HomeMy WebLinkAbout072401 CC Minutes MINUTES OF A REGULAR M,EETING OF
THE TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL
/
JULY
24,
2001
CALL TO ORDER /
The City of Temecula City Council convened in Closed Selssion at 6:00 P.M., on Tuesday, July
24, 2002 in the Main Conference Room of Temecula Cit[y Hall, 43200 Business Park Drive,
Temecula, California. The Open Session of the City Coundil meeting commenced at 7:02 P.M.
in the City Council Chambers.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Councilmembers: Naggar, Pratt, Roberts, Stone,
and Mayor Comerchero.
Absent: Councilmember: None.
PRELUDE MUSIC
The prelude music was provided by Ms. Jennifer Taft.
INVOCATION
The invocation was given by Pastor Sophia Sadler of Harv(
ALLEGIANCE
The audience was led in the Flag salute by Mayor Comerci'
PUBLIC COMMENTS
stor Church of Temecula.
ero.
Ms. Maggie Allen, 42960 Calle Reva, apprised the City COL ncil and the audience of a new
television show, Temecula Students of the Month, which can be seen on Channel 28, beginning
August 14, 2001, at 6:00 P.M., preceding the City Council meeting.
In response to Councilman Stone's commenting that other I estaurants have expressed an interest
in participating with respect to the filming location, Ms. AlJer relayed that the Chamber of
Commerce could explore the feasibility of uhhz~ng a variety qf restaurants for the filming.
Ms. Michelle Anderson, 43791 Barletta Street, representing Citizens First of Temecula Valley,
expressed thanks to Mr. David Lowry, Mr. Steve Vliss, and ,Mr. Richard Ashby for their generous
contributions towards the building of a pedestrian bridge at the intersection of Winchester/Nicolas
Roads relayed thanks to Councilman Pratt for the concept of the bridge being installed at th~s
location four years ago; noted thanks to Councilman Naggar for h~s efforts regarding funding; and
expressed thanks to all the City Councilmembers for their approval of this necessary bridge.
Minutes\072401 1
CITY COUNCIL REPORTS
For informational purposes, Councilman Pratt relay d that he would be presenting a
PowerPoint Presentation at the Public/Traffic Safety Commission meeting on Thursday, July
26th, noting that the topic would be Public Transportation; and invited all to attend.
I t M A ' I
n response o s. nderson s comments expressed during the public comment period,
Councilman Stone relayed thanks for her accoladesJ noting that a pedestrian bridge was an
important amenity in a City; for informational purposes, clarified that the School District was
a separate entity (from the C~ty), determining the s~te Iocabon for the school; and adwsed
that the recent accident could have happened at any, ~ntersecbon ~n the C~ty, relaying that
the driver involved was suffering from a medical con~dition which caused the driver to be
disoriented.
Advising that he had arranged a meeting in April to gain support for the development of a
natural gas fueling station in Temecula, Mayor Pro Tlem Roberts relayed the recent approval
of a federal grant for $250,000 which constituted twenty-nine percent (29 '/o) of the funding
needed, and the potential to recewe another grant (from the Mobde Source A~r Pollution
Reduction Review Committee) for $200,000; and relayed hopes for the C~ty to have a
natural gas fue ~ng station ~n Temecu a at the Down Commercial Fueling Inc., in November
of 2002.
Referencing an article in the Press Enterprise regarding how cities have addressed growth
~n terms of Pubhc Safety, and the Police Officer/resident rabo ~n each c~ty, Mayor
Comerchero clarified that the article included ~ncorrect facts, stating that the City of
Temecula has 43 sworn Police Officer, whereas the
Police Officers serving approximately 60,000 reside~
population has almost doubled, crime in the City of'
percent (50.5%) since 1993.
CONSENT CALENDAR
1 Standard Ordinance and Resolution Adoption Proced
City of Temecula actually has 68 sworn
~ts; and noted that although the
'emecula has decreased fifty-and-a-half
Jre
RECOMMENDATION:
1.1 Motion to waive the reading of the text of all ordinances and
agenda.
2 Minutes
RECOMMENDATION:
2.1 Approve the minutes of June 26, 2001.
Minutes\072401 2
resolutions included in the
3
Resolution approvin.q List of Demands
RECOMMENDATION:
3.1
Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 1~ 1-67
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCI,L OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS
AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A
4
5
7
Financial Statements for the nine months ended MarCh 31, 2001
RECOMMENDATION:
4.1 Receive and file the Financial Statements for thb nine months ended March 31,
2001.
Pumhase of City Vehicle
RECOMMENDATION:
5.1 Approve the purchase of the Dodge Durango mpdel year 2001 from Norm Reeves
Chrysler/Jeep/Dodge in the amount of $29,576.63.
/
Arts Council of Temecula Valley Concerts on the Greeln and Arts in the Country Festival
Grant Aqreement t t A
RECOMMENDATION:
6.1 Approve a Special Event Communi y Gran gr,eement between the City of
Temecula and the Arts Council of Temecula Valley in the amount of $34,000.
FY2001-02 Economic Development Operating Aqreements
RECOMMENDATION:
7.1 Approve the operating/marketing agreements with the Temecula Valley Chamber of
Commerce, Economic Development Corporat,o~ of Southwest R~vers~de County,
Temecula Valley Film Council, Inland Empire Edonomic Partnership, and Southwest
Riverside County Economic Alliance;
7.2 Authorize the Mayor to execute the operating/marketing agreements for each of the
organizations.
Minutes\072401 3
9
Award of Construction Contract for Starli,qht Ridge Sc uthern Cross Road Sidewalk Proiect
- Prelect No. PW00-22
RECOMMENDATION:
8.2 Award a construction contract for the Starlight R, idge Southern Cross Road Sidewalk
Project - Project No. PW00-22 - to Elite Bobcat Service, Inc. in the amount of
$51,790.00 and authorize the Mayor to execute the contract;
8.2 Authorize the City Manager to approve change orders not to exceed the contingency
amount of $5,179.00 which is equal to 10% of the contract amount.
Councilman Naggar advised that he would be abstaining from this item,
Maintenance A.qreement - Habitat West, Inc. - Lonq Canyon Detention Basin - Prelect
No. PW01-05
RECOMMENDATION:
10
9.1 Approve a five-year Maintenance Agreement with Habitat West, Inc. for a total
and authonze the Mayor to execute the
amount not to exceed $26,140.00 ' '
agreement.
Temecula Valley - La Serena Way Storm Drain- Sta. e 2 - Project No. 7-0-0315 - Tract
Map No. 23371-11 - Cooperative Agreement
RECOMMENDATION:
10.1 Approve the Margarita Road - Temecula ValleyI- La Serena Way Storm Drain -
Stage 2 - Project No. 7-0-0315 - Tract Map No.123371-11 - Cooperative
Agreement with the Riverside County Flood Co~
District, the City of Temecula, and M.A. TemekL
10.2 Authorize the execution of such agreement in
Attorney, and City Clerk.
