HomeMy WebLinkAbout010802 CC MinutesMINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL
JANUARY 8, 2002
The City Council convened in Open Session at 7:03 P.M., on Tuesday, January 8, 2002, in
the City Council Chambers of Temecula City Hall, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula,
California.
Present: Councilmembers: Comerchero, Naggar, Pratt, Stone, Roberts
Absent: Councilmember: None
PRELUDE MUSIC
The prelude music was provided by Jonathan Santos, Jr.
INVOCATION
The invocation was given by Pastor Scott Treadway of Rancho Community Church.
ALLEGIANCE
The salute to the Flag was led by Cub Pack No. 148.
With great pride, outgoing Mayor Comerchero passed the gavel to incoming Mayor
Robe,s
PRESENTATIONS/PROCLAMATIONS
Certificate of Appreciation for Man/ann Edwards
Mayor Roberts presented the Certificate to outgoing Public/Traffic Safety Commissioner
Edwards who, in turn, relayed her delight in having had the opportunity to serve the City and her
enthusiasm with working with City as a School Boardmember.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
No comments.
CITY COUNCIL REPORTS
A. Councilman Naggar wished the public a Happy New Year and requested that the City
Manager explore options for addressing the appearance of the on and off ramps into the City.
Commenting on the City of Ontario's Rose Bowl Parade entry, Mr. Naggar requested
that the Community Services Commission explore the possibility of the City entering a City float
into the Rose Bowl Parade.
R:\Minutes\010802
1
B. In response to Councilman Naggar's suggestion of a City float entry, Councilman Pratt
relayed his support and requested that his traffic/transportation concept be agendized for the
next City Council meeting.
C. Having listened to Governor Davis' comments, at the League of California Cities
Conference, with regard to the Vehicle Licensing Fees (VLF), Councilman Comerchero noted
that Governor Davis relayed his support to not impact the VLF for this budget cycle but
expressed concern with Governor Davis' comments as it relates to future budget years in
particular the balancing of the State budget will have to be a partnership between the State and
the cities.
Having recently attended an update meeting between the Public Utilities Commission
(PUC) and the Bureau of Land Management (Federal Agency), Councilman Comerchero
advised that the two agencies addressed the Valley Rainbow Powerline Project, noting that both
agencies have been receptive to public comments, City comments, and other associated
agencies' comments.
D. In light of Councilman Comerchero's concerns as it relates to the State budget and
Governor Davis' future balancing intent, Mayor Pro Tem Stone relayed his support of an
initiative proposed by Councilman Bennett of the City of Corona (two cents of every dollar in
sales tax should be returned to the cities as well as 50% of the property taxes).
Noting that the existing Stop Light Abuse Program (SLAP) has not mitigated the running
of red lights throughout the City, Mayor Pro Tem Stone directed that the budget for this program
be doubled and that there be a demonstrable Police presence at the busiest intersection during
the busiest times of the day.
CONSENTCALENDAR
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.
Approval of Minutes
RECOMMENDATION:
2.1 Approve the minutes of September 25, 2001
2.2 Approve the minutes of October 9, 2001;
2.3 Approve the minutes of October 23, 2001;
2.4 Approve the minutes of November 13, 2001
2.5 Approve the minutes of November 27, 2001
R:\Minutes\010802
2
3 Resolution Approvina List of Demands
RECOMMENDATION:
3.1 Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO, 02-01
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS
AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A
4 Citv Treasurer's Report as of November 30, 2001
RECOMMENDATION:
4.1 Receive and file the City Treasurer's Report as of November 30, 2001.
5 Parcel Map No. 29974 (located at the northwest corner of Winchester Road and Roripau(~h
Road in the Winchester Meadows Shoppin(~ Center)
RECOMMENDATION:
5.1 Approve Parcel Map No. 29974 in conformance with the conditions of approval;
5.2 Approve the Subdivision Monument Agreement and accept the Monument
Certificate of Deposit as security for the agreement.
6 Parcel Map No. 30060 (located at the northeast corner of Maraarita Road and Winchester
Road in the Winchester Meadows Shoppinq Center)
RECOMMENDATION:
6.1 Approve Parcel Map No. 30060 in conformance with the conditions of approval;
6.2 Approve the Subdivision Monument Agreement and accept the Monument
Certificate of Deposit as security for the agreement.
7 Approval of the Plans and Specifications and authorization to solicit Construction Bids for
Maraarita Road Interim Widenina - Phase II - Proiect No. PW99-01
RECOMMENDATION:
7.1 Approve the Construction Plans and Specifications and authorize the Department of
Public Works to solicit construction bids for Margarita Road Interim Widening -
Phase II - Project No. PW99-01.
R:\Minutes\010802
3
8 Approval of the Plans and Specifications and authorization to solicit Construction Bids for
Citvwide P.C.C. Repairs FY2001-2002 - Project No. PW01-30
RECOMMENDATION:
8.1
Approve the Construction Plans and Specifications and authorize the Depadment of
Public Works to solicit construction bids for Citywide P.C.C. Repairs FY2001-2002 -
Project No. PW01-30.
