Go. See. Do. Riverside and Beyond
From Supervisor Bob Buster’s official County website (see the flyer for more information):
Supervisor sets Dufferin meeting
Supervisor Buster will discuss concerns about the closure of Dufferin Ave. and plans for a new access road in the area at a public meeting on September 24, 2009 from 6:30 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.
Finally.
Dufferin / “A” Street Meeting September 24, 2009 6:30 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. Lake Hills Fire Station 17452 Lakepointe Drive Riverside, CA 92503
Related posts:
If you drive on Cajalco Road between La Sierra Avenue and Temescal Canyon Road, you know that roadwork is in progress.
In addition to grinding, re-grading and re-paving the road, the County of Riverside is adding a traffic signal at La Sierra and Cajalco, and two turnouts for trucks going uphill. I’ve noticed that the lanes are also being widened, which is a welcomed improvement.
In the following picture, you can see the transition from the existing road to the new and slightly wider road.
According to the County’s News Release, nightly closures for the construction work are expected to continue until the work is completed in October 2009.
If you were hoping that the existing project would add lanes to Cajalco, you will have to wait a while longer. You have probably heard that the portion of the proposed Mid County Parkway from the 215 to the 15 is no longer under consideration. Instead, the County plans to widen Cajalco between the 215 and the 15 to 4 to 6 lanes. However, the Cajalco widening is not expected to begin until fiscal year 2011/12.
From the Riverside County Transportation Commission’s (RCTC) July 8, 2009 agenda:
Additionally, the County is proceeding with plans to improve Cajalco Road. The County has already initiated environmental work for the section between I-215 and Wood Road with construction anticipated to begin in FY 2011/12. Preliminary planning has also begun for the section from Wood Road to Temescal Canyon Road. The County’s planned improvements to widen Cajalco Road will provide significant traffic benefit at a much lower cost, estimated at $200 million.
From RCTC’s Mid County Parkway website:
Does RCTC plan to pursue plans for the proposed western section of the Mid County Parkway between I-15 and I-215?
No, that portion of the original project is no longer under consideration. By refocusing the project, RCTC can move more quickly on the greatly-needed 16-miles of the Mid County Parkway planned between I-215 and SR-79 and avoid the time-consuming delays tied to the environmental constraints and community challenges that lie along the MCP’s proposed route between the I-15 and I-215. However, modifying the Mid County Parkway project does not eliminate the need for a future route that will one day connect I-15 to I-215, as identified in CETAP, and RCTC remains committed to that long-term vision. When regional mobility needs prompt consideration of a new or improved link between I-15 and I-215, a new environmental process will need to be initiated.
Will the proposed widening of Cajalco Road be sufficient to accommodate traffic through the I-15/I-215 in the future?
The County’s Planned improvements to widen Cajalco Road to four to six lanes between I-15 and I-215 should accommodate traffic demands for the next 20 years.
The emergency access gates concrete barriers on Dufferin Avenue.
A few additional thoughts on the closure after reading additional City and County documents:
Section 10. That the modification of the of the traffic pattern and vacation of Dufferin as depicted in Exhibits “A” and “B” shall occur only after the applicable conditions contained in the staff reports to the City Council and on file with the City Clerk, as approved or amended by the City Council, have been satisfied.
– From Resolution No. 21856 adopted by the Riverside City Council on July 14, 2009 (emphasis added)
Furthermore , the plot plan for this project has been updated to reflect the condition of approval requiring emergency access gates on the closed portion of Dufferin Avenue.
– From the Planning Division’s July 14, 2009 memo to the City Council (emphasis added)
The City and County of Riverside reached an understanding regarding the closure of McAllister and Dufferin. The understanding was that McAllister Avenue would be closed at the City/County border as part of the on-going residential development south of the City after McAllister Parkway was completed between McAllister Avenue and La Sierra Ave. McAllister Parkway has been completed and McAllister Ave has been closed. A new roadway was also planned between Van Buren Blvd and McAllister Avenue as part of a new residential and golf course development east of McAllister Avenue. When this new roadway is complete Dufferin will be closed at McAllister Parkway. This new road has not been constructed.
– From a Mayor’s Night Out (MNO) document dated April 30, 2008 (emphasis added)
While staff understands that there was a conceptual agreement that the closure of Dufferin Avenue and accompanying traffic pattern modifications would not occur until after Street “A” was complete, Street “A” is not planned to be constructed any time in the near future.
– From the May 7 Planning Commission report (included as an attachment – page 1-16 – to the July 14, 2009 memo; emphasis added)
Due to significant concerns from nearby County residents, both the City and the County agreed to keep the minor, de-emphasized connection between McAllister Pkwy and Dufferin (which is about 2000 ft westerly of where the direct connection of McAllister was) on an interim basis at least until such time as new route (“A” Street) was to be constructed between McAllister Pkwy and Van Buren to the east.
