Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout041001 CC MinutesMINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL APRIL 10, 2001 CALL TO ORDER The City of Temecula City Council convened in a regular meeting at 7:00 P.M., on Tuesday, April 10, 2001, in the City Council Chambers of Temecula City Hall, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. ROLL CALL Present: CounciJmembers: Naggar, Pratt, Roberts, Stone, and Mayor Comemhero. Absent: Councilmember: None. PRELUDE MUSIC The prelude music was provided by Mr. Kurt Jordan. INVOCATION The invocation was given by Reverend Howard Brown of Winchester United Methodist Church. ALLEGIANCE The audience was led in the Flag salute by Councilman Stone. PRESENTATIONS/PROCLAMATIONS Buildin.q & Safety Week Proclamation Noting the request for this week to be designated as International Building and Safety Week, Chief Building Official EImo relayed that this would be an opportunity for building departments across the United States to let people know what the function of the building department is, and to reduce the perceptions of the bureaucratic barriers so often associated with the building process; noted the lack of information the public has regarding the duties of a building official; advised that the California Building Officials have partnered with the California Building Industry Association in developing a video to provide information regarding the role of building officials, noting that the film was almost entirely filmed in the City of Temecula, and would be shown to 540 member jurisdictions throughout the United States; and presented the informative video, which highlighted how building safety affects our daily lives, the building official's process which includes Planning, Fire, and Public Works Engineering, and the building officials responsibilities during emergency situations (i.e., assessing earthquake damage.) In recognition of the Building and Safety Week,~ Deputy Building Official Harold provided an overview of the activities the City of Temecula's Department of Building and Safety woutd be involved with, or host, highlighting the biannual meeting held with developers in R:\Minutes\041001 the community on April 10th, the extension of hours in the Building Department on April 11th until 7:00 P.M., scheduled in order to provide homeowners an evening opportunity to access the Building Department, the April 12~h training program for the inspection staff, the hosting (in conjunction with Southern California Edison) of the May Update Seminar for local design professionals, energy consultants, and engineers; advised that per comments from customers, procedural char~Jes have been implemented to better serve the builders in the community, specifying the revised processes and procedures which have resulted in improved building permit and inspection procedures; and relayed that an updated plan check status was now available on the City's website. Mayor Comerchero read into the record the Proclamation of the City of Temecula, proclaiming the week of April 8-14, 2001 to be "International Building Safety Week;" and commended Chief Building Official Elmo, and Deputy Building Official Harold, for their diligent efforts in the Building Department. Public Health Month Proclamation Proclaiming the month of April, 2001, to be "National Public Health Month," Mayor Comerchero read into the record the proclamation of the City of Temecula. California Parks and Recreation Society Awards Presentation A representative from the California Parks and Recreation Society (CPRS) presented several prestigious awards which had been bestowed on the City of Temecula at the March 17th Annual Awards and Installation Banquet held in Sacramento, advising that while it was commendable for a city to receive one award, that the City of Temecula's achievements have been quite an accomplishment; presented the awards, as follows: 1) An Award of Merit in the category of marketing theme campaigning for the Temecula Valley Museum, 2) An Award of Merit in the category of personal development for the Temecula High Hopes Program, noting that the highest award was an Award of Excellence, presenting, 3) An Award of Excellence in the category of best single brochure for the Summer/Fall Leisure Guide to Activities, and 4) An Award of Excellence in the category of media communications for the High Hopes Program Video; and congratulated the City Council and their outstanding Community Services Department staff who provide these quality programs and services in the great community of Temecula. Relaying gratitude for the presentation of the awards, Mayor Comerchero noted that this was yet another tribute to the staff, noting the continued amazement at the quality of work of the Temecula departmental staff. PUBLIC COMMENTS Mr. Jack Henz, 43009 Manchester Court, relayed that her was speaking on behalf of Felicia Hogan, the Program Coordinator for the Temecula Valley Garden Club, which was presenting its 16th Annual Flower Show and Plant Sale on April 28~h from 11:00 A.M. to 4:00 P.M. at the library; invited all those growing flowers or vegetables in their garden to participate in the display, noting that prizes would be awarded; and advised that all the monies raised will be utilized for student scholarships. R:\Minutes\041001 2 Ms. MaryAnn Edwards, 42913 Calle Londe, relayed that a local family (the Lopshires) have a 12oyear old son who was born with a condition that has made him susceptible to life threatening bouts of asthma and pneumonia; advised that the medication which sustains Nathan's life is not covered by insurance; and relayed that there will be a fundraiser for the