HomeMy WebLinkAbout102902 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 [I]
AGENDA
TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL
WORKSHOP
AN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
43200 BUSINESS PARK DRIVE
OCTOBER 29, 2002 - 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 11:00 P.M.
CALL TO ORDER:
Flag Salute:
ROLL CALL:
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Councilman Naggar
Comerchero, Naggar, Pratt, Stone, Roberts
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\102902
1
COUNCIL BUSINESS
1 Tenth Workshop for the Riverside County Integrated Plan (RCIP)
RECOMMENDATION:
1.1 Provide direction to staff regarding the proposed comments.
2 Western Riverside County Transportation Uniform Miti,qation Fee (TUMF}
RECOMMENDATION:
2.1 Receive and file.
CITY MANAGER'S REPORT
CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
ADJOURNMENT
Next adjourned regular meeting: City Council, Tuesday, October 29, 2002, at 7:15 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, November 12, 2002, at 7:00 P.M., City Council
Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California.
R:~Agenda\102902
2
ITEM 1
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE
CITY MANAGER z:~CZ'~
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
City Manager/City Council
Gary Thornhill, Deputy City Manager
William G. Hughes, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
October 29, 2002
Tenth Workshop for the Riverside County Integrated Plan (RCIP)
RECOMMENDATION:
proposed comments.
That the City Council provide direction to Staff regarding the
BACKGROUND: This is the Tenth in a series of workshops presented to the City
Council concerning the Riverside County Integrated Project. 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 (MSHCP).
Work continues on the overall plan with the following major activities in process:
The environmental consultant is in the process of preparing the Draft of the
Western Riverside County MSHCP for public release in late October or early
November of 2002.
· A recommendation of the CETAP corridors will be presented to the CETAP
Advisory Committee on October 29, 2002.
The Riverside County Planning Commission has held several public hearings on
the Riverside County General Plan update. Three more meetings are scheduled
at the Commission before a recommendation will be forwarded to the Board of
Supervisors. The hearing for the Southwest County will be on December 9,
2002.
Recently, the RCTC Executive Committee voted to support route 7B, which provides an east
west corridor from SR 79 to 1-215 near Scott Road.
1
R:LAGENDA REPORTS~002\102902 Special Meeting\rcip ccl.docl
The City of Temecula has consistently advised the County that we do not support the alternative
routes of 5A or 5B which had proposed to use Butterfield Stage Road. It is our position that
Butterfield Stage Road shall remain as an arterial as indicated in our circulation element.
Attached is a draft letter on behalf of the city stating our position. Staff is requesting that the
City Council provide direction on this letter at tonight's meeting.
FISCAL IMPACT: None
ATTACHMENTS:
CETAP Routes
City comment letter regarding the County General Plan
2
R:~AGENDA REPORTS~002\102902 Special Meeflng\rcip ccl,doc2
Winchester to Temecula Corridor Analysis EIR / ElS AJternati~/es
'; i ~ ' / L 4 :Ta, Tb ..... _ ....
yrl H ~.
..... ' ;_~- .I ' ~ - ' 7a' -,~'~J ,
I '
%. ,,~ ~ ~ ~ /~ , ~ - ~ ~ - ~ - ,
~?' ~ R.~I~ .~ , ~--.m . -I .'~ ".. / ~I~ ~ * - ,
I I~v~lflflMMfl~~ ,' / // I,' . ~ / ," ~-
'~ / ~ ~ ~, ~. I ~ : , ~ ', / -/
--.. , ~ ~ ~ ~, ,/ / ~ ~ .
-,~~ ~-- .~.-- ., .-~ .: --< _
~2~ . ).~ --~ /V Highways
~ ~'*' ~ d~~ ~ /''~ ~ MaJor RoadsI
. . · / N Altematives
of Temecul a
43200 Business Park Drive - PO Box 9033 - Temecula -California - 92589-9033
(909) 694-6400 - FAX (909) 694-6477
October 30, 2002
Jerry Jolliffe
Deputy Director
Riverside County Planning Department
P.O. Box 1409
Riverside, CA 92502
Subject:
Comments on the Riverside County General Plan, Comprehensive General
Plan Amendment No. 00618
DearJerry:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on CGPA No. 00618. While most of our
comments are directed at the Southwest Area Plan (SWAP) some our comments are also
appropriate for the western County in general.
