Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout041701 CC Minutes MINUTES OF AN ADJOURNED WORKSHOP MEETING OF THE TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL APRIL 17, 2001 The City of Temecula City Council convened in an adjourned workshop meeting at 6:00 P.M., on Tuesday, April 17, 2001, in the City Council Chambers of Temecula City Hall, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. ALLEGIANCE The audience was led in the Flag salute by Councilman Naggar. ROLL CALL Present: Councilmembers: Naggar, Pratt, Roberts, Stone, and Mayor Comerchero. Absent: PUBLIC COMMENTS Councilmember: None. There were no public comments. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS At the request of Councilman Pratt, City Clerk Jones read into the record a letter he had written expressing gratitude, and offering accolades for the endless interviews and research conducted by the Riverside County Integrated Project staff in preparing an effective integrated plan; and which additionally noted his concerns regarding the importance of the consideration of an emergency construction plan of a mass transportation system to be in place and operational within five years. In response to Councilman Pratt's comments, Mr. Jim Henderson, Project Manager, thanked Councilman Pratt for his words of praise; with respect to his remarks regarding the need for mass transportation, noted the mutual concern regarding vehicular traffic in Riverside County, advising that the solutions being proposed were oriented towards developing a mass transit system, and to additionally address the increasing volumes of truck traffic; relayed the efforts to bring jobs to Riverside County which will decrease the need to travel back and forth between counties in automobiles; and provided additional information regarding the development of the Transit Oasis Concept. COUNCIL BUSINESS 1 Sixth Workshop for the Riverside County Inteqrated Plan (RCIP) RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Receive and file. Noting that this was the sixth workshop related to the Riverside County Integrated Plan (RCIP), City Manager Nelson advised that these quarterly meetings were continuing; and relayed that County staff would be providing a presentation. R:\Minutes\041701 1 Relaying the joint efforts to balance the growth of our population with the mobility needs, housing requirements, and open space and conservation elements, Mr. Henderson advised that achieving this balance was a "quality of life" issue, which was the emphasis of the Riverside County Integrated Plan (RCIP). Via a Power Point presentation, Mr. Henderson updated the City Council re~ardinq the RCIP, providinq an overview of the followinq: The goals for the project, inclusive of: The accommodation of the transportation needs of our urbanizing region with alternative forms of transit, and An integrated approach to habitat conservation. The adoption of the General Plan Vision Alternative, which would be carried forward through the environmental documents for the General Plan, which was the plan with community separators, and with land uses oriented towards developing jobs. The Incentives Program endorsed by the Board as an avenue to increase density within the urban cores. The Alternative No. 1 Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP), which provides the most robust reserve design, specifying the following: The efforts to investigate avenues to implement this aggressive plan (i.e., obtain input from the Resource Agencies), The plan to complete the plan by the summer, and The cities involvement with the Implementation Agreement. The refinement of the Community and Environmental Transportation Acceptability Process (CETAP), noting the following: The ongoing negotiations with the Resqurce Agencies regarding the development of corridors, and That a series of alternatives will be carried forward for environmental review. · The development of a Special Area Management Plan (SAMP). · The restructuring of the Advisory Committee in order to refine the process. For Councilman Naggar, Mr. Henderson confirmed that the incentives Program and the Vision Alternative included the concept of developing compact communities (i.e., denser cores) which would provide the critical mass for transit and would leave separators around the exteriors of the communities. Elaborating on the Community Centers Program, for Councilman Naggar, Mr. Jerry Jollife, Transportation/Land Manager, relayed that data regarding the Board's adoption to initiate their interest in the program, and information regarding the structure of the Incentives Program could be provided to the City Council, noting that the fundamentals of the program allows higher densities in these relatively small community areas based upon the developer's agreement to provide amenities and benefits to the project via design features; and advised that this program was intended to be coordinated with the Transit Oasis Concept. R:\Minutes\041701 2 Continuinq his Power Point presentation, Mr. Henderson provided information reqardinq the followinq elements: The aggressive timeline schedule, inclusive of: The County's documents being