Lopshire family on April 25th, Nathan's 13th birthday, at Stadium Pizza in Redhawk from 6:00 to 9:00 P.M., noting that a generous percentage of the monies generated from purchasing pizzas at this event will go directly to the family. Mr. Mark Mush, 31731 Corte Avalos, commended Councilman Stone for his patience in dealing with the negative comments expressed from the representatives of the Temecula First group; noted his pleasure with the opening of Highway 79 (South); and advised that he was opposed to Councilman Naggar's concepts regarding campaign contributions. Mr. Harold Provin, 44750 Villa Del Sol, read a portion of a news article which stated that a group of residents have been bashing the City with the apparent intent of gaining control and turning Temecula into a short-sighted version of a moratorium city, highlighting the recent accomplishments in the City of Temecula, including convenient shopping, Iow crime rates, beautiful parks, new paramedic services, the Overland Bridge Project, and the numerous road improvements constructed prior to the mall opening. Mr. Ed Dool, 28464 Old Town Front Street, thanked staff and the City Council for the successful Western Days event held in Old Town, commending the City Council for their efforts in Old Town; and applauded the installation of the signage warning drivers of red light violations which had been placed at the intersection of Ynez/Rancho California Roads. It was noted that the City Council heard additional public comments after the City Council reports were considered; see page 4. CiTY COUNCIL REPORTS Concurring with Mr. Dool's comments regarding the effectiveness of the red light violation signage recently installed, Councilman Stone additionally noted that the Stop Red Light Abuse Program (SLAP) would be implemented, which encompassed a special traffic team designated at specific intersections to cite red light violators, as well as, stopping drivers who observe the yellow/red lights in order to give these conscientious drivers a reward (i.e., a gift certificate for a local restaurant); and thanked Police Chief Domenoe for his efforts organizing the program. Relaying that last Saturday, Mayor Comemhero and he had hosted the community workshop for the 40-acre Sports Park Project, Councilman Stone thanked all the residents who attended, advising that great input was provided. Mayor Pro Tern Roberts noted that last week a press conference was held announcing the donation of $4.4 million for the Pala Road Ultimate Improvements Project, relaying special thanks to the Tribal Chairman Macarro, the Tribal Council Members, and the members of the Pechanga Development Corporation. In addition, Mayor Comerchero relayed gratitude to the Tribal Councilman Basquez, who aided in the securing of this donation. Commenting on the Building Department being open on April 11th until 7:00 P.M. during Building and Safety Week, Mayor Comerchero recommended that City Hall be R:\Minutes\041001 3 opened up more frequently, requesting staff to investigate the feasibility of opening City Hall from 6:00 to 9:00 P.M. twice a year, providing an opportunity for residents to take tours, and to meet staff and the City Council. Echoing Mayor Comerchero's comments, Councilman Stone recommended consideration of holding a Saturday Open House for those individuals who are unable to come to City Hall on weekdays. Mayor Comerchero reiterated that Highway 79 (South) was now open from Avenida De Missions to the freeway, advising that there will be a Ribbon Cutting Ceremony held by the County on Thursday, April 12th at 9:30 A.M. at the corner of La Paz Street/Highway 79 (South). Providing additional information, City Manager Nelson relayed that the Iccp connectors were now fully operating. With respect to the signage warning drivers of red light violations, Mayor Comerchero advised that this concept was implemented as a result of a trip taken to the City of Brea where the signage was seen and photographed; and commended Director of Public Works Hughes, and staff, for the expeditious installation of the signs. At this time the City Council heard additional public comments. Mr. Wesley Hylen, representing the Rodpaugh Project, requested the City Council to consider expediting the processing of approvals for this particular project; noted the past discussions the Roripaugh representatives have had with staff and Councilmembers regarding expediting this schedule; specified the three additional items that the applicant has been requested to address, inclusive of mitigation for school facilities, energy efficient homes and buildings, and provision of a study to establish a traffic baseline for the project; advised that as long as the applicant is provided an expedited processing procedure the provision of the additional items would be acceptable to the applicant, as well as, having these items included as part of the Development Agreement; noted that this project would provide the City with the opportunity complete a major road bypass (i.e., the Butterfield Stage Road, and Murrieta Hot Springs Road Projects), relaying other improvements which would be implemented with the project; and requested that if this approval process cannot be expedited, that the City Council jointly process a separate Specific Plan and EIR through the City and the County simultaneously. For Councilman Naggar, Mr. Hylen confirmed that the applicant was willing to pay full level school mitigation fees, to go forward with an independent traffic study, to establish a moratorium of not more than 60 days at one time in a calendar year in regard to a Stage 3 electrical power outage, that the project's traffic would