Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout032106 CC Minutes I I I MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL MARCH 21, 2006 The City Council commenced its regular meeting at 7:00 P.M., on Tuesday, March 21, 2006, in the City Council Chambers of Temecula City Hall, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California, was convened. Present: 5 Council Members: Comerchero, Edwards, Naggar, Washington, and Roberts Absent: o Council Members: None PRELUDE MUSIC The prelude music was provided by Eve Craig INVOCATION The invocation was given by Gary Nelson of Calvary Chapel of Temecula PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The pledge of allegiance was presented by Mayor Pro Tem Washington PRESENTATIONS/PROCLAMATIONS Presentation of Soonsorshio Checks 10 students Iravelina to Sister City Netherlands Commenting on the life-long relationships and the exchanges of ideas the City has experienced with its Sister Cities, Mayor Roberts introduced the students traveling to Leidschendam- Voorburg, Netherlands and presented each student with a $200 check. . Brent Wyman . Brittany Easterwood . Leslie Kaw . Joann Weersing . Brittany Dismukes . Annalice Heinz . Alit Adkins . Michele Sadler . Dana Kiel . Jacqueline Anderson . Kathryn Pratt The above-mentioned students thanked the City Council for the contribution. R:IMinutesl032106 I I I Certificates of Achievement to the Ladv Hooos Basketball Team Mayor Roberts congratulated the following players for their accomplishments and efforts in leading the Temecula Lady Hoops 6th Grade Basketball Team to victory: . Mike Pino, Coach · Hazel Martinez, Assistant Coach . Alesia Lowery . Christina Johnson . Carly Bauer . Kaillin Mathewson . Cassie Davis . Taelor Shoemaker . Ariana Wilson . Jessica Pino PUBLIC COMMENTS A. Ms. Suzanne Zychowicz, Temecula, formally requested that the City Council consider the following: . That the City Council not consider, as requested by Ihe Meadowview Association, the erection of a wall on Kahwea Road, advising that a wall would create a hazardous situation . That the City Council not consider the installation of a community park on North General Kearny Road and Nada Lane, as requested by the Meadowview Association . That the City Council consider opening closed streets and the completion of North General Kearny Road · That the City Council consider ingress and egress routes -- one-way in or out of the Meadowview area . That the City Council consider one-way traffic flow on Del Rey Road and Via Norte; and Ihat parking zones, curbs, and new roadways along public utility right- of-way and lighting be considered . That the City Council consider the implementation of a community task force. B. Mr. Clif Hewlett, Temecula, representing Save our Southwestern Hills, expressed his opposition to the granite quarry project along the southern border of Temecula Valley, Riverside, and San Diego County; requested that the City Council oppose the project; and advised of a rally from Temecula High School to Ronald Reagan Sports Park on Sunday, May 7, 2006. R:IMinutes1032106 2 I I I C. Mr. Mike Kuhn, Temecula, publicly apologized to Council Member Naggar for a comment that he had made at an earlier City Council meeting with regard to North General Kearney. Mr. Mike Kuhn requested Ihat the City Council perform a traffic study including east to west streets between Winchester Road and Rancho California Road. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS A. Council Member Edwards informed Ihat on March 20, 2006, Assistant City Manager O'Grady and she had an opportunity to attend a meeting at Sunrise Power Lake and advised of a new technology that will supply energy to San Diego County. Council Member Edwards requested that staff to provide an update with regard to the new 911 system and stated that the public may view City Council meetings live at KZSWTV.com. B. Referencing a recent car accidenl in the Meadowview area which resulted in a death, Mayor Pro Tem Washington noted the importance of keeping neighborhoods safe. Referencing a previously made comment with regard to the Roripaugh projecl, Mayor Pro Tem Washington clarified thai Council action taken at the February 28, 2006, City Council meeting, pertained to the sale of bonds which will be utilized for needed infrastruclure for the Roripaugh Ranch project. C. Commenting on the future state-of-the-art Temecula Library, Council Member Naggar requested that staff agendize discussion of the Child Internet Protection