Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-19-2000 City Council Study SessionMIN [1TES CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE 183 NORTH MAIN STREET LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA . TUESDAY, SEPTEMB~R 19, 2000 _ ~~~~~~~*~~~~~*~,~~~,~~:~~x,~~,~~~~~*~~**~~~:~~~,~*~~*~*~~,~*~~~~~,~~x~ CALL TO ORDER Mayor; Brinley called the Gity Council Study Session to order at 2:45 p.m. ROLL CALL PRESENT: COUNGILMEMBERS: ; KELLEY, SCHIFFNER, BRINLEY ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: PAPE, METZE Also present were: CityManager Watenpaugh,;Community Development Director Brady and Deputy City Clerk Bryning. DI5CUSSION ITEM Transportation Mitigation Fee - Presentation by Western Riverside Council of Governments~WRCOG) representatives. , lst District Supervisor Buster introduced himself and explained that he was also the Chairman of the Western Riv~xside Council of Gavernments. He noted th,at. for t11e last 20 montlls WRCOG has been trying to plan and ~nd funding for the backbone arterial road system in the Southwest County. He ~oted tkiat WRCOG has a technical committee consisting of City Maaiagers, City staff and WRCOG staff that has been in tlie process of reviewing plans. He stated that if was now to the point of introducing the plan to the City Councils of Murrieta, Temecula and Lake Elsinore. He indicated that the plan would be presented to the County Board of,Supervisors as well. He stated that it was his goal to put the various Councils and Board of Supervisors at ease with the plan. He noted that S.A.T.I.S.F.Y. 2020 not only offers a plan for funding for roads that present residents.use and need, it would address the needs of future residents, businesses and industry as well. He indicated that it offers an opportuniry for ; planning on a lo~i~al basis and a method of funding the plan. He commented on the special effort it took to get the funding for the work that would be done from on Mission Trail from Malaga to Corydon. He explained that the Coun~~i should look at the roads the way the commuter does and explained that they do PAGE TWO - STUDY SESSION - SEPTEMBER 19, 2000 not know where one jurisdiction ends and the other begin and a11 they want are safe streets with minimal congesrion with a fundable plan that would produce the necessary improvements. He commented on the difficulty of impro~ing Grand Avenue and noted the safety issues that had to be addressed. He indicated that even with the reauthorization of Measure A funds and a high'return of furids`from`Gas TaYes there ' would not be enough funds to address a11 the roadways. He e~lained that all of the funds from Measure A were tapped out'azid there were " no additional funds a~ailable. He noted the need for the Transportation Uniform Mirigation Fees arid the power that the cities ha~e to make the program work. Supervisor Buster expiained that 50% of the money generated within each city would come back with . specific improvements within that area. He stated that it would be proposed that there be other zones'created to fill`in areas of Western Riverside County not currendy in the program. He noted that no rnatter how small the Ciry, each area's improvements would benefit the other, since one leads to the other and would be part of the overall progr~m: He explained that the amounf of the TLTMF would be reduced if the developer was already paying or providing part of the improvements for roadways to avoid a doubie charge: Mayor Brinley ' clarified that the City of Lake Elsinore would'ha~e its'traffic needs addressed. Supervisor Buster stated that the purpose of this meeting was to encourage Lake Elsinore to be a part of the effort and! explained.` that he and Supervisor Venerable felt that it was vital for Lake Elsinare to be a part of this effort. ' He noted tliat there would be a rankiiig system, which would analyze where there were safery and congestion problems; what areas were not otherwise funded; and where building was taking place. He further explained tliat thr'ough staff bndget recommendations the problems coWd be addressed. Sapervisor Buster 'indicated that once a criteria and multiyear plan was established it would offer a defensible position. Superyisor Buster addressed tlie fees and stated that over the long range, the largesti deterren£ was not higher permit fees; but'rather a lack of good planning for road' ' capaciry. 