generate approximately twenty percent (20%) of the traffic on Butterfield Stage Road, but would provide approximately eighty percent (80%) traffic relief for vehicles from other areas, and that the project has reduced the residential units to 1721; in response to Councilman Stone, specified the applicant's timetable, noting that the construction of Butterfield Stage Road has been scheduled to be constructed from March of 2002 to October of 2002, advising that to meet this timeframe, approvals would be needed by August 15% Relaying the benefits of having land use authority, Councilman Stone advised that if this project goes to the County, the City will have no control over what will be approved. For Councilman Stone, Deputy City Manager Thornhill relayed that staff received the Draft EIR approximately a week ago, noting the required staff time for the extensive review; R:\Minutes\041001 4 advised that if the applicant could expedite his turnaround time for submittals, and if it was the City Council's desire to move this project forward, the earliest date that staff could bring this project to hearing would be in September, or October; and recommended that the Subcommittee work with staff at which time the timetable could be discussed and the Subcommittee could bring back a recommendation. Mayor Comerchero recommended agendizing this issue for the next regular City Council meeting, and at that time that the Subcommittee provide a report to the City Council. For Councilman Naggar, Mr. Hylen clarified the time restraints associated with this project, noting that the applicant has an option on the property, relaying that the applicant has to abide by that date. Mr. Richard Ashby, applicant for the Roripaugh Project, relayed that the EIR previously referenced was the third EIR that has been submitted; noted that Supervisor Venable was quoted in the newspaper, stating that he expects five million people visiting the new recreational dam every year, relaying that the Butterfield Stage Road Project would relieve Winchester Road and Highway 79 (South) from some of this anticipated traffic; noted that he has been working on this project since early 1998; requested that the City Council agree to fast-track the project or make the applicant aware that this would not be feasible so that the project could be processed through the County. City Manager Nelson advised that staff would schedule a meeting with the Subcommittee and agendize this matter for the April 24th City Council meeting. CONSENT CALENDAR 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. 2 Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Approve the minutes of January 16, 2001, Joint City Council/Planning Commission meeting. It was noted that Mayor Comerchero abstained from this item. 3 Resolution Approving List of Demands RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: R:\Minutes\041001 5 4 7 RESOLUTION NO. 01-24 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A City Treasurer's Report as of February 28, 2001 RECOMMENDATION: 4.1 Receive and file the City Treasurer's Report as of February 28, 2001. Approval of Funds for Plan Review Services with Esqil Corporation RECOMMENDATION: 5.1 Approve an expenditure in an amount not to exceed $50,000 for Plan Check Services with Esgil Corporation. License A.qreement between RCFCD & WCD and the City of Temecula for Via Montezuma Low-Flow Crossinq at Murrieta Creek - Proiect No. PW99-15 RECOMMENDATION: 6.1 Approve the License Agreement between Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (RCFCD & WCD) and the City of Temecula for the Via Montezuma Low-Flow Crossing at Murrieta Creek - Project No. PW99-15. Award of Construction Contract for the installation of a traffic siqnal at Margarita Road and Stonewood Road - Proiect No. PW00-18 RECOMMENDATION: 7.1 Award a contract for the installation of a traffic signal at Margarita Road and Stonewood Road - Project No. PW00-18- to DBX, Inc. for $132,000.00 and authorize the City Manager to execute the contract; 7.2 Authorize the City Manager to approve change orders not to exceed the contingency amount of $13,200.00 which is equal to 10% of the contract amount; 7.3 Approve a transfer of $80,000.00 Development Impact Fees - traffic signals, Pala Road at Loma Linda Road, and $80,000.00 from Pala Road at Wolf Valley Road for the installation of a traffic signal at Margarita Road and Stonewood Road. It was noted that Councilman Naggar abstained from this item. R:\Minutes\041001 6 8 Award of a Contract for the Light Emittinq Diode (LED) Traffic Signal Conversion Proqram - Project No. PW01-03 RECOMMENDATION: 8.1 Award the contract for the Light Emitting Diode (LED) Traffic Signal Conversion Program - Project No. PW01-03 - to Fluoresco Lighting & Signs for the corrected bid amount of $332,681.73 provided that they furnish and install the LED units by the June 1, 2001, deadline set by the California Energy Commission and authorize the City Manager to execute the contract; 8.2 Authorize the City Manager to approve change orders not to exceed the contingency amount of $33,268.17 which is equal to 10% of the contract amount; 8.3 Approve a transfer of $59,000 from Capital Project Reserves - Rainbow Canyon South Interchange - and $31,000 from Flashing Beacons 2000 for the Light Emitting Diode (LED) Traffic Signal Conversion Program This item was pulled for separate discussion; see page 8. Solicitation of Construction Bids and Approval of the Plans and Specifications for Proiect No. PW01-07 - FY2000-01 - Slurry Seal Proiect RECOMMENDATION; 9.1 Approve the Construction Plans and Specifications and authorize the Department of Public Works to solicit construction bids for Project No. PW01-07 - FY2000-01 - Slurry Seal Project. 