11 Tract Map No. 23143-5 - now in conformance with it~
~trol and Water Conservation
Hills Development, LLC;
final form by the Mayor, City
oriqinal approval (located south of
Pauba Road, east of Butterfield Staqe Road, and north of De Portola Road)
RECOMMENDATION:
11.1 Approve Tract Map No. 23143-5;
11.2 Approve the Subdivision Monument Agreement
deposit as security for the agreements.
and accept the Monument cash
Minutes\072401 4
12
13
14
State Transportation Improvement Pro,qram (STIP) D scretionary Fund Application -
Cherry Street Southbound Off-ramp Improvement Prdiect
RECOMMENDATION:
12.1 Receive and file the report regarding the 2002 State Transportation Improvement
Program (STIP) Discretionary Fund application for the Cherry Street Southbound
Off-ramp Improvement Project and authonze the D~rector of Pubhc Works to forward
said application to ' ' ~ '
the R~vers~de County Transpgrtahon Commission;
12.2 Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO, 01-68
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCI,L OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA SUPPORTING THE CALTRAN, S APPLICATION TO
THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
FOR 2002 STATE TRANSPORTATIdN IMPROVEMENT
PROGRAM DISCRETIONARY FUNDS "OR THE CHERRY
STREET SOUTHBOUND OFF-RAMI IMPROVEMENT
PROJECT
Professional Services Aqreement for Bioloqical Obse~ ~ations and Monitorin.q - Lon.q
Canyon Detention Basin - Project No. PW01-05
RECOMMENDATION:
13.1 Approve a five-year Professional Services Agreement with EDAW, Inc. for a total
not to exceed $58,539.00 and authorize the Ma:~or to execute the agreement.
Professional Services A,qreement for desiqn services for Wolf Creek Fire Station Site -
Proiect No. PW01-11
RECOMMENDATION:
14.1 Approve an acceleration of $100,000 from the Capital Improvement Budget for
FY2002-2003 to the current FY2001-2002 budget for the Wolf Creek Fire Station
Site - Project No. PW01-11;
14.2 Approve a Professional Services Agreement with STK Architecture, Inc. in an
amount not to exceed $159,500.00 to provide d~sign services for the Wolf Creek
Fire Station Site - Project No. PW01-11 - within~ the planned Wolf Creek
Development and authorize the Mayor to execute the agreement;
/
14.3 Authorize the City Manager to approve amendmlents/change orders not to exceed
the contingency amount of $15,950.00 which is eq'ual to 10% of the agreement.
This item was continued to the August 14, 2001 Ci[y Council meeting.
Minutes\072401 5
15
16
17
18
19
FY2000-2001 Slurry Seal Proqram - Project No. PW01-07 - Add Diaz Road
RECOMMENDATION:
15.1 Authorize the City Manager to approve contracl change orders with American
Asphalt for an amount of $45,000 above the prbviously approved 10% contingency
for the FY2000-2001 Slurry Seal Program - Pro ect No. PW01-07.
Completion and Acceptance of Construction Contract
- Project No. PW98-16
RECOMMENDATION:
16.1
Accept the Old Town Southside Park Lot Proje(
complete;
for Old Town Southside Parkinq Lot
- Project No. PW98-16- as
16.2 File a Notice of Completion, release the Perforr~ance Bond, and accept a 12-month
Maintenance Bond in the amount of 10% of the 'contract;
RI th Mt I L' B ' I .... t f
16.3 eease e aeriasano aDor ond seven months a]zer fi ing of the rqo ice o
Completion if no liens have been flied.
Third Amendment to Law Enforcement Services A.qreement with County of Riverside
RECOMMENDATION:
17.1 Approve the third amendment to the Law Enforclement Services Agreement
between the County of Riverside and the City oI Temecula to include the hiring of
one lieutenant, one traffic/motorcycle officer, and one community service officer.
Roripau.qh Specific Plan - Status Report
RECOMMENDATION:
18.1 Receive and file.
Walker Basin Specific Plan No. 172 substantial conformance No. 1 and Tentative Tract
Map No. 29369
RECOMMENDATION:
19.1 Authorize the City Manager to prepare a letter in support of the 106-dwelling unit
proposal developed by the Riverside County Pl~{nning Department staff for the
Walker Basin Specific Plan.
Minutes\072401 6
20 Woodside Homes Traffic Siqnal Reimbursement
RECOMMENDATION:
20.1 Approve the refund of the Traffic Signal Develo )ment Impact Fees in the amount of
$45,000.00 to Woodside Homes of California f¢ 50% of the cost of Traffic Signal
Improvements at Margarita Road and Verde Lane.
MOTION: Councilman Stone moved to approve Consent C, alendar Item Nos. 1-13, and 15-20,
and moved to continue Item No. 14 to the August 14, 2001 City Council meeting. The motion
was seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Roberts and voice vote reflected unanimous approval w~th the
exception of Councilman Naggar who abstained with respect to Item No. 8.
/
For informational purposes, Deputy City Manager Thornhill Iprovided an oral report regarding the
Roripaugh Project Process, noting that on Friday, staff, two Councilmembers, and Commissioner
Telesio met with the applicant's representative for a meet ng wh ch asted approx mateIy 3.5 hours,
advising that the primary issues of discussion were the land, use issues, and buffering; relayed that
the Subcommittee made recommendations to increase the buffering, to reduce densities in areas of
the plan, provided direction regarding the trails, and drainag~e issues, discussed road improvements
on Nicolas Road, determined to schedule a meeting to discuss the design parameters associated
with Nicolas Road at build-out, and directed the applicant t~ have the Design Guidelines completed
(which the applicant's representative had agreed to); noted !hat the minutes of the Friday meeting
were provided the applicant on Monday; and advised that staff has had no response from the
applicant, including a lack of response regarding the Subcommittee s d~rect~on to provide a Specific
Plan. L
For Councilman Pratt, Deputy City Manager Thornhill, echo d by Mayor Pro Tern Roberts, relayed
that neighboring residents in Nicolas Valley expressed concern regarding the lack of buffering
between their homes and the project, Mayor Pro Tem Roberts noting the Subcommittee's direction
to relocate various larger buffer areas on the east end of th~ project to the south end, relaying
hopes that the applicant will soon respond to the Subcommittee's direction.
In response to Councilman Naggar, Deputy City Manager T,hornhill specified that staff made every
attempt to contact the applicant, noting discouragement that there had been no response.