Act. Referencing a comment made by Mayor Pro Tem Washington regarding Roripaugh, Council Member Naggar noted that the bond sale will allocate $42 million loward infraslructure; that the fire station would be nearing its completion; and encouraged individuals to read the Growth Management Plan, written in March, 2000, which may be found on the City's internet. D. Council Member Comerchero noted that the City has seriously addressed traffic/infrastructure issues and that he would not approve any new development withoul the implementation of infrastruclure. Referencing a comment made by Council Member Edwards, Mr. Comerchero concurred with requesting a 911 system update including the addition of recommendations to improve the system. Council Member Comerchero apprised Ihe public of a new book called Temecula, advising Ihat il would be a pictorial history of Temecula along with commentaries dating back to the mid 1800's, noting that more information regarding the book may be found at www.vailranch.com. On behalf of the City Council, Council Member Comerchero gave condolences to the family of Mr. Bob Burns, who recently passed away. R:IMinutes1032106 3 CONSENT CALENDAR I 1 Standard Ordinance and Resolulion Adootion Procedure RECOMMENDATION: I I 1.1 Motion to waive the reading of the text of all ordinances and resolulions included in the agenda. 2 Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Approve the minutes of February 14, 2006; 2.2 Approve the minutes of February 28, 2006. 3 Resolution aoorovina List of Demands RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 06-25 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A 4 City Treasurer's Reoort as of January 31. 2006 RECOMMENDATION: 4.1 Receive and file the City Treasurer's Report as of January 31, 2006. 5 Police Deoartment OTS Seatbelt Mini Grant Fundina RECOMMENDATION: 5.1 Increase estimated General Fund Grant Revenue by $24,256; 5.2 Appropriate $24,256 from General Fund Grant Revenue to Ihe Police Department. 6 Resolution Chanaina the Time of Plannina Commission Meetinas RECOMMENDATION: 6.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: R:IMinutes1032106 4 I I I RESOLUTION NO. 06-26 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ESTABLISHING AN AMENDED MEETING TIME FOR THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION 7 Second Amendment to the Professional Services Aareement for Geotechnical and Materials Testina Services with EnGEN Corooration for Various Caoitallmorovement Proiects for FY2005-2006 RECOMMENDATION: 7.1 Approve the Second Amendment to the Fiscal Year 2005-2006 Professional Services Agreement with EnGEN Corporation in the amount of $25,000.00 10 provide as needed geotechnical and malerial testing services and authorize the Mayor to execute the amendment. 8 Western Bvoass Corridor - Phase I Alianmenl Studv. Proiect No. PW05-10 RECOMMENDATION: 8.1 Approve an agreement with URS Corporation to provide professional engineering services by doing a specific alignment study and determination for the Weslern Bypass Corridor - Phase I Alignment Study - Projecl PW05-10 - in an amount not to exceed $265,180.00, and authorize Ihe Mayor to execute the agreement; 8.2 Authorize the City Manager to approve Extra Work Authorizations not to exceed the contingency amount of $26,518.00, which is equal to 10% of the agreement amount. 9 Award the Construction Contract for Proiect No. PW06-01 - Slurry Seal Proiect FY2005- 2006. Redhawk Area RECOMMENDATION: 9.1 Award a construction contract for Project No. PW06-01- Slurry Seal Project FY 2005-2006 - Redhawk Area - 10 All American Asphalt in the amount of $563,690.50 and authorize the Mayor to execute the contract; 9.2 Authorize Ihe City Manager to approve change orders not to exceed the contingency amount of $56,369.05, which is equal to 10% of the contract amount. 10 Award Ihe Construction Conlract for Proiect No. PW06-02 - Citywide Concrete Reoairs Fiscal Year 2005-2006 RECOMMENDATION: 10.1 Award a construction contract for Projecl No. PW06-02 - Citywide Concrete Repairs Fiscal Year 2005-2006 - to S. Parker Engineering, Inc. in the amount of $ 95,257.50 and authorize the Mayor to execute Ihe contract; R:IMinutesl032106 5 I I I 10.2 Authorize the City Manager to approve change orders not to exceed the contingency amount of $ 9,525.75, which is equal to 10% of the contract amount. 