Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout041701 CC Workshop AgendaIn compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the office of the City Clerk (909) 694-6444. Notification 48 hours prior to a meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to that meeting [28 CFR 35.102.35.104 ADA Title II] AGENDA TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP AN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 43200 BUSINESS PARK DRIVE APRIL 17, 2001 - 6:00 P.M. At approximately 9:45 P.M., the City Council will determine which of the remaining agenda items can be considered and acted upon prior to 10:00 P.M. and may continue all other items on which additional time is required until a future meeting. All meetings are scheduled to end at 10;00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER: Flag Salute: Councilman Naggar ROLLCALL: Naggar, Pratt, Roberts, Stone, Comerchero PUBLIC COMMENTS A total of 30 minutes is provided so members of the public may address the Council on items that appear within the Consent Calendar or ones that are not listed on the agenda. Speakers are limited to two (2) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Council on an item which is listed on the Consent Calendar or a matter not listed on the agenda, a pink "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the City Clerk. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name for the record. For all Public Hearing or Council Business matters on the agenda, a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the City Clerk prior to the Council addressing that item. There is a five-minute (5) time limit for individual speakers. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS Reports by the members of the City Council on matters not on the agenda will be made at this time. A total, not to exceed, ten (10) minutes will be devoted to these reports. R:~Agenda\041701 1 COUNCIL BUSINESS 1 Sixth Workshop for the Riverside County Inte,qrated Plan (RCIP) RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Receive and file. 2 Morgan Hill Specific Plan No. 313 RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Provide direction to staff. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT ADJOURNMENT. Next regular meeting: April 24, 2001, 7:00 P.M., City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. R:~Agenda\041701 2 ITEM 1 ClTY OFTEMECULA AGENDA REPORT APPROVAL ~-~;, CITY ATTORNEY DIRECTOR OF FINAN~. CITY MANAGER ,// TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: City Manager/City Council Gary Thornhill, Deputy City Manager April 17, 2001 Sixth Workshop for the Riverside County Integrated Plan (RCIP) RECOMMENDATION: Receive and File. BACKGROUND: This is the sixth in a series of workshops on the Riverside County Integrated Project presented to the Council by the County of Riverside Staff. The process of updating the plan began in 1999 with three goals in mind: · Plan the land uses within the County looking at a 20 year horizon. · Anticipate and plan for future transportation corridors in western Riverside County. · Gain certainty in the land development process by establishing a Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan. Work continues on the overall plan with the following major activities in process: The environmental consultant is in the process of assessing Alternative Number 1 for the MSHCP. Additionally, the EIR for the Circulation Element (CETAP) is under preparation. And lastly, the twenty-six Community Plans have received the tentative approval for analysis within the overall structure of the General Plan. FISCAL IMPACT: None R:\STAFFRPT~rcip cc6.doc 1 ITEM 2 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Council/City Manager Gary Thornhill, Deputy City Manager~'~%''- April 17, 2001 Morgan Hill Specific Plan No. 313 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY DIRECTOR OF FIN,~. E CITY MANAGER RECOMMENDATION: Provide direction to Staff. BACKGROUND: At the meeting of March 27, 2001, the City Council, making clear that they were not supportive of the project, instructed staff to communicate to the County the following: 1. That a condition of approval be added (see attached letter to the County dated April 6, 2001) requiring the payment of 1.5 million dollars for the mitigation of traffic along the Highway 79 South Corridor; and, 2. To formally request that the County establish an urban limit line to the east of the Morgan Hill project. Staff prepared the aforementioned letter to the County and attended the April 10, 2001 continued hearing on the matter before the Board of Supervisors in anticipation that the City's position on the project would be considered. However, just a few minutes before the Board