higher density; this commercial development is consistent with the General Compliance Plan intensities and densities. For clarification, Director Thornhill noted that the term power center refers to a conglomeration of large retail outlets. It was moved by Councilmember Stone, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Roberts, to make a formal request of the City of Murrieta to identify who authored the letter of concern. AYES: 4 COUNCILMEMBERS: Stone, Roberts, Birdsall, Lindemans NOES: I COUNCILMEMBER: Ford ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None City Attorney Thorson advised that in addition to the completed studies, the City Council approved a development agreement for this project in December 1996 and approved the outlines of the Mall. Mr. Thorson noted that the City Council could, this evening, deny approval of the design and architecture of the mall; direct staff to further negotiate those issues; but clarified that because the development agreement established a mall of a fixed size, the City Council may not deny the Mall project as long as it is consistent with the Development Agreement. In light of the time, Mayor Birdsall requested that those individuals in support of the construction of the Mall stand (to which the majority of the audience members stood) and then requested that those in opposition of the Mall to stand. The public hearing was opened by Mayor Birdsall. Mr. Sam Pratt, the appellant, clarified that he does not oppose the construction of the Mall; noted that he is of the opinion that the proposed mitigation measures, as per Wilbur Smith and Associates, will not adequately address the traffic problems; stated that he would be desirous to work with staff in an effort to resolve the traffic problems he envisions for the future; and noted that because he was not feeling well, he would be unable to proceed and would be unable to answer any questions. (At this time, Mr. Pratt departed the meeting.) For Ms. Pat Keller, P.O. Box 521, Temecula, Councilmember Ford referenced past efforts undertaken by the City of Temecula to ensure proper public relations with the City of Murrieta and assured her that those efforts will continue with the City of Murrieta but noted that both cities must work together to ensure current and future traffic issues are properly addressed. In response to Ms. Keller, Councilmember Ford apprised her of upcoming improvement plans for Old Town. Although she does not oppose the construction of the Mall, Ms. Karyn Thompson, 31395 Corte Mallorca, Temecula, relayed her opposition to the proposed location of the Mall. She encouraged the two neighboring cities to work together and voiced concern with regard to the Mall as it relates to traffic issues and potential impact on small businesses. Appreciating Ms. Thompson's comments, Mayor Birdsall apprised Ms. Thompson of the existing Joint Murrieta/Temecula Traffic Commission, public hearings at which this matter was discussed, bid hearings, reviews, posted notices, the approval of the development agreement in December 1996 and relayed the City Council's frustration and disappointment with being notified late this afternoon by the City of Murrieta, by way of a letter, expressing objection to the construction of the Mall. In closing, Mayor Birdsall also commented on the efforts undertaken by staff and Wilbur Smith and Associates to communicate with Mr. Pratt. In light of the time, Mr. Frank Sherkow, representing the City of Murrieta, briefly summarized the issues of concern (as per the letter dated August 4, 1997) with regard to this development, noting the following: adverse traffic impacts on the City of Murrieta new information has become available since the adoption of FEIR No. 340, which has not been analyzed and, therefore, no mitigation measures have been proposed. In closing, Mr. Sherkow requested that the City Council direct staff to prepare a supplement to the FEIR in order to evaluate this new information as required by CEQA. The following individuals spoke in support of the construction of the Regional Shopping Center: John Dedovesh Michael Naggar Ed Sterling Joan Sparkman Stan Heaton Rebecca Weersing Darrell Connerton Pepper Calvert Jack Henz Gene Wunderlich 39450 Long Ridge Drive 43034 Agena Street 40456 Chauncey Way Chamber of Commerce 42102 Elgin Court 41775 Yorba Avenue 31618 Corte Rosario 43114 Corte Villa 42835 Villa Terrace Rancho Temecula Murrieta Association of Realtors - 4003 Willowbend, Murrieta Stewart Morris Jeff Comerchero 41981 Keith Candee 28924 John Affolter 34121 Mary Rauschenburg 15707 Harold Meyers 30930 Ron Walton 30075 Avenida Vista Ladera Front Street De Portola Road Rockfield, #305, Irvine Corte Arroyo Vista Ynez Road The above-mentioned individuals spoke in support of the construction of a Regional Shopping Center for the following reasons and made the following comments: that there are no traffic concerns in the area of discussion during the early morning hours; that denying this project at this point would have a detrimental impact on the City, detering future businesses from investing or relocating to the City of Temecula; that if Mr. Pratt's issues of concern deserve additional examination, the City Council should deny the appeal and approve the project but direct staff to conduct additional traffic studies; that this development would have a positive impact on the neighboring property values; that the City would greatly benefit from the sales tax derived from this development; that the City should challenge costly appeals such as this one and pursue possible reimbursement of associated expenditures; that the development would provide an improved economic retail base while offering much needed