11 Comoletion and Acceotance of Construction Contract Pechanaa Parkwav Phase liB Storm Drain Imorovements - Wolf Vallev Creek Channel - Staae 2. Proiect No. PW99-11 CH RECOMMENDATION: 11.1 Accept the Pechanga Parkway Phase liB Storm Drain Improvements Project - Wolf Valley Creek Channel- Stage 2 - Project No. PW99-11 CH as complete; 11.2 File a Notice of Completion, release the performance Bond, and accept a one-year Maintenance Bond in the amount of 10% of the contract amount; 11.3 Release the Materials and Labor Bond seven (7) monlhs after filing of the Notice of Completion, if no liens have been filed. 12 Comoletion and Acceotance of the Construction Conlract for the Rancho California Road Bridae Widenina over Murrieta Creek - Proiect No. PW99-18 RECOMMENDATION: 12.1 Accept the Rancho California Road Bridge Widening over Murrieta Creek Project - Project No. PW99-18 - as complete; 12.2 File a Notice of Completion, release the Performance Bond, and accept a one-year Maintenance Bond in the amount of 10% of the contract amount; 12.3 Release the Materials and Labor Bond seven (7) months after filing of the Notice of Completion, if no liens have been filed. 13 Comoletion and Acceotance of Construction Contract Traffic Sianallnstallation at Route 79 South and County Glen Wav - Proiect No. PW04-09 RECOMMENDATION: 13.1 Accept the Traffic Signal Installation Project at Route 79 South and Country Glen Way - Project No. PW04-09 - as complete; 13.2 File a Notice of Completion, release Ihe performance Bond, and accept a one-year Maintenance Bond in the amount of 10% of the contract amount; 13.3 Release the Materials and Labor Bond seven (7) months after filing of the Notice of Completion, if no liens have been filed. R:IMinutes1032106 6 I I I 14 Aooroval of the Plans and Soecificalions and Authorization 10 Solicit Construction Bids for the Rancho California Road Median Modifications between Interstate 15 and Ynez Road- Proiect No. PW05-04 RECOMMENDATION: 14.1 Approve the plans and specifications and authorize the Department of Public Works to solicit construction bids for the Rancho California Road Median Modifications between Interstate 15 and Ynez Road - Project No. PW05-04. 15 Acceotance of Quitclaim Deeds - Vail Ranch Parks and Ooen Soace RECOMMENDATION: 15.1 Accept the six Quitclaim Deeds for Vail Ranch Parks and Open Space and authorize the City Clerk to record the documents. MOTION: Mayor Pro Tem Washington moved to approve the Consent Calendar. Council Member Comerchero seconded the motion and electronic vote reflected unanimous approval. At 7:40 P.M., the City Council convened as the Temecula Community Services District and the Temecula Redevelopment Agency. At 7:42 P.M., the City Council resumed with regular business. PUBLIC HEARING 20 Aooeal of Plannina Commission Aooroval of Plannina Aoolication Nos. PA04-0490 throuah PA04-0492 for site develooment and construction of 428 residential units on 36.19 acres of a 47.72 acre site located at the northeastern corner of Loma Linda Road and Temecula Lane RECOMMENDATION: 20.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 06-27 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DENYING THE APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA04.0490, VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP; PA04-0491, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT; AND PA04-0492, DEVELOPMENT PLAN (PRODUCT REVIEW) FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF 96 SINGLE.FAMIL Y UNITS, 96 TRI-PLEX UNITS, AND 236 FOUR-PLEX UNITS (428 TOTAL UNITS) LOCATED AT THE NORTHEASTERN CORNER OF LOMA LINDA ROAD AND TEMECULA LANE City Attorney Thorson stated that due to a business relationship with D.R. Horton Continental through Rancon, Council Member Comerchero would not be participating in tonight's public hearing, (Item No. 20). It was also stated by City Attorney Thorson that due to her employer having a business relationship with the owner of the proposed property, Council Member Edwards would also not be participating in the public hearing. R:IMinutes1032106 7 I I I City Attorney Thorson relayed that although Council Member Naggar did not participate in the public hearing of March 22, 2005, due to a working relationship with DR Horton, he has not received any income from that assignment in the past 12 months; and that, therefore, under the Political Reform Act, he would be entitled to participate in tonight's hearing. On a procedural note, City Attorney Thorson advised that the Temecula Zoning Code would limit the scope of tonight's appeal to only those matters raised in the appeal filed by Mr. Mark Broderick; that a copy of his appeal has been included in the agenda packets; and