convened, Jane Bouchard, Supervisor Buster's assistant, hand delivered a memo (attached) from his office to the Board that radically altered the project and the conditions of approval. In his memo, Supervisor Buster recommended that the Board continue the item for one week for the Board to consider his recommendation to revise the project. STAFF DISCUSSION: A brief summary of the key points is as follows: · The density would be reduced from 1,300 units to 890 units. · Major reductions in infrastructure responsibilities on the part of the developer would occur. This would include the deletion of the 1.5 million dollar commitment to the City to mitigate impacts along Hwy 79 South. · The developer would also be relieved of the financial responsibility for traffic signal and regional arterial road improvement fees and the County would agree to reduce road improvement costs for the project. R:\browns\growth managemcnt~Morgan Hill Staffrpt 4-24-01 I Furthermore, the obligation for park and open space fees, endangered habitat fees, and parkland dedication would be reduced or eliminated completely. In addition, Supervisor Buster proposed to establish a better transition between the urban and rural areas within the project by increasing lot sizes in certain areas of the project. Finally, he proposes to preserve "a block" of citrus trees in the project, to be held under the common ownership of the future HOA for the project. However, part of the proposal calls for the City of Temecuia to assume the financial responsibility for the long-term viability of the groves. Supervisor Buster proposes that this be accomplished by the City "agreeing to indemnify the HOA against any losses in the sale of the citrus fruit and sharing in major farm improvement for any replanting costs." The Board agreed to the continuance request, and continued the meeting for two weeks to April 24, 2001, without taking public comments. In consideration ofthe magnitude of the proposed changes in the project, staff has scheduled a meeting with Supervisor Buster, the City Council Subcommittee members (Mayor Pro Tern Ron Roberts and Councilmember Jeff Stone), and staff for April 16, 2001. Because this meeting was scheduled to take place after the Council staff reports distribution deadline, there will be a verbal report on the outcome of the discussions with Supervisor Buster at the Council meeting. FISCAL IMPACT: None ATTACHMENTS: Letter to Jim Venable dated April 6, 2001 - Page 3 Memo from Supervisor Buster dated April 10, 2001 - Page 4 R:\browns\growth managcmcnt~'viorgan Hill Staffrpt 4-24-0I 2 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 LETTER TO JIM VENABLE DATED APRIL 6, 2001 R:\browns\growth managcment~Morgan Hill Staffrpt 4-24-01 3 Ci_ty of Temecula April 6, 2001 Jim Venable Chairman of the Board Riverside County Board of Supervisors 4080 Lemon Street 14t~ Floor Riverside, CA 92501 Subject: Morgan Hill SP No. 313 Dear Chairman Venable: The Temecula City Council, at it's meeting of March 27, 2001, took the following action with respect to the above referenced project: Requested that, should the project be approved, the Board of Supervisors adopt the following Condition of Approval: Prior to the issuance of the first building permit, the developer shall pay an environmental mitigation fee for traffic impacts in the amount of $1,500,000.00. Said fee shall be deposited in a trust fund account established for the purpose of funding road and interchange improvements along the Highway 79 South corridor west of Pala Road. The City of Temecula and the County of Riverside shall jointly agree to the use the mitigation fee and the structure of the trust account. This mitigation fee shall fully mitigate existing and future traffic impacts from the Morgan Hill Specific Plan in the City of Temecula along the Highway 79 South corddor from Pala Road west up to and including the interchange at 1-15. In the event that the improvements needed to mitigate traffic impact from Morgan Hill along the mentioned reach of Highway 79 South are no longer needed or have been funded by alternative sources, the account may be used to fund othertraffic related improvements in the area within the City of Temecula. In addition, the city Council is formally requesting that the County establish an urban limit line to the east of the Morgan Hill property. City Staff will be preparing a map for City Council consideration at the April 24, 2001 City Council meeting. Once the recommended boundary is established, the map will be forwarded to the County with a request from the City that it be adopted by the Board of Supervisors as a policy document. I~1F~n[eo on ~ecy~e~ Pape, R:\BROWNS~agency review\SP 313 letter from the Mayor 4-3-01.doc Jim Venable April 4, 2001 Page 2 We appreciate your consideration of this matter and look forward to working with you on this issue. Sincerely, ...