9
Pala Road Phase I Improvements - Project No. PW99-11
RECOMMENDATION:
9.1 Approve the Negative Declaration and Environmental Report for the Pala Road
Phase Improvements, Project No. PW99-11;
9.2
Approve the Plans and Specifications for the construction of Pala Road Phase I
Improvement, Project No. PW99-11 and authorize the Department of Public Works
to solicit construction bids.
10 Joint Fundinq Aqreement with Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation
District for Detailed Desiqn for the Murrieta Creek Improvement Proiect - Project No.
PW01-25
RECOMMENDATION:
10.1 Approve a Joint Funding Agreement in the amount of $125,000.00 with the
Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District for detailed
engineering design costs associated with future flood control and recreational
facilities within Murrieta Creek.
11 Amendment to Professional Services Aqreement Land Development Construction
Inspection services
RECOMMENDATION:
11.1 Approve Amendment No. 1 to the Professional Construction Inspection Services
Agreement with Vail Cooper and Associates, Inc. for an amount equal to $54,284.00
and authorize the Mayor to execute the amendment.
12 All-Way Stop Sian Installation (located on Butterfield Staae Road at De Portola Road)
RECOMMENDATION:
12.1 Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 02-02
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA ESTABLISHING AN ALL-WAY STOP AT THE
INTERSECTION OF BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD AND DE
PORTOLA ROAD
R:\Minutes\010802
4
(With regard to Consent Calendar Item No. 12, it was noted for the record that letters
were received from Ms. Michelle Anderson and Ms. Gloria Dickson [copies of which
were provided to the City Councilmembers]).
MOTION: Councilman Naggar moved to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1 - 12. The
motion was seconded by Councilman Comerchero and voice vote reflected unanimous
approval.
At 7:27 P. M., the City Council convened as the Temecula Community Services District and the
Temecula Redevelopment Agency and after a short recess, resumed at 7:59 P.M. with regularly
scheduled City Council business.
PUBLIC HEARING
13 Paloma del Sol Specific Plan Amendment No. 8
(continued from the December 11, 2001, City Council meeting)
RECOMMENDATION:
13.1 Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 02-03
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA CERTIFYING ADDENDUM NO. 4 TO THE FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR SP-4 AND
APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 01-0109
(GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT) FOR THE PALOMA DEL SOL
SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 8 LOCATED EAST OF
MARGARITA ROAD, WEST OF BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD,
NORTH OF HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH AND SOUTH OF PAUBA
ROAD (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 01-019)
13.2 Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 02-04
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO.
PA01-0102 (SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 8) FOR THE
PALOMA DEL SOL SPECIFIC PLAN LOCATED EAST OF
MARGARITA ROAD, NORTH OF HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH, WEST
OF BU'I-FERFIELD STAGE ROAD AND SOUTH OF PAUBA
ROAD BASED UPON THE ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
CONTAINED IN THIS RESOLUTION
13.3 Introduce and read by title only an ordinance entitled:
ORDINANCE NO. 02-01
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA APPROVING AMENDED ZONING STANDARDS
FOR THE PALOMA DEL SOL SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT
NO. 8
R:\Minutes\010802
5
13.4 Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 02-05
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 01-
0117 - VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 24188
AMENDMENT NO. 4 FOR THE SUBDIVISION OF 293
RESIDENTIAL LOTS, I RECREATION CENTER LOT, 1 PARK
SITE LOT, AND 16 OPEN SPACE LOTS WHICH CONFORM TO
THE PLANNING AREAS, OPEN SPACE AREAS, AND PARK
SITES OF THE PALOMA DEL SOL SPECIFIC PLAN
AMENDMENT NO. 8 LOCATED EAST OF MEADOWS
PARKWAY, NORTH OF DE PORTOLA ROAD, WEST OF
BUTI'ERFIELD STAGE ROAD, AND SOUTH OF PAUBA ROAD,
AND FURTHER IDENTIFIED AS ASSESSOR PARCEL NOS.
955-030-003, 955-030-004, 955-030-006, AND 955-030-032
For the record Mayor Roberts noted the receipt of an indexed document regarding Newland
Communities' Planning Application Nos. 01-0109, 01-0102, and 01-0117, submitted by John C.
Condas, Esq., Michele A. Staples, Esq., Jeanine A. Scalero, Esq., firm of Jackson, DeMarco &
Peckenpaugh.
The staff report was presented
Providing an overview of the staff report (of record), Senior Planner Hogan noted that the
Paloma del Sol Specific Plan includes a General Plan Amendment, a modification to various
development standards, as well as a Tract Map; relayed the proposal to relocate the
commercial center, and to reduce the density; advised that this item was reviewed by the
Planning Commission where there were no major concerns, noting that while an adjacent
property owner has submitted letters regarding their concern regarding drainage issues, it was
the Planning Commission's determination to not subject the project to additional conditions due
to the drainage issue being previously addressed, and the solution still being in place; via
overheads, specified the location of the Open Space area, and the area which is now
Residential (which was originally Commercial); advised that the only remaining significant issue
between staff, the Planning Commission, and the applicant was the requirement for pedestrian
connections, specifying staff's recommended connections, and the applicant's opposition to
installing one of the connections, noting that the Planning Commission recommended approval
of this proposal without changing that condition (Condition No. 66).