'He stated that there were many areas'that would never be built witho,ut this type of program. Mayor Brinley asked if they could provide a total maicimum daily traffic count on the'arterial roadways. Supervisor Buster stated that staff could provide that information: He presented an e~iibit which provided the informarion for the area that addressed the next 20 years. He indicated that with future budget projecrions; that include the gas tax and extended'Measure A, the County and cities woutd be short $900,000,000 to meet the overall 'costs over a 20-year period. Superyisor Buster indicated that the fee being considered was not meant to cover the entire $900,000;000, but rather to supplement the PAGE TAREE - STUDY SESSIQ~N - SEPTEMBER 19, 2000 plan through permit fees. He explained that it would not be fair to charge the future businesses and residents the entire amount since they would pay their share of an extension of M~asure A and gas taac as we1L He further explained that a study was made of other communities in California that had an e~sting Transportation Unit'orm Mitigation Fee in piace and it was found to be very effective in addressing the arterial roadways. He explained that what was being proposed was a fee of approximately 40% of the $900,000,000. He ' indicated that it would be spread across residential and commercial building and would belighter on industrial building: He fiirther explained that the pulpose of charging lesser fees to industry was to attract quality jobs, which would increase the growth of residential and commercial development. He indicated that a Single Fanuly Home would be approximately $3,700 perhome; and that the builders do not object to the TUMF (Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee), since what they fear most is a lack of capacity. He indicated that developers fear interruptions and deiays more than the fees, since delay time would be of greater cost to the developer than permit fees and if there were the assurances that in paying the fees, roads would be developed. He indicated that the TIJMF' would be fle~ble and under control of a cammittee and could be used to ieverage addirional money and affer building incentives: Supervisor Buster presented the possibilities to make the fees answer the needs of the various areas: He noted that it was not fair to ask the residents to subsidize new growth,: however it would benefit the current residents since they would use the roads that would provide adequate capacity for future residents. Mayor Brinley asked that Council be made awate of the negative portions of the program. Councilman Schiffner questioned the share of the program attributed to new growth and the share attributed to catching up with the growth that has already occurred: Supervisor Buster stated that new growth could not be charged for deficits and the $900,000,000 was attribatabie to new growth projected for the next 20 years:' Councilman Schiffner stated that he did not think it would be fair to srick the new residents with a fee for the roadways for the people that are here now. SupervisorBuster explained that many of the roads were currently built and in use, howeverwhatmew growth would force was the e7cpansion of e~cistingroadways, new bridges, and extension of existing roadways. He e~lained that e~sting residents would pay for existing roadways and maintenance; and new residents would pay far some new improvements and maintenance: Councilman Schiffner noted the gridlock in some places with the cutrent population and what the City was planning to do was bring those areas up to date to resolve the problems. Supervisor Buster stated that what would have been fair was to have the fee in place approximately :15 years ago, however there was a need to start somewhere. Councilman Schiffner noted that one of the,problem areas was Railroad CanyonRoad and it PAGE FOUR - STUDY SESSION - SEPTEMBER 19, 2000 was at gridlock already. Supervisor Buster stated that whatever problems there would be with the Eee would be alot less than the problems the area would experience without the Fee. He indicated he was encouraged by the general consensus of the public and developers ; who felt this program was needed. Mayor Brinley clarified that ttEe City would collect a TUMF, which would be:paid to a general account for fees and the Gommittee would address the most urgent needs. She asked for assuranee'that the City of Lake Elsinore would not be leff off the list for improvements; and if for some reason the City wished to withdraw~ then a portion of the money would be returned to the City: " Supezvisor Buster assured Mayor Brinley thaf Lake Elsinore: would be a part of the plan and an option would be addressed for withdrawal. Mayor