10 Second Reading of Ordinance No. 01-05 (Monthly Compensation for City Commissioners) RECOMMENDATION: 10.1 Adopt an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 01-05 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING SECTION NO. 2.40.100 OF THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO MONTHLY COMPENSATION FOR CITY COMMISSIONERS MOTION: Councilman Stone moved to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1-7, and 9-10. The motion was seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Roberts and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Mayor Comerchero who abstained from Item No. 2, and Councilman Naggar who abstained from Item No. 7. R:\Minutes\041001 7 At this time the City Council considered Consent Calendar Item No. 8. Award of a Contract for the Liqht Emittinq Diode (LED) Traffic Signal Conversion Program - Proiect No. PW01-03 RECOMMENDATION: 8.1 Award the contract for the Light Emitting Diode (LED) Traffic Signal Conversion Program - Project No. PW01-03 - to Fluoresco Lighting & Signs for the corrected bid amount of $332,681.73 provided that they furnish and install the LED units by the June 1,2001, deadline set by the California Energy Commission and authorize the City Manager to execute the contract; 8.2 Authorize the City Manager to approve change orders not to exceed the contingency amount of $33,268.17 which is equal to 10% of the contract amount; 8.3 Approve a transfer of $59,000 from Capital Project Reserves - Rainbow Canyon South Interchange - and $31,000 from Flashing Beacons 2000 for the Light Emitting Diode (LED) Traffic Signal Conversion Program Director of Public Works Hughes provided an overview of the staff report (of record), noting that on February 13, 2001 the City Council authorized the Department of Public Works to advertise for construction bids for the Light Emitting Diode (LED) Traffic Signal Conversion Program, that on March 6th bids were opened, and that staff received eight (8) bids for this project; advised that the apparent Iow bidder (Fluoresco Lighting & Signs) submitted a bid with a possible omission in the bid documents, relaying that there were 15 bid items and that one was left blank; noted that the blank item was to provide for a cost for salvaging the excess existing equipment to the City Hall, clarifying that the contractor did not disclose a cost associated with that work. At the time the bids were reviewed, Director of Public Works Hughes noted that City Staff was of the opinion that this omission may result in disqualification of their bid, relaying, however, that when the omission was brought to the attention of the contractor, he provided written clarification indicating that the blank bid item represented a "0," or no cost for salvaging this equipment to the City; advised that postponing the award process, staff received a legal opinion from the City Attorney's office, noting that it was staff's clear opinion that it would be the City's prerogative to award to this Iow bidder, recognizing that the blank item represents an item with no cost. Apprising the City Council of the problem at this time, Director of Public Works Hughes relayed that the apparent Iow bidder has advised the City that he is not willing to guarantee that the work will be completed by June 1,2001; noted that typically this would not be a significant issue, but that in this case the City has a $140,000 grant paying for the bulk of this contract, and that this particular grant requires that the work be completed by June 1st, or the City would be in a position to have to request an extension of that time, relaying that the request for an extension could result in a reduction in the grant amount by ten percent (10%) if they opt to grant the extension, noting that they could choose not to grant the extension at all, which would put the entire amount of grant funding at risk; clarified that the staff report recommends that the award be made, and that it be contingent upon completion by June 1st, reiterating that the contractor (Fluoresco) has provided a written explanation R;\Minutes\041001 8 stating that the June 1st completion date would not be possible due to the delay in the awarding of the contract; advised that the second lowest bidder has indicated that they would be prepared to complete the work by June 1st, recommending that if the City Council opts to consider awarding to the second lowest, bidder that it would only be done based on the lowest bidder requesting that he be removed from the bid process; and noted that both contractors were present to answer questions of the City Council. In response to Councilman Stone, Director of Public Works Hughes relayed that on the other seven bids, the contractors had filled in the blank next to the item which was omitted by the lowest bidder. Councilman Stone opined that if the application was incomplete it should be considered null and void, and that subsequently consideration should go to the second lowest bidder (Republic Electric), advising that if this is not done, it would be his recommendation that all the bids be discarded and that the contract bids be reopened; noted that with the omitted item the contractor could have intentionally Iow-balled the bid, relaying that in his opinion it would not be appropriate to then allow this contractor to state that a "0," was meant to be placed by the omitted item, and to subsequently award the contract to this contractor. With respect to the potential to be penalized for not completing the project by June 1st, for Councilman Naggar, Director of Public Works Hughes relayed