Community Centers
The Southwest Area Plan (SWAP) designates an area just north of the Temecula City
boundary in the vicinity of Winchester Road and Murrieta Hot Springs Road as a
Community Center. The concept and location of this Community Center is in accord with
our General Plan. We have designated this area as a Village Center Overlay within our
Sphere of Influence. Our Land Use Element states that the Village Center Concept is to
provide opportunities for development of mixtures of commercial and residential uses that
will minimize vehicular circulation trips, avoid sprawling of commercial development and
offer incentives for high quality urban design. One of our overriding concerns is that
Village Centers do not become a suburban shopping center or strip commercial plaza.
The City of Temecula and the County have roughly the same intent for this location;
however, the County's proposed designation of "Town Center" for this 175-acre site
envisions a more intense development scenario than the Temecula General Plan.
Therefore, the City is requesting that both jurisdictions coordinate very closely in the
planning for the development of this area. We would request that both the County and
The City of Temecula cooperate under the adjacent development MOU language adopted
by the County and the Cities of Corona, Riverside, and Moreno Valley.
C:~Documents and Settings~hughesb\Local Set~ings\Temp\G P comment Itr 10-164)2.doc
Citrus/Vineyard Policy Area
The SWAP intends to continue protection of this area with the land use designation of
Agriculture and supplemental policies. We do question some of the policies that seem to
contradict the stated goal of preserving agriculture for the long term.
Policy 1.1 uses a bullet to identify a sub-policy of "discouraging the introduction of urban
treatment such as sewers, curbs, gutters, street lights, and residential subdivisions that
encourage urban level of services. We would suggest altering the policy to change
"discouraging" to "prohibit the introduction..." This would absolutely ensure the protection
of the agricultural land uses. The mere introduction of a sewer treatment package plant
compromises the integrity of the agricultural land use designation.
Policy 1.3 calls for lots as small as 5 acres further compromising the agriculture land use
designation. In fact, later in the document, there is a statement that "5 acre lots do not
preserve the rural character" Using this reasoning, 5 acre residential lots could not, would
not, and do not preserve the agricultural character of the CitrusNineyard Policy Area.
Both of the policies stated above do not encourage the maintenance and sustainability of
the most important agricultural area in western Riverside County. Smaller lots and urban
level services are not conducive to what Riverside County is trying to protect.
CitrusJineyard is an important economic tool for both Temecula and Murrieta. It not only
brings tourist dollars to the area, it brings people who are interested in recreating here. The
rural nature of the landscape and the separation it provides from urban development
repeatedly attracts people to the area. It is a setting both residents cherish and tourist
enjoy.
The City of Temecula is requesting that the County ensure that the Goals and Objectives
of the new General Plan insure that agricultural lands are not prematurely or
unnecessarily converted to other non-agricultural uses. To this end, we would suggest the
adoption of policies that:
· Identify the farmlands within the County that are critical to the maintenance of the
local agricultural economy.
· Preserve and protect agricultural lands as a nonrenewable resource to assure the
continued availability for the production of food and fiber.
· Establish policies and regulations that restrict agricultural land to farming and
related uses rather than other development purposes.
· Restrict the introduction of conflicting uses into farming areas.
North Lake Skinner
This policy area locates rural residential land use designations, where lot areas are in
minimum of 5 acres. This is in conflict with the overall nature and attempt to preserve
an area where little development has occurred. It is an area that is occupied by hilly
terrain, where lots sizes are primarily 10-20 acres and larger. In order to protect the
open space, minimum lots sizes must remain 10 acres.
C:~D~cuments and Settings~hughesb~cal Settings\Temp\G P comment ltr 10-16-02.doc 2
Policy statement 2.1 is confusing and at the very least an inconsistency in terms. How
can the Plan require 10-acre minimum lots size regardless of underlying land use
designation? The land use designation in the General Plan will be 10-acre minimum;
therefore "regardless of underlying land use designation" is immaterial. The policy
should be reworded to reflect 10-acre minimums.
Pauba Valley
Rural residential areas, east of Butterfield Stage Road, adjacent to Vail Lake have
strong community sentiment to remain in minimum 10-acre parcels. This area has
been referred to as the Valle de Los Caballos homeowner's area. This is located
generally northeasterly of State Highway 79, easterly of Anza Road and westerly of
Pulgas Creek Road. The City is strongly supportive of this request to establish a
separate rural policy area recognizing the minimum 10-acre lot size. Further, we
support the companion policies similar the Citrus Vineyard policies that guarantee
preservation of the equestrian oriented land uses.