Continuing his presentation, Senior Planner Hogan relayed that as part of this project's process,
there has been an addendum to the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared; and noted
that staff has evaluated the changes to the Specific Plan, and the changes to the environmental
impacts, and made a recommendation to the Planning Commission, which the Planning
Commission concurred with, that the addendum was an appropriate environmental document,
that the changes to the project were minimal, and that there would be no negative impacts with
this proposal, advising that this amendment would actually reduce various impacts (i.e., traffic,
and air quality).
For Councilman Comerohero, Senior Planner Hogan specified the planning areas in which the
densities had been reduced.
In response to Mayor Pro Tem Stone's queries, Director of Public Works Hughes provided
additional information regarding Assessment District (AD) No. 159, clarifying that while the City
R:\Minutes\010802
6
of Temecula was not administrating this district, staff worked closely with this department in
monitoring the activities of the assessment district; noted that the district was viable and had
bonding capacity, relaying that there was a limit to the amount of funds available for the
Butterfield Interceptor Channel Project, advising that there was a viable solution that the County
deems could be funded with the district if the Coronas were willing to offer the area needed for
the improvements; and noted that the applicant (Newland Communities) for this particular
project has offered to add monies to AD No. 159 to contribute towards drainage improvements
to aid in solving the Coronas' concern; confirmed that staff concurred that Newland
Communities' property does not drain across the Coronas' parcel, advising that it was his
understanding that the Coronas were contending that due to the improvements to Butterfield
Stage Road, a damning affect has been created, negatively impacting their property.
For Councilman Naggar, City Attorney Thorson confirmed that the changes, which have been
requested as part of this application, in staff's opinion, do not impact drainage or the Coronas'
property, noting that while staff opined that the two issues were separate, the Coronas disagree.
In response to Councilman Naggar, Senior Planner Hogan reiterated that it was anticipated that
the overall traffic volumes would be slightly less due to the reduction in residential units.
At this time Mayor Roberts opened the public hearing.
The applicant provides the proiect presentation
Mr. Barry Burnell, representing Newland Communities (the applicant), thanked staff, and the
Planning Commission for its thorough deliberations on all the issues; presented a PowerPoint
presentation, specifying the location of the commercial relocation, the Coronas' property, and
the detention basin; highlighted the changes to the plan resulting in the proposed Amendment
No. 8, additionally noting the changes which were associated with Amendment No. 7 (which
was approved two years ago), advising that staff, the Planning Commission, and the City
Council determined at the time of that amendment that there was no basis for additional
environmental review; noted that the three planning areas affected by the current amendment
are further from the Coronas' property than the property affected by the previous amendment,
advising that the applicant concurs with staff and the Planning Commission regarding this
proposed amendment, in particular that there is no nexus between the drainage concerns the
Coronas have raised and the current proposal; specified the location of the natural Open Space
area, the trail system, the private recreation facility, and the five-acre park; noted that this
project was originally approved for 5604 units, and has been reduced by approximately ten
percent (10%), relaying the current proposal at 5072 units; and advised that the previously
proposed school site has been relocated due to the lack of a need in this area.
Answering the questions of the Council, Mr. Burnell noted, for Councilman Naggar, that the
Open Space area will remain native in the center, that it was his understanding that there would
be some level of wetland mitigation in this area, that the edges would be manufactured and
contain drain structures and trails, clarifying that this 9-acre area could not be encroached upon
to enlarge the 5-acre park due to this Open Space area being designed according to the
Resource Agency's Standards; and for Councilman Comerchero, relayed that this development
project currently has approximately 4,000 dwelling units constructed at this time.
Public comments are heard
Ms. Michele Staples, attorney representing the Corona family, apologized for the lateness of the
lengthy material submitted to the City today, providing the rationale for the determination that
this data would be needed after reading the agenda packet material, noting that the information
includes a letter recently requested of AD No. 159 regarding the status of the district (denoted in
R:\Minutes\010802
7
supplemental agenda material as Exhibit No. 28), and data addressing Newland Communities'
request to be relieved from building restrictions placed on the project in 1999; specified that the
primary concern of the Coronas was that their property would now be subject to a flood hazard,
opining that this hazard was created by construction within the natural drainage area; requested
the City Council to deny approval of this particular application and require that Newland
Communities construct the interceptor channel facility, which is part of the project's master plan
of drainage facilities, and is required by the project's Conditions of Approval (COAs) and
mitigation measures; provided additional information regarding the County's determination in
1988 that the interceptor channel would be necessary to redirect flows approaching the project
from the east, advising that the County would not approve Specific Plan No. 219 without
inclusion of a requirement to construct the facilities as part of the project (referencing
supplemental agenda material on page 6, Exhibit 2, Tab A ); noted inclusion of an excerpt of the
project's original underlying COAs that incorporated the 1988 Flood District's letter which
required the construction of the interceptor channel prior to development of downstream
properties (per supplemental agenda material, Exhibit 2, Tab 3); provided additional information
regarding this facility not being part of the responsibilities of AD No. 159; referencing Exhibit No.