that in his experience typically stipulations are provided, encouraging cities to abide by those stipulations; noted that in almost all the cases that he has been involved with, where technicalities or dates were not met precisely, forgiveness was usually provided if the intent and the best effort was made on the part of the local agency to meet those requirements, noting that in this particular case, it was being heard Statewide that the overall date may be extended based on a shortage of equipment; in response to Councilman Naggar's queries regarding the worst case scenario, advised that in his opinion the most likely worst case scenario would be that the City would receive a ten percent (10%) penalty; and specified that the second lowest bid was $36,000 higher than the lowest bid. In response to Councilman Pratt's queries regarding Councilman Stone's comments with respect to starting the bid process over, Director of Public Works Hughes advised that due to the timing issues it would be his recommendation that the bid process was not begun again, noting that at this time the work would most likely be able to be completed within a couple weeks of the deadline if the lowest bidder was awarded the contract, and with the second lowest bidder, the contractor was committed to making the June 1st date, advising that if the project went back out to bid, the deadline would most likely be missed by several months. Addressing the questions of Council, for Councilman Naggar, Director of Public Works Hughes noted that the contract documents, as written, would hold the contractor responsible for meeting the intent of the grant application terms; for Councilman Stone, indicated that the omitted item on the lowest bid, had been included on the other bids at a cost ranging from $500 to $4556, specifying that Republic Electric's bid denoted a cost of $2500 for this item; and for Mayor Comerchero, advised that in all his years of experience if a contractor intended the cost for a bid item to be "0" cost, that the contractor would place a "0" dollar amount. Mr. Gary Gryder, representing Fluoresco Lighting and Signs, relayed that his company was the lowest responsive bidder on bid day; noted the Fluoresco filed a protest shortly after R:\Minutes\041001 9 they were made aware that their bid was non-responsive, advising that on March 19th they received an answer to that protest rejecting the bid, and had no further contact with the City until last week when Fluoresco received a fax from the Public Works Department requesting information regarding the materials supplier, and the company's ability to finish the work by June 1st; advised that the company does not keep this material in stock, did not anticipate being awarded the contract, and would not be able to complete the project by June 1st; and with respect to the omitted figure on one of the bid items, relayed that no figure was denoted due to there being no charge for delivering to the City the material that would be taken down. Ms. Laura Innes, representing Republic Electric, opined that the City Council should not award the contract to Fluoresco, but to Republic, who was in fact the lowest responsive bidder for the following reasons: to maintain fundamental fairness, noting that along with the $30,000 worth of math errors in Fluoresco's bid, there was the blank Item No. 15, advising that this omission is not an unheard of tactic among contractors, who desired to view the other bids and to reevaluate their position; additionally noted that posted on the City's website was the notice that the Fluoresco bid was disqualified, advising that this information was confirmed in writing by the City Engineer's Office via faxing the spread sheet which stated that Fluoresco's bid was disqualified, as well as, discussions with staff confirming the disqualification; relayed that Republic Electric does not keep these products in stock and that based on Fluoresco's disqualification, Republic ordered the materials in March in order to be able to make the June Ist deadline; noted that Republic can meet the June 1st deadline which will alleviate concerns regarding a possible ten percent (10%) penalty; provided additional information regarding the energy costs saved with the earlier installation; and concluded that since Republic was told that Fluoresco was disqualified, that Republic has the materials for the project, and that the project will be completed by June 1st, it is Republic's position that their company should be awarded the contract as the lowest responsive bidder. Assistant City Attorney Curley advised that the bid package has specified the June 1 st date, noting that the grant specifications have been included in, and made part of, the contract, clarifying that the June 1st date is a key matter; relayed that if was the City Attorney's Office's opinion that if one is stating that they cannot meet the terms of the contract, that this would be an unresponsive situation; addressed the omitted item in the bid document, noting that the bidder went on record stating the intent for that to represent a no cost item which could be considered valid, while noting that it was equally valid to view this as an unresponsive bid due to the expectation for a figure to be placed next to the item; and reiterated that a key issue with this project was the June 1st deadline. Recommending that the City Council maintain the integrity of the bid process which has been blemished in this case, Councilman Stone advised that it was only appropriate and fair to award the contract to Republic Electric, noting that this company filled out the bid correctly, and can meet the June 1st deadline. MOTION: Councilman Stone moved to award the contract to the second lowest bidder, Republic Electric. The motion was seconded by Councilman Naggar. (Ultimately this motion was amended; see page 11,) Councilman Naggar noted the importance of the City adopting a policy whereby the bid is required to be completed exactly as instructed, in order to prevent further discrepancies, requesting that this component be added to the motion. R:\Minutes\041001 MOTION: Amending his previous motion, Councilman Stone moved to award the bid to the second lowest bidder, Republic Electric, and to direct staff to tighten up the bid review process. The motion was seconded by Councilman Naggar. (Ultimately this motion passed; see below,) For future bid processes, Mayor Pro Tem Roberts recommended that staff not notify a contractor that a bid has been rejected until this fact is certain, concurring with Councilman Stone's comments. Mayor Comerchero opined that once Republic was notified that Fluoresco's bid was disqualified, and Republic subsequently ordered the materials in preparation to fulfill the time deadlines included in the terms of the contract, that the City was more than obligated to award the contract to Republic Electric. Noting his support of the City Council motion, Director of Public Works Hughes offered the following clarification: that the Public Works Department has a very stringent bid process, that staff did not have the authority to disqualify any bidder, that the previously referenced discussions between staff and the contractors had solely alluded to staff's expectation of what would occur, and not that a bid had been rejected, since this was not within the authority of staff; noted that staff will work to ensure that bids are coming in as clean as possible, while relaying that in this particular case, staff would not have been in position to discard the bid with the omitted item, and that it would still need to be brought before the City Council in order for staff to address the inconsistencies with the Council. Councilman Naggar queried whether the City Manager could be granted the authority to disqualify a bid. In response, Assistant City Attorney Curley advised that staff would further investigate the issue, noting that typically this was a non-delegable duty; and noted that staff would identify the extent to which bids could be handled administratively. At this time voice vote was taken reflecting unanimous approval of the motion. At 8:23 P. M., the City Council recessed, reconvening at 8:33 P.M., as the Temecula Community Services District, and the Temecula Redevelopment Agency. At 8:43 P.M., the City Council resumed with regularly scheduled City Council business. COUNCIL BUSINESS 11 Consideration of Subcommittee to consider Homeless Proqrams and Services (as requested by Councilman Naggar) RECOMMENDATION: 11.1 Consider the formation of a subcommittee to make recommendations to the City Council regarding Homeless Programs and Services Relaying that after Supervisor Buster's presentation at the March 27, 2001 City Council meeting which outlined the needs regarding the homeless in Southwest Riverside County, Councilman Naggar noted that he had requested that this item be agendized in R:\Minutes\041001 ! ! order for the City Council to consider establishing a Subcommittee to further discuss the issue and to make recommendations to the Council; and offered to serve on this Subcommittee. Mr. Chuck Washington, 29605 Solana Way, relayed his support for Supervisor Buster's efforts and his vision for this community; and volunteered to serve on this Subcommittee, noting his previous service experience in the last five years (i.e., assisting the Alternatives to Domestic Violence, and Habitat for Humanity Organizations). MOTION: Commending Mr. Washington for his desire to be involved, Councilman Stone moved to appoint Councilman Naggar, and Councilman Pratt to serve on the Subcommittee, recommending that the Subcommittee meetings be open to any citizen, including Mr. Washington, who would desire to participate and help solve this issue. The motion was seconded by Mayor Pro Tern Roberts. (Ultimately this motion passed; see below.) Concurring with Mr. Washington's comments, Mayor Pro Tern Roberts noted the benefits of involving citizens with this matter, advising that there are numerous programs in Southwest Riverside County serving people in need; and recommended that the Subcommittee gather information from these other organizations in order to form a cohesive evaluation as to the need in this area. Mayor Comerchero recommended that the Subcommittee n~t just address the sheltering of the homeless, concurring with Mayor Pro Tern Roberts that broader issues should be investigated. Noting the hardships that can render one homeless, Councilman Naggar relayed the desire to create a mechanism to aid in these situations. At this time voice vote was taken reflecting unanimous approval of the motion. 