Within the large lot area east of Butterfield Stage Road, north of State Route 79 South
is an area that is indicated on the SWAP map for Iow density residential (2-5 du/ac).
The current SWAP map preserves this area as Rural/Outlying use, which is consistent
with the large lots surrounding this particular area. We see no compelling reason to
increase the density of the area east of Butterfield Stage Road that is now occupied by
agricultural uses.
The City has commented in the past regarding our desire to establish Butterfield Stage
Road as an urban boundary line between the high density residential uses both in the
City of Temecula and Morgan Hill, and the larger lots to the east. The City is requesting
that the area east of Butterfield Stage Road that is currently designated on the Vision
Map as Low Density Residential be re designated as Rural Residential and that the
Foundation Map be changed accordingly. Also, please see our comment on rural
buffers below.
French Valley Airport Influenced Area
Riverside County adopted a French Valley Airport Influence Land Use Plan clearly
identifying areas impacted by the airport. It also identifies areas where residential uses
should not be allowed. Over the years the Board of Supervisors has approved
residential development within "Influence Areas". The policy developed for this section
of the Plan is not consistent with the history of the Board. Either the Land Use Plan for
the airport should be amended, or Riverside County must comply with its own Plan.
Circulation and Transportation
We wish to bring to the County's attention our comments that we will be submitting to
the Riverside County Transportation Commission regarding the CETAP Winchester to
Temecula Corridor Alternatives. The City of Temecula commented on one alternative
that would have designated Butterfield Stage Road as the Locally Preferred Route.
C:~Documen~s and Scttin ~hugh esb~Local Setdn~\Tcmp\O P comment Itr 10-16~)2.doc
3
The City is strongly opposed to CETAP corridor alternative Number 5 because of the
enormous disruption it would cause to an established community. We did, however,
offer an alternative that would achieve similar results by requesting a modification to the
County's Circulation Element.
Currently the County's Circulation Element and the City of Temecula's Circulation
Element designate Anza Road as a four lane arterial or secondary highway. Under the
proposed Circulation Element of the County's new General Plan, Anza Road is an
amalgamation of varying road widths from the proposed freeway interchange on 1-15 to
its terminus at Buck Road just below Lake Skinner. What the City of Temecula
envisions is a continuation of Anza Road from the end point on Buck Road to Borel
Road. From the juncture at Borel Road, the arterial highway would continue
northwesterly along the proposed alignment to Washington Street. This series of
connections would provide a continuous limited access roadway from the proposed
interchange on I-15, south of the existing State Route 79 South, to Winchester Road
where it intersects with Scott Road. It is imperative to make that connection on the
Circulation Element to ensure that a limited access road system can be constructed at
some point in the future to offset the staggering traffic projections on the 1-15 Freeway.
Multi Purpose Trails
There is scant mention in the Plan of a multi-use trail system and connectivity between
rural areas. We question the intensity of uses, and the appropriate location of multi-use
trails that feature equestrian capabilities. There seems to be connections between
homes constructed at an average 3.5 dwelling units per acre and areas designated for
large lot development where the keeping or riding of horses would easily be allowed.
Equestrian trails may cause conflicts on a trail system located in highly urbanized
areas.
Rural Buffers
One of the primary focus points of the Plan in the early stages of its development was
the separation of urban development from rural/agricultural areas. The concept was to
provide edges for more urban forms, such as subdivision development, commercial,
and retail areas, from the large lot development where agriculture and/or keeping large
animals is permitted. It gives a sense of area or at the very least "neighborhood" to
portions of western Riverside County.
C:\Documents and Set tings~hugh esb~ocal Settings\Temp\G P comment ltr I 0-164)2.doc
4
Individual landowners or developers that see the existing large lot inventory as potential
small lot residential development are compromising this concept. The most threatened
areas for encroachment into the buffer areas is north of French Valley at Scott Road,
which is a separator. This area is highly susceptible to developer interest, and will most
likely have individual proponents at the Board hearings to compromise the buffer
concept in this area. This is also a concern in the area south of Red Hawk/Morgan Hill.