From an April 23, 2009 letter from the County’s Director of Transportation to the City’s Planning Division (included as an attachment – page 1-40 – to the July 14, 2009 memo; emphasis added)
By the way, according to City and County documents the City was actually taking the lead in acquiring the right-of-way for Street “A”:
Under the terms of the Agreement, the City of Riverside has agreed to take the lead role in acquiring the rights of way required for the construction of Street “A” […]
– From a letter agreement approved by the Riverside City Manager in November, 2007 (emphasis added)
The City of Riverside has requested to take the lead in acquiring the necessary right-of-way for Street “A.”
– From a December 10, 2007 submittal to the Riverside County Board of Supervisors
In my last post about this issue I wrote that we need to pressure the County to build Street “A”. It turns out that we need to pressure both the City and the County.
Section 3. That the City Council finds, based upon all of the evidence submitted, whether written or oral, including all staff reports and presentations, that that portion of Dufferin Avenue proposed for vacation and modification is unnecessary for present or prospective use […]
– From Resolution No. 21856 (emphasis added)
The public interest and necessity require the development of Street “A”
From the “RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION AND REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT” approved by the Riverside City Council on August 14, 2007 and signed by the City Manager on August 22, 2007 (emphasis added)
Why did the City Council break its agreement with the County and close Dufferin so quickly, especially when the City agrees that a route between McAllister and Dufferin is required for “the public interest and necessity”? I still haven’t heard a decent answer.
For people who attended the July 14th, 2009 hearing who thought that the City Council members might have already made up their minds on the closure, I found the following excerpt in a Mayor’s Night Out recap from January 28, 2009 (over 3 months prior to the City Planning Commission’s meeting on May 7, 2009 in which it voted to recommend the closure to the City Council and over 5 months before the July 14th hearing):
Q – What is the time table for the closure of Dufferin Avenue at McAllister Street?
A – The City anticipates closing Dufferin Avenue this summer after completion of the necessary environmental review.
– From a Mayor’s Night Out (MNO) document dated January 28, 2009
Judging from last week’s meeting with the Mayor, the local homeowner’s associations seem to be working together on this issue.
While the Mayor didn’t have answers for all of the questions asked of him, he did let us know that Councilmember Chris Mac Arthur is supposed to meet soon with Supervisor Bob Buster to discuss Street “A”, and he welcomed future meetings. In fairness to the Mayor, he was expecting to meet with a small group in someone’s home, not close to 150 people on a basketball court.
I’ll keep posting updates as I learn of them.
Related posts:
Dufferin is Closed at McAllister. What Now?
Dufferin to Close; Council Votes Unanimously
Dufferin Closure Between Stewart and McAllister: Public Hearing
The City wasted no time closing Dufferin. Barriers and signs went up the same day as the hearing. The City should have at least waited until the emergency swing gates could be installed, but I need to remember that they “don’t represent us”.
So what now? Some suggestions I have heard and/or read:
I disagree. Instead:
One person who spoke at the July 14, 2009 hearing wondered why we County residents were fighting the Dufferin closure instead of pressuring the County to build “A” Street. I think that most people did not learn of the closure or the “A” Street option until days or weeks before the hearing. Faced with limited time, what would you do? Try to get an existing route to stay open or try to get a new street built?
When I first learned about the pending closure, I called our County Supervisor’s office to find out what he was doing to keep Dufferin open. I was referred to a letter sent by the County to the City that asked for the City to take additional “steps before moving forward with this proposed action”. With limited time, I focused my energy on letting people know about the pending closure and the public hearing.
Now it’s time to put pressure on the County.
The County residents in this area (Victoria Grove, The Orchard, Stone Harbor, Bridgeport, etc.) are in the 1st Supervisorial District, and our Supervisor is Bob Buster. The 1st District also includes most of the City of Riverside. A little history about Supervisor Buster from the District 1 section of the County’s website:
Supervisor Buster has strong ties to the City and the greenbelt, but he also represents us County residents. Unfortunately, he was one of the architects of the plan to close Dufferin Avenue and cut off our access to the greenbelt.
From the May 7, 2009 City Planning Commission Staff Report *:
The notes on Exhibit 12 were created by former City Councilmember Ed Adkison who worked directly with the developers, County staff, Supervisor Buster and a Citizens Committee (referred to as the La Sierra/El Sobrante Committee) to create a larger-scale master circulation plan for the area that included the termination of McAllister Street and Dufferin Avenue at the southerly City limits, the extension of McAllister Parkway westerly to connect to La Sierra Avenue and the creation of a backbone street (Street “A”) to connect McAllister Parkway to Van Buren Boulevard.
From Resolution No. 20354 adopted by the Riverside City Council on February 18, 2003:
WHEREAS, County Supervisor Bob Buster formed the El Sobrante Committee, a joint committee comprised of representatives of the City of Riverside, the County of Riverside and respective representative residents of both, to review land use and development in the area directly south of the City; and
WHEREAS, City Councilman Ed Adkison has been a committee member of the El Sobrante Committee; and
WHEREAS, the El Sobrante Committee has recommended that there should be no additional connection to City of Riverside streets within the Greenbelt area of Riverside by the developments being proposed within the unincorporated County
We can try to put pressure on the City and County to reopen Dufferin, but considering that Supervisor Buster was involved in the decision to close Dufferin, I’m not sure that we will be successful. Of course, it can’t hurt to try. Could “we” mount legal challenges to keep Dufferin open? Even if “we” could, I assume that the cost would be prohibitive unless everyone in the area decided to organize and agreed to pitch in. I’m not an attorney, so I’ll let any attorneys in the area comment on this if they so desire.
I believe that we need to focus on the fight that we can win, which is pressuring the County to build “A” Street. “A” Street will at least give us access to Van Buren, and both the City and County agree that it should be built.
From the May 7, 2009 Planning Commission Staff Report *:
While staff understands that there was a conceptual agreement that the closure of Dufferin Avenue and accompanying traffic pattern modifications would not occur until after Street “A” was complete, Street “A” is not planned to be constructed any time in the near future.
From the May 7, 2009 Draft Planning Commission Minutes (comments by The City’s Deputy Public Works Director) *:
He referred to A Street and stated that probably three or four years ago the developers in the area approached him and said that they are having problems acquiring the right-of-way for A Street and they wanted the City to help them acquire it. He stated that they came to the City, not to the County for help even though the road is 90% in the County. He stated that they prepared with the City Attorney’s Office all the necessary documentation for the City to acquire the necessary right-of-way under eminent domain, in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act. He explained that is was the City that was prepared to help build A Street not the County Supervisors.
And from the April 23, 2009 letter from the County’s Director of Transportation to the City *:
Due to significant concerns from nearby County residents, both the City and the County agreed to keep the minor, de-emphasized connection between McAllister Pkwy and Dufferin (which is about 2000 ft westerly of where the direct connection of McAllister was) on an interim basis at least until such time as new route (“A” Street) was to be constructed between McAllister Pkwy and Van Buren to the east. The timing of “A” Street, which was to be built by the McAllister Hills Specific Plan, has obviously been affected by the economy and is not apparently moving forward at this time.
This is a safety issue. We need another route out of our area. We need to pressure the County to build “A” Street.
In fact, I think we need to petition the County of Riverside to build this street. Not an online petition, but a real petition that is signed by residents of the area and delivered to the Board of Supervisors. If you have already started a petition, please let me know so we don’t duplicate our efforts. If there are any volunteers, especially an attorney or people who have drafted petitions before, please post a comment or contact me at astreet@riversideandbeyond.com. Or, if you have a better idea, please comment.
If you would like to contact Supervisor Buster directly, click here for his contact information.
* included as attachments to a June 9, 2009 memo from the City’s Planning Division to the Riverside City Council
Update 07/16/09: http://www.riversideandbeyond.com/dufferin-is-closed-at-mcallister-what-now/
—————————————————————————————————-
I just got back from the public hearing regarding the Dufferin closure. The room was packed – standing room only packed.
Many residents from the City and the County spoke at the hearing, with County residents opposed to the closure being the majority.
In the end, the Riverside City Council voted unanimously to move forward with the closure.
In my previous post, I wrote about the areas of Victoria Grove, The Orchard, etc. being in the City’s Sphere of Influence. Being in the Sphere apparently means nothing. Council Member Chris Mac Arthur made that clear by saying to us County residents very bluntly: “We don’t represent you”.
We never had a chance. The Council members seem to have had their minds made up prior to hearing from anyone at today’s hearing.
How else would City crews be at the corner of Stewart and Dufferin within about an hour of the City Council’s vote? Are they that efficient? Maybe, but that’s not the reason.
As I was driving home (on Dufferin) from the hearing I saw one of the crews putting up a closure sign. I stopped and asked them how they were moving forward so quickly. One of the guys said “we were just waiting on the word”.
I’m done for the day. Time to take my family out to dinner…
In Corona.
Update 07/16/09: http://www.riversideandbeyond.com/dufferin-is-closed-at-mcallister-what-now/
—————————————————————————————————-
Update 07/14/09: www.riversideandbeyond.com/dufferin-to-close-council-votes-unanimously/
—————————————————————————————————-
The City of Riverside intends to close Dufferin Avenue between McAllister Parkway and Stewart Street, eliminating the intersection at McAllister Parkway and Dufferin. For residents of nearby communities including Bridgeport, Stone Harbor, The Orchard and Victoria Grove, this action will cut off a vital route for shopping, work, school, etc. More importantly, it will also cut off the only alternate route for residents in this area to “get down the hill” and/or access the 91 in an emergency or if La Sierra is ever blocked.
If this will affect you, the City of Riverside has set a hearing for July 14, 2009 at 1 p.m. (details below). I plan to be there.
—————————————————————————————————-
Update. New documents July 10, 2009:
– City Council Agenda for July 14, 2009 which lists the 1 p.m. hearing
– City Council Memo dated July 14, 2009 recommending approval of the “traffic modification and street vacation of Dufferin Avenue” (closure)
—————————————————————————————————-
Update. New documents posted July 6, 2009:
– Public hearing notice published in the Press Enterprise on 07/06/09
– Public hearing notice posted on Dufferin Avenue (as of 07/06/09)
—————————————————————————————————-
I first found out about this when I saw bright pink signs posted by residents around the intersection of McAllister and Dufferin announcing the closure of Dufferin. Since then I’ve found the following documents:
The County of Riverside sent a letter to the City dated April 23, 2009 (pages 27-31 through 27-33 of the Memo) raising some issues and requesting additional steps before moving forward. The County is supposed to build a street (referred to as “A” Street) from McAllister Parkway to Van Buren to provide much needed access to the residents that will be affected by this closure, but the street has not been constructed and, according to the letter, “is not apparently moving forward at this time”. I appreciate the letter written by the County, and hope that our County Supervisor, Bob Buster, actively gets involved to make sure that this vital access is not removed. If you would like to contact Bob Buster, click here to visit his website.
Why is the City taking this action? Section 5 of The Resolution states that it “is necessary to minimize neighborhood concerns regarding cut-through traffic, speeding, and public safety.”
Let’s examine these claims (pages cited are from The Memo):
The communities most affected by this are within the City of Riverside’s sphere of influence. I thought this meant that the City would consider the needs of both City and County residents when making planning decisions. From the City’s General Plan 2025 page LU-129:
Riverside’s planning area includes all of the land inside the City’s corporate boundaries plus land within its sphere of influence. A sphere of influence is composed of adjacent and near unincorporated lands that may be expected to become annexed to a City at some date in the future. […]
The City will continue to work closely with residents of potential annexation areas to ensure that community character and feel can be preserved to the maximum extent.
Unfortunately for us residents, it seems that being in the sphere of influence means the City of Riverside doesn’t want us to use its streets.
From Resolution No. 21836 adopted by the Riverside City Council on June 9, 2009:
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Riverside, California, as follows:
Section 1: That the City Council of the City of Riverside hereby declares that in Planning Case No. P09-0205, its intention to modify the traffic pattern at the intersections of Dufferin Avenue and Stewart Street and Dufferin Avenue and McAllister Parkway, pursuant to Section 21101 of the California Vehicle Code and the Circulation and Community Mobility Element of the General Plan to provide for the construction of a permanent knuckle at the Dufferin Avenue and Stewart Street intersection, the removal of access at Dufferin Avenue and McAllister Street by the installation of a six-foot high fence at the southwesterly portion of Dufferin Avenue at McAllister Street.
Section 2: That the City Council of the City of Riverside hereby declares that in Planning Case No. P09-0206, it is the intention to set a public hearing to vacate a portion of Dufferin Avenue between Stewart Street and McAllister Parkway, within the City of Riverside, California, for the reason that the portion of said street is unnecessary for present and prospective use. […]
Section 7: The date, hour, and place for hearing all persons interested in the proposed traffic pattern modification measure at the intersections of Dufferin Avenue and Stewart Street and Dufferin Avenue and McAllister Parkway, and the vacation of Dufferin Avenue between Stewart Street and McAllister Parkway, is set as July 14, 2009, at 1:00 p.m. in the Art Pick Council Chambers of the Riverside City Council located adjacent to City Hall at 3900 Main Street, Riverside, California.
I am a fan of the City of Riverside. We eat at restaurants in the City, shop in the City, go to church in the City, and send my daughter to school in the City. I even wrote a review of the recent AVP event and complimented the City on a great event.
But in this case, I believe that the City is completely wrong and should consider the needs of all residents in its sphere of influence, not just those within the City.
Note: Although the City has set the date for this meeting, please refer to the City’s website for any updates. I plan to post updates here as well under “dufferin closure“.