12 Consideration of Limitations on Campaiqn Contributions (as requested by Councilman Naggar) RECOMMENDATION: 12.1 Discuss limitations on Campaign Contributions and provide direction to staff. Providing the staff report (of record), Assistant to the City Manager Yates presented a brief history of the issue of limitations on campaign contributions as it relates to Temecula; noted that in April of 1997, the City Council adopted an Ordinance providing a voluntary expenditure ceiling equivalent to $1.00 per resident in the City, which had followed the enactment of Proposition No. 208 that permitted cities to establish such ceilings; advised that subsequently there was a legal challenge regarding Proposition No. 208, ergo, the City Council adopted an Urgency Ordinance repealing the 1997 Ordinance; and noted that at this time cities are beginning to once again adopt such volunteer campaign ceilings (i.e., the City of Murrieta recently adopted a ceiling limit set at $.50 per registered voter.) For Mayor Pro Tern Roberts, City Clerk Jones relayed that there were approximately 26,000 registered voters in the City of Temecula. R:\Minutes\041001 l:~ In response to Councilman Naggar, Assistant to the City Manager Yates provided an overview of Murrieta's recently passed Ordinance, advising that it was a volunteer ceiling limit, reiterating that with respect to expenditures the ceiling was set at $.50 per registered voter; and noted that staff could investigate the manner in which the City of Murrieta would address fundraising amounts attained above the expenditure ceiling. For Mayor Comerchero, Assistant City Attorney Curley advised that most of the ceiling limits are established with a voluntary structure, relaying that staff could further explore the issue. Mr. Chris Pederson, 31052 Wellington Cimle, n'oted that he was a proponent of setting campaign contribution ceilings in order to keep the elements of corruption and over- influence away from the process. Mr. Carl Ross, 43886 Butternut Drive, noted his support of campaign financing limits in order to limit the influence individuals, who are not registered as Temecula voters, have on the City of Temecula. Mr. Paul Jacobs, 32370 Corte Zamura Court, noted the shrewdness of Councilman Naggar raising the issue of placing ceilings on campaign contributions in a year when he is not running for reelection; relayed that it was clear that the challengers of the City Council were a very well organized group, noting that while it is commendable for Councilman Naggar to return a favor to his supporters, that the motive for setting campaign contribution limits at this time appears to be disingenuous, suggesting that Councilman Naggar revisit this issue when he is running for reelection so that he could experience the full impact of this desire. In response to Councilman Naggar, Mr. Jacobs relayed that he had no knowledge of the motive for the City of Murrieta recently setting campaign limits; with respect to allowing a $50,000 amount of total contributions, noted that while he could not provide advisement regarding the amount of financing necessary to organize a campaign, that a $50,000 figure seemed appropriate, relaying that in his opinion, individuals should be able to gather the resources they are able to obtain, and be able to amount a campaign as they see fit, as a matter of free speech, and free right; with respect to developers' comments allegedly made regarding the purpose of contributing a large amount of money to discourage other individuals from being able to run in the race, advised that in his opinion individuals make numerous comments during political campaigns, noting that it appeared that developers were continually being bashed while it was through their work that the City obtained wider roads, additional traffic lights, and the building of the houses that are lived in; clarified that it was the timing of Councilman Naggar's request that raised concern; and confirmed that Councilman Naggar should be willing to abide by the limits that may be established tonight. For Councilman Stone's queries regarding Mr. Jacobs's opinion with respect to a link between monies raised, and an individual getting elected, Mr. Jacobs noted that there was not a clear cut connection, advising that with large contributions if an individual did not have the support, he, or she, would not be elected; and confirmed that in his opinion it was dubious that this issue was being raised by an individual who may have difficulty raising money due to the lack of support for their political views. Noting that he would not be opposed to setting a limit at $.50 per registered voter, Councilman Pratt relayed that one could do a lot of campaigning for approximately $13,000, while advising that if funds beyond that amount have already been raised, that this limit R:\Minutes\041001 13 should not be retroactive; and noted that he would additionally support a limit for Councilmembers to serve for only two terms, relaying that these limits would provide more individuals an opportunity to serve in local government. Councilman Naggar opined that the rationale for considering setting campaign limits in numerous communities (i.e., the City of Murrieta) was for the purpose of limiting influence and to make running for City Council available to the average citizen; referenced a podion of the Murrieta Ordinance's preamble, which stated that large campaign contributions can undermine the public's trust in the electoral process and lead to unfair competition between candidates, relaying that campaigning ceilings have limited the appearance and incidents of corruption that have been experienced; clarified that he requested that this issue be considered specifically due to the large amount of money being raised and a specific intent brought up by a local fundraiser declaring that it is imperative that a substantial amount of money be raised for each candidate (currently serving on the City Council) to send a strong message to potential challengers; and advised that the average citizen cannot compete with the amount of these contributions. Via overheads, Mayor Pro Tem Roberts presented two mailers that had been distributed to Temecula voters during the 1999 campaign, noting that both dashed developers; advised that both of these items were sent from Action Mail in Escondido, relaying that they both had bogus