HomeMy WebLinkAbout012406 CC Minutes
I
I
I
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF
THE TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL
JANUARY 24, 2006
The City Council convened in Closed Session at 6:00 P.M. and its regular meeting commenced
at 7:00 P.M., on Tuesday, January 24, 2006, in the City Council Chambers of Temecula City
Hall, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California, was convened.
Present:
4
Council Members: Comerchero, Edwards, Naggar, and Washington
Absent:
1
Council Members: Roberts
Mayor Pro Tem Washington announced that Mayor Roberts is in Washington, D.C. for the
Annual Mayors' Conference.
PRELUDE MUSIC
The prelude music was provided by Jordan Koford.
INVOCATION
The invocation was given by Pastor Gary Nelson of Calvary Chapel.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The pledge of allegiance was presented by Council Member Edwards.
PRESENTATIONS/PROCLAMATIONS
Service Award to Communitv Services Commissioner Jack Henz
With appreciation, Mr. Henz accepted his 10-year Service Award Pin; thanked the City Council
for this recognition; expressed his pleasure with having had the opportunity to serve on the
Community Services Commission; and thanked the dedicated staff of the Community Services
Department.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Clarifying that comments made under the Public Comments section are for those items that are
not scheduled on the City Council agenda, Mayor Pro Tem Washington advised that any
comments with regard to the Temecula Hospital should be addressed under the Public Hearing
section for the Temecula Hospital (Item No. 21).
A. Mr. Mike Kuhn, Temecula, thanked the City Council for providing Streaming Video on
the Internet in order for the public to view the City Council meetings. Clarifying that he has
never stated that the City Council has not addressed the issues on Calle Pina Colada, Mr.
Kuhn, by way of overhead pictures, shared the traffic volume on Calle Pina Colada - 3,500 cars
per day"': 83% of which is cut-through traffic.
R:\MinutesI012406
I
I
I
B. Ms. Jayme Christian, Temecula, clarified that the speed undulations that were previously
installed were at the request of the City; that she had provided information with regard the
speed undulations but that the City choose to install 2" speed undulations even though closure
of the street was requested; that Calle Pina Colada was not intended to function as a residential
collector road; that a collector road must be 44' wide with 66' for right of way; that the residents
of Calle Pina Colada were not notified of the double yellow line installation; that the double
yellow line only increases volume and speed; that the installation of a traffic signal will only
increase volume and speed; that the residents have suggested no left turn be permitted off
Calle Pina Colada onto La Serena and no right-hand turn off La Serena onto Calle Pina Colada;
that these turn restrictions would cut traffic volume; and that the residents would request that
Calle Pina Colada be closed or that Sanderling, Sterling, and Kahwea Roads be opened.
In response to Mayor Pro Tem Washington, City Manager Nelson read a prepared statement
into the record, noting the following:
· That the General Plan designation for Calle Pina Colada is not a local collector road
· That Calle Pina Colada does function as a local collector road
· That the road design for Calle Pina Colada was approved by the County prior to City
incorporation
· That there are eight other roads in the City that have front-facing homes and are
functioning as local collector roads with similar traffic volumes
· That all those roads were approved prior to City incorporation; that the City Council did
not approve nor design those residential plans
. That with regard to Kahwea, Sanderling, Sterling Roads, the City Council had the
opportunity to consider these roads and opted to not create the same situation that was
inherited during City incorporation for Sanderling, Kahwea, and Sterling Road
· That from a traffic engineering standpoint, Calle Pina Colada is a safe road, commenting
on the accident history
CITY COUNCIL REPORTS
A. Council Member Edwards apprised the public of an upcoming Bank Robbery
Preparation Workshop, tentatively scheduled for Tuesday, February 14, 2006, at City Hall,
advising the workshop would be to assist local banks with organization and education on
preventive measures.
B. Mayor Pro Tem Washington reiterated that this meeting is the first City Council meeting
at which streaming video online is being provided.
CONSENT CALENDAR
1 Standard Ordinance and Resolution Adoption Procedure
RECOMMENDATION:
1.1 Motion to waive the reading of the text of all ordinances and resolutions included in
the agenda.
R:IMinutesl012406
2
I
2 Minutes
RECOMMENDATION:
2.1 Approve the minutes of January 10, 2006.
3 Resolution approvino List of Demands
RECOMMENDATION:
3.1 Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 06-03
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA,
ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A
4 Citv Council Meetino Schedule for March 2006
RECOMMENDATION:
4.1 Direct the City Clerk to re-schedule the City Council meeting of March 14,2006 to
March 21, 2006, and to perform the appropriate postings and noticing requirements
of the Government Code.
I 5 Procurement of Librarv Radio Freouencv Identification IRFID) Svstem
RECOMMENDATION:
I
5.1 Accelerate the funding of $603,407.12 to the Fiscal Year 2005-06 from the Fiscal
Year 2006-07 Library Project Furniture, Fixture & Equipment (FF&E) budget;
5.2 Approve the purchase of Apex RFID components in agreement with Integrated
Technology Group (ITG) for the total amount of $188,660.47.
6 Communitv Development Block Grant Application Proposals for FY 2006/07
RECOMMENDATION:
6.1 Approve the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding
recommendation from the Finance Committee and staff;
6.2 Authorize the Director of Finance to execute Sub-Recipient Agreements and to
reprogram CDBG funds in accordance with the current budget resolution for general
administration of the Fiscal Year 2006-07 Community Development Block Grant
Funds.
R:IMinutesl012406
3
I
I
I
7 Approval of the Plans and Specifications and Authorization to Solicit Construction Bids for
the Slurrv Seal Proiect FY2005-2006. Redhawk Area - Proiect No. PW06-01
RECOMMENDATION:
7.1 Approve the plans and specifications and authorize the Department of Public Works
to solicit construction bids for the Slurry Seal Project FY 2005-2006, Redhawk Area,
Project No. PW06-01.
8 Approval of the Plans and Specifications and Authorization to Solicit Construction Bids for
the Citvwide Concrete Repairs Fiscal Year 2005-2006 - Proiect No. PW06-02
RECOMMENDATION:
8.1 Approve the plans and speCifications and authorize the Department of Public Works
to solicit construction bids for the Citywide Concrete Repairs FY 2005-2006, Project
No. PW06-02.
9 Amendment NO.1 - Professional Services Aoreement for Bridoe Inspection Services -
Parsons Brinckerhoff Construction Services. Inc. - Ynez Road Bridoe (Widen) over Santa
Gertrudis Creek - LD04-051CO
RECOMMENDATION:
9.1
Approve Amendment NO.1 to the agreement with Parsons Brinckerhoff
Construction Services, Inc. in an amount not to exceed $15,868.00 plus 10%
contingency for professional bridge inspection and construction engineering
services for the Ynez Road Bridge (Widen) over Santa Gertrudis Creek Road,
Project No. LD04-051 CO;
9.2 Authorize the Mayor to execute the amendment.
10 Award Construction Contract for Pauba Road Improvements - Phase II - Proiect No. PWOO-
09
RECOMMENDATION:
10.1 Award a construction contract for Pauba Road Improvements - Phase II, Project
No. PWOO-09 to Grade Pros Inc. DBA: McKenna in the amount of $1,367,663.15
and authorize the Mayor to execute the contract;
10.2 Authorize the City Manager to approve change orders not to exceed the
contingency amount of $136,766.32, which is equal to 10% of the contract amount.
R:IMinutesl012406
4
I
I
I
11 Maintenance Facilitv Expansion (Field Operations Center) - Sewer Connection Fees -
Proiect No. PW03-06
RECOMMENDATION:
11.1 Approve the payment of sewer connection fees in the amount of $65,348.67 to
Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD) to establish sewer service for the new
City Field Operations Center being constructed adjacent to City Hall.
12 Utilitv Easement Deed within Kent Hinteroardt Memorial Park
RECOMMENDATION:
12.1 Grant a Joint Utility Easement to Southern California Edison Company, Verizon
California Inc. and Century- TCI California for the perpetual easement and right-of-
way for construction, operation and maintenance of their facilities within Kent
Hintergardt Memorial Park;
12.2 Authorize the City Clerk to record the Utility Easement Deed.
13 Old Town Police Department Storefront Lease Extension
RECOMMENDATION:
13.1 Approve a three year lease extension for the Police Department Old Town
Storefront properly to include a rate of $1,875 a month and a total amount of
$67,500.
14 2006 Workers' Compensation Coveraoe Annual Renewal
RECOMMENDATION:
14.1 Select American Home Assurance Company (a member of the American
International Group Companies) as the City's Employee Workers' Compensation
Insurance Carrier for Plan Year 2006, which begins on February 1, 2006.
15 Comments on Cable Television Franchisino to Federal Communications Commission
RECOMMENDATION:
15.1 Approve comments regarding cable television franchise provisions;
15.2 Authorize the Mayor to sign the comments and direct staff to submit them to the
Federal Communications Commission.
16 Authorize Citv Manaoer to Approve or Modify Leases and Rental Aoreements
RECOMMENDATION:
16.1 Adopt a resolution entitled:
R:\MinutesI012406
5
I
I
I
RESOLUTION NO. 06-04
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO APPROVE OR MODIFY LEASES AND
RENTAL AGREEMENTS FOR THE CITY-OWNED PROPERTY AT 41943 MAIN
STREET
MOTION: Council Member Edwards moved to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1-14 and
16. Council Member Comerchero seconded the motion and electronic vote reflected approval
with the exceDtion of Mayor Roberts who was absent and Council Member Naggar who
abstained with regard to Item No.6 as it pertains to the Boys and Girls Club.
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM NO. 15 CONSIDERED UNDER SEPARATE DISCUSSION
15 Comments on Cable Television Franchisina to Federal Communications Commission
RECOMMENDATION:
15.3 Approve comments regarding cable television franchise provisions;
15.4 Authorize the Mayor to sign the comments and direct staff to submit them to the
Federal Communications Commission.
At the request of Mayor Pro Tem Washington, Assistant City Manager O'Grady reviewed the
staff report (as per agenda material).
MOTION: Council Member Comerchero moved to approve Consent Calendar Item No. 15.
Council Member Edwards seconded the motion and electronic vote reflected approval with the
exceDtion of Mayor Roberts who was absent.
At 7:37 P.M., the City Council convened as the Temecula Community Services District and the
Temecula Redevelopment Agency. At 7:48 P.M., the City Council resumed with regular
business.
PUBLIC HEARING
21 Temecula Reaional Hospital (Plannina Applications 04-0462 (General Plan Amendment), 05-
0302 (Zone Chanae), 04-0463 (Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit). and 04-
0571 (Tentative Parcel Map)
RECOMMENDATION:
21.1 Adopt a resolution entitled:
R:IMinutesl012406
6
I
I
I
21.2
21,3
RESOLUTION NO. 06-05
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED
FOR THE TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL AND RELATED ACTIONS, AND
ADOPTING THE FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
CONSIDERATIONS, AND A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING
PROGRAM IN CONNECTION THEREWITH FOR THE TEMECULA REGIONAL
HOSPITAL PROJECT, LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 700 FEET WEST OF
MARGARITA ROAD, AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NOS. 959-080-
001 THROUGH 959-080-004 AND 959-080-007 THROUGH 959-080-010 (PA04-
0462, PA05-0302, PA04-0463, PA04-0571)
Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 06-06
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT TO REMOVE EIGHT
(8) SUBJECT PARCELS FROM THE Z "FUTURE SPECIFIC PLAN" OVERLAY
DESIGNATION AND CORRESPONDING TWO-STORY HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS
FOR A SITE ON THE NORTH SIDE OF HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH, APPROXIMATELY
700 FEET WEST OF MARGARITA ROAD, AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S
PARCEL NOS. 959-080-001 THROUGH 959-080-004 AND 959-080-007
THROUGH 959-080-010 (PA04-0462)
Introduce and read by title only an ordinance entitled:
ORDINANCE NO. 06-01
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA FROM
PROFESSIONAL OFFICE (PO) AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY
(PDO-8) TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY-9 (PDO-9) AND ADDING
SECTIONS 17.22.200 THROUGH 17.22.206 TO THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL
CODE FOR A SITE GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF
HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH, APPROXIMATELY 700 FEET WEST OF MARGARITA
ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NOS. 959-080-001 THROUGH
959-080-004 AND 959-08-007 THROUGH 959-080-010 (PA05-0302)
21.4 Adopt a resolution entitled:
R:IMinutesl012406
7
I
I
I
RESOLUTION NO. 06-07
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ESTABLISH A 320-BED
HOSPITAL FACILITY AND HELIPAD; AND A DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO
CONSTRUCT A 408,160 SQUARE FOOT HOSPITAL, A HELIPAD, TWO
MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDINGS TOTALING 140,000 SQUARE FEET, A 10,000
SQUARE FOOT CANCER CENTER AND AN 8,000 SQUARE FOOT FITNESS
REHABILITATION CENTER ALL TOTALING APPROXIMATELY 566,160
SQUARE FEET ON 35.31 ACRES, LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF
HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH, APPROXIMATELY 700 FEET WEST OF MARGARITA
ROAD, KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NOS. 959-080-001 THROUGH 959-
080-004 AND 959-080-007 THROUGH 959-080-010 (PA04-0463)
21,5
Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 06-08
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
APPROVING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 32468, TO CONSOLIDATE EIGHT
LOTS TOTALING 35.31 ACRES INTO 1 PARCEL, LOCATED ON THE NORTH
SIDE OF HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH, APPROXIMATELY 700 FEET WEST OF
MARGARITA ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NOS. 959-080-
001 THROUGH 959-080-004 AND 959-080-007 THROUGH 959-080-010 (PA04-
0571)
Planning Director Ubnoske presented the staff report (as per agenda material), highlighting the
following:
· That the proposed Zone Change amendment would remove the one-story and two-
story height restriction in the Z-1 Overlay;
. That the Zone Change would allow for a maximum of 30% of the roof area of the
hospital (the two bed towers) to be a height of up to 115';
· That the hospital, cancer center, fitness center, helipad, and medical office buildings
are proposed to be constructed in phases;
· That the Medical Office Building II will be constructed in Phase IA; that the hospital
and 6-story tower will be constructed in Phase IB; that the hospital five-story tower
will be constructed in Phase II; that Medical Office Building I will be constructed in
Phase III; that the cancer center will be constructed in Phase IV; and that the fitness
center will be constructed in Phase V (last phase)
. That the proposed architectural style will be consistent with the architectural style of
vicinity - Spanish Mediterranean with stucco siding and a tower roof - similar to the
Rancho Community Church architectural style
· That at the April 6, 2005, Planning Commission meeting, the Commission, on the
advice of the Assistant City Attorney, continued the project and directed staff to
prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
· That at the April 20, 2005, Planning Commission meeting, the following issues were
identified and have been reflected in the EIR:
o Traffic and Circulation
R:\MinutesI012406
8
I
I
I
o Noise associated with Traffic and the proposed helipad
o Aesthetics related to the height of the hospital
o Hydrology and groundwater
. That a screen check and draft EIR have been reviewed by staff
. That the draft EIR was taken to the Planning Commission on November 16, 2005
. That at the November 16, 2005, Planning Commission meeting, the Commission
continued this item in order to allow staff ample time to review and respond to
additional comments
· That at the December 7, 2005, Planning Commission meeting, staff requested a
continuance in order for staff to continue addressing/reviewinglresponding to the
additional comments and, therefore, the public hearing was continued to the January
5,2006
· That at the January 5, 2006, Planning Commission meeting, the Commission had the
opportunity to review all testimony and all response to comments; that the Planning
Commission struggled with the height issue of the proposed bed towers but
ultimately approved a motion to recommend that the City Council support the project
as proposed
· That the applicant has contended that the bed towers may not be redesigned to a
lower height without sacrificing patient care and without jeopardizing compliance with
State regulatory requirements
· That any reconsideration of the design would result in additional delays of up to two
years in providing necessary hospital services for the community
· That the Planning Commission unanimously voted to proceed with the current
proposal, noting that the height would be an issue of concern and requesting that the
City Council review this matter
. That the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council certify the EIR,
approve Planning Application Nos. 04-0462, 05-0302, 04-0463, and 04-0571 based
upon the findings in the conditions of approval
· That Condition No. 91 of the Development Plan should be amended to read as
follows: that a Construction Area Traffic Control Plan shall be designed by a
registered civil or traffic engineer and reviewed by the Director of Public Works for
any street closure, detour, or other disruption to traffic circulation as required by the
Department of Public Works; that the Traffic Control Plan shall indicate that
construction traffic may not use the entrance from De Portola Road to access the site
· That corrected copies of the EIR resolution were distributed to the City Council, the
Mitigation Monitoring Report, Conditional Use Permit resolution, and Conditions of
Approval, reflecting that any reference to the extension of Dartolo Road as part of the
approval be removed; that both the Planning staff and the Commission
recommended that Dartolo Road not be extended onto the hospital properly
· That Errata Sheets highlighting changes to the EIR were distributed along with
copies of correspondence (some received as late as yesterday afternoon)
As per a PowerPoint presentation, Ms. Laura Stetson of P&D Consultants addressed specifics
of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and clarified the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) Process, noting the following:
· That the State had granted the staff-requested 30-day review of the Draft EIR
· That the Initial Study process identified impact that would require detailed analysis in
EIR
. That the Study indicated that the following issues required detailed analysis:
R:IMinutesl012406
9
I
I
I
o Aesthetics
o Air quality
o Groundwater and hydrology
o Land Use and Planning
o Noise
o Transportation
o Alternatives to the Project
o Cumulative Impacts
o Responses to written comments
· That all other issues were adequately addressed in the Initial Study (part of the Draft
and Final EIR document)
EIR Analvsis and Conclusions
o Terms and phrases used in the EIR
. Unavoidable significant impact - Impacts associated with the project
that have mitigation measures applied which become conditions on the
project but even with the imposition of those conditions/mitigation
measures, those significant affects cannot be avoided
. Air Quality
o Short temr (construction), long term (operations), and
cumulative
.
Noise
o Helicopter overflights
. Anticipation of no more than one emergency flight
into and out of the facility per month - permit from
Caltrans will permit up to six emergency flights into
and out of the facility per month
. Traffic
o Cumulative impacts on roadway segments
. Potentially significant impacts that can be mitigated or avoided -
Impacts were analyzed and were considered not to be significant and
can be avoided
. Aesthetics
o Light and glare
. Noise
o Operational (mechanical equipment, generators)
. Traffic
o Contribution to intersections and road segments projected
to operate at LOS E and F
. Impacts considered but found to be less than significant
. Aesthetics
o scenic highways; visual character or quality
. Air Quality
o Odors; consistency with regional plans
. Hydrology and water quality
R:IMinutes1012406
10
I
I
I
o Water supply; storm water volume and quality
. Land Use and Planning
o Compatibility with surrounding uses - General Plan
consistency
. Noise
o Construction, ground-borne vibrations, sirens, loading
dock, and other on-site activities - City does not have a
Noise Ordinance - it has noise standards in the General
Plan
. Alternatives to the Project
. No Project - No development
. No Project - Commercial/Office Development
. Alternate Site
. Alternate Access
· Access from De Portola Road and Dartolo Road - restriction on
the proposed driveway to De Portola Road to a right-hand turn in
and right-hand turn out -left-hand turn in and no left-hand turn out
would be permitted onto De Portola Road; that De Portola Road
currently functions as a low-lane road; that the General Plan
designated it as a four-lane road;
. Hospital only
· That Oral comments made at the November 16, 2005, and January 5, 2006,
Planning Commission hearings, included the following:
o Noise - sirens - two ambulance trips per day with sirens - sirens will only be
used to clear traffic - sirens turned off once on hospital property
o Hazardous wastes from hospital operations - stringent State/Federal
regulations
o Potential groundwater pollution from adjacent gas station
o Traffic on Pio Pico - even if assumed all Margarita Road traffic were diverted
to Pio Pico, the LOS on Pio Pico would not be lowered to an unacceptable
standard per City standards
o Cumulative traffic impacts
o Change in neighborhood character - General Plan designates this site for the
use as proposed; that the proposed uses are consistent with the surrounding
development to the east, west, and south; that the buildings have been pulled
as far as possible toward the highway to ensure the use is a good neighbor
with the neighborhood to the north of the project site - substantial setbacks
and landscaping
o Additional alternatives
In response to the Council Members, Mr. Jose Nunez, representing Lyn Scott Law and
Greenspan Traffic Engineers, San Diego; Ms. Stetson; and Public Works Director Hughes noted
the following:
· That with regard to siren noise, the City currently has a number of emergency calls to
date based on its population and that the overall City-wide affect on the siren noise
R:IMinutes1012406
11
I
I
I
would be the same; that the only growth in siren noise would be related to the growth
of the City;
· That analysis indicated that virtually no traffic associated with the hospital would
utilize Pio Pico, stating that this assumption was based on the fact that it would be
almost twice the travel distance if making the right-hand turn on Pio Pico and left-
hand turn on De Portola rather than continuing south on Margarita Road and making
a right-hand turn on De Portola
. That the traffic studies included alternatives, reflecting comparative analysis if the
public driveway off De Portola were there versus not being placed there but as far as
for EIR purposes, it was always reflected as being there
· That no particular designation was imposed on the De Portola driveway such as
emergency only, staff, etc.
· That the LOS at Margarita Road/SR 79 north intersection would be compromised
without the driveway access of De Portola; that the LOS at that particular intersection
would reach a high level of E close to F during peak hours
· That the hospital entrance off De Portola would not necessarily be in line with Pio
Pico; that the entrance was purposely moved as far east as practical to ensure travel
trips on Pio Pico were not increased
· That off De Portola, there will be a right-hand turn in and out and a left-hand turn in
to the hospital
· That the air quality issues for the hospital will be primarily vehicle trips
· That studies indicated that if commercial uses were approved for the subject site
versus the proposed hospital, twice the amount of vehicle trips would be generated
and that air quality would proportionately increase as well
. That when the City inherited Ynez Road/De Portola from the County, it was
designated to handle more travel trips than what is being proposed with the hospital
· That the proposed project would not increase the use of Ynez Road/De Portola
· That from a traffic standpoint, an access off De Portola would be desirable even if
only commercial uses were proposed because it would have the capacity to handle a
commercial project with much higher volumes than what is being anticipated with the
hospital project
. That the applicant will not be required to widen De Portola to four lanes to Margarita
Road; that the applicant will be required to complete frontage improvements to meet
the current City standards and to transition several hundred feet in each direction;
that De Portola would be four lanes in front of the hospital entrance but not all the
way to Margarita Road
· That in the event traffic volume were to reach a level where four lanes west of this
project location were necessary, the matter would be addressed through a Capital
Improvement Project; that the forecasted volumes on De Portola may not ever
warrant widening it to four lanes
· That the configuration of Ynez Road/De Portola will conform with that of the General
Plan Update (rural-nature road)
By way of a PowerPoint presentation, Mr. Dan Johnson, Vice President of SCS Engineers doing
business as Environmental Business Solutions, clarified that he is a member of the San Diego
Regional Water Quality Control Board that has jurisdiction over the tanks that will be discussed
this evening but that his position this evening would be as an environmental consultant and not
as a member of the Regional Water Quality. Providing an overview of the proposed project as it
relates to groundwater issues, Mr. Johnson noted the following:
R:\MinutesI012406
12
I
I
I
· That his work included comprehensive file reviews at the Regional Water Quality
Review Board and conducted interviews of the Rancho California Water District and
conducted an intrusive field inspection, sampling of both soil and of groundwater at
the project site
. That gasoline releases have happened at these three different gas stations; that
MTBE has been found in groundwater downgradient of the stations - not an
uncommon phenomenon;
. That remediation has and continues to occur at the three different gas stations to
address each release
. That the only detectable gasoline constituent near the proposed site is MTBE and
was only present in the monitoring well; that after intrusive testing, it was determined
that MTBE was not present in the groundwater at the proposed site
· That MTBE concentrations have generally been decreasing over time due to
remediation efforts
· That even if Well No. 120 (well closest to the site and one that received public
attention) were contaminated and the use were discontinued, the service would
switch to other wells in the area; that recent sampling information reported that there
were no detectable levels of MTBE in Well No. 120
· That the potential impacts to the proposed site are two-fold: soil vapor and
contaminated groundwater; that of 100 samplings only 1 indicated 0.3 parts per
billion (ppb) above detection limit for MTBE
· That based on groundwater and soil vapor sampling and analysis, there are no
health risks on the proposed site associated with release from the nearby gas
stations
In response to the City Council Members, Mr. Johnson provided further clarification, noting the
following:
· That the 0.3 ppb detection in the one sample could have been an anomaly; that all
samples were typical samples of what would have been proposed for any
development site
· That plume is the gasoline constituents that are actually dissolved in groundwater
and that are detectable in the groundwater; that the plumes associated with each gas
station are confined within close proximity of gas station tanks
· That Well No. 120 is utilized on demand, not utilized 100% of the time
By of a comprehensive PowerPoint presentation, Ms. Linda Bradley (CEO and Managing
Director of Southwest Healthcare Systems) and Mr. Scott Crane (Executive Director of
Development for Riverside County for Universal Health Services) presented a detailed overview
of the proposed project with particular emphasis on design and site plan; clarified that Universal
Health Services, Inc. is one of the nation's largest and most respected healthcare management
companies, operating acute care hospital, behavioral health facilities, and ambulatory and
radiation centers nationwide; advised that Southwest Healthcare System is comprised of Inland
Valley and Rancho Springs Medical Centers; and informed the City Council that HKS has been
ranked as the world's fifth largest architectural firm that has garnered over 110 design award.
Proceeding with the presentation, Ms. Bradley noted the following:
. That the question of need for a hospital would appear to be universally accepted by
the City and the community
R:\MinutesI012406
13
I
I
I
· That the proposed site encompasses a total of 35.5 acres sufficient to design a
hospital campus large enough to meet the needs of the City of Temecula
· That multiple community meetings were scheduled to address the community
concerns
· That as a result of these meetings, the project was designed with placement
features, landscaping, etc. to mitigate the adverse aesthetic impacts posed by the
project
COMMUNITY CONCERNS
. Distance to residences
o Moved buildings as far south on the project site as possible - toward the highway
. Lig ht poll ution
o Downward casting parking lot lights
o Non-reflective, tinted glass on all windows
. Construction traffic on De Portola
o Construction traffic will be restricted off De Portola and will only enter off State
Route 79 South
. Noise
o EIR has studied and addressed this concern
. Closing Inland Valley or Rancho Springs
o Plans are to expand those facilities and even with those expansions, the
proposed hospital is needed
o That Inland Valley was initially intended to function as a skilled-nursing facility,
not intended to function as a hospital
o That Rancho Springs was built as two-story hospital; that plans for construction
are to build out laterally to expand over the parking lot versus up because of
seismic safety restrictions
. Height and View from residences
o Expansive (over 46') landscaping and fenced horse trail around the north and
west perimeters around the site
o Oriented upper floors of the hospital
o Balanced the height of the Medical Office Buildings with the height of the hospital
. Landscape Buffer Zone
· UHS Hospitals - design evolution - best demonstrated practice
o Spring Valley Hospital
o George Washington University Hospital
o Centennial Hills Hospital
. Regulatory Compliance
. Patient Care
. Patient Safety
. Employee Safety
. Facility Security
. Customer Considerations
. Community Satisfaction
. Aesthetic Considerations
R:\MinutesI012406
14
I
I
I
In response to the City Council Members, Ms. Bradley further clarified the following:
· That the 90-foot distance from nurses stations to patient rooms is a regulatory
compliance; that lowering the floors in height and retaining the same amount of beds
would require spreading the building out which would move patients from the center
core of services - time and distance matters when delivering patient care; that by
spreading out the building, more bed towers, than those proposed, would be
necessary by build out if the same number of patient beds were applied to this
project
· That if the towers were lowered, a complete redesign would be required which would
create a project delay - redesign, CEQA process restarted, restart with Office of
Statewide Health Planning and Development - minimum delay 21/2 years
· That healthcare would be compromised if the proposed project design were not
approved and a redesign would require a lateral expansion versus vertical in the
following way:
o Greater distances/time to respond to patients/patient services
· that if the proposed site were double the acreage, the hospital design would not be
any different from what is being proposed
· that multiple types of jobs would be anticipated as a result of this project -
approximately 600 jobs; that ancillary jobs would as well be expected as a result of
this project
In response to Council Member Edwards, Mr. Dave Prusha, architect who worked on the
proposed project and representing HKS, advised that the numerous design awards HKS has
received vary from functionality to aesthetics to design/construction to project management, etc.
Mr. Prusha confirmed that the proposed design will be the best design (functionality/aesthetics)
for the site of discussion and parameters.
At 9:08 P.M. a short recess was taken and the Council reconvened at 9:20 P.M.
At this time, the public hearing was opened.
The following individuals spoke in opposition to the proposed project:
Robert MacHale
Gloria Smith
Temecula
Temecula
representing the California Nurses
Association
Brad Stormon
Nicole Stormon
Kenneth Ray
Temecula
Temecula
Temecula
representing the Santiago Ranchos
Homeowners Association
A. Evan Harbottle
Paul Gupta
Neal Ziff
Temecula
Temecula
Temecula
The above-mentioned speakers spoke in opposition to the proposed project for the following
reasons:
· that the potential 21/2 year delay time because of a possible redesign may not be
accurate in light of a recent action taken by Governor Schwarzenegger
R:\MinutesI012406
15
I
I
I
. that the proposed helipad has too many trees around it
· that a redesign of the hospital be explored; that the shape of the Red Cross be explored
for the hospital
· that the California Nurses Association (CNA) does not oppose this project; that the CNA
does not support a public process where essential information has not been disclosed by
the City which is required by law; that the City has not required UHS to mitigate
significant impact on local traffic and air quality; that the City's Environmental Impact
Report (EIR) has acknowledged that the proposed project will cause significant impact to
air quality and traffic congestion; that the EIR does emit mitigation measures to mitigate
these impacts; that paying fees to Riverside County will not mitigate significant
congestion on SR 79, on Redhawk Parkway, and Margarita Road
. that the hospital will cause the City to exceed air quality standards
· that the City is required by CEQA to use best efforts to determine and disclose all it
reasonably can with regard to MTBE groundwater plume
· that he (Mr. Stormon) has contacted the City Council with regard to this project at least
two or three times with no response; that he has contacted UHS, having left six/seven
phone messages, with no response; that he would be concerned with noise pollution,
lighting, and traffic; that he would request the construction of a wall around his
residence; that traffic on Pio Pico will increase and will impact his residence
· that the setback distance from his residence/property and the hospital is 300 feet
In response to the Mayor Pro Tem Washington, Mr. Stormon reiterated that the only
communication from the City was from Senior Planner Papp and that his attorney sent emails to
the City Council and nobody has responded.
City Attorney Thorson acknowledged receiving an email from Best Best and Krieger (Mr.
Stormon's attorney) and advised that he had spoken on two occasions with Mr. Salazar as had
Mr. Curley and that he had replied to the email.
For security purposes, Planning Director Ubnoske clarified that the City does require a certain
amount of illumination on a properly regardless of the use. With regard to noise pollution, Ms.
Ubnoske noted that the overriding consideration simply will pertain to the helipad, not noise
associated with the use of the hospital.
Council Member Edwards further stated that lighting must adhere to the Mount Palomar
Ordinance to which Deputy City Manager Thornhill noted that a lighting plan must be prepared.
· That a block wall along De Portola Road and Pio Pico Road would significantly reduce
the noise impacts from the helipad
· That the EIR does not correctly describe the project, does not analyze all responsible
and foreseeable impacts, improperly defers mitigation, and does not mitigate to the
extent feasible
· That a majority of resident concerns remain unaddressed - increased traffic on Pio Pico
due to the De Portola Road hospital entrance; that a dedicated right-hand turn lane is
needed on Margarita Road (southbound) to De Portola Road; that a bridge crossing the
flood control channel should be constructed at Dartolo Road, giving access to the
hospital and easing the load on the De Portola entrance and reducing surface traffic in
the immediate area; that emergency access from SR 79 south should be a direct
access; that Dona Lynora Road should be a full traffic light controlled intersection with a
controlled left-hand turn into the hospital
R:\MinutesI012406
16
I
· That the residents are not opposed to the hospital but the configuration of it and its
impact on the residents
· That the massive size of the proposed project in the area of discussion (35 acres) would
be of concern; that the height of the proposed structure (106') would be a concern
· That the Planning Commissioners expressed concerns with this project
. That a multi-story parking garage was never considered
For Mr. Gupta, Mayor Pro Tem Washington advised that Council Members Comerchero and
Naggar served on the Temecula Hospital Subcommittee.
· That the applicant chose to purchase this properly at a premium price and to proceed
with complete architectural plans knowing the General Plan restrictions imposed on the
commercial area
· That it is inexcusebable that the City allowed this corporation to push these issues to this
point, compromising the quality of life of the residents
· That the residents did their due diligence, the General Plan currently permits one- to
two-story buildings; that this project will directly affect the values of the properties as well
as impact the entire community
At this time, the following individuals spoke in support of the proposed project:
. Dr, Mark Spicer neurosurgeon
. Dr. Russell Hatt Rancho Springs Emergency Department
. Roger Ziemer Temecula
I . Joan Sparkman Temecula
. Alice Sullivan Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce
. Dr. Larry Boggman Temecula
. Jacob Cintron Temecula
. Dr. Ed Pillar
. Mark Nelson Temecula
. Peggy Christensen Nuevo Southwest Healthcare System - choose not
to speak
. Dr. Yara Gorski Murrieta was no longer in attendance
. Atalanta Olito
. Ginny Ince Murrieta choose not to speak
. Teresa Fleege Canyon Lake
. Danny Whipkey Fallbrook was no longer in attendance
. Michael Murphy Canyon Lake
. Teri Waites Temecula
. Dennis Frank Economic Development Corporation of
Southwest California
. Barry Thorfinnson Temecula
. David Whitcomb Lake Elsinore was no longer in attendance
. Renata Whitcomb Lake Elsinore was no longer in attendance
. George Cocaine, Jr. - Murrieta choose not to speak
. Dee Lefebre Winchester
I . Joann Pickard Temecula was no longer in attendance
. Jim Fent Murrieta
. Pam Johnson
R:IMinutes1012406
17
I
I
I
. Debbie Parker
. Katie DiDonato
. Robert Heckler
. Patricia Harvey
. Shannon Weidauer
. Linda Maxwell
. Linda Frazier
. Ralph Millare
. Ken Sitarski
. Tom Gavaghan
. Sue Dowis
. Angela Barker
. Diana Lewis
. Mike Fogie
. Leah Patterson
. Kim Davis
. Ramona Delaney
. Pamela Divan
. Stacy Sweeney
. Rick Meyer
. Sue Wildgoose
. Carrie Pedersen
. Wayne Hall
. Tom Julian
. Brent Jacobsen
. David Cruz
Temecula
Murrieta
Murrieta
Temecula
Temecula
Temecula
Temecula
choose not to speak
was no longer in attendance
Murrieta
Corona
Riverside
Temecula choose not to speak
Temecula
Murrieta
Lake Elsinore was no longer in attendance
Wildomar
Temecula
Murrieta
Murrieta
Temecula
Temecula
Temecula
Temecula
Alta Loma
was no longer in attendance
was no longer in attendance
The above-mentioned individuals spoke in support of the project for the following reasons:
· That a vertical structure is the more efficient way to deliver emergency care to patients
· That patient safety is very important to the Joint Commission (entity that accredits
hospitals)
· That decreasing the height/size of the towers will increase patient risk by increasing
response time
. That the personal interest of some should not be permitted to stop the construction of a
hospital which would provide considerable benefits to the entire community
· That current land zoning would permit certain commercial enterprises which would far
exceed the traffic volumes identified by the hospital
· That the City Council's decision with regard to this project must be made based on a
majority
. That the City has managed its growth well; that the need for a major medical facility is
long overdue; that such a facility will provide economic benefits to the community; that
the City and its outlining region can no longer rely on medical facilities outside the
immediate service area; that in the event of a major earthquake or other catastrophe,
access to the hospitals in Murrieta or Wildomar may not be available
At this time, City Clerk Jones advised that she had received a petition (approximately 1,200
signatures) in support of the hospital, noting that copies were forwarded to the City Council
Members.
R:IMinutes1012406
18
I
I
I
In response to Mayor Pro Tem Washington, Ms. Sullivan advised that an organized survey of
the Chamber membership reflected support of the project, noting that not one opposing call was
received.
· That the proposed landscaping will block the majority of the hospital view for the majority
of the Los Ranchitos homeowners
· That successful rescuer actions at the scene of a sudden cardiac collapse are time
critical
· That even with the potential construction of other hospitals in surrounding areas, the
proposed hospital will still not meet the regional need at completion
· That it would be imperative to construct a hospital that would ease accessibility to elderly
· That the other three proposed hospitals that may be built in surrounding areas require
capital for construction to be completed
· That the proposed project will have a beneficial economic impact to the local economy
· That the proposed project will as well create an employment multiplier (1.4 multiplier)
· That currently scheduled surgeries are being rescheduled due to no beds being
available
. That there is no significant environmental impact from the MTBE
· That the California Nurses Association is currently in contractual negotiations with UHS
· That UHS has functioned in this Valley; that UHS has been a good neighbor and a good
business partner
. That the facility must be designed to meet the maximum patient care needs but as well
must meet the needs of the employees of the hospital
· That this hospital must be built for the future - for our children
· That Mission Ambulance would be willing to work with AMR to work with the hospitals
and the community to develop zones/areas that will be silent sensitive.
REBUTTAL FROM THE APPLICANT
At the time, Ms. Bradley noted the following in response to publiC comments as well as City
Council Members' questions:
· That not only is the design for this hospital complete but also the design detail was
completed last year; that these plans have been submitted to the State of California in
an effort to prevent further delay; that UHS was willing to take the risk of submitting the
plans to the State prior to City Council approval
. That UHS was fully aware of the restrictions and what exceptions and variances were
needed but the overriding concern was to design a hospital that would work for the
patients
. That UHS would not object to the imposition of a condition requesting the submittal of a
comprehensive lighting plan to the Planning Department to ensure mitigation on the
neighboring properties
· That UHS would be willing to discuss the issue of constructing a block wall on either Mr.
Stormon's properly or the hospital properly; that, as per the site plan, there will be 20' of
landscaping from the street followed by 18' of horse trail followed by 8' of more
landscaping prior to reaching the white picket fence; that within the fence boundary,
there would be additional landscaping interior to the property
· That the noise levels of the hospital will be monitored; that if these levels were exceeded
once in operation, the hospital will be required to mitigate to issues - Mitigation Measure
M-1 imposed upon the applicant - once the facility is fully operational, the applicant
R:IMinutes1012406
19
I
I
I
would be obligated per this mitigation measure to complete a noise study; that if the
noise levels are above a given level, the applicant would be obligated to mitigate those
issues and file a report with the City to demonstrate mitigation; that Mitigation Measure
A-1 - prior to pulling a building permit, the applicant must present a lighting design and
study demonstrating no impact on the neighbors
Ms. Stetson confirmed for City Council Members Edwards and Washington that the only
unmitigated noise impact would be from the helipad (helicopters).
In response to Council Member Comerchero, Mr. Stormon reiterated that his overriding
concerns are light, traffic, and noise and, therefore, being of the opinion that a block wall would
mitigate light and most of the noise.
Deputy City Manager Thornhill noted that it would not be prudent to build a block wall prior to
determining if any issues will arise. With regard to the lighting concerns, Mr. Thornhill reiterated
that the applicant must adhere to the Mount Palomar Lighting requirements (low sodium lights).
In response to Council Member Naggar, City Attorney Thorson advised that the previously
mentioned Mitigation Measures (conditions) are a part of the Mitigation Monitoring Plan for the
EIR; that if the project were adopted, the conditions will be a part of the resolution certifying the
EIR; that a condition in the conditions of approval requires these conditions to be met; that the
Mitigation Monitoring Plan reflects the individual responsible for monitoring and timeframe of the
monitoring and its frequency - a plan not only to impose mitigation measures but to ensure
compliance. With regard to lighting, Mr. Thorson referenced Mitigation Measure A-2 - all
windows above the second floor of the hospital and/or medical office buildings shall consist of
glazed windows.
At this time, the public hearing was closed.
CITY COUNCIL DISCUSSION
In light of the complexity of this project, Council Member Naggar commended Senior Planner
Papp on a job well done as well as the Planning Department. Discussing the consideration of a
General Plan Amendment, Mr. Naggar noted that such amendments would be considered if the
construction were absolutely needed - this hospital is needed within the City and, therefore, he
could support a General Plan Amendment for this hospital. With regard to the lighting and noise
issues, the City Council addressed these important issues. Mr. Naggar noted that studies have
indicated that there will be no additional impacts by virtue of constructing a hospital versus
commercial use; clarified that this is not a City project; that the City does not have a view policy
within the City; that there is a future need for this hospital within this region; that this project will
create 600 jobs which will lessen impact on the freeways; and that a lawsuit will only raise the
cost of construction and raise the cost of healthcare and no one will benefit solely for a political
purpose.
Readdressing concerns raised by Council Member Naggar, Council Member Edwards
commended the City on its efforts to keep the City's circulation flowing; noted that the proposed
hospital project will generate less traffic than a comparable commercial or office project at the
same location; that if necessary, access may be limited off De Portola to emergency vehicles
only and that the City Council may consider that issue; that if other improvements were
necessary to the intersection at Margarita Road and SR 79 South, those could be made at a
R:IMinutes1012406
20
I
I
I
future time; and that because of the need for this hospital, Mrs. Edwards spoke in support of this
project.
Hoping that State approval for the hospital will not take as long as anticipated, Council Member
Comerchero stated that the City has been given a rare opportunity to fulfill this need; noted that
this project will be for the greater good; and, therefore, expressed his support of the construction
of this hospital.
Concurring with his colleagues' comments, Mayor Pro Tem Washington noted that a hospital is
gravely needed in this community. Having addressed the height issue, Mr. Washington could
not justify the sacrifice being made by lowering the height of the towers (residents' views versus
efficiency of the hospital); suggested that staff explore the adoption of a Noise Ordinance; noted
that light issue is measurable and, therefore, could be addressed if exceeded; and stated that
most of the traffic concerns were addressed, expressing his desire to have no access on De
Portola Road or Pio Pico Road and that if that were to occur, the City Council will readdress that
at a later time; with regard to the MTBE concern, viewed that issue as a manufactured concern.
In closing, having known Ms. Bradley and Mr. Crane for many years, Mr. Washington viewed
both individuals as individuals with integrity and stated that, therefore, if issues of concern were
to arise, they would be addressed.
MOTION: Council Member Naggar moved to approve recommendation nos. 21.1, 21.2, 21.4,
and 21.5 with amending Condition of Approval No. 91 for the Development Plan, as noted on
page 10. The motion was seconded by Council Member Comerchero and electronic vote
reflected approval with the exceDtion of Mayor Roberts who was absent.
City Attorney Thorson introduced and read by title only Ordinance No. 06-01.
MOTION: Council Member Naggar moved to approve recommendation no. 21.3. The motion
was seconded by Council Member Comerchero and electronic vote reflected approval with the
exceDtion of Mayor Roberts who was absent.
DEPARTMENTAL REPORTS
22 Economic Development Department Monthly Report
No additional comment.
23 Public Works Department Monthly Report
No additional comment.
24 Police Department Monthly Report
No additional comment.
25 Buildina and Safetv Department Monthlv Report
No additional comment.
R:IMinutes1012406
21
I
26 Plannina Department Monthlv Report
No additional comment.
CITY MANAGER'S REPORT
No additional comment.
CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
City Attorney Thorson advised that there were no actions to report from Closed Session but
noted that any final action with regard to Closed Session Item NO.2 (Educational Campus
Project) would be brought to the City Council for final decision in open session.
ADJOURNMENT
At 12:17 A.M. , the City Council meeting was formally adjourned to Tuesday, February 14, 2006,
at 5:30 P.M., for a Closed Session with the regular session commencing at 7:00 P.M., in the
City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California.
I
ml:-
Ron Roberts, Mayor
ATTEST:
I
R:IMinutes1012406
22