HomeMy WebLinkAbout102902 CC Workshop MinutesMINUTES OF AN ADJOURNED WORKSHOP MEETING
OF THE TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL
OCTOBER 29, 2002
The City Council convened in an adjourned workshop meeting at 6:07 P.M., on Tuesday,
October 29, 2002, in the City Council Chambers of Temecula City Hall, 43200 Business Park
Drive, Temecula, California.
Present: Councilmembers:
Absent: Councilmember:
Comerchero, Naggar, Pratt, Stone*, and Roberts
None.
* - Mayor Pro Tem Stone arrived at 6:12 P.M.
FLAG SALUTE
The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was led by Councilman Naggar.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
There were no public comments.
CITY COUNCIL REPORTS
There were no City Council reports.
COUNCIL BUSINESS
1 Tenth Workshop for the Riverside County Inteqrated Plan (RCIP)
RECOMMENDATION:
1.1 Provide direction to staff regarding the proposed comments.
City Manager Nelson presented a brief overview of the upcoming agenda items, referencing the
City's letter to the County Planning Department (dated October 30, 2002) with regard to City
comments on the Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan Amendment (CGPA) and the
Southwest Area Plan (SWAP). After City Council review of the letter, Mr. Nelson advised that it
would be staff's intent to submit it to the County Planning Department.
Commenting on efforts undertaken with regard to the Community Environmental Transportation
Acceptability Process (CETAP), Public Works Director Hughes noted the following:
· Goal to establish corridors which will conserve future Riverside County needs
· Alternative 7B (Winchester to Temecuta Corridor) would be the City's preferred route
· Alternatives 5A and 5B - City continues to oppose these routes
· County continuing with regional planning efforts which include the Multi-Species Habitat
Conservation Plan (MSHCP), CETAP, and land use.
R:\Minutes\102902
1
In the letter that will be forwarded to the County Planning Department, Mayor Roberts prefaced
that it be stated that Anza Road be designated as a four-lane arterial.
Public Works Director Hughes advised that the County will be funding the expansion of
Winchester Road from a two-lane to a four-lane road through allocated Newport Road funding;
that back-up funding for Newport Road has been assembled; and that additional funding for
expanding Winchester Road from a four-lane road to a six-lane road has not been secured. Mr.
Hughes noted that the Newport Road connection will be an important connection to the City
because of the traffic it will detract from Winchester Road.
Expressing concern with the City's future intent to purchase open space, Councilman Naggar
requested that a map be forwarded to the City Council depicting the County's intent with regard
to land use changes in the Southwest Area Plan (SWAP).
2. Western Riverside County Transportation Uniform M!ti,qatior~ Fee (TUMF)
RECOMMENDATION:
2.1 Receive and file.
By way of overheads, Mr. Rick Bishop, Executive Director for Western Riverside County Council
of Government (WRCOG), provided an update on the TUMF Program and apprised the City
Council of action taken by the WRCOG Board on September 30, 2002, noting/commenting on
the following:
· TUMF development process/timeline
· Identified system/associated costs/possible funding
· County growth
· Nexus study - determine to what extent new development will be responsible for
needed improvements to the regional system of highways and arterials
· Exemptions
o Churches are not exempt
· Transportation Strategic Plan
o Transit allocation-3.8%
o Regional Network- 96.2%
· 50% for backbone
· 50% return to Zone - development activity will be tracked to ensure
monies generated by the zones will be properly returned.
· No retroactive process on development for TUMF
City Manager Nelson referenced the County's five-year capital improvement program to ensure
the allocation of appropriate share of improvements.
Mayor Pro Tem Stone commented on the request which was made several years ago to impose
an interim TUMF Program. In response to Mr. Stone, it was noted that the County TUMF
Program should be adopted by February 2003. Mr. Stone suggested the adoption of an
Urgency Ordinance in order for the City to eliminate the continual loss of transit fees.
Mayor Roberts expressed concern with the nominal allocation of 3.8% toward transit to which
Mr. Bishop advised that 3.8% would be the maximum legal amount which may be set aside
based on the nexus study.
R:\Minutes\102902
2
Within the TUMF Administration Agreement, Mayor Roberts requested that the voting
mechanism for WRCOG remain the same (one vote) versus a Division of the House.
In response to Councilman Naggar, Mr. Bishop advised that for those cities choosing to not
participate in the TUMF Program, the ability to vote a WRCOG will be rescinded and if any of
those cities were to choose, at a later date, to participate in the program, retroactive fees would
be associated with such action.
In closing, City Manager Nelson advised that the matter would be addressed by the City Council
at its November 26, 2002, meeting and restated that the Council's direction to the Board of
Supervisors which included that churches with no schools be exempt from the program and that
the voting mechanism for WRCOG remain the same (one vote).
CiTY MANAGER'S REPORT
No comments.
CITY A'rrORNEY'S REPORT
Assistant City Attorney Curley advised that there were no items to report.
ADJOURNMENT
At 7:14 P.M., the City Council meeting was formally adjourned to Tuesday, October 29, 2002, at
7:15 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, of City Hall, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula,
California, for the purpose of a Joint City Council/Planning Commission Workshop.
Ron Roberts, Mayor
R:\Minutes\102902
3