addresses; after reviewing the disclosures of all the candidates two years ago, noted that while one candidate claimed over $4500 in payments to Action Mail, and another claimed under $400, it appeared that neither of these mailers were claimed by either of these candidates or by anyone else, clarifying that this was approximately $5,000 in postage expense from another source and not claimed in any filings; advised that if everything was equal, and a clean election had been held two years ago, he could support a Iow ceiling limit, noting that he was reluctant to setting Iow limits when others will most likely circumvent the system as in the last election; opined that a ceiling limit of $.50 per registered voter was not acceptable, relaying the funds expended by candidates during the election two years ago; noted that the previous 1997 Ordinance set limits at $1.00 per resident which had been suspended due to a later court decision, but could potentially be put back on the books at this time; and as a compromise, advised that he would be willing to support a ceiling limit of $.50 per resident, allowing the use of the California Department of Finance Population figures to be used as a guide for increasing the count prior to each election. MOTION: Mayor Pro Tem Roberts moved to direct staff to bring back an Ordinance setting a voluntary campaign spending limit of $.50 per resident. Mayor Comerchero seconded the motion. (Ultimately this motion was amended; see page 15,) Councilman Stone relayed that Councilman Naggar raised more money than any other individual during the last election, noting that one of his biggest contributors had been a developer that he has been extremely supportive of in the past (per his voting record), clarifying that he was not inferring that there was any wrongdoing, while expressing his resentment that Councilman Naggar, and others, were inferring that money is going to influence the votes of the other Councilmembers; advised that while he did not believe in campaign limits, or term limits due to the infringement of constitutional rights, that he would support Councilman Naggar's recommended $.50 per registered vote campaign limit if Councilmen Naggar and Pratt would relinquish their posts this year so that all the Councilmembers would be accountable for the same amount of money, and all five members could run for the seats this November. R:\Minutes\041001 For clarification purposes, City Manager Nelson relayed that the annexation of Vail Ranch will occur July 1st, advising that approximately 6,000 residents will be added to the population at that time. Mayor Comerchero recommended that a specific date be established for applying the population count, recommending that the motion be amended to include that the last day of filing for candidates (which is in August) to be the date utilized for the population count. MOTION: Amending his motion, Mayor Pro Tern Roberts moved to direct staff to bring back an Ordinance setting a voluntary campaign spending limit of $.50 per resident, and that the population count would be imposed the last day of the filing period. Mayor Comerchero seconded the motion. (Ultimately this motion failed; see below.) Assistant City Attorney Curley advised that the Constitutional authorization to place limitations on political speech revolve around an appearance of impropriety or some sort of corruption, noting that staff will come back with language in an Ordinance, reflecting the appearance of impropriety as the driving force behind the City Council's action; and noted that when the language comes back to the Council, that it should be carefully reviewed in order to ensure that it reflects the collective consensus of the Council. For Mayor Comerchero, City Manager Nelson advised that staff could bring back an ordinance in 30 days. Concurring with Councilman Stone, Mayor Comerchero noted that generally he would not favor campaign limits due to the infringement oh free speech; relayed that every individual had the ability to raise monies, while noting that he was opposed to those who write their own checks (citing a specific example of a candidate who ran for Assemblyman), advising that this creates an unequal playing field; noted that whatever limits are set, most likely there will be candidates who find avenues that do not have to be made pubic, recommending that the limits not be set too Iow so as to decrease this risk; and noted his support of the motion. Commenting on the motion, Councilman Naggar advised that there would be no way the average citizen could compete with the incumbency in this regard. At this time roll call vote was taken reflecting that the motion failed, as follows: 2/3/0 AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Councilmembers: Councilmembers: Councilmembers: Comerchero, and Roberts. Naggar, Pratt, and Stone. None. MOTION: Councilman Stone moved to direct staff to bring back an ordinance reflecting that the campaign contributions be voluntarily limited to $.50 per registered voter as of July 1st, 2001, contingent upon Councilmen Naggar and Pratt volunteering to relinquish their positions in November of 2001 in order for all five Councilmembers to abide by the same rules. (This motion died for lack of a second.) CITY MANAGER'SREPORT No additional comments. R:\Minutes\041001 15 CITY ATDORNEY'S REPORT No additional comments. ADJOURNMENT At 9:22 P.M., Mayor Comerchero formally adjourned the City Council meeting to the City Council Workshop on Tuesday, April 17, 2001 at 7:00 P.M. in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. ~/effr~Comerchero, Mayor ATTEST: ~.....~(~t ;a~l~r ~ J ° n e ~..~ ~ [SEAL] R:\Minutes\041001 16