that Mr. Broderick's appeal would not be whether or not to construct the project but where to locate a future roadway corridor connecting ultimately to Avenida De Missiones; whether Loma Linda Road should be a four-way roadway from Pechanga Parkway to Redwood Road; whether the future roadway should be a four-lane roadway from the intersection of Loma Linda Road and Redwood Road to Temecula Creek; and that, therefore, these traffic issues would be the only items concerning the project that the Council may consider during the appeal hearing. Director of Planning Ubnoske presented the City Council with a staff report (of written material). By way of overheads, Director of Public Works presented a report on the appeal (of written material), describing the process of how average daily trips are estimated. Referencing traffic impact fees, Mr. Hughes stated that the proposed project would be conditioned, as most projects are, to complete its frontage improvements along the project area; that the first phase would complete its improvements to Pechanga Parkway; that the applicant will be paying traffic impact fees and traffic signal fees; that the applicant will be paying for other improvements in the area that will help to mitigate its impacts; and that staff would be confident that the developer will be mitigating all the impacts of the project. Mr. Hughes stated that the proposed project will not exceed the Level of Service (LOS) D requirement of the City's General Plan. In response to Council Member Naggar, Director of Public Works Hughes noted the following: . That the roads for this project will be required to be built concurrently with the development; . That no construction schedule has been set for the future crossing of Temecula Creek at Avenida De Missiones . That the future construction of a crossing will be listed in the Capital Improvement Project (CIP) as a future project · That Redwood Road will be constructed with the Wolf Creek project; that the improvements along the southern half of Loma Linda Road will be completed at this point in time . That the Pechanga Parkway widening construction will commence in the near future . That trips related to Pechanga Casino will not be affecting Loma Linda Road . That residents would likely travel the Via Del Coronado to Via Cordova route to avoid Pechanga Parkway. At this time, the public hearing was opened. R:IMinutes1032106 a I I I A. Mr. Mark Broderick, Temecula, appellant for the proposed project, provided the City Council with a report (of written material) regarding traffic safety issues, highlighting the following concerns: . That there would be a concern with the location of the future roadway corridor connecting ultimately to Avenida De Missiones · That whether or not Loma Linda Road should be a four-way roadway from Pechanga Parkway to Redwood Road · That that whether the future roadway should be a four-lane roadway from the intersection of Loma Linda Road and Redwood Road to Temecula Creek. B. Mr. Patrick Fay, Temecula, relayed his concern with the crossing of Loma Linda Road and Via Del Coronado. C. Concurring with Public Works Director Hughes, Mr. Larry Markham, representing D.R. Horton Continental, noted the following: . That the applicant has met with the Temecula Unified Valley School District and that the District is aware of the need for the additional right-of-way which would eliminate some of the landscaping at the corner of the school's parking-lot area · That the School District would be opposed to a potential change to the circulalion element to Redwood Road as proposed in the appeal · That the safety issues brought up by Mr. Broderick with regard to liquefaction were adequately addressed in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) document through special studies that were approved by the Planning Department · That the applicant would be bound to comply with the General Plan and that any changes made by the applicant would result in the project being out of compliance with the City's General Plan, which was adopted in 2005 · That the proposed project, as stated by the Director of Public Works, would decrease the average daily trips to a lower level than what would have been anticipated in the General Plan, pursuant to the Professional Office designation; and that the project will meet and/or exceed the Level of Service criteria · That the applicant would be of the opinion that all criteria have been met or exceeded. · That the applicant would respectfully request that the City