The current Plan land uses are for large lot development between Red Hawk/Morgan
Hill and the Reservation.
Individual development proposals will be presented to the Planning Commission and
the Board of Supervisors during the hearing process to remove the large lot concept,
and replace it with smaller Iow density residential land use (2-5 du/ac) rather than rural
residential, which would be the buffer between the urban developed areas and rural
areas to the south.
We are opposed to these numerous requests to increase the density of the Draft
SWAP Land Use Map.
The rural buffer notion is an important element to the preservation of the feeling of open
space in an area where property owners are interested in keeping large animals, or
maintaining small farming operations. It also lets people merely driving by know that
they are passing French Valley, for example, and entering a more rural area (a break
from the rows of homes along the roadways). There may not be the identification of an
area name, but there certainly is the identification of a separation.
Watershed, Floodplain, and Watercourses
These types of landforms and potential hazards create an atmosphere that the
resident community enjoys for various reasons. The most important is to preserve the
watercourses through the policies noted in the Open Space Element of the General
Plan. The policies of the Open Space Element do not fully provide for the necessary
protections of watercourses, and/or floodplains. There are attempts to channalize
watercourses in order to accommodate greater residential densities at the expense of
the natural environmental created by the courses and floodplains.
In conjunction with the Open Space Element, the policies in both Elements must be
strengthened to protect the banks with adequate setbacks that would not interfere with
these important landforms and potential hazards.
General Comments
The General Plan RCIP Principles developed early in the process created an element
of certainty for the first five (5) years of the Plan. It is where the Board agreed that for
the first five (5) years of the Plans existence, the Board would not entertain any General
Plan Amendments. The purpose is to allow the Plan the time it needs to succeed or if
necessary determine where amendment would be appropriate. Its acceptance by the
Board is now creating issues with the development community, who initially supported
C:~Documcnts and Settings~hughcsbU~cal Sctting~\Tcmp\G P comment ltr 10-164)2.doc 5
the concept.
The City of Temecula strongly supports the Certainty Policies of the General Plan. The
Plan should be allowed an opportunity to settle in with the appropriate policies in place
for a time certain. At the end of five years the Plan could be amended to fix those
portions that are inappropriate.
Sincerely,
Shawn Nelson, City Manager
cc: City Council
Chairman, Riverside County Planning Commission
Chairman, Riverside County Board of Supervisors
Gary Thornhill, Deputy City Manager
Aleta Laurence, AICP, Director of Planning
C:~Documents and Set tin g~hugh esb\la~cal Setting~\Temp\G P comment ltr 10-16-02.doc
6
ITEM 2
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY ¢ ~ ,,
DIRECTOR OF FINALE
CITY OFTEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
City Manager/City Council
,~J~Bill Hughes, Director of Public Works / City Engineer
October 29. 2002
Western Riverside County "Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee"
(TUMF)
RECOMMENDATION:
Receive and File.
BACKGROUND: WRCOG Executive Director, Rick Bishop, will be making a presentation
this evening regarding the proposed Western Riverside County TUMF. The Western Regional
Cities have been working on developing a new regionaJ transportation impact fee to help raise
approximately $2.9 billion dollars for regional transportation improvements. As proposed, all
cities and the County of Riverside would adopt the uniform fee so that regional transportation
improvements can be financed and constructed. The WRCOG Executive Committee has
approved a draft nexus study and fee schedule that is moving forward to the various cities and
the county for adoption. Tonight's meeting will provide an opportunity to inform the entire City
Council of the forthcoming ordinance. It has been recommended that the effective date of the
new fee be no later than March 1, 2003. Any cities that do not take the appropriate steps to
implement the fee will lose their Measure A allocation as set forth in the new Measure A.
Mr. Bishop will be making a presentation to the City Council on the proposed fee and the
implementation strategy. The County Board of Supervisors are scheduled to take action on the
ordinance at their November 5th Board meeting, and the other Western Riverside Cities will
follow with their own ordinances.
FISCAL IMPACT: None
ATTACHMENTS: Draft Ordinance
I
R:~AGENDA REPORTS~2002\102902\TUMF.doc1
DRAFT-FOR DISCUSSION
PURPOSES ONLY (10/I 1/02)
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF
AUTHORIZING PARTICIPATION IN THE
WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION
UNIFORM MITIGATION FEE PROGRAM
The City Council of the City of
does ordain as follows:
Section 1: Title
This Ordinance shall be known as the "Western Riverside County Transportation Uniform
Mitigation Fee Program Ordinance."