2, Tab D, noted that a 1996 letter written by the Flood Control District notified the City of the
need to consider enforcing the project's flood control issues related to conditions with respect to
the requirement for an interceptor channel; and advised that approval of this particular project
would violate CEQA standards, additionally noting that Newland Communities has no vested
rights due to all rights being dependent on the underlying conditions which includes construction
of the interceptor channel.
In response to Mayor Pro Tem Stone's request for clarification, City Attorney Thorson relayed
that it is staff's position that Newland Communities complies with the COAs by its contributions
to AD No. 159, advising that it was required that the infrastructure facility be built via AD No.
159, noting that contributing to the dispute at hand was the fact that the Coronas, and the
County entities which are charged with building the facility cannot reach agreement on the
location of the channel which will significantly affect the costs of the project, relaying that the
Coronas' concern is related to how the facility would impact the Corona property, and what the
Coronas' contribution should be; and clarified that this facility was required (via the COAs
associated with the project) to be constructed through the assessment district.
In response to City Attorney Thorson's comments, Ms. Staples reiterated that in the
supplemental agenda material submitted by the Coronas' attorneys, in Exhibit 2, in Tabs A, and
B that it is clear that the flood facility is required to be constructed prior to development of the
downstream acres it is meant to protect.
Addressing Councilman Comerchero's queries while referencing Attorney O'Neil's (attorney
representing Newland Communities) comments, which stated that the Coronas are unwilling to
accept their fair share of the cost in sought solutions for the construction of the interceptor
channel, Ms. Staples advised that this statement was false, that the Coronas have offered to
contribute their fair share of the difference of the project's facilities cost, that Newland
Communities is proposing to construct a 70-foot wide interceptor channel which would run
north/south through the Coronas' property; provided additional information regarding alternate
options for constructing an interceptor channel; and advised that with respect to staff's opinion
that this particular proposed amendment does not impact the drainage course, noted that one of
the planning areas included in this proposal is directly in the path of where the natural channel
used to exist.
For Councilman Naggar, Senior Planner Hogan relayed that Planning Area (PA) No. 4 is
currently designated as Medium Density Residential, clarifying that the proposed Specific Plan
Amendment is not changing the land uses in this area. Mr. Burnell clarifying that the only
change in PA No. 4 was a correction in the denoted acreage (from 42 acres to 40 acres), noting
R:\Minutes\010802
8
that there was an approved Tentative Tract Map which cannot be developed until the detention
is removed, which cannot be removed until the interceptor channel is built, clarifying that
Newland Communities was also being held up until this facility was constructed.
In response to Mayor Pro Tem Stone, Director of Public Works Hughes relayed that Newland
Communities' property included in AD No. 159, in comparison to the Coronas property was an
approximate ninety/ten-percent-type of distribution, confirming that a majority of the ownership
of AD No. 159 was Newland Communities'; and advised that the facility preferred by the
Coronas was more costly, noting that the more costly system would place more of the Coronas'
property out of the flood plain which would increase its value.
For Councilman Pratt, Ms. Staples advised that with respect to ownership, the Coronas had title
to their property prior to Newland Communities obtaining title to theirs.
Mr. Steve Corona, 33320 Highway 79, noted that Newland Communities unilaterally opted to
construct a permanent flood facility off-site (on the Corona property) without the Coronas'
knowledge, clarifying that the Coronas have never granted permission for any entity to place a
flood control channel across their property; reiterated that AD No. 159 does not have the funds
to build an adequate channel facility, ergo the responsibility falls to Newland Communities (per
the project's COAs); noted the efforts of the Coronas to aid in the facilitation of the development
of an adequate facility, relaying the funding of the costs of a hydrological study to correct
mistakes performed by the former consultants via AD No. 159; clarified the disputes regarding
the location and size options for this facility, advising that it is Newland Communities' desire to
locate this facility on the Corona property, and it was the Corona's desire for this facility to be
located where it would cause the least damage to the ongoing farming operation on the
Coronas' property, and any future use of the property; and requested the City Council to deny
any additional permits until this facility is built.
Dr. Robert Wheeler, representing Elsinore/Murrieta/Anza Resource Conservation District, 29090
Camino Albon, Murrieta, commended Attorney Staples for clearly stating the Coronas'
concerns; noting his concurrence; and opined that to approve this proposal if there are unmet
COAs and mitigation measures would be unjust, unreasonable, and potentially illegal,
recommending that if the City Council needed additional time to review the recently submitted
data, that this item be continued.
The applicant provides rebuttal
Mr. Sam Alhadeff, attorney representing the applicant, provided the following information:
Specified that the previously-referenced condition (regarding the requirement to provide an
interceptor channel) was imposed on December 27, 1997 when the City approved Paloma
del Sol Tract No. 24182, and required that the on-site detention basin remain until the
Butterfield Interceptor Channel Project is constructed;
Advised that there is a fundamental disagreement regarding who is responsible for
constructing the interceptor channel;
Relayed that the district has always been responsible for construction of the interceptor
channel, referencing a letter written to Mr. Steve Corona from the County of Riverside,
specifying the following:
That the Butterfield Interceptor was included as an AD No. 159 facility to be located at
the eastern district boundary,
That the Coronas requested that other alternative plans be investigated,
That it was the County's position that if the Coronas were willing to place the required
financial burden on the remainder of their property (which was outside of AD No. 159
R:\Minutes\010802
9
boundaries), that the Transportation Department would be willing to recommend
Alternative No. 5, and
That the County would require the Coronas' written concurrence to proceed with this
recommendation,
· Advised that it was undisputed in all the data and information before the City Council that
the original design plan was an open channel proposed to be installed on the eastern
boundary of the Coronas 19.1 acres that are in the City of Temecula, clarifying that the
Coronas are seeking to include another 145 acres that they own (east of the present district
boundary) to be additionally protected by flood control work, noting that the County has
addressed this desire, relaying a willingness to work with the Coronas regarding the
property, if the Coronas are willing to assist in the financing;
· Noted that Newiand Communities was additionally burdened by this issue, relaying that
there were 40 acres that cannot be developed until the interceptor channel is constructed;
· Advised that the Coronas have stated that they would be willing to contribute their fair share
if/as/when they cease farming which is not a feasible alternative, specifying that Newland
Communities has supported the Coronas in their alternative option, while noting that at this
time the Coronas favor a facility constructed 4800 feet east of Butter[ield Stage Road, and
includes flood protection for their other 145 acres of property;
· Provided additional information regarding the funds available in the district for the approved
Interceptor Channel Project (which is the open channel concept), advising that while the
Coronas are opposed to the approved project (due to their desire to protect their entire 165
acres), they do not desire to finance the additional costs due to having no knowledge
if/as/when they will have their property developed commercially;
· Reiterated that the current proposal before the City Council has no nexus with this
interceptor issue; and
· With regard to the interceptor channel, reiterated that Newland Communities had 40 acres
of property being detained until the interceptor channel is constructed, that the Coronas
would desire to have their entire 165 acres protected by an interceptor channel, that there is
sufficient funding for the approved design of the open channel project, and that the Coronas
are opposed to this approved project.
In response to the aueries of the City Council, Mr. AIhadeff relayed the followina:
· For Mayor Roberts, confirmed that these same issues were discussed on November 9, and
16, of 1991, advising that after the Coronas and Newland Communities came to an
agreement, the Coronas came forward stating that they could not move forward with the
agreement; and noted that subsequently a question arose regarding an equity hold which
was agreed to voluntarily by the applicant.
For Mayor Pro Tem Stone, relayed that an interceptor channel was a required improvement
of the district; and provided additional information regarding the history of the assessment
district.
· Noted that the assessment district members are to fund the intemeptor channel that the
engineers recommended for construction which was at the eastern edge of the district;
advised that there are sufficient monies within the district to provide an interceptor channel;
noted that if the Coronas were desirous of protecting all 155 acres (approximately 145 acres
of which are not in the district), they will have to seek an avenue for financing this project,
specifying that the differential in the cost of the facilities was approximately $4.5 million
(Director of Public Works Hughes specifying that the facility the Coronas desired to have
constructed further east was a more elaborate system than what was proposed by AD No.
159).
· Provided additional information regarding the County's supposition that the Coronas would
dedicate their property for the approved intercept channel, noting the benefits to the
Coronas if they were to do so (i.e., the increase in their property value with the
improvements), advising that it was his understanding that the Coronas would dedicate their
R:\Minutes\010802
10
property for the channel project if the location was relocated further east and would protect
all 165 acres of their property.
· For Councilman Pratt, advised that if the only area rained on was the Coronas 145 acres
which is not included in the district, the water would most likely travel into the Coronas 19.1-
acre parcel; and clarified that it has been stated by the Coronas that this area will most likely
be used for commercial property, and not remain farmland.
· For Councilman Naggar, specified that the recommended Open Channel Plan
(recommended by the district) has not changed, and that the cost for this facility would be
approximately $2.2-2.4 million with the dedication of the Corona property;
· In response to Councilman Naggar, noted that the applicant had approximately 188 lots
encumbered by the detention basin which could not be developed until the interceptor
channel is completed; and confirmed that the value of the 500 building permits additionally
being set aside until the channel is constructed is approximately $4.5 million.
· Advised that if it was the desire of the Coronas to have their 145-acre parcel protected
which was outside of the assessment district, the Coronas should bear this incremental
amount of money needed to protect all of their property, noting that the property owners in
this area could form a CFD or an alternate financing mechanism; and relayed that the
challenge at this point, was that the Coronas opined that their property was not ready for
development.
· Noted that two years ago the Coronas had the zoning changed on their property (within the
City limits) to Commercial, relaying that the entire property was being considered as a
whole.
· While not being opposed to the Coronas' desire to protect all of their property (inclusive of
the 145 acres not included in AD No. 159), relayed that it was the applicant's position that
the Coronas should fund the additional flood protection.
In response to Mayor Pro Tem Stone, City Attorney Thorson confirmed that there was a
Condition of Approval that stated that the assessment district shall build an interceptor channel.
Mr. Dennis O'Neii, attorney representing the applicant, clarified that the main issue regarding
this agenda item was the entitlement permits which were before the City Council, that the
applicant opined that the City Council should approve this application in association with the
Development Agreement, the sound planning, and all of the conditions being satisfied; advised
that these flooding issues have been addressed numerous times in the past; clarified that the
Coronas' negative impacts were created when Butterfield Stage Road was constructed by AD
No. 159, which the applicant had no control over; opined that the Butterfield Stage Interceptor
should have been constructed prior to the roadway's construction due to the road causing the
flooding condition to occur on the Coronas' property; clarified that if this particular proposal is
not approved, and the prior Specific Plan had not been approved, the Coronas' impacts would
not change; reiterated that while the applicant has been working with the Coronas, it was the
applicant's opinion that it would not be equitable for the City Councit to withhold development
rights until resolution is reached; and requested that the City Council discussions be focused on
the applicant's proposal before the City Council, and not the interceptor channel.
The City Council deliberates
Advising that these discussion issues (regarding the interceptor channel) were the same as
those held approximately two years ago, Councilman Comerchero provided an overview of the
discussions held at that time, specifying the request for the applicant to set aside the
development of a specified amount of lots for the purpose of attempting to create an equal
playing field; noted that although the issues of disagreement did not involve the City, there were
efforts to create balance between the parties; relayed that the issue presented before the City
Council at this time (the Specific Plan Amendment) was a minor change, and would serve the
best the interests of the City; urged the City Council to not lose sight of the charge to protect
R:\Minutes\010802
11
the City, and not solely Newland Communities, or the Coronas; with respect to Mayor Pro Tem
Stone's suggestion to continue this item for two weeks, and to form a Subcommittee to further
address these issues, noted that while this was a good plan, it would not be equitable if the City
Council makes the approval of the amendment contingent upon solving the interceptor channel
matter; and recommended the following: that the City Council approve this proposed
amendment, that the City Council expend approximately 30 days in an attempt to resolve the
channel issue, and that if this matter were resolved, that the hold on the Newland Communities'
units be released.
MOTION: Councilman Comerchero moved to approve staff's recommendation; to form a
Subcommittee in an attempt to resolve the interceptor channel issue; and to reagendize the
matter of releasing Newland Communities' 500 lots if the channel issue were resolved.
Councilman Naggar seconded the motion. (Ultimately this motion was amended in order to
specify the members of the Subcommittee; see page 14.)
Concurring with Councilman Comerchero's comments, Councilman Naggar relayed
appreciation for his well-articulated summary of the issues associated with this item; with
respect to the issue of whether or not a Condition of Approval has been upheld regarding this
project, recommended that there be investigation as to whether all the conditions were adhered
to; and reiterated his concurrence with Councilman Comerchero, in particular, that this proposal
would serve the best interests of the City, specifically due to the reduction in density, an
appropriate movement of Commercial property, and an extension of park space and Open
Space, concurring that this item should not be held up due to the interceptor channel issue.
In response, Councilman Comerchero advised that while it was important that the issue of
whether the applicant was in compliance with the conditions be determined, it was his opinion
that this decision was made during the seven previous amendments, additionally reiterating City
Attorney Thorson's comment that it was staff's opinion that Newland Communities had satisfied
the conditions.
In response, Councilman Naggar noted that without the Newland Communities development,
the Coronas would not have negative impacts, querying what the solution was if the Coronas
did not have the funds to participate in the drainage control solution,
For informational purposes, City Attorney Thorson relayed that currently the City of Temecula
does not write conditions, or attach comment letters, or typically do what was done in this case;
advised that all of the current Conditions of Approval are explicit as to what has to be done,
inclusive of a specified location; noted that any assessment districts or other financing
mechanisms are separate and apart from that; relayed that City staff does have vague issues
with respect to what was required of whom, and at what time; for Mayor Pro Tern Stone,
advised that in his view the requirement for an interceptor channel was a Condition of Approval
that the assessment district would build, noting that there was no clear-cut mandate for Newland
Communities to build the facility if the assessment district did not do so, additionally relaying
that there was no time limit set regarding the building of this significant drainage facility.
Mayor Pro Tem Stone advised that this particular condition (requiring the installation of the
interceptor channel) was included when the Specific Plan was being deliberated; acknowledged
that the unstable future of the assessment district was unknown at that time; noted that Newland
Communities, or its predecessors accepted this condition, knowing that they did not have the
control over the district to construct this amenity; advised that it was, and is, stressed from the
City Council dais that there be assurance that infrastructure will be in place prior to approving
projects; recommended that this item be postponed for two weeks, that two City
Councilmembers serve on a Subcommittee to hold discussions with the principals of each
opposing side, that there be agreement to re-agendize this issue the first meeting after the two-
R:\Minutes\010802
12
week period, and that at that point the City Council make a final determination; and advised that
addressing this issue would additionally aid in reducing potential legal fees which could result
from the outcome of the City Council's action.
At this time Mayor Roberts closed the public t~earing.
In response to Mayor Pro Tem Stone's comments, Councilman Comemhero concurred that
while efforts should be made to find resoIution, that Newland Communities was required to set
aside 500 lots two years ago, and were still required to do so, and that in his opinion this
proposed amendment should be approved.
Mayor Pro Tem Stone noted his reluctance to approve this application without the necessary
infrastructure in place.
For Councilman Pratt, City Attorney Thorson confirmed that without this proposed amendment,
Newland Communities could continue building with the exception of the 500-lot area, and the
detention basin area.
Concurring with Mayor Pro Tern Stone, Councilman Pratt relayed the importance of being firm
with respect to adherence to imposed conditions, in particular when the City was nearing build
out.
Referencing previously disclosed facts, Councilman Naggar advised that since the 500 set-
aside Jots are equal in value to the cost differential in building the channel, that there was
sufficient leverage to encourage equitable discussions.
For informational purposes, Deputy City Manager Thornhill confirmed the value of Newland
Communities' 500 lots which have been set aside; noted the additional area that Newland
Communities cannot develop which is where the detention basin is located. City Attorney
Thorson additionally noting the monies Newland Communities is obligated to pay into the
assessment district for their fair share of the costs of the interceptor channel; and provided
additional information regarding the issue of dispute regarding whose obligation it is to construct
the channel.
Relaying his reluctance to hold the parties up, Councilman Naggar queried the benefit of
continuing this matter for two weeks.
At this time Mayor Roberts reopened the public hearing.
In response to Council query, Mr. O'Neil relayed the applicant's willingness to meet with staff,
Council, or the Coronas in an attempt to address the interceptor channel issue; noted that the
channel can be funded and built at this time, advising that the dispute is regarding the approved
facility, and the fact that the Coronas are desirous of a facility costing millions more; relayed that
the applicant has satisfied the condition due to the existing provisions for the approved channel
project; concurred with Councilman Comerchero's motion which allowed for the proposed
amendments to go forward which benefited the City while still encouraging constructive dialogue
regarding avenues to actually construct the channel; relayed that since the applicant has
already been assessed $25 million to build AD No. 159 facilities, and was willing to place an
additional $2.5 million into this project, the applicant would most likely not be willing to pay an
additional $3 million; requested the City Council to consider this proposal in association with the
Development Agreement; and advised that the applicant has been attempting to resolve this
issue (the interceptor channel matter) with the Coronas for 2.5 years.
R:\Minutes\010802
13
At this time the public hearing was closed.
Mayor Pro Tem Stone advised that due to the importance of this issue, it was his
recommendation that this item be continued for 30 days in order to attempt to resolve the
interceptor channel dispute.
At this time City Clerk Jones reiterated the motion that was on the table.
City Attorney Thorson introduced Ordinance No. 02-01 and read it by title only.
Councilman Comerchero advised that he would amend the motion in order to include the
specific Councilmembers who would serve on the Subcommittee, and after additional
discussion regarding who would serve on this particular Subcommittee, the following motion
was offered:
AMENDED MOTION: Councilman Comerchero moved to approve staff's recommendation; to
form a Subcommittee consisting of Councilmembers Comerchero and Stone, in an attempt to
resolve the interceptor channel issue; and to re-agendize the matter of releasing Newland
Communities' 500 lots if the channel issue were resolved. Councilman Naggar seconded the
motion and roll call vote reflected approval of the motion as follows:
AYES:
Comerchero, Naggar, Pratt, and Roberts
NOES: Stone
City Manager Nelson relayed that discussions with staff, the Subcommittee members, and the
associated parties would ensue, recommending that during these discussions there be
consideration to construct an interim drainage improvement project.
COUNCIL BUSINESS
14 Selection of City Council Committee Assiqnments
RECOMMENDATION:
14.1 Appoint a member of the City Council to serve as liaison to each of the City
Commissions and Committees and to the Pechanga Tribal Council;
Commission Liaison (One Member)
· Community Services Commission - Jeff Stone
· Old Town Local Review Board - Sam Pratt
· Old Town Redevelopment Advisory Committee - Ron Roberts
· Planning Commission - Mike Naggar
· Public/Traffic Safety Commission - Ron Roberts
· Pechanga Tribal Council Liaison - Jeff Comerchero, Ron Roberts
MOTION: Councilman Comerchero moved to approve the Commission Liaison appointments
as noted on page 14. The motion was seconded by Councilman Naggar and voice vote
reflected unanimous approval.
R:\Minutes\010802
14
14.2 Appoint two members of the City Council to serve on each of the following Advisory
Committees; - (5-0-0) JC/JS
Advisory Committees (Two Members)
Community Service Funding Ad Hoc Committee - Mike Naggar, Jeff Stone
Economic Development/Old Town Steering Committee - Ron Roberts, Jeff
Comerchero
Finance Committee - Mike Naggar, Jeff Stone
Joint City Council/TVUSD Committee - Mike Naggar, Ron Roberts
Library Task Force - Ron Roberts, Jeff Stone
Old Town Temecula Community Theater Ad Hoc Committee/Theater
Advisory Committee - Jeff Comerchero, Sam Pratt
Public Works/Facilities Committee - Ron Roberts, Jeff Stone
MOTION: Councilman Comerchero moved to approve the Advisory Committee appointments
as noted above. The motion was seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Stone and voice vote reflected
unanimous approval.