R t t th t I' t tt I
ei era lng e Ci y Counci s commi men o agree to fast-t~ack the comprehensive evaluation of
this project, Councilman Stone noted disappointment at the lack of cooperation from the applicant
which v(,as necessary for the project s t me schedu e; suggested that a letter from the Mayor be sent
to the applicant clarifying the City Council's desire to bring a quality project to the City with very
~mportant infrastructure, noting that ~f there was not full cooperation from the applicant, the C~ty
would need to seek alternate opbons, adws~ng that ~f deadh~es are not met, the C~ty Councd wdl be
required to re-evaluate whether, or not, efforts will continue to expedite the project process. In
response, Mayor Comerchero noted his concurrence, relayi,ng that as soon as time permitted they
could meet together to draft a letter.
/
At 7:29 P. M., the City Council convened as the Temecula Community Services District, the
Temecula Redevelopment Agency, and The Industrial Development Authority. At 7:33 P.M., the
City Council resumed with regularly scheduled City Council business.
Minutes\072401 7
PUBLIC HEARING
21 Harveston Specific Plan
This item was heard out of order, after consideration
page 9.
COUNCIL BUSINESS
22 Compensation for Commission Members
(as requested by Mayor Pro Tem Roberts)
RECOMMENDATION:
Agenda Item Nos. 22, and 23; see
22.1 Consider amending Section 2.40.100 of the City's Municipal Code to provide
compensation to Commission Members on a per-meeting bas~s and prowde
direction to staff.
Advising that this item was agendized per Mayor Pro Tem Roberts's request, Assistant Manager
O'Grady summarized the staff report (of record), noting the ~ecommendation that the
Commissioners be compensated on a per meeting basis rather than a flat monthly bas~s which
would more accurately reflect the actual variable schedule (if various Commissions.
Noting the recent numerous meetings of the Planning Com ,mission which additionally en ais a
plethora of review prior to the meetings, Mayor Pro Tem Roberts clarified the rationale for
agendizing this item. /
MOTION: Mayor Pro Tem Roberts moved to direct City AttOrney Thorsen to prepare an
ordinance reflecting an amendment to Section 2.40.100 of the City's Municipal Code to provide
compensation to Commission Members on a per meebng bas~s. Councdman Naggar seconded
the motion and voice vote reflected unanimous approval.
23 Appointment of an Animal Shelter Subcommittee
(as requested by Councilman Naggar)
RECOMMENDATION:
23.1 Appoint a subcommittee to review the Animal F lends of the Valley proposed new
shelter.
Assistant to the City Manager Yates provided an overview the staff report (via agenda material).
N t' th th f II rt th d I t f A ' I i~h It f Tt
o~ng a e u ysuppo s e eveopmen o anew n~n~a ~ e er ac~ ~ y in the City of
Wildomar, Councilman Naggar volunteered to serve on thislsubcommittee.
/
MOTION I N t th If -- M P T
: Counciman aggar moved oappoin imse an~l ayor re em Robertsto serve on
this particular subcommittee. The motion was seconded by .Councilman Stone and voice vote
reflected unanimous approval.
At 7:39 P.M. the meet ng recessed, reconven ng at 7:53 P.M.
/
At this time the City Council considered Agenda Item NIo. 21.
Minutes\072401 8
PUBLIC HEARING
21 Harveston Specific Plan
RECOMMENDATION:
21.1 Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 01 -
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT PREPARED FOR THE HARVESTON
SPECIFIC PLAN AND RELATED ACTION,S, AND ADOPTING
THE FINDINGS PURSUANT TO ii'HE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, AI STATEMENT OF
OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND A MITIGATION
MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGR/~M IN CONNECTION
THEREWITH FOR THE HARVESTONI SPECIFIC PLAN,
LOCATED EAST OF INTERSTATE 15, NORTH OF SANTA
GERTRUDIS CREEK, WEST OF MARG',ARITA ROAD AND
SOUTH OF THE NORTHERN CITY LIMITS (PLANNING
APPLICATION 00-0189)
21.2 Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 01-
Minutes\072401
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 99-
0419 (GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT) FO,R THE HARVESTON
SPECIFIC PLAN AND THE 'rwo EX,CLUDED PARCELS
WITHIN THE SPECIFIC PLAN AND ADOPTING SPECIFIC
PLAN NO. 13 (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 99-0418) ON
PARCELS TOTALING 550 ACRES LOCATED EAST OF
INTERSTATE 15, NORTH OF SANTA G'ERTRUDIS CREEK,
WEST OF MARGARITA ROAD ANDI SOUTH OF THE
NORTHERN CITY LIMIT, AND KNOW~N AS ASSESSOR
PARCEL NOS. 910-261-001, 910-261-002,, 910-110-013, 910-
110-015, 910-110-020, 910-110-021,910-1,10-027, 910-110-076,
910-100-007, 910-100-008, 910-060-009, 91,0-120-005, 910-120-
007, 910-120-008, 911-630-001, 911-630-00,2, 911-630-003, 911-
640-001,911-640-002, 911-180-002, 911-180-003, 911-180-004,
911-180-008, 911-180-009, 911-180-015, 911-180-023, AND 911-
180-028
9
21.3 Read by title only and introduce an ordinance ehtitled:
ORDINANCE NO, 01-
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA, AMENDING THE DEVELdPMENT CODE TO
AMEND SECTION 17.16.070 TO INCLIUDE HARVESTON
SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 13 AND ADOPTII~G A PORTION OF
CHAPTER 11 (DEVELOPMENT STAkDARDS) ZONING
STANDARDS CONTAINED THEREIN FOR' RESIDENTIAL AND
COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT FOR ITHE HARVESTON
SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 13, ON PA,RCELS TOTALING
APPROXIMATELY 550 ACRES LOCATED ON THE EAST OF
INTERSTATE 15, NORTH OF SANTA (~ERTRUDIS CREEK,
WEST OF MARGARITA ROAD ANDI SOUTH OF THE
NORTHERN CITY LIMIT, AND FURTHER IDENTIFIED AS
ASSESSOR PARCEL NOS. 910-261-001, 9~0-261-002, 910-110-
013, 9 10-110-015, 910-110-020, 910-110-02,1,910-110-027, 910-
110-076, 910-100-007, 910-100-008, 910-0,60-009, 910-120-008,
911-630-001,911-630-002, 911-630-003, 9,11-640-001,911-640-
002, 911-180-002, 911-180-003, 911-180-004, 911-180-008, 911-
180-009, 911-180-015, 911-180-023 AND 911-180-02
(PLANNING APPLICATION 99-0418)
21.4 Introduce and read by title only an ordinance entitled:
ORDINANCE NO. 01-
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCI,L OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA APPROVING THE ZONE CHANGE FOR THE
AREA OF THE HARVESTON SPECIFIC PL,~N AND AMENDING
THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF THE CI'F~', OF TEMECULA ON
PARCELS TOTALING 550 ACRES LOCATED ADJACENT TO
INTERSTATE 15, NORTH OF SANTA G'ERTRUDIS CREEK,
WEST OF MARGARITA ROAD ANDI SOUTH OF THE
NORTHERN CITY LIMIT, AND KNOW~N AS ASSESSOR