Section 2: Findings
A. The City Council has been informed and advised, and hereby finds, that future
development within Western Riverside County and the cities therein will result in traffic volumes
exceeding the capacity of the Regional System of Highways and Arterials (the "Regional System").
as they presently exist. A map depicting the boundaries of Western Riverside County and the
Regional System is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and made a part hereof.
B. The City Council has been further informed and advised, and hereby finds, that if the
capacity of the Regional System is not enlarged, the result will be substantial traffic congestion in all
parts of Western Riverside County, with unacceptable Levels of Service throughout Western
Riverside County by 2025.
C. The City Council has been further advised, and so finds that funds will be inadequate
to fund construction of the Regional System needed to avoid the unacceptable levels of traffic
congestion and related adverse impacts. Absent a Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF),
existing and known future funding sources will be inadequate to provide the necessary improvements
to the Regional System, resulting in an unacceptably high level of traffic congestion within and
around the City and within Western Riverside County.
D. The City is a Member Agency of the Westem Riverside Council of Governments
(WRCOG), a joint powers agency consisting of the City, the County of Riverside, and the thirteen
other cities situated in Western Riverside County Acting in concert, the Member Agencies of
WRCOI3 developed a plan whereby the shortfall in funds needed to enlarge the capacity of the
Regional System could be made up in part by a Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee on future
development. As a Member Agency of WRCOG, the City participated in the preparation of that
certain "Western Riverside County Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee Nexus Study", dated
September 29, 2002, prepared pursuant to California
Govemment Code, Section 66000 et seq., the Mitigation Fee Act (the "Nexus Study").
E. The City Council has reviewed the Nexus Study, and hereby finds that future
development within the City will adversely affect the Regional System, and that unless such
development contributes to the cost of improving the Regional System, the System will operate at
unacceptable Levels of Service.
F. The City Council hereby finds and determines that the failure to mitigate growing
traffic impacts on the Regional System within Western Riverside County will substantially impair the
ability of public safety services (police and fire) to respond. The failure to mitigate impacts on the
Regional System will adversely affect the public health, safety and welfare.
G. The City Council further finds and determines that there is a reasonable and rational
relationship between the use of the TUMF and the type of development projects on which the fees are
imposed because the fees will be used to construct the transportation improvements that are necessary
for the safety, health and welfare of the residential and non-residential users of the development
projects on which the TUMF will be levied.
H. The City Council finds and determines that there is a reasonable and rational '
relationship between the need for the improvements to the Regional System and the type of
development projects on which the TUMF is imposed because it will be necessary for the residential
and non-residential users of such projects to have access to the Regional System. Such development
will benefit from the Regional System improvements and the burden of such development will be
mitigated in part by the payment of the TUMF.
I. The City Council further finds and determines that the cost estimates set forth in the
Nexus Study are reasonable cost estimates for constructing the Regional System improvements, and
that the amount of the TUMF expected to be generated by new development will not exceed the total
fair share cost to such development.
J. The fees collected pursuant to this Ordinance shall be used to help pay for the
construction and acquisition of the Regional System improvements identified in the Nexus Study.
The need for the improvements is related to new development because such development results in
additional traffic thus creating the demand for the improvements.
L. By notice duly given and published, the City Council set the time and place for a ·
public heari~g on the Nexus Study and the fee proposed thereunder, and at least ten days prior to the
hearing, the City made the Nexus Study available to the public.
M. At the time and place set for the hearing, the City Council duly considered that data
and information provided by the public relative to the cost of the services for which the fees are
proposed and all other comments, whether written or oral, submitted prior to the conclusion of the
hearing.
N. The City Council finds that thy Nexus Study proposes a fair and equitable method for
distributing the unfunded costs of improvements to the Regional System.
O. /he City Council hereby adopts the Nexus Study, which Study is attached hereto as
Exhibit "B", and incorporates it herein as though set forth in full.
Section 3: Definitions
For the purpose of this Ordinance, the following words, terms and phrases shall have the
following meanings:
"Development Project" or "Project" means any project undertaken for the purpose
of development including the issuance ora permit for construction.
"Industrial Project" means any development project in where manufacturing,
assembly, processing, packaging, or storage of products takes place and as further
defined by the following zoning designations identified in Ordinance # ...
"Low Income Residential Housing" means residential units in publicly subsidized
projects constructed as housing for low-income households as such households are
defined pursuant to section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code. "Publicly
subsidized projects," as the term is used herein, shall not include any project or
project applicant receiving a tax credit provided by the State of California Franchise
Tax Board.
"Multi Family Residential Unit" means a development project that has a density of
greater than eight (8) residential dwelling units per acre.
"Non-Residential Unit" means each gross acre (or fraction thereof) of retail,
commercial and industrial development which is designed primarily for non-
dwelling use, but shall include hotels and motels.
"Residential Dwelling Unit" means a building or portion thereof used by one (1)
family and containing but one (1) kitchen, which is designed primarily for residential
occupancy including single-family and multi-family dwellings. "Residential
Dwelling Unit" shrill not include hotels or motels.
"Retail Commercial Project" means any development project in a commercial zone
that is not defined as a Service Commercial project shall be subject to the Retail
Commercial fee; and as further defined by the following zoning designations
identified in Ordinance #.
"Service Commercial Project" means any development project that is
predominately dedicated to business activities associated with professional or
administrative services, and typically consist of corporate offices, financial
institutions, legal and medical offices.
"Single Family Residential Unit" means each residential dwelling unit in a
development that has a density of 8 units to the acre or less.
Section 4: Establishment of the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee
A. Adoption. There is hereby adopted the following schedule of fees:
$ 6640 per Single Family Residential Unit
$ 4600 per Multi Family Residential Unit
$1.44 per square foot of an Industrial Project
$ 8.77 per square foot of a Retail Commercial Project
$ 5.00 per square foot of a Service Commercial Project
B. Fee Adjustment. The fee schedule may be periodically reviewed and the amounts
adjusted by the WRCOG Executive Committee. By amendment to this Ordinance, the fees may be
increased or decreased to reflect changes in actual and estimated costs of the Regional System including,
but not limited to, debt service, lease payments and construction costs. The adjustment of the fees may
also reflect changes in the facilities required to be constructed, in estimated revenues received pursuant
to this Ordinance, as well as the availability or lack thereof of other funds with which to construct the
Regional System.
C. Purpose. The purpose of the TUMF is to fund those certain improvements to the
Regional System depicted on Exhibit "A" and identified in the Nexus Study, Exhibit "B".
D. Applicability. The TUMF shall apply to all new development within the City, unless
otherwise exempt hereunder.
E. ,Exemptions. The following new development shall be exempt from the TUMF:
i. Low income residential housing.
ii. Govemmenffpublic buildings, public schools and public facilities.
iii.
The rehabilitation and/or reconstruction of any structure as long as the same or
fewer traffic trips are generated as a result thereof.
iv.
Development Projects which are the subject of a Public Facilities Development
Agreement entered into pursuant to Government Code, Section 65864 et seq.
prior to the effective date of this ordinance, wherein the imposition of new fees
are expressly prohibited provided that if the term of such a Development
Agreement is extended after the effective date of this Ordinance; the TUMF
shall be imposed. Possible insert language for Canyon Lake here the attorneys
are working on it.
F. Credit.
Credits for the Regional System improvements shall be provided as follows:
Regional Tier
Arterial Credits: If a developer constructs arterial improvements identified on the
Regional System, the developer shall receive credit for the all costs associated with
the arterial component based on approved unit cost assumptions for the Regional
System. All excess construction credit must have prior approval from WRCOG.
ii
Other Credits: In special circumstances, when a developer constructs off-site
improvements such as an interchange, bridge, or railroad grade separation, credits
shall be determined by WRCOG in consultation with the developer. All excess
construction credit must have prior approval from WRCOG.
iii
Regardless of the actual cost incurred by the developer to construct the required
improvements on the Regional System, the amount of the development fee credit
shall not exceed the maximum amount determined by the most current unit cost
assumptions for the Regional System. Fee credits shall be applied against future
fees and shall not be paid back in cash.
Local Tier
The City of xxx shall compare facilities in local fee pro~rams against the Regional
System and eliminate any overlap in its local fee program except where there is a
recognized benefit district established, that would exceed the fee listed in Section
4.
ii If there is a recognized benefit district established the local agency may credit that
portion of the facility identified in both programs against the TUMF.
Section 5: Reimbursements:
A. Should the developer be~recluired to construct network improvements which benefits property
adjacent to the project, the developer may be reimbursed for a proportionate share of the cost, based
on actual costs or the approved unit cost assumptions, whichever is less, for the Regional System at
the time of the agreement, of such improvements under special agreements with WRCOG and the
local jurisdiction, contingent upon future fees contributed from other benefited developments. In all
cases, however, reimbursements under such special agreements must coincide with construction of
the transportation improvements as scheduled in the five-year Capital Improvements Program
adopted annually by WRCOG.
B. No Waiver. Fees shall not be waived.
Section 6: Procedures for the Levy, Collection and Disposition of Fees
A. Authority of the Building Department. The Director of the Building Department, or his/her
designee, is hereby authorized to levy and collect the TUMF.
B. Payment of the fees shall be as follows:
The fees for residential development shall be paid at the time a certificate of
occupancy is issued for the Development Project or upon final inspection,
whichever come first. However this section should not be construed to prevent
payment of the Fees prior to issuance on an occupancy permit or final inspection.
Fees may be paid at the time application is made for a building permit.
ii.
Fees for non-residential projects shall be paid at the issuance of building permit
in their entirety for the project area at the highest intensity use and shall not be
prorated based on phases or other stages o£development.
iii.
The fees required to be paid shall be the fee amounts in effect at the time of
payment, not the date the Ordinance is initially adopted.
iv.
if all or part of any development project is sold prior to payment of the fee, the
property shall continue to be subject to the requirement for payment of the fee.
D. Disposition of Fees. All fees collected hereunder shall be transmitted to the Executive
Director of WRCOG within thirty days for deposit, investment, accounting and expenditure in
accordance with the provisions of this Ordinance and the Mitigation Fee Act.
E. Reports to WRCOG. The Director of the Building Department. or his/her designee, shall
prepare and deliver to the Executive Director of WRCOG, the following periodic reports.
Quarterly Reports shall be submitted within 30 days of the end of each fiscal
year quarter. The Reports will, at a minimum, contain the following information
and such other information as may be reasonably requested by WRCOG:
Number of building permits by quarter issued by land use type for which
TUMF should be collected;
b. Amohnt of total fees TUMF collected by quarter by land use type;
c. Total fees IUMF transmitted to WP, COG by quarter.
Identification of each public improvement for which fees were expended
and the amount of the expenditure on each improvement, including the
total percentage of the cost of the public improvement that was with fees.
Identification of an approximate date by which the construction of the
public improvement(s) will commence once the lead agency has
determined that sufficient funds have been collected to complete
financing of an incomplete public improvement.
f. The amount of refunds (if any) provided.
Section 6: Appointment of TUMF Fund Administrator
WRCOG is hereby appointed as the Administrator of the City's Transportation Uniform
Mitigation Fee Program. WRCOG is hereby authorized to receive all fees generated from the TUMF
within the City, and to invest, account for and expend such fees in accordance with the provisions of
this Ordinance and the Mitigation Fee Act.
WRCOG shall expend only that amount of the funds generated from the TUMF for staff support,
audit, administrative expenses, and contract services that are necessary and reasonable to carry out its
responsibilities and in no case shall the funds expended for salaries and benefits exceed one percent
(1%) of the annual net amount of revenue raised by the TUMF.
Section 7: Severability
If any one or more of the terms, provisions or sections of this Ordinance shall to any extent be
judged invalid, unenforceable and/or voidable for any reason whatsoever by a court of competent
jurisdiction, then each and all of the remaining terms, provisions and sections of this Ordinance shall
not be affected thereby and shall be valid and enforceable.
Section 9: Judicial Review
In accordance with State law, any judicial action or proceeding to attack, review, set aside,
void or annul this Ordinance shall be commenced within 90 days of the date of adoption of this
Ordinance.
Section I0: Effective Date
This Ordinance shall take effect on the 61 st day following its enactment.
MOVED AND PASSED upon the first reading this __
2002, by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
MOVED, PASSED AND ADOPTED this
following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
· ABSENT:
day of _,
day of
,2002, by the
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
CERTIFICATION
I, , City Clerk of the City of
do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City
Council held on ,2002, and was duly adopted upon second reading on
,2002, upon the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
City Clerk