14.3 Appoint member(s) of the City Council to serve on each of the following external
committees;
Representative Assiqnments (External Organizations)
· City of Murrieta Liaison - Ron Roberts, Jeff Stone
· County General Plan Update Committee - RCIP (attend meetings) - Jeff
Comerchero
· French Valley Airport Committee- Mike Naggar, Sam Pratt
· League of California Congress - 2002 Voting Delegates - Ron Roberts, Jeff
Stone
· Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan Committee (attend meetings) - Mike
Naggar
· Murrieta Creek Advisory Board- Sam Pratt, (Alternate Jeff Stone)
· National League of Cities Annual Congress - 2002 Voting Delegate - Ron
Roberts, Jeff Stone
· Riverside County Habitat Conservation Agency- Mike Naggar
· Riverside County Transportation Commission - Ron Roberts, (Alternate Jeff
Comerchero)
· Riverside Transit Agency Representative - Jeff Comerchero, (Alternate Sam
Pratt)
· State Lobbyist Ad Hoc Advisory Group- deleted
· Temecula Sister City Corporation Board of Directors - Ron Roberts
· Trails Master Plan Development Committee - Mike Naggar, Jeff Stone
· WRCOG Representative - Jeff Comerchero, (Alternate Ron Roberts)
MOTION: Mayor Pro Tern Stone moved to approve the appointments for the Representative
Assignments as noted above with the reflected deletion. The motion was seconded by
Councilman Comerchero and voice vote reflected unanimous approval.
R:\Minutes\010802
15
14.4 Appoint member(s) of the City Council to serve on each of the following Council
Subcommittees.
Council Subcommittees
· Animal Shelter Subcommittee- Mike Naggar, Ron Roberts
· Children's Museum Ad Hoc Subcommittee- Jeff Comerchero, Ron Roberts
- City'c Gonoral Plan Updato Committoo (to bo dolotod upon formation of tho
Gonoml Plan Stooring Committoo - Deleted
- Dovolopmont Ovorlay Subcommittoo- Deleted
· Electrical Needs Ad Hoc Subcommittee - Jeff Comerchero, Mike Naggar
· Homeless Programs & Services Subcommittee- Mike Naggar, Sam Pratt
· Lonnar Projoct Subcommittoo- Deleted
· Rancho Community Church Subcommittee- Ron Roberts, (Alternate Mike
Naggar)
· Roripaugh Ranch Annexation Ad Hoc Subcommittee - Ron Roberts, Jeff
Comerchero
· SAF-T NET Subcommittee - Jeff Stone, (Traffic Commissioner Connerton)
· Sports Park Ad Hoc Subcommittee - Jeff Stone, Jeff Comerchero
· Wall of Honor Ad Hoc Subcommittee - Jeff Stone, Jeff Comerchero
· Water Park Subcommittee - Mike Naggar, Jeff Comerchero
· Villages of Old Town Ad Hoc Committee - Mike Naggar, Ron Roberts
MOTION: Mayor Pro Tern Stone moved to approve the Council Subcommittee appointments as
noted above with the reflected deletions. The motion was seconded by Councilman Naggar and
voice vote reflected unanimous approval.
15 Public/Traffic Safety Commission Appointments
RECOMMENDATION:
15.1 Appoint two applicants to serve on the Public/-rraffic Safety Commission for full
three-year terms through October 10, 2004.
City Clerk Jones reviewed the staff report (as per agenda material).
MOTION: Mayor Pro Tem Stone moved to reappoint Mr. Darrell Connerton. The motion was
seconded by Councilman Naggar and voice vote reflected unanimous approval.
Commenting on the number of qualified applicants, Councilman Comerchero relayed his
support of Mr. Don Jones.
MOTION: Councilman Comerchero moved to appoint Don Jones. This motion died for the
lack of a second.
Reiterating Councilman Comerchero's comments on the number of qualified applicants, Mayor
Roberts relayed his support of Dr. Mark Wedel.
MOTION: Mayor Roberts moved to appoint Dr. Mark Wedel. The motion was seconded by
Councilman Pratt and voice vote reflected unanimous approval.
Councilman Naggar encouraged those individuals who were not selected to reapply in the
future.
R:\Minutes\010802
16
CITY MANAGER'S REPORT
No comment.
CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
City Attorney Thorson advised that with regard to Closed Session Item No. 1 and the first
portion of item No. 2, there was no reportable action under the Brown Act.
With regard to the second portion of Item No. 2 (Eddie Roy Elder vs. City of Temecula), City
Manager Nelson advised that there was no reportable action under the Brown Act.
ADJOURNMENT
At 10:03 P.M., the City Council meeting was formally adjourned to Tuesday, January 22, 2002,
at 7:OO P.M.,in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Basing. ia.
Ron Roberts, Mayor
~ .?~,q-FEST:
rk ~_~
[S[^t.]
R:\Minutes\010802
17