Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout022804 CC Minutes I I I MINUTES OF A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 28,2004 The City Council convened in a Special Open Session at 12:31 P.M., on Tuesday, February 28, 2004, in the City Council Chambers of Temecula City Hall, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. Present: 4 Councilmembers: Comerchero, Roberts, Stone, and Naggar Absent: Councilmember: Washington ALLEGIANCE The flag ceremony was presented by Mayor Pro Tem Comerchero. PUBLIC COMMENTS No public comments. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS No City Council reports. COUNCIL BUSINESS Senate Bill 87 - RelinQuishment of State Route 79 North/South RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 04 - 23 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA SUPPORTING SENATE BILL 87 STATE ROUTE 79 HIGHWAY RELINQUISHMENT AND OPPOSING AMENDMENTS THAT WILL PLACE LIMITS OR IMPOSE RESTRICTIONS ON THE CITY OF TEMECULA TO PROPERLY CONTROL, OPERATE, AND MAINTAIN STATE ROUTE 79 UNDER THE CITY'S JURISDICTION City Manager Nelson provided a detailed overview of this issue, noting the following: . That in November 2002, the City Council directed staff to pursue the relinquishment of both the State Highways within City boundaries from the State of California to the City of Temecula . That the main purpose for this request would be so that the City could inject local control over operations/maintenance, including traffic signal maintenance and coordination . That Senator Hollingsworth had agreed to carry this legislation to the State legislature R:IMinutesIO22804 I I I . That once the Senate Bill were approved, a cooperative agreement between Caltrans and the City would be negotiated and, at which time, final approval from the California Transportation Commission would be obtained . That this process began in January 2003; that in September 2003, the bill was approved by the Assembly and then by the Senate; that the day it was to be signed by the Governor, the bill was pulled by Senator Hollingsworth; that the City had found out the bill was being pulled on the very last day of last year; and that by pulling this bill, it would rescind both the Assembly and State approvals That at a subsequent City Council public meeting, Senator Hollingsworth had stated that he had received complaints from property owners adjacent to the Bedford Court traffic signal and as a result, he chose not move this bill forward until the issues related to that particular traffic signal were discussed and addressed with the adjacent property owners . That at that time, it was agreed that Councilman Roberts would serve as the liaison to Senator Hollingsworth and the property owners in an effort to resolve the outstanding issues as it related to the Bedford Court signal . That two subsequent meetings were held; that at the first meeting, District No.8 Director Mayer confirmed that Caltrans would be the final decision-making authority as it relates to the future of the Bedford Court traffic signal regardless of whether the City or the State were to control the highways; that the ultimate and final determining factor lies with the State of California and Caltrans . That at the second and final meeting on December 9, 2003, it was agreed that Mr. Moromarco, adjacent property owner to the Bedford Court intersection, would prepare a traffic study related to the Bedford Court and SR 79 south corridor; and that the results of that study would be submitted to Caltrans and the City of Temecula . That the City had agreed that it would support any final decision made by Caltrans with respect to the future of the Bedford Court traffic signal based upon the results of that study; that based upon the City's agreement, Senator Hollingsworth stated that he would submit SB 87 to the State legislature on January 5, 2004 as an urgency bill, believing that it would become law as of January 31, 2004; that at no time, was there any discussion of amendments to the bill, making it contingent upon a 1995 MOU That on October 3, 2003, an e-mail was received from Greg Hurner of Senator Hollingsworth office, conveying that the bill along with the amendments had been submitted to the Assembly Transportation Committee the week of September 22, 2003; that the amendments included the urgency clause as well as a correction to Butterfield Stage Road which was referenced in the current version of the bill; and that those were the only amendments . That in January 2004, staff correspondence with Greg Hurner reflected reassurance that the bill was moving forward and would be approved by the end of January . That on February 10, 2004, by way of a phone call from Greg Hurner, the City was apprised that another amendment would be added to SB 87, making the relinquishment contingent upon the 1995 MOU between the City and Caltrans That a MOU is a basic agreement which establishes a framework