Loading...
94-0112_CC_Minutes_Adjourned Regular MeetingIm JANUARY 12, 1994 ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPWMANO, CALIFORNIA The Adjourned Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of San Juan Capistrano, California was called to order by Mayor Campbell at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Collene Campbell, Mayor Gary L. Hausdorfer, Council Member Gil Jones, Council Member Carolyn Nash, Council Member Jeff Vasquez, Council Member ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: George Scarborough, City Manager; Richard K. Denhalter, City Attorney; Cheryl Johnson, City Clerk; William M. Huber, Director of Engineering and Building Services; Thomas Tomlinson, Director of Planning Services; Lt. Paul Sullivan, Orange County Sheriffs Department; Nancy Bernardi, Recording Secretary. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. PUBLIC HE4R1I IGS 1. CONSIDERATION OF ALIGNMENT 3 ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS FOR THE SAN JOAQUIN HILLS TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR NORTHBOUND CONNECTOR (800, 50) Pr osal: Consideration of four alternatives for Alignment 3 for the northbound connector between the I-5 freeway and the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor connector. As a result of discussions with representatives of Save Our San Juan which led to the belief that there was a potential to move the northbound connector northerly out of the City and thereby reduce the impacts of realigning Rancho Viejo Road, an Alternative Alignment 3 for the northbound connector had been requested by the City in July, 1993,. On October 19, 1993, consideration of the proposed Rancho Viejo Road Concept Plan was continued until the Transportation Corridor Agency provided an analysis of Alternative 3. The City subsequently selected an independent consultant to provide an objective analysis and to explore alternatives for Alignment 3. Written Communications: (1) Report dated January 12, 1994, from the Director of Engineering and Building, providing the analysis of the four options for Alternative 3, including the criteria to be met and the costs involved. The Report recommended that the Council concur with the findings of City staff and the City's independent consultant, UMA Engineering, that based on design parameters and costs, Alignment 3 was not feasible or practical. The report advised that the alignments were either seriously deficient and could not meet the minimum federal highway design standards, or their costs and private property impacts were so severe and prohibitive that the project was impractical. It was also determined that realignment of Rancho Viejo Road would still occur in 3 of the alternatives. While property impacts would be somewhat lessened, grading and City Council Minutes -1- 1/12/94 190 other physical impacts would remain unchanged. Staff recommended that the Rancho Viejo Road Concept Plan be returned to the Council for consideration. (2) Letters dated January 11, 1994, from Dorothy Zink, 29752 Millpond Court, Margie L. Wise, 26456 Brookfield Road, and Barbara A. Wilbourn, 26456 Brookfield Road, all in support of Alternative 3. Staff Presentation: Exhibits depicting the four alternatives were on display. Mr. Huber explained that the City's primary goal in studying the options was to develop a feasible alternative alignment that would convince the Transportation Corridor Agency Board to move the northbound connector of the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor northward to remove impacts in San Juan Capistrano. He discussed the City's objectives in obtaining a consultant to explore and evaluate alternatives and the subsequent selection of UMA Engineering. Gerry Smith of UMA Engineering, Inc. reviewed the four alternatives and noted the following constraints: Alternative A - This alternative was based on the Save Our San Juan proposal. Weaving room for traffic would not meet Caltrans' requirements. It would still require the widening of Rancho Viejo Road and the acquisition of commercial property along Marguerite Parkway. Estimated Cost: $27,200,000 Alternative B - In this alternative weaving room for traffic would not meet Caltrans' requirements. There were significant impacts from the construction of new freeway ramp locations and the need to acquire commercial property on Marguerite Parkway. It would require the widening of Rancho Viejo Road. Estimated Cost: $32,400,000 Alternative C - This alternative would require the widening of Rancho Viejo Road and relocation of existing on -ramps. It provided insufficient weaving distances and insufficient spacing for freeway interchanges per Caltrans' standards. There were significant impacts from commercial property acquisition and impacts to residential land east of the freeway and south of Via Escolar remained similar to the adopted alignment. Estimated Cost: $38,800,000 Alternative D - This alternative was a take off of the original Alignment Option 2 proposed in the Environmental Impact Report. It proposed moving the entire freeway to the west. Impacts would transfer to the west side. It would require the relocation and reconstruction of a 1 -mile portion of Camino Capistrano and part of the Oso Creek channel. It would require the relocation of utilities. Right-of-way requirements would increase and there would be additional commercial property acquisition. Estimated Cost: $50,300,000 Mr. Huber summarized the City's options to either pursue an Alignment 3 Alternative or to return the Rancho Viejo Road Concept Plan for Council consideration. He noted that at a meeting held on January 7, 1994 with SOS representatives, a third option was proposed, whereby Rancho Viejo Road would be relocated no further east than indicated in the Environmental Impact Report, and that the City would work cooperatively with the Transportation Corridor Agency to accomplish this alignment. Because the Environmental Impact Report did not specifically define the alignment of Rancho Viejo Road, staff felt that this third option would not be feasible. He further discussed the ability of the Transportation Corridor Agency to acquire property through eminent domain and the possibility that the use of eminent domain could result in the loss of negotiated benefits associated with the realignment of Rancho Viejo Road. City Council Minutes -2- 1/12/94 191 Mayor Campbell inquired whether the Transportation Corridor Agency could legally condemn the ' property in question at this time. Mr. Denhalter advised that, by statutory fiat from the state legislature, the Transportation Corridor Agency could assert that the use was more necessary, which would give them the right to exercise eminent domain over the City, possibly without compensation to the City. He noted that the Transportation Corridor Agency would be required to pay the affected property owners fair market value for their properties whether all, or a portion, of their properties were acquired. Public Hearing: Notice having been given as required by law, Mayor Campbell opened the Public Hearing, and the following persons responded: (1) Jack Lulofs, 29552 Spotted Bull Lane, suggested consideration be given to eliminating the Avery Parkway on- and off -ramps. He stated support for Alternate D because it resolved some of the impacts to the Spotted Bull area. (2) Bob King, 29422 Spotted Bull Way, on behalf of SOS, stated the group's intent was not to stop or delay construction of the corridor or to increase costs to the Transportation Corridor Agency or the City, but to be advocators and educators and advise on the alignment of Rancho Viejo Road. He requested that the hearing be continued so that a meeting could be scheduled with two members of the City Council, two City staff members, two members of SOS, and two members of the Transportation Corridor Agency to attempt to resolve the concerns with the various alternatives. It was a consensus of the Council that the hearing not be continued. Mr. King requested that Council Member Hausdorfer abstain from participation in this matter due to Mrs. Hausdorfer's former employment with The Keith Company. He disagreed with the conclusions and recommendations set forth in the staff report and referred to specific passages in the UMA Engineering report and the staff report with which he disagreed. He felt that the Corridor impacts should be spread among the cities rather than the burden falling on San Juan Capistrano. He felt that UMA Engineering was not unbiased in its evaluation because of the firm's previous work on the Foothill Corridor. He felt that the Transportation Corridor Agency's cost estimates were greatly inflated. He felt Alternative A would greatly reduce impacts to San Juan Capistrano. He suggested ways to alleviate the problems and make the Alternative feasible, such as eliminating the northbound off -ramps at Crown Valley, just north of Crown Valley at the old McDonald Farm install a loop ramp, and eliminate the Avery northbound on-ramp to acquire the weaving room needed. He further suggested ways the City could gain support for Alignment 3 through political channels. He urged the Council to support the alternative that would have the greatest benefits and least amount of impacts to the City. Council recessed at 9:00 p.m. and reconvened at 9:10 p.m. Public Comments (continued): Mr. King submitted the following documents: 1) memorandum dated January 11, 1994, from the Planning Director to the City Manager regarding the Environmental Impact Report for the Rancho Viejo Road Concept Plan and right-of-wayrimits; and 2) letter dated January 12, 1994, from the City Manager to the City Council regarding the alternatives suggested by SOS. (3) Mike Redding, 27592 Paseo Castile, stated that he remained opposed to the toll road in San Juan Capistrano and urged the Council to explore any and all legal methods to keep the toll road outside the City. City Council Minutes -3- 1/12/94 192 (4) Rudolph Brutoco, 27272 Viewpoint Circle, felt that the Council should support its citizens in this matter since San Juan Capistrano would be the most impacted of any South County city. (5) Pauline Doleshal, 29716 Woodlake Court, requested a comparison between Alternative 3 and the originally proposed Option 2. She suggested that the existing Avery on-ramp to the I-5 be made a frontage road running parallel to I-5, and felt that the quality of residents' lives were not being considered equally with the economic impacts to the Cities of Mission Viejo and Laguna Niguel, Mr. Smith and Mr. Huber responded to the suggestions made by Mr. King and Ms. Doleshal, noting that eliminating freeway ramps would create other traffic impacts and mitigation measures would add to the cost of the alternative. (6) D. J. Daniel, Jr., 29570 Spotted Bull Lane, stated that his property and Steve Dafnis' property would incur the most impacts from the relocation of Rancho Viejo Road. He felt there was existing room for the road alignment within the existing right-of-way. He stated that the City's requirement of a 1:1 slope from the edge of the roadway to the top of the bank would require an excessive taking of his property. Mr. Daniel suggested that the Transportation Corridor Agency be instructed to submit alternatives for supporting the retaining wall from Rancho Viejo Road to his property in a steeper manner. (7) Steve Dafnis, 29542 Spotted Bull Lane, concurred with the comments made by Mr. Daniel. He noted that a different slope treatment other than the one proposed by the City would take only 3,000-4,000 square feet of his property instead of the 11,000 square feet proposed. (8) Jack Lulofs, 29552 Spotted Bull Lane, felt that Alternative A would be feasible with the elimination of the on-ramp at Avery Parkway. He suggested that the acquisition of portions of the Daniel and Dafnis properties would require the Spotted Bull area zoning to be redefined and felt that a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report was required to properly address issues of concern. (9) Bob Sweeney, 26442 Woodcrest Lane, concurred with the comments made by Mr. King. He felt that property values would be greatly reduced in the Village San Juan area. (10) Johanna Elbertse, 26612 Royale Drive, noted that the toll road would be constructed with taxpayers' money and urged the Council to address the residents' concerns. (11) Frank Sindoni, 29982 Saddleridge Drive, suggested that another alternative be considered which would elevate the Corridor above I-5 and Avery Parkway to continue 1/4 mile into open country. He felt that this alternative should be restudied and its cost estimates verged and compared with the other alternatives. He expressed concerns with evacuation and gridlock in the event of an accident at the San Onofre Nuclear Power Plant. (12) Thomas Ahern, 26901 Canyon Crest Road, noted that as a businessman with a business located along the north end of Camino Capistrano, he met with other businesses and the Transportation Corridor Agency in Laguna Niguel in 1992 to discuss the Corridor alignment. He indicated that at the meeting the Transportation Corridor Agency had informed the businesses in Laguna Niguel and Mission Viejo thar they would not be adversely affected by the Corridor. (13) Al Baumgartner, 26852 Canyon Crest Road, expressed concern regarding the potential for adverse impacts on property values, and noted that law requires realtors to disclose the impacts of this project to potential buyers. City Council Minutes -4- 1/12/94 193 (14) Sandy Rodrigues, 27021 Mission Hills Road, felt that there was a clear need for a Supplemental ' Environmental Impact Report. (L5) Dan Coleman, 29688 Orinda Road, expressed doubt that four lanes were necessary for Rancho Viejo Road and noted the impacts the road's relocation would have on the quality of life in the area. He noted that the Eastern Foothill Corridor would terminate in San Clemente and suggested that the San Joaquin Hills Corridor terminate in the same interchange to provide an alternate evacuation route in the event of a disaster. (16) Mike Mores, 29682 Orinda Road, inquired whether it was possible to terminate the Corridor at Crown Valley Parkway and urged the Council to support the residents. (17) Candace Barrett, 26346 Laurelwood Lane, urged the Council to act as the residents' advocate to maintain the property values in the area. Mr. King submitted the following documents: 1) annotated maps depicting the four alternatives for Alignment 3; and, 2) letter dated January 10, 1994, from SOS to the City Manager, requesting specific documentation in this matter. The following persons in attendance had initially requested to speak but either declined to do so or did not respond when called upon by the Mayor: Dr. Jennie Spencer -Green, Doug Layhem. There being no further input, the hearing was declared closed with the right to reopen at any time Mr. Huber responded to the suggestions/comments made by the residents. He noted that the Environmental Impact Report and Alignment had been adopted prior to the 1992 meeting referred to by Mr. Thomas Ahern between the Transportation Corridor Agency and business representatives in Laguna Niguel. He advised of the need for Rancho Viejo Road to be a four -lane road to accommodate the Marbella Country Club and Endevco projects, which were expected to generate a significant amount of additional traffic over the next 7-10 years. Mr. Tomlinson explained the relationship between the Transportation Corridor Agency's and the City's environmental review processes. He emphasized that the City of San Juan Capistrano is not the lead agency, and the City must accept the Environmental Impact Report as being adequate unless a court overturned it. In addition, he noted that if the project is consistent with the Environmental Impact Report, the City must issue related permits. Council Discussion: Council Member Nash inquired about the City's rights with regard to eminent domain and the Transportation Corridor Agency. Mr. Denhalter advised that the City and the Transportation Corridor Agency are public agencies with the same powers; however, state legislation allows the Transportation Corridor Agency certain additional powers because of the toll road's designation as a major thoroughfare, which networks into the state freeway system. Council Member Vasquez inquired how the City could have committed to providing access to a toll road that had not yet been defined at the time the City agreed to the Memorandum of Understanding with the Transportation Corridor Agency. Mr. Denhalter stated that it was his understanding that the Memorandum of Understanding did not commit the City to a particular alignment but that the current Option #1 alignment was adopted by a majority of the Transportation Corridor Agency Board members. He felt that the City has avoided completely agreeing to any alignment to date and has tried to gain negotiating power by joining the Transportation Corridor Agency Board and using a more persuasive approach to reaching its goals. Council Member Vasquez inquired about the adoption of the Environmental Impact Report and the preferred alignment. Mr. Huber explained that the Environmental Impact Report adopted in March City Council Minutes -5- 1/12/94 194 1991 included Options 1 and 2 for study. At the conclusion of that process, the Transportation Corridor Agency Board voted to adopt Option #1 as the preferred alignment by a 10-1 vote, with the City of San Juan Capistrano as the only dissenting vote. Council Member Jones inquired as to the number of residents who would be affected by the relocation of Rancho Viejo Road. Mr. Huber advised that property impacts would occur in the open space area in front of Village San Juan, five residential properties, the Resco property, the Goodyear dealership, and the full acquisition of the Montessori School. Council Member Nash stated her feeling that the information submitted by City staff and the consultant was adequate and she expressed great disappointment and regret that based on that information none of the alternatives have proven to be feasible. She emphasized that the City had made every attempt to find a favorable alternative. She felt that delaying the project further could cause the City to lose the mitigation measures it has already gained and that going forward with Option #1 would be in the best interest of the City. She noted that the City has no support from other communities for changing the already -adopted Alignment. Council Member Vasquez felt that this would be the City's last opportunity to reject Option #1. He felt that the public and the Council have not had the opportunity to fully participate in the study of the alternatives. He stated that the Corridor's impact would be felt by hundreds of homeowners in San Juan Capistrano and felt that the Transportation Corridor Agency only minimally addressed the City's concerns and impacts. He indicated he did not prefer any of the alternatives discussed but felt that further study by staff and negotiations with the Transportation Corridor Agency might conclude with an alternative that would be more beneficial to San Juan Capistrano. Concurrence with Consultant's Findings and Direction to Staff Re: Rancho Viejo Road Concent Plan: It was moved by Council Member Nash, seconded by Council Member Jones, that: (1) The City Council concur with the findings of the consultant that Alignment 3 is not feasible or practical based on design parameters and costs; (2) Staff be directed to return the Rancho Viejo Road Concept Plan to the City Council for final consideration and acceptance; and (3) Messrs. Daniel and Dafnis be given an opportunity to meet with Council representatives and City staff to discuss possible mitigation measures to reduce the impacts to their properties from the relocation of Rancho Viejo Road. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Council Members Hausdorfer, Jones, Nash, and Mayor Campbell NOES: Council Member Vasquez ABSENT: None None. City Council Minutes -6- 1/12/94 19S ' Council recessed to a Closed Session at 10:30 p.m. for discussion of litigation initiated formally per Government Code Section 54956.9(a) (Negrete v. City and related litigation), the City Clerk being excused therefrom, and reconvened at 11:30 p.m. (L•llJ:ia�I�I:�Y There being no further business before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 11:30 p.m. to the next regular meeting date of Tuesday, January 18, 1994, at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chamber. Respectfully submitted, i City Council Minutes -7- 1/12/94