Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout012902 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 JANUARY 29, 2002 - 5:30 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 11:00 P.M. Next in Order: Ordinance: No. 2002-02 Resolution: No. 2002-11 CALL TO ORDER: Flag Salute: Councilman Comerchero ROLL CALL: Comerchero, Naggar, Pratt, Stone, Roberts 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\012902 1 COUNCIL BUSINESS 1 Eiqhth Workshop for the Riverside County Inteqrated Plan (RCIP) RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Receive and file. Participation in the Riverside County Inteqrated Plan (RCIP) includina the Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Proqram (MSHCP) RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 02-__ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA REGARDING PARTICIPATION IN THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY INTEGRATED PLAN (RClP) INCLUDING THE MULTI- SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PROGRAM (MSHCP) COMPONENT Transportation Uniform Mitiqation Fee (TUMF) RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 02-__ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA REGARDING PARTICIPATION IN THE TRANSPORTATION UNIFORM MITIGATION FEE (TUMF) 2 3 CITY MANAGER'S REPORT CITY ATFORNEY'S REPORT ADJOURNMENT Next adjourned regular workshop: January 29, 2002, 7:00 P.M., City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California, for the purpose of a Joint City Council/Planning Commission Workshop. Next regular meeting: City Council, Tuesday, February 12, 2002, at 7:00 P.M., City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. R:",Agenda\012902 2 ITEM 1 ClTY OFTEMECULA AGENDA REPORT APPROVAL CITY A~-I'ORNEY DIRECTOR OFFINANCE CITY MANAGER TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: City Manager/City Council Gary Thornhill, Deputy City Manager~ January 29, 2002 Eighth Workshop for the Riverside County Integrated Plan (RCIP) RECOMMENDATION: Receive and File. BACKGROUND: This is the eighth 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 preparing the Preliminary Administrative Draft of the Western Riverside County MSHCP. Additionally, the traffic modeling 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 and will available for review by the Cities in the western Riverside County.. FISCAL IMPACT: None R:\STAFFRPT~rcip cc 8.docl ITEM 2 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY DIRECTOR OF FINANCE CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: FROM: City Manager/City Council Gary Thornhill, Deputy City Managed~'~''' DATE: January 29, 2002 SUBJECT: A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Temecula regarding participation in the Riverside County Integrated Plan (RCIP) including the Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Program (MSHCP) PREPARED BY: Stephen Brown, Senior Management Analyst RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the Resolution entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA REGARDING PARTICIPATION IN THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY INTEGRATED PLAN (RCIP) INCLUDING THE MULTI- SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PROGRAM (MSHCP) COMPONENT BACKGROUND: The Riverside County Integrated Plan (RCIP) has three components; a General Plan for land use, a Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP), and a regional Transpodation Plan. This Resolution focuses on the MSHCP component and does the following: · Endorses the use of a "Cell Map" to delineate a reserve system in order to obtain a Section 10A permit from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USF&WS). The approach is to identify areas that have habitat and/or sensitive species and preserve those areas while allowing development to occur on the areas that are not affected by those resources without review by the USF&WS. · Obligates the City to decide by a date to be determined whether or not to sign the application for the 10A permit in conjunction with the County and other cities participating in the MSHCP. · Acknowledges that the City agrees in concept to an implementation strategy for the MSHCP, which includes a fee for habitat acquisition, which will be paid for by developers. Approval of the Resolution only constitutes approval of the general concepts of the MSHCP, and does not obligate the City in any way. Further actions by the City Council will be required to become participants in the MSHCP through signing of a formal agreement. FISCAL IMPACT: None ATTACHMENTS: Resolution P;'~PLANNING~BROWNS~MSHCP Staffrpt 1-29-02 doc RESOLUTION NO. 2002- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA REGARDING PARTICIPATION IN THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY INTEGRATED PLAN (RCIP) INCLUDING THE MULTI- SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PROGRAM (MSHCP) COMPONENT WHEREAS, the City of Temecula recognizes that significant growth in the City of Temecula and in Western Riverside County is projected to occur during the next 20 years and beyond; and WHEREAS, this forecasted growth at build out of the sub region includes an additional 1,700,000 people, 580,000 households, and 840,000 employees; and WHEREAS, the City of Temecula has developed its General Plan as a blueprint for accommodating forecasted Cuture growth in its jurisdiction; and WHEREAS, the City of Temecula also recognizes that critical regional infrastructure is needed, with commensurate regional project mitigation necessary, in order to insure the sub region's continued quality of life; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council support the RCIP and endorses the concept of a Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Program component for the western portions of Riverside County. The City of Temecula acknowledges building critical regional infrastructure, providing open space and recreational opportunities and addressing the requirements of the Federal and State Endangered Species Acts are necessary components to insuring the quality of life for current and future residents and endorses the adoption of a Uniform Habitat Conservation Mitigation Fee by all jurisdictions in Western Riverside County to aid in funding the implementation of the MSHCP. The City endorses the use of the current draft "cell map" to delineate a proposed reserve system for the purpose of obtaining a Section 10A permit from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and that Exhibit "A" attached hereto identifies projects that are deemed "covered" under the 10A permit and therefore not subject to additional MSHCP processes. The City recognizes that the "cell map" and implementation measures are subject to environmental, state and federal agencies review, and extensive public review and a public hearing process and may change as a result of such review. The City agrees to determine, at a future date, that it will or will not sign an application for a Section IOA permit in conjunction with other cities, the County and other public agencies padicipating the MSHCP. P:~P LANN ING\Chingm~d SHCP Reso 01-29-02.doc · The City further agrees, in concept, to an implementation strategy (including a fee program for habitat acquisition). BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution constitutes conceptual approval regarding RCIP participation, and the City recognizes that formal commitment to participate in the MSHCP is subject to the City's signing of the Implementation Agreement; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Temecula recognizes that important administrative details need to be addressed in a forthcoming Implementation Agreement, including but not limited to acquisition and management of habitat areas and litigation responsibilities. The City of Temecula commits to working with other WRCOG-area jurisdictions to develop the Implementati, ~n Agreement, and endorses the concept of a centralized agency - perhaps a Joint Powers Authority - to ultimately oversee the MSHCP acquisition and administration processes set forth in the Implementation Agreement. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED, by the City Council of the City of Temecula this 29 day of January 2002. ATTEST: Ron Roberts, Mayor Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, California, do hereby certify that Resolution No. 02- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the th day of ,2002, by the following vote: AYES: 0 NOES: 0 ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS None COUNCILMEMBERS: None COUNCILMEMBERS: None Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk P:~PLANNING\Chingm~vISHCP Reso 01-29~)2.doc 2 ITEM 3 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY DIRECTOR OF FINAN.,C~.E CITY MANAGER ,,~ TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Manager/City Council Gary Thornhill, Deputy City Manage(~''' January 29, 2002 Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) PREPARED BY: Stephen Brown, Senior Management Anatyst RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a Resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 2002- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA REGARDING PARTICIPATION IN THE TRANSPORTATION UNIFORM MITIGATION FEE (TUMF) BACKGROUND: In 1999 the Cities of Temecula and Murrieta, in conjunction with Supervisor Buster's office initiated the first discussion on a fee program for funding transportation improvements on a regional basis. In March 2000 Supervisor Tavaglione also initiated a similar program for his district. As a result, the two efforts were consolidated under the Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) to address transportation funding and policies for all of western Riverside County. The need for a TUMF program cannot be understated. It is estimated that between eight and ten billion dollars will be needed to construct transportation facilities in western Riverside County to accommodate growth into the year 2025. To fund these facilities, two funding mechanisms need to be in place; a half (%) cent reauthorization of Measure A and TUMF, (a development mitigation fee charged to developers at the time of permit issuance). Participation in the TUMF is critical to the City of Temecula in that Measure A has been crafted in such a way that a jurisdiction's participation in the TUMF is required in order to receive local return to source funds. In addition, participation in the Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) is also required to insure that these projects receive environmental clearance. The attached Resolution identifies the need to develop a TUMF program but does not commit the City to adopting the implementing ordinance. Such issues as the amount of the fee, return to source districts, and the list of projects have not been formalized. Approval of the Resolution, however, will demonstrate the City's commitment to funding needed regiona~ transportation facilities and its' support of the Measure A reauthorization. P:\pLANNING\BROWNS\TUMF CC Staffrpt 1-29-02.doc t FISCAL IMPACT: None to the general fund. TUMF is a transportation fee charged at the time of new development. ATTACHMENTS: Resolution of the City of Temecula regarding the participation in the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee. P:\PLANNING\BROWNS\TUMF CC Staffrpt 1-29-02.doc 2 RESOLUTION NO. 2002- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA REGARDING PARTICIPATION IN THE TRANSPORTATION UNIFORM MITIGATION FEE (TUMF) WHEREAS, the City of Temecula recognizes significant growth in western Riverside County is projected to occur; and WHEREAS, the long term forecast of western Riverside County includes an additional 1,700,000 people, 580,000 households, and 840,000 employees; and WHEREAS, the future development within the western county sub region over the long term will result in traffic volumes in excess of capacity and which will adversely impact the existing regional system of highways and arterials; and WHEREAS, failure to improve capacity will cause unacceptable levels of service to occur through out the transportation system; and Whereas, a Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee imposed on new development to mitigate transportation will provide a revenue source to construct additional transportation infrastructure which has a regional benefit; and Whereas, TUMF will be a fair share and equitable method for distributing the un funded cost of the transportation improvements needed to accommodate the future traffic generated by new development and is subject to an AB 1600 study; and Whereas, absent a regional TUMF Imposing a fair share traffic impact fee on new development, existing and known future sources of revenue will be inadequate to improve substantial portions of the circulation system needed to avoid unacceptable levels of congestion and related adverse impacts; and Whereas, the TUMF will supplement other revenue generated dedication for transportation including state, federal and the reauthorization of Measure A sales tax/ NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council: acknowledges the importance of funding critical regional infrastructure and transportation improvements necessary to accommodate future growth and preserve the quality of life for current and future residents, and endorses the need for a TUMF to be adopted by the jurisdictions within western Riverside County and; Be it further resolved that this resolution constitutes conceptual approval regarding the participation of the TUMF program for western Riverside County, and the City of Temecula recognizes that formal commitment to participate in the TUMF is subject to the final approval of the TUMF Ordinance and Implementation Agreement by the City. R:~BROWNS\R C I P\TUMF CC Reso 1-29-02.doc PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED, by the City Council of the City of Temecula this 29thday of January 2002. ATTEST: Ron Roberts, Mayor Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, California, do hereby certify that Resolution No. 02- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 29th day of January, 2002, by the following vote: AYES: 0 NOES: 0 ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS None COUNCILMEMBERS: None COUNCILMEMBERS: None Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk R:\BROWNS\P. C I P\TUMF CC R6so 1-29-02.doc 2