and which would then be ultimately adopted by a subsequent formalized final agreement; that additional studies were to be prepared to make that 1995 MOU valid and substantiated; that those studies were never completed; that in the City's and Caltrans' opinion, the 1995 MOU is a completely invalid document which has not been substantiated; that, therefore, the City would not support the use of such a document to make decisions on the corridors along SR 79 south and north; that since 1995, a tremendous amount of changes have occurred in this City and along these corridors; that the City has deviated at least six different times on ingress and egress points along those two corridors since 1995 . That the City Attorney has serious concerns about the 1995 MOU and tying it to any type of relinquishment because, in his opinion, it will potentially place the City in a more litigious situation as it relates to decisions made along that corridor R:IMinuteslO22804 2 I I I . That on February 10, 2004, he was officially informed for the first time that there was another amendment proposed; that on February 13, 2004, he responded to Mr. Hurner and detailed why the City would not support the additional amendment and requested that Senator Hollingsworth and Mr. Hurner move this bill forward as agreed upon at the December 9, 2003, meeting That five days later, he had received a follow-up response from Mr. Hurner stating that Senator Hollingsworth is requesting the added language to the amendment; that at that time, he had responded by requesting to refer to the previous e-mail which clearly identified the City's position That on Thursday, February 20, 2004, he had received a phone call from the State lobbyist, informing the City that Senator Hollingsworth continues to intend to submit SB 87 with the City's opposed amendments That on Friday, February 21, 2004, it had been confirmed after talking with the State lobbyist as well as Vern Lauretzen from Senator Hollingsworth's office that, in fact, SB 87 has been resubmitted to the Assembly Floor with the opposed amendments and as early as Monday, the Senate Assembly may consider this new bill with the amendments; and that, therefore, Mayor Naggar called this special meeting That on midday February 27, 2004, letters were submitted to the Chair of the Assembly Transportation Committee, Assembly Majority Leader, the Speaker of the Assembly, and the Governor as well as Senator Hollingsworth, stating support of the original SB 87 bill approved but not signed in 2003 and reiterating strong opposition to the amendment that ties the relinquishment to the 1995 MOU and further requested that if any bill were to moved forward to the Assembly which has that amendment attached to it, the City could respectfully request that the bill be referred to the Assembly Transportation Committee to allow the City of Temecula the opportunity to publicly comment on that amendment That staff would be recommending that the City Council adopt the proposed resolution, outlining the City Council's position as it relates to the opposition of the amendment connected to the 1995 MOU and that if approved by the City Council, staff will directly fax those amendments, after today's meeting, to the appropriate contacts. . . . . . For Councilman Roberts, City Manager Nelson confirmed that that City, as of late yesterday, had not received the actual amendment. If SB 87 were submitted with the amendments referencing the 1995 MOU, City Attorney Thorson noted, for Councilman Stone, that it would affectively tie Caltrans' hands to be the determining factor on whether a signal anywhere along SR 79 may be removed; that even if the relinquishment were approved, Caltrans will continue to have some jurisdiction over the Bedford Court signal because of its proximity to the off-ramp and the potential for delays and congestion on the freeway if the area around the on/off ramps were not properly regulated; that the proposed amendment would require that any changes on SR 79 be consistent with the MOU, which would raise the MOU to a final agreement and become part of the statute; that the terms of that MOU would become the baseline, making it very difficult for the City to make any changes even if the City's traffic study were to indicate a change were warranted; and that the terms outlined in the MOU are not precise enough to create a clear-cut set of standards for SR 79. Advising that in the past two weeks, there have been three fatalities on SR 79, Public Works Director Hughes, for Councilman Stone, noted that the City could accomplish the needed improvements along SR 79 south and north more expeditiously than if the highways were in Caltrans' control; that a median is in design; that the median would be designed to local City standards; that although unsubstantiated, had the median been constructed, the recent accident due to an illegal U-turn could have been prevented, noting the other accident was a driver impairment issue. If the City were to take control of these highways, Mr. Hughes advised that R:IMinuteslO22804 3 I I I Caltrans would save approximately $150,000 to $200,000 annually on maintenance costs, not including legal and liability obligations; that if the amendments were accepted with the MOU, the City would still have to adhere to the bureaucratic process of Caltrans and the ability to expedite projects will not be feasible. Although no response had been received, City Manager Nelson advised that Senator Hollingsworth had been invited to this meeting. Being of the opinion that the last accident with two fatalities would not have occurred had the highway been under the City's control because a median would have been constructed, Councilman Roberts stated that the City's control would expedite the construction of this center median. Mr. Nelson echoed that the issue at hand is a health and safety issue. At this time, Mr. Nelson advised that he had just been handed a fax, received late yesterday, from Senator Hollingsworth office with regard to the proposed amendments. Referencing verbiage from the 1995 MOU, Public Works Director Hughes, for Mayor Naggar, stated that a cooperative agreement was not entered into within 12 months of the November 13, 1995 MOU; that to his understanding this MOU was solely a guide; and that Caltrans as well does not view, at this point in time, the MOU as binding. Reiterating that as of today, the City is not bound by this MOU, City Attorney Thorson advised that if the bill were passed with the amendments, the MOU could bind the City, elevating the MOU from a non-binding, expired document to a State statute; and that prior to the completion of any improvements, the City would study the issue and, therefore, would have a basis for determining what improvements may be necessary. Addressing the public safety issue associated with the passage of this bill, Mr. Darrell Connerton, 31618 Corte Rosario, Chairman of the Public Traffic Safety Commission, expressed concern with the passage of SB 87 with the proposed amendments and commented on the recent fatalities along SR 79. Questioning the motifs of the parties involved, Mr. Chris Pedersen, 31052 Wellington Circle, viewed the actions of the Senator as extortion, noting that the City's motif would be in the best interest of the citizens and that the Senator's motif would be to protect a major campaign contributor's property in spite of the impact on public safety. Mr. Pedersen urged the City Council to insist on the passage of SB 87 as originally proposed. Noting that Senator Hollingsworth has repeatedly demonstrated dishonesty and bad faith in his dealings with the City, Mr. Paul Jacobs, 3230 Corte Zamora, stated that despite on-going negotiations and agreements between the City and Senator Hollingsworth's office, the Senator has proven to be untrustworthy in conducting this piece of public business, stating that by pulling SB 87 in response to the concerns of a few business acquaintances, demonstrates the Senator's inability to understand the basic language of government negotiation or the importance of acting for the greater good of the community over the concerns of a few influential business owners. Advising that public safety would as well be a concern of his, Mr. Andy Domenigoni, 31851 Winchester Road, noted that property rights would be another concern of his, advising that the property owners had never been informed that the traffic signal may be removed. Mr. Domenigoni stated that although he would have no objection with the City taking control of SR 79 and making the necessary improvements, Mr. Domenigoni advised that the 1995 MOU was R:IMinutesIO22804 4 I I I a handshake deal; that a traffic study is being completed; and that he would support the amendments proposed by Senator Hollingsworth to protect property rights to small businesses. To further clarify the issue to Mr. Domenigoni, Councilman Stone reiterated that if the City were to take control of the highway, the City would have no control over the disposition or the improvements of the signal; emphasized that the City has made public safety a top priority and, therefore, would be desirous of this relinquishment in an effort to construct the needed medians; confirmed that if the traffic study were to reflect that the Bedford Court signal must remain to protect the health and safety of the residents, the City Council would unanimously urge Caltrans to not remove the signal; and noted that Caltrans has the ultimate authority over this signal. Viewing himself also as a property rights' advocate, Mayor Naggar stated that, in his opinion, no inherent property rights exist to retain this traffic signal. City Manager Nelson reiterated that the passage of SB 87 has nothing to do with the disposition of the Bedford Court traffic signal; that Caltrans has final authority as it relates to this signal; that the City will agree with the results of the traffic study; and requested that Senator Hollingsworth withdraw the opposed amendments, which are not recognized by Caltrans, and move the bill forward. City Attorney Thorson further clarified that the 1995 MOU would not be limited to the signal at Bedford Court and SR 79 south, noting that it would cover every signal and access point on both SR 79 south and north. Disappointed with the City Council's actions regarding this matter, Mr. Bob Kowell, 40820 Vista Murrieta, Murrieta, stated that the City has a political agenda and, therefore, has chosen to take these actions. At this time, Mayor Naggar closed the public comment period. As the City Council liaison and after two meetings in an effort to resolve this issue with Senator Hollingsworth, Councilman Roberts reiterated a previously made comment, noting that there was as well a handshake deal with Senator Hollingsworth regarding carrying this bill as an urgency bill in January 2004 and expressing his disappointment with Mr. Hollingsworth not following through with his commitment. Conceding that public safety should be everyone's priority, Mayor Pro Tem Comerchero, therefore, stated that there should be absolutely no reason to not support the passage of this bill without the proposed amendments unless there be an agenda contrary to what would be best for the citizens of this City. In closing, Mr. Comerchero stated that the City has no Senate representation. In his closing comments, Councilman Stone noted the following: . That the passage of this bill would protect the health and safety of residents and visitors That it would enhance vehicular circulation by completing improvements to the highways That it would benefit the State of California That if the traffic study were to reflect that the signal must remain for the health and safety of the motorists, the Council would encourage Caltrans to retain the signal That the opposed amendments convolute the agreement. . . . . Supporting the adoption of the proposed resolution, Mr. Stone as well requested that the Council consider the placement of signs throughout the City at various intersections which link R:IMinuteslO22804 5 I I I to SR 79 with the following verbiage from the Mayor and Councilmembers: Future road improvements to stop carnage on this State Highway 79 north and south are being politically stalled by Senator Dennis Hollingsworth. Please call Senator Hollingsworth to urge him to allow the City to take unrestricted control of this highway to improve it and to immediately stop this dangerous highway through our City. Because this meeting is a special meeting and because the agenda of this special meeting did not include the placement of signs, City Attorney Thorson advised that the City Council may not take action on this matter but that it may be agendized for a future meeting. Mayor Pro Tem Comerchero requested that additional verbiage be added to the proposed resolution reflecting that the City Council had met in special session to take the recommended action. MOTION: Councilman Stone moved to approve staff recommendation with the addition of the recommended language as requested by Mayor Pro Tem Comerchero (see above). The motion was seconded by Councilman Roberts. After additional discussion, this motion ultimately passed; see below. At this time, City Clerk Jones read into the record written communication from Councilman Washington, relaying his support of SB 87 and his opposition to any amendments which would impose restrictions on the City to properly control, operate, and/or maintain State Route 79 under the City's jurisdiction. Emphasizing the City's desire to take the appropriate measures to ensure public health, safety, and welfare, Mayor Naggar echoed that the ultimate authority of this signal will lie with Caltrans, noting that the City will support whatever the traffic study and Caltrans will request; stated that the Bedford Court traffic signal will always be under the purview of Caltrans because of its close proximity to the freeway; and questioned why Senator Hollingsworth involved himself in local land use issues, referencing special interest. Commenting on the amount future traffic that will be traveling past the businesses in this area, Mr. Naggar noted that he would not envision a net loss to the center. In closing, Mr. Naggar advised that this item would be reagendized for the March 16,2004, City Council meeting. At this time, the electronic vote for the previously made motion reflected approval with the exceDtion of Councilman Washington who was absent. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT No additional comment. CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT No comment. R:IMinuteslO22804 6 ADJOURNMENT I At 1:44 P.M., the City Council meeting was formally adjourned to a regular meeting on Tuesday, March 16, 2004, at 7:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. ATTEST: I I R:IMinuteslO22804 7