-- ' .,./.t~ Comerchero ,/ Mayor cc: Supervisor Buster Council R:\BROWNS\agency review~SP 313 letter tom the Ma~or 4-3-01revised,doc ATTACHMENT NO. 2 MEMO FROM SUPERVISOR BUSTER DATED APRIL 10, 2001 R:\browns\growth management~vlorgan Hill Staffrpt 4-24-01 4 4080 Lemon StreeL 14Ih Floor P.O. Box 1527 Rix erside. CA 92502-t527 (909) 955-1010 Fax {909) 955~10t9 I)a~id P. Stahoxich Maria Broos SUPERVISOR BOB BUSTER FIRST DISTRICT TO: Board of Supervisors FROM: Supervisor Bob Buster Item 3.30, Specific Plan No. 313, Morgan Hill April 10, 2001 Recommendation: Continue this item one week for Board consideration of the following project amendments. Revise the project to: Reduce the density. The project is situated on a prominent hill at Temecula's southern border. Because this hill is so visible, any development requires careful treatment. The County should not further crowd the rural perimeter of the Highway 79 South area. Instead of 1,300 units, the Board should establish a new design based on the Planning Department's alternative of 890 units, and cluster those units to achieve the following objectives: 2. Cut the developer's infrastructure costs and County fees. To provide an incentive to rework this project and make it financially feasible, the Board should recommend that: · Highpointe Communities rescind its offer to pay the City of Temecula $1.5 million for future improvements to Highway 79 South. · Tract homes within the project be consolidated to reduce utility service and road extensions. · Road improvement costs be cut by a County agreement to purchase and improve the rights-of-way for the extension of Butterfield Stage Road. · Rural road standards be implemented in suitable portions of the project. · Traffic signal mitigation and regional arterial road improvement fees be waived. · Park, open space and endangered species habitat fees be eliminated. · Park land dedications within the project be reduced or eliminated. · Other assistance and reductions be offered as appropriate. · Permitting be fasttracked. 3. Establish a compatible, lasting transition between urban and rural within the project by increasing lot sizes in the rear third of the project to 1 and 2 lY~T[RX.['r: districtl~co.riverside.ca.us 3 · 3 0 2 acres. Rural neighbors to the south have lots of 5, 10 and 20 acres. Complete urbanization of Morgan Hill could lead to the same thing on the undeveloped parcels behind it. This large project should extend and reinforce the green, open buffer which already exists northeasterly of Highway 79 S. all the way southwesterly to the Pechanga Indian Reservation. This would also reduce the number of future homesites exposed to the proposed route of San Diego Gas & Electric's 500 volt transmission line. Preserve a block of citrus groves in the project, preferably along the face of the hill facing the City of Temecula and Highway 79 South. The groves could be held under the common ownership of the future Morgan Hill Homeowners' Association (HOA) and leased to a commercial grower to insure upkeep. Retention of some of the groves would also be a benefit to the City of Temecula and its citizens by providing a scenic backdrop and reducing the traffic impacts of the present proposal. This new element of the project would be contingent upon City assistance in assuring the pen'nanency of the groves by agreeing to indemnify the HOA against any losses in the sale of the citrus fiuit and sharing in major farm improvements and any replanting costs. The County should also help by reestablishing aghcultural preserve status and reducing the property taxes accordingly on this portion of the property. Background: The rapid pace of Temecula's growth, more than doubling the population in the last decade, is not slackening. Residents and Council alike are now divided over how to handle new development approvals within the city. Faced with a succession of large developments in and around the city and a referendum and lawsuits within its borders, the City has had no time to plan for growth around its edges or even to make a counterproposal to Morgan Hill. The Board has a responsibility to assure that the community is improved by the developments we approve next to it. The County took an important step by setting aside the Johnson Ranch as a preserve. We can achieve an equally beneficial result here as well. The County should extend itself in this case. My proposal reduces traffic impacts on the City, provides an economic return to the property_.owner and developer, establishes and extends the green buffer around Temecula,~and insures compatibility with rural unincorporated neighbors.