completed by the summer, The review process continuing through the end of the year, The public review process being held in January, The finalizing of the documents by mid-year, and The opportunities throughout the process for the cities to address their concerns. The ongoing involvement of the cities, relaying the meetings that were being held to gather initial input, advising that City Manager Nelson will be provided the Alternatives Milestone Document which outlines the Board's endorsed process for this project, as well as, a CD which outlines the updated surrounding areas from which the traffic model will be derived. With respect to the input from the cities, Councilman Naggar noted that the Cities of Lake Elsinore and Murrieta have expressed extreme dissatisfaction with the layout of the MSHCP, relaying similar concerns expressed from the Cities of Perris, Beaumont, and Banning; and specified that the concern was regarding the amount of commercial area being eliminated. Noting the City's endorsement of Alternative No. 1, Mayor Comerehero queried why the French Valley area was omitted from consideration for habitat when it appears to be far better-suited than the commercial property in Lake Elsinore and Murrieta. In response, Mr. Henderson relayed that there were specific restrictions that had to be taken into consideration, as well as, the quality of habitat; noted that in French Valley there were various significant streams which are confined with respect to opportunities to enhance that natural space; advised that there was the aggressive acquisition of habitat in the Warm Springs Creek area, additionally noting the interest in the area just east of the 215 freeway at Clinton Keith Road which was good quino habitat; relayed that the balance between the needs of development and transportation, with those of wildlife, would continue to be addressed as the process continues; with respect to the selection of .the Lake Elsinore area, relayed that this area was gnatcatcher habitat; advised that the Resource Agencies have defined certain unique wildlife and habitat areas as necessary components; and noted that avenues to accommodate the needs of these various cities will be pursued as the process goes forward. Continuinq his presentation, Mr. Henderson apprised the City Council of the following elements: The CETAP issues, noting as follows: The four priority corridors, two being in-County, and two being out of County, That the Moreno Valley/San Bernardino Corridor is making excellent progress, relaying the positive input at the community meetings held during the last two weeks. Provided an update regarding the Orange County Corridor, relaying that a meeting was held last Thursday with the Orange County Transportation Agency, and that on Friday there were discussions involving two Supervisors and a Councilmember addressing the synergy that should exist between Riverside and Orange Counties on both housing and jobs issues. Presented the various alternative routes. R:\Minutes\041701 3 For Mayor Comerchero, Mr. Steve Smith, CETAP Project Manager, relayed that there has been coordination with Riverside Transit Authority (RTA), noting that RTA sits on the CETAP Advisory Committee, elaborating the considerations in terms of long-range transportation strategies. Providing additional information for Mayor Comerchero, Mr. Edwin Studor, Administrative Manager, relayed that Highway 79 (South) had been investigated as a transportation corridor, that additional right-of-way was being acquired for future transportation options, that this component was also part of the Transit Oasis Strategy, that a 30-year program may be needed for long-term transit improvements, and that the 215 freeway was also designated as a transit corridor. Relaying appreciation for the update, and the efforts to coordinate with San Bernardino and Orange Counties, Councilman Stone queried whether County staff was aware of the fact that years ago, a local developer had designed and engineered a road going from Clinton Keith Road to the coast; and questioned whether there was any useful information from this plan that could save time in developing an east/west corridor to Orange County. In response to Councilman Stone, Mr. Studor provided additional information regarding two proposals previously generated for "A road to the coast," specifying the elements that would not have been feasible with these plans; and noted that the current options being investigated for the Orange County connection included traversing through the Cleveland National Forest, that the Forest is updating their Forest Plan at this time, and that efforts will be made to coordinate with them as far as evaluating this corridor. Noting that at a recent meeting he attended, a member had suggested installation of a railway system from Lake Elsinore to serve as both a scenic and a transpor[ation corridor to the coast, Councilman Pratt queried whether this concept had been considered. In response, Mr. Studor advised that most of the old railroad right-of-ways have been vacated. Continuinq his presentation, Mr. Henderson presented the followinq information: Noted that Alternative No. 4, which was the Date Street Alternative has been eliminated from the analysis, relaying that this project would be carried forward as a circulation element roadway, and would be explored as a necessary part of the process due to the need to move the volumes of traffic generated as this area develops. Mr. Studor added that there was a meeting held with City staff to discuss the Date Street connection, specifically, at Highway 79/Murrieta Hot Springs Road, relaying the recent condominium project approved by the County which could preclude an interchange flyover at that location if it is developed; and noted discussions regarding jointly acquiring the property to preserve the option, advising that the asking price was approximately $5 million. Acknowledging the costly expense of acquiring the condominium property, Councilman Stone advised that the City of Temecula was a strong proponent of the Date Street Corridor because without this particular corridor all the traffic of French Valley would be funneled through the limits of Temecula to get to the 1-15; advised that solutions must be sought to vitalize this transportation corridor, making it a top priority in the CETAP process; noted that if this avenue is not pursued, traffic will be a chronic problem in the City of Temecula with no remedy or mitigation, relaying that the cost of this property will be insignificant in comparison to the problems that will occur if the City is required to attempt to accommodate all this traffic with the anticipated growth in the County within the next fifteen years; and emphasized that this project needs prioritization, and that the City of Temecula needs partnership with the County due to the traffic impacts that cannot be mitigated without this it. R:\Minutes\041701 4 Concurring with Councilman Stone's comments, Councilman Pratt queried whether the County was exploring attaining funds other than from the public sector, noting the need for substantial private monies. In response, it was noted that the County Development Agency explores these types of programs. For Councilman Naggar, Mr. Studor noted that the condominium developers did have approval for their project and were moving forward with improvement plans, relaying the need for this issue to be addressed expeditiously. With respect to the condominium project, Councilman Stone relayed that the City was not in a position to use eminent domain since this site was not within the City limits, reiterating the dependence on the County to solve the regional traffic impacts. For Councilman Stone, Mr. Henderson relayed that the Eastern Bypass Project could address the same issues, noting that this alternative was selected at the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) level, as the option which had a better chance of survival than Alternative No. 4 due to the acquisition costs and the impacts on neighborhoods, while noting that since the Resource Agencies are not supportive of the Eastern Bypass Alternative, efforts are needed to further explore the issues. Mr. Studor added that the southerly extension of Alternative Nos. 5, or 6 that would tie into the new interchange on the 1-15 was in an area that the Resource Agencies were concerned about, advising that this particular area would also have to be coordinated with the tribal interests; and noted that these projects would provide the most relief in terms of the Eastern Bypass due to the new connection to the 1-15. Mayor Pro Tern Roberts requested assurance that the City of Temecula would have representation during the CETAP focused meetings regarding Alternative Nos. 5, and 6, additionally noting the potential public outcry (i.e., from the residents of Vail Ranch, and Redhawk) if this issue is not fully explored, additionally relaying the potential concerns of the Pechangas, and the Endangered Habitat League; and recommended that all the involved entities be involved in the discussions. With respect to the Date Street Alternative, Councilman Stone recommended that two members of the Temecula City Council meet with Supervisors Buster and Venable to discuss eminent domain potentially initiated by the County, and co-funded by the City of Temecula; and volunteered to meet with the Supervisors, and their Counsel, to help solve the most important infrastructure issue that Temecula will face in efforts of alleviating traffic. In response to Mayor Comerchero, City Attorney Thorson advised that a Subcommittee could be appointed for these discussions. MOTION: Councilman Stone moved to appoint Mayor Comerchero and himself to serve on a Subcommittee to meet, along with the City Attorney, Supervisors Buster and Venable, and their Counsel, to discuss the potential acquisition of property on Murdeta Hot SpringsNVinchester Roads with the ultimate goal of providing a flyover in an effort to make the Date Street overcrossing a viable corridor in the County of Riverside. The motion was seconded by Councilman Naggar. (Ultimately this motion passed; see page 6.) In response to Councilman Naggar, City Attorney Thorson advised that to impose any fees on development, it would be necessary to identify what sources of funding there were, and that the R:\Minutes\041701 5 imposition of the fees would be a detailed process, including identifying the nexus between that development and the fees that would be imposed. Councilman Naggar recommended that the Subcommittee explore this issue. For Councilman Stone, City Manager Nelson noted that there may be avenues for reimbursement for the costs associated with the right-of-way acquisition through Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF), and/or through various grant funds. Mayor Pro Tem Roberts relayed that the funding for this project could potentially be tied in with the Date/Cherry Streets overcrossing, advising that since this flyover would be extremely expensive, monies would need to come from other funding sources. Confirming the approximate costs of the project, Mr. Steve Smith, CETAP Project Manager, noted that the cost would be approximately $11 million. Councilman Pratt enumerated the benefits of the Date Street Corridor. At this time voice vote was taken regarding the motion, reflecting unanimous approval. With respect to the Eastern Bypass, Councilman Naggar concurred with Mayor Pro Tem Roberts, noting that this project would be a sensitive issue, querying whether if this project was not deemed feasible, the Highway 79 (South) to Butterfield Stage Road Corridor would be the alternative considered. In response, Mr. Smith relayed that all of the recommended alternatives would be evaluated during the environmental review, elaborating on the challenges associated with the Highway 79 (South) option, as well as, the Eastern Bypass option. Mr. Henderson clarified that no final decisions have been made regarding specific options, advising that the concepts presented are being explored and reviewed; for Mayor Pro Tern Roberts, relayed that discussions regarding Alternative Nos. 5, and 6 will take place with the Resource Agencies on Thursday and Friday; and noted efforts to expedite the environmental process. In response to Councilman Naggar, Mr. Smith noted that the initial results of the traffic circulation model will be completed at the end of May; relayed that there would be discussions with staff regarding the preliminary results; and advised that various scenarios will be explored with, and without, the major alternatives. Continuinq the presentation, Mr. Henderson provided an overview of the followinq: Alternative Nos. 7a, and 7b, apprising the Council, as follows: That the Resource Agencies favor these options, The negative impacts associated with these options due to bringing traffic onto the 215 freeway above the City. For Councilman Pratt, Mr. Smith relayed that ultimately there could be multiple options implemented to address the various traffic needs, that implementations could include limited access facilities (i.e., freeways), and circulation element roadways; noted the benefits of this comprehensive review, incorporating all the elements associated with the project. Mr. Henderson provided additional information regarding integrating the traffic solutions with land uses, and the MSHCP. R:\Minutes\041701 6 Continuing the presentation1 Mr. Henderson elaborated regarding the followin.q: The dedicated transit line being preserved, as projects are developed along the existing Highway 79 (South). Mr. Studor additionally relayed that the transit corridor (mass transit) continues up to the existing San Jacinto Branch line. The 4th component to the Integrated Project, the Special Area Management Plan (SAMP), which is a program of the Corps of Engineers which allows the County to develop an overall management plan for the aqueduct resources that exist in an area, and would aid in the permitting process of the proposed routes. The watershed areas which will be studied, in order to integrate this element with the project. Relaying that Mr. Zappe, from Riverside County Flood Control & Conservation District was available for questions of the City Council, Mr. Henderson concluded his presentation, thanking the City Council and staff for their time in considering the RCIP issues; and relayed that County staff will be back in three months for an update. Ms. A. McGregor, 34555 Madera De Playa Drive, relayed concern regarding truck traffic on the highways, smog, and water availability, recommending that the times of truck transportation on the highways be limited, that reclaimed water be utilized to water landscaping, and that trees requiring large amounts of water be restricted from being planted. 2 Morgan Hill Specific Plan No. 313 RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Provide direction to staff. MOTION: Mayor Pro Tem Roberts moved to contique this item off calendar. The motion was seconded by Councilman Naggar and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT There were no additional comments. CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT There were no additional comments. R:\Minutes\041701 7 ADJOURNMENT At 7:28 P.M., Mayor Comerchero formatly adjourned the City Council meeting to Tuesday, April 24, 2001 at 7:00 P.M. in the City Council Chambers 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. Jeff Comerchero, Mayor ATTEST: R:\Minutes\041701 8