PARCEL NOS. 910-261-001, 910-261-002,,. 910-110-013, 910-
110-015, 910-110-020, 910-110-021, 910-1,10-027, 910-110-076,
910-100-007, 910-100-008, 910-060-009, 91,0-120-003, 910-120-
007, 910-120-008, 911-630-001, 911-630-00,2, 911-630-003, 911-
640-001, 911-640-002, 911-180-002, 911-1,80-003, 911-180-004,
911-180-008, 911-180-009, 911-180-015, 9111-180-023 AND 911-
180-028. (PLANNING APPLICATION 99-0245)
Minutes\072401 10
21.5 Introduce and read by title only an ordinance er titled:
ORDINANCE NO. 01-
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA APPROVING THAT CER~I'AIN AGREEMENT
ENTITLED "DEVELOPMENT AGREEMEN~ BY AND BETWEEN
THE CITY OF TEMECULA AND LENI~IAR COMMUNITIES
(PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 99-0446)"
21.6 Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 01-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCI,L OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-
0295 - TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 29639.', THE SUBDIVISION
OF APPROXIMATELY 550 ACRES INT,O 91 LOTS WHICH
CONFORM TO THE PLANNING ARE,AS, OPEN SPACE
AREAS, SCHOOL AND PARK SITES OF~ THE HARVESTON
SPECIFIC PLAN LOCATED EAST OF INTE, RSTATE 15, NORTH
OF SANTA GERTRUDIS CREEK, WEST OF MARGARITA
ROAD AND SOUTH OF THE NORTHERN CITY LIMIT, AND
FURTHER IDENTIFIED AS ASSESSOR ,PARCEL NOS. 910-
261-001,910-261-002, 910-110-013, 910-1110-015, 910-110-020,
910-110-021,910-110-027, 910-110-076, 9,10-100-007, 910-100-
008, 910-060-009, 910-120-008, 911-630-00,1,911-630-002, 911-
630-003, 911-640-001, 911-640-002, 911-1,80-002, 911-180-003,
911-180-004, 911-180-008, 911-180-009, 911-180-015, 911-180-
023 AND 911-180-028
21.7 Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 01-
Minutes\072401
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 01-
0030 - TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 29928, THE SUBDIVISION
OF APPROXIMATELY 40 ACRES INTOI 140 RESIDENTIAL
LOTS AND 21 OPEN SPACE LOTS IN PLANNING AREA 7 OF
THE HARVESTON SPECIFIC PLAN; LOCATED EAST OF
INTERSTATE 15, NORTH OF SANTA G'ERTRUDIS CREEK,
WEST OF MARGARITA ROAD ANDI SOUTH OF THE
NORTHERN CITY LIMIT, AND FURTHER IDENTIFIED AS
ASSESSOR PARCEL NOS. 911-180-003, 11-180-004, 911-640-
001 AND 911-630-003
11
21.8 Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 01-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCI,I_ OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 01-
0031 - TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 2992§, THE SUBDIVISION
OF APPROXIMATELY 20 ACRES INTOI 118 RESIDENTIAL
LOTS AND 3 OPEN SPACE LOTS I,N A PORTION OF
PLANNING AREAS 3 AND 4 OF THE HA,RVESTON SPECIFIC
PLAN; LOCATED EAST OF INTERSTATE 15, NORTH OF
SANTA GERTRUDIS CREEK, WEST OF IMARGARITA ROAD
AND SOUTH OF THE NORTHERN CITY L!MIT, AND FURTHER
IDENTIFIED AS ASSESSOR PARCEL NOS. 910-261-001,910-
261-002, 911-180-002, 911-180-003, 911-180-004 AND 911-180-
015
21.9 Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 01-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCI,L OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 01-
0032 - TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 30088,', THE SUBDIVISION
OF APPROXIMATELY 9.18 ACRES INTO 38 RESIDENTIAL
LOTS AND 8 OPEN SPACE LOTS I,N A PORTION OF
PLANNING AREA 4 OF THE HARVESTON SPECIFIC PLAN;
LOCATED EAST OF INTERSTATE 15, NORTH OF SANTA
GERTRUDIS CREEK, WEST OF MARGIARITA ROAD AND
SOUTH OF THE NORTHERN CITY LIM,'IT, AND FURTHER
IDENTIFIED AS ASSESSOR PARCEL NOS. 911-630-001,911-
630-002 AND 911-180-015
The Staff Report is Presented
Senior Planner Hogan presented the project plan (via the sthff report), highlighting the location,
the associated documents, the proposed 1921 units, the Se~ice Commercial area, and the
various project components (i.e., the elementary school, the~ lake, and the Lake Park, the
Community Park, the Arroyo Park, and the V~llage Center Area); noted that th~s particular
I th th
project was considered by the Planning Commission at the ~June 20 , and July 12 meetings,
relaying the Planmng Commission s concerns relayed at the ~n~t~al heanng which consisted of
the following: the proposed densities in two areas, the zonin~g of the outlots, the issue of the
public accessing the lake, the design criteria along the I-15, 'the traffic methodology, as well as
the school funding; clarified that these concerns were addre§sed at the July 12 h Planning
Commission meeting, and the Plann ng Corem ss on approved the proposed p an unan mous y,
subject to the modifications denoted ~n Attachment No. 13 (~per agenda matenal); relayed a
summary of the public comments, noting that all of the residents residing proximate to the
project spoke ~n favor of the project; and advised that the Councilmembers had been provided
copies of the minutes of those two Planning Commission m~etings, as well as the final copy of
the Development Agreement, additionally noting staff's rece'nt receipt of three letters concerning
Minutes\072401 12
the project, one from Ms. Pamela Miod, one from Channel ~?ommercial, and one from Ms. Joan
Sparkman (which had been distributed to the City Council via supplemental agenda material).
For informational purposes, Councilman Stone provided an overview of the economic dynamics
of th s property, relaying that there was a time when the debt on the property exceeded the
value of the property, advising that Lennar Communities ca,ne along with a vision for a plan
based on the General Plan, and invested $5 million into Assessment District (AD) No. 161.
In response to Councilman Stone, Director of Public Works Hughes specified the infrastructure
~mprovements funded by AD 161; and confirmed that Lennar Communities rehnanc~ng was
approximately $10 million.
For Councilman Naggar, with respect to the refinanced taxe's associated with the property,
Director of Finance Roberts relayed that those taxes were ri,lot discounted, but that various
penalties and interest fees were waived by the County due to the taxes being delinquent.
The Applicant Provided a Project Overview
Mr. Bill Storm, representing the applicant, noted the three-year project planning process,
commending staff for their assiduous efforts regarding the p. roject; prowded a bnef h~story of h~s
involvement in other projects including various award winnir{g projects; relayed the early goal to
create a project whereby the C~ty of Temecula would be more benefited w~th the project, than
without it; and provided additional information regarding the high development standards which
would be set with the Harveston Project.
Mr. Ray Becker, representing the applicant, provided a Po~ erPoint Presentation highlighting the
following:
Relayed statistical data related to the existing residents in the City of Temecula, noting that
approximately fourteen percent (14%) of the population are singles, living alone, that eleven
percent (11%) are singles, living with roommates, nine p,'ercent (9%) are singles, ~iving with
children, twenty-six percent (26%) are couples with no c,hildren, and forty percent (40%) of
the population is made-up of families, clarifying the need for a diverse range of housing
products. 1
Presented an illustrative plan, relaying the higher densit product proposed around the lake,
and the lower density product proposed on the outside df the Iccp road.
H t I' tI f II
Noted the Four Cornerstone Elements of arves on, ~s ,ea as oows
Hometown Character accomplished with landscaped parkways, 10 architectural styles,
~nnovat~ve design concepts, neighborhood mini-park~s, a diverse range of densities,
open-ended cul-de-sacs with arbors, distinctive sign~ge, lighting, and mailboxes, the
Village Center which encourages pedestrian activity,I and attractive streetscapes; and for
Councilman Naggar, further specified the various Iotlsizes represented in the housing
product illustrations.
Parklands and Open Space, noting that the propose~l parks and Open Space was
approximately twice the amount denoted in the existing General Plan, highlighting the
lake feature, the amphitheater, the Commumty Park w~th all the ~mprovements 0nclud~ng
lighted fields) to be constructed Prior to Issuance of hny Building Permits in the second
phase, the Paseo Park, the central Iccp street w~th enhanced landscaping, and the
riparian Open Space area.
Minutes\072401 13
Mana.qed Growth and Circulation Improvements, noting the significant existing road
~mprovements (at a cost of approximately 14.4 mdhqn dollars) the school s~te prows~ons,
the flood control improvements, the proposed impro{/ements associated with the project,
many of which will be completed Prior to the Issuance of the first Building Permit, the aid
~n the facd~tat~on of the New Interchange Project, the proposed off-site ~ntersect~on
~mprovements (at a cost of approximately $7 mdhon), clarifying that Harveston would
construct improvements three times the traffic capacity that it needed which would total
approximately $37 million, Prior to Occupancy. I
Connectivity, noting the 112 acres of Service Commercial which would generate sales
tax and local employment, and the transit plan mclus~ve of a shuttle system.
~ I d dth ' t 't t' th ' t'l ' t 'th th ^ IPI
> L, onc u e e projec summary, re~ era ~ng e projec ~ cons~s ency w~ e ~enera an,
the consistency with the Growth Management Plan (incl,~sive of a priority for provisions for
public facilities first, roads first, schools first, and a varie!y of architectural styles and a
diverse housing project with a wide range of recreational activities, and provisions for
employment opportunities wa the Service Commercial area); and requested the City Council
to approve the Harveston Community Project Plan.
The Applicant addressed the City Council's questions
Addressing Councilman Naggar's queries, Mr. Becker provi :led the following information:
Relayed that with the exception of the townhome area there were no 2,000 square foot
homesites anticipated, although the option was availal~le, clarifying that since there is a
maximum number of homes within each planning area! that if cluster product was
proposed then there would be additional open space;I
Specified that on page 3-3 of the Specific Plan, on Talkie 3.1 there was a detailed land use
plan;
I .. ' t h th lot
Via overheads, provided examples of Low Medium De,ns~[y proouc w ere e minimum
size would be 4,000 square feet; presented the plotted homesites within the first phase,
noting that in Neighborhood I the actual lot average s~z,e was approximately 8,954 square
feet, and that in Neighborhood II the actual average lot size was 7,881 square feet; and
additionally presented the smaller lot sizes;
Specified that the Arroyo Park would be 13.8 acres, n( ,ting that approximately 7.5 acres
were required for mitigation purposes;
With respect to the homes with alley access, relayed t: ~at in Phase I, one neighborhood
comprised of 72 homes would have alley access, rela lng that with the alley element, the
lot sizes would not be reduced; and
Noted that the lake feature would not function as a de 9ntion/retention basin.
For Councilman Naggar, Mr. Bob Smith, traffic engineer rep.'resenting the applicant, relayed the
following:
With respect to the traffic study, noted that the analysis did not consider out-of-the-ordinary
assumptions due to the location of the center (and the potential to encourage pedestrian
use), noting that the trips generated from the center wbre taken into account, clarifying that
the full impact was analyzed, and that if pedestrian tra~,el occurred it would be a benefit in
the reduction of the anticipated traffic. Mr. Becker further clarified that if the proposed
project plan with the clustering elements, and ~mplementat~on of the Village Center
Concept stimulated pedestrian use, those reduction in trips would be a bonus.
Minutes\072401
14
Addressing Mayor Pro Tem Roberts' queries, Mr. Becker n~ ~ted the following:
That the transit system would include both an interior s;ystem (a single shuttle for
circulation throughout the project for those who live in the Harveston community), and an
outside system (the applicant has agreed to fund the cost up to 300,000 for a broader
system); and I
That Lennar Communities would be involved in the prdject during the construction of the
homes, along with other builders, noting that Lennar C~)mmunities would be designing the
architecture for the first phases ~n order to assure that a quahty product *s ~mplemented.
I th f II
Commenting on the proposed plan, Councilman Stone relayed e o owing:
, I
· That this particular project would be the City s best attempt at achieving the Village
Concept, relaying the plan for 20,000 square feet of commercial space adjacent to the
lake, Mr. Davis confirming that pedestrian tnps to th~s center were not taken into account
and would act as a bonus with respect to a reduction ~r~ vehicle trip generation counts; and
That the incorporation of paseos would encourage pedestrian activity, Mr. Becker
confirming that the paseos would be maintained by the HOA; and that w~th respect to the
lake and the Lake Park, relayed that there would be unrestricted public access to the Lake
Park while the surface of the lake would be restricted t~) the homeowners, and both (the
lake and the Lake Park) would be maintained by the H
For Councilman Stone, Mr. Storm advised that while the traffic calmers (chokers) were deleted
from the proposal due to Fire Department issues, there wou~ld be narrower streets with
landscaped parkways, and numerous cul-de-sacs would have planting areas with trellises and
arbors which would create a pleasing aesthetic appearance!
Addressing Councilman Stone's questions, Mr. Becker confirmed the following:
I I d tdt
That for the construction of the Overcrossing Project, right-of-way wou d be de ica e o
the C~ty (for whatever configuration of ~nterchange ~s L!lbmately created); relayed the
applicant s oppos~bon to th~s dedlcabon being ~ncluded, ~n the Condlbons of Approval (due
to legal issues and the lack of a nexus), advising that it was the applicant's opinion that
the dedication should be solely be part of the DA; noted add~bonally, that language has
been added to the DA to allow the $7 mdl~on for off-site street ~mprovements to be
redirected by C~ty staff at ~ts d~scret~on 0.e. for the design of the ~nterchange). In
response, Councilman Stone recommended that at least $1 mdhon of these funds be
considered for the CIP to initiate the construction of thee bridge.