Council denv the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission's recommendalion. In response to Council Member Naggar's question, Mr. Markham stated that a traffic study was performed, which indicated that the bridge would not be needed to meet the Level of Service at any of the intersections within the parameters of the traffic study. At this time, Ihe public hearing was closed. R:IMinutes1032106 9 I I I Clarifying Council Member Naggar's query, Director of Public Works Hughes noted that at the time the project was being conditioned, it was slaff's opinion that the lowering of trip generation and the contribution of dedications would be necessary for the 66-foot collector; that the applicant would not be receiving credits and would be paying its full traffic impact fees; that the completion of the bridge would be achieved through those fees; and that the applicant would be making a cash contribution towards the eventual construction of the bridge; and that the applicant has also been conditioned to ensure that the geometrics could be made before the right-of-way was established. For the Council Members, Director of Public Works Hughes stated that the triggering mechanism to build a bridge would be the future degration of Pechanga Parkway; and that staff would be of the opinion that such a connection would not be anticipated for 10 years or more. Mayor Pro Tem Washington expressed concern with the bridge project being put on hold for 10 years and would be of the opinion that a projected date for the bridge project should be implemented. Referencing Mayor Pro Tem Washington's concern, Director of Public Works Hughes noted that if it were the desire of the City Council, more advanced, detailed studies could be completed and the bridge project may be programmed earlier in the Capital Improvement Program (CIP). Mr. Hughes also stated that there are numerous high-priority projecls in the Capital Improvement Program; that staff would be of the opinion that there would be adequate capacity on Pechanga Parkway for at least 10 plus years; that having the project identified in the Capital Improvement Program would be keeping the bridge projecl on the radar screen; that staff would not wait until Pechanga Parkway were to fail before starting the process; and that traffic counts and updates are completed yearly to ensure efficient functioning. Mr. Hughes noted Ihat the applicant's proposal would be in full compliance with the City's General Plan. Mayor Roberts queried if it were best to leave the bridge project in the CIP. Mr. Mark Broderick informed the City Council that he had contacted the School District and was informed that the District does not get involved in these matters and would not comment on the location of the road; that he would be hopeful that the City Council would consider the link at Via Del Coronado and the safety implications that it would have on the children in the area; and that he appreciated the time and effort given by staff with regard to his concerns. At this time, the publiC hearing was closed. Having had the opportunity to participate on the Citizens Advisory Committee along with Mr. Broderick, Mayor Pro Tem Washington expressed his appreciation to Mr. Broderick for his efforts. Ensuring the public that his number one priority would be the safety of the community, Mr. Washington advised that it would be his opinion that the project as proposed would be a safe configuration for the area. Echoing comments made by Mayor Pro Tem Washinglon, Council Member Naggar also relayed his appreciation for Mr. Broderick's participation with the Citizen Advisory Committee. After reviewing staff's report and its findings and understanding that the project will be in compliance of Ihe City's General Plan, Council Member Naggar relayed his support of the project and, R:IMinutes1032106 10 I I I therefore, expressed opposition to changing the configuralion to the widening of Ihe roads; and relayed concern with the future construction of a bridge but noted his preference that adequate funds be allocated for the future bridge project. Commending Mr. Mark Broderick on his efforts with the Citizen Advisory Committee, Mayor Roberts relayed his support of staffs findings bul expressed concern with the future bridge project. Mayor Pro Tem Washington suggested that in the future, City Council and staff explore the bridge issues in more detail and decide whether or not the construction of a bridge will be needed, associated costs, existing contributions, and additionally needed funds. Council Member Naggar questioned the nexus between the proposed project and the future bridge project. In response to Council Member Naggar's query, Director of Public Works Hughes noted that if it had been zoned Office Professional (OP) or Commercial, there would have definitely been a nexus that could have been assigned to the project which would have resulted in the project participating with the bridge project; that as a result of the proposed project, 13,000 trips would be removed off these roadways in the immediate area; that it would be difficult for staff to draw a clear-cut nexus connection to the applicant building the bridge when traffic studies would demonstrate that its improvements on Loma Linda Road would more than adequately address its impacts; and that the developer would also be paying the Development Impact Fees for traffic. Concurring with Public Works Director Public Works Director Hughes' commenls, City Attorney Thorson noted that with regard to the future bridge project, which would be a regional improvement affecting many different areas, the Council may require the applicant to participate up to fair share; and that with payment of the Development Impact Fees (DIF) and dedication of the right-of-way leading up to the bridge, these items would be considered the applicant's fair share for the proposed project. In response to Council Member Naggar's question, Director of Public Works Hughes stated that another project has been proposed immediately west of Temecula Lane, by the same developer; that it would a similar use and would result in lowering projected future trips and that traffic counts (as per staff report) would represent the proposed project as well as Ihe upcoming project. Director of Public Works Hughes stated that staff does support the Conditions of Approval; that the City Council may request that the frontage along the upcoming Temecula Lane project be added; but that in this case, staff considered a relief due to the fact that the frontage along the property would not lead anywhere. Mayor Pro Tem Washington expressed concern with the applicant not contributing to the frontage along the east side of the upcoming project. Director of Public Works Hughes reiterated that staff would be satisfied with approving the proposed project as written. R:IMinutes1032106 11 I I I In response to City Manager Nelson's query, Director of Public Works Hughes noted that the Development Impact Fees collected for this project would almost entirely for the 66' right-of- way. For the City Council, City Manager Nelson noted the following: . That in terms of timing for the bridge project, because configuration and design work would not be known at this time, it would be preferable to collect the fees and defer any actual improvements until such time · That on an annual basis traffic counts would be administered to ensure that roadways are performing at Level of Service · That on an annual basis, the City Council would have the opportunity to look at the Capital Improvement Projects, examine traffic counts, and at such time as needed, staff would have the ability to begin the design work and establish and identify the resources to construct a bridge. MOTION: Mayor Roberts moved to uphold the approval and denv the appeal. Council Member Naggar seconded the motion and electronic vote reflected approval with the exception of Council Member Edwards and Council Member Comerchero who abstained. COUNCIL BUSINESS 21 Plannina Commission Aooointment RECOMMENDATION: 21.1 Appoint an applicant to serve an un-expired term on the Planning Commission through June 15, 2008. MOTION: Council Member Naggar moved to appoint Carl Carrie to serve an un-expired term on the Planning Commission through June 15, 2008. Mayor Pro Tem Washington seconded the motion and electronic vote reflected unanimous approval. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT No additional comments. CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT City Attorney Thorson advised thallhere were no actions to report from Closed Session. 30 Economic Develooment Deoartment Monthlv Reoort 31 Plannina Deoartment Monthlv Reoort R:IMinutes1032106 12 32 Police Deoartment Monthlv Reoort I 33 Buildina and Safety Deoartment Monthlv Reoort 34 Public Works Deoartment Monthlv Reoort ADJOURNMENT At 9:28 P.M., the City Council meeting was formally adjourned to Tuesday, March 28, 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. ~~~"' ATTEST: " , , I ;, , I R:IMinutes1032106 13