Goal Setting Session
Here is what is going to be discussed this Friday at Council goal setting session. Several interesting items - horse trails I - item 5; II - items 8 and 9; several under Planning, etc.
Barbara Nugent
FRIDAY, JULY 15, 2005
9:00 AM
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Mayor of the City of Murrieta called a Special Meeting of the Murrieta City Council at the time and place listed above to consider the following matters:
ROLL CALL: Gibbs, McAllister, Ostling, Seyarto, and Enochs
I. PARKS & RECREATION/CSD (1 hour)
1. Youth and Senior Activities (Gibbs/Holston)
2. Permanent Boys and Girls Club Facility in Murrieta (Seyarto)
3. Los Alamos Sports Park Phase 2 - potential uses, funding and timing (Holston)
4. Creation of Murrieta Museum (McAllister/Holston)
5. Parks, Open Space and Trail development and compliance with General Plan (Gibbs/Holston)
6. Designation of site and funding for Veteran's Memorial at Town Square (McAllister/Holston)
7. Maintenance of Gateways into Murrieta (Seyarto/Holston)
ii. PUBLIC SAFETY (45 minutes)
8. Code Enforcement Division staffing and response (Wright)
9. Adoption of Sex Offender Location Ordinance similar to County proposal (Gibbs)
10. Update on zero tolerance for gangs and how to address enforcement with existing resources (McAllister/Wright)
iii. PLANNING I (1 hour)
11. Development Services Case Processing; and improve exhibits for public hearings (McGee)
12. Managed growth rate for residential build-out (Gibbs/McGee)
13. Long Range Planning Projects (McGee)
· Golden Triangle Specific Plan
· Los Alamos District
· Land use study for area bordered by Kalmia, Washington, Magnolia and Jefferson
· Freeway Enhancement Overlay Zones
LUNCH (30 minutes)
PLANNING II (45 minutes)
14. Require up-front infrastructure improvements for residential construction and analysis of adequacy of improvements and mitigation (Enochs)
15. Study of Multiple Use Zones in Murrieta and impacts of elimination (Gibbs/McGee)
16. Presentation on Multi-Family housing locations, numbers and ultimate amount required to meet Housing Element (Gibbs/McGee)
17. Requirement of four vote majority on General Plan amendments (Gibbs)
IV. ADMINISTRATION (1 hour)
18. Expansion of Steering Committee to include district representatives and process for direction to Committee (Gibbs/Ferro)
19. Revised Code of Ethics and process (Gibbs/Vinson)
20. Audit of the City of Murrieta (Gibbs)
21. Address need for enhanced services (Ferro)
22. Analysis of funding of City retirement plan in the future and impacts on the City budget (Gibbs)
23. Recent Supreme Court action on eminent domain and impact on Murrieta; and eminent domain compensation policy options (Gibbs/Seyarto)
24. Potential for Flat Business License Fee (Gibbs/Ferro)
V. PUBLIC WORKS (30 minutes)
25. 2005-2006 Capital Improvement Plan processing and timing (Holston)
26. Analyze ways to improve Traffic Level of Service goal (Gibbs/Holston)
27. Development Impact Fee Revision and update (Gibbs/Holston)
VI. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (1 hour)
28. Restaurant development in the City and incentives for attraction (Gibbs/Moss)
29. Historic Murrieta Downtown Marketing Plan (Vollbrecht)
30. Plan for Industrial/Office attraction of large industries for job creation; and the potential for preserving large parcels for development (Gibbs/Moss)
VII. COMMUNICATIONS (1 hour)
31. Improve Relations with the Murrieta Valley Unified School District (Gibbs/Moss)
32. Expansion of Public Relations and Website updates and interaction capabilities (Vollbrecht)
33. Plan for Council to improve citizen communication (McAllister/Moss)
34. Establish Good Neighbor Policy with Wildomar (Gibbs)
35. Creation of Valley's own television channel/station affiliate (McAllister)
36. Increased participation outside of Murrieta with County, State and Federal representatives (Gibbs/McAllister)
DIRECTION ON OTHER ITEMS
GOVERNING BODY ACTIONS/COMMENTS
ADJOURNMENT
Barbara Nugent
FRIDAY, JULY 15, 2005
9:00 AM
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Mayor of the City of Murrieta called a Special Meeting of the Murrieta City Council at the time and place listed above to consider the following matters:
ROLL CALL: Gibbs, McAllister, Ostling, Seyarto, and Enochs
I. PARKS & RECREATION/CSD (1 hour)
1. Youth and Senior Activities (Gibbs/Holston)
2. Permanent Boys and Girls Club Facility in Murrieta (Seyarto)
3. Los Alamos Sports Park Phase 2 - potential uses, funding and timing (Holston)
4. Creation of Murrieta Museum (McAllister/Holston)
5. Parks, Open Space and Trail development and compliance with General Plan (Gibbs/Holston)
6. Designation of site and funding for Veteran's Memorial at Town Square (McAllister/Holston)
7. Maintenance of Gateways into Murrieta (Seyarto/Holston)
ii. PUBLIC SAFETY (45 minutes)
8. Code Enforcement Division staffing and response (Wright)
9. Adoption of Sex Offender Location Ordinance similar to County proposal (Gibbs)
10. Update on zero tolerance for gangs and how to address enforcement with existing resources (McAllister/Wright)
iii. PLANNING I (1 hour)
11. Development Services Case Processing; and improve exhibits for public hearings (McGee)
12. Managed growth rate for residential build-out (Gibbs/McGee)
13. Long Range Planning Projects (McGee)
· Golden Triangle Specific Plan
· Los Alamos District
· Land use study for area bordered by Kalmia, Washington, Magnolia and Jefferson
· Freeway Enhancement Overlay Zones
LUNCH (30 minutes)
PLANNING II (45 minutes)
14. Require up-front infrastructure improvements for residential construction and analysis of adequacy of improvements and mitigation (Enochs)
15. Study of Multiple Use Zones in Murrieta and impacts of elimination (Gibbs/McGee)
16. Presentation on Multi-Family housing locations, numbers and ultimate amount required to meet Housing Element (Gibbs/McGee)
17. Requirement of four vote majority on General Plan amendments (Gibbs)
IV. ADMINISTRATION (1 hour)
18. Expansion of Steering Committee to include district representatives and process for direction to Committee (Gibbs/Ferro)
19. Revised Code of Ethics and process (Gibbs/Vinson)
20. Audit of the City of Murrieta (Gibbs)
21. Address need for enhanced services (Ferro)
22. Analysis of funding of City retirement plan in the future and impacts on the City budget (Gibbs)
23. Recent Supreme Court action on eminent domain and impact on Murrieta; and eminent domain compensation policy options (Gibbs/Seyarto)
24. Potential for Flat Business License Fee (Gibbs/Ferro)
V. PUBLIC WORKS (30 minutes)
25. 2005-2006 Capital Improvement Plan processing and timing (Holston)
26. Analyze ways to improve Traffic Level of Service goal (Gibbs/Holston)
27. Development Impact Fee Revision and update (Gibbs/Holston)
VI. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (1 hour)
28. Restaurant development in the City and incentives for attraction (Gibbs/Moss)
29. Historic Murrieta Downtown Marketing Plan (Vollbrecht)
30. Plan for Industrial/Office attraction of large industries for job creation; and the potential for preserving large parcels for development (Gibbs/Moss)
VII. COMMUNICATIONS (1 hour)
31. Improve Relations with the Murrieta Valley Unified School District (Gibbs/Moss)
32. Expansion of Public Relations and Website updates and interaction capabilities (Vollbrecht)
33. Plan for Council to improve citizen communication (McAllister/Moss)
34. Establish Good Neighbor Policy with Wildomar (Gibbs)
35. Creation of Valley's own television channel/station affiliate (McAllister)
36. Increased participation outside of Murrieta with County, State and Federal representatives (Gibbs/McAllister)
DIRECTION ON OTHER ITEMS
GOVERNING BODY ACTIONS/COMMENTS
ADJOURNMENT
posted by J. L. Kunkle at
Tuesday, July 12, 2005
12 Comments:
Hope everyone is paying attention:
Goal Setting Session item #23 is all about your property rights. This is the official start of the city's consideration of what could possibly be done with YOUR land. Where will it go from here?
"23. Recent Supreme Court action on eminent domain and impact on Murrieta; and eminent domain compensation policy options (Gibbs/Seyarto)"
By
Anonymous, at Thursday, July 14, 2005 8:27:00 PM
JL Kunkle: Could we get a unique string going on Anonymous 8:27's concern? From this brief bit of goal setting agenda language, it looks as though they are already thinking about how to determine "compensation" for land to be taken by eminent domain under the powers vested by the recent ruling of the Supreme Court. This is major.
JLM
By
Anonymous, at Friday, July 15, 2005 7:10:00 AM
Mr. Seyarto: Thanks very much for your response. I deal with land, and in the land business I need a handle on both the law and the direction council is leaning. If you could, please share with me and the other readers a bit more information on your paragraph which started "The second part of the discussion...". I regret I did not hear the discussion. In particular, what loophole was created? I believe, under current state law, a developer can not be charged for improvements already in place. I think even the city attorney has mentioned this in public at a council meeting. So, I don’t think this could be the loophole. But am I wrong about this? At any rate, I’d be thankful if you could shed just a bit of light on the loophole matter.
JLM
By
Anonymous, at Saturday, July 16, 2005 10:01:00 AM
Loophole? I do not know how or even if the councilman will answer your question, but let me tell you the REAL loophole. It’s whatever in the law allows a city council to make a developer pay for the city’s idea of a street design, and then proceed to suck sales tax revenues out of the business for eternity. I’ve listened to the councilman at meetings, and seen his words in the paper, and he talks about “double dipping” by the public as though it’s a sin, and yet it’s what the city does every chance it gets. If you’re a developer in this town, they’ll hit you from all angles, and when they’re done hitting you up for this fee and that fee and then another fee, they’ll sit back fat and happy and watch the sales tax revenues roll in. Like JLM, I also did not hear the discussion, and would be very curious to know what the “loophole” is. As one of those evil developers, I’ve watched and read the same stuff as everyone else this past year. If anything has happened with this eminent domain matter that has helped any developers out, I have not seen it. Unless it’s a city secret, I’d also like to see some kind of simple, plainly put explanation of what this “loophole” is. Councilman?
Been There
By
Anonymous, at Saturday, July 16, 2005 5:02:00 PM
The second half of the meeting (which I was unable to attend) was with regards to Mayor Enoch's assertion that developers pay for the infrastructural improvements neccessary to handle the increased demands of expanding population that said development will create, BEFORE THE DEMAND BECOMES CRITICAL (my words).
Money is replaceable, but time is not. If the developers must pay fees to construct, then they are going to pass these costs on to the home buyer. With the overinflated real estate costs in Murrieta, I would predict that the profit margin for a housing development has increased exponentially from what it was during the boom of the late 80's, and the developers should stop whining and pony up.
By
J. L. Kunkle, at Monday, July 18, 2005 11:40:00 AM
Mr. Kunkle,
You state the obvious, but the question posed to Mr. Seyarto remains unanswered. Mr. Seyarto has repeated whined about the so called "double dipping" of average citizens who assert their constitutional rights to compensation for their land in eminent domain cases. But he finds it just fine for the city to "double dip" when it comes to either developers or private citizens, any of whom could make property improvements and in the process get squeezed for every outlandish fee imaginable by the city (most of which exist to further fatten the bureaucratic herd), and then the city rakes in the fruits of the labor and expense of private citizens and/or businesses in the form of resulting increased property taxes and, in the case of commercial property, a never-ending source of sales tax revenue. The fact is that the city does so without risk, while the average property owner always assumes the risk of loss, whether that loss be business-risk related, or the potentially devastating decline in values as the result of the burst of the housing bubble. My question to Mr. Seyarto with regard to this so-called "loophole" remains unanswered; and it will be interesting to see how (and if) he answers. Everyone in this blog seems to interpret fairness strictly from their own particular viewpoint, and Mr. Seyarto's viewpoint so far seems to be that of the typical bureaucrat or bureaucratic-minded elected official. My direct concern in this town may be only that of a developer (not one of the big developers), but I can identify with the concerns of any other citizen - whether they be a landowner, tract home owner, or a working rentor - who believes fairness should cut both ways. I've seen towns where it does, and I've seen towns where it does not. In the long run, one of those kind of towns thrive, and the other eventually gets torn from the inside out by the results of their own governing conflicts. Guess which is which.
Been There
By
Anonymous, at Monday, July 18, 2005 12:43:00 PM
Not illegal if done overtly and yet cleverly, Mr. Seyarto. The entire concept of charging developers for the likes of street improvements, various mitigation fees, and so on, when in reality the development once completed pays forever to the city in the form of increased property taxes and sales taxes. The improvements paid for by the developer benefit the city as a whole, as do the taxes. This is in-your-face double-dipping by the public entity, aimed at squeezing every cent possible from the developing property owner. So you're wrong. It's not illegal. But not everything that should be illegal is illegal, is it?
Been There
By
Anonymous, at Monday, July 18, 2005 5:35:00 PM
While we're all waiting for Kelly to find "some time" to answer "Been There"'s question about the "loophole"... Maybe hell will freeze over. Not a bad thought. Been pretty hot lately. C'mon Kelly, how 'bout filling in all the enquiring minds who missed the part of the meeting you mentioned. What exactly was/is the "loophole"?
By
Anonymous, at Wednesday, July 20, 2005 4:55:00 PM
Seyarto: There are those among us who would like to see you make a permanent exit from this site, and from city council. So if we fail to bow to your rules, deny you the opportunity to do whatever you want (from your position of authority) with our identities, and so on, you're going to run away from the site? Well, then let me be the first to turn your own words back on you, you "stupid, obnoxious, rude coward." Now, will you leave?
By
Anonymous, at Thursday, July 21, 2005 4:03:00 PM
You kidding me? This man demands to be treated with respect. As long as he can get some, he'll be around. Pretty sad.
By
Anonymous, at Thursday, July 21, 2005 8:32:00 PM
Oh the cowardly anon stupidity continues. Use your real name like alot of us and your insults would have teeth. Anyway I just wanted to thank Bozo the Enochs and his cohorts for leading the city down the path of developer litigation. Enoch's reasoning for rejecting the condo projects will sure stand judicial srutiny. He wants a more beautiful project? Enochs should join Mensa. Rookie Gibbs reasoning that he is not worried about lawsuits leaves one to question whether his decision was based in reality or Simm City fantasy land.
It looked to me as though their vote was more of a play to the crowd in attendence than a vote for the best interests of Murrieta.The City Attorney sure will have a large future workload if the council continues voting along the lines of the Rescue Murrieta agenda.
By
Anonymous, at Thursday, July 21, 2005 9:28:00 PM
Oooooh. Tough talker. If the teeth are like yours, someone is likely to get gummed to death.
By
Anonymous, at Thursday, July 21, 2005 10:39:00 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home