~ ' ' t f th I rf f th
Noting the Planning L;ommission s recommenaa ion or e su ace o e lake to be open to the
pubhc, Mayor Comerchero questioned whether the applicant would be m agreement to g~wng
the c~bzens of Temecula the lake, the Lake Park, and the amphitheater, ~f the C~ty could work on
its end to establish an avenue for accepting these elements[ In response, Mr. Becker noted the
applicant's agreement, concurring that there would be issuers associated with the matter for the
City and the applicant to work out. Mayor Comerchero noting that per initial discussions with
Director of Community Services Parker, it was the City's de§ire to assume half the cost of the
lake maintenance, the HOA assuming the remaining half aqd ma~nta~mng the park ~tself.
Relaying agreement, Mr. Becker noted the need to establisl~ (with City staff) reasonable rules
and regulations due to the central location of the lake, For ir)formation purposes, Mayor
Comerchero noted that per additional investigation, attainin~ liability insurance was more
feasible for the City, as an entity, to secure.
Minutes\072401 15
The Public is Invited to Comment
The following individuals spoke as proponents of the project:
Dr. Robert Wheeler
[] Mr. Rodolfo Martinez
o Mr. David E. Rosenthal
[] Mr. John Kelliher
Ms, Joan Tussing
Ms. Jennifer Thurmond
MS. Pamela Voit
29090 Camino Alba k, lurrieta
43714 Buckeye Road
27315 Jefferson Avenue J-48
29909 Corte Castille
28165 Jefferson Avenue
39811 Knollridge Drive
43922 Carentan Drive
The above-mentioned individuals were in favor of the proj,
'.t for the following reasons:
The project, as proposed, is a great plan with beautiful
noting the benefits of the pedestrian-orientation.
Referencing Ms. Miod's four-page letter, noted the developer's
solutions.
Recommended that the City of Temecula enhance the [
with the City of Murrieta with an interurban transit syste~
Relayed accolades to the developer for effectively addn
Commission's, and staff's comments.
~maginary concepts, additionally
efforts to aid in traffic
ubic transit system in conjunction
n with inter-urban connectors.
~ssing the community's, the Planning
Advised that there was a need to address growth; and cbmmended the applicant for the
proposed diverse housing products.
Noted gratification due to the applicant's agreement to
accessible to the public.
Implored the City Council to consider the greater good f
voting on this project.
This project would attract business firms to the area due
offered.
Ilow the surface of the lake to be
)r the citizens of Temecula when
to the diverse housing products
the City of Temecula and would be
This particular project supersedes other developments i
a benefit to the City.
The major negative traffic impacts in the City of Temecula were due to the County's
development, and not this project.
· ' This proposal is advantageous to the City due to the wide range of age groups this
development would appeal to, commending the apphcant for the proposed ass~sted-hwng
units.
,' Noted enthusiasm about this particular project, relaying that good long-term planning for
growth would be beneficial for the community, noting appreciation for the amenities that the
Minutes\072401 16
Harveston Project offered (i.e., traffic solutions, pedestrian-oriented concepts, the wonderful
ambience the project would provide), advising that if oth~r developers would replicate the
standards in this project, that Temecula would be benefited.
The Harveston Project sets a new high set of standards
Applauded the developer with respect to proposed tran.'
Relayed the benefits of the implementation of the Villag
for development in Temecula.
opportunities.
Concept.
In response to Councilman Naggar, Dr. Wheeler noted that in light of the future anticipated
transportation problems his solution would be to implement ~a massive public transit system,
op~n~ng that th~s ~mplementabon would be effective in the City of Temecula.
For Councilman Naggar, Mr. Kelliher relayed that this project plan included numerous family
act~wt~es that he cons,dered a beneht, additionally noting h~s pleasure that the apphcant agreed
to Mayor Comerchero s recommendation to have the surfac,e of the lake be publmly accessible;
and advised that his Temecula neighborhood did not have the pedestrian activities to offer that
Harveston proposed.
The following individuals spoke in opposition to the project:
r~ MS. Michelle Anderson 43797 Barletta Street
r~ Mr. Mark Broderick 45501 Clubhouse Drive
r~ Ms. Penny Alexander-Kelley 600 N. Arrowhead SanBernardin¢
r~ MS. Pamela Miod 30995 Via Saltio Redhawk
[] Mr. Carl Ross 43886 Butternut Drive
r~ Mr. Chris Pedersen 31052 Wellington Circle
representing CltlzensFiratof tl'~ TemeculaValley
representing Channell Corporation
The above-mentioned individuals were not in favor of the project for the following reasons:
While acknowledging pleasure with the development co,ncepts, and the proposed
architectural designs, expressed concern regardin9 the traffic §enerated by the project,
specifically on Winchester Road.
The negative impacts related to air quality.
elimination of the lots under 5,000
,200 square foot minimum, and that
no more than thirty percent (30%) of the lots be 5,000 s~ uare feet.
The proposed densities are too high, recommending the
square feet, that the Low Medium Density lots have a 7
Expressed concern regarding adequate parking for those accessing the lake.
The rural character of this area needs to be maintained.
This project is incompatible with respect to land use in relation to the Winchester Highlands
Business Park, specifically due to the proposed location of the Community Park and the mix
of truck traffic with the park patrons.
Noted the need for the Interchange Project to be completed, as well as an Alternative
Transportation System implemented, prior to the constr[Jction of this project.
Minutes\072401 17
Advised that the most vital amenity that could be offered was free-flowing traffic.
Opposed to the option for 2,000 square foot lots.
,' Relayed that the City of Temecula is currently meeting the diverse housing needs of the
residents.
In response to Councilman Stone, Mr. Ross relayed that if the 2,000 square foot lots were
eliminated from the project, his only concern would be traffi~ and air quality issues, noting his
pleasure with the proposed hometown character of the project.
The following individuals spoke (as representatives of the
project:
Mr. Jack VanHaaster
Mr. Jim Miller
24641 Washington Ave. Murri
2662 Beckman Court Murrieta
The above-mentioned individuals were opposed to the proj~
reasons:
ity of Murrieta) in opposition to the
,ct, as configured, for the following
Referencing a letter from Lennar Communities dated Ma, y 21st, which stated that any
impacts to the City of Murrieta would be constructed and ,)aid for in full by Lennar
Communities, relayed a desire for this agreement to be included in the DA.
/
With respect to the DA agreement, noted Murrieta's opp,losition to the Harveston Project
being exempt from any future Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF), regardless of
the developer's participation in AD 161. /
The City of Temecula Development Impact Fee (DIF) doles not include provisions for the
Cherry/Date Street Interchange or the French Valley Fly.over.
Expressed concern regarding the rezoning of 113 acres to Commercial Retail,
recommending that a portion of the sales tax revenues ~hou d be ded cated to completing
the entire interchange project.
The traffic studies relies on Clinton Keith Road going th~
1-15 going through, a Murrieta Hot Springs Road/Highw~
Murrieta Creek, none of which are certain to be complel
ough, Butter[ield Stage Road to the
~ 79 Flyover, and a bridge across
.d, recommending continuing this
item until the County has completed the Riverside Cour ly Integrated Plan (RCIP). i
With respect to the right-of way dedication, noted that thle ten acres would calculate to
$135,000.
The traffic study is flawed.
Noted a desire to have additional information regarding ~,. hat the traffic study requires, what
items that are Conditions of Approval are additionally included in the DA what credits the
applicant is receiving for flood control/drainage fees, wh~tt the school credits are, and what
the Federal Permits have required, and a desire for ther~ to be a fair share with respect to
the Interchange Project; and requested that the City Co,el ncil continue this item until
information is provided regarding Harveston's true contributions.
Minutes\072401 18
For Councilman Naggar, Mr. VanHaaster relayed that the £ ity of Murrieta opined that the traffic
study was flawed due to the assumption that the project will be completed in five years, ergo
there will be no Levels of Service going to Level F;-and for I/layor Pro Tem Roberts, noted that
while the Interchange Project was denoted ~n the C~ty of Murr~eta s CIP, that there ~s no
designated funding for the project, additionally advising thatlthe Interchange Project would
require cooperation from the City of Murrieta.
For Councilman Stone, Mr Miller relayed that at the Plannidg Commission hearing he had
addressed the need to reconsider the project s exemption from any TUMF, and the need for the
project's mitigation to be further investigated.
With re..s, pect to the C ,ounty's develo, p. ment, Cou, ncilman Sto~e noted the i~t~p~pl~o~priat~ impacts
to the t;ity of Temecu~a, as well as Murrieta; aovised that it appeared that e arves on
Development was being targeted for the traffic conditions that have been created outside of
both of the Cities' control, noting that working together to address these outside conditions
would be beneficial.
In response, Mr. Miller relayed that the sole avenue for corrbcting the traffic impacts was new
development; adws~ng that ~n the C~ty of Murneta the recent negotiated DAs required the
applicants to pay any future TUMF; relayed that the $1500 per unit pa~d above the DIF w~th
regard to the Harveston Project was not reflected in the DA;', for Councilman Naggar, noted that
w~thout the ~nterchange, the C~ty of Murneta would not allow, the Ynez Road connection; and
confirmed that with respect to traffic counts on Murrieta HotlSprings Road, there was a thirteen-
point-four percent (13.4%) increase from last year to the cuirent year, noting the assumed
projected future increases, confirming that the proposed in- '~rovements to this area were not
taken into consideration.
The meeting recessed at 10:27 P.M., reconvening at 10:38 P.M.
The Applicant's Rebuttal
Mr. Becker addressed the following issues:
> With respect to Ms. Anderson's comments that the proje;ct's densities were too high in her
opinion, reiterated that different segments of the population had varied housing needs and
requirements which this project would provide. I t h d
> With respect to the air quality issue, noted that the '
app ~,can a provision of a letter written
by the applicant's air quality consultant which addressed, this matter, providing a technical
response; provided additional information regarding a Statement of Overriding
Consideration for Air Quality; and for Councilman Nagga, r, noted that air quality was
improving and was expected to reach full attainment in this basin area by the year 2010.
I~ h ded add bonal
Noting that he sits on a committee of the AQMD, Mayor L;omerc ero provi i '
information regarding the AQMD's role in mitigating air (~ua ty mpacts; and re ayed that a
recent study revealed that seventy percent (70%) of thelpollution in the Southcoast Basin
comes from mobile sources, and that seventy to eighty I~ercent (70%-80%) of the mobile
pollution comes from diesel, noting the subsequent regu~lations which would ultimately
reduce diesel fuel use.
Minutes\072401 19
With respect to Mr. Broderick's comments, noted the a ~licant's discussions with Mr.
Broderick, relaying the difficulties in explaining the techdical complexities of the General
Plan Amendment, advising that his issues which were relayed earlier have been resolved to
staff's and the Planning Commission's satisfaction, notin,'g that while the applicant would
continue discussions with Mr. Broderick, that many of his concerns were based on
m~s~nformat~on; and w~th respect to the Land Use Plan, relayed that the proposal ~s
compatible m a positive manner, adws~ng that there was justification for every type of
housing type; and w~th respect to Open Space, re~terate;d that the plan ncluded doubl ng the
amount of parks and Open Space denoted in the ex~sbng General Plan.
W ..... I t R ' re~terated that based
ith respect to negative impacts on wincnester and Margari a oaas, '
on the analysis, the applicant was implementing three ti~es more mitigation on the arterial
streets than the project will add, in terms of traffic, which would be a substantial benefit to
the community, t f th'
With respect to comments regarding maintaining the rural charac er o ~s portion of the
City, referencing an aerial photograph, noted that the pr,operty was surrounded by Industrial,
Commercial, and Residential development that does not have the same type of architectural
character proposed in the Harveston Project.
eWxi~ersesSePc~ ta°n~hs~oC~)t~eC~r~orar ia~odn ~oY;iht~ aCrthi~a~llonC°ri~°arr~tiin°;'t~ecP~rn~tirV~'sed, and
the specific recommendations with respect to appropria!e COAs to be imposed, clarifying
that the applicant was in agreement with the proposals (,via the memo provided by Channell
Corporation).
With respect to Ms. Miod's and Ms. Anderson's commer~ts, noted that air quality issues have
been previously addressed; and with respect to the safety of children living in the
community, concurred with the importance of this issue and offered to contribute to the
funding of the previously-mentioned pedestrian bridge I: roject, if the City Council viewed this
contribution as appropriate.
With respect to Mr. VanHaaster's comments, noted the :teveloper's current project in the
City of Murrieta with a successful interaction with the Ci~ staff and the City Council; relayed
disappointment that the Harveston Project had been tar~ eted due to the broader issues
between the two Cities; with respect to the TUMF, noted that the scope and nature of the
program are unclear at th~s point; w~th respect to the Harveston Project, specified that the
donation of ten acres of land for an interchange, and the creation of numerous multi-laned
arterials were the type of regional-serving arterial improvements that the TUMF will be
credited toward, noting the redundancy of charging a TUMF, and subsequently crediting
back for those improvements; regarding comments with respect to rezoning the Service
Commercial property, clarified that th s property and been zoned as such for a lengthy
period of time, relaying that this process had been notmed, prowd~ng opportunities for
comments, advising that this issue must be a m~sunderstand~ng; and provided additional
information regarding the traffic analysis, requesting Mr.
clarification.
Mr. Davis (primarily), and Mr. Becker provided the followin(
> With respect to Mr. VanHaaster's questions regarding
improvements and mitigation measures within the Cit
Minutes\072401 20
Davis to present technical
data regarding traffic issues:
~e fair share calculations for
of Murneta, reiterated the reference
of the letter which had been submitted by Lennar Comn ~unities to the City of Murrieta which
proposed to pay for the entire mitigation of those impro~ements upfront, and prior to the first
phase of the project, Mr. Becker clarifying that this agreement entailed funding more than
ten times the amount denoted in the fair share analysis.
With respect to issues related to Clinton Keith Road codnection, the connections to the 1-15
from the southern end of town, and the Western Bypass, adwsed that these ~ssues are not
related to the project s traffic study, clarifying that the analys~s d~d not assume any of those
projects to be in place.
With respect to growth issues, clarified that the study as'sumed a five percent (5%) growth
rate in regional development and traffic, noting that the Analysis took into account the
area of ~nfluence, and subsequently added additional
specific development projects in the ' ~ ' '
development throughout the area to come up with th~ fiv~e percent (5%) growth per year,
compounded; and prowded additional mformat~on regarding the hkely cause of the thirteen
percent (13 Ye) ~ncrease of traffic on Murrieta Hot Spr~ng~; Road.
/
For Councilman Naggar, additional information was provided regarding the CEQA analysis.
/
Advised that this traffic analysis was a sound approach Iwith reasonable assumptions.
With respect to the queuing problem on the Winchester Road Offramp, noted that the
improvements associated with this project would add an~ additional lane to the offramp and
provide relief at this intersection, as well as at other approaches to this intersection; and
provided additional information regarding changes in volumes due to alternate
improvements completed (i.e., the Murrieta Hot Springs Road Project).
Prov ded add t cna nformat on regard ng the mpacts assoc ated with the Ynez Extension
Project being completed. /
For Councilman Naggar, relayed that the Margarita Roald corridor would be improved by this
project, confirming that the analysis revealed that some Df the traffic generated from the
project would utilize Margarita Road to Murrieta Hot Spt ngs Road to the interchange, noting
that this traffic was recognized in the study, clarifying that. there was no assumption that
Ynez Road would go through. /
With respect to the 2005 projected year for the completi,lon of development, clarified that
since this determined date it has been realized that the Service Commercial area would
most likely not develop by the year 2005 which will reduce half the project s projected tnps
while all the improvements will be in place.
With respect to cumulative effects, provided additional i~ ~formation regarding the fair
concept.
With respect to Mr. Miller's comments, clarified that the ~pplicant has offered to accelerate
the mprovements wh ch wou d have a more beneficial ~mpact; and adwsed that the series of
project analys~s requested by the C~ty of Murneta has been avadable from Temecula staff for
a lengthy period, noting that at the City Councd s d~rect~on the apphcant would be willing to
provide whatever level of detail was requested.
Minutes\072401 21
Continuing his comments, Mr. Becker offered the following information:
I th BI
> Thanke? Mr. Ross for his accolades regarding the project, clarifying that e a boa
Product s minimum square lot size was approximately 3[500 square feet, and not 2,000
square feet. ' t
> With respect to Mr. Pedersen's comments, noted the applicant s respectful disagreemen
that the project was based on false assumptions; and advised that the concept of diversity
was good and attainable.
> With respect to bus transport, clarified the creation of new opportunities, while there was no
assumption that citizens would fully utilize these options!
> Requested that the letters from Mr. Bob Davis (addressi.lng the concerns of the City of
Murrieta), and from Mr. Hunts Drew (regarding air qualit[/issues) be made part of the record.
I' t dt I dt'
> Clarified that while the app ~can agree o numerous recommen a ~ons from the Channell
Corporation, that with respect to the request for an Industnal Designation on podions of the
Service Commercial area, that the applicant was not in agreement with this item.
The City Council Closin.q Deliberations
MOTION: In light of the concerns voiced by representatives of the City of Murrieta, Mayor Pm
Tern Roberts moved to continue this item to the August 14, ,2001 City Council meeting. The
motion was seconded by Councilman Stone. (Ultimately this motion passed; see below.)
, I t th
Reiterating the City of Temecula s opinion that the County was not taking into considera ion e
C~ty s concerns, Councdman Stone adwsed that ~t was not h~s desire for ~t to appear to the
representatives of the City of Murrieta as though the City of ITemecula was doing to them what
the County has done; and recommended that the Subcommittee, and the applicant's
representatives meet with Mr. Miller, and Mr. VanHaaster t¢ come to a resolution prior to the
next City Council meeting.
Via overheads, Councilman Pratt presented the Open Space areas included in the Wolf Creek
and Harveston Projects; prowded a companson of res~denbal nodes m the community; relayed
the surrounding communities' and the County areas development; presented a transit plan for
addressing traffic which would be further specified at the Ju y 26th Public/Traffic Safety
Commission meeting; concluded that the addiction of the A ,~erican citizen to the automobile
has been made it the plague of prosperity, noting the need f~or public transportation, specifying
information regarding implementing a plan for such within a [six-month period of time with a pro-
rata share (to cover the three-year Temecula Transit System's start up and operating costs) at
an initial cost of an approximate $212 assessment per residence.
N t th th t Idd t h t t I I t din
o lng a e, oo, wou esire o ave mass ransi imp emen e the City of Temecula,
Councilman Stone recommended placing this issue on the b,' allot in order for the citizens to
determine whether they were willing to tax themselves $212~ per residence. Councilman Pratt
advised that once a full bus transit system is implemented, congestion is relieved.
, I t
Mayor Comerchero relayed Lennar Communities agreement to fund the opera ion of three
buses, providing additional information regarding the potential amenities provided on these
Minutes\072401 22
buses; and advised that this program should be implement~ d in order to evaluate whether a bus
system would be effective in the City of Temecula. if a complete
Councilman Pratt clarified that based on his investigation, bus system is not
implemented with easy access (whereas an individual coulc~ go to the corner and catch a bus),
the bus system will not work.
At this time voice vote was taken reflecting unanimous apprbval of the motion.
DEPARTMENTAL REPORTS
ClTY MANAGER'S REPORT
Noadditionalcomments.
CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
Withrespecttotheclosedsession, CityA~orneyThorsonnotedthattherewerenorepo~able
items.
ADJOURNMENT
At 11:48 P.M., Mayor Comerchero formally adjourned the City Council meeting to the RCIP
Workshop to be held on Tuesday, August 14, 2001 at 5:30 P.M., to be followed by the next
regular meeting at 7:00 P.M. in the City Council Chambers, .143200 Business Park Drive,
Temecu la, California...~I~(//~.~/~~
ATTEST:
o es CMC
Minutes\072401 23