Brinley stated that if any of the cities should feel that they are being overlooked or their problems were not being addressed in a timely fashion, then there should be something in writing that gives the cities the ability to ask for the money to be returned to a11ow that city to pursue their own priorities. She stated that she would like to see the verbiage to protect a11 the cities, Supervisor Buster noted that every participant would have to be involved in developing a collective plan that would address all the concems. Mayor Brinley strassed her concems. Ciry Manager Watenpaugh stated that the other speakers should be heard prior ta the Council presenting their questions. Ruth Ann,Taylar~Berger, Director of Transportation and:Air Quality programs at WRCOG, explained The following: >, What is a TtJMFY _ • A fee imposed by local governrnents on new development to generate re~enue for construction or eapansion of capital facilities to accommodate projected growth. (Southwest Area Transportation Improvernent System Funding Year 2020 - S:A;T.I.S.F.Y. 2020.) • A means ofequity/"fair share" for development Growth • In the last l0 years; the southwest Riverside County has eaperienced significant growth; far outpacing the region's ability to meet demand for transportation improvements. PAGE FNE - STUDY SESSION - SE~TEMBER 19, 2000 • The #1 problem facing the unincorporated county and the cities of Lake Elsinore; Murrieta and Temecula for the foreseeable future is traffic. Poputation Increases 1990 - 2000 Lake Elsinore Murrieta Temecula SW Riverside County (Unincorporated area) 66% 65% 100% : 23%0 In year 2000 population approximately 190,000. By year 2020 population projeGted to be 341,000. What have we done? 2000-2020 132% 78% 55% 73% • Established two committees • Defined the study area - • Established 81and use categories • Proposed project selection criteria • Identi#ied a network • Modeled the network • Coordinated efforts with GETAP, RCIP, MSHCP and the County Fee Ordinance update. • Established an"Order of Magnitude" cost • Selected the fee calculation methodology • Drafted the Implementation Agreement Core Poticies • The fee will be a portion of the total cost. '• The fee disirict will not just build roads, but will include a non-motorized component and transit analysis. • The fee will be applied to all new development. • The calculation of the fee should be simple. • A one-time sale of credits will be allowed to developers for off-site improvements. • Interchanges, over-crossings and bridges will be built to their ultimate design standards. • WRCOG will act as the administrator of the fee district. Methodology Bxamination of three methodologies PAGE SIX - STUDY SESSION - SEPTEMBER 19, 2000 • Trip Generation • Trip Assignment • Equivalent Dwelling Units Equivalent Dwelling Units Why are they the preferred methodology? • It best approxirriates the actual cost burden of each land use. •' It compares the various trip characteristics between residential and non-residentialland uses, to take into account the interaction between them. ` • It is widely used and consistent with developer impact ' fees'witfi each jurisdiction. • It is simple to use." `'' Summary of Cost Estimates • Backbone System + Ultimate ROW Arterial construction & ROW cosf ' $405,210,956 Interchange Improvements 95,420,000 Over-crossing Improvements ' 54,520,000 Bridge Improvements 45,816,000 Sub-Tota1: $600,966,956 Non-motorized @ 5%0 of const. Cost : 30,048,384 Sub-Total $631,015,304 Project Development @ 30% 189,304,591 Contingencies @ 15%0 94,652,296 Special Studies,(transit) @,2% 12,620,306 TOTAL $927,592,497 Cost vs. Fees Costs ' Fees Lake Elsinore $169,129,269 $ 49,833,531 Murrieta ` $203,992,360 $ 61,421,158 Temecula $144,712,711 $ 69,063,401 CountyofRiverside $409,758,157 $184,946,726 PAGE SEVEN = STUDY SESSION - SEPTEMBER 19, 2000 Fee Range Policy Coxnrnittee Goat: 40% of Tota1 Cost Hi est Passible Fee ' • Singie Family $4,059 • Multi Family $3;919 - • ' Commercial Retail $16;251 ' • Commercial Service $8;126 ` ' • Industrial $1;283 • Pablic/Institurional $4,063 • Recreafion/'Tourist $1,354 ' ' + ' Other $4,063 What's 1Vext? • Establish the SW Implementation Committee • Adopt an Interim Fee • Complete environmental analysis • Hold Public Hearings • Adopt the TUMF Ordinance • Collect the fee Mayor Brinley stated that the EIIZ for the 'TUNff~' would assist the City with the General Plan update. She asked when the public hearings : wouid begin. Director Taylor-Berger stated that they anticipate setting the f~rst public hearing forDecember or January. : ,Erick Haley, Executive Directar of Riverside County Transportation Commission stated that he was in attendance because he feit that the TUMF was one of three interrelated activities taking place in the same time frame that all have to be successfully completed if there was going to be a chance of dealing with the infrastructure needs created by the population growth: He explained that one of the programs that he oversees is the Measure A and it has; and will, generate approxirnately $1.3 Billion dollars over a 20 years period with the program ending in 2009. He noted that what would be in jeopardy was approximately 50% of.a11 the current funding for road;maintenance; highway; expansion; and innovative programs for the elderly and disabled. He further; explained that Measure A, involved the entire spectrum of , growth in the transit system and over 50% was funded by Measure A local taYes. Director Haley noted tt~at in 1999 the Legislature tried to : get a handle on what the State Wide Infrastructure issue addressed and the nature of the financial burden the State faced. PAGE EIGHT- STUDY'SESSION - SEPTEMBER 19, 2000 ' He further noted that Governor Davis encowaged the crearion of a task force, which led to Senate Resolution 8, which was a Statewide inventory of highway, transit and manitenance needs around the State of California and the study found the cost to be $118 Billion dollars over the next 20 yeazs. He eaplained that the Riverside County sub-set was currently $7 Billion dollars and expressed his surprise at the $927 Million dollars that was identified by WRCOG. He noted that the $927 Million was not included in the $? Billion dollars and addressed the majority of one Supervisorial District. He explained that the total need for the Western County population was $10 Billion dollars and that was the money needed just to address the doubling of Western Riverside County population. Director Haley noted the challenge that would be faced to get the vote for extending Measure A. He fiuther explained that if Measure A were extended it would be worth approxirnately $3.5 Billion dollars. He indicated that historically State and Federal funds were just about equal to what Measure A had generated and would still lea~e the State approximately $3 6illion dollars short. He noted that the program Supervisor Buster was proposing might not be popular with developers, but it would be absolutely necessary and the only way to generate funds,would be through the TLJMF. He stated that in tlie Coachella Valley, 25% of all their improvements were paid for by uruform mitigation fees and it has been very successful in that area. He stated thaf what he needs to assure the public is that the County' can meet the challenge; and to have all four Supervisorial Districts approve the fees with only minor differences within the next 15 months. Mayor Brinley clarified the time lme. He explained that the action would fa11 in line with the Initiative for Extension of iVleasure A and CETAP's identification of major corridors'that would need to be addressed. `Director Ha1ey stated that with the TI.TMF; RCTC would establish some type of matching fund to match or add to all new revenues. He noted that last year the ' City of Lake Elsinore received $635,000 in local subvention fiuids for street and road maintenance and thaC amount would be increasing over time. He concluded ttiat the proposed fee program would be a reasonable program and WRCOG had a reasonable chance of putting a ' flznding package together; He rioted that it would not be as aggressive ' as it could have been; however the proposal'woutd be done in reasonable iniddle ground. ' He noted that the Ciry of Tetriecula suggested"an urgencq ordinance to create an escrow account to capture the development fees. `He observed that the County would be generating the lazgest amount bf money from tlie unincorporated areas, and the proposal would be County dollars applied to incarporated area projects as welI:' He cautioned a return to source and explained that if a return to source were created high; then it would force expenditures ' where tfiey would not normaily go; He nofed that the unincorparated growth would fuel the infrastnxcture development in the established PAGE NINE - STUDY SES5ION - SEPTEMBER 19, 2000 areas: Mayor Srinley asked.if the program hadbeen presented to the RCTC. Coinmissioners. Director Haley stated that they were in the work program stage and the Commission was aware of it, however his organization did not have an ordinance to present at thistime. Mayor Brinley clarified that an ordinance would be presented at a future date. Director Haley concurred, and noted that it would be part of the GETAP discussions and a majar part of the RCTC discnssions. He stated:that they would'be forming their focus,groups to poll voters ui Riverside County for Measure A in January. She asked what concerns RCTG had:regarding the TiJMF. He noted that there were two concerns and one was missmg the wave by:not implementing the prograrn in a timely manner, because millions of dollars in revenue would be lost; and the question of assurance bet~een each boundary area to assure they had the same fee structures. He noted that Supervisors Mullins and Wilson were committed to the program: He notec! that the major job that needs to be accomplished would be to give the citizens the assurance that a full comprehensive transportation program will be delivered. Mayor Brinley asked about the Toll Highway. :Supervisor Buster explained that RCTC cannot get involved in the Toll Highway, since they signed an agreement not to be : involved; however Assemblyman Pacheco will be bringing a bill forward to address this issue. Mayor Brinley called upon Councilwoman Kelley for a report. Gouncilwoman Ke11ey explained that she had been on the : S.A:T.I.S.F.Y. 2020 Comznittee for over a year.' She noted that the main concern of the Committee had been prioritization of the projects. She noted that the Southwest Area Transportation Itnprovement System Funding has been visionary and would either be a wonderful project or heavily.criticized. She noted that commercial retail would - be hit with major fees as well as hook-up fees from EVMWD and this would mean encouraging businesses to come into the .City that could fund the infrastructures. She further noted that the BIA repoxted that every time the cost of a house raises $1,000 it knocks 2% of the population out of the market. She explained that the other side of the coin was the fact that with growth, proper traffic circularion must be provided and the potential growkh makes this necessary. She stated that this program was an all or nothing and all the cities must be a part of this program: Mayor Brinley asked if a flexibility of fees would be considered, since other entities charge such high fees. Councilwoman Kelley stated that was not discussed since that was a problem that the City of Lake Eisinore must address. She noted that all the cities know that they must provide infrastructures~ She explained that the questions raised by the Committee were how the fees would be prioritized; how the issues would be publicized to the residents and businesses; how the PAGE TEN - STUDY SESSION - SEPTEMBER 19, 2000 program would be supported; and how the cities could be sure that commercial growth was not discouraged: She noted thatprioritization = of the program was the major concern. Mayar Brinley commented that she feela that a good public relations program would be necessary to inform the public: She indicated `hEr concern was that the deveioper or _ builder would go.on down the road to a more developed eommunity since the City of Lake Elsinore has major fees from the Water District in comparison to other entities. Supervisor Buster stated that nothing has changed regarding the current fee structures and this wauld a fee that would go up iri equai amount from city to city; therefore Lake Elsinore would not be forfeiting a competitive advantage; since a11 the other eities would be charging the same amount.-. Gouncilwoman Kelley stated that the Gity's water fees on top of all the other fees makes development'hard in this.area. Supervisor Buster quoted John Husing"We got the dirt" and that is the bottom line. He explained that if the developer was not stopped by - endangered species issues; and:not stopped by lack of infrastructure such as water, sewer, electriC and roads then tliey would pay the higher fees, since the area has the land to develop: .He stated that what fie hears from thenational developers that they are wrlling to pay fair fees in exchange for certainry and dependabiliry that they: would not be blocked or impeded to enable them to proceed with planned deveiopment. Supervisor Buster stated that Riverside County should not allow development without the highest standards because of the climate and scenic beauty. He stressed that the present residents would not be paying this fee. Mayor Brinley noted the economic window and noted that it has been projected that in anather five years'there would be another recession: She asked how this fee would affect development duringxecessionary times, She noted that the City of Lake Elsinore was hit the hardest on the I-15 corridor during the last recession. Supervisor Buster noted that during the recession, fees were a factor, however they were not a predominate factor. He noted that if the growth were not there then the roadway would not needed, as the fee depends on growtti'and growth means traffic: Councilman Schiffner indicated that he intends to be active on:the S:A:T:I.S.F.Y. 2020 Cornmittee and spoke in favor ofa uniform fee. He stated that he has no problem with the amount of the fee as long as it is uniform within the market area. He further stated thatthe only concern that he had was to see the money collected from the Ciry and - spent in another area, when the City still had needs. . He notad the intersection at Railroad Canyon and I-15 as just one of many problem areas in the City and stated that there needed to be some type of ' assurance that the' money would be spent in that type of problem area. He stated that he would like to see this put into effect as soon as PAGE ELEVEN - STUDY SESSION - SEPTEMBER 19, 2000 : possible. Councilwoman Kelley stated that the problems would be greater if the fee were not implemented than if it were: She noted that there would be problems with the program; however there would be greater problems:witfiout it, Mayor Brinley stated that there must be some type of fail-safe elause written into:theprogram that allows the cities to recoup their money should they feel that the program had not answered their needs. Councilwoman Kelley noted that there would always be dollars spent and needs would still exist ni the community. Mayor Brinley stated that she understood, but she was thinking of ; projects that were dangerous and needed attention and possibly the ' City would be overlnoked far some other city; she wanted some way to recoup the money to address this City's needs. There was general discussion regarding h-affic circulation and how to besthave the City and surrounding area addressed. Supervisor Buster asked the Council to meet with its residents and fmd out what they feel about this plan. He noted that the object of the plan would be to solve some of the most critical and congested areas in Western Riverside County and would address safety problems as well as future growth by working together. City Manager Watenpaugh indicated that Gouncil should give ` themselves credit for their leadership and ability to cooperate with the County. He noted the benefits that the City of Lake Elsinore would receive from the proposed improvements to Highway 74 and further noted that the City had not contributed a dime to that project. He indicated that the Redevelopment Agency was getting healthier and would soon be able to subsidize some of the projects. Mayor Brinley stated that it might be a good idea to have a Town Hall Meeting to inform the public and development community of the project and the program's purpose. City Managez Watenpaugh noted that Mr. John Husing would be making a presentation to City Council on Thursday, the 215Y. Councilman Schiffner noted that the plan should piease the residents since it would improve traffic circulation and increase property values. Mayor Brinley stated that open communication would improve the understanding of ihe plan and the community would be more receptive to the idea. She noted the confusion regarding Proposition 13 and commented that the confusion could have been a~oided with better communication. She suggested that the City host a Town Ha11 Meeting in November and have the Supervisor and staff attend to better explain the plan and fees. Supervisor BusTer concurred and stated that he would be glad to attend. He noted that this was an important building biock and would work in support of Measure A. PAGE TWELVE - STUDY SESSIt3N - SEPTEMBER 19, 20QU Director Berger clarified the fee schedule and e~lained that if the City placed a$4,000 roof top fee, the City would not be charging the same TIJMF'. She noted fliatthe chart reflects the highest possible fee that wouid be charged. She addressed the Map e~ibited and explained that the gray lines are existing roadways and that the proposedplan ` traffic circularions are the lines that were found in color. ADJOURNMENT - .~~:. ~ ~ ~ y ., ~.:~_ .' ' .. . • : '. :'. .', ~., , ;'. . ;'. THE CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION WAS ADJOURNED AT 4:10 P.M.- : , ; _ ~ ;. A LA ~ CITY OF A LSINO ATTEST: . ~ ~ ' . DRIA L. BRYNING, D UTY C~~CLERK CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE