Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout022701 CC MinutesMINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 27, 2001 The City Council convened in Closed Session at 6:15 P.M. and convened in a regular meeting at 7:01 P.M., on Tuesday, March 6, 2001, in the City Council Chambers of Temecula City Hall, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. Present: Councilmembers: Naggar, Pratt, Roberts, Stone, Comerchero Absent: PRELUDE MUSIC Councilmember: None The prelude music was provided by the Wong Family. INVOCATION The invocation was given by Father Sean Cox of St. Thomas Episcopal Church. ALLEGIANCE The salute to the Flag was led by Mayor Pro Tem Roberts. PRESENTATIONS/PROCLAMATIONS Certificate of Appreciation to County Fire Chief Larry Benson Mayor Comerchero presented a Certificate of Appreciation to Fire Chief Benson for his contributions to the City. Fire Chief Benson, in return, thanked the City Council for its efforts in placing public safety at the forefront, noting that as a result of such action, the Temecula Fire Department is one of the best prepared Fire Departments in the County of Riverside. In closing, Chief B'enson commended City staff on its efficiency and professionalism. Introduction of new County Fire Chief Tisdale Outgoing Fire Chief Benson introduced the newly appointed County Fire Chief, Tom Tisdale, who relayed his delight with having the opportunity to serve in the City of Temecula. Presentation of sponsorship checks to students travelinq to Sister Cities Nakayama and Voorbur,q Mayor Comerchero introduced and presented a certificate along with a $200 check to each student from Vail Middle School who will be traveling to Voorburg. Mr. Comerchero as well introduced and presented a certificate along with a $200 check to each student from Margarita Middle School who will be traveling to Nakayama. Mayor Comerchero thanked Recreation Coordinator Gilliland for her efforts associated with the Sister City Program. R:\Minutes\022701 1 Presentation by Eric Hale,/ of the Riverside County Transportation Committee with reqard to Measure A Transportation Financinq Mr. Eric Haley provided an overview of Measure A Transportation funding, noting the following: That the Measure was enacted in 1988 by a 79% vote and established a $1.2 billion, 20- year program, by way of a 1/2 cent sales tax for County transportation improvements That the 20-year program, at this point in time, has been virtually committed That the City of Temecula is well presented by Mayor Pro Tem Roberts who will chair RCTC in 2003 for a year; by Mayor Comerchero who serves as alternate and also represents the City on RTA; and by Mayor Pro Tern Roberts who represents the City on the Southern California Regional Rail Authority. Referencing the public opinion survey (as per agenda material), Mr. Haley focused on the voters' conclusions; highlighted independent projects; commented on habitat and open space issues; and supported the various programs, noting the following: · That 65% of Riverside County voters had indicated that they would extend Measure A if it were on the ballot today · That the Measure will either be placed on the ballot on March or November of 2002 · That passage of this Measure would extend the life of the Measure for 30 years, Presentation by Temecula Valley Unified School District regarding School Facilities Superintendent AIImen thanked the City Council for the opportunity to apprise it of the District's five-year School Facility Plan and introduced Assistant Superintendent for Business Services Okun and Director of Facilities Gallaher. Mr. Okun thanked the City Council and City Staff for its support and effective working relationship between the two agencies. Reviewing a presentation which was made to the Board on February 13, 2001, Mr. Okun stated the following: That the District has been very successful on obtaining State funding for schools That since the passage of Proposition lA (1998 State-wide ballot Measure), the District has received over $50 million for the construction of schools within the City That State rules as to allocation of funds for new school site construction have changed; that the change has affected the ability to obtain funding in the same manner; that the District currently has applications on file totaling over $90 million for future schools That because of the uncertainty as to when funding may be received, the construction program has been modified to meet the demand of this community; the modifications, as noted below, will result in changes in the School Facility Program; o Utilizing existing and current District classroom capacity; have sufficient classroom space available without changing to year-round education o Construction of new schools and additions to existing schools will be based on development fee balances; to maximize available funding, will construct new schools with a combination of permanent and portable buildings o District currently has 311 portable classrooms - 35% of total classrooms - that the ratio of portables does not significantly change in the five-year Plan o Use of portable classrooms provide the District to efficiently and quickly accommodate growth; economic way to provide classroom space and, in turn, extend available funding R:\Minutes\022701 2 o In order for the District to obtain Level 2 State funding (able to collect up to 50% of the cost to mitigate school impacts), the District must have 25% of its classrooms in portables o Five-year Plan includes the developer fee balances as well as development fees from new construction but it does not include any additional State funding for which applications have been submitted; that the Plan is based on development occurring within the City and County; that growth is important to the School District for a variety of reasons in that enrollment growth provides additional funding, noting that next year the District will receive $175 more per existing student o Reviewed the timetable of construction for the elementary and middle schools o Board has reviewed the Plan and is satisfied that the School District will meet the community needs. With regard to the Wolf Creek project, Mr. Okun advised that this project has two school sites; that the District has a Mitigation Agreement with the developer, which grants the District the ability to collect maximum fees under State law; that the District also has a Purchase Agreement with the developer, which grants the District to close escrow on the two sites and pay the developer the purchase price whenever State funding is received; that funding will not be allocated from developer fee balances. Mr. Okun noted that the developer has given the District approval to grade the middle school site in advance of closing escrow. From the School District's point of view, Mr. Okun noted Wolf Creek is a favorable Development Agreement under terms and constraints under State Law; stated that portables are a fact of life; that the District will maintain a minimum of 25% portables in order to continue to qualify for Level 2 funding; that the funding difference between Level 1 and Level 2 is significant; that Wolf Creek is mitigating its impacts; and that the development of this project will not result in overcrowding. In response to Mayor Comerchero, Mr. Okun advised that if the Wolf Creek project were to not proceed (loss of $12 million in mitigation monies and title to the land), the District would experience a housing problem in the southern part of the District, noting that these schools will provide additional space beyond what the project would actually generate. For Councilman Naggar, Mr. Okun advised that according to the plans, construction of the elementary school would begin during the 2002-2003 school year; that funding for the school has not been secured; that funding for the middle school has been secured, by way of development fee balances, if the Wolf Creek project were to proceed; and that if the project were not to proceed, the middle school would be pulled. Because of the sensitivity of these questions and the detailed information, Councilman Naggar expressed concern with being limited to three minutes to address the issues. Mayor Pro Tem Roberts thanked Mr. Okun for the factual information provided and Mr. Okun briefly reiterated funding allocation for next year for existing students ($4,883 plus $175) and new students ($4,883). For Mayor Comerchero, Mr. Okun clarified that full mitigation includes 50% (State Law) of the project's impacts, not the cost to build the school but the project's relationship to student generation. Addressing Councilman Pratt's comments, Mr. Okun advised that the Wolf Creek development will fill 80% of the classroom space, leaving an additional 20% of available space and that for the southern portion of the City, the District will negotiate a school site on the other side of the freeway to further address housing needs. R:\Minutes\022701 3 At 8:15 P.M., Mayor Comerchero called a recess and reconvened the meeting at 8:25 P.M. PUBLIC COMMENTS Mr. William Griffith, 22842 Mill Creek, Irvine, addressed the referendum with regard to the Wolf Creek project, particularly with regard to comments made by Councitman Naggar, noting the following: · That the information provided by Mr. Okun with regard to school facilities is accurate · That his efforts/workings with the School District began prior to his efforts/workings with the City; that originally three school sites were proposed; that currently two school sites are proposed; that mitigation agreements (executed September 20, 2000) have been entered in order to meet State mandated development fees and have also reserved $6 million in property available to the School District for which the developer will not be reimbursed until the School District has received State monies · That the 40-acre sports park and the northwest sports park (28 acres) are not the same, noting that the City would experience an additional $5 million in development cost. In closing, Mr. Griffith stated that the Wolf Creek project is a quality project and that he will fight the referendum based on misinformation. Echoing Mr. Griffith's concerns with regard to comments made by Councilman Naggar, Mr. Camille Bahri, 15751 Rockfield Blvd., addressed traffic issues, noting that the project traffic study was circulated and approved and that project approvals are conditioned on LOS D consistent with the City's General Plan; reviewed traffic mitigation measures being proposed as a result of this project, noting that the traffic generated from outside City limits continues to create the biggest traffic problems; and questioned why as it relates to the electricity crisis, existing projects, including industrial and commemial, are not targeted. For Councilman Naggar, Mr. Bahri advised that the prepared EIR was based on the following: · 1989 AD 159 Study · General Plan prepared in 1993 '. · Focus studies in EIR prepared in 1998-1999 · EIR has taken into account the County's new RCIP Corridor · Traffic analyses was based on conservative and old assumptions · Traffic report indicated that with ultimate improvements all associated links will properly operate In response to Councilman Stone, Mr. Bahri advised that the 1993 EIR calculations, prepared for the General Plan, considered City build out; considered property purchased by Pechanga as traffic generating capacity; and considered Pechanga tripling its operation. Mayor Pro Tem Roberts clarified that the CETAP Corridor, as referenced by Councilman Naggar, has not yet been adopted. Mr. Doug Haserot, 41976 Avenida Alvardo, thanked those Councilmembers who approved Wolf Creek, commenting on the amenities provided by this project and as well thanked the Council for the approval of many positive projects. Mr. Haserto noted that Councilmembers Naggar and R:\Minutes\022701 4 Pratt, who voted in opposition to this project, also voted against a fire station, two school sites, bike trails, storm drains, widening of Pala Road, landscaping medians, 40-acre sports park, and senior housing. He encouraged that efforts spent toward a referendum would be more beneficial if spent on petitioning the County and its growth impacts on the City. Mr. Louie DiBernardo, 35925 Rancho California Road, addressed, from his point of view, the Wolf Creek project. Mr. Chris Pedersen, 31052 Wellington Circle, viewed the referendum as a democratic process; advised that he will expend efforts to ensure the citizens will have the opportunity to vote on this project; and expressed concern with the applicant's representative actions to thwart citizens from signing the referendum petitions. Mayor Comerchero relayed dismay to those individuals who are circulating petitions and are not telling the truth with regard to traffic gridlock, etc. Ms. Pamela Miod, 31995 Via Saltio, informed the Council that as she was leaving the Temecula Target store, she had noticed a City Councilmember allegedly writing a name on the petition which was not his own name. Addressing the democratic process, Ms. Michelle Anderson, 43797 Barletta Street, representing Citizens First of Temecula Valley, commented on her observance of a special interest group blocking voters from signing the referendum petition to repeal Wolf Creek. Although the District has formulated a five-year Plan, Mr. Ed Elder, 42775 San Julian, commented on the funding from Sacramento and noted that the Plan is an adequate Plan but questioned whether it would be the best Plan. Ms. May Lorah, 35555 Monte De Oro, questioned why the 400 residents surveyed for the City survey are more validated than the 2,000 signatures included in the referendum and requested that her unincorporated area no longer be advertised as part of the City on the City's Website. Mr. Mark Bailey, 344763 Calle Banuelos, spoke in support of Wolf Creek and commented on the need for additional fields. Advising that he has had concerns relative to the Wolf Creek project since its initial review, Mr. Mark Broderick, 45501 Clubhouse Drive, appreciated the information provided this evening; noted that Wolf Creek has numerous amenities but there are impacts as well; noted that each resident should have the right to decide whether those impacts outweigh the benefits of the project; and stated that the referendum may slow the project down in order to address responsible growth. Wishing that there weren't a need for a referendum, Mr. Carl Ross, 43886 Butternut Drive, noted that, in his opinion, the matter could have been avoided had the traffic, school, and energy issues been properly addressed, stating the following: · Traffic - a condition should have been added that if traffic congestion exceeded a Level of Service D for the intersections in and around the area or on Pala Road, the issuance of building permits would be stopped · School - that if State funding were not available, the developer assure available funds for the construction of the schools · Energy- City must be a good steward as it relates to the energy situation. R:\Minutes\022701 5 Mr. Bart Buchalter, 30000 Rancho California Road, noted that no growth requires no thinking and would be taking the route of a default position. Mr. Buchalter encouraged smart growth. Concurring with Mayor Comerchero, Mr. Robert Oder, 29911 Mira Loma Drive, questioned if the City continues to deny projects where will the children and grandchildren live. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS A. Councilman Stone commended the Police Department on its Enforce Responsible Alcohol Consumption in Temecula Program, noting that over 100 individuals under the influence have been taken off the roads. B. Having met with Police Chief Domenoe to discuss the Stop Light Abuse Program (SLAP), Councilman Stone advised that this program will be implemented, noting that tickets ($271 violation) will be issued at targeted intersections to those individuals running red lights as well as gift certificates will be given to those individuals abiding by the law. C. Councilman Stone requested that staff be directed to proceed with the RFP process for the 40-acre sports park, noting that representatives from the Sports Council, two members from the City Council, two members from the Community Services Commission serve on a committee; and that the RFQ for the development of the new fire station proceed with two members of the Public/Traffic Safety Commission and two members of the City Council serve on a committee, encouraging public participation. D. Councilman Stone relayed his support of City Council's action to allocate funds to those students traveling to the City's Sister Cities, commenting on a life-time experience. E. Advising that the Commission will be addressing the Emergency Transportation Circulation Plan, Councilman Pratt encouraged the public to attend the March 22, 2001, Public Traffic Safety Commission meeting. F. In an effort to be proactive, Councilman Naggar requested that at the next Joint City Council/TVUSD Committee (comprised of Mayor Pro Tem Roberts and Councilman Naggar) discussion include the possibility of creating a task force to explore the changing of laws as it relates to school funding, G. Councilman Naggar requested that the ordinance, limiting Councilmembers to three minutes of discussion, be agendized and readdressed, viewing the amount of time as insufficient. H. In response to Councilman Naggar, Assistant City Attorney Curley commented on the signature collection process, addressing State laws, protocol to petitioning, etc., noting that if issues of hindering the signature process were to arise, the Police Department should be called. I. For Councilman Stone, Deputy City Manager Thornhill reviewed the Circulation Element of the General Plan, noting that two intersections of concern were referenced (Bedford Court and La Paz - at City build out and County) as unsatisfactory LOS F; that measures are being explored to address those issues; and that this unsatisfactory LOS should not solely be contributed to the Wolf Creek project. J. Mayor Pro Tem Roberts informed the City Council and the audience that he has been elected to another two-year term as District 5 representative to the Southern California Association of Governments Regional Council. R:\Minutes\022701 6 K. Mayor Pro Tem Roberts noted that the Wolf Creek project was approved by the City Council and that there are many other important issues for this Council to address, encouraging the Council and the public to move on. L. Mayor Comerchero apprised the City Council that San Diego Area of Governments (SCAG) has approved joint efforts between the City and SCAG and approved a $500,000 grant to study the job housing imbalance in San Diego County and Southwest Riverside County, noting that the study will determine methods in which to retain the City's workforce in the City and San Diego's workforce living in San Diego in an effort to address the traffic on 1-15. M. Concurring with Mayor Pro Tem Roberts' comments to move on, Mayor Comerchero stated that this entire process with regard to Wolf Creek has been disheartening, voicing no objection to the democratic process but expressing concern with the distribution of misinformation. Mr. Comerchero encouraged both sides to retain a peaceful atmosphere. CONSENT CALENDAR 1 Standard Ordinance and Resolution Adoption Procedure RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Motionto waivethereading ofthete~ ofallordinances andresolutionsincludedinthe agenda. 2 Resolution Approvnq List of Demands RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 01-18 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CiTY OF TEMECULA ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A 3 County of Riverside Sheriff Contract Amendment No. 2 - Vail Ranch Annexation RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 Approve the second amendment for law enforcement services with the County of Riverside for the addition of five patrol officers. 4 Appropriation of Local Law Enforcement Block Grant (LLEBG) Funds RECOMMENDATION: 4.1 Approve the expenditures of $62,040 in Local Law Enforcement Block Grant funds and local match funds for the purchase of police equipment. R:\Minutes\022701 7 5 First Amendment to a License Agreement with Temeka Advertisinq for the Administration, Marketinq and Installation of the City's Directional "Kiosk" Si.qn Proqram RECOMMENDATION: 5.1 Approve a first amendment to the License Agreement between the City of Temecula and Temeka Advertising for an additional five-year period for the administration, marketing, and installation of the City's directional kiosk sign program. 6 Environmental Assessment for the Murrieta Creek Crossinqs (EA-75) RECOMMENDATION: 6.1 Approve the Negative Declaration for Environmental Assessment No. 75 and direct staff to file the Notice of Determination. 7 Nicolas Road- Asphalt Removal and Replacement RECOMMENDATION: 7.1 Approve a contract for removal and replacement of 6" of asphalt and installation of asphalt cap on Nicolas Road with Gueno Development Company, Inc. for an amount not to exceed $51,800.00 and authorize the Mayor to execute the contract; 7.2 Authorize the City Manager to approve change orders not to exceed the contingency amount of $5,180.00 which is equal to 10% of the contract amount. 8 Completion and Acceptance for the FY1999-2000 Slurry Seal Pro.qram - Proiect No. PW00- 1--3 RECOMMENDATION: 8.1 Accept the project FY99-2000 Slurry Seal Program - Project No. PW00-13 - as complete; 8.2 File a Notice of Completion, release the Performance Bond, and accept a one-year Maintenance Bond in the amount of 10% of the contract; 8.3 Release the Materials and Labor Bond seven months after filing of the Notice of Completion, if no liens have been filed. MOTION: Councilman Stone moved to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1 - 8. The motion was seconded by Councilman Naggar and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. At 9:42 P.M., Mayor Comerchero convened as the Community Services District and the Redevelopment Agency and reconvened the City Council meeting at 9:45 P.M. R:\Minutes\022701 8 COUNCIL BUSINESS 9 Ordinance Amendinq Section 2.04.020 RECOMMENDATION: 9.1 Introduce and read by title only an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 01-04 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING SECTION 2.04.020 OF THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE REVISING THE TIME AND PLACE OF CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS City Clerk Jones reviewed the staff report (as per agenda material), commenting on the change of adjournment time to 11:00 P.M. and the inclusion of allowing Closed Session meetings to convene at varying times according to matters being discussed. MOTION: Mayor Pro Tern Roberts moved to approve the staff recommendation. The motion was seconded by Councilman Stone and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. DEPARTMENTAL REPORTS No additional input. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT With regard to a letter sent pertaining to Morgan Hill, City Manager Nelson informed the City Council and the viewing audience that after discussions with the County, the developer has tentatively agreed to set aside $1.5 million toward improvements on SR 79 (between the interchange and Pala Road) and proceeded with a brief overview of the differences between the Morgan Hill project and the Wolf Creek project. Having spoken to the developer (High Pointe), Mayor Comerchero reiterated the developer's commitment to provide $1.5 million, noting that a meeting has been scheduled for Monday, March 5, 2001, to solidify the commitment. City Manager Nelson advised that staff will be attending the March 20, 2001, County Board of Supervisors meeting. Noting that, in his opinion, several properties in AD 159, along SR 79, have not been adequately assessed to complete the ultimate improvements which then results in the City having to fund the s~ortfall, Councilman Naggar suggested that, if possible, it be determined what amount properties have contributed and proposed land use intensity in order to determine if an adequate amount has been assessed or if an additional assessment were necessary. CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT Assistant City Attorney Curley advised that there were no reportable actions under the Brown Act for Closed Session. R:\Minutes\022701 9 ADJOURNMENT At 10:15 P.M., the City Council meeting was formally adjourned to Tuesday, March 6, 2001, at 7:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. ,~"~ATTEST: [SEAb]: ~ - Jeff Comerchero, Mayor R:\Minutes\022701 10