services, job opportunities, and road improvements in the City; that the development will comply with requirements of governmental agencies and the developer has provided all necessary information; that although Mr. Pratt has the right to object to the Planning Commission's decision, after thorough review, the assumptions and conclusions made by Mr. Pratt are troubling and that the appeal lacks foundation; that Mall management would be eager to strike a balance between national chains and locally owned businesses; that the Mall could be a customer generator and, therefore, be an opportunity for local businesses to profit. Mr. Colm Macken relayed his pleasure to have the opportunity to develop in this community as well as his desire to move forward with the construction of this Regional Shopping Center. At this time, Mayor Birdsall closed the public hearing. Apologizing for his frustration displayed toward the written communication received from the City of Murrieta, Mayor Pro Tem Roberts noted that he will continue to work with neighboring cities to ensure traffic issues are properly addressed. With regard to Mr. Sam Pratt, Mayor Pro Tern Roberts relayed his dismay with Mr. Pratt's early departure and being unable to ask him any questions -- in particular to his comment that additional judicial review may be pursued. Mayor Pro Tem Roberts expressed his support to deny the appeal as well as his desire to close this issue. Having reevaluated a tremendous amount of information by way of studies, experts' opinions, and Planning staff reports, Councilmember Ford encouraged both cities to work together in an effort to achieve maximum traffic circulation between the two cities, including the extension of Diaz Road; recommended that the City of Murrieta step forward in completing its necessary roadway improvements; and advised that safeguards, by way of conditions and mitigation measures, have been imposed on the project to ensure potential traffic impacts are properly addressed. It was moved by Councilmember Stone, seconded by Councilmember Ford, to extend this evening's meeting to 10:30 P.M. AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Stone, Ford, Birdsall, Roberts, Lindemans NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None Having reviewed a tremendous amount of material/documents and having personally met with Mr. Pratt, Councilmember Lindemans confirmed the 3% figure for the annual compound growth rate of homes built in the City. Concurring with Mr. Affolter that an individual has the right to appeal, Councilmember Lindemans questioned the abuse of power and requested City Attorney Thorson to investigate the costs associated with this appeal. Mr. Lindemans as well extended apologies for displaying his frustration with regard to this issue. Councilmember Stone apprised the attending and viewing audience of initial efforts undertaken by him and Mayor Pro Tern Roberts to have a mall built in Temecula and relayed his pleasure with Forest City Development choosing to invest here. He commented on the efforts he has undertaken to no avail, to discuss the traffic concerns expressed by Mr. Pratt and briefly addressed the benefits this development will have on the City. Councilmember Stone expressed his disappointment with the City of Murrieta for voicing concern with regard to the project at this late point in time and spoke in support of denial of the appeal. Advising that the experts and the Planning staff have attempted, although to no avail, to address and discuss the concerns raised by Mr. Pratt, Mayor Birdsall clarified that because Mr. Pratt was the only individual appealing the Planning Commission's decision for approval and, therefore, communications with regard to this appeal were solely directed to Mr. Pratt. In closing, Mayor Birdsall advised that the City Council has never increased density on a project in this City from the day of incorporation but that it has continued to reduce densities and will continue to do so in the future. It was moved by Councilmember Ford, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Roberts, to concur with staff's recommendation to adopt Resolution No. 97-13, denying the appeal and making the determination of consistency with a project for which an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was previously certified and findings that a subsequent EIR is not required. RESOLUTION NO. 97-13 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DENYING A PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA 97-0018 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN - APPEAL), UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION APPROVING PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 97-0118 {DEVELOPMENT PLAN - MALL AND POWER CENTER SITE PLAN, MALL AND POWER CENTER ELEVATIONS, MALL AND POWER CENTER LANDSCAPE PLAN, MALL AND POWER CENTER COLOR AND MATERIAL BOARDS; ROBINSONS-MAY SITE/LANDSCAPE PLAN, ROBINSONS- MAY ELEVATIONS AND ROBINSONS-MAY COLOR AND MATERIAL BOARD, SEARS SITE/LANDSCAPE PLAN, SEARS ELEVATIONS AND SEARS COLOR AND MATERIAL BOARD) BASED UPON THE ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS CONTAINED IN THE STAFF REPORT SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK AYES: 5 NOES: ABSENT: CITY MANAGER'S REPORT None. CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT None. ADJOURNMENT 0 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: Stone, Ford, Birdsall, Roberts, Lindemans None None At 10:13 P.M., Mayor Birdsall formally adjourned the meeting to Tuesday, August 12, 1997, at 7:00 P.M., City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. Patricia H. Birdsall, Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk