Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout073002 CC Workshop Minutes MINUTES OF AN ADJOURNED REGULAR JOINT CITY OF TEMECULA/CITY OF MURRIETA WORKSHOP JULY 30, 2002 CALL TO ORDER The City Councils of Murrieta and Temecula convened in an adjourned regular joint workshop at 6:01 P.M., on Tuesday, July 30, 2002, in the City Council Chambers of Temecula City Hall, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. ROLL CALL City of Temecula Present: Councilmembers: Comerchero, Naggar, Pratt, and Roberts Absent: Councilmember: Stone City of Murrieta Present: Councilmembers: Enochs, van Haaster, Youens, and Ostling Absent: Councilmember: Seyarto ALLEGIANCE The audience was led in the Flag salute by Councilman Enochs. PUBLIC COMMENTS No comments. COUNCIL BUSINESS 1 Discussion of Riverside County Inteqrated Plan (RCIP) and Transportation issues RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Discuss RCIP and Transportation issues. It is noted that this item was considered after consideration of Item No, 2; see page 4, 2 Discussion of SDG&E Valley Rainbow Interconnect Project RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Discuss the SDG&E Valley Rainbow Interconnect Project City Manager Mandoki, representing the City of Murrieta, provided a brief overview of the manner in which the City of Murrieta has addressed the SDG&E Valley Rainbow Interconnect Project, advising that on July 16, 2002 the M~rrieta City Council approved an agreement with R:\Minutes\073002 1 Save Southwest Riverside County (SSRC) to fund up to $75,000 towards the cost of needed additional experts. Assistant to the City Manager Yates, representing the City of Temecula, presented an update on the status of the project, relaying that the project had two phases, that the first phase was to determine whether there was a need for the project, that if the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) determined there was a need, hearings would continue and the project would enter the second phase which would determine the location of the line; advised that the Administrative Law Judge hearings concluded in May whereas the City of Temecula, SSRC, SDG&E and others provided information, that closing briefs were due on August 5th, that closing arguments were scheduled for August 20th, that the City of Temecula would be participating in these phases as well, that the judge's decision (which was advisory to the PUC) was expected after the closing arguments; noted that the PUC has scheduled tentative dates for the second phase of the project (in the case it was determined that the second phase will be entered), that October 21st was the tentative date scheduled for SDG&E to provide their Opening Brief, that the cities have until November 18th to file their briefs; relayed that the City's current efforts were focused on advocacy and public information and that the City of Temecula's website had information regarding the project as well as a draft letter to the Governor (addressing concerns regarding the project) which the public could access; and for Councilman Comerchero, advised that if the project enters the second phase, staff would obtain additional information regarding Congressman Issa's Bill (H.R. 3476). Ms. Barbara Wilder, representing Save Southwest Riverside County (SSRC) provided a detailed overview of the project's process, reTaying the following: Noted her pleasure and thanks that the Cities of Murrieta and Temecula have joined together in addressing this particular project; Provided additional information regarding the project's course, relaying that Phase I of the project concluded with the last day of evidentiary hearings on May 16th, that expert witnesses provided by SSRC, the City of Temecula, and the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians appeared at the hearings and provided testimony which was compelling and impressive; That if required to go to Phase II, additional aid for the expert witnesses' fees may be needed at that time; That at this time the parties to the proceedings are preparing their briefings for Phase I, that attorneys for SSRC, the City of Temecula, and the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians have been cooperating in preparing the Briefs for Phase I which asserts that the Valley Rainbow Project is not needed and should be denied by the Commission at this time based on the evidence and testimony submitted during the May hearings; That the Opening Brief was filed on July 12th which presented arguments demonstrating that the project was not needed and should be denied; that the Reply Brief was to be filed by August 5th which responds to arguments made by the Independent System Operator (ISO) and SDG&E in the Opening Briefs in Phase I, and that closing arguments before the PUC were scheduled for August 20th at which time it would be argued that the project should be denied; That it is not clear when a decision would be issued on the "need" question addressed in Phase I; R:\Minutes\073002 2 That the project could be denied at this time, that no decision could be made and the project could proceed to Phase II, or that it could be determined there was a need for the project and then the project would proceed to Phase II; noted that deadlines for testimony and briefing for Phase II of the proceeding were set by the Commission at the onset of the proceeding, the earliest of which would be this fall; That the City of Murrieta has joined the Cities of Hemet and Temecula with funding to hire public relations experts as well as other experts to research avenues to bring attention to the cause, that SSRC's attorneys and the joined cities and their attorneys were planning strategy for potential future phases of the Valley Rainbow proceedings, that SSRC was continuing to build alliances with organizations which would assist in the public process, that due to letter-writing campaigns potentially more than 2,000 letters will have been sent to the Governor by the end of August, and that the City of Temecula's website has a sample letter to the Governor, encouraging the City of Murrieta to also have the draft letter (to the Governor) available on its website; That fundraising efforts continue to pay the attorneys' fees; and That the efforts of SSRC's volunteers and staff have been very diligent, taking the time to attend meetings and community forums to inform the public of the concerns associated with the project, and to engage the media to cover this issue. Councilman Enochs, echoed by Councilman Comerchero, thanked the SSRC for all their assiduous efforts regarding this particular project. In response to Councilman Enochs, Ms. Wilder relayed that it would be helpful if the City of Murrieta had a section of its website dedicated to this issue, as well as assisting in eliciting the support of developers; for Councilman van Haaster, noted that via contact with her, additional information could be obtained regarding the project; and for Councilman Comerchero, advised that it was her understanding that Congressman Issa was supporting the western route noting that the matter was being investigated. Mayor Roberts noted his dismay with the lack of support by the County Board of Supervisors regarding this issue (opposition to the project); relayed the concerns of the Temecula Valley Winegrowers Association (based on quarterly meetings he has attended) associated with the SDG&E Valley Rainbow Project due to the potential loss of millions of dollars in lost future revenue, which would also impact the County. For Mayor Roberts, Ms. Wilder provided information regarding SSRC's meeting with Supervisor Venable whereby technical data regarding the lack of need for the project was presented; advised that if SSRC would be open to any recommendations the Councilmembers had on avenues to further address the issue with the Supervisors. In response to Councilman Pratt, Ms. Wilder confirmed that the costs associated with implementing high voltage underground facilities were the concern of SDG&E. For Councilman Pratt, SSRC staff indicated that the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) associated with Phase II of the project includes an alternative regarding under grounding the lines. R:\Minutes\073002 3 Ms. Mary Ann Edwards, representing Citizens Alliance for Reliable Enterprise (CARE), advised that if the PUC determined that there was a need for the project, CARE would support the easterly remote route which traversed through the Cleveland National Forest, noting CARE's fear that if "need" was determined and an alternate route had not been identified and explored; provided additional information regarding the Forest Service's lack of support for the western route, copies of CARE's correspondence regarding the project, and various additional documentation. For Councilman Comerchero, Ms. Edwards clarified that in all CARE's communications it was stated that the support for the easterly route was only in the case it was determined that there was a need for the project; confirmed that CARE has not take a specific position opposing the need for the project, relaying that it was the aim of CARE to fill the void whereupon if it was ultimately determined that there was a need for the project, there would be expressed support of an alternate location for the Iine. Councilman Comerchero, echoed by Councilman Pratt, noted his concern specifically due to CARE not clarifying its opposition to the project, and advocating a specific route, that passive approval of the project was being provided. For Councilman Naggar, Ms. Edwards provided additional information regarding the CARE organization. Councilman van Haaster relayed a desire for the Murrieta Councilmembers to meet with CARE organization representatives in order to gain a better understanding as to the organization's direction. For Mayor Roberts, Temecula City Manager Nelson relayed that staff wouId provide additional information regarding CARE, and its correspondences associated with the project. At this time the Councils considered Agenda Item No. 1. 1 Discussion of Riverside County Inteqrated Plan (RCIP) and Transportation Issues RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Discuss RCIP and Transportation issues. Relaying various transportation issues associated with the Riverside County Integrated Plan (RCIP), Director of Public Works Hughes, representing the City of Temecula, specified the following: That per the County's analysis, the freeway corridors (the 1-15 and the 215) will be experiencing a great increase in traffic with the development of the County over the next 25 years; That in the year 2025 there could be more than 240,000 vehicle trips on the 1-15 Freeway, south of the "Y," and at build out more than 340,000 trips per day. That while the majority of the arterial systems within Southwest Riverside County was anticipated to be operating at relatively satisfactory levels of service according to the County's data, that typically the impacts to the arterial systems were substantial when the major backbone infrastructure was failing. R:\Minutes\073002 4 That the City of Temecula has had numerous meetings with County staff regarding the land use proposals; That it would take a multi-dimensional approach to attempt to accommodate the growth of Riverside County, and that the following would be important components: seeking job development in our communities to balance the commuter issues, implementation of Park and Ride facilities, Measure A funds, and the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF); Provided the status of two important transportation projects, as follows: The French Valley Interchange Project which was recently approved by Caltrans via a preliminary project study report; noted that efforts would next be expended to develop a project report, as well as conducting design and environmental work necessary; that funding sources would need to be identified (i.e., Measure A, TUMF, local funding); that this particular project was critical (to both cities) in balancing the County impacts; noted the commitment of over $5 million in City funds to accelerate various right-of-way acquisitions for this project; and provided additional information regarding the associated improvements the Harveston Project will be required to implement with development; and The Eastern Bypass Project which has been a CETAP corridor under study by the County; relayed that efforts have been made to identify that the project is needed to help balance the projected volumes on the 1-15 and the 215 Freeways; that as to the specific location, the City of Temecula was opposed to the current identified location of Butterfield Stage Road; that since the land uses the County intends to develop would be generating the high volumes of traffic, it was the opinion of City staff that it was the County's responsibility to identify a north/south corridor to alleviate those impacts, but not at the expense of the Temecula residents. Via overheads, Environmental and Transportation Planning Manager Miller, representing the City of Murdeta, provided a general update regarding the RCIP, noting the three primary components of the plan, as follows: The Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP), which encompassed the aim to acquire an additional 153,000 acres of private property, noting that this plan only includes U.S. Fish&Wildlife clearance, that regarding the funding for this project, there would be a Habitat Fee, Measure A funds would be impacted, as well as TUMF fees mostly likely being contributed to this plan. Community and Environmental Transportation Acceptability Process (CETAP), which would encompass funding work for two of the seven studied corridors; provided additional information regarding the need for an eastern bypass; noted that CETAP was identified in Measure A; and emphasized the importance of acquiring right-of way. The General Plan Update which would encompass the development of a Zoning Map; noted that once the Zoning Map was produced there was a commitment to a five-year moratorium for amendments to the General Plan; provided additional information regarding the goal to create community centers which were more pedestrian-friendly; advised that with R:\Minutes\073002 5 the General Plan Update the County would also be updating the Circulation Element; and highlighted the anticipated traffic volumes. For Councilman Enochs, Mr. Miller relayed that approximately 500 acres in the City of Murrieta would be included in the additional 153,000 acres in the MSHCP; in response to Mayor Roberts' comments regarding the similar impacts to re§idents if a route was developed on Butterfield Stage Road or on Clinton Keith Road, advised that the route (eastern bypass) developed would need to be an expressway with medians and restricted access to adequately address the traffic impacts. In response to Mayor Roberts' request, Mr. Hughes provided an overview of the most recent discussions regarding the eastern bypass, noting that during discussions regarding developing the routes which would be funded by Development Impact Fees via TUMF, the City of Temecula has been supporting a four-lane expressway system which would be a north/south corridor to the east of the City and would ultimately connect back to the 1-15 Freeway south of Temecula, reiterating the opposition to this route being developed along Butterfield Stage Road; and noted the importance of TUMF being one of the funding mechanisms for the corridor, advising that potentially $120,000 million could come from this funding source towards the development of the corridor. Councilman van Haaster recommended that there be a formal joint (including the Cities of Murrieta and Temecula) effort to address the corridor issue in order that the Cities become active proponents with a recommended solution. Councilman Enochs relayed that since constructing a corridor route of this magnitude would be an extremely timely process, that the cities should support a solution to mitigate the impacts of the anticipated trips on the freeway before it is too late. For Councilman Enochs, Mr. Hughes relayed the rationale for the proposal to develop a 4-lane expressway and the support received by the associated entities. Concurring with Councilman van Haaster, Councilman Comerchero advised that it would be beneficial to form a Joint Murrieta/Temecula Subcommittee in order to explore regional transportation issues. For informational purposes, Mr. Miller advised that joint comments should be relayed by approximately September 1, 2002. Councilman Pratt noted the importance on focusing on transit (e.g., bus rapid transit) and not the building of additional roadways. It was the consensus of both Councils to agendize the issue (on the subsequent City Council agendas) to form a Subcommittee with two members from each City's Council to address the discussed regional transportation issues. Mayor Pro Tern Youens noted the strength of working together to address these critical issues. Mayor Roberts recommended that the Subcommittee discussions include Metrolink, as well as high-speed rail issues. Councilman Naggar commented on the negative impacts to the cities due to development in the French Valley, with no provisions for libraries and parks, and the City's commitment of $5 million R:\Minutes\073002 6 for a regional project, the French Valley Parkway; and complimenting the City of Murrieta regarding the Jefferson Road Widening Project, queried the Murrieta Council and staff as to the anticipated timing of extending Ynez and Diaz Roads into Murrieta. For Councilman Naggar, Councilman van Haaster relayed that although there was concurrence that the Diaz and Ynez Roads Extension Projects were necessary, that the City of Murrieta does not have funding at this time to address the increased resulting traffic these projects would generate in the City of Murrieta. Mr. Miller, echoed by Councilman Enochs, noted the City of Murrieta's priority projects which encompassed eight freeway interchanges and the three bridge projects, confirming that Murrieta does not have the necessary facilities to accept the additional traffic if these roads were extended at this time. Councilman Comerchero recommended that the Diaz and Ynez Roads Extension Projects be agendized as a discussion topic for the Subcommittee in order that an expected timeframe could be developed; and provided additional information regarding efforts to obtain funding for the Date/Cherry Streets interchange, recommending that there be a joint (with both Cities and the County) recommendation forwarded to Congressman Issa regarding the half funding of the project. In response to Councilman Comerchero, Councilman van Haaster relayed that while the City of Murrieta was not opposed to the Interchange Project that there were concerns regarding the relative phasing and funding. It was determined that the interchange Project would be added to the Subcommittee's Agenda. With respect to the RCIP, Temecula City Manager Nelson relayed that it was critical that the County be encouraged to have an infrastructure-phasing plan connected with the issuance of certain building permits. Councilman van Haaster advised that if the cities of Southwest County worked together, speaking as one voice, it would have a significant impact on Riverside County; and with respect to Councilman Pratt's point of view regarding traffic issues, relayed that he reads the data Councilman Pratt forwards him, concurring that even after billions of dollars have been spent on infrastructure, the projected traffic impacts for 20 to 30 years from now were dismal, advising that as soon as this fact was realized, traffic alternatives would be more likely to be considered. In response to Councilman van Haaster, Councilman Pratt noted the importance of focusing on transporting people (via alternate modes of transit) verses the focus being on moving cars, advising that this has been accomplished in other cities and could be accomplished here. Mayor Pro Tem Youens concurred with the benefits of the two cities working together to jointly address these critical County issues, Councilman Comerchero concurring that efforts should be expended to move forward as a cohesive unit. It is noted that Item No. 2 was considered prior to consideration of Item No. 1; see page 1. At this time the Councils considered Agenda Item No. 3. 3 General Discussion With respect to obtaining funding for much-needed transportation projects, Councilman van Haaster reiterated the importance of forming a joint political force in Southwest Riverside R:\Minutes\073002 7 County to more effectively influence Measure A, Riverside County Transportation Committee (RCTC) and Western Riverside County Council of Government (WRCOG) issues, and to ensure that the Southwest County's point of view wa~ well represented. Additional discussion ensued regarding the roles of WRCOG and RCTC. Mayor Pro Tem Youens noted his gratitude to both City's staff for their efforts organizing this joint meeting, recommending that the joint meetings be held bi-annually at a minimum. ADJOURNMENT At 7:59 P.M., Mayor Roberts formally adjourned the Joint City Council/Planning Commission Workshop to the next Temecula City Council regular meeting on Tuesday, August 13, 2002, 7:00 P.M., City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. ATTEST: Ron Roberts, Mayor I~ Jo es, CMO [